Allow Iran To Have WMD.?

Senior Chief said:
What you are totally missing is that the U.S. has used WMD in the past and realize what the consequences of that action is.

For What It's Worth: Iran would not have the same restrictions on using the bomb is they decided that it was something they wanted to do. The U.S., due to the repurcussions from using the bomb in WWII are reluctant to use any Nuclear Weapons as a first strike. We will only use them in response and that is questionable for the present.

If we did not have WMD's Iran would have started lobbing them out with impunity. Think about it, this is not a U.S. vs. Iran situation, it is Iran vs. the World. If the U.S. has WMD it is a deterant(sp) to those that might use them.
Click to expand...
Anyone who advocates allowing Iran to have WMD's at this time is crazier than Iran's leader.

To compare the United States and Iran when it comes to these weapons is like comparing heaven and h.e.l.l ... the US used them to end WWII and to save millions of lives and would NEVER use them as first strike weapons ... Iran WOULD MOST ASSUREDLY use them to kill as many lives as possible - even if it meant turning the rest of the world against them (they're that crazy).

Eaglehammer
You said
" ..... i think The Unites States should mind their own F******
Busines, What makes them think the can control Iran, When they them self has Nuclear Weapons.? I know they aren't the only one protesting it but i think they have the biggest problem with it.:mad: ."
Click to expand...
Who said anything about 'controlling' Iran ... all anyone wants to do, is stop a rogue nation from getting WMD's and allowing them to destroy one of their neighbors (or) anyone else. Iran is so locked into a policy of annihilation ... the destruction of the Jewish state (Israel) and Jews everywhere (even if it means their own destruction).

As far as minding our own business, who would you suggest to handle this situation and stop Iran - the UN (the pink hatted non-peacekeepers of the world)? Don't be ridiculous - the paper tigers would talk talk talk and allow Iran to destroy Israel and half the western world before the UN would call on the US to handle the situation.

I agree with Senior - the US having WMD's is a deterrent, Iran having WMD's is World War III.
 
Last edited:
sandy said:
I simulated Iran,s believable excuse for doing.
and answer them

1.Hezbollah is supported by many civilians in the world.
Hezbollah is Freedom Fighter and we are just supporting their humanitarian issues
2.No,Iran don,t hope it.
Israel have nuclear weapons and make killing palestinians.

3.This is false to spoil iran's name.
This is zionist's entrigue.

4.We are supporting "FREEDOM FIGHTERS" as US did in afganistan.

5.Danish cartoons did despite to muhamad.
By the way,holocaust denial in europe was arrested.
What is Free Speech?

about Holocaust_denial
Click to expand...

firstly i dont believe Hezb'allah would be considered freedom fighters, what freedom are they fighting for? it seems they are pretty free already, as they control(or did) southern lebanon. secondly, if danish cartoons did disrespect muhammed, that is no excuse for the entire western world to be condemned for it, take it up with the danish, not the US or Britain or anyone else. and i have to ask, if Iran doesnt hope to have Israel "wiped off the face of the earth", why would they make a public statement stating that they did? maybe the israelis are the freedom fighters, fighting to stop the killing of their people.
 
EagleHammer said:
First of all, i think the Nuklear Weapons in World War two, was the right thing to do it probably saved alot of lives.

Second of all, i do not think U.S would use them as first strike weapons either, but im afraid that if Iran would be attack be cause they said the hade made a nuklear bomb, and then blow one in a city or a Smaller similear bomb some were else, i think the U.S would get so pissed they wouldn't care about any one in the country.
Click to expand...

I do not think you have a clear picture of what you are trying to sell us on.

First: The U.S. would not retaliate agaist Iran for setting off a nuclear weapon in another country.

Second: If Iran set off a nuclear weapon inside the U.S. they would be more than justified if they retaliated, but that isn probably not going to happen either. The U.S. might bomb the crap out of them with conventional weps, but would not automatically go for the special weps, it just wouldn't happen. GWB is a cowboy, but he is not stupid as many liberals say he is. On the other hand, the U.S. Congress and Senate would have to declare war on Iran for any such attack and that would free up the use of any weapons deemed necessary. The leadership in the U.S. has more responsibility than to launch a nuc against anyone. Someone might suggest using one, but I do not it would go anywhere beyond discussion.

Third: Depending on who they bombed the retailiation would be from the world court rather than the U.S.

Fourth: Nuking anyone in the mid-east wipes out a substantial supply of crude, the world cannot handle a disruption that would be as long as the half-life, or longer, of the fuel used to create the nuclear explosion. A dirty nuke would be worse.
 
First: The U.S. would not retaliate agaist Iran for setting off a nuclear weapon in another country.

Second: If Iran set off a nuclear weapon inside the U.S. they would be more than justified if they retaliated, but that isn probably not going to happen either. The U.S. might bomb the crap out of them with conventional weps, but would not automatically go for the special weps, it just wouldn't happen. GWB is a cowboy, but he is not stupid as many liberals say he is. On the other hand, the U.S. Congress and Senate would have to declare war on Iran for any such attack and that would free up the use of any weapons deemed necessary. The leadership in the U.S. has more responsibility than to launch a nuc against anyone. Someone might suggest using one, but I do not it would go anywhere beyond discussion.
Click to expand...
I sure as hell hope we turn them into a glass factory. You cant just let us be nuked and not return the favor. That almost guarntees thats it going to happen again down the road.

First: The U.S. would not retaliate agaist Iran for setting off a nuclear weapon in another country.
Click to expand...
BS, an attack on Israel would be considerd the same as attacking American soil at least with this current adminstration.
i think the U.S would get so pissed they wouldn't care about any one in the country.
Click to expand...
Dam right, you kill our civilians we will whipe you and your culture from the face of the earth.

Hit every last village....twice.

You cant tell me senior cheif that if you woke up tommrow and NYC got vaporized and we knew Iran did it. You wouldnt want to see the same happen to Tehran.
 
Rabs said:
"...an attack on Israel would be considerd the same as attacking American soil at least with this current adminstration".
Click to expand...

...not just the current administration. And, in any case, the use of nuclear weapons by any country would meet the full fury of global opinion, the United Nations, NATO and the United States. This is the hard and very understandable reality.

Iran, contrary to popular belief, only wants nuclear weapons for reasons of national security. Iran is surrounded by countries with various degrees of a nuclear capability. Pakistan, India, Russia and Israel all have nukes. It makes perfect sense for Iran to go down this road. Nukes give them a degree of security in the age of "risk theory".

There is no such thing as absolute security. The Pentagon started blathering on about the need for more and more security after 1998. Not content with the largest and most dominating military the world has ever seen, Washington now wants all state actors to fall in line or be considered an enemy. This secular debate is just as insane as any Iranian religious fantasies.

When are people going to realize that Washington is exhibiting extremely serious intellectual strains? The search for absolute security (or total dominance) is not only ruining the strategic position of the United States. The alienation of most of the world is already having an economic impact. South and Central American leaders are building an anti-American coalition that wants to embrace all global anti-American sentiments. And China, among others, is exploiting this attitude to pick up better trade agreements that essentially block out the United States. American access to Third World resources is the issue.

American arrogance, built on their equally bizarre religious frontier mentality, is the world's most signficant problem. Not Islam. Not Chinese expansionism. Not even (and I am careful on this one) environmental collapse. American arrogance drives all of these problems. "Uncle Sam" is the focal point of world hate.

The remedy: I want American leadership. But I want controlled and subtle American dominance. Where are all the sophisticated ivy league grads when you need them? The search for total security is nothing more than a sign of total weakness. The non-Western world has already internalized this weakness and is in the process of hitting back at the American Empire. It is time for Washington to step back, take a deep breath, and concentrate on using the United Nations (read Europe) to act as broker. Washington has to give a little to gain a lot. This means allowing other states to act according to their own modified agendas. Iran should have the nukes that they want. It also means global assistance. The Marshall Plan and Military Assistance Program (the best propaganda coup in modern history) brought Western Europe into the American orbit. For a few dollars and a little good will, most of the world would follow the US. Forcing people at gunpoint reminds me of the world of Jesse James, Wyatt Earp, and the Gunfight at the O.K. Corral.
 
Last edited:
OG
Are you out of you cotton picken mind? Iran with the ability strike another country with WMD's ... this is a recipe for World War III - the stated goal is to wipe Israel from the face of the earth and you don't think their crazy ass leader wouldn't use them in a heart beat?

IF you really believe they won't, then I suggest you receive a little mental health treatment for your mental disorders ... for sure you are NOT living in the real world.
 
Chief Bones said:
OG
Are you out of you cotton picken mind? Iran with the ability strike another country with WMD's ... this is a recipe for World War III - the stated goal is to wipe Israel from the face of the earth and you don't think their crazy ass leader wouldn't use them in a heart beat?

IF you really believe they won't, then I suggest you receive a little mental health treatment for your mental disorders ... for sure you are NOT living in the real world.
Click to expand...

Assuming Iran had nuclear weapons, what would a strike against Israel accomplish? Not much. Around 40% of Israel consists of non-Jews. Prevailing winds would carry fallout to Iran and other countries. And Israel is armed to the teeth. A retaliatory strike by Israel would obliterate Iran. What is the logical end result of all this?

Be reasonable. Iran wants nukes to offset Israeli coercion. That is, Iran wants to end the threat of an Israeli first strike and appear as a real global player. The anti-Jewish comments, while insane and generally counterproductive, were meant for public consumption. The Islamic world hates Jews. Period. Antisemitism in politics is as old as the Roman Empire. How can westerners cure this problem? How about a regional defensive network that links NATO to an Arab structure?

Binding Iran to the West is the best solution. What do we gain by alienating Tehran and pushing the country into the arms of China or Rogue States like N. Korea? We should be thinking of ways to increase economic interdependency and creating stable regional alliance systems. War in Iraq was dumb. A cold war with the Middle East is "dumber". We gain nothing...not even security.

Iran is going to start building nukes whether we like it or not. The original weapons will be extremely primitive and mostly for propaganda purposes. American experts like Cordesman believe that Iranian nukes will require between 20-50 years. Do you really think that we can stop everyone in the world from building nukes? Can we do this forever? Of course not. Why not accept this fact and develop better control mechanisms instead.
 
Rabs said:
You cant tell me senior cheif that if you woke up tommrow and NYC got vaporized and we knew Iran did it. You wouldnt want to see the same happen to Tehran.
Click to expand...

New York, at my last geography lesson, was in the U.S. I cannot say that the U.S. would not retaliate in kind, but I would wager against it.

Just for the sake of argument AQ has plans (as reported a while back) to attack the U.S. and kill over 1 million Americans. To me that says nuke. How would we be sure that Iran was behind any nuke strike in the U.S.?

As far as nuking Tehran, there might be a lot of pressure to take them out in that manner but, as I said before, there are far too many people that might be a little more level headed than most of us. The repurcussions would be far too great. Our nukes would be of a higher tonnage magnatude than anything they could throw together with their limited technology and what we have is proven and pretty nasty. If we sent one I can't see it being a "light" version.

What I would want has nothing to do with what the U.S. response would be. You see, I am just your typcial citizen that does not make decisions of that magnitude. If I were to decide stuff like that we would be in a world of $#!t.
 
Last edited:
OG
Do you go through life with your head in the sand?

Iran's leader has 'again' emphasised their goal - to completely wipe Israel from the face of the earth. What do you need to believe that he means exactly what he says ... a rock with attached personal message from him?

Let Iran get full nuclear weapons capabilities and I guarantee you that they will be used the very first time Iran can come up with an excuse.

The handwringers of the world can't seem to understand that religious zealots of the extreme kind DON'T give a d*mn about staying alive, as long as they can take their enemies with them. Now don't you think that a suicide bomber wouldn't like to strap on a nuke device and go into the chambers of the Knesset and set it off. He's do it, even if he knew it meant the death of just about everything he held dear. This individual would NOT be alone in his hatred of anything to do with Israel (or) Jews everywhere.

Westerners, can't really grasp that kind of fanaticism ... it's too foreign to them. That was the same thing that happened when Japan was our enemy during WWII. We underestimated the damage that fanaticism can add to butchers bill when fighting a battle or a war.

According to your posts, either your head is in the sand (or) you really don't realise just how dangerous Iran's brand of religious fanaticism is.

The single MOST dangerous thing that could happen in the Middle East, would be to allow Iran to develop full nuclear capabilities. These weapons would most assuredly be used.
 
I would like to add to this discussion
that the hope for the responsible Iranian stewardship over their future nuclear aresenal is a little bit naive.
Any autocratic government and ruler can behave very irrationally, especially in a fluid, complex situation. And there is no way to stop it or him to do the stupid things.
Let's recall, what Saddam(do you, guys, remember him?) did under the threat of American-British invasion in 2003?He has completely bogus picture of the situation, despite every friend of his telling him that it was not a joke. But he has not believed them...
Another example - in the early 80-s the Soviet ruler Yu. Andropov has imained that NATO is preparing to attack the USSR. All KGB and GRU assets have been given a single task - to watch for a sign of pending attack!
What would happened then if some agent had come up with some "bulletproof" data, real or fake?
And I consider the late Soviet leadership a little bit more sane the ayatollahs...
 
Ollie Garchy said:
American arrogance, built on their equally bizarre religious frontier mentality, is the world's most signficant problem. Not Islam. Not Chinese expansionism. Not even (and I am careful on this one) environmental collapse. American arrogance drives all of these problems. "Uncle Sam" is the focal point of world hate.
Click to expand...
Haha this is so funny.

The only ones who really hate America are the Left Wing and the Islamic Radicals.

They both can't get America do what they want so they hate it so much.

Hatred of America is totaly overblown by one and agravated by the other.

The rest of the normal world still has a decent view of America, at least for the most part. Parts of the world may not like US policies, but to say that they HATE the US is simply overblowing for propaganda purposes, especially Left Wing ones.

They may not favor America, but I seriously doubt that they hate it. Unless of course you belong to one of those two groups, they hate America.

A more acurate statement is that the US is the focus of Left Wing and Radical Islamic Hate. NOT world hate.



...And what do these two groups, the the Left Wing and the Islamic Radicals have in common?

They are both actively contributing to the fall of Western Civilization to the hands of the Islamic Radicals. One of which is obliviuos to the fact.
 
Last edited:
As much as I dont want Iran to have nukes, I also dont think that it is America's place to decide whether they do or dont. Honestly, us saying that some countrys can have nukes, while others cant is arrogant, and not at all good for world image. We have nukes, our allys have nukes, but no one else can? If you want Iran to not have nukes, then ask the rest of the world to help out. See if Japan, Australia or other non-nuclear equipped countries want to handle negotiations with Iran.
 
Ollie Garchy said:
...not just the current administration. And, in any case, the use of nuclear weapons by any country would meet the full fury of global opinion, the United Nations, NATO and the United States. This is the hard and very understandable reality.

Iran, contrary to popular belief, only wants nuclear weapons for reasons of national security. Iran is surrounded by countries with various degrees of a nuclear capability. Pakistan, India, Russia and Israel all have nukes. It makes perfect sense for Iran to go down this road. Nukes give them a degree of security in the age of "risk theory".

There is no such thing as absolute security. The Pentagon started blathering on about the need for more and more security after 1998. Not content with the largest and most dominating military the world has ever seen, Washington now wants all state actors to fall in line or be considered an enemy. This secular debate is just as insane as any Iranian religious fantasies.

When are people going to realize that Washington is exhibiting extremely serious intellectual strains? The search for absolute security (or total dominance) is not only ruining the strategic position of the United States. The alienation of most of the world is already having an economic impact. South and Central American leaders are building an anti-American coalition that wants to embrace all global anti-American sentiments. And China, among others, is exploiting this attitude to pick up better trade agreements that essentially block out the United States. American access to Third World resources is the issue.

American arrogance, built on their equally bizarre religious frontier mentality, is the world's most signficant problem. Not Islam. Not Chinese expansionism. Not even (and I am careful on this one) environmental collapse. American arrogance drives all of these problems. "Uncle Sam" is the focal point of world hate.

The remedy: I want American leadership. But I want controlled and subtle American dominance. Where are all the sophisticated ivy league grads when you need them? The search for total security is nothing more than a sign of total weakness. The non-Western world has already internalized this weakness and is in the process of hitting back at the American Empire. It is time for Washington to step back, take a deep breath, and concentrate on using the United Nations (read Europe) to act as broker. Washington has to give a little to gain a lot. This means allowing other states to act according to their own modified agendas. Iran should have the nukes that they want. It also means global assistance. The Marshall Plan and Military Assistance Program (the best propaganda coup in modern history) brought Western Europe into the American orbit. For a few dollars and a little good will, most of the world would follow the US. Forcing people at gunpoint reminds me of the world of Jesse James, Wyatt Earp, and the Gunfight at the O.K. Corral.
Click to expand...

Ooooh I love these anti-American posts! It seems like the cool thing to do these days because some people do not agree with the leadership. Try this, imagine the last 200 years without the existence of the US. I HIGHLY doubt the world would be in a better state than it is today. Who knows, the whole world might be worshipping Hitler's kids by now. Or Russia could have its iron claws wrapped around the world. All that is obvious is that the US has had a largely positive effect on the world within its young life. As much as some or most of Europeans may hate/dislike the US, I see them wanting to be more and more like the US. What kind of nations would want to assimilate all of their unique cultures and governments into one bloc just to outdo the world most powerful bloc of states? The only thing holding that back now is deciding on the official language of the EU (which the French is pretty adamant about having as French).

Ok, was this an anti-American post or a conspiracy theory? I sort of lost track...
 
WNxRogue said:
As much as I dont want Iran to have nukes, I also dont think that it is America's place to decide whether they do or dont. Honestly, us saying that some countrys can have nukes, while others cant is arrogant, and not at all good for world image. We have nukes, our allys have nukes, but no one else can? If you want Iran to not have nukes, then ask the rest of the world to help out. See if Japan, Australia or other non-nuclear equipped countries want to handle negotiations with Iran.
Click to expand...

I think your ability to consider the ramifications of someone having nukes is somewhat less than those in charge in the U.S. I don't know if you are old enough to remember the Russians (Soviet Union) planting missiles in Cuba (Google the Cuban Missile Crisis, or the Missiles of October), but they were posturing themselves to overthrow the USA.

We have the right to protect our shores and our allies shores/land as we see fit. We are better judges of what type of regeime should be allowed access to material that would be used for power or converted to weapons.

When you have a total nutcase that has openly stated that Israel should be wiped out that should cause you some deep concern regarding their acquitision of nuclear material.

I am biased, but I don't think anyone else in the world is as qualified to restrict access to that type of material than the US.
 
Aw Senior - let all of these little anti-American flunkies rant and rave - you and I know much they hate the US. They are so jealous of what we have they can't help foaming at the mouth. LOL LMAO

The anti-American crowd believes that we can trust nutcases with nuclear weapons ... maybe we need to send them to Iran 'with love' and see how fast they change their tunes. One face-to-face with their crazy leader should be sufficient. The thought of him with a nuclear weapon scares the dog doodoo out of me.

HE WOULD USE IT.
 
Senior Chief said:
I think your ability to consider the ramifications of someone having nukes is somewhat less than those in charge in the U.S. I don't know if you are old enough to remember the Russians (Soviet Union) planting missiles in Cuba (Google the Cuban Missile Crisis, or the Missiles of October), but they were posturing themselves to overthrow the USA.

We have the right to protect our shores and our allies shores/land as we see fit. We are better judges of what type of regeime should be allowed access to material that would be used for power or converted to weapons.

When you have a total nutcase that has openly stated that Israel should be wiped out that should cause you some deep concern regarding their acquitision of nuclear material.

I am biased, but I don't think anyone else in the world is as qualified to restrict access to that type of material than the US.
Click to expand...

Ignoring your veiled insult in the second line, im still going to have to disagree with you. First off lets make it clear that Iran WILL NOT have the capability to strike American Shores for many years. This will require long range ICBMS, which currently they dont have the capability to produce. The US as single country absolutly should not have the right to restrict this kind of material. If a decision on Iran's nuclear program is negotiated by the UN or other International Organizaton, then ok. But at this point we should not be making ourselves the moral judges of the world.

EDIT: I also forgot to meantion that we had nuclear installations in turkey at the time of the Cuban Missle Crisis, with the capability to strike Soviet soil very quickly, this was the main reason for the placement of nuclear missles on cuba by the USSR
 
Last edited:
WNxRogue said:
Ignoring your veiled insult in the second line, im still going to have to disagree with you. First off lets make it clear that Iran WILL NOT have the capability to strike American Shores for many years. This will require long range ICBMS, which currently they dont have the capability to produce. The US as single country absolutly should not have the right to restrict this kind of material. If a decision on Iran's nuclear program is negotiated by the UN or other International Organizaton, then ok. But at this point we should not be making ourselves the moral judges of the world.

EDIT: I also forgot to meantion that we had nuclear installations in turkey at the time of the Cuban Missle Crisis, with the capability to strike Soviet soil very quickly, this was the main reason for the placement of nuclear missles on cuba by the USSR
Click to expand...

That was not a veiled insult.

Re-read what I wrote: I think your ability to consider the ramifications of someone having nukes is somewhat less than those in charge in the U.S.

That is a factual statement. You do not have the access to the information that those in the government have to make determinations.

If you took that as an insult you need to consider getting into another discussion. (HINT: that was an insult)

I again maintain that the U.S. is the most qualified country in the world to direct whether a country should have the capability to own nuclear materials and technology. It's much the same as giving the inmates the keys to the asylum. Those in charge of the asylum would have more information about doing that than the average American.
 
Senior Chief said:
That was not a veiled insult.

Re-read what I wrote: I think your ability to consider the ramifications of someone having nukes is somewhat less than those in charge in the U.S.

That is a factual statement. You do not have the access to the information that those in the government have to make determinations.

If you took that as an insult you need to consider getting into another discussion. (HINT: that was an insult)

I again maintain that the U.S. is the most qualified country in the world to direct whether a country should have the capability to own nuclear materials and technology. It's much the same as giving the inmates the keys to the asylum. Those in charge of the asylum would have more information about doing that than the average American.
Click to expand...

Note: I specifically stated the second line not the first, but thats neither here nor there.

Id say your analogy is somewhat false. Its more like a board of people in charge of the asylum considering it, then one person goes ahead and makes a decision for them, irregardless of what other people might think. Im not going to speculate on what other countries want Iran to have, because honestly I dont know. But even if they want Iran to disarm, atleast it will be a world decision, not just the US summarily makind decisions about other countrie's programs. I just find this to be the height of arrogance, and think this needs to be a WORLD effort.
 
WNxRogue said:
Note: I specifically stated the second line not the first, but thats neither here nor there.

Id say your analogy is somewhat false. Its more like a board of people in charge of the asylum considering it, then one person goes ahead and makes a decision for them, irregardless of what other people might think. Im not going to speculate on what other countries want Iran to have, because honestly I dont know. But even if they want Iran to disarm, atleast it will be a world decision, not just the US summarily makind decisions about other countrie's programs. I just find this to be the height of arrogance, and think this needs to be a WORLD effort.
Click to expand...

The problem with a WORLD effort is that there are many in world that feel as Iran does and would like to see the U.S. destroyed. Think about it, we might not be the only game in town, but we are the best game in town.
 
True enough, but the number of enemys we have that will be part of this negotiation will most likely be very small, just on teh basis that we have more allies then countries who hate us. All im saying is that it might be a more intelligent move, especially in reagards to our allies, to make it a world effort.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top