Allow Iran To Have WMD.?

For one thing, Iran signed the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty. By doing so, they agreed NOT to develop nuclear WMD's. Many nations have been on the verge of developing their own nukes and have ceased doing so because of 1.) International pressure and 2.) the World Community holding them to their word. One example would be South Africa.
 
Senior Chief said:
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.
Click to expand...
Senior
In place of the "world" put UN and I think you can see where WNx is coming from. It's too bad that he isn't just a 'little' smarter (Hint: 'That' WAS an insult.) ... he'd realise (like most of us), that the UN is nothing but a place for politicians to talk talk talk and do nothing. The UN is a paper tiger that has no teeth ... so how the Sam H*ll could you expect the UN to police a countries nuclear stockpiles and research activities, with any hope a country wouldn't end up using nukes against their enemies?

It takes MORE than hand-wringing and words when you are talking about nuclear weapons ... they can kill entire cities with the usage of just one weapon. It requires the military might and intestinal fortitude to carry out retaliation ... it requires the threatened response of overwhelming force to act as a deterrent..
 
Chief Bones said:
Senior
In place of the "world" put UN and I think you can see where WNx is coming from. It's too bad that he isn't just a 'little' smarter (Hint: 'That' WAS an insult.) ... he'd realise (like most of us), that the UN is nothing but a place for politicians to talk talk talk and do nothing. The UN is a paper tiger that has no teeth ... so how the Sam H*ll could you expect the UN to police a countries nuclear stockpiles and research activities, with any hope a country wouldn't end up using nukes against their enemies?

It takes MORE than hand-wringing and words when you are talking about nuclear weapons ... they can kill entire cities with the usage of just one weapon. It requires the military might and intestinal fortitude to carry out retaliation ... it requires the threatened response of overwhelming force to act as a deterrent..
Click to expand...

I think Bosco doesn't realize that Iran doesn't need a missile to deliver a nuke.
 
Chief Bones said:
Senior
In place of the "world" put UN and I think you can see where WNx is coming from. It's too bad that he isn't just a 'little' smarter (Hint: 'That' WAS an insult.) ... he'd realise (like most of us), that the UN is nothing but a place for politicians to talk talk talk and do nothing. The UN is a paper tiger that has no teeth ... so how the Sam H*ll could you expect the UN to police a countries nuclear stockpiles and research activities, with any hope a country wouldn't end up using nukes against their enemies?

It takes MORE than hand-wringing and words when you are talking about nuclear weapons ... they can kill entire cities with the usage of just one weapon. It requires the military might and intestinal fortitude to carry out retaliation ... it requires the threatened response of overwhelming force to act as a deterrent..
Click to expand...

Actually chief, the UN is not necissary for this, it is just the easiest way. If a group of nations want to come together on this subject, then that is just as good. The UN has had some teeth in the past, and I think with Nukes on the line, they might be more inclined to police Iran then for some other reason. And honestly its not the threat of overwhelming force that hold countries from using nukes, its the threat of the other country nuking back.
 
WNxRogue said:
Actually chief, the UN is not necissary for this, it is just the easiest way. If a group of nations want to come together on this subject, then that is just as good. The UN has had some teeth in the past, and I think with Nukes on the line, they might be more inclined to police Iran then for some other reason. And honestly its not the threat of overwhelming force that hold countries from using nukes, its the threat of the other country nuking back.
Click to expand...

What you have right here is the phrase "in the past".

The U.N. is now as corrupt as a politician in Louisiana.
 
godofthunder9010 said:
For one thing, Iran signed the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty. By doing so, they agreed NOT to develop nuclear WMD's. Many nations have been on the verge of developing their own nukes and have ceased doing so because of 1.) International pressure and 2.) the World Community holding them to their word. One example would be South Africa.
Click to expand...

Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty? Aren't India,Israel and Pakistan members of the treaty? But they have all broken the treaty. I think international pressure play an important role but not the key role. Many countries don't still announce to have nuclear weapon just becuase the international enviroment is not very suitable,such as Japan. Early or late,many countries will become nuke states since nuclear weapons are so powerful to deter other states.
 
islamocaust.jpg
 
islamocaust.jpg

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


Good one Easy-8 ...
Your pictures speak louder
than ALL of the posts that have proceeded them.
 
Maybe we should backtrack a bit. Iran officially wants to build nuclear reactors for civilian purposes. The right of nuclear energy is not denied by the non-proliferation treaties.

Tehran's "real" intentions are therefore based on speculation. The same goes for their theoretical ability to build nuclear weapons. We know that Iran is a technological cripple. Nazi-Germany, a state that ceased to exist 60 years ago, was far more technologically advanced than Iran is today. In any case, the infrastructure required for civilian nuclear energy cannot be easily "militarized". Entirely different centrifuges, etc. are required...and world trade in these commodities is illegal. Iran is at least ten years away from a primitive prototype bomb.

The bomb is unimportant in a military sense. "So as long as Israel maintains its overwhelming preponderance of non-nuclear firepower", Roger Howard writes, "an Iranian bomb will make no real difference to the behaviour of any conventional forces in the field". Howard continues and argues that Iranian nuclear development is intended for domestic consumption and to get rid of Israeli nuclear blackmail.

Why don't we score a massive propaganda victory by providing Iran with the equipment necessary for nuclear energy...AND...secretly for the purpose of building a primitive nuclear bomb? We would score big points with the government and the people. These types of actions would assist the modernizing and democratizing elements in Iran. If we can turn the people towards the West, we win. We lose if we continue to alienate every Third World state. The whole planet will align with Russia and China against the West. Welcome to WWIII.

Can anyone provide evidence to prove the idea that the Mullahs of Iran will automatically use atomic bombs against Israel ten years from now? By evidence, I want something more substantial than political diatribes coming from political parties. I want to see assessment reports, government briefings, policy papers, etc.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/08/01/AR2005080101453.html

http://www.inthenationalinterest.com/Articles/Vol3Issue28/Vol3Issue28Howard.html

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2089-1522978,00.html
 
Last edited:
Easy-8 said:
islamocaust.jpg
Click to expand...

Where did u go to school buddy?


I too agree that a lot of "Israel bombing messages" from Tehran are a publicity stunt for the ajatollahs and other elders....
...and Ahmadenidzad isnt the kind of person to do a stupid thing like nuking Israel...he'd be nuked in return by Israel
 
OG
I can't believe that you can be so blind to reality. You said
Can anyone provide evidence to prove the idea that the Mullahs of Iran will automatically use atomic bombs against Israel ten years from now? By evidence, I want something more substantial than political diatribes coming from political parties. I want to see assessment reports, government briefings, policy papers, etc.
Click to expand...
... and ... rOk - you said
Ahmadenidzad isnt the kind of person to do a stupid thing like nuking Israel...he'd be nuked in return by Israel.
Click to expand...

Both of you are blinded by propaganda coming out of Iran if you really can't see that Iran's leader IS crazy enough to use nukes if he had them. He has already said that he will do what ever is necessary to wipe Israel from the map ... NOTE: 'what ever is necessary'. If he could destroy Israel even though he knows that retaliation would be overwhelming, he wouldn't hesitate.

islamocaust.jpg


As the picture says -
"Any Questions?"
 
Chief Bones said:
Both of you are blinded by propaganda coming out of Iran if you really can't see that Iran's leader IS crazy enough to use nukes if he had them. He has already said that he will do what ever is necessary to wipe Israel from the map ... NOTE: 'what ever is necessary'. If he could destroy Israel even though he knows that retaliation would be overwhelming, he wouldn't hesitate.
Click to expand...

Is it really me who is blinded? But i wear glasses....the pic u posted is a clear indication of who is blinded by propaganda...the text in the pic...the one where it says it can be copied and distributed freely also tells a lot about the state of mind some americans have.
hf
 
Last edited:
Is it really me who is blinded? But i wear glasses....the pic u posted is a clear indication of who is blinded by propaganda...the text in the pic...the one where it says it can be copied and distributed freely also tells a lot about the state of mind some americans have.
Click to expand...

That a crazy guy that thinks his messiah is comeing and the only way to isnure this is to destroy the west. That maybe just maybe letting him have a nuke is a bad idea. Us Americans are so f'ing stupid. Were you from btw?
 
Rabs said:
That a crazy guy that thinks his messiah is comeing and the only way to isnure this is to destroy the west.
Click to expand...

Then why are you (Israel) bothering with the small fish (Lebanon) when you have bigger to catch (Iran)?


Slovenia.
 
Then why are you (Israel) bothering with the small fish (Lebanon) when you have bigger to catch (Iran)?
Click to expand...

We're trying to give this diplomacy thing a shot, and Israel (I'm from the US) is bombing hezzbullah because they captured their soldiers and attacked them.
 
Rabs said:
We're trying to give this diplomacy thing a shot, and Israel (I'm from the US) is bombing hezzbullah because they captured their soldiers and attacked them.
Click to expand...

I meant....from a little broader perspective. I know about the soldiers etc...
 
rOk said:
Then why are you (Israel) bothering with the small fish (Lebanon) when you have bigger to catch (Iran)?


Slovenia.
Click to expand...
Because there are way too many Arab countries that would rise up and slap the living dog doodoo out of Israel ... and ... that would bring in a number of western countries, including the US, to fight the Arab countries fighting Israel ... and ... that would be the beginning of World III ... and ... would probably cause nuclear weapons to be used ... and ... THAT would bring on Armageddon / Ragnarok / the end of the world.

Is that a little easier to comprehend?
 
Rabs said:
That a crazy guy that thinks his messiah is comeing and the only way to isnure this is to destroy the west. T
Click to expand...

This may sound like i'm nit-picking, but actually its the messiah (Mahdi) who is supposed to destroy the West.

And, also, in accusing Iran, aren't we basically basing all our arguments on Ahmadinejad? I mean its not like he's a dictator with the kind of authority to use nukes on a whim. I dunno what the stance of the rest of his govt, and the opposition is. Has anybody here head any of those wacko things from anybody else in Iran?
Plus most importantly, what is the Ayahtullah's position on all this? At the end of the day, ANY big decision/step has to go through him. And in general this Ayatullah seems a much more low profile than Khoemini.

Anyway, Ahmadinejad's popularity doesnt stem so much from his anti-Zionist stance. As far as i've read he's a populist in the sense that he's really into liberating Iranian society (comparitively), especially in regard to women. Though the Ayatullah has rejected some of his policies in regard to this.

Also, assuming what somebody said earlier about Iran being atleast 10 years away from a nuke if resources were channelled into it now, is true, then i wonder if the 'pre-Messiah' will even be in power then.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top