Alexanderthegrape wrote:
Thats why we MUST stop them before they have nukes.
After this is over, I think the world needs to take a good look at the acceptable tools of war.
I'm willing for us to not have them. Is the world going to listen? No.
Rivers of blood are going to flow, I'm afraid.
The world has enjoyed a 50 year respite from global war because of MAD.
The nukes that will be detonated in Israel will be about the same size as those dropped on Japan.
Hopefully, tactical nukes will be used in retaliation ( meaning smaller devices such as those launched from a artillery piece ) and not the doomsday multiple warhead monsters the superpowers possess.
Then, maybe sanity will prevail and we will see global nuclear weapons banned.
The nukes that will be detonated in Israel will be about the same size as those dropped on Japan.
Hopefully, tactical nukes will be used in retaliation ( meaning smaller devices such as those launched from a artillery piece ) and not the doomsday multiple warhead monsters the superpowers possess.
Then, maybe sanity will prevail and we will see global nuclear weapons banned.
But giving only a few people Bazookas works? how would you (Americans) Feel if Iran had a weapon you didnt. then Iran had a Battleship off the coast of California just incase you tested one of these weapons your 'not allowed' to have. In fact, how would you feel if iran was telling you that you couldnt have the same weapons? just try seeing it from 'the enemys' point of view, maybe you'll realise why they are so scared and so angry.PuckMercury wrote:
nukes as a deterrant is flawed logic. The best way to assure they aren't used is to not posess them. That's like giving everyone a bazooka and sitting back and saying, "There. Everyone's safe. No one would dare shoot their bazooka becuase they might get blown to hell too."
while I recognize that as an admirable goal, moderation has not seemed to be a widespread viewpoint as of late. That being said, I don't think the US would use nukes, we're still trembling from the repercussions of the last two we dropped.
Rivers of blood will flow. Rivers of blood are flowing. Rivers of blood have always flown.
Rivers of blood will flow. Rivers of blood are flowing. Rivers of blood have always flown.
No, read my post. I just said they aren't a deterrent.Sea_JayUK wrote:
Iran is developing nuclear power capabilities, not necessarily nuclear weapons, as puckmercury said.
There is already a country in the ME with nuclear weapons-Israel
The American mainstream media is the proper institution to blame for "forgetting" about Iran and N. Korea, not the people (read any foreign policy magazine, there are plenty out there).
Iran would not realistically be able to develop and use nuclear weapons because a) Israel would take out their means of production b)to use them would be assured destruction of Iran, which, contrary to some beliefs in this thread, Iran is not ok with
All in all I see this "problem" with Iran and North Korea as this: Political posturing to become more involved in global events. Not only do nuclear weapons make you militarily powerful, they also make you politically powerful. It is well known that even if these two countries were close to developing nuclear warheads (which they aren't) they could not come close to US soil. I am more worried about a small amount of radioactive material in a suitcase bomb than a nuclear-equipped ICBM coming at us. Nah, Iran and North Korea are just bitter that they never have any say on any global stage. They are using the THREAT of nuclear capabilities to gain an advantage. Don't buy into the fear mongers, and closely monitor both countries nuclear programs, while offering them assistance in developing their nuclear power plants.
There is already a country in the ME with nuclear weapons-Israel
The American mainstream media is the proper institution to blame for "forgetting" about Iran and N. Korea, not the people (read any foreign policy magazine, there are plenty out there).
Iran would not realistically be able to develop and use nuclear weapons because a) Israel would take out their means of production b)to use them would be assured destruction of Iran, which, contrary to some beliefs in this thread, Iran is not ok with
All in all I see this "problem" with Iran and North Korea as this: Political posturing to become more involved in global events. Not only do nuclear weapons make you militarily powerful, they also make you politically powerful. It is well known that even if these two countries were close to developing nuclear warheads (which they aren't) they could not come close to US soil. I am more worried about a small amount of radioactive material in a suitcase bomb than a nuclear-equipped ICBM coming at us. Nah, Iran and North Korea are just bitter that they never have any say on any global stage. They are using the THREAT of nuclear capabilities to gain an advantage. Don't buy into the fear mongers, and closely monitor both countries nuclear programs, while offering them assistance in developing their nuclear power plants.
Last edited by KEN-JENNINGS (2006-07-25 14:26:53)
They could have more say on the global stage by being good people.
If there was negative karma points, they'd be as bad as polarbear was before chuy nerfed the negative karma system.
If there was negative karma points, they'd be as bad as polarbear was before chuy nerfed the negative karma system.
I certainly didn't mean to come across as being in support of Iran, merely that I saw their point in this particular venue. And I totally agree, they're going about it all wrong for what they're trying to achieve.
it's a damn pandora's box, no one should have them, but we do, we've used them true, but now that the full scope of their destruction is known we're going to make damn sure we never have to use them again, one way to do that is to make sure those who don't already never get them, as the US, UK, hell I doubt even the new Russia would ever think of using them on someone that doesn't pull them out first
Im trying my best to remind everybody I know or talk to about Iran. in my most fucking humble opinion we went into the wrong damn country.
Your opinion certainly counts as you have been to Iraq and seen with your eyes what's going on.
I don't think it's so much a matter of going into the wrong one as stopping too soon, but then we do have Afgahn and Iraqi bases to handle old Ahmad with now
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5479438/site/newsweek/
.....The final report of the 9-11 Commission reveals troubling new evidence that Tehran was closer to Al Qaeda than Iraq was....
I would like to quote a memorable peice of graffiti that was painted on one of the old walls in buildings used by the Iraqi military in Taji. "SPIT ON IRAN"
.....The final report of the 9-11 Commission reveals troubling new evidence that Tehran was closer to Al Qaeda than Iraq was....
I would like to quote a memorable peice of graffiti that was painted on one of the old walls in buildings used by the Iraqi military in Taji. "SPIT ON IRAN"
I think this guy has put it all into one well written blog. Awesome piece and gets the point across.
http://www.michaelyon-online.com/wp/jihad.htm
http://www.michaelyon-online.com/wp/jihad.htm
A regular catalog of horrors that was.sidious1 wrote:
I think this guy has put it all into one well written blog. Awesome piece and gets the point across.
http://www.michaelyon-online.com/wp/jihad.htm
It was very harsh but it truly got the point across.
You left out something. What if Iran not only possessed a weapon the US didn't, parked a battleship off California just in case they tested one of these "prohibited" weapons and for the last quarter century had been making no secret of how much they would like the US system of government to be overthrown?Sea_JayUK wrote:
But giving only a few people Bazookas works? how would you (Americans) Feel if Iran had a weapon you didnt. then Iran had a Battleship off the coast of California just incase you tested one of these weapons your 'not allowed' to have. In fact, how would you feel if iran was telling you that you couldnt have the same weapons? just try seeing it from 'the enemys' point of view, maybe you'll realise why they are so scared and so angry.
Don't bother flaming me. I'm behind a firewall.
\\'
I Heart Persia
The America / Western system of Moral values is no more valid than Irans... Yes! Even though they kill hudnreds and do not have equality, it is only wrong when compared to our values using OUR values as a point of reference. Iran is not 'BAD' per se rather Western morals see it as 'bad'.Alexanderthegrape wrote:
They could have more say on the global stage by being good people.
If there was negative karma points, they'd be as bad as polarbear was before chuy nerfed the negative karma system.
So what? Whenever there's a political scandal, something comes to cover it up (Aussies will probably notice this with the recent Howard/Costello incident). Big deal. Besides which, this is in many ways related to the Iranian situation: it is a reasonable guess that Israel has nukes, yet no action has been taken. Action is being threatened against Iran on the basis that they can't be trusted. Given Israel's recent actions, I'd say they can't be trusted either.
Iran just wants nukes to keep us from invading them. Its the only thing proven to make us think twice. Neither Iran nor N Korea has anything to do with nukes but use them as leverage.
it's kinda hard to use nukes on an enemy inside your borders, and Iran doesn't have the delivery capability to attack the western hemisphere, by the time they do, we would most likely have an effective means to neutralize the threat, odds are 50/50 at present with the fledgling missile defense system we have now, the more pertinent reason is that Iran has A) pledged the destruction of other nations and B) had a history of supplying terrorists with weaponry
That is a screwed up way of looking at it. So killing and inequality is alright to you? Everyone has a right to be free and they have a right not to die. If i killed you and said to the judge oh yeah in my moral beliefs and values that's ok so you can't be mad at me or convict me...Sea_JayUK wrote:
The America / Western system of Moral values is no more valid than Irans... Yes! Even though they kill hudnreds and do not have equality, it is only wrong when compared to our values using OUR values as a point of reference. Iran is not 'BAD' per se rather Western morals see it as 'bad'.Alexanderthegrape wrote:
They could have more say on the global stage by being good people.
If there was negative karma points, they'd be as bad as polarbear was before chuy nerfed the negative karma system.
the koran explicitly tells followers to kill and lie, as long as they do it to non-islamics then they are not sinning in the eyes of allah, perfectly moral
Last edited by kr@cker (2006-07-26 10:22:52)
Iran is still out there people
that book is vastly over demonized, misinterpreted and generally misconstrued.kr@cker wrote:
the koran explicitly tells followers to kill and lie, as long as they do it to non-islamics then they are not sinning in the eyes of allah, perfectly moral
Just like the bible
Ultimately, both are creations of man regardless of the genesis of the inspiration to pen them. I might add pen them after the stories were retold countless thousands of different times amongst different tribes between different languages.
Ultimately, both documents have no more validity than a movie which begins, "Based on a true story." Sure, the general idea is the same, but hardly something you should take literally.
I am a Christian in the most generic sense and have a strong sense of spirituality, so don't even start with the, "You're an athiest" bullshit. Consider it further proof that faith does not require ignorance ... that's what we call an allusion.
I still say North Korea is somewhere we should be looking. They've not only outwardly stated that they DO intend to produce nulcear ordinance, but test fired viable missles with which to carry them. Iran is at least attempting to hide behind nuclear power. However valid or invalid that claim may be, they will at least have to go to greater lengths to conceal a true intent if alternative to that end and thus slower in progression and less of an immediate threat.