| Yes | 78% | 78% - 84 | ||||
| No | 21% | 21% - 23 | ||||
| Total: 107 | ||||||
I would protest that one. If there is one country on the planet that definitely does need nukes - it's Iran. State terrorists Israel are sitting on top of a nuclear stockpile the size of which is anyones guess. America, state terrorists Israel's henchman, is currently largely incapacitated. If I was Iran - I'd be enriching like a mother fucker....blisteringsilence wrote:
Iran really, really, REALLY doesn't need the bomb.
Last edited by CameronPoe (2007-01-16 12:03:29)
And your logic for this is.................?CameronPoe wrote:
I would protest that one. If there is one country on the planet that definitely does need nukes - it's Iran. State terrorists Israel are sitting on top of a nuclear stockpile the size of which is anyones guess. America, state terrorists Israel's henchman, is currently largely incapacitated. If I was Iran - I'd be enriching like a mother fucker....blisteringsilence wrote:
Iran really, really, REALLY doesn't need the bomb.
It would be easier to sign off on if they weren't threatening to wipe other nations off the planet.... just a thought.CameronPoe wrote:
I would protest that one. If there is one country on the planet that definitely does need nukes - it's Iran. State terrorists Israel are sitting on top of a nuclear stockpile the size of which is anyones guess. America, state terrorists Israel's henchman, is currently largely incapacitated. If I was Iran - I'd be enriching like a mother fucker....blisteringsilence wrote:
Iran really, really, REALLY doesn't need the bomb.
Kmarion wrote:
It would be easier to sign off on if they weren't threatening to wipe other nations off the planet.... just a thought.
Let's assume for argument's sake that Israel is sitting on a big nuclear stockpile.CameronPoe wrote:
I would protest that one. If there is one country on the planet that definitely does need nukes - it's Iran. State terrorists Israel are sitting on top of a nuclear stockpile the size of which is anyones guess. America, state terrorists Israel's henchman, is currently largely incapacitated. If I was Iran - I'd be enriching like a mother fucker....blisteringsilence wrote:
Iran really, really, REALLY doesn't need the bomb.
Didnt Israel recently admit to having nukes?Stingray24 wrote:
Let's assume for argument's sake that Israel is sitting on a big nuclear stockpile.CameronPoe wrote:
I would protest that one. If there is one country on the planet that definitely does need nukes - it's Iran. State terrorists Israel are sitting on top of a nuclear stockpile the size of which is anyones guess. America, state terrorists Israel's henchman, is currently largely incapacitated. If I was Iran - I'd be enriching like a mother fucker....blisteringsilence wrote:
Iran really, really, REALLY doesn't need the bomb.
If Israel has supposedly had this arsenal for so long why has Iran waited so long to start enriching? Seems that they've ignored a big threat for decades, why suddenly jump into action now? Israel's purpose for their nukes is not offensive or they would have used them by now. If Iran is scared (riiiiight) and that's why they're enriching like crazy, all the more reason to punch big holes in the ground in Iran.
PS Try to keep your "state terrorists Israel" bullshit to a minimum outside of the thread regarding Palestine. It will lessen your hater profile a bit and leave you with a small shred of credibility.
A year after they kicked the IAEA out.BN wrote:
Iran has invited envoys from developing nations accredited to the UN nuclear watchdog to visit its nuclear sites in a show of openness about its atomic fuel program, diplomats said.
http://www.theage.com.au/news/World/Ira … 12905.html
blisteringsilence wrote:
Israel's goal isn't offense, it's a deterrant. Don't push me too hard, or I just might have to get my whoopin' stick out.
All of the above is mere speculation on your part.blisteringsilence wrote:
Iran on the other hand would readily give a weapon (or just dirty nuclear material) to any wackjob-islamic group that asked for it.
On the other hand, we have a state that does not limit its actions to verbal threats. Israel has been performing a blunt and obvious genocide against the Palestinians for many years now, while at the same time adopting the - unheard of position in world diplomacy - of neither admitting to, or denying the possession of nuclear weapons.Kmarion wrote:
It would be easier to sign off on if they weren't threatening to wipe other nations off the planet....
Last edited by oug (2007-01-17 17:33:51)
Last edited by Kmarion (2007-01-18 03:19:40)
Are you claiming that Libya is working towards nuclear weapons technology as well? The same state that provided arms to the IRA and whose (alleged) intelligence agents blew up Pan Am flight 103 over Lockerbie. In case people have forgotten, before 2001 this was the single biggest terrorist attack against US citizens.Kmarion wrote:
^^ True, you can throw NK in there also.
Some people have indeed spoken.
Dr. Abdul Qadeer Khan (Urdu: عبدالقدیر خان )(b. 1935) is a Pakistani Scientist and Metallurgical Engineer widely regarded as the founder of Pakistan's nuclear programme. (His middle name is also, occasionally, rendered as Quadeer, Qadir or Gadeer and his given names are often abbreviated to A.Q.). In January 2004, he confessed to having been involved in a clandestine international network of nuclear weapons technology proliferation from Pakistan to Libya, Iran and North Korea.
Enjoy
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abdul_Qadeer_Khan
So, what is your point? For all I know, Pervez Musharraf runs a government that is quite friendly - to say the least - towards the US... Last I saw him, he was drinking tea at the Daily Show...Kmarion wrote:
^^ True, you can throw NK in there also.
Some people have indeed spoken.
Dr. Abdul Qadeer Khan (Urdu: عبدالقدیر خان )(b. 1935) is a Pakistani Scientist and Metallurgical Engineer widely regarded as the founder of Pakistan's nuclear programme. (His middle name is also, occasionally, rendered as Quadeer, Qadir or Gadeer and his given names are often abbreviated to A.Q.). In January 2004, he confessed to having been involved in a clandestine international network of nuclear weapons technology proliferation from Pakistan to Libya, Iran and North Korea.
Enjoy
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abdul_Qadeer_Khan
Pardon me, but how the fuck are you going to get results when you do not imprison those who are to blame? So, supposing that everything I'm reading in that page is true, then the US simply allowed a major suspect of WMDs trade to walk away (in order to keep their friend Musharraf in office, who by the way allows Khan to roam free) while at the same time attacked Iraq that had no WMDs...??Wikipedia wrote:
The United States government had no choice but to leave the fate of Dr. A.Q. Khan in the hands of General Musharraf, imposing no penalties on the Pakistani government or on individuals. U.S. government officials explained that in the War on Terrorism, it was not their goal to denounce or imprison people but "to get results." The White House chose not to impose sanctions on Pakistan or to demand an independent investigation of the Pakistani Military as US troops were still waging a war in Afghanisthan and support from Pakistan in the form of usaage of military bases would almost disappear. "It's just another case where you catch more flies with honey than with vinegar," a U.S. government official explained.
...
The U.S. has also refrained from applying further direct pressure on Pakistan for disclosure about Khan's activities largely due to a strategic calculation that such pressure may topple President Musharraf.
Libya was working on it, they admitted it. They also renounced it recently after the invasion of Iraq. These aren't my claims, but rather the confessions of a man who is now under the protection of the Pakistani government. http://www.carnegieendowment.org/static … nology.pdfaardfrith wrote:
Are you claiming that Libya is working towards nuclear weapons technology as well? The same state that provided arms to the IRA and whose (alleged) intelligence agents blew up Pan Am flight 103 over Lockerbie. In case people have forgotten, before 2001 this was the single biggest terrorist attack against US citizens.Kmarion wrote:
^^ True, you can throw NK in there also.
Some people have indeed spoken.
Dr. Abdul Qadeer Khan (Urdu: عبدالقدیر خان )(b. 1935) is a Pakistani Scientist and Metallurgical Engineer widely regarded as the founder of Pakistan's nuclear programme. (His middle name is also, occasionally, rendered as Quadeer, Qadir or Gadeer and his given names are often abbreviated to A.Q.). In January 2004, he confessed to having been involved in a clandestine international network of nuclear weapons technology proliferation from Pakistan to Libya, Iran and North Korea.
Enjoy
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abdul_Qadeer_Khan
Why has nothing been said about this, why all the focus on Iran?
On topic, I could not give a toss about whether Iran is working towards nuclear weapons. I wish them well in their aims for nuclear energy as it shows at least one country is taking the global warming issues seriously, but nukes, whatever. NK has them. USA has them. Other countries whose leaders I don't trust have them.
Last edited by Kmarion (2007-01-18 07:07:12)
Kinda like, "Does a rocking horse have a wooden Pecker?"CameronPoe wrote:
The question in the thread title actually reminded me of good old Jeffrey Lebowski's response to an offer of a drink:
"Pope shit in the woods?"
Classic.
Is it speculation on my part? Yes, this whole thread is speculation. Hence the OP:oug wrote:
Anyone who is not deeply biased will agree that Israel's stance is the most suspicious and thus the scariest. Think about it... lots of nuclear powers out there... and only one of them refuses to admit it. I wonder why, especially given the fact that nukes today only serve as a kind of scarecrow for possible enemies. Might it be because they're planning on using them???
Therefore, I get to speculate to my little heart's content. Go me.Kmarion wrote:
Is that their intent? I would really like to hear everyone's opinion on this and why you voted yes or no.
1. No matter how you cut it, Afghanistan was the home/training base/recruiting headquarters of Al Qaeda, and the government (called the Taliban) was responsible for issuing them documents and whatnot.oug wrote:
Regarding your second quote: The US went to war with two countries whose governments had - nothing or little depending on where you stand - to do with 9/11. Is it not safe to assume that if a nuke were to blow up within the US, Iran would be the first country to blame (regardless of actual guilt)?
The truth is this: You are all so worried about Iran's threats, that you are willing to go to war over something that somebody said.
True. We have shared nuclear technology with other nations -ones that didn't want to wipe us and our allies off the face of the Earth.ThomasMorgan wrote:
We've shared our nuclear secrets with other nations.
Also, like I said, the US is the only nation to actually detonate a nuclear device with the intent of causing death and destruction. No other nation has even come close to doing that, yet somehow we're the ones worried about other countries using nuclear weapons.
It's no different than committing a crime, acknowledging and validating your crime, but then not allowing other people to do it. It's a double standard.
Last edited by Turquoise (2007-02-11 01:33:57)
Why not be honest than? I think the world would be more sympathetic to your proposed motivation rather than secret nuclear weapons intentions. I'm sure people understood his need for defense with Katusha rockets, we know where they ended up though.Turquoise wrote:
I have no doubt in my mind that Iran is pursuing nuclear technology for the sake of defense.
Think about this: 2001-America invades Afghanistan, right next door. 2003-America invades Iraq, on the other side of Iran.
If I were the leader of Iran, I'd be freaked out. I'd do everything possible to keep America from invading my country, and acquiring nukes is a good way of doing that.
Ahmadinejad may talk a lot of shit about Israel, but deep down inside, he's probably just afraid of America attacking Iran. The last thing he'd want to do is attack Israel, because he knows that would result in us destroying Iran.
Basically, Iran is pursuing nukes for defensive purposes. He's just overcompensating when he talks shit (and trying to distract his people from his pathetic performance as a leader).
Good point, but this is Ahmadinejad we're talking about.Kmarion wrote:
Why not be honest than? I think the world would be more sympathetic to your proposed motivation rather than secret nuclear weapons intentions. I'm sure people understood his need for defense with Katusha rockets, we know where they ended up though.Turquoise wrote:
I have no doubt in my mind that Iran is pursuing nuclear technology for the sake of defense.
Think about this: 2001-America invades Afghanistan, right next door. 2003-America invades Iraq, on the other side of Iran.
If I were the leader of Iran, I'd be freaked out. I'd do everything possible to keep America from invading my country, and acquiring nukes is a good way of doing that.
Ahmadinejad may talk a lot of shit about Israel, but deep down inside, he's probably just afraid of America attacking Iran. The last thing he'd want to do is attack Israel, because he knows that would result in us destroying Iran.
Basically, Iran is pursuing nukes for defensive purposes. He's just overcompensating when he talks shit (and trying to distract his people from his pathetic performance as a leader).
truTurquoise wrote:
Good point, but this is Ahmadinejad we're talking about.Kmarion wrote:
Why not be honest than? I think the world would be more sympathetic to your proposed motivation rather than secret nuclear weapons intentions. I'm sure people understood his need for defense with Katusha rockets, we know where they ended up though.Turquoise wrote:
I have no doubt in my mind that Iran is pursuing nuclear technology for the sake of defense.
Think about this: 2001-America invades Afghanistan, right next door. 2003-America invades Iraq, on the other side of Iran.
If I were the leader of Iran, I'd be freaked out. I'd do everything possible to keep America from invading my country, and acquiring nukes is a good way of doing that.
Ahmadinejad may talk a lot of shit about Israel, but deep down inside, he's probably just afraid of America attacking Iran. The last thing he'd want to do is attack Israel, because he knows that would result in us destroying Iran.
Basically, Iran is pursuing nukes for defensive purposes. He's just overcompensating when he talks shit (and trying to distract his people from his pathetic performance as a leader).
In all honesty, I think Bush and him have a lot in common. They're both pathetic leaders that pander to their extremist elements. They both suck at fiscal policy. They both would lose in their next election (if Bush was able to run again). The list goes on and on....
Anyway, Ahmadinejad is, quite frankly, an idiot. He's only crafty enough to get the support of his ultraconservatives, but then again, those people are easily fooled (just like our ultraconservatives). The Ayatollah basically numbed his opposition by keeping reformists from running in the last midterm election, but even after that, the people managed to elect the most moderate conservatives in Iran.
In short, Ahmadinejad doesn't have the power to attack anyone officially, with or without nukes. His people won't allow it, and even the Ayatollah doesn't want to invite an attack from us. So yeah, they are taking the more subtle approach of aiding the insurgency, but then again, so is Saudi Arabia.
Basically, there are some people in America that would profit tremendously from attacking Iran, and they've been saber rattling for quite some time. With enough persistence, they may even trick us into attacking Iran, but hopefully, we won't be that stupid AGAIN. Iraq should provide all the evidence necessary to discourage an attack on Iran. Ahmadinejad sees the mess we're in, and he's taking advantage of it, since our hands are tied.
He's not going to nuke anyone though. He's neither that stupid nor that powerful.
Maybe some but America will never recoup the amount of money it has dumped into Iraq. The oil conspiracy kinda fails in that aspect.Turquoise wrote:
Basically, there are some people in America that would profit tremendously from attacking Iran, and they've been saber rattling for quite some time.
I'm not talking about oil -- I'm talking military contractors. Companies like Halliburton have completely reamed us with overcharging, and they'll do more of the same with Iran.Kmarion wrote:
Maybe some but America will never recoup the amount of money it has dumped into Iraq. The oil conspiracy kinda fails in that aspect.Turquoise wrote:
Basically, there are some people in America that would profit tremendously from attacking Iran, and they've been saber rattling for quite some time.