I have a question!!!....

2006-12-20 10:23:48

#1

LostFate: Same shit, Different Arsehole; +95|6495|England

ok so I'm just somewhat curious about popular opinion, why do must people seem to say that Iran shouldn't be allowed nukes? i know what argument is that there leader is aggressive an may use them? ok then so if thats the reason Iran cant have nukes then why can a country like America with in my opinion the most stupid aggressive leader in the entire world allowed to have them without any problems an then tell Iran that they cant have them?

it all seems stupid to me, could someone shed some light?

btw no this is not a BASH THE USA thread

2006-12-20 10:30:54

#2

Mason4Assassin444: retired; +552|6672|USA

Iran wanting to wipeout Israel and the "aggressive" remarks Amajahdiugya (sp?) has made to Israel makes them look like they want nuclear power for more than energy.

As far as aggressive America having the nuke, we set the precedent. You attack us on our land, (Japan WW2)we're liable to melt your face. And its a stereotype that we are logical when it comes to our nukes. Where Iran looks more fanatic than logical.

I have a question. Is it ok to teamswitch and crash your jet into 4 teammates because you were owned?

2006-12-20 10:32:01

#3

.remedy.: Member; +3|6424|Tennessee

http://www.opinioneditorials.com/guestc … 60921.html

or

http://www.commondreams.org/views06/0430-22.htm

Check out one of those two sites, or both.. i was a bit curious myself after reading this, and managed to google up several results.. sorry, but dont be upset at me because i didnt summarize it, its a whole lot to summarize..

2006-12-20 10:34:12

#4

usmarine2007: Banned; +374|6377|Columbus, Ohio

Because in the US and other countries, there are checks and balances for the use of Nukes. In Iran, there is one decision made and it is final.

2006-12-20 10:34:59

#5

kr@cker: Bringin' Sexy Back!; +581|6559|Southeastern USA

because the US, UK and such don't make speeches calling for the complete destruction of another nation, or attack unprovoked

i don't see what's so hard to understand about it, despite your opinion, the US doesn't go into war unprovoked, while nations like iran and noko practically promise to

Last edited by kr@cker (2006-12-20 10:42:27)

2006-12-20 10:40:10

#6

King_County_Downy: shitfaced; +2,791|6607|Seattle

King_County_Downy wrote:
No Hans Brix, No Uranium.

Sober enough to know what I'm doing, drunk enough to really enjoy doing it

2006-12-20 10:41:21

#7

silo1180: The Farewell Tour; +79|6432|San Antonio, TX

Because we had them first.... (sorry had to get that out)... but like usmarine2007 said our military needs government approval before a nuke could be used. Also, when have we ever denied the UN the right to inspect our nuclear facilities? We also didn't obtain our nuclear technology through under-handed means, so there's limited chance of another Three Mile Island or Chernobyl occuring.

2006-12-20 11:50:56

#8

Drakef: Cheeseburger Logicist; +117|6372|Vancouver

I find it a most appalling situation, where those who oppose nuclear weapons find it acceptable for the Iranians to obtain them. We can certainly disagree with other nations, particularly the Americans, for having nuclear arsenals and a recent trend towards nuclear proliferation, but we cannot use the theme of hypocrisy as a method to justify Iranian weapons. It is strange that many of those who oppose nuclear arms will criticize the US only, while seemingly let Iran continue with their program. We many not be able to end the American nuclear program, but we need to stop the Iranian nuclear program before it builds its arsenal. I have doubts that North Korea or Iran would use them in such a manner as they threaten to, but when cornered, it may be an option.

2006-12-20 12:22:38

#9

Kmar: Truth is my Bitch; +5,695|6611|132 and Bush

LostFate do you believe there is a link between Iran and terrorist organizations?

Xbone Stormsurgezz

2006-12-20 13:25:21

#10

KillingUrDoodz: Banned; +2|6348

Israel has nukes and has a history of preemptive strikes on neighbors who dare to even have a nuclear reactor. This is acceptable?

2006-12-20 13:38:32

#11

Commie Killer: Member; +192|6397

KillingUrDoodz wrote:
Israel has nukes and has a history of preemptive strikes on neighbors who dare to even have a nuclear reactor. This is acceptable?

Israel doesnt pledge the annihilation of other nations. Dont type out of your ass.

2006-12-20 13:41:18

#12

LostFate: Same shit, Different Arsehole; +95|6495|England

Commie Killer wrote:
KillingUrDoodz wrote:
Israel has nukes and has a history of preemptive strikes on neighbors who dare to even have a nuclear reactor. This is acceptable?
Israel doesnt pledge the annihilation of other nations. Dont type out of your ass.

Yet you wonder why other countries want neculear bombs evem if it is wrong ?

2006-12-20 13:46:55

#13

Commie Killer: Member; +192|6397

KillingUrDoodz wrote:
Commie Killer wrote:
KillingUrDoodz wrote:
Israel has nukes and has a history of preemptive strikes on neighbors who dare to even have a nuclear reactor. This is acceptable?
Israel doesnt pledge the annihilation of other nations. Dont type out of your ass.
Annihilation you say? Laissez-faire bombing of Lebanon doesn't count? Why don't you kiss this ass I'm typing out of.

Israel does not purposely target innocents.

2006-12-20 13:47:34

#14

KillingUrDoodz: Banned; +2|6348

Commie Killer wrote:
KillingUrDoodz wrote:
Commie Killer wrote:

Israel doesnt pledge the annihilation of other nations. Dont type out of your ass.
Annihilation you say? Laissez-faire bombing of Lebanon doesn't count? Why don't you kiss this ass I'm typing out of.
Israel does not purposely target innocents.

That's a good joke.

2006-12-20 13:49:06

#15

Commie Killer: Member; +192|6397

LostFate wrote:
Commie Killer wrote:
KillingUrDoodz wrote:
Israel has nukes and has a history of preemptive strikes on neighbors who dare to even have a nuclear reactor. This is acceptable?
Israel doesnt pledge the annihilation of other nations. Dont type out of your ass.
Yet you wonder why other countries want neculear bombs evem if it is wrong ?

Other country's such as the members of NATO, Israel and others like that use the bombs as a last resort and have checks and balances to make sure that they are not used to annihilate a country who is doing nothing overt, only defending itself, Iran wants Israel destroyed because they are infidels, same thinking as Hitler dont you think?

2006-12-20 13:50:12

#16

Commie Killer: Member; +192|6397

KillingUrDoodz wrote:
Commie Killer wrote:
KillingUrDoodz wrote:
Annihilation you say? Laissez-faire bombing of Lebanon doesn't count? Why don't you kiss this ass I'm typing out of.
Israel does not purposely target innocents.
That's a good joke.

Do you see Israel pledging the destruction of another nation? No, now shut the fuck up.

2006-12-20 13:56:04

#17

KillingUrDoodz: Banned; +2|6348

Commie Killer wrote:
KillingUrDoodz wrote:
Commie Killer wrote:

Israel does not purposely target innocents.
That's a good joke.
Do you see Israel pledging the destruction of another nation? No, now shut the fuck up.

Do you think they can afford to?

2006-12-20 17:20:22

#18

Turquoise: O Canada; +1,596|6415|North Carolina

LostFate wrote:
ok so I'm just somewhat curious about popular opinion, why do must people seem to say that Iran shouldn't be allowed nukes? i know what argument is that there leader is aggressive an may use them? ok then so if thats the reason Iran cant have nukes then why can a country like America with in my opinion the most stupid aggressive leader in the entire world allowed to have them without any problems an then tell Iran that they cant have them?

it all seems stupid to me, could someone shed some light?

btw no this is not a BASH THE USA thread

It's not really about their nukes. We're angry at them for switching to the Euro in oil trade, and the Zionists in this country understandably hate what Ahmadinejad says about Israel.

The trick to all of this, however, is that Ahmadinejad is just as much a lame duck as Bush now is. He just got his ass handed to him in the recent election, and most of his supporters are no longer in office.

The Iranian people want reformists in power, but the Ayatollah is doing everything he can to keep them from entering power.

If we are to invade Iran, we must assassinate the Council of Guardians and the Ayatollah. If we do that and remove a few key militias, then Iran will slowly become a Westernized nation. Their nukes aren't a problem in the long run, but their extremist clerics are.

2006-12-20 17:25:20

#19

weamo8: Member; +50|6453|USA

Why does anyone need nukes?

2006-12-20 17:27:08

#20

usmarine2007: Banned; +374|6377|Columbus, Ohio

weamo8 wrote:
Why does anyone need nukes?

Why does anyone need a gun?

2006-12-20 17:40:36

#21

san4: The Mas; +311|6698|NYC, a place to live

weamo8 wrote:
Why does anyone need nukes?

To defend themselves against other people who have nukes, of course.

2006-12-20 17:56:10

#22

weamo8: Member; +50|6453|USA

usmarine2007 wrote:
weamo8 wrote:
Why does anyone need nukes?
Why does anyone need a gun?

I own several guns. I have them because I would use them to defend myself and my family against "bad" people. I can specifically target those who would do me harm and attempt to defeat them.

Nukes will kill all kinds of people. Innocents and enemies and they will taint the ground for years and years to come.

There was a time and a place for nukes, and I would argue that the two that were used did achieve a greater good, but we are past that.

All of the "civilized" nations that the U.N. has decided can have nukes should all decide to scrap them in my opinion. If the U.N. took a stand against nukes in all forms and in all hands, because of their indiscriminate and devastating potential, confronting unstable seeming countries like Iran would be much easier.

I have read several interviews with Iran's president, and he is not half as crazy as everyone thinks. The 5 members of the U.N. security council are complete hypocrites. Why should they all have nukes, and then decide who else can and cannot have them?

Answering my question with another question usmarine2007 was a little pointless. Do you really not see the difference between a gun and a nuke? Michael Moore tries to make the same argument in Bowling For Columbine. Are you as knuckle-headed as him?

2006-12-20 18:42:24

#23

usmarine2007: Banned; +374|6377|Columbus, Ohio

weamo8 wrote:
Answering my question with another question usmarine2007 was a little pointless. Do you really not see the difference between a gun and a nuke? Michael Moore tries to make the same argument in Bowling For Columbine. Are you as knuckle-headed as him?

My question is your answer.

2006-12-20 18:48:11

#24

Ryan: Member; +1,230|6853|Alberta, Canada

Bash the USA!

Nvm. The USA just thinks Iran is bad, just like Iraq and Afghanistan, so they think they will use the nukes to bomb the US.

2006-12-20 18:54:17

#25

Kmar: Truth is my Bitch; +5,695|6611|132 and Bush

weamo8 wrote:
usmarine2007 wrote:
weamo8 wrote:
Why does anyone need nukes?
Why does anyone need a gun?
I own several guns. I have them because I would use them to defend myself and my family against "bad" people. I can specifically target those who would do me harm and attempt to defeat them.

Nukes will kill all kinds of people. Innocents and enemies and they will taint the ground for years and years to come.

There was a time and a place for nukes, and I would argue that the two that were used did achieve a greater good, but we are past that.

All of the "civilized" nations that the U.N. has decided can have nukes should all decide to scrap them in my opinion. If the U.N. took a stand against nukes in all forms and in all hands, because of their indiscriminate and devastating potential, confronting unstable seeming countries like Iran would be much easier.

I have read several interviews with Iran's president, and he is not half as crazy as everyone thinks. The 5 members of the U.N. security council are complete hypocrites. Why should they all have nukes, and then decide who else can and cannot have them?

Answering my question with another question usmarine2007 was a little pointless. Do you really not see the difference between a gun and a nuke? Michael Moore tries to make the same argument in Bowling For Columbine. Are you as knuckle-headed as him?

Because someone has something destructive it should not dictate everyone should. It does not seem logical to draw moral equivalences with someone who has threatened time and time again to wipe the earth clean from the west. We can talk hypothetically and say yes no one should have said weapons, but unfortunately we are confined to reality and we must deal with the circumstances at hand.

I have a question. Do you think Iran supports Hezzbolah? What do you think they would like to do with a nuke?

Last edited by Kmarion (2006-12-20 18:58:54)

Xbone Stormsurgezz

BF2S Forums I have a question!!!....

King_County_Downy wrote:

KillingUrDoodz wrote:

Commie Killer wrote:

KillingUrDoodz wrote:

KillingUrDoodz wrote:

Commie Killer wrote:

KillingUrDoodz wrote:

Commie Killer wrote:

KillingUrDoodz wrote:

Commie Killer wrote:

LostFate wrote:

Commie Killer wrote:

KillingUrDoodz wrote:

KillingUrDoodz wrote:

Commie Killer wrote:

KillingUrDoodz wrote:

Commie Killer wrote:

KillingUrDoodz wrote:

Commie Killer wrote:

LostFate wrote:

weamo8 wrote:

weamo8 wrote:

usmarine2007 wrote:

weamo8 wrote:

weamo8 wrote:

weamo8 wrote:

usmarine2007 wrote:

weamo8 wrote:

Board footer