Pages: 1 2 3 4 5

Topic closed

2008-12-04 07:52:45
Flecco
iPod is broken.
+1,048|6915|NT, like Mick Dundee

seymorebutts443 wrote:

CameronPoe wrote:

lowing wrote:


It would have to be someone because Israel will have no problem kicking the ever lovin' shit out of Iran.
Yeah they did great against Hisb'allah in the recent Lebanon conflict ....
US can't help, we look too much like douchebags in the ME anyways.
What do you mean 'can't help'...

How much military aid does the USA have to send those guys a year for you to be considered 'helping' them in a war?
Whoa... Can't believe these forums are still kicking.
2008-12-04 07:58:18
Braddock
Agitator
+916|6540|Éire

steelie34 wrote:

the reason iran shouldn't have nuclear weapons is because they will use them to attack israel, and not as a deterrent.  that is the only reason the other countries who have nukes are not under intense international pressure.
Don't be ridiculous, do you think Iranians can't get their heads around the concept of mutually assured destruction or something? Israel have a shitload of illegally stockpiled nukes too and I'm quite sure the Iranians accept that they won't hesitate to break them out should they decide to fire on Israel themselves.
2008-12-04 07:58:21
rammunition
Fully Loaded
+143|6112
Just because they want Power doesn't mean they don't want Bomb.

There's a system set up to get nuclear power, even help for nations who want it.  So why not work within the system?
you mean buy the technology from other nations, why do that when Iran get the nuclear power from themselves, it will save money in the long run and may make some if they supply others.

lol ok... explain why they refused cooperation on building nuclear plants with russian help.  oh right, if you're researching weapons and want to keep them secret, you don't cooperate with other people, and least of all tell the media.  dont be so naive.
maybe this will help

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle … 798340.stm

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle … 046258.stm
2008-12-04 08:27:53
steelie34
pub hero!
+603|6631|the land of bourbon

rammunition wrote:

steelie34 wrote:

lol ok... explain why they refused cooperation on building nuclear plants with russian help.  oh right, if you're researching weapons and want to keep them secret, you don't cooperate with other people, and least of all tell the media.  dont be so naive.
maybe this will help

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle … 798340.stm

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle … 046258.stm
ok, so you are proving my point?  they are refusing cooperation!

Braddock wrote:

steelie34 wrote:

the reason iran shouldn't have nuclear weapons is because they will use them to attack israel, and not as a deterrent.  that is the only reason the other countries who have nukes are not under intense international pressure.
Don't be ridiculous, do you think Iranians can't get their heads around the concept of mutually assured destruction or something? Israel have a shitload of illegally stockpiled nukes too and I'm quite sure the Iranians accept that they won't hesitate to break them out should they decide to fire on Israel themselves.
exactly, which is why israel has them as a deterrent.  but if iran acquires them, i don't believe they would hesitate to use them offensively, giving israel no chance to fight back.
https://bf3s.com/sigs/36e1d9e36ae924048a933db90fb05bb247fe315e.png
2008-12-04 08:31:43
Flecco
iPod is broken.
+1,048|6915|NT, like Mick Dundee

Steelie, in the time it took for the nukes to hit Israel from Iran, chances are Israel would have already launched their own nukes. Iran DOES understand MAD, or do you think that the rulers of Iran would happily sacrifice themselves? I dun think so mate.

MAD does apply in this case.
Whoa... Can't believe these forums are still kicking.
2008-12-04 08:32:45
rammunition
Fully Loaded
+143|6112
they are not refusing to co-operate, the first link was what you were referring to, the second suggests Russia is backing Iran though is looking to see Iran will compromise
2008-12-04 08:33:58
rammunition
Fully Loaded
+143|6112

Flecco wrote:

Steelie, in the time it took for the nukes to hit Israel from Iran, chances are Israel would have already launched their own nukes. Iran DOES understand MAD, or do you think that the rulers of Iran would happily sacrifice themselves? I dun think so mate.

MAD does apply in this case.
Iran doesn't have any nukes, so how can they be mad????
2008-12-04 08:36:42
rammunition
Fully Loaded
+143|6112
READ THIS

http://www.armagedon.org.il/about_us_english.htm

it focusses on nukes in the M.E, including Israel

Last edited by rammunition (2008-12-04 08:37:58)

2008-12-04 08:46:59
Flecco
iPod is broken.
+1,048|6915|NT, like Mick Dundee

rammunition wrote:

Flecco wrote:

Steelie, in the time it took for the nukes to hit Israel from Iran, chances are Israel would have already launched their own nukes. Iran DOES understand MAD, or do you think that the rulers of Iran would happily sacrifice themselves? I dun think so mate.

MAD does apply in this case.
Iran doesn't have any nukes, so how can they be mad????
I was talking to Steelie. He implied that Iran wouldn't give two shits about the principle of MAD and just go ahead and sacrifice the bulk of their population to death, as well as openly declaring a wish to be killed/imprisoned for life for mass murder/genocide, by using any nukes they might build or obtain.

I was just pointing out that nobody with the power to build a nuke is that crazy.
Whoa... Can't believe these forums are still kicking.
2008-12-04 08:52:15
steelie34
pub hero!
+603|6631|the land of bourbon
so you really want to test your theory?  i personally don't think the option should exist... specualtion about what scenarios could/would happen with a nuclear-armed iran are countless.  i like the status quo, as unfair as it may be, it is still the least likely to erupt in massive casualties.
https://bf3s.com/sigs/36e1d9e36ae924048a933db90fb05bb247fe315e.png
2008-12-04 08:54:08
jord
Member
+2,382|6928|The North, beyond the wall.
Whether or not Iran would use the nukes now or not, they shouldn't have them. You don't let unstable countries have weapons that can kill millions of people. What if a government of the most extremist form comes into power there?

No, they're fine how they are. Nobody is going to use nukes against Iran, so Iran don't need them.
2008-12-04 09:02:30
Flecco
iPod is broken.
+1,048|6915|NT, like Mick Dundee

jord wrote:

Whether or not Iran would use the nukes now or not, they shouldn't have them. You don't let unstable countries have weapons that can kill millions of people. What if a government of the most extremist form comes into power there?

No, they're fine how they are. Nobody is going to use nukes against Iran, so Iran don't need them.
I agree, I was just pointing out that Iran probs would stick to MAD.

Only a stateless organisation would risk nukes these days.


Next: Umm... What's to stop an extremist government being elected/coming to power in say......

Pakistan?

India?

Israel?

Russia?

France?

USA?

UK?

Remember, extremism is relative to one's perspective. Second, those who benefit from the status quo will always prefer it to the alternative.
Whoa... Can't believe these forums are still kicking.
2008-12-04 09:04:12
jord
Member
+2,382|6928|The North, beyond the wall.

Flecco wrote:

jord wrote:

Whether or not Iran would use the nukes now or not, they shouldn't have them. You don't let unstable countries have weapons that can kill millions of people. What if a government of the most extremist form comes into power there?

No, they're fine how they are. Nobody is going to use nukes against Iran, so Iran don't need them.
I agree, I was just pointing out that Iran probs would stick to MAD.

Only a stateless organisation would risk nukes these days.


Next: Umm... What's to stop an extremist government being elected/coming to power in say......

Pakistan?

India?

Israel?

Russia?

France?

USA?

UK?

Remember, extremism is relative to one's perspective. Second, those who benefit from the status quo will always prefer it to the alternative.
I fail to see how countries with nuclear weapons will have any effect on Iranian elections...?

Besides, Pakistan are unstable right now anyway.
2008-12-04 09:14:45
san4
The Mas
+311|6938|NYC, a place to live
USA already had an extremist government.
2008-12-04 09:24:01
Flecco
iPod is broken.
+1,048|6915|NT, like Mick Dundee

jord wrote:

Whether or not Iran would use the nukes now or not, they shouldn't have them. You don't let unstable countries have weapons that can kill millions of people. What if a government of the most extremist form comes into power there?

No, they're fine how they are. Nobody is going to use nukes against Iran, so Iran don't need them.

jord wrote:

I fail to see how countries with nuclear weapons will have any effect on Iranian elections...?

Besides, Pakistan are unstable right now anyway.
Nothing to do with Iranian elections.

My post was to point out that if you are worried about an extremist government being elected in future and gaining control of it's country's nuclear weapons stockpile, then worry about the nations that already have nukes and could elect extremists.

Not one that might get nukes one day and could elect extremists.
Whoa... Can't believe these forums are still kicking.
2008-12-04 09:26:21
Lotta_Drool
Spit
+350|6433|Ireland
Israel is the only country with balls.  I hope the pour mooslims don't go all fucknuts and kill youreapeeons because they are easy targets but they probably will like a bunch of wild monkeys.

pour mooslims never get a break and are always being kept down by da man for no reason.  I mean just because a country's leader says he want to destroy your country with absolutely no provacation and then goes on to try to develope nukes, give me a fucking break.

Watch out France, u r the next islamic country on the list of radical mooslims with stupid dangerous leaders and weapons.
2008-12-04 09:30:51
jord
Member
+2,382|6928|The North, beyond the wall.

Flecco wrote:

jord wrote:

Whether or not Iran would use the nukes now or not, they shouldn't have them. You don't let unstable countries have weapons that can kill millions of people. What if a government of the most extremist form comes into power there?

No, they're fine how they are. Nobody is going to use nukes against Iran, so Iran don't need them.

jord wrote:

I fail to see how countries with nuclear weapons will have any effect on Iranian elections...?

Besides, Pakistan are unstable right now anyway.
Nothing to do with Iranian elections.

My post was to point out that if you are worried about an extremist government being elected in future and gaining control of it's country's nuclear weapons stockpile, then worry about the nations that already have nukes and could elect extremists.

Not one that might get nukes one day and could elect extremists.
Oh, well I already am worrying about Pakistan as much as I can. Though why have another unstable country have nukes... For the sake of "fairness"?
2008-12-04 09:36:44
Flecco
iPod is broken.
+1,048|6915|NT, like Mick Dundee

No, but why let anybody have nukes considering the destructive power that is possible with them?

Because some countries are more likely to be aggressive than others?
Whoa... Can't believe these forums are still kicking.
2008-12-04 09:38:52
Lotta_Drool
Spit
+350|6433|Ireland
I nuke will go off in a country at some point and it will be done at the hand of some islamic asshat or a by an islamic state or some fucktard like the miget in N.Korea.

Only complete idiots (sorry liberals) would not see why these islamic countries need kept under the world's collective thumb.  I just hope the nuke doesn't go off in the US first to wake up the world.  Hopefully it will be in Saudi Arabia or Ireland so there is no loss of valuable life.

Last edited by Lotta_Drool (2008-12-04 09:40:18)

2008-12-04 10:01:20
AutralianChainsaw
Member
+65|6448
If israel attack without US approval, the US should cut military aid to Israel..  Will the messiah Obama have to balls to do that?
2008-12-04 10:08:08
Kmar
Truth is my Bitch
+5,695|6851|132 and Bush

AutralianChainsaw wrote:

If israel attack without US approval, the US should cut military aid to Israel..  Will the messiah Obama have to balls to do that?
Cut them off anyways... cut off all the aid we give to Arab countries as well (Which is 3'xs as much).

[google]http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-675732272133853571&hl=en[/google]
Xbone Stormsurgezz
2008-12-04 10:30:13
san4
The Mas
+311|6938|NYC, a place to live

Kmarion wrote:

AutralianChainsaw wrote:

If israel attack without US approval, the US should cut military aid to Israel..  Will the messiah Obama have to balls to do that?
Cut them off anyways... cut off all the aid we give to Arab countries as well (Which is 3'xs as much).
This is a time to be engaging with the world, not withdrawing from it.
2008-12-04 10:36:23
Kmar
Truth is my Bitch
+5,695|6851|132 and Bush

san4 wrote:

Kmarion wrote:

AutralianChainsaw wrote:

If israel attack without US approval, the US should cut military aid to Israel..  Will the messiah Obama have to balls to do that?
Cut them off anyways... cut off all the aid we give to Arab countries as well (Which is 3'xs as much).
This is a time to be engaging with the world, not withdrawing from it.
I could do without playing the role of sugar daddy. That doesn't mean you have to "withdrawal" from the world. A purchased friend will never respect you. We are weakening ourselves at home. Make your bed before you leave.
Xbone Stormsurgezz
2008-12-04 10:38:32
Mekstizzle
WALKER
+3,611|6871|London, England
I'd say it's pretty damn impossible for Israel to attack Iran without support from another nation in the region.
2008-12-04 10:55:27
san4
The Mas
+311|6938|NYC, a place to live

Kmarion wrote:

san4 wrote:

Kmarion wrote:

Cut them off anyways... cut off all the aid we give to Arab countries as well (Which is 3'xs as much).
This is a time to be engaging with the world, not withdrawing from it.
I could do without playing the role of sugar daddy. That doesn't mean you have to "withdrawal" from the world. A purchased friend will never respect you. We are weakening ourselves at home. Make your bed before you leave.
Being sugar daddy for corrupt Arab governments is one thing, but the richest country in the world helping modernize poor local economies would be something very different. I don't know about friends, but we'd create customers and workers.

Topic closed

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2025 Jeff Minard