Hmmm well we're alreay in Iran that's obvious if we actaully try to invade them under the same premise that we invaded Iraq, it might cause a problem with major players in this world. China, Korea.. You know people who are actually threats..
BWUAHAHHAHAHA !!! *cools down* ehhehehehe
Sorry did you say Korea (as in North Korea) is a major player in this world?
Sorry did you say Korea (as in North Korea) is a major player in this world?
Big enough for your bum chum George Bush to refer to them as one of the axis of evil, or did you forget that?Bradt3hleader wrote:
BWUAHAHHAHAHA !!! *cools down* ehhehehehe
Sorry did you say Korea (as in North Korea) is a major player in this world?
its one rule for some and another for others. As Ted baker said
"They're a sovereign state. We have 28,000. Why can't they have 10? We don't say anything about Israel — they've got 100 of them approximately — or India or Pakistan or Russia.""
"They're a sovereign state. We have 28,000. Why can't they have 10? We don't say anything about Israel — they've got 100 of them approximately — or India or Pakistan or Russia.""
Go sort out trying to make people's lives from around the world more equal before trying to justify why Iran needs to go equally nuclear.
Iran agreed not to have nukes, thats why they're not allowed them. The double-standard argument is irrelevent because of the argreements made under the NPT.
Iran have also threatened Israel, and by doing so they have proven they can not be trusted to be a responsible nuclear power.
Iran have also threatened Israel, and by doing so they have proven they can not be trusted to be a responsible nuclear power.
Last edited by Pubic (2009-10-01 16:41:09)
Stop using facts.Pubic wrote:
Iran agreed not to have nukes, thats why they're not allowed them. The double-standard argument is irrelevent because of the argreements made under the NPT.
Iran have also threatened Israel, and by doing so they have proven they can not be trusted to be a responsible nuclear power.
They are inconvenient to the apologists' arguments.
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
Eeerrrrr they don't want nukes. They want nuclear power, the rest of the world is considering moving to nuclear power so why can't Iran?Pubic wrote:
Iran agreed not to have nukes, thats why they're not allowed them. The double-standard argument is irrelevent because of the argreements made under the NPT.
Iran have also threatened Israel, and by doing so they have proven they can not be trusted to be a responsible nuclear power.
Israel has threatened Pakistan, Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Iran, Sudan etc. yet its acceptable for them to do so?
Also Israel HASN'T signed the NPT, unlike Iran.
double standards.
Last edited by rammunition (2009-10-02 04:36:29)
Iran CAN have civilian nuclear power. That's what this is all about. What they are doing is pointing toward a dual-use program. That concerns the US, Europe, Israel, and the GCC.rammunition wrote:
Eeerrrrr they don't want nukes. They want nuclear power, the rest of the world is considering moving to nuclear power so why can't Iran?Pubic wrote:
Iran agreed not to have nukes, thats why they're not allowed them. The double-standard argument is irrelevent because of the argreements made under the NPT.
Iran have also threatened Israel, and by doing so they have proven they can not be trusted to be a responsible nuclear power.
ORLY? How is that, exactly?ramm wrote:
Israel has threatened Pakistan, Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Iran, Sudan etc. yet its acceptable for them to do so?
Did they say anything about removing them from maps or anything?
Exactly.ramm wrote:
Also Israel HASN'T signed the NPT, unlike Iran.
Only not. See your last statement.ramm wrote:
double standards.
Then think for a second.
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
I was bored so I searched google maps for a bit and found the new nuke site.
Early stages of construction...google maps are always about 5 years old.
Compair it with this photo http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/33114695/ns … tn_africa/
Early stages of construction...google maps are always about 5 years old.
Compair it with this photo http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/33114695/ns … tn_africa/
Sober enough to know what I'm doing, drunk enough to really enjoy doing it
Don't forget it's also all underground.King_County_Downy wrote:
I was bored so I searched google maps for a bit and found the new nuke site.
Early stages of construction...google maps are always about 5 years old.
Compair it with this photo http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/33114695/ns … tn_africa/
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
rammunition wrote:
Eeerrrrr they don't want nukes. They want nuclear power, the rest of the world is considering moving to nuclear power so why can't Iran?Pubic wrote:
Iran agreed not to have nukes, thats why they're not allowed them. The double-standard argument is irrelevent because of the argreements made under the NPT.
Iran have also threatened Israel, and by doing so they have proven they can not be trusted to be a responsible nuclear power.
Israel has threatened Pakistan, Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Iran, Sudan etc. yet its acceptable for them to do so?
Also Israel HASN'T signed the NPT, unlike Iran.
double standards.
The only double standard I see here is yours.rammunition wrote:
its one rule for some and another for others. As Ted baker said
"They're a sovereign state. We have 28,000. Why can't they have 10? We don't say anything about Israel — they've got 100 of them approximately — or India or Pakistan or Russia.""
The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
~ Richard Feynman
~ Richard Feynman
Perhaps we shouldn't mention the threats Iran has made? How did you get Pakistan and Sudan btw?rammunition wrote:
Eeerrrrr they don't want nukes. They want nuclear power, the rest of the world is considering moving to nuclear power so why can't Iran?Pubic wrote:
Iran agreed not to have nukes, thats why they're not allowed them. The double-standard argument is irrelevent because of the argreements made under the NPT.
Iran have also threatened Israel, and by doing so they have proven they can not be trusted to be a responsible nuclear power.
Israel has threatened Pakistan, Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Iran, Sudan etc. yet its acceptable for them to do so?
Also Israel HASN'T signed the NPT, unlike Iran.
double standards.
on pakistanM.O.A.B wrote:
Perhaps we shouldn't mention the threats Iran has made? How did you get Pakistan and Sudan btw?rammunition wrote:
Eeerrrrr they don't want nukes. They want nuclear power, the rest of the world is considering moving to nuclear power so why can't Iran?Pubic wrote:
Iran agreed not to have nukes, thats why they're not allowed them. The double-standard argument is irrelevent because of the argreements made under the NPT.
Iran have also threatened Israel, and by doing so they have proven they can not be trusted to be a responsible nuclear power.
Israel has threatened Pakistan, Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Iran, Sudan etc. yet its acceptable for them to do so?
Also Israel HASN'T signed the NPT, unlike Iran.
double standards.
* The words of David Ben Gurion, the first Israeli Prime Minister, as printed in the Jewish Chronicle,9 August 1967:-
“The world Zionist movement should not be neglectful of the dangers of Pakistan to it. And Pakistan now should be its first target, for this ideological State is a threat to our existence. And Pakistan, the whole of it, hates the Jews and loves the Arabs. “This lover of the Arabs is more dangerous to us than the Arabs themselves. For that matter, it is most essential for the world Zionism that it should now take immediate steps against Pakistan. “Whereas the inhabitants of the Indian peninsula are Hindus whose hearts have been full of hatred towards Muslims, therefore, India is the most important base for us to work there from against Pakistan. “It is essential that we exploit this base and strike and crush Pakistanis, enemies of Jews and Zionism, by all disguised and secret plans.”
*quote
"After Israel's attack on Iraq's Osiraq nuclear reactors in the 1980's, a similar plan to attack Pakistan's Kahuta Research facility by using Indian airfields was foiled, when the Pakistan Air Force got alerted beforehand, and took preventative measures."
Sudan
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/7966627.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/7966865.stm
Last edited by rammunition (2009-10-04 04:11:31)
So for Pakistan, the Indian's were in on it as well? Allowing them to use airfields and such, why aren't you condemning the hell out of the Indians?rammunition wrote:
on pakistanM.O.A.B wrote:
Perhaps we shouldn't mention the threats Iran has made? How did you get Pakistan and Sudan btw?rammunition wrote:
Eeerrrrr they don't want nukes. They want nuclear power, the rest of the world is considering moving to nuclear power so why can't Iran?
Israel has threatened Pakistan, Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Iran, Sudan etc. yet its acceptable for them to do so?
Also Israel HASN'T signed the NPT, unlike Iran.
double standards.
* The words of David Ben Gurion, the first Israeli Prime Minister, as printed in the Jewish Chronicle,9 August 1967:-
“The world Zionist movement should not be neglectful of the dangers of Pakistan to it. And Pakistan now should be its first target, for this ideological State is a threat to our existence. And Pakistan, the whole of it, hates the Jews and loves the Arabs. “This lover of the Arabs is more dangerous to us than the Arabs themselves. For that matter, it is most essential for the world Zionism that it should now take immediate steps against Pakistan. “Whereas the inhabitants of the Indian peninsula are Hindus whose hearts have been full of hatred towards Muslims, therefore, India is the most important base for us to work there from against Pakistan. “It is essential that we exploit this base and strike and crush Pakistanis, enemies of Jews and Zionism, by all disguised and secret plans.”
*quote
"After Israel's attack on Iraq's Osiraq nuclear reactors in the 1980's, a similar plan to attack Pakistan's Kahuta Research facility by using Indian airfields was foiled, when the Pakistan Air Force got alerted beforehand, and took preventative measures."
Sudan
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/7966627.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/7966865.stm
Do you honestly believe that Iran doesn't want a nuclear bomb? If you think Israel is bad then Iran armed with a nuclear bomb will be far worse for the area. Every bad thing said about them will have a threat retaliation of 'take it back, or we bomb you.' I wouldn't put it past a lot of the extremist parts of the Iranian government to ship some components to the people they've shipped munitions and weapons to for years.
we know india/pakistan have a shaky relationship. BTW why are you ignoring the first part. Its DISGUSTING, Worse than what the Iranian president "supposedly said"M.O.A.B wrote:
So for Pakistan, the Indian's were in on it as well? Allowing them to use airfields and such, why aren't you condemning the hell out of the Indians?rammunition wrote:
on pakistanM.O.A.B wrote:
Perhaps we shouldn't mention the threats Iran has made? How did you get Pakistan and Sudan btw?
* The words of David Ben Gurion, the first Israeli Prime Minister, as printed in the Jewish Chronicle,9 August 1967:-
“The world Zionist movement should not be neglectful of the dangers of Pakistan to it. And Pakistan now should be its first target, for this ideological State is a threat to our existence. And Pakistan, the whole of it, hates the Jews and loves the Arabs. “This lover of the Arabs is more dangerous to us than the Arabs themselves. For that matter, it is most essential for the world Zionism that it should now take immediate steps against Pakistan. “Whereas the inhabitants of the Indian peninsula are Hindus whose hearts have been full of hatred towards Muslims, therefore, India is the most important base for us to work there from against Pakistan. “It is essential that we exploit this base and strike and crush Pakistanis, enemies of Jews and Zionism, by all disguised and secret plans.”
*quote
"After Israel's attack on Iraq's Osiraq nuclear reactors in the 1980's, a similar plan to attack Pakistan's Kahuta Research facility by using Indian airfields was foiled, when the Pakistan Air Force got alerted beforehand, and took preventative measures."
Sudan
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/7966627.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/7966865.stm
Do you honestly believe that Iran doesn't want a nuclear bomb? If you think Israel is bad then Iran armed with a nuclear bomb will be far worse for the area. Every bad thing said about them will have a threat retaliation of 'take it back, or we bomb you.' I wouldn't put it past a lot of the extremist parts of the Iranian government to ship some components to the people they've shipped munitions and weapons to for years.
also Sudan, i bet you weren't aware of that. Its VILE
Why shouldn't Iran have a nuke? They are more than entitled to. If Israel can have them so should Iran. If Pakistan/India can have them, 2 countries who spend Millions if not Billions on weapons/space technology yet don't feed their people, then Iran should have them.
Do you think Pakistan/India should have nukes just for licking the U.S's arse?
As John Abizaid, retired General in the United States Army and former Commander of the United States Central Command, has said
"There are ways to live with a nuclear Iran,Let's face it, we lived with a nuclear Soviet Union, we've lived with a nuclear China, and we're living with (other) nuclear powers as well.""
Last edited by rammunition (2009-10-04 12:11:00)
Okay so from your point of view, because Israel has nukes, because America has nukes, Iran is entitled to nukes. Why? For what reason does Iran need nukes? If Iran is entitled to nukes than I guess everybody is entitled to them, how about we give Fiji somes nukes? I'm sure they could use them.rammunition wrote:
we know india/pakistan have a shaky relationship. BTW why are you ignoring the first part. Its DISGUSTING, Worse than what the Iranian president "supposedly said"M.O.A.B wrote:
So for Pakistan, the Indian's were in on it as well? Allowing them to use airfields and such, why aren't you condemning the hell out of the Indians?rammunition wrote:
on pakistan
* The words of David Ben Gurion, the first Israeli Prime Minister, as printed in the Jewish Chronicle,9 August 1967:-
“The world Zionist movement should not be neglectful of the dangers of Pakistan to it. And Pakistan now should be its first target, for this ideological State is a threat to our existence. And Pakistan, the whole of it, hates the Jews and loves the Arabs. “This lover of the Arabs is more dangerous to us than the Arabs themselves. For that matter, it is most essential for the world Zionism that it should now take immediate steps against Pakistan. “Whereas the inhabitants of the Indian peninsula are Hindus whose hearts have been full of hatred towards Muslims, therefore, India is the most important base for us to work there from against Pakistan. “It is essential that we exploit this base and strike and crush Pakistanis, enemies of Jews and Zionism, by all disguised and secret plans.”
*quote
"After Israel's attack on Iraq's Osiraq nuclear reactors in the 1980's, a similar plan to attack Pakistan's Kahuta Research facility by using Indian airfields was foiled, when the Pakistan Air Force got alerted beforehand, and took preventative measures."
Sudan
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/7966627.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/7966865.stm
Do you honestly believe that Iran doesn't want a nuclear bomb? If you think Israel is bad then Iran armed with a nuclear bomb will be far worse for the area. Every bad thing said about them will have a threat retaliation of 'take it back, or we bomb you.' I wouldn't put it past a lot of the extremist parts of the Iranian government to ship some components to the people they've shipped munitions and weapons to for years.
Why shouldn't Iran have a nuke? They are more than entitled to. If Israel can have them so should Iran. If Pakistan/India can have them, 2 countries who spend Millions if not Billions on weapons/space technology yet don't feed their people, then Iran should have them.
Do you think Pakistan/India should have nukes just for licking the U.S's arse?
As John Abizaid, retired General in the United States Army and former Commander of the United States Central Command, has said
"There are ways to live with a nuclear Iran,Let's face it, we lived with a nuclear Soviet Union, we've lived with a nuclear China, and we're living with (other) nuclear powers as well.""
US and Russia have recently been agreeing to downsize the number of nukes they have, so yeah I think they would be slightly aggrevated if Iran suddenly wants to start adding to the stockpile rather than taking it away.
Another note as well, the US imposed sanctions on India when they tested their first nuke. India and Pakistan were also at each others throats, fighting actual wars. Iran is not fighting anybody except through its supplies to Hezbollah and agents it sends into Iraq. It has absolutely zero need for nuclear weapons.
P.S Britain gave Israel its nukes.
Iran needs nukes for self defence, nothing more. Israel has them for supposed defence.M.O.A.B wrote:
Okay so from your point of view, because Israel has nukes, because America has nukes, Iran is entitled to nukes. Why? For what reason does Iran need nukes? If Iran is entitled to nukes than I guess everybody is entitled to them, how about we give Fiji somes nukes? I'm sure they could use them.rammunition wrote:
we know india/pakistan have a shaky relationship. BTW why are you ignoring the first part. Its DISGUSTING, Worse than what the Iranian president "supposedly said"M.O.A.B wrote:
So for Pakistan, the Indian's were in on it as well? Allowing them to use airfields and such, why aren't you condemning the hell out of the Indians?
Do you honestly believe that Iran doesn't want a nuclear bomb? If you think Israel is bad then Iran armed with a nuclear bomb will be far worse for the area. Every bad thing said about them will have a threat retaliation of 'take it back, or we bomb you.' I wouldn't put it past a lot of the extremist parts of the Iranian government to ship some components to the people they've shipped munitions and weapons to for years.
Why shouldn't Iran have a nuke? They are more than entitled to. If Israel can have them so should Iran. If Pakistan/India can have them, 2 countries who spend Millions if not Billions on weapons/space technology yet don't feed their people, then Iran should have them.
Do you think Pakistan/India should have nukes just for licking the U.S's arse?
As John Abizaid, retired General in the United States Army and former Commander of the United States Central Command, has said
"There are ways to live with a nuclear Iran,Let's face it, we lived with a nuclear Soviet Union, we've lived with a nuclear China, and we're living with (other) nuclear powers as well.""
US and Russia have recently been agreeing to downsize the number of nukes they have, so yeah I think they would be slightly aggrevated if Iran suddenly wants to start adding to the stockpile rather than taking it away.
Another note as well, the US imposed sanctions on India when they tested their first nuke. India and Pakistan were also at each others throats, fighting actual wars. Iran is not fighting anybody except through its supplies to Hezbollah and agents it sends into Iraq. It has absolutely zero need for nuclear weapons.
P.S Britain gave Israel its nukes.
all words at the moment, we will wait and see if the world powers reduce in weapon stockpile. I personally don't see it happening. Whilst their are nukes about expect people wanting them.
i am aware of Britain giving Israel nukes. Lots of mistakes we have made which we are regretting today. As i mentioned earlier, Iran was a democracy before the U.K/U.S went in to take their oil.
And yet after the Shah fled, you got the Islamic Republic, which killed tens of thousands of its own people, so they didn't go back to it did they?rammunition wrote:
Iran was a democracy before the U.K/U.S went in to take their oil.
wouldn't have happened if Iran was still a democracyM.O.A.B wrote:
And yet after the Shah fled, you got the Islamic Republic, which killed tens of thousands of its own people, so they didn't go back to it did they?rammunition wrote:
Iran was a democracy before the U.K/U.S went in to take their oil.
So I can blame the current messed up status of Iran's government on the people? Considering they originally supported the whole Ayatollah thing.rammunition wrote:
wouldn't have happened if Iran was still a democracyM.O.A.B wrote:
And yet after the Shah fled, you got the Islamic Republic, which killed tens of thousands of its own people, so they didn't go back to it did they?rammunition wrote:
Iran was a democracy before the U.K/U.S went in to take their oil.
nope on the U.S/U.K for coupe which got rid of democratically elected Iranian Prime Minister Mohammed Mosaddeq. Quote :-M.O.A.B wrote:
So I can blame the current messed up status of Iran's government on the people? Considering they originally supported the whole Ayatollah thing.rammunition wrote:
wouldn't have happened if Iran was still a democracyM.O.A.B wrote:
And yet after the Shah fled, you got the Islamic Republic, which killed tens of thousands of its own people, so they didn't go back to it did they?
"The United States' Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) overthrew the government of the popular Prime Minister Mosaddeq at the request of, and with minor support from the British government. In what the CIA called Operation Ajax, the U.S. enabled Mohammed Reza Pahlevi to become an all-powerful monarch, who went on to rule Iran with an iron fist for 26 years until he was overthrown in 1979"
so when the "shah" was forced upon the Iranians they didn't want him, so they needed an alternative. The Ayatollah was the best option to overthrow the dictator. The Iranians wouldn't have been in the situation if it wasn't for the U.S/UK ruining democracy in the 50'.
Surely you agree with the last sentence?
To an extent yes, but the Iranian's are at much fault for bringing in the Ayatollah and all of the shitty government that came after, and now that they are starting to see sense they can't do much about it because they're stuck with Achmadinnerjacket. The situation for the Ayatollah may have been created by the UK/US, but its the Iranians who supported and brought him in, and violently as well. Nobody is clean here.rammunition wrote:
nope on the U.S/U.K for coupe which got rid of democratically elected Iranian Prime Minister Mohammed Mosaddeq. Quote :-M.O.A.B wrote:
So I can blame the current messed up status of Iran's government on the people? Considering they originally supported the whole Ayatollah thing.rammunition wrote:
wouldn't have happened if Iran was still a democracy
"The United States' Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) overthrew the government of the popular Prime Minister Mosaddeq at the request of, and with minor support from the British government. In what the CIA called Operation Ajax, the U.S. enabled Mohammed Reza Pahlevi to become an all-powerful monarch, who went on to rule Iran with an iron fist for 26 years until he was overthrown in 1979"
so when the "shah" was forced upon the Iranians they didn't want him, so they needed an alternative. The Ayatollah was the best option to overthrow the dictator. The Iranians wouldn't have been in the situation if it wasn't for the U.S/UK ruining democracy in the 50'.
Surely you agree with the last sentence?
only supported because the Ayatollah saw an opportunity to pounce on the angry created against the shah and the west.
No overthrowing of Gov in 50's = No angry Iranians,
No overthrowing of Gov in 50's = No angry Iranians,
Ok, follow it thru now.rammunition wrote:
only supported because the Ayatollah saw an opportunity to pounce on the angry created against the shah and the west.
No overthrowing of Gov in 50's = No angry Iranians,
Compare and contrast.
Using:
-relations with the Israel
-russia
-US
-europe
-power status in middle east