NationStates Jolt Archive

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,164929,00.html

Well people. The Europeans issued a deal to the Iranians regarding civilian nuclear power over military nuclear power.

The result? Iranian rejection of the European proposal.

I don't call this a surprise. I was expecting Iran to reject it though a small part of me was hopeful that they'll take it.

Due to this rejection, Europe now has to follow through on their promise to take this to the United Nations Security Council.

What do you all think?

What do you all think?I think Iran has as much rigths as Israel.

I think Iran has as much rigths as Israel.
I concur.

Unfortunately, not many in power feel the same way.

I think Iran has as much rigths as Israel.

Yep.

You all realize that with this rejection, the EU is obligated to take this to the United Nations right?

What do you think that the UN will do?

I can probably guess what they'll do but the question is on the table.

You all realize that with this rejection, the EU is obligated to take this to the United Nations right?

What do you think that the UN will do?

I can probably guess what they'll do but the question is on the table.

What will the UN do? Well, if Iraq is any predictor the UN will pass a resolution, then pass 20 or 30 more resolutions, then pass a resolution that will have "grave consequences," then pass some more resolutions, and keep that up until the EU decides to implement the "grave consequences" and invades Iran. :(

What do you think that the UN will do?I don't know what they will do...
But If the question was "What should the UN do?...my answer is "Whatever message they send to Iran...they should send the same message to Israel"...just to keep things Fair.

But I am not holding my breath...

after all only 5 countries rule the UN. (4 if you consider Blair a Lapdog)

I dont know waht they will do...
But If the question was what they should do...my answer is "Whatever messeage they send to Iran...they should send the same message to Israel"...just to keep things Fair.

Why Israel? This is about Iran violating the Non-Proliferation Treaty that they signed. This is a treaty violation and Iran knows it.

But I am not holding my breath...

Neither am I!

after all only 5 countries rule the UN.

And therein lies the problem.

Can someone please clarify why Iran isn't allowed to enrich Uranium?

Can someone please clarify why Iran isn't allowed to enrich Uranium?

Because Enriched Uranium can be used in Atomic Bombs.

Why Israel? This is about Iran violating the Non-Proliferation Treaty that they signed. This is a treaty violation and Iran knows it.Iran says It has not Violated it.

and soon enough Iran shall do Like Israel and refuse to renew the Treaty.

BTW...has NK renewed his Treaty membership?

Can someone please clarify why Iran isn't allowed to enrich Uranium?

Because the US/EU don't want them to. That simple.

Enriched uranium can be used for nukes but it can equally be used for civilian power (and it's very good for it). Personally I have no problem with Iran getting nukes, maybe it'll give the US some pause.

Because Enriched Uranium can be used in Atomic Bombs.

Point? We have nuclear weapons and so do countries like Russia and China. Why can't they?

Iran says It has not Violated it.

And you trust the words of the Iranians?

and soon enough Iran shall do Like Israel and refuse to renew the Treaty.

It has to be renewed?

BTW...has NK renewed his Treaty membership?

Nope. They pulled out of it.

Point? We have nuclear weapons and so do countries like Russia and China. Why can't they?

The Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty prohibits them from having nuclear bombs.

Nope. They pulled out of it.
well there you...Iran pulls out...end of the problem.

well there you...Iran pulls out...end of the problem.

Agreed but pulling out of a treaty will have diplomatic consequences.

The Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty prohibits them from having nuclear bombs.

You may have misunderstood me there (<no sarcasm). I'm not well versed in the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. Was this one proposed by people (threatening or non-threatening, please specify) to get them, and North Korea and possible others (once again please specify if so), or was it put on the table of say the UN and/or multiple nations to stop the production of more nuclear bombs?

You may have misunderstood me there (<no sarcasm). I'm not well versed in the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. Was this one proposed by people (threatening or non-threatening, please specify) to get them, and North Korea and possible others (once again please specify if so), or was it put on the table of say the UN and/or multiple nations to stop the production of more nuclear bombs?

Multiple nations to stop the spread of Nuclear Bombs. I do think it was sponsered by the United Nations.

Agreed but pulling out of a treaty will have diplomatic consequences.BTW, when is Bush going to sign the Kioto Treaty ???

BTW, when is Bush going to sign the Kioto Treaty ???

He won't because of the economic harm it would do to the United States of America. Besides that, it is rather an inefficient treaty and one that'll do absolutely nothing.

BTW: Clinton signed it but never sent it to the floor for Ratification.

He won't because of the economic harm it would do to the United States of America.

And here's the million dollar question, is human life more important than a pay-rise?

And here's the million dollar question, is human life more important than a pay-rise?

Is sky-rocketing unemployment a good things?

But this isn't about Kyoto or not but about the fact that Iran rejected the European proposal!

Now lets see if Europe will follow through on their promise and take it to the United Nations.

He won't because of the economic harm it would do to the United States of America. Besides that, it is rather an inefficient treaty and one that'll do absolutely nothing.

BTW: Clinton signed it but never sent it to the floor for Ratification.having an evil image abroad can very much harm the US economy.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,164929,00.html

Well people. The Europeans issued a deal to the Iranians regarding civilian nuclear power over military nuclear power.

The result? Iranian rejection of the European proposal.

I don't call this a surprise. I was expecting Iran to reject it though a small part of me was hopeful that they'll take it.

Due to this rejection, Europe now has to follow through on their promise to take this to the United Nations Security Council.

What do you all think?
I think China blocks any action against Iran in the security council in exchange for oil.

having an evil image abroad can very much harm the US economy.

*Pulls you back on topic of Iran*

I think Iran has as much rigths as Israel.
Really? Iran supports, arms and trains Hizbollah terrorists, and might arm them with nuclear weapons. Israel doesn't sponsor terrorist groups. Iran isn't surrounded by enemies sworn to destroy it. Israel is.

I think China blocks any action against Iran in the security council in exchange for oil.

And France. Don't forget the French.

Israel doesn't sponsor terrorist groups.

No, it funds it's Ministry of Defence well though. Comes to the same in the end.

Israel doesn't sponsor terrorist groups. doesnt Israel fund the IDF and the Mossad ???

And France. Don't forget the French.

Or Poland :rolleyes:
Could this possibly be in response to widespread suspicians of a Cheyney "Guns of August" plan while congress is in recess?

Israel doesn't sponsor terrorist groups. No, it funds it's Ministry of Defence well though. Comes to the same in the end.exactamente

Could this possibly be in response to widespread suspicians of a Cheyney "Guns of August" plan while congress is in recess?

Not spread to me this hasn't, a little more info?

Not spread to me this hasn't, a little more info?

Hold on I have the article in the other room. Now, I'm not sure if this is TOO credible. It might fall under Foxnews credibility. Lyndon LaRouche based an assesment that Dick Cheyney, with cooperation of Tony Blair, would release plans of a preemptive tactical nuclear strike against Iran in August of 2005 with congress in it's planned recess. He bases his assesment beginning with a report from a former US Intelligence official published in the American Conservative that Cheyney orderd STRATCOM to prepare contingency plans for a conventional and tactical nuclear strike against multiple targets in Iran. (not exactly worded)
Edit: Getting off now, I'm going away for 2 weeks tomorrow and I need to shop.

Point? We have nuclear weapons and so do countries like Russia and China. Why can't they?
1) The more countries armed with nuclear weapons the more likely that nuclear weapons will be used.

2) Russia and China don't sponsor terrorist organizations like Hezbollah.

No, it funds it's Ministry of Defence well though. Comes to the same in the end.
Bullshit. The Israeli military is not a terrorist organization. They show great restraint in the face of attacks that intentionally target the Israeli civilian population.

Point? We have nuclear weapons and so do countries like Russia and China. Why can't they?

I'm sure you'll still be saying that when the first Iranian built nukes detonate in..wheres your home town? at the hands of an Al-queda Terrorist...

Off topic you see what we have right now is, a nuclear stand off its a deterent, but if countrys like Iran get nuclear weapons they will use them AS weapons.

doesnt Israel fund the IDF and the Mossad ???
Neither of which are terrorist organizations that slaughter innocent civilians.

Bullshit. The Israeli military is not a terrorist organization. They show great restraint in the face of attacks that intentionally target the Israeli civilian population.

Bullshit. The israeli army bulldozes peoples houses as retaliation, destroy their crops and generally opress the palestinians. If that's restraint what happens when they cut loose? They finally press their shiny red button?

Neither of which are terrorist organizations that slaughter innocent civilians.

No they are official government agencies which do it instead.

Point? We have nuclear weapons and so do countries like Russia and China. Why can't they?
Our nukes are there purely for a MAD situation. They would not be used unless our opponent started throwing them around. The same could not be said of any nuclear arsenal that the Iranians build up.

Bullshit. The israeli army bulldozes peoples houses as retaliation, destroy their crops and generally opress the palestinians. If that's restraint what happens when they cut loose? They finally press their shiny red button?
Yeah, that's restraint. There have been times when it seemed like Palestinian suicide bombers were killing Israeli civilians almost every day. Israel didn't bomb the hell out of every city and town in the Palestinian territory, march through all Palestinian land killing everyone who resisted, and searched every house for weapons, arresting or killing anyone found to be in possesion of bomb making materials.

I think they've shown enormous restraint for not waging a total war against the Palestinians.

Our nukes are there purely for a MAD situation. They would not be used unless our opponent started throwing them around. The same could not be said of any nuclear arsenal that the Iranians build up.


Why not? They are led by people as rational as you or I. Read what it's like in there, no-one wants a war but they see nukes as necessary to preserve their sovreignty. That's why MAD exists.

Bullshit. The israeli army bulldozes peoples houses as retaliation, destroy their crops and generally opress the palestinians.

Ahh but those homes are those of the suicide bombers.

If that's restraint what happens when they cut loose? They finally press their shiny red button?

I doubt it. I bet that won't happen unless a bomb blows up over Tel Aviv or Jeruselum.

And here's the million dollar question, is human life more important than a pay-rise?
You do realize that if any of the catastrophic global warming theories are correct that Kyoto won't make a difference right? It's worthless feel-good legislation.

Why not? They are led by people as rational as you or I. Read what it's like in there, no-one wants a war but they see nukes as necessary to preserve their sovreignty. That's why MAD exists.
The mullahs, rational? WTF have you been smoking and where can I get some?

No they are official government agencies which do it instead.

Funny. They go out of their to try and not harm civilians.

No they are official government agencies which do it instead.
They don't target the innocent. They target the terrorists and those who aid the terrorists.

Why not? They are led by people as rational as you or I. Read what it's like in there, no-one wants a war but they see nukes as necessary to preserve their sovreignty. That's why MAD exists.

Funny since they support Hezbullah. What would happen if a mushroom cloud erupts over Jersulem and Hezbullah claims responsibilty? There goes Iran.

Ahh but those homes are those of the suicide bombers.

OK, say you have a kid, 15 years old say. Still living with you. Your wife, other kids and grandparents live in the same house.

Your kid blows themself up in Israel. You are fine with your house being bulldozed, along with the rest of the street.

Why not? They are led by people as rational as you or I. Read what it's like in there, no-one wants a war but they see nukes as necessary to preserve their sovreignty. That's why MAD exists.
Why not? Because Iran has pledged to destroy Israel and the national motto of Iran seems to be "death to America". I wouldn't trust a person who threatens people's lives on a daily basis with a gun, I dont' trust Iran with nukes.

OK, say you have a kid, 15 years old say. Still living with you. Your wife, other kids and grandparents live in the same house.

Your kid blows themself up in Israel. You are fine with your house being bulldozed, along with the rest of the street.

I love how you play this game. You know what? Israel has the right to self defense. If they want to bulldoze homes of suicide bombers then great. Call it punishment.

I love how you play this game. You know what? Israel has the right to self defense. If they want to bulldoze homes of suicide bombers then great. Call it punishment.

And so the waltz of death spirals on...

Why not? They are led by people as rational as you or I. Read what it's like in there, no-one wants a war but they see nukes as necessary to preserve their sovreignty. That's why MAD exists.

lol...rational...religious extreamist...lolol, you realise this is the same nation that executed 3 people recently because they were gay? including the VICTIM.

OK, say you have a kid, 15 years old say. Still living with you. Your wife, other kids and grandparents live in the same house.

Your kid blows themself up in Israel. You are fine with your house being bulldozed, along with the rest of the street.
1) They don't bulldoze the whole street.
2) One wonders what the suicide bomber's parents were teaching him. They share responsibility for how he turned out.
3) The families of suicide bombers are given money by HAMAS and other "charities". By destroying their house you take away this financial incentive to bomb.

And so the waltz of death spirals on...

You know what I found interesting? The Israeli-Arabs telling Hamas to butt out after 4 israeli-arabs were killed by an Israeli terrorist who was beaten to death. Hamas vowed revenged but the Israeli-Arab leaders told them to mine their own business.

Seems like some people are starting to wise up to the fact that you can get more through peaceful means than through the use of violence.

Bullshit. The israeli army bulldozes peoples houses as retaliation, destroy their crops and generally opress the palestinians. If that's restraint what happens when they cut loose? They finally press their shiny red button?

Arafat did well enough to oppress his own people then the Israelis ever could. Comming from your outlook, Arafat was a great man, huh? Israeli needs to be able to protect themselves from attacks, and if that means they have the bomb, then so be it. It'll make the ME think about ganging up on them ever again. Europe screwed up the ME in a big way back in the day, but where else could the Jews have a homeland? Not like Europe was very Jew Friendly after WWII.

BTW-When was the last time an Israeli strapped a bomb to their chest and blew themselves up next to a bunch of Palestinian kids?

And so the waltz of death spirals on...
The Palestinians can choose to end it any time by recognizing Israel's right to exist and by arresting and imprisoning for life the terrorists in their midst.

lol...rational...religious extreamist...lolol, you realise this is the same nation that executed 3 people recently because they were gay? including the VICTIM.

Rationality doesn't depend on religion you know. No-one can control a country without being rational or having rational checks on their rule as seen by the populace.

I love how you play this game. You know what? Israel has the right to self defense. If they want to bulldoze homes of suicide bombers then great. Call it punishment.

Call it punishment for the people whose home you destroyed and didn't kill anyone? What was the punishment for? Existing?

The Palestinians can choose to end it any time by recognizing Israel's right to exist and by arresting and imprisoning for life the terrorists in their midst.

And the Israelis could end it at anty time by stopping the institutionalized racism, withdrawing and recognising the right of the Palestinians to exist as a nation.

What are the odds?

And the Israelis could end it at anty time by stopping the institutionalized racism, withdrawing and recognising the right of the Palestinians to exist as a nation.

Which could happen if the Palestinians and the rest of the ME recognize Israel's right to exist.

What are the odds?

Better than you think.

Rationality doesn't depend on religion you know. No-one can control a country without being rational or having rational checks on their rule as seen by the populace.
Are you defending the Iranian government? The same government that imprisons and tortures to death journalists who dissent, executes people for being gay, stones women to death for adultery, and decides who will or will not be allowed to run for office based on their loyalty to the religious freaks who run the country?

Call it punishment for the people whose home you destroyed and didn't kill anyone? What was the punishment for? Existing?
Teaching their children to hate Jews to such an extent that their children would willingly blow themselves up in order to kill some Israelis.

Arafat did well enough to oppress his own people then the Israelis ever could. Comming from your outlook, Arafat was a great man, huh? I don't actually know much about Arafat. I certainly don't idolise him

BTW-When was the last time an Israeli strapped a bomb to their chest and blew themselves up next to a bunch of Palestinian kids? [b]when did the Israelis ever not have the ability to strike back militarily?

bolds

Are you defending the Iranian government? The same government that imprisons and tortures to death journalists who dissent, executes people for being gay, stones women to death for adultery, and decides who will or will not be allowed to run for office based on their loyalty to the religious freaks who run the country?

And if the people feel it's a good government?I can't be arsed with this any more. Rational debate is dead.

And the Israelis could end it at anty time by stopping the institutionalized racism, withdrawing and recognising the right of the Palestinians to exist as a nation.

What are the odds?

Organisations like Hamas will continue to be racist reactionary fucktards whatever happens. It's unfortunate that the government of Palestine has little interest in protecting their own people from them.

And the Israelis could end it at anty time by stopping the institutionalized racism, withdrawing and recognising the right of the Palestinians to exist as a nation.

What are the odds?
Institutionalized racism? There are Arab muslim members in the Israeli Knesset. If Israel was racist against Arabs how could they ever get elected?

Israel doesn't prevent the Palestinians from forming a nation.

HAMAS, PIJ, and many, if not most, Palestinians want Israel destroyed. You don't make peace with someone who wants to exterminate your people, you protect yourself from him.

And if the people feel it's a good government?I can't be arsed with this any more. Rational debate is dead.
Most of the people in the Southeastern US thought that keeping black people as property was good at one point in time. Justice isn't about letting the majority of the people do whatever they want to the minority, it's about treating all people equally.

After the invasion of thier neighbor and often-enemy Iraq, I would think that the Iranians would be looking very seriosuly at a way to enhance thier own security. Having control of a nuclear weapon would do that. I really do not think that Iran is going to hand it off to some terrorist group so that they can blow it up and have all the international heat come back on Iran.

And if the people feel it's a good government? Then they get a pat on the head, unless they're homosexual/raped/adulterous/female in which case they are abused and ill-treated. Flip your own question around. What if people DON'T feel it's a good government? Then they are imprisoned, tortured and/or executed. Yay, what a great place Iran is!

After the invasion of thier neighbor and often-enemy Iraq, I would think that the Iranians would be looking very seriosuly at a way to enhance thier own security. Having control of a nuclear weapon would do that. I really do not think that Iran is going to hand it off to some terrorist group so that they can blow it up and have all the international heat come back on Iran.
1) Iraq is no longer under Saddam's control. It's soon going to be a democratic country with a Shi'ite majority. What does Iran, a virtual Shi'ite theocracy have to fear from another majority Shi'ite country?

2) What international heat? A nuclear blast goes off in Tel Aviv, most of the world will be more concerned with stopping an Israeli counterattack, not bringing Iran to justice. Plus the bomb probably couldn't be conclusively traced back to Iran. Most nations are far too squeamish to take serious action in such a situation.

Bullshit. The Israeli military is not a terrorist organization. They show great restraint in the face of attacks that intentionally target the Israeli civilian population.

WHAT? They shoot CHILDREN!

And their government DOES sponsor terrorists. In the past - and maybe even NOW - they sponsor them to blow up ISRAELI PEOPLE to strengthen their cause against Palestine!

2) What international heat? A nuclear blast goes off in Tel Aviv, most of the world will be more concerned with stopping an Israeli counterattack, not bringing Iran to justice. Plus the bomb probably couldn't be conclusively traced back to Iran. Most nations are far too squeamish to take serious action in such a situation.

Since when did 'squeamish' apply to Israel. They probably wouldn't wait for proof.

Point? We have nuclear weapons and so do countries like Russia and China. Why can't they?

Because I have an easier time believing that the US/Russia will think before they use atomic weapons and will never sell them.

:mad: :mp5:

After the invasion of thier neighbor and often-enemy Iraq, I would think that the Iranians would be looking very seriosuly at a way to enhance thier own security. Having control of a nuclear weapon would do that. I really do not think that Iran is going to hand it off to some terrorist group so that they can blow it up and have all the international heat come back on Iran.

and you know why we don't give a 5 year old a big shiney red button with "DO NOT PRESS" Writen on it? cos they'll press it. to Iran Isreal and the entire western socity as a whole is "The enemy", they have vowed death to us all. if it were up to me only China, The us and Russia would have nukes if at all but that ship has long sailed all we can do is try and stop weapons like that getting into the hands of nutjobs like Korea and Iran.

Rationality doesn't depend on religion you know. No-one can control a country without being rational or having rational checks on their rule as seen by the populace.

Types of Leadership in a Government:

Traditional Authority which simply derives from long-established habits and social structures. The right of hereditary monarchs to rule furnishes an obvious example.

Legal-rational Authority depends for its legitimacy on formal rules, usually written down, and often very complex. Modern societies depend on legal-rational authority.

Charismatic Authority From time to time, people make extraordinary claims of heading a revolution of some kind (which is always against a well-established system of traditional or legal-rational authority). When followers take such claims seriously, this exemplifies charismatic authority: religious or political authority that does not flow from tradition or law, but instead thrives on the short-lived excitement of social change. Charismatic authority never lasts long (even when successful) and it inevitably gives way to either traditional or to legal-rational authority.

Unfortunately for your argument, only one type of government depends on rational legitimacy given by the people. In Iran, what we had is a Charismatic takeover against a Traditional authority (the Shah). Now, as all stable Charismatic takeovers, the ruler transitioned into another form of governance, in this case Traditional. By appointing his successors (the Mullahs), the Ayatollah set in motion a very archaic traditional system. While a veil of Rational-Legal has been applied with elections, the true power lies with the Mullahs, who are not elected and control all real matters.

Iran is therefore a Traditional country with Charismatic tones (fading ones). It does not depend on rational legitimacy, as can be seen with the put down of the University of Terran protests.

WHAT? They shoot CHILDREN!

And their government DOES sponsor terrorists. In the past - and maybe even NOW - they sponsor them to blow up ISRAELI PEOPLE to strengthen their cause against Palestine!
They don't intentionally shoot children. Children are, unfortunately, sometimes caught in the crossfire between Palestinian terrorists and Israeli military personell.

I challenge you to provide one instance where terrorists sponsored by the Israeli government blew up Israeli civilians to "strengthen their cause against Palestine". Until you can back that up I'll assume that you're a lying antisemite.

Since when did 'squeamish' apply to Israel. They probably wouldn't wait for proof.
I didn't say Israel would be squeamish. I said that most nations would concentrate on preventing Israel from hitting back and would be too squeamish to go to war against Iran unless Iran virtually confesses to the attack.

To those people that say since Israel has nukes, thus Iran should be allowed to have them you are all very very ignorant. Iran's stated mission is the destruction of Israel by any means, and you think that they should be allowed to have nuclear weapons? Israel has nukes for self-defence, if they use them it will either be too late or too soon so either way they are screwed if they use them. I have no problem with Israel have nuclear weapons and technology because they will never sell to someone who shouldn't have it, unlike Iran which most likely would. Ask yourself this, Iran has all that oil why do they need nuclear technology? I'm sorry to have to inform some of you this, but all the countries in the world aren't the same and thus some of them deserve to be treated like the terrorist supporting countries that they are.

I didn't say Israel would be squeamish. I said that most nations would concentrate on preventing Israel from hitting back and would be too squeamish to go to war against Iran unless Iran virtually confesses to the attack.

I think the US China and Russia would turn Iran to glass if they offically launched a nuclear attack on Isreal.

I think the US China and Russia would turn Iran to glass if they offically launched a nuclear attack on Isreal.
China and Russia wouldn't give a flying fuck. Russia has armed Israel's enemies in the past, China buys Iranian oil. The US is Israel's only dependable ally.

Iran nukes Isreal
US and Isreal turn Iran into a radio-active crater.
Everything works out in the end.

Iran nukes Isreal
US and Isreal turn Iran into a radio-active crater.
Everything works out in the end.

And what is to prevent Russia and China from nuking us in return for us Nuking Iran?

Neither of which are terrorist ...Yes The IDF and The mossad use terror and they both assassinate civilians.

Funny since they support Hezbullah. What would happen if a mushroom cloud erupts over Jersulem and Hezbullah claims responsibilty? There goes Iran.And In the same way if Israel ever uses his Nukes...the fingers will point to Washington.

Yes The IDF and The mossad use terror and they both assassinate civilians.

Since when did terror masterminds become civilians?

And In the same way if Israel ever uses his Nukes...the fingers will point to Washington.

Nope. Why would it since we're not the one's that said that israel could nuke someone?

Yes The IDF and The mossad use terror and they both assassinate civilians.
Is a person still a civilian if they authorize terrorist attacks? Is he a civilian if he trains terrorists to build bombs? I say no. By my definition IDF and Mossad aren't targeting civilians, and they aren't terrorists.

Bullshit. The Israeli military is not a terrorist organization. They show great restraint in the face of attacks that intentionally target the Israeli civilian population.WOUAHAHAHAHAHA...

that was funny.

To those people that say since Israel has nukes, thus Iran should be allowed to have them....I am one of those peoples...

Iran has as much rigths as Israel.

Nothing you will say will ever change that.

I think Iran has as much rigths as Israel.

That is only thing that would be honnest but of course nobody will ask that the Jewish state would be threatend like others instead of the given VIP kind of ubermensch status.

I am one of those peoples...

Iran has as much rigths as Israel.

Nothing you will say will ever change that.
So a nation that has nothing to fear from it's neighbors, and has used terrorism against foreign nations has as much right to own nuclear weapons as a nation who's neighbors have pledged to destroy it and who doesn't sponsor terrorism?

I think the US China and Russia would turn Iran to glass if they offically launched a nuclear attack on Isreal.and who will turn Israel to Glass if they ever nuke a neighbor?

That is only thing that would be honnest but of course nobody will ask that the Jewish state would be threatend like others instead of the given VIP kind of ubermensch status.
Yeah, right. While your at it, why don't you start a petition to make sure that the criminals in your town are as well armed as the police. After all, fair is fair.

and who will turn Israel to Glass if they ever nuke a neighbor?
By the time Israel nukes a neighbor it's probably on the verge of being overrun and destroyed by those same neighbors.

So a nation that has nothing to fear from it's neighbors, and has used terrorism against foreign nations has as much right to own nuclear weapons as a nation who's neighbors have pledged to destroy it and who doesn't sponsor terrorism?

I believe that is what he believes. Sad in my opinion.

So a nation that has nothing to fear from it's neighbors, and has used terrorism against foreign nations has as much right to own nuclear weapons as...You are talking about Israel?

and who will turn Israel to Glass if they ever nuke a neighbor?

Why should Israel nuke anyone? They had at least 2 wars to do that and you know what? They didn't.

The Israeli military is not a terrorist organization. They show great restraint in the face of attacks that intentionally target the Israeli civilian population.

Woohooo! Best price for our stand up comedian in the category "Goebbels and extreme right propaganda lies". What a fucking....

*hands over the gold medall to commie*

Yeah, right. While your at it, why don't you start a petition to make sure that the criminals in your town are as well armed as the police. After all, fair is fair.

Actually DCD, I bet you 3-1 that the crooks outgun the police in most neighborhoods.

You are talking about Israel?
You know who I was talking about. Instead of posting stuff like this and the laughing post earlier why don't you try to make your case for Iran being allowed to produce nuclear weapons?

Yeah, right. While your at it, why don't you start a petition to make sure that the criminals in your town are as well armed as the police. After all, fair is fair.

Marginals like you make the word "fair" an insult.

By the time Israel nukes a neighbor it's probably on the verge of being overrun and destroyed by those same neighbors.the same could be said about Iran, Pakistan, India, NK, etc...etc...etc...

I dont see why I should trust Isreal more than any other country.

Woohooo! Best price for our stand up comedian in the category "Goebbels and extreme right propaganda lies". What a fucking....

*hands over the gold medall to commie*
I think I'm seeing a pattern developing.

Why should Israel nuke anyone? They had at least 2 wars to do that and you know what? They didn't.that does not answer the question.

Actually DCD, I bet you 3-1 that the crooks outgun the police in most neighborhoods.
Not so in Trenton, NJ. Most criminals I know carry pistols, 9mm or smaller. The police have pistols and bullet proof vests, plus shotguns in their cars.

that does not answer the question.

Because Israel is less likely to use them on their neighbors.

You know who I was talking about. Instead of posting stuff like this and the laughing post earlier why don't you try to make your case for Iran being allowed to produce nuclear weapons?My case was made on the first page...

but...In case you are lazy I will write it again:

Iran has as much rights as Israel.

All the Bushite Propaganda spilled all over the US media is not going to change the bottom line:

"Iran has as much rights as Israel"

Because Israel is less likely to use them on their neighbors.
still does not aswer the question. (post 95)

My case was made on the first page...

but...In case you are lazy I will write it again:

Iran has as much rights as Israel.

All the Bushite Propaganda spilled all over the US media is not going to change the bottom line:

"Iran has as much rights as Israel"

Why?

Marginals like you make the word "fair" an insult.
Nations, and people, are treated according to their past performance. Israel has shown restraint and even generosity to it's neighbors. After all, they've been attacked by their neighbors in wars of extermination and they've never taken retribution. Hell, they even gave Sinai back to Egypt.

Iran, on the other hand, has funded, armed and trained Hezbollah and used them to exert pressure on other nations in the region as well as to attack the US and Israel.

I think it's quite fair to favor Israel in light of those facts.

still does not aswer the question.

Simple answer is no one because Israel won't use nuclear bombs!

No one replied to my dissertation. :(

As a side note, you're lucky, DCD. The police around here are tooling around with shotties and Glocks, and the criminals are sporting Kalashnikovs and Ingram MAC-10s. I really hope the police get to use AR-15s more, because I do NOT want to see a North Hollywood-esque shootout.

[/hijack] (Sorry, had to say it.)

Israel has shown restraint and even generosity to it's neighbors. what...Jack the ripper was a generous man?

the same could be said about Iran, Pakistan, India, NK, etc...etc...etc...

I dont see why I should trust Isreal more than any other country.
Iran is one of Hezbollah's sponsors. They're a source of terrorism. They're also in the habit of constantly threatening the US and Israel.

Pakistan is shady. If they were developing a bomb, I'd be in favor of stopping them. Since they already have them, not much can be done.

India is a stable, thriving democracy with no links to international terror. Their nukes are no more threatening than France's.

N. Korea is starving (literally) for hard currency, and has been involved in the transfer of nuclear technology in the past. If they produce enough nuclear weapons of high enough quality they will certainly use them to blackmail the world into giving them money to support Kim Jong Il's oppressive rule, and they will likely sell nuclear technology, fissile material, and even complete weapons for a high enough sum.

No one replied to my dissertation. :(

Sorry Kaukolastan. I'll take a look at it and respond later ok? :)

I'm sorry to have to inform some of you this, but all the countries in the world aren't the same and thus some of them deserve to be treated like the terrorist supporting countries that they are.

You mean like Pakistan and Saudi Arabia? Or Afghanistan, after we trained them in the 80's? What about south american nations we supported?

And Iran? Lets see... we gave them some of the most advanced weapons in our arsenals up to 1979, when the people overthrew their dictator that was put into power by the CIA. And then we started supporting Iraq, though we still were giving weapons and such to Iran, through the Iraq-iran war.

Other than the Iraq-iran war, which was pretty much expected to occur(and if I recall, Iraqi artillery pouring into Iran was the first real shot), Iran hasnt been in a war since the Shah was opposed.

Supporting terrorists? Again, we give weapons to Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Egypt...

No one replied to my dissertation. :(

As a side note, you're lucky, DCD. The police around here are tooling around with shotties and Glocks, and the criminals are sporting Kalashnikovs and Ingram MAC-10s. I really hope the police get to use AR-15s more, because I do NOT want to see a North Hollywood-esque shootout.

[/hijack] (Sorry, had to say it.)
How do they conceal Kalashnikovs? The gangs in Trenton need to be able to walk around and make their deals in order to earn money. A kalashnikov would only draw police attention and scare off some of the customers.

It's cool, I'm just being annoyed over the

NS Law of Reverse Response:
The more time you put into a post, the less responses you will receive. This correllates to threads, as well.

:D

what...Jack the ripper was a generous man?
Ok, when did Israel ever wage a war of agression against any of it's neighbors?

How do they conceal Kalashnikovs? The gangs in Trenton need to be able to walk around and make their deals in order to earn money. A kalashnikov would only draw police attention and scare off some of the customers.
Backs of cars. They whip 'em out for trouble. My buddy's dad's on the SWAT, and he says that there's more of those damn AKs floating around than they can deal with. You don't hear much on the news, but they get stored up for "the big one" by the dealers and gangs. Some pretty impressive armories in the bad areas, apparently.

Simple answer is no one because Israel won't use nuclear bombs!
then why dont they sign the anti-Nuke treaty...and rely on the USA Nuke umbrela?

My case was made on the first page...

but...In case you are lazy I will write it again:

Iran has as much rights as Israel.

All the Bushite Propaganda spilled all over the US media is not going to change the bottom line:

"Iran has as much rights as Israel"
Your case was destroyed by my first post. A criminal is not accorded the same rights as everyone else.

Ok, when did Israel ever wage a war of agression against any of it's neighbors?

1967

then why dont they sign the anti-Nuke treaty...and rely on the USA Nuke umbrela?
Because decades of betrayal and isolation by the international community and millenia of persecution by, well, just about everyone have shown them that in the end they can only rely on themselves.

Ok, when did Israel ever wage a war of aggression against any of it's neighbors?WTF?

there is aggression in all wars...from both sides...When did you aver see warriors showing up with flowers instead of weapons?

Simple answer is no one because Israel won't use nuclear bombs!If they would never use nukes...why do they need them?
and whatever your aswer is éééIts the same answer for Iran.

Because decades of betrayal and isolation by the international community and millenia of persecution by, well, just about everyone have shown them that in the end they can only rely on themselves.Then why the fuck do they keep leeching the US taxpayers ???

1967
So Egypt sending guerillas into Israel and their military buildup in Sinai should have been ignored until they were ready to destroy Israel? It wasn't agression, it was self defense. When a guy's going for his gun you don't wait for him to pull the trigger.

WTF?

there is aggression in all wars...from both sides...When did you aver see warriors showing up with flowers instead of weapons?
I mean a war where they just decided to invade to seize land or resources or something.

Your case was destroyed by my first post.That...is only your opinion.

you say it as if your opinion was a fact...

But I have news for you DrunkCumi...Your opinion is not a Fact...Its just one small opinion...in the ocean of opinions.

Ok, when did Israel ever wage a war of agression against any of it's neighbors?

They never did.

then why dont they sign the anti-Nuke treaty...and rely on the USA Nuke umbrela?

What would the joy in that be? :D

1967

Wrong! The Arabs started that war too!

I mean a war where they just decided to invade to seize land or resources or something.the Jewish seized Palestinean Land and resources to Create The Jewish state...

Thats what started the bloody spiral of violence.

Your jewish God must be proud of you...so many men, women and children killed on his name.

If they would never use nukes...why do they need them?
and whatever your aswer is éééIts the same answer for Iran.

No it isn't the same answer for Iran. Iran doesn't need to protect itself from its neighbors. Israel does.

the Jewish seized Palestinean Land and resources to Create The Jewish state...

Wrong again my brotha. Israel created their state from the mandated land that they were given and the Arab states declared war on them and were defeated thus the Arabs lost land. Israel didnt' start that dude.

Go back to history class. Apparently you need it.

Thats what started the bloody spiral of violence.

Your jewish God must be proud of you...so many men, women and children killed on his name.

Just like so many men, women, and children killed in the name of Allah?

No it isn't the same answer for Iran. Iran doesn't need to protect itself from its neighbors. Israel does.Time for the reality check of the Day:

Israel has the greatest ouside Protection and Help...the greatest ever in the history of mankind...

The USA Military(and other Gov intitutions) protect Israel interests...better than its own Interests... 911 was the price USA paid for this all-out protection of Israel Interests.

Who Protects Iran?...Who protected Iran when Saddam used US Chemical weapons against them?

Go back to history class. Apparently you need it.

You mean that he has to agree with your revisionisme and very personal extreme rightwing regard on history. If not he is not capable?
Some insight in history and a bit of modesty might do you good, arrogant twat.

Wrong again my brotha. Israel created their state from the mandated land that they were given.Jewish terrorism was used to illegaly get that "mandate"

Time for the reality check of the Day:

Your finally going to give yourself one? :D

Israel has the greatest ouside Protection and Help...the greatest ever in the history of mankind...

And yet Israel defeated the Arabs in 3 wars without intervention from the US. Go figure.

US protects Israel interests...better than its own Interests... 911 was the price USA paid for this all-out protection of Israel Interests.

Ahh yes! Blame our support for Israel for the cause of 911 crap. Get a new line for once.

Who Protects Iran?...Who protected Iran when Saddam used US Chemical weapons against them?

And who protected Iran from being over runned by the Iraqis? Oh yea! The USA!

You mean that he has to agree with your revisionisme and very personal extreme rightwing regard on history. If not he is not capable?
Some insight in history and a bit of modesty might do you good, arrogant twat.

Nice Ad homin. I actually read up on the Israeli War for independence. Have you?

Jewish terrorism was used to illegaly get that "mandate"

Funny that the Arabs declared war shortly after they announced that they were a state. Israel had nothing to start with inside their borders and yet they defeated not one but FIVE arab nations (the same arab nations that ignored a UN Resolution to boot)

And who protected Iran from being over runned by the Iraqis? Oh yea! The USA!either All your "history" sources are flawed...or the war-party Propaganda has eaten all your Brains.

either All you history books are flawed...or the war-party Propaganda has eaten all your Brains.

Iran-Contra ring a bell? We armed Iran to keep Iraq from defeating Iran. How do you think the war wound up a stalemate and not a victory for either side?

Apparently you do need a history refresher course.

That...is only your opinion.

you say it as if your opinion was a fact...

But I have news for you DrunkCumi...Your opinion is not a Fact...Its just one small opinion...in the ocean of opinions.
What the hell's the matter with you? Can't discuss something in a civil fashion? You're going to use ad-hominem attacks because you know that the mods will ban me permanently if I retaliate in kind. I'll bet you're only this way when there's miles between you and the person you're antagonizing.

I think Iran has as much rigths as Israel.

I agree. Who the hell is anyone to tell another country what they can or can't do? Made no sense to me to begin with. Pakistan has them, Israel has them, India, France, China, Russia, USA, N. Korea.. hey, it's really Iran's business.

the Jewish seized Palestinean Land and resources to Create The Jewish state...

Thats what started the bloody spiral of violence.

Your jewish God must be proud of you...so many men, women and children killed on his name.
The land was granted to them by Emir Faisal.

Time for the reality check of the Day:

Israel has the greatest ouside Protection and Help...the greatest ever in the history of mankind...

The USA Military(and other Gov intitutions) protect Israel interests...better than its own Interests... 911 was the price USA paid for this all-out protection of Israel Interests.

Who Protects Iran?...Who protected Iran when Saddam used US Chemical weapons against them?
Do you really think Israel will take the chance that if it's attacked and being overrun that the US won't get bogged down in politics trying to decide what to do?

No it isn't the same answer for Iran. Iran doesn't need to protect itself from its neighbors. Israel does.

Given current attitudes towards countries such as Syria and Iran, I believe Iran needs them just as much as Israel does. Israel to protect itself from other middle eastern countries and Iran to protect itself from the Americans.

I agree. Who the hell is anyone to tell another country what they can or can't do? Made no sense to me to begin with. Pakistan has them, Israel has them, India, France, China, Russia, USA, N. Korea.. hey, it's really Iran's business.
Well then let's give everybody nuclear weapons and take bets on when the world will end.

Given current attitudes towards countries such as Syria and Iran, I believe Iran needs them just as much as Israel does. Israel to protect itself from other middle eastern countries and Iran to protect itself from the Americans.

Why when we know that they want to destroy Israel. This gives them the opportunity to do it and we know they have the missiles to do it too. Not to mention it is a violation of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty so why should they be allowed to violate it?

Come on Steph. If they want to nukes, they should withdraw from this treaty. North Korea did.

How do you think the war wound up a stalemate and not a victory for either side?A long struggling war between the 2 strongest muslim countries...ending on a stalemate.

The best possible result for Israel...Courtesy of Washington.

also, Reagan made a deal with the ayatollas...cos he wanted to be elected by a big margin.

I can see it from here...The Iranian must have a lot of Respect for US democracy.

Well then let's give everybody nuclear weapons and take bets on when the world will end.

I bet it'll end within 48 hours :D

Iran-Contra ring a bell? We armed Iran to keep Iraq from defeating Iran. How do you think the war wound up a stalemate and not a victory for either side?

Apparently you do need a history refresher course.

Wow. I might not agree with some things you say, but this is one of the first that are actually just flat-out wrong.

The US didnt give Iran weapons to stop iraq. We gave them weapons to get out hostages back. They had to resort to terrorism to defend themselves.

Given current attitudes towards countries such as Syria and Iran, I believe Iran needs them just as much as Israel does. Israel to protect itself from other middle eastern countries and Iran to protect itself from the Americans.
As if we have the manpower or political will to invade Iran.

A long struggling war between the 2 strongest muslim countries...ending on a stalemate.

Thanks to us supplying weapons to both sides of the war.

The best possible result for Israel...Courtesy of Washington.

Since arms sales to Iran was actually Israel's Idea :D

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran-Contra

also, Reagan made a deal with the ayatollas...cos he wanted to be elected by a big margin.

Wrong.

Iran-Contra ring a bell? We armed Iran to keep Iraq from defeating Iran.

You've got to be kidding right Coneliu?

USA gave WMD to Iraq to fight Iran, then illegally (yes, people went to jail over it) gave the same to Iran. I believe that's called playing two ends against the middle. It's low and it's unethical and it screams of just how low the United States will sink, if you ask me. You know that war would of never lasted 8 years without the Americans, Iran would of crushed Iraq. Over a million dead... don't tell me the Americans don't have a lot of blood on their hands from that war!

Wow. I might not agree with some things you say, but this is one of the first that are actually just flat-out wrong.

The US didnt give Iran weapons to stop iraq. We gave them weapons to get out hostages back. They had to resort to terrorism to defend themselves.

But yet used the weapons to defend themselves against Iraq. Interesting isn't it. :D

Not to mention it is a violation of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty so why should they be allowed to violate it?

Oh yes, that would be the treaty the Americans vetoed at the UN back in the 1970's. I also don't believe Iran signed that treaty... thus it doesn't apply to anyone who is not a signatory member. Kind of like the ICC, you know, the world court that the Americans didn't sign. Same deal!

Oh yes, that would be the treaty the Americans vetoed at the UN back in the 1970's. I also don't believe Iran signed that treaty... thus it doesn't apply to anyone who is not a signatory member. Kind of like the ICC, you know, the world court that the Americans didn't sign. Same deal!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_Non-Proliferation_Treaty

List at the bottom and yes. The US Signed it AND ratified it.

Well then let's give everybody nuclear weapons and take bets on when the world will end.well we did give Nukes to Israel...That makes a dozen countries down there looking to get on equal footing.

But that is not the worst....the worst is that It makes WW3 more possible.
Ive seen an statedept secret cyber "war-game"...

...A rich Arabian Group (the name AQ was not mentioned) paid Russian mercenaries to give them control of a Nuklear mobile device...Once in control they Launched nukes to Israel from Russia...Israel 99% destroyed...sent all it had to Moscow and other 100 other russian cities...

What do you think was the Russian reaction?

well we did give Nukes to Israel...That makes a dozen countries down there looking to get on equal footing.

But that is not the worst....the worst is that Ive see an state dept secret "war-game"...

a rich Arabian Group (the name AQ was not mentioned) paid Russian mercenaries to give them control of a Nuklear mobile device...Once in control they Launched nukes to Israel from Russia...Israel 99% destroyed...sent all it had to Moscow and other 100 other russian cities...

What do you think was the Russian reaction?
Giving nuclear weapons to Israel DID put the region on equal footing. Israel is surrounded by enemies.

Anyway, I'm done with you for today. I tried to treat you with respect, you didn't return the favor.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_Non-Proliferation_Treaty

List at the bottom and yes. The US Signed it AND ratified it.

Yes, once they had enough to blow the world up 6 times over. But they did veto it back in the 1970's.

The Americans have no one to really blame but themselves, they've made a climate in the world of the rules no longer apply. Thus, if they no longer apply for the Americans, they no longer apply to anyone. That was the dangerous chance they took by breaching international law. You don't like it? Take it up with your government who started the trend.

well we did give Nukes to Israel...That makes a dozen countries down there looking to get on equal footing.

Are you sure that we gave them nukes? They've been working on a nuclear program since 1958.

But that is not the worst....the worst is that It makes WW3 more possible.
Ive seen an state dept cyber "war-game"...

We're already in World War III. Don't you mean World War IV?

...A rich Arabian Group (the name AQ was not mentioned) paid Russian mercenaries to give them control of a Nuklear mobile device...Once in control they Launched nukes to Israel from Russia...Israel 99% destroyed...sent all it had to Moscow and other 100 other russian cities...

What do you think was the Russian reaction?

Take out Israel even though it was already 99% destroyed according to this little scenerio so what's the point of nuking Israel again. Now if they were stupid, they launched them at the US and thus Russia and the US are both destroyed in the ensuing nuclear exchanged.

We're already in World War III.

Where the hell did you get that idea? Majority of the major players in the world have nothing to do with this war. Only major players in this war are the US & UK. Hardly WWIII.

Yes, once they had enough to blow the world up 6 times over. But they did veto it back in the 1970's.

I presented Proof that we didn't and your still saying we did. Sorry Steph, but in this case, your flat out wrong. It was approved and ratified in 1968 so how can we have vetoed it? I just read the whole article regarding it and it said nothing about a US Veto.

Where the hell did you get that idea? Majority of the major players in the world have nothing to do with this war. Only major players in this war are the US & UK. Hardly WWIII.

Russia is involved. Israel is Involved. China is involved. We are all involved in this war Stephistan. Nice try though. I'm not buying your crap today.

Take out Israel even though it was already 99% destroyed according to this little scenerio so what's the point of nuking Israel again. Now if they were stupid, they launched them at the US and thus Russia and the US are both destroyed in the ensuing nuclear exchanged.thats was exactly the war-game highest possibility result...the destruction of Russia and USA.

You see...for many peoples around the world...The USA is responsible for everything Israel does.

For them its like a 51st state...

I presented Proof that we didn't and your still saying we did. Sorry Steph, but in this case, your flat out wrong. It was approved and ratified in 1968 so how can we have vetoed it? I just read the whole article regarding it and it said nothing about a US Veto.

1968? Okay, well I know at one point they did veto it. It was during the cold war. I'll have to look it up for you.

As to your second post, no all those countries are not involved. I get confused though, are you talking about the war in Iraq? Or the war on terror? They are both different wars. The war in Iraq only really has two major players, US & UK.

War on terror is like the war on drugs.. it can't be WWIII, because it's an ideology not a nation. That is why it can't be WWIII

im logging off...

Work to do.

Ill be back.

im logging off...

Work to do.

Ill be back.

Yeah, me too, I need to make dinner. :)

Yeah, me too, I need to make dinner. :)Bon apetit...

say hello to zepp for me.

I think Iran has as much rigths as Israel.

Ahhhh, yes, a radical fundamentalist state that supports terrorist groups and views all of Western civilization as an enemy... has as much right to possess nuclear weapons as Israel.

I presented Proof that we didn't and your still saying we did..

Ah, I can admit when I am wrong. You're right on this one. It was these that they vetoed. I got them mixed up. Even the decade..lol It was in 1980/81. So, at the end of the day, my point really still stands. There are more, this is just a few that stuck out and I could find. I know there are more of them. I remember them. (Yes, I'm that old..lol)

Vetoed by United States

1980 ) Declaration of non-use of nuclear weapons against non-nuclear states. 110-2

Calls for the cessation of all nuclear test explosions.


1981 ) Calls for the ending of all test explosions of nuclear weapons. 118-2

Calls for action in support of measures to prevent nuclear war, curb the arms race and promote disarmament.

What is good for the Goose is good for the Gander. ;)

Ahhhh, yes, a radical fundamentalist state that supports terrorist groups and views all of Western civilization as an enemy... has as much right to possess nuclear weapons as Israel.

Well, Iran is no more fundamentalist than Israel. Please! They just happen to be fundamentalist that you agree with.

thats was exactly the war-game highest possibility result...the destruction of Russia and USA.

You see...for many peoples around the world...The USA is responsible for everything Israel does.

For them its like a 51st state...

Your ignorance is funny, you really believe all that shit you say about Israel? Read "The Case for Israel" by Alan Dershowitz. You know, I bet you are a holocaust denier too and if you aren't I bet you think the Jews got what they deserved in the Holocaust. I hope this is all I will have to say to you, I don't like to waste my time talking to anti-semitic fascists like yourself.

Well, Iran is no more fundamentalist than Israel. Please! They just happen to be fundamentalist that you agree with.

... Excuse me? would you mind explaining that one to me, how Isreal are as Fundemental as Iran

Iran does not have the same right to nuclear weapons as a developed, politically stable nation does. This is the same reason why North Korea having nukes is a very, very big deal.

The US does little more than ensure Israeli sovereignty. If this requires the selling of weapons to them (conventional, not nuclear), then so be it. The US has done that plenty of times in the past, as far back as the world wars. The fact is Israel is a stable democratic nation that does not promote terrorist organizations, and was established by the Allied nations of WWII as a permanent home. And they are surrounded by hostile peoples and their countries.

Now, what do you all think would be left of Israel today if they did not have US support?

1) Iraq is no longer under Saddam's control. It's soon going to be a democratic country with a Shi'ite majority. What does Iran, a virtual Shi'ite theocracy have to fear from another majority Shi'ite country?

2) What international heat? A nuclear blast goes off in Tel Aviv, most of the world will be more concerned with stopping an Israeli counterattack, not bringing Iran to justice. Plus the bomb probably couldn't be conclusively traced back to Iran. Most nations are far too squeamish to take serious action in such a situation.

1.) I never said that they had to fear Iraq, did I? I implied that the US flexed it's muscles, and Iran may see themselves as next.
2.) If someone set off a nuke on someone else, I think the IC would be pretty pissed off.

Goddammit. Why do they have to make this so difficult.

In principle I think that Iran and the DPRK have the right to get nukes. Afterall they are very much threatened nations.

But since the EU said they were gonna stop that from happening, they have to go through with it.
Personally I thought it was a very good deal, but I guess the Iranians thought they could do better. Maybe they'll change their mind once they get dragged before the Security Council.

But it is a shame.

Goddammit. Why do they have to make this so difficult.

Because they can :D

But since the EU said they were gonna stop that from happening, they have to go through with it.
Personally I thought it was a very good deal, but I guess the Iranians thought they could do better. Maybe they'll change their mind once they get dragged before the Security Council.

Want to bet that they'll change their minds once it get's dragged to the UNSC? I doubt it will.

But it is a shame.

I will agree with you here.

Want to bet that they'll change their minds once it get's dragged to the UNSC? I doubt it will.
Why shouldn't they?
They know the Americans are itching to use their fancy bombs, and now they know that the Europeans are going to go along with it.
The EU's threshold may be higher, but it still exists.

Problem is that we can't expect much support from the Americans now...they've still got that "Iraq"-thing going...

Why shouldn't they?
They know the Americans are itching to use their fancy bombs, and now they know that the Europeans are going to go along with it.
The EU's threshold may be higher, but it still exists.

Because the UNSC rendered itself useless. I'm going to be watching the UN closely and if they do pass a resolution (depending on what the Chinese and France decides to do) they better follow through. If Iran disobeys them, the UN better act swiftly otherwise, they will be rendered a useless organization.

Problem is that we can't expect much support from the Americans now...they've still got that "Iraq"-thing going...

Wanna bet on this?

...they will be rendered a useless organization.
According to you they already are. They will follow through, they always have. It depends on the wording of a resolution, and while in Iraq some countries had legitimate concerns, at least France has been doing some tough-talking already.

Wanna bet on this?
I'm not a betting man, but you already have tough enough a time getting new recruits.
If it did come to armed conflict, I'd prefer them to only knock out the reactors, and leave the rest of the country alone. Minimises the causalites, as well as eliminating the need to occupy a much bigger country for much longer than currently in Iraq.

According to you they already are. They will follow through, they always have. It depends on the wording of a resolution, and while in Iraq some countries had legitimate concerns, at least France has been doing some tough-talking already.

This will be a great test to see if the UN has the balls to actually stand up to a bully. Hopefully, they actually do something and follow through with what they promise. If they do, then I won't slam them so hard and will retract the statement that the UN is worthless. That's a promise but that is if they get Iran to disarm. If not, then I wont. Its one thing to pass a resolution, its another to enforce it.

I'm not a betting man, but you already have tough enough a time getting new recruits.

Funny thing is, re-enlistment is up. Why is that? Oh and recruiting is going back up as well.

If it did come to armed conflict, I'd prefer them to only knock out the reactors, and leave the rest of the country alone. Minimises the causalites, as well as eliminating the need to occupy a much bigger country for much longer than currently in Iraq.

That isn't how you fight a war. If your going to fight a war, fight it. No half-ass measures.

after all only 5 countries rule the UN. (4 if you consider Blair a Lapdog)
Wrong. There are five permanent members of the UN Security Council. The Security has fifteen other temporary members who also vote.

Wrong. There are five permanent members of the UN Security Council. The Security has fifteen other temporary members who also vote.

What he means is that due to those vetos, we can stop anything that we don't like regardless if using the veto was right or wrong. In effect, he's right but only in effect :D

Funny thing is, re-enlistment is up. Why is that? Oh and recruiting is going back up as well.
I don't know. Why do you think it is? Do people enjoy being blown up?

http://www.armytimes.com/story.php?f=1-292925-892069.php Strangely enough, it seems like certain services are struggling nonetheless. And now the PR Department is taking care of publishing...
http://www.military.com/NewsContent/0,13319,FL_recruiting_060305,00.html?ESRC=eb.nl
http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/0309/dailyUpdate.html This one is a bit older...
http://www.abc.net.au/lateline/content/2005/s1389825.htm So they come up with interesting measures...anything to not have to say the D-Word.
But you're right, in June many of the services did manage to make their targets for a change.

That isn't how you fight a war. If your going to fight a war, fight it. No half-ass measures.
Either we want them to disarm, or we want to impose ourselves on them again. I chose the former.

Iran, the world's biggest sponsor of radical Islamic fundalmentalism and terrorism which state backs Hezbollah must not be allowed to obtain a nuclear weapon! If the United States is unable to respond at the moment then if anything, Israel will be the first to respond to this threat militarily with our full support and backing.

Iran, the world's biggest sponsor of radical Islamic fundalmentalism and terrorism which state backs Hezbollah must not be allowed to obtain a nuclear weapon! If the United States is unable to respond at the moment then if anything, Israel will be the first to respond to this threat militarily with our full support and backing.
Whose backing? Chechnya?

I'm a little disappointed but certainly not surprised :(

The issue does need to be taken to the Security Council now because Iran's refusal indicates they are more interested in using nuclear power as a weapon than as a means of providing energy for industrial and civilian use.

Why should Israel be allowed nuclear arms? They shouldn't - no one should - and those of us who already have them need to get serious about getting rid of them. All the existing treaties are jokes - we ALL need to reduce to ZERO.

Not only do we have the horror of the Hiroshima/Nagasaki (sp?) anniversary to look at but also let's remember that the US and Soviets came within minutes of destroying most of the planet a couple decades ago due to a simple radar gliche and busy phone lines. For those who don't know, that was the reason the direct hotline between Washington and Moscow was originally established.

As long as these weapons are in existence there is the possibility they will be used again and once it starts, frankly, I don't think anyone will be able to stop it. Unless you're a cockroach, that's not good news.

Whose backing? Chechnya?

He means the United States! LOL

The issue does need to be taken to the Security Council now because Iran's refusal indicates they are more interested in using nuclear power as a weapon than as a means of providing energy for industrial and civilian use.
I think they're just trying to milk this for what it's worth. They don't actually want to go to war. Their leadership knows that they ain't gonna win it.

Well, Iran is no more fundamentalist than Israel. Please! They just happen to be fundamentalist that you agree with.


Really? Which terror organizations trace their support to the government of Israel? Hezbollah? Whoops - no, thats Iran.

Comparing Israel to Iran is like comparing a woman to her rapist.

Really? Which terror organizations trace their support to the government of Israel? Hezbollah? Whoops - no, thats Iran.

Comparing Israel to Iran is like comparing a woman to her rapist.
Excuse me?
How about Mossad? Or the various other Jewish terrorist groups that once roamed the place.
And Hezbollah as a "terror organisation" is disputed too. It's a militia and a political party (quite a popular one).

Excuse me?
How about Mossad?

Excuse me? Mossad is their INTELLIGENCE AGENCY!

Or the various other Jewish terrorist groups that once roamed the place.

Are they directly funded by the Israeli government? I know Hezbullah is funded and sponsered by Iran!

And Hezbollah as a "terror organisation" is disputed too. It's a militia and a political party (quite a popular one).

But since they are recognized as a terrorist group.....

Excuse me?
How about Mossad? Or the various other Jewish terrorist groups that once roamed the place.
And Hezbollah as a "terror organisation" is disputed too. It's a militia and a political party (quite a popular one).


Only the most socially ignorant could compare Mossad to a terror organization - or Hezbollah to a political one.

the Jewish seized Palestinean Land and resources to Create The Jewish state...

Thats what started the bloody spiral of violence.

Your jewish God must be proud of you...so many men, women and children killed on his name.
Actually, the Jews bought most of the land and then they were given the rest by the UN in order to start a country. The surrounding countries got all pissy and tried to exterminate Israel twice. Israel took some land because the arabs can't coordinate worth shit and were driven back.

Excuse me? Mossad is their INTELLIGENCE AGENCY!
And it's been busy doing political assassinations, kidnappings and the like. If a Muslim Intelligence Agency was doing such things to Jewish citizens...guess what it would be called. And be realistic.

Are they directly funded by the Israeli government? I know Hezbullah is funded and sponsered by Iran!
Well there's obviously Irgun and Lehi, which worked together with the Haganah, today the Israeli Army.
Then there is the JDL, but I don't have info to link the Israeli Government to them. Same goes for Kach, but I think the Israeli Government does contribute to party funds for political parties. I could be wrong on that though.

But since they are recognized as a terrorist group.....
Only by the US and its Lackeys ( :p ) - UK, Canada and Australia.

Hezbollah is a political party, and they got 23 seats in the recent elections (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lebanese_general_election%2C_2005) in Lebanon. They also run various schools, hospitals etc.
And it seems that the majority of Americans killed by Hezbollah were Marines fighting in Lebanon. Hardly a "terrorist" act.

And it's been busy doing political assassinations, kidnappings and the like.

And the CIA didn't?

If a Muslim Intelligence Agency was doing such things to Jewish citizens...guess what it would be called. And be realistic.

What any intel agency would do. The CIA did the samething. Britain did the same thing too come to think of it.

Well there's obviously Irgun and Lehi, which worked together with the Haganah, today the Israeli Army.

True but they are now the Israeli Army and have shown great restraint in regards to civilians. Going out of their way not to kill civilians on purpose.

Then there is the JDL, but I don't have info to link the Israeli Government to them. Same goes for Kach, but I think the Israeli Government does contribute to party funds for political parties. I could be wrong on that though.

Untill proof comes up I'll remain skeptical

Only by the US and its Lackeys ( :p ) - UK, Canada and Australia.

Still recognized as a terrorist organization funded by Iran. Nice try though

Hezbollah is a political party, and they got 23 seats in the recent elections (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lebanese_general_election%2C_2005) in Lebanon. They also run various schools, hospitals etc.
And it seems that the majority of Americans killed by Hezbollah were Marines fighting in Lebanon. Hardly a "terrorist" act.

They have a political wing yes! I never denied they didn't.

I may be missing something here but what has Iran got to do with Israel and Palestine?

Anyway I do find it odd that a bunch of countries that all have nuclear weapons are against other countries having them. And that the most vocal opponent seems to be the country that has the most of them and the best capacity to deliver them and also is the only country to have actually used them in war.

I dont like the idea of any countries having nukes, the arguement against Iran is that they could fall into the wrong hands and be at the disposal of a right wing religious fundamentalist regieme with an agressive foreign policy that likes to throw its weight about. However there is no way to tell if one day America with its thousands of nukes will be ruled by a right wing religious fundamntalist reigeme with an agressive foreign policy that likes to throw its weight about.

And the CIA didn't?
You want to hear what I think about the CIA?

True but they are now the Israeli Army and have shown great restraint in regards to civilians. Going out of their way not to kill civilians on purpose.
That's disputable. Militia men are not terrorists, and the houses demolished are the houses of normal average people.
And what about the old man in the wheel chair? Killed for his beliefs.

Untill proof comes up I'll remain skeptical
Feel free. But always keep in mind that Israel is a very religious country, and that there is plenty of shit happening there too.

Still recognized as a terrorist organization funded by Iran.
But not by my Government. And not by me.

They have a political wing yes! I never denied they didn't.
Someone else seemed to do.
And that political wing certainly ain't terrorism. Who is to tell where the money from Iran goes? Rifles or Schools?
Maybe Iran is actually helping out poor people.

I may be missing something here but what has Iran got to do with Israel and Palestine?

Actually Iran has alot to do with Iran since Iran funds a terrorist organization known as Hezbullah that has caused Israel pain and suffering.

Anyway I do find it odd that a bunch of countries that all have nuclear weapons are against other countries having them.

You want a nuke in the hands of a nation that sponsers terrorism with the sole purpose of destroying Israel? I find it as a recipie for disaster.

And that the most vocal opponent seems to be the country that has the most of them and the best capacity to deliver them and also is the only country to have actually used them in war.


Sorry but we know that Iran is a state sponser of terrorism and a SIGNER to the nuclear non-proliferation treaty. Since they are still a signatory, it is illegal for them to have nuclear weapons.

I like the idea of any countries having nukes, the arguement against Iran is that they could fall into the wrong hands and be at the disposal of a right wing religious fundamentalist regieme with an agressive foreign policy that likes to throw its weight about.

An accurate statement but why should every nation have nukes? LIke to place bets that they would be used in short order when one nation doesn't like another and uses a nuclear bomb to prove a point?

there is no way to tell if one day America with its thousands of nukes will be ruled by a right wing religious fundamntalist reigeme with an agressive foreign policy that likes to throw its weight about.

The people in this country will not be able to tolerate a fanatic ruler like that. We fought several of those and I doubt we'll ever fall for that. If we did, I'd be the first one to fight such a tyranical regime.

And it's been busy doing political assassinations, kidnappings and the like. If a Muslim Intelligence Agency was doing such things to Jewish citizens...guess what it would be called. And be realistic.
Realistic? Lets see - Mossad tries to take out a leader of a terrorist organization; Hamas. Hamas blows up a bunch of people at a bus station. Somehow in your twisted logic that is a moral equivelent.

You really would compare the victim to the rapist - and consider it moral!


Well there's obviously Irgun and Lehi, which worked together with the Haganah, today the Israeli Army.

LOL - they are not funded by Israel because they no longer exist, and Israel didn't exist when they did!! Not to mention your abuse of history in your description of the Israeli Army.
Just admit it - you are an anti-semitic bigot.


Then there is the JDL, but I don't have info to link the Israeli Government to them. Same goes for Kach, but I think the Israeli Government does contribute to party funds for political parties. I could be wrong on that though.

Yes, you are wrong on both counts. Neither is supported by the government - let alone any popular support in Israel.


Only by the US and its Lackeys ( :p ) - UK, Canada and Australia.
ROFLMAO!
Anyone who thinks blowing up civilians is a US lackey? Nice. Way to keep yourself objective. I suppose if Gilbert Godfrey thinks that the sky is blue and I agree then I am Gilbert Godfrey's lackey too - according to you.


Hezbollah is a political party, and they got 23 seats in the recent elections (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lebanese_general_election%2C_2005) in Lebanon. They also run various schools, hospitals etc.
The Nazi's were also a political party. Apparently you would have liked them too.


And it seems that the majority of Americans killed by Hezbollah were Marines fighting in Lebanon. Hardly a "terrorist" act.
Um, incorrect on so many counts it hurts. The Americans killed were not 'fighting' in Lebanon. That terrorist act took out 200 Americans. There are over 100 more to account for. I suppose to someone so filled with hate as you 100 American lives means very little. Here's a link for those who value human life;
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/target/etc/cron.html

This is a really amusing thread.

1. Would you feel SAFER if acquires Iran nukes? Don't answer,...because the obvious answer is NO...even for Iranian citizens. Nukes for Iran will not help Iran, it will only make it a pariah like North Korea. Iran is a country which is already on the fringe. It is not a democracy in the true sense and the people living there have very few civil rights....especially if you are a woman. It has shown it will willingly support terrorists, and I think we will all agree that nukes and terrorists don't play nice together.

H*ll, terrorists and back-pack bombs don't mix.

2. Do you feel UNSAFE because Israel has the bomb? Don't answer, because again, the answer is NO.

Israel's arsenal is a deterrent against the other arab states which it technically is *still* at war with. As long as there is no war...there is no reason to roll out the nukes.

Israel is also a DEMOCRACY...albeit a dysfunctional one, but a democracy nonetheless. If it were to use nukes agressively, it too would become a pariah and it is likely that it's government would fall...and oh yeah, they'd probably embargoed by every nation on earth. Besides, if they were going to use them agressively, wouldn't they have already done so?

Is Israel likely to use nukes against Palestinians? NO. The Israelis and Palestinians live on top of one another...where would you propose dropping the bomb and what message does that send? This is just not going to happen.

Simply put: The reason there are so many objections to Iran and NK having nukes is because the people in power in these countries are SCARY and a bit unhinged.

People don't object as much to Israel having nukes because they know they are unlikely to be used...except as a debating point on internet forums.

You're trying rather hard today, hey?

Realistic? Lets see - Mossad tries to take out a leader of a terrorist organization; Hamas. Hamas blows up a bunch of people at a bust station. Somehow in your twisted logic that is a moral equivelent.
That's not what I asked. If the Syrian Service was to take out Israeli politicians because they happened to be in a party that Syria considers terrorist, what would that be?

LOL - they are not funded by Israel because they no longer exist, and Israel didn't exist when they did!! Not to mention your abuse of history in your description of the Israeli Army.
As I said, "used to". And what is the Israeli army other than the renamed, new and improved Haganah?

Just admit it - you are an anti-semantic bigot.
:rolleyes: Oh yes, you got me.
I criticised Israel, and I doubt Hezbollah can be classified evil on a black and white scale....Death to all Jews!!!

ROFLMAO!
Anyone who thinks blowing up civilians is a US lackey? Nice. Way to keep yourself objective. I suppose if Gilbert Godfrey thinks that the sky is blue and I agree then I am Gilbert Godfrey's lackey too - according to you.
Who's Gilbert Godfrey?
Anyways, did you notice the " :p "? Point is that neither the EU nor Russia declare all of Hezbollah a terrorist organisation.

The Nazi's were also a political party. Apparently you would have liked them too.
Obviously I love all political parties...especially the US Republicans.

I suppose to someone so filled with hate as you 100 American lives means very little.
Agreed, "fighting" is the wrong word. How about "peace-keeping" ( :rolleyes: )
They were involved in the Civil War, and the Lebanese happened to think that Lebanon should be Lebanese. So they engaged in what can either be called "terrorism" or "freedom fighting", depending on what you think.
And yes, again you caught me out. I hate all Americans, and I want to see them all dead. Especially their puppies.

But it is true that I don't value the life of any American any higher than any other human. And then there still is a debate to be had about what happens once you become a soldier, whether it becomes less ethically wrong to kill you.
But I'm not a philosopher.

BTW-When was the last time an Israeli strapped a bomb to their chest and blew themselves up next to a bunch of Palestinian kids?
1n the 1940's, king david hotel...

You're trying rather hard today, hey?
That's not what I asked. If the Syrian Service was to take out Israeli politicians because they happened to be in a party that Syria considers terrorist, what would that be?
Another of your 'victim is as guilty as the rapist' cases. How may Israeli parties have the sole purpose of running Syria into the ocean? How many Israeli parties have funded, recruited and cheered suicidal murders who blew themselves up in Syrian pizza parlors?
You can kid yourself - but you're not kidding anyone else.


As I said, "used to". And what is the Israeli army other than the renamed, new and improved Haganah.
:rolleyes: Oh yes, you got me.
I criticised Israel, and I doubt Hezbollah can be classified evil on a black and white scale....Death to all Jews!!!

You couldn't call 'black' black or white on a black and white scale. If you are too confused to do that you certainly should not be making judgement calls on the benefits of universal nuclear proliferation. You say you are not antisimitic yet you defend a group who targets people for death simply for being or supporting Jews. (If you need help - that is towards the black end of the scale.)


Who's Gilbert Godfrey?
Anyways, did you notice the " :p "? Point is that neither the EU nor Russia declare all of Hezbollah a terrorist organisation.
actually, they do - but regardless - Ecuador doesn't either. So what? the EU and Russia don't declare Charles Manson a murderer. Doesn't mean he should be released. If they did - would they get to join the USA lackey club? Afterall - that is what you call anyone who agrees with the USA about terrorism.


Obviously I love all political parties...especially the US Republicans.

flamebait. Yet another illustration of the limits of your capacity.

Agreed, "fighting" is the wrong word. How about "peace-keeping" ( :rolleyes: )
They were involved in the Civil War, and the Lebanese happened to think that Lebanon should be Lebanese. S o they engaged in what can either be called "terrorism" or "freedom fighting", depending on what you think.
So then - what 'side' was the US on? Come on - you're the expert - tell me. Apparently it was a different side than the Iranians - who seemed to think Lebanon should have been Syrian - not Lebanese. I'm not sure where you got the idea the Lebanese were involved.

And yes, again you caught me out. I hate all Americans, and I want to see them all dead. Especially their puppies.
But it is true that I don't value the life of any American any higher than any other human. And then there still is a debate to be had about what happens once you become a soldier, whether it becomes less ethically wrong to kill you.
But I'm not a philosopher.
And that is the difference - you try to pose as an intellectual saying that you don't value American life any higher than any other human. Americans are far more considerate than that. We value all innocent life as much as, if not more than, our own. That is why we fight and die protecting people around the world. The only people who's lives are worth less than an American - or even the dirt between the toes of the most miserable person on earth - are the people who would seek to kill a woman, a child, a man - any human being - without provocation or cause. Hezbollah calls them 'martyrs'

For some reason I can't get to page 15.
I hope posting this will allow me to get there.

Incidently I note that the IRA has recently agreed to a full end to armed conflict. I could be being a little cynical but this may be because the massive funding they recieved from America dried up following 9/11

I don't know. You have proof that is the case since it was the Irish Americans that were funding them?

Is the US a signer to the treaty? If they are then they should not have nukes, if they arent then they have sod all right to moan about the actions of countries that are. Especially when they are (at least officially) developing Atomic Power, not weapons.

Read the Non-proliferation treaty. It allows those that have tested the bomb prior to 1968 to keep them! That means 5 countries are legally allowed to have bombs! China, Russia, Britain, France, and the United States.

Of course America could never becombe a right wing religious fundamentalist reigeme with an aggressive foreign policy. Silly of me.

Because I think the people would reject it out of hand. Americans are stupid. Not in the least. Not even most Democrats are stupid.

Another of your 'victim is as guilty as the rapist' cases. How may Israeli parties have the sole purpose of running Syria into the ocean? How many Israeli parties have funded, recruited and cheered suicidal murders who blew themselves up in Syrian pizza parlors?
You can kid yourself - but you're not kidding anyone else.
So according to you Terrorism is a matter of intent, not of an actual act of terrorism.
In other words, you declare who's a Terrorist and who isn't.

You say you are not antisimitic yet you defend a group who targets people for death simply for being or supporting Jews.
You have no idea what Hezbollah is, do you?
All other groups in Lebanon had their militias, and Hezbollah was started as the militia for the local Shi'ites. No more, no less.

actually, they do - but regardless - Ecuador doesn't either. So what? the EU and Russia don't declare Charles Manson a murderer. Doesn't mean he should be released.
The EU and Russia consider the military arm of Hezbollah a Terrorist group, not Hezbollah as a whole.
Charles Manson is a domestic matter for the US, Hezbollah most certainly isn't.

So then - what 'side' was the US on? Come on - you're the expert - tell me. Apparently it was a different side than the Iranians - who seemed to think Lebanon should have been Syrian - not Lebanese. I'm not sure where you got the idea the Lebanese were involved.
Syria was there after the Lebanese president asked them to intervene, in order to save the Christians from being exterminated. Syria wanted to take out an anti-Syrian organisation there, so they agreed.
Because Fatah-people who apparently came from Lebanon hijacked a bus, Israel invaded Lebanon, although officially the Syrians had imposed a peace treaty, with an Arab League mandate.
Consequently, the UN called on the Israelis to retreat and started UNIFIL.
Following that, Israel and Syria sponsored different warlords and started shooting at each other. Syria by that time had given up their ideas of helping the Lebanese and where quite ready to annex the place if they could.
In 81 Israeli planes bombed the Fatah headquarters in Beirut, killing 200 people. That was in response to Arafat starting the PLO in Lebanon as a movement to free the Palestinians.
By then the PLO had become a rather unpleasant band of gangsters, who were fighting both Lebanese and Israelis at once.
So in 1982 Israel again invaded Lebanon (subsequently diplomatically supported by the US). There was a big siege of Beirut, and the UN eventually intervened and sent everyone home, both Israelis and Syrians. That didn't last very long though, as both Israelis and Syrians intervened again (some ugly stories to be told there as well).
When Israel then decided to retreat from a security zone they actually were supposed to hold, Druze and Muslims killed each other, and the Lebanese government disappeared.
The Americans were still entangled there, and occasionally were attacked themselves and attacked back (although not necessarily in that order).

You can make of that what you will.

And that is the difference - you try to pose as an intellectual saying that you don't value American life any higher than any other human. Americans are far more considerate than that. We value all innocent life as much as, if not more than, our own.
In that case you wouldn't accept "collateral damage" the way you do.

...are the people who would seek to kill a woman, a child, a man - any human being - without provocation or cause...
Obviously there is a cause. There always is, whether you understand it or not.

snip

Obviously there is a cause. There always is, whether you understand it or not.
So tell me, what was Charles Ngs cause?

Iran has a right to nuclear power. We should not forget that the IAEA was established to proliferate nuclear power, to assist countries such as Iran in developing it.

Nuclear weapons are a different matter, but Iran can hardly be held to a higher standard than Israel, India or Pakistan. Iran at least signed the NPT, Iran at least claims not to be pursuing nuclear weapons technology. Consider Israel, who neither confirm nor denies its status, and if we are judging by that measure, is a far greater threat to the world.

The debate, on the world stage, is a load of bollocks. I really do not care what the US and EU has to say on the matter, nor do I care whether or not Iran has nuclear weapons. If they can build them, there is no longer any legal or moral standard in existence which states that they should not. The US and Russia tried to set one up back in the day, but the US and UK scrapped it.

Iran has a right to nuclear power.


Why would a nation so rich in energy resources need to take on the risks of atomic energy? What other need could they be attemptin to fill?

Why would a nation so rich in energy resources need to take on the risks of atomic energy? What other need could they be attemptin to fill?
It's not. Natural gas is a non-renewable resource. They are actually being far more far-sighted than the energy planners in the US.

Iran has a right to nuclear power. We should not forget that the IAEA was established to proliferate nuclear power, to assist countries such as Iran in developing it.

No one is disputing that though with their abundance of Natural Gas and Oil, why do they need to go with Nuclear Power?

Nuclear weapons are a different matter, but Iran can hardly be held to a higher standard than Israel, India or Pakistan.

One more person who is advocating that Iran violate the NPT.

Iran at least signed the NPT, Iran at least claims not to be pursuing nuclear weapons technology. Consider Israel, who neither confirm nor denies its status, and if we are judging by that measure, is a far greater threat to the world.

Consider Iran who is a state sponser of Terror and is in violation of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. India and Pakistan didn't and neither did Israel so yes, we can hold Iran to a higher standard since they DID sign it. Do you want every nation to violate the NPT?

The debate, on the world stage, is a load of bollocks.

Why is it a load crap?

I really do not care what the US and EU has to say on the matter, nor do I care whether or not Iran has nuclear weapons.

You should care if they get or not. They have vowed to Destroy Israel and have chanted Death to America. They get Nuclear Weapons......It is not a pretty picture.

If they can build them, there is no longer any legal or moral standard in existence which states that they should not. The US and Russia tried to set one up back in the day, but the US and UK scrapped it.

And what would that be?

Once again, someone says "lots of oil and gas, why get nuclear?"

People just don't understand the energy industry.

Why did the US get nuclear power when it was the world's largest oil producer and exporter? Erm...

See? Stuff runs out. You need to build energy infrastructure well in advance, not when you have already exhausted most of your supplies.

Once again, someone says "lots of oil and gas, why get nuclear?"

People just don't understand the energy industry.

Actually, we know more than most people think. Some economists are even questioning why they need to go nuclear when they have gas and oil.

Why did the US get nuclear power when it was the world's largest oil producer and exporter? Erm...

Good question. Why don't you ask the federal government that.

See? Stuff runs out. You need to build energy infrastructure well in advance, not when you have already exhausted most of your supplies.

Even though power isn't really what we are discussing here since they want to Enrich Uranium and Enrich Uranium really only has one purpose. To be placed into Atomic Bombs. They signed the NPT and under treaty, they are not allowed to have nuclear bombs. Since they want to continue to enrich Uranium, that is leading me to believe that they're intentions are anything but peaceful.

...
Even though power isn't really what we are discussing here since they want to Enrich Uranium and Enrich Uranium really only has one purpose. To be placed into Atomic Bombs.
...
That's simply not true. Most of the commercial nuclear reactors need enriched uranium.

That's simply not true. Most of the commercial nuclear reactors need enriched uranium.

Not all though.

Not all though.
The ones that Iran chose to buy do reqire enriched uranium, just like most of the US and Russian reactor.

The ones that Iran chose to buy do reqire enriched uranium, just like most of the US and Russian reactor.

And therein lyes the problem. Are we 100% sure that they want it for peaceful means? I don't think so.

And therein lyes the problem. Are we 100% sure that they want it for peaceful means? I don't think so.
You cannot be sure.

the french are nuclear power mad, they also have a reactor requireing enriched Uranium..

the french are nuclear power mad, they also have a reactor requireing enriched Uranium..
Most of the countries have such reactors. And the ones that run on natural uranium are in general perfect for making weapon-grade plutonium. ;)

You know, I bet you are a holocaust denier too and if you aren't I bet you think the Jews got what they deserved in the Holocaust. I hope this is all I will have to say to you, I don't like to waste my time talking to anti-semitic fascists like yourself.There you go...I told ya...they were going to pull one of thier key words..."anti-semite"..."Nazi"...or "Holocaust"

and they hope that shut us down "I hope this is all I will have to say to you"...they usually think that...But you actually say it.

You cannot be sure.

And you cannot be sure that it'll be for peaceful or not either.

And you cannot be sure that it'll be for peaceful or not either.
Yes. But under the NPT no one can deny Iran the right to acquire nuclear technology for peaceful means. Iran needs only to find a willing seller.

How convienient. Five of the most powerful countries in the world sign a treaty that says they can have nukes but nobody else can - thus increasing their power. What a sacrafice it must have been for them. Were the less powerful countries coherced into signing?

Not that I know of. Would you like the list of those that signed the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty?

A large part of your arguement is that Iran signed the Treaty. If they had not signed it can we assume that you would feel it to be ok for them to have Nukes? I guess not, so stop using the "but they said they wouldn't" arguement.

I may not be comfortable with them having nukes do to the rhetoric they have been spouting but I wouldn't be criticising them as harshly as I am.

Sorry for bringing it up. I realise there is no way Americans would ever let a right wing religious fundamentalist reigeme with an agressive foreign policy into power. No way at all.

Correct because this nation wouldn't tolerate it. The person would be thrown out of office either by the people themselves or by Congress.

As i said (and you slandered) I don't like the idea of anyone having nukes, and to be honest Iran is not the most stable country in the world and I am a bit more edgey about them having nukes than I would be about some other countries having them. But I think it is a bit rich for the country that has the most to tell other countries they are not allowed to have any. Particulary since that country is the only country to have used them in combat.

Even France is saying that they can't have Nukes as well as the Brits and the Russians are leary of them having nuclear Bombs. China has got to fuming because they are already in Nuke talks with another country.

Yes. But under the NPT no one can deny Iran the right to acquire nuclear technology for peaceful means. Iran needs only to find a willing seller.

For Peaceful means no but we have to have concrete proof that it is for peaceful means and we don't have that.

Why should Israel be allowed nuclear arms? They shouldn't - no one should - and those of us who already have them need to get serious about getting rid of them. All the existing treaties are jokes - Exactamente.

Hmm..Well I don't think that it would be such a big deal if say..Poland had gotten a nuke..Because does Poland have a history of revolutionary activity? No..And most importantly...Does Poland have a history of anti us pro terrorism activity? No..

Although Poland would be pressured not to make the nuclear reactor..I don't think anyone would take it to the un security council...

For Peaceful means no but we have to have concrete proof that it is for peaceful means and we don't have that.
1) The NPT requires no such 'concrete proof'. 2) When President Ford was offering Iran a complete nuclear fuel cycle, he wasn't asking for 'proofs'.

Comparing Palestine to Israel is like comparing a woman to her rapist. (or to Iran or any Muslin nation---my edit)

I dont agree...there is murder from both sides.

and The Closest thing to a raped people is the Palestinean.

Sorry for bringing it up. I realise there is no way Americans would ever let a right wing religious fundamentalist reigeme with an agressive foreign policy into power. No way at all.

Correct because this nation wouldn't tolerate it. The person would be thrown out of office either by the people themselves or by Congress.



Do you really not see I am refering to the bozos in the White House and Congress as we speak?

Do you really not see I am refering to the bozos in the White House and Congress as we speak?

Nope sorry! They aren't right wing fundamentalist regime.

Right wing - well this is pretty clear they are.

Fundamentalist - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fundamentalist#Christian_Views This does not look too far from Bush. Creationism in schools as science for example.

Regime : Whoever is in power.

Right wing - well this is pretty clear they are.

Fundamentalist - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fundamentalist#Christian_Views This does not look too far from Bush. Creationism in schools as science for example.

Regime : Whoever is in power.

Sorry but it isn't a Right Wing Fundamentalist Regime. Sorry if you can't figure that out but it ain't my problem.

From Wiki: "Many groups described as fundamentalist often strongly object to this term because of the negative connotations it carries, or because it implies a similarity between themselves and other groups, which they find objectionable."

From Wiki: "Many groups described as fundamentalist often strongly object to this term because of the negative connotations it carries, or because it implies a similarity between themselves and other groups, which they find objectionable."

:rolleyes:

Sorry FourX but its about time that you really start understanding that the US does NOT, and WILL NOT EVER have a Right Wing Fundamentalist Regime in office.

We don't have one in there now.

Now get back on topic.

Jewish terrorism was used to illegaly get that "mandate"

Oh, right, you mean the Jewish extermination of six million peaceful Germans? Or howabout the Jewish extermination of all those Russians during the reign of the Czar? Or how about the Jewish extermination of the Babylonians after they invaded? :rolleyes:

Sorry but it isn't a Right Wing Fundamentalist Regime. Sorry if you can't figure that out but it ain't my problem.


Well if the Bush administration is NOT a Right Wing Fundamentalist Regime then they come damn close to it! President Bush currently seems intent on turning his conservative religious beliefs into laws in this country and I for one am not comfortable with him at all. Creationism in schools as science is ridiculous as there is currently no scientific evidence to back that theory. The abortion issue is being revisited because Bush believes it is immoral - I say the line between abortion and murder should be left to the medical community - when they say a "fetus" is "viable" (able to live outside the womb) should be when the procedure becomes murder. I, personally, do not agree with abortion but that is based on my own beliefs and I respect the right of others not to agree.

Bush seems to have no problem trying to impose his own religious beliefs on the Nation as a whole and that's scary coming from ANY leader of ANY country - and especially one like ours where there is supposed to be seperation of Church and State.

and especially one like ours where there is supposed to be seperation of Church and State.

Freedom of not from.

Do you really not see I am refering to the bozos in the White House and Congress as we speak?Sometimes Corneliu and other Bushites are not able to realize we are using sarcasm.

We don't have one in there now.Most oveseas people I know are of the opinion that... we do have it now...

and I happen to think they have a point.

Most oveseas people I know are of the opinion that... we do have it now...

and I happen to think they have a point.

To the rest of the world, i'm not surprised they think that but in reality, we don't have that type of regime in power.

What sort of reigme do you think you have?

How would you define a Right Wing Fundamentalist Reigme?