NationStates Jolt Archive

What the hell is up with the world? Asides from God's Plagues of crap weather, crap food, and making me bang my foot every-blummin'-where I go, what went wrong?
I've heard one NS-er say it's because the US needs to maintain Military Dominance for when resources get scarce. Thank you Mr.Anonymous *cough*Drunk Commies Deleted*cough*.

If you're just lucky, the US might allow you're country to have nukes. Yep, they look really intimidating, and could have a billion tons of Uranium/Plutonium in them. But you are very very very very very likely not going to use them. But when some guy in Iran who's called an extremist, and is, in my opinion, the worlds most bravest madman, decides to enrich Uranium (Congrats ehran on doing it by the way) the US seems to be shocked. And the chameleons in Europe seem to match that shocking outrage.

"Oh dear! They're enriching uranium! hey must be making bombs!" is usually the first response. Hey! Maybe for once the US hasn't got it right! No! You'd never thought you would've seen this day did you? The US actually got it wrong!

Why can't they just realise they might have got it wrong? So yes, maybe not letting IAEA inspect what you're doing is a little fishy. But who can blame you with the way the UN is?

And if or when Iran explodes a nuclear bomb, I'll be pleased. Because at least one country, no matter how small or insignificant, has had the guts and the balls to stand up against the one thing preaching what it wants to eliminate. Freedom.

What the hell is up with the world? Asides from God's Plagues of crap weather, crap food, and making me bang my foot every-blummin'-where I go, what went wrong?
I've heard one NS-er say it's because the US needs to maintain Military Dominance for when resources get scarce. Thank you Mr.Anonymous *cough*Drunk Commies Deleted*cough*.

If you're just lucky, the US might allow you're country to have nukes. Yep, they look really intimidating, and could have a billion tons of Uranium/Plutonium in them. But you are very very very very very likely not going to use them. But when some guy in Iran who's called an extremist, and is, in my opinion, the worlds most bravest madman, decides to enrich Uranium (Congrats ehran on doing it by the way) the US seems to be shocked. And the chameleons in Europe seem to match that shocking outrage.

"Oh dear! They're enriching uranium! hey must be making bombs!" is usually the first response. Hey! Maybe for once the US hasn't got it right! No! You'd never thought you would've seen this day did you? The US actually got it wrong!

Why can't they just realise they might have got it wrong? So yes, maybe not letting IAEA inspect what you're doing is a little fishy. But who can blame you with the way the UN is?

And if or when Iran explodes a nuclear bomb, I'll be pleased. Because at least one country, no matter how small or insignificant, has had the guts and the balls to stand up against the one thing preaching what it wants to eliminate. Freedom.

Are you in favor of the UK's proposal to expand the number of nuclear power stations in the UK national grid?

"You can have a nuke, and you too... But no nukes for Iran!"

Damned straight! :D

Are you in favor of the UK's proposal to expand the number of nuclear power stations in the UK national grid?

It's a crap idea. Offshore windfarms would work wonders, as would Biomass.

"You can have a nuke, and you too... But no nukes for Iran!"

Damned straight! :D

SECONDED! :D
No nukes EVER for Iran.

And if or when Iran explodes a nuclear bomb, I'll be pleased. Because at least one country, no matter how small or insignificant, has had the guts and the balls to stand up against the one thing preaching what it wants to eliminate. Freedom.

I can't say I'd try to stop it from happening. The US needs a solid roundhouse kick to the face. Civilian casualties? Ah well.

It's a crap idea. Offshore windfarms would work wonders, as would Biomass.
I disagree with your view. Solar Panels and wind turbines should b placerd on all buildings in th most productive areas, but nuclear all the way. And I'm in favour of building a gigantic tidal-power station in britain, between north wales, and cornwall.

SECONDED! :D
No nukes EVER for Iran.
Really? And who exactly is going to give the last punch needed to tell the US,

"Wakey Wakey! You know, you've really gt to wake up and riot against your government again! You didn't mind doing it when you were hippies, so why now? Make a stand and msake your country respected in the international community once again!"

Really? And who exactly is going to give the last punch needed to tell the US,

"Wakey Wakey! You know, you've really gt to wake up and riot against your government again! You didn't mind doing it when you were hippies, so why now? Make a stand and msake your country respected in the international community once again!"

We still do. :D

We still do. :D
Do what? Riot?

Oh come on, even the french are better than you!!:D!!

What the hell is up with the world? Asides from God's Plagues of crap weather, crap food, and making me bang my foot every-blummin'-where I go, what went wrong?
I've heard one NS-er say it's because the US needs to maintain Military Dominance for when resources get scarce. Thank you Mr.Anonymous *cough*Drunk Commies Deleted*cough*.

If you're just lucky, the US might allow you're country to have nukes. Yep, they look really intimidating, and could have a billion tons of Uranium/Plutonium in them. But you are very very very very very likely not going to use them. But when some guy in Iran who's called an extremist, and is, in my opinion, the worlds most bravest madman, decides to enrich Uranium (Congrats ehran on doing it by the way) the US seems to be shocked. And the chameleons in Europe seem to match that shocking outrage.

"Oh dear! They're enriching uranium! hey must be making bombs!" is usually the first response. Hey! Maybe for once the US hasn't got it right! No! You'd never thought you would've seen this day did you? The US actually got it wrong!

Why can't they just realise they might have got it wrong? So yes, maybe not letting IAEA inspect what you're doing is a little fishy. But who can blame you with the way the UN is?

And if or when Iran explodes a nuclear bomb, I'll be pleased. Because at least one country, no matter how small or insignificant, has had the guts and the balls to stand up against the one thing preaching what it wants to eliminate. Freedom.

as said in many of a "OMG IRAN IS GETTING NUKES" thread in the past. .... Do you not understand that Iran is more likely to use it if they got it, than the US would? THAT is why they shouldn't have it. The US won't use it unless it's used on them. Who knows if Iran will or won't. As they said, one of their missions in life is to destroy Israel... would be much easier to accomplish w/a nuke.

as said in many of a "OMG IRAN IS GETTING NUKES" thread in the past. .... Do you not understand that Iran is more likely to use it if they got it, than the US would? THAT is why they shouldn't have it. The US won't use it unless it's used on them. Who knows if Iran will or won't. As they said, one of their missions in life is to destroy Israel... would be much easier to accomplish w/a nuke.
The US has used them already and has a whole public list of countries it would like to destroy. Double standards 4tw.

This is one of those debates where the US and Iran both think they are right, but both are in fact wrong.

Eh, I'd riot if it were sure to succeed and a better government could be established. However, it's more likely that I'd be thrown in prison and/or some bible thumping nut would go all out and turn us into an extremist theocracy that far surpasses any danger the former US or Iran could have posed.

I have a solution, either do exactly what thwe swedish say. Or let Iran experiment a little and make the US paranoid.

I think we all know not to toy with nukes. Regardless of that irresistible urge to push that shiny red button.

Eh, I'd riot if it were sure to succeed and a better government could be established. However, it's more likely that I'd be thrown in prison and/or some bible thumping nut would go all out and turn us into an extremist theocracy that far surpasses any danger the former US or Iran could have posed.

And that isn't happening in the US or Iran?

And if or when Iran explodes a nuclear bomb, I'll be pleased. Because at least one country, no matter how small or insignificant, has had the guts and the balls to stand up against the one thing preaching what it wants to eliminate. Freedom.


Well expressed- you've proven you're nuts. You'll be pleased ?

Why dont you head over to Iran-maybe you could contibute your guts and balls and help them explode a nuclear bomb?

I have a solution, either do exactly what thwe swedish say. Or let Iran experiment a little and make the US paranoid.

I think we all know not to toy with nukes. Regardless of that irresistible urge to push that shiny red button.

I'm against any nation having nukes....why let more countries get them now!?

Well expressed- you've proven you're nuts. You'll be pleased ?

Why dont you head over to Iran-maybe you could contibute your guts and balls and help them explode a nuclear bomb?

I am not nuts. I think. I look like a human. Feel like a human. And also feel bored because the easter holidays are so boring without my friends. Sigh. Shitty english weather.

The US has used them already and has a whole public list of countries it would like to destroy. Double standards 4tw.

This is one of those debates where the US and Iran both think they are right, but both are in fact wrong.

what... in WW2? when is the last time a nuke went off? I think the US has learned from it to not use them and they won't. It is my believe that any elected gov't of the US who decides to use a nuke as a preventative to war would be commiting political suicide. Whether the US has a "public list of countries" it would like to destroy or not doesn't mean they will use nukes to do so. (if they do anyway)

I'm against any nation having nukes....why let more countries get them now!?
Yeah so am I. But once the US starts giving permits for Nukes a black market always pops up. But god help Mr.Independent do it himself. It's lik the Cola Corporation. God help the little person who wants to help people, if it gets in the way of the greater god. Profit. Or in the Iran case, Power.

Frankly I only wish that we could get to a point where no nation needs to have a nuclear weapon to feel safe.

I am not nuts. I think. I look like a human. Feel like a human. And also feel bored because the easter holidays are so boring without my friends. Sigh. Shitty english weather.
I know how you feel, long weekend up ahead and not much entertainment going on. I guess a nuclear war would improve the TV schedule a bit. :p

Why can't they just realise they might have got it wrong? So yes, maybe not letting IAEA inspect what you're doing is a little fishy. But who can blame you with the way the UN is?
I can, the UN's biggest problem is countries ignoring it. What "way the UN is" makes it ok to ignore it?

And if or when Iran explodes a nuclear bomb, I'll be pleased. Because at least one country, no matter how small or insignificant, has had the guts and the balls to stand up against the one thing preaching what it wants to eliminate. Freedom.
It's Israel you're talking about, right? They are the ones facing the consequences. Iran doesn't have missiles that reach the US.

I know how you feel, long weekend up ahead and not much entertainment going on. I guess a nuclear war would improve the TV schedule a bit. :p
Yes. And if the global warming is amkuing things hotter over here, keep spewing USA!

what... in WW2? when is the last time a nuke went off? I think the US has learned from it to not use them and they won't. It is my believe that any elected gov't of the US who decides to use a nuke as a preventative to war would be commiting political suicide. Whether the US has a "public list of countries" it would like to destroy or not doesn't mean they will use nukes to do so. (if they do anyway)
The test of that will come soon though, and all things considered I do not trust the nation's judgement of late.

I have a solution, either do exactly what thwe swedish say. Or let Iran experiment a little and make the US paranoid.

I think we all know not to toy with nukes. Regardless of that irresistible urge to push that shiny red button.

yah we do... they don't.

why do we gotta follow the swedes, because they're neutral? What about countries who don't want to follow them?

It's Israel you're talking about, right? They are the ones facing the consequences. Iran doesn't have missiles that reach the US.

Nope. Iran.

yah we do... they don't.
And how do you know that they don't? I'm stuck on a little island called Great Britain which is slowly being dominated by American culture. And since my *honestly* elected prime minister is shagging your president, we don't have a choice. and I think we'd rather waio and see what happens, before we let you blow 'em up.

Do what? Riot?

Oh come on, even the french are better than you!!:D!!
At rioting? Hell yes, the French are the world's best at rioting! Heh!

Let's just hope the UN approves and the USA backs down then.

The test of that will come soon though, and all things considered I do not trust the nation's judgement of late.
It'll be a sad day when nukes are used again.

It'll be a sad day when nukes are used again.
Amen.

It'll be a sad day when nukes are used again.

Was kinda needed the first time...so its forgivable.

What the hell is up with the world? Asides from God's Plagues of crap weather, crap food, and making me bang my foot every-blummin'-where I go, what went wrong?
I've heard one NS-er say it's because the US needs to maintain Military Dominance for when resources get scarce. Thank you Mr.Anonymous *cough*Drunk Commies Deleted*cough*.

If you're just lucky, the US might allow you're country to have nukes. Yep, they look really intimidating, and could have a billion tons of Uranium/Plutonium in them. But you are very very very very very likely not going to use them. But when some guy in Iran who's called an extremist, and is, in my opinion, the worlds most bravest madman, decides to enrich Uranium (Congrats ehran on doing it by the way) the US seems to be shocked. And the chameleons in Europe seem to match that shocking outrage.

"Oh dear! They're enriching uranium! hey must be making bombs!" is usually the first response. Hey! Maybe for once the US hasn't got it right! No! You'd never thought you would've seen this day did you? The US actually got it wrong!

Why can't they just realise they might have got it wrong? So yes, maybe not letting IAEA inspect what you're doing is a little fishy. But who can blame you with the way the UN is?

And if or when Iran explodes a nuclear bomb, I'll be pleased. Because at least one country, no matter how small or insignificant, has had the guts and the balls to stand up against the one thing preaching what it wants to eliminate. Freedom.

How short sighted of you... You would risk regional and world stability just to shake up the US... who by all measures has the worlds secuirty and stability in mind [though your partisan bias blinds you from accepting this].

1. Iran has a deep seeded history of defying and decieving the UN and as such their "claims" their research is for peaceful purposes cannot be accepted at face value (lacking direct inspections and oversight)

2. If Iran attained necular weapons, though they might not be QUITE crazy enough to use them, it is almost certain wmd would be proliferated through them given their direct relations with terrorist organizations, and the fanatical influences in the government.

3. If they had nukes, they would serve to further destabalize the regional power structure as they would then try to assert more influence and authority over an already weak Iraq, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, and CERTAINLY Israel.

Given the regions immense important to global energy markets this would serve to all but destroy any economic stability world wide, causing mass depression. While you might like the idea of living in poverty just so the US gets sand kicked in their face, most of the world would not!

what... in WW2? when is the last time a nuke went off? I think the US has learned from it to not use them and they won't. It is my believe that any elected gov't of the US who decides to use a nuke as a preventative to war would be commiting political suicide. Whether the US has a "public list of countries" it would like to destroy or not doesn't mean they will use nukes to do so. (if they do anyway)
Not just political suicide. In the unlikely event that an American president used a nuclear device without the approval of congress, or in the event of someone else's first strike, he or she would be Impeached at the very least, perhaps even executed.

Nope. Iran.
I meant "the one thing preaching what it wants to eliminate". Who's that? Because an Iranian nuclear attack wouldn't hit America, it would be directed on Israel.

I meant "the one thing preaching what it wants to eliminate". Who's that? Because an Iranian nuclear attack wouldn't hit America, it would be directed on Israel.

Sad....but true. X_X

And how do you know that they don't? I'm stuck on a little island called Great Britain which is slowly being dominated by American culture. And since my *honestly* elected prime minister is shagging your president, we don't have a choice. and I think we'd rather waio and see what happens, before we let you blow 'em up.


waaaaaa, let us know how you truely feel about America. It's not our fault GB is assimilating US culture is it? Unfortunately i don't agree w/ the current administration, but you don't hafta use "honestly" and shagging the president in the same sentence unless you actually mean it in a literal sense.

I don't think we're going to blow them up, i think we're going to wait until they nuke someone. Yah, we'll wait and see... Just remember if Iran ends up doing something bad, that you were for it.

Was kinda needed the first time...so its forgivable.

People may argue against that...

How short sighted of you... You would risk regional and world stability just to shake up the US... who by all measures has the worlds secuirty and stability in mind [though your partisan bias blinds you from accepting this].

1. Iran has a deep seeded history of defying and decieving the UN and as such their "claims" their research is for peaceful purposes cannot be accepted at face value (lacking direct inspections and oversight)

2. If Iran attained necular weapons, though they might not be QUITE crazy enough to use them, it is almost certain wmd would be proliferated through them given their direct relations with terrorist organizations, and the fanatical influences in the government.

3. If they had nukes, they would serve to further destabalize the regional power structure as they would then try to assert more influence and authority over an already weak Iraq, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, and CERTAINLY Israel.

Given the regions immense important to global energy markets this would serve to all but destroy any economic stability world wide, causing mass depression. While you might like the idea of living in poverty just so the US gets sand kicked in their face, most of the world would not!

So because Iran is most likely not to use the weapons, IF they create them I a blind. And because I want the US to learn a lesson that it's not the world's policeman, I am shortsighted.

Okay. I'll respect your opinion. Maybe I am shortsighted. Buit who isn't?

How short sighted of you... You would risk regional and world stability just to shake up the US... who by all measures has the worlds secuirty and stability in mind [though your partisan bias blinds you from accepting this].

1. Iran has a deep seeded history of defying and decieving the UN and as such their "claims" their research is for peaceful purposes cannot be accepted at face value (lacking direct inspections and oversight)

2. If Iran attained necular weapons, though they might not be QUITE crazy enough to use them, it is almost certain wmd would be proliferated through them given their direct relations with terrorist organizations, and the fanatical influences in the government.

3. If they had nukes, they would serve to further destabalize the regional power structure as they would then try to assert more influence and authority over an already weak Iraq, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, and CERTAINLY Israel.

Given the regions immense important to global energy markets this would serve to all but destroy any economic stability world wide, causing mass depression. While you might like the idea of living in poverty just so the US gets sand kicked in their face, most of the world would not!

So because Iran is most likely not to use the weapons, IF they create them I a blind. And because I want the US to learn a lesson that it's not the world's policeman, I am shortsighted.

Okay. I'll respect your opinion. Maybe I am shortsighted. Buit who isn't?

Really? And who exactly is going to give the last punch needed to tell the US,

"Wakey Wakey! You know, you've really gt to wake up and riot against your government again! You didn't mind doing it when you were hippies, so why now? Make a stand and msake your country respected in the international community once again!"

1. The last time we tried that, it lead to a breakdown in social confidence in society that GOT us to the apathetic morass we're in today. Do I ask the EU to riot because you can't see that your governments create ghettoes ripe for exploitation by religious terrorists and can't seem to do anything about them? No.

2. If and when the world ever wises up that realpolitik doesn't really work, that's when the US will be a bit more willing to talk shop. Sure we're not perfect, but we're willing to try to affect Idealistic change, not just the minutae you whinge about.

So because Iran is most likely not to use the weapons, IF they create them I a blind. And because I want the US to learn a lesson that it's not the world's policeman, I am shortsighted.

Okay. I'll respect your opinion. Maybe I am shortsighted. Buit who isn't?
The policemen of UN nations is the UN, Iran a UN nation is ignoring it. I repeat myself: Why is it ok for Iran to ignore the UN?

Double standards 4tw.



So it's okay when iran refuses UN calls for ending its nuclear program but it's not okay when the US refuses UN calls. That my friend is a double standard.

The policemen of UN nations is the UN, Iran a UN nation is ignoring it. I repeat myself: Why is it ok for Iran to ignore the UN?
Cause they want to pull an America and piss off the world?

If Iran had nukes, they would say so. Even the US wouldn't be posturing this much against a country with nuclear capability, for example, see North Korea.

And how do you know that they don't? I'm stuck on a little island called Great Britain which is slowly being dominated by American culture. And since my *honestly* elected prime minister is shagging your president, we don't have a choice. and I think we'd rather waio and see what happens, before we let you blow 'em up.

Hate to break it to ya, buddy, but YOU guys colonized over HERE! We're what YOU created. It was YOUR magna carta that gave us the whole IDEA of a revolution. Sorry, buddy, but it's just a case of the Student outsmarting the Teacher.

If Iran had nukes, they would say so. Even the US wouldn't be posturing this much against a country with nuclear capability, for example, see North Korea.

Then obviously you don't know about NK at ALL.

So because Iran is most likely not to use the weapons
your opinion, i'm of mind that they will.
IF they create them I a blind. And because I want the US to learn a lesson that it's not the world's policeman, I am shortsighted.
Isn't Iran sitting on a mountain of oil right now? why the need for nuclear power? IMO, i think they're using that as an excuse to make a nuke. Why do you want to hurt the US so bad? Most of it's citizens are innoncent, and if iran gets a nuke and uses it, you want the world to suffer for it? (and as i recall, other NS'ers were arguing that the EU and Russia were supposed to handle Iran.... so why do you want to lay it at the US's feet?)

Okay. I'll respect your opinion. Maybe I am shortsighted. Buit who isn't?

People who don't want to snub an entire country by letting an extremist leader get nukes.

I think nuclear power is a good thing, so long as it is well managed. I support Britains plan to increase the number of nuclear plants, but psycho countries like iran, north korea, saudi arabia, libya, should not have nuclear weapons. why? because they might use them! The only purpose of nuclear weapons should be as a deterrant. if you have them, no one can use them on you. its just common sense. mutually assured destruction. If a nutjob like the iranian president gets control of nukes, theres no knowing what he might do. his reasoning comes not from common sense, but from his interpretation of the Koran. Nothing against the koran, but insane people have shown a tendency to do bad things after they read it. its not the books fault theyre mental, but we should have the sense not to give them weapons that could kill everyone in the world.

Some say nuclear power is a right. should charles manson have nuclear power? or Ian Huntley? NO! neither should Iran. If they can learn to be civilized then they can join in with the rest of the world.

I think nuclear power is a good thing, so long as it is well managed. I support Britains plan to increase the number of nuclear plants, but psycho countries like iran, north korea, saudi arabia, libya, should not have nuclear weapons. why? because they might use them! The only purpose of nuclear weapons should be as a deterrant. if you have them, no one can use them on you. its just common sense. mutually assured destruction. If a nutjob like the iranian president gets control of nukes, theres no knowing what he might do. his reasoning comes not from common sense, but from his interpretation of the Koran. Nothing against the koran, but insane people have shown a tendency to do bad things after they read it. its not the books fault theyre mental, but we should have the sense not to give them weapons that could kill everyone in the world.

Some say nuclear power is a right. should charles manson have nuclear power? or Ian Huntley? NO! neither should Iran. If they can learn to be civilized then they can join in with the rest of the world.
Exactly....also if they fix up their conflict problems. :o

Then obviously you don't know about NK at ALL.
I know the US isn't posturing towards North Korea in public press statements day in and day out, that is all that is relevant to my statement.

I know the US isn't posturing towards North Korea in public press statements day in and day out, that is all that is relevant to my statement.
Cause its not displayed doesn't mean it isn't there.

Cause its not displayed doesn't mean it isn't there.
I'm not sure what part of "public press statements" you didn't understand.

I'm not sure what part of "public press statements" you didn't understand.

We do make press statements....but its not a major issue now.

We do make press statements....but its not a major issue now.

mostly because China got on our ass and want to deal with them without us.

That's mostly because China's not nearly so hard on Kim-Jong-Il as we are.

Iran has made highly agressive statements regarding Israel. I do not trust them with nukes.

Now, I read somewhere that Brazil has a nuclear program. Knowing Brazil, it's for power. Even if it's for weapons, I'm not going to lose sleep over it. I would trust Brazil with nukes, so long as they have decent security.

In the end, I don't think that just the US and its close allies that can have nukes. Assuming they have decent security, I would trust almost any democracy with The Bomb.

I disagree with your view. Solar Panels and wind turbines should be placed on all buildings in the most productive areas,. And I'm in favour of building a gigantic tidal-power station in britain, between north wales, and cornwall. (note : I took out the bit about nuclear power and cleaned it up a bit)

That too, but I reckon it should be added to with offshore wind farms. What's wrong with biomass?

Oh and I don't like nuclear power because because the costs involved are utterly ludicrous. The fuel might be cheap, but protecting nuclear sites is massively expensive and you also have the waste to deal with.

The US has used them already and has a whole public list of countries it would like to destroy. Double standards 4tw.

Actually, we have a list of governments we would like to see replaced but we do not want to actually destroy the country. Iran wants to destroy Israel, not just its government. Learn the difference.

as said in many of a "OMG IRAN IS GETTING NUKES" thread in the past. .... Do you not understand that Iran is more likely to use it if they got it, than the US would? THAT is why they shouldn't have it. The US won't use it unless it's used on them. Who knows if Iran will or won't. As they said, one of their missions in life is to destroy Israel... would be much easier to accomplish w/a nuke.

But yet, it probably would also anger the Middle East because they too would be devestated. Its a 2 for 1 deal for Iran.

And that isn't happening in the US or Iran?

Its already happened in Iran. Won't happen here because of the 1st Amendment :D

It'll be a sad day when nukes are used again.

I agree with yu 100%

Not just political suicide. In the unlikely event that an American president used a nuclear device without the approval of congress, or in the event of someone else's first strike, he or she would be Impeached at the very least, perhaps even executed.

I doubt the president would be executed but impeached certainly. The president might commit suicide though.

The hipocrisy of the whole non-proliferation business is quite staggering.

There is Iran, whose president has once said that the world would be better if one country was wiped off the map.

I'm pretty sure you could find something of that sort being said about the USSR by pretty high US officials at some point in history.

If not, you can most certainly hear it about the US from North Korea.

Now Iran is researching into how enriching uranium works. Oh, teh noes!
And North Korea is proudly proclaiming its nukes, and is working on ICBMs that can hit America.

And didn't it say something about trying to limit the spread of nuclear weapons in the NPT? Wouldn't that mean that the signatories should also prevent non-signatories from getting nukes? And if yes, where would that leave Israel, Pakistan and India?

The policemen of UN nations is the UN, Iran a UN nation is ignoring it. I repeat myself: Why is it ok for Iran to ignore the UN?

And the IAEA and the NPT on top of it.

mostly because China got on our ass and want to deal with them without us.

That's mostly because China's not nearly so hard on Kim-Jong-Il as we are.

Then why is China running just as scared? Why are there 6 party talks going on in Beijing?

The hipocrisy of the whole non-proliferation business is quite staggering.

There is Iran, whose president has once said that the world would be better if one country was wiped off the map.

I'm pretty sure you could find something of that sort being said about the USSR by pretty high US officials at some point in history.

If not, you can most certainly hear it about the US from North Korea.

Now Iran is researching into how enriching uranium works. Oh, teh noes!
And North Korea is proudly proclaiming its nukes, and is working on ICBMs that can hit America.

And didn't it say something about trying to limit the spread of nuclear weapons in the NPT? Wouldn't that mean that the signatories should also prevent non-signatories from getting nukes? And if yes, where would that leave Israel, Pakistan and India?

Israel, Pakistan, and India already have nuclear weapons.

Israel, Pakistan, and India already have nuclear weapons.
Exactly.

So someone was very much asleep when they should have tried to prevent it. And the same goes for the DPRK. And South Africa, before that.

And soon, Brazil might be on the cards as well. And we're going to make our decisions not based on what we think of nuclear weapons, but whether or not the political and economic expediency of the moment compels us to do something.

Which you can call Realpolitik if you agree with it, hipocrisy if you don't.

I think some people here are so blinded by their hatred of the US that they don't quite get that Iran's government is NOT all nice and cuddly.

Exactly.

So someone was very much asleep when they should have tried to prevent it. And the same goes for the DPRK. And South Africa, before that.

Well the DPRK pulled out of the NPT so they are free to develope Nuclear weapons and South Africa gave up their nukes and fully cooperated with inspectors.

And soon, Brazil might be on the cards as well. And we're going to make our decisions not based on what we think of nuclear weapons, but whether or not the political and economic expediency of the moment compels us to do something.

I do not know if they are actually going after Nuclear Weapons though. If Brazil has a program, then they would probably comply with the IAEA.

And the IAEA and the NPT on top of it.
Seeking the modern miracle of cheap, clean and reliable nuclear energy is not in violation of the NPT. As Congressman Ron Paul has pointed out, the task has fallen on the Iranian government to prove that they are not seeking nuclear weapons and that they have no desire to, which is impossible. You can not prove a negative and you can not use a subjective scale like “desire” to determine foreign policy.

Seeking the modern miracle of cheap, clean and reliable nuclear energy is not in violation of the NPT.

Correct. It isn't a violation of the NPT.

As Congressman Ron Paul has pointed out, the task has fallen on the Iranian government to prove that they are not seeking nuclear weapons and that they have no desire to, which is impossible. You can not prove a negative and you can not use a subjective scale like “desire” to determine foreign policy.

However, Iran is not letting the IAEA do their jobs of verifying the fact that it is for peaceful purposes and not for something more. Because of their refusal, it looks my suspicious and actually doesn't do them favors with the IAEA.

However, Iran is not letting the IAEA do their jobs of verifying the fact that it is for peaceful purposes and not for something more. Because of their refusal, it looks my suspicious and actually doesn't do them favors with the IAEA.
You can not prove a negative. There is no way to show that Iran is not seeking nuclear armaments short of searching every square mile of the country. Maybe they'd prefer that the world leave them alone. The international community hasn't exactly been very nice to them in the past.

While the original intent behind the non-proliferation treaty was a good idea, nowadays it's obviously a little impractical. The new rules of the game are, if you can build one before someone catches you, you're safe.

That's Iran's gambit. It's highly unlikely that Iran would consider using a nuclear weapon against the United States, or anyone else for that matter. (They're into self preservation as much as the next culture, in some ways perhaps even moreso). However, once armed with such weapons, it provides a state known for promoting terrorism a security blanket to operate under.

The problem with dealing with North Korea, is that they already have a degree of nuclear capability, so the west must tread carefully. Arming India with increased nuclear technology shows an understanding of the changing dynamics of the post cold-war world; it's not just about the victors of WWII anymore.

But the non-proliferation treaty, while nowadays an unfair and selectively used treaty, is still an effective diplomatic tool when dealing with 'rogue states'. If Ahmadinejad wasn't such a wingnut, i.e. dismissing the holocaust as fiction and threatening to wipe Israel off the face of the map, the west would have less of a case against Iran's nuclear ambitions.

As it stands, I believe that the use of military force would be the incorrect move at this point. While it may grant temporary reprieve from fear of nuclear retaliation, the long term effects it will cause in the middle-east and the rest of the world is far worse. With American forces on both sides of Iran, expect a new age of 'containment', and the dawning of a different kind of cold war...

And if or when Iran explodes a nuclear bomb, I'll be pleased. Because at least one country, no matter how small or insignificant, has had the guts and the balls to stand up against the one thing preaching what it wants to eliminate. Freedom.

Freedom to "misplace" a nuke into a boat bond for New York harbor?

Then why is China running just as scared? Why are there 6 party talks going on in Beijing?Why is the US Gov scared of 1-on-1 talks with the North Korean Negotiator, scared of sexual-harrassement or what?
:D :D :cool: :D

It's simple really. If you have a machete, and you have two people in front of you, one is a quite normal appearing person, while the other has a wild look in his eye and blood in his hair, who are you gonna give it to?

Iraq does not need nukes any more than Saddam did. If you WANT global armageddon, let the nutjobs have their nuclear toys and do absolutely nothing to prevent their getting them. Eventually you will get your wish. And when that day comes if you then have the audacity to complain about it someone needs to slap you.

Really, really hard.

I could care less if Iran has Nukes... Let 'em have them, everyone else does.

No one in here could possibly and conceivable support any single reason WHAT SO EVER as to why Iran cannot have nukes, and Pakistan, Israel, Egypt all can...

(note : I took out the bit about nuclear power and cleaned it up a bit)

That too, but I reckon it should be added to with offshore wind farms. What's wrong with biomass?

Oh and I don't like nuclear power because because the costs involved are utterly ludicrous. The fuel might be cheap, but protecting nuclear sites is massively expensive and you also have the waste to deal with.


If the same resources were put into solar/wind energy, I think we would have a cleaner, safer source of power that would only be improved over time.
I think most people would agree to have a solar plant or wind farm nearby as opposed to a nuclear power plant. Less risk, less liabilty, less security. Probably less cost in the long run.

I could care less if Iran has Nukes... Let 'em have them, everyone else does.

No one in here could possibly and conceivable support any single reason WHAT SO EVER as to why Iran cannot have nukes, and Pakistan, Israel, Egypt all can...


They already have them-thats the only reason. Its would be very hard to take them away once someone has them.

I would prefer Iran never have them.

I could care less if Iran has Nukes... Let 'em have them, everyone else does.

No one in here could possibly and conceivable support any single reason WHAT SO EVER as to why Iran cannot have nukes, and Pakistan, Israel, Egypt all can...
evidently, since the thread exists, some people here can conceive what so ever why iran should not have nukes. and the answer to your question is to jump off a cliff, all the lemmings are doing it. just because some countries have nukes doesn't mean everyone should. no one should. stem the tide.

I could care less if Iran has Nukes... Let 'em have them, everyone else does.

No. No they don't. Where did people get this FUCKING STUPID IDEA that everybody has nukes except poor old oppressed iran? Only EIGHT countries have nukes, and of those eight, only FIVE are supposed to. It's the US, UK, France, Russia and China who have them legit, and India, Pakistan and Israel who have them illegit.

Germany. Japan. Spain. Italy. Canada. Good, model countries that don't have nukes. Why should a dangerous, oppresive, authoritarian country like iran have them?

Oh, and here's a good reason why iran shouldn't have nukes:

http://www.iranfocus.com/modules/news/article.php?storyid=6733

No. No they don't. Where did people get this FUCKING STUPID IDEA that everybody has nukes except poor old oppressed iran? Only EIGHT countries have nukes, and of those eight, only FIVE are supposed to. It's the US, UK, France, Russia and China who have them legit, and India, Pakistan and Israel who have them illegit.

Supposed to? Legit? Illegit?

You're a basket case man... You need to be locked in a room with a love-me jacket on...

There is no such thing as "supposed to" and "not supposed to", and there is no such thing as an "illegitimate" nuclear weapon, if such weapon is constructed by the country itself... All of what you say is reactionary political bullshit, and none of it is worth the monitor it glows on.

Supposed to? Legit? Illegit?

You're a basket case man... You need to be locked in a room with a love-me jacket on...

There is no such thing as "supposed to" and "not supposed to", and there is no such thing as an "illegitimate" nuclear weapon, if such weapon is constructed by the country itself... All of what you say is reactionary political bullshit, and none of it is worth the monitor it glows on.
you're right. guns don't kill people, people kill people. thus, everyone should have a gun, whether or not they say they will use it. now that's what i call equality!

Supposed to? Legit? Illegit?

You're a basket case man... You need to be locked in a room with a love-me jacket on...

There is no such thing as "supposed to" and "not supposed to", and there is no such thing as an "illegitimate" nuclear weapon, if such weapon is constructed by the country itself... All of what you say is reactionary political bullshit, and none of it is worth the monitor it glows on.

The Allied nations have nukes because they won the war. Get over it. And the fact that WWIII didn't break out between 1945 and 1989 proves that they can have these weapons responsibly.

iran is insane, though. They parade around ballistic missiles that say "Death to the US! Death to Israel!" Does this sound like a nation that should have world-ending capability?

Supposed to? Legit? Illegit?

You're a basket case man... You need to be locked in a room with a love-me jacket on...

There is no such thing as "supposed to" and "not supposed to", and there is no such thing as an "illegitimate" nuclear weapon, if such weapon is constructed by the country itself... All of what you say is reactionary political bullshit, and none of it is worth the monitor it glows on.

The difference between iran having nukes and france having nukes is that one has them for deterrance and the other is questionable and has already made comments like he wants to make the west burn. So unless you want to burn shut up because some of us have to go to irans neighbor in may.

They already have them-thats the only reason. Its would be very hard to take them away once someone has them.

I would prefer Iran never have them.

It does not matter what YOU preffer, nor what the idiots in the EU or UN preffer with their little reactionist pawns running around screaming bloody murder everytime their governmental overlords ring their bells...

Iran having nukes is no different than their possession by Egypt, Pakistan, India or Israel...

Israel BUYS nukes and no one inthe developed world cares....
India get nukes, and people grumble alittle...
Pakistan gets nukes and someone starts worrying
Iran gets nukes, and now people scream bloody murder?

Sorry, I don't buy your reason or excuse for your position... Because I know it for the lie that it is...

It does not matter what YOU preffer, nor what the idiots in the EU or UN preffer with their little reactionist pawns running around screaming bloody murder everytime their governmental overlords ring their bells...

Iran having nukes is no different than their possession by Egypt, Pakistan, India or Israel...

Israel BUYS nukes and no one inthe developed world cares....
India get nukes, and people grumble alittle...
Pakistan gets nukes and someone starts worrying
Iran gets nukes, and now people scream bloody murder?

Sorry, I don't buy your reason or excuse for your position... Because I know it for the lie that it is...

Okay, lets look at past comments made by iran: "If you do not return to monotheism and worshipping god and refuse to accept justice then you will burn in the fire of the nations’ fury." Giving someone nukes that says things like this is like giving some crazy person who threatened your family a gun and lining your family up infront of him.

It does not matter what YOU preffer, nor what the idiots in the EU or UN preffer with their little reactionist pawns running around screaming bloody murder everytime their governmental overlords ring their bells...

Iran having nukes is no different than their possession by Egypt, Pakistan, India or Israel...

Israel BUYS nukes and no one inthe developed world cares....
India get nukes, and people grumble alittle...
Pakistan gets nukes and someone starts worrying
Iran gets nukes, and now people scream bloody murder?

Sorry, I don't buy your reason or excuse for your position... Because I know it for the lie that it is...

Well, you're a nice piece of thick.

What's the difference between Israel, India, Pakistan and iran?

Israel is too Western to use nukes. They don't use them for the same reasons as the US, UK, etc. Oh, and nice way to put Israel down. Of course, the Jewish pigdogs are too stupid to develop their own nuke tech. </sarcasm>

India has too much to lose by using nukes.

Pakistan's dictator has too much to lose by using nukes.

iran's leader has openly expressed his belief that Israel should not exist, that the Holocaust is a hoax and that the West should bow to iran and islam.

Pop quiz: Which of these nations are most likely to use nuclear weapons?

If the same resources were put into solar/wind energy, I think we would have a cleaner, safer source of power that would only be improved over time.
I think most people would agree to have a solar plant or wind farm nearby as opposed to a nuclear power plant. Less risk, less liabilty, less security. Probably less cost in the long run.

I'd rather have the Nuclear plant next door.... Means I'll actually have enough power....

What the hell is up with the world? Asides from God's Plagues of crap weather, crap food, and making me bang my foot every-blummin'-where I go, what went wrong?
I've heard one NS-er say it's because the US needs to maintain Military Dominance for when resources get scarce. Thank you Mr.Anonymous *cough*Drunk Commies Deleted*cough*.
<snip>

OMIGOSH! REVELASHUNZ! T3H WURLD IZ UNFARZ!
Seriously, I forgot who said it, but they said it best:
"This is international politics, not happy sharing time at elenemtary school."
Now, why would the US do something so HORRIBLE as to try to prevent a country which is obviously anti-US and anti-Israel (one of our, what, two allies in the Middle East? Im not sure you could count Saudi Arabia as an 'ally'.) from having nukes?
Why, so that when either Israel or Iran snaps, Israel Tel-Aviv doesnt get turned into a smoking glass-lined crater! Or possibly so that it doesnt turn out that Iran happens to have an old Soviet missile stashed somewhere, or whatever. The possibilities are endless.
Anyway, Iran having nukes means that either the US has to beef up its presence in Iraq, since Iran most likley wouldnt nuke a fellow Muslim country, in order to defend Israel while it recovers from the blow of being the second nation to take a nuclear hit. The OTHER two options are to simply invade Iran which would result in a long and nasty war with Irans million plus man army OR just try to prevent them from building a nuke.
I personally like the Russian solution of calling Irans bluff and offering to refine their uranium for them.

Israel BUYS nukes and no one inthe developed world cares....

evidently you have mistaken the US for the entire developed world. and once a country has nuclear capacity, you cannot stop them doing anything they want to. you are completely missing the point of stopping the problem before it starts.
and egypt does not have nuclear weapons. not sure where you're getting that from.

Bump. I wanna see more of this.

What the hell is up with the world? Asides from God's Plagues of crap weather, crap food, and making me bang my foot every-blummin'-where I go, what went wrong?
I've heard one NS-er say it's because the US needs to maintain Military Dominance for when resources get scarce. Thank you Mr.Anonymous *cough*Drunk Commies Deleted*cough*.

If you're just lucky, the US might allow you're country to have nukes. Yep, they look really intimidating, and could have a billion tons of Uranium/Plutonium in them. But you are very very very very very likely not going to use them. But when some guy in Iran who's called an extremist, and is, in my opinion, the worlds most bravest madman, decides to enrich Uranium (Congrats ehran on doing it by the way) the US seems to be shocked. And the chameleons in Europe seem to match that shocking outrage.

"Oh dear! They're enriching uranium! hey must be making bombs!" is usually the first response. Hey! Maybe for once the US hasn't got it right! No! You'd never thought you would've seen this day did you? The US actually got it wrong!

Why can't they just realise they might have got it wrong? So yes, maybe not letting IAEA inspect what you're doing is a little fishy. But who can blame you with the way the UN is?

And if or when Iran explodes a nuclear bomb, I'll be pleased. Because at least one country, no matter how small or insignificant, has had the guts and the balls to stand up against the one thing preaching what it wants to eliminate. Freedom.

...

*claps*

What a truly amazing post. I agree. utterly.

...

*claps*

What a truly amazing post. I agree. utterly.

Why would that be?

Why would that be?

Because I see nothing objectionable. If the US can have nukes, Iran can.

Because I see nothing objectionable. If the US can have nukes, Iran can.

Remind me when the US has made direct threats to the existence of other nations. Remind me when the US has paraded around ballistice missile labelled "Death to Israel!"

Remind me when the US has made direct threats to the existence of other nations. Remind me when the US has paraded around ballistice missile labelled "Death to Israel!"

If they actually launch one, then I say invade them. for now, I think they're harmless. Oh, and I seriously do NOT trust Bush.

If they actually launch one, then I say invade them. for now, I think they're harmless. Oh, and I seriously do NOT trust Bush.

Oh great, let millions of people die before stopping iran. That policy worked great with Nazi Germany.

Oh great, let millions of people die before stopping iran. That policy worked great with Nazi Germany.

We can intercept missiles, you know.

We can intercept missiles, you know.

No, no you can't. Sophisticated ICBMs can still get through easily. And besides, the US isn't the only country in the world, you know. But, it's fine if people die, as long as the US is fine.

No, no you can't. Sophisticated ICBMs can still get through easily. And besides, the US isn't the only country in the world, you know. But, it's fine if people die, as long as the US is fine.

Erm... no... I really don't like the US all that much.

But really. Can you not stop a missile? With other missiles?

Well, it's the NS hawks who could answer that one for you. I think every country should have nukes. Fuck club membership. Dole 'em out.

Erm... no... I really don't like the US all that much.

But really. Can you not stop a missile? With other missiles?

Ehh, no. It's not like a video game.

Ehh, no. It's not like a video game.

I know that. But couldn't the US design a system? Launch small, fast missiles at a bigger missile and tear it to shreds.

I know that. But couldn't the US design a system? Launch small, fast missiles at a bigger missile and tear it to shreds.

Yeah, I think it's a little more complicated than that.

Yeah, I think it's a little more complicated than that.

Well, of course it would be (I'm no rocket scientist) but it seems like a good basic idea.

I seem to recall various anti-missile missile experts arguing this one back and forth on a thread here in General some time ago, with the people saying, 'no, dinguses, the whatcha-macallit system totally pwns anything that even looks like a rocket' eventually carrying the day. So I'll say, sure they can hit missiles out of the sky.

I seem to recall various anti-missile missile experts arguing this one back and forth on a thread here in General some time ago, with the people saying, 'no, dinguses, the whatcha-macallit system totally pwns anything that even looks like a rocket' eventually carrying the day. So I'll say, sure they can hit missiles out of the sky.

Excerpt from Wikipedia:

There are still significant technological hurdles to deploying an effective defense against a sophisticated ICBM attack. The nature of nuclear weapons means a moderately effective defense will still incur tremendous damage. Decoys can complicate targeting MIRV-ed warheads.

iran's leader has openly expressed his belief that Israel should not exist, that the Holocaust is a hoax and that the West should bow to iran and islam.

And that the use of nuclear weapons is a sin and that it is Allahs will that they are all dismantled. Don't forget that one.

I know that. But couldn't the US design a system? Launch small, fast missiles at a bigger missile and tear it to shreds.

Kinetic energy warheads. The Brilliant Pebbles program.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strategic_Defense_Initiative

And that the use of nuclear weapons is a sin and that it is Allahs will that they are all dismantled. Don't forget that one.

I'm sure it's one of those islamofascist technicalities: it's wrong to use nuclear weapons on people, but Jews aren't people, they're the brothers of pigs and apes!

Note that that isn't my opinion, it's just a sample of what I've seen during my web-surfing adventures.

The thing with ABM (anti-ballistic missile)-systems is that they are infintely more complex to design and operate than the missile they are supposed to intercept.

It certainly is possible to shoot down a simple Scud, or a derivative of it. Patriot (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patriot_missile_system)-Missiles can do that, and the Israelis have the "Arrow (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arrow_missile)".

But it is quite easy to simply add a few little jet nozzle to you warhead which will make it change course. It demands a more sophisticated electronic brain, so it can still hit the right spot, but it's not that difficult.

The Russians have done that and much more with the Topol-M (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Topol-M). I for one believe them when they say that the chances are that this thing will penetrate any current defensive system.

And the Iranians have the Shahab 3B (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shahab_3) version, which can do the same thing, albeit it much less sophisticated.

"You can have a nuke, and you too... But no nukes for Iran!"

Damned straight! :D


Motion thirded.

Down with Ahmadinejad!

The Russians have done that and much more with the Topol-M. I for one believe them when they say that the chances are that this thing will penetrate any current defensive system.

And the Iranians have the Shahab 3B version, which can do the same thing, albeit it much less sophisticate

Three words:

MTHEL

Orbital Nukes.

MTHEL
I'll believe it when I see it. And besides, it would fire at tactical and theatre missiles, not ICBMs.

Orbital Nukes.
The Topol-M is designed to withstand both the radiation and electromagnetic disturbances of a nuclear blast as close as 500m. It's also shielded against any currently available laser technology.
http://www.missilethreat.com/missiles/ss-27_russia.html
http://www.defesanet.com.br/russia/topol_m.htm

I'll believe it when I see it. And besides, it would fire at tactical and theatre missiles, not ICBMs.

Actually, there are versions of MTHEL developement that would hit ICBMs as well.

The Topol-M is designed to withstand both the radiation and electromagnetic disturbances of a nuclear blast as close as 500m.

What yield nuclear blast are you referring to?

Actually, there are versions of MTHEL developement that would hit ICBMs as well.
What yield nuclear blast are you referring to?
Well, the absolute, nitty-gritty details are obviously classified. But all info I can find about the missile talks about that.
The SS-27 is currently portrayed by Russian accounts as being immune to any ABM defense the United States can put into being. The missile is capable of making evasive maneuvers as it approaches its target, enabling it to evade any terminal phase interceptors. It almost certainly also carries countermeasures and decoys to decrease the chances of a successful targeting. The missile is shielded against radiation, electromagnetic interference and physical disturbance; previous missiles could be disabled by detonating a nuclear warhead within ten kilometers. This vulnerability is the basis behind the use of nuclear ground-based and orbital interceptors, to detonate or damage the missile before it reaches its target. However, the SS-27 is designed to be able to withstand nuclear blasts closer than 500 m, a difficult interception when combined with the terminal phase speed and maneuverability. While the boost phase is the most vulnerable time for the SS-27, it remains protected. Hidden safely within missile silos and mobile launchers, a successful boost-phase interceptor would have to be fired from near or within Russian borders or from space. And the SS-27 is also designed to survive a strike from any laser technology available, rendering any current space-based laser useless. The missile highlights the need for considerably more research into missile defenses, as the United States is currently defenseless while Russia is protected by a functional defense system.
After separating from the missile, at the final stage of its flight the warhead carried out a maneuver (tracked by Russian observation devices) and fell at the designated point. That meant the maneuvering had not worsened the warhead's precision specifications but had misled the missile defense system -- making its interception and destruction virtually impossible. The likelihood that the Topol-M will strike its target has been increased to almost 90%.

But I suppose if you start getting out the 80 Mt warheads, you might get it. And probably everything else in the vicinity (like satellites etc).

Erm... no... I really don't like the US all that much.

But really. Can you not stop a missile? With other missiles?

To a point but it is still somewhat inaccurate.

I know that. But couldn't the US design a system? Launch small, fast missiles at a bigger missile and tear it to shreds.

Actually it is in development and some are online but they are very limited.

Actually it is in development and some are online but they are very limited.

(I should use that in NS.)

Anyway, I'm sure that they will not be launching. They know that if they do, that they will be nuked and most likely invaded.

(I should use that in NS.)

Anyway, I'm sure that they will not be launching. They know that if they do, that they will be nuked and most likely invaded.

They don't have to launch them.

They don't have to launch them.

What?

What?

There is more than one way to nuke a city.

There is more than one way to nuke a city.

Mmm hmm. I'm thinking, truck smuggle. Or maybe they'll use that new flying boat of theirs.

There is more than one way to nuke a city.

Still, if they do that, they WILL get nuked back. Repeatedly.

Still, if they do that, they WILL get nuked back. Repeatedly.

Problem with that though.

Problem with that though.

Well, either that or... Well, basically, if they use a nuke, their butt will be kicked.

Well, either that or... Well, basically, if they use a nuke, their butt will be kicked.

You actually have to prove that they did it if they didn't launch before you can hit them back.

You actually have to prove that they did it if they didn't launch before you can hit them back.

the CIA is good at these things.

the CIA is good at these things.

True but how is the CIA going to get to the disaster sight when it would be radioactive for quite sometime?

This picture sums up the situation nicely:

http://slut.org/img/nopony.jpg

The little girl is Iran.

But really. Can you not stop a missile? With other missiles?yes.. but its better to use a giant fly swatter.

can you stop a gun shot with another gun shot: Yes, it is possible.

Anyway, I think I'll just stay ot of this.

You actually have to prove that they did it if they didn't launch before you can hit them back.we never proved the Afgan Gov involvement in 9-11 before we bombed their Country.

True but how is the CIA going to get to the disaster sight when it would be radioactive for quite sometime?

Hey guys, are we forgetting Iraq already? Where's the proof that they had WMD's or had anything to do with 9/11? The U.S. doesn't need proof or approval from anyone else in the world to invade a country.

EDIT: Thanks OD2. :)

Hey guys, are we forgetting Iraq already? Where's the proof that they had WMD's or had anything to do with 9/11? The U.S. doesn't need proof or approval from anyone else in the world to invade a country.

EDIT: Thanks OD2. :)

Actually the UN and the people. It got the people...but not the UN.
And Iran is pretty obvious they are enriching uranium. Though I don't see a bomb.

Do you not understand that Iran is more likely to use it if they got it, than the US would? THAT is why they shouldn't have it.

I beg to differ! Iran is not stupid, and being a muslim doesn't neccesarily mean that you have a death-wish. In the nuklear exchange game, Iran would be creamed, litterally. And they know this. Iran has the same right to nukes as the US, if for no other reason, than to make sure W. Bush and his crazed satraps think twice before invading.


The US won't use it unless it's used on them.

Of this, I'm not convinced... Crumbling empires tend to do bad things before they collapse.

Why is the US Gov scared of 1-on-1 talks with the North Korean Negotiator, scared of sexual-harrassement or what?
:D :D :cool: :D

Because that was tried before, and it failed horribly.

True but how is the CIA going to get to the disaster sight when it would be radioactive for quite sometime?

Robots.

Because that was tried before, and it failed horribly.

My guess is that after te summit called by China, US was told that a war with Nort-Corea would not be something they could get over with before the election (remember, this in the time reserved for the traditional US 2nd term Election War).

NC was probably told by the same that their only friend in the world, China, didn't appreciate a war with the Americans.

we never proved the Afgan Gov involvement in 9-11 before we bombed their Country.


yep Al-queda living there and using it at a safe haven and the location of most of their training camps and as their base of operations..etc. etc. and the outright support by the Taliban for al queda wasnt good reason enough...

what was there to prove ?

http://www.cfr.org/publication/9126/
http://www.infoplease.com/spot/terror-qaeda.html
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/in_depth/world/2001/war_on_terror/
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/para/al-qaida.htm
http://www.debka.com/article.php?aid=299
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Qaeda
http://www.rotten.com/library/history/terrorist-organizations/al-qaeda/
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/12/17/attack/main533401.shtml
http://siteinstitute.org/bin/articles.cgi?ID=publications154106&Category=publications&Subcategory=0


what did you do just come out of a coma ?


dont forget these guys either...

See Patterns of Global Terrorism 2003 Report
by the Secretary of State and the Coordinator for Counterterrorism
Background on Terrorist Groups


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Patterns of Global Terrorism -2003
Released by the Office of the Coordinator for Counterterrorism
April 29, 2004
Background Information on Designated Foreign Terrorist Organizations

CONTENTS


Abu Nidal Organization (ANO)
Abu Sayyaf Group (ASG)
Al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigade
Ansar al-Islam (AI)
Armed Islamic Group (GIA)
'Asbat al-Ansar
Aum Supreme Truth (Aum) Aum Shinrikyo, Aleph
Basque Fatherland and Liberty (ETA)
Communist Party of Philippines/New People's Army (CPP/NPA)
Al-Gama'a al-Islamiyya (Islamic Group, IG)
HAMAS (Islamic Resistance Movement)
Harakat ul Mujahidin (HUM)
Hizballah (Party of God)
Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan (IMU)
Jaish-e-Mohammed (JEM)
Jemaah Islamiya (JI)
Al-Jihad (Egyptian Islamic Jihad, EIJ)
Kahane Chai (Kach)
Kongra-Gel (KGK, formerly Kurdistan Workers' Party, PKK, KADEK)
Lashkar-e-Tayyiba (LT)
Lashkar I Jhangvi (LJ)
Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE)
Mujahedin-e Khalq Organization (MEK or MKO)
National Liberation Army (ELN)—Colombia
Palestine Islamic Jihad (PIJ)
Palestine Liberation Front (PLF)
Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP)
Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine–General Command (PFLP-GC)
Al-Qaida
Real IRA (RIRA)
Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC)
Revolutionary Nuclei (RN)
Revolutionary Organization 17 November (17 November)
Revolutionary People's Liberation Party/Front (DHKP/C) 135
Salafist Group for Call and Combat (GSPC)
United Self-Defense Forces/Group of Colombia (AUC)
Hamas military wing, Izza Deen al-Qassam
Jana'at al-Tawhid wa'al Jihad
Islamic Army of Iraq



hehehehe

they have websites....


Terrorist Website


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Terrorist Group Website Last Confirmed Date
Al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigade http://www.kataebaqsa1.com/ September 8, 2004
HAMAS (Islamic Resistance Movement) http://www.palestine-info.info September 8, 2004
Hizballah (Party of God) http://www.nasrollah.org/ September 8, 2004
Palestine Islamic Jihad (PIJ) http://www.qudsway.com September 8, 2004
Hamas military wing, Izza Deen al-Qassam http://www.alqassam.info October 16, 2004
Islamic Army of Iraq http://www.iaisite.net/ December 14, 2005


busy ...busy ...busy...


seems kinda odd to call some of those sites " terrorist ' sites...talk about losing cred......

busy busy busy...


I bet they missed some....although I have to wonder how they determine who gets on " the List "...

http://users.skynet.be/terrorism/html/laden.htm
http://www.infoplease.com/spot/osamabinladen.html
http://www.infoplease.com/spot/taliban.html
http://www.ict.org.il/articles/articledet.cfm?articleid=384
http://healthandenergy.com/osama_bin_laden.htm