NationStates Jolt Archive

Do you think that Bush wouldn't like to glass over all of the Middle East (except Israel) and Russia and China and North Korea?
That Putin wouldn't love to pepper the USA with craters?
That Olmert wouldn't annihilate most of the nearby Muslim countries?

But they do not, because they all no that a counter-strike would come from somewhere, and it could very well destroy them.

Ahamadinejad is the only one who said it in public. He's an extremist unlike all the others you've mentioned and he's very likely to practice what he preaches.

Ahamadinejad is the only one who said it in public. He's an extremist unlike all the others you've mentioned and he's very likely to practice what he preaches.

To be fair, I don't think Ahamadinejad is that stupid.

The real danger is, considering the state Irans in, the nukes are in danger of somehow getting into the hands of terrorists. They do not care about the consequences as much.

To be fair, I don't think Ahamadinejad is that stupid.

The real danger is, considering the state Irans in, the nukes are in danger of somehow getting into the hands of terrorists. They do not care about the consequences as much.

The Ahmadinejad administration are terrorists. Ahmadinejad is a terrorist. It's dangerous enough.

Ahamadinejad is the only one who said it in public. He's an extremist unlike all the others you've mentioned and he's very likely to practice what he preaches.

I really don't think he is that stupid. The fact that he became the leading politician is some proof of that. And at least he is honest.
Also:
Bush is white supremist, alcoholic, Christian zealot.
Putin is a Russian nationalist and still KGB (according to him).
Olmert has shown that he thinks little of the lives of other countries' citizens unless they share his faith.

To be fair, I don't think Ahamadinejad is that stupid.

The real danger is, considering the state Irans in, the nukes are in danger of somehow getting into the hands of terrorists. They do not care about the consequences as much.

They do not, but US and Russian nuclear sites are poorly guarded and could be raided without too much trouble if terrorists took it upon themselves.

The Ahmadinejad administration are terrorists. Ahmadinejad is a terrorist. It's dangerous enough.

What is your definition of a terrorist? Hmmm.

What is your definition of a terrorist? Hmmm.
Terrorism is a term used to describe violence or other harmful acts committed (or threatened) against those considered innocents by groups or persons for political, nationalist, or religious goals. [from wiki]
I really don't think he is that stupid. The fact that he became the leading politician is some proof of that. And at least he is honest.
Also:
Bush is white supremist, alcoholic, Christian zealot.
Putin is a Russian nationalist and still KGB (according to him).
Olmert has shown that he thinks little of the lives of other countries' citizens unless they share his faith.

He's an extremist. If he's that stupid to deny the Holocaust he's also stupid enough to destroy a country.

Somebody said it earlier but I think that it bears reiteration, Iran hasn't done much to violate current treaties, they have just fucked with the IAEA a bit. They do however, have every right to pursue nuclear energy; I say we provide them with everything they need to start setting up their own reactors in exchange for oil, then keep a serious eye on what their nuclear program does after that. I think that by doing our best to keep from them what they are entitled to (nuclear power), and slapping them with sanctions, we simply alienate the population, and help the extremists. I honestly think that Saddam would have been pulled down from within if it had not been for the nasty sanctions and bitch moves like keeping the red cross from bringing in drinking water on bullshit grounds that the US and UN imposed for so long. The "western world" caused a lot of innocent deaths and drove the population closer and closer to Saddam, because despite being a bloody bastard the man was the only one helping them, I just really dont think that hard sanctions are going to do anything good, and weak chickenshit like they are laying down now arent going to do anything at all.

Yes, if I'm (hypothetically, I do not condone this) killing someone or someones and do not want to deal with the emotional issues that may be involved, then I convince myself that they are sub-human and not worth consideration. Then it becomes easier and it has served a purpose.

An extraordinarily poor one. As I'd said previously, such willfull laziness of thought should not be encouraged - and I'll go a step further and suggest that it should in fact be actively discouraged.

He's an extremist. If he's that stupid to deny the Holocaust he's also stupid enough to destroy a country.

International leaders have been saying incredibly idiodic things for ages, that doesnt mean they are willing to risk direct action, denying the holocaust is just words, nuking Israel is something COMPLETELY different.

Terrorism is a term used to describe violence or other harmful acts committed (or threatened) against those considered innocents by groups or persons for political, nationalist, or religious goals. [from wiki]
You do realise that by that definition I could easily accuse the US (Army at least) of being a terrorist organisation with Bush as leader. Putin and Olmert could be considered terrorists to with that definition.

He's an extremist. If he's that stupid to deny the Holocaust he's also stupid enough to destroy a country.

I'm not sure that is true, he stands to lose a lot more from his country being evapourated than from saying some things to annoy those he dislikes. Isn't it possible that he is only saying that to cause offense rather than because he actually believes his statement.

International leaders have been saying incredibly idiodic things for ages, that doesnt mean they are willing to risk direct action, denying the holocaust is just words, nuking Israel is something COMPLETELY different.

Haven't 9/11 taught you that there are crazy extremists in the world? Why would no one believe that he intends to destroy Israel?

An extraordinarily poor one. As I'd said previously, such willfull laziness of thought should not be encouraged - and I'll go a step further and suggest that it should in fact be actively discouraged.

If your going to do something terrible and not doing so is largely outside your power you may as well do it as efficiently as possible and end the whole thing sooner.

You do realise that by that definition I could easily accuse the US (Army at least) of being a terrorist organisation with Bush as leader. Putin and Olmert could be considered terrorists to with that definition.

No, not really. It's completely different.

I'm not sure that is true, he stands to lose a lot more from his country being evapourated than from saying some things to annoy those he dislikes. Isn't it possible that he is only saying that to cause offense rather than because he actually believes his statement.

I'll say what I said in the previous post: Haven't 9/11 taught you that there are crazy extremists in the world? Why would no one believe that he intends to destroy Israel?

Haven't 9/11 taught you that there are crazy extremists in the world? Why would no one believe that he intends to destroy Israel?

Because there are many more crazy extremists out there who have not committed these acts, but you seem to have more of a problem with the fact that they are Muslim (and so apparently more violent), anti-Zionist extremists rather than any other kind.

Haven't 9/11 taught you that there are crazy extremists in the world? Why would no one believe that he intends to destroy Israel?

I believe that you mean "Hasn't", and I was well aware that there are all sorts of bleeding idiots all around this bloody world. People being beat to death because they are gay, any sort of hate crimes, that does not change the fact that the only Countries who have been stupid enough to invade other countries since Saddams idiotic move on Kuwait 15 years ago have been the "good guys" and that all those labeled evil by the US and its allies are outmanned and outgunned and have thusfar shown that they are well aware of the fact. I dont think that 9/11 or any terrorist activity ever has changed my view on what I think the government in Iran is capable of.

No, not really. It's completely different.

Of course, they're American, Zionist and Russian (which in this case must be accepted for your argument) and that makes it fine. (That was sarcasm)

So I have a question, and maybe this should be a new thread, tell me if you think so; but why the sanctions on Iran for supposedly pursuing Nukes when right nearby a country who has of late demonstrated far more aggression has a proven nuclear arsenal. Where are the sanctions on Israel? whatever Iran is doing, Israel is much further outside all of the same laws.

So I have a question, and maybe this should be a new thread, tell me if you think so; but why the sanctions on Iran for supposedly pursuing Nukes when right nearby a country who has of late demonstrated far more aggression has a proven nuclear arsenal. Where are the sanctions on Israel? whatever Iran is doing, Israel is much further outside all of the same laws.

Well of course, because the West supports Israel and dislikes Iran. Mostly because of guilt and religious differences.

Haven't 9/11 taught you that there are crazy extremists in the world? Why would no one believe that he intends to destroy Israel?

Look, there's playing to your power-base and there's playing to the world-at-large. Say George Bush announces some kind of government assistance for a troubled major American auto manufacturer. He'll use the opportunity to deliver a speech about helping to make American industry strong enough to overcome their international competitors.

Now, the body of Bush's hypothetical speech could on one hand be seen for what it is - an attempt, on a national level, to bolster support from within his existing regional political power base, or instead - be interpreted in some quarters as a dire warning, perhaps coupled with an implied threat to any and all nations competing with American workers.

My point is it's only as scary as you're willing to allow yourself to be persuaded to believe it to be. Ahmadinejad does not frighten me. I am very wary when someone wants their point-of-view to be mine and everybody else's point-of-view to the extent that I am expected to forego my own thoughts and/or feelings on the matter. And that's what 9/11 taught me. Crazy extremists? *yawns* The 21st century doesn't exactly have the market cornered on those types.

If I say "I wish Bush would just choke to death on a pretzel."

Do you actually think.. I am worried about the secret Service tryng to track my PC? :rolleyes:

Of course not, but if you appear on national television and say, "I want bush to die, it is my utmost desire." Then you follow that up with a bunch of chants of "I hate America" "America is the great Satan" and "Zionists control the American government" then you may be investigated by the CIA.

Is there necessarily a problem with wanting to destroy Israel?

Does that make him evil or monsterous?

I don't know about you but in my opinion wanting to slaughter an entire group of people just for being alive is pretty monsterous.

I don't know about you but in my opinion wanting to slaughter an entire group of people just for being alive is pretty monsterous.

The question is does he want to kill the people or remove the country. He wants to kill them if necessary because they occupy the country that he despises and that should not be there in his mind.
Its no more monsterous than what many Israelis have twisted the Zionist vision into.

The question is does he want to kill the people or remove the country. He wants to kill them if necessary because they occupy the country that he despises and that should not be there in his mind.
Its no more monsterous than what many Israelis have twisted the Zionist vision into.

He most definitly wants to kill the people in that country. The man has repeatedly denied that the holocaust happened. He has repeatedly said he wants destroy/remove Israel from the map. What does he expect do to do? "Liberate" the people of palestine, just like Bush 'liberated" the people of Iraq? How exactly are the Israelis hurting Iran? If Iran is really looking out for "itself" by building Nuclear weapons, shouldn't it look out for itself and leave Israel alone? Israel is also armed with nuclear weapons, what good would it do anyone for another MAD situation like we have with India and Pakistan? Israel has never used its nuclear weapons and really doesn't plan to. Why would it? If it even breathed the wrong everyone would be all over them, let alone using Nuclear technology. Does the mere existence of a people justify the president of Iran building nuclear bombs? The Israelis are not hostile to Iran, defensive maybe, but hostile no.

Hang on, the link you just gave says I'm right and that he never uttered the phrase 'wiped off the map'. He said something similar but not that oft quoted phrase.

Out of interest, where have I defended him? In the post of mine you are quoting I explicitly state that he has said Irsrael, the US and the UK would be destroyed. I think I'm right, you are a talking head, you don't even read posts you are responding to. For idiots like him.. If you try to translate what Ahmadinejad actually said.. it means you are defending him.

For idiots like him.. If you dare to criticize Israel.. it means you are Nazi/antisemite/Hitler

*identifies your IP address, establishes your location, sends a strike team after you*

:mp5: :mp5:

HAIL ZE PRESIDENT!getz da Popcorn into da Microwave :D :p

Terrorism is a term used to describe violence or other harmful acts committed (or threatened) against those considered innocents by groups or persons for political, nationalist, or religious goals. [from wiki].first letter comes to mind... "W"

second letter "G"

...
GW

I have to say that if I were some random Iranian worker or peasant etc, if all these nuclear-powered stations were either shut down or blown up in some bombing raid by some western group, I'd be like "Yepp....thanks guys...just knocked out all the power...yepp, infrastructure ruined without power...son's got a real bad sickness and I'd love to take him to the hospital but it's too bad that there's no power for anything.....love your work America....

Trusting Iran is like trusting a thief with your bank account number and ATM pin code.

first letter comes to mind... "W"

second letter "G"

...
GW

Gosama Wbin laden?

WTF?

And no, Jihaddi is not a protected species.

I have to say that if I were some random Iranian worker or peasant etc, if all these nuclear-powered stations were either shut down or blown up in some bombing raid by some western group, I'd be like "Yepp....thanks guys...just knocked out all the power...yepp, infrastructure ruined without power...son's got a real bad sickness and I'd love to take him to the hospital but it's too bad that there's no power for anything.....love your work America....

Didn't the great leader promise Allah's divine protection from the infidels?

Sounds like a failure to deliver....



Or it's cause Ahamindehafhed is full of turd.

Trusting Iran is like trusting a thief with your bank account number and ATM pin code.there is nothing to trust.
You can never trust someone else with weapons.

For idiots like him.. If you try to translate what Ahmadinejad actually said.. it means you are defending him.

For idiots like him.. If you dare to criticize Israel.. it means you are Nazi/antisemite/Hitler

For people like him: No one on this thread has called anyone on this forum a nazi/antisemite/hitler
For people like him: If you try and twist what he said to mean something else you most definitly are defending him

there is nothing to trust.
You can never trust someone else with weapons.

Then why exactly should we allow Iran to have nuclear weapons?

I have to say that if I were some random Iranian worker or peasant etc, if all these nuclear-powered stations were either shut down or blown up in some bombing raid by some western group, I'd be like "Yepp....thanks guys...just knocked out all the power...yepp, infrastructure ruined without power...son's got a real bad sickness and I'd love to take him to the hospital but it's too bad that there's no power for anything.....love your work America....

They've barely begun to use nuclear power, if they're smart they probably haven't based all of their hospitals/other services on nuclear power.

Didn't the great leader promise Allah's divine protection from the infidels?

Sounds like a failure to deliver....



Or it's cause Ahamindehafhed is full of turd.

Way to base all of your attacks on what your puppet has to say while completely ignoring all of my arguements. Once again, your statements are based on denials of facts/opinions.

Bullshit. If I did not respect all life, I would have said we should have invaded using Chemical Weapons that would have killed millions of Japanese.
So that's your excuse? You so desperately want to believe the myth that the alternatives would have been even more costly.

As an American, I would only obey the UN where it benefits me.
How selfish. Why not obey the UN when it benefits the world?

I, for one, am curious. Apparently, people on this forum (some, anyway) take great stock in the pronoucements of the UN - in their view, our only hope of world government.
Who wants world government? That idea was popular about sixty years ago and has faded since.

How selfish. Why not obey the UN when it benefits the world?


And when exactly did that last happen?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QcqXQfGG5K0

He most definitly wants to kill the people in that country. The man has repeatedly denied that the holocaust happened.
Denying the holocaust happened is merely inflammatory, he almost certainly knows that the holocaust happened and just wshes to upset them. It would be just the same as if I were to say something offensive about your country of origin to anger you. It doesn't mean I want to kill you.

He has repeatedly said he wants destroy/remove Israel from the map. What does he expect do to do? "Liberate" the people of palestine, just like Bush 'liberated" the people of Iraq? How exactly are the Israelis hurting Iran? If Iran is really looking out for "itself" by building Nuclear weapons, shouldn't it look out for itself and leave Israel alone?
Removing Israel from the map sounds more like an objection to the country than the people. They do not trust Israel, they disagree with its idiology and (as with all humans) that is pretty much all that is necessary to facilitate hostilities and mistrust. Whether they leave Israel alone or not is their choice, but if they feel threatened, by an enemy they cannot trust and who has weaponry greater than anything in their armoury, then they are as entitled to build their own defensive devices, whether or not you agree with their idiology.

Israel is also armed with nuclear weapons, what good would it do anyone for another MAD situation like we have with India and Pakistan?
Nuclear weapons and the MAD factor they brig are the sinlge greatest reason for the relative peace between world powers in the last 50 years. MAD could do the region some good, and set a limit on the scale of violence used.

Israel has never used its nuclear weapons and really doesn't plan to. Why would it? If it even breathed the wrong everyone would be all over them, let alone using Nuclear technology.
But unlike Iran they would probably be allowed to continue development, although not by the UN, then by the USA. They should ntot be treated differently becasue the US happens to prefer Jews to Muslims.

Does the mere existence of a people justify the president of Iran building nuclear bombs? The Israelis are not hostile to Iran, defensive maybe, but hostile no.
Israel has no more right to be armed in the first place than Iran does. Humans have never needed to be under threat to feel threatened, nor have we every felt the need to tell all those who we hate that we want them dead. In a way Ahmadinejad is bringing honesty back to politics, and people say it's desirable.

And when exactly did that last happen?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QcqXQfGG5K0

A speaking of media brain-washing campaigns.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20061224/ap_on_re_mi_ea/un_iran_nuclear

UNITED NATIONS - The U.N. Security Council voted unanimously Saturday to impose sanctions on Iran for refusing to suspend uranium enrichment, increasing international pressure on the government to prove that it is not trying to make nuclear weapons. Iran immediately rejected the resolution.

The result of two months of tough negotiation, the resolution orders all countries to stop supplying Iran with materials and technology that could contribute to its nuclear and missile programs. It also freezes Iranian assets of 10 key companies and 12 individuals related to those programs.

If Iran refuses to comply, the council warned it would adopt further nonmilitary sanctions, but the resolution emphasized the importance of diplomacy in seeking guarantees "that Iran's nuclear program is exclusively for peaceful purposes."


Well...atleast the the Security Council passed this..I never thought it would happen.

Thoughts? Comments? What do you think about Iran's rejection of the resolution?

Invade.Kill everything,tactical nuke a few cities,destroy Irans proxy Hezbollah using any means necessary,invade ally Syria.

Invade.Kill everything,tactical nuke a few cities,destroy Irans proxy Hezbollah using any means necessary,invade ally Syria.

Oh yeah, great, really smart.

Denying the holocaust happened is merely inflammatory, he almost certainly knows that the holocaust happened and just wshes to upset them. It would be just the same as if I were to say something offensive about your country of origin to anger you. It doesn't mean I want to kill you.


Removing Israel from the map sounds more like an objection to the country than the people. They do not trust Israel, they disagree with its idiology and (as with all humans) that is pretty much all that is necessary to facilitate hostilities and mistrust. Whether they leave Israel alone or not is their choice, but if they feel threatened, by an enemy they cannot trust and who has weaponry greater than anything in their armoury, then they are as entitled to build their own defensive devices, whether or not you agree with their idiology.


Nuclear weapons and the MAD factor they brig are the sinlge greatest reason for the relative peace between world powers in the last 50 years. MAD could do the region some good, and set a limit on the scale of violence used.


But unlike Iran they would probably be allowed to continue development, although not by the UN, then by the USA. They should ntot be treated differently becasue the US happens to prefer Jews to Muslims.



So what exactly is the purpose of getting these people riled up? Why do that if, as you say, he has nothing against the people but has a problem with the government? Theres no reason for that. The only real thing Israel has done to provoke him is to exist. The creation of nuclear weapon technologies is most definitly not a right. The reason the U.S. doesn't trust Iran is, not because they are muslim, but that they have stated their hostility towards the U.S. and its interests. They have already attacked the U.S. once, whats to stop them from doing it again? The Iranian government has sponsored terrorism against the U.S. numerous times. It continues to do so in Iraq. Therefore, since Iran is a threat to American interests, the U.S. has a right to intervene and prevent Iran from gaining nuclear weapons. Israel on the ,other hand, is completely for American interests (partly to do with its creation and our backing them) therefore we allow them to have nuclear weapons because we know they are not a threat to us. Despite what many people seem to believe, Israel is not a hostile nation. All Wars Israel have been involved, it was attacked by a hostile nation. Its creation was a mistake I'll admit, but as long as millions of people still make their residence there, it is better for the U.S. to back Israel because otherwise millions of people would die and it would be on our hands. Oh and by the way if you really believe MAD works go watch Doctor Strangelove. Excellent movie.

So what exactly is the purpose of getting these people riled up? Why do that if, as you say, he has nothing against the people but has a problem with the government? Theres no reason for that.
He does it because angering the people is fun and it brings him some sense of peace or enjoyment to stab at his foes.

The only real thing Israel has done to provoke him is to exist.
How many times are you going to say this?

The creation of nuclear weapon technologies is most definitly not a right.
Do you mean nuclear weapons should not have been created, or that Iran should not be allowed to create them? I would disagree with both.

The reason the U.S. doesn't trust Iran is, not because they are muslim, but that they have stated their hostility towards the U.S. and its interests. They have already attacked the U.S. once, whats to stop them from doing it again? The Iranian government has sponsored terrorism against the U.S. numerous times. It continues to do so in Iraq. Therefore, since Iran is a threat to American interests, the U.S. has a right to intervene and prevent Iran from gaining nuclear weapons.
By attack do you mean have taken hostages? Also, if the US has that right, then surely Iran has the right to take the best steps it feels it can to defend itself from the Israelis, who it percieves as a threat, whether or not it is (like the US)? Or is it different if its not your country?

Israel on the ,other hand, is completely for American interests (partly to do with its creation and our backing them) therefore we allow them to have nuclear weapons because we know they are not a threat to us. Despite what many people seem to believe, Israel is not a hostile nation. All Wars Israel have been involved, it was attacked by a hostile nation. Its creation was a mistake I'll admit, but as long as millions of people still make their residence there, it is better for the U.S. to back Israel because otherwise it would be destroyed.
Sooo ... the US should back Israel for no real reason, because the country cannot keep itself stable and intact alone despite having had plenty of time to do so.

Oh and by the way if you really believe MAD works go watch Doctor Strangelove. Excellent movie.
I saw it some time ago, I stand by MAD, because that is what has proven to work in real life rather than fiction. Although the character of Ripper really did seem to mirror real life, you know, the insane nationalist American who would condem the world to fire, and launch the first strike. That really spoke to me. (You see, stabbing at foes)

He does it because angering the people is fun and it brings him some sense of peace or enjoyment to stab at his foes.


How many times are you going to say this?


Do you mean nuclear weapons should not have been created, or that Iran should not be allowed to create them? I would disagree with both.


By attack do you mean have taken hostages? Also, if the US has that right, then surely Iran has the right to take the best steps it feels it can to defend itself from the Israelis, who it percieves as a threat, whether or not it is (like the US)? Or is it different if its not your country?


Sooo ... the US should back Israel for no real reason, because the country cannot keep itself stable and intact alone despite having had plenty of time to do so.


I saw it some time ago, I stand by MAD, because that is what has proven to work in real life rather than fiction. Although the character of Ripper really did seem to mirror real life, you know, the insane nationalist American who would condem the world to fire, and launch the first strike. That really spoke to me. (You see, stabbing at foes)

Iran does not have the rite to intervene in Israel because Israel has never attacked Iran. I will continue to make this arguement until it is answered, Israel has never attacked Iran, nor made any hostile action towards it, its not even near Iran, therefore Iran should not feel threatened by it, and if they are it is do to their own racism and prejudice thereby proving my point that the Iranian president is an anti-semite. They should probably worry about people along their border such as their neighbors pakistan, but even then Pakistan is not hostile or even a minor threat to Iran. Even though a semite is anyone of middle eastern origin, I use this in terms of being against the jews. Just because a country is perceived as a threat, there is no reason to build weapons. Thats how wars are started. Thats why Africa is so messed up (among many, many other reasons). One neigbor builds up weapons because it perceives its neigbor as a threat then the other neighbor builds up and before you know it you've got a war bloodier than WWII. And there is most definitly a reason for us to back Israel, they support U.S. interests and depend on our support. That is reason alone to back them. MAD may work in terms of countries, but Iran has repeatedly proved it associates with terrorist organizations whose main goals are the disruption of the U.S. and its policies. What if one of the nuclear weapons Iran was building "accidently" fell into one of those terroist's hands? I say accidently here because Iran would probably sell it to them.

Sanction Iran for kicking out the inspectors and trust they are not going to be stupid enough to build a nuke. Even if they do, it would be a fairly stupid thing because all the support for Iran from countries that support Iran using nuclear material for power will be withdrawn - a situation Iran cannot afford to have as it would isolate itself in the Middle East, making it a sitting duck for attack.

There should be no reason to distrust Iran on the basis that he wants to wipe Israel off the map. Israel implicitly implies it wants countries destroyed with every missile it fires. North Korea implicitly implies it wants South Korea dead. If you don't trust a nation, then they are more likely to do something you don't want.

I don't believe Iran will build a nuke.

Then why exactly should we allow Iran to have nuclear weapons? there is nothing to allow..
one word: sovereignity

If you want to ban Nukes for the sake of humankind.. then yes I am with you.
anything less is not acceptable

How selfish. Why not obey the UN when it benefits the world? at least he is being honest..

I cannot say the same for most of the other Double-standart-whinners..

at least he is being honest..

I cannot say the same for most of the other Double-standart-whinners..

Way to back up what your own troll has to say.

there is nothing to allow..
one word: sovereignity

If you want to ban Nukes for the sake of humankind.. then yes I am with you.
anything less is not acceptable

I do desire to ban nukes for the sake of mankind, but for the time being I believe we should put them into more capable hands. Yes I know that the U.S. are the only ones to use nuclear weapons but they are also the country with the most regulations and standards on their weapons. If Iran were to gain nuclear weapons, they would most definitly sell them to some terroist organization if not use them itself. (If they didn't sell them, their lack of regulations and standards would inevitably put them into the wrong hands). But the U.S. has also seen the destructive power of a nuclear weapon first hand, I believe we have learned from our past mistakes.

I do desire to ban nukes for the sake of mankind... Good.
.
.

but for the time being we should I believe we should put them into more capable hands. is that YOUR hands your are talking about ???
or is that GWBush hands you are talking about.. either way is not acceptable.(like i said)

, then surely Iran has the right to take the best steps it feels it can to defend itself from the Israelis, who it percieves as a threat, whether or not it is (like the US)? Or is it different if its not your country?

Although the character of Ripper really did seem to mirror real life, you know, the insane nationalist American who would condem the world to fire, and launch the first strike. That really spoke to me. (You see, stabbing at foes)

Nuclear weapons are a different character entirely because of their destructive force. Building up on nuclear weapons would be a mistake because Iran has no reason to fear. No one with nuclear weapons is threatning them. If you're trying to compare to the cold war, that would be a mistake because Russia was most definitly threatening the U.S.
hmm.. that character in a different setting could be perceived as a certain Iranian president...(I can stab back :D)

[QUOTE=OcceanDrive2;12154750]Good.
.
.

is that YOUR hands your are talking about ???
or is that GWBush hands you are talking about.. either way is not acceptable.(like i said)
GwBush would not use nuclear weapons, despite what many people say. Use of nuclear of nuclear weapons would offend congress, would offend the people of of the United States, and would offend people world over. It would comprimise the U.S. as a nation, Gw isn't that stupid. I'll give you that he is most definitly not the smartest president, but he is also a politician, and politicians have some amount of sense otherwise they couldn't get elected.

[QUOTE=OcceanDrive2;12154750]Good.
.
.

is that YOUR hands your are talking about ???
or is that GWBush hands you are talking about.. either way is not acceptable.(like i said)
GwBush would not use nuclear weapons, despite what many people say. Use of nuclear of nuclear weapons would offend congress, would offend the people of of the United States, and would offend people world over. It would comprimise the U.S. as a nation, Gw isn't that stupid. I'll give you that he is most definitly not the smartest president, but he is also a politician, and politicians have some amount of sense otherwise they couldn't get elected.you can only preach that BS to the converted..

you can only preach that BS to the converted..

Lol, When in doubt deny, deny, deny, huh?

Nuclear weapons are a different character entirely because of their destructive force. Building up on nuclear weapons would be a mistake because Iran has no reason to fear. No one with nuclear weapons is threatning them. If you're trying to compare to the cold war, that would be a mistake because Russia was most definitly threatening the U.S.
hmm.. that character in a different setting could be perceived as a certain Iranian president...

Iran is part of the "Axis of Evil" along with N Korea and Iraq and we all know what happened to Iraq when it was threatened by two Nations with Nukes.....so Iran has every reason to feel threatened and it has learned that if you have nukes the USA will not invade.....

and you have a very biased view of history, it was the US that was threatening USSR....the USA had previously attacked the Soviets in effort to destroy them, the USSR has never attacked the USA...offensive missile bases in Turkey......for the Soviets possession of nukes was a defensive safeguard that the Imperialistic west would not attack

Iran is part of the "Axis of Evil" along with N Korea and Iraq and we all know what happened to Iraq when it was threatened by two Nations with Nukes.....so Iran has every reason to feel threatened and it has learned that if you have nukes the USA will not invade.....


Wrong, because nobody's threatening Iran.

Iran is part of the "Axis of Evil" along with N Korea and Iraq and we all know what happened to Iraq when it was threatened by two Nations with Nukes.....so Iran has every reason to feel threatened and it has learned that if you have nukes the USA will not invade.....

and you have a very biased view of history, it was the US that was threatening USSR....the USA had previously attacked the Soviets in effort to destroy them, the USSR has never attacked the USA...offensive missile bases in Turkey......for the Soviets possession of nukes was a defensive safeguard that the Imperialistic west would not attack

Bush stopped that axis of evil bullshit a while ago. The U.S. never used nuclear weapons on Iraq so I really don't see what the U.S. being a nuclear power has anything to do with invading Iraq. When exactly did the U.S. attack the USSR? Excuse me if my vision of history is so skewed, but I don't remember any 1 time when that U.S. forces came into a violent conflict with the soviets.

for the Soviets possession of nukes was a defensive safeguard that the Imperialistic west would not attack
Imperialistic West? I hate to be the one to tell you this but the Soviets were pretty imperialistic themselves. But of course, being a communist nation they supposedly completely immune from this kind of criticism. However, their continued occupation of both Manchuria and eastern europe clearly exposes their desires: greatness as an Imperial power.

for the Soviets possession of nukes was a defensive safeguard that the Imperialistic west would not attack
Imperialistic West? I hate to be the one to tell you this but the Soviets were pretty imperialistic themselves. But of course, being a communist nation they supposedly completely immune from this kind of criticism. However, their continued occupation of both Manchuria and eastern europe clearly exposes their desires: greatness as an Imperial power.

Iran does not have the rite to intervene in Israel because Israel has never attacked Iran. I will continue to make this arguement until it is answered, Israel has never attacked Iran, nor made any hostile action towards it, its not even near Iran, therefore Iran should not feel threatened by it, and if they are it is do to their own racism and prejudice thereby proving my point that the Iranian president is an anti-semite.
Please, interfering has never been limited to countries that have any real relationship with ones own, and Israel and Iran are most certainly aware of each other, also isn't it the Iran which is being interfered with here.
If your enemy has nuclear weapons and an long-range delivery system, distance means little to nothing and as I have said (and you may force me to say many more times) if you consider a country a threat and it has these capabilities you will want a defence against it. There is hostility and that is enough for this defence to be desired.

They should probably worry about people along their border such as their neighbors pakistan, but even then Pakistan is not hostile or even a minor threat to Iran.
But again Pakistan has its deterrent, and given the idiological orientation of the Iranian government they probably percieve it as less of a threat, besides, Pakistan has to worry about India.

Just because a country is perceived as a threat, there is no reason to build weapons. Thats how wars are started. Thats why Africa is so messed up (among many, many other reasons). One neigbor builds up weapons because it perceives its neigbor as a threat then the other neighbor builds up and before you know it you've got a war bloodier than WWII.
So what you are saying is that no country should arm before the war begins. Hell, why even have a standing army? As for Africa being messed up, I would say that the many, many reasons outweigh your one. I would even question its validity. This happened in the could war, and nothing became of it. The fighting starts when one of the nations decides that they stand to gain enough that the damage of the war will be counter-balanced, nicely nuclear weapons mean that almost no gain can be counter-balanced, helping peace, whereas conventional war can drag out and odds can truely be in favour of one side.

And there is most definitly a reason for us to back Israel, they support U.S. interests and depend on our support. That is reason alone to back them.
They support US interests because they depend on US support, you could do the same with any small country in return for nuclear weapons, money, military and political support and mutual idiological tolerance. Israel depends on the US because it is unpopular in its own region and at the very least cannot rely on the same favouritism from the wider world.

MAD may work in terms of countries, but Iran has repeatedly proved it associates with terrorist organizations whose main goals are the disruption of the U.S. and its policies. What if one of the nuclear weapons Iran was building "accidently" fell into one of those terroist's hands? I say accidently here because Iran would probably sell it to them.
Yes, and what if US nuclear material fell into the hands of terrorists, they wouldn't even have to move it internationally. Or what if Russian weapons were taken. Both are held suprisingly insecurely. As for supporting terrorists as a policy, so does the US if they believe it will serve their ends.

Nuclear weapons are a different character entirely because of their destructive force. Building up on nuclear weapons would be a mistake because Iran has no reason to fear. No one with nuclear weapons is threatning them.
The US would happily fire on Iran if it thought it was worth the missles, and Israel has the weapons. By their existance the weapons pose a threat, whether thowe who control them are vocal or not. Whats this about nuclear weapons having character? If you mean they are a step up, then it would only put Iran on closer to even footing. Doesn't it deserve that? (If 'no' give a reason, preferably somethnig fresh.)

If you're trying to compare to the cold war, that would be a mistake because Russia was most definitly threatening the U.S.
hmm.. that character in a different setting could be perceived as a certain Iranian president...(I can stab back :D)
Well, if you mean the USSR was a threat before it had nuclear weapons, then not so much to the US, at least directly (which is all America seems to consider). If you mean after, then yes, they could be considered threat, just as the US was considered a threat by the USSR. And interestingly most of this animosity was caused by idiological and strategic differences. However we can also see MAD working between India and Pakistan and every nuclear power in the world.

As for the stab, well done, I hope you enjoyed it (although you helped my point). However select another target for better effect, I have no love of Ahmadinejad, and like Iran only slightly more than Israel. I just believe that nuclear armament is a good thing in general and would defend Iran as it has chosen to arm.

I do desire to ban nukes for the sake of mankind, but for the time being I believe we should put them into more capable hands.
Nuclear weapons have done more for the cause of peace between major countries than almost any negtiations could have over the past 60 years.

Yes I know that the U.S. are the only ones to use nuclear weapons but they are also the country with the most regulations and standards on their weapons. ... But the U.S. has also seen the destructive power of a nuclear weapon first hand, I believe we have learned from our past mistakes.
People very rarely learn from their mistakes as a general rule. As for the US being the only nation to use nuclear weapons, I support their use of those two weapons, the US got lucky though. I would however say that the Japanese probably have a better first hand experience of nuclear war, the US has just had to cope with unfair accusations regarding their deployment since their use. (Wow, I think I just somewhat defended the USA.)

If Iran were to gain nuclear weapons, they would most definitly sell them to some terroist organization if not use them itself. (If they didn't sell them, their lack of regulations and standards would inevitably put them into the wrong hands).
Irans nuclear facilities are more secure than the US's in many respects.

Please, interfering has never been limited to countries that have any real relationship with ones own, and Israel and Iran are most certainly aware of each other, also isn't it the Iran which is being interfered with here.
If your enemy has nuclear weapons and an long-range delivery system, distance means little to nothing and as I have said (and you may force me to say many more times) if you consider a country a threat and it has these capabilities you will want a defence against it. There is hostility and that is enough for this defence to be desired.


But again Pakistan has its deterrent, and given the idiological orientation of the Iranian government they probably percieve it as less of a threat, besides, Pakistan has to worry about India.


So what you are saying is that no country should arm before the war begins. Hell, why even have a standing army? As for Africa being messed up, I would say that the many, many reasons outweigh your one. I would even question its validity. This happened in the could war, and nothing became of it. The fighting starts when one of the nations decides that they stand to gain enough that the damage of the war will be counter-balanced, nicely nuclear weapons mean that almost no gain can be counter-balanced, helping peace, whereas conventional war can drag out and odds can truely be in favour of one side.


They support US interests because they depend on US support, you could do the same with any small country in return for nuclear weapons, money, military and political support and mutual idiological tolerance. Israel depends on the US because it is unpopular in its own region and at the very least cannot rely on the same favouritism from the wider world.


Yes, and what if US nuclear material fell into the hands of terrorists, they wouldn't even have to move it internationally. Or what if Russian weapons were taken. Both are held suprisingly insecurely. As for supporting terrorists as a policy, so does the US if they believe it will serve their ends.


The US would happily fire on Iran if it thought it was worth the missles, and Israel has the weapons. By their existance the weapons pose a threat, whether thowe who control them are vocal or not. Whats this about nuclear weapons having character? If you mean they are a step up, then it would only put Iran on closer to even footing. Doesn't it deserve that? (If 'no' give a reason, preferably somethnig fresh.)


Well, if you mean the USSR was a threat before it had nuclear weapons, then not so much to the US, at least directly (which is all America seems to consider). If you mean after, then yes, they could be considered threat, just as the US was considered a threat by the USSR. And interestingly most of this animosity was caused by idiological and strategic differences. However we can also see MAD working between India and Pakistan and every nuclear power in the world.

As for the stab, well done, I hope you enjoyed it (although you helped my point). However select another target for better effect, I have no love of Ahmadinejad, and like Iran only slightly more than Israel. I just believe that nuclear armament is a good thing in general and would defend Iran as it has chosen to arm.
I truly don't believe that the U.S. would use nuclear weapons again. If that were true then we would have used them again long ago. The reason for their use in the first place was because we had no idea the destruction they were capable of. If what you say is true, then why hasn't the U.S. used them again? We really have no impediments other than the will of our own people. Other than Iran we've had several other countries that have opposed us. After the Cold war we could easily nuked the nations where the terroists who participated in the first attempt to destroy the world trade center came from without fear of reprisal from a nuclear nation. Nuclear weapons are a different in that they give a nation the power to decimate a country in a matter of minutes. That kind of power does not belong in the hands of someone who will most likely sell them to terroists. And I fail to see how Iran's nuclear facilities are more secure than the U.S.'s. They associate themselves with known terroists, I couldn't think a worse place for them to be located except for maybe North Korea (which obviously has them) and the current Iraq.

The reason for my stab against Iran was because I truly know nothing about you, other than you hate the U.S. and Israel.

The real reason we support Israel is because we created it, and if the people that lived there died, it would be on our hands. Unlike the other middle eastern states, which were stupidly divided up by Great Britain.

hmm... for some reason you remind of a pre-WWI prussian nationalist...
Well the threat of a deterent didn't work in that case and it caused two of bloodiest wars in the history of the world.

Please, interfering has never been limited to countries that have any real relationship with ones own, and Israel and Iran are most certainly aware of each other, also isn't it the Iran which is being interfered with here.
If your enemy has nuclear weapons and an long-range delivery system, distance means little to nothing and as I have said (and you may force me to say many more times) if you consider a country a threat and it has these capabilities you will want a defence against it. There is hostility and that is enough for this defence to be desired.


But again Pakistan has its deterrent, and given the idiological orientation of the Iranian government they probably percieve it as less of a threat, besides, Pakistan has to worry about India.




The point is, its not in Iran's best interests to do this. They'll be faced with overwhelming resistance from the rest of the world. Plus Pakistan associates itself with the U.S., technically making them Iran's enemy. Pakistan may have India to worry about, but I really don't think India would care if Pakistan were to make a move on Iran. I also don't think India would go to war with Pakistan again, considering its very involved with modernizing its economy.

I truly don't believe that the U.S. would use nuclear weapons again. If that were true then we would have used them again long ago.
The US would use them in certain circumstances, just as any other nation would. However since the US has not used them we must assume that something stopped them whenever it was considered, whether it was the people or the threat of retaliation.

The reason for their use in the first place was because we had no idea the destruction they were capable of. If what you say is true, then why hasn't the U.S. used them again? We really have no impediments other than the will of our own people. Other than Iran we've had several other countries that have opposed us.
No, the US did have a pretty good idea, you see they conducted these things called nuclear tests (although they were horribly mismanaged). You do realise that the international community does have some influence even when dealing with the thickest of heads. If the US used the weapons there would be international outcry, a nuclear cloud circling around the Earth and (if the US did something really stupid) retaliation.

After the Cold war we could easily nuked the nations where the terroists of the first attempt to destroy the world trade center came from without fear of reprisal from a nuclear nation.
Do you think that a nation actually needs to be fired on directly to retaliate? If the US were, say, to launch ICBMs at North Korea, the missles that hit the US back wouldn't be Korean, they would be Russian and Chinese. If the US attacked the Middle East, they might find themselves facing counterattacks from a terrified Europe and Russia. An unexpected nuclear strike almost anywhere on the planet could be enough to trigger massive strikes all over the world.


Nuclear weapons are a different in that they give a nation the power to decimate a country in a matter of minutes. That kind of power does not belong in the hands of someone who will most likely sell them to terroists.
That power is their great strength. Nuclear weapons are the great international equaliser, anyone who has a suitable amount and a reliable delivery system can make themselves heard, and negotiate as (in the worst of times) a nartion worthy of some degree of fear. Do you not think that if you recognise the difference between a conventional weapon and a nuclear one, then perhaps (probably) older and wiser individuals also know the difference and understand what being connected with terrorists using such weapons could mean for their nation.

And I fail to see how Iran's nuclear facilities are more secure than the U.S.'s.
The US's nuclear facilities are suprisingly insecure, mostly relying on being in the middle of nowhere and a light military presence for security. The Iranians do not want anyone to know what they are doing or how far along they are, and so have better soldiers guarding facilities that are designed to be incredibly hard to infiltrate and are built to conceal as much as possible from UN inspectors.

They associate themselves with known terroists, I couldn't think a worse place for them to be located except for maybe North Korea (which obviously has them) and the current Iraq.
The US has associated with plenty of terrorists during its time when it thought they would serve it, but as a stated above, you assume that these people are less rational and intelligent than you, and cannot identify the line between total destruction and being unpopular in the USA. There is no certainty that North Korea has the weapons, only a reasonable likelyhood, and if they do, then good for them. Nuclear weaponry for as many as possible.

hmm... for some reason you remind of a pre-WWI prussian nationalist...
Well the threat of a deterent didn't work in that case and it caused two of bloodiest wars in the history of the world.
That deterrent was not absolute destruction followed by decades of fallout. It was something less than that. You have used the example of a failed deterrent situation from long before nuclear weapons existed, I have used several from when they were created to the modern day.

Also, I do not know were you get this idea that I think the USA is abnormally likely to use nuclear weapons, I just think that they would use them like any other. Science, I defended the Hiroshima and Nagusaki bombings.

The reason for my stab against Iran was because I truly know nothing about you, other than you hate the U.S. and Israel.
I do not hate the US or Israel, I know many pleasant people in the US. It just has a poor foreign policy. As for Israel, I do not think it should have been made where and how it was, and the Zionist vision has been twisted over it. But what my grandparents have to say about the idea has left enough of an impression that I cannot hate the ideal that was once behind it.

The real reason we support Israel is because we created it, and if the people that lived there died, it would be on our hands. Unlike the other middle eastern states, which were stupidly divided up by Great Britain.
Thats my point. Don't say that Israel is somehow key to world stability and must be present to hold back the tide of Islamic terrorists (you didn't, but I've heard this sort of nonsense). The US feels guilty and responsible for it. Fair enough, but bullying for it on a frequent basis and international scale does not reflect well on either nation. Try treating other nations in the region, yes pre-dominantly Muslim nations, as if you respect their right to exist, rather than proclaiming that the people are the enemy.

The point is, its not in Iran's best interests to do this. They'll be faced with overwhelming resistance from the rest of the world. Plus Pakistan associates itself with the U.S., technically making them Iran's enemy. Pakistan may have India to worry about, but I really don't think India would care if Pakistan were to make a move on Iran. I also don't think India would go to war with Pakistan again, considering its very involved with modernizing its economy.
Every country that is going to develop has to associate with the US, and every developed country knows that they must as well, for now. Soon it will be China and then India, but now it is the US. It may not be in Iran's best interests, but if they have the weapons they will feel fractionally more secure. Iran and its leaders have almost no friends outside a small group of Muslim Middle Eastern nations, many of which recieve the same treatment it does. The Iranian leaders cannot believe that the US would ever give them fair quarter, nor can they accept that an affront to their faith (subjectively) like Israel should be allowed to exist if it can be removed conviniently. The US's favoritism regarding Israel allows this to mesh together into a hatred and mistrust that makes them want to rebel just to spite the US qand wider world that deals with it, that and nuclear (in)security is enough.

Thats my point. Don't say that Israel is somehow key to world stability and must be present to hold back the tide of Islamic terrorists (you didn't, but I've heard this sort of nonsense). The US feels guilty and responsible for it.

What the hell? It was a U.N. and British Palestine thing. The U.S. had nothing to do with it.

Fair enough, but bullying for it on a frequent basis and international scale does not reflect well on either nation. Try treating other nations in the region, yes pre-dominantly Muslim nations, as if you respect their right to exist, rather than proclaiming that the people are the enemy.

Respect must be a two-way street. Problem is, no one is willing to lemon curry? give ground, and most of the Middle-Eastern states have not shown their willingness (save Saudi Arabia) to kiss and make up if we do.

What the hell? It was a U.N. and British Palestine thing. The U.S. had nothing to do with it.
Yes, but who really held sway in the UN in 1947? Besides, if you say they defend it because they think that the Jews should get what they had in the Bible someone will get offended. If someone is willing to give a point (in some sense) let them.


Respect must be a two-way street. Problem is, no one is willing to lemon curry? give ground, and most of the Middle-Eastern states have not shown their willingness (save Saudi Arabia) to kiss and make up if we do.
I would have to agree with you. There is unlikely to ever be a stable peace unless someone backs down. But Israel won't because it has US backing and the assorted other Muslim nations are unhappy to back down when they firmly believe that they have more right to the region (possibly correctly:confused: ). Jerusalem is just to much trouble even without the rest of the Middle East.

Yes, but who really held sway in the UN in 1947?

The U.S. had sway, yes, but it was the British that crafted the plan, not the U.S.

Besides, if you say they defend it because they think that the Jews should get what they had in the Bible someone will get offended.

So? Honestly, who cares if someone's offended?

I would have to agree with you. There is unlikely to ever be a stable peace unless someone backs down. But Israel won't because it has US backing and the assorted other Muslim nations are unhappy to back down when they firmly believe that they have more right to the region (possibly correctly:confused:).

Israel won't back down because if it does, the Arab states will keep pressing until Israel doesn't exist anymore. In the Six-Day War, Israel fought off -- alone -- all of its Arab nations -- and whooped up on them all. All of the acquired territories from the war are rightfully Israel's -- yet they gave most of them back, and are working on doing it for the others (except the West Bank, but not giving that up is a smart strategic decision on their part).

Granted, that's not to say Israel has backed down completely, but I'm saying that it HAS made some concessions, relative to its counterparts in the conflict.

Jerusalem is just to much trouble even without the rest of the Middle East.

Yes, the city that is holy to three major religions, one of which occupies it on the west, another on the east.

Oh, they both happen to hate each other. Woo! Grab the popcorn.

Well the US, as the only nuclear transgressor in human history, has no right to preach to a sovereign state regarding correct use of nuclear technology.

Well the US, as the only nuclear transgressor in human history, has no right to preach to a sovereign state regarding correct use of nuclear technology.

Oh shove off. The "ZOMG US USED N00KS, IT IS t3H EBIL LOLOLOL" argument is bollocks. Go away.

I do not hate the US or Israel, I know many pleasant people in the US. It just has a poor foreign policy. As for Israel, I do not think it should have been made where and how it was, and the Zionist vision has been twisted over it. But what my grandparents have to say about the idea has left enough of an impression that I cannot hate the ideal that was once behind it.


Thats my point. Don't say that Israel is somehow key to world stability and must be present to hold back the tide of Islamic terrorists (you didn't, but I've heard this sort of nonsense). The US feels guilty and responsible for it. Fair enough, but bullying for it on a frequent basis and international scale does not reflect well on either nation. Try treating other nations in the region, yes pre-dominantly Muslim nations, as if you respect their right to exist, rather than proclaiming that the people are the enemy. (I wonder if thats a stab in the right direction)

Bullying for it? The U.S. gives Israel supplies, thats about it. Theres too much of an affront against the idea of supporting Israel on an international scale in this country to fully support it in any other way than to quietly say "we support Israel". Yes we have supplied Israel with weapons and supplies. Does that mean that the U.S. is totally for Israel in terms of policies? No. Does that mean we actually care about the people that are living in Israel? Absoulutely. If the united states were to back off with aid and support, Israel would almost be immediately overrun by hostile invaders. That would mean we would have the deaths of millions on our hands. How would we explain that to the rest of the world do suppose? Its not guilt that drives us, but the preservation of human life.

As far as your statement that the U.S. has a poor foreign policy, there have been far worse my friend. We probably wouldn't be in this mess right now if it wasn't for the European Imperialists, who feel they are so high and mighty now as to dictate the U.S.'s foreign policy.

Well the US, as the only nuclear transgressor in human history, has no right to preach to a sovereign state regarding correct use of nuclear technology.

Thats pretty much only because we didn't understand the destructive capabilities of the bomb. If we'd known the long term effects of it (ie: radiation poisoning, lekemia) we probably wouldn't have used it in the first place. Plus, being the first to create it, we understand its destructive capabilities and, despite what Prek has said, I believe the U.S. has learned from its mistakes.

Thats pretty much only because we didn't understand the destructive capabilities of the bomb. If we'd known the long term effects of it (ie: radiation poisoning, lekemia) we probably wouldn't have used it in the first place. Plus, being the first to create it, we understand its destructive capabilities and, despite what Prek has said, I believe the U.S. has learned from its mistakes.

So your equating 'learnt from it's mistakes' to 'has the right to dictate how the technology is used'?

So your equating 'learnt from it's mistakes' to 'has the right to dictate how the technology is used'?

No, I'm equating Creating the technology to dictating how it is used.

No, I'm equating Creating the technology to dictating how it is used.

Human progress belongs to all.

No, I'm equating Creating the technology to dictating how it is used.Lets say.. the Chinese created gunpowder..
and the Arabs created Numbers..
the Germans created printing..

so are you saying they can ban US from using these?

Lets say.. the Chinese created gunpowder..
and the Arabs created Numbers..
the Germans created printing..

so are you saying they can ban US from using these?

QFT

Human progress belongs to all.

Says who? You? It belongs to those that can get or asks and recieves because others feel like giving.


And Iran leaders HAVE given the threat of destroying Israel, they HAVE given the threat of destroying USA. Period. Even France sees this: http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1154525799132&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull

Plus they threaten to hit anyone that opposes them doing something "evil"...makes you wonder what they consider evil.....

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12594448/

http://www.jnewswire.com/article/21

It belongs to those that can get or asks and recieves because others feel like giving.huh? :confused:

I am damn sick of all these righters saying Iran wants to 'wipe Israel off the map', it wants to destroy the oppressive racial segregationist Zionist regime in Israel, which oppresses the Palestinians and uses the slightest pretext to bomb innocent civilians. Jew is to Zionist what German is to Nazi.

Bullying for it? The U.S. gives Israel supplies, thats about it. Theres too much of an affront against the idea of supporting Israel on an international scale in this country to fully support it in any other way than to quietly say "we support Israel". Yes we have supplied Israel with weapons and supplies. Does that mean that the U.S. is totally for Israel in terms of policies? No.
You give one country in a region advanced weaponry and military technology, and allow them to hold nuclear weapons while attempting to prevent any other nation in the region from aquiring a similar level of advancement. Whether you agree in terms of policy or not means little to Iran, as long as the Israelis have American weaponry pointed at them.

Does that mean we actually care about the people that are living in Israel? Absoulutely. If the united states were to back off with aid and support, Israel would almost be immediately overrun by hostile invaders. That would mean we would have the deaths of millions on our hands. How would we explain that to the rest of the world do suppose? Its not guilt that drives us, but the preservation of human life.
Israel would be at risk of attack, but as long as it has its nuclear deterrent it can still make threats and hopefully get them heeded. I suppose the US would simply ignore pretty much all critisism that foreign nations threw at it, as they seem to now. Of course this is very unlikely to happen because the American people themselves would never stand for a Jewish nation to be destroyed by, of all things, a Muslim one. You make the mistake of saying 'human life', when what you mean is 'Israeli life', the US clearly does not value the lives of other nationalities nearly as much.

As far as your statement that the U.S. has a poor foreign policy, there have been far worse my friend. We probably wouldn't be in this mess right now if it wasn't for the European Imperialists, who feel they are so high and mighty now as to dictate the U.S.'s foreign policy.
Well according to you, we have learnt from our mistakes when being imperialist, and so have the right to dictate foreign policy to all.:D
However what you have done here is taken the policies out of context. True, much of the world was damaged by European imperialism, but at the time they had neither the hindsight to know what they would do nor the social structures and views present that are now. At that time they precieved nothing wrong with their actions and had no one telling them otherwise. In the modern day the US has much of the world trying to tell it that there are other ways to get things done, and within the US are similar social and political standards that are often ignored or swept aside by a kind of blind nationalism that is harder to find in such quantities elsewhere in the developed world.

You seem to have misinterpreted what I said about learning from mistakes. I did not mean the US anymore than any other group of people. Its just that people are very prone to forgetting a lesson quickly. But for the sake of the argument, why, if the US will never US nuclear weapons, even against Iran, did the US government request a STRATCOM plan involving tactical nuclear weapons to attack Iran in the event of a 9/11 style attack on the US, not requiring Iran to actually be involved in the attack. And why has it been expanding its Doctrine for Joint Nuclear Operations to include actions which would allow them to nuke pre-nuclear Iran.

Well according to you, we have learnt from our mistakes when being imperialist, and so have the right to dictate foreign policy to all.:Dyes.. thats what he is saying..

and -sadly- he thinks he is rigth.

I am damn sick of all these righters saying Iran wants to 'wipe Israel off the map', it wants to destroy the oppressive racial segregationist Zionist regime in Israel, which oppresses the Palestinians and uses the slightest pretext to bomb innocent civilians. Jew is to Zionist what German is to Nazi.
Um,, dude, he has said he wants to wipe Israel off the map...yet another bullshit argument that has already been used. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mahmoud_Ahmadinejad

Um,, dude, he has said he wants to wipe Israel off the map...yet another bullshit argument that has already been used. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mahmoud_Ahmadinejad

One man rarely represents an entire nation. If that were the case I would dislike all of the USA rather than just its leader.

Israel would be at risk of attack, but as long as it has its nuclear deterrent it can still make threats and hopefully get them heeded. I suppose the US would simply ignore pretty much all critisism that foreign nations threw at it, as they seem to now. Of course this is very unlikely to happen because the American people themselves would never stand for a Jewish nation to be destroyed by, of all things, a Muslim one. You make the mistake of saying 'human life', when what you mean is 'Israeli life', the US clearly does not value the lives of other nationalities nearly as much.




Pessimistic much? It would really be on our hands if the Israeli nation was some how taken over and sick people like the Iranian governing council were able to slaughter any oppossition in the country. Do you really think that some how Iran is going to be able to 'liberate' Israel from the Zionist, or as you like to call them, Nazi regime? Like Bush 'liberated' Iraq right? Or how about when the Europeans helped 'liberate' the poor, uneducated nations across the world? Oh wait, most of the problems we're now going stem from the age of European Imperialism...Do you really think that all Iran is going to do is get rid of the zionist regime? You don't think they'd want vengeance of a genoicidal nature do you? Of course not. Its only happened to the Jewish people thousands of times throughout history when they've been a semi-prosperous minority. You don't think that Iran would be willing to sacrifice millions of people just destroy its enemies? Think again: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran#Islamic_Revolution_and_war_with_Iraq_.281979.E2.80.9388.29
Read the section on the Iranian-Iraq war. It details one of, if not the bloodiest wars of all time. Iran was willing to lose millions of people then, whats different now?

yes.. thats what he is saying..

and -sadly- he thinks he is rigth.

Please don't talk until you've provided an arguement that doesn't involve the denial of facts.

But for the sake of the argument, why, if the US will never US nuclear weapons, even against Iran, did the US government request a STRATCOM plan involving tactical nuclear weapons to attack Iran in the event of a 9/11 style attack on the US, not requiring Iran to actually be involved in the attack. And why has it been expanding its Doctrine for Joint Nuclear Operations to include actions which would allow them to nuke pre-nuclear Iran.
I would really like to see your source on this.

At that time they precieved nothing wrong with their actions and had no one telling them otherwise.

How about the people they were taking advantage of? The Europeans knew what they were doing was wrong, they just covered it up by lying to themselves.

Um,, dude, he has said he wants to wipe Israel off the map...yet another bullshit argument that has already been used. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mahmoud_Ahmadinejad

If you guys could stick to truth then I wouldn't have to constantly
look like I'm defending a regime I don't approve of because people
who should know better let themselves be swayed by arguments
of another regime that is just as despicable and infinitely more
dangerous.

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article12790.htm

In the modern day the US has much of the world trying to tell it that there are other ways to get things done, and within the US are similar social and political standards that are often ignored or swept aside by a kind of blind nationalism that is harder to find in such quantities elsewhere in the developed world.


HA HA HA!!! You must be joking about that part about nationalism. The French? They still hold themselves above everyone else.. Italy? Half the nation still believes that facism was the right way to go. Russia? One of their presidential candidates a couple of years ago ran on the premise of taking back all territory that once belonged to Russia. He came in third in the race over all. China? speaks for itself.

Nice to see my thread alive and kicking.;)

Pessimistic much?
Yes.

It would really be on our hands if the Israeli nation was some how taken over and sick people like the Iranian governing council were able to slaughter any oppossition in the country. Do you really think that some how Iran is going to be able to 'liberate' Israel from the Zionist, or as you like to call them, Nazi regime?
You were the one who said that the blood would be on your hands in the first place. I do not think that the Iranians would be any better as conquerors than the Israelis. But I am not supporting the invasion of Israel by Iran, if you didn't notice. And I have never called the Israeli government a Nazi regime, that would surely spawn a nation of self-hating Jews who would not object to the destruction of their own people.


Like Bush 'liberated' Iraq right? Or how about when the Europeans helped 'liberate' the poor, uneducated nations across the world? Oh wait, most of the problems we're now going stem from the age of European Imperialism.
I do not know why you are bringing Bush into this as a case study, he has screwed Iraq up an as I have said I do not support the Western iterference in th Middle East. As for European imperialism, well, actually I have said pretty much all I had to say in the earlier post, at least unless you add something.

Do you really think that all Iran is going to do is get rid of the zionist regime? You don't think they'd want vengeance of a genoicidal nature do you? Of course not.
As I have said a number of times, I do not support Iran over Israel in any great way. I just think that when a nation has a right to arm itself with nuclear weapons if it deems it necessary.

Its only happened to the Jewish people thousands of times throughout history when they've been a semi-prospering minority. You don't think that Iran would be willing millions of people just destroy its enemies? Think again: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran#Islamic_Revolution_and_war_with_Iraq_.281979.E2.80.9388.29
Read the section on the Iranian-Iraq war. It details one of, if not the bloodiest wars of all time. Iran was willing to lose millions of people then, whats different now?
First of all, they had the chemical weapons used against them. They were the victims of the attack, not the aggressors and eventually accepted a truce rather than continuing to fight and wipe out the enemy at all costs. They also suffered (according to the article) 500,000 to 1,000,000 casualties and so not actually millions. The differences would be that this action was in self-defence and that the Iranians refrained from using their most terrible (chemical) weapons. The only thing they did really wrong was not to accept the first ceasefire, although they may have wanted a degree of vengance (which they later halted). Honestly, do you hate Iran enough to think that this is good evidence against them, or did you not even read the link?

Now would you stop making this an argument about whether Israel is the greatest country in the world after the US and offer some new (preferably non-Israel related) arguments.

I would really like to see your source on this.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/09/10/AR2005091001053.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran-US_relations#Claims_of_plans_for_use_of_tactical_nuclear_weapons_against_Iran

How about the people they were taking advantage of? The Europeans knew what they were doing was wrong, they just covered it up by lying to themselves.
Remember that at the time you didn't need to learn the language of an inferior racial group, they learnt as much of yours as they needed to get by on. Its easy to say that they new what they were doing was wrong after hundreds of years of social change, but at the time these ideas were considered stupid. Considering in the US African-Americans were not given equal rights until until the 1960s, this is not so suprising.

HA HA HA!!! You must be joking about that part about nationalism. The French? They still hold themselves above everyone else.. Italy? Half the nation still believes that facism was the right way to go. Russia? One of their presidential candidates a couple of years ago ran on the premise of taking back all territory that once belonged to Russia. He came in third in the race over all. China? speaks for itself.
I will admit that other nations have nationalists, but these nationalists do not display the same ignorance of the world that the American ones do. I have met (in person) Americans who seemed attribute everything good in all of history to America since Jesus died and outright denied anything negative. These other nationalists may be as extreme in their beliefs but they manage to come across as less blinded by them.

Please don't talk until you've provided an arguement that doesn't involve the denial of facts.how about this
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article12790.htm

how about this
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article12790.htm

already been used. And all that means is the man is a calculating politician, he still has stated that he wants to wipe Israel off the face of the map. Israel has stated no comparable aim. For this reason alone Iran should not be given nuclear weapons. Israel's aim has been a defensive one rather than an aggressive one.

And I have never called the Israeli government a Nazi regime, that would surely spawn a nation of self-hating Jews who would not object to the destruction of their own people.



Perhaps not you but others on this thread most definitly have.

You give one country in a region advanced weaponry and military technology, and allow them to hold nuclear weapons while attempting to prevent any other nation in the region from aquiring a similar level of advancement. Whether you agree in terms of policy or not means little to Iran, as long as the Israelis have American weaponry pointed at them.



Which has only been used for defensive purposes. Not only that but Israel has never even threatened to use nuclear weapons, unlike pretty much every other nuclear armed nation, including the U.S. unfortunetly.

Yes.



First of all, they had the chemical weapons used against them. They were the victims of the attack, not the aggressors and eventually accepted a truce rather than continuing to fight and wipe out the enemy at all costs. They also suffered (according to the article) 500,000 to 1,000,000 casualties and so not actually millions. The differences would be that this action was in self-defence and that the Iranians refrained from using their most terrible (chemical) weapons. The only thing they did really wrong was not to accept the first ceasefire, although they may have wanted a degree of vengance (which they later halted). Honestly, do you hate Iran enough to think that this is good evidence against them, or did you not even read the link?


Do you know what kind of tactics they were using in this war? They used waves of martyrs for their cause. Thats waves of people against chemical weapons and tanks. Whether or not they were the aggressors is not the point. If they were to get involved in some kind of war, they wouldn't have any qualms about using nuclear weapons, because they care nothing for their people.

By the way this is far better than when people say that zionists run the U.S. or that bush is somehow going to declare himself dictator.

Well according to you, we have learnt from our mistakes when being imperialist, and so have the right to dictate foreign policy to all.:D

Not really, unless you some how invented foreign policy. And I really don't believe you learned anything. The treatment of muslims in Europe is appalling. You bash Israel for its treatment of Palestinians? Try being muslim in Europe, and try getting a job. Or at least getting better living conditions than being cramped into a ghetto.

If you guys could stick to truth then I wouldn't have to constantly
look like I'm defending a regime I don't approve of because people
who should know better let themselves be swayed by arguments
of another regime that is just as despicable and infinitely more
dangerous.

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article12790.htm

Just for the record, who are you defending here?

One man rarely represents an entire nation. If that were the case I would dislike all of the USA rather than just its leader.

If not the entire nation, then at least the ruling counsel since the Iranian people actually didn't elect him. :D

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/09/10/AR2005091001053.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran-US_relations#Claims_of_plans_for_use_of_tactical_nuclear_weapons_against_Iran



The first article, says that the doctrine has not yet been drafted and mentions nothing about Iran. the second is pure speculation.

Israel would be at risk of attack, but as long as it has its nuclear deterrent it can still make threats and hopefully get them heeded. I suppose the US would simply ignore pretty much all critisism that foreign nations threw at it, as they seem to now. Of course this is very unlikely to happen because the American people themselves would never stand for a Jewish nation to be destroyed by, of all things, a Muslim one.



Actually, it seems most of the world is against Iran. The only real supporters of Iran, are North korea, China and Russia. Its only people such as yourself in foreign nations that attempt to justify an objective of a nation that clearly has hostility in mind by gaining nuclear weapons.

Its only people such as yourself in foreign nations that attempt to justify an objective of a nation that clearly has hostility in mind by gaining nuclear weapons.
I take it you're an american?

Iran has every right to acquire nuclear weapons, as does Pakistan, India and North Korea.

Remember, no country possessing nuclear weapons has ever been a target of large scale invasion or faced a serious threat to its peaceful existence.

I take it you're an american?

Iran has every right to acquire nuclear weapons, as does Pakistan, India and North Korea.

Remember, no country possessing nuclear weapons has ever been a target of large scale invasion or faced a serious threat to its peaceful existence.

The difference between those countries and Israel, is that the Israelis have non-aggressive objectives. Pakistan, India and North Korea already have nuclear weapons in case you somehow didn't know that, and they use the threat of them aggressively.

He didn't bother to specify. It's really amazing to see people that are saying "Maybe he means that sometime, somehow, Israel will be destroyed" or bullshit like this. Don't try to defend him or justify what he said. He intends to destroy Israel. He doesn't need to spell it out for us.

well said Isralandia.

Nuclear power for all, and an end to divisiveness.

I doi not care if Iran has nuclear power or not. What they cannot have is nukes and that is clearly spelled out in the NPT.

Because whether or not he is a monster is a matter of opinion, someone somewhere must disagree or he would be gone.

Either that or or someone more conservative than he is will be elected. One of the two.

Use the strength of your argument rather than demonisation to win. If you don't this will end up like a US election.

WTF is that supposed to mean?

They do not, but US and Russian nuclear sites are poorly guarded and could be raided without too much trouble if terrorists took it upon themselves.

Apparently, you never been to a nuclear site.

So I have a question, and maybe this should be a new thread, tell me if you think so; but why the sanctions on Iran for supposedly pursuing Nukes when right nearby a country who has of late demonstrated far more aggression has a proven nuclear arsenal. Where are the sanctions on Israel? whatever Iran is doing, Israel is much further outside all of the same laws.

If you need this explained to you then you really are out of touch.

1) Iran is NOT COMPLYING WITH THE NON-PROLIFERATION TREATY!!!! Failure to abide by this is grounds, in accordance with the treaty, to have sanctions placed upon it.

2) Israel has not used nukes. They will not use them unless they are about to be totally defeated. It is called the Samson Plan or something like that.

3) You may call what they did in Lebanon agression but it was more self-defense than anything else for Hezbollah was launching rockets illegally into a soveriegn nation.

So that's your excuse? You so desperately want to believe the myth that the alternatives would have been even more costly.

I'm just so pissed off that I want people to die horribly. That is not even remotely accurate. I want to see less life lost than more lives taken during a war. Hell, I pray that war does not happen but I know that is not even remotely possible.

[font=Tahoma]Sanction Iran for kicking out the inspectors and trust they are not going to be stupid enough to build a nuke.

One can pray that they won't but what they are doing makes me suspect that they are indeed building a nuclear weapon.

there is nothing to allow..
one word: sovereignity

If you want to ban Nukes for the sake of humankind.. then yes I am with you.
anything less is not acceptable

When you sign on to an international treaty, you are bound by ALL THE TERMS OF THE TREATY.

at least he is being honest..

I cannot say the same for most of the other Double-standart-whinners..

Like you?

Lol, When in doubt deny, deny, deny, huh?

That is his shtick

Iran is part of the "Axis of Evil" along with N Korea and Iraq and we all know what happened to Iraq when it was threatened by two Nations with Nukes.....so Iran has every reason to feel threatened and it has learned that if you have nukes the USA will not invade.....

The threat to Iran is only in their minds. The only way that Iran will truly be threatened is if they do something so stupid like detonating one.

and you have a very biased view of history, it was the US that was threatening USSR....the USA had previously attacked the Soviets in effort to destroy them, the USSR has never attacked the USA...offensive missile bases in Turkey......for the Soviets possession of nukes was a defensive safeguard that the Imperialistic west would not attack

WOAH WOAH WOAH! Talk about biasness here. Both the USA and the USSR were threatening eachother dude. We did not attack the USSR either nor did they attack us. Your view of history is the one that is skewed.

Well the US, as the only nuclear transgressor in human history, has no right to preach to a sovereign state regarding correct use of nuclear technology.

And I suggest you look at the alternative in 1945 and what a catastrophe that would be.

So your equating 'learnt from it's mistakes' to 'has the right to dictate how the technology is used'?

We do not have to dictate anything. The NPT does that for us.

Good to have you back Allegheny, I've had to hold down the fort by myself for awhile.

Good to have you back Allegheny, I've had to hold down the fort by myself for awhile.

Don't bother with half of these idiots, especially OD2. He's insane and I do not believe he believes his own arguments. Everyone involved in this fight are hypocrits. Those of us who state Iran should not have Nuclear bombs, point to Israel having them. And then we get accused of being hypocrits when we say Iran should not be violating the NPT and then get accused of supporting Israel's violations of International Law and thus support Iran's violation of I.L.but still condemns Israel's violation of international Law. This is dumb for the reason that if you support Iran's violation of International Law, you have no choice but to support Israel's violations of International Law.

3) You may call what they did in Lebanon agression but it was more self-defense than anything else for Hezbollah was launching rockets illegally into a soveriegn nation.

Not to mention crossing Israel's border and taking hostage a bunch of soldiers.

Not to mention crossing Israel's border and taking hostage a bunch of soldiers.

That to.

Don't bother with half of these idiots,

Prek's not an idiot, he actually has evidence. But I'll just disregard the rest.

Actually, it seems most of the world is against Iran.:rolleyes:

Let me guess.. CNN/FOX/AP.

Perhaps not you but others on this thread most definitly have.

I cannot be blamed for all the beliefs of everyone who shares one of my views, I only speak for myself.

Which has only been used for defensive purposes. Not only that but Israel has never even threatened to use nuclear weapons, unlike pretty much every other nuclear armed nation, including the U.S. unfortunetly.
Simply by having the capability to bring such destruction the threat is present, thats just how nuclear weapons inspire the fear that meas they are so rarely used. The threat is always present.

Do you know what kind of tactics they were using in this war? They used waves of martyrs for their cause. Thats waves of people against chemical weapons and tanks. Whether or not they were the aggressors is not the point. If they were to get involved in some kind of war, they wouldn't have any qualms about using nuclear weapons, because they care nothing for their people.

Iran fought a war it had not expected to fight the way it chose to, however distasteful, because they evidently felt that it was the only, or at least best, way to conduct warfare. I think you underestimate what their choice not to use chemical weapons suggests, if they do not use among the most deadly weapons in their arsenal defensively, then perhaps they would refrain from using them offensively. Do you think that any western country would not conduct a similar war if its independence was under threat and its measures insufficient. Besides, the fact that they made poor tactical choices does not mean that they do not value their troops, in WW1 the same strategy was used by both sides (walk towards the machineguns, just throwing waves of men to make the problem go away, then get them gassed). Do you think that the command didn't care about the men, or that they were just completely unprepared for this kind of war?

Not really, unless you some how invented foreign policy. And I really don't believe you learned anything. The treatment of muslims in Europe is appalling. You bash Israel for its treatment of Palestinians? Try being muslim in Europe, and try getting a job. Or at least getting better living conditions than being cramped into a ghetto.

The point I was making is that if the US gets to dictate the use of all nuclear weapons because they used them then why not let the descendants of imperialists dictate imperialism. I do not think that we have learnt a lesson either (at least not in the long term), but I do not believe that people very often learn lessons, unlike you, who believes that a nuclear strike (which was not a mistake) can be committed to and that the US miraculously learns its lesson and will never use them again.

Saying that the US should dictate the use of all nuclear weapons because they have a hand in making the first ones makes less sense (possibly) than letting an reformed alchoholic manage a bottling plant.

Which nations are you refering to in particular (regarding the treatment of muslims)?

The first article, says that the doctrine has not yet been drafted and mentions nothing about Iran. the second is pure speculation.

That they are trying to get the doctrine revised to open up new possibilites for attack is the point, and its has been drafted (just not finally approved). Read between the lines and you'll see Iran and North Korea scribbles all over the place. Just because Iran is not specified does not mean that the terms would not expand to apply to Iran.

Actually, it seems most of the world is against Iran.

What basis do you have for saying this? If you trust everything that Murdoch has to say you are in trouble.

The only real supporters of Iran, are North korea, China and Russia. Its only people such as yourself in foreign nations that attempt to justify an objective of a nation that clearly has hostility in mind by gaining nuclear weapons.

So China, the future super-power, and Russia, a recently gone super-power, thats not a bad couple of countries to have at your back you know.

WTF is that supposed to mean?

Well, US election campeigns are a little different from European ones in that in Europe some sort of policy (preferably good) is needed for the campaign. US elections seem largely about discrediting your opponent (to a degree above and beyond what you get in Europe), wha you end up with is having to choose the lesser of two candidate who are (according to the other) pure evil (a word rarely found in European politics).

Apparently, you never been to a nuclear site.

Define a nuclear site more clearly. I have been to a site at which nuclear material is stored and used if that is the full definition you will give.

The threat to Iran is only in their minds. The only way that Iran will truly be threatened is if they do something so stupid like detonating one.

That is what I have been saying, although there is always the lingering prospect of a nuclear strike, and the problem is real. However the fact that they think they are under threat means that that they will behave as if they were under the same degree of threat and will hope to aquire the deterrent that has successfully defended just about every nation to hold it from US assault.

Prek's not an idiot, he actually has evidence.

Thank you.

Well, US election campeigns are a little different from European ones in that in Europe some sort of policy (preferably good) is needed for the campaign.

Why do you think Kerry did not get elected? He had no policy. Bush at least had some sort of policy hence why he got re-elected.

US elections seem largely about discrediting your opponent (to a degree above and beyond what you get in Europe), wha you end up with is having to choose the lesser of two candidate who are (according to the other) pure evil (a word rarely found in European politics).

Its like that in any election be it European, American, Asian, etc. To say otherwise shows how little one knows about Politics.

Define a nuclear site more clearly. I have been to a site at which nuclear material is stored and used if that is the full definition you will give.

Very interesting. I've been near missile sites and you go near there, you trip alarms all over the place and security is right there to haul your ass in.

That is what I have been saying, although there is always the lingering prospect of a nuclear strike, and the problem is real. However the fact that they think they are under threat means that that they will behave as if they were under the same degree of threat and will hope to aquire the deterrent that has successfully defended just about every nation to hold it from US assault.

The problem is, by going after a nuclear deterrent, they are violating the Non-Proliferation Treaty and thus violating International Law. That is why they are being sanctioned.

Why do you think Kerry did not get elected? He had no policy. Bush at least had some sort of policy hence why he got re-elected.
Its like that in any election be it European, American, Asian, etc. To say otherwise shows how little one knows about Politics.
The real difference is the quantity and quality of assault on the other candidate(s). In Europe you make the other candidate look silly by drawing attention to the fact that riding a bicycle to work does not help the environment if you have your car following you with you paperwork, losing him the support of the enviromentalist parties. In the US you accuse a war hero of being a lying, traitor, coward, communist, atheist (or Christian God forbid, Muslim) who hates America and babies and loves other children too much. Then you claim that they will let gays have rights, and suddenly your better by comparison.

Very interesting. I've been near missile sites and you go near there, you trip alarms all over the place and security is right there to haul your ass in.
Well, different places, (probably) different times and different measures evidently.

The problem is, by going after a nuclear deterrent, they are violating the Non-Proliferation Treaty and thus violating International Law. That is why they are being sanctioned.
The Non-Proliferation Treaty allows Iran to enrich the nuclear materials or purchase them perfectly legally. There is no conclusive proof that they are attempting to create weapons, besides the treaty cannot bind Iran indefinately. If Iran wanted to no longer be bound by the terms it could simply withdraw like North Korea.

The Non-Proliferation Treaty allows Iran to enrich the nuclear materials or purchase them perfectly legally. There is no conclusive proof that they are attempting to create weapons, besides the treaty cannot bind Iran indefinately.

correct(even though we all know they're doing it)

If Iran wanted to no longer be bound by the terms it could simply withdraw like North Korea.

or like the when the USA and Israel decide when or when they won't abide the Geneva Convention.....difficult for a country to take a high ground and ask others to obey laws when that country repeatedly defies international law itself...

The Non-Proliferation Treaty allows Iran to enrich the nuclear materials or purchase them perfectly legally.

Only if it is being used for Nuclear Power and NOT FOR Nuclear Weapons.

There is no conclusive proof that they are attempting to create weapons, besides the treaty cannot bind Iran indefinately.

Hard to find proof when Iran kicked out the IAEA and moved all of their operations underground. Highly suspicious and one reason why they are getting leveled with sanctions, weak as they are.

If Iran wanted to no longer be bound by the terms it could simply withdraw like North Korea.

Agreed.

or like the when the USA and Israel decide when or when they won't abide the Geneva Convention.....

:rolleyes:

difficult for a country to take a high ground and ask others to obey laws when that country repeatedly defies international law itself...

*yawns*

correct(even though we all know they're doing it)



or like the when the USA and Israel decide when or when they won't abide the Geneva Convention.....difficult for a country to take a high ground and ask others to obey laws when that country repeatedly defies international law itself...

But then again i dont see other nations threatening us huh? Until one does and can stand up to us, shut up. This is one reason why i dont want socialists running this nation. :rolleyes:

Besides, the treating that these two other guys are talking about are NOT UN sanctioned, its INTERNAIONAL sanctioned, outside of the UN convention.

I for one find the UN bogus. I find it weak and useless. No muscle behind it.