Iran has enough uranium for bomb; UN (1 Viewer)

[Empyrean444]

It might have something to do with the fact that neither America nor Israel have threatened to wipe another nation off the map, deny the Holocaust, deny the presence of homosexuals within their nation nor are run by despots who couldn't give a hoot what world opinion of them was. Neither America nor Israel support terrorist cells who call for the destruction of another nation...

Hasn't threatened? Since when did that mean anything? I don't really think that Israel gave much a "warning threat" when they launched their pre-emptive strike in the 6 day war. That which nations do not speak is as important as that which they do. The Iranians aren't stupid, and they would know that if they were to use the nuke against, say, Israel, then they would themselves be annihilated - in fact Hilary Clinton during her campaign promised something along the lines of "obliterating Iran" if the Iranians launched a deadly attack against Israel. She didn't get in, obviously, but she was merely expressing the main sentiment and reaction plan of the US. So much for 'no threats'.

Despots who don't give a hoot about their country in the eyes of others? Kinda reminds me of G W Bush, except that he was democratically elected (though wasn't their some form of incorrect electoral manipulation present in his re-election?)

 

[Tully B.]

What does everyone think we should do if it turns out that have either a) enough uranium to make a nuclear weapon or b) a nuclear weapon? Try to take it off them? Bomb them? Invade them ('cause that worked real well with Iraq...)? Try to dissuade them from using it? If so, how?

Any action taken against them could be even more dangerous then just letting them go about their business. I'm saying could here. I don't have a clue.

Also, how are we to gain evidence of their intentions? Has anyone though of asking them? Would they be offended (or fake being offended) by the notion?

 

[SAVAK]

What does everyone think we should do if it turns out that have either a) enough uranium to make a nuclear weapon or b) a nuclear weapon? Try to take it off them? Bomb them? Invade them ('cause that worked real well with Iraq...)? Try to dissuade them from using it? If so, how?

Any action taken against them could be even more dangerous then just letting them go about their business. I'm saying could here. I don't have a clue.

Also, how are we to gain evidence of their intentions? Has anyone though of asking them? Would they be offended (or fake being offended) by the notion?

exactly. The ramifications of an attack on Iran is far greater than them possessing the weapon while USA is in the region. It just wont happen, we will just see US and Israel spout the same propaganda since god knows when.

If Iran wants the weapons, it will get them.

 

[Iron]

Despots who don't give a hoot about their country in the eyes of others? Kinda reminds me of G W Bush, except that he was democratically elected (though wasn't their some form of incorrect electoral manipulation present in his re-election?)

Except he was acting against the greatest attack on American soil since Pearl Harbour 1941 and was expressly concerned with preventing such terrorist groups from aquiring 'WMDs'

 

[m00]

What are you talking about you madman? All nations who currently have the bomb possess it strictly as a deterent. Iran however is a nation that has expressed its wish to destroy Israel AND is known to have strong links with the terrorist organisations which the US, the UK, Australia etc are containing in Afghanistan and Iraq. We have all felt the sting of attacks from these Iranian-backed terrorist groups on our citizens since 2001.
Join
the
dots

dude you just sound like a literate george bush, get the f*ck out

 

[JonathanM]

Hasn't threatened? Since when did that mean anything? I don't really think that Israel gave much a "warning threat" when they launched their pre-emptive strike in the 6 day war.

You must look at the ethics or reasoning behind Israel and those behind Iran. Even assuming (as many people on this forum allege) that Israel is a warmongering, bloodthirsty, child-targeting nation, it still would never launch a nuclear strike on any nation without a very significant reason, if alone for fear of the backlash from its allies.

On the other hand, Iran, or rather the terrorist organisations it supports would have no qualms whatsoever about attacking Israel or any western city within its range. What does Alkeida care about the western medias outrage? What billions of dollars in funding will they lose from allies? What economy halting boycotts can be placed on them? Why do they care about the 'infidel' western casualites, innocent or not?

 

[Iron]

Iran wouldnt attack. The bomb would be slipped into a terrorist's briefcase and bound for Tel Aviv perhaps. They'd obviously deny all knowledge, express outrage, and dare an Iraq-like counter-attack

 

[Empyrean444]

Except he was acting against the greatest attack on American soil since Pearl Harbour 1941 and was expressly concerned with preventing such terrorist groups from aquiring 'WMDs'

Are you talking about Afghanistan or Iraq, because you seem to have combined the two into one. The former, I think, was justified; the WMD vindication for the latter was a blatant falsification, forged to mask the USA's true designs and constant unwanted and unnecessary meddling (e.g. deciding to support Iraq in the Iraq-Iran war). I found it quite disgusting that Bush could say that his greatest regret of his presidency was the 'mistaken' intelligence reports of the existence of WMD. Lying diabolist!

 

[SAVAK]

Iran wouldnt attack. The bomb would be slipped into a terrorist's briefcase and bound for Tel Aviv perhaps. They'd obviously deny all knowledge, express outrage, and dare an Iraq-like counter-attack

citation needed.

 

[Lentern]

What are you talking about you madman? All nations who currently have the bomb possess it strictly as a deterent. Iran however is a nation that has expressed its wish to destroy Israel AND is known to have strong links with the terrorist organisations which the US, the UK, Australia etc are containing in Afghanistan and Iraq. We have all felt the sting of attacks from these Iranian-backed terrorist groups on our citizens since 2001.
Join
the
dots

Oh shutup reverend Nile.

 

[Iron]

Whether the WMD case was "blatant falsification" or not is a matter for historians. I for one am sympathetic with the notion that they sincerely believed that the threat of a WMD being produced and arriving in a Western city was great enough to justify the invasion, and even some exaggeration of the known facts.

Obviously they were wrong and the invasion/occupation of both countries was botched

 

[Empyrean444]

You must look at the ethics or reasoning behind Israel and those behind Iran. Even assuming (as many people on this forum allege) that Israel is a warmongering, bloodthirsty, child-targeting nation, it still would never launch a nuclear strike on any nation without a very significant reason, if alone for fear of the backlash from its allies.

Yeah, Israel sure is the epitome of ethical practices...
Load of crap. Who determines what a significant reason is for a nuclear strike?

On the other hand, Iran, or rather the terrorist organisations it supports would have no qualms whatsoever about attacking Israel or any western city within its range. What does Alkeida care about the western medias outrage? What billions of dollars in funding will they lose from allies? What economy halting boycotts can be placed on them? Why do they care about the 'infidel' western casualites, innocent or not?

Ffs, is Iran going to give a nuke to a terrorist org who are likely to use it? No, they are not stupid. They would understand the implications and the resultant nuclear ripostes, and would also understand that, even with a masque of intrigue and false claims, that these are not going to give an enraged nuke armed Western world any deterrent, nor provide them with an effectual aegis against this wrath. We assume that Iran is either Nihilistic, and does not care about its own existence; or is simply stupid, and thinks it could get away with either a) using a nuke themselves; or b) giving it to a terrorist group knowing they will use it, and then expect, even if they pretend otherwise, to avoid retalliation. Simply a falsity.

 

[Iron]

citation needed.

Yeah, obviously that citation would be made readily available for the public and intelligence agencies alike, you fucking filthy sack of hateful shit

 

[SAVAK]

Whether the WMD case was "blatant falsification" or not is a matter for historians. I for one am sympathetic with the notion that they sincerely believed that the threat of a WMD being produced and arriving in a Western city was great enough to justify the invasion, and even some exaggeration of the known facts.

Obviously they were wrong and the invasion/occupation of both countries was botched

Roflmao, you make it seem like the USA is the single protector of western civilization. Europe doesn't care if Iran posses the weapon. its all formalities to appease their masters across the Atlantic.

You probably go to bed crying you weren't American.

 

[SAVAK]

Yeah, obviously that citation would be made readily available for the public and intelligence agencies alike, you fucking filthy sack of hateful shit

ROFLMAO. did i hit a nerve there? if such citation is not readily available for the masses of which our governments claim to protect, governments which are ready to go to war over, governments whome are ready to put our soldiers on the line on the other side of the word, how did you get such inside information?

give credible citation or retake your claim.

 

[Empyrean444]

Whether the WMD case was "blatant falsification" or not is a matter for historians. I for one am sympathetic with the notion that they sincerely believed that the threat of a WMD being produced and arriving in a Western city was great enough to justify the invasion, and even some exaggeration of the known facts.

Obviously they were wrong and the invasion/occupation of both countries was botched

Simply "believing" something is not a justification for doing anything that will have significant negative impacts and reverberations. There must be proof so that such an attack is truly 'justified', and that they not attacking needlessly with the objective (even if their security exists as an additional objective) of bullying or unfairly subjugating/devastating other nations. By claiming that I "belief" that my security is under threat, by your reasoning I can justify anything: I can murder a man in the street, say, for no other reason than that he himself had the capacity to inflict damage to myself (ie with his own two hands, which, in the case of many people walking down the street, would be true) and that I therefore 'believed' that he might execute such violence against my person. Thus I would be vindicated by the claim of self defence. This whole form of reasoning is not only absurd, but also extremely dangerous in the wide possibilities of its use.

 

[Iron]

ROFLMAO. did i hit a nerve there? if such citation is not readily available for the masses of which our governments claim to protect, governments which are ready to go to war over, governments whome are ready to put our soldiers on the line on the other side of the word, how did you get such inside information?

give credible citation or retake your claim.

If you could summon your other brain-cell, you'd see that that's the sensible strategy. 'Citation' not being available would be crucial to their own immediate survival. K? Has that penetrated?

 

[Iron]

Simply "believing" something is not a justification for doing anything that will have significant negative impacts and reverberations. There must be proof so that such an attack is truly 'justified', and that they not attacking needlessly with the objective (even if their security exists as an additional objective) of bullying or unfairly subjugating/devastating other nations. By claiming that I "belief" that my security is under threat, by your reasoning I can justify anything: I can murder a man in the street, say, for no other reason than that he himself had the capacity to inflict damage to myself (ie with his own two hands, which, in the case of many people walking down the street, would be true) and that I therefore 'believed' that he might execute such violence against my person. Thus I would be vindicated by the claim of self defence. This whole form of reasoning is not only absurd, but also extremely dangerous in the wide possibilities of its use.

I'm not really trying to justify what the Bush administration did, but I do offer sympathy to the situation they found themselves in on S11 - as did anyone with a heart. I dont believe that they then acted on some fickle impulse to increase American power, but rather to a changed world where we could wake up with images not of planes going into a few NY buildings, but NY's nuclear ruins - and with all the intense confusion and desporate urgency surrounding such an eventuality. They acted, however incorrectly and hastily in hindsight, to prevent such mad murder.

 

[SAVAK]

If you could summon your other brain-cell, you'd see that that's the sensible strategy. 'Citation' not being available would be crucial to their own immediate survival. K? Has that penetrated?

I think you need some serious psychological assessment taken on you and if needed further sort of help. Your extreme political and religious views may get you confused with a terrorist. better late than never. This is western liberal country after all and your views are not welcome here.

 

[SAVAK]

I'm not really trying to justify what the Bush administration did, but I do offer sympathy to the situation they found themselves on S11 - as did anyone who can never except that civilians are legitimate targets. I believe that they werent acting on some fickle impulse to increase American power, but reacting to a changed world where we could wake up with images not of planes going into a few NY buildings, but NY's nuclear ruins - and with all the intense confusion and desporate urgency surrounding such an eventuality. They acted, however incorrectly and hastily in hindsight, to prevent such mad murder.

Finally a normal post no some extent.

however, what do you mean by "not really trying"? that clearly undertones that deep down you sort of do justify what has happened during the bush administration. Bush or no Bush, you would probably support whatever action he'd take if he were still president with the Iran situation.