Iran has enough uranium for bomb; UN (3 Viewers)

[alexp01]

I'm with Iron on this. It's not that I wouldn't trust Iran with a nuclear weapon it's just that wouldn't trust a man who has spoken about anihilating and wiping another country of the map with one i.e Mr Ahmadinejad.

For all their faults and blatant hypocrisy over the nuclear issue, I can't remember the last time a US president said the same thing.

It's quite funny that the US has the most nuclear weapons in the world whilst denying them to most other countries, but I would rather the US be the worlds police and for them to have the most nuclear weapons than I would Iran. (This is coming from a western perspective)...

...saying that however, I am completely against nuclear weapons full stop, but they exist so we'll just have to get used to them.

 

[DTFM]

It's quite funny that the US has the most nuclear weapons in the world whilst denying them to most other countries, but I would rather the US be the worlds police and for them to have the most nuclear weapons than I would Iran. (This is coming from a western perspective)...

Russia has the most, actually.

 

[JonathanM]

Who determines what a significant reason is for a nuclear strike?

The IDF? The Mossad? The defence minister? I dunno.

Ffs, is Iran going to give a nuke to a terrorist org who are likely to use it? No, they are not stupid.

BBC NEWS | Middle East | Iranian leader denies Holocaust

 

[Iron]

Iron how on earth can you possibly subscribe to the nuclear deterrent notion? It is the most paradoxical, dangerous notion in modern politics. And how can ye who subscribes to the notion oppose countries getting it? Do you hope for a nuclear attack on Iran and Pakistan to take place? If not then don't the laws of the nuclear deterrent theory make it desirable? Do you really think Zadari would initiate a nuclear conflict?We aren't talking about sendign mindless subordinates to their death in his name, using the bomb would surely be signing his own death warrant.

As I said, an Iranian bomb would very likely be delivered to one of their funded terrorist organisations for this reason. Nuclear weapons are a regrettable reality. I support reducing the number of nuclear weapons, particularly in Russia, but there is no point in trying to eliminate them; the knowledge exists and this alone will always be the threat - the power! What we must do is ensure that psycho Islamic fundamentalists, who have no problem with suicide and killing masses of innocent civilians, are thwarted in their evil plans to acquire such power.

 

[SAVAK]

As I said, an Iranian bomb would very likely be delivered to one of their funded terrorist organisations for this reason. Nuclear weapons are a regrettable reality. I support reducing the number of nuclear weapons, particularly in Russia, but there is no point in trying to eliminate them; the knowledge exists and this alone will always be the threat - the power! What we must do is ensure that psycho Islamic fundamentalists, who have no problem with suicide and killing masses of innocent civilians, are thwarted in their evil plans to acquire such power.

ok. now go read the bible.

 

[Iron]

Lol go lie prostate in your Mosk!

 

[SAVAK]

Lol go lie prostate in your Mosk!

haha.

 

[SAVAK]

there is no way that i am pushing for Iran to acquire nuclear weapons. yes, my posts may undertone such a notion, but i just don't like 2 different rules for players who play the same game.
Lets face it, If Iran wasn't run by theocratic nut jobs and was pro west, know one would have a problem with whatever they are doing.

 

[Iron]

I'd settle for no theocratic nut jobs

Theyre not playing the same game at all atm

 

[Lentern]

As I said, an Iranian bomb would very likely be delivered to one of their funded terrorist organisations for this reason. Nuclear weapons are a regrettable reality. I support reducing the number of nuclear weapons, particularly in Russia, but there is no point in trying to eliminate them; the knowledge exists and this alone will always be the threat - the power! What we must do is ensure that psycho Islamic fundamentalists, who have no problem with suicide and killing masses of innocent civilians, are thwarted in their evil plans to acquire such power.

Can you imagine how much power the Iranian government would be relinquishing if they gave a semi autonomous group within the region the bomb?

 

[JonathanM]

there is no way that i am pushing for Iran to acquire nuclear weapons. yes, my posts may undertone such a notion, but i just don't like 2 different rules for players who play the same game.

But this is what we're trying to stress - Iran, America and Israel don't play the same game, Savak. Argue all you want about 'morals,' but facts speak for themselves. Iran seeks a global system under Sharia law. Iran actively supports terrorist organisations who seek the same system through violent and immoral means. Iran is currently being led by a madman who seeks to wipe out the Western world and who hasn't the faintest care what backlash happens to his country. Iran suppresses freedom of speech. Iran hangs gays!

 

[Lentern]

But this is what we're trying to stress - Iran, America and Israel don't play the same game, Savak. Argue all you want about 'morals,' but facts speak for themselves. Iran seeks a global system under Sharia law. Iran actively supports terrorist organisations who seek the same system through violent and immoral means. Iran is currently being led by a madman who seeks to wipe out the Western world and who hasn't the faintest care what backlash happens to his country. Iran suppresses freedom of speech. Iran hangs gays!

Whilst Israel and the United States hold human rights records that are the envy of the world. Where oh where oh where's Vanunu?

 

[moll.]

there is no way that i am pushing for Iran to acquire nuclear weapons. yes, my posts may undertone such a notion, but i just don't like 2 different rules for players who play the same game.
Lets face it, If Iran wasn't run by theocratic nut jobs and was pro west, know one would have a problem with whatever they are doing.

Pretty sure they would have a problem. People had a problem with India and Pakistan acquiring nukes. Neither of them are run by nutjobs. Hell, one is the world's largest democracy.

 

[moll.]

Russia has the most, actually.

No-one accurately knows how many nukes Russia has. Besides which, America's deliverance capabilities and the individual yield of the American bombs are much greater. America thus has more nuclear holocaust potential because it has a greater total megaton yield of all the bombs combined and better systems to deliver them.

 

[Iron]

No-one accurately knows how many nukes Russia has. .

Especially the Russians!

pesky slavs

 

[Empyrean444]

The IDF? The Mossad? The defence minister? I dunno.




BBC NEWS | Middle East | Iranian leader denies Holocaust

So he denied the Holocaust - give me proof that what he is saying actually equals what he is believing. I think this is more likely to be anti-Semitic rhetoric rather than an actual statement of belief. He may appear to be a nutjob, in fact, he may even be a nutjob, but this does not automatically make him nihilistic, or crazy enough to use a nuke/facilitate the use of a nuke knowing the consequences thereof; nor would he be crazy enough to think that their would not be ramifications. His socalled "madness" and his extreme rhetoric have become the specious reasoning behind attacking Iran and hypocritically denying them the right to that which the US already has.

Once again, saying he is "stupid" is meaningless, and does not mean that he will use a nuke if he gets one. I'll bet he is smarter than Bush - you know, the man who asked "is the children learning"; who thinks that the French don't have a word for "entrepreneur"; and who entered Iraq without an exit strategy.

Oh, and Iron, stop being a puppet to the whims and deceitful speech of the US government - otherwise you'll end up being the next prime minister of Australia.

 

[JonathanM]

So he denied the Holocaust - give me proof that what he is saying actually equals what he is believing. I think this is more likely to be anti-Semitic rhetoric rather than an actual statement of belief.

How could I give you proof of that? How can you give me proof of him not believing it? These are just deflective statements. He has said the Holocaust did not happen on many occasions and has attended numerous "Anti-Zionist" conferences where he has preached it to thousands of fanatic youths.

This man will abuse any power he has. He already has the arrogance to openly call for the destruction of some of the most powerful nations. He barely tries to hide the fact that he is supplying their enemies as well. If he is willing to risk shipping explosive devices to be used against Americans in Iraq through Syria without fear of backlash from the US, then he is willing to ship a dirty bomb to the same terrorists.

Once again, saying he is "stupid" is meaningless, and does not mean that he will use a nuke if he gets one. I'll bet he is smarter than Bush - you know, the man who asked "is the children learning"; who thinks that the French don't have a word for "entrepreneur"; and who entered Iraq without an exit strategy.

I cannot see how denying the Holocaust is on par with incorrect use of the English language?

 

[hur91]

arent there a lot of places in israel sacred to muslims as well. i doubt that iran would totally annihilate israel in a literal sense.

if two rival nations both have nukes, isnt there more stability because of the threat of collateral damage?

 

[Lentern]

arent there a lot of places in israel sacred to muslims as well. i doubt that iran would totally annihilate israel in a literal sense.

if two rival nations both have nukes, isnt there more stability because of the threat of collateral damage?

No because Israeli's are moderate, peacefull, tolerant, restrained people whilst Iranians are extreme, hostile, hatefull, physcho nutjobs. It's like saying isn't it just as safe to give a gun to a policeman as it is a inmate of the asylum.

 

[Empyrean444]

How could I give you proof of that? How can you give me proof of him not believing it? These are just deflective statements. He has said the Holocaust did not happen on many occasions and has attended numerous "Anti-Zionist" conferences where he has preached it to thousands of fanatic youths.

This man will abuse any power he has. He already has the arrogance to openly call for the destruction of some of the most powerful nations. He barely tries to hide the fact that he is supplying their enemies as well. If he is willing to risk shipping explosive devices to be used against Americans in Iraq through Syria without fear of backlash from the US, then he is willing to ship a dirty bomb to the same terrorists.

No, for a couple of reasons:

• Denying the Holocaust is a moral issue, not an intellectual issue. IF we are going to go moralising, then that's all the more reason for Iran to have the bomb (ie for the sake of destroying hypocrisy). I agree that this is disgusting, but it is not an issue in whether we give him the bomb.
• "This man will abuse any power he has". He has said a lot of stuff; this doesn't at all lend itself to the conclusion that he will necessarily act on it. Once again, accusing him of arrogance is just another form of hypocrisy - the Americans are the most arrogant people on earth.
• You equate supplying the enemies of America with explosives/munitions/arms in general to a willingness to give them a "dirty bomb" or so other form of nuclear explosive. The two are not connected, because the gravitas and implications of supplying/facilitating the use of/actually using a nuke are far more severe than that of which you speak. They are thus different cases, and the man is not going to want the destruction of Iran, and is not that mad.

I cannot see how denying the Holocaust is on par with incorrect use of the English language?

Once again, a moral issue vs. an issue of intelligence. And I cannot see how denying the Holocaust (terrible, but only words after all) is on a par with some of the atrocities facilitated by Bush (actual actions). Once again, words mean nothing - what isn't being said is generally far more significant than what is being said.