By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Politics Discussion - Iran will be a Nuclear State by 2014.

Slimebeast on 17 July 2012
sperrico87 said:
Slimebeast said:
sperrico87 said:
Slimebeast said:

Theocratic rogue states shouldn't have nukes. Any sane person should agree with that, unless you belong to either part of the clash of civilizations (Western freedom & secular democracy ideals versus Third world religious & apocalyptic ideals and/or communist worldwide revolution illusions).

Let me ask again: What gives us the right to determine who is and is not allowed to have nuclear weapons?  Where do we get that authority from?

Kasz I think has repeatedly explained it in this thread already.

But simply put:

The background is historical: unfortunately some states were able to aquire nukes before there was any working controlling authority in place.

But now we have.

And the rule is simple (and it's not a USA invention): no state that already doesn't have nukes is allowed to aquire nukes. And it doesn't matter if it's Canada,Germany, Italy, Sweden, Brazil, Nigeria or Iran. It doesn't matter who you are or what your status as a nation is. No state is allowed to destabilize the world even more by becoming another nation with nukes.

So, basically what you're saying is: A lot of powerful nations with a nuclear arsenal are unwilling to accept that other nations want what they have.  Obviously, nations with nukes wouldn't want any competition from other nations that are without them, especially if they weren't friendly westernized Christian nations.  I understand what you're saying, that there is a ring of power, all of whom are unwilling to allow anyone else what they already have.  I'm merely suggesting to you that it isn't right, no nation has the right to tell another nation what to do or what not to do, and that the world would be a much safer place if either no country had nuclear capability, or everyone did.

lol it would be disatser if every country would be allowed to have nukes. Just imagine if Khadaffi had access to nukes when he was driven out of Tripoli.



Around the Network
highwaystar101 on 17 July 2012
Kasz216 said:
highwaystar101 said:
Less stable countries than Iran have nuclear programmes. I often feel Iran get an unfair press with regards to that. If we were to prioritise then surely non-signatory countries who already possess nuclear weapons, like Pakistan or India, would be higher on the list of who to deal with.

I often feel it would be better to deal with Iran by initiating discussions towards a transparency agreement. The international community would allow them to conduct limited research and development, granted they remain signatories of the non-proliferation treaty. If they do build weapons, they would have to under the strict supervision of nuclear ready states and even as part of NATO's sharing programme so their weapons aren't strictly "theirs" (even though they're not a NATO state).

If they are indeed building nuclear weapons and we don't do that, then the alternatives (hostility, alienation, etc) could force them to withdraw from the non-proliferation treaty. We don't want that with any nation.

(I should also say that I am not well read on this subject at all, so I could be very wrong)

India is a lot more stable then Iran, and again, they already have nukes.  It's not like they're just trying to get them.

Your arguement is highly flawed though.  I mean say you have one ambassador who you can't arrest because he has diplomatic immunity (Pakistan already having nukes) and he LOVES to drunk drive.

Does that mean we should let everybody drunk drive.... just because there is one guy who is a bigger threat who can get away with it?

I agree, my argument is highly flawed. Allowing them into a sharing program with the likes of Germany and Turkey (and at no point should they "possess" them) is absurd, it's a "Better the devil you know" solution.

I suppose in very specific and highly unlikely cases my solution may work. Using your analogy. Unlike Pakistan, the diplomat (now Iran) would still have to abide by the law. The difference is that he can drink, but we can take away his keys if he tries to drive because it's against the law. By no means is it a free ticket to drink and drive. But that is assuming that he is going to attempt to drive after drinking anyway. The better solution is to just not let him drink, so he can't even attempt to break the law to begin with.

It doesn't matter anyway, as Rath quite rightly pointed out that would break the treaty anyway. I think I just got excited by an ill-explored alternative.



Slimebeast on 17 July 2012
bouzane said:
Slimebeast said:

As an evangelical myself I have no problem to admit I have an obsession with Israel though. And it's for supernatural reasons, based on Biblical prophecies, not some hypocritical quasi-ethical lies that the socialists put forth (and some people from the Arab world too, but in their defense; that's only for tactical reasons - to make the Israeli-Arab conflict appear as a human-rights issue in front of a naive Western world). I want Israel to win and to keep Jerusalem forever, and I know they will win no matter how much Satan and the world hates them.

American nukes are no threat to the world. It's ridiculous to claim otherwise. What happened in the 40's is not relevant today.

The Mullah controlled Iran is an entrely different issue. Their hate towards Israel, and like Kasz described, in a desperate situation that nuclear threat would be a very serious threat. Then there's the risk of smaller dirty bombs. It's not wild fantasies to imagine a nuclear Iran sell primitive dirty bombs to Hizbollah to use against Israel. Such a scenario could hurt Israel a lot and with Israel's hands pretty tightly tied politically it wouldn't be that easy for them to retaliate if they wouldn't have clear evidence (and the world would blame them anyway).


It's terrifying to think that this mentality is common. It makes my blood run cold. No offense but religious fanaticism is the same on both sides and it will lead to the destruction of our paradise.

American nukes aren't a threat to the world!? What is your definition of a threat?

You know, people keep talking about the threat Iran poses to Israel but I see a lot more threat beings made against Iran.

PS. It's spelled Hezbollah.

If a name originates from Arabic there is no unversal rules how it is written in the Western world with our alphabets. We use a phonetical approach to spell it, which is why you see many different versions of a name - such as Mohammed, Mohammad and Mohamed. Ghadaffi, Khadaffi, Gadafi, Ghadafi etc.



bouzane on 17 July 2012
Slimebeast said:
bouzane said:
Slimebeast said:
bouzane said:
Slimebeast said:
Icy-Zone said:
Kasz216 said:

Oh... and I think most Iranians would generally take offense at that video "Telling their side of the story".

I quite think you'd be arrested as soon as you hit the section on Religion...

So i'm not quite sure why you thought that video was going to give me the Iranian perspective.


Because the film was focused purely on religion and didn't cover topics such as the Israel's unlawful occupation of land, and the threat of a very unstable and aggressive country called America. I'm sure the majority (keyword since you love democracy so much) of Iranians would agree with, and already understand much of what was shown.

Basically put, if Iran isn't allowed nukes, the US shouldn't be allowed either.

If you want to follow a scoreboard for nuke usage (this could possibly be a way to measure stability, even though stability is hardly quantifiable) we can say that the US has two points:  for the bombings of Nagasaki and Hiroshima, whilst the Iranians have a score of 0. So to say that Iran is the type that would drop nukes should they acquire some, is purely speculation as there has been no past behaviour, on their part, that would suggeset they would.

Thank you and have a great day.

It always comes down to Israel.

Israel is the big obsession of communists and muslims. Apart from the persecution of Jews throughout history, the hate towards Israel is by far the strongest in political history ever.

 


Um, Evangelists seem to be just as obsessed with Israel as anybody else. Such a liability should not determine so much American legislation. Also, America's nuclear track record is one of, if not the single most irresponsible. As frightening as Iranian nukes would be, America's nuclear arsenal is far more dangerous to the people's of the earth.

Also, I must laugh at the concept of "Western freedom & secular democracy". I wish I lived in Russia where I would be free to buy a Saiga and smoke up. As far as democracy goes, it doesn't work. That's why America's founding fathers insisted upon a republic. Oh well, the religious right still gets to routinely impose their will upon the entire populace anyway :/

As an evangelical myself I have no problem to admit I have an obsession with Israel though. And it's for supernatural reasons, based on Biblical prophecies, not some hypocritical quasi-ethical lies that the socialists put forth (and some people from the Arab world too, but in their defense; that's only for tactical reasons - to make the Israeli-Arab conflict appear as a human-rights issue in front of a naive Western world). I want Israel to win and to keep Jerusalem forever, and I know they will win no matter how much Satan and the world hates them.

American nukes are no threat to the world. It's ridiculous to claim otherwise. What happened in the 40's is not relevant today.

The Mullah controlled Iran is an entrely different issue. Their hate towards Israel, and like Kasz described, in a desperate situation that nuclear threat would be a very serious threat. Then there's the risk of smaller dirty bombs. It's not wild fantasies to imagine a nuclear Iran sell primitive dirty bombs to Hizbollah to use against Israel. Such a scenario could hurt Israel a lot and with Israel's hands pretty tightly tied politically it wouldn't be that easy for them to retaliate if they wouldn't have clear evidence (and the world would blame them anyway).


It's terrifying to think that this mentality is common. It makes my blood run cold. No offense but religious fanaticism is the same on both sides and it will lead to the destruction of our paradise.

American nukes aren't a threat to the world!? What is your definition of a threat?

You know, people keep talking about the threat Iran poses to Israel but I see a lot more threat beings made against Iran.

PS. It's spelled Hezbollah.

I understand it's terrifying. I don't think it will destroy our paradise though because this earth certainly is no paradise.

Threat and threat. Theoretical thrat like a cold war threat. Obviously the nukes help USA and Russia to control the world to some extent. But the more likely a real actual use of those nukes by a nation is, the stronger the threat naturally is. I can't imagine a scenario where USA or Russia would use nukes, but I can easily imagine scenarios where rogue states would use nukes or spread them to terrorists in the form of dirty bombs.

The threats against Iran are mild than vice versa:

"All options are on the table. If Iran disagrees to inspections we might do a surgical strike against theur nuclear facilites"
compared to
"Israel with the help of its lapdog USA is the Satan of the world and should be wiped off the face of the earth, and inshallah, we will witness that day".


You know, dirty bombs aren't as devastating as one would think. Also, proper nuclear weapons are difficult to obtain and impossible to hide. We knew that Iraq had no nuclear weapons and we know that Iran's nuclear program is civilian so it renders the whole discussion kind of irrelevant. That being said, terrorists have never obtained and used nuclear weapons and even if they ever managed to, the damage that could result would be a fraction of the devastation that would be unleashed by either America's or Russia's arsenals. The Iranian's sure do talk a lot of trash but have they ever actually conducted disproportionate military strikes against Israel? It's a shame that Iran is a religious theocracy, the majority of the Iranian people don't support it. Finally, Earth was Paradise until we ruined it. Heaven and Hell are not magical realms but conditions that we will create on Earth itself. We will scorch our planet with nuclear Hell fire and humanity will suffer the fate it deserves. Jesus gave us seven very simple rules to follow and all the so called Christians ignore them in order to continue justifying their war mongering and hatred. It's a shame he has so few followers.

 

"If a name originates from Arabic there is no unversal rules how it is written in the Western world with our alphabets. We use a phonetical approach to spell it, which is why you see many different versions of a name - such as Mohammed, Mohammad and Mohamed. Ghadaffi, Khadaffi, Gadafi, Ghadafi etc."

 

Kind of like how you can spell it either Osama Bin Laden or Usama Bin Laden. Good information to have.



Slimebeast on 17 July 2012
Mr Khan said:
Slimebeast said:
bouzane said:
Slimebeast said:
 

It always comes down to Israel.

Israel is the big obsession of communists and muslims. Apart from the persecution of Jews throughout history, the hate towards Israel is by far the strongest in political history ever.

 


Um, Evangelists seem to be just as obsessed with Israel as anybody else. Such a liability should not determine so much American legislation. Also, America's nuclear track record is one of, if not the single most irresponsible. As frightening as Iranian nukes would be, America's nuclear arsenal is far more dangerous to the people's of the earth.

Also, I must laugh at the concept of "Western freedom & secular democracy". I wish I lived in Russia where I would be free to buy a Saiga and smoke up. As far as democracy goes, it doesn't work. That's why America's founding fathers insisted upon a republic. Oh well, the religious right still gets to routinely impose their will upon the entire populace anyway :/

As an evangelical myself I have no problem to admit I have an obsession with Israel though. And it's for supernatural reasons, based on Biblical prophecies, not some hypocritical quasi-ethical lies that the socialists put forth (and some people from the Arab world too, but in their defense; that's only for tactical reasons - to make the Israeli-Arab conflict appear as a human-rights issue in front of a naive Western world). I want Israel to win and to keep Jerusalem forever, and I know they will win no matter how much Satan and the world hates them.

American nukes are no threat to the world. It's ridiculous to claim otherwise. What happened in the 40's is not relevant today.

The Mullah controlled Iran is an entrely different issue. Their hate towards Israel, and like Kasz described, in a desperate situation that nuclear threat would be a very serious threat. Then there's the risk of smaller dirty bombs. It's not wild fantasies to imagine a nuclear Iran sell primitive dirty bombs to Hizbollah to use against Israel. Such a scenario could hurt Israel a lot and with Israel's hands pretty tightly tied politically it wouldn't be that easy for them to retaliate if they wouldn't have clear evidence (and the world would blame them anyway).

Israel's hands are tied? Israel has carte-blanche to do whatever it damn well pleases: war crimes against the Gaza strip or slowly strangling the West Bank while bids for statehood get shut down by the West, or shooting up ships full of perfectly peaceful activists and getting off scot-free. No other country in the world is able to get away with what Israel gets away with, not even America, and it's all due to some combination of misplaced Holocaust guilt and racism (given that Israel fights the scary brown people). Israel with nuclear weapons (which they have, and nobody has batted an eye about) is just as scary as Iran with nuclear weapons (which people think would be apocalyptic or something)

I know your perspective and I agree that to some extent and in some scenarios they get away with more than others would. But it's also the other way around. Look at the shitstorm from the Gaza invasion, almost no one in our European media even told the audience that the reason for the invasiona was thousands of rockets fired from terrotist Hamas into Israel over many years.

The flotilla incidents, we could argue over that all day. It was a political provocation by leftist extremists poorly disguised as a humanitarian mission. It was Israel's duty to send a strong message. IMO Israel would have had the right to sink the ships as soon as they passed into Israeli waters (I know they didn't, because Israel took care of them in their security zone, but if they did, which was the flotilla's intention anyway).

"Scary brown people", that's ridiculous. You know Jews are just as brown as Arabs, right?

Israel nukes is a special case, I admit that. There's not any international pressure on Israel to reveal their nukes, but I understand that perfectly with so many enemies around them. But they're not very scary. Cold war scary but not Iran scary.



Around the Network
Slimebeast on 17 July 2012
bouzane said:
Slimebeast said:
bouzane said:


It's terrifying to think that this mentality is common. It makes my blood run cold. No offense but religious fanaticism is the same on both sides and it will lead to the destruction of our paradise.

American nukes aren't a threat to the world!? What is your definition of a threat?

You know, people keep talking about the threat Iran poses to Israel but I see a lot more threat beings made against Iran.

PS. It's spelled Hezbollah.

I understand it's terrifying. I don't think it will destroy our paradise though because this earth certainly is no paradise.

Threat and threat. Theoretical thrat like a cold war threat. Obviously the nukes help USA and Russia to control the world to some extent. But the more likely a real actual use of those nukes by a nation is, the stronger the threat naturally is. I can't imagine a scenario where USA or Russia would use nukes, but I can easily imagine scenarios where rogue states would use nukes or spread them to terrorists in the form of dirty bombs.

The threats against Iran are mild than vice versa:

"All options are on the table. If Iran disagrees to inspections we might do a surgical strike against theur nuclear facilites"
compared to
"Israel with the help of its lapdog USA is the Satan of the world and should be wiped off the face of the earth, and inshallah, we will witness that day".


You know, dirty bombs aren't as devastating as one would think. Also, proper nuclear weapons are difficult to obtain and impossible to hide. We knew that Iraq had no nuclear weapons and we know that Iran's nuclear program is civilian so it renders the whole discussion kind of irrelevant. That being said, terrorists have never obtained and used nuclear weapons and even if they ever managed to, the damage that could result would be a fraction of the devastation that would be unleashed by either America's or Russia's arsenals. The Iranian's sure do talk a lot of trash but have they ever actually conducted disproportionate military strikes against Israel? It's a shame that Iran is a religious theocracy, the majority of the Iranian people don't support it. Finally, Earth was Paradise until we ruined it. Heaven and Hell are not magical realms but conditions that we will create on Earth itself. We will scorch our planet with nuclear Hell fire and humanity will suffer the fate it deserves. Jesus gave us seven very simple rules to follow and all the so called Christians ignore them in order to continue justifying their war mongering and hatred. It's a shame he has so few followers.

I know dirty bombs aren't the end of the world. But still a very fearful and strong weapon from a terrorist's perspective and the civilians under that threat.

Iran's nuclear program is not civilian. It's as simple as that.



haxxiy on 17 July 2012
Mr Khan said:
 

Israel's hands are tied? Israel has carte-blanche to do whatever it damn well pleases: war crimes against the Gaza strip or slowly strangling the West Bank while bids for statehood get shut down by the West, or shooting up ships full of perfectly peaceful activists and getting off scot-free. No other country in the world is able to get away with what Israel gets away with, not even America, and it's all due to some combination of misplaced Holocaust guilt and racism (given that Israel fights the scary brown people). Israel with nuclear weapons (which they have, and nobody has batted an eye about) is just as scary as Iran with nuclear weapons (which people think would be apocalyptic or something)

This x1000.

Personally I'm baffled how much Israel violates human rights in the middle-east and people still think they represent western civilization and all that stuff. I don't think it's about racism in the western world, which, frankly, is minor next to what you get on eastern Europe or the far east. Now, a people who see itself as the chosen race doesn't seem likely to me to respect a few arab gentiles...

Anyways I'm a bit deluded with the western world today since a woman who got pregnant of a teenager is facing possibly 20 years of prision in the USA. Puritan morals doesn't seem that much of a step up from islamic law to me...



 

 

 

 

 

GianCarmen on 17 July 2012

Who cares. They know that if they did launch an attack all the work they have done since the 1979 uprising would be gone and Iran as a country would be blasted to hell. They are not that stupid. They know what the risks are if they launched a nuclear bomb.



bouzane on 17 July 2012
Slimebeast said:
bouzane said:
Slimebeast said:
bouzane said:


It's terrifying to think that this mentality is common. It makes my blood run cold. No offense but religious fanaticism is the same on both sides and it will lead to the destruction of our paradise.

American nukes aren't a threat to the world!? What is your definition of a threat?

You know, people keep talking about the threat Iran poses to Israel but I see a lot more threat beings made against Iran.

PS. It's spelled Hezbollah.

I understand it's terrifying. I don't think it will destroy our paradise though because this earth certainly is no paradise.

Threat and threat. Theoretical thrat like a cold war threat. Obviously the nukes help USA and Russia to control the world to some extent. But the more likely a real actual use of those nukes by a nation is, the stronger the threat naturally is. I can't imagine a scenario where USA or Russia would use nukes, but I can easily imagine scenarios where rogue states would use nukes or spread them to terrorists in the form of dirty bombs.

The threats against Iran are mild than vice versa:

"All options are on the table. If Iran disagrees to inspections we might do a surgical strike against theur nuclear facilites"
compared to
"Israel with the help of its lapdog USA is the Satan of the world and should be wiped off the face of the earth, and inshallah, we will witness that day".


You know, dirty bombs aren't as devastating as one would think. Also, proper nuclear weapons are difficult to obtain and impossible to hide. We knew that Iraq had no nuclear weapons and we know that Iran's nuclear program is civilian so it renders the whole discussion kind of irrelevant. That being said, terrorists have never obtained and used nuclear weapons and even if they ever managed to, the damage that could result would be a fraction of the devastation that would be unleashed by either America's or Russia's arsenals. The Iranian's sure do talk a lot of trash but have they ever actually conducted disproportionate military strikes against Israel? It's a shame that Iran is a religious theocracy, the majority of the Iranian people don't support it. Finally, Earth was Paradise until we ruined it. Heaven and Hell are not magical realms but conditions that we will create on Earth itself. We will scorch our planet with nuclear Hell fire and humanity will suffer the fate it deserves. Jesus gave us seven very simple rules to follow and all the so called Christians ignore them in order to continue justifying their war mongering and hatred. It's a shame he has so few followers.

I know dirty bombs aren't the end of the world. But still a very fearful and strong weapon from a terrorist's perspective and the civilians under that threat.

Iran's nuclear program is not civilian. It's as simple as that.


I see no compelling evidence that Iran's nuclear program exists to create nuclear weapons, just as I saw no evidence of WMDs in Iraq.



sperrico87 on 17 July 2012
Slimebeast said:
sperrico87 said:
Slimebeast said:
sperrico87 said:
Slimebeast said:

Theocratic rogue states shouldn't have nukes. Any sane person should agree with that, unless you belong to either part of the clash of civilizations (Western freedom & secular democracy ideals versus Third world religious & apocalyptic ideals and/or communist worldwide revolution illusions).

Let me ask again: What gives us the right to determine who is and is not allowed to have nuclear weapons?  Where do we get that authority from?

Kasz I think has repeatedly explained it in this thread already.

But simply put:

The background is historical: unfortunately some states were able to aquire nukes before there was any working controlling authority in place.

But now we have.

And the rule is simple (and it's not a USA invention): no state that already doesn't have nukes is allowed to aquire nukes. And it doesn't matter if it's Canada,Germany, Italy, Sweden, Brazil, Nigeria or Iran. It doesn't matter who you are or what your status as a nation is. No state is allowed to destabilize the world even more by becoming another nation with nukes.

So, basically what you're saying is: A lot of powerful nations with a nuclear arsenal are unwilling to accept that other nations want what they have.  Obviously, nations with nukes wouldn't want any competition from other nations that are without them, especially if they weren't friendly westernized Christian nations.  I understand what you're saying, that there is a ring of power, all of whom are unwilling to allow anyone else what they already have.  I'm merely suggesting to you that it isn't right, no nation has the right to tell another nation what to do or what not to do, and that the world would be a much safer place if either no country had nuclear capability, or everyone did.

lol it would be disatser if every country would be allowed to have nukes. Just imagine if Khadaffi had access to nukes when he was driven out of Tripoli.

Well that's sort of a cop out, isn't it?  To say that because of this one bad guy, no one should be allowed to have nuclear weapons again ever?  I mean that seems rather silly. 

Make no mistake, I think many in USA/ our allies are good people who want peace, even if it's gone about the wrong way (I think peace through strength is the wrong approach and almost always backfires).  But there are others, like the Neocons, who will stop at nothing to destroy all Muslim countries who don't agree with us and do exactly as we say.  We either bomb countries or subsidize them to buy their allegiance.  Obviously that is not a long-term solution for world peace.  I would suggest we do neither.  No aid, and no weapons.  Just open trade, travel, and be friendly by setting a good example.  You know, like we used to do before the 20th century.