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

Forums - General Discussion - 7 in 10 Americans believe Iran has Nuclear Weapons

megaman79 on 21 February 2010
sguy78 said:

I just find it funny that you can be so absolutely positive there were no WMD's in Iraq. We gave them two weeks of notice, and we have photos of numerous large trucks moving in the direction of Syria during said two weeks. Iran is obviously develpoing nuclear materials, and has said that Israel should be wiped off the face of the Earth. The dictatorship just stole another election where the opposition lost his own town. Seems like a perfectly stable country to have nuclear weapons. How long can you stick your head in the sand while maniacle dictator stomp on their people? I bet you would have just gone along with the flow when Hitler stormed Poland too, huh?

Quoting for lulz.

 

Are you serious? Blair just testified 2 weeks ago and said "there was NO IMMINENT THREAT".



“When we make some new announcement and if there is no positive initial reaction from the market, I try to think of it as a good sign because that can be interpreted as people reacting to something groundbreaking. ...if the employees were always minding themselves to do whatever the market is requiring at any moment, and if they were always focusing on something we can sell right now for the short term, it would be very limiting. We are trying to think outside the box.” - Satoru Iwata - This is why corporate multinationals will never truly understand, or risk doing, what Nintendo does.

Around the Network
Kasz216 on 21 February 2010
damkira said:

Israel has had nuclear weapons.. for how long?

If Iran gets them it, there is no reason to think they would use them.

Mutually Assured Destruction and all..

 

There was once a time during the cold war where the US and USSR almost fired nukes on each other because of a false alarm by a russian system that said the US launched a nuclear atack on them.


The only reason Mutually Assured Destruction didn't happen was that one russian officer went against his orders and refused to report the launch because he had a hunch it was false.

 

Additionally Israel VS Iran isn't nessisarily a case of MAD.  Why?  Israel is very tiny.  The big reason MAD would happen between the US and USSR was that neither side would ever be able to mobilize enough missles to take out every major city and base that may have had missles stationed.

 

Israel?  It'd be easy.  Iran, less so since Iran's east coast is full of hills perfect for hidden stuff... however nobodies really worried about Israel firing first with nukes.



NiKKoM on 21 February 2010
Kasz216 said:
NiKKoM said:

Thats so wrong.. their name isn't actually the revolutionary guard but Army of the Guardians of the Islamic Revolution.. it has retained it's "radical" ideology even though it has assumed the outward structure of a conventional military force... they follow the Islam..

And yes.. you do have to use super  missiles.. their longest range missile now can hit Turkey.. thats 1300KM which they claim it can hit it... http://www.jewishpolicycenter.org/blog/2009/12/iran-missile-can-hit-us-forward-bases-israel   Mainland Europe is like 4000KM.. that would be a super missile..

It's the slang name.  I know the actual name thanks.  They don't follow islam.

They train terrorists, they pay people to attack civlians... both in Israel and the west.

They would like nothing better then to take as many people out as they could when they were going down.  Palestinians included, because in reality, they don't give a damn about them.  The widespread support of palestine was nothing but a land grab for those countries nearby... and now is just to oppose their counterbalance.

So they are the loyal army of the clerics in Iran to counter the regular army of Iran and they don't follow Islam.. that's hard to believe.. it's even believed that they do their "terrorist" activitities to in hopes to spread the Islamic revolution..



 

Face the future.. Gamecenter ID: nikkom_nl (oh no he didn't!!) 

NinjaguyDan on 21 February 2010
gurglesletch said:
Who was the surveyed group, A bunch of bums or something?

They over sampled the gooberstan region.



Switch: SW-5066-1525-5130

XBL: GratuitousFREEK

sguy78 on 21 February 2010
megaman79 said:
sguy78 said:

I just find it funny that you can be so absolutely positive there were no WMD's in Iraq. We gave them two weeks of notice, and we have photos of numerous large trucks moving in the direction of Syria during said two weeks. Iran is obviously develpoing nuclear materials, and has said that Israel should be wiped off the face of the Earth. The dictatorship just stole another election where the opposition lost his own town. Seems like a perfectly stable country to have nuclear weapons. How long can you stick your head in the sand while maniacle dictator stomp on their people? I bet you would have just gone along with the flow when Hitler stormed Poland too, huh?

Quoting for lulz.

 

Are you serious? Blair just testified 2 weeks ago and said "there was NO IMMINENT THREAT".

Yeah because it's so funny you deal only with absolutes. Only you can be right on every issue. When you decide to look at said pictures, do what you must always do, and just close your eyes. WMD's were one of numerous reasons the U.N. had to attack Saddam's Regime under the Peace Treaty following the Iraq War. It would have been under the "Umbrella" of unity if France hadn't veto'd it. Gee, they didn't happen to be covering up a certain Oil For Food program, were they? Stop acting like you are coming from some moral high ground, when a tyrant who used chemical weapons on women and children has been removed. Ever look at the mass graves of people that were found in Iraq, that were obvious assasinations? Wasn't one of the main purposes of the U.N. to stand in the way of attrocities such as those perpetrated during WW2?



Around the Network
megaman79 on 21 February 2010
sguy78 said:
megaman79 said:
sguy78 said:

I just find it funny that you can be so absolutely positive there were no WMD's in Iraq. We gave them two weeks of notice, and we have photos of numerous large trucks moving in the direction of Syria during said two weeks. Iran is obviously develpoing nuclear materials, and has said that Israel should be wiped off the face of the Earth. The dictatorship just stole another election where the opposition lost his own town. Seems like a perfectly stable country to have nuclear weapons. How long can you stick your head in the sand while maniacle dictator stomp on their people? I bet you would have just gone along with the flow when Hitler stormed Poland too, huh?

Quoting for lulz.

 

Are you serious? Blair just testified 2 weeks ago and said "there was NO IMMINENT THREAT".

Yeah because it's so funny you deal only with absolutes. Only you can be right on every issue. When you decide to look at said pictures, do what you must always do, and just close your eyes. WMD's were one of numerous reasons the U.N. had to attack Saddam's Regime under the Peace Treaty following the Iraq War. It would have been under the "Umbrella" of unity if France hadn't veto'd it. Gee, they didn't happen to be covering up a certain Oil For Food program, were they? Stop acting like you are coming from some moral high ground, when a tyrant who used chemical weapons on women and children has been removed. Ever look at the mass graves of people that were found in Iraq, that were obvious assasinations? Wasn't one of the main purposes of the U.N. to stand in the way of attrocities such as those perpetrated during WW2?

Do you know anything about UN International Law? I studied it for a year. Do you know anything about why France didn't agree to support the invasion? No, you dont. Do you know about the highway of death? Not likely.

Do you know about the human rights abuses in Darfur, and the UN's inaction? Do you know about the first Iraq War, you know the one that was ACTUALLY about protecting a sovereign state, instead of invasion for no reason at all?

Again, lulz to your ignorance. Its funny stuff.



“When we make some new announcement and if there is no positive initial reaction from the market, I try to think of it as a good sign because that can be interpreted as people reacting to something groundbreaking. ...if the employees were always minding themselves to do whatever the market is requiring at any moment, and if they were always focusing on something we can sell right now for the short term, it would be very limiting. We are trying to think outside the box.” - Satoru Iwata - This is why corporate multinationals will never truly understand, or risk doing, what Nintendo does.

megaman79 on 21 February 2010
sguy78 said:

WMD's were one of numerous reasons the U.N. had to attack Saddam's Regime under the Peace Treaty following the Iraq War.

Give me one reason. Oh and blaming the UN for the US's action is complete b.s. The UN was tricked by Powell, just like Congress were tricked and possibly even Bush himself.The UK's sexing up of the dossier on yellowcake purchases from Uganda was the main crux of this argument. The source, some guy who not even the CIA considered authentic.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3661134.stm

"I hope we do not see another Iraq-type operation for a long time - without UN approval and much broader support from the international community," he added.

He said he believed there should have been a second UN resolution following Iraq's failure to comply over weapons inspections.

And it should have been up to the Security Council to approve or determine the consequences, he added.

When pressed on whether he viewed the invasion of Iraq as illegal, he said: "Yes, if you wish. I have indicated it was not in conformity with the UN charter from our point of view, from the charter point of view, it was illegal."



“When we make some new announcement and if there is no positive initial reaction from the market, I try to think of it as a good sign because that can be interpreted as people reacting to something groundbreaking. ...if the employees were always minding themselves to do whatever the market is requiring at any moment, and if they were always focusing on something we can sell right now for the short term, it would be very limiting. We are trying to think outside the box.” - Satoru Iwata - This is why corporate multinationals will never truly understand, or risk doing, what Nintendo does.

oldschoolfool on 21 February 2010
Esmoreit said:
I only thought 1 out of four Americans were stupid (South Park ref don't choke me)!

Iran is close, but they don't pose a nuclear thread yet.
I just hope that the US is smart enough to not invade a country under false pretences again.


yet is the key word. I can't say for sure,but I think that's what Iran wants. Of course were going to do nothing about it and give them deadlines that don't mean anything. military action is the only thing goverments like this understand.



NKAJ on 21 February 2010
Mr Khan said:
NKAJ said:
Intresting,I personally think that all nukes should be destroyed,why? Mainly because in my opinion theres too great a risk of some extremists taking control of a nuke and using it to wreak havoc on some city,this would then probably start of a series of events that would end in war.

Nukes help keep the peace, generally. You don't attack a nation with nuclear weapons, and nuclear-armed nations (who are also generally the strongest in the world in conventional capabilities, too), haven't openly fought each other at all so far ever since Nagasaki, except India and Pakistan.

 

More advantages than disadvantages, as long as they are kept away from completely unstable regimes (who wouldn't be able to fund them in the first place, likely enough)


Perhap they do keep the peace but then countries can just fight proxy wars.The major western countries (USA,U.K and so on) are powerfull enough conventionally to destroy any threat from another country (although Russia and Chine would be pretty tough).However with nuclear weapons the balance of power is suddenly altered.If for example ,an international terrorist organization took control of say Irans nucluer missles and launched them at the US.WHat would the US do in return? Would they return fire at Iran even though it is the work of terrorists not an actual goverment?What could they realisticly do to deal with the situation?



"They will know heghan belongs to the helghast"

"England expects that everyman will do his duty"

"we shall fight on the beaches, we shall fight on the landing grounds, we shall fight in the fields and in the streets, we shall fight in the hills; we shall never surrender"

 

sguy78 on 21 February 2010
megaman79 said:
sguy78 said:
megaman79 said:
sguy78 said:

I just find it funny that you can be so absolutely positive there were no WMD's in Iraq. We gave them two weeks of notice, and we have photos of numerous large trucks moving in the direction of Syria during said two weeks. Iran is obviously develpoing nuclear materials, and has said that Israel should be wiped off the face of the Earth. The dictatorship just stole another election where the opposition lost his own town. Seems like a perfectly stable country to have nuclear weapons. How long can you stick your head in the sand while maniacle dictator stomp on their people? I bet you would have just gone along with the flow when Hitler stormed Poland too, huh?

Quoting for lulz.

 

Are you serious? Blair just testified 2 weeks ago and said "there was NO IMMINENT THREAT".

Yeah because it's so funny you deal only with absolutes. Only you can be right on every issue. When you decide to look at said pictures, do what you must always do, and just close your eyes. WMD's were one of numerous reasons the U.N. had to attack Saddam's Regime under the Peace Treaty following the Iraq War. It would have been under the "Umbrella" of unity if France hadn't veto'd it. Gee, they didn't happen to be covering up a certain Oil For Food program, were they? Stop acting like you are coming from some moral high ground, when a tyrant who used chemical weapons on women and children has been removed. Ever look at the mass graves of people that were found in Iraq, that were obvious assasinations? Wasn't one of the main purposes of the U.N. to stand in the way of attrocities such as those perpetrated during WW2?

Do you know anything about UN International Law? I studied it for a year. Do you know anything about why France didn't agree to support the invasion? No, you dont. Do you know about the highway of death? Not likely.

Do you know about the human rights abuses in Darfur, and the UN's inaction? Do you know about the first Iraq War, you know the one that was ACTUALLY about protecting a sovereign state, instead of invasion for no reason at all?

Again, lulz to your ignorance. Its funny stuff.

Why don't you start without the typical liberal practice of lashing out and insulting people that don't agree with you? Maybe you should wake up and realize France was skimming some money off the top pal. "If you don't agree with me you're an ignorant moron!" Waaaaaahhhh!!!!!!