Israel To U.S. - Stop Iran And Their Nukes Or We Will

[theHawk]

You're right nothing should be done at all. just let them build nukes for 10 years they are nice people they won't use them on anyone or sell them to terrorist groups. Iran is a peacefull country :kiss2:

 

[ekrem]

Iran will give unforgettable lesson to Israel if it ventures into targeting nuclear sites
http://www.irna.ir/en/news/view/line-24/0510025524183036.htm

Islamic Republic News Agency of IRAN

 

[Annie]

As to your first remark: sorry about the t

Hey, no problem, not me, but filters here at school.

 

[Harmageddon]

Dude, what makes you think the Iranians will throw a nuke if they get their hands on one? Just because they are evil muslims? If that were so, why is Pakistan, a muslim nation, not throwing their dozen or so nukes around the place? Or what about the evil communists in Russia; they have thousands of these things.

Have you ever conversed with a muslim about such issues at all?
I have spoken to several muslims about this, not Iranians, but still.
Basically they find the prospect of war with Israel just as worrying as you or me.

But then it is not the people that want war. . . it is the governments.

Some insightful remark by Hermann Goering, Hitlers designated successor, at the Nurenberg trials. The Neurenberg trials you may know, were the trials set up by the victorious allies to officially use law to sentence the top of the Nazi empire to execution or life, depending on the circumstances. When Goering was asked why it all happened. . . he said the following:

"Why of course the people don't want war. But after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy, and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy or a fascist dictatorship.
Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do it to tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger."

Quite an insightful remark, I'd say.

So yes, maybe the Iranian leadership will decide to throw nukes on Israel, even if the Iranian population does not want this. But they will still only do this if they think they have a reasonable chance of winning, just like the Germans started a war thinking they might win. Just as America started a war in Iraq, thinking they might win.

Who do you think has the better chance? Israel, or Iran?

Therefore, who is more likely to throw the first nuke?

 

[rtwngAvngr]

No Kathianne, my solution is not that Israel get hit.
Iran may be insane enough to attack Israel with nukes, although if they plan to do so, it will probably take several years for them to build them in the first place. For Iran to hit Israel is just as insane as the other way around, for Israel has the most sophisticated (American built) army in the region and posesses roughly 200 nukes.

Iranian threats come down to: "if Israel decides to strike our reactors, that means war! Praise Allah!" a line of reasoning I can basically sympathise with, apart from the bit about Allah.

I'm saying: both options are equally insane.
So instead of pre-emptively igniting a possible world war it may be a good idea to get the adrenalin levels down and suggest an ongoing international inspection during the building of these reactors. Just to inform the Iranians, sorry but we're a little paranoid here, so we're just going to monitor this whole event. This is one way of addressing the possible future problems.

One way or another, the first nation (apart from Russia and America) that starts throwing around their nukes will go down in a large pool of bubbling green glass.

As to your first remark: sorry about the t

You couldn't be more wrong. The U.S. And israel have proven ourselves to be responsible stewards of nuclear technology. Would Iran even bother with all the fuss we are in Iraq, using conventional, guns and bullets, tactics instead of their nukes, if the situation were reversed, and they were trying liberate ohio for allah?

Insane, intolerant, theocratic mullahs with the overtly stated goal of restoring the world caliphate will not be allowed to have nucs. This is the new world order.

 

[Harmageddon]

Originally posted by rtwngAvngr
You couldn't be more wrong. The U.S. And israel have proven ourselves to be responsible stewards of nuclear technology. Would Iran even bother with all the fuss we are in Iraq, using conventional, guns and bullets, tactics instead of their nukes, if the situation were reversed, and they were trying liberate ohio for allah?

What are you trying to say?
Russia has also proven to be quite responsible with regards to nuclear technology, yes they managed to have the Tjernobil meltdown almost 30 years ago and so has America thrown the first two on Japan 50 years ago. But let's say those were early mistakes - to be gentile.

Quite some reversed situation you sketch there; comparing liberating ohio for allah with your liberating war for christianity, errr. . democracy.

Originally posted by rtwngAvngr
Insane, intolerant, theocratic mullahs with the overtly stated goal of restoring the world caliphate will not be allowed to have nucs. This is the new world order.

I think the prospect of converting the world to Islam by threat of nuclear attack is indeed something intolerable. Just as promoting democracy by agressive war is intolerable.

Reverse Iraq, how would you react if the Chinese invaded America to oust your government? No really, they bring you peace and democracy, free elections and everything, they just place some successful chinesaman on the election forms and make sure all the chinese in your country vote for the guy, giving him quite a chance of winning the elections. All the liberals will probably vote with joy for this guy too! He's a communist of course, so that's great!
This is the new world order.

I'm not saying we should give them nukes.
I'm saying we should enforce a solution to monitor Iran extensively for the time being, with a nato force or something of that order.
We could do this with full international support, apart from probably Israel.

Or we could just let Israel nuke the bastards and see what happens instead, as you seem to prefer. . .
Hey, they're just sandniggers. Nobody cares.

 

[theHawk]

I think the prospect of converting the world to Islam by threat of nuclear attack is indeed something intolerable. Just as promoting democracy by agressive war is intolerable.

Then I guess our actions in World War II are intolerable to you, as it was war that brought down Nazism and brought democracy there.

Reverse Iraq, how would you react if the Chinese invaded America to oust your government? No really, they bring you peace and democracy, free elections and everything, they just place some successful chinesaman on the election forms and make sure all the chinese in your country vote for the guy, giving him quite a chance of winning the elections. All the liberals will probably vote with joy for this guy too! He's a communist of course, so that's great!
This is the new world order.

An absurd argument. But to entertain you, I'd have to say if I lived in any totalitarian society then yes, I would want anybody to come free my country. But America is about as far away as you can get from being a totalitarian society so its a moot point.

I'm saying we should enforce a solution to monitor Iran extensively for the time being, with a nato force or something of that order.
We could do this with full international support, apart from probably Israel.

Key word enforce. Its kind of hard for the U.N. to 'police' the world when it is obvious they will not use force. Its like expecting a policeman to maintain order in a riot zone when he has no authority to use force of any kind. Everyones just going to laugh and do whatever they want.

 

[dilloduck]

I say let them. They would probably get it done a lot quicker than we would.

----

The United States and its allies must act to stop Iran's nuclear programs -- by force if necessary -- because conventional diplomacy will not work, three senior Israeli lawmakers from across the political spectrum warned yesterday.
As a last resort, they said, Israel itself would act unilaterally to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear arms.
Iran will not be deterred "by anything short of a threat of force," said Arieh Eldad, a member of Israel's right-wing National Union Party, part of a delegation of Knesset members visiting Washington this week.
"They won't be stopped unless they are convinced their programs will be destroyed if they continue," he said.
Yuval Steinitz, chairman of the Knesset Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee, said the best hope was for the United States and other major powers to make it clear to Iranian leaders now there was "no chance they will ever see the fruits of a nuclear program."
"Threats of sanctions and isolation alone will not do it," said Mr. Steinitz.
Yosef Lapid, head of the centrist opposition Shinui Party in the Knesset, added that Israel "will not live under the threat of an Iranian nuclear bomb."
"We feel we are obliged to warn our friends that Israel should not be pushed into a situation where we see no other solution but to act unilaterally" against Iran, he said.
Mr. Steinitz, a member of Prime Minister Ariel Sharon's ruling Likud Party, stopped just short of a direct threat to bomb suspect Iranian nuclear sites.

http://www.washtimes.com/world/20050929-114709-2065r.htm

So the point in Israeli politicians making this statement is what?

to get votes from right wing Israelis ?
to threaten the rest of the world into resolving this issue in a matter that is satisfactory to Israel ?
to speed up the process?
evidence that Israel is worried that negotiations are headed in the wrong direction ?

 

[Abbey Normal]

Dude, what makes you think the Iranians will throw a nuke if they get their hands on one? Just because they are evil muslims? If that were so, why is Pakistan, a muslim nation, not throwing their dozen or so nukes around the place?...

Uh, because India has nukes too?

 

[The ClayTaurus]

Nukes are for pussies.

 

[Harmageddon]

Originally posted by theHawk
Then I guess our actions in World War II are intolerable to you, as it was war that brought down Nazism and brought democracy there.

No. America did not invade because they were particularly offended by nazism. America joined the war because the German Third Reich combined with the prospect of a Japanes Eastern Empire seemed to be a real threat. American corporations were faring quite well at the beginning of the Third Reich, delivering recources for an evermore demanding Germany bent on Empire.
Russia on the other hand joined in Hitler's efforts from the beginning until Hitler decided he did not intend to share power and betrayed the pact they had sealed. Russia later destroyed the Third Reich's capital and met the American cavalry on the smoking ruins.

I am very grateful the Americans did their part in bringing this effort for Empire down. It was mostly Canadians and Americans that freed my country on their way to Berlin, and your country has my gratitude for that.

Originally posted by theHawk
An absurd argument. But to entertain you, I'd have to say if I lived in any totalitarian society then yes, I would want anybody to come free my country. But America is about as far away as you can get from being a totalitarian society so its a moot point.

The part about China was sarcasm.
If only the world was such a nice place as you think it is.
Sure, the Iraqi's should be glad their dictator is gone. But that was not and is not the goal of this operation Iraqi Freedom. If only it were, then the world would have an army there right now, NATO forces and everything. America and Britain however, put forth the case that Iraq was an imminent threat to the world - being a nation that possesses no significant military capability whatsover, but just take our word for it - and needed to be taken care of.

That is what the world knew to be false. That is why it was proclaimed illegal later by the U.N. If your government was so intent on bringing democracy why then did it not make the case for the U.N. security council? Because it was not the intent.
However, the Iraqi's have been under foreign rule before, they know how it works from history. The British occupied their country almost a century ago, and installed quite a brutal regime to obtain cheap oil. The Iraqi's consider the Americans that are on the ground together with the British - nice to see you chaps again, how have you been - to be doing the exact same thing.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,3604,939608,00.html

Originally posted by theHawk
Key word enforce. Its kind of hard for the U.N. to 'police' the world when it is obvious they will not use force. Its like expecting a policeman to maintain order in a riot zone when he has no authority to use force of any kind. Everyones just going to laugh and do whatever they want.

Exactly. And the U.N. lacks a certain punch, because the United States refuses to work with them. The world needs your country. I totally agree.
Then why not use it for the world, in accordance with the world?

I think because America wants the control. America wants EMPIRE.
And that is what will never happen. No country on earth has ever been content to be subject to another country's whims. They resist foreign occupation. Always. No matter the size of the Empire.

It's all just a little bit of history repeating.

Originally posted by Abbey Normal
Uh, because India has nukes too?

So what makes you think Iran will use them, since Israel has nukes too?
Or were you being sarcastic

Originally posted by The ClayTaurus
Nukes are for pussies.

I wholeheartedly agree.

 

[dilloduck]

I think because America wants the control. America wants EMPIRE.

Bullshit--If the US wanted Iraq as part of it's "empire" we would have it by now. How many European countries are just dying to get in there and grab some Iraqi money?

 

[ThomasPaine]

I think because America wants the control. America wants EMPIRE.
And that is what will never happen. No country on earth has ever been content to be subject to another country's whims. They resist foreign occupation. Always. No matter the size of the Empire.

It's all just a little bit of history repeating.



So what makes you think Iran will use them, since Israel has nukes too?
Or were you being sarcastic


You know Nothing of the United States if you think we desire EMPIRE. Hell that's the last thing we want. The United States is primarily isolationist in our world view. Comes from the colonial period and the Revolutionary War. We invaded Iraq to A. Scare the dogshit out of the Islamic world. Get their attention; Uncle Sam is no paper tiger and will put it's boots where it's mouth is. B. To attempt to stabilize the region and inject self government to people who've never had it. C. Provide some ray of light to muslims tired of their oppresive regimes;i.e. maybe if they're not so pissed at their governments they'll leave us the fuck alone.

Israel will do what it deems necessary to ensure it's national security. The Imams in Iran have REPEATEDLY stated their desire for the destruction of the State of Israel. I don't believe they would hesistate to nuke Israel if given the chance. Ergo the Israelis are JUSTIFIED in stopping Irans nuclear program. And the United States will APPROVE of it openly or tacitly because Iran has made clear they would make their nuclear weapons and programs open to terrorists and unstable third world regimes.

 

[USMCDevilDog]

Iran has been in need of some ass kicking...

 

[Hagbard Celine]

What if Iran promised to allow UN inspectors to oversee the production of their nuclear plants and agreed to build soft-water reactors that do not produce waste that can be made into bombs?

 

[Annie]

What if Iran promised to allow UN inspectors to oversee the production of their nuclear plants and agreed to build soft-water reactors that do not produce waste that can be made into bombs?

UMMM, European consort offered just that and it was rejected. They even offered to pick up the tab on the soft-water reactor. Next scenario...

 

[Said1]

What if Iran promised to allow UN inspectors to oversee the production of their nuclear plants and agreed to build soft-water reactors that do not produce waste that can be made into bombs?

I think one of the biggest problem lies in where the waste goes, which is tied to the original seller. The spent uranium can be sold to other countries for the purpose of making bombs.

Plus Iran has a history of "forgetting" to mention the where abouts of certain programs.

 

[Hagbard Celine]

Scenario dos: Iran wants nukes so that it can deal with Israel and the US and other nuclear powers on an equal playing field. It would never actually use them.

 

[Gunny]

No Kathianne, my solution is not that Israel get hit.
Iran may be insane enough to attack Israel with nukes, although if they plan to do so, it will probably take several years for them to build them in the first place. For Iran to hit Israel is just as insane as the other way around, for Israel has the most sophisticated (American built) army in the region and posesses roughly 200 nukes.

Iranian threats come down to: "if Israel decides to strike our reactors, that means war! Praise Allah!" a line of reasoning I can basically sympathise with, apart from the bit about Allah.

I'm saying: both options are equally insane. So instead of pre-emptively igniting a possible world war it may be a good idea to get the adrenalin levels down and suggest an ongoing international inspection during the building of these reactors. Just to inform the Iranians, sorry but we're a little paranoid here, so we're just going to monitor this whole event. This is one way of addressing the possible future problems.

One way or another, the first nation (apart from Russia and America) that starts throwing around their nukes will go down in a large pool of bubbling green glass.

As to your first remark: sorry about the t

I agree. WE should take out the reactors. No way can any rational mind allow Ilamic extremists the power to develop nuclear technology.

What's next? Blow ourselves up and save them the trouble?

 

[Gunny]

What if Iran promised to allow UN inspectors to oversee the production of their nuclear plants and agreed to build soft-water reactors that do not produce waste that can be made into bombs?

The same ones that were in Iraq? How promising ......