Iran and the Nuclear Bomb

[MisterBeale]

Don't be diverted by the Leftist Loons: Prior to Czechoslovakia, Germany had not "invaded" another country. Unless Iran's nuclear weapon capability is eliminated by Israel, we will have no other choice than to station our own nuclear missiles in Saudi Arabia and other friendly countries in the area.

Why?

Historical Parallel:

In 1979, the Soviet Union began placing IRBMs in Eastern Europe as a means of cowing Western Europe into accommodating Soviet plans for establishing economic hegemony through Western financing and development (and ensuing dependence) of their oil and gas reserves.

Against public opinion in the U.S. and Europe, Reagan announced that we would starting placing IRBMs in Western Europe unless the Soviets removed theirs. Gorbachev backed down and Western Europe's independence was maintained. Without this action, which deprived them of a permanent source of foreign capital, the USSR would probably still be in business.

So you say you want to learn from history eh? They "tell" us OBL had the twin towers attacked because we stationed western troops in the most holy of all holy lands. What do you suppose they would do if we planted some offensive nukes next to their most sacred of shrines? My inkling is it probably won't be good for us.

I agree with you. . . . .

Let's just let the Iranians have some DEFENSIVE capability, just like the Israeli's, eh? Just like the Pakistani's, eh? Let's learn from history, and learn from actual political science, you know, the Prisoner's Dilemma scenario? Instead of going all half cocked and making matters worse than they really are.

Read some Realpolitik for once in your life.

 

[R.C. Christian]

I love it when arm chair genitals talk tough about a scenario that would probably read WWIII.

 

[jwoodie]

Why?

Historical Parallel:

In 1979, the Soviet Union began placing IRBMs in Eastern Europe as a means of cowing Western Europe into accommodating Soviet plans for establishing economic hegemony through Western financing and development (and ensuing dependence) of their oil and gas reserves.

Against public opinion in the U.S. and Europe, Reagan announced that we would starting placing IRBMs in Western Europe unless the Soviets removed theirs. Gorbachev backed down and Western Europe's independence was maintained. Without this action, which deprived them of a permanent source of foreign capital, the USSR would probably still be in business.

So you say you want to learn from history eh? They "tell" us OBL had the twin towers attacked because we stationed western troops in the most holy of all holy lands. What do you suppose they would do if we planted some offensive nukes next to their most sacred of shrines? My inkling is it probably won't be good for us.

I agree with you. . . . .

Let's just let the Iranians have some DEFENSIVE capability, just like the Israeli's, eh? Just like the Pakistani's, eh? Let's learn from history, and learn from actual political science, you know, the Prisoner's Dilemma scenario? Instead of going all half cocked and making matters worse than they really are.

Read some Realpolitik for once in your life.

I understand this is an emotional issue for you, but try to lay off the personal attacks. Is there any reason Iran would NOT want to develop a nuclear weapons capability? (They were quite willing to use poison gas in their last war with Iraq.)

 

[Brain357]

It is a maxim that..."If any state forms a great regular army, the bordering states must imitate the example, or submit to a foreign yoke".

Surely that applies to nuclear weapons...and Iran.

But, Iran will be allowed to get a nuclear weapon during Barak Obama's term in office.

In a long line of malfeasances, this one will most haunt his legacy.

Very crazy men run Iran and they are about to be able to blow up anything they want to.

Every sheik, mullah and dictator in control of a few hundred square miles of sand dunes and a few oil fields---will have a nuclear bomb---and it will be the fault of the squalid cowardice of the Obama Administration.

While Iran builds a bomb, Obama spies on us.

First I don't think Israel will let them get one.
Second I don't think Obama is to blame if they get one. Would Saddam have let Iran get one? Probably not so why is it Saddam is no longer there to keep them from getting one?
Third, if they got one what would they do with it? They would all have to be suicidal to use one. North Korea has one now and they are just as crazy.

 

[MisterBeale]

Neocons already blew it over WMD in Iraq. They turned out to be imaginary. You think you're gonna fool us again?

And IF Iran is trying to get a bomb (again, no convincing evidence exists) it's because they just saw their two neighbors get invaded, and have the US navy saddled up next to them in the Gulf. Who can blame them for wanting to protect themselves in case a GOPer steals the White House again, like Bush did?

Yeah, that's pretty much the point. Israel has them. Pakistan, who at this point, no one really believes is a real ally, they have them. India has them. Of course Russians have them. Every technologically advanced nation can have them if they wish.

Iran is no friend of ours, and America just needs to face up to the fact, they ARE technologically sophisticated nation. They (the Iranians) don't like the international banking cartel, and that is why we have been brainwashed to believe they are an enemy. Most Americans have been conditioned SO long to believe either one of two things, Judea-Christianity, or Atheism. If it isn't one of those two things, the person isn't worth oxygen, and they are a moron. Thus, they are a threat. We need to get over that.

This will be our downfall if we don't start taking what nations and people want at face value. Our media is owned. We need to dig a little deeper. The truth lay some where in the middle. We need to put ourselves in the place of those who our government seeks to destroy. Remember, Goldman-Sachs, and all of the other big global financial interests donated to both parties in the last election. Is it any wonder BOTH parties and all political elites see a nation that doesn't conform to the world wide financial system as an evil entity? Really?!? Are people around here so obtuse that they don't see real freedom of thought and action for what it is? Have they not studied the history of Iran? I mean honestly. If I was an Iranian, after what this country did to that nation, I would want my country to get a nuke in the WORST way. I seriously think people need to find out the history of what Britain and then the U.S. did to that nation. We have supported tyrants and dictators who have slaughtered and tortured the populace all for oil.

Now they have a religious sect that does the same thing to a much smaller percentage of the population in order to keep that nation from the oppression of the NWO, and we here in the West are clueless WHY the nation popularly supports them? Have you seen Venezuela? How about Iraq? Or any other place there is great wealth in resources to be raped by the world international elites?

Is the Universal Consciousness or "God" protecting them or walking with them right now? I'd have to say, sure, they are standing up to a Unipolar super power since the fall of the Berlin wall, by themselves; and that is pretty astounding. AND THEY ARE WEAK. Really weak. But the longer they stand, the stronger they get, and the more allies and stronger their alliances get.

And, incidentally, the longer they do, the weaker that unipolar superpower gets. And the more enlightened, awake, and aware it's own population gets.

Perhaps we can avoid WWIII after all. Perhaps not. We shall see. . . .

If it does start, I PROMISE you this, Iran WILL NOT be the one starting it. It will be the United States or it's allies, probably doing some false flag shenanigans, but the world and her people will see through it. After that, the U.S. will invade with out any attempt to negotiate a peace settlement. That will be how it starts, if it starts. Because the U.S. always starts wars. If we put missiles near Iran, it will be to USE them, not to defend anyone or anything.

 

[Duped]

The bottom line is Israel will attack soon.

 

[jwoodie]

It is a maxim that..."If any state forms a great regular army, the bordering states must imitate the example, or submit to a foreign yoke".

Surely that applies to nuclear weapons...and Iran.

But, Iran will be allowed to get a nuclear weapon during Barak Obama's term in office.

In a long line of malfeasances, this one will most haunt his legacy.

Very crazy men run Iran and they are about to be able to blow up anything they want to.

Every sheik, mullah and dictator in control of a few hundred square miles of sand dunes and a few oil fields---will have a nuclear bomb---and it will be the fault of the squalid cowardice of the Obama Administration.

While Iran builds a bomb, Obama spies on us.

First I don't think Israel will let them get one.
Second I don't think Obama is to blame if they get one. Would Saddam have let Iran get one? Probably not so why is it Saddam is no longer there to keep them from getting one?
Third, if they got one what would they do with it? They would all have to be suicidal to use one. North Korea has one now and they are just as crazy.

Interesting logic:

A. If Israel lets them get one, it will be their fault, but if Obama lets them get one it will not be his fault?

B. What does Saddam have to do with the current situation?

C. North Koreans are not crazy. They just act that way to get what they want. Iran is controlled by a theocracy which believes in the triumph of Islam over the infidels by any means necessary.

 

[Connery]

Moved to proper forum

 

[MisterBeale]

If Iran gets a nuke, they will do nothing with it. It will only be an excuse for the West to invade and take away their resources. You all prove your points by what you post.

 

[Stashman]

For anyone that actually believes the non-sense that Iran is building a nuclear bomb, all I can say is that you have been hypnotized by the great American idiot box again. The United States is using this lie as a pretext in invade, and than let a central banking system to be created there.

The very first thing that happened in Iraq after U.S. forces decimated it in Desert Storm was the creation of a central bank. There are currently only three nations that do not have a central banking system. Iran, Cuba, North Korea.

However, lets say that this isn't the way it is for a moment. All I can say is SO WHAT? Iran has the right to defend itself like any other nation on earth. What if say Russia or China told us that we could not have nuclear weapons? That's what were doing to Iran. You assume that if they had the nuclear bomb they would use it. Using it to any degree at all would only assure its absolute destruction. If they launched a nuclear bomb, even before it hit its intended target their would be an array of them heading their way. They are not suicidal. As pointed out earlier in this thread Iran has not invaded another nation since the late 1700's.

Don't let the propaganda pull you in. That's exactly what they want.

 

[sambino510]

Historical Parallel:

In 1979, the Soviet Union began placing IRBMs in Eastern Europe as a means of cowing Western Europe into accommodating Soviet plans for establishing economic hegemony through Western financing and development (and ensuing dependence) of their oil and gas reserves.

Against public opinion in the U.S. and Europe, Reagan announced that we would starting placing IRBMs in Western Europe unless the Soviets removed theirs. Gorbachev backed down and Western Europe's independence was maintained. Without this action, which deprived them of a permanent source of foreign capital, the USSR would probably still be in business.

So you say you want to learn from history eh? They "tell" us OBL had the twin towers attacked because we stationed western troops in the most holy of all holy lands. What do you suppose they would do if we planted some offensive nukes next to their most sacred of shrines? My inkling is it probably won't be good for us.

I agree with you. . . . .

Let's just let the Iranians have some DEFENSIVE capability, just like the Israeli's, eh? Just like the Pakistani's, eh? Let's learn from history, and learn from actual political science, you know, the Prisoner's Dilemma scenario? Instead of going all half cocked and making matters worse than they really are.

Read some Realpolitik for once in your life.

I understand this is an emotional issue for you, but try to lay off the personal attacks. Is there any reason Iran would NOT want to develop a nuclear weapons capability? (They were quite willing to use poison gas in their last war with Iraq.)

Forgive me if I'm wrong, but was it not Iraq who used the chemical weapons AGAINST Iran, not the other way around? America sold the weapons to Saddam who was shaking hands with Donald Rumsfeld, and then Saddam used the weapons against the Iranians.

And no, I think there are many reasons Iran would want a bomb now. Why they would want to USE a bomb, I have no idea.

 

[MisterBeale]

Is there any reason Iran would NOT want to develop a nuclear weapons capability? (They were quite willing to use poison gas in their last war with Iraq.)

You mean AFTER the Iraqi's used the mustard, sarin, and nerve gas that the Americans gave Saddam? Gee, I wonder why they would do that?

Yeah, you are probably right, they just might use a nuke if they are invaded or nuked. I sort of think that is the point of developing a deterrent, isn't it?

 

[MisterBeale]

So you say you want to learn from history eh? They "tell" us OBL had the twin towers attacked because we stationed western troops in the most holy of all holy lands. What do you suppose they would do if we planted some offensive nukes next to their most sacred of shrines? My inkling is it probably won't be good for us.

I agree with you. . . . .

Let's just let the Iranians have some DEFENSIVE capability, just like the Israeli's, eh? Just like the Pakistani's, eh? Let's learn from history, and learn from actual political science, you know, the Prisoner's Dilemma scenario? Instead of going all half cocked and making matters worse than they really are.

Read some Realpolitik for once in your life.

I understand this is an emotional issue for you, but try to lay off the personal attacks. Is there any reason Iran would NOT want to develop a nuclear weapons capability? (They were quite willing to use poison gas in their last war with Iraq.)

Forgive me if I'm wrong, but was it not Iraq who used the chemical weapons AGAINST Iran, not the other way around? America sold the weapons to Saddam who was shaking hands with Donald Rumsfeld, and then Saddam used the weapons against the Iranians.

And no, I think there are many reasons Iran would want a bomb now. Why they would want to USE a bomb, I have no idea.

lol. You're just a bit quicker on the posting than I am. Yup. You are correct.

 

[Duped]

This dialog is moot. Israel will not allow Iran to get a nuclear bomb. Prepare for the ramifications of that reality.

 

[Brain357]

It is a maxim that..."If any state forms a great regular army, the bordering states must imitate the example, or submit to a foreign yoke".

Surely that applies to nuclear weapons...and Iran.

But, Iran will be allowed to get a nuclear weapon during Barak Obama's term in office.

In a long line of malfeasances, this one will most haunt his legacy.

Very crazy men run Iran and they are about to be able to blow up anything they want to.

Every sheik, mullah and dictator in control of a few hundred square miles of sand dunes and a few oil fields---will have a nuclear bomb---and it will be the fault of the squalid cowardice of the Obama Administration.

While Iran builds a bomb, Obama spies on us.

First I don't think Israel will let them get one.
Second I don't think Obama is to blame if they get one. Would Saddam have let Iran get one? Probably not so why is it Saddam is no longer there to keep them from getting one?
Third, if they got one what would they do with it? They would all have to be suicidal to use one. North Korea has one now and they are just as crazy.

Interesting logic:

A. If Israel lets them get one, it will be their fault, but if Obama lets them get one it will not be his fault?

B. What does Saddam have to do with the current situation?

C. North Koreans are not crazy. They just act that way to get what they want. Iran is controlled by a theocracy which believes in the triumph of Islam over the infidels by any means necessary.

A. There is no fault. But I still believe Israel will bomb them before they would let them get one.

B. Well other people decided to take out Saddam who was the balance to Iran in the region. You didn't answer my question. Would Saddam have let Iran get a nuclear weapon?

C. When was the last time Iran attacked anyone? Is nuking some country and then getting nuked back and wiped out of existence going to help Islam win? They will never have more nukes than Israel or the US.

 

[sambino510]

This dialog is moot. Israel will not allow Iran to get a nuclear bomb. Prepare for the ramifications of that reality.

It amazes me how nonchalantly people can cheer at potential death and human suffering. I suppose diplomacy is not still on the table?

 

[Duped]

This dialog is moot. Israel will not allow Iran to get a nuclear bomb. Prepare for the ramifications of that reality.

It amazes me how nonchalantly people can cheer at potential death and human suffering. I suppose diplomacy is not still on the table?

There can be no diplomacy with Islamic terrorist. I don't recall cheering? I am simply stating what Israel has declared - they don't bluff. The quicker the extreme Islamist are subjugated the less sufering the world will see.

 

[Billo_Really]

The bottom line is Israel will attack soon.

That's because they're a fascist, war-mongering country not that much different than Nazi Germany.

But if they do attack Iran, it will prove two things:

1. that beyond a shadow of doubt, it's Israel, that is the problem
2. they'll get their ass kicked by the Russians

 

[sambino510]

This dialog is moot. Israel will not allow Iran to get a nuclear bomb. Prepare for the ramifications of that reality.

It amazes me how nonchalantly people can cheer at potential death and human suffering. I suppose diplomacy is not still on the table?

There can be no diplomacy with Islamic terrorist. I don't recall cheering? I am simply stating what Israel has declared - they don't bluff. The quicker the extreme Islamist are subjugated the less sufering the world will see.

My apologies, I was referring more to others' "cheers" than your own. However, I still believe Iran is all talk, similar to North Korea. Until they actually commit a violent act against Israel, Israel has no basis for a military strike on Iranian territory. Also, you can't lump all Iranians, or the whole Iranian government, as "Islamic terrorists". They're still a sovereign nation, not just a bunch of radicals bent on world destruction.

"Subjugating" the Islamists IS human suffering. The sooner the world finds a way to solve its problems without suffering, without fighting fire with fire, THAT is when there will truly be less suffering.

 

[Billo_Really]

This dialog is moot. Israel will not allow Iran to get a nuclear bomb. Prepare for the ramifications of that reality.

Israel is not the king of the world. They don't dictate to other sovereign nations what they can (and cannot) do within their own borders.

Israel needs to mind its own fuckin' business!