How would the middle east change if Iran developed the Nuke?

[cubby1223]

You pointed to a fucking documentary after the incident occurred as proof of Russia threatening other countries. That's not a threat, that's a punk talking trash after everyone has dispersed.

Holy shit you really are dumber than even I had thought! Google is your friend. Lots of threats of nuclear weapon use. I do not exist on this forum to be your servant whenever you get into a pissy mood.

 

[ivwshane]

Holy shit you really are dumber than even I had thought! Google is your friend. Lots of threats of nuclear weapon use. I do not exist on this forum to be your servant whenever you get into a pissy mood.

Of course you don't you just like to spout your bullshit and when called on it you run away like all the other bitches

Here's a hint; when your "facts" are only supported by right wing websites, you might be stuck in a bubble.

 

[cubby1223]

Of course you don't you just like to spout your bullshit and when called on it you run away like all the other bitches

Here's a hint; when your "facts" are only supported by right wing websites, you might be stuck in a bubble.

(1) Putin made claims of nuclear readiness in defense of their Crimea move
(2) Putin is annexing territories of Georgia
(3) Russia is eying the Baltic States with their hybrid warfare

I have provided links in the other thread, as well as others have provided their info too. Please tell me which of those statements do you disagree with.

I can always back up what I defend. You're the one who deflects and insults rather than just being civil, admitting error, and moving on. Where are your links refuting nuclear threats? Where are your links refuting bullying of their neighbors? That's what I thought. Grow up, troll.

 

[ivwshane]

(1) Putin made claims of nuclear readiness in defense of their Crimea move
(2) Putin is annexing territories of Georgia
(3) Russia is eying the Baltic States with their hybrid warfare

I have provided links in the other thread, as well as others have provided their info too.

I can always back up what I defend. You're the one who always deflects and insults. Grow the fuck up.

Put up or shut up bitch

 

[cubby1223]

Put up or shut up bitch

Now I know for sure you're just being a sarcastic ass tonight

 

[cubby1223]

This is the absolute bottom line: Russia's nuclear arsenal is an essential component in providing their soldiers the will and the confidence to go out and fight for Russia, to be aggressive against their neighbors, believing the world response will be minimal.

The same absolutely can happen within Iran if they develop the technology. Nukes do not have to be detonated to be an effective offensive weapon.

 

[cyclohexane]

Of course the Iranians want them. After all, we overthrew their government twice in recent memory because of oil interests. Never would've happened if they were part of the nuclear club.

 

[touchstone]

iran wont get nukes unless some idiot republican takes office in 2016 and reverses everything that obama does on iran relations. that is why the 'note' those republicans sent is so absurd and dangerous. what happens when a republican is in power and the democrats start sending letters, telling other world leaders to refuse to negotiate with our president because soon his party wont be in power? don't you understand that it destroys the credibility of our government as a whole to have nobody clearly in charge at all? only an idiot would ruin this deal and force iran to restart refinement (and thereby force either a nuclear iran or a ground war to stop them) just to placate the hawks in israel. the truth is that netanyahu ideally would like the united states to invade iran and force them to give up their nuclear program. in the process of course tens of thousands of americans and hundreds of thousands of iranians will die, and their country will be destroyed, but why would israel care about that? its not like they are an ethical nation of reasonable, good people.


it is apalling that such a sociopathic nation exists, and the worst part is the people that israel values the least, us americans, are the ones it is quickest to abuse and most willing to insult. israel will happily send millions to die to further its socioeconic position as long as they arent jews. mark my words, the israelis will conduct a new holocaust in this century. they are so bloodthirsty and lawless it is inevitable

 

[CZroe]

they will eventually develop it unless we drop the sanctions. what reason do they have to cease enrichment if we keep the sanctions there?

You mean, lifting the sanctions isn't an incentive?! Someone should tell our leaders these things before they make fools of themselves.

 

[michal1980]

I like how pro nuke the liberals have gotten... When it comes to terrorist countries like Iran.

Iran can have nuke.

USA cannot have nuclear plants.


During the cold war the left was all for nuclear disarmament. Now they are actively working to give nuclear arms to the middle east.


And where does it stop, once you allow Iran to get nukes, what happens to Egypt? Saudi Arabia ? the UAE, Syria, etc etc?

So much for nuclear non Proliferation.

Obama is working on the biggest expansion of nuclear weapons in modern history.

Except for the USA, we should disarm.

 

[Oric]

Questioned by the members of a nation who try to exploit Iran's natural resources and toppled a democratically electd president in 1952 to be replaced by a puppet Shah and later armed Saddam to attack, i guess them having a nuke is for their own good

 

[Bitek]

Russia is using nuclear threats as part of their strategy to annex neighboring lands. That's all I'm pointing out to the person who made a strong statement that nations never use nuclear threats in aggression.

I guess you could take it as Russia's threat is not, I will annex you or else I use nukes against you, rather I have annexed you, if you resist I will use nukes to defend myself. But, really?



Why did we conduct airstrikes against ISIS and not against Russia's invasion forces? Why did we take down Gaddafi and not Kim Jong Il? Russia's military strength and their nuclear arsenal absolutely is a factor in this country's military decision making process.


Bottom line is, nuclear weapons gives Iran's leaders more power in the region to do what they choose to do. Beyond that it's up to them on how they choose to wield that power.

The far larger factor IMO is their conventional strength as well as consequences of victory.

We've fought many proxy wars with the USSR even though we both had nukes. Why? Its a battle that's manageable.

Libya was the same. Weak army, not a high burden of maintaince if we won. Install some strong man and gtfo. No decades long nation building effort. Plus the euros wanted their oil protected and we paid them back for some of our wars.

NK? Nobody was looking to invade them for many decades now, even then their nuclear deterrent is highly questionable, and no threat to us. Why don't we attack?
Why would we? We already had a bloody battle there, and there is nothing to win. They have a huge army and a poor and brainwashed population. Who wants to own that? They have some nuclear capability, but only because it wasn't worth smashing.


Back to Russia. We have nukes. All we need to do to get Putin to leave is make some threats with them? No way. He knows they are hollow, and would continue doing what he's doing. Only way to get him out is with bullets, and even then it's a stretch BC no one wants to start that heavy of a war. Putin has far less to lose, so will always be at advantage.

Convincing others he is crazy is another large advantage. Make people think that *maybe* you would use them, and they will back off. Same reason you run from bees and not butterflies. Neither one is a real threat, but one is a large enough nuisance to not be worth the trouble of a fight.

Being scared and believing Putin gives him power. I refuse to do so when I can clearly see he has little that can effect me

 

[Knowing]

Very little, other than Netanyahu cooling off on trying to get the West to go to war with Iran since perpetual instability in the region (and the terrorism that comes with it) seems to be their entire foreign policy.

I dare say it could be beneficial, once they have the bomb the rest of the nuclear club will have an incentive to treat them with some kind of respect.

 

[Newell Steamer]

You guys need to stop playing Red Alert.

Launching a nuke at another nation is not as easy as of some of you think it is.

Your rationale & realism has been suffocated by your fear and hate of Islam.

If Iran nukes Israel, Israel has an immediate counter response to 'spread the pain'. Israel has nuclear weapons. Iran would not just destroy Israel - they would get destroyed as well.

And, let's say Israel didn't get a chance to hit back; the US would then nuke Iran. It is not probable for Iran to nuke Israel and walk away a 'winner'.

So, all that would happen is that Israel would make many attempts to hit and disable Iran's nuclear launch sites - similarly to how Israel murders Iran's scientists. All the while Israel screams on top of it's lungs that Iran will murder and kill Israel.

 

[Sonikku]

I wonder where Iran would be today if we hadn't overthrown their democracy and replaced it with a brutal (later toppled) dictatorship. :hmm: Would they be an ally of the free world like the UK? Would we now want them to have nukes? Makes you wonder.

 

[schmuckley]

Yeah, it's called big talk and it's rarely backed up by a big stick.

Iran will do the worst they can.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news...ran-a-big-question-ahead-of-syria-a/?page=all
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=Iran+Kidnap

I wonder where Iran would be today if we hadn't overthrown their democracy and replaced it with a brutal (later toppled) dictatorship. :hmm: Would they be an ally of the free world like the UK? Would we now want them to have nukes? Makes you wonder.

Valid point;unfortunately that is not the case.

 

[realibrad]

Put up or shut up bitch

http://www.cnn.com/2014/08/29/world/europe/ukraine-crisis/index.html?hpt=hp_t1

Moscow doesn't want or intend to wade into any "large-scale conflicts," Putin insisted at a youth forum, state-run ITAR-Tass reported. A few breaths later, he made the point that Russia is "strengthening our nuclear deterrence forces and our armed forces," making them more efficient and modernized.

"I want to remind you that Russia is one of the most powerful nuclear nations," the President said. "This is a reality, not just words."

He later warned, "We must always be ready to repel any aggression against Russia and (potential enemies) should be aware ... it is better not to come against Russia as regards a possible armed conflict."

Does that work?

 

[ivwshane]

Iran will do the worst they can.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news...ran-a-big-question-ahead-of-syria-a/?page=all
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=Iran+Kidnap



Valid point;unfortunately that is not the case.

Lol, seriously? The Washington times, whose one quote comes from a "blogger"?

 

[ivwshane]

http://www.cnn.com/2014/08/29/world/europe/ukraine-crisis/index.html?hpt=hp_t1



Does that work?

So Putin at a youth forum said something to young people and you take that as a threat? No sorry, that's propaganda.

A threat would be Putin going on camera or in front of a US official and directing his comments directly to them and then makes a threat.

For reference our presidents have said similar shit in similar situations and they in no way constitute a threat being made, only saber rattling.

 

[realibrad]

So Putin at a youth forum said something to young people and you take that as a threat? No sorry, that's propaganda.

A threat would be Putin going on camera or in front of a US official and directing his comments directly to them and then makes a threat.

For reference our presidents have said similar shit in similar situations and they in no way constitute a threat being made, only saber rattling.

I figured you would be able to twist it somehow. You asked for a source other than a documentary. I gave you CNN, but no, its actually wrong again because he was speaking to children, and thus wrong.

So, in what context will a leader of a nuclear make a comment about using their weapons a actual threat?

 

[nickqt]

I like how pro nuke the liberals have gotten... When it comes to terrorist countries like Iran.

Iran can have nuke.

USA cannot have nuclear plants.


During the cold war the left was all for nuclear disarmament. Now they are actively working to give nuclear arms to the middle east.


And where does it stop, once you allow Iran to get nukes, what happens to Egypt? Saudi Arabia ? the UAE, Syria, etc etc?

So much for nuclear non Proliferation.

Obama is working on the biggest expansion of nuclear weapons in modern history.

Except for the USA, we should disarm.

You conservatives are hilarious. Yes, the typical American libruul wants the US to disarm, and would prefer it if we could jut give our nukes to N. Korea and Iran so they can destroy the entire planet.

Because you're delusional.

 

[ivwshane]

I figured you would be able to twist it somehow. You asked for a source other than a documentary. I gave you CNN, but no, its actually wrong again because he was speaking to children, and thus wrong.

So, in what context will a leader of a nuclear make a comment about using their weapons a actual threat?

I already said, a speech directed specifically at the American people or one of our officials.

 

[realibrad]

I already said, a speech directed specifically at the American people or one of our officials.

So there you have it. The only way you can threaten someone, is by saying something directly to that someone. Turns out we invented the word implicit and thanks to you, we no longer need it. The only way it can be a threat is explicit direct language. How could the world have been so blind.

So, its not racist to say "whites are the best race" because I did not directly say that every one else is crap.

So, when Putin said

"We must always be ready to repel any aggression against Russia and (potential enemies) should be aware ... it is better not to come against Russia as regards a possible armed conflict.

its not a threat because he did not call out anyone directly. Screw context.

 

[sm625]

The Iranians had every reason to burn US flags in 1980. The US staged a coup just 25 years before. I would say times have changed, except that unfortunately most of the US population is still completely and totally ignorant of basic history.

 

[Pipeline 1010]

I already said, a speech directed specifically at the American people or one of our officials.

You don't get to change the definition of the word "threat"...event if it makes you think you "won" an internet argument.