Looks like Iran's got nuclear weapons...

[Crimson]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: Crimson
I love the way people say that there's no difference between the U.S. and Iran having Nuclear weapons.. yeah.. OK.. lets see, country run by extremist religious fanatics who want to wipe out any non-muslim country.. or the United States.. yeah, good example.. Lets give the bomb to everyone.. what if every person on earth had a nuclear bomb.. You don't think someone would be stupid enough to use it?

Nuclear deterence worked with Russia and the United States because neither side was crazy enough to use them.. take a politically unstable country with fanatics ruling it.. and you got a bomb in downtown Jerusalem.

George Bush is not an extremist religious fanatic. How is PNAC different than Islam? And when did Iran start an illegal, preemptive war?

Are you comparing Bush to Saddam Hussein? Please clarify.. are they both the same to you?

Iran never started a war? Umm.. do you really want to go there? Did you forget about the Iran-Iraq war? Prehaps you forgot about the 1979 Iranian Islamic Revolution? Oh, thats right.. that was a legal election.. sorry about that..

 

[Crimson]

Originally posted by: Drift3r
They wouldn't nuke Isreal because they would get nuked in return. Trust me even Al Queda does not have the balls to use nukes. They know that a nuke attack would spell out-right doom for the whole ME.

They have the "balls" to fly 3 planes into skyscrapers.. but you don't think one of them would be willing to die to detonate a nuke in Mahattan? Or Jerusalem? Come on now..

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: Crimson

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: Crimson
I love the way people say that there's no difference between the U.S. and Iran having Nuclear weapons.. yeah.. OK.. lets see, country run by extremist religious fanatics who want to wipe out any non-muslim country.. or the United States.. yeah, good example.. Lets give the bomb to everyone.. what if every person on earth had a nuclear bomb.. You don't think someone would be stupid enough to use it?

Nuclear deterence worked with Russia and the United States because neither side was crazy enough to use them.. take a politically unstable country with fanatics ruling it.. and you got a bomb in downtown Jerusalem.

George Bush is not an extremist religious fanatic. How is PNAC different than Islam? And when did Iran start an illegal, preemptive war?

Are you comparing Bush to Saddam Hussein? Please clarify.. are they both the same to you?

Iran never started a war? Umm.. do you really want to go there? Did you forget about the Iran-Iraq war? Prehaps you forgot about the 1979 Iranian Islamic Revolution? Oh, thats right.. that was a legal election.. sorry about that..

Yeah, I'll go there. Bring it on. Your questions, have nothing to do with what I said. What would be the point in answering them.

 

[Witling]

Alas, Crimson, you make me tired. You start out talking about whether Syria, Iraq, or Iran would nuke Israel. The answer is no. Then you switch to the hijackers and the mysterious "they" would use a nuke. Except for us, no country has ever used nuclear weapons. And there has never been a case of a government allowing terrorists access to weapons of mass destruction. Please pick one horse to ride, either the middle eastern governments or the terrorists. You, like our esteemed leader, seem to confuse the two.

 

[rahvin]

Originally posted by: Drift3r
They wouldn't nuke Isreal because they would get nuked in return. Trust me even Al Queda does not have the balls to use nukes. They know that a nuke attack would spell out-right doom for the whole ME.

I don't trust you because that statement proves you are a fool. Al Queda has actively sought to purchase nuclear weapons. You are trying to apply sane reasoning to a group of extremists who have no sanity. If nuclear proliferation is allowed to occur the world will see a nuclear war. That is what the non-proliferation treaty is about.

 

[Witling]

My heavens! "Tried to buy." The other day I "tried to fly." No national government has ever sold, given, or loaned a weapon of mass destruction to an outside entity, let alone to a terrorist group. These things are somewhat traceable. If you have an example of a terrorist acquiring anything close to a WMD, please let the group know about it. People who don't like the U.S. and Middle Easterners are not irrational. Sometimes they persue different goals from ours but they're not irrational, and we are done a disservice (as in the current administration) when we characterize them as irrational.

 

[tnitsuj]

Originally posted by: Crimson

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: Crimson
I love the way people say that there's no difference between the U.S. and Iran having Nuclear weapons.. yeah.. OK.. lets see, country run by extremist religious fanatics who want to wipe out any non-muslim country.. or the United States.. yeah, good example.. Lets give the bomb to everyone.. what if every person on earth had a nuclear bomb.. You don't think someone would be stupid enough to use it?

Nuclear deterence worked with Russia and the United States because neither side was crazy enough to use them.. take a politically unstable country with fanatics ruling it.. and you got a bomb in downtown Jerusalem.

George Bush is not an extremist religious fanatic. How is PNAC different than Islam? And when did Iran start an illegal, preemptive war?

Are you comparing Bush to Saddam Hussein? Please clarify.. are they both the same to you?

Iran never started a war? Umm.. do you really want to go there? Did you forget about the Iran-Iraq war? Prehaps you forgot about the 1979 Iranian Islamic Revolution? Oh, thats right.. that was a legal election.. sorry about that..

Iraq started the Iran/Iraq war. And the Islamic revolution was just that "a revolution". What is all this crap about a legal election. Was the Shah "legally elected"?

 

[KenGr]

Originally posted by: Whitling
Thank you, KenGr, for the information in the first paragraph. It's always refreshing to see an assertion of facts. Facts can be checked. I think we'll all agree that developing the capacity to make weapons grade material is of concern. I have no reason to doubt what you say in the first paragraph but that, of course, is not what the thread leader alleged or what the article said.

With respect to your second paragraph, I wasn't aware that Iraq had had a relationship with Nigeria in the late 1990s. I've read of only one document that the Bush administration relied on for its assertions and that is pretty well acknowledged as a forgery now. I know it's tough to develop reliable reports on what was happening in the late 90s but I'd be interested in any respectable source that you had on the connection. If you have to look it up, I can do that myself if I'm interested enough.

OK, here is an article from the Washington times that focuses on the bad information from the report cited by the Bush Administration:
http://washingtontimes.com/national/20030719-120154-5384r.htm

However, buried in the article is this information:

Mr. Wilson said Niger's government told him that the country would not sell uranium to Iraq, but also informed him that Iraqis were in the country discussing unspecified commercial transactions, which could have included uranium-ore purchases, the U.S. official said.

So Wilson came back claiming there was no Iraq-Niger Uranium connection but at the same time said he was told that they may have been discussing Uranium purchases. Doesn't make sense.

Incidentally, it is well established that Iraq obtained hundreds of tons of Uranium yellowcake in the 1980's. Some of this was the material that was dumped when looters stole the barrels it was stored in after the war. Conventional wisdom is that it came from Niger but I did just find a statement from France, which has a strong interest in Niger Uranium industry, that the industry is "perfectly controlled" and the Uranium could not have come from Niger. Draw your own conclusions.

 

[Cesar]

Originally posted by: alchemize

Originally posted by: lozina

Originally posted by: alchemize

Originally posted by: Zebo

Originally posted by: alchemize

Originally posted by: Zebo I don't have a probelm with that. Everyone should have them. Makes people think twice about war. Plus Israel has about 200 any they are extremly aggressive.

Take PhillyTIM's approach! "That country (israel) needs to be wiped out."

Why would I do that? Nukes prevent that from ever happening anyway...See how useful they are?

Israel is extremely aggressive. For example, all the times they have tried invade their neighbors. Of course Iran needs nukes to protect their peaceful democracy.

LOL exactly! Like the time they invaded Palestine in 1948, Egypt in 1967 and Lebanon in 1982. Iran however has invaded .... no one. Although I do hate when Iran makes stupid public statements about "wiping Israel off the map". There's no doubt Israel feels the same way about them but they're smart enough not to go around gloating it publically.

Good old peaceful Nassar (Or was it PhillyHamas?): "The danger of Israel lies in the very existence of Israel as it is in the present and in what she represents" No doubt? Well if Israel feels that why, why don't they? They could waste every neighbor in the ME if they wanted to...what discourages them? Better check your history books about 1948 and 1967. You are a little confused. Oh, and Israel invaded Lebanon only after endless acts of terrorism crossed its borders. How long do you think Mexico would last if Mexican-Indians were firing rocket launchers into Houston, Texas with the sanctioning of the Mexican government? It's ok, twist history to fit your view of the world. Somebody has got to offset this vast right wing conspiracy.

another arrogant Zionist SOB!

 

[Shad0hawK]

Originally posted by: Zebo
I don't have a probelm with that. Everyone should have them. Makes people think twice about war. Plus Israel has about 200 any they are extremly aggressive.

that is right! if saddam had nukes he could have just blew up kuwait instead of invading it in 91 and saved us all a bunch of trouble. if hitler had nukes in ww2(and yes he was close to it) that whole battle of britain affair could have been avoided, just mount them to v2 rockets and the worries are over! in fact it makes perfect sense to let people have nukes who have the mindset to strap bombs to themselves and blow themselves up in a retirement homes, of course they would never use them!

as far a iran is concerned, the fact they are sitting on huge oil reserves that could provide power for centuries has no bearing on "needing" a nuclear reactor...

 

[glenn1]

And when did Iran start an illegal, preemptive war?

They didn't. And their payoff for Iran "playing by the rules" as you see them? Attacked without warning by Saddam Hussein's Iraq and led into a decade long war which cost millions of Iranian lives.

 

[LilBlinbBlahIce]

Originally posted by: Shad0hawK

Originally posted by: Zebo
I don't have a probelm with that. Everyone should have them. Makes people think twice about war. Plus Israel has about 200 any they are extremly aggressive.

that is right! if saddam had nukes he could have just blew up kuwait instead of invading it in 91 and saved us all a bunch of trouble. if hitler had nukes in ww2(and yes he was close to it) that whole battle of britain affair could have been avoided, just mount them to v2 rockets and the worries are over! in fact it makes perfect sense to let people have nukes who have the mindset to strap bombs to themselves and blow themselves up in a retirement homes, of course they would never use them!

as far a iran is concerned, the fact they are sitting on huge oil reserves that could provide power for centuries has no bearing on "needing" a nuclear reactor...

They need weapons to prevent us from making them the next country to attack on the "axis of evil".

 

[Shad0hawK]

yes, we know iran has never done anything to earn the enemity of the US... they have always been promoting peace through the middle east through hezbollah and other freindship orangizations.

all we have to do is say "dont be hatin" and they will say "okay, we really love mcdonalds" and everything will be alright.

dont take what the imam says seriously, he really does not want to kill the infidel american dogs, he is just kidding.

and it is a matter of course that all the evil in the world is directly sourced from america only, with everyone else being icons of goodness and propriety! nothing bad happened in the world until the US came along!

 

[Aimster]

Originally posted by: Shad0hawK
yes, we know iran has never done anything to earn the enemity of the US... they have always been promoting peace through the middle east through hezbollah and other freindship orangizations.

all we have to do is say "dont be hatin" and they will say "okay, we really love mcdonalds" and everything will be alright.

dont take what the imam says seriously, he really does not want to kill the infidel american dogs, he is just kidding.

and it is a matter of course that all the evil in the world is directly sourced from america only, with everyone else being icons of goodness and propriety! nothing bad happened in the world until the US came along!

Hezbollah is categorized as a terrorist organization by the U.S because they attack their best friend Israel. Israel could very well be categorized as a terrorist state in the eyes as manyl, but we all know doing so would be anti-Jewish and that would be very very wrong.

Iran citizens love the U.S. You need to get your head out of your ass and stop talking about a place you have never seen or been to. Iranians come here by the thousands every year and there are close to 1,000,000 million Iranians in the U.S (you might not agree with this number but believe me there are.. 250,000 alone in California).

Imam wants to kill the infidel American dogs? Really? That is news to my ears. You are confusing Iraq and Iran.

 

[Shad0hawK]

Originally posted by: Aimster
Hezbollah is categorized as a terrorist organization by the U.S because they attack their best friend Israel. Israel could very well be categorized as a terrorist state in the eyes as manyl, but we all know doing so would be anti-Jewish and that would be very very wrong.

Iran citizens love the U.S. You need to get your head out of your ass and stop talking about a place you have never seen or been to. Iranians come here by the thousands every year and there are close to 1,000,000 million Iranians in the U.S (you might not agree with this number but believe me there are.. 250,000 alone in California).

Imam wants to kill the infidel American dogs? Really? That is news to my ears. You are confusing Iraq and Iran.

1. they attack "just" israel?

2. really ALL iranians? even in 1979? i knew all we had to say was "dont be hatin and have a big mac on me!"

3. oh i am sorry, i did not know islamic fundementalism was restricted to iraq only! since your educating me on middle eastern culture i assume you know what an imam is.

as a little trivia note did you know "iran" actually means "aryan"? and is even an older name for the country/region than persia?

of course you did!

Salaam alaykum bsem Isa!

i do have another question also, is there really a "right" and "wrong" way to spell a transliteration?

 

[Zebo]

Originally posted by: Shad0hawK

Originally posted by: Zebo
I don't have a probelm with that. Everyone should have them. Makes people think twice about war. Plus Israel has about 200 any they are extremly aggressive.

that is right! if saddam had nukes he could have just blew up kuwait instead of invading it in 91 and saved us all a bunch of trouble. if hitler had nukes in ww2(and yes he was close to it) that whole battle of britain affair could have been avoided, just mount them to v2 rockets and the worries are over! in fact it makes perfect sense to let people have nukes who have the mindset to strap bombs to themselves and blow themselves up in a retirement homes, of course they would never use them!

as far a iran is concerned, the fact they are sitting on huge oil reserves that could provide power for centuries has no bearing on "needing" a nuclear reactor...

You know nothing about "just war thoery" and MAD and are guessing based on your fears of the world. Please do some googleing and think about why we or Pakistan or anyone else don't nuke the adversaries we fight.

You're Hitler analysis is also BS. He had tones of Chemical weapons in WWII and released exacty zero against opposing armies even in emminiet defeat. There are laws of war even the dispicable leader can not, will not and are immposible to break since he needs many accomplices and retrebution prevents it.

 

[Shad0hawK]

Originally posted by: Zebo
You know nothing about "just war thoery" and MAD and are guessing based on your fears of the world. Please do some googleing and think about why we or Pakistan or anyone else don't nuke the adversaries we fight.

You're Hitler analysis is also BS. He had tones of Chemical weapons in WWII and released exacty zero against opposing armies even in emminiet defeat. There are laws of war even the dispicable leader can not, will not and are immposible to break since he needs many accomplices and retrebution prevents it.

i guess gassing millions of jews does not count as "chemical warfare". it might have been if your grandfather had been in the chambers though... i made no "analysis" of anything, i was being sarcastic.

as far as "laws of war" there are many who do not, nor ever will recognize any laws of so called "civilized" warfare and laugh at the geneva convention, give it time you will see. this is not based on "fears of the world" but more of a "recognition of reality". hitler did not use WMD as he did not want it used on him, particualrly since by late 43 early 44 he would have been much more vulnerable, the v2's would not have been as near an effective delivery system as b-25's filling the skies over berlin would have. by that time he had pretty much lost the air war. hitler was not a moral man, but he was pragmatic most of the time until the close of the war.

 

[Zebo]

hitler did not use WMD as he did not want it used on him, p

Percisely so what makes you think Saddam, Iran etc would use them on Israel or anyplace else? Thier people can't fight back entirely differnt matter than brandishing them on the world stage.

 

[Witling]

Shad0HawK, you bring new meaning to the concept of setting up a straw man. But to answer your question about whether gassing Jews (and plenty of others too) was "chemical warfare." The answer is, no, it was not chemical warfare. It was murder or genocide, take your pick. But it was not chemical warfare. And what a lame statement that Iran has never done anything to earn our emnity. I don't want to take this thread off course, but do you know what we did to Iran before the revolutionaries seized our embassy and the personnel? It is equally stupid to say that the U.S. is considered the source of all evil. All countries have done both good and bad things. But when you're the world's only 800 gorilla and profess to love freedom, I think a little more control should be used.

 

[Shad0hawK]

Originally posted by: Zebo

hitler did not use WMD as he did not want it used on him, p

Percisely so what makes you think Saddam, Iran etc would use them on Israel or anyplace else? Thier people can't fight back entirely differnt matter than brandishing them on the world stage.

uhhh. because they have before....

 

[Zebo]

When? Iran would'nt be on the map anymore..

 

[Shad0hawK]

Originally posted by: Whitling
Shad0HawK, you bring new meaning to the concept of setting up a straw man. But to answer your question about whether gassing Jews (and plenty of others too) was "chemical warfare." The answer is, no, it was not chemical warfare. It was murder or genocide, take your pick. But it was not chemical warfare. And what a lame statement that Iran has never done anything to earn our emnity. I don't want to take this thread off course, but do you know what we did to Iran before the revolutionaries seized our embassy and the personnel? It is equally stupid to say that the U.S. is considered the source of all evil. All countries have done both good and bad things. But when you're the world's only 800 gorilla and profess to love freedom, I think a little more control should be used.

a straw man argument is an argument that sets up a fallacious enemy to "knock down" my arguments(other than the sarcasm that is obvious to most others but you apparantly) contain historical facts, which is hardly a straw man. as far as whether gassing jews not being considered warfare, i am sure many would dissagree. there was an organized jewish resistance, much like the maquee in france that conducted military operations.

as far as it being stupid to say the US is responsable for all the evil in the world. i agree! that is why i was being sarcastic about it...

 

[Shad0hawK]

Originally posted by: Zebo
When? Iran would'nt be on the map anymore..

they used WMD against each other in the 80's


"During the Iran-Iraq War, Iraq developed the ability to produce, store, and use chemical weapons. These chemical weapons included H-series blister and G-series nerve agents. Iraq built these agents into various offensive munitions including rockets, artillery shells, aerial bombs, and warheads on the Al Hussein Scud missile variant. During the Iran-Iraq war, Iraqi fighter-attack aircraft dropped mustard-filled and tabun-filled 250 kilogram bombs and mustard-filled 500 kilogram bombs on Iranian targets. Other reports indicate that Iraq may have also installed spray tanks on an unknown number of helicopters or dropped 55-gallon drums filled with unknown agents (probably mustard) from low altitudes."

l

linky