that does sound schizophrenic... so are they truly crazy; or are they just planing it up in order to maintain power? If you have honest evidence other than "everyone knows this" then I would be happy to consider it.
Let's go back to what you originally said and what I was responding to:
They, simultaneously, are working to gather AND willing to kill each-other endlessly
I enumerated specific conflicts and provided concrete data DEMONSTRATING conflict exists within and outside the Muslim world that is *gasp* inspired by Muslims.
These are the facts.
If they are killing each-other then why would they share nuclear weapons with each-other?
This is a silly question. Iran would share nuclear secrets with Hamas or Hezbollah. It would not share nuclear secrets with an Arab sunni entity that wasn't otherwise under the thumb of the Iranian guard.
I went ahead and explained the Sunni-Shiite split, and how the majority of conflicts in the ME revolves around that issue - but you ignored it. Suspect, no?
put yourself is their shoes;
how do they know this? what is your basis of fact? simple assumptions that are left unexamined and unsupported lead to spurious conclusions.
What? There is no logic to Iran's nuclear program other than for weaponized purposes (fact). Iran is a prolific sponsor of terror (fact) and would only use them for offensive purposes (fact).
Why do you disagree? Skepticism by itself is not a persuading mode of argument. I explained why I believe Iran would only use nuclear weapons as a tool for war, or in the least to hold the world hostage.
Iran hasn't denied this either.
rational uses for nuclear weapons for Iran:
1.) Nuclear states can't be invaded
2.) Nuclear states don't have sanctions against them, but instead get aid
3.) Nuclear states get a seat at the big-boy's table
4.) National pride dictates that they have a 'right' to achieve nuclear-state status
5.) If the US wanted nuclear weapons but Muslims had them would you put-up with that bullshit?
These are not rational uses.
1) Pursuing nuclear weapons provokes an invasion.
2)Nuclear states can have sanctions against them, North Korea is being sanctioned currently.
3)Nuclear states do not get a seat at the "big-boy's table" (what does that mean?). Pakistan is a failed state and religious cess-pool, and Israel is treated like a pariah state in the media and international bodies.
4)What?
5)What?? "Muslims" is am ambiguous plurality. By Muslims do you mean Shia? sunni? Shiite? Egyptian? Kurds? Pakistanis? Fundamentalists? Progressive??
United States is not a fundamentalist nation wishing to see mushroom clouds pop up over states loaded with Jews and/or sunni Arabs.
Iran, both in word and deed, IS a nation whose leaders have openly expressed gushing support for such a scenario.
they are ass-holes, but they are assholes for a reason. They sponsor attacks on Israel for political reasons; the same with the insane rhetoric.
Religious bigotry = political purposes? Insane rhetoric makes you insane, not a political genius.
we would destroy them; no doubt and that is exactly how Israel should be allowed to respond; by turning to play peace-maker and sanctioning them we do little more than increase their national pride and will to fight.
Why should Israel put itself in a position where it could be destroyed? One nuke on Tel Aviv and Israel is done. Iran could easily absorb Israel's entirely nuclear stock pile and survive. It might lose several million...but who cares? Iran sent children to shield infantry from Iraqi fighting on the border.
"everyone knows this" is not explicit evidence that Iran's leadership isn't just talking bullshit in-order to keep its people angry and in control.
Just talking bullshit? Uh? Was Adolf Hitler just talking bullshit when he stated his commitment to the elimination of the Jewish people?
well, you see, Nazi Germany actually invaded someone; Nazi Germany actually put people into camps. Nazi Germany was allowed to build an army while everyone else assumed nothing would happen. Nazi Germany was not in a post-nuclear world in which it is irrational to attack a nation with nuclear arms.
the nuclear factor is irrelevant. the left was enamored by both the communists and the nazis. They didn't care what Hitler or Stalin said.
I'm not! I'm chill about the idea of a nearly first-world nation developing its own nuclear program in-order to gain respect and prestige within the international community;
This is retarded. Making threats against a UN-member state (violation of the charter) and sponsoring terrorist groups that strap bombs to shield does not win the respect and prestige among the international community.
Of course, the LEFT interrprets these behaviors as menacing, and so they respect it, as you do.
Iran must be accepted as a nuclear state. Why? Because it is intimidating. Why is it intimidating? Because it wants respect. What?
This is your logic. If Iran wanted respect it would stop behaving like the bitchy possessive ex-girlfriend bent on self-destruction.
If the tables were turned, we were the 'good guys' they were the 'bad guys' they had nuclear weapons and they were sanctioning US because we were "perusing nuclear arms" what would you say?
Well, Iran is not the USA - so you can't just say the tables are turned. USA developed nuclear weapons not to create destruction, but to end war and promote peace.
There is nothing peaceful about Iran's nuclear program. It is not designed to resolve the Muslim-Israeli conflict, nor normalize relations with Arab neighbors.
Iran is looking to be the bully and end Israel's regional hegemony, while at the same time terminating USA's long-standing and relatively strong defense umbrella.
Facebook
Twitter