WMD=Iran

[xaeniac]

eVidently Iran has WMD's What do you think would happen and will happen if we do/decide to attack Iran? And do you think we will?

 

[techs]

What makes you think Iran has wmd's?
I have heard no evidence at all that they do.

 

[Aimster]

Iran has chemical weapons

are they not WMD?

They have the largest WMD program in the M.E.

They've had this for years.

It was started up as a result of Iraq using chemical weapons on Iranians during the war. The U.S helped Iraq with the means to get chemical weapons. This was during a time of war

 

[CQuinn]

Iran is not under UN Sanction to not have WMDs, as Iraq was, so that is not a valid justification for an attack.

 

[Aimster]

Originally posted by: CQuinn
Iran is not under UN Sanction to not have WMDs, as Iraq was, so that is not a valid justification for an attack.

Iraq was following the orders of the UN.

The U.S said ****** the U.N and went in themselves.

They didn't like the findings of the U.N. Iraq allowed inspections, etc. They didn't find anything.

looks like the U.N was right.

 

[BlancoNino]

Originally posted by: Aimster

Originally posted by: CQuinn
Iran is not under UN Sanction to not have WMDs, as Iraq was, so that is not a valid justification for an attack.

Iraq was following the orders of the UN.

The U.S said ****** the U.N and went in themselves.

They didn't like the findings of the U.N. Iraq allowed inspections, etc. They didn't find anything.

looks like the U.N was right.

I say **** the U.N. too. Most inefficient way of getting anything done.

 

[Aimster]

Originally posted by: BlancoNino

Originally posted by: Aimster

Originally posted by: CQuinn
Iran is not under UN Sanction to not have WMDs, as Iraq was, so that is not a valid justification for an attack.

Iraq was following the orders of the UN.

The U.S said ****** the U.N and went in themselves.

They didn't like the findings of the U.N. Iraq allowed inspections, etc. They didn't find anything.

looks like the U.N was right.

I say **** the U.N. too. Most inefficient way of getting anything done.

The U.S was wrong.

The U.N was in Iraq doing inspections.

The U.S didn't like the U.N because they didn't make up BS like the U.S did.

The U.N came back and said there is no evidence of WMD in Iraq. The U.S said BS we have evidence (what evidence?).

The U.S invaded and now we are there for no reason at all.

Even if Iraq had WMD why the hell did we invade 10+ years later? Makes no damn sense.
They never gave any of their weapons to anyone outside Iraq. They were not even an Islamic state. Bush has no knowledge of the Al Qaeda and linked it to a non-Islamic state like Iraq. What a joke. The U.S population with the majority uneducated about Islam and Iraq believed Bush.

Good job Bush.

 

[jpeyton]

Originally posted by: BlancoNino

Originally posted by: Aimster

Originally posted by: CQuinn
Iran is not under UN Sanction to not have WMDs, as Iraq was, so that is not a valid justification for an attack.

Iraq was following the orders of the UN.

The U.S said ****** the U.N and went in themselves.

They didn't like the findings of the U.N. Iraq allowed inspections, etc. They didn't find anything.

looks like the U.N was right.

I say **** the U.N. too. Most inefficient way of getting anything done.

You're right. Spending over a billion dollars a week for 10 years is a much more efficient way to get things done.

 

[jpeyton]

Originally posted by: xaeniac
eVidently Iran has WMD's What do you think would happen and will happen if we do/decide to attack Iran? And do you think we will?

Iran has WMDs? So what? They are allowed to have anything they want as a sovereign nation. They are not bound by any treaties or agreements to do anything.

And so far, they want to build nuclear reactors. Nothing wrong with that.

 

[techs]

Originally posted by: Aimster
Iran has chemical weapons

are they not WMD?

They have the largest WMD program in the M.E.

They've had this for years.

It was started up as a result of Iraq using chemical weapons on Iranians during the war. The U.S helped Iraq with the means to get chemical weapons. This was during a time of war

WTF are you talking about? I have NEVER heard anything about Iran currently having chemical weapons.
Are you making the same mistake Bush made when he confused Iraq with Iran?
Iraq had chemical weapons and used them agains Iran. iran then started a chemical weapons program out of necessity.
I NEVER heard a report that Iran used them in retaliation.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/world/iran/cw.htm
Iran's chemical weapons program was launched during the Iran/Iraq War. Iran has subsequently signed and ratified the Chemical Weapons Convention (in 1993 and 1997 respectively). Although Iran did not meet the declaration timetable specified by the Convention, it did later declare two former chemical weapons production facilities. The Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons has since verified that this production capability has been eliminated. It is not known whether Iran has maintained undeclared facilities or capabilities.

Do you ANY credible source to back up what you said?

 

[Aimster]

Ok

It's a matter of

globalsecurity.org vs fas.org

http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/iraq/cw/program.htm
http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/iran/cw/

Pick which one you believe is right. I am not saying either one has credibility over the other because they don't.

 

[ntdz]

Originally posted by: Aimster
Iran has chemical weapons

are they not WMD?

They have the largest WMD program in the M.E.

They've had this for years.

It was started up as a result of Iraq using chemical weapons on Iranians during the war. The U.S helped Iraq with the means to get chemical weapons. This was during a time of war

Quite frankly, you're wrong. Israel has a much bigger WMD program than Iran.

 

[techs]

Originally posted by: Aimster
Ok

It's a matter of

globalsecurity.org vs fas.org

http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/iraq/cw/program.htm
http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/iran/cw/

Pick which one you believe is right. I am not saying either one has credibility over the other because they don't.

As near as I can tell your links are outdated in that they refer to very early 1990's(91-92) and irans response to Iraqs chemical weapons. It gives no info past 1992. It was in 93 and 97 Iran signed the chemical weapons accords and had inspectors verifiy they had no chemical weapons.
Of course, I will admit ANY country may have a secret program but as to Iran all the evidence we have says they don't.

 

[tommywishbone]

"Quite frankly, you're wrong. Israel has a much bigger WMD program than Iran, Iraq, Syria, Jordan, Saudi Arabia & Palelstine combined."

Fixed.

 

[oldman420]

I think that Israel will take out Iran "by any means necessary" if they develop a nuclear program.
also a weapon of mass destruction is a weapon that will literally destroy large areas, gas attacks are generally localized and not massively destructive, hence IMO not WMDS.

Israel WILL NOT allow a nuclear Iran especially after Iran's recent comments.

 

[Pabster]

Originally posted by: BlancoNino
I say **** the U.N. too. Most inefficient way of getting anything done.

Agreed 100%. But we keep funding the suckers.

 

[oldman420]

It is not easy to build a nuclear weapon and I doubt that Iran could pull it off.
heres a link to an exhaustive study on wmds and rouge states.
http://www.fas.org/spp/starwars/ota/934406.pdf

 

[1prophet]

Originally posted by: xaeniac
eVidently Iran has WMD's What do you think would happen and will happen if we do/decide to attack Iran? And do you think we will?

How about another possibility, what if Iran believes or is led to believe that an attack is imminent, would they strike first?

Their generals have considered it.

Aug 19, 2004

TEHRAN, Iran (AP) -- Iran's defense minister expressed his government's disquiet about the U.S. troop presence in neighboring Iraq and Afghanistan, and hinted that some Iranian generals believe they should strike first if they sense an imminent U.S. threat.
In an interview with pan-Arab satellite channel Al-Jazeera, Ali Shamkhani was asked how Iran would respond if America were to attack its nuclear facilities.

"We will not sit to wait for what others will do to us," he said. "There are differences of opinion among military commanders (in Iran). Some commanders believe preventive operations is not a model created by Americans ... or is not limited to Americans. Any nation, if it feels threatened, can resort to that."

Shamkhani spoke in Farsi with an Arabic voiceover. Al-Jazeera provided a transcript of Shamkhani's Farsi comments to The Associated Press on Thursday

Iran Mulls First Strike Against US

 

[oldman420]

giving they have no long range delivery capabilities I bet they would get zapped by a coalition of USA and Israel.
it would be devastating I am sure.
and I bet Iran knows this too.

 

[Tab]

How would war with Iran be? It would be bad, that's all I have to say about that...

 

[jlmadyson]

Well, with one of the latest opinion polls stating that as much as 57% of Americans support a strike on Iran if they continue down their present course I fear we maybe seeing the likes of a conlfict with Iran in the not so distant future.