- Joined
- May 19, 2006
- Messages
- 156,720
- Reaction score
- 53,497
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Undisclosed
Moderator's Warning: |
Suggestion, folks. Knock off the personal attacks and stay on topic. |
Moderator's Warning: |
Suggestion, folks. Knock off the personal attacks and stay on topic. |
Then WillR will blame Israel, and argue that Israel had no right to respond in like and kind.What if Iran used their nuclear weapons to attack Israel, as they have virtually promised they would?
Israel stands ready to bomb Iran's nuclear sites - Times Online
An accompanying article:
Obama's stance worries Israelis | theage.com.au
This will be interesting.
To be a fly on the wall when the calls are made.
.
Vader, you should know by now that I don't respond to your posts anymore, as you always end up trolling regardless of what I say, so it's a waste of your time to respond to mine.
Just a heads up.
Iran has just as much right to develop nuclear weapons as Pakistan, North Korea, or Israel. Iran should be an ally of the West, not an enemy. They are an ancient civilization, much more stable and reliable than Pakistan. To destroy the reactors they have worked on for so long would only create terrorists.
Funny, how you have no problem with Iran having free access to nukes, but take issue with law-abiding Amercians havng free access to guns.Iran has just as much right to develop nuclear weapons as Pakistan, North Korea, or Israel.
There is absolutely no evidence that Iran is pursuing nuclear weapons. This is all hype.
No, not really. You are implying that Iran, which is run by rational folks who run costs vs benefit economic analysis would do what no other country on the face of the planet has ever done: give up control of weapons of mass destruction. That Iran will completely forsake all rational thought it has shown over the course of thirty years, despite having intelligent people in its military to do what no rational regime has ever done.
Furthermore, you also imply that a regime that has gone to extreme measures to stay in power and never, ever, ever risking their own lives will suddenly change and sacrifice their own necks and their own statuses to eliminate less than half of all Jews despite 20,000+ Jews in Iran.
And then you imply that Iran will do it DESPITE knowing that they will be murdering at least a million Palestinians, vaporize a key holy site of Islam, and turn Islam against their goals retarding if not completely blocking their end results.
You're dead wrong. It is much easier and faster to enrich LEU uranium than beginning at step one with raw reactor by-products.Low Enriched Uranium is not weapons-grade and cannot be used in a nuclear weapon. Further enrichment is required, which requires considerably more effort and is much more noticeable. Based on this fact, and the fact that the IAEA is fully aware of every aspect of Iran's nuclear program and monitors everything, it is simply more supportive of the fact that Iran has no nuclear weapons program.
Arabness/Islam didn't stop Nasser from gassing arabs/muslims in Yemen. Arabness/Islam didn't stop Jordan from massacring arab/muslim Palestinians. What makes you so sure Iran is SO different? Islam is but a facade for Iran's goals. Its a rallying cry for the ignorant. When the Palestinians are no longer of political use they will be discarded by the Iranians.Muslims nuking Muslims is completely unheard of. It took us huge amounts of effort to get Syria in on the Desert storm. Thinking that a Muslim nation will without thought nuke what amounts to another Muslim nation (fallout anyone?) is rather short sighted. Iran likes to say it is the protector of Islam. Deliberately murdering a million fellow Muslims not to mention millions more from fallout and decimating their chances to return to their land does nothing to help Iran's cause.
1.) Iran is NOT run by RATIONAL people!!!! Who told you those lies?
2.) Iran is governed by a blood-thirsty islam-o-facist theocracy that has no problem funneling weapons through Syria to its terrorist proxies in Lebanon and Palestine. IF THEY WILL SEND CONVENTIONAL WEAPONS TO THEIR BUDDIES YOU CAN BET YOUR ASS THEY WILL SEND LOW YEILD NUCLEAR WEAPONS TO THEIR BUDDIES IN PALESTINE AND LEBANON.
3.) You know ABSOLUTELY NOTHING about the politics of the middle east. You are SERIOUS deluded if you think the government of Iran can be trusted with anything more powerful than a sling-shot.
4.) The number of jews in Iran is irrelevant. We're not discussing Iranian jews and you need to stop attempting to hijack this thread.
In other words, the IAEA now admits that it has lost control and cannot verify what Iran is doing.
Arabness/Islam didn't stop Nasser from gassing arabs/muslims in Yemen. Arabness/Islam didn't stop Jordan from massacring arab/muslim Palestinians.
What makes you so sure Iran is SO different? Islam is but a facade for Iran's goals. Its a rallying cry for the ignorant. When the Palestinians are no longer of political use they will be discarded by the Iranians.
Children with keyboards....that should be obvious.
You call it trolling --
Most people here see it as me calling you and your outrageous pro-terrorist rhetoric.
He did not say otherwise, he simply maintained that it is still quite a way from a bomb.You're dead wrong. It is much easier and faster to enrich LEU uranium than beginning at step one with raw reactor by-products.
And Iran's air defenses are far superior than Iraq's was. Actually making into Iranian air space, deep into their air space, avoiding interceptors and SAMs and then delivering sufficiently large weapons to to underground facilities to stop them is fantasy land.
Obviously Iran or any other country would not do such a thing unless it had reason to. I find it highly unlikely that Iran would target Palestinians for any reason in the foreseeable future. I also find it highly unlikely Iran will nuke Israel unprovoked. But, in the extremely unlikely chance that they do a first strike I'm sure the "sacrifice" of Muslims who were killed in the collateral damage could be spun in some manner.Except as noted before, you ignored a key argument I made to suit your argument. I specifically noted and you specifically ignored, how Iran gains credibility from its alleged protector of Islam and of the Palestinians. The two examples you cited were of somewhat secular Arabs killing those who were rising up against them. Those are very much different from Iran who would be killing those it constantly claims to be helping not to mention use as a moral club against Israel. No nation on Earth deliberately destroys something that gives it legitimacy. Do you really think Iran would murder those it uses as a reason why Israel is evil?
Its got NOTHING to do with uprisings. Its merely that Arabism and Islam are not a binding force in the MidEast against anything but Infidels and Crusaders.Iran, unlike Yemen and Jordan, isn't facing an uprising or at least a rejection of state power. While you are correct that Arab leaders in the past have massacred fellow Arabs and Muslims, they only do so because they pose a threat to the state's power. This is clearly not the case with Iran.
My point wasn't that Iran would do it. My point was that Islamic unity is a facade. Not to say that its inconsequential but its simply not some ubiquitous binding force in the Islamic world as history has clearly shown.Perhaps you are right when they are of no political use they will be discarded, but that time is not now and murdering a millions of them will set back Iran's goals and completely remove any support from them from the rest of the world.
You have proof of this?
You have proof of this?
Obviously Iran or any other country would not do such a thing unless it had reason to. I find it highly unlikely that Iran would target Palestinians for any reason in the foreseeable future. I also find it highly unlikely Iran will nuke Israel unprovoked.
But, in the extremely unlikely chance that they do a first strike I'm sure the "sacrifice" of Muslims who were killed in the collateral damage could be spun in some manner.
Personally I think Iran is merely positioning itself to quickly create nuclear weapons if the international community displays an attitude of indifference or if Iran can feel it can justify such a move due to "Western/Israeli/etc aggression" or some other issue. After all, as Korea has shown the nuclear deterrent is a free pass to concessions and respect from a impotent UN and international community.
Its got NOTHING to do with uprisings.
Its merely that Arabism and Islam are not a binding force in the MidEast against anything but Infidels and Crusaders.
My point wasn't that Iran would do it. My point was that Islamic unity is a facade. Not to say that its inconsequential but its simply not some ubiquitous binding force in the Islamic world as history has clearly shown.
The Syrian nuclear facility was also "protected" by sophisticated Russian air defense weaponry. The IAF went right through it like a hot knife through butter. Except for possibly the US, no air force has better ECM than the IAF.America and Russia probably have the best anti-air defense systems in the world. Who is Russia's leading buyer of surface-to-air missiles and other anti-aircraft systems? Iran. Especially in the past decade, we've seen very close relations with Iran and Russia.
My sources say that the US (NSA) has been successfully hacking into the Iranian nuclear program computers since early 2007. This information remains classified and was not included or alluded to in any NIE concerning Iran. Bush and now Obama are indeed aware of the particulars.Care to look at what Iraq had back in the 80s compared to what Iran has now?
Are you kidding?
America and Russia probably have the best anti-air defense systems in the world. Who is Russia's leading buyer of surface-to-air missiles and other anti-aircraft systems? Iran. Especially in the past decade, we've seen very close relations with Iran and Russia.