• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Iran passes redline, has enough U235 for Bomb

Arch Enemy said:
They was one way to ***** foot around the answer to my question.
Click to expand...
And the other way was to what? Make silly predictions like "if we used nukes in Korea then Russia would/would_not use nukes in response". Its really pointless. But we can go down that route if you really think its worth trying.


Arch Enemy said:
You are drawing connections that are not there.
I never said anything about us "stopping the influence" in the ME countries. Infact, I don't think that is a possible option... It is what it is and what it is is that we are a large influence on M.E. and the World in general.
Click to expand...
Well the original question was "what is Iran's goal for gaining nuclear weapons?" Because they can't reach the US with them, only Israel.



Arch Enemy said:
All countries test their weaponry.
Click to expand...
Of course. Now put the rest of the pieces of the puzzle together: long range missiles (includes testing) + nuclear weapons + hate for America + America in range of long range missiles + obsession for reuniting the South by force and by all costs.
 
scourge99 said:
And the other way was to what? Make silly predictions like "if we used nukes in Korea then Russia would/would_not use nukes in response". Its really pointless. But we can go down that route if you really think its worth trying.
Click to expand...
No, you are simply insisting that the Iranian authorities are, somehow, more willing to nuke an enemy than Korea or the fmr. Soviet Union (during their day).

Well the original question was "what is Iran's goal for gaining nuclear weapons?" Because they can't reach the US with them, only Israel.
Click to expand...
Load of b.s. They secretly built a satellite, our intelligence about the Iranian government seems almost non-existence.

Of course. Now put the rest of the pieces of the puzzle together: long range missiles (includes testing) + nuclear weapons + hate for America + America in range of long range missiles + obsession for reuniting the South by force and by all costs.
Click to expand...
I get to this one when I get back from class.
 
Arch Enemy said:
No, you are simply insisting that the Iranian authorities are, somehow, more willing to nuke an enemy than Korea or the fmr. Soviet Union (during their day).
Click to expand...
No I'm not. I'm just arguing that yourt statement that the US is. I'm not making a positive claim. You have assumed I am

Arch Enemy said:
Load of b.s. They secretly built a satellite
Click to expand...
That what N Korea claims too. " Just launching satellites. nothing to see here. Move along. "

And, "just making power plants for our people. Nothing to see here."

How many times do the same lines have to be used before people get a clue?
 
Last edited:
scourge99 said:
No I'm not. I'm just arguing that yourt statement that the US is. I'm not making a positive claim. You have assumed I am
Click to expand...
Oh come on!
I never said anything about the United State being more willing to nuke another country that's your lack of comprehension of my posts.
I did, however, say that historical records do show that United States is the most LIKELY, based on records alone, candidate to use a nuclear weapon.
You are inferring that I have some how made it the will of the United States to nuke a country. That is absurd. The difference between who is most likely and who is most willing is astounding.

That what N Korea claims too. " Just launching satellites. nothing to see here. Move along. "

And, "just making power plants for our people. Nothing to see here."

How many times do the same lines have to be used before people get a clue?
Click to expand...

Again,
Yet Iran is sane, and the N. Korean authorities are bat-**** crazy?
 
Last edited:
Arch Enemy said:
Oh come on!
I never said anything about the United State being more willing to nuke another country that's your lack of comprehension of my posts.
I did, however, say that historical records do show that United States is the most LIKELY, based on records alone, candidate to use a nuclear weapon.
You are inferring that I have some how made it the will of the United States to nuke a country. That is absurd. The difference between who is most likely and who is most willing is astounding.
Click to expand...
Even so I still think your claim that we are more LIKELY is specious at best.

Again,
Yet Iran is sane, and the N. Korean authorities are bat-**** crazy?
Click to expand...
Perhaps you can address my reasoning instead of being dismissive? Or is that asking too much?
 
scourge99 said:
Even so I still think your claim that we are more LIKELY is specious at best.
Click to expand...

Again you are taking it out of context. Let me help you understand my argument,as reading does not seem to increase comprehension...

If you were to make an educated decision, based upon history, who would most likely use a nuclear weapon, then America would be the most likely.
However, if you were to add in other factors, such as economic alienation, domestic and foreign disputes, etc, then it would change the entire element of who would be "most likely".

Meaning, the "most likely" candidate is pure perception. I mean, I am sure there is some intelligence in some central agency in some North American continent that would say otherwise. But that is not for us to try and consider, as it is not our job to know who may or may not blow up who. It is our job to pray that those who are responsible are held responsible (it is also our duty to pick up on the hints that declassified information proposes, buttttt I am fairly certain it is not that easy; keep the public focused on the magic)
Perhaps you can address my reasoning instead of being dismissive? Or is that asking too much?
Click to expand...

I can't because there is no reasoning involved.
 
Arch Enemy said:
If you were to make an educated decision, based upon history, who would most likely use a nuclear weapon, then America would be the most likely.
However, if you were to add in other factors, such as economic alienation, domestic and foreign disputes, etc, then it would change the entire element of who would be "most likely".
Click to expand...
If you disregard enough factors and narrow your vision enough you can argue nearly any absurd idea, correct.

Arch Enemy said:
But that is not for us to try and consider, as it is not our job to know who may or may not blow up who. It is our job to pray that those who are responsible are held responsible (it is also our duty to pick up on the hints that declassified information proposes, buttttt I am fairly certain it is not that easy; keep the public focused on the magic)
Click to expand...
I can agree there. And I would argue that smaller unstable states such as Israel, Pakistan, and Iran are much more likely to use nukes because such weapons are only used in desperate times. Considering that the US has no global opposing power at the moment and Iran, Israel, and Pakistan are going through difficult times it becomes obvious they are much stronger candidates.
 
scourge99 said:
If you disregard enough factors and narrow your vision enough you can argue nearly any absurd idea, correct.

I can agree there. And I would argue that smaller unstable states such as Israel, Pakistan, and Iran are much more likely to use nukes because such weapons are only used indesperate times. Considering that the US has no global opposing power at the moment and Iran, Israel, and Pakistan are going through difficult times it becomes obvious they are much stronger candidates.
Click to expand...

in Bold: What desperate times for Iran? They are getting everything they want, because people fear their rhetoric.

Italics: I'd consider Al Quedia a global opposition.

You listed Pakistan, why not list India?
 
scourge99 said:
India appears to be stabilizing itself.
Click to expand...

The Indian government has no real control over it's country.
I don't think stability plays on foreign policy as such. America is by far the most stable country in the world, and it's one of the most war-prone ones (war prone in the sense, that someone is always willing to duke it out with her).
 
The beating of the war drums by the Neocon propaganda machinery continues. However, the facts do not support the innuendo that Iran wants to acquire a nuclear weapon and destroy Israel.

1) Iran has about 1,000 of low-level fissile material, which can be used to generate power. in order to use it to make a nuclear weapon, it must be further refined to produce about 55 pounds of high-level fissile material.

2) Here is the kicker. The material Iran possesses is located at Natanz. International inspectors still retain full rights to inspect that material, and it has not been moved.

3) According to Admiral Dennis Blair, who heads US intelligence, has restated the 2007 NIE, which states that Iran does not have a nuclear weapon, and neither does it have any kind of nuclear weapons program.

All smoke and mirrors, folks. If, after this, you believe that Iran has a nuke program, try looking for it under the rose bushes in Iraq. That's where the Neocons said Saddam's WMD's were located.

This post based on this article.
 
Arch Enemy said:
No, you are simply insisting that the Iranian authorities are, somehow, more willing to nuke an enemy than Korea or the fmr. Soviet Union (during their day).
Click to expand...

Actually, Iran is likely to provide these weapons to her proxy terrorist groups.

Iran is run by a collection of corrupt, zealotus, murderous theocrats. These people do not need nuclear technology. In fact, they should not be allowed anything more dangerous than a sling shot.

Arch Enemy said:
Load of b.s. They secretly built a [FONT=&quot]Satellite[/FONT] our intelligence about the Iranian government seems almost non-existence.
I get to this one when I get back from class.
Click to expand...

This is your opinion.

Iran WILL provide those weapons to terrorists. They do not need to have nuclear material and they do not need a spy [FONT=&quot]Satellite[/FONT] in orbit.

Iran is a threat to global security and they need to be stopped.
 
Vader said:
Actually, Iran is likely to provide these weapons to her proxy terrorist groups.

Iran is run by a collection of corrupt, zealotus, murderous theocrats. These people do not need nuclear technology. In fact, they should not be allowed anything more dangerous than a sling shot.
Click to expand...

Last I saw the Iranian government was not running around with Ak-47s killing people.. or are we talking about their operations through other, external, agencies? Because I shall condemth thyself with B.S. if you wish to argue that America does not have her own scalawags rummaging through the bussom of her enemies.

This is your opinion.

Iran WILL provide those weapons to terrorists. They do not need to have nuclear material and they do not need a spy [FONT=&quot]Satellite[/FONT] in orbit.
Click to expand...
And this is pure speculation or clairvoyance. Oh, so it is a spy satellite?

Iran is a threat to global security and they need to be stopped.
Click to expand...

Not really. They are only a threat to those who use to exaggerate the capabilities, and the intent of the Iranian Government.
Iran is not stupid. They understand the dogmatic principles that they enforce are not very well liked by any of the world-powers.
 
Arch Enemy said:
Last I saw the Iranian government was not running around with Ak-47s killing people.. or are we talking about their operations through other, external, agencies? Because I shall condemth thyself with B.S. if you wish to argue that America does not have her own scalawags rummaging through the bussom of her enemies.
Click to expand...

I do not deny that Reagan gave the Iranians machineguns during the Iran/Contra scandal.

Arch Enemy said:
And this is pure speculation or clairvoyance. Oh, so it is a spy satellite?
Click to expand...

Liberals always have a hard time grasping this concept. Think of it this way --- remember the Iranian made weapons that the American military took from the insurgents in Iraq?

Story here: ABC News: EXCLUSIVE: Iranian Weapons Arm Iraqi Militia

Where do you think those insurgents got Iranian made weapons? FROM SANTA CLAUSE? FROM ACHMED THE DEAD TERRORIST?

As surely as IED's and Iranian made weapons got into terrorist insurgent hands in Iraq -- nuclear weapons will do the same.

It's very near-sighted to assume otherwise.
 
Officials: Iran does not have key nuclear material
WASHINGTON – Iran does not yet have any highly enriched uranium, the fuel needed to make a nuclear warhead, two top U.S. intelligence officials told Congress Tuesday, disputing a claim by an Israeli official.

U.S. National Intelligence Director Dennis Blair and Defense Intelligence Agency Director Lt. Gen. Michael Maples said Tuesday that Iran has only low-enriched uranium — which would need to be refined into highly enriched uranium before it can fuel a warhead. Neither officials said there were indications that refining has occurred.
Click to expand...
 
Vader said:
Actually, Iran is likely to provide these weapons to her proxy terrorist groups.
Click to expand...

If that was true, why does Iran refuse to give its most advanced and powerful weapons it currently has to terrorists?

Why does Iran limit itself to relatively unsophisticated weapons that most 3rd world countries can build themselves? Why no advanced surface to surface missiles? Why no advanced mines? Why does it limit its support to mundane tools?

You are saying that Iran will give terrorists the pinnacle of its military arsenal when it has for decades refused to give terrorists its most advanced weapons.

And you are saying that Iran will be the first country in history to release control over its nuclear arsenal.

And if Iran really wanted to kill Jews, it would have eliminated the 20,000 and growing population within Iran.
 
Orius said:
This doesn't matter. The Neo-Cons want war and will lie to get it. Thank goodness they aren't in power anymore, otherwise an invasion might actually happen.
Click to expand...

I think the world at large would prefer that Iran not be allowed nuclear technology.
 
obvious Child said:
If that was true, why does Iran refuse to give its most advanced and powerful weapons it currently has to terrorists?

Why does Iran limit itself to relatively unsophisticated weapons that most 3rd world countries can build themselves? Why no advanced surface to surface missiles? Why no advanced mines? Why does it limit its support to mundane tools?

You are saying that Iran will give terrorists the pinnacle of its military arsenal when it has for decades refused to give terrorists its most advanced weapons.

And you are saying that Iran will be the first country in history to release control over its nuclear arsenal.

And if Iran really wanted to kill Jews, it would have eliminated the 20,000 and growing population within Iran.
Click to expand...

A ship from Iran carrying explosives and other illegal arms was prevented from reaching Syria. Syria is a known weapons smuggling route for Hamas and Hezballah.

Where do you think those weapons were going?

Wake up and smell the roses.
 
Vader said:
I think the world at large would prefer that Iran not be allowed nuclear technology.
Click to expand...

Or you could divvy all nukes to all countries equally and either we will have global peace in a week or no one will be here in a week.
 
dirtpoorchris said:
Or you could divvy all nukes to all countries equally and either we will have global peace in a week or no one will be here in a week.
Click to expand...

The point is that we do not want the lunatics in Iran to have those weapons.

Why do you not understand that?
 
Vader said:
The point is that we do not want the lunatics in Iran to have those weapons.

Why do you not understand that?
Click to expand...

Why do you think I not understand the point you are trying to make? The points you like to use seem to be attached to a revolving door.
 
Vader said:
A ship from Iran carrying explosives and other illegal arms was prevented from reaching Syria. Syria is a known weapons smuggling route for Hamas and Hezballah.

Where do you think those weapons were going?

Wake up and smell the roses.
Click to expand...

Way to ignore my post entirely.

Let's see what I wrote:

"Why does Iran limit itself to relatively unsophisticated weapons that most 3rd world countries can build themselves?"

That suggests I did say Iran does give weapons to Hamas and Hezbollah, but that the weapons they give are unsophisticated.

Come back when you are ready to talk about what people write rather then your outright and obvious fabrications of what they wrote.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom