Now, imagine Teheran with a nuclear arsenal! - TennisForum.com
Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
post #1 of 21 (permalink) Old Aug 1st, 2006, 01:02 AM Thread Starter
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: aka TennisPower
Posts: 3,453
                     
Now, imagine Teheran with a nuclear arsenal!

Yes, imagine Teheran with a nuclear arsenal! I sure got your interest, didn't I?

If you're an "Islamist", this means to you some sort of balance of power that could lead to some good-faith negotiations in getting:
- Israel out of occupied territories
- USA out of Iraq
- USA and now NATO out of Afghanistan.

Hence, peace (or something like that).


If you're Western minded, the logic turns on different wheels. If Iran gets the Bomb:
- Plain liberation of occupied territories will only be the first step.
- The "holy land" may be next. Israel may vanish (despite taking half of the region with her)
- If Israel is gone, Islam will march on. They'll go all the way to Spain as promised a few days ago by Alkaeda #2-man.
- NATO will have to kick in big time, hence Canada (a committed NATO member), ...hence me! And I'm not even such a devout Christian.
- Folks, we're talking World War III now.

Guess what, the US will never let things develop to that point. So we can expect occupation/democratization/malaise in the Middle East for a long time.

But wait, how about the rest of the world East of Afghanistan? Don't forget them. How can you? Almost 2/3 of mankind live there. The nuclear threshold has been crossed by:
- Pakistan
- India
- China
- North Korea, somewhat
- South Korea, secretly
- Japan, apparently they have all the ingredients, including an ICBM to boot (check out their M-5 quasi-missile versus their legitimate H-IIA satellite launching rocket).

And there's Russia, fully nuclearized and at odd with Chechnya et al...

If the nuclear fire is lit somewhere, don't you think everyone who can will join the fray and try to resolve their long held problems at once before a new order is established?

Sorry if I got you all scared. As you can see, we need peace now, we need to hold the line and stop the current madness. We need to talk and everyone should be invited. Give UN a chance, or if need be let's re-invent UN. Let's not wait for balance of power before we show respect. Let's not wait for the gun (the equalizer of the Old West in USA) before we show respect. Let's not wait for the nuclear bomb before we show respect. Let's talk now, lay it all out on the table, draw out a comprehensive solution and execute it in good faith. Failing that, we won't survive as a species.

What say you?

** TP for Topaz or TennisPower **

"Playing aggressive tennis ... that's always the way to go, if you ask me." - Venus Williams, May/2002
"Some shots I will hit hard but not every ball. I'm not just using my power." - Serena Williams, Oct/2002
"Topaz" is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #2 of 21 (permalink) Old Aug 1st, 2006, 03:40 AM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Posts: 24,872
                     
Quote:
Originally Posted by Topaz
Yes, imagine Teheran with a nuclear arsenal! I sure got your interest, didn't I?

What say you?
The idea of a nuclear armed Iran does not scare me at alll. They are no theat to the United States. If they fired on us, we could carpet bomb Iraq until every single square inch of it was radioactive.

Iran is no threat to the USA. Period.

Proud to be an American
Not blind. Not uninformed. We are party to atrocities. But the response of the world after 9/11 is worth noting. Even our most dire enemies offered aid. We should all be so lucky.
Volcana is offline  
post #3 of 21 (permalink) Old Aug 1st, 2006, 05:43 AM Thread Starter
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: aka TennisPower
Posts: 3,453
                     
Quote:
Originally Posted by Volcana
The idea of a nuclear armed Iran does not scare me at all.
Iran is no threat to the USA. Period.
Well, things aren't that simple, Volcana. A nuclear armed Iran means a great deal to the balance of power in the Middle East, where USA and, by extension, Canada have quite a bit of interests. Egypt and Saudi Arabia would feel threatened, let alone Israel. If these two Arab countries were to follow through and get their own nukes to balance out Iran, it would mean more instabilty in the region. Next thing you'd need is a spark and the whole region would be incinerated. The USA certainly doesn't want to see that; nobody does for that matter.

Still you may consider this as an indirect threat to the USA, i.e., a threat to its interests, a threat to its allies. Now, for a direct threat, Volcana, imagine that Iran would lose one or a couple of these nukes to a stateless group, and they end up in America, say, North America just to include Canada. That would be "September 11" multiplied by at least 1,000. Even if we retaliate by incinerating Iran in return, as you suggested, we still may have to deal with more than 3,000,000 deaths, devastation, radioactivty right here at home. If by now you don't see the indirect and/or direct threat, all I can say is: that's fine, let those in charge handle the worrying for you; after all, that's what division of labor is for in the society. Even in the hazardous days of the Cold War, the Administrations made sure the public went about their activities as usual with no undue concern with respect to Soviet SS-18's, SS-20's or big "Bear" bombers. So, I suppose, you should feel no threat as regards a nuclear armed Iran.

Now, if I put on my optimistic hat, I'd say Iran has the right to nukes just as France or Britain, and nothing predicts conclusively she will behave any less rationally than those European Middle-Powers. Possession of the ultimate tool may well bring wisdom, as one becomes more aware of its destructive power and immediate retaliation upon use. In that regard, the public may well feel safe. Somehow, such an optimistic hat is hard to wear when you're holding a position of power, and this is probably why Iran is beeing opposed so steadily at the UN and in the corridors of the international power-houses. Unlike you, Volcana, wrongly or rightly, the powers-to-be do feel the threat.

** TP for Topaz or TennisPower **

"Playing aggressive tennis ... that's always the way to go, if you ask me." - Venus Williams, May/2002
"Some shots I will hit hard but not every ball. I'm not just using my power." - Serena Williams, Oct/2002

Last edited by "Topaz"; Aug 1st, 2006 at 06:03 AM.
"Topaz" is offline  
post #4 of 21 (permalink) Old Aug 1st, 2006, 07:32 AM
Senior Member
 
Sevenseas's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: ABSOLUTE SECULARISM!
Posts: 2,004
                     
Quote:
Originally Posted by Topaz
A nuclear armed Iran means a great deal to the balance of power in the Middle East, where USA and, by extension, Canada have quite a bit of interests. Egypt and Saudi Arabia would feel threatened, let alone Israel. If these two Arab countries were to follow through and get their own nukes to balance out Iran, it would mean more instabilty in the region. Next thing you'd need is a spark and the whole region would be incinerated. The USA certainly doesn't want to see that; nobody does for that matter.
Very precise analysis! Iran with a nuclear arsenal is a big threat to everyone; all Jewish, Christian and even some of the Muslim (secular and moderate Muslims) communities. The fact that Iran acknowledges and embraces the terrorist group, Hizbullah (Hezbollah) and calls them “brothers” is the final indicator of their true objectives. Iran has been looking for this day for a very long time indeed, feeding on sheer hate and they assume now is the time for them to become a dominant power in western civilizations. They have very big targets (which are doomed to fail obviously) and will try very hard to fulfill them via terrorism and with full force. Therefore, in one way or another and hopefully this will be through peace, they must be stopped immediately!

Precious and fragile things
Need special handling...

I pray you learn to trust
Have faith in both of us
And keep room in your hearts for two

Precious - Depeche Mode

Last edited by Sevenseas; Aug 1st, 2006 at 07:54 AM.
Sevenseas is offline  
post #5 of 21 (permalink) Old Aug 1st, 2006, 12:46 PM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 2,353
                     
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sevenseas
Very precise analysis! Iran with a nuclear arsenal is a big threat to everyone; all Jewish, Christian and even some of the Muslim (secular and moderate Muslims) communities. The fact that Iran acknowledges and embraces the terrorist group, Hizbullah (Hezbollah) and calls them “brothers” is the final indicator of their true objectives. Iran has been looking for this day for a very long time indeed, feeding on sheer hate and they assume now is the time for them to become a dominant power in western civilizations. They have very big targets (which are doomed to fail obviously) and will try very hard to fulfill them via terrorism and with full force. Therefore, in one way or another and hopefully this will be through peace, they must be stopped immediately!
Wow I loved your post. Problem is that Iran a shiite nation will cause jealousy and maybe even fear among some of its sunni arab neighbors. So Egypt and maybe even Saudi Arabia may try to get a nulcear bomb from countries like Pakistan which tried to give nukes to nations like Libya. There will be even more fear if terrorist groups get hold of nukes. Becasue they won't be liable to anyone and can fire these weapons at will. I can imagine this scenario and the int. community firing back at this terrorist group and protest groips saying that this nation should not be fired on becasue it is too powerless to stop these terrorist groups. A deja vu scenario that is actually played on between Israel and Hezbollah only this time nukes will be an important factor.
Lord Nelson is offline  
post #6 of 21 (permalink) Old Aug 1st, 2006, 12:55 PM
Senior Member
 
azdaja's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Itävalta
Posts: 18,005
                     
Quote:
Originally Posted by Topaz
Now, for a direct threat, Volcana, imagine that Iran would lose one or a couple of these nukes to a stateless group, and they end up in America, say, North America just to include Canada. That would be "September 11" multiplied by at least 1,000. Even if we retaliate by incinerating Iran in return, as you suggested, we still may have to deal with more than 3,000,000 deaths, devastation, radioactivty right here at home. If by now you don't see the indirect and/or direct threat
but iran wouldn't let that happen because it would get destroyed for it. that's the point of having nuclear weapons.

btw, nuclear weapons from russia are much more of a threat in this regard.

as for the rest, having another nation with nuclear weapons is not a good thing, it does not matter which nation that would be. however, the us policies in the middle east have nothing to do with iran's weapons of mass destruction. i'm using that old-fashioned term just to remind people of how we were already lied to once. if you love being lied to, fine. i don't.

american leaders unfortunately don't really care much about nukes. they have other priorities and their actions contribute to nuclear proliferation mightily.
azdaja is offline  
post #7 of 21 (permalink) Old Aug 1st, 2006, 01:27 PM
Sunset, Moonrise, Winter
 
Sam L's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: North, South & Third Pole
Posts: 35,829
                     
I really think USA should invade Iran like they did to Iraq, now!

Light of the Seven: Himalayas, Gobi, Baikal, Taiga, Steppe, Reef, Aurora

Dancing and Skating through Life
Sam L is offline  
post #8 of 21 (permalink) Old Aug 1st, 2006, 02:23 PM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 915
                     
Ultimately that is what will happen.

Iran will continue with it's nuclear weapons program, and once they get it other Arab countries will since the technology will be shared. With the monstrous amount of oil money (which we continue to throw at them) these countries will be able to buy any technology (underground) they cannot produce.

Take a look at the present situation now in the middle east! The defenseless civilians are getting slaughtered through no fault of thier own.
Iran will feel it is necessary to get nuclear weapon to stave all Israel just in case it feels like destroying it's country and kill it's people in an effort to seek out terriorists.

These people in that region aren't cool headed enough to think about consequences. They will get trigger happy as soon as something ruffle their feathers. Since they all believe that 70 virgins await them in death, killing and dying is an easy choice for them to make.

The world is going to hell in a hand basket and the people who are just essentially evil personified are just helping it along at a faster rate. If you ever want to see what true evil looks like, check out the so called world leaders....

Most of them spout religious principles on a daily basis. They all seem to practice the "life is not improtant and my life is better than yours principle", and then follow it up with murder, mayhem and destruction.
roarke is offline  
post #9 of 21 (permalink) Old Aug 1st, 2006, 02:30 PM
Senior Member
 
Chris 84's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Glasgow
Posts: 24,817
                     
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sam L
I really think USA should invade Iran like they did to Iraq, now!
Yeah, cool, let's just see how many innocent people we can slaughter....after all, Iraqis and Iranians don't really count as human beings. One Iranian kid is worth at least 1000 American lives


Come on the Bhoys!
GISELA DULKO

Belinda Bencic Flavia Pennetta Anett Kontaveit Aga Radwanska Tara Moore Sorana Cirstea

MY TWITTER
https://twitter.com/ChrissieBhoy

Last edited by Chris 84; Aug 1st, 2006 at 02:37 PM.
Chris 84 is offline  
post #10 of 21 (permalink) Old Aug 1st, 2006, 02:36 PM
Senior Member
 
Halardfan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Japan
Posts: 5,880
                     
Im in favour of a nuclear-free middle east...which would mean no nuclear bombs in the hands of Iran, but also none in the hands of Israel, who we all know has a 'secret' stockpile of such weapons right now.

Manchester City 2011 FA Cup winners! 2012 Premier League Champions! 2014 League Cup winners and Premier League Champions! At last!!!!!
Halardfan is offline  
post #11 of 21 (permalink) Old Aug 1st, 2006, 03:26 PM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Posts: 24,872
                     
Quote:
Originally Posted by Topaz
Well, things aren't that simple, Volcana. A nuclear armed Iran means a great deal to the balance of power in the Middle East, where USA and, by extension, Canada have quite a bit of interests. Egypt and Saudi Arabia would feel threatened, let alone Israel. If these two Arab countries were to follow through and get their own nukes to balance out Iran, it would mean more instabilty in the region.
Actually, I thing it would mean more stability in the region. What cause instability is the threat that current interests will be overthrown. A nuclear Egypt and Saudi Arabia would be MORE stable, not less.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Topaz
Next thing you'd need is a spark and the whole region would be incinerated. The USA certainly doesn't want to see that
Seems to me the USA has already provided that spark by invading Iraq, and things are already destabilizing, just as half the world predicted in 2002.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Topaz
Now, for a direct threat, Volcana, imagine that Iran would lose one or a couple of these nukes to a stateless group, and they end up in America, say, North America just to include Canada.
We're already living with that threat. When the USSR broke up, quite a lot of nukes were 'lost', as well as a lot of other high-tech munitions. A nuclear-Iran doesn't add to the threat we already have.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Topaz
If by now you don't see the indirect and/or direct threat...So, I suppose, you should feel no threat as regards a nuclear armed Iran.
The key here is, there is no more threat of a nuclear Iran than there is of the threats the USA currently faces.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Topaz
Somehow, such an optimistic hat is hard to wear when you're holding a position of power, and this is probably why Iran is beeing opposed so steadily at the UN and in the corridors of the international power-houses.
Precisely. The current world powers are not interested in seeing a Middle-East that they can't invade and overpower at will. THAT is the consequence of a nuclear-armed Iran.

The 'threat', ultimately, is to the current powers ability to threaten. A nuclear-Iran isn't an actual threat to any of the current world powers, there are half a dozen countries that could irradiate every square inch of Iran if Iran attacked them. But with nukes, Iran is a lot harder to coerce, and Iran's allies are safer from invasion.

But again, the more governments are safe from invasion, the more stable the region.

My lack of fear is not based on being uninformed. My father was a history professor, and he impressed upon us the importance of keeping up with world events, and their implications. The current fear-mongering about Iran is not based on a threat to the lives or health of the American people. It's based a) maintaining American access to (relatively) inexpensive oil, b) the 'neo-aggressive' movement in the USA, led by Project for a New American Century crew, seeking American dominance of the world, c) A group that believes that Israel's interests are identical to those of the United States, and d) (thankfully much less of a factor) a bunch of Christian-Taliban types in the USA pushing a sick end-of-the-world-so-Christ-will-return agenda.
  • Cheap oil is nice, but I'm not interested in going to war over. It's time and past time the USA turned away from petro-chemical energy.
  • Having the USA dominate the planet doesn't seem like a good idea when we can't even hold honest national elections, and the currentgovernment seems ready to tell any lie to line the pockets of corporate interests with the taxpayers money.
  • The interests of the USA and the interests of Israel aren't identical. The primary difference being, the USA has no interest one way or the other in Israel being a Jewish state. For Israel, that's the primary foreign AND domestic policy objective. (Our interest lies in it being primarily a Western state, and a reliable military ally in the region.)
  • The Christian-Taliban push for a theocratic USA is thankfully still in it's infancy. Even so, it's more of a threat to the USA than Iran.
I think we are not that much in disagreement Topaz. It's just that a lot of the threats you are threats I think we're already living with. A nuclear-armed Iran doesn't make things worse over-all, just slightly different.

Proud to be an American
Not blind. Not uninformed. We are party to atrocities. But the response of the world after 9/11 is worth noting. Even our most dire enemies offered aid. We should all be so lucky.
Volcana is offline  
post #12 of 21 (permalink) Old Aug 1st, 2006, 03:33 PM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 5,406
                     
It's all lies.
All made up.
The 'world' believes Iran is doing something.
The UN does too.
Iran admits most of it.

It's all made up.
Just like Iraq.
Just like North Korea.

All this stuff in Lebanon is working out just
as Syria and Iran hoped it would.


Should the world fear the USA or Britain using
nuclear weapons or an Islamic nation that publicly
states the West should be destroyed using the
nuclear weapons?

The USA has had nukes for over 60 years. How
many times have they been used? Two times in
Japan to end a World War, after giving many warnings.
Never since then.

A nation that provides Hamas and Hezbollah weapons
now, close to getting nuclear power weapons, should
we worry about that?

Nah, it's all lies. All made up. It's all for oil.
samsung101 is offline  
post #13 of 21 (permalink) Old Aug 1st, 2006, 03:37 PM
Team WTAworld
Senior Member
 
-Ph51-'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Migrating!
Posts: 10,779
                     
Do you honestly think Israel would hestitate to use a nuke if they were really threatened?

L'important, c'est la rose...
-Ph51- is offline  
post #14 of 21 (permalink) Old Aug 1st, 2006, 11:59 PM Thread Starter
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: aka TennisPower
Posts: 3,453
                     
Quote:
Originally Posted by Volcana
Actually, I thing it would mean more stability in the region. What cause instability is the threat that current interests will be overthrown. A nuclear Egypt and Saudi Arabia would be MORE stable, not less.
Seems to me the USA has already provided that spark by invading Iraq, and things are already destabilizing, just as half the world predicted in 2002.
We're already living with that threat. When the USSR broke up, quite a lot of nukes were 'lost', as well as a lot of other high-tech munitions. A nuclear-Iran doesn't add to the threat we already have.

The key here is, there is no more threat of a nuclear Iran than there is of the threats the USA currently faces.
Precisely. The current world powers are not interested in seeing a Middle-East that they can't invade and overpower at will. THAT is the consequence of a nuclear-armed Iran.

The 'threat', ultimately, is to the current powers ability to threaten. A nuclear-Iran isn't an actual threat to any of the current world powers, there are half a dozen countries that could irradiate every square inch of Iran if Iran attacked them. But with nukes, Iran is a lot harder to coerce, and Iran's allies are safer from invasion.

But again, the more governments are safe from invasion, the more stable the region.


My lack of fear is not based on being uninformed. My father was a history professor, and he impressed upon us the importance of keeping up with world events, and their implications. The current fear-mongering about Iran is not based on a threat to the lives or health of the American people. It's based a) maintaining American access to (relatively) inexpensive oil, b) the 'neo-aggressive' movement in the USA, led by Project for a New American Century crew, seeking American dominance of the world, c) A group that believes that Israel's interests are identical to those of the United States, and d) (thankfully much less of a factor) a bunch of Christian-Taliban types in the USA pushing a sick end-of-the-world-so-Christ-will-return agenda.
  • Cheap oil is nice, but I'm not interested in going to war over. It's time and past time the USA turned away from petro-chemical energy.
  • Having the USA dominate the planet doesn't seem like a good idea when we can't even hold honest national elections, and the currentgovernment seems ready to tell any lie to line the pockets of corporate interests with the taxpayers money.
  • The interests of the USA and the interests of Israel aren't identical. The primary difference being, the USA has no interest one way or the other in Israel being a Jewish state. For Israel, that's the primary foreign AND domestic policy objective. (Our interest lies in it being primarily a Western state, and a reliable military ally in the region.)
  • The Christian-Taliban push for a theocratic USA is thankfully still in it's infancy. Even so, it's more of a threat to the USA than Iran.
I think we are not that much in disagreement Topaz. It's just that a lot of the threats you are threats I think we're already living with. A nuclear-armed Iran doesn't make things worse over-all, just slightly different.
"I think we are not that much in disagreement, Topaz". Hmm... I'm not sure about that. For the sake of efficiency, I've highlighted in blue the parts that ring well with me. The rest, by and large, doesn't resonate with me at all. I'll expand further when I get more time.

** TP for Topaz or TennisPower **

"Playing aggressive tennis ... that's always the way to go, if you ask me." - Venus Williams, May/2002
"Some shots I will hit hard but not every ball. I'm not just using my power." - Serena Williams, Oct/2002
"Topaz" is offline  
post #15 of 21 (permalink) Old Aug 5th, 2006, 04:39 PM
Senior Member
 
JustineTime's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Posts: 3,026
                     
Quote:
Originally Posted by -Ph51-
Do you honestly think Israel would hestitate to use a nuke if they were really threatened?
Yes.

They might still do it, but they would certainly hesitate. And deliberate. And VOTE in the security council.

Get it?

JESUS

The transgression of the wicked saith within my heart, that there is no fear of God before his eyes. Ps. 36:1

The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God. Ps. 14:1, 53:1

The fear of the LORD is the beginning of knowledge: but fools despise wisdom and instruction. Prov. 1:7

...Behold, the fear of the LORD, that is wisdom; and to depart from evil is understanding. Job 28:28
JustineTime is offline  
Reply

Quick Reply
Message:
Options

Register Now



In order to be able to post messages on the TennisForum.com forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.

User Name:
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.

Password:


Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.

Email Address:
OR

Log-in









Human Verification

In order to verify that you are a human and not a spam bot, please enter the answer into the following box below based on the instructions contained in the graphic.



Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page



Posting Rules  
You may not post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On

 
For the best viewing experience please update your browser to Google Chrome