PDA

View Full Version : Now, imagine Teheran with a nuclear arsenal!


"Topaz"
Aug 1st, 2006, 02:02 AM
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?

Volcana
Aug 1st, 2006, 04:40 AM
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.

"Topaz"
Aug 1st, 2006, 06:43 AM
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.

Sevenseas
Aug 1st, 2006, 08:32 AM
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! :worship: 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!

Lord Nelson
Aug 1st, 2006, 01:46 PM
Very precise analysis! :worship: 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.

azdaja
Aug 1st, 2006, 01:55 PM
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.

Sam L
Aug 1st, 2006, 02:27 PM
I really think USA should invade Iran like they did to Iraq, now!

roarke
Aug 1st, 2006, 03:23 PM
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.

Chris 84
Aug 1st, 2006, 03:30 PM
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 :yeah:

:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

Halardfan
Aug 1st, 2006, 03:36 PM
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.

Volcana
Aug 1st, 2006, 04:26 PM
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.
Next thing you'd need is a spark and the whole region would be incinerated. The USA certainly doesn't want to see thatSeems 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.
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.

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.
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.

samsung101
Aug 1st, 2006, 04:33 PM
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.

-Ph51-
Aug 1st, 2006, 04:37 PM
Do you honestly think Israel would hestitate to use a nuke if they were really threatened? :confused:

"Topaz"
Aug 2nd, 2006, 12:59 AM
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.

JustineTime
Aug 5th, 2006, 05:39 PM
Do you honestly think Israel would hestitate to use a nuke if they were really threatened? :confused:

Yes.

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

Get it? :hehehe:

Crazy Canuck
Aug 5th, 2006, 06:10 PM
Do you honestly think Israel would hestitate to use a nuke if they were really threatened? :confused:

On a country with whom they share a land border? Yes ;)

SelesFan70
Aug 5th, 2006, 06:55 PM
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.


:haha: He/She acutally believes this shit, folks! :haha:

Carmen Mairena
Aug 5th, 2006, 07:29 PM
I don't know why Iran can't get a nuclear arsenal while the USA can... :tape: :retard:

Consolezza please enlighten me... :retard:

JustineTime
Aug 5th, 2006, 10:22 PM
I don't know why Iran can't get a nuclear arsenal while the USA can... :tape: :retard:

Consolezza please enlighten me... :retard:

:secret: UHHHH....CONFIDENTIALLY...:secret:




:shout: YOU'RE NOT LISTENING!!!!! :shout:

;)

:help:

Stark
Aug 6th, 2006, 06:05 AM
And there's Russia, fully nuclearized and at odd with Chechnya et al...


This one made me laugh :lol:.... Russians have to be the most pathetic low lifes in the entire planet even if the think about using nuclear weapons in chechnya

Stark
Aug 6th, 2006, 06:12 AM
Very precise analysis! :worship: 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!

:worship: Agreed with you totally. The thing is that they can set an example for Iran by disarming Israel of its nuclear weapons, Israel; which has been far more agressive than Iran when it comes to war is having nuclear weapons while Iran which claims that it is pursing its nuclear program for "energy solutions" is being forced by internaional community to stop just creates a feeling of mistrust and anger towards UN among the muslims in the middle east which does not helps things. UN needs to take a tougher stance against israel if it really wants stability in the region.