Iraq was a very diffrent country to it's surroundings. Saddam ruled with an iron fist that stamped out any of these things, that could happen in other countrys. I Very much doubt it come to wwIII. But Iran should not be allowed nukes with it's current regime. If that means blowing up a few nuclear compounds. I hope they do it.
Bush warns of World War III if Iran goes nuclear
- Thread starter Teki187
- Start date
Iraq was a very diffrent country to it's surroundings. Saddam ruled with an iron fist that stamped out any of these things, that could happen in other countrys. I Very much doubt it come to wwIII. But Iran should not be allowed nukes with it's current regime. If that means blowing up a few nuclear compounds. I hope they do it.
FAr Far to simplified, oil probably was a consideration. But I very much doubt it was the main reason.
Last edited:
No. Because Russia has been very supportive of the UN push for more Iranian clarity over their nuclear program. The security council passed the sanctions, meaning that while Putin may have been in Iran, and say he backs their push for nuclear energy (a realistic one cause the oil ain't gonna last forever) he does not back the Iranian proliferation of missiles and certainly does NOT back Iran if they are seeking nuclear weapons. The man is not stupid.
As for that Bush said, it just further goes to prove that he has no idea what hes talking about.
If america, china, uk, india, pakistan and many other countries can all have nuclear weapons, who is america to decide iran can't? They are a country with their own rights, if other countries can have something why can't they and who are we/ america to stop them? They can't go on policing the world in this manner.
If this was a joint decision with backing from many other countries it would be a different scenario, but america on its own- no!
why? because other countrys haven't threatened to wipe other countrys of the face of the earth, using any means they can. other countrys are not likely to use nukes other than a very last resort.
and you want to bet money on that, what happens if he's over throwen?
As far as I concerned Iran is not responsible enough to have nukes. As I said I would rather the action came from someone like the UN. But if America has to go it alone then so be it.
Pakistan is fairly stable.
Why aren't they responsible, I don't trust them with a bargepole. How they talk and how they run there country.
Nukes are not something to be taken lightly. Certain countries should be encouraged not to have them.
The west would really wish that nukes were never invented (or were a git from nan alien race such that no other country could build them). But as it is, other countries are gaining the know-hown and soon enough they will become nuclear threats. I don't like the fact thaT THE us are telling other nations what not to do- no one does. But if 2 responsible nations posses nuclea weapons then nothing much happens (Us and Russian)- we have a M.A.D. situation. With extremeist muslim countries then who knows what will happen.
In the end, Iran should't make nuclear weapons and the west shoiuld keep their noses out. 2 things which will never happen.
don't be foooled, Iran's nuclear armament could lead to world war 3, and beyond. WW3 could be the catalyst for the downfall of mankind. Yes, Iran alone has no chance of succeeeding in a world war, but that wont stop other nations joining the rgime. Korea, Chnia, Pakistan...
My only hope is that the west will anihilate any offending nations in minutes if a nuclear weapon is detonated.
In the end, Iran should't make nuclear weapons and the west shoiuld keep their noses out. 2 things which will never happen.
don't be foooled, Iran's nuclear armament could lead to world war 3, and beyond. WW3 could be the catalyst for the downfall of mankind. Yes, Iran alone has no chance of succeeeding in a world war, but that wont stop other nations joining the rgime. Korea, Chnia, Pakistan...
My only hope is that the west will anihilate any offending nations in minutes if a nuclear weapon is detonated.
Last edited:
Whats the difference?
Bush has just said he would start world war 3 if iran got nukes; so whats so different to what he said?
The trouble with Iran having nukes is they are an extremist Muslim country, and as has been demonstrated by the extremist Muslim terrorists, in general, extremist Muslims don’t have any problems with self-sacrificing. That’s the difference between other modern nuclear stand offs, like the cold war between the US and Russia, as neither side were nutty enough to use nukes due to the retaliatory action they would suffer.
Iran knows that if they used nuclear weapons on Israel, just like they would love to do, they would probably be nuked back, but that would not necessarily stop them, which is why I support America on this, and I hope the UN has the balls to as well.
The other distinct possibility though is of course that Israel takes care of Iran on their own. Either way, I don’t see another world war starting, but a big war in the middle east could still screw the rest of the world up through nuclear fallout and disruptions to oil supplies.
Iran knows that if they used nuclear weapons on Israel, just like they would love to do, they would probably be nuked back, but that would not necessarily stop them, which is why I support America on this, and I hope the UN has the balls to as well.
The other distinct possibility though is of course that Israel takes care of Iran on their own. Either way, I don’t see another world war starting, but a big war in the middle east could still screw the rest of the world up through nuclear fallout and disruptions to oil supplies.
