The whole Iran nuclear debate

A case in point would be the 1st Iraq war (over Kuwait) and wether if for example Saddam had them if the allies would have been able or brave enough to get him out.
Click to expand...
you do realise the west pretty much told him to attack kuwait right? and they were selling arms to both sides, nothing was wrong everything was fine until news got out about the gas attacks and the west were worried it might look bad
 
No one should have nukes. But I find it highly hypocritical of the west to sanction Iran over it developing its nuclear tech. It's not even proven that they are indeed making a bomb.
Another key point is how about Israels nukes? They haven't even signed an npt
Personally I wouldn't feel safe with Iran having nukes, but you can't accept hypocrisy either
 
Johnnytoxic said:
This from presidential candidate Rick Santorum, which described the assasinations as "wonderful". May be it was a mistaken slip of the tongue but I'm sure he admits the U.S are involved in this program !!.
Click to expand...

Considering that Santorum is not in government and therefore in no position to know either way, this is obvious not an admission of anything.

I take the view that if people are comfortable with the idea of nuclear weapons in the hands of a corrupt and oppressive fundamentalist regime which sponsors terrorism in other nations, then by all means let Iran build nuclear weapons.
 
Pixel said:
I wouldn't care if Iran got it's hands on nuclear weaponry, they'd only use them against Israel, a nation I care less about than Iran itself.
Click to expand...

No they wouldn't, don't believe the crap about wiping Israel off the map it's been proven to be a deliberate misquote.

If Iran launch a nuke against Israel they're basically destroying themselves in the process, it's nonsensical it's like suggesting that the USA and Russia are going to get involved in nuclear war... both sides would lose everything and gain nothing.
 
Pixel said:
Remember when Iraq had weapons of mass destruction? Yeah..

I wouldn't care if Iran got it's hands on nuclear weaponry, they'd only use them against Israel, a nation I care less about than Iran itself.
Click to expand...
Their human beings all the same, a majority of people in Israel lead normal lives like people in the UK, I would not like to see my friends who live in Israel who were born in the UK wiped out thats for sure.
 
the iranian airline wasnt in retaliation for anything. your not taking into account the guardian readers bias.

the ceasefire for the iran iraq war was already proposed. iran had started to lose as soon as it drew the US and the USSR in by attacking the tankers several years previously to flight 655 getting shot down, which i understand was due to a IFF problem as it flew between two military naval units.

nor has your guardian reader explained the *** for tat that iran has given its neighbours and the west in the last 40 years. it very much is about nuclear weapons, it just happens to be about history, politics, regional power struggles as well and iran is much less the victim than the synopsis you pasted is trying to claim.


i would however recommend watching "iran and the west" if you can find it on the interweb. very interesting history recap interviewing Khomeini , putin, former US presidents etc on the events they were involved with.
 
Last edited:
If Iran are allowed to have nukes then on that basis every other tin pot country with a corrupt government or dictator will want them.
 
Oh and depending on who is leader can make a difference too . . . .
On May 4, 1982, two French-made jets in the Argentine air force attacked the British destroyer Sheffield as it steamed toward the Falkland Islands.

A French-made Exocet missile struck the ship, killing 20 crewmembers and injuring 24. The destroyer was scuttled and British naval officials feared that the Exocet was so effective that it jeopardized the entire operation to dislodge Argentine occupiers from the Falklands.

Shortly after that, according to Magoudi’s unsubstantiated disclosures, Mitterrand told him during one of their sessions: "What an impossible woman, that Thatcher. With her four nuclear submarines on mission in the southern Atlantic, she threatens to launch the atomic weapon against Argentina – unless I supply her with the secret codes that render deaf and blind the missiles we have sold to the Argentinians.”

Magoudi said Mitterrand told him that he had ordered the Exocet codes to be handed over to the British at Thatcher’s insistence: "She has them now, the codes. If our customers find out that the French wreck the weapons they sell, it’s not going to reflect well on our exports.”

Mitterrand then complained to Magoudi: "To provoke a nuclear war for small islands inhabited by three sheep who are as hairy as they are frozen! Fortunately I yielded. Otherwise, I assure you, the metallic index finger of the lady would press the button.”
Click to expand...
 
Please, the debate goes beyond Iran, nobody really cares if they get them, the real problem is the devices being sold to anyone who wants them, thus beginning the actual nuclear problem, the Cold War was nothing more than "whos going to go limp first" and should not be construed as the end of Nuclear weapons being a danger.

I am unfortunately waiting for the day that a city is wiped out, the change to society will be much, much bigger than 9/11 or any attack really.

Im not sure i will like the change, i feel ashamed to live in the west slowly heading towards some sort of anal Dystopian regime, the US is the unfortunate example of one due to "threats" to security that they themselves created and will probably be the reason for said bomb going off.

We cant really stop the inevitable without totally destroying our society in the process, unless people stand against it, our society has lost and frankly i do not want to lose to people who live like its a millennium ago.

The most likely targets are Israeli, but maybe they might go a little further, though the effort required would be somewhat enhanced, it would not be impossible to hit a western city, especially since a lot of the scanning equipment we have gets ruined by false positives which simply isnt good enough, in fact it almost seems like they are there to simply catch out the easy ones and more importantly if one does get through (unrealistic), then the politicians can use it as leverage to say it wasn't their fault for shoddy defences.

If the West really needs a city to turn to ash to open most of its inhabitants eyes, then frankly we may well deserve it for being apathetic to the situation that we are involved by proxy due to democracy, though people do like to ignore it, the deaths that have occurred under said governance are also our fault, that little kid bleeding on an Iraqi street for example.

Theres really only one statement i can copypaste here.


“If we don't end war, war will end us.”
 
Johnnytoxic said:
Wasn't aware of this airliner shooting from the U.S before, If this was all about oil, the more you look back in history the harder it is to say whose right whose wrong.

press escape before the overlay loads,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran_Air_Flight_655
Click to expand...

This is part of Iran's reasons behind the Pan-Am bombing in 1988. From sources I read ages ago, I understand they wanted to blow the plane up over the Atlantic as opposed to over a populated area but it went off early.

Although I may understand why they did it, I still think it was an abhorrent act on par with the Americans shooting down the Iranian airliner....


It's something that the US always seem to leave out when they are talking about Flight 103. Then again, history is written by the "victor" (if ever there was such a thing between these events) :rolleyes:
 
Ricochet J said:
The West are signed to the non-proliferation treaty. I doubt Iran will.
Click to expand...

I guess I shouldnt be suprised that yet another OcUK conspiracy theory thread is filled with blatant misinformation but this one rather takes the biscuit given its fundamental to the whole issue!

Iran *are* a signatory to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty!
 
Richie said:
This is part of Iran's reasons behind the Pan-Am bombing in 1988.
Click to expand...

Oh, I didnt realise this was such common knowledge. Whilst I appreciate that all clearly isn't what it seems with the idea that a Magrahi did it, I didnt realise it was quite accepted fact it was Iran in the way you imply! It's surely a credible THEORY at best and will probably remain nothing more?

We are very lucky to have so many intelligence experts on here who have access to the real fact hidden from us by our evil governments and puppet media.
 
People who think the Iranians are more likely to use nuclear weapons than the US are morons.

From the Iranian point of view, if they launch a nuke, they consign themselves and their entire country to nuclear annihilation. They just wouldn't do it.
 
No one seems to have addressed the OP's question of whether it is right or acceptable (in our attempts to restrict Iran from having nuclear weapon technology) in state sponsored murder of scientists...as this case is not the first. They would have had wives, children just like normal.

I'm sure there would be moral outrage if our top scientists were getting bumped off. The same way there is always moral outrage when the 'bad guys' do the same things we do.
 
Murf said:
People who think the Iranians are more likely to use nuclear weapons than the US are morons.
Click to expand...

What a lovely thing to say.

Murf said:
From the Iranian point of view, if they launch a nuke, they consign themselves and their entire country to nuclear annihilation. They just wouldn't do it.
Click to expand...

Insane leaders don't really give a damn about these things, if letting masses of their people die means they can one-up the west, then so be it.

Freakbro said:
No one seems to have addressed the OP's question of whether it is right or acceptable (in our attempts to restrict Iran from having nuclear weapon technology) in state sponsored murder of scientists...as this case is not the first. They would have had wives, children just like normal.

I'm sure there would be moral outrage if our top scientists were getting bumped off. The same way there is always moral outrage when the 'bad guys' do the same things we do.
Click to expand...

My opinion is that not everyone is equal, so if we can restrict unstable countries from getting WMD's, we should. I think it's totally justified. (In trying to stop them, that is, not necessarily killing innocent scientists!)
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom