Iran - does it stop with them?
- Thread starter dangerstat
- Start date
![[TW]Fox](/data/man-of-honor/2009.png){kind=avatar}
What an earth makes you think I would read the Mail?
It's quite simple, as I stated in the other Iran thread, Iran has a mentalist for a President and it's quite clear they have an ill-concieved agenda to rock the boat (no pun intended) as much as possible.
I was actually referring to the incident last year (i think), where Iran captured RN personnel and there was a fully armoured frigate nearby that was under orders not to defend the sailors. I guess I just wish we went a little more 18th Century on their egotistical, power hungry behinds and show them what a proper country is capable of, but I’ll leave that to our good friends in Israel.
If the 2nd largest and 2nd most powerfull navy is a joke , what does that make the rest of the worlds?
I guess thats in relation to america? With them being egotistical and power hungry?
Hmmm who to trust more? A country that has thousands of Nuclear warheads and not used them since the 1940s or a country run by a crazy nutcase that wants to wipe Israel off the map? Decisisions, decisions.
Ok I've thought about it, and I'm going to have to take our closest and longest serving ally, the US.
I know it's not fashionable to be pro US on this forum, there seem to be far too many Guardian reading types on here for anyone to actually LIKE the US. But given the choice, I know which one I prefer.
Or to look at it another way , the only country in the world to have ever used not 1 but 2 Nuclear bombs on another country.
That put an end to the most horrific world war this world has ever seen. But that's another debate.
So America, lets go with a quick few things:
Only country to have used a nuke on another country?
If you dont follow America, your against them policy.
Also been run by complete and utter nut cases.
Iran:
Never used or owned a nuke.
Completely willing to be inspected by the IAEA
Also granted being run by a nutcase
Isreal:
Has nukes and is more then willing to use them in defence of its country in a first strike attack.
Is currently forcing the people of Gaza to live of vastly too little water to live a day.
Is quite possibly more powerful then any other nation in the world.
Damn, choices choices......
And yet has had nukes for over 60 years and not used them since. Of course lets compare what happens during a world war with the situation today because it is so relevant...
Are you seriously sitting there telling me you would have absolutely no problem with Iran having the bomb, after all the emotive rhetoric Ahmadinejad has spouted?
"Oh noes but the USA/UK are hypocrites, they have nukes too
"Yeah well guess what - we've earned that right, by having a successful democracy for hundreds of years. History has proved us to be responsible (with our nukes). What an earth is Iran doing to prove they are responsible enough to be enriching uranium to possible weapons grade? Stating they want to wipe Israel off the map isn't the best of starts, neither is hiding plants from the international community, nor rejecting offers to be provided with uranium.
I'm flabbergasted how anyone can possibly think that mentalist should have anything resembling enriched uranium which hasn't been supplied to him for use in power stations with full co-operation with the international community. I know we all love to hate the US on this forum but this is surely taking it to a new level?
Soldato
- Joined
- 21 Jul 2007
- Posts
- 5,488
No because you're assuming everyone else thinks nukes are just a good thing full stop that everyone should have. I'm only saying that there is no reason why Iran can't have nukes.
Obviously that won't be beneficial to the West but so what? What has Isreal done to show itself as a peaceful nation? Its just garbage. You can't dictate on some moral ground what weapons other countries can or cannot have. It's not about hating the US, stop using that as an argument.
North Korea already have nukes and I don't see you crying over that.
No i'd rather none of us had these bombs, but because we need them as a "deterrent" we will keep them. When will this game of face off end?
Sorry did we get the Referendum on the EU treaty like the people wanted?
Did we not go to war with Iraq against the wishes of millions of UK citizens?
I dont see us having a successful democracy there.
Yup, by dropping 2 on Japan for the sake of ending a war.
You make the moral choice if killing 100,000+ people to end a war a year early was a good call.
Have i not already stated twice that they are willing to allow the IAEA to check on there progress?
Neither is israel's treatment of the people of Gaza, but we seem to accept that.
Why on earth should a country with the materials to make there own fuel, be forced to buy the materials from another country? Why!? I'm completely and utter at a loss as the logic involved in such a thing.
As already shown, they are not hiding there plants.
We dont love the hate the US, the US just loves to be hated.
It won't be so beneficial to the west but so what? WE ARE THE WEST and therefore need to protect our interests. Our interests lie in not seeing some war mongering, power hungry, infidel hating leader have access to a big red button. Israel may not exactly be the most peaceful nation on earth but at the end of the day they're our only ally in the region and certainly from what I can make of them, they have parallel political ideology’s to ourselves - we therefore should support them.
The international community can and quite frankly should dictate who can have nukes, we've earned the right, Iran has done nothing more than shake their fists a bit and jump on every opportunity to spout anti-west nonsense. Greeaaat... let's let those guys have all the nukes they want, they sound legit
Don't get me wrong, i'm not crying about Iran or indeed North Korea. If there is anything worth crying about it's the amount of lefties on this forum that seem to be more anti west than Osama himself.
From a purely selfish point of view the fewer nations that have access to nuclear weapons the better. I am not really all that interested in "fair" more of survival. The more nations that have nukes, especially the more unstable nations, the more likely they will either be used or get into the wrong hands. The only saving grace about Pakistan and India having nukes is that they hate each other so much that they would only use them against each other but it still isn't brilliant considering the political histories of both those nations.
100,000+ ? Oh hell yes. 10 times over.
Of course, one of the many ironies in all of this is that when Saddam was developing nukes in the early 80s (with the help of the French), the Iranians tried a pre-emptive strike on the facility at Osiraq, but failed, and had to rely on the Israelis to do the proper job. What goes around comes around.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Osiraq
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Osiraq
Soldato
- Joined
- 21 Jul 2007
- Posts
- 5,488
But then put yourself in the Iranian's shoes. Look at the kind of incomprehensible **** that Dubya spouted over his eight years in power. How must that have looked to the people in the Middle East? To see that inbred idiot failing to string a sentence together whilst 'running' the world's only superpower.
The international community can and quite frankly should dictate who can have nukes, we've earned the right, Iran has done nothing more than shake their fists a bit and jump on every opportunity to spout anti-west nonsense. Greeaaat... let's let those guys have all the nukes they want, they sound legit
We technically have the power to do such things (although its still pretty limited) but that doesn't automatically make it right.
I'm not anti-West, I like the fact that Obama is engaging in talks with Ahmadinejad but then I don't want to bomb Iran back into the stone age either.
Also, as a side note, I'm don't begrudge America for bombing Japan back in WW2. They had a right to end that war in the best way they saw fit.
I think it's quite obvious how this game of face off will end if we let Iran have it's own nukes.
Was the constitutional treaty changed to make it less worthy of a referendum? Yes.
Re the Iraq war, yes I remember those unemployed people flooding the streets of London waving their peace signs, but parliament voted to go to war, you elect your members of parliament and if you didn't like their decision you had the chance to get rid of them in 2005. Obviously the country wasn't that against the war otherwise the lib dems would have won the 2005 election.
I would say dropping 2 on japan was a great result, it ended the war and saved many more hundreds of thousands from being killed had the war not ended when it did.
You are aware the Iranian "law makers" aren't exactly the IAEA's biggest fan:
"The IRIB previously reported that a strong majority of Iranian lawmakers issued a statement demanding the government should not to comply with the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA)."
http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/Wo...StateMediaHasAnnounced&lpos=searchresults
Because their government is acting like a retarded 3 year old in it's dealings with the international community and they haven't proven themselves to be trust worthy.
Last edited: