Retired: AR-Hall of Famer
Completely irrelevant.Originally Posted by Logan13
If you want to bomb then because they support terrorist than just say so, dont use a nuclear weapons program that there is not a single shred of evidence for as a excuse. Untill there is proof I wont support bombing their nuclear installations and I hope the EU will aswell.
If there is proof then bomb away and hopefully the EU will join in.
Grade A Beef
No one is advocating going in without any proof.
Retired: AR-Hall of Famer
Thats good to hearAnd thats all I have been saying all along. Proof is everything, assumptions is nothing.
Banned
Irrevelant?
The fact that Iran is a state sponsor of terrorism is exactly why we can not allow them to have these weapons...........
Retired: AR-Hall of Famer
Its irrelevant simply because its a completely different topic. Their connection to terrorism isnt proof in anyway that they have a nuclear weapons program.Irrevelant?
The fact that Iran is a state sponsor of terrorism is exactly why we can not allow them to have these weapons...........
We are talking about proof of a nuclear weapons program, what they would do with a nuke is pointless to discuss before we even know they are trying to build a nuke.
Banned
go online and discover, for yourself, the reason that most of these nations do not want them to be a nuclear power. Quit being so obtuse Johan....
Retired: AR-Hall of Famer
I dont even know what obtuse means
You once again point to something irrelevant, NOBODY wants Iran to build nuclear weapons. That much is obvious and Im not disputing that. But no one has any evidence whatsoever that Iran has a nuclear weapons program. A war should not be started on a assumption.
If there was proof I would be the first one to encourage EU and NATO to bomb the shit out of Iran's nuclear installations to send a clear message that the NPT should be respected.
Banned
Bahrain: Iran trying to acquire nuclear weapons
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satelli...cle%2FShowFull
Bahrain's Crown Prince, Sheik Salman bin Isa al-Khalifa, said Friday that Iran is striving to acquire nuclear weaponry, Israel Radio reported.
Technicians work at the reactor building of the Bushehr Nuclear Power Plant, some 750 miles south of Teheran.
Photo: AP [file]
Al Khalifa said that at the very least, Iran is attempting to gain the ability to produce nuclear weaponry.
The statement would make Bahrain the first Arab nation in the Persian Gulf to claim that Iran is attempting to deceive world leaders in relation to its nuclear aspirations.
Al Khalifa warned that the crisis could worsen and draw the region into military conflict. For this reason, he said, it must be resolved by diplomatic means.
Meanwhile, German Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier on Thursday tried dispelling fears that Germany is reluctant to back new sanctions against Iran because of its strong commercial ties with Teheran. Steinmeier made it clear that Germany is in sync with other Western powers.
Speaking at a news conference in Tel Aviv after talks with Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni, Steinmeier stressed that Germany would not stand in the way of tougher sanctions.
"Germany's position does not differ from that of the United States or some other European countries. If Iran refuses to provide answers, we should think about the possibility of European sanctions," he said.
Asked if Germany would support further sanctions, he said, "Yes, if what we are trying now is not successful, then we must not only think about sanctions, but also decide on them."
Anabolic Member
That is just mere speculation. It isn't like Bahrain has the greatest intelligence either, will all due respect.
On the other hand, with all the inflammatory statements Ahmadinejad has made I dont think we should be completely oblivious to the fact that he would attempt to acquire Nukes. When the AQ Khan nuclear network was brought down, he admitted that Iran was one of his black market clients. One should be at the very least, be highly skeptical.
Senior Member
Having nukes does not make a country a threat nor is it a reason to start a war. Those "Godless" communists in the Soviet Union and China got them and the world didn't end. Although I heard the LBJ wanted to bomb China before they got them. Soviet ally India got them and the world didn't end. Muslim Pakistan got and a nuclear holocaust didn't occur. North Korea with it's "crazy" leader Kim Jong-Il recently got nukes and now they are dismantling them after talking. Now imagine if we had bombed these countries instead.
Dulce bellum inexpertis
Could one of you guys please post the wire transfers from Iran to Al-Qaeda or other terrorist organizations?
Im sure since Iran is a state sponsor of terrorism, that someone can post a video on YouTube of Amedinjhad sitting down with Osama over a cup of tea right?
If you're referring to Iran's leader continually making threats against Israel and wanting them wiped off the map, well, you need only to look to the hundreds of thousands of Palestinian peoples that have been displaced from the land they have lived on for thousands of years, and have had countless civilians killed by Israel. I'd say that if you are going to call Iran a state sponsor of terrorism, you might just as well call Israel a state sponsor of terrorism as well.
When the British government had control of the America's, and we were fighting for our Independence in the 1770s, we called ourselves "Freedom Fighters," yet we used guerilla tactics, and the British government called us "Terrorists." Guerilla tactics were the only ones that could be used against a large nation with a standing army, we did not have the resources at the time to fight them head to head.
Our foreign policy has created this problem. We have had our nose in their business for years. Can anyone deny that we have had American troops on their holy land PRIOR to them launching large scale "terrorist" attacks against us?
If another country was occupying our lands, and trampling all over places which we thought of as holy or sacred or even just important to the American people, and we didnt have a standing army to fight their army, we would be employing the same tactics. IF they had a country and were able to declare war on us, all the civilians that were targeted in the attacks would only be considered "collateral damage" and not victims of terror. Or, ya know what at this point, with our governments hypocrisy, we might even call them victims of terror even if the nation had declared war on us.
Banned
People in the middle east have been fighting over these lands for over a thousand years. Zoroastrianism pre-dates and gave birth to many of the fundamentals that we see today in both Christianity and Islam. Lets keep one thing in mind, the Muslim religion was started in the 7th century. So it has been around for roughly 1400 years. Christianity was started in the 1st century, so it has been around for roughly 2000 years. Not to mention that the Old Testament dates back another 1400 years (remember the Israelites?). So if you would like to get technical, Christianity has been around for a longer period than Islam (which "borrows" many Christian passages in the Koran) and thus has an older claim to Israel. On a side note, Zoroastrianism was basically wiped out by the Persian conquest of the 7th century, which was caried out in the name of Islam. Western civilization was founded on Judeo Christian principles, one only needs to remember what B.C. and A.D. stand for.
B.C. = "before Christ". A.D. = "anno domini" which is Latin for "in the year of our Lord." I suppose that all of you P.C. people will be pushing for the eradication of these symbolic terms.....after you have saved us all from global warming. Then perhaps you will have the human timeline changed to B.G. and A.G. (Before Gore/After Gore).............At any given time in human history, some piece of land on the Earth was conquered and taken over by a more powerful people. So let's quit taking a small chunk out of human history with which to base your arguements.
Dulce bellum inexpertis
I dont disagree with that at all...But I do disagree with billions of dollars in aid going to Israel. I dont care about any qualms between Iran and Israel...In fact if they want to eradicate one anohter, far be it from me to tell them not to or to try and intervene. We didn't do anything about 1,000,000 Rawandans slaughtering each other with machedes, so why the **** do we care if Iran and Israel blow each others population to kingdom come. So long as there is no nuclear fallout that would make its way to the US in the air, I'd say happy shooting guys!!! It has absolutely no bearing on the US, and Im completely against any alliance with Israel, they would not be half as powerful today if we had not given them money&weapons, period. I'm against nation building, and I'm against our country sticking its nose into other countries affairs.People in the middle east have been fighting over these lands for over a thousand years. Zoroastrianism pre-dates and gave birth to many of the fundamentals that we see today in both Christianity and Islam. Lets keep one thing in mind, the Muslim religion was started in the 7th century. So it has been around for roughly 1400 years. Christianity was started in the 1st century, so it has been around for roughly 2000 years. Not to mention that the Old Testament dates back another 1400 years (remember the Israelites?). So if you would like to get technical, Christianity has been around for a longer period than Islam (which "borrows" many Christian passages in the Koran) and thus has an older claim to Israel. On a side note, Zoroastrianism was basically wiped out by the Persian conquest of the 7th century, which was caried out in the name of Islam. Western civilization was founded on Judeo Christian principles, one only needs to remember what B.C. and A.D. stand for.
B.C. = "before Christ". A.D. = "anno domini" which is Latin for "in the year of our Lord." I suppose that all of you P.C. people will be pushing for the eradication of these symbolic terms.....after you have saved us all from global warming. Then perhaps you will have the human timeline changed to B.G. and A.G. (Before Gore/After Gore).............
Answer this, do you disagree that if we were to pull all of our troops from the middle east, and stop desecrating these peoples 'holy grounds', that a large majority of the 'terrorist' attacks would stop on the US?
I do not think there will ever not be terrorists, because there will always be some idealogic religious zealout filled with hate looking to target someone. However, that is all that these groups have really asked us for, get off of their land, and stop enabling Israel to kill thousands of their civilian peoples.
Banned
Do you realize that we are constantly restraining Israel from attacking these countries all together? You have an issue with the US giving money to Israel, do you also have an issue with the US handing out cash to almost every nation in the world as well, or is your issue with Israel getting funds simply seeded in bigotry?
Dulce bellum inexpertis
Yes, I have a problem with the US handing money out all over the world. I am concerned about the 350,000,000 within the borders of the US, not the 5.6 billion people outside of its borders. I dont care if its Israel, Pakistan, European countries, whoever, I believe in taking care of the people within our borders first and foremost. It has nothing to do with 'bigotry.'
My only qualm with funding Israel is that it further provokes the 'terrorist' attacks against our country, that everyone in the country seems to be shaking in their boots about. Israel is a proxy of the US government, we all know the only point in being an ally with them is to have another foothold in the middle east. I think we should be able to give foreign aid to anyone we damn well please, and if someone has a problem with it they can piss off, but I'd prefer to not give foriegn aid at the expense of US civilian lives.
Withdrawl all troops from middle eastern holy land+Stop funding Israel= Terrorists have a huge wind taken out of their sail for reasons to attack the US.
Thats my logic...do you believe its flawed?
Retired: AR-Hall of Famer
For every country that gets nuclear weapons the risk of a world wide disaster increases. There was so many close calls betwen the states and USSR that is a miracle nothing happened. What is most frightening is that many of those close calls was because of errors in the equipment. Accidents could have lead to world wide destruction.
I dont want to se a new mini cold war betwen Israel and Iran. Itchy fingers on the red button and very short respons time means even a glitch in the computer can lead to a nuclear war.
Nuclear weapons should be gotten rid of completely. I realistic enough to realise USA, Russia, UK, France and China wont get rid of their nuclear weapons. But atleast those countries can make sure no one else gets them. The NPT has to be enforced. But the evidence has to be 100% reliable.
Associate Member
I can argue that the only reason that the close calls did not end up in full scale war was because of nuclear weapons and the fear of them. WWIII may have happened then and there if the US and USSR were not so conscious of the no-win outcome. A cold war is a hell of lot better than a real war any day.
"But atleast those countries can make sure no one else gets them. The NPT has to be enforced. But the evidence has to be 100% reliable"
You may feel all warm and fuzzy because the "good guys" have the nukes, but tell that to the unfortunate people who find themselves classified by the US as the "axis of evil" and see how comfortable they feel about that.
Retired: AR-Hall of Famer
The close calls exist because of the nukes. Without nukes there are no close calls. So your argument is pointless.
A conventional war atleast wont destroy the world like a nuclear war. It was pure luck that the cold war never turned into worldwide destruction. For a long time all that was needed was a false signal on a radar screen and a itchy trigger finger and everything would have been over. Like this incident
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norwegian_rocket_incident
Its not about good guys and bad guys. Its about minimising risk, its about making sure the world will not be destroyed because some stupid dictator pushes the wrong buttong. I dont think any country should have the power to annihilate the rest of the world no matter how "good" they are. All it takes is the wrong person at the wrong time and its all over. In a perfect would no country would have nukes, the world is never going to be perfect and the second best thing is to make sure nukes are keept to a few countries.
We cant keep beeing lucky forever.
Grade A Beef
Really really good points....as always.
Retired: AR-Hall of Famer
Then you have to agree that limiting the countries that have nuclear weapons is priority number one?
Well not realy, I mean I dont introduce that concept. I dont think the current nuclear weapon states are either "good or bad". I agree with you that the entire concept of good and bad is rather pointless, if thats what your saying that is.
I dont trust them to hold the power to determine the fate of the world. But atleast the US, Russia, China, UK and France has very rigorus safeguards ect when it comes to their nukes. They have been in the game for a long time and have (hopefully) weeded out most flaws in their systems. Things are pretty good betwen all those countries now aswell, nobody is worrying about a first strike from another of those countries.
China is and USSR was dictatorships but its very hard for a truly crazy person(well Stalin and Mao wasnt realy angels but not suicidal either) to get to the top in those countries because there are so many other powerfull people. Pakistan on the other hand is a total unknown, nobody knows who will be in power a few years from now. Iran seems more stable than Pakistan, but I trust religious dictators even less than communist dictators because religion can disable the entire concept of MAD. If one side isnt afraid of death then MAD is pointless.
The world need to say they cant! Simply because its to dangerous for the world as a whole if those countries get nuclear weapons.
I fully agree. The US and Russia should downsize their arsenals to a few hundred nukes as a first step. There is no need at all to have thousands of nukes, a few dozen is enough to totaly destroy all major cities of any large country.
The "megatons to megawatts" program was a good start but it needs to be continued with a program to start burning the huge stockpiles of weapons grade plutonium that both the US and Russia is sitting on. This needs to be adressed by starting a joint program to develop actinid burning reactors. Without the ability to burn the plutonium dismantling the weapons is rather pointless.
Anyway with the way things are now with Putin and Bush beeing equaly offensive assholes the chanses of more disarmament is slim. The US plans to place missile shields in europe basicly makes any disarmament impossible and the entire idea jepordize world safety.
Associate Member
Have to agree with you that it would be wonderful if there were no nukes (but then what about the B52's, ICBM's, gunships, tanks, suicide bombers, hijacked airliners, guns, knives, stones......). Never going to happen.
And I also agree with you that we will one day inevitably run out of luck.
You say "Its not about good and bad guys". Unfortunately you introduce the concept by defining a group that you feel is acceptable to have nukes - good, trustworthy people. Your logic as to who should not have nukes is based on a very loose and vague definition of "stupid dictator" - implying bad, non-trustworthy people. That is human nature, classify into good/bad - pain/pleasure.
Who you can trust and who you cannot is completely relative to which side of the fence you are sitting on. Your group of "good" countries that you trust with nukes is fine for you, but for many it is not. For many the US poses a major threat and they aspire to be able to stand up to them. To be equal. That is also a natural human aspiration. Who says they cant.
If the west was really serious about NPT they would lead by example. Then they would have the moral high-ground to insist on compliance with the NPT.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
