PDA

View Full Version : Iran Joins the Nuclear Club!



No-name
12-04-06, 06:29
I know this has some people worried. What do you think? Is this a cause of concern? (Anyone here from Iran?)

Thor
12-04-06, 13:32
Iran is a nation of it's own. It's going to want to develop nuclear-powered technology too. I think they should have been doing this decades ago. The US isn't a baby sitter for the world.

Dutch Baka
12-04-06, 14:49
I'm concerned about it, but what Thor says, Bush is not a baby sitter.

The U.N. should arrange this, and when I hear about BushHushHush Hush RUn his plans, I think... WHy

moffeltoff
12-04-06, 16:09
How come no ones concerned with the USA having nuclear weapons =)

Mike Cash
12-04-06, 16:16
How come no ones concerned with the USA having nuclear weapons =)

You really, seriously, sincerely have to ask that? Or was that a rhetorical question?

Maciamo
12-04-06, 16:20
I have the feeling that the international community has let Iran develop its nuclear programme so that they can find an excuse to isolate and punish it (e.g. Us-led invasion). Wait and see...

moffeltoff
13-04-06, 01:02
You really, seriously, sincerely have to ask that? Or was that a rhetorical question?

No not rethorical I was just beeing sarcastic because there are some simularities between Iran and the USA both have a guy ,who is totally nuts as head of state =)

Blututh
13-04-06, 06:48
Iran is a prime example of political figures using religion as a reason for making war. A fatwa here, an edict there... Historically, it's a great reason. No need for physical proof, and with a god on your side, how can you lose?

I am not comfortable with the knowledge that Iran is developing nuclear weapons. Even though their missiles cannot reach where I live, I don't think that Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, or any leader of any theocracy for that matter, is responsible enough to possess a weapon of such magnitude. If you believe that there's this invisible guy, who's everywhere, all the time, and watches everything that you do and remembers it so he can send you to this place where there's this guy Satan who tortures you forever, then you're a nutter, plain and simple.

Elizabeth van Kampen
13-04-06, 07:36
I just wonder; This nuclear business in Iran, is it warning direction Israel?
Israel is the country in the Middle East, that can always count on the USA.

Mahmoud Amahdinejad calls the Holocaust a lie, he wants Israel moving to Germany and Austria, he wants Israel out of his way, out of the Middle East.

Dutch Baka
13-04-06, 08:33
I just wonder; This nuclear business in Iran, is it warning direction Israel?
Israel is the country in the Middle East, that can always count on the USA.
Mahmoud Amahdinejad calls the Holocaust a lie, he wants Israel moving to Germany and Austria, he wants Israel out of his way, out of the Middle East.

He said he would Whipe away Israel, but if he would do it with a Nuke...


Maciamo, yes we will wait and see how the Bush administration can have their little war again... can they handle it? NO, because they can't even handle Iraq! So what does Bush say: "It is not up to me to clean the mess, that I will leave for the next president"

We world people say: Thank you unle bush for being such a nice coward. I agree with Chavez on some parts now:okashii:

nurizeko
13-04-06, 13:27
The iranian president has openly and un-ashamedly declared his will to see isreal destroyed, and has no concern for the lives of westerners as a whole.

This is one man i think has the real potential to use a nuclear weapon against another people without provokation (i.e. nukes flying at you).

The main problem with this issue im seeing is that people were such tools and douches and supported Bushess first war, clearly pointless and needless, that this douchy toolness is comming back to haunt us again because now their doing the opposite, Not supporting vital action to deal with a very REAL threat.

It actually knid of angers me that people will die in a nuclear vapourization because people cant tell the difference between a pointless war, and a military strike to disable the nuclear capabilities of a evil man, who like amny evil men, think a higher being is telling him to murder and slaughter innocent people.

Im not willing to take the chance iran is really caring soley about nuclear energy, not after the things the iranian president has said, and not at the risk of people dying to such a horrible disgusting weapon of mass murder.

I hope America absolutely flattens irans nuclear facilities to dust.

moffeltoff
13-04-06, 15:48
As if the US army had proved to have any respect for the lives of the people of the countrys they "liberated" Irak beeing the most recent excample =)
It doesnŽt matter if an elected president or a dictator treats people like ****.

Blututh
13-04-06, 17:46
I think that the Iraq war is pointless. But I would support the military option against Iran. Extensive bombing campaigns and naval blockades sound like a good option. I would even support the idea [not that it would ever be made public] of assassin teams being sent to kill Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. But I would support it on the condition that NO ground troops be deployed to maintain order. We should not be tere to rebuild the whole damn country, just to decimate their nuclear facilities. They have plenty of oil and natural gas, this "energy option" is just a bad cover for developing nuclear weapons, which is unavoidbable when any nuclear research is ongoing. Plus, why would he make such a BIG deal about them enriching uranium in their native facilities? To send a message..."We are on Allah's side, we will have nukes in short order, DO NOT F&$K WITH US."

Dutch Baka
13-04-06, 18:32
I think that the Iraq war is pointless. But I would support the military option against Iran. Extensive bombing campaigns and naval blockades sound like a good option. I would even support the idea [not that it would ever be made public] of assassin teams being sent to kill Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. But I would support it on the condition that NO ground troops be deployed to maintain order. We should not be tere to rebuild the whole damn country, just to decimate their nuclear facilities. They have plenty of oil and natural gas, this "energy option" is just a bad cover for developing nuclear weapons, which is unavoidbable when any nuclear research is ongoing. Plus, why would he make such a BIG deal about them enriching uranium in their native facilities? To send a message..."We are on Allah's side, we will have nukes in short order, DO NOT F&$K WITH US."

what are you talking about!

Blututh
13-04-06, 19:58
It was a bit of a rant, and I didn't have my contacts in and I just woke up... but no excuses!

I was speaking about how although Iran claims that they are enriching uranium for peaceful purposes, they still act as though they are researching a terrible weapon and are announcing their progress to the world.
They are putting their progress in the world press in order to do quite a bit of political posturing, just like how North Korea has stated many times about how "we have nukes and we're so bad so keep out or we'll go crazy and launch nukes at Tokyo and Seoul!".

They have such an abundance of fossil fuels, they could probably sell some oil in exchange for nuclear reactors or help in constructing power plants, as this would put the West at ease and would help Iran in it's quest for nuclear power significantly.

I was also speaking about how I would support a military option in dealing with Iran's enrichment facilities. I am perfectly fine with bombing their nuclear enrichment facilities to rubble, and would be ok with putting in an assassin team to execute their Head of State if the intended to use a nuclear weapon.

moffeltoff
13-04-06, 23:10
I think that the Iraq war is pointless. But I would support the military option against Iran. Extensive bombing campaigns and naval blockades sound like a good option. I would even support the idea [not that it would ever be made public] of assassin teams being sent to kill Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. But I would support it on the condition that NO ground troops be deployed to maintain order. We should not be tere to rebuild the whole damn country, just to decimate their nuclear facilities. They have plenty of oil and natural gas, this "energy option" is just a bad cover for developing nuclear weapons, which is unavoidbable when any nuclear research is ongoing. Plus, why would he make such a BIG deal about them enriching uranium in their native facilities? To send a message..."We are on Allah's side, we will have nukes in short order, DO NOT F&$K WITH US."
So how do the methods you want to youse differ from the methods used by terrorists =)
If American attacks I hope theyŽll have quite a few casualities so they wont choose the option of an armed intervention in the policy of other states so soon again =)
God bless America ;)

Mike Cash
14-04-06, 11:23
As if the US army had proved to have any respect for the lives of the people of the countrys they "liberated" Irak beeing the most recent excample =)
It doesnŽt matter if an elected president or a dictator treats people like ****.

I love it when Germans say stuff like that.

moffeltoff
14-04-06, 15:10
I love it when Germans say stuff like that.

Sorry but I wasnŽt born until 1989 and no my grandfather wasnŽt calles Adolf either but IŽll try real hard to try and fit into your racist stereotypical view of a German =)

mad pierrot
14-04-06, 16:22
Sorry but I wasnŽt born until 1989 and no my grandfather wasnŽt calles Adolf either but IŽll try real hard to try and fit into your racist stereotypical view of a German =)

Slooooow down here. Let's not let this get out of hand, lest a good thread gets locked for dumb reasons.






Btw, all this news just seems to be a bunch of saber-rattling and dick wagging to me. Oh yeah, didn't someone make a poll concerning a possible U.S. move against Iran before?

Mike Cash
14-04-06, 17:00
Sorry but I wasnŽt born until 1989 and no my grandfather wasnŽt calles Adolf either but IŽll try real hard to try and fit into your racist stereotypical view of a German =)

And we Americans are equally overjoyed to be shoehorned into your stereotyped view as well.

(Last time I checked, I was the same race as most Germans....)

Blututh
14-04-06, 17:01
How do the methods I would endorse differ from those of the terrorists? Well, other than that they would both use explosives... the similarites end there. I do not want my country bombing innocent civilians. I want the US to bomb MILITARY targets and nuclear enrichment facilities. There is a big difference between the tactics terrorists use and the ways secular states operate.

I just don't think any theocracy is responsible enough to possess nuclear technology, as any implementation of such technology would inevitibly lead to a nuclear weapon.

moffeltoff
14-04-06, 18:33
And we Americans are equally overjoyed to be shoehorned into your stereotyped view as well.
(Last time I checked, I was the same race as most Germans....)

I dont really care if anyone else from germany has a stereotypical view of americans and it doesnŽt change anything about your remark earlier.
And I know you feel superior to me but that still doesnŽt give you the right to discriminate me because of my nationality and I personally never said anything insulting to someone on this forum concerning his/her nationality.

Mike Cash
14-04-06, 18:37
And I know you feel superior to me but that still doesnŽt give you the right to discriminate me because of my nationality and I personally never said anything insulting to someone on this forum concerning his/her nationality.

In what way have I discriminated against you and in what way have I shown that I feel myself superior?

moffeltoff
14-04-06, 18:39
How do the methods I would endorse differ from those of the terrorists? Well, other than that they would both use explosives... the similarites end there. I do not want my country bombing innocent civilians. I want the US to bomb MILITARY targets and nuclear enrichment facilities. There is a big difference between the tactics terrorists use and the ways secular states operate.

I just don't think any theocracy is responsible enough to possess nuclear technology, as any implementation of such technology would inevitibly lead to a nuclear weapon.

So you really believe ,that there wont be any civilian casualties as the result of bombimg these targets?
Has the thought ever occured ,that some of these targets are in situated in quite densely populated areas to make it more difficult to be hit by bombs and over shells?
No gouverment is responsibul enough to handle nuclear weapons.

moffeltoff
14-04-06, 18:41
In what way have I discriminated against you and in what way have I shown that I feel myself superior?

Remember

"I love it when Germans say stuff like that" :cool:

mad pierrot
14-04-06, 18:56
WARNING!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


-Misunderstanding Alert-

Proceed with caution.

Mike Cash
14-04-06, 19:12
Remember
"I love it when Germans say stuff like that" :cool:

An ability to recognize irony doesn't equal an attitude of superiority.

Blututh
14-04-06, 19:39
Ok gentlemen please move this feud to another thread. I appreciate it.

I never ONCE said that there would be no civilian casualties from bombing. However, taking into account the accuracy and controlablitiy of today's bombs, the amount of civilian casualties could possibly be reduced to zero [think bombing when everyone there has gone to their homes?]. I would endorse bombing as a last resort, but the US's series of "ultimatums" has born no fruit. Iran is determined to defy the UN, the Security Council [which is expected to deliver a vote and statement in the next week or two], and the global community by continuing to steam ahead in their enrichment activities.

nurizeko
15-04-06, 11:01
I'm willing to see a few iranians dead to stop the thousands upon thousands in a nuclear attack.

Sorry, i just cant play touchy-feely "FEEEED THEEE WOOOORRRLLLDDD" song, every life is precious game when were potentially playing with nuclear fire.

Persephone
16-04-06, 19:38
I dont personally think that the US would ho as far as to attack/invade Iran..
Their troops are already in both Iraq & Afghanistan.. and I reckon that they are pretty devastated already.
Iraq's invasion was difficult when the people were against the government + was under heavy sanctions for years..
Iran is in much better status atm.. people are supporting the government, they've got some weapons.. and they are quite brainwashed by their president..
Things could get pretty nasty ..
I'd say that sanctions could be pretty effective .. although that would harm the civilians pretty badly .. and they are already suffering.
It's all about whether the president would be affected by the threats and the sanctions or not really ..

zeroyon
17-04-06, 08:40
I think that most americans should be concerned with Iran obtaining nuclear weapons. Especially since after their prayers on sunday, most of the population goes out in the streets shouting "death to america" and burns US flags. This is partly because most of the people of Iran think that Iran should be the most powerful and infulential country in the world, and see america as a country that is holding Iran back (and other reasons of course).

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is a real nutter though, calling for destruction of Israel and the USA, and calling the holocaust a lie. He says he wants to and will "wipe Israel off the map", but last time I checked, Israel has around 300 nuclear weapons, and, at least currently, Iran has zero. If Iran tries to "wipe Israel off the map", then Israel will most likely return the favor 300 times over to Iran it it were attacked with nuclear weapons.

nhk9
21-04-06, 22:52
The iranian president has openly and un-ashamedly declared his will to see isreal destroyed, and has no concern for the lives of westerners as a whole.
This is one man i think has the real potential to use a nuclear weapon against another people without provokation (i.e. nukes flying at you).
The main problem with this issue im seeing is that people were such tools and douches and supported Bushess first war, clearly pointless and needless, that this douchy toolness is comming back to haunt us again because now their doing the opposite, Not supporting vital action to deal with a very REAL threat.
It actually knid of angers me that people will die in a nuclear vapourization because people cant tell the difference between a pointless war, and a military strike to disable the nuclear capabilities of a evil man, who like amny evil men, think a higher being is telling him to murder and slaughter innocent people.

Im not willing to take the chance iran is really caring soley about nuclear energy, not after the things the iranian president has said, and not at the risk of people dying to such a horrible disgusting weapon of mass murder.
I hope America absolutely flattens irans nuclear facilities to dust.

Mahmoud ahmadinejad the iranian president, is probably wanting to make the weapons to further enhance his bargaining chips with israel and the US. I don't forsee him using it against israel, since he most definitely knows that israel has a greater nuclear stockpile (and more advanced nuclear technology) than his nation. The situation would be like the indian-pakistani relationship, where the nash equilibrium would be reached. On one side, a nuclear weapon can basically destroy half of israel, but then on the otherside, the 100+ warheads that israel has can easily destroy the entire middle east and wreck heavy damage to persia.

Right now it seems that the islamic world is always at the mercy of israel simply because israel has a very strong military. they wanted to change the balance of power, and they see that building the nuclear weapons is the quickest mean in achieving that.