Page 1 of 14 12345611 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 277
  1.    #1  
    The Old Iran thread covers from the time that Iran was discovered they had been hiding a nuclear program for the past 20 years up until they were brought to the UN for noncompliance with dealing with their nuke ambitions. To view what has taken place up to this point browse the following thread:

    Iran......


    This thread will now cover from the point they have been referred to the UN with the strong possibilities of sanctions being initiated onward.

    Are they really a threat, are they a master Manipulator or other nations and the UN system, or simply seeking Peaceful power for electricity?
  2.    #2  
    Here is a good article about "things we now know we don't know about Iran"

    Iran: A Rummy Guide


    It is only just two days since the first UN meeting took place and Iran has already had a very interesting and troubling response. Here are just some of the stuff in the last 24 -48 hours:

    Iran braces for confrontation on uranium

    Rice: Iran ‘playing games’ with nuke deadlines

    Defiant Iran Warns Against U.N. Sanctions
  3. #3  
    I have not studied this in depth and do not have a strong opinion either way. I will say that it bugs me that the government and press makes such a big story of this and ignores the issue of China having nukes. Is the issue that a non-peaceful, non-democratic country who might be hostile to their neighbors might have WMDs? If so, our elected officials should be instituting sanctions to China rather than cozying up to them and what of the numerous times where we've been "friends" to other oppressive regimes (see Iraq/Hussein relationship of the past)?

    Again, I'm not saying that we *shouldn't* be worried about Iran possibly getting nukes, just that the double-standards bother me.
    Now THIS is the future of smartphones.
  4.    #4  
    It is not so much as a double standard, as in your scenario NK is also included. The difference is stopping a country like that BEFORE they get nukes, vs how you are able to handle them once they have nukes pointed at you.

    Edit: For example, right now Iran does not have a nuke, but they do have an extented missile system that, thanks to North Korea setting Iran up, can deliver one to nearly every country in the EU, Asia, Middle East, Western & Central Africa, etc.... Here is a graphic of their current ranges:



    It is about stopping it BEFORE this becomes a reality that we have to face.
    Last edited by HobbesIsReal; 05/01/2006 at 01:01 AM.
  5. #5  
    I think Iran wants nukes for its own protection. It make also use it for other means (i.e. power).
    Palm III-->Palm IIIxe-->Palm 505-->Samsung i300-->Treo 600-->PPC 6600-->Treo 650-->Treo 700wx-->BB Pearl--> BB Curve

  6. #6  
    If I lived in Iran, I would want the nukes. Since I live in the US, I don't want any more countries to get nukes.
    Palm V-->Visor Deluxe-->Visor Prism-->Visorphone-->Treo 180-->Treo 600-->Treo 650 on Sprint-->Treo 700p-->Centro-->Diamond-->Pre-->HTC EVO 4g???!
  7. #7  
    Quote Originally Posted by heberman
    If I lived in Iran, I would want the nukes. Since I live in the US, I don't want any more countries to get nukes.
    If I lived in Iran, and I heard George Bush give a speech where he listed me in the "Axis of Evil". Then he invaded the country to my left which was the first on the list, and then literally made plans to drop the bomb on me. I would want the nukes as well.

    But see, thats the funny thing about nukes, everybody want them "for defensive purposes", but when you think about it, thermonuclear devices work really well for offense, not so good for defense.

    But you are right, nobody wants any more countries to get nukes. Imagine however if Pakistan said to India.... "we want you to stop making nukes, and if not, we will nuke you". The irony is almost too thick to be true, but i have heard it from others.
    Quote Originally Posted by dstraus
    If that Iranian nut job so much as hints at using a nuclear device, we turn Iran into a glow in the dark glass factory.
    Quote Originally Posted by GWBush
    "all options are on the table"
    Last edited by theBlaze74; 04/30/2006 at 11:05 PM.
  8.    #8  
    Blaze, I think there is a lot truth in your statement......but I still don't want the number one listed active terrorist state to get an arsenal of nukes.

    EDIT: Well I agreed with your statement more before you edited after I made my comments.

    Again there is a BIG difference with dealing with a country that already has nuke vs a country at the top of the terrorist sponsor list that is still trying to get them, and has yet to achieve that goal.......especially when they already advanced missile deployment capabilities as I mentioned above.
    Last edited by HobbesIsReal; 05/01/2006 at 01:00 AM.
  9. #9  
    Even if we could come up with some 'objective' way of deciding who should have nukes and who should not...how do you stop other countries from selling that product or technology?
    Palm III-->Palm IIIxe-->Palm 505-->Samsung i300-->Treo 600-->PPC 6600-->Treo 650-->Treo 700wx-->BB Pearl--> BB Curve

  10. #10  
    Quote Originally Posted by theBlaze74
    If I lived in Iran, and I heard George Bush give a speech where he listed me in the "Axis of Evil". Then he invaded the country to my left which was the first on the list, and then literally made plans to drop the bomb on me. I would want the nukes as well.

    But see, thats the funny thing about nukes, everybody want them "for defensive purposes", but when you think about it, thermonuclear devices work really well for offense, not so good for defense.

    But you are right, nobody wants any more countries to get nukes. Imagine however if Pakistan said to India.... "we want you to stop making nukes, and if not, we will nuke you". The irony is almost too thick to be true, but i have heard it from others.
    Its gettin really deep and smelly in here.

    1) Even if Bush was actively planning on using nukes--which you imply even in the absence of facts--was it before or after Iran started its nuclear program?

    2) Your analogy with India and Pakistan is bogus since a) they both have nukes and b) we never threatened to nuke Iran.
  11. TomUps's Avatar
    Posts
    22 Posts
    Global Posts
    28 Global Posts
    #11  
    If I lived in Iran, and I heard George Bush give a speech where he listed me in the "Axis of Evil". Then he invaded the country to my left which was the first on the list, and then literally made plans to drop the bomb on me. I would want the nukes as well.

    If I lived in a country that Iran has said it will wipe off the face of the earth if it had nukes, I would be very concerned and would do just about anything to keep it from getting them.
  12. #12  
    Quote Originally Posted by hoovs
    Its gettin really deep and smelly in here.

    1) Even if Bush was actively planning on using nukes--which you imply even in the absence of facts--was it before or after Iran started its nuclear program?
    The fact that you didnt read it doesnt make it go away. The administration has not denied it, and in fact responded with, "all options are on the table".
    Quote Originally Posted by hoovs
    2) Your analogy with India and Pakistan is bogus since a) they both have nukes and b) we never threatened to nuke Iran.
    1.)Your attempt to question my integrity by using the word Bogus, calls in to question your own character.

    2.) Again you are attempting to draw attention away from the substance of the argument. If you dont like the choice of Nations I used in my analogy, then choose any 2 you like. North Korea threatening to nuke Japan if they dont stop persuing nukes. Be creative. The point is the arrogance, and contradiction apparent in the stance.

    3.) Again, you can have an opinion that what has come out of the white house does not constitute threats, but you forget that your opinions are not fact.
  13. #13  
    Quote Originally Posted by HobbesIsReal
    Again there is a BIG difference with dealing with a country that already has nuke vs a country at the top of the terrorist sponsor list that is still trying to get them, and has yet to achieve that goal.......especially when they already advanced missile deployment capabilities as I mentioned above.
    Of course there is, I am simply pointing out the obvious Irony inherent in nuking a country for trying to get nukes.
  14. #14  
    Quote Originally Posted by theBlaze74
    ...The irony is almost too thick to be true, but i have heard it from others.
    Unfortunately, its the BS you've been spreading, and not the irony, that is getting too thick to be true. I figured that the old "glow in the dark glass factory" quote would stick in your craw, and I was so right. The effectiveness of quick decisive action shouldn't be underestimated. I'm sure you are unalterably opposed to my jingoistic bent, as much as I am of your left wing diatribe. That's a given. Just tell me WHERE and WHEN appeasement has ever worked in history to back down a rogue state? Just one little example please.

    And in an attempt to carry this discussion further OT (that's a non sequitur in an OT thread, isn't it), where is all the moral outrage over Darfur? There's a classic example of appeasement (UN, NATO) combined with naked economic self-interest (France and China's sudanese oil spigot), leading to a TON of semi-tough talk leading to years of genocide because the U.S. is already militarily maxed out on the war on terror.

    Your vaunted U.N. strongly condemns the United States for human rights violations at Abu Graib and Gitmo, but is impotent to stop the slaughter of innocent women and children in Africa....hmmmmm....another heaping plate of strong talk and platitudes to go, please....
    Last edited by dstrauss; 05/01/2006 at 11:25 AM.
    Remember, the "P" in PDA stands for personal.
    If it works for you, it is "P"erfect.
  15. #15  
    I think it's hilarious that Iran needs nuclear power. I think there are some fossil fuel reserves somewhere around there...
  16. #16  
    Quote Originally Posted by KRamsauer
    I think it's hilarious that Iran needs nuclear power. I think there are some fossil fuel reserves somewhere around there...
    Hidden under the uranium stockpile no doubt...
    Remember, the "P" in PDA stands for personal.
    If it works for you, it is "P"erfect.
  17. #17  
    Quote Originally Posted by KRamsauer
    I think it's hilarious that Iran needs nuclear power. I think there are some fossil fuel reserves somewhere around there...
    Another thought, now that we are past 12:16 EDT, perhaps BlazerBoy will return from the rally and answer your question for us...
    Remember, the "P" in PDA stands for personal.
    If it works for you, it is "P"erfect.
  18. #18  
    Quote Originally Posted by KRamsauer
    I think it's hilarious that Iran needs nuclear power. I think there are some fossil fuel reserves somewhere around there...
    Is nuclear power the reason WE developed nukes?
  19. #19  
    Quote Originally Posted by theBlaze74
    Is nuclear power the reason WE developed nukes?
    You just agreed with me. We didn't develop nuclear weapons for power, but neither did we say so. If Iran want to be honest, I will welcome there efforts toward honesty (though not that efforts toward weaponization). But it is borderline comedy to hear them say they are interested in nuclear power but not nuclear weapons.
  20. #20  
    Quote Originally Posted by theBlaze74
    Is nuclear power the reason WE developed nukes?
    We never pretended anything but weaponry at first (energy was an afterthought) - but Iran is wearing a mighty thin veil on this one (Victoria's secret has nothing on them).
    Remember, the "P" in PDA stands for personal.
    If it works for you, it is "P"erfect.
Page 1 of 14 12345611 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions