Iran: A Nuclear Power? (1 Viewer)

[Thales750]

That would make more sense i suppose. I still want to see the evidence they are funding terrorist groups to the amounts of "hundreds of millions".

Seeing as how all the British folks here, believe our news is censored, I limited the Google search to BBC

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6179085.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6112036.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/7747187.stm
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/2520125/posts

 

[Thales750]

Hezbollah aren't Iranian they are Lebanese

But the funding for their terrorist activities comes from Iran.

 

[chergh]

Seeing as how all the British folks here, believe our news is censored, I limited the Google search to BBC

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6179085.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6112036.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/7747187.stm
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/2520125/posts

I see nothing in your links that show Hezbollah are funding terrorists.

 

[chergh]

But the funding for their terrorist activities comes from Iran.

Hezbollah aren't terrorists.

 

[Thales750]

Hezbollah aren't terrorists.

That is a belief, not a fact.

Or maybe a twist, certainly there are terrorist within Hezbollah.

I'm in the antiterrorist business, I am no longer naive to the breeding grounds for terrorism.

Most people have no concept of the money flowing into terrorist organizations, it's billions (American billions) and most of it comes from illegal drug trafficking.

But we are way off topic. The topic is a nuclear Iran.

There is no other justification needed to stop the government there than to exclude them from the nuclear arms club.

At whatever cost.

 

[chergh]

That is a belief, not a fact.

Or maybe a twist, certainly there are terrorist within Hezbollah.

I'm in the antiterrorist business, I am no longer naive to the breeding grounds for terrorism.

Most people have no concept of the money flowing into terrorist organizations, it's billions (American billions) and most of it comes from illegal drug trafficking.

But we are way off topic. The topic is a nuclear Iran.

There is no other justification needed to stop the government there than to exclude them from the nuclear arms club.

At whatever cost.

Though if you're representative of the sort of person in the anti-terrorist business my money's on the terrorists.

 

[Thales750]

Though if you're representative of the sort of person in the anti-terrorist business my money's on the terrorists.

Resorting to insults?
Even your emotions are protected by the men and women that give their lives for freedom.
Fortunately for rest of the free world, most of the people who are tasked with dealing with terrorist; kill them.
Once again, moot.
So along the lines of demonstrating your vastly superior intelligence; what do you think would be the end result of a Nuclear Iran?

 

[chergh]

Even your emotions are protected by the men and women that give their lives for freedom.

Lol give their lives for haliburton is more like it.

Well so far only one country has massacred civilians by using a nuclear weapon so they would probably join that club.

 

[Thales750]

Lol give their lives for haliburton is more like it.

Well so far only one country has massacred civilians by using a nuclear weapon so they would probably join that club.

I would have expected a much more articulate answer from such a scholar as yourself.

Calling me names and answering with 65 year old rhetoric is hardly a proper retort.
Give it another shot, we’re all patient here.

 

[chergh]

I would have expected a much more articulate answer from such a scholar as yourself.

Calling me names and answering with 65 year old rhetoric is hardly a proper retort.
Give it another shot, we’re all patient here.

It's a perfectly appropriate response to your statements, why you expect an articulate response to your nonsense I am unsure.

Your favoured course of action is exactly what breeds terrorists. Terrorists do not need vast resources or numbers of troops. Its is the bombing and killing of innocent civilians that gives credibility to the terrorists cause and helps them to recruit. Any unprovoked attack on Iran would strengthen the terrorist cause and likely result in an increase to the threat of terrorism to the west.

If you attack Iran it could trigger a much larger set of events as well. The UN security council are very unlikely to approve an attack against Iran and what Russia's and China's reaction to an attack not approved would be is unknown.

What do I think the end result of a nuclear Iran? I don't see any particular evidence that they would use it unprovoked, they know they would be destroyed it they did. It's by no means desirable to have a nuclear Iran but I don't think there would be an immediate threat.

Given Ahmadinejad is having a bad time with strikes, recession, open criticism, protests etc., its unlikely Iran have enough material to make a bomb currently, they have not successfully tested a device yet, the UN wouldn't approve a pre-emptive attack yet and the end result is likely to result in increased hostility to the west why would anyone think now is a good time to attack Iran.

 

[ChipperT]

Chergh,
I am an American and for the most part I agree with your assessment of the situation. Everything except your belief that Iran does not presently have the resources to build a bomb and would not use it unprevoked if they did.

A pre-emptive strike at this time would be foolhardy in the extreme. There is no doubt in my mind about that. But everything short of that needs to be done to try to eliminate the possibility of Iran (or any other country at this point) from joining the nuclear community. That would include "stable" countries. Why? Because the more nuclear weapons out there, the greater the chance that they will be used.

I lived the days of MAD. I worked at SAC HQ and worked in the underground command post, watching war simulations and the destruction of the world. I still get nightmares. Right now we have pulled back a bit from the brink and I do not want the meager progress we have made in this to be threatened, especially from a reactionary third world country such as Iran. Iran is fortunate in that their leadership, while religious zealots who spew lots of hot rhetoric, seem to be mostly sane. Not the case in North Korea at all. A 5th world nation tettering on the brink of starvation and collapse, with a totally irrational leader who has several nukes at his disposal. Yes, if we can stop Iran from building Da Bomb, we need to do so. If we need to strike pre-emptively and decisively in North Korea with a certainty of eliminating those bombs (not a chance) then we need to do so there as well.

It is not a question of terrorism, religion or anything else as it is a question of attempting to assure the survival of the human race. The stakes cannot be higher for us.

 

[Lightwave]

Resorting to unilateral aggressive action to impose an opinion on someone else seems a lot like imperialism or crusading. Which to my mind has had very mixed results.

I would be inclined not to invade and attempt some kind of dominance through economic power. MAD kept the peace but it was economic wealth that eventually won the stand off. Especially in Russia where they eventually were no longer able to compete.

Flood the place with Hollywood Films, Maccie D's, the internet and yes even something useful like good education facilities.

Damn site cheaper than building aircraft carriers and nuclear bombs...

 

[dan-cat]

Flood the place with Hollywood Films, Maccie D's, the internet and yes even something useful like good education facilities.

Victory by High Fructose Corn Syrup. I like it.

 

[dan-cat]

It's amazing that people are still pushing the WMD fear factor angle even after the Iraq fiasco. When do you ever learn?

 

[ChipperT]

Flood the place with Hollywood Films, Maccie D's, the internet and yes even something useful like good education facilities.

Damn site cheaper than building aircraft carriers and nuclear bombs...

Broadcast Lady GaGa on all frequencies 24 hours a day, 7 days a week until they capitulate. That'll do it.

 

[ChipperT]

It's amazing that people are still pushing the WMD fear factor angle even after the Iraq fiasco. When do you ever learn?

I am totally afraid of WMDs, especially those disguised as fast food.

 

[Thales750]

Ever notice the people that don't have a clue, get the angriest when confronted with knowledge?


http://terrorism.about.com/od/iran/p/Iran2.htm


Ignorence is bliss, till it drops a nuke on your head.

 

[chergh]

Ever notice the people that don't have a clue, get the angriest when confronted with knowledge?


http://terrorism.about.com/od/iran/p/Iran2.htm


Ignorence is bliss, till it drops a nuke on your head.

Sorry, what point are you trying to make with that article?

 

[Vassago]

Let's stop with the personal insults.

 

[Thales750]

Let's stop with the personal insults.

Vass, as you are well aware, I rarely make arguments personal.

I’m not going to apologies Vass; I was the recipient of an angry response.

When faced with facts, some people refuse to acknowledge them and then get angry. Prior to this discussion I thought that was primarily a conservative over reactive personality trait, now I see that ultra liberals can have the same mentality.

One of the most limiting characteristic of the human condition is to believe that all of our assumptions are truths.

There is a vast amount of proof that the Iranians are funding terrorism, both within and without the intelligence community, vehement denial will not change that. You know, on this very forum, Americans are often accused of getting only filtered news, this entire conversation is evidence that this is not purely an American phenomenon.

Unless you live within the range of Iranian missiles, how could you think that your opinion has any bearing on whether or not more nuclear proliferation should be allowed to foster?

Why should any international police force exist, if not for limiting the spread of nuclear weapons?

What power should be given to international police organizations? Should we limit all responses to purely begging and pleading? If a person moved into your neighborhood and starting waving his gun at everyone spouting about how he has the right to do this and will shoot anyone the tries to take it away, what is the most force that should be allowed to be deployed?

I have presented an extreme point of view to make a point, what is the function of the international communitys, if we allow the spread of nuclear weapons

If, in the next few years, Iran launches a small ground hugging missile into the southern part of Europe, where will all the ultra liberals hide?

Peace, unfortunately, is held by strength.