0
Skyrad

Why shouldn't Iran have the Bomb?

Recommended Posts

Really, why should Iran not have a Nuke? Who are they going to use it on? Israel? Hardly, they can't use it on Israel without killing their Palestinian allies or the Arab countries surrounding them.
Iran has not attacked another nation in 3,000 years. It doesn't have a delivery system to attack the UK or USA but even if they did why would they use it, after all they have no precedence for starting war on others (unlike the aforementioned countries) and even if they did manage to set of a bomb on our territory they would be nuked out of existence. So why not let them have a bomb?
When an author is too meticulous about his style, you may presume that his mind is frivolous and his content flimsy.
Lucius Annaeus Seneca

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
They should be allowed to have a nuke ...as long as they are prepared to accept the responsibilities and consequences of that decision.

They don't care about the Palestinians (or any other Arabs for that matter) ...only the eradication of Jews and Israel. They have openly stated that goal, BTW.

Iran is attacking Israel right now through their surrogates who are supported and supplied by Iran and exist only for the purpose of Israel's destruction. That purpose is clearly stated in their own charters.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote


Iran is attacking Israel right now through their surrogates who are supported and supplied by Iran and exist only for the purpose of Israel's destruction. That purpose is clearly stated in their own charters.



Skyrad shouldn't torpedo his own thesis with such a blatant lie. It encourages me to ignore what is a fair question overall.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Really, why should Iran not have a Nuke? Who are they going to use it on? Israel? Hardly, they can't use it on Israel without killing their Palestinian allies or the Arab countries surrounding them.
Iran has not attacked another nation in 3,000 years. It doesn't have a delivery system to attack the UK or USA but even if they did why would they use it, after all they have no precedence for starting war on others (unlike the aforementioned countries) and even if they did manage to set of a bomb on our territory they would be nuked out of existence. So why not let them have a bomb?



I would ask about what percentage of their governing body and military wish to be martyrs. It seems that they have had a desire to fast track a whole segment of their population to paradise[:/]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17053335/ns/world_news-mideast_n_africa/t/study-iranian-textbooks-indoctrinate-students/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Never trust a man who claims to speak to god.
Never entrust a armed man who claims to be doing god's work here on earth.

Ever try to argue with a passionately religious guy who claims to have an inside track on the thinking of the all mighty? Yeah well try doing it with a guy who has the ability to vaporize the world.

Thanks but no thanks! I would much rather show up at the Chicks Rock Boogie wearing a t shirt that reads "Yes I am THE SHAH and Your THIGHS are thick." Than to give Iminneedofajacket a single nuke!
Life through good thoughts, good words, and good deeds is necessary to ensure happiness and to keep chaos at bay.

The only thing that falls from the sky is birdshit and fools!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
They shouldn't have it because...oh, FUCK YOU! :)
You are making too much sense!

P.S.: In reality, no country should have nuclear weapons! Not Israel (Jews), not Iran (Muslims), not the US (Evangelical extremists), and not even India (enlightened Hindus).

Quote

Really, why should Iran not have a Nuke? Who are they going to use it on? Israel? Hardly, they can't use it on Israel without killing their Palestinian allies or the Arab countries surrounding them.
Iran has not attacked another nation in 3,000 years. It doesn't have a delivery system to attack the UK or USA but even if they did why would they use it, after all they have no precedence for starting war on others (unlike the aforementioned countries) and even if they did manage to set of a bomb on our territory they would be nuked out of existence. So why not let them have a bomb?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Because I believe we should be working toward a world where NO COUNTRY has the bomb.


The existance of the bomb has substantially reduced the number of dead people from large, world wide, wars !

A renegade country like Iran, which has stated the desire to wipe out Israel, cannot be allowed to have nuclear weapons. They would threaten and extort, at the very least, even if they did not use it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote

Because I believe we should be working toward a world where NO COUNTRY has the bomb.


The existance of the bomb has substantially reduced the number of dead people from large, world wide, wars !

A renegade country like Iran, which has stated the desire to wipe out Israel, cannot be allowed to have nuclear weapons. They would threaten and extort, at the very least, even if they did not use it.



IMO Should they get it, they WILL use it

Reason enough
"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Really, why should Iran not have a Nuke?



If they want to establish a nuclear program, I think they should be allowed to as long as they know we'll know hours ahead of time before they intend to launch, then we can send them all to hell. Besides they already have a nuclear program. I saw on the news this morning they blew up a signifigant portion of heir own development facilities. DMFKR's.
-Richard-
"You're Holding The Rope And I'm Taking The Fall"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote

Really, why should Iran not have a Nuke?



If they want to establish a nuclear program, I think they should be allowed to as long as they know we'll know hours ahead of time before they intend to launch, then we can send them all to hell. Besides they already have a nuclear program. I saw on the news this morning they blew up a signifigant portion of heir own development facilities. DMFKR's.



Based on what experts i have read have said about the explosions, I do not think that what happened there was an accident

I dont know

but what they are saying makes sense
"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

They should be allowed to have a nuke ...as long as they are prepared to accept the responsibilities and consequences of that decision.

They don't care about the Palestinians (or any other Arabs for that matter) ...only the eradication of Jews and Israel. They have openly stated that goal, BTW.

Iran is attacking Israel right now through their surrogates who are supported and supplied by Iran and exist only for the purpose of Israel's destruction. That purpose is clearly stated in their own charters.



The surrogates you describe are Palestinians, HAMAS and Hisbollah are both supported by Iran. As for your belief about their stated aims you are incorrect. The quote has been twisted and distorted and simply repeated for propergander purposes by the right wing in the USA and UK. For a start he was quoting a quote from Ayatollah Khomeini not using his own words. Secondly what he said in Farsi is

'Imam ghoft een rezhim-e ishghalgar-e qods bayad az safheh-ye ruzgar mahv shavad.'

verbatim translation is as follows:
'Imam (Khomeini) ghoft (said) een (this) rezhim-e (regime) ishghalgar-e (occupying) qods (Jerusalem) bayad (must) az safheh-ye ruzgar (from page of time) mahv shavad (vanish from)'

There is a big difference between the government of Israel and the Jewish people. And the Israeli government changes every four years anyway. He said nothing about eradicating the Jews or wiping them from the face of the Earth which is what lazy and malevolent journalists and politicians regularly ascribe to him. The Farsi word for map is nagsheh, you can see for yourself that it is not used in his quote anywhere.
It also interesting to note that Iran has circa 35,000 Jews living in Iran and are recognised as a religious minority by the government of Iran, indeed they even have an allocated seat in the Iranian Parliament. The current Jewish representative in the Iranian parliament is Ciamak Moresadegh. Hardly the act of a government who as you put it have the goal of eradication of the Jews.

Tehran alone has eleven functioning Synagogues (There are 25 in the whole of Iran) many of which have Hebrew schools attached. There is also at least two Kosher restaurants in Tehran and a large Jewish library. The largest charity hospital (one of only 4 Jewish charity hospitals in the world) in Iran is the 'Dr. Sapir Jewish Hospital' which treats Muslims and Jews alike, in alignment with the Iranian constitution in which it states that Muslims and Jews are equal in Iranian law. One notable financial donor to the hospital is Ahmadinejad. There are also several Kosher butcher shops in Tehran.

While I'm no fan of the Iranian government it is important to be clear about the facts of the matter.
When an author is too meticulous about his style, you may presume that his mind is frivolous and his content flimsy.
Lucius Annaeus Seneca

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote


Iran is attacking Israel right now through their surrogates who are supported and supplied by Iran and exist only for the purpose of Israel's destruction. That purpose is clearly stated in their own charters.



Skyrad shouldn't torpedo his own thesis with such a blatant lie. It encourages me to ignore what is a fair question overall.



There is no lie, Americans funded the IRA, Libya gave them bases, training, weapons and explosives but the British government was attacked by the IRA. Israel is attacked by Hamas and Hisbollah not by Iran.
When an author is too meticulous about his style, you may presume that his mind is frivolous and his content flimsy.
Lucius Annaeus Seneca

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote


Never trust a man who claims to speak to god.
Never entrust a armed man who claims to be doing god's work here on earth.

Ever try to argue with a passionately religious guy who claims to have an inside track on the thinking of the all mighty? Yeah well try doing it with a guy who has the ability to vaporize the world.



Do you mean this guy?
http://tinyurl.com/6e9ao4

or this guy?

http://tinyurl.com/9n9lk6
Hmm... Maybe you have a point.

But as you well know Ahmadinejad is not Iran.
When an author is too meticulous about his style, you may presume that his mind is frivolous and his content flimsy.
Lucius Annaeus Seneca

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote

Because I believe we should be working toward a world where NO COUNTRY has the bomb.


The existance of the bomb has substantially reduced the number of dead people from large, world wide, wars !

A renegade country like Iran, which has stated the desire to wipe out Israel, cannot be allowed to have nuclear weapons. They would threaten and extort, at the very least, even if they did not use it.



With what rational do you use to describe Iran as a renegade country? Because they have breached UN resolutions? Israel has breached many more yet they have many bombs? They've not started a war with anyone for 3,000 years the USA has started a war in the last decade and killed hundreds of thousands? So what makes Iran in your eyes a renegade country?
When an author is too meticulous about his style, you may presume that his mind is frivolous and his content flimsy.
Lucius Annaeus Seneca

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Because I believe we should be working toward a world where NO COUNTRY has the bomb.



Whether you like it or not, the think that keeps the sky mushroom cloud free is the fact the nuclear powers are all pointing their nuclear guns at each others heads. Mutual Assured Destruction isn't very idealistic, but apparently it works. Yeah, we should be working towards a nuke-free world, but I wouldn't hope to much for it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Because they are governed by lunatics.



Quote

and we're not?



We can argue about that, but I wouldn't like to see Nukes in the hands of people who essentially think that dead is a great thing and extinction events are the way to create paradise. I don't really make a difference between people who think Jesus will come back on a mushroom cloud, vaporizing London will get them x virgins or that humans suck and we should return the world to other animals.

In short, suicidal lunatics.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1) They may pass a bomb to a proxy terror group or make use of state agents masquerading as the same.

2) They may loose control of them to terrorist activity (by accident or design)

3) Command and control systems are unlikely to be sufficient protection against a rogue general or government branch or group.

4) There is a serious risk of internal insurrection/civil war/revolution in Iran in the coming years. During which time, there is a serious risk of the loss of control over them to terror groups/other factions. (For this reason I also have serious concerns re Pakistan having nukes).

5) The current regime may not be quite nutty enough to use them (not that far off though) but the next regime may well be. Imagine if the extreme right wing religious types took over by force or hell, its even possible they could be voted in. They’re not exactly far from central power as it is. Imagine an Iranian Taliban with nukes.

6) They are highly likely to at least threaten their use in attempts to extort their neighbours leading to significant instability in the region.

7) They do have delivery devices capable of hitting US/UK etc. Just stick the thing on a boat and sail it up the Thames / Hudson. Simples. Potentially even deniable or at least deniable enough in the short term to frustrate an immediate response or cast doubt on any response sufficient to have peace activists claiming a nuke response is genocide etc. Hell they could even UPS it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

0