Results are out! Find what you need...fast. Get quick advice or join the chat
Hey there! Sign in to have your say on this topicNew here? Join for free to post

If Israel nuked Iran

This thread is sponsored by:
Announcements Posted on
    • 1 follower
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by AE7)
    Typical response. U realise Khameini dedicated his whole life towards Islam?That hes written 40 books mainly on Islam? That he spent nearly 2 decades hiding as he was in opposition of Pahlavi? He started studying the Qur'an at age 5. before he was ever a politician or even an influental person.You can pretend he doesnt care, but the fact of the matter is he does. Can i give you a word of advice? Listen to BBC, Russia Today, PressTV & co. These western papers are very biased and dont tell you the whole story, listen to other news channels to see what they report, especially if based locally. In response to your Ashura mourning deaths, this was POLITICALLY based, not religiously, it has nothing to do with the Ayatollah not caring about 'shia muslims'. You realise that would mean he doesnt care about anyone in Iran , 95% is shia.
    Though yes i despise the Mullah, he's a very charismatic leader (doesnt look it).
    But he is highly religous and really cares for Iran and Islam (and in particular Shia). The Taliban, Al-Qaeda etc are hypocrites, but the Mullah cant be, he publicly issued a fatwa, dissobeying that fatwa would severly deteriorate his political and religious standing with the people. And even worsely he would be banished to hellfire for eternity. (i know a lot of people think its a load of rubbish but just respect someones views).

    **Edit: Also, Iranian people are nowhere near as oppressed politically and religously as you are lead to believe. Recently, they had one of the largest poll turnouts in Iranian history. The peope and in particular the older generation who overthrew the Shah like the Islamic leadership, though the younger generation tend to not as much. Iran is a free country, all major western media channels have reporters in Tehran they just need to obtain a pass from the govt. islam is a large part of their life, not cause its forced upon them, but cause the majority of the people want it that way. Tehran in particular is very western and you would find shops of all major brands. The Ayatollah may be a religous nutjob, but he is not a bad leader at all, and Iranian society is much more modern than your all lead to believe. Btw, only recently Ahmadinejad (pres)was summoned before parliament for his failure to meet economic growth targets and what particular funds where spent on. Would this happen in a country thats not democratic? Can you imagine Obama or Cameron being summoned and asked this question?
    It's amusing to see you try to explain the situation in iran to an iranian.... I don't understand how you think you know better. -.-

    No doubt Saudi Arabia is much worse in many ways but since when is Saudi Arabia or the Taliban a benchmark for deciding if a country is "free, democratic".

    Obviously you've never been to iran... if you knew anything about iranian society you would have understood that BECAUSE of this regime, the entire next generation of iranians has been completely put off islam and religion completely. The last 150 years of iranian political development included the clerics playing a part in the struggle, but since they took power 30 years ago (and alienated everyone else) they have shown to the nation, and it will never be forgotten in iranian history, their complete failure and the damage they have done to the country.
    • 56 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by 122025278)
    If it became conclusive that Iran was on the cusp of developing a nuclear weapon, say they have a prototype ready to rest and they announced it to the world as such as they thought no one would do anything about it since they haven't so far...

    Would Israel be justified to use a surprise tactical nuclear strike against Iran's nuclear reasearch sites, airforce and missile bases? The Iranians have spent a lot of time and effort re-enforcing their facilities and a nuclear option may be the most destructive and infact the only option that'd have any impact. It would be an absolute calamity if that happened for Iran, they'd lose almost all of their materials (enriched Uranium, reactors and technology), resources and scientists, cost a fortune to repair and set them back years. Plus all of the areas would be contaminated.

    The way I see it, it would be Israel nukeing Iran before Iran does it to them and so we shouldn't condemn it, infact Israel would be doing the free world a favour (and Arab world) by removing this menace hanging over all of us (a theocracy that thinks a country should be wiped off the map and murders scores of its own people)
    Chaim Weizmann thus very well knew why he chose England as the starting ground from which to labour to gain international diplomatic support and legal assurance for his Zionist political schemes.3 He had early recognized the importance of non-Jewish support and had moved to England "on the conviction that the British were the most promising potential sympathizers of Zionism."4 In his words: "The English Gentiles are the best Gentiles in the world. England has helped small nations to gain their independence. We should try and get Gentile support for Zionism."
    They think of you as gentiles, and if you want to help them pls go to Israel and join up instead of being a back-seat fighter. English blood doesn't need to be spilt for zionist blood.
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by MxSK)
    It's amusing to see you try to explain the situation in iran to an iranian.... I don't understand how you think you know better. -.-

    No doubt Saudi Arabia is much worse in many ways but since when is Saudi Arabia or the Taliban a benchmark for deciding if a country is "free, democratic".

    Obviously you've never been to iran... if you knew anything about iranian society you would have understood that BECAUSE of this regime, the entire next generation of iranians has been completely put off islam and religion completely. The last 150 years of iranian political development included the clerics playing a part in the struggle, but since they took power 30 years ago (and alienated everyone else) they have shown to the nation, and it will never be forgotten in iranian history, their complete failure and the damage they have done to the country.
    Clearly you have never been to Iran. Iranian people have not been put off Islam.The older generation is in support of the Ayatollah as they are the ones that threw the Shah over! The younger generation aint, but the whole population have unified recently due to the west threaths from America and Israel. Most Iranian that have left are not religious and didnt want to live under Islamic leadership. I hate the ayatollah's but you are dumb if you think their bad leaders. Yes they are a bit too religious, but do you even know exactly how much the economy of Iran has grown under their leadership? Iran is the third strongest Islamic economy and set to break the trillion dollar PPP mark. And all this in spite of being under sanctions since 1979. Tell me how they damaged the country again? Btw, I travel to Tehran multiple times a year.

    Oh, if the entire population have been put off Islam, they would boycott the elections. Not have a mass voter turnout. The Islamic leadership will be overthrown probably as soon as the current younger generation becomes old, as their kids will not want the Islamic leadership just like themselves, for now however the mullah is staying where he is.
    • 1 follower
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by AE7)
    Clearly you have never been to Iran.
    I stopped reading here...

    I visit iran every year. You don't know what you're talking about sorry. can't be bothered with you anymore. I don't need some idiot on the interent to tell me whats happening in my homeland.
    • 35 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    More likely that Mossad would plant a nuclear device inside a facility on the cusp of manufacturing a weapons grade nuclear device and the world would be none the wiser when it went off :rolleyes:
    • Thread Starter
    • 1 follower
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by callan)
    Israel is the biggest threat to the 'free world'. It oppresses the Palestinians and prevents them from getting aid, they are the menace. Iran is not the type of country to bend over to others, and it is being threatened by a terror state with nukes, backed by the US and Britain.

    Iran can access the Islamic countries to get to the border and it's larger army would beat Israel to a pulp, while Israel's updated airforce and weaponry (all thanks to US backing) would hurt it but could never win.

    I'm generally pro-war, but to support a evil such as Israel is basically supporting friction in the middle east, a supposed threat to us.
    Like I've said before Iran's military is full of old Soviet **** and modified Chinese crap. They're army is weak. The Israeli's would easily swat them away. The Israeli military is far more powerful and they'd have the advantage that they were the ones defending their homeland, the Iranians would be the invaders making it automatically more difficult. The South Korean's recently did a study and they estimate that just one of their F18's would destroy 15 North Korean era Soviet MIG's lol. It would be the same for Iran, which can barely manage to refine it's own petrol haha. I've just had a look and Iran's main battle tank is the T72 ROFL, it has 400 of them, bare in mind that they are totally obsolete. So obsolete infact that Russia was the one that sold them. Look up the performance of the T72 vs. modern battletanks. There was a case in the Gulf War where a armour piercing shell from an M1A1 punctured through one T72 then went through another one behind it hahah. BTW Israel has about 4000 MODERN tanks.

    You honestly think Iraq, Syria and Jordan, Sunni Muslim countries are just going to invite the Shia Iranians in? lol. If they did, which they never would, it would be an act of war between the and Israel which they just couldn't accept.
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    The whole Muslim world would unite and attack Israel. Saudi Arabia would be overthrow and their modern army would wreck Israel.

    Also, Iran would launch its chemical weapons at Israel
    • 3 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by lumberjack77)
    The whole Muslim world would unite and attack Israel. Saudi Arabia would be overthrow and their modern army would wreck Israel.

    Also, Iran would launch its chemical weapons at Israel
    Oxymoron
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Sternumator)
    I know but why should America be the one who "hands them out"? They aren't handed out they are produced by the countries which means every country is in the same position and so should have the same rights. Its just like it would not be fair if Iran was allowed no form of national defence.
    Iran: racist, war-mongering dictatorship in the most unstable region of the world, which oppresses its own people and has announced its wish to wipe Israel off the map.

    Sure, they have a "right" to build mass-murdering superweapons, yeah? They can
    be trusted not to go around causing the third world war, can't they?
    I mean, it's bad enough that the West was so harsh to that German guy a few decades ago, surely we can have justice for the neo-fascists in this day and age?
    /sarcasm.
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ras90)
    1 Major reason my friends. The US presidential election. Jewish funds are ESSENTIAL to win the election. Therefore agreements will be made by the most powerful lobbyest group in the world (Jewish lobbyests) that to secure their funding the US will at the very least back up Isreal.

    I don't think it will be NATO, just Isreal and US (plus any 1 else who wants to gain favour with the US for what ever reason.

    I am 100% confident in this, you guys can chose to ignore me, but my reasoning is sound and i would take no pleasure in saying "I told you so" in the next 2 years, but if you doubt me, it is what I shall do.
    But you jsut said that the US is doing it to gain favour with Jews and Israel. Why would someone join a war to gain favour with the US when it's not even their war, it's Israel's. Slight contradiction there, eh?

    Oh, and if you really want someone to take you serious, I suggest you use words instead of numbers, unless you're quoting numerical facts. Just makes you seem older than 12.
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Ryan-Hetherington)
    But you jsut said that the US is doing it to gain favour with Jews and Israel. Why would someone join a war to gain favour with the US when it's not even their war, it's Israel's. Slight contradiction there, eh?

    Oh, and if you really want someone to take you serious, I suggest you use words instead of numbers, unless you're quoting numerical facts. Just makes you seem older than 12.
    You shouldn't start a sentance with "but" either.

    If you want anybody to take you seriously you need to make yourself appear older than 12.

    There are many states that would want to gain favour with the US.
    • 12 followers
    Online

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by 122025278)
    I disagree almost totally.

    Yes Iran can retaliate, but if they retaliate against Israeli population centres in response to a small tactical strike by the Israeli's then to me all bets should be off. Israel should be able to strike in full, with all of its nuclear arsenal at Iran.
    A 'small tactical strike' won't achieve anything. In order to delay Iran's nuclear programme - which is the only thing a strike will do - the Israelis, and potentially Americans, will be forced to hit at least seven sites.

    My concern is that any strike, whether American, Israeli or from Mars, could very much be counterproductive. The Iranian regime may well be telling the truth, in that they are developing their nuclear power for civilian usage only, but an attack would force them no option but to develop, or acquire through other means, a nuclear weapon, in order to deter any future attack. Not to mention the argument that a strike would only delay any nuclear ambitions the regime have: they'll build their facilities deeper under ground and receive state of the art surface-to-air missiles from the Russians.

    There is no proof that Iran is developing a nuclear bomb. Learn from Iraq and the fiasco that was 'Saddam has WMDs'.
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ras90)
    You shouldn't start a sentance with "but" either.

    If you want anybody to take you seriously you need to make yourself appear older than 12.

    There are many states that would want to gain favour with the US.
    You completely misread my point. I never said that states didn't want to gain favour with the US, I said, why would states want to gain favour with the US by joining in a war that isn't actually the US' war?

    Also, I used the word 'but' due to the fact I was continuing from a point already made. Oh, and it's sentence.
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Ryan-Hetherington)
    You completely misread my point. I never said that states didn't want to gain favour with the US, I said, why would states want to gain favour with the US by joining in a war that isn't actually the US' war?

    Also, I used the word 'but' due to the fact I was continuing from a point already made. Oh, and it's sentence.
    You also should not use the word "oh".

    why would states want to gain favour with the US by joining in a war that isn't actually the US' war?

    As the more nations that attack, the better it appears.

    I really CBA talk to you anymore as you are bothered about spelling etc on a student forum, this is not a piece of uni work.
    • 2 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by 122025278)
    The way I see it, it would be Israel nukeing Iran before Iran does it to them and so we shouldn't condemn it, infact Israel would be doing the free world a favour (and Arab world) by removing this menace hanging over all of us (a theocracy that thinks a country should be wiped off the map and murders scores of its own people)
    are you stupid?

    Why on earth the west thinks we have any more right to have a bigger gun than anyone else never ceases to amaze me. all this media frenzy about iran being crazy nutcases.

    Iran is by definition more democratic than the UK or the US.

    Just because they're an Islamic country doesn't mean they're running around with bombs strapped to them yelling 'allahu akbar!'

    Funny how were so quick to support a revolution when its instaling a new west friendly regime and are quite happy to label it the peoples revolution but when it happened in Iran. even if they do now want Nuclear capabilities who are we to deny them that. the only entity ever to use a nuclear weapon in anger is the USA. Britain still maintains its Trident Missiles at a massive cost. For crying out loud the only reason anyone ever put a man on the moon is because someone else wanted to do it first.

    stop scare mongering and start looking at what a mess THIS country is in pretty sure the Iranians didn't cause this.

    The futures not what it used to be.

    Finally just to reiterate my point our stance on WHY Iran cant have the weapons is that they are too unstable, yet Both The UK, The US, France, ect are all actively engaged in conflicts and Israel has been for over 100 years

    I'm not taking sides at all im playing devils advocate but I definitely think that we could do more in terms of negotiating. International Nuclear Disarmament would be a start.
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ras90)
    You also should not use the word "oh".

    why would states want to gain favour with the US by joining in a war that isn't actually the US' war?

    As the more nations that attack, the better it appears.

    I really CBA talk to you anymore as you are bothered about spelling etc on a student forum, this is not a piece of uni work.
    One, clearly you know NOTHING about war or anything remotely related.

    Secondly, I'm bothered about spelling? Just because I can spell doesn't mean I'm bothered about it. If you're wanting to argue with someone, surely the best plan is to spell things as they should be. If you want people to dumb themselves down for you, I think you should probably try going elsewhere.
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Ryan-Hetherington)
    One, clearly you know NOTHING about war or anything remotely related.

    Secondly, I'm bothered about spelling? Just because I can spell doesn't mean I'm bothered about it. If you're wanting to argue with someone, surely the best plan is to spell things as they should be. If you want people to dumb themselves down for you, I think you should probably try going elsewhere.
    Clearly you know NOTHING about war or anything remotely related.
    • 30 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by OSharp)
    are you stupid?

    Why on earth the west thinks we have any more right to have a bigger gun than anyone else never ceases to amaze me. all this media frenzy about iran being crazy nutcases.

    Iran is by definition more democratic than the UK or the US.

    Just because they're an Islamic country doesn't mean they're running around with bombs strapped to them yelling 'allahu akbar!'

    Funny how were so quick to support a revolution when its instaling a new west friendly regime and are quite happy to label it the peoples revolution but when it happened in Iran. even if they do now want Nuclear capabilities who are we to deny them that. the only entity ever to use a nuclear weapon in anger is the USA. Britain still maintains its Trident Missiles at a massive cost. For crying out loud the only reason anyone ever put a man on the moon is because someone else wanted to do it first.

    stop scare mongering and start looking at what a mess THIS country is in pretty sure the Iranians didn't cause this.

    The futures not what it used to be.

    Finally just to reiterate my point our stance on WHY Iran cant have the weapons is that they are too unstable, yet Both The UK, The US, France, ect are all actively engaged in conflicts and Israel has been for over 100 years

    I'm not taking sides at all im playing devils advocate but I definitely think that we could do more in terms of negotiating. International Nuclear Disarmament would be a start.

    What the hell are you talking about? How is a country that every candidate has to be allowed by a council of unelected religious nut cases democratic? How can you claim Iran is more democratic than the UK or US when the real power is held by an unelected dictator? And elections are regularly accused of being rigged?
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by OSharp)
    are you stupid?

    Why on earth the west thinks we have any more right to have a bigger gun than anyone else never ceases to amaze me. all this media frenzy about iran being crazy nutcases.

    Iran is by definition more democratic than the UK or the US.

    Just because they're an Islamic country doesn't mean they're running around with bombs strapped to them yelling 'allahu akbar!'

    Funny how were so quick to support a revolution when its instaling a new west friendly regime and are quite happy to label it the peoples revolution but when it happened in Iran. even if they do now want Nuclear capabilities who are we to deny them that. the only entity ever to use a nuclear weapon in anger is the USA. Britain still maintains its Trident Missiles at a massive cost. For crying out loud the only reason anyone ever put a man on the moon is because someone else wanted to do it first.

    stop scare mongering and start looking at what a mess THIS country is in pretty sure the Iranians didn't cause this.

    The futures not what it used to be.

    Finally just to reiterate my point our stance on WHY Iran cant have the weapons is that they are too unstable, yet Both The UK, The US, France, ect are all actively engaged in conflicts and Israel has been for over 100 years

    I'm not taking sides at all im playing devils advocate but I definitely think that we could do more in terms of negotiating. International Nuclear Disarmament would be a start.
    Iran is run by neo-fascist dictators who have threatened to "wipe Israel off the map". Western nations are run by democratically-elected liberals. Our "right" to nuclear weapons, as opposed to Iran, comes from the fact we're not run by backward, fascist theocrats.
    • 2 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jiytt)
    Iran is run by neo-fascist dictators who have threatened to "wipe Israel off the map". Western nations are run by democratically-elected liberals. Our "right" to nuclear weapons, as opposed to Iran, comes from the fact we're not run by backward, fascist theocrats.
    Funny Russia didnt seem like much of a democracy when they where arming themselves. They hold popular elections in Iran just like they do here, just because Iran elect a government you do not agree with doesn't mean that they should not be allowed to defend themselves to the same degree that we should. that's what democracy is, people power, whether those people are morally correct is no business of democracy.

    (Original post by Aj12)
    What the hell are you talking about? How is a country that every candidate has to be allowed by a council of unelected religious nut cases democratic? How can you claim Iran is more democratic than the UK or US when the real power is held by an unelected dictator? And elections are regularly accused of being rigged?
    WHAT ! UNNELECTED RELIGIOUS OFFICIALS! You mean like we have in the house of lords?

    I'm not saying that Iran should have nuclear weapons, I am saying that no one should. Then it doesn't matter what anyone does i just don't understand how you can expect anyone to agree to not developing them when hostile countries on their doorstep are sanctioned to own them.

    I love living in the west, i cherish the freedoms that we have that are not present in other countries but the violence the east directs towards us is not blind hate, but caused by poor negotiations and an unwillingness to learn about the cultures of others precipitating an atmosphere of violence and fear.

Reply

Submit reply

Register

Thanks for posting! You just need to create an account in order to submit the post
  1. this can't be left blank
    that username has been taken, please choose another Forgotten your password?
  2. this can't be left blank
    this email is already registered. Forgotten your password?
  3. this can't be left blank

    6 characters or longer with both numbers and letters is safer

  4. this can't be left empty
    your full birthday is required
  1. By joining you agree to our Ts and Cs, privacy policy and site rules

  2. Slide to join now Processing…

Updated: April 14, 2012
New on TSR

GCSE mocks revision

Talk study tips this weekend

Article updates
Useful resources
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.