Turn on thread page Beta

Iran is "a nuclear state" - Too defiant? Time to put it down? watch

Announcements
    Offline

    8
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jakko247)
    I was referring to the incident where I saw the head of state shouting 'Death to Britain and America' to an equally enthusiastic crowd of hundreds. Are you suggesting people who act in this way should be indepently able to possess WMD? much less nuclear weapons?
    George Bush said 'God told him to go to war'. Its not different than what the Iranian leader said.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Casse)
    George Bush said 'God told him to go to war'. Its not different than what the Iranian leader said.
    Didn't Bush actually use the C-word (Crusade)?
    Offline

    8
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by UGeNe)
    Didn't Bush actually use the C-word (Crusade)?
    These were his exact words:

    President Bush said to all of us: 'I'm driven with a mission from God. God would tell me, George, go and fight those terrorists in Afghanistan. And I did, and then God would tell me, George, go and end the tyranny in Iraq... And I did.

    "'And now, again, I feel God's words coming to me, Go get the Palestinians their state and get the Israelis their security, and get peace in the Middle East. And by God I'm gonna do it.'"



    The word crusade was used by the head of Blackwater:

    John Doe 2, who worked for Blackwater for four years, alleged that Mr Prince “views himself as a Christian crusader tasked with eliminating Muslims and the Islamic faith from the globe” and that his companies “encouraged and rewarded the destruction of Iraqi life”.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DJ AgnieszkaA)
    unfortunately we cant govern ourselves and protect our interests based on this naivity.
    allowing them to keep these weapons is an unnacceptible risk... no, its not "fair" on them, and i would be irritated to say the least were i one of them... but the risk is too great.
    i believe the phrase "tough titties" is a good one.
    Key word highlighted.

    What makes 'our' interests more important than the interests of Iran (which is to go nuclear and possibly make nuclear weapons)

    The risks began with America and Britain deciding to start an illegal war in Iraq and a a was that will never be won in Afghanistan. Now there are US forces on the front door of Iran. There are US Warships pointing their guns straight at Iran. There are US Nuclear weapons pointing straight at Iran.

    I think Iran has more of a right to feel at 'risk' than we do in the West. Judging by past US Presidents, they seem to like sending soldiers into other countries (and the majority of the time end up ruining that country) without second thoughts.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    The western governments are a bunch of hypocrites.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Casse)
    These were his exact words:

    President Bush said to all of us: 'I'm driven with a mission from God. God would tell me, George, go and fight those terrorists in Afghanistan. And I did, and then God would tell me, George, go and end the tyranny in Iraq... And I did.

    "'And now, again, I feel God's words coming to me, Go get the Palestinians their state and get the Israelis their security, and get peace in the Middle East. And by God I'm gonna do it.'"



    The word crusade was used by the head of Blackwater:

    John Doe 2, who worked for Blackwater for four years, alleged that Mr Prince “views himself as a Christian crusader tasked with eliminating Muslims and the Islamic faith from the globe” and that his companies “encouraged and rewarded the destruction of Iraqi life”.
    Nah! Bush also used the word crusade... he said something about a 'crusade against terrorism'

    Not remembering the fact that many in the Muslim world see the word crusade as extremely offensive
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Playboy King)
    Ofcourse if countries have huge numbers of nuclear weapons the others aren't just going to keep to sticks, stones, bows and arrows.

    The worry is that Iran is run by a group of loonies, if they do decide to use those weapons rest assured they'll go on a rampage and won't comply with international war regulations...Ahmadinejad will drop the bombs like skittles, with Israel being the prime target.
    Are we, as a country, really in a position to make that kind of comment?
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by MrChem)
    Are we, as a country, really in a position to make that kind of comment?
    Russia has more sympathizers after its conflict with Georgia, than the US has at this time.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    I would be more tempted to let them get nuclear weapons. People are mistaken to think that after Israel, Europe is next. There is the small issue of a northern power to Iran that occupies Iranian-ethnicity Muslims in a certain mountain range known as the caucasus =) [Also remember the golden rule: The biggest victims of Islamic extremism are Muslims themselves - they may be used against states such as Saudi Arabia].

    The Russians are mad as a hatter to allow this to happen. They are hurting themselves much more then they are hurting the west. Still, this is all academic. Israel will strike when the time is right. By negotiating now - we are buying Israel the political capital it needs for the eventual attack which will help protect it from repercussions.

    As others have said, the real issue isn't Iranian nuclear weapons but the arms race it will trigger. The simple fact is, the world isn't safe with Muslims holding nuclear weapons. People who talk about fairness are really missing the point - states exist as manifestations of power and they exert power on each other. It is not about "fairness" it is simply power politics and personally I feel safer knowing the world is ran along those lines.
    Offline

    8
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by RyanT)
    I would be more tempted to let them get nuclear weapons. People are mistaken to think that after Israel, Europe is next. There is the small issue of a northern power to Iran that occupies Iranian-ethnicity Muslims in a certain mountain range known as the caucasus =)

    The Russians are mad as a hatter to allow this to happen. They are hurting themselves much more then they are hurting the west. Still, this is all academic. Israel will strike when the time is right. By negotiating now - we are buying Israel the political capital it needs for the eventual attack which will help protect it from repercussions.

    As others have said, the real issue isn't Iranian nuclear weapons but the arms race it will trigger. The simple fact is, the world isn't safe with Muslims holding nuclear weapons. People who talk about fairness are really missing the point - states exist as manifestations of power and they exert power on each other. It is not about "fairness" it is simply power politics and personally I feel safer knowing the world is ran along those lines.
    Its not anymore dangerous than the West holding nuclear weapons. Last time I checked, Muslim nations haven't went around the world invading foreign nations. Its actually in the best interest for Muslim countries to possess nuclear weapons as it acts as a deterrent against invasion.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by UGeNe)
    Seems like only Western allies can possess nuclear weapons.
    what? do you mean apart from Russia, China, North Korea, Pakistan, India and South Africa
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Casse)
    Its not anymore dangerous than the West holding nuclear weapons. Last time I checked, Muslim nations haven't went around the world invading foreign nations. Its actually in the best interest for Muslim countries to possess nuclear weapons as it acts as a deterrent against invasion.
    You say it is in the best interest for Muslim countries to possess nuclear weapons. This is correct. It is not in the best interests of the west however - and as we're in the west, that's a vital trick you're missing. :rolleyes:

    If you honestly think Mullahs controlling nuclear weapons is comparable to a French President wielding nuclear weapons then you're clearly deluded beyond the pale.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    oh yes you and who?:eek3:
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by RyanT)
    I would be more tempted to let them get nuclear weapons. People are mistaken to think that after Israel, Europe is next. There is the small issue of a northern power to Iran that occupies Iranian-ethnicity Muslims in a certain mountain range known as the caucasus =) [Also remember the golden rule: The biggest victims of Islamic extremism are Muslims themselves - they may be used against states such as Saudi Arabia].

    The Russians are mad as a hatter to allow this to happen. They are hurting themselves much more then they are hurting the west. Still, this is all academic. Israel will strike when the time is right. By negotiating now - we are buying Israel the political capital it needs for the eventual attack which will help protect it from repercussions.

    As others have said, the real issue isn't Iranian nuclear weapons but the arms race it will trigger. The simple fact is, the world isn't safe with Muslims holding nuclear weapons. People who talk about fairness are really missing the point - states exist as manifestations of power and they exert power on each other. It is not about "fairness" it is simply power politics and personally I feel safer knowing the world is ran along those lines.
    So the Islamic Republic of Pakistan is OK?
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by UGeNe)
    So the Islamic Republic of Pakistan is OK
    When did I ever say that it was a good thing for Pakistan to have nuclear weapons?

    If you're going to criticise me, do it on the basis of things I've actually said or at least as an extension of my logic. If I oppose Muslims having nuclear weapons, do you think Pakistan is really "okay" ? Perhaps you should watch the news a bit more to see how "okay" Pakistan really is.

    For whoever negged me, Pakistan proves the golden rule.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by RyanT)
    When did I ever say that it was a good thing for Pakistan to have nuclear weapons?

    If you're going to criticise me, do it on the basis of things I've actually said or at least as an extension of my logic. If I oppose Muslims having nuclear weapons, do you think Pakistan is really "okay" ? Perhaps you should watch the news a bit more to see how "okay" Pakistan really is.

    For whoever negged me, Pakistan proves the golden rule.
    what golden rule are you on about... something tells me you're confused
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Qaz25)
    what golden rule are you on about... something tells me you're confused
    See my post earlier.

    [Also remember the golden rule: The biggest victims of Islamic extremism are Muslims themselves - they may be used against states such as Saudi Arabia].

    I find it highly amusing that it's all the little jihadists that are clamouring to Iran's nuclear bandwagon. The people who will in practice feel the brunt of nuclear Iran are Sunni Muslims who don't have a nuclear state of their own to protect them. Israel? They can toast Iran in retaliation. So can most of the other places Iran would like to threaten.

    It is other Muslims that will suffer from a nuclear Iran. Never forget the golden rule.
    Offline

    8
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by RyanT)
    See my post earlier.

    [Also remember the golden rule: The biggest victims of Islamic extremism are Muslims themselves - they may be used against states such as Saudi Arabia].

    I find it highly amusing that it's all the little jihadists that are clamouring to Iran's nuclear bandwagon. The people who will in practice feel the brunt of nuclear Iran are Sunni Muslims who don't have a nuclear state of their own to protect them. Israel? They can toast Iran in retaliation. So can most of the other places Iran would like to threaten.

    It is other Muslims that will suffer from a nuclear Iran. Never forget the golden rule.
    Iran will not nuke Saudi Arabia considering the holy cities are they. If they nuke Riyadh, the Saudis will move the capital to Madinah or Makkah and Iran would not dare strike there. Also the SA is under US protection.

    If any country is at threat then it is Israel. It may actually be in the interests of Sunni states to see them go nuclear on each other. The two countries will be serverely weakened and probably even destroyed. Two birds killed with one stone.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    isreal is like the small angry kid that tries to bully everyone else on the playground. it can't go on in the direction its going. at the end of the day its a small country about to take a bite out of something it cant swallow. if the needs of say america are fufilled, then isreal will stopped being funded and inevitably be "screwed."
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    As an Iranian I want Iran to have nuclear energy because we do need it. I hope they are not developing nuclear weapons though, but in the past few months I've started to realize maybe they are... Hmmm I dunno though, if they do make nuclear weapons I really doubt they'd actually use them. I think they'd use them more of just a deterrent against Western powers and also to make themselves more powerful. This government is mad, but they are not mad enough to go around using nuclear weapons. But still, I prefer Iran to just stick to the nuclear energy without the weapons. In fact I hope every country abandons their nuclear weapons. I think Kazakhstan did this, so we should all follow their example!
 
 
 
Reply
Submit reply
Turn on thread page Beta
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Updated: February 15, 2010
Poll
Who is most responsible for your success at university
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.