Nuclear weapons ? Or fake excuse?

Scroll to see replies

No, because they haven't developed the weaponry yet?

So you believe if they acquired nukes they would actually use them? The only circumstance in which I can see that is if they were being invaded and even then it's not that likely. The most I can really see them being used for is as a diplomatic threat, though that hasn't exactly worked for North Korea.

Reply 41

rcummins1

Original post by Logi

They probably won't use them directly, but if they ever launched a land invasion of Israel, then possessing nukes would certainly make the Americans n co think twice before retaliating.

Reply 42

squishy123

Original post by rcummins1

No, because they haven't developed the weaponry yet?

Then why not launch a war involving conventional warfare? Why do they need nuclear weapons?

Reply 43

kbw

Original post by squishy123

Then why not launch a war involving conventional warfare? Why do they need nuclear weapons?

That would require them going through Iraq. And Iran and Iraq aren't exactly best buddies. But they have tried, here's a small selection for you to peruse here, here, here and here.

Reply 44

squishy123

Original post by kbw

That would require them going through Iraq. And Iran and Iraq aren't exactly best buddies. But they have tried, here's a small selection for you to peruse here, here, here and here.

So the fact that the groups are "Iranian backed" suggests that Iran is fighting these wars?

Surely, if one was to delve in deeper, then it actually is a war between America (backs Israel) and Russia/China (backs Iran).

Reply 45

Studentus-anonymous

Original post by Bakeryipad

I have 2 points I would like to discuss. First why do the US, France, Russia, uk, china, india! Pakistan, north Korea and Israel have the right to have/ use nuclear weapons but Iran can't? Why shouldn't those countries get sanctions too? Am I missing something? Why are they giving sanctions to Iran even though they are saying they are not trying to develop nuclear weapons? So in theory we could give sanctions on the CIA for torturing people even though they said they don't . My second point, it seems to me that saying Iran has nuclear weapons and we should invade is just a fake excuse to invade. Now the international atomic energy agency was not allowed to look around some parts of irans nuclear reactors but so what? They can keep secrets. Jam sure I won't be allowed to go look into parts of the CIA or mi6 etc. Can anyone enlighten me at the subject?

1. No-one is wanting to invade Iran. The military option is bombing, and at best spec ops raids.

2. If you feel threatened by a loony regime wanting to develop nukes, the reason isn't fake. Fake implies not being the real reason. The international community makes no secret of it's issue with Iran, which is that it is untrustworthy, has made threats against the existence of another country and intent on developing nukes.

Reply 46

dgeorge

Original post by Studentus-anonymous

He made a valid point. Why is it "ok" for one country to continue to keep, and indeed develop nuclear weapons?

Personally, while I trust the "West" over many countries, they don't always make wise, rational decisions when it comes to warfare (see: Iraq war) and can be just as bad as the "loony" regimes that you point out.

Reply 47

Studentus-anonymous

Original post by dgeorge

And it's an okay point to argue, but his thread title was saying something else. :smile:

But then we go back to the point that the West and other countries don't trust Iran with nukes.

And I agree, the West isn't perfect.

Would still take it over the Iranian regime.

Reply 48

dgeorge

Original post by Studentus-anonymous

And it's an okay point to argue, but his thread title was saying something else. :smile:

But then we go back to the point that the West and other countries don't trust Iran with nukes.

And I agree, the West isn't perfect.

Would still take it over the Iranian regime.

Only read the OP. He was making the point that it is hypocritical not to allow Iran to develop nuclear capabilities while it is ok for others.

I said myself, I definitely trust the West over Iran.

However, you can't overlook the fact that this is clear and blatant hypocrisy, facilitated by international organisations such as the UN, which are led by the West.

Reply 49

Studentus-anonymous

Original post by dgeorge

Hypocrisy is what we call 'national interests'.

Reply 50

dgeorge

Original post by Studentus-anonymous

Hypocrisy is what we call 'national interests'.

Yes. Which doesn't make it any less hypocritical. Why is it that US can cook up reasons for going to war with Iraq for their "national interests" and not necessarily be demonised as another country which does the same?

Again, I'll emphasize that I place much more trust in the West than I would in Iran....I'm just saying it doesn't make one country's actions less hypocritical than anothers

Reply 51

prog2djent

Original post by Carrotcake18

Of course, just how president Bashar Al-Assad claims he's fighting "terrorists groups" :tongue:

, with 20,000 civilians dead.
Dont underestimate Iran's military capability or their intentions or wiping another country off the map. Its not just countries like the U.S. and Israel that are saying that Iran is developing nukes; its also many Arab countries such as Qatar, Saudi Arabia, and UAE. These countries have little to no reason to say such a lie and the U.S. clearly isnt willing to strike Iran anytime soon.

What's right is right, what's true is true. Most of those countries you mentioned have never threatened another country.

North Korea is a bigger threat than Iran, they have actually occupied another country, been the agressor in a war, they have full on propoganda machines churning out serial number citizens who are all taught to hate the west, south Koreans, and Japan. Iran has non of these things, and is the opposite in some, Saudi Arabia is a bigger threat to the west (more people have died at the hands of state sponsored wahhabist and salafist ideology than Iran) than Iran, by a long shot.

Reply 52

prog2djent

Original post by Carrotcake18

1. Of course, just how president Bashar Al-Assad claims he's fighting "terrorists groups"

2. its also many Arab countries such as Qatar, Saudi Arabia, and UAE.

1. So you are denying that Assad's army and allied groups are actually fighting a near majority foreign mujahideen and heavily islamist FSA, as if they aren't extreme enough (about as far as the Afghan Mujahideen) they actually have Al-Qaeda and full on offensive Jihad groups gaining more influence ... and commiting more massacres.

2. Oh yeah. right, because we trust Saudi Arabia, Saudi Arabia Junior, and Saudi Cleric Junior more than Iran?

Please.

Reply 53

prog2djent

Original post by Dragonfly07

Also because Iran is a country with a fundamentalist government who wouldn't hesitate to use nukes at any point, even with the threat of annihilation to themselves.

I think other countries that have nukes value the lives of their own citizens slightly more than Iran does.

ARE YOU MENTAL.

Saudi's and North Koreans live better lives than Iranians? Granted Iran is somewhere in the bottom half in terms of oppression and freedom, but seriously, jesus, christ, seriously, I mean ... to even suggest Iran would actually use a nuke when the Israel has Palestine RIGHT NEXT TO IT as well as Lebaonon - therefore Shia's, and Hezbollah (big buddies) right next to it ... Jordon, Syria, and a massive chemical fallout maybe to Turkey? Iran wouldn't even drop it if these nations were nowhere near Israel, they will have every nato country, the US, the "west" against them, and then Russia and China because they value the west more than one single state.

Seriously.

Reply 54

prog2djent

Original post by caravaggio2

Perhaps because it is an accepted truth amongst the intelligence community (even the Arab ones) that Iran is supplying and sponsoring terror groups throughout the region.?

And those arab nations have also been sponsors of terrorism. I suggest you bloody learn that Islamic terrorism is not a signle entity, the sort of people Iran may sponsor are Shia groups, the biggest being Hezbollah, who are not even 1/10th as bad as the bad **** crazy space muffin Sunni groups, you should remember Hezbollah have massive support from Lebanese (the most liberal islamic country ... by far) for basically stopping the full occupation of their country by Israel.

Reply 55

prog2djent

Original post by Carrotcake18

Actually, Iran's people are being punished by an oppressive government that sponsors terrorism and denies its own people their rights. :dry:

Would about the Saud's who live in much worse conditions, slavery to top it btw

They have an even more fundamentalist oppressive government who sponsor terrorism, should we invade them because they have the bomb (originally provided by the US, of course)?

Reply 56

prog2djent

Original post by Carrotcake18

1. Israel probably won't attack them. Let me explain Israel to you; when they say theyll attack, it means they wont. and If theyre quiet, it means they will.

2. Iran and its puppets in Syria and Lebanon :K:

I do hope that Iran shoots a missile at Israel so that Israel bombs them back to the Stone Age :tongue:

1. When Israel says they won't attack, they will attack, when Israel says they will attack, they will attack, if they are quiet, they will attack, if they are loud, they attacked last week.
2. Which puppets in Lebanon? The puppets that aren't in power? And Iran has been sent back to the stone age in the worst places, at government level. The previous government overthrow ... backed by the west.

I hope one day you actually study some nations and a surface history of the late 20th and 21st century middle east/north africa before suggesting Iran should go back to the stone age, the government is hated, and they know it, the Mullah's and clerics know they have a population far more liberal and far more angry than they are, then only reason they are kept in is by corruption, fear, and the fact the fundamentalists are the only thing between the increased relative freedom or Iranians underthe current government, and iranians living under an slither of Israeli occupation, meaning more fundamentalism, or an all out war, meaning more, and more, and death and more. Why do you think Shia's turn to extremism?

(edited 11 years ago)

Reply 57

TrulyEpicLawls

Sure is refreshing to see so many regular Joes who are actually experts on what is and isn't happening behind in the scenes in places they've never even been several thousands miles of.

Also a shame the amount of people who spout of lines they've been told rather than thought about.

Iran said they wanna wipe Israel off the map - "they're crazy, they'll kill us all! They'll nuke another country even if it kills them too, because they're all crazy I tells ya!"

Israel hold nukes, test weapons, batter their civilians, go on bombing runs and threaten Iran before Iran's nuclear hysteria came about - A deafening silence.

U.S. declares many foreign countries 'evil' and slanders their character to the point of labelling them warmongering loonies (whether rightly or wrongly) that must be stopped eventually - non-threatening and not similar to those crazy moustachioed Asians at all.

Whether you're Abe Lincoln, Winston Churchill, Hitler or Saddam, if your armed-to-the-teeth neighbour and a nuke-wielding superpower threaten you, you're gonna want nukes too. If they then say "no, you can't have it, only we can", your response will also likely be "up yours, hypocrite" and "you'll kill me if I don't anyway".

Let's not forget America is the first and only country to hurl a nuke at someone. In fact, they did it TWICE. Because only a little over a hundred thousand of innocent people, just like you and me, dead in one blast just wasn't enough.

I bet if Iran did that, they'd be the evil ones. I bet if Iran told others not to make nukes, you'd question how they have the audacity.

It's important to try and remove the concept of 'I am here so here is right' from your mind when considering other worlds.

(edited 11 years ago)

Reply 58

prog2djent

Original post by Nick100

1.North Korea does have sanctions on it - the reason being that it is a hostile nation.

2. massive amount of money to Chechnyan ~~separatists~~ Islamo-fascist shari'ah jihad mujahideen terrorists

1. Unfortunately NK doesn't work like other nations, if these sanctions were lifted, we may see economic growth and a bit less starvation, but all that would just be hoarded into the state, to enhance the military, to pump out more propoganda films against Us and south korea ...

2. Corrected. I think we have in the past, and arab state (so us, indirectly) still sponsor them ....