Report, edit, etc...Posted by Slyence on 2006-04-28 at 13:47:26
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060425/ap_on_...ea/iran_nuclear
This isn't playing games with the IAEA and the UNSC, it's threatening to deliberately and openly break Article I of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty if they ever break Article II and become a "Nuclear State." For practical purposes, even if they don't get nukes but start transferring technology to other countries, the West will regard it as a flagrant violation.
Just wonderful. Don't these idiots understand that George Bush will bomb them? I don't understand these guys at all. Do they really think George Bush will back down? Russia and China aren't going to stop him. This time, Russia and China aren't even going to be able to stop the Europeans.
How do they think they can bluff their way through this? Were they asleep when George decided it was time for Saddam to go? Do they not read what he and the Vice President and the Secretary of State and the Secretary of Defense and others are saying? Are they not reading what the Europeans are saying about them, particularly the French and the Germans? Are they just ignoring Israel's repeated warnings?
The only thing I can think of is that they really do believe that it is destiny for them to get nuclear weapons and that the Divine Hand of Allah will protect them. Which is terrifying =/
The world is going to be having a real fun summer. My advice is don't drive too much.
This isn't playing games with the IAEA and the UNSC, it's threatening to deliberately and openly break Article I of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty if they ever break Article II and become a "Nuclear State." For practical purposes, even if they don't get nukes but start transferring technology to other countries, the West will regard it as a flagrant violation.
QUOTE
Originally Posted by Article II, NPT
Each non-nuclear-weapon State Party to the Treaty undertakes not to receive the transfer from any transferor whatsoever of nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices or of control over such weapons or explosive devices directly, or indirectly; not to manufacture or otherwise acquire nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices; and not to seek or receive any assistance in the manufacture of nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices.
Each non-nuclear-weapon State Party to the Treaty undertakes not to receive the transfer from any transferor whatsoever of nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices or of control over such weapons or explosive devices directly, or indirectly; not to manufacture or otherwise acquire nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices; and not to seek or receive any assistance in the manufacture of nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices.
QUOTE
Originally Posted by Article I, NPT
Each nuclear-weapon State Party to the Treaty undertakes not to transfer to any recipient whatsoever nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices or control over such weapons or explosive devices directly, or indirectly; and not in any way to assist, encourage, or induce any non-nuclear-weapon State to manufacture or otherwise acquire nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices, or control over such weapons or explosive devices.
Each nuclear-weapon State Party to the Treaty undertakes not to transfer to any recipient whatsoever nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices or control over such weapons or explosive devices directly, or indirectly; and not in any way to assist, encourage, or induce any non-nuclear-weapon State to manufacture or otherwise acquire nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices, or control over such weapons or explosive devices.
Just wonderful. Don't these idiots understand that George Bush will bomb them? I don't understand these guys at all. Do they really think George Bush will back down? Russia and China aren't going to stop him. This time, Russia and China aren't even going to be able to stop the Europeans.
How do they think they can bluff their way through this? Were they asleep when George decided it was time for Saddam to go? Do they not read what he and the Vice President and the Secretary of State and the Secretary of Defense and others are saying? Are they not reading what the Europeans are saying about them, particularly the French and the Germans? Are they just ignoring Israel's repeated warnings?
The only thing I can think of is that they really do believe that it is destiny for them to get nuclear weapons and that the Divine Hand of Allah will protect them. Which is terrifying =/
The world is going to be having a real fun summer. My advice is don't drive too much.
Report, edit, etc...Posted by JaFF on 2006-04-28 at 14:14:51
it depends on the politics, how will they manage to handle this situation. it is clear that Iran will not stop their nuclear programm after a fiew USA's political statements.
as i've told before, diversions are possible, becawse one allready took palce, when Israel just bobmed Iran's turbines (that are needed to get nuclear fuel). Iran couldn't do anything about it.
Iran will not stop after political statements, but when USA forms an army ready to strike near their border maybe they will start to really do something.
if the Iran's commanders have attitude like: "F**K the world, we will get nukes even if it's the last thing we do!!!", then this might lead to conflict. but if they are more "politically-correct", then this could be solved without violence.
i don't think taht USA or somebody else will use weapons of mass-distruction to prevent Iran from getting nukes, becawse even if they use a small-power nuclear bomb directly at the reactors/other objects connected to their N-programm they will get all the world society turning agains them (you know what huge power the mas-media have). + radiation is a serious problem.
that's my opinion.
as i've told before, diversions are possible, becawse one allready took palce, when Israel just bobmed Iran's turbines (that are needed to get nuclear fuel). Iran couldn't do anything about it.
Iran will not stop after political statements, but when USA forms an army ready to strike near their border maybe they will start to really do something.
if the Iran's commanders have attitude like: "F**K the world, we will get nukes even if it's the last thing we do!!!", then this might lead to conflict. but if they are more "politically-correct", then this could be solved without violence.
i don't think taht USA or somebody else will use weapons of mass-distruction to prevent Iran from getting nukes, becawse even if they use a small-power nuclear bomb directly at the reactors/other objects connected to their N-programm they will get all the world society turning agains them (you know what huge power the mas-media have). + radiation is a serious problem.
that's my opinion.
Report, edit, etc...Posted by Dark_lunatic_K on 2006-04-28 at 15:35:27
Could you shut up and stop talking about this. People in Iran are really stupid, all the smart ones escape to USA, Canada and European countries. It will take approximately 10 years for Iran to produce a single nuclear bomb. Until that time, don't start freaking out yet. I think you're a muslim, that's why you keep freaking out and trying to protect muslims. Muslims never accept the fact that they are doing something wrong! That's the truth ladies and gentlemen, i'm not being racist, just speaking the truth. Some muslim guy once told me that 9/11 was completely planned by Israel and USA... Wtf!! 
Report, edit, etc...Posted by Arbitrary on 2006-04-28 at 15:36:36
QUOTE(Dark_lunatic_K @ Apr 28 2006, 03:35 PM)
Could you shut up and stop talking about this. People in Iran are really stupid, all the smart ones escape to USA, Canada and European countries. It will take approximately 10 years for Iran to produce a single nuclear bomb. Until that time, don't start freaking out yet. I think you're a muslim, that's why you keep freaking out and trying to protect muslims. Muslims never accept the fact that they are doing something wrong! That's the truth ladies and gentlemen, i'm not being racist, just speaking the truth. Some muslim guy once told me that 9/11 was completely planned by Israel and USA... Wtf!!
[right][snapback]474662[/snapback][/right]
[right][snapback]474662[/snapback][/right]
Thanks for my new sig DLK!
Report, edit, etc...Posted by Dark_lunatic_K on 2006-04-28 at 15:40:29
Lol, is that a good thing or bad? 
Report, edit, etc...Posted by Arbitrary on 2006-04-28 at 15:44:17
It means I thought your post was hilariously one-sided, irrationally accusatory, and you described Muslims in the same way I could describe the entire human race.
So, my only course of action is to put it on display.
So, my only course of action is to put it on display.
Report, edit, etc...Posted by Kellodood on 2006-04-28 at 15:50:22
To show how "intelligent" you are.
Report, edit, etc...Posted by TheDaddy0420 on 2006-04-28 at 20:36:34
QUOTE(Slyence @ Apr 28 2006, 09:47 AM)
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060425/ap_on_...ea/iran_nuclear
This isn't playing games with the IAEA and the UNSC, it's threatening to deliberately and openly break Article I of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty if they ever break Article II and become a "Nuclear State." For practical purposes, even if they don't get nukes but start transferring technology to other countries, the West will regard it as a flagrant violation.
Just wonderful. Don't these idiots understand that George Bush will bomb them? I don't understand these guys at all. Do they really think George Bush will back down? Russia and China aren't going to stop him. This time, Russia and China aren't even going to be able to stop the Europeans.
How do they think they can bluff their way through this? Were they asleep when George decided it was time for Saddam to go? Do they not read what he and the Vice President and the Secretary of State and the Secretary of Defense and others are saying? Are they not reading what the Europeans are saying about them, particularly the French and the Germans? Are they just ignoring Israel's repeated warnings?
The only thing I can think of is that they really do believe that it is destiny for them to get nuclear weapons and that the Divine Hand of Allah will protect them. Which is terrifying =/
The world is going to be having a real fun summer. My advice is don't drive too much.
[right][snapback]474564[/snapback][/right]
This isn't playing games with the IAEA and the UNSC, it's threatening to deliberately and openly break Article I of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty if they ever break Article II and become a "Nuclear State." For practical purposes, even if they don't get nukes but start transferring technology to other countries, the West will regard it as a flagrant violation.
Just wonderful. Don't these idiots understand that George Bush will bomb them? I don't understand these guys at all. Do they really think George Bush will back down? Russia and China aren't going to stop him. This time, Russia and China aren't even going to be able to stop the Europeans.
How do they think they can bluff their way through this? Were they asleep when George decided it was time for Saddam to go? Do they not read what he and the Vice President and the Secretary of State and the Secretary of Defense and others are saying? Are they not reading what the Europeans are saying about them, particularly the French and the Germans? Are they just ignoring Israel's repeated warnings?
The only thing I can think of is that they really do believe that it is destiny for them to get nuclear weapons and that the Divine Hand of Allah will protect them. Which is terrifying =/
The world is going to be having a real fun summer. My advice is don't drive too much.
[right][snapback]474564[/snapback][/right]
I geuss they think we are bogged down in Iraq and in Aphganistan, oh wait we surround them.....
Report, edit, etc...Posted by CaptainWill on 2006-04-29 at 07:31:37
I think the USA will not be ready to launch an invasion of Iran for quite some time. A lot of the armed forces are tied up in Iraq, although the withdrawal of US troops from Afghanistan (I think it's now under British control) could free up some of them.
I think that Iran thinks the US is bluffing. Unfortunately for them, we have wide-ranging support on this issue - even China is on our side.
However, the Iranian president is seen as something of a dangerous radical by the aristocracy in Iran - and opposition to him is gathering strength all the time. Maybe he'll be out of power soon anyway.
I think that Iran thinks the US is bluffing. Unfortunately for them, we have wide-ranging support on this issue - even China is on our side.
However, the Iranian president is seen as something of a dangerous radical by the aristocracy in Iran - and opposition to him is gathering strength all the time. Maybe he'll be out of power soon anyway.
Report, edit, etc...Posted by JaFF on 2006-04-29 at 08:26:23
lack of troops in the US can be covered by other allied counry's military formations... if the US will do something to organize all that. maybe they will have to have the biggest part of troops from their (US) army, but still, help from UK & other ally's can be very useful.
Report, edit, etc...Posted by TheDaddy0420 on 2006-04-29 at 10:41:38
I would say at the moment we are not ready to fully invade. But I do think we are able to strike them at any time. We got long range bombers and air craft carriers in the Persian Gulf. So yea
Report, edit, etc...Posted by BeeR_KeG on 2006-04-29 at 14:53:36
http://www.staredit.net/index.php?showtopi...ndpost&p=471118
And why does Iran have to do what others tell them to? Politically speaking, in a country, there is no higher voice or law than that of The Constitution of each individual country. There is right that an International body of foreing nations has to start governing other nations.
Yes, telling Iran what to do is governing them. Why can't they govern themselves and we just live our lives?
Iran won't build a bomb for several years and by around 2007 or 2008, the US will have an Anti-ICBM missle system which will blow out enemy missles from the sky when detected on radar. There is nothing to fear. And what if the Iranis are right? What if they really just want to build a Nuclear Power Plant?
And why does Iran have to do what others tell them to? Politically speaking, in a country, there is no higher voice or law than that of The Constitution of each individual country. There is right that an International body of foreing nations has to start governing other nations.
Yes, telling Iran what to do is governing them. Why can't they govern themselves and we just live our lives?
Iran won't build a bomb for several years and by around 2007 or 2008, the US will have an Anti-ICBM missle system which will blow out enemy missles from the sky when detected on radar. There is nothing to fear. And what if the Iranis are right? What if they really just want to build a Nuclear Power Plant?
Report, edit, etc...Posted by JaFF on 2006-04-30 at 03:57:30
the anti-missile system is
1.very expensive
2.not perfect (what will be if 1 missile passes it ?...)
3.there was an agreement, that a country can protect itself agains nuclear missiles only in 1 place (Russia - Kreml, USA - that mountain with a bunker for the whole goverment). if that agreement is still in power, it means that they will not have problems with droping bombs on non-protected countries/territories. if it's not in power, you still can't cover everything in your anti-missile web.
4.do you really wanan risk ?
Iran is not an ally to the USA, if it was, then they would have different attitude to his nuclear program.
1.very expensive
2.not perfect (what will be if 1 missile passes it ?...)
3.there was an agreement, that a country can protect itself agains nuclear missiles only in 1 place (Russia - Kreml, USA - that mountain with a bunker for the whole goverment). if that agreement is still in power, it means that they will not have problems with droping bombs on non-protected countries/territories. if it's not in power, you still can't cover everything in your anti-missile web.
4.do you really wanan risk ?
Iran is not an ally to the USA, if it was, then they would have different attitude to his nuclear program.
Report, edit, etc...Posted by Allah on 2006-04-30 at 06:13:47
Iran shall fall. They are harboring infidels and their nuclear knowledge is inferior to Allah's secret nuclear program. Let them war. It will be I that ends it.
Report, edit, etc...Posted by BeeR_KeG on 2006-04-30 at 13:11:11
QUOTE
1.very expensive
2.not perfect (what will be if 1 missile passes it ?...)
3.there was an agreement, that a country can protect itself agains nuclear missiles only in 1 place (Russia - Kreml, USA - that mountain with a bunker for the whole goverment). if that agreement is still in power, it means that they will not have problems with droping bombs on non-protected countries/territories. if it's not in power, you still can't cover everything in your anti-missile web.
4.do you really wanan risk ?
2.not perfect (what will be if 1 missile passes it ?...)
3.there was an agreement, that a country can protect itself agains nuclear missiles only in 1 place (Russia - Kreml, USA - that mountain with a bunker for the whole goverment). if that agreement is still in power, it means that they will not have problems with droping bombs on non-protected countries/territories. if it's not in power, you still can't cover everything in your anti-missile web.
4.do you really wanan risk ?
1) Not at all, all you loose is 1 missle per ICBM fired at us. It's a laser guided system, not very expensive by todays standards.
2) That's why it's not out yet, it's enduring rigorous testing. It's the same process as every game, you need to clean up the bugs. If a missle passed by, we send another missle.
3) Why would you protect 1 place in youe whole country, if the entire population is bound to be dead? The point is to protect your entire country, not just one point in which the goverment uses a back-up. And that mountain that the US Goverment uses is now rendered obsolete, it's Airforce One now.
4) Of course, if a ICBM is send at me, surely me and my whole population would want to stop it.
Report, edit, etc...Posted by Urmom(U) on 2006-04-30 at 13:17:20
On the news where I live, it said that in Iran they fired three missles already as a test. Could they be closer than you think?
Report, edit, etc...Posted by JaFF on 2006-04-30 at 14:07:02
they could test the missiles themselves, but not the nuclear warheads in them, ofcourse.
ADDITION:
1)it's not cheap & it was tested before, it was created long ago, when they feared the USSR's rockets. now they set those systems on Alaska. why on Alaska ? cuz there are no rockets that can get from Europe to USA via the Equator, the north pole is the shortest way. the only rocket that could do this was banned by OSV1 or OSV2 (don't remember by wich one of them). why it's not cheap ? it's HUGE ORGANISATION WORK. everything has to work perfectly & 24 h/day, not to mension the technical support needed. yes, 1 rocket is nothig, but everything else, that is needed to launch this rocket is serious money.
2)it's allready been working since the 70's. if a missile passed you may not have a second chance to stop it, after it's warhead splits. becawse those individual warheads are manuvering & there are fake ones allso.
3)there is (or maybe now we must say was) an agreement like that.
a nuclear strike's primary targers are:
-command centers
-any tipes of nuclear forces
the command centers are the weakest spot, so everybody wants to protect them. there can be thousands of silos, but only a fiew command centers. destroy them with a fast strike & those silo's will be useless. if a command center remains not destroyed, you still can make a "venegance strike".
4) so you better not risk & influence Iran somehow to avoid getting to that situation when ICBM's are flying towards eachother.
ADDITION:
QUOTE(BeeR_KeG @ Apr 30 2006, 08:10 PM)
1) Not at all, all you loose is 1 missle per ICBM fired at us. It's a laser guided system, not very expensive by todays standards.
2) That's why it's not out yet, it's enduring rigorous testing. It's the same process as every game, you need to clean up the bugs. If a missle passed by, we send another missle.
3) Why would you protect 1 place in youe whole country, if the entire population is bound to be dead? The point is to protect your entire country, not just one point in which the goverment uses a back-up. And that mountain that the US Goverment uses is now rendered obsolete, it's Airforce One now.
4) Of course, if a ICBM is send at me, surely me and my whole population would want to stop it.
[right][snapback]476304[/snapback][/right]
2) That's why it's not out yet, it's enduring rigorous testing. It's the same process as every game, you need to clean up the bugs. If a missle passed by, we send another missle.
3) Why would you protect 1 place in youe whole country, if the entire population is bound to be dead? The point is to protect your entire country, not just one point in which the goverment uses a back-up. And that mountain that the US Goverment uses is now rendered obsolete, it's Airforce One now.
4) Of course, if a ICBM is send at me, surely me and my whole population would want to stop it.
[right][snapback]476304[/snapback][/right]
1)it's not cheap & it was tested before, it was created long ago, when they feared the USSR's rockets. now they set those systems on Alaska. why on Alaska ? cuz there are no rockets that can get from Europe to USA via the Equator, the north pole is the shortest way. the only rocket that could do this was banned by OSV1 or OSV2 (don't remember by wich one of them). why it's not cheap ? it's HUGE ORGANISATION WORK. everything has to work perfectly & 24 h/day, not to mension the technical support needed. yes, 1 rocket is nothig, but everything else, that is needed to launch this rocket is serious money.
2)it's allready been working since the 70's. if a missile passed you may not have a second chance to stop it, after it's warhead splits. becawse those individual warheads are manuvering & there are fake ones allso.
3)there is (or maybe now we must say was) an agreement like that.
a nuclear strike's primary targers are:
-command centers
-any tipes of nuclear forces
the command centers are the weakest spot, so everybody wants to protect them. there can be thousands of silos, but only a fiew command centers. destroy them with a fast strike & those silo's will be useless. if a command center remains not destroyed, you still can make a "venegance strike".
4) so you better not risk & influence Iran somehow to avoid getting to that situation when ICBM's are flying towards eachother.
Report, edit, etc...Posted by BeeR_KeG on 2006-04-30 at 15:22:26
I believe that we are talking about different systems. Youa re talking about Air-to-Air missles.
I'm talking about a new military Anti-ICBM being developed right now. The system i'm talking about uses on board laser tracking systems, radar and GPS to determine where the enemy ICMB, or missle is at. Our missle will then go towards this enemy projectile and explode in front of the enemy projectile, thus rendering it useless.
Our missles will also carry some sort of electromagnetic waves that will make electronics to fail and they are testing high temperature lasers to destroy enemy missles.
Also, having inmense nuclear silos and command centers are obsolete, that's why they aren't being currently used by our government. A static Command Center is much more vulnerable to attack than an airplane fitted with everything needed to run a country. This is possible because of the advanced technology we have today.
There is no need to build massive rockects and store them in silos. You could just launch them from a ship, a submarine or use smaller rockets out of B-2 bombers. I highly doubt that rockets the size of space-rockets are going to be sued, they are just too big, too slow and too easy to choot out of the sky.
I'm talking about a new military Anti-ICBM being developed right now. The system i'm talking about uses on board laser tracking systems, radar and GPS to determine where the enemy ICMB, or missle is at. Our missle will then go towards this enemy projectile and explode in front of the enemy projectile, thus rendering it useless.
Our missles will also carry some sort of electromagnetic waves that will make electronics to fail and they are testing high temperature lasers to destroy enemy missles.
Also, having inmense nuclear silos and command centers are obsolete, that's why they aren't being currently used by our government. A static Command Center is much more vulnerable to attack than an airplane fitted with everything needed to run a country. This is possible because of the advanced technology we have today.
There is no need to build massive rockects and store them in silos. You could just launch them from a ship, a submarine or use smaller rockets out of B-2 bombers. I highly doubt that rockets the size of space-rockets are going to be sued, they are just too big, too slow and too easy to choot out of the sky.
Report, edit, etc...Posted by JaFF on 2006-05-01 at 04:30:29
sorry, i thought that you mean the usual system they used. 
where can i find some info on the system you're talking about ? do you know any good military sites ?
about exploding it infront...
the ICBM has the main warhead made to pass atmosphere, thus it must be solid & heat-proof. exploding it infront of it can be the solution. but you need a really powerful explosion to really destroy it/damage it so it will burn it atmosphere.
the electromagnetic impulse may turn out effective. but allso, counter-measures can be taken, by shielding it with different materials.
i agree that the airplaine is a good idea. everybody is trying to protect their command centers somehow. it was the main reason for that agreement that i've mentioned earlier.
about your "mssive rockets part". you told it like this, becawse USA has a different nuclear strategy. it is dominating in the ocean, so it uses submarines. but the USSR (& now Russia) has a different strategy. it has silos on it's territory becawse it controlls it well. the submarines can offer some advantages, but allso they have a disadvantage. the submarine can get closer to the enmy, shortening the missile's flight time, but it allso shortens the enemy's missile flight time to the submarine. + it can be destroyed with other submarines/ships. the USA didn't forget about silo's as well, so they are not a thing of the past, they still have room for improovement.
where can i find some info on the system you're talking about ? do you know any good military sites ?
about exploding it infront...
the ICBM has the main warhead made to pass atmosphere, thus it must be solid & heat-proof. exploding it infront of it can be the solution. but you need a really powerful explosion to really destroy it/damage it so it will burn it atmosphere.
the electromagnetic impulse may turn out effective. but allso, counter-measures can be taken, by shielding it with different materials.
i agree that the airplaine is a good idea. everybody is trying to protect their command centers somehow. it was the main reason for that agreement that i've mentioned earlier.
about your "mssive rockets part". you told it like this, becawse USA has a different nuclear strategy. it is dominating in the ocean, so it uses submarines. but the USSR (& now Russia) has a different strategy. it has silos on it's territory becawse it controlls it well. the submarines can offer some advantages, but allso they have a disadvantage. the submarine can get closer to the enmy, shortening the missile's flight time, but it allso shortens the enemy's missile flight time to the submarine. + it can be destroyed with other submarines/ships. the USA didn't forget about silo's as well, so they are not a thing of the past, they still have room for improovement.
Report, edit, etc...Posted by TheDaddy0420 on 2006-05-01 at 18:08:34
Iran openly supports terrorists and for that statement correct me if Im wrong.
We don't have to worry about missles, my gosh. If a city gets nuked it will not be from the air.
The Iranians will probably make more then 1 nuke. They will sell the warhead or give the warhead to a terrorist group. Who will either smuggle it into Israel and destroy and major city OR they will smuggle it into the US and destory Washington or New York or any other important cities. It would be very easy to ship it becuase last time I heard the Ports, in general, only check about 5% of the cargo that goes through the ports.
If not through the ports Im sure they could smuggle it through our southern border, and they better do that quick before that bill could be passed.
SO no worry about a missle I believe, worry explosion on the ground in a parked truck or random warehouse.
We don't have to worry about missles, my gosh. If a city gets nuked it will not be from the air.
The Iranians will probably make more then 1 nuke. They will sell the warhead or give the warhead to a terrorist group. Who will either smuggle it into Israel and destroy and major city OR they will smuggle it into the US and destory Washington or New York or any other important cities. It would be very easy to ship it becuase last time I heard the Ports, in general, only check about 5% of the cargo that goes through the ports.
If not through the ports Im sure they could smuggle it through our southern border, and they better do that quick before that bill could be passed.
SO no worry about a missle I believe, worry explosion on the ground in a parked truck or random warehouse.
Report, edit, etc...Posted by JaFF on 2006-05-02 at 03:41:58
they can't check all the cargo, due to lack of time. they only check if they suspect something. so yeah, maybe it's possible to get a compact nuclear bomb in a bag into USA.
rockets ? if it's too expensive for them, they can buy them from other countries. if USA will want to invade Iran, it will be the factor taht will hold them off (maybe).
rockets ? if it's too expensive for them, they can buy them from other countries. if USA will want to invade Iran, it will be the factor taht will hold them off (maybe).
Report, edit, etc...Posted by Snake)Ling on 2006-05-03 at 07:06:04
Iran isn't a proper Muslim country. It has Islamic law, for example. Why is that wrong? Because the Qu'ran states to the effect that "power should be to the people" and "people are equal". Having those biased laws and a theocratic government are in direct violation of the Qu'ran, so Iran is no Muslim country. Rather, it's a corrupt, power-wanting theocracy like the Catholic Church was during the crusades.
Now, why does Iran want nukes? America surrounds Iran. We have Afghanistan and Iraq, and Pakistan is on our side, and Israel has nukes. Why else? The Bush administration wants to keep nuclear weapons on the table if we invade Iran, AKA, if we invade, we just might nuke them. Now then, these are all perfectly good reasons to want to have nukes; keep the game even, eh? But what's wrong with this? Well, Bush is a psycho, and Iran is unstable. So, Iran will certainly get invaded unless they can get their nukes fast enough.
What happens if they get nukes? We don't invade. Why? Invading Iran means Iran nukes us. And this sums up why Iran wants nukes: so we don't invade them. Still, it's a risky business that they shouldn't have publicized if they were smart.
As for you, DLK: STFU.
Now, why does Iran want nukes? America surrounds Iran. We have Afghanistan and Iraq, and Pakistan is on our side, and Israel has nukes. Why else? The Bush administration wants to keep nuclear weapons on the table if we invade Iran, AKA, if we invade, we just might nuke them. Now then, these are all perfectly good reasons to want to have nukes; keep the game even, eh? But what's wrong with this? Well, Bush is a psycho, and Iran is unstable. So, Iran will certainly get invaded unless they can get their nukes fast enough.
What happens if they get nukes? We don't invade. Why? Invading Iran means Iran nukes us. And this sums up why Iran wants nukes: so we don't invade them. Still, it's a risky business that they shouldn't have publicized if they were smart.
As for you, DLK: STFU.
Report, edit, etc...Posted by TheDaddy0420 on 2006-05-03 at 20:28:26
QUOTE(Snake)Ling @ May 3 2006, 03:05 AM)
Iran isn't a proper Muslim country. It has Islamic law, for example. Why is that wrong? Because the Qu'ran states to the effect that "power should be to the people" and "people are equal". Having those biased laws and a theocratic government are in direct violation of the Qu'ran, so Iran is no Muslim country. Rather, it's a corrupt, power-wanting theocracy like the Catholic Church was during the crusades.
Now, why does Iran want nukes? America surrounds Iran. We have Afghanistan and Iraq, and Pakistan is on our side, and Israel has nukes. Why else? The Bush administration wants to keep nuclear weapons on the table if we invade Iran, AKA, if we invade, we just might nuke them. Now then, these are all perfectly good reasons to want to have nukes; keep the game even, eh? But what's wrong with this? Well, Bush is a psycho, and Iran is unstable. So, Iran will certainly get invaded unless they can get their nukes fast enough.
What happens if they get nukes? We don't invade. Why? Invading Iran means Iran nukes us. And this sums up why Iran wants nukes: so we don't invade them. Still, it's a risky business that they shouldn't have publicized if they were smart.
As for you, DLK: STFU.
[right][snapback]478534[/snapback][/right]
Now, why does Iran want nukes? America surrounds Iran. We have Afghanistan and Iraq, and Pakistan is on our side, and Israel has nukes. Why else? The Bush administration wants to keep nuclear weapons on the table if we invade Iran, AKA, if we invade, we just might nuke them. Now then, these are all perfectly good reasons to want to have nukes; keep the game even, eh? But what's wrong with this? Well, Bush is a psycho, and Iran is unstable. So, Iran will certainly get invaded unless they can get their nukes fast enough.
What happens if they get nukes? We don't invade. Why? Invading Iran means Iran nukes us. And this sums up why Iran wants nukes: so we don't invade them. Still, it's a risky business that they shouldn't have publicized if they were smart.
As for you, DLK: STFU.
[right][snapback]478534[/snapback][/right]
Nah we wouldn't nuke them. Thats international suicide.
Report, edit, etc...Posted by HolySin on 2006-05-03 at 22:07:45
Nulcear war is the last thing most countries want. This is because if a site is nuked, then the resources in that area become too dispersed, or simply enough destroyed. I don't see there being a nuclear war, it's just nonsensible. However, there still are really crazy leaders out there, especially Kim Jong Il. That guy is seriously insane and needs to be shot.
Report, edit, etc...Posted by Snake)Ling on 2006-05-05 at 07:02:24
QUOTE(TheDaddy0420 @ May 3 2006, 07:28 PM)
Nah we wouldn't nuke them. Thats international suicide.
[right][snapback]478971[/snapback][/right]
[right][snapback]478971[/snapback][/right]
Oh, so we haven't already internationally suicided? Plus, even if we wouldn't nuke, the fact that the White House wants to keep nukes on the table is ridiculous.