Nuclear Iran

[Bender1968]

first I looked it up on Encarta though it said 84% of the population is Roman Catholic it also said that most are not practicing.  Second, back in 1979 Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and his group of students stormed the US Embassy and held the hostages for over 2 years.  For 30 years this guy has been sending in troops and terrorists throughout the world.  So for 30 years we've been watching this guy and his political and religious affiliations.  I think we learned something about this guy and the people he is with.

If they do launch a nuke to, let's imagine, Portugal, well, that would be unexpected, but that's how life is.

So if you die tomorrow, is OK because that's how life is?  isn't that a contradiction to consider human life expendable but human rights should never be infringed upon.   

Religion isn't their problem, it wasn't the catholics or the Europeans that supported the wrong man in Iran. I don't assume Iran is evil, and I don't assume they will have guts to threat Europe, and they don't have any excuse to do it, since Europe is the main importer and exporter from Iran.

Religion may not be their problem but its the fanaticism that is.  Their excuse is that anyone who is not part of their conservative religious beliefs are against them.  You don't think they have the guts to attack Europe?  What about all those terrorist attacks in the 80's and 90's in England and Germany?  That's showing you have guts to attack Europe. 

 

Specially when everyone knows Iran isn't building any nuclear weapons.

How do you know that, just because someone tells they aren't?  Why don't you just come out and say, you would like to see Iran irradiate the US and Israel and as long as they leave you alone, you don't care. 

[Delfos]

lol, you are assuming both me and Iran are evil, and it was the ones leading Iran that made the attacks. That's why Iran is dangerous, because it has fanatics in the wrong places, but otherwise, the is competence.

[Bender1968]

When did I say you and Iran were evil?  When did I imply it?  All I've been pointing out is that Iran is fanatical, dangerous and a threat and they shouldn't have anything nuclear. 

it was the ones leading Iran that made the attacks. That's why Iran is dangerous, because it has fanatics in the wrong places, but otherwise, the is competence.

It was the students that lead the capture of the embassy and the kidnapping of our diplomats and workers.  Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was part of that group.  After 30 years of attacks I'm now supposed to trust him because he hasn't sent out his gunboats to attack all the ships in the Persian Gulf in a while?  If you're trying to say that its OK for the students to do this because they were just following orders, the world court had already set a precedent that "following orders is not a valid excuse". 

[Delfos]

never said Mr A is the one you should trust, but his government isn't exactly what Mr A is, fanatism is what you see in the tellie, there's so much more. If you call those "attacks" fanatism, that's what they made you believe so. Iranians believe they were freed, very noble ideal, the ones you preach. You emplied it when you said Iran (generalizing) is fanatic, and that all I want is that they nuke USA or Israel, or if they do, I wouldn't bother. Well it couldn't be closer tot he truth, but the problem with that is that I do not wish Iran using nuclear weaponry at all, although I don't want to restrict them with nuclear power, otherwise I would rather restrict USA, the greatest violator of the nuclear pacts, following would be UK and France, that have been abusing, but since reports have been disclosed with UN, as far as I know, they are complying with the pacts.

[Peter Darkness]

What would Iran have to gain by nuking another Country? They'd die, and don't forget. Iranians aren't Arab, they're Persians.   

Israel has Nukes. Israel WMD

Pakistan has Nukes. Pakistan WMD

*Looks at what recently happened in Pakistan with Musharraf*

I don't think Iran would want to Nuke anyone. If they had nukes. There is about as much proof of Pakistan and Israel having nukes, as there is Iran having nukes.

[Bender1968]

You stated that your position is that Iran should have nuclear power. I explained to you that nuclear reactors breed weapons materials and that there isn't a nuclear plant that doesn't work that way.  I also said I would support other types of

Iranians believe they were freed, very noble ideal, the ones you preach.

What are you talking about?  I hope you're not implying that the Iranians thought they were liberating Americans by seizing our embassy and then holding them captive for a 2 years.   They seized sovereign American soil and took people against their will.  What noble ideas am I preaching?   Why don't you answer any of my questions but attack me and tell me I'm assuming something.    You have watching the middle east situation for maybe a year or 2, I've been watching it for 30.  You're trying to say that these people are kind and nice and that only 1 or 2 people in their government are a little confused.   That is not the case at all.  These people are fanatical and will die without a problem.  Life is considered cheap especially if you're a woman.  We won't attack Iran because we got a taste of how brutal the Iraqis are.  The fertile crescent is not a nice place.   My friend was stationed in Iraq who is a major in the Unites States Marine Corps.  He tells me these stories first hand and also says that the violence isn't just in certain areas but all over the country.  These people beat to death a 4 year old girl who showed marines where a bomb was.  Don't tell me how these people are nice people there that are under a slightly brutal regime.

 

I don't think Iran would want to Nuke anyone. If they had nukes. There is about as much proof of Pakistan and Israel having nukes, as there is Iran having nukes.

I don't think they have them, but I still don't think its a good idea that they get them.

[Delfos]

Not exactly, I'm sure Israel has nukes, it's a very old program of Israel, and I'm sure his closest ally, if not given one, has given the tech and knowledge to do so. Probably Pakistan too, but that's another business.

Bender, that and France kidnapping children to sell on pedophilia market.

[Bender1968]

I meant that Iran doesn't have nukes, Israel and Pakistan do.  I'm still surprised a nuclear war hasn't happened between Pakistan and India.

[Delfos]

I'm not, apart from US being the only ones actually using nuclear power on civilians, modern nuclear warfare, since Cold War, is used for protection. So that's why nuclear weapons aren't that bad, specially if Iran gets one. It's their way to say "Stay off my land!", it's anyone's way actually.

[Eientei]

We should keep in mind that Ahmadinejad isn't really the one calling the shots, but rather "Supreme Leader" Ali Khamenei.  Khamenei's motivations are the ones to worry about.  I see Ahmadinejad more as his attack dog - Khamenei gives him some slack when he wants to be aggressive and then pulls on his leash when he wants to back down.

Iran wants nuclear weapons in order to gain political leverage in the region against both Israel and its Arab rivals.  Their leadership, I'm sure, know what would happen to Iran if they ever actually used such weapons.  Still, the prospect of another state with nuclear capability, especially another state in the Middle East, is terrible.

[Delfos]

true. one more contribute to the chaos

[Bender1968]

The problem with nuclear weapons is what to do with them once their useful life is over.  Russia has a serious problem with their nuclear subs.  To say nuclear weapons aren't that bad, you didn't live through the cold war where everyone's finger was on a a trigger.  World War 3 was almost started several times because of something small coming across a radar screen.  Nuclear weapons aren't a deterrent because someone will eventually use them.  Its not that these things are just big bombs.  Its the radiation and how you can apply it that will destroy regions for centuries.

[Delfos]

You seem to speak trough experience x)
I think we're all aware of that. And I'm aware of radiation and another problem, nuclear waste is as dangerous as the problem you're mentioning. England has a very large deposit of nuclear waste, when I mean large, is LARGE. It's double trouble if any terrorist group finds the location or has access to such.

[Eientei]

The problem with nuclear weapons is what to do with them once their useful life is over.  Russia has a serious problem with their nuclear subs.  To say nuclear weapons aren't that bad, you didn't live through the cold war where everyone's finger was on a a trigger.  World War 3 was almost started several times because of something small coming across a radar screen.  Nuclear weapons aren't a deterrent because someone will eventually use them.  Its not that these things are just big bombs.  Its the radiation and how you can apply it that will destroy regions for centuries.

I agree with you.  I've never believed nuclear weapons were anything other than trouble, and with the problems we face with loose nuclear materials in eastern Europe and Asia and issues with radiation, everyone should be concerned.  I'm just pointing out that in dealing with Iran specifically, we should recognize their probable motives for pursuing a nuclear program.  Really, the US should continue work with other countries on fulfilling the goals of the NPT so that someday, we might not have to worry about all this.

[Delfos]

There's just one problem with that, and it doesn't exactly help with the nuclear proliferation problem. US isn't complying with the treaty, how do you want to enforce the treaty to anyone else?