marcus Posted June 12, 2014 Report Posted June 12, 2014 (edited) The last thing we need is a rogue nation such as Iran having it's own nuks, which would be likely used over Israel....a group of people who think becoming a martar is more important than using common sense... You may think that, but both U.S. and Israeli officials have said that Iran is a "rational player". These are generals who know more than puppet politicians who are paid by lobby groups to tell tales to fit a narrative and an agenda. The former head of Israel's intelligence service believes the Iranian regime is a rational one - Link I agree with Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff General Martin Dempsey who described Iran as a "rational actor" on my program a couple of weeks ago. - Farid Zakaria on General Dempsey Pakistan, North Korea and even Israel are what we should be worried about when it comes to nuclear weapons. They all have shown to be militarily aggressive with leaders who are swayed by extreme nationalistic stance. As we have seen, threats and sanctions have the opposite effect. Iran's economy has been weakened but they have more centrifuges since Rouhani and the same posse made similar offers they are making today. Offers that were rejected by the previous U.S. administration. With Israel and Pakistan surrounding Iran, the only way to stop Iran from becoming a nuclear power is to remove nuclear weapons from the hands of those neighbours. When Israel refuses to even acknowledge having these weapons and refuses to sign the NPT, then it's clear that the only option left is to accept that Iran can become a nuclear country. An option, like "turning Iran into glass" is an irrational and illogical cowboy talk that today's world has no patience for. Edited June 12, 2014 by marcus Quote "What do you think of Western civilization?" Gandhi was asked. "I think it would be a good idea," he said.
overthere Posted June 12, 2014 Report Posted June 12, 2014 IRan is certainly rational, but their national goals and objectives include fomenting war on others as a matter of policy. Lebanon and Syria are Iranian proxies tasked with doing what Iran cannot do overtly: eliminate all traces of Israel and all traces of the Jewish population from the planet. Period. You were doing OK with some apparently rational discourse above until you lumped Israel in with Pakistan and North Korea. Oops! Boo-boo! If you arm Iran with nukes, you'd have to arm Saudi Arabia just for balance too. And what of that other regional power, Iraq? What about poor Jordan Egypt and Yemen. They'll need a few megatons too. The US and Russia have plenty to share with everybody. And how could we forget Bangladesh and Nepal, surrounded by nuclear power in India , Pakistan and China? Quote Science too hard for you? Try religion!
monty16 Posted June 12, 2014 Author Report Posted June 12, 2014 I guess you are unaware as to who supports the Assad government with arms and money and an eternal political .'get out of jail free' card at the highest diplomatic levels. Gee, am I ever surprised you were not aware. I'm totally aware of the fact that Russia supports the Assad regime but the nature of support and the degree of support needs to be discussed too. I am definitely not in agreement with the notion that the Assad regime gets the 'get out of jail free' card. That notion can be likened to Saddam and Iraq where in fact Saddam was managing to keep his country under control in spite of the divides between the Muslim factions. IN retrospect Saddam was completely vindicated in my opinion. Or at least, the harm the US brought to Iraq was eclipsed a hundred fold in comparison to Saddam. You can argue what I've said on Iraq if you wish. But the important fact is that Assad and Syria are being set up in the exact same way. And so I ask you, what is the US interest in Syria or even the entire ME? Is it supposed to be humanitarian concerns? Can that notion even continue to sound the least credible now after we have been subjected to the Iraq slaughter? I'll also comment on Russia's role. Is Russia playing an active part and was Russia playing an active part in Syria before the fighting began? I would suggest that the people had little concern in being opposed to Russia but had a great concern about the US, due to it's track record of aggression throughout the ME in the time since the fall of the S.U. Quote
monty16 Posted June 12, 2014 Author Report Posted June 12, 2014 (edited) Having a few nuks may give other countries a reason to pause and think, but if the US really had a reason to attack any of them conventional forces would be more than enough....As for falling victim to a nuk strike, Iran would be nothing but glass before they even knew they were under attack....there is not the MAD that the main players had such as Russia, China etc...who owned thousands of war heads just for that reason..... No disagreement whatsoever on the US not needing to use it's nuclear weapons. I didn't ever suggest otherwise. What I have suggested is that any nation that has nuclear weapons is making themselves immune from US attack. Perhaps not yet with N.Korea which may not have the capability of a counter-strike but certainly in the near future. That is most obviously their goal and most certainly not a first strike. You seem to understand that very well by your words. And of course, Iran would be nothing but glass, if it's even necessary to use such extreme rhetoric. But again, the point is that the US will not strike Iran when nuclear weapons would eventually give them the capability of putting one in the middle of New York or Los Angeles. Again, certainly not a first strike. This simple fact that the time is most likely coming when Iran will have it's immunity would be in my opinion, a good and valid reason for the US to not have any cause to ever want to go to war with Iran. Diplomacy ahead of that is obviously the only solution. I think most countries are safe from a nuk strike, not because of nuks they own, but rather the mess they create when detonated, and would likely draw in some of the big players....can you imigine the radiactive cloud that would be created if tehran would to disappear, then drift over to say Russia , killing thousands of russians in the process, poisoning eveything in between.... i think it is this problem that deters anyone from using nuks..... And once again, I have no disagreement with what you say. There are a lot of good reasons to not use nuclear weapons. But that's not even close to addressing what 'I' have said. The simple fact is that the US or Russia or China or any other nuclear armed nation is not going to mount any attack on another nuclear armed nation, be it a conventional weapon attack or a nuclear attack. Read this: IRAQ WOULD HAVE NOT FALLEN VICTIM TO A US ATTACK HAD SADDAM BEEN NUCLEAR ARMED! And that is the issue I am asking you to consider and that which I believe you are consciously attempting to not consider. The last thing we need is a rogue nation such as Iran having it's own nuks, which would be likely used over Israel....a group of people who think becoming a martar is more important than using common sense...would you really want that, to leave that kind of power in someone else hands....that cloud from that type of wpn would drift around the world piosoning everything in its path....there would be a resonse from many nations.... There's where we can disagree and there's where you don't try to avoid my point. First of all, Iran does fully understand that it couldn't defeat Israel in a conventional war or a nuclear war and so wouldn't attempt one. Proclaiming Iran's leaders as 'insane' is just a non-starter and has no place in a rational discussion of the sort I wish to have with you. Therefore, the only present possibility of war between the two is a pre-emptive strike on Iran from Israel. As we are both aware has been threatened. And we're also aware of the fact that that strike must come before Iran is nuclear armed. And in fact, to further make my point, Israel stands immune to Arab aggression, due to it's conventional weaponry as well as it's nuclear threat. There can be no doubt! As for Iran being kept safe because of a Nuk program is false. the US current finacial state would proably have more to do with that than anything. that and it would spark a major response from the rest of the ME....it would not be a short conflict.... The US will not strike Iran if Iran has nuclear weapons and the capability of delivering them to US soil. There's no point in you continuing to disagree with that fact. It's a sure as the fact that the US or Russia or China will not attack each other. More diplomatic means of gaining the advantage or the upper hand must be empmloyed, if in fact that is the goal of any of the three. I think if the US or Russia would have dropped a large nuk on each other or europe it would have been assured MAD, no one would have accepted those type of losses....surrender was not an option, not when you have thousands of war heads.... destroying the entire planet would have been....you don't build that number of systems if you are not going to use them.... MAD is exactly my point. But my point was also in saying that if one of either the US or Russia 'didn't have nuclear weapons then one or the other would have most likely been attacked with nukes and would have quickly capitulated. You can speculate on which side that would have been. And in fact, you've now made my point for me. None of which ever needed to be said because I'm sure that both of us fully understands the implications. The only reason I needed to say it is because you didn't want to accept the real implications of nuclear weapons in the hands of Iran. I don't understand why you wouldn't unless it's due to aome sort of arrogance you choose to stand upon? Edited June 12, 2014 by Charles Anthony fixed mal-formed quotes Quote
monty16 Posted June 12, 2014 Author Report Posted June 12, 2014 And furthermore Army Guy, you're full of baloney when you say that a nuclear detonation would poison the world or distant countries. It's not at all certain and can be proven to not certain by just considering the number of above ground nuclear test detonations there were by the US and Russia in the 40's and 50's. Don't try to exaggerate in order to make your point. It lessens the credibility which I have begun affording you and it stands you at risk of losing it all. Quote
marcus Posted June 12, 2014 Report Posted June 12, 2014 IRan is certainly rational, but their national goals and objectives include fomenting war on others as a matter of policy. Lebanon and Syria are Iranian proxies tasked with doing what Iran cannot do overtly: eliminate all traces of Israel and all traces of the Jewish population from the planet. Period. You were doing OK with some apparently rational discourse above until you lumped Israel in with Pakistan and North Korea. Oops! Boo-boo! Of all the four countries: North Korea, Pakistan, Iran and Israel, only Israel has been getting into wars with its neighbours, consistently for the past 40 years. The circumstances of each of those have varied but an identity has been formed: Israel is a militarily aggressive country. Sure, the powerful PR machine has successfully painted the picture of a country cornered by aggressive, Jew-hating countries; case in point: "eliminate all traces of Israel and all traces of the Jewish population from the planet. Period." However, these claims are contrary to reality for several reasons. One being that Iran has the second highest population of Jews in the Middle East. One should look at Israel's actions in Lebanon and in the Occupied Territories to see that Israel is the most aggressive country in that region and their actions have been one of the main catalysts for the instability in the region. This is why Israel has been a consistent supporter of most of the authoritarian governments and not democracy. Israel counts on instability to keep the neighbours from unifying. One can argue that this strategy is a deterrent so the Arab world and the Iranians do not form a unified voice and possible military unity that could endanger Israel's strategy and agenda. For things to improve, the unequal playing field and the economic and military bullying needs to be changed. It looks like the Obama administration is finally accepting this reality and acknowledges that the status quo is unsustainable. The world is a different place than it was two decades ago. The world has become more vocal about US' one-sided and unfair approach to the region. US has no other choice but to adapt otherwise the old and the emerging powers will side-step the U.S. The U.S. should put itself ahead of other countries, such as Israel's interests otherwise the U.S. will continue to be dragged down by its unsustainable foreign policy, which has been strongly influenced by Israel. Quote "What do you think of Western civilization?" Gandhi was asked. "I think it would be a good idea," he said.
bush_cheney2004 Posted June 12, 2014 Report Posted June 12, 2014 No, the U.S. should do exactly as it has done for decades. Israel's interests are U.S. interests. Israel gets to lobby the U.S. just as much as Canada and other nations do. If other nations have a better plan, then make it happen. Talk is cheap. Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
dre Posted June 12, 2014 Report Posted June 12, 2014 No, the U.S. should do exactly as it has done for decades. The problem is that Americans are starting to realize a lot of the things its been doing for decades are contrary to its own interests. Quote I question things because I am human. And call no one my father who's no closer than a stranger
monty16 Posted June 13, 2014 Author Report Posted June 13, 2014 The problem is that Americans are starting to realize a lot of the things its been doing for decades are contrary to its own interests. It's going to be learning a lot quicker in the near future and it's going to stop the bluster and bravado when it again finds it has another nuclear armed country to prevent it from running roughshod over the world. Russia has stepped back up and that's why it's so important that Putin doesn't back down in the Ukraine or Crimea. The US warhawks are not stupid, if anything can be said for them. They won't dick around with Russia and provoke a hot war. Nobody wins. Everybody loses. Quote
bush_cheney2004 Posted June 13, 2014 Report Posted June 13, 2014 The problem is that Americans are starting to realize a lot of the things its been doing for decades are contrary to its own interests. Americans felt the same way about your empire's stupid wars in Europe too...so what ? Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
dre Posted June 13, 2014 Report Posted June 13, 2014 Americans felt the same way about your empire's stupid wars in Europe too...so what ? Trolling non response? Huge suprise! Quote I question things because I am human. And call no one my father who's no closer than a stranger
monty16 Posted June 13, 2014 Author Report Posted June 13, 2014 Trolling non response? Huge suprise! I don't mind at all. It's an admission of guilt and so he needs to spread the guilt to the British empire. That is totally correct. It's when there's a denial of his country's crimes against humanity that a debate sometimes becomes necessary to correct him. He's smart like a tractor! Quote
Army Guy Posted June 16, 2014 Report Posted June 16, 2014 And furthermore Army Guy, you're full of baloney when you say that a nuclear detonation would poison the world or distant countries. It's not at all certain and can be proven to not certain by just considering the number of above ground nuclear test detonations there were by the US and Russia in the 40's and 50's. Don't try to exaggerate in order to make your point. It lessens the credibility which I have begun affording you and it stands you at risk of losing it all. Full of baloney, sure below is a link to a Nuclear accident in Chernobyl, this is a small explosion, with limited piosoning, and yet the city of 14 k and the Chernobyl Nuclear Power Plant, the area won't be safe for human habitation for at least 20,000 years. read the link rad levels were recorded as far as europe...I can just imigine a 1 to 5 mega ton missle strike on say Iran and how far the radicative plume will travel.... http://www.livescience.com/39961-chernobyl.html A radioactive cloud quickly travelled with the winds over large areas of Europe. Most affected were Belarus, Ukraine and the western parts of Russia. After the accident, a significant increased level of radioactive Iodine could be found in agricultural products from the area, e.g. in milk. Radioactive Cesium has polluted large forest areas, where high levels of radioactivity have been found in berries, mushrooms and animals. While the radioactivity in agricultural products reduce with time, the level of Cesium in forest products will remain high for decades to come. This is not only affecting the areas close to the accident, but also the northern parts of Scandinavia, where contaminated reindeer meat poses problems to the Sami people. (6) http://www.slmk.org/larom/wordpress/en/biology/ From the 15-megaton thermonuclear device tested at Bikini Atoll on March 1, 1954 - the BRAVO shot of Operation CASTLE - the fallout caused substantial contamination over an area of more than 7,000 square miles. The contaminated region was roughly cigar-shaped and extended more than 20 miles upwind and over 350 miles downwind. Fallout can also enter into the stratosphere. In this stable region, radioactive particles can remain from 1 to 3 years before returning to the surface. http://www.atomicarchive.com/Effects/effects19.shtml Quote We, the willing, led by the unknowing, are doing the impossible for the ungrateful. We have now done so much for so long with so little, we are now capable of doing anything with nothing.
Army Guy Posted June 16, 2014 Report Posted June 16, 2014 You may think that, but both U.S. and Israeli officials have said that Iran is a "rational player". These are generals who know more than puppet politicians who are paid by lobby groups to tell tales to fit a narrative and an agenda. The former head of Israel's intelligence service believes the Iranian regime is a rational one - Link I agree with Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff General Martin Dempsey who described Iran as a "rational actor" on my program a couple of weeks ago. - Farid Zakaria on General Dempsey "Irrational regimes" like Iran cannot be allowed to have nuclear arms and it is a mistake to think Tehran's ambitions can be contained, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said on U.S. television. http://www.reuters.com/article/2010/07/11/us-nuclear-iran-netanyahu-idUSTRE66A1FI20100711 "So when the president (Obama) says that he's determined to prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons and that all options are on the table, I think that's the right statement of policy." http://www.reuters.com/article/2010/07/11/us-nuclear-iran-netanyahu-idUSTRE66A1FI20100711 President Obama told the crowd that "diplomacy backed by pressure" could succeed. He added that, "Iran's leaders should understand that I do not have a policy of containment; I have a policy to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon." http://www.cfr.org/iran/candidates-us-iran-policy/p26798?cid=ppc-Google-issue_tracker-president_on_iran&gclid=COStsorT_r4CFXMR7AodQF0A1A During that debate, Romney stated that it was "unacceptable for Iran to have a nuclear weapon," and referenced the range of economic, diplomatic, and military measures he would employ to deter Tehran. "If you'd like me as the next president, they will not have a nuclear weapon," he said. http://www.cfr.org/iran/candidates-us-iran-policy/p26798?cid=ppc-Google-issue_tracker-president_on_iran&gclid=COStsorT_r4CFXMR7AodQF0A1A And your right maybe some people within Iran are reasonable, but here is some world leaders that think a little differently, they either think Iran and it's leadership is a little whacked....or they agree that perhaps Iran is not ready for a nuk wpn..... Quote We, the willing, led by the unknowing, are doing the impossible for the ungrateful. We have now done so much for so long with so little, we are now capable of doing anything with nothing.
Army Guy Posted June 16, 2014 Report Posted June 16, 2014 No disagreement whatsoever on the US not needing to use it's nuclear weapons. I didn't ever suggest otherwise. What I have suggested is that any nation that has nuclear weapons is making themselves immune from US attack. But again, the point is that the US will not strike Iran when nuclear weapons would eventually give them the capability of putting one in the middle of New York or Los Angeles. Again, certainly not a first strike. And my piont is this having a few Nuk wpns is one thing the abilty to get them on US soil is another...even if Iran had both means ,all it would mean is the US would take a pause find out the location of these wpns and target them via conventional means....and if the situation call for it then a mass conventional attack.... Having a few wpns means nothing, they can easily hunted down and destroyed....and don't think for one minute the US does not have the tech to locate and track everything nuk in Iran....what makes Russian and China different is they have thousands of missles imposable to destroy all of them in one strike...hence the MAD....mad does not apply to a small country with a few wpns....Thats what the missle defense program is for.... you made the comment that Israel was been afforded that imunity to attack because of their nuk wpns program.......well sir, Israel has had a nuk wpn since 1967, and yet has been subject to 2 major wars since then.....either the Arab countries did not know they existed, or it was a ballsy move on their part....How do we explain that ? And in fact, to further make my point, Israel stands immune to Arab aggression, due to it's conventional weaponry as well as it's nuclear threat. There can be no doubt! Quote We, the willing, led by the unknowing, are doing the impossible for the ungrateful. We have now done so much for so long with so little, we are now capable of doing anything with nothing.
GostHacked Posted June 16, 2014 Report Posted June 16, 2014 Army guy, please type nuclear weapon instead of nuk wpn. And I'd be more worried about the nuclear weapons in Pakistan. Pakistan is more unstable than Iran in terms of civil strife and cross border operations by the Taliban and others. How secure are Pakistan's nuclear weapons? Iran is not a threat. Never was. Quote
Army Guy Posted June 16, 2014 Report Posted June 16, 2014 Sure if it makes you happy, I'm sure everyone is concerned with Pakistans Nuclear wpns as well. As for your assesment of Iran not being a threat, i think the US government as well as most western governments think other wise. If Iran were not a threat why all the fuse about thery're Nuclear wpns program.... Quote We, the willing, led by the unknowing, are doing the impossible for the ungrateful. We have now done so much for so long with so little, we are now capable of doing anything with nothing.
monty16 Posted June 16, 2014 Author Report Posted June 16, 2014 Full of baloney, sure below is a link to a Nuclear accident in Chernobyl, this is a small explosion, with limited piosoning, and yet the city of 14 k and the Chernobyl Nuclear Power Plant, the area won't be safe for human habitation for at least 20,000 years. read the link rad levels were recorded as far as europe...I can just imigine a 1 to 5 mega ton missle strike on say Iran and how far the radicative plume will travel.... http://www.livescience.com/39961-chernobyl.html A radioactive cloud quickly travelled with the winds over large areas of Europe. Most affected were Belarus, Ukraine and the western parts of Russia. After the accident, a significant increased level of radioactive Iodine could be found in agricultural products from the area, e.g. in milk. Radioactive Cesium has polluted large forest areas, where high levels of radioactivity have been found in berries, mushrooms and animals. While the radioactivity in agricultural products reduce with time, the level of Cesium in forest products will remain high for decades to come. This is not only affecting the areas close to the accident, but also the northern parts of Scandinavia, where contaminated reindeer meat poses problems to the Sami people. (6) http://www.slmk.org/larom/wordpress/en/biology/ From the 15-megaton thermonuclear device tested at Bikini Atoll on March 1, 1954 - the BRAVO shot of Operation CASTLE - the fallout caused substantial contamination over an area of more than 7,000 square miles. The contaminated region was roughly cigar-shaped and extended more than 20 miles upwind and over 350 miles downwind. Fallout can also enter into the stratosphere. In this stable region, radioactive particles can remain from 1 to 3 years before returning to the surface. http://www.atomicarchive.com/Effects/effects19.shtml Army Guy, why is it that when I make a substantially true statement, you try to turn it into something else by quoting the harm nuclear detonations have caused throughout the world? Is it because you want to be seen as the authority on all such matters? So I'll once again repeat the obvious truth I stated and ask you to debate that which I said and not get all carried away with telling us the obvious dangers of any nuclear detonation or the obvious dangers of nuclear power plants gone awry: I said: And furthermore Army Guy, you're full of baloney when you say that a nuclear detonation would poison the world or distant countries. It's not at all certain and can be proven to not certain by just considering the number of above ground nuclear test detonations there were by the US and Russia in the 40's and 50's. Don't try to exaggerate in order to make your point. It lessens the credibility which I have begun affording you and it stands you at risk of losing it all. Now try to stick to what I said and show how that is wrong. For example, a nuclear weapon detonated in any country is not going to poison the world as you contend. In fact, none ever did, irregardless of the harm some of them did. Quote
monty16 Posted June 16, 2014 Author Report Posted June 16, 2014 And my piont is this having a few Nuk wpns is one thing the abilty to get them on US soil is another...even if Iran had both means ,all it would mean is the US would take a pause find out the location of these wpns and target them via conventional means....and if the situation call for it then a mass conventional attack.... Having a few wpns means nothing, they can easily hunted down and destroyed....and don't think for one minute the US does not have the tech to locate and track everything nuk in Iran....what makes Russian and China different is they have thousands of missles imposable to destroy all of them in one strike...hence the MAD....mad does not apply to a small country with a few wpns....Thats what the missle defense program is for.... you made the comment that Israel was been afforded that imunity to attack because of their nuk wpns program.......well sir, Israel has had a nuk wpn since 1967, and yet has been subject to 2 major wars since then.....either the Arab countries did not know they existed, or it was a ballsy move on their part....How do we explain that ? You're just trying to be contrary now and there's no real reason for that. Israel was able to hold off Arab revenge attacks with it's conventional weapons and the support of the US. There was no need to use it's nukes. And in fact, had it used them the world would have branded Israel the evil aggressor for sure, not just strongly suggested. As for the US searching out and destroying Iran's future nuclear weapons, you've only engaging in wishful thinking. The fact is, the US would acknowledge the threat of Iran's nuclear revenge attack and would cease all aggression against Iran. Good grief man, do you really not understand why Israel has it's piss in a knot on Iran obtaining nukes? I'm sure you do understand the urgency and if you didn't then you would be calling yourself Army Guy only because you have toy soldiers and toy weapons. You really need to stop it. You're making a fool of yourself and it's only to save face now. Or don't and I'll gladly continue to tear your fantasies down! Quote
monty16 Posted June 16, 2014 Author Report Posted June 16, 2014 Sure if it makes you happy, I'm sure everyone is concerned with Pakistans Nuclear wpns as well. As for your assesment of Iran not being a threat, i think the US government as well as most western governments think other wise. If Iran were not a threat why all the fuse about thery're Nuclear wpns program.... Dog! Aren't you trying to be a piece of work! Now you have turned around and started acknowledging the obvious concern for Iran obtaining nuclear weapons! Read this and understand: When Iran gets it's nuclear weapons the US party in the ME is over. If you don't understand then I'll explain. Quote
Army Guy Posted June 16, 2014 Report Posted June 16, 2014 Army Guy, why is it that when I make a substantially true statement, you try to turn it into something else by quoting the harm nuclear detonations have caused throughout the world? Is it because you want to be seen as the authority on all such matters? So I'll once again repeat the obvious truth I stated and ask you to debate that which I said and not get all carried away with telling us the obvious dangers of any nuclear detonation or the obvious dangers of nuclear power plants gone awry: I said: Now try to stick to what I said and show how that is wrong. For example, a nuclear weapon detonated in any country is not going to poison the world as you contend. In fact, none ever did, irregardless of the harm some of them did. Your pretty quick to tell me that i'm full of shit ( Balony) when you say that the detonation will not effect other countries....the link i provide was for a melt down, a small explosion and yet toxic radiation is effecting distant countries.....now if this had been a modern day Nuclear wpn which would of thrown radiative material into the stratosphere it would travel a great distance....your suggesting that the damage would be contained to IRAN....Not true, i call bullshit....and if you can prove it wrong then provide the links that suggest so.... I think most countries are safe from a nuk strike, not because of nuks they own, but rather the mess they create when detonated, and would likely draw in some of the big players....can you imigine the radiactive cloud that would be created if tehran would to disappear, then drift over to say Russia , killing thousands of russians in the process, poisoning eveything in between.... You can deny that no radiactive material did not travel great distances then your not reading the same sources i am. again please provide..... Quote We, the willing, led by the unknowing, are doing the impossible for the ungrateful. We have now done so much for so long with so little, we are now capable of doing anything with nothing.
monty16 Posted June 16, 2014 Author Report Posted June 16, 2014 (edited) Your pretty quick to tell me that i'm full of shit ( Balony) when you say that the detonation will not effect other countries....the link i provide was for a melt down, a small explosion and yet toxic radiation is effecting distant countries.....now if this had been a modern day Nuclear wpn which would of thrown radiative material into the stratosphere it would travel a great distance....your suggesting that the damage would be contained to IRAN....Not true, i call bullshit....and if you can prove it wrong then provide the links that suggest so.... You can deny that no radiactive material did not travel great distances then your not reading the same sources i am. again please provide..... You know I didn't say a nuclear detonation wouldn't effect other countries. I'm not going to waste anymore time on this with you. I think I've adequately made my point that any country with nuclear weapons is going to eventually be immune from an attack from another. And you agree with that anyway. You understand fully that once Iran obtains the nuclear deterrent from US aggression, all bets are off. Both the US and Israel understands completely. And of course Iran will understand that it must never use it's nuclear weapons on Israel or the US. Edited June 16, 2014 by monty16 Quote
overthere Posted June 17, 2014 Report Posted June 17, 2014 Of all the four countries: North Korea, Pakistan, Iran and Israel, only Israel has been getting into wars with its neighbours, consistently for the past 40 years. That is simply not true. North Korea has been officially at war with South Korea for over 60 years, and acts belligerently to nearly everybody, and is so militarized that its people routinely starve. Pakistan has been in a hot/cold war with India since partition in 1947, with bullets routinely exchanged in Kashmir including right now. They've also had what amounts to a civil war going on for decades(not even counting their own partition into Pakistan and Bangladesh. They've been deeply involved through their military and secret services with keeping Afghanistan unstable for decades. Iran has been shit stirring everywhere since their own revolution in the late 70s, including their direct and massive support of proxy states in Syria and Lebanon and endless war in both places, largely directed against Israel. You also overlook the war between Iraq and Iran in the eartly 80s, when about 8 million people died. 8 million. In the meantime . lets look at Israels actual neighbours.... Egypt : at peace with Israel for decades, after realizing they could not defeat Israel jointly or sparately depsite attacking Israel without provoication a few times. Jordan: at peace with Israel for decades. Lebanon: Syrian\Iranian\Russian proxy that was completely devastated as an independent state by 15 years of civil war funded and promted by their proxy masters. The country is effectively run by Syria and her masters for almost 25 years now, and overtly since the Syrian occupation of Lebanon in 1998. Syria: focal point of Irans well funded effort to destroy Israel and kill every Jew. Run by a loon who will stop at nothing to stay in power, and actively supported by the Iran funded Hezbollah in fighting rebel groups. Quote Science too hard for you? Try religion!
Army Guy Posted June 17, 2014 Report Posted June 17, 2014 You know I didn't say a nuclear detonation wouldn't effect other countries. I'm not going to waste anymore time on this with you. I think I've adequately made my point that any country with nuclear weapons is going to eventually be immune from an attack from another. And you agree with that anyway. You understand fully that once Iran obtains the nuclear deterrent from US aggression, all bets are off. Both the US and Israel understands completely. And of course Iran will understand that it must never use it's nuclear weapons on Israel or the US. Sounds good to me, as for you making your piont "that any country with Nuclear weopons being immune to attack" well lets agree to disagree, i already piont out to you Israel, and as already mentioned on another topic the British and the falkland isles....and well there is the US and 9/11.....I don't agree with your statement once Iran gets Nuclear wpns the parties over in the Middle east...if the US wants to attack Iran, with a few Nuclear assets, i think they would take a pause find a conventional solution and poof Iran will feel the might of the US military....only a fool would think a few wpns makes you safe from any attck or threats.... Quote We, the willing, led by the unknowing, are doing the impossible for the ungrateful. We have now done so much for so long with so little, we are now capable of doing anything with nothing.
GostHacked Posted June 17, 2014 Report Posted June 17, 2014 Let's clear this up, no nation with nuclear weapons will attack another that has nuclear weapons. Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.