Iran: Should we go?

Well, as I see it there is only one country with a big enough stockpile of Nukes to dispatch us all. There is also only one country aho has ever used them (and on a purely civilian target...a survivor enclave no less...very clever way to test yield), despite their president being told the enemy was about to surrender anyway.

As to What Agent said....there's an excellent documentary called "dead in the water" about that ship (USS Liberty was it?). with Allies like that, who needs enemies. I think you can get it off demonoid.com if your azureus woes are ended.

Who "we"?

should we go?

more like should we nuke the long bearded bastards you mean.

J.A.K wrote: should we go?

more like should we nuke the long bearded bastards you mean.

long beardedness is the only substantial charge I've heard so far. :D

Steve Campbell wrote:

J.A.K wrote: should we go?

more like should we nuke the long bearded bastards you mean.

long beardedness is the only substantial charge I've heard so far. :D

you right i suppose. they've done fuck all so far anyway. still a cunt of a nation though. bring back the Shah.

good to see you got that Shed phase out of your system Ste. very well done. others take note.

(The Good Doctor) Martin Fradley wrote: Who "we"?

i guess that would be the usual suspects, usa, uk, australia and other allies.

NOOLigan wrote:

(The Good Doctor) Martin Fradley wrote: Who "we"?

i guess that would be the usual suspects, usa, uk, australia and other allies.

Right, those who speak English :D

|| | ||| 6217|| 8 || 3 wrote:

NOOLigan wrote:

(The Good Doctor) Martin Fradley wrote: Who "we"?

i guess that would be the usual suspects, usa, uk, australia and other allies.

Right, those who speak English :D

Yeah and the Yanks

UN sanctions hardly will help in this serious case

Come on. The UN will write them a letter telling Iran how very angry they are for having nukes. Iran will feel ashamed and give them up.

just send Team America in, they'll sort out all the worlds problems.

Well hell yeh!! Invade invade Life is just a giant game of 'risk' (old 80's board game for you young'ns & yanks)

in fairness tho..Risk doesn't end with the cockroaches taking over the house.

Andrew Sayer wrote: Well hell yeh!! Invade invade Life is just a giant game of 'risk' (old 80's board game for you young'ns & yanks)

erm, yeah. we have that game here.

and to answer several other posts:

ian: i can't imagine israel existing without the US, you're right. but it does pretty well militarily in its own right, considering.

steve: i can think of TWO countries that can blow the world to smithereens with nukes. you left out russia and its rusting nuclear subs in murmansk!

and, erm, kershie, i think it was: the shah wasn't any better than the ayatollah. he was just a bastard in a different way. an america-friendly bastard, if you will.

My solution to the problem is thus:

Iran clearly feels threatened by the fact that the Israelis have nukes. If the US could bribe the Israelis to dismantle their bomb, and then spend just a fraction of what it gives to the zionists to prop up their state, on health and improvement programmes in both Palestine & Iran then a whole bunch of peoples lives would improve immeasurably. This would win hearts & minds and so isolate the jihadists & muslim extremists.

Also the world has grown wise to the US crying wolf over Iraq, and any proposed military action against Iran would not be supported. Except possibly by Blair who loves Bush

According to information compiled by the Nuclear Threat Initiative, an organization devoted to monitoring the status of the nuclear threat worldwide, nine countries had nukes by April 2004. The nine countries are listed below. Each figure includes the approximate number of both tactical and strategic bombs (nuclear and thermonuclear, or "big" and "really humungous").

Country Warheads

United States 10,455

Russia 8,400

China 400

France 350

Israel 250

United Kingdom 200

India 65

Pakistan 40

North Korea 8 (crude estimates)

TOTAL 20,168

We are already living the globalization of the market... Why make an exception with the globalization of nuclear weapons ? I mean, who are we to not allow the others to play with the same toys than ours ?

I sometimes wonder how the world would look like if we were to live a new world order... a "non-Oceania" one...

James Thomas wrote: According to information compiled by the Nuclear Threat Initiative, an organization devoted to monitoring the status of the nuclear threat worldwide, nine countries had nukes by April 2004. The nine countries are listed below. Each figure includes the approximate number of both tactical and strategic bombs (nuclear and thermonuclear, or "big" and "really humungous").

Country Warheads

United States 10,455

Russia 8,400

China 400

France 350

Israel 250

United Kingdom 200

India 65

Pakistan 40

North Korea 8 (crude estimates)

TOTAL 20,168

Thats it. I'm off to my bunker. I've shat myself.

Night night.

:bag:

Jiphy wrote: We are already living the globalization of the market... Why make an exception with the globalization of nuclear weapons ? I mean, who are we to not allow the others to play with the same toys than ours ?

Shall we send them some?

Comrade Shampanyov, Gentleman wrote:

Jiphy wrote: We are already living the globalization of the market... Why make an exception with the globalization of nuclear weapons ? I mean, who are we to not allow the others to play with the same toys than ours ?

Shall we send them some?

According to the figures James gave us, we can... To sell some would be good to strenghten (sorry I think I haven't spelt this word correctly) our economies... I assume that we would still have more than them and that we could show them "we have teeth"...

Ad : I am surprised that we are ranked fourth...

Israel has the best ratio...

Jiphy wrote:

Comrade Shampanyov, Gentleman wrote:

Jiphy wrote: We are already living the globalization of the market... Why make an exception with the globalization of nuclear weapons ? I mean, who are we to not allow the others to play with the same toys than ours ?

Shall we send them some?

According to the figures James gave us, we can... To sell some would be good to strenghten (sorry I think I haven't spelt this word correctly) our economies... I assume that we would still have more than them and that we could show them "we have teeth"...

Ad : I am surprised that we are ranked fourth...

I meant send them, not sell them. If they want nukes so badly, perhaps we should send them some nukes. At the business end of a warhead.

Of course, I don't really think that we should nuke them, but it's clear that Iran wants nukes for non-peaceful purposes. Non-peaceful purposes like launching a holy war against Israel. Maybe even non-peaceful purposes like giving Islamic extremists the means to set off a suitcase nuke in Manhattan.

Israel has nukes because they're surrounded by hositile neighbors who've tried to wipe Israel out on many, many occasions. Iran wants nukes because it's run by religious extremists who want to wipe Israel out. Islamic extremists want to set nukes off in Manhattan because the U.S. won't let them wipe Israel out.

Should we turn a blind eye to these nutjobs builiding nukes? No way. Will we turn a blind eye? I doubt it.

When you have no choice, you follow the leaders... you do in Roma as the Romans do.

Western world society is far ahead comparing to the underdeveloped countries but I doubt that we quit the bad manners we "used" to have considering they are the most difficult to quit... which are to make short "shut up and behave"

Steve Campbell wrote:

J.A.K wrote: should we go?

more like should we nuke the long bearded bastards you mean.

long beardedness is the only substantial charge I've heard so far. :D

He doesn't like those other longbeards.

Jiphy wrote: We are already living the globalization of the market... Why make an exception with the globalization of nuclear weapons ? I mean, who are we to not allow the others to play with the same toys than ours ?

I sometimes wonder how the world would look like if we were to live a new world order... a "non-Oceania" one...

But Jean-Phillip, unless you being sarcastic here, I'd agree with you. Yet as you just sait there's a huge gap between Western society and the undeveloped (more significant - religy-driven) countries and giving them these toys would destroy the whole world. It's the toys for the chosen, and rightly so.

Jiphy wrote: When you have no choice, you follow the leaders... you do in Roma as the Romans do.

Western world society is far ahead comparing to the underdeveloped countries but I doubt that we quit the bad manners we "used" to have considering they are the most difficult to quit... which are to make short "shut up and behave"

They have a choice to live in coexsistence, and they reject that choice, so they keep trying for an Islamic bomb. That's not "following the leaders," it's a threat to commit mass murder. Which Islamic extremists have shown their willingness to engage in before.

So Comrade, in short, are you for a war against Iran, or not?

The question calls for too simplistic an answer.

Comrade Shampanyov, Gentleman wrote: The question calls for too simplistic an answer.

Yes, but we had an opportunity to hear your opinion about the issue, pros and contras, so after your elaborated statements feel free now to answer in a simplier way. So what is the final verdict?

|| | ||| 6217|| 8 || 3 wrote: So Comrade, in short, are you for a war against Iran, or not?

1. I have serious reservations about the information we're being presented with. Bush has already shown once his willingness to-- let's call a spade a spade-- lie to the American people, distort intelligence, manipulate the truth, in order to gain support for going to war. This isn't speculation at this point, it's well-documented fact. So I don't trust anything I hear fromthe Bush Administration.

2. I don't believe for a nanosecond that Iran wants nuclear technology for peaceful purposes.

3. It's clear that we've surrounded Iran, and it makes sense that Iran would want to have an effective deterrent to any planned U.S. military action.

4. Iran muddies the waters by calling for the annihilation of Israel every other day or so.

5. Iran is run by Islamic extremists. The United States was attacked by Islamic extremists. It's not hard to imagine secenarios in which one Islamic extremist helps another Islamic extremist detonate a nuclear bomb in the United States.

These facts don't add up to a necessity to go to war, but they do add up, in my opinion, to the necessity to destroy Iran's nuclear capability.