Page 11 of 20 FirstFirst ...
9
10
11
12
13
... LastLast
  1. #201
    The Lightbringer N-7's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    3,552
    Quote Originally Posted by smelltheglove View Post
    just stop it. our airspace has been breached many times, it was a regular occurrence during the cold war, and surprise surprise, no invasion. but stay classy on the hyperbole
    Because of MAD. If Iran even dare to fly near USA even in international space, it would probably lead to invasion.

    ---------- Post added 2012-12-05 at 11:27 AM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by obdigore View Post
    I don't blame Iran for wanting nuclear weapons, even as a deterrence. However, I don't blame Iran's neighbors or anyone else for wanting them to not have nuclear weapons. Theocracies can be hard to predict and are generally not as stable as republics or democracies. Meanwhile the most realistic case isn't that Iran would use nuclear weapons aggressively, but that they would 'lose' bombs or enriched material and it would turn up inside groups seen as terrorist organizations by many places, which would then detonate the dirty bombs inside their territory.

    Also, proliferation of nuclear weapons is bad, mmmkay.
    Pulling that arugment again? Pakistan a country that have shitload of terrorists in it didn't "lose" bombs, so why would Iran?

    ---------- Post added 2012-12-05 at 11:28 AM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by ringpriest View Post
    Are you talking about the US or Iran?
    Probably US... :P

  2. #202
    Bloodsail Admiral soulcrusher's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    A Black Land of Sorcery and Nameless Horror
    Posts
    1,131
    Quote Originally Posted by Djalil View Post
    True.
    That's why I think it won't work against Iran.
    They aren't really "little guys"
    sadly in this case i would have to disagree with you. america would do what it always does and obliterate everything from afar. 1.5 million dead iraqis, mostly civilians are testament to that. there arent many countries in the world capable of withstanding the firepower they could bring to bear. ofc the ones that could, they wouldnt dare attack. but then not many countries want to waste so much of their GDP on a needless pissing contest either. maybe thats why their economy is going down the toilet and well all be speaking chineese soon.

  3. #203
    Quote Originally Posted by obdigore View Post
    Whats the point in having laws, policies, and procedures if some countries are just going to ignore them?

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/...445_story.html

    If Iran ONLY wanted nuclear power plants (which the Russians offered to help them build for much less then a research then build cost), then why do they refuse the UN inspectors access to places?
    Someone asked the same question about Iraq, and then went to bomb them. Guess what? No nuclear weapons.

    Also, the rules are made by the US for the US. It's kinda ironic that THEY are the ones telling other people to not have nukes. It's like me pointing a gun at someone's head to prevent them from buying guns.

  4. #204
    Quote Originally Posted by saffi View Post
    Someone asked the same question about Iraq, and then went to bomb them. Guess what? No nuclear weapons.

    Also, the rules are made by the US for the US. It's kinda ironic that THEY are the ones telling other people to not have nukes. It's like me pointing a gun at someone's head to prevent them from buying guns.
    Iran signed on to play by the rules, and they aren't. And before you start whining about Isreal, perhaps you should read who signed the NPT and who didnt?

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_...uclear_Weapons

  5. #205
    Quote Originally Posted by N-7 View Post
    Because of MAD. If Iran even dare to fly near USA even in international space, it would probably lead to invasion.
    And what does MAD have to do with invasion? Nothing? Nothing at all?

    Oh, by the way... your tinfoil hat has a crinkle on the left side. That is a weakness our Mass Mental Control satellites can exploit. Our Weather Control satellites had been programmed to blow the wind in just the right direction to create that crinkle. Just saying...

  6. #206
    Quote Originally Posted by obdigore View Post
    Iran signed on to play by the rules, and they aren't. And before you start whining about Isreal, perhaps you should read who signed the NPT and who didnt?

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_...uclear_Weapons
    Which part of "the rules are made by the US for the US" didn't you understand? Also, there is no proof that Iran has nuclear weapons. Remember Iraq? When US officials said "we have definite proof of WMDs" and nothing was found? Yeah, same thing here, except the US doesn't have money to invade Iran.

  7. #207
    Quote Originally Posted by saffi View Post
    Which part of "the rules are made by the US for the US" didn't you understand? Also, there is no proof that Iran has nuclear weapons. Remember Iraq? When US officials said "we have definite proof of WMDs" and nothing was found? Yeah, same thing here, except the US doesn't have money to invade Iran.
    Implying that the US 'doesnt have the money' is a foolish assumption. Refusing UN inspectors is breaking the rules, and a cause to be suspicious. Why you think that somehow the US strongarmed every other nation to sign onto this treaty and is the sole voice in enforcing it I have no idea, but your tinfoil hat might need to come off at some point.

  8. #208
    Quote Originally Posted by obdigore View Post
    Implying that the US 'doesnt have the money' is a foolish assumption. Refusing UN inspectors is breaking the rules, and a cause to be suspicious. Why you think that somehow the US strongarmed every other nation to sign onto this treaty and is the sole voice in enforcing it I have no idea, but your tinfoil hat might need to come off at some point.
    Ok, so circumstancial evidence and IAEA inspectors have been saying that the nuclear weapons programme has been halted since 2003. The breach they are talking of is enrichment of uranium. That doesn't necessarily mean WMDs.

    You can ignore the fact that Iran won't be using WMDs ever. You see, even the arab countries in the close-by region don't want much to do with Iran.

    And finally, how come I am the one with the tinfoil hat? I don't go on and on about weapons programmes that are rumored to be true by unnamed "experts" and US officials. I also don't ignore the fact that Iraq was invaded over WMDs it did not have.

    You may need to stop being biased really.

  9. #209
    Quote Originally Posted by saffi View Post
    Which part of "the rules are made by the US for the US" didn't you understand? Also, there is no proof that Iran has nuclear weapons. Remember Iraq? When US officials said "we have definite proof of WMDs" and nothing was found? Yeah, same thing here, except the US doesn't have money to invade Iran.
    The NPT was put in force by the UN. But I guess that doesn't matter?

    And yes, there is no proof that Iran has nuclear weapons. Simply because, unless they bought off the black market, they don't. But that doesn't change the VERY SIMPLE fact that they are trying to develop them.

    As far as the US saying we have proof... Where is your source?

    As for invading Iran... Really? You honestly think so? If that were the case, we wouldn't have so many naval forces in the straights making sure Iran doesn't do something really really stupid, like shutting off the shipping lanes. And if that ever happens, Iran will be a burned out nightlight at best.

  10. #210
    Bloodsail Admiral soulcrusher's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    A Black Land of Sorcery and Nameless Horror
    Posts
    1,131
    Quote Originally Posted by obdigore View Post
    Implying that the US 'doesnt have the money' is a foolish assumption.
    tbh while i hate what America does and the fact that so many innocents die, I cant help but relish the thought that the more America engages in these ill judged foreign adventures at the behest of their Israeli masters, the more they hasten their inevitible decline. so keep it up guys, no really. your time is coming.

  11. #211
    Quote Originally Posted by saffi View Post
    That doesn't necessarily mean WMDs.
    Correct. That means dirty bombs given out to terrorists.

    [/quote]And finally, how come I am the one with the tinfoil hat? I don't go on and on about weapons programmes that are rumored to be true by unnamed "experts" and US officials. I also don't ignore the fact that Iraq was invaded over WMDs it did not have.

    You may need to stop being biased really.[/QUOTE]

    Iraq wasn't invaded JUST because of their attempts at acquiring nuclear arms. Iraq was invaded because Saddam used his own people to test chemical weapons, among many other atrocities.

  12. #212
    The Lightbringer N-7's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    3,552
    Quote Originally Posted by Ryuukon View Post
    And what does MAD have to do with invasion? Nothing? Nothing at all?

    Oh, by the way... your tinfoil hat has a crinkle on the left side. That is a weakness our Mass Mental Control satellites can exploit. Our Weather Control satellites had been programmed to blow the wind in just the right direction to create that crinkle. Just saying...
    He have stated that during the cold fucking war Russian spy-planes were flying over US airpspace and it didn't esclate into a full-out war. I replied by saying that in the cold war, MAD was at work and neither side will go to a full scale war because of it. In Iran's case, the US power outweights Iran's significantly so what would probably happen if Iran sent drones over the US is an invasion.

    I guess sometime people need to spell out the obvious so illiterate idiots can understand...

  13. #213
    Quote Originally Posted by Ryuukon View Post
    The NPT was put in force by the UN. But I guess that doesn't matter?

    And yes, there is no proof that Iran has nuclear weapons. Simply because, unless they bought off the black market, they don't. But that doesn't change the VERY SIMPLE fact that they are trying to develop them.

    As far as the US saying we have proof... Where is your source?

    As for invading Iran... Really? You honestly think so? If that were the case, we wouldn't have so many naval forces in the straights making sure Iran doesn't do something really really stupid, like shutting off the shipping lanes. And if that ever happens, Iran will be a burned out nightlight at best.

    So wait, I need sources to claim something that has been repeatedly been shown to be true in documentaries, news stories and books. But you don't need any proof at all to conclude that Iran has WMDs or is in the process of aquiring them. Seems fair.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PW40PCRAr0s
    Yeah, I guess the US didn't say anything of proof of WMDs in Iraq.

    The NPT was signed in 1968 (by Iran), and so far nothing has been proven in terms of them violating any clauses. It is just allegations, and nothing has been confirmed. I believe in "innocent until proven guilty", but apparently that doesn't apply to every country; only the selected ones, eh?

  14. #214
    The Lightbringer N-7's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    3,552
    Quote Originally Posted by Ryuukon View Post
    Iraq wasn't invaded JUST because of their attempts at acquiring nuclear arms. Iraq was invaded because Saddam used his own people to test chemical weapons, among many other atrocities.
    The official story was that we invaded Iraq BECAUSE OF WMD and nothing else really. No matter how you want to spin it a lie can never be truth.

  15. #215
    Quote Originally Posted by Doktor Faustus View Post
    Not every Israeli is blinded by propanganda and conditioning.

    Free thinkers exist everywhere, in every nation.

    Iran should be allowed nukes, why not?

    Israel has them, so do Pakistan.

    Not likely to start WW3, no matter what your chief propaganda ministers tell you.
    Probably because Iran are subject to the Non Proliforation Treaty which they voluntarily signed up to. Israel and Pakistan are not, personally regardless of who currently has them vs who doesn't, we should be moving towards disarmament. But I digress, interesting that the US is claiming they have lost no drones, good old international chess.

  16. #216
    Quote Originally Posted by saffi View Post
    Ok, so circumstancial evidence and IAEA inspectors have been saying that the nuclear weapons programme has been halted since 2003. The breach they are talking of is enrichment of uranium. That doesn't necessarily mean WMDs.

    You can ignore the fact that Iran won't be using WMDs ever. You see, even the arab countries in the close-by region don't want much to do with Iran.

    And finally, how come I am the one with the tinfoil hat? I don't go on and on about weapons programmes that are rumored to be true by unnamed "experts" and US officials. I also don't ignore the fact that Iraq was invaded over WMDs it did not have.

    You may need to stop being biased really.
    No, they have not.

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-11709428

    n November 2011 the IAEA released its latest report on Iran's nuclear programme, presenting new evidence suggesting that Iran is secretly working to obtain a nuclear weapon. Iran has dismissed the claims as fictitious.
    Arab countries in the close-by region are different sect than Iran, and hope Iran does not get nuclear weapons as well. I'm not sure why you think the IAEA is an American-Only place or something. It is an International Agency.

  17. #217
    Quote Originally Posted by obdigore View Post
    No, they have not.

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-11709428



    Arab countries in the close-by region are different sect than Iran, and hope Iran does not get nuclear weapons as well. I'm not sure why you think the IAEA is an American-Only place or something. It is an International Agency.
    I've read the report myself. It does not give any definite proof, only that Iran appears to be on that path, which might some day be used to make nuclear weapons. The article you linked doesn't even cite the original report. Furthermore, read this in your own link:

    It said that some of these activities could only be used to develop nuclear weapons - though it did not say that Iran had mastered the process, nor how long it would take Iran to make a bomb. There are some allegations that are listed openly for the first time, including the claim that Iran has used computer modelling on the behaviour of a nuclear device.

    Previously, the IAEA complained that Tehran had not fully co-operated with its inspectors, though it did say that Iran had displayed "greater transparency" during an inspection visit in August 2011.

    In March 2012, it was announced that Iran had agreed to take part in fresh six-party talks and allow IAEA inspectors to visit its key military research site at Parchin, under certain conditions.
    It seems that your link is contradicting your earlier claims.

  18. #218
    Quote Originally Posted by saffi View Post
    I've read the report myself. It does not give any definite proof, only that Iran appears to be on that path, which might some day be used to make nuclear weapons. The article you linked doesn't even cite the original report. Furthermore, read this in your own link:


    It seems that your link is contradicting your earlier claims.
    No, it isn't. Going from refusing the inspectors access to giving them partial access proves nothing. What it does do is disprove your claim
    Ok, so circumstancial evidence and IAEA inspectors have been saying that the nuclear weapons programme has been halted since 2003.
    which is blatantly false.

  19. #219
    Quote Originally Posted by Gothicshark View Post
    Do you realize that UN inspectors evaluate American Nuclear facilities every six months? All nations who are members of the U.N. that have Nuclear power and weapons agree to have U.N. safety inspections twice a year. This is a part of being a part of a global community, if Iran wants Nuclear weapons they should show the world a legitimate reason to have them, demonstrate to the world they will not use them in an act of aggression. And agree to safety inspections. It's a matter of playing by the rules, building Nuclear weapons in secret while supporting terrorism, and having a government that constantly commits human rights violations doesn't make it easy for people to trust you. Meanwhile both Pakistan and India have Nuclear weapons, and even though the world watches them closely they don't hide them, they let other nations inspect them, and they have show the world discretion in the deployment of these weapons.
    Tell me something.

    Why doesn't Israel play by the same rules? Maybe Israel should be kicked out of the UN?

  20. #220
    Titan Kalyyn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Indiana, US
    Posts
    11,278
    Quote Originally Posted by N-7 View Post
    Pulling that arugment again? Pakistan a country that have shitload of terrorists in it didn't "lose" bombs, so why would Iran?
    You know who has lost dozens of nuclear bombs though?

    Russia.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •