Do you have a problem with a nuclear armed Iran?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
21-08-2012, 09:40 PM
RE: Do you have a problem with a nuclear armed Iran?
(21-08-2012 07:23 AM)shiranl Wrote:  P.S

Actually, Filox, the tensions between Israel and Iran started when Iran, in its current regime, was created in 1979. Before it- Israel and Iran were actually very good friends. My grandmother even visited there one time.

Well, I don't want to test them wheather they are enough retarded or not.
No, he can't say it about USA since the separation of between religion and state is constitutional, and the president (Chrstian or not) is elected by democratic way. Something I can not even say about the president of Iran, and definitely not about the Ayatollahs.
Brevik is a criminal, not the president of Norway.
China and Russia are " crazy religious fundamentalists"? pahhhhh
Christians does have fundementalist- the thing, they cannot immpose their fundementalism on USA's policy, something I cannot say about Iran.

And, how many airplains Christians flew into a building in order to kill as many Muslims as they can?


Sam Harris is right that we are permitted to objectively pass judgement on religions based on their teachings and actions they inspire. While Christianity has much to answer for, historically and even today, Christians today do not tend to espouse suicidal murders as a means of advancing their faith. We have very little reason to fear Jains from harming near anything. Sikhs are primarily a benign faith. Nobody fears Quaker expansionists. You get the idea.

I do not fear an Israeli nuclear weapon simply because their faith does not seem to contain a suicidal death pact like the Iranian hidden Imam nutjubs running the show there. Iranian leaders regularly and repeatedly call for the destruction of Israel and extermination of the Jews. The idea that anyone thinks it's a good idea to let the Iranian freaks have within their power the capacity to carry out the messianic death wish is insane.

shiranl--you make a very good point few here seem aware of and nobody seemed to acknowledge. Before the Ayatollahs took over, Iran was indeed friends with Israel. Not only friends, but not too far from allies. They gave early recognition to Israel as a sovereign nation. They provided material support to the Israelis in the wake of the 6 day war. Today--just this past weak again--Khamenei called Israel a cancer that must be removed from Arab lands.

I feel no sense of arrogance is involved in my saying that a country with leaders who regularly and publicly call for genocide is not fit for the world's most destructive weapons. That seems like a good standard to have, and by that standard, the Iranians must not be allowed to obtain a nuclear weapon capability.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like BryanS's post
21-08-2012, 11:15 PM (This post was last modified: 21-08-2012 11:20 PM by Filox.)
RE: Do you have a problem with a nuclear armed Iran?
I kinda have a feeling I never said anything against Israel, but mostly USA, France and UK, but feel free to misunderstand me.

Also, I wanted to move away from all this Israel-Iran talk, I wanted to show the hypocrisy when an American person is dictating things to other countries.

But it appears you all think that your countries are more important, higher and better than some other countries, so why bother? Sure, keep all the NW for yourselves, do not let anyone else have any similar technology. That is an objective point of view, without prejudice.

Shiranl, as usual, you do make a good point, and as far as I am concerned, you are the only one here that actually do make a point and have something to say about the whole thing, since you do live down there. I respect that.

But I still do not feel like it is OK to ban the use of nuclear energy and uranium enrichment for Iran. Why? Because I think that at least half of the reports I can read about the whole Israel-Iran problem is false. Can I know the truth? Not even close. All I can see are some basic facts and connect them. Then it all connects like I have explained. Sorry about that, it's just my perception of things.

There is one small detail I just can't overlook, shiranl, did you just implied that a war between Israel and Iran would not hit/affect me in my far away country? I do realise that the impact of such an act would be far greater for your country, but to say that it would not affect the rest of the world is a pretty big understatement. Of course shit like that would affect all of us. Right now I have big issues with the oil prices and nothing is going on at this moment (well not war at least). I can only imagine what sorts of bad things would spread around the world if anything more serious were to start happening. So, I fear any escalation of tensions there, just as it was my country at stake. I might not have as much infos as you do, but I try to look at both sides and keep track of what little info comes to me...

[Image: a6505fe8.jpg]
I have a theory that the truth is never told during the nine-to-five hours.
-Hunter S. Thompson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-08-2012, 04:06 AM
RE: Do you have a problem with a nuclear armed Iran?
When it comes to Iran's nuclear weapon I see my country together with USA, UK and France as we have the same position- not letting it happen- saying something against them it is just as much as saying something against my country, because it affects its position.

You can't move away from that, because this is the whole issue. You think that anybody would object Iran having a nuclear weapon if it never threatened to wipe Israel off the map? of course not. Pakistan have nuclear weapon, and Israel never objected it, even though our diplomatic relations with Pakistan are the same as we have with Iran (non-existence), because the simple fact is- Pakistan never threatened Israel. Iran did.
Assuming Iran will have a revolution, just like it had in 1979, and the good relations will turn again between us- Israel will not object Iran to have a nuclear power because Israel won't feel threatened by Iran anymore. In which case- the West won't object Iran having a nuclear power as well. And if they still object- then your claims can be confirmed, then it will be hypocritical from their part. But until then- Iran still want to wipe Israel off the map and we can't just let them having the slightest ability to do that.

Because our countries are more important to us (just as much as your country important to you more than other countries), and better since neither of our countries are threatening to wipe off the map another country. Everybody else can have the technology, unless their intentions are using it for doing evil things.

Thank you. I appriciate the fact you appriciate my opinions. But I have a problem with you dismissing other's opinions. You say I am the only one that actually have something to say about the whole issue since I am living here, but at the same time you have a problem with me implying a war between Israel and Iran won't affect you or for that matter- the rest of the world. You need to choose- if it dose affect the rest of the world, then everybody else's opinions are as much as valid as my own. If it doesn't- then you accusing me of implying it is absolutley not fair.

No one banned. They were offered to stop the enrichment and buy it instead. They will get the nuclear electricity, so why refuse? Israel, as well as the West, fears electricity is not their only goal. And Iran actions just prove how much this fear is real and alive.
I cannot do anything about you feelings, because the doubt is real for you. Just as much as you can't do anything about my feelings, because the fear is real for me. But- if we act upon your feelings, and it turns out you were wrong, I'll be dead. If we act upon my feelings, and it turns out I was wrong, Iran will have its electricity and Israel remains.

How it will affect you? you will be horrified because people are dead? Yes, it is very difficult to see such things. War isn't fun, and we all want it to not happen. But those dead people? they are my family. Experience those things is hundred times more difficult than to see them. So I'm sorry if I am not sympathetic to the rest of the world who'll need to watch and stand aside with no clue of what they can do in order to stop all those horrifying things. It is just like expecting from the Syrians to be sympathetic with our suffering of seeing them suffer.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-08-2012, 04:45 AM
RE: Do you have a problem with a nuclear armed Iran?
Quote:I cannot do anything about you feelings, because the doubt is real for you. Just as much as you can't do anything about my feelings, because the fear is real for me. But- if we act upon your feelings, and it turns out you were wrong, I'll be dead. If we act upon my feelings, and it turns out I was wrong, Iran will have its electricity and Israel remains.

I must admit this makes sense. The thing I fear is that there could be a new war to stop the new war. IF the war breaks out to stop Iran, then there will be a war, while Iran will not have the weapon, it will be a war to stop them. On the other hand, Israel has and will have the NW. That does not make the 2 countries equal on the battlefield... It changed the balance. I fear that the whole Iran's stance on the NW is caused by the fact that Israel HAS NW already. Have you ever thought about that fact? Maybe if you didn't have the weapons, Iran wouldn't demant to have them as well?

If Israel is saying they (you) will never use that weapon, why have it and make your enemies afraid and paranoid? You know that fear makes people do all sorts of wild things... Maybe you wanted to scare them, so that they would withdraw, but obviously that didn't work.

This is a pretty big problem and it goes on in circles, one things leads to another, one side pushes the buttons of another side...

Also, a new war in your region will not only affect my emotions, it will not be only my tears that worry me, it is the escalation of the combat to other countries, allies joining in, resources supply stopping and in the worst case scenario, nuclear fallout... These are the things I worry about. I already lived through one war, I do not wish to live through another one...

[Image: a6505fe8.jpg]
I have a theory that the truth is never told during the nine-to-five hours.
-Hunter S. Thompson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-08-2012, 05:16 AM
RE: Do you have a problem with a nuclear armed Iran?
(21-08-2012 11:15 PM)Filox Wrote:  Also, I wanted to move away from all this Israel-Iran talk, I wanted to show the hypocrisy when an American person is dictating things to other countries.

I know, the U.S is so hypocritical when they deactivate the majority of their cold war facilities, dismantle the majority of their warheads (31,000 down to 5000), and still resorts to using infantry.

[Image: 4833fa13.jpg]
Poonjab
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-08-2012, 05:23 AM (This post was last modified: 22-08-2012 05:27 AM by shiranl.)
RE: Do you have a problem with a nuclear armed Iran?
(22-08-2012 04:45 AM)Filox Wrote:  I must admit this makes sense. The thing I fear is that there could be a new war to stop the new war. IF the war breaks out to stop Iran, then there will be a war, while Iran will not have the weapon, it will be a war to stop them. On the other hand, Israel has and will have the NW. That does not make the 2 countries equal on the battlefield... It changed the balance. I fear that the whole Iran's stance on the NW is caused by the fact that Israel HAS NW already. Have you ever thought about that fact? Maybe if you didn't have the weapons, Iran wouldn't demant to have them as well?

If Israel is saying they (you) will never use that weapon, why have it and make your enemies afraid and paranoid? You know that fear makes people do all sorts of wild things... Maybe you wanted to scare them, so that they would withdraw, but obviously that didn't work.

This is a pretty big problem and it goes on in circles, one things leads to another, one side pushes the buttons of another side...

Also, a new war in your region will not only affect my emotions, it will not be only my tears that worry me, it is the escalation of the combat to other countries, allies joining in, resources supply stopping and in the worst case scenario, nuclear fallout... These are the things I worry about. I already lived through one war, I do not wish to live through another one...

Of course it makes sense, I said it. TongueBig Grin
Now seriously. It is indeed a majic circle. But if a new war is due to happen in any case- I would prefer Iran won't have the ability to attack us with nuclear weapon. You really expect me, as an Israeli, to say "yeah, it really isn't fair we have nuclear weapon and they don't. So I'll let them have it just for the sake of fairness", don't you? Maybe for you, as a third side party, it is important the 2 fighting parties will have the same power and the same chance to win. For me, as being one of the 2 parties fighting, it is important I'll have some kind of superiority.
Yeah, I have. And you know what I concluded? Israel never twitted a shred of threats towards Iran, up until they started to twitt a lot more then just a shred of threats towards Israel. They started the circle, not Israel. And even now, when they threat to wipe us off the map, we don't equal with the same threats. We don't want to eliminate Iran, we don't want to exterminate the Iranians, we just want them to not being able to exterminate us.
If we didn't have the weapon, Iran won't wait until it has the weapon. They will attack us right aways with the already existed biological and chemical weapon they have.

You answered your question. To make our enemies afraid and paranoid. And it did work- the last lethal war the Arabs launched upon us was in 1973, about the same time the world was pretty sure we are getting NW. They didn't withdraw, because this isn't the "Arab way", there is someting bigger than their life on the risk- their honor. But they didn't attack in order to wipe us off the map, like they did in all the rest of the wars we had before we had the NW. And for now, it is good enough for me.

The war will still remains in the region. It will not escalate to Europian land, surely not to American land. The dead people still be my dead people.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-08-2012, 05:28 AM
RE: Do you have a problem with a nuclear armed Iran?
@LogicaHumano

Oh please, they deactivated those things because it was economically profitable, not because they suddenly became highly moral and ethical nation. They have made too much of that shit during cold war and just couldn't maintain it later, when the cold war was over. Simple as that.

BTW, even with this "only" 5000 warheads, USA still has the biggest count of warheads. If these numbers everybody reported were true...

Yes, I do consider this policy to be called "a hypocrisy". My favourite part is when people say how the 2 atomic bombs dropped on Japan saved thousands of American lives. I was wondering, how many Japanese civilian lives were saved by these bombs, specially after the second bomb, a completely unnecessary one...

[Image: a6505fe8.jpg]
I have a theory that the truth is never told during the nine-to-five hours.
-Hunter S. Thompson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-08-2012, 05:36 AM (This post was last modified: 22-08-2012 05:41 AM by Logica Humano.)
RE: Do you have a problem with a nuclear armed Iran?
(22-08-2012 05:28 AM)Filox Wrote:  @LogicaHumano

Oh please, they deactivated those things because it was economically profitable, not because they suddenly became highly moral and ethical nation. They have made too much of that shit during cold war and just couldn't maintain it later, when the cold war was over. Simple as that.

And? They still disposed over over 25,000 warheads.

(22-08-2012 05:28 AM)Filox Wrote:  BTW, even with this "only" 5000 warheads, USA still has the biggest count of warheads. If these numbers everybody reported were true...

Incorrect. Russia is currently leading in the number of warheads by over 500.

(22-08-2012 05:28 AM)Filox Wrote:  Yes, I do consider this policy to be called "a hypocrisy". My favourite part is when people say how the 2 atomic bombs dropped on Japan saved thousands of American lives. I was wondering, how many Japanese civilian lives were saved by these bombs, specially after the second bomb, a completely unnecessary one...

So you'd rather have our soldiers invade Japan, forcing both sides to lose even more people than the bombs killed? You know what? I'd love to see you in that situation.

[Image: 4833fa13.jpg]
Poonjab
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-08-2012, 05:51 AM
RE: Do you have a problem with a nuclear armed Iran?
@logica

Interesting thing about Japan... They were pretty much beaten already, their main battleship, the pride of Japan, Yamato was already sunk, the rest of their forces in Pacific were being defeated, Germany already surrendered... Even if you did invade Japan, the body count would be less then it is now. But let us somehow approve of the first bomb, let us close our logic, moral and ethics, assume that an American life is worth more than Japanese life, why the fuck did anyone throw the second one? The Emperor was already ready to surrender, everything was (or would have been) over after Hiroshima.

So, can anyone ever justify Nagasaki?

P.S.

You somehow think that the USA's landing on Japan soil would produce more than 250000 casualties?

[Image: a6505fe8.jpg]
I have a theory that the truth is never told during the nine-to-five hours.
-Hunter S. Thompson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-08-2012, 05:57 AM
RE: Do you have a problem with a nuclear armed Iran?
(22-08-2012 05:28 AM)Filox Wrote:  @LogicaHumano

Oh please, they deactivated those things because it was economically profitable, not because they suddenly became highly moral and ethical nation. They have made too much of that shit during cold war and just couldn't maintain it later, when the cold war was over. Simple as that.

BTW, even with this "only" 5000 warheads, USA still has the biggest count of warheads. If these numbers everybody reported were true...

Yes, I do consider this policy to be called "a hypocrisy". My favourite part is when people say how the 2 atomic bombs dropped on Japan saved thousands of American lives. I was wondering, how many Japanese civilian lives were saved by these bombs, specially after the second bomb, a completely unnecessary one...

They didn't drop the second one for fun...
The Japanese were not gonna surrender after the first and hence the second.

I don't talk gay, I don't walk gay, it's like people don't even know I'm gay unless I'm blowing them.
[Image: 10h27hu.jpg]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: