Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Gunthr on June 29, 2004, 04:28:11 PM
-
Does the world have a right to deny Iran that capability?
-
More like a responsability not to allow them.
-
they need the backup, you know for when they run out of oil ...
-
Originally posted by Gunthr
Does the world have a right to deny Iran that capability?
By all means, let them have it.
In fact, let them have several... Here're a few methods of delivery I could suggest offhand:
B-2
Minuteman
air-Launched Tomahawk
SLBM
-
They have a right to it and they need it to defend themselves from the number one terrorist country on the planet. The united states.
-
Originally posted by Gunthr
Does the world have a right to deny Iran that capability?
its funny to watch all those brainwashed boys whitch belive that they are No.1 on some Iranians "to annihilate" list
What is source of your doubts ?
btw i dont think, they need to scare someone by Nuke, do they ?
-
Originally posted by Yeager
They have a right to it and they need it to defend themselves from the number one terrorist country on the planet. The united states.
i hope you can post some link, where iranian goverment claim that US are terrorist and they should be defeated.
-
Should the world allow anyone to have the nuclear bomb?
why do we suppose it would be bad for certain countries to have nukes?
is it because we think they are just dumb enough to use one and screw up the planet for the rest of us? (the best reason I can think of)
and if thats the case why is it OK for us to have one?
is it because we are more self controlled and would never use it? if so why even have it? if not how are we any better than them?
even if we get all of our bombs to the desired targets without any of our enemies getting off a shot, we will still have irradiated our own damn planet.
-
They signed a Treaty not to do it. Plus the United Nations will enforce it. You have nothing to worry about....
-
Originally posted by Otto
Plus the United Nations will enforce it. You have nothing to worry about....
please, do me a favor and read that statement again....
:rolleyes:
-
Originally posted by lada
its funny to watch all those brainwashed boys whitch belive that they are No.1 on some Iranians "to annihilate" list
2004-May-28
TEHRAN -- In a display of anti-U.S. anger not seen in parliament for years, Iran's conservative-dominated legislature chanted "Death to America" and hardliners clashed with reformists yesterday in the first day of the house's new session.
http://www.canoe.ca/NewsStand/LondonFreePress/News/2004/05/28/476115.html (http://)
You're right Lada, Iran is one of America's bestest buddies :rolleyes:
-
Fanatically Religious countries should not have nuke's......God might just tell em to use it....
oh wait a minute....didn't GWB say he takes Gods commands too:confused:
you boys too shouldn't have em....but what the heck...why listen too others right
-
Originally posted by SLO
Fanatically Religious countries should not have nuke's......God might just tell em to use it....
oh wait a minute....didn't GWB say he takes Gods commands too:confused:
you boys too shouldn't have em....but what the heck...why listen too others right
A lot of countries owe their freedom to the fact that we have them.
And are you saying the US is fanatical? Are you saying Bush hears messages from God and acts on them?
-
actually bush said it himself on t.v.
he does gods will...
is he fanatical.....compared to me he is
-
Originally posted by SLO
actually bush said it himself on t.v.
he does gods will...
is he fanatical.....compared to me he is
Give me a source.
And guess what, you are fanatical if you have no problem withg Iran having nukes, but say the US should'nt have them. The fact is that you are lucky we developed them 1st and still have them.
-
Should Iran be allowed to have a nuclear bomb?
No.
Does the world have the right to deny Iran the capability?
Yes.
That region of our sphere is way to volatile. There is no way to ensure that the responsilbilty is there.
For that matter, Nuclear weapons have outlived there usefullness.
Current technology in weapons systems far outreaches the effectiveness of a nuke.
Nukes are rapidly becoming nothing more than a weapon of terror, and have no real strategic benefit.
Just my $.02
RTR
-
*sniff* peeeeewwwwwww *swims away*
-
Aww, come on guys! Sure Iran can have the bomb. Lots of em. Big ones. Come to think of it, Independence Day is just around the corner. Think of the possibilities.
At any rate, the Western world will only fry if it's the will of Allah as translated and interpreted by the local fundamentalist cleric, so why all the worry?
-
Originally posted by NUKE
Give me a source.
And guess what, you are fanatical if you have no problem withg Iran having nukes, but say the US should'nt have them. The fact is that you are lucky we developed them 1st and still have them.
sure you and the russians did a good job of that......such a good job that you could kill this planet....10 times over.
-
Originally posted by SLO
sure you and the russians did a good job of that......such a good job that you could kill this planet....10 times over.
[HOMERSIMPSON] mmmmmmm....10 times over....[/HOMERSIMPSON]
But seriously folks, I had some Salmon tonight. A little underdone but still quite good.
-
Originally posted by SLO
sure you and the russians did a good job of that......such a good job that you could kill this planet....10 times over.
lol! We could kill the world 10 times over? Sure, but what do you think would have happened to the world if the NAZIS or Arabs had the bomb? You probably think it would be heaven on earth.
How about we give all our nukes to Iran? You seem to think the US is fanatical. Maybe Iran and all the Arabs would be better keepers of the fire.
-
Originally posted by Capt. Pork
[HOMERSIMPSON] mmmmmmm....10 times over....[/HOMERSIMPSON]
But seriously folks, I had some Salmon tonight. A little underdone but still quite good.
Atlantic or Pacific Salmon? Ocean caught or farm raised? I sure do like Salmon!
-
Originally posted by Yeager
They have a right to it and they need it to defend themselves from the number one terrorist country on the planet. The united states.
These aren't your droids.
you can go......;)
-
ya know... if we let them have them for just a few minutes... we can bomb the **** out of them and call it self-defense.....
really ! :)
-
Originally posted by mosgood
ya know... if we let them have them for just a few minutes... we can bomb the **** out of them and call it self-defense.....
really ! :)
LOL "Here, hold this while I take your picture."
-
Originally posted by storch
Atlantic or Pacific Salmon? Ocean caught or farm raised? I sure do like Salmon!
I'm guessing farm-raised. The meat looked pretty damned dyed. Was nice though.
Salmon is my favorite for cooked fish. For Sushi, I like tuna and flounder.
-
Cold War II
-
Originally posted by NUKE
Give me a source.
http://www.capitolhillblue.com/artman/publish/article_4636.shtml
http://observer.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,6903,1075950,00.html
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/2921345.stm
http://www.post-gazette.com/nation/20030212bushreligious0212p6.asp
-
Originally posted by NUKE
Give me a source.
And guess what, you are fanatical if you have no problem withg Iran having nukes, but say the US should'nt have them. The fact is that you are lucky we developed them 1st and still have them.
http://pewforum.org/news/display.php?NewsID=1994
Bush's personal faith has turned highly public, arguably more so than any modern president. What's important is not that Bush is talking about God but that he's talking about him differently. We are witnessing a shift in Bush's theology – from talking mostly about a Wesleyan theology of "personal transformation" to describing a Calvinist "divine plan" laid out by a sovereign God for the country and himself.
On Thursday (Feb.6) at the National Prayer Breakfast, for instance, Bush said, "we can be confident in the ways of Providence. ... Behind all of life and all of history, there's a dedication and purpose, set by the hand of a just and faithful God."
Bush has made several statements indicating he believes God is involved in world events and that he and America have a divinely guided mission:
In that speech, Bush said, "Freedom and fear, justice and cruelty, have always been at war, and we know that God is not neutral between them." The implication: God will intervene on the world stage, mediating between good and evil.
At the prayer breakfast, during which he talked about God's impact on history, he also said, he felt "the presence of the Almighty".
"Privately, Bush even talked of being chosen by the grace of God to lead at that moment."
/ / /
Yes. Bush thinks he acts on behalf of god. Which god, who knows. Neverthless, that makes him a dangerous religious fanatic, who is leading a whole nation using the guidance of his imagined friend - and makes him no better than the other religious fundamentalists. He aksi has nuked, biological and chemical weapons.
-
"The Hand of providence has been so conspicuous in all this, that he must be worse than an infidel that lacks faith, and more than wicked, that has not gratitude enough to acknowledge his obligations."---George Washington
“Resistance to tyrants is obedience to God.”
---Thomas Jefferson
"Deeply impressed with the blessing which we enjoy, and of which we have much manifold proofs, my mind is irresistibly drawn to that Almighty Being, the great source source from whence they proceed and whom our most grateful acknowledgements are due."---James Monroe
It is no slight testimonial, both to the merit and worth of Christianity, that in all ages since its promulgation the great mass of those who have risen to eminence by their profound wisdom and integrity have recognized and reverenced Jesus of Nazareth as the Son of the living God." ---John Quincy Adams
With malice toward none; with charity for all; with firmness in the right, as God gives us to see the right-let us strive on to finish the work we are in. ---Abraham Lincoln
Abraham Lincoln also wrote "A house divided against itself cannot stand." He paraphrased Luke 11:17, in which Jesus proclaimed, "Every kingdom divided against itself is brought to desolation; and a house divided against a house falleth"
Let us go forth to lead the land we love, asking His blessing and His help, but knowing that here on earth God's work must truly be our own. ---John F Kennedy
Seems like the United States has had some reverent leaders in the past and some folks on this BBS are making much ado about nothing.
-
Originally posted by montag
Cold War II
that will be the hottest war the world will ever know.
iran is not affreid to use WMD.
-
Any religious based government (including christians) that takes a collection of literature from Antiquity and base their policies on it near enough word for word is something to be feared. (No bombs for any of them)
Any government who forms their policies around the fact that they have a bigger stick to hit you with than you do, whether the policie is benign or not is something to be feared. They have the bomb and say that it is a good thing that they do, but the bottom line is that they would use them if the situation demanded and condemn us all.
I would rather not see Iran attain the nuclear bomb, though it is inevitable that someday they will possess such an item and so will other countries that some deem to be unsuitable for such technology.
The U.N is a worthwhile orginisation, however, an orginisation that forms decisions based on the political stance (at that time) of individual countries, rather than what is best for the world as a whole. The U.N is comprised of many countires but it is only 13? that have the real punch over issues of enforcing U.N resolutions and suchlike.
These resolutions aren't worth the paper they're written on if a country decides to ingnore resolutions, or so it would seem in the case of Israel and if a country dedides to work outside the constrains of U.N law then they are capable of doing so, as in the recent conflict in the gulf.
So I think the question shoud be, once they do get the bomb what will we do?
-
Nuke, go read Bush's latest book, George W. Bush: On God and Country. He believes God himself has choosen him to lead the US and that his actions are God's will done.
Holden...nothing in the quotes you posted lead me to believe that those past presidents thought that they had been personally chosen by God to be president. Bush on the other hand freely admits that he believes that God has chosen him in a near massiah complex.
-
Originally posted by Gunthr
Does the world have a right to deny Iran that capability?
Yes.
The region is out of control anyway, and who says they will
not use a nuclear bomb for defence or attack ?
Look in the past there u can see nuclear bombs are used to destroy a whole city, not a long time ago.
R
Gh0stFT
-
yep
let's compare the Christian based United States to nutbag Iran calling them both equally nutty and thus neither should have nukes - yep that's it
:rolleyes: :confused: :rolleyes: :confused: :rolleyes: :confused:
either some of you are kids, physically and/or mentally or do not have a clue how the real world works - my guess is if you are over 18, your brain is burnt to the point it does not function as it should. .. and I pity you.
-
Originally posted by Capt. Pork
I'm guessing farm-raised. The meat looked pretty damned dyed. Was nice though.
Salmon is my favorite for cooked fish. For Sushi, I like tuna and flounder.
You are near enough to to Chesapeake bay to be enjoying some wonderful just caught seafood! Sadly the both Atlantic and Pacific salmon are being heavily fished by foreign fleets off both of our coasts and the huge catches have impacted the numbers of both species.
Unlike the Pacific salmon the Atlantic salmon may spawn many times in it's lifetime thus the rampant overfishing by most Norweigian fleets in Canadian waters is hurting us. Personally I blame Nilsen.
On the Pacific coast the Japanese and the Russians have very large fleets as well but the biggest culprit are the Native Americans which String nets across the entire mouth of rivers usually allowing very few mature animals to make it upstream to spawn. That was a decision by some obscure judge in the 9th circuit court. Sadly it may well put Pacific Salmon on the commercially extinct list soon.
I saw some very nice farm raised Atlantic Salmon in Costco last Sunday but didn't buy it. Maybe I'll go back today and pick some up.
-
soo... what about that canadian leader ol what's his name?
lada... the iranians have proven hostile to the U.S. in the past... the ignorant fanaticts have had their anti U.S. demonstations in the streets.
lazs
-
Originally posted by RTR
Should Iran be allowed to have a nuclear bomb?
No.
Does the world have the right to deny Iran the capability?
Yes.
That region of our sphere is way to volatile. There is no way to ensure that the responsilbilty is there.
I agree with you, and Lizking further up. I feel the same way about making guns freely available to civilians.
Hi Lazs! :)
-
Originally posted by lada
btw i dont think
:D
-
Originally posted by lada
its funny to watch all those brainwashed boys whitch belive that they are No.1 on some Iranians "to annihilate" list
What is source of your doubts ?
btw i dont think, they need to scare someone by Nuke, do they ?
Heck Lada, your old country has plenty of nukes it can't keep
track of, just sell the Iranians a few. At least you'll be sure of
their location.
-
hi beet.. are you talking about iranian civilians or british civilians or American civilians and are you comparing nukes to handguns?
lazs
-
Has it ever occured to you to any of you that the Iranians don't want their arses nuked from the face of the earth too?
So why would they develop a bomb if they'e just gonna fire it at Isreal then Isreal fires back and no more isreal or arab world meanwhile NATO is sitting back just saying 'woah!'.
-
Originally posted by J318
Has it ever occured to you to any of you that the Iranians don't want their arses nuked from the face of the earth too?
So why would they develop a bomb if they'e just gonna fire it at Isreal then Isreal fires back and no more isreal or arab world meanwhile NATO is sitting back just saying 'woah!'.
Why... that would just be suicide!
(http://www.sullivan-county.com/id2/index_files/22.jpeg)
-
Originally posted by Gunthr
Does the world have a right to deny Iran that capability?
WHo cares, we're going to do it anyway.
What kind of fool would alow unfriendly nations to arm themselves?
-
Iranians certainly don't need to put the cart in front of the horse.
First work on toilets, toilet paper, TV, beer in a can, beer in a bottle, readily accessible pornography, sports that don't involve beheadings, etc. Work their way UP to nukes.
-
Originally posted by Holden McGroin
Why... that would just be suicide!
(http://www.sullivan-county.com/id2/index_files/22.jpeg)
I like how the guy on the right is leaning over to make sure his "face" gets in the shot.
-
Originally posted by lazs2
hi beet.. are you talking about iranian civilians or british civilians or American civilians and are you comparing nukes to handguns?
lazs
How many questions is that?! ;)
I'm talking about any civilians where, as RTR pointed out, it's not possible to ensure responsibility. Nukes and guns come under the same general heading: Weapons capable of causing death with consummate ease.
-
Let's encourage all Middle Eastern countries to build nukes. First though we need to line our gas tanks with lead and figure out how to contain the radioactive emissions. ;)
-
Does the world have the right to deny any sovereign nation the right to do what it wants until it demonstrates not just capability but intent to use that capability adversely against other nations (the classic questions of deterrence and preemptive strike)?
Has the globe become the United States of Earth (only coincidentally sounding like the United States of America)?
If you're a big enough and powerful enough nation, expect lots of advice but minimum interference. If you're a small enough and weak enough nation, expect lots of "help" commensurate with your value to the big and powerful nations.
-
Common sense seems quite an alien concept to some in this thread.
Every nation's right to make nukes??? Geez. Don't let me see pacifists making this their "battle cry."
1. Is it just me or does anyone else here understand that the single most dangerous weapon of MASS destruction in the world to date (and most likely ever will be in the future) is a nuclear warhead?
2. Does anyone here actually think that radical suicide terrorists who apparently don't actually give a damn about reprisals for their actions against their own people can grasp what "mutually assured destruction" actually means or care what it means if they could?
3. Anyone here remember the cold war at all? Anyone here actually think that the threat posed by the arsenals that still exist evaporated with the end of the cold war? Anyone think that a missle silo with a radical muslim in it who would slit his family's throats if his local holyman told him it was the will of Allah is a good thing to add to the scenario?
4. Anyone here wish the U.S. could have kept the knowledge of nuclear weaponry their little secret? Or at least slowed down the proliferation? Or maybe even never have invented nukes at all?
Or am I hearing some of you correctly when you actually express your opinion that the U.N. (that's right kids ... the U.N.) has no business trying to stop countries from developing their own nuclear devices .... especially when said countries have not been able to show any degree of stability or rationality when it comes to peaceful coexistance with their neighboring countries?
:lol :aok
-
In an ideal world non-one would have nukes (or other weapons of mass destruction).
But considering that we live in the real world I'd prefer it no more countries gain access to nuclear weapons than we already have.
I am certainly more conerned about goverments with little democratic and legal responsibility gaining access to them than more stable countries.
I do find it a bit two-faced that the west seems happy for Pakistan to have nukes: it's doesn't have a shred of democratic responsibility, it is the home of many Sunni fanatics and thier schools and it has already proven lax in handling the technology and the responsibility.
-
I'm just watching the purse-swinging, and pom pom tourney.
Karaya
PS - SlowHand, I concur with some of your points.
Personally, I say screw that entire region, they could get one on the balck market if they want. Money talks, bulls^&t walks.
Karaya
-
Yeah baby! Nukes for everyone! After all, all countries/leaders are the same. No one country is any more trustworthy with a nuke than any other.
The sooner we allow nukes to spread around to the nutbag leaders of the world, the sooner one of those bozos will use some.
Clearly, that's what it's going to take to remind some people of why the NPT and the IAEA were brought into being in the first place.
Course, a few million more will have to die to remind them but hey...
-
Lets change the topic.
How about should we allow Charles Manson to own automatic weapons and let him out of jail 50 years early?
-
Originally posted by Toad
Yeah baby! Nukes for everyone! After all, all countries/leaders are the same. No one country is any more trustworthy with a nuke than any other.
The sooner we allow nukes to spread around to the nutbag leaders of the world, the sooner one of those bozos will use some.
Clearly, that's what it's going to take to remind some people of why the NPT and the IAEA were brought into being in the first place.
Course, a few million more will have to die to remind them but hey...
The WMD in Iraq had "Made in the USA" on some of them, if you get down to it Toad. The bottom line is this region has been torn since Mesopetamia. it will never change, Nukes, or no nukes.
<>
Karaya
-
There are many nations I personally would not like to see have nuclear weapons. Nevertheless, whether or not the U.S. or U.N. favors a particular nation, are all nations sovereign or not?
Let's see ... Israel is the only nation I can recall that attacked another nation's ability to make nuclear weapons when it bombed the Iraqi reactor.
That attack was quite amazing. No war. Just unilateral denuking of one nation by another nation.
Any other examples?
Can't think of any.
Nobody bombed Pakistan's nuclear bomb making facility (whatever or wherever that is).
Nobody bombed India's.
Nobody bombed China's.
Or Russia's.
Or Israel's if it has any, or a couple other nations that might have nukes.
If they decided that developing nuclear weapons would be in their absolute best national interests, would it be okay for nations such as Canada or Belgium or Thailand or Turkey to develop nuclear weapons? If they did, would world consensus be to bomb their nuclear production facilities?
Libya suddenly has about-faced and supposedly dropped out of nuclear arms contention.
The U.S. has been trying to negotiate North Korea out of making nukes but they may already have them.
The U.S. doesn't want Iran to get nukes but they insist on their right to make them if they want to.
So just because the U.S. or even the U.N. does not want a nation to have nukes, is there some inherent right to attack that capability even BEFORE the sovereign nation develops nukes that it may assert are only to DETER other nations from using nukes against it?
The U.S., first to develop and use nuclear weapons, historically has said it keeps nukes to preserve the peace and deter nuclear attack on it and its allies.
Other nuclear powers have claimed the same motivation.
Deterrence is the traditional justification for having nuclear weapons.
The present nuclear nonproliferation consensus is basically we (the nuclear club) got ours and you (the non nuclear nations) can't have any. It's for your own good -- trust us.
Preemptive (or sneak or surprise) attack is another case entirely.
It's like Momma or Daddy taking dangerous things away from their children ... or adults taking big weapons away from their enemies.
Quite an insulting and infuriating thing to receive if you are a sovereign nation.
Wouldn't it be loverly if every nation would accept the nuclear nonproliferation treaty and its status quo. But for those nations that don't, preemptive denuking is legally and morally questionable, dangerous, arrogant, provoking, presumptuous, and likely to cause either (1) at minimum sulking and hatred of the attacker or (2) enough anger to oppose the attacker by any and all means indefinitely.
It's war without the messy followup ... until the nuclear wannabe eventually extracts some form of revenge.
Whatever made Libya change its mind, let's hope it reaches North Korea and Iran too.
In international relations, behind the smiles the maxim often is something like Teddy Roosevelt's "Speak softly and carry a big stick." Even then, the world will never be safe until all nations and all their people feel secure and respected.
So, Gunthr, you started this thread and reaped all these opinions. You tell us: Does the world have the right to deny Iran nuclear capability?
-
"We knew the world could not be the same. A few people laughed, a few people cried. Most people were silent. I remembered the line from the Hindu scripture, the Bhagavad Gita: "I am became Death, the destroyers of worlds." I suppose we all thought that, one way or another."
J. Robert Oppenheimer in 1945
Karaya