TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Political Discussion / Debate
-- What Steps Should The World Take To Halts Irans Nucler Program?
Pages (3): « 1 [2] 3 »

quote:

Originally posted by LatinLover I am not a neocon If we withdraw, is Iraq going to be a better place? Are the insurgents going to be peaceful and promoted stability and unity? Come on man you know better than that.

Before the US invasion, Iraq was albeit poor, but was a functioning, sovereign state. People at least had electricity, and water, and didn't have to fear roving bands of insurgents, suicide bombers, collateral destruction from coalition forces, snipers, and a deterioration of social services, and infrastructure. What good has come from occupying a sovereign state? NONE.

quote:

Originally posted by Fir3start3r uh...he requested it and it was met with a big fat goose egg of support from the NYPD... (Not to mention the place would go ballistic). >>Source<<

ya I mean we wouldnt want a guy like hitler to visit ground zero god for bid.

quote:

Originally posted by hardcore trancer ya I mean we wouldnt want a guy like hitler to visit ground zero god for bid.

Don't hate the truth

quote:

Originally posted by Krypton Before the US invasion, Iraq was albeit poor, but was a functioning, sovereign state. People at least had electricity, and water, and didn't have to fear roving bands of insurgents, suicide bombers, collateral destruction from coalition forces, snipers, and a deterioration of social services, and infrastructure. What good has come from occupying a sovereign state? NONE.

Couldnt agree more.


funny how as soon as you bring up the facts,some will come and say "oh Saddam was a bad dictator etc".The reality is though that in some of parts of this world only a dictatorship like regime can hold a country together and Iraq is one of them.

quote:

Originally posted by Fir3start3r Don't hate the truth

quote:

Originally posted by hardcore trancer

I hope you're laughing at your own fault, cause you're right, they're funny!

quote:

Originally posted by Fir3start3r I hope you're laughing at your own fault, cause you're right, they're funny!

na man Iam laughing right at you for making unbelievable remarks like that.Thats why I can never take you seriously.I mean come on comparing Ahmadinejad to Hitler is just lame and makes you look like an idiot.

quote:

Originally posted by hardcore trancer na man Iam laughing right at you for making unbelievable remarks like that.Thats why I can never take you seriously.I mean come on comparing Ahmadinejad to Hitler is just lame and makes you look like an idiot.

Sorry, where did I type 'Hitler' again?

I simply pointed out you were wrong.
If you don't like that, then I suggest you stop typing up things that just fly into your head before you do.

The burden of proof is on the United States. Invading on the chance that there might be a weapons program.... well, we already tried that and it isn't working very well.

And beyond that, if the United States uses force as a last resort, we'd better be damn sure that we've expired our other options. And as of yet, we've barely even tried them.

Escalation induces escalation. At this point, if we end up going to war with Iran, a large chunk of the blame has to fall at the front door of Number One Observatory Circle (aka Dick Cheney's address).

Lets not go back to the whole thing of why the US invaded Iraq.

I admit it from the get go this Admin has mismanaged the war. Now with our new Defense Min and Gen. Patreus, all analyst agree that we are going in the right direction.

Misteropus,

Iran Nuclear intelligence is very limited to the public. God knows what the hell Iran is doing. But let me just add, the problem here is not only to gather the most intelligence we can. But that Iran has made it clear, and reaffirmed it in the UN that these issue it a closed case with the Intl community.

It just tells you that Iran will continue to defy the Intl community. They have rejected programs laid out by the UN to have a true peaceful similar program to be utilized for "peaceful purposes"

When you have a Iranian govt with these type of attitude, defying the whole world how can we possibly trust them to be responsible with a nuclear weapon. The question here is not wether Iran should have the right to have such program but is Iran responsible or serious enough to have one. Can the ME and the world be a safer place if Iran reaches that capability? Would this cause an arm race in the ME?

quote:

Originally posted by LatinLover Lets not go back to the whole thing of why the US invaded Iraq.

We're not. I'm merely drawing parallels to the logic used to condone the use of violence in that case with your logic condoning the use of violence in this case.

quote:

I admit it from the get go this Admin has mismanaged the war. Now with our new Defense Min and Gen. Patreus, all analyst agree that we are going in the right direction.

Not only was it mismanaged, but it was began for reasons not immediately recognizable to the American public. In other words, it was sold on faulty and cooked information. Furthermore, it is outrageous to even suggest that all analysts agree with the current affairs in Iraq. General Petraeus is an overwhelmingly divisive figure in Washington right now. His testimony at Congress was filled with sweeping generalizations and political rhetoric. Even Chuck Hagel, John Warner, and Richard Lugar, three of the most respected Republicans in the US Senate, are highly suspicious of the US' continued presence in Iraq.

quote:

Misteropus, Iran Nuclear intelligence is very limited to the public. God knows what the hell Iran is doing. But let me just add, the problem here is not only to gather the most intelligence we can. But that Iran has made it clear, and reaffirmed it in the UN that these issue it a closed case with the Intl community.

The issue of pursuing nuclear technology for civilian purposes, yes. He made no mention of weapons persay. Also, just because we don't know what is going on in a country gives us no right to sabre-rattle. Sovereignty implies that a state has complete control over the happenings within its own geographical territory. Unless the United States suddenly wants to renege on the principles of Westphalia, then we have to stop violating sovereignty around the world and deal with local actors, however abhorrent they may be.

quote:

It just tells you that Iran will continue to defy the Intl community. They have rejected programs laid out by the UN to have a true peaceful similar program to be utilized for "peaceful purposes" When you have a Iranian govt with these type of attitude, defying the whole world how can we possibly trust them to be responsible with a nuclear weapon. The question here is not wether Iran should have the right to have such program but is Iran responsible or serious enough to have one. Can the ME and the world be a safer place if Iran reaches that capability? Would this cause an arm race in the ME?

There's already an arms race in the Middle East. Israel has nukes, and Israel is perceived to be security threat #1 to a lot of Middle Eastern states.

How can you seriously argue at this point that Iran is creating instability in the Middle East? The United States has created the most violently unstable situation in the world, and it's right on Iran's doorstep. Of course they aren't going to trust us to have the interests of the Iranian people in mind! Iran feels increasingly isolated, like it is the target of some worldwide plan for its extermination (which, in the minds of people like you and Dick Cheney could potentially be a goal). It is an extremely natural response for them to lash out like a ferret in a corner, and the best way to ensure that we stop messing with them is to get a nuclear capacity like Pakistan or North Korea. It certainly worked for them. So how do we circumvent their necessity for nukes? Stop messing with them and let them come out of the corner if they will. Engage them diplomatically and see what, if any, common ground we might be able to find.

quote:

The 'Crazies' and Iran Published: September 27, 2007 Like Mohamed ElBaradei, we want to make sure what he calls the �crazies� don�t start a war with Iran. We fear his do-it-yourself diplomacy is playing right into the crazies� hands � in Washington and Tehran. Last month, Mr. ElBaradei, the chief nuclear inspector for the United Nations, cut his own deal with Iran�s government, intended to answer questions about its secretive nuclear past. Unfortunately, it made no mention of Iran�s ongoing, very public refusal to stop enriching uranium � usable for nuclear fuel or potentially a nuclear weapon � in defiance of Security Council orders. In his speech to the United Nations General Assembly this week, Iran�s president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, wasn�t shy about explaining what a great deal he�d gotten: gloating that the dispute over his country�s nuclear program is now �closed.� That�s not true, but the deal has given Russia and China another reason to delay imposing new sanctions on Iran for its continued defiance. We�d like to hear the answers to a lot of those outstanding questions. Among our favorites: Has Iran built more sophisticated uranium centrifuges for a clandestine program? And, what were Iran�s scientists planning to do with designs, acquired from Pakistan, to mold uranium into shapes that look remarkably like the core of a nuclear weapon? According to the so-called work plan agreed to by Mr. ElBaradei, Iran will address one set of questions at a time, and move on to the next set only after his inspectors have closed the file on the previous set. If, true to form, the Iranians dole out just enough information to keep the inspectors asking, the process could drag on and on. That would give Iran more time, cover and confidence to continue mastering enrichment and producing nuclear fuel. The further along the Iranians get, the greater our fear that President Bush, and Vice President Dick Cheney, will decide that one more war isn�t going to do their reputation much harm. Some critics charge that the Nobel Prize has gone to Mr. ElBaradei�s head and that he�s decided that international peacemaker (and holding off George Bush) is his true life calling � not nuclear inspector. The more charitable explanation is that he believes he�s the only one who can stop what he fears is an imminent war. We fervently wish that Mr. Bush and the American Congress had listened to Mr. ElBaradei in 2003 when he said there was no evidence that Iraq was rebuilding its nuclear weapons program. But the key to Mr. ElBaradei�s credibility then, and what makes the International Atomic Energy Agency so indispensable, is he was offering his agency�s clear scientific judgment. Once he started making diplomatic deals, that judgment � essential not only for ensuring that Iran, but also a half-dozen other states, don�t go nuclear � immediately becomes suspect. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice complained last week that the I.A.E.A. shouldn�t be in the business of diplomacy. Yes, that�s her job. And she�s not done nearly enough to try to get the Iranians to sit down at the table with a credible offer of comprehensive talks. Sanctions alone are unlikely to restrain Iran�s nuclear program, especially at the rate the Security Council is moving. We can see why Mr. ElBaradei was tempted. The only way he can recoup now is by insisting that Iran do what the Security Council has ordered: Suspend enrichment and answer all the questions about its nuclear past.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/27/o...ion&oref=slogin

I didnt really read the whole post, I just read that Israel has initiated an Arm Race.

Ok:
1. Israel has had WMD for sometime. Till this day they havent used it and have demonstrated the world that they are capable, responsible, and trustworthy is having these weapons.
2. Israel is not threating the destruction of any of its neighbors

In the case of Iran, If I was a neighbor of Iran, and know they have the capacity to build WMD and from their history of aiding terrorist orgs. I gotta tell you ill be scared as hell! I would also start a build up, of a stronger military and start acquiring massive weaponry to be able to defend my country. That is common sense none of these countries are going to take the risk

Just look at hitler, he laid out his plans openly to the world. Like Iran is doing, what followed next... a military and weaponry build up and next... its history as we all know. We must take this nut of Iran seriously and if you dont think these things wont lead to instability, you are living in another world!

quote:

Originally posted by LatinLover Misteropus, Iran Nuclear intelligence is very limited to the public. God knows what the hell Iran is doing. But let me just add, the problem here is not only to gather the most intelligence we can. But that Iran has made it clear, and reaffirmed it in the UN that these issue it a closed case with the Intl community. It just tells you that Iran will continue to defy the Intl community. They have rejected programs laid out by the UN to have a true peaceful similar program to be utilized for "peaceful purposes" When you have a Iranian govt with these type of attitude, defying the whole world how can we possibly trust them to be responsible with a nuclear weapon.

When did I ever say I would trust them with a nuke?

The lack of distrust in Iran is shared worldwide, Democrats and Republicans, cats and dogs, etc. etc. The question is what do you want to do with them?

According to you, the answer is "strategic bombing", yes? Okay, tell me what viable consequences that solution may very well bring. You've failed to answer my questions posed directly toward you (yet again, strange pattern developing):

quote:

So according to you, since we have completely failed with our intelligence to verify when a country has successfully produced enough weapons-grade uranium, we should go ahead and throw "strategic bombs" at them and damn the consequences? What do you think those consequences COULD result in from Iran? And given our bogged down situation in Iraq with the SURGE! forces slowly redeploying until next summer, how pray tell, do you expect us to fight Iran should they retaliate in force?

Please respond.

quote:

The question here is not wether Iran should have the right to have such program but is Iran responsible or serious enough to have one. Can the ME and the world be a safer place if Iran reaches that capability? Would this cause an arm race in the ME?

Why would we reach that point in the first place? Again, I'm not arguing that Iran may be responsible with a nuke. But what makes you think that the only answer to the solution is "strategic bombing"?

quote:

Originally posted by LatinLover I didnt really read the whole post,..............

Old habits die hard for you, don't they Latin?

quote:

Originally posted by LatinLover I didnt really read the whole post, I just read that Israel has initiated an Arm Race.

This is all I read... So why should we read your posts?

No evidence, vague arguments, unrelated comparisons, absolutely no counter-arguments to speak of... where does it end?

quote:

Originally posted by LatinLover Just look at hitler, he laid out his plans openly to the world. Like Iran is doing, what followed next... a military and weaponry build up and next... its history as we all know. We must take this nut of Iran seriously and if you dont think these things wont lead to instability, you are living in another world!

FFS not the Hitler bullshit again,when you start talking about Hitler in this argument you loose all your credibility.Iran is not planing to invade the world as far as I know,but Iam sure you have sources to prove me wrong.

quote:

Originally posted by MisterOpus1 Old habits die hard for you, don't they Latin?

Lol, no kidding! I give up! It's so hard to use reason against someone whose only weapons are fallacies. Some people are so stuck in their own world that they can't even see truth when it stares them in the face. I suppose it's not staring him in the face though if he can't be bothered to read it.

This is why I don't often come into the PDD...

quote:

Originally posted by Lebezniatnikov Lol, no kidding! I give up! It's so hard to use reason against someone whose only weapons are fallacies. Some people are so stuck in their own world that they can't even see truth when it stares them in the face. I suppose it's not staring him in the face though if he can't be bothered to read it. This is why I don't often come into the PDD...

There's only a couple of those idiots in here, don't be discouraged...

quote:

Originally posted by LatinLover I didnt really read the whole post, I just read that Israel has initiated an Arm Race. Ok: 1. Israel has had WMD for sometime. Till this day they havent used it and have demonstrated the world that they are capable, responsible, and trustworthy is having these weapons. 2. Israel is not threating the destruction of any of its neighbors In the case of Iran, If I was a neighbor of Iran, and know they have the capacity to build WMD and from their history of aiding terrorist orgs. I gotta tell you ill be scared as hell! I would also start a build up, of a stronger military and start acquiring massive weaponry to be able to defend my country. That is common sense none of these countries are going to take the risk Just look at hitler, he laid out his plans openly to the world. Like Iran is doing, what followed next... a military and weaponry build up and next... its history as we all know. We must take this nut of Iran seriously and if you dont think these things wont lead to instability, you are living in another world!

What Nations has Iran invaded?

What nations has the US invaded?

What nations has Iran bombed?

What nations has the US bombed?

So far.. i think

Iran = 0

US = 48957345734895789034750347503

quote:

Originally posted by Cyrus King What nations has Iran bombed?

Via its support for terrorists? Plenty of nations.

quote:

Originally posted by CHRles Via its support for terrorists? Plenty of nations.

Please enlighten me on the "terrorists" that they support?

And who do those terrorists bomb?

Hamas, and Hezbollah, Islamic Jihad, the Japanese Red Army, the Islamic Front for the Liberation of Bahrain, Al Aqsa Martyr Brigades, are the most prominent. Iran has helped train these terrorist organizations, funds them, even held a conference with them.
These terrorists have caused terror in many countries around the world not just in the Middle East.

quote:

Originally posted by CHRles Hamas, and Hezbollah, Islamic Jihad, the Japanese Red Army, the Islamic Front for the Liberation of Bahrain, Al Aqsa Martyr Brigades, are the most prominent. Iran has helped train these terrorist organizations, funds them, even held a conference with them. These terrorists have caused terror in many countries around the world not just in the Middle East.

Please tell me who these organizations have terrorized..

Japanese people??? hahaahaahhahahahahahaha


Did you know your government supported Tim Osman.... oops.. i mean OSAMA BIN LADEN?????

Yes, we supported many resistance groups in Afghanistan when the Soviets tried to take over the country. It's not like the US government said to itself "oh lets help this nice Bin Laden dude out". The Arab world at the time detested the Soviets, not the Americans. And yet, Bin Laden decided to bomb America and not Russia. Odd....

The terrorist organizations have caused damage in Israel, Lebanon, Jordan, Egypt, places in Africa, Latin America, and so on and so forth.

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.