|
Iran close to having nuclear bombs?? (pg. 4)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| George Smiley |
| quote: | Originally posted by hardcore trancer
Awesome news if it it true.:) U.S cant with them anymore. |
Iran will not get to the stage where they aquire nuclear weapons. If Israeli believes they are in the final stages they will destroy Iran's nuclear facilities like they did with Iraq's.
And if anyone thinks Iran having nuclear weapons is a good thing then they're crazy!
Altho I cant see Iran's nukes being used for anything other than to deter an invasion by America. If they fired at Israel they would serverely damage Palestine, not to mention the protests countries like Lebanon, Syria and Jordan would have. Dislike Israel all they may, they certainly aint gonna want radioactive clouds wiping out half their population!
Either way, Iran's leader doesn't seem all there in the head, and letting someone like that get their hands on nukes is not a good thing no matter how funny you may find actions that go against the wishes of America |
|
|
| George Smiley |
| quote: | Originally posted by Pheobius
this might not be relevant to anyone ouside the uk, but then again it might so i'm going to say it:
Remember that dead certainty that Iraq launch a chemical attack on Europe within 40mins? Just a thought. |
It was 45 minutes, and actually refered to the time it would take to deploy battlefield weapons that might contain chemical weapons. It was all a bit fuzzy and also included some information saying their weapons could reach Cyprus (the "Europe" they refered to!) All rolled into one ambiguous sentence in a newspaper left people thinking Saddam could launch chemical weapons all across Europe! And thats what they wanted people to think so why clarify it?! |
|
|
| George Smiley |
| quote: | Originally posted by Pheobius
Why doesn't the UN have weapons inspectors touring US or UK nuclear installations, why do we treat Iran like a special case? |
Cos international law isn't like "real" law! |
|
|
| George Smiley |
| quote: | Originally posted by hardcore trancer
whats the real reason then genious?:rolleyes: let me guess they are a threat to our freedom and democracy?:o or is it simply because they are a threat to Isreal and should be wiped out? |
Well I think the real reason is that from an American point of view (read the West) to have an extremely powerful state in the most strategic region on Earth that is not favourable to US interests is a very bad thing. A nuclear Iran would elevate them close to Israel's position. Nukes would pretty much cancel out any power Israel or America has over them (like N Korea) America cannot allow a state so opposed to the US to obtain that kind of power for the effects it would have on the region (and ultimately the effects it would have on America) Obviously that brings us back to our old friend Mr Oil! Iran has as much as Iraq. A powerful Iran would exert so much influence in Iraq (large Shia population) and what would America be able to do about it if Iran had nukes? Also look at China. There is not gonna be enuf oil for America and China in the future and this is where future tension will lay. Everyone asked why we did nothing to help out the people of Sudan...well Google China+sudan+oil and see for yourselves!
The Middle East is a strategic location purely because of oil. Whoever controls Arrakis, sorry, the Middle East controls the spice, god dammit! Oil! Thats what I think its all about anyway... |
|
|
| George Smiley |
| quote: | Originally posted by hardcore trancer
whats the real reason then genious?:rolleyes: let me guess they are a threat to our freedom and democracy?:o or is it simply because they are a threat to Isreal and should be wiped out? |
Well I think the real reason is that from an American point of view (read the West) to have an extremely powerful state in the most strategic region on Earth that is not favourable to US interests is a very bad thing. A nuclear Iran would elevate them close to Israel's position. Nukes would pretty much cancel out any power Israel or America has over them (like N Korea) America cannot allow a state so opposed to the US to obtain that kind of power for the effects it would have on the region (and ultimately the effects it would have on America) Obviously that brings us back to our old friend Mr Oil! Iran has as much as Iraq. A powerful Iran would exert so much influence in Iraq (large Shia population) and what would America be able to do about it if Iran had nukes? Also look at China. There is not gonna be enuf oil for America and China in the future and this is where future tension will lay. Everyone asked why we did nothing to help out the people of Sudan...well Google China+sudan+oil and see for yourselves!
The Middle East is a strategic location purely because of oil. Whoever controls Arrakis, sorry, the Middle East controls the spice, god dammit! Oil! Thats what I think its all about anyway... |
|
|
| George Smiley |
| quote: | Originally posted by hardcore trancer
whats the real reason then genious?:rolleyes: let me guess they are a threat to our freedom and democracy?:o or is it simply because they are a threat to Isreal and should be wiped out? |
Well I think the real reason is that from an American point of view (read the West) to have an extremely powerful state in the most strategic region on Earth that is not favourable to US interests is a very bad thing. A nuclear Iran would elevate them close to Israel's position. Nukes would pretty much cancel out any power Israel or America has over them (like N Korea) America cannot allow a state so opposed to the US to obtain that kind of power for the effects it would have on the region (and ultimately the effects it would have on America) Obviously that brings us back to our old friend Mr Oil! Iran has as much as Iraq. A powerful Iran would exert so much influence in Iraq (large Shia population) and what would America be able to do about it if Iran had nukes? Also look at China. There is not gonna be enuf oil for America and China in the future and this is where future tension will lay. Everyone asked why we did nothing to help out the people of Sudan...well Google China+sudan+oil and see for yourselves!
The Middle East is a strategic location purely because of oil. Whoever controls Arrakis, sorry, the Middle East controls the spice, god dammit! Oil! Thats what I think its all about anyway... |
|
|
| shaolin_Z |
| quote: | Originally posted by George Smiley
Well this is coming from an Israeli source not an American source |
CIA black propoganda was planted in European papers to cause a Soviet scare. |
|
|
| shaolin_Z |
| quote: | Originally posted by George Smiley
Well I think the real reason is that from an American point of view (read the West) to have an extremely powerful state in the most strategic region on Earth that is not favourable to US interests is a very bad thing. A nuclear Iran would elevate them close to Israel's position. Nukes would pretty much cancel out any power Israel or America has over them (like N Korea) America cannot allow a state so opposed to the US to obtain that kind of power for the effects it would have on the region (and ultimately the effects it would have on America) Obviously that brings us back to our old friend Mr Oil! Iran has as much as Iraq. A powerful Iran would exert so much influence in Iraq (large Shia population) and what would America be able to do about it if Iran had nukes? Also look at China. There is not gonna be enuf oil for America and China in the future and this is where future tension will lay. Everyone asked why we did nothing to help out the people of Sudan...well Google China+sudan+oil and see for yourselves!
The Middle East is a strategic location purely because of oil. Whoever controls Arrakis, sorry, the Middle East controls the spice, god dammit! Oil! Thats what I think its all about anyway... |
Jesus George! That's 3 posts of the same thing! :p
Anyways, that's exactly why Iran SHOULD have nukes. By invading Iraq, that's exactly the lesson that the US is teaching the rest of the World. You'd better have nukes to deter invasion/war. Plus, I'd like to see the West's control over the Middle East diminish. I'm sick of status quo Goverments there that are US tools and prevent any sort of positive economic or political change in the Middle East. I'm sick of the misery in the Middle East so that transnational coorperations can have bigger oil profits and control of the oil. that. I think it would be awesome if EVERY middle eastern country had nukes. |
|
|
| St_Andrew |
| quote: | Originally posted by George Smiley
Cos international law isn't like "real" law! |
I think the main reason is that US and UK are allowed to have WMD according to international law. |
|
|
| Fir3start3r |
| quote: | Originally posted by George Smiley
Whoever controls Arrakis, sorry, the Middle East controls the spice, god dammit! Oil! Thats what I think its all about anyway... |
The oil must flow? ;) :p |
|
|
| sponger |
george i agree with you for the most part but all you talk about is how america doesn't want iran to acquire nukes, its not only america but most of the world. for some reason the america haters here cant understand that. germany, france, and britain tried negotiating with iran, and now russia is offering alternatives to iran, no one in their right mind wants iran to have the capability of enriching uranium.
And to those who think iran should have nukes you must be fukin nuts. Ya, all we need is a regime like iran's to have nukes :nervous: its bad enough that N korea has them. |
|
|
| Trancer-X |
| quote: | Originally posted by Fir3start3r
The oil must flow? ;) :p |
| quote: | The world's energy consumption is bound to vastly increase over the next two or three decades. Estimates by the U.S. Department of energy anticipate that world demand will rise by more than 50 percent between 1993 and 2015, with the most significant increase in consumption occurring in the Far East.
(p. 125) |
|
|
|
|
|
