|
Iran rejects nuclear inspections unless Israel allows them (pg. 10)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| Q5echo |
| quote: | Originally posted by Krypton
Iran is surrounded on two fronts by their enemies. Additionally there are two aircraft carrier groups right off their coast. You think Israel feels threatened? Iran feels the exact same way. |
are you intellectually unable to see past March 2003 regarding ANYTHING including Iran's nuclear ambitions? |
|
|
| jerZ07002 |
| quote: | Originally posted by Krypton
The lesson here is...If you are going against the American Empire, you better have nuclear weapons. Iran is surrounded on two fronts by their enemies. Additionally there are two aircraft carrier groups right off their coast. You think Israel feels threatened? Iran feels the exact same way. |
while i don't disagree with the logic in the post (because as i previously said in a different thread that having a nuclear weapon is why the US didn't attack NK or pakistan), Iran apparently does not have a nuke yet. As evidenced by the Iraq war, the US has shown its willingness to prevent a country from becoming a nuclear power. By not showing force against NK, the US has also showed that it will not attack a nuclear power. As a non-nuclear power, Iran is more prone to attack by attempting to acquire a nuke than it would be if it already had one or wasn't trying to acquire one. So, this leads me to believe that a logical leader, if the country was not a nuclear power, would either 1) not develop nuclear weapons, or 2) do a much better job of covering it up than Iran has thus far. I guess my point is that Iran doesn't fear the US as much as we think it does, or its leaders are just crazy. I'm not sure. Nevertheless, the point was only that Israel has to be extremely cautious about how it uses a nuke because a retaliatory attack could literally wipe out a huge chunk of the country. The same can't be said for Iran. |
|
|
| Lemonad |
| quote: | Originally posted by jerZ07002
which is scarier - a nuclear Israel, a country surrounded by declared enemies, in which it's largest city is only 13 miles from the border of the west bank, 60 miles from the border of egypt, and about 70 miles from the border of Lebanon; or, a nuclear Iran, which is attempting to become the dominate player in the region, and it's capital is comfortably located in the north central part of the country approximately 200 miles from its neighbors borders? The point, Israel has a clear goal in having nuclear weapons: deterrence. As the new big dog in the region, what's Iran's goal in striving for a nuclear weapon? It can't be to deter Israel because common sense would dictate that a country as small as Israel would be highly vulnerable to attack from many angles. Iran no longer has to worry about Iraq, and no other country in the region seems to be a military player. If Iran is striving to become a nuclear power to deter the US, well, that's stupid because George Bush thought Sadam was doing the same thing, and look what happened to him. I happen to think a nuclear Iran is more dangerous because Israelis have nowhere to hide. The use of a nuke by Israel would be the absolute last option. |
I have to say Israel is scarier to have Nuclear Weapons.
Looking back, Iran hasn't attacked any country since over 200 years ago compared to Israel on the other hand. |
|
|
| Q5echo |
| quote: | Originally posted by Lemonad
I have to say Israel is scarier to have Nuclear Weapons.
Looking back, Iran hasn't attacked any country since over 200 years ago compared to Israel on the other hand. |
Israel has had nukes for half a century. they've fought more wars and conflicts themselves than any country in the world within that time, including the US.
of the last "200 years" Iran has been run by a death cult for only the last 30. now they're developing nukes. |
|
|
| Lemonad |
| quote: | Originally posted by Q5echo
Israel has had nukes for half a century. they've fought more wars and conflicts themselves than any country in the world within that time, including the US.
of the last "200 years" Iran has been run by a death cult for only the last 30. now they're developing nukes. |
They fought wars against basically weak opponents.
If it wasn't for the US, Israel would have been a worthless entity. |
|
|
| Q5echo |
| quote: | Originally posted by Lemonad
They fought wars against basically weak opponents.
If it wasn't for the US, Israel would have been a worthless entity. |
they fought f**king Nasser's Egypt, dude.:rolleyes: the most powerful Middle East army of it's time. oh AND Jordan, Syria and anyone who wanted to help.
they defeat armies through a little luck, balls and intelligence. (not necessarily in that order) nukes tend to level the playing field for countries that lack those three things.
we get it. you hate Isreal...but use your f**king head. learn some FFS.
why does hating Israel make people so stupid? |
|
|
| Lemonad |
I don't hate Israel as much as you hate Iran.
They couldn't defeat Hezbollah for one thing which was backed by the tacticians of Iran.
Mate, the tacticians in control of those Arab are plain stupid if a war could only last 6 days... how the hell are you comparing anything to that you idiot. |
|
|
| Q5echo |
| quote: | Originally posted by Lemonad
They couldn't defeat Hezbollah for one thing which was backed by the tacticians of Iran. |
Israel doesn't have anything against the Lebanese people as a whole other wise they'd the use Hezbollah as a mop. they did actually all the way up to the Litani River in the summer of 2006. then pulled back.
| quote: | | Mate, the tacticians in control of those Arab are plain stupid if a war could only last 6 days... how the hell are you comparing anything to that you idiot. |
it lasted 6 day b/c like i said. they had some luck. some balls. and some brains. read about it instead of blaming these imaginary "tacticians". |
|
|
| Lemonad |
| quote: | Originally posted by Q5echo
Israel doesn't have anything against the Lebanese people as a whole other wise they'd the use Hezbollah as a mop. they did actually all the way up to the Litani River in the summer of 2006. then pulled back.
|
If they even cared about the Lebanese people then cluster bombs would never have been used.
The International community has agreed to ban them, except for a meager amount of countries, not surprisingly including Israel and USA.
Way to not have anything against anyone The government is worse than roaches.
Let me hear your opinion on cluster bombs, and back it up by comparing an atrocity Iran has caused that is worse than Israel dropping clusters causing dismemberment on little children. |
|
|
| hardcore trancer |
| quote: | Originally posted by Krypton
The lesson here is...If you are going against the American Empire, you better have nuclear weapons. Iran is surrounded on two fronts by their enemies. Additionally there are two aircraft carrier groups right off their coast. You think Israel feels threatened? Iran feels the exact same way. |
speaking of American empire,I would want to have a bunch of nukes close by if this was the case:
 |
|
|
| hardcore trancer |
| quote: | Originally posted by Lemonad
Let me hear your opinion on cluster bombs, and back it up by comparing an atrocity Iran has caused that is worse than Israel dropping clusters causing dismemberment on little children. |
A typical zionist reply to that would be: "Israel has the rights to use any weapons against anyone no matter what the consequences are for its survival". |
|
|
| Krypton |
| quote: | Originally posted by Q5echo
are you intellectually unable to see past March 2003 regarding ANYTHING including Iran's nuclear ambitions? |
Are you able to see perspectives apart from you own? Look at it from the Iranian high command's perspective. They are surrounded by enemies. They want to reawaken their former Persian greatness. And in today's world, that means acquiring a nuclear weapon. Security Council status. But with acquiring a nuke comes the realization of mutually assured destruction which most war apologists like to forget. If Iran even attempts a nuke launch on Israel, Tehran will be turned to glass 100x over. The Iranian leadership, like all leaderships with nuclear weapons know mutually assured destruction. It is clearly obvious Iran desires a nuke (if they do) as a means of deterrence from outside attack or domination.
Do you want to make a premise/conclusion argument, or keep trying to attack my credibility? |
|
|
|
|
