It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Should Iran manufacture a nuclear deterrence device ?

page: 2
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:
Sep

posted on Jun, 1 2005 @ 09:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by deltaboy
u cant take away the motivation from a country that is intent on the annihalation of Israel. after all they believe the Jews dont belong there. and with a nuke its a lot easier to kill many with one small device than it is to fund terror groups who commit suicide on the victims but is replace by many more babies.


Jews would have been annihakated 2500 years ago if it wasnt for the Persians. Get your facts straight mate.

And the current government has no intent to annihalte Israel. On the front the governments hate eachother but behind the sceans they are good friends. I mean when Iraq attacked us and there was no body on our side Israel supplied the regime which was at the height of its fanatism with weapons to protect Iran. That aught to tell you something.




posted on Jun, 1 2005 @ 09:22 AM
link   
Zurvan, you missed my point, I wasn't saying the US would not retaliate. It's obvious they would. All I was saying was so would Iran.


You claim that Iran does not need nukes, then surely neither does Israel or the US or the UK or Russia or China.


That is a good summary of what I am saying. I therefore dispute the author of this thread's idea that we should allow nukes to end up in more places. If anything, as you BHR said, we should try to have them in fewer places. The psychotic Balance of Powers proposal will do the opposite of what you and I want BHR, I'm sure you see that.


-Iran is politically unstable and iranian decisions particularly irresponsible.
-Israel is politically stable and israeli decisions particularly responsible.


Moretti, if you're going to constantly get stuck on the specifics of an invented Israel vs. Iran weapons conflict there's not much I can do for you. My posts are indicating my reasons for not wishing to have MORE nuclear nations. Instead you choose to focus on your opinion that Israel is unstable. I'm not sure why. The larger issue here is that we don't need an increase in nuclear weaponry.

How about we set it on the table now. I think the Iranian government is unstable, you think Israel is unstable. Happy? Now there's no need to further sidetrack the thread with it. Stick to my other points instead of picking at the same thing in each reply.

[edit on 6-1-2005 by Djarums]



posted on Jun, 1 2005 @ 09:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by Djarums

Moretti, if you're going to constantly get stuck on the specifics of an invented Israel vs. Iran weapons conflict there's not much I can do for you. My posts are indicating my reasons for not wishing to have MORE nuclear nations. Instead you choose to focus on your opinion that Israel is unstable. I'm not sure why.


You introduced the discussion in these terms. Good to see you changed strategy, but don't accuse me of it. Just admit that you "lost" the "Israel is better than Iran" argument line.


The larger issue here is that we don't need an increase in nuclear weaponry.


The "larger issue" is one that is not in touch with developements on the ground given Iran's immediate security concerns, and the immediate need of averting foreign aggression. Did you read the article in the original post ?



[edit on 1-6-2005 by Moretti]



posted on Jun, 1 2005 @ 10:36 AM
link   

Just admit that you "lost" the "Israel is better than Iran" argument line.


Being that this wasn't the argument that I was posing at all, and you hideously misinterpreted just about every word I said, I'll do you, me, and everyone else a favor and drop the subject entirely. I really can't stand when people pick up a wrong point and run for the touchdown with it. My intention in this thread was never to prove who's better than whom, so with that I think I'll continue browsing elsewhere.



posted on Jun, 1 2005 @ 10:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by Sep

Jews would have been annihakated 2500 years ago if it wasnt for the Persians. Get your facts straight mate.

And the current government has no intent to annihalte Israel. On the front the governments hate eachother but behind the sceans they are good friends. I mean when Iraq attacked us and there was no body on our side Israel supplied the regime which was at the height of its fanatism with weapons to protect Iran. That aught to tell you something.


● Iran's supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenai explained in Jan. 2001 that 'the foundation of the Islamic regime is opposition to Israel, and the perpetual subject of Iran is the elimination of Israel from the region.'

well it looks like the modern day Persians decided to change their mind mate
. and i did get my facts straight im not mention about the past im mentioning about the present. wat happened thousands of years ago is now irrevelant.



posted on Jun, 1 2005 @ 11:25 AM
link   
The Islamic Regime does not represent a modern Persian. I do! and I have no anomity with Israel so long as they stay away from my countries infrstructue and resources. If they have to take some out then they have to be prepared to rebuild and absolutely minimise collateral damage.


The Islamic Regime has highjacked the Persia!!! The are holding Iran hostage.

It is them who has to go, preferably with a non violent method.



posted on Jun, 1 2005 @ 11:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by zurvan
The Islamic Regime does not represent a modern Persian. I do!


you represent Iran
, u wish, i know maybe u have no qualms with Israel but as long as this Ayatollah regime is in power they represent the people of Iran and as Persian
.


cjf

posted on Jun, 1 2005 @ 12:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by deltaboy
well it looks like the modern day Persians decided to change their mind mate
. and i did get my facts straight im not mention about the past im mentioning about the present. wat happened thousands of years ago is now irrevelant.


Agreed! and look who is running for president of Iran again…..



"If a day comes when the world of Islam is duly equipped with the arms Israel has in possession, the strategy of colonialism would face a stalemate because application of an atomic bomb would not leave any thing in Israel but the same thing would just produce damages in the Muslim world

"Jews shall expect to be once again scattered and wandering around the globe the day when this appendix is extracted from the region and the Muslim world"

---- Iran's Expediency Council Chairman, Deputy Chairman Assembly of Experts and former President Ayatollah Ali Akbar Hashemi-Rafsanjani
(Link) one of many.


Rafsanjani announced his candidacy (May 10, 2005) for Iran’s Presidential election.

Iran needs nuclear weapons right……?



“Had Saddam had nuclear weapons, he would still be in power,” -Rafsanjani (Link)



posted on Jun, 1 2005 @ 01:35 PM
link   


"If a day comes when the world of Islam is duly equipped with the arms Israel has in possession, the strategy of colonialism would face a stalemate because application of an atomic bomb would not leave any thing in Israel but the same thing would just produce damages in the Muslim world

"Jews shall expect to be once again scattered and wandering around the globe the day when this appendix is extracted from the region and the Muslim world"

---- Iran's Expediency Council Chairman, Deputy Chairman Assembly of Experts and former President Ayatollah Ali Akbar Hashemi-Rafsanjani
(Link) one of many.


So what ? This is just rhethoric, and compared to quotes from israeli or american politicians, this is more than benign. BTW, if i'm not mistaken, "iran press service" is not a serious newssource.



“Had Saddam had nuclear weapons, he would still be in power,” -Rafsanjani (Link)


A little bit simplified, but to the point. To stop wanton gung-hoing and genocidal trade embargoes. Venezuela and Brazil will do the same thing for latin america. A multipolar world.
Goodbye Bush, Reagan, Kissinger, Sharon and Karimov. Goodbye death squads, CIA terrorists and torturers,USAF, genocide, apartheid. Make the world a better place, without a corrupt world policeman.


[edit on 1-6-2005 by Moretti]



posted on Jun, 1 2005 @ 01:41 PM
link   
Should Iran manufacture a nuclear deterrence device ? I think it only makes sense for them to do so. Everybody has to look out for #1. Why should Iran be any different? I don't have any problems with them having one as long as they are holding it for defensive measures.

The US used the atomic bomb in WWII, but since they were the only ones in posession of these weapons, they were able to close the door and discontinue use of them. Now that many nations have nuclear devices, it may not be so easy to put them back in the box once they come out. I think the big fear here goes back to radical Islam getting hold of one of these bombs and starts somthing that no one can stop.


cjf

posted on Jun, 1 2005 @ 07:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by Moretti
So what ? This is just rhethoric, and compared to quotes from israeli or american politicians, this is more than benign. BTW, if i'm not mistaken, "iran press service" is not a serious newssource.


I took the time to denote this was not the only source; you did not take the time to look.

Since you took no time to look, you would have found the statements were rebroadcast on Voice of the Islamic Republic of Iran Radio, Dec. 14, 2001, after being made at Friday prayers and he reiterated a different version of the statement during a speech again at Teheran University later (‘google’ the statement for at least a start). The statement appears in encyclopedias, defense journals/periodicals (e.g. Jane’s) not to mention openly quoted by governments. Look it up.

At least take the time to read and not just ‘affix’ to knock the ‘source’ just so you can pulpit an opinion….and this is founded upon what….your agenda? Pfft….no intellectual conversation here:


Originally posted by Moretti
A little bit simplified, but to the point. To stop wanton gung-hoing and genocidal trade embargoes. Venezuela and Brazil will do the same thing for latin america. A multipolar world.
Goodbye Bush, Reagan, Kissinger, Sharon and Karimov. Goodbye death squads, CIA terrorists and torturers,USAF, genocide, apartheid. Make the world a better place, without a corrupt world policeman.


In your own words: “This is just rhetoric” or is it ‘rethoric?”


.



posted on Jun, 1 2005 @ 07:54 PM
link   
So what if Iran has Nuclear Weapons they cant use them because they would be wiped out by other Countries with the same device. Waste of money on Iraniens trying to make their country better. Having a bomb is just a waste of money nowadays.


Sep

posted on Jun, 2 2005 @ 02:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by deltaboy

● Iran's supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenai explained in Jan. 2001 that 'the foundation of the Islamic regime is opposition to Israel, and the perpetual subject of Iran is the elimination of Israel from the region.'

well it looks like the modern day Persians decided to change their mind mate
. and i did get my facts straight im not mention about the past im mentioning about the present. wat happened thousands of years ago is now irrevelant.


Iran- Iraq war started in 1980 and finished in 1988. That was 25 years not thousands of years ago. We had back channels then and we have back channels now,



posted on Jun, 2 2005 @ 03:10 AM
link   
Guilt By Association

What does Iran's nuclear weapons program have to do with the War on Terrorism?

Why is this thread in the WoT forum?



posted on Jun, 2 2005 @ 06:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by cjf

Originally posted by Moretti
So what ? This is just rhethoric, and compared to quotes from israeli or american politicians, this is more than benign. BTW, if i'm not mistaken, "iran press service" is not a serious newssource.


I took the time to denote this was not the only source; you did not take the time to look.

Since you took no time to look, you would have found the statements were rebroadcast on Voice of the Islamic Republic of Iran Radio, Dec. 14, 2001, after being made at Friday prayers and he reiterated a different version of the statement during a speech again at Teheran University later (‘google’ the statement for at least a start). The statement appears in encyclopedias, defense journals/periodicals (e.g. Jane’s) not to mention openly quoted by governments. Look it up.

At least take the time to read and not just ‘affix’ to knock the ‘source’ just so you can pulpit an opinion….and this is founded upon what….your agenda? Pfft….no intellectual conversation here:


Originally posted by Moretti
A little bit simplified, but to the point. To stop wanton gung-hoing and genocidal trade embargoes. Venezuela and Brazil will do the same thing for latin america. A multipolar world.
Goodbye Bush, Reagan, Kissinger, Sharon and Karimov. Goodbye death squads, CIA terrorists and torturers,USAF, genocide, apartheid. Make the world a better place, without a corrupt world policeman.


In your own words: “This is just rhetoric” or is it ‘rethoric?”
.


What is your point ? I never claimed the quotes were false, i just helped you get better newssources in the future. My point you evaded is that the "evil" rafsandjani quotes don't really match his "evil" israeli and american counterparts, so posting them in order to scand "look how crazy the mullahs are" is relatively futile, and, probably, has a thinly veiled racist moment.

Thanks for the orthography lesson, however. I personally think that a multipolar security concept would effectively put an end to US colonial warfare and CIA puppet regimes in the concerned regions. Would that have economic drawbacks for the USA? (I'm suspecting many of you guys think the US can't live without pillaging other nations) The answer is no. All that is needed is sane leadership, sound economic policies based on facts, not on what at best could be described as economic religion, and a policy of promoting peace, freedom and progress for everyone, not just for the financial lobbies.




[edit on 2-6-2005 by Moretti]



posted on Jun, 24 2005 @ 05:05 AM
link   
Dear all,

Does anyone know if it is possible to merge threads that have a similar topic content?

Cheers

BHR



posted on Jun, 24 2005 @ 05:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by Sep
I mean when Iraq attacked us and there was no body on our side Israel supplied the regime which was at the height of its fanatism with weapons to protect Iran. That aught to tell you something.


ever heard of the saying
"the enemy of my enemy is my friend"



posted on Jul, 1 2005 @ 04:24 AM
link   
Bodrul,

So what changed in the intervening years?

Cheers

BHR



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join