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.

 

Poll:the reason of why Israel can have the A-bomb and Iran cann't.

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 18 2006 @ 12:38 AM
link   
A:Because Israel is on our side and Iran isn't.

B:Because Iran is a evil country and USA is a god country,so god country must destroy evil country,and of course evil country cann't have A-bomb.

C:Because Israel is white and Iran is Middle East.white people represent justice and Middle East people are dangerous,they maybe terrorist.

D:Because Iran is Islam and we are Christianism.Teach those dumbass more advanced Christianism is our duty.we have the tradition of missionize.before they give up Islam,we cann't let them have A-bomb.



[edit on 18-7-2006 by evilcountry8888]




posted on Jul, 18 2006 @ 12:42 AM
link   
Uh I would say A and C and your tread is very harsh please edit D it sound very hateful just telling you



posted on Jul, 18 2006 @ 12:46 AM
link   
How about because we can trust Israel to not use them haphazardly while we can't trust Iran?

Just listen to the recent statements of Iran's president and the answer should be clear!



posted on Jul, 18 2006 @ 01:35 AM
link   
Thats good too it just not a safe place or trustworthy and sorry to get off subject djohnsto77 but what haphazardly mean sorry to ask.




posted on Jul, 18 2006 @ 01:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by El Che
what haphazardly mean sorry to ask.



haphazardly

adv 1: in a random manner; "the houses were randomly scattered"; "bullets were fired into the crowd at random" [syn: randomly, indiscriminately, willy-nilly, arbitrarily, at random, every which way] 2: without care; in a slapdash manner; "the Prime Minister was wearing a gray suit and a white shirt with a soft collar, but his neck had become thinner and the collar stood away from it as if it had been bought haphazard" [syn: haphazard]

Dictionary.com



posted on Jul, 18 2006 @ 01:55 AM
link   
Thank you from explaining.




posted on Jul, 18 2006 @ 03:01 AM
link   
Why would IRAN need nukes?

A) Because the United States Military has vicarious control of Afghanistan to the East of Iran
B) Because the United States Military has vicarious control of Iraq to the West of Iran.
C) Because Saudia Arabia to the South has allowed its land to be used for US bases for over a decade.
D) The US has bases in Kuwait to the southwest of Iran
E) Pakistan to the SouthEast of Iran has nuclear weapons, and is implicated in the 9/11 attacks
which gave the United States their "justification" to invade Afghanistan.
F) India further SouthEast of Iran has nuclear Weapons and is a major ally of the United States, who has the second highest population on the planet, which grows ever hungry for resources.
G) Russia with nuclear weapons is just a few minor countries north of Iran.
H) Just east of Afghanistan is China with nuclear weapons.

If you ever played a game of RISK, you might have some concept of whats happening

The United States is setting itself up in a position to threaten all of the countries I named above
with land based nuclear strikes in any direction, at any time, without the benefit of ICBM missile detection, since they can use tactical cannon based launches, stealth bombers, UAV's, cruise missiles, or a even a truck, from the lands they've already claimed.

But you can just keep go on believing that "the US is spreading democracy" and the Israeli's are anyone's friend but their own.




[edit on 18-7-2006 by Legalizer]



posted on Jul, 18 2006 @ 03:08 AM
link   
There is a bridge somewhere that is missing a troll right now.



posted on Jul, 18 2006 @ 03:15 AM
link   
I believe that neither Iran or Israel should have "the Bomb" however, to answer this question I would have to answer "none of the above" (at least based on the selection you have presented".

I think that, of the two choices, Israel can have have the bomb because, unlike Iran, they have not gone on record making rash and ignorant statements about destroying anyone. Iran, as we all know, has expressed it's keen desire to destroy Israel. On the other hand, Israel has not acknowledged that it has the bomb nor has Israel publically expressed a desire to destroy anyone or any people off of the map.

Perhaps Israels unspoken desire is similar to Iran's, in that Israel might like to destroy or wipe some Mid Eastern country off of the map, but at least Israel has had the self-control and foresight not to be as public as Iran. Iran's very public expression of intended violence certainly does not impress me as being very diplomatic or responsible. Certainly, Iran does not inspire much confidence that they could even control their A-bomb. After all, Iran has already expressed their malicious intent verbally and the desire to use the A Bomb against Israel is certainy insinuated.



posted on Jul, 18 2006 @ 03:15 AM
link   
Wow your writing is almost ambiguous. Is english your first language?

The reason why Iran does not have weapons is because, like someone said, they would use them irresponsibly. He said "We will wipe Israel off the map". Helloo they have nukes as well, it will be mutual. Besides I would trust Israel over Iran...on nukes that is...everything else I wouldn't trust either of them



posted on Jul, 19 2006 @ 04:33 AM
link   
Um... I'll go for option E... "Because we said so".

You want something, you say so. Then you start passin out cans of whoopass.

Everything else is idealistic and failure prone. That doesn't mean that other methods NEVER work or aren't good ideas, it just means that when all else fails, nations usually tell you what to do if you don't want your teeth kicked in.

This is pretty much how diplomacy started back when the first chimpanzee picked up a stick and chased the second chimpanzee away from the best fruit tree in the area a few million years ago, and this is pretty much where we're stuck today when the First Chimpanzee makes ultimatums at the "Axis of Evil".

We're working on some new ideas, but they're still in the development phase really.



posted on Jul, 19 2006 @ 08:40 AM
link   
A. None of the above

I should have known a loaded question would have only loaded answers.



posted by benevolent tyrant

“ . . neither Iran or Israel should have "the Bomb" . . to answer this question I would have to answer "none of the above" I think that, of the two choices, Israel can have the bomb because, unlike Iran, they have not gone on record making rash and ignorant statements about destroying anyone . . “ [Edited by Don W]




William Polk, an old guy who worked on the NSC around the mid to late 1960s, said on CSpan2 Sunday, that Israel had 400 to 600 bombs. A US ambassador under Clinton said NK had bomb making materials for 2 bombs in 2000 and may have enough for 6 to 10 today. Back to Polk, he also suggested Iran may have bought a few “loose nukes” at the close of the Soviet Union in 1991, suggesting this current hullabaloo is a cover which will end with Iran announcing it has the bomb!



Iran's very public expression of intended violence does not impress me as being diplomatic or responsible. Iran does not inspire confidence they could control their A-bomb. After all, Iran has already expressed their malicious intent and desire to use the A Bomb against Israel . .




Although I think Israel has made a wrong choice - in frustration - by adopting Sharon’s “unilateral disengagement” policy, as they prefer to call it, I also think we must keep in mind, A) Israel is an newcomer-interloper nation in the area, B) Israel is outnumbered maybe 6 million to 120 million, and C) the issue - Israel’s legitimacy - is deeply intertwined with religion around the world - well, actually in the United States.

America is impelled to assist Israel beyond normal diplomatic rationale because so many Americans (on the right) hold an irrational belief in the forthcoming Battle of Armageddon - end times - and (on the left) a guilty conscience for sitting by during the Holocaust.

It is obvious to me that the world does not need ANY nuclear weapons. OTOH, the regimen required to insure full compliance would have to be draconian lest a dozen “rogue” nations - including the United States - would make bombs on the sly, secretly justified on the short-sighted but widely popular covers-all grounds of “national security.” Hmm? Does that mean mankind is therefore doomed to the slow spread of nuclear weapons around the world?

Surely we can predict the outcome? A dictator will be elected - democracy at work - in sub-Saharan Africa, promising to feed his starving people. He will threaten the US with doom and destruction unless we send them enough food to keep his people from dying. Which forced diversion of agricultural produce will interfere with ADMs long time connection to the US Treasury via ethanol and ADM will declare preemptive war! Yes, we will have privatized everything by then! Including the power to declare war which Congress cannot seem to do - well, since 1941.

Gosh! Maybe we are living in the Last Days after all?



[edit on 7/19/2006 by donwhite]



posted on Jul, 19 2006 @ 08:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by djohnsto77
How about because we can trust Israel to not use them haphazardly while we can't trust Iran?

Just listen to the recent statements of Iran's president and the answer should be clear!


Agreed

Israel has not made public statements about wishing to wipe out an entire state, or an entire race of people. Iran has.

Stupid Poll anyway.

[edit on 19-7-2006 by Peyres]

[edit on 19-7-2006 by Peyres]



posted on Jul, 19 2006 @ 10:30 PM
link   
Both nations deserve to have nuclear bombs. What they do with them is up to them, but I seriously doubt either will ever use such weapons. Iranian president that made the threat to Israel is just a face for the media- not a real leader. He makes no top-priority decisions- they are made by the Mulah counsil. Iran would never go as far as attacking Israel with nuclear weapons (especially with US in between them), nor would Israel. Despite what it seems like, these nations are not ruled by cavemen. Speaking of cavemen...

President Bush (who is in control of largest nuclear arsenal in the world) made threats about the Axis-Of-Evil. So even though he didn't openly say US will attack Iran and North Korea, it is obvious that it will at some point. So then why should US have nukes, if its such a threat to other countries.

US has no authority in who can have the A-bomb and who can't. Sure it can choose the easy way out of the issue- precision bombing (or should I say liberation?) and occupation with its "peace-keeping" police force. Well if US gets to have the bomb, why not everyone else. With the characters in power now in the White House, I'd say that US having the A-bomb is a worldwide threat- which should be dealt with immediatelly. Maybe you'd like somebody to liberate you from your corporate dictatorship? Yeah

If you don't want others to have the bomb, get rid of yous first. And tell your buddies in Israel, Europe and Pakistan to do the same. Otherwise sit back and enjoy your WWII creation spring to life around the world.

[edit on 19-7-2006 by maloy]



posted on Jul, 29 2006 @ 01:22 AM
link   
The reason why Iran wants nukes, particularly now, is that nearby states have them, so it needs them as well to prevent a pre-emptive attack against them. If Israel and Iran had a nuclear war, unless Israel had enough, they would lose as they have a smaller area, so their country would come off worse.

In agreement with previous posts, Israel can have Nukes because they aren't anti West.

There should, in my opinion, be a complete nuclear disarmament in the whole world. Just to read a description of the aftermath of Hiroshima or Nagasaki is enough to put you off the idea.



posted on Jul, 29 2006 @ 01:29 AM
link   
Isreal wont sell them to terrorist muslims, and then blow us up.



posted on Jul, 29 2006 @ 12:21 PM
link   
The REAL REASON is that Iran signed the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, but Israel did not.

Like India, pakistan, and recently withdrawn North Korea, Israels nuclear program is not bound by international law.

The rest of the world is restricted, but not those four.



posted on Aug, 10 2006 @ 09:42 PM
link   
I am a supporter of Israel and believe that they have aright to nuclear weapons, however the last thing I want is an idiot like the author of this post defended said right. I believe that Nuclear weapons were perhaps the biggest mistake anyone has ever made and will foreved leave a shadow over our planet. However for small country such as Israel which has nearby countires calling for its complete destruction they are vital as a bargaining tool.

Jensy

(P.S th is my first post in the PTS forum, I have finnally adventured from ATS)


df1

posted on Aug, 10 2006 @ 10:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by jensy
I am a supporter of Israel and believe that they have aright to nuclear weapons, however the last thing I want is an idiot like the author of this post defended said right. I believe that Nuclear weapons were perhaps the biggest mistake anyone has ever made and will foreved leave a shadow over our planet. However for small country such as Israel which has nearby countires calling for its complete destruction they are vital as a bargaining tool.

My advice to the leader of any country would be to get a nuclear capability going as quickly as possible because it will be an advantageous bargaining tool. Iran is also a small country like israel which could obtain vital benefits from using nuclear weapons as a bargaining tool in dealing with the super powers. If saddam had posed a nuclear threat you can bet that we would have never invaded his country. The nuclear deterent works.



posted on Aug, 10 2006 @ 10:30 PM
link   
Iran doesn’t need them because hey can not be trusted by ANYONE. Israel however can be swayed by the USA, UK, France……

It would be great if there were no nukes but that day passed many years ago and its too late to forget how to build em.

And Iran would have nothing to fear from the US or anyone else if they would simply allow the IAEA to verify that their program is being used only for civilian electricity production. But they wont do that so it shows they can not be trusted with even telling the truth BEFORE they get a nuke or 100.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join