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.

 

Nuclear Talks with Iran Collapse

page: 2
5
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 22 2011 @ 06:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by IsraeliGuy

Originally posted by sbctinfantry
I am for liberty. First, you must get past your armchair, beer guzzling, idea of liberty. Once you can wrap your head around that, the replies to which you are referring to will become very clear.

Dodgy answers again. How cute.

It's really not that hard.
Are you supporting the creation of a peaceful nuclear energy reactor in Iran, or are you supporting nuclear bomb facility in Iran?

It's a real simple question.


Asking for an answer when someone says they do not have the answer is fairly unrealistic.

I am against the UN, United States, Israel, or any other country for that matter restricting the technology of another country by any means.. for any reason.

My question isn't whether they should have it, but why should we think that we have the right to suppress it? Especially when my country proclaims it stands for liberty and [incorrectly] democracy. (To clarify, the US is a Constitutional Republic, not a Democracy, a commonly stated fallacy.)




posted on Jan, 22 2011 @ 06:14 PM
link   
Perhaps because Iran is not a stable country, led by a religious fanatic madman, which openly supports, operates, and funds a world-widely recognized terror organization (Hezbollah) as their proxy together with Syria.

Their proxy is currently overthrowing (correction - already took over) the Lebanese government. Just to put things in the right perspective.


Iran has more than once called for the destruction of Israel.
If you are a man that supports peace and technology advances of any country, you should connect the dots and realize that an Iranian nuclear bomb will eventually be the cause of a great war, perhaps even a third world war.

I'm sure we would all enjoy a better future after one of those.



This is why I ask - do you support a nuclear bomb by Iran, or just a nuclear energy reactor?
How can you not have the answer to that? You don't possess an opinion?

I have no problems with an Iranian nuclear energy reactor. By all means let them have it and benefit from it. A nuke is an entirely different thing.
edit on 22-1-2011 by IsraeliGuy because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 22 2011 @ 06:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by IsraeliGuy
Perhaps because Iran is not a stable country, led by a religious fanatic madman, which openly supports, operates, and funds a world-widely recognized terror organization (Hezbollah) as their proxy together with Syria.

Their proxy is currently overthrowing (correction - already took over) the Lebanese government. Just to put things in the right perspective.


Iran has more than once called for the destruction of Israel.
If you are a man that supports peace and technology advances of any country, you should connect the dots and realize that an Iranian nuclear bomb will eventually be the cause of a great war, perhaps even a third world war.

I'm sure we would all enjoy a better future after one of those.



This is why I ask - do you support a nuclear bomb by Iran, or just a nuclear energy reactor?
How can you not have the answer to that? You don't possess an opinion?

I have no problems with an Iranian nuclear energy reactor. By all means let them have it and benefit from it. A nuke is an entirely different thing.
edit on 22-1-2011 by IsraeliGuy because: (no reason given)


I am for liberty, and I don't believe that I or any man, have the right to stop Iran. Until Iran actually commits a crime against Israel involving a nuclear weapon, we have no right to stop them from creating one. Of course, if you can provide specific evidence that Iran is only seeking a nuke to specifically destroy Israel with, I will side with you. Threatening a crime is just as serious.

As far as I'm aware, Iran has threatened aggression, but has not specifically stated it is building a nuke. It has also not stated that it wants a nuke. It has also not stated that if it had a nuke, it would use it to destroy Israel.



posted on Jan, 22 2011 @ 09:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by sbctinfantry
I am for liberty, and I don't believe that I or any man, have the right to stop Iran.

Yes I already got that.
I am for liberty aswell, and I believe that no nation under religious rule should possess mass destruction weapons. As I said, I've got no problems with a nuclear energy reactor in Iran. You do realise that is not even close to having a nuke, do you?
As for saying the words Liberty and Iran in the same sentence - you might aswell look for the liberties that the citizens of Iran are getting.
Be it women's rights,
Public executions (hanging) of minors,
The way people were shot down merciless after the elections,
Rigged elections,
A terror organization under their fundings and influence,
And did I mention a religious rule?


Until Iran actually commits a crime against Israel involving a nuclear weapon, we have no right to stop them from creating one.

Think about that remark for a minute. That's just stupid buddy.


As far as I'm aware, Iran has threatened aggression, but has not specifically stated it is building a nuke. It has also not stated that it wants a nuke. It has also not stated that if it had a nuke, it would use it to destroy Israel.

So this is why I asked my simple question.. UGH!
You say nobody has the right to stop Iran. OK, well, stop Iran from what exactly?
A. Building an energy reactor
or
B. Building a nuclear bomb

Also, I'm pretty sure no state will ever declare it's going to build nukes to destroy a different country. What is this idiotic arguement??

PS: I'm not too worried about a nuclear Iran aswell. I trust the IAF completely.

edit on 22-1-2011 by IsraeliGuy because: (no reason given)

edit on 22-1-2011 by IsraeliGuy because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 22 2011 @ 09:50 PM
link   
When I come upon a viper coiling for a strike, I don't wait to get hit.

Now it's true that the viper may or may not strike. It may not strike me as I pass, but strike the one behind me. Or someone else isn't able to see it even later in the dark when the viper has the advantage.

Too unpredictable, thus my own action.

I'll kill the viper.

A people led by religious fanatics who want to die to reach whatever paradise murdering muslims go to - just doesn't seem like a good candidate for having nuclear capability.

They already float on oil, so it's not like they need the energy.

It has to be to fulfill their leaders teachings.

Jihad.

This will lead to nuclear war very quickly if Iran persists.

No other options.



posted on Jan, 22 2011 @ 09:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by sbctinfantry


I would like to see a very specific proposal presented to Iran by the UN that states something to the effect of : "Iran shall be aided in creating a peaceful nuclear program, in return for granting complete transparency."

Is that really so hard for both parties?


I wouldn't exactly be holding my breath on that one. Remember..... it was Iran hiding a nuclear enrichment program from the world that is the start of all of this. They were outed, they didn't reveal anything till forced to.



posted on Jan, 22 2011 @ 10:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by IsraeliGuy
You do realise that is not even close to having a nuke, do you?
As for saying the words Liberty and Iran in the same sentence - you might aswell look for the liberties that the citizens of Iran are getting.
Be it women's rights,
Public executions (hanging) of minors,
The way people were shot down merciless after the elections,
Rigged elections,
And did I mention a religious rule?


1) Yes.
2) It is not our duty, or right, to keep a nation from procuring nuclear energy or weapons.
3) If a country wants to execute its women, minors, or dogs, and rig its elections, that's the country's business.


Think about that remark for a minute. That's just stupid buddy.

So the premise of innocent until proven guilty, a prime facet of American justice, should not apply to everyone else?


So this is why I asked my simple question.. UGH!
You say nobody has the right to stop Iran. OK, well, stop Iran from what exactly?
A. Building an energy reactor
or
B. Building a nuclear bomb


A + B = Liberty.


Also, I'm pretty sure no state will ever declare it's going to build nukes to destroy a different country. What is this idiotic arguement??

PS: I'm not too worried about a nuclear Iran aswell. I trust the IAF completely.

edit on 22-1-2011 by IsraeliGuy because: (no reason given)


I'm sure no murderer will generally declare his crime before he commits it. Most persons who do not commit murder have declared that they will. It is common knowledge.

You're misconstrue my point. I am very concerned about a nuclear Iran. I am just as concerned as to the consequences as I am saddened by the consequences of a nuclear United States.



posted on Jan, 22 2011 @ 10:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by sbctinfantry
2) It is not our duty, or right, to keep a nation from procuring nuclear energy or weapons.

Yes it is depending on what nation are we talking about.
For example nobody would like to see a nuclear Somalia, thus it is for the benefit or the world that it wouldn't be allowed to develop nuclear weapons.

3) If a country wants to execute its women, minors, or dogs, and rig its elections, that's the country's business.

So much for you supporting in people's liberty then, hypocrite.




So the premise of innocent until proven guilty, a prime facet of American justice, should not apply to everyone else?

Hell no when you're talking about nuclear bombs!
You're basically saying "We have no right to stop Iran from nuking Israel untill after it nukes Israel".
. . .
WTF is this BS? This the best you can come up with? This is seriously something I'd expect to come out of a third grader.


A + B = Liberty.

It seems your definition of liberty holds more regards to having nukes than to have minors executed and women raped.
Having nukes does not equal having liberty.
Don't you think it's idiotic to say that when a country abuses it's citizens and takes away their liberties, it's okay and they can do what they want - but when a state denied the right to build nukes it's liberties are taken from it?
I can't even believe you're not trolling.



You're misconstrue my point. I am very concerned about a nuclear Iran. I am just as concerned as to the consequences as I am saddened by the consequences of a nuclear United States.

No, that was not your point. You said, and I quote:
"...As far as I'm aware, Iran has threatened aggression, but has not specifically stated it is building a nuke. It has also not stated that it wants a nuke. It has also not stated that if it had a nuke, it would use it to destroy Israel. ..."
That was your point, and that what I was talking about. Don't avoid the subject.

Since you admitted no criminal is going to declare his murders I suppose you already understand that it shows nothing if Iran didn't threat to use it's nukes yet.
edit on 22-1-2011 by IsraeliGuy because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
5
<< 1   >>

log in

join