Take this Poll: Should we go to war to prevent Iran from obtaining nuclear capabilities?

I wanted to set up a poll, but I guess it's not allowed.

www.... createfreepolls.com/vote/Should_we_go_to_war_to_prevent_Iran_from_obtaining_nuclear_capabilities%3F

15e.) Recruitment/Solicitation:
i) You will not use your membership in the Websites for any type of recruitment to any causes whatsoever. You will not Post, use the chat feature, use videos, or use the private message system to disseminate advertisements, chain letters, petitions, pyramid schemes, or any kind of solicitation for political action, social action, letter campaigns, or related online and/or offline coordinated actions of any kind.

Terms and Conditions of Use

Starting a New Thread?...Look Here First

AboveTopSecret.com takes pride in making every post count.
Please do not create minimal posts to start your new thread.
If you feel inclined to make the board aware of news, current events,
or important information from other sites

reply to post by jiggerj


Personally, I think a hot zone that's been battled over for thousands of years and continues to pretty much equal the sweaty armpit of the planet, every nation in the Middle East should be given lots and lots of nukes while everyone else on the planet takes a step back and puts on sunglasses.

The Middle East is a drama queen for thousands of years of drama.
If it's not one thing they're fighting over, it's another.
I swear they'll make stuff up just to keep old rivalries alive for the sake of honor, or what they perceive to be such.

Same thing goes for any other area on the planet that has historical precedence for ongoing, never ending controversy.

If that area of the planet could be snipped and stitched over, I think the world would be a better place for it.
Can't stop squabbling over these patches of dirt? Make it so absolutely no one can live there.

reply to post by jiggerj


as I am not going to hand over personal data to a poll-website, I'll give my answer here:

no we shouldn't
we should start to accept and respect nations, even those nations that control resources we think we are entitled to steal. (Read The Grand Chessboard for a background on this doctrine that destroys the world)

and didn't history so far shows that the Big Bully can only be convinced to mind its own business and stay out of a country if that country is able to hit back?

reply to post by jiggerj


I vote.......

No.

Originally posted by NeverSleepingEyes
reply to post by jiggerj

 

as I am not going to hand over personal data to a poll-website, I'll give my answer here:

I know. I've posted polls from this site and had them appear right in other chat forums, so I don't know why it won't happen here. Frustrating.

Originally posted by Druscilla
reply to post by jiggerj

 

Can't stop squabbling over these patches of dirt? Make it so absolutely no one can live there.

Interesting theory, however you'd probably find that in 20,000 years or so we'd just be back fighting over it and wondering why bits of the desert look like glass...again.

My poll answer of course is no.

Should the rest of the world be sanctioned and probed for their nuclear arms? I think so how about you ?
I really don't think it has anything to do with a bomb at all but that's what we are lead to believe & most do unfortunately..

Originally posted by BULLETINYOURHEAD
Should the rest of the world be sanctioned and probed for their nuclear arms? I think so how about you ?

I've said many times that even nuclear energy should be banned until a way is found to make the spent fuel rods compatible with the earth. No one should have nuclear anything, but do we go to war over it? No.

reply to post by jiggerj


Why so opposed to nuclear?

Is it all nuclear you oppose? My understanding is that Thorium reactors can be made that produce little radioactive material. This was initially researched at the same time as the first nuclear reactors but was given up because the energy created was far less (because of the technology available). I read last year (or possibly the year before) that technology has advanced to a stage that would make Thorium reactors far more viable and much cheaper, safer, etc than current alternatives. If that is true, would you be opposed to that type of Nuclear power?

NO!

Now knock it off.

Israel has an arsenal of nuclear subs (half are gifts from Germany), plus at least 200 nuclear warheads

Iran has been capable but doesn't need to since it has nuclear superpowers Russia & China nextdoor

USA/Israel want Hormuz and WOMD/terror are just classic pattern false flag excuses.

Why should you? Have Afghanistan and Iraq become too boring?

Maybe you should stop attacking countries on the other side of the world and save some money.
It also would save some lives.

Originally posted by jiggerj

Originally posted by BULLETINYOURHEAD
Should the rest of the world be sanctioned and probed for their nuclear arms? I think so how about you ?

I've said many times that even nuclear energy should be banned until a way is found to make the spent fuel rods compatible with the earth. No one should have nuclear anything, but do we go to war over it? No.

Nuclear energy is the way forward. Hippies might not think so...

You have to think in terms of 7+ billion people on planet Earth. How are you going to get power to them? Burning coal? Lighting gas? Igniting oil? Then claim it's not as polluting as nuclear energy...while efficiency shows different, you guys are all too happy about going to the stone age instead of going forward to a space age.

Originally posted by Flavian
reply to post by jiggerj

 

Why so opposed to nuclear?

Is it all nuclear you oppose? My understanding is that Thorium reactors can be made that produce little radioactive material. This was initially researched at the same time as the first nuclear reactors but was given up because the energy created was far less (because of the technology available). I read last year (or possibly the year before) that technology has advanced to a stage that would make Thorium reactors far more viable and much cheaper, safer, etc than current alternatives. If that is true, would you be opposed to that type of Nuclear power?

I am only opposed to taking stuff out of the earth and manipulating it so that it cannot be returned safely back into the earth. That's all.

Now, define 'little radioactive material'? And, define it with the notion that it will be used on a global scale. Also, if 'little' means a cup of radioactive material over a ten year period, and can be shot into outerspace, I'd be all for that!

No. We shouldn't go to war with Anyone.
We should scrap every nuclear bomb that's been made.

There's no need for war.
The ones who design wars sit back while the common man fights and the innocent civilians die.

Yea, let's give em more reason to want the bombs rather than the power.

Or.. We could update our defenses so even if they launched a nuke it wouldn't matter.. But there's no money in that, sorry, don't know why I would ever think of something so wasteful

Originally posted by InfoKartel

Originally posted by jiggerj

Originally posted by BULLETINYOURHEAD
Should the rest of the world be sanctioned and probed for their nuclear arms? I think so how about you ?

I've said many times that even nuclear energy should be banned until a way is found to make the spent fuel rods compatible with the earth. No one should have nuclear anything, but do we go to war over it? No.

Nuclear energy is the way forward. Hippies might not think so...

You have to think in terms of 7+ billion people on planet Earth. How are you going to get power to them?

NO! You have to think in terms of the PLANET. Six billion people could drop dead tomorrow and the species and the planet would be just fine. Kill the planet and EVERYTHING dies.

EARTH

no, I don't think they want to militarize their efforts. I base that on what our own intelligence agencies say as well as what numerous policy briefs agree on. We are broke and in need of smart foreign policy. We can't afford to create more enemies abroad.

reply to post by jiggerj


I am honest enough to admit that i simply do not have enough science behind me to try and answer that one fully for you. All i can say is that thorium is rather plentiful (for example, every pile of old slag from abandoned coal mines will be literally teeming with it). The article (s) i read on this basically suggested that the fuel, once used, was no more radioactive than standard background radiation. It also suggested that any water used in the process would be safe enough to drink! (not sure i would like to try though).

If all of the above is actually accurate, that would be one hell of a potential fuel source for all of humanity. The added beauty being that if we do ever get to populate the stars, thorium is (allegedly) plentiful in space too!

The word in arabic that translates as worship has root word slave or servant, also submission, so when you worship something it rather means what you are a slave to, or servant of, or submit fully to, that is what you are worshiping. People worship money, people worship themselves, people worship a great many things. Very few actually worship God, however, even the rocks worship God, because they submit to, and are slaves of, the laws GOD created for them.

If we worshiped GOD, we would be respecting the earth, and all the things in it, because this is what GOD gave to us to sustain us, and this is within the laws of GOD.

Does that mean stay in times of ignorance, no, science can be either good or bad, ANYTHING can be either good or bad, depending on how we act toward the trust given us.

We have to change the attitudes of the 'we' rather than removing that which is good or has potential for good, we just have to be very careful with everything, and know we have no knowledge.

I voted NO (of course)