Leaked Draft of Iran Nuke Deal

a reply to: crazyewok

Limited projection power? Do you see the Saudis testing any ballistic missile systems? Or Israel?

Spare your rhetoric about illegal nukes by Israel as well. Then Pakistan's are illegal, India's, China's...

Time to put a stop to it. Iran LOSES...

As far as Obama goes, he can't get a legacy making deal between Israel and Palestine, so he's settling with an Iranian deal. If that includes appeasing Iran with Israeli sanctions, so be it. The EGO of the man is beyond belief....

originally posted by: cavtrooper7
a reply to: crazyewok

Yes ,if it would be neccessary for them to CALL my old ass of course,I KNOW why.
Israel hasn't nuked anyone nor would arm a client with them because THEY are for ISRAELI defence only.
Could you say the same of Iran?

Letting Iran get nukes is THE dumbest idea in modern times. The west has got every right to stop Iran getting nukes. It's demented. Once Iran gets nukes every neighboring country will get on the nuke path too. Total madness.

originally posted by: nwtrucker
Limited projection power? Do you see the Saudis testing any ballistic missile systems? Or Israel?

Actuall Israel does have ballistic missile systems.


If a country 100x more powerful (IE USA) is constantly threatening war then can you blame them from developing the only proven way to deter them invading?

Maybe if people like you were not so quick to beat the war drums in America and Israel then they would feel no need ?

originally posted by: nwtrucker
Spare your rhetoric about illegal nukes by Israel as well. Then Pakistan's are illegal, India's, China's...

No to China as they have signed up to the same treartys as we have. The other two? Yes they should sign up too and along with Israel be subject to the same laws.

originally posted by: nwtrucker
Time to put a stop to it. Iran LOSES...

So you want war?


who will be fighting this war? You?

Or will you stay at home like a true chicken hawk while other do the the dying ?

originally posted by: ufoorbhunter

originally posted by: cavtrooper7
a reply to: crazyewok

Yes ,if it would be neccessary for them to CALL my old ass of course,I KNOW why.
Israel hasn't nuked anyone nor would arm a client with them because THEY are for ISRAELI defence only.
Could you say the same of Iran?

Letting Iran get nukes is THE dumbest idea in modern times. The west has got every right to stop Iran getting nukes. It's demented. Once Iran gets nukes every neighboring country will get on the nuke path too. Total madness.

Yet Israel gets to keep theirs?


And Pakistan?



Maybe give Iran a reason not to develop nukes?

Like not threatening to invade them every 5 seconds?

"If a day comes when the world of Islam is duly equipped with the arms Israel has in possession," he said "the strategy of colonialism would face a stalemate because application of an atomic bomb would not leave anything in Israel but the same thing would just produce damages in the Muslim world."
Ayatollah Ali Akbar Hashemi-Rafsanjani


They have a long term plan from the very first to the last ayatollah, they never deviate they just move forward.

It is obvious they expect to take retaliatory strikes from nuclear weapons and consider it inconsequential.

originally posted by: TinfoilTP
"If a day comes when the world of Islam is duly equipped with the arms Israel has in possession," he said "the strategy of colonialism would face a stalemate because application of an atomic bomb would not leave anything in Israel but the same thing would just produce damages in the Muslim world."
Ayatollah Ali Akbar Hashemi-Rafsanjani


They have a long term plan from the very first to the last ayatollah, they never deviate they just move forward.

It is obvious they expect to take retaliatory strikes from nuclear weapons and consider it inconsequential.

And your source for this?

Dont post quotes without sources it bad practice.

Plus the quotes seems to indicate not a nuclear attack but a stalemate.


As stalemate can not occur if Israel has been nuked.


Its seems to indicate the use of Nukes as a deterrence for Israeli and Western aggression.

a reply to: crazyewok

Other than the emplication WE don't need to use them WE have our military so we don't HAVE to and YOURS as well by the way. since BOTH of our leaders are connected at the skull.
If Israel was to invade we wouldn't allow it.
IF Iran wouldn't sponsor terrorism and seek nukes we wouldn't have the need to do so as WE are on stand by ...SO ARE YOU.
THEN we would have to curb BANKING from starting it ALL AGAIN.

originally posted by: crazyewok

originally posted by: TinfoilTP
"If a day comes when the world of Islam is duly equipped with the arms Israel has in possession," he said "the strategy of colonialism would face a stalemate because application of an atomic bomb would not leave anything in Israel but the same thing would just produce damages in the Muslim world."
Ayatollah Ali Akbar Hashemi-Rafsanjani


They have a long term plan from the very first to the last ayatollah, they never deviate they just move forward.

It is obvious they expect to take retaliatory strikes from nuclear weapons and consider it inconsequential.

And your source for this?

Dont post quotes without sources it bad practice.

Copy and paste the quote into google, the real source is straight from a ruling ayatollah and has been published by many.
I suspect you just want to play the attack who published his pronouncement game.

a reply to: crazyewok

Where's your proof of an Israeli ballistic missile system??

You make the same points time after time, Israel's "illegal" nukes when it's nothing but talking point CRAP!

You also keep using the are "you" going to fight(?) as some argument against supporting Israel or blocking Iran.

So right back at you....Are YOU going to fight if Iran uses nuclear capability to reassert a Persian Empire?

Lees nukes means LESS chance of nuclear war. Not more. So if you are going to enter these debates, come up with something substantial, not talking points off of some template.

originally posted by: TinfoilTP

originally posted by: crazyewok

originally posted by: TinfoilTP
"If a day comes when the world of Islam is duly equipped with the arms Israel has in possession," he said "the strategy of colonialism would face a stalemate because application of an atomic bomb would not leave anything in Israel but the same thing would just produce damages in the Muslim world."
Ayatollah Ali Akbar Hashemi-Rafsanjani


They have a long term plan from the very first to the last ayatollah, they never deviate they just move forward.

It is obvious they expect to take retaliatory strikes from nuclear weapons and consider it inconsequential.

And your source for this?

Dont post quotes without sources it bad practice.

Copy and paste the quote into google, the real source is straight from a ruling ayatollah and has been published by many.
I suspect you just want to play the attack who published his pronouncement game.

Regardless

He still stalks of stalemate.

Nuclear annihilation of Israel would not be a stalemate but victory.


Stalemate seems to indicate the use of Nuclear arms as a deterrence not a first strike wepaon.

And he is right. 100%

If Iran as nukes. Israel wont touch them nor will the USA.

If they do Israel would be wiped out and Muslim world be pretty badly damaged with Iran wiped out in return though not wiped out as Islam would exist in other states not involved.

There fore a stalemate would emerge as no side would begin a war.

originally posted by: crazyewok

originally posted by: TinfoilTP

originally posted by: crazyewok

originally posted by: TinfoilTP
"If a day comes when the world of Islam is duly equipped with the arms Israel has in possession," he said "the strategy of colonialism would face a stalemate because application of an atomic bomb would not leave anything in Israel but the same thing would just produce damages in the Muslim world."
Ayatollah Ali Akbar Hashemi-Rafsanjani


They have a long term plan from the very first to the last ayatollah, they never deviate they just move forward.

It is obvious they expect to take retaliatory strikes from nuclear weapons and consider it inconsequential.

And your source for this?

Dont post quotes without sources it bad practice.

Copy and paste the quote into google, the real source is straight from a ruling ayatollah and has been published by many.
I suspect you just want to play the attack who published his pronouncement game.

Regardless

He still stalks of stalemate.

Nuclear annihilation of Israel would not be a stalemate but victory.


Stalemate seems to indicate the use of Nuclear arms as a deterrence not a first strike wepaon.

And he is right. 100%

If Iran as nukes. Israel wont touch them nor will the USA.

If they do Israel would be wiped out and Muslim world be pretty badly damaged in return though not wiped out as Islam would exist in other states not involved.

There fore a stalemate would emerge as no side would begin a war.

No, he sees Israel as gone in atomic blasts and western colonialism as they term it, halted with only damage to Islamic lands, no complete annihilation awaits them. From that day on they believe they will hold all power in the region.

originally posted by: nwtrucker

Where's your proof of an Israeli ballistic missile system??

You make the same points time after time, Israel's "illegal" nukes when it's nothing but talking point CRAP!

O come on.

Israel are pretty much known for there Nuclear and mid to short range missile tec.

They even converted there dolphin subs to carry nuclear missiles.

originally posted by: nwtrucker
You also keep using the are "you" going to fight(?) as some argument against supporting Israel or blocking Iran.

I have ZERO respect for those that call for war when they wont fight themselves.

originally posted by: nwtrucker
So right back at you....Are YOU going to fight if Iran uses nuclear capability to reassert a Persian Empire?

Only IF they struck first.

But then we would not need to fight in person as we would press out big red buttons and nuke them into oblivion.

If we don't then MAD would not work.

originally posted by: nwtrucker
Lees nukes means LESS chance of nuclear war. Not more. So if you are going to enter these debates, come up with something substantial, not talking points off of some template.

And if I am to support a war I want something more substantial than the rantings of a paranoid war hungry netanyahu who has already made false claims in the past and the rantings of fox new blood thirty American Neo Cons.

Maybe if your beloved GW Bush, Chenny and our Blair had not lied through there teeth on Iraq I would be far more willing to give you Neo cons some credibility......but you blew it in 2003.

originally posted by: crazyewok

originally posted by: ufoorbhunter

originally posted by: cavtrooper7
a reply to: crazyewok

Yes ,if it would be neccessary for them to CALL my old ass of course,I KNOW why.
Israel hasn't nuked anyone nor would arm a client with them because THEY are for ISRAELI defence only.
Could you say the same of Iran?

Letting Iran get nukes is THE dumbest idea in modern times. The west has got every right to stop Iran getting nukes. It's demented. Once Iran gets nukes every neighboring country will get on the nuke path too. Total madness.

Yet Israel gets to keep theirs?


And Pakistan?



Maybe give Iran a reason not to develop nukes?

Like not threatening to invade them every 5 seconds?

Israelis helped invent the bomb. They have a right to this technology. Iran stole the knowledge, for that reason they have no right. Added to this Israel is no threat to me in the UK, Iran is a dangerous state that could target us one day. Even worse a nuke Iran WILL spark a regional nuke cold war with locaal countries wanting nukes to defend themselves from Iran. Iran getting nukes is stupid

originally posted by: ufoorbhunter

originally posted by: crazyewok

originally posted by: ufoorbhunter

originally posted by: cavtrooper7
a reply to: crazyewok

Yes ,if it would be neccessary for them to CALL my old ass of course,I KNOW why.
Israel hasn't nuked anyone nor would arm a client with them because THEY are for ISRAELI defence only.
Could you say the same of Iran?

Letting Iran get nukes is THE dumbest idea in modern times. The west has got every right to stop Iran getting nukes. It's demented. Once Iran gets nukes every neighboring country will get on the nuke path too. Total madness.

Yet Israel gets to keep theirs?


And Pakistan?



Maybe give Iran a reason not to develop nukes?

Like not threatening to invade them every 5 seconds?

Israelis helped invent the bomb. They have a right to this technology. Iran stole the knowledge, for that reason they have no right. Added to this Israel is no threat to me in the UK, Iran is a dangerous state that could target us one day. Even worse a nuke Iran WILL spark a regional nuke cold war with locaal countries wanting nukes to defend themselves from Iran. Iran getting nukes is stupid

Well you can be the first to join the UK army then.


I will stay at home


Until I have proof Iran has nukes and will use them Im not supporting war.

I have had enough of war in the ME based on lies and #ty politics.

originally posted by: crazyewok

originally posted by: nwtrucker

Where's your proof of an Israeli ballistic missile system??

You make the same points time after time, Israel's "illegal" nukes when it's nothing but talking point CRAP!

O come on.

Israel are pretty much known for there Nuclear and mid to short range missile tec.

They even converted there dolphin subs to carry nuclear missiles.

originally posted by: nwtrucker
You also keep using the are "you" going to fight(?) as some argument against supporting Israel or blocking Iran.

I have ZERO respect for those that call for war when they wont fight themselves.

originally posted by: nwtrucker
So right back at you....Are YOU going to fight if Iran uses nuclear capability to reassert a Persian Empire?

Only IF they struck first.

But then we would not need to fight in person as we would press out big red buttons and nuke them into oblivion.

If we don't then MAD would not work.

originally posted by: nwtrucker
Lees nukes means LESS chance of nuclear war. Not more. So if you are going to enter these debates, come up with something substantial, not talking points off of some template.

And if I am to support a war I want something more substantial than the rantings of a paranoid war hungrey something substantial who has already made false claims in the past and the rantings of fox new blood thirty American Neo Cons.

MAD does not work with these religious nutjobs. They fully expect to get hit by nukes and that is alright with them. MAD is not a strategy to even contemplate with those who have no problem with the idea of getting hit by nukes.

originally posted by: TinfoilTP


MAD does not work with these religious nutjobs. They fully expect to get hit by nukes and that is alright with them. MAD is not a strategy to even contemplate with those who have no problem with the idea of getting hit by nukes.

So you expect me to support a bloody war based on what?

A Speech that is up for interpretation and the rantings of a known lair netanyahu?


Have you ever meet a Persian? I went to university with many. They are far from religious nut jobs.

They are a hell of a lot more secular than other ME country's. Even our supposed "allies".

originally posted by: TinfoilTP
Obama is going to get off of a plane waving a white paper in his hand saying "Peace in our Time".

Then all hell on earth will break loose.

History repeats.

Why don't you take a look at my Avatar , maybe reconsider your Ignorant stance !

originally posted by: cavtrooper7
a reply to: crazyewok

Yes ,if it would be neccessary for them to CALL my old ass of course,I KNOW why.
Israel hasn't nuked anyone nor would arm a client with them because THEY are for ISRAELI defence only.
Could you say the same of Iran?

Umm yeah my Avatar can !!!!!!

the internet is Ripe with knowledge !

Try using it !

a reply to: xuenchen

I wish Iran do develop Nuclear product, so they could S**T scare the hell out of (paranoid) people!

I agree that war against Iran is wrong. This as long as Iran stops preparing weapons that threaten other continents. Obama isn't going to do anything. It's going to be left to Israel and Saudi Arabia. The brothers in arms. I'm not joining the fight btw, it's not my war, I just see Israel as no threat to my existence long term while i do see Iran as an issue

a reply to: crazyewok