IAEA Iran 6 to 8 months away from having nuclear weapons .

a reply to: face23785

Face23785 is likely a paid shill to spew feces to direct discussions in a certain direction.

Be very wary of anything posted by Face23785.

LOL look at his links in his/her signature. And look at every post he/she has posted. It becomes quite clear. You guys ain't #. # off bro.

THOUSANDS of civilian deaths incoming. In Iran.

Nuclear capability will be the excuse.

Yet months (years) ahead of time we could eliminate any nuclear capabilities there.

Yet thousands will die.

Mark my words, and unfortunately it will just happen.

originally posted by: sincerelyme
a reply to: face23785

Face23785 is likely a paid shill to spew feces to direct discussions in a certain direction.

Be very wary of anything posted by Face23785.

LOL look at his links in his/her signature. And look at every post he/she has posted. It becomes quite clear. You guys ain't #. # off bro.

Translation: You can't refute anything I said so you have to make things up. Pathetic. If you guys dind't have such a long history of being this dumb I'd think you were a troll, but I know you're not. Sorry Maddow didn't prepare you to discuss things logically, but my points stand. You can't do anything about them, you don't have the ability.

a reply to: CriticalStinker

Thank you. It could’ve been easier. It was a yes or no question. Not a yes with an explanation .



Why is that ?



a reply to: IgnoranceIsntBlisss

I agree with most of what you’re saying. The US went from isolationist before World War II to the world police after World War II. Most of the time we have been the right hand man for the UN .

Korea was a multi nation war, Vietnam was a multi nation war. People forget that and put all the blame on the US .

Yes the US used the first nuclear bomb. I even mention that earlier in the thread because I knew it would come up. It always does when nuclear weapons are mentioned.

It was a different time and the understanding of nuclear weapons was not the same as it is now. The proof that the US learn from that comes from Korea. MacArthur wanted to use them again but Truman who ordered the first bombing in Japan refused to do so .

a reply to: Fallingdown

You would defend Israel the same as you would defend Iran.

I think I've been rather clear in saying that I don't think my country should get more involved past a vote at the UN or sanctions is not to be confused with defending Iran. Not once have I said I agree in their ventures to be a nuclear power, just that I don't want my countries tax dollars to stop it.

a reply to: CriticalStinker

“ No one should tell Iran what to do”.

That’s defending Iran.

Should Iran be able to have nukes for safety as in the MAD doctrine ?

a reply to: Fallingdown

“ No one should tell Iran what to do”.

Dude, I said we shouldn't waste our resources on telling people what to do past our vote at the UN and sanctions.... If other countries feel threatened and decide to do something about it, than they need to use their resources.

My whole premise is that Iran is not a national security issue for the US, which is my opinion.

But you are going off the premise that everything is black and white, that there is no nuance. That if you're not for going over their with our military than you're defending them.

I have said I don't want them to have nukes, I have said that no country, including our own has the rights to nukes... I have said that while also acknowledged that if a country has a perceived adversary who gains such capabilities, it does not surprise me that they would seek such capabilities.

Please, stop framing what my view is for me, I can do that on my own. I think I've done well at discussing the topic despite you implying I have views that are untrue.

originally posted by: Fallingdown
a reply to: CriticalStinker

Thank you.

You would defend Israel the same as you would defend Iran.

That’s as things should be .

a reply to: IgnoranceIsntBlisss

I agree with most of what you’re saying. The US went from isolationist before World War II to the world police after World War II. Most of the time we have been the right hand man for the UN .

The thing a lot of people forget when talking about this is that that's the way most of the West wanted it after WW2. The major European powers were badly eroded after WW2. Germany was in shambles, the UK and France needed time to recover as well, and the US was largely unaffected besides the debt from the war effort. The Western nations wanted the US to engage more economically and militarily rather than its isolationist policy in the past. The US seemed to think that was a good idea because that policy didn't work and we got drug into 2 devastating European wars. While there were small wars in the interim, we haven't seen anything on the scale of WW1 and WW2 since the US has been in this position. So yeah, we could retreat back from our leadership position and leave the European powers to scuffle for dominance along with the merging powers in the East, but does anyone really want that?

originally posted by: Fallingdown
a reply to: CriticalStinker

“ No one should tell Iran what to do”.

That’s defending Iran.

Should Iran be able to have nukes for safety as in the MAD doctrine ?

MAD only works with rational actors. Iran is a theocracy. I'm not sure I'd trust them not to do anything if they think it will bring about one of the religious events they're waiting for.

a reply to: CriticalStinker

OK, nobody should have nukes I understand your position .

You’re saying no. Iran shouldn’t have them for protection under MAD .

That is the worlds position .

Do you even understand how dangerous your position is ?

It’s good to have ideology and a sense of right and wrong. But not when it puts the future of the entire world at stake .

I didn’t frame your question, I summed it up .

a reply to: Fallingdown

Do you even understand how dangerous your position is ?

I could say the same for the inverse. Everyone going off of a statement from an adviser to a think tank notorious for being hawkish towards Iran.

Lately, I've seen a lot of drumming up from Bolton, and those who are similar minded. I've heard veiled threats from the highest echelons of my country that Iran could cease to exist if they don't play ball.

What I've spoken of in many circumstances is cause and effect. If we continue to pressure Iran, they will get a nuke, I'm sure of that, maybe not within the timeline presented by the source we're going off of for this thread, but eventually. If we stay out of it, and Israel and Iran have a cool down period, economically I could see an environment it wouldn't be beneficial for them to seek such conclusions.

a reply to: face23785

Yup

I brought up the religious event the Mullah’s and much of Islam are waiting for .

Now couple that with the political situation in Iran .

If they get overthrown it up’s the chance they will use them to bring on Armageddon on the way out.

It wouldn’t matter to them one bit they know the would probably end up like Qaddafi anyway.

What would they have to lose ?

originally posted by: CriticalStinker
a reply to: Fallingdown

Do you even understand how dangerous your position is ?

What I've spoken of in many circumstances is cause and effect. If we continue to pressure Iran, they will get a nuke, I'm sure of that, maybe not within the timeline presented by the source we're going off of for this thread, but eventually. If we stay out of it, and Israel and Iran have a cool down period, economically I could see an environment it wouldn't be beneficial for them to seek such conclusions.

Iran's leaders don't think Israel should exist. How exactly do you think that's going to cool down? Is there a lot of middle ground to be had from that position? If we do nothing, Iran will build a bomb by 2025, completely within the boundaries of the deal because almost all the restrictions are lifted by then. That's another reason why it was an awful deal. It just kicked the can down the road for the next set of leaders to handle.

a reply to: CriticalStinker

Everyone going off of a statement from an adviser to a think tank notorious for being hawkish towards Iran.

Not me I’m going off common sense .

I've heard veiled threats from the highest echelons of my country that Iran could cease to exist if they don't play ball.

I don’t believe that let’s see reputable sources .

What I've spoken of in many circumstances is cause and effect. If we continue to pressure Iran, they will get a nuke, I'm sure of that,

Iran will get nukes whether we pressure them or not . But the least likely scenario is if we pressure them .

Israel and Iran have a cool down period, economically I could see an environment it wouldn't be beneficial for them to seek such conclusions.

Name one time there has been a cooling down period Since the Shah of Iran was disposed .

a reply to: face23785

Again, Face23785 is a shill. "Iran's leaders don't think Israel should exist" he says. A #ing LOT of people outside of Iran don't think Israel should exist. "If we do nothing, Iran will build a bomb by 2025." Well you sure have the timeline figured out. Who gives a # if Iran has a #ing bomb? Before 2025, USA will step foot into and destroy the country.

Gross, disgusting, terroristic Israel is the reason the USA military will destroy Iran. Israel is an absolutely disgusting place, and in fact quite worse than Iran. We all know Bibi Netanyahu is a war criminal, responsible for thousands of innocent deaths. As back asswards as Iran is, they are still lightyears ahead of Israel when it comes to civility.

Don't worry. We had been visited in the past by whatever the UFO phenomenon is and that is indisputable. But there was an obvious systematic visitation with defined focus come the late 1940's and IMHO it is indeed, like many insiders have said, strictly becausewe develdeveoped nuclea rweapons. And while some havhae been tested since then, not one that was ever sent into battle was used and you have honest military men (not sexist I just don't think women) who swear they were sent into babattle with nuclear arms and that the fo fighters lik aircraft that had been seen before would always shoot a light at the bombs and immediately tey became neutralized. I seriously tink some phenomenon out there will forbid us from ever dropping one on people ever again. I just do. I think they watch closely and will always disarm no matter wht side is targeted. Just a heinous loss of life supposedly they say effects the whole universe cosmically in ways we cant understand in our human incarationsn

a reply to: AlexandrosTheGreat

Because Hiroshima et al never happened. Nuclear weapons have and quite possibly will destroy thousands or millions (billions?) of human lives. Don't trust that some aliens will save us. We have already nuked each other.

Oh wait, by "we" I mean the USA has been the only nation on the planet to nuke another nation. And we have detonated, and carry, far more nukes than every other country on the planet combined. Some sense of reality.

a reply to: Fallingdown

I see Israeli fighters bombing facility of planet.. they have done this before. Their mossad agents may also be used to subvert the program because no body hates idea of nuke powered Arabs more than israeelis.

a reply to: face23785

Was their not some famous German defectors working on Manhattan project?