Just why cant Iran have nukes?

its sheep not rats?
and it is 95% of the world.
its droping fast. wake up!

Originally posted by mr-lizard

Originally posted by KillShotMi
reply to post by mr-lizard

 

No, the only people worried about America, are internet rats, that believe anything the internet feeds them. If your only looking for one opinion, that is exactly what your going to find!

Internet rats?

You do realise how idiotic and brainwashed that sounds...

'Oh land of the free'

Originally posted by mandroids
If you consider how volatile the Middle East is, who in the Middle East has nukes and the fact the west its self only escalated nuclear weapons making to assure mutual destruction; just why cant Iran have such weapons?

Propaganda aside, it actually makes sense to have them if you wish to avoid being invaded, sorry, ‘sprung’. As for the regime that rules in Iran, who helped put them there?


Like it or not, in the 21st century, countries need these weapons to ensure national security. I am asking a genuine question.

edit on 1-2-2012 by mandroids because: (no reason given)

Because the oil companies can't steal their oil if they have nukes.

If you are carrying a gun, for defense purposes, then if someone shows aggression towards you, you can defend yourself.

You are just repeating the usual "pro Iran" pseudo-arguments the other, like-minded people use.

Like "who is the aggressor?" etc...

Let's start with the fact that in the past AMERICA hardly ever initiated (!!) military engagement, rather INTERVENED for the sake of a purpose.

Whether it was Nazi Germany, Saddam Hussein's attack on Kuwait etc..etc..

In this case, Iran is/was getting caught going for nuclear weapons and Iran was TOLD BEFOREHAND this is not being tolerated by threatening them with SANCTIONS - *NOT* military action.

Iran however insisted on continuing their "civil" (LOL) nuclear program, giving the US and the rest of the world the finger, actually it was IRAN starting military action by saying they will block the Street of Hormuz if sanctions are imposed - starting their "military exercises".

The US/Western Europe then reacted TO THIS saying that blocking the Street of Hormuz is not acceptable...which should not be surprising since there are countries depending on Oil going through the street....

Now tell me..THE US IS THE "AGGRESSOR" here? Because we voiced our concern about nuclear weapons in Iran and only after idiotic "ego games" by Iran we acted by reacting to THEIR military deployment?

Now again: Where are WE the aggressors here?

Your argument with "defense purposes" is really "cute"...because for me this hasn't to do anything with defense purposes....but simply Iran's plan and pride/egoism to get a Nuclear bomb as soon as possible.

But...go on..if you (and others) really think that Iran having nuclear weapons is the better option. If anything, the situation in the middle-east will only get MUCH worse as a result of this..or do you seriously believe that it is a desired "solution" to let them get a nuclear bomb.

The US has nuclear weapons and did NOT use them for 70 years now. Let's see how long it takes Iran to use theirs...

Originally posted by beezzer
reply to post by mandroids

 

Why does Iran want nukes?

Answer that and the reason for having them will be self explanitory.

just saw the above poster.

edit on 1-2-2012 by beezzer because: (no reason given)

Did Irak had plenty of weapons of mass destruction? No. I did not like Saddam but I do not like US oil corperations (corrupterations) either. US have cired wolf long enough. Namaste

Originally posted by flexy123

Originally posted by mandroids
If you consider how volatile the Middle East is, who in the Middle East has nukes and the fact the west its self only escalated nuclear weapons making to assure mutual destruction; just why cant Iran have such weapons?

Propaganda aside, it actually makes sense to have them if you wish to avoid being invaded, sorry, ‘sprung’. As for the regime that rules in Iran, who helped put them there?

Like it or not, in the 21st century, countries need these weapons to ensure national security. I am asking a genuine question.

Yes...thinking about it..i am also sad that Hitler didn't have nuclear weapons. The he would also have "avoided" that other countries "invade" Germany..as you so nicely formulate it.

And yes (before you ask me)..i DO set the Iranian regime and other regimes (NK etc.) on par with Hitler.

I think it's ironic that you in your bizarre defense of Iran actually STATE that nuclear weapons are the solutions of all problems to "ensure national security". Frankly, this is laughable to follow your logic.

You are right we need to remove all nukes from all countries that have bully tendencies. Lets start with the US.

reply to post by mandroids


Are you serious?

Iran doesn't want nuclear weapons to defend itself - the level of weapons they could develop pale into insignificance when compared to those at the disposal of the established nuclear powers and they are decades away from developing intercontinental capability, and as such pose no treat whatsover to them.

But imagine how they would be able to threaten and bully their predominantly Sunni neighbours.

And do you really want an administration that has previously had proven terrorist links to have nuclear weapon capability?

Of course they have every right to nuclear power and 'the west' should provide every assisstance in helping them achieve this.

reply to post by mandroids


There is a nuclear non-proliferation treaty which Iran signed. Iran is a troublesome country and they tend to meddle all over the Middle East. Their plans to assassinate a Saudi official on American soil, delivering weapons and ammo to Syria even though they're fueling a civil war, constant threats against Saudi Arabia, Israel, Iraq, and basically anybody around.

You need to try and come up with something original. This topic has been debated to the point of boredom.

reply to post by Magnificient


No one believes those trumped up charges on the assassination thing. Let's dismiss that on grounds of absurdity.

As for the NPT, few haven't signed it. Israel hasn't, and they wave those babies at their neighbors as much as the US does. Iran has always maintained that they have only peaceful intent with their nuclear program but they are being goaded into this defensive position. Why not require Israel to sign? Because they are not going to. They don't have to. And they are not even abiding by its terms as virtually the rest of the world IS doing. So since Iran has done, why are they not believed? Why not harass India or Pakistan or NK? Because there is no agenda - yet.

At least be honest in your assessment. I think most of us are sick of the party line. Personally, I will stand firm in my demand for no more war.

Oh yeah, thought I'd ask you to tell me the virtues of America, Canada, the UK, France, Germany, etc., etc. who are NOT fueling any wars with their arms trade. Map out how good they are for us.

Pot, meet Kettle.

Why can't Iran have nukes? Because nukes are dangerous and jihadist slam dancers cant be trusted with them. Thats the basic neocon argument. The other reason is because their scientists keep geting assassinated. By the, cough, good guys.

Originally posted by apushforenlightment

Originally posted by beezzer
reply to post by mandroids

 

Why does Iran want nukes?

Answer that and the reason for having them will be self explanitory.

just saw the above poster.

edit on 1-2-2012 by beezzer because: (no reason given)

Did Irak had plenty of weapons of mass destruction? No. I did not like Saddam but I do not like US oil corperations (corrupterations) either. US have cired wolf long enough. Namaste

edit on 1-2-2012 by apushforenlightment because: spellchecking

edit on 1-2-2012 by apushforenlightment because: Bad mood, Too strong words

You obviously FORGOT why the US got involved in Iraq in the first place.

Hint: It was a dictator (dead now) who invaded Kuwait and set their oil fields on fire.

Forgotten?

Originally posted by Magnificient
reply to post by mandroids

 

There is a nuclear non-proliferation treaty which Iran signed. Iran is a troublesome country and they tend to meddle all over the Middle East. Their plans to assassinate a Saudi official on American soil, delivering weapons and ammo to Syria even though they're fueling a civil war, constant threats against Saudi Arabia, Israel, Iraq, and basically anybody around.

You need to try and come up with something original. This topic has been debated to the point of boredom.

if iran was so troublesome why would they sign such a treaty? Did Israel sign that treaty? How bout the U.S. for that matter. They failed this supposed assassination so if they cant kill one saudi official how dangerous can they be? If Syria is so bad why wasnt it invaded when Libya was invaded?

Originally posted by apushforenlightment

Originally posted by flexy123

Originally posted by mandroids
If you consider how volatile the Middle East is, who in the Middle East has nukes and the fact the west its self only escalated nuclear weapons making to assure mutual destruction; just why cant Iran have such weapons?

Propaganda aside, it actually makes sense to have them if you wish to avoid being invaded, sorry, ‘sprung’. As for the regime that rules in Iran, who helped put them there?

Like it or not, in the 21st century, countries need these weapons to ensure national security. I am asking a genuine question.

Yes...thinking about it..i am also sad that Hitler didn't have nuclear weapons. The he would also have "avoided" that other countries "invade" Germany..as you so nicely formulate it.

And yes (before you ask me)..i DO set the Iranian regime and other regimes (NK etc.) on par with Hitler.

I think it's ironic that you in your bizarre defense of Iran actually STATE that nuclear weapons are the solutions of all problems to "ensure national security". Frankly, this is laughable to follow your logic.

You are right we need to remove all nukes from all countries that have bully tendencies. Lets start with the US.

edit on 1-2-2012 by apushforenlightment because: Bad mood, Too strong words

The US has nuclear weapons for 70 years now..and i think it has to some extent proven they are not nuts and use them at the very first occasion.

Also..someone who is intervening and/or trying to get down a despotic regime is not a "bully". Take your history book and check most recent wars..WHO actually started them.

reply to post by mandroids

Just why can't Iran have nukes? Sure. Why not? If Iran is allowed to have nukes, you might as well and go arm 3rd-graders with pistols, semiautomatic rifles and grenades. Don't stop there. Find the most dangerous psychopaths in the area in which you live and give them machetes,dynamite, firearms, more drugs and a license to roam freely anywhere they choose.

Their leaders openly call for war and the destruction of Israel in no uncertain terms. Their extremists don't care about sacrificing their own lives to perpetuate that evil. Imagine them with nukes. Really? Iranians, as a people aren't bad or evil. They're leaders openly speak of the destruction of Israel and the Great Satan (the West). To allow them to have nuclear tech is foolhardy.

They cant have Nukes because the USA and Israel couldn't steal their resources if Iran had a deterrent to invasion. Its that simple. USA/Israel wants all the power in the middle east.. the last thing they want is the status quo changing.

Originally posted by PrecogPsychicSensitive
They cant have Nukes because the USA and Israel couldn't steal their resources if Iran had a deterrent to invasion. Its that simple. USA/Israel wants all the power in the middle east.. the last thing they want is the status quo changing.

Ah...we "steal" there resources....this is why gas is so cheap and why the Saudis are so poor. Thanks for pointing that out!

What country in the middle-east are you posting from?

reply to post by flexy123


Despotic regime, eh? Let's talk in a couple of years. Things in the States aren't exactly peachy, are they? And who's going around strong-arming sovereign nations? Is it their business to do so? Is all that war money working wonders for your economy? I know you all enjoy all the freedoms the Patriot Act has brought you. I know you love the fun the TSA delivers to millions of people every day. I know you're reveling in your political circus and the funny thing is that still too many of you think you're on the side of good.

Only twice in history has such a weapon been used, and we know who pulled that trigger. They still have an itchy trigger finger and they aren't disarming, despite having been the only nation to use them. Why is that? Where's this magical pot of clout America *had*. It's gone. Let's see what happens if this goading continues. I see someone removing their gloves and slapping the US. Let's see if I'm wrong.

Originally posted by flexy123

Originally posted by apushforenlightment

Originally posted by beezzer
reply to post by mandroids

 

Why does Iran want nukes?

Answer that and the reason for having them will be self explanitory.

just saw the above poster.

edit on 1-2-2012 by beezzer because: (no reason given)

Did Irak had plenty of weapons of mass destruction? No. I did not like Saddam but I do not like US oil corperations (corrupterations) either. US have cired wolf long enough. Namaste

edit on 1-2-2012 by apushforenlightment because: spellchecking

edit on 1-2-2012 by apushforenlightment because: Bad mood, Too strong words

You obviously FORGOT why the US got involved in Iraq in the first place.

Hint: It was a dictator (dead now) who invaded Kuwait and set their oil fields on fire.

Forgotten?

That was the first time we got involved in Iraq. The second time was because Saddam dropped the US dollar from being able to purchase Iraqi oil (a year before 9/11). That's when the WMD charge was created and we ran right in when we had the opportunity (u know how that ended, no WMDs.)
Next Qaddafi wanted to create a gold standard for Africa so you could only buy oil with gold there. He met the same fate of Saddam. Now Iran is selling their oil for gold to India. Are you starting to see the trend here?

It has nothing to do with them creating nukes. It's all about the black gold.
"Oil that is, black gold, Texas tea." - Jed Clampett

because then the third largest oil reserve in the world would be untouchable. and complete domination of the middle east far from assured.

Are you kidding? Really, you have a difficult time understanding why Iran shouldn't have nukes? I honestly can't believe you are this ignorant of what has been said coming out of this country over the last several years, the threats to destroy the west, Israel, etc.

Originally posted by MentorsRiddle
There is an old saying, "I'm not afraid of the country that wants 20 Nukes.... I'm afraid of the country that just wants one...."

Think about it.

Is that fear mongering towards Iran? Please source where they said they only want one please.