• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Time to kick Iran

jsiv said:
I don't get it. Are you saying Iran has never done anything intended to harm Israel? The question was how far you feel Iran would have to go before a country like Israel could be justified in fighting back.

At the risk of violating Judge Judy's copyright, "If ..." is not an answer.
Why won't you answer? Why do you keep sidestepping?

Explain what's "woo" about it.

Also, this does not follow. Nowhere in the paragraph you quoted do I say anything about Iran currently having a nuke factory. Nor does it in any way imply that Iran is planning on ridding the world of Israel by nuking them. Infact, later in the post I gave my opinion on what tactic they prefer and why they might have an interest in developing nuclear weapons.

Since, sadly, everything seems to indicate that Iran is going to increase its efforts in the future rather than the opposite, it would be in Israel's best interest to destroy any nuclear weapons before they're ready to be used. Such a strike would hardly be unprovoked, as Iran have made their intentions very clear -- both through actions and rhetoric.

Otherwise, if things get completely out of hand in the future and Israel is left with no choice but to fight back against Iran, matters would be severely complicated by the presence of nuclear weapons. It would put them at a severe disadvantage.

Do you get what I'm saying?

I have no idea why you feel I'm "spewing non-rational fear mongering," I really don't. I'm simply trying to have a discussion.
Click to expand...


To make a long discussion short - to have a serious discussion:
What's your contradicting evidence to the IAEA conclusions?

You may ignore that it was the CIA who overthrew the Iranian
Government - and you may downplay that they have plans to
do this again.

There is absolutely no reason to trust Americans from Iranian
Point of View. Is there?
 
Oliver said:
Wrong.
[/SIZE]Everthing else is woo since the controversy is about Nuclear Weapons... :rolleyes:
Click to expand...
You seem to confuse Mahmoud's schtick with actual statements by the IAEA, which your own note shows are still "a work in progress" regarding IAEA processes and standards.

Note: not complete, not in compliance, but in work.

Me, I am all for Iran using nuclear power responsibly. I am a big fan of nukes for generating electricity.

The fact that elements, indeed, the elements that hold the potential for weaponization, of the Iranian nuclear programs were under the table seems to have been lost on you.
On August 14, 2002, Alireza Jafarzadeh, a prominent Iranian dissident, revealed to the general public the existence of two under-construction nuclear sites: a uranium enrichment facility in Natanz (part of which is underground), and a heavy water facility in Arak.
Click to expand...

Without insider information, IAEA and whoever else cares -- to include Iran's neighbors in the Persian Gulf region -- don't know enough to get involved.

The good news is that the IAEA has, rather than just rhetoric, the backing of most of the major powers behind its efforts to bring to light the elements of the program and allow for a path for peaceful use of nuclear power in Iran without the kind of skullduggery that North Korea has been in the habit of using.

When you consider the amount of hate and discontent arising out of Israel's nuclear program being "outed" by an insider a few years ago, why is it any surprise to see suspiscion directed at Iran when an insider outs their program? I would prefer to see Israel be more open about its nuclear program. I think it would aid and abet the Middle East peace process. Their not doing so is a convenient cause celebre for Israel's opponents to point the finger at Israel's stubborn refusal "to get along well with others."

In your case, Oliver, it amounts to woo. Irrational belief of Mahmoud's line. The IAEA is a bit more circumspect, as are the various powers in Europe and the US who are backing its efforts to get at the truth of the matter.

DR
 
Last edited:
Oliver said:
To make a long discussion short - to have a serious discussion: What's your contradicting evidence to the IAEA conclusions?
Click to expand...


What on earth does this have to do with anything I said?

Infact, I specifically said that I do not believe that Iran has any sort of nuclear weapons plant at the moment.

Do you even know how to read?
 
Darth Rotor said:
You seem to confuse Mahmoud's schtick with actual statements by the IAEA, which your own note shows are still "a work in progress" regarding IAEA processes and standards.

Note: not complete, not in compliance, but in work.

Me, I am all for Iran using nuclear power responsibly. I am a big fan of nukes for generating electricity.

The fact that elements, indeed, the elements that hold the potential for weaponization, of the Iranian nuclear programs were under the table seems to have been lost on you.


Without insider information, IAEA doesn't know enough to get involved.

The good news is that the IAEA has, rather than just rhetoric, the backing of most of the major powers behind its efforts to bring to light the elements of the program and allow for a path for peaceful use of nuclear power in Iran without the kind of skullduggery that North Korea has been in the habit of using.

When you consider the amount of hate and discontent arising out of Israel's nuclear program being "outed" by an insider a few years ago, why is it any surprise to see suspiscion directed at Iran when an insider outs their program?

In your case, Oliver, it amounts to woo. Irrational belief of Mahmoud's line. The IAEA is a bit more circumspect, as are the various powers in Europe and the US who are backing its efforts to get at the truth of the matter.

DR
Click to expand...


I'm sorry - but you lost me: What do you even mean by "potential"
while America already has thousands of nuclear weapons??? :boggled:

Is the white house paranoid with all their arsenal? Or are they just
playing the dumb, cowardliness idiots?

I don't believe the current White House anymore. And you also
most probably fail to explain a reason why I should.

There is no evidence for nuclear weapons. Your countering evidence
doesn't exist. Does it? :confused:
 
Oliver said:
I'm sorry - but you lost me: What do you even mean by "potential"
while America already has thousands of nuclear weapons??? :boggled:

Is the white house paranoid with all their arsenal? Or are they just
playing the dumb, cowardliness idiots?

I don't believe the current White House anymore. And you also
most probably fail to explain a reason why I should.

There is no evidence for nuclear weapons. Your countering evidence
doesn't exist. Does it? :confused:
Click to expand...
This is called a non sequitur trifecta, and a moving of the goalposts.

Care to try again?

Johnny One Note for fifty, Amos. :p

DR
 
jsiv said:
What on earth does this have to do with anything I said?

Infact, I specifically said that I do not believe that Iran has any sort of nuclear weapons plant at the moment.

Do you even know how to read?
Click to expand...


"At the moment" is no argument.

Why? Because Israel and America already HAVE a pile of
Nuclear Weapons... :boggled:

What is your explanation for the Iranian People that they're
not allowed to have them AS WELL - or at least nuclear reactors?

Racism? Because they are Neanderthals? Or because they have
no Democracy? Or because you like Israel and have no facts?

What on god's green earth is your point?

"They may...
They willl...
What if...?"

Sorry. But I want evidence after the Iraq-lies and fear-mongering.
Can you provide that?
 
I ask because I've never said that Iran shouldn't get to have nuclear power, nor have I ever said that they have any nuclear weapons or the facilities to make them at present.
 
jsiv said:
Be honest.

Are you some kind of crazy person?
Click to expand...


No. I'm rather trying to get facts to build my conclusions.
And my conclusion concerning World-Peace still is that
America and Israel are the most threatening parts of this
issue. Not the other way around as Idiots are trying to
portray.

Why? Because history and evidence shows who's an aggressor
and lying - and who isn't.

Simple as that.
 
Oliver said:
No. I'm rather trying to get facts to build my conclusions.
And my conclusion concerning World-Peace still is that
America and Israel are the most threatening parts of this
issue. Not the other way around as Idiots are trying to
portray.

Why? Because history and evidence shows who's an aggressor
and lying - and who isn't.

Simple as that.
Click to expand...


I see, you're not actually interested in the opinions of anyone on this discussion board, you're just looking for "facts" that support the conclusion you've already arrived at? Is that about it?

I'm not exactly surprised.
 
jsiv said:
I see, you're not actually interested in the opinions of anyone on this discussion board, you're just looking for "facts" that support the conclusion you've already arrived at? Is that about it?

I'm not exactly surprised.
Click to expand...


But you should. Because there is no evidence for an Iranian
Threat towards America.

Is there? (This is your chance....)
 
Uh... and when did I say that Iran posed a threat to the Continental US?

Oh, that's right, never.

Why don't you go back and answer my posts seriously, instead of asking me to prove a claim I never made.

Or is that too much to ask?
 
jsiv said:
Uh... and when did I say that Iran posed a threat to the Continental US?

Oh, that's right, never.

Why don't you go back and answer my posts seriously, instead of asking me to prove a claim I never made.

Or is that too much to ask?
Click to expand...



Would you agree on asking one question after another? I'm posing
in 5 Threads right now and would appreciate if you start with your
first question.

What is it?
 
No.

Scroll up. Take your time instead of just posting nonsense, I'm in no hurry.
 
#1476 which you just posted nonsense in response to, and #1500.

What do you feel is wrong with what I'm saying?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom