• 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

All countries regardless of ideologies should get rid of the nuclear weapons which they now have and countries developing them should stop. That is the only fair policy. Anything else comes across as hypocritical. It's like a neighbor telling another neighbor to drop his two-by-four while holding one in one in his own hand.
 
ServiceSoon said:
All this pressure from the US, yet we are the only country that has actually every used a nuclear weapon. Has that been discussed yet? It is easy to see why some foreigners hate America. Perhaps it is because of our double standard. One of the reasons Japan attacked Pearl Harbor was because we had sanctions against them :eek: Anybody care to repeat history?

I disagree, you have to be participating in a program before it can be halted. Is this semantics on NIE's usage of the word halted?
Click to expand...

oh, look, kageki's got another alias...
 
Radrook said:
All countries regardless of ideologies should get rid of the nuclear weapons which they now have and countries developing them should stop. That is the only fair policy. Anything else comes across as hypocritical. It's like a neighbor telling another neighbor to drop his two-by-four while holding one in one in his own hand.
Click to expand...
Thank you for your glimpse into Utopia.

What trust building measures do you propose to get anyone who has them to agree to get rid of them before anyone else does?

How do you verify?

What happens if only one nation cheats, and doesn't?

DR
 
ServiceSoon said:
All this pressure from the US, yet we are the only country that has actually every used a nuclear weapon.
Click to expand...
So what? Italians gassed Ethiopans, with mustard gas, in the 1930's. Does that mean Italy, today, is likely to use a WMD of any sort? Please go and look up the term "nuclear deterrent" and the past sixty years of human history, will you?
Has that been discussed yet?
Click to expand...
Yes, it has been discussed, in a variety of threads. As you might have guessed, there is no consensus on that topic.

In any event, it is not germane to the current topic at hand, other than to point out that a single silver lining to that dark cloud: it was the stark illustration of just how horrific such weapons are. (As opposed to "could be") Better a single use than an entire war fought with such weapons. A lesser of two evils, sure, but a survivable one.

Gas weapons were addressed in arms control, funnily enough, after they had been used by both sides in WW I. That didn't stop Italy from using them on Ethiopans, did it? It didn't stop Iraq from using them versus Iran in their 1980's war.

DR
 
Last edited:
WildCat said:
Huh? The IAEA report which stated Iran was not cooperating, or the NIE which stated Iran was still a threat even if it had halted (not eliminated) its weapons program?
Click to expand...


I think El Baradei said that Iran was cooperating..

Iran has been "somewhat vindicated" by a new US intelligence review that concludes the nation stopped developing a nuclear weapons program in 2003, the head of the UN atomic watchdog agency said Wednesday.

IAEA's Director General Mohamed ElBaradei gives a statement to the press.
International Atomic Energy Agency director-general Mohamed ElBaradei called the report a "sigh of relief" because its conclusions also jibe with the agency's own findings

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1196847259309&pagename=JPost/JPArticle/ShowFull
 
Matteo Martini said:
I think El Baradei said that Iran was cooperating..
Click to expand...
Nope.
However, it should be noted that, since early 2006, the Agency has not received the type of information that Iran had previously been providing, pursuant to the Additional Protocol and as a transparency measure. As a result, the Agency’s knowledge about Iran’s current nuclear programme is diminishing.
Click to expand...
 
At any rate, here is a highly scientific simulation of the US (represented here by Bruce Lee in black) kicking Iran (represented by the kung fu dude in white). Let's see how it goes!








13383ownedbruceleecrotch.gif
 
Last edited:
WildCat said:
Nope.
Click to expand...

I see.

" has not received the type of information that Iran had previously been providing "
does mean Iran is not giving the information required

" As a result, the Agency’s knowledge about Iran’s current nuclear programme is diminishing. "
where " diminishing " does not mean " insufficient " nor it means " zero ".

Please, correct me as I am not native in English.

4 December 2007 | IAEA Director General Mohamed ElBaradei received with great interest the new U.S. National Intelligence Estimate about Iran´s nuclear program which concludes that there has been no on-going nuclear weapons program in Iran since the fall of 2003. He notes in particular that the Estimate tallies with the Agency´s consistent statements over the last few years that, although Iran still needs to clarify some important aspects of its past and present nuclear activities, the Agency has no concrete evidence of an ongoing nuclear weapons program or undeclared nuclear facilities in Iran.

http://www.iaea.org/NewsCenter/PressReleases/2007/prn200722.html
 
WildCat said:
Iran isn't going to be the first country to develop nuclear weapons openly. And the IAEA says they cannot know what they're hiding, and in fact Iran only admitted they had plans for a bomb after the IAEA found the plans.
Click to expand...


So isn't it time to ban the IAEA from Iran and get out of the
treaty to actually develop a Nuke in secret? :rolleyes:

How many Nukes does America have? And how many crazy
warmongering Idiots are running it currently? :D
 
Last edited:
Olberman, the old America-Hater, sums it up pretty well:



 
Last edited:
Matteo Martini said:
No.
The IAEA says " [ it ] has no concrete evidence of an ongoing nuclear weapons program or undeclared nuclear facilities in Iran "
Click to expand...


It seem to me that Wildcat's and others argument is:

"Now these "N-Words" have the right to bear arms, too. We
must stop them from having this right. Otherwise they may
shoot innocent people. That's an immediate threat to me/us
whiteys".

Woo. The worst kind of.
 
Oliver said:
It seem to me that Wildcat's and others argument is:

"Now these "N-Words" have the right to bear arms, too. We
must stop them from having this right. Otherwise they may
shoot innocent people. That's an immediate threat to me/us
whiteys".

Woo. The worst kind of.
Click to expand...
Oliver, you are a complete POS. Do not ever put such words in my mouth, and you are very close to being the first person I have ever put on ignore.
 
Last edited:
Matteo Martini said:
No.
The IAEA says " [ it ] has no concrete evidence of an ongoing nuclear weapons program or undeclared nuclear facilities in Iran "
Click to expand...


Like I've said before though, a pessimist might say that cooperating at this point (or giving the appearance of doing so) and getting a peaceful program up and running might be the best way of eventually achieving a hypothetical goal of having nuclear weapons. Iran needs to be kept a close eye on, and their other (non-nuclear) forms of aggression taken seriously.
 
WildCat said:
At any rate, here is a highly scientific simulation of the US (represented here by Bruce Lee in black) kicking Iran (represented by the kung fu dude in white). Let's see how it goes!








[qimg]http://home.mindspring.com/~chitaper/13383ownedbruceleecrotch.gif[/qimg]
Click to expand...

Beautiful national chauvinism. You should be proud of your reactionary hubris.
 
WildCat said:
Oliver, you are a complete POS. Do not ever put such words in my mouth, and you are very close to being the first person I have ever put on ignore.
Click to expand...


I didn't put words in your mouth. It's my honest impression
in comparison to the example I made. Basically it's the same
argument.

But maybe my impression is wrong and you have a more
compelling explanation to make sense out of your arguments?
 
Oliver said:
I didn't put words in your mouth. It's my honest impression
in comparison to the example I made. Basically it's the same
argument.
Click to expand...
No it's not Oliver. Your impression that my thoughts are based from a racist POV is complete and utter BS. If you were a halfway decent human being you'd apologize, but frankly I don't think you're even in the ballpark.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom