What will Iran bomb first?

[Oliver]

but Oliver, you are from a "Schurken Staat" anyway, isnt Germany still on the axis of evil?

Last time I checked, we still had relations with Iran. So yes.

 

[Matteo Martini]

No, Matteo. It isn't simply the increase from 11 to 12 that matters: it's the fact that the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty would be rendered completely meaningless.

The number of nuke-owning countries has not already increased after 1968 (year when the NPT was signed)?

Why on earth would you think they would stop at one or two? Nobody does.

Or 30? 40?
What would it change? Is not North Korea having nukes?

Uh, no. No, it isn't.

Yes.

A new report from Greentech Media and the Prometheus Institute forecasts that worldwide thin-film solar production will grow eightfold by 2010, with amorphous silicon leading the way.
http://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/thin-film-solar-to-reach-42-gw-1372.html

Nobody can take America's place in the gulf, because nobody else has the naval power to do so. America could withdraw completely, and Russia still wouldn't be able to replace it: they simply don't have the ships.

So, countries in the Gulf will handle the politics, the economy of the countries in the Gulf

 

[Matteo Martini]

Oliver, your comments are vile and bigoted. I hope that you never are allowed to post again.

Hello, freedom of speech in America!!

 

[Ziggurat]

The number of nuke-owning countries has not already increased after 1968 (year when the NPT was signed)?

It has, but not by signatories. Do you need me to explain why that might be significant?

Or 30? 40?
What would it change?

A lot. One or two don't provide a very reliable deterrent. 30 or 40 does.

Is not North Korea having nukes?

We're not really sure. They had a failed test, suggesting they tried to make one but somehow screwed up.

Yes.

A new report from Greentech Media and the Prometheus Institute forecasts that worldwide thin-film solar production will grow eightfold by 2010, with amorphous silicon leading the way.

An eight-fold growth from a starting point of a pittance doesn't constitute the world moving rapidly to solar power.

So, countries in the Gulf will handle the politics, the economy of the countries in the Gulf

That's a nice sentiment. But it doesn't address the claim that was made. None of the countries in the gulf have the naval power to ensure the safety of shipping through the gulf. The United States does.

 

[Dragoonster]

It has, but not by signatories. Do you need me to explain why that might be significant?

Significant yeah, but not completely meaningless. The precedent of North Korea's withdrawal in order to pursue nukes is already set. It certainly is a problem if Iran doesn't withdraw--I agree with you there. But it wouldn't shock me if they do as soon as they think their program is far enough along to survive.

That would be an unfortunate exception. But the NPT also serves as a framework for the distribution of non-weapons nuclear technology. The contribution to India by the US despite India not being party could be as significant to the integrity of the NPT as Iran is being.

That's a nice sentiment. But it doesn't address the claim that was made. None of the countries in the gulf have the naval power to ensure the safety of shipping through the gulf. The United States does.

I thought there was only one CBG in the Gulf, or there was pre-war. I'd imagine Russia, Britain, and France could take over if that's all that needs replacement. All have carriers. India has a carrier too (?) and is one of the largest navie in the world, and is much closer than any of those or the US. Of course there's no real reason for any of these countries to want to patrol the gulf.

I don't know exactly what the US is protecting by doing so either. (aside from the obvious naval support for two ongoing wars/occupations).

If the US withdrew (assuming its other presence there was also gone or perfectly accepted) what would the result be? Clashes between Arab fishing trawlers? Pirates attacking oil tankers?

 

[Pardalis]

If the US withdrew (assuming its other presence there was also gone or perfectly accepted) what would the result be? Clashes between Arab fishing trawlers? Pirates attacking oil tankers?

At least Hussein is out of the equation.

 

[Matteo Martini]

It has, but not by signatories. Do you need me to explain why that might be significant?

Please do, since any nation can withdraw from any treaty any time

A lot. One or two don't provide a very reliable deterrent. 30 or 40 does.

What is wrong with Iran, having a deterrent weapons against a US attack?

We're not really sure. They had a failed test, suggesting they tried to make one but somehow screwed up.

Pakistan?

An eight-fold growth from a starting point of a pittance doesn't constitute the world moving rapidly to solar power.

If an eight-fold increase in two years is not a rapid growth, God knows what a rapid growth is..

That's a nice sentiment. But it doesn't address the claim that was made. None of the countries in the gulf have the naval power to ensure the safety of shipping through the gulf. The United States does.

Safety against who? Those countries themselves?

 

[Oliver]

Of course there's no real reason for any of these countries to want to patrol the gulf. I don't know exactly what the US is protecting by doing so either.

Safety against who? Those countries themselves?

Matteo, what do you think will be Iran's reaction to an attack on their Reactor?

 

[SDC]

Hello, freedom of speech in America!!

I expect you are unable to see the irony of your statement when you post this in a site which is based in the US. Plus the fact that no one running this place is going to accede to my tantrum.

Nope, not you. You are a universal genius. All bow to your will.

 

[Oliver]

I expect you are unable to see the irony of your statement when you post this in a site which is based in the US. Plus the fact that no one running this place is going to accede to my tantrum.

Nope, not you. You are a universal genius. All bow to your will.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/1110745bf82a7b405d.jpg

So what, SDC, will Iran's retaliation look like? - And do you agree
that those Iranian N-Words should own guns to retaliate the same
way just like us?

 

[SDC]

Ah, blessed peace! No more of Oliver's posts.

 

[Beerina]

"Iran better leave beer alone!"

 

[RandFan]

..do you agree that those Iranian N-Words should own guns to retaliate the same way just like us?

Just because people don't agree with you doesn't make them racist. You are quite literally race baiting. Oliver, would you please improve the quality of your posts?

As to your question, guns are fine, I wish no one would own thermo nuclear weapons. It would be especially good that a nation that is looking forward to the Apocalypse and return of the Mahdi wouldn't own them. Yes, America has some of the same sentiment but we are a Democracy and it is rather unlikely for a leader who might buy into that BS to launch warheads. Iran, not so much.

Is it arrogant to own nuclear weapons and not want others to have them? Sure, is it reasonable? Damn straight!

 

[Oliver]

Is it arrogant to own nuclear weapons and not want others to have them? Sure, is it reasonable? Damn straight!

Replace "Nukes" with "Guns" and "others" with "Blacks" and you're doing
the same exact thing that people in your area did quite a while back.

Damn straight racism. [Same argument - different time]

So does Iran have the right to retaliate once being attacked?

Yes or No?

 

[Pardalis]

Replace "Nukes" with "Guns" and "others" with "Blacks" and you're doing the same exact thing that people in your area did quite a while back.

Damn straight racism. [Same argument - different time]

Only in your mind Oliver. It's trully discusting what you are trying to do here.

You're making a rare strawman-ad-hominem, you're trying to build a racist strawman of your opponent, to try to discredit any opinion he may have that contradicts you.

Trully, you have no idea how to debate intelligently.

 

[Oliver]

Only in your mind Oliver. It's trully discusting what you are trying to do here.

You're making a rare strawman-ad-hominem, you're trying to build a racist strawman of your opponent, to try to discredit any opinion he may have that contradicts you.

Trully, you have no idea how to debate intelligently.

Well, point out the difference between:

Blacks shouldn't be allowed to have "weapons" as well because they "might, could, would..."

and

Iranians shouldn't be allowed to have "weapons" as well because they "might, could, would..."

Same thing, other race. No?

Anyway ... Same question to you, Goury:

Does Iran have the right to retaliate once being attacked?

Yes or No?

 

[Oliver]

In other Words:

Does Iran have the right to relaunch their Nuke Program once they
are being attacked? From their National Security point of View, they
certainly have.

And they certainly have every "God-given" right to defend themselves.

A right we western people usually grant every human or society - unless
we're shifting into racist waters.

 

[Pardalis]

Well, point out the difference between:

Blacks shouldn't be allowed to have "weapons" as well because they "might, could, would..."

and

Iranians shouldn't be allowed to have "weapons" as well because they "might, could, would..."

Same thing, other race. No?

No.

 

[DC]

but The Iranians are totaly evil, we all know that.

 

[Pardalis]

but The Iranians are totaly evil, we all know that.

That's your strawman, boy.