Jump to content
Science Forums

Nuclear Iran?


Deepwater6

Recommended Posts

Asked and answered.  Are you having trouble reading the replies, or are you one of those people who ignores things that do not support their prejudices?

Not to say he is not a bot, but you seem like the kind of guy who makes bold statements and rhetorical questions that he has no actual answer or explanation to back up your statements. Sure you can scream the loudest by flooding the forums with obvious questions that have already been answered by others previously. It doesn't take a doctorate in neuroscience to tell you that you are obviously a more biased source of incomplete thoughts than I am. Just like the post you made above about doublethink. It was made painfully clear that I do not want those cultures here. I hate the Chinese and Middle-Easter culture for two reasons, They make a point of hating and disregarding women whenever possible and they practice totalitarian rule. That seems fair enough doesn't it? I hate the concept of any one ruling culture unless all beneath are the same and well represented at that. If you look at Cuba, they are not doing that bad for themselves under a dictator, but they are all one culture and everyone benefits directly from the prosperity of both the leader and the people. That is not totalitarianism, so I accept it. But if you look at China, the PLA is SPECIFICALLY UNDER THE CONTROL OF THE COMMUNIST PARTY. That is wrong, but that doesn't prevent those people from fleeing to other countries like Canada to hide from the problems they have in China. But their unwillingness to change their ways and continuing that culture here only sows the seeds for those same issues to develop here in the future. The same goes for Muslims. These people who are not evil in their hearts are bringing that evil here in the form of the cultural lifestyle they refuse to give up. They cannot ever hope to be free of the problems that go along with their lifestyle if they refuse to change their ways.

 

Yes Billvon I hear you over there as the devil's advocate, and no you are not right. They do not have the right under the Canadian constitution to treat women as less than men, but the Muslims still force many of their women to wear hijabs. This is quite literally by the very definition of the word literal, a part of the Koran designed solely to lower women both culturally and politically. I use the word Muslim because even though some of these women do so out of personal choice, they are doing so because their religion tells them to, or because they feel they are doing something wrong by not wearing one. That is how warped their culture is. They have trained these women to be ashamed of their gender so well they do it to themselves to "avoid shaming those around them" such as their family by doffing their glorified scarf. I will not see them as real Canadians or even real people until they stop this blatant crime against the rights of their women and see them as little else but a target for my rifle in times of war.

 

Yes that seems a bit aggressive, but these things are evil in nature. Just because the people who are doing them do not know does not justify their actions. It is quite simple, do you think all of the Crusaders were evil for what they did? No. Do you think that all Germans were evil for what the Nazis did? No. Do you think all Muslims are evil for what they do? No. But they still do it, and not understanding the true evil in their actions does not justify them.

 

*drops mic*

Edited by NotBrad
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Rac, did your account get hacked by a bot? You ask this now 3 times and you got plenty of replies which you just ignore...

 Sorry, read those posts.. Didn't say $#!T

 

IAEA inspections?  Thats the answer?

Uhmm did you not hear/read the 24 day wait period and No Americans when conducting those inspections...??

Like those are solid concrete.  Iran couldn't hide anything with that amount of leeway?

 

 

Iranians get a better life?? How do you predict that. The Mullahs are going to share the wealth with the common people while Chanting death to America and Israel?

 

What else does America and the rest of the non-terrorist supporting, non-Muslim world get?

Thats right. Nothing.

See?  was that so hard to admit??

 

Don't be such a pushover. The world doesn't have to acquiesce to a Totalilatarian Theocracy. Say no, and reserve the right  to bomb them first. 

Obama , and this deal does not do that.

 

Wait a few months, and years, when all those flooding Muslims infest Europe.  You'll sing a whole different tune.

And you better hope and pray it isn't too late by then.

Edited by Racoon
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Iran just violated other previous sactions and treaties by firing off Ballistic Missle tests...

As in this last week they fired off Ballistic Missles tests which they weren't supposed to.

 

"Gee, If I'm dumb and want to be Politically Correct, I say Iran should have a Nuke, and Ballistic Missles, because I'm dumb , and I want everyone to be equal in a world without borders, and everyone should have 40 acres and a mule, and everyone is special...."

 

 

Heres a hint. Iran isn't firing off missle tests because they love you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I completely agree Rac. There is absolutely no reason to allow them to have nuclear weapons. Everybody is so afraid of Nukes right now that nobody would dare to use them, as all the countries that have them could easily wipe out the entire planet. Give a country with religious fundamentalists and military leadership a nuclear bomb and they will throw their weight around in new ways knowing full well that they "will have a reservation in heaven" for the crimes they commit in the name of their god. Given that potential threat, we should not take the barter role here as it sets an unsafe precedent for future dealings with them. If we give them ground and back down now, they will only grow more bold later and become an even greater threat. There is a very good proverb about this too, if we give them an inch now, they'll take a mile later. 

 

AND NUCLEAR WEAPONS DEFINITELY REPRESENT MORE THAN AN INCH.

 

The real question is, when will they claim their mile? 

 

Or more accurately, where?

 

I personally think that their fighting in Syria is little more than a thinly veiled invasion. Why else send their soldier and money to such a place? What else could they possibly stand to gain? The country is in ruins, the government all but collapsed, the countryside is held by poorly trained, disciplined, and equipped insurrectionists. When will they get a better chance to annex the country? They certainly won't be facing a unified front, they can take their time even and wait for their enemies to wear each other down. It is a very simple military move with high chances of success.

Edited by NotBrad
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I completely agree Rac. There is absolutely no reason to allow them to have nuclear weapons.

Nobody thinks they should have nuclear weapons. The question has never been "should they have nuclear weapons", it's been "what's the most effective way to prevent them from having nuclear weapons" because our current strategy isn't working. We could choose to kill hundreds of thousands of innocent people, hundreds to thousands of Americans, and spend hundreds of billions of dollars on a war, but we'd really rather not. So, short of war - what do you think the best option is?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That is the problem. Due to their political composition they are quite resilient to common economic and political pressure tactics. Things like sanctions and idle threats will not deter them, they will actually motivate them more. They see it quite plainly, if they can hold together long enough to produce some nuclear bombs then they can get rid of said sanctions using the weapons themselves. It is a paradox in terms of inter-societal dealings due to the touchy and unified nature of Islamic culture. If we use the carrot they will ignore us, and if we use the stick they will dig in. So what option does that leave us? Military action. That does not necessarily have to be an actual invasion of their country. Although we are still experiencing the effects of the support that Americans lent to the afghan Mujaheddin fighters against the Soviets. But this is not to completely slander the reputation of said methods, they did lead to the downfall of the USSR, which was always the goal in supporting the enemies of Russia. 

 

I understand that the political landscape is quite fluid right now, and that many politicians hope to consolidate their positions of power before making any bold political moves, but that also gives their enemies an early warning as well as time to prepare, and by the time these "heads of state" get around to implementing their sanctions the issue has spiraled out of control to the point that their countermeasures are insufficient, or the issue has already been resolved by either third parties, or by the instigator of said problems. This is a big deal. This is an issue that is reminiscent of the rise of German fascism. The reason the second world war happened, is because the other countries oppressed a nation without resolving the problems that were the cause of said oppression. The only way war could have been avoided was to act quickly and decisively when the NAZI party began producing arms again and manning the Rhineland. The League of Nations was given ample time to respond but failed to do so because they wanted to avoid further bloodshed. But that was a problem by itself, because they claimed they would act decisively and aggressively to any threat posed by Germany to surrounding countries. But when Germany tested the waters with the Rhineland they found that no such retaliation would occur. That is what Syria did with its chemical weapons, that is what Russia is doing in Donetsk, and that is what Iran is doing with its nuclear weapons.

 

I do not care how we resolve this, but one thing works for sure. Sometimes if a rabid dog bites you, it does not matter that it was a good dog before, you just put the dog down. And that is the only surefire way to put Iran back in its place. I agree with using a coalition based military force to put them back in line.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Nobody thinks they should have nuclear weapons. The question has never been "should they have nuclear weapons", it's been "what's the most effective way to prevent them from having nuclear weapons" because our current strategy isn't working. We could choose to kill hundreds of thousands of innocent people, hundreds to thousands of Americans, and spend hundreds of billions of dollars on a war, but we'd really rather not. So, short of war - what do you think the best option is?

Its tricky, yes.

 

We could let Mossad go in and we could covertly blow their **** up.

 

BUT Obama, errrrr Barry Sotero the Pathologocal Liar in Chief, is NOT the person to be negotiating this deal to begin with.

This shouldn't even be on the table.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 7 months later...

State Department just caught lying and deleting passages... Or at least not letting them air in public..

I believe you’re referring to comments made on and about on the 6/1/13 Fox and Friends news interview of US State Department Spokesman John Kirby (link to video – I can’t find text transcripts of Fox and Friends, and suspect that none are made). Via Google News, I found about 10 articles referencing this show. This Fox News article and this AdWeek article seemed the clearest to me.

 

I think in large part because the subject is so politicizes, especially because so many people feel a strong hatred of US President Barak Obama, and the nation of Iran, it’s difficult to get an factual account of what’s being discussed, but I was able to put together this timeline

  • 2/6/13 US State Department press briefing:

    Fox News Chief Washington Correspondant James Rosen’s asks: “Is [outside of the formal P5+1 mechanisms, the Obama Administration, or members of it, have conducted direct secret bilateral talks with Iran] true or false?”

    US State department Spokesperson Victoria Nuland answers “... with regard to the kind of thing that you’re talking about on a government-to-government level, no.”

  • 12/2/13 State Department briefing:

    Rosen reads from transcript of 2/6/13, asks: “Do you stand by the accuracy of what Ms. Nuland told me, that there had been no government-to-government contacts, no secret direct bilateral talks with Iran as of the date of that briefing, February 6th?”

    US State department Spokesperson Jen Psaki answers: “James, I have no new information for you today.”

    Rosen then asks: “Is it the policy of the State Department, where the preservation or the secrecy of secret negotiations is concerned, to lie in order to achieve that goal?”

    Psaki answers: “James, I think there are times where diplomacy needs privacy in order to progress. This is a good example of that.”

  • 5/?/2016 Searching for a recording of his 12/2/13 exchange with Psaki, Rosen discovers that that portion of the 12/2/13 State Department briefing has been edited out of its YouTube video. He contacts Kirby, who after initially suggesting that otherwise and after some investigation, admits that the YouTube video was edited.
  • 6/1/13 Fox and Friends news show interview

    Kirby admits of the YouTube video edit “that this wasn't a technical glitch, this was a deliberate request to excise video”. He states that a policy forbidding such edits has been communicated to State Departments staff, but that no investigation into who ordered the edit is planned. He admits that he doesn’t know how many other State Department YouTube videos have been edited to remove controversial content. He states that the edits was made only to the YouTube video, not the State Department hosted video and text transcript.

Because the State Department video and text transcripts were not altered, I don’t believe that the YouTube edits are truly, as a Fox and Friends host accused, an “attempt to alter history”. However, I think it points out the importance of not relying on a single source, and the importance of having a reliable record of as much as possible everything (text, at least) published on the internet. As far as I know, Archive.org is the only publically available source for this.

 

Source: US State Department daily press briefings archive

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...