Let's assume the UN fails, and Iran gets nukes

[nivi]

no one's going to like Iran anymore.

 

[Steph]

USSR sending a nuke to US (supposing US doesn't respond) --> Only the US are damage.
But a bomb in Israel? The country is so small that the radiations could be dangerous to many muslims. That's the good point for Israel: they live in the middle of ennemies

That's also why it is unlikely that Marseille is bombed by Muslims terrorists

 

[Gilder]

Let me rephrase. The entire Middle East will be pissed.

 

[Masquerouge]

That's also why it is unlikely that Marseille is bombed by Muslims terrorists

I think there are only three of us in this forum that will get that

 

[nivi]

Let me rephrase. The entire Middle East will be pissed.

As if it isn't already.

Don't get me wrong, he is a nutter, but he is a religous nutter, so I doubt he will even think about nuking al-kuds.

But a bomb in Israel? The country is so small that the radiations could be dangerous to many muslims. That's the good point for Israel: they live in the middle of ennemies

You must have very little knowledge of muslim extremists, thier heads don't work like yours and mine does.
They have absolutly no qualm about sacrificing other muslims, they turn them to shahids.
Assuming Nassrallah is a puppet of Nejad (and he is), we can clearly see he didn't mind boming arabs, which made up 40% of the civillian casualties in Israel.

 

[Masquerouge]

NK was in unilateral negotiations with the US and promised not to build nukes. They lied.

Iran is in multilateral negotiations promising not to build nukes. Do you trust them?

Hows that for a compairision? Did sanctions work with NK? Think they will work with Iran?

But the comparison is that nobody is planning to attack North Korea while everybody is gung-ho on nuking Iran to the ground.
Why?

 

[skadistic]

But the comparison is that nobody is planning to attack North Korea while everybody is gung-ho on nuking Iran to the ground.
Why?

Thats because NK is sitting preaty with 1000s of hevy arms pointed at Soul SK. And it has nuke weapons already.

Iran has no city and nation held hostage and has no nukes.


Very diffrent.

And don't be so sure no one has plans to invade NK.

 

[Masquerouge]

Thats because NK is sitting preaty with 1000s of hevy arms pointed at Soul SK. And it has nuke weapons already.

Iran has no city and nation held hostage and has no nukes.

So, basically, let's not attack NKorea because they're dangerous, but let's bomb Iran because they're not dangerous?

Plus I think some here would make a case that Israel is the hostage of Iran.

And don't be so sure no one has plans to invade NK.

While you may be right, I think it would be hard to discuss anything if we had to make specific provisions for all probable scenarios

 

[Steph]

I think there are only three of us in this forum that will get that

Marla, you and me + Yeeeeeeeeeek and Kryzstov (I never remember how to spell it), that's 5

 

[BasketCase]

But the comparison is that nobody is planning to attack North Korea while everybody is gung-ho on nuking Iran to the ground.
Why?

North Korea is a dictatorship. Iran is a religious dictatorship.

That might be it. Add the R-word to something, and people (in CFC and elsewhere) get squirrelley.

 

[skadistic]

So, basically, let's not attack NKorea because they're dangerous, but let's bomb Iran because they're not dangerous?

Plus I think some here would make a case that Israel is the hostage of Iran.

Attack NK and risk millions or lives with nukes and conventional bombardment or let the nation collapes on its own from sanctions (wich would work better if China stopped suppling NK).

Attack Iran before it can risk millions of lives with nukes. ( I'd much rather see hard sanctions and starve the regime out of power but Russia and China won't go for it and the UN would never back it up with the threat of force. )Its not like diplomacy is working thus far. All thats gotten us is an Iran closer to nukes.

If we had known that NK was doing what it was doing and had a prez. and UN with balls NK would be democratic right now and nuke free but instead we had Clinton.

I thought about Israel when I wrote that but figured since the vast majority of Irans hevy arms are not pointed at Tel-Aviv assuring mass destroction by convetional means with the added power of nukes too. It didn't realy apply.

 

[Masquerouge]

Attack NK and risk millions or lives with nukes and conventional bombardment or let the nation collapes on its own from sanctions (wich would work better if China stopped suppling NK).

Attack Iran before it can risk millions of lives with nukes. ( I'd much rather see hard sanctions and starve the regime out of power but Russia and China won't go for it and the UN would never back it up with the threat of force. )Its not like diplomacy is working thus far. All thats gotten us is an Iran closer to nukes.

If we had known that NK was doing what it was doing and had a prez. and UN with balls NK would be democratic right now and nuke free but instead we had Clinton.

I thought about Israel when I wrote that but figured since the vast majority of Irans hevy arms are not pointed at Tel-Aviv assuring mass destroction by convetional means with the added power of nukes too. It didn't realy apply.

You have to admit this policy is weird. To use an allegory to illustrate it, it would be as if cops would not bust criminals armed with guns because that would be dangerous, will they would go after people trying to buy a gun because they could turn dangerous...

 

[Nobody]

Technically, Truman started the Korean War with the U.S. by sending our troops there. But, that's getting really technical.

Technicaly it was a police action.

 

[emzie]

You have to admit this policy is weird. To use an allegory to illustrate it, it would be as if cops would not bust criminals armed with guns because that would be dangerous, will they would go after people trying to buy a gun because they could turn dangerous...

I don't think you want to create an allegory where the US is acting as police.

 

[skadistic]

You have to admit this policy is weird. To use an allegory to illustrate it, it would be as if cops would not bust criminals armed with guns because that would be dangerous, will they would go after people trying to buy a gun because they could turn dangerous...

Thats a very dishonest statment. Lets make it a bit more relivent.

You have to admit this policy is weird. To use an allegory to illustrate it, it would be as if cops would not bust criminals armed with truck bombs because that would kill half the 'hood, will they would go after people trying to buy a truck bomb because they would turn dangerous and hold the 'hood hostage...

Still not prfect but much closer.

 

[Masquerouge]

Thats a very dishonest statment. Lets make it a bit more relivent.



Still not prfect but much closer.

That's quite right... But I would still prefer the police go after the guys with the truck bomb.

 

[skadistic]

That's quite right... But I would still prefer the police go after the guys with the truck bomb.

Why not just wait untill truck bomb havin' fool does something stupid and gets killed by a rival in side his gang. Or plant a snitch in there to spread disent. Or let him blair the radio to long and drain the battery making the bomb un-explodable. Or wait 'em out untill he dies of age. The back door aproch while not perfect saves lives in the end when the weapons are alread had.

 

[warpus]

Worse case:

Mahmoud Ahmadinezhad thanks Allah for "giving" him nukes, and vows to destroy Israel. After some "negotiations" trying to get the Israelis out of Palestine fail, he nukes Israel. US nukes Iran in return. US might get a few cities nuked too. 77,000,000 or more people wiped out, and large parts of the world nuked.

I don't know if Ahmadinejad really is that insane, but I wouldn't take my chance.

Who would nuke the U.S. in retaliation? The U.K., France, China, Russia, India, Pakistan, or Israel?

 

[De Lorimier]

Marla, you and me + Yeeeeeeeeeek and Kryzstov (I never remember how to spell it), that's 5

Don't underestimate your North American cousins guys! We egt the joke too!

 

[Sidhe]

Yet another thread on the exact same topic. What everyone on this forum doesn't realize is that the situation heating up with Iran has nothing at all to do with nukes. The nuke excuse is just the media's way of mediating war sentiment. That said, when is the US gonna start a war with Iran? That's all I care about.

Perfectly valid question, there are 64,000,000 Iranians who would like to know the answer? And he's right this isn't about nukes for the very reason that they don't have any, and anyway if it wasn't for the US giving them enrichment facilities they wouldn't have any Uranium either, so the question remains what lame game is the US playing, and why shouldn't people have the right to ask questions about a proven liar? Bush forwent the right to be treated with respect when he disrespected the world in a bid to decalre war for reasons that later turned out to be lies. If people are asking awkward questions it's because they don't trust the answers. I mean why should we?

Iran may or may not get nukes, this is just another reason why the power of veto should be removed from the UN sec council, it has been overused and abused for too long. People wine that the sec council has no power, then give it back to the council, simple.