North King
blech
- Joined
- Jan 2, 2004
- Messages
- 18,165
skadistic said:
I wish. In 2004 it was pro-war and pro-war. Stupid idiots trying to not seem weak on foreign policy. If Kerry had actually been anti-war, then maybe I would have supported him.
Let's assume the UN fails, and Iran gets nukes
- Thread starter garric
- Start date
I wish. In 2004 it was pro-war and pro-war. Stupid idiots trying to not seem weak on foreign policy. If Kerry had actually been anti-war, then maybe I would have supported him.
Many of you must not watch the news or stay in touch with current events.
Democrats are against the war in Iraq, and the War on Terror.
Whether the Democratic party overall has been an anti-war party throughout it's history is not true, parties do change and so does the world. Arguing about history is arbitrary since the focus is about NOW, more notably the midterms.
Democrats are against the war in Iraq, and the War on Terror.
Whether the Democratic party overall has been an anti-war party throughout it's history is not true, parties do change and so does the world. Arguing about history is arbitrary since the focus is about NOW, more notably the midterms.
boarder
King
After the OP the rest seemed to be off topic at least to me... anyway, I have pushed this document and I will keep doing it till I get at least one person reading it and commenting on it...
A excellant analysis entitled Reassesing the Implications of a Nuclear-Armed Iran. Please read it and comment someone, even though its a year old it is still relevant.
http://www.ndu.edu/inss/mcnair/mcnair69/McNairPDF.pdf#search="implications of a nuclear armed iran"
Thankyou.
A excellant analysis entitled Reassesing the Implications of a Nuclear-Armed Iran. Please read it and comment someone, even though its a year old it is still relevant.
http://www.ndu.edu/inss/mcnair/mcnair69/McNairPDF.pdf#search="implications of a nuclear armed iran"
Thankyou.
Then Iran has nukes, and life goes on. Whether you think they're stupid (or crazy) or not, they are smart enough to know that any nuclear use on their part will be the end of Iran as a habitable chunk of this planet. Even if they handed weapons over to terrorists, the material would be traced back to them, buying them an additional week or two of life, at most.
JoeM
Imperator
I don't know. They'd probably lay waste to Isreal in the short term. Don't think the US would retaliate.
JoeM
Imperator
Or perhaps Israel would buy it's own nukes from the US.
nivi
Call me Ishmael
People don't get that even if Iran doesn't "go out with a bang", them having nukes is extremely dangerous to the world.
For starters they basicly have a get out of jail free card, meaning that no matter what they do, the world won't be able to do anything about it (not that the world is actualy doing anything now, but it has the option).
And, Iran's neighbours will get some too , so they won't feel threatened.
And, you get more nukes in the world, which is just plain bad.
For starters they basicly have a get out of jail free card, meaning that no matter what they do, the world won't be able to do anything about it (not that the world is actualy doing anything now, but it has the option).
And, Iran's neighbours will get some too , so they won't feel threatened.
And, you get more nukes in the world, which is just plain bad.
nivi
Call me Ishmael
Speedo said:
And what makes you think they care?
Muslim nutters have shown that martydom is not something they'd feel bad about, and sometimes, it is actualy the goal.
silver 2039
Deity
- Joined
- Jul 26, 2003
- Messages
- 16,208
nivi said:
Martyardom is never the goal of the leaders however otherwise Osama wouuld have been in the plane that flew into the twin towers. Martyardom is the goal of the brainwashed minions while the leaders enjoy the spoils.
Winner
Diverse in Unity
Than we'll have to treat them like a nuclear power. Simple.
JoeM
Imperator
boarder said:
That's an interesting article, I only read the beginning and a few of the conclusions as it's pretty long.
I'm not sure why if the international community suspected they had nuclear weapons in 1995, they're so sure they don't have them now.
Also the suggested delaying tactics - what's the point. Essentially if the ever get them the problems are the same.
Pre-emptive strikes by Israel? What would be the response? Iran is already waging war with them by proxy through Hezbollah - surely this would provoke open war, one I doubt Israel would survive.
The best solution seems to be Russia and China cutting off all trade agreements and extremely punitive sanctions by the UN, but this won't happen as they never do anything useful.
nivi
Call me Ishmael
JoeM said:
We have been living in the middle east for 60 years now, every war they said we wouldn't survive.
Iran just doesn't have the power to destroy Israel, army wise, and they are a to far, and they got the US on thier backs.
Tank_Guy#3
Lion of Lehistan
Answer: Decisive, unilateral, world military action upon Iran making the announcement.
Masquerouge
Deity
Tank_Guy#3 said:
Just like with North Korea, I guess?
Leonel
Breakfast Connoisseur
We send a letter to them expressing our disappointment! It worked for the Japanese when they invaded Manchuria!
warpus
Sommerswerd asked me to change this
JoeM said:
Iran would never nuke the "holy land"
Bozo Erectus
Master Baker
- Joined
- Jan 22, 2003
- Messages
- 22,389
The probelm isnt that a nuclear Iran would initiate a nuclear war with Israel. Its that Iran would spread the technology, just as Pakistan has been doing. We might as well face it, the Genie is out of the bottle.
JoeM said:
Do you really think Israel doesn't have nuclear weapons?
Masquerouge
Deity
augurey said:
Well they sure say they don't...
nivi
Call me Ishmael
Masquerouge said:Well they sure say they don't...
Actualy, we never said that.
Similar threads
- Poll
