Discussion in 'Off-Topic' started by joespaniel, Mar 9, 2003.
Gee, I hope I didn't miss the bandwagon. I would like to protest things that aren't happening too.
I still don't get it. The fewer countries that own WMD the better. So, you believe that all countries should own WMD right? The more countries that own them, the better of them being used.
Please make your posts less confusing in the future.
You said in an earlier post:
"Wait no wait oh yes i am mistaken agent orange ohhh wait no that wasnt chemical was it."
you were talking about the use of chemicals, not about owning them.
Edited for replying errors.
no i believe that no countries should have WMD but as america,britain,russia etc are too stubborn to give them up then other countries should have the right to them.
Not belligerant dictatorships.
it all comes down then to why him first then.......................
Why does it come down to that? Why NOT him first?
answer my question with another one very well done
because other belligerant dictatorships have WMD so why iraq first............
It is widly feared that Iran got Nuke's already anyway.
They started their nuclear program years ago ,from an estimate in a magazine article of 1999 political analists predicted iran would have completed their nuclear program in 2001 ,thus 2 years ago already.
Besides ,Iran is ,on the conventional level ,a quite powerfull country.And with a relatively modern army to ,they bought lot's og jet fighter's in Russia of the most modern type's they could get.They got Su27 and Su35's a plenty ,besides even having some f14's left from the American's.One would say those planes are a bit dated ,i agree ,but not That much dated though ,and since they got a pretty large air number of those ,one could argue it could still do a quite good fight.Another thing is their navy ,again quite not powerfull of that of America ,but it still would be able to inflict quite some damage.The ground force's equiped with the most modern Russian weapon's and vehicle's ,ranging from artillery system's to modern t90 tank's.Allas again ,not that powerfull as the American army ,but still sufficiant in number's and quite good enough to put up a decent fight.All in all ,invading Iran would be madness in my oppinion ,it would surtenly lead to lot's of casualties.
And North korea? Obsolete weapons ,but lot's of manpower and afcourse nuke's and variuous other powerfull rocket's ,it would be madness to try to invade them.
will we go after these countires next or is just posturing?
If resolve is shown towards one country, perhaps others would take the resolutions more seriously?
Consider the other person's perspective:
Suppose you are an Iranian.
You look East:
there is nuclear Pakistan; beyond that nuclear India
You look West:
there is desperately trying to be nuclear Saddam;
(and he invaded recently); beyond that nuclear Israel
You look North:
there is nuclear Russia
You look South
there is the USA with its nuclear equipped carriers
You might think maybe we should have nukes of our own.
It is not that we Iranians want to nuke anyone.
Iran is a democratic country with an elected
parliament and unlike other countries; Iran has not
invaded anyone for hundreds of years.
But nukes would deter others and so protect us.
What about the NPT? Uh - there were two parts to
this. Countries without nukes would not acquire them
AND countries with nukes would disarm.
President Bush is developing (under guise of
modifying) a new range of bunker busting nukes.
So if USA doesn't take NPT seriously why should IRAN.
I am not in favour of nuclear proliferation; but as
long as USA people talks about developing its nukes
further; it will simply be regarded as hypocritical.
Perhaps a more positive approach is needed.
As long as USA people talk about sending their
air force to bomb any country that doesn't brown
nose them; and this thread is an example; the
US is likely to remain unpopular in many places.
Did I miss the Ayatollah election?
I believe he is referring to the civilian government, which was elected.
But, on the subject of the Ayatollah, he is elected by other clerics.
The civilian government has little, if any power.
I know of a pretty dumb accident that once happend in the 80's or the 90's,don't know for sure.There were several American ship's in the gulf ,and on one of the ship's they had got a unknown high speed airplane on the radar.Since they thought it involved a threat ,they shot some rocket's after it.THey downed it ,but later it seemed to have been an iranian Airliner they shot down ,causing a deathtoll of about 300 Iranies.Not very smart.
Anyway ,i think actually quite some Iranies would like to have the more free society they had under the Shah.The people are more against American influences rather than Democracy.
Spent much time there?
What's the difference? He's telling the truth.
Iranians say that their country is more democratic now and that they have much more freedom.
This view doesn't seem to be supported by white middle-america.
I wonder who's take on the issue I should run with?
Jeratain is Iranian, and he just said that I was telling the truth.
Oh my god, there is a difference of opinions between Iranians!!!
When was Jeratain last in Iran, does he keep close contact with anyone, why did he leave?
I will still stand by what Iranians living in Iran say.
Separate names with a comma.