Iran and nuclear weapons

Originally posted by lepomis
For the sake of argument, lets say that Holland wanted nuclear weapons... would you be OK with that?

I understand the point you are trying to make, but we would never want to have nuclear weapons. All we are interested in is trading and making a profit. We would SELL nuclear weapons if we could, but OWNING them ourselves, ....... no. It's just not profitable, lol.

Greetings from Holland! Come visit us! Come and buy!

Originally posted by Merk
Where in the world do you get your information from?

Sure they deal with some guerillas, but they fund terrorism. Terrorists that have killed Americans. Its not American media bias, its fact.

Helped fight the Taliban????? When did Iran join NATO?

http://www.antiwar.com/orig/porter.php?articleid=8590

Originally posted by Merk
Where in the world do you get your information from?

Sure they deal with some guerillas, but they fund terrorism. Terrorists that have killed Americans. Its not American media bias, its fact.

Helped fight the Taliban????? When did Iran join NATO?

All right, so they may have engaged in some activity that the U.S. would deem as "terrorist". It is, however, useful to ask how we would act if Iran had invaded and occupied Canada and Mexico and was arresting U.S. government representatives there on the grounds that they were resisting the Iranian occupation (called "liberation," of course). Imagine as well that Iran was deploying massive naval forces in the Caribbean and issuing credible threats to launch a wave of attacks against a vast range of sites – nuclear and otherwise – in the United States, if the U.S. government did not immediately terminate all its nuclear energy programs (and, naturally, dismantle all its nuclear weapons). Suppose that all of this happened after Iran had overthrown the government of the U.S. and installed a vicious tyrant (as the US did to Iran in 1953), then later supported a Russian invasion of the U.S. that killed millions of people (just as the U.S. supported Saddam Hussein's invasion of Iran in 1980, killing hundreds of thousands of Iranians, a figure comparable to millions of Americans). Would the U.S. watch quietly?

Originally posted by abejnood
All right, so they may have engaged in some activity that the U.S. would deem as "terrorist". It is, however, useful to ask how we would act if Iran had invaded and occupied Canada and Mexico and was arresting U.S. government representatives there on the grounds that they were resisting the Iranian occupation (called "liberation," of course). Imagine as wel ...[text shortened]... s of Iranians, a figure comparable to millions of Americans). Would the U.S. watch quietly?

This is a pretty silly analogy. To think that the Iranian-US rift exists only after the US Invasions in 2001 and 2003 of their neighbors is pretty misguided. Also, your understanding of the situation in the Middle East seems really poor. The Shah was not a vicious tyrant, he was stupid and out of touch with his country perhaps, but I have no idea where you are getting that statement or many of the others you make. What is this Russian invasion of the U.S. that killed millions you speak of? I must have missed that history lesson. Also, the U.S. did not support Saddam's invasion in 1980. Please stop making such bold statements backed up by so much factual error.

Originally posted by abejnood
http://www.antiwar.com/orig/porter.php?articleid=8590

More lefty pipe dream crap. For several reasons, a couple of which is explained in the article you've linked to.

1. It in no way supports the assertion that Iran helped us fight the Taliban. In, fact it makes it clear that we didn't let them.

2. How can we possibly justify inviting Iran into the fight against terrorism when all they want is to eliminate the competition (by puttting down al-Q) to help their own privately funded terrorists?

3. WHY would we have wanted their help? We've seen enough of their help in Iraq. We would appreciate if they didn't do us anymore favors in the future.

Originally posted by lepomis
Would do you guys think would be wrong with Iran having nuclear weapons?

Maybe it's because they plan to use them to annihilate Israel? On the other hand, I don't think anyone should worry about Iran acquiring them because if the Americans, Europeans or the UN fail to act, the Israelis will take out the Iranian reactors just like they did in Iraq in the early 1990s.

Originally posted by der schwarze Ritter
Maybe it's because they plan to use them to annihilate Israel? On the other hand, I don't think anyone should worry about Iran acquiring them because if the Americans, Europeans or the UN fail to act, the Israelis will take out the Iranian reactors just like they did in Iraq in the early 1990s.

While that scenario is certainly possible, now that the Cold War is over and the U.S. has its attention directed squarely on the Middle East, I doubt they would let Israel conduct a raid into Iran. This would be a similar scenario to when the U.S. forced Israel to do nothing when they were getting struck by Scuds during Desert Storm. Israel definitely needs the U.S. more than we need them and while it would be nice to have another country do the dirty work on the behalf of the U.S., the fact of the matter is that the U.S. has interjected itself so heavily into the region now that they are going to have to deal with these types of issues on their own.

Originally posted by der schwarze Ritter
Maybe it's because they plan to use them to annihilate Israel? On the other hand, I don't think anyone should worry about Iran acquiring them because if the Americans, Europeans or the UN fail to act, the Israelis will take out the Iranian reactors just like they did in Iraq in the early 1990s.

So you believe that Iran want to launch nuclear missiles at Israel?

Your brain is really in your backside.

Originally posted by der schwarze Ritter
Maybe it's because they plan to use them to annihilate Israel? On the other hand, I don't think anyone should worry about Iran acquiring them because if the Americans, Europeans or the UN fail to act, the Israelis will take out the Iranian reactors just like they did in Iraq in the early 1990s.

what would pelosi say !?!?!

Originally posted by DomIn8PLC
This is a pretty silly analogy. To think that the Iranian-US rift exists only after the US Invasions in 2001 and 2003 of their neighbors is pretty misguided. Also, your understanding of the situation in the Middle East seems really poor. The Shah was not a vicious tyrant, he was stupid and out of touch with his country perhaps, but I have no idea where you ...[text shortened]... s invasion in 1980. Please stop making such bold statements backed up by so much factual error.

That's why this is a hypothetical sentence, if you actually read it through. However, the U.S. has indeed done everything I alluded to in that statement. All of my information is factual. I believe it is you who need to catch up on your reading. Where do you suppose Iraq got its chemical weapons? Made them themselves? Or, as records show, the U.S. supplied them to Iraq so that Iran could be defeated. Who the hell are you to say I have a poor judgement of the Middle East? What do you know?

Originally posted by Merk
More lefty pipe dream crap. For several reasons, a couple of which is explained in the article you've linked to.

1. It in no way supports the assertion that Iran helped us fight the Taliban. In, fact it makes it clear that we didn't let them.

2. How can we possibly justify inviting Iran into the fight against terrorism when all they want is to eliminate ...[text shortened]... f their help in Iraq. We would appreciate if they didn't do us anymore favors in the future.

"It was thanks to the Northern Alliance Afghan troops, which were supported primarily by the Iranians, that the Taliban was driven out of Kabul in mid-November."

I think that refutes Point One.

Point Two: Who said anything about inviting Iran to fight terrorism? I'm just saying Iran shouldn't be judged the way it is, especially compared to the U.S.

Point Three: America got their help in Afghanistan and its all nice and easy there. America didn't get their help in Iraq and look how messed up they are there.

Originally posted by abejnood
"It was thanks to the Northern Alliance Afghan troops, which were supported primarily by the Iranians, that the Taliban was driven out of Kabul in mid-November."

I think that refutes Point One.

Point Two: Who said anything about inviting Iran to fight terrorism? I'm just saying Iran shouldn't be judged the way it is, especially compared to the U.S.
...[text shortened]... nd easy there. America didn't get their help in Iraq and look how messed up they are there.

I think you're confused. That refutes nothing. The article is very poorly worded. I'm actually wondering if it wasn't done on purpose. It misses the single biggest fact. Iran backed the Northern Alliance prior to the invasion. Iran had no part of the invasion. I honestly think they leave that out deliberately.

The people backing the Northern Alliance during the invasion were CIA paramilitary, Spec. Ops. and airpower. Again, Iran
was not invited to the party. Nor did Iran have anything to do with the Pashtun drive from the south.

Its a NATO mission, many countries have sent troops there during the invasion and after. Iran is not one of them.

You've got it backwards. The one country Iran has had a part in is Iraq, not Afghanistan.

Notice that Karzia is a Pashtun. A faction not supported by Iran before the war and also notice how much of the Iraqi leadership is Shia and was supported by Iran before the invasion.

I think you need to re-evaluate which country you think Iran has a hand in.

Originally posted by lepomis
Would do you guys think would be wrong with Iran having nuclear weapons?

They have no good reason to possess them, they would only be used offensively, or as a threat to their neighbors to make unreasonable demands. Iran is not a legitimate, sane government.

Originally posted by Merk
More lefty pipe dream crap.

Have you ever believed anything coming from a 'left wing site'?

Do you believe anything contrary to your deeply held convictions is automatically 'left wing'?

Do you believe eveything coming from this administration?

How about 'right wing' commentators / sites? Indisputably true and honest?

Originally posted by treetalk
Have you ever believed anything coming from a 'left wing site'?

Do you believe anything contrary to your deeply held convictions is automatically 'left wing'?

Do you believe eveything coming from this administration?

How about 'right wing' commentators / sites? Indisputably true and honest?

I said it was left wing pipe dream crap because its pure garbage. Iran did not help in Afghanistan.

I don't visit many websites at all, but I believe a lot of what I read on lefty sites such as CNN and BBC.

I believe anything contrary to my deeply reasoned convictions is poorly thought out. It's
just the leftwing netters so readily parrot leftist dribble.

I visit less rightwing sites than leftwing sights. I avoid far right sites completely, but I visit the Kos regularly so I can keep ahead of the garbage the lefties are going to be puking up on here.

If the gubmint tracked my internet usage they would think that I'm a Euro-socialist or a terrorist sympathizer.