Iran joins 'countries with nuclear technology'

Originally posted by Magee
War only leads to more war. Invade Iran and we will more than likely have another world war, something which should never happen again. Trust is a hard thing, when a president of a country is saying they are going to wipe a nation from the map while at the same time developing uranium for nuclear energy it's hard to just ignore it. However Bush thinks he runs the world and not his country and for some reason feels the need to intervene in every other nation's affairs. Want my advice Bush? Let it be, let them settle their differences on their own because to be honest it has got **** all to do with you.

To answer that question, the Bible states that in the End Times, any country who goes against Israel, or more specifically, doesn't stand with them, will come to ruin.

It's why this country's presidents have always taken their side.

Until the recent past, we have always identified ourselves as a Christian nation.

Probably not what you wanted to hear, but......

I'm tempted to use the Bible sometimes.

Specifically when my toilet paper runs out.

Lucky for the Bible, I keep an extra roll under the bathroom sink.

*sigh*

Becuase THAT was necessary.

(and relevant) 🙄

Not at all!

This Random Crap Announcement is brought to you by Arachnoidfreak, the Internet, and the letter 'Q'.

Originally posted by sithsaber408
To answer that question, the Bible states that in the End Times, any country who goes against Israel, or more specifically, doesn't stand with them, will come to ruin.

It's why this country's presidents have always taken their side.

Until the recent past, we have always identified ourselves as a Christian nation.

Probably not what you wanted to hear, but......

Nope and our country shouldn't be running foreign policy from an outdated text about philsophy...................

Originally posted by Soleran
Nope and our country shouldn't be running foreign policy from an outdated text about philsophy...................

Domestic policy is based on the Bible, but foreign policy is not.

Originally posted by DiamondBullets
Domestic policy is based on the Bible, but foreign policy is not.

shithorse

Originally posted by Adam Warlock
That's what I was saying. I don't think they would be talking sh!t like that without having something to back it up. They probably already have at least one nuke. Or enough material to make one.

Ever heard or propaganda? Basic sabre rattling? The paper tiger? Talk, as they say, is cheap. Nations have harked on about destroying other nations since the first nations began. Does it mean all of them did it? No. Did even a lot do it? No. Did it even mean most of them had the ability to carry through on the threat? No.

Rhetoric is often just that - rhetoric. Scary, popularity winning words. It is remarkable that so many people fell for Bush rhetoric, Iranian rhetoric etc. One wonders if people didn't believe the words so easily would it be quite as easy for the speakers to get away with what they do?

Ah, but I am forgetting - go Dubya! People it seems want to believe there is a reason to "preemptively annihilate" and entire nation and it's people. We have nukes, lets preempt! People it seems are excited by the prospect of wars not fought in defense, but offense. People it seems would be happy to bring back such concepts as MAD. Who can you trust when a nation can preempt it's perceived enemies with no justifications (or falsified justifications?) at whim?

Hey everyone, let's invade iran, therefore starting a world war with China, Iran North Korea, Russia, and virtually the entire CIS. All those nuclear weapons...
I mean come on, what's 600 million dead when United Defense, Lockheed, General Electric and Haliburton can make trillions?

Originally posted by Darth Jello
Hey everyone, let's invade iran, therefore starting a world war with China, Iran North Korea, Russia, and virtually the entire CIS. All those nuclear weapons...
I mean come on, what's 600 million dead when United Defense, Lockheed, General Electric and Haliburton can make trillions?

Since your a polisci major learn to present other points of view.........your "liberal" bleeding heart just gets old.

Wait, so not wanting to start a world war is being a bleeding heart liberal??

Originally posted by Eis
What do you guys think?

This is going to get interesting ✅

Originally posted by Arachnoidfreak
Wait, so not wanting to start a world war is being a bleeding heart liberal??

Nope I didn't say that, then again I don't need to post up all his topics to support that what I said. He is deliberatly attmepting to stir emotion by exaggerating and exacerbating for imagery, that's just junk.

Next the WHOLE world is going to be nuking each, yeah right many countries have had nukes and not gone out nuking other countries. However Iran has very specifically stated they do have goals to wipe out Israel. Will they, huh I cannot say. Let me ask you though would you wait for a serious attack on your country before acting if you knew you had hostile borders?

It's called the Realist theory of international relations. If a country views us as a threat to them or their resources, they will attack us regardless of treaty. This is opposed to the liberal theory of IR which is actually the one that neoconservatism is based on and assumes that human nature is cooperation and rationality. The world is in an unstable situation with a unipolar power (the US) after having bipolar powers for years (the US and the USSR), this creates instability, at least in the short run. What will happen in the long run is somethig we can barely predict cause there has never been a unipolar moment like this in the history of the world.

That was well put Jello.

I too, wonder if or how long this will last.

I think that China will soon tire of us, with a stronger economy, and a standing army of 1 million soldiers, we would be in dire straits.

China owns at least 40% of our economy via trade debt, we are also holding five of their nationals wrongly without trial in camp x-ray. and attack on Iran, a major supplier of resources to china, north korea, and the CIS would result in a declaration of war by literally half the world against the united states and its allies. Dictators like Kim Jung Il, Aleksander Lukashenka, Vladimir Putin, and Saparmurat Niyazov have the will and enough old soviet firepower and nuclear stockpiles to launch a devastating first assault. It is true that Russia and especiallyTajikistan have oil (Tajikistan, may actually have the largest untapped oil reserve in history) but they do not have the workforce or infrastructure to extract and process it for self sufficiencey, so unless another exporter can be found, ie. Alaska, Saudi Arabia, Iraq etc., war will be immenent.
Note that I didn't even consider Venezuala. Their fuel processing is substandard, causing heavy pollution, inefficient energy extraction, and engine wear, so it is actually banned in many countries.

Originally posted by Darth Jello
China owns at least 40% of our economy via trade debt, we are also holding five of their nationals wrongly without trial in camp x-ray. and attack on Iran, a major supplier of resources to china, north korea, and the CIS would result in a declaration of war by literally half the world against the united states and its allies. Dictators like Kim Jung Il, Aleksander Lukashenka, Vladimir Putin, and Saparmurat Niyazov have the will and enough old soviet firepower and nuclear stockpiles to launch a devastating first assault. It is true that Russia and especiallyTajikistan have oil (Tajikistan, may actually have the largest untapped oil reserve in history) but they do not have the workforce or infrastructure to extract and process it for self sufficiencey, so unless another exporter can be found, ie. Alaska, Saudi Arabia, Iraq etc., war will be immenent.
Note that I didn't even consider Venezuala. Their fuel processing is substandard, causing heavy pollution, inefficient energy extraction, and engine wear, so it is actually banned in many countries.

Take away Iran's religious fundamental leaders who threaten to wipe countries off the map then I am ok with them and nuclear. Also the likelyhood of Iran's allies backing them if they move on Israel is slim to none unless they are ready for another world war (then you should start to look at their agendas once again china wants japan etc ) cuz they won't just back Iran on the strength of its your right to blast Israel.

This is assuming of course Iran is the antagonist and strikes or moves hostilities on Israel.

Originally posted by Soleran
Let me ask you though would you wait for a serious attack on your country before acting if you knew you had hostile borders?

No, any minor attack would be provication enough, but are either Iraq or Iran on our borders?

I have to add, "exacerbating" is a great ****ing word and so rarely used. You're awesome.

Originally posted by Darth Jello
It's called the Realist theory of international relations. If a country views us as a threat to them or their resources, they will attack us regardless of treaty. This is opposed to the liberal theory of IR which is actually the one that neoconservatism is based on and assumes that human nature is cooperation and rationality. The world is in an unstable situation with a unipolar power (the US) after having bipolar powers for years (the US and the USSR), this creates instability, at least in the short run. What will happen in the long run is somethig we can barely predict cause there has never been a unipolar moment like this in the history of the world.

Rome was a superpower in its day and arguably the only one with an international military presence. Of course, at certain points the army of China could contend, but they rarely had the motivation to do so, concerned with unifying the country at that time.

But on the other observations, well said. Attacking Iran is politically a bad move.

Originally posted by Soleran
Next the WHOLE world is going to be nuking each, yeah right many countries have had nukes and not gone out nuking other countries. However Iran has very specifically stated they do have goals to wipe out Israel. Will they, huh I cannot say. Let me ask you though would you wait for a serious attack on your country before acting if you knew you had hostile borders?

Well, during the Cold War Soviet rhetoric often included toppling Capitalist nations, destroying them and all that. There are specific threats against the US. Did anything come of it other then decades of tension (and proxy wars with supporters of the two nations)? No. One could say they are different circumstances, but it very much boiled down to ideology vs. ideology, much the same in the whole Iran vs. Israel (face value at least.) Now, isn't it good that leaders of the time didn't panic and think "The Soviets are threatening us, lets launch and all out nuclear attack before they can carry through and then bunker down and wait for the Soviet nuclear retaliation"

Now I do not think think that Iran would attack Israel with nuclear weapons. They would know the consequences if they did. The leaders might very well be religiously motivated, but they aren't that stupid. Add to the fact that the Islamic world actually wants the land Israel holds, it's hard to believe they would want it turned into a nuclear wasteland that would have the potential to harm surrounding Islamic nations.