|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Iran
  |
| read 187 reaction(s) |
|---|
@ 03-05-2006 15:55 lilro | 315 posts
| do u think that america is just looking for reasons to start war on iran and what justifies it having nuclear weapons and other countries not having?  |
| Showing posts 26-50 of 187 | Page 2 of 8 |
| Discussion |
|---|
 0  @ 04-05-2006 19:35 SPD | 1,995 posts
| Nuclear bombs for everybody! | | 0 @ 04-05-2006 19:35 MERI_AN | 942 posts
| haaaa nuclear weapons! | | 0 @ 04-05-2006 20:52 AlmightyShmun | 1,189 posts
| I fail to see how the only country who actually USED nuclear weapons is somehow trustworthy of having thousands. | | 0 @ 05-05-2006 06:13 Plantagenet | 
12,864 posts
| ^that's what I'm thinking too | | 0 @ 07-05-2006 08:54 El_Mono_Loco | 24,347 posts
| Considering the circumstances, such as the fact that the US is one of 5 countries with permanent seats on the UN council, among other things, I would say the reason is apparent. If you don't agree, then maybe YOU should read the Art of War.
And if you feel that because the US used nukes once, that they should not be allowed to have them, then do you also believe that all Germans should be considered Nazis because of the Holocaust? My point is that one action should not dictate future generations and standards of safety. The US used nukes over 60 years ago. If prevented to have them now, the US would be targeted by a large number of other countries, for whatever reason. I'm not saying we're right to have them or use them, just saying that it is a preventative measure, and seemingly a necessary one. Ironic, perhaps, but if you don't see the logic in it, you're obviously not very smart. | | 0 @ 07-05-2006 09:16 AlmightyShmun | 1,189 posts
| Considering the circumstances, such as the fact that the US is one of 5 countries with permanent seats on the UN council, among other things, I would say the reason is apparent. If you don't agree, then maybe YOU should read the Art of War.
So being on a largely-defunct council whose sole purpose is trying to control the governments of the world makes you trustworthy of weapons that could easily eliminate any nation that doesn't bend to your will? Hm.
And if you feel that because the US used nukes once, that they should not be allowed to have them, then do you also believe that all Germans should be considered Nazis because of the Holocaust?
No, I don't believe that all Germans should be considered Nazis, but I think they should acknowledge what the Nazis did as part of their history. We Americans treat Japan as if it was some sort of mystical fucking fairy tale, as though our government can't be held accountable for it, and it should be swept under the rug.
My point is that one action should not dictate future generations and standards of safety. The US used nukes over 60 years ago.
Yeah, and the Crusades happened 1,000 years ago. They still piss people off. Why should our government be trusted with weapons of mass destruction?
If prevented to have them now, the US would be targeted by a large number of other countries, for whatever reason.
Bull. There's no one out there who's a damn threat to us, all nukes aside.
I'm not saying we're right to have them or use them, just saying that it is a preventative measure, and seemingly a necessary one.
We don't have the right to own or use them. Hell, trusting the U.S. with a cache of nuclear weapons is like giving a handgun to the 300lb retarded behemoth body-builder with an attitude problem down the street. You know it's not safe, so why do it?
Ironic, perhaps, but if you don't see the logic in it, you're obviously not very smart.
Yeah, I see the logic in it, but logic doesn't make things right. It's just like dealing with the law; legality doesn't mean something's inherently right or wrong. The most logical thing to do in a situation can be the one that utterly spits in the face of your humanity. | | 0 @ 07-05-2006 09:26 iolh | 304 posts
| cant they just mind their own business?/ cant they just give peace a chance?/ cant he just f..k off and die  | | 0 @ 07-05-2006 16:19 sweet_J_ | 17,089 posts
| ^what in the hell are you talking about?
Bull. There's no one out there who's a damn threat to us, all nukes aside.
Are you serious? Remember what happened on September 11th? The leader of Iran is outright threatening to use nuclear weapons on Israel and the United States. I don't understand how you can say that that is not a threat.
| | 0 @ 07-05-2006 21:58 AlmightyShmun | 1,189 posts
| You're calling September 11th a threat? It was a dozen guys so deluded by religion they thought it would be a good idea to kill themselves and others. That's not a threat; that's just insanity. | | 0 @ 07-05-2006 22:47 sweet_J_ | 17,089 posts
| Yeah that's a threat to our security. How are irrational people not a threat to us? The leader of Iran seems a little nutty to me. How do you know he's not going to make good on his threats. Just like Osama bin Laden he would make threats against the U.S. years before September 11th even happened. It's time to take threats like these seriously so we aren't blind sighted again. | | 0 @ 07-05-2006 22:55 AlmightyShmun | 1,189 posts
| We keep bringing all this crap upon ourselves.
September 11th was partially a result of our God-awful foreign relations.
This whole deal with Iran making nukes? It's because the rest of the world tells them not to, but then keeps their own stockpiles. Disarm the rest of the world's nukes, then I'm willing to concede that Iran is being bad. | | 0 @ 07-05-2006 23:09 cairowinters | 
3,446 posts
| Yeah and by the time the rest of the world has disarmed their nukes Iran would have set some off in the US and you won't be able to finally believe Iran (or rather Iran's leader) is bad, because you'll be dead.
* offtopic :
Okay that absolute worst senario, but it's not impossible, and that's what you've got to remember here
| | 0 @ 07-05-2006 23:33 sweet_J_ | 17,089 posts
| Seriously how is Iran not being bad when they aren't supposed to be making nuclear weapons with their nuclear energy in the first place? How can you say they are not being bad when the leader of Iran is saying that he wants to wipe Israel and U.S. off the map? Please answer that for me. Yes the world would be better off without nukes but let's face it that's probably not going to happen. | | 0 @ 07-05-2006 23:45 AlmightyShmun | 1,189 posts
| Well, since it's so damn heinous for Iran to have something the rest of the world has, why don't the world governments stop bitching and do something about it? Cease trade with Iran, for example. Oh, right! That whole oil thing! Not buying Iranian oil would really screw things up, wouldn't it? Might make people use alternative fuel sources, and we can't have that! That might cut profits! | | 0 @ 07-05-2006 23:47 sweet_J_ | 17,089 posts
| Well there is talk about sanctions and Russia and China want nothing to do with that. Something has to be done. | | 0 @ 07-05-2006 23:48 AlmightyShmun | 1,189 posts
| The rest of the world should disarm as an example, rather than just thumbing their nose down on a country that's been mocked repeatedly. | | 0 @ 07-05-2006 23:55 sweet_J_ | 17,089 posts
| That would never happen. So everyone disarms, yeah I would bet Iran would disarm just because everyone else did. That sounds pretty dangerous to me...and even if everyone did disarm, people still know how to make it. The only way the world would be rid of nuclear weapons is if they were never made at all. | | 0 @ 07-05-2006 23:57 AlmightyShmun | 1,189 posts
| OK, so why is that? Are we so obsessed with showing off who's got the biggest cock in the world we won't consider abandoning self-destructive habits? | | 0 @ 09-05-2006 01:49 cairowinters |
3,446 posts
| Dude - if the US etc disarmed their nukes Iran would be more likely to attack, because they'd know the US was weak and wouldn't be able to get them back with nukes.
Might make people use alternative fuel sources, and we can't have that! That might cut profits!
What are some alternative fuel sources? (Not starting a debate here, just wondering). | | 0 @ 09-05-2006 02:00 AlmightyShmun | 1,189 posts
| People have made clean, safe, efficient motors that run on all sorts of things. Vegetable oil, propane(and various natural gases), electricity, ethanol(from sugar or corn), and even water.
The internal combustion engine has been obsolete for 50 years.
And why would Iran be more likely to attack if we disarmed? The whole reason they're fighting to get nukes is because they want to have some sort of status and clout in the world. The most powerful nations in the world have nukes, for the most part, and Iran wants that. We mock them by saying they're not good enough, so they're naturally gonna be pissy. | | 0 @ 09-05-2006 11:16 lilro | 315 posts
| answer this question if u think iran shouldnt have:Why shouldnt iran have and america not have..america have used nukes b4 but iran havent,so why should they have think about it the opposite way why should america have nukes and iran not having.... | | 0 @ 09-05-2006 11:37 cairowinters |
3,446 posts
| Okay sorry, but that last post made absolutely no sense to me.
People have made clean, safe, efficient motors that run on all sorts of things. Vegetable oil, propane(and various natural gases), electricity, ethanol(from sugar or corn), and even water.
But how practical are all those? Are they actually suitable for everyday life?
And back to the Iran thing - Iran isn't that shallow. Letting them have nukes so they can have "status" is not going to solve it, it's going to make it worse. Do you really think they just want nukes to put on a shelf and look at now and then because nukes are the "in" thing and all the "cool countries" like the US have them? And Iran really just wants to be cool? Get out of high school and actually think about it! | | 0 @ 09-05-2006 15:00 Plantagenet |
12,864 posts
| Ok, my thoughts...
Iran has been having a policy of anti-west ever since the revolution of 1979. Their authoroties never let one moment pass to show their issue with the USA ever since. Remeber the Iraq-Iran war in 1989: USA supported Iraq (yes, supported Saddam, provided him with weapons and the rest should be known history), to be sure that Iran lost power in the Middle East.
BUt Iran's theocracy is undefeatable, as long as the real men of power (the religious leaders around the Ayatollah) aren't aknowledged by the world as the real leaders.
Explaining myself: the president in Iran (at this moment they scarcely diplomatic Mahmoud Ahmadinejad) is the highest state authority after the Supreme Leader (Valiye-Faqih). The Faqih is is Commander-in-Chief of the armed forces, controls the military intelligence and security operations and has sole power to declare war. The heads of the judiciary, state radio and television networks, the commanders of the police and military forces and six of the twelve members of the Council of Guardians are appointed by the Supreme Leader.
The Guardian Council of the Constitution is a high office within the constitution of the Islamic Republic of Iran which has the authority to interpret the constitution and to determine if the laws passed by the parliament are in line with the constitution of Iran. As such, the Council itself is not a legislative body, but it has veto power over the Iranian parliament. Its members are composed of Islamic clerics and lawyers. In function it is similar to a Constitutional Court.
The Assembly of Experts elects and dismisses the Supreme Leader on the basis of qualifications and popular esteem and serves for life. However according to the constitution the assembly is in charge of overseeing the Leader to comply with his legal duties and has the power to dismiss and replace him at any time. Although the members of the Assembly of Experts are elected by public vote, the Guardian Council (which is appointed by the Supreme Leader) vets the candidates before the election.
So, as you can see: the one chooses the other who is chosen by others who are chosen by the one... and the president...well, he has zero power..
and now, the moment of truth, who is the faqih (Supreme Leader) at this moment in Iran...
Ayatollah Ali Khamenei
He was a key figure in the Islamic revolution and a close confidant of Ayatollah Khomeini.
When Khomeini died, Khamenei was elected as the new Supreme Leader by the Assembly of Experts on June 4, 1989.
Khamenei wields the greatest religious and political power of anyone in Iran. Under Iran's constitution, Khamenei has the authority to override every other member of the government. He can confirm and dismiss a sitting president, and Khamenei is said to preside over what effectively amounts to a parallel government. He has the last word on many issues as foreign policies. Ayatollah Khamenei is known for his radical anti-Western policies. He has repeatedly denounced the idea of talks with the United States.
Besides that, there is a religious link: "Ayatollah" is a high rank given to major Shi'a clerics. The word means "Sign of God" and those who carry the title are experts in Islamic studies such as jurisprudence, ethics, philosophy and mysticism and usually teach in schools (howzeha) of Islamic sciences.
In short: given the real leader of Iran is an anti-western religious leader and it has been that way for 27 years...
They have been a treath to the USA long before Iraq was one, so why panic now? Iran has been working on nuclear power ever since the revolution (and was helped by the Sovjet) | | 0 @ 09-05-2006 15:02 Plantagenet |
12,864 posts
| Dude - if the US etc disarmed their nukes Iran would be more likely to attack, because they'd know the US was weak and wouldn't be able to get them back with nukes.
So, wasn't the US weak when some bunch of lunatics hijacked planes and flew them in the WTC?
Iran knows US is weak, by it's own politics... | | 0 @ 09-05-2006 16:22 AlmightyShmun | 1,189 posts
| And back to the Iran thing - Iran isn't that shallow. Letting them have nukes so they can have "status" is not going to solve it, it's going to make it worse. Do you really think they just want nukes to put on a shelf and look at now and then because nukes are the "in" thing and all the "cool countries" like the US have them? And Iran really just wants to be cool? Get out of high school and actually think about it!
As expected, you missed my point entirely. Iran is fighting to gain some sort of status in the world. For the last 30 years, they've been "one of those sand-nigger tribes," as our country so lovingly calls it. They're like teenagers: angry, bitter, jealous, and lacking a functional frontal lobe. I'm not saying we should let Iran have nukes; I'm saying we should disarm to set an example. We use nukes as a very phallic symbol of power. We are, in essence, flaunting our manhood by having them. Iran wants to be manly, too. If we get rid of those, why would they keep using them to fight for status?
By the way, I graduated from high school at 16. Perhaps you should ask around before making misguided insults. |
| |
|
|
|
TOP ARTISTS:
Jonas Brothers, Rihanna, Coldplay, Miley Cyrus, Jason Mraz, Katy Perry, Lil Wayne, Leona Lewis, Avril Lavigne, Pussycat Dolls, The, Chris Brown, Paramore, Taylor Swift, Linkin Park, Secondhand Serenade, Jordin Sparks, Mariah Carey, Britney Spears, Akon, Eminem, Ne-Yo, Abba, Lifehouse, Lars Winnerbäck, Nickelback, Lady Gaga, Evanescence, Colbie Caillat, Takida, M.I.A., Carrie Underwood, Christina Aguilera, Kanye West, Simple Plan, Avenged Sevenfold, Metro Station, Celine Dion, Slipknot, Håkan Hellström, Boys Like Girls, Usher, Kelly Clarkson, Blink-182, John Mayer, Alanis Morissette, Beatles, The, Metallica, Jesse McCartney, Aerosmith, Alicia Keys |
| Copyright © 1998-2008 LetsSingIt | add to bookmarks | disclaimer | privacy policy | advertise on this site |
|
|
