Kingdom Wants Nukes Now Too! And So It Begins...

originally posted by: beezzer

originally posted by: Swills
a reply to: beezzer

I'm okay with multiple potential NoKo's? How do you come to that conclusion? My point is, under Bush NoKo, a bassackwards nation, created and tested a nuke, meanwhile Iran has no nuke and isn't building one. Obama is trying to be diplomatic with Iran about their nuclear program and no where in that deal would the US allow Iran to build or acquire a nuke, yet this thread's OP would have you think otherwise.

Now I'm no Obama fan but let's at least give diplomacy a chance, otherwise the only other option is war, which Israel would love. Do you want more war in the Middle East? I don't understand?

Let's give diplomacy a chance?

How much of a chance?

do we wait until they have nukes before we do something?

Or should we wait until the first mushroom cloud?

Wait unti there is FIRM evidence.

USA already jumped into one war on flimsy evidence and thousands Americans died (and brits) and you have ISIS.


Fact is if Iran wants a nuke at some point they will need to test it. And a test is easly spotted.

When that happens you will have a few months as there is always a gap between a test and it being made into a working weapon.

Invade THEN.

originally posted by: IAMTAT

originally posted by: Swills
a reply to: nwtrucker


Let's all join hands and blame Obama for allowing Iran to have nukes but let's forgive Bush for NoKo's nuke creations.

Okay. Cumbaya.
Bush- North Korea.
Obama- Iran, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Jordan...

Didn't realize all those countries will have nukes in two years.
Got some inside info?

originally posted by: Sremmos80

originally posted by: IAMTAT

originally posted by: Swills
a reply to: nwtrucker


Let's all join hands and blame Obama for allowing Iran to have nukes but let's forgive Bush for NoKo's nuke creations.

Okay. Cumbaya.
Bush- North Korea.
Obama- Iran, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Jordan...

Didn't realize all those countries will have nukes in two years.
Got some inside info?

Who said two years?

a reply to: IAMTAT

Well if it is barry that allows them to get it, it would have to happen within the next two years.

Outside of that, we would have to blame the current president would we not?

a reply to: Sremmos80

You should also consider the fact that Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Iran and many other Islamic majority nations can obtain nukes through the black market since there are missing nukes unaccounted for after the fall of the Soviet Union.

a reply to: crazyewok

Who said anything about trust? The threat, alone,will be enough to tie up Obama and Co. in knots.

Netanyahu must be dancing with joy.....

a reply to: crazyewok

Still trying to deflect an obvious kick in the left's stomach, I see.

Pretty weak on your part. Definitely not up to your norm. Let's see NK is completely surrounded and strategically isolated.

Iraq had invaded a neighbor and if not stopped probably would have taken Saudi Arabia, hence controlling 80% of the ME oil reserves.

The list goes on....

try to keep it on topic, if you Would, or at the least, come up with something original.....

originally posted by: Sremmos80
a reply to: IAMTAT

Well if it is barry that allows them to get it, it would have to happen within the next two years.

Outside of that, we would have to blame the current president would we not?

First, I think you know that what Obama does now...will have far-reaching repercussions for the Middle East (even beyond two years)...Be serious.

Second, seeing that Iran is getting nukes...and it's been quietly sanctioned by the U.S., Saudi Arabia (and others) could ask Pakistan for a few ready-made nukes.

originally posted by: nwtrucker
a reply to: crazyewok

Who said anything about trust? The threat, alone,will be enough to tie up Obama and Co. in knots.

Netanyahu must be dancing with joy.....

At the end of the day as I stated, if Iran wants nukes they will have to test one before they start makeing actual weapons.

Once that happens go in invade. Have your fun little war. I wont complain.

But at the moment Iran nuclear weapon program is just based on hersay.

And the last war you based on hersay ended up a political and diplomatic nightmare. And you ended up with thousands of dead Americans and 500,000 dead iraqi civilians for nothing execpt a failed state and the rise of ISIS.



The US needs REAL evidence for its next war.

And if Iran are going for nukes real evidence will present in a underground test.

And like all nations the time from testing to deployment of actuall weapons will be 3-6 months or longer if the test fails, more than enough time for the USA to level production sites and mount a invasion.


Infact the USA could level any nuclear sites within 24 hours of a test.

originally posted by: nwtrucker
a reply to: crazyewok

Still trying to deflect an obvious kick in the left's stomach, I see.

Pretty weak on your part. Definitely not up to your norm. Let's see NK is completely surrounded and strategically isolated.

Iraq had invaded a neighbor and if not stopped probably would have taken Saudi Arabia, hence controlling 80% of the ME oil reserves.

The list goes on....

try to keep it on topic, if you Would, or at the least, come up with something original.....

First of all im hardly "left"

Secoundly not everything is a left/right petty partasian matter. Only people with small minds who cant think for themselves think like that.


Thirdly get your time lines staight.

Iraq invaded kuwait in 1991!

That was the FIRST gulf war!


Its was not to do with the stupid invasion of 2003!

As for number four I honestly dont give a # what happens to the saudis! They are one of the biggest sponsers of terror.



As for number five, you calling a argument weak does not automatically make it weak.
Infact its a deflection attempt of your own.

a reply to: starwarsisreal

I don't doubt they have some, my point was more about the blaming of barry for it.

And IAMTAT, every president for the past 3 decades has their hand in what the ME is today.

I don't see what barry is doing as all that bad, peace talks should be encouraged. We have done enough war over there. Save the "well they want to kill us!"
We want to kill them just as much imo.

As far as I can see this deal had nothing to do with nukes, we can speculate but that is not fact.

So unless all those countries get the nukes, outside of the black market, not sure how you can blame obummer

originally posted by: Sremmos80
a reply to: starwarsisreal


And IAMTAT, every president for the past 3 decades have their hand in what the ME is today.

As far as I can see this deal had nothing to do with nukes, we can speculate but that is not fact.

The Iranian nuclear deal "had nothing to do with nukes"?
Look, I'm not trying to be confrontational with you...and I'm sure you're probably an intelligent person...but, how can you possibly say that?

a reply to: IAMTAT

Cause I haven't seen anything that says they are going for the bomb.

Care to show the info that I am missing?

originally posted by: Sremmos80

Cause I haven't seen anything that says they are going for the bomb.

Care to show the info that I am missing?

Google: " iran iaea violations "

Reuters reported on Saturday that the recently released International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) report on Iran’s nuclear program shows that Iran violated one of the commitments it made in last year’s Joint Plan of Action (JPA) with the P5+1 powers.

Reuters cited an analysis of the IAEA report prepared by the Institute for Science and International Security (ISIS):

IAEA Report Found Iran in Violation of Last Year’s Joint Plan of Action

a reply to: crazyewok

Your whole rational, valid in some aspects, is trashed by Saudi Arabia. PERIOD.

Proliferation is a far larger concern, by far, than semantics on Iran.

It also kills your NK argument as there is no one 'nuking up' due to them or their rhetoric.

If you can't see nuclear proliferation in the Middle East as senior to the NK issue, then I don't know what else to say.

Proximity to Europe, oil issues, neighboring nations...it's not even close.

a reply to: xuenchen

Does that violation equal building the bomb?

originally posted by: Sremmos80
a reply to: IAMTAT

Cause I haven't seen anything that says they are going for the bomb.

Care to show the info that I am missing?

Other than IAEA violations, 19,000 uranium enrichment centrifuges and secret, fortified underground research facilities...I got nothin'.

originally posted by: Sremmos80
a reply to: xuenchen

Does that violation equal building the bomb?

Anybody's guess is up for grabs ain't it.

But it sure don't indicate the opposite.

a reply to: crazyewok

Not left. Hmmm. If it quacks like a duck, squats like a duck, waddles like a duck.....

As far as deflection, that's your game. The thread is re the Kingdom. That kingdom has just negated many of your rebuts and posts over time. Must be frustrating....My sympathies.

Here's a thought...start your own Freaking thread on Bush's mistake initiating in Gulf War II instead of Korean War II and see how much agreement you get on that one.

I, for one, am tired of your off-topic deflections...chaulk it up to a bad day....

originally posted by: IAMTAT

originally posted by: Sremmos80
a reply to: IAMTAT

Cause I haven't seen anything that says they are going for the bomb.

Care to show the info that I am missing?

Other than IAEA violations, 19,000 uranium enrichment centrifuges and secret, fortified underground research facilities...I got nothin'.

Oh that's funny.

*applause*