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

One of these days and I've been threatening to do so for a couple of years now...


I'm going to write a very long in depth eye opening piece in the Ancient Cultures and Civ forum on the very ancient long forgotten trilateral relationship between the Hebrews, Persians and Arab.


Long, long.. before Judaism and Islam became the latest craze...

Once upon a time A LONG TIME AGO.....

a reply to: SLAYER69

Not so covert if Iran's "Supreme Leader" is coming out and telling everybody!

I think you said "can't have it both ways"...




I do think SA would love to see Iran fall...

No so confident in vice versa...


Maybe the House of Saud...

But not the homeland and burial site of our Prophet.


Iran would never nuke Mecca...
That's the Twilight Zone I'm currently living in!

originally posted by: SLAYER69
a reply to: CharlieSpeirs

Better question...

Is Khameini a willing mossad agent stooge by supporting Hamas so Israel can further it's Zionist agenda?

Oh I could speculate all day on whether or not Khameini is a plant.

But what would it accomplish?

originally posted by: CharlieSpeirs
a reply to: beezzer

So you trust Khameini to be honest?

I don't trust anyone.

Why are you so adamant that nukes aren't being developed?

I wanted to add; I sincerely hope you are right. I don't want to see nukes developed. But we have people citing leaders, inspection reports, what physical evidence can you cite/source/report that will convince me that Iran is not developing a nuclear bomb program?

a reply to: beezzer

Always give diplomacy a chance!

Here's the reality of Iran building or buying a nuke, they most likely will never do it and that's because they are under a constant microscope. Their religious beliefs aside, they know if they are caught with a nuke or material they will become Iraq|Libya 2.0, only this time Israel will be more than happy to lead the charge.

a reply to: IAMTAT

Good, as long as you're not giving Bush a pass. But let's not only focus on presidents because no matter who is in office the same agendas pretty much continue to run.

originally posted by: Swills
a reply to: beezzer

Always give diplomacy a chance!

Here's the reality of Iran building or buying a nuke, they most likely will never do it and that's because they are under a constant microscope. Their religious beliefs aside, they know if they are caught with a nuke or material they will become Iraq|Libya 2.0, only this time Israel will be more than happy to lead the charge.

Once they have a nuke, then it would be near impossible to attack/invade.

Because they'll have a nuke.

a reply to: beezzer

Nukes, one of those things humanity wishes it could uninvent.

One well placed Nuke, whether Missile quality or in a primitive basic rudimentary bulky state hidden in a shipping container, could ruin your whole day....

a reply to: crazyewok

How is attacking NK 'anti-war'? Look to your own definitions.....

originally posted by: SLAYER69
a reply to: beezzer

Nukes, one of those things humanity wishes it could uninvent.

One well placed Nuke whether Missile quality or a primitive basic rudimentary bulky state hidden in a shipping container could ruin your whole day....

So much truth there.


I'm not sure why, logically, people are so intent on allowing it.

a reply to: beezzer

I could site the UN & MOSSAD themselves...

There is an entire thread dedicated to MOSSAD denying Iranian Nukes contradicting the war cries of Netanyahu.



I think, personally, it's the threat of Iran with nukes that is over played, rather than Iran pursuing them.


I guess we are all different though!


Edit;

In an ideal world, no one would have nukes...

In the second most ideal world...
Everyone should have them...



Pretty much like guns...

Either none... Or all...

& any inbetween is a recipe for hegemony, bully tactics and superiority in a supposedly free world!

originally posted by: CharlieSpeirs
a reply to: beezzer

I could site the UN & MOSSAD themselves...

There is an entire thread dedicated to MOSSAD denying Iranian Nukes contradicting the war cries of Netanyahu.

Interesting that you would cite MOSSAD. So MOSSAD, you trust?

I think, personally, it's the threat of Iran with nukes that is over played, rather than Iran pursuing them.


I guess we are all different though!

Everyone is entitled to their own opinion.

originally posted by: beezzer

Interesting that you would cite MOSSAD. So MOSSAD, you trust?

Ok, you owe me for keyboard cleaning service.

*Wipes coffee from his nose, screen and chin

originally posted by: beezzer

originally posted by: CharlieSpeirs
a reply to: beezzer

I could site the UN & MOSSAD themselves...

There is an entire thread dedicated to MOSSAD denying Iranian Nukes contradicting the war cries of Netanyahu.

Interesting that you would cite MOSSAD. So MOSSAD, you trust?

I think, personally, it's the threat of Iran with nukes that is over played, rather than Iran pursuing them.


I guess we are all different though!

Everyone is entitled to their own opinion.

I see how it could appear that way...


I'm more inclined to think, if MOSSAD say they have nukes, they could be pushing for something...

If MOSSAD say they don't, what are they fishing for?




MOSSAD can be trustworthy, like the CIA, MI5-6 etc...

There are times when that does sometimes become an unproductive trust if we were to believe them 100%.

Everyone is entitled to their own opinion.

Indeed Beezer!

One area not discussed here to a great extent, is that with a proliferation of nuclear weapons throughout countries in the M.E. (not singling out any in particular), the obvious instability of many of these countries...as well as these countries' propensity for state-sponsored terrorism,...the potential for nuclear weapons to find their way into the possession of terrorist groups is greatly enhanced.

Is'n't this something ALL here can agree on?

Imagine if Syria's nuclear program had not been destroyed years ago...isn't it very possible that nuclear material and/or weapons would be in the hands of ISIS or A.Q. as we speak?

originally posted by: Swills
a reply to: beezzer

We can thank the Bush administration for allowing NoKo to acquire nukes under their watch. NoKo's first nuke test was in 2006.

And Clinton was the guy with Madeleine Albright who laid the groundwork by allowing the Norks to have nuclear energy for "peaceful purposes."

a reply to: CharlieSpeirs

“In the area of nuclear of weapons,” the report stated, “there is continued R&D activity at SPND, under the Iranian Defense Ministry, which we understand is intended for accumulating know-how and creating an organizational framework [which] it will be able to make use of to produce nuclear fuel, when the order is given.”

And finally, the full passage from which the quote was cherry picked: “Bottom line: Though Iran at this stage is not performing the activity necessary to produce weapons, it is working to close gaps in areas that appear legitimate such as enrichment, reactors, which will reduce the time required to produce weapons from the time the instruction is actually given.”

In other words, Netanyahu and the Mossad agree that Iran is in pursuit of a bomb and is continually closing in on that objective; that it has advanced on two tracks, uranium and plutonium; and that it has amassed enough five-percent-enriched uranium for several bombs, some of which has been further enriched to 20%. The only disunity between the two assessments regards the rate of enrichment.

www.timesofisrael.com...

I'm familiar with the articles that cite MOSSAD in saying that they contradict Netenyahu's statements.

So we come down to trusting agencies that interpret MOSSAD's reports.

originally posted by: beezzer

originally posted by: SLAYER69
a reply to: beezzer

Nukes, one of those things humanity wishes it could uninvent.

One well placed Nuke whether Missile quality or a primitive basic rudimentary bulky state hidden in a shipping container could ruin your whole day....

So much truth there.


I'm not sure why, logically, people are so intent on allowing it.

Im not.

I just wan FIRM solid proof before any action rather than relying on the world of proven lairs who brought such catastrophes as Iraq.

Iran has a Long way to go IF they are trying to produce nukes. In that time we should give diplomacy a try.
We have nothing to lose and everything to gain.

IF they are trying to produce nukes then they will have to do underground test. That would give a very clear signal then.

And IF they do do that then should it not be the Israelis that go in first?

Surely you don't want the USA to go marching in half cocked like Iraq and end up in a even bigger mess ?

Surely IF and I mean IF military action id required you would want it based on firm evidence and when diplomatic option have been exhausted?

a reply to: IAMTAT

The US and others have a special team already trained and all armed up to go into countries like Pakistan if their arsenal are threatened by certain groups, there is a very old thread around here someplace. Tried but failed to find a linky for you.

It wouldn't be an easy, quick nor clean job, More like a severe brute force approach but one I think all those who are level headed would agree to it being carried out.

a reply to: crazyewok

I'm still not clear on the assertion that they HAVE to test a nuclear weapon prior to it's use.

America and Russia and Pakistan and India and the UK and France etc all have and develop nuclear weapons, yet they don't test those.

Once Iran does have a nuclear weapon, then it'd be too late to stop them. Who wants to attack a country with a nuclear capability?