Obama Administration LIES about Iranian nuclear program being frozen

originally posted by: ScientificRailgun

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: ScientificRailgun

Oh good. I thought I was the only one who could see more possibilities than JUST the Obama Administration being the ones who are lying.

Hell, I wouldn't be surprised if everyone is lying to everyone here.

Any reason for people sling more mud at Emperor God-King And Eternal Ayatollah Barack "Put them in stocks" Obama.

You just pretty much described and detailed our current president's ambitions for the immediate future. I couldnt have done better myself. Thanks

originally posted by: ScientificRailgun
Indeed. Doesn't mean I have to like it though.

Nope. You don't have to like it at all.

The sad reality is, it's not a question of if, but when someone decides to use a nuclear weapon against a neighbor. Be it a terrorist attack, a defensive action, a precursor to invasion, or whatever. It's going to happen.

I'm more worried about a chemical or biological attack myself. The materials and instructions to make nuclear devices are SO strictly controlled (and not to mention easily detected with a Geiger counter) that obtaining the parts in this world would be exceedingly difficult. I feel it would be much easier to build a chemical or biological bomb.

I only hope the world responds intelligently when that does happen. I like PLAYING the fallout series of games. Not so much living it.

If there is something we can count on is that the world will lose its collective # if it happened. The events following 9/11 will look like Libertarianism compared to what would happen if a nuclear device went off in the world.

originally posted by: Gothmog

originally posted by: ScientificRailgun

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: ScientificRailgun

Oh good. I thought I was the only one who could see more possibilities than JUST the Obama Administration being the ones who are lying.

Hell, I wouldn't be surprised if everyone is lying to everyone here.

Any reason for people sling more mud at Emperor God-King And Eternal Ayatollah Barack "Put them in stocks" Obama.

You just pretty much described and detailed our current president's ambitions for the immediate future. I couldnt have done better myself. Thanks

You know, the leftists said the same oblivious crap that you are right now, when Bush was nearing the end of his second term. "He'll declare martial law and make this country a dictatorship!"

Guess what? It didn't happen. I can't wait for Obama to leave office if only for the sadistic pleasure I'll derive from coming here and watching all of you "Dictator Obama" people eat crow.

a reply to: Greathouse

How many wars has Iran started? How many has Israel started? Exactly. That's why I trust Iran with nuclear weapons before trusting Israel with them. If you are suggesting that even though Israel has them and won't report them but isn't using them and will continue not to, then I think it is MORE likely that if Iran got the bomb they wouldn't use it either, regardless of whatever anti-American rhetoric is coming from their country.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

Read your first line and saw you were making excuses again. I stopped there !!!


To me the core issue is not right or wrong it's nuclear proliferation. So I assume you support everyone getting nuclear weapons instead of getting rid of them?

originally posted by: ScientificRailgun

originally posted by: Gothmog

originally posted by: ScientificRailgun

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: ScientificRailgun

Oh good. I thought I was the only one who could see more possibilities than JUST the Obama Administration being the ones who are lying.

Hell, I wouldn't be surprised if everyone is lying to everyone here.

Any reason for people sling more mud at Emperor God-King And Eternal Ayatollah Barack "Put them in stocks" Obama.

You just pretty much described and detailed our current president's ambitions for the immediate future. I couldnt have done better myself. Thanks

You know, the leftists said the same oblivious crap that you are right now, when Bush was nearing the end of his second term. "He'll declare martial law and make this country a dictatorship!"

Guess what? It didn't happen. I can't wait for Obama to leave office if only for the sadistic pleasure I'll derive from coming here and watching all of you "Dictator Obama" people eat crow.

Or there is no here for you to come back to......

originally posted by: Greathouse
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Read your first line and saw you were making excuses again. I stopped there !!!


To me the core issue is not right or wrong it's nuclear proliferation. So I assume you support everyone getting nuclear weapons instead of getting rid of them?

But if we ban nuclear weapons, only the BAD guys will have nuclear weapons!

Oh, wait. This isn't a 2nd amendment thread. Carry on.

a reply to: Greathouse

Like I told ScientificRailgun, nukes exist, they won't unexist. Getting rid of nuclear weapons isn't going to happen. The instructions on how to make them already exist. As a species, we have to deal with trying to cope in a world that has these weapons whether we like it or not.

I would love more than anything for nukes to be gone from this world forever, but it is silly to assume such a thing would ever happen. Even when Russia and the US agreed to disarm their ICBM's in the 80's, they STILL reneged on their deals and kept a few in service "just in case".

YAY! Nukes for Iran!

Personally, I have to honestly believe that this IS the goal of the Obama administration.

That way, everyone is "equal".

a reply to: Krazysh0t

I don't give up quite so easily. I at least retain the hope the world will come to their senses . But that hope will be stretched even farther as more countries are allowed to develop nuclear weapons .

a reply to: Greathouse

Like I said, the instructions on how to make them exist. Even if tomorrow every country that has them got rid of them and every country trying to get them stopped trying to get them, the instructions exist so all it would take is one person building one and we are back where we started. Or one of those countries trying to obtain them could just ignore any agreements to get rid of nukes and build them in secret.

Look at NK, do you think they'd agree to any nuclear disarmament treaties? Hell no. They'll just continue building up their nuclear program regardless of what the rest of the world is doing. Israel can't even bother to report their nuclear weapons. I would NEVER trust them to willingly disarm them.

Your desire to see a world without nukes is like wishing to see a world without guns. It's impossible.

What I find amusing is that just a few short months ago, many of the same posters were arguing that Iran WASN'T developing nuclear weapons.

Now they are, but claiming that they'll never use them.

What'll happen when Iran does use one? Say that since America did, it's okay for Iran also?

a reply to: beezzer

Actually there is still no evidence that they are using this nuclear stockpile to make nuclear weapons. All that is occurring is that Iran is still growing its nuclear stockpile despite America saying that it had stopped. So Iran may or may not be using it to make bombs. We don't know yet.

a reply to: Krazysh0t


So in that case you support the the poliferation of nuclear weapons correct ? I mean that's basically what your saying.

You've avoided answering my question and only given reasons why we are not going to have nuclear disarmament .


Your reasoning seems to be right in line with Archie Bunkers reasoning on how to prevent hijackings on airplanes .


He said give everyone a gun that gets on the airplane and no one can hijack one!! Lol


I'm sorry no matter which position you choose to defend, poliferation of nuclear weapons is a bad idea .

originally posted by: Greathouse
a reply to: Krazysh0t

I don't give up quite so easily. I at least retain the hope the world will come to their senses . But that hope will be stretched even farther as more countries are allowed to develop nuclear weapons .

Had the world come to it's senses then everyone would have singed the NPT which allows inspectors into nations to inspect and report if a nation is developing nukes. So the more "countries will be allowed to develop nukes" theory simply doesn't pan out. What the world needs to do is isolate the nations that didn't sign the NPT and place heavy economic sanctions against them until they sign the NPT and dismantle their nuclear weapons programs.

a reply to: beezzer

What I find amusing is that just a few short months ago, many of the same posters were arguing that Iran WASN'T developing nuclear weapons.

We are still pointing out that there is no evidence that Iran is building them. We understand that just because Benny thinks it doesn't make it a reality.

Now they are, but claiming that they'll never use them.

They are basing that off the fact that Iran hasn't started a war for centuries.

What'll happen when Iran does use one? Say that since America did, it's okay for Iran also?

More than likely they will do like they did when America used them. Heavily condemn the act.

a reply to: buster2010

Had the world come to it's senses then everyone would have singed the NPT

I have learned one thing. It is impossible to predict the future. I still retain hope that this or another solution may come to pass.


But I still reiterate my opinion. It will be far safer for the world to limit the number of countries that have nuclear weapons.

originally posted by: Greathouse
a reply to: Krazysh0t
So in that case you support the the poliferation of nuclear weapons correct ? I mean that's basically what your saying.

I'd say that I'd rather it didn't happen, but I can understand a country's desire to be armed. I wouldn't suggest giving a country a nuclear weapon that didn't have nuclear weapons for instance.

You've avoided answering my question and only given reasons why we are not going to have nuclear disarmament .

My answer is complicated. I don't like either or answers and don't appreciate you automatically thinking I have the exact opposite idea that you do.

Your reasoning seems to be right in line with Archie Bunkers reasoning on how to prevent hijackings on airplanes .

He said give everyone a gun that gets on the airplane and no one can hijack one!! Lol

Isn't that the same reasoning given by pro-2nd amendment people? An armed society is a polite society.

I'm sorry no matter which position you choose to defend, poliferation of nuclear weapons is a bad idea .

Sometimes the only choices you have are a handful of bad ones.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

Seems to me that this answer ...........

I'd say that I'd rather it didn't happen, but I can understand a country's desire to be armed. I wouldn't suggest giving a country a nuclear weapon that didn't have nuclear weapons for instance.

Contradicts the answer ................,

My answer is complicated. I don't like either or answers and don't appreciate you automatically thinking I have the exact opposite idea that you do.

The question is black and white. If you support other countries developing nuclear weapons by definition you are supporting the poliferation of nuclear weapons .

a reply to: Greathouse

Well if you want to be so narrow minded, that's on you. I choose to think differently. But again, at the end of the day, I don't prefer this. I just don't stand opposed to it.

To be honest, I don't like America meddling in other countries' politics anyways. I prefer isolationism in that regard.