Making the case against Iran's government.

a reply to: Wide-Eyes

Hehehe you're funny..................

I care nothing for Iran but there is a case for stopping them getting nukes and also exporting terror worldwide. Sure Iranians are fairly decent to their minorities compared to many of their neighbours but they have to be stopped acquiring nukes whatever it takes.

Its me old mouse double clicking

a reply to: ufoorbhunter

But all three countries you listed they don't have nuke programs anymore do they?

Nor did they have them in the first place and your point is what....?

mute!

:-)

a reply to: purplemer

They had nuke programs, they don't now = No threat to the west. Pure and simple, taking out their facilities works

originally posted by: ufoorbhunter
a reply to: purplemer

They had nuke programs, they don't now = No threat to the west. Pure and simple, taking out their facilities works

Really go and get the nukes then. Show me. Just like they had wepons of mass destruction and just like they where behind 911. All countries are entitled to develop nuclear energy.

I would be more worried about the countries that have actually used these wepons. ie the USA who is the only country that has bombed civilian targets with them and funny enough was happy to use depleted uranium in Iraq. The children are still being born deformed.

But hey ho go back to your mainstream media and enjoy it

:-)

a reply to: ufoorbhunter

Registered: 17-3-2007 Location: UK Mood: 50/50 Member was on ATS 10 minutes ago 4,393 162 6,081,960 35487 20767 posted on May, 15 2018 @ 06:29 AM link quote reply a reply to: Wide-Eyes Hehehe you're funny.................. I care nothing for Iran but there is a case for stopping them getting nukes and also exporting terror worldwide. Sure Iranians are fairly decent to their minorities compared to many of their neighbours but they have to be stopped acquiring nukes whatever it takes.

Yes would you not state there is a case for removing these weapons from countries that have obtained them illegally.. You dont have to answer. It may be above your pay grade :-)

originally posted by: purplemer

originally posted by: ufoorbhunter
a reply to: purplemer

They had nuke programs, they don't now = No threat to the west. Pure and simple, taking out their facilities works

Really go and get the nukes then. Show me. Just like they had wepons of mass destruction and just like they where behind 911. All countries are entitled to develop nuclear energy.

I would be more worried about the countries that have actually used these wepons. ie the USA who is the only country that has bombed civilian targets with them and funny enough was happy to use depleted uranium in Iraq. The children are still being born deformed.

But hey ho go back to your mainstream media and enjoy it

:-)

Your lack of knowledge of the targets in Japan adds to misconception. Both Japanese targets were industrial cities that supplied material for Japan's war efforts. My understanding is that was part of the target selection process. Cutting through your rhetoric, there is no point in having nukes if use of them is out of the question. That's their value. Deterrence.

Japan was tenacious, to say the least. The use of the two bombs saved 100s of thousands of U.S. lives. Period.

Frankly, it's you who has depended on 'mainstream media'. Just as your Iraq WDMs comment. It won't be the MSM that tells you the U.S. gave chemical weapons to Saddam, gave anthrax seeds to Saddam. He had them. He used them against the Kurds in the north. Even up to a couple of years ago, they were finding degraded chemical weapons in Iraq. But you won't find it on the MSM.

As far as Iran and Nukes go, here's a analogy. Even the U.S. with it's Constitutional right to arms doesn't allow everyone that right. Criminals and the insane are banned from owning weapons. Yes?

Well the perception and evidence is both NK and Iran have loony tune leaders. We have/had a non-proliferation agreement which restricted further nuclear weapons development. That has disappeared in favor of Corporate profit, apparently.

The fact is every nation doesn't have the right to nukes. Never has, never will.

There still is a chance that economic and political pressure can cause a change of heart with the Ayatollahs. It has with NK and if that one goes through and we end up with normal relations with NK, the chances go up with Iran, as well.

If it doesn't work, then I'd rather take those facilities out now rather than down the road when they are 'nuked up'.

originally posted by: purplemer
a reply to: ufoorbhunter

Registered: 17-3-2007 Location: UK Mood: 50/50 Member was on ATS 10 minutes ago 4,393 162 6,081,960 35487 20767 posted on May, 15 2018 @ 06:29 AM link quote reply a reply to: Wide-Eyes Hehehe you're funny.................. I care nothing for Iran but there is a case for stopping them getting nukes and also exporting terror worldwide. Sure Iranians are fairly decent to their minorities compared to many of their neighbours but they have to be stopped acquiring nukes whatever it takes.

Yes would you not state there is a case for removing these weapons from countries that have obtained them illegally.. You dont have to answer. It may be above your pay grade :-)

Hmmm, you know perfectly well the potential cost of taking out weapons already developed from countries that obtained them 'illegally' has too high a price. Legal and illegal is nothing but semantics when it comes to nukes.

The reason you avoid that point is it aligns completely with the logic of preventing further spread of nukes, especially when the leadership of the two nations in question are in that 'loony bin' area code.

The simple fact is this IS coming down. Iran will bend on it or the U.S. or Israel will act. If not the U.S. then Israel.

The US government has been arming rebels for decades to overthrow governments. By US standards, it is a normal and ethical action. It was even done on Iran.

I guess it is an action reserved for the US only though.

a reply to: purplemer

There is no way joke countries should be allowed to obtain nukes. It's just plain as anything demented to let places like Iran and Iraq develop nukes. They can't be allowed. Bad # for the local people over there but if push comes to shove and we are kept safe in the West then any means needed should be used to neutralise the threat. We got to put ourselves and our civilisation first

originally posted by: roadgravel
The US government has been arming rebels for decades to overthrow governments. By US standards, it is a normal and ethical action. It was even done on Iran.

I guess it is an action reserved for the US only though.

The OP clearly stated none were without sin. Using others to justify Iran's isn't going to get traction as the issue is, long term, Nukes. Short term, the U.S. and to some degree, Israel cools off, when the Ayatollahs are replaced. (Hopefully the U.S. withdraws from the ME at that point.)

Yes, taking out oppressive leadership in the ME has resulted in 'destabilizing' those nations with incompetent replacements. That's too bad. Qadaffi had a nuclear program as well- he shut it down when he saw the writing on the wall and pictures of Saddam pulled out of a rat hole- but that falls on the civilian population of those nations.

Leaving nuclear ambitions with psychotic leaders is a disaster in the making. We made that mistake with Pakistan it cannot be repeated.

a reply to: nwtrucker

I am not 100% either way with Iran and nukes.

I worry that the US has too much faith in it's leadership to not be evil. The leadership seems to be about them self, not the people. The average American doesn't see the relationship between 9-11 and the US government involvement in foreign affairs. Lots of sin in our country. It is easy to root for the home team.

Some times it needs to be seen from the other's point of view. There sure are a lot of people saying to nuke Iran. That isn't really reasonable and normal.

originally posted by: roadgravel
a reply to: nwtrucker

I am not 100% either way with Iran and nukes.

I worry that the US has too much faith in it's leadership to not be evil. The leadership seems to be about them self, not the people. The average American doesn't see the relationship between 9-11 and the US government involvement in foreign affairs. Lots of sin in our country. It is easy to root for the home team.

Some times it needs to be seen from the other's point of view. There sure are a lot of people saying to nuke Iran. That isn't really reasonable and normal.

I haven't seen anyone saying 'nuke Iran'. Not on ATS , at least. I've always suspected comments like that are troll originated. The intent being to make right supportesr look bad. I suppose there might be a few both ways.

Senior to that, I hold no reservations that nuclear proliferation will be the eventual doom of this civilization.

I haven't seen anyone saying 'nuke Iran'. Not on ATS , at least.

It is in threads here.

Senior to that, I hold no reservations that nuclear proliferation will be the eventual doom of this civilization.

It has been said for quite awhile and there is still times to come true. Some times I think humans are to immature for some of the developments we have made. (such as nuclear weapons)

originally posted by: Wardaddy454

originally posted by: intrepid

originally posted by: nwtrucker
Israel's way or the U.S.'s....

Good luck with that. Iran isn't a cakewalk like the other countries over there that you haven't been able to take over.

Canada was involved too

Yup. Afghanistan but not Iraq.

originally posted by: intrepid

originally posted by: Wardaddy454

originally posted by: intrepid

originally posted by: nwtrucker
Israel's way or the U.S.'s....

Good luck with that. Iran isn't a cakewalk like the other countries over there that you haven't been able to take over.

Canada was involved too

Yup. Afghanistan but not Iraq.

Canada was involved in Iraq as well. Canadian Exchange Officers.

Also, You guys helped with rebuilding Iraq and forming its constitution.

a reply to: nwtrucker

Did you know Israel is the only country known to have developed nuclear weapons illegally against international conventions? Why wasn’t they stopped?

Also it was the west that got the Ayatollahs in power in the first place? It was a secular country before then. You should do more research

The sad thing is there is a sizeable anti-regime movement in Iran working towards democracy by peaceful means they'll no doubt be pushed aside by some Trump/Bolton fascist or terrorist group at best or at worst the place is going to end up like Libya

a reply to: ufoorbhunter

Honestly mate, Iran are the last of our problems. We have enough domestic threats that outweigh Iran any day of the week.

originally posted by: intrepid

originally posted by: Wardaddy454

originally posted by: intrepid

originally posted by: nwtrucker
Israel's way or the U.S.'s....

Good luck with that. Iran isn't a cakewalk like the other countries over there that you haven't been able to take over.

Canada was involved too

Yup. Afghanistan but not Iraq.

I believe the Air Force was involve in Gulf War I. They flew CAP with CF-18s.