Egypt wants Iran to share The Bomb

Originally posted by SLAYER69

Originally posted by beezzer
While apt, the razor blade would only hurt the baby. In this case, everyone else except the baby gets hurt.

Who in their right mind would give a teething baby a razor blade or Egypt the bomb?

Iran?!

Who would give Saddam Hussein chemical weapons?

Hint, not Iran.

Originally posted by SLAYER69

Originally posted by beezzer
While apt, the razor blade would only hurt the baby. In this case, everyone else except the baby gets hurt.

Who in their right mind would give a teething baby a razor blade or Egypt the bomb?

Iran?!

Who would give Saddam Hussein chemical weapons?

Hint, not Iran.

Is the Illuminati on their side or our side.
The Illuminati do not give or share they drop the bomb.
Or will they Teslasize with disintegrator button bulb tech putting towns into the air.

Originally posted by buster2010
Seeing how Iran and Egypt has been threatened by countries that do possess nukes...

Yes, yes, yes, all the while ignoring real history of who has actually attacked whom in favor of opinionated online voodoo rhetoric...

Source
The 1948–49 War

As independence was declared, Arab forces from Egypt, Syria, Transjordan (later Jordan), Lebanon, and Iraq invaded Israel. Read more: Arab-Israeli Wars —

The 1973–74 War (The Yom Kippur War)

a two-pronged assault on Israel was launched. Egyptian forces struck eastward across the Suez Canal and pushed the Israelis back, while the Syrians advanced from the north. Iraqi forces joined the war and....

Originally posted by cconn487
Who would give Saddam Hussein chemical weapons?

Hint, not Iran.

Iraq's Chemical Weapons Program suppliers by country

• Singapore
  
• Brazil
  
• India
  
• Germany
  
• Spain
  
• Belgium
  
• Netherlands
  
• China
  
• France
  
• Britain
  
• United States of America
  

Source

Linky here
In the late 1970's, it was actually the German firm 'Karl Kobe' that sold Iraq the ingredients for it's first chemical weapons. Karl Kobe and others sold Iraq over 1,027 tons of the chemicals needed to produce mustard gas, Sarin, Tabun, and various tear gasses including CS and CN. The chemical weapons program was operational by late 1983/early 1984.

The United States CDC (Center for Disease Control) provided Iraq with biological samples up until 1989 for "Medical research and other purposes". The US supplied anthrax, West Nile virus, botulism, and Brucella melitensis to Iraq for little or no charge.

The United Kingdom paid, in full, for the Iraqi chlorine plant where mustard gas was manufactured. Brazil provided around 100 tons of mustard gas in the early 80's before the British funded plant was up and running. Singapore and India provided the ingredients for VX nerve agent and yet still more Tabun.

Egypt and Spain both provided the majority of Iraq's munitions that were designed to carry and disperse the chemical weapons. In 1984, a CIA leak reported to the Washington Post that the CIA was providing intel to the Iraqis, including the targeting information and coordinates where Iraq used it's chemical weapons against Iran.

reply to post by SLAYER69

Singapore Brazil India Germany Spain Belgium Netherlands China France Britain United States of America

Forgot Russia the west doesn't make scud launchers.

To the op:

Egypt should just ask those people who gave Iran the bomb plans and tech:

Pakistan and Russia hope they do and then get sanctioned, and we would stop giving billions to those people.

Originally posted by xxdaniel21
I find it very amusing when these threads pop up.

Why?

Go on, ask me why...

Here it comes....

Who has been the only country in the world to ever use "the bomb" domestically?

No matter who "wants the bomb" anymore, fact is only one country has ever used it. I wonder who that was?

It's funny how scared the west is 70 years later... Well, it's not comical "funny", rather ironic.

Anyway, bed time for me! Tomorrow's another day!

I find it funny that people think this is a good argument.

So just because our government decided to nuke someone in the past, every American in the history of history loses their right to ever be concerned about the spread of nukes? It's not possible for people to learn from the past in your eyes?

I'm sorry, but that's just ridiculous. I know how destructive they are, and I don't like that ANY countries are working to stockpile the power that could destroy our planet. Yes our use is the reason why the rest of the world wants one, but that's the problem, the rest of the world wants one. With each country that gets one, we increase the likelihood that some nutcase will inherit that power and use it again.

When America used their nukes, no other countries had one to respond with. That's no longer the case. As each country gains nukes, the response to those nukes will be other nukes.

Just because I was born in a country that used nukes before I was born, doesn't mean I can't fear the spread of that type of destructive power. There is nothing hypocritical about learning from history and hoping it doesn't repeat on a larger scale.

reply to post by mahatche



Sins of our Fathers....


Well written rebuttal.

The thing about nukes is that more people have been killed by that other WMD chemical weapons.

A weapon that can never be used is a useless weapon some people are stuck in the past the future?

Drones, and cyberwarfare far more destructive.

reply to post by SLAYER69


super link thanks
Nuclear Weapons Testing Countries
Greenpeace April 1996
archive.greenpeace.org...

So no delivery system test like sending off a missile with a war head to test viability.
Smart cause many things can go wrong.
We might recall the Russian Nuke plant testing the offline backup system that never came on.

We, as a species, are creating an environment for our own demise. We're justifying the ownership of weapons that would not just wipe out a current population, but insure that future growth is negated.

Sure, many countries currently have "the bomb". And aside from the use in Japan, many other wars and conflicts have been resolved without it's usage.

When it stops becoming a deterrent to all-out war and becomes a tool to enforce an ideology, regardless of the ideology, then it's presence on the world's stage needs to be re-examined.

Originally posted by neo96
The thing about nukes is that more people have been killed by that other WMD chemical weapons.

A weapon that can never be used is a useless weapon some people are stuck in the past the future?

Drones, and cyberwarfare far more destructive.

I'd say a nuke is only unusable if it's possessed by a stable leader with reasonable logic, but we can't assume every leader who inherits/develops a nuke will be stable and logical. History is full of unstable idiots leading nations. While I'm not preparing a 1950's style bomb shelter anytime soon, I don't believe the days of nuclear scares are behind us.

reply to post by mahatche


Got to but in here and say how much I agree with you.

Despite what many may have us believe the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings were carried out with the specific intention of shortening the war.
And it worked.
Perhaps the second bomb was unecessary - that's certainly open for debate - but given the circumstances who can argue with the result?

Of course it's absolutely tragic what happened to so many people.
And that is the whole point.

The whole world knows the effects of nuclear bombs and the devestating effect they have - it has been shown in no uncertain terms.
Imagine if the US had not carried out these bombings.
The Cold War starts and the arms race continues unabated.
All we have is theoretical imaginings of what MIGHT happen as a result of a nuclear bombing.
And all the time the bombs are getting bigger and even more deadly.
At some point, at some time, someone would have used one - and who knows what the outcome would have been?
But BECAUSE of Hiroshima no-one wants use these bombs.
MAD has been the single biggest reason there has not been a major military confrontation involving the world's super powers since WWII.
And those countries have proven their restraint by not using them despite how heated it got during The Cold War.

Now let's fast forward to today.
Can anyone hand on heart say that the same level of restraint will be shown by Iran, or Syria, or Egypt or Saudi Arabia etc.
And if there is even the slightest doubt that they won't then that is reason enough to stop them from having the capability - otherwise the consequences for the region, and possibly the whole of the world, could be disastrous.

reply to post by mahatche

I'd say a nuke is only unusable if it's possessed by a stable leader with reasonable logic, but we can't assume every leader who inherits/develops a nuke will be stable and logical.

Saddam disproves this

History is full of unstable idiots leading nations.

Yep the world is the same as it ever was.

While I'm not preparing a 1950's style bomb shelter anytime soon, I don't believe the days of nuclear scares are behind us.

Should be the government has theirs, and once the shtf hits they will pop their heads up out that praire dog hole and rinse and repeat.

Some of us have said all along one goes nuclear(iran) they all will(Egypt) then Saudi,then Jordan, Kuwait, etc.

Of course the MAD policy wiil be gone because religious theocracys see it as "breaking some eggs to make a omelet".

Just for craps and giggles you to can have a bunker!!!
www.hardenedstructures.com...

I thought Iran didn't have nuclear bomb ambitions. Didn't anybody tell Egypt?

reply to post by beezzer


Of course they want the bomb and that's because they view their neighbors & especially the USA as great threats.

I love polls.

Israel and the US are seen as more threatening than Iran | Arab opinion poll

english.dohainstitute.org...

March 06, 2012

The Arab Center for Research and Policy Studies (ACRPS) recently published the Arab Opinion Index report for 2011. The Arab Opinion Index project is currently the largest of its kind. It covers 12 countries, representing 85 percent of the population of the Arab world. The Index compiles the findings of 16,173 face-to-face interviews with subjects who were drawn from a random, representative sampling of the populations of their countries of origin. An estimated 35,000 human work-hours were spent completing the surveys which will contribute to the final, detailed statistical report

On a related note, the ACRPS will soon begin preparations for a further survey of public opinion in 2012 and plans to release the results at the end of this year or the beginning of 2013.

Some of the more important highlights of the survey that are included in the preliminary report are:

Answers show that a clear majority of Arabs support a democratic form of government, believing in the importance of a transfer of power.

Most respondents describe themselves as religious, while rejecting clerical influence in politics.

71 percent of respondents expressed faith in their countries’ armies; 47 percent trust their governments (the executive arms of), and 36 percent showed trust in their countries’ legislative bodies before the revolutions.

83 percent of respondents say that corruption is widespread in their countries.

Only 19 percent of respondents believe that their countries’ legal systems treat all citizens equitably.

73 percent of respondents believe that Israel and the US are the two countries presenting the largest threat to the security of the Arab world, with 51 percent believing that Israel is the most threatening, 22 percent believe the US is the most threatening, and 5 percent reporting a belief that Iran is the single country most threatening to the security of their countries. The results on this question vary from one Arab country to another.

84 percent believe the Palestinian cause to be a cause for all Arabs, and not solely a Palestinian issue.

67 percent of respondents believe that present levels of intra-Arab cooperation are not satisfactory.

Roughly three-quarters support lifting travel and trade restrictions between Arab countries, the establishment of joint Arab military forces, and a unified monetary system. This highlights the similar belief, uncovered by this survey and shared by a clear majority of the respondents, which holds that citizens of all Arab states belong to a unitary Arab nation.

Most respondents supported the Egyptian and the Tunisian revolutions.

Most respondents attributed the revolutions to corruption, dictatorship and the lack of justice and equality.

84 percent of respondents are opposed to their countries’ diplomatic recognition of Israel, with only 21 percent of respondents expressing support for the peace agreements signed with the Israelis by Jordan, Egypt, and Palestine.

55 percent support having the Middle East declared a nuclear-weapons-free zone, compared to 29 percent who would oppose such a move. The majority of the 55 percent believe that Israel’s possession of nuclear weapons justifies possession of such weapons by other countries in the region.

Why should the fire be shared with so few?
Let bombs explode, 'cause that's what they do
Nuke Mecca, New York, the Vatican too
Give me a bomb, I'll drop it on you

reply to post by zonetripper2065


I'd rather you carry it in your personal vest if you gotta do it.

reply to post by Swills


Arabs from 12 Arab countries see Israel as a threat.

Imagine that.
Not exactly Earth shattering findings.

reply to post by beezzer


IRAN = Shia + Persian
EGYPT = Sunni + Arab

They don't make enough popcorn...