When it comes to nuclear talks with a government with a bad history why would you even consider letting them make a nuclear weapon which could potentially destroy the world? Example: Letting Charles Manson out of prison because he has served his time and he is rehabilitated and he goes back to killing
whaaaaat? Israel strongest ally lol what about canada? Without the help of usa, israel would be called Palestine today
Alright, if you want to ignore the majority of my post, that's fine. I'm not completely sure what is happening inside the talks, but, I'm sure the U.S. won't just let them make a nuke without being under heavy supervision/have strict regulations to follow. On the point if your example: You're using what Iran "could" do with a nuke with an example of what you think Charles Manson will do after he is let out of prison. Not a very good example, since you gave the ending away.
. I dont think you get how the world and humanity works. Money and power have always excused everything in history.
Hopefully the supervision will be better than that of the commander of the third reich when he was invading smaller European countries and everyone kept turning a blind eye when he promised to stop. And then would invade another The difference is we are talking about nuclear weapons. Not blitzkrieg attacks. As bush said "you fool me once... You full me once we can't get fooled again." Literally, if Iran fools us, we can't get fooled again. Since of course, we will be a nuclear wasteland.
Nuclear wasteland. I doubt it. Pakistan, India, China, and Russia have nukes. The are right there next to Iran. The only realistic option they would have in using nukes would be expand into portions of Iraq, and Afghanistan. Which they seem to be already accomplishing without the aid of a nuclear armement. With nuclear weapons, moving west would be a lot more feesable. Through Iraq and into the Arabian Peninsula all the way to the Mediterranean Sea. They may be able easily accomplish this through insurgency, with the aided politcal leverage of nuclear arms. Can they do? Will they do it? The Iranian revolutionary guard is a regional fighting force. With the instability in Iraq and surrounding area. I personally think they have a chance without nukes. So you have to ask yourself. What does a empowered Iranian Empire in the Middle East look like? A nation protected by nuclear weapons. What realistic ways to we have in combating such a threat. Respectfully. A threat to mainland USA, I don't think so. The advantages they gain from nuclear weapons, would most likely be enough to stop such a thing. The consequences are sever. With the geopolitical alignments, right now. Iran wouldn't even be a threat to mainland Europe. Using a insurgency/nuclear tactic. It's hard to judge. It been nothing, except war conditions in the region for a very long time. A militant culture is the normal. In these kind of politcal games the margin of error is low. The consequence is great. The reward is minimal. Especially from a citizens point of view. Having another nuclear armed state doesn't benefit me. So I have to ask myself. How does Iran having nuclear weapons effect me?
Last time some Empire from Iran area came expanding, they ran into 300 buff naked dudes with shields and swords at the hot gates
Or they beat the Byzantine empire and killed an emperor... There is much more to the regions history than the Persian empire.
Um, no. This claim originated in a Kuwaiti newspaper and doesn't list any sources, so it's hardly "knowledge" even by your low standards. As for Israel, I'm an American, not an Israeli, and my thoughts are if Israel launches a strike on Iran, it's on them and they should be on their own. I'm not in favor of losing any American lives or spending any of my tax dollars to bail out Israel if they start a war with Iran. If you and the rest of the neo-conservative circus are all gung ho to fight for Israel, by all means, take your goofy ass over there and join the IDF.
Let's start with you're clueless. Here's a little history for you. Iran has no reason to love the United States. We've been meddling in their internal affairs since WW2 when we invaded and occupied the country in order to prevent the Axis from getting access to their oil. After the war, American and British oil companies basically took over running the country. When the Iranians objected and democratically elected a new President who wanted more control over their own oil, we used the CIA and British help to overthrow him and install Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, the Shah of Iran, into power. Pahlavi was thug who spent years making himself rich and using his power and American assistance to brutally suppress any opposition to him. By 1979 things had gotten so bad Iran had a revolution and the Shah was forced to flee the country. This was when Iranian students took over the US Embassy in Tehran, holding 52 Americans hostage for 444 days and the Mullahs took control of the country. Most Americans, like you, only remember the hostage taking and the Mullahs taking over. They're oblivious to the fact that America was screwing with Iranian internal affairs for over thirty years. We created the conditions that allowed the Mullahs to take over. And let's not forget the constant hostility we've displayed to them since then, or John McCain singing "Bomb Iran". We've made it quite clear we consider them our enemy. And you're indignant because they made a mock up of a US aircraft carrier and bombed it? The horror. Had Iran done the same thing to America that we've done to them, you'd be flipping outraged and demanding a real aircraft carrier be bombed.
Dragon is someone who knows history, unlike you. BTW, if that's the best response your ass could come up with you might want to consider staying out of the forum. You'll spare yourself a lot of embarrassment.
Enjoy: "President George W. Bush’s administration concluded that a military strike on Iran’s nuclear facilities would be a bad idea — and would only make it harder to prevent Iran from going nuclear in the future, former CIA and National Security Agency (NSA) chief Gen. Michael Hayden said Thursday. “When we talked about this in the government, the consensus was that [attacking Iran] would guarantee that which we are trying to prevent — an Iran that will spare nothing to build a nuclear weapon and that would build it in secret,” Former CIA director and Secretary of Defense Robert Gates agreed in 2009: Testifying before the Senate Appropriations committee, Mr Gates outlined the central objection to using force to halt Iran’s nuclear programme. "All of the country’s known nuclear installations, notably the crucial uranium enrichment plant in Natanz, could in principle be destroyed. But the Iranian regime would eventually be able to rebuild them – and it would almost certainly do so without admitting the inspectors from the International Atomic Energy Agency, who presently monitor Iran’s most important nuclear plants. A military strike would only delay Iran’s nuclear programme, while the regime’s resolve to build a weapon, if it so chooses, may only be hardened. “Even a military attack will only buy us time and send the programme deeper and more covert,” said Mr Gates, during the hearing on Thursday." http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2012/01/ ... -bomb.html Allow me to explain it to you. A strike against Iran will NOT stop them from building a bomb. It would only delay it. Short of invading and occupying Iran in perpetuity, we CAN NOT stop them from building a bomb, period. You can bluster about it all you want, but that's the situation. A military strike on Iran will make the situation worse, not better. Think Iraq war. Wishful thinking isn't a good basis to make policy decisions. Like it or not negotiating a deal with Iran backed by threat of sanctions is the best option we have. If Bibi doesn't like it, too flipping bad. I don't see Bibi offering to give up the estimated 80 nuclear weapons Israel has, nor do I see Bibi offering to allow IAE inspectors into his country to look at them.
Here's a thought. Currently, one of the issues being debated (if you can call some of the uneducated hate filled rhetoric as such) is whether the US should be attempting to create a deal with Iran regarding their nuclear status. The very basic tenants of any deal (as we have absolutely no specifics yet), would be a reduction of sanctions in exchange for a limitation on Iran's nuclear capability, complete with inspections. On one hand we have the possibility of creating a dialogue with a nation that we have been at odds with for a while, while at the same time monitoring their nuclear facilities to prevent the weaponization of their nuclear program. On the other hand, we keep the economic sanctions in place, which does nothing to restrain or discourage Iran from continued attempts to create nuclear weapons, and in fact leaves Iran no viable option to avoid sanctions except by creating nuclear weapons to be able to threaten their way out. Are there any non-ignorant arguments as to why we should not even make the attempt to see if we can arrive at a diplomatic solution to prevent or delay Iran's nuclear weapon capability? (Any arguments on the deal being bad are necessarily ignorant and void as there is no deal on the table as yet).
all i understood was im a fake american, we owe all nations something because we stuck our nose in their business im for the down fall of america i am packing my bags as i post to join my muslim family back east. Thank you dragon for letting us all know how fake of an american you are.
Dont forget to vote for dragon 2016 he will follow his fathers footsteps in the white house. #Dragon2016 He knows all of history after all he is a 61516351 year old dragon :lol:
You're confused. I didn't say you were a fake American. I implied you were a stupid American. And it's not that we "owe" a nation because we meddled in their affairs. It's a reason why they don't like us. People like you never bother to consider the other side of anything. Hell, people like you don't even think there is another side. There's only your side. And by all means, explain how I'm a fake American because I don't support sending Americans to die for Israel if Israel attacks Iran. I'd really love to hear the logic behind that.