Is the world teetering at the very edge?

[pickles]

The question we have to ask ourselves is, is it better to break the taboo now and use them, or is it better to do nothing and run the risk of Iran developing the technology and leaking it to terrorist groups who would not hesitate to use it.

What do you mean 'break the taboo'?...that was done over 60 years ago!

Letting Israel develop nuclear weapons was actually allowing them to 'fall into the hands' of 'terrorists of their day' who might use them, so double standards seem to apply here!!

Ahh, just like the good old days in here again.

Whats Israel got to do with it, they have had a weapons programme for years, in what way are they a terrorist threat to the West, when did they threaten to use a nuclear weapon on a European or American city. Are you seriously suggesting that they would. Al queda are openly trying to acquire the technology to do this and have made it clear why.

Perhaps you think Mossad was behind 9/11 too.

To have a taboo Ellal you have to have a set of circumstances that creates it. In this case it was the destruction at Hiroshima and Nagasaki that made the worlds nations feel that the use of these weapons could never be justified ie, it was taboo.

Anyway, "one mans terrorist is another mans freedom fighter" has never been truer than it is in the Middle east so I don't see that arguing about "double standards" or whose a terrorist gets the debate anywhere. It has to be said that by the time they developed the weapons programme in the 50's and 60's most nations had recognised the state of Israel so I don't see that you could call them terrorists in any conventional sense. Israel has only recently acknowledged that they have nuclear weapons and they have certainly never had a motive for for using it offensively. They are not trying to change the world by destroying a way of life that spans half the globe, just defend their borders.

Iran is the cutting edge of Islamic expansionism, many of it's political leaders openly support the world view we associate with Al quaeda. Do you really think they should have a nuclear weapon. I can't be bothered to go through it all again but once you have the plutonium the basic technology of a Hiroshima type weapon is easy, very easy if you don't care if you live or die making it.

 

[ellal]

Ahh, just like the good old days in here again.

yeah, I know what you mean - the same old apologist cr*p again...

Whats Israel got to do with it

What's Israel got to do with it?...Doh!... that is what this report about a possible first strike is about, or havn't you read the links?

they have had a weapons programme for years, in what way are they a terrorist threat to the West, when did they threaten to use a nuclear weapon on a European or American city. Are you seriously suggesting that they would.

So, as long as a weapon doesn't threaten the west it's ok?...but they (Israel) are threatening another nation, so I guess Iran are being totally irrational in their approach eh?

Perhaps you think Mossad was behind 9/11 too.

What's THAT got to do with it...

Anyway, "one mans terrorist is another mans freedom fighter" has never been truer than it is in the Middle east so I don't see that arguing about "double standards" or whose a terrorist gets the debate anywhere. It has to be said that by the time they developed the weapons programme in the 50's and 60's most nations had recognised the state of Israel so I don't see that you could call them terrorists in any conventional sense.

That's OK then...The Stern Gang (who became leaders of Israel) were given the green light to acquire WMD's, whereas 'conventional' terrorists weren't - pretty f*cked up logic there!...

Iran is the cutting edge of Islamic expansionism, many of it's political leaders openly support the world view we associate with Al quaeda.

And there was me thinking that it was Saudi Arabia where the majority of 'Al Quaeda' came from...you know, that regime that the west supports..

 

[solo]

oh no. looks like I'm going to have to paint all the windows again and unscrew some doors. the best thing would be just to nuke the lot of them, or better still use a couple of neutron bombs so that the oilfields stay intact. it's ridiculous that such a bunch of people, barely above the level of caveman hold such sway in the world due to an accident of geography. let's get rid now. things will only worsen as oil stocks deplete.

 

[pickles]

Ahh, just like the good old days in here again.

yeah, I know what you mean - the same old apologist cr*p again...

Whats Israel got to do with it

What's Israel got to do with it?...Doh!... that is what this report about a possible first strike is about, or havn't you read the links?

they have had a weapons programme for years, in what way are they a terrorist threat to the West, when did they threaten to use a nuclear weapon on a European or American city. Are you seriously suggesting that they would.

So, as long as a weapon doesn't threaten the west it's ok?...but they (Israel) are threatening another nation, so I guess Iran are being totally irrational in their approach eh?

Perhaps you think Mossad was behind 9/11 too.

What's THAT got to do with it...

Anyway, "one mans terrorist is another mans freedom fighter" has never been truer than it is in the Middle east so I don't see that arguing about "double standards" or whose a terrorist gets the debate anywhere. It has to be said that by the time they developed the weapons programme in the 50's and 60's most nations had recognised the state of Israel so I don't see that you could call them terrorists in any conventional sense.

That's OK then...The Stern Gang (who became leaders of Israel) were given the green light to acquire WMD's, whereas 'conventional' terrorists weren't - pretty f*cked up logic there!...

Iran is the cutting edge of Islamic expansionism, many of it's political leaders openly support the world view we associate with Al quaeda.

And there was me thinking that it was Saudi Arabia where the majority of 'Al Quaeda' came from...you know, that regime that the west supports..

Sorry but I can't follow your logic, it seems to be along the lines of "ooh look the nasty Israeli Terrorists are about to bomb poor innocent Iran". That's up to you but I can't see it has much to do with the facts.

What exactly are you saying, Iran should have these weapons. What do they need them for, it's totally illogical. They are not under threat by any of their neighbours. They can't threaten any of the major powers because they are not big enough. They can't lob them at Israel because the Palestinians wouldn't have anywhere to go home to. So what's the point.

To compare the Stern Gang with Modern Islamic Terrorism is plain daft. How can you suggest that they were anything like the same threat. The Stern Gang were trying to end the British Mandate in Palestine a purely domestic affair. Once they formed a government they never had any interest beyond their own borders. Islamic fundamentalists want to change the world, destroy Israel and America and kill anyone who gets in the way. Iran and and al queda are indistinguishable from one another. They are in each others pockets in every possible way so simple logic says it is a bad idea to give them access to these weapons technologies.

I doubt if the Israelis have the nerve to drop these weapons on Americas behalf but frankly I don't want these religious loonies to get their finger on the nuclear trigger and if that's the only way of stopping them so be it.

 

[empip]

The question is, if Israel has the capability and the desire to 'take out' Iranian facilities - Who will / could stop them?
I am guessing that if Israel decides that it's very survival as a nation is really, really threatened by Iranian nuclear development - they will have to do something about it.
Saddam postured and interfered with poor old Hans Blix and his weapons inspectors, why? They had no WMD's but acted as if they did have.. Result, no more Saddam, Iraq in a very bad state of an awful transition into who knows what.
It's like déjà vu all over again.
Mahmoud has made threats -

...Months into his presidency, a furore erupted over Mr Ahmadinejad's comment that Israel should be "wiped off the map"...

Once uttered not easily retracted, posturing? Surely it would take a brave Israeli to believe that.

So what is the alternative?... The future ain't what it used to be.

 

[tim west]

I'm gonna slap you just in case you do it to me first , no problem i won't get the blame as i did it in a "just" good cause even if you didn't contemplate doing anything missus ooeeer! start world war three? oh well what the hell, who cares anyway!

 

[tim west]

or is it better to do nothing and run the risk of Iran developing the technology and leaking it to terrorist groups who would not hesitate to use it.

nothing the US hasn't been doing for years in order to influence the outcome of political gain for themselves.

 

[pickles]

or is it better to do nothing and run the risk of Iran developing the technology and leaking it to terrorist groups who would not hesitate to use it.

nothing the US hasn't been doing for years in order to influence the outcome of political gain for themselves.

Which terrorist group has the United States leaked nuclear technology to.

 

[tim west]

or is it better to do nothing and run the risk of Iran developing the technology and leaking it to terrorist groups who would not hesitate to use it.

nothing the US hasn't been doing for years in order to influence the outcome of political gain for themselves.

Which terrorist group has the United States leaked nuclear technology to.

which terrorist groups has Iran supplied to in the past? neither country would advertise the fact now would they.

 

[pickles]

or is it better to do nothing and run the risk of Iran developing the technology and leaking it to terrorist groups who would not hesitate to use it.

nothing the US hasn't been doing for years in order to influence the outcome of political gain for themselves.

Which terrorist group has the United States leaked nuclear technology to.

which terrorist groups has Iran supplied to in the past? neither country would advertise the fact now would they.

Very coy. So your not actually going to name the terrorist group the USA supplied nuclear weapons technology to. Is that because they don't exist or is it a secret between you and uncle Sam.

 

[tim west]

or is it better to do nothing and run the risk of Iran developing the technology and leaking it to terrorist groups who would not hesitate to use it.

nothing the US hasn't been doing for years in order to influence the outcome of political gain for themselves.

Which terrorist group has the United States leaked nuclear technology to.

which terrorist groups has Iran supplied to in the past? neither country would advertise the fact now would they.

Very coy. So your not actually going to name the terrorist group the USA supplied nuclear weapons technology to. Is that because they don't exist or is it a secret between you and uncle Sam.

You don't get it do you, you can't show evidence that Iran is doing anything untoward the same applies to the USA you have to rely on facts and not heresay.
just because Daddy Bush says this is how it is doesn't mean that is the case, if you believe it to be so then you are easily led.

 

[Softus]

you have to rely on facts and not heresay.

Oh I dunno - Kym Ryder's policy on international nuclear disarmament might be rather radical, but you can't deny that it's forward thinking.

 

[tim west]

you have to rely on facts and not heresay.

Oh I dunno - Kym Ryder's policy on international nuclear disarmament might be rather radical, but you can't deny that it's forward thinking.

I know what you are thinking about and it's not nuclear bombs

 

[Softus]

I know what you are thinking about and it's not nuclear bombs

Get yer dirty uranium warheads out for the lads?

 

[tim west]

Just watch out for premature detonation