Iran lies, lies and more lies

Somehow I don't think Iran/Israel relations are so peachy as some wiki page says.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Iran has way more oil than it needs to supply its citizens with fuel for their energy needs. Iran doesn't need an atomic reactor to make power at all and is building the reactors to intimidate and provoke other nations around them. Iran has been attacked by Iraq for many years and it never lost ground during that war. It was also at war with other countries that again it didn't lose any ground so why would Iran now need atomic reactors unless as I say to intimidate and provoke other countries nearby them.

I'd be watching Russia very close as it is up to a much bigger land grab than it has already taken and it already has atomic weapons as we all know.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

You can't make much money from selling oil to your own citizens, many of whom probably don't commute to work in cars anyway. And besides, oil is unsustainable and bad for air quality.

 

your trying to make the facts fit you viewpoint rather than let your viewpoint be dictated by the facts. if iran converts its power to nuclear it than has more oil available to sell. Iran has made zero moves to intimidate or provoke other countries around them which cannot be said of Irans neighbors in the region.

 

Like "the destruction of Israel is non-negotiable"?

 

Or supplying thousands of rockets to Hezbollah and Hamas? Or supplying the Houthi rebels in Yemen?

 

That's pretty fanciful. I don't believe that it's at all likely.

If the country that launched the offensive nuclear strike possessed ICBMs and the ability to strike the existing nuclear powers, those powers would have a huge disincentive against doing anything that would put their own cities, populations and economies at risk. The response to a regional nuclear war in the middle East would likely be restricted to posturing - expressions of concern, sharply-worded condemnations and UN resolutions.

 

PJ: Which powers, exactly? The USA is the only one with power and interest to respond - and if Israel were neutralized, why would they? Revenge? Would they vaporize large reaches of Iran for revenge? I wonder. We've been over this already, and it wasn't very convincing then, either. With Israel effectively gone, what is the American interest? A radioactive airstrip to project power from. Meanwhile, Obama is creating increasing distance, or allowing increasing distance to develop, between the US and Israel. What if Iran developed intercontinental rockets, as they are bound to do eventually? Other powers could conceivably step in also, and demand no retributive action by the US "or else"; Russia is no friend of Israel, for a start. There are a variety of scenarios and new ones will occur as geopolitical power changes there. I think, given the motivations of Iran (the religious leadership, that is, and not just general human beings from Iran), it's a bad and dangerous idea to allow it to happen - whatever, of course, the actual deal was about anyway. Both sides seem to think different things were agreed on, for a start.

 

you mean a country thats been openly hostile towards them for 30 some years thats viewed as a proxy of an enemy thats has attacked them for 50. your attempts to paint Iran and this aggressive crazed state aren't going to work geoff. I know the history.

 

so the worlds nuclear powers, which includes aggressive nuclear states such as pakistan, north korea, and Israel, a rogue nuclear state is fanciful but the idea that Iran would intentionaly commit suicide by launching a nuclear first strike is perfectly grounded in fact. looks like you guys are relying on heavily on double standards and wishful thinking. as i have explained but you both have ignored because it doesn't fit your Iranian leadership is a bunch inhuman psychopaths ideology is that the world can't ignore an offensive nuclear first strike. to not have an overwhelming forceful reaction would encourage others to do the same and push others to pursue nuclear weapons. i'm done with the two of you until you start dealing with ideas that are based in reality and not your own prejudices and of the wall standards of actions.



again because it seems to be such a difficult concept. if they don't launch a counter attack its going to encourage others to do. pakistan, north korea, Israel, and maybe russia. not putting such a state down would mean the states inclined to launch offensive nuclear attacks( the 4 i listed) would probably do so because they would than know they wouldn't be challenged. they would know a quick fast and dirty hit and than their free from consequences. the fact you lack the understanding to be convinced doesn't mean the argument is bad.

 

I have no idea what it is you're trying to say here. How is an idea "perfectly grounded in fact"? Do you mean to say "possible"? If you do decide to post again, please clean up your English and grammar. Thankyou.

 

You said that Iran had made no moves to intimidate other countries around them.

Clearly, that assertion was false. They have done so. Do you in fact know the history?

 

I'm constantly reminded of the documentary 44 minutes.

 

Do you also think it's ironic that the Allies tried to bomb the hell out of the Axis powers while at the same time not wanting to be bombed themselves? Do you think it's ironic that companies want to make money while not wanting their competitors to make money? Is it ironic that Democrats want to win elections while not wanting Republicans to win elections?

 

We don't torture and execute thousands of political prisoners and bury them in mass graves.

 

Why aren't people like that in mental institutions?