Iran's Nuclear Program May Have Military Dimensions

I think it's obvious Israel has nuclear weapons, but that's hardly the point.

This thread is not about who has them and who doesn't, and mentioning Israel, NATO or Hiroshima or whatever else Sam and her ilk do is nothing more than a red herring tossed in to distract from the subject or provide the usual sort a platform to begin their rants about their pet peeves.

In other words, such matters have no place in this thread, and in my view, constitute trolling.

Iran is hardly a peaceful theocracy, and saying such only make you appear ignorant.

How multicultural of you. Apparently, human rights are something that can now be called "Western freedoms," which leaves Eastern powers free to pursue immoral policies as much as they like.

Meanwhile, we have you repeating your error for all to see. Iran has sponsored numerous attacks against other nations, largely in the form of terror attacks and proxy wars. Lebanon is what it is today, in part, because of Iranian meddling.

That's an amazing statement -- and one so full of shit it's not even worth touching.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I think the more important discussion should be, should Iran get a nuke? Do they need it?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

no and no.

Nobody needs nukes, thats the end of it.

As far as a tactical advantage goes, Iran is surrounded by nations that are not in possession of nuclear weapons, why would they need a nuke if \:

1. they are supposedly peaceful
2. they are surrounded by non nuclear countries

Also, straw, Iraq was not exactly "peaceful"

They were in possession of large amounts of mustard goes and small amounts of Sarin gas; and extremely powerful chemical agent that is qualified as a WMD, and it used them on Iranian forces and on an innocent village in the north of Iraq.

Now to say Iran is also perfectly peaceful is also false because they attempted an offensive into iraq where Hussein used his chemical agents as a defensive measure.

Nobody needs WMD's, by their very nature WMD's arent made to kill soldiers. If a nuke goes off on a battlefield, the most soldiers dead may be a few thousand, if in a city that can easily hit 1 million. Same goes for chemical and biological attacks.

WMD's are meant to kill civilians, simple as that.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Why would they need it?

 

For the reasons I have already laid out. They know it's a deterrent and they know it brings power and prestige in the region.

 

even a peaceful nation will counter attack into enemy lands to win a war. I mean you could hardly call the low countries not peaceful but they helped the invasion of germany in both world wars.

 

Oh, I agree. I was just hoping to generate speculation on the need for defense, which could become circular.

 

Sarin gas >.>

And both countries defied the NPT on multiple counts...

 

Yes they should have it and yes they need it . Those nations without nukes are open to the tyranny seen in Iraq, Afghanistan, Palestine, Somalia.....etc under the hands of the US, NATO and Israel . Every country should have tons of nukes to defend its sovereignty and its people . I believe that humans are not mosquitoes to be killed by tyrants USA, NATO and Isreal .

 

Hey, former US president Jimmy Carter came out in the open about a year ago, and said Israel has 100 nukes. I believe him, but that doesn't automatically make it true, and even he wouldn't be in a position to know that for sure unless he saw them in person. Israel acquired plutonium, and Iran has already been accumulating it for more than 30 years, nevermind the supply Russia has been sending their way of late. I'm not opposed to Israeli disarmament, but then it should be matched by security guarantees and a nuclear umbrella. Don't see the point in forcing Israel's hand if it's just going to lead to a massive regional war once they're exposed. If they don't get a firm and unshakable recognition of their basic right to a sovereign existence, they're never going to budge (and I wouldn't either if I was in their shoes).

 

What basic right to sovereign existence? Israel is a settler colonial enterprise. There is no "right" to occupation whether ethnocentric, religious or delusional

 

I can say the same damn things about the arabs and their nations too. If you don't want to recognize their sovereignty, I have no sympathy whatsoever for you and whatever suffering you perceive them to be causing you. You show no inclination whatsoever towards peace, understanding and reconciliation, so there's no need to accomodate people like you by removing their most effective deterrents against your aggression.

 

Israel is not even 50% white, and the question is not about white supremacy, but rather about arab and muslim supremacy.

 

How about this for a solution? The arabs control their birthrate for several generations in order to sustain a stable population. Meanwhile the jews breed like rabbits. Then once the jews vastly outnumber the arabs, the entire middle east can be united as one nation. Does that sound fair to you?

 

Do you believe white supremacists have a sovereign right to exist as a state?

As someone who lives in a mixed culture, would you support the exact same arguments of the Jewish state in your own society?

I recall you live in Canada. Do the Canadians have a sovereign right to dispossess the first nations because they have a sovereign right to create a non-Inuit, non-native Canadian state?

Or, to flip it, do the Inuit have a sovereign right to a state where non-Inuits should be kept demographically a minority with less rights?

 

Sure. Why not? You think the world will be a better place with more Jews and less Arabs? Israel does not look like a good example to be setting globally.

Would you live there? Enlist your children in the IDF? Demolish a Palestinian home?

 

We haven't done anything to try driving jews out of our country, and our sovereign elected government has a clear and well-defined pact with all of its citizens which ensures national sovereignty over all of our lands.

They have rights of autonomy and legal privileges no other Canadian is entitled to, on top of all of the basic rights accorded to each and every citizen. Furthermore, we consider them to be an integral part of our history and heritage, rather than a nuissance to be exterminated or driven out into lands where they have no historical connection. If you feel the natives have been outright dispossessed of a vastly larger amount of land than they have reserved for their exclusive use at present, please cite statistics and sources showing what percentage of Canadian land was under their active use before the Europeans came.

They do have a sovereign state, it's called Nunavut. Their sovereign state in turn is part of a greater union called Canada. They are not kept demographically in the minority, as there are no laws and policies restricting their birthrate and welfare is not denied to anyone who can't afford to feed their children. The Inuit is a very small population and always has been that way, our presence here didn't change that.

 

Yes, Saudi Arabia is really kicking their butts and showing what a truly open and free society should look like. No, I don't believe the world will be a better place just by having more jews and less arabs. What I am certain of is that the world will be a vastly worse place if the arabs colonize Israel and make the jews a minority there.

I wouldn't demolish any Palestinian homes, I would build more homes around them.

 

So is there a sovereign right to create a state based on religion/ethnocracy/colour or not?

Around them where? In their orchards, fields, on their graveyards, in their schools?

Where? Does their consent matter?

 

There's a sovereign and well-defined right to create a state based on common principles, cultures and ideals. That's how every state in the world was created. Either you advocate a borderless world, or else what's good for the goose is good for the gander.

How about on lands they never used and never even thought about using?

Did the jews' consent matter when the arabs came barging in to conquer them in the first place?