lol, if you say so. Just as your countries alliance’s give it strength. Take them away and your country will be nothing but, lone Syria. Thats probably why the majority of your soldiers can't shoot, and I think Israel has to train too... But, if we (US) are a better ally for Israel than your countries allies are for it, and we somehow make the action of supplying arms also embed knowledge and skill into someone’s brain, than I guess that’s still a victory for Israel, right? They had the intelligence to accept the bigger and stronger friend with the means to help them survive, as well as the know how to make us want a friendship. So try not to look past the fact that things are the way they are for a reason…Israel still has you beat and will continue to have you beat until the Kingdom of God arrives and all bow before He who sits on the throne.
I have just started viewing this thread today, and in responding to S.A.M.'s post about NPT signatory, no one seems have made clear the 3rd pillar in NPT. Post #2 Post #3 Post #70 Post #211 From what I read about the NPT: Treaty Pillars: 1st: non-proliferation 2nd: disarmament 3rd: peaceful use of nuclear energy :shrug: or, did I miss some/many things here? Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! go back to prepare for coming exam *hix*
lol, I missed this one. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! (I was firstly search thru' NPT keywords in this thread).
countezero: "How is it not rationale to fear, or at least worry about, a country such as Iran acquiring a nuclear weapon? Please, explain." 1. There is no credible evidence that Iran is nearing acquisition or production of a nuclear weapon. 2. There is no reason to assume that Iran would not be subject to the same nuclear deterrent that has contained all nations (except the USA pre-deterrent) from using nuclear weapons offensively.
Post #324 Are you saying that the French, British, or German do not protesting the US's stance on nuclear nonproliferation because they are all fearing the misuse of (e.g. Iran's) nuclear power? Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! I dont think so. I guess they are all fearing the US itself. US military budget (2007): $ 532.8 Billion Germany military budget (2007): $37.5 billion I do not find the list for 2007, but for 2002: If you sum up all the budget except the US's, you will got around USD 170 billions, which is one-third of US budget alone. sorry if this has been said somewhere else.
In many cases, sanity is a matter of opinion. But I don't think anyone needs to "paint" Iran as irrational. Consider it is a theocracy that routinely represses speech and hangs adulterers and homosexuals and the like because of a book that is more than a thousand years old and purports to be the collected musings of a prophet of God. To me, that's pretty crazy...
Like you said, matter of opinion. I find religious redneck retards crazy. But Iran aint crazy enough to strike first at any country with a nuke.
Ahmedinejad's rhetoric about immolating Israel is irresponsible, but also unbelieveable. Most rhetoric like that is for internal consumption anyway. I'm sure Iran would ever use a weapon in the course of an operation, because they're keenly aware that doing so would incur an unsurvivable response. All that being said, there are still some very telling indicators that give reason to suspect that Iran is pursuing a weapons program. Iran has rejected fuel reprocessing deals with the US, the EU, and Russia. There is only one valuable compound within spent fuel rods: plutonium oxide, and lots of it. There is only one viable and useful application for large amounts of Pu-239: nuclear weapons. That is why nations that already have nuclear weapons accept shipments of spent fuel rods from other nations that don't. It reduces the risk of proliferation. The reactor they are building at Bushehr is not a very good one. The VVER pile is a breeder of Russian design. It produces even more plutonium in its fuel rods than the more common light water reactors of the west, like the ones Siemens was going to build in the same facility before the Shah was tossed out on his ass. So here we have a reactor with a design feature that churns out weapons fuel at an elevated pace being installed in a nation that refuses to trade its spent fuel. Both signs suggest a desire to stockpile plutonium.
Exactly, which is why we should be concerned. I don't think the issue is as simple as whether Iran will use nukes to immolate Israel, either. I think it's more complicated than that. Again, the pertinent references are Pakistan and N. Korea. The former created a nuclear black market and sent bomb-making materials all over the world, while the latter has used its membership in the nuclear to rattle at a saber at its neighbors and extort aid and comfort from them. Do we want to allow the possibility of Iran doing either of those things? Iran is associated with numerous terrorists groups and could very easily give them a bomb or bomb-making materials. And given the current tone of the regime, I don't think it's too beyond the pale to postulate that if Iran goes nuclear it will start to behave differently on the international stage, safe in the knowledge that it can't be ignored any longer.
I have spent absolutely no time here rationalizing Iran's intentions, or repeating (let alone parroting) anything said by the Iranian administration or its supporters - of which I am not one. Iran is not justified in seeking even peaceful nuclear power, regardless of treaties and whatnot. They are foolish to do so - the whole country is an earthquake zone, nuclear power is expensive and dangerous and touchy and centralized, etc. But that is beside the point. We are looking at an irresponsible propaganda campaign in the Western press, apparently designed to build up support for bombing Iran. That is the issue here. Oh baloney. Iran has been under serious military and political pressure continuously since '79, and the threats from the latest US administration have not even been veiled. The chicken came first, here, by many years.
Oh, I definitely say so. But that propaganda is so fine, so well-implemented, that you don't realise when you are being lied to. True, but then again, like I've said, we buy and train ourselves, unlike Israel who just chills and doesn't do shit. No, that'd be why the majority of our soldiers are professional, and brutal when the need arises, rather than "omg where's america" Nope, a victory for the US
I think we're on the same page. For the record, I'm generally in favor of preventing proliferation anywhere, as more parties with nuclear weapons mathematically increases the probability of one being used, either by them or by somebody who happens to get a hold of one through illicit channels. Nuclear weapons are tools for major world powers, not isolationist third world nations. Also, I'm much more concerned with Pakistan and North Korea than I am with Iran at the moment. Personally I would like to see the US call Iran's bluff and offer a construction contract for a pair of brand new Westinghouse AP1000 PWRs at the Bushehr site. Those things are the sexy sweetness. If power generation is all they want, they'd leap at that opportunity. Plus, the nuclear industry is going through a global renaissance right now, and I'd like to see as many people on that gravy train as possible.
The mysterious avoidance of such tactics by the US has been one of the more enlightening features of US behavior in the area. Some of us were wondering about that with reference to Saddam as well. Living and learning about the nuclear power industry - - -
This is always a possibility; just as much for Americans as it is for Syrians. Israel doesn’t do anything? This is an absurd suggestion. They buy there weapons, maybe at a good deal, but that’s the benefit of friendship. They train themselves in the use of their own weapons, which when bought or created by themselves becomes theirs, seeing how a transfer of ownership takes place upon a transaction. And they do in fact develop weapons as well; the most obvious example is the Uzi (sub-machine gun) and more recently the Corner Shot. “Pride is the downfall of man.” How so? I believe Israel is getting the better deal.
Defintely, but I have lived in both Syria and the US (currently in the US), and I watch US media, yet I still am aligned with my own country. And the sort of BS that is in the media...is beyond words. Yes, they don't do anything. Not to mention, without the US in the first place, they wouldn't be able to do ANY of that. They get free weapons, they get billions of dollars from the US, and they have the prolonged backing of the superpower. Uzi and corner-shot, excellent weapons, that without US help and knowledge, not to mention funding, would've never existed. How so? Israel is everything because of America. Therefore, Syria has lost plenty of times to the USA. But not once to Israel.
Although we might disagree at least somewhat on what is BS and what isn't, I will agree with you and say that the media is LOADED with BS. But that’s what you get when the media thrives and dies on ratings….unfortunately. I’m not familiar with Israel, at least recently(with in my life time) getting money from the US. Do you have proof or just knowledge that, may I remind you, may just be made up for propaganda purposes? Though even if we do, I don’t disagree with it. In fact, I think we should help all countries in need, as long as we are certain that our help won’t be used to harm us; people who are blessed should help those in need. How can you be so certain that if we were not the ones to help them, and by help I’m referring to the non-funding kind, another country wouldn’t; another country that could be just as powerful as we are. After all, a world where the US is not an ally of Israel, at least as of right now and hopefully in the future, is not this world. I prefer to think of Gods will prevailing over all. And on my mentioning of Gods will, people who help Israel are blessed. So I’d say it’s a mutual gain of alliance… Yea, I think Syria has lost to Israel. Even if they are using our weapons which they bought, it was Israel attacking and or defending, not us. The moment someone buys something, the title transfers.
I don't think the possibility is out of question. The more things proceed the way they are, the more it becomes open. Frances President, after meeting with the US, told the press that military action should not be left out of possiblilty.
Sam, Someone who has no sense of history will make the following comparisons; "Why not go after Israel, they have nukes" "If America can have nukes, why not Iran"? I can only suggest you pick up some books on the middle east, the 2nd world war and how America was born and then perhaps SOME of this will make sense to you and this absurd comparison's will die. Oh and will Bush bomb Iran? I don't know, but if only people like you were more concerned with Iran than Bush they would have disarmed allready. But of course, without a sense of history you see Bush as the same as say - Saddam? Perhaps worse.. It's hard to say, because without any history taken into consideration you can really come to any possible conclusion. I really hate these kinds of discussions because they always feature this type of thinking and it's so frustrating. Why does the media and the thread starter always use the phrase "Bush bomb Iran", instead of asking "WILL IRAN DISARM"? Just because we had a war in Iraq, does not mean we all have to become pacifist's and let a totalitarian dictatorship with nukes form. But alas, that's clearly what some don't mind. Because hey - Bush is the problem.
