We should not be scared of this man!

^ nevermind if we erase a bit of Israel too, right debunked? It will only be a better firework from the TV in US

 

Just in case you don't know what sarcasm is, I will put tags on my sarcasm.

/sarcasm - like that, will that help?

It was a joke, I was saying give the idiot what he wants and send him nukes - get it send - through the air and into his lap...
oh, nevermind...

 

theres a saying in Russia, "in every joke theres some truth". I doubt you ever cared if that happened anyway, even if you put tags <JOKE>

 

I care about people anywhere in the world. I hope no one dies. But being realistic, I know that sometimes taking out an enemy BEFORE he kills someone like he says he is going to do as he prepares to do just that, is necessary.

I don't mind if someone takes out the bad leaders or those who would do evil to others, I just hope that no one else gets killed in the process. Does that make sense? (Someone will probably try to twist my words.)

 

Your words, religion and idea about Christianity as been told to you by your preacher, are twisted enough, so no one needs to twist it.

 

too bad that GWB already elected twice, so no need to take him out.
is this twisted your words or not?

 

India didn't get any freaking assistance from US in developing nuclear technology.

In case you don't know, India has nuclear technology since 1974 (or probably even before that).

And in case you are talking about '123 agreement' between India and US, it's about civil nuclear technology, and it requires India to put it's reactors under the international observation.

And in case you are concerned about India's nuclear weapons, India made it pretty much clear that It will not use Nukes first (No First Use stance) so they will be used (if ever) in defense only, moreover, India do not maintain a hostile attitude towards any country.

So there is a big difference between India and Iran.

 

yes, big diffrence iran does not have any nuclear weapon.

 

And India is not hostile towards any country, race or religion...

 

It would quickly be if there was some 50 chinese ships hovering around India

 

i agree that india is a very good country.

 

Pakistan might disagree.

 

That wouldn't be hostility...

India fought a war with China in the past even after that It tries to maintain a good relation with them.

Compare India and Iran.
India is surrounded by Pakistan and China, India doesn't share a very good relation with either of them, while Pakistan and China share a very good relation with each other. India has fought several wars with both countries (one with China and three with Pakistan). All three countries are powerful (military wise) for each other. Most of the Indian cities are in the range of Chinese and Pakistani missile(making the fear worst both countries are Nuke capable) but when the last time you heard or even MISQUOTED/MISUNDERSTOOD primer of India saying either China or Pakistan should be wiped off the face of earth?

When the last time India maintained the hostile attitude towards any of these country?

In the past after, 1962-65 to 2001 US sanctioned and interrupted many of India's technology developments (Mainly Nuclear technology development, Cryogenic engine development, Super Computer Development), India had developed all the technologies by it own, although with greater difficulties. And one Time Indians didn't hold US with high regards (specially after 1971, when US deployed it's 7th fleet of US navy led by nuclear powered USS Enterprise, in bay of Bengal, against India) but when the last time you heard an Indian shouting death for America..

I do not actually support Nukes.. If any time in future India decides to give up Nukes (not Nuclear technology for civil purpose) I'll be the one who will welcome it. I totally support Iran if they want to have Nuclear technology for civil purpose. I don't think we can trust Iran with Nuclear weapon.

Although I do not think that they are so stupid that they will go and nuke Israel as soon as they have it. But there is no guarantee that they wont use it when attacked (although not nuked)... and once anyone used nukes against any country, no matter who, the earth will be doomed...

 

what is with this trust? we do not need trust, just an agrement and a process to verify it's implementation.and this goes for any conflict

and any country that has nukes might use it if they feel they are being defeated so it would be good that we get rid of all of them.
just imagine how many people can eat with the money spent on one of these nukes.

 

Any Country that will use the nukes, no matter when or where or how, will be destroyed followed by entire earth..

That is why I'm so afraid of Nukes.. The end result of any nuke war will be the same..

 

Apart from speculation, what other proof does America have against Iran?

None.

Rob

 

While i dont want iran or any new countriesto have nukes, i have to totally disagree that our government is insane and not corrupt. We messed around so much with irans leaders and people in the past it isnt funny. They had a good leader in mossadegh who was peaceful and never harmed another country or his own people. Our government alongside britain helped take him out because he wouldnt give us controlling interest in iranian oil. To make amends withiran we would first need appologize for screwing around somuch with them in the past, then we have to get real men in politics that arent slaves to the power elite, then we can support the iranian student movement against this current government, because this current iranian regime is in response to our meddlings in iran. Sure they are extremists, but the right wing extremists we have here arent that far below them on the totem pole.
Like i said im a moderate, and being one allows me to look at both sides objectively while being on the left or right would cause someone to look at things subjectively with bias.

 

WWJD?

Something tells me the preachers used "tittie-twisters" to get the messages ingrained.

Well, the latest fear rhetoric is that they might one day. So we should attack them now.

Several known facts you have to go to international news sources to get.

1. Iran's previous regime, a reformist government tried diplomacy with the goal of normalizing relations in 2003 with the White House. They were ignored.

2. Iran assisted the US in the invasion of Afghanistan, and helped establish the path for Karzai to be made the new leader in Afghanistan by negotiating with the Northern Alliance on the US's behalf.

3. Claims today that Iran supports the Taliban are baseless. The Taliban are Sunni extremists who hate Shias, and likewise. Iran considers the Taliban an enemy.

4. Iran's oil production is not enough to meet the domestic needs of it's population (hence the need for nuclear power) and still maintain enough exports to stave off total economic collapse.

5. Iran's Supreme Leader, who solely commands the Revolutionary Guard, has issued a fatwa against the Iranian Proliferation of Nuclear weapons. The Revolutionary Guard owns 1/3 of the Iranian economic infrastructure.

6. UN weapons inspectors have found NO PROOF of Iranian WMD development.

But regardless, I am sure the White House will cook up some Yellow Cake false documents and proceed into another major blunder.

The sad thing is, 4 years from now, these reason will all emerge, and the American people will once again say, "We were sold a war on a false premise."

Those who fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it.

 

Actually with the firing/quitting of the nuclear arms rep to the most recent intl meetings, Iran's own religious leaders are nervous about ahm a dinner jacket.

He is racheting up the danger level.

 

He won't survive the next election cycle. Iran will re-introduce the reform party to the top, unless Bush starts a war, in which case everyone will rally around Ahmadinejad.

He's been terrible with economic policy and the standard of living is falling in Iran. He's on borrowed time, the question is whether the US is willing to let regime change occur naturally and democratically, or by force. The only reason he got elected in the first place is that Bush rebuffed the previous diplomatic attempts by the last reform government, and adopted a hard line stance, which prompted the people to elect a war time zealot.

Regardless, Khameini holds the real reins of power there, and he is for the most part, a moderate when it comes to foreign policy.