[Y3a]

Why not remove Tehran from the face of the earth??
We will have given Iran the Nucular technology, but dropped it from a couple of B2's...

They will have less population to worry about, and one less nutjob Iranian 'leader' will exist.

Maybe it's too harsh??

http://today.reuters.com/news/newsar...JAD.xml&rpc=22


TEHRAN (Reuters) - Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said on Thursday the West would suffer more than Iran if it continued to try to stop the Islamic Republic developing nuclear technology, local media reported.
Speaking a day after it became clear that the U.N. Security Council would take up Iran's nuclear case, Ahmadinejad said Tehran would not be bullied or humiliated.
"They (Western countries) know that they are not capable of inflicting the slightest blow on the Iranian nation because they need the Iranian nation," Ahmadinejad said in a speech in western Iran.
"They will suffer more and they are vulnerable," the semi-official ISNA students news agency quoted him as saying.
His comments were echoed by Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, the ultimate decision-maker in the Islamic state, who urged government officials not to give in to Western pressure.
Khamenei said the move to send Iran's case to the Security Council was part of a psychological war masterminded by Washington and aimed at undermining Iran's clerical rulers.
"That is why if the Iranian nation and government steps back on nuclear energy today, the story will not end there and the Americans will make another pretext," state television quoted him as telling the Assembly of Experts, an elected body of senior clerics which supervises the supreme leader's activities.
"The officials are responsible for continuing Iran's drive for advanced technology, including nuclear energy, without yielding to the pressures," he said.


HARM AND PAIN


A senior Iranian security official warned on Wednesday Iran could inflict "harm and pain" to match whatever punishment Washington persuaded the Security Council to mete out for Iran's refusal to heed calls that it halt atomic fuel research.
Iran says it wants to master nuclear fuel cycle technology to feed atomic reactors generating electricity. Washington and its allies believe Iran wants nuclear fuel to make atomic bombs.
Some Iranian officials have warned that if pressured further over the nuclear case Tehran could restrict its vital oil exports to push prices even higher.
They have also hinted Iran could use its influence with militants in Iraq, Lebanon and the Palestinian territories to stir up trouble for the United States and Israel.
Ahmadinejad, who provoked widespread condemnation last year with his call to "wipe Israel off the map", used typically fiery rhetoric on Thursday in his speech to supporters.
"This nation ... will not allow others to treat it with a bullying attitude, even if those who treat it with a bullying attitude are international bullies," ISNA quoted him as saying.
But in a possible nod to faint internal criticism that Ahmadinejad's inflammatory statements have antagonized the West, Khamenei noted the need for "wisdom and expediency" in handling the nuclear issue.
Members of parliament chanted "Death to America" in response to Iran's case being sent to the Security Council, ISNA said.
Iran's Atomic Energy Organization said hundreds of people would form a symbolic human chain on Thursday around the Natanz uranium enrichment plant in central Iran -- the most sensitive facility in Iran's nuclear program.

[Millennium]

There are multiple nations, covering pretty much all sides of the political spectrum, willing to give Iran all the peaceful nuclear technology it desires. What rational reason does the Iranian government have for turning this down?

Is it that what they want isn't "peaceful nuclear technology"? Or is this a just case of monumentally foolish pride?

[Y3a]

I think to be a nuclear power they want to do it themselves without outside 'help'. Pride prolly.

[aberdeenwriter]

I MAY not be correct but FOR THE RECORD I'll say it one more time.

Ahmadinejad is a devout fundamental Muslim who believes that the Mahdi will only return during a time of great chaos and war and this war must include the Jews and/or the state of Israel.

If Iran gets a bomb they will start this war in hopes of it being the end of the world, which they welcome.

If we simply nuke Tehran it will be interpreted as an attack on Islam and millions of Muslims all over the world could become activated to conduct violent jihad wherever they are. Every nice, quiet peaceloving, devout Muslim you know (as well as millions you don't know) would follow the Islamic instruction to defend the religion.

Even a peaceful, well educated Muslim on this board has said he would immediately go into war mode if Mecca or Medina were attacked.

If cartoons can set off riots, if ONE bombed Mosque can result in hundreds of retaliatory killings, just imagine what would happen if we take out Tehran, even if we had sufficient provocation!

You can't predict the nightmarish can of worms we might open if we can't get Iran to back down.

And if they get a WMD they can use to destroy Israel they know it will trigger a response leading to Armageddon.

If we back off from the threat and they are able to create a nuclear energy program they would ALWAYS be able to use it to blackmail their neighbors and the world.

Please consider this.

[von Wrangell]

Originally Posted by Millennium

There are multiple nations, covering pretty much all sides of the political spectrum, willing to give Iran all the peaceful nuclear technology it desires. What rational reason does the Iranian government have for turning this down?

Is it that what they want isn't "peaceful nuclear technology"? Or is this a just case of monumentally foolish pride?

If the nations now so "generously" offering to provide the peaceful nuclear technology would have shown in the past that they are worthy of being trusted they might actually consider that approach. But due to the money being held from Iran by these same governments, due to constant threats, and due to the past of these same nations Iran would be stupid to put any trust in them.

The reason is very simple. To further education and science in their own nation and to be able to be truly independent and not having to negotiate on everything in the future to be able to have that technology and material with unrestricted access.

And then there is this:

Article IV

1. Nothing in this Treaty shall be interpreted as affecting the inalienable right of all the Parties to the Treaty to develop research, production and use of nuclear energy for peaceful purposes without discrimination and in conformity with Articles I and II of this Treaty.

And comments like these coming from someone who lives in a country that is right now very much against foreigners running the ports is a perfect example of the hypocrisy that has engulfed the USA. You've become absolutely blind to it unfortunately.

[Spliffdaddy]

I don't think any American is worried about Iran "making us suffer".

It's absolutely laughable.

[black bear theory]

Originally Posted by von Wrangell

If the nations now so "generously" offering to provide the peaceful nuclear technology ...

the US was the first such country. poor policy...

[black bear theory]

Originally Posted by Spliffdaddy

I don't think any American is worried about Iran "making us suffer".

It's absolutely laughable.

i think many felt the same way about spring break.

[Taliesin]

Originally Posted by aberdeenwriter

I MAY not be correct but FOR THE RECORD I'll say it one more time.
Bush is a devout fundamental Christian who believes that the Messiah will only return during a time of great chaos and war and this war must include the Muslims and/or the state of Iraq/Iran.

I see your point.

And I agree, extremely radical fundamentalist Christians and extremely radical fundamentalist Shias both believe in a similar armageddon-fantasy.

Fortunately though, even if they became the leaders of their respective countries, they are restricted by the surrounding bureaucracy, administration, parliament and supreme courts.

By the way, in Pakistan there is already a radical fundamentalist Sunni-Muslim at the head of the government and in control of nukes, President Musharaff is a deobandi.

Taliesin

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by Spliffdaddy

I don't think any American is worried about Iran "making us suffer".

It's absolutely laughable.

They must be growing some good stuff.

Originally Posted by Taliesin

I see your point.

And I agree, extremely radical fundamentalist Christians and extremely radical fundamentalist Shias both believe in a similar armageddon-fantasy.

No Tali, most Christians believe in Christ's second coming. This isn't a radical fundi viewpoint.

But most Christians aren't trying to bring it on. They know it will happen when it does. They know nothing they can do will start/stop it.

The difference between say, the terrorists and Bush is, The terrorists think they can further it along, and Bush doesn't believe has anything to do with it. (He has made comments before when others have asked him)

[Maflynn]

Iran can make us suffer, as the #4 oil producers of the world, all they have to do is shut off the spigit for a couple of days.

Look what happens at the price of oil when political unrest occurs in Nigeria. The price spikes can you imagine that if such a major supplier of oil decides to stop for a small amount of time. That will have huge implications on our econmony. Just look back at 1973 and multiply that a thousand fold. Our oil dependance is increased greatly since that time.


My question is this regarding iran and nuclear weapons. Before I state it let me just say I know they harbor and fund terrorism and they consider us the great whte satan but hears my question.

We have the bomb, Russia has the bomb, Israel has the bomb who are we to say they can have it. Other nations have pursued nuclear proliferation unimpeeded now we are being high and mighty. If we are so concerned about nuclear weapons lets make the first step and get rid of ours before we tell another nation they can't have any.

[disclaimer]
if iran build nuclear weapons we will certainly be in a more dangerous world and I agree they shouldn't have it
[/disclaimer]

Mike

[Kevin]

How much oil do we get from Iran?

[Spliffdaddy]

Not much.

Anyway, they need to sell oil as badly as countries like ours need to buy it.

[aberdeenwriter]

Originally Posted by Taliesin

I see your point.

And I agree, extremely radical fundamentalist Christians and extremely radical fundamentalist Shias both believe in a similar armageddon-fantasy.

Fortunately though, even if they became the leaders of their respective countries, they are restricted by the surrounding bureaucracy, administration, parliament and supreme courts.

By the way, in Pakistan there is already a radical fundamentalist Sunni-Muslim at the head of the government and in control of nukes, President Musharaff is a deobandi.

Taliesin

This, by the way, is an example of your attempting to make both sides of the argument appear equal as a way of negating the impact of the truth. Both Presidents are not trying to CAUSE the end of the world. Ahmadinejad appears to be.

Both Presidents have not called for wiping one country off the map (Israel) and bringing the other to it's knees (the USA).

[Spliffdaddy]

If we wanted Iran's oil, we'd simply take it.

[aberdeenwriter]

Originally Posted by Maflynn

Iran can make us suffer, as the #4 oil producers of the world, all they have to do is shut off the spigit for a couple of days.

Look what happens at the price of oil when political unrest occurs in Nigeria. The price spikes can you imagine that if such a major supplier of oil decides to stop for a small amount of time. That will have huge implications on our econmony. Just look back at 1973 and multiply that a thousand fold. Our oil dependance is increased greatly since that time.


My question is this regarding iran and nuclear weapons. Before I state it let me just say I know they harbor and fund terrorism and they consider us the great whte satan but hears my question.

We have the bomb, Russia has the bomb, Israel has the bomb who are we to say they can have it. Other nations have pursued nuclear proliferation unimpeeded now we are being high and mighty. If we are so concerned about nuclear weapons lets make the first step and get rid of ours before we tell another nation they can't have any.

[disclaimer]
if iran build nuclear weapons we will certainly be in a more dangerous world and I agree they shouldn't have it
[/disclaimer]

Mike

Sorry, I can't see how you can post the disclaimer but still be in doubt about our right to stop the end of the world. Idealism sometimes falls before the undeniable priorities of human life and the continued existence of this planet.

If the police are not around to enforce the law or keep the peace are you going to stand by while someone who has sworn themselves to the proposition of burning down your house goes to the gas station to fill up a gas can?

I mean everyone has the right to buy gasoline, right?

Anyway, you may have missed this.

I MAY not be correct but FOR THE RECORD I'll say it one more time.

Ahmadinejad is a devout fundamental Muslim who believes that the Mahdi will only return during a time of great chaos and war and this war must include the Jews and/or the state of Israel.

If Iran gets a bomb they will start this war in hopes of it being the end of the world, which they welcome.

If we simply nuke Tehran it will be interpreted as an attack on Islam and millions of Muslims all over the world could become activated to conduct violent jihad wherever they are. Every nice, quiet peaceloving, devout Muslim you know (as well as millions you don't know) would follow the Islamic instruction to defend the religion.

Even a peaceful, well educated Muslim on this board has said he would immediately go into war mode if Mecca or Medina were attacked.

If cartoons can set off riots, if ONE bombed Mosque can result in hundreds of retaliatory killings, just imagine what would happen if we take out Tehran, even if we had sufficient provocation!

You can't predict the nightmarish can of worms we might open if we can't get Iran to back down.

And if they get a WMD they can use to destroy Israel they know it will trigger a response leading to Armageddon.

If we back off from the threat and they are able to create a nuclear energy program they would ALWAYS be able to use it to blackmail their neighbors and the world.

Please consider this.

[Maflynn]

Originally Posted by aberdeenwriter

Sorry, I can't see how you can post the disclaimer but still be in doubt about our right to stop the end of the world. Idealism sometimes falls before the undeniable priorities of human life and the continued existence of this planet.

My point is that I do think iran will be more dangerous having nukes but its incredibly hypercritical that we have so much weapons that we could kill the entire population many times over (both nuclear, chemical and probably biological) that we say they cannot do what we continue to do.

If the police are not around to enforce the law or keep the peace are you going to stand by while someone who has sworn themselves to the proposition of burning down your house goes to the gas station to fill up a gas can?

Huh?

I mean everyone has the right to buy gasoline, right?

Wrong, last time I checked I failed to see life liberty and the pursuit of gasoline in our Declaration of Independence.

[PacHead]

Aberdeenwriter is correct, the lunatic president of Iran is a nutjob and he believes in the return of some prophet and he would no doubt use nukes if and when Iran gets it. The Golden Mosque that got bombed in Iraq recently, that's the mosque of that prophet (that will return somebody) that the nutjob president in Iran believes in by the way. Add this together with his statements and threats, and there's no doubt that Iran should be bombed. It seems to be a cultural thing for certain middle eastern leaders to boast and lie their asses off. We see this with the Palestinians, we saw this when Iraq was invaded, we saw this with the Talibans and we see this now with Iran. The Arabs started a 40 year war to defend the honor of a female camel, these people hold grudges for a long, long time and I'd say they have different values than normal, western people. Iran is looking for a showdown and I sure hope they will get what they are looking for. Who are we to tell Iran ? We are civilized, that's who we are. Nutjob terrorist countries should be prevented from getting nukes, it's as simple as that. When the west bombs Iran, the west should go on high alert due to the amount of extremist, potential terrorists that sympathize with Iranian terrorists and are already in the west. All of those crappy middle eastern terrorist countries should be taken out, and I think eventually that is exactly what is going to happen, one by one.

[aberdeenwriter]

Originally Posted by Maflynn

My point is that I do think iran will be more dangerous having nukes but its incredibly hypercritical that we have so much weapons that we could kill the entire population many times over (both nuclear, chemical and probably biological) that we say they cannot do what we continue to do.

Huh?

Wrong, last time I checked I failed to see life liberty and the pursuit of gasoline in our Declaration of Independence.

Ooops. I mistook you for a THINKER poster not a stinker poster. Sorry. My bad.

FUZZY ALERT

Moral relativism.
Falsely equating both sides of an issue

Moral relativism: Just because we have nukes does not mean EVERYONE should. Why not give some to every banana republic in South America and Africa, too? ALL the lessons of Montessori do not apply here, Mike.

Falsely equating both sides of an issue: Would you agree, for the sake of establishing the principle, that Hitler did not deserve to have an A-Bomb? I hope so. Because his side was not equal to the allies side in terms of morality. So, once we establish that, then we move to the specific case of Iran. The president of Iran wants to kill Israelis, Jews and Americans and bring the world to an end. America and the countries that currently have nukes (???N.Korea???) are committed to the perpetuation of the Earth and, generally speaking, revere and respect human life. The president of Iran is guided by a different principle that wants all of us to die.

I hope you can see how you are being fuzzy brained here.

[PacHead]

Originally Posted by Maflynn

My point is that I do think iran will be more dangerous having nukes but its incredibly hypercritical that we have so much weapons that we could kill the entire population many times over (both nuclear, chemical and probably biological) that we say they cannot do what we continue to do.

You should start a campaign - "EQUAL RIGHTS FOR TERRORIST NATIONS TO POSSESS NUKES". Good luck to you.

The fact is that we are not equal to Iran and different rules apply to different countries, that's the way it is and if anybody doesn't like that, well that's simply too damn bad. If anybody needs to explain why Iran getting nukes is bad, then it's simply not worth explaining to anybody who would even ask that question.

[aberdeenwriter]

Originally Posted by PacHead

Aberdeenwriter is correct, the lunatic president of Iran is a nutjob and he believes in the return of some prophet and he would no doubt use nukes if and when Iran gets it. The Golden Mosque that got bombed in Iraq recently, that's the mosque of that prophet (that will return somebody) that the nutjob president in Iran believes in by the way. Add this together with his statements and threats, and there's no doubt that Iran should be bombed. It seems to be a cultural thing for certain middle eastern leaders to boast and lie their asses off. We see this with the Palestinians, we saw this when Iraq was invaded, we saw this with the Talibans and we see this now with Iran. The Arabs started a 40 year war to defend the honor of a female camel, these people hold grudges for a long, long time and I'd say they have different values than normal, western people. Iran is looking for a showdown and I sure hope they will get what they are looking for. Who are we to tell Iran ? We are civilized, that's who we are. Nutjob terrorist countries should be prevented from getting nukes, it's as simple as that. When the west bombs Iran, the west should go on high alert due to the amount of extremist, potential terrorists that sympathize with Iranian terrorists and are already in the west. All of those crappy middle eastern terrorist countries should be taken out, and I think eventually that is exactly what is going to happen, one by one.

That's a funny line!

Good to see you.

[Maflynn]

Originally Posted by aberdeenwriter

Ooops. I mistook you for a THINKER poster not a stinker poster. Sorry. My bad.

That's ok because I mistook you as someone who could string together a series of coherent thoughts.

I'll use smaller words with you next time, perhaps with a link to a dictionary might be helpful.

[Y3a]

So, you DIDN'T get the the points they were making?

Do you REALLY think Iran would act responsibly with Nukes??

Would you like to buy a bridge?

[aberdeenwriter]

Originally Posted by Y3a

So, you DIDN'T get the the points they were making?

Do you REALLY think Iran would act responsibly with Nukes??

Would you like to buy a bridge?

Maybe the M-a, in "Maflynn" stands for Mahmoud Ahmadinejad? An homage of sorts, not only to the Iranian president but also to Maflynn's sense of fair play!