Should Iran go nuke....? Discuss...

Urk

Total Member
Really.

I would be intrested to hear from anyone with an oppinion on this.

Why is everyone so dead against it?, and why the fuck should Iran care what everyone else thinks, are they on the brink of war with anyone ?

I could think of govenments I trust at least as little as Iran, that are already " allowed " by USUK.com, so what gives ?


Come on, both sides would be good.
 

Squagnut

There's a gnu in my squat
LaRouche says some funny things:

Clicky

"Now, that we might hope that Vice-President Dick Cheney and his neo-conservatives are apparently, at last, on the way out, the remaining, new great strategic threat to the U.S.A. today, is currently radiating from Liberal Britain's infamous Fabian Society. That Society is the principal accomplice, and virtual master of Vice-President Cheney and his accomplice, Britain's Liberal Imperialist Prime Minister Tony Blair. The new overt threat to the U.S.A. itself, is expressed by those in Europe who foresee as their tool, a continued expansion of an expanded European Union under the influence of British Liberal imperialists such as London's Blair/Cheney crony Baroness Symons, and overtly fascist, imperialist technician Robert Cooper. That is the assigned, imperial role for a bloated anti-American collection of increasingly failed states, the virtual Tower of Babel which displayed itself in a recent election of the new European Union.
- July 15, 2004
 

whitedog

Lunar SeeD
The worry is, so we are told, that If Iran gets the russian built reactors it wants, that it will be on the fast track to weapons-grade isotope production.

Obviously, given the current "War On Terror" scenario, this is a very bad thing for the west, since Iran is supposedly one of the biggest sponsors of terrorism in the world.

This supposed danger, conveniently puts Iran right at the top of the "who shall we invade next?" list...

After all, they are murderous muslim animals, right, and can't possibly want the technology for benign purposes, as they claim, can they?
 
D

dave arc-i

Guest
lets not even consider the implications of being able to extend the khazekstan to caspian sea oil pipeline down through iran and giving access to the gulf oil facilties and deep water berths for tankers

http://www.newhumanist.com/oil.html
 

rcain

Member
whitedog said:
They are quite seriously on the brink of war with the US, and it is probably the US that will go nuclear
http://larouchepub.com/pr_lar/2005/lar_pac/050727guns_august.html

...my favourite quote from this...

And finally, LaRouche identified a series of reports from highly qualified Congressional, military, and intelligence community sources, who have confirmed the essential features of the original American Conservative account of Cheney's Strangelove schemes for a preemptive nuclear strike on Iran. These sources have emphasized that these Iran plans are not merely military contingency studies, but represent the policy intentions of Cheney.

...maybe the men in white coats will save the world...makes a smashing film...
 

Continuum

Throb Farmer
ho shit !

why am I not surprised by any of this...
 

duracell_pixie

More trouble than i look
Shit.....this is bad. Why is ok for the US to have all the weapons they like when really they are more likely to use them for bad ends than most countries? Yet if another country acquires these same sorts of weapons then they rush in with "Oh but they're dangerous in THEIR hands"? They seem to want to take on the role of policing the world for whatever purposes, some people say its oil or whatever,just know it aint right for more innocent people to die at the hands of these monsters!N slightly tangental but what the hell were they thinking voting Bush back in?Grrrrrrr!!
 

Continuum

Throb Farmer
duracell_pixie said:
Shit.....this is bad. Why is ok for the US to have all the weapons they like when really they are more likely to use them for bad ends than most countries?

When you're the worlds #1 military power you can do, by and large, what the fuck you like. Once you've got a huge army you need to justify the cost of it by making sure you use it a lot.

duracell_pixie said:
Yet if another country acquires these same sorts of weapons then they rush in with "Oh but they're dangerous in THEIR hands"?

The US needs to maintain its competitive advantage, and their stockpile of nuclear weapons is the core of their advantage. The last thing they want is for an 'enemy' state like Iran to upset the balance of power by getting their own nuclear weapons.

duracell_pixie said:
They seem to want to take on the role of policing the world for whatever purposes, some people say its oil or whatever

The role of world policemen is a smokescreen for America's imperial expansion. As 'the police' the US can use the pretence of 'bringing democracy and justice' to 'rogue states' to get their troops on the ground and exert their influence.
If they REALLY were the World Police then I'm sure we can all think of some places where a bit of policing would really help - Zimbabwe? North Korea? Sudan? Niger?
However none of those countries have significant oil stocks or are on viable pipeline routes so they are left to go to hell.
 

Urk

Total Member
Good background on the thread now, thanks Continuum.

But the question remains - should they, do you think ?

Or more importantly what do you think the implications would be, short to long term ?

If Iran turned round tomorrow, and said :

" HA ! actually suckers, while you were watching those sites we knew you could see from space, we built this fuckoff nuclear facility under this here mountain !..... unrucky "

What would happen ?
 

boinktastik

dont reMember
From the Iranian perspective, the development of nuclear warheads is justifiable

America's reaction to their nuclear facilities confirms their worst fears..... that the US would very much like to invade or at least remove its government to install a puppet regime

On the other hand Iran's brinksmanship justifies the neo-cons stance........... the idea of such an anti US state possessing nuclear weapons scares the crap out of most americans and as the white-house's tends to follow a "if it scares us shoot it" policy the chances of military action are becoming all the more likely.

If Iran turned around tomorrow and said:

" HA ! actually suckers, while you were watching those sites we knew you could see from space, we built this fuckoff nuclear facility under this here mountain !..... unrucky"

boom..... no more mountain
 

Urk

Total Member
boinktastik said:
boom..... no more mountain

Ok, more specifically

" HA ! actually suckers, while you were watching those sites we knew you could see from space, we built this fuckoff nuclear facility under this here mountain !..... unrucky"....

....and - we really can deploy in 45's

The secenario being that If the US attacked, it would actually trigger an armagedden type response, and WWIII
 

whitedog

Lunar SeeD
Urk said:
....and - we really can deploy in 45's

The secenario being that If the US attacked, it would actually trigger an armagedden type response, and WWIII

Unlikely that mainland US could be attacked, atm, i think.
Nuclear capability is one thing, intercontinental delivery capability is quite another.

The probable target for a Islamic nuke is, of course, Israel...
 

duracell_pixie

More trouble than i look
Continuum said:
When you're the worlds #1 military power you can do, by and large, what the fuck you like. Once you've got a huge army you need to justify the cost of it by making sure you use it a lot.

Fair.......so wrong that they're allowed to get away with it though.....what do we have the UN for if America are allowed to basically do wtf they want without being made to answer to anyone?


The US needs to maintain its competitive advantage, and their stockpile of nuclear weapons is the core of their advantage. The last thing they want is for an 'enemy' state like Iran to
upset the balance of power by getting their own nuclear weapons.

I can see this but its ridiculous that their justifications for it are being accepted by the mass, it scares me that one country can have so much power.

The role of world policemen is a smokescreen for America's imperial expansion. As 'the police' the US can use the pretence of 'bringing democracy and justice' to 'rogue states' to get their troops on the ground and exert their influence.
If they REALLY were the World Police then I'm sure we can all think of some places where a bit of policing would really help - Zimbabwe? North Korea? Sudan? Niger?
However none of those countries have significant oil stocks or are on viable pipeline routes so they are left to go to hell.

This is why i cant understand why people so readily accept their bullshit excuses for why they are going to war when if they just thought about it for a second they'd see it for what it is- absolute nonsense. Look at the justifications for Iraq- Saddam Hussein killing innocents, claim they care about the people of Iraq, yadda yadda - countless countries where equally bad things are happening yet they dont take action. Doesnt quite add up, does it? Seems to me most people are incapable of thinking for themselves, believe anything they read in the media or are told by politicians i wouldnt trust as far as i can throw without questioning whether what they say is true. Easier than having to work things out for themselves......
 

Monkey Do

#1 Internet Toughguy
Remember in the Bugs Bunny cartoons where Yosemite Sam would pull a gun so Bugs would pull a bigger gun so Sam would pull out a bomb and Bugs a rocket and Sam a tank and Bugs a warship etc.?

That's what Nukes are all about.

"A decision to leave the club of nuclear powers," it says, "would diminish Britain's international standing and influence." This is true, and it accounts for why almost everyone wants the bomb.
 

JPsychodelicacy

Studio Elf
Continuum said:
When you're the worlds #1 military power you can do, by and large, what the fuck you like. Once you've got a huge army you need to justify the cost of it by making sure you use it a lot.
...
The US needs to maintain its competitive advantage, and their stockpile of nuclear weapons is the core of their advantage...

To say nothing of the fact that most of the top echelons of the US political establishment (especially 'conservative' Republicans, for some reason) either own, or are on the board of, the companies that manufacture the weapons (Lockheed Martin, Raytheon) and/or supply logistics and materiel to the military (Halliburton).

And interestingly, since this whole 'war on turr'r' fiasco started, not only has demand skyrocketed, but they've put up the prices.

Same as it ever was... :Sad:

J.
 
Top