Ahmadinejad is either mentally unstable and really does doubt that the jews who died in the holocaust are worthy of mourning, or he is attempting to use his "holocaust skepticism," which actually differs between skepticism and outright denial whenever it suits his purposes; to promote his own goals of destroying Israel. Ahmadinejad has NEVER made it a secret that he will use any means necessary to destroy Israel and its people, and we Americans protect our allies.
Here's some evidence Iran is evil, if not a threat. Sharia islamic law, which is the system implemented in Iran, calls for the beating of women who walk around in public without their husbands or a male family member. The Iranian leader, Ahmadinejad, has proven himself to be extremely anti-semitic, and denies the existence of the holocaust, a well documented event which the Germans themselves admit happened. Iran is a rogue nation fueled by genocidal hatred with an insane leader.
Moron, Iran will manufacture nukes for terrorists who will walk the bombs right into jerusalem, and new york city. You are so pompous and naive ... I would punch you in your big nose if I ever saw you in person. Maybe that would knock some sense into your ignorant pacifist mind. Iran is PURE EVIL! Read a passage from the schoolbooks they make the children read. People like you are the problem with America today. Even Obama said he would take military action against Iran if they got nukes, DUH!
@plnetjani you must be a stupid Zionist. Stop trying to push your agenda on the american people. The US wont do isreals dirty work for it anymore. For your information Iran has not attacked a nation for over 200 years.
This kid is high..... He stands against GW Bush, Republicans and now he's against the US government altogether. Barack Obama himself has suggested military action in Iran. Who does he actually agree with other than himself? We'll have increased troop #'s in Afghanistan after we leave Iraq, so how is one war better than another? This kids father needs to show him how a man acts and thinks. If he knows who his father is.......
docreza1, to get everything understood about the oil in Iraq, and is there any in afganistan? Iraq oil companies were and still are appart of OPEC! in conjunction with other nieghboring countries along with some from south america. within this trust of companies(trust=Firm reliance on the integrity, ability, or character of a person or thing),neither the American govt., nor american oil, companies are apart of it. OPEC set most of the prices world wide. America did not go to war for oil.
come on wake young peolpe you are the future and has to understand that politics is the biggest terrorism/maffia today in the world
And try to udnderstand the main problem not by media but by reasearching. Media is often ruled by jewish and america so ofcourse they will not go against themselves. Even iranian media they would also not do the same. So we have to be more realistic and try to understand who is attacking who and who is threating the other part?
???does anyone realize this problem? the problem of racism. This is why so many are agianst Iranian president, if you haven't noticed. same reason so many dont like US south today. the racial views are idiotic and need to stop. Now I'm not thinking about cold war, we most likely wont enter another one. what Im thinking about is ww2. shake our hands and hit us unexpectedly. clearly Iranian presy has gone against Isreal(USA ALLY). apparently many islamic people do (?).
so do not say that iranian president is todays hitler, while the jewish and americans are killing millions of children womens and bombing whole cities. What did the iranian president do?? they appllieing lebanon with weapons for self defence is that wrong?
see there you go again. acting as if its one sided, thats your racism. blind to the facts. and not the Iranian presy wont be toddays hitler until he makes a move, which we all know is what he wants to do. your acting like there are killings in one direction when there isn't. USA hasnt bombed a whole city since ww2, maybe vietnam or korea but nonthing comes to mind as of now (you know, maybe seceret). and where are these weapons for lebanon going? thats the concern, cause still means death.
racism??? so what´s the action of america in afghanistan and irak. Killing of millions of children, raping arabic/afghanis womens. what´s the definition of that?
What can Iran do? are they really a threat?
Khomeini where placed as leader by america wich where exil in france, they new what the country irans future will be, they new that during shahs time iran where going to be a superpower. America didn´t want it. They have been planning all this long time for one reason OIL!!
hey now, I thought Iraqis and Afgans dont like to be called arabic...or is that arabian? anyways check yourself, when the deaths at the hands of US are actualy less than that of whom origionaly ruled. scary huh. the people your supposed to trust stabing you in the back. torture, slaughters. or is that slaughtering? and the death count involving children/women/etc. is from the suicide bombers where as US have targeted military buildings within start of each invasion and terrorist activity.
Iran has been self dependent over 27 years now, do you think is easy?
I´m self iranian and I know how my people suffering inside iran, they do not hate USA or even Israel, they just don´t understand what these 2 countries are doing against afghanistan, irak, northkorea, syria, and now Iran.
who are they to act as a world police and try to rule the whole world?
Iran has a history over 2000 years, while america is a build up countrie on slaves wich where shipped from africa.
5. USA is always attacking Iran with sanctions, terrorism, has Iran really even once threating USA? no.
Come on wake up try to understand the problem.
Iran it is a Islamic Republic so do they not have the right to help their own religious people (muslims) do they not have the right to live as muslim and as koran says in their own countrie? Do not argue with human rights and such things when you do not know anything about the situation inside iran.
4. You can argue and say what about the weapons wich hezbollah use they are deliverd from Iran.
I agree some weapons yes they are. But should no one help the innocent palestinians? should they just be killed from the best miltary power/technology from USA and Israel. Iran want to help palestinians/libanese to protect their own countrie and children, is that wrong?
what you mean protect? both sides have too many jerks trying to make this into some kind of holy war and will stop and nothing to kill another human, simply because of their religion. how dirty is that huh. Now there are boundries that both sides want. so how bout instead of aranging the posibility of conflict how bout help convince both sides to meet, which the US has been trying for decades, but not a single word from iran except of aim and fire.
2nd about wiping of israel from the map: ahmadinejad sayed that buy time and by great power from god wich one day will understand this countrie will be removed from the map. what he mean is that it´s wrong that Israel has invaded a hole nation and killing innocent people (palestinians) and in the name of islam they will be punished not by military actions but by judgement. Iran is not agains Israel to have an countrie but by invading a whole nation is wrong,
3. Iran doesnt want war, everybody has to understand this, has iran ever threat america or any other countrie?
you may argue and say yes what about holocaust and what about wiping off isarel from map.
First of all (holocaust) Ahmedinejad he sayed that if the holocaust really happened so why does the palaestinan have to pay for it what have they done to the jewish?
the iranian leader is crazy......he claims the holocaust is a myth...gee where was he durring history class lol...no point blank he is our midern day hitler and should be wiped out exterminated.....and he doesnt care about his citizens he wont even let women choose the color of their head garment because he is a control freek....if he isnt stopped he will cause ww3
so by your logic i guess saddam was scared when we wouldnt let him inspect our weapons facilities too...and to point out that Saddam was in violation of the UN is laughable because you HAD TO KNOW i would bring up that the US and Israel are the #1 violators of the UN, the UN Charter, the Geneva Conventions, the Nuremburg tribunal....Iran threatened israel? yes they have...Israel has threatened Iran too, and The US has also, fuck we overthrew there democratic government to prop up a dictator.
to your point of me 'running' im not even gonna rebuke because it's laughably stupid that you resort to childish tactics like that during a supposed argument. And really? ALL of Iran beleives the holocaust (<--spelled like that numbnuts) never happened? ALL OF THEM? REALLY?!?! time for the two worst words you can ever hear PROVE IT..if you're having trouble don't worry you should be, it's not possible to prove it because just like the rest of your arguments your point was pulled out of your ass.
The media identifies Iran and Iraq as terrorist nations because their governments do not control the terrorists within their country...o and BTW uranium is not the only element that acts as fissile material in nukes...just because uranium is not being enriched that doesn't mean plutonium or thorium stockpiles aren't. I'm not saying wage open war but these governments are not able to police their own countries let alone control the distribution of weapons within them.
Nuclear WEAPON technology is different than nuclear GENERATION technology. Does it matter if Iran has nuclear weapons...no... IT MATTERS THAT CRIMINALS AND TERRORISTS WITHIN THE COUNTRY HAVE
THEM...and yes they will launch them IN THE NAME OF THEIR GOD...terrorists DO NOT HAVE a nationality.
Iranian Shiites are allied with other Shiites in the Middle East while the Saudi who are Sunni support their own and make no mistake about it Al Qaida and the worst Islam has to offer the world. When they say "funding both sided of the war" this is part of what they should be talking about. Saudi Arabia is continuing what they started killing, Americans here and abroad. Your enemy's enemy isn't always your friend.
or are you implying that they used that money to buy weapons from the iranian backed Hezbollah who they are known to have several ties to?
Russia doesnt export AK-47's to iraq or afghanistan but it does send them to the "responsible" government of Iran... they give them tanks and fighter jets as well...why not nukes?
there's more evidence that saudi arabia has funded terrorism/terrorist groups than Iran...the stuff in the papers a couple weeks ago about iranian weapons found in insurgents hands in Iraq was bullshit, there was no evidence of it whatsoever.
there is no evidence or reason to believe that the terrorists could/would get their hands on the nuclear weapons "shoot first, die second" every leader, rational or irrational gets that
It's not just an irrelevant 'what if' because your whole argument hangs on your assertion that my what if is impossible.
I'm just restating your argument in a way that reveals the flaw in your argument.
That's what I'm supposed to do. We're all dedicated to the task of finding the truth here.
In this case, "the truth" is a best guess about human behavior that we can base policy decisions on. Humans are self-destructive in thousands of ways. That's the problem.
my argument rests on the assertion that you're scenario is IMPROBABLE, not impossible, and i'm basing my assertions on the evidence, not on hypothetical worst case scenarios...all things equal until proven otherwise...if we insist upon having the inherent right to nukes, then they can too...simple as that...we can say "you don't have the right to nukes"...but the burden of proof is on us to demonstrate why...we haven't met that burden.
The United States does not have the inherent right to have nukes. No one does.
If I'm standing with some friends in a pool of gasoline, do I have an inherent right to light a match? No.
Kim Song-Il IS, himself, the madman into whose hands we don't want the nuclear weapons to fall. Who knows whether Saddam would have used WMDs if he had had them in order to save his own life.
what do you mean "who knows" whether Saddam would have used WMDs if he had them in order to save his own life.? we went after him BECAUSE of these WMDs in the 1st place... and the WMDs WE gave him in the 1st place were never used against us... so noone needs to know whether or not he would of used them if he had them because WE gave them to him and noone complained then. why does Bush's administration have all these priorities that spend money we never make back?
What prevents Iran from giving nuclear technology to a country that gives it to a country that gives it to a country that gives it to a terrorist organization?
Nothing but time and trade, so to speak. Call me a fanboy but I'm really rooting for Israel in the middle east, and Iran and Israel haven't been making nice very much lately.
lol wrong answer...my point is that youre getting into hypotheticals now...either we ALL agree to nuclear disarmament (in stages if neccessary) or we're complete hypocrites for telling Iran they can't have nukes.
Human beings are not logic circuits. A highly trained academic can *make* a logical argument, but he'll never be able to convince heads of state to *behave* logically.
The assumption that all heads of state are rational is false.
You have a good logical argument based on a false premise.
This is why logic is more useful in mathematics than in geopolitics. It's easy to make a logical argument. Getting the premises right is almost impossible.
you still arent grasping it...it doesnt matter if you are rational or irrational...the US wouldnt have dropped nuclear weapons on japan, for instance, if they had nukes...just as if iran has nuclear weapons they wouldnt use them and we wont use ours. mutual deterrence is not a matter of rationallity.
What prevents an irrational head of state from acting irrationally and lobbing nuclear weapons at his enemies? What prevents a mentally ill head of state from lobbing nuclear weapons at his enemies?
We prayed that deterrence would deter the Ruskies and it did. It deterred them from using nuclear weapons. But it didn't stop them from fighting hot wars with us all around the globe. Even with them, it wasn't much of a deterrent.
as a matter of objective fact, safest scenario - no wmd's for anyone, second safest - everyone has wmd's, least safe - (in different combinations) some have wmd's, some don't...once you fully grasp that you will understand your question doesn't apply to my position.
What I said up above was that assuming rational behavior from heads of state is simply not a safe assumption. Look at all of human history. Where was the rational behavior?
I can't get my own FATHER to behave rationally half the time. LOL
Route A: Give everyone WMDs, all countries are divided and equal, perhaps someday we settle our differences and form a world government (which may prove a good idea in the long run.)
Route B: One nation (USA for example) Dominates the world not necessarily by force but perhaps by proxy, we then consolidate into a world government which may prove a good idea in the long run.)
well route b is whats attempted to be done right now...but people die, and there is extreme resistance, if the ends justify the means then you can overlook this though (like the hannitys and oreillys of the world) but there are many other complicated routes to discuss which i wont get into because it will take a while...but i will say i'm not in favor of either one of the two options you've proposed
Alright but... weren't you just going on about how the safest scenario is to give everyone WMD's? that sounds a lot like the "route A" I mentioned. Ah well whatever.
I'm seriously worried that we might get into a war with Russia or China in the near future... or maybe both. Russia may be a close ally and we may be deep in debt to China, but somehow I don't think those ties can avert a World War. Do you think we might have another world war in the near future? I'm afraid we just might...
You have very good points, I have a different point of view though. The United States and Russia used to be the only countries with nukes back in the day decades ago, and since other countries didn't the US and the USSR became extremely powerful world powers (until the USSR crashed in the 90's and etc.) But now everyone is getting nukes and the more countries that have nukes, the less people we can bully into doing what we want. We lose power with every country that gets our toughest bomb
I guess what I'm saying is that Iran may have an empirical right to nukes, but we don't want that to happen. If no one can attack anyone else than we create the end of warfare... the end of national death in a sense. Survival of the fitest breaks down and we start to devolve. War is necessary for our species just as death is necessary to allow for new babies to be born.
Now only that but do you think the US wants to be equalized with Iran and etc? No one ever likes to lose power or authority.
"war is neccessary for our species"philosophical points have little merit in factual conversations...Listen, everybodys sentiment seems to be the same "we need no nukes you idiot, not more"...I AGREE, WE NEED NO NUKES...how do we get there tho? The US certainly isn't going to give their nukes up under any imaginable situation...so whats the second best scenario? everyone has them, people dont get it, our OPINIONS dont matter on FACTUAL matters, thats just how it is.
I think our discrepancy lies in our priorities. You seem to favor the good of the individual worldwide wide, whereas I favor the good of our nation first and foremost.. a selfish ideology you might argue, but if you hand all your money out on the streets you'll be broke before you know it, and I think the US holds the same idea right now with wanting to retain it's power, we don't think we can trust the other powerful nations of the world to do the right thing themselves, I think.
"But now everyone is getting nukes and the more countries that have nukes, the less people we can bully into doing what we want."...it baffles me that you seem to be portraying this in a negative fashion...balancing the power distribution throughout the world is ALWAYS a positive thing in relation to human rights, international law, fairness, equality.
That's true, a power balance would be good for human rights, fairness and etcetera.
But...
What's more important, benevolence or strength? That obviously depends on how tough times are. If your on a dessert island you might resort to cannibalism, but if you won the lottery you might buy your best friend a car.
Not everyone shares the belief that we're at a good point to instigate an increase in global human rights. Some people think it preferable to retain our own water first, so to speak.
Israel who has a far worse Humanitarian record and far far far more Geneva and UN resolution violations. Yet, it is allowed to have Nukes by the dozen.
Also, i find it ironic that the only country in history to nuke another country is preaching about nuclear threats.
Also, people underestimate Iran. If the Iran backed Hezbollah kicked Israel's Ass. Iran will probably repel any assault much more easily.
i agree 100%, but as long as the US has nukes, all places have the right to nukes. (and, historically the US has voted against all UN attempts at all inclusive proactive steps to reduce nuclear weapons and/or get rid of them completely)
If I'm at a birthday party and one kid walks in with a lit match and a bucket of gasoline, does *every* kid have the right to have a lit match and a bucket of gasoline?
Could get messy.
As more and more of the children get their bucket, is *anyone* getting safer?
in my OPINION the optimal situation is NO ONE has nukes (you seem to agree with that).now back to reality for a sec...according to game theory, the safest scenario (or, objectively speaking the second safest scenario to our ideal)is everyone has nukes because, as a matter of objective fact, there is equal incentive not to use any kind of force (for fear of immediate retaliation). Splitting the difference either way AKA some people having nukes and some people not, is the most unstable situation.
the only exception is if a country is willing to die and henceforth doesn't care about the immediate retaliation aka if "alqaedastan" existed, my argument would be fallacious.
Well, that's it. A sane country that is somehow corrupt enough to leak nuclear technology to an insane country which gave it to terrorists. Irrational self-destructive behavior is incomprehensible . . .
"Well, that's it. A sane country that is somehow corrupt...which gave it to terrorists." Hypothetical situations and assumptions don't sufficiently substitute for evidence and factual analysis.if WE have nukes, logically speaking the safest scenario is for EVERY country to have nukes PERIOD.any argument otherwise is an opinionated rationalization not based on the evidence since there is no pure evil terrorist haven alqaeda run 'alqaedastan' country (Saudi Arabia is the closest & theyre our ally)
you don't seem to understand the argument...it applies to everybody that doesn't want to die for their beliefs rational or irrational(hence, the alqaedastan hypothetical being the exception)In other words if ahmadinejad wakes up with a nuke tommorrow, he doesn't use it, why? because he knows "i launch it at them, they launch it as us, we all die" its the same equilibrium that was reached in the cold war and eventually lead to diplomacy If anything were to result from Iran actually aquiring a...
"but what prevents Iran...technology to terrorist's?" you may not be familiar with how the burden of proof works, but something is presumed false until proven otherwise (null position) So my answer to your question doesn't matter, the burden of proof is on you to show me that we can conclude with some degree of certainty that Iran in fact will share their knowledge with an 'alqaedastan' (which, there is no evidence for either).your claims are consistent and somewhat plausible on theoretical...
The theory that the more nukes the merrier is a theory. Does *anyone* believe it?
The more parties there are with nukes, the more likely it is that a tragic miscalculation will be made.
You're assuming that nobody ever miscalculates. And that no one is ever suicidal. Osama bin Laden doesn't have any assets to lose! If the whole world went up in smoke, it would presumably be even easier for him to recruit.
it doesnt matter if anyone believes the *theory*, thats argumentum ad populum (logical fallacy)...as i've said about 14 times, however rational or irrational a leader is, as long as they want their country to live, they won't fire a wmd (if/when alqaedastan exists, my argument will become fallacious).
About the MAD principle we had going with Russia... Imagine two people have guns with say a 3 second delayed reaction long enough for the other to shoot also... that's us and the soviet union years ago.
Neither country fired, that time.
Now imagine that there are 40 people with such guns sweating buckets all with different loyalties.
Eventually someone pulls the trigger and we're all fucked, we have another world war and millions of people die.
in your hypothetical, what will ensue is the end of the world...rational or irrational every leader knows that. If you notice the only way people are attempting to debunk my argument (even in your case) is using hypotheticals *what if*...*then*...this doesn't substitute for logical argumentation and evidence based conclusions...it doesn't matter what we *FEEL* *MAY* happen the safest scenario - no nukes (almost impossible b/c of the US and Israel)...second safest - everyone has nukes PERIOD
Including Osama bin Laden? Including Kim Jong-Il, who seems certifiable? What if there is a coup d'etat in some tiny country and the coup leader holds the entire world hostage?
Or maybe coups d'etat won't happen in the future.
There was a failed coup d'etat in Russia just before Gorbachev resigned and the USSR broke up.
Stranger things have happened.
Do the nukes in Russia even make Russia safe? No! They are at risk of being stolen and used against Russia.
we can have an academic discussion about *ifs* and *or maybe thens*, and i'm pretty sure in all of the hypotheticals we would come to similar conclusions or completely agree.but, if we woke up tommorrow, and every actual country with a real government had nuclear weapons, as a matter of empirical fact the world would be safer than it is right now (i say *real government* to exclude the iraqi central government, which is not recognized by the iraqi people, nor is it central, nor is it even a gov)
What's happening is that faraway places are getting closer and closer and more technologically advanced and we the American People and we the U.S. government and they the leaders of governments in faraway places . . .
AREN'T GETTING ANY SMARTER.
It has never been more important to end war . . . and we're as bloodthirsty as ever.
you're right...thank you for shedding light on that, i want to make clear im not rationalizing Iran's streak of civil rights abuse and religious/cultural suppression. The only point i was trying to make is that this point, among others, isn't justification for military action...if anyting that's justification for the Iranian people to overthrow there own government/established power
yep puppet govt propaganda spewed out in the owned and controlled lamestream media. they repeat it so many times that it becomes 'truth'. There are many that are standing up to this tyranny...if you are sick of this, it is time to join the revolution and march on DC 7/12/08
i deleted another comment while trying to reply to it guys, i apologize....whoever posted it, feel free to re-post....it was the quote from the president of Iran calling Israel a stinking corpse or something along these lines...
And as for people calling Iran a fascist state, evil empire, etc.
Iran had a democratic government up until the USA and Britain came in and coup d'état Mohammed Mosaddeq, the prime minister of Iran, for nationalizing the Anglo-Iranian Oil company (Now known as BP) so that the money may go and help the Iranian people, instead of some foreign land.
What most people fail to see here is not President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is NOT the leader of Iran. He is second in command, simply meaning, no matter what he says, he can't do shit.
Actually, Ayatollah Khamenei has issued a fatwa saying the production, stockpiling and use of nuclear weapons was forbidden under Islam. The fatwa was cited in an official statement by the Iranian government at an August 2005 meeting of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) in Vienna.
One thing they do against America is that they are brown people and we all know how much the US gov. loves bombing brown people expecially brown muslims
Against Fabricated lies, Bending the truth, We Iranian send peace and love to hole world, Let's all hope for peace, for prosperity and happiness for all, including Americans.
Power of love is much grater then hate.
So I send my Love to humanity to word, with hope of unity of peaceful people.
I wonder if the Romans had to manufacture a threat to justify invasions of faraway lands.. Today the bogeyman is nuclear weapons.. I'm looking a couple moves past Iran to the point of American Union vs African Union, Asian Union (China) or even European Union.. How about the citizens of Utah or Wyoming suspected of having WMDs.. or generating their own energy.. Keep it up.
The whole problem is summarized by the next three lettres : MAD, Mutual Assured Destruction. Everybody knows that using a nuclear bomb would wipe a lot of people or even countries off the world map - and you don't get to choose which ones would disappear. The nuclear bomb basically exists not to be used, and Iran is aware of that. Besides you're totally right, they should be allowed to develop nuclear plants, it seems like the only way to produce power - when carefully dealt with, obviously.
It really is mind boggling to see how the media is doing the exact same thing with Iran as they did with Iraq, and that people are buying into it still.
Viewers comment: "Iran is NOT a threat to America"...thats a big statement for a 20 year old who probably knows less than a politician, even the ones who haven't been to the middle east or who don't study Iran etc.
Pakistan is a big backer of the Taliban, but it's okay for Pakistan to have the bomb. Not to mention, the Pakistani 'father' of their bomb, Khan, sold North Korea bomb related material and technology. No problem.
The smartest thing the Iranians could do would be to have a deterent to keep the warmongers in the States at bay.
They're not doing anything about it because they all are bought and paid for. They all belong to the 2-party system & both are corporate and special-interest puppets. Telling the truth has become a sin and evil in government is tolerated by the other evil in the media corps. The people are just a tax-paying tool. The Iran-nukes or Iran-Iraqi-support are all childish excuses to attack Iran and make more money for contractors, steal oil reserves and kill some more anti-Israel/humane people.
nuclear power plant my ass...
yoeldg 8 months ago
Why Doesn't Israel Take Care of Itself?
American LIVES MUST NOT Be LOST For ISRAELIS.
flightkiller09 1 year ago
Ahmadinejad is either mentally unstable and really does doubt that the jews who died in the holocaust are worthy of mourning, or he is attempting to use his "holocaust skepticism," which actually differs between skepticism and outright denial whenever it suits his purposes; to promote his own goals of destroying Israel. Ahmadinejad has NEVER made it a secret that he will use any means necessary to destroy Israel and its people, and we Americans protect our allies.
Yeahcoolwhatever 1 year ago
For some evidence of my claims, I will provide the URL's. I'm sure you can figure them out, youtube tries to block them.
ht tp://w w w.youtube.c o m/watch?v=ykd-syzZ4ZY
ht tp://w w w.youtube.c o m/watch?v=5hLDjGdJC0Q&feature=related
ht tp://w w w.youtube.c o m/watch?v=4_3RUwAJ_MI&feature=related
Yeahcoolwhatever 1 year ago
Here's some evidence Iran is evil, if not a threat. Sharia islamic law, which is the system implemented in Iran, calls for the beating of women who walk around in public without their husbands or a male family member. The Iranian leader, Ahmadinejad, has proven himself to be extremely anti-semitic, and denies the existence of the holocaust, a well documented event which the Germans themselves admit happened. Iran is a rogue nation fueled by genocidal hatred with an insane leader.
Yeahcoolwhatever 1 year ago
Nice video.
cyrusthegreat1984 1 year ago
Don't say that about America. You really don't understand who really controls our country? It is Britain.
Tom101229 2 years ago
Moron, Iran will manufacture nukes for terrorists who will walk the bombs right into jerusalem, and new york city. You are so pompous and naive ... I would punch you in your big nose if I ever saw you in person. Maybe that would knock some sense into your ignorant pacifist mind. Iran is PURE EVIL! Read a passage from the schoolbooks they make the children read. People like you are the problem with America today. Even Obama said he would take military action against Iran if they got nukes, DUH!
plnetjani 2 years ago
@plnetjani you must be a stupid Zionist. Stop trying to push your agenda on the american people. The US wont do isreals dirty work for it anymore. For your information Iran has not attacked a nation for over 200 years.
cyrusthegreat1984 1 year ago
if this guys ran for president i wud vote no doubt about it!
keep it up dude
thisismyaccountomg 3 years ago
This kid is high..... He stands against GW Bush, Republicans and now he's against the US government altogether. Barack Obama himself has suggested military action in Iran. Who does he actually agree with other than himself? We'll have increased troop #'s in Afghanistan after we leave Iraq, so how is one war better than another? This kids father needs to show him how a man acts and thinks. If he knows who his father is.......
ToTXfire 3 years ago
Iran has never killed any Americans.
Iran was not related to 9/11.
Iran assisted US against Taliban in 2001.
US has organized the 1953 coup.
US has organized the Nojeh coup.
US has entered in IRAQ/IRAN war in 1988 and bombed and killed Iranian soldiers and non-soldiers.
US shot down civilian airliner, killing 290 innocent people including 66 children. US never apologized for its mistake.
IAEA and 16 spy agencies have announced that Iran is not developing nuclear weapons.
docreza1 3 years ago
docreza1, to get everything understood about the oil in Iraq, and is there any in afganistan? Iraq oil companies were and still are appart of OPEC! in conjunction with other nieghboring countries along with some from south america. within this trust of companies(trust=Firm reliance on the integrity, ability, or character of a person or thing),neither the American govt., nor american oil, companies are apart of it. OPEC set most of the prices world wide. America did not go to war for oil.
nessunopassato 3 years ago
Mike Gravel spoke out about Iran in debates when he was a Democratic candidate for President.
GeorgioFulungaga7 3 years ago
come on wake young peolpe you are the future and has to understand that politics is the biggest terrorism/maffia today in the world
And try to udnderstand the main problem not by media but by reasearching. Media is often ruled by jewish and america so ofcourse they will not go against themselves. Even iranian media they would also not do the same. So we have to be more realistic and try to understand who is attacking who and who is threating the other part?
thank you for your time.
docreza1 3 years ago
???does anyone realize this problem? the problem of racism. This is why so many are agianst Iranian president, if you haven't noticed. same reason so many dont like US south today. the racial views are idiotic and need to stop. Now I'm not thinking about cold war, we most likely wont enter another one. what Im thinking about is ww2. shake our hands and hit us unexpectedly. clearly Iranian presy has gone against Isreal(USA ALLY). apparently many islamic people do (?).
nessunopassato 3 years ago
so do not say that iranian president is todays hitler, while the jewish and americans are killing millions of children womens and bombing whole cities. What did the iranian president do?? they appllieing lebanon with weapons for self defence is that wrong?
docreza1 3 years ago
see there you go again. acting as if its one sided, thats your racism. blind to the facts. and not the Iranian presy wont be toddays hitler until he makes a move, which we all know is what he wants to do. your acting like there are killings in one direction when there isn't. USA hasnt bombed a whole city since ww2, maybe vietnam or korea but nonthing comes to mind as of now (you know, maybe seceret). and where are these weapons for lebanon going? thats the concern, cause still means death.
nessunopassato 3 years ago
racism??? so what´s the action of america in afghanistan and irak. Killing of millions of children, raping arabic/afghanis womens. what´s the definition of that?
What can Iran do? are they really a threat?
Khomeini where placed as leader by america wich where exil in france, they new what the country irans future will be, they new that during shahs time iran where going to be a superpower. America didn´t want it. They have been planning all this long time for one reason OIL!!
docreza1 3 years ago
hey now, I thought Iraqis and Afgans dont like to be called arabic...or is that arabian? anyways check yourself, when the deaths at the hands of US are actualy less than that of whom origionaly ruled. scary huh. the people your supposed to trust stabing you in the back. torture, slaughters. or is that slaughtering? and the death count involving children/women/etc. is from the suicide bombers where as US have targeted military buildings within start of each invasion and terrorist activity.
nessunopassato 3 years ago
Iran has been self dependent over 27 years now, do you think is easy?
I´m self iranian and I know how my people suffering inside iran, they do not hate USA or even Israel, they just don´t understand what these 2 countries are doing against afghanistan, irak, northkorea, syria, and now Iran.
who are they to act as a world police and try to rule the whole world?
Iran has a history over 2000 years, while america is a build up countrie on slaves wich where shipped from africa.
docreza1 3 years ago
5. USA is always attacking Iran with sanctions, terrorism, has Iran really even once threating USA? no.
Come on wake up try to understand the problem.
Iran it is a Islamic Republic so do they not have the right to help their own religious people (muslims) do they not have the right to live as muslim and as koran says in their own countrie? Do not argue with human rights and such things when you do not know anything about the situation inside iran.
docreza1 3 years ago
but by voting and by right way would be better.
4. You can argue and say what about the weapons wich hezbollah use they are deliverd from Iran.
I agree some weapons yes they are. But should no one help the innocent palestinians? should they just be killed from the best miltary power/technology from USA and Israel. Iran want to help palestinians/libanese to protect their own countrie and children, is that wrong?
docreza1 3 years ago
what you mean protect? both sides have too many jerks trying to make this into some kind of holy war and will stop and nothing to kill another human, simply because of their religion. how dirty is that huh. Now there are boundries that both sides want. so how bout instead of aranging the posibility of conflict how bout help convince both sides to meet, which the US has been trying for decades, but not a single word from iran except of aim and fire.
nessunopassato 3 years ago
2nd about wiping of israel from the map: ahmadinejad sayed that buy time and by great power from god wich one day will understand this countrie will be removed from the map. what he mean is that it´s wrong that Israel has invaded a hole nation and killing innocent people (palestinians) and in the name of islam they will be punished not by military actions but by judgement. Iran is not agains Israel to have an countrie but by invading a whole nation is wrong,
docreza1 3 years ago
3. Iran doesnt want war, everybody has to understand this, has iran ever threat america or any other countrie?
you may argue and say yes what about holocaust and what about wiping off isarel from map.
First of all (holocaust) Ahmedinejad he sayed that if the holocaust really happened so why does the palaestinan have to pay for it what have they done to the jewish?
docreza1 3 years ago
Iran is not a threat. Why?
1. When has Iran attacked an countrie in the past?
2. Who are america or israel or who ever to say that Iran do not have the right for nuclear energy?
2.2 USA should not say anything cause they are the only contrie who has used atomic bomb on hiroshima so who are they to argue?
docreza1 3 years ago
the iranian leader is crazy......he claims the holocaust is a myth...gee where was he durring history class lol...no point blank he is our midern day hitler and should be wiped out exterminated.....and he doesnt care about his citizens he wont even let women choose the color of their head garment because he is a control freek....if he isnt stopped he will cause ww3
donnabuckner 3 years ago
I don't believe that Iran is any threat to us.
We did terrible things to them (in '53), and we are planning more.
They will become a threat, if we keep provoking them.
Iran is not going to be the easy target that Iraq has been.
Iranians are not stupid. If we give them peace and respect, they will respond. If we give them sanctions and threaten them, they will respond.
They don't need to lie in THEIR media to confuse the people and give them a false reason to hate us. WE gave them the reason.
950horsepower 3 years ago
You know what scared us? When Saddam wouldn't let us inspect his weapons facilities, per our agreement to stop the first war in 91.
He did not abide by the rules, the UN unanymously agreed that if he STILL would not cooperate that he would face "Servere Consquences".
1 thing Iran has done to America?
Threatened our Ally... Israel.
Are you the kid that runs when your friends are in danger?
Iran is not stupid? Yet they say the Hallocaust never happened.
Dismissed.
USVeterans 3 years ago
1. Why would he risk fallout in Jerusalem, a holy city. You do know Iran is religious, right?
2. Why would he risk fallout in Palestine, people who he supports?
3. They can "SUPPOSEDLY" construct a nuclear weapon yet they are still stupid?
4. Why would he lob a nuke over any ole place when he knows full well his people would be obliterated in retaliation.
No reason m'right? They don't have brains, they're just crazy people.
You sir are naive. Carry on.
grit123 3 years ago
You are right.. We would wipe them out.. Which does make you wonder if this is all true..
SJT12689 3 years ago
so by your logic i guess saddam was scared when we wouldnt let him inspect our weapons facilities too...and to point out that Saddam was in violation of the UN is laughable because you HAD TO KNOW i would bring up that the US and Israel are the #1 violators of the UN, the UN Charter, the Geneva Conventions, the Nuremburg tribunal....Iran threatened israel? yes they have...Israel has threatened Iran too, and The US has also, fuck we overthrew there democratic government to prop up a dictator.
SecularTalk 3 years ago
to your point of me 'running' im not even gonna rebuke because it's laughably stupid that you resort to childish tactics like that during a supposed argument. And really? ALL of Iran beleives the holocaust (<--spelled like that numbnuts) never happened? ALL OF THEM? REALLY?!?! time for the two worst words you can ever hear PROVE IT..if you're having trouble don't worry you should be, it's not possible to prove it because just like the rest of your arguments your point was pulled out of your ass.
SecularTalk 3 years ago
Does anyone inspect the USA's weapon facilities? Are there any "servere consquences" if the USA acts against the wishes of the UN?
lily2stinky 3 years ago
I should add that invading Iran would be an even bigger blunder than invading Iraq was, and that's SAYIN' somethin'.
ReliableInsider 3 years ago
The media identifies Iran and Iraq as terrorist nations because their governments do not control the terrorists within their country...o and BTW uranium is not the only element that acts as fissile material in nukes...just because uranium is not being enriched that doesn't mean plutonium or thorium stockpiles aren't. I'm not saying wage open war but these governments are not able to police their own countries let alone control the distribution of weapons within them.
utubeismylastresort 3 years ago
Nuclear WEAPON technology is different than nuclear GENERATION technology. Does it matter if Iran has nuclear weapons...no... IT MATTERS THAT CRIMINALS AND TERRORISTS WITHIN THE COUNTRY HAVE
THEM...and yes they will launch them IN THE NAME OF THEIR GOD...terrorists DO NOT HAVE a nationality.
utubeismylastresort 3 years ago
" IT MATTERS THAT CRIMINALS AND TERRORISTS WITHIN THE COUNTRY HAVE
THEM "
lol not one evidence of this ever. Making this up like fox news where you probably heard it first.
my45ze 3 years ago
where does the taliban get their weapons from then?
utubeismylastresort 3 years ago
both Iran and this group are eachother's enemies. Why would they support eachother?
my45ze 3 years ago
Iranian Shiites are allied with other Shiites in the Middle East while the Saudi who are Sunni support their own and make no mistake about it Al Qaida and the worst Islam has to offer the world. When they say "funding both sided of the war" this is part of what they should be talking about. Saudi Arabia is continuing what they started killing, Americans here and abroad. Your enemy's enemy isn't always your friend.
sakatush 3 years ago
bin ladin's father was a saudi rich oil prince, that's where (saudi arabia our ally)
SecularTalk 3 years ago
for al qaeda****(didn't see u said taliban)
SecularTalk 3 years ago
they got weapons from Bin's daddy?
or are you implying that they used that money to buy weapons from the iranian backed Hezbollah who they are known to have several ties to?
Russia doesnt export AK-47's to iraq or afghanistan but it does send them to the "responsible" government of Iran... they give them tanks and fighter jets as well...why not nukes?
and how does a russian built year 2001 AK-47
get to the terrorists in Iraq? hmm...tough one...
utubeismylastresort 3 years ago
there's more evidence that saudi arabia has funded terrorism/terrorist groups than Iran...the stuff in the papers a couple weeks ago about iranian weapons found in insurgents hands in Iraq was bullshit, there was no evidence of it whatsoever.
SecularTalk 3 years ago
there is no evidence or reason to believe that the terrorists could/would get their hands on the nuclear weapons "shoot first, die second" every leader, rational or irrational gets that
SecularTalk 3 years ago
What prevents terrorists from buying nuclear weapons technology from impoverished scientists?
The more countries have nukes, the more scientists the terrorists will have to choose from.
ReliableInsider 3 years ago
what prevents john hagee and the religious right from launching a nuke at Iran?...*what if's* are non arguments
SecularTalk 3 years ago
It's not just an irrelevant 'what if' because your whole argument hangs on your assertion that my what if is impossible.
I'm just restating your argument in a way that reveals the flaw in your argument.
That's what I'm supposed to do. We're all dedicated to the task of finding the truth here.
In this case, "the truth" is a best guess about human behavior that we can base policy decisions on. Humans are self-destructive in thousands of ways. That's the problem.
ReliableInsider 3 years ago
my argument rests on the assertion that you're scenario is IMPROBABLE, not impossible, and i'm basing my assertions on the evidence, not on hypothetical worst case scenarios...all things equal until proven otherwise...if we insist upon having the inherent right to nukes, then they can too...simple as that...we can say "you don't have the right to nukes"...but the burden of proof is on us to demonstrate why...we haven't met that burden.
SecularTalk 3 years ago
The United States does not have the inherent right to have nukes. No one does.
If I'm standing with some friends in a pool of gasoline, do I have an inherent right to light a match? No.
Kim Song-Il IS, himself, the madman into whose hands we don't want the nuclear weapons to fall. Who knows whether Saddam would have used WMDs if he had had them in order to save his own life.
Truman USED nuclear weapons.
Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, Mao, Bush.
Were they sane, much less rational?
ReliableInsider 3 years ago
what do you mean "who knows" whether Saddam would have used WMDs if he had them in order to save his own life.? we went after him BECAUSE of these WMDs in the 1st place... and the WMDs WE gave him in the 1st place were never used against us... so noone needs to know whether or not he would of used them if he had them because WE gave them to him and noone complained then. why does Bush's administration have all these priorities that spend money we never make back?
babybambino89 3 years ago
What prevents Iran from giving nuclear technology to a country that gives it to a country that gives it to a country that gives it to a terrorist organization?
ReliableInsider 3 years ago
why do the planets stay in orbit? your non-argument doesn't pass.
SecularTalk 3 years ago
Gravity.
Now answer my question.
ReliableInsider 3 years ago
Nothing but time and trade, so to speak. Call me a fanboy but I'm really rooting for Israel in the middle east, and Iran and Israel haven't been making nice very much lately.
Are we going to invade Iran? We just might...
chaoscontrot 3 years ago
lol wrong answer...my point is that youre getting into hypotheticals now...either we ALL agree to nuclear disarmament (in stages if neccessary) or we're complete hypocrites for telling Iran they can't have nukes.
SecularTalk 3 years ago
All war is mutually destructive. If people were rational and if heads of state genuinely cared about their own people, there would be fewer wars.
ReliableInsider 3 years ago
good point, completely off topic though.
SecularTalk 3 years ago
Human beings are not logic circuits. A highly trained academic can *make* a logical argument, but he'll never be able to convince heads of state to *behave* logically.
The assumption that all heads of state are rational is false.
You have a good logical argument based on a false premise.
This is why logic is more useful in mathematics than in geopolitics. It's easy to make a logical argument. Getting the premises right is almost impossible.
ReliableInsider 3 years ago
you still arent grasping it...it doesnt matter if you are rational or irrational...the US wouldnt have dropped nuclear weapons on japan, for instance, if they had nukes...just as if iran has nuclear weapons they wouldnt use them and we wont use ours. mutual deterrence is not a matter of rationallity.
SecularTalk 3 years ago
What prevents an irrational head of state from acting irrationally and lobbing nuclear weapons at his enemies? What prevents a mentally ill head of state from lobbing nuclear weapons at his enemies?
We prayed that deterrence would deter the Ruskies and it did. It deterred them from using nuclear weapons. But it didn't stop them from fighting hot wars with us all around the globe. Even with them, it wasn't much of a deterrent.
ReliableInsider 3 years ago
What if we do what's "fair" and we all die. Was it really the "fair" thing to do?
It seems a little unfair to the voters, the people who are going to be doing the dying.
ReliableInsider 3 years ago
as a matter of objective fact, safest scenario - no wmd's for anyone, second safest - everyone has wmd's, least safe - (in different combinations) some have wmd's, some don't...once you fully grasp that you will understand your question doesn't apply to my position.
SecularTalk 3 years ago
What I said up above was that assuming rational behavior from heads of state is simply not a safe assumption. Look at all of human history. Where was the rational behavior?
I can't get my own FATHER to behave rationally half the time. LOL
My own father!!!
ReliableInsider 3 years ago
I suppose there are two way to get to 'No WMDs'
Route A: Give everyone WMDs, all countries are divided and equal, perhaps someday we settle our differences and form a world government (which may prove a good idea in the long run.)
Route B: One nation (USA for example) Dominates the world not necessarily by force but perhaps by proxy, we then consolidate into a world government which may prove a good idea in the long run.)
You seem to prefer route A, I prefer route B.
Thoughts?
chaoscontrot 3 years ago
well route b is whats attempted to be done right now...but people die, and there is extreme resistance, if the ends justify the means then you can overlook this though (like the hannitys and oreillys of the world) but there are many other complicated routes to discuss which i wont get into because it will take a while...but i will say i'm not in favor of either one of the two options you've proposed
SecularTalk 3 years ago
Alright but... weren't you just going on about how the safest scenario is to give everyone WMD's? that sounds a lot like the "route A" I mentioned. Ah well whatever.
I'm seriously worried that we might get into a war with Russia or China in the near future... or maybe both. Russia may be a close ally and we may be deep in debt to China, but somehow I don't think those ties can avert a World War. Do you think we might have another world war in the near future? I'm afraid we just might...
chaoscontrot 3 years ago
You have very good points, I have a different point of view though. The United States and Russia used to be the only countries with nukes back in the day decades ago, and since other countries didn't the US and the USSR became extremely powerful world powers (until the USSR crashed in the 90's and etc.) But now everyone is getting nukes and the more countries that have nukes, the less people we can bully into doing what we want. We lose power with every country that gets our toughest bomb
chaoscontrot 3 years ago
I guess what I'm saying is that Iran may have an empirical right to nukes, but we don't want that to happen. If no one can attack anyone else than we create the end of warfare... the end of national death in a sense. Survival of the fitest breaks down and we start to devolve. War is necessary for our species just as death is necessary to allow for new babies to be born.
Now only that but do you think the US wants to be equalized with Iran and etc? No one ever likes to lose power or authority.
chaoscontrot 3 years ago
"war is neccessary for our species"philosophical points have little merit in factual conversations...Listen, everybodys sentiment seems to be the same "we need no nukes you idiot, not more"...I AGREE, WE NEED NO NUKES...how do we get there tho? The US certainly isn't going to give their nukes up under any imaginable situation...so whats the second best scenario? everyone has them, people dont get it, our OPINIONS dont matter on FACTUAL matters, thats just how it is.
SecularTalk 3 years ago
I think our discrepancy lies in our priorities. You seem to favor the good of the individual worldwide wide, whereas I favor the good of our nation first and foremost.. a selfish ideology you might argue, but if you hand all your money out on the streets you'll be broke before you know it, and I think the US holds the same idea right now with wanting to retain it's power, we don't think we can trust the other powerful nations of the world to do the right thing themselves, I think.
chaoscontrot 3 years ago
you lost me a little bit...this is very philosophical (not my realm)
SecularTalk 3 years ago
"But now everyone is getting nukes and the more countries that have nukes, the less people we can bully into doing what we want."...it baffles me that you seem to be portraying this in a negative fashion...balancing the power distribution throughout the world is ALWAYS a positive thing in relation to human rights, international law, fairness, equality.
SecularTalk 3 years ago
That's true, a power balance would be good for human rights, fairness and etcetera.
But...
What's more important, benevolence or strength? That obviously depends on how tough times are. If your on a dessert island you might resort to cannibalism, but if you won the lottery you might buy your best friend a car.
Not everyone shares the belief that we're at a good point to instigate an increase in global human rights. Some people think it preferable to retain our own water first, so to speak.
chaoscontrot 3 years ago
thats a very generalized, off base interpretation of world politics.
SecularTalk 3 years ago
Indeed,
Israel who has a far worse Humanitarian record and far far far more Geneva and UN resolution violations. Yet, it is allowed to have Nukes by the dozen.
Also, i find it ironic that the only country in history to nuke another country is preaching about nuclear threats.
Also, people underestimate Iran. If the Iran backed Hezbollah kicked Israel's Ass. Iran will probably repel any assault much more easily.
phallll 3 years ago
I disagree about nuclear proliferation, though. As nukes spread, eventually someone *will* use them.
Maybe the Luddites were right. We are too primitive a species intellectually to be able to handle safely the technologies we are able to invent.
Robert Oppenheimer: "Now I am become Death, the destroyer of worlds."
ReliableInsider 3 years ago
i agree 100%, but as long as the US has nukes, all places have the right to nukes. (and, historically the US has voted against all UN attempts at all inclusive proactive steps to reduce nuclear weapons and/or get rid of them completely)
SecularTalk 3 years ago
Do all other countries have the right to nukes?
If I'm at a birthday party and one kid walks in with a lit match and a bucket of gasoline, does *every* kid have the right to have a lit match and a bucket of gasoline?
Could get messy.
As more and more of the children get their bucket, is *anyone* getting safer?
ReliableInsider 3 years ago
in my OPINION the optimal situation is NO ONE has nukes (you seem to agree with that).now back to reality for a sec...according to game theory, the safest scenario (or, objectively speaking the second safest scenario to our ideal)is everyone has nukes because, as a matter of objective fact, there is equal incentive not to use any kind of force (for fear of immediate retaliation). Splitting the difference either way AKA some people having nukes and some people not, is the most unstable situation.
SecularTalk 3 years ago
the only exception is if a country is willing to die and henceforth doesn't care about the immediate retaliation aka if "alqaedastan" existed, my argument would be fallacious.
SecularTalk 3 years ago
Well, that's it. A sane country that is somehow corrupt enough to leak nuclear technology to an insane country which gave it to terrorists. Irrational self-destructive behavior is incomprehensible . . .
and yet . . .
tobacco companies and fast food chains flourish.
ReliableInsider 3 years ago
"Well, that's it. A sane country that is somehow corrupt...which gave it to terrorists." Hypothetical situations and assumptions don't sufficiently substitute for evidence and factual analysis.if WE have nukes, logically speaking the safest scenario is for EVERY country to have nukes PERIOD.any argument otherwise is an opinionated rationalization not based on the evidence since there is no pure evil terrorist haven alqaeda run 'alqaedastan' country (Saudi Arabia is the closest & theyre our ally)
SecularTalk 3 years ago
Rationality. The Enlightenment. These are things we aspire to, and we should. But you open a newspaper and you realize it's still just an aspiration.
I've found it's safer to assume that other people's behavior will be irrational.
We study reason in college, but I don't think it's ever been found in the wild.
ReliableInsider 3 years ago
you don't seem to understand the argument...it applies to everybody that doesn't want to die for their beliefs rational or irrational(hence, the alqaedastan hypothetical being the exception)In other words if ahmadinejad wakes up with a nuke tommorrow, he doesn't use it, why? because he knows "i launch it at them, they launch it as us, we all die" its the same equilibrium that was reached in the cold war and eventually lead to diplomacy If anything were to result from Iran actually aquiring a...
SecularTalk 3 years ago
nuke it would be the US more or less getting deterred or toning down it's propaganda campaign.
SecularTalk 3 years ago
SecularTalk,
I'm familiar with MAD.
But what prevents Iran from sharing technology with some other country and what prevents *that country* from giving the technology to terrorists?
Iran may trust some country that can't be trusted.
ReliableInsider 3 years ago
"but what prevents Iran...technology to terrorist's?" you may not be familiar with how the burden of proof works, but something is presumed false until proven otherwise (null position) So my answer to your question doesn't matter, the burden of proof is on you to show me that we can conclude with some degree of certainty that Iran in fact will share their knowledge with an 'alqaedastan' (which, there is no evidence for either).your claims are consistent and somewhat plausible on theoretical...
SecularTalk 3 years ago
grounds but crumble in reality since the evidence doesn't back up your claims.
SecularTalk 3 years ago
The theory that the more nukes the merrier is a theory. Does *anyone* believe it?
The more parties there are with nukes, the more likely it is that a tragic miscalculation will be made.
You're assuming that nobody ever miscalculates. And that no one is ever suicidal. Osama bin Laden doesn't have any assets to lose! If the whole world went up in smoke, it would presumably be even easier for him to recruit.
ReliableInsider 3 years ago
it doesnt matter if anyone believes the *theory*, thats argumentum ad populum (logical fallacy)...as i've said about 14 times, however rational or irrational a leader is, as long as they want their country to live, they won't fire a wmd (if/when alqaedastan exists, my argument will become fallacious).
SecularTalk 3 years ago
About the MAD principle we had going with Russia... Imagine two people have guns with say a 3 second delayed reaction long enough for the other to shoot also... that's us and the soviet union years ago.
Neither country fired, that time.
Now imagine that there are 40 people with such guns sweating buckets all with different loyalties.
Eventually someone pulls the trigger and we're all fucked, we have another world war and millions of people die.
The more who know a secret, the less safe.
chaoscontrot 3 years ago
in your hypothetical, what will ensue is the end of the world...rational or irrational every leader knows that. If you notice the only way people are attempting to debunk my argument (even in your case) is using hypotheticals *what if*...*then*...this doesn't substitute for logical argumentation and evidence based conclusions...it doesn't matter what we *FEEL* *MAY* happen the safest scenario - no nukes (almost impossible b/c of the US and Israel)...second safest - everyone has nukes PERIOD
SecularTalk 3 years ago
Including Osama bin Laden? Including Kim Jong-Il, who seems certifiable? What if there is a coup d'etat in some tiny country and the coup leader holds the entire world hostage?
Or maybe coups d'etat won't happen in the future.
There was a failed coup d'etat in Russia just before Gorbachev resigned and the USSR broke up.
Stranger things have happened.
Do the nukes in Russia even make Russia safe? No! They are at risk of being stolen and used against Russia.
ReliableInsider 3 years ago
we can have an academic discussion about *ifs* and *or maybe thens*, and i'm pretty sure in all of the hypotheticals we would come to similar conclusions or completely agree.but, if we woke up tommorrow, and every actual country with a real government had nuclear weapons, as a matter of empirical fact the world would be safer than it is right now (i say *real government* to exclude the iraqi central government, which is not recognized by the iraqi people, nor is it central, nor is it even a gov)
SecularTalk 3 years ago
What's happening is that faraway places are getting closer and closer and more technologically advanced and we the American People and we the U.S. government and they the leaders of governments in faraway places . . .
AREN'T GETTING ANY SMARTER.
It has never been more important to end war . . . and we're as bloodthirsty as ever.
All wars are civil wars.
ReliableInsider 3 years ago
You keep asking why, search Zeitgeist in google and you will see why.
tam705618 3 years ago
I must say that Iran does oppress people of the Baha'i Faith and homosexuals. An especially women of the Baha'i Faith.
jasondangersmith 3 years ago
you're right...thank you for shedding light on that, i want to make clear im not rationalizing Iran's streak of civil rights abuse and religious/cultural suppression. The only point i was trying to make is that this point, among others, isn't justification for military action...if anyting that's justification for the Iranian people to overthrow there own government/established power
SecularTalk 3 years ago
How about giving us an update on this clip? Or are you unaware that the report on Iran has been denounced?
liberty11111 3 years ago
yep puppet govt propaganda spewed out in the owned and controlled lamestream media. they repeat it so many times that it becomes 'truth'. There are many that are standing up to this tyranny...if you are sick of this, it is time to join the revolution and march on DC 7/12/08
cv1122 3 years ago
i deleted another comment while trying to reply to it guys, i apologize....whoever posted it, feel free to re-post....it was the quote from the president of Iran calling Israel a stinking corpse or something along these lines...
SecularTalk 3 years ago
And as for people calling Iran a fascist state, evil empire, etc.
Iran had a democratic government up until the USA and Britain came in and coup d'état Mohammed Mosaddeq, the prime minister of Iran, for nationalizing the Anglo-Iranian Oil company (Now known as BP) so that the money may go and help the Iranian people, instead of some foreign land.
gta405421 3 years ago
What most people fail to see here is not President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is NOT the leader of Iran. He is second in command, simply meaning, no matter what he says, he can't do shit.
And as for people calling Iran a fascist state,
gta405421 3 years ago
No he does not say anything withoout supreme leader permission so.wiping off the israel is the main goal of islamic republic.
voroojak27 3 years ago
Actually, Ayatollah Khamenei has issued a fatwa saying the production, stockpiling and use of nuclear weapons was forbidden under Islam. The fatwa was cited in an official statement by the Iranian government at an August 2005 meeting of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) in Vienna.
gta405421 3 years ago
One thing they do against America is that they are brown people and we all know how much the US gov. loves bombing brown people expecially brown muslims
Jcutta1113 3 years ago
Against Fabricated lies, Bending the truth, We Iranian send peace and love to hole world, Let's all hope for peace, for prosperity and happiness for all, including Americans.
Power of love is much grater then hate.
So I send my Love to humanity to word, with hope of unity of peaceful people.
Eleusha 3 years ago 2
I wonder if the Romans had to manufacture a threat to justify invasions of faraway lands.. Today the bogeyman is nuclear weapons.. I'm looking a couple moves past Iran to the point of American Union vs African Union, Asian Union (China) or even European Union.. How about the citizens of Utah or Wyoming suspected of having WMDs.. or generating their own energy.. Keep it up.
"the truth is out here"
jabrinka99 3 years ago
The whole problem is summarized by the next three lettres : MAD, Mutual Assured Destruction. Everybody knows that using a nuclear bomb would wipe a lot of people or even countries off the world map - and you don't get to choose which ones would disappear. The nuclear bomb basically exists not to be used, and Iran is aware of that. Besides you're totally right, they should be allowed to develop nuclear plants, it seems like the only way to produce power - when carefully dealt with, obviously.
Riselikethetide 3 years ago
It really is mind boggling to see how the media is doing the exact same thing with Iran as they did with Iraq, and that people are buying into it still.
GayForDarwin 3 years ago 2
i just removed some guys comment when trying to respond to it so i'll summarize what he said and respond...
SecularTalk 3 years ago
Viewers comment: "Iran is NOT a threat to America"...thats a big statement for a 20 year old who probably knows less than a politician, even the ones who haven't been to the middle east or who don't study Iran etc.
SecularTalk 3 years ago
The fact that you think i would know less than somebody 'who hasn't studied it' speaks volumes about how you like to determine truth.
SecularTalk 3 years ago
Pakistan is a big backer of the Taliban, but it's okay for Pakistan to have the bomb. Not to mention, the Pakistani 'father' of their bomb, Khan, sold North Korea bomb related material and technology. No problem.
The smartest thing the Iranians could do would be to have a deterent to keep the warmongers in the States at bay.
It worked for North Korea.
nicogum 3 years ago
They're not doing anything about it because they all are bought and paid for. They all belong to the 2-party system & both are corporate and special-interest puppets. Telling the truth has become a sin and evil in government is tolerated by the other evil in the media corps. The people are just a tax-paying tool. The Iran-nukes or Iran-Iraqi-support are all childish excuses to attack Iran and make more money for contractors, steal oil reserves and kill some more anti-Israel/humane people.
Hesam0000 3 years ago