Iran Nuclear Deal

Thoughts on this?


Benjamin Netanyahu has said:
"I will refer later to the details of the agreement, but before that, I would like to say here and now – when you are willing to make an agreement at any cost, this is the result.
From the initial reports we can already conclude that this agreement is an historic mistake for the world.
Far-reaching concessions have been made in all areas that were supposed to prevent Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons capability. In addition, Iran will receive hundreds of billions of dollars with which it can fuel its terror machine and its expansion and aggression throughout the Middle East and across the globe.
One cannot prevent an agreement when the negotiators are willing to make more and more concessions to those who, even during the talks, keep chanting: 'Death to America.'
We knew very well that the desire to sign an agreement was stronger than anything, and therefore we did not commit to preventing an agreement.
We did commit to preventing Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons, and this commitment still stands.
I say to all the leaders in Israel, it is time to put petty politics aside and unite behind this most fateful issue to the future and security of the State of Israel."

Thanks Obama.

Who cares what this imperialist scumbag has to say?

good stuff

Too risky letting these cunts get hold of nuclear material. They probably won't do anything with it because they know what would happen if they did, but it's still too dangerous.

ResurrectionRooney wrote:Too risky letting these cunts get hold of nuclear material.  They probably won't do anything with it because they know what would happen if they did, but it's still too dangerous.

Lmao, I'd say it's no less risky than the world's leading imperialist powers having them. You'd have to be starting off from a racist premise (which I don't doubt you are because you're an idiot) to believe that Iran would use nuclear weapons despite the prospect of mutually assured destruction. It's just that Bibi and his Washington overlords can't fathom the prospect of dealing with Iran diplomatically as opposed to through intimidation and threats.

If Israel can have nuclear weapons, then Iran should have the right too.

Israel has already committed more war crimes in recent history. So logically, Israel would be the first nation to use such a weapon.

Ra's al Ghul wrote:

ResurrectionRooney wrote:Too risky letting these cunts get hold of nuclear material.  They probably won't do anything with it because they know what would happen if they did, but it's still too dangerous.

Lmao, I'd say it's no less risky than the world's leading imperialist powers having them. You'd have to be starting off from a racist premise (which I don't doubt you are because you're an idiot) to believe that Iran would use nuclear weapons despite the prospect of mutually assured destruction. It's just that Bibi and his Washington overlords can't fathom the prospect of dealing with Iran diplomatically as opposed to through intimidation and threats.

Iran and Israel having nuclear weapons is obviously more dangerous than just Israel having nuclear weapons. You'd have to be very stupid not to realise this.

FCB wrote:If Israel can have nuclear weapons, then Iran should have the right too.

Israel has already committed more war crimes in recent history. So logically, Israel would be the first nation to use such a weapon.

Who said Israel can have nuclear weapons?

ResurrectionRooney wrote:

Ra's al Ghul wrote:

Lmao, I'd say it's no less risky than the world's leading imperialist powers having them. You'd have to be starting off from a racist premise (which I don't doubt you are because you're an idiot) to believe that Iran would use nuclear weapons despite the prospect of mutually assured destruction. It's just that Bibi and his Washington overlords can't fathom the prospect of dealing with Iran diplomatically as opposed to through intimidation and threats.

Iran and Israel having nuclear weapons is obviously more dangerous than just Israel having nuclear weapons.  You'd have to be very stupid not to realise this.

FCB wrote:If Israel can have nuclear weapons, then Iran should have the right too.

Israel has already committed more war crimes in recent history. So logically, Israel would be the first nation to use such a weapon.

Who said Israel can have nuclear weapons?

I don't think any nation should have nuclear weapons, but I'm just dealing with the reality here. One nation with a history of war crimes and abuse has nuclear weapons. Sanctioning and preventing another nation from doing the same is hypocritical.

If both have nuclear weapons it's not really any more dangerous than if only Israel had it. As Ra's said, it makes the playing field a bit more even and issues between nations will be solved with diplomacy or other means. Besides, this nuclear deal isn't about letting Iran develop nuclear weapons. It's about nuclear energy. Whether Iran actually develops weapons or not is a different topic for the future.

FCB wrote:

ResurrectionRooney wrote:

Iran and Israel having nuclear weapons is obviously more dangerous than just Israel having nuclear weapons.  You'd have to be very stupid not to realise this.




Who said Israel can have nuclear weapons?

I don't think any nation should have nuclear weapons, but I'm just dealing with the reality here. One nation with a history of war crimes and abuse has nuclear weapons. Sanctioning and preventing another nation from doing the same is hypocritical.

If both have nuclear weapons it's not really any more dangerous than if only Israel had it. As Ra's said, it makes the playing field a bit more even and issues between nations will be solved with diplomacy or other means. Besides, this nuclear deal isn't about letting Iran develop nuclear weapons. It's about nuclear energy. Whether Iran actually develops weapons or not is a different topic for the future.

Yeah it fucking is. At the moment there is one possible avenue by which a nuclear attack could happen - ie. Israel attacking Iran, which is highly unlikely as the US would find such a thing unacceptable. If Iran obtains nuclear weapons there are two avenues for a nuclear attack to occur - Iran attacking Israel and Israel attacking Iran, both of which would lead to a nuclear exchange. Further, both having nuclear weapons increases the possibility that each will launch a first strike on the other to avoid having its own territory destroyed. It's really fucking basic stuff, this. Even a clueless jew hating zealot should be able to see it.

Let me put it in a way that you can understand. Two families live next door to each other but fucking hate each other, one of them has a grenade but have been told never ever to use it unless someone else does something heinous to them. The other family is on record as saying they want the first family dead. Do you think that situation gets more dangerous if you hand the second family a grenade or do you think it will help them solve their problems more diplomatically? If you think it's the latter you are a true moron.

Israel has never been convicted of war crimes by any legitimate body. Please stop presenting your opinion as if it is reality, it's not, it's distorted by your hatred of Jews.

your a idiot

then who was family?

Israel has never been convicted of war crimes by any legitimate body.

Who forms these so-called "legitimate bodies"? The world's leading imperialist powers. Amazing, then, that they very rarely seem to decry the actions of those imperialist powers or their cronies. This is a valid point, though. It pisses me off when defenders of the Palestinians make appeals to worthless liberal institutions like international law or the United Nations. You only need to examine the facts to identify the reality of the situation.

Also, mutually assured destruction is a significantly more effective deterrent to the usage of nuclear weaponry than what the United States will or will not allow. Considering that the only deployment of atomic weaponry came when one state had a global monopoly, I'd say that the same ought to apply to regional situations. And it's truly hysterical that you think that if only Israel possessed nuclear warheads then it would be highly unlikely that they would deploy them due to the United States' disapproval, even though in your delusional concoction wherein both states have nuclear weapons you think that nuclear warfare would be more likely. As if the States wouldn't immediately annihilate if Iran were to attack Israel first. Iran possessing nuclear weaponry changes absolutely nothing in terms of the likelihood of nuclear warfare. All it changes is that Israel becomes obligated to utilize diplomacy instead of intimidation and aggression. If you weren't a racist, Arab-hating, imperialism-sympathizing liberal this would be patently clear.

ResurrectionRooney wrote:

FCB wrote:

I don't think any nation should have nuclear weapons, but I'm just dealing with the reality here. One nation with a history of war crimes and abuse has nuclear weapons. Sanctioning and preventing another nation from doing the same is hypocritical.

If both have nuclear weapons it's not really any more dangerous than if only Israel had it. As Ra's said, it makes the playing field a bit more even and issues between nations will be solved with diplomacy or other means. Besides, this nuclear deal isn't about letting Iran develop nuclear weapons. It's about nuclear energy. Whether Iran actually develops weapons or not is a different topic for the future.

Yeah it fucking is.  At the moment there is one possible avenue by which a nuclear attack could happen - ie. Israel attacking Iran, which is highly unlikely as the US would find such a thing unacceptable.  If Iran obtains nuclear weapons there are two avenues for a nuclear attack to occur - Iran attacking Israel and Israel attacking Iran, both of which would lead to a nuclear exchange.  Further, both having nuclear weapons increases the possibility that each will launch a first strike on the other to avoid having its own territory destroyed.  It's really fucking basic stuff, this.  Even a clueless jew hating zealot should be able to see it.

Let me put it in a way that you can understand.  Two families live next door to each other but fucking hate each other, one of them has a grenade but have been told never ever to use it unless someone else does something heinous to them.  The other family is on record as saying they want the first family dead.  Do you think that situation gets more dangerous if you hand the second family a grenade or do you think it will help them solve their problems more diplomatically?  If you think it's the latter you are a true moron.

Israel has never been convicted of war crimes by any legitimate body.  Please stop presenting your opinion as if it is reality, it's not, it's distorted by your hatred of Jews.

You think Israel listens to the USA? If they did, they would stop building illegal settlements. Right now, Israel has the upper hand because they have the capability to destroy Iran without an equal retaliation. If Iran has the same ability, then both nations would have to find a different avenue to deal with their problems (diplomacy). Launching nuclear weapons at each other would mean the end of both nations and it would start WW3. You should just look up the theory of mutual assured destruction. Failure to understand this basic concept makes you a true moron.

The UN Human Rights Council has released a report about Israel's war crimes. Amnesty International has also accused Israel of war crimes. It's well documented. The only reason they haven't been actually convicted and officials taken to the Hague is because Israel is not part of the ICC and the USA vetos any resolutions against them in the UN. Please stop hiding behind your clear hatred of Muslims, Arabs, and me.

Ra's al Ghul wrote:

Israel has never been convicted of war crimes by any legitimate body.

Who forms these so-called "legitimate bodies"? The world's leading imperialist powers. Amazing, then, that they very rarely seem to decry the actions of those imperialist powers or their cronies. This is a valid point, though. It pisses me off when defenders of the Palestinians make appeals to worthless liberal institutions like international law or the United Nations. You only need to examine the facts to identify the reality of the situation.

Also, mutually assured destruction is a significantly more effective deterrent to the usage of nuclear weaponry than what the United States will or will not allow. Considering that the only deployment of atomic weaponry came when one state had a global monopoly, I'd say that the same ought to apply to regional situations. And it's truly hysterical that you think that if only Israel possessed nuclear warheads then it would be highly unlikely that they would deploy them due to the United States' disapproval, even though in your delusional concoction wherein both states have nuclear weapons you think that nuclear warfare would be more likely. As if the States wouldn't immediately annihilate if Iran were to attack Israel first. Iran possessing nuclear weaponry changes absolutely nothing in terms of the likelihood of nuclear warfare. All it changes is that Israel becomes obligated to utilize diplomacy instead of intimidation and aggression. If you weren't a racist, Arab-hating, imperialism-sympathizing liberal this would be patently clear.

I will listen to the International Criminal Court and the United Nations, flawed as they are, before I listen to people who would be against Israel regardless of what it does because they don't recognise its right to exist.

So you're saying you'd give family two a grenade because it would encourage the two houses to be friendly to each other?

FCB wrote:

ResurrectionRooney wrote:

Yeah it fucking is.  At the moment there is one possible avenue by which a nuclear attack could happen - ie. Israel attacking Iran, which is highly unlikely as the US would find such a thing unacceptable.  If Iran obtains nuclear weapons there are two avenues for a nuclear attack to occur - Iran attacking Israel and Israel attacking Iran, both of which would lead to a nuclear exchange.  Further, both having nuclear weapons increases the possibility that each will launch a first strike on the other to avoid having its own territory destroyed.  It's really fucking basic stuff, this.  Even a clueless jew hating zealot should be able to see it.

Let me put it in a way that you can understand.  Two families live next door to each other but fucking hate each other, one of them has a grenade but have been told never ever to use it unless someone else does something heinous to them.  The other family is on record as saying they want the first family dead.  Do you think that situation gets more dangerous if you hand the second family a grenade or do you think it will help them solve their problems more diplomatically?  If you think it's the latter you are a true moron.

Israel has never been convicted of war crimes by any legitimate body.  Please stop presenting your opinion as if it is reality, it's not, it's distorted by your hatred of Jews.

You think Israel listens to the USA? If they did, they would stop building illegal settlements. Right now, Israel has the upper hand because they have the capability to destroy Iran without an equal retaliation. If Iran has the same ability, then both nations would have to find a different avenue to deal with their problems (diplomacy). Launching nuclear weapons at each other would mean the end of both nations and it would start WW3. You should just look up the theory of mutual assured destruction. Failure to understand this basic concept makes you a true moron.

The UN Human Rights Council has released a report about Israel's war crimes. Amnesty International has also accused Israel of war crimes. It's well documented. The only reason they haven't been actually convicted and officials taken to the Hague is because Israel is not part of the ICC and the USA vetos any resolutions against them in the UN. Please stop hiding behind your clear hatred of Muslims, Arabs, and me.

Of course Israel listens to the USA, that doesn't mean they'll do everything they're told to by them. Has Israel evesr once threatened to use its nuclear weapons against Iran? The answer is no, they have never even confirmed that they have any. All Iran getting hold of them will do is make Iran more belligerent.

I know all about MAD - please remember who you're talking to - it's an extremely dangerous game to play because a single false alarm can mean the end of you. More countries playing it makes a much more dangerous world, particularly when it's completely unnecessary given the institutions which exist to resolve grievances in the modern world.

Have you ever thought that maybe the international organisations don't respect the claims against Israel because the claims are not correct, rather than some evil Jewish conspiracy to control the Middle East?

I don't hate any race of people or hate members of any religion.

i think one of families should move if theyre not getting along with eachother, house price arent to bad at the moment.

ResurrectionRooney wrote:

Ra's al Ghul wrote:


Who forms these so-called "legitimate bodies"? The world's leading imperialist powers. Amazing, then, that they very rarely seem to decry the actions of those imperialist powers or their cronies. This is a valid point, though. It pisses me off when defenders of the Palestinians make appeals to worthless liberal institutions like international law or the United Nations. You only need to examine the facts to identify the reality of the situation.

Also, mutually assured destruction is a significantly more effective deterrent to the usage of nuclear weaponry than what the United States will or will not allow. Considering that the only deployment of atomic weaponry came when one state had a global monopoly, I'd say that the same ought to apply to regional situations. And it's truly hysterical that you think that if only Israel possessed nuclear warheads then it would be highly unlikely that they would deploy them due to the United States' disapproval, even though in your delusional concoction wherein both states have nuclear weapons you think that nuclear warfare would be more likely. As if the States wouldn't immediately annihilate if Iran were to attack Israel first. Iran possessing nuclear weaponry changes absolutely nothing in terms of the likelihood of nuclear warfare. All it changes is that Israel becomes obligated to utilize diplomacy instead of intimidation and aggression. If you weren't a racist, Arab-hating, imperialism-sympathizing liberal this would be patently clear.

I will listen to the International Criminal Court and the United Nations, flawed as they are, before I listen to people who would be against Israel regardless of what it does because they don't recognise its right to exist.

So you're saying you'd give family two a grenade because it would encourage the two houses to be friendly to each other?

FCB wrote:

You think Israel listens to the USA? If they did, they would stop building illegal settlements. Right now, Israel has the upper hand because they have the capability to destroy Iran without an equal retaliation. If Iran has the same ability, then both nations would have to find a different avenue to deal with their problems (diplomacy). Launching nuclear weapons at each other would mean the end of both nations and it would start WW3. You should just look up the theory of mutual assured destruction. Failure to understand this basic concept makes you a true moron.

The UN Human Rights Council has released a report about Israel's war crimes. Amnesty International has also accused Israel of war crimes. It's well documented. The only reason they haven't been actually convicted and officials taken to the Hague is because Israel is not part of the ICC and the USA vetos any resolutions against them in the UN. Please stop hiding behind your clear hatred of Muslims, Arabs, and me.

Of course Israel listens to the USA, that doesn't mean they'll do everything they're told to by them.  Has Israel evesr once threatened to use its nuclear weapons against Iran?  The answer is no, they have never even confirmed that they have any.  All Iran getting hold of them will do is make Iran more belligerent.

I know all about MAD - please remember who you're talking to - it's an extremely dangerous game to play because a single false alarm can mean the end of you.  More countries playing it makes a much more dangerous world, particularly when it's completely unnecessary given the institutions which exist to resolve grievances in the modern world.  

Have you ever thought that maybe the international organisations don't respect the claims against Israel because the claims are not correct, rather than some evil Jewish conspiracy to control the Middle East?

I don't hate any race of people or hate members of any religion.

Israeli Defense Minister Moshe Ya'alon once stated that Israel can take certain steps such as using nuclear weapons. So obviously Iran is worried and wants to make sure they have an equal playing field so that some crazy Israeli official will think more than twice about using nukes in the future.

So you think the UN HRC, Amnesty International, and the ICC are conspiracy organizations out to get the poor, innocent Jews? If Israel is playing nice, why are they threatening the ICC for simply wanting to investigate the Gaza War? It's quite ironic that Israel opposes the very organization that was created to prosecute the Nazi officials that committed heinous crimes against their people.

I will listen to the International Criminal Court and the United Nations, flawed as they are, before I listen to people who would be against Israel regardless of what it does because they don't recognise its right to exist.

So you're saying you'd give family two a grenade because it would encourage the two houses to be friendly to each other?

That's not remotely true. I'm very objective in evaluating the state of Israel. It's just that, as a colonial state founded on the ethnic cleansing of the indigenous people and maintained through the exploitation of their land and labour, there's nothing about the Israeli state that any decent human being would find worthy of support. 

Yes, I'd give the other family a grenade, especially if the first family had a history of invading the home in which they live and forcing its original inhabitants to live in the basement, as well as a tendency to undertake consistent aggression towards its neighbours.

Ahly, stop making appeals to those organizations. If they really wanted to stop Israel then I'm sure they would. The truth is that they're mere puppets for the world's leading imperialist powers, even if they put on a charade of occasionally being opposed to them. Israel exists because they're a key regional player in the flow of global capital. They import and export a fuck-ton of arms and security material. Moreover, their role as aggressor in the region allows Saudi Arabia and other Gulf countries to justify their servility to the United States, from which they benefit greatly due to exporting oil and in turn importing obscene amounts of weaponry that will never actually be used. There's no grand Jewish conspiracy, it's just that the largest global and regional capitalist states make substantial profits from its existence and systematic oppression of the Palestinians.

No doubt that the UN is a joke most of the time and that the ICC usually goes after third world officials and ignores the crimes of developed and powerful nations. But RR said my claims against Israel are merely my opinion rather than based on facts. If these organizations have made similar claims against Israel, then hopefully that proves my point.

The Zlatan wrote:i think one of families should move if theyre not getting along with eachother, house price arent to bad at the moment.

Iran has suggested that, unfortunately Israelis can't live in the sea.
[quote="FCB"][quote="ResurrectionRooney"]

I will listen to the International Criminal Court and the United Nations, flawed as they are, before I listen to people who would be against Israel regardless of what it does because they don't recognise its right to exist.

So you're saying you'd give family two a grenade because it would encourage the two houses to be friendly to each other?



Of course they could if they have them, why would you create nuclear weapons if there were no possibility of you ever actually using them? An even playing field is in this case far more dangerous because both are incentivised to make a first strike and try to take out the enemy facilities this is basic game theory.

Israel takes their security seriously, Gaza investigations would hamper that which is why the terrorists and their sympathisers want to investigate. If you're constantly in an existential war then sometimes people get hurt. As for those organisations being out to get the jews, it's not like it would be the first time anti-semitism has taken hold of international organisations would it?

ResurrectionRooney wrote:Of course they could if they have them, why would you create nuclear weapons if there were no possibility of you ever actually using them?  An even playing field is in this case far more dangerous because both are incentivised to make a first strike and try to take out the enemy facilities this is basic game theory.

Israel takes their security seriously, Gaza investigations would hamper that which is why the terrorists and their sympathisers want to investigate.  If you're constantly in an existential war then sometimes people get hurt.  As for those organisations being out to get the jews, it's not like it would be the first time anti-semitism has taken hold of international organisations would it?

That's not how it works. It doesn't matter who makes the first launch. There will be an exchange of fire either way. Striking first doesn't eliminate the enemy right away unless the entire nation's nuclear arsenal is located at ground zero. Yes, there is always an opportunity to use a nuclear weapon if you have one, especially if this particular nation has a history of using excessive force like Israel. However, given that both nations know the outcome of using a nuclear weapon, they would be less likely to use it if they both possess them. If Israel were to nuke Iran right now, they would not receive any immediate retaliation of the same scale unless the US and the West is willing to nuke Israel for its crime. There's a reason that no nuclear attacks have happened since the US used it. By your logic, there should have been more attacks with the increase of possession of nukes by different nations. The Soviet Union/Russia and the USA are enemies. Pakistan and India are enemies. They all possess nuclear weapons.

They don't want any investigations because they know they will be exposed for their heinous behaviors. Though I doubt anything will be done about it even if those investigations yield credible evidence.

FCB wrote:

ResurrectionRooney wrote:Of course they could if they have them, why would you create nuclear weapons if there were no possibility of you ever actually using them?  An even playing field is in this case far more dangerous because both are incentivised to make a first strike and try to take out the enemy facilities this is basic game theory.

Israel takes their security seriously, Gaza investigations would hamper that which is why the terrorists and their sympathisers want to investigate.  If you're constantly in an existential war then sometimes people get hurt.  As for those organisations being out to get the jews, it's not like it would be the first time anti-semitism has taken hold of international organisations would it?

That's not how it works. It doesn't matter who makes the first launch. There will be an exchange of fire either way. Striking first doesn't eliminate the enemy right away unless the entire nation's nuclear arsenal is located at ground zero. Yes, there is always an opportunity to use a nuclear weapon if you have one, especially if this particular nation has a history of using excessive force like Israel. However, given that both nations know the outcome of using a nuclear weapon, they would be less likely to use it if they both possess them. If Israel were to nuke Iran right now, they would not receive any immediate retaliation of the same scale unless the US and the West is willing to nuke Israel for its crime. There's a reason that no nuclear attacks have happened since the US used it. By your logic, there should have been more attacks with the increase of possession of nukes by different nations. The Soviet Union/Russia and the USA are enemies. Pakistan and India are enemies. They all possess nuclear weapons.

They don't want any investigations because they know they will be exposed for their heinous behaviors. Though I doubt anything will be done about it even if those investigations yield credible evidence.

You're telling me it doesn't work that way? Who the fuck do you think you are, seriously? I majored in my degree on this subject, I know quite a lot more about it than you so please drop the condescending shit.

First strikes are a thing, especially with a country so small as Israel. If all the weapons are ground based then you can take out the launch sites, but you don't need to take out all of them. The idea of a first strike is to reduce the enemy's military capability to a point where there isn't a counter attack or the counter attack is survivable, thus changing mutually assured destruction to you suffering a bloody nose while the enemy is completely destroyed. Decapitating the leadership also has the impact of putting the decision in the hands of silo commanders - maybe they won't want the deaths of 100s of thousands of innocent people on their conscience, maybe they will be concerned about what happens to them after the war and shit out of pressing the button, maybe they won't have the launch codes, maybe they'll put it down to a communications or sensor error - this happened several times during the Cold War.

Destruction is not ensured if you do a first strike. It is if you wait for the enemy to do it, which is why it's very tempting to do it.

You're right, there should have been more attacks, we have been extremely lucky that there weren't. Using that as a jumping off point to giving every country nukes under the impression they make things safer is straight up window licking retarded though. Any overzealous commander, any radar error, any instance of posturing that goes too far, boom, nuclear war is ignited, and the dynamics of it are such that it will demand a catastrophic response. What you are suggesting is the equivalent to the nuts who suggest that we give all kids in schools weaponry to defend against school shooters.

And yes, some abuses would undoubtedly be uncovered - as they would be with any country in history who has ever engaged in a war if it were investigated. You're right, they probably don't want it exposed, because the terrorists would use it as propaganda to pursue their war against them. Any country would try to suppress information that will lead to more of its citizens being terrorised and killed, it's crazy that you'd expect anything else.

I'm not suggesting that we give everyone nuclear weapons. In fact, I think all nations should be disarmed. If they want to sanction and pressure both Israel and Iran, then by all means. Ideally, that opinion applies to gun ownership too (nobody suggests giving kids guns by the way). But if you're going to allow one nation to possess them, then it's only fair to allow another nation the ability to defend itself against a nuclear attack.

We're getting off topic anyway. This Iran deal isn't about allowing Iran to develop nuclear weapons. It's about energy. If Iran were to create weapons, they'd be sanctioned even harder than they were.

FCB wrote:I'm not suggesting that we give everyone nuclear weapons. In fact, I think all nations should be disarmed. If they want to sanction and pressure both Israel and Iran, then by all means. Ideally, that opinion applies to gun ownership too (nobody suggests giving kids guns by the way). But if you're going to allow one nation to possess them, then it's only fair to allow another nation the ability to defend itself against a nuclear attack.

We're getting off topic anyway. This Iran deal isn't about allowing Iran to develop nuclear weapons. It's about energy. If Iran were to create weapons, they'd be sanctioned even harder than they were.

You want to sanction all countries who have nuclear weapons because it's not fair Your understanding of the real world is so childlike.

I'm not worried about them having nuclear power in itself. Everyone knows their intent is to obtain nuclear weapons, nuclear power is a step toward it. I'm hope you're not really that naïve that you don't get this.

FCB wrote:I'm not suggesting that we give everyone nuclear weapons. In fact, I think all nations should be disarmed. If they want to sanction and pressure both Israel and Iran, then by all means. Ideally, that opinion applies to gun ownership too (nobody suggests giving kids guns by the way). But if you're going to allow one nation to possess them, then it's only fair to allow another nation the ability to defend itself against a nuclear attack.

We're getting off topic anyway. This Iran deal isn't about allowing Iran to develop nuclear weapons. It's about energy. If Iran were to create weapons, they'd be sanctioned even harder than they were.

 Good luck with that one.

ResurrectionRooney wrote:

FCB wrote:I'm not suggesting that we give everyone nuclear weapons. In fact, I think all nations should be disarmed. If they want to sanction and pressure both Israel and Iran, then by all means. Ideally, that opinion applies to gun ownership too (nobody suggests giving kids guns by the way). But if you're going to allow one nation to possess them, then it's only fair to allow another nation the ability to defend itself against a nuclear attack.

We're getting off topic anyway. This Iran deal isn't about allowing Iran to develop nuclear weapons. It's about energy. If Iran were to create weapons, they'd be sanctioned even harder than they were.

You want to sanction all countries who have nuclear weapons because it's not fair  Your understanding of the real world is so childlike.

I'm not worried about them having nuclear power in itself. Everyone knows their intent is to obtain nuclear weapons, nuclear power is a step toward it.  I'm hope you're not really that naïve that you don't get this.

No, but if you're going to sanction Iran, why not sanction Israel for the same thing?

I they develop nuclear weapons, it would be even worse for Iran. They would get sanctioned even harder and possible face military action. It's not in their interest to develop them.

FCB wrote:

ResurrectionRooney wrote:

You want to sanction all countries who have nuclear weapons because it's not fair  Your understanding of the real world is so childlike.

I'm not worried about them having nuclear power in itself. Everyone knows their intent is to obtain nuclear weapons, nuclear power is a step toward it.  I'm hope you're not really that naïve that you don't get this.

No, but if you're going to sanction Iran, why not sanction Israel for the same thing?

I they develop nuclear weapons, it would be even worse for Iran. They would get sanctioned even harder and possible face military action. It's not in their interest to develop them.

It's too late for that, they already have nuclear weaponry.

No it wouldn't. The closer they get to nuclear weaponry the more caution the rest of the world has to treat them with respect, the more interest the rest of the world has in ensuring their integrity as a state is maintained and the more interest the rest of the world has in keeping extremism down. You don't do that by inflicting sanctions.

At first I was surprised by you coming out with this rubbish, but then I remembered how much shit you believe in. Do you still think it's possible for a man to cut the moon in half with a sword, and that meteors exist to stop genies listening in on God talking with his council?

Why are Israel pissing themselves? With the state of play in Yemen, Syria and Iraq the only place nuclear warheads from Iran will be heading is towards Saudi Arabia. Will the massive divide in the Middle East among fellow Arabs/Muslims no one in their right mind for attack Israel, they'd get totally destroyed.