Iran vs. USA

Dr.Gnar

Dr.Gnar

Member
For those of you you have kept up with the news....why can't Iran just play by the fucking rules and stop trying to acquire nuclear weapons? I am Canadian but I hate the tension and can't wait for them to get a hardcore American ass kicking. Bring on the action movie CNN stuff. War is bad but you can't simply let crazy radical motherfuckers do their thing overseas.
 
U.S. boots on the ground in Iran is highly unlikely based off what i've so far been hearing but give it a few posts for someone to explain this entire scenario to you totally unbiased and in a super educated light..... just kidding!
 
I know all about it actually. It's not actually America's deal, it's Israel, but America will fight for the Israelis if need be. And it will be the US Navy that takes care of business, so there certainly won't be, at least literally, "boots on the ground." Read this article...Iran has cruise missiles that can evade radar and sink aircraft carriers and that's just bad news bears for the Fifth Fleet in the gulf.
http://www.wnd.com/2012/02/iran-prepares-for-kamikaze-attacks/
 
I'm an American and am split on this topic, leaning towards the side of prevention of Iran's arms wants. If we, and a few other nations are allowed to have nuclear weapons, why shouldn't the rest of the world have the same right? At the same time though, what are their intentions of having nuclear weapons? Clearly to either (1) protect their homeland if need be - that's why the US has them/cold war fallout (2) act as alpha male in the region - not too stoked on Iran doing that (3) potentially use them.

I side a little closer with the ban on countries such as Iran gaining nuclear weapons - I just don't think the government has enough stability to prevent a terrible outcome, ie. using one. But who am I to say they can't have them, the US used them in Japan and it'd be hypocritical to say Iran can't have them. I'll bite my hypocracy though and believe that a country such as Iran has no foundation to harness nuclear weapons.
 
And beyond Iran, while I'm less concerned about North Korea, I don't see their future going well. They've claimed they're ready to go to war with South Korea and the US... This is laughable to say the least.
 
It's not really a "right" anymore because of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty that was indefinitely extended in 1995. Nearly the whole world and its countries agreed NO NUKES. Several years ago I remember that Russia and the USA agreed to reduce their stockpiles. Iran is breaking the rules that nearly everybody agreed upon, so fuck them!
 
A right is not 'right' if select countries receive the 'right' while others do not. Everyone agreed upon them, but that doesn't mean its fair. I'm not disagreeing with the rule, I don't think Iran can stabily have nukes, but should any country be disallowed while others are allowed?
 
dude... you dont just let all the crazy people have nukes. thats how you end the world
 
They think American's are crazy people. Americans have invaded many Middle East countries and have wrecked the shit out of them, crippling anything they had going before. Please elaborate on why they're crazy people?

I'm all for your side - I think it's a terrible idea to allow Iran to create nuclear weapons, I just haven't seen much educated reasoning on the hypocrisy of the situation. Enlighten me, Dexter.
 
every single one of those that involves a bomb includes some variation of "had the bomb been armed..."

So yes, we are pretty safe. The article is titled 5 times we ALMOST nuked ourselves. Not 5 times we did by accident. There were fail-safes that did exactly what they were supposed to.

It's not a great comparison, but it's like getting into a car accident, and only surviving due to the airbag deploying. You should be dead, but someone else thought of a safety measure that did as it's supposed to. Would that turn you off driving forever, while telling everyone else to never drive again as well?

And another point for safety is the fact that soviet and american subs (and possibly others that are less well known) did have the capability and fewer restrictions to blow up the planet, and yet it never once happened. over the years that means hundreds of people have had that option at their fingertips, and no one has done it.

 
better to have dozens of US submarine commanders with Nukes, than one islamic republic. At least the submarine commanders understand logic and reason.
 
Well, for one, they vowed to wipe out israel the first chance they get with nukes... I though the extermination of a nation is a good reason not to allow them to have nukes...

They hate all of western civilization, and want to completely wipe us out... that's another reason.
 
i dont believe anything i read in the news, so i dont necessary believe anything thats reported to be going down in Iran. i dont refuse to beleive it or anything, im just highly skeptical.
 
What do you mean play by the rules? Why should the US deserve to have nuclear weapons but Iran doesnt?
 
exactly. why the fuck should we care about all this shit thousands of miles away when we have enough domestic problems. Iran poses no threat to the US
 
Because they fucking invented it, that's why, and that's why they have every right to them. Other countries stole information on their development. Russia's Putin even talked about how easily their spies stole information, "they even carried it back in briefcases."
 
Umm maybe because Iran has explicitly said "not only should Israel and America be destroyed, but they must be annihilated." Their intentions are the worst.
 
No dipshit, theyll simply launch a couple fucking nukes. Kinda the point of keeping nuclear weapons away from them.
 
Does this statement apply to Americans, too? Because it should.

To the American youth reading this thread, do yourself a favor and read a little bit about the history of the US-Iran relationship. It will help you to understand the situation better and prevent you from buying into the hate- and fear-mongering that precede any US military action.

Long story short, the US overthrew a democratically elected Iranian government in 1953 because the (democratically elected) president nationalized the country's petroleum industry and oil reserves. Us Americans weren't too happy about losing all that cheap, cheap oil, and what do we do when we aren't happy? We overthrow governments, that's what.

So then the (US-supported) Shah was in charge, who turned out to be somewhat of an autocratic dickhole (no big deal, we've supported lots of them before). Then comes the Islamic revolution in 1979, in which a lot of pissed-off Iranians decide to take matters into their own hands instead of letting the United States pick a government for them.

Anyway, if I was Iran, I'd be building me a bomb as quick as possible. You never know what those crazy Americans are gonna try to get their hands on your oil.
 
Actually, since "the rules" would be the nuclear non-proliferation treaty, they are playing by the rules. They are enriching uranium for energy purposes, and so far, no intelligence agency has found any evidence to the contrary. Also, why are you singling out Iran? The US, the UK, China, France, Russia, India, Pakistan, North Korea, Israel, Germany, the Netherlands, Italy, and Turkey all have nuclear weapons. personally wish none of them did, I don't trust any of them with nukes. The US has even used them on civilians, twice.
 
Question, why is Iran not allowed to have nuclear weapons? is it because they can't be trusted with them or is it because american supremacy won't allow other countries to have them?
 
They could also simply launch it from a ship, make a suitcase nuke, create a nuke within a storage container, etc.

Thats also considering we could shoot it down. We never developed the Star Wars programs so we have no way to shoot it down when it leaves the atmosphere regardless.
 
I doubt Iran has the ballistic missile capabilities to even reach further than the western Turkish peninsula.
 
actually, as far as the public knows, The US can't shoot down nukes. Nor can anyone else for that matter Really the best hope you've got is that one of the countless nukes the US sends back happens to collide with theirs on it's way.

The reason why this works in the United States' favor is because it's a biased, one sided version of M.A.D. The US takes a hit, but iran (or whoever) gets completely destroyed. It's no longer like the cold war where both combatants had the complete destruction capability. Iran takes out NYC, and yea it's awful, but we haven't lose everything....we take out tehran, and they're pretty much down and out.

So basically, unless your heap of nukes is as big as ours if not bigger, you're screwed.
 
it'd probably be like North Korea, where their missile ended up falling into the sea at a range where most of the damage would be inflicted on north korea itself.

Iran would probably wind up nuking a border of their country if they tried to put it on a missile.
 
Iran would use Hezbola to attack the US. They have cells inside the US. It would not be difficult for them to put a nuclear weapon in a container, and blow it up on a ship in NY harbor, or any large harbor for that matter.
 
"Are they trying to develop a nuclear weapon? No"

-Leon Panetta, former director of the CIA and current secretary of defense

/images/flash_video_placeholder.png

"The agency asses Iran is unlikely to initiate or intentionally provoke a conflict."

Ronald Burgess, Director of the defense intelligence agency

"The intelligence has been very clear on this; they continue to develop their enrichment capabilities. But the intelligence does not show that they've made the decision to proceed with developing a nuclear weapon."

Leon Panetta again

/images/flash_video_placeholder.png

 
Iran doesn't play by the "rules" because the rules were created by countries who had and still have nuclear capabilities. It would be like a pro skier stopping their sponsors from sponsoring anyone else.... it isn't really fair. Iran is pissing enough countries off aka every country that uses the straight or hormuz so if they step out of place they have literally every other continent against them
 
A war with iran would be a complete disaster for the whole world. Shit would get so ugly. If iran had democrar
 
78% of the people of iran strongly support the development of nuclear energy, so if they had a democratically elected government, that wouldn't change. Most iranians oppose the development of nuclear weapons, but like I said in the other post, there's currently no evidence to show that that is happening.
 
Once upon a time they did have Democtratically elected leadership. Then because that new leadership didn't benefit the interests of the US and the UK they were illeagally overthrown in what is known as the 1953 Iranian coup d'etat.

This was the start of Iran as we know it, they are a product of the US and UK. Please do some research on the subject.
 
the b52 is quite the engineering feet. fuckin 60 years in service and they still kick ass.

also even if iran were to get nuclear weapons, they would not have the range to reach the us. the only ppl that should be nervous are them Israelite's.
 
because US leaders don't threaten to kill all jews and annihilate israel. I am not a conservative, and i am no fan of israel, but really if some countries are going to have nuclear weapons it should be us not them.
 
Sucks for you. Just watch the news, see the video, see the summits and conferences, meetings, protests, weapon firing, interviews, not to mention liveleak.com for even more footage of any conflict anywhere.
 
If you read the article I posted earlier, you'll learn that Iran is developing ICBMs with a 6000 mile range. So indeed they are an evil threat and can't just chill.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top