should iran be allowed the nuke?

[Bringo the Bongo Banger]

No!!!!!!!!!!!!!

iran should not be allowed nukes for the following reasons:

1/iran is the number one sponsor of terror in the world

2/the repeated threats it has made against isreal, "isreal should be wiped of the map", "isreal is a one bomb state" etc

3/their crackhead of a leader, Ahmadinejad, believes in the coming of the hidden imman, who will return to earth when 1/3 of the population is killed by disease, and another 1/3 is engulfed in flames. what better way to engulf the world in flames than by dropping a few nukes!!

4/they would use it for aggressive means, rather than as a defensive measure. the concept of M.A.D will not work with people who have no fear of dying (seeing as paradise awaits them, along with 72 virgins etc)

some people say that iran only wants nuclear power. THIS IS ABSOLUTE BULL****!!

if they only wanted nuclear power then:

1/why have they refused to let the U.S (and also Russia)build them a reactor?

2/why was weapons grade uranium found at their research site?

3/how do you explain the manual found, which details how to compress nuclear material into a warhead?

a nuclear armed iran would spell devastation for the west

wake up people the nukes would be targeting YOU!!!!!!!

[Nazkyn]

Nope, but neither should any country, I have to refrain from a rant against the *coughgoodcoughcough* old US of A here, they set a bloody good example.

[Shmoo]

We only have nukes to hide the more advanced weapons of mass destruction we have.

Iran should not be allowed nukes, neither should pakistan or India but they have them. We can only hope an "accident" will slow them down.

[Grendel]

Whilst I don't condone the regime in Iran, nor many others around the world, and I don't think they should have nuclear weapons - I have a question...

Since the UN is no more than a 'paper tiger', who gets to decide who is allowed to have them? What happens when one of the big three powers in the world (USA, Russia & China) decides to allow one of it's friends to develop nukes?

As an example, lets say China decides that a nuclear armed Burma would be a good thing... What happens then?

[Quaker]

No!!!!!!!!!!!!! Sad that you haven't been able to back it up with ANYTHING factual....

iran should not be allowed nukes for the following reasons:

1/iran is the number one sponsor of terror in the world.... according to the US and Isreal.....

2/the repeated threats it has made against isreal, "isreal should be wiped of the map", "isreal is a one bomb state" etc and what about the repeated threats made against Iran from Isreal? Love the one-sidedness of this all.....

3/their crackhead of a leader, Ahmadinejad, believes in the coming of the hidden imman... again nothing factual just flaming.... If you want to talk religion start another thread...

4/they would use it for aggressive means, rather than as a defensive measure. the concept of M.A.D will not work with people who have no fear of dying (seeing as paradise awaits them, along with 72 virgins etc) and again nothing factual just flaming.

some people say that iran only wants nuclear power. THIS IS ABSOLUTE BULL****!!

if they only wanted nuclear power then:

1/why have they refused to let the U.S (and also Russia)build them a reactor? LMFAO, your not being serious are you??? Would you really put the faith of your country in the hands of the US? especially if you're a middle eastern country with how this current adminsitration has been acting??

We all saw how much of a hissy fit was thrown when a yeman or oman (i think) company was buying US ports by the american people, but i guess other countries shouldn't care <roll eyes>

2/why was weapons grade uranium found at their research site?hmmmm why don't we go based on what the experts concluded.... which was it came from other parts that were purchased earlier from Pakistan and the such.

3/how do you explain the manual found, which details how to compress nuclear material into a warhead? never heard of it so link it up please.... and im pretty sure you'd need a tad bit more proof than a manual to show Iran's "real" intentions ;)

a nuclear armed iran would spell devastation for the west

wake up people the nukes would be targeting YOU!!!!!!! Getting started on that fear campaign already? I gotta tell you though others have done a much better job.

[Psychostyle]

quaker you and i have an issue with # 4. you called it flaming..its absolute fact. they have no fear of death, as martyrdom and paradise ARE promised to them should they die in a mission. i dont speak of all iranians of course, just the militants. The united states is fully right to oppose any iranian capability to produce nuclear weapons, not because of any intention of the government but because of the incredibily high risk of such a weapon being givin to, or taken by the militants. to quote the current commander of the gitmo detention facility.. "They hate us. You can see it in their eyes. They will kill you in a second. The latest intel indicates they are removing the springs from inside the sinks and sharpening the ends to cut the guards throats, since they cant get thru the bulletproof vests.

its bad enough these people can obtain guns and rockets. do you want them to have access to nuclear weapons?

finally as a purely practical matter..everyone should be standing with the us on this issue for one simple reason. should iran(or a milirtant faction from) obtain and use nuclear weapons on the United States or our allies, no matter what country you are from, you WILL be involved in the aftermath.

[dov]

quaker about your 1st #1
" Iran is the most active state sponsor of terrorism. Its Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps and Ministry of Intelligence and Security continue to be involved in the planning and support of terrorist acts and continue to support a variety of groups that use terrorism to pursue their goals. Iran's support includes funding, providing safe haven, training, and weapons to a wide variety of terrorist groups including Lebanese Hizballah, HAMAS, the Palestinian Islamic Jihad, and the Popular Liberation Front for Palestine-General Command. Its support of HAMAS and Palestinian Islamic Jihad is of particular concern, as both groups continue their deliberate policies of attacking Israeli citizens with suicide bombings." this is from a website and it talks about how iran supposts many terrosit groups that blow up inocent ppl so imagine what they could do with a nuke :guns:

[Pot4life]

quaker you and i have an issue with # 4. you called it flaming..its absolute fact. they have no fear of death, as martyrdom and paradise ARE promised to them should they die in a mission. i dont speak of all iranians of course, just the militants. The united states is fully right to oppose any iranian capability to produce nuclear weapons, not because of any intention of the government but because of the incredibily high risk of such a weapon being givin to, or taken by the militants. to quote the current commander of the gitmo detention facility.. "They hate us. You can see it in their eyes. They will kill you in a second. The latest intel indicates they are removing the springs from inside the sinks and sharpening the ends to cut the guards throats, since they cant get thru the bulletproof vests.

its bad enough these people can obtain guns and rockets. do you want them to have access to nuclear weapons?

finally as a purely practical matter..everyone should be standing with the us on this issue for one simple reason. should iran(or a milirtant faction from) obtain and use nuclear weapons on the United States or our allies, no matter what country you are from, you WILL be involved in the aftermath.


thats a verry good point and although i couldnt give a flying fuck what happens in the world the thought that worrys me is that if US is attacked WW3 will happen ;) however by that time i will be on a small island with no nuclear facilitys therfore there would be no point attacking it :)

[dov]

and about the us making them nukeleor energy hows it placing the trust of country in are hands were just making them a power plant not like your example of us giving a vital part of the country right next to new york that can be used for a massive terrosit attack for an arab country to watch there was an article on this in the ny times but the arcives is down now

[Grendel]

...The latest intel indicates they are removing the springs from inside the sinks and sharpening the ends to cut the guards throats, since they cant get thru the bulletproof vests...

I'm not arguing with you on this, just wondering where in a sink you'd have a spring?

By the way I'm British, so to me a 'sink' is something you do the washing up in... Does it mean another thing where you come from?


and about the us making them nukeleor energy hows it placing the trust of country in are hands were just making them a power plant not like your example of us giving a vital part of the country right next to new york that can be used for a massive terrosit attack for an arab country to watch there was an article on this in the ny times but the arcives is down now

You don't actually need weapons grade material to make a bomb. All you need is spent fuel from a nuclear powerplant, even the material from x-ray machines will work, use it to encase a conventional bomb and there you have it... A poor-mans nuke.

[Psychostyle]

No grendel, a sink is a sink, and all i saw was the interview, but in most detention facilities the drain plug is spring loaded so the inmates gannot remove the plug itself and do harm or make tools from it, so i assume its something similar.


and what you describe is not a nuke but a "dirty bomb" which will have no nuclear detonation but will spread radiation throughout its blast radius.

[Theoic]

let 'em have nukes.

let everyone have nukes. it'll make this planet a better place. it'll be like the cold war. everyone will be afraid to use 'em cause they don't wanna die

[Phoenix]

who are we to say who gets to have nukes and who doesn't? Evrybody in the whole wrld knows that if anybody nukes ANYBODY, the US would react, be it china, russia, iran, india, pakistan, france, uk, korea...(who else has nukes?). Who says the US has a right to tell anybody who can and cannot have one? We developed them first, it's our fault that anyone has them. No one is going to use a nuke as a preemptive attack, it would be a last ditch effort.

[hoos]

Obviously no one here has watch the "End of the World" animation posted somewhere in this forum...

I personally don't think Iran should have nuclear weapons, but who's to say they can or can't? Who's to say that the US should still be able to have any? No one is going to tll us because we are not going to listen to them anyways. Its the whole, we're bigger than you so you listen to us or we will crush you, mentality that runs the world. Sometimes it doesn't work when the little guy doesn't listen, i.e. Iran right now.

[Bringo the Bongo Banger]

let 'em have nukes.

let everyone have nukes. it'll make this planet a better place. it'll be like the cold war. everyone will be afraid to use 'em cause they don't wanna die


but thats the whole point M.A.D would not work with the iranians. they have no fear of death (obviously not talking about the population as a whole)

i came accross this article a while back, its pretty interesting, its written from the perspective of a future historian, writing about the the current middle eastern crisis:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2006/01/15/do1502.xml

[Quaker]

quaker you and i have an issue with # 4. you called it flaming..its absolute fact. they have no fear of death, as is the case with everyone if they really beleive for the cause they're fighting in... If your wife was being raped would you be afraid to defend her even if it meant you might die? Even if the example isn't as extreme im sure everyone would be willing to die for some cause or thing the believe in. i dont speak of all iranians of course, just the militants. again im sure it applies to more people than just the "militants". The united states is fully right to oppose any iranian capability to produce nuclear weapons, Your right, so when there is some factual evidence to back up the claims that Iran wants to develop Nuclear Weapons the US will have something to stand on. not because of any intention of the government but because of the incredibily high risk of such a weapon being givin to, or taken by the militants. The same risk exists right now, many other questionable countries already posses nukes. to quote the current commander of the gitmo detention facility.. "They hate us. You can see it in their eyes. They will kill you in a second. and don't forgot Bushy is the one who claimed Saddam would be able to harm the US in a matter of hours. Like i said before this whole thing is about getting the fear campaign started so that in the long run if something happens people will already be "soft" to it.

its bad enough these people can obtain guns and rockets. OMG Iran has an army <shocked> [/QUOTE]do you want them to have access to nuclear weapons?[/QUOTE] Once again there hasn't been ANY proof showing that Iran is going after nuclear weapons.

finally as a purely practical matter..everyone should be standing with the us on this issue for one simple reason. should iran(or a milirtant faction from) obtain and use nuclear weapons on the United States or our allies, no matter what country you are from, you WILL be involved in the aftermath. Right, and again this could be said for several countries that already have nukes... and that said once again i gotta say there hasn't been ANY proof showing that Iran is going after Nukes therefore this whole discussion is POINTLESS.

quaker about your 1st #1
" Iran is the most active state sponsor of terrorism. Its Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps and Ministry of Intelligence and Security continue to be involved in the planning and support of terrorist acts and continue to support a variety of groups that use terrorism to pursue their goals. Iran's support includes funding, providing safe haven, training, and weapons to a wide variety of terrorist groups including Lebanese Hizballah, HAMAS, the Palestinian Islamic Jihad, and the Popular Liberation Front for Palestine-General Command. Its support of HAMAS and Palestinian Islamic Jihad is of particular concern, as both groups continue their deliberate policies of attacking Israeli citizens with suicide bombings." this is from a website and it talks about how iran supposts many terrosit groups that blow up inocent ppl

but its okay for the US to provide weapons to Isreal that kill innocent people?

Like i said in the first post Iran is the number one sponsor of terrorist according to the US and Isreal... doesn't count for much in light of recent events (ie: faking intelligence to attack Iraq)

so imagine what they could do with a nuke Again ZERO proof has been shown that Iran is going after a nuke.

and about the us making them nukeleor energy hows it placing the trust of country in are hands were just making them a power plant not like your example of us giving a vital part of the country right next to new york that can be used for a massive terrosit attack for an arab country to watch there was an article on this in the ny times but the arcives is down now Yes my god how wrong I was... a few ports are way way more vital to a country than its future energy needs <roll eyes>

[Grendel]

No grendel, a sink is a sink, and all i saw was the interview, but in most detention facilities the drain plug is spring loaded so the inmates gannot remove the plug itself and do harm or make tools from it, so i assume its something similar.

That makes sense now. I didn't think of that particular style of drainplug... I'm poor and still have one on a chain!


and what you describe is not a nuke but a "dirty bomb" which will have no nuclear detonation but will spread radiation throughout its blast radius.

Yup, but my point was that terrorists, or even a nation, could achieve their aim without a sophisticated weapon like the nuclear weapons of today.

Also, I've read, not sure how true it is though, that there are several nuclear weapons that 'disappeared' during the break up of the former Soviet Union. If that's true, it worries me a whole lot more than the fact that Iran might possibly be attempting to develop their own.

[Mark]

no one should have a nuke i find americas stance on this issue hypocritical. Why dont you get rid of your ones. And anyway the milliants are way more likely to go a get them from former russian states. Those nuclear weapons are so poorly defended it is not funny. The sonner nuclear weapons are destroyed the better. Iran should not have them but niether shoulf anyone else

[dov]

Yes my god how wrong I was... a few ports are way way more vital to a country than its future energy needs <roll eyes>
its not just a few ports its the new york city area with many of the oil refineries with mmany chemical plant as the ny times said a terrorist attack there can easily killl hundreds of thosands

and about your claim us supports iseal killing inocent ppl the only inoccent ppl isreal kills are when they miss there target and they dont just shoot a missle at a crowded pizza store which i s very simmilar to what the terroist iran supports do

[Quaker]

and about your claim us supports iseal killing inocent ppl the only inoccent ppl isreal kills are when they miss there target and they dont just shoot a missle at a crowded pizza store If you truely believe that then you need to take those thick blinders off... and im sure you also believe the US only kills people who militants etc... in Iraq??? isn't there a whole scandal going on AGAIN right now about how an entire family was just killed for the hell of it?

its not just a few ports its the new york city area with many of the oil refineries with mmany chemical plant as the ny times said a terrorist attack there can easily killl hundreds of thosands

Again it doesn't matter how much it is or what it is.... would the US EVER put it's fate in the hands of another country? was it not bush's main arguement against Kerry that the US will not pass a global test or something to that effect. Now why does the US expect Iran to pass a "global test". The US doesn't care what other countries say or think and does whats in ITS best interest as should all countries.

Again there has been ZERO evidence backing up anyone's claims (thats all they are claims) that Iran is going after nukes so please provide some or this whole discussion is pointless.

[tca]

I have no scientific stand point to this entire argument, Im just here to call the USA government a bunch of f**king hypocrits, How come you's have like 90% of the worlds nukes, yet nobody else is allowed to have them?

Surely you's are more scared of let's say, China then a piss ant country like Iran?

Supposing Iran is even after nukes, Which im highly skeptical of myself......

[bzzt]

china is to busy taking our jobs and exploiting our economic weaknesses in america to threaten us militarily. the chinese are not alone in that regard. that kind of crap would not happen if president bzzt was in office.

[dov]

If you truely believe that then you need to take those thick blinders off... and im sure you also believe the US only kills people who militants etc... in Iraq??? isn't there a whole scandal going on AGAIN right now about how an entire family was just killed for the hell of it?

the soilders in iraq who killed the family #1 were hight b/c they all use drugs in the army (they had this in the time magazine)
#2 they dont represent the views of the us as u can see there being posicuted
#3 the ppl in iraq who were killed did have weapons
and how do u know they werent in volvid in the attack all it takes to do the actual attack is a cellphone

If you truely believe that then you need to take those thick blinders off... and im sure you also believe the US only kills people who militants etc... in Iraq??? isn't there a whole scandal going on AGAIN right now about how an entire family was just killed for the hell of it?



Again it doesn't matter how much it is or what it is.... would the US EVER put it's fate in the hands of another country? was it not bush's main arguement against Kerry that the US will not pass a global test or something to that effect.
wtf are u talking about here.
it needed to be five characheters long

[Quaker]

wtf are you even talking about here

simple... What was one of bush's main platforms against kerry in this last election?

Something to the effect of "The US will not pass a global test" meaning the US will do whats in ITS best interest regardless of what ANY OTHER person/country says (including the UN).

Now why is it that the US expects Iran to not do what is in its best interest (nuclear energy for when other energy sources run out) and do whatever others want it to?

[dov]

Now why is it that the US expects Iran to not do what is in its best interest (nuclear energy for when other energy sources run out) and do whatever others want it to?
iran doesnt realy want energy they want nukes or elose why wount they let us inspect the sites or build it for them

[Grendel]

iran doesnt realy want energy they want nukes or elose why wount they let us inspect the sites or build it for them


Iran WAS allowing the IAEA to carry out 'snap' inspections of it's facilities up until February. The US wasn't happy with that and wanted the UN Security Council to push through a resolution allowing aggressive action - similar to the ones passed prior to military action taken by the US without UN authorisation... Fortunately Russia put a stop to that, otherwise we might see yet another invasion.

No wonder Iran won't allow the US anywhere near anything, they've reopened negotiations with the Russians to build things for them though.

The big sticking point is the Iranian Uranium re-enrichment facility/research, which is odd since it's actually allowed under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.

[Quaker]

iran doesnt realy want energy they want nukes PROVE IT! or elose why wount they let us inspect the sites like the poster below said inspections were allowe, and on top of that Iran also allowed video cameras to be put into specific sites which would be monitored 24/7/365. On top of this Iran also said it would allow Russia to remove ALL wastes that would be needed to create nuclear weapons. or build it for them right.... again haven't we already been over this? Simple question for you would the US allow a middle eastern country to build its nuclear sites?

And also like the poster above mentioned notice how Iran is doing NOTHING which it isn't allowed to do under the NPT which they signed and is recognised by everyone.

[dov]

Ahmadinejad said that Israel should be "wiped off the map" so it shows he wants mukes to bomb isreal
sice they dont need nucleal power since acc to a web site iran has abundant hydrocarbon resources,
and in cnn.com it said "Inspectors report finding particles at the Natanz nuclear facility that contain a higher percentage of enriched uranium than is needed for a civilian power program, said Mark Gwozdecky, a spokesman for the International Atomic Energy Agency in Vienna."

[Quaker]

Ahmadinejad said that Israel should be "wiped off the map" so it shows he wants mukes to bomb isreal "clearly"??? lol, not even close. Please also post the rest of his speech in which he said the countries which were responsible for the Holocaust should have "housed" the zionests instead of giving them someone elses land. He stated those same countries should now take responsiblity and move the zionists they love so much into their own countries. Does it wipe Isreal of the map? yes Militarly? no. Is is realistic? No.
sice they dont need nucleal power since acc to a web site iran has abundant hydrocarbon resources, will those sources last forever and ever? Oil is estimated to run out in another 70ish years and then what? Using the same logic then the US should not look for alternate sources of energy until they current sources are completly depleted?
and in cnn.com it said "Inspectors report finding particles at the Natanz nuclear facility that contain a higher percentage of enriched uranium than is needed for a civilian power program, said Mark Gwozdecky, a spokesman for the International Atomic Energy Agency in Vienna." And according to Iran, those were on imported "parts" from other countries.... lets use a bit of commonsense though.... if Iran is 5 years away from even the possiblity of nuclear weapons then how in the world would it even have the ability to produce the substance that was found by themselves? Timewise it makes ZERO sense and its impossible...., but that said according to what i've heard its going to take 5ish weeks to know where the material originally came from.

[Grendel]

Incidentally, North Korea has already declared that it has nuclear weapons and Israel is highly likely to have them. They carried out joint tests with South Africa - which is the only nation to have given up nuclear weapons after having them. Even more worryingly, Israel refuses to sign the NPT.

[Cowboy From Hell]

http://www.sonic.net/~paul/humour/msg00301.html

How to Make an Atomic Bomb

How to Make an Atomic Bomb

A Construction Project

The following paper is taken from The Journal of Irreproducible Results,
Volume 25/Number 4/1979. P.O. Box 234 Chicago Heights, Illinois 60411

1. INTRODUCTION

Worldwide controversy has been generated recently from several court
decisions in the United States which have restricted popular magazines
from printing articles which describe how to make an atomic bomb. The
reason usually given by the courts is that national security would be
compromised if such information were generally available. But, since it
is commonly known that all of the information is publicly available in
most major metropolitan libraries, obviously the court's officially
stated position is covering up a more important factor; namely, that
such atomic devices would prove too difficult for the average citizen
to construct. The United States courts cannot afford to insult the vast
majorities by insinuating that they do not have the intelligence of a
cabbage, and thus the "official" press releases claim national security
as a blanket restriction.

The rumors that have unfortunately occurred as a result of widespread
misinformation can (and must) be cleared up now, for the construction
project this month is the construction of a thermonuclear device, which
will hopefully clear up any misconceptions you might have about such a
project. We will see how easy it is to make a device of your very own
in ten easy steps, to have and hold as you see fit, without annoying
interference from the government or the courts.

The project will cost between $5,000 and $30,000, depending on how
fancy you want the final product to be. Since last week's column,
"Let's Make a Time Machine", was received so well in the new
step-by-step format, this month's column will follow the same format.

2. CONSTRUCTION METHOD
1. First, obtain about 50 pounds (110 kg) of weapons grade Plutonium
at your local supplier (see NOTE 1). A nuclear power plant is not
recommended, as large quantities of missing Plutonium tends to
make plant engineers unhappy. We suggest that you contact your
local terrorist organization, or perhaps the Junior Achievement in
your neighborhood.
2. Please remember that Plutonium, especially pure, refined
Plutonium, is somewhat dangerous. Wash your hands with soap and
warm water after handling the material, and don't allow your
children or pets to play in it or eat it. Any left over Plutonium
dust is excellent as an insect repellant. You may wish to keep the
substance in a lead box if you can find one in your local junk
yard, but an old coffee can will do nicely.
3. Fashion together a metal enclosure to house the device. Most
common varieties of sheet metal can be bent to disguise this
enclosure as, for example, a briefcase, a lunch pail, or a Buick.
Do not use tinfoil.
4. Arrange the Plutonium into two hemispheral shapes, separated by
about 4 cm. Use rubber cement to hold the Plutonium dust together.
5. Now get about 100 pounds (220 kg) of trinitrotoluene (TNT).
Gelignite is much better, but messier to work with. Your helpful
hardware man will be happy to provide you with this item.
6. Pack the TNT around the hemisphere arrangement constructed in step
4. If you cannot find Gelignite, fell free to use TNT packed in
with Playdo or any modeling clay. Colored clay is acceptable, but
there is no need to get fancy at this point.
7. Enclose the structure from step 6 into the enclosure made in step
3. Use a strong glue such as "Crazy Glue" to bind the hemisphere
arrangement against the enclosure to prevent accidental detonation
which might result from vibration or mishandling.
8. To detonate the device, obtain a radio controlled (RC) servo
mechanism, as found in RC model airplanes and cars. With a modicum
of effort, a remote plunger can be made that will strike a
detonator cap to effect a small explosion. These detonatior caps
can be found in the electrical supply section of your local
supermarket. We recommend the "Blast-O-Mactic" brand because they
are no deposit-no return.
9. Now hide the completed device from the neighbors and children. The
garage is not recommended because of high humidity and the extreme
range of temperatures experienced there. Nuclear devices have been
known to spontaneously detonate in these unstable conditions. The
hall closet or under the kitchen sink will be perfectly suitable.
10. Now you are the proud owner of a working thermonuclear device! It
is a great ice-breaker at parties, and in a pinch, can be used for
national defense.
3. THEORY OF OPERATION

The device basically works when the detonated TNT compresses the
Plutonium into a critical mass. The critical mass then produces a
nuclear chain recation similar to the domino chain reaction (discussed
in this column, "Dominos on the March", March, 1968). The chain
reaction then promptly produces a big thermonuclear reaction. And there
you have it, a 10 megaton explosion!

4. NEXT MONTH'S COLUMN

In next month's column, we will learn how to clone your neighbor's wife
in six easy steps. This project promises to be an exciting weekend full
of fun and profit. Common kitchen utensils will be all you need. See
you next month!

5. NOTES

1. Plutonium (PU), atomic number 94, is a radioactive metallic element
formed by the decay of Neptunium and is similar in chemical structure
to Uranium, Saturium, Jupiternium, and Marisum.

6. PREVIOUS MONTH'S COLUMNS
1. Let's Make Test Tube Babies! May, 1979
2. Let's Make a Solar System! June, 1979
3. Let's Make an Economic Recession! July, 1979
4. Let's Make an Anti-Gravity Machine! August, 1979
5. Let's Make Contact with an Alien Race! September, 1979





:w00t2:

[dov]

[QUOTE=Quaker
will those sources last forever and ever? Oil is estimated to run out in another 70ish years and then what? Using the same logic then the US should not look for alternate sources of energy until they current sources are completly depleted?
[/QUOTE]
hydro eletric works for ever i think

[Grendel]

hydro eletric works for ever i think

So why doesn't the US get rid of all it's nuclear powerstations and replace them all with hydro-electric?

And more importantly, since the US doesn't want anyone else to have nuclear weapons - why doesn't the US dismantle it's own?

[Grendel]

Why doesn't China and Russia get rid of it's nuclear power plants and switch to hydro? Why doesn't China or Russia dismantle their nukes?

I don't see China and Russia crying about who can, and cannot have nuclear weapons...

Also didn't China just build a massive hydro-electric dam?

[Grendel]

That's not the point. If you're anti nuke then you should be moving for all to dis-mantle. My point was, that's the reason. As long as the other countries have nukes, the US will. Everyone needs to dis-arm but that will never happen. The last thing we need is more people with nukes, since it just increases the chances of someone using them.

Agreed, but that still doesn't negate my original point.

Who gave the US the right to decide who should, and who shouldn't, have nuclear weapons? I don't see anyone calling for sanctions against Israel - a nation far more likely to have nuclear weapons than Iran...

And, so far, only one country has dismantled it's entire stock of nuclear weapons - South Africa. The same South Africa that was carrying out joint tests with Israel in the 1970's/80's.

[Quaker]

That's not the point. actually it is the point.... if the US is crying about who can and can't have nukes then it needs to first set the example by destroying its own supply. My point was, that's the reason. As long as the other countries have nukes, the US will. correct, but you misunderstood the other poster.... he was replying to dov who stated Iran should not have nuclear energy because alternate sources are available and therefore by the same logic the US shouldn't have nuclear energy either.

[dov]

if us would destroy r nukes what would stop another country from nuking us and what alternate source do u propose using in the us

[Quaker]

if us would destroy r nukes what would stop another country from nuking us and what alternate source do u propose using in the us

I've never proposed the US get rid of its Nukes, only that if its going to campaign what others need to do then it needs to first set the example.

And again this topic has been side tracked since there has been ZERO evidence provided to date that Iran is seeking anything but Nuclear Energy.

[Mark]

back in page 4 someone said that iran would not allow inspectors into its faciltities i might be wrong but didnt america say that the un cant inspect it weapon facilties due to a secerity risk

[dov]

I've never proposed the US get rid of its Nukes, only that if its going to campaign what others need to do then it needs to first set the example.

And again this topic has been side tracked since there has been ZERO evidence provided to date that Iran is seeking anything but Nuclear Energy.
we should just stop its not likes its going to change anything
i was just wondering what country u come from

[Grendel]

... and what alternate source do u propose using in the us

How about the same method you proposed that Iran use instead of attempting to use nuclear energy? Hydro-electricity.

[tca]

really, america should be more worried about north korea, not iran

[dov]

How about the same method you proposed that Iran use instead of attempting to use nuclear energy? Hydro-electricity.
us is much bigger and has less hydro eletric soureces

[Quaker]

So I assume you have daily access to the white house and International inteligence agencies. There's lots of things the public doesn't know and doesn't need to know. But since your inside sources seem to be coming up empty, you must be right.

Nope, don't assume anything... if the US had anything against Iran they'd use it in a second if not for any other reason than to get the media to focus on something other than Iraq.

Again there has been ZERO proof showing Iran is after nukes and now that you see this (well don't think you do) your making your entire claim on a BIG IF....

Good luck with that.... and is this the same us intelligence that was used to invade Iraq? HA good luck with that :|

we should just stop its not likes its going to change anything eh, agreed :orign:
i was just wondering what country u come from what your thinking is correct :)

[dov]

well the reason this argument is pointless b/c there is no real facts here


Good luck with that.... and is this the same us intelligence that was used to invade Iraq? HA good luck with that :|
im not arguing about your point in iran but about your eaxmple there is some proof that iraq had the weapons and when we came in they sent them out

[Mark]

im not arguing about your point in iran but about your eaxmple there is some proof that iraq had the weapons and when we came in they sent them out


You have got to be kidding me when your own goverment admits there were none what more evidince do you need. Iraq had no wmds and where did they put them by the way?

[Quaker]

well the reason this argument is pointless b/c there is no real facts here

Again agree, and the original poster of this thread needs to quit posting and running away.... :)

[Dymond]

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,200499,00.html

This is from Killaho..Read it and weep..and don't get me negative rep! I was just asked to post it for him!

[Quaker]

[QUOTE=Dymond]http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,200499,00.html

[QUOTE]
i ntold u:w00t2:

Offering the official administration response to FOX News, a senior Defense Department official pointed out that the chemical weapons were not in useable conditions.

"This does not reflect a capacity that was built up after 1991," the official said, adding the munitions "are not the WMDs this country and the rest of the world believed Iraq had, and not the WMDs for which this country went to war."

I wish the old threads from the old old forum were archived somewhere so this wouldn't have to be repeated over and over.... We already knew Iraq had some form of WMD's since Saddamm was a) given them by the USA and b) used it in gassing his own people and also Iranians during the Iran Iraq war...

These are not the weapons in which the Bush admin made its case for war with... There has been to date ZERO WMD programs found in which the Bush admin insisted were well in place and had the capability to strike within "hours"...

While your throwing your happy dance just remember nothing new has been found.... the US is just reclaiming what it gave Iraq in the past ;)


But the intelligence officials said the munitions dated from before the 1991 Persian Gulf War and were for the most part badly deteriorated. "They are not in a condition where they could be used as designed," one intelligence official said.

"There is not new news from the coalition point of view," one official said, noting that chief U.S. weapons inspector Charles Duelfer predicted in a March 2005 report that such vintage weapons would continue to be found.

The intelligence officials offered a less alarming view.

They said the old munitions had been found in groups of one and two, indicating that they'd been discarded, not that they were part of an organized program to stockpile banned weapons.

http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/news/politics/14879499.htm

[spam]

I dont have time to respond but apparently quaker is the new douchebag of the forum.

[Quaker]

I dont have time to respond but apparently quaker is the new douchebag of the forum.

Let me apologize in advance for taking the serious discussion forum seriously....

[RobCheadle]

Are mustard gas and Sarin even classed as 'Weapons of Mass Destruction'?

Thats all that the link refers to....

[spam]

Let me apologize in advance for taking the serious discussion forum seriously....

seriously????? all you are saying is prove it.

you have no good arguments. the guy denied the holocaust!!!!!!!!!!!!!

fuck, hes fucken nuts. your either a dumbass or hugely uneducated.

I don't know who the fuck you are, but he wants me personally dead. He wants the entire state of Israel off the map. ya that's a guy i want to give nukes too.

i didn't even read the entire thread, but it is not about United States foreign policy. it is about a crazy bastard getting his hands on one of the more deadly weapons man has ever created.

sorry if i can see that he and you are huge fucken tools.


oh and i can copy and paste too:

Antagonism toward Israel

In October 2005 Ahmadinejad gave a speech that contained as antagonistic statements about the State of Israel. According to widely published translations, he agreed with a statement he attributed to Ayatollah Khomeini that the "occupying regime" must be "wiped off the map", and referred to it as a "disgraceful stain [on] the Islamic world."[18]

The speech was interpreted by some as a call for genocide. For example, Canada's then Prime Minister Paul Martin said, "this threat to Israel's existence, this call for genocide coupled with Iran's obvious nuclear ambitions is a matter that the world cannot ignore."[19]

Ahmadinejad's comments were condemned by major Western governments, the European Union, Russia, the United Nations Security Council and UN Secretary General Kofi Annan.[20] Egyptian, Turkish and Palestinian leaders also expressed displeasure over Ahmadinejad's remark.[21]

The translation of his statement has since been disputed. At a news conference on January 14, 2006, Ahmadinejad claimed regarding the October speech "There is no new policy, they created a lot of hue and cry over that." [22] In June, 2006 Guardian columnist and foreign correspondant Jonathan Steele cited several Farsi speakers and translators who state that the phrase in question is more accurately translated as "eliminated" or "wiped off" or "wiped away" from "the page of time" or "the pages of history", rather than "wiped off the map".[23]

Reviewing the controversy over the translation, New York Times deputy foreign editor Ethan Bronner observed that "all official translations" of the comments, including the foreign ministry and president's office, "refer to wiping Israel away". [24]


Comments on Holocaust as "myth"

In December 2005 and January and May 2006 Ahmadinejad made controversial statements which were widely interpreted as denying the Holocaust, and criticized European laws against Holocaust denial. These statements were also condemned by many world leaders and has led to accusations of anti-Semitism.

CNN and other media outlets reported that he stated concerning the Holocaust, that "they have invented a myth that Jews were massacred" [25].

In an interview with Der Spiegel, he was asked, "Are you still saying that the Holocaust is just 'a myth'?" Ahmadinejad responded, "I will only accept something as truth if I am actually convinced of it." In the same interview, he later stated, "We oppose every type of crime against any people. But we want to know whether this crime actually took place or not...If it did not occur, then the Jews have to go back to where they came from" [26].

In reaction to Ahmadinejad's comments on the Holocaust, the United States Senate passed a unanimous resolution condemning his "harmful, destructive, and anti-Semitic statements." and "hate and animosity toward all Jewish people of the world."[19]

Vociferous criticism came from throughout the world.[citation needed] Typical of the criticism was a The Cleveland Plain Dealer editoral describing Ahmadinejad as an "anti-Semitic rogue"[27]

Former Iranian President Mohammad Khatami said that the Holocaust is a "historic fact", while criticizing what he claimed was a connection between the Holocaust and "the persecution of the Palestinian people". [28]

Rev. Dr. Robert W. Edgar, General Secretary of the National Council of Churches in USA said "Anti-Semitism’s most vociferous manifestation is the 'Big Lie' now coming from Tehran"[29].

The fallout from Ahmadinejad's remarks continued months later. A June 11, 2006 article in The Guardian on Ahmadinejad's controversy relating to the soccer World Cup stated: "Iran's Football team will be met with a series of protests across Germany during their World Cup campaign as anger mounts against the country's viciously anti-semitic President, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad."[30]

The translation of his statements on the Holocaust have been disputed by the Iranian government. The government-controlled IRNA hews agency has stated that Ahmadinejad said, "some have created a myth on holocaust and hold it even higher than the very belief in religion and prophets."[31] It should be noted that IRNA's mission is to secure "the Islamic Republic of Iran's national interests." [32]. The Iranian government further responded through a spokesman who charged that "the Western media empire is trying to portrait [sic] Iran as an anti-Semitic country...If you believe in the Holocaust...let other people express their ideas too and then try to convince them by your justifications." [33].


IF YOU WANT ILL POST SOME HOLOCAUST PICS FOR YOU. THERE REALLY NICE. HAPPY ACTUALLY BECAUSE APPARENTLY THE HOLOCAUST DIDNT HAPPEN. STOP SUPPORTING A CRAZY BASTARD

[Tekke]

nobody should be allowed nuke!

[dov]

but everybody ownt be wlling to give there nukes up

[Quaker]

seriously????? all you are saying is prove it. LMFAO.... Once again this is the serious discussion forum and if someone is going to make a claim then they need to be able to back it up with a source which has yet to happen.

you have no good arguments. again its not my job to make any arguments when no-one has provided any evidence that something wrong is happening in the first place!! the guy denied the holocaust!!!!!!!!!!!!! LMAO so lets see.... no holocaust = NUKES?? <roll eyes>

fuck, hes fucken nuts. same could be said about every world leader **cough cough bush** your either a dumbass or hugely uneducated. yea im the dumbass..... Once again provide some actual proof to back up the claim of NUKES made in this thread!!!

I don't know who the fuck you are,but he wants me personally dead. the ignorance of this statement is amazing.... it would be equivlent to an arabic/muslim person saying "bush wants me dead". He wants the entire state of Israel off the map. zionism to be exact.... ya that's a guy i want to give nukes too. now please post some evidence that Iran is going after nukes..... oh wait you prefer to talk out of your ass.....

i didn't even read the entire thread, No shit. but it is not about United States foreign policy. it is about a crazy bastard getting his hands on one of the more deadly weapons man has ever created. Again it has yet to be proven Iran is going after Nukes.... and whether or not Iran's leader is crazy is your perception.... im sure alot of people feel the same way about Bushy....

sorry if i can see that he and you are huge fucken tools. LMFAO now we have to resort to flaming??? awwww poor spam... atleast your living upto your name ;)

oh and i can copy and paste too: CONGRATS... want a cookie?

Now use those copy and paste skills to prove.... no holocaust = NUKES

IF YOU WANT ILL POST SOME HOLOCAUST PICS FOR YOU. THERE REALLY NICE. HAPPY ACTUALLY BECAUSE APPARENTLY THE HOLOCAUST DIDNT HAPPEN. Once again no need to take the thread off topic.... if you have any proof showing Iran is actually going after NUKES then now would be the time to post it.... STOP SUPPORTING A CRAZY BASTARD Oh the irony..... You know the same could be said for so many world leaders....

[dov]

but were not b/c the un forbids it

[Grendel]

I said, way back on page 2: 'Iran haven't let inspectors into their nuclear facilities so we have no proof they even have nukes'

Yes they have, but they have suspended the voluntary inspections. According to the IAEA, Iran does not possess nuclear weapons, or even weapons-grade uranium. On March 6, 2006, Mohamed El Baradei, Director General of the IAEA, reported that "the Agency has not seen indications of diversion of nuclear material to nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices."


But unfortunately,from satelite pictures, it has been shown that Iran have been loading fuel into long range nuclear weapons. Test launching them will undoubtably provoke a response from numerous countries.

Utter rubbish! Yes, they may be fuelling long-range weapons, but without examining the warhead nobody - not the CIA, nor you, nor anyone else - can say that they are nuclear weapons.

What I find worse is the UK's new plans to refurbish their Trident missiles, they are saying that this could cost upto £25bill. Firstly, owning nukes could easily said to be a form of terrorism{My emphasis - Grendel}, and secondly, how much fucking money has been spent on these fucking missiles that from what I can remember from history have only been used once. And another thing, refurbing our nukes, will put us deeper into the pockets of the americans, since we rely on them to maintain and check all our weaponry.

Interesting! Are you saying that, in fact, the worlds biggest terrorists are the USA? Followed by Russia, China, France, the UK and Israel... And they've been used many times, but only twice in anger.

How can we tell anyone not to develop nukes, when our government feel it essential to update our own.

Something I've said from the beginning of this thread.

[RobCheadle]

With wires hanging out my jacket?

seriously though...

LMFAO.... Once again this is the serious discussion forum and if someone is going to make a claim then they need to be able to back it up with a source which has yet to happen.

Once again provide some actual proof to back up the claim of NUKES made in this thread!!!

now please post some evidence that Iran is going after nukes.....

No shit. Again it has yet to be proven Iran is going after Nukes....



I thought the question was "Should Iran be allowed Nukes?"

Not "This thread intends to prove that Amedinejad is developing Nukes?"


Everyone knows he is developing Nukes. The question is "Do we just let him?"


I say NO we dont, for the sake of world security.

[RobCheadle]

I'd be interested to know if Quaker thinks that Iran should have Nukes... forget whether anyone else has got them. The question is, do you think Iran should have Nukes?

[RobCheadle]

I was putting the question to Quaker, not you 'thisismyaccount' thanks for your opinion anyway, which I agreed with in my post.

Quaker seems to have a lot to say in this thread but hasnt actually said whether or not he thinks Iran should be allowed to have Nukes... I'm interested to know what he thinks.

[Quaker]

I thought the question was "Should Iran be allowed Nukes?", but for that to be a valid question there would have to be some evidence showing Iran was even interested in Nukes.

Not "This thread intends to prove that Amedinejad is developing Nukes?" see above...

Everyone knows he is developing Nukes. The question is "Do we just let him?" **Correction the US **claims** Iran is developing nukes... there has been ZERO evidence to that effect to date.

I say NO we dont, for the sake of world security. NO to what?

I'd be interested to know if Quaker thinks that Iran should have Nukes... forget whether anyone else has got them. The question is, do you think Iran should have Nukes? Nope, nor do i think there would EVER be ANY justification for using one... even if country A was attacked with nukes and wanted to use them against country B.

[dov]

this is a reply to quaker
so what if(a hypothetical q) we had proof iran was making nukes d we let them or not

[Grendel]

this is a reply to quaker
so what if(a hypothetical q) we had proof iran was making nukes d we let them or not

And how could we, by which I presume you mean the USA, stop them? Yet another invasion of a sovereign nation?

Perhaps the USA should get it's own house in order before trying to sort out the worlds problems. The US ratified the Geneva Accord in 1975 banning the use of chemical and biological weapons. (As if it didn't have more than enough nuclear weapons... :unsure: ) In 1997 it ratified the Chemical Weapons Convention, which bans possession of the damn things, almost 10 years later the US is still dragging it's feet and saying it need still more time.

[RobCheadle]

, but for that to be a valid question there would have to be some evidence showing Iran was even interested in Nukes.

see above...

**Correction the US **claims** Iran is developing nukes... there has been ZERO evidence to that effect to date.

NO to what?

Nope, nor do i think there would EVER be ANY justification for using one... even if country A was attacked with nukes and wanted to use them against country B.

I say no to Iran being allowed to develop Nukes. I also dont think any other country should have them.

Thanks Quaker for clearing that up. I though maybe you were going to surprise us and say perhaps they should be allowed Nukes.

Okay, admittedly no one can prove at the moment that Iran is developing Nukes. What we do know though is that they have taken a huge step closer in their capability to be able to do so. Therefore you have to ask what it is they are trying to do. I believe they may just be trying to stir up the west. They cant say it's solely for power as they have been offered alternatives by Russia and other countries. Even if they are not developing Nukes, they appear to be doing everything they can to make us think that they are..

[Quaker]

Okay, admittedly no one can prove at the moment that Iran is developing Nukes. What we do know though is that they have taken a huge step closer in their capability to be able to do so. Therefore you have to ask what it is they are trying to do. I believe they may just be trying to stir up the west. or maybe the media is trying to make it seem this way so that in the event of some more drastic action needs to be taken everyone will already have a negative view towards Iran. They cant say it's solely for power as they have been offered alternatives by Russia and other countries. Why should they have to use alternatives when they can do it themselves? and they're doing everything the NPT which was signed in 1979 i beleive allows them to do? And also Iran has said it would be all for allowing Russia to take out the nuclear wastes which could be used to makes Nukes, so it would be untrue to state that Iran is not willing to give an take... Even if they are not developing Nukes, they appear to be doing everything they can to make us think that they are..... again the media makes it out to seem that they're going against the grain when in fact Iran is doing nothing which it doesn't have "permission" to do (per NPT terms).

[VikesWookie]

where there's smoke there's usually fire...

i'm tired of our admin spending our tax dollars on policing the world. how much is the current struggle costing us? 300+ billion?... how much further can/would we stretch our resources?

[Quaker]

Please stay on topic. The thread is regarding wether or not Iran should be allowed to have nukes.

LMFAO..... coming from the person who has had people post several stories that are completly off topic??? <roll eyes>

Sorry if your having a hard time making a point.... its normal for sheep like you ;)

[Grendel]

Iran probably shouldn't have nuclear weapons. Then again NO nation should have them. Which leads to the question that nobody is answering... What gives the USA the right to decide who can, and who cannot, have them? I didn't see the USA causing uproar when Irael was carrying out joint tests with South Africa. Ever considered the fact that several Arab nations feel threatened by Israel's possession of them?

[RobCheadle]

or maybe the media is trying to make it seem this way so that in the event of some more drastic action needs to be taken everyone will already have a negative view towards Iran. Why should they have to use alternatives when they can do it themselves? and they're doing everything the NPT which was signed in 1979 i beleive allows them to do? And also Iran has said it would be all for allowing Russia to take out the nuclear wastes which could be used to makes Nukes, so it would be untrue to state that Iran is not willing to give an take... ... again the media makes it out to seem that they're going against the grain when in fact Iran is doing nothing which it doesn't have "permission" to do (per NPT terms).

You think the media would want to sway the public into thinking going to war was a good thing? I dont. Look at the way the media handled the Bush and Blair governments after the invasion of Iraq... they hounded both Bush and Blair into admitting there were no WMD.
The likes of MI5 and the CIA may try to influence the media into doing this by releasing sensitive information that has not been confirmed but it isnt the doing of the media who would love to capture the scalp of Bush or Blair, not help them.

Iran isnt helping its self here. They are half way there to having the capability to build Nuclear weapons and are making public declarations that they want to wipe neighbouring countries of the face of the map.... you dont have to be Einstein to put two and two together and see what it looks like to everyone else. Action needs to be taken t safe guard innocent people.

[Quaker]

Glad to see you have resorted to flaming. This Serious Discussion. so are you going to actually make a point....?

Please stay on topic. The thread is regarding wether or not Iran should be allowed to have nukes. In order for that to be a valid question there would have to be something showing Iran has ever indicated it wanted nuclear weapons.....

Once again are you going to make a point or just say what your puppet master wants you to?

You think the media would want to sway the public into thinking going to war was a good thing? Nope, but if i was told day in and day out that a certain person is "bad" then after about a year if that said person died i'd be less likely to give a damn regardless of what the actual facts were...

Iran isnt helping its self here. They are half way there to having the capability to build Nuclear weapons and are making public declarations that they want to wipe neighbouring countries of the face of the map.... and again the media does a wonderful job of leaving out the fact that Isreal had stated it would have no problem attacking Iran FIRST... you dont have to be Einstein to put two and two together and see what it looks like to everyone else. Ofcourse you can spin anything to mean anything.... I bought i knife today so i guess that means im going to kill someone right? or could it be that i bought the knife to cut an apple? Both of them could be true, but i guess the killing one would fit the agenda better. Action needs to be taken to safe guard innocent people.... by the same people who are killing them on a daily basis? remind me again who has been the ONLY country to date to use WMD's?

[Quaker]

1. No, I'm going to dance around the issue like you always do LMFAO.... right.... please post where i have danced around the issue vs. replying to topics that were brought up in the ORIGINAL POST!!!

2.Interseting. I never knew there were rules to asking questions. depends which section your askign the question in.... and also note this topic wasn't started only with the title of "should Iran have nukes" there's also a whole list of additional topics which have been posted in the first post (which you've conviently left out of your rant) ;). So I can't ask you if I should murder unless someone can prove I had an intent to kill? you can ask away, but i see no point of it being asked in serious discussion forum if there isn't a chance of it happening.... but if you do see a chance of it happening the please post how and then you've got something ;) You only question things if there is intent? In serious discussion YES for the most part...
3.**Dances on strings** eh, atleast your good for somethin....