Does Iran deserve its own nuclear bombs?

Nightshade · Post by **Nightshade** » Sun Mar 01, 2015 11:42 am

It seems that Obama thinks so- if there is any indication from what the administration is allowing Iran to do in this 'deal.'

So- is Iran getting a nuclear bomb capacity so bad? Slick? Vision?

callmeslick · Post by **callmeslick** » Sun Mar 01, 2015 11:46 am

the stated goal, and everything that's been done to date, from the administration has worked against that. I'm ok with that, as Iran with a bomb is yet another dangerous state with a bomb.....like I don't think Israel needs a bomb, nor India, nor Pakistan. Frankly, I don't think anyone NEEDS to have the bomb, but the facts are that the technology is available. Iran might be one of the least responsible parties to have such, but I can think of worse.
Still, your entire question is predicated on a flagrant lie. Why do you feel the need to repeat a proven lie?

Spidey · Post by **Spidey** » Sun Mar 01, 2015 12:02 pm

How do you define deserve, its not a very good idea, but I don’t know how you define deserve in this case.

Nightshade · Post by **Nightshade** » Sun Mar 01, 2015 12:20 pm

callmeslick wrote:the stated goal, and everything that's been done to date, from the administration has worked against that. I'm ok with that, as Iran with a bomb is yet another dangerous state with a bomb.....like I don't think Israel needs a bomb, nor India, nor Pakistan. Frankly, I don't think anyone NEEDS to have the bomb, but the facts are that the technology is available. Iran might be one of the least responsible parties to have such, but I can think of worse.
Still, your entire question is predicated on a flagrant lie. Why do you feel the need to repeat a proven lie?

What is this 'lie' you're referring to?

Nightshade · Post by **Nightshade** » Sun Mar 01, 2015 12:21 pm

Spidey wrote:How do you define deserve, its not a very good idea, but I don’t know how you define deserve in this case.

Deserve as in they having the full capacity to create nuclear weapons.

Spidey · Post by **Spidey** » Sun Mar 01, 2015 12:32 pm

nevermind >facepalm<

callmeslick · Post by **callmeslick** » Sun Mar 01, 2015 1:05 pm

ThunderBunny wrote:What is this 'lie' you're referring to?

that the Obama administration thinks Iran 'deserves' a bomb. Agree with Spidey, upon more thought that word 'deserve' needs clarification for discussion, but to suggest that the Obama admin thinks they deserve one is a bold-faced lie. Why do you have to lie? Too weak an argument if limited to the truth, TB?

Nightshade · Post by **Nightshade** » Sun Mar 01, 2015 3:13 pm

callmeslick wrote:
ThunderBunny wrote:What is this 'lie' you're referring to?
that the Obama administration thinks Iran 'deserves' a bomb. Agree with Spidey, upon more thought that word 'deserve' needs clarification for discussion, but to suggest that the Obama admin thinks they deserve one is a bold-faced lie. Why do you have to lie? Too weak an argument if limited to the truth, TB?

The truth is- the Obama admin does not want to share any details of the secret 'negotiations' it has been undertaking with Iran for the last few years. Why are they secret? Basically because they will eventually be shown to not demand anything from Iran in terms of assurances that it will no longer pursue a nuclear weapons program.

The Obama administration is waiting to spring this on the world when Iran as a nuclear power is a fait accompli.

woodchip · Post by **woodchip** » Sun Mar 01, 2015 3:26 pm

callmeslick wrote:
ThunderBunny wrote:What is this 'lie' you're referring to?
that the Obama administration thinks Iran 'deserves' a bomb. Agree with Spidey, upon more thought that word 'deserve' needs clarification for discussion, but to suggest that the Obama admin thinks they deserve one is a bold-faced lie. Why do you have to lie? Too weak an argument if limited to the truth, TB?

Perhaps it is you who is lying:

"The Bethlehem-based news agency Ma’an has cited a Kuwaiti newspaper report Saturday, that US President Barack Obama thwarted an Israeli military attack against Iran's nuclear facilities in 2014 by threatening to shoot down Israeli jets before they could reach their targets in Iran."

http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/ ... PNuQI68ics

Top Gun · Post by **Top Gun** » Sun Mar 01, 2015 6:44 pm

Riiiiiiiight...

Will Robinson · Post by **Will Robinson** » Sun Mar 01, 2015 6:53 pm

I think Iran has as much right to developing its own nuclear weapons as we do to fly drones over sovereign countries without permission and occasionally drop bombs on the people there.

Of those two scenarios I prefer we have drones to Iran having nuke's, and I'd gladly authorize a drone strike to wipe out an Iranian nuke site.
However, if we are just talking about 'deserving to have'....

One thing I don't appreciate at all is Obama saying he would not allow it to happen and it looks like he never had the will or the relationships with allies to honestly make that promise.

callmeslick · Post by **callmeslick** » Mon Mar 02, 2015 7:51 am

he is more likely to succeed via his method than any proposed by the opposition.

woodchip · Post by **woodchip** » Mon Mar 02, 2015 7:53 am

Appeasement has already been tried once...

callmeslick · Post by **callmeslick** » Mon Mar 02, 2015 8:03 am

negotiation and sanctions, simultaneously are working. It's that simple.

woodchip · Post by **woodchip** » Mon Mar 02, 2015 8:09 am

Tell that to Israel

callmeslick · Post by **callmeslick** » Mon Mar 02, 2015 8:23 am

I suspect they have been told.

woodchip · Post by **woodchip** » Mon Mar 02, 2015 9:04 am

Will be interesting to hear Netanyahu speech before congress, especially after the White Houses cold shoulder treatment.

callmeslick · Post by **callmeslick** » Mon Mar 02, 2015 9:28 am

he was very much backpeddling the rhetoric when he departed Israel. It will be interesting indeed.

callmeslick · Post by **callmeslick** » Tue Mar 03, 2015 6:42 am

little tidbit I learned last night: as I type, the Chief Military Officer of the Iranian Republican guard is with a group of Shiite fighters trying to take back Tikrit from ISIS. That's right, Iran is assisting in the fight against ISIS. Lord knows they have some interest in the matter, as Shiites are among the many targets, but the fact that they are participating in an effort that no doubt involves US troops(advisors), maybe US air support and all, shows the subtle interrelationships we are trying to deal with. Looking at the issue purely from the standpoint of Israel and no one else has been the US' longstanding problem over there. Kudos to the Obama team to be able to look at a bigger picture.

Will Robinson · Post by **Will Robinson** » Tue Mar 03, 2015 7:47 am

Let's unspin a bit of that for slick....

First, Obama has been loosening the sanctions and doing everything he can to prevent them from being applied further. So he gets no credit for using them to effect any change.

Second, Iran's Republican Guard is doing what it wants in Iraq, NOT out of 'cooperation' with Obama as slick tries to imply...but because it serves Irans purposes. And when the dust settles Tikrit is going to be in the hands of a very belligerent fundamentalist faction, be it Iran or ISIS. If pro football causes cancer who cares if the NFC or the AFC wins the Super Bowl?!?

Further, the Iranian Republican Guard is the group that Iran exported into Lebanon to make Hezbollah what it is today as well as to infect other regional groups in Syria and Palestinian territory all to spread terrorism to the Ayatollah's liking.

So why would we celebrate their involvement? So we can pretend Obama has performed some masterful stroke of diplomacy?!? Lol

callmeslick · Post by **callmeslick** » Tue Mar 03, 2015 7:56 am

not what I'm suggesting.....it's simply that the region is FAR more complex than just Israel v Iran. And, if you wish to deal with that complexity, you have to deal in DIPLOMACY. Oh, and Obama hasn't been relaxing ANY sanctions. Not one. He has asked that NO MORE be added in. That is it. Try and stick with the truth and realize that Obama is dealing in reality.

woodchip · Post by **woodchip** » Tue Mar 03, 2015 8:08 am

Obama is desperate to make good on his pledge to have a nuclear deal with Iran as his time is running out. The question is... how desperate is he.

callmeslick · Post by **callmeslick** » Tue Mar 03, 2015 8:12 am

woodchip wrote:Obama is desperate to make good on his pledge to have a nuclear deal with Iran as his time is running out. The question is... how desperate is he.

well, he's smart enough to not do something stupid. That's why WE all elected him, and he's been good so far. That's why I value smart in a leader, and why he was such a relief after 8 years of idiocy in foreign policy. He knows that if push comes to shove, we can level anything they develop, he just wants to bring Iran back to its long-time status as a force for stability, rather than be seen as a rogue state. Hell, Iran is the most western-friendly of any of the Middle Eastern cultures. Obama, for one, is smart enough to know that.

woodchip · Post by **woodchip** » Tue Mar 03, 2015 8:23 am

Yes, Obama and the word smart kinda go together like Carter and smart. Carter back stabbed the Shah (who was very western friendly) and Obama back stabbed Mubarak who was also western friendly. Start to see a pattern here when really smart people lead the country? Soon Obama will back stab Israel if he gets the chance.

Will Robinson · Post by **Will Robinson** » Tue Mar 03, 2015 9:17 am

Again more 'spin'.
He hasn't 'just stopped new sanctions'. He lifted a technology ban-sanction a year or so back and got nothing for it and more important he stopped the blacklisting of financial companies and transportation companies etc. that were doing business in Iran helping Iran get around the effects of sanctions. That was the big stick and he has stopped using it.
His people say we should wait and see.
Well we have no choice but what we are seeing is Iran getting continuously closer to their goal and giving nothing and Obama lowering the bar.
It doesn't look good for the stated official position of 'Iran will not be allowed to get nuke's'
Now we have Kerry floating test balloons of 'allowing them to get the nuke's but we might delay it'...yea...right...

woodchip · Post by **woodchip** » Tue Mar 03, 2015 9:19 am

We all know how much red lines mean to Obama.

vision · Post by **vision** » Tue Mar 03, 2015 12:09 pm

One reason you shouldn't worry about Iran: That country is locked down tight. There is way more control over the people and their assets than Pakistan, who hates the West and Israel just as much as anyone else in that region. If any nukes are going to "slip loose" it's going to be there (or NK), not Iran.

callmeslick · Post by **callmeslick** » Tue Mar 03, 2015 2:46 pm

further, Iran is still, to this day, chock full of people who both like the US, but wish to emulate the west and join us in spirit. Just because the mullahs have it set up 'tight' now, doesn't mean they will be able to keep that control. Those same people know that aggressive pursuit of a nuke weapons program serves no real purpose, and keeps them at pariah status. Patience, patience.....something Bibi Netanyahu clearly lacks.

Will Robinson · Post by **Will Robinson** » Tue Mar 03, 2015 3:47 pm

"Locked down" "but not locked up too tight"?!?

You guys are funny. Curly and Moe!

But you haven't really said anything relevant to reality. It isn't the locked down citizens that pose the threat...they weren't going to sneak a nuke out of Iran and carry it to Israel.
And it is the citizens that would break free to overthrow the ones in charge if we squeezed their economy enough with sanctions...

But Obama likes your pretty smoke screen

callmeslick · Post by **callmeslick** » Tue Mar 03, 2015 4:33 pm

squeezing is fine, and the Obama admin has done so. If you take it too far, you run into that bind where it becomes easy to channel the rural Shiite types into a cohesive defense force for the mullahs. Like I try to point out, there is so much going on in the region, not just the obvious crap the House GOP seems to blabber about. Aren't these fools briefed on world affairs? You NEED Iran, to some extent, just the same way we needed Saddam more than the previous administration could grasp. You have to toss them a few bones, and that, in no way, translates into letting them develop a nuclear arsenal, or become a bomb material exporter.

vision · Post by **vision** » Tue Mar 03, 2015 4:33 pm

Will Robinson wrote:And it is the citizens that would break free to overthrow the ones in charge if we squeezed their economy enough with sanctions...

Thus, not imposing more sanctions. Thanks for proving our point for us.

woodchip · Post by **woodchip** » Tue Mar 03, 2015 4:48 pm

callmeslick wrote:further, Iran is still, to this day, chock full of people who both like the US, but wish to emulate the west and join us in spirit. Just because the mullahs have it set up 'tight' now, doesn't mean they will be able to keep that control. Those same people know that aggressive pursuit of a nuke weapons program serves no real purpose, and keeps them at pariah status. Patience, patience.....something Bibi Netanyahu clearly lacks.

Yeah, I see how much Obama supported the students when they were revolting. I guess that was another pink line that didn't matter. And you wonder why he is a failure as a leader.

Will Robinson · Post by **Will Robinson** » Tue Mar 03, 2015 6:40 pm

vision wrote:
Will Robinson wrote:And it is the citizens that would break free to overthrow the ones in charge if we squeezed their economy enough with sanctions...
Thus, not imposing more sanctions. Thanks for proving our point for us.

You must not know much about the people in charge versus the people in Iran that could throw them out. The nutbags are in control. The everyday Iranian is not a nutbag. They are fantastic people!
We want the everyday Iranians to take their country back.

The revolution in the 70's was usurped by zealots. The Shah was bad for the everyday Iranian but these guys are worse. The typical citizen has yet to get a controlling voice since long before the revolution because Islamic fundamentalists assumed control after the opportunity to take the country was dumped in the zealots laps via that revolution. The good people rose up and got rid of the Shah but they didn't have a plan for the aftermath. The Islamo-fascists did.

The goal of making Iran a non-nuclear weapons-threat will only be achieved by removing the nutbags.

vision · Post by **vision** » Tue Mar 03, 2015 9:13 pm

Thanks for the hugely over-simplified, stereotypical description of Iranian life and politics. If only everything were as simple as your brain.

Will Robinson · Post by **Will Robinson** » Wed Mar 04, 2015 12:57 am

vision wrote:Thanks for the hugely over-simplified, stereotypical description of Iranian life and politics. If only everything were as simple as your brain.

Right, if only I had managed to offer something as deep as your contribution....what was it again?
Oh, yea, 'You don't have to worry cause Iran is locked down tight'.

Well I guess we can't all be as good as you, the master of simple.

vision · Post by **vision** » Wed Mar 04, 2015 2:45 am

Will Robinson wrote:Right, if only I had managed to offer something as deep as your contribution....what was it again?

Do you want me to write an essay you won't read? You're not the kind of guy who accepts facts. You obviously get completely caught up in the rhetoric thrown around by Iran, Israel, and the US.

woodchip · Post by **woodchip** » Wed Mar 04, 2015 6:40 am

Gee vision, I would like to hear your opinion on why Iran would stop calling us the Great Satan if only they got the bomb and how they would become a philanthropist country. Otherwise I'm with Will.

Will Robinson · Post by **Will Robinson** » Wed Mar 04, 2015 6:53 am

Use however many words it takes you...get all up into 'philosophical words' if you have to.
Just be sure to address those simple little points I touched on because, although I didn't go into great detail since I was assuming you would be able to connect the dots, they are quite relevant to the situation and if you intend to show me to be wrong you'll need to go there. Throw in the way Russia has led our President off track by using Iran as the carrot on a stick that he will never get a taste of resulting in his being stuck between the the rock and the hard place.

But hey, you know all that! Why am I trying to tell the great vision anything?

Yes please! I'll take an essay from you with all the answers to the problem laid out even though my tiny simple brain won't be able to understand your deep thoughts.

callmeslick · Post by **callmeslick** » Wed Mar 04, 2015 7:17 am

woodchip wrote:Gee vision, I would like to hear your opinion on why Iran would stop calling us the Great Satan if only they got the bomb and how they would become a philanthropist country. Otherwise I'm with Will.

I think they gave up the Great Satan rhetoric a while ago, and Iran, while not aiming for philanthropy, does contain the most enlightened populace in the region. And, we know you're with Will, as you are like matched bookends.

woodchip · Post by **woodchip** » Wed Mar 04, 2015 7:48 am

does your enlightened population include the people running the show? Or does their living breathing founding document have anything about peace and goodwill to all in it or is it about Jihad and world domination. Keep trying, I'm sure you, like Obama, will temporize and rationalize right into Iran becoming a nuclear power. You would say, like the Chamberlains said about Poland, after Iran destroyed Israel, that it is just a small unimportant country. Then I suppose the real negotiations would begin.