War! The fear mongering is here, again!

@Cycloptichorn,

Cycloptichorn wrote:

A breakthrough?

http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/iran-official-offers-human-monitoring-nuclear-sites/story?id=15930677#.T2N4toVmQjy

Quote:
A high-level advisor to Iran's supreme leader said his country is ready to allow "permanent human monitoring" of its nuclear program in exchange for Western cooperation but also warned Iran is prepared to defend itself against military strikes.

Mohammad Javad Larijani, who serves as Secretary-General of Iran's Human Rights Council and key foreign policy advisor to Ayatollah Khamenei, said the West should sell Iran 20 percent enriched uranium and provide all the help that nuclear nations are supposed to provide to countries building civilian nuclear power plants. He also said the U.S. and the West should accept his country's right to continue what Iran calls its peaceful nuclear program. In return for cooperation from the West, he said, Iran would offer "full transparency."

I won't hold my breath. Still, we'll see how it turns out.

Cycloptichorn wrote:

The sanctions have really, really hurt Iran. If this works out, it will be a giant victory for Obama - and the forces of peace, over those of the warmongers.

The "warmongers" do not want war just for the sake of it.

If Iran can actually be persuaded to end their nuclear weapons program, that will be a victory for the warmongers too.

1 Reply

@oralloy,

Quote:

The "warmongers" do not want war just for the sake of it.

Of course you do. I don't think anyone who has read your posts over the years buys this for a single second.

Quote:

If Iran can actually be persuaded to end their nuclear weapons program, that will be a victory for the warmongers too.

As we didn't actually go to war with them, I'm going to go ahead and say that this is perfectly wrong.

I like how you set up arguments to make yourself right no matter what happens - if Iran is deterred through non-violent means, to you, that means that the violent means actually worked. Some mind you've got there, Roy.

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

IRAN DOES NOT HAVE A NUCLEAR WEAPONS PROGRAM, ACCORDING TO THE CONSENSUS OF AMERICAN INTELLIGENCE AGENCIES. IF YOU KEEP TALKING AS IF THEY DO, IT'S FLAT OUT UNSUPPORTED CRAP. Which is, of course, just what we expect from you.

2 Replies

@MontereyJack,

Wait a minute!! The Isralies say they do. Are you calling them liers. After all they have quit building on palistianan land havent they? the last statement dosent have anything to do with this thread. Just thought I would add it.

0 Replies

@Cycloptichorn,

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Oralloy wrote:
The "warmongers" do not want war just for the sake of it.

Of course you do. I don't think anyone who has read your posts over the years buys this for a single second.

If you want to ague about views that you imagine I have, that argument is best carried out in your imagination rather on the internet. I'm mostly interested in defending the positions that I actually hold.

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Oralloy wrote:
If Iran can actually be persuaded to end their nuclear weapons program, that will be a victory for the warmongers too.

As we didn't actually go to war with them, I'm going to go ahead and say that this is perfectly wrong.

It isn't. Anything that prevents Iran from developing nuclear weapons is a victory.

Cycloptichorn wrote:

I like how you set up arguments to make yourself right no matter what happens - if Iran is deterred through non-violent means, to you, that means that the violent means actually worked.

No. If Iran is deterred through non-violent means, to me that means that Iran has been prevented from developing nuclear weapons.

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Some mind you've got there, Roy.

Yes. But my name isn't Roy.

0 Replies

@MontereyJack,

MontereyJack wrote:

IRAN DOES NOT HAVE A NUCLEAR WEAPONS PROGRAM, ACCORDING TO THE CONSENSUS OF AMERICAN INTELLIGENCE AGENCIES.

Yes they do.

MontereyJack wrote:

IF YOU KEEP TALKING AS IF THEY DO, IT'S FLAT OUT UNSUPPORTED CRAP.

Nope. It has been established, repeatedly, that they are trying to develop nuclear weapons.

You may choose to ignore reality, but that doesn't mean that reality doesn't exist.

MontereyJack wrote:

Which is, of course, just what we expect from you.

Big words for someone who has never shown a single fact I've ever been wrong on.

0 Replies

You're wrong on that one.

1 Reply

@MontereyJack,

MontereyJack wrote:

You're wrong on that one.

No I'm not.

0 Replies

In fact you are. They shut down their nuclear weapons work in 2003, according to the intelligence reports.

1 Reply

@MontereyJack,

MontereyJack wrote:

In fact you are. They shut down their nuclear weapons work in 2003, according to the intelligence reports.

As I've already explained a good fifty or so times, those reports are using a particularly narrow definition of "trying to build nuclear weapons".

Using that definition, Iran is only trying to build nuclear weapons if they start manufacturing weapons components and assembling them into a working device.

Since at the moment all Iran is doing is rushing to develop the capability to do that, they in fact don't meet that narrowly tailored definition.

But the fact remains, they are still rushing to develop the capability to make nuclear weapons.

1 Reply

The last time you posted that rot you told us you'd posted it half a billion times or so, if I recall correctly. Now you're telling me it's only fifty. I doubt it's actually more than two or three times. Just an example of your hyperinflated claims in general.

You claim my definition is too narrow. Yours is far, far too broad. Not to mention unsubstantiated. Being a year or two, or more, away from a possible potentiality for sometime in the indefinite future but considerably further on down the road, and not having even started a program of developing the infrastructure to actually design and build a bomb is far, far away from having a nuclear bomb program. the whole thing is Israeli fear-mongering. And yours.

Talk to the people you sycophant for, the Israelis, and tell them to stop screwing around and actually negotiate the things they've refused to deal with for the last sixty years, and it'll all go away.

1 Reply

@oralloy,

oralloy wrote:

MontereyJack wrote:
In fact you are. They shut down their nuclear weapons work in 2003, according to the intelligence reports.

As I've already explained a good fifty or so times, those reports are using a particularly narrow definition of "trying to build nuclear weapons".

Using that definition, Iran is only trying to build nuclear weapons if they start manufacturing weapons components and assembling them into a working device.

Since at the moment all Iran is doing is rushing to develop the capability to do that, they in fact don't meet that narrowly tailored definition.

But the fact remains, they are still rushing to develop the capability to make nuclear weapons.

Um. Yeah. I don't believe there is any innate moral reason why Iran shouldn't have the same rights that other countries around them do. We rushed to develop nuclear weapons once we realized the possibility that they could be made, and we promptly used them on our enemies.

Cycloptichorn

2 Replies

@Cycloptichorn,

Quote:

Um. Yeah. I don't believe there is any innate moral reason why Iran shouldn't have the same rights that other countries around them do. We rushed to develop nuclear weapons once we realized the possibility that they could be made, and we promptly used them on our enemies.

Cycloptichorn

Right their leadership now is as sane as our were in 1940s and they can be trusted not to used those weapons in a holy war or loan a few out to terrorists.

1 Reply

@BillRM,

BillRM wrote:

Quote:
Um. Yeah. I don't believe there is any innate moral reason why Iran shouldn't have the same rights that other countries around them do. We rushed to develop nuclear weapons once we realized the possibility that they could be made, and we promptly used them on our enemies.

Cycloptichorn

Right their leadership now is as sane as our were in 1940s and they can be trusted not to used those weapons in a holy war or loan a few out to terrorists.

I haven't seen any evidence to the contrary. What exactly is it that they have DONE which leads one to the conclusion that they are not as sane as our leadership was then or is now?

I hear a lot of hot talk but I don't see a lot of action on their part. They've funded some terrorist groups over the years; so have we. They've gone to war for their own gain over the years; so have we. They have right-wing leadership that talks strongly of war for political gain; so have we. What, exactly, is the difference?

Cycloptichorn

2 Replies

@Cycloptichorn,

Let see statements that their goal is to destroy Israel?

An attempt to do so by nuclear means would result in a nuclear war?

That they are rule by religious nuts?

That they had done such things as try in the past to block the world oil flow and we needed to destroy their naval for doing so.

1 Reply

@BillRM,

You really don't have a clue. There's no point trying to get you to understand, you're incapable.

1 Reply

@izzythepush,

No I had no clue about a people who would take our embassy three hundreds or so people hostages for a year having nuclear weapons!!!!!!!!

In any case it does not matter what we think because Israel is not likely to allow Iran to have nuclear weapons even if it would mean using some of the three hundreds plus nuclear weapons they themselves is believe to own to stop them.

If military force in the end is needed to stop Iran from having such weapons they better hope it the US that is the ones who does so and not the Israels.

3 Replies

@BillRM,

You don't have a clue why the American Embassy was taken hostage during the Iranian Revolution, nor to you have any incliniation to find out why.

1 Reply

@BillRM,

BillRM wrote:

No I had no clue about a people who would take our embassy three hundreds or so people hostages for a year having nuclear weapons!!!!!!!!

It isn't as if the US is immune to bad actions. We trained and funded terrorist groups in central America who murdered thousands of people, for years.

Quote:

In any case it does not matter what we think because Israel is not likely to allow Iran to have nuclear weapons even if it would mean using some of the three hundreds plus nuclear weapons they themselves is believe to own to stop them.

I would denounce an aggressive use of nuclear weapons by Israel - and so would the rest of the world. It would mean the deaths of hundreds of thousands if they did. They would deserve the response they got afterward.

Quote:

If military force in the end is needed to stop Iran from having such weapons they better hope it the US that is the ones who does so and not the Israels.

There's no reason to fear Iran having those weapons, any more than Pakistan or even Israel.

Cycloptichorn

2 Replies

@izzythepush,

I'd sure like to find out why, Izzy. Go ahead, fill Bill in.

0 Replies

War! The fear mongering is here, again!

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know