Obama thinks Iran should have nuclear power
- Thread starter Super B
- Start date
O
Ollie
ACCOUNT CLOSED
I would hope to he1l a muslim became president of the U.S.
lol, good point.
Who are you? And what have you done with Ollie?
First off, when Israel was created, there were more Jewish people living in Palestine than Arabs. (The land was not taken from anyone.)
2-Your analogy about Texas might relate if there were more Muslims living there than Texans. As to date, I don’t think this is the case.
3-What would I do if I were in there shoes? Exactly what they are trying to do, build a bomb. I don’t think that changes the fact that we cannot let them.
O
Ollie
ACCOUNT CLOSED
Who are you? And what have you done with Ollie?
First off, when Israel was created, there were more Jewish people living in Palestine than Arabs. (The land was not taken from anyone.)
2-Your analogy about Texas might relate if there were more Muslims living there than Texans. As to date, I don’t think this is the case.
3-What would I do if I were in there shoes? Exactly what they are trying to do, build a bomb. I don’t think that changes the fact that we cannot let them.
1: Israel was "created", however, it was created against the wishes of every nation in the region. When it was "created" it was arab land.
2: doesn't matter, same thing to any arab in the middle east.
3: Why not? Here's the problem.
You can't espound freedom and liberty while trying to meddle in another countries internal affairs.
Do I trust the Iranian government, heck no.
Do I worry that they would give a nuke to terrorist, yes.
However, Iran worries we will use force against them and they feel a nuke will help keep them safe.
If you espound freedom and liberty, you must allow Iran to aquire Nuclear power. To do otherwise makes the U.S. just another bully.
we are not talking of someones cannon in a shop next door,we're talking of a weapon that will kill a million people in the right place huge diff. maybe we should quit meddling in other countries and keep our money home we could build one heck of a defence system,let them fight it out if anybody messes with us push a button and wipe them out. sooner later most countries and terrorist are gonna have the bomb we can't go after everyone.
Ollie: Isreal as the nation today was created but it was not opposed by every nation in the region. Much of the land was actually purchased and many Arabs remained and becamne part of the country voluntarilly. The Palistinians never hasd claim to the land. The hatred of Isreal is a complete hatred of all Judeo/Christians by the fundalist muslims. The land is not the issue, religeous hatred is. The Jews actually owned the land before being driven out by Babylon, Persia and Rome although a remnant continuously inhabited the area. With that said how could you justify the invasion of Iraq and not agree with stopping Iran from getting nuclear weapons, kind of the same issue? But I do agree with you that they have the right to use nuclear power so that creates a real question. However I am sure the problem will be eliminated simply by giving Isreal backup. Isreal does at this time have the ability to destroy any enemy who attacks them and have been held back by their relations with the us, but when the time comes they will protect themselves no matter what our leader wishes. Armegedon!! Swampy
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cheney
Who are you? And what have you done with Ollie?
First off, when Israel was created, there were more Jewish people living in Palestine than Arabs. (The land was not taken from anyone.)
2-Your analogy about Texas might relate if there were more Muslims living there than Texans. As to date, I don’t think this is the case.
3-What would I do if I were in there shoes? Exactly what they are trying to do, build a bomb. I don’t think that changes the fact that we cannot let them.
1: Israel was "created", however, it was created against the wishes of every nation in the region. When it was "created" it was arab land.
2: doesn't matter, same thing to any arab in the middle east.
3: Why not? Here's the problem.
You can't espound freedom and liberty while trying to meddle in another countries internal affairs.
Do I trust the Iranian government, heck no.
Do I worry that they would give a nuke to terrorist, yes.
However, Iran worries we will use force against them and they feel a nuke will help keep them safe.
If you espound freedom and liberty, you must allow Iran to aquire Nuclear power. To do otherwise makes the U.S. just another bully.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cheney
Who are you? And what have you done with Ollie?
First off, when Israel was created, there were more Jewish people living in Palestine than Arabs. (The land was not taken from anyone.)
2-Your analogy about Texas might relate if there were more Muslims living there than Texans. As to date, I don’t think this is the case.
3-What would I do if I were in there shoes? Exactly what they are trying to do, build a bomb. I don’t think that changes the fact that we cannot let them.
1: Israel was "created", however, it was created against the wishes of every nation in the region. When it was "created" it was arab land.
2: doesn't matter, same thing to any arab in the middle east.
3: Why not? Here's the problem.
You can't espound freedom and liberty while trying to meddle in another countries internal affairs.
Do I trust the Iranian government, heck no.
Do I worry that they would give a nuke to terrorist, yes.
However, Iran worries we will use force against them and they feel a nuke will help keep them safe.
If you espound freedom and liberty, you must allow Iran to aquire Nuclear power. To do otherwise makes the U.S. just another bully.
O
Ollie
ACCOUNT CLOSED
Swampy, you are correct about it being a religous war.
They have been fighting over that patch of land for centuries.
However, I still think it isn't our place to tell Iran they can't have nuclear power.
Just because someone doesn't like you or even has open hatred of you doesn't mean you have the right to dictate to them what they can and can't do.
If you want a free democracy, you will always run the risk of attack.
To give up freedom for safety gives you neither.
The problem we have and have always had in this country is inconsistantcy in policy.
If your enemies know for a fact you will do everything in your power to utterly destroy them, they think twice before doing anything. Why do you think the USSR never attacked?
They have been fighting over that patch of land for centuries.
However, I still think it isn't our place to tell Iran they can't have nuclear power.
Just because someone doesn't like you or even has open hatred of you doesn't mean you have the right to dictate to them what they can and can't do.
If you want a free democracy, you will always run the risk of attack.
To give up freedom for safety gives you neither.
The problem we have and have always had in this country is inconsistantcy in policy.
If your enemies know for a fact you will do everything in your power to utterly destroy them, they think twice before doing anything. Why do you think the USSR never attacked?
Agreed, we're not talking about one person making a weapon to kill one person. We're talking about a country of a bunch of people making a weapon to kill a bunch of people. It's just a matter of scale, and I think that the principle applies.
That's why analogies are useful.
This is strictly a matter or international law.
The Non Proliferation Treaty, which Iran signed, is clear. In exchange for the legal transfer of Nuclear Energy technology, they agreed to not pursue Nuclear Weapons. They wouldn't be anywhere near building a Nuclear Reactor, without the help of the nuclear powers. Help they got under the treaty.
Iran has been cited for developing a nuclear weapons program in the past, mostly with their boarder line legal enrichment activities. As long as the abide by the treaty, then they have the right to develop nuclear energy. But, they have to abide with IAEA inspections and rules.
There's a method to all this madness I guess.
If Iran and Israel every exchange, it's going to be a bad day for the world. The cat may get out of the bag, or at least be "officially" out of the bag. Something tells me, the cat's been out for a while now.
The Non Proliferation Treaty, which Iran signed, is clear. In exchange for the legal transfer of Nuclear Energy technology, they agreed to not pursue Nuclear Weapons. They wouldn't be anywhere near building a Nuclear Reactor, without the help of the nuclear powers. Help they got under the treaty.
Iran has been cited for developing a nuclear weapons program in the past, mostly with their boarder line legal enrichment activities. As long as the abide by the treaty, then they have the right to develop nuclear energy. But, they have to abide with IAEA inspections and rules.
There's a method to all this madness I guess.
If Iran and Israel every exchange, it's going to be a bad day for the world. The cat may get out of the bag, or at least be "officially" out of the bag. Something tells me, the cat's been out for a while now.
This whole discussion is actually rediculous. Iran has no other nuclear intentions than the destrucion of Israel and the United States. The farse here is that the President of Iran or whatever his title is. He has no power and is a figure head. The Iatolyas (spelling) are who are in charge. Islam is not a religion of peace. They are are set to take out all infidels. Look at the Saudi fund raising to support Hezbolla and suicide bombers. The completely ironic portion of this whole religous war is the similarities between the three religions involved. All three, christianity, judeism, and islam share the same stories told in the Old Testament. The characters vary between christianity/ judeism vs. islam. What it all comes down to is interpertation of these stories. Christianity and juedism are peaceful, while Islam is being intereperted in basically prehistoric interpertations. May this be this be the preclude to ww3, maybe. if ww3 involves nuclear power we are all fetched.
Stop it, you are sounding like me!!!
Oh, wait, maybe I am sounding like you?? lol Good points again though.I don't think that we have the right to dictate what other countries do for religious reasons. We do have the right to step in when one of our only allies are threatend. Who else sides with the US? Israel and Great Britan. My point is that the US and Russia for that matter should step in and take the steps to protect the planet from the threat of Nuclear weapons. I for love winter but i do not want to live through a Nuclear induced one. That is my main point. Look at Pakistan, what is going to happen if their govt fails and the Taliban gain access to their Nukes? Its sad that the rest of the world thinks we are being a bully when we are trying to keep the planet from taking that last step off the gang plank.
Gotta say, one of the best debates on snowest to date.... ollie, making some excelent points, Im very torn, we know what Iran wants to do with the technology, its just what they have always done, destroy isreal, BUT, they have a hopefully legitimate interest in nuclear power, just like everyone else, its good stuff! the problem is, if we just let the do it as to not intrude, we could very well say goodbye to the world if things go downhill.
freedom is great, but like some have said, it might have been you, you do run the risk of being attack, which can be a good thing, problem is, scale is to large to take those risks. Im all for letting the middle east settle its issues, even if they all kill each other, BUT, we cant give them the power to do the same to the rest of the world!
freedom is great, but like some have said, it might have been you, you do run the risk of being attack, which can be a good thing, problem is, scale is to large to take those risks. Im all for letting the middle east settle its issues, even if they all kill each other, BUT, we cant give them the power to do the same to the rest of the world!
Yeah, I enjoyed reading the exchange of ideas too.
Get this. Fox again reports something the MSM ignores. Apparently in 1995 Congress voted to move the US embassy in Israel from Tel-Aviv to Jerusalem to acknowledge Jerusalem as the new capital. It was supposed to be accomplished by 1999, but every 6 months to keep it legal there's a memo to the secretary of state to extend the deadline. Bush added this line "My administration remains committed to beginning the process of moving our embassy to Jerusalem."
Friday, in a Presidential Determination, the Obama Administration took that line out. Why? Why not just leave it alone?
http://www.washingtontimes.com/webl...bama-drops-key-clause-jerusalem-embassy-memo/
Get this. Fox again reports something the MSM ignores. Apparently in 1995 Congress voted to move the US embassy in Israel from Tel-Aviv to Jerusalem to acknowledge Jerusalem as the new capital. It was supposed to be accomplished by 1999, but every 6 months to keep it legal there's a memo to the secretary of state to extend the deadline. Bush added this line "My administration remains committed to beginning the process of moving our embassy to Jerusalem."
Friday, in a Presidential Determination, the Obama Administration took that line out. Why? Why not just leave it alone?
http://www.washingtontimes.com/webl...bama-drops-key-clause-jerusalem-embassy-memo/
Last edited:
