|
By the time this Iran thing has hit the fan.....
|
|
Topic Started: Feb 22 2012, 08:58 PM (1,474 Views)
|
|
Thumper
|
Feb 22 2012, 10:23 PM
Post #11
|
Fire & Ice Senior Diplomat
- Posts:
- 29,881
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #77
- Joined:
- Jun 10, 2008
|
If my country was within shot of Nuclear Israel, I sure as hell would want the bomb too. Iran has the right to protect itself like any other country.
|
|
|
| |
|
Thumper
|
Feb 22 2012, 10:24 PM
Post #12
|
Fire & Ice Senior Diplomat
- Posts:
- 29,881
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #77
- Joined:
- Jun 10, 2008
|
- Chris
- Feb 22 2012, 09:40 PM
Interesting, rivers, while you're against Keystone because of risks, despite worse risks, you for letting another nation develop nukes. Lousy argument Chris, cute though.
|
|
|
| |
|
Chris
|
Feb 22 2012, 10:24 PM
Post #13
|
Fire & Ice Senior Diplomat
- Posts:
- 10,097
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #230
- Joined:
- Oct 17, 2011
|
- Mountainrivers
- Feb 22 2012, 09:55 PM
- Chris
- Feb 22 2012, 09:40 PM
Interesting, rivers, while you're against Keystone because of risks, despite worse risks, you for letting another nation develop nukes.
Don't blame it on me. The blame, imo, goes directly to the door of Israel. I haven't said I was against keystone either. What I've said is that I think it will be built, but taking a different route than through the Sand Hills and the Ogallala Aquifer. Blame it on you, who did that?
And you were against keystone because of environmental risks.
ANother nation aquiring nuclear weapons makes the world a riskier place, doesn't it.
|
|
|
| |
|
Thumper
|
Feb 22 2012, 10:27 PM
Post #14
|
Fire & Ice Senior Diplomat
- Posts:
- 29,881
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #77
- Joined:
- Jun 10, 2008
|
- Chris
- Feb 22 2012, 09:40 PM
Interesting, rivers, while you're against Keystone because of risks, despite worse risks, you for letting another nation develop nukes. HA ha. You were really searching to find something to say here. Cute diversion.
|
|
|
| |
|
Mountainrivers
|
Feb 22 2012, 10:31 PM
Post #15
|
Fire & Ice Senior Diplomat
- Posts:
- 33,547
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #34
- Joined:
- Mar 24, 2008
|
- Chris
- Feb 22 2012, 10:24 PM
- Mountainrivers
- Feb 22 2012, 09:55 PM
- Chris
- Feb 22 2012, 09:40 PM
Interesting, rivers, while you're against Keystone because of risks, despite worse risks, you for letting another nation develop nukes.
Don't blame it on me. The blame, imo, goes directly to the door of Israel. I haven't said I was against keystone either. What I've said is that I think it will be built, but taking a different route than through the Sand Hills and the Ogallala Aquifer.
Blame it on you, who did that? And you were against keystone because of environmental risks. ANother nation aquiring nuclear weapons makes the world a riskier place, doesn't it. You did.
"you for letting another nation develop nukes."
"And you were against keystone because of environmental risks.
I was against Keystone running through the sand hills and the Aquifer.
"ANother nation aquiring nuclear weapons makes the world a riskier place, doesn't it.
Did you ask that question when all those other countries were developing nuclear weapons?
|
|
|
| |
|
Banandangees
|
Feb 22 2012, 10:36 PM
Post #16
|
Fire & Ice Senior Diplomat
- Posts:
- 20,839
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #23
- Joined:
- Mar 14, 2008
|
- Mountainrivers
- Feb 22 2012, 10:18 PM
- Banandangees
- Feb 22 2012, 10:14 PM
You mean, let them have their bomb?
Some worry about whether they (Iran's leaders) will carry out their threat against Israel (and some don't worry about it at all). Some worry that if they do Israel will retaliate with their nukes in full. Some worry that Iran may supply terrorists with dirty nuke bombs. Some (Arab Sunni countries) worry Shiite Iran getting the bomb when they don't. Some (who knows who?) might even like to see the chaos a nuclear Iran would bring.
I suppose enough worry to go around.
It's a huge conundrum. A nuclear threat on the one hand vs a significantly reduced oil availability on the other. Neither good for now.... until the world's non-polluting, alternative energy source is ready to satisfy the needs of the world.
That's one, but these are the ones I was referring to. "Are you willing to go to war to stop them from getting one? And if you are, are you willing to stay in Iran militarily forever to make sure they don't ever get one? " IMO, I'd prefer not to go to war anymore with any of those middle east countries. Not conventional war. Syria has to work their own problems out. Libyian action was about oil (for Europe), not a humanitarian action. Spending all those American lives and our money on Iraq only to let it slowly come under control of some Iran or Muslim militant group is a sad affair. No need to give any of those oil nations financial aid, they should have enough from their oil.
But, slowing oil out of that region is going to make us feel some pain no doubt. But, better pain than loss of American lives and finances in those slow, ever lasting conventional wars to seemingly no where.
|
|
|
| |
|
Mountainrivers
|
Feb 22 2012, 10:39 PM
Post #17
|
Fire & Ice Senior Diplomat
- Posts:
- 33,547
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #34
- Joined:
- Mar 24, 2008
|
- Banandangees
- Feb 22 2012, 10:36 PM
- Mountainrivers
- Feb 22 2012, 10:18 PM
- Banandangees
- Feb 22 2012, 10:14 PM
You mean, let them have their bomb?
Some worry about whether they (Iran's leaders) will carry out their threat against Israel (and some don't worry about it at all). Some worry that if they do Israel will retaliate with their nukes in full. Some worry that Iran may supply terrorists with dirty nuke bombs. Some (Arab Sunni countries) worry Shiite Iran getting the bomb when they don't. Some (who knows who?) might even like to see the chaos a nuclear Iran would bring.
I suppose enough worry to go around.
It's a huge conundrum. A nuclear threat on the one hand vs a significantly reduced oil availability on the other. Neither good for now.... until the world's non-polluting, alternative energy source is ready to satisfy the needs of the world.
That's one, but these are the ones I was referring to. "Are you willing to go to war to stop them from getting one? And if you are, are you willing to stay in Iran militarily forever to make sure they don't ever get one? "
IMO, I'd prefer not to go to war anymore with any of those middle east countries. Not conventional war. Syria has to work their own problems out. Libyian action was about oil (for Europe), not a humanitarian action. Spending all those American lives and our money on Iraq only to let it slowly come under control of some Iran or Muslim militant group is a sad affair. No need to give any of those oil nations financial aid, they should have enough from their oil. But, slowing oil out of that region is going to make us feel some pain no doubt. But, better pain than loss of American lives and finances in those slow, ever lasting conventional wars to seemingly no where. Then, what do you propose Obama do to prevent an Iranian nuclear weapon? They haven't responded to anything so far.
|
|
|
| |
|
Chris
|
Feb 22 2012, 10:40 PM
Post #18
|
Fire & Ice Senior Diplomat
- Posts:
- 10,097
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #230
- Joined:
- Oct 17, 2011
|
- Mountainrivers
- Feb 22 2012, 10:31 PM
- Chris
- Feb 22 2012, 10:24 PM
- Mountainrivers
- Feb 22 2012, 09:55 PM
- Chris
- Feb 22 2012, 09:40 PM
Interesting, rivers, while you're against Keystone because of risks, despite worse risks, you for letting another nation develop nukes.
Don't blame it on me. The blame, imo, goes directly to the door of Israel. I haven't said I was against keystone either. What I've said is that I think it will be built, but taking a different route than through the Sand Hills and the Ogallala Aquifer.
Blame it on you, who did that? And you were against keystone because of environmental risks. ANother nation aquiring nuclear weapons makes the world a riskier place, doesn't it.
You did. "you for letting another nation develop nukes." "And you were against keystone because of environmental risks. I was against Keystone running through the sand hills and the Aquifer. "ANother nation aquiring nuclear weapons makes the world a riskier place, doesn't it. Did you ask that question when all those other countries were developing nuclear weapons? "you for letting another nation develop nukes" doesn't blame you, rivers. It simply repeats what you've said your for.
"I was against Keystone running through the sand hills and the Aquifer."
Yes, because of risks. If you were against that becuase of risks, why are you for letting Iran have nukes despite risks?
"Did you ask that question when all those other countries were developing nuclear weapons?"
Yes, especially when Pakistan did.
|
|
|
| |
|
Thumper
|
Feb 22 2012, 10:44 PM
Post #19
|
Fire & Ice Senior Diplomat
- Posts:
- 29,881
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #77
- Joined:
- Jun 10, 2008
|
More diversion. Chris to topic is Iran nukes.
|
|
|
| |
|
Mountainrivers
|
Feb 22 2012, 10:44 PM
Post #20
|
Fire & Ice Senior Diplomat
- Posts:
- 33,547
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #34
- Joined:
- Mar 24, 2008
|
- Chris
- Feb 22 2012, 10:40 PM
- Mountainrivers
- Feb 22 2012, 10:31 PM
- Chris
- Feb 22 2012, 10:24 PM
- Mountainrivers
- Feb 22 2012, 09:55 PM
- Chris
- Feb 22 2012, 09:40 PM
Interesting, rivers, while you're against Keystone because of risks, despite worse risks, you for letting another nation develop nukes.
Don't blame it on me. The blame, imo, goes directly to the door of Israel. I haven't said I was against keystone either. What I've said is that I think it will be built, but taking a different route than through the Sand Hills and the Ogallala Aquifer.
Blame it on you, who did that? And you were against keystone because of environmental risks. ANother nation aquiring nuclear weapons makes the world a riskier place, doesn't it.
You did. "you for letting another nation develop nukes." "And you were against keystone because of environmental risks. I was against Keystone running through the sand hills and the Aquifer. "ANother nation aquiring nuclear weapons makes the world a riskier place, doesn't it. Did you ask that question when all those other countries were developing nuclear weapons?
"you for letting another nation develop nukes" doesn't blame you, rivers. It simply repeats what you've said your for. "I was against Keystone running through the sand hills and the Aquifer." Yes, because of risks. If you were against that becuase of risks, why are you for letting Iran have nukes despite risks? "Did you ask that question when all those other countries were developing nuclear weapons?" Yes, especially when Pakistan did. ""you for letting another nation develop nukes" doesn't blame you, rivers. It simply repeats what you've said your for."
I didn't say I was for any such thing. I asked a question. Quit putting words in my mouth.
"Yes, because of risks. If you were against that becuase of risks, why are you for letting Iran have nukes despite risks?
Life is full of risks. I don't feel threatened by Iran having nukes. That's for the paranoid naysayers.
"Yes, especially when Pakistan did. "
I guess I'll have to take your word for that.
|
|
|
| |
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
|