Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Even if it didn't target the US, the explosion and cloud would probably contribute to climate change, so they should be stopped on that basis if not on one of security....
Location: By the sea, by the sea, by the beautiful sea
68,368 posts, read 54,592,516 times
Reputation: 40841
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rggr
Even if it didn't target the US, the explosion and cloud would probably contribute to climate change, so they should be stopped on that basis if not on one of security....
They will possibly develop a bomb which they might use which would probably contribute to climate change?
I see the bar on reasons we go to war seems to get lower all the time.
Many of the comments here are focused on the threat (or according to some, lack of such) of a nuclear weapon in the hands of a radical Islamic regime towards Israel.
The Obama policy is not just endangering Israel. The Iranian regime already has ballistic missiles designed to be fitted with a nuclear warhead. The range of these missiles currently covers all of the Middle East as well as southern, eastern, and central Europe. At the current rate of development, the regime will have an ICBM in the not too distant future.
So a bomb in the hands of a jihadi, theocratic, apocalyptic regime is a lethal threat to populations well beyond Israel, including the US.
Please explain which part(s) of the nuclear agreement with Iran frighten you so much.
Well, you're wrong. I'm Conservative and I've been hearing this "Iran has nuclear weapons" or "the capability of nuclear weapons" since the early 90s. Go do a search for Iran nuclear weapons 1990, or pick even maybe the 80s, or even earlier if you want. It's the same words.
I'm actually in agreement with a lot of libs on here on this particular subject, the right is making a mountain out of a molehill and fear mongering. When I was young and naive, a kid who didn't understand, sure, I thought the reports were correct, (and didn't know about propaganda filled media here in the US nor biases....I was young), but I'm not buying that 25+ year old story anymore.
Location: By the sea, by the sea, by the beautiful sea
68,368 posts, read 54,592,516 times
Reputation: 40841
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rggr
So does our sense of humor.
While I was about 90% sure you were being sarcastic, I'm 100% sure many of those calling for action against Iran believe that possibly maybes are reason enough for war.
It is very scary that Iran will have a nuclear bomb. I don't know what is wrong with Obama and Kerry, are they being paid off?? Kerry doesn't need the money. It is just insane to think that the world is going to be a better place when Iran has the bomb.
Of course North Korea has had the bomb for a long time and they are just as much of a threat but at least they have been somewhat stable under the Jong Un regime. The trouble with the Middle East is that it is still after all these centuries a very volatile place that breeds exrtreme terrorist groups.
Imagine Iran with a nuclear missile, where would it be aimed? Isreal. Imagine some radical group, al queda, isis getting to that missile and to spread their message of hate and fear and to wipe "the infidels" from the earth they launch it. Isreal is destroyed, millions die and suffer.
What will the world do?
Will Obama think he made a huge mistake?
They will possibly develop a bomb which they might use which would probably contribute to climate change?
I see the bar on reasons we go to war seems to get lower all the time.
There is no possibly to it. They will build one sooner or later. Whether or not they use it up is to debate but that is not the real issue. I do find it laughable how liberals use the same old tired reasoning when anyone say Iran shouldn't be allowed to get a nuke such as oh you're fear mongering or you want a war. There are countries within the Middle East and Europe that don't want Iran having such a weapon and no none of them are suggesting a war.
Location: By the sea, by the sea, by the beautiful sea
68,368 posts, read 54,592,516 times
Reputation: 40841
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nemesisxx
There is no possibly to it. They will build one sooner or later. Whether or not they use it up to debate but that is not the real issue. I do find it laughable how liberals use the same old tired reasoning when anyone say Iran shouldn't be allowed to get a nuke such as oh you're fear mongering or you want a war. There are countries within the Middle East and Europe that don't want Iran having such a weapon and no none of them are suggesting a war.
And the wise move would be to let those countries attend to the issue.
Since you choose to make this a conservative/liberal issue I find it laughable how conservatives use the same old tired reasoning that we should just go off half-cocked in all corners of world expecting others to do our bidding despite all evidence to the contrary that it just doesn't work that way.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
