Yuri Yukuv wrote:

The iranian regime opted not to cooperate with the international community regarding its nuclear operations, we are not going to appease a rogue state about this issue.

how exactly s iran a rogue state?

ffs israel attacks its neighbours more often and they already have nukes...

Does it really make sense for iran to use nuclear energy? We have already seen two states disband new operations it based on safety and economical reasons (Japan and Germany)

japan basically lies on a giant fault line so building nuclear power plants there was retarded in the first place... and germany is just full of dirty hippies who saw the fukushima issue as a ground to scaremonger and push their dumbass agenda of eliminating a source of energy that is statistically safer than burning coal...

It could be argued that Israel aren't a dictatorship, while nobody elected Chomeini. (Chameini, whatever, it's hard to transcribe from arabic to latin alphabet)

che wrote:japan basically lies on a giant fault line so building nuclear power plants there was retarded in the first place... and germany is just full of dirty hippies who saw the fukushima issue as a ground to scaremonger and push their dumbass agenda of eliminating a source of energy that is statistically safer than burning coal...

Germany abandoned nuclear power in 1999.

No one in their right mind even extremist in Iran or Taliban would ever use a nuclear bomb against Israel...why??? because it a holy site for not just Jews, but for Christians and Muslims.... and if Iran is portrayed as a Extremist Muslim Country by Western Media that would make it more unlikely they will ever use a nuke against them....

btw why does israel have the right to defend itself and make nukes but no Iran....

they are located in one of the worst locations in the world atm... To their west and north East are two bloody wars going on...and to their East the Province of Balochistan in Pakistan is even more Unstable then the Northern Area of Pakistan...who are trying to break free from Pakistan

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/may/30/germany-pledges-nuclear-shutdown-2022

Peaceful?

Nuclear energy is in no way shape or form a safe or economically viable form of energy. Most european countries and japan used it as a hedge against fossil fuel price fluctuations back in the day, Iran does not have such a problem. Even if it did there are much more viable sources of energy which are safer and more economic such as wind, solar and hydropower.

israel attacks neighboring countries nuclear operations because those operations pose an existential risk to the israeli people, they could result in a nuclear holocaust. Israel on the other hand has always stated that it believes in neighboring countries right to exist and strives to normalize relations with them.

Israel's arms are a way of ensuring peace, iran's are not.

Further if iran's plans do go through I can easily see a nuclear race happening in the middle east, israel and iran are not two counter weights in the region they are some of many geopolitical powers. We might see turkey, egypt and saudi arabia all acquiring nuclear weaponry.

God knows these countries are oh so stable, in fact in 2011 nothing of political note happened in the region.

Oh an none of those countries have a risk of their nuclear secrets being leaked out to rogue groups such as hizbollah or alqaeda, it could never eveeeeer happen.

VivaStPauli wrote:

che wrote:japan basically lies on a giant fault line so building nuclear power plants there was retarded in the first place... and germany is just full of dirty hippies who saw the fukushima issue as a ground to scaremonger and push their dumbass agenda of eliminating a source of energy that is statistically safer than burning coal...

Germany abandoned nuclear power in 1999.

Germany would totally have nukes if it weren't for the Nazi's, though.

I don't like that Fukushima has pretty much screwed nuclear power worldwide. It was badly designed and terribly placed. Nuclear power is still much cleaner than coal, gas, oil or whatever, if we safely apply it.

I also don't understand where the nukes = war argument comes from. Numerous nations have developed them already, probably even in worse times (like the Cold frakking War) than now and they have never been used in offensive purposes, apart from Hiroshima and Nagasaki. People like to live, you know. Using nukes doesn't mean just screwing yourself, it means screwing pretty much everyone on the planet.

No one is crazy enough to use them, bullshit Western propaganda not counting.

You know, Yuri, the Soviet Union collapsed with nukes all over the place. They were all accounted for. Nukes aren't boxes of ammo or a weapons cache were they can easily be "lost".

when has iran ever attacked someone????

turkey are trying to get into the european union (...), so they're not going to start alienating anyone anytime soon

egypt, who's been in war several times with its nuclear-bomb equipped neighbour did nothing for 60 years but suddenly will feel the urge to start pumping billions they don't have into a nuclear program because iran has one... yeah, seems legit

and as for saudi arabia, you raise a finger against them and you have america on your ass, i imagine the saudis are well aware of this and realize they don't have to fund their own nuclear program...

che wrote:
and as for saudi arabia, you raise a finger against them and you have america on your ass, i imagine the saudis are well aware of this and realize they don't have to fund their own nuclear program...

Forget America... if you raise a finger on Saudi's the whole Islamic Community will be on your as....

che wrote:

Yuri Yukuv wrote:

The iranian regime opted not to cooperate with the international community regarding its nuclear operations, we are not going to appease a rogue state about this issue.

how exactly s iran a rogue state?

ffs israel attacks its neighbours more often and they already have nukes...

Does it really make sense for iran to use nuclear energy? We have already seen two states disband new operations it based on safety and economical reasons (Japan and Germany)

japan basically lies on a giant fault line so building nuclear power plants there was retarded in the first place... and germany is just full of dirty hippies who saw the fukushima issue as a ground to scaremonger and push their dumbass agenda of eliminating a source of energy that is statistically safer than burning coal...

Yes this guy doesnt head a rogue state



Wait, so chernobyl and japan never happened? And who the hell is talking about burning coal? Iran claims it needs a sustainable and economic technology for power generation in the post-oil future, not that they want to go back to the industrial age or china circa 1960

imalegend wrote:

che wrote:
and as for saudi arabia, you raise a finger against them and you have america on your ass, i imagine the saudis are well aware of this and realize they don't have to fund their own nuclear program...

Forget America... if you raise a finger on Saudi's the whole Islamic Community will be on your as....

You are telling me if Iran/Turkey or Egypt invade Saudi Arabia muslim countries will come to the rescue?

Yeah we all saw that happening the gulf war

che wrote:turkey are trying to get into the european union (...), so they're not going to start alienating anyone anytime soon

egypt, who's been in war several times with its nuclear-bomb equipped neighbour did nothing for 60 years but suddenly will feel the urge to start pumping billions they don't have into a nuclear program because iran has one... yeah, seems legit

and as for saudi arabia, you raise a finger against them and you have america on your ass, i imagine the saudis are well aware of this and realize they don't have to fund their own nuclear program...

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/jun/29/saudi-build-nuclear-weapons-iran

Riyadh will build nuclear weapons if Iran gets them, Saudi prince warns

A senior Saudi Arabian diplomat and member of the ruling royal family has raised the spectre of nuclear conflict in the Middle East if Iran comes close to developing a nuclear weapon.

Prince Turki al-Faisal, a former Saudi intelligence chief and ambassador to Washington, warned senior Nato military officials that the existence of such a device "would compel Saudi Arabia … to pursue policies which could lead to untold and possibly dramatic consequences".

He did not state explicitly what these policies would be, but a senior official in Riyadh who is close to the prince said yesterday his message was clear.

"We cannot live in a situation where Iran has nuclear weapons and we don't. It's as simple as that," the official said. "If Iran develops a nuclear weapon, that will be unacceptable to us and we will have to follow suit."

Officials in Riyadh said that Saudi Arabia would reluctantly push ahead with its own civilian nuclear programme. Peaceful use of nuclear power, Turki said, was the right of all nations.

Turki was speaking earlier this month at an unpublicised meeting at RAF Molesworth, the airbase in Cambridgeshire used by Nato as a centre for gathering and collating intelligence on the Middle East and the Mediterranean.

According to a transcript of his speech obtained by the Guardian, Turki told his audience that Iran was a "paper tiger with steel claws" that was "meddling and destabilising" across the region.

"Iran … is very sensitive about other countries meddling in its affairs. But it should treat others like it expects to be treated. The kingdom expects Iran to practise what it preaches," Turki said.

Turki holds no official post in Saudi Arabia but is seen as an ambassador at large for the kingdom and a potential future foreign minister,

Diplomatic cables obtained by WikiLeaks and published by the Guardian last year revealed that King Abdullah, who has ruled Saudi Arabia since 2005, had privately warned Washington in 2008 that if Iran developed nuclear weapons "everyone in the region would do the same, including Saudi Arabia".

Saudi Arabian diplomats and officials have launched a serious campaign in recent weeks to rally global and regional powers against Iran, fearful that their country's larger but poorer regional rival is exploiting the Arab Spring to gain influence in the region and within the kingdom itself.

Turki also accused Iran of interfering in Iraq, Lebanon, Syria, and in the Gulf state of Bahrain, where Saudi troops were deployed this year as part of a Gulf Co-operation Council force following widespread protests from those calling for greater democratic rights.

Though there has previously been little public comment from Riyadh on developments in Syria, Turki told his audience at Molesworth that President Bashar al-Assad "will cling to power till the last Syrian is killed".

Syria presents a dilemma for Saudi policymakers: although they would prefer not to see popular protest unseat another regime in the region, they view the Damascus regime, which is dominated by members of Syria's Shia minority, as a proxy for Iran.

"The loss of life [in Syria] in the present internal struggle is deplorable. The government is woefully deficient in its handling of the situation," Turki said at the Molesworth meeting, which took place on 8 June.

It's obvious they want nukes, but then again it's obvious they need them. Or at least why the hell not?

Ahmadinejad is shit crazy, but he's still Ali Khamenei, who has the real power. He's like the British President, with limited power and the Prime Minister's bitch.

you can call israel a rouge state too....

they do the opposite of whatever the UN and other countries tell them...

Mossad goes around killing their targets regardless of the location.... using identities of other people... Killing Hamas member in UAE using Irish, British, French, Dutch, Australian, German passport

Yuri Yukuv wrote:

imalegend wrote:

che wrote:
and as for saudi arabia, you raise a finger against them and you have america on your ass, i imagine the saudis are well aware of this and realize they don't have to fund their own nuclear program...

Forget America... if you raise a finger on Saudi's the whole Islamic Community will be on your as....

You are telling me if Iran/Turkey or Egypt invade Saudi Arabia muslim countries will come to the rescue?

Yeah we all saw that happening the gulf war

do you know what Saudi Arabia represents in Islam????Most of the Holy Islamic sites are located there are..... and people would put their life on the line to save them....

If we compare Israel to Iran, the comparisons become hilarious.

And all those people Israel kills are not "to protect it's existance". That's already pretty much guaranteed with nukes and US backing.

I did not know Palestine had access to nuclear weapons.

Yuri Yukuv wrote:
Officials in Riyadh said that Saudi Arabia would reluctantly push ahead with its own civilian nuclear programme. Peaceful use of nuclear power, Turki said, was the right of all nations.

uh huh...

i don't know what exactly your point is... are you arguing generally against nuclear power anywhere, or just against iran developing nuclear reactors, like the guy in the link you provided said they had a right to do?

Sushi Master wrote:

VivaStPauli wrote:

che wrote:japan basically lies on a giant fault line so building nuclear power plants there was retarded in the first place... and germany is just full of dirty hippies who saw the fukushima issue as a ground to scaremonger and push their dumbass agenda of eliminating a source of energy that is statistically safer than burning coal...

Germany abandoned nuclear power in 1999.

Germany would totally have nukes if it weren't for the Nazi's, though.

I don't like that Fukushima has pretty much screwed nuclear power worldwide. It was badly designed and terribly placed. Nuclear power is still much cleaner than coal, gas, oil or whatever, if we safely apply it.

I also don't understand where the nukes = war argument comes from. Numerous nations have developed them already, probably even in worse times (like the Cold frakking War) than now and they have never been used in offensive purposes, apart from Hiroshima and Nagasaki. People like to live, you know. Using nukes doesn't mean just screwing yourself, it means screwing pretty much everyone on the planet.

No one is crazy enough to use them, bullshit Western propaganda not counting.

You know, Yuri, the Soviet Union collapsed with nukes all over the place. They were all accounted for. Nukes aren't boxes of ammo or a weapons cache were they can easily be "lost".

Look except the actual use of nuclear weapons there are three main risks of nuclear weaponry:

1-Starting a nuclear race
2-Further legitimizing the ruling regime (A medieval theocracy in this case)
3-Risking leaking them to rogue third parties

Iran obviously wants to become the regional power in the middle east and is using this nuclear weapons program as leverage to do it (if they get it they will 80% be that regional power), the US cannot allow this to happen especially not right now. The region is socially and economically broken with a high birth rate, if things are not fixed there the young people will be a liability not only on their countries but the whole world with this regard Iran is a part of the problem not the solution. The second is that the region is a major source of energy for a whole world, iran becoming a regional power will result in them being able to use energy supply as a card (they are already doing that with threats of closing hormuz). These countries really do not need more military (and now nuclear) build up, this is preposterous. You all are acting as if the problems in that region of the world are none of our business and we shouldnt be anal about it, september 11 and the gulf war def show us other wise.

che wrote:

Yuri Yukuv wrote:
Officials in Riyadh said that Saudi Arabia would reluctantly push ahead with its own civilian nuclear programme. Peaceful use of nuclear power, Turki said, was the right of all nations.

uh huh...

i don't know what exactly your point is... are you arguing generally against nuclear power anywhere, or just against iran developing nuclear reactors, like the guy in the link you provided said they had a right to do?

You said that Saudi Arabia would not want nuclear weapons because the United States is backing them, as stated by their prince this is not the case.

I do not like nuclear energy, its outdated and the reactors were mostly built at a point in time with certain circumstances.

I def do not think that any country acquiring nuclear weaponry is good and we should oppose all current efforts by any country.

What I am specially pointing out though in this case is that irans stated intentions "sustainable and economic source of energy for post-oil future" does not match its actions, clean energy matches their intentions very well and not nuclear they know this and we know this. The regime is trying to paint this as the united states trying to block iranians from vital technology to survive, this is in now way the case.

imalegend wrote:

Yuri Yukuv wrote:

imalegend wrote:

che wrote:
and as for saudi arabia, you raise a finger against them and you have america on your ass, i imagine the saudis are well aware of this and realize they don't have to fund their own nuclear program...

Forget America... if you raise a finger on Saudi's the whole Islamic Community will be on your as....

You are telling me if Iran/Turkey or Egypt invade Saudi Arabia muslim countries will come to the rescue?

Yeah we all saw that happening the gulf war

do you know what Saudi Arabia represents in Islam????Most of the Holy Islamic sites are located there are..... and people would put their life on the line to save them....

Guy, if another muslim nation invades saudi arabia I do not see anything more than a repeat of 1991.

imalegend wrote:

che wrote:
and as for saudi arabia, you raise a finger against them and you have america on your ass, i imagine the saudis are well aware of this and realize they don't have to fund their own nuclear program...

Forget America... if you raise a finger on Saudi's the whole Islamic Community will be on your as....

The Majority of the islamic world are not very found of the Saudi goverment for their allience with the United States.

Yuri Yukuv wrote:

imalegend wrote:

Yuri Yukuv wrote:

imalegend wrote:

che wrote:
and as for saudi arabia, you raise a finger against them and you have america on your ass, i imagine the saudis are well aware of this and realize they don't have to fund their own nuclear program...

Forget America... if you raise a finger on Saudi's the whole Islamic Community will be on your as....

You are telling me if Iran/Turkey or Egypt invade Saudi Arabia muslim countries will come to the rescue?

Yeah we all saw that happening the gulf war

do you know what Saudi Arabia represents in Islam????Most of the Holy Islamic sites are located there are..... and people would put their life on the line to save them....

Guy, if another muslim nation invades saudi arabia I do not see anything more than a repeat of 1991.

well maybe because you don't jack shit... Saudi Arabia is birthplace of Islam... Millions of people go to Saudi Arabia just to visit religious sites in places like Mecca and Medina....and if anything happens to these sites you would have the warth of almost 1 billion upon you

zizzle wrote:

imalegend wrote:

che wrote:
and as for saudi arabia, you raise a finger against them and you have america on your ass, i imagine the saudis are well aware of this and realize they don't have to fund their own nuclear program...

Forget America... if you raise a finger on Saudi's the whole Islamic Community will be on your as....

The Majority of the islamic world are not very found of the Saudi goverment for their allience with the United States.

True, but because Saudi Arabia is a sacred place no Islamic Country would let anything bad happen to them...

just like how tons of wars have been fought for Jerusalem.... Muslims would fight for Sacred Sites such as Mecca and Medina and others

Why would another muslim country do anything to the muslim holy sites? If an "Infidel" country invaded saudi arabia I can easily see what you are saying happen. Not if a mulim country though.

Zizzle just gave you his answer

zizzle wrote:
The Majority of the islamic world are not very found of the Saudi goverment for their allience with the United States.

We already saw the scenario of a muslim country threatening saudi arabia in the gulf war, I do not see what has fundamentally changed.

Tell me, what if Egypt (I know its unlikely) tries to invade saudi arabia tomorrow. Who will defend saudi arabia?