Iran, Nukes, War Casualties and Assorted Accusations

**Nord** · 25 Jan 12,, 22:22

No, I can`t se the picture here. Iran had peace in 300 years, beside the war with Iraq, that Iraq started. Talking about the nukes, so how come Israel is allowed to have like 400 of them? or Pakistan?

**Dreadnought** · 25 Jan 12,, 22:27

Originally Posted by Nord

No, I can`t se the picture here. Iran had peace in 300 years, beside the war with Iraq, that Iraq started. Talking about the nukes, so how come Israel is allowed to have like 400 of them? or Pakistan?

When was the last time either of those two stated openly that another country should be "whiped from the earth"? Iran has funded and armed those that attack Israel on a constant basis. Do you really want to see them with a nuclear weapon acting like the racist spanked ass's they already are? If you do then perhaps you should live closer to them knowing that their threats might one day provoke the very thing they threaten with and trust me when I state this...That regime would not survive an exchange and they fully know that.

**Dreadnought** · 25 Jan 12,, 22:28

Originally Posted by Nord

I would bet on it, either US or Irael.

Perhaps maybe you havent been up on your middle east news in perhaps the last three months. If you were then you would know that statement would not be true unless Iran provokes it.

**bigross86** · 25 Jan 12,, 22:31

Wouldn't you say that the continuation of their nuclear program and their tacit support of terror groups such as Hamas and Hezbollah is enough of a provocation?

**Nord** · 25 Jan 12,, 22:33

Who is provoking who? Right now EU has emposed an oil-embago on Iran, like the USA did on Japan in the ww2. That could be pretty provoking...

Regarding the nukes again, there are only one country in the world that have used them on civilians, and that is USA, twice.
How come USA still are allowed to have them?

**Nord** · 25 Jan 12,, 22:48

Little background to the conflict.

**bigross86** · 25 Jan 12,, 22:58

The USA used them because they were in a state of Total War, probably the last time in history Total War was ever waged. The N5 have them because of the power plays in the cold war. India has them because of Pakistan and China, Pakistan has them because of India. North Korea may or may not have them because they are schmucks intend on domineering their neighbors to the south. Israel doesn't have them because of all her neighbors intent on destroying her.

Iran, on the other hand, has no need for them aside for offensive purposes. They are not under threat of invasion, and are not under threat of annihilation.

That being said, of course the ideal is that all countries give up their nukes, but I highly doubt that will ever happen until after a nuclear exchange. In the meantime, might as well prevent the spread of nukes, which destabilizes things even more for everyone on the planet

**TopHatter** · 25 Jan 12,, 22:59

Originally Posted by Nord

Who is provoking who? Right now EU has emposed an oil-embago on Iran, like the USA did on Japan in the ww2. That could be pretty provoking...

Regarding the nukes again, there are only one country in the world that have used them on civilians, and that is USA, twice.
How come USA still are allowed to have them?

Seriously? You're comparing Iran to the United States and Israel?

Which of those three nations is the subject of UN Resolutions 1737, 1747, 1803 and 1929? It's Iran and for a damn good reason: Iranian nuclear weapons make most of the entire world extremely nervous, again for a damn good reason.

AND you're bringing up Hiroshima and Nagasaki? Hasn't that been debated to death on the entire Internet already? Ok, well a couple of things to consider:

By 1945, every month that the Pacific War dragged on, 100,000 civilians died in the Japanese-occupied territories, due to starvation, disease, abuse, and outright execution. The atomic attacks finally convinced the Emperor to end the war...and even then there were IJA hotheads that staged a coup to destroy the surrender proclamation and silence the Emperor.

And, the Pacific War most definitely did not start at 8:15am August 6th 1945.

Why is the United States still allowed to have them? Because unlike other countries (like Cuba in 1962 for example) the United States hasn't been eager to fling nuclear weapons around like so many firecrackers. And unlike Iran, the United States hasn't vowed the annihilation of another country.

**TopHatter** · 25 Jan 12,, 23:04

Originally Posted by Nord

No, I can`t se the picture here. Iran had peace in 300 years, beside the war with Iraq, that Iraq started. Talking about the nukes, so how come Israel is allowed to have like 400 of them? or Pakistan?

By the way, your claim that Iran has had 300 years of peace is simply not supportable.

Not with a proxy like Hezbollah and the indiscriminate mining and attacks on neutral shipping during the 1980's. It's hardly peaceful to routinely pull up alongside a helpless merchant ship in a frigate and spray the bridge with machine gun fire.

**Nord** · 25 Jan 12,, 23:09

"India has them because of Pakistan and China, Pakistan has them because of India. North Korea may or may not have them because they are schmucks intend on domineering their neighbors to the south. Israel doesn't have them because of all her neighbors intent on destroying her. "

Israel have started all wars it been into since 1948.

**TopHatter** · 25 Jan 12,, 23:12

Originally Posted by Nord

"India has them because of Pakistan and China, Pakistan has them because of India. North Korea may or may not have them because they are schmucks intend on domineering their neighbors to the south. Israel doesn't have them because of all her neighbors intent on destroying her. "

Israel have started all wars it been into since 1948.

Ok, now you're veering into Mel Gibson territory.

Just for fun, please explain how Israel started the Yom Kippur War?

**Nord** · 25 Jan 12,, 23:14

When it comes to killing civilians

In Vietnam, started on the lie in Tonkin bay, 3 000 000 vietnameese lives where lost. And about 60 000 americans. In the war on a lie in Iraq, claiming they had WMD, they lost between 1-2 000 000 lives. It is about time to wake up, and stop killing the worlds population.

Afganisthan:

"What causes the documented high level of civilian casualties -- 3,000 - 3,400 [October 7, 2001 thru March 2002] civilian deaths -- in the U.S. air war upon Afghanistan? The explanation is the apparent willingness of U.S. military strategists to fire missiles into and drop bombs upon, heavily populated areas of Afghanistan."

**bigross86** · 25 Jan 12,, 23:17

Originally Posted by TopHatter

Ok, now you're veering into Mel Gibson territory.

Just for fun, please explain how Israel started the Yom Kippur War?

This I gotta hear...

Don't forget the 1970 War of Attrition, or the 1967 and 1956 wars, both a result of Egypt blocking the Straits of Tiran to Israeli shipping

**bigross86** · 25 Jan 12,, 23:18

Originally Posted by TopHatter

Bearing that in mind, I will not be responding further, except to the thread subject.

Me as well. I'd love to hear Nord's explanations, but I'll wait for him to open a new thread if he's serious about his claims

**Bigfella** · 25 Jan 12,, 23:25

Originally Posted by TopHatter

By the way, your claim that Iran has had 300 years of peace is simply not supportable.

Not with a proxy like Hezbollah and the indiscriminate mining and attacks on neutral shipping during the 1980's. It's hardly peaceful to routinely pull up alongside a helpless merchant ship in a frigate and spray the bridge with machine gun fire.

Beat me to it TH, though I was thinking of stuff on a slightly larger scale.

An imperial scrap over territory neither empire owned:

Russo-Persian War (1804

Hows about invading Russia?

Russo-Persian War (1826

....then there were repeated attempts to seize bits of Afghanistan in the mid C19th:

Anglo-Persian War - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I suspect I could dig up more examples of the lack of 'peacefulness' on the part of Iran, but this is enough to make it clear that our poster doesn't know an awful lot about the subject.

Personally I have never accepted the 'those crazy mullahs are going to launch a nuke & destroy their own nation' line. They haven't shown much of an incliantion to do anything even a bit like this over the past 30 years, I see no reason for a change now. Iran having nukes is undoubtedly a bad thing. Not a nation I want to see as a regional power. However, short of actually invading & removing the government nothing that the US & especially Israel can do is going to do much more than strengthen the government & slow down the nuclear program by a few years.

My bet is that Israel doesn't attack - can't do enough by itself & will probably do more harm than good. If Iran closes the Straits, however, all bets are off. That brings in the US & suddenly makes this feasible.