Page 1 of 7 1234567 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 100

Thread: Would Ahmedinejad use a atomic bomb?

  1. #1
    Regular
    Join Date
    01 Sep 06
    Posts
    52

    Would Ahmedinejad use a atomic bomb?

    Will he use one or are he's words just for

    political gain

    to stroke his ego

    to stop a u.s invasion

    to taunt israel

    to bring fear to the west

    90% of israel's population will be killed from 1 atomic bomb

    Should the world take this guy serious or ignore him
    Last edited by buisness man; 27 Jan 07, at 13:11.

  2. #2
    New Member
    Join Date
    27 Jan 07
    Posts
    2
    The Iranians are no fools they do not want total war with the USA (maybe with Israel). If the Iranians ever choose to attack Israel with a nuclear bomb the US will not tolerate it and will attack back with a nuclear bomb and the Iranians do not posses the capability to strike the US with their nuclear weaponry (it is beyond their Missiles range).
    The worst case senario is that Iran loses (purposfully or not) a nuclear bomb and it falls on the hand of extremists. The consequences will be grave.

  3. #3
    Senior Contributor
    Join Date
    12 Aug 03
    Location
    Long Island, New York, USA
    Posts
    2,726
    IMO he would use it against Israel. He is demented enough if you ask me, as a matter of fact I am willing to bet that Iran and the arrogance of their leaders will be the cause of WW3.

  4. #4
    Contributor
    Join Date
    13 Dec 06
    Location
    Vancouver
    Posts
    354
    One thing to bear in mind is that Ahmedinejad does not control the Iranian armed forces.

    This is something we often find surprising, since in most republics the President is also the Commander-in-Chief of the armed forces, with a major role in forming defense policy, strategy, and in making command appointments.

    Such, however, is not the case in Iran. Under Iran's theocratic constitution, the President does not command the armed forces. Nor does the President have any role in declaring war or making peace. All of these functions belong to the Islamic revolutionary council--a committee of theocrats.

    So the question is not, and cannot be, whether "Ahmedinejad" would launch nuclear weapons. That's in the hands of a committee. Ahmedinejad has considerable power as President, but those powers simply do not extend into warmaking.

    That's one reason why Ahmedinejad is such a loudmouth. He doesn't bear the responsibility for policy making.

    But the main reason for Ahmedinejad's provocative rhetoric is Iran's need to assuage Arab opinion about Iran's nuclear programme.

    After all, no matter how mild and diplomatic the Iranians tried to be, there is no way whatsoever that the Israeli, European, or US reaction to Iran's nuclear programme could be anything other than strongly negative.

    So there's not necessarily much to lose in irritating Israel or the West. They want to stop Iran from getting nukes, and that's that.

    But by relentlessly provoking Israel and the USA, the Iranians are pursuing a potentially fruitful line of propaganda and diplomacy towards the Arab nations. This line goes like this:

    "Iran's nuclear weapons are not meant for Iranian aggrandizement, but are meant to discourage any outside aggression in the region, whether by the Zionists or the Americans. Our nuclear weapons will protect Arabs as much as they do Iranians. If you don't believe us, then just watch how much we will provoke the common enemy, and see for yourselves how much risk we're willing to undertake on our joint behalf!"

    By seeming to provoke war with Israel or the USA, the Iranians build credibility with the Arabs, and create a common bond of beleaguerment.

    Now of course the pro-Western leaders of such countries as Egypt or Saudi Arabia will not be won over. But these leaders enjoy little popular support among their publics for their pro-Western foreign policy. The Iranian propaganda drive, especially in the wake of the invasion of Iraq, makes sense to many Arabs, and the weight of that public opinion will deter even non-democratic Arab states from enlisting in any Western or Israeli attack on Iran.

    So that's the main reason why Ahmedinejad sounds off regularly. He's not in the chain of command, and his oratory is not aimed at Westerners, but at Iran's Arab neighbours.
    Last edited by cape_royds; 28 Jan 07, at 03:52.

  5. #5
    Banned
    Join Date
    20 Jan 07
    Location
    british columbia
    Posts
    117
    Quote Originally Posted by cape_royds View Post
    One thing to bear in mind is that Ahmedinejad does not control the Iranian armed forces.

    This is something we often find surprising, since in most republics the President is also the Commander-in-Chief of the armed forces, with a major role in forming defense policy, strategy, and in making command appointments.

    Such, however, is not the case in Iran. Under Iran's theocratic constitution, the President does not command the armed forces. Nor does the President have any role in declaring war or making peace. All of these functions belong to the Islamic revolutionary council--a committee of theocrats.

    So the question is not, and cannot be, whether "Ahmedinejad" would launch nuclear weapons. That's in the hands of a committee. Ahmedinejad has considerable power as President, but those powers simply do not extend into warmaking.
    That is very interesting. I did not know that. So what do we know or believe about this theocratic revolutionary council ? Islamic extremists ? That doesn't sound very reassuring.

  6. #6
    Regular Deioces's Avatar
    Join Date
    23 Jan 07
    Posts
    36
    i understand the threats ahmadinejad makes against israel and so forth but what hard evidence is there that Iran is actually making Nuclear weapons or any Weapons of mass destruction?

  7. #7
    Registered User
    Join Date
    23 Jan 07
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    1,587
    Quote Originally Posted by steven lloyd View Post
    That is very interesting. I did not know that. So what do we know or believe about this theocratic revolutionary council ? Islamic extremists ? That doesn't sound very reassuring.
    the Assistant Secretary of State threatened to bomb Pakistan back to the stone age ... and I belive US has that capabilities .. however Assistant Secretary of State does not have the capability to carry out that threat

    President of Iran threatened to wipe Israel off the map ... but I belive Iran does neither have the capability to do so, nor the stomach of replacing their four-season year with that of a nuclear winter. Regardless, the Israel-Palestine really insn't any intrest of Iran, except the fact that Israel is seen as extension of United States the sameway that Hizbollah is seen as extension of Iran's Islamic Republic by the West. go figure .. and BTW the President of Iran does not have the capability nor the authority to carry out that any military acts in peacetime or in wartime.

    does any remembers not long ago, Khatami was trying to closen relationship with United States ad he got vetoed by the Supreme Leader ... and the case was closed without a murmur

    So I let you decide wether your should worry about Iran or not ...

  8. #8
    Banned Patron
    Join Date
    07 Mar 05
    Location
    Southern California
    Posts
    193
    This is not a question we want answered.....

    Even If as you say Ahmedinejad is just a mouthpiece, which I don't buy . The committee (theorcractic clerics) hasn't done anything to reign him in. So apparently they agree with his policy of brinkmanship.

    Iran has a terrorist for a President. Iran is a state sponser of Terrorism. Iran is meddling in Iraq. Iran holds conferences debating the holocaust. Iran threatens to wipe nations of the face of the earth. Iran refused the russian deal to return spent fuel to Russia and are now playing games with IAEA.

    Things are not looking good to us in the West.

  9. #9
    Registered User
    Join Date
    23 Jan 07
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    1,587
    I will answer full tomorrow .... i have to go to sleep

    but as far as the theorcractic clerics is concern .. the aim was to have someone to counter Bush rhoteric.

    your opinion of Iran as terrorism nation is highly dependent of what is for you the definition of terrorism .. as far as Iran's threat to wipe out ... do take note that US does make similiar threats ... as far as playing games with IAEA is concerned, you may want to take a look at Israel nuclear statues. As far as meddling in Iraq, that is what usually what nations do when their neigbour is attacked in order to counter the threat pre-emptively: ex: Korean War, Cuba missile crisis, Afghan-Soviet War. BTW the US invasion of 2003 was meddling in Iraq affair as well ... a huge one I might add.

  10. #10
    Senior Contributor
    Join Date
    12 Aug 03
    Location
    Long Island, New York, USA
    Posts
    2,726
    Quote Originally Posted by xerxes View Post
    I will answer full tomorrow .... i have to go to sleep

    but as far as the theorcractic clerics is concern .. the aim was to have someone to counter Bush rhoteric.

    your opinion of Iran as terrorism nation is highly dependent of what is for you the definition of terrorism .. as far as Iran's threat to wipe out ... do take note that US does make similiar threats ... as far as playing games with IAEA is concerned, you may want to take a look at Israel nuclear statues. As far as meddling in Iraq, that is what usually what nations do when their neigbour is attacked in order to counter the threat pre-emptively: ex: Korean War, Cuba missile crisis, Afghan-Soviet War. BTW the US invasion of 2003 was meddling in Iraq affair as well ... a huge one I might add.
    We dont intentionally murder thousands of unarmed civilians. It may happen as the result of other actions but we wont do it on purpose unlike most ME nations.

  11. #11
    Banned
    Join Date
    26 Jan 07
    Location
    Pennsylvania, USA
    Posts
    6
    they will not it will be suicide plus their people are against their current govt's position !

  12. #12
    Dirty Kiwi Senior Contributor
    Join Date
    10 Nov 04
    Location
    Wellington, Te Ika a Maui, Aotearoa
    Posts
    19,747
    Quote Originally Posted by ChrisF202 View Post
    We dont intentionally murder thousands of unarmed civilians. It may happen as the result of other actions but we wont do it on purpose unlike most ME nations.
    The west will quite happily kill as many civilians as it takes. All countries act in what they consider their own best interests and history is replete with examples of every culture doing exactly that.

  13. #13
    Banned
    Join Date
    20 Jan 07
    Location
    british columbia
    Posts
    117
    Quote Originally Posted by Parihaka View Post
    The west will quite happily kill as many civilians as it takes.
    Are you being sarcastic ? If not, Im certainly happy youre not speaking for me, or my country, or the hundreds of million people living in so-called Western countries who would be appalled by such a statement.

  14. #14
    Registered User
    Join Date
    23 Jan 07
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    1,587
    Quote Originally Posted by ChrisF202 View Post
    We dont intentionally murder thousands of unarmed civilians. It may happen as the result of other actions but we wont do it on purpose unlike most ME nations.
    ofcourse, the West descended from Heaven itself. There was never a colonial era and mass exploitations. The new Western superiostic ideology reminds me of that of Japan prior to WWII ... where what happened outside Japan didnt concern average people and Japan's military-industrial complex was roaming in China and Manchuria.

    I guess that is what you mean by "result of other actions". You want nations to be submitted to your will. but if they refuse to do so any casaulties henceforward would fall under the category of "We dont intentionally murder thousands of unarmed civilians. It may happen as the result of other actions".. Therefore we (West) is always blameless.

    Could you care to add a timeline to your quote ... is this new way forward that I am not aware of Post-Iraq, post-WWII, or post-Soviet Union era ....

  15. #15
    Regular Deioces's Avatar
    Join Date
    23 Jan 07
    Posts
    36
    Quote Originally Posted by InfiniteDreams View Post
    This is not a question we want answered.....

    Even If as you say Ahmedinejad is just a mouthpiece, which I don't buy . The committee (theorcractic clerics) hasn't done anything to reign him in. So apparently they agree with his policy of brinkmanship.

    Iran has a terrorist for a President. Iran is a state sponser of Terrorism. Iran is meddling in Iraq. Iran holds conferences debating the holocaust. Iran threatens to wipe nations of the face of the earth. Iran refused the russian deal to return spent fuel to Russia and are now playing games with IAEA.

    Things are not looking good to us in the West.

    you obviously use the word terrorist so often you've forgotten the meaning and arnt using it properly. Iran is meddling in Iraq..they sure are and so is the united states...more so than any other nation. Iran might threaten to wipe other countrys off the face of the world but America is the only nation that does anything even close to that...bombing,invading, and occupying a new country every 10 or so years. nice track record right?...Iran hasnt done anything Illegal by IAEA standards and if im wrong about that then correct me.

    and i see no reason why they need to impress you here in the west.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. "Thank God for the Atom Bomb"
    By Shek in forum The World Wars
    Replies: 306
    Last Post: 10 Aug 13,, 16:22
  2. An interview with Paul Tibbits aged 87
    By 101st Airborne in forum The World Wars
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 20 Mar 07,, 00:05
  3. CIA uses 'micro nuclear' bomb in Bali
    By Gabru47 in forum International Economy
    Replies: 15
    Last Post: 04 Sep 06,, 01:14
  4. Bnagladesh and Terrorists Bomb After Bomb After Bomb...
    By Ray in forum International Politics
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 25 Aug 05,, 06:39
  5. Cheney prepares the way to Tehran?
    By Parihaka in forum The Middle East and North Africa
    Replies: 29
    Last Post: 27 Jan 05,, 22:59

Share this thread with friends:

Share this thread with friends:

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •