Iran Nuke Deal

The Soviets were sane. There has been no nuclear war yet. The middle east is bat shit crazy. There will be a nuclear war if any of those insane fucks get one.

The best thing America could do for this world, is to incinerate Iran and North Korea.

They are cancer, and the sooner we raze both of these bottom feeding countries from the face of this earth the better.
 
The Soviets were sane. There has been no nuclear war yet. The middle east is bat shit crazy. There will be a nuclear war if any of those insane fucks get one.

The best thing America could do for this world, is to incinerate Iran and North Korea.

They are cancer, and the sooner we raze both of these bottom feeding countries from the face of this earth the better.

The Soviets were sane?

Which insane fucks, Iran?
 
Did the US or Soveit Union destroy the planet? That's sane in an insane world.


Do u think the Ayatollahs will be sane? How about North Korea's leader? Hitler would have used nukes for sure.

What we know is the Soviets didn't.
 
The Soviets didn't believe they had 72 virgins waiting on them, and weren't the #1 sponsor of terrorism. I also don't believe their leader chanted "death to America" days following an "international" treaty with America. Go figure
 
Do u think the Ayatollahs will be sane?

And this today...

U.S. 'disturbed' by Iranian leader's criticism after deal
ca.news.yahoo.com
By By Bozorgmehr Sharafedin Nouri | Reuters –
By Bozorgmehr Sharafedin Nouri

DUBAI (Reuters) - The United States said on Tuesday it was disturbed by anti-U.S. hostility voiced by Iran's top leader after a nuclear deal, as both countries' top diplomats sought to calm opposition to the accord from hardliners at home.

U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry said a speech by Iranian Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei on Saturday vowing to defy American policies in the region despite a deal with world powers over Tehran's nuclear program was "very troubling".

"I don't know how to interpret it at this point in time, except to take it at face value, that that's his policy," he said in the interview with Saudi-owned Al Arabiya television.

"But I do know that often comments are made publicly and things can evolve that are different. If it is the policy, it's very disturbing, it's very troubling," he added.

Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, the highest authority in Iran, told supporters on Saturday that U.S. policies in the region were "180 degrees" opposed to Iran's, in a Tehran speech punctuated by chants of "Death to America" and "Death to Israel".

Under the accord reached in Vienna last week, Iran will be subjected to long-term curbs on its nuclear program in return for the lifting of U.S., European Union and U.N. sanctions. The deal was signed by the United States, Britain, China, France, Germany and Russia.

It was a major policy achievement for both U.S. President Barack Obama and Iran's pragmatic elected President Hassan Rouhani. But both leaders have to sell it at home to powerful hardliners in countries that have been enemies for decades, referring to each other as the "Great Satan" and a member of the "Axis of Evil".

In the case of Iran, the deal must win final acceptance from the National Security Council and ultimately Khamenei, who has so far withheld final judgment, thanking the negotiators while saying the text must still be scrutinized and approved.

In the United States, Republicans who control Congress have lined up against the deal, but Obama says he will veto any attempt to block it.

Kerry also has the task of selling the agreement to skeptical U.S. allies in the region. Israel is implacably opposed, and Arab allies of the United States such as Saudi Arabia, ruled by Sunni Muslims, are suspicious of an arrangement that would benefit their Shi'ite, non-Arab rival Iran, which they accuse of fomenting sectarian conflict.

The Secretary General of the six-member Gulf Cooperation Council of regional Arab states, Abdullatif al-Zayani, said Khamenei's speech demonstrated "Iran's continued interference in the internal affairs of some Arab countries".

"Those statements don't help to build confidence for cooperative relations based on the principles of good neighborliness (and) non-interference in internal affairs," Zayani, a Bahraini general, was quoted as saying by Saudi news agency SPA.

Dore Gold, director-general of the Israeli foreign ministry, described Israel's opposition to the accord as a "major disagreement" with Washington over "a central pillar of foreign policy", but nonetheless sought to play down the rift with Israel's closest ally.

"All you can do in these situations is just tell your story, tell the truth," he said, adding that the rift should be handled "in a very careful way" and with "mutual respect".

ZARIF DEFENDS DEAL

Hatred of the United States has been one of the underlying tenets of the Iranian ruling system since the 1979 Islamic revolution. But Iran's nearly 80 million people voted overwhelmingly for Rouhani in 2013 on a promise to end the country's diplomatic isolation.

Mohammad Javad Zarif, the foreign minister who developed a warm rapport with Kerry during weeks of unprecedented face-to-face talks, defended the deal in Iran's hardliner-dominated parliament. He said most of Iran's conditions had been met, including so-called "red lines" set by Khamenei.

“We don’t say the deal is totally in favor of Iran. Any negotiation is a give and take. We have definitely shown some flexibility," the foreign minister said. "I tell you as I told the Supreme Leader, we did our best to preserve most of the red lines, if not all.”

Iran's Revolutionary Guards and other hardliners have started to attack the deal directly, criticizing a U.N. Security Council resolution passed on Monday endorsing it.

They may be trying to persuade Khamenei to block the deal by presenting it as having violated the "red lines" he set, particularly by leaving in place for several years a U.N. arms embargo and restrictions on Iran's missile program.

Zarif told lawmakers the U.N. resolution restricted only missiles designed to carry nuclear warheads, which would not affect Iran's conventional missile program.

Revolutionary Guard chief Mohammad Ali Jafari said on Monday, according to Tasnim news agency: "Some parts of the (resolution) draft have clearly crossed the Islamic republic's red lines, especially towards Iran's military capabilities."

Ali Akbar Velayati, a senior advisor to Khamenei on foreign affairs, broke a long silence on Tuesday and said the deal was "not without flaws”, although he did not reject it outright.

“No one can tell us which weapons we can have.... Except nuclear weapons and weapons of mass destruction, Iran will continue making all the missiles, fighter jets, anti-missile defense systems, tanks and other armored equipment it needs,” he was quoted as saying on the Supreme Leader’s website.

BUSINESS AS USUAL?

The prospect that sanctions will be lifted is spurring businesses to make plans to return to Iran.

In Paris, Laurent Fabius, who next week will make the first trip to Iran by a French foreign minister in 12 years, said having taken a hard line towards Tehran at the nuclear talks would not hurt France's businesses once sanctions are lifted.

"It's true that France was very firm," Fabius told France Inter radio. "Will French firms be penalized? My answer is no because in the past we had an important presence in Iran... You know, in foreign policy, I think you lose nothing in being respected."

French firms such as carmaker Puegeot and oil major Total had leading positions in the Iranian market before the United States and European Union imposed tighter sanctions in 2011.

Fabius will travel without an entourage of business leaders, unlike Germany's economy minister, Sigmar Gabriel, who took a large commercial delegation to Iran on Sunday as the first senior Western official to visit after the deal was agreed.

Gabriel's haste drew some domestic criticism: "Our economy minister wanting to explore business opportunities for German companies a few days after the nuclear deal is a dangerous signal to the region," said Paul Ziemiak, head of the youth wing of Chancellor Angela Merkel's conservative bloc, during a visit to Israel.

"Our Israeli partners are irritated at how easily the crises and the problematic role of Iran in the region is overlooked."

(Reporting by Bozorgmehr Sharafedin; Additonal reporting by Noah Browning and Dan Williams; Writing by William Maclean and Peter Graff)
 
Did the US or Soveit Union destroy the planet? That's sane in an insane world.


Do u think the Ayatollahs will be sane? How about North Korea's leader? Hitler would have used nukes for sure.

What we know is the Soviets didn't.

We also know the Middle East didn't use any either. So far the US is the only country to use a nuclear weapon during a war so by your definition WE are the insane ones.....
 
You are making my point DT. Yes those crazy bastards will nuke us before they go done.
 
Don

Dont get me started doc. You lose.

I didn't realize this was about winning and losing.

It's great you love your country and all but when it blinds you to everything else it's called extreme nationalism, you know, kind of like what the German Workers Party was like.

You are making my point DT. Yes those crazy bastards will nuke us before they go done.

I mean if you qualify your guess on an Internet forum as fact then sure they will. If you go by the facts....they haven't unlike the US.
 
What I'm saying is that we have been fortunate no one who has had nukes has used them. Our luck may run out because there are a lot of crazy mofos who have nothing to lose.

We saved over 1 million lives when we nuked Japan. Don't even think of arguing that point.
 
What I'm saying is that we have been fortunate no one who has had nukes has used them. Our luck may run out because there are a lot of crazy mofos who have nothing to lose.

We saved over 1 million lives when we nuked Japan. Don't even think of arguing that point.

You just contradicted yourself and I can't argue the point?

Let's be honest with ourselves here lol. We MAY have saved off a million lives, I say MAY bc we don't know for sure either way, but what we do know AS FACT is our bombing of Japan resulted in anywhere from ~130,000 to 250,000+ deaths.

What also is fact is that in one day, 1 single day, we killed more people than either the Germans, the Italians, or the Japanese did in any single day of the war.

What we further know as fact is that most of these casualties were innocent civilians. You know, the same kind of innocent civilians that were killed in the twin tower attacks....:rolleyes:
 
Did the US or Soveit Union destroy the planet? That's sane in an insane world.


Do u think the Ayatollahs will be sane? How about North Korea's leader? Hitler would have used nukes for sure.

What we know is the Soviets didn't.

We also know the Middle East didn't use any either. So far the US is the only country to use a nuclear weapon during a war so by your definition WE are the insane ones.....

The word Paul should have used is rational. You can argue that the nuclear buildup during the Cold War was irrational but the leadership of the US and the Soviet Union were very rational when it came to their use. During a 1972 command post exercise, Brezhnev trembled when he was asked to push the button, repeatedly asking Soviet defense minister Grechko "this is definitely an exercise?"

Unlike Khamenei, neither the US or Soviet Union routinely threatened to wipe each other off the map. Whether the Ayatollahs with nuclear weapons would be rational or not remains to be seen. Followers of Twelver Shi'ism, which posits that Allah’s kingdom will be established on earth by the Twelfth or Hidden Imam, who disappeared in the year 874, believe his advent can be hastened by initiating of a planetary conflagration. Not exactly what one would normally consider rational thought, and I, for one, am unwilling to give them the benefit of the doubt.

Personally, I'd like to see all nuclear weapons eradicated but that's not going to happen anytime soon. So if there are going to be nuclear weapons in the world, I'd much rather see them in the hands of countries whose leaders are not religious fanatics that threaten to wipe others off the map.
 
The word Paul should have used is rational. You can argue that the nuclear buildup during the Cold War was irrational but the leadership of the US and the Soviet Union were very rational when it came to their use. During a 1972 command post exercise, Brezhnev trembled when he was asked to push the button, repeatedly asking Soviet defense minister Grechko "this is definitely an exercise?"

Unlike Khamenei, neither the US or Soviet Union routinely threatened to wipe each other off the map. Whether the Ayatollahs with nuclear weapons would be rational or not remains to be seen. Followers of Twelver Shi'ism, which posits that Allah’s kingdom will be established on earth by the Twelfth or Hidden Imam, who disappeared in the year 874, believe his advent can be hastened by initiating of a planetary conflagration. Not exactly what one would normally consider rational thought, and I, for one, am unwilling to give them the benefit of the doubt.

Personally, I'd like to see all nuclear weapons eradicated but that's not going to happen anytime soon. So if there are going to be nuclear weapons in the world, I'd much rather see them in the hands of countries whose leaders are not religious fanatics that threaten to wipe others off the map.

I hope you can understand why I decide to not engage you on this topic. I will say that we at least both agree on a desire to all nuclear weapons eradicated.
 
One million lives on our side. If the US military would rolled through Japan, maybe 5 million Japanese lives were save.

Nobody gave a fuck about the Japanese at the time.
 
One million lives on our side. If the US military would rolled through Japan, maybe 5 million Japanese lives were save.

Nobody gave a fuck about the Japanese at the time.

So you admit emotions played a part in the decision to use nuclear weapons? How frightening, you bash Muslims for reacting with their emotions and killing people but it's perfectly justifiable for YOUR side to kill MORE PEOPLE based on emotion. That sir is the definition of a hypocrite.

You can keep throwing your guesses out there as to how many lives might have been saved as long as you realize they are GUESSES and nothing more :).

Giving the Japs only 2 atomic bombs was kind imo.

I bet Muslim extremists say the same thing about the towers, namely, dropping only 2 towers was kind in their opinion yet i already know how you're going to repsond based your responses this far
 
Last edited:
No. Its what had to happen. It was kind on our part.

The invasion of Japan would have been a meat grinder.
 
So it was bc of our compassion for the Japanese ppl we unleashed hell on earth in the form of 2atomic bombs on 2 of their most populated cities and killed maybe a quarter million or more of their people while making that land almost inhospitable? Yes I'll buy it :rolleyes:
 
No. Its what had to happen. It was kind on our part.

The invasion of Japan would have been a meat grinder.

I'm not disagreeing with Truman's decision but you have to take into account that a traditional invasion would have killed mostly armed combatants. But the atomic bombs killed mostly unarmed civilians. Traditional warfare without the use of atomic bombs would have been the most ethical decision since it would have involved mostly combatant casualties (not necessarily the most strategically efficient decision though), but could we have sustained the casualties and losses and still been able to defeat the Axis powers.
 
Back
Top