Ahmedinejad Threatens U.S. With War 'Without Boundaries"

[iTs JUST zo 29]

Sorry Iran, but like the old saying goes..."better safe than sorry"

 

The world doesnt trust you with weapons that can literally take out countries, and rightfully so..

 

So ya, its totally justified...we're gonna blow that crap up whether it exists or not.

 

Could you imagine if we took the chance and these things DID exist and they DID use it, do you know how much lives would be lost?

 

Dont take the chance. Destroy it...NOW, are very soon or we will suffer the consequence of Ahmedinejad, the ultimate terrorist.

[Secretly Space Jesus 670]

Sorry Iran, but like the old saying goes..."better safe than sorry"

 

The world doesnt trust you with weapons that can literally take out countries, and rightfully so..

 

So ya, its totally justified...we're gonna blow that crap up whether it exists or not.

 

Could you imagine if we took the chance and these things DID exist and they DID use it, do you know how much lives would be lost?

 

Dont take the chance. Destroy it...NOW, are very soon or we will suffer the consequence of Ahmedinejad, the ultimate terrorist.

 

 

Ok, remember earlier when I was talking about how the US has historically taken short-sighted approaches to Middle Eastern policy?

 

I meant things like the above. I hope we have a more intelligent, thought-out response than the above.

[iTs JUST zo 29]

Ok, remember earlier when I was talking about how the US has historically taken short-sighted approaches to Middle Eastern policy?

 

I meant things like the above. I hope we have a more intelligent, thought-out response than the above.

 

 

THATS BECAUSE NOBODY HAD WEAPONS THAT COULD WIPE OUT NATIONS BEFORE DIPSTICK. IF THESE WEAPONS DO EXIST, YOU WOULD SIT AROUND AND "SEE WHAT HAPPENS" AND "HOPE FOR THE BEST"...thats a recipe for disaster.

 

here is ahmedinejads latest interview..

 

"Speaking on the UN summit sidelines, Iran's leader says the biggest trouble facing the world is domination by the United States. In an exclusive interview with RT, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad explains how he wants to change the existing world order."

 

Ya give a guy a weapon that could destroy a country he hates, good idea. Thank god our nation is filled with leaders with balls. Even if you dont know "hedos"..they know that they cant take a chance. You would just sit around and wait for the nuke to come our way, then mope around and say sorry I made a big mistake afterwards when your whole family and all your friends are dead.

[Secretly Space Jesus 670]

THATS BECAUSE NOBODY HAD WEAPONS THAT COULD WIPE OUT NATIONS BEFORE DIPSTICK. IF THESE WEAPONS DO EXIST, YOU WOULD SIT AROUND AND "SEE WHAT HAPPENS" AND "HOPE FOR THE BEST"...thats a recipe for disaster.

 

here is ahmedinejads latest interview..

 

"Speaking on the UN summit sidelines, Iran's leader says the biggest trouble facing the world is domination by the United States. In an exclusive interview with RT, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad explains how he wants to change the existing world order."

 

Ya give a guy a weapon that could destroy a country he hates, good idea. Thank god our nation is filled with leaders with balls. Even if you dont know "hedos"..they know that they cant take a chance. You would just sit around and wait for the nuke to come our way, then mope around and say sorry I made a big mistake afterwards when your whole family and all your friends are dead.

 

 

You do realize that Iran has no missles capable of getting within 1000 miles of US soil, right? And that Syria is also allegedly working on their own nuclear program? And that North Korea already HAS nuclear weapons?

 

You didn't realize any of that, did you?

[iTs JUST zo 29]

anyway back to the magic..

 

whatever happens happens..

 

either we sit around and "possibly' get nuked

 

or do something about it and eliminate even the possibility...

 

its ulimately not my decision, so I hope whatever happens was the right choice...

 

I heard Dwight worked with Hakeem this offseason! true?

[iTs JUST zo 29]

You do realize that Iran has no missles capable of getting within 1000 miles of US soil, right? And that Syria is also allegedly working on their own nuclear program? And that North Korea already HAS nuclear weapons?

 

You didn't realize any of that, did you?

 

 

Supposively. They dont have missles capable of getting within 1000 miles of US soil...BUT, they will eventually. And 1000 miles isnt that far, so it will be sooner than later. And North Korea is really secretive about their "plans"...but difference is, Ahmedinejad comes out in public and says he hates the US and the US is what stands in the way of a "better world"

 

ultimately the choice is not ours but our leaders so our opinions are squat. So i'd rather get ready for the upcoming basketball season and just hope for the best with that whole iran situation. Thinking about things like this just creates more stress because there is literally nothing us regular people can do. So im sorry hedos if I came across as an A-hole for your opinion which is every bit as entitled as mine.

[Secretly Space Jesus 670]

whatever happens happens..

 

either we sit around and "possibly' get nuked

 

or do something about it and eliminate even the possibility...

 

 

So am I correct in assuming, since we should eliminate the possibility of being nuked, that you believe we should preemptively strike at nuclear facilities in Russia, Israel, Pakistan, India, China, the UK, France, and North Korea?

[Secretly Space Jesus 670]

Side question: One of the arguments I've heard against a nuclear Iran is that a nuclear power "changes the game" in the region.

 

Why then does no one object to Israel having nuclear weapons?

[Fultz4thewin 2,464]

I'm sure this will ignite a s***storm in which I have no intention of getting involved, but is possession of a nuclear weapon justification for war against only a certain few countries, or does that apply equally to all countries? Why or why not?

 

Its difficult to say. I'm cool with certain countries having a nuclear weapon. As far as middle eastern countries go, I wouldn't freak out if Turkey or maybe Saudi Arabia (I'm on the fence with SA, haven't given it too much thought).

 

The problem with Iran (or Syria) is they'd be the type of people to "accidentally" allow a nuke to be stolen by a radical group that happens to decide to use it on Israel. Thats the same reason why Kazakhstan doesn't get any

 

Side question: One of the arguments I've heard against a nuclear Iran is that a nuclear power "changes the game" in the region.

 

Why then does no one object to Israel having nuclear weapons?

 

Because Israel is our friend. And Israel doesn't have any nukes ;) ;)

 

So am I correct in assuming, since we should eliminate the possibility of being nuked, that you believe we should preemptively strike at nuclear facilities in Russia, Israel, Pakistan, India, China, the UK, France, and North Korea?

 

We cant do crap with Russia because of their crazy amount of nukes. Russia, Israel, China, the UK, and France are stable countries that are capable of securing their nukes. I'm not cool with Pakistan or India having nukes but they are capable of balancing each other out. North Korea, it's doubtful that they even have a nuke. They say that they do, but they say a lot of things.

 

Supposively. They dont have missles capable of getting within 1000 miles of US soil...BUT, they will eventually. And 1000 miles isnt that far, so it will be sooner than later. And North Korea is really secretive about their "plans"...but difference is, Ahmedinejad comes out in public and says he hates the US and the US is what stands in the way of a "better world"

 

ultimately the choice is not ours but our leaders so our opinions are squat. So i'd rather get ready for the upcoming basketball season and just hope for the best with that whole iran situation. Thinking about things like this just creates more stress because there is literally nothing us regular people can do. So im sorry hedos if I came across as an A-hole for your opinion which is every bit as entitled as mine.

 

North Korea doesn't have missiles capable of hitting Japan. I'm not worried about North Korea.

[Fultz4thewin 2,464]

and it's just zo, no fledgling nuclear power is capable of hitting mainland United States at all. The issue with Iran isn't "they're a threat to America" its "they're a threat to Israel (possibly kuwait, Iraq, and Afghanistan if they feel like attacking a U.S. military base which is unlikely. You basically have one shot at something like this, take out your highest value target that you're capable of attacking.)"

 

EDIT: SUPER MOD QUINTUPLE POST!

 

EDIT 2: Decided to merge them

[TheREALBrooksThompson 157]

Its difficult to say. I'm cool with certain countries having a nuclear weapon. As far as middle eastern countries go, I wouldn't freak out if Turkey or maybe Saudi Arabia (I'm on the fence with SA, haven't given it too much thought).

 

The problem with Iran (or Syria) is they'd be the type of people to "accidentally" allow a nuke to be stolen by a radical group that happens to decide to use it on Israel. Thats the same reason why Kazakhstan doesn't get any

 

So what is it that decides which countries are responsible enough to have them? And who should be making that decision?

[Fultz4thewin 2,464]

So what is it that decides which countries are responsible enough to have them? And who should be making that decision?

 

The IAEA decides who gets to have Nukes. Currently, Afghanistan, Argentina, Australia, Azerbaijan, Brazil, Burkina Faso, Cameroon, Canada, China, Cuba, Denmark, Egypt, France, Germany, India, Japan, Kenya, South Korea, Malaysia, Mongolia, Netherlands, New Zealand, Pakistan, Peru, Romania, Russian Federation, South Africa, Spain, Switzerland, Turkey, Ukraine, United Kingdom, United States, Uruguay, and Venezuela are assigned as board members with Japan presiding.

 

EDIT: additionally, Iran has signed and accepted the non-proliferation treaty. Under those guidelines, the only member states allowed to have a nuclear stockpile is UK, France, US, China, and Russia due to their status as permanent members of the UN security council.

 

The question has never been would we attack Iran if they develop nuclear materials, it's would we support Israel in a war based on Iran getting nuclear materials.

 

As Israel is an ally and Iran is not, one would have to believe that we would go up to bat for Israel.