Coffeehouse Thread

276 posts

Its official: Iran is a nuclear country

Back to Forum: Coffeehouse
  • Shark_M
  • JohnAskew

    I get a sense of how you feel about it by looking into your eyes.
    [A]

  • ddewbofh

    The scary part is that even though they aren't anywhere near producing usable quantities yet, it's just a matter of time before the retard guy running the US pushes the big red button.

  • Detroit Muscle

    ddewbofh wrote:
    The scary part is that even though they aren't anywhere near producing usable quantities yet, it's just a matter of time before the retard guy running the US pushes the big red button.

    It's only a mater of time until the Iranians have a big red button.

  • ddewbofh

    I'm all for equality, if the US can have nukes then why shouldn't Iran? Nukes are bad, no matter who's got 'em.

    Edit: It should also be mentioned that they don't produce weapons-grade uranium and the official statement is that it's for power plant usage. Until it's proven otherwise I don't think anyone should start drawing any conclusions.

  • UlsterFry

    Well, you never know..  the Iranians will maybe get all the nukes they want, if you know what I mean :O

  • Harlequin

    It's only for power plants. I have no problems with them having nuclear power plants. Done safely, it's a very reliable power source, but they should be supervised. Any uranium starts to go missing and *bam*, tactical nuke time....

  • ScanIAm

    I expect pacelvi will be here in moments to point out how unamerican I am, but:

    Iran is a sovereign country, they get to do what they want as long as they aren't aggressive outside their borders.

  • W3bbo

    ScanIAm wrote:
    Iran is a sovereign country, they get to do what they want as long as they aren't aggressive outside their borders.


    That's the problem, we have good reason to believe they will be proactivly aggressive against a certain nation with a blue and white flag.

    "Pre-emptive" strike is the word.

    ...not that I agree it's the best course of action anyway, but it is a valid argument.

  • JohnAskew

    I still am wondering what the truth is behind the position that Iran could start pumping oil without OPEC and,through the parallel competitive market, undermine the US currency and bankrupt all their enemies.

    ?

  • Tensor

    Only one country in the world has pre-emptively used nuclear weapons. After that we went a long time with everyone thinking armageddon was just a matter of time. As ever, now is the time for cool heads.

  • SlackmasterK

    Tensor wrote:
    Only one country in the world has pre-emptively used nuclear weapons. After that we went a long time with everyone thinking armageddon was just a matter of time. As ever, now is the time for cool heads.


    Problem with us here in the US is all about attitude.  Our attitude seems to be "We got the bombs, b!tch".  Additionally, over the past few years, we haven't realy been all that big on having cool heads.

  • Cairo

    Tensor wrote:
    Only one country in the world has pre-emptively used nuclear weapons.


    Which one?

  • billh

    W3bbo wrote:
    That's the problem, we have good reason to believe they will be proactivly aggressive against a certain nation with a blue and white flag.
    Remember, this is also the same country whose leader thinks he is on an "end times mission":

    It's Off to the End Times We Go!
    Another article
    Yet another one

    Plus, he wants to wipe Israel "off the map". Granted, some of his rhetoric is to build support at home, and it's part bluster...but which part?

  • Escamillo

    Tensor wrote:
    Only one country in the world has pre-emptively used nuclear weapons. After that we went a long time with everyone thinking armageddon was just a matter of time. As ever, now is the time for cool heads.


    What do you mean "pre-emptively"?  I wouldn't say that any country has used them "pre-emptively".  I also think the use of the atom bomb to end WWII likely prevented WWIII.  The atom bomb was going to be invented eventually (if not during WWII, then by 1960 at the latest), but since the bomb was used to end WWII, it was seen how destructive the relatively small atom bombs were, which caused leaders to think twice about using the atom bomb's much more destructive descendents (ICBMS, hydrogen bombs, nuetron bombs, etc) in a later years' WWIII.

    As for "now being the time for cool heads", Bush does not fall into that category.  Neither does the head of Iran (questioning the Holocaust, and whatnot).

  • ScanIAm

    billh wrote:
    W3bbo wrote: That's the problem, we have good reason to believe they will be proactivly aggressive against a certain nation with a blue and white flag.
    Remember, this is also the same country whose leader thinks he is on an "end times mission":

    It's Off to the End Times We Go!
    Another article
    Yet another one

    Plus, he wants to wipe Israel "off the map". Granted, some of his rhetoric is to build support at home, and it's part bluster...but which part?


    Oh, crap, I thought you were being sarcastic about bush...my bad.  You almost had me until the 'wipe israel off the planet' part.

  • rjdohnert

    Me:  Joyfully jumping up and down

  • Detroit Muscle

    As someone who is still a draftable age, I say nuke 'em.

Comments closed

Comments have been closed since this content was published more than 30 days ago, but if you'd like to continue the conversation, please create a new thread in our Forums, or Contact Us and let us know.