Termyn8or
Posts: 18681
Joined: 11/12/2005
Status: offline
|
"The first question should be what are the consequences of a nuclear Iran ? "
"Consequence 1: "A nuclear Iran would be emboldened in its efforts to destabilize the Middle East and export its revolutionary ideology."
Export it's revolutionary ideology ? Just what's wrong with that ? The puppett leaders of some countries embrace our ideology for a fee. It's also out of fear but they ain't talking yet. The people are not happy in many of these countries. If they were, the exportation a revolutionary ideology would be of no import now would it ? It's a matterof maintaining control, pure and simple. It's clear whose side you are on, and it used to be for me as well. But now I have seen too much about "our" side and I don't tow the line with the flagwavers anymore. Too much bullshit.
"As more nations develop their own nuclear deterrent, our ability to control nuclear stockpiles and prevent the spread of nuclear materials to dangerous actors could collapse"
And this is bad becasue...........
Seriously, wittingly or not you support world dominatrion by force. that is exactly how that is done, make sure you ALWAYS have the superior weapons so that what you say goes. The UN for one, defines peace as "the absence of opposition". That has a broad spectrum literally, and they do take it that way.
"Consequence 3: "A nuclear Iran would itself pose an unprecedented proliferation risk."
The sky is falling NOW eh ? In case you hadn't noticed, China and especially Russia are not quite following our rules for their behavior in this market. You bitch that Iran might be able to start selling nicer weapons to damnnear anyone, while they are already buying them somewhere. You know why we don't threaten war with Russia for all they've done to supply our "emenies" ? Because they would kick our fucking ass. Russia is the biggest source of this percieved problem, but they are too big to bully.
And as we continue to bully other countries, whether it's on the news or not, tis impels them to ally themselves with those who are not our allies. THIS CONSOLIDATES THEIR POWER. Against us I might add.
"While few Iranian officials are millenarian radicals, the existence of even one is too many"
So genocide is no good but this is ideologically based so the silencing of ALL of them is OK. Typical western double standard. In fact even genocide is OK when it suits us.
It's not really a big problem that people think this way. See, if that was a problem the world would've never gotten this far. The problem is that people are not seeing that this whole deal we got in playing politics is simply not sustainable. Period. The game is about to change drastically, and I think a significant power shift will occur.
Let's just take a fact that we don't really have to argue about. Russia has a GDP. they have nukes, they are cozy with Iran. There are dissident groups all over the world.
What is going to happen ? Eventually things blow up.
T^T
< Message edited by Termyn8or -- 11/14/2011 1:02:06 PM >
|
RE: Romney and Gingrich would go to war in Iran - 
Profile
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread