Iran has enough uranium for bomb; UN (1 Viewer)

[Empyrean444]

No because Israeli's are moderate, peacefull, tolerant, restrained people whilst Iranians are extreme, hostile, hatefull, physcho nutjobs. It's like saying isn't it just as safe to give a gun to a policeman as it is a inmate of the asylum.

Lol - though please tell me you are being sarcastic.

 

[Lentern]

Lol - though please tell me you are being sarcastic.

Ofcourse I am.

 

[tempco]

Can't believe people are still bringing up Ahmadinejad wanting to wipe Israel off the map. It's just too easy. Lap it all up.

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Israel - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I'm all for Iran developing their own nuclear program. If the US and Israel don't like it they can turn to their default and start another war.

 

[JonathanM]

Can't believe people are still bringing up Ahmadinejad wanting to wipe Israel off the map. It's just too easy. Lap it all up.

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Israel - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I've read all these 'myth' sites about the 'literal translation' of what Ahmadinejad actually said. They're all a load of twat for several reasons, the foremost which I will point out now.

1. Of course that's what he meant. Ahmadinejad's rhetoric is anything but restrained, he would never say "he hoped its regime, i.e., a Jewish-Zionist state occupying Jerusalem, would collapse" as your provided link quotes him as saying.

2. The 'myth' sites all source their quotes from only one of the times he said he would wipe Israel off the map (at an Anti-Zionist youth conference). He has repeated the threat on many other occasions, using other key words to express it.

3. Over analysis of language will always find something different. I remember once having a class looking at the "science of English." We analysed a sentence in an article from The Age and came up with pages of contentions that the author was asserting with that one sentence. Of course the author didn't actually think all the things we applied due to her use of the language.

I'm all for Iran developing their own nuclear program. If the US and Israel don't like it they can turn to their default and start another war.

Or do you mean you want Iran to develop their own nuclear program so that the US and Israel can return to their 'default' and start another war, so you can talk about how they were completely "unprovoked" when they do finally attack?

 

[JonathanM]

No, for a couple of reasons:

• Denying the Holocaust is a moral issue, not an intellectual issue. IF we are going to go moralising, then that's all the more reason for Iran to have the bomb (ie for the sake of destroying hypocrisy). I agree that this is disgusting, but it is not an issue in whether we give him the bomb.

I don't see how it is not an intellectual issue. The facts and the evidence is there. The documents pointing to the existence of the Holocaust are limitless. You have to be an absolute moron to deny that it happened.

• "This man will abuse any power he has". He has said a lot of stuff; this doesn't at all lend itself to the conclusion that he will necessarily act on it. Once again, accusing him of arrogance is just another form of hypocrisy - the Americans are the most arrogant people on earth.
• You equate supplying the enemies of America with explosives/munitions/arms in general to a willingness to give them a "dirty bomb" or so other form of nuclear explosive. The two are not connected, because the gravitas and implications of supplying/facilitating the use of/actually using a nuke are far more severe than that of which you speak. They are thus different cases, and the man is not going to want the destruction of Iran, and is not that mad.

Americans are arrogant, or at least the last administration might have been. I'm not arguing about that, the proof is in the pudding there. What I'm arguing is that if Ahmadinejad can do one thing, the next step up the ladder isn't that far away.

A nuclear strike is much more severe than what they're doing now, true, but what they're doing now is by no means not severe. Supplying forces with bullets to shoot at American soldiers could equate to an act of war.

Once again, words mean nothing - what isn't being said is generally far more significant than what is being said.

What is not being said?

 

[Empyrean444]

I've read all these 'myth' sites about the 'literal translation' of what Ahmadinejad actually said. They're all a load of twat for several reasons, the foremost which I will point out now.

1. Of course that's what he meant. Ahmadinejad's rhetoric is anything but restrained, he would never say "he hoped its regime, i.e., a Jewish-Zionist state occupying Jerusalem, would collapse" as your provided link quotes him as saying.

No, a mistranslation is a mistranslation. "Must vanish from the page of time" could mean many things and sounds very much like a figurative phrase, and certainly does not mean that Israel "must be obliterated now" or "we plan to obliterate Israel". These are interpretations as much shaped by an original hostile view towards Iran as they are by legitimacy in fact. The phrase is much less severe, aggressive and immediate then "wipe them off the face of the earth." And as you said, it is rhetoric, which all but adds to the likelihood that he was speaking figuratively or, at worst, hyperbolically. A lot of decent evidence was given in that article, and rather than proving it wrong you've simply dismissed it by saying (unsubstantiated) "of course that's what he meant".

2. The 'myth' sites all source their quotes from only one of the times he said he would wipe Israel off the map (at an Anti-Zionist youth conference). He has repeated the threat on many other occasions, using other key words to express it.

Such as...

3. Over analysis of language will always find something different. I remember once having a class looking at the "science of English." We analysed a sentence in an article from The Age and came up with pages of contentions that the author was asserting with that one sentence. Of course the author didn't actually think all the things we applied due to her use of the language.



Or do you mean you want Iran to develop their own nuclear program so that the US and Israel can return to their 'default' and start another war, so you can talk about how they were completely "unprovoked" when they do finally attack?

But that can work either way, and can be used to say that people who say he is saying "wipe out Israel" are simply reading too deep and putting words in his mouth. Inconclusive either way.

 

[moll.]

You're pro nuclear proliferation? That is unconscionable.

Australia should get nukes, too, right?

What would be so wrong if we did? We have more accountability and a more moderate pacifist society than Iran, China, Russia, Pakistan, India and Israel. At the very least we should have a nuclear power program.

 

[JonathanM]

At the very least we should have a nuclear power program.

Absolutely. We'd be well on the way by now if Howard had been voted in again.

That's another matter altogether though.

 

[moll.]

Absolutely. We'd be well on the way by now if Howard had been voted in again.

That's another matter altogether though.

What I don't get is why Greenpeace and the Greens (not entirely sure about that one) are opposed to nuclear power. Fags. It's like the only realistic alternative to fossil fuels.

 

[Lentern]

What I don't get is why Greenpeace and the Greens (not entirely sure about that one) are opposed to nuclear power. Fags. It's like the only realistic alternative to fossil fuels.

I make no secret of the fact that science is not my strongest suit. However what countless sceptics have said who seem to understand science is we're yet to figure out what to do with the waste and on the rare occasion I've seen someone grilled over that they've kind of fumbled their way through without providing a real explanation. So tell me what becomes of the waste?

 

[JonathanM]

What I don't get is why Greenpeace and the Greens (not entirely sure about that one) are opposed to nuclear power. Fags. It's like the only realistic alternative to fossil fuels.

They all go on about "nuclear waste." I once got a Greens pamphlet and the cover was a city glowing green. It's just ignorance, they don't have a clue what they're talking about.

We'll turn to nuclear power eventually, don't you worry. We're going to have to wait till petrol prices go up and the greenies start noticing their lighter purses before that happens though.

 

[JonathanM]

I make no secret of the fact that science is not my strongest suit. However what countless sceptics have said who seem to understand science is we're yet to figure out what to do with the waste and on the rare occasion I've seen someone grilled over that they've kind of fumbled their way through without providing a real explanation. So tell me what becomes of the waste?

It is a very real problem. But it can be dealt with. As a temporary solution we store it in designated waste-areas. There are plenty of things we could possibly do, how about shooting it into space? (joke-ish).

I have an even tougher question than yours - what are we going to do when we run out of oil?

I have the answer - nuclear power.

 

[JonathanM]

We'll probably turn to hot rock power at some point (It's like superpowered geothermal using particularly thin areas of the earth's crust to draw energy from the ridiculous amount of heat the earth puts out as it cools). That stuff is RIDICULOUSLY energy wealthy and fairly easy to harness, too.

Sounds cool, but I've never heard about it. Is there serious research and investment being put into it?

Australia also has some of the largest natural gas reserves in the world which aren't being harvested yet. Be nice if more people swallowed their dignity and swapped to LPG

 

[moll.]

Sounds cool, but I've never heard about it. Is there serious research and investment being put into it?

Australia also has some of the largest natural gas reserves in the world which aren't being harvested yet. Be nice if more people swallowed their dignity and swapped to LPG

It's other name is geothermal energy. Iceland and New Zealand use a primitive version of it a lot, but mostly because of all the volcanic activity on those islands.

 

[moll.]

I make no secret of the fact that science is not my strongest suit. However what countless sceptics have said who seem to understand science is we're yet to figure out what to do with the waste and on the rare occasion I've seen someone grilled over that they've kind of fumbled their way through without providing a real explanation. So tell me what becomes of the waste?

Bury that shit in the desert somewhere (and we have a lot of desert to choose from in this country) and leave it until we have the technology to destory it. Or save it up and shoot it all into Venus. Take that E.T!

 

[SylviaB]

So yeah everyone's cool with the fact that Iran shouldn't have nuclear capabilities? Nuclear proliferation is an evil. More bombs = bad and therefore we shouldn't tolerate any proliferation particularly those of unstable countries that aren't that big on western values?

Sweet.

Thread over.

This.

 

[tycho]

I agree they shouldn't have nuclear weapons. Nor should anyone.

I don't agree that the United States had the right to appoint itself sheriff of the world, forcing others to disarm while possessing the world's largest stockpile.

But if they didn't have nukes, then any shit-hole country could build some and blow up whatever they wanted...right? Maybe the US having the nukes is the lesser of two evils?

 

[JonathanM]

I agree they shouldn't have nuclear weapons. Nor should anyone.

I don't agree that the United States had the right to appoint itself sheriff of the world, forcing others to disarm while possessing the world's largest stockpile.

We all appointed it sherriff of the world when we went crawling to it for help in WW2 and other instances.

But yeah, Iran + Nukes = Bad

Thread over.

New thread about how fail Rudd Government is for not adopting nuclear power + how much the Greens fail =D

 

[moll.]

But if they didn't have nukes, then any shit-hole country could build some and blow up whatever they wanted...right? Maybe the US having the nukes is the lesser of two evils?

Doesn't mean it has to be them with it. Give them to the U.N. Or the European Union. Those European socialists would be far more steady over the apocalypse button than the religious zealots in l'Amerique.

 

[SylviaB]

Doesn't mean it has to be them with it. Give them to the U.N. Or the European Union. Those European socialists would be far more steady over the apocalypse button than the religious zealots in l'Amerique.

yeah, well, that's not going to happen.
Iran having nukes is infinitely less bad than the US having nukes.