Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 12/28/06 07:52 PM, Neoptolemus wrote: Also, i find the NNPT a bit idiotic. Iran isn't allowed nuclear weaponry but Israel, Pakistan, India and Germany are? (Germany is in control of over a hundred nuclear weapons due to the NATO weapon sharing by America which is in breach of the NPT)

You know what the differences between those countries you just listed and Iran is? This, and this.

You can sit there and opine all day long about how Iran is just developing weapon's grade plutonium so they can have nuclear power in their country, but face facts; the guy wants a bomb, and he will get it one or another. It's just a matter of time.

At 12/28/06 12:49 PM, Dalaran2007 wrote: I think its more like Bush wants Iranian oil, and may be hoping there are less guerrillas than in Iraq.

There weren't any guerrillas in Iraq to begin with. Most of the insurgents hail frm Syria, Saudi Arabia and Iran.

At 12/28/06 08:58 PM, BanditByte wrote:

At 12/28/06 12:49 PM, Dalaran2007 wrote: I think its more like Bush wants Iranian oil, and may be hoping there are less guerrillas than in Iraq.

There weren't any guerrillas in Iraq to begin with. Most of the insurgents hail frm Syria, Saudi Arabia and Iran.

Really? According to a BBC reportForeign nationals are widely considered to account for less than 10% of the insurgency

Just in case you don't trust the BBC, here is the Washington Post reporting:
the foreign component of Iraq's two-year-old insurgency, estimated at between 4 and 10 percent of all guerrillas

I'm just curious where you got your information, I would like to read it if at all possible.

At 12/28/06 08:52 PM, Proteas wrote: You can sit there and opine all day long about how Iran is just developing weapon's grade plutonium so they can have nuclear power in their country, but face facts; the guy wants a bomb, and he will get it one or another.

Did they switch the meaning of the words 'fact' and 'speculation' recently? You should face facts that there is no evidence whatsoever so suggest Iran is devoloping nuclear weaponry or has a desire to.. In fact wouldn't it have been much easier if after the 1979 revolution they didn't destroy the nuclear weapons they already had?
What i advise you to do is not blindly follow what the media is/has told you about Iran and do your own research into the subject of Iran's "nuclear weapons".

It's just a matter of time.

Yes, it's just a matter of time before the USA, Britain and Israel launch a strike against Iran under the presumption of nuclear weapons development, that's one of the reasons that both China and Russia backed (unwillingly) the sanctions against Iran.

At 12/29/06 09:34 AM, bcdemon wrote: Really? According to a BBC reportForeign nationals are widely considered to account for less than 10% of the insurgency

The BBC is about as reliable asFOX.

owned.

At 12/26/06 09:38 AM, bcdemon wrote:

At 12/24/06 09:40 AM, LazyDrunk wrote:

At 12/24/06 09:38 AM, bcdemon wrote:

At 12/24/06 07:51 AM, LazyDrunk wrote:

Not at all. But your countries vetoing of anything against Israel, and ignoring the UN and turning Iraq into a war zone surely can't help the image or the power of the UN.

Because the UN does absolutely shit but talk. Worse at that, they seemed to be blind to whats happening in the world.

Especially when you put a nation like China on the Human Rights Watch.

At 12/29/06 04:12 PM, BanditByte wrote:

At 12/29/06 09:34 AM, bcdemon wrote: Really? According to a BBC reportForeign nationals are widely considered to account for less than 10% of the insurgency

The BBC is about as reliable asFOX.

You're pathetic, if that's your best effort at debate, you suck, lol.
Basically you have nothing to counter the 2 sources I provided, thanks for coming out.

owned.

Yes you were..

You know, if they were called Teddy Bear Village instead of Iran, I think a lot less Americans would be so gung-ho about attacking them.

Everyone knows that the best thing to do when confronting a wild animal is to back it into a corner.

Good job UN.

Retards..

At 12/26/06 09:10 PM, TheMason wrote:

At 12/26/06 07:06 PM, Neoptolemus wrote: The fact of the matte ris Iran hasn't done anything wrong.. The only reason China and Russia didn't veto the resolution is to stop the US andf Israel from attacking Iran (with nukes?)

Iran is a signatory to the Non-Proliferation Treaty, and by developing a nuclear weapons program they are in violation of that treaty. (One of the characteristics of a rogue government.)

The US is NOT going to use nukes in a first strike. That goes against our core military doctrines and values. Truman, the President who ordered the nuke bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki had the option to use the bomb again in Korea. However, he set the precedent that the US should not use them again unless it is absolutely necessary. No one in the American government or military thinks that Iran rises to that level.

The US does have nuclear first strike policy though... "Absolutely necessary" is quite a relative thing. I remember Powell saying it was "absolutely necessary" to invade Iraq to prevent WMDs being launched at US soil. Ultimately it depends on the sanity of the current leader and the validity of the intelligence, not the country.

Korea is just "trying to get attention" and "bluffing" when conducting test with nuclear capable missiles, but when Iran says it wants nuclear power suddenly it does become a problem. Kim-Jong should learn that if you want to get attention you've just got to piss off Israel.

At 12/28/06 01:37 PM, Neoptolemus wrote:

At 12/26/06 05:11 PM, troubles1 wrote: Let me get this straight you actually think that they are not trying to make and or want a nuke?

Do you realise that they are one of our biggest problems in that they are supplying terrorists with arms, They do and will sell anything for money , we need severe sanctions imposed upon them. before it goes any further it is already getting out of control.

That is quite hypocritical. The US wasn't sanctioned when it was supplying terrorists with arms up until the armed wing of the IRA was dissolved.

Iran has said they would destroy Israel with nukes if they had the chance. that country is doing nothing to help the rest of the world get rid of extreme Islam in fact Iran is extreme Islam , so letting them have technology that could destroy the entire race is not a good Idea. in fact only a complete and utter Moran would support Iran in getting nuclear technology, for any reason.

At 12/31/06 12:13 PM, bcdemon wrote: You're pathetic, if that's your best effort at debate, you suck, lol.
Basically you have nothing to counter the 2 sources I provided, thanks for coming out.

So you would take a look at a source if I linked it to FOX news?

Yes you were..

Hm, someone isn't very bright. *cough* bcdemon *cough*

At 1/2/07 05:18 PM, BanditByte wrote:

At 12/31/06 12:13 PM, bcdemon wrote: You're pathetic, if that's your best effort at debate, you suck, lol.
Basically you have nothing to counter the 2 sources I provided, thanks for coming out.

So you would take a look at a source if I linked it to FOX news?

For one, that's not the point, you made a statement about Iraqs foreign insurgent levels, and I corrected you with 2 sources, if you have a source to backup your claim then provide it
And secondly, if it's a FOX news report (as opposed to a journalists opinion), I would be very willing to read it.

At 1/2/07 11:25 PM, bcdemon wrote: For one, that's not the point, you made a statement about Iraqs foreign insurgent levels, and I corrected you with 2 sources, if you have a source to backup your claim then provide it
And secondly, if it's a FOX news report (as opposed to a journalists opinion), I would be very willing to read it.

Hm, fair enough I s'pose.