- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Coaching Changes
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Why are some countries allowed to have nukes, but Iran can’t?
Posted on 6/21/25 at 9:46 pm to CatsGoneWild
Posted on 6/21/25 at 9:46 pm to CatsGoneWild
Because they would give them to terrorist and use them.
They are a death cult, you can't let a death cult have nukes
They are a death cult, you can't let a death cult have nukes
0
Posted on 6/21/25 at 9:50 pm to Darth_Vader
quote:
If youre seriously asking why Iran can’t have nukes, then you’re beyond an idiot.
Youre trusting information from the deep state. I guess when its convenient, they work in your favor, eh?
Its impossible to believe all the bullshite the government fed us about Iran over the years
Posted on 6/21/25 at 9:51 pm to CatsGoneWild
Because soft weak Presidents allow them to.
Posted on 6/21/25 at 9:55 pm to CatsGoneWild
Because we said so it’s really that simple. That’s how the world works, go cry somewhere if you can’t handle it. To quote the show Peaky Blinders “Big fricks small” so just be glad to be on the side of the Big
This post was edited on 6/21/25 at 9:57 pm
Posted on 6/21/25 at 9:57 pm to RogerTheShrubber
Iran has been fighting us for over 45 years. Now they want a nuke.
The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) is the one that reported that Iran had accumulated a stockpile of uranium enriched to 60%. They are alos the ones that confirmed that Iran had 3000 centrifuges going ifn Fordow.
The International Atomic Energy Agency is made up of Algeria, Argentina, Armenia, Australia, Bangladesh, Belgium, Brazil, Burkina Faso, Canada, China, Colombia, Ecuador, Egypt, France, Georgia, Germany, Ghana, India, Indonesia, Italy, Japan, the Republic of Korea, Luxembourg, Morocco, the Kingdom of the Netherlands, Pakistan, Paraguay, the Russian Federation, South Africa, Spain, Thailand, Ukraine, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, the United States of America and the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela.
This isnt the deep state misleading the US.
The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) is the one that reported that Iran had accumulated a stockpile of uranium enriched to 60%. They are alos the ones that confirmed that Iran had 3000 centrifuges going ifn Fordow.
The International Atomic Energy Agency is made up of Algeria, Argentina, Armenia, Australia, Bangladesh, Belgium, Brazil, Burkina Faso, Canada, China, Colombia, Ecuador, Egypt, France, Georgia, Germany, Ghana, India, Indonesia, Italy, Japan, the Republic of Korea, Luxembourg, Morocco, the Kingdom of the Netherlands, Pakistan, Paraguay, the Russian Federation, South Africa, Spain, Thailand, Ukraine, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, the United States of America and the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela.
This isnt the deep state misleading the US.
Posted on 6/21/25 at 9:57 pm to RogerTheShrubber
shocking seeing you and the OP on the same page...LMFAO...JK...both nut jobs, anti-god, losers
Posted on 6/22/25 at 10:39 am to Bard
quote:
Your attempt at rationalization comes across like saying someone who pushes an old woman down as he steals her purse is the exact same as someone who pushes an old woman down to get her out of the way of a speeding bus because both men pushed down an old woman.
I know you think your response sounds smart, but it just comes across as childishly and purposefully oversimplified for nothing more than the sake of making some weak political argument. If you have to stretch that much, your argument has already failed.
None of your bullshite actually addresses Israel's use of nuclear weapons. You say they've had them for a while, and haven;'t used them. So what? What's your point? Are you trying to imply that since they have had them and hadn't used them, they can be relied on to not use them in the future? Why not just say what you mean? BTW, my post isn't trying to "rationalize" anything.
My point is that just because Israel hasn't had leadership in the past that felt either threatened enough to use nukes, or that the use of nukes would benefit them in any way does not mean that the current nut job (who must keep killing or he'll be thrown on prison) won't find a rationale to use them. Israel has never been in the position it's in now. Perhaps Netanyahu believes that their use now could secure Israel into the future. You just don't know.
Then you put another nut job like Huckabee in Bibi's ear, and you just don't know what an evangelist is thinking in terms of bringing on the End Times. For some people, we're just not interested in this Armageddon bullshite, and fear that it may just be self-fulfilling.
So take your moralizing bullshite and shove it up your arse.
Posted on 6/22/25 at 10:46 am to CatsGoneWild
Iran is one of the 4 Intl sanctioned countries, like North Korea, Syria & Cuba. They cant have nukes simple as that!
Posted on 6/22/25 at 10:48 am to CatsGoneWild
I think there’s a couple of reasons.
1. They have a history of supporting what we’d call terrorism.
2. They are a theocracy, and like most Christians and Jews believe God guides them and things that happen are ultimately sanctioned and controlled by God. So in other words if they start a nuclear war and everyone dies, then it’s ok because that’s what God wanted. All the other nuclear powers are secular (maybe even atheistic) and realize that we need to make everything we can out of this life and this planet.
3. We are presently tactically superior to Iran and there’s very little risk associated with blowing their stuff up.
If they all of a sudden did a nuclear test and showed the world they have a half dozen more and are crazy enough to use them, then attacking them would be pretty much off the table.
Just my opinion.
1. They have a history of supporting what we’d call terrorism.
2. They are a theocracy, and like most Christians and Jews believe God guides them and things that happen are ultimately sanctioned and controlled by God. So in other words if they start a nuclear war and everyone dies, then it’s ok because that’s what God wanted. All the other nuclear powers are secular (maybe even atheistic) and realize that we need to make everything we can out of this life and this planet.
3. We are presently tactically superior to Iran and there’s very little risk associated with blowing their stuff up.
If they all of a sudden did a nuclear test and showed the world they have a half dozen more and are crazy enough to use them, then attacking them would be pretty much off the table.
Just my opinion.
Posted on 6/22/25 at 11:41 am to Harry Boutte
quote:
None of your bullshite actually addresses Israel's use of nuclear weapons.
It does, you're just too emotionally invested in #JewsDidThis to allow yourself to see it. Your lack of objectivity is a you problem, not a me one.
It addresses it because Israel has had numerous opportunities to use their nukes over the decades and they haven't. Hell, they have never even officially admitted they have them beyond possible mis-speaks, like then-PM Olmert listing Israel alongside nuclear powers like “America, France, Israel, Russia” in an interview with some German news agency in 2006.
quote:
You say they've had them for a while, and haven;'t used them. So what? What's your point? Are you trying to imply that since they have had them and hadn't used them, they can be relied on to not use them in the future? Why not just say what you mean?
I did, you just either aren't willing or are incapable of making the inherent logical conclusion that proven restraint under near-constant duress shows at least a level of understanding their responsibility that is far more likely to beget continued restraint rather than doing a complete 180 and Leroy Jenkins'ing their nukes across the Middle East.
quote:
My point is that just because Israel hasn't had leadership in the past that felt either threatened enough to use nukes, or that the use of nukes would benefit them in any way does not mean that the current nut job (who must keep killing or he'll be thrown on prison) won't find a rationale to use them.
So said the Democrats about Reagan. And Bush. And Bush 2. And Trump. And the Republicans said about Clinton. And Obama. And Biden. And both parties (at various times) have said about the Soviet Union. And then Russia. And North Korea. And Pakistan. And China. It's meaningless person-I-don't-like-is-monster generalizations which work only in the mind of fear-mongers and have very little value in objective discourse.
The context is Iran has sponsored the majority of terrorism against Israel (some of it with money we've given them, but that's a different topic). Part of Iran's religious-zealot leadership's mission has been that Israel "must vanish from the page of time" (read: must be completely wiped out of existence) since Ali Khamenei's rise to Ayatollah in 1989.
Iran hasn't been in a declared war against Israel, because their leadership has secretly understood they would get their shite pushed in like they are now, but they have been funding an aggressive war-by-proxy against them for decades. In that context, it's far more likely that Iran would have continued their established behavior pattern and thus eventually escalated to using a nuke against Israel (likely through a proxy) than it is to believe Israel would go completely contrary to their long-established behavior pattern, especially after they have already had (arguable) opportunities to do so.
quote:
So take your moralizing bullshite and shove it up your arse.
Have a more rational argument and my responses won't sting so badly.
Posted on 6/22/25 at 11:42 am to Bard
Stopped right here:
I'm sorry you're more interested in discussing me instead of the topic at hand.
Good luck to you.
quote:
It does, you're just too emotionally invested in #JewsDidThis
I'm sorry you're more interested in discussing me instead of the topic at hand.
Good luck to you.
Posted on 6/22/25 at 11:50 am to Harry Boutte
quote:
I'm sorry you're more interested in discussing me instead of the topic at hand.
He said as a way to avoid the rebuttal.
Page 6 of 6
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News