DiscussWorldIssues - Socio-Economic Religion and Political Uncensored Debate - View Single Post - Leading iranian nuclear scientist dies in bomb attack

**Kimeoffessyr** · 12-01-2010, 06:31 PM

Since you're making it an either/or. It would be better for Iran to be nuclear armed. Pakistan, China and North Korea are nuclear armed, so what?

Ultimately, it is an either/or question. Although the attacker may not be the U.S. alone, it may be Israel alone, or most likely, a joint U.S./Israeli venture.

"So what"? Do you really not see the significance? Are you of the position that "Pakistan, China and North Korea" being "nuclear armed" is a good thing? Especially Pakistan and North Korea?

The alternative is that we end up involved in yet ANOTHER Endless Quagmire War. Really, how many times do you think we can pay for 3x the ADJUSTED cost of WORLD WAR TWO?, not to even mention how many more dead and disabled can we deal with?

No, that is not really the alternative. We could simply bomb Iran back into the stone age without ever setting foot on the ground, if we chose to do so.

Considering that "money" is created from nothing nowadays, I would say that we could finance as many wars as we wish until the rest of the world wakes up and stops accepting dollars. And even then, if we had secured enough foreign oil (i.e. Iraq) prior to that point, we could probably still do so afterward.

In any case, it's a false dichotomy. Iran is not close to getting a bomb and even if it were there are other ways to stop it rather than attacking. Indeed, attacking will probably guarantee they will get a bomb, and sooner than they would have otherwise.

No, it is not a false dichotomy. Iran will not voluntarily stop their quest for a nuclear bomb.

You have no way of knowing how close Iran is to getting a nuclear bomb, but Israeli intelligence does. When they are deemed to have gotten too close, there will be attacks.

What other ways do you propose to stop Iran from becoming nuclear armed? Do you think that Uh-bama can just say pretty please? Finally, how would attacking Iran "guarantee they will get a bomb, and sooner than they would have otherwise"?

12-01-2010, 06:31 PM	#17
Kimeoffessyr Join Date Oct 2005 Posts 514 Senior Member	Since you're making it an either/or. It would be better for Iran to be nuclear armed. Pakistan, China and North Korea are nuclear armed, so what? Ultimately, it is an either/or question. Although the attacker may not be the U.S. alone, it may be Israel alone, or most likely, a joint U.S./Israeli venture. "So what"? Do you really not see the significance? Are you of the position that "Pakistan, China and North Korea" being "nuclear armed" is a good thing? Especially Pakistan and North Korea? The alternative is that we end up involved in yet ANOTHER Endless Quagmire War. Really, how many times do you think we can pay for 3x the ADJUSTED cost of WORLD WAR TWO?, not to even mention how many more dead and disabled can we deal with? No, that is not really the alternative. We could simply bomb Iran back into the stone age without ever setting foot on the ground, if we chose to do so. Considering that "money" is created from nothing nowadays, I would say that we could finance as many wars as we wish until the rest of the world wakes up and stops accepting dollars. And even then, if we had secured enough foreign oil (i.e. Iraq) prior to that point, we could probably still do so afterward. In any case, it's a false dichotomy. Iran is not close to getting a bomb and even if it were there are other ways to stop it rather than attacking. Indeed, attacking will probably guarantee they will get a bomb, and sooner than they would have otherwise. No, it is not a false dichotomy. Iran will not voluntarily stop their quest for a nuclear bomb. You have no way of knowing how close Iran is to getting a nuclear bomb, but Israeli intelligence does. When they are deemed to have gotten too close, there will be attacks. What other ways do you propose to stop Iran from becoming nuclear armed? Do you think that Uh-bama can just say pretty please? Finally, how would attacking Iran "guarantee they will get a bomb, and sooner than they would have otherwise"?
	Quote