A
angellous_evangellous
Guest
What's the latest on Bush and Iran?
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
"Negotiating with America does not have any benefit for us and we do not need such negotiations," Khamenei was quoted as saying by state television.
If that was in the news, I somehow missed it too.OK - was there ever any talk about Bush nuking Iran?
Khalid Muhammad said:I think you'll find it was a report from some months ago concerning meetings between the administration and Pentagon staff. They were discussing options, The present Generals (Combined forces) brought up the use of tactical nuclear weapons along with other alternatives to 'get them off the table', as it was reported the administration refused to remove any option from the table, and thus it was reported that they were considering the use of tactical nuclear weapons (i.e. battlefield as opposed to ICBM).
Khalid Muhammad said:I wasn't listening in on the meeting, but I would think that discussion around the use of the B61-11 was most probably the genesis of all the subsequent reports.
Khalid Muhammad said:Well let's face it as soon as the journos heard the word 'nuclear' they were probably whitewashing the windows and hiding under desks with brown paper bags on their heads.
"The Bush administration is planning to use nuclear weapons against Iran, to prevent it acquiring its own atomic warheads, claims an investigative writer with high-level Pentagon and intelligence contacts."
Melody said:Arrogance....complete and utter arrogance. We can have them but nobody else can.
If I were a citizen of another country, I'd certainly live in fear of the U.S. having the only nukes since the U.S. has proved it's capable of initiating open aggression and I'd want some too. If for no reason, than to make the U.S. think twice about hitting that button.
angellous_evangellous said:The assumption is that the US, as a democracy, has better control over the nukes. It just doesn't make sense to allow an unstable country - with the clear potential to produce a madman leader - to have a nuclear arsenal at his disposal.
Melody said:At one time I would've said I agree. Our glorious leaderhas convinced me that even our government can't be trusted with them.
It seems to me that if we ever use our nuclear weapons again at least the high grade ones, the US would be so unpopular in the world that it could hail the end of our nation.
Mystic-als said:Firstly : True - well said
Secondly : The US already is unpopular. Don't you see that?
I personally think that the only thing saving you is your military might. BUT that is only as good as your leaders. And like Melody said. They don't look like they can be trusted with power at the moment.
They haven't used them again yet. You do it once and then it gets a whole lot easier to do the next time.
angellous_evangellous said:Right now our unpopularity is redeemable. With the use of nuclear weapons, I can't imagine who would trade with America or ally with us. Possibly even our traditional allies would ally against us, creating powerful enemies. It would be suicide.
Khalid Muhammad said:I have to disagree, I don't think anyone will buy anything you (plural not singular) do or say again. As to the second part of your statement....it won't take a nuke to solidify opinion, it might might now take one to forcibly change it i.e. you WILL be our friends.