• 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:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Obama Iran nuclear plan is working

Shadow Wolf

Certified People sTabber & Business Owner
I can recall an invasion the US government lead, because of a deranged leader who definitely positively beyond any shadow of a doubt had weapons of mass destruction. Maybe some day the public will grow tired of their apocalyptic-minded government's costly wild goose chases.
 

factseeker88

factseeker88
I can recall an invasion the US government lead, because of a deranged leader who definitely positively beyond any shadow of a doubt had weapons of mass destruction. Maybe some day the public will grow tired of their apocalyptic-minded government's costly wild goose chases.

Who started this illusion that we are saviors of the world, Teddy?

:confused::confused::confused:

“No lesson is so deeply inculcated by the experience of life as that you should never trust experts.” Lord Salisbury

"Question everything." TV Science channel
 

esmith

Veteran Member
I can recall an invasion the US government lead, because of a deranged leader who definitely positively beyond any shadow of a doubt had weapons of mass destruction. Maybe some day the public will grow tired of their apocalyptic-minded government's costly wild goose chases.

I was called on a possible connotation of a word that could have racist meaning, depending on ones age. Yet you now use a word that has a meaning of insane to describe a US President. Now you are welcome to your opinion no matter how deranged it is. No, I am not bothered by changing the word in my post because it is possible that some took it as racist. No more than you should be bothered by my opinion of your statement.
 

ametist

Active Member
And then Saudi Arabia buys nukes from Pakistan. I don't think any sane person would want a country that sponsors and funds Wahhabi ideology armed with nuclear weapons.

if one can have a mass destruction weapon, if it is logical for one to have such a thing, it is logical for anyone else to have it as well. I dont want one party to claim supremacy over my life or the life on earth in general. You either give it up and ask others to give theirs up or if you are keeping it thinking it can be used sanely (!) then you ought to expect anyone can show the exact same sanity.
 

Mycroft

Ministry of Serendipity
And then Saudi Arabia buys nukes from Pakistan. I don't think any sane person would want a country that sponsors and funds Wahhabi ideology armed with nuclear weapons.

Can't be any worse than America, Russia and England having nukes.
 

factseeker88

factseeker88
Can't be any worse than America, Russia and England having nukes.

That's because we and they are civilized and the rest of the world are terrorists.

:confused::confused::confused:

“No lesson is so deeply inculcated by the experience of life as that you should never trust experts.” Lord Salisbury

"Question everything." TV Science channel
 

Aquitaine

Well-Known Member
There have been too many points in time when Iran could have furthered that goal, but refused to do something or other. I think they are very determined to get a nuclear weapon and are good at hiding that fact.

Maybe its just because I'm a cynic, and if I were them that's what I'd be doing.

Tom

So would I, Iran is surrounded by US military bases on almost all sides.
 

Shadow Wolf

Certified People sTabber & Business Owner
Who started this illusion that we are saviors of the world, Teddy?
:confused::confused::confused:
“No lesson is so deeply inculcated by the experience of life as that you should never trust experts.” Lord Salisbury
"Question everything." TV Science channel
I never said anything about America being the world's saviors, just that they lead they charge into Iraq over lies. Much how it seems the American government is having an itch to invade Iraq.

I was called on a possible connotation of a word that could have racist meaning, depending on ones age. Yet you now use a word that has a meaning of insane to describe a US President. Now you are welcome to your opinion no matter how deranged it is. No, I am not bothered by changing the word in my post because it is possible that some took it as racist. No more than you should be bothered by my opinion of your statement.
Whatever dude. I didn't even attack your choice in words, I never even said your opinion matters to me. And if you read what I wrote, I never described the president.
 

xkatz

Well-Known Member
Can't be any worse than America, Russia and England having nukes.
Saudi Arabia directly funds Salafist/Wahhabi extremists groups and gives them a public platform through the Saudi religious establishment. Many in the clerical establishment and the general populace are sympathetic to this ideology. It could be very possible that at some point in the future the royal family is ousted by people with an Al-Qaeda or ISIS-esque ideology. Such a state armed with nukes would be very scary, for both Muslims and non-Muslims alike. Or another possibility is that the radical religious elements in SA could somehow get their hands on some sort of nuclear material and could use it to make dirty bombs. Besides, there's already enough nukes in this world as is.
 

esmith

Veteran Member
I never said anything about America being the world's saviors, just that they lead they charge into Iraq over lies. Much how it seems the American government is having an itch to invade Iraq.


Whatever dude. I didn't even attack your choice in words, I never even said your opinion matters to me. And if you read what I wrote, I never described the president.

So, who were you describing by your comment:
I can recall an invasion the US government lead, because of a deranged leader who definitely positively beyond any shadow of a doubt had weapons of mass destruction.
 

Alceste

Vagabond
So, who were you describing by your comment:

Bush created the fiction of a WMD threat in Iraq to build public support for his invasion. Before the end of his term, all the same deranged nut jobs who promoted that particular lie were whining about fictitious nukes in Iran. It was completely obvious to me that they were building up to yet another invasion. Apparently obvious to the Nobel prize committee too, since Obama's only achievement when he won it was derailing the GOP war train by becoming president.

That's what she's referring to.
 

Shadow Wolf

Certified People sTabber & Business Owner
So, who were you describing by your comment:
I can recall an invasion the US government lead (Iraq war), because of a deranged leader (Saddam) who definitely positively beyond any shadow of a doubt had weapons of mass destruction (The lies the American public was told to get them behind the invasion). Maybe some day the public will grow tired of their apocalyptic-minded government's costly wild goose chases.
After that, we became obsessed with Iran, even though Iran has not produced any real strong evidence to support they have nuclear weapons. So we are being told yet again there is a deranged leader out there, a real bad guy, who positively definitely beyond any shadow of a doubt has nuclear weapons. But these accusations, much like the accusations against Saddam's WMD's, are fictional.
 

esmith

Veteran Member
After that, we became obsessed with Iran, even though Iran has not produced any real strong evidence to support they have nuclear weapons. So we are being told yet again there is a deranged leader out there, a real bad guy, who positively definitely beyond any shadow of a doubt has nuclear weapons. But these accusations, much like the accusations against Saddam's WMD's, are fictional.

After rereading your post I now admit that I was wrong it my assumption that you were referring to President Bush vice Saddam Hussein. However, let me ask a complex question and get your response. You call Saddam a deranged leader. Now if he, Saddam, could obtain WMD in addition to his chemical weapons do you think that he would attempt to do so knowing his objectives in that area of the world? Now, we are almost 100% positive that he did not have nuclear weapons or the infrastructure to obtain them in the near future . However, if he did have the capability of acquiring them would it not have been to the worlds advantage to remove this possibility? Hindsight is almost 100% right, so we blame President Bush and the American Congress for attacking Iraq due to hindsight and the wrong reason.
 

metis

aged ecumenical anthropologist
The demise of Hussein and the weakening of Iraq has been a bonanza for Iran. Our going into Iraq was not at all thought out well, and one consequence of that is Iran's ability to pay for terrorist activities in various regions at the tune of over $300 million per year according to the CIA.
 

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
For reference....
Iraq and weapons of mass destruction - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Western help with Iraq's WMD program


This section needs additional citations for verification. Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. (January 2011) The United States exported support for Iraq during the Iran–Iraq war over $500 million worth of dual use exports to Iraq that were approved by the Commerce department. Among them were advanced computers, some of which were used in Iraq's nuclear program.[32] The non-profit American Type Culture Collection and the Centers for Disease Control sold or sent biological samples of anthrax, West Nile virus and botulism to Iraq up until 1989, which Iraq claimed it needed for medical research. A number of these materials were used for Iraq's biological weapons research program, while others were used for vaccine development.[33][dead link] For example, the Iraqi military settled on the American Type Culture Collection strain 14578 as the exclusive anthrax strain for use as a biological weapon, according to Charles Duelfer.[34]
In the late 1980s, the British government secretly gave the arms company Matrix Churchill permission to supply parts for Saddam Hussein's weapons program, while British Industry supplied Gerald Bull as he developed the Iraqi supergun. In March 1990, a case of nuclear triggers bound for Iraq, were seized at Heathrow Airport. The Scott Report uncovered much of the secrecy that had surrounded the Arms-to-Iraq affair when it became known.[35] The British government also financed a chlorine factory that was intended to be used for manufacturing mustard gas.[36]
Niger provided yellowcake in 1981.[37]
There appears to be no question that Iraq had WMDs.
The only real question is about which kind at what time.
 

Wirey

Fartist
I think the point was that US Government officials showed pictures of uranium enrichment facilities that turned out to be fertilizer silos or something. Many people find it hard to believe that an organization as thouroughly intelligent as the CIA could screw that up.

PS I saw the briefing Colin Powell gave where he pointed this stuff out, but it wasn't there.
 

Aquitaine

Well-Known Member
Bush created the fiction of a WMD threat in Iraq to build public support for his invasion. Before the end of his term, all the same deranged nut jobs who promoted that particular lie were whining about fictitious nukes in Iran. It was completely obvious to me that they were building up to yet another invasion. Apparently obvious to the Nobel prize committee too, since Obama's only achievement when he won it was derailing the GOP war train by becoming president.

That's what she's referring to.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P4RZO8y-R9k
 

Aquitaine

Well-Known Member
After rereading your post I now admit that I was wrong it my assumption that you were referring to President Bush vice Saddam Hussein. However, let me ask a complex question and get your response. You call Saddam a deranged leader. Now if he, Saddam, could obtain WMD in addition to his chemical weapons do you think that he would attempt to do so knowing his objectives in that area of the world? Now, we are almost 100% positive that he did not have nuclear weapons or the infrastructure to obtain them in the near future . However, if he did have the capability of acquiring them would it not have been to the worlds advantage to remove this possibility? Hindsight is almost 100% right, so we blame President Bush and the American Congress for attacking Iraq due to hindsight and the wrong reason.

Let's invade North Korea then, yes - no?
 
Top