Egypt Going Nuclear

[Dieval]

Oh released in due course.... of course, that makes it so much better then, thank you for clearing that up....

You know... .since he claimed he was going to release them in due course, the whole kidnapping thing is invalid? :rolleyes:

Same tactics, different words... he kidnaped the soldiers family and threatened that if he didn't turn himself in, he would never see them again..... wtf does that sound like to you?

HOSTAGE TAKING!

Maybe all these taliban and insurgents were going to release certain hostages in due time as well.... but do we know this at the time? Nooooo......

Simply put, your own soldiers have acted in terroristic ways and are no better then who you like to propaganda about.

In the case you pointed out, the rationale behind our "hostages", as you like to call them, was to prevent the further deaths of American soldiers. What was the rationale behind the American hostage taking in Iran?

[Dieval]

that wasn't exactly the logical/thoughtful response i was hoping for, but i suppose it's to be expected.. what do you do when presented with a logical counter-argument? you post a picture and a smilie...

It wasn't quite a smile...but anyway...

What I was getting at is that a muslim (terrorist supporting) theocracy with nuclear weapons at their disposal is OBVIOUSLY a bad thing.....correct?

[ruksak]

that wasn't exactly the logical/thoughtful response i was hoping for, but i suppose it's to be expected.. what do you do when presented with a logical counter-argument? you post a picture and a smilie...

I think it was a clear showing that he was aware of who the Iranian shot callers really are. Which is what you asked him, right?

[bishop]

What I was getting at is that a muslim (terrorist supporting) theocracy with nuclear weapons at their disposal is OBVIOUSLY a bad thing.....correct?

what makes it so obvious? is there some historical example you can cite that would persuasively show how the iranian leadership are suicidal? in order for them to launch an offensive nuclear attack, they'd need to be suicidal after all...

I think it was a clear showing that he was aware of who the Iranian shot callers really are.

no, it wasn't clear. dival used the word "dictator", which is a singular term. iran is ruled by a group of theocrats - i.e. more than one person..

[BobbyO]

what makes it so obvious? is there some historical example you can cite that would persuasively show how the iranian leadership are suicidal? in order for them to launch an offensive nuclear attack, they'd need to be suicidal after all...
.

Its not so much that Iranian leaders are suicidal (we can probably chalk up that hidden Iman stuff to domestic propaganda), but that they can use their weaponry to project power to achieve their ends in ways in which their support of terrorism has failed.

Is Egypt interested in nukes defend themselves against the USA? No. How about Saudi Arabia (there have been stories that Riyadh may be interested)? No. Its because they know what Iran is up to and what they want to do. And the United States is looking like it doesn't have the same resolve against the menace in their neck of the woods as it did in Europe.

[Dieval]

what makes it so obvious? is there some historical example you can cite that would persuasively show how the iranian leadership are suicidal? in order for them to launch an offensive nuclear attack, they'd need to be suicidal after all...

In order to launch a CONVENTIONAL offensive nuclear attack, they would have to be suicidal...unless they thought they could win...? Do you know what passes through their minds?

If they were to pass on a nuclear weapon to a terrorist organization they support(Hizballah, or possibly al qeada) the results would be devistating.

[The Decider]

If they were to pass on a nuclear weapon to a terrorist organization they support(Hizballah, or possibly al qeada) the results would be devistating.

Supplying weapons of mass destruction to terrorist organizations is more than risky for Iran. How do they control those groups beyond their borders? Nothing would stop Hizbollah from reselling some of the nuke technology to its friends who may not like Iran, or could turn against Iran in the future. There was a time when the Taliban HATED the Shiite Iranians and vice versa. The Kurdish terror group, the PKK, still does. Iran doesn't want loose nukes floating about its neighborhood either.

As I said before, recent history has examples of mentally unstable tyrants owning nuclear weapons (Mao and Stalin). Deterrence worked to contain them. It will work with a far weaker Iran also.

[bishop]

In order to launch a CONVENTIONAL offensive nuclear attack, they would have to be suicidal...unless they thought they could win...? Do you know what passes through their minds?

If they were to pass on a nuclear weapon to a terrorist organization they support(Hizballah, or possibly al qeada) the results would be devistating.

you didn't answer my actual question - what makes it so "obvious"? synonymous with inevitable when taken in context.

i'm not interested in debating these "what-if" scenarios. let's get something more grounded in unemotional logic instead of repeating the same line of thinking that landed us deep in iraq.

[LtMisha]

I don't really care if the Middle East has Nuclear power plants. It seems that they are walking into the Future and America is holding them back. Kinda like a deadweight strapped to the neck of a mule.

Mind you, I suppose a corrupted Dictator will appear eventually, and then BOOM.

Man, is that two-minded or what?

[Praxius]

Iraq is a war zone. Iran was not during the hostage crisis. Also, I see no parallel between interrogation of suspected combatants in a war zone, and the purposeful, yearlong, physical and psychological torture that Iran implemented upon their hostages.

In the case you pointed out, the rationale behind our "hostages", as you like to call them, was to prevent the further deaths of American soldiers. What was the rationale behind the American hostage taking in Iran?

You both completely missed the point and didn't even respond with a proper comment.

Ruksak, I wasn't talking about hostage taking and interrogation in the quote you used, I was talking about Hostage taking and Hostage taking. And regardless if Iraq is a war zone, hostage taking is still hostage taking. The same torture you're talking about from the Iran incident is nowhere in comparison of a military theatening the lives of your family if you don't turn yourself in..... you best get your priorities straight, because no matter how you try and defend it, or twist it... he still held that officers family hostage.


Dieval, your reasoning for protection of additional US troops is a load of horse crap and peanuts. Trying to defend hostage taking by any standards is hypocritical to your so-called War on Terrorism, and there is no justicfication to hold innocent family members captive and threaten their father/husband to turn themselves into the enemy.... it's cheap, it's low, it's pathetic. You guys always boast having the best military in the world, so act like you are and stop acting like petty thugs.

Oh and what was the rationale behind the Iran incident? CAN'T YOU BOTHER TO READ? I just supplied you information as to why.... stop wasting my time. You're country was imposing democratic assemilation on their country, where they didn't want it..... you backed an overthrow with your CIA, they took over your people they could not trust, and for good reason, you guys tried to make a rescue attempt and failed miserably.... I'm not defending their actions from 28 some odd years ago by people who are not in the current scene, but I sure as hell am not defending your country's similar actions, and I sure as hell ain't accepting those lame excuses for your hostage taking.

I call it hostage taking? You're damn right I do, it's by the very definition.

Now could we possibly get abck to Egypt perhaps?

[Dieval]

you didn't answer my actual question - what makes it so "obvious"? synonymous with inevitable when taken in context.

The country of Iran supports terrorists. They support the organization of hezbollah, which I believe had the dubious description of being the terrorist organization that had kill the most American citizens, up until just recently. Why would allowing Iran to make a nuclear weapon be a good thing if they support groups such as this??

let's get something more grounded in unemotional logic instead of repeating the same line of thinking that landed us deep in iraq.

We(well maybe not you) as a people are emotional and we don't need to get down to complete unemotional logic.

[Dieval]

Dieval, your reasoning for protection of additional US troops is a load of horse crap and peanuts.

Why don't you look at the bigger picture of your scenario. You have a Lt. Gen. running around Iraq organizing people to kill our troops and inflict harm on the general population. You can remove that threat by detaining his wife and child AND get informaiton from them. Besides being detained, were his wife and child harmed?? Were they?

On the other hand, when militant STUDENTS decided to take 52(FIFTY TWO, actually it was more, but they let some go) people hostage for OVER A YEAR...holding them in solitary for MONTHS at a time, etc, etc...not quite the same story, is it? :rolleyes: