RockForums.net: Iran - RockForums.net

Jump to content

  • (2 Pages)
  • +
  • 1
  • 2
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • You cannot reply to this topic

Iran Rate Topic: -----

#21 User is offline   Echoes Icon

  • Rock Legend
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Admin
  • Posts: 3,211
  • Joined: 25-January 05
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Oxford, UK
  • Fave artist:Queens Of The Stone Age

Posted 16 April 2007 - 03:50 PM

View PostDave. zzz...., on Apr 13 2007, 06:12 PM, said:

Insane religious hatred against the West from them means we ought to be at the very least wary of them producing nukes...

To the point where they are prepared to sacrifice their own COUNTRY? (mutually assured destruction and all that)

The nukes aren't being developed to ever be used, if you think about it. Having nukes officialises their status as a country that the existing Big Players can't ignore e.g. in negotiations re. israel/palestine, or if/when it starts being the main defender of the momentum to unite the countries in the region into one big Islamic Caliphate. Frankly I don't think that could ever happen even if they wanted to, but it may be an issue supported by an iranian party to get into power in election time.
It also provides some deterrence towards the Big Players if they fancy another oil war; don't forget that oil is going to be a hell of a lot more valuable and important than it is today and grabbing Iran's stash is the only way we can preserve our way of life.

#22 User is offline   We The Damned Icon

  • Frontman
  • PipPipPipPip
  • Group: Member+
  • Posts: 880
  • Joined: 12-March 07
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Indianapolis, Indiana
  • Interests:Guitars, Music, Cars, Everything In-Between
  • Fave artist:Summon The Destroyer/Our Lady Peace
  • MySpace: themetallicafan101

Posted 16 April 2007 - 10:31 PM

your right it is...and i dont care about that...i just want america to be considered a superpower (again)...and dont even say we were not...we beat britain when they were considered to be the greatest army...we were the shit back then...i guess we got too cocky about it...

we could still beat britain and mexico...not so much with the terriorist countries though...

but my local alternative radio station said "we should just pull out of the country and let them kill eachother then claim their oil"...and that makes a lot of sense...it would take less time if they were not their...

This post has been edited by Sanitarium: 16 April 2007 - 10:32 PM

Shredding The Shit

#23 User is offline   Echoes Icon

  • Rock Legend
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Admin
  • Posts: 3,211
  • Joined: 25-January 05
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Oxford, UK
  • Fave artist:Queens Of The Stone Age

Posted 17 April 2007 - 12:43 PM

unless beating another country happens by bringing it to its knees, you can't claim an underdog victory, david vs. goliath, etc. The underdog just was more committed/had less to lose.
If it was a truly onesided contest before the outcome then the suppopsedly dominant side threw it away because it wasn't worth it in their eyes. Just like the US should have done in vietnam.

#24 User is offline   Forgone Conclusion Icon

  • Murtis
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Member+
  • Posts: 4,474
  • Joined: 26-January 05
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:London
  • Interests:Music, and stuff
  • Fave artist:Radiohead

Posted 18 April 2007 - 08:38 AM

Vietnam was a draw. A draw in which a MASSIVE 58,000 US soldiers died, but only 5.7 million vietnamese died (+ another 4 million from dioxin poisoning) - the lucky bastards
"You and Wilson have my skills, Mr Hayden. In return, I received a taste for Radiohead and an encyclopedic knowledge of pornographic knock-knock jokes. Yes, I'd like to switch back if possible"

Share this topic:


  • (2 Pages)
  • +
  • 1
  • 2
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • You cannot reply to this topic

1 User(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users