Do you really wan t this man in charge of the button

Wheezy_2

ninky wrote: »

i'm with clegg on getting rid of our nuclear weapons. they are expensive and unethical.

I'm sure Ahmedinijjad and Kim-il-Soon (or whatever his name is) are as ethical as ninky and Clegg.

ivavoucher

Flearoy wrote: »

Yes, I would want this man in charge, given the choices.

Were you not disappointed / perturbed when Cameron dodged every question on cutting public spending?

Reminds me of john majors back to family values preach while humping Edwina.

GDB2222

PrivatisetheNHSnow wrote: »

Remember: if you are pro attacking Iran, you are pro nuclear war.

good luck....

That's simply not logical. Why does one follow from the other, pray?

The_White_Horse

ninky wrote: »

i'm with clegg on getting rid of our nuclear weapons. they are expensive and unethical.

nuclear weapons don't target regimes they target populations. and having them is only going to encourage others to try to do the same. how can we tell iran not to get them when we have them?

we can tell them because we are their superiors.

the same way that the state tells you you can't have a gun.

Pete111

PrivatisetheNHSnow wrote: »

have you never heard of nuclear power? it's very popular in france. iran has a growing population, they need more electricity, get over it.

why don't we bomb france then, they have a lot of uranium too?

Yeah right...

...and I'm sure the North Koreans have got their tens of thousands of artillary cannons trained on Seoul because they 'look prettier lined up like that'


And BTW who is advocating bombing anyone? You are drawing ridiculous conclusions from Cameron saying he wishes to keep the nuclear deterrant. It's not as if this policy is new or even vaugely controversial. Both the Tories and Labour have stuck to this line for decades with the tacit support of the majority of the UK population.

PrivatisetheNHSnow

GDB2222 wrote: »

That's simply not logical. Why does one follow from the other, pray?

you don't understand geopolitics. let me explain:

iran is an ally of china. iran supplies a large amount of china's oil and gas needs. without iran's energy supplies, china's economy would grind to a halt and the leaders of china would probably lose control of the country.

iran is also an ally of russia, who among other things exports military equipment to iran. both countries invest a lot of money in iran's infrastructure and have close diplomatic ties

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/China/GF04Ad07.html

both china and russia have nuclear weapons. if you attack iran, you will be attacking a close trading partner of china and russia, and you will be cutting off china from iran's energy supplies and destroying their economy.

do you think the chinese or russians would allow this? if a country started a war that cut off energy supplies to the uk, would our leaders just do nothing?

war against iran is a proxy war against china and russia

PrivatisetheNHSnow

Pete111 wrote: »

Yeah right...
...and I'm sure the North Koreans have got their tens of thousands of artillary cannons trained on Seoul because they 'look prettier lined up like that'

artillery can only be used for war. uranium is used for nuclear power, not just nuclear weapons.

why are so surprised? iran doesn't have enough coal to run their electricity from that, what to do expect them to use to generate electricity? burning oil would be a very expensive way to generate electricity.

how is iran the same as north korea. they are not similar at all - for a start iran's president was, whether you like him or not, democratically elected.

Pete111 wrote: »

And BTW who is advocating bombing anyone? You are drawing ridiculous conclusions from Cameron saying he wishes to keep the nuclear deterrant.

i was responding to the user that replied to my original post, where i said iran was not a threat to the uk

Wheezy_2

PrivatisetheNHSnow wrote: »

. if you attack iran, you will be attacking a close trading partner of china and russia, and you will be cutting china from iran's energy supplies and destroying their economy.

U.K. and U.S. won't attack Iran. But if the Iranians get anywhere close a military nuclear capability, you can be sure Israel will drop a couple of guided missiles here and there to put that program back a couple of decades. No nuclear Iran. Iran can continue selling oil to China. Problem solved.

PrivatisetheNHSnow

people have very short memories.

in the 1980s, saddam hussien's iraq started a war of aggression against iran to take control of oil fields, which the west supported. the war killed 1 million people, and saddam used chemical weapons against the iranians.

10 years later when saddam invades kuwait he is not our friend any more...

another 10 years later we invade iraq because apparently they have WMD.

now iran is the enemy?

ninky_2

Pete111 wrote: »

Hmmmm I suppose it's possible that those 3700 centrifuges (you know, the ones they themselves advertise to the world as 'fully operational') are simply for excercising the Ayatollahs large collection of pet hampsters but I'm not rushing down to Paddy power to place a wager on it.

Just because Sadamm didn't have WMD doesn't mean noone else will ever try to get them ....

Oh and yes. I would rather we had a button to push. The nuclear cat is out of the bag and I for one would prefer to own a few just in case.

the way of M.A.D.ness (mutually assured destruction). you don't get rid of a nutjob leader or protect your population by annihilating theirs. the bombs can just wave at each other mid air as they pass hey?