He's just another religious extremist. Nothing new, although certainly dangerous. I highly doubt that 51% of America is stupid enough to vote him into power.
Which guy? Terry Jones is a nutcase who wouldn't receive any of the Jewish, or Islamic vote, or any sane person for that matter, and Ahmadinejad is an idiot who thinks his country should be a model for the rest of the world. But I guess it is senseless to argue with someone who does not understand reasoning. All throughout this, you have not given evidence to counter our arguments, so you are either being a troll, or are just blind to obvious facts.
To be honest, most of the large, stable powers that want nukes already have them, and most use them as a measure to prevent war (the Cold War, Pakistan/India, and Israel come to mind here). This means most of the rest of the governments who want nukes are dictatorships, etc who would use them to advance their own agenda (Iran and North Korea, for example).
The problem in Iran is that the Supreme Leader (That's an actual term, i,e the Highest ranking clergyman) and the President of Iran have two not altogether clearly defined roles that make both clash; non-secular and secular forces are constantly butting heads against each other in Iran.
Lately some of Ahmadinejad have been disgraced or imprisoned, adding to instability. Also, remember the 2008 Green Revolution with millions calling out for reform? Tell me the country isn't stable punisher.
My opinion is :- Nukes for everybody or nukes for nobody and since I would teally not like nukes to b stripped from Pakistan So I say nukes for everybody.
Nukes for everybody or nukes for nobody and since I would teally not like nukes to b stripped from Pakistan So I say nukes for everybody.
Have you actually thought through your point before posting it?
a) Would you give nukes to rogue states like North Korea? (Yes, they do possess them, but we would want to prevent that)
b) Would you give nukes to failed states? Somalia for instance.
Why is it counted that Iran is an unstable country, but Russia isn't?
Because Russia knows that if it fires a nuke, the US would still retaliate. MAD still holds. Also, Russia has proven for half a century that it can be a somewhat responsible nuclear power.
Having nukes is not a deterrent. We are only told this.
Dont post articles from American sources saying that Iran, your supposed ENEMY, is crazy. What the hell else are they gonna say? This is exactly how propoganda works. In fact, its pretty pointless looking to most media for a proper insight into other countries "madness" as everyone always tows the "arty" line.
Ahmadinejad is an idiot who thinks his country should be a model for the rest of the world.
Western governments think the exact same way. And in fact, they go around killing people to ensure it is happening.
Having nukes is not a deterrent. We are only told this.
Dont post articles from American sources saying that Iran, your supposed ENEMY, is crazy. What the hell else are they gonna say? This is exactly how propoganda works. In fact, its pretty pointless looking to most media for a proper insight into other countries "madness" as everyone always tows the "arty" line.
Cough, and are you aware how the nukes did not go flying during the Cold War? Such horrid weapons would be better not to have existed, but there's no better deterrent to a nuke than another nuke.
Western governments think the exact same way. And in fact, they go around killing people to ensure it is happening.
Iraq was a bloody mistake; Afghanistan is still better than under the Taliban (Where there was incidentally already a civil war without the Americans), Libya was a valid reason to rid the country of its dictator.
Might I also suggest the rather valid point that just because the Western World might practice such violence, that does not absolve Iran one bit?
Having nukes is not a deterrent. We are only told this.
Why, it is. Say a nuke-wielding country will decide to blow up all of their nukes in case of losing a war. The planet will be pretty much corrupted as a whole, and the winner of such a war will suffer along with everyone else. That's the factor of nukes acting as a deterrent.
Why, it is. Say a nuke-wielding country will decide to blow up all of their nukes in case of losing a war. The planet will be pretty much corrupted as a whole, and the winner of such a war will suffer along with everyone else. That's the factor of nukes acting as a deterrent.
Actually no. Yes Nukes deter but your example does not illustrate it. Why? As you said the nuke wielding country decides to blow up all their nukes in case of losing; despite knowing the other side has nukes. When you know all is lost, you might as well take out a good chunk of the enemy.
Nukes are only good as deterrence if they are not even fired.
America dropping atomic bombs on Japan is one of the biggest human crimes ever commited, yet people act like it was needed!
There is no deterrent. Its like having guns. Guns do not deter killing. I live in UK. We have no guns. WE DONT GO AROUND KILLING WITH NO FEAR OF RETALLIATION! Nukes are crazy and no-one should have them.
Might I also suggest the rather valid point that just because the Western World might practice such violence, that does not absolve Iran one bit?
