STOP PRESS - US and UK have Uranium Enrichment Plants

[BillHicksRules]

STOP PRESS - US and UK have Uranium Enrichment Plants
Dear all,
I am not sure if this has escaped everyones notice but both the US and the UK have both Uranium Enrichment programs AND Nuclear Weapons Development programs. Furthermore they have deployed Nuclear Weapons systems ready to strike anywhere in the world at short notice (much less than 45 minutes).
When you couple this with the illegal invasions of not one but two soveriegn nations in the last 5 years and the threatening of several others is it any surprise that a nation like Iran which has been illegally invaded twice from the west in the last 30 years, has sought the means to prevent it happening again?
Cheers

BHR

[mbga9pgf]

Yeah but then again, they are a bunch of nutters and we aint. You just need to see the reaction all over the midle east to a little teasing from a newspaper to see that.

We dont hang girls for defending themselves whilst being raped

And we most certainly recognise the soverenty of Israel, whilst at the same time dont threaten to wipe her from the face of the planet.

[Lord Snot]

So what Bill?

Nukes can’t be un-invented. The only thing to do for nw is ensure the wrong people don’t get hold of them. And I don’t see the yanks or the poms threatening to wipe someone they simply don’t like off the planet.

Are you on drugs or something? You seriously want to compare states like the USA or the UK having nukes with places run by psychopaths (like Iran) having them?

I’ll be very happy to see the west maintain the ability to eradicate any nutters out there who wish to use WMDs against us.

I’d be very unhappy to see trouble-making states like Iran get them. It’s bad enough the Indians and Pakis have the bombs laying around the place waiting to be accidentally let off.

It’s very simple: There are some people you can “trust” with things like nukes or influence and there are some you can’t. Are you really that naieve? Mind-boggling….

[Daysleeper]

illegal invasions of not one but two soveriegn nations

2?
If Iraq was one who was the other ?

[Footless Halls]

I think he must mean Afghanistan. Perhaps he had his holiday cottage there under the old regime?

[mbga9pgf]

Originally Posted by Footless Halls

I think he must mean Afghanistan. Perhaps he had his holiday cottage there under the old regime?

Naah, I reckon its George Galloway in disguise. He has just found another tinpot dictator to support in tune to his commie tendencies.

[RayDarr]

Daysleeper,
I guess he means Afghanistan. Just a guess mind you.

Personnally, I don't much mind what Iran does to its own citizens, just as long as they don't try in with ours. Looking at the way GW Bush (ever wondered what the W stood for, other than wan**r) carries on, I would be paranoid if I was them. It seems we must all be democratic. However, if we elect the "wrong" people (i.e. Hammas in Palistine) that dosen't count as democracy. If you are mad Israelies, it is OK to have the bomb, but if you are mad Iranians, it is a bad thing to have the bomb. It is bad for Iraq to invade Kuait, but OK for the US and others to invade Iraq, on trumped up reasons. I have to say, if I came from the mid east, I might just be a bit brassed off with all this as well.
Perhaps if we just left them all alone to do what they liked in their own lands, we might just get on better. Trouble is, I guess we have interfered so much for so long, it's much to late to do that now.

[Flatus Veteranus]

am not sure if this has escaped everyones notice but both the US and the UK have both Uranium Enrichment programs AND Nuclear Weapons Development programs

.

If the USA's and UK's capabilities have escaped anyone'snotice. they must be intellectually challenged to the point of being brain-dead or living on a different planet. The difference between the established nuclear powers (ie, the permanent members of the Security Council)and the "wannabees" is that the former's programmes have been declared to, and are regularly monitored by, the IAEA.

[Tourist]

There is, of course, only one nuclear power that has ever truly demonstrated the willingness to use nuclear weapons. By using them.It is also, scarily, populated by a large amnount of religious extremists. Creationism enyone?

[Onan the Clumsy]

Nukes can’t be un-invented

Actually, if you think about it, they're sort of self un-inventing.

[Navaleye]

Iran = bunch of nutters
Afganistan (under taliban)= bunch of nutters
N Korea = bunch of nutters

Which of these would you like to have nuclear weapons and the means to deliver them?

[mbga9pgf]

Originally Posted by Tourist

There is, of course, only one nuclear power that has ever truly demonstrated the willingness to use nuclear weapons. By using them.It is also, scarily, populated by a large amnount of religious extremists. Creationism enyone?

And by doing so massively reduced the number of casualties on our side. If the Japanese had invented the A bomb and used it, it would have been fair dues. Thank god they didnt mind, and we got to write the history books. deal with it.

[PileUp Officer]

Originally Posted by Lord Snot

It’s very simple: There are some people you can “trust” with things like nukes or influence and there are some you can’t. Are you really that naieve? Mind-boggling….

To be honest I wouldn't 'trust' anyone with nukes. Especially with some of the track records of the folks in power.

[mbga9pgf]

I dont honestly believe though that one man could ever launch a nuclear attack, at least not in the west, without at least first someone very high up advising such a leader to carry out a non conventional as the best course of action.

The same however, cannot be said for such entities as Iran, Iraq and N Korea. As for the Pakistanis and Indians, I am actually not too adverse to them having them, as they again are in the same league as us, purely down to the beaurocratic way both of these coutries run. If anything, posessing nukes might actually have brought a little welcome respect for their neighbour and thus helped the situation..

Flip this around to Iran, and I honestly cannot Say I would trust them to even 30% that they wouldnt go preemtive against Israel, bearing in mind how much support Iran would have in the mideast. I honestly wouldnt even trust these guys with a bb gun, never mind a nuke!!! Alahs will and all that.

[BillHicksRules]

Navaleye,

Originally Posted by Navaleye

Iran = bunch of nutters
Afganistan = bunch of nutters
N Korea = bunch of nutters
Which of these would you like to have nuclear weapons and the means to deliver them?

Since we are dealing in sweeping statements with no need for justification

USA = bunch of nutters


Cheers

BHR

[The Rocket]

Nice to have you back BHR.

Think that the whole 'Cat' thing, and the arguing with Barrymore cost you a few votes, but on the whole, very entertaining.

[BillHicksRules]

Originally Posted by The Rocket

Nice to have you back BHR.
Think that the whole 'Cat' thing, and the arguing with Barrymore cost you a few votes, but on the whole, very entertaining.

What?

Cheers

BHR

[SASless]

Hey Hicksy,

Next time I am in Scotland this summer...what say I buy you a Pint!

Then you can explain at short length how you arrived at that statement about Americans being "nutters" in the class of the Iranian President, Kimmy Boy and the Taliban.

That assumes you would say such a thing in person considering how offensive it really is. The reaction one might expect from such offerings, especially when dealing with "nutters" if you are quite correct, begs the imagination.

First round is mine. After that...it is up to you.

[The Rocket]

You're sounding amazingly like George Galloway with your prattle about US and UK Nukes, and defence of Iran in it's attempts to produce 'defensive' nuclear weapons.

What next BHR, are you about to advise that the Iranians and their Middle Eastern brothers should rise up against the Infidels who are 'raping' their holy lands.

[BillHicksRules]

Originally Posted by SASless

Hey Hicksy,
Next time I am in Scotland this summer...what say I buy you a Pint!
Then you can explain at short length how you arrived at that statement about Americans being "nutters" in the class of the Iranian President, Kimmy Boy and the Taliban.
That assumes you would say such a thing in person considering how offensive it really is. The reaction one might expect from such offerings, especially when dealing with "nutters" if you are quite correct, begs the imagination.
First round is mine. After that...it is up to you.

It is no more or less offensive than the statement it was in response to.

I work with a guy who was born in Kabul, know at least three people from Iran, and know many Americans.

Now in my experience my statement is as accurate as that which I responded to.

Cheers

BHR