Iranian regime ‘frightens me,’ Harper says
- Thread starter mentalfloss
- Start date
"Death and life are in the power of the tongue: and they that love it shall eat the fruit thereof."
-Proverbs 18:21
Hope he's alive...
Speaking of failed arguments.....
Do I believe Iran's leaders and what they say?
I judge the situation based on the actual facts and evidence that can be proven, I judge the situation based on the country's past history & conflicts, I judge the situation based on that nation's cultural background.
There has been no evidence whatsoever that they are developing nuclear weapons. All evidence shows they are working on nuclear technology, but not nuclear weapons. Iran has every single right to develop nuclear technology and energy just as Canada does.... and just because Iran doesn't want to buy nuclear material from the US or other nations and prefer to develop it all on their own independently, again, they have every right to do so under the NNPT.
Oh but Iran wouldn't let inspectors into every single nook and cranny of their country to see everything that was going on, therefore they must be hiding something.
Sound familiar?
Inspectors were sent to Iraq and weren't allowed everywhere and thus, they must have had WMD's.... que the Iraq invasion.
They said they didn't have any WMD's, there was no evidence that they had any except some photos of hanger roof tops where we were told they were located.... yet it seems they were telling the truth and didn't have any, because none were found.
Now Iran says they are not working on Nuclear Weapons..... should we believe them?
I believe the evidence & facts.... and there is nothing that says or proves they're working on nuclear weapons.
And let's jump back to inspectors not being able to go everywhere..... both in Iraq and Iran.
Why wouldn't they let them into every single place they asked?
Well.... if you were an inspector from Canada, headed into the US and said you were there to check out their stuff..... do you seriously think the US would allow you to go everywhere you asked?
No.... why?
National Security.... that's the only answer you'd get.... and that's the same reason and justification for any other nation.
Oh but because you couldn't look into that broom closet or walk into the CIA to see everything that they do.... they must be hiding something and that something must be WMD's or Nuclear Weapons.... let's invade! :roll:
What is Iran working on, you ask??
Nuclear Energy/Power.
North Korea not only told everybody they were working on nukes, very shortly afterwards, they set off a nuke..... if Iran was working on Nuclear Weapons, they would have had them by now, they would have tested a few of them by now, as they have far more resources and money than North Korea..... and even by their own words, getting nuclear weapons and then using them would be stupid, because everybody already knows Israel has Nukes, the US has Nukes and many other nations have nukes.... if they fired their nuke(s), not only would Israel and the US fire back at them, but many of their neighboring nations would attack them as well due to having to deal with radiation fallout.
I'm not fan of Iran's religious beliefs, their customs, their treatment of minorities and those of a different sexual orientation.... But they're not idiots, they're not stupid enough to commit suicide by firing nukes at anybody and I can't remember the last time Iran started a war.
However, I can remember the last time the US/NATO started a war...... over baseless crap and fear mongering BS.
Further Fear Mongering.
Indeed, the fact remains that they managed to not blow the planet up, although they came close a number of times.... Iran doesn't have nukes, nor ever had them to even determine what they'd do with them.
Pakistan has nukes, yet never used them..... and plenty of people around the world don't trust that Government..... many don't trust North Korea, yet they haven't nuked anybody yet..... every single country that does have nukes right now have never once used them against an enemy.... except for the US who nuked Japan twice.
You can call the people in Iran Fanatical Religious Cavemen all you want, that doesn't mean they're complete morons who'd blindly launch nukes simply because they have them.
And sorry, but the Soviet Union and the US back in the Cold War were fanatical nut jobs... just as much as Iran ever could be.... constantly in fear of the Commies taking over the world, or the Yanks turning the world into Disney World or something..... the propaganda and fear mongering was far worse than anything I've ever seen come out of Iran.
I could go through your response line by line, but it's late so I'll sum up my thoughts in a few short paragraphs.
Pakistan is still very volatile and you are kidding yourself if you don't think there is a risk there.
Japan was given an ultimatum and after millions were killed in a war they were destined to lose that spanned half a decade they chose to ignore that final warning. The war was lost for their side, but it was the fanatical side of Japan that brought about the two bombs dropped on that Country.
A nuclear Iran poses not only a nuclear thread to the region, but a conventional threat as well. A nuclear Iran could suddenly leverage its neighbors into all out war.
Finally, comparing the United States as being fanatical as Iran is ridiculous.
One last thing I noted was the mention of Iraq. I did not support the war in Iraq, but let's not forget that Saddam Hussein could have avoided the entire thing had he not continually ignored the conditions of his surrender from the previous war. Had he simply allowed the inspectors in he might still be there ruling with an iron fist and that 70's porno moustache.
I seem to recall Bush Jr. saying that Iraq would be a cake walk. Me thinks the west would find Iran would not lie down as easily as some think. Might just be the last straw that takes the stuffing out of the turkey.
I say again,are you watching he price of oil,think there's a coincidence ? harpo just wants to be feared and respected{?}like his hero and mentor george jr.and of course,make all his oil buddys filthy rich{er}.
Just something else to worry about, Iran is not our only concern.
If Pakistan ever comes close to launching a nuclear warhead, the final say would be with the all-powerful army chief, even though in theory the prime minister's finger should be on the trigger, as he is the chairman of the Nuclear Command Authority which handles the command and control of the country's strategic nuclear forces and organisations.
While the United States has officially refuted some recent international media reports questioning Pakistan's nuclear safety mechanisms, saying that its security measures are state-of-the-art, it is the country's army tops brass which will take a final decision about employing the nuclear option.
The fresh controversy over the safety of Pakistan's nuclear mechanism was set off with the publication of a title story in the December 2011 issue of a leading US magazine, The Atlantic. Titled The Ally from Hell, the report described Pakistan as an unstable and violent country located at the epicenter of global jihad, which might not be the safest place on earth to warehouse 100 plus nuclear weapons.
Tagging Pakistan as an obvious place for a jihadi organisation to seek a nuclear weapon or fissile material, the article said that the Pakistani military and security services are infiltrated by an unknown number of jihadi sympathisers. The Atlantic pointed out three key threats to Pakistan's nuclear programme -- a terrorist theft of a nuclear weapon, transfer of a nuclear weapon to another state like Iran and a takeover of nuclear weapons by a militant group during a period of instability.
The US magazine then claimed: "A country that is home to the harshest variants of Muslim fundamentalism, and to the headquarters of the organisations that espouse these extremist ideologies, including Al Qaeda, the Haqqani network, and Lashkar-e-Tayiba, nuclear bombs capable of destroying entire cities are transported in delivery vans on congested and dangerous roads. And Pakistani and American sources say that since the raid on Abbottabad [in May this year to kill Osama bin Laden], the Pakistanis have provoked anxiety inside the Pentagon by increasing the pace of these movements. In other words, the Pakistani government is willing to make its nuclear weapons more vulnerable to theft by jihadis simply [in a bid] to hide them from the United States, the country that funds much of its military budget".
Meet the men who CONTROL Pakistan's nuke arsenal - Rediff.com News
If Pakistan ever comes close to launching a nuclear warhead, the final say would be with the all-powerful army chief, even though in theory the prime minister's finger should be on the trigger, as he is the chairman of the Nuclear Command Authority which handles the command and control of the country's strategic nuclear forces and organisations.
While the United States has officially refuted some recent international media reports questioning Pakistan's nuclear safety mechanisms, saying that its security measures are state-of-the-art, it is the country's army tops brass which will take a final decision about employing the nuclear option.
The fresh controversy over the safety of Pakistan's nuclear mechanism was set off with the publication of a title story in the December 2011 issue of a leading US magazine, The Atlantic. Titled The Ally from Hell, the report described Pakistan as an unstable and violent country located at the epicenter of global jihad, which might not be the safest place on earth to warehouse 100 plus nuclear weapons.
Tagging Pakistan as an obvious place for a jihadi organisation to seek a nuclear weapon or fissile material, the article said that the Pakistani military and security services are infiltrated by an unknown number of jihadi sympathisers. The Atlantic pointed out three key threats to Pakistan's nuclear programme -- a terrorist theft of a nuclear weapon, transfer of a nuclear weapon to another state like Iran and a takeover of nuclear weapons by a militant group during a period of instability.
The US magazine then claimed: "A country that is home to the harshest variants of Muslim fundamentalism, and to the headquarters of the organisations that espouse these extremist ideologies, including Al Qaeda, the Haqqani network, and Lashkar-e-Tayiba, nuclear bombs capable of destroying entire cities are transported in delivery vans on congested and dangerous roads. And Pakistani and American sources say that since the raid on Abbottabad [in May this year to kill Osama bin Laden], the Pakistanis have provoked anxiety inside the Pentagon by increasing the pace of these movements. In other words, the Pakistani government is willing to make its nuclear weapons more vulnerable to theft by jihadis simply [in a bid] to hide them from the United States, the country that funds much of its military budget".
Meet the men who CONTROL Pakistan's nuke arsenal - Rediff.com News
The choices are clear: either give everybody nukes, or take them away from everybody. Nobody can be trusted with that kind of power. so either everybody has a deterrent or nobody has them. If the US, NATO or the UN wants to be able to decide who does not have nukes, then they have to be willing to give up their own. What we see now is a "stacking the cards in our favour" atmosphere, but it is obviously not working as more states go rogue.
So long as any country has nukes, they're a threat to everyone, including our allies.
Which is a cop out excuse trying to justify the use of nukes. There is no excuse for using nukes on anybody, regardless if it's an ally using them or an enemy.
Could..... many pointless wars have been started over what "Could" happen in the future. The US, Pakistan, Israel, North Korea, Russia, and many other Nations "Could" suddenly drag their neighbors into an all out war too.
Really? Why??
He May Be a Communist - YouTube
American Propaganda Films - Communism - YouTube
I won't even get into the religious fanatics in the US, the bombings of abortion clinics, the attacks and unfair equality towards homosexuals & minorities, the mass shooting sprees that seem to happen every 2nd week..... pretty fanatical to me.
Everybody loves to finger point and villainize other nations who don't think, act or believe in the same things we do.... China for example.... yet it always seems difficult for them to look into the mirror and see what we look like in our Western societies.
It's really no different than how Muslim Extremists try and make the West look evil.... it's no different than the US and other Western nations try and make Iran and its people look evil..... it's no different than how you call them cavemen and portray them as war-addicted fanatics willing to launch nukes without thinking, simply because you think they want to kill us all simply because we're different.
It's all fear mongering based on nothing except ignorance and prejudice..... and you making claims on what they "Could" do is exactly that.... Fear Mongering.
I, you, others in these forums & others around the world "Could" do anything we can possibly imagine.... this isn't the Minority Report where you can punish people for things they haven't done yet or you suspect they "Could" do in the future.
What Harper is doing, by telling us what "Frightens" him, is Fear Mongering.
Besides, it really gives Canada a really good look to the rest of the world when our leader tells everyone that's he's scared. If our own leader of the Nation can't show a little backbone and use better wording when trying to explain himself, that's not a good thing, as it makes our nation look weak.... or weaker than we already appeared.
You don't have Obama or Putin or the leaders in Iran telling everybody that they're scared or frightened over something or some other nation.....
Chances are, he's not really that scared, he's using a play on words by saying all this "Frightens" him in order to further scare the Canadian populace.
I didn't support the Iraq or Afghanistan wars....
He did let the inspectors in, they've gone through many areas of the country.... it's only when they didn't get into a couple of locations due to "National Security" that Bush and Blair jumped all over it and used it as an excuse to attack..... yet following the invasion of Iraq, Bush tightened his grip in the US and started keeping more and more bottled up due to "National Security"
Funny how any nation in the world can keep things bottled up due to "National Security" unless it's someone our leaders want to attack..... double standard.
And with Iraq, the US showed everybody shots of hanger roof tops, telling us all this is where the WMD are located. They didn't show the actual WMD's, they didn't have any real evidence, but it was good enough it seems.... with Iran, they don't even have shots of roof tops, they don't have anything proving or suggesting anything except "Iran Could" do this or do that......
and that's supposed to be enough to sway people into getting into yet another unjustified war?
For some it seems that is enough.... which is pretty sad that they've become so fearful of the world around them, that they're willing to support their nation and their sons & daughters to go off to kill and get killed over what "Could" happen.
Iran "Could" be working on Nukes..... Iran "Could" launch those Nukes at someone and "Could" start a huge war which "Could" kill thousands and thousands of people.
But what is assured is that if our Nations decided to get into another war and attack Iran based on what "Could" be doing.... a Huge War "Will" happen, thousands and thousands of people "Will" be killed, and we would have started it... yet again.. just like Afghanistan.... just like Iraq.
And again you try and defend bully tactics..... they didn't do everything we demanded them to do.... they didn't give us their lunch money, so we beat the crap out of them simply because they didn't bend over backwards and took it up the ass..... it's their fault.... they made us beat them up and smack them around.... we're the victims.
They're their own sovereign nations and don't have to answer to any of us, nor do we have to answer to any of them.... the moment one nations does attack another, sure, smack the tar out of em.... but starting wars based on what "Could" happen is completely unjustified and an unnecessary cost of lives & resources.
It simply doesn't make any sense to start a war in order to somehow prevent a war.
Last edited:
Canadian PM Stephen Harper becomes the new Colin Powell
By: OpenResource
It was February 6th, 2003 when Colin Powell used up his last shred of credibility during his dramatic speech to the UN Security Council.
It appears that this time, it is Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper stepping to the podium.
By: OpenResource
It was February 6th, 2003 when Colin Powell used up his last shred of credibility during his dramatic speech to the UN Security Council.
“My second purpose today is to provide you with additional information, to share with you what the United States knows about Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction as well as Iraq’s involvement in terrorism, which is also the subject of resolution 1441 and other earlier resolutions.”
We all know how that turned out.
It appears that this time, it is Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper stepping to the podium.
“It’s beyond dispute Iran is developing nuclear weapons and lying about it”, Prime Minister Stephen Harper told CBC News chief correspondent Peter Mansbridge on Monday.
Nice comparison. I do think Harpo is talking out the other orifice,you know, the toothless one.
Yes the 5,961,358 allied soldiers killed in WWII is a cop out for using nukes against Japan who refused to surrender.