Iran will pay regardless, if the ■■■■ and their flunkies attack.
So, nuke for Iran is such a good idea because the ■■■ flunky US never attacks a country with nukes.
Iran will never be allowed a working nuke. We won’t allow it, the Saudis won’t allow it and the Israelis certainly won’t.
Approaching the nuclear threshold will mean the end of the regime no matter how many lives it costs.
If Trump does go after Iran I just hope his intelligence services are right this time; I mean they have a lot of form for not being right?
And what about your own ‘regime’, or for that matter ours, or any of the other nuke nations. It could be argued that ethically every country on the planet (if they have the technology, obviously) is just as entitled to have a nuke deterrent as the US or the UK et al? For one thing, the west isn’t very smart these days, as witness all the fuck-ups we keep making in the middle east?
If nuclear Armageddon is your goal then that’s a brilliant plan.
The logic of it can’t be argued though. More importantly, why should the dysfunctional West be the adjudicators of who are and who not allowed to have their own national defence?
Netaniyahu wants a nuke armageddon but he has been prevented from plunging the world into it repeatedly.
Call it divine intervention.
He is a satanist Illuminati, and wants to see the whole world destroyed. And there is no logic to it.
There is no logic to allowing highly aggressive dictators that are hell bent on destroying western civilization to acquire nukes.
They would not prevent future wars, they’d simply guarantee that we’ll have a large scale nuclear exchange at some point, something we’ve all been working hard to avoid since Russia first acquired a working nuke.
Why do we get to decide? We have the power to do so.
That’s utter stupidity, a nuclear exchange all but guarantees the death of most of Israel’s population and the end of the ■■■■■■ State.
Wouldn’t nuclear exchanges all over the planet (think retaliations?) all but guarantee the death of the rest of us? I might not be the smartest kid on the block, but I’m not ‘stupid’.
Exactly my point. Nobody that has the capabilty of getting a strike off before their capability is destroyed is going to accept the incoming unchallenged.
One of the main reasons were working on anti ICBM capability is to prevent that possibility at least to the greatest extent possible. Such a capability would render ICBM’s all but useless.
The next world war won’t be kicked off by a nuke, it’ll be by a suitcase containing a biological or bacteria substance being left in the middle of a city somewhere, and you won’t know who put it there in order to aim your nukes at them? Think about that??
Pure baseless supposition. …
Let’s hope we never find out whether it is or not!
Like I said, that’s what the deranged Zionist Netaniyahu wants. Actually, the book of Talmud is the work of such deranged minds over thousands of years.
Iran doesn’t want nukes and doesn’t need them anyway and I think the Houthis just proved this in KSA - they could kill the world economy overnight if they wanted to.
The US could expect, for sure, all-out war. And then no ships would sail through the Strait of Hormuz. We all know the consequences of that.
Which brings us to The Big Surprise. The real reason there would be no ships traversing the Strait of Hormuz is that there would be no oil in the Gulf left to pump.
Unlike 911, we still don’t know for sure who done the Saudi refinery.
Like Jim Stone pointed out, the damages causes were too minor and too precise to be a real attack on Saudi Arabia.
The sooner we become independent of “fossil” fuel, the better.
I was about to point that out to Magog’s post above yours. There has been no proof offered whatsoever that the drones came from Iran, and when there’s no proof/evidence, then that comes under ‘fale news’ in my book.
You stating it is the first indication it’s a complete fabrication.
It’s asinine and delusional to even think Netanyahu or anyone else in Israel wants a nuclear exchange.