Should Iran be trusted in their nuclear pursuits?

[Tone-Loc]

This is a straightforward open poll.

YES - I trust that Iran is being truthful when they state they are only trying to develop nuclear power, not weapons.

NO - I do not trust that Iran is being truthful when they state they are only trying to develop nuclear power, not weapons.


This is not a poll about whether they should be able to develop nuclear power or weapons, or that the US shouldn't have them, or anything of that nature. Just answer the simple question with your simple answer... YES or NO.

[dys]

Nope.

[koruptid]

I'd be skeptical of any country making such claims.

[ass*assassin]

I'd be skeptical of any country making such claims.

especially from a country that has almost unlimited amounts of oil/gas for itself.. what is the point other than to try to get the 'nuclear card'? Pure horseshit.. we know what their agenda is.. it's to obtain a nuclear weapon so they can threaten others with it in the area.. they have plans to become the 'major gulf power', period.. see where it got iraq? this ain't happening folks..

[Zogo]

no, I don't trust any country with nuclear technology.

[Moniker]

no, I don't trust any country with nuclear technology. so deep and profound... KEEP RAGING AGAINST THE MACHINE!!!!!!

[Insolence]

No I don't trust 'em... but I'm a huge believer that this President can't do anything about it. I'm okay with another cold war; nuclear proliferation and all that jazz. Have been for awhile... I think it's the only reality in this day and age, plus who gives a shit if they bomb the piss out of Israel; we've needed to free the Palestinian state for a long time, this way they would just kill each other off. Isolationism is looking more appealing every day.

Three words sound better to me than diplomacy. (Ironically the president cannot pronounce them or the word diplomacy.)











Mutually Assured Destruction.

[Obscure]

No I don't trust 'em... but I'm a huge believer that this President can't do anything about it. I'm okay with another cold war; nuclear proliferation and all that jazz. Have been for awhile... I think it's the only reality in this day and age, plus who gives a shit if they bomb the piss out of Israel; we've needed to free the Palestinian state for a long time, this way they would just kill each other off. Isolationism is looking more appealing every day.

Three words sound better to me than diplomacy. (Ironically the president cannot pronounce them or the word diplomacy.)


Mutually Assured Destruction.

I am not okay with another Cold War because there won't be one. Mutually Assured Destruction only works when all parties involved seek to avoid destruction. Radical Islamic fundamentalists do not and should definitely never be trusted with anything more dangerous than a toenail clipper. They'll seek to create "martyrs" out of the entire Middle East and take as many of us with them as they possibly can. If Hezbollah took two Israeli prisoners and asked for over a thousand prisoners, land, and whatever else was on their list of demands, think what they'll ask for when they have two nuclear tipped missles. Even France thinks they can't be trusted.

[jav]

why would you be ok with any war?

[Insolence]

why would you be ok with any war?


there doesn't actually need to be conflict going on for there to actually be a cold war. i think the term cold war technically doesn't require military fighting.

[koruptid]

It doesn't involve fighting by definition.

[Zogo]

so deep and profound... KEEP RAGING AGAINST THE MACHINE!!!!!!

yea, it's based on logic and the last 60 years of world history.

PS your posts are becoming more incoherent.

[Moniker]

PS your posts are becoming more incoherent. as hard as I try, I'll never measure up to the master

p.s. my original post sailed so far over your head that it burned up on re-entry

[Zogo]

p.s. my original post sailed so far over your head that it burned up on re-entry

it's so cryptic that no one could understand it.

[Moniker]

it's so cryptic that no one could understand it.
by "no one", I assume you're speaking for yourself and small, invertebrate forms of marine life

[Cyberdemon]

there doesn't actually need to be conflict going on for there to actually be a cold war. i think the term cold war technically doesn't require military fighting.

...

:rolleyes:

[Zogo]

by "no one", I assume you're speaking for yourself and small, invertebrate forms of marine life

you're just using hollow internet catchphrases.

[schtoofa]

no, I don't trust any country with nuclear technology.

why trust any country (w/ or w/out nuclear technology)?

[rabidkevin]

We shouldnt be worried about a country with nuclear intentions, we should be worried about the loosely knit organizations that have no affiliation with a region. These extremist groups WILL get their hands on wmd's eventually and will have no remorse in their actions. I think Iran understands that any massive nuclear conflict would most definately end with their country being blown off the face of the earth even if we have to kill every one of them with a firestorm of bombs. They want a deterrent just like we do with our 10,000+ nukes ready and capable to reach any part of the entire globe. Anyways, I'm still a lot more worried about extremists who will carry out something, it's just in due time. It may take them awhile.

[Terminotaur]

Things will get a lot more interesting to say the least when most of the world's countries have a real and pressing need to convert to nuclear power.

[Zogo]

why trust any country (w/ or w/out nuclear technology)?

it depends on what you are trusting them with..yes, I wouldn't trust any countries with certain things and others I'd trust with some stuff and others with nothing.

[Moniker]

you're just using hollow internet catchphrases. actually, no part of that was a catchphrase. try again.

p.s. I find it hilarious you still don't understand what I said before, this is getting sad

[Zogo]

actually, no part of that was a catchphrase. try again.

"raging against the machine" is one of the most overused and hollow catchphrases in the history of the internet.

[larcain]

Where is W.C. Fields when you need him?