• Please read the Announcement concerning missing posts from 10/8/25-10/15/25.
  • This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Putin Says No 'Objective' Evidence

Sit back and watch as the Cold War moves into it's newest phase. Russia will be back my friends.
 
Ive read that many in Eastern Europe are afraid that if they we build the missile shield in those countries it will start a new Cold War arms race.

Given Putin's desire to see Russia re-emerge as a military super power a viable missile defense system would certainly pose a strategic power imbalance that he could not cope with. Same as it was long ago when the ABM treaty was created.
 
If you don't have nukes, you're SO not allowed to get nukes, unless we give em to you! - American International Law
 
If you don't have nukes, you're SO not allowed to get nukes, unless we give em to you! - American International Law

But if you do manage to get them before we can drop bombs on you, we won't do **** about it.
 
But if you do manage to get them before we can drop bombs on you, we won't do **** about it.
By this logic the world would be a safer place if Iran actually had nukes then, as long as they don't do something with it or having their neighbours or militant groups developing any ideas.

By this logic - and I consider this logic valid - the world would have been a safer place if Iraq actually have had WMD's in 2003.
 
If someone had objective evidence, it would be one opportunity to present it to international organizations or media for checking it.

If a government or an organization does have objective evidence and does not present it, one might ask, why. Maybe it's part of ongoing investigations or so.

But the way I see, no one presented such evidence so far.

So I don't see the problem with this statement of Mr. Putin.
 
By this logic - and I consider this logic valid - the world would have been a safer place if Iraq actually have had WMD's in 2003.

Its not necessarily the weapons you have that give pause. Its what your intentions with those said weapons would be that gives the international community pause. What exactly does Iran need nuclear weapons for? What was Saddams history in regards to the use of WMDs?
 
Its not necessarily the weapons you have that give pause. Its what your intentions with those said weapons would be that gives the international community pause. What exactly does Iran need nuclear weapons for?
If an American attack or coalition attack is possible and in planning as long as Iran does not have nukes and these plans are dropped as soon as Iran has nukes, it makes sense for Iran to build nukes.

What was Saddams history in regards to the use of WMDs?
Saddam had WMD'S, he used them, later he dismantled the weapons and the production lines when international agreements told him to do so. He documented the dismantling of these weapons and the production lines to the international community.
 
Volker said:
He documented the dismantling of these weapons and the production lines to the international community.

This is a rather simplistic assertion that needs to be addressed, even at the risk of hijacking this thread...

Had Saddam fully and adequately documented the dismantling of these weapons there would have most likely have been no invasion. The international community knew he had WMDs; the international community knew he dismantled a large portion of WMDs; the international community did not know what he did with those that remained unaccounted for--and still doesn't. Repeated requests/demands by the UN for "full and final accounting," as the UN referred to it, of his WMDs were met with continual obfuscation and delay, and was never forthcoming.

The handful of artillery shells that turned up a couple of years ago that had originally been filled with Sarin gas attest to the fact that a portion of Saddam's known WMDs were never accounted for. That those shells were old and degraded was fortuitous. The next ones to turn up might not be so degraded. The fact remains that we still just don't know with an acceptable degree of certainty what remained of his WMD stocks, and we may never know.

It is quite probably true that, after '91 and the initial rounds of dismantling and inspections, that Saddam never had as many WMDs as Saddam led his own generals and the rest of the ME, and therefore, the world, to believe. Though the exact numbers remain unknown, it now appears that Saddam destroyed a much larger portion of his WMDs than he admitted to. In his bid to retain his leadership of the pan-arabists, Saddam gamed them all shamelessly into believing that he retained sufficient "special weapons" (as he referred to them in communications with his military), to repel any attacks.

Now back to your regularly scheduled programming...
 
If an American attack or coalition attack is possible and in planning as long as Iran does not have nukes and these plans are dropped as soon as Iran has nukes, it makes sense for Iran to build nukes.

I'm not worried about Iran nuking America. I worry about Iran nuking democracies in their region.
 
Back
Top Bottom