View Full Version : Iran
What are the leaders of Iran playing at?
They are heading for an express delivery of J Dams!
As the Israelis have proved in the past, they won't stand for any attempt at acquiring weapons grade material.
I can see another regime change on the horizon.
No conspiracy here, its bloody obvious what’s going on.
Everthe answer, nuke 'em into a glass parking lot! It would be a different story if WE were doing it, though, wouldn't it??
Everthe answer, nuke 'em into a glass parking lot! It would be a different story if WE were doing it, though, wouldn't it??
I'm not suggesting what should be done, I am worried about what will be done. The last thing I want to see is more Scottish Soldiers fighting someone elses war.
achingale
09-Feb-10, 16:04
I hate Britain being the aggressor, and that is how it will be seen if we go in there with the US again. About time diplomacy had more of a chance - and no, I am not on about appeasement, but sensible talks to get to the root of the problem, instead of every nation spitting their dummy out of the pram. But I agree with you ducati. It is someone else's war but we will get dragged into it as usual with more loss of UK service personnel.
What has Iran developing nuclear-powered electricity got to do with us? They are perfectly entitled to develop nuclear power stations.
I think it's not about nuclear power, rather about nuclear weapons. I don't think you are going to see Scottish soldiers fighting in Iran any time soon. If military action were to be taken against Iran it would not involve any sort of ground invasion. More likely you would see Israel with help from France and if they got the back bone the US to remove the Iranian weaponization facilities from the face of the planet.
The Iranians are very close to testing their first weapon, and I don't think Israel is going to wait around to see if they unleash it against them. The problem is that right now Israel can't finish the job with the equipment they have now. That's where you will see France, Saudi Arabia and a few others reach out and provide a small amount of help at just the right moment to ensure it works.
I do hope that by God's mercy it never comes to this.
Bruce H
I think it's not about nuclear power, rather about nuclear weapons. I don't think you are going to see Scottish soldiers fighting in Iran any time soon. If military action were to be taken against Iran it would not involve any sort of ground invasion. More likely you would see Israel with help from France and if they got the back bone the US to remove the Iranian weaponization facilities from the face of the planet.
The Iranians are very close to testing their first weapon, and I don't think Israel is going to wait around to see if they unleash it against them. The problem is that right now Israel can't finish the job with the equipment they have now. That's where you will see France, Saudi Arabia and a few others reach out and provide a small amount of help at just the right moment to ensure it works.
I do hope that by God's mercy it never comes to this.
Bruce H
I agree and particularly with the last sentiment.
oldchemist
09-Feb-10, 17:33
I agree that the leaders of Iran are pushing their luck and taunting their opponents but I read that they are preparing to enrich uranium to 20%U235 -that is not considered to be weapons grade.
I agree that the leaders of Iran are pushing their luck and taunting their opponents but I read that they are preparing to enrich uranium to 20%U235 -that is not considered to be weapons grade.
Iran currently enriches uranium to a level of 3.5% but requires 20% enriched uranium for its research reactor, which is meant to produce medical isotopes. A bomb would require uranium enriched to at least 90%.
Enriching to 20% would take about one year, using the 2,000 centrifuges at the underground Natanz facility, experts say.
But moving from 20% to 90% would take only six months and only require between 500 and 1,000 centrifuges.
My opinion differs, as I think they have been enriching to weapons grade for at least the last 18 months. Their announcement is meaningless, and is solely part of the public political theater that Iran invented long before the birth of the Roman empire.
They have the AQ Khan weapon design that Pakistan has successfully tested, the big hurdle for them is finding a good neutron source and some of the other fiddly bits needed to make sure it goes "boom" when you press the button.
Bruce H
My opinion differs, as I think they have been enriching to weapons grade for at least the last 18 months.
International weapons inspectors seem to have a different opinion from yourself.
What if Iran is telling the truth? Is the US going to openly apologise? I think not, because the US does someone else's bidding. Has done since 1913 at least.
International weapons inspectors seem to have a different opinion from yourself.
What if Iran is telling the truth? Is the US going to openly apologise? I think not, because the US does someone else's bidding. Has done since 1913 at least.
I distinctly remember saying there is no conspiracy here! :mad:
fingalmacool
10-Feb-10, 00:22
The world is to busy, so if Iran is next, it's going to be a push button affair, because if troops went in, they will get more than a bloody nose i feel:confused
I distinctly remember saying there is no conspiracy here! :mad:
Iran is not a 'thing', but the collection of people that live there. They have the right to live their lives in peace and security, without threats from Western powers poking their noses in.
The Western powers need to address their own problems. To label this warmongering as a "conspiracy," as if to discredit basic observational evidence, misses the point I think.
Would this sabre rattling by Iran not be in response to the huge U.S. Naval presence off the coast of Iran. It seems Obama is quickly looking to start his own war with Iran by pursuing aggresive posturing,and as sure as apples grow on trees, we will be pulled into an other war. If the next war is nuclear the one after that will be with bows and arrows.
Would this sabre rattling by Iran not be in response to the huge U.S. Naval presence off the coast of Iran. It seems Obama is quickly looking to start his own war with Iran by pursuing aggresive posturing,and as sure as apples grow on trees, we will be pulled into an other war. If the next war is nuclear the one after that will be with bows and arrows.
Would this sabre rattling by Iran not be in response to the huge U.S. Naval presence off the coast of Iran. It seems Obama is quickly looking to start his own war with Iran by pursuing aggresive posturing,and as sure as apples grow on trees, we will be pulled into an other war. If the next war is nuclear the one after that will be with bows and arrows.
It should also be noted that the imposition of sanctions on Iran, to cripple the country (as the US, Britain, etc., did with Iraq) is defined as an act of war. An act of war not by Iran. An act of war by the US and its cohorts.
International weapons inspectors seem to have a different opinion from yourself.
What if Iran is telling the truth? Is the US going to openly apologise? I think not, because the US does someone else's bidding. Has done since 1913 at least.
The great thing about this is that we don't have to worry about this. In time it will be evident what was really going on. I would rather the mad clerics of Iran gave up their nuclear ambitions, but if they don't it will be obvious soon enough.
As far as the "US openly apologizing", I assume you are talking about our government. If so, that would depend on who was in office. If it's President Obama, I am sure he already has apologized and will do so again, profusely, at the drop of a hat. Some Republican, maybe not so much.
If you are talking about the American public, we seem to have a very long and indelible memory about Iran that started in 1979. If you asked the average Yank, they might think there is a score to settle there.
Bruce H
Iran is not a 'thing', but the collection of people that live there. They have the right to live their lives in peace and security, without threats from Western powers poking their noses in.
The Western powers need to address their own problems. To label this warmongering as a "conspiracy," as if to discredit basic observational evidence, misses the point I think.
There seems to be an assumption here that the people of Iran are free to make their own choices in life, government and policy. I can assure you they are not (or you would not see the massive protests against the government). I wish the were self-determining, the world would be a much better place if Persia was free.
As far as western powers keeping out of Iran's nuclear ambitions, I would suggest you take a quick look at this (http://web.jjay.cuny.edu/~jobrien/reference/ob88.html), and see if it seems to look familiar.
Bruce H
The great thing about this is that we don't have to worry about this. In time it will be evident what was really going on. I would rather the mad clerics of Iran gave up their nuclear ambitions, but if they don't it will be obvious soon enough.
As far as the "US openly apologizing", I assume you are talking about our government. If so, that would depend on who was in office. If it's President Obama, I am sure he already has apologized and will do so again, profusely, at the drop of a hat. Some Republican, maybe not so much.
If you are talking about the American public, we seem to have a very long and indelible memory about Iran that started in 1979. If you asked the average Yank, they might think there is a score to settle there.
Bruce H
Well if the "average Yank" thinks that there are "score[s] to settle" going back to before my time, then that is a very sad indictment of your country.
You use the usual trick of calling people "mad" ("the mad clerics of Iran"). Why are they "mad"? What makes you think that you are sane? Is this just regurgitated propaganda? If so, then we had enough of that about Iraq and Afghanistan. You know, the media calling people who disagree with the saintly US and UK regimes are labeled as "insurgents," "radicals," "Islamists," "terrorists," etc., whereas we are portrayed as doing them some sort of favour.
Finally, we do have to worry about this, since we are talking about peoples' lives.
There seems to be an assumption here that the people of Iran are free to make their own choices in life, government and policy. I can assure you they are not (or you would not see the massive protests against the government). I wish the were self-determining, the world would be a much better place if Persia was free.
As far as western powers keeping out of Iran's nuclear ambitions, I would suggest you take a quick look at this (http://web.jjay.cuny.edu/%7Ejobrien/reference/ob88.html), and see if it seems to look familiar.
Bruce H
"Persia"? You mean the Islamic Republic of Iran, since they themselves are entitled to call themselves what they like (not what you like).
I see that you are playing the Hitler card now.
"Persia"? You mean the Islamic Republic of Iran, since they themselves are entitled to call themselves what they like (not what you like).
I see that you are playing the Hitler card now.
Actually, the document's origin is British.
Boozeburglar
10-Feb-10, 05:55
There is a case for assisting Iran's regime change.
Just because it is fashionable to see all foreign interference as imperialism, don't overlook the way Iran deals with dissent within. There is a hunger for revolution in Iran; how will it be sated?
George Brims
10-Feb-10, 07:53
The Iranians are very close to testing their first weapon
Please quote your evidence for this. Last I heard they barely had the ability to enrich to power station grade. No-one is going to let them get beyond that.
I think it's not about nuclear power, rather about nuclear weapons. I don't think you are going to see Scottish soldiers fighting in Iran any time soon. If military action were to be taken against Iran it would not involve any sort of ground invasion. More likely you would see Israel with help from France and if they got the back bone the US to remove the Iranian weaponization facilities from the face of the planet.
The Iranians are very close to testing their first weapon, and I don't think Israel is going to wait around to see if they unleash it against them. The problem is that right now Israel can't finish the job with the equipment they have now. That's where you will see France, Saudi Arabia and a few others reach out and provide a small amount of help at just the right moment to ensure it works.
I do hope that by God's mercy it never comes to this.
Bruce H
We have been here before in 1981.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/june/7/newsid_3014000/3014623.stm
Israel decided Iraq was trying to make nuclear weapons and bombed the almost complete reactor in Baghdad.
After we invaded Iraq we examined the facility, Israel had lied about the intelligence they said they had, there were no secret rooms hidden from the IAEA inspectors, there was no weapons program.
It is not Iran who are the threat, it is Israel. Iran is breaking no laws, Israel is breaking every law in the book. Iran has not attacked any of her neighbours or threatened to, Israel has attacked Palestine, Lebanon, Syria, Egypt. Yet Iran is under strict sanctions and Israel receives more US foreign aid than every other country put together.
How many more people have to die before people stop being stupid and realise that the only way there will ever be peace in the Middle East is for the world to reign in Israel and force them to comply with international law. There will be no peace till there is justice.
The great thing about this is that we don't have to worry about this. In time it will be evident what was really going on. I would rather the mad clerics of Iran gave up their nuclear ambitions, but if they don't it will be obvious soon enough.
Like it is now evident that Iraq had weapons on mass destruction? Like it is now evident that Iraq was buying yellowcake from Niger to build a nuclear bomb, like it is now evident that Iraq had Al Qaeda training camps?
As far as the "US openly apologizing", I assume you are talking about our government. If so, that would depend on who was in office. If it's President Obama, I am sure he already has apologized and will do so again, profusely, at the drop of a hat. Some Republican, maybe not so much.
If you are talking about the American public, we seem to have a very long and indelible memory about Iran that started in 1979. If you asked the average Yank, they might think there is a score to settle there.
Bruce H
Yes the people in Iran have long memories too, they remember in 1953 America backed a coup which overthrew their democratically elected government and installed a brutal dictator. They remember in 1988 an American ship shot down an Iranian civil airliner killing all 290 passengers and crew aboard, including 66 children. They remember America backed Saddam Hussein to invade Iran resulting in the deaths of half a million Iranians, they remember America supplied Iraq with chemical and biological weapons.
northener
10-Feb-10, 11:44
........
Yes the people in Iran have long memories too, they remember in 1953 America backed a coup which overthrew their democratically elected government and installed a brutal dictator. They remember in 1988 an American ship shot down an Iranian civil airliner killing all 290 passengers and crew aboard, including 66 children. They remember America backed Saddam Hussein to invade Iran resulting in the deaths of half a million Iranians, they remember America supplied Iraq with chemical and biological weapons.
Not often I agree with Fred, but he's right on this one.
Although we may not agree with the Iranian government on a number of issues, to regard Iran as some medieval fiefdom controlled by a ruthless dictator who is asking to be the subject of a 'regime change' by Westerners is pretty wide of the mark. If I was an Iranian, I'd be pissed off with the US (and us) quite badly too.
The rabid extremism shown by Khomeini and his sidekicks back in the '80s has largely been brought to heel by moderate influences like Ahmadinejad (yup, he's moderate by comparison), although there's still quite a lot of sabre rattling going on over certain issues.
There won't be an invasion of ground troops into Iran. Logistically, even the US would struggle to cope with Iraq, Afghanistan and Iran at the same time. And nobody's going to start lobbing nuclear warheads at them, either.
Is Iran looking to develop nuclear weapon capability? I'd be very suprised if they're not........
We have been here before in 1981.
It is not Iran who are the threat, it is Israel. Iran is breaking no laws, Israel is breaking every law in the book. Iran has not attacked any of her neighbours or threatened to, Israel has attacked Palestine, Lebanon, Syria, Egypt. Yet Iran is under strict sanctions and Israel receives more US foreign aid than every other country put together.
Do you remember the 6-day war? I do. Do you deny the holocaust as well??
You have to get your information somewhere else.
The Internet is for advertising, don't you realise that?
Israel attacks because it is surrounded by enemies. The Arabs are also neighbours with a US backed Nuclear power which can and does get away with preemptive aggression.
The more I look into the Middle East the more I think that the state of Israel should never of existed full stop.
Tragic part of the world
Also why do Americans think that Democracy is the be all and end all of everything. You cant just throw Democracy into volatile nations. Democracy is a form of Government that needs the full support of the people.
Israel attacks because it is surrounded by enemies. The Arabs are also neighbours with a US backed Nuclear power which can and does get away with preemptive aggression.
The more I look into the Middle East the more I think that the state of Israel should never of existed full stop.
Tragic part of the world
Also why do Americans think that Democracy is the be all and end all of everything. You cant just throw Democracy into volatile nations. Democracy is a form of Government that needs the full support of the people.
Why has an observation on the behaviour of the Iranian leadership turned into an attack on Israel?
Why has an observation on the behaviour of the Iranian leadership turned into an attack on Israel?
To answer your question, you really have to understand the following accurate assessment -
We have been here before in 1981.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/june/7/newsid_3014000/3014623.stm
Israel decided Iraq was trying to make nuclear weapons and bombed the almost complete reactor in Baghdad.
After we invaded Iraq we examined the facility, Israel had lied about the intelligence they said they had, there were no secret rooms hidden from the IAEA inspectors, there was no weapons program.
It is not Iran who are the threat, it is Israel. Iran is breaking no laws, Israel is breaking every law in the book. Iran has not attacked any of her neighbours or threatened to, Israel has attacked Palestine, Lebanon, Syria, Egypt. Yet Iran is under strict sanctions and Israel receives more US foreign aid than every other country put together.
How many more people have to die before people stop being stupid and realise that the only way there will ever be peace in the Middle East is for the world to reign in Israel and force them to comply with international law. There will be no peace till there is justice.
In fact, it is the Israelis who not only had secret rooms, but whole floors underground at their nuclear weapons production plant at Damona.
To answer your question, you really have to understand the following accurate assessment -
In fact, it is the Israelis who not only had secret rooms, but whole floors underground at their nuclear weapons production plant at Damona.
a) I don't need a history lesson I remember it!
b) It doesn't in anyway answer the question
northener
10-Feb-10, 15:40
To blame Israel for all the ME's problems is as ridiculous a notion as always defending it's neighbours.
Certainly Israel has a lot to answer for, and can certainly be accused of acting in a manner more closely associated with their Nazi tormentors than a civilised democratic society regarding the Palestinians.
Unfortunately, we will no doubt drift into the usual realms of Zionist conspiracies rather than looking at the region as a whole.[disgust]
As a side issue, regarding a simplistic view of the ME and goodies/baddies, does anyone actually rememnber that Qatar and Syria were part of the coalition in the first Gulf War? Syria especially has long been a supporter of so-called terrorist groups in the ME...yet they sided with the coalition against their ME neighbour.
If everything in the Middle East is so easily seperated into West versus ME - why did this happen and why are ME countries always ready to turn on each other as opposed to working together?
The West has certainly a long history of trying to control the ME, but the occupants of this region are more than capable of making trouble for each other without our interference.....
Actually what I suspect is: the mad mullets are looking for a way to distract the population from internal unrest and focus the attention outside to the US and Israel. They are probably hoping the Israelis will bomb their facilities. Giving them a chance to give the population an external enemy to focus on.
It wouldn't be the first time such a tactic was used.
northener
10-Feb-10, 18:49
Actually what I suspect is: the mad mullets are looking for a way to distract the population from internal unrest and focus the attention outside to the US and Israel. They are probably hoping the Israelis will bomb their facilities. Giving them a chance to give the population an external enemy to focus on.
It wouldn't be the first time such a tactic was used.
Indeed, Sir. Indeed.
Actually what I suspect is: the mad mullets are looking for a way to distract the population from internal unrest ...
So now the "mullets" have become the bogeyman! Israel and America can bully and threaten the Iranians, because of the bad "mullets," and their supposed to be the good guys? :roll:
So now the mullets have become the bogeyman! Israel and America can bully and threaten the Iranians because of the bad mullets and their supposed to be the good guys? :roll:
Bizarrely this seems to have turned into a hairdressing thread.
Why don't you answer the question?? [disgust]
Boozeburglar
10-Feb-10, 19:43
Iran has a brutal regime, only complete nutters would think they are deserving of anything less than being overthrown, and soon.
Iraq was nothing like Iran, and I don't see why the same evil motives that ended with war there should not by luck end up doing some good.
When a conspiracy nutter starts talking about the truth remember that to these people the truth is very inconvenient, and their version of it is wholly dependant on what fits their paranoid delusion.
northener
10-Feb-10, 19:48
So now the "mullets" have become the bogeyman! Israel and America can bully and threaten the Iranians, because of the bad "mullets," and their supposed to be the good guys? :roll:
Distraction tactics are nothing new, really.
It worked for General Galtieri...until he lost, that is......
Iran has a brutal regime, only complete nutters would think they are deserving of anything less than being overthrown, and soon.
What do you base your opinion on, if anything?
Iraq was nothing like Iran, and I don't see why the same evil motives that ended with war there should not by luck end up doing some good.
And you are calling others "nutters"?
When a conspiracy nutter starts talking about the truth remember that to these people the truth is very inconvenient, and their version of it is wholly dependant on what fits their paranoid delusion.
You seem to be suffering a serious form of delusion yourself, Boozeburgler, judging by your rants above.
Bizarrely this seems to have turned into a hairdressing thread.
Why don't you answer the question?? [disgust]
Perhaps this quote, straight from the horse's mouth, will answer your questions -
"Every time we do something you tell me America will do this and will do that . . . I want to tell you something very clear: Don't worry about American pressure on Israel. We, the Jewish people, control America, and the Americans know it." - Israeli Prime Minister, Ariel Sharon, October 3, 2001
Perhaps this quote, straight from the horse's mouth, will answer your questions -
"Every time we do something you tell me America will do this and will do that . . . I want to tell you something very clear: Don't worry about American pressure on Israel. We, the Jewish people, control America, and the Americans know it." - Israeli Prime Minister, Ariel Sharon, October 3, 2001
That's the problem. You are answering your own question not mine!
If you are going to get involved pay attention.
That's the problem. You are answering your own question not mine!
If you are going to get involved pay attention.
Didn't know I needed your permission to get involved.
What was your question?
Didn't know I needed your permission to get involved.
What was your question?
Why has an observation on the behaviour of the Iranian leadership turned into an attack on Israel?
highland red
10-Feb-10, 21:24
I see that there appears to be no problem with North Korea "sabre rattling".
Maybe The World's Police people, (whoever you choose), don't seem to be in such a big hurry to invade/regime change these people. Incredible really when the ordinary people of this same country are starving to death.
Knowing people from Bosnia who were forced to try to defend themselves from their long time neighbours ( and our Son that was pinned down in a building for a week trying to help), the USA under Mr Clinton did "stuff all". And to quote a Bosnian source: "if we should strike oil whilst digging our trenches, then The USA would be here and actually do something to help".
Please don't get me going about "The Israelis" plight in the Middle East.
Why has an observation on the behaviour of the Iranian leadership turned into an attack on Israel?
Because your observation was based on the propaganda you have been spoon fed, and the propaganda is designed and manipulated such as to whitewash over true crimes with claims that the Iranian government is somehow insane.
It maybe worked with Iraq, but it is not working this time around.
Now perhaps you will appreciate why I quoted Sharon?
Because your observation was based on the propaganda you have been spoon fed, and the propaganda is designed and manipulated such as to whitewash over true crimes with claims that the Iranian government is somehow insane.
It maybe worked with Iraq, but it is not working this time around.
Now perhaps you will appreciate why I quoted Sharon?
Who died and made you fount of all knowledge?
Boozeburglar
10-Feb-10, 22:58
http://www.amnesty.org/en/region/iran
Are you now going to suggest Amnesty is a front for the CIA or something Stavro?
http://www.amnesty.org/en/region/iran
Are you now going to suggest Amnesty is a front for the CIA or something Stavro?
That reminds us what kind of regime we are discussing
http://www.amnesty.org/en/region/iran
Are you now going to suggest Amnesty is a front for the CIA or something Stavro?
http://www.amnesty.org/en/region/usa
Who died and made you fount of all knowledge?
I notice that you are keen to avoid the main issue.
Yoda the flump
10-Feb-10, 23:09
http://www.amnesty.org/en/region/iran
Are you now going to suggest Amnesty is a front for the CIA or something Stavro?
To be fair Amnesty seem to have major issues with most countries so using them in an discussion is perhaps a bit of a lost cause
That said Iran obviously does have human rights issues that need to be addressed.
Getting back to the original topic, why should Iran not have a civil nuclear programme? Many counties do and as long as they follow the IAEA regs then where is the problem?
Boozeburglar
10-Feb-10, 23:10
http://www.amnesty.org/en/region/usa
It is not me who would be suggesting Amnesty are one sided, anyone involved with them would know how critical they are of the USA. Does than mean the regime in Iran are not as described?
http://www.amnesty.org/en/region/usa
I notice that you are keen to avoid the main issue.
Your main issue not mine. And the link doesn't cancel out the first one.
It is not me who would be suggesting Amnesty are one sided, anyone involved with them would know how critical they are of the USA. Does than mean the regime in Iran are not as described?
There we are again; "regime." The government of Iran was elected by the people of Iran, called Iranians. They were not elected by us. They have a different culture, a different set of laws, a different governmental structure. They are free to determine their own government and that government is legally entitled to pursue nuclear power.
Boozeburglar
10-Feb-10, 23:31
There we are again; "regime." The government of Iran was elected by the people of Iran, called Iranians. They were not elected by us. They have a different culture, a different set of laws, a different governmental structure. They are free to determine their own government and that government is legally entitled to pursue nuclear power.
A different culture to 'us'?
You are talking crap. There is all sorts of evidence to suggest Iran's government is illegal, you are an apologist for tyranny.
You are blinded by your hate of the USA.
What a tube.
You don't even check your sources before posting links to long discredited sources and quoting long disproved quotes.
Amateur.
There we are again; "regime." The government of Iran was elected by the people of Iran, called Iranians. They were not elected by us. They have a different culture, a different set of laws, a different governmental structure. They are free to determine their own government and that government is legally entitled to pursue nuclear power.
Once again you have completely missed the point. It’s not about legality it is about consequences.
I'll tell you what will happen based on my own experience of living through the various bits of history that you keep looking up on the web.
If Iran gets within 6 months of weapons grade material (or sooner) The US, probably with the help of Israel will ensure that it gets no further.
That’s it.
And the reason for this (true or not) is that certain states and people believe that if Iran were to complete a "bomb" they would use it before the paint dried! And the point I have been trying to make is: the leadership in Iran are doing their utmost to make sure that this is the impression that is out there.
So you can piss and moan about the US/Zionist warmongers being in the pocket of Sharon and anything else that floats your boat but it don't alter the above.
Yoda the flump
10-Feb-10, 23:44
To be fair to Iran they are a soverign state that are quite aware of the consequences of bombing Isreal, they will get the same back with interest!
As in many countries this is more than likely a bit of sabre rattling by the government and a way of gaining popularity both internally and in the region.
The Iranians are not as stupid as you are making them out.
If you are really worried about nuclear material or weapons getting into the wrong hands then maybe you should look a bit further east towards Pakistan
Tubthumper
10-Feb-10, 23:46
What a tube...
Oy! it's Tchyoub!
Or is it Chube? I can never remember...
Boozeburglar
10-Feb-10, 23:53
Oy! it's Tchyoub!
Or is it Chube? I can never remember...
Well I mean anything that the truth can enter one end and disappear out the other at speed, barely touching the sides.
;)
You are talking crap.
Another quality post from you, boozleburger. :D
So you can piss and moan about the US/Zionist warmongers being in the pocket of Sharon and anything else that floats your boat but it don't alter the above.
You sound for all the world like the ranting tyrant that you would have us all believe is to be found in the legitimate government of Iran.
Unlike the US and "Israel," Iran has attacked no one. Fact. Period. Full stop. OK?
You sound for all the world like the ranting tyrant that you would have us all believe is to be found in the legitimate government of Iran.
Unlike the US and "Israel," Iran has attacked no one. Fact. Period. Full stop. OK?
Just stating the facts as I see them.
Just stating the facts as I see them.
Rather than even looking at the facts, you seem to be making predictions based upon your desire to militarily attack another country that has not attacked you (or anyone else, for that matter).
Rather than even looking at the facts, you seem to be making predictions based upon your desire to militarily attack another country that has not attacked you (or anyone else, for that matter).
I think Iran has attacked Iraq on more than one occasion
Boozeburglar
11-Feb-10, 02:02
Another quality post from you, boozleburger. :D
Well I am pretty certain it is not libellous.
:)
I think Iran has attacked Iraq on more than one occasion
Other way round, Iraq invaded Iran. Iran had no option, but to take the offensive!
Other way round, Iraq invaded Iran. Iran had no option, but to take the offensive!
Oh... well the Telegraph (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/iran/6840337/Iran-invades-Iraqi-territory-to-seize-oil-field.html) thinks otherwise
Oh... well the Telegraph (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/iran/6840337/Iran-invades-Iraqi-territory-to-seize-oil-field.html) thinks otherwise
The link you posted says that Iranian soldiers raised an Iranian flag on an old abandoned building in disputed territory on the Iran Iraq border.
How many bombs were dropped in this "attack"? How many shells were fired in this "attack"? How many bullets were fired in this "attack"? Did an Iranian solder even rush across the border and thump an Iraqi in this "attack"?
Now considering that America actually did attack Iraq in 2003, under false pretences, resulting in the deaths of hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqi civilians and counting, contaminating the country with depleted uranium which will cause birth defects for centuries, I don't think they have much right to criticise Iran for attacking Iraq with a piece of cloth.
Get real man.
Closing thread due to irritating nutters using it to promote their own agenda
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.