Phanerothyme Posted January 13, 2006 Share Posted January 13, 2006 Originally posted by Greybeard What's the rush ? It will be several years, - I've read as many as ten, before Iran has a deliverable nuclear weapon. I don't think the 'west' need get involved anyway; Israel would be Iran's primary target and there is little doubt that if Israel perceived a viable nuclear threat from Iran they would take it out without consulation. Exactly. Like they did with Iraq/Osirak. And they will be roundly condemned for it, whilst behind closed diplomatic doors, many backs will be being slapped. Until Israel declares its nuclear program, joins the NPT and becomes subject to IAEA inspections (like Iran does), any attempt at nuclear control in the middle east will be seen as laughably one sided. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclone Posted January 13, 2006 Share Posted January 13, 2006 The way I see it, we have no justification for interfering in Iran in anyway. If they are signatories to the NNPT then they should suffer whatever sanctions the break of that treaty warrants. But they are a sovereign state and can withdraw from the NNPT if they wish. This time there is definitely without a shadow of a doubt (or possible government spin) no legal basis for taking any military action. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
venger Posted January 13, 2006 Share Posted January 13, 2006 Sod it, why not just nuke everyone that doesn't speak English as a first language Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Preacher Man Posted January 13, 2006 Share Posted January 13, 2006 Originally posted by kirky i think millions of iraqi's would disagree,fair enough some would agree but only saddam supporters...can you imagine what a country full of islamic fanatics would do with a nuclear bomb:| :| Kirky what are you basing this on? Do you actually have any proof of this? I actually know an Iraqi very well, and she has lots of family still in Baghdad. The conditions now are far worse than under Saddam. I am not advicating Saddam as some sort of martyr. He was a vile dictator who the Americans put in power and we helped arm. Under Saddam there were Christian and Jewish places of worship. Other religions were allowed to worship in peace. In fact the Iraqi Christians were meant to be closely related to Joseph. Under Saddam it was safe to walk the streets and there was electricity, gas, and telephone lines. Under American occupation it is now unsafe to walk the street and if you are a woman gang rape is common place.. Shootings and violent attacks happen in massively greater numbers than before the war. There is no longer a steady electricity supply and the phones are tempermental at best. All non-muslim places of worship have been burnt and most Christians and Jews have fled to other countries. I very much doubt people are happy he has gone! It was a double edged sword at best. Get rid of a dictator to be replaced by an American puppet government after its oil. This is the worst case scenario! I pity the people of Iraq and who is to blame? We are for not putting more pressure on Tony Blair. And now you say we should bomb Iran??? Why? They are developing nucleur weapons? We have them and so do many other countries. Iran is a more volatile country but they would not be stupid enough to attack the west as we vastly outnumber them. Iran would target Israel if anyone, but even then they know an attack on Israel would mean an American response. It is more likely they are developing weapons as a deterrent to the west. To stop us throwing our weight around. After all Iran was bombed by Israel earlier this year. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kirky Posted January 13, 2006 Author Share Posted January 13, 2006 Originally posted by venger Sod it, why not just nuke everyone that doesn't speak English as a first language so your in favour of bombing the park hill flats :hihi: :hihi: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Berberis Posted January 13, 2006 Share Posted January 13, 2006 Originally posted by Halibut Another huge no from Halibut. Ok, so the Iranian leader is a bit barmy to say the least (but hey, the West has Bush) but I don't think the slaughter of innocents is ever a really good plan do you Kirky? That comparison is a bit thin don’t you think! On one hand you have George Bush a democratically elected leader. On the other you have Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who: 1) Is suspected by the Austrians of involvement in the assassination of a Kurdish leader in Vienna in 1989. 2) Famously stated he thought Israel should be "wiped off the map" in 2005. 3) Also in 2005 called the Nazi Holocaust of European Jewry a "myth". 4) Whose' very election was criticised by international observers as having "serious deficiencies" and in some cases claimed to be rigged. Remember this was well before the west started to get worried about this guy! 5) Is reputed to have been involved in the 1979 hostage-taking at Tehran's US embassy not only by US interests but even by respected British [bBC] journalist John Simpson. 6) And has most recently banned western music! Yes, Bush in some cases could be considered a bit of a nut job, but this is obviously coming from his critics, but Ahmadinejad is in a completely different league! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
venger Posted January 13, 2006 Share Posted January 13, 2006 Originally posted by serapis On one hand you have George Bush a democratically elected leader. According to Fox News only, he actually lost, but hey, who needs democracy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sham71 Posted January 13, 2006 Share Posted January 13, 2006 Originally posted by venger Sod it, why not just nuke everyone that doesn't speak English as a first language if you change that slightly to can't speak english 'properly', you could nuke half of sheffield! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phanerothyme Posted January 13, 2006 Share Posted January 13, 2006 Originally posted by venger According to Fox News only, he actually lost, but hey, who needs democracy I think you are thinking of the election before last. This time he was elected, like it or not. As for Ahmadinejad banning Country and Western Music If he wants to nuke Shania Twain, maybe we should be helping them out.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclone Posted January 13, 2006 Share Posted January 13, 2006 isn't this an oxymoron? George Bush a democratically elected leader Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.