Bloody Iran at it again

[Ingafgrinn Macabre]

No. There are many areas of US foreign policy which I disagree with. Especially their policies in the middle east.
But I do support British armed forces and I do think that Iran having a nuclear capability would be bad not only for the region but for the world as a whole.

So, who told you Iran is going for atomic bombs?
Oh right, the CIA.... Yes Yes, we all know they are completely trustworthy (WMD anyone?)
Iran self says they're only aiming for nuclear energy.
Also, even if they are aiming for a nuke, estimated time till they manage to make one and have it in usable condition is about 11 years...
Doesn't really sound like it's a real time-critical issue.

Besides, no matter how I'd like Iran not to have nukes... I don't think you have anything to say about it. UK has got ~200 nukes aswell. That's like walking up to someone with a tray of candy, rubbing it under his or her nose, and then saying... you can't have one!.
The UK, US, Russia, France, and the other nuclear powers really don't have a right to deny any other country from having nukes.

 

[Chronictank]

No. There are many areas of US foreign policy which I disagree with. Especially their policies in the middle east.
But I do support British armed forces and I do think that Iran having a nuclear capability would be bad not only for the region but for the world as a whole.

*shrug* no worse than anyone else having it such as Israel or North Korea who have just as itchy trigger finger,
if a government wanted a nuclear arsenal there are alot more ways to get it under the table, hell is a terrorist wanted to get hold of nuclear weapons they could given enough money.

I hope iran do develop nukes, at least it would stop the yanks steamrolling the region and may even result in some sort of an alliance stabalising the region. And if they launch them there are 6 nuclear states (US, Russia, UK, France, China, India, Pakistan) who are within range to retaliate, and its gg Iran

 

[cHodAX]

Israel will never allow Iran to have nukes, that is where we need to worry. They have struck out at nuclear facilities in the past and they will do so again as soon as they get any kind of evidence that Iran is siphoning off weapons grade material for a missle program. Israel attacking Iran is bad for us all, we will get dragged into a war that has nothing to do with us.

Just want to add, I am no Iran hater and I am certainly not falling for the right wing propaganda. I am just worried that Iran is playing into America's hands with stupid acts like this kidnapping. We all know that America is just looking for an excuse to bomb Iran and so the Iranians are putting themselves and the region at risk all to try and score points in the media by taking British servicemen as prisoner. If they aren't careful they are going to end up being bombed back into the stoneage in what will amount to another war=oil conflict and none of us want to see that.

 

[Rookiescot]

So, who told you Iran is going for atomic bombs?
Oh right, the CIA.... Yes Yes, we all know they are completely trustworthy (WMD anyone?)
Iran self says they're only aiming for nuclear energy.
Also, even if they are aiming for a nuke, estimated time till they manage to make one and have it in usable condition is about 11 years...
Doesn't really sound like it's a real time-critical issue.

Besides, no matter how I'd like Iran not to have nukes... I don't think you have anything to say about it. UK has got ~200 nukes aswell. That's like walking up to someone with a tray of candy, rubbing it under his or her nose, and then saying... you can't have one!.
The UK, US, Russia, France, and the other nuclear powers really don't have a right to deny any other country from having nukes.

Its obvious they are trying to make a bomb. Russia offered to enrich the uranium for Iran for free so they could use it in a power station. However it would not be enriched enough to use in a bomb.
The Iranians said no. We want our own enrichment facilities ergo we want bomb quality uranium.

 

[Rookiescot]

*shrug* no worse than anyone else having it such as Israel or North Korea who have just as itchy trigger finger,
if a government wanted a nuclear arsenal there are alot more ways to get it under the table, hell is a terrorist wanted to get hold of nuclear weapons they could given enough money.

I hope iran do develop nukes, at least it would stop the yanks steamrolling the region and may even result in some sort of an alliance stabalising the region. And if they launch them there are 6 nuclear states (US, Russia, UK, France, China, India, Pakistan) who are within range to retaliate, and its gg Iran

Isreal wont use nukes because it would loose all the support it gets from USA. North Korea just sold all its nukes to USA because their economy was so screwed they needed the cash.
The very reason terrorists dont have nukes is because they cant get ahold of any. But do you think the Iranians will have any worries about supplying nukes to them?

 

[Ormorof]

hehe now they get interrogated in Tehran... if it was just a misunderstanding why all this faffing about?

 

[soze]

I wondered why the men did not defend them selves just because the boat was from Iran dose not mean they could not be suglers i would expect our boys to defend them selves vs hostile actions.

Besides, no matter how I'd like Iran not to have nukes... I don't think you have anything to say about it. UK has got ~200 nukes aswell. That's like walking up to someone with a tray of candy, rubbing it under his or her nose, and then saying... you can't have one!.
The UK, US, Russia, France, and the other nuclear powers really don't have a right to deny any other country from having nukes.

I though the UK only had the 4 subs with 16 each so 64 total and one of those is always in dock so not armed with nukes.

They try to stop them because of the pact that was signed saying no one in the world would develop the tecnnology and no one would increase the size of the arsenal they already had.

 

[Huntingtons]

I wondered why the men did not defend them selves just because the boat was from Iran dose not mean they could not be suglers i would expect our boys to defend them selves vs hostile actions.



I though the UK only had the 4 subs with 16 each so 64 total and one of those is always in dock so not armed with nukes.

They try to stop them because of the pact that was signed saying no one in the world would develop the tecnnology and no one would increase the size of the arsenal they already had.

well if north korea did sell to USA then USA broke it though

 

[Solo]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6491581.stm

 

[Rookiescot]

well if north korea did sell to USA then USA broke it though

No .. the USA destroyed them .... big difference between the quality of US nukes compared to others.

 

[Ingafgrinn Macabre]

No .. the USA destroyed them .... big difference between the quality of US nukes compared to others.

If you start talking, please don't sprout this nonsense....

The US didn't buy up and destroy anything because there was nothing to buy. North Korea has done one test, as announced by them, but many doubt it was an actual nuclear test as the power calculated was equivalent to 500 ton TNT. This is like 50 times less powerfull than those tests performed by pakistan and india.

There are suspicians this test either wasn't a successfull nuclear test, or it was just a regular explosive test.

North Korea agreed to stop further nuclear weapons development and dismantling of nuclear facilities and inspections by the IAEA in exchange for 50,000 ton of fuel aid. They didn't have nuclear missiles... they were only yet developing them.

So far in this thread you've posted nothing factual, and only sprout scaremongering bullshit.
So shoo, and learn your facts before posting.

 

[Thadius]

Iran is like America's deep south.

A load of idiots that are stuck in the past and use religion as an excuse to govern peoples lives. Problem is, both countries have leaderships which are less than sane, especially when it comes to attacking other countries(true, Iran hasnt YET, but can you see Amasundaydinnerjad inviting Israel round for a coffee and a bun?)

 

[Ingafgrinn Macabre]

Iran is like America's deep south.

A load of idiots that are stuck in the past and use religion as an excuse to govern peoples lives. Problem is, both countries have leaderships which are less than sane, especially when it comes to attacking other countries(true, Iran hasnt YET, but can you see Amasundaydinnerjad inviting Israel round for a coffee and a bun?)

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad doesn't rule Iran. He's just a puppet of Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khamenei.

 

[cHodAX]

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad doesn't rule Iran. He's just a puppet of Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khamenei.

And he is but a puppet of Kane, Sumpreme leader of N.O.D.! Fear not, the G.D.I. shall rescue those British sailors!

 

[Ezteq]

i bloody hate the news, cant trust it as far as you can throw it (which in my case aint far... and will be wonky too)

one thing that made me go eh?? was when the reporter on the tv said "the iranian's captures the british men for being in their waters they were then escourted in to iranian water at gun point" now then... they were arrested for bring in iranian water bu they had to be escourted in to .... wha??


as I said i hate the news, you never actually know the real story and these days the reporters dont report facts they tell opinions and its increadibly biased.

 

[Case]

What a bloody mess... the Us invade Iraq so they can secure oil reserves/put in a puppet government and give all the rebuilding contracts to american companies. Now we're stuck in a grinding war of attrition with them. America and Britain have lost all credibility in the region demonstrating everyday that they cannot finish what they started and Iran continues to antagonise the US and UK and supply weapons and supplies to the insurgents in Iraq.

At the rate this is going it's only a matter of time before the US escalate matters with Iran and we find ourselves right in the middle of world war 3. For what purpose really could Iran have taken these soldiers it has to be just to piss everyone off which it`s very much succeeded in doing. Whether you agree with one side or the other is irrelevent fact is Iran did something really stupid.

 

[Bahumat]

On the train this morning there was an Iranian in my seat! But he thought I was in his....we had an arm wrestle and it was ok in the end.

Told Tony and George, not sure whats gonna happen!

 

[dub]

Isreal wont use nukes because it would loose all the support it gets from USA. North Korea just sold all its nukes to USA because their economy was so screwed they needed the cash.
The very reason terrorists dont have nukes is because they cant get ahold of any. But do you think the Iranians will have any worries about supplying nukes to them?

hmm sure , use 20 years on producing the buggers and then handing them over to some fella who they havent got the sligthest controll over and who might aswell choose to use it on iran in 5 years , dunno really mate but seriously doubt that is a plausible scenario

 

[Rookiescot]

If you start talking, please don't sprout this nonsense....

The US didn't buy up and destroy anything because there was nothing to buy. North Korea has done one test, as announced by them, but many doubt it was an actual nuclear test as the power calculated was equivalent to 500 ton TNT. This is like 50 times less powerfull than those tests performed by pakistan and india.

There are suspicians this test either wasn't a successfull nuclear test, or it was just a regular explosive test.

North Korea agreed to stop further nuclear weapons development and dismantling of nuclear facilities and inspections by the IAEA in exchange for 50,000 ton of fuel aid. They didn't have nuclear missiles... they were only yet developing them.

So far in this thread you've posted nothing factual, and only sprout scaremongering bullshit.
So shoo, and learn your facts before posting.

Yup you are right in your statements regarding North Korea's agreement with the US. It was late and I didnt have time to post a more comprehensive explanaition. I just thought I would answer someones question as briefly as I could.
Perhaps Iran could enter into a similar agreement with the US?

As for the personal insults ..... give it a rest mate.

 

[Rookiescot]

hmm sure , use 20 years on producing the buggers and then handing them over to some fella who they havent got the sligthest controll over and who might aswell choose to use it on iran in 5 years , dunno really mate but seriously doubt that is a plausible scenario

No ... I dont think they would give them to someone they didnt control. What makes you think they woudnt control them?

 

[Ingafgrinn Macabre]

Yup you are right in your statements regarding North Korea's agreement with the US. It was late and I didnt have time to post a more comprehensive explanaition. I just thought I would answer someones question as briefly as I could.
Perhaps Iran could enter into a similar agreement with the US?

As for the personal insults ..... give it a rest mate.

I didn't post any personal insults. I just stated that the points you mentioned are not factual at all. They are just scaremongering false assumptions based on infinately false logic, poor guesses, non-evidence and anti-iranian propaganda.

Maybe they are researching nuclear weaponry... maybe they aren't, but your statement:

Its obvious they are trying to make a bomb. Russia offered to enrich the uranium for Iran for free so they could use it in a power station. However it would not be enriched enough to use in a bomb.
The Iranians said no. We want our own enrichment facilities ergo we want bomb quality uranium.

is hardly any evidence for this. You are assuming that they are researching a nuclear device because they denied Russia's offer for plutonium enrichment. Could it not be that they do not want to be dependent on a foreign country for their energy needs? Could it not be that they do not trust Russia's price agreements? Afterall, Russian gas prices are so very stable at the moment.

Also, the following statement you made in your last post:

No ... I dont think they would give them to someone they didnt control. What makes you think they woudnt control them?

What makes you think they do control 'em? Again you have no evidence for this. It's just a statement coming from thin air.

You simply have not yet posted a single factual post in this thread. This is not a personal attack, it's just an observation.
All your posts might achieve is an unbased fear of Middle-east countries that would result in intolerance towards iranians and muslims.

[edit]
PS.
Just for future reference... being criticized isn't thesame as being insulted. Those are two entirely different things.
An insult would be saying something like "you're an ass". Critique is like saying "your posts in this thread simply are not true." Now I don't know whether or not you are an ass, and I could care less about it. I do know though that your posts in this thread fail even the most basic fact-checking, and that is what I am saying.
[/edit]

 

[Rookiescot]

Right ok ... no evidence for Irans intentions to create weapons grade uranium.

The IAEA itself uncovered evidence in Iran of attempts to cast uranium as spheres. Only reason you need to do that is to make a bomb. It also found evidence of plutonium and uranium enrichment to a far higher degree than civilian use requires.

Dr A Q Khan (the developer of Pakistans nuclear bomb) has openly admitted he sold weapons technology to several states including Libya (which has since abandoned its research) and Iran. Why buy the technology if you have no use for it?

The UN heard evidence from experts, witneses and indeed the IAEA (which is an independant body) and after all that decided to impose sanctions. So some of the greatest minds on the planet looked at this and decided that indeed Iran was attempting to create nuclear weapons.

Even the French foreign minister said "No civilian nuclear programme can explain the Iranian nuclear programme. It is a clandestine military nuclear programme." and you better believe the French aint friends with the US

Former Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto once said the Iranians offered more than $4 billion for their nuclear weapons technology. Again ... why buy something you dont need.

So.... enough evidence or not? Lets turn this question around. What evidence do you have that Iran is NOT trying to develope a nuclear bomb apart from "Cos they said so"?


As for my statement regarding terrorists obtaining nukes from Iran ....... I thought Irans very public suppport of Hamas and Islamic Jihad was common knowledge and it didnt require me to tell people what they already know. Seems in your case and that of Dub I was mistaken.

The nuclear club as it exists at the momment is made up of reasonably stable states (with the possible exception of the US).
I for one do not feel that a country run by religeous fanatics and who publicly support terrorist groups would be best placed to join that club.

 

[Azurus]

The nuclear club as it exists at the momment is made up of reasonably stable states (with the possible exception of the US).
I for one do not feel that a country run by religeous fanatics and who publicly support terrorist groups would be best placed to join that club.

Israel.

 

[Rookiescot]

Israel.

Well I did say resoanably

p.s. you might have sorted me typos fo me

 

[dub]

As for my statement regarding terrorists obtaining nukes from Iran ....... I thought Irans very public suppport of Hamas and Islamic Jihad was common knowledge and it didnt require me to tell people what they already know. Seems in your case and that of Dub I was mistaken.

funding isnt equal to controlling , and certainly not to a degree where yould hand em nukes.

another point would be that they have supported hamas for a long time , so far hamas got some kalashnikovs to show off , would think that iran had handed them something more fun to play with by now if it as you say are plausible to supply hamas with nukes.
l

 

[Thadius]

funding isnt equal to controlling , and certainly not to a degree where yould hand em nukes.

another point would be that they have supported hamas for a long time , so far hamas got some kalashnikovs to show off , would think that iran had handed them something more fun to play with by now if it as you say are plausible to supply hamas with nukes.
l

I really dont think Hamas would fire anything that abd at Israel because they know Mr America will join in. Israel gets pissed, Iran fights Israel, America fights Iran etc

 

[Rookiescot]

funding isnt equal to controlling , and certainly not to a degree where yould hand em nukes.

another point would be that they have supported hamas for a long time , so far hamas got some kalashnikovs to show off , would think that iran had handed them something more fun to play with by now if it as you say are plausible to supply hamas with nukes.
l

Mate .. if these groups can find people willing to strap a bomb to themselves and detonate it do you really think they wont find people to detonate a nuclear device in a western city?

 

[dub]

Mate .. if these groups can find people willing to strap a bomb to themselves and detonate it do you really think they wont find people to detonate a nuclear device in a western city?

no clue what that has to do with anything , you failed to grasp the argument that hamas have been funded for awhile by iran and so far they havent got much fancy stuff.

would say that was an inclination that they are not likely to receive nukes soon as gifts , but you can interprete it as you will

again ill mention funding is not the same as controlling , but you can believe iran controlls hamas if you want , even if that was the case why would they give hamas nukes as everyone would assume they had em from iran anyhows ?

 

[DocWolfe]

bomb the fuck out of them, nobody will miss them.

 

[Overdriven]

Now introducing, the IRan!