War with Iran is it imminent

[Strontium]

You're either deliberately missing his point and referring just to the UK

 

 

I thought I would take my cue from his use of the word "we". I was only offering a reason why the UK can dictate terms to Iran.

 

There's no real justification for Israel, Pakistan, North Korea, and the ultra aggressive countries like the US and UK, to have nuclear weapons, but Iran not to.

 

 

Well, good luck getting nuclear weapons off those countries.

 

There is definitely every reason to stop yet another trigger happy bunch of loonies getting nukes, irrespective of whether 3 or 4 other bunches of loonies already have them.

[stringvest]

I didn't know sd was Israeli. I thought he was Jewish Brit. His attitude makes much more sense now. Still indefensible, but at least I would understand where he gets his perspective.

 

The next nuke to be fired in anger won't come from any so-called 'terrorist' nation. I think we all know where it will be fired from. The 'rationale' and PR is also fully primed and ready to be carpet bombed on to a helpless populace.

[Guest Numero Veinticinco]

I thought I would take my cue from his use of the word "we". I was only offering a reason why the UK can dictate terms to Iran.

 

You're mistaking what I'm saying. If you're just referring to us, then you're deliberately missing his point.

 

Well, good luck getting nuclear weapons off those countries.

 

There is definitely every reason to stop yet another trigger happy bunch of loonies getting nukes, irrespective of whether 3 or 4 other bunches of loonies already have them.

 

Trigger happy? In what way? Not initiating an attack on another country since, I think, 1738?

 

When they've got countries attacking all of their neighbours and making threats to them, it's hardly surprising they're looking for nukes.

[Strontium]

I've no interest in getting into another stupid debate about semantics.

 

No, Iran doesn't attack other countries directly, it just funds and arms terrorists who do.

 

I think it's a bad idea if Iran gets nuclear weapons - it's largely a bad idea if anyone gets them - you can agree or you can disagree.

[VladimirIlyich]

I've no interest in getting into another stupid debate about semantics.

 

No, Iran doesn't attack other countries directly, it just funds and arms terrorists who do.

 

I think it's a bad idea if Iran gets nuclear weapons - it's largely a bad idea if anyone gets them - you can agree or you can disagree.

 

Proof?

[dennis tooth]

Cant believe SD just negged me for that, well Im getting my monies worth then you dogs bollock sniffing faggot

[Magic Sponge]

Iran, covertly supporting terror groups, doesn't count.

 

They're the good guys. Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is a lovely fella.

 

Just ask his people.

[dennis tooth]

Iran, covertly supporting terror groups, doesn't count.

 

They're the good guys. Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is a lovely fella.

 

Just ask his people.

 

Er even if they do, which has not been proven once, I think its fairly safe to say we support far more terrorism, in fact we wouldnt wipe our arses on the terrorists they may or may not have used.

 

As for his people well they seemed pretty unanimous during the election of him.

 

Unlike Cameron who could only dream of such support. And that other little fella, nice chap who stands alongside him, he could only dream of enough popular support that people could remember him or his party's name.

[Strontium]

Proof?

 

 

Oh come on. Surely nobody denies that Iran funds Hamas and Hezbollah.

[Magic Sponge]

Er even if they do, which has not been proven once, I think its fairly safe to say we support far more terrorism, in fact we wouldnt wipe our arses on the terrorists they may or may not have used.

 

As for his people well they seemed pretty unanimous during the election of him.

 

Unlike Cameron who could only dream of such support. And that other little fella, nice chap who stands alongside him, he could only dream of enough popular support that people could remember him or his party's name.

 

Fuck me.

 

Your naivety knows no bounds.

[Nelly-Szoboszlai]

Er even if they do, which has not been proven once, I think its fairly safe to say we support far more terrorism, in fact we wouldnt wipe our arses on the terrorists they may or may not have used.

 

As for his people well they seemed pretty unanimous during the election of him.

 

Unlike Cameron who could only dream of such support. And that other little fella, nice chap who stands alongside him, he could only dream of enough popular support that people could remember him or his party's name.

 

Surely taking the mickey?

 

If not, Mir-Hossein Mousavi and several million people on the streets of Tehran, Qom, Karaj, Tabriz etc disagree.

[Phoenix]

Surely taking the mickey?

 

If not, Mir-Hossein Mousavi and several million people on the streets of Tehran, Qom, Karaj, Tabriz etc disagree.

 

Ironically he would have won the election even if he hadnt fixed it.

[Jose Jones]

I think it's a bad idea if Iran gets nuclear weapons - it's largely a bad idea if anyone gets them - you can agree or you can disagree.

 

I think its fairly safe to say we support far more terrorism, in fact we wouldnt wipe our arses on the terrorists they may or may not have used.

 

 

I agree with both of these statements really.

Anyone can understand why Iran wants nucular weapons, and also the hypocracy behind countries who have been much more prone to attacking others wanting to stop them.

That still doesn't mean it's a good idea.

[dennis tooth]

Ok so its looks like its going to be a pick and mix reply.

 

Fixed the election? Fucking hell how mud sticks, proof?

Hamas and Hizbollah are perfectly legitimate operations for Iran to be funding as a defence measure, if they didnt they'd be occupied by now besides which they are not terrorist organisations at all, not remotely. Their mandate is perfectly legitimate under the laws of resistance set out clearly as freedom fighters in an occupied land. They arent doing anything the Brits didnt do in occupied Europe.

 

I dont know where you getting these millions of people from, any proof?

Lastly, perhaps I am naive, I very much urge you to look at your naivity as I think its far more naive and unknowledgeable of you to try to argue this matter with me. We currently fund real terrorism, thats me and you, across the world, we are a country with our foot in about 5/6 others and yet we call them extremists and I am naive.

Why would you think a crazy thing like that, he we are using depleted uranium shells all over Iraq pointing a wavy finger over the border and somehow Im naive?

The most likely country to use a nuke, the one with all the crazed religious people who constantly threaten to use them, refuse to sign to the NNPT or admit they have weapons who are constantly invading their neighbours and slaughtering Arabs or peacefull protesters on flottillas and see their fingernails as being worth 100 Muslim lives is Isreal.

They are the first port of call if we are going to get all high and mighty about things. I mean just what is it you fear that Iran is going to aquire nukes (Which is a pain if we want to invade them when the Iraqi oil runs low) or that they would actually use them on us once aquired in some suicidal move that would likely see it taken out by the equipment the USA has nowadays and also see a thousand nukes rain down on them from all sides in reply. (stop sniggering in the back, Im trying to help SD overcome his spastic spoon licking mentality and its not helping him.)

There is little more to add to that.

[Guest Numero Veinticinco]

I've no interest in getting into another stupid debate about semantics.

 

It's not semantics. He asked a question about a list of countries and you answered on the basis of one. You missed out, quite importantly, Israel, India, Pakistan and North Korea.

 

No, Iran doesn't attack other countries directly, it just funds and arms terrorists who do.

 

Yeah, at least Israel, the UK and the US have the balls to carry out some of the terrorism themselves. I'm not sure what that has to do with nuclear weapons though.

 

I think it's a bad idea if Iran gets nuclear weapons - it's largely a bad idea if anyone gets them - you can agree or you can disagree.

 

I agree; I'm against any countries having nuclear weapons. However, the fact remains that many other, frankly much more dangerous and aggressive countries, have them. Some of those countries are in the MPT, some not. Some are ruled by religious mentalists, some are not.

 

Again, I think I'm more comfortable with Iran having nuclear weapons than Israel, Korea or Pakistan.

[VladimirIlyich]

Oh come on. Surely nobody denies that Iran funds Hamas and Hezbollah.

 

Not if the proof is coming from the right wing propoganda machine.

 

They havent been involved in invading Iraq or Afghanistan in recent years.

 

Their war with Iraq was years ago and the were fighting against Sadam Hussein who the west executed recently so should be considered allies in that case.

 

I would get our own house in order before criticising others.

[Guest Numero Veinticinco]

Fuck me.

 

Your naivety knows no bounds.

 

Do you ever actually say anything constructive? Are you ever going to man up and share some of your own opinions, or will you just keep on with sly neggings and snide comments?

[Guest Numero Veinticinco]

To mention Iran's funding of terrorist and/or resistance movements without mentioning the same and, frankly much worse, crimes by Israel, America and Britain isn't just hypocritical but it's indicative of your bias.

[Phoenix]

 

Fixed the election? Fucking hell how mud sticks, proof?

 

I was agreeing with you that Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was very popular in Iran. Reports suggest he would have won the election anyway whether it was fixed (allegedly) or not.

 

Unfortunately there are no independent monitors in Iran who oversaw the ballots but irregularities like suggested below:

 

Mousavi not even winning his local ward or winning in any other Azeri ethnic areas (Mousavi is ethnically an Azeri ).

 

The state agency news reporting that Mahmoud Ahmadinejad had already won before votes had even been counted.

 

Results being announced without a break for the first time in the history of elections (time would have been needed to actually count the votes)

[Pidge]

Fucking hell, some real citizen Smith stuff from Mr Tooth... someone who so often claims to be revolutionary minded ignoring the green movement and it's suppression at the hands of the incumbent forces?

 

I'm totally against going to war again based on "intelligence" assertions about a country's military threat. Oddly enough, that doesn't sit right with me. The Israel connection also makes things very uneasy for me.

[stringvest]

Ok so its looks like its going to be a pick and mix reply.

 

Fixed the election? Fucking hell how mud sticks, proof?

Hamas and Hizbollah are perfectly legitimate operations for Iran to be funding as a defence measure, if they didnt they'd be occupied by now besides which they are not terrorist organisations at all, not remotely. Their mandate is perfectly legitimate under the laws of resistance set out clearly as freedom fighters in an occupied land. They arent doing anything the Brits didnt do in occupied Europe.

 

I think you might be on to something here Dennis. Let me get this right. One country uses a proxy (or perhaps more than one) as a means of defending itself and doing it's bidding. This proxy, while having some element of (dubious) legality, often launches indiscriminate attacks on illegitimate targets at the drop of a hat, with no good reason.

 

And when was this happening on the good guys side? The second world war you say?

[Tom R]

who is the only country to have ever actually used a nuclear weapon again? I forget...

[Strontium]

To mention Iran's funding of terrorist and/or resistance movements without mentioning the same and, frankly much worse, crimes by Israel, America and Britain isn't just hypocritical but it's indicative of your bias.

 

 

I freely admit to being biased towards liberal democracies, which have legitimacy, and biased against theocratic dictatorships, which don't.

 

Go and argue with someone else, this is tiresome.

[Jose Jones]

I freely admit to being biased towards liberal democracies, which have legitimacy, and biased against theocratic dictatorships, which don't.

 

Go and argue with someone else, this is tiresome.

 

But the question then would be why?

 

Would you prefer

 

1. a peaceful autocracy, which funds no terrorists, takes no part in legal or illegal wars and is run generally to benefit it's own citizens.

 

Or

 

2. a democratically elected government which lies to it's own people to justify wars which kill millions, wages secret terrorist campaigns against foreign governments and launches clandestine coups against democratically elected heads of state.

 

Surely you are able to judge the actions as well as the political infrastructure?

[Beantown Red]

Surely no matter how much you do not agree with your own countries foreign policy you would not want another government that views your own country as hostile to have nuclear weapons.