IRAN

[P03]

I thought Naddan28 had a fairly well reasoned argument, certainly no need for implied threats.

 

Edited to change "he" to Naddan 28

[naddan28]

As i am half iranian and live in england i am open minded and can see both arguments.

 

If your going to speak like that you should 1) really watch who you speak to 2) not believe everything you read in the papers and see on t.v

Who are you replying to Shahin? If its me well all I can do is :blink:. Firstly threatening someone in a debate due to the fact they are contradicting your view could be deemed as BULLYING. Secondly having not met me or no me from Adam threats are somewhat pointless.

 

Finally, what have I said that is based on the papers and what i've seen on television?

 

If not aimed at me then i retract my statements, execpt the one and bullying.

[Shahin]

naddan thanks for the long reply but im sorry i do not feel you are justified a decent responce as you seem to think its justified that america has nuclera weapons because other countires do not like them

 

po3 - that was by no means a threat. purely if you are going to give your opinion in that way. you should watch who you speak to. eg. by looking at me you would not know that i am half iranian. walk, talk act fully english. i even wear an england shirt with lampard on the back.

[naddan28]

naddan thanks for the long reply but im sorry i do not feel you are justified a decent responce as you seem to think its justified that america has nuclera weapons because other countires do not like them

 

po3 - that was by no means a threat. purely if you are going to give your opinion in that way. you should watch who you speak to. eg. by looking at me you would not know that i am half iranian. walk, talk act fully english. i even wear an england shirt with lampard on the back.

Why do Iran want them then if not as a detorrant to prevent war?

[Shahin]

there is no proof iran has them or are even building them.

 

however in my unbiest opinion, i would say they are building them on the sly. i am not saying that is right, only if one country can have them why cany another country.

[Poacher]

Shahin

Firstly your aggressive behaviour is very similar to all of your countries activities at present, and i'm not quite sure the reason for this.

With regards to them admitting they were in Iranian waters, this has only been alleged by the Iranians, similarly if they had admitted this and I quote Admiral Sir Alan West speaking a few days ago

"These particular people would not be trained in counter-interrogation techniques because they are not expected to be captured. But I think our guidance to anyone in that position would be to say what they want you to say, let's not be silly about it. Don't tell them secrets, clearly, but if they tell you: 'Say this', well if that's going to get you out, then do it. It means absolutely nothing, what they say, to be honest."

 

Why does your country see it fit to take these actions of parading the seized or the pretend killings to torment the captees ?

 

The simple reason is Iran is trying to flex its muscles and show the world that it is a force, like an immature child the reasoned British are sitting still and waiting for the kids to hand our men back..

 

P.S i know plenty of Iranians if that even counts for anything

[naddan28]

As for Iran being intitled to Nukes well perhaps the fact they signed the 'Nuclear Non-proliferation treaty' might be reason enough for them not to be entitled to posess them and only the USSR (now russia), US, UK, CHina and France being the 5 Nuke powered states (hence why they are the permanent UN council members)

 

As for you not replying to my post on the basis of a country (or even an entity) being entitled in deterants is rubbish. More the fact that you would probably find it hard/impossible to reasonably counter my points.

[P03]

As for Iran being intitled to Nukes well perhaps the fact they signed the 'Nuclear Non-proliferation treaty' might be reason enough for them not to be entitled to posess them and only the USSR (now russia), US, UK, CHina and France being the 5 Nuke powered states (hence why they are the permanent UN council members)

Don't forget the North Koreans are now a nuclear state and definately not signatories of said treaty

[Shahin]

I like the way you put flexing your muscles. i would agree 100% they are not doing it to start a war because they do not want a war the same way america are not invading as they to do not want a war.

 

If you know many iranians you will se they are not bad people. (but can be when pushed) nothing how they are made out to be. i would put money on it that they are very honest, fair and very generous.

 

i am not being agressive and i will apologise to anyone who thinks i have been out of order in any way. but understand that when people make silly stupid narrow minded comments about nuking them, put bombs in their houses etc its going to **** me off. because if there was a war. my aunties, uncles cousins, granparents and friends DO NOT WANT THE WAR. they want a peacfull life.

 

as ive been saying the whole way through my argument, if i said these same things about your loved ones - HOW WOULD YOU REACT?

[naddan28]

As for Iran being intitled to Nukes well perhaps the fact they signed the 'Nuclear Non-proliferation treaty' might be reason enough for them not to be entitled to posess them and only the USSR (now russia), US, UK, CHina and France being the 5 Nuke powered states (hence why they are the permanent UN council members)

Don't forget the North Koreans are now a nuclear state and definately not signatories of said treaty

Actually North korea orginally ratified it, then broke it and finally withdrew.

[P03]

As for Iran being intitled to Nukes well perhaps the fact they signed the 'Nuclear Non-proliferation treaty' might be reason enough for them not to be entitled to posess them and only the USSR (now russia), US, UK, CHina and France being the 5 Nuke powered states (hence why they are the permanent UN council members)

Don't forget the North Koreans are now a nuclear state and definately not signatories of said treaty

Actually North korea orginally ratified it, then broke it and finally withdrew.

Touche

[Lord Geordie]

I like the way you put flexing your muscles. i would agree 100% they are not doing it to start a war because they do not want a war the same way america are not invading as they to do not want a war.

 

If you know many iranians you will se they are not bad people. (but can be when pushed) nothing how they are made out to be. i would put money on it that they are very honest, fair and very generous.

 

i am not being agressive and i will apologise to anyone who thinks i have been out of order in any way. but understand that when people make silly stupid narrow minded comments about nuking them, put bombs in their houses etc its going to **** me off. because if there was a war. my aunties, uncles cousins, granparents and friends DO NOT WANT THE WAR. they want a peacfull life.

 

as ive been saying the whole way through my argument, if i said these same things about your loved ones - HOW WOULD YOU REACT?

 

 

 

If your refering to MY post i suggest you RE READ it

 

Nowhere did it entail bombing innocent peoples houses!

 

It said Strategically placed IE

 

The nuclear test facilities and enrichment facilities and Ayotolah whosi watsit and the George bush lookalike Iranian leader!

 

I never mentioned bombs in houses!

 

I may be hardline but i am NOT heartless

 

LG

[Blackbart]

I like the way you put flexing your muscles. i would agree 100% they are not doing it to start a war because they do not want a war the same way america are not invading as they to do not want a war.

 

If you know many iranians you will se they are not bad people. (but can be when pushed) nothing how they are made out to be. i would put money on it that they are very honest, fair and very generous.

 

i am not being agressive and i will apologise to anyone who thinks i have been out of order in any way. but understand that when people make silly stupid narrow minded comments about nuking them, put bombs in their houses etc its going to **** me off. because if there was a war. my aunties, uncles cousins, granparents and friends DO NOT WANT THE WAR. they want a peacfull life.

 

as ive been saying the whole way through my argument, if i said these same things about your loved ones - HOW WOULD YOU REACT?

 

 

Would that be the same aunties uncles cousins grandparents and friends that boarded buses and trains on the 7th of the seventh in london or went to work in the world trade centre on that fatefull day.Your WRONG we dont react the same way Religous fanatics react THANK GOD.

[Poacher]

If you know many iranians you will se they are not bad people. (but can be when pushed)

 

This is what i can't understand your doing the pushing the british are merely trying to protect Iraqs offshore oilplatforms why are they doing this if they don't want some sort of reaction :blink:

[Shahin]

more than happy to carry this conversation on however not now.

 

half 11 is a bit late for me as i have to be up early for work. if you wish to carry on please send me a personal message as i do not check this site very often.

 

remember - see it from both sides.

[Lord Geordie]

Like a 2 way mirror then eh?

 

Iran can look OUT but the west can't look in :blink:

 

Ask yourself the question WHY iran refused western help to build Nulcear powerstations? Incase they found a few truth's about the GRADE of the enrichment they were carrying out perhaps?

 

Add to that the Israeli intel reguarding Iran receiving the delivery means (Missiles capable of delivering said enriched uranium) and then let them claim it's only for Powerstations.

 

LG

[pin]

This is all very pointless.

 

All we know is what we are being told, what we are told is by and large what extremely powerful people want us to know.

 

We know the troops have been taken captive. That's it, anything else is rumour or speculation. It is doubtful we will ever hear the real truth of it.

 

Now, since all we know for sure is that they have been taken there is little point speculating what the motives might be. Iran don't want conflict, the USA probably are itching for an excuse but at the moment they know they can't take it on and Iran knows it.

 

The whole nuclear thing has been brought into this and to be honest its got nothing to do with it. The powers that have nuclear weapons are not about to use them, they are a deterrent. Powers that don't have them but want them would have one of two reasons for obtaining or developing such a capability :-

 

1) They want a seat at the table which makes decisions on the world stage

2) They are crazy enough to actually want to use them

 

This argument "the USA have them so why can't we?" sucks, the world has long since known how devastating and irreversible a nuclear war would be and the people with them wouldn't ever use them unless they themselves were attacked with nukes. Since this outcome is already known, what possible reason could there be for developing weapons where there previously were non?

 

I think it is right and correct that the powers with nuclear capability prevent other nations from obtaining or developing a nuclear weapons program. The countries who don't have this capability may well bitch and moan but the rest of the world won't sit around and allow it to happen, it makes the world more unstable and that can't be allowed to happen.

 

It is indeed a shame that the worlds most powerful nation is such a bunch of warmongering gun-ho cowboys, it would be a lot easier to say "now now you put down the enriched plutonium and we promise to play nicely if you do" if it wasn't coming from the nation who keep on trying to spank other smaller countries and making a complete sows purse of it.

 

I want our lads back as much as the next person, but I don't see the point of arguing about it on here. Arguing with someone like this is like herding cats, extremely frustrating and at the end of the day you won't be any further forward.

[LEFTY478]

The US of A won't need to bomb Iranian weapons devolement sites; as the Israelies will do it first, because they know full well where the Iranians would like to 'test', their first viable device. The sooner we can run the world's oil supply out, the better.

 

Once they've got nothing of interest to us, we can totally igore them. We have the technology to utilise alternative power, like wind and wave and plenty of arable land to grow bio fuels etc. Then they can go back to living in dark ages, scratching a living in their fly-blown ****hole and cooking on **** powered shoves.

 

Bring it on...

[Conygree]

How come the sailors got ambushed again, its not as if the Iranians were hidding behind bushes in their surface warship? Why were they caught out too far from the hms cornwall in patrol boats with an Irainian ship approaching when they have radar??

[pin]

We will never know, however we are not squeaky clean and could well have been doing something we shouldn't have :blink:

[LEFTY478]

We will never know, however we are not squeaky clean and could well have been doing something we shouldn't have :blink:

 

If it was a 'Sneacky-Becky Op' our boys would have been a lot more tooled up than 12 Marines with personal weapons and three RN deck hands!

[naddan28]

How come the sailors got ambushed again, its not as if the Iranians were hidding behind bushes in their surface warship? Why were they caught out too far from the hms cornwall in patrol boats with an Irainian ship approaching when they have radar??

Well I assume they were probably aware of the Iranian ships in Iranian Water's but obviously couldn't do anything about them being in Iranian waters. Then they were encircled in the Iraqi water by Iranian Speedboat's so didn't really stand a chance. As from what I get we were pretty close to Iranian waters so it would not have taken the boats long to enter the Iraqi waters and encircle them.

[naddan28]

reading the independent today they have interviewed the Indian ship captain of the boarded vessel who has stated that they he was in iraqi water and the marines were beside him when captured. Oh dear......

[bullterrier]

The government has said it has evidence from GPS trackers saying where the boats were, these would have been fitted after the last debacle which was similar to this. I don`t believe for one minute that our boats crossed into Iranian waters, the fact that a number of larger more heavily armed boats turned up in such a short time span (surely you don`t have all your assets in one area all at the same time unless you are planning something?) & escorted our boats onto Iranian waters. In fact it has been said our boats were well wthin Iraqi waters. It all looks a bit like it was planned to me.

I`ve a feeling it`s been done to bring pressure due to the talks at the U.N. about how to deal with Irans percieved/probable proliferation, also to use them as hostages to apply pressure on the U.S. to release the Iranian agents caught by the Americans in Iraq the other month.

Shaheen I`ve a feeling that most people on here actually dislike the Iranian regime & not the general populace of Iran. Whilst a lot of people in the U.K. don`t agree with the invasion of Iraq & don`t want our troops over there, they would probably be coming home quicker if there wasn`t any more actions to help disstabilize Iraq by the Iranians & Syrians. But then again why would Iran want a stable, thriving & democratic success story on their doorstep, is it because it would cause problems for them at home ? Lets not forget that Iran is not exactly flavour of the month in many of the Gulf states.

Got to say though fellas, I`ve read some of the posts by some of my country folk & they`ve gone a bit past being close to the knuckle even before Shaheen posted on here. I can understand why he`s a little combative in his responses, although it`d be nice for him to think of himself as much as one of us "as one of them".

[Mungler]

Democracy is defined as "government by the people; a form of government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised directly by them or by their elected agents under a free electoral system."

 

No mention of religion in there.

 

I am with Richard Dawkins.

 

What a load of backwards nonsense.