US attack on Iran?

[Yahoshua]

Iran is defying the world with their drive for nuclear power while refusing oversight to ensure that Iran doesn't build nuclear weapons.

I'm intrigued how this became the fault of the U.S. Please explain.

[Tchocky]

Provocations? Ask anyone on the USSJohn C. Stennis

[gnirtS]

Given americas incredible hypocrisy on the nuclear issue it really has no right to dictate to others what they can and cant do. They cant mention things like geneva convention either. The laughable "nuclear ambiguity" clause with israel makes it even more of a farce. Another country "not allowed" nukes but is allowed to have 200+ warheads as long as it doesn't really admit it.

If actions and words had agreed with each other then fine but double standards are in force.

Iran has had its neighbour invaded by a hostile state which is now being used as a staging ground. Having been threatened and bullied now for years its backed into a corner.
As North Korea proved, the only language bush understands is conflict so the only way to make sure you wont be attacked is to get a nuclear weapon. Then he'll wander off and bomb somewhere else he cant spell or find on a map. Its bought new state of the art missiles off russia specifically designed to target UAVs - due mainly to the UAVs that have been and still are invading its airspace.

[gnirtS]

[quote=melnibonian]

Originally Posted by Penelope_Grey

IThey just need to sit down with Iran and see how they can sort this thing out. There will be deals in the end, but angry talk and shows of force will not bring the solution closer in my opinion.

ANY attempt to use force or threats will simply back Iran further into the corner. The situation at the moment isnt serious. It'll be over in a few weeks at most, neither side is going to want to provoke the other into anything. If tensions aren't raised its a non issue, they'll be quietly released and that'll be the end of it. If threats are made Iran wont want to be seen as weak and give in so theres far less chance of a release.

[Enigma]

Gnirts, after reading some of your posts in the last 5 minutes, I just have to ask out of my own curiosity....

Where, exactly, are you from?

[gnirtS]

The UK.

[moose1am]

8 mile away? What's the range on those rubber inflatable boats? And were these small boats not searching an ocean going vessel? What's the draft of that vessel and how deep was the water this ship was located in? Can't the British ship sail in the same waters?

Were these small British Boats not attached to this larger British War Ship?

I wish that the news media would get more details about this story.

Originally Posted by gnirtS

What could it do? It was 8 miles away at the time, the soldiers themselves were armed only with SA80s so fighting back would have been suicide.

There was helicopter top cover for the first part but it returned to cornwall to refuel.

Theres nothing cornwall could do from 8 miles away to assist. If it opens first then lots of people are dead on both sides.

So many inconsistencies in the MoDs account today anyway there maybe other reasons for not trying anything. How both iranian boats allegedly sneaked up and ambushed is an interesting claim given the radar coverage of the entire area by land and sea.

As the USA continues to provoke iran at every oppertunity hoping to get a reaction and therefore excuse to bomb it these incidents are just going to get more and more common.

[RedMenace]

Originally Posted by gnirtS

Given americas incredible hypocrisy on the nuclear issue it really has no right to dictate to others what they can and cant do. They cant mention things like geneva convention either. The laughable "nuclear ambiguity" clause with israel makes it even more of a farce. Another country "not allowed" nukes but is allowed to have 200+ warheads as long as it doesn't really admit it.

If actions and words had agreed with each other then fine but double standards are in force.

Bingo! You hit the nail on the damn head. No country respects, or even FEARS, a nation that shows SUCH a display of hypocrisy. "You can't have those. What do you mean "how come you can?" Because we're the godamm United States of America, that's why!"

Not only that, what you mentioned about Israel is TOO true. You can build all the warheads you want as long as you never admit you have them, apparently.

In my opinnion, everyone (or no-one at all works too should have nuclear weapons. MAD is the only deterrent there is.

[The Avon Lady]

Originally Posted by gnirtS

Given americas incredible hypocrisy on the nuclear issue it really has no right to dictate to others what they can and cant do. They cant mention things like geneva convention either. The laughable "nuclear ambiguity" clause with israel makes it even more of a farce. Another country "not allowed" nukes but is allowed to have 200+ warheads as long as it doesn't really admit it.

If actions and words had agreed with each other then fine but double standards are in force.

Iran has had its neighbour invaded by a hostile state which is now being used as a staging ground. Having been threatened and bullied now for years its backed into a corner.
As North Korea proved, the only language bush understands is conflict so the only way to make sure you wont be attacked is to get a nuclear weapon. Then he'll wander off and bomb somewhere else he cant spell or find on a map. Its bought new state of the art missiles off russia specifically designed to target UAVs - due mainly to the UAVs that have been and still are invading its airspace.

Wah! Wah! Boo hoo! Mommy, Joey's got a nuke. I want one, too!!

Why No Nukes for Iran? The rules of the game.

Pathetic this has to be spelled out.

[Ark]

Originally Posted by gnirtS

Given americas incredible hypocrisy on the nuclear issue it really has no right to dictate to others what they can and cant do. They cant mention things like geneva convention either. The laughable "nuclear ambiguity" clause with israel makes it even more of a farce. Another country "not allowed" nukes but is allowed to have 200+ warheads as long as it doesn't really admit it.

Given the fact that America is hardly a country known for it's support of terrorists......


Oh forget it.

[Tchocky]

Originally Posted by Ark

Given the fact that America is hardly a country known for it's support of terrorists......

Oh forget it.

NORAID, Afghanistan, Contra, there's a few others. Granted, The US doesn't support them anymore (or do they? http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main...25/wiran25.xml)

Don't mean to be confrontational, but in some places around the world the US is known for doing exactly that, supporting terrorists/ism.

[Ark]

Originally Posted by Tchocky

NORAID, Afghanistan, Contra, there's a few others. Granted, The US doesn't support them anymore (or do they? http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main...5/wiran25.xml)

That would depend on how you define "terrorism".

"Good deeds do not go unpunished"

Try to help, get it used on you later.

The Coalition isn't fighting the insurgency, the Coalition is fighting my ex-fiance.

[Tchocky]

not worth it

[Ark]

Originally Posted by Tchocky

Help? Bars in Boston funding the IRA under the noses of the authorities?

F*CK HELP

lolol

You can't control all of the people all of the time.

Humans are inherently flawed.

[Ishmael]

Found this link to the French language edition of Novosti predicting an attack on April 6, Good Friday. I checked the English language edition but was unable to find the story there. These predictions are coming from the Russian Defense Ministry, according to the story.

http://en.rian.ru/russia/20070327/62697703.html