Warning from Iran

[Blue Meanie]

rich1231 said:

To whom do they need to justify their actions, to you? You know the world doesnt run on consensus, ot runs on self interest.

Well, they have to justify it to the world, just like the Nazi's did, just as Saddam did, and just as every other decision by government is.

[DAVEVO9]

hairykrishna said:

I wasn't aware that we were at war with Iran? Or even threatening to go to war with them?

We are not, however, the US will by proxy with Israel.

[rich1231]

Blue Meanie said:

rich1231 said:

To whom do they need to justify their actions, to you? You know the world doesnt run on consensus, ot runs on self interest.

Well, they have to justify it to the world, just like the Nazi's did, just as Saddam did, and just as every other decision by government is.

No they dont. They have to justify it partly to the US and even then could achieve their objectives and not suffer at all for it. Saddam didnt answer to the World, he answered to the US administration and its strategic drivers for a friendly controlled oil rich state in the ME.


What would the real consequences to Israel be if thet attacked the Iranian Nuclear infrastructure? There wouldnt be any at all.



The Iranians will not be permitted to create weapons. It will not happen.

[Blue Meanie]

Not permitted to make weapons? Are they? Have they been? Is there any evidence of?

[tom2019]

If the UK prepare to go to war with Iran I will go to the streets and protest , and I actually will. We carn't afford it , I don't care about Isreal, I dn't care if they have nuclear weapons. iF however they use weapons on us I will happily go to war myself.

[Jimbeaux]

DAVEVO9 said:

hairykrishna said:

I wasn't aware that we were at war with Iran? Or even threatening to go to war with them?

We are not, however, the US will by proxy with Israel.

Just like Iran has by proxy through Lebanon with Hamas and various others??

[Blue Meanie]

Jimbeaux said:

DAVEVO9 said:

hairykrishna said:

I wasn't aware that we were at war with Iran? Or even threatening to go to war with them?

We are not, however, the US will by proxy with Israel.

Just like Iran has by proxy through Lebanon with Hamas and various others??

Then you can have no gripe with Iran, and they can have no gripe with you... of course they are meddling in their own region, which directly affects them, which is a little different, don't you think?

[Jimbeaux]

Blue Meanie said:

Jimbeaux said:

DAVEVO9 said:

hairykrishna said:

I wasn't aware that we were at war with Iran? Or even threatening to go to war with them?

We are not, however, the US will by proxy with Israel.

Just like Iran has by proxy through Lebanon with Hamas and various others??

Then you can have no gripe with Iran, and they can have no gripe with you... of course they are meddling in their own region, which directly affects them, which is a little different, don't you think?

Not really. Why do you defend a regime which has demonised the West for 31 years? Not the people, the regime. Just curious.

[Jimbeaux]

Gaz. said:

rich1231 said:

What would the real consequences to Israel be if thet attacked the Iranian Nuclear infrastructure? There wouldnt be any at all.

Iran could fight back & China would be less than impressed as they have supported Irans nuclear ambitions.

China has their money, they won't care past what benefit any argument would enrich them politically. As for Iran fighting back against Israel....well, we can all make believe.

[Blue Meanie]

Because the West has played a huge role in Irans past. The role of the US in the removal of a democratic government, and the insertion of the Shah, and the eventual ousting of him in the revolution. Not to mention the fact that the US backed Saddam in his attack on Iran, and the fact the US were funding both, not to mention the fact that the US listed them as the "axis of Evil"... I don't know Jim, what is their gripe? It's not a one way street you know. Ignore all you do to them, and instead concentrate on them being evil, and nasty.

I don't know Jim, what could their issue possibly be?

Edited by Blue Meanie on Friday 12th February 01:48

[deeps]

Not really warming, the current temperature in Tehran is 7c (Nippy).


http://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/city.html?n=...

[Jimbeaux]

Blue Meanie said:

Because the West has played a huge role in Irans past. The role of the US in the removal of a democratic government, and the insertion of the Shah, and the eventual ousting of him in the revolution. Not to mention the fact that the US backed Saddam in his attack on Iran, and the fact the US were funding both, not to mention the fact that the US listed them as the "axis of Evil"... I don't know Jim, what is their gripe? It's not a one way street you know. Ignore all you do to them, and instead concentrate on them being evil, and nasty.

I don't know Jim, what could their issue possibly be?

Edited by Blue Meanie on Friday 12th February 01:48

All true and done for various reasons. However, whatever brought it about, they (the regime)are sworn opposers to our very way of life and are irredeemable in that regard. While I propose no action against them other than close survailance and the odd sanctions, why do you put such energy toward their defense?

[V8A*ndy]

hairykrishna said:

Lost soul said:

I can not seem to remember the USA UK France or even Israel threatening anyone with nukes

The USA obviously has. We spent getting on for 50 years with the US and USSR threatening each other with nukes.

"COUGH"

http://www.bluelight.ru/vb/archive/index.php/t-230...

[Blue Meanie]

It's not just because it is them. It is the notion that because you see them as some evil threat from all the way over the Atlantic, Mediterranean, and some desert, that you seem to want to justify doing whatever the hell you want from them. They are not you 'sworn enemy'. They have every right to feel pissed off at the CIA coup. Every right to feel pissed off at the propping up of Saddam and Israel on their doorstep. Every right to a bloody energy source that everywhere else in the bloody world has. They have every right to support one of their regional neighbours, that actually has a bearing on their lives. They have a right to be pissed off at being called the axis of evil, and have the western media misstranslate everyhting their guy says.

I am not supporting them because they are Iran, or because of DinnerJacket. I simply see them as a sovereign nation, that has not invaded anywhere else, and not attacked anywhere else, and for that they are considered by the west to be evil. The west has caused more chaos, and mayhem than Iran, but that is seemingly OK, because the west likes to be hypocritical. It was the same with the Cuban missile crisis. You didn't want missiles on your border, and yet were perfectly happy to have missiles on the other guys border. It all adds up to bullst, Jim, and I am perfectly entitled to think it is bullst.

Iran has it's own problems, but they are for the Iranians to sort out, and their leader is a borderline weirdo, BUT, that does not mean that we can be as aggressive as we want towards them based on the nonsense guesswork that we seem to in recent times, as I mentioned regarding intelligence for the iraq war, and lack of intelligence for this possible conflict.

They are all as bad as each other, but that does not mean that we can srtart giving it the big bully boy tactics, and come across as being on the moral high ground.

So Jim, why do you think it is OK to ignore any aggression/interference the west/israel has shown Iran in their history?

[Jimbeaux]

Blue Meanie said:

It's not just because it is them. It is the notion that because you see them as some evil threat from all the way over the Atlantic, Mediterranean, and some desert, that you seem to want to justify doing whatever the hell you want from them. They are not you 'sworn enemy'. They have every right to feel pissed off at the CIA coup. Every right to feel pissed off at the propping up of Saddam and Israel on their doorstep. Every right to a bloody energy source that everywhere else in the bloody world has. They have every right to support one of their regional neighbours, that actually has a bearing on their lives. They have a right to be pissed off at being called the axis of evil, and have the western media misstranslate everyhting their guy says.

I am not supporting them because they are Iran, or because of DinnerJacket. I simply see them as a sovereign nation, that has not invaded anywhere else, and not attacked anywhere else, and for that they are considered by the west to be evil. The west has caused more chaos, and mayhem than Iran, but that is seemingly OK, because the west likes to be hypocritical. It was the same with the Cuban missile crisis. You didn't want missiles on your border, and yet were perfectly happy to have missiles on the other guys border. It all adds up to bullst, Jim, and I am perfectly entitled to think it is bullst.

Iran has it's own problems, but they are for the Iranians to sort out, and their leader is a borderline weirdo, BUT, that does not mean that we can be as aggressive as we want towards them based on the nonsense guesswork that we seem to in recent times, as I mentioned regarding intelligence for the iraq war, and lack of intelligence for this possible conflict.

They are all as bad as each other, but that does not mean that we can srtart giving it the big bully boy tactics, and come across as being on the moral high ground.

So Jim, why do you think it is OK to ignore any aggression/interference the west/israel has shown Iran in their history?

Their lack of certsin levels of agression by them is, in my opinion, down to them not being able to.
I am for the people of Iran in general but not their regime, which I consider dangerous. Like you, I have the right to feel that way as well. We shall see how this works out in the long run. I hope, like I am sure you do, that things work out without violence or loss of life.

[deeps]

Blue Meanie, would you vote in favour of protecting your country from possible enemies by illegally preventing those enemies from becoming as powerful as yourself? Or would you allow them to become equally powerful because they have the right to do whatever they choose in their own country? Is it sometimes morally right to act illegally in proactive self defence, or is it always wrong?

By 'enemies' I'm not referring to Iran, this is just a general question.

[Blue Meanie]

deeps said:

Blue Meanie, would you vote in favour of protecting your country from possible enemies by illegally preventing those enemies from becoming as powerful as yourself? Or would you allow them to become equally powerful because they have the right to do whatever they choose in their own country? Is it sometimes morally right to act illegally in proactive self defence, or is it always wrong?

By 'enemies' I'm not referring to Iran, this is just a general question.

What threat are iran to us? Is there any evidence of weapons, etc? Where does it end? After Iran, who will be next on the list of people really far away who may or may not kill us

[deeps]

Blue Meanie said:

deeps said:

By 'enemies' I'm not referring to Iran, this is just a general question.

What threat are iran to us? Is there any evidence of weapons, etc? Where does it end? After Iran, who will be next on the list of people really far away who may or may not kill us

I think Hairy K put it rather well earlier...

Hairy K said:

It shouldn't be a judgement call about who can be trusted. Countries with nukes are better off if no more countries get nukes regardless of who those countries are. They're the ultimate force escalation. Realistically, regardless of everything else, the 'with' countries are going to restrict 'the withouts'.

[Blue Meanie]

deeps said:

Blue Meanie said:

deeps said:

By 'enemies' I'm not referring to Iran, this is just a general question.

What threat are iran to us? Is there any evidence of weapons, etc? Where does it end? After Iran, who will be next on the list of people really far away who may or may not kill us

I think Hairy K put it rather well earlier...

Hairy K said:

It shouldn't be a judgement call about who can be trusted. Countries with nukes are better off if no more countries get nukes regardless of who those countries are. They're the ultimate force escalation. Realistically, regardless of everything else, the 'with' countries are going to restrict 'the withouts'.

So are we going to limit every other country? Maybe that very notion is the reason countries would try to get these weapons, as they are not on a playing field that is level in any way? How is the "wee're gonna keep you down there" attitude going to stop them trying to get it?

[Elroy Blue]

Blue Meanie said:

What threat are iran to us? Is there any evidence of weapons, etc? Where does it end? After Iran, who will be next on the list of people really far away who may or may not kill us

How about being a major sponsor of terrorism for the last 30 years!