Israel stands ready to bomb Iran's nuclear sites

wombraider · 18 Apr 2009 at 19:31

AcidHell2 said:
Because they would get slaughtered, a nuke is the ultimate back up and makes you more or less invincible.

The world is far to small a place, we need a world police and to keep countrys in line.
Yes we invaded countrys and oh look we are handing them back.

I will correct that for you
Yes we invaded countries and oh look we are handing whats left of them back.

Raumarik · 18 Apr 2009 at 19:34

I hope the US/UK don't back Israel for a change, this is just daft. The Israeli's are far too gun-ho.

RDM · 18 Apr 2009 at 19:44

Kami said:
I hope the US/UK don't back Israel for a change, this is just daft. The Israeli's are far too gun-ho.

What is the solution then? Allow Iran to develop nuclear weapons? Would that make the world a safer place?

Teki187 · 18 Apr 2009 at 19:46

Azagoth said:
I don't know why, but I'm getting the idea that this thread is just another thinly veiled way for the OP to go about spouting their anti Israel & anti USA conspiracy theory rhetoric.

Stop trying to derail my threads, i was clearly answering the questions while asking my own.

Though i do hate USA and Israel, i'm not forcing anyone to believe in what my opinions are.

Teki187 · 18 Apr 2009 at 19:48

RDM said:
What is the solution then? Allow Iran to develop nuclear weapons? Would that make the world a safer place?

Who's saying they want to develop bombs?

The solution is to create dialogue and bring in inspectors to monitor rather than restrict outright or threaten invasion.

Glaucus · 18 Apr 2009 at 19:50

Teki187 said:
Who's saying they want to develop bombs?

what they are building strongly implies they want to make bombs. IIRC the size of the refiners are way past what is needed for reactor grade.

Teki187 said:
The solution is to create dialogue and bring in inspectors to monitor rather than restrict outright or threaten invasion.

what like the dialogue which has already happened. Once dialogue has run out what then? You can just stick inspectors in unless they except it. then you will have a situation like iraq. where they limit the inspectors movements and play mockery over teh sanctions for a decade.

Paul11 · 18 Apr 2009 at 19:50

Teki187 said:
Who's saying they want to develop bombs?

The solution is to create dialogue and bring in inspectors to monitor rather than restrict outright or threaten invasion.

the problem is that they dont allow in inspectors..

Azagoth · 18 Apr 2009 at 19:50

Teki187 said:
The solution is to create dialogue and bring in inspectors to monitor rather than restrict outright or threaten invasion.

The naïvety is strong in this one.

RDM · 18 Apr 2009 at 19:51

Teki187 said:
Who's saying they want to develop bombs?

Because they are refusing the methods that would allow them to develop nuclear power without enrichment. It seems they just must enrich their own fuel. There is no real need for that.

Teki187 said:
The solution is to create dialogue and bring in inspectors to monitor rather than restrict outright or threaten invasion.

And what do you think the EU has been trying to do for the past several years. But if Iran choose not to allow inspectors to monitor? If Iran choose not to have dialogue? Shall we try the "Keep talking and hoping until it is too late" approach?

Tefal · 18 Apr 2009 at 19:54

So teki it's 2009 now, when'/s garlic and water going to be banned?

Should i start asking my doctor for a prescription to grow my herbs yet?

Amp34 · 18 Apr 2009 at 19:59

And I bet when Iran attackes back Israel will play the innocent victim card...

Israel really needs to be reigned in and hopefully Obama will actually start realising diplomacy and talking will resolve issue better than war in this sort of situation.

Glaucus · 18 Apr 2009 at 20:01

Amp34 said:
Israel really needs to be reigned in and hopefully Obama will actually start realising diplomacy and talking will resolve issue better than war in this sort of situation.

but diplomacy has been tried, it was tried in Iraq as well.

when diplomacy fails. You have two solutions
1) grow some bulls and stand up for your values
2) ignore it and tell every country in the world you have no balls and as such do what ever you want.

Von Smallhausen · 18 Apr 2009 at 20:03

RDM said:
What is the solution then? Allow Iran to develop nuclear weapons? Would that make the world a safer place?

Gung-ho is perhaps too strong a term but then again, every country that borders it wants its ruination be it openly or silently.

Amp34 · 18 Apr 2009 at 20:04

RDM said:
Because they are refusing the methods that would allow them to develop nuclear power without enrichment. It seems they just must enrich their own fuel. There is no real need for that.

And what do you think the EU has been trying to do for the past several years. But if Iran choose not to allow inspectors to monitor? If Iran choose not to have dialogue? Shall we try the "Keep talking and hoping until it is too late" approach?

So I'm sure the US (and UK) would be fine with inspectors crawling all over their nuclear facilities, not...

And dialogue has to be two ways, not "you have to do this, that and the other..." once the US realises this them we may have some diplomacy on the cards.

IIRC the EU was getting a reasonably good response from Iran until the US decided they didn't like the answers and scuppered the dialogue.

cheets64 · 18 Apr 2009 at 20:06

People in the Middle East should not have weapons.

Amp34 · 18 Apr 2009 at 20:09

AcidHell2 said:
but diplomacy has been tried, it was tried in Iraq as well.

when diplomacy fails. You have to solutions
1) grow some bulls and stand up for your values
2) ignore it and tell every country in the world you have no balls and as such do what ever you want.

That wasn't diplomacy, that was a parent telling their child they couldn't have sweets and that their dog had to be put down because they didn't like it. Then we gave them a couple of days to do the impossible (which the did a good job in the circumstances) before they invaded.

There was no way in hell we weren't going to invade Iraq, even if thy bent over backwards once (and probably way before) GB and TB had that meeting on the canaries. We were bent on blood and no diplomacy (even when the inspectors themselves stated the Iraques were doing all the inspectors wanted) was going to stop us.

So when the diplomacy fails yes it is time for war, but at the moment we haven't had proper diplomacy. The one time there was proper diplomacy it was scuppered by the US.

Von Smallhausen · 18 Apr 2009 at 20:09

cheets64 said:
People in the Middle East should not have weapons.

Conventional as well as nuclear ?

Amp34 · 18 Apr 2009 at 20:09

cheets64 said:
People in the Middle East should not have weapons.

Because people in the middle east were the cause of most of the wars in the last 200 years?

Sankari · 18 Apr 2009 at 20:09

Teki187 said:
Funny man, nothing to contribute, so you try and insult me instead.

Grow up.

My post didn't even mention you, so how could it possibly insult you? :confused:

You know the news source is a "good one" and you have nothing to say against this.

Of course I don't have anything to say against it. I think it's a great idea! I'm all for Israel knocking out the nuclear capacity of another grubby little Muslim country ruled by a bunch of mad mullahs and a dictator whose mental status is best filed under "mouth-foamingly mad".

I just don't believe it's the prelude to Armageddon.

Glaucus · 18 Apr 2009 at 20:11

Amp34 said:
That wasn't diplomacy, that was a parent telling their child they couldn't have sweets and that their dog had to be put down because they didn't like it. Then we gave them a couple of days to do the impossible (which the did a good job in the circumstances) before they invaded.

10 years... They where in violation of multiple resolutions for much of that time.