congratulations, you have displayed the typical short-sighted racist line...have a biscuit, sit in the corner and shut up
Bomb Iran?
- Thread starter The Halk
- Start date
congratulations, you have displayed the typical short-sighted racist line...have a biscuit, sit in the corner and shut up
I'm glad that some of you aren't in control of our armed forces.
To flippantly suggest the bombing and killing of thousands if not millions of innocent people is outrageous.
For those who feel that Iran's Government are "nutjobs". They may also see Western Governments in exactly the same way. Consider that in the past few years, middle eastern countries havent attacked Western countries, however Western countries have attacked middle eastern countries.
Who do you think is more dangerous - Western Governments who have a track record of bombing Middle Eastern countries or Middle Eastern countries who have no track record of bombing Western countries?
To flippantly suggest the bombing and killing of thousands if not millions of innocent people is outrageous.
For those who feel that Iran's Government are "nutjobs". They may also see Western Governments in exactly the same way. Consider that in the past few years, middle eastern countries havent attacked Western countries, however Western countries have attacked middle eastern countries.
Who do you think is more dangerous - Western Governments who have a track record of bombing Middle Eastern countries or Middle Eastern countries who have no track record of bombing Western countries?
2nd coming of Muhammad?
From what I understand, Islam recognises that Jesus will have a 2nd coming. Islam also recognises that Mohamed is dead and as such he will not see a 2nd coming.
Secondly, I don't know of any hardliners who want to see the end of the World. Only God has the right to end the World, not a human being. Islam preaches this at its very core.
Can someone clarify that rypt is completely wrong/right?
Last edited:
Soldato
- Joined
- 29 Jun 2004
- Posts
- 12,957
I think people fail to realise Iran isn't an Iraq. They will fight back at those who attack their sovereignty despite what their military force may look like. They also have political support from The Russian Federation and The Peoples Republic of China.
Ignore what you saw in the media about election protests. Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is a very liked person in Iran and he isn't going anywhere, especially since Ayatollah Ali Khamenei agrees with his policies. Not even the States would dare strike first at Iran.
Ignore what you saw in the media about election protests. Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is a very liked person in Iran and he isn't going anywhere, especially since Ayatollah Ali Khamenei agrees with his policies. Not even the States would dare strike first at Iran.
Soldato
- Joined
- 14 Dec 2005
- Posts
- 12,488
- Location
- Bath
I thought it's the un-elected Ayatollah that runs the country, and the president is just "let the people pretend it's a democracy" and he has to seek the Ayatollah's blessing before making big decisions?
Question mark denotes my uncertainty and openness to correction. Usual terms & conditions apply.
Last edited:
Soldato
- Joined
- 21 Jul 2007
- Posts
- 5,488
How is that technically different from our Monarchy?
The Queen is our Commander-in-Chief is she not?
Soldato
- Joined
- 29 Jun 2004
- Posts
- 12,957
Before Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei pretty much ran the country in proxy through its presidents. What's changed is no other presidential candidate at the time was willing to take Iran out of it's slow progression in the modern world, especially with a Sharia ruling law, due to fear of being labelled "non Islamic."
Ahmadinejad highlighted this and brought the country to the modern world, as a result the people of Iran like him. If you removed him, the election protests in Iran would have been minute compared to what would happen. This is why Ali Khamenei gives him authority to pretty much introduce what he wants.
Ahmadinejad highlighted this and brought the country to the modern world, as a result the people of Iran like him. If you removed him, the election protests in Iran would have been minute compared to what would happen. This is why Ali Khamenei gives him authority to pretty much introduce what he wants.
Soldato
- Joined
- 14 Dec 2005
- Posts
- 12,488
- Location
- Bath
As I understand it:
The Prime Minister is elected (well apart from Gordon Brown
) and runs the country. The Monarch has the power to stop the Prime Minister and do whatever they feel like - it's their country afterall. But this power is never used.In Iran the President is elected (allegedly) and has to get the Ayatollah's blessing on decisions. The Ayatollah isn't a Monarch or anything but a "spiritual leader" (what happened to multiculturalism and religious diversity?) and is involved in all decisions whereas our Monarch just has the power to kick the governments ass but never uses it.
As I understand it denotes my uncertainty and openness to correction. Usual terms & conditions apply.
Associate
- Joined
- 1 Mar 2008
- Posts
- 2,382
- Location
- York
Iran says it wants atomic power only for the production of electricity.B/S
Ahmadinejhad doesn't lie. I mean how can you not trust someone who says the Holocaust doesn't exist, and how he says there are no homosexuals in Iran.
Time to get my old webbing out of the garden shed ; )
Ahmadinejhad doesn't lie. I mean how can you not trust someone who says the Holocaust doesn't exist, and how he says there are no homosexuals in Iran.
Time to get my old webbing out of the garden shed ; )
Or how about:
G) Mind our own ******* business and live and let live? Who the **** are we to dictate to anyone that they can or cannot have nuclear weapons?
The US can go **** itself too - arrogant *******!
* There, I feel so much better
Took the words right out of my mouth there...well said mate
IF the UK and the Americans decide to attack Iran then heaven help them as its going to be one long war and with massiave casualties on both sides...Iran isnt an Afghanistan or Iraq...
Yes hes talking utter crap as usual
...he hasnt the foggiest as to what hes talking about.
Soldato
- Joined
- 19 Dec 2008
- Posts
- 3,499
- Location
- London, UK
if iran fired 1 nuke the retaliation would be so overwhelming there would be no iran left. they might be a few things but i dont think theyre stupid.
Caporegime
- Joined
- 18 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 33,188
The problem is that Iran now has an empty, completely useless country sitting next door that the world is slowly pulling out of. Essentially, once the last troops are out it will be a terrorist haven, with Iran close by being able to fund and arm terrorists, and yes they most certainly have the option of creating dirty bombs, slipping them out to terrorist cells and having terrorists attack anyone while denying responsibility and publically condeming any attacks.
We don't want Iran to have any ability to enrich weapons grade materials at all, and theres a reason the ultra left wing, ultra anti war Obama classes Iran's national army as terrorist group and labeled Iran as the single biggest threat to world peace right now.
Soldato
- Joined
- 21 Jul 2007
- Posts
- 5,488
Erm...sarcasm?
Obama is not ultra left wing, he's centre-right. Neither is he anti-war.
Indeed.
Not to mention that this would apply to pretty much every country out there - nuclear weapons exist as a deterrent, rather than a genuine offensive weapon.
Also of note is that nuclear weapons have only ever been used in combat, by the USA and this was over 60 yrs ago.
We don't always get what we want. Sometimes, in fact most times, we have to compromise.
All because Iran may have nuclear weapons, doesnt mean that they should be attacked.
Soldato
- Joined
- 19 Dec 2008
- Posts
- 3,499
- Location
- London, UK
so in essence were fighting the war on terror but really were breeding hate and even more terror?
This does seem to be the mantra of some people. Perhaps after the bombing, they should visit the areas that have been bombed to realise just how much devastation it causes.
The bombings in New York and London are insignificant when you compare against the devastation caused by allied bombing in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Last edited:
Yes, lets jsut saunter up to the largest global super power and say "oi give us ya' bombs!"
The world may be a bit on the dodgy side why it comes to war, but one this it isn't is suicidal, everyone capable of creating and launching nuclear weapons knows full well what would happen if they actualy used one.
Look at it like this, nuclear weapons are in essence a shared delusion.
The nuclear deterant works because everyone knows all that they would achieve by using the damn things is mutual annihilation. So what you end up with is a situation in which having them somehow makes you powerful when in fact, it just bumps you up the ladder of "Who is going to be wiped off the face of the planet first" if nuclear war ever happens.
Any country stupid enough to use a nuclear weapon as an opening to a war would be a country in lala land, people that stupid do not exist.
Last edited: