BF2S Forums Iran warns U.S.

CaptainSpaulding71 wrote:

rammunition wrote:

Iran is standing up to the virus that is America.

America is a contagious infection like aids, once it touches a country they will slowly die. Look at Iraq, since Americas involvement in the 80's Iraq has slowly been dying with the gulf war and now this current illegal invasion. There is no cure to this infection except killing the source.

There was a report a few months ago saying Iran isn't making nuclear weapons, yet these Neo-Cons and terrorists are screaming that Iran is making them but provide NO EVIDENCE for there accusations, The jewish lobby controls American foreign policy which shows how "peace" loving they are.


As i said the only way to get rid of this contagious disease which has KILLED MILLIONS is killing the source.

http://forums.bf2s.com/viewtopic.php?pi … 8#p2032818

If America cannot defeat a group of crazy men with guns what can they do against the Iranian military???

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=GwVFQXDx6P4

Silence!  I KEEEL YOU!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1uwOL4rB-go

Jingle bombs was way better

Thanks for posting facts that support my argument. Much appreciated.

Not really - military options are on the table - thats a threat.

Saying "I have a gun in my house" isn't anything close to a threat--it's a statement of fact. It doesn't imply intended use or anything else.

Then there is no reason to say it. If its said its an implied threat.
'You'd better do what I say'
'You'd better do what I say. I have a television in my house'
'You'd better do what I say. I have a gun in my house'
Its obvious which on contains the threat of violence.
I'll look up the case law if I get a minute.

I have no idea what you're on about.
The US wants Iran to bend to its will and is threatening military action if it doesn't.
It couldn't be any simpler.

fadedsteve wrote:

Iran will be attacked, its only a matter of time. . . . . .

The reality is they are in active pursuit of a nuke, and they need to be stopped! PERIOD

Whether it (the attack) be by the USA, UK, or Israel, the Iranians will have a major setback to their nuke program in the next six months.

Yay!

1. Its only the US threatening an attack, and gearing up for an attack.
2. Iran wants a vertically integrated power system so they are not beholden to any other nation. What is unreasonable about that? Every other nuclear nation has done it.
3. Then fine, convince them to cooperate - which they were until the US labelled them part of the 'Axis of Evil' and started up with the threats. Telling them they can't have their own nuclear power industry doesn't fit with the NPT, which is why they kicked the IAEA out..
4. You're confusing the actions of the US with diplomacy. Starting with threats and then trying diplomacy afterwards is not going to be productive.

Diplomacy 101 - stear the other guy to a solution you and he will accept, not try to ram your objective down his throat.

Last edited by Dilbert_X (2008-06-30 02:18:24)

1. Yeah sure.
2. They would be beholden to whoever supplies them with processed fuel.
3. Their nuclear program was not the reason for the labelling. So with or without a nuclear program they are liable to a unilateral attack from the US - as happened next door in Iraq.
4.

Duhbya wrote:

North Korea is a regime arming with missiles and weapons of mass destruction, while starving its citizens.
Iran aggressively pursues these weapons and exports terror, while an unelected few repress the Iranian people's hope for freedom.
Iraq continues to flaunt its hostility toward America and to support terror.

Our war on terror is well begun, but it is only begun.  This campaign may not be finished on our watch -- yet it must be and it will be waged on our watch.
We can't stop short.  If we stop now -- leaving terror camps intact and terror states unchecked -- our sense of security would be false and temporary.  History has called America and our allies to action, and it is both our responsibility and our privilege to fight freedom's fight.

Remember that bit?

Iran tried to play nice but got a slap in the face.
'Washington 'snubbed Iran offer
Iran offered the US a package of concessions in 2003, but it was rejected, a senior former US official has told the BBC's Newsnight programme.
Tehran proposed ending support for Lebanese and Palestinian militant groups and helping to stabilise Iraq following the US-led invasion.

Offers, including making its nuclear programme more transparent, were conditional on the US ending hostility.
But Vice-President Dick Cheney's office rejected the plan, the official said.'
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6274147.stm

If the US rejects reasonable diplomacy what other options do the Iranians have exactly?

Iraq was invaded, Iran can assume the clock is ticking for them. Constant talk of 'the military option' only adds weight.
Their best hope is to keep the US bogged down in Iraq and develop nuclear weapons ASAP.

Last edited by Dilbert_X (2008-06-30 03:47:25)

Dilbert_X wrote:

1. Yeah sure.

As expected. You've got nothing.

Dilbert_X wrote:

2. They would be beholden to whoever supplies them with processed fuel.

How exactly would that be? You aren't beholden to people who offer you something as part of a negotiation.

Iran has already received nuclear fuel from Russia. If their program is purely peaceful, why would they continue to enrich uranium when they already have a source for peaceful electric power (per their stated goal)? Because you can't make nuclear weapons out of processed nuclear fuel, that's why.

Dilbert_X wrote:

3. Their nuclear program was not the reason for the labelling. So with or without a nuclear program they are liable to a unilateral attack from the US - as happened next door in Iraq.

Quite a leap in logic there. You can't back up your other position, so you respond by saying "they're going to be attacked no matter what". Completely overlooking the fact that diplomatic efforts have succeeded with the other player on the "axis of evil", North Korea. When were they attacked, exactly?

Dilbert_X wrote:

4.

   

Dubya wrote:

North Korea is a regime arming with missiles and weapons of mass destruction, while starving its citizens.
    Iran aggressively pursues these weapons and exports terror, while an unelected few repress the Iranian people's hope for freedom.
    Iraq continues to flaunt its hostility toward America and to support terror.

    Our war on terror is well begun, but it is only begun.  This campaign may not be finished on our watch -- yet it must be and it will be waged on our watch.
    We can't stop short.  If we stop now -- leaving terror camps intact and terror states unchecked -- our sense of security would be false and temporary.  History has called America and our allies to action, and it is both our responsibility and our privilege to fight freedom's fight.

Remember that bit?

And your point? It's not an all-military show...which you would realize if you would allow yourself to be a bit more objective.

Dilbert_X wrote:

Iran tried to play nice but got a slap in the face.
'Washington 'snubbed Iran offer
Iran offered the US a package of concessions in 2003, but it was rejected, a senior former US official has told the BBC's Newsnight programme.
Tehran proposed ending support for Lebanese and Palestinian militant groups and helping to stabilise Iraq following the US-led invasion.

Offers, including making its nuclear programme more transparent, were conditional on the US ending hostility.
But Vice-President Dick Cheney's office rejected the plan, the official said.'
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6274147.stm

If the US rejects reasonable diplomacy what other options do the Iranians have exactly?

We've already covered this. Their "Swiss Letter" didn't address the issue at hand: the Iranian nuclear program. Additionally, without the text of the letter, no one really knows what the conditions were. From your source, Iran wanted multiple things before they would be more transparent with their nuclear program. So, you want me to stop building stills in my basement. I send you a letter saying I'll let you look in my basement if you: 1) take out a full-page ad in the paper saying how wonderful I am; 2) buy my wife a new diamond ring; 3) weigh in on my side in a dispute with my in-laws; 4) wash my car weekly; 5) and on and on...

No. How about I just let you and all our neighbors (who are also on your side) take a look in my basement to verify what I'm doing won't blow up the block?

Dilbert_X wrote:

Iraq was invaded, Iran can assume the clock is ticking for them. Constant talk of 'the military option' only adds weight.
Their best hope is to keep the US bogged down in Iraq and develop nuclear weapons ASAP.

Why would they assume that? They have examples of military action (Iraq) and diplomatic action (N. Korea). Only diplomacy has been used with Iran. I suppose they would assume that if they spent their time making tinfoil hats to keep the aliens from reading their thoughts.

fadedsteve wrote:

Iran will be attacked, its only a matter of time. . . . . .

The reality is they are in active pursuit of a nuke, and they need to be stopped! PERIOD

Whether it (the attack) be by the USA, UK, or Israel, the Iranians will have a major setback to their nuke program in the next six months.

Yadda, yadda, yadda. Go for it America, knock yourselves out...it'll be the cherry on top of your credit crunch cake.

what certain "activities?"

Im sorry, im a bit drunk here, by why in the world, does people here argue for Iran, these people would kill us if they could, and President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said that Israel should be wiped of the map.

Israelian people is the only people in the ME, that has a desire for peace.
But of course they have to defend themself for their own well being, its called self defence.

Anyway as i stated before im drunk, and maybe i should not write this nonsense (mods delete if you want) but just my 2 cents.

God Save the Queen wrote:

You cant defend what Iran does and shun what the US does unless you are just choosing sides.  Iran is guilty of the same very things people criticize the United States for.

so they both ought to be judged by some third nation?

usmarine2 wrote:

what certain "activities?"

Iran-Contra...

http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/cold.war/ep … index.html

lulz @ "arrive late to work and call in sick to disrupt operations"

I just wish the corporate oil whores would invest in alternative fuels so we wouldn't have to keep our assholes wet for those fucking Saudis. That's all Iraq was ever about. I guarantee that's all any of this shit is about, protecting those fucking rich bigots.