BF2S Forums Iran is up to no good

usmarine2007 wrote:

CameronPoe wrote:

usmarine2007 wrote:

I think the UN should require Ireland, Sweden, Finland, and a few others to handle Iran and enforce UN resolutions.

Quite frankly - I don't want to have a fucking thing to do with them. They ain't threatening Ireland. They even have a street named after Bobby Sands in downtown Tehran.

Now all of a sudden you play the UN card? The UN is a joke - you said so yourself I can bet in some other thread.

I would like to see other countries DO something instead of bitch bitch bitch about the way the US handles things.  SHOW us how it is done then.

How about ISOLATIONISM and CONCENTRATING ON DEFENDING ONESELF and not ATTACKING OTHERS especially advocating PRE-EMPTIVE ATTACKS. A missile shield and tight border security is ALL YOU NEED. If you want them to hurt - cut off trade links.

Remember: pre-emptively striking makes YOU the bad guy!

Last edited by CameronPoe (2007-01-26 11:27:51)

The USA: invade Iraq....invade Iran.....pff
When will someone invade the USA ?

siciliano732 wrote:

deeznutz1245 wrote:

Thats what I dont know, I think the rest of the world views Iran as a  legitimate threat, but is waiting for the Uk and the US. Im not sure.

fair enough, i think your on the right track.  I think the world does see Iran as a threat...how could you not, the guy is like another hitler.  He even has Christians and Jews walkin around with some sort of identification so people know.  Also with all this bull he is pullin with nuclear stuff...I dont know, something needs to be done.  Its just i dont think now is the right time.  Like stated above, this needs to be planned out completely, no holes, no hickups. 

Another thing, the UN just needs to freakin do something for once.  Like oh i dont know, take control of Iran.

klassekock wrote:

deeznutz1245 wrote:

The question is, doeas the rest of the world feel more threatened by Iran than they did Iraq? And would they help with any military force on a larger scale than in Iraq? If so we would not need a draft, not that I think we need one anyway.

Actually I've never felt threatened of any of those countries. Not even when Saddam was at his worst mood. But then again, my country never did anything to annoy them either........

oh you will be the death of me...lol...yea, how could anyone be pissed at you with women like that in your country.  I do not have one negative view of your country, i hear nothing but good things.  Volvo's and Gorgeous women...naa you have my approval. lol

Iran does not require Christians and Jews to wear identification. Likely you are referring to a false story that broke last year. In fact, those two religions face little discrimination. There are synagogues in Iran, in Tehran even. Surprising for a country that seems to want to destroy the Jews.

"The guy" is not another Hitler. Don't make such a foolish comparision.

CameronPoe wrote:

Major_Spittle wrote:

Do nothing to Iran, make the middle east, Asia, and Europe deal with the ME from now on.  It is their backyard and they wanted to put on their big boy pants and tell the US that WE are the enemy, so F them.

The 4 years and 500 Billion dollars that was spent on Iraq could have been better spent securing America, stopping illegal imigration, and developing alt. fuel sources.  that is over $500,000,000,000.  That is a shit ton of money and most likely the final figure will be double that.

Bankrupting America to protect Europe's back yard is not in the US's best intrest. Let Europe deal with it.

Looks like Spittle finally gets it. Amen.

I amen that amen!

m3thod wrote:

usmarine2007 wrote:

Drakef wrote:

"The guy" is not another Hitler. Don't make such a foolish comparision.

Hitler was not the next "Hitler" either.

USM07 please explain this little gem.

Nobody thought Hitler was a problem initially.

m3thod wrote:

Hitler set the benchmark.  So you're rationale doesn't apply to him.

Sure it does.

usmarine2007 wrote:

m3thod wrote:

usmarine2007 wrote:

Hitler was not the next "Hitler" either.

USM07 please explain this little gem.

Nobody thought Hitler was a problem initially.

Which distances Ahmadinejad from the Hitler analogy. According to you noone suspected Hitler of being a 'Hitler', yet it seems like many people do suspect Ahmad of being a 'Hitler'. Therefore, Ahmad is not the next 'Hitler'.

CameronPoe wrote:

usmarine2007 wrote:

CameronPoe wrote:

Quite frankly - I don't want to have a fucking thing to do with them. They ain't threatening Ireland. They even have a street named after Bobby Sands in downtown Tehran.

Now all of a sudden you play the UN card? The UN is a joke - you said so yourself I can bet in some other thread.

I would like to see other countries DO something instead of bitch bitch bitch about the way the US handles things.  SHOW us how it is done then.

How about ISOLATIONISM and CONCENTRATING ON DEFENDING ONESELF and not ATTACKING OTHERS especially advocating PRE-EMPTIVE ATTACKS. A missile shield and tight border security is ALL YOU NEED. If you want them to hurt - cut off trade links.

Remember: pre-emptively striking makes YOU the bad guy!

We'll just twiddle our thumbs while they perfect weapons grade nuclear material.  So they can shoot them at you first.  b/c we know they will test it on Israel. Then use it on Europe.  And we will twiddle our thumbs and say, "uuhh could of sworn we warned you...good luck with your fallout."  This until they try to put weapons in Venezuela or Cuba.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16823714/
Russian official gives details on seized uranium

also:

"Iranians believe that it holds, may hold a first strike capability against Israel once it has a nuclear capability," Shmuel Bar, director of studies at the Institute of Police and Strategy, said. "That Israel is a one bomb country, one bomb from the point-of-view of the receiving side. That the U.S. would not intervene against Iran under such conditions, and all of that with apocalyptic zeal may result in actual use of nuclear weapons."
- http://www.menewsline.com/stories/2007/ … _15_2.html


Oh yeah

Invade....hell no!  Tactical nukes...hell yes!  No troops on the ground just bomb them till the piss their pants and are begging for forgiveness

Last edited by Colfax (2007-01-26 14:04:13)

Colfax wrote:

CameronPoe wrote:

usmarine2007 wrote:

I would like to see other countries DO something instead of bitch bitch bitch about the way the US handles things.  SHOW us how it is done then.

How about ISOLATIONISM and CONCENTRATING ON DEFENDING ONESELF and not ATTACKING OTHERS especially advocating PRE-EMPTIVE ATTACKS. A missile shield and tight border security is ALL YOU NEED. If you want them to hurt - cut off trade links.

Remember: pre-emptively striking makes YOU the bad guy!

We'll just twiddle our thumbs while they perfect weapons grade nuclear material.  So they can shoot them at you first.  b/c we know they will test it on Israel. Then use it on Europe.  And we will twiddle our thumbs and say, "uuhh could of sworn we warned you...good luck with your fallout."  This until they try to put weapons in Venezuela or Cuba.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16823714/
Russian official gives details on seized uranium

also:

"Iranians believe that it holds, may hold a first strike capability against Israel once it has a nuclear capability," Shmuel Bar, director of studies at the Institute of Police and Strategy, said. "That Israel is a one bomb country, one bomb from the point-of-view of the receiving side. That the U.S. would not intervene against Iran under such conditions, and all of that with apocalyptic zeal may result in actual use of nuclear weapons."
- http://www.menewsline.com/stories/2007/ … _15_2.html


Oh yeah

Invade....hell no!  Tactical nukes...hell yes!  No troops on the ground just bomb them till the piss their pants and are begging for forgiveness

The story on the seized uranium, widely reported, GJ to the US and Georgia.  But where is the implication that uranium was going to Iran? Or any other state for that matter?  It's not just rouge state that would like to be a nuclear power, hell one day you're friends the next you're swinging.  The Russian was selling to the highest bidder and that's all we know.  To link the Russian with Iran is irresponsible and you need to try harder.

The second source..."A senior Isreali strategist" i pressed X after reading that.  Tip: credible sources are good 4 U.

iamangry wrote:

CameronPoe wrote:

usmarine2007 wrote:

I would like to see other countries DO something instead of bitch bitch bitch about the way the US handles things.  SHOW us how it is done then.

How about ISOLATIONISM and CONCENTRATING ON DEFENDING ONESELF and not ATTACKING OTHERS especially advocating PRE-EMPTIVE ATTACKS. A missile shield and tight border security is ALL YOU NEED. If you want them to hurt - cut off trade links.

Remember: pre-emptively striking makes YOU the bad guy!

If I see the guy sitting across the room in class pulling parts out of his backpack to build a gun, and his worst enemy is one seat up, and I'm no friend with the gunner, and everyone else doesn't want to consider it their problem because the gunner hasn't indicated that he wants to harm them, I would totally pull out my taser and pacify him, take his gun, and bap him on the head with it.  Wouldn't any of you do the same?  Or are you all so selfish that you won't risk yourself to save another?

How does a tactical nuke in Iran save anyone other than yourself, whom isn't a target unless you first initiate some trouble?

Tasers and guns just don't cut it with analogies to nuclear weapons being used.

iamangry wrote:

If I see the guy sitting across the room in class pulling parts out of his backpack to build a gun, and his worst enemy is one seat up, and I'm no friend with the gunner, and everyone else doesn't want to consider it their problem because the gunner hasn't indicated that he wants to harm them, I would totally pull out my taser and pacify him, take his gun, and bap him on the head with it.  Wouldn't any of you do the same?  Or are you all so selfish that you won't risk yourself to save another?

The analogy is poor. The 'student assembling the gun' is sitting more than 10,000 miles away from you. It's really none of the US' business. They can stop 'selling sweets' to the 'student' and make their life a bit tougher but why you would want to stick up for the 'school bully' sitting in front of the 'student assembling the gun' will always puzzle me.

Fen321 wrote:

How does a tactical nuke in Iran save anyone other than yourself, whom isn't a target unless you first initiate some trouble?

Tasers and guns just don't cut it with analogies to nuclear weapons being used.

Tactical nukes aren't the point.  The point is that if Iran is a danger to our ally (Israel, who Iran has said multiple times should not exist), is it not our responsibility to intervene if we can?  Hell, is it not Israel's responsibility to its own people to turn around and bomb the shit out of the Iranian nuclear program?  If the Canadian Prime Minister had said several times over the past few years that America needs to be destroyed, if their TV shows were of Americans getting ruthlessly slaughtered, and they were building nukes, you know we'd bomb them until their collective asses were bright red.