Author Topic: Iran up to something? (Read 1359 times)

Dowding · « **Reply #15 on:** March 14, 2003, 06:52:59 AM »

Very true, Grunherz. The same can be said of the people of Iraq. I was reading about the crusades, and the achievements of the Islamic clerics in that area. When they were star gazing, conducting intricate surgery and learning about the human body through dissection (a practise outlawed by the Catholic church), it really shows how completely twisted both the Taliban and Muslim fundamentalists are.

straffo · « **Reply #16 on:** March 14, 2003, 07:03:15 AM »

I thought it was not only because of the backing by the USA but also because of diplomatie.

Gyro/T69 · « **Reply #17 on:** March 14, 2003, 07:53:49 AM »

"Now, do you understand those points, or are there more stupid questions that need answering?

Must be, you didn't say anything about theses.

Will you also be out in the street if Hussein uses WMDs on Israel? Or the Kurds, as the threat was reported in UK newspapers last week?

Would Israel be justified to do the same if hit with a WMD from Iraq?

Curval · « **Reply #18 on:** March 14, 2003, 08:06:40 AM »

Nice "duck" on the Israel/Kurd question Dowding.

babek- · « **Reply #19 on:** March 14, 2003, 08:10:25 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by straffo
I thought it was not only because of the backing by the USA but also because of diplomatie.

Yes - the iranians offered the russians economical advantages in the iranian oil sector.

But the main reason why they left Iran was the fact that Iran had the powerful ally USA.

Otherwise they would have come back after Iran didnt gave them any oil after they left

straffo · « **Reply #20 on:** March 14, 2003, 08:38:50 AM »

lol

naughty persian

Nifty · « **Reply #21 on:** March 14, 2003, 09:19:05 AM »

you guys all missed dowding's point. His point was that if the UK responded with WMD against civilian targets he'd be demanding the current UK government to step down. He's a UK citizen. He doesn't want his country to respond with WMD civilians. He's also warning what will happen if the US responds with WMD against civilians.

His point is that the UK (and US) should be above slaughtering civilians and non-combatants, even if the enemy resorts to that level. Our whole mantra in this (our = US + UK) is freedom for the Iraqi people along with security for the world. How hypocritical would it be for either nation to turn around and say "well, Saddam, you just used WMD, so we're going to level Baghdad with a nuke now." ??? That's asinine, and it completely shows no respect for human life, which is supposedly what this is all about.

It's obvious Dowding would support military action against any nation that uses WMD. It's plainly obvious he wouldn't support retaliation against hte civilians of that nation though. I agree with him. Anyone that advocates wiping out a nation seriously needs to cool off and realize exactly what the hell they are saying.

Saurdaukar · « **Reply #22 on:** March 14, 2003, 09:41:28 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Nifty
you guys all missed dowding's point. His point was that if the UK responded with WMD against civilian targets he'd be demanding the current UK government to step down. He's a UK citizen. He doesn't want his country to respond with WMD civilians. He's also warning what will happen if the US responds with WMD against civilians.

Im not sure he had one. Dowding is kinda like Clinton - hes says "alot" but doesnt say "much."

Where it was written that the UK had any intention of using non-conventional weapons against civilian targets is unknown to me. Even if they did, I doubt they would take Dowding very seriously and step down.

In any event good Dowding, sir, you need not go nuclear (no pun intended) when someone asks you a question you cant possibly answer without looking like a hipocrate. I wonder if you have real reasons why you oppose US/UK action unless it complies with your rules, or if you've just jumped on the bandwagon - disagreeing in an attempt to appear more "schooled" than the rest of the "sheep".

The objective is to remove Saddam from power. Ill let the military commanders figure out how to do it, not the politicians, and certainly not the public. The last time we did it the other way around, we didnt fare so well.

Dowding · « **Reply #23 on:** March 14, 2003, 10:55:04 AM »

Thank-you Nifty.

I explained my position on the UK front. I explained my position on WMD attacks against UK forces. I'm not a Hussein supporter. But my country is better than him and I expect better from my government.

So Saudaukar, of course I couldn't bring down the government alone. But do you really think I would be alone? There were nearly 2 million people in London a few weeks ago just protesting against the idea of a war. If the UK government ordered the use of a WMD on Baghdad can you imagine the reaction? Not only would you have millions in the streets, the whole of parliament would want Blair's head on a pole on the Tower of London.

Israel will do what Israel will do. I have no control over them - but I do have a voice in my country.

Quote

Dowding is kinda like Clinton - hes says "alot" but doesnt say "much."

lol good one

Quote

The objective is to remove Saddam from power. Ill let the military commanders figure out how to do it, not the politicians, and certainly not the public. The last time we did it the other way around, we didnt fare so well.

Oh dear. You think the deployment of nukes on civilian targets is not a political decision? On what particular planet are you living on?

The day to day conventional fighting is left to the military. Decisions that would mean the death of millions of civilians in a nuclear attack is not - and rightly so.

Saurdaukar · « **Reply #24 on:** March 14, 2003, 11:15:21 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Dowding

Oh dear. You think the deployment of nukes on civilian targets is not a political decision? On what particular planet are you living on?

The deployment of nuclear weapons should be, and is a political decision. However, since Im not aware of any plans by the Bush Administration to nuke Iraq, Iran, SK, or France, Im discussing this in conventional weapon terms.

The reason we're concerned about Iraq and South Korea is because they can be in a position to acquire these weapons within months and their political leadership is far from stable. The United States has not detonated a nuclear weapon in anger in over 50 years. How long do you think Saddam would wait if he came across one?

Curval · « **Reply #25 on:** March 14, 2003, 12:06:00 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Dowding
Israel will do what Israel will do. I have no control over them - but I do have a voice in my country.

Very good "duck" again Dowding...

Would you support the use of WMD against Iraq if they used them against Israel?

Gyro/T69 · « **Reply #26 on:** March 14, 2003, 01:06:12 PM »

"Now, do you understand those points, or are there more stupid questions that need answering?"

Must be, you didn't say anything about theses.

Will you also be out in the street if Hussein uses WMDs on Israel? Or the Kurds, as the threat was reported in UK newspapers last week?

Would Israel be justified to do the same if hit with a WMD from Iraq?

Still waiting.

crabofix · « **Reply #27 on:** March 14, 2003, 02:26:36 PM »

Hmm what happend to that nice nuclear research site that the French helped Iraq to build?

crabofix

crabofix · « **Reply #28 on:** March 14, 2003, 02:28:15 PM »

Den Blev Mos(s)ad.......

Ddriag · « **Reply #29 on:** March 14, 2003, 03:15:45 PM »

Curiously enough, about a month ago Goeff Hoon, the UK defence secretary stated that the UK reserved the right to use nuclear weapons if neccesary to defend British Troops in any conflict. This was after a challenge by Clare Short. The implication was that we would use them in Iraq if we were put in a desperate position by the Iraqui's. He said this on Breakfast with Frost.
The specific subject of Nuclear Weapons has been discussed and a particular policy has been publically expressed. Don't know what it adds to the debate, but I thought I'd mention it.