BF2S Forums Iran? Nothing to worry about.

RicardoBlanco wrote:

I was reading an article in which some of the complexities of building a bomb, or even attaining enough enriched uranium, were outlined.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jh … iran24.xml

What, exactly, is the pressing concern over Iran? Not only is it going to take them at least two years to even get to a stage where it might be possible to test a rudimentary bomb, the road to get there is so fraught with technical difficulty as to make even this 'deadline' unlikely. One misplaced spec of dust or fingerprint is enough to ensure the whole process has to be started again and the Iranians just don't have the domestic technical competance to make this work anytime in the near future.

So what's the rush, why the build up in the gulf? What the fuck happened to diplomacy?

CameronPoe wrote:

The Bush administration happened to diplomacy. The same guys who rave about Ronald Reagan: a man who, despite his many faults, helped bring the cold war to a conclusion without firing a single bullet at the USSR or firing a single missile at USSR territory.

RicardoBlanco wrote:

Kmarion wrote:

RicardoBlanco wrote:

So what's the rush, why the build up in the gulf? What the fuck happened to diplomacy?

Maybe you should pay a little attention to who is threatening force and abducting your military.. who is being diplomatic? The guy who calls you the enemy daily?

http://www.ncr-iran.org/content/view/3296/152/
http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.as … 007_pg7_37

Even while this moron is claiming God sided with Iran to cause failed 1980 U.S. hostage rescue attempt.

Well last time I checked, and in regards to the recent capture of our Naval personnel, we didn't fire a shot and neither did the Iranians. Unless you can provide evidence contrary to the fact diplomacy is what brought the scenario to an end, I'm going to assume it was diplomacy and our exceptional diplomats.

As far as my awareness to their animosity towards the UK...

http://forums.bf2s.com/viewtopic.php?pi … 3#p1339993

RicardoBlanco wrote:

...take them at least two years to even get to a stage...

Fen321 wrote:

rawls2 wrote:

RicardoBlanco wrote:

I was reading an article in which some of the complexities of building a bomb, or even attaining enough enriched uranium, were outlined.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jh … iran24.xml

What, exactly, is the pressing concern over Iran? Not only is it going to take them at least two years to even get to a stage where it might be possible to test a rudimentary bomb, the road to get there is so fraught with technical difficulty as to make even this 'deadline' unlikely. One misplaced spec of dust or fingerprint is enough to ensure the whole process has to be started again and the Iranians just don't have the domestic technical competance to make this work anytime in the near future.

So what's the rush, why the build up in the gulf? What the fuck happened to diplomacy?

It's not just the bomb. Iran has been fueling the Israeli/Palestinian; Israeli/Lebonese; and the Israeli/Syrian conflict. Now they are directly responsible for thousands of Iraqi deaths. Iran must be put in it's place.

Directly fueling seems a bit of an overstretched statement there. Mostly due to the fact that it plays to the thought that Iran lives in an super position to be the only player through out the entire Middle East. When i say this i mean a country which is capable of influencing other countries via political/military pressure solely. Take a look at  Turkey's top general for example. He recently ADVOCATED the invasion of norther Iraq via Turkish special forces to combat PKK members running in and out of Turkey from Kurdistan. Now, I don't know about you, but this comes to no surprise -- power in this region is very fragile. This serves as another example of just how well our preemptive mentality is not a unique characteristic.

I'm curious as to how the Israeli/Syrian relations have been effected via manipulation from Iran?

Directly responsible for thousands of Iraqi deaths....wow what a statement if you want to play tit for tat compare it to the simple fact that they all died due to our "need" to protect ourselves from the phantom menace -- no pun intended.

KEN-JENNINGS wrote:

rawls2 wrote:

Fen321 wrote:

Directly fueling seems a bit of an overstretched statement there. Mostly due to the fact that it plays to the thought that Iran lives in an super position to be the only player through out the entire Middle East. When i say this i mean a country which is capable of influencing other countries via political/military pressure solely. Take a look at  Turkey's top general for example. He recently ADVOCATED the invasion of norther Iraq via Turkish special forces to combat PKK members running in and out of Turkey from Kurdistan. Now, I don't know about you, but this comes to no surprise -- power in this region is very fragile. This serves as another example of just how well our preemptive mentality is not a unique characteristic.

I'm curious as to how the Israeli/Syrian relations have been effected via manipulation from Iran?

Directly responsible for thousands of Iraqi deaths....wow what a statement if you want to play tit for tat compare it to the simple fact that they all died due to our "need" to protect ourselves from the phantom menace -- no pun intended.

Iran in Syria via Hezbollah.

Rockets to Lebonan.

Explosives to Iraqi insurgence tha kill more Iraqis than Americans.

By that rationalization the US is directly responsible for hundreds of thousands of deaths in Iraq, Lebanon, occupied Palestine, and all over the world because we supply arms and munitions to almost anybody willing to buy them.

But it is okay for us to do it because we represent 'freedom' and 'liberty' and 'democracy' and those evil bastards represent a 'false religion' and hatred.

I find more legitimacy in Palestinian/Lebanese struggles than MOST of the conflicts we (the US) are dipping into around the world.

KEN-JENNINGS wrote:

rawls2 wrote:

KEN-JENNINGS wrote:

By that rationalization the US is directly responsible for hundreds of thousands of deaths in Iraq, Lebanon, occupied Palestine, and all over the world because we supply arms and munitions to almost anybody willing to buy them.

But it is okay for us to do it because we represent 'freedom' and 'liberty' and 'democracy' and those evil bastards represent a 'false religion' and hatred.

I find more legitimacy in Palestinian/Lebanese struggles than MOST of the conflicts we (the US) are dipping into around the world.

We sell for defensive purposes and we sell to nations.
Iran gives this shit away to terrorist organizations like Hezbollah.
Can you see the difference? Can you really?

Between your emotional half-truths and my facts?  Yes, yes I can.

rawls2 wrote:

KEN-JENNINGS wrote:

rawls2 wrote:

We sell for defensive purposes and we sell to nations.
Iran gives this shit away to terrorist organizations like Hezbollah.
Can you see the difference? Can you really?

Between your emotional half-truths and my facts?  Yes, yes I can.

I too feel for Palestinian/Lebonese struggle but I see the reality and you see whats on the news. If Iran would stop pushing terrorists on Israel via Palestine/Lebonan peace would have been reached in that area and a two state solution would have happened already.

Kmarion wrote:

RicardoBlanco wrote:

Kmarion wrote:

No, not a single shot fired. They readily accepted your Royal Marines surrender.

I actually am for open talks. I am just trying to illustrate how difficult it is to sell diplomacy with the actions and remarks Ahmadinejad feels he has to say and do in order to assert influence.

Yes. You almost sound like you're trying to belittle them? Again, alarming!

As for your second point; that's how Iran do diplomacy. You learn and adapt, surely you're boys are trained that too?!

Did they not surrender? The Iranians judged their victims well. If you think Iranians believe a submissive attitude is an admirable characteristic you have seriously misjudged the middle eastern mentality. Instead, the Brits allowed the Iranian hardliners to humiliate a once great military and encourage hostage takers everywhere. Yes, I would say the Iranians have adapted nicely.

RicardoBlanco wrote:

They did surrender, which was the best thing to do under the circumstances, and if you think Iranians beleive an aggressive attitude is an admirable characteristic you have seriously misjudged the middle eastern mentality. In fact, why don't you boys just stay out of the whole diplomacy thing completely and let us get on with it. 

The point of this thread is we all have years before Iran even gets close to producing anything remotely dangerous, or dangerous enough to warrant a military build up by the US. Lets have a go at diplomacy.

Kmarion wrote:

lmfao you don't think strength and aggressiveness is the rule of law over there?

Kmarion wrote:

Nm you of course know this..

RicardoBlanco wrote:

Put him back in power. I'd love to see the insurgent fuckwits trying to bring the country down with the threat of a good gassing hanging over them. Iraq as a country is not as civilised as the west. They need a leader with a firm hand.

Kmarion wrote:

You abandon my point I guess as soon as you see I have used another topic to illustrate your hypocrisy. That I guess gives you the right to throw out consistency in your approach to handle the ME. You tell us Iraqi's need a firm hand and a threat of gassing looming over there head while having the nerve to tell me "this is the 2007". If you can't understand how this is "silly" I give up.