Would you support war against Iran (if diplomacy does not work)

Anyway, it's not so much a matter of Iran getting nuclear weapons, but who'll end up getting such things from Iran. That's the worrying part.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tribesman

Hmm something about North Africa. Your attempt was one of revising history and in doing so you failed miresably,
Nope , no revisionism there at all . It must be your imagination .

---

Lets review shall we.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tribesman

So according to you the allied landings in north Africa wasn't an invasion then , since you had a friendly french government with you and you were just securing their territory for your invasion of Axis held territory .

---

Not only a strawman arguement about my statement but yes indeed one of an attempt at revision of history.

Friendly French Government was the Free French which was a government in exile..

North Africa was under the under control of the Vichy French government which was a nuetral state and a puppet regime of Nazi Germany.

Nope not my imagination at all.

Like I stated before.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by myself

Failure to ackownledge your attempt at revising history to suit your political opinion on this manner shows all I need to know about your position.

---

Why do we let 3 other countries in the same general area (Israel, India and Pakistan) have nuclear weapons and not Iran? (Pakistan is an authoritarian state as well)

Why do we stand on soapboxes proclaiming "preemptive strikes" for "the protection of neighbouring states" when the world has consistently failed to protect Iran from the use of WMD in the Iraq-Iran war?

Why should Iran be content with receiving uranium shipments from Russia for their reactors? After the Ukranian debacle I'd be even more paranoid about being dependent on the Russians for my energy supply.

Why?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Germaanse Strijder

Why do we let 3 other countries in the same general area (Israel, India and Pakistan) have nuclear weapons and not Iran? (Pakistan is an authoritarian state as well)

Why do we stand on soapboxes proclaiming "preemptive strikes" for "the protection of neighbouring states" when the world has consistently failed to protect Iran from the use of WMD in the Iraq-Iran war?

Why should Iran be content with receiving uranium shipments from Russia for their reactors? After the Ukranian debacle I'd be even more paranoid about being dependent on the Russians for my energy supply.

Why?

---

Read the treaties and agreements that Iran signed to get western aid in developing and building their nuclear power plants.

Not only a strawman arguement about my statement but yes indeed one of an attempt at revision of history.


What revision of history Red ? there is no revision of history there at all .
Failure to ackownledge your attempt at revising history to suit your political opinion on this manner shows all I need to know about your position.
Since there is no revision , then what is there to acknowledge ?
Stick with the mind reading Red , it appear you may be better at that than at knowing what you need to know :no:

I do not support war on Iran. For one thing, it is lousy tank-country. For another, it has lots of people. For a third... why bother? They will have or do have nukes. ...is that it? As has been pointed out before, lots of insane countries have them (top of THAT list is North Korea). So their new President doesn't like Israel. Whoopee, he is now a member of the "We Hate Jews Club". Along with most every other person in that area. Is he blowing smoke? I don't know, but I really don't think it matters. He's just yapping to gain air-time. If he wants to try something, he's a bigger fool than any man on earth.

Azi

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tribesman

Not only a strawman arguement about my statement but yes indeed one of an attempt at revision of history.


What revision of history Red ? there is no revision of history there at all .

---

So Vichy France was an allied power during WW2? Sorry Tribesman that doesn't face the reality check.

Quote:

---

Failure to ackownledge your attempt at revising history to suit your political opinion on this manner shows all I need to know about your position.
Since there is no revision , then what is there to acknowledge ?
Stick with the mind reading Red , it appear you may be better at that than at knowing what you need to know :no:

---

Poor Tribesman resorting to calling something mind reading when the statement itself shows an attempt to revise history to make your political point. Tsk Tsk. So once again I guess Vichy France was an allied power - and not a puppet state of the Nazi Regime in Germany.

Your statement was a strawman and an attempt at revising actual history.

However once again it does show all I need to know about your postion. :laugh4:

However once again it does show all I need to know about your postion.
So Vichy France was an allied power during WW2?
Really Red , then you should have no trouble at all finding a statement where I called the vichy regime an allied power .:book:
Oh but then again you might have difficulty there , as it is only in your imagination .
Are you once again going through another Donkey Oaty phase in your life ?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tribesman

However once again it does show all I need to know about your postion.
So Vichy France was an allied power during WW2?
Really Red , then you should have no trouble at all finding a statement where I called the vichy regime an allied power .:book:
Oh but then again you might have difficulty there , as it is only in your imagination .
Are you once again going through another Donkey Oaty phase in your life ?

---

Oh it wasn't hard to find. Here it is in your own words.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tribesman

So according to you the allied landings in north Africa wasn't an invasion then , since you had a friendly french government with you and you were just securing their territory for your invasion of Axis held territory .

---

Oh look more ad hominem comments coming from you because you were called on the history revision attempt. :laugh4:

Oh it wasn't hard to find. Here it is in your own words.

Where ?
Nothing in there calling the vichy allies is there .
So where is this revisionism and where do I refer to Vichy France as allies ?

Oh look more ad hominem comments coming from you because you were called on the history revision attempt.
Called on what attempt ?
I see no Knights Red , so that means you are definately tilting at Windmills again Donkey , tone down your imagination , it seems to be running wild with you at the moment.~:rolleyes:
It must be that all those futile attempts at mindreading have overloaded your neural functions .:no:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tribesman

Oh it wasn't hard to find. Here it is in your own words.

Where ?
Nothing in there calling the vichy allies is there .
So where is this revisionism and where do I refer to Vichy France as allies ?

---

If you wish not to see it, then there is nothing else to discuss. You attempted to revise history to make a point. And now your attempting to backtrack out of it by saying you did not directly say Vichy France.

Quote:

---

Oh look more ad hominem comments coming from you because you were called on the history revision attempt.
Called on what attempt ?
I see no Knights Red , so that means you are definately tilting at Windmills again Donkey , tone down your imagination , it seems to be running wild with you at the moment.~:rolleyes:
It must be that all those futile attempts at mindreading have overloaded your neural functions .:no:

---

Oh look more ad hominem comments. :laugh4:

Tribesman is now attempting to troll me into doing the same. What a hoot. Very amusing.

Strawman arguement followed by another strawman arguement with an attempt at revision of history, followed by ad hominem comments. You lose Tribesman.

If you wish not to see it, then there is nothing else to discuss.
See what ? it is all in your imagination .

You attempted to revise history to make a point.
There was no revisionism . There were two groups , both claiming the territory involved , the group the allies were dealing with did not control the territory . Just as the groups in Pakistan and Afghanistan you are dealing with do not control the territory involved in this case .

And now your attempting to backtrack out of it by saying you did not directly say Vichy France.

How can someone backtrack out of something they didn't say , thats a new one Red, are you sure you are feeling OK ?:nurse:

You lose Tribesman.
Really ? In what way ? It appears Red that you have lost it entirely .
First you give the answer that I wanted , then through your amazing mind reading abilities you claim that the answer I wanted was not the answer that I wanted and certainly wasn't the answer you gave .
Then you go into a silly word play game , followed up by amazing claims of revisionism and my giving statements that I had not given .

So....back to topic ....
While military action against Iran is an option , it is not a viable option .

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tribesman

If you wish not to see it, then there is nothing else to discuss.
See what ? it is all in your imagination .

---

If its my imagination then why are you attempting to defend your revision of history?

Quote:

---

You attempted to revise history to make a point.
There was no revisionism . There were two groups , both claiming the territory involved , the group the allies were dealing with did not control the territory . Just as the groups in Pakistan and Afghanistan you are dealing with do not control the territory involved in this case .

---

Two groups claiming North Africa with the Vichy French in control does not equate to the same scenerio. Again your strawman was an attempt to use revision of history.

What nation was in control of North Africa when Operation Torch happened?

Quote:

---

And now your attempting to backtrack out of it by saying you did not directly say Vichy France.

How can someone backtrack out of something they didn't say , thats a new one Red, are you sure you are feeling OK ?:nurse:

---

Oh look at your arguement in attempting to state you did not use history revision to attempt to make a point.

Quote:

---

You lose Tribesman.
Really ? In what way ? It appears Red that you have lost it entirely .
First you give the answer that I wanted , then through your amazing mind reading abilities you claim that the answer I wanted was not the answer that I wanted and certainly wasn't the answer you gave .
Then you go into a silly word play game , followed up by amazing claims of revisionism and my giving statements that I had not given .

---

Hmm - another adhominem arguement, coupled with strawman postions once again. Hell your not even responding to what the You Lose meet. Which was the use of ad hominem arguements directed at the man verus the arguement. Again you lose Tribesman

Quote:

---

So....back to topic ....
While military action against Iran is an option , it is not a viable option .

---

Again you are incorrect - A viable military option can be developed, which has been shown. The question is wether it is political viable or not? Or to be more precise is the world community willing to go to war to prevent Iran from having Nuclear Weapons.

You have distracted yourself from your own point. Like I said this arguement has been amusing to me. Its been tons of fun to watch you attempt to spin revision into history,:juggle2: use strawman arguements to counter my position, :dizzy2: and finally your typical resorting to ad hominem arguements because someone has a different take or opinion on a subject.:oops:

:laugh4:

its my imagination then why are you attempting to defend your revision of history?

Thats a hard one ....errr.... lets see ...oh yeah , baseless allegations shall be challenged as baseless allegations .
Strange that isn't it ~:rolleyes:

Two groups claiming North Africa with the Vichy French in control does not equate to the same scenerio. Again your strawman was an attempt to use revision of history.

What revision of history Red ?


Oh look at your arguement in attempting to state you did not use history revision to attempt to make a point.

What revision of history Red ?

Again you are incorrect - A viable military option can be developed, which has been shown. The question is wether it is political viable or not? Or to be more precise is the world community willing to go to war to prevent Iran from having Nuclear Weapons.

Rubbish as a viable miltary option is solely dependant on the politics involved Red .
Its been tons of fun to watch you attempt to spin revision into history,
Once again Red, what revision of history ?

You have definately lost the plot old boy .
Oh yeah , in case you missed it .
What revision of history ?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Don Corleone

I agree. There's no stopping Iran getting the bomb, only controlling what they do with it. That being said, I will continue to fear, perhaps irrationally to some, that Iran will conclude that nobody will be able to trace a dirty bomb back to them and their intelligence services will leak it to their friends in the shadow world. It would be a mistake on their part, but tell that to the 50,000 people that die from radiation poisoning in Tel Aviv. Bombing Tehran won't bring them back.

---

The isotopic ratio of the elements is based on the source and processing. Hence whatever radioactive materials are used will have an isotopic fingerprint.

By the way we are discussing an unlikely event killing a small portion of the worlds population. Our perceptions are skewed, compare it with the death rates that are definitly occuring now from something far more prosaic:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by WHO

Poor water quality continues to pose a major threat to human health. Diarrhoeal disease alone amounts to an estimated 4.1 % of the total DALY global burden of disease and is responsible for the deaths of 1.8 million people every year (WHO, 2004). It was estimated that 88% of that burden is attributable to unsafe water supply, sanitation and hygiene and is mostly concentrated on children in developing countries.

---

So in comparison with the hypothetical chance that Iran supplies a dirty bomb to terrorists that result in 50,000 dead... we have the very real occurrence of every (EDIT, maths wrong 10 not 36 days) 10 days 50,000 people are dying of unsafe water supply, sanitation and hygiene.

Are we getting our priorities right with Iran?

Wouldn't it make more sense to employ more engineers to drill wells to save people? It would definitely save more people and be far more cost effective. If just doesn't have that visceral action movie tension to it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tribesman

its my imagination then why are you attempting to defend your revision of history?

Thats a hard one ....errr.... lets see ...oh yeah , baseless allegations shall be challenged as baseless allegations .
Strange that isn't it ~:rolleyes:

---

So you see my point now do you. Your baseless allegations were meet with baseless allegations.

It seems you like to use such arguement styles, but don't like them used against you.

Interesting. :idea2:

Quote:

---

Two groups claiming North Africa with the Vichy French in control does not equate to the same scenerio. Again your strawman was an attempt to use revision of history.

What revision of history Red ?

---

So the Vichy French were not in control of North Africa?

Interesting :laugh4:

Quote:

---

Oh look at your arguement in attempting to state you did not use history revision to attempt to make a point.

What revision of history Red ?

---

:laugh4:

Quote:

---

Again you are incorrect - A viable military option can be developed, which has been shown. The question is wether it is political viable or not? Or to be more precise is the world community willing to go to war to prevent Iran from having Nuclear Weapons.

Rubbish as a viable miltary option is solely dependant on the politics involved Red .

---

LOL - your still not getting it. Once again the question asked was.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tribesman

A question for those who voted that they would support the war .

I assume that you are in agreemnet with the American , European and Israeli militaries that air strikes alone will not achieve the aims due to the dispersed nature of the facilities and thier levels of protection from air attack . So that means you support a land invasion .
Can any of you suggest a possible viable jump off point for any land action ?

---

To bad you didn't understand your own question.

Quote:

---

Its been tons of fun to watch you attempt to spin revision into history,
Once again Red, what revision of history ?

---

:laugh4:

Quote:

---

You have definately lost the plot old boy .
Oh yeah , in case you missed it .
What revision of history ?

---

So now your going to direct insults now are we? It seems you can't control yourself.

:laugh4:

Redleg and Tribesman... are you sure you aren't inlaws? brothers separated at birth? old school chums?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Papewaio

Redleg and Tribesman... are you sure you aren't inlaws? brothers separated at birth? old school chums?

---

If we were brothers - the rifles would alreadly have been used. Well BB guns anyway. :laugh4:

So the Vichy French were not in control of North Africa?

So once again you address something that only exists in your imagination .
What revision of history Red ?
Windmills yet again is it ?

Your baseless allegations were meet with baseless allegations.

What baseless allegations did I make , or are they only in your mind ?

To bad you didn't understand your own question.

Can any of you suggest a possible viable jump off point for any land action ?

For somewhere to be viable it has to be a location that can actually be used , since there are numerous overiding reasons why the locations cannot be used then they are not viable .
If you cannot understand a simple question and instead have to rely on your woefully inadequate mind reading skills to try and descipher the meaning of a question then perhaps you need some proffesional help .

So now your going to direct insults now are we?
Yes , directly insulting the recent content of your posts and the warped thought process that has led to you making those posts .


If we were brothers - the rifles would alreadly have been used. Well BB guns anyway.
You had better run then Red as BB guns are illegal over here and I only use legally licensed firearms .:laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Redleg

Read the treaties and agreements that Iran signed to get western aid in developing and building their nuclear power plants.

---

Not sure what you're talking about here? I know of an agreement in 2003 they signed to temporarily stop uranium enrichment, but not of any permanent agreements signed where western countries promise any aid. I thought that the European aim was to let Iran import its enriched uranium from Russia.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tribesman

So the Vichy French were not in control of North Africa?

So once again you address something that only exists in your imagination .
What revision of history Red ?
Windmills yet again is it ?

---

Oh I feel so smited by you - not.

Quote:

---

Your baseless allegations were meet with baseless allegations.

What baseless allegations did I make , or are they only in your mind ?

---

Oh I feel so smited by you - not.

Quote:

---

To bad you didn't understand your own question.

Can any of you suggest a possible viable jump off point for any land action ?

For somewhere to be viable it has to be a location that can actually be used , since there are numerous overiding reasons why the locations cannot be used then they are not viable .

---

Oh I feel so smited by you - not.

Quote:

---

If you cannot understand a simple question and instead have to rely on your woefully inadequate mind reading skills to try and descipher the meaning of a question then perhaps you need some proffesional help .

---

Oh more personal insults - how typical. You can't counter the premise or the position so you resort to personal attacks. :laugh4:

Quote:

---

So now your going to direct insults now are we?
Yes , directly insulting the recent content of your posts and the warped thought process that has led to you making those posts .

---

Tsk, Tsk a direct acknowledgment of breaking the forum rules.

Quote:

---

If we were brothers - the rifles would alreadly have been used. Well BB guns anyway.
You had better run then Red as BB guns are illegal over here and I only use legally licensed firearms .:laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:

---

Given the nature of your attempt at strawman arguement and revising history in stating because the Free French were allied with the United States that the invasion of North Africa was then not an invasion according to my logic. I am sure your a rather poor shot, so I should be safe enough.

Well the discussion is over, since the only points you have is to make personal attacks directed at another. Interesting, isn't?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Germaanse Strijder

Not sure what you're talking about here? I know of an agreement in 2003 they signed to temporarily stop uranium enrichment, but not of any permanent agreements signed where western countries promise any aid. I thought that the European aim was to let Iran import its enriched uranium from Russia.

---

The IAEA site might be helpful.

http://www.iaea.org/

The two main documents come to mind

http://www.iaea.org/Publications/Doc...s/inf153.shtml

http://www.fas.org/nuke/control/npt/text/npt2.htm

Signatorary nations

http://www.fas.org/nuke/control/npt/docs/nptstatus.htm

You can't counter the premise or the position so you resort to personal attacks.
There is no position to counter Red , it is baseless and exists only in your imagination . You are just throwing out repeated meaningless statements , which calls into question your state of mind .

Given the nature of your attempt at strawman arguement and revising history in stating because the Free French were allied with the United States that the invasion of North Africa was then not an invasion according to my logic.
No revision in there at all Red .
According to you a military deployment into territory that is claimed by your friends is not an invasion even if the territory is not controlled by your friends , Operation Torch is a perfect example of the flaw in your logic .

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tribesman

You can't counter the premise or the position so you resort to personal attacks.
There is no position to counter Red , it is baseless and exists only in your imagination . You are just throwing out repeated meaningless statements , which calls into question your state of mind .

---

LOL - my mind is just fine, but it seems that you continue to resort to personal attack.

Quote:

---

Given the nature of your attempt at strawman arguement and revising history in stating because the Free French were allied with the United States that the invasion of North Africa was then not an invasion according to my logic.
No revision in there at all Red .
According to you a military deployment into territory that is claimed by your friends is not an invasion even if the territory is not controlled by your friends , Operation Torch is a perfect example of the flaw in your logic .

---

Continuing with the Strawman and Revision History postions I see. :juggle2:

Continuing with the Strawman and Revision History postions I see.
More baseless posts Red , are you trying for a record or something ?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tribesman

Continuing with the Strawman and Revision History postions I see.
More baseless posts Red , are you trying for a record or something ?

---

Not at all. You by all means hold the record for making baseless posts.

:laugh4:

Not related directly with the post (and maybe with a pun in it) but I've to dispell my doubts about this: Did this same thread appeared when there was "issues" with Irak?

Not related directly with the post (and maybe with a pun in it) but I've to dispell my doubts about this: Did this same thread appeared when there was "issues" with Irak?
I don't know , I wasn't on this forum back then , though several issues are the same .
They had planned to invade from Turkey but they couldn't due to political reasons . So they launched an airbourne invasion into Kurdish areas , but those areas were not under the control of Saddams regime , so that couldn't have been an invasion :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:

On the forum I was on the main issues were .
What evidence , that isn't evidence . and . What is going to happen after .

It turned out that the evidence wasn't evidence and that they hadn't thought about what would happen after .:shrug:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tribesman

Not related directly with the post (and maybe with a pun in it) but I've to dispell my doubts about this: Did this same thread appeared when there was "issues" with Irak?
I don't know , I wasn't on this forum back then , though several issues are the same .
They had planned to invade from Turkey but they couldn't due to political reasons . So they launched an airbourne invasion into Kurdish areas , but those areas were not under the control of Saddams regime , so that couldn't have been an invasion :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:

---

Still committing a strawman and history revision. Interesting. :inquisitive:

No history revision there Red .