Europe warns Iran... well sort of...

[Papewaio]

Still first in line to whine to the teacher is a nark! neh neh nah nah! While we are waiting in line at the UN pull my finger!

[Devastatin Dave]

You mean, "Na na-a boo boo"

[ICantSpellDawg]

i love how the BBC reported it

Europe warns Iran of "consequences" to continued unlawful nuclear activity

con·se·quence ( P ) Pronunciation Key (kns-kwns, -kwns)
n.
1-Something that logically or naturally follows from an action or condition.
2-The relation of a result to its cause.
3-A logical conclusion or inference


you mean that something will happen after you do something?
no way

a "consequence" of pursued nuclear activity could be a fully functional nuclear program

or maybe even widespread media coverage

a "consequence" isnt a threat

it is simply a fact

[PanzerJaeger]

Im surprised Europe is even cooperating with the US. I expected them to follow the French and bail on the great satin to join up with Russia or China... It wont be long until Europe turns on us though.. The question is: Will it cost us, and how much?

[Papewaio]

I expected them to follow the French and bail on the great satin

Hmmm smooth silky satin is so seductive...

[Paul Peru]

Im surprised Europe is even cooperating with the US. I expected them to follow the French and bail on the great satin to join up with Russia or China... It wont be long until Europe turns on us though.. The question is: Will it cost us, and how much?

I don't understand the middle bit, but I hope that Europe will soon turn on the US. Of course we will do it the only way we know: Tell you to mend your wicked ways, or suffer the diplomatic language of our leaders, who may resort to such strong words as "concern" and "disapprove". If you want a war, I'm afraid you'll have to start it yourselves.

[Al Khalifah]

Ah the USA is finally learning how annoying it is when countries won't commit to military action.....

*cough* 1914 *cough*
*cough* 1939 *cough*

[English assassin]

Good post BP.

I shan't repeat my views on Iran here, only to say that if I was Iranian rather than just married to one I too would want nuclear weapons. I would observe that there was a hostile nuclear armed power with a history of flouting international law to the west (thats Israel not the US forces in Iraq), a profoundly unstable nuclear armed power to the east, (Pakistan, and don't imagine for a moment that the Iranians like the taliban style of government, they gave considerable assistance against afghanistan when the taliban were in power) and a member of a nuclear armed military alliance with powerful conventional forces to the north east (yeah, you and I know Turkey isn't a threat but the Iranians are genuinely scared of them. Not sure why but suspect Kurds will be involved.)

I'd also observe that even genuinely very dangerous members of the axis of evil are left alone once then demonstrate they have nukes.

Its a no-brainer.

Honestly, Team America, Iran is NOT what you have to worry about. They are a functioning state under central control, they are not stupid, and they may be theocratic but not in a back to the dark ages way. They have too much to lose every to use a nuke.

Pakistan, on the other hand...

[Idomeneas]

Will it cost us, and how much?

I love the way you use ''us'' in that line

[Kaiser of Arabia]

Will it cost us, and how much?

A few missiles, maybe 1,000 men, and a destroyer or two, maybe a squadron of planes.

[PanzerJaeger]

[Steppe Merc]

no one listens to their religious laws?
how can you come to that conclusion?

do you mean "many" choose to ignore "some" of their religious laws "at certain times"?

Um, yeah. That's what I meant... I tried saying that, but I got frustrated, and tried to make it more simpler since BP was ignoring me.

I watched an interview with the minsiter of exterior of Iran and that's what he said. Quite clearly might I add.

Like he'll actually say that he has nukes.

Uh oh, you are going to get your liberal member's card revoked. You are only allowed to bash Christians and Jews, you are not allowed to bash the religion of "peace".

Any claim to him being liberal, if he ever had any, was lost when he advocated the purging of millions of innocents.

And BP, where in the Koran does it say you can't have weapons of mass destruction? I really don't understand your argument... you claim that Mohammed was a war like person, but then say that their religion doesn't allow nukes? What about missiles? They almost certiantly have those, what's the difference between that and nukes?

And BP, it's incorrect to say that "Ever since the beggining of Islam they have invaded places and forced population to become muslim", since a few hundred years after Mohammed, they most certiantly allowed others to worship their own faiths.

[Byzantine Prince]

And BP, where in the Koran does it say you can't have weapons of mass destruction? I really don't understand your argument... you claim that Mohammed was a war like person, but then say that their religion doesn't allow nukes? What about missiles? They almost certiantly have those, what's the difference between that and nukes?

Nukes are most certainly designed to kill innocents which is not allowed in Islam. Missiles are designed to hit military targets which is not against their laws.

[Tribesman]

Can you tell me why a country with all that oil needs nuclear electrical generators ?
Thats a good question Gawain , and a very important one

Ask Congress You know , little answers about the sale by America of a research reactor in 1959 , the plans to have 23 nuclear generating plants on line by the 1990s . A little something to do with reducing Irans domestic energy reliance on oil and gas to free up more resources for export and increase their generation of export income .
Which report would you like to read for the answers to your question ? Your Governments or the International Atomic Agencies ?

[PanzerJaeger]

Hi Tribesman, havent seen you here in a little while.

[Byzantine Prince]

We are all being a bit paranoid about the whole Iran situation. It's not our fault, it's the neocons and their cleverly disguised antics!

First of all Iran is a theocracy which means it has to abide to it's religious laws, correct? How then are they gonna develop nuclear weapons when the Shia School of Thought prohibits any mass destruction weapons?

I think this is a valid argument.

Second, who besides Saddam's Iraq has been hostile toward Iran? The US. So, they have done nothing wrong. They never invaded anyone. The reason we are so critical is that we want their oil. The same with Iraq although Saddam was much worse. If are gonna talk about badasses though why don't we mention the US's major partners in the area, like the Uzbeki gov/ment that burns dissidents. And the dictatorship of Pakistan, and the Kingdom or Saudi Arabia that basically controls all the oil in the country living it's citizens starving. Why not threaten them? Well for one thing they are not as easy a target as Iran who is falsely rumored to having a nuclear arsenal much the same way that Iraq was rumored to having a nuclear arsenal. But then again so does Pakistan, right? Oh but wait Pakistan doesn't have any damn oil!

This shouldn't be too hard to understand I hope.

[kiwitt]

The reason we are so critical is that we want their oil.

Not quite; The US doesn't want Iran to sell it's oil in EURO's. IRAN is planning to start this in March 2006. This may set a precedent that may be followed by other countries and will ultimately cost the US a lot more money than any military action they may plan.

I think Iraq and Saudi Arabia were considering selling there oil in Euro's some time back. If the US dollar continues it's slide against the EURO, this may become more of an issue.

This is why the rhetoric against IRAN is picking up pace by the US.

BTW: If the US is not interested in Oil why is it's head of Foreign Affairs (i.e. Secretary of State) an ex-oil excutive.

[Byzantine Prince]

Not quite; The US doesn't want Iran to sell it's oil in EURO's. IRAN is planning to start this in March 2006. This may set a precedent that may be followed by other countries and will ultimately cost the US a lot more money than any military action they may plan.

I think Iraq and Saudi Arabia were considering selling there oil in Euro's some time back. If the US dollar continues it's slide against the EURO, this may become more of an issue.

This is why the rhetoric against IRAN is picking up pace by the US.

BTW: If the US is not interested in Oil why is it's head of Foreign Affairs (i.e. Secretary of State) an ex-oil excutive.

Ahhhh, thanks kiwitt. I never thought of it that way, it makes sense now.

[Steppe Merc]

Does that include Japan, Germany etc.

Probably, though not sure if those countries have any sort of embargo implaced on them after WW2, and if it still applies today...