Why do you make baseless asinine remarks?Quote:
Originally Posted by janvanvurpa
Printable View
Why do you make baseless asinine remarks?Quote:
Originally Posted by janvanvurpa
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bob Riebe
Read your broad unqualified words---or do you have a version of Tourettes syndrome that you type brain-farts without control.
Here, let me quote you since youve forgotten:
By your own words you have said that those Americans who waited for a direct threat to react were fools deserving whatever misery which came their way...nearly 2400 dead, thousands more injured..Quote:
Originally Posted by Bob Riebe View Post
Those that make direct threats are half of the time, blowing smoke, anyone that waits for a direct threat to react, is a fool deserving what ever misery comes the ones way.
Or doesn't your blustering big talk apply to Americans?
Or---the most likely scenario---you're just running your mouth as usual and typing words unhindered by the thought process.
So which is it, Riebe?
Thoughtless blather, or hate for Americans who died because they didn't react to threats?
There wasn't a "threat". The attack on Pearl Harbour was made before any formal declaration of war was made by Japan and without threat. It was pretty well much an undeclared lightning strike.Quote:
Originally Posted by janvanvurpa
1. He was talking about Israel, not Saudi Arabia. I don't think the Saudis love Israel that much that they'd act on their behalf.Quote:
Originally Posted by Koz
2. The Iranian President doesn't have the authority to use nuclear weapons, even if there were any.
I am not Saudi Arabia Eki, nor am I a member of its royal family who made the comments. And while I would not like so see an attack on Iran I can see why others do, like the Saudis or the Israelis. Can you understand the principle that while I may not agree with someone I can see why they hold their opinion?Quote:
Originally Posted by Eki
No real evidence for the opposite? If the nuclear project was truly peaceful the Iranians would have no problem whatsoever with IAEA inspections. Nor would Iran be rejecting diplomatic proposals which would see them supplied with low enriched uranium which cannot be used in nuclear weapons as long as they stopped enriching uranium themselves which could be producing highly enriched uranium which can only be used in nukes. Nor would Ahmadinejad be making speeches aimed at his domestic audience that talk of the powers that would come only with having nuclear weapons.
Then there is Iran's long history of threatening neighbouring countries on all sides both under the Shah and a policy continued under the Islamic Republic.
Again Eki, you seem to be extremely tolerant of Iran, willing to interprete anything and everything they do in a nice benign light. A little knowledge might be helpful I think.
The Saudis wouldn't act on Israel's behalf? Thats a beautiful one. Don't make me laugh.Quote:
Originally Posted by Eki
Who blocked any attempt to broker peace between Israel and Hisbullah a few years back in a vain attempt to buy the Israelis more time to finish the job? Who helps the Israelis keep Hamas strangled in Gaza by cutting off funds and shipments together with Egypt?
I think you need to look at whats actually going on on the ground instead of looking merely at internet headlines. Israel and the Saudis work well together when they have a common enemy.
How about national pride and considering the inspections to be humiliating and an attack against their sovereignty, or distrust? Iraq had problems with IAEA inspections, yet no signs of nuclear weapons were found after the invasion. I doubt the US would let Iranians and North Koreans roam freely in American nuclear facilities.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dylan H
How about my other points? Ignoring them because its inconvenient again?Quote:
Originally Posted by Eki
And why allow IAEA inspections until Iran started the enrichment process? Why is it not an attack on national pride up to that point but unacceptable after?
Many other countries are happy to buy in low enriched uranium because they aren't interested in developing nuclear weapons, not to mention that its actually cheaper to buy in that uranium instead of developing the process yourself. So why does Iran absolutely have to do it itself when it doesn't make financial sense to do so?
And why wouldn't Iran's neighbours not view that entire process with suspicion? Why exactly Eki should countries like Saudi Arabia be reassured with Iran's behaviour?
Not being reassured is healthy, asking the US to bomb Iran is paranoid. Even if Iran is building nuclear weapons, so what? Many countries, including Israel, have nuclear weapons and they have not used them. Actually both Israel and Iran having nukes might stabilize the region. Balance of terror and all that. It worked between the Soviet Union and the US, why not between Iran and Israel?Quote:
Originally Posted by Dylan H
You really are having difficulty coping with the fact that there's more to the Middle East than Israel vs everyone else.Quote:
Originally Posted by Eki
You realise that Saudi and Israel are two different countries right? You also realise that Saudi doesn't have nukes? Are you with me so far? So how exactly are the Saudis going to counteract Iranian nukes if they are threatened with them?
And bear in mind that Iran is the only country to recently actively threaten Saudi Arabia with missile attack.