Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[STEMO]

So, in summary.
America killed one Iranian. Iran vowed revenge. Iran then killed another 50 Iranians at the funeral. Iran then killed another 82 Iranians on an aircraft.
Iran fired missiles at American bases in Iraq, killing no one.
So, America killed 1 and Iran killed 132.......all Iranian.

That just about covers it.

Sadly appears to be the case...

https://www.cnn.com/middleeast/live-news/us-iran-news-intl-01-10-2020/index.html 

This is really bad PR. The vehemently deny something, accusing others of having ulterior motives, then just flick to an admission and apology. This makes the people who initially made the denial look like foolish stooges who are now valueless to the regime, as they will not be taken seriously in future.
All future accusations against Iran, no doubt followed by rebuttals, will be brought back to this point and they will not be believed.

[Varche]

And if you look at where we are with the nuclear agreement , what do you believe?

There is a Gulf between the USA position and that of the EU.

[Doctor Gollum]

From a policy perspective, the US have seen sense imho...

There's alot that Obama signed up for that he shouldn't have. The development of nuclear facilities in a country like Iran should never have been suggested in the first place.

[Doctor Gollum]

Hopefully things will reach a point where the everyday citizens of Iran can take back their country and rebuild it as a credible, rational nation rather than a volatile fundamentalist backwater.

[Sir Tigger KC]

Well that's one 'mystery' sorted out. 

Now what about the two 'earthquakes' that occurred near Iran's nuclear facilities on the same night?     

Maybe Mr Netanyahu could shed some light on that? 

[Lizzie Zoom]

Meanwhile, in light of the media speculation about a missile downing the flight, the Iranians have officially asked that the NTSB and Boeing join the investigation, which suggests that they genuinely believe that they have nothing to hide

Really?

Why then is the Iranians now bulldozing the crash site, still not releasing the black boxes, and already deciding they know the cause of the crash which, according to reports, the Iranians are to announce tomorrow?

Look at the time I posted and get back in your box.

In my box!

I think my comments are now proved right!  

No need to bring in Boeing or anyone else now, which was obviously never on the cards anyway as Iran knew exactly the cause of the crash 

[Rods2]

So, in summary.
America killed one Iranian. Iran vowed revenge. Iran then killed another 50 Iranians at the funeral. Iran then killed another 82 Iranians on an aircraft.
Iran fired missiles at American bases in Iraq, killing no one.
So, America killed 1 and Iran killed 132.......all Iranian.

That just about covers it.

Sadly appears to be the case...

https://www.cnn.com/middleeast/live-news/us-iran-news-intl-01-10-2020/index.html 

This is really bad PR. The vehemently deny something, accusing others of having ulterior motives, then just flick to an admission and apology. This makes the people who initially made the denial look like foolish stooges who are now valueless to the regime, as they will not be taken seriously in future.
All future accusations against Iran, no doubt followed by rebuttals, will be brought back to this point and they will not be believed.

The Russian shooting down of MH17 and their continued denials is much worse with those that made these mistakes, with the BUK missile launch, almost certainly paying with their lives.

The same thing may well happen in Iran, we will see.

Be thankful you live in a democracy, where I've always told you in a dictatorship lives are cheap including yours, where the lease can be terminated, at anytime by the regime, with no appeal possible.

[BazaJT]

Off topic I know but UK the USA and many others have nuclear arsenals for defense/attack where do we gain the right to tell any other nation state that while we have such things they are not allowed to?I'm not trying to make the case for Iran-or anywhere else to have nuclear capability,just wondering where we get the right to decide all because we don't like/trust their regime/way of life?

[Varche]

Off topic I know but UK the USA and many others have nuclear arsenals for defense/attack where do we gain the right to tell any other nation state that while we have such things they are not allowed to?I'm not trying to make the case for Iran-or anywhere else to have nuclear capability,just wondering where we get the right to decide all because we don't like/trust their regime/way of life?

A well observed comment.

Maybe the answer is “ everyone is equal except you plebs”

[Rods2]

Because of the potential global catastrophic dangers from nuclear weapons. Since WWII there have been a series of global non-proliferation  and inspection treaties signed by most countries in the world that can & will be backed up by international sanctions like on DPRK and to a lessor extent Iran are under, with their flouted ban on ballistic missile development. Like it or not up to WWII the UK was the unliked global police force & since then it has been the unliked US. In both cases as it has reined in many nations against the wars & geopolitical gains they would like to achieve. The post-WWII series of treaties & our current global rules based system culminating in the Helsinki Final Act. To further reduct the danger of MAD global destruction there have been a series of START treaties between the two main nuclear powers, the US and Russia.

Eg. The sanction against Russia on the annexing of Crimea are an example of punishment given by the West for breaking mutually agreed international treaties and rules.

It is in none of the countries who are in the nuclear club to allow unstable regimes to acquire nuclear weapons and use them to blackmail their neighbours for geopolitical gain or to start launching them around the world if they think it will save their regime. Imagine if General Galtieri with his Falkland invasion if they backed it up with ICBM nukes launched at the UK to save the Falkland's defeat and the falling of his junta. The fact that we could & probably would have relatiated, so you have two countries suffering horrific damage and casualties, nuclear fallout & maybe a short nuclear winter would also not be appreciated by us or them or the 200+ innocent bystander countries and this is before you start considering nuclear weapon security, terrorism or weapon safety, so they aren't accidentally or deliberately launched due to poor control procedures, design or maintenance.

We have just had the murder of 179 passengers as a result of poor training & control of the military base air-to-air defence systems, now imagine if those itchy fingers were on a nuclear ICBM button & central London Barnsley were the landing coordinates entered into it.

Something doesn't add up on the shooting down of the UIA passenger jet & I'm hearing some ugly rumores at the moment on why it was targeted, but nothing that as yet has been substantiated or independently verified, so I'm not going to repeat them at this time.

[Doctor Gollum]

Off topic I know but UK the USA and many others have nuclear arsenals for defense/attack where do we gain the right to tell any other nation state that while we have such things they are not allowed to?I'm not trying to make the case for Iran-or anywhere else to have nuclear capability,just wondering where we get the right to decide all because we don't like/trust their regime/way of life?

Simply, nuclear weapons have been around since WW2 when everyone got to see exactly how devastating they can be. At that point, they should have been unilaterally banned. Unfortunately in the shadow of Nazi and Japanese behaviour, it was felt that, probably by the UN, that such evil should be defended against at any cost.

Nuclear development is exceptionally expensive, not to mention inherently dangerous, and so it largely restricted to countries that can afford it. Factor in the general stability of those countries with military nuclear capability and it makes for a pretty exclusive club.

Now don't misunderstand me, nuclear, and for that matter chemical weapons, have no place in a modern world and should be unilaterally outlawed.

Nuclear technology does however have a viable long term use as an energy source, indeed, most countries have at least one nuclear power plant.

Unfortunately, nuclear energy provides easy access to the technology and materials to make nuclear weapons, and for an unstable political environment such as Iran or Somalia, to name but two places, there's a temptation for various loons to take advantage of that in order to control or eliminate whomsoever pissed them off that week... (Not dissimilar to random stabbings)... hence the current status quo of restricting and closely managing all nuclear systems.

[Migv6 le Frog Fan]

Apparently the Iranians arrested the British Ambassador today !!

[Doctor Gollum]

Clearly losing the plot...

[STEMO]

Apparently the Iranians arrested the British Ambassador today !!

A white European, wandering around a demonstration, taking pictures.....in Iran. Not stupid at all.

[ronnyd]

He,s supposed to be a diplomat for Gods sake. What the hell was he doing getting mixed up in a demo in a country with an oppressive regime. Perhaps  HM Government can negotiate his release alongside that of the Ratcliffe woman, who was also naive to expect to change things over there.