Jump to content

Iran, North Korea get a new partner


Laozi

Recommended Posts

It seems everywhere you turn theres a small country looking to develop nuclear arms.

 

 

http://www.theonion.com/news/index.php?iss...133&n=1&ref=myy

People laugh when I say that I think a jellyfish is one of the most beautiful things in the world. What they don't understand is, I mean a jellyfish with long, blond hair.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Great gag. :thumbsup:

kirottu said:
I was raised by polar bears. I had to fight against blood thirsty wolves and rabid penguins to get my food. Those who were too weak to survive were sent to Sweden.

 

It has made me the man I am today. A man who craves furry hentai.

So let us go and embrace the rustling smells of unseen worlds

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Europe preferes to be diplomatic at start before bring in the big guns.

 

Besides how do you stop a country from developing nuclear technology, if you bomb it it becames a act of war ... also its very hypocritical to prevent a country from developing as other countries did developed then and only suffered economical sactions.

 

I did not read that article but Iran is more likely getting nuclear technology from Paquistan that from North Korea.

drakron.png
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Europe preferes to be diplomatic at start before bring in the big guns.

 

Nope, Germany has said war is off the table for them.

 

 

When you don't have force as a last measure, you don't seem to have a convicing arguement in this case.

Which is good, that means we only need to keep the UK and US under control, however warhungry their leaders are.

And who are we to say what Iran can and can't develop? It's the most hypocritical situation EVER for a nation like the US to say "Hey, you can't do that!" when you in fact have more of these weapons than anyone else on the planet!

DENMARK!

 

It appears that I have not yet found a sig to replace the one about me not being banned... interesting.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Europe preferes to be diplomatic at start before bring in the big guns.

 

Nope, Germany has said war is off the table for them.

 

 

When you don't have force as a last measure, you don't seem to have a convicing arguement in this case.

Maybe they're looking at the inroads Iran is making by itself towards open democracy. A LOT of the populace is striving towards change. Look at how unhappy they were with the clerics not allowing certain candidates to run during the last election. It might be taking time, but attacking Iran now will just undo this and polarize people towards the invaders and set real, lasting reform back in that country by decades.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Europe preferes to be diplomatic at start before bring in the big guns.

 

Nope, Germany has said war is off the table for them.

 

 

When you don't have force as a last measure, you don't seem to have a convicing arguement in this case.

Maybe they're looking at the inroads Iran is making by itself towards open democracy. A LOT of the populace is striving towards change. Look at how unhappy they were with the clerics not allowing certain candidates to run during the last election. It might be taking time, but attacking Iran now will just undo this and polarize people towards the invaders and set real, lasting reform back in that country by decades.

 

I didn't say invade now or ever. i was responding to someone who said that Europe likes to talk before declaring war. I was simply point out that isn't tha case, in this case.

 

I said that Europe (germany specifically) have seemingly taken force off the table. hence you've lost that bargining chip. A very powerful one in this position, empty words or not, if you ask me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well guess what?

 

There are more countries in europe that Germany, the fact Germany decided it does not want to participate in any military action against Iran does not make the rest of europe not considering that option.

 

Did I say europe id going to attack Iran?

 

No.

 

Chances are what happened with India, Paquistan and North Korea over their nuclear programs will happen with Iran.

 

Besides you must be silly to think force will ever be a argument to use against the Islamic Republic of Iran.

 

ELDAR EDIT: Please refrain from referring to folks as retarded, stupid, etc.

drakron.png
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well guess what?

 

There are more countries in europe that Germany, the fact Germany decided it does not want to participate in any military action against Iran does not make the rest of europe not considering that option.

 

Considering their one of the few people heading up negotiations, I see it as very significant. It also prolly reflects apon their new close ties with France.

 

Especially when Schroeder, speaking on behalf of the spearhead by Germany, Britain and France said: "But take the military options off of the table," Schroeder said. "We have seen that they're not suitable."

 

So, maybe Sri Lanka is willing to attack, but their not a major player in this. Nor does it make it a creditable bargining chip.

 

please actaully know what I am referencing before you reply. It saves time.

 

Did I say europe id going to attack Iran?

 

No.

 

No, I didn't say you did, but enjoy clearifying yourself anyways. :p

 

Chances are what happened with India, Paquistan and North Korea over their nuclear programs will happen with Iran.

 

You mean they will get weapons due to softball diplomacy and half-assed security measures (got to love those "seals") and threaten world security? Neat!

 

Besides you must be retarded of the year to think force will ever be a argument to use against the Islamic Republic of Iran.

 

There are many ways to deploy force, especially if the goal is just to set back their nuclear programs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I didn't say invade now or ever. i was responding to someone who said that Europe likes to talk before declaring war. I was simply point out that isn't tha case, in this case.

 

I said that Europe (germany specifically) have seemingly taken force off the table. hence you've lost that bargining chip. A very powerful one in this position, empty words or not, if you ask me.

Germany = political posturing ahead of election.

 

(Also Germany currently has no effective military force AND it may have been a political man

OBSCVRVM PER OBSCVRIVS ET IGNOTVM PER IGNOTIVS

ingsoc.gif

OPVS ARTIFICEM PROBAT

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I didn't say invade now or ever. i was responding to someone who said that Europe likes to talk before declaring war. I was simply point out that isn't tha case, in this case.

 

I said that Europe (germany specifically) have seemingly taken force off the table. hence you've lost that bargining chip. A very powerful one in this position, empty words or not, if you ask me.

Germany = political posturing ahead of election.

 

(Also Germany currently has no effective military force AND it may have been a political man

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well guess what?

 

There are more countries in europe that Germany, the fact Germany decided it does not want to participate in any military action against Iran does not make the rest of europe not considering that option.

 

Considering their one of the few people heading up negotiations, I see it as very significant. It also prolly reflects apon their new close ties with France.

 

Especially when Schroeder, speaking on behalf of the spearhead by Germany, Britain and France said: "But take the military options off of the table," Schroeder said. "We have seen that they're not suitable."

 

So, maybe Sri Lanka is willing to attack, but their not a major player in this. Nor does it make it a creditable bargining chip.

 

please actaully know what I am referencing before you reply. It saves time.

 

Did I say europe id going to attack Iran?

 

No.

 

No, I didn't say you did, but enjoy clearifying yourself anyways. :p

 

Chances are what happened with India, Paquistan and North Korea over their nuclear programs will happen with Iran.

 

You mean they will get weapons due to softball diplomacy and half-assed security measures (got to love those "seals") and threaten world security? Neat!

 

Besides you must be retarded of the year to think force will ever be a argument to use against the Islamic Republic of Iran.

 

There are many ways to deploy force, especially if the goal is just to set back their nuclear programs.

Who is to say that Iran will treathen world security more than, say, the United States with its countless amounts of WMD's?

DENMARK!

 

It appears that I have not yet found a sig to replace the one about me not being banned... interesting.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ah, see, if Germany declared war to not be an option in response to us saying that it is an option, that I can understand.

 

There is not a country on this planet that will follow the United States into a Middle Eastern conflict after Iraq. And yeah, that includes Britain. They just won't do it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...