Well, I agree with you and mikey_G LOL (That is my kev-blocking system, since I put LOL in my post, Kev won't read it!)
Well, I agree with you and mikey_G LOL (That is my kev-blocking system, since I put LOL in my post, Kev won't read it!)
I made an important point earlier but I believe it was lost in the midst of the bulk of the post...
After WW2 America threatened Great Britain with war if we developed nuclear weapons. Specifically, nuclear war.
When Britain was ready for the first atomic test we lied and cheated and pretended we had a stock pile that we never had. In fact, we had enough plutonium for just 1 bomb, which we detonated in our test.
Britains atomic program was a diplomatic triumph in dealing with a heavy handed post war America who was still sending us the bill for WW2 up until just a few years ago. (lend lease - without which we'd have been dead, you coulda dropped the bill once you got involved lads?)
Scroll on a few decades and here we have Iran, and to some extent Korea, in the spotlight for developing nuclear weapons. Again at the forefront is America - although armed with modern political and social thinking now completely unable to ever fire her nuclear weapons.
Now I dont fancy the idea of less than friendly states holding nuclear weapons, particularly states that are not so politically constrained against using them. I just think if they're going to develop them then we should give them neutron bombs because at least then if they fire them at us it would not leave the country irradiated and we can get the ever neutral Swiss and Irish to repopulate...
After WW2 America threatened Great Britain with war if we developed nuclear weapons. Specifically, nuclear war.
When Britain was ready for the first atomic test we lied and cheated and pretended we had a stock pile that we never had. In fact, we had enough plutonium for just 1 bomb, which we detonated in our test.
Britains atomic program was a diplomatic triumph in dealing with a heavy handed post war America who was still sending us the bill for WW2 up until just a few years ago. (lend lease - without which we'd have been dead, you coulda dropped the bill once you got involved lads?)
Scroll on a few decades and here we have Iran, and to some extent Korea, in the spotlight for developing nuclear weapons. Again at the forefront is America - although armed with modern political and social thinking now completely unable to ever fire her nuclear weapons.
Now I dont fancy the idea of less than friendly states holding nuclear weapons, particularly states that are not so politically constrained against using them. I just think if they're going to develop them then we should give them neutron bombs because at least then if they fire them at us it would not leave the country irradiated and we can get the ever neutral Swiss and Irish to repopulate...
Well, combine most of what's said in this thread with morons that think the "only way to Heaven is to die in Holy War (Jihad)" and it becomes pretty clear. Like somehow an omnicient infinite God would require you to murder as many innocent people as possible. I see a lot of mention of evil this and evil that, but no mention of the evil of flying jets into buldings to balance it out 
It's not like there's a party that's not to blame.
It's not like there's a party that's not to blame.One thing has been bugging me throughout this business... And I admit I haven't been following it closely, so please chastise me if there is already a plain answer to this... But why did Iran take these hostages?
Its a quite transparently theatrical event, so must be a form of bargaining. Iran has created a lever, most likely for a quite specific 'request', for want of a better word. But I can't fathom what deal is being forged, what negotiation is happening (the negotiation over the hostages freedom, guilt, and innocence, is purely for public consumption, I am sure)
Before the event Iran basically said, in not as many words, they where fed up of British & American troops in their territory, supposedly doing reconnaisance ahead of a possible escalation of hostilities - finding where stuff is and the like, you know. Anyway, allegedly they where in Iran when taken although over here we say they where in Iraqi water, but only after we accidently released the real co-ordinates and had to retract them for the doctored ones.
Or
We where sight seeing in Iraq and Iran launched a snatch and grab invasion with 15 inflatable dingies, passing several British warships on the way in and the way out.
Take your pick.
Personally I think the decision to go to war was made a while ago. I just hope Germany, Russia and France manage to stop us (peaceably of course) this time.
Or
We where sight seeing in Iraq and Iran launched a snatch and grab invasion with 15 inflatable dingies, passing several British warships on the way in and the way out.
Take your pick.
Personally I think the decision to go to war was made a while ago. I just hope Germany, Russia and France manage to stop us (peaceably of course) this time.
OK, so it doesn't matter which one is true - both imply that the event is staged purely for Iranian domestic consumption. A way to unify a nation that is really quite split at the moment.
I had it in my head that the deal must be between America/Britain and Iran, but this makes more sense. A very dangerous way to go about it though... there is a sense of desperation in the tactic. All or nothing.
I disagree, because Iran is a Persian country, not Arab, and secondly, are Shiite based Government, not Sunni. Correct me if I am wrong, but Arabs tend to look to Iranians with a bit distaste, and the Sunni governments like Saudi Arabia, are probably wishing for Iran to just be quiet...
Want to know how to bring Iran to its knees? Simple! Cut off their gasoline supply. The majority of the Iranian economy is petroleum based, alot of exporting of crude oil but a massive amount importation of gasoline because Iran has a total of one gasoline refinery.
THere will be another "revolution" in Iran, I am sure of it...but it wont be for Islamic ideals. No, it will probably mirror what happened in 1990 to Russia. Just because you see the Iranian president spout off rather idiotic statements, does not mean the majority agrees; remember, all forms of communication to the outside world is controlled and filtered, Much like the American media, which is so biased to the Democratic National Party and has a liberal agenda. I do hope my international LFS friends are aware of that.
They all blow each-other up anyway.
Just one fairly major point on the use of nuclear weapons. The US, Britain and probably Israel have all used battlefield nuclear weapons for well over 10 years in at least 4 seperate wars right back to the first gulf war with daddy bush.
They have also developed a really neat way of disposing of their nuclear waste.
DU weaponry IS NUCLEAR WEAPONRY.
So these paragons of virtue who get to say who is or isn't responsible to use nuclear weapons get to cover, pollute, contaminate & murder over large areas of the world without any comeback, or even comment by western media.
And you guys wonder why so many people hate the US & Britain in these areas ?????
They have also developed a really neat way of disposing of their nuclear waste.
DU weaponry IS NUCLEAR WEAPONRY.
So these paragons of virtue who get to say who is or isn't responsible to use nuclear weapons get to cover, pollute, contaminate & murder over large areas of the world without any comeback, or even comment by western media.
And you guys wonder why so many people hate the US & Britain in these areas ?????
that is not completely accurate.
CNN = liberal
Fox = conservative
newspapers are largely conservative, while tv media is typically liberal.
Ever heard of Fox News?
Media biased towards Democrats? 
Sure, that's what those rightwing fascist media barons want you to think 
As if Rupert Murdoch is leaning toward Hillary or Barack. Liberal media, that's laughable.
Some quick facts about Iran:
In the 1950s, the Iranian people democratically elected president Mossadeq. He didn't meet with the approval of the US, so the CIA engineered a coup and installed the Shah, who reigned for a couple of decades until 1979, when the Islamic Revolution, a popular movement which arose in response to the Shah's abuse of his power and collusion with the US, deposed the Shah and insitituted theocratic (i.e. religious) rule, with the Ayatollahs in charge. The Ayatollahs remain in charge to this day, with blabbermouth Ahmadinejad with about as much real power as the Queen has over Australia or Canada. If America wishes to complain about those nasty Ayatollahs ruining everything and whipping up hatred for America, they need only look in their own backyard and in their history books to see the root cause of it.
Iran is a signatory to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (which the US and Israel have both breached by having large nuclear arsenals which the US in particular continues to increase, and are therefore completely hypocritical when launching verbal, or literal, attacks on anyone regarding nuclear weapons). Under the terms of the NPT, Iran has the right to pursue uranium enrichment for the purposes of generating electric power. Noone, but noone, has been able to produce a shred of evidence that Iran is doing anything but precisely that, yet there stands Sherriff Bush, six-shooter in hand, warning everyone (yet again) of bearded nut-jobs wielding WMD and pointing them at "Amurka" (and we all know how much we can trust him when it comes to WMD). Most competent analysts (from the CIA, MI6 through to the IAEA) have concluded that IF Iran was after weapons-grade nuclear material, they are about a decade away from being able to produce it.
Much is being made of the capture of 15 Britons being held by Iran, allegedly for trespassing into Iranian waters. Has anyone even heard of the five Iranian officials who were abducted from a liaison office in northern Iraq in January? There is no current state of war with Iran so why would US forces capture Iranian officials? What is the situation where one country can do one thing and yet castigates another country for doing the same? Where is the outcry about those captured Iranians? Perhaps the so-called "liberal" US media missed that one ...
Dear ol' Ahmadinejad has been accused of wishing Israel to "wiped off the map". A tiny bit of research will reveal that for the past few years he's been badly (and, one would assume, intentionally) misquoted. What he said directly translates to "the regime occupying Palestine should be wiped from the pages of history". Clearly this has a different meaning - rather than wipe Israel off the face of the earth, he's expressing a desire to see regime-change (note how it's a dirty word when a Mid-Easter says it?) in Israel ...
As for the appeasement of Iran - which has no real navy or air force or even a land force capable of deterring the US for too long - it's not Iran which has continually threatened, meddled in and attacked other countries since the end of WW2. It's not Iran which has installed & assisted friendly dictators around the world at various times (Iraq - yes, Iraq, Iran, Jordan, Kuwait, the UAE, Saudi Arabia, Nicaragua, Chile - in fact most of Latin America, and the list goes on) while simultaneously bleating about freedom and democracy (both of which are being steadily eroded in the US by Bush's beyond-Nixonesque domestic policies). And isn't it funny how many US-friendly dictators reside in oil country? With such a long history of meddling, invasion and flat-out aggression (the kind which got the Nazis hung at Nuremberg - at which trial the crimes of bombing civilians were removed from the charge sheet, as the US & UK would have had to face the same charges due to their own blitzkriegs in Germany & Japan), the dubious honour of being the only country to use nukes in a war, ever, and with a defence budget of over 400 billion dollars, which eclipses most of the rest of the world put together, who exactly should we be appeasing? We may not like Iran's regime and what it does to its people, but there are worse things happening in Zimbabwe at the moment, and Turkmenistan, and Chechnya, and Palestine, and China, and many of the states the US (currently) calls its friends - the most notorious being Saudi Arabia, where you can still see people butchered with swords on a sunny afternoon, if you dig that stuff. Why aren't US politicians calling for regime change anywhere that isn't sitting on a million barrels of oil? Are we supposed to believe that if the chief exports of Iraq & Iran were coffee beans and hemp fibre that the US still would have blown over 400 billlion USD so far, killed 3500 US servicepeople (500+- more than were killed on 9/11) and maimed far more, and cost the lives of over 600,000 Iraqis (a heck of a lot more than were killed on 9/11), most of whom were non-combatants? You're worried about appeasing Iran? Wake up and smell the falafel.
Sure, that's what those rightwing fascist media barons want you to think As if Rupert Murdoch is leaning toward Hillary or Barack. Liberal media, that's laughable.Some quick facts about Iran:
In the 1950s, the Iranian people democratically elected president Mossadeq. He didn't meet with the approval of the US, so the CIA engineered a coup and installed the Shah, who reigned for a couple of decades until 1979, when the Islamic Revolution, a popular movement which arose in response to the Shah's abuse of his power and collusion with the US, deposed the Shah and insitituted theocratic (i.e. religious) rule, with the Ayatollahs in charge. The Ayatollahs remain in charge to this day, with blabbermouth Ahmadinejad with about as much real power as the Queen has over Australia or Canada. If America wishes to complain about those nasty Ayatollahs ruining everything and whipping up hatred for America, they need only look in their own backyard and in their history books to see the root cause of it.
Iran is a signatory to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (which the US and Israel have both breached by having large nuclear arsenals which the US in particular continues to increase, and are therefore completely hypocritical when launching verbal, or literal, attacks on anyone regarding nuclear weapons). Under the terms of the NPT, Iran has the right to pursue uranium enrichment for the purposes of generating electric power. Noone, but noone, has been able to produce a shred of evidence that Iran is doing anything but precisely that, yet there stands Sherriff Bush, six-shooter in hand, warning everyone (yet again) of bearded nut-jobs wielding WMD and pointing them at "Amurka" (and we all know how much we can trust him when it comes to WMD). Most competent analysts (from the CIA, MI6 through to the IAEA) have concluded that IF Iran was after weapons-grade nuclear material, they are about a decade away from being able to produce it.
Much is being made of the capture of 15 Britons being held by Iran, allegedly for trespassing into Iranian waters. Has anyone even heard of the five Iranian officials who were abducted from a liaison office in northern Iraq in January? There is no current state of war with Iran so why would US forces capture Iranian officials? What is the situation where one country can do one thing and yet castigates another country for doing the same? Where is the outcry about those captured Iranians? Perhaps the so-called "liberal" US media missed that one ...
Dear ol' Ahmadinejad has been accused of wishing Israel to "wiped off the map". A tiny bit of research will reveal that for the past few years he's been badly (and, one would assume, intentionally) misquoted. What he said directly translates to "the regime occupying Palestine should be wiped from the pages of history". Clearly this has a different meaning - rather than wipe Israel off the face of the earth, he's expressing a desire to see regime-change (note how it's a dirty word when a Mid-Easter says it?) in Israel ...
As for the appeasement of Iran - which has no real navy or air force or even a land force capable of deterring the US for too long - it's not Iran which has continually threatened, meddled in and attacked other countries since the end of WW2. It's not Iran which has installed & assisted friendly dictators around the world at various times (Iraq - yes, Iraq, Iran, Jordan, Kuwait, the UAE, Saudi Arabia, Nicaragua, Chile - in fact most of Latin America, and the list goes on) while simultaneously bleating about freedom and democracy (both of which are being steadily eroded in the US by Bush's beyond-Nixonesque domestic policies). And isn't it funny how many US-friendly dictators reside in oil country? With such a long history of meddling, invasion and flat-out aggression (the kind which got the Nazis hung at Nuremberg - at which trial the crimes of bombing civilians were removed from the charge sheet, as the US & UK would have had to face the same charges due to their own blitzkriegs in Germany & Japan), the dubious honour of being the only country to use nukes in a war, ever, and with a defence budget of over 400 billion dollars, which eclipses most of the rest of the world put together, who exactly should we be appeasing? We may not like Iran's regime and what it does to its people, but there are worse things happening in Zimbabwe at the moment, and Turkmenistan, and Chechnya, and Palestine, and China, and many of the states the US (currently) calls its friends - the most notorious being Saudi Arabia, where you can still see people butchered with swords on a sunny afternoon, if you dig that stuff. Why aren't US politicians calling for regime change anywhere that isn't sitting on a million barrels of oil? Are we supposed to believe that if the chief exports of Iraq & Iran were coffee beans and hemp fibre that the US still would have blown over 400 billlion USD so far, killed 3500 US servicepeople (500+- more than were killed on 9/11) and maimed far more, and cost the lives of over 600,000 Iraqis (a heck of a lot more than were killed on 9/11), most of whom were non-combatants? You're worried about appeasing Iran? Wake up and smell the falafel.
I think the US has a _far_ more impressive record with WMD's. You know... around 250.000 innocent civilians dead/diseased with some Atomic Bombs? Oh right, who cares.
Nobody should be allowed to have those weapons, ever. There is no excuse or compromise.
Nicely put Hankstar and Clowpaint 
i miss the days chilling with clownpaint and wedge on ventrilo talkin about such things xD posting links and links discussing discussing!
clownpaint realy is well informed keep up the good research etc. mate!
clownpaint realy is well informed keep up the good research etc. mate!
Thank Hankstar & Clownpaint, I get really tired of seeing the complete waffle that most people regurgitate from the controlled media regarding whats going on today.
Read & learn people....
And for all those people who think thats there's ANY difference between Democrats & Republicans in charge of the US - Yeah, Right......:haha: I've got a bridge you will probably want to buy.
To quote Douglas Adams, "It doesn't matter who you vote for, a lizard always gets in"
Read & learn people....
And for all those people who think thats there's ANY difference between Democrats & Republicans in charge of the US - Yeah, Right......:haha: I've got a bridge you will probably want to buy.
To quote Douglas Adams, "It doesn't matter who you vote for, a lizard always gets in"
All the locations we gave we were in Iraqi waters, Iran gave two locations, one in Iraqi waters, then one shortly after in Iranian waters. But no worries, they have been released.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/6525905.stm
I could kiss you, I really could. I've been sitting here absolutely fuming from reading all the ignorant drivel some people manage to produce, only to have the sweet, sweet relief of your post save my head from exploding. Aaaah.
I have to agree with Wien, Hankstar's post really sums it all up in a one big whole swoop...
"US forces capture Iranian officials" Yeah that is a good example to see how "liberal" media really is in the USA.
I take my hat off to you Hankstar, really a great post!
Now I will just wait for Zimbabwe to announce they have nuclear weapon capabilities and/or a couble of zillions barrels of oil! for someone to take notice of the tragedies against humanity that are going on there....
I'm not going to support any faction but:
- Who is USA, UE or Israel to say to Iran "You can't have nukes" when they have some of them? I don't want more nukes around, but I can understand Iran wanting some.
- About Israel, well, I'm not saying I support the attacks against Israel, but those countries really have some reasons to be pissed of with it.
- And about Iraq, with Saddam things were really bad, but now they aren't better.
Things are complicated I think
Watching the news tonight, following the reports about Iran releasing the British navy personnel and an interview with John Bolton where he was being his predictable hawkish, moustache-wearing, dickhead-looking, bullshit-speaking self, there was a tiny slot about a Zimbabwean TV cameraman who is believed to have been murdered for "leaking" footage of the badly beaten Morgan Tsvangirai following his detainment last month. It really put the west's actions in the middle east in perspective.
(IReallyHateBureaucracy)
DELETED
by IReallyHateBureaucracy : All politicians are liars and murderers. This is pointless.
Wow. I post one conflicting idea, and it was as if I threw a rock at a hornets nest.
So much for trying to play devils advocate. I guess you either agree with the majority or be humiliated.
So much for trying to play devils advocate. I guess you either agree with the majority or be humiliated.
Sounds like a certain kind of 'democracy'.
(IReallyHateBureaucracy)
DELETED
by IReallyHateBureaucracy
It usually pays to tell people when you're being devil's advocate and not wait till everyone's responded to your argument, otherwise there's a slim chance people might think you actually believe what you say. I've no problem with someone presenting a contrasting point of view simply for the sake of opening up the discourse, but it's a good idea to tell people "this isn't my point of view, but it should be known that ... " Just a thought It's just that when I see the ol' worn-out chestnut about the apparent "liberal media conspiracy" it gets my back up. It's as laughable as Hitler's "international Zionist conspiracy".
As for democracy, Churchill probably said it best: "democracy is the worst form of government ... except for all the others."
It's just that when I see the ol' worn-out chestnut about the apparent "liberal media conspiracy" it gets my back up. It's as laughable as Hitler's "international Zionist conspiracy".As for democracy, Churchill probably said it best: "democracy is the worst form of government ... except for all the others."
See post #53.
Appeasement of Iran...
(84 posts, started )
FGED GREDG RDFGDR GSFDG