Iran threatening USA carrier group
Discussion
Mermaid said:
Jimbeaux said:
What I am saying is that, reported from various and unrelated sources, the youth of Iran (which is the majority)are unhappy and embarrassed by their government. The revolution of 30 years ago does not seem to share their views on things. Do you honestly feel they like "things" the way they are?
Some may be unhappy, and a large percentage have been westernised for decades now, but they would rather support their government (warts & all) than any foreign power and their efforts to interfere in their country again. Sabre rattling by the US & Israel will not divide them. And I do think the Iranian leaders make stupid threats - it's their way & mainly for the local audience that better understand that type of rhetoric.
The Iranians think the US is Satan, and the Americans thinks Iran is a rogue state - the truth, as always, is in the middle somewhere.
jayb289 said:
Jimbeaux said:
I see your point. What I am saying is that, reported from various and unrelated sources, the youth of Iran (which is the majority)are unhappy and embarrassed by their government. The revolution of 30 years ago does not seem to share their views on things. Do you honestly feel they like "things" the way they are?
well its impossible for any news source to know what the "youth" want. all i know is there was all sorts of hell breaking loose when the young people in the uk felt betrayed and some demanded change, smashed building etc. didn`t they get dismissed as anarchist, lazy, freeloaders etc. why would it be any different in iran?im just saying people criticize the media for twisting stories to sell papers and propaganda but when its a country that doesnt do as we say or buy our weapons then all of a sudden we take their word for it. but even the people who reported it first are now having doubts, so im glad im not the only one. have a read of this when you get the time http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/feb/1...
Jimbeaux said:
... My point is that the majority of Iranians are not happy with their government and would like to change it. Left to their own devices, I believe they eventually will.
So let them do it on their own, at their own pace and without sticking our nose in their affairs. Let them have their own civil war, their own brand of democracy it's healthy. You guys tried it a while ago and look at you now & goodnight.jayb289 said:
MX7 said:
Dumb just hit a new low.
ive seen the way you operate on here fella, you argue points like a 10 year old. no facts, no evidence, no credible sources. all you can do is drop clever one liners and hope they gloss over the fact that you are clueless like a unprepared comedian. To answer that, which was a fairly simple Yes or No question, you claimed that "the president of iran is not in charge of foreign policy or the armed forces", which really isn't that simple. You then claimed that if the "elections were dodgy" it's a moot point, and he can still be a "straight forward man".
You didn't answer the question. If in the UK we had a PM who twisted the election like that, I'm sure that people like you would be up in arms about it. Why defend Ahmadinejad?
Are you aware of the 2009 elections, and do you really view Ahmadinejad as a straight up guy?
MX7 said:
Your statement was he "seems to be a straight forward man", so I asked you if you were aware of the 2009 Presidential Elections.
To answer that, which was a fairly simple Yes or No question, you claimed that "the president of iran is not in charge of foreign policy or the armed forces", which really isn't that simple. You then claimed that if the "elections were dodgy" it's a moot point, and he can still be a "straight forward man".
You didn't answer the question. If in the UK we had a PM who twisted the election like that, I'm sure that people like you would be up in arms about it. Why defend Ahmadinejad?
Are you aware of the 2009 elections, and do you really view Ahmadinejad as a straight up guy?
as straight up as i see any other politician whether at home or abroad(some are better actors than some,some are genuine). kinda funny how there are questions being raised about vote rigging in the uk as we speak http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard/article-240... or do you think our leaders are far too honest to be capable of such things? To answer that, which was a fairly simple Yes or No question, you claimed that "the president of iran is not in charge of foreign policy or the armed forces", which really isn't that simple. You then claimed that if the "elections were dodgy" it's a moot point, and he can still be a "straight forward man".
You didn't answer the question. If in the UK we had a PM who twisted the election like that, I'm sure that people like you would be up in arms about it. Why defend Ahmadinejad?
Are you aware of the 2009 elections, and do you really view Ahmadinejad as a straight up guy?
but since you wanna talk about elections, why dont you mention operation ajax, where a coup was organised by us and uk that established a dictator? all because Mosaddeq nationalized the country`s oil. where was the elections for that? im sorry but i cant swallow this constant hypocrisy about people around the world being oppressed and democracy is worth dying for when we know our government will back anybody as long as they cut us a good deal on whatever resource they possess. so excuse me for not taking you seriously when you bring u the 2009 election.
Gaz. said:
Do you intentionally mean to sound as unpleasant as you do?
Take a chill pill please.
I asked if jayb289 knew about the 2009 elections, and how he would justify describing Ahmadinejad as a "straight forward man" given the aftermath where dozens were killed, and thousands were arrested, including many opponents and journalists. If he considers that Ahmadinejad is no worse or better than any politician in the world ("as straight up as i see any other politician whether at home or abroad"), I really do think that is idiotic. Take a chill pill please.
The rest of his argument was a strawman and I don't have any interest in trying to justify events from half a century ago which neither excuse or condemn Ahmadinejad's acts.
MX7 said:
Gaz. said:
Do you intentionally mean to sound as unpleasant as you do?
Take a chill pill please.
I asked if jayb289 knew about the 2009 elections, and how he would justify describing Ahmadinejad as a "straight forward man" given the aftermath where dozens were killed, and thousands were arrested, including many opponents and journalists. If he considers that Ahmadinejad is no worse or better than any politician in the world ("as straight up as i see any other politician whether at home or abroad"), I really do think that is idiotic. Take a chill pill please.
The rest of his argument was a strawman and I don't have any interest in trying to justify events from half a century ago which neither excuse or condemn Ahmadinejad's acts.
Mermaid said:
Jimbeaux said:
... My point is that the majority of Iranians are not happy with their government and would like to change it. Left to their own devices, I believe they eventually will.
So let them do it on their own, at their own pace and without sticking our nose in their affairs. Let them have their own civil war, their own brand of democracy it's healthy. You guys tried it a while ago and look at you now & goodnight.Regardless of that, it is up to the Iranian people to decide their own future, not have yet another puppet dictator imposed on them (as in Afghanistan for example)
Countdown said:
Agreed. There is a risk however that, despite what we think or hope, the genuine views of the Iranians may not be what we "approve" of. For example some people are expressing concern about the outcomes in Libya and Egypt.
Regardless of that, it is up to the Iranian people to decide their own future, not have yet another puppet dictator imposed on them (as in Afghanistan for example)
If the outcomes in Egypt and or Libya are not in our interests, then I would suggest that our foreign policy is fatally flawed.Regardless of that, it is up to the Iranian people to decide their own future, not have yet another puppet dictator imposed on them (as in Afghanistan for example)
Muntu said:
Countdown said:
Agreed. There is a risk however that, despite what we think or hope, the genuine views of the Iranians may not be what we "approve" of. For example some people are expressing concern about the outcomes in Libya and Egypt.
Regardless of that, it is up to the Iranian people to decide their own future, not have yet another puppet dictator imposed on them (as in Afghanistan for example)
If the outcomes in Egypt and or Libya are not in our interests, then I would suggest that our foreign policy is fatally flawed.Regardless of that, it is up to the Iranian people to decide their own future, not have yet another puppet dictator imposed on them (as in Afghanistan for example)
Wills2 said:
Countdown said:
As long as we don't go fking about where we're not wanted or needed.
As long as they have oil or are trying to get nuclear weapons or are supporting terrorism, (in the case of Iran all bloody 3!) we will always poke our nose in. Wills2 said:
Countdown said:
As long as we don't go fking about where we're not wanted or needed.
As long as they have oil or are trying to get nuclear weapons or are supporting terrorism, (in the case of Iran all bloody 3!) we will always poke our nose in. Countdown said:
Wills2 said:
Countdown said:
As long as we don't go fking about where we're not wanted or needed.
As long as they have oil or are trying to get nuclear weapons or are supporting terrorism, (in the case of Iran all bloody 3!) we will always poke our nose in. Countdown said:
Wills2 said:
Countdown said:
As long as we don't go fking about where we're not wanted or needed.
As long as they have oil or are trying to get nuclear weapons or are supporting terrorism, (in the case of Iran all bloody 3!) we will always poke our nose in. Apache said:
I doubt it, Israel is the most likely reason.....or, just possibly, they are hoping to provide nuclear powered energy for themselves
I don't think it's just Israel (although that's a big part of it). They've seen what happened in Iraq and North Korea. They know they're not on the US Xmas card list. They're developing nukes for defensive reasons.Put it another way - one of your neighbours expresses an attraction to the contents of your house or garage. He's been known to help himself to other neighbours posessions. Are you justified in making sure he thinks twice before trying to take yours?
Countdown said:
Apache said:
I doubt it, Israel is the most likely reason.....or, just possibly, they are hoping to provide nuclear powered energy for themselves
I don't think it's just Israel (although that's a big part of it). They've seen what happened in Iraq and North Korea. They know they're not on the US Xmas card list. They're developing nukes for defensive reasons.Put it another way - one of your neighbours expresses an attraction to the contents of your house or garage. He's been known to help himself to other neighbours posessions. Are you justified in making sure he thinks twice before trying to take yours?
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff