Discussion
Qwert1e said:
Grumfutock said:
And a terrorist group.
That's the same label which was applied to Nelson Mandela. At least, that label was applied until the apartheid state was dismantled.So no similarities. None whatsoever.
Do you even know the history of Nelson Mandela? And I am not talking about the revered world leader part. I am talking about the Marxist revolutionary. A co founder of MK (the armed wing of the ANC) that carried out 57 bombings in one day? The same man who in 1962 was sent on a 6 month guerrilla warfare course in Ethiopia.
I understand that he is much loved the world over but please don't make out that he was always such a gentle, nice, peaceful man.
Mrr T said:
drivin_me_nuts said:
You take an article about elections and use that as your evidence of the actions of a nation.
The article you brush over highlighted the current political process in Iran. Are you suggesting the Guardian Council has now been abolished and no longer has complete control over who can stand in elections. If it has please let me see a link and my views on Iran will change.drivin_me_nuts said:
Like I said and I will repeat it twice more. You know nothing about Iran and the people who live there. You know nothing, zipp, nadda, zero, zilch: a big fat zero.
Now, do yourself a favour and actually read something about these peoples, their beliefs, culture, history and sense of identity before you come back here and make a further arse of yourself.
I made no comments about the people of Iran because like all those who have the misfortune to live in a dictatorship their views, traditions, culture, have no influence on their government.Now, do yourself a favour and actually read something about these peoples, their beliefs, culture, history and sense of identity before you come back here and make a further arse of yourself.
You can see how the current Iranian Government treats its people.
http://www.amnesty.org/en/region/iran
http://www.iranhrdc.org/english/publications/repor...
drivin_me_nuts said:
Edit: there is no chance that they would use nuclear weapons. Simply because of one thing. The government likes to rule. They know full well the consequences of what an attack by nuclear weapons would bring down upon them. It is simple self preservation that would stop them 'pressing the big red button'.
If there is one thing engrained in the mindset of those who rule, self preservation is that thing
In general I would agree Governments would not use nuclear weapons because they want to protect their own power. However, we have seen many suicide bombers in the last 20 years.If there is one thing engrained in the mindset of those who rule, self preservation is that thing
She, as many others will say and have said, there is no government around who play politics as well as the government of Iran. They are the absolute masters of it. They are smart, savvy and have a deep understanding of just how far they can a) push their own people b) push their political agenda in the west and the middle east.
They learned from the west. They learned from the British and the Americans how to play politics, how to push nationalistic agendas and sadly, how also to brutalise their own. They want the power of the nuclear button, of course they do. They are also very aware the implication that the button will bring.
Simply put, they love the dance. The boundaries of the government are also very clearly known. Life in Iran is a pressure cooker - but the general populace have no stomach for war - save an invasion. This is one of the reasons why the rhetoric from the west has been very clear in saying there will be no invasion: because they know full well it will not work (like Iraq worked...)
They play their games now using the hands of others. There seems little on the horizon to change the status quo. Palestine, Gaza and the fate of others are merely pieces to be plated. But then again, we, the west are no different in that respect to 'them'. We choose sides, play games and sometimes we win and sometimes we lose; and on the game goes.
Mrr T said:
Mr Snap said:
I see you're now making a fool of yourself re Iran now. I suggest you try to prove to them that Iran is somehow unstable and therefore liable to use nuclear weapons (you'll need some luck with that). Evidence, rather than your unfounded opinions, will again be required. Marshall facts and make a cogent rebuttal. Most important, stop telling people you're right and failing to back it up - it makes them think you're an opinionated fool.
Now go get them, Tiger! I've told you how to do it but you'll really have to do the rest yourself...
Please point out where I said Iran was likely to use nuclear weapons or unstable.Now go get them, Tiger! I've told you how to do it but you'll really have to do the rest yourself...
I said it was controlled by religious leaders some of who are likely to have views I find unacceptable.
It was not a democracy as I would use the word.
It only Wiki but I believe fairly accurate.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guardian_Council
The problem is that it's rather hard to accept your argument when you read what you said below. Silent one says "let them have nukes, they won't use them". You respond,"Iran is controlled by a bunch of Mullah's, some of who[m] would happily launch global jihad etc" (Sorry about the my bold and changing who to whom).
Silent 1 said Iran wouldn't launch nuclear war. Your response was not to say "They're a bunch of nutters but they won't launch nuclear war" - on the contrary, you disagreed with him vehemently and said they would "happily launch global jihad". Now the expression 'launch global jihad' does expressly not exclude the possibility of nuclear war - and at no point in your response do you say nuclear war is excluded. The reader, therefore, is lead to assume you meant nuclear war was a distinct possibility in your mind.
Now, you may truly think that Iran won't launch nuclear weapons but you didn't exclude the possibility in your answer and therefore one was lead to assume you think Iran might use nuclear weapons. And, because you were, in the first place, strongly disagreeing with a statement that did most definitely exclude the possibility of Iran using nuclear weapons, it added further weight to the conclusion that you actually did believe Iran would launch nuclear weapons.
The answer to this is that, once again, your English has let you down - either because you expressed yourself inexactly or the logic underlying your argument was lacking. Whichever, you didn't actually say what you seem to think you said. As my old maths teacher used to say, "You think you know, but you don't know". This leaves me in an awkward position. Arguing with someone who a) doesn't have a clue what he's talking about and b) doesn't have a clue how he's saying it, is, logically speaking, somewhat fruitless.
One step forward and two back, I'm afraid, Mrr T.
Mrr T said:
Silent1 said:
IMHO, let Iran have nukes, they wont use them, TBH despite being a bit mental they're not that stupid that they'd turn their country into a glass carpark.
You do realise Iran is controlled by a bunch of Mullahs some of who would happily launch global jihad and forcible conversion of all “kaffiers” to the true belief.Apparently, Baroness Ashston has played an absolute blinder and is being lauded around the world for her diplomatic skills. Peter Oborne of the DT recently published an apology about what he's said about her in the past. This is the woman whom UKIP continues to describe as a pointless nonentity. In reality, she may have saved the world from nuclear war.
TwigtheWonderkid said:
Hilts said:
TwigtheWonderkid said:
But other governments don't want their citizens to die. Iran couldn't give a flying f
k. The Iran / Iraq war taught us that. They were quite happy to fight a war of attrition.
More bk. The Iran / Iraq war taught us that. They were quite happy to fight a war of attrition. ks. This shows a lack of understanding of the Iranian people.The whole "they won't use nukes as they don't want to be nuked back" argument only really applies to the mentally sane. I don't include the Iranian leadership in that category.
The deterrent is working well for this 'mentally insane' leader. Has he pressed the big red button lately? Is he likely to do it? Does he know the full consequences of doing so? You betcha!SR7492 said:
Countdown said:
You really know fk all about this.
Iraq invaded Iran, with extensive financial support from its Sunni neighbours and extensive material support from the West. Even when Saddam was using chemical weapons on Iranian soldiers.
Perhaps you should stick to posting maps of Narnia.
k all about this.Iraq invaded Iran, with extensive financial support from its Sunni neighbours and extensive material support from the West. Even when Saddam was using chemical weapons on Iranian soldiers.
Perhaps you should stick to posting maps of Narnia.
2013BRM said:
He doesn't really have a big red button though, if you want a potential source for a nuclear clusterfk it's going to be India/Pakistan
Well we are talking 50/50 chance a highly secretive regime like NK would or would not have miniaturised its warheads which will make it more suitable for use on bombs or missiles.k it's going to be India/PakistanWe still do not know what kind of material NK used in its last nuclear test in 2009, was it plutonium? Uranium? the U.S have highly sensitive airborne monitoring equipment, but Xenon gas has to be measured within the first 10 to 20 hours, whereas it will takes 'days' for the gas to leak out of an underground facility. Underground explosions are tough to measure, so yes NK 'could' have the red button and the deterrent is there nevertheless, that's why we have not invaded it.
TwigtheWonderkid said:
allnighter said:
During the French occupation of Algeria, a journalist interviewed a prominent FLN activist Larbi Ben M'hidi:
[i]Journalist: M. Ben M'Hidi, don't you think it's a bit cowardly to use women's baskets and handbags to carry explosive devices that kill so many innocent people?
Ben M'Hidi: And doesn't it seem to you even more cowardly to drop napalm bombs on defenseless villages, so that there are a thousand times more innocent victims? Of course, if we had your airplanes it would be a lot easier for us. Give us your bombers, and you can have our baskets.[/i]
In the end De Gaulle realised that the only way forward is to withdraw from Algeria. How else would you get a hard-line government like Israel to 'sit-down' and talk to a hard-line organisation like Hamas who are rallying more and more Palestinians behind them? So yes I stand by my hypothetical point that giving the Palestinians Nukes will force Israel to negotiate better terms for the Palestinians. We know it's not likely to happen, but the point I was making about forcing the two sides to sit down and 'talk' is valid hence the 'hypothetical' aspect of Nuclear threat from both sides.
And yes Countdown's Narnia putdown was funny
, shame you did not see the funny side of it, you the over-user of ROFLs in this thread!Edited by allnighter on Sunday 27th July 13:43
A war based on a lie then. Mmmm where is the Middle East Peace Envoy when you need him - this will be right up his street.
Mojocvh said:
Ooops.
http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2014/07/hamas...
"When the bodies of three Israeli teenagers, kidnapped in the West Bank, were found late last month, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu did not mince words. "Hamas is responsible, and Hamas will pay," he said, initiating a campaign that eventually escalated into the present conflict in the region.
But now, officials admit the kidnappings were not Hamas's handiwork after all."
http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2014/07/hamas...
"When the bodies of three Israeli teenagers, kidnapped in the West Bank, were found late last month, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu did not mince words. "Hamas is responsible, and Hamas will pay," he said, initiating a campaign that eventually escalated into the present conflict in the region.
But now, officials admit the kidnappings were not Hamas's handiwork after all."
TwigtheWonderkid said:
allnighter said:
. . . but, undoubtedly, the biggest obstacle to peace is the lack of any significant incentive for Israel to sign up to the sort of deal that is required. The cost of continued conflict is negligible but the internal political cost of peace - principally giving up all those settlements apart from those whose retention is freely negotiated in return for concessions elsewhere - unthinkable to most politicians there. For now.
Ergo, the Hamas 'game plan' is therefore to increase the cost of conflict to Israel. The vast majority of decision makers on both sides are entirely rational which, largely, explains the decisions they make (ditto Ukraine/Russia) . . . it's inevitably the third party meddlers and would-be interveners whose perceptions and actions are incomprehensible.
Edited by Octoposse on Sunday 27th July 13:44
Octoposse said:
That would be over-egging the pudding . . .
. . . but, undoubtedly, the biggest obstacle to peace is the lack of any significant incentive for Israel to sign up to the sort of deal that is required. The cost of continued conflict is negligible but the internal political cost of peace - principally giving up all those settlements apart from those whose retention is freely negotiated in return for concessions elsewhere - unthinkable to most politicians there. For now.
Ergo, the Hamas 'game plan' is therefore to increase the cost of conflict to Israel. The vast majority of decision makers on both sides are entirely rational which, largely, explains the decisions they make (ditto Ukraine/Russia) . . . it's inevitably the third party meddlers and would-be interveners whose perceptions and actions are incomprehensible.
Well put. . . . but, undoubtedly, the biggest obstacle to peace is the lack of any significant incentive for Israel to sign up to the sort of deal that is required. The cost of continued conflict is negligible but the internal political cost of peace - principally giving up all those settlements apart from those whose retention is freely negotiated in return for concessions elsewhere - unthinkable to most politicians there. For now.
Ergo, the Hamas 'game plan' is therefore to increase the cost of conflict to Israel. The vast majority of decision makers on both sides are entirely rational which, largely, explains the decisions they make (ditto Ukraine/Russia) . . . it's inevitably the third party meddlers and would-be interveners whose perceptions and actions are incomprehensible.
Edited by Octoposse on Sunday 27th July 13:44
Mrr T said:
Octoposse]i]Controlled[/i said:
is an exaggeration - it's a democracy with an elected government. Then it has the Guardian Council to ensure that 'democracy' runs within carefully defined limits . . . rather like the European Court of Human Rights. Sort of . . . .
There's a lot of scope for better relations with Iran.
You do understand the Guardian Council do not just “ensure democracy runs within certain rules”. They select who can stand as candidates. That is not democracy.There's a lot of scope for better relations with Iran.
http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2013/06/2...
OK, my comparason of the Iran's Guardian Council with 'our' European Court of Human Rights was mildly tongue-in-cheek, but there are similarities - both are unelected bodies, appointed because of their knowledge of infallible sacred texts, who consult the texts and strike down any decisions of the elected representatives of the people they conflict with. You could chuck the US Supreme Court in there as well . . .
Removing tongue from cheek, it is all a matter of degree - the assertion that we live in a democracy, and the Iranian people in a stifling theocracy, misses out the grey area in between where we all actually operate.
Octoposse said:
t is a democracy rather like ours (and everybody else's) - imperfect.
OK, my comparason of the Iran's Guardian Council with 'our' European Court of Human Rights was mildly tongue-in-cheek, but there are similarities - both are unelected bodies, appointed because of their knowledge of infallible sacred texts, who consult the texts and strike down any decisions of the elected representatives of the people they conflict with. You could chuck the US Supreme Court in there as well . . .
Removing tongue from cheek, it is all a matter of degree - the assertion that we live in a democracy, and the Iranian people in a stifling theocracy, misses out the grey area in between where we all actually operate.
Sorry I can only conclude your definition of democracy and mine must differ. OK, my comparason of the Iran's Guardian Council with 'our' European Court of Human Rights was mildly tongue-in-cheek, but there are similarities - both are unelected bodies, appointed because of their knowledge of infallible sacred texts, who consult the texts and strike down any decisions of the elected representatives of the people they conflict with. You could chuck the US Supreme Court in there as well . . .
Removing tongue from cheek, it is all a matter of degree - the assertion that we live in a democracy, and the Iranian people in a stifling theocracy, misses out the grey area in between where we all actually operate.
Ours may be flawed but unfortunately Iran remains a theocracy dictatorship. With almost all power in the hands of the supreme leader.
I know it’s only wiki.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guardian_Council
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff