Iran

[amateur51]

I was with you until I got to this point. Can you tell us from what authoritative position you are able to make this statement? Surely if Iran has nothing to hide then why don't they let in, without restriction, nuclear inspectors to check on what they are doing. If, as you say, they have nothing to hide then great, we can all move on. Their sanctions get lifted.

If you were Ahmadinejad would you trust the Mercans to find what's there, RM? :yikes:

The lesson from Iraq is that if you let in the inspectors and they find nothing , and even if the Chief Inspector begs for more time (Hans Blix), the Mercans take no notice and, assisted by the British, they blow you to smithereens. :sadface:

[heliocentric]

I was with you until I got to this point. Can you tell us from what authoritative position you are able to make this statement? Surely if Iran has nothing to hide then why don't they let in, without restriction, nuclear inspectors to check on what they are doing. If, as you say, they have nothing to hide then great, we can all move on. Their sanctions get lifted.

What you're saying is more or less word for word what was said about Iraq in 2002-3. Iraq had no WMDs and was destroyed anyway. Why do you think that was?

[scottycelt]

Quite. Unquestioning acceptance of the official line once again. It is not necessary to conflate this state of victimhood with an imputation of "goodness" unless your mind is unable or unwilling to conceive of anything more complex than the most childishly simple view of "good vs. evil".

If you are saying that I tend to accept the views of those in the best position to know, and the unaminous view of the representatives of such diverse countries as the US, Russia, China and every country within the EU, rather than the regime in Iran, then I plead guilty, m'ud. There doesn't seem to be much controversy among all those involved in the matter so why on earth should I question it? I am merely an armchair forum commentator like, I suspect, most others here.

I think your comment about childish 'good v evil' is a bit rich given you appear to think and say exactly the same in reverse ... in other words the US is an ever-evil force and the Iranian regime is apparently a cuddly, peace-loving, sweet, victimised little thing.

At least we now know that you are indeed an apologist for the regime despite your previously curious suggestion that I was somehow mistaken to assume that.

I also strongly suspect that you may well be a former regular contributor under a different screen-name? Apologies in advance, if that is not the case!

[heliocentric]

I think your comment about childish 'good v evil' is a bit rich given you appear to think and say exactly the same in reverse ... in other words the US is an ever-evil force and the Iranian regime is apparently a cuddly, peace-loving, sweet, victimised little thing.

At least we now know that you are indeed an apologist for the regime despite your previously curious suggestion that I was somehow mistaken to assume that.

(sigh) This discussion is pointless if you're going to keep putting words in my mouth.

[amateur51]

If you are saying that I tend to accept the views of those in the best position to know, and the unaminous view of the representatives of such diverse countries as the US, Russia, China and every country within the EU, rather than the regime in Iran, then I plead guilty, m'ud. There doesn't seem to be much controversy among all those involved in the matter so why on earth should I question it? I am merely an armchair forum commentator like, I suspect, most others here.

I think your comment about childish 'good v evil' is a bit rich given you appear to think and say exactly the same in reverse ... in other words the US is an ever-evil force and the Iranian regime is apparently a cuddly, peace-loving, sweet, victimised little thing.

At least we now know that you are indeed an apologist for the regime despite your previously curious suggestion that I was somehow mistaken to assume that.

I also strongly suspect that you may well be a former regular contributor under a different screen-name? Apologies in advance, if that is not the case!

No-one has said anything of the sort as you have characterised it, scotty.

This is a well-worn habit of yours, often used by Simon in the past - set up the straw man & knock him over. Sign of the desperate I'd say :smiley:

[Resurrection Man]

If you were Ahmadinejad would you trust the Mercans to find what's there, RM? :yikes:

Who said anything about the Americans sending in people ? Not that difficult to come up with an international team of inspectors.

The lesson from Iraq is that if you let in the inspectors and they find nothing , and even if the Chief Inspector begs for more time (Hans Blix), the Mercans take no notice and, assisted by the British, they blow you to smithereens. :sadface:

Agreed but hopefully we can do better this time round? We all know now that the alleged Iraqi WMD were a con and both Bush and Blair should be prosecuted for crimes against humanity. One would like to think that 'we' aren't as gullible this time round. But regardless, surely this has to be a better solution then where we currently are?

[Serial_Apologist]

Agreed but hopefully we can do better this time round? We all know now that the alleged Iraqi WMD were a con and both Bush and Blair should be prosecuted for crimes against humanity.

:ok:

One would like to think that 'we' aren't as gullible this time round. But regardless, surely this has to be a better solution then where we currently are?

What worries me is that Obama might be as gullible, and then who have we got? President Romney?? :oh:

[MrGongGong]

Agreed but hopefully we can do better this time round?

I can't see that being sold to the Iranian's :sadface:
Maybe with a B&B sorry song on youtube ?
Trust matters, neither the UK nor the US politicians seem to think that acting honestly and fairly are important (by their deeds )
which is not to say that everything in the USA or UK is evil but that "we" have a long way to go before "we" can be trusted.

[amateur51]

Who said anything about the Americans sending in people ? Not that difficult to come up with an international team of inspectors.



Agreed but hopefully we can do better this time round? We all know now that the alleged Iraqi WMD were a con and both Bush and Blair should be prosecuted for crimes against humanity. One would like to think that 'we' aren't as gullible this time round. But regardless, surely this has to be a better solution then where we currently are?

Can you really see the Mercans agreeing to abide by another nation's assessment once the Mercans have decided on what they want to hear, RM?

Just on its track record, I mean :erm:

It doesn't take much - ask the people of Cambodia :sadface:

[teamsaint]

Utter rubbish. I was going to quote from the Arms Control Association here http://www.armscontrol.org/print/5201 but then realised that it would, naturally be dismissed because the author is Israeli. So I thought I would research the font of all 'good, worthy and accurate' stories the Guardian. http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012...range-missiles

So, yes, Iran does. Also never heard of dirty suitcase bombs?



Could we have an emoticon for 'sweeping generalisations', please? It would get an awful lot of use.

or perhaps an emoticon for ignoring evidence when its presented, or another for not seeing what is as clear as day.
Or one for suggesting that people quote from the "grauniad" when they don't.Or one for believing government statistics when they are patently flawed or biased with a specific purpose.

Re one of your other points...yes there are lots of nasty weapons around, and the Iranians have some. We should know, we sell lots of weapons to awful regimes.

I don't live in terror of being hit by an Iranian dirty bomb or anything else at present, though,because I don't think it's in their interest to kick things off...and these days we like to fight our wars a long way from home. much nicer.Much safer.

Edit: RM, I guess you have now finished all those better things you had to do? hope they all went well !

[Resurrection Man]

or perhaps an emoticon for ignoring evidence when its presented,

You clearly said that Iran did not have the means to deliver a nuclear weapon (assuming that they had one). This is patently incorrect and wishful thinking on your part. I gave two links that detailed the number and type of missiles that Iran possesses. As I knew that you would most likely refute the first as the author was Israeli, I included a second from the Guardian as I thought perhaps you might accept the information presented there.

Or one for suggesting that people quote from the "grauniad" when they don't.

I never said that.

Or one for believing government statistics when they are patently flawed

In your opinion.

or biased with a specific purpose.

How many more times do I have to explain to you about the ageing profile and demographics of the country?

[Resurrection Man]

Can you really see the Mercans agreeing to abide by another nation's assessment once the Mercans have decided on what they want to hear, RM?

Just on its track record, I mean :erm:

It doesn't take much - ask the people of Cambodia :sadface:

Once more, I agree, but one lives in hope.

:ok:

What worries me is that Obama might be as gullible, and then who have we got? President Romney?? :oh:

I agree with you. Romney scares the heck out of me.

[MrGongGong]

Or one for suggesting that people quote from the "grauniad" when they don't.

I never said that.

you said this

First, come out with a sweeping generalisation quoting ad nauseam from the Gruniad.

eeeer
my computer has this handy feature that lets me read previous statements ...........

[teamsaint]

You clearly said that Iran did not have the means to deliver a nuclear weapon (assuming that they had one). This is patently incorrect and wishful thinking on your part. I gave two links that detailed the number and type of missiles that Iran possesses. As I knew that you would most likely refute the first as the author was Israeli, I included a second from the Guardian as I thought perhaps you might accept the information presented there.



I never said that.



In your opinion.



How many more times do I have to explain to you about the ageing profile and demographics of the country?

on the last point you haven't, thats HAVEN'T explained the demographics.
I have asked you how a quadrupling every 20 years gets us from 12000 to half a million in 2066...to which you have failed to respond at all.

It may be that I was partially misinformed about the ability to deliver a weapon that they don't in fact possess. But the ability to deliver a weapon, and the ability to get it through are two different things. I will concede half a point.
But then again, they aren't the ones threatening to invade or attack anybody, are they?
and they don't have nukes.
At all.
we and the israelis and the americans have loads , the means to deliver them to a specific post code, and a track record in using them, and starting lots of wars recently.
So my (possible) misunderstanding about Iranian missile technology is kind of irrelevant really.

[Resurrection Man]

you said this



eeeer
my computer has this handy feature that lets me read previous statements ...........

Ah, just as I thought, you're quoting me completely put of context.

Perfect example of Rule 4 When then presented with incontrovertible evidence that this random piece of evidence is, well, um, random and of no relevance/flawed/plays no part in any rational discussion will introduce a red-herring or pick up on some obscure point bearing no relevance to the original generalisation and nit-pick.