Iran

[teamsaint]

Ah the old quoting me out of context thing......I think we ALL know what that tends to mean....:winkeye:

[MrGongGong]

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

it's not my argument man
but you did seem to contradict yourself

it's not my rules either ............and as Cage showed us there are different forms of "random"

[Bryn]

Your point is ?

No cure from the gods of plague.

[heliocentric]

It would be nice to get away from all of this "you said so-and-so" - "no I didn't" - "yes you did here's the quote" - "yes but what I meant was" etc.

It seems to me that the basic disagreement on this thread is whether or not one should accept the word of Western authorities, as delivered by the mass media, regarding policies and plans towards Iran. What we know is that those very same authorities lied repeatedly about exactly the same issues in relation to Iraq, and the result was that they sowed enough seeds of doubt to get away with laying waste to that country, causing hardship on a massive scale to add to the death and suffering that sanctions had already achieved. Nobody would take issue with that I think.

So why is it that anyone can now swallow exactly the same "arguments" in the context of Iran, seemingly without reflecting on the fact that they were lied to ten years ago by what scottycelt calls "those in the best position to know"?

[Simon]

My apologies for missing this Simon.

Thank you - please don't mention it. I hope that we shall be able to get this sorted in between the other "discussion" that's going on within this thread.

Perhaps we can take things one step at a time, and clarify things for each other?

Your initial post on this suggested that the process of Israel's acquiring the nuclear bomb was well-known and unstoppable.

I'm afraid that it didn't. Perhaps if we can agree on what I actually did write, we can remove some of the misconception?

[amateur51]

Thank you - please don't mention it. I hope that we shall be able to get this sorted in between the other "discussion" that's going on within this thread.

Perhaps we can take things one step at a time, and clarify things for each other?



I'm afraid that it didn't. Perhaps if we can agree on what I actually did write, we can remove some of the misconception?

Misconception? I don't think so. Maybe you could explain?

[Simon]

Misconception? I don't think so. Maybe you could explain?

Willingly.

You stated:

"Your initial post on this suggested that the process of Israel's acquiring the nuclear bomb was well-known and unstoppable."

I then stated:

"I'm afraid that it didn't."

Nonetheless, if you think that it did, maybe you'd be good enough to copy and paste the relevant bits of it for me?

[amateur51]

Willingly.

You stated:

"Your initial post on this suggested that the process of Israel's acquiring the nuclear bomb was well-known and unstoppable."

I then stated:

"I'm afraid that it didn't."

Nonetheless, if you think that it did, maybe you'd be good enough to copy and paste the relevant bits of it for me?

Oh dear, game-playing of a rather basic but none-the-less irritating order.:sadface:

I'd hoped for better but I was wrong.

I'm off to ma bed :smiley:

PS: I wonder why so many other posters have accepted my analysis :whistle:

[Simon]

Oh dear, game-playing of a rather basic but none-the-less irritating order.:sadface:

I'd hoped for better but I was wrong.

I'm off to ma bed :smiley:

PS: I wonder why so many other posters have accepted my analysis :whistle:

Presumably, if they have, because they too have misread my post.

But it's not a game. You made an assertion, with some sort of whistley smiley, and I couldn't understand the point, as it was not relevant to what I had written. It still isn't relevant, and even though I've tried to take it down to its most basic level to try to understand, you have failed to explain. I'm only asking you to justify your comment with an actual example: it's easy to do.

Have a good night. Perhaps you'll be able to elucidate in the morning?

[Resurrection Man]

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.

.......

The reason I haven't responded is that I cannot find any reference to your statement I have asked you how a quadrupling every 20 years gets us from 12000 to half a million in 2066. Where do you get the 12000 from, the 'quadrupling' etc?

Care to share it with us ?

[scottycelt]

It would be nice to get away from all of this "you said so-and-so" - "no I didn't" - "yes you did here's the quote" - "yes but what I meant was" etc.

It seems to me that the basic disagreement on this thread is whether or not one should accept the word of Western authorities, as delivered by the mass media, regarding policies and plans towards Iran. What we know is that those very same authorities lied repeatedly about exactly the same issues in relation to Iraq, and the result was that they sowed enough seeds of doubt to get away with laying waste to that country, causing hardship on a massive scale to add to the death and suffering that sanctions had already achieved. Nobody would take issue with that I think.

So why is it that anyone can now swallow exactly the same "arguments" in the context of Iran, seemingly without reflecting on the fact that they were lied to ten years ago by what scottycelt calls "those in the best position to know"?

Well, many people might take issue with you regarding the 'lies' (a favourite word of the Left!) regarding the Iraq war. Chemical weapons were used by Saddam's cousin against the Kurds so we know that they were around at that time. No one really knows the real truth about the episode in the lead-up to the war, and the dodgy 'evidence', apart from those directly involved. To say that Saddam must have had no WMD just because these have never been found is a huge assumption. They may well have been got rid of just before the international inspections, and that seems the most likely scenario in hindsight.

However, we are supposed to be now talking about present-day Iran and not Iraq. You again evade the point. We are not talking about taking the word of the 'Western authorities' alone, we are also hearing the same message from Iran's natural allies and virtually the whole of the rest of the world, as I've already stated on a number of occasions. The United Nations has repeatedly condemned Iran's behaviour and only this evening it is reported that, right on cue, Ahmadinejad has repeated his threat to 'eliminate' Israel.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/09/24/un-assembly-ahmadinejad-idUSL1E8KO5BL20120924

As for myself, I am simply 'swallowing' the almost unanimous opinion of world leaders who, dare I say it, should know a bit more about the true situation than you or I. You, on the other hand, clearly prefer instead to 'swallow' the ravings of a dangerous political thug in Teheran, who, of course, also must be aware of the true situation. It really boils down to which camp you'd put your money on regarding greater trustworthiness in revealing the actual truth.

'You pays yer money, you takes yer choice!'

[MrGongGong]

It really boils down to which camp you'd put your money on regarding greater trustworthiness in revealing the actual truth.

'You pays yer money, you takes yer choice!'

This might help you ?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_dilemma

[teamsaint]

http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/rel/mortality-ageing/population-estimates-of-the-very-elderly/2010/sum-eve-2010.html

http://www.dwp.gov.uk/newsroom/press-releases/2011/aug-2011/dwp096-11.shtml

Are the two links that we have both already seen.
The number of 100 YO's quadrupled to just over 12000 from 1985 to 2010

If you quadruple that every 20 years you still don't get anywhere near 500k, which is the DWP assertion.
I strongly suspect that the more detailed anaysis is compiled in such a way as to scare us. Are 16% of people born in 1962 really going to make 100?

I also suspect that the recent quadrupling, though it will likely continue, coincides with the first generation to live their second half century with NHS care.....which suggests to me that the increase may in fact flatten out.
I stick to what I said. Very few people reach 100 years old, and to suggest that we are heading for a time where this happens to large parts of the population is part of a pensions reduction lie, not a true reflection of reasonable expectations.

[heliocentric]

You, on the other hand, clearly prefer instead to 'swallow' the ravings of a dangerous political thug in Teheran

There really is no point in having a discussion with you, is there. Have a nice thread, people.

[amateur51]

Presumably, if they have, because they too have misread my post.

But it's not a game. You made an assertion, with some sort of whistley smiley, and I couldn't understand the point, as it was not relevant to what I had written. It still isn't relevant, and even though I've tried to take it down to its most basic level to try to understand, you have failed to explain. I'm only asking you to justify your comment with an actual example: it's easy to do.

Have a good night. Perhaps you'll be able to elucidate in the morning?

No thanks, I'm satisfied. Anything else is up to you, pal :smiley: