Iran

[teamsaint]

This is turning into an interesting, and I'm glad to say, more or less friendly-toned thread, IMO.

Unusual for you and I to be on similar lines, ts, but may I suggest you try to dig a bit deeper and something more should appear!



Don't remember that: must have been away. Don't forget they are talking about 50 odd years' time! I don't think it's so much about "in pockets" here, as the journos lobby briefing system working. Not corruption as such, but journos need stories and political briefers provide them. The good investigative reporters aren't as prevalent as they once were, and there's a hungry "news" machine to feed... maybe they take things with less salt nowadays... but it could be true. People will live longer, and there's no doubt that there's a pensions problem coming along: remember, Gordon Brown raided many pensions ... the real crime was that nobody kicked off about that, which was theft by any other name.

Simon, TBF people did protest, (in vain) about the Brown pension raids.(and plenty didn't understand the implications at the time).
There may be a looming pensions issue. However, what we have is a situation where in their 60's people are being forced to work longer, while we have mass unemployment, under employment, mass (25%) youth unemployment, and our young people are being told that it will cost them around £60 k to train as, say, a teacher.
Lying to us about how old we will live to be is a spectacularly negative way of dealing with these issues, in my view. (especially when those doing the lying will not be forced to wait till age 70 to exist on the basic state pension).

[Resurrection Man]

.....
Lying to us about how old we will live ....

Oh, for goodness sake. When will you learn? IT IS NOT A LIE. It is basic demographics.

Here, for example, after a very quick Google into lifetime expectancy...

“In the next 20 years, the number of people over 85 in England will double and the number over 100 will quadruple. Similarly, advances in medical knowledge and practice mean that disabled people can live longer and can lead healthier lives” (Department of Health 2008 pg.8)

Look at the date. 2008. Labour were in power or are they guilty of lying as well?

You'll be telling me that Neil Armstrong didn't actually go to the Moon next.

Anyway, back to Iran.

[teamsaint]

no, its a lie.12000 people in the Uk are aged 100 or more . even if the number over 100 quadruples in the next 20 years, there will still only be 50000 of them.
that does not even begin to tickle the surface of "almost 20%"
It is still a TINY number.
The point, as with Iran is that governments, labour , liberal and tory will try to deceive us. Blair did on WMD in Iraq, the population thing is a deception (although we do have an ageing population but nowhere near their scaremonger numbers) and they are lying , or will lie about the nuclear threat from Iran.

[johnb]

Gordon Brown raided many pensions ... the real crime was that nobody kicked off about that, which was theft by any other name.

Not only Gordon Brown. What is often overlooked is that companies also "raided" their own pension schemes at that time. Occupational pension schemes were in surplus (seems hard to imagine that now) and a great many companies either gave themselves a contribution "holiday" or reduced their own contributions. Both Gordon Brown and the companies totally ignored the inevitability that the stock markets go down and surpluses were needed to tide the schemes over the bad times.

[MrGongGong]

Surely (and unlike our academic colleague I'm NOT an expert on the middle east !) one of the main problems is that "we" (i.e "The West") have allowed , and even supported Israel to develop nuclear weapons , even though they have a policy of "nuclear ambiguity" . To many people this is simply dishonest, and where being honest is held up as a virtue "we" completely shoot ourselves in the foot by joining in in lies. I know its a "complex" situation etc etc and have musician colleagues who have "escaped" from Iran so i'm not an enthusiast for the Iranian government BUT the sooner "we" start to act ethically and honestly the better IMV.......

[amateur51]

Surely (and unlike our academic colleague I'm NOT an expert on the middle east !) one of the main problems is that "we" (i.e "The West") have allowed , and even supported Israel to develop nuclear weapons , even though they have a policy of "nuclear ambiguity" . To many people this is simply dishonest, and where being honest is held up as a virtue "we" completely shoot ourselves in the foot by joining in in lies. I know its a "complex" situation etc etc and have musician colleagues who have "escaped" from Iran so i'm not an enthusiast for the Iranian government BUT the sooner "we" start to act ethically and honestly the better IMV.......

:ok:

[teamsaint]

Surely (and unlike our academic colleague I'm NOT an expert on the middle east !) one of the main problems is that "we" (i.e "The West") have allowed , and even supported Israel to develop nuclear weapons , even though they have a policy of "nuclear ambiguity" . To many people this is simply dishonest, and where being honest is held up as a virtue "we" completely shoot ourselves in the foot by joining in in lies. I know its a "complex" situation etc etc and have musician colleagues who have "escaped" from Iran so i'm not an enthusiast for the Iranian government BUT the sooner "we" start to act ethically and honestly the better IMV.......

quite. there are lots of lousy governments......... the UK taking a lead in good government would indeed be fantastic.

[heliocentric]

I know its a "complex" situation etc etc and have musician colleagues who have "escaped" from Iran so i'm not an enthusiast for the Iranian government BUT the sooner "we" start to act ethically and honestly the better IMV.......

Indeed. And the prof, being an expert on the history of the Middle East, will know that Iran's nuclear programme (whether or not it's directed towards producing weapons, which secret service reports from several countries tend to agree it isn't, though such conclusions seem to be viewed as somehow inadmissible evidence by US/Israeli administrations) was actually begun with large amounts of material assistance from the US and European countries under the Shah.

In 1974 the Shah stated: "Petroleum is a noble material, much too valuable to burn… We envision producing, as soon as possible, 23000 megawatts of electricity using nuclear plants." A directive offering further assistance to Iran's nuclear programme (including a US-built reprocessing facility for extracting plutonium from spent fuel) signed by President Gerald Ford in 1976 contained the words: "Introduction of nuclear power will both provide for the growing needs of Iran’s economy and free remaining oil reserves for export or conversion to petrochemicals." (Recall that at the time the White House Chief of Staff was Dick Cheney and the US Secretary of State was Donald Rumsfeld.)

So in the 1970s, when Iran was ruled by a West-friendly dictator (installed with CIA assistance to replace the democratically-elected government of Mossadeq in 1953 mainly because Mossadeq was committed to nationalising the Iranian oil industry) the idea that Iran's nuclear programme was for purely peaceful purposes was quite believable, despite all the oil. Now that Iran is ruled by Muslim clerics who feel that their country is being threatened on all sides (and rightly so, if you listen to the constant sabre-rattling of Netanyahu) this idea is apparently no longer believable.

[Resurrection Man]

An interesting and to my way of thinking reasonably balanced viewpoint here

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

Flags up 'attitudes' on both sides.

[heliocentric]

There is no question that Ahmadinejad has an "attitude", but most reporting on his statements tends to obscure the fact that he is by no means some kind of dictator with absolute power in Iran, that the clerics who are the real power behind his "throne" have repeatedly criticised him on many grounds including in particular his inflammatory comments on Jews and Christians, and that he will not be eligible to stand as Iranian president again in the 2013 election. Hopefully at that point we will see a change in Iranian government policy, which could at least begin to bring the financial hardship being suffered by very many Iranians as a result of the standoff between their government and the West to an end. On the other hand, there is clearly some advantage to the US and Israel and their own imperialistic "ambitions" to having a hardliner in Ahmadinejad's position.

[Resurrection Man]

There is no question that Ahmadinejad has an "attitude", but most reporting on his statements tends to obscure the fact that he is by no means some kind of dictator with absolute power in Iran, that the clerics who are the real power behind his "throne" have repeatedly criticised him on many grounds including in particular his inflammatory comments on Jews and Christians, and that he will not be eligible to stand as Iranian president again in the 2013 election. Hopefully at that point we will see a change in Iranian government policy, which could at least begin to bring the financial hardship being suffered by very many Iranians as a result of the standoff between their government and the West to an end. On the other hand, there is clearly some advantage to the US and Israel and their own imperialistic "ambitions" to having a hardliner in Ahmadinejad's position.

I agree 100% with what you say.

[Resurrection Man]

TeamSaint, let's just for the sake of completeness apply some research into your statement...

This

http://www.uknetguide.co.uk/Latest-N...800316918.html

was widely quoted as a top news story. I remember quite clearly that it was the TOP news story on R3 bulletins the day it was released. it was widely reported that "nearly " 20 percent of the UK population would reach age 100. This "report" actually emanates from the DWP

Bad reporting. Pure and simple. The DWP never said that. The link you pointed at stated Nearly a fifth of people residing in the UK at the moment will live until they are at least 100, the government believes. is 100% wrong and a product of a lazy journalists fertile mind. It is NOT what the DWP said. Their statistical analysis linked to here http://statistics.dwp.gov.uk/asd/asd...y_20_50_80.pdf says that that sort of life expectancy is for someone born in 2011. Not 30% of ALL people living in the UK.

And this was the actual Press Release http://www.dwp.gov.uk/newsroom/press...wp096-11.shtml. Nothing at all like you are suggesting.

[Simon]

... one of the main problems is that "we" (i.e "The West") have allowed , and even supported Israel to develop nuclear weapons ...

Allowed? We couldn't have stopped it: their agents were so deeply involved in the programmes since inception and post WWII that they were always going to get the bomb. But remember that this was at a time when they were - legitimately - carving out a niche for themselves after a horrendous 10+ years, and when Jews had the general sympathy of much of the rest of the world.

Latterly, of course, things have changed. Israeli behaviour towards the Palestinians has brought about a rethink in the minds of many informed commentators, even those historically disposed to be supportive of Israel. Unfortunately, said rethink has apparently not yet affected enough of those who make the policy decisions in, say, the USA. Now, why do you think that is? :whistle:

BUT the sooner "we" start to act ethically and honestly the better IMV.......

You're onto a winner with this one, Mr GongGong. Stay in there!

[amateur51]

Allowed? We couldn't have stopped it: their agents were so deeply involved in the programmes since inception and post WWII that they were always going to get the bomb. But remember that this was at a time when they were - legitimately - carving out a niche for themselves after a horrendous 10+ years, and when Jews had the general sympathy of much of the rest of the world.

Latterly, of course, things have changed. Israeli behaviour towards the Palestinians has brought about a rethink in the minds of many informed commentators, even those historically disposed to be supportive of Israel. Unfortunately, said rethink has apparently not yet affected enough of those who make the policy decisions in, say, the USA. Now, why do you think that is? :whistle:

And why, if it was all so well-known and unavoidable, has the Israeli state continued to persecute Mordechai Vanunu? :whistle:

[heliocentric]

Allowed? We couldn't have stopped it

Not true. The state of Israel has been crucially dependent on US financial aid since 1949 ($101 billion and counting, of which about half is military aid). It would have been possible to threaten to pull the plug at any time, which the US regularly does with other countries in order to engineer changes in their government policies, but no US administration has ever had the stomach to do this. Technical support for the establishment of the Dimona nuclear facility came mostly from France.