Iran

[heliocentric]

The relevance is clear to anyone with half a functioning brain cell.

I can testify to that. :laugh:

RM: The IAEA of course works closely with the UN Security Council, a rather exclusive group of nations whose five permanent members are all nuclear-armed while seeking to limit "proliferation." It might be noted that while the IAEA is certainly on Iran's case, and in the words of your link "urges" the Iranian government to "cooperate" with it further than it already does, the state of Israel absolutely refuses to have anything to do with the IAEA and is not a signatory to the NPT while Iran is. There seems to be no "urging" from the IAEA on this point. Therefore it might be regarded as legitimate of the Iranian government to complain that the IAEA is not as impartial as it claims to be, or is in your words "in bed with Them". While I wouldn't defend the attitudes or actions of the Iranian government, it seems to me obvious that the double standards they point out are quite real.

[teamsaint]

Plus Israel is armed to the teeth.

It might help relations with Iran, (and their possible threats re the Straits of Hormuz) if we stopped threatening to attack them.
I know the Iranian government is probably not nice, and tough as old boots, but I bet they know self interest when it comes calling.
Re Office of Government statistics, I STILL don't see where the 500k figure comes from....it appears to have come out of nowhere, and bear no relation to reality. Plus governments are pretty prone to fiddle statistics. No, really, they are.

[amateur51]

I can testify to that. :laugh:

RM: The IAEA of course works closely with the UN Security Council, a rather exclusive group of nations whose five permanent members are all nuclear-armed while seeking to limit "proliferation." It might be noted that while the IAEA is certainly on Iran's case, and in the words of your link "urges" the Iranian government to "cooperate" with it further than it already does, the state of Israel absolutely refuses to have anything to do with the IAEA and is not a signatory to the NPT while Iran is. There seems to be no "urging" from the IAEA on this point. Therefore it might be regarded as legitimate of the Iranian government to complain that the IAEA is not as impartial as it claims to be, or is in your words "in bed with Them". While I wouldn't defend the attitudes or actions of the Iranian government, it seems to me obvious that the double standards they point out are quite real.

Exactly, helio :ok:

If I was President Ahmadinejad or one of his clerical bosses I'd certainly at least want Israel and its allies to believe that I was in the process of developing a bomb, just for the sake of morale in the region. The real thing would be a tad more difficult to handle but it is in reality only an attempt at creating a level playing field. While Israel continues to behave as it does, it is truly a rogue state. :sadface:

[amateur51]

Plus Israel is armed to the teeth.

It might help relations with Iran, (and their possible threats re the Straits of Hormuz) if we stopped threatening to attack them.
I know the Iranian government is probably not nice, and tough as old boots, but I bet they know self interest when it comes calling.
Re Office of Government statistics, I STILL don't see where the 500k figure comes from....it appears to have come out of nowhere, and bear no relation to reality. Plus governments are pretty prone to fiddle statistics. No, really, they are.

I'm sure that RM is working night and day to provide some stats from identifiable sources, showing the workings of course, teams :winkeye:

[teamsaint]

I'm sure that RM is working night and day to provide some stats from identifiable sources, showing the workings of course, teams :winkeye:

I know he is. Not worries, though Ams, helped TS junior #2 with his revisionto a very respectable grade in his GCSE statistics....so I am on solid ground !!

[heliocentric]

It might help relations with Iran, (and their possible threats re the Straits of Hormuz) if we stopped threatening to attack them.

It's not rocket science, is it? And the attacks are more than just threatened of course: there are economic sanctions (which hurt ordinary Iranians, not the Iranian nuclear programme), assassinations of Iranian nuclear scientists by US and/or Israeli agents (which have tended to solidify Iranian people's support for their government) and alleged CIA involvement in fomenting anti-government sentiments (which is unlikely to get very far while Iranians remember what happened the last time the CIA was involved in régime change there). The principal effect these measures have is (probably intentionally) to provoke the Iranian administration into providing the US and Israel with a casus belli in a time-honoured tradition used again and again by the US government. In other words there is no will to "help relations with Iran", quite the opposite, and this is what is missing from almost all media coverage of the situation.

[teamsaint]

It's not rocket science, is it? And the attacks are more than just threatened of course: there are economic sanctions (which hurt ordinary Iranians, not the Iranian nuclear programme), assassinations of Iranian nuclear scientists by US and/or Israeli agents (which have tended to solidify Iranian people's support for their government) and alleged CIA involvement in fomenting anti-government sentiments (which is unlikely to get very far while Iranians remember what happened the last time the CIA was involved in régime change there). The principal effect these measures have is (probably intentionally) to provoke the Iranian administration into providing the US and Israel with a casus belli in a time-honoured tradition used again and again by the US government. In other words there is no will to "help relations with Iran", quite the opposite, and this is what is missing from almost all media coverage of the situation.

Wise words, Helio.

A pity that, for instance, the BBC don't highlight the assassinations a bit.

[Simon]

Your loss rather than mine, I'd say. The relevance is clear to anyone with half a functioning brain cell.

Well, clearly you and GongGong and "Heliocentric" have understood it, so I have no option but to admit that you must all be much brighter than me, as I have looked again and still can't make it out.

So I really must ask you - or one of you at least - to explain it to me.

Just to help, here are the posts in question:

I wrote: [referring to Israel's nuclear programme]

"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."

Amateur51 then replied:

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

And it's the relevance of the latter comment that I'm struggling with.

[MrGongGong]

so I have no option but to admit that you must all be much brighter than me,
.

what I don't understand is how this could be even be conceivable let alone possible ??:yikes:

[Petrushka]

It's not rocket science, is it? And the attacks are more than just threatened of course: there are economic sanctions (which hurt ordinary Iranians, not the Iranian nuclear programme), assassinations of Iranian nuclear scientists by US and/or Israeli agents (which have tended to solidify Iranian people's support for their government) and alleged CIA involvement in fomenting anti-government sentiments (which is unlikely to get very far while Iranians remember what happened the last time the CIA was involved in régime change there). The principal effect these measures have is (probably intentionally) to provoke the Iranian administration into providing the US and Israel with a casus belli in a time-honoured tradition used again and again by the US government. In other words there is no will to "help relations with Iran", quite the opposite, and this is what is missing from almost all media coverage of the situation.

:ok: Best post on this thread.

[scottycelt]

Well, we all know how awful the Americans, Israelis are compared to everyone else ... that really goes without saying, doesn't it.

But wait a minute, let's get a few facts straight. The EU has also imposed sanctions on Iran and even Iran's natural allies like Russia and China have supported the West in putting pressure on Teheran.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/49003481/ns/world_news-mideast_n_africa/t/russia-china-join-west-iran-rebuke-un-nuclear-meet/#.UF9XEoqPWP8

Is it so terribly wrong for relatively civilised nations to try and prevent a country whose leader has threatened to wipe another from the map from ever gaining nuclear weapons?

The capacity for some in the West to automatically support any frighteningly dangerous regime that the US (and in this case almost the entire world) is wholly right to be concerned about is simply mind-boggling.:erm:

[ahinton]

It's not rocket science, is it?

Without in any sense wishing to undermine the rest of what you rote, I do think that you could have phrased this bit rather differently...(!)...

[amateur51]

Well, we all know how awful the Americans, Israelis are compared to everyone else ... that really goes without saying, doesn't it.

But wait a minute, let's get a few facts straight. The EU has also imposed sanctions on Iran and even Iran's natural allies like Russia and China have supported the West in putting pressure on Teheran.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/49003481/ns/world_news-mideast_n_africa/t/russia-china-join-west-iran-rebuke-un-nuclear-meet/#.UF9XEoqPWP8

Is it so terribly wrong for relatively civilised nations to try and prevent a country whose leader has threatened to wipe another from the map from ever gaining nuclear weapons?

The capacity of some in the West to automatically support any frighteningly dangerous regime that the US (and in this case almost the entire world) is wholly right to be concerned about is simply mind-boggling.:erm:

The capacity of one south of Scotland to fail to engage with the subtleties of a complex reality are pretty boggling too, scotty.

By 'frighteningly dangerous regime' do you include Israel (if you're living in Palestine, Lebanon, Iran, Egypt etc) and do you include USA (if you're living in Iraq or Afghanistan or Pakistan)? :yikes:

And don't let's forget that lickspittle nation that runs behind the USA shouting 'And me! And me!!' :grr:

[heliocentric]

The capacity of some in the West to automatically support any frighteningly dangerous regime that the US (and in this case almost the entire world) is wholly right to be concerned about is simply mind-boggling.:erm:

I'm sorry but I must have missed the posts in this thread which express support for the Iranian régime. Perhaps you could point them out.

Perhaps though you could also list the number of times in the past two thousand years that "frighteningly dangerous" Iran has invaded or attempted to invade another country, which won't take very long, and then compare this with the number of times the "relatively civilised" nations you mention have done so in the last fifty years.

[teamsaint]

lets have a missile count.

America
Britain.
Israel.
Iran. 0
Actually just fill your own numbers in got the top three, hint, the smallest number you can use accurately is 75.

Oh sod it, it will all be live on the BBC when it kicks off, they can tell us the truth then. When its too late.
neat.