Iran

[teamsaint]

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.

I was going to put this on my missile count post, but I thought, no, lets do one thing at a time.....
Thanks Helio.

[MrGongGong]

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 of, they can tell us the truth then. When its too late.
neat.

Cue the apologists for Israel pointing out that there are some unpleasant people in the world, no shit sherlock ("a big boy did it and ran away") :yikes:

[scottycelt]

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

Are you seriously suggesting that the leaders of the USA, UK, France, Germany, Russia and China (to name but a few) are all remarkably and uniquely unified in 'failing to engage with the realities of a complex situation' as well, amsey ... ? :smiley:

[heliocentric]

They are certainly unified in wanting to own as much as possible of the oil produced in Iran, but no doubt that's just a coincidence.

[Bryn]

lets have a missile count.

Iran. 0

I will try and get my nit-pick in before the usual suspects emerge from the back woods. Iran is not that short of missiles. It's nuclear warheads it lacks.

[teamsaint]

I will try and get my nit-pick in before the usual suspects emerge from the back woods. Iran is not that short of missiles. It's nuclear warheads it lacks.

apologies.
Nukes, i meant.
We have probably sold them tens of thousands of the ordinary sort.

[amateur51]

Are you seriously suggesting that the leaders of the USA, UK, France, Germany, Russia and China (to name but a few) are all remarkably and uniquely unified in 'failing to engage with the realities of a complex situation' as well, amsey ... ? :smiley:

No scotty, I'm saying that in your smug little poke, you are :erm:

[Simon]

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?

You'll not get an answer to this, scotty! Same as I haven't had one to the question I've been asking. You'll probably get a load more insults, though. Keep trying... at least while they're on here they aren't spreading their off-the-planet stuff anywhere else. :winkeye:

[scottycelt]

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.

Well, if some are opposed to the international attempts led largely by the US and the EU to prevent Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons due to its threats to Israel and its recent wars with Iraq what are the rest of us supposed to conclude?

I didn't say Iran is 'frighteningly dangerous' I said its current regime is .. but you obviously don't agree?

When I refer to 'civilised' I'm not talking about populations but regimes. I think, unless one is a racist, we are all talking from the same hymn-sheet at least as far as that is concerned?

[heliocentric]

its recent wars with Iraq

Your command of the facts shows itself again as sketchy to say the least. The Iran-Iraq war began when Iraq invaded Iran in 1980, taking advantage of the post-revolutionary chaos in Iran to attempt to assert itself as the dominant power in the region. (Both sides were armed by the "relatively civilised" USA.)

[amateur51]

You'll not get an answer to this, scotty! Same as I haven't had one to the question I've been asking. You'll probably get a load more insults, though. Keep trying... at least while they're on here they aren't spreading their off-the-planet stuff anywhere else. :winkeye:

Such nobility of purpose, such self-sacrifice for the greater good :biggrin:

What question as yet unanswered are you asking of whom, Simon? I can't seem to find it on this thread :erm:

[teamsaint]

Well, if some are opposed to the international attempts led largely by the US and the EU to prevent Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons due to its threats to Israel and its recent wars with Iraq what are the rest of us supposed to conclude?

I didn't say Iran is 'frighteningly dangerous' I said its current regime is .. but you obviously don't agree?

When I refer to 'civilised' I'm not talking about populations but regimes. I think, unless one is a racist, we are all talking from the same hymn-sheet at least as far as that is concerned?

which regime/s is/are civilised? America? UK? Israel?

If so , do you mean civilised, as in "civilising the natives?"#
Apologies if I have misinterpreted.

[Simon]

The repetition below might help jog your memory, old chap. It was a couple of pages or so back.

I asked politely for an explanation of the relevance of your comment.

In your own time, of course.


~~~~~~

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.

[amateur51]

The repetition below might help jog your memory, old chap. It was a couple of pages or so back.

I asked politely for an explanation of the relevance of your comment.

In your own time, of course.


~~~~~~

My apologies Simon, I shall attend to it promptly :smiley:

[scottycelt]

Your command of the facts shows itself again as sketchy to say the least. The Iran-Iraq war began when Iraq invaded Iran in 1980, taking advantage of the post-revolutionary chaos in Iran to attempt to assert itself as the dominant power in the region. (Both sides were armed by the "relatively civilised" USA.)

http://www.whiteoutpress.com/articles/wach/iran-invades-iraq-to-attack-kurds/

This is threatening to become a bit like 'who committed the least atrocities in the Second World War, Adolf Hitler or 'Uncle Joe' Stalin?'

Getting straight to the point at issue today and not indulging in the usual anti-American rhetoric ... we are not talking just about the US here but virtually the whole world in its concern about the Iranian nuclear programme.

Are you saying there is really nothing to worry about and the rest of the world should just shut up and simply wait and see what happens?

If there is any world left to find out, of course ...