Iran

[scottycelt]

I don't regard what has been said about US administrations as "venom" but a presentation of facts. I also see that at no point has anyone expressed support for the Iranian régime and I wonder why you imagine that they have.

The Iranian leader has threatened to wipe Israel from the map. Yes, of course, there are plenty of other dangerous parts of the world but I know of no other extreme threat such as this by one country regarding another and both India and Pakistan are aware of the unthinkable consequences of a nuclear confrontation as were the US and the old Soviet Union in recent times.

World leaders are worried about Iran precisely because they realise the fanatical nature of the regime. We don't have to consider the rest of the world perfect to understand this and to earnestly hope it is successful in preventing Iran from attaining nuclear weapons.

You say that you wonder why I think anyone has expressed support for the Iranian regime. With one or two exceptions, nobody here has actually condemned it and in fact the thrust of your main argument appears to be that the Iranian regime is the victim of American and israeli provocation (and even aggression). Not a single word about that infamous threat to destroy Israel, which all the main world leaders from the US to China are taking very seriously indeed, whatever their politics. That is why they all consider some action is necessary to avoid another possible holocaust which could otherwise be just around the corner.

Unless you are prepared to accept that the current Iranian regime is itself responsible for the current crisis one can only assume that you and the others are in some way sympathetic to that regime. I have already invited you to condemn the regime which you have ignored. All your criticism has been directed at the West and now it appears the rest of the world as well. Iran, you claim, is merely the victim.

Is that not, therefore, a fair and reasonable assumption and basic summary of your actual position?

[MrGongGong]

So in Scottyworld it's "with us or against us"
which , I recently discovered does have a relation to the church :winkeye: (Mark 9:40)

[amateur51]

The Iranian leader has threatened to wipe Israel from the map. Yes, of course, there are plenty of other dangerous parts of the world but I know of no other extreme threat such as this by one country regarding another and both India and Pakistan are aware of the unthinkable consequences of a nuclear confrontation as were the US and the old Soviet Union in recent times.

World leaders are worried about Iran precisely because they realise the fanatical nature of the regime. We don't have to consider the rest of the world perfect to understand this and to earnestly hope it is successful in preventing Iran from attaining nuclear weapons.

You say that you wonder why I think anyone has expressed support for the Iranian regime. With one or two exceptions, nobody here has actually condemned it and in fact the thrust of your main argument appears to be that the Iranian regime is the victim of American and israeli provocation (and even aggression). Not a single word about that infamous threat to destroy Israel, which all the main world leaders from the US to China are taking very seriously indeed, whatever their politics. That is why they all consider some action is necessary to avoid another possible holocaust which could otherwise be just around the corner.

Unless you are prepared to accept that the current Iranian regime is itself responsible for the current crisis one can only assume that you and the others are in some way sympathetic to that regime. I have already invited you to condemn the regime which you have ignored. All your criticism has been directed at the West and now it appears the rest of the world as well. Iran, you claim, is merely the victim.

Is that not, therefore, a fair and reasonable assumption and basic summary of your actual position?

Stand by, scotty's going off the rails.

Anyone who has explored the issue of Iran's threat to 'wipe Israel from the map' knows that this is in fact mired in controversy over translation of what Ahmadinejad said on this occasion.

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

[amateur51]

So in Scottyworld it's "with us or against us"
which , I recently discovered does have a relation to the church :winkeye: (Mark 9:40)

Steady MrGG, our glorious leader may regard that as being 'boring' :whistle::smiley:

[scottycelt]

Stand by, scotty's going off the rails.

Anyone who has explored the issue of Iran's threat to 'wipe Israel from the map' knows that this is in fact mired in controversy over translation of what Ahmadinejad said on this occasion.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mahmoud...jad_and_Israel

Yeah, and the holocaust never happened either ... do you go along with your new-found friend AhMADinejad over that as well, amsey?:erm:

[amateur51]

Yeah, and the holocaust never happened either ... do you go along with your new-found friend AhMADinejad over that as well, amsey?:erm:

Do I disregard everything you say, scotty? :biggrin:

You're the one with a track record for consistent devotion after all - oooops I hear the leader's Tuk-Tuk :yikes:

[heliocentric]

Anyone who has explored the issue of Iran's threat to 'wipe Israel from the map' knows that this is in fact mired in controversy over translation of what Ahmadinejad said on this occasion.

Quite. Unquestioning acceptance of the official line once again.

Let's have a quick look at "fanatical régimes" for a moment. How is one to define a fanatical régime? One which appears to base its legitimacy and foreign relations on irrational religious dogma, maybe? That would certainly include Iran, but it would also include Israel. One of these fanatical régimes is defended (in "lockstep" as Obama put it recently) by the the most militarily aggressive power presently on the planet, and the one with most weapons. The other is under open threat from that same power, which has shown its willingness to destroy the infrastructure of entire countries in order to get what it wants, and has within the living memory of many Iranians removed an elected government and replaced it with a brutal dictator, while constantly proselytising about "freedom" and "democracy". So yes, I think it is quite legitimate to regard Iran as a victim in this regard.

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".

[amateur51]

Quite. Unquestioning acceptance of the official line once again.

Let's have a quick look at "fanatical régimes" for a moment. How is one to define a fanatical régime? One which appears to base its legitimacy and foreign relations on irrational religious dogma, maybe? That would certainly include Iran, but it would also include Israel. One of these fanatical régimes is defended (in "lockstep" as Obama put it recently) by the the most militarily aggressive power presently on the planet, and the one with most weapons. The other is under open threat from that same power, which has shown its willingness to destroy the infrastructure of entire countries in order to get what it wants, and has within the living memory of many Iranians removed an elected government and replaced it with a brutal dictator, while constantly proselytising about "freedom" and "democracy". So yes, I think it is quite legitimate to regard Iran as a victim in this regard.

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".

Consistently lucid posts helio - many thanks :ale::bubbly:

[Resurrection Man]

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

Better some facts than unfounded and emotive rhetoric that passes for debate in some quarters :winkeye:

Iran is not exactly unarmed. 40 Mig-29's are not to be sneezed at. My view is that both Israel and Iran are equally as culpable in arriving at where we are now. Aided and abetted by others such as the US and Russia. Oh, the Chinese as well, in the case of Iran.

[amateur51]

Better some facts than unfounded and emotive rhetoric that passes for debate in some quarters :winkeye:

Iran is not exactly unarmed. 40 Mig-29's are not to be sneezed at. My view is that both Israel and Iran are equally as culpable in arriving at where we are now. Aided and abetted by others such as the US and Russia. Oh, the Chinese as well, in the case of Iran.

Bloomin' 'eck RM - I can agree with that :ok: You forget Mr Blair of course (but that's easy to do) :winkeye:

[Resurrection Man]

......
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?

.....

Actually, Scotty, there is some debate about the veracity of this statement...http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mahmoud...jad_and_Israel ...although with the anonymity of Wiki it could well have been written by Friends-of-Iran'R'Us...hard to say. It does seem to be well researched....well, it's got a lot of references!

EDIT: Sorry, Ams, posted before I saw you had already referred to this.

[Resurrection Man]

......... or means to deliver them.

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?

And they won't have any time soon, because all the scientists who just might make it happen,are being killed by the west.
......

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

[Resurrection Man]

Sorry, can someone here remind me (my memory's a bit hazy on this) but has any government in the world actually authorized the use of a nuclear weapon or two in anger? No, I'm sure none would ever have resorted to such terrorism. :oh:

Your point is ?

[Resurrection Man]

My apologies for missing this Simon.

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

In 1986 Mordechai Vanunu, an Israeli nuclear technician appalled by the proliferation of nuclear weapons, gave British press (Sunday Times principally)details of the Israeli nuclear programme. The subsequent events are clearly laid out in the wikipedia article below.

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

My point is that if the Israeli nuclear programme was as unstoppable as you assert why did Vanunu put his life and freedom in peril in this way and why has Israel continued to persecute him to this day? My conclusion is that Vanunu's publicising of Israel's nuclear programme might have caused the USA and UN IAEA to put pressure on Israel.

I was proposing that perhaps things were not as clear cut and resolved as you appeared to be suggesting.

I hope that's clear now

But I'm sure you'll come back if it's not :smiley:

Crikey, Ams. You're agreeing with me and now I find myself agreeing with you ! :oh:

[Resurrection Man]

.....There is presently as much evidence of a current Iranian nuclear programme as there was in 2003 of an Iraqi chemical weapons programme, that is to say none. ......

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.