Iran

[eighthobstruction]

>>>'so much for intelligent analysis and an open mind.'<<<

Ah we search and search....(but I have my weekend brain on now....)....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hdjL8WXjlGI

[heliocentric]

One would like to think that most people here would try and research into the actual facts but sadly most only selectively quote from their favourite paper or URL link of choice. Anything that feeds their pre-conceived ideas. Hidden agendas seen at every turn. Just as long as those blinkered viewpoints are reinforced.

As you say, none of us really knows what is going on. However this is a discussion forum, and in the interests of furthering discussion it would seem useful to give references to documents of one sort or another, that is to say to "research into the actual facts" as far as one can. Obviously people will choose documents which have been instrumental in forming their view of things. Nobody (except possibly yourself?) can read everything, and one's past experience of how accurately events are described and analysed in a given source informs the choice as to where first to look for guidance. Citing outside sources says nothing about whether the contributor's mind is open or closed. What is the alternative? Making it up as you go along? Not taking part in the discussion? Seeing oneself as the only "sensible" participant?

[eighthobstruction]

As you say, none of us really knows what is going on. However this is a discussion forum, and in the interests of furthering discussion it would seem useful to give references to documents of one sort or another, that is to say to "research into the actual facts" as far as one can. Obviously people will choose documents which have been instrumental in forming their view of things. Nobody (except possibly yourself?) can read everything, and one's past experience of how accurately events are described and analysed in a given source informs the choice as to where first to look for guidance. Citing outside sources says nothing about whether the contributor's mind is open or closed. What is the alternative? Making it up as you go along? Not taking part in the discussion? Seeing oneself as the only "sensible" participant?

I immediately got a vision of Nigel Lawson when I read that....oooonasty....

[Serial_Apologist]

I immediately got a vision of Nigel Lawson when I read that....oooonasty....

A vision of Nigella wold have been soooo preferable. A man's right to chews eh?

[Resurrection Man]

As you say, none of us really knows what is going on. However this is a discussion forum, and in the interests of furthering discussion it would seem useful to give references to documents of one sort or another, that is to say to "research into the actual facts" as far as one can.

I totally agree but, apart from yourself and a few others, I see little evidence of "research into the actual facts".

Obviously people will choose documents which have been instrumental in forming their view of things.

Which is precisely my point. Perhaps you should add 'choose only those' documents that subscribe to their viewpoint. Any other documents or sources quoted that dare to offer a different viewpoint from their own blinkered perspective are immediately condemned out of hand. It's a little bit like the mobs in the Arab states protesting about that film. I suspect that very few have bothered to watch it. Or in the case of this forum, read any alternative sources. It's the mob mentality that is so scary.

And I dare say that the 'mob' will descend on this post.

[teamsaint]

Or you could put people on ignore, so that you don't engage.
Incidentally I once quoted from a Daily Mail online article, on this board. I wouldn't buy the mail ever, but I got pretty taken to task by some folks on here for the place I was quoting from, not for the quality of the quote or article.
I don't know what that proves, really, though !!
suffice to say, our leaders, (ALL of them) should start cooperating, and stop threatening. And those with the real power (and the big guns)should take the lead.
It could happen.

Incidentally, mob mentality is a phrase I would apply to physical persecution, not to a bit of cyber banter.

[Flosshilde]

What is the alternative? Making it up as you go along? Not taking part in the discussion? Seeing oneself as the only "sensible" participant?

The latter is RM's preferred option.

[amateur51]

"In the Washington Post today, Richard Cohen expresses surprise that Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is "starting to make some sense" and "wax rationally". Cohen specifically cites this statement from the Iranian president last week:

"Let's even imagine that we have an atomic weapon, a nuclear weapon. What would we do with it? What intelligent person would fight 5,000 American bombs with one bomb?" "

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/oct/02/iran-nukes-deterrence

"Whatever one thinks of Iran, the signal the US has sent to the world is unmistakable: any rational government should acquire nuclear weapons. The Iranians undoubtedly watched the US treatment of two dictators who gave up their quest for nuclear weapons – Iraq's Saddam Hussein and Libya's Muammar Gaddafi – and drew the only reasoned lesson: the only way a country can protect itself from US attack, other than full-scale obeisance, is to acquire nuclear weapons. That is precisely why the US and Israel are so eager to ensure they do not"

Meanwhile what about the sanctions being employed against Iran?

Israel's finance minister, Yuval Steinitz, said Iran's economy "is not collapsing, but it is on the verge of collapse"

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/sep/30/iran-economy-verge-collapse-sanctions-israel?INTCMP=SRCH

and Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has blamed the "enemies" of his country for the sharp falls in its currency, the rial.The currency has fallen to fresh record lows against the US dollar. Iranian Industry Minister Mehdi Ghazanfari has blamed speculators for the fall.

But US officials say the slide reflects the success of US economic sanctions targeted at Iran's controversial nuclear programme

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-19798655

[heliocentric]

the success of US economic sanctions targeted at Iran's controversial nuclear programme

Washington Post, 6 September 2012:

"The tightening of U.S. banking sanctions against Iran over its nuclear program has had an impact on all sectors of the economy but is increasingly hitting vulnerable medical patients as deliveries of medicine and raw materials for Iranian pharmaceutical companies are either stopped or delayed, according to medical experts.

The effect, the experts say, is being felt by cancer patients and those being treated for complex disorders such as haemophilia, multiple sclerosis and thalassaemia, as well as transplant and kidney dialysis patients, none of whom can afford interruptions or delays in medical supplies."

[Frances_iom]

"... What intelligent person would fight 5,000 American bombs with one bomb?" "

maybe it would have easier to obtain more from the American stockpile - http://thebulletin.org/web-edition/c...2-nun-too-good

[Resurrection Man]

...... The Iranians undoubtedly watched the US treatment of two dictators who gave up their quest for nuclear weapons – Iraq's Saddam Hussein and Libya's Muammar Gaddafi – .

Bit economical with the truth. http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011...e-libya-no-fly

I agree that the Iraq invasion sponsored by Blair/Bush was based on ....well, not quite sure what. However, the support for the no-fly zone over Libya had a much more broad-based international support and so the quoted statement is rather facile.

[amateur51]

Bit economical with the truth. http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011...e-libya-no-fly

I agree that the Iraq invasion sponsored by Blair/Bush was based on ....well, not quite sure what. However, the support for the no-fly zone over Libya had a much more broad-based international support and so the quoted statement is rather facile.

Your point is that USA did not act alone in Libya? If so, I agree.

However the article's point is that the attacks came because both Iraq and Libya had given up their search for nuclear weapons which left them vulnerable in the eyes of USA and others, which is what Iran is keen to avoid.

[Resurrection Man]

Your point is that USA did not act alone in Libya? If so, I agree.

However the article's point is that the attacks came because both Iraq and Libya had given up their search for nuclear weapons which left them vulnerable in the eyes of USA and others, which is what Iran is keen to avoid.

Can we separate out Libya? What attacks? I think that the murder of the Libyan civilians by their own Govt had a little to do with the No-Fly Zone. It is disingenuous of the article to suggest otherwise.

[amateur51]

Can we separate out Libya? What attacks? I think that the murder of the Libyan civilians by their own Govt had a little to do with the No-Fly Zone. It is disingenuous of the article to suggest otherwise.

I give up.

[scottycelt]

Your point is that USA did not act alone in Libya? If so, I agree.

However the article's point is that the attacks came because both Iraq and Libya had given up their search for nuclear weapons which left them vulnerable in the eyes of USA and others, which is what Iran is keen to avoid.

But, amsey, didn't Pres Ahmadinejad also say .. 'What intelligent person would fight 5,000 American bombs with one bomb?'

So which point is correct ... the article's or that made by the hopefully intelligent and peace-luvin' President Ahmadinejad... ?