Iran

[Resurrection Man]

I give up.

By all means. You have to admit, though, that any of the articles such as the one quoted by you, start off with good intentions but cannot help getting drawn into the usual 'bash the USA' dogma thus casting into doubt any actual valid and sensible points that they make. Bit like old Monbigot in the Guardian. He couldn't write an article on eating cornflakes without getting into class warfare!

And in a similar vein here, on this forum. It is a constant and repetitious gripe session. Any opportunity to have yet another pop at the US/Cameron/whichever is the Mob's 'terreur du jour' is grasped.

But when it comes to other countries, such as Syria, where is the condemnation of Russia and China on this forum? Not the USA...oh, no Sirree...no fun in that.

And this extends to the US-phobic rants here in this thread. The sanctions on Iran were, and continue to be, endorsed by the Security Council which includes two other nuclear powers...Russia and China. But is there any opprobrium heaped on these two? Of course not. Not the USA...we hate the USA..we are blinkered and ignore the rest. Just as long as we can have yet another pop at the USA. :yawn:

Anyway, back to Iran. Yes, I also feel sorry for the Iranian people. But the remedy is in their Government's hands. Let in nuclear inspectors with unfettered access. Don't play silly games as they have done in the past. And yes, the Iranians might not like US nationals going through their research facilities or believe any report that they produce. But the other members of the Security Council will. Sanctions lifted. Happy Iranian people. Food on table. Medicine on the shelves.

[amateur51]

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... ?

Shock! Horror!! You don't think that both could be right, depending on the audience, do you scotty?

Dashed devious these furriners :yikes::biggrin:

[heliocentric]

Bit like old Monbigot in the Guardian. He couldn't write an article on eating cornflakes without getting into class warfare!

Highly amusing pun there, RM, makes your arguments all the more convincing. A Marxist of course would say that no human activity is untouched by the class structure of society, even eating cornflakes, although George Monbiot makes it very clear in his The Age of Consent that he is no Marxist, nor for that matter does he mention class particularly often in his regular columns, but then you probably don't read past their headlines.

But when it comes to other countries, such as Syria, where is the condemnation of Russia and China on this forum? Not the USA...oh, no Sirree...no fun in that.

Why this obsession with "condemnation"? (Scottycelt and others have it too.) I think you will search high and low to find posts on this forum which praise the actions of the Russian and Chinese governments in international affairs. But it's clear that the USA makes far more military interventions than these countries, has a larger military budget than the rest of the world put together while also being by far the largest arms supplier in the world, often to both sides in military conflicts as we saw in the Iran/Iraq war, does all this while preaching about peace and freedom, as Obama did last week at the UN, and has left a string of broken societies across the Middle East and elsewhere. None of this is controversial.

[amateur51]

By all means. You have to admit, though, that any of the articles such as the one quoted by you, start off with good intentions but cannot help getting drawn into the usual 'bash the USA' dogma thus casting into doubt any actual valid and sensible points that they make. Bit like old Monbigot in the Guardian.He couldn't write an article on eating cornflakes without getting into class warfare!

Well you're a pretty good axe grinder yourself, RM :winkeye:

[scottycelt]

Shock! Horror!! You don't think that both could be right, depending on the audience, do you scotty?

Dashed devious these furriners :yikes::biggrin:

Well, they are most certainly contradictory statements, one made on behalf of the regime by the very man himself, and the other given as an excuse for that regime's widely-suspected desire to attain weapons of mass destruction.

If the President of Iran thinks it would show a decided lack of intelligence to build a bomb to combat the mighty arsenal of the USA (every even half-intelligent person would surely agree with him on that wholeheartedly) why, then, would he seek to build one and then inevitably more? It is obviously not any alleged threats and bullying from the USA that is the reason as is claimed by others .. the top bloke himself has already said it's not ... so why would the Iranian Government wish to spend money it can ill-afford on what is already admitted would be a virtual suicide mission in directly taking on the USA?

On this occasion I tend to accept the word of the President of Iran. It is not the USA he is particularly concerned about, but rather a possible (sadly rather likely) future confrontation with another country much nearer to home with its name also beginning with 'I', and which he has previously threatened to wipe out.

The problem for the Iranian regime is that the end result would not be very different for the combatants, and indeed the rest of the world, in either case.

So the President's sweet, comforting words for the gullible 'audiences 'in the world are hardly reassuring for those with just average intelligence who can see through his deliberately dangerously misleading and cynical rhetoric, even if the actual statement itself is not false.

[amateur51]

So the President's sweet, comforting words for the gullible 'audiences 'in the world are hardly reassuring for those with just average intelligence who can see through his deliberately dangerously misleading and cynical rhetoric, even if the actual statement itself is not false.

You're not suggesting that he is unique among the world's politicians in this respect, I hope scotty :erm::smiley:

[heliocentric]

And

Any opportunity to have yet another pop at the US/Cameron/whichever is the Mob's 'terreur du jour' is grasped.

What is being criticised here, by myself and others, is the violent and rapacious nature of imperialism. Currently the main perpetrator is the USA, whoever the frontman might happen to be (I can see there are clear policy differences between the current presidential candidates there which would affect the lives of American citizens, but as far as foreign and military policy is concerned the differences seem to be almost nonexistent). As for Cameron he is beneath contempt for all kinds of reasons, but so was Blair before him. This is not about individual personalities or political parties or nations but about a global system which is rotten to the core.

[amateur51]

And



What is being criticised here, by myself and others, is the violent and rapacious nature of imperialism. Currently the main perpetrator is the USA, whoever the frontman might happen to be (I can see there are clear policy differences between the current presidential candidates there which would affect the lives of American citizens, but as far as foreign and military policy is concerned the differences seem to be almost nonexistent). As for Cameron he is beneath contempt for all kinds of reasons, but so was Blair before him. This is not about individual personalities or political parties or nations but about a global system which is rotten to the core.

Exactly, helio! :ok:

[scottycelt]

You're not suggesting that he is unique among the world's politicians in this respect, I hope scotty :erm::smiley:

Not at all, amsey ... but he might be thankfully rather unusual in threatening to destroy another country whilst almost certainly trying to build a nuclear arsenal behind the scenes.

We couldn't even accuse Nick Clegg of that, now, could we? :smiley:

[amateur51]

Not at all, amsey ... but he might be thankfully rather unusual in threatening to destroy another country whilst almost certainly trying to build a nuclear arsenal behind the scenes.

We couldn't even accuse Nick Clegg of that, now, could we? :smiley:

We've covered this ground before scotty - you're in danger of getting tedious :winkeye:

[Bryn]

When are you 'right-thinking' folk going to take note of the fact that the 'threat to destroy Israel' was based on poor translation.

For all its other weaknesses, the article here deals with the issue itself quite well.

[scottycelt]

We've covered this ground before scotty - you're in danger of getting tedious :winkeye:

Is that forum code which means you're really stuck for any sort of sensible answer, amsey ... ? :laugh:

[scottycelt]

When are you 'right-thinking' folk going to take note of the fact that the 'threat to destroy Israel' was based on poor translation.

For all its other weaknesses, the article here deals with the issue itself quite well.

Not well enough ... he repeated the threat at the UN the very day a member here helpfully provided the same link ... I'm not really into the rhetoric of either the Right or Left, I tend to prefer to deal in Facts. :winkeye:

[amateur51]

Is that forum code which means you're really stuck for any sort of sensible answer, amsey ... ? :laugh:

No scotty, it means we've covered the multiple potential meanings of what Ahmadinejad said/meant about Israel and you obviously didn't read it otherwise you wouldn't be trotting out this line again. Generous to a fault, that's me :winkeye:

[amateur51]

Not well enough ... he repeated the threat at the UN the very day a member here helpfully provided the same link ... I'm not really into the rhetoric of either the Right or Left, I tend to prefer to deal in Facts. :winkeye:

I would have thought that someone committed to a faith which has been transmitted via a book written by many authors in other languages across many centuries would appreciate the problems of intention, translation and interpretation, scotty. :erm: