jjsaint Posted 13 January, 2012 Share Posted 13 January, 2012 Still not convinced, sorry. Iranian government sources denied that Ahmadinejad issued any sort of threat. On 20 February 2006, Iran's foreign minister Manouchehr Mottaki told a news conference: "How is it possible to remove a country from the map? He is talking about the regime. We do not recognize legally this regime." In other words, they do not wish to remove the country from a map. That is, there will still be a geographic land mass where Israel used to be. However, it will no longer be populated by 'the current regime', which I take to mean Israelis in general as opposed to Netanyahu's cabinet. I fully accept that 'wipe off the map' is an English phrase which has no direct Farsi translation. What I do not accept is the supposition that the original quote was substantially different. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pap Posted 13 January, 2012 Author Share Posted 13 January, 2012 Point is though Pap, the thread title is "Is a US Led War with Iran inevitable" Not "Should the US Declare war on Iran" Looking at the US Political scene, knowing that it is all about point scoring for another year or so, then the Rhetoric will keep being cranked up over there. No candidate will get a nomination if he ignores "The Iran problem" Then it comes down to Sabre rattling, the Iranians already held "a tad aggressive" set of Exercises in the Straits of Hormuz & threatened to blow a US Carrier out the water if it came back. Unfortunately, as with many other threads, the I am right has taken it off topic. War with Iran is insane, but it is highly possible, and the Yanks have already made one huge mistake (Iran Air) and it will kick off if they do it again. How long will Iran put up with Car Bombs before they escalate by using their Proxies to do something in Israel? The spiral started years ago. Both sides have to be very careful I happen to think that war with Iran is on the cards, Phil - and have thought so for some time. The only potential Presidential nominee that is anti-war is Ron Paul, and I'm sorry to say that I use the word potential in its broadest possible sense. He's pulling impressive numbers for a Republican, but by time the media machine is done with him, I doubt he'll secure the nomination. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
buctootim Posted 13 January, 2012 Share Posted 13 January, 2012 Still not convinced, sorry. Iranian government sources denied that Ahmadinejad issued any sort of threat. On 20 February 2006, Iran's foreign minister Manouchehr Mottaki told a news conference: "How is it possible to remove a country from the map? He is talking about the regime. We do not recognize legally this regime." In other words, they do not wish to remove the country from a map. That is, there will still be a geographic land mass where Israel used to be. However, it will no longer be populated by 'the current regime', which I take to mean Israelis in general as opposed to Netanyahu's cabinet. I fully accept that 'wipe off the map' is an English phrase which has no direct Farsi translation. What I do not accept is the supposition that the original quote was substantially different. British politicians say similar things to each other most weeks in Prime ministers question time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pap Posted 13 January, 2012 Author Share Posted 13 January, 2012 Still not convinced, sorry. Iranian government sources denied that Ahmadinejad issued any sort of threat. On 20 February 2006, Iran's foreign minister Manouchehr Mottaki told a news conference: "How is it possible to remove a country from the map? He is talking about the regime. We do not recognize legally this regime." In other words, they do not wish to remove the country from a map. That is, there will still be a geographic land mass where Israel used to be. However, it will no longer be populated by 'the current regime', which I take to mean Israelis in general as opposed to Netanyahu's cabinet. I fully accept that 'wipe off the map' is an English phrase which has no direct Farsi translation. What I do not accept is the supposition that the original quote was substantially different. “Iran is not a threat to any country, and is not in any way a people of intimidation and aggression.” "Weapons research is in no way part of Iran’s program. Even with regard to the Zionist regime, our path to a solution is elections." Clear enough for you? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sheaf Saint Posted 13 January, 2012 Share Posted 13 January, 2012 Still not convinced, sorry. Iranian government sources denied that Ahmadinejad issued any sort of threat. On 20 February 2006, Iran's foreign minister Manouchehr Mottaki told a news conference: "How is it possible to remove a country from the map? He is talking about the regime. We do not recognize legally this regime." In other words, they do not wish to remove the country from a map. That is, there will still be a geographic land mass where Israel used to be. However, it will no longer be populated by 'the current regime', which I take to mean Israelis in general as opposed to Netanyahu's cabinet.. How do you arrive at that conclusion exactly? If you look a little further down the wiki page (cited, in case you are dubious of the authenticity of it)... At a news conference on January 14, 2006, Ahmadinejad stated his speech had been exaggerated and misinterpreted.[26] "There is no new policy, they created a lot of hue and cry over that. It is clear what we say: Let the Palestinians participate in free elections and they will say what they want." Speaking at a D-8 summit meeting in July 2008, he denied that his country would ever instigate military action. Instead he claimed that "the Zionist regime" in Israel would eventually collapse on its own.[27][28] Asked if he objected to the government of Israel or Jewish people, he said that "creating an objection against the Zionists doesn't mean that there are objections against the Jewish". He added that Jews lived in Iran and were represented in the country's parliament.[27] In a September 2008 interview Ahmadinejad was asked: "If the Palestinian leaders agree to a two-state solution, could Iran live with an Israeli state?" He replied: If they [the Palestinians] want to keep the Zionists, they can stay ... Whatever the people decide, we will respect it. I mean, it's very much in correspondence with our proposal to allow Palestinian people to decide through free referendums.[29] Interviewer Juan Gonzalez called the reply "a tiny opening".[29] Another observer however dubbed it an "astonishing" admission "that Iran might agree to the existence of the state of Israel," and a "softening" of Ahmadinejad's "long-standing, point-blank anti-Israeli stance". Australian-born British human rights activist Peter Tatchell asked whether the statement reflected opportunism on Ahmadinejad's part, or an openness by Iran "to options more moderate than his reported remarks about wiping the Israeli state off the map."[30 But of course, this doesn't get reported on western news channels because it doesn't have the same sensationalist impact as claiming that he wants to wipe Israel off the map. None of this, to me anyway, paints a picture of a madman who wants to engage in genocide. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saintandy666 Posted 13 January, 2012 Share Posted 13 January, 2012 Tbh, if we really want to 'make a difference', the first thing we need to do is get off our addiction to oil and get on to other sources of power like nuclear(thorium or uranium) or tidal or wind or solar(a mix of them all really). Then we would be able to take actions without fear of being held to ransom. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jjsaint Posted 13 January, 2012 Share Posted 13 January, 2012 Tbh, if we really want to 'make a difference', the first thing we need to do is get off our addiction to oil and get on to other sources of power like nuclear(thorium or uranium) or tidal or wind or solar(a mix of them all really). Then we would be able to take actions without fear of being held to ransom. Absolutely. AT any rate the oil will eventually run out, which will be interesting for the Middle East. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jjsaint Posted 13 January, 2012 Share Posted 13 January, 2012 How do you arrive at that conclusion exactly? If you look a little further down the wiki page (cited, in case you are dubious of the authenticity of it) The problem with Wikipedia is not the lack of citings, but the use of the citings (often second- or third- hand and out of context) and the quality of the original material. It looks to me as if he said what he said, then (for whatever reason) softened his approach. To be honest I don't think there will be a war with Iran and the West. I think the current policy of assassinations will keep the nuclear programme at bay, and eventually an earthquake (they are not, after all, unknown to the region) will finish it off, with massive loss of life but niothing we can do about that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aintforever Posted 13 January, 2012 Share Posted 13 January, 2012 There is something wrong with some of you, if you cannot see that Iran fancies itself as a regional superpower in the Middle East, throwing its weight around in the national interest in the same way as you howl that the US does globally, only with a medieval barbaric twist as defined by the fundamental Islam ideals that govern the nation. Now that Iraq , Egypt and Syria are in turmoil and weakened, Iran feels this is its time to make its move. If you lot are comfortable with having the world economy held to ransom by religious whack-jobs, so be it. Dont expect everyone else to share your opinion. Iran has every right to be a regional superpower, and it's not them who have been throwing their weight around recently. Iran also has every right to be aggressive towards the UK and the US given the history between the countries and the fact that two of it's neighbouring countries have been invaded. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alpine_saint Posted 13 January, 2012 Share Posted 13 January, 2012 Wow, so much effort in the Ministry of Truth to make the US out to be the aggressor.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jjsaint Posted 13 January, 2012 Share Posted 13 January, 2012 Iran has every right to be a regional superpower, and it's not them who have been throwing their weight around recently. Iran also has every right to be aggressive towards the UK and the US given the history between the countries and the fact that two of it's neighbouring countries have been invaded. And the US/UK have every right to defend themselves, and strike first if need be. Iran are neither wrong not right, the West is neither wrong nor right. However is there is a war, I would prefer to win. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aintforever Posted 13 January, 2012 Share Posted 13 January, 2012 And the US/UK have every right to defend themselves, and strike first if need be. Iran are neither wrong not right, the West is neither wrong nor right. However is there is a war, I would prefer to win. Sorry, I must have missed the bit where Iran invaded two countries next to the US or UK. How exactly are they threatening us - by having their own defence capability? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thedelldays Posted 13 January, 2012 Share Posted 13 January, 2012 And the US/UK have every right to defend themselves, and strike first if need be. Iran are neither wrong not right, the West is neither wrong nor right. However is there is a war, I would prefer to win. probably the most sensible answer to all this know it all guff..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alpine_saint Posted 13 January, 2012 Share Posted 13 January, 2012 Iran has every right to be a regional superpower, and it's not them who have been throwing their weight around recently. Must have imagined the threats to the John C. Stennis and the Straits of Hormuz, then...... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alpine_saint Posted 13 January, 2012 Share Posted 13 January, 2012 Sorry, I must have missed the bit where Iran invaded two countries next to the US or UK. How exactly are they threatening us - by having their own defence capability? Yes, because Iran arent interfering in the sovereignty of Iraq or Syria at all, are they ??? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thedelldays Posted 13 January, 2012 Share Posted 13 January, 2012 Sorry, I must have missed the bit where Iran invaded two countries next to the US or UK. How exactly are they threatening us - by having their own defence capability? you just don't get it.....iran will effect you without having to bomb your house.......regardless of what the UK or the US have done years ago..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thedelldays Posted 13 January, 2012 Share Posted 13 January, 2012 Must have imagined the threats to the John C. Stennis and the Straits of Hormuz, then...... indeed...we have 'units' patrolling the straits to escort UK shipping through.....the threat is as real as it gets...just not reported Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Verbal Posted 13 January, 2012 Share Posted 13 January, 2012 indeed...we have 'units' patrolling the straits to escort UK shipping through.....the threat is as real as it gets...just not reported Which is again the management of risk, obviously. The West has no interest in war with Iran, despite the rhetoric from the US primaries. And it's clearly in the West's interests for the internal opposition to succeed in regime change. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sheaf Saint Posted 13 January, 2012 Share Posted 13 January, 2012 Wow, so much effort in the Ministry of Truth to make the US out to be the aggressor.... What's the matter with you Alpine? Just because your insistence that Iran is responsible for the rise of Islamic fundamentalism has been shown up by numerous posters to be catastrophically wrong, you seem to now want to paint us all out to be hate-filled anti-semites. You pop up every now and again to fire a broadside at anybody who is reasonable enough to treat what we are spoon-fed by the media with a healthy degree of scepticism, you don't provide any evidence whatsoever to reinforce your own viewpoint, and as a result you continue to make yourself look more and more foolish. How about this.... An admission less than a week ago from the US defence secretary that Iran is NOT attempting to build a bomb, yet we are still expected to fall in line and accept their view that Iran is an international agressor that must be stopped at all costs. If that isn't enough to convince you then I really don't know what else will. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thedelldays Posted 13 January, 2012 Share Posted 13 January, 2012 Bexy...Iran is clearly building a Nuke....rightly or wrongly.... however, rightly or wrongly, we have a MASSIVE vested interest in the region (obvious reason) and that interest extends to me and you (like it or not) the UK and our allies would be utterly foolish not to look after OUR interests in the region...and indeed, not lets those who we rely on (rightly or wrongly) get utterly intimidated by a regional aggressor (again, depends how you see it) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alpine_saint Posted 13 January, 2012 Share Posted 13 January, 2012 What's the matter with you Alpine? Just because your insistence that Iran is responsible for the rise of Islamic fundamentalism has been shown up by numerous posters to be catastrophically wrong, you seem to now want to paint us all out to be hate-filled anti-semites. You pop up every now and again to fire a broadside at anybody who is reasonable enough to treat what we are spoon-fed by the media with a healthy degree of scepticism, you don't provide any evidence whatsoever to reinforce your own viewpoint, and as a result you continue to make yourself look more and more foolish. How about this.... An admission less than a week ago from the US defence secretary that Iran is NOT attempting to build a bomb, yet we are still expected to fall in line and accept their view that Iran is an international agressor that must be stopped at all costs. If that isn't enough to convince you then I really don't know what else will. Why have Iran built enrichment facilities to go above the 5% needed for power stations and 20% for medical isotopes, and buried them several hundred f**king feet below ground ??? Oh, and the IAEA and UN are bunch of lying f**king c**ts to boot. You are too keen to lap up those bits of the media that fit your "Bastard America" agenda.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Verbal Posted 13 January, 2012 Share Posted 13 January, 2012 Bexy...Iran is clearly building a Nuke....rightly or wrongly.... however, rightly or wrongly, we have a MASSIVE vested interest in the region (obvious reason) and that interest extends to me and you (like it or not) the UK and our allies would be utterly foolish not to look after OUR interests in the region...and indeed, not lets those who we rely on (rightly or wrongly) get utterly intimidated by a regional aggressor (again, depends how you see it) I think the point many have made on here is that 'looking after our interests' has, historically for the West, meant the equivalent of setting your own hair on fire and trying to put it out with a hammer (The CIA's coup against Mossadeq in 1953 being just one example) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aintforever Posted 13 January, 2012 Share Posted 13 January, 2012 we have a MASSIVE vested interest in the region (obvious reason) In other words, because we want to control the region's oil for our own needs they shouldn't have the capability to do anything about it because we dion't like them? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thedelldays Posted 13 January, 2012 Share Posted 13 January, 2012 In other words, because we want to control the region's oil for our own needs they shouldn't have the capability to do anything about it because we dion't like them? in other words...as long as you don't want to pay even more than the ridiculous price at the petrol pump....or your monthly fuel bill....or the price of your bread etc etc.....the world revolves around oil...... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alpine_saint Posted 13 January, 2012 Share Posted 13 January, 2012 I think the point many have made on here is that 'looking after our interests' has, historically for the West, meant the equivalent of setting your own hair on fire and trying to put it out with a hammer (The CIA's coup against Mossadeq in 1953 being just one example) Second example today of desperate lefties scratching around for examples from over 60 years ago... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alpine_saint Posted 13 January, 2012 Share Posted 13 January, 2012 in other words...as long as you don't want to pay even more than the ridiculous price at the petrol pump....or your monthly fuel bill....or the price of your bread etc etc.....the world revolves around oil...... Like explaining colours to a blind man, innit ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Verbal Posted 13 January, 2012 Share Posted 13 January, 2012 Second example today of desperate lefties scratching around for examples from over 60 years ago... Pardon? And by what measure am I a 'leftie'? Why don't you stop slinging insults and try and engage sensibly in the debate. You clearly don't think that the CIA's actions in 1953 had any lasting consequences worth considering. The reality is that they led directly to where we are today. I can offer you a copious reading list of peer-reviewed history books to confirm this if you like, but I have the feeling that, in your case, it'll be a complete waste of time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Verbal Posted 13 January, 2012 Share Posted 13 January, 2012 in other words...as long as you don't want to pay even more than the ridiculous price at the petrol pump....or your monthly fuel bill....or the price of your bread etc etc.....the world revolves around oil...... And America's stupid neo-Con adventure in Iraq had the consequence of what with the price of oil exactly? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alpine_saint Posted 13 January, 2012 Share Posted 13 January, 2012 (edited) Pardon? And by what measure am I a 'leftie'? Why don't you stop slinging insults and try and engage sensibly in the debate. You clearly don't think that the CIA's actions in 1953 had any lasting consequences worth considering. The reality is that they led directly to where we are today. I can offer you a copious reading list of peer-reviewed history books to confirm this if you like, but I have the feeling that, in your case, it'll be a complete waste of time. Who gives a sh*t ? F**k the blame culture (its the main thing that marks you with the "leftie" label you object to). Blame culture solves NOTHING. I care about today; fuel prices not inflated by war or blackmail and rogue states driven by medieval religious lunacy not acquiring nuclear-armed ICBMs. How you going to change the past and save the future by pointing a finger and saying "its your fault" ? Edited 13 January, 2012 by alpine_saint Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sheaf Saint Posted 13 January, 2012 Share Posted 13 January, 2012 (edited) Second example today of desperate lefties scratching around for examples from over 60 years ago... Or you could look at it from the viewpoint of learning lessons from history and ensuring those mistakes are not repeated. The last century is rife with examples of US-led imperialism (for want of a better word) causing global problems where none existed before. What makes you think anything is any different now? Take one example - the US-backing of Suharto's military coup in Indonesia. He went on to orchestrate the murder of millions of his own people and pocket something in the region of $30bn of loans from the world bank while consigning huge numbers of people to poverty. But we didn't do anything to stop him because he opened up the markets and allowed global corporations to exploit the workforce for their own gain. Free market at any cost. In the late 90s when the US and UK governments were bleating on about the potential human rights disaster in Kosovo, Suharto was committing atrocities against his own people while we sat back and did nothing - simply because he was using hardware sold to him by British arms companies. Can't upset one of our best customers by threatening him with military intervention now can we? Why did this not receive the same level of press coverage as Kosovo? Because that's the way those in charge wanted it - making sure that only what they decide should be reported makes it into the mainstream media. I know you will claim this is all irrelevant but the point I am making is that the US/UK governments have shown in very recent history what they are capable of when it comes to aggressive foreign-policy, and I have seen and read nothing to convince me that anything has changed. Edited 13 January, 2012 by Sheaf Saint Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alpine_saint Posted 13 January, 2012 Share Posted 13 January, 2012 Or you could look at it from the viewpoint of learning lessons from history and ensuring those mistakes are not repeated. The last century is rife with examples of US-led imperialism (for want of a better word) causing global problems where none existed before. What makes you think anything is any different now? Take one example - the US-backing of Suharto's military coup in Indonesia. He went on to orchestrate the murder of millions of his own people and pocket something in the region of $30bn of loans from the world bank while consigning huge numbers of people to poverty. But we didn't do anything to stop him because he opened up the markets and allowed global corporations to exploit the workforce for their own gain. Free market at any cost. In the late 90s when the US and UK governments were bleating on about the potential human rights disaster in Kosovo, Suharto was committing atrocities against his own people while we sat back and did nothing - simply because he was using hardware sold to him by British arms companies. Can't upset one of our best customers by threatening him with military intervention now can we? Why did this not receive the same level of press coverage as Kosovo? Because that's the way those in charge wanted it - making sure that only what they decide should be reported makes it into the mainstream media. I know you will claim this is all irrelevant but the point I am making is that the US/UK governments have shown in very recent history what they are capable of when it comes to aggressive foreign-policy, and I have seen and read nothing to convince me that anything has changed. So it must be the case here too. Thanks for showing your opinion is coloured by an irrational obsession.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Verbal Posted 13 January, 2012 Share Posted 13 January, 2012 Who gives a sh*t ? F**k the blame culture (its the main thing that marks you with the "leftie" label you object to). Blame culture solves NOTHING. I care about today; fuel prices not inflated by war or blackmail and rogue states driven by medieval religious lunacy not acquiring nuclear-armed ICBMs. How you going to change the past and save the future by pointing a finger and saying "its your fault" ? I can only imagine you are struggling with the English language. I'm not blaming anyone. How on earth do you get from my comments to your nonsense? The point is we are where we are TODAY because of 1953 and the collapsing dominoes of history ever since. you actually highlighted the bit where I said that earlier and then applied your very, very odd way of ignoring it altogether. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alpine_saint Posted 13 January, 2012 Share Posted 13 January, 2012 I can only imagine you are struggling with the English language. I'm not blaming anyone. How on earth do you get from my comments to your nonsense? The point is we are where we are TODAY because of 1953 and the collapsing dominoes of history ever since. you actually highlighted the bit where I said that earlier and then applied your very, very odd way of ignoring it altogether. Definite lack of self awareness going down... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Verbal Posted 13 January, 2012 Share Posted 13 January, 2012 Definite lack of awareness going down... Nope. You really have lost a grasp of simple English. I give up. You're a waste of time, sadly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Window Cleaner Posted 13 January, 2012 Share Posted 13 January, 2012 In any case sanctions are beginning to bite hard into the Iranian economy and with another turn of the screw coming up on or about the 23rd January I think we'll be seeing some real results on the streets of Tehran fairly shortly.If you believe reports the rial is fkd and Iranians are scrambling for dollars even at a 20% mark up,could be just propaganda though. I guess we'll have to see just what effects the new measures bring and what Khameini will do about it because he's the only man that decides in Iran. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sheaf Saint Posted 13 January, 2012 Share Posted 13 January, 2012 So it must be the case here too. Thanks for showing your opinion is coloured by an irrational obsession.... Just how do you arrive at that conclusion Alps. Serious question - How do you get the idea that I have an irrational obsession? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alpine_saint Posted 13 January, 2012 Share Posted 13 January, 2012 Nope. You really have lost a grasp of simple English. I give up. You're a waste of time, sadly. Christ, you even used the word "point" to point the finger !! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pap Posted 13 January, 2012 Author Share Posted 13 January, 2012 Just how do you arrive at that conclusion Alps. Serious question - How do you get the idea that I have an irrational obsession? I have sadly come to the conclusion that Alps is on a wind-up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alpine_saint Posted 13 January, 2012 Share Posted 13 January, 2012 (edited) I have sadly come to the conclusion that Alps is on a wind-up. Not quite true. I am taking the p*ss and laughing at a few people on this thread with their earnest pre-orgasmic frenzied finger-pointing at the US (and now the UK I noticed..), but I am not seeking to annoy them. Its especially entertaining when they write great soliliquys to define their position then totally ignore any point posted in return that blows a hole in their argument below the waterline. I find their earnestness to their cause of World Socialism quite endearing actually. Edited 13 January, 2012 by alpine_saint Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
buctootim Posted 13 January, 2012 Share Posted 13 January, 2012 you just don't get it.....iran will effect you without having to bomb your house.......regardless of what the UK or the US have done years ago..... By 'years ago' I take it you mean 'currently'? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
buctootim Posted 13 January, 2012 Share Posted 13 January, 2012 Not quite true. I am taking the p*ss and laughing at a few people on this thread with their earnest pre-orgasmic frenzied finger-pointing at the US (and now the UK I noticed..), but I am not seeking to annoy them. I find their earnestness to their cause of World Socialism quite endearing actually. Wow. Adding the stupid Dune lefty jibes in response to any arguments you dont have any answers to just make your position look even more risible. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sheaf Saint Posted 13 January, 2012 Share Posted 13 January, 2012 Not quite true. So partially true then. I am taking the p*ss and laughing at a few people on this thread with their earnest pre-orgasmic frenzied finger-pointing at the US (and now the UK I noticed..), but I am not seeking to annoy them. I find their earnestness to their cause of World Socialism quite endearing actually. Which only exists in the recesses of your mind. I'll ask again - why do you think I have an irrational obsession? If you want to be taken seriously then you can't just make those kind of accusations against people and refuse to qualify them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pap Posted 13 January, 2012 Author Share Posted 13 January, 2012 Not quite true. I am taking the p*ss and laughing at a few people on this thread with their earnest pre-orgasmic frenzied finger-pointing at the US (and now the UK I noticed..), but I am not seeking to annoy them. Its especially entertaining when they write great soliliquys to define their position then totally ignore any point posted in return that blows a hole in their argument below the waterline. I find their earnestness to their cause of World Socialism quite endearing actually. Mate, how you spend your time is up to you. I just think that there are more productive things you could be doing during your refractory periods. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alpine_saint Posted 13 January, 2012 Share Posted 13 January, 2012 So partially true then. Which only exists in the recesses of your mind. I'll ask again - why do you think I have an irrational obsession? If you want to be taken seriously then you can't just make those kind of accusations against people and refuse to qualify them. Go back and read the highlighted test again, then my first commment. You are saying that because of US and UK behaviour, presumably over Iraq and Afghanistan (oh, bugger that UN mandate, how inconvenient to your argument...), they must be out-of-oder over Iran too. I'll concede that in the cold light of hindsight, Iraq looks like it was an over-reaction. Afghanistan policy was UN mandated I call that a score-draw, so drawing inferences from "recent history" is wrong. Therefore, you reveal your obessiveness for blaming the US and writing cr*p to justify it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alpine_saint Posted 13 January, 2012 Share Posted 13 January, 2012 Mate, how you spend your time is up to you. I just think that there are more productive things you could be doing during your refractory periods. I'll go back to winding up the Sweaties then, shall I ?? I know where I'm not wanted Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
benjii Posted 13 January, 2012 Share Posted 13 January, 2012 Nope. You really have lost a grasp of simple English. I give up. You're a waste of time, sadly. This. Alpine, I would seriously seek some treatment. I think there are some physical problems with your brain. Seriously. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
View From The Top Posted 13 January, 2012 Share Posted 13 January, 2012 Alpine, despite being on ignore, proves the age old adage that empty vessels make the most noise. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sheaf Saint Posted 13 January, 2012 Share Posted 13 January, 2012 Go back and read the highlighted test again, then my first commment. You are saying that because of US and UK behaviour, presumably over Iraq and Afghanistan (oh, bugger that UN mandate, how inconvenient to your argument...), they must be out-of-oder over Iran too. I'll concede that in the cold light of hindsight, Iraq looks like it was an over-reaction. Afghanistan policy was UN mandated I call that a score-draw, so drawing inferences from "recent history" is wrong. Therefore, you reveal your obessiveness for blaming the US and writing cr*p to justify it. I didn't even mention Iraq or Afghanistan. I know that the action in Afghanistan was approved by the UN. You think that somehow balances the fact that Iraq wasn't???? Dear lord! I raised the point about Indonesia because it is a shameful episode in very recent history that was almost completely overlooked by the mainstream media. This reinforces my point that western governments, in particular the US and UK, are not the courageous, honourable swords of truth and justice that we are expected to believe they are by the propaganda we are fed. If you know anything of history you will be aware that one of the most important methods of garnering support for any military action is to influence what is reported to the public to make it appear that the cause is a noble one and that the action is necessary. In other words, use the age-old notion of good versus evil and portray the enemy as the evil one. I know the world is never as black and white as that. I was taught to question everything and believe nothing other than my own sense of reason and logic. If in your mind this equates to holding an irrational obsession then fine, so be it. It is clear from this debate and many before it that there is nothing I can say that will ever convince you to re-evaluate your own preconceptions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
View From The Top Posted 13 January, 2012 Share Posted 13 January, 2012 Perhaps Iran's helpful suggestion that Israel should be 'wiped off the map' is enough to make one worry about their aggressive tendencies. Fair point. I am not sticking up for US/UK foreign policy, as there are many aspects with which I disagree. However. if there is going to be a war, with the West on one side and Iran on the other, I know who I'll be cheering for.[/Quote] I won't be cheering but yep, see your point. And yes, after 9/11, 7/7, Madrid and countless similar atrocities throughout the world I am twitchy about any Islamic state showing any signs of sabre-rattling, especially a nuclear-armed Islamic state. I believe that the effects of Pakistan having the bomb will prove to be disastrous over time. I disagree over the 1st point totally but agree totally with the 2nd point, however, I'm perfectly aware of who actually controls the bomb over there. I wouldn't worry about a full blown war, though, as US and Israel (as well as the UK and France possibly) will ensure that Iran's nuclear scientists keep having unfortunate accidents. Again I'm not justifying assassinations but perhaps it is better than becoming embroiled in a traditional land war with the casualties piling up. Remember reading a novel a good few years ago where the scientists kept getting bumped off as they are now. Spooky. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jjsaint Posted 13 January, 2012 Share Posted 13 January, 2012 Agreed View from the Top, 'cheering' is perhaps not the right word. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now