Israel Considers Pre-Emptive Attack On Iran

ed2hands

SamHarris wrote: »

Yes that Islam is not a relgion of peace. What a controversial and odius view :rolleyes: I remember how well you argued your position there as well "I dont like it or you!". Was really fantastic.

You are clearly hysterical. Go back to the CT forum, its safer for you there.

Considering the person I accused of anti-semetism was banned abotu a month later for an almost scary rant about "the jews" I clearly wasnt far wrong.

Brown Bomber? The one that handed your arse to you on that A+A thread?

By the way that ban was cancelled and the mod apologised so your acusations still seem to be pathetic and unfounded as the day you typed them.

SamHarris

ed2hands wrote: »

Brown Bomber? The one that handed your arse to you on that A+A thread?

By the way that ban was cancelled and the mod apologised so your acusations still seem to be pathetic and unfounded as the day you typed them.

Yeah, sure kid. Are you here to discuss anything?

Mr.Micro

SamHarris wrote: »

I have siad REPEATEDLY Israel should be punished for breaking international law. I ahve also pointed out repeatedly that the fact that it is not is NOT a good reason for everyone else to be able to do the same, particularly in the most volatile region on earth. Apologies if it seems insulting, but its just one after another with no evidence to back up massive claims other than the existence of a certain resoucrce, or pipe, or celebration. That is NOT the fashion in which a theory is developed, and I will disregard them with exactly the contempt they are worthy of.

I am not a conspiracy theorist and never have been. Read below, is that CT., no fact.

Expect to see the revival of a cherished Western energy dream, a Trans-Afghan natural gas pipeline to relay Turkmen natural gas across Afghanistan to the energy-hungry markets of Pakistan and eventually, India.

The Trans-Afghanistan PipelineTrans-Afghanistan Pipeline (initially “TAP,” now “TAPI” with the inclusion of India) was under development even before the Taliban captured Kabul in September 1996, as in 1995 Turkmenistan and Pakistan initialed a memorandum of understanding. TAPI, with a proposed annual carrying capacity of 33 billion cubic meters (bcm) of Turkmen natural gas, at the time equivalent to nearly the entire country’s output, was projected to run from Turkmenistan’s Dauletabad gas field across Afghanistan and Pakistan and terminate at the northwestern Indian town of Fazilka.

Of course, TAPI would have required the assent of the Taliban, and in 1997 the Central Asia Gas Pipeline Ltd. consortium, led by U.S. company Unocal, flew a Taliban delegation to Unocal headquarters in Houston, where the Taliban signed off on the project.


http://oilprice.com/Energy/Energy-General/Afghanistan-and-the-Future-U.S.-Withdrawal-Energy-Corridor-or-Dead-Zone.html

Is that enough evidence for you, before you go dismissing posters outright when it is you who are ignorant of the facts. Such huge markets in India and Pakistan for gas now and in the future makes Afghanistan vital to have access to and under control of a West friendly Government.

ed2hands

SamHarris wrote: »

Yeah, sure kid. Are you here to discuss anything?

Don't believe me. Go check what i said out then sparky.

Jaafa

In response to Sam and Batsy.

You'll note that the IAEA states repeatedly and clearly that almost all it information is based on pre 2004 evidence. i.e evidence which was acquired from a single stolen laptop. The same evidence that has long since become irrelevant because the CIA itself stated that Iran, pay attention now, SHUT DOWN THE WHOLE PROGRAM. The CIA said this, who the hell do you think has better intelligence? The IAEA or the CIA? What would the CIA have to gain from lying?

Nothing. The report is worthless.

nacho libre

hangon wrote: »

Hi nacho are you talking about Mohamed ElBaradei?
He headed the IAEA for three terms and was only opposed by the US for the third term(the US dropped its objection)
i am only asking for my own benefit as i have had not been able to find out who you mean and it is killing me!!!!!

Yes I am. America only dropped their objection when they couldn't get enough support from other countries to remove him.
It was said he didn't make himself available for a fourth term due to criticism that he wasn't critical enough of Iran's nuclear program.

Indeed he told Der Spiegel last year "I do not believe that the Iranians are actually producing nuclear weapons. . . .In general, the danger of a nuclear-armed Iran is overestimated; some even play it up intentionally.

According to some Israeli officials, this latest report is evidence he's really an Iranian agent!

WakeUp

SamHarris wrote: »

No it does not. YOU think it does. But not according to international law.

International law is an alien concept to Israel and shouldn't really be used in any capacity when discussing that country. They "respect" it when it suits them and when it doesnt they stick two fingers up to everyone else. They have no place quoting international law when they have broken nearly every rule in the book themselves.

Again, if you cant see the problem with nuclear proliferation you can do your own research on why it is a bad thing. A simple google search should suffice.

Statements like that are hypocritical in the extreme that is not directed as you as a person just your choice of words. The US is responsible for nuclear proliferation all over the planet including mainland Europe. The Gulf states in the region mainly the Saudis are covered under the US nuclear umbrella and have no need for nuclear weapons. Israel has a vast amount of nuclear weapons which they wont admit to - who knows what they have done with that know how and ability maybe they are responsible for proliferation to but we cant know as they keep telling lies or denying there existance. When the US and Israel get their own house in order then and only then do they have the right to dictate to any other country on such an issue. And no I don't want Iran getting the bomb assuming they want one, enough of those world destroyers on the planet already. If they ever did get the bomb and were dumb enough to use it, it would be national suicide on their part. The only country to use nuclear weapons in a time of war or any other time as we all know is the US. If you want to get into details of nuclear proliferation around the world you might want to do your own google search before coming out with statements like the above.

wes

SamHarris wrote: »

No. However, Israels hypocrisy on the matter is only a small piece of a puzzle that COULD end with many nuclear armed states in the most volatile region on earth. The inability of the pro-Palestine crowd to see the forest for a tree is always forgotten

Oh please, if anyone in the region wants nuclear weapons, its because one country already has them. That was the case with Pakistan and India, one of them got them, so there other had to have them. There may have been other reason, but the moment one got them, it was only a matter of time before the other did as well.

If the West bothered to at least put sanctions on Israel (like the did at least at the start with India and Pakistan), they would have a stronger hand against Iran, but instead the idiotic double standard, when it comes to Israel, means that Iran is in a far better position than it should be, where they can act like idiots and not allow full inspections by the IAEA.

SamHarris wrote: »

Why should the US forget completly about their own national security and interests in an attempt to be the ultimate arbiter of "fairness" in the Middle East?

The US forget there own national security all the time, there completely uncritical support for Israel, has caused massive damage to there national security, with any number of groups targeting with revenge the US with revenge attacks due to there defacto support of Israels actions against Palestinians.

The US also expends a lot of political capital on behalf of Israel, for instance going against the Palestinian statehood vote, which was a completely non-violent way for Palestinians to make there case, and US opposition to that also hurt them in the ME. The Palestinian declaration would not have hurt the US, or even have hurt Israel. It was a symbolic statement that they US went against, with no possible benefit to them.

Then there is the defunding of bloody UNESCO, for letting Palestine join, which mean the US loses voting right, and if Palestine joins any other UN organizations, they will also defund those, and may even be expelled from them. For example if Palestine joined the IAEA, the US would defund it, and wouldn't be able to complain about Iran's nuclear program for example (which would be nothing short comic stupidity on the part of the US), and btw this is a US law, and apparently there is no get out clause for national security. I can't see what possible benefit such idiocy gains the US, but they would still do it.

Stephen Walts Foreign Policy.com blog has some more examples:
News flash: WINEP defends the 'special relationship'

The US abandons all reason when it comes to Israel, and the Middle East, and many of there actions are imho hugely irrational, and against there own interests, when it comes to that region.

SamHarris wrote: »

I DO think it would be better if there were a powerful state that could bring Israel more to task for its breaches of international law, that the US does not do this does not lessen the importance of them doing it elsewhere.

Except that it hurts there ability to go after other countries, who will be less inclined to go after Iran. After all, maybe China or Russia will decide they can defend there own client states, if the US is doing it as well.

Also, the fact that one state already has the weapons, mean proliferation in the ME, is imho inevitable, and things will eventually snow ball from there.

I don't think the US can effectively tackle any country looking for Nuclear weapons, in the ME if they continue to ignore the elephant in the room, that one of them already has them. This needs to be addressed, as some sort of security guarantee's etc, may make other countries in the region at least reconsider any such programs.

SamHarris wrote: »

It is not the main reason, their are a multitude of reasons including national prestige, the ability to then project power vastly more effectivly in the region and, perhaps worst of all, it will cement the current regime in power. Israel having nuclear weapons is a nice card to play as it gains so much support around the world but a nation which has difficulty feeding its own people does not spend billions of dollars on a weapons program just because another state whom they dislike has the same.

Oh, I think Israel having those weapons is a huge part of why a country would want it, as well as the fact that it would deter a US or Israeli attack if they have nuclear weapons. Its not the only reason, but I think it would be the straw that broke the camel back for some.

hangon

nacho libre wrote: »

Yes I am. America only dropped their objection when they couldn't get enough support from other countries to remove him.
It was said he didn't make himself available for a fourth term due to criticism that he wasn't critical enough of Iran's nuclear program.

Indeed he told Der Spiegel last year "I do not believe that the Iranians are actually producing nuclear weapons. . . .In general, the danger of a nuclear-armed Iran is overestimated; some even play it up intentionally.

According to some Israeli officials, this latest report is evidence he's really an Iranian agent!

Thanks for reply nacho.
I heard Hans Blix who was in charge of the search for WMD's in Iraq talking on Radio.
He fully accepted the IAEA's report about Iran.
so it must be true;)

halkar

Mr Barak:
"There is no scenario for 50,000 dead, or 5,000 killed and if everyone stays in their homes, maybe not even 500 dead."

everyone stays in their homes??? Are they going to tell exact timing of the bombing to Iranians so they can stay home?

What a joke he is

JustinDee

halkar wrote: »

Mr Barak:
"There is no scenario for 50,000 dead, or 5,000 killed and if everyone stays in their homes, maybe not even 500 dead."

everyone stays in their homes??? Are they going to tell exact timing of the bombing to Iranians so they can stay home?

What a joke he is

Do you know what an 'EWS' is? There's the clue.

wes

Some interesting stuff in regards to the US call for more sanctions on Iran:

Russia Dismisses Calls for New U.N. Sanctions on Iran

Some choice quotes:

“The world community will see all additional sanctions against Iran as an instrument of regime change in Tehran,” Gennadi M. Gatilov, Russia’s deputy foreign minister, said in comments to the Interfax news agency. “This approach is unacceptable to us, and the Russian side does not intend to consider such a proposal.”

A Foreign Ministry statement released later on Wednesday further illustrated Russia’s negative reaction to the report, distributed a day earlier by the International Atomic Energy Agency and characterized by the United States and its European allies as a significant new critique of Iran’s nuclear program.

The Russian statement, by contrast, called the report “a compilation of well-known facts that have intentionally been given a politicized intonation.”

The statement said the authors “resort to assumptions and suspicions, and juggle information with the purpose of creating the impression that the Iranian nuclear program has a military component.”

A major set back for US call for sanctions, it will be interesting to see the Chinese response.

Mr.Micro

wes wrote: »

Some interesting stuff in regards to the US call for more sanctions on Iran:

Russia Dismisses Calls for New U.N. Sanctions on Iran

Some choice quotes:


A major set back for US call for sanctions, it will be interesting to see the Chinese response.

Indeed, we have been here before with the WMD sham dossier before. As I posted last night, anybody see a pattern, the usual suspects same old drill, so tired.

davoxx

SamHarris wrote: »

Over reacts? What a charming dismissal of the reaction to 1000's of deaths. Personification of a state shows an enormous immaturity in your understanding of international relations.

a well thought out response is what i hoped to get, but ah well.

so personifying Afghanistan is okay, but not usa? wow, i can't believe you said that, but it makes sense why it's okay for you to justify if A does something bad that's okay but not okay if B does it.

well tbf if you want a thread saying go usa and go israel, make your own thread. if you don't like the facts, go elsewhere or prove them wrong.

SamHarris wrote: »

Osama was not ana Afghan citizen, that you dont even know this is very telling of your level of knowledge.

who said that osama was an Afghan citizen? i'm sure i never said that, but that is neither here not there.
it in fact makes it stranger to attack a different country ... but sure whatever justify it however you want ...

seriously, you are trying to defend a country that went to war for "wmd" by saying "ok, they lied that once, and that time too, and that time as well, but this time, lets believe all the nonsense, and remember the children"

Jaafa

The Russian statement, by contrast, called the report “a compilation of well-known facts that have intentionally been given a politicized intonation.”

I think this sums up what I was trying to say above.

JustinDee

The Russian govt will say almost anything, as will Chinese govt, in order to support their boys in Iran and Syria.

Mr.Micro

JustinDee wrote: »

The Russian govt will say almost anything, as will Chinese govt, in order to support their boys in Iran and Syria.

Well we know the US will say anything and do anything to pursue its own agenda...

JustinDee

Mr.Micro wrote: »

Well we know the US will say anything and do anything to pursue its own agenda...

The poster wasn't quoting the US. They were quoting Putin's regime.

omega666

The max Israel can really accomplish by bombing Iran is to delay the program for a few years. There is no way they can stop them in the long run unless there is a land invasion and that’s simply not going to happen.

Are the results really worth it considering what you can pretty much guarantee will be Iran’s response?

Iranian public support for the hardliners will increase.The nuclear program will continue but go underground and what you end up with is an even more hostile Iran finally having a nuke.

Is it worth starting all this just to delay the inevitable for a few years.

Mr.Micro

omega666 wrote: »

The max Israel can really accomplish by bombing Iran is to delay the program for a few years. There is no way they can stop them in the long run unless there is a land invasion and that’s simply not going to happen.

Are the results really worth it considering what you can pretty much guarantee will be Iran’s response?

Iranian public support for the hardliners will increase.The nuclear program will continue but go underground and what you end up with is an even more hostile Iran finally having a nuke.

Is it worth starting all this just to delay the inevitable for a few years.

Plus giving Iran a legitimate reason to attack Israel in return and all sorts of complications perhaps.

hangon

wes wrote: »

A major set back for US call for sanctions, it will be interesting to see the Chinese response.

China has given a response to further sanctions and criticised Nations that went beyond those that were agreed by the UN.
They receive one third of their oil from Iran but have previously voted for sanctions.with the West on the ropes it may be difficult to prevent China from vetoing any more sanctions.

China says sanctions 'cannot solve' Iran issue
By Robert Saiget (AFP) – 7 hours ago
BEIJING — China said on Thursday sanctions would not "fundamentally solve" the Iranian nuclear issue and urged further dialogue to resolve an ongoing impasse over Tehran's atomic programme.
The comments come after the United States and Europe said they may pursue fresh sanctions to try and stop Iran from getting an atomic bomb, in the wake of a UN report that offered strong evidence Tehran is pursuing nuclear weapons.
But China's foreign ministry spokesman Hong Lei said sanctions "cannot fundamentally solve the Iran issue."
"Dialogue and negotiation are the right way out for the Iranian nuclear issue," he told reporters at a regular briefing.
Hong added that the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) -- the UN atomic watchdog -- should clarify the report it published on Tuesday in a "just and objective" way through stronger cooperation with Iran.

http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5jMG0kC0nJHNiAE9yGzZ1APQbVf3w?docId=CNG.4dcde144caad9b6eb1dc5d18e1f4d079.2a1

Jaafa

JustinDee wrote: »

The Russian govt will say almost anything, as will Chinese govt, in order to support their boys in Iran and Syria.

That doesn't mean what they are saying isn't true. I've already explained it quite clearly.

JustinDee

Jaafa wrote: »

That doesn't mean what they are saying isn't true. I've already explained it quite clearly.

It means they are fine to talk by saying that the action is politically motivated when what they say themselves on the matter is pro-agendaic too.

Jaafa

JustinDee wrote: »

It means they are fine to talk by saying that the action is politically motivated when what they say themselves on the matter is pro-agendaic too.

What part of what they/I said do you disagree with?

JustinDee

Jaafa wrote: »

What part of what they/I said do you disagree with?

They've no proof that the latest statement is politically motivated. Neither do you. Thats where. Any old duffer can subjectively speculate on any number of conspiracy theories.

They are currently in the process of dodging international sanctions on Iran by beginning trade pacts between Iran and China. Classy 'Granny-For-Sale' work, I'd say.

Obviously a regime to trust and look up to.

Jaafa

JustinDee wrote: »

They've no proof that the latest statement is politically motivated. Neither do you. Thats where. Any old duffer can subjectively speculate on any number of conspiracy theories.

They are currently in the process of dodging international sanctions on Iran by beginning trade pacts between Iran and China. Classy 'Granny-For-Sale' work, I'd say.

Obviously a regime to trust and look up to.

It clearly is politically motivated was all they did was reiterate old poor evidence and try to make it seem relevant, 8 years on from when it was acquired.

Mr.Micro

Jaafa wrote: »

It clearly is politically motivated was all they did was reiterate old poor evidence and try to make it seem relevant, 8 years on from when it was acquired.

Basically, they probably do not have clue. Cobble together some old stuff laying around. The truth is that they probably suspect Iran is going nuclear but they do not have definitive proof. Where is Colin Powell when you need him with all those buildings he pointed out with the WMD

hangon

Mr.Micro wrote: »

Where is Colin Powell when you need him with all those buildings he pointed out with the WMD

He legged it from the Bush Administration when he realised that Cheyney and Rumsfeld were manipulating and sidelining him.
I do not expect Powell to spill the beans as he is a man of honour and was possibly the only person in the Bush Administration to stick to the Oath's he took as a soldier and then high office.

Hopefully before he die's he will become a bit Gaga and his ramblings(Truth)will come out!

Mr.Micro

hangon wrote: »

He legged it from the Bush Administration when he realised that Cheyney and Rumsfeld were manipulating and sidelining him.
I do not expect Powell to spill the beans as he is a man of honour and was possibly the only person in the Bush Administration to stick to the Oath's he took as a soldier and then high office.

Hopefully before he die's he will become a bit Gaga and his ramblings(Truth)will come out!

Not sure about the man of honour bit, I do believe he felt shame and regret after. They done a number on him alright. I watched his presentation to the UN and it was so bad, woolly and so vague that I could not believe he would actually believe it himself, unless he was really gullible? It was embarrassing IMO.

hangon

Mr.Micro wrote: »

Not sure about the man of honour bit,

Well honestly i am not but i could be wrong.

unless he was really gullible?

Gullible is not a word i would associate with him TBH.

I see Condi is now criticising G.W,pity she did not also decline to be part of the 2nd term,She kept up the front that the Sun shone from Dubya's ass.
now she has a book out she has learned to tell a fraction of the truth.

Mr.Micro

hangon wrote: »

Well honestly i am not but i could be wrong.



Gullible is not a word i would associate with him TBH.

I see Condi is now criticising G.W,pity she did not also decline to be part of the 2nd term,She kept up the front that the Sun shone from Dubya's ass.
now she has a book out she has learned to tell a fraction of the truth.

I have to say I was very disappointed in Colin Powell. To my mind he could have walked away if he was so honourable as he knew t was a crock? He will be forever associated with with happened. He had choices? He went with the villains.

hangon

Mr.Micro wrote: »

I have to say I was very disappointed in Colin Powell. To my mind he could have walked away if he was so honourable as he knew t was a crock? He will be forever associated with with happened. He had choices? He went with the villains.

I believe that he was used to demonstrate WMD's that did not exist by Cheney and Rumsfeld.
the pictures showing WMD's that were nothing of the sort made it look like a Cuban Missile Crisis moment,it was bound to be emotive and they knew it.

Mr.Micro

hangon wrote: »

I believe that he was used to demonstrate WMD's that did not exist by Cheney and Rumsfeld.
the pictures showing WMD's that were nothing of the sort made it look like a Cuban Missile Crisis moment,it was bound to be emotive and they knew it.

Exactly, and coming from the credible non hawkish Powell they expected the UN to believe it.

hangon

Mr.Micro wrote: »

Exactly, and coming from the credible non hawkish Powell they expected the UN to believe it.

I am not clear what You mean now Micro.
Do you mean Powell played along or he was duped?(by the Bush administration)
the US has a system that in theory makes the Secretary of State and Defence equal.
Powell was never afforded that IMO.

surely he said all he had to say when he refused the offer of the second term?

Mr.Micro

hangon wrote: »

I am not clear what You mean now Micro.
Do you mean Powell played along or he was duped?(by the Bush administration)
the US has a system that in theory makes the Secretary of State and Defence equal.
Powell was never afforded that IMO.

surely he said all he had to say when he refused the offer of the second term?

I have trouble with Colin Powell, in that as a smart man, his high position and military position, he could not see through the data that he was to present to the UN and the world? Now he was either duped or went along knowingly? A man of his intelligence was not duped IMO, but had a crisis of conscience later, and was honest to say so, but the cynics might say, had your cake and ate it now want to bee seen as a nice guy.

Force136

I hope you don't mind me chipping into this anti-Israel frenzy. I know the Irish are a bit unhealthily obsessed with Israel.

However, I should point out this isn't an Israel V's Iran issue. Bar Syria, every country in the region is terrified of a nuclear armed Iran. One only has to look at the wikileaks to see the Gulf states in particular actively urging the US to attack Iran. I believe the Saudis said "cut the head off the snake"

This is basically the World V's Iran. Russia and China are stalling to make sure their economies will not be affected by this conflict.

A 'hint' was Russia peddling back from selling advanced S300 air defence missiles to Iran.
Which just as a note of interest, Syria has and Israel successfully jammed in 2007.

Mr.Micro

Force136 wrote: »

I hope you don't mind me chipping into this anti-Israel frenzy. I know the Irish are a bit unhealthily obsessed with Israel.

However, I should point out this isn't an Israel V's Iran issue. Bar Syria, every country in the region is terrified of a nuclear armed Iran. One only has to look at the wikileaks to see the Gulf states in particular actively urging the US to attack Iran. I believe the Saudis said "cut the head off the snake"

This is basically the World V's Iran. Russia and China are stalling to make sure their economies will not be affected by this conflict.

A 'hint' was Russia peddling back from selling advanced S300 air defence missiles to Iran.
Which just as a note of interest, Syria has and Israel successfully jammed in 2007.

All those "democracies", and the biggest, the freedom loving liberal Saudi s "want the head off the snake", why? They are terrified of Iranian Islamic fundamentalists fomenting revolution or civil rights, not because of any other reason. The last thing Saudi Arabia or the Gulf state want is democracy for their people.

It is All Vs Iran, but not as simple as it appears and for different reasons. Israel wants to be top dog in the region, and continue its good work in human rights and care of the Palestinians and upholding international law etc. The rest want to keep a hold on their subjected peoples.

Force136

Mr.Micro wrote: »

All those "democracies" and the biggest freedom loving liberal the Saudi s "want the head off the snake", why? They are terrified of Iranian Islamic fundamentalists fomenting revolution or civil rights, not because of any other reason. The last thing Saudi Arabia or the Gulf state want is democracy for their people.

It is all Vs Iran but not as simple as it appears and for different reasons. Israel wants to be top dog in the region, and continue its good work in human rights and care of the Palestinians and upholding international law etc.

Hi. Sorry, quite a laughable summation there. How on earth is Iran endangering Saudi's grip on the population? are you suggesting Iran is a free state or something? Saudi is a deeply conservative country. They are making baby-steps towards reform. Much more than can be said for Iran. The Saudi leadership have shown remarkable willingness to open society up, it's just that they know they face huge opposition from conservatives amongst the populous. Sorry, you just don't get this.

hangon

Force136 wrote: »

I hope you don't mind me chipping into this anti-Israel frenzy. I know the Irish are a bit unhealthily obsessed with Israel

Actually i do object to being called Anti-Israeli,if the Irish are unhealthily obsessed with Israel as you say it may be that we recognise oppression when we see it

Jaafa

Force136 wrote: »

Hi. Sorry, quite a laughable summation there. How on earth is Iran endangering Saudi's grip on the population? are you suggesting Iran is a free state or something? Saudi is a deeply conservative country. They are making baby-steps towards reform. Much more than can be said for Iran. The Saudi leadership have shown remarkable willingness to open society up, it's just that they know they face huge opposition from conservatives amongst the populous. Sorry, you just don't get this.

LOL, Freaking 60 year old Monarchy v 20 year old democracy (albeit with corruptions).

Don't feed the troll people.

Force136

hangon wrote: »

Actually i do object to being called Anti-Israeli,if the Irish are unhealthily obsessed with Israel as you say it may be that we recognise oppression when we see it

Or maybe you've jumped into another conflict because yours has gone stale - and which better conflict that the one involving the Jews. A staple hate figure for the Catholic church.

Pity the Irish don't seem to care about oppression elsewhere in the world. Boats to Somalia? boats to Sudan? aid flotilla to Syria?

hangon

Mr.Micro wrote: »

The last thing Saudi Arabia or the Gulf state want is democracy for their people.

You speaketh the truth.

Force136

Jaafa wrote: »

LOL, Freaking 60 year old Monarchy v 20 year old democracy (albeit with corruptions).

Don't feed the troll people.

Iran a democracy?

Is this the famous Irish humour? what is it they feed you over there? dear god.

Mr.Micro

Force136 wrote: »

Hi. Sorry, quite a laughable summation there. How on earth is Iran endangering Saudi's grip on the population? are you suggesting Iran is a free state or something? Saudi is a deeply conservative country. They are making baby-steps towards reform. Much more than can be said for Iran. The Saudi leadership have shown remarkable willingness to open society up, it's just that they know they face huge opposition from conservatives amongst the populous. Sorry, you just don't get this.

Glad you find it amusing. I am sure the pop of Saudia Arabia are so grateful for the tiny baby steps towards reform....is that another word for democracy?

Force136

Mr.Micro wrote: »

Glad you find it amusing. I am sure the pop of Saudia Arabia are so grateful for the tiny baby steps towards reform....is that another word for democracy?

Sorry, I forgot which forum I'm on. I need to spell things out a bit more clearly.

In Saudi, it's not so much the leadership that don't want change - but the deeply conservative (male) population that don't want change.

So in order to keep the country from erupting into some sort of civil war, the leadership are progressing at a snail's pace so as not to inflame the conservatives.

You should try reading up on these things instead of just mouthing nonsense. No offence.

Force136

Mr.Micro wrote: »

You appear a bit tetchy, probably taking yourself and your opinions a bit too seriously. Do you not debate where you come from, just do as ordered. The current Iran came about through revolution, something that SA and others fear in the region as I posted earlier. How noble of the leadership to decide for everyone.

The 'revolution' in Iran has lead to an oppressive regime which guns down its own people and sponsors terrorism.

Additionally, they have banned western haircuts, clothing and music.

Iran is a country where school children walk to school past people hanging from cranes.

You have a very odd notion of what Iran is. Saudi is not comparable. Different culture, different race, different brand of religion.

Just as an aside, Iran banned the Baha'i (offshoot of Islam) and oppresses them pretty ruthlessly.

Guess which country houses the Baha'i main place of worship and allows them complete freedom and autonomy? go on, guess...:D

Mr.Micro

Force136 wrote: »

The 'revolution' in Iran has lead to an oppressive regime which guns down its own people and sponsors terrorism.

Additionally, they have banned western haircuts, clothing and music.

Iran is a country where school children walk to school past people hanging from cranes.

You have a very odd notion of what Iran is. Saudi is not comparable. Different culture, different race, different brand of religion.

Just as an aside, Iran banned the Baha'i (offshoot of Islam) and oppresses them pretty ruthlessly.

Guess which country houses the Baha'i main place of worship and allows them complete freedom and autonomy? go on, guess...:D

Gimme a break from the history lesson. I am well aware about Iran and its regime, as well as SA, Israel and a few others. Just because it is a "bad regime " does that mean it should be taken out? That is the question.

no more personal stuff on thread please, all of you

Force136

Mr.Micro wrote: »

Gimme a break from the history lesson. I am well aware about Iran and its regime, as well as SA, Israel and a few others. Just because it is a "bad regime " does that mean it should be taken out? That is the question.

Well, perhaps if it was just a "bad regime".

However, they do have a habit of supplying weapons to the Taliban, Shia militia in Iraq, Hamas and of course their proxy army Hezbollah.

Hezbollah of course now controls Lebanon. So your cuddly Iranian Mullahs have hijacked a sovereign state and made it their own.

They also carry out global acts of terrorism and are belligerent and bellicose, wide-eyed fanatics.

This quote is from 10 years ago.

TEHRAN 14 Dec. (IPS) One of Iran’s most influential ruling cleric called Friday on the Muslim states to use nuclear weapon against Israel, assuring them that while such an attack would annihilate Israel, it would cost them [Muslims] "damages only".

I wonder if all this rhetoric was aimed at you, whether you'd be as blase (that's French)

Mr.Micro

Force136 wrote: »

Well, perhaps if it was just a "bad regime".

However, they do have a habit of supplying weapons to the Taliban, Shia militia in Iraq, Hamas and of course their proxy army Hezbollah.

Hezbollah of course now controls Lebanon. So your cuddly Iranian Mullahs have hijacked a sovereign state and made it their own.

They also carry out global acts of terrorism and are belligerent and bellicose, wide-eyed fanatics.

This quote is from 10 years ago.

I wonder if all this rhetoric was aimed at you, whether you'd be as blase (that's French)

I wonder if all this rhetoric was aimed at you, whether you'd be as blase (that's French) Is that meant to be funny or clever?


So your solution to Iran is what?