Bush again.

[Sledge]

Well, there's all the other little messes you've left. Afghanistan still ain't looking great, for instance. And you've got to wonder how much sooner the Northern Ireland situation might have been resolved without American support for terrorists.

 

[evilhippy]

Wow is this arguement even going on? ....

.... loads of stuff that agrees almost entirely with what I said

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Err, were you just corroborating my viewpoint there??

 

I think most of what you said about Iran and WWII and the Abomb etc was in the post directly before yours

 

On the political viewpoints thing: a little clarification would be great; I don't disagree with you about liberalism at all, it is totally unrealistic and impractical, but you still can't dismiss it as people have the right to their opinion.

 

The "people who want power should be the last to have it" is good and proper on paper, but only for a given value of `proper` - I consider that actually to be an impractical liberal viewpoint.

People who don't want power wont do the right things any more than those that do, they won't care and are more likely to be lax in their duties or even act maliciously.

At least those that want it are more likely to have altruism at heart. How many dutiful and noble leaders do you reckon we would have if they all didn't want to be there and didn't actually care about world politics??? I know the ones we have are corrupt, but at least they're (on the whole) not negligent.

 

I don't care about Northen Ireland by the way, any more than I care about our immigration policy allowing all the London bombers into the country and seeking as many pounds sterling in benefits for trying to kill English people as a qualified doctor earns and pays tax on trying to save people

[TMC]

It appears it's our weekly "let's all toss our toys out the pram" discussion...

 

Alright guys, go to the opposite corners of the room, take DEEP BREATHS of oxygen, and take five.

[Chimpy]

The interesting thing about the speech is the energy policy. Self-reliance actually suggests that America might realise it is overreaching itself with foreign policy and is going to become more isolationist in the future. No longer the 'World Police' because they won't need to be.

[evilhippy]

It appears it's our weekly "let's all toss our toys out the pram" discussion...

 

Alright guys, go to the opposite corners of the room, take DEEP BREATHS of oxygen, and take five.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Dunno 'bout the rest of 'em, but I'm just after a bit of debate here I look forward to these weekly tantrums though of course, all my toys have to be `stress tested`.

 

I have no problem with the USA or I would hardly hang out here, as all people are essentially the same on aggregate it usually comes down to simple loyalties, of which I have none to the government of any country.

 

But Blair looks a lot less like a recently-stunned gibbon than Bush

[Hissing_Sid]

The interesting thing about the speech is the energy policy. Self-reliance actually suggests that America might realise it is overreaching itself with foreign policy and is going to become more isolationist in the future. No longer the 'World Police' because they won't need to be.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Which brings things nicely back to my original point:-

 

That I think it's a bit hypocritical that Bush should, in the same speech, point out that oil is a finite resource and that alternatives should be brought on-line and then demand that Iran are stopped from doing that exact same thing.

 

 

 

 

It appears it's our weekly "let's all toss our toys out the pram" discussion...

 

Alright guys, go to the opposite corners of the room, take DEEP BREATHS of oxygen, and take five.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Has anybody reported anything from this thread?

Has anybody complained of being insulted or abusive behaviour?

 

If not then how about you zip it unless you actually have anything to add?

 

KTHXBYE.

[cazboab]

Ah, but then the nasty men could make bombs like his and he wouldn't be special any more...

[Hissing_Sid]

Ah, but then the nasty men could make bombs like his and he wouldn't be special any more...

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

That's the thing though, isn't it?

 

We get told that by people who don't want the nasty ay-rabs to move out of the middle ages.

 

Incidentally, the whole thing about Iran denying the Holocaust is a great example of that. It was, apparently, a "factually inaccurate" story which was put about by an Egyptian translator after a speech by Mahmoud. That story was just too juicy to ignore and it was all over the news and internet.

When it turned out that it may not have actually been true you didn't see any of the news agencies being quite so quick to post the retraction.

 

What he actually said is that Muslims must put up with people saying their religion is not truly gods way but if anybody suggested that the Jewish Holocaust was a myth then it'd be an outrage.

Admittedly, it's a dodgy metaphor since he's asking that we compare a belief to actual, physical, events but, whatever.

 

Then some Egyptian reporter came scuttling out of the room and told people "OMG!!! hee sed taht the Holocaust was teh liez!!!"

[Chimpy]

Which brings things nicely back to my original point:-

 

That I think it's a bit hypocritical that Bush should, in the same speech, point out that oil is a finite resource and that alternatives should be brought on-line and then demand that Iran are stopped from doing that exact same thing.

Has anybody reported anything from this thread?

Has anybody complained of being insulted or abusive behaviour?

 

If not then how about you zip it unless you actually have anything to add?

 

KTHXBYE. 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

True although if I ran a country as big as the USA then I wouldn't be overly concerned about being hypocritical. The reliance on oil ties them to a certain course of foreign policy and it is most definately in the best interests of them as a country to end that dependancy and thus end the need for such an aggressive foreign policy which is currently causing financial, social and political damage. Until that point however they need to deal with the rest of the world and see Iran as a danger, it is afterall bordering the two big middle eastern conflict zones the US is directly involved with.

[TMC]

I wasn't aware that I had to wait for a report PM to appear in my inbox before acting upon anything, Sid.

 

I think everyone needs to calm down just a wee bit is all. I've seen threads of this kind many times before. Neither side helps really.

 

Anyway... I don't even think Americans should have nuclear weapons. I just don't like the idea of a weapon that could make the entire British isles disappear in under five seconds, frankly.

[Agent47]

Nukes...don't make for efficient warfighting and clean-up. Sure, they can whack loads of people at a time - but now you have to deal with fall-out - quite inefficient.

 

At most, each nation should only have ONE nuke.

[Blade3000]

If it comes down to it most nations will utilize biological weapons and only a few nukes. Much cheaper clean up and all the infrastructure is left in place.

 

Thank god for twice elected George W. Bush, the people of this great nation spoke at the ballot box, love him or hate him we the people elected him.

 

 

glock21

 

 

Nukes...don't make for efficient warfighting and clean-up.  Sure, they can whack loads of people at a time - but now you have to deal with fall-out - quite inefficient.

 

At most, each nation should only have ONE nuke.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

[Hissing_Sid]

I wasn't aware that I had to wait for a report PM to appear in my inbox before acting upon anything, Sid.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Well, if you want to make yourself useful, how about warning people not to prattle on about nuclear wepons for no apparent reason in this thread?

 

Oh, wait...

[Hillslam]

Which brings things nicely back to my original point:-

 

That I think it's a bit hypocritical that Bush should, in the same speech, point out that oil is a finite resource and that alternatives should be brought on-line and then demand that Iran are stopped from doing that exact same thing.

Which brings me back to my original reply: I don't think Curious George said "don't let them have nuclear energy", instead he grunted "we don't want them to aquire nuclear weapons".

 

Iran can *say* they're after nuclear energy all they want, but only a fool would believe it. Especially when they publicly get caught red handed with bomb making plans in their underpants.

 

And back to the core question - who wants Iran to have nukes?

 

I'm actually surprised by the number of "yeahs", that are apparently driven soley by spite for the USA judging by the responses in here. Granted this is a forum of a majority of youthful attendees, but still, its somewhat amazing the bad conclusions mob mentality can drive rational people to.

 

So step back and really think about that: Iran with nuclear weapons.

 

(Don't just debate or retort *me*, just think a sec about that)

[Chimpy]

Stand back and think, is Iran with the ability to generate nuclear weapons such a great threat?

 

After all North Korea has a program, Pakistan has nukes and is arguably becoming more Islamist by the day. Why worry about a country where the majority of the population are unlikely to want war anyway?

[Zero_DgZ]

In other news:

 

Who else has nukes?

[Sledge]

Yes, but that's alright, because America likes Israel.

 

[Hissing_Sid]

Let's face it, the issue here isn't if Iran has nukular weapons. The issue is if they use them on Israel.

 

I'm sure half of Asia and most of Africa could nuke itself into oblivion before anybody in the USA bothered to even look it up on a map.

 

Why is it that a pissant little country like Israel seems to be able to drage America around by the nose?

[PlasticMag]

"Because of Jewish money lent to the Knights Templar and reloaned to the US in order to provide a safe and secure haven for terroristical Zionists who try to subvert our OneTrueGod Christian ways and who lead us astray from our OneTrueGod and who need a place to hide their sins as they killed JES-S, Son of the OneTrueGod, and who are leading us to Kosherism, so we must stop them in the name of the OneTrueGod."

 

Just what I read on the internet. It must be true!

[evilhippy]

Wow. "terroristical" what a word. Almost as funny as all the pro-creationist b*ll*cks that alledges to `disprove` darwinism :rofl:

 

They kinda missed the point that he was a scientist, obviously

 

That must be from, err, http://www.christians4everjews4never.co.uk yeah?

 

Anyone clicking that needs shooting

[Hillslam]

Actually I beleive the issue (at least for America) is also that - in addition to Iran having a nuke being a threat to Israel and all (they wouldn't be to us directly, and I don't frankly worry about Israel, not the least of which because I think they can handle themselves) - it is that additionally an Iran with nuclear weaponry also possesses the ability and demonstrated motive, willingness, and precedent to distribute such material.

 

And the US would be the prime/first target for a muslim-radical-emplanted Iranian-supplied dirty-bomb to go off.

 

So yeah, we'd prefer them not to get the weapons technology at all.

 

(And no, I don't beleive North Korea supplied, supplies, or will supply nuclear material to terrorists. Same goes for Russia, or Pakistan. Thats just my opinion. Some of the other "trashcan-istans" I'm not so sure about, and they worry me more than the above.)

 

Why is it that a pissant little country like Israel seems to be able to drage America around by the nose?

Agreed. Why DO we spend so much effort? I mean really, shouldn't the UK and Germany be handholding them instead of us, to be fair?

[evilhippy]

I have to add "trashcan-istans" to my vocabulary...

 

Like I said before, the instability in Iran and the likelihood that power could in fact fall to a real extremist idiot who holds no regard for even his own life means they are a huuuuge threat to anyone they take a disliking to, far more so than the (by-and-large accountable) Americans.

 

Or maybe I just don't care about human life anymore and I'm gunning for the whole anti-Iran thing because I want a load more of that awesome TV like we got last time .....

 

who knows?

[evilhippy]

Agreed. Why DO we spend so much effort? I mean really, shouldn't the UK and Germany be handholding them instead of us, to be fair?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Of course, the whole WWII thing was 50% the fault of the UK. Hot damn!! Why didn't I notice before?!!!!

 

What the c**ting-F**k???! Sorry you were happy for `operation: human shield` to take its course for us in Europe while you engaged merrily in `operation: get behind the blighties` until '41, but in case you missed something there are some countries that took up the fight on behalf of those who were under attack and at massive personal risk to themselves!

 

But this just degenerates into another pointless argument from here doesn't it?

 

Let me just say that perhaps the fact you did bugger-all to help anyone until you were yourself attacked is the reason you now tow the line for Israel, we got involved when it was clear Germany was up to no good. We did the decent thing, the failure of the US to do the same may be the reason for the penance you now pay.

 

Maybe.

 

I imagine its actually mostly to do with the USA being built on jewish money, however, and there being an awful lot of jews in the states

[Zero_DgZ]

Iran can *say* they're after nuclear energy all they want, but only a fool would believe it. Especially when they publicly get caught red handed with bomb making plans in their underpants.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Source?

[Foxtrot]

I personally dont think it's them holding us, but us holding them BACK.

 

Not sure if you caught the above link, but ill also throw in some other stats:

 

Armoured Fighting Vehicles

Merkava - Main battle tank

Mk 1

Mk 2

Mk 3

Mk 3 Baz (improved armour and fire control system)

Mk 3 LIC (modified for low intensity warfare, i.e. urban warfare).

Mk 4

Nammer ARV - Merkava armoured recovery vehicle

Magah (upgraded M60 Patton) - Main battle tank

Multi purpose tank-chassis based IFVs/CEVs

Puma - Combat engineering armoured vehicle

Achzarit - APC (armored personal carrier)

NagmaShot - an APC based on the Centurion tank

Nagmachon

Nakpadon

Caterpillar D9 Bulldozer - an up-armoured military version

Machbet - self propelled anti aircraft system

Self-propelled artillery systems

·

All-terrain vehicles and other wheeled vehicles

Abir

Sufa

Desert Raider

·Rockets and Missiles

Gil/Spike - ATGM (anti-tank guided missile)

Shifon - ATGM

Jericho missile - ballistic missile

Shavit - satellite launch missile, based on Jericho

Rafael Python 4 and Rafael Python 5 - advance air-to-air missiles

Popeye (AGM-142) - advance guided air-to-ground missile

Gabriel anti-ship missile

Hetz (Arrow missile) - part of a ballistic missile defense system, able to shot down ballistic missiles

·Electronics and High-Tech

Oren Yarok (Green Pine) - radar system used by the Arrow system

Phalcon - intelligence gathering systems installed on large airplane

Satellites

Ofeq - reconnaissance satellite

Amos - communications satellite (civilian, used by the IDF)

Katbam - unmanned naval vehicle

LITENING targeting pod - enhance fighter jets offensive capabilities

F-4 Phantom, F-15 Eagle and F-16 Fighting Falcon fighter jet electronic systems

Barak Zoher - advance tank firing system, installed on Merkava tanks

Dolphin class submarine electronic and warfare systems

·Aircraft platforms

Nesher fighter jet (upgraded Mirage V)

Kfir fighter jet (upgraded and improved Mirage V)

Nammer fighter jet

Lavi fighter jet (original design, prototype flown but project cancelled due to cost)

Arava STOL medium transport aircraft

Mazlat (UAV) - unmanned small aerial vehicle

·Naval platforms

Dabur/Dvora/Tsir'a/Yatush patrol craft

Sa'ar-class missile boat

Saar 2 class missile boats

Saar 3 class missile boats

Saar 4 class missile boats

Saar 4.5 class missile boats

Saar 5 class missile boats

 

 

They have more firepower in a country smaller then New Jesersy, probably more then some European nations. Let alone the standing army of 136,000 and a army of 400,000+ ready in 72 hours....

 

 

Yes, Evilhippy I was agreeing with your points and about the liberalism - it's a completely different topic. It's a mind set, nothing to do with Republican/Democrat/Tory/Labour/etc.

 

Isreal, has already expressed their willingness to go after Iran, if Iran continues to go on their path to making weapons.

 

The U.S. and the E.U. on the other hand... i'll put it this way, even though 53% of americans think it's justified to go into Iran... We still dont want to