Iran doesn't have a nuclear weapons program

[Eki]

It's funny how the headline varies on the same subject. Finnish news just said "The US admits Iran doesn't have a nuclear weapons program". FoxNews says "Bush: Iran Remains Dangerous Despite Halt to Nuke Weapons Program":

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,314862,00.html

[CCFanatic]

Well Iran has a military. They refuse to talk to the US when asked, or will talk, but not talk about certain things. So I take that act as still being hostile, hence a reason to think that Iran is still dangerous.

[Drew]

Thankfully we found that out before we invaded...

[Magnus]

Yes, it´s interesting how media puts different things. It is a problem, all though it is likely to be impossible to do anything about it; journalists are humans also...
A few years ago Paul Wolfowitz (then Deputy Secretary of Defense)held a speech in Singapore in which he stated that oil was the reason for invading Iraq. Big news then for most left-wing papers, which had thought this for a long while. The problem was that after Die Welt and Die Tagespiegel had spread the message, with the help of The guardian and the swedish Aftonbladet, it appeared that they had misinterpreted the whole thing. The Guardian had to correct the message the following day.
What Wolfowitz really said in his speech was that Iraq could withstand the consequences of sanctions from UN, USA and the EU because they had oil, i.e. money. Thus they had a far better position than for example north-Corea. So yes, oil was the reason for attacking Iraq...

So: one message may have very different interpretations, depending on where you live on the political scale. Subliminal perception I guess it is called :)

Please note: I do not have a opinion in the oil-question at the moment. I simply can not grasp the complexity of the situation, and do not know or understand all the issues that led to USA attacking Iraq.

[LeonBrooke]

Well Iran has a military. They refuse to talk to the US when asked, or will talk, but not talk about certain things. So I take that act as still being hostile, hence a reason to think that Iran is still dangerous.

That doesn't follow. If the US refused to talk to NZ about a particular subject, would that constitute an act of hostility against NZ by the US?


New Zealand has a military too. Does that make us a threat to the US as well?
:uhoh:

[jso1985]

I guess USA has secured Chavez oil for a very long time...

Otherwise they would have needed to invade Iran...

[Tomi]

Good, but wonder what kind of crap the banjo players come up with next, strange is also how some countries still buy the **** they are feeded.

[Rollo]

Well Iran has a military. They refuse to talk to the US when asked, or will talk, but not talk about certain things. So I take that act as still being hostile, hence a reason to think that Iran is still dangerous.

Dangerous? How? Iran has been too chaotic for the last 20 years to properly organise anything; this includes the military.
http://www.payvand.com/news/06/jun/1011.html
They have a rather low level of military spending compared to other nations in the region at 3.3% of GDP.

The biggest reason for hostility is obvious. Their neighbours have been invavded by the US, who now point very very big guns at them. If I were Iran I'd be saying nothing because of fear... The US has already invaded one country based on lies, and it is almost certain they'll do it again given the chance.

[Roamy]

bullsh!t we just said that so we can sucker punch them with a fleet of B-2 Bombers with The jew mopping up with tanks.

EKI - the press says anything Bush tell them to.

[millencolin]

That doesn't follow. If the US refused to talk to NZ about a particular subject, would that constitute an act of hostility against NZ by the US?


New Zealand has a military too. Does that make us a threat to the US as well?
:uhoh:

Nah. Why invade NZ when all their citizens are migrating to Bondi beach :p : ... soon it will become free land and the yanks can just stroll in :p :

[leopard]

Thankfully we found that out before we invaded...
You may need to look for another alibi to invade :)

[Camelopard]

That doesn't follow. If the US refused to talk to NZ about a particular subject, would that constitute an act of hostility against NZ by the US?


New Zealand has a military too. Does that make us a threat to the US as well?
:uhoh:

Did the US regard New Zealand as a hostile country when the NZ banned visits by US nuclear powered warships?

They weren't too happy about it and even the Australians were saying it was causing a problems with the ANZUS treaty. Sorry, the US does not like not getting it's own way.

[LeonBrooke]

Did the US regard New Zealand as a hostile country when the NZ banned visits by US nuclear powered warships?

They weren't too happy about it and even the Australians were saying it was causing a problems with the ANZUS treaty. Sorry, the US does not like not getting it's own way.

I'm not sure what you're trying to say here...

[Camelopard]

I'm not sure what you're trying to say here...

Yes I thought that as well but it to too late to edit the post!

IMO the banning of the ships could have been seen as a hostile act by NZ towards the US, however the US didn't threaten to invade, nor freeze assets, nor place trade barriers on NZ.

I think I'm just digging a deeper hole :) .

The US has still not forgiven the Iranian people for having the termirity to kick the Shah out and the subsequent hostage crisis. Just like they are only now starting to have proper relations with Vietnam 35 years after they withdrew from that country and lets not forget the ongoing bull**** with Cuba.

[leopard]

You are too much worried of being invaded, the wild Africa would be the safest habitat then. No-one would want to invade it.

[Eki]

Well Iran has a military. They refuse to talk to the US when asked, or will talk, but not talk about certain things. So I take that act as still being hostile, hence a reason to think that Iran is still dangerous.
I think it's the US who doesn't want to talk without setting preconditions for negotiations. Why would someone give in already before negotiations? That would be just stupid. Iran's president has challenged Bush to a public debate on TV, but Bush has rejected the offer.

[SOD]

W swimming naked? Its been obvious since 2005 when he was a lamo-ducko.

[A.F.F.]

Iran's president has challenged Bush to a public debate on TV, but Bush has rejected the offer.

Maybe Bush could assign Caitlin Upton to that public debate instead. She couldn't do worse.

[Rudy Tamasz]

You guys just check these pics from Iran. Beware, when I first saw them my day was ruined. But truth needs to be known:

http://gazetaby.com/index.php?&sn_nid=7970&sn_cat=36

[leopard]

There are several methods implementing dead sentence, hanging, electric seat, snipper group, what else?.
Arab recognize the first method while the rest country like mine recognize most humanly the last method. Amongst about 20 snippers there is only one bulleted snipper. I think this method is relatively acceptable better than any other methods.

However seems to be seriously debated that prisoning the whole life in a remote area would be better replacement for the dead punishment.

[555-04Q2]

Any country that has nukes is in no position to judge a country that wants to develope a nuclear system in their country. There are about 20 000 to 25 000 nukes inthe world today (of which the US has over 10 000 alone) a few more wont make a difference. Either way, we would be %$^%& if they were used :(

[Eki]

You guys just check these pics from Iran. Beware, when I first saw them my day was ruined. But truth needs to be known:

http://gazetaby.com/index.php?&sn_nid=7970&sn_cat=36
I didn't see any nuclear weapons.

About hanging: Is hanging really that much more cruel way to execute somebody than an electric chair or leathal injection they use in the US? Anyways, Iraqis hanged Saddam with the help of the US, so there.

[Drew]

You guys just check these pics from Iran. Beware, when I first saw them my day was ruined. But truth needs to be known:

http://gazetaby.com/index.php?&sn_nid=7970&sn_cat=36

In society today, those pictures aren't all that shocking, whatever you think about the death penalty, who didn't expect that Iran hangs people?

[leopard]

In society today, those pictures aren't all that shocking, whatever you think about the death penalty, who didn't expect that Iran hangs people?
I'd rather consider that the death penalty executed in front of one bulleted sniper amongst snippers group relatively acceptable, it looked as if having a deadly road accident. However prisoning the whole born days in remote area should be an alternative for the death penalty.

[Rudy Tamasz]

It is not about the cruelty of a peculiar way of executing people. Execution is a cruel thing anyway. It is about making it public. This way it is turned from a punishment for the crime into a method of intimidating people. U.S. justice is tough and has always been but at least they don't broadcast their executions live.

That brings us back to nukes. It's not about having them. It's how you use them. Superpowers quietly keep them to protect their security and the overall balance of power in the world. The country that hangs its citizens publicly (they also stone them occasionally) will not hesitate for a moment to use its nukes to show who's the master here. That's why Iran should be prevented from making nukes.

[leopard]

Who asked to be sensitive watching it live? It's not for public consumption.

[Rudy Tamasz]

Who asked to be sensitive watching it live? It's not for public consumption.

Young blood, steel nerves, eh? ;) Still alive, never gonna die!

[Eki]

It is not about the cruelty of a peculiar way of executing people. Execution is a cruel thing anyway. It is about making it public.

Do you prefer the ways of Hitler's Germany and Stalin's Soviet Union where people were taken from their homes in the middle of the night and were never seen or heard again? If Hitler and Stalin had made executions public, their people might not have stomached them as long as they did.

[jso1985]

C'mon Eki, I can't believe you're actually defending death penalty in THAT way, only because Iran does it...

[Eki]

C'mon Eki, I can't believe you're actually defending death penalty in THAT way, only because Iran does it...
I'm not defending, just putting things into perspective. Death penalty isn't nice, but neither is secretive government.

[Garry Walker]

Execution is a cruel thing anyway.


But a very fair thing, in some cases.

So Iran doesnt have nukes? Good. USA should still bomb the sh*t out of them :D

[odykas]

Iran has no nuclear weapons

Iran has only nucular weapons

[Malbec]

It is not about the cruelty of a peculiar way of executing people. Execution is a cruel thing anyway. It is about making it public. This way it is turned from a punishment for the crime into a method of intimidating people. U.S. justice is tough and has always been but at least they don't broadcast their executions live.

That brings us back to nukes. It's not about having them. It's how you use them. Superpowers quietly keep them to protect their security and the overall balance of power in the world. The country that hangs its citizens publicly (they also stone them occasionally) will not hesitate for a moment to use its nukes to show who's the master here. That's why Iran should be prevented from making nukes.

Iran tends to publicly execute criminal largely on public demand. In Iran as with all other countries there are sometimes crimes that horrify the public. Whereas in most countries their punishment would be carried out no differently to any other criminal, in Iran there is a sense that the public ought to see justice being done. The families of the victims are often invited and can sometimes be seen hurling abuse at the criminals. There was a recent case where several men where hanged publicly at the same time for example who were all from a gang of thieves who raped and murdered anyone in their way. In accordance with Islamic law the relatives of the deceased are allowed to pardon the criminals until the very last minute in which case the executions are stopped. In reality this hardly ever happens because the relatives would have pardoned the criminal much earlier if they had any intention of doing so and those who are about to be publicly executed tend to have been found guilty of multiple murders requiring all close relatives to pardon.

I believe but I'm not sure that if someone is found guilty of a 'normal' murder they are executed behind closed doors.

This isn't a defence of public executions, I believe there is no place for the death penalty at all but the purpose of the public executions needs to be clarified.

Iran did previously publicly hang/lash all criminals precisely as a deterrent but this was abandoned soon after the revolution as in many cases the crowd turned on the executioners, some of whom ended up quite badly injured.

As for Iran trying to obtain nukes, to all intents and purposes Iran (just like pre-war Iraq) is behaving as if it either has or is close to getting them. Perhaps it all is just a bluff done to obtain a better negotiating position with the West or to make Iran more capable than it really is and ward off a potential invasion.

[Rudy Tamasz]

Another pretty case of Mid-Eastern justice:

Report: Saudi king pardons rape victim
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071217/ap_on_re_mi_ea/saudi_justice

What an example of respect to human dignity and basic human rights! And that's their culture which influences everything from treating their own citizens to their international policies. Tell me anything you want about equality of cultures etc. but I won't trust Mid-Easterners to keep a matchbox. Letting them have the nukes will have about the same effect as giving booze and drugs to teens. Their behavior will be just as responsible.

[Rani]

Any country that has nukes is in no position to judge a country that wants to develope a nuclear system in their country. There are about 20 000 to 25 000 nukes inthe world today (of which the US has over 10 000 alone) a few more wont make a difference. Either way, we would be %$^%& if they were used :(
A few more WILL make a differance in a country that has publicly declared it wants to abolish another nation. http://www.news.com.au/story/0,10117,22540376-401,00.html
I know I'm a bit biased but I could never envision wanting to abolish the Iranian people or any other nation. I'll tell you the truth I'm pretty concerned about nuclear weapons in the hands of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.
My two cents, anyway.

[SOD]

Another pretty case of Mid-Eastern justice:

Report: Saudi king pardons rape victim
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071217/ap_on_re_mi_ea/saudi_justice

What an example of respect to human dignity and basic human rights! And that's their culture which influences everything from treating their own citizens to their international policies. Tell me anything you want about equality of cultures etc. but I won't trust Mid-Easterners to keep a matchbox. Letting them have the nukes will have about the same effect as giving booze and drugs to teens. Their behavior will be just as responsible.


Who keeps the unelected Saudi royal family in power?

[markabilly]

Who keeps the unelected Saudi royal family in power?


oil

[Malbec]

Another pretty case of Mid-Eastern justice:

Report: Saudi king pardons rape victim
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071217/ap_on_re_mi_ea/saudi_justice

What an example of respect to human dignity and basic human rights! And that's their culture which influences everything from treating their own citizens to their international policies. Tell me anything you want about equality of cultures etc. but I won't trust Mid-Easterners to keep a matchbox. Letting them have the nukes will have about the same effect as giving booze and drugs to teens. Their behavior will be just as responsible.

One thing that annoys me about the Saudi rape case apart from the fact that the two people who were raped were both punished is that the Western press only chose to focus on the woman. The fact that the man she was with was also raped and was also then punished is barely mentioned.

There have been other cases where headlines have been about women sentenced to capital or corporal punishment yet buried in the article you'll then find that a larger number of men have been subjected to the same punishments.

The media message appears to be that Muslim states are free to punish men in any way they see fit but that women should not be subject to corporal or capital punishment. So much for equality.

[Roamy]

But a very fair thing, in some cases.

So Iran doesnt have nukes? Good. USA should still bomb the sh*t out of them :D
THATA BOY GARRY!!!

[leopard]

Having said on the story (than likely was deleted) rape defines a form of assault forcing to have intimacy that against the will. Any story doesn't reflect any assault shouldn't be categorized as rape.

[leopard]

A few more WILL make a differance in a country that has publicly declared it wants to abolish another nation. http://www.news.com.au/story/0,10117,22540376-401,00.html
I know I'm a bit biased but I could never envision wanting to abolish the Iranian people or any other nation. I'll tell you the truth I'm pretty concerned about nuclear weapons in the hands of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.
My two cents, anyway.
Ahmad's concern was not abolishing a certain people but more for the doctrine that another certain people being pushed in a corner on their own land. The best solution would be a fair solution, ownership or whatever and not abolishing any of them though. :)

[555-04Q2]

A few more WILL make a differance in a country that has publicly declared it wants to abolish another nation. http://www.news.com.au/story/0,10117,22540376-401,00.html
I know I'm a bit biased but I could never envision wanting to abolish the Iranian people or any other nation. I'll tell you the truth I'm pretty concerned about nuclear weapons in the hands of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.
My two cents, anyway.

The USA are the biggest whingers about nukes yet they are the only ones to ever use them not once, but twice in 1945 as we all know. I dont see them being asked to cancel their nuclear programs. You cant beat your wife everyday and then turn around and tell your neighbour not to do it because it is wrong. All countries that have nukes have no business bullying Iran over their nuclear program.

[Rudy Tamasz]

The USA are the biggest whingers about nukes yet they are the only ones to ever use them not once, but twice in 1945 as we all know. I dont see them being asked to cancel their nuclear programs. You cant beat your wife everyday and then turn around and tell your neighbour not to do it because it is wrong. All countries that have nukes have no business bullying Iran over their nuclear program.

Well, quite incidentally it was the U.S. who bothered to liberate Europe from nazis, not Iran. Maybe the Iranian gov't was plotting landing in Europe circa 1944, but it just didn't happen.

My point is that the U.S. has a much better record in international relations than Iran. Therefore I trust the American to have nukes and I don't trust Iran.

[Rani]

Ahmad's concern was not abolishing a certain people but more for the doctrine that another certain people being pushed in a corner on their own land. The best solution would be a fair solution, ownership or whatever and not abolishing any of them though. :)
I'm sorry if it's a bit harsh, but I don't understand which part of
-“wiped from the map”
-“Death to Israel”
-Ahmadinejad vows to abolish Israel
didn't you understand?! :eek:

I agree, the subject of Gaza and The West Bank can (and is) debated, but President Ahmadinejad isn't debating, he's declaring he wants Israel G-O-N-E.
BTW his sayings about the Holocaust are downright outrageous. As someone who lost a great deal of relatives in the war (and as someone who has been to Auscwitz, Maydanek and quite a few other extermination camps) I hope you never get to read similar quotes in the paper (better yet, I hope you could never relate to the subject of genocide, ethnic cleansing or whatever you want to call it).

[Camelopard]

Well, quite incidentally it was the U.S. who bothered to liberate Europe from nazis, not Iran. Maybe the Iranian gov't was plotting landing in Europe circa 1944, but it just didn't happen.

I disagree with that, imo the Soviets did more to liberate Europe from the nazis, even if nobody liked what they did after the end of the second world war!
The war in the Pacific may be a different case.

[Camelopard]

I'm sorry if it's a bit harsh, but I don't understand which part of
-“wiped from the map”
-“Death to Israel”
-Ahmadinejad vows to abolish Israel
didn't you understand?! :eek:

I agree, the subject of Gaza and The West Bank can (and is) debated, but President Ahmadinejad isn't debating, he's declaring he wants Israel G-O-N-E.
BTW his sayings about the Holocaust are downright outrageous. As someone who lost a great deal of relatives in the war (and as someone who has been to Auscwitz, Maydanek and quite a few other extermination camps) I hope you never get to read similar quotes in the paper (better yet, I hope you could never relate to the subject of genocide, ethnic cleansing or whatever you want to call it).

The original discussion was that Iran did not have Nuclear Weapons, sort of like those WMD' s that Iraq alledgedly had.
Then it gets turned into to a lets all hate Iranians thread and how persecuted the jews were. The jews were not the only ones in the death camps in Europe, everyone one conveniently forgets the millions of other races (in particular the Romany), religions, misfits, homosexuals and anti-hitler people that were imprisioned, and or executed.
Whoops, now I'll be accused of being anti-semetic. Yes, I lost relatives in wwII and I've been to various camps in germany. Yes some of my wife's aunties were raped by soviet soldiers when they were 12 and 13 and were trying to flee the ukraine.

What's all this got to do with the fact that Iran is meant to have Nuclear Weapons? Exactly my point, lets get the thread back on track.

[leopard]

I'm sorry if it's a bit harsh
Not a problem :)

[markabilly]

Well the latest seems to be some bragging going on in Iran where they say the report was wrong and Iran is working on getting some nuke bombs, but only to protect themselves

Gives a whole new meaning to suicide bomber--hope they do it somewhere other than the USA, cause then we can say, weeelll now so sorry--if you are not already dead, then in a year or two, you probably will be...

[Rani]

The original discussion was that Iran did not have Nuclear Weapons, sort of like those WMD' s that Iraq alledgedly had.
Then it gets turned into to a lets all hate Iranians thread and how persecuted the jews were. The jews were not the only ones in the death camps in Europe, everyone one conveniently forgets the millions of other races (in particular the Romany), religions, misfits, homosexuals and anti-hitler people that were imprisioned, and or executed.
Whoops, now I'll be accused of being anti-semetic. Yes, I lost relatives in wwII and I've been to various camps in germany. Yes some of my wife's aunties were raped by soviet soldiers when they were 12 and 13 and were trying to flee the ukraine.

When Pres. Ahmadinejad refers to the Holocaust, I don't think he's trying to upset the Romanies. I agree with you that Jews weren't the only ones exterminated in WWII, and I wouldn't think of accusing you of anti-semitism.I think that talking about the reason Iran wants nuclear weapons is not derailing the thread.

[555-04Q2]

My point is that the U.S. has a much better record in international relations than Iran. Therefore I trust the American to have nukes and I don't trust Iran.

Not a chance. America is responsible for numerous attrocities over the years. Look at the nukes in 1945, look at Vietnam, look at Iraq today. Their international relations with many countries is soured by their reputation. While I am all for a big brother like the USA in world politics, their track record does not speak highly of their international relations. They have not always led by example.

[Eki]

Well, quite incidentally it was the U.S. who bothered to liberate Europe from nazis, not Iran. Maybe the Iranian gov't was plotting landing in Europe circa 1944, but it just didn't happen.

My point is that the U.S. has a much better record in international relations than Iran. Therefore I trust the American to have nukes and I don't trust Iran.
The US didn't use the atomic bomb to liberate Europe from the Nazis, they used them to crush Japan. Japan was ready to negotiate before the A-bombs, but the US wanted unconditional surrender. Besides, it wasn't the US alone who fought the Nazis in Europe. Without the Soviet Union, Britain and others on their side they would probably had not been more successfull than they were in Vietnam.

[Eki]

You guys just check these pics from Iran. Beware, when I first saw them my day was ruined. But truth needs to be known:

http://gazetaby.com/index.php?&sn_nid=7970&sn_cat=36
On the subject of death penalty: Also China employs it:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,317406,00.html


Chinese Teachers to be Executed for Prostitution of 23 Young Girls

BEIJING — Two married schoolteachers who forced 23 rural girls — some younger than 14 — into having sex with Chinese coal mine owners have been sentenced to death, a court official said Wednesday.

Zhao Qingmei and her husband, Chi Yao, were convicted by the Bijie Intermediate Court on Dec. 14 of forcing 22 girls from a school where they taught into prostitution in the poor province of Guizhou in southwest China, according to a woman working at the court who refused to give her name.

Six of the girls were under the age of 14. The couple had also forced one local village girl into the scheme, which took place between March and June last year.

[airshifter]

Had this been directed at someone other than Rani, I would agree with your point that the thread is grossly off track. However, his point appears to me to be one of the most valid in direct relation to the original subject matter.

It's not his fault he made a valid point that redirected the hijacked thread back towards the original subject.

[SOD]

I'm sorry if it's a bit harsh, but I don't understand which part of
-“wiped from the map”
-“Death to Israel”
-Ahmadinejad vows to abolish Israel
didn't you understand?! :eek:

I agree, the subject of Gaza and The West Bank can (and is) debated, but President Ahmadinejad isn't debating, he's declaring he wants Israel G-O-N-E.
BTW his sayings about the Holocaust are downright outrageous. As someone who lost a great deal of relatives in the war (and as someone who has been to Auscwitz, Maydanek and quite a few other extermination camps) I hope you never get to read similar quotes in the paper (better yet, I hope you could never relate to the subject of genocide, ethnic cleansing or whatever you want to call it).

every Farsi scholar from Tel Aviv to Tokyo says that Ahmadinejad said that Zionism would the way that Fascism & Communism went. big difference than claiming that Israel would be wiped off the map.

How's that land & banking deal working out for ole Ehud :?: , I hear he aint too popular in the polls.

BTW, I don't trust nuclear weapons in the hands of ANY nation.

"The saviour is returning, the saviour is returning."

[SOD]

Well the latest seems to be some bragging going on in Iran where they say the report was wrong and Iran is working on getting some nuke bombs, but only to protect themselves

Gives a whole new meaning to suicide bomber--hope they do it somewhere other than the USA, cause then we can say, weeelll now so sorry--if you are not already dead, then in a year or two, you probably will be...

aren't you lucky that consignment of nukes on that B52 didn't explode over your head!

[Camelopard]

The Iranians have every right to develop their own nuclear weapons to us as self defence to avoid ending up like the disaster that is now Iraq.

[Rudy Tamasz]

The US didn't use the atomic bomb to liberate Europe from the Nazis, they used them to crush Japan. Japan was ready to negotiate before the A-bombs, but the US wanted unconditional surrender. Besides, it wasn't the US alone who fought the Nazis in Europe. Without the Soviet Union, Britain and others on their side they would probably had not been more successfull than they were in Vietnam.

It is clear that the U.S. had much less of its own agenda in Europe than the Soviet Union. That makes the landing of allies in Narmandy an even more noble act. SU paved its way into Europe with the bodies of its soldiers to grab whatever it could and establish puppet governments in the satellite countries. The U.S. distinguished itself by the Marshall Plan which was the key to the prosperity of modern day Europe. Again, the U.S. is no angel but it still behaved much more responsibly than some others.

And BTW, where is Iran in modern history? What was the highlight of its foreign policy? A meaningless war with Iraq, when they used Islamic youths as kamikaze soldiers?

[Rani]

every Farsi scholar from Tel Aviv to Tokyo says that Ahmadinejad said that Zionism would the way that Fascism & Communism went. big difference than claiming that Israel would be wiped off the map.

Could you back this up with a link (and not one in Farsi, please ;) )? Also, Ahmadinejad has said things like this for quite a number of years now. I don't know if he said it the way you think he did every single time.



How's that land & banking deal working out for ole Ehud :?: , I hear he aint too popular in the polls.

He might not be that popular, and I think a lot of the decisions he made (especially going to war, I was still serving at the time) were wrong, but what does that have to do with anything? The beauty here is that come elections, we can vote for someone else and replace him. I doubt it Iranians have the same privilege (through no direct bad doing of themselves).

[Malbec]

I doubt it Iranians have the same privilege (through no direct bad doing of themselves).

How did Ahmadinejad come into power then? And why is he facing another election in a couple of years time if the Iranian people don't have the privilege of voting then?

[Malbec]

It is clear that the U.S. had much less of its own agenda in Europe than the Soviet Union. That makes the landing of allies in Narmandy an even more noble act. SU paved its way into Europe with the bodies of its soldiers to grab whatever it could and establish puppet governments in the satellite countries. The U.S. distinguished itself by the Marshall Plan which was the key to the prosperity of modern day Europe. Again, the U.S. is no angel but it still behaved much more responsibly than some others.

And BTW, where is Iran in modern history? What was the highlight of its foreign policy? A meaningless war with Iraq, when they used Islamic youths as kamikaze soldiers?

Totally totally wrong.

Whilst the American role within WW2 in Europe itself was relatively altruistic once Roosevelt (who was IMO rather naive about the Communists and Stalin in particular) and Truman realised how the post-war map would be redrawn they doubled their efforts to increase the landgrab in the west of Europe. The Marshall plan would not have been so big if the Communist threat hadn't been there, the intention was to shore up the West European countries to withstand the Communist threat and to entice the Central European countries that at the time straight after the war hadn't entered into either camp into joining France and Germany in forming democratic states. Marshall plan aid to central European countries stopped totally once they turned communist yet were still desperately in need of aid. So much for altruism eh?

You do realise that Iran was invaded, hence the Iran-Iraq war was not part of Iranian foreign policy but Iraqi. Iran is not a traditional great power but it has been trying for the last 50 years to be a regional power. Thanks to the American response to 9/11 it has finally succeeded. The Arabs are starting to feel threatened from two directions now, from the Israelis in the West to the Iranians in the East. I bet Ahmadinejad thanks Bush every night for removing the two greatest threats to Iranian security over the past decade, the Taliban and Saddam.

What influence do they have now? Well, like it or not Iran can worsen the situation in Iraq with the flick of a switch by getting the Shia militia to turn on the Americans there. Right now they are being relatively quiescent, just wait till they raise hell. Same goes for Afghanistan in the Persian influenced west of the country.

[Magnus]

A lot of very interesting points in this thread. Although i feel it is a little bit like I do regarding the Global Warming discussions: things are very complicated, and it is difficult to decide which party to favour.

My opinion, I think, is that: yes, the SU caused Nazi-Germany tremendous losses (Kaliningrad, and so on) but their ruthlessness regarding their own is somewhat appaling.
The US is/was of course aswell extremely utilitaristic but I can not help taking their party.
regarding whether Iran has nukes or not; well, I do not fully understand the agenda of Bush jr, all I now is that he probably is far from as stupid as the popular media like to point at. It would be very interesting to hear his unfiltrered thoughts and arguments.

There is so much to say in this matter, and it is a very interesting discussion, which certainly will never come to an end.

Regarding Iran, a friend of mine (who is 86, but who cares?)(and btw escaped nazigermany in august 1939) visited the country 2006 by train, and in the country by air. Not bad for a man his age!
Anyway, he thought highly of Iran before the visit, and likes it even more after. He thinks there are so many fantastic and intelligent people, and that the countryu have so many different aspects of both cultural and social interest. There is one big poblem though, he thinks, and that is the teocrati suffocating the country trough Ahmadinejad and the religious leaders whose arrends Ahmadinejad is said to carry.

[Eki]

It is clear that the U.S. had much less of its own agenda in Europe than the Soviet Union. That makes the landing of allies in Narmandy an even more noble act. SU paved its way into Europe with the bodies of its soldiers to grab whatever it could and establish puppet governments in the satellite countries.
The Soviet Union used the opportunity provided by Normandy to pounder Finland while the Germans were occupied by the US and Britain elsewhere:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tali-Ihantala


After the initial Finnish advance of 1941, the Continuation War was stabilized to trench warfare with very little activity on either side. When the Siege of Leningrad was lifted January 1944, Stavka received orders to plan an offensive against Finland to push it out of the war.

The Soviet attack on the Finnish front commenced on the Karelian Isthmus on June 9, 1944, (coordinated with the Allied Invasion of Normandy). Three armies were pitted there against the Finns, among them several Guard formations - Soviet crack troops.

The attack soon breached the Finnish front line of defence in Valkeasaari on June 10 and the Finnish forces retreated to their secondary defence line, the VT-line (Vammelsuu-Taipale). The Soviet attack was supported by a massive artillery barrage, air bombardments and armoured forces.

The VT-line was breached in Sahakylä and Kuuterselkä on June 14 and after a failed counterattack in Kuuterselkä by the Finnish armoured division the Finnish defence had to be pulled back to the VKT-line (Viipuri (Vyborg) - Kuparsaari - Taipale).

The abandonment of the VT-line was followed by a week of retreat and delaying battles. The Soviet offensive was crowned when the city of Viipuri (Vyborg) was captured by the Soviets on June 20 with only a short battle. Despite the Red army’s great success in smashing two Finnish defense lines and capturing of territory in just 10 days, it had failed to destroy the Finnish army which could concentrate on the VKT-line. [1]. [4][4]

Mannerheim had asked for German help on June 12, and on June 16 the Flight detachment Kuhlmey arrived in Finland. A few days later the battalion sized 303. Assault Gun Brigade and the 122nd Division Greif had also arrived but after that the Germans offered only supplies, among which the Panzerfaust anti-tank weapons were the most important.

Finland sued for peace on June 21, and the Soviet Union replied that only unconditional surrender was acceptable, so Finland refused. The German Foreign Minister Ribbentrop arrived on June 22 and demanded a guarantee that Finland would fight to the end as a precondition of continued German military support. President Ryti gave this guarantee as a personal undertaking.

On June 21 Stavka ordered the Leningrad front to breach the VKT-line at Tali (Paltsevo), and to advance to Lake Saimaa.

[Eki]

Could you back this up with a link (and not one in Farsi, please ;) )?
Actually, I think Ahmdinejad said it in Farsi. I have only heard it in English from American sources. I have a hunch that they might have twisted his words to suit their own agenda. I'd rather hear it straight from "the horse's mouth" if I only understood Farsi.

[Eki]

He might not be that popular, and I think a lot of the decisions he made (especially going to war, I was still serving at the time) were wrong, but what does that have to do with anything?
Do you think the decision to bomb the UN military observers where 4 UN officers, including a Finnish one, got killed was right?

[Rani]

Do you think the decision to bomb the UN military observers where 4 UN officers, including a Finnish one, got killed was right?
That's quite a cheap shot. I envy you for living in Finland. I really do.
Have you ever been to the middle east?

[Rudy Tamasz]

Eki, quite incidentally I know a thing or two on the subject. My granddad was badly wounded by Finnish mortar fire near Leningrad.

[markabilly]

aren't you lucky that consignment of nukes on that B52 didn't explode over your head!


Yep, and I do not want any Iranian nukes doing the same....funny how russia got so upset over an anti-missile system designed to protect Europe (of all people, do we really need these people? you know Mercedes are nice, some great drivers and tracks but are these people really worth protecting??) and is now shipping them nuke fuel, without thinking about the fact that Russia is just somebody to be saved for later, after Isreal and Europe are just dust in the wind......

[Eki]

My granddad was badly wounded by Finnish mortar fire near Leningrad.
Sorry about that. I hope he got better.

[SOD]

Yep, and I do not want any Iranian nukes doing the same....funny how russia got so upset over an anti-missile system designed to protect Europe (of all people, do we really need these people? you know Mercedes are nice, some great drivers and tracks but are these people really worth protecting??) and is now shipping them nuke fuel, without thinking about the fact that Russia is just somebody to be saved for later, after Isreal and Europe are just dust in the wind......

how very altruistic of you.

[Eki]

Yep, and I do not want any Iranian nukes doing the same....
Which part of "Iran doesn't have a nuclear weapons program" you didn't understand? Even if they had nuclear weapons, they don't have means to deliver them to Europe let alone the US.


funny how russia got so upset over an anti-missile system designed to protect Europe (of all people, do we really need these people? you know Mercedes are nice, some great drivers and tracks but are these people really worth protecting??) and is now shipping them nuke fuel, without thinking about the fact that Russia is just somebody to be saved for later, after Isreal and Europe are just dust in the wind......
The anti-missile system isn't designed to protect Europe. It's just supposed to be placed in Europe to intercept any missile before it reaches the US. You know, shoot them down above Europe so that the nuclear fall out would be on us instead of you. Is it any wonder we don't want it here?

[Malbec]

Anyway, he thought highly of Iran before the visit, and likes it even more after. He thinks there are so many fantastic and intelligent people, and that the countryu have so many different aspects of both cultural and social interest. There is one big poblem though, he thinks, and that is the teocrati suffocating the country trough Ahmadinejad and the religious leaders whose arrends Ahmadinejad is said to carry.

I'd agree with that. If there was an international award for the nicest people to be ruled by the worst government then Iran has it stitched up.

[Roamy]

Yep, and I do not want any Iranian nukes doing the same....funny how russia got so upset over an anti-missile system designed to protect Europe (of all people, do we really need these people? you know Mercedes are nice, some great drivers and tracks but are these people really worth protecting??) and is now shipping them nuke fuel, without thinking about the fact that Russia is just somebody to be saved for later, after Isreal and Europe are just dust in the wind......

Well actually marabilly I would agree with you. however I think the idea is to shoot them down right out of the silo so the bomb falls back on russia. I could be incorrect but I doubt we would ever want to shoot down a nuke over Europe. But if you keep expanding you may inherit russia along with the middle east.

[Roamy]

Well Rani
As you can see you get very lousy support from the Euros - They have short memory's. I wish you would pack up every man woman and child + pets and move them over here and then we could just let Iran have all the nukes they want. Our scientists combined would solve the energy problem in short order.
The EC could be moved from Belgium to Saudi where it belongs.

Also we have a great Indian nation that just cancelled all their treaties. They have enough land to sell you your own country. I cover that in another thread.

[Rani]

Well Rani
As you can see you get very lousy support from the Euros - They have short memory's. I wish you would pack up every man woman and child + pets and move them over here and then we could just let Iran have all the nukes they want. Our scientists combined would solve the energy problem in short order.
The EC could be moved from Belgium to Saudi where it belongs.

This is not new to me. I actually wish we could stay here and live in peace with all our neighbors... History has showed us that spreading abroad usually ends up in us either being kicked out or prosecuted.
Concerning the Europeans, Unfortunately Israel has a very serious problem with how it's portrayed in the media around the world. The problem is that world media always likes to show the big strong soldier with his M4 aiming his weapon at a poor defenseless little boy, while ignoring the fact that a mere 2 seconds ago the young boy tried to kill this soldier by throwing a 15 pound brick at him from a 3 story house. I'm pretty sure that had I been born European I wouldn't support Israel, the eternal bully.
I'm not saying Israel and the IDF are saints by any stretch of the imagination, but in my own personal experience as an infantry soldier, we certainly tried very hard, not to harm innocent people.
But this is the subject of a whole different thread, I didn't even mention Iran once :rolleyes: .

[Roamy]

well the key would be to buy your own country somewhere with nice neighbors. Canada has land they will never use and could carve out a new country. But as the world goes Iran will probably continue on til we blow the **** out of them but we are so freaking popular right now it will probably have to be you guys that do it.

[Camelopard]

I envy you for living in Finland. I really do.

You could always emigrate.

[Erki]

You could always emigrate.

Always? I'm that sure.