STOP PRESS - US and UK have Uranium Enrichment Plants

[BillHicksRules]

STOP PRESS - US and UK have Uranium Enrichment Plants
Dear all,
I am not sure if this has escaped everyones notice but both the US and the UK have both Uranium Enrichment programs AND Nuclear Weapons Development programs. Furthermore they have deployed Nuclear Weapons systems ready to strike anywhere in the world at short notice (much less than 45 minutes).
When you couple this with the illegal invasions of not one but two soveriegn nations in the last 5 years and the threatening of several others is it any surprise that a nation like Iran which has been illegally invaded twice from the west in the last 30 years, has sought the means to prevent it happening again?
Cheers

BHR

[mbga9pgf]

Yeah but then again, they are a bunch of nutters and we aint. You just need to see the reaction all over the midle east to a little teasing from a newspaper to see that.

We dont hang girls for defending themselves whilst being raped

And we most certainly recognise the soverenty of Israel, whilst at the same time dont threaten to wipe her from the face of the planet.

[Lord Snot]

So what Bill?

Nukes can’t be un-invented. The only thing to do for nw is ensure the wrong people don’t get hold of them. And I don’t see the yanks or the poms threatening to wipe someone they simply don’t like off the planet.

Are you on drugs or something? You seriously want to compare states like the USA or the UK having nukes with places run by psychopaths (like Iran) having them?

I’ll be very happy to see the west maintain the ability to eradicate any nutters out there who wish to use WMDs against us.

I’d be very unhappy to see trouble-making states like Iran get them. It’s bad enough the Indians and Pakis have the bombs laying around the place waiting to be accidentally let off.

It’s very simple: There are some people you can “trust” with things like nukes or influence and there are some you can’t. Are you really that naieve? Mind-boggling….
:rolleyes:

[Daysleeper]

illegal invasions of not one but two soveriegn nations

2?
If Iraq was one who was the other ?

[Footless Halls]

I think he must mean Afghanistan. Perhaps he had his holiday cottage there under the old regime?

[mbga9pgf]

I think he must mean Afghanistan. Perhaps he had his holiday cottage there under the old regime?


Naah, I reckon its George Galloway in disguise. He has just found another tinpot dictator to support in tune to his commie tendencies.

[RayDarr]

Daysleeper,
I guess he means Afghanistan. Just a guess mind you.

Personnally, I don't much mind what Iran does to its own citizens, just as long as they don't try in with ours. Looking at the way GW Bush (ever wondered what the W stood for, other than wan**r) carries on, I would be paranoid if I was them. It seems we must all be democratic. However, if we elect the "wrong" people (i.e. Hammas in Palistine) that dosen't count as democracy. If you are mad Israelies, it is OK to have the bomb, but if you are mad Iranians, it is a bad thing to have the bomb. It is bad for Iraq to invade Kuait, but OK for the US and others to invade Iraq, on trumped up reasons. I have to say, if I came from the mid east, I might just be a bit brassed off with all this as well.
Perhaps if we just left them all alone to do what they liked in their own lands, we might just get on better. Trouble is, I guess we have interfered so much for so long, it's much to late to do that now.

[Flatus Veteranus]

am not sure if this has escaped everyones notice but both the US and the UK have both Uranium Enrichment programs AND Nuclear Weapons Development programs.

If the USA's and UK's capabilities have escaped anyone'snotice. they must be intellectually challenged to the point of being brain-dead or living on a different planet. The difference between the established nuclear powers (ie, the permanent members of the Security Council)and the "wannabees" is that the former's programmes have been declared to, and are regularly monitored by, the IAEA.

[Tourist]

There is, of course, only one nuclear power that has ever truly demonstrated the willingness to use nuclear weapons. By using them.It is also, scarily, populated by a large amnount of religious extremists. Creationism enyone?

[Onan the Clumsy]

Nukes can’t be un-invented
Actually, if you think about it, they're sort of self un-inventing.

:8

[Navaleye]

Iran = bunch of nutters
Afganistan (under taliban)= bunch of nutters
N Korea = bunch of nutters

Which of these would you like to have nuclear weapons and the means to deliver them?

[mbga9pgf]

There is, of course, only one nuclear power that has ever truly demonstrated the willingness to use nuclear weapons. By using them.It is also, scarily, populated by a large amnount of religious extremists. Creationism enyone?


And by doing so massively reduced the number of casualties on our side. If the Japanese had invented the A bomb and used it, it would have been fair dues. Thank god they didnt mind, and we got to write the history books. deal with it.

[PileUp Officer]

It’s very simple: There are some people you can “trust” with things like nukes or influence and there are some you can’t. Are you really that naieve? Mind-boggling….
:rolleyes:

To be honest I wouldn't 'trust' anyone with nukes. Especially with some of the track records of the folks in power.

[mbga9pgf]

I dont honestly believe though that one man could ever launch a nuclear attack, at least not in the west, without at least first someone very high up advising such a leader to carry out a non conventional as the best course of action.

The same however, cannot be said for such entities as Iran, Iraq and N Korea. As for the Pakistanis and Indians, I am actually not too adverse to them having them, as they again are in the same league as us, purely down to the beaurocratic way both of these coutries run. If anything, posessing nukes might actually have brought a little welcome respect for their neighbour and thus helped the situation..

Flip this around to Iran, and I honestly cannot Say I would trust them to even 30% that they wouldnt go preemtive against Israel, bearing in mind how much support Iran would have in the mideast. I honestly wouldnt even trust these guys with a bb gun, never mind a nuke!!! Alahs will and all that.

[BillHicksRules]

Navaleye,

Iran = bunch of nutters
Afganistan = bunch of nutters
N Korea = bunch of nutters
Which of these would you like to have nuclear weapons and the means to deliver them?

Since we are dealing in sweeping statements with no need for justification

USA = bunch of nutters


Cheers

BHR

[The Rocket]

Nice to have you back BHR.

Think that the whole 'Cat' thing, and the arguing with Barrymore cost you a few votes, but on the whole, very entertaining.

[BillHicksRules]

Nice to have you back BHR.
Think that the whole 'Cat' thing, and the arguing with Barrymore cost you a few votes, but on the whole, very entertaining.

What?

Cheers

BHR

[SASless]

Hey Hicksy,

Next time I am in Scotland this summer...what say I buy you a Pint!

Then you can explain at short length how you arrived at that statement about Americans being "nutters" in the class of the Iranian President, Kimmy Boy and the Taliban.

That assumes you would say such a thing in person considering how offensive it really is. The reaction one might expect from such offerings, especially when dealing with "nutters" if you are quite correct, begs the imagination.

First round is mine. After that...it is up to you.

[The Rocket]

You're sounding amazingly like George Galloway with your prattle about US and UK Nukes, and defence of Iran in it's attempts to produce 'defensive' nuclear weapons.

What next BHR, are you about to advise that the Iranians and their Middle Eastern brothers should rise up against the Infidels who are 'raping' their holy lands.

[BillHicksRules]

Hey Hicksy,
Next time I am in Scotland this summer...what say I buy you a Pint!
Then you can explain at short length how you arrived at that statement about Americans being "nutters" in the class of the Iranian President, Kimmy Boy and the Taliban.
That assumes you would say such a thing in person considering how offensive it really is. The reaction one might expect from such offerings, especially when dealing with "nutters" if you are quite correct, begs the imagination.
First round is mine. After that...it is up to you.

It is no more or less offensive than the statement it was in response to.

I work with a guy who was born in Kabul, know at least three people from Iran, and know many Americans.

Now in my experience my statement is as accurate as that which I responded to.

Cheers

BHR

[BillHicksRules]

Rocket,

Since you are able to hold both sides of this discussion between us can you not waste Danny's bandwidth with the rest of it?

Cheers

BHR

[The Rocket]

BHR

What?

Cheers,

The Rocket.

[pr00ne]

BHR,

I think that the Rocket is inferring that you are currently visiting Egypt, after an initial bit of difficulty in getting in.

Having read your opening mail, I can see exactly where he is coming from.




The UK and the USA do indeed have the capability you refer to, however, unlike Iran, they allow complete and unfettered access to the IAEA, as do another 138 countries.

Why should Iran be any different? Especially as Iran maintains it only has a civil nuclear power programme. So why do they insist on having Breeder reactors and the ability to enrich Uranium, especially as the Russians have offered to do just that for them?

[BillHicksRules]

Rocket,

What part of my post did you not understand?

You are happy to put words in my mouth and then argue against those words so why not do it in the comfort of your own room?

Cheers

BHR

[The Rocket]

I understood your post in it's entirety BHR,

I'm just a little nonplussed as to why you've chosen to create a thread on a Military Aircrew forum, that seems to be intent on slating the UK and US, and defending a rogue state that has today chosen to defy completely the United Nations, and a fair practice that all Nuclear states live by including the US and UK, and who at the same time refuse to recognise the republic of Israel and declare a hostile intent.

I do not wish to put words in your mouth at all I simply repeat the words of a man you sound spookily like, from the same geographical location as yourself.

You moan about wasting Danny's bandwidth. Why on earth have you created this thread then BHR?

[SASless]

Hicksy,

Dear boy your sampling method does leave a bit of room for criticism for the lack of scientific standards used for your sampling method.

One Afghani, three Iranians....and many Americans....gee, Impressive.

Talk of waste of bandwidth....I would suggest waste of O2.

We will have to accept that your determination is purely subjective and in no way based upon any measureable empirical data that could lead to an objective determination.

Down here in my part of the country where we eat country ham , grits, and biscuits of a morning...no one would ever accuse you of toting a lazy man's load of brains.

[Stafford]

Another great wind up Bill ! How they bite on your trite analyses and so called provocation. Boring, could do better. Yawn :rolleyes:

[Navaleye]

Iran = bunch of nutters
Afganistan (under taliban)= bunch of nutters
N Korea = bunch of nutters

My statement was concise but far from sweeping. Granted Afghanistan is incapable of building a light bulb. N Korea leaves it citizens to starve whilst pouring its little wealth in to nuclear weapons and ballistic missiles. Nutters seems an apt description. As for Iran, don't get me started...

[JessTheDog]

A credible nuclear weapons system needs a highly accurate all-weather 24/7 delivery system that can survive a first strike carried out by someone else, in order to be of deterrent use.

Not many nations have these and the Iranians won't acquire this technology in a hurry.

India and Pakistan hate each other nearly as much as Iran and Israel, and their nuclear standoff has arguably led to greater diplomatic progress than may have occured otherwise. Also, two superpowers had enough missiles and bombs to wipe the world out a few times during the Cold War, and they managed to refrain from doing so.

The genie was let out of the bottle in the early 1940s and cannot be bombed back into it. To do so would cause far more problems than would be solved, as Iran and others would redouble efforts to obtain nuclear weapons. No-one is bombing North Korea or China, after all....

[tablet_eraser]

In our new age of terrifying, lethal gadgets, which supplanted so swiftly the old one, the first great aggressive war, if it should come, will be launched by suicidal little madmen pressing an electronic button. Such a war will not last long and none will ever follow it. There will be no conquerors and no conquests, but only the charred bones of the dead on an uninhabited planet.

SHIRER W L, The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich, Pan Books London (1968)

That's why responsible states keep a nuclear deterrant. I believe that the situation that used to exist - 5 nuclear powers guided to common-sense and diplomacy by the spectre of MAD - was far better than the situation today, where proliferation almost becomes necessary for threatened/threatening states to maintain a supposed status quo. Proliferation should have been prevented at all costs, by all nations. Then we wouldn't have a nuclear Israel, Pakistan or India. Although they claim that their weapons only provide a deterrant capability, their enemies will always feel threatened.

Now, for God's sake, we can't afford to allow Iran to gain the same capability. Or North Korea. Or anywhere else.

[Onan the Clumsy]

and they managed to refrain from doing so.


...just

.

[dallas]

Anyone else get the feeling we're due to discover an Iranian '30-min launch capability' within the next couple of years?

[Navaleye]

The Iranian president believes in an obscure Islamic concept called the "Hidden Iman". Story has it that after a global catastrophe the "12th Phrophet" will return to the earth and bring salvation to the muslim world. Can we you see where all this is going...?

[SASless]

Do they need a reliable 24/7 all weather attack capability to be a real threat?

If they pick the right weather....and launch for whatever reason...and are not stopped from doing so....they achieve the first strike success. Granted, with any good luck they will disappear off the earth but what of the folks standing around when their nuke arrives no matter where it finally fetches up?

If the Iranian Fundamentalists want to gulp down a lot of Jim Jones style Kool-Aid....that is fine but not by means of setting off a nuke in our front garden thank you very much.

Lets send them a life time supply of the Kool Aid early on....and skip the rest of the event.

[Tourist]

I think some people on this forum need to believe what they read in the papers a little less, and actually meet some normal Afghanis and Iranians (I don't know any North Koreans!, they may be nutters) They are just like you or I. We have our embarassing elements who, to the outside world, give a false impression of what British people are like. We have football hooligans and people who go on Big Brother, they have Religious Fundamentalists. I don't want the Iranis to have the bomb either, but, from their point of view, I can see it makes us look incredibly hypocritical to demand that they stop their Nuc program while we keep ours. They know that the moment they have some Nucs, they don't have to worry about us invading anymore. You must also understand the position of their polititions. If they fail to take, at least publicly, a very hard line with the west, they will be voted out. It is a tricky tightrope they walk. We should try to make it easier for them to be moderate.

[JessTheDog]

Most people have no interest whatsoever in martyrdom or an early arrival in the afterlife, and are more concerned with a couple of meals a day and a roof over their heads.

[SASless]

In my travels...which include two years in Iran...and experience with other folks of the Muslim faith...that is absolutely true. Ordinary folks trying to raise a family and live in peace. Alas, it is not the majority we have to worry about but rather that demented few who see things in a much different way.

That is as it always has been with human kind. Hopefully, we have learned we cannot ignore the threat particularly with the amount of harm that can be done by modern weapons of mass destruction.

The rub is in being able to figure out how to free ourselves of the threat being posed. I suppose it takes two sides to effect a compromise that will work but just how does one negotiate with those that seek their own end and consider it holy?

[dallas]

I actually agree with Tourist - the US and UK invaded Iraq under dubious circumstances irrespective of the alleged good(?) that has come of it. Although Iran is far from playing ball with the West, they did vote Ahmadinejad in and he would almost be negligent not to look at ways of stopping his country from suffering the same fate as Iraq - the fact that he seems to be hurrying the process with the other hand is another story...

I'm far from a Muslim convert - I think they need to sort out their shop in many ways - but compare their basic beliefs of family values, eye for an eye and respect for elders with our moronic society of parasites, greed and thoughlessness and you can see why he might want to keep Western values away.

As for democracy, deciding not to fund Hamas because its the wrong type of democracy or considering bombing Al Jazeera because they represent the wrong type of free speech, speaks volumes to me.

[SASless]

Mahmoud Zahar, leader of the militant Palestinian group Hamas, told the Italian daily Il Giornale the cartoonists should be punished by death.


As long as Hamas advocates violence such as this and declines to participate in peaceful democratic processes....I see no reason for us to fund their activities.

If they renounce violence, accept the existence of Israel, seek change by means of diplomatic process then funding them as the PA was in the past would be acceptable.

It not the disagreement with their political views per se that bothers us...it is the methods they embrace. The money should bolster peace not fighting and violence.

[whowhenwhy]

Not suggesting that I like the idea of Iran with nukes; however, one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter.

Imagine what we and are actions look like to the Iranians. We've invaded Afghanistan and Iraq and whether some of us like it or not I believe that they were illegal actions under international law. The Iranians like their country the way that it is and we're encroaching on their front door step. Also, if you take a historical view of US foreign policy you notice that they like to bring with them US ideas of democracy and religion.

I simply suggest that we try and look at things from both sides. And pray to allah that President Tony doesn't try and lead us against the 'nutters.'

[southside]

Very good point there. Surely if Iran were to arm itself with WMD the world would be a much safer place.

[The Rocket]

You really are becoming more and more of a ridiculous caracature of yourself aren't you Southside.

You really are a pathetic individual.

[SASless]

Rocket,

I think (hope) you missed the tongue in cheek response that was. I read it twice and think I saw a nice barb there....except it caught the wrong guy I fear.

[Roadtrip]

North Korea, while dangerous, is not nearly as bad as a radical theocracy like Iran having a nuclear weapon. Kim Jong Il's, or "Dear Leader" as he is enforced as being known, primary objective is to remain in power and enjoy the perks of his prostitutes, western movies, and god-like adulation from his slave-masses. As long as he's left alone to enjoy himself, he will stay in his box. His personal survival is his main objective.

Iran, on the other hand, is controlled and ruled by a true-believer theocracy, with a vision of Sharia-world-rule by Shia theocrats. Combine that with the fact that Shia masses depend on the mullahs to "interpret" the Korean rather than the word itself, leaves them much more open to manipulation. Time and time again, irrationality, untrue rumors, and mass hysteria in the Islamic world makes horrific acts of violence easily sparked. This combined with the mullahs open-hatred of Jews by characterizing them as the evil bogey-men of the world, makes the Iranian regime frighteningly similar to the rise of German national socialism in the 1930s. Like Der Fuerer, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is telegraphing exactly what the Persian intend to do and is depending on the “useful fools” like Mr. billhicksrules to be easily manipulated and compliant. Make no mistake, true-believers like the Persian president and the ruling mullahs would not hesitate to use a nuclear weapon believing that Allah would divinely protect them from infidel retaliation. This makes them exceedingly dangerous. The Pakistani’s nuclear weapons are bad enough, but for the time being, the government is controlled by rational people that have a world view. If that were to change, and Pakistan fall into the hands of the theocracy, you can bet that South Asia would be a gravely dangerous place. If you buy into the baloney that everyone in the world is rational and “just like us” you truly are a “useful fool.”

And BTW, I was not in favor of the second Iraq war, not because Saddam isn't a sadistic killer with designs on mid-east domination, but because I didn't think those people were worthy of the sacrifice of American or British lives. At least not until the Arab and Persian governments of the region take responsibility for their own political, military, and societal cesspools.

[The Rocket]

http://www.acclaimimages.com/_gallery/_SM2/0018-0503-1706-5418_SM2.jpg
Harumph:}

[Tourist]

I didn't realise you knew Kim so well Roadtrip. Nice of him to explain his life philosophy to you during your frequent heart to hearts. Since the world's intelligence agencies seem to have a lot of trouble getting any info whatsoever out of North Korea, I am sure they will pay very highly for such in depth knowledge as yours.
Or are you just a reactionary w@nker who believes the media too much.
Just asking?..............:rolleyes:

[Roadtrip]

I didn't realise you knew Kim so well Roadtrip. Nice of him to explain his life philosophy to you during your frequent heart to hearts. Since the world's intelligence agencies seem to have a lot of trouble getting any info whatsoever out of North Korea, I am sure they will pay very highly for such in depth knowledge as yours.
Or are you just a reactionary w@nker who believes the media too much.
Just asking?..............:rolleyes:

My opinion about the North Korean regime is based upon many sources, including open news accounts/interviews/state-controlled visits, and some others you know nothing about. My assessement closely matches that of most other political analysts in the free world . . . at least those who can think critically and analyze information objectively. As point of fact, I watched a news program last night where the President of the Nato Parliamentary Assembly (former Atlantic Council), Mr. Pierre Lellouche (a Frenchman, no less), said the same thing regarding the threat from and core objectives of Kim Jong Il.

"Knowing" common North Koreans has zero validity when dealing with a population that has been virtually totally closed off from the rest of the world and has been indoctrinated incessently since birth. Ordinary North Koreans control nothing of the totalitarian regime that ruthlessly rules them

What is your assessment of Kim? . . . . or is your knowledge of political science and international affairs limited to vulgar name calling of those obviously more intelligent, more studied in the subject at hand, more travelled, and more worldly than you.

[SASless]

Telly program last night as well involving senior representatives from Russia, France, China, and the USA....that very description was offered and endorsed by all. They each stated Iran could not be allowed to have nuclear weapons but felt North Korea was not much a threat despite having a few...as long as Kimmy is left alone to implode. In time some of his minions will turn on him...then situation will change...for the good or for the bad.

[Tourist]

Would these sources be the same ones that "knew" that Iraq had WMD?
Oh, I'm sorry, you watched a TV program, that's that settled then.
For a "intelligent, more studied in the subject at hand, more travelled, and more worldly than you", you have an amazingly Daily Mail reading, everybody foreign is a poorly educated lower form of life, what they need is a dose of British rule, Little Britain attitude.
Exactly what has Iran done to suggest that they are such a danger? As I am sure you are aware, what with your worldly travels, mid east leaders tend to gob off a lot on internal TV about things they will do to the infidel. Don't tend to actually carry them through do they. The idea that they would attempt to Nuc Israel, knowing full well they would get the same back is ludicrous. They may be a theocracy, but the leaders of theocracies throughout history seem to have a strange concern for their own lives.
"Societal Cesspools"........... Not a member of the BNP are you?
Just because I don't agree with their societies aims, and I most certainly don't, does not mean that I am right. From their point of view we are barbarians. Doesn't make them right either.
But we certainly have no divine right to impose our will or society upon them. If we do such a thing it is nothing to do with right or wrong. just weak and strong. Homo Sapiens are tribal to the core, and I will support our society in its attempts to subjugate others, but I don't fool myself that this is for anything other than selfish reasons, ie the furtherment of the society I like. It is my genetic imperative to do so, just as it is theirs to resist and promote theirs.

[SASless]

Tourist....your point is? Who are you addressing with that bit of wisdom....Roadtrip? He clearly stated it was "his" opinion which alas is just as valid as yours...or mine...or anyone else's here. Opinions are just like that pink hairy round thing we are perched upon....we all got them.

[Tourist]

My point is that though zenophobes like him are, as you say entitled to an opinion, I feel it necessary to counterpoint his arguments in case a passing member of public thinks we are all ejits.

[Roadtrip]

Would these sources be the same ones that "knew" that Iraq had WMD?

No. No one really "knew" Saddam absolutely had WMD, nor is it a certainty that those weapons weren't sent to Syria. However, Saddam seemed to do everything he could to make the world believe that he did have them by not complying with the inspection protocol.

Oh, I'm sorry, you watched a TV program, that's that settled then.

My opinion was formed long before that and my post was before the television program. Nevertheless, listening to authorotative and informed sources is but one way to make oneself more learned on the subject. You should try it.

For a "intelligent, more studied in the subject at hand, more travelled, and more worldly than you", you have an amazingly Daily Mail reading, everybody foreign is a poorly educated lower form of life, what they need is a dose of British rule, Little Britain attitude.

Sorry, I don't read the Daily Mail unless I'm in the UK on business, which is seldom these days. Oh, and I'm not British either, however from a Scot ancestory with family from Anandale, Scotland. I do, however, admire the British government's basic foreign policy. And while I don't always agree with everything, it is principled, rational, pragmatic, and dependable.

Exactly what has Iran done to suggest that they are such a danger?

"They have invented a myth that Jews were massacred and place this above God, religions and the prophets,"

"The West has given more significance to the myth of the genocide of the Jews, even more significant than God, religion, and the prophets," he said. "(It) deals very severely with those who deny this myth but does not do anything to those who deny God, religion, and the prophet."

"The establishment of the Zionist regime was a move by the world oppressor against the Islamic world,"

"As the Imam said, Israel must be wiped off the map,"

"where the annihilation of the Zionist regime will come".

"The Islamic umma (community) will not allow its historic enemy to live in its heartland," he said in the fiery speech that centred on a "historic war between the oppressor and the world of Islam".

"We should not settle for a piece of land,"

"Anyone who signs a treaty which recognises the entity of Israel means he has signed the surrender of the Muslim world,"

"Any leaders in the Islamic umma who recognise Israel face the wrath of their own people."

And it goes on and on. These open statements are erily reminicent of National Socialist rhetoric of Adoph Hitler in the 1930s. The world dismissed him as a "nutter," (I believe that word is probably within your vocabulary) as I believe common British vernacular would put it. When someone says he's going to kill you and has the means to do so, you'd better pay attention.

As I am sure you are aware, what with your worldly travels, mid east leaders tend to gob off a lot on internal TV about things they will do to the infidel. Don't tend to actually carry them through do they.

Exactly which mid east leaders are you talking about? What public statements have the House of Maktoom, the House of Said, The president of Egypt, of the leaders of Bahrain, Yemen, Qatar, or Kuwait made about annihilating non-muslims? It is very patronizing that evidently you don't consider middle eastern leaders sophisticated enough to realize the gravity of their public statements, and that the rest of the world should dismiss them as non-consequential. What would be the world reaction if Mr. Blair made a speech to some college and declared that Portugal should be "wiped from the map."

The idea that they would attempt to Nuc Israel, knowing full well they would get the same back is ludicrous. They may be a theocracy, but the leaders of theocracies throughout history seem to have a strange concern for their own lives.

What makes you think the theocratic leadership of Iran would be personally caught in the malestrom, or that they would not consider it an honor to die in jihad? This is part of critical thinking. The leadership would almost certainly survive a nuclear attack since they would be the ones starting it and would be in a place of safety, assuming that they didn't want to die outright in jihad and get their 70(?) virgins in paradise. You may laugh, but they really believe it. The fact that hundreds of thousands of ordinary Iranians would be killed is immaterial and for the "greater glory of Allah" of destroying Israel. Your frame of reference is much different than these "true-believer" fanatics. There seems to be no shortage of homicide-suicide bombers among the Muslim population. Regardless of the fact that the vast vast majority of Muslims, especially those integrated into western societies abhor their fanatical fringe, there is a significant and dangerous size to it. Try going into your local Church of England/Scotland and call for recruits to strap-on explosive vests and go do God's work and see what reaction you get. My guess is you'll be tied up with rosary beads until the constable gets there.

"Societal Cesspools"........... Not a member of the BNP are you?

No. I don't belong to a political party. I vote based upon issues, not political party propaganda.

Just because I don't agree with their societies aims, and I most certainly don't, does not mean that I am right. From their point of view we are barbarians. Doesn't make them right either.

If you have no core beliefs (if nothing more than base survival), you have no chance of being free, just a pawn to be manipulated, or worse. If you're talking about the radical Islamic governments, they certainly do consider us barbarians. The other Arab (not Persian) governments are decadent and weak and depend upon the west to maintain order in the middle east, all the while posturing for their own population. The Persian goverment is definately not decadent. In fact, for all his other faults, the Iranian President has a repuation of being very honest, which does not infer that he is not exceedingly dangerous. In fact, his lack of corruption makes his words and threats hold all the much more weight. I don't believe that he bluffs. He is a true-believer.

But we certainly have no divine right to impose our will or society upon them.

Maybe not divine, but we have an moral obligation to prevent mass murder before it happens, especially when it's staring us in the face.

If we do such a thing it is nothing to do with right or wrong. just weak and strong. Homo Sapiens are tribal to the core, and I will support our society in its attempts to subjugate others, but I don't fool myself that this is for anything other than selfish reasons, ie the furtherment of the society I like. It is my genetic imperative to do so, just as it is theirs to resist and promote theirs.

It's too bad that your moral compass is spinning so badly that you would support a society who you believe to be subjugating others, just because they're your "tribe." I think you would have been very comfortable in 1930s Germany.

My point is that though zenophobes like him are, as you say entitled to an opinion, I feel it necessary to counterpoint his arguments in case a passing member of public thinks we are all ejits.

For those not familar with back-alley British slang, Mr. Tourist's name-calling has expanded to calling me an "idiot." While it does provide some amusement, it only reinforces the poverty of his argument.

Regarding your arguments so far . . . as we say out here in the western high plains of the U.S. . . . .when you find yourself riding a dead horse, it's best to dismount.

[Tourist]

Oh you're a YanK!!
In which case I apologise profusely!
The fact that you are even aware of places outside the borders of the good old Us of A proves that you are in fact an outward looking scholar relative to the rest of your bretheren.
That someone from the states is complaining about religious fanaticism makes me laugh. Listen to your own political parties. Frankly terrifying that people with so much ability to wage war with kit that will actually work are so backward.

Incidentally, does Darwinism tick you off?

[SASless]

Roady,

You notice the immediate reversion to name calling and the lack of a credible response when challenged? Perhaps, Tourist is lacking anything to substantiate how he arrived at his opinion.

I probably have lived in Iran longer than he has....but that would not enter into his evaluation as being an American who even knows where that place is in the world much less have an understanding of the people and politics of the region.

Don't waste your time arguing with him....it only wastes Danny's bandwidth to no good end.

There's banter and argument...then there is just hot air.

Don't we also have a saying about "When you find yourself in a hole...first thing to do is quit digging!" Seems Tourist is bound for China the hard way.

[Tourist]

The problem is, that I can say that I was the British Ambassador to Iran if I want, but on such a forum it would be impossible to back it up. (I wasn't incidentally) Just like roadtrip can pretend to be a grown-up who has ventured from his own shores, rather than a pilot wannaby

[Roadtrip]

You're right SASless. This is too easy. Like watching a drunk trying to fight.

[batfink2]

Wasn't that on Eleventh Hour last night???