Possibly, although we still have far more civil liberties in this country than most others.
but why compare yourselves to other countries.. set your own benchmarks.
We all die - yes but before then we get to live, have families, see them grow up, ride some bikes in some nice places. Put simply we get to live and then we die. That's not nothing - that's a very big something.
bloody hippies....
my GF is iranian... and she's beautiful.... some of her cousins, well... stop staring, put ya tongue away material....
it was quite funny when some of them cam e to visit here in Munich. took them to a few bars and clubs. they didn't know what had hit them. standing there gawping. they could not comprehend that women were running around, drinking, having fun, approaching blokes and touching them!!!
nice people though.
i think some of the younger ones were rluctant to return home. one of the lads had his parents give the state the deeds to their house in order to assure his return.
the GF spent three months there learning the language. she was glad when her time was up. i was glad, too...
there is still a lot of resentment towards the british. they feel that we raped them for their oil. at the same time there is a lot of resentment towards the regime.
at the time of the Shar lots of people wanted change, but they now regret the result of the revolution... there are not that many people who are happy with the current regime, but many are scared of the consequences of speaking up against it.
the population is young. whether that will change the country's politics in the future, i don't know. but we can hope.... assuming the seppos don't do it for them...
That's all very well alpin, but should we bomb them ?
yeah.. go for it.... sod em... muslim ****ers
This is the main point, regime change will happen in Iran naturally, they don't need us to interfere and force our 'democracy' on them.the population is young.
This is the main point, regime change will happen in Iran naturally, they don't need us to interfere and force our 'democracy' on them
But thats America's main export isnt it? Democracy. Or is it war?
And Macca D's. But at least they give us mountain bikes aswell !
Geniuenly stunned by kennyp "nuke 'em" attitide. Either a brilliant troll or your not running a full set of spokes...
But thats America's main export isnt it? Democracy. Or is it war?
Well as long as democracy votes the way America tells them to
But thats America's main export isnt it? Democracy. Or is it war?
don't forget porn and obesity.
there is still a lot of resentment towards the british. they feel that we raped them for their oil
who can blame them ?
i still won't eat pizza after what those ****ers did to boudica.
don't forget porn and obesity
And Macca D's. But at least they give us mountain bikes aswell !
Bike porn that is 😆
Geniuenly stunned by kennyp "nuke 'em" attitide. Either a brilliant troll or your not running a full set of spokes...
At no time did I say "nuke 'em". I said I'd like to see Iran, and countries like it, being prevented from developing nuclear weapons. Ideally that would be by peaceful means, but if all else fails then use the military. Not an ideal solution, but sadly necessary for the greater good of everyone on the planet.
Why?
what moral grounds do we have for saying we can have this but yo cannot?
Sadly "real-politik" trumps moral idealism as regards this topic. In theory you are right; in practice it comes down to "we can be trusted; you can't". Might not be the PC thing to say, but it's essentially true.
So we can be trusted despite invading other countries and killing millions but peaceful Iran cannot?
Just who is responsible for more deaths the last few decades?
We could of course just go and hug them and ask them to be nice and play nice in future!
What on earth do you think can be done if not military action?
You have to look to the wonderful possibilities for a peaceful future on earth. The current administration of Iran and several other countries really are not helping the world towards such a time.
I do not support war without good cause. Libya was a very bad idea and it's going to come back to haunt us in years to come (the US knew what they were doing bailing out early there - on top of not wanting to appear to be a world aggressor again - I think a lot of politicians in Europe realised too, but appearing to be so weak was not an option).
Iran is very much a step in the right direction. And yes... ****stan have nukes and so do some of their neighbours. So we have two options:
We ask them to be nice and really really really hope that they do so... forever and ever.
Or we try to deal with the situation rather than pat the nasty fetid dog in the corner on the head and hope it only bites us when it is very hungry!
Anyone still doubting that people in partnership (to put it mildly) with the ****stan government are far more important targets that Saddam Hussein, Osama Bin Laden or Gaddafi, really is clinging to an ideal perception of the world rather than what is real and what is going to bite us right on the arse if we aren't watching.
I always thought that Saudi Arabia was going to be tackled before Iran. I have been very much mistaken. I am encouraged and very pleased to see this possible turn of events.
I also kind of secretly hoped that a lot of foreign policy from the west was down to a UFO grounded in Kuwait during the 1990 invasion from Iraq, leading to a determined effort by the US to retrieve the vehicle before Iraqi scientists gained the knowledge to use it to allow them to become the worlds first hyperpower.
That idea was a lot of fun but things just didn't turn out that way! 🙂
"but peaceful Iran cannot"
Ouch. Now that is reason to be a little more serious.
You honestly do believe that an Islamist country can be peaceful?
Have you even read the Koran?
I hope you don't cry 'myth' every time the BBC reports on rape victims being stoned to death because it has been written that is the only righteous justice.
Perhaps you do. Some people just believe every day is the day to hug and kowtow to someone who will do harm to others for their archaic beliefs day... and they are so damn desperate to don their post modern hippy clothes they won't entertain the truth.
Of course an islamic country can be peaceful. Dont be such a bigot. How many peoiple executed int eh US - including people with mental illness and people with lerning difficulties?
Iran has not been at war with anyone for a long time.
How many people have been killed in by iranians since 1990? how many people killed by britons?
We have no right to lecture anyone on morals when we are responsible for the deaths of many hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians.
The Islamic Republic of Iran has never attacked any country.
It does not need nuclear weapons. Other than to deter an attack from the United States.
I don't believe that Iran intends to acquire nuclear weapons - which is in line with US intelligence at the time of the Bush Administration. And if it did acquire them, it wouldn't bother me anyway.
I'm more bothered about ****stan having nuclear weapons. And as long as other countries have nuclear weapons, including one which actually used them, I'm not that bothered about ****stan.
I would like a nuclear-free world. I don't think Iran is an issue.
Although I do accept that "Iran is getting nuclear weapons" is an excellent excuse to attack an oil rich country which has been a pain the West's arse. I can't think of a better excuse, and I doubt whether the Yanks can either.
The Islamic Republic of Iran has never attacked any country.
Does that mean it never will?
How would you know? However the record on agression from Iran is rather better than ours so they have more reason to be afraid of us than we do of them.
Who has killed the most people worldwide in the last 20 years? the UK and the US in alliance. a couple of million innocent civilians
How would you know?
Exactly.
My point is that saying 'oh it's never happened before' is a bit pointless.
Does that mean it never will?
I means that Iran is not a belligerent country. It means that nuclear weapons would be of no use to Iran - other than to deter an attack from the United States. I doubt whether they would bother acquiring them just for that. Besides, there better ways of dealing with that, eg, get the US to stop attacking countries.
Of course things could change in the future, but that can be said about any country. Including ones which we are apparently perfectly happy to have nuclear weapons.
If you can't trust a country to have nuclear weapons because of what 'might' happen in the future, then let's disarm all countries with nuclear weapons. I'm up for that.
It means that Iran has not been in a position so far to be belligerent. You can't listen to dinner jacket and tell me he's not being belligerent, surely to goodness?
It means that Iran has not been in a position so far to be belligerent.
Eh ? Where do you get that from ? Iran was pretty capable of defending itself when it was attacked, at the behest of the United States, by Iraq.
It does have an army, air force, and navy you know. Countries don't need nuclear weapons to attack other countries.
You can't listen to dinner jacket and tell me he's not being belligerent, surely to goodness?
I don't listen to dinner jacket a lot, who's he said he's going to attack ? I know that Israel on an almost daily basis threatens to attack Iraq - are you getting mixed up with that ?
You can't listen to dinner jacket and tell me he's not being belligerent, surely to goodness?
What's worse?
A) Making fiery statements about wiping countries off the map, but not actually doing anything aggressive
B) Attacking country after country, sometimes illegally - resulting in the deaths of hundreds of thousands (or perhaps millions) of people
It's funny all this stuff about supposed involvement in assassinations being trotted out as a potential excuse for attack as well - I don't recall any talk about attacking Russia when they poisoned that guy with Polonium.
Defending yourself is not being belligerent.
If I were a raving nutter looking to throw my weight around, I'd be pretty keen on obtaining the one thing that the West are scared of. A nuke in the hands of a raving nutter.
DJ can't possibly hope to raise enough of an army to actually commit an act of aggression. But he knows damn well that people will start listening if he has a nuke, because they are so scared of it being used.
Grum - not condoning or condemning anyone with this line of thought - just explaining how people are thinking, as I see it.
I'm just saying, there's a big difference between belligerent rhetoric and actual aggression AFAIC.
Of course, but the West trust themselves not to start flinging nukes around. They don't trust DJ. Nor do I, listening to him rant and rave.
They don't trust DJ. Nor do I, listening to him rant and rave.
I imagine it's just populist rabble-rousing - I highly doubt he's actually that stupid. I'd be much more worried about ****stan TBH - actually has nukes, unstable government, fundamentalist nutters control hefty parts of the country and have a huge sway over much of the population. Don't think they've got any oil though so who cares?
Defending yourself is not being belligerent.
😕 Yes I know.
They don't trust DJ. Nor do I, listening to him rant and rave.
Well they don't trust him to hand over Iran's oil to them at a price which suits them, or better still, let them help themselves, that's for sure. But as I've already stated, under the Bush Administration US intelligence concluded that Iran did not intend to acquire nuclear weapons. That information was however ignored and binned.
And if you molgrips, don't trust Ahmadinejad, listening to him rant and rave, then I suggest that you stop listening to him. I don't bother. Besides, if what he says really bothered you, then you believe him when he says that Iran has no desire to acquire nuclear weapons. Personally, what he says has zero influence on me.
among the country's intellectuals and middle classes the guy is a joke figure.
the GF dad is constantly laughing at and forwarding videos sent to him by his relatives. admittedly these relatives do not live in Iran.
DJ still wields a lot of power and suppost amongst the county's poor and uneducated - of which there are many. he is seen to be the face of the group that toppled the old, british and US backed system.
Libya was a very bad idea and it's going to come back to haunt us in years to come (the US knew what they were doing bailing out early there - on top of not wanting to appear to be a world aggressor again - I think a lot of politicians in Europe realised too, but appearing to be so weak was not an option).
whereas the seppo's little adventures in the gulf and thos hills in the back of beyond were a great idea and have really helped promote US relationships with all countries involved.
i think Lybia is slightly different. there was a strong movement of people calling for a change and the West supported them. whether the West done this to further themslves is another matter.
bollox.. what you said...
The Islamic Republic of Iran has never attacked any country.
Does that mean it never will?
It wasnt long ago that Iran made some comments about 'wiping Israel off the map'. Thats fighting talk that is....
If you can't trust a country to have nuclear weapons because of what 'might' happen in the future, then let's disarm all countries with nuclear weapons. I'm up for that.
Its a double edges sword, if you get rid of your own nukes then some rogue state (which Iran is decribed as, and North Korea) aquires their own, then we would all be up sh1t creek without a paddle.
But yes, this is ideally what needs to happen for world peace. That and the eradication of greed. Which is what we is the West are guilty of.
Seeing as neither of these things are likely to happen, looks like we'll need some UFO's to come find us or for God himself to drop out of the sky and give us all a slap!
I don't believe that Iran intends to acquire nuclear weapons
i wish i lived in your world.
is it just a coincidence that the nuclear technology being developed by Iran is perfect for producing weapons?
they're even producing heavy water - you have permission to shit your pants.
one day, in the next few years, iran will test nuclear weapons*, and the world will have become a much more dangerous place.
i have a curse; i can see the future, and it's not all butterflies and rainbows.
🙁
yes, we have nuclear weapons, we have no divine right to control the rest of the world. But our weapons were here when we were born, and frankly, they're a bit of a nuisance.
However, if i lived in Tehran, i'd be concerned by the kind of scary people posturing for election in America. 😯
(*they may not even test them, they may just drive a truck or 4 over some borders, and incinerate a few million europeans/jews/sunni muslims/indians)
they're even producing heavy water - you have permission to shit your pants.
[img] 
[/img]
[img] 
[/img]
And if you molgrips, don't trust Ahmadinejad, listening to him rant and rave, then I suggest that you stop listening to him.
Since when is stopping listening ever a good thing?
Alpin - yes I knew that a great many Iranians think DJ is a nutter. I think that if he could just be replaced the situation would improve significantly. Not sure how many other conservative/hawkish influences there are on govt policy though, isn't there a clerical system with a big say?
oh, and Iran is [i]already[/i] at war with America, in a few small countries (you may not have heard of them) called Afghanistan, Iraq and ****stan.
And are we suggesting that america/britain is responsible for all of the deaths in Iraq? - cos that's bollocxs.
Iran have been providing explosives/weapons/people/training for use against western forces and civilians, for years, probably as soon as Baghdad fell - if not before.
but no, it's all our fault - Iran is blameless.
dammit, i'm starting to sound like donald rumsfeld...
(yes, i know that Iran has good reason to hate America/Britain, and can be forgiven for worrying about an American/British friendly country being re-forged
on their doorstep)
"oh, and Iran is already at war with America, in a few small countries (you may not have heard of them) called Afghanistan, Iraq and ****stan"
The Americans and Rumsfeld in particular paid for and supported The saddam regime in Iraq the Mujahideen and Al Qaeda in Afghanistan and the ****stani intelligence who are now supporting the Taliban .
Yes Iran now supplies America's former allies and puppets but who can blame them after years of America supporting the Shah, setting saddam Hussein on them in a genocidal war and shooting down Iranian passenger airliner's by mistake and giving a medal and a hero's welcome to the psychopath who did it.
Dinner Jacket can rant and rave and play with his physics set all he likes but he has a long way to go before he is a credible threat to world peace . regrettably the western powers are already that threat.
Whilst I can see the argument that some countries have nukes so why shouldn't others I think in certain cases, including Iran, it would be the start of a very slippery slope. Once Iran goes nuclear then the likelihood of them falling into the hands (or being given...) of terrorists goes up a big notch. Also they're presumably likely to consider trading them to other allies in the region - who all share a hatred of Israel and, even if the state itself wouldn't condone it, have very influential groups within them that currently support attacks on Israel and it's Western allies. Nukes are a great deterrent for Nations but not for terrorist groups.
I also don't buy that Iran is a benign nation - whatever your views on Israel (and might aren't particularly supportive) they have pretty much pledged to destroy them. I know is I were an Israeli I'd want to strike first. Ofc I'm sure the population as a whole is much more moderate but their president (and I'd guess many around him) is a complete fruitcake.
As for Iran not even wanting nukes - again I don't buy this, the amount of money they're investing in centrifuges and the fact they're developing and testing medium-range rocket systems leads to one conclusion for me - what else can you conclude?
Dinner Jacket can rant and rave and play with his physics set all he likes but he has a long way to go before he is a credible threat to world peace
They're not worried about him starting a world war, they are worried about him dropping a nuke on Tel Aviv, London or anywhere else.
Do you think the populace of iran worry about us doing the same to them?
Given our history i suspect, as has been already pointed out, they have more to fear from us then we do of them.
I don't think we have a history of lobbing nukes at random countries.
Nope - neither does Iran.
We do however have a long and dishonerable history of going into countries in the middle east on flimsy pretexts and killing lots of their people. Iran does not.
We also have a long and dishonourable history of installing puppet regimes in other countries and in destabilising existing governments.
Iran has far more reason to be afraid of us than we do of them. Its quite possibly the best way to stop us wreaking their country is to pretend they have a nuke and will use it if attacked
I have seen no convincing evidence that they are trying to build one anyway
Whilst I can see the argument that some countries have nukes so why shouldn't others I think in certain cases, including Iran, it would be the start of a very slippery slope. Once Iran goes nuclear then the likelihood of them falling into the hands (or being given...) of terrorists goes up a big notch.
Really? Really? Is this a genuinely likely scenario, or just yet more Western Propaganda designed to cover up the West's real reasons for any possible invasion?
Do you know just how difficult it actually is to target and launch nuclear missiles? How many 'terrorists' do you think are sufficiently skilled in such technology to be able to make it work?
I also don't buy that Iran is a benign nation - whatever your views on Israel (and might aren't particularly supportive) they have pretty much pledged to destroy them.
What Ahmedinejad actually said was:
Our dear Imam (referring to Ayatollah Khomeini) said that the occupying regime must be wiped off the map and this was a very wise statement. We cannot compromise over the issue of Palestine. Is it possible to create a new front in the heart of an old front. This would be a defeat and whoever accepts the legitimacy of this regime has in fact, signed the defeat of the Islamic world. Our dear Imam targeted the heart of the world oppressor in his struggle, meaning the occupying regime. I have no doubt that the new wave that has started in Palestine, and we witness it in the Islamic world too, will eliminate this disgraceful stain from the Islamic world.
Which doesn't sound very nice at all, granted, but is in response to Israeli aggression against Palestine. Something that many people, including many Jews worldwide, utterly condemn. Many Muslims see the aggressive Lebensraum policy of some Zionists to indeed be a threat to Islam, and tbh the Israeli regime isn't doing an awful lot to dispel this fear.
I know is I were an Israeli I'd want to strike first
What about if you were an Iranian supporter of Ahmed? Would you want Iran to strike first? Knowing that Israel are definitely planning to attack your country?
Ofc I'm sure the population as a whole is much more moderate but their president (and I'd guess many around him) is a complete fruitcake.
Fair point. But then, GeeDubya wasn't exactly playing with a full deck now, was he? What was that he said, something about being guided by God?
As for Iran not even wanting nukes - again I don't buy this, the amount of money they're investing in centrifuges and the fact they're developing and testing medium-range rocket systems leads to one conclusion for me - what else can you conclude?
If I were in a nation which looked quite likely to be invaded by hostile forces, I think I'd want to be armed with some pretty hardcore deterrent....
If I were in a nation which looked quite likely to be invaded by hostile forces, I think I'd want to be armed with some pretty hardcore deterrent....
Its an interesting point Elf, you could argue that Iran feels that they have been forced into this buy what they see as western aggression. But I still can't help feeling the world would be a safer place without Iran having nuclear weapons.
Israel will set the agenda though if there is strong evidence that Iran is close to getting nukes then they will demand American intervention or do the job themselves. America will be forced to intervene as they know that Israel acting alone virtually guarantees a wider conflict in the Middle East.
Diplomacy is the only way forward here, engagement with Iran politically (and not through sanctions) to persuade them that acquiring nukes is a very bad idea, a peace dividend in the form of increased trade perhaps?
But I still can't help feeling the world would be a safer place without Iran having nuclear weapons.
I can't help feeling the World would be a safer place without [i]any[/i] nuclear weapons, but there you go.
Given Israel's history of agression towards Islamic nations and people, I'm more concerned about [i]them[/i] having nukes, but the West does not seem to think this is a problem.
Diplomacy is the only way forward here
Definitely. War in the ME will spark off a series of events Worldwide, which will make 9-11 look like a tea-party. And China could well see it as their opportunity to finally really show their military hand...
I can't help feeling the World would be a safer place without any nuclear weapons, but there you go.
Well thats a given, or equally you could probably make a case for everyone having lots of nukes!
The elephant in the room is ****stan - nuclear weapons and a government that looks seriously shaky (and they are Shia Muslim the same as Iran) If the west can help ****stan to sort out their internal issues and be the honest brokers in the region then maybe they can talk Iran back from the brink. (seems unlikely though)
Not sure if I would be too worried about China, economic power seems more their bag to be honest. They are more likely to sit back and let it all kick off around them and see America get into even more debt
Extremely? And probably none. But sufficiently skilled to make a 'dirty bomb' using the enriched material that is a necessary part of a 'proper' bomb? Plenty.Do you know just how difficult it actually is to target and launch nuclear missiles? How many 'terrorists' do you think are sufficiently skilled in such technology to be able to make it work?
The missile is the hard part, all you need to deliver them is a truck.
Everyone knows the world would be a safer place without nukes, but it took 30 years for politicans to get around to doing something about it. We've been decommissioning for years it seems.
slightly ot but there is a very good doc about the nuclear threat in all its forms called "countdown to zero". the most eye opening/alarming part is the step by step guide on how to build a bomb for a few tens of thousand dollars using off the shelf components, it seems the only hard part is getting the nuclear material.
I have some good friends in Iran, great people, they don't deserve any more shit from the west, or their own regime for that matter.
Oh aye, building basic nuclear bombs is really really easy. Refining the uranium is quite hard.
+1 iDave btw.
ahwiles - Member"I don't believe that Iran intends to acquire nuclear weapons"
i wish i lived in your world.
ahwiles - Memberoh, and Iran is already at war with America, in a few small countries (you may not have heard of them) called Afghanistan, Iraq and ****stan.
Well you don't live in the real world ahwiles, yours is a fantasy world created by the likes of Bush, Blair, Obama, and Cameron. If you come over to the real world you'll see that things are actually much clearer.
Iran despised the Saddam Hussein regime, the US did them a great favour getting rid of it for them. Likewise in Afghanistan, Iran is a bitter enemy of the Taleban, and they helped the US to overthrow them. In ****stan any armed opposition to the government comes from Al Qaeda, Iran is opposed to Al Qaeda. And indeed it is elements within the ****stan security service, the US's suppose ally, who are aiding the Taleban in Afghanistan to fight the US.
Iran is not "at war with America", that's complete bollox. The US has done Iran a great favour getting rid of two very hostile anti-Iranian regimes. One on Iran's western border, and the other one on Iran's eastern border (both a very long way from the United States btw) for which they are rather grateful. Here's an example of their gratitude :
[url= http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/mar/31/iran-afghanistan-obama ]Iran offers to help US rebuild Afghanistan[/url]
It wasnt long ago that Iran made some comments about 'wiping Israel off the map'. Thats fighting talk that is....
I don't know Persian terminology, or how it translates, but whilst I doubt there is very much that I could ever agree with Ahmadinejad on, wiping the Zionist regime off the face of world is one of those rare exceptions.
I am totally opposed to the Israeli state. It is a nasty racist warmongering rogue state, which acts illegally, ignores basic civilised rules, and avoids its international obligations, including the Geneva Convention. The [i]only[/i] reason it gets away with it, is because it's best buddies with the world's number one bully - which supports it to the hilt, both economically and militarily.
I do not support the 'two state solution', I support the 'one state solution'......the one secular non-racist democratic Palestinian state, in which all Palestinians, including Jews, Muslim, Christian, and Atheists, have full citizenship.
Israel is a stain on the world, and Americans, Brits, Australians, Russians, whatever, do not have the right to steal Palestinian land because of some absurd and ridiculous claim that three thousand years ago God promised their ancestors that they could have it. Actually God did no such thing, he condemned the Jewish people to diaspora - to wander the world in exile until he (not the US president) led them to the Promise Land. Which is why many Orthodox Jews in Israel do not support the Israeli State, and are actually often quite supportive of the Palestinians.
The other equally absurd and ridiculous reason for the right of Americans, Brits, Australians, Russians, whatever, to steal the homeland of Palestinians, is that 70 years ago Germans and other Europeans did terrible things to Jews.
There is nothing wrong with calling for the destruction of the Zionist State, and I don't expect to be bombed for saying so any more than Ahmadinejad should. Although obviously I'm not sitting on vast reserves of oil.
Libya was a huge enemy that needed getting rid of. Then we find the secret services were all great mates.
All we can do where ever we live is ignore our 'leaders' calls for war.
Killing peoples children will not make them like you.