MegaSack DRAW - 6pm Christmas Eve - LIVE on our YouTube Channel
Whys it taken so long for someone to say it !
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-17082433
Now lets not get our knickers in a twist and all wamby pamby about picking on Iran...
Eh - just give them all nukes. At least that evens it up.
History does tell us something - only one nation has ever used nuclear bombs on another.
Does it not take more than one side to start a war?
You see when that one nation used nukes against another, were they military or civilian targets that they aimed them at?
well we all know what happened when America did its bad thing...
do you trust Iran with Nuclear weapons...? Me no **** way !
So if I understand correctly- Iran getting nuclear weapons will start an arms race. Israel having nuclear weapons is fine though, and certainly couldn't start an arms race.
how can you put Iran and Israel in the same category they are worlds apart in their military capability...more so than most of the European army forces !
Why would Israel attack America or Europe !
why would Iran attack america or europe even with nukes? in what sense could they win?
Would we attack them if they had nukes?
If they want them it will be for defensive purposes as nukes will hardly let them take over the world
FFS North Korea has then and they are more extreme and isolated than Iran
The speech is just to set the scene and make us all scared of this to win the public over to make the war acceptable and many will buy into this. We cannot attack them if there is nothing as dossier wont work this time when they attacked the axis of evil...it is about that credible this time.
If [the Iranians] obtain nuclear weapons capability, then I think other nations across the Middle East will want to develop nuclear weapons."And so, the most serious round of nuclear proliferation since nuclear weapons were invented would have begun with all the destabilising effects in the Middle East."
well Israel has them and this did not happen.
no mention of the fact some nation[s] are killing their scientist ...what would we do if Iran did this?
It's getting a bit boring now with all those talks ...
I suggest they all stop pussy footing and start nuking each other to reduce human population.
🙄
unfitgeezer - Memberhow can you put Iran and Israel in the same category they are worlds apart in their military capability...more so than most of the European army forces !
And the relevance of this is...
I thought nuclear weapons were "instruments of peace" ?
That's the excuse we've always been given to justify our nuclear weapons, ie, no one will attack us because we have nuclear weapons.
As mentioned, Israel has nuclear weapons - although William Hague seems to think there will only be nuclear weapons in the region if Iraq develops them.
Also as mentioned, if Iraq's alleged nuclear ambitions could plunge the Middle East into "a new Cold War", and Hague really believes that [i]"If [the Iranians] obtain nuclear weapons capability, then I think other nations across the Middle East will want to develop nuclear weapons",[/i] then exactly the same can be said of Israel's nuclear weapons.
In fact I think even more so - many countries in Middle East fear Israel. Whilst in contrast the Islamic Republic of Iran had never attacked anyone.
If there is one country in the region which is likely to cause a new Cold War and encourage other countries develop nuclear weapons, then it's Israel. It's time to disarm Israel of its illegal nuclear weapons, for the sake of regional and global peace - no doubt about it.
Or failing that, another country in the region needs to develop nuclear weapons to stop the possibility of Israel ever using them. You know, to maintain a nuclear balance which keeps the peace - as it's kept the peace for us.
Israel is the only country in the world who's nuclear weapons do not exist to stop a nuclear attack - it is not threaten by any nuclear armed country. So if Israel's nuclear weapons are not to deter a nuclear attack, then what are they for ? The conclusion left is that they exist in case Israel wants to use them as offensive weapons - not as nuclear deterrent.
Furthermore, Israel is the only nuclear armed country in the world who denies having nuclear weapons, indeed it will imprison its own citizens if they dare to tell the world the truth. And yet the whole point of having nuclear weapons is precisely that you are able to boast to the world that you have them - that's how the "nuclear deterrent" works, otherwise, there is no deterrent - obviously.
Time to disarm Israel of its illegal nuclear weapons.
Israel's illegal nuclear weapons are a menace to regional and global peace.
What was the question about Iran again ?
if you look at the middle east, one country is by far the most likely to start a war & that country is israel, not iran sadly.
I blame France. When I was a student in Grenoble in 1978 I used to knock around with a bunch of Iranians who were charming, hospitable and very good friends. They were there at the invitation of the French Government studying at Grenoble's Centre D'Etudes Nucleaires. Go figure.
1978? That would be when the CIA backed dictator Mohammad Reza Pahlavi was controlling Iran then?
I'm just pleased that the only country in the middle east with nukes is one noted for its restraint, humanitarianism, and resect for international law
William Hague best thing you have said in ages !
Has he just given his resignation speech?
globalti - Member
I blame France. When I was a student in Grenoble in 1978 I used to knock around with a bunch of Iranians who were charming, hospitable and very good friends. They were there at the invitation of the French Government studying at Grenoble's Centre D'Etudes Nucleaires. Go figure.
Maybe you should have focussed more on your studies?
just a thought
http://www.iranchamber.com/history/coup53/coup53p1.php
The US afre indeed the only country to have used the A-bomb in anger, but less people were killed in both strikes than would have occurred from an invasion of the Japanese mainland. Probably.
The middle east cold war started (albeit slowly) when Israel got nuclear weapons. I doubt that Iran would even bother if Israel dis-armed.
i kind of think that a middle east cold war would be far more desirable than the series of hot and bloody wars that seem to affect the region.
as far william hague's bleatings,i think it's probably about time we stopped thinking that the rest of the world should be doing as we jolly well say and not as we jolly well do.
What is SO controversial about what is "actually" being reported?
Interesting to see the other Torygraph most read links on the side. Prescott advises Ed how to dress (surpringly correct in this case) and Balls calling for tax CUTS (ditto).
What is SO controversial about what is "actually" being reported?
Hague managed more than one tone?
they've sent warships into the med now. What are they up to?
Oh I see Jota. That would be a first.
Anyway look at the weather. Get out there!!!
teamhurtmore? Whats so controversial? Its utter bobbins?
Iran is no threat to the region.
Its gross hypocrisy - we can have nuclear reactors and bombs, Israel can, you cannot.
There is actually no [i]decent [/i]evidence at all that this is anything but a civil nuclear programme. Even if it is for bombs its a long way from reality. Its sabre rattling from the US and UK.
This show the nonsense about we must have nuclear power stations to prevent the lights going out then we hare prepared to prevent other countries from doing so by illegal means
all very quick to blame Israel !
Its a pity the bigger picture isn't seen and I'm not saying it...
Got no more to say...
(it's cause they are brown and speak a language that has no specific tone of affection)
Got no more to say...
very handy for you
TJ I agree with the hypocrisy issue and even bow to your superior knowledge of where Iran is/ is not in it's nuclear programme. But that really isn't the point here.
Hague is correct to point out that the PERCEPTION that Iran is progressing towards a nuclear capability is in itself destabilising for the region and therefore for the RoW. This is particularly true if Israel launches a pre-emptive strike at a time of considerable political tension throughout the region. The cold war already has passed through the early stages with the tit-for-tat assassination, therefore I think it is utterly proper for the FS to be making his views known.
Perhaps (?) the US and UK are actually doing the opposite of what you suggest and attempting to create an environment (political and real) in which Israel could not launch a preemptive strike?
Hague is correct to point out that the PERCEPTION that Iran is progressing towards a nuclear capability is in itself
but that perception is seeded by those complaining about it
Hague is correct to point out that the PERCEPTION that Iran is progressing towards a nuclear capability is in itself destabilising for the region and therefore for the RoW
Nope - its only the perception from a very limited viewpoint and one being stoked up by relentless propaganda from the US in preparation for military action on Iran that the US has wanted for decades.
This is particularly true if Israel launches a pre-emptive strike at a time of considerable political tension throughout the region.
So reign in Israel then? Its Irans fault Isreal is destabilising the region?
Sorry TJ your are correct. It is very black and white. Now go and have a ride, the weather is lovely!
I have no more to say as some people are all to quick to blame Israel...the rest of the world should be scared sh*tless they could have nuclear weapons...
Massive thumbs up to Israel pity the rest of the world haven't got any balls!
If people want to put Israel in the same league as Iran go for it...
NB I do not condone war of any type nor agree with innocent civilians getting killed/injured.
I have no more to say as some people are all to quick to blame Israel..
go ahead and defend them then, you started the debate
[i]jota180 [/i] I cant really say to much more can I really, my thoughts are my thoughts and luckily I can have them...and you guys can have yours...
How much oil does I-ran have?
teamhurtmore - MemberSorry TJ your are correct. It is very black and white. Now go and have a ride, the weather is lovely!
To you it clearly is. Once again you show that only your view counts to you and anyone elses view you simply rubbish rather than engaging with.
er hold on ! if only my view counts what about all yours ! wheres the engaging from all you guys...
Hague is correct to point out that the PERCEPTION that Iran is progressing towards a nuclear capability is in itself destabilising for the region and therefore for the RoW.
So you do accept it is a PERCEPTION which someway short of a fact or reality. This is the problem they are spinning it as something it is not for political ends. Dossier anyone?
This is particularly true if Israel launches a pre-emptive strike at a time of considerable political tension throughout the region.
We should of course be putting the war mongering/threats to Iran rather than suggest the nuclear power that is Israel does not do a pre -emptive strike...Pre emptive that is a nice way of describing an act of war on a sovereign state...can we go pre-emptive on the nuclear state of israel? Can some other middle east countries do this?
The cold war already has passed through the early stages with the tit-for-tat assassination, therefore I think it is utterly proper for the FS to be making his views known.
Really looks like there has been no tats and only a lot of tits from us ...who has Iran assassinated?
He can make his views clear it is just that they are flawed and they are expressed to create a PERCEPTION in the majority that military solutions are necessary to protect us..like we had to against saddam before he attacked us..same level of credibility.
It will probably work
Once again you show that only your view counts to you and anyone elses view you simply rubbish rather than engaging with.
you know we often despise our own worst traits when we see them in others
so all you can tell us is Isarela is great we all blame it , we dont have balls and we should be scared of Iran..but you cannot tell us anymore or why
You are mossad and I deny to claim anything as that would mean you have my information
wheres the engaging from all you guys
you have no more to say how do I engage with you?
Could anything I say make you think the violator of International law,ignorer of UN resolutions, the settler of occupied land ,owner of nukes and carrier outer of assassinations abroad of foreign nationals is anything other than benign an we need to be afraid of Iran ..I doubt it.
JY I am afraid I am in no place to know what the reality is and maybe others here are in the same boat, with one obvious exception. I merely make the obvious point that it is the perception (hence the upper case) that counts in this as in most things. Whoever is seeding/inflaming the situation is only part of the issue.
Other can lay blame here, wherever they see fit. I am also notsupporting a preemptive strike. I am warning about its possibility and hence wondering if in fact the US and UK and actually working to prevent this. The truth of course we will not know. A bit like the reality of tit-for-tats.
i doubt it !
could I change your mind ? I also doubt that
apparently not as you just cannot say.
DO I like Iran? not really
Do I like Israel? not really
Do i fear either will use nukes?Not really
Probably a slightly more "neutral" stance than your pro Israel Hawk view
Massive thumbs up to Israel pity the rest of the world haven't got any balls!
by saying perception THM you accept it is being spun And you should have cited the tats you claimed/suggested /insinuated were occurring
You are right on one thing
Its ride o'clock time
I merely make the obvious point that it is the perception (hence the upper case) that counts in this as in most things.
but what you fail to see is this perception is not universal. Others perceive it very differently
Isreal has been attacked by its Arab neighbors on many occassions, however less so in the time since it has had Neuclear weapons. Is that a co-incidence? Doubt it. They know who has the big stick, and would probably use it rather than be wiped off the face of the earth. A holocaust will make people quite determined to survive.
Remember as well, that Iran has vowed to wipe Isreal off the map, that is rather provocative, and would certainly get them twitchy.
I would certainly be quite uncomfortable with Iran having neuclear capabilities, as they could easily find their way to a terrorist group.
Remember as well, that Iran has vowed to wipe Isreal off the map, that is rather provocative, and would certainly get them twitchy.
this is simply not true.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2006/jun/14/post155
amongst other sources of translation
Time to disarm Israel of its illegal nuclear weapons
On what basis do you claim Israel's possession of nuclear weapons is illegal?
JY thats an interesting question that I will think about on my ride. That wasn't what I was saying but understand your thought process. I have no idea about the true extent to which any of this is "spun". Of course, all sides (for want of a better word) will manipulate/filter information in ways that suits their interest. Hence I am not going to take sides on who is seeding and who is inflaming the perceptions. I make a much more basic point. Merely, that if there is a perception that someone is arming themselves that this is IN ITSELF a concern because, even if untrue (WMD) it can lead to devasting and unwelcome consequences eg conflict in the M East.
Hence I hope that, behind the scenes, the US and the UK are doing all they can to dissuade Israel from a preemptive strike.
Perception is of course universal as it is personal. Nobody know reality, but everybody perceives it, and in their own manner.
unfitgeezer - MemberI have no more to say as some people are all to quick to blame Israel...
You want to talk about nuclear weapons in the Middle East but not mention Israel - the only country in the Middle East to have nuclear weapons ? 😕
Massive thumbs up to Israel pity the rest of the world haven't got any balls!
So you think having illegal nuclear weapons is a really good idea - how does that tie in with your original post ?
I know you have repeatedly said [i]"I have no more to say"[/i] but I would be interested in your answer - just put [i]"I have no more to say"[/i] at the beginning of it before explaining your position.
So you think having illegal nuclear weapons is a really good idea
There you are Ernie - you've said it again, so I'll ask again.
On what basis do you claim Israel's possession of nuclear weapons is illegal?
TJ, the lost in translation thing is pretty good, maybe he was misqouted and want to be pals with them really. I am sure that Iran would never assist any terrorist organisations.
Either all Nuclear weapons are illegal or none are. I fail to see where it is legal for one country to have them, and illegal for another.
I am pretty sure that Isreal having them has avoided any major attacks on it.
I have no more to say !
In an ideal world we wouldn't have any nuclear weapons...so Israels got them so what so has China! Along with a load of other countries...
[i]
I would certainly be quite uncomfortable with Iran having neuclear capabilities, as they could easily find their way to a terrorist group.[/i] Well said ! And never a truer word !
wallace1492 - MemberTJ, the lost in translation thing is pretty good, maybe he was misqouted and want to be pals with them really. I am sure that Iran would never assist any terrorist organisations.
Unlike Isreal that assasinates people it does not like in other countries or the US that supports terrorists - iran contra anyone?
Either all Nuclear weapons are illegal or none are. I fail to see where it is legal for one country to have them, and illegal for another.
Various UN resolutions
I am pretty sure that Isreal having them has avoided any major attacks on it.
So then its a good idea for Iran to have nukes as it would pevernt eh US from attacking it.
There you are Ernie - you've said it again, so I'll ask again.On what basis do you claim Israel's possession of nuclear weapons is illegal?
On the basis that I have provocatively been calling Israel's nuclear weapons illegal since yesterday, precisely because I wanted someone like you to point out that Israel has never signed Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, has never cooperated with UN inspectors, etc.
Iran's problem appears to be that it has done precisely that. Perhaps they should simply take Israel's stance and everything will be hunky dory ?
Or a better solution would be, to disarm Israel of its illegal nuclear weapons which are a menace to both regional and global peace.
I am sure that Iran would never assist any terrorist organisations
l'm sure you're right 🙂
But I'm fairly sure the CIA have assisted far more terrorists than Iran are ever likely to
hence, I'd be far more concerned about them
One mans terrorist is anothers freedom fighter. There will always be injustice. Both sides will do nasty things that we don't agree with, doesn't make it right, you will not stop people fighting or all the injusticies around the world. What we can try and do is keep it to a minimum, and that may well be by means we do not agree with. Is it right to kill a terrorist, if he is a terrorist in our peception.
UN resolutions are just people voting for their own self interest, doesnt mean that they are right.
Iran having nukes would not prevent anyone attacking them, and I don't think anyone should. However i would prefer that they did not have them
On the basis that I have provocatively been calling Israel's nuclear weapons illegal since yesterday, precisely because I wanted someone like you to point out that Israel has never signed Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, has never cooperated with UN inspectors, etc.
So, you concede that they're not illegal then?
Or a better solution would be, to disarm Israel of its illegal nuclear weapons which are a menace to both regional and global peace.
Really? How many people have Israel attacked with their "illegal" (not really) nuclear arsenal? Which middle eastern countries have Israel refused to acknowledge and how many times have Israel been attacked by neighbouring countries since getting them?
One things for sure Ernie - I can see why you keep voting for Red Ken despite having vowed not to do so 😯
So, you concede that they're not illegal then?
illegal is a word that's used to mean against a set of rules - like an illegal chess move - so maybe
unlawful is another thing altogether
wallace1492Iran having nukes would not prevent anyone attacking them,
wallace1492I am pretty sure that Isreal having them has avoided any major attacks on it.
so they would not act as a deterrent for Iran but do for Israel?
TandemJeremy - Memberwallace1492
Iran having nukes would not prevent anyone attacking them,
wallace1492
I am pretty sure that Isreal having them has avoided any major attacks on it.
sothey would not act as a deterrent for Iran but do for Israel?
Yes. No Arab country has attacked Isreal - IMHO they would use them if required. If Iran acquires them, they will be fledgling, and unable to be deployed a great distance, so would probably not stop the USA from attacking. Diffetent circumstances.
read between the lines [i]TandemJeremy[/i] its been said on here already...if Iran have nuclear weapons they could very easily fall into the wrong hands ! If you dont think that could happen you really need to open your eyes !
So, you concede that they're not illegal then?
Not at all, I consider them to be as illegal as Iran's mythical nuclear ambitions. The UN and the International Atomic Energy Agency have both voted that Israel should sign the Non-Proliferation Treaty and allow UN inspectors to inspect their nuclear stockpiles. If Iran can do that, then I can't see why Israel can't, specially as the claim not to have any nuclear weapons.
One things for sure Ernie - I can see why you keep voting for Red Ken despite having vowed not to do so
And that there ^^ is a classic example of how a halfwit like you is unable to have any sort of debate without resorting the puerile playground taunting unconnected with the subject matter. The topic of this thread is Iran/nuclear weapons/Middle East, your need to refer to a candidate in the Greater London mayoral elections shows just how bankrupt you are of any intelligent comment. Well done.
Ah, bit close to the bone there then eh Ernie?
So, you don't think that your repeated support for a well know Anti-Semite is somewhat indicative of your position on middle eastern geopolitics - a bit like voting BNP sort of gives away your position on immigration.
Sorry - I suppose thats not true is it?
Probably all part of the Zionist/Bilderberg/NWO/Reptile conspiracy... 🙄
One mans terrorist is anothers freedom fighter. There will always be injustice. Both sides will do nasty things that we don't agree with, doesn't make it right, you will not stop people fighting or all the injusticies around the world. What we can try and do is keep it to a minimum, and that may well be by means we do not agree with. Is it right to kill a terrorist, if he is a terrorist in our peception.
So basically its ok for us and our buddies, just not for those scary Arab types that don't like us much?
As someone mentioned above, the US' complicity in terrorism in S America massively dwarfs anything carried out by Al Quaeda or Hezbollah. That's not a nutty conspiracy theory either, just a matter of historical record.
grum - MemberOne mans terrorist is anothers freedom fighter. There will always be injustice. Both sides will do nasty things that we don't agree with, doesn't make it right, you will not stop people fighting or all the injusticies around the world. What we can try and do is keep it to a minimum, and that may well be by means we do not agree with. Is it right to kill a terrorist, if he is a terrorist in our peception.
So basically its ok for us and our buddies, just not for those scary Arab types that don't like us much?
As someone mentioned above, the US' complicity in terrorism in S America massively dwarfs anything carried out by Al Quaeda or Hezbollah. That's not a nutty conspiracy theory either, just a matter of historical record.
I dont belive I said it was OK. It is not a black and white situation. I simply posed the question. Please don't put words in my mouth.
Zulu-Eleven - MemberSo, you don't think that your repeated support for a well know Anti-Semite is somewhat indicative of your position on middle eastern geopolitics
And now in an absolutely classic "Zulu-Eleven deviation tactic" you want to divert the thread onto the issue of what a former London Mayor did or didn't say, to a pestering journalist from a newspaper which had mounted a hostile campaign against him, and who was doorstepping him ?
Plus, you want to accuse my "position on middle eastern geopolitics" of being based on antisemitism. In other words, you are accusing me of being a racist. That old argument- if you criticise Israel then you must be a racist. Or if you are a Jew who criticises Israel, then you must be a "self-hater".
Grow up Zulu-Eleven.
No, you're absolutely right Ernie - It's all a deviation tactic
I read it in my copy of 'the protocols of the elders of Zion' so it must be true 🙄
you're absolutely right Ernie
Excellent. Let me know how you get on with growing up.
unfitgeezer - MemberI have no more to say as some people are all to quick to blame Israel...
Some people just seem to be aware of the absurdity of suggesting that a country trying to become the second nuclear power in the region could be [i]starting[/i] an arms race.
Since it's all about [i]perception[/i] isn't there a possibility that Israel doesn't have nukes at all and it's all a big rumour in order to scare the neighbours? A bit like having a [i]Beware of the Dog[/i] sign on your gate and owning a Chihuahua. 😆
Actually there is some evidence that Israel has tactical nuclear weapons. The purpose of tactical nuclear weapons isn't to scare anyone - they are designed to be used,.
But the "evidence" could be fabricated/planted? Might that be cheaper than actually making and storing them?
I think you can trust the evidence provided by Mordechai Vanunu.
druidh - Member But the "evidence" could be fabricated/planted?
What like Greenham Common perhaps? Ever wonder how/why people were allowed to camp there, park there cars on the verge, clip through the fences, stage protests over all those years.....and yet stop your car outside a certain Scottish RAF base for 15 seconds during the 1980s and you were immediately moved on (despite no outward sign of surveillance) Wonder which one really had the nukes!?! Worked a treat for the military though. 😉
thm - shoosh! I think they're on to you.
