Paid Members Halitosis Romantic Posted November 23, 2011 Paid Members Share Posted November 23, 2011 Shit, they're done for now. Are they going to present themselves for sentencing? If not, I guess that there will be extradition hearings with both the US and the UK, finally lock these criminals up for what they have did. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dynamite Duane Posted November 23, 2011 Share Posted November 23, 2011 (edited) UK and U.S. 'draw up joint plan to attack Iran': Evidence of nuclear programme raises tension in Middle East Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-20...l#ixzz1eY9c2tb4 Whitehall figures say Iran is 'newly aggressive - and we are not sure why' Iran 'has enough enriched uranium for four nuclear weapons' Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu pushing for invasion Tel Aviv test-fires rockets capable of carrying nuclear warheads into Iran Report reveals China continues to supply Tehran with missiles and other conventional weapons Obama says nuclear programme remains a threat and calls on Iran to reveal its intentions   The UK and U.S. are drawing up plans to attack Iran amid growing tensions in the Middle East, it was claimed last night. Barack Obama and David Cameron are preparing for war after reports that Iran now has enough enriched uranium for four nuclear weapons. President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad Edited November 23, 2011 by Dynamite Duane Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
big mickey Posted November 23, 2011 Share Posted November 23, 2011 Very likely It'd be a mistake at the moment, overstreched as it is, but Iran is close to developing nuclear weaponry & they do seem the type of chaps who seem like they would use them too  The problem is if we piss off china then it's bad, but we could hold with Russia, so that's good. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
big mickey Posted November 23, 2011 Share Posted November 23, 2011 Also I think with Iran it'd have to be "tatical obliteration", a ground war would be a disaster Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dynamite Duane Posted November 23, 2011 Share Posted November 23, 2011 Worthy of note is Israel IS a nuclear power, as is Pakistan and India also. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
big mickey Posted November 23, 2011 Share Posted November 23, 2011 Worthy of note is Israel IS a nuclear power, as is Pakistan and India also.  Israel are seemingly sensible with theirs & aside from Iran they couldn't/wouldn't use them on Gaza as the effect would have disastrous effects on their own people  As for Pakistan & India, aside from the lack of long range capabilities & number of stockpiled weaponry I don't think either would use their weapons for an attack Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Loki Posted November 23, 2011 Share Posted November 23, 2011 Worthy of note is Israel IS a nuclear power, as is Pakistan and India also.  Israel are seemingly sensible with theirs  Good grief. Not being sensible means nuking a city! Apart from the US, every country that has ever had the atom bomb have been "sensible" as far as it goes.  And the closest the world has come to nuclear war since the 40s has been India/Pakistan. Shit got pretty sweaty a few years ago, though it wasn't much reported over here.  If I was Iran, with Israel constantly attacking its neighbours and with nukes within range, and the US sabre-rattling and with nukes on subs in the Gulf... I'd probably want nukes myself as well, if only as a deterrent! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vice Posted November 24, 2011 Share Posted November 24, 2011 (edited) I don't think anyone should have nukes. But, with the US invading countries all around Iran and constantly threatening Iran, they'd be silly not to have them. The US' main grievance seems to be that Iran having nukes would deter an invasion. Look at the polls of public opinion; overwhelmingly, people in the region feel they'd be much safer if Iran did have nukes. And who can blame them? Look at the enermous loss of life, both directly and indirectly, the US is responsible for in that region over many decades. But who cares about those people and what they think, eh? Their lives are clearly worth less than ours. Â And don't even get me started on the hypocrisy of the US already having nukes and being the only nation to ever use them, in addition to all of their massive state terrorism. Edited November 24, 2011 by Vice Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The King Of Swing Posted November 24, 2011 Share Posted November 24, 2011 Who "isn't" going to be giving evidence at this media ethics inquiry? Â This really can't end well for British media can it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
patiirc Posted November 24, 2011 Share Posted November 24, 2011 Who "isn't" going to be giving evidence at this media ethics inquiry? This really can't end well for British media can it?  What has concerned me the most, is that many of the witnesses that Ive seen giving evidence, have actually done things that are illegal, morally dubious, yet they are getting painted as whiter than white in all of this and I cant help thinking its treading a dangerous line here for the media in the future.  Garry Flitcroft the other day, was an intriguing case. He blamed the media explicitly for helping to cause his father's suicide, because Garry had been found to be having an affair and had taken an injunction out to get the details shielded from the news papers to protect his dignity. I guess, even though he was cheating on his missus.  He blamed the response from the story and the barrage of abuse that he got from the football fans as a result of affair being made public as a contributory factor in his dad's suicide as he couldnt handle the abuse that his son was getting, which was odd, so much as none of the other factors in his death were made apparent, such as underlying depression, family issues and whatever so the whole thing became out of context and focused on just the one thing.  The interview with the McCann's yesterday was just bizarre as anything else attributed to whatever they have done in the media. It appears that the whole thing is becoming a bit of a witchhunt rather than a equal investigation to the pros and cons of the ethics used. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paid Members Dead Mike Posted November 24, 2011 Paid Members Share Posted November 24, 2011 Just because a celeb has done something morally dubious doesn't excuse the actions of the gutter press though? Two wrongs etc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paid Members Devon Malcolm Posted November 24, 2011 Paid Members Share Posted November 24, 2011 What has concerned me the most, is that many of the witnesses that Ive seen giving evidence, have actually done things that are illegal, morally dubious, yet they are getting painted as whiter than white in all of this and I cant help thinking its treading a dangerous line here for the media in the future. Garry Flitcroft the other day, was an intriguing case. He blamed the media explicitly for helping to cause his father's suicide, because Garry had been found to be having an affair and had taken an injunction out to get the details shielded from the news papers to protect his dignity. I guess, even though he was cheating on his missus.  He blamed the response from the story and the barrage of abuse that he got from the football fans as a result of affair being made public as a contributory factor in his dad's suicide as he couldnt handle the abuse that his son was getting, which was odd, so much as none of the other factors in his death were made apparent, such as underlying depression, family issues and whatever so the whole thing became out of context and focused on just the one thing.  Read the transcripts again and you will see that Flitcroft quite clearly mentions his father's depression prior to all this happening and refers back to it on several occasions.  Flitcroft had an affair. So what? It's none of our business. It's a private family matter that none of us, aside from those parties involved, needed to know about. I don't think Flitcrot has attempted in any way to paint himself as 'whiter than white' but merely give his version and opinion of events. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Galt Posted November 24, 2011 Share Posted November 24, 2011 You can say illegal and morally dubious all you want but no one died and everything happened with consent which firmly places it as behind-closed-doors stuff to me rather than a serious crime and only gets reported on because it will outrage the knobheads who buy tabloid shite anyway. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bobbins Posted November 24, 2011 Share Posted November 24, 2011 The interview with the McCann's yesterday was just bizarre as anything else attributed to whatever they have done in the media. It appears that the whole thing is becoming a bit of a witchhunt rather than a equal investigation to the pros and cons of the ethics used. lololol witchhunt! Yes, those McCanns are pursuing a vengeful witchhunt against those poor media outlets who were just interested in bringing the truth to the people. What the fucking fuck? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Glen Quagmire Posted November 24, 2011 Share Posted November 24, 2011 Those who have it right are the Norwegians and Swiss, who benefit from the same trade conditions as EU members but without having to surrender sovereignty and transfer money to poorer neighbours. It's now my view that we should do the same, joining them as part of the European Free Trade Area. The problem is though that Norway and Switzerland don't have the same relationship with the EU, Norway is pretty much an EU member in all but signing on the dotted line - it universally accepts EU regulations, even contributes to the running of the union, but has no effective say about what is drawn up in the corridors of Brussels and Strasbourg. The Swiss relationship with the EU is complex, in that it's defined via numerous bilateral agreements with a "guillotine clause" that makes the relationship an awkward one. The Swiss generally feel that the EU would compromise traditional Swiss sovereignty, but at the same time it knows that as it's surrounded by the EU, it pretty much has to do its bidding when it demands it as isolating itself from its neighbours is not an option. If the UK left the EU tomorrow, it would not be as "free" as some would like to think, especially when it comes to matters of migration (e.g. France and Spain in response tell British residents to formally apply for foreign residence or get deported), numerous agreements between the UK and the EU would be along Norwegian and Swiss lines with the UK's hand greatly reduced etc. If the UK was not in the EU at present I'd agree that it should not join at least in the short term, but it's in and is an established member, best to work things out and have a voice of significant influence. Withdrawal should only, and only be an absolute last resort. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts