Iran

[Kiffy]

I think David can be massively blinkered with these things, but I woulnd't go so far as to say it's white noise.

Mind you, as the second runner in that, it could probably be argued that my and his views on what entails white noise are not shared by the majority of the board.

[David]

Just read through this thread, after seeing some posters defending David in the white noise voting thread, I have to ask why they bothered, apparently a reasoned debate just involves slagging off anyone who disagrees with your opinion

Have I slagged anyone off?

Well you called LaGoosh a tit, does that not count?

Not when you see the way he responded to my post, no. You'll also note that he's called people "simple" and suchlike. I've answered his points in a polite manner. It was him who decided to take the first step down the road of personal insults and being dismissive of valid points.

 

Or did you not see any of that?

 

I think David can be massively blinkered with these things, but I woulnd't go so far as to say it's white noise.

Mind you, as the second runner in that, it could probably be argued that my and his views on what entails white noise are not shared by the majority of the board.

Blinkered or not Kiffy, the point is that i've been putting forward counter-opinions to both you & LaGoosh in a polite manner. You've responded in kind, which is how a debate is supposed to work, no?

 

Or is posting "everything you said is wrong! Your post is ridiculous! It;s the worst thing I've ever read!" a valid argument?

[LaGoosh]

One thing I will comment on David as you felt the urge to post the same thing twice:

 

Okay, so there were no innocent civilians killed in Iraq, Afghanistan or Libya? Gaddafi wasn't slaughtered and Saddam wasn't hanged?

 

Yes innocent civilians were killed in Iraq, accidental civilian deaths are part of war. And before the invasion thousands of them were killed by Saddam's own regime, some of them gassed with chemical weapons. And then he was tried and convicted by a jury of Iraqis and executed in accordance with their laws. What does that have to do with Iran?

 

Yes innocent civilians were killed in Afghanistan, accidental civilian deaths are part of war. Before the invasion thousands of them by the Taliban regime and millions brutally supressed. What does this have to do with Iran?

 

Innocent civilians were killed in Libya by Ghaddafi's regime. Foreign forces helped the rebels because they asked for the help of the international community to remove this violent oppressive dictator. Ghaddafi was then killed by rebel forces. WHAT THE FUCK DOES THIS HAVE TO DO WITH IRAN?

 

To stop us going round in circles, David & WU LYFE:

 

Please tell us why Iran should have nuclear weapons and what good would come of it.

[Kiffy]

Hey it's not like you've got a big old edl sig, I'll happily talk reasonably to you.

[rayneisatwat]

David reminds me of the F.A.G bit on Team America 'Everywhere was rainbows and lollipops before the Americans turned up!'

 

Yep, Libya was way better under Gaddafi, what bastards they are.

[David]

Please tell us why Iran should have nuclear weapons and what good would come of it.

For the exact same reasons ourselves & the US have them. As far as the good that comes of it, there is none. There's no good in us having them either.

 

My point is that we shouldn't have the right to tell one country in that region that they can't develop nuclear weapons, tell another that they can and all the while have a big old stockpile of the bastards ourselves!

[bobbins]

I don't believe you have actually looked at any evidence though. Your argument is basically "the US should't stick their noses in and make up excuses to fight Iran" which isn't really looking at things realistically or logically.

What evidence are you talking about? All you've offered up is the official US line of propaganda. You want action against Iran because they're an aggressive nation, but unarguably the most aggressive nation in the whole Middle East by an absolutely enormous margin is the United States. Think how fucked up that is.

 

Yep, Libya was way better under Gaddafi, what bastards they are.

Where did he say anything like that?

[Chest Rockwell]

I don't believe you have actually looked at any evidence though. Your argument is basically "the US should't stick their noses in and make up excuses to fight Iran" which isn't really looking at things realistically or logically.

What evidence are you talking about? All you've offered up is the official US line of propaganda. You want action against Iran because they're an aggressive nation, but unarguably the most aggressive nation in the whole Middle East by an absolutely enormous margin is the United States. Think how fucked up that is.

 

 

 

but...but... they're peacekeeping!

[WU LYF 4 LYF]

To stop us going round in circles, David & WU LYFE:

 

Please tell us why Iran should have nuclear weapons and what good would come of it.

 

Because their biggest enemy in the region has them. It would act as a deterrent. Nothing good will come of it, just like nothing good will come of Israel having nuclear weapons. In my opinion nobody should have nuclear weapons, but that's another argument. What good will come from military intervention in Iran? Except for stopping the armageddon you hyperbolically predict.

 

To stop us going round in circles further, why don't you tell us;

 

- Why it would be justified to wage war on Iran, but not on other countries in the world with dreadful human rights records and destructive weaponry (i.e. Somalia, Sudan, Israel)?

- Why Israel should not be subject to the same demands of disarmament as Iran?

- Why, if the hypothetical attack is as you say purely based on America's objections to the lack of civil liberties, hatred of tyranny and the need to weaken a country with large quantities of weapons, the moral stance does not extend to ceasing trading with China?

 

And then he was tried and convicted by a jury of Iraqis and executed in accordance with their laws.

 

Well, that makes it alright then. As long as it was within the law. I'm sure a great many of the human rights violations you object to in Iran are in accordance with the laws of that nation. If simple legality is justification for murder then your own argument for intervention is weakened substantially.

 

[Kiffy]

Rightly or wrongly, seems its all about to start kicking off http://gizmodo.com/5878393/you-dont-see-tw...-side-every-day

[David]

What I find quite interesting in all of this is the idea that Iran are looking to produce nuclear weapons at all. Whilst I agree that they really should have as much right as the UK, US or Israel to do so, it's been said that the uranium in the fuel cycle that Iran is enriching is somewhere around 19%. I may be wrong, but doesn't the production of weapons require much more than that? Somewhere in the region of 85%?

 

Hasn't the US own intelligence agencies reported that Iran actually stopped designing nuclear weapons in something like 2004? Even members of the Obama administration agreed with this!

 

From what I can see Iran are determined to produce their own fuel for their nuclear power plants. The west are dead set against this. Hillary Clinton has gone on the record saying that the US will absolutely not allow Iran to produce its own nuclear fuel.

 

The reason? If Iran can produce their own fuel they no longer have to buy it from other sources, which means they are no longer dependent on anyone. This is the main point in this situation I feel.

[Kiffy]

See thats why I think you can be a bit blinkered David, you're constantly looking for an underhanded reason that isn't there.

Take the above, Iran has a ridiculous amount of natural gas and oil, to the point it can export it.

At which point would America want Iran to use it's oil supplies to get energy, reducing the amount of the oil and gas it exports to the world and therefore raising the price world wide?

It's good to question the intentions of those at the top, it's good not to take everything on face value, but when you just come out with ridiculous suggestions like that, based on no evidence and no research, it moves away from being an enquiringly cycnical mind, and becomes as ridiculous as people who will blindly believe everything the state tells em.

[David]

See thats why I think you can be a bit blinkered David, you're constantly looking for an underhanded reason that isn't there.

Not at all. When it comes to money and control I don't think it's too far-fetched an idea to believe that the west would wish Iran to remain reliant on others for their fuel. This point was demonstrated when they began fueling their power plant in Bushehr in August last year. They were using Russian fuel to do so, which prompted the following quote from a Whitehouse spokesman;

 

"Russia is providing the fuel, and taking the fuel back out," White House spokesman Robert Gibbs said earlier this month.

 

"It, quite clearly, I think, underscores that Iran does not need its own enrichment capability if its intentions, as it states, are for a peaceful nuclear program," he said.

Just because Iran doesn't need its own enrichment capability doesn't mean they don't want one.

 

The US would have us believe that this is to produce nuclear weapons, whilst the Iranian authorities tell us that it's to reduce their reliance on outside sources for their fuel. Considering the facts that US intelligence & the Obama administration has went on the record saying that Iran stopped designing nuclear weapons in 2003 or 2004 I'd tend to believe that nuclear weapons aren't on the agenda at present (even if I believe they should be allowed to have them).

 

Another thing that makes me think it's more to do with controlling the source of the fuel rather than any supposed nuclear bombs is the deal put forward by the likes of the US, France & the UK to provide Iran with fuel supplies. This would, of course, leave Iran reliant on an external source for their fuel, which is a ridiculous concept considering the fact that they have the neccessary resources to produce their own.

 

I can't help but see similarities between the Iranian situation and the Iraqi situation.

 

The US invaded Iraq on the pretext that "weapons of mass destruction" were being hidden by Saddam Husseins Government. When they invaded & removed the troublesome Government they then went "oh, it appears that no such weapons exist after all. Oh well."

 

I can see something similar happening here. The invasion, removal of a troublesome Government before the "oh, it appears they hadn't been intending to build nuclear weapons after all. Oh well."

 

I don't think that worldwide opinion on Iran is as black & white as some would like us to believe either. Irans three neighbours (Pakistan, Turkey & Saudi Arbabia) saw a fair chunk of their population favouring a nuclear Iran, and most of them were against US invasion of the country.

 

Even Russia have said that there is no evidence to suggest Iran are looking to build a nuclear weapon, and as such should be allowed to pursue their own nuclear facilities.

 

The OIC also said that "full respect for equal and inalienable rights for all nations to explore modern technologies including nuclear energy for peaceful purposes." should be the order of the day, which is what Iran are doing unless the US can find something that contradicts their own intelligence and provide it as evidence.

 

As for your claim, LaGoosh, that support for the US against Iran in Arab countries is high, it has been said that opposition to Irans nuclear program has fallen in more than half of Arab countries.

 

In fact, Arab League Secretary General Amr Moussa said that Israel, not Iran, posed a nuclear threat to the Middle East.

[bobbins]

Robert Fisk as always brings some reality to the situation. Please read La Goosh.

 

http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/comme...an-6294111.html

 

Turning round a story is one of the most difficult tasks in journalism

[Keith Houchen]

An excellent read. Thanks for posting that, bobbins.