Share This Page:
Iran
Its not that fanatical as you may think - its quite a modern nation. Agreed, it may be held back by relgious clerics, but there are traditional advocates in all countries. Plus Iran is not completely removed from international society as some politicians may want you to believe. It has strong ties with Russia and is going to develop strong ties with China. The leaders are not irrational, just unfavourable and not entirely pleasant - but they are just politicians playing on peoples fears like in any other country - whether that be terrorism, immigration or Israel (but not to be confused with ant-semetism, for zionism is unrelated to semetism and being anti-zionist does not make one anti-semetic, just as being pro zionism does not make one pro-semitic).
Ive probably asked the wrong question. I should not have ask what should we do, but why Iran may want to develop nuclear weapons. And the ony answer I can give is national prides (like in Pakistan and India) and thus legitimacy for the state, and deterrence. The leaders are not irrational, and I doubt Iran has any serious foreign ambitions outside of Iraq. But if the Iraqi Shias wished to allign themselves with Iran, is that not upto the Shias?
Ive probably asked the wrong question. I should not have ask what should we do, but why Iran may want to develop nuclear weapons. And the ony answer I can give is national prides (like in Pakistan and India) and thus legitimacy for the state, and deterrence. The leaders are not irrational, and I doubt Iran has any serious foreign ambitions outside of Iraq. But if the Iraqi Shias wished to allign themselves with Iran, is that not upto the Shias?
-
Wholley
- Guest
gkayesem wrote:Its not that fanatical as you may think - and I doubt Iran has any serious foreign ambitions outside of Iraq.
Are you serious?
Iran has had ambitions ever since the Shah was deposed.
The Russians are only going to put this off for a while.
Even Putin realises this is a stop-gap.
Unless China puts some pretty heavy pressure on the Iranian Government and stops supplying any type of Uranium Iran could become a really nasty threat.It's current government is insanley jealous of the West(Unlike China Who knows exactly which side of the bread is buttered)
The people of Iran may well not be Fanatical,But do you reckon their current government is listening?
At some point the "West"Is going to have to do something,Unless the PC Brigade get their way and lead us into a unilateral surrender to a muderous minority.
(ooooh,Get me,All those big words)
Wholley
When Oh when will we in the west realise that the Arab nations psyche is so different form the west or even the east.
Rob Parry posted the following on OAMAAM a week or so ago. It make sensible reading
Wilfred Thesiger wrote Arabian Sands, and subsequently The Marsh Arabs. In 1945 post service in the SAS etc he was about to enter the Empty Quarter from Salala. He wrote:
"It was obvious that, although the Qarra lived only a few miles from Salala, the Sultan of Muscat had little control over them. Arabs rule but do not administer. Their government is intensely individualistic, and is successful or unsuccessful according to the degree of fear and respect which the ruler commands, and his skill in dealing with individual men.
Founded on an individual life, their government is impermanent and liable to end in chaos at any moment. To Arab tribesmen this system is comprehensible and acceptable, and its success or failure should not be measured in terms of efficiency and justice as judged by Western standards. To these tribesmen security can be bought too dearly by loss of individual freedom."
Nothing has changed. We are a mere interruption in a process that hes been in existence for millenia BC. They, the Arabs, understand their system, we do not. We are so bound up in our regulated, stiff upper lip 'democracy' that we fail to see the benefits of their system. I say benefits, because for them, and with them it works. Fear is a great incentive, Saddam proved that. Unfortunately our dipsticjk leaders did not, and do not understand what is now 'our enemy'. Had we left them to their own devices it is likely they would sort it out in their own way.
"It's about Oil stupid!"
When our reliance on oil ends we will be able to leave them to their own recourses.
I believe that the problems we have now with the oil rich countries will be second to the problems we will have in the supply and demand for water, that is if we don't do something radical and fast about our deminishing water supply
Aye
Mike
Rob Parry posted the following on OAMAAM a week or so ago. It make sensible reading
Wilfred Thesiger wrote Arabian Sands, and subsequently The Marsh Arabs. In 1945 post service in the SAS etc he was about to enter the Empty Quarter from Salala. He wrote:
"It was obvious that, although the Qarra lived only a few miles from Salala, the Sultan of Muscat had little control over them. Arabs rule but do not administer. Their government is intensely individualistic, and is successful or unsuccessful according to the degree of fear and respect which the ruler commands, and his skill in dealing with individual men.
Founded on an individual life, their government is impermanent and liable to end in chaos at any moment. To Arab tribesmen this system is comprehensible and acceptable, and its success or failure should not be measured in terms of efficiency and justice as judged by Western standards. To these tribesmen security can be bought too dearly by loss of individual freedom."
Nothing has changed. We are a mere interruption in a process that hes been in existence for millenia BC. They, the Arabs, understand their system, we do not. We are so bound up in our regulated, stiff upper lip 'democracy' that we fail to see the benefits of their system. I say benefits, because for them, and with them it works. Fear is a great incentive, Saddam proved that. Unfortunately our dipsticjk leaders did not, and do not understand what is now 'our enemy'. Had we left them to their own devices it is likely they would sort it out in their own way.
"It's about Oil stupid!"
When our reliance on oil ends we will be able to leave them to their own recourses.
I believe that the problems we have now with the oil rich countries will be second to the problems we will have in the supply and demand for water, that is if we don't do something radical and fast about our deminishing water supply
Aye
Mike
The Honourable Lord Mike of Loch Borralan
.........................Because I AM Worth IT..xxxx.......Never Mistake Motion for Action
.........................Because I AM Worth IT..xxxx.......Never Mistake Motion for Action
Again yet another post form the same forum this supplied by Jos, location Africa:
I saw this reply in another forum and for me it just about sums up what some of us feel about the majority of muslims. It's a bit long winded but I think you will understand once you read it.
''Come on, is this really about cartoons? They're rampaging and burning flags. They're looking for Europeans to kidnap. They're threatening innkeepers and generally raising holy Muslim hell not because of any outrage over a cartoon. They're outraged because it is part of the Islamic jihadist culture to be outraged. You don't really need a reason. You just need an excuse. Wandering around, destroying property, murdering children, firing guns into the air and feigning outrage over the slightest perceived insult is to a jihadist what tailgating is to a Steeler's fan.
Muslim outrage huh. OK ... let's do a little historical review. Just some lowlights:
Muslims fly commercial airliners into buildings in New York City. No Muslim outrage.
Muslim officials block the exit where school girls are trying to escape a burning building because their faces were exposed. No Muslim outrage.
Muslims cut off the heads of three teenaged girls on their way to school in Indonesia. A Christian school. No Muslim outrage.
Muslims murder teachers trying to teach Muslim children in Iraq. No Muslim outrage.
Muslims murder over 80 tourists with car bombs outside cafes and hotels in Egypt. No Muslim outrage.
A Muslim attacks a missionary children's school in India. Kills six. No Muslim outrage.
Muslims slaughter hundreds of children and teachers in Beslan, Russia. Muslims shoot children in the back. No Muslim outrage.
Let's go way back. Muslims kidnap and kill athletes at the Munich Summer Olympics. No Muslim outrage.
Muslims fire rocket-propelled grenades into schools full of children in Israel. No Muslim outrage.
Muslims murder more than 50 commuters in attacks on London subways and busses. Over 700 are injured. No Muslim outrage.
Muslims massacre dozens of innocents at a Passover Seder. No Muslim outrage.
Muslims murder innocent vacationers in Bali. No Muslim outrage.
Muslim newspapers publish anti-Semitic cartoons. No Muslim outrage
Muslims are involved, on one side or the other, in almost every one of the 125+ shooting wars around the world. No Muslim outrage.
Muslims beat the charred bodies of Western civilians with their shoes, then hang them from a bridge. No Muslim outrage.
Newspapers in Denmark and Norway publish cartoons depicting Mohammed. Muslims are outraged.
Dead children. Dead tourists. Dead teachers. Dead doctors and nurses. Death, destruction and mayhem around the world at the hands of Muslims .. no Muslim outrage ... but publish a cartoon depicting Mohammed with a bomb in his turban and all hell breaks loose.
I know and understand that these bloodthirsty murderers do not represent the majority of the world's Muslims. When, though, do they become outraged? When do they take to the streets to express their outrage at the radicals who are making their religion the object of worldwide hatred and ridicule? Islamic writer Salman Rushdie wrote of these silent Muslims in a New York Times article three years ago. "As their ancient, deeply civilized culture of love, art and philosophical reflection is hijacked by paranoiacs, racists, liars, male supremacists, tyrants, fanatics and violence junkies, why are they not screaming?"
Indeed. Why not?
Makes you think.....Eh
Aye
Mike
I saw this reply in another forum and for me it just about sums up what some of us feel about the majority of muslims. It's a bit long winded but I think you will understand once you read it.
''Come on, is this really about cartoons? They're rampaging and burning flags. They're looking for Europeans to kidnap. They're threatening innkeepers and generally raising holy Muslim hell not because of any outrage over a cartoon. They're outraged because it is part of the Islamic jihadist culture to be outraged. You don't really need a reason. You just need an excuse. Wandering around, destroying property, murdering children, firing guns into the air and feigning outrage over the slightest perceived insult is to a jihadist what tailgating is to a Steeler's fan.
Muslim outrage huh. OK ... let's do a little historical review. Just some lowlights:
Muslims fly commercial airliners into buildings in New York City. No Muslim outrage.
Muslim officials block the exit where school girls are trying to escape a burning building because their faces were exposed. No Muslim outrage.
Muslims cut off the heads of three teenaged girls on their way to school in Indonesia. A Christian school. No Muslim outrage.
Muslims murder teachers trying to teach Muslim children in Iraq. No Muslim outrage.
Muslims murder over 80 tourists with car bombs outside cafes and hotels in Egypt. No Muslim outrage.
A Muslim attacks a missionary children's school in India. Kills six. No Muslim outrage.
Muslims slaughter hundreds of children and teachers in Beslan, Russia. Muslims shoot children in the back. No Muslim outrage.
Let's go way back. Muslims kidnap and kill athletes at the Munich Summer Olympics. No Muslim outrage.
Muslims fire rocket-propelled grenades into schools full of children in Israel. No Muslim outrage.
Muslims murder more than 50 commuters in attacks on London subways and busses. Over 700 are injured. No Muslim outrage.
Muslims massacre dozens of innocents at a Passover Seder. No Muslim outrage.
Muslims murder innocent vacationers in Bali. No Muslim outrage.
Muslim newspapers publish anti-Semitic cartoons. No Muslim outrage
Muslims are involved, on one side or the other, in almost every one of the 125+ shooting wars around the world. No Muslim outrage.
Muslims beat the charred bodies of Western civilians with their shoes, then hang them from a bridge. No Muslim outrage.
Newspapers in Denmark and Norway publish cartoons depicting Mohammed. Muslims are outraged.
Dead children. Dead tourists. Dead teachers. Dead doctors and nurses. Death, destruction and mayhem around the world at the hands of Muslims .. no Muslim outrage ... but publish a cartoon depicting Mohammed with a bomb in his turban and all hell breaks loose.
I know and understand that these bloodthirsty murderers do not represent the majority of the world's Muslims. When, though, do they become outraged? When do they take to the streets to express their outrage at the radicals who are making their religion the object of worldwide hatred and ridicule? Islamic writer Salman Rushdie wrote of these silent Muslims in a New York Times article three years ago. "As their ancient, deeply civilized culture of love, art and philosophical reflection is hijacked by paranoiacs, racists, liars, male supremacists, tyrants, fanatics and violence junkies, why are they not screaming?"
Indeed. Why not?
Makes you think.....Eh
Aye
Mike
The Honourable Lord Mike of Loch Borralan
.........................Because I AM Worth IT..xxxx.......Never Mistake Motion for Action
.........................Because I AM Worth IT..xxxx.......Never Mistake Motion for Action
Iran has never attacked any one, only with words. They should be left to there own devices they are different people to the Western culture.
Similarly with Iraq .Unfortunately the first mistake has been made by invading them and now look at the mess.
If these countries are left to develope in there own way,all the rest of the countries need to do is retain and develope a strong defence Force as was done during the Cold War.
Both countries,if left alone would probably self destruct eventually.
Due to the situation created by the invasion, Iraq is well on the way to this conclusion.
I has given views on Afghanistan on it own Thread.
Similarly with Iraq .Unfortunately the first mistake has been made by invading them and now look at the mess.
If these countries are left to develope in there own way,all the rest of the countries need to do is retain and develope a strong defence Force as was done during the Cold War.
Both countries,if left alone would probably self destruct eventually.
Due to the situation created by the invasion, Iraq is well on the way to this conclusion.
I has given views on Afghanistan on it own Thread.
[img]http://deephousepage.com/smilies/bangdesk.gif[/img]
I'm working on it !
I'm working on it !
-
Wholley
- Guest
-
Wholley
- Guest
Is English your first Language?Sprey wrote:Iran has never attacked any one, only with words. They should be left to there own devices they are different people to the Western culture.
Similarly with Iraq .Unfortunately the first mistake has been made by invading them and now look at the mess.
If these countries are left to develope in there own way,all the rest of the countries need to do is retain and develope a strong defence Force as was done during the Cold War.
Both countries,if left alone would probably self destruct eventually.
Due to the situation created by the invasion, Iraq is well on the way to this conclusion.
I has given views on Afghanistan on it own Thread.
If so,You seem to be having a hard time with it.
Learn some form of grammar.
Your debating capability will be greatly increased when you do so.
I think Afghan and Iraqs been exhauted here and elsewhere. 
I dont agree that Iran has any serious foreign policy goals, but so what if they did? Thats realpolitik for yer -every country is fundamnetaly out for themselves.
Strategically, it would be a disastor for the US or UK - or for anyone else that is not a strong ally of Iran - if Iran developed a nuclear weapon. It would be a strategic success for Iran if they did get nuclear capability, but only if that is indeed thier intentions.
Nuclear weaonry serves the purpose of defense. Only the United States has used them aggressively - during the Cold War nuclear weapons were strategically 'used' for thier deterrence value. They were never produced - nor are they produced - for the purposes of use although those powers need to make that use possible and credible for deterrence to work.
Only Little Boy and Fat Man (and a bunch of other nukes used in tests) were developed for the purpose of use. All the others were developed for the purpose of deployment and the possibility of use.
Nuclear deterrence is a defensive measure. As of yet thier is little evidence that Iran is indeed developing a nuclear weapon - its a possbility - but we should not assume that thier intentions are aggressive.
The United States is Irans main rival. Iran and the US have got poor relaitons with each other, but the United States has overwhelming military capibility. A nculear weapon would provide adequate defense.
All of americas convntional aggressive forces (politicians will claim they are defensive) are only strategically useful if they can be used successfully. A nuclear equiped Iran would prevent thier successful use. Strategy is the purpose of using force or the threat of force to achieve ones will. If Iran grows strong with the development and deployment of nuclear weaponry, the strategy of the United States - which is to serve the interests of the United States - will have failed.
Iran is not a totalitarian state. It may not be fully democractic, but its President and Islamic Ayatollahs do not have supreme power and do not direclt Iran for thier own purpose or for the purpose of any form of Islam. Islamic laws exist in Iran to protect thier islamic heritage and thier society based upon that heritage, not to force it on the outside world.
They give support to groups like Hamas and Hizbollah, but thats irrevlent as the US gives aid to Israel. Im not taking sides over that conflict, but neither can claim the moral highground.
The US is the rival of Iran, therefore beating it with a stick and hoping it will back down is paradoxical - using the threat of force to prevent them from gaining a defensive measure. It wont work.
What is needed is the carrot. The allies of Iran, Russia and China - with pressure from the US and the EU - must work with Iran to end any ambitions it may have peacefully. Attacking Iran with those allies will not only harm Iran and its allies, but its rivals and wont work.
It must be done peacefully by the international community. If the use of force is deemed as a necessity - those sponsering nations must go through the UN Security Council and get approval. If the use of force is not sanctioned by the UN - because of a veto by European countries, Russia, China or anyone else - then force can not be used.
It worked with Saddam, but Saddam did not provide the major powers with any benefit that was worth fighting over - probably the reason why the war was able to continue without SC approval.
But Iran is different. It has good and improving relations with both China and Russia, and if the US or EU uses action that could jeopordise those relations then the possibility will remain that they may intervene to secure thier relationship with Tehran. This does not necessarily mean that they would attack the US or physically defend from it, but following any airstrikes both China and Russia would be forced to boost Tehran's defenses against future attack - possibly witht he supply of a sufficient NBC deterrence or with conventional weaponry - which would not only serve to protect Iran from external threats, would may also give reason for the government to clamp down on any internal threats it may define.
Im not saying here that Iran should be allowed to develop nuclear weapons - another nuclear equiped state is not ideal. But, my argument is that if we want to deny Iran that possibility, then it must be achieved peacefully or through the UNSC. In this situation, the US is not the worlds policeman and any actions it may take without proper jsutification would itself threaten world stability.
I have purposefully left out any mention of human rights and democratisation for two reasons.
Firstly, the situation is so important that it far outwieghs any concerns of either - peace and stability is more important and the above can only be achieved peacefully.
And secondly, mention of human rights and democratisation can not only cloud ones political and strategic judgement, but is so blatanty used that it only serves as a tool for propaganda. America has pumped millions into a new propaganda campaign against the Iranian government. The nuclear situation and and hopes for democracy or humans rights improvements are two distinct elements, and fusing them together only creates complications in an already complex situation and only serves the purpose of Americas strategy.
I could also say, as a third reason, that American claims that Iran cannot gain nuclear weapons because of its lack of demoracy and any human rights abuses is ignoring the fact that China, Russia, North Korea, Israel, the US, Pakistan, India, Great Britain and France are not 100% democratic and have all committed human rights abuses from time to time. Also a few of these nations have a worse human rights record and lack of democratic rights than Iran.
Iran is being painted as an aggressive nation with an irrational leader. But of course, the United States is a peace loving country with an extremely rational, peace loving and intelligent leader!!!!
For peace, you must prepare for war.
I dont agree that Iran has any serious foreign policy goals, but so what if they did? Thats realpolitik for yer -every country is fundamnetaly out for themselves.
Strategically, it would be a disastor for the US or UK - or for anyone else that is not a strong ally of Iran - if Iran developed a nuclear weapon. It would be a strategic success for Iran if they did get nuclear capability, but only if that is indeed thier intentions.
Nuclear weaonry serves the purpose of defense. Only the United States has used them aggressively - during the Cold War nuclear weapons were strategically 'used' for thier deterrence value. They were never produced - nor are they produced - for the purposes of use although those powers need to make that use possible and credible for deterrence to work.
Only Little Boy and Fat Man (and a bunch of other nukes used in tests) were developed for the purpose of use. All the others were developed for the purpose of deployment and the possibility of use.
Nuclear deterrence is a defensive measure. As of yet thier is little evidence that Iran is indeed developing a nuclear weapon - its a possbility - but we should not assume that thier intentions are aggressive.
The United States is Irans main rival. Iran and the US have got poor relaitons with each other, but the United States has overwhelming military capibility. A nculear weapon would provide adequate defense.
All of americas convntional aggressive forces (politicians will claim they are defensive) are only strategically useful if they can be used successfully. A nuclear equiped Iran would prevent thier successful use. Strategy is the purpose of using force or the threat of force to achieve ones will. If Iran grows strong with the development and deployment of nuclear weaponry, the strategy of the United States - which is to serve the interests of the United States - will have failed.
Iran is not a totalitarian state. It may not be fully democractic, but its President and Islamic Ayatollahs do not have supreme power and do not direclt Iran for thier own purpose or for the purpose of any form of Islam. Islamic laws exist in Iran to protect thier islamic heritage and thier society based upon that heritage, not to force it on the outside world.
They give support to groups like Hamas and Hizbollah, but thats irrevlent as the US gives aid to Israel. Im not taking sides over that conflict, but neither can claim the moral highground.
The US is the rival of Iran, therefore beating it with a stick and hoping it will back down is paradoxical - using the threat of force to prevent them from gaining a defensive measure. It wont work.
What is needed is the carrot. The allies of Iran, Russia and China - with pressure from the US and the EU - must work with Iran to end any ambitions it may have peacefully. Attacking Iran with those allies will not only harm Iran and its allies, but its rivals and wont work.
It must be done peacefully by the international community. If the use of force is deemed as a necessity - those sponsering nations must go through the UN Security Council and get approval. If the use of force is not sanctioned by the UN - because of a veto by European countries, Russia, China or anyone else - then force can not be used.
It worked with Saddam, but Saddam did not provide the major powers with any benefit that was worth fighting over - probably the reason why the war was able to continue without SC approval.
But Iran is different. It has good and improving relations with both China and Russia, and if the US or EU uses action that could jeopordise those relations then the possibility will remain that they may intervene to secure thier relationship with Tehran. This does not necessarily mean that they would attack the US or physically defend from it, but following any airstrikes both China and Russia would be forced to boost Tehran's defenses against future attack - possibly witht he supply of a sufficient NBC deterrence or with conventional weaponry - which would not only serve to protect Iran from external threats, would may also give reason for the government to clamp down on any internal threats it may define.
Im not saying here that Iran should be allowed to develop nuclear weapons - another nuclear equiped state is not ideal. But, my argument is that if we want to deny Iran that possibility, then it must be achieved peacefully or through the UNSC. In this situation, the US is not the worlds policeman and any actions it may take without proper jsutification would itself threaten world stability.
I have purposefully left out any mention of human rights and democratisation for two reasons.
Firstly, the situation is so important that it far outwieghs any concerns of either - peace and stability is more important and the above can only be achieved peacefully.
And secondly, mention of human rights and democratisation can not only cloud ones political and strategic judgement, but is so blatanty used that it only serves as a tool for propaganda. America has pumped millions into a new propaganda campaign against the Iranian government. The nuclear situation and and hopes for democracy or humans rights improvements are two distinct elements, and fusing them together only creates complications in an already complex situation and only serves the purpose of Americas strategy.
I could also say, as a third reason, that American claims that Iran cannot gain nuclear weapons because of its lack of demoracy and any human rights abuses is ignoring the fact that China, Russia, North Korea, Israel, the US, Pakistan, India, Great Britain and France are not 100% democratic and have all committed human rights abuses from time to time. Also a few of these nations have a worse human rights record and lack of democratic rights than Iran.
Iran is being painted as an aggressive nation with an irrational leader. But of course, the United States is a peace loving country with an extremely rational, peace loving and intelligent leader!!!!
For peace, you must prepare for war.
-
anglo-saxon
- Guest
I have never read such a collection of naieve claptrap. Anyone who thinks Iran would just fizzle out if left alone is out of their farkin tree.
gkayesem: You should probably do some serious research on Iran and the effect on Islam from the country, because you sunshine are completely out to lunch.
The fatwahs and jihads come directly from the centre of Islam....Iran. The Ayatollah in Iran is the top dog in Islam and the chief cause of international Muslim terrorism.
The aim of those Muslims is to wipe Israel from the face of the earth and they will do anything they can to achieve it. They see the west as supporters of Israel, period. You do the math!!! We are the infidels, remember?
In the mean time, Iran is training Islmaic terrorists, harbouring Islamic terrorists, issueing orders for Islamic terror, funding Islamic terror, and supporting it any way they can.
Get a life, you prongs and stop dreaming about fluffy bunnies and candy canes. If Iran gets "the bomb" we are in for a world of shyte. Why do you think Irael went to such lengths to destroy the Iranian reactor in '83 at the risk of huge international backlash. I'll tell you why...because they knew the score then, they have one of the best intelligence agencies in the world and the nuts to make things happen. Even the CIA knew nothing about the reactor being bombed until well afetr the fact.
By the way...China wants oil, too...BIG TIME! They already have the controllig interest in the Sudan's oil supply. If they start swapping spit for conveniance' sake with the Iranians, farking well look out people!
Nobs!
gkayesem: You should probably do some serious research on Iran and the effect on Islam from the country, because you sunshine are completely out to lunch.
The fatwahs and jihads come directly from the centre of Islam....Iran. The Ayatollah in Iran is the top dog in Islam and the chief cause of international Muslim terrorism.
The aim of those Muslims is to wipe Israel from the face of the earth and they will do anything they can to achieve it. They see the west as supporters of Israel, period. You do the math!!! We are the infidels, remember?
In the mean time, Iran is training Islmaic terrorists, harbouring Islamic terrorists, issueing orders for Islamic terror, funding Islamic terror, and supporting it any way they can.
Get a life, you prongs and stop dreaming about fluffy bunnies and candy canes. If Iran gets "the bomb" we are in for a world of shyte. Why do you think Irael went to such lengths to destroy the Iranian reactor in '83 at the risk of huge international backlash. I'll tell you why...because they knew the score then, they have one of the best intelligence agencies in the world and the nuts to make things happen. Even the CIA knew nothing about the reactor being bombed until well afetr the fact.
By the way...China wants oil, too...BIG TIME! They already have the controllig interest in the Sudan's oil supply. If they start swapping spit for conveniance' sake with the Iranians, farking well look out people!
Nobs!
Anglo-Saxon
Cult Member
Joined: 14 Jan 2004
Posts: 828
Location: Just a hop and skip from the Canadian Rockies
Posted: Thu Mar 02, 2006 4:44 am Post subject
A fine example of 'speaking' from a safe height/place.
Having seen how the Coalition has tried to deal with Afghanistan and Iraq and the consequent mess. Do you really think it will be capable of dealing with Iran?
You mention the Chinese let them deal with Iran .
Cult Member
Joined: 14 Jan 2004
Posts: 828
Location: Just a hop and skip from the Canadian Rockies
Posted: Thu Mar 02, 2006 4:44 am Post subject
A fine example of 'speaking' from a safe height/place.
Having seen how the Coalition has tried to deal with Afghanistan and Iraq and the consequent mess. Do you really think it will be capable of dealing with Iran?
You mention the Chinese let them deal with Iran .
[img]http://deephousepage.com/smilies/bangdesk.gif[/img]
I'm working on it !
I'm working on it !
