View Full Version : world war 3
well what do you think about that then??:eek:
in general? I'd say it was a very bad idea!
"I know not with what weapons World War III will be fought, but World War IV will be fought with sticks and stones." ~ Albert Einstein
Sums it up for me...
then maybe somebody should tell george bush cos he sure wont listen to me!
And get the reply: "'I know not....?' What kind of american language is that?" :lol:
let george bush go to the frontline on his own when he starts the nuclear world was on his own.
let george bush go to the frontline on his own when he starts the nuclear world was on his own.
With a nuclear war we don't need to be that fussy. Just anywhere in the first 10,000 lines would do in order to show patriotism.
i would rather be locked up than called up i like the look of my skin the way it is no chemical help
i would rather be locked up than called up i like the look of my skin the way it is no chemical help
Amen to that brotha!!
I would say that if you were anywhere near the epicentre then its the colour of your intestines, not your skin, that you should be worried about.... :lol:
Hmmnn.....I don't think being locked up will help you IF WW3 ever happened, unless you were in an amazing nuclear fall out shelter or something like that.The fact is if it ever happened there's not much hope for most of us,that's why we have to ensure it doesn't happen.I get your point about George Bush, I don't think he has many fans either here or in America x
bush power hungry or oil hungry
The point of a nuclear fall out shelter is that its just that. A fallout shelter. If the bomb hits anywhere nearby then its not going to help you much....
bush power hungry or oil hungry
Oil = Power
well what do you think about that then??:eek:
It would certainly knock global warming off the front pages.:eek:
Oops sorry mr_me that's shows my ignorance of nuclear bombs up a bit then eh?:( If it does happen can I come hide with you please,at least you will show me the right place to go lol x
Just run.... To as rural a place as possible. The cities are the targets. Thats where most damage will occur. We shouldn't be too bad here. But Thurso and Wick are still a risk. Try stroma. Lol. Get a shelted that has 3' lead walls. Enough air, food and water to last 2 years (although studies suggest it could be at least 50). And then hunker down and hope that the tv still works!
bring back ADOLF
I'm sorry?
Just run.... To as rural a place as possible. The cities are the targets. Thats where most damage will occur. We shouldn't be too bad here. But Thurso and Wick are still a risk. Try stroma. Lol. Get a shelted that has 3' lead walls. Enough air, food and water to last 2 years (although studies suggest it could be at least 50). And then hunker down and hope that the tv still works!
Good lord!Stroma for 2yrs would be bad enough but for 50!:eek:I would have to get my hands on a lot of lead pipes to make e walls that thick!The food isn't a prob though I could eat e sheep or fish...I could do with losing a few pounds anyway x
bring back ADOLF
erm. I'd expect to see yoda the flump start posting now as youve just mentioned his hero.:D
How can Hitler be anyones hero?
I'm sorry?
Well at least with him you knew where you stood(in a gas chamber) and you knew he hated you but with george bush you never can tell i genuinly believe before his time as president comes he plans to destroy every living thing you can just tell he is looking for WW3
How can Hitler be anyones hero?
Well, i was only joking about that part. Its just a joke between Myself and Yoda. You wouldn't understand. :D:lol:
How can Hitler be anyones hero?
well you dont know yoda the thump then (waana be ss )
Tubthumper
18-Oct-07, 23:25
Get real. Does anyone really think that, with the world-wide economy as it is, that we're about to embark on WW3? Wars are fine, there are great profits to be made, but you don't kill off your consumers, do you?
I mean, how could we go to war with China when around 60% of the goods we consume come from there, much of our pension funds and bank savings depend on expanding business there, and even the Chinese people themselves are a glorous marketing opportunity for consumer goods.
Fear of Nuclear Holocaust is a great thing for (a) stimulating technological advancement (b) stimulating economies (c) keeping people in a state of righteous national indignation and fear of johnny foreigner.
I bet you £100 we don't get annhialated in the next 20 years.
well yes, it is really a matter of opinion.
Get real. Does anyone really think that, with the world-wide economy as it is, that we're about to embark on WW3? Wars are fine, there are great profits to be made, but you don't kill off your consumers, do you?
I mean, how could we go to war with China when around 60% of the goods we consume come from there, much of our pension funds and bank savings depend on expanding business there, and even the Chinese people themselves are a glorous marketing opportunity for consumer goods.
Fear of Nuclear Holocaust is a great thing for (a) stimulating technological advancement (b) stimulating economies (c) keeping people in a state of righteous national indignation and fear of johnny foreigner.
I bet you £100 we don't get annhialated in the next 20 years.
well iran want nuclear weapons and the rest of the super powers see this as a threat its a power thing just like ww2
Fear of Nuclear Holocaust is a great thing for (a) stimulating technological advancement (b) stimulating economies (c) keeping people in a state of righteous national indignation and fear of johnny foreigner.You missed one:
(d) creating a thread to wind people up and have a laugh.
How tight is your spring? :D
He's managed to weave WW3, GWB, Hitler, Iran and the odd private joke into less than two pages and a few fish have nibbled his bait and some have even bitten. Not too bad a return on his modest efforts.
You missed one:
(d) creating a thread to wind people up and have a laugh.
How tight is your spring? :D
He's managed to weave WW3, GWB, Hitler, Iran and the odd private joke into less than two pages and a few fish have nibbled his bait and some have even bitten. Not too bad a return on his modest efforts.
it must have been the title of the thread
well im hooked, i got up at 6am to post on this thread.:lol:
I just hope nobody tells me the result because I intend to watch it on the Telly later and knowing the result spoils the fun.
You missed one:
(d) creating a thread to wind people up and have a laugh.
How tight is your spring? :D
He's managed to weave WW3, GWB, Hitler, Iran and the odd private joke into less than two pages and a few fish have nibbled his bait and some have even bitten. Not too bad a return on his modest efforts.
It seems like a reasonable concern to me considering that on Wednesday in a press conference Bush actually did threaten to start WWIII.
Myself, even if there was any evidence that Iran was developing nuclear weapons which there isn't, I could live with a Nuclear Iran. We live with a nuclear India, Pakistan, N. Korea Israel and America no problem. WWIII on the other hand is something which should be avoided at all costs, far more scary than a nuclear Iran, there could be no winner just slaughter on an unimaginable scale on all sides. The fact that Bush is threatening to start a world war while refusing even to even have diplomatic relations with Iran is just further proof of his insanity.
Camel Spider
19-Oct-07, 08:22
I just hope nobody tells me the result because I intend to watch it on the Telly later and knowing the result spoils the fun.
Exactly.
Something this big is only ever going to be on Sky Box Office. It will be sponsored by Pledge .. "Once your Mountains are Glass keep them shiny and clean with Pledge !!" .. and a panel of so called experts will be there to say how close a run thing it was.
Im not paying £6 for that .. I'll watch the Highlights on BBC later.
It seems like a reasonable concern to me considering that on Wednesday in a press conference Bush actually did threaten to start WWIII.
Myself, even if there was any evidence that Iran was developing nuclear weapons which there isn't, I could live with a Nuclear Iran. We live with a nuclear India, Pakistan, N. Korea Israel and America no problem. WWIII on the other hand is something which should be avoided at all costs, far more scary than a nuclear Iran, there could be no winner just slaughter on an unimaginable scale on all sides. The fact that Bush is threatening to start a world war while refusing even to even have diplomatic relations with Iran is just further proof of his insanity.
thanks fred people said i started the thread to wind people up but i too seen the same press confrence and am quite concerned about geoege bush's mental state.
Whitewater
19-Oct-07, 11:11
And get the reply: "'I know not....?' What kind of american language is that?" :lol:
The original post was a quote from Albert Einstein, who was not an American, but a European Jew who was a refugee whom the Americans welcomed.
I have to agree with Fred on this one, Bush is nuts.
World War111 is unthinkable
That was the reply that you would get from George Bush if you quoted Einstein. Post 3. I don't think Bush really gets grammer....
northener
19-Oct-07, 12:00
Hmmmmm,
So we are to understand that disagreeing with American foreign policy means Dubya is 'mad'.
Every time tensions (or even just paranoia) is on the up there has to be a 'mad' leader somewhere on the planet:roll:
Stalin - mad
Mao Tse Tung -mad
Bloke in charge of North Korea - mad
Any Middle Eastern leader with a Islamic fundementalist leaning - mad.
Uncle Saddam - mad
Mr T Blair - mad
Thatcher - mad
Scargill -mad
Ken Livingstone - mad
Reagan -mad
Putin - mad
Hitler - mad
Whole of Germany 1930-1945 - mad
Dubya - mad
Castro - mad
Galtieri - mad
Gadaffi -mad
Alex Salmond - mad
Gerry Adams - mad
Ian Paisley - mad
Mr Mugabe - mad
Mad Jack McMad - mad
Tears For Fears - (it's a) mad (world)
Come out from the bunkers you mad people!
Wot's that siren for?:eek:
Camel Spider
19-Oct-07, 12:18
Listen if we are going to have World War 3 can we have it on Saturday ??
My Girlfriend's parents are coming to visit then and it would save me a REALLY boring afternoon. If you could make it about 11 to 11.30 that would be fab as I could save myself a couple of quid on biccies. Plus her mum is big enough to be used as an aiming point.
Thanks so much.
I regret nothing !! .. See you in the next life !!
Lolabelle
19-Oct-07, 13:52
Listen if we are going to have World War 3 can we have it on Saturday ??
My Girlfriend's parents are coming to visit then and it would save me a REALLY boring afternoon. If you could make it about 11 to 11.30 that would be fab as I could save myself a couple of quid on biccies. Plus her mum is big enough to be used as an aiming point.
Thanks so much.
I regret nothing !! .. See you in the next life !!
If I were you Camel Spider, I would be very scared! Does your girlfriend read the threads here. :eek: [lol]
Camel Spider
19-Oct-07, 14:45
If I were you Camel Spider, I would be very scared! Does your girlfriend read the threads here. :eek: [lol]
I hope she does .. she has one foot on the bus to Dumpsville already, the spanish fiddler (El-Bow) is tuning up if you get my drift.
I hope she does .. she has one foot on the bus to Dumpsville already, the spanish fiddler (El-Bow) is tuning up if you get my drift.
Just tell her save on biccies and the visit
Camel Spider
19-Oct-07, 15:06
Just tell her save on biccies and the visit
Im a bloke though Anne and we just dont do that. What us men do is get the women to finish with us so we end up guilt free. It takes time and mostly a lot of the little annoying things that you women really dislike, eventually you will get so annoyed with us that you will finish the relationship leaving both parties happy.
The Woman is happy because she can sit around with her friends and relate the tale of how "she showed him" and "booted him out" etc etc. Cue lots of Lambrini and Sex and the City episodes resulting in a happy state of mind and plenty of female positive affirmation.
The Man is happy because he is free and not being accused of being heartless, feckless, etc etc. He is then able to proceed down the pub in search of the next ex girlfriend with a clear conscience.
By the way this has to be amongst the best threadjacks ever. From World War 3 to Relationships in a couple of pages.
Camel Spider
19-Oct-07, 15:10
By the way this has to be amongst the best threadjacks ever. From World War 3 to Relationships in a couple of pages.
Cant believe I wrote that. They are the same thing.
shame on you all george bush is planning to end the world and all you can wory about is what kind if biscuits to buy your mother in law:~( hang your head in shame!!
Camel Spider
19-Oct-07, 15:38
shame on you all george bush is planning to end the world and all you can wory about is what kind if biscuits to buy your mother in law:~( hang your head in shame!!
Wow .. did you read the post or did your tinfoil hat get in the way ?? He is planning to end the world ?? .. REALLY ?? ..when exactly ?? I would really like to know as it could a) save me buying biscuits at all or b) save me finishing with the missus. The last thing I want to do is head into the afterlife with a guilty conscience .. or an excess of Biscuits.
By the way I have some capital letters and commas you can borrow for your posts if you like. And there are two r's in worry.
Now you had better get back undercover .. they are watching you you know .. ;)
Camelspider, if you change your girlfriend as often as your avatar you will be an expert at the "dumping"technique [lol] Honestly just tell the poor girl and save yourself and her a lot of upset...it can't be worse than having WW3 breakout now can it?:) x
ps I liked the stop sign one you had x
Camel Spider
19-Oct-07, 16:01
Camelspider, if you change your girlfriend as often as your avatar you will be an expert at the "dumping"technique [lol] Honestly just tell the poor girl and save yourself and her a lot of upset...it can't be worse than having WW3 breakout now can it?:) x
ps I liked the stop sign one you had x
You noticed then ?? .. been having one of those change your avatar days. Think I have finally settled on the current one. And I am going to do what needs to be done on Saturday .. crank up the PS3 .. close the blinds .. and pretend I am not in.
Few months of that and she should take the hint.
northener
19-Oct-07, 16:02
Camelspider, if we both survive the imminent nuclear holocaust I propose that you write a book on dealing with the female of the species.
Your insight into the female mind is awe inspiring. I would be first in the (very short, because of the deaths of billions of people) queue to buy it!
Remember - Duck and cover!
You woose!Just tell the poor girl,it would be better for both of you and if you have the guts to tell her she is far less likely to hate you for it :) at least then you won't have to hide in the house on a sat nite....what a waste [lol] x
Camel Spider
19-Oct-07, 16:11
You woose!Just tell the poor girl,it would be better for both of you and if you have the guts to tell her she is far less likely to hate you for it :) at least then you won't have to hide in the house on a sat nite....what a waste [lol] x
Your right I should be upfront, honest, and be a man about it.
Should I do it by text or fax then ??
Your right I should be upfront, honest, and be a man about it.
Should I do it by text or fax then ??
LMAO! I really shouldn't laugh at that at all it isn't funny!You sound like such a caring guy :eek: not.Avatar is getting better though! x
Just tell her save on biccies and the visit
What have I started here !!! Well actually just followed on from Lollabelle just don't ever take a job at Marriage Guidance
Avatar much better :lol:
shame on you all george bush is planning to end the world and all you can wory about is what kind if biscuits to buy your mother in law:~( hang your head in shame!!
Nobody worries much about George Bush. We are all going to die one day anyway. If George Bush was planning a 4p a litre hike on Petrol or a ban on ASDAs in Caithness, THEN you might hear some rumbling of discontent on this forum.
Run down God, Ghosts, Psychics and The Scotland Football team, then you had better look out for sparks flying. The End of the World just doesn't cut it though ;)
Camel Spider
19-Oct-07, 16:26
Im going to phone her later and ask her to come round .. and I will be nice.
She is probably getting the best end of the deal as she has put up with my sense of humour and the fact I am rarely at home for a while now .. poor girl. She is a nice person really but we just want different things from life.
She made the fatal mistake of asking me if I ever thought about us as a married couple .. AAARRRGGGGHHHH !! .. *Camel Spider screams .. rips out his (remaining) hair .. turns .. disappears into the distance in a cloud of dust*
Well done camelspider thats a much better idea!You can let us all know how it went :) be kind to her x
thanks fred people said i started the thread to wind people up but i too seen the same press confrence and am quite concerned about geoege bush's mental state.
America is looking a lot like the Wizard of Oz at the moment, they have a Congress with no courage, a President with no brain and a State Department with no heart.
Welcomefamily
19-Oct-07, 23:12
America is looking a lot like the Wizard of Oz at the moment, they have a Congress with no courage, a President with no brain and a State Department with no heart.
Must be quote of the week that one.
Yoda the flump
19-Oct-07, 23:18
Must be quote of the week that one.
Yep, its a cracker!
She is a nice person really but we just want different things from life.
Just be careful that a lovely girl doesn't slip through your fingers just because you haven't got what it takes to go to the next level of a relationship. Be really sure that you are doing the right thing for yourself.
Just be careful that a lovely girl doesn't slip through your fingers just because you haven't got what it takes to go to the next level of a relationship. Be really sure that you are doing the right thing for yourself.
Rheghead your a softie at heart !!!!;)
Camel Spider
20-Oct-07, 08:15
Just be careful that a lovely girl doesn't slip through your fingers just because you haven't got what it takes to go to the next level of a relationship. Be really sure that you are doing the right thing for yourself.
Well I dont want to get married again and I am always away working so it wasnt fair to either of us, bottom line is life is too short to be in a situation where you are not happy. Thanks for the concern though .. :D
And thats 100 posts .. I would like to thank my manager .. my family .. my spider .. I just cant .. *breaks down in tears*
Well camelspider I hope you did it nicely then?Or are you still hiding in the house pretending to be out [lol] x
Camel Spider
20-Oct-07, 13:03
Well camelspider I hope you did it nicely then?Or are you still hiding in the house pretending to be out [lol] x
Well I am in the house but we split up and are still friends, the only reason I am staying in today is because word has got out and the local women are trying to batter the door down.
*Sigh* .. its such a burden being me .. ;)
[lol] you are a comedian camelspider even if a bit deluded!;) x
We are one step closer after Tony Blair's speech (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/10/19/wblair119.xml) in New York last week. He reeled out all the old lies as if they were reality, spoke of Iran arming terrorists and their nuclear ambitions as if they were fact when the fact is there is no evidence to support them. He made Iran out to be a war mongering state when in reality they have a history of peace while we have the reputation for war mongering.
The most alarming aspect is that this man, who if there was any justice would be standing in the dock at the International Court of Justice for his war crimes is supposed to be our Middle East peace envoy. He is supposed to be trying to prevent war with Iran not trying to justify it with his lies. He is one of those responsible for the death and misery in Iraq with his lies of weapons of mass destruction not Iran, we armed the various factions and fuelled the sectarian violence not Iran. We have committed one atrocity after another yet he has the nerve to stand there making out we are the innocent ones and Iran the aggressor.
It's time to stop condemning countries for what they may one day do, that isn't justice, you cant hang a man because someone says he might one day commit a murder. It's time to start condemning ourselves for what we have already done, time to condemn the chicken hawks who put the profit they make from the inflated price of oil above the lives of the people of the Middle East and our servicemen and women.
Camel Spider
23-Oct-07, 14:39
Anyway this World War 3.
Do I have to book a ticket or can I just get a seat on the day ?? .. I really dont want to miss this as I have never seen the end of the world before.
Will there be a Beer tent ??
Anyway this World War 3.
Do I have to book a ticket or can I just get a seat on the day ?? .. I really dont want to miss this as I have never seen the end of the world before.
Will there be a Beer tent ??
caithness.org has a forum especially for telling jokes, I think they even allow jokes in bad taste. I think your post would be better suited there.
People in a position to know are saying that war with Iran is getting more and more likely. If it happens there will certainly be heavy loss of life on all sides including any British servicemen still in Southern Iraq. Iran is not Iraq or Afghanistan, they have the ability to fight back and they have some very powerful allies.
caithness.org has a forum especially for telling jokes, I think they even allow jokes in bad taste. I think your post would be better suited there.
People in a position to know are saying that war with Iran is getting more and more likely. If it happens there will certainly be heavy loss of life on all sides including any British servicemen still in Southern Iraq. Iran is not Iraq or Afghanistan, they have the ability to fight back and they have some very powerful allies.
Is a war with Iran really that likely? I don't think so.
Is a war with Iran really that likely? I don't think so.
The way things are at the moment it is inevitable, if it wasn't for the mess we made of Afghanistan and Iraq it would have happened already. The big question is if Russia and/or China will back Iran, if they do we will have a World War.
I don't think all-out war is inevitable, at least an invasion is out of the question. It is very likely that airstrikes will be made on suspected nuclear establishments from submarines and high-level bombing, the question is, how will Iran engage US forces unless they have something under their sleeve that Iraq didn't.
I don't think all-out war is inevitable, at least an invasion is out of the question. It is very likely that airstrikes will be made on suspected nuclear establishments from submarines and high-level bombing, the question is, how will Iran engage US forces unless they have something under their sleeve that Iraq didn't.
They have, there is no comparison, Iraq was defenceless Iran isn't and our ground troops are in easy reach.
Iran says they can fire 11,000 missiles within a minute of the first bomb falling and I don't think there is any doubt about who they are aimed at.
Tubthumper
23-Oct-07, 22:36
Iran says they can fire 11,000 missiles within a minute of the first bomb falling and I don't think there is any doubt about who they are aimed at.
I'm afraid I have doubts. Who are they aimed at Fred, is it me?
Iraq was defenceless Iran isn't and our ground troops are in easy reach.
Iran says they can fire 11,000 missiles within a minute of the first bomb falling and I don't think there is any doubt about who they are aimed at.
As far as I know, Iraq had the 4th largest standing army on the planet, hardly defenceless, just out-dated.
Just where, what range and how accurate do you expect these missiles to strike?:confused
As far as I know, Iraq had the 4th largest standing army on the planet, hardly defenceless, just out-dated.
You are wrong.
Just where, what range and how accurate do you expect these missiles to strike?:confused
How many of our troops do you think it's worth sacrificing to find out?
You are wrong.
How many of our troops do you think it's worth sacrificing to find out?
Pray tell me how I am wrong.
Thanks for answering my question, it is so much clearer. The US must be quaking in her boots.
i agree with quirbal war with iran is as likley as wick hosting the olympics next summer
Your right I should be upfront, honest, and be a man about it.
Should I do it by text or fax then ??
Now then, Camel Spider. Earlier you were criticising someone about their grammar and punctuation... and now you are at it. Don't forget that it is easy to slip a letter or two when using the keyboard and people are also often lazier when keying.
They have, there is no comparison, Iraq was defenceless Iran isn't and our ground troops are in easy reach.
Iran says they can fire 11,000 missiles within a minute of the first bomb falling and I don't think there is any doubt about who they are aimed at.
Woopee! No more Macdonalds, sloppy dress codes, rap music and obesity. :D
Errr, on second thoughts, can we wait until Canada has had time to drift away from the US first? :eek:
Pray tell me how I am wrong.
Because at the time of our invasion Iraq did not have the fourth largest standing army.
Thanks for answering my question, it is so much clearer. The US must be quaking in her boots.
They are, that's the problem, the American people are scared stiff which is why they can be controlled so easily, which is why the American government can get away with launching illegal wars.
In his latest speech (http://ukpress.google.com/article/ALeqM5hVt9n91jVtSytuaKw6zFo8Cs6q4Q) Bush has been telling them that Iran could have missiles capable of reaching America by 2015. He is scaring them deliberately just as he did with Iraq. Perhaps if he told them facts, like the fact that in over four years of war in Iraq America has not captured one foreign insurgent who was Iranian he may calm their fears. But he doesn't, if he did people might realise that a diplomatic solution is in easy reach, instead he talks of what might be and the Americans quake in their boots.
Woopee! No more Macdonalds, sloppy dress codes, rap music and obesity. :D
Errr, on second thoughts, can we wait until Canada has had time to drift away from the US first? :eek:
No, Iran has no missiles capable of reaching America. They have a lot of missiles capable of reaching our military bases in Iraq and Afghanistan and our ships in the Gulf. They have missiles capable of reaching Israel.
Because at the time of our invasion Iraq did not have the fourth largest standing army.Well I believe that they did, just go look at well known military sites
They are, that's the problem, the American people are scared stiff which is why they can be controlled so easily, which is why the American government can get away with launching illegal wars.
.
You are damn right the US is scared, and puzzled as to why Iran needs nuke power when she has oil to burn for toffee, following remarks that they want Israel raised from the map, comprende? Catch my drift? Or am I being obtuse?:confused
Anyway, according to wiki, the Iranian military capability is top secret, so where do you get the 11,000 missile claim, are you doing a 45minute thing on me?
You are damn right the US is scared, and puzzled as to why Iran needs nuke power when she has oil to burn for toffee, following remarks that they want Israel raised from the map, comprende? Catch my drift? Or am I being obtuse?:confused
Why does America want nuclear power? Not only do they have loads of oil they have loads of coal as well.
Why should the US be scared? Iran can't invade them even if they wanted to. America has invaded the countries either side of Iran with devastating results it is Iran who has reason to be scared. America is the aggressor in the Middle East not Iran.
Iran has never said they want Israel raised from the map, why would they want to destroy an Arab country with nuclear weapons? Iran has nothing against the land or the people, it is the government they want removed. They know there will never be peace in the Middle East while Palestine is occupied and ruled by a foreign power.
Anyway, according to wiki, the Iranian military capability is top secret, so where do you get the 11,000 missile claim, are you doing a 45minute thing on me?
From last night's televised interview Frontline did with the deputy leader of Iran's Security Council.
Now what is that 45 minute thing you are talking about? Could it be when our Prime Minister lied to Parliament that Iraq could launch missiles at Britain at 45 minutes notice? When Bush lied about weapons of mass destruction, falsified evidence of drone planes which could attack America, falsified evidence of an Iraqi nuclear program and lied about links between Iraq and Al Qaeda?
The facts show Iran to be a peaceful nation and America the biggest war monger in the world. America has told lie after lie to try and justify their aggression they have no regard for truth and honesty whatsoever. They have broken every agreement they ever made, we went into the Iraq war with America saying they would not occupy Iraq and now they are talking about being there for at least 50 years. I would not believe one word they say on their past record.
To put it bluntly. America has invaded and occupied two Middle Eastern countries in the last 6 years and backed the Israeli bombardment of another. America has nuclear weapons and has threatened to use them. Those are facts.
Iran has never started a war in 2,000 years. Your claims that they are developing nuclear weapons and that they would use nuclear weapons against Israel have no basis in fact, there is no evidence to support the claim and plenty of evidence to refute it.
BTW if anyone is interested in seeing what a tactical nuclear weapon exploding looks like take a look at this video (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=4691911227864493084&q=camp+falcon&total=92&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=1) of the fire at America's Camp Falcon base in Iraq last year, 3 minutes 57 seconds in. See the facts not the speculation.
Your claims that they are developing nuclear weapons and that they would use nuclear weapons against Israel have no basis in fact, there is no evidence to support the claim and plenty of evidence to refute it.
I never said they were, but if they had a nuclear programme then they certainly would have the capability. This is a fact. Anyway, I am not taking history lessons from someone who thinks alien spacecraft flew into the trade centre.
I never said they were, but if they had a nuclear programme then they certainly would have the capability. This is a fact. Anyway, I am not taking history lessons from someone who thinks alien spacecraft flew into the trade centre.
Never mind, I doubt mere facts and hard evidence would ever persuade you to believe anything you don't want to believe anyway.
Never mind, I doubt mere facts and hard evidence would ever persuade you to believe anything you don't want to believe anyway.
What hard facts and evidence? Everything that you present only convinces superficially, just a mere delving into the real facts reveals that you are just a conspiracy theorist and a word twister with pro-terrorist sentiments.
What hard facts and evidence? Everything that you present only convinces superficially, just a mere delving into the real facts reveals that you are just a conspiracy theorist and a word twister with pro-terrorist sentiments.
America did invade Afghanistan in 2001 and are still occupying the country, that is a fact.
America did invade Iraq in 2003 and are still occupying the country, that is a fact.
America did block a UN resolution to end the Israeli bombing of Lebanon, that is a fact.
America did say that they had proof of Iraqi weapons of mass destruction and of an Iraqi nuclear program when they didn't that is a fact.
That isn't twisting words, twisting words is when you claim "This regime that is occupying Qods must be eliminated from the pages of history" means that Iran has threatened to nuke Israel.
America did invade Afghanistan in 2001 and are still occupying the country, that is a fact.
America did invade Iraq in 2003 and are still occupying the country, that is a fact.
America did block a UN resolution to end the Israeli bombing of Lebanon, that is a fact.
Facts without one modicum of moral reason. The US is still there at the behest of the legally appointed governments. They have toppled oppressive regimes and have brought democracy. They had plenty of evidence as per the dossier.
These are the real facts. You are going from A to Z without a blind bit of notice what is happening from B to Y.
Did fred really say that?: "someone who thinks alien spacecraft flew into the trade centre"
Facts without one modicum of moral reason. The US is still there at the behest of the legally appointed governments. They have toppled oppressive regimes and have brought democracy. They had plenty of evidence as per the dossier.
These are the real facts. You are going from A to Z without a blind bit of notice what is happening from B to Y.
Under international law an occupying power can not make constitutional changes.
Neither Iraq nor Afghanistan has a legally appointed government.
Did fred really say that?: "someone who thinks alien spacecraft flew into the trade centre"
No, he made that up as well.
Did fred really say that?: "someone who thinks alien spacecraft flew into the trade centre"
He may as well of done.
i think fred knows very little about wars,i agree with rheghead on this one.
I too agree wit rheghead on this one.
rheghead knows his stuff and quirbal has the brainpower to see it aswell!!
i think fred knows very little about wars,i agree with rheghead on this one.
Take a look at http://www.uruknet.info/?p=m37424&hd=&size=1&l=e
What else do I need to know?
connieb19
24-Oct-07, 19:19
Im a bloke though Anne and we just dont do that. What us men do is get the women to finish with us so we end up guilt free. It takes time and mostly a lot of the little annoying things that you women really dislike, eventually you will get so annoyed with us that you will finish the relationship leaving both parties happy.
The Woman is happy because she can sit around with her friends and relate the tale of how "she showed him" and "booted him out" etc etc. Cue lots of Lambrini and Sex and the City episodes resulting in a happy state of mind and plenty of female positive affirmation.
The Man is happy because he is free and not being accused of being heartless, feckless, etc etc. He is then able to proceed down the pub in search of the next ex girlfriend with a clear conscience.
By the way this has to be amongst the best threadjacks ever. From World War 3 to Relationships in a couple of pages.Why don't you just send her a text, quick and easy and only cots 12p. Text's are great for dumping people. Then switch your phone off before she starts ringing you. :D
Take a look at http://www.uruknet.info/?p=m37424&hd=&size=1&l=e (http://forum.caithness.org/go.php?url=http://www.uruknet.info/?p=m37424&hd=&size=1&l=e)
What else do I need to know?
Im glad to see you've included your sources, but as far as Im concerned it is all a lot of false propaganda.
Take a look at http://www.uruknet.info/?p=m37424&hd=&size=1&l=e
What else do I need to know?
I am sure america is capable of making a similar website of their war casualties and equally distressing to look at.
I am sure america is capable of making a similar website of their war casualties and equally distressing to look at.
Indeed, and it is all emergent events and rather irrelevent to the original campaign. If the insurgents complied with the wishes of the elected Government of Iraq then scenes like those will cease today. The blood is on the hands of the insurgents, not the Americans.
Indeed, and it is all emergent events and rather irrelevent to the original campaign. If the insurgents complied with the wishes of the elected Government of Iraq then scenes like those will cease today. The blood is on the hands of the insurgents, not the Americans.
at least the majority of people see sense i am glad we all dont share the same point of view as fred.
northener
24-Oct-07, 20:30
[quote=fred;287133]
Iran has never started a war in 2,000 years. quote]
Fred, does the name Nader Shah mean anything to you?
[quote=fred;287133]
Iran has never started a war in 2,000 years. quote]
Fred, does the name Nader Shah mean anything to you?
do you mean Nadar Shah Ashfar AKA nadar Qoli Beg or as i like to refer to him as Tahmasp Qoli Khan although because of his military genius some historians have described him as the Napoleon of Persia or the second Alexander.
Indeed, and it is all emergent events and rather irrelevent to the original campaign. If the insurgents complied with the wishes of the elected Government of Iraq then scenes like those will cease today. The blood is on the hands of the insurgents, not the Americans.
The high number of insurgents in Iraq is a direct result of the 'original campaign' (what a nice expression for an illegal invasion that caused the deaths of far too many).
In case you had not noticed: The link provided by Fred shows pictures of murdered civilians (kids and adults alike) not insurgents. Murdered by coalition forces. How anyone can excuse and justify the killing of innocent children by armed soldiers is absolutely beyond me. Yes, the insurgents are committing crimes as well, but that does not give the right to the US or other forces to do the same.
Why oh why are there still people that excuse those horrifying acts commited by all armies in all wars. It is said for a reason that a war is the worst of all crimes as it includes all other crimes.
I am sure america is capable of making a similar website of their war casualties and equally distressing to look at.
Yes they can. Nothing like the same numbers but if the Vietnam war was anything to go by more US servicemen will commit suicide after returning from the war than were killed in it.
Did you think two sets of pictures of mutilated people would cancel each other out or something?
Yoda the flump
24-Oct-07, 22:57
Yes they can. Nothing like the same numbers but if the Vietnam war was anything to go by more US servicemen will commit suicide after returning from the war than were killed in it.
Did you think two sets of pictures of mutilated people would cancel each other out or something?
Me thinks the point is that there is death and destruction on both sides not just one Fred me lad!
It don't make it right, one death is one too many - what is the difference between a US serviceman and a civilian? Does a soldiers life mean less?
Fred, does the name Nader Shah mean anything to you?
Sorry, should have been 200 years.
Hardly makes any difference to the point I was making though does it?
Me thinks the point is that there is death and destruction on both sides not just one Fred me lad!
It don't make it right, one death is one too many - what is the difference between a US serviceman and a civilian? Does a soldiers life mean less?
Yes, my point exactly, war is a very bad thing as which side you're on which makes me wonder why so many people are so eager to start them on so little pretext.
Yoda the flump
24-Oct-07, 23:09
Sorry, should have been 200 years.
Hardly makes any difference to the point I was making though does it?
200 and 2000, hmmm, I guess if that was going into your bank it would.
The high number of insurgents in Iraq is a direct result of the 'original campaign' (what a nice expression for an illegal invasion that caused the deaths of far too many).
In case you had not noticed: The link provided by Fred shows pictures of murdered civilians (kids and adults alike) not insurgents. Murdered by coalition forces. How anyone can excuse and justify the killing of innocent children by armed soldiers is absolutely beyond me. Yes, the insurgents are committing crimes as well, but that does not give the right to the US or other forces to do the same.
Why oh why are there still people that excuse those horrifying acts commited by all armies in all wars. It is said for a reason that a war is the worst of all crimes as it includes all other crimes.
Yes I had noticed that the claim was that US was responsible for these casualties. Of course all these things are subject to propaganda.
The Americans aren't committing crimes, they aren't targetting civilians, especially not children, they are trying to stop the insurgency and win support in the region, without the US the region would turn into a bloodbath, is that what everyone wants? More killing? Undermining public support will only bring an unwelcome early end to the army's efforts, all for nothing. War isn't pretty, that is why I was against the original campaign and will continue to say that the grounds for war were flimsy.
However, our political leaders saw it differently, they were convinced by the evidence, whether it was falsified or not, I am not convinced it was by Bush et al. I do think there may have been falsifications made by persons unknown who may have sought a powerful ally for their own political ends, but that is my speculation for my own sake. You can draw your own conclusions, you can believe that Bush orchestrated the 911 disaster with a long term goal of justifying invading Iraq and Iran on a pseudo anti-terrorist/bring democracy to the Middle east ticket, if you like. That is the original lie. The truth is more simple, a bunch of religious zealots just wanted to hit the US for having soldiers on Islamic soil, and the Bush wanted to hit back and moresome to boost his flagging popular ratings, all paid for by the security of Iraqi oil. There is no conspiracy, it is just how it all turned out.
The truth is that if the insurgents stop killing then it stops today, if the US stops targetting insurgents then the killing goes on.
Yoda the flump
24-Oct-07, 23:11
Yes, my point exactly, war is a very bad thing as which side you're on which makes me wonder why so many people are so eager to start them on so little pretext.
Well, most of them are down to religious fanatics
i have to say fred,i agree with yoda the flump on this one.
i have to say fred,i agree with yoda the flump on this one.
Don't worry I'm used to it.
It was the same before the Iraq war, everyone was scared of those weapons of mass destruction and arguing for war.
But these days all I ever see is "I was against the Iraq war at the time but...".
Yoda the flump
24-Oct-07, 23:31
Don't worry I'm used to it.
It was the same before the Iraq war, everyone was scared of those weapons of mass destruction and arguing for war.
But these days all I ever see is "I was against the Iraq war at the time but...".
You are right, we should not have invaded Iraq back then - We should have finished the job properly over ten years earlier in 1991. Still, better late than never.
Don't worry I'm used to it.
It was the same before the Iraq war, everyone was scared of those weapons of mass destruction and arguing for war.
But these days all I ever see is "I was against the Iraq war at the time but...".
Yes you have a point I too think that the invasion of Iraq was under false pretences, was there ever any proof of Iraq having nuclear weapons. If there was then they must be hiding it.
Yes I had noticed that the claim was that US was responsible for these casualties. Of course all these things are subject to propaganda.
Then forget the propaganda and see the facts.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mh_ODqC3g_s
Yes you have a point I too think that the invasion of Iraq was under false pretences, was there ever any proof of Iraq having nuclear weapons. If there was then they must be hiding it.
if the soldiers had looked properly in the hole where they found saddam hussain they would have seen the weapons underneath a copy of playboy!! these weapons have found their way onto ebay current selling price is at £5. and delivery is £1000000.however there is an autographed copy of the playboy magazine also up for auction current price is £25.00 delivery free.(product of playboy magazine "in used condition,slightly soiled"
Yoda the flump
24-Oct-07, 23:45
Then forget the propaganda and see the facts.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mh_ODqC3g_s (http://forum.caithness.org/go.php?url=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mh_ODqC3g_s)
Me thinks we are going round and round in circles?
Fred cannot see any good within the US - I have pointed out to him in previous topics that the US have quite a good record in regenerating destroyed countries if they are allowed to, but he seems to overlook this point.
Disgraceful piece of propaganda. Somebody should tell him Smoking is Bad for his Health!
Margaret M.
25-Oct-07, 01:30
Iran has never said they want Israel raised from the map, why would they want to destroy an Arab country with nuclear weapons?
Really?
By Mary Jordan and Karl Vick
Washington Post Foreign Service
Friday, October 28, 2005; Page A16
LONDON, Oct. 27 -- Leaders around the world on Thursday condemned a call by Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad that Israel be "wiped off the map," and a top Iranian official said that mass demonstrations in his country on Friday would rebuff the rising criticism from abroad.
"I have never come across a situation of the president of a country saying they want to . . . wipe out another country," British Prime Minister Tony Blair said at a summit outside London of the 25 leaders of the European Union's member states.
British Prime Minister Tony Blair, right, and French President Jacques Chirac, left, were among the 25 European Union leaders who excoriated Iran.
Blair said Ahmadinejad's comment was "completely and totally unacceptable."
In a joint statement, the E.U. leaders "condemned in the strongest terms" the Iranian president's call, saying it "will cause concern about Iran's role in the region and its future intentions." President Jacques Chirac of France told reporters that Ahmadinejad risked Iran "being left on the outside of other nations."
Russia's foreign minister, Sergei Lavrov, in Israel, called the Iranian president's statement "unacceptable
Jeemag_USA
25-Oct-07, 01:40
Me thinks we are going round and round in circles?
Fred cannot see any good within the US - I have pointed out to him in previous topics that the US have quite a good record in regenerating destroyed countries if they are allowed to, but he seems to overlook this point.
I am not taking sides with anyone, but I think you will find that the USA have an uncanny knack in winning almost all of the contracts in rebuilding war torn nations, you can go back as far as you like, Yugoslavia and the Balkans is a good example. Bush has taken so much money out of the US pocket, they reckon it will cost taxpayers 23 trillion dollars in taxes to pay back the money borrowed and the interest by 2017. Funny thing is though, while the normal people in the USA are feeling the pinch right now, all the rich people and politicians who own interests in the companies making the weapons, supplying the food and anything else connected with combat and war are making a mint and their profits keep growing. Can work it out from there. Its not a case of having a good record, its a case of moving the pieces to make sure nobody else has a chance to compete with you while you try to impose your regeneration on other countries.
The Pepsi Challenge
25-Oct-07, 04:59
World War III? It'll never happen; it doesn't make good business sense.
Really?
Yes really.
A newspaper mistranslated what was said and everybody would rather believe the lie than the truth.
See http://www.guardian.co.uk/iran/story/0,,2125155,00.html
Me thinks we are going round and round in circles?
Fred cannot see any good within the US - I have pointed out to him in previous topics that the US have quite a good record in regenerating destroyed countries if they are allowed to, but he seems to overlook this point.
Which is why living conditions are so much worse for Iraqis now than they were under Saddam Hussein?
I just think it would be a better idea if the US didn't destroy the countries in the first place.
World War III? It'll never happen; it doesn't make good business sense.
It does if you have interests in an oil company the price of oil will double over night. The arms manufacturers, Blackwater and Haliburton should do very nicely out of it too.
America's economy expanded faster during WWII than at any other time in history.
From last night's televised interview Frontline did with the deputy leader of Iran's Security Council.
The entire program is now available on the web at http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/showdown/view/
Yes really.
A newspaper mistranslated what was said and everybody would rather believe the lie than the truth.
See http://www.guardian.co.uk/iran/story/0,,2125155,00.html
In the article below we reported that last year President Ahmadinejad said (quoting the late Ayatollah Khomeini) that Israel should be "wiped off the map". A more literal translation of the statement he made in 2005, at The World without Zionism conference in Tehran, is "the regime occupying Jerusalem must vanish from the page of time".
And that is supposed to make the slightest bit of difference? Does it not register with you?
And that is supposed to make the slightest bit of difference? Does it not register with you?
I make no distinction between those words and Bush calling for "regime change" in other countries including Iran.
The Zionists are an oppressive regime occupying land illegally, they have invaded and bombed other countries illegally, Israel is a terrorist state which has been persecuting Palestinians for 50 years. Why shouldn't Iran call for regime change?
You seem to have duel standards, you seem to have the view that we in the west are superior to the Muslim world, that we can say and do anything we want yet they must be perfect, never criticise, do as they are told or we dish out a bit of "shock and awe". You seem to think we have the right to dictate to the Arab world and they have no say, no right to self determination.
I seem to remember America threatening to bomb Pakistan "back into the stone age" unless they did as they were told, that seems to me a far worse thing to say than calling for regime change in Israel.
I make no distinction between those words and Bush calling for "regime change" in other countries including Iran.
The Zionists are an oppressive regime occupying land illegally, they have invaded and bombed other countries illegally, Israel is a terrorist state which has been persecuting Palestinians for 50 years. Why shouldn't Iran call for regime change?
You seem to have duel standards, you seem to have the view that we in the west are superior to the Muslim world, that we can say and do anything we want yet they must be perfect, never criticise, do as they are told or we dish out a bit of "shock and awe". You seem to think we have the right to dictate to the Arab world and they have no say, no right to self determination.
I seem to remember America threatening to bomb Pakistan "back into the stone age" unless they did as they were told, that seems to me a far worse thing to say than calling for regime change in Israel.
Israel is parliamentary democracy, with an excellent track record of human rights which has a constitutional right to defend its sovereignty from terrorism and civil unrest. It is incidentally one of the safest places to live. Even though it is surrounded by nations that have all pledged at one time to destroy it, it still remains a country under seige.
Despite many attempts to cooperate to provide a national home for palestinians, the peace process gets derailed by palestinian terrorism.
Israel is parliamentary democracy, with an excellent track record of human rights which has a constitutional right to defend its sovereignty from terrorism and civil unrest. It is incidentally one of the safest places to live. Even though it is surrounded by nations that have all pledged at one time to destroy it, it still remains a country under seige.
Despite many attempts to cooperate to provide a national home for palestinians, the peace process gets derailed by palestinian terrorism.
Like I said before there is no chance you will ever let the facts influence you.
You just continue to live in your fantasy world where we are good and superior and Muslims are evil and inferior.
You just continue to live in your fantasy world where we are good and superior and Muslims are evil and inferior.
The only muslims that are evil and inferior are those that continue to derail peace in the middle east (and in Britain ftm) and oppress the rights and freedoms that are owed to others (followers of other faiths, women, homosexuals, political dissidents etc etc) within their own country's jurisdiction.
northener
25-Oct-07, 15:26
Fred,
I note that the article you refer to in the Gruniad states that the statement was made at a conference entitled 'A World Without Zionism'.
Rather a telling title for a conference, wouldn't you agree?
You made a point of stating earlier that the Israeli people are 'Zionists'.
Previous experience tells me that people who refer to the Jewish faith as Zionism tend to be distinctly Anti-Jewish.
If we couple this with your rabid Anti Americanism then I believe we begin to form a very clear picture of you.
You appear to champion the people of the Middle East, yet your arguments are (when eventually presented correctly) biased and create a seriously flawed picture of a whole region suffering under the yoke of Western oppression.
I could agree with you on certain people's view of Islam, but i'm sure you would never, ever agree that one religion/culture taking a supremacist standpoint is not a monopoly of the Christian West. There are just as many bigots in the Middle East as there are in the West, my friend.
Unfortunately, your own narrow-minded outlook is based on the following premise.
USA/Jewish/Western culture - Bad.
Middle East/Islamic religion and culture - Good.
You are either very closely related to a political or religious group out to further their own version of 'Justice', or you simply have no idea about the region you seem so keen to champion.
The Pepsi Challenge
25-Oct-07, 15:57
It does if you have interests in an oil company the price of oil will double over night. The arms manufacturers, Blackwater and Haliburton should do very nicely out of it too.
America's economy expanded faster during WWII than at any other time in history.
WWIII, if taken literally, spells Armageddon, and every country around the world obliterated. Therefore I don't see how you can conduct business when there's nothing left at all. Fundamentalist Christians, like those who operate high office in the American government, believe in Armageddon, so it wouldn't surprise me if they took us directly toward it on a one-way ticket. Though it might take a while getting there if going via Wick on a Citylink bus.
Fred tells us: "America's economy expanded faster during WWII than at any other time in history."
I understand you are quite old Fred? what did you do in the war? do tell!
Interesting to see (BBC today) "The US has stepped up its sanctions on Iran for "supporting terrorists" and pursuing nuclear activities."
Fred,
I note that the article you refer to in the Gruniad states that the statement was made at a conference entitled 'A World Without Zionism'.
Rather a telling title for a conference, wouldn't you agree?
I would expect it to be a fitting title for the discussion taking place.
You made a point of stating earlier that the Israeli people are 'Zionists'.
No I didn't.
Previous experience tells me that people who refer to the Jewish faith as Zionism tend to be distinctly Anti-Jewish.
I've never referred to the Jewish faith as Zionist, the majority of Jews in the world are anti Zionist like me.
I happen to believe that a land belongs to it's people and the people to the land. Scotland belongs to the Scots because their ancestors have lived here and worked the land for generations and Palestine belongs to the Palestinians for the same reason. If a bunch of Russian refugees wandered into Scotland waving an old book and saying "this is our country now so get out" you wouldn't think it fair would you?
If you read the Guardian article I posted you would have seen that Israel was offering Iranian Jews large sums of money to move to Israel, which as far as I know none accepted. At the same time there are millions of Palestinians in refugee camps trying to return to their own country, the land of their ancestors and the Zionists won't let them.
If we couple this with your rabid Anti Americanism then I believe we begin to form a very clear picture of you.
I'm not anti American either. I'm anti war criminal which applies to most of the American government but I'm not anti American. If you look on the web you will see an awful lot of Americans saying the exact same things I'm saying.
You appear to champion the people of the Middle East, yet your arguments are (when eventually presented correctly) biased and create a seriously flawed picture of a whole region suffering under the yoke of Western oppression.
My argument is that Iran has not threatened us or any of it's neighbours, their nuclear program is legal and supervised, they have never threatened to nuke Israel, not one insurgent captured in Iraq has been Iranian.
So why is there so much talk of going to war with them?
I could agree with you on certain people's view of Islam, but i'm sure you would never, ever agree that one religion/culture taking a supremacist standpoint is not a monopoly of the Christian West. There are just as many bigots in the Middle East as there are in the West, my friend.
Unfortunately, your own narrow-minded outlook is based on the following premise.
USA/Jewish/Western culture - Bad.
Middle East/Islamic religion and culture - Good.
You are either very closely related to a political or religious group out to further their own version of 'Justice', or you simply have no idea about the region you seem so keen to champion.
I just tell the truth that's all, if we go to war with Iran it will be because America wants to control the Middle East and its oil not because of any crimes Iran has committed.
I happen to believe that a land belongs to it's people and the people to the land. Scotland belongs to the Scots because their ancestors have lived here and worked the land for generations and Palestine belongs to the Palestinians for the same reason.
Most Holy Father and Lord, we know and from the chronicles and books of the ancients we find that among other famous nations our own, the Scots, has been graced with widespread renown. They journeyed from Greater Scythia by way of the Tyrrhenian Sea and the Pillars of Hercules, and dwelt for a long course of time in Spain among the most savage tribes, but nowhere could they be subdued by any race, however barbarous. Thence they came, twelve hundred years after the people of Israel crossed the Red Sea, to their home in the west where they still live today. The Britons they first drove out, the Picts they utterly destroyed, and, even though very often assailed by the Norwegians, the Danes and the English, they took possession of that home with many victories and untold efforts; and, as the historians of old time bear witness, they have held it free of all bondage ever since. In their kingdom there have reigned one hundred and thirteen kings of their own royal stock, the line unbroken by a single foreigner.
That passage makes your point rather meaningless...or it makes you a latter day Israeli...
Fred: " I happen to believe that a land belongs to it's people and the people to the land. Scotland belongs to the Scots because their ancestors have lived here and worked the land for generations" yeah right...
Our oldest chronicles tell us the legend. In ancient Egypt, a warrior called Gaythelos fell in love with the daughter of the Pharaoh Chencres, a girl by the name of Scota. When they were wed, Gaythelos’ warriors took on her name, and called themselves the Scots in her honour. They set out to find a homeland, and as they wandered across the wilderness of North Africa, one of their number, Jacob by name, rested his head upon a stone, where he dreamt of the Angels ascending to heaven. He told the rest of the Scots the story, and they decided to carry “Jacob’s Pillow” with them, saying that wherever the Stone rested, from there the Scots would be ruled. Over the centuries, this stone began to be known as the Stone of Destiny. The Scots travelled through the Pillars of Hercules (better known as the Strait of Gibraltar today) and eventually reached the shores of Ireland. In the sixth century, they sailed from the north of Ireland over into Argyll in the west of Scotland, and here they put down roots, happy that they had found the sought after homeland.
Fred: " I happen to believe that a land belongs to it's people and the people to the land. Scotland belongs to the Scots because their ancestors have lived here and worked the land for generations" yeah right...
Our oldest chronicles tell us the legend.
Which is just what it is, legend and not related to this discussion.
Which is just what it is, legend and not related to this discussion.
The legend is related to this discussion because it provides not just a parrallel of Scots with Israeli struggle to have national self determination and their right to defend what is theirs but the legend also provides an independent confirmation of the rights of Israelis to their land.
As you said, a people belongs to a land. You can't have it both ways.
exactly - thank you rheghead
northener
25-Oct-07, 19:40
"My argument is that Iran has not threatened us or any of it's neighbours, their nuclear program is legal and supervised, they have never threatened to nuke Israel, not one insurgent captured in Iraq has been Iranian."
I think in the days of Kohmeni (spelling?) threats aimed at the West were commonplace. Although we have moved on since then, it would be foolish to think the more fervent opponents of the West have simply wandered off.
The political climate in Iran is not as intense as it was, but that doesn't mean that Iran is about to become chums with anyone it previously had an intense dislike of.
Regarding the Iranian insurgents- To say that "not one insurgent captured has been Iranian" is rather naive.
One of the key reasons behind the Iran Iraq War was the constant feeding of Iranian Shia militants into Iraq. Iraq used this to justify an all-out assault.
The situation has not changed since then. One of the worst regions is around Qualalan. This has been a hotbed of smuggling, gun-running and people moving for donkeys years. This area is used to feed in people and equipment. Everyone in that region knows it is happening. The reason they don't get caught is because they are too intelligent to begin clashing with Coalition Forces. They are there to instruct, train and advise. Not get wasted in pointless acts of Gung-Hoism. The last thing Tehran would want is a load of their Special Forces being paraded in front of the worlds' media.
There were plenty of members of PIRA trotting around Britain in the 70's and 80's. Just because there were no wholesale round ups doesn't mean they were a figment of the imagination.
Regarding Zionism, any country, or group, seeking to eradicate a state that is recognised by the international community is hardly likely to gain respect on the international stage.
You speak as if your views are representative of the whole of the region, yet Egypt, Jordan and the Lebanon are all trying to work towards an agreed settlement with Israel without spouting the usual rhetoric that you seem to agree with.
JamesMcVean
25-Oct-07, 22:00
They say that most war in the future will NOT be over oil...
But fresh drinking water...
Global warming will lead to world wide drought...
We need LOTS of fresh water just to live...just look at africa in the 80's
Aside from that
I downloaded a series of documentaries called - The Legends of Atlantis...
5 hours or so of fascinating and obscure theory...
One such theory was that during the Second world war the Nazi's developed highly advanced flying craft and sent hundreds of thousands of their eilite to ANTARTICA of all places...apparently the mountains of Queen Maud Land have been hollowed out in a vast underground city of New Berlin...and that these Nazi are the 4th Reich and will one day attempt to take over the world...
The Americans believed this to be a genuine threat and launched a major offensive in 1946 led by An Admiral Byrd...he had 4000 troops and 20 war ship and unlimited resources...he wrote that after 8 weeks he was utterly defeated and that in these mountains there was areas of lakes and forests!!!
The program also claimed that the west knows about these people at the pole and keep it secret and that their craft are the UFO's we see flying all over the world with impunity...
Pretty far out eh???:(
I think in the days of Kohmeni (spelling?) threats aimed at the West were commonplace. Although we have moved on since then, it would be foolish to think the more fervent opponents of the West have simply wandered off.
Well we did overthrow their democratically elected government and installed a brutal dictator friendly to the west. You can understand how they might be a bit peeved about it.
They say that most war in the future will NOT be over oil...
But fresh drinking water...
Global warming will lead to world wide drought...
We need LOTS of fresh water just to live...just look at africa in the 80's
Not world wide, Britain is likely to have more of a problem with flooding.
There are many places in the world which rely on melting snow and ice on the mountains for water in summer, no snow on the mountains no water.
Well we did overthrow their democratically elected government and installed a brutal dictator friendly to the west. You can understand how they might be a bit peeved about it.
You are twisting the facts again. True, the US and British disliked him immensely after he nationalised the oil. But the Shah dismissed him after he dissolved that very democratically elected government that he was appointed to lead and an invited CIA sponsored military action overthrew him from power 3 days later. After upsetting every man and his dog in Iran, the Islamicists would have been the happiest to see him go, least of all because of his secularism.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mohammad_Mossadegh
The legend is related to this discussion because it provides not just a parrallel of Scots with Israeli struggle to have national self determination and their right to defend what is theirs but the legend also provides an independent confirmation of the rights of Israelis to their land.
Only in your dreams.
As you said, a people belongs to a land. You can't have it both ways.
Your arguments are getting more and more outlandish, a legend that someone the same religion as you may have passed that way thousands of years ago does not give anyone the right to bulldoze someone's house.
You are twisting the facts again.
ROTFLMAO.
The democratically elected government of Iran decided that Iranian oil should belong to the people of Iran and nationalised it so we overthrew them and installed a brutal dictator.
That's fact and that is the reason we aren't on their Christmas card list.
More lies and propaganda from Condoleezza Rice on the BBC website today.
Ms Rice has reiterated a commitment to finding a diplomatic resolution to the crisis and has offered to meet "my Iranian counterpart any time, anywhere"
The facts are that Iran has a legal right to develop nuclear energy and we have a legal obligation to help them under the terms of the NPT.
Iran has repeatedly agreed to discus terms for them to give up their right and have been negotiating with Europe for some time.
America has repeatedly refused to negotiate with Iran unless Iran agrees to give up their legal rights before the negotiations begin. In other words America says Iran must agree to stop their civilian nuclear program unconditionally before America will discus terms.
It's another hatchet job like Iraq where they were still talking about negotiations long after the final decision had been made to invade.
northener
26-Oct-07, 10:03
Well we did overthrow their democratically elected government and installed a brutal dictator friendly to the west. You can understand how they might be a bit peeved about it.
Errr, Replacing father with son because of fathers refusal to discontinue relations with Nazi Germany would seem like common sense to me back in the 1940's.
Brutal dictator? Compared to a lot of leaders in the Middle East, both then and now, he was pretty much par for the course. In fact, he was more enlightened than most. He was keen to continue his fathers plans for widespread reforms. He could be viewed as an Iranian version of Kamal Attaturk - but without the real ability or competence to achieve his ideals.
Then again, there will always be those who view promoting widespread literacy, toleration of other religions and emancipation of women with distaste;). Remember the White Revolution?
If Iran was so persecuted by the West, can you explain why not only the West, but most of the Middle Eastern States and the USSR supported Iraq in the Iran Iraq war? The extremist government in Tehran had managed to alienate themselves from everyone and threatened to destabilise the whole region.
The only nation in that region that refused to condemn Iran was Syria, Irans best chum.
And guess what? A lot of Iranian made arms are now finding their way into Iraq and Afghanistan. There is no direct link to the government in Tehran. But Intenational opinion is that the amounts involved are way above what criminal gangs could organise. Recent seizures in Turkey suggest a '3rd party' is shipping these arms via another state to avoid any direct link with Tehran.
Guess who that 'another state' is?
Yup, Syria.
northener
26-Oct-07, 10:17
I don't believe that an 'Invasion' of Iran is imminent. Logistically it would be near impossible. It would mean the US fighting on 2 fronts at once. The military won't go for that. Politically it would be counter productive.
Tehran believes it has an Ace in the form of a perceived capability to go nuclear. This gives them a lot more clout in the Middle East even if they don't develop it.
The US believes that Iran has always been out to destabilise the whole region to the West's detriment, so it doesn't want to hand any more big sticks to Iran.
What we will see is both Tehran and the US cranking up the tension. Nothing new there, happens all the time across the globe. The political willpower for all out war is not there in meaningful size on either side.
The biggest dangers are that either the US decides to carry out limited strikes against specific targets or that Iran continues to bolster extremists in the surrounding area. Both courses of action would be counter-productive for the whole region.
Your arguments are getting more and more outlandish, a legend that someone the same religion as you may have passed that way thousands of years ago does not give anyone the right to bulldoze someone's house.
(using your non sequittar debating techniques this time)Your claim that we deposed a democratically elected statesman equally applies to any number of dictators throughout history. Except in this case, Iran's was an extremely unpopular dictator whereas Hitler was also elected but extremely popular. Should we just depose the popular ones?[lol]
Errr, Replacing father with son because of fathers refusal to discontinue relations with Nazi Germany would seem like common sense to me back in the 1940's.
Errr, I was talking about 1953.
northener
26-Oct-07, 18:51
Ah, you mean Mossadegh. The minister who tried to gain control of the Army from the Shah and was dismissed for for attempting to depose the Monarch.
Ah, you mean Mossadegh. The minister who tried to gain control of the Army from the Shah and was dismissed for for attempting to depose the Monarch.
I'm talking about Mossadegh Iran's elected and immensely popular prime minister who was deposed in a MI5 CIA led coup because he nationalised Iran's oil.
northener
26-Oct-07, 19:56
I'm talking about Mossadegh Iran's elected and immensely popular prime minister who was deposed in a MI5 CIA led coup because he nationalised Iran's oil.
Yup, thats's the one.
Although, as usual Fred your interpretation is always predictable.
Mossadegh got elbowed because he became too big for his boots. You're right, he was popular. But as Reghead pointed out, so was Hitler. Mossadegh was no shining beacon in a sea of darkness. He was, to use an expression you would normally apply to Bush, a bit mad and power crazy. Bear in mind that Mossadegh was ousted with the consent of the Shah - the constitutional monarch. The man who Mossadegh tried to get rid of by seizing control of the army.
Unfortunately for him, the Iranian Army weren't playing his silly game and refused to make a move.
Even during the Iran/Iraq war the Iranian regime refused to trust it's own military as there were a large number of it's own senior staff who harboured
grave misgivings over the regimes conduct and would have preferred a return to the Shahs' control.
Unfortunately Fred, you will always roll out your US Bad/Middle East Good with absolutely no attempt to understand. All you do is scour around for more ammunition in your own personal war against the Bush Administration.
I'm no great fan of American foreign policy, but I refuse to sit by and listen to blinkered, one - sided and slanted presentation of fact.
I respect your right to your opinion, but you would do better if you did what most right-thinking individuals do when presented with a situation as complex as the Middle East. Listen instead of just grinding your axe.
I note with interest that although you were quick to pick up on the fact that I was talking about the wrong person, you have been less than forthcoming with any response to my balanced opinion on the White Revolution, insurgency, support during the Iran/Iraq war, arms supply and the likely future in the ongoing difficult situation in Iran.
I'll give you a bit longer to scour Wikipedia for some ammunition;)
I'm talking about Mossadegh Iran's elected and immensely popular prime minister who was deposed in a MI5 CIA led coup because he nationalised Iran's oil.
He wasn't at all popular by the time he was ousted. He isn't even held in high esteem by the current Islamic Republic.
I have often wondered why Alexander the Great invaded Persia. Now I know. He was a stooge of MI5 and the CIA and was trying to grab Persian Oil to supply the fuel for his war chariots. :roll:
I'm no great fan of American foreign policy, but I refuse to sit by and listen to blinkered, one - sided and slanted presentation of fact.
No, you want everyone to listen to blinkered one sided and slanted presentation of fact, you want everyone to believe the lies. You prefer Rheghead's black and white world where we are everything good and whoever we decide to oppress is everything evil.
Your views are based on a false premise, that we are superior the the people of the Middle East. You believe we have the God give right to interfere with the internal affairs of other countries, to start a coup to depose another country's elected leader. You reel off reasons when there was only one reason, so that we would get the benefit of Iran's oil not the people of Iran. You compare Iran's elected Prime Minister to Hitler but he wasn't interfering in the affairs of other countries as we and Hitler did, he wasn't invading other countries to take control of their natural resources as we and Hitler did, all he did was try to use Iran's oil to benefit Iran's people not to make a Western installed Shah and an oil company immensely rich.
Lose your white supremacist attitudes and you will see the truth in what I say, you will see the hypocrisy in what you say. The hypocrisy of a people who believe "bringing democracy to the Middle East" a just reason for us to go and interfere in the affairs of another country, to depose their leader, bomb them, kill them, install an army of occupation to oppress them and to take control of their natural resources. Yet you can argue that we were justified in interfering in the affairs of another country, starting a coup to depose Iran's democratically elected leader to take control of Iran's oil.
It's easy, oh so easy to delude yourself that we are better than they are, that we are good and they are evil. It's easy to believe our superiority gives us the right to use force to control them, to kill as many of them as we like to do it.
I'm not the one with the blinkers on, I'm just the one who doesn't want your delusions to kill millions more innocent people.
northener
27-Oct-07, 10:21
Ah Fred, there's nothing like a measured and intelligent response is there?
White Supremacist?
Belief that 'we' are better than 'them'?
Quote: "It's easy, oh so easy to delude yourself that we are better than they are, that we are good and they are evil. It's easy to believe our superiority gives us the right to use force to control them, to kill as many of them as we like to do it."
Dangerous territory, my friend.
I really don't know where you get all this from, it certainly isn't in any of my posts. I suggest you bear that in mind.
There may be certain people in the West who view Islam - or any non-Christian religion or non-Western culture - as inferior. I am certainly not one of them.
I can only assume these are the words of someone who has run out of intelligent things to say.
I see no point in commenting further on your wild and inaccurate accusations.
Also, I do not buy into the US 'freedom and democracy' guff. I also believe that the US can be very heavy handed when a more subtle approach would work best.
The people of the Middle East are divided into countries formed by years, no, centuries of warfare, religious divide, ethnicity, tribal factions, arbitrary lines drawn on a map by occupying forces and economy.
You would have us believe that all this is magically resolved by removing the US from the region.
That shows a remarkable lack of understanding of the Middle East.
Having an interest in a region that supplies such a massive amount of the worlds' oil is a sensible thing. You forget that Mr Hussein was largely responsible for US military intervention in the region after his little picnic in Kuwait.
I note you have still not responded to any of my observations on Iran stated previously.
Also, perhaps you'd care to comment on a certain building in Syria that the Syrians seem keen to work with North Korea on?
Please try to avoind ranting if you can Fred, it's very tiresome.
Yoda the flump
27-Oct-07, 12:38
I note you have still not responded to any of my observations on Iran stated previously.
Yep, and he wont either. Fred will only answer what he wants to.
He will never answer all your points, even if you directly ask him to.
Dangerous territory, my friend.
I really don't know where you get all this from, it certainly isn't in any of my posts. I suggest you bear that in mind.
Yes it is your posts I get it from I suggest you bear that in mind.
The lives of millions of innocent Iraqis and thousands of coalition troops depended on us seeing the truth instead of believing the lies which we wanted to believe and we let them down.
The facts speak for themselves. There were no Iraqi weapons of mass destruction, there was no Iraqi nuclear program, there was no link between Iraq and Al Qaeda yet that is the reality the West lived in at the time. A reality as phoney as the reality you live in now.
northener
27-Oct-07, 13:00
Yes it is your posts I get it from I suggest you bear that in mind.
May I suggest you reference to those posts here, so anyone who's still awake can make their own judgement? You wouldn't want to be accused of spurious insults, would you?
Quote: "A reality as phoney as the reality you live in now."
Fred, I'm trying to engage you in intelligent debate. Not mindless rhetoric.
Please have the decency to respond to my request. NOW.
You wouldn't want to be accused of spurious insults, would you?
.
Like accusing you of having white supremacist attitudes?
Lose your white supremacist attitudes and you will see the truth in what I say
He accuses everyone of that eventually.
Yoda the flump
27-Oct-07, 13:42
The lives of millions of innocent Iraqis and thousands of coalition troops depended on us seeing the truth instead of believing the lies which we wanted to believe and we let them down.
The facts speak for themselves. There were no Iraqi weapons of mass destruction, there was no Iraqi nuclear program, there was no link between Iraq and Al Qaeda yet that is the reality the West lived in at the time. A reality as phoney as the reality you live in now.
Yes they do Fred, but only in hindsight.
Saddam had his chance to comply fully with the UN resolutions and he did not - why did he not allow the UN inspectors full escorted access to suspected sites when they requested it? Did he have something to hide or did he THINK that he had something to hide?
Before you lay all the blame entirely at the door of the west think about what Saddam was DOING his own people and HAD done to the surrounding area.
Fred, the west are in a hard position, they are damned if they do and damned if they don't.
Yes they do Fred, but only in hindsight.
Saddam had his chance to comply fully with the UN resolutions and he did not - why did he not allow the UN inspectors full escorted access to suspected sites when they requested it? Did he have something to hide or did he THINK that he had something to hide?
Saddam did comply with UN resolutions to destroy all weapons of mass destruction.
The reason he didn't allow UN inspectors full access is because they were CIA spies gathering intelligence for the invasion. It was in all the papers at the time did you miss it?
http://intellit.muskingum.edu/genpostcw_folder/genpostcw90s_folder/pcw99un-iraq.html
The UN didn't invade Iraq, America and Britain did in defiance of the UN Security Council.
Before you lay all the blame entirely at the door of the west think about what Saddam was DOING his own people and HAD done to the surrounding area.
Fred, the west are in a hard position, they are damned if they do and damned if they don't.
There you are working on the assumption the West has some sort of God given right to interfere in the internal affairs of Middle Eastern countries, a perfect example of what I was saying earlier about delusions of white supremacy. There were plenty of countries with worse records of human rights violations than Iraq. Israel had not complied with a lot more UN resolutions than Iraq. Why didn't we invade them?
As how bad Saddam was the Iraqi people were a lot better off then than they are now.
Yoda the flump
27-Oct-07, 19:21
There you are working on the assumption the West has some sort of God given right to interfere in the internal affairs of Middle Eastern countries, a perfect example of what I was saying earlier about delusions of white supremacy. There were plenty of countries with worse records of human rights violations than Iraq. Israel had not complied with a lot more UN resolutions than Iraq. Why didn't we invade them?
As how bad Saddam was the Iraqi people were a lot better off then than they are now.
Are you suggesting that we should?
You might not like Israel, you might want to dispute their right to exist as a country, but they do and they have a right to defend themselves.
Goes back to the west being damned if they do, damned if they don't.
May I suggest you reference to those posts here, so anyone who's still awake can make their own judgement? You wouldn't want to be accused of spurious insults, would you?
Quote: "A reality as phoney as the reality you live in now."
Fred, I'm trying to engage you in intelligent debate. Not mindless rhetoric.
Then try to be intelligent.
Please have the decency to respond to my request. NOW.
Which request would that be?
Israel had not complied with a lot more UN resolutions than Iraq. Why didn't we invade them?
Looking down the subject matter of the resolutions, I see Iraq being mentioned far more than Israel. Another example of twisting no doubt.
northener
27-Oct-07, 19:37
Then try to be intelligent.
Which request would that be?
Yes, thinking about it Fred, you haven't attempted to counter anything I've posted about Iran. Or Syria for that matter. I'll let you take your pick.
Just to refresh your memory though, it was a request for you to point exactly where in my posts I stated I was a white supremacist and where I stated that Western culture and religion was superior to any other.
I wait with bated breath.........
Are you suggesting that we should?
http://rhlschool.com/reading.htm
Yes, thinking about it Fred, you haven't attempted to counter anything I've posted about Iran. Or Syria for that matter. I'll let you take your pick.
Just to refresh your memory though, it was a request for you to point exactly where in my posts I stated I was a white supremacist and where I stated that Western culture and religion was superior to any other.
I wait with bated breath.........
You show where I said you had stated that you were a white supremacist or that Western culture and religion was superior to any other.
I think you can get something for your bated breath at the chemists.
Yoda the flump
27-Oct-07, 20:30
http://rhlschool.com/reading.htm (http://forum.caithness.org/go.php?url=http://rhlschool.com/reading.htm)
Is this a sign that you are not winning your discussion?
Israel had not complied with a lot more UN resolutions than Iraq. Why didn't we invade them?
A suggestion there me thinks.
As how bad Saddam was the Iraqi people were a lot better off then than they are now.
If you are Sunni maybe, not sure that the Kurds and Shiites would agree.
I believe there are currently around 27000 nuclear warheads in 9 or 10 countries throughout the world. A number of these countries, including Britain and America, feel passionately that these warheads are vital for their security.
Yet these self same governments/countries are much less enthusiastic about allowing other countries to follow suit. If they don't wish to see Iran (or any country for that matter) build up a nuclear arsenal then they should get on with the job of disarmament pdq.
But if they truly believe we need to rely on nuclear weapons for matters of national security they should butt out and leave it to the UN.
It would be of benefit to us all if the UN Security Council drew up a new resolution - to gag George Bush with immediate effect. There are problems enough in the Middle East without this sort of pathetic posturing and baiting.
You show where I said you had stated that you were a white supremacist
Since it is only white supremacist attitudes that differentiate white supremacists from other human beings, then what did you really mean by..
Lose your white supremacist attitudes except to accuse him of being a white supremacist?
Is this a sign that you are not winning your discussion?
That is a sign you should read what I write then you wouldn't need to ask stupid questions.
If our reason for invading Iraq was their ignoring a UN resolution why did we not invade Israel who ignored far more UN resolutions than Iraq?
If our reason for invading Iraq was weapons of mass destruction why did we not invade Israel who really did have weapons of mass destruction?
If out reason for threatening to attack Iran is that they may one day develop nuclear weapons illegally then why are we not threatening to attack Israel who already have developed nuclear weapons illegally and unlike Iran have not signed the NPT?
These seem like simple straight forward questions I take it you either don't have an answer or you know that the answer is that Israel doesn't have any oil.
Israel is a stable country?
Yoda the flump
27-Oct-07, 21:19
Have Isreal used WMD on both their own and other countries citizens?
northener
27-Oct-07, 21:59
[quote=fred;288855]
Lose your white supremacist attitudes and you will see the truth in what I say, you will see the hypocrisy in what you say.
It's easy, oh so easy to delude yourself that we are better than they are, that we are good and they are evil. It's easy to believe our superiority gives us the right to use force to control them, to kill as many of them as we like to do it.
quote]
I think that covers your request. White supremacy and superior attitudes, yup. There in your own posts.
Dwell on the following, old chap.
"I always cheer up immensely if an attack is particularly wounding because I think, well, if they attack one personally, it means they have not a single political argument left."
Margaret Thatcher.
northener
27-Oct-07, 22:25
I've noticed something rather bizarre about you postings Fred. You harp on about Iraq and then Iran. OK, fine. Even though you cannot come up with any argument to most of my points on Iran.
You repeatedly condemn the US for invading Iraq stating we should keep our noses out other sovereign states business.
Yet you fail to condemn Iraq for using WMD against it's own people, launching an all out war on Iran (using WMD) and then invading Kuwait. But the minute the US & co get hacked off and 'interfere' you throw your arms up in horror!
Presumably it's OK for a Middle Eastern state to be an imperialistic aggressor, as long as it's not a western state, you'll make no comment on that at all!!!! The mind boggles.
I note you haven't commented on US and British involvment in the Balkans. Using your baffling logic we should have not intervened there either.
Then again, if we hadn't, no doubt you would be shouting about the West ignoring the genocide of thousands of Bosnians on the grounds that they were Muslims.......Don't forget Fred, I'm a white supremacist who looks down on other religions and cultures!
Then again, I'm trying to get some sense out of someone who turns the celebration of the birth of Jesus Christ into a political soapbox for their own ends.
I must go now, it's the AGM of the Caithness branch of the 'Das Reich' veterans association tonight...[lol]
Have Isreal used WMD on both their own and other countries citizens?
Are you going to answer my question?
I think that covers your request.
No it doesn't.
Now will you show where I said you had stated that you were a white supremacist or that Western culture and religion was superior to any other.
Come on fred don't lumb us all together, I'm bored and going to bed - carry on by yourself, I think you're the only one listning to you
northener
27-Oct-07, 22:55
No it doesn't.
Now will you show where I said you had stated that you were a white supremacist or that Western culture and religion was superior to any other.
(Deep sigh)
Fred.
I'm really disappointed with you. I have just pasted quotes directly out of your posts and now you're trying to weasel out of your own quotes by slightly changing the wording of your challenge!
No word yet on the Balkans/ Iraq as an aggressor/Iran as a destabilising influence as yet then?
Must fly, otherwise I'll miss the formation Goosestepping at the AGM.
Byeeeeee[lol]
Yoda the flump
27-Oct-07, 22:58
That is a sign you should read what I write then you wouldn't need to ask stupid questions.
If our reason for invading Iraq was their ignoring a UN resolution why did we not invade Israel who ignored far more UN resolutions than Iraq?
Was that our reason? Didn't the US and others invade Iraq because they didn't obey UN resolution 1441. It has nothing to do with the amount of resolutions that were passed. It was that one in particular. Did that also place obligations on Israel?
If our reason for invading Iraq was weapons of mass destruction why did we not invade Israel who really did have weapons of mass destruction?
Iraq did have WMD and had used them, ask the Iranians and Kurds if you doubt that. Have you heard of Ali Hassan al-Majid?
If out reason for threatening to attack Iran is that they may one day develop nuclear weapons illegally then why are we not threatening to attack Israel who already have developed nuclear weapons illegally and unlike Iran have not signed the NPT?
Has the UK threatened Iran? The fact that the US have imposed economic sanctions and made some rumblings towards Tehran does not mean that they are going to invade Iran.
Israel might have nuclear weapons but they are a stable democracy and do not have a record of using WMDs.
These seem like simple straight forward questions I take it you either don't have an answer or you know that the answer is that Israel doesn't have any oil.
Has Israel ever used WMDs on either their own or other countries citizens?
Will you answer that? Iraq certainly did both.
Now I have answered your questions. Answer mine and some of Northerners now.
I've noticed something rather bizarre about you postings Fred. You harp on about Iraq and then Iran. OK, fine. Even though you cannot come up with any argument to most of my points on Iran.
You repeatedly condemn the US for invading Iraq stating we should keep our noses out other sovereign states business.
Yet you fail to condemn Iraq for using WMD against it's own people, launching an all out war on Iran (using WMD) and then invading Kuwait. But the minute the US & co get hacked off and 'interfere' you throw your arms up in horror!
Presumably it's OK for a Middle Eastern state to be an imperialistic aggressor, as long as it's not a western state, you'll make no comment on that at all!!!! The mind boggles.
I note you haven't commented on US and British involvment in the Balkans. Using your baffling logic we should have not intervened there either.
Then again, if we hadn't, no doubt you would be shouting about the West ignoring the genocide of thousands of Bosnians on the grounds that they were Muslims.......Don't forget Fred, I'm a white supremacist who looks down on other religions and cultures!
Then again, I'm trying to get some sense out of someone who turns the celebration of the birth of Jesus Christ into a political soapbox for their own ends.
I must go now, it's the AGM of the Caithness branch of the 'Das Reich' veterans association tonight...[lol]
I haven't commented on a lot of things, I like to keep the thread relevant to the subject in the title.
You don't act much like someone interested in intelligent debate.
Shall we get back to the point at hand.
Iran has never threatened to "wipe Israel off the map" but Israel has, on several occasions, threatened to use nuclear weapons against Arab countries.
There is no evidence that Iran is a pursuing an illegal nuclear program while we know that Israel has developed nuclear weapons illegally and is reported to have the fifth largest nuclear arsenal in the world, far greater than would be necessary as a deterrent.
There is no evidence that the Iranian government has been supplying arms to Iraqis, there is evidence that the American government has been supplying arms to Iraqis. There is even evidence that America has been supplying arms to terrorists inside Iran.
Iran has not started a war with another country in 200 years while there has hardly been a year out of the last 200 that America hasn't been fighting somebody.
These are the facts that matter, these are the things we should be basing our judgements on not what religion a country is or the colour of their skin.
Yoda the flump
27-Oct-07, 23:29
These are the facts that matter, these are the things we should be basing our judgements on not what religion a country is or the colour of their skin.
Fact - Iraq had and used WMD on both its own civilians and that of other countries.
Fact - Iraq was an aggressive military dictatorship that had waged several expansionist wars against its neighbours.
These are facts that matter as well Fred. You should be basing your judgements on these as well. I am and I believe that others are as well.
Religion and skin colour have nothing to do with it.
Fact - Iraq had and used WMD on both its own civilians and that of other countries.
Fact - Iraq was an aggressive military dictatorship that had waged several expansionist wars against its neighbours.
These are facts that matter as well Fred. You should be basing your judgements on these as well. I am and I believe that others are as well.
Religion and skin colour have nothing to do with it.
By the time the coallition forces illegally invaded Iraq in 2003, there was neither a danger of Iraq using WMD against anyone nor Iraq invading other countries in the near future.
The invasion was not covered by international law or UN resolutions and therefore illegal. The coalition forces are therfore engaged in an illegal war/occupation. These are also facts that matter.
At present it is surely no other but US foreign policy that could possibly result in thirld world war (which is if I remember the topic of this thread).
US foreign policy is aggressive to an extend that certainly reminds me to the policies of former fascist regimes. I have got a lot of friends in the US and they are sickened by the illegal actions of their government. They are also disappointed about the large number of "believers" in the UK that accept US foreign policy as being the right way ahead without thinking for themselves.
Looking down the subject matter of the resolutions, I see Iraq being mentioned far more than Israel. Another example of twisting no doubt.
Well, given that it takes only one veto of the US or UK in the security council to block a resolution, it is a surprise that there are any resolutions against Israel and yet there are quite a few.
Rheghead, could you please comment on the fact that Israel is in breach with UN resolutions and why this needs to be treated differently to say Iraq or Iran?
Yes I had noticed that the claim was that US was responsible for these casualties. Of course all these things are subject to propaganda.
The Americans aren't committing crimes, they aren't targetting civilians, especially not children, they are trying to stop the insurgency and win support in the region, without the US the region would turn into a bloodbath, is that what everyone wants? More killing? Undermining public support will only bring an unwelcome early end to the army's efforts, all for nothing. War isn't pretty, that is why I was against the original campaign and will continue to say that the grounds for war were flimsy.
However, our political leaders saw it differently, they were convinced by the evidence, whether it was falsified or not, I am not convinced it was by Bush et al. I do think there may have been falsifications made by persons unknown who may have sought a powerful ally for their own political ends, but that is my speculation for my own sake. You can draw your own conclusions, you can believe that Bush orchestrated the 911 disaster with a long term goal of justifying invading Iraq and Iran on a pseudo anti-terrorist/bring democracy to the Middle east ticket, if you like. That is the original lie. The truth is more simple, a bunch of religious zealots just wanted to hit the US for having soldiers on Islamic soil, and the Bush wanted to hit back and moresome to boost his flagging popular ratings, all paid for by the security of Iraqi oil. There is no conspiracy, it is just how it all turned out.
The truth is that if the insurgents stop killing then it stops today, if the US stops targetting insurgents then the killing goes on.
Wow, where did you get those tinted glasses?
On a more serious note, there is plenty of evidence of americans to commit the most serious of war crimes to include rape, torture and murder. A lot of this evidence comes from americans soldiers that were on scene. Do you really discard their statements? Most troops in Iraq care about two things only: 1. to survive, 2nd to get home. Trust me, hardly any of the US troops care a lot about nation building. The majority of them is doing their job and they don't like it. Sad as it is, war bears little glory these days ( and probably never has anyway).
Quote from "The green fields of france: And the old men march slowly all tired, stiff and worn; the forgotten heros of a forgotten war; and the young people ask:" What are they marching for?" - And I ask myself the same question.."
Rheghead, could you please comment on the fact that Israel is in breach with UN resolutions and why this needs to be treated differently to say Iraq or Iran?
As far as I am concerned, Iran hasn't breached any UN resolution in relation its nuclear programme, the world isn't bothered about its civillian aspirations, so are you dellusional?
Can you give any evidence that Israel is given any special treatment when you can look at any really obvious breaches of UN resolutions by any number of nation states, East Timor, Iraq, Sudan etc etc etc and the international community has done absolutely nothing?
Wow, where did you get those tinted glasses?
On a more serious note, there is plenty of evidence of americans to commit the most serious of war crimes to include rape, torture and murder. A lot of this evidence comes from americans soldiers that were on scene. Do you really discard their statements? Most troops in Iraq care about two things only: 1. to survive, 2nd to get home. Trust me, hardly any of the US troops care a lot about nation building. The majority of them is doing their job and they don't like it. Sad as it is, war bears little glory these days ( and probably never has anyway).
Quote from "The green fields of france: And the old men march slowly all tired, stiff and worn; the forgotten heros of a forgotten war; and the young people ask:" What are they marching for?" - And I ask myself the same question.."
If you actually listened to the news and not be indoctrinated by it then you will realise that Iraq is actually a growing success story, it would be an even greater one if the insurgency surrendered. Are you on the insurgency's side because undermining popular support for this war abroad will only bring victory into their hands.[evil]
As far as I am concerned, Iran hasn't breached any UN resolution in relation its nuclear programme, the world isn't bothered about its civillian aspirations, so are you dellusional?
Can you give any evidence that Israel is given any special treatment when you can look at any really obvious breaches of UN resolutions by any number of nation states, East Timor, Iraq, Sudan etc etc etc and the international community has done absolutely nothing?
OK, that's all right. I am not capable of contributing much to all problems in the whole wide world, e.g East Timor, Iraq, Sudan etc etc.
The simple point I want to make is that according to international law, the coalition troops had no right to attack Iraq. Furthermore I am very worried by the reluctance of the US to try and TALK to the Iranians,rather than use their standard bullying tactics that more than once resulted in a war.
They are also disappointed about the large number of "believers" in the UK that accept US foreign policy as being the right way ahead without thinking for themselves. [/FONT][/COLOR][/FONT][/COLOR]Perhaps it is exactly because they do think for themselves that they don't just follow the herd.
I find it hard to believe that there are people in America who still fall for the nonsense of, "Your Country's always wrong." Still, if they feel better for parading themselves before the World in sack cloth and ashes that's their right.
If you actually listened to the news and not be indoctrinated by it then you will realise that Iraq is actually a growing success story, it would be an even greater one if the insurgency surrendered. Are you on the insurgency's side because undermining popular support for this war abroad will only bring victory into their hands.[evil]
Rheghead, the human rights record for Iraq is not good, not good at all. The whole place is still in bloody mess and I really hope that it will finally turn out all right, but as is, there is a long way to go. Let's hope that you are right, and Iraq really is on a way to become a better place, but as is, I am still worried.
...Are you on the insurgency's side because undermining popular support for this war abroad will only bring victory into their hands.[evil]
Rheghead, Please don't try to intimidate people to express their concerns with this kind of argument. I doubt any insurgents read the caithness.org pages and if so, that is the right of free speech and thought etc.
More people need to think out of the box and become involved in discussion about what happens around the globe. Your comment scares people to contribute to these issues and I don't think that this is what you want to achieve or do you?
I doubt any insurgents read the caithness.org pages and if so, that is the right of free speech and thought etc.
I would take your post seriously if you and/or I actually thought that the insurgents were devout advocates of that same right to free speech that you so obviously enjoy.:roll:
Perhaps it is exactly because they do think for themselves that they don't just follow the herd.
I find it hard to believe that there are people in America who still fall for the nonsense of, "Your Country's always wrong." Still, if they feel better for parading themselves before the World in sack cloth and ashes that's their right.
Sorry, I don't get your point. I only mentioned concerns that some of my friends (and you bet they are proud Americans) expressed to me.
May be you should go and pay a visit to the US and you will probably be surprised about the attitudes of the folk on the ground. (I cant help but mention now, that Bush was not elected by the majority of the people of teh US)
I would take your post seriously if you and/or I actually thought that the insurgents were devout advocates of that same right to free speech that you so obviously enjoy.:roll:
A lot of those insurgents are simply folk that lost their wifes, parents and kids in the mess of the last years. That made them feel like they had no other option than to fight back. In a civilised world it does not matter if 'they' believe in 'the right of free speech' etc. The same rights shall apply to all. A written constitution helps of course a lot to show the borderlines.
A lot of the insurgents are insurgents as well as victims. As an Iraqi, what would you do if you lost your loved ones by actions of the coalition troops? The best way to stop hatred is to spread love, but I can't see this happening in Iraq. (Spreading love includes to help local companies to rebuild local economies and oil business and so on)
A lot of those insurgents are simply folk that lost their wifes, parents and kids in the mess of the last years.
I agree that there may be some that have joined the insurgency because of personal reasons but the real insurgency has always been there from day dot ie. the old iraqi army and foreign fighters.
As an Iraqi, what would you do if you lost your loved ones by actions of the coalition troops?
It is very hyperthetical, but since you've asked, I would probably take the view of a German Jew in Aushwitz, the camps may get bombed by the allies and a few may get killed, but I would never join the Nazis!:roll:
It is very hyperthetical, but since you've asked, I would probably take the view of a German Jew in Aushwitz, the camps may get bombed by the allies and a few may get killed, but I would never join the Nazis!:roll:
Don't be silly, the Iraqi insurgency is nothing like the Nazis.
Nazi Germany was a military industrial complex, like America is.
They were a democracy in which the majority had not voted for the leader so he set fire to the Reichstag building and blamed it on the Communists so he could give himself emergency powers.
Germany invaded defenceless countries to take control of their resources. Germany had an overwhelming military force and their tactics were to start a war with a massive air and artillery attack called "blitzkrieg", lightning war, or in other words "shock and awe".
After invading a country Germany would install a puppet government so they could pretend they were occupying the country at their request.
Germany arrested and imprisoned people without trial in prison camps. Germany instructed their secret police to use torture methods including hypothermia, stress positions and sleep deprivation. They called these methods of torture "Verschärfte Vernehmung", we called them the "Third Degree" but it actually translates to "Enhanced Interrogation".
************************************************** ******
On the other hand there was the French Resistance movement. These comprised of brave patriotic Frenchman who's country had been invaded and a puppet government installed. Many had had family and friends killed by the Germans. They put up a resistance to the foreign occupiers of their country by committing acts of sabotage, planting bombs, carrying out assassinations and ambushes.
************************************************** *******
Which one of those descriptions best suits the insurgents and which best suits America?
You guys are arguing for the sake of arguing now. Going nowhere and playing silly games with words.
Why are Tony Blair and George Bush currently talking about needing to counter the emerging threat of attack by Iran?
Have I missed something? Has Iran threatened us?
You guys are arguing for the sake of arguing now. Going nowhere and playing silly games with words.
Why are Tony Blair and George Bush currently talking about needing to counter the emerging threat of attack by Iran?
Have I missed something? Has Iran threatened us?
No but they do have the third largest proven oil reserves in the world.
Don't be silly, the Iraqi insurgency is nothing like the Nazis.
I wasn't being silly, you were being silly by thinking I was trying to draw an analogy between the Nazis and the insurgency.
I wasn't being silly, you were being silly by thinking I was trying to draw an analogy between the Nazis and the insurgency.
I didn't. I thought you were deliberately trying to associate the insurgency with the Nazis so that in people's minds the hatred they have for the Nazis would be transferred to the insurgents. Same tactics as using words like "islamofascism" which is meaningless because Islam is a theology while Fascism is a political ideal, like Neoconservatism is.
No but they do have the third largest proven oil reserves in the world.
Am aware of that Fred. But what I don't understand is why now?
What do Bush & Blair hope to achieve by accusing Iran of being a major threat to security - now? Why are they at such pains to promote the idea that Iran is our biggest enemy?
I can't believe they would risk military action - that would be lunacy. So what's the agenda? Why on earth are we agitating an already volatile region?
Am aware of that Fred. But what I don't understand is why now?
What do Bush & Blair hope to achieve by accusing Iran of being a major threat to security - now? Why are they at such pains to promote the idea that Iran is our biggest enemy?
I can't believe they would risk military action - that would be lunacy. So what's the agenda? Why on earth are we agitating an already volatile region?
Bush hasn't got that much longer in office, the Neocon hawks want to secure American dominance of the Middle East and control of the worlds oil supplies now while they have the power. Once the war is started the next occupant of the White House will have no choice but to continue it.
I think if things hadn't gone so badly in Iraq and Afghanistan we would already be at war with Iran.
I didn't. I thought you were deliberately trying to associate the insurgency with the Nazis so that in people's minds the hatred they have for the Nazis would be transferred to the insurgents. Same tactics as using words like "islamofascism" which is meaningless because Islam is a theology while Fascism is a political ideal, like Neoconservatism is.
I do understand your concern over that association, it would be folly to think that any other regime could be as brutal as the Nazis.......though I understand some people don't need those brainwashing tactics of neoconservatives when they can see for themselves the reports of brutal actions of insurgents like beheading innocent hostages.:roll:
Personally I am behind Bush in the war against terrorism.
Iran is getting a bit out of hand and needs to be cut back down to size.
If we allow these fanatics to get too brave then who knows what might happen. Having seen terrorism first hand in Ulster at Enniskillen I can assure you that it is not a pretty sight and suddenly makes all the "dreamers" who think following terrorists is a "noble cause".i.e the ira (wont use capitals they dont deserve it)wake up to the fact that it affects peoples lives and ruins others.
If bush and brown think we should do something about it then so be it,after all we elect governments to do such.(I know we never elected brown)
No amount of discussion on a forum will make a blind bit of difference but it is people like bush and browns predecessors who gave us the oppotunity to speak out on a forum,so we should count ourselves lucky that at least we have that right.
northener
28-Oct-07, 15:13
Dammit,
Can't seem to post anything longer than a short message.
Stop laughing, Fred:D
northener
28-Oct-07, 18:15
Programme on BBC2 at 7:00 tonight exploring the relationship between Britain and Islam over the past 200 years. Very relevant to this discussion.
I'll miss it.
northener
28-Oct-07, 19:19
Still cant post anything of a decent length to reply to any posts.
Sorry folks, I give up.
Programme on BBC2 at 7:00 tonight exploring the relationship between Britain and Islam over the past 200 years. Very relevant to this discussion.
I'll miss it.
Still cant post anything of a decent length to reply to any posts.
Sorry folks, I give up.
Dammit,
Can't seem to post anything longer than a short message.
Stop laughing, Fred
Helped you out there by joining your 3 posts together!!! ;)
Personally I am behind Bush in the war against terrorism.
Iran is getting a bit out of hand and needs to be cut back down to size.
If we allow these fanatics to get too brave then who knows what might happen.
What do you mean by 'Iran is getting a bit out of hand'? What have they done?
I imagine any use of military force on Iran at this point in time would result in an ever increasing number of fanatics throughout the Middle East all seeking revenge. (Unless the US has access to missiles that home in on fanatics only.)
If bush and brown think we should do something about it then so be it,after all we elect governments to do such.(I know we never elected brown)
Sincerely hope that Gordon Brown isn't influenced by Bush. One illegal invasion is more than enough for any government.
No amount of discussion on a forum will make a blind bit of difference but it is people like bush and browns predecessors who gave us the oppotunity to speak out on a forum,so we should count ourselves lucky that at least we have that right.
Agree we are fortunate in having the right to speak out - it took hundreds of years of fighting and wars to get to where we are today.
I believe that one day the populations of the Middle East will arrive at a point when they too will want that right. But only when they are ready. You can't force it on them or bully them into it. They have to want it.
They haven't asked for help from the west. We might abhor some of their practices but look back through the history books and see the murderous, torturous brutality of our ancestors. Every bit as sickening.
No amount of discussion on a forum will make a blind bit of difference but it is people like bush and browns predecessors who gave us the oppotunity to speak out on a forum,so we should count ourselves lucky that at least we have that right.
No, you are wrong. Our ancestors fought Bush and Brown's predecessors tooth and nail for every freedom we have and they would despair to see how easily we give up what they fought, and many died, for.
Below is a small sample of how the women of Britain fought just for the right to vote taken from http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/Warson.htm
Were they terrorists? Do you class them as terrorists?
In July 1912, Christabel Pankhurst began organizing a secret arson campaign. Attempts were made by suffragettes to burn down the houses of two members of the government who opposed women having the vote. These attempts failed but soon afterwards, a house being built for David Lloyd George, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, was badly damaged by suffragettes.
In 1913 the WSPU arson campaign escalated and railway stations, cricket pavilions, racecourse stands and golf clubhouses being set on fire. Slogans in favour of women's suffrage were cut and burned into the turf. Suffragettes also cut telephone wires and destroyed letters by pouring chemicals into post boxes.
Programme on BBC2 at 7:00 tonight exploring the relationship between Britain and Islam over the past 200 years. Very relevant to this discussion.
I'll miss it.
Thanks for the heads up on this one Northener - very interesting programme. Hope Gordon Brown was watching (and learning.)
There's little evidence that we've learned much over the last 150 years, is there? We seem to be making the very same mistakes today.
Am aware of that Fred. But what I don't understand is why now?
There is an article in this morning's Tehran Times that could well explain why the urgency.
http://www.tehrantimes.com/index_View.asp?code=155984
Greed is America's achilles heel, Iran has a weapon more devastating than any nuclear bomb.
Fred i think you are buying inti the middlle eastern propaganda war (they are good at that)
WHAT DO YOU THINK OF THAT THEN YODA
Fred i think you are buying inti the middlle eastern propaganda war (they are good at that)
You think so?
Have a read of this essay (http://www.ratical.org/ratville/CAH/RRiraqWar.html) written in January 2003.
In July 1912, Christabel Pankhurst began organizing a secret arson campaign. Attempts were made by suffragettes to burn down the houses of two members of the government who opposed women having the vote. These attempts failed but soon afterwards, a house being built for David Lloyd George, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, was badly damaged by suffragettes.
In 1913 the WSPU arson campaign escalated and railway stations, cricket pavilions, racecourse stands and golf clubhouses being set on fire. Slogans in favour of women's suffrage were cut and burned into the turf. Suffragettes also cut telephone wires and destroyed letters by pouring chemicals into post boxes.
Were they terrorists? Do you class them as terrorists?Yes I certainly do, without a doubt.
i have read your essay and i still say its even more propaganda
War is expensive. Iraq and afganistan is costing millions per day.
The USA cannot finacially afford a war with iran, even if they wanted too, its just too ruddy expensive for them.
You think so?
Have a read of this essay (http://www.ratical.org/ratville/CAH/RRiraqWar.html) written in January 2003.
What a load of complete ####!
'The Uk adoption of the Euro is inevitabale under Tony Blair' err hello?
What a load of complete ####!
'The Uk adoption of the Euro is inevitabale under Tony Blair' err hello?
So you think Iraq selling their oil for euros would not have had an adverse effect on the U.S economy?
rob murray
21-Dec-07, 16:35
Yes I had noticed that the claim was that US was responsible for these casualties. Of course all these things are subject to propaganda.
The Americans aren't committing crimes, they aren't targetting civilians, especially not children, they are trying to stop the insurgency and win support in the region, without the US the region would turn into a bloodbath, is that what everyone wants? More killing? Undermining public support will only bring an unwelcome early end to the army's efforts, all for nothing. War isn't pretty, that is why I was against the original campaign and will continue to say that the grounds for war were flimsy.
However, our political leaders saw it differently, they were convinced by the evidence, whether it was falsified or not, I am not convinced it was by Bush et al. I do think there may have been falsifications made by persons unknown who may have sought a powerful ally for their own political ends, but that is my speculation for my own sake. You can draw your own conclusions, you can believe that Bush orchestrated the 911 disaster with a long term goal of justifying invading Iraq and Iran on a pseudo anti-terrorist/bring democracy to the Middle east ticket, if you like. That is the original lie. The truth is more simple, a bunch of religious zealots just wanted to hit the US for having soldiers on Islamic soil, and the Bush wanted to hit back and moresome to boost his flagging popular ratings, all paid for by the security of Iraqi oil. There is no conspiracy, it is just how it all turned out.
The truth is that if the insurgents stop killing then it stops today, if the US stops targetting insurgents then the killing goes on.
Mind the first gulf war, mind when the allies bombed Iraq ? who do you think the bombs fell on ? do bombs discriminate ie ask if the people they are being dropped on are military targets ?
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.