| |
|  |  |
 |
| Discussion: Jack lv2repeathimself my views regarding Iran situation have not changed in any significant way since earlier lengthy posts feel free to read consider and comment on any specifics raised>>>>>>>> ****Am so sorry.....but the threat from Iran is ever changing. Pls take into account their recent belligerance. The actual sanctions imposed via UN Security Council appear to me as little more than a restatement of the countries pre-existing commitments under NPT and it took John Boulton 2 weeks to get that past the Russians! You'll note the Russians are fossil fuel rich ;)>>>>> ****John Bolton GOT IT DONE. What don't you understand about that? As I have already said I regard nuclear proliferation as an historical inevitability. Given the lack of enthusiasm displayed for further UN sanctions currently (I think it is the case that even these current ones have to be renewed periodically) I don't think many more informed observers than you with whatever pre-occupations drive your absurb little outbursts are actually terribly troubled by Irans current nuclear development. Frankly I think the Iranians are possibllly correct to say they have the right under current NPT treaty to enrich for non-weapons use. I would remind you that USA and others are obliged under this self-same treaty to make positive steps to disarm... what progress has the USA made in this respect? Is it considering harsh action against itself for its arguable failure to fulfil its NPT commitments? ;)>>> ****No Planet Ear, Iran does not have the right to develop nuclesr weapons. WHERE have you been. Given that region also has nuclear arms held by Israel, India and Pakistan I am curious why you are singling out Iran for special treatment if other than the fact USA would like to coerce Iran into a long term package of oil supply priced in dollars to avoid your obvious difficulties when the rest of the world shifts to oil priced in Euro (or the Yen perhaps)>>>> ****Israel is NOT the aggressor. WHAT are you thinking? > Iran....Planet Ear.....take a stand....how long do we put off action? You do then make the the startling assumption that "action" will be necessary, and that sanctions and diplomacy and negotiations will fail. Given your presidents frankly infantile pronoucements regarding "Axis of Evil", the way he has tied himself into unqualified prevention of Iran gaining nuclear weapons (thus committing your country to move ahead of any international consensus on the matter or accept humilating personel U-turn), the complete lack of credibility your "intelligence" services will have in your country after the failure to find WMDs in Iraq or OBL in Afganistan I predict that "action" will be neither domestically or internationally acceptable and he will eventually have the take the advice of the Iraq study group (and Blair for that matter) and start talking to Iran. It apalls me he seems to have ignored ISG entirely as far as I can see. USA our "friends"? After Bush/Boultons blatant attempts to raise the temperature on the tricky issue of the UK naval personnel detained by Iran; ie Bush calling them "hostages" which was both provocative and inaccurate (they would be "hostages" if Iran had issued demands for their release), Boulton stormed onto our TV fuming that Blair wouldn't issue threats "take a tougher stance" etc etc I think you'll you'll find that there will be a somewhat frostier atmosphere transatlantic for a little while. UK is not at war with Iran and doesn't want to be railroaded into a provocative stance in order to help Bush form another "allegiance of the really rather unwilling" (sic) to save his bacon thanks. You'll also note please that UK measured and diplomatic response appears to acheived the return of our servicepeople in 15 days with nothing more than conceded by either side than understandings to prevent such situations arising in futiure. You'll note this also means diplomatic links will have been excercised and refreshed. Contrast this with US. It took you 444 days to get your Iran hostages back. Learn the lessons that history can teach please. ****Action Inevitable?? Just maybe? Ear have you listened to ANYTHING that the Iranian Mullah has said or written? What is your PROBLEM? Why are you wo cowardly? >>By planet ear (Friday, 20 Apr 2007 00:07) >>By lv2read ****Am so sorry.....but the threat from Iran is ever changing. Pls take into account their recent belligerance. Partonising and facile. precisely what biligerence? ****John Bolton GOT IT DONE. What don't you understand about that? Only if you call getting the job done an agreement to do pretty much exactly what everyone was going to do without the agreement. Most people call that abject failure. What don't YOU understand about that? ****No Planet Ear, Iran does not have the right to develop nuclesr weapons. WHERE have you been. Never said they did. Try getting an intelligent adult to explain my post to you. ****Israel is NOT the aggressor. WHAT are you thinking? Arguably not the case and not my point anyway. Again you really should someone to help you with the long words....... ****Action Inevitable?? Just maybe? Ear have you listened to ANYTHING that the Iranian Mullah has said or written? What is your PROBLEM? Why are you wo cowardly? Since I've just demonstrated that diplomacy can be effective and is possibly the only realistic way forward for the US (and I am far from alone in that opinion even in your own country) As a draft-dodger who are you to call anyone cowardly? Are YOUR sons in the forces? Nope thought not.... Sorry lv2bs you're out of depth....... >>By planet ear Tell you what let's try a different tack >>By planet ear Try reading it again and see if you can do better this time lv2repeathimself my views regarding Iran situation have not changed in any significant way since earlier lengthy posts feel free to read consider and comment on any specifics raised The actual sanctions imposed via UN Security Council appear to me as little more than a restatement of the countries pre-existing commitments under NPT and it took John Boulton 2 weeks to get that past the Russians! You'll note the Russians are fossil fuel rich ;) As I have already said I regard nuclear proliferation as an historical inevitability. Given the lack of enthusiasm displayed for further UN sanctions currently (I think it is the case that even these current ones have to be renewed periodically) I don't think many more informed observers than you with whatever pre-occupations drive your absurb little outbursts are actually terribly troubled by Irans current nuclear development. Frankly I think the Iranians are possibllly correct to say they have the right under current NPT treaty to enrich for non-weapons use. I would remind you that USA and others are obliged under this self-same treaty to make positive steps to disarm... what progress has the USA made in this respect? Is it considering harsh action against itself for its arguable failure to fulfil its NPT commitments? ;) Given that region also has nuclear arms held by Israel, India and Pakistan I am curious why you are singling out Iran for special treatment if other than the fact USA would like to coerce Iran into a long term package of oil supply priced in dollars to avoid your obvious difficulties when the rest of the world shifts to oil priced in Euro (or the Yen perhaps) > Iran....Planet Ear.....take a stand....how long do we put off action? You do then make the the startling assumption that "action" will be necessary, and that sanctions and diplomacy and negotiations will fail. Given your presidents frankly infantile pronoucements regarding "Axis of Evil", the way he has tied himself into unqualified prevention of Iran gaining nuclear weapons (thus committing your country to move ahead of any international consensus on the matter or accept humilating personel U-turn), the complete lack of credibility your "intelligence" services will have in your country after the failure to find WMDs in Iraq or OBL in Afganistan I predict that "action" will be neither domestically or internationally acceptable and he will eventually have the take the advice of the Iraq study group (and Blair for that matter) and start talking to Iran. It apalls me he seems to have ignored ISG entirely as far as I can see. USA our "friends"? After Bush/Boultons blatant attempts to raise the temperature on the tricky issue of the UK naval personnel detained by Iran; ie Bush calling them "hostages" which was both provocative and inaccurate (they would be "hostages" if Iran had issued demands for their release), Boulton stormed onto our TV fuming that Blair wouldn't issue threats "take a tougher stance" etc etc I think you'll you'll find that there will be a somewhat frostier atmosphere transatlantic for a little while. UK is not at war with Iran and doesn't want to be railroaded into a provocative stance in order to help Bush form another "allegiance of the really rather unwilling" (sic) to save his bacon thanks. You'll also note please that UK measured and diplomatic response appears to acheived the return of our servicepeople in 15 days with nothing more than conceded by either side than understandings to prevent such situations arising in futiure. You'll note this also means diplomatic links will have been excercised and refreshed. Contrast this with US. It took you 444 days to get your Iran hostages back. Learn the lessons that history can teach please. >>By planet ear Can ytou see the forest for the trees? Depth....as in not recognizing the 'bad guys.' Your words are saying that we should allow them to make and to test a nuclear weapon. WHO agrees with that. Are you saying that you don't BELIEVE them? Is this a wise position? It is not an intelligent position as YOU know. Show mw some intelligence.....a modicum of such willdo. Repeat after me..... Iran must halt uranium enrichment. The sanctions are only the first step,,,,as I hope that you know. The UK is as much threatened by Iran as your greatest ally the US. Listen to your leader AND follow. Iran ain't going away.....without a shove from the UN Security Councit and our two countrys. >>By lv2read That "response" will only serve to deepen the impression that you are a poorly informed half-wit incapable of presenting a coherent factual argument. Nevermind you can still reasonably aspire to US president! ;) >>By planet ear Did you ever have a teacher make the comment on an essay of yours,,,,sort of like....nice discussion but WRONG topic??? Well here you go again. The questions are repeated below just for you!! Iran....do nothing?? Wait....how long?? Why?? Iran....Planet Ear.....take a stand....how long do we put off action? Why are the sanctions a great idea?? Another thing....BTW...it is not the number of words written that carries the day but the content AND THE RELEVANCE. What do we do about abating their attempt to develop a nuclear capability? And to clarify just for you, 'we' refers to your country and mine. Be clever, if you wish, but answer. Iran AIN'T going away....even if you wish they would. We have only to blame ourselves if they are left to achieve the capability. A little depth here, please. >>By lv2read You two seem to be going round in circles. Are we any nearer to realising your dream of a perfect Jack board L2R? >>By Flagg Thanks for conceding there is not a single point you can make against mine that stands up to scrutiny. >>By planet ear Two words... Ear, Iran??? Don't you think they've given enough warning? Are you asleep? Some hints here. The Iranians are the BAD guys. Iran and Syria are exascerbating tensions between Israel and her natural enemies. Have you forgotten which country is your ally? Pay closer attention to Mr. Blair's words. Learn to follow his leadership---you'll 'appear' informed. >>By lv2read "It's not that kind of board anymore"... Are you asleep? Have you forgotten...? Pay closer attention... Try again L2R >>By Lynn > Learn to follow his leadership---you'll 'appear' informed. LOL I prefer BEING informed rather than some vainglorious attempt to APPEAR informed lv2bs, you should try it sometime... ;) >>By planet ear Incidently as I have twice pointed out on this board (and you have still yet to comment upon this issue) both Blair and the Iraq Study Group have been robust in urging Bush to adopt a "diplomatic offensive" towards Iran and Syria. The ISG report makes a clear recommendation that this should be "without pre-conditions" Bush's stance is that Iran cannot be diplomatically engaged without their first halting their nuclear enrichment programme. "Good guys" "Bad guys"????? Real world issues are a tiny bit bit complex than that lv2bs, I urge you and your beloved demagogue president to leave your "Walt Disney Morals" at the door. >>By planet ear Ear, Is diplomacy a reward for being sanctioned by the Security Council? Do you believe Iran's very words? How could they be any clearer? Do you believe that your country would have supported sanctions if it was believe that diplomacy alone would work?? Earlier you mentioned depth......a little depth here would help. Lynn, Should we pay closer attention to the Iranian leader's words? How many other countries have made diplomatic efforts with Iran to voluntarily abate their enrichment effort? Why would the Security Councit impose sanctions if they didn't believ that a stronger message was needed. Again, please pay (closer) attention. >>By lv2read Again, please pay (closer) attention. To what? >>By Lynn >Do you believe Iran's very words? How could they be any clearer? On August 9, 2005 Iran's Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, issued a fatwa that the production, stockpiling and use of nuclear weapons are forbidden under Islam and that Iran shall never acquire these weapons. Those or some others you had in mind? > Is diplomacy a reward for being sanctioned by the Security Council? Do at least try to get your facts straight lv2bs, ISG and Blairs call for diplomatic initiative were last year, Bush ignored the opportunity leading to current (rather lame) UNSC resolution >>By planet ear Ear, please listen, think and (then) respond. Blair did call for diplomatic entrees AND he also supports sanctions. Can you understand the two mutually exclusive concepts? Most of us find this pretty basic. >>By lv2read Clearly you have resorted spouting utter nonsense. That's all that really needs to be said. How about answering a simple clear question of mine with a simple factual answer? >Do you believe Iran's very words? How could they be any clearer? On August 9, 2005 Iran's Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, issued a fatwa that the production, stockpiling and use of nuclear weapons are forbidden under Islam and that Iran shall never acquire these weapons. Those or some others you had in mind? >>By planet ear Ear, <<<<On August 9, 2005 Iran's Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, issued a fatwa that the production, stockpiling and use of nuclear weapons are forbidden under Islam and that Iran shall never acquire these weapons. Those or some others you had in mind?>>>> Factually, August 9th, 2006 is roughly 4 months shy of two years ago.... Don't the tabloids, as numerous as they are, keep you up to date better than that?? For your sake why don't we agree that Iran is still belligerant. OK?? What needs to be done? Just give us an unguarded opiniog.....and stop playing to the audience. >>By lv2read And your example of the words of the Iranians is? >>By planet ear And your example of the words of the Iranians is?>>> Do your own research, or, better yet stay informed. Again, what should be done about Iran BEFORE they develop a nuclear capability? The key word here is BEFORE. >>By lv2read Same thing that should be done about every other country that doesn't yet have nuclear capabilities, silly: nuke the fuckers! >>By Flagg Just nuke every country until the only thing left is the US of A? Even though that sounds 'pretty' silly - I bet you could even find support for that ! >>By Lynn Well, I don't believe that the UN Security Council would approve of the Netherlands developing a nuclear capability either. Nuclear weapons are here to stay....like automobiles....like SUVs...like speed boats.....like gigantic steel weatherproof buildings....like ALL the comforts of modern life...all items within the reach of the middle class in America---save the nuclear weapons....(saveas in except). And, yes,such capability in the hands of the peace loving USA----the most desired location to live in the WORLD. >>By lv2read now there, I almost choked in my coffee >>By Lynn now there, I almost choked in my coffee >>By Lynn (Friday, 27 Apr 2007 00:10)>>>> Well, I didn't want you to choke..... Whatever you have to say AND whenever you communicate it.......is always welcomed by me!!!! >>By lv2read Unless we want to swear. Are you actually saying the U.S. is the only country that can be trusted with nuclear weapons? >>By Flagg May I remind everyone of Hiroshima & Nagasaki....... or would that be "bringing up the past"..... ??? >>By Tchock Or Iraq and Afganistan maybe? >>By planet ear But then what would be the point of arguing with a guy who doesn't understand the difference between"mutually exclusive" and "totally compatible"? ;) >>By planet ear |