It's all adding up to war, isn't it?

[thisnthatz]

This thread has invoked some heart felt comments. And as has been said don't diss the president. I'm won't diss him, but would like to make a comment for the people who took the actions described in the Video.

Unless a person has been in those situations and knows how it feels, being mortered, stoned, shot at, then really they cannot comment about the state of mind of the individuals who have been trained to weed out the trouble makers (ringleaders) and remove the source. I can make thee comments with confidence.

Unfortunatly we have not seen the full video. I can gaurantee the NotW only showed the bit they did to spark the debate that is now raging. The counter offensive was the further release of the bit that came before the beating. There will be a lot more to the video because part of it was being used for training.

As for Iran - back to original topic - We have seen the passion evoked by the recent cartoons and the widespread destruction that ensued. If Iran has Nuclear weapons, it might only take a cartoon, and you could say goodbye, because Nuclear weapons do cause effects to the atmosphere and have no boundries. Chenoble is a good example. So really we need Iran not to have them. But like everything else it will come down to who can make the most out of selling the technology for the items required.

It is written in history, but can't remember where (help) - Third world war will begin in country of persia with rulers of zealots (or kanaim) - http://www.encyclopedia.com/html/Z/Zealots.asp and http://www.geocities.com/aleph135/zealots.html The word nowadays is used for different reasons as well.

Thankfully, I have not seen a part used labararotory going on ebid yet.

Sorry for the ramble. enjoy.

Saleman

[damian_steele]

It keeps the American arms industry going.

You forgot to mention the UK arms industry.

The UK is the world's third largest exporter of armaments and other security/military equipment. It is possible the single largest source of income for us, so even if we ourselves are not directly involved in fighting a war, you can bet that some of our kit is going to be there.

Whilst it is fashionable to bash the Americans as a whole and in this country Tony Blair in particular, we must not forget that the whole of our government are involved in sanctioning and condoning the manufacture and export of huge amounts of killing machines. In some ways the Muslims are right; the "blame" goes a lot further than Blair and Bush.

This is not to say that we should stop manufacturing and exporting where such actions are legal and appropriate but we should be more aware of the effect this little country has beyond our borders.

[damian_steele]

How come it is okay for most of the West to have nuclear weapons but not anyone else? Talk about "do as I say, but not as I do."

In this particular case you have to realise the threat that Iran poses should it get nuclear weapons. There is absolutely no doubt what-so-ever that these people sponsor terrorist groups. They have also publically stated on numerous occasions that they want to destroy Israel to "wipe it from the map". They have also stated that they want to do the same to the Great Satan (the US). Their Holy Men, the people whose Word is Law, have said that it would be perfectly ligitimate for them to use nuclear weapons to achieve their aims. They have further offered to aid other countries, such as North Korea, is attaining nuclear power and weapons by sharing information and resources. Add all of this up and it shows without doubt that Iran will be a huge threat to the world if they attain nuclear weapons.

Neither the West nor other countries in the region can idly sit back and allow Iran to reach its goal. We do not have the luxury of waiting and then finding out that our suspicions were right all along. By that time the Iranians could have killed millions of people and started a chain that could destroy everyone on the planet. It is just too big a risk.

I say leave the UN to sort it out.

The UN are unlikely to be able to adequately deal with this situation. Already we have seen Iran's response to the extremely limited steps that the UN has taken. Iran has begun withdrawing their many billions of dollars worth of monetary stocks from foreign banks and financial houses, stopped UN inspections, removed IAEA monitoring equipment and begun full scale production of nuclear materials and all this is just because they have been referred to the UN Security Council.

Even when the UNSC meets on the matter it is unlikely they will be able to order any sanctions that will effect Iran to any great degree. If anything, any sanctions against Iran will backfire on the West as they will surely result in the price of oil going up, increased instability in the world wide markets and knock on effects to consumers all over. Iran meanwhile, will be sitting back and laughing at us as the oil they do still ship is worth two or three times what it was before.

It is quite clear that many in the American government and military do not believe that the UN has the bite necessary for this task and, with my limited knowledge of the subject, so far I have to say I agree.



It seems to me that many people here are of the idea that the situation with Iran will only effect Iran and whoever fights them. This is not true. Whatever happens with them will effects all of us. Their future and ours are linked in more ways than most people realise and so we cannot afford to merely sit idle and observe from a distance as though it was no more important than watching a tennis match.

[MadcatwomanEnterprises]

True the UN can't necessarily handle it, but then the US and allies thought they could handle Iraq and how wrong they were.

What do we have at the moment? CIA death camps? Guantanamo Bay, which is run against international law and keeping prisoners for over four years without trial? That makes our hands as dirty as anyone else in this business.

It's no good saying that our nuclear weapons are right and the ones in Iran, or Pakistan or wherever is wrong. The only answers would be that (a) all countries have the weapons (which saw us through the Cold War), which is the MAD (Mutually Assured Destruction) option, or (b) worldwide disarmament. If we are such good chums with the US, we could happily get rid of our nuclear weapons, saving a fortune so we could fund education and the NHS, and leave the US to look after us if anyone gets any funny ideas about invading us?

Iran wants to start building nuclear weapons, so did Iraq - the difference was, we were the ones we sold them to Iraq. If the West were searching for WMD in Iraq, all they had to do was check off the receipt for what we had sold them all with the purpose that they could blow Iran to Kingdom Come for the West, and the West would keep it's hands clean. An example of the news that there was the making biological weapons going on in Iraq - the West knew exactly what was happening because the same groups of German scientists who did their research and work in the concentration camps went there with the German government's backing and the backing of the West because they could make a good buck out of it. Iraq would never have been a threat unless we were selling them the stuff in the first place.

If you want to read more, Noam Chomsky is a bloke to read up on, particularly his book 9/11 as a start. You'll never see him in this country because he is banned by the government from entering this country. So much for free speech.

[damian_steele]

It's no good saying that our nuclear weapons are right and the ones in Iran, or Pakistan or wherever is wrong.

It's not about whether some weapons are right and some are wrong, it's about the intentions and stated aims of the people who control them.

You have to understand the mindset of a people who think nothing of blowing up their perceived enemies and 100% believe that they are right to do so - even though the only provocation for the attack was that the "enemy" was someone who worshipped in a different manner or who came from a country that the bomber didn't like.

The Iranians limit for tollerance comes far sooner than any Western country and the actions they take are far more extreme too. They are a people who believe that it is their religious duty to destroy anyone they perceive as an enemy of their country, their faith or whatever cause they choose to pursue. At the moment they use conventional means to achieve their aims and think nothing of the collateral damage they cause. Just think for a moment how much worse that would be if there were radical Muslims with nuclear weapons instead of plastic explosives?

A lot of people think that Bush is a war monger, but compared to a nuclear enabled Iranian he would be a little kitten.

Bush had and still has nuclear weapons. Did he think about using them to completely wipe Iraq from the map? Probably not. Iran probably would have had they been in his shoes. Their own leadership has already stated that they would do such things.

Iran cannot be allowed into a situation where the world gets to find out if they were right to worry because the consequences are too horrendous to contemplate.

[emma5721]

I try not to have opinions. Astrologers can't make accurate predictions unless they are open-minded. I am, though, only human. Every so often, I just feel that something is terribly wrong and I can't ignore this. That's why, in 2003, I joined the millions who were marching against the invasion of Iraq. Our protests were ignored. 'We have to act,' we were told, 'to stop a regime that keeps weapons of mass destruction and has a terrible reputation for cruelty towards innocent prisoners.' Does that mean, then, that we now need to invade ourselves.

-------
taken from an astrology daily board
btw un has asked for guatanamo to be closed

[MadcatwomanEnterprises]

I did the local antiwar protests, my kids came with me because they felt strongly enough to be involved.

It's sad that as an "allied" force, we have probably caused more harm to the people of Iraq than Saddam could have done over the same amount of time. The Lancet estimate over 100,000 civilians alone. There are too many warring factions internally in the country to ever be able to unite it in its current position. There is no real answer to sorting the problem out.

In the meantime, we have made a cack-handed mess and we have all got the blood of innocents on our hands.

Neo-conservative christians of the West versus Muslims of the middle East. They are both as dangerous, reckless with lives, and outlandish as the other side.

Wonder what date the West have pencilled in for Iran (also oil-rich) or Zimbabwe (mineral deposits)? There are human rights abuses in Saudi Arabia, and Jordan, but no one wants to go to war with them because our governments are so far up their rear end.

Some good sites for anyone wanting background info on what is happening (without the state-media spin):

http://www.corpwatch.org/index.php
http://www.monbiot.com/
http://www.hrw.org/
http://www.statewatch.org/
http://www.antiwar.co.uk/

[earthangel]

The way I have read some of the opinions in this thread, some are arguing that it is wrong for Iran to gain nuclear weapons because they would be prepared to use them to achieve their aims, while it's okay for America and the UK to have these weapons because they wouldn't. It is my opinion that the US and UK WOULD use nuclear weapons if doing so achieved the aims of those who run these countries. (And I'm not talking about George Bush and Tony Blair).
Similarly, the point has been made that Iran should not be allowed to have nuclear weapons because the country sponsors terrorists. I'm sorry, but there are no bigger sponsors of terrorists than America. And Britain is guilty also. These arguments cannot be used to justify any action against Iran.

[sofiag1964]

This thread has invoked some heart felt comments. And as has been said don't diss the president. I'm won't diss him, but would like to make a comment for the people who took the actions described in the Video.

Unless a person has been in those situations and knows how it feels, being mortered, stoned, shot at, then really they cannot comment about the state of mind of the individuals who have been trained to weed out the trouble makers (ringleaders) and remove the source. I can make thee comments with confidence.

Unfortunatly we have not seen the full video. I can gaurantee the NotW only showed the bit they did to spark the debate that is now raging. The counter offensive was the further release of the bit that came before the beating. There will be a lot more to the video because part of it was being used for training.

As for Iran - back to original topic - We have seen the passion evoked by the recent cartoons and the widespread destruction that ensued. If Iran has Nuclear weapons, it might only take a cartoon, and you could say goodbye, because Nuclear weapons do cause effects to the atmosphere and have no boundries. Chenoble is a good example. So really we need Iran not to have them. But like everything else it will come down to who can make the most out of selling the technology for the items required.

It is written in history, but can't remember where (help) - Third world war will begin in country of persia with rulers of zealots (or kanaim) - http://www.encyclopedia.com/html/Z/Zealots.asp and http://www.geocities.com/aleph135/zealots.html The word nowadays is used for different reasons as well.

Thankfully, I have not seen a part used labararotory going on ebid yet.

Sorry for the ramble. enjoy.

Saleman

I have respect for you on what you said; too true on the fact that we haven't seen the whole video. To think that any part of that video was used for training is unimagineable. With this tape and so many other occurrences connected with it would mean war. Unfortunate; but will happen.

Much respect,
sofia

[sofiag1964]

What's getting me riled up about it is this.

How come it is okay for most of the West to have nuclear weapons but not anyone else? Talk about "do as I say, but not as I do."

What makes us in the West think we have the right to police the world and bully everyone else?

I say leave the UN to sort it out.

You know what, I've always wondered about that. I know someone would give an answer on it but the world seems to look to UK and USA as world police. It's seen through history and I've always wondered how the heck did that happen. Plus the fact that it gives more power over to these countries and power taken away from the UN. Isn't that the reason the UN is arround in the first place; to take on such a campaign as this? It's mind blowing!