Wikileaks

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Roamy

I am not afraid of the dark - I am afraid of what is in it !!

---

And I'm not afraid of falling down, I'm afraid of hitting the ground. But luckily guns don't kill, people do. Hey, it just occurred to me, nuclear weapons don't kill, people do! There should be enough for everybody, so that if someone uses nukes, everybody can join.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Eki

Enlighten me then. What has that got to do with Saudi Arabia?

---

First off, you said you heard no threats from Iran. Well there is the threats. Secondly, if you think the Saudi's are down with a nuclear exchange on either side of them, you obviously are not looking at a map. The Saudi's claim no love for the Israeli's, and likely don't really care if Hezbollah wants to keep attacking them, but only an idiot would advocate they will sit there when Tehran starts lobbing nukes down on Israel and the Isreali's lob a few back. Fallout, political turmoil, war...ya...Cant figure out why the Saudi's wouldn't see THAT as a threat.

C'mon Eki you used to be at least somewhat challenging....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Eki

And I'm not afraid of falling down, I'm afraid of hitting the ground. But luckily guns don't kill, people do. Hey, it just occurred to me, nuclear weapons don't kill, people do! There should be enough for everybody, so that if someone uses nukes, everybody can join.

---

You disregard all points that were raised and just post nonsensical rhetoric.

Is it too difficult to accept that Iran poses a threat to stability in the region?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by skc

You disregard all points that were raised and just post nonsensical rhetoric.

Is it too difficult to accept that Iran poses a threat to stability in the region?

---

I think it's Israel and oil that pose a threat to stability in the region.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Eki

I think it's Israel and oil that pose a threat to stability in the region.

---

Both Israel and Iran threaten the stability of the region.

Your view of the Middle East is so simple and therefore so inaccurate. As is Marks btw, but his view is closer to the reality.

What Mark missed out is that whilst Iran's president previously talked about what Iranian missiles could do about Israel (although recently he has refused to comment further on Israel) Iranian diplomats routinely taunt their Gulf state counterparts by referring to the flight time of a ballistic missile across the Persian Gulf. That is a far more direct threat than a throwaway remark about Israel in a speech designed to appeal to the more extreme part of the Iranian electorate.

Hisbullah IS a threat to Lebanese democracy but more importantly is a Shia powerbase in the middle of the predominantly Sunni Arab Middle East. While Hisbullah serves some Lebanese interest by keeping the Israelis out they have also set up a state within a state. This threatens the surrounding Arab states to the extent that when Israel invaded Hisbullah territory several years ago and tried to destroy that organisation the other Arab countries refused to broker a ceasefire or assist. The aim being to covertly assist Israel in destroying Hisbullah, although ultimately they failed.

Think about why the surrounding Arab states would prefer to see the Israelis win and destroy Hisbullah at the expense of Arab lives. Do you really think that the Arabs therefore don't view Iran and its influence in the Middle East as a threat?

And how about RG influence in Iraq? Think the Iran government is so innocent now?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dylan H

Both Israel and Iran threaten the stability of the region.

Your view of the Middle East is so simple and therefore so inaccurate. As is Marks btw, but his view is closer to the reality.

What Mark missed out is that whilst Iran's president previously talked about what Iranian missiles could do about Israel (although recently he has refused to comment further on Israel) Iranian diplomats routinely taunt their Gulf state counterparts by referring to the flight time of a ballistic missile across the Persian Gulf. That is a far more direct threat than a throwaway remark about Israel in a speech designed to appeal to the more extreme part of the Iranian electorate.

Hisbullah IS a threat to Lebanese democracy but more importantly is a Shia powerbase in the middle of the predominantly Sunni Arab Middle East. While Hisbullah serves some Lebanese interest by keeping the Israelis out they have also set up a state within a state. This threatens the surrounding Arab states to the extent that when Israel invaded Hisbullah territory several years ago and tried to destroy that organisation the other Arab countries refused to broker a ceasefire or assist. The aim being to covertly assist Israel in destroying Hisbullah, although ultimately they failed.

Think about why the surrounding Arab states would prefer to see the Israelis win and destroy Hisbullah at the expense of Arab lives. Do you really think that the Arabs therefore don't view Iran and its influence in the Middle East as a threat?

And how about RG influence in Iraq? Think the Iran government is so innocent now?

---

We weren't talking about innocence, we were talking about threats. As long as they haven't directly threaten Saudi Arabia, I don't think they are a threat. One must also remember that Iran hasn't attacked and invaded their neighbors like Iraq, so there isn't even a precedent.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Eki

We weren't talking about innocence, we were talking about threats. As long as they haven't directly threaten Saudi Arabia, I don't think they are a threat. One must also remember that Iran hasn't attacked and invaded their neighbors like Iraq, so there isn't even a precedent.

---

So to tell Saudi Arabian diplomats that their country is less than five minutes away from a missile attack isn't threatening? To fund Saudi groups that want to overthrow their government isn't threatening?

To turn their neighbour Iraq into a puppet Shia state isn't threatening?

Woah Eki, you must be pretty tolerant. I guess if someone put a gun to your head and asked for your money that wouldn't be threatening either.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Eki

We weren't talking about innocence, we were talking about threats. As long as they haven't directly threaten Saudi Arabia, I don't think they are a threat. One must also remember that Iran hasn't attacked and invaded their neighbors like Iraq, so there isn't even a precedent.

---

Those that make direct threats are half of the time, blowing smoke, anyone that waits for a direct threat to react, is a fool deserving what ever misery comes the ones way.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bob Riebe

Those that make direct threats are half of the time, blowing smoke, anyone that waits for a direct threat to react, is a fool deserving what ever misery comes the ones way.

---

Some see paranoia as a mental disorder, you seem to think it's a virtue. Do you think Stalin and Hitler were right when they eliminated potential risks (real or imagined) for their rule before they materialized?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Eki

Some see paranoia as a mental disorder, you seem to think it's a virtue. Do you think Stalin and Hitler were right when they eliminated potential risks (real or imagined) for their rule before they materialized?

---

By your logic, anyone who goes in for a health check-up is paranoid.

Hmm, more or less correct than "Peace in our time" Neville Chamberlain?

On The McLaughlin Group, a conservative pundit, when asked about the Wikileaks concern, said Assange and Wiki is not the concern that should be being addressed, the fact the leaks exist is what should be, being addressed.
The fact Assange seems to have been exposed as sleaze incorporated, acutally only obscures the real faults.