Wikileaks

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bob Riebe

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

---

Anyone who goes though a major operation, just because of fear there's something wrong even if it's just hypochondria is paranoid. There's a line between healthy suspicion and paranoia and you should act according to the estimated risk. Saudi Arabia wanted the US to attack Iran just because of a potential risk. That's paranoia. Keeping an eye on Iran, would be healthy suspicion. The US attacking Iraq because of alleged WMDs was paranoia too (or the WMDs were just a smoke screen to cover up more sinister motives).

About Chamberlain: If the British had attacked Germany before the risks materialized or were clear to everyone, they'd be now the villains instead of the Nazi-Germany and the outcome would still have been a world war. A preemptive attack is a bad idea unless you're almost 100% sure of an impending attack by the opposite side. Blaming or ridiculing Chamberlain now is hindsight 20/20. He may have been right, and we may have prevented WWII.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Eki

Blaming or ridiculing Chamberlain now is hindsight 20/20. He may have been right, and we may have prevented WWII.

---

LOL, that is the most gross example of a rationalization to protect faulty logic I have ever seen.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Eki

About Chamberlain: If the British had attacked Germany before the risks materialized or were clear to everyone, they'd be now the villains instead of the Nazi-Germany and the outcome would still have been a world war.

---

No. The outcome would have been total annihilation of the UK. Chamberlain dithered for as long as he possibly could because the UK's defence forces in 1936 were a chap in Swindon with a pitchfork, his dog Gavin and three chickens.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Eki

Anyone who goes though a major operation, just because of fear there's something wrong even if it's just hypochondria is paranoid. There's a line between healthy suspicion and paranoia and you should act according to the estimated risk. Saudi Arabia wanted the US to attack Iran just because of a potential risk. That's paranoia.

---

You're right, there is a big difference between paranoia and healthy suspicion.

The Saudis have more than adequate reason to fear the Iranians which I have listed and which you conveniently ignore again and again.

Why exactly do you persist in refusing to address points that are inconvenient for you? You come across as being as bigoted as the rednecks you so hate if not more.

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.

---

Why do you hate American soldier's and sailor's memories?
http://www.history.navy.mil/photos/i...000/h50472.jpg

http://www.history.navy.mil/photos/i...000/g32691.jpg

The following is a list of how many people were killed on Dec. 7, 1941 as a result of the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor.

* US Navy: 2,008 KIA
* USMC: 109 KIA
* US Army: 218 KIA
* Civilians: 68



Read more: http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_many_p...#ixzz19nzq8f8L

Your words are that they were fools and deserved what every misery that came their way.

Go hang yourself. Rolleyes

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dylan H

The Saudis have more than adequate reason to fear the Iranians which I have listed and which you conveniently ignore again and again.

---

So you think the Saudis have so much reason, that the US should invade Iran?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Eki

So you think the Saudis have so much reason, that the US should invade Iran?

---

I think the saudis and iraqis should invade iran

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Eki

So you think the Saudis have so much reason, that the US should invade Iran?

---

Hmmm I think you really should read wikileaks more carefully.

The Saudis have never suggested the US invade Iran. They've suggested the US bomb Iran's nuclear programme to stop it which is a different thing entirely.

And yes, I think they are right to fear Iran's nuclear programme enough to want to bomb it. After all they are as likely to be nuked by Iran as Israel is, if not more because they don't have their own deterrent.

So Eki why do you think Iran's neighbours have so little to fear? Do you know anything about Iran's history interfering in its neighbours affairs?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dylan H

Hmmm I think you really should read wikileaks more carefully.

The Saudis have never suggested the US invade Iran. They've suggested the US bomb Iran's nuclear programme to stop it which is a different thing entirely.

And yes, I think they are right to fear Iran's nuclear programme enough to want to bomb it.

---

So you want the US to bomb Iran's nuclear programme? Even when Iran claims it's just for peaceful nuclear energy, and there's no real evidence of the opposite.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Eki

So you want the US to bomb Iran's nuclear programme? Even when Iran claims it's just for peaceful nuclear energy, and there's no real evidence of the opposite.

---

Except that their leader constantly threatens a certain neighboring state...

Would you take the chance that he never meant a word of it and it's just his propaganda... We are talking here about the possibility of nuclear weapons...