http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE6AP06Z20101129Quote:
Originally Posted by Eki
It seems that Iran isn't that popular with anyone.
Printable View
http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE6AP06Z20101129Quote:
Originally Posted by Eki
It seems that Iran isn't that popular with anyone.
A morning show was talking about the entire Wikileaks thing the other morning, and the strange actions of Assange and his attornies. It seems they are very upset that they feel information about the sexual misconduct charges were leaked before being reviewed by the attornies.
I think it's comical that they are upset because they feel information was leaked, and it serves them right if it was. :laugh:
you haven't heard? For a guy who loves Assange, you should read the "leaks" from Saudi Arabia, Jordan and the like. All are pointing to being worried about a nuclear Iran. It seems only you think they are benign. This from a nation that routine kills and tortures its own citizens just to keep the peace...Quote:
Originally Posted by Eki
Last time I looked, no western power did that....
Yes, they told they are scared, but as far as I know, even the Wikileaks haven't published any threats from Iran. Some people are afraid of dark, even if the dark hasn't threatened them.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mark in Oshawa
Eki! if you went to Iran, you'll find that much of the poeples there are afraid of much more than just the dark.Quote:
Originally Posted by Eki
And half the population hates the mullahs.
And how does concretely concerns Saudi Arabia? Those are Iranian internal affairs.Quote:
Originally Posted by Valve Bounce
Such as?Quote:
Originally Posted by Valve Bounce
I don't believe Iran is a threat to anyone except maybe to themselves.
You I guess didn't hear their President on an almost yearly basis promising to wipe Israel off the map. I guess the funding of Hezbollah and their terrorist activities are just good will? Your naivety is truly breathtaking....Quote:
Originally Posted by Eki
The nations in that part of the world have good reason to be wary of Iran, Iran has persecuted its Sunni majority in ways that a good Nazi would admire in their persecution of the Jews. Sunni vs Shiite is a story that will always lead to bloodshed without much effort in Muslim nations. I guess the Iranian nuclear program doesn't bother you Eki, but that's ok, most of the world has your back allowing you to have these naive notions...everyone has pretty much joined in on the sanctions against Iran. With luck, that will be one of the vises that will cause cracks in the Mullah's theocratic dictatorship.
Enlighten me then. What has that got to do with Saudi Arabia?Quote:
Originally Posted by Mark in Oshawa
As others have stated you clearly haven't read the wikileaks reports about Iran, like their funding Shiite opposition movements in Iraq (obviously), Kuwait, Saudi Arabia and the Gulf States, movements that seek to at least reform and often overthrow the governments they are aimed at.Quote:
Originally Posted by Eki
As well as funding Hisbollah and certain elements of the Taliban with both seriously undermining (to say the least) the legitimate governments of Lebanon and Afghanistan respectively.
The Arabs feel threatened, probably more than the Israelis do, by Iran's nuclear project because its a direct threat to them and they don't have a deterrence or the confidence that the Americans would strike back on their behalf.
I am not afraid of the dark - I am afraid of what is in it !!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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Roamy
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Eki
C'mon Eki you used to be at least somewhat challenging....
You disregard all points that were raised and just post nonsensical rhetoric.Quote:
Originally Posted by Eki
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 skc
Both Israel and Iran threaten the stability of the region.Quote:
Originally Posted by Eki
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 Dylan H
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?Quote:
Originally Posted by Eki
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.
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 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?Quote:
Originally Posted by Bob Riebe
By your logic, anyone who goes in for a health check-up is paranoid.Quote:
Originally Posted by Eki
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.
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).Quote:
Originally Posted by Bob Riebe
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.
LOL, that is the most gross example of a rationalization to protect faulty logic I have ever seen.Quote:
Originally Posted by Eki
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
You're right, there is a big difference between paranoia and healthy suspicion.Quote:
Originally Posted by Eki
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.
Why do you hate American soldier's and sailor's memories?Quote:
Originally Posted by Bob Riebe
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
So you think the Saudis have so much reason, that the US should invade Iran?Quote:
Originally Posted by Dylan H
I think the saudis and iraqis should invade iranQuote:
Originally Posted by Eki
Hmmm I think you really should read wikileaks more carefully.Quote:
Originally Posted by Eki
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?
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 Dylan H
Except that their leader constantly threatens a certain neighboring state...Quote:
Originally Posted by Eki
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...
Why do you make baseless asinine remarks?Quote:
Originally Posted by janvanvurpa
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bob Riebe
Read your broad unqualified words---or do you have a version of Tourettes syndrome that you type brain-farts without control.
Here, let me quote you since youve forgotten:
By your own words you have said that those Americans who waited for a direct threat to react were fools deserving whatever misery which came their way...nearly 2400 dead, thousands more injured..Quote:
Originally Posted by Bob Riebe View Post
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.
Or doesn't your blustering big talk apply to Americans?
Or---the most likely scenario---you're just running your mouth as usual and typing words unhindered by the thought process.
So which is it, Riebe?
Thoughtless blather, or hate for Americans who died because they didn't react to threats?
There wasn't a "threat". The attack on Pearl Harbour was made before any formal declaration of war was made by Japan and without threat. It was pretty well much an undeclared lightning strike.Quote:
Originally Posted by janvanvurpa
1. He was talking about Israel, not Saudi Arabia. I don't think the Saudis love Israel that much that they'd act on their behalf.Quote:
Originally Posted by Koz
2. The Iranian President doesn't have the authority to use nuclear weapons, even if there were any.
I am not Saudi Arabia Eki, nor am I a member of its royal family who made the comments. And while I would not like so see an attack on Iran I can see why others do, like the Saudis or the Israelis. Can you understand the principle that while I may not agree with someone I can see why they hold their opinion?Quote:
Originally Posted by Eki
No real evidence for the opposite? If the nuclear project was truly peaceful the Iranians would have no problem whatsoever with IAEA inspections. Nor would Iran be rejecting diplomatic proposals which would see them supplied with low enriched uranium which cannot be used in nuclear weapons as long as they stopped enriching uranium themselves which could be producing highly enriched uranium which can only be used in nukes. Nor would Ahmadinejad be making speeches aimed at his domestic audience that talk of the powers that would come only with having nuclear weapons.
Then there is Iran's long history of threatening neighbouring countries on all sides both under the Shah and a policy continued under the Islamic Republic.
Again Eki, you seem to be extremely tolerant of Iran, willing to interprete anything and everything they do in a nice benign light. A little knowledge might be helpful I think.
The Saudis wouldn't act on Israel's behalf? Thats a beautiful one. Don't make me laugh.Quote:
Originally Posted by Eki
Who blocked any attempt to broker peace between Israel and Hisbullah a few years back in a vain attempt to buy the Israelis more time to finish the job? Who helps the Israelis keep Hamas strangled in Gaza by cutting off funds and shipments together with Egypt?
I think you need to look at whats actually going on on the ground instead of looking merely at internet headlines. Israel and the Saudis work well together when they have a common enemy.
How about national pride and considering the inspections to be humiliating and an attack against their sovereignty, or distrust? Iraq had problems with IAEA inspections, yet no signs of nuclear weapons were found after the invasion. I doubt the US would let Iranians and North Koreans roam freely in American nuclear facilities.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dylan H
How about my other points? Ignoring them because its inconvenient again?Quote:
Originally Posted by Eki
And why allow IAEA inspections until Iran started the enrichment process? Why is it not an attack on national pride up to that point but unacceptable after?
Many other countries are happy to buy in low enriched uranium because they aren't interested in developing nuclear weapons, not to mention that its actually cheaper to buy in that uranium instead of developing the process yourself. So why does Iran absolutely have to do it itself when it doesn't make financial sense to do so?
And why wouldn't Iran's neighbours not view that entire process with suspicion? Why exactly Eki should countries like Saudi Arabia be reassured with Iran's behaviour?
Not being reassured is healthy, asking the US to bomb Iran is paranoid. Even if Iran is building nuclear weapons, so what? Many countries, including Israel, have nuclear weapons and they have not used them. Actually both Israel and Iran having nukes might stabilize the region. Balance of terror and all that. It worked between the Soviet Union and the US, why not between Iran and Israel?Quote:
Originally Posted by Dylan H
You really are having difficulty coping with the fact that there's more to the Middle East than Israel vs everyone else.Quote:
Originally Posted by Eki
You realise that Saudi and Israel are two different countries right? You also realise that Saudi doesn't have nukes? Are you with me so far? So how exactly are the Saudis going to counteract Iranian nukes if they are threatened with them?
And bear in mind that Iran is the only country to recently actively threaten Saudi Arabia with missile attack.