Thai Government Agree To Sanction Iran

[Khun ?]

555

Just the reading of the back of one of his books would of been a enough to put it down.

The post is a review as I could not of gotten that far reading any of his fiction.

To much more of fact on Norm to bore everyone. He only applies his narrow mindedness

to the ones he chooses to attack mainly westerners.

Edited January 10, 2007 by Khun ?

[Khun ?]

You have not the respect of the hundreds of thousands of U.S. lifes and sacrifices families have made for democracy the world over in the last 60+ years. 500,000 alone for the Chinese and Russians our present day good buddies along with many other nations.

Just what is your experiences, I hope not from a cushy chair and book.

I bet you have never lived under life threatening dangers to protect oppressed others than

maybe Nana or Patpong with a few purples.

You do not have to lecture me on live situations.

[pampal]

Next it will be about Macdonalds, heard it all before, by the way do you have a dollar a man could have. A nice peaceful baht would be ok too.

Khun,

Are you on crack buddy?

Your idiotic posts on this thread are very similar to Bush's idiotic

and disjointed speeches.

Are you related to him somehow?

Edited January 11, 2007 by pampal

[Robski]

That's funny Pampal and quite scary too, but so true.

Khun? post #34

[pampal]

That's funny Pampal and quite scary too, but so true.

Khun? post #34

Cheers Robski,

This guy must a US gov't official or related to Bush somehow.

Maybe we can get him off the crack pipe

Edited January 11, 2007 by pampal

[Robski]

There's an impersonator/comedian in the UK called John Coulshaw, he does a great spoof of Bush.

Reading Khun?s post with Coulshaws' voice in my head.

Edited January 11, 2007 by Robski

[Khun ?]

You and your smartest american since Abe Lincoln. You two are a match made in he-ll

Blind leading the blind. Do nothing and know nothing fellows as is your hero are you.

http://www.newcriterion.com/archive/21/may03/chomsky.htm

Another quality post Khun?

Ahmadinejad Robinski now that is quality, public enemy number one. Hold on let me phone Chuck D.

Really Khun? I don't know what kind of gung ho bs they've been feeding you on, but it's time to wake up the world doesn't hate Americans per se, but it does hate everything the U.S. has inflicted on this world in the last 60 years politically, try tuning in to a different T.V. program now and then or better still try reading a book, or maybe two. How about 'hegemony or survival' by noam chomsky. I know he's a lefty, but what the hel_l he's probably still the smartest American since Abe Lincoln. Try it you might learn something, if any of your redneck buddies see you reading it tell them that it's research, know your enemy and all that. Good luck.

[Robski]

Khun? Am I supposed to be impressed that you found a critique of Noam Chomsky written by a right wing christian ideologue? So what?

Have you read any books yourself?

If you want to carry on with this we will have to keep it on topic, so I'll ask you a question? Do you think a country has the right to defend itself against aggression from another country?

Edited January 11, 2007 by Robski

[MrSnrang]

You know why they did not utter a word when India and Pakistan got nuclear weapons?

Because India and Pakistan don't have any oil or money.

[Khun ?]

Does not make a difference who wrote the review unless the findings are false and if you are a bigot. The facts presented is that the Great Left loser Norm takes others witings and turns it into lies for his own agenda.

Pol Pot his hero and mentor is nice company for the few of you believers.

Yes I believe the displaced Arabs of different faith known as the people of Isreal do have a right to protect it's people from the emminent Nuclear attack from the hostile Iran. Taking away the threat may be done using its allies and other methods with respect to humanity.

( I am not organized religon oriented at all)

Does Taksin the elected government of the people of Thailand have a right to defend

itself from military attackers through the means of the recent bombings.

Don't know, one is probably as corrupt as the other so could be a loss of face either way

which is most important to the country.

Mr Snrang

Who is they and the U.S. is only reponsible for every 3rd or 4th new Nuc country policy.

You would need to find out whom is responsible from the rest of the world about Pak and Ind, could be it's colonizers of past.

[Robski]

Post #34

[texpatriate]

Iran is made into a scapegoat by the US, just like Iraq was a only a few years ago. They have the rights to develop nuclear power as any other coutnry on Earth, inlcuding Thailand, and if they want to keep the US at bay, they'd better develop a bomb, too.

I feel like I wandered into the backpacker forum

Why would a country that has more oil than they know what to do with want to go through the trouble and expense of developing a peaceful nuclear program.Oh wait Iran already announced its nuclear weapons program to the world.

"if they(Thailand) want to keep the US at bay, they'd better develop a bomb, too."

Wow! You need to lay off of those happy shakes, turn off your computer and get out of the house more

-Texpatriate

Edited January 12, 2007 by texpatriate

[Plus]

"if they(Thailand) want to keep the US at bay, they'd better develop a bomb, too."

That's an interesting approach - inserting your own words in other people's quotes and then thrashing them. There was no "(Thailand)" in the original sentence. "They" referred to Iran, not Thailand.

A few posts back someone described Iranian oil industry. It's the oldest in the Middle East, it's been run under full capacity for quite sometime, and Iran is still a big importer of refined products.

There's no future in oil for Iran, EVERY coutnry in the Middle East is weening itself from dependency on oil dollars. Iran wants to build nuclear plants, it's their strategic decision, it's their right.

I don't believe that they are entirely honest with their nuclear program either, but here's the next part of my argument - US is not a large friendly country extending helping hand to Iran. They don't give a shit about democracy and freedom of Iranian people (look how they care about Saudis living under one of the most oppressive regimes around). The US wants Iranian oil and is extremely hostile. Period.

It has violently destroyed two of Iranian neighbours already and everyone knows that Iran is next on the list.

So yes, Iran needs to keep the US at bay. Is there another way of looking at it?

The bomb would give them security, assuming that the US is not stupid enough to start a nuclear war. The alternative is to try and keep up the pace with conventional US army forces. I think the bomb will turn out to be cheaper in the end.

And then there's Israel.

Edited January 12, 2007 by Plus

[ProThaiExpat]

Iran is made into a scapegoat by the US, just like Iraq was a only a few years ago. They have the rights to develop nuclear power as any other coutnry on Earth, inlcuding Thailand, and if they want to keep the US at bay, they'd better develop a bomb, too.

India and Pakistan got their bombs and no one said a thing, top Pakistani scientist was caught selling techonolgy on a black market and no one said a thing.

Iranians are not going to accept a different set of laws for themselves.

Why should Thailand get involved at all? Better to keep low profile and don't make any enemies.

If one isolates the issue to just nuclear power, equity suggests that Iran be left to develope their nuclear program. However, much more is at issue and a regional perpective is needed.

Iran is doing everything in its power to be the dominant force in the middle east and to impose its Sunni religion on the entire area. If your in favor of governments run by religious leaders and allowing Iran's Sunni religion to be imposed on the region, then leaving Iran alone makes sense. The nuclear issue in Iran, in my view, is only a bargaining chip within the international community and containment of Iran is the objective of the western powers.

Containment of Khadafi has been accomplished in a 10 year battle by the U.S., Syria is on the way to being contained, Afghanistan has been done and now its Iran's turn to learn that in the modern age, international thinking requires countries to stay within their own borders, not invade their neighbors and not attempt to establish puppet regimes in others, much as the super powers have done during the colonial era and as the U.S. has done since World War II, or even before.

As a political scientist, I abhor theocracies or oligarcies and the mullahs of Iran have had their dictatorship in place too long and to the detriment of indiviual freedom of Iranians. While I am not in favor of externally imposed regime change, freedom loving people around the world see opression for what it is, whether cloaked in the iron fist of a dictator or the velvet fist of the clergy.

[Plus]

...in the modern age, international thinking requires countries to stay within their own borders, not invade their neighbors and not attempt to establish puppet regimes in others

Errr, what do you mean? That's what the US is doing in the region, not Iran. If you really believe in what you are saying, the US should pack their things and leave the region altogether.

As a political scientist, I abhor theocracies or oligarcies and the mullahs of Iran have had their dictatorship in place too long and to the detriment of indiviual freedom of Iranians. While I am not in favor of externally imposed regime change, freedom loving people around the world see opression for what it is, whether cloaked in the iron fist of a dictator or the velvet fist of the clergy.

You presume that people of Iran want a secular government. What if they don't? What if they want their country to remain islamic? What if they don't want secular movements to destroy their religious foundations? What if ayatollahs are not as hated as the West makes them? The US already made a huge mistake about Iraqis greeting them with flowers.

Even if we think that ayatollahs wouldn't win an outright majority in FAIR elections, removing them and their supporters by outside force doesn't sound "freedom loving" to me.

[Robski]

Who is by far the most actively aggressive in the middle east today? The U.S. closely followed by Israel.

You could measure that in any way you want, total munitions fired on a daily basis would be a good one.

Talking of freedom and democracy might brainwash you into thinking it is worthy, but there are people dying every day without recourse to the justice and freedom that we as westerners hold so dear. Double standards, doubletalk and doublethink.

I'm not anti just for the sake of it, you know this (war on terror) situation works for Arab states too, they also want to keep their population under control by creating fear and panic, it's a deadly game where the prize is ill defined, but the price is murder and mayhem.

[konangrit]

Iran is doing everything in its power to be the dominant force in the middle east and to impose its Sunni religion on the entire area. If your in favor of governments run by religious leaders and allowing Iran's Sunni religion to be imposed on the region, then leaving Iran alone makes sense.

The vast majority of Iranians are Shi'a.Why is the term Shi'ite no longer used? Syrians are mainly Sunni.

Edited January 12, 2007 by konangrit

[pampal]

Quote from ProThaiExpat

If one isolates the issue to just nuclear power, equity suggests that Iran be left to develope their nuclear program. However, much more is at issue and a regional perpective is needed.

Iran is doing everything in its power to be the dominant force in the middle east and to impose its Sunni religion on the entire area. If your in favor of governments run by religious leaders and allowing Iran's Sunni religion to be imposed on the region, then leaving Iran alone makes sense. The nuclear issue in Iran, in my view, is only a bargaining chip within the international community and containment of Iran is the objective of the western powers.

Containment of Khadafi has been accomplished in a 10 year battle by the U.S., Syria is on the way to being contained, Afghanistan has been done and now its Iran's turn to learn that in the modern age, international thinking requires countries to stay within their own borders, not invade their neighbors and not attempt to establish puppet regimes in others, much as the super powers have done during the colonial era and as the U.S. has done since World War II, or even before.

As a political scientist, I abhor theocracies or oligarcies and the mullahs of Iran have had their dictatorship in place too long and to the detriment of indiviual freedom of Iranians. While I am not in favor of externally imposed regime change, freedom loving people around the world see opression for what it is, whether cloaked in the iron fist of a dictator or the velvet fist of the clergy.

Political Scientist Huh?

You refer to Iran as Sunni Muslim whereas they are really Shiite or Shia Muslim. You've got your facts wrong.

Edited January 12, 2007 by pampal

[ProThaiExpat]

Sorry, typing too fast, Iran is Shiite. However, my point of view is not affected by the sect that Iran is trying to dominate with.

My point should be clear that it is the use of religion by the leaders in government that I oppose so greatly, and that doubles for GWB who has used the religous right to diminish many of the freedoms Americans enjoyed before he became President. In doing this, he has placed the country into such a debt posture that it most likely will not ever be as strong economically as it once was.

Prior to the neo-cons in the U.S., containment was generally the policy the State Department advocated and maybe still does, however, with a neo-con president, vice president and defense secretary who believe in a first strike policy, they have diminished the U.S. to the degree it now suffers under.

The moral dilema is do you leave totalitarian and most often murderous dictators in place and just contain them or do you act and try to relieve their long suffering populations. Ramp up a bit and ask the same question about Bosnia and ethnic cleansing. Darrefour, Somalia etc. Doing it collectively through the U.N. doesn't make it any more right morally, it seems to me.

I support a live and let live philosphy but I am troubled by the suffering of so many millions at the hands of tyrants.

[Khun ?]

The beloved Iran leader and a couple of the board poster's in the spread of

twisted facts.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6193183.stm

Read and learn some history.

http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/myths/mf1.html#a

http://www.answers.com/topic/iran-arab-relations

Arab supporters of Iraq war

http://usa.mediamonitors.net/content/view/full/39435

Edited January 12, 2007 by Khun ?

[pampal]

The vast majority of Iranians are Shi'a.Why is the term Shi'ite no longer used? Syrians are mainly Sunni.

The religion is Shia Islam while a believer is a Shiite.

Although they are used in the same manner, this is the correct usage.

[Plus]

The beloved Iran leader and a couple of the board poster's in the spread of

twisted facts.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6193183.stm

Thank you for posting this proof that Iran is not a totally totalitarian country, that there are elections there, and that if Iranian people don't like their leaders, they can boot them out through the ballot box.

Their beloved leaders are not their presidents, btw, it's ayatollahs from Iranian revolution times when shah installed after the US led coup was overthrown.

[ProThaiExpat]

Plus has made my point for me. If the populace is subjected to political rhetoric weekly at the Mosque, how independent and free thinking are the flock when it comes to making decisions at the ballot box.

If one is a believer and the leader of the faith declares something to be true an in God's name, many independent thinkers find it difficult to believe free choice is involved.

I was very much encouraged to read many reports that many Mullahs were seriously thinking about getting out of politics, finding that it interfered with their ability to be proper religious leaders.

I am a firm believer in the political doctrine of separation of church and state, if you haven't figured that out already. So as long as the two are combined in any country, I find the faithful badly goverened.

One only needs to look at almost every conflict in the world today to find the root cause to be sectarian animosity. Northern Ireland much in the past, Bosnia more recently and of course the middle east and Africa. Combine the sectarian animosity with a govenment run by one of the sects and you have a recipe for atrocities, such as Saddam's Iraq.

[jumnien]

It does seem odd for a self-imposed military government like Thailand to sanction a democratically governed country like Iran. Does Myanmar have a history of sanctioning other countries as well?

[Khun ?]

Iraq had democracy Sadam received 108% of the vote

Sorry to say he come in third just below N.Korea with 111%

Ayatollahs who have gods consent and all votes by default.

Edited January 13, 2007 by Khun ?

[Plus]

Plus has made my point for me. If the populace is subjected to political rhetoric weekly at the Mosque, how independent and free thinking are the flock when it comes to making decisions at the ballot box.

It's not like the US population is not subjected to DAILY political rhetoric. Their proclaimed "independence and free thinking" did not stop them from cheering Bush to invade Iran, and then it took them three years to figure out that it was a mistake.

...

I am a firm believer in the political doctrine of separation of church and state, if you haven't figured that out already. So as long as the two are combined in any country, I find the faithful badly goverened.

Maybe the US is due for a regime change then. Born again Christian who won last election on Christian fundamentalists vote - this must be stopped. :D

One only needs to look at almost every conflict in the world today to find the root cause to be sectarian animosity. Northern Ireland much in the past, Bosnia more recently and of course the middle east and Africa. Combine the sectarian animosity with a govenment run by one of the sects and you have a recipe for atrocities, such as Saddam's Iraq.

It's exactly that kind of view that makes muslims think that their faith is under attack and Bush is the new Crusader. What do Iranians make of that? That the US is not only after their oil, but they should renounce islam as well? Saddam's was a secular government, btw

All of this makes a rather poor pretext for the war in Iran (and that's where we are heading). We don't hear about Iranians gassing their own people and summarily execting them. The human rights situation does not warrant a war there. If the US wants to protect people's rights (and lives), it should probably occupy Darfur first.

Maybe it's all about oil, not democracy.