Ulysses G. Posted January 29, 2012 Share Posted January 29, 2012 Mind boggling rant. Iran are no threat to the UK or The US Talking about a "rant". Of course Iran is a threat to the US and UK. They are trying to develop nuclear weapons, they are threatening other countries and to block the Straits of Hormuz. They are a threat to the whole civilized world. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pedzie Posted January 29, 2012 Share Posted January 29, 2012 Because their values are a threat to western values. Yes, I am talking about Islamo-fascist totalitarian radical Islamic fundamentalist extremism and Iran has shown evidence they are into exporting those values, including in Muslim Thailand. Sorry, no! Mind boggling rant. Iran are no threat to the UK or The US,( although i suppose if they start accepting gold for oil payments that would upset the banksters). No doubt Iran would argue that Western values are a threat to their values. Who are you to decide that The US / Israel should attack Iran because you don't agree with their "values'. Has it ever occured to you that the population in Iran may be quite happy with their "values". Very few people in the West , certainly very few Americans know anything about Iran, only the propaganda BS they are fed by their governments, relayed to them by the tame media. Iran is a vast, sophisticated, educated country with a civilisation going back centuries. What they don't have of course is a Western controlled Central Bank, with Western owned debt, and for obvious reasons have no desire to join this club. If they want to sell THEIR oil to whoever they like and receive payment in gold, up to them. America really has to get over this belief they have that all the oil in the world belongs to them. And if the countries that are sitting on this oil don't like it, well, we are a superpower, we have the biggest bombs, and we will use them if you don't fall into line. This policy is doomed to fail, look at the mess in Libya now, and Iraq. I understand how you feel about hanging homosexuals, and adulterers, of course this is abhorrent to us in the West, but Saudi Arabia, Bahrain etc all have the same values as Iran, why aren't you slavering for The US to attack them too? Because they sell us cheap oil and buy billions of dollars of weapons from us? The US and the UK even sell instruments of torture to these regimes. Rank hypocrisy and double standards. And when it comes to terrorizing people, well, since the end of World War 2 The US has dropped bombs on the people of more than thirty countries, with countless casualties, probably running into millions. Bombing Iran will cause death and destruction, not just there but probably in the wider Middle East as well. The beneficiaries will be bankers and arms manufacturers. As a wise man once said, 'war is a racket'. And if you really do believe that the US has no interest in regime change in Iraq, well, you really are capable of believing six impossible things before breakfast! Good reply.And as I said It's not all about Iran requiring nukes! If Iran and other countries don't want to sell oil in $ then this is bad news for the banksters and could end up disaster for the whole US economoy, the slide of the $ has already begun, the $ not being the worlds reserved currency is the beginning of the demise of America...It's called war, dressed up under many guises tho. Slighly off topic Scott, my apologies. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jingthing Posted January 29, 2012 Share Posted January 29, 2012 (edited) Also, of course, I didn't mean that Iran expects to convert America to their disgusting, barbaric, archaic distorted autocratic version of Islam. They aren't stupid. They'd have to kill us first. Edited January 29, 2012 by Jingthing Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pedzie Posted January 29, 2012 Share Posted January 29, 2012 What I meant, of course, that there is no American appetite for another ten year invasion and occupation of Iran as a copy of Iraq. OF COURSE!!!! there is great desire for regime change in Iran. The hope is the Iranian people themselves will make that come about. People is what's needed JT, as I says why has it not happened yet ? Iranians have access to the internet if they what's happening in Syria then why not do it themselves ?? Maybe they don't want to! Iran of course is a big country and not all people like the regime,..Hopefully in time, that of course is running out very quickly Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jingthing Posted January 29, 2012 Share Posted January 29, 2012 What I meant, of course, that there is no American appetite for another ten year invasion and occupation of Iran as a copy of Iraq. OF COURSE!!!! there is great desire for regime change in Iran. The hope is the Iranian people themselves will make that come about. People is what's needed JT, as I says why has it not happened yet ? Iranians have access to the internet if they what's happening in Syria then why not do it themselves ?? Maybe they don't want to! Iran of course is a big country and not all people like the regime,..Hopefully in time, that of course is running out very quickly It hasn't happened yet. What's going on in Iran isn't that secret. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ulysses G. Posted January 29, 2012 Share Posted January 29, 2012 This week The Institute for Science and International security stated, ' Iran has no capability to produce weapons grade uranium and cannot produce a nuclear bomb'. The IAEA says otherwise. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pedzie Posted January 29, 2012 Share Posted January 29, 2012 This week The Institute for Science and International security stated, ' Iran has no capability to produce weapons grade uranium and cannot produce a nuclear bomb'. The IAEA says otherwise. Even if Iran did produce a nuclear weapon do you's really think it would ready-aim-fire straight at Israel ? Ensuring the complete destruction of Iran in the process! They still should't have a bomb, but if they do achieve it then I'm sure it will be used as a deterrent. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jingthing Posted January 29, 2012 Share Posted January 29, 2012 ...And in common with others on here, i would appreciate it if you stopped quoting one liners from my post. ... People, PLEASE stop complaining about people using snippets. Doing so is perfectly OK and "legal" here on the forum. I suggest using ellipses though to indicate that there was text before and/or after. Of course, if you use snippets maliciously to deliberately distort intentions and meanings, that's another matter, but most typically it's just a matter of focusing on a specific PART of a post. Thus, its a brevity feature and benefit to use snippets. So you're complaining about a GOOD thing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jingthing Posted January 29, 2012 Share Posted January 29, 2012 (edited) This week The Institute for Science and International security stated, ' Iran has no capability to produce weapons grade uranium and cannot produce a nuclear bomb'. The IAEA says otherwise. Even if Iran did produce a nuclear weapon do you's really think it would ready-aim-fire straight at Israel ? Ensuring the complete destruction of Iran in the process! They still should't have a bomb, but if they do achieve it then I'm sure it will be used as a deterrent. Your assurances are creating a feeling of comfort and fuzziness among Iran's enemies. Hey, some Iran apologist on thaivisa forum said there was no downside to Iran going nuclear! Oh, OK! Never mind. Edited January 29, 2012 by Jingthing Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ulysses G. Posted January 29, 2012 Share Posted January 29, 2012 ...And in common with others on here, i would appreciate it if you stopped quoting one liners from my post. ... People, PLEASE stop complaining about people using snippets. Doing so is perfectly OK and "legal" here on the forum. I suggest using ellipses though to indicate that there was text before and/or after. Of course, if you use snippets maliciously to deliberately distort intentions and meanings, that's another matter, but most typically it's just a matter of focusing on a specific PART of a post. Thus, its a brevity feature and benefit to use snippets. So you're complaining about a GOOD thing. Of course. No one is under any obligation to quote a bunch of silly, extraneous spin unless they want to reply to it for some strange reason. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
midas Posted January 29, 2012 Share Posted January 29, 2012 Mind boggling rant. Iran are no threat to the UK or The US Talking about a "rant". Of course Iran is a threat to the US and UK. They are trying to develop nuclear weapons, they are threatening other countries and to block the Straits of Hormuz. They are a threat to the whole civilized world. what a load of codswallop.and if US and UK stopped wiping the ar*es another certain group of people I think you would find any so-called threat to anyone else would miraculously disappear. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ulysses G. Posted January 29, 2012 Share Posted January 29, 2012 I suggest using ellipses though to indicate that there was text before and/or after. I have been warned for doing that before. One can reply to what they wish to reply to, but can not add anything to change the post. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Exsexyman Posted January 29, 2012 Share Posted January 29, 2012 ...And in common with others on here, i would appreciate it if you stopped quoting one liners from my post. ... People, PLEASE stop complaining about people using snippets. Doing so is perfectly OK and "legal" here on the forum. I suggest using ellipses though to indicate that there was text before and/or after. Of course, if you use snippets maliciously to deliberately distort intentions and meanings, that's another matter, but most typically it's just a matter of focusing on a specific PART of a post. Thus, its a brevity feature and benefit to use snippets. So you're complaining about a GOOD thing. Congratulations on yo0ur appointment as moderator! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jingthing Posted January 29, 2012 Share Posted January 29, 2012 (edited) I suggest using ellipses though to indicate that there was text before and/or after. I have been warned for doing that before. One can reply to what they wish to reply to, but can not add anything to change the post. I think there must have been something more to it. I have used ellipses for years in this way. It is a courtesy to indicate that you have NOT included all the text. My guess now is that you may have cut a sentence, or actually DID blatantly distort a meaning. Edited January 29, 2012 by Jingthing Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ulysses G. Posted January 29, 2012 Share Posted January 29, 2012 Even if Iran did produce a nuclear weapon do you's really think it would ready-aim-fire straight at Israel ? I would not be very suprised if they did. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pedzie Posted January 29, 2012 Share Posted January 29, 2012 (edited) This week The Institute for Science and International security stated, ' Iran has no capability to produce weapons grade uranium and cannot produce a nuclear bomb'. The IAEA says otherwise. Even if Iran did produce a nuclear weapon do you's really think it would ready-aim-fire straight at Israel ? Ensuring the complete destruction of Iran in the process! They still should't have a bomb, but if they do achieve it then I'm sure it will be used as a deterrent. Your assurances are creating a feeling of comfort and fuzziness among Iran's enemies. Hey, some Iran apologist on thaivisa forum said there was no downside to Iran going nuclear! Oh, OK! Never mind. Ok JT. Say the US does use this new bomb on Iranian nuke plants. What would be the response from Iran. They have the ability to severely disrupt oil flow the Hormuz straights (disrupting oil flow to the west) That means higher pump prices for all of us! Iran could attack Israel. More countries getting involved like Russia/China. The end result a complete attack on Iran and possible confrontation with Russia/China. What a scary thought! Edited January 29, 2012 by Pedzie Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scott Posted January 29, 2012 Share Posted January 29, 2012 One post with inflammatory remarks directed at another poster has been deleted. If it continues, suspensions will be issued. Discussion of the economics related to Iran, it's oil, currency exchange etc.. is on-topic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ulysses G. Posted January 29, 2012 Share Posted January 29, 2012 I suggest using ellipses though to indicate that there was text before and/or after. I have been warned for doing that before. One can reply to what they wish to reply to, but can not add anything to change the post. I think there must have been something more to it. I have used ellipses for years in this way. A lot of things are usually tolerated, but are actually against the rules when someone decides to enforce them. I have been warned about this specifically before. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Exsexyman Posted January 29, 2012 Share Posted January 29, 2012 ...And in common with others on here, i would appreciate it if you stopped quoting one liners from my post. ... People, PLEASE stop complaining about people using snippets. Doing so is perfectly OK and "legal" here on the forum. I suggest using ellipses though to indicate that there was text before and/or after. Of course, if you use snippets maliciously to deliberately distort intentions and meanings, that's another matter, but most typically it's just a matter of focusing on a specific PART of a post. Thus, its a brevity feature and benefit to use snippets. So you're complaining about a GOOD thing. Of course. No one is under any obligation to quote a bunch of silly, extraneous spin unless they want to reply to it for some strange reason. Lack of content duly noted. I also note with interest that you haven't responded to the point about who carries out the largest amount of bombings / killings. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scott Posted January 29, 2012 Share Posted January 29, 2012 Another off-topic post has been deleted. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jingthing Posted January 29, 2012 Share Posted January 29, 2012 Ok JT. Say the US does use this new bomb on Iranian nuke plants. What would be the response from Iran. They have the ability to severely disrupt oil flow the Hormuz straights (disrupting oil flow to the west) That means higher pump prices for all of us! Iran could attack Israel. More countries getting involved like Russia/China. The end result a complete attack on Iran and possible confrontation with Russia/China. What a scary thought! I agree war with Iran is a very scary thought! So is Iran with nukes. The USA has clearly decided Iran isn't going to have nukes. I support that decision. Now it is up to Iran to decide if they want to invite an attack by going ahead. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ulysses G. Posted January 29, 2012 Share Posted January 29, 2012 What a scary thought! All correct, but Iran having nuclear weapons is even scarier. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pedzie Posted January 29, 2012 Share Posted January 29, 2012 Ok JT. Say the US does use this new bomb on Iranian nuke plants. What would be the response from Iran. They have the ability to severely disrupt oil flow the Hormuz straights (disrupting oil flow to the west) That means higher pump prices for all of us! Iran could attack Israel. More countries getting involved like Russia/China. The end result a complete attack on Iran and possible confrontation with Russia/China. What a scary thought! I agree war with Iran is a very scary thought! So is Iran with nukes. The USA has clearly decided Iran isn't going to have nukes. I support that decision. Now it is up to Iran to decide if they want to invite an attack by going ahead. Diplomacy isn't working with Iran, correct but blowing up it's nuke plants isn't the answer. More should be done by the UN and all other people concerned, even the Chinese/Russians should be more active in the process of getting Iran away from nukes. It would be in both countries interests to not have this current situation...Sadly it's all going one way, and that won't benefit 1 singe person in the world! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
philw Posted January 29, 2012 Share Posted January 29, 2012 (edited) When they do strike Iran will they just go for the nuke sites or try take out the Iranian leadership also ? IMO, if they have to do it, they should just take out the Nuke sites and any Iranian forces that are necessary to accomplish the mission. No more nation building. Israel took out the nuclear weapons capability of Iran and Syrian this way and put a permanent stop to their programs. Ulysses G, why do they have to do it ?? Why do you want to be a war monger ??? Is there not already enough insanity in the world. If Iran has a nuclear device, so what ?? If they even come close to using it, they know they will be immediately flattened, Edited January 29, 2012 by sbk personal attack removed 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scott Posted January 29, 2012 Share Posted January 29, 2012 Snipping a post is acceptable, unless it is malicious or used in such a way to distort the meaning of the post. I find it quite annoying when quotes start taking up a huge amount of space, followed by a short response, but no idea exactly what you are responding to. It's also a good idea NOT to quote posts which have a good chance of getting deleted. I try to edit out deleted remarks, but when there are multiple quotes and long quotes, it's too difficult and they get deleted. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jingthing Posted January 29, 2012 Share Posted January 29, 2012 MAD presupposes rational players. Sorry, the religious fanatics in charge of Iran don't qualify. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
philw Posted January 29, 2012 Share Posted January 29, 2012 (edited) Ok JT. Say the US does use this new bomb on Iranian nuke plants. What would be the response from Iran. They have the ability to severely disrupt oil flow the Hormuz straights (disrupting oil flow to the west) That means higher pump prices for all of us! Iran could attack Israel. More countries getting involved like Russia/China. The end result a complete attack on Iran and possible confrontation with Russia/China. What a scary thought! I agree war with Iran is a very scary thought! So is Iran with nukes. The USA has clearly decided Iran isn't going to have nukes. I support that decision. Now it is up to Iran to decide if they want to invite an attack by going ahead. Let them have nukes, why not ?? Any first use would result in the immediate destruction of their country and they know it. They are actually the people being threatened by Israeli / Western interests, not the other way round. Seems to me that there are many on here who relish a war but they are too old or sexually stereotyped to actually fight it. Send in the boys, is getting a bit dated these days. And, why should USA have the, to their belief, the god given right to say which country has what or can do whatever ?? Try disemboweling the French nuclear defence or the Pakistanis and Indians. Doubt if USA would have the stomach for that. Edited January 29, 2012 by philw 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pedzie Posted January 29, 2012 Share Posted January 29, 2012 What a scary thought! All correct, but Iran having nuclear weapons is even scarier. I would say Pakistan (how volatile it is) Also North Korea are both more dangerous than Iran having a nuke, It's weird how the US & allies haven't blown up the above mentioned countries arsenal yet ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jingthing Posted January 29, 2012 Share Posted January 29, 2012 What a scary thought! All correct, but Iran having nuclear weapons is even scarier. I would say Pakistan (how volatile it is) Also North Korea are both more dangerous than Iran having a nuke, It's weird how the US & allies haven't blown up the above mentioned countries arsenal yet ? Clue -- they've ALREADY got them! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sbk Posted January 29, 2012 Share Posted January 29, 2012 Inflammatory baiting post edited, it is possible to have a civil debate without personally attacking another member. Try it, you might find you like it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.png.3b3332cc2256ad0edbc2fe9404feeef0.png)
Recommended Posts