Home Politics & Debate
If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.

India joins in Nuke testing!

2

Comments

  • Teh_GerbilTeh_Gerbil Posts: 13,332 Born on Earth, Raised by The Mix
    luke88 wrote:
    America has not threatened to wipe a country off the map - that's the fundamental difference.

    :lol:

    Are you really so ignorant?

    Are you even AWARE how FUCKING CLOSE Nuclear War was in Vietnam? The US high command was about one incy little step away from pressing that button in the battle of Hue City, and continuosly afterwards. REGARDLESS of their own troops on the ground.

    They though that if they lost the war, it would really be worth another nuke. And in '91 Saddam nearly got it.

    The Soviets nearly got it.

    Indeed, their has actually been word that a small tactical nuke may be a possibility if their is furthur destabilisation in the middle east. Although I bet that is just some idiots... I doubt that'll happen to be fair, can't contaminate the oil.

    Plus, the only thing that has ever held the US back - The Russkies have more nukes than them. And the Chinese. And indeed, a fair few other nations.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    luke88 wrote:
    Yes I am aware of the on going conflicts..... so tell me... show me the evidence where India and Pakistan have threatened each other in the same form as Iran has threatened Israel.
    See? This shows how light your grasp of things is. You base your judgements on life and current affairs based on the rantings of tabloids and certain political parties and think tanks you happen to agree with.

    Every expert in the world (as well as every balanced and impartial casual observer) will tell you that India and Pakistan have endured several wars including a low-level constant conflict in Kashmir and are in a permanent state of confrontation and high tension. The risk of nuclear holocaust is very real, and actually almost came to be 2 or 3 years ago.

    Every expert in the world (as well as every balanced and impartial casual observer) will also tell you that the President of Iran's rantings are nothing more than propaganda bullish talk designed to play to the masses and that there is more chance of Gary Glitter being given a knighthood than of Iran actually attempting to "wipe Israel off the map".
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Teh_Gerbil wrote:
    :lol:

    Are you really so ignorant?

    Are you even AWARE how FUCKING CLOSE Nuclear War was in Vietnam? The US high command was about one incy little step away from pressing that button in the battle of Hue City, and continuosly afterwards. REGARDLESS of their own troops on the ground.

    They though that if they lost the war, it would really be worth another nuke. And in '91 Saddam nearly got it.

    The Soviets nearly got it.

    Indeed, their has actually been word that a small tactical nuke may be a possibility if their is furthur destabilisation in the middle east. Although I bet that is just some idiots... I doubt that'll happen to be fair, can't contaminate the oil.

    Plus, the only thing that has ever held the US back - The Russkies have more nukes than them. And the Chinese. And indeed, a fair few other nations.

    Have you a source for plans for use of nuclear weapons in Vietnam - not the ravings of delusional madmen who had no power on whether to order a nuclear strike, but senior generals or politicians.

    Again in 1991 have you any source for plans for a first use nuclear strike? (Again not in retaliation for Saddam using WMDs against us which has pretty much been US and UK policy in all wars - though Iraq was only one's it's really been mentioned as they were the only recent wars we have fought where the opposition had WMDs)
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Aladdin wrote:
    See? This shows how light your grasp of things is. You base your judgements on life and current affairs based on the rantings of tabloids and certain political parties and think tanks you happen to agree with.

    Every expert in the world (as well as every balanced and impartial casual observer) will tell you that India and Pakistan have endured several wars including a low-level constant conflict in Kashmir and are in a permanent state of confrontation and high tension. The risk of nuclear holocaust is very real, and actually almost came to be 2 or 3 years ago.

    Every expert in the world (as well as every balanced and impartial casual observer) will also tell you that the President of Iran's rantings are nothing more than propaganda bullish talk designed to play to the masses and that there is more chance of Gary Glitter being given a knighthood than of Iran actually attempting to "wipe Israel off the map".

    Nope - experts are divided on Iran. Most put it as a low chance, but very few seem to write it of altogether. Given that the effects would be catstrophic (at the very least millions dead) you can see why people are pretty worried about it.

    Whilst I'd agree that India/Pakistan are in a state of low-level conflict (and indeed have several times gone uo to high level conflict) there arguments are basically border disputes. Both India and Pakistan accept the others right to exist - they argue where the border should be drawn. Now, there is a risk of a nuclear exchange, but its not particually greater than the risk of a nuclear conflict between Iran and Israel (in which one state doesn't recognise the right of the other to exist and has been constantly funding actions against it).
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I'd say the risk between India and Pakistan is infinitely greater.

    Then again I've always believed in judging people by their actions not their words. Especially when the words in question are clearly worthless rethoric and bravado.

    The only people who claim there is any real danger from Iran are Israel itself (which you could understand its concern, but also see that they're taking full advantage of the comments just as they do of all the Hamas charter nonsense) and Republicans in the US- who needless to say have their own agenda.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Aladdin wrote:
    I'd say the risk between India and Pakistan is infinitely greater.

    Then again I've always believed in judging people by their actions not their words. Especially when the words in question are clearly worthless rethoric and bravado.

    Unfortunately so do I
    Where does Hamas’ money come from?
    Given its recent electoral victory to lead the PA, Hamas will now have public funds at its disposal. Historically, much of Hamas' funding has come from Palestinian expatriates and private donors in Saudi Arabia and other oil-rich Persian Gulf states. Iran also provides significant support, which some diplomats say could amount to $20 million to $30 million per year. In addition, some Muslim charities in the United States, Canada, and Western Europe funnel money into Hamas-backed social service groups. In December 2001, the Bush administration seized the assets of the Holy Land Foundation, the largest Muslim charity in the United States, on suspicions it was funding Hamas.

    http://www.cfr.org/publication/8968/#10

    That together with the rhetoric means that if I was an Israeli policy maker I'd would be concerned.

    There is a risk that Iran might use any nuclear weapons - howver small - and if we can remove that that risk without getting ourselves into a nuclear war we should. At the end of the day I'd much rather Iran gives up its nuclear testing by diplomacy and economic measures. However given that the cost of you being wrong and Iran using its weapons is so such a high one I accept that if all else fails it has to be a military response.

    At the end of the day its all theory - if the US doesn't act Israel will. Common sense dictates it.
  • Teh_GerbilTeh_Gerbil Posts: 13,332 Born on Earth, Raised by The Mix
    NQA wrote:
    Have you a source for plans for use of nuclear weapons in Vietnam - not the ravings of delusional madmen who had no power on whether to order a nuclear strike, but senior generals or politicians.

    A few ex-top level officials have said that they were worried if the war in Vietnam were lost, the spread of Communism would be unstopable and as such, major action may have to have been taken to prevent this. E.g: "Winning" Vietnam with nukes.

    I guess enough damage was done with Agent Orange to satisfy them anyway. Obviously, there will never be any official recognition of this. All we can count on are leaks.
    NQA wrote:
    Again in 1991 have you any source for plans for a first use nuclear strike? (Again not in retaliation for Saddam using WMDs against us which has pretty much been US and UK policy in all wars - though Iraq was only one's it's really been mentioned as they were the only recent wars we have fought where the opposition had WMDs)

    In '91 they though maybe if Saddam had the capabilities we should just obliterate the whole of Iraq, as an invasion would give him time to launch such WMDs. A nuke would pretty well prevent this. Once again - they aren't going to come out and admit this, are they? Leaks and espionage are the only way we can know. It makes sense though - a small nuclear device could prevent any WMD launch from a country. And/or obliterate its armed forces and cause choas.

    Obviously we aren't talking SUPER HUGE NUKE. Something small that won't cause the apocalypse but will destory a country. Bear in mind, Iraq still had the third largest armed forces in the world at this time. Quite formidable.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Teh_Gerbil wrote:
    A few ex-top level officials have said that they were worried if the war in Vietnam were lost, the spread of Communism would be unstopable and as such, major action may have to have been taken to prevent this. E.g: "Winning" Vietnam with nukes.

    I guess enough damage was done with Agent Orange to satisfy them anyway. Obviously, there will never be any official recognition of this. All we can count on are leaks..

    can I have a source still. I'm not neccessarily disputing, but without a source you can't tell who these officials were, what they knew and whether they're talking about Nixon in a bad mood saying 'We ought to nuke these fucking commies' or a Pentagon planning paper which goes all the way to discussing exact targets and yields.
    In '91 they though maybe if Saddam had the capabilities we should just obliterate the whole of Iraq, as an invasion would give him time to launch such WMDs. A nuke would pretty well prevent this. Once again - they aren't going to come out and admit this, are they? Leaks and espionage are the only way we can know. It makes sense though - a small nuclear device could prevent any WMD launch from a country. And/or obliterate its armed forces and cause choas.

    Obviously we aren't talking SUPER HUGE NUKE. Something small that won't cause the apocalypse but will destory a country. Bear in mind, Iraq still had the third largest armed forces in the world at this time. Quite formidable

    So what you're trying to say if you don't have a source for this, but basically you think this would happen. To be honest its hardly conclusive evidence - whilst it might make sense at a very basic level there's probably a few points against it.

    1) the US allies and friends in the region, such as Turkey, Saudi, etc are hardly likely to be endeared to the US if there's radioactive dustclouds floating around.

    2) Its hardly likely to win world opinion and if you look at the politics going on behind the scene world opinion was very important to Bush senior.

    3) whilst the media was bigging up the casualties the military planners felt they'd be a lot less. they correctly sumrised that Iraq's forces were a paper tiger

    4) No nuclear weapon was used.
  • Teh_GerbilTeh_Gerbil Posts: 13,332 Born on Earth, Raised by The Mix
    NQA wrote:
    can I have a source still. I'm not neccessarily disputing, but without a source you can't tell who these officials were, what they knew and whether they're talking about Nixon in a bad mood saying 'We ought to nuke these fucking commies' or a Pentagon planning paper which goes all the way to discussing exact targets and yields.

    Surley it is obvious why these people want to stay annanamous? I can't remember where I got this from - But I belive some of the targets were Hue, because at the time it was discussed they were still having trouble recapturing it, and nuking the Ho Chi Mihn trail to once and for all stop the weapons supply. Thats what I can remember...
    NQA wrote:
    So what you're trying to say if you don't have a source for this, but basically you think this would happen. To be honest its hardly conclusive evidence - whilst it might make sense at a very basic level there's probably a few points against it.

    1) the US allies and friends in the region, such as Turkey, Saudi, etc are hardly likely to be endeared to the US if there's radioactive dustclouds floating around.

    2) Its hardly likely to win world opinion and if you look at the politics going on behind the scene world opinion was very important to Bush senior.

    3) whilst the media was bigging up the casualties the military planners felt they'd be a lot less. they correctly sumrised that Iraq's forces were a paper tiger

    4) No nuclear weapon was used.

    Indeed - probably why it wasn't used. Iraq's forces never put up a real fight as you would expect them to. Only thing they can claim is the first A2A kill - and that poor old MiG-25 was later shot down itself.

    Sources - as above. I can' name names, there aren't any. They would be quite arrested if they were. Indeed, I can't remember where I found it. I read books and reports and browse all over the web. Much as I would love to add every site to my favourites, it is a bit impractical. I am also aware much of the net is very untrue.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Teh_Gerbil wrote:
    Surley it is obvious why these people want to stay annanamous? I can't remember where I got this from - But I belive some of the targets were Hue, because at the time it was discussed they were still having trouble recapturing it, and nuking the Ho Chi Mihn trail to once and for all stop the weapons supply. Thats what I can remember....

    I'm not asking for names and addresses I'm asking the source where you got it from. Unless you've got links into the Pentagon I'm assuming that you've heard it from an open source, but until I know what that source is and can take a view on it its got to remain unproven. If its comes from the Daily Mirror or even worse a posting on someones blog from its probably less an impeccable source than if if was from an paper published by RUSI.

    Indeed - probably why it wasn't used. Iraq's forces never put up a real fight as you would expect them to. Only thing they can claim is the first A2A kill - and that poor old MiG-25 was later shot down itself.

    Sources - as above. I can' name names, there aren't any. They would be quite arrested if they were. Indeed, I can't remember where I found it. I read books and reports and browse all over the web. Much as I would love to add every site to my favourites, it is a bit impractical. I am also aware much of the net is very untrue

    the trouble is without sources we're struggling to be able to see how serious it was. Now I have some sympathy with being unable to find them, because I can be the same. Unfortunately if you can't source or at least show where you got it from it makes it hard for anyone to prove or disprove your claim.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    NQA wrote:
    Unfortunately so do I



    http://www.cfr.org/publication/8968/#10

    That together with the rhetoric means that if I was an Israeli policy maker I'd would be concerned.
    What's wrong nations with donating money to Hamas, any more than giving money to the Israeli government?

    Hamas is what has kept tens of thousands of Palestinians alive for years. There is a lot more to Hamas than the fighting the Israelis- even though They wouldn't want you to know that.

    Seeing as as the US has been given more money to Israel than any other country can we also be concerned about this and call the US the biggest sponsor of state terrorism in human history, or attack it immediately to disarm it of the nuclear weapons it has?
    There is a risk that Iran might use any nuclear weapons - howver small - and if we can remove that that risk without getting ourselves into a nuclear war we should. At the end of the day I'd much rather Iran gives up its nuclear testing by diplomacy and economic measures. However given that the cost of you being wrong and Iran using its weapons is so such a high one I accept that if all else fails it has to be a military response.

    At the end of the day its all theory - if the US doesn't act Israel will. Common sense dictates it.
    Do you also accept there is a risk however small that Israel will one day use nukes, and as such we should remove their nukes by any means possible? Same scenario.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Aladdin wrote:
    What's wrong nations with donating money to Hamas?

    Hamas is what has kept tens of thousands of Palestinians alive for years. There is a lot more to Hamas than the fighting against the Israelis- even though they wouldn't want you to know that.

    Seeing as as the US has been given more money to Israel than any other country can we also be concerned about this and call the US the biggest sponsor of state terrorism in human history, or attack it immediately to disarm it of the nuclear weapons it has?.

    Yes, but a fair bit of their function is suicide bombs in shopping centres. I know you think Hamas are part of the solution, but they're part of the problem (and probably the biggest part)

    Do you also accept there is a risk however small that Israel will one day use nukes, and as such we should remove their nukes by any means possible? Same scenario

    yep, in theory if you can find a way to remove them without them letting them off, same for China, Russia, France etc. Its a lot more difficult once a country has nukes, which is why if we have a chance to remove them beforehand we should
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    NQA wrote:
    Yes, but a fair bit of their function is suicide bombs in shopping centres. I know you think Hamas are part of the solution, but they're part of the problem (and probably the biggest part)
    I don't think Hamas are part of the solution. But I find the selective demonisation of certain parties in the conflict laughable. There is nothing to separate Hamas from the Israeli government. Nothing at all. To suggest Iran poses a greater risk of engaging in nuclear war because it gives money to Hamas makes as much sense as suggesting the US is because it gives money to the Israeli government.

    yep, in theory if you can find a way to remove them without them letting them off, same for China, Russia, France etc. Its a lot more difficult once a country has nukes, which is why if we have a chance to remove them beforehand we should
    Well I guess you and I will have to disagree there. Whereas I don't like proliferation of nuclear weapons I think history has proven the use of force as an extension of policy is counterproductive in just about 100% of cases in the mid and long term. What do you think it is going to happen to the already shattered relations between the 1bn Muslims in the world and the Western powers if they see that, for the seven hundred millionth time, the West applies one law to Israel and another to everyone else?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Aladdin wrote:
    I don't think Hamas are part of the solution. But I find the selective demonisation of certain parties in the conflict laughable. There is nothing to separate Hamas from the Israeli government. Nothing at all. To suggest Iran poses a greater risk of engaging in nuclear war because it gives money to Hamas makes as much sense as suggesting the US is because it gives money to the Israeli government.

    Actually I find suggestions of selective demonsiation quite ironic considering my view has always been both sides are to blame, whereas yours seems to be that Israel is solely to blame. If you can point to where an israeli Government spokesman has said Iran ought to be wiped of the map I'm more than willing to change my view on the relative risks. However, whilst it may be rhetoric it remains rhetoric that its hard to ignore - especially for a state which several times in the last sixty years has been attacked by its neighbours.
    Well I guess you and I will have to disagree there. Whereas I don't like proliferation of nuclear weapons I think history has proven the use of force as an extension of policy is counterproductive in just about 100% of cases in the mid and long term. What do you think it is going to happen to the already shattered relations between the 1bn Muslims in the world and the Western powers if they see that, for the seven hundred millionth time, the West applies one law to Israel and another to everyone else

    History has proven no such thing. Apart from the inability of history to proove anything (unless its possible to see alternative futures all history shows us is what happened with one action not what would have happended if that action hadn't taken place).

    Nor at times can you deal with foreign policy in the mid or long term, often it has to be short term, because if you can't deal with the short term there is no medium or long term. So yes, it may cause Israel medium and long-term problems - what you fail to see is that any intelligent policy maker has no option, but to do so.

    And giving how much Iran is disliked by many Moslems you will get active support from some, neutrality from others and hatred from the last group. trouble is that those who hate us already do and not just for your glib explanations. We could of course make everyone in the world love us - unfortunately the price for that is rather high - especially if you're Jewish, a woman, a moderate Moslem, rather like the odd drink etc.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    NQA wrote:
    Actually I find suggestions of selective demonsiation quite ironic considering my view has always been both sides are to blame, whereas yours seems to be that Israel is solely to blame. If you can point to where an israeli Government spokesman has said Iran ought to be wiped of the map I'm more than willing to change my view on the relative risks. However, whilst it may be rhetoric it remains rhetoric that its hard to ignore - especially for a state which several times in the last sixty years has been attacked by its neighbours.
    You might have said both sides are to blame, but I don't recall you saying the US cannot be trusted with nukes because it gives money to the Israeli government.


    History has proven no such thing. Apart from the inability of history to proove anything (unless its possible to see alternative futures all history shows us is what happened with one action not what would have happended if that action hadn't taken place).

    Nor at times can you deal with foreign policy in the mid or long term, often it has to be short term, because if you can't deal with the short term there is no medium or long term.
    A rather dramatic proposition- and one that the Israelis and the Americans have used in the past when committing illegal acts of aggression, and would no doubt use again if they were commit yet another such act against Iran.

    Most people don't buy it. You could in fact justify just about anything on that premises. Hell, for all we know the Iranian President thinks Israel will in the long term nuke Iran to nothingness and that is why is advocating wiping it off the map now.
    So yes, it may cause Israel medium and long-term problems - what you fail to see is that any intelligent policy maker has no option, but to do so.
    Oh there are plenty of other options. It could for instance try to be pragmatic and make peace with its neighbours- practically all of them including Hamas having said they would be prepared to accept the existence of Israel officially and to make peace in exchange for a full withdrawal from occupied Palestine. So far all such offers have been rejected by Israel.
    And giving how much Iran is disliked by many Moslems you will get active support from some, neutrality from others and hatred from the last group. trouble is that those who hate us already do and not just for your glib explanations. We could of course make everyone in the world love us - unfortunately the price for that is rather high - especially if you're Jewish, a woman, a moderate Moslem, rather like the odd drink etc.
    What are you trying to say? That unless we bomb Iran and prevent it from (possibly) acquiring a few nukes of its own those pesky Muslims will embark in the conquest of the world and kill/forcibly convert all those sinners and unbelievers?

    Even those people who hate the Iranian regime will have a very dim view of another act of war perpetrated by the West or Israel. Which is exactly what happened only 3 years ago with the not-terribly-popular-either regime of Saddam Hussein. People in the region and indeed the world are not as superficial and shallow as they might appear. And two wrongs certainly don't make a right, especially when yet a different wrong is continuing to be allowed
    to happen, now nearly in its fifth decade in the single most appalling exercise of double standards in human history.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/5186328.stm

    So India is going to be allowed nulear technology cos its friends with the USA. The USA has such double standards it hurts.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Renzo wrote:
    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/5186328.stm

    So India is going to be allowed nulear technology cos its friends with the USA. The USA has such double standards it hurts.
    Agreed entirely. Make no mistake - by allowing this, George W. Bush is making the world a more dangerous place for decades to come. What a stupid, misguided man he is.
  • Teh_GerbilTeh_Gerbil Posts: 13,332 Born on Earth, Raised by The Mix
    Renzo wrote:
    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/5186328.stm

    So India is going to be allowed nulear technology cos its friends with the USA. The USA has such double standards it hurts.

    You wern't supprised... were you?

    Oh well. Pakistan will no doubt have a good reaction planned somewhere. And the situation will escalate more.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Renzo wrote:
    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/5186328.stm

    So India is going to be allowed nulear technology cos its friends with the USA. The USA has such double standards it hurts.
    I'd rather trust India with the bomb than Iran.

    However, nations should be encouraged not to build nuclears.

    But India has nuclear power anyway. Bush is preventing those who do not have nuclear power, from becoming a nuclear power. Because we don't want nuclear wars (that would be clever:impissed: ), nations that wish to develop nuclear i.e Iran cannot be trusted that is why the U.S and the world should prevent them from having it.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Cannot be trusted by whom?

    I trust them as much as I trust any of the existing nuclear powers.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Aladdin wrote:
    Cannot be trusted by whom?

    I trust them as much as I trust any of the existing nuclear powers.
    By the Free world. I.e NOT Iran.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Is Pakistan part of the free world?

    Is China?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Aladdin wrote:
    Is Pakistan part of the free world?

    Is China?
    No and No but they have had nuclear weapans before the current climate.

    Furthermore, none of these have said they want to wipe a country off the map, as ooposed to Iran.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    And yet they pose an infinitely worse danger than Iran could ever pose.

    It's the dog that doesn't bark you should be aware of.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Aladdin wrote:
    And yet they pose an infinitely worse danger than Iran could ever pose.
    How do they? Which country have they vowed to wipe off the face of the earth? Do they hate one religion?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Iran has not 'vowed' to wipe Israel off the face of the earth.

    It's time you tried to rise above the simplistic neocon school of reasoning and try to read between the lines.

    The President giving a speech at a non-descript political rally addressing a few tossers it's not official policy. It's playing to the masses.

    Not that it stops the Israeli or US governments or the neocons of this worlds from using such remarks for their own ends of course.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I never come in here but I though the thread title said "Indiana Jones in Nuke Testing!" I was like HAHAHAHA.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Aladdin wrote:
    Iran has not 'vowed' to wipe Israel off the face of the earth.

    It's time you tried to rise above the simplistic neocon school of reasoning and try to read between the lines.

    The President giving a speech at a non-descript political rally addressing a few tossers it's not official policy. It's playing to the masses.

    Not that it stops the Israeli or US governments or the neocons of this worlds from using such remarks for their own ends of course.
    You don't say words like that for fun, especially if you're a president.

    Bush has not said he is going to war with Iran but you're quick to accuse him of doing it.

    What's the difference?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Aha!

    The difference Luke is that the US has bombed, attacked or invaded more than 20 countries in the last few decades- and in the immense majority of cases, illegally so.

    Whereas in the same period Iran has attacked, er, zero countries.

    You tell me which country is more likely to attack others.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Aladdin wrote:
    Aha!

    The difference Luke is that the US has bombed, attacked or invaded more than 20 countries in the last few decades- and in the immense majority of cases, illegally so.

    Whereas in the same period Iran has attacked, er, zero countries.

    You tell me which country is more likely to attack others.
    I believe Iran attacks countries indirectly, such as the cuirrent conflict in Israel/lebanon.

    It's a bit fishhy that the country wants to wipe Israel off the map and develop nuclears at the same time. Doesn't take a genius to work that one out.
Sign In or Register to comment.