Hello There, Guest!

Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Nobel Peace Prize
#21
ibofightback Wrote:Well, the "hidden" base part of it is debatable. Depending on how you interpret their agreements they weren't necessarily required to report something under construction. Frankly I think it's for the same type of game Hussein was playing. Hussein wanted his enemy - Iran - to think he had nuclear weapons so they'd be scared of him, while at the same time letting inspectors have access to know he didn't. Iran, or rather Ahmadinejad, is perhaps doing the same, probably with Israel in mind - a country that has explicitly threatened to attack Iran and has already ignored international law in developing their own nuclear weapons. Not to forget that posturing and bluff is a major part of arab culture and psyche.

Interesting point here. Perhaps you are correct with the posturing and chest puffing.

Quote:Apart from the "posturing" comments above, and the fact that what Ahmadinejad actually said isn't what is claimed, Israel and the US have made much more explicit threats against Iran than Iran has against anyone else. Shouldn't Iran be far more concerned about them than the reverse? Indeed, wouldn't such threats encourage someone to develop a nuclear deterrent? Both Israel and the US have launched attacks on other countries in modern history and explictly threatened Iran with attack - Iran has done neither. If you are to be true to your logic about "threats" you should be far more critical of the US and Israel than of Iran.

The USA aside. Israel has a history in the region. Having to both posture and show physical might. As Michman said, I think they have shown restraint over the recent developments in Iran. They have the ability to air strike anything in Iran, yet they haven't, albeit from pressure from the US and other countries.

To my knowledge, even when Bush was in office, there were not direct threats to any specific country. Only those that harbored terrorists. Now, calling Iran and North Korea an axis of evil, was probably a bit much, but really wasn't a threat. Sure did hinder negotiations and such...but that is in the past. Our current president has even said, with regards to Iran and their nuclear program, "all options are on the table". Not a threat directly, but a pretty good warning.

Quote:
Quote:If this were really true IBOFB, why have they and continue to deny UN inspectors to visit their facilities?

Huh? They haven't. What are you talking about? UN inspectors have full access to Iran facilities, including the one still under constructions in Qum.
From your favorite media source. <!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/08/20/iran-lifts-ban-allows-un_n_264484.html">http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/08/2 ... 64484.html</a><!-- m --> It states there was a year long ban on UN inspectors. Prior to that ban, they were very limited in what and where they could investigate. More promising however, it does say they are now allowing more sites to be investigated. So that is a good thing, I hope.

Quote:How many Iranians do you know TB2IBO? I have them in my downline, and they travel to Tehran regularly. You are right that they are substantially different thinking than the regime, particularly the youth. They also know how their government actually operates, understand the culture, and also actually understand what is said in Arabic and Persian! As much as they would like their government to go, and to have more freedom, they do not believe they are a threat to anyone except their own people.
Actually I know just a couple Iranians. They said the same thing you have above. They were in the demonstrations against the "cooked" elections in Iran.

Quote:
Quote:He would get violent on occasions. Also, I didn't say Israel was acting like a door mat, I was just proposing the question. Say they were to turn the other cheek, when would enough be enough? It would start with the Palestinians, catering to their every whim, then the Syrians, Jordanians...and so on and so on. Giving concessions to each of these countries until when??

Sorry, but that's a load of "thin edge of the wedge" illogical rubbish
You are dodging the question. That's ok. I don't even know the answer. I am sure it would be far more complicated than my simple question here.

Quote:
Quote:Where do you believe the line should be drawn, when Israel is forced to find another location?

How about trying it once for a start? The current policies clearly aren't working.
So, you are asking Israel to operate on faith? Hmmm, interesting assertion from you IBOFB. I would think you would have them search their past occurrences with these folks, formulate a hypothesis, do some small controlled testing in certain areas and then base their conclusions and actions on that data. BTW.. Which could take up to a decade or more to compile. Hmmm, indeed. (*Note, I am being very sarcastic here in a "try to be funny" manner) Big Grin
It is only through labor and painful effort, by grim energy and resolute courage, that we move on to better things. --Roosevelt
 Reply
#22
TB 2 IBO Wrote:The USA aside. Israel has a history in the region. Having to both posture and show physical might. As Michman said, I think they have shown restraint over the recent developments in Iran. They have the ability to air strike anything in Iran, yet they haven't, albeit from pressure from the US and other countries.


So by this standard, you would agree that Iran showed great restraint in not attacking Israel when it was developing Nukes? And it has indeed shown great restraint in not attacking either Israel nor the US while both have explictly threatened it?

Quote:To my knowledge, even when Bush was in office, there were not direct threats to any specific country. Only those that harbored terrorists. Now, calling Iran and North Korea an axis of evil, was probably a bit much, but really wasn't a threat. Sure did hinder negotiations and such...but that is in the past. Our current president has even said, with regards to Iran and their nuclear program, "all options are on the table". Not a threat directly, but a pretty good warning.

Israel threatened Iran just this past week, as I linked to earlier. As for the US, you don't recall the reports about the US having plans for a nuclear first strike on Iran and the US president confirming a nuclear strike was "on the table"? Or how about a certain presidential candidate singing "bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb Iran?"

If you were the leaders of Iran, and you heard that coming from a country that had recently invaded your neighbour giving the same (false) justifications - how would you feel?

Quote:From your favorite media source. <!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/08/20/iran-lifts-ban-allows-un_n_264484.html">http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/08/2 ... 64484.html</a><!-- m --> It states there was a year long ban on UN inspectors.

Not sure why you think that's my favourite site. I personally think Arianna Huffington is a bit of a self-consumer nutcase. She also endorses numerous other nutcases to blog on the site. Some of the HP bloggers are good value, but my favourite site is <!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.thetruthaboutamway.com">http://www.thetruthaboutamway.com</a><!-- m --> :grin:

Quote: Prior to that ban, they were very limited in what and where they could investigate. More promising however, it does say they are now allowing more sites to be investigated. So that is a good thing, I hope.

From what I understand the "ban" was on one site, inspections were still occuring elsewhere. I interpreted your comment as a ban everywhere. Why were they doing that ban? Posturing, particularly pre-election posturing, standing up to the old "great satan" etc. Just like Senator McCain's silly song. Unlike Bush's comments, I have no belief John McCain was being serious.

Quote:You are dodging the question. That's ok. I don't even know the answer. I am sure it would be far more complicated than my simple question here.

I didn't dodge - I said "until it works" or some such. If you want me to expand - until it works or it's obvious it's not going to work.

Quote:Where do you believe the line should be drawn, when Israel is forced to find another location?

That by the way is something that's clearly never going to happen and the palestinians have to accept that. From what I understand, most have.

Quote:So, you are asking Israel to operate on faith? Hmmm, interesting assertion from you IBOFB. I would think you would have them search their past occurrences with these folks, formulate a hypothesis, do some small controlled testing in certain areas and then base their conclusions and actions on that data. BTW.. Which could take up to a decade or more to compile. Hmmm, indeed. (*Note, I am being very sarcastic here in a "try to be funny" manner) Big Grin

I'm all for having a little faith, it's blind faith I'm not a fan of! Funnies aside, a decade is a small time in the history of the middle east, but the last 50yrs gives pretty clear experimental evidence of what doesn't work, something different has to be tried and as remote a possibility as it seems, Israel electing to ignore provocations is the only thing I can see that even gives hope of a solution.
 Reply
#23
ibofightback Wrote:I personally think Arianna Huffington is a bit of a self-consumer nutcase.



ROFLMAO!!!! OK - maybe I DO believe the anti "conspiracists" and you're really someone sitting in Des Moines, Iowa pretending to be IBOFB :rotfl: :rotfl: because you know WAY too much about our crazy country and its even crazier inhabitants, like Arianna :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl:
 Reply
#24
believe it or not, American politics has a pretty big impact in the world! Anyone interested in politics anywhere follows at least two political stories - their own country, and Americas.

And as a political junkie it's easier for me to read US blogs on American politics than Swedish blogs on Swedish politics!
 Reply
#25
What did he do to get it? He had done nothing anything other than get elected as president. He was escalating the Afghan troop level, he hadn't closed GITMO, he hadn't pulled out of Iraq, so what was it that he did? He didn't offer to meet with Osama to negotiate an end to the war on terrorism, he hadn't yet participated in the Israeli/Palestinian peace talks, or even offered a solution. He did not bring Iran into line with international demands. That he did none of these things is not a mark against him, that would all take time and is prone to failure no matter who attempts the task, But that he did nothing of note, what did he do to get the prize?
 Reply
#26
Welcome to the site charily. Not sure why you chose such an obscure topic to comment on though!

Here's my take - Why Obama Won the Nobel Peace Price
 Reply

 
Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)