Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum
Sign in to follow this  
Guest horace

Forget Property, Reach For The Toilet Paper

Recommended Posts

Why should we be worried. If he takes no action and then , sometime in the future you get fried by an Iranian Nuke then you'll be shouting:

"Why didn't George Bush do something"

Islamic Fundamentalist States + weapons grade Uranium = a dangerous combination don't you think?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I not sure which is more worrying, the US going into Iran, or Iran building The Bomb. I was opposed to the US invading Iraq, and there are great risks associated with doing the same in Iran, but Iraq wasn't a theocratic state that was trying to build nukes (does anyone really believe they're only interested in nuclear power when they have such vast oil and gas reserves). China is happy to be complicit with Iran as they see it as a good source of future oil, but they may come to regret it. Iran getting The Bomb is a nightmare scenario for the West.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Why should we be worried. If he takes no action and then , sometime in the  future you get fried by an Iranian Nuke then you'll be shouting:

"Why didn't George Bush do something"

Islamic Fundamentalist States + weapons grade Uranium = a dangerous combination don't you think?

The whole thing is worrying - both the fact that Iran is likely to get nuclear weapons and also the implications of an American military attack on the region, on oil prices and on the rest of the world.

I think I am right in saying that Iran is the world's second biggest producer of oil. Hoo boy. If the Americans go in, watch the oil price shoot up even more and Iraq will seem like a picnic.

So, it would not be good news if Iran had nuclear weapons but it would also be pretty disastrous if America invades.

And in the interests if balance - which is the only country ever to use nuclear weapons? Why, America of course.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Why should we be worried. If he takes no action and then , sometime in the  future you get fried by an Iranian Nuke then you'll be shouting:

"Why didn't George Bush do something"

Islamic Fundamentalist States + weapons grade Uranium = a dangerous combination don't you think?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/4363443.stm

Pakistan has successfully tested a long-range nuclear-capable missile, officials say.

The Shaheen II missile has a range of 2,000km (1,250 miles) and can carry both nuclear and conventional warheads. It is unclear where the test occurred.

But George thinks this is cool, mmmm

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Iran has no choice but to acquire the bomb. All non-US compliant countries with resources are under threat from invasion by the US if they do not have a nuclear deterent.

That is not to say that WMD in the hands of fundamentalists is not a major concern, but can we go on denying the rest of the world what we have just because we see their values as a threat to ours?

Iraq wasa disaster. It has nt brought Iran to the negotiating table as predicted by the Hawks. Instead it has polarized the world, hardened attitudes, cost 1000s of lives and tied up massive resources, both military and financial.

To repeat the mistake is lunacy. Common ground must be found. The logical alternative is endless conflict that will be viewed on one side as religious persecution an don the other as terrorism. And as I recall Christians outlasted the Roman Empire. Chew over that before you go in all guns blazing!

Edited by Sledgehead

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Team America - **** YEah!"

Watched that last night and nearly ruptured myself laughing - if you haven't seen it then DO see it soon!

Allegory about how US sees itself in world.

Incidentatlly, this is the aperatif (the prawn cocktail if you will) to the steak and chips of China.... that's where the analogy breaks down.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The whole thing is worrying - both the fact that Iran is likely to get nuclear weapons and also the implications of an American military attack on the region, on oil prices and on the rest of the world.

I think I am right in saying that Iran is the world's second biggest producer of oil. Hoo boy. If the Americans go in, watch the oil price shoot up even more and Iraq will seem like a picnic.

So, it would not be good news if Iran had nuclear weapons but it would also be pretty disastrous if America invades.

And in the interests if balance - which is the only country ever to use nuclear weapons? Why, America of course.

Ok, in the interests of balance then.America used 2 x atom bombs to finally end a war that had already claimed over 50 million lives. America did not start a war with them nor has it used them since. That was 60 years ago.

I remember in the 80's very naive people were calling Ronald Reagan the "Nuclear Cowboy". That was bullsh*t.He hated nuclear weapons and ended up signing an historical disarmament treaty with Gorbachev.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Incidentatlly, this is the aperatif (the prawn cocktail if you will) to the steak and chips of China.... that's where the analogy breaks down.

I said the same thing last year and was torn to shreds on this forum.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Islamic Fundamentalist States + weapons grade Uranium = a dangerous combination don't you think?

Christian fundamentalist states + weapons grade Uranium = a dangerous combination, don't you think? ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting paper on the real motivations behind the invasion of Iraq:

http://www.acdis.uiuc.edu/Research/S&Ps/20...engagement.html

Another strategic aspect of the potential for Iraqi oilfields is that control over them could lend leverage against Saudi Arabia’s current influence over world oil prices. Should the United States gain control of Iraqi oilfields, it would also gain political leverage to ignore Saudi demands related to US intervention on behalf of the Palestinians. These outcomes would be in addition to securing a source of oil that could meet growing US demand within a publicly acceptable price range.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

At the end of the day the Palestinians who maybe had a cause have lost it due to their support for international terrorism. I am suprised that we even accept Palestine as a legal entity.

I find it amazing that Palastine relies on Israel for just about everything from work to goods and services yet condems them. Biting the hand that feeds you is not a good plan.

I suspect the US has decided that one day there will be a Global Power, and naturally they see themselves in that role. Just look at all the supporters of Globalisation and you can see that the dice has already been thrown and the winner announced.

Iran is now a ragtag country of ageing idealists who where the dropouts of the old days of the Shah pre revolution. Like any other peoples revolution the people themselves become the slaves of the new masters as the idealists get a real taste of the power. I would have no problems in the US knocking out Iran they declare war every year in the West published in National Newspapers across the world we should not dissapoint them.

Indeed Iran has always been the root of the problem and maybe had it been nipped in the bud all those years ago we might not have seen the problems we see today. Iran was, is, and always will be a far greater threat to the West than Russia and certainly Iraq. Seems Bush/Blair have just stirred up many more supporters of radical thinking by attacking the wrong people.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Given that we've just handed over control of Iraq to Iranian-backed theocrats, and given that there are currently 150,000-ish British and American hostages there, I can't help but think that Bush would be mad to attack Iran. If the Shi'ites in Iraq rise up and join the Sunnis in fighting the US and UK troops, then even hiding in their bases won't save them.

Then again, Bush _is_ mad, so who know what he'll do?

Can you name one?

America, while Bush is in control. Frankly, I'm far, far more concerned about nukes in the hand of a Christian fundie nutter who wants to bring about Armageddon than I am about them in the hands of the Iranian government.

Better nukes owned by a country that knows we can nuke them 'til they glow if they ever use one against us than a country that doesn't give a damn and is controlled by a nutter who would regard WWIII as a good thing if it brought about the 'Day of Judgement'.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think any country with nukes can be trusted with them,

But I'm not worried about Iran, as far as I'm concerned, UK has always ok relations with Iran, (ok a little tempered at times)

if Iran knows there own oil reserves are dropping, then they need to look at other energy solutions. since they have uranium mines, it makes sense to use that until something better is available.

America just wants to invade everyone , nobody likes the USA they just have the upper hand to everyone.

Edited by Kam

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The one certainty is that there is NO chance that oil demand globally could be met without Iran's 4 million barrels per day. That is unless, of course, demand collapses...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Christian fundamentalist states + weapons grade Uranium = a dangerous combination, don't you think? ;)

No, as a matter of fact i don't. I trust a Christian "fundamentalist" state (no such thing in my humble opinion) far more than an Islamic Fundamentalist one. The clue is in the last 9 letters "Mentalist". That sums them up for me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

ANY kind of fundamentalism, religious or otherwise, is potentially very dangerous.

That applies to everything from religion to the environment. Fundamentalism, as opposed to practical reality which nearly always involves compromise, is dangerous.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ok, in the interests of balance then.America used 2 x atom bombs to finally end a war that had already claimed over 50 million lives. America did not start a war with them nor has it used them since. That was 60 years ago.

I remember in the 80's very naive people were calling Ronald Reagan the "Nuclear Cowboy". That was bullsh*t.He hated nuclear weapons and ended up signing an historical disarmament treaty with Gorbachev.

I am not in the game of saying that America is the most evil country in the world as is a common error. However, America operates with an awareness of it's self-interest and geopolitics just like any other country.

The atom bombs used in 1945 were used only in part to end the war early. As much as anything they were used to show the Russians the power they held in their hands. They had more than one eye on the post-war world rather than on the war itself.

There was always the option to use bomb(s) just off the coast of Japan on an unoccupied island within view of the mainland. This may well have had the same effect as Hiroshima and Nagasaki but was not chosen. They could have at least tried it.

Also, as many civilians died in carpet bombing of Tokyo as died at Hiroshima.

As I have said, the point of saying this is not to show that America is evil but rather to undercut some of the rather high moral ground that the country sometimes has of itself.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • 339 Brexit, House prices and Summer 2020

    1. 1. Including the effects Brexit, where do you think average UK house prices will be relative to now in June 2020?


      • down 5% +
      • down 2.5%
      • Even
      • up 2.5%
      • up 5%



×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.