Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum
Realistbear

Iranian President Delivers Hand Written Letter To Bush

Recommended Posts

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20060508/bs_nm/markets_oil_dc

Mon May 8, 2:24 PM ET

NEW YORK (Reuters) - Oil fell $1 on Monday on hopes tension over
OPEC member
Iran's nuclear ambition will ease after Tehran made an unprecedented move to contact Washington.
U.S. light crude for June delivery was down $1.04 to $69.15 a barrel in afternoon trade in New York after trading as low as $68.25, while London Brent crude fell $1.05 to $69.90 a barrel.
Word of the letter Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad had written to
President Bush helped ease trader concern on the standoff over Tehran's nuclear program, which helped push U.S. oil prices to $75 last month.
"In this letter, he has given an analysis of the current world situation, of the root of existing problems and of new ways of getting out of the current vulnerable situation in the world," Iranian government spokesman Gholamhossein Elham said.
The letter is the first publicly announced personal communication from an Iranian premier to a U.S. president since ties between the two countries were broken after the 1979 Islamic revolution.

If the letter is conciliatory: Iran will help bring peace to Iraq by cracking down on terrorists, by allowing the UN to monitor their nuke power we could see gold lose some shine as oil tanks and stock markets go skyward. Or is that too optimistic?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060508/ap_on_...HNlYwMlJVRPUCUl

By ANNE GEARAN, AP Diplomatic Writer 11 minutes ago

NEW YORK - Secretary of State

Condoleezza Rice dismissed a surprise letter that

Iran's president sent to

President Bush on Monday, saying it did not seriously address the standoff over Tehran's disputed nuclear program.

In an interview with The Associated Press, the top U.S. diplomat said the letter from Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was 17 or 18 pages long and covered history, philosophy and religion. It was not a diplomatic opening, she said.
"This letter isn't it. This letter is not the place that one would find an opening to engage on the nuclear issue or anything of the sort," Rice said. "It isn't addressing the issues that we're dealing with in a concrete way.

Pity. :(

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Rice said. "It isn't addressing the issues that we're dealing with in a concrete way.

What would be 'concrete'? Allowing Israel to annex Iran? Or at least, nuke Tehran?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If the letter is conciliatory: Iran will help bring peace to Iraq by cracking down on terrorists, by allowing the UN to monitor their nuke power we could see gold lose some shine as oil tanks and stock markets go skyward. Or is that too optimistic?

if oil and metals tank then so will the ftse 100

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What would be 'concrete'? Allowing Israel to annex Iran? Or at least, nuke Tehran?

Allow UN inspections I think. Had Saddam allowed inspections instead of strutting around with a rifle in his hand and invading Kuwait and gassing Kurds a lot of grief may have been avoided. IF, on the other hand, the UN do nothing about Iran's refusal to allow inspections they might as well be disbanded as their directives will be scoffed at by Iran as they were by Saddam. In fact, the failure to enforce UN sanctions against Iraq has no doubt emboldened Iran to do the same thing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Allow UN inspections I think. Had Saddam allowed inspections instead of strutting around with a rifle in his hand and invading Kuwait and gassing Kurds a lot of grief may have been avoided. IF, on the other hand, the UN do nothing about Iran's refusal to allow inspections they might as well be disbanded as their directives will be scoffed at by Iran as they were by Saddam. In fact, the failure to enforce UN sanctions against Iraq has no doubt emboldened Iran to do the same thing.

It is only for thread integrity I resond to this.

Iran has allowed UN inspections. Just as Iraq allowed inspections of it's supposed 'WMD'. Gassing Kurds? With what? With equipment provided by brave little Israel's benefactor.

RB, the only reason you deny these facts is because you think you are guaranteed entry to heaven once HE comes to do battle with the antichrist when your wet-dream-war in the middle east comes to pass.

Have you ANY idea what this reads like to normal people?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is only for thread integrity I resond to this.

Iran has allowed UN inspections. Just as Iraq allowed inspections of it's supposed 'WMD'. Gassing Kurds? With what? With equipment provided by brave little Israel's benefactor.

RB, the only reason you deny these facts is because you think you are guaranteed entry to heaven once HE comes to do battle with the antichrist when your wet-dream-war in the middle east comes to pass.

Have you ANY idea what this reads like to normal people?

What is normal, objectively speaking that is?

Irans position on inspections:

http://thescotsman.scotsman.com/index.cfm?id=687232006

Iran promises it will defy UN nuclear resolution
CHRISTIAN OLIVER AND PARISA HAFEZI IN TEHRAN
IRAN said yesterday it will reject any UN resolution seeking an end to its atomic fuel work and ratcheted up its rhetoric about following North Korea out of the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT).

Saddam's regime genocide:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3738368.stm

Babies found in Iraqi mass grave
Investigator Greg Kehoe at the Hatra grave site
A US investigator said bodies were bulldozed into the graves
A mass grave being excavated in a north Iraqi village has yielded evidence that Iraqi forces executed women and children under Saddam Hussein.

Mass graves:

http://www.news24.com/News24/World/Iraq/0,...1912229,00.html

1 000 bodies found in Iraq
06/04/2006 13:51 - (SA)
Kirkuk - Eight mass graves containing around 1 000 bodies have been found near Iraq's northern oil hub of Kirkuk, the Patriotic Union of Kurdistan (PUK) announced on Thursday.
"Most of the victims were Kurds, as well as some Christians and Turcoman, who lived in these two majority Kurdish villages," the PUK said in a statement.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...5042901191.html

113 Kurds Are Found In Mass Grave

Hussein Victims Almost All Women, Children

By Ellen Knickmeyer

Washington Post Foreign Service

Saturday, April 30, 2005; Page A09

BAGHDAD, April 29 -- U.S. investigators have exhumed the remains of 113 people -- all but five of them women, children or teenagers -- from a mass grave in southern Iraq that may hold at least 1,500 victims of Saddam Hussein's campaign against the Kurdish minority in the 1980s, U.S. and Iraqi officials said this week.
The recovered bodies are expected to be among the evidence used against the deposed Iraqi president by prosecutors at a special tribunal, investigators said.

UN found Saddam using gas:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/spl/hi/midd...cal_warfare.stm

UN experts confirmed in 1986 that Iraq had contravened the Geneva Convention by using chemical weapons against Iran.
Iraq is known to have used the blister agent mustard gas from 1983 and the nerve gas Tabun from 1985, as it faced attacks from "human waves" of Iranian troops and poorly-trained but loyal volunteers. Tabun can kill within minutes.
Baby born in Halabja since 1988 attack
This baby in Halabja was born with deformed fingers
There is no doubt that the Iraqis have been using chemical weapons
The BBC's Keith Graves, July 1988
In 1988 Iraq turned its chemical weapons on Iraqi Kurds in the north of the country.

The war in the Middle East is far from an illusion or dream--it is real as the body counts of civilians and soldiers attests to. I think I have some idea of what denying these things may appear to some people.

Edited by Realistbear

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think I have some idea of what denying these things may appear to some people.

Are you suggesting I denied Saddam did those things? I was saying that he did carry out massacres, in some cases using equipment supplied by the US that was little use for anything else.

And another thing:

"In fact, the failure to enforce UN sanctions against Iraq has no doubt emboldened Iran to do the same thing."

Since when were UN sanctions against Iraq not enforced??!?!?

Edited by tahoma

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Are you suggesting I denied Saddam did those things? I was saying that he did carry out massacres, in some cases using equipment supplied by the US that was little use for anything else.

If you are not denying that Saddam commited atrocities it is odd that you are taking an anti UK/US position in relation to the MIddle East conflict. Iran and Iraq have been buying arms from the Russians and just about every other source you can name since the days of Lawrence.

You seem to be coming accross as pro-Iran and anti-Isreal and that it was wrong for the UK/US to intervene in Iraq after Saddam invaded Kuwait and subsequently refused to co-operate with inspections by the UN thereby arousing suspicion. Iran is doing the same thing as the above posts demonstrate. The UN have in place certain treaties that restrict the proliferation of Nukes. If Iran proceeds to build Nukes (and threatedn to blow away Isreal as a non-Islamic infidel nation) and exclude inspections they are in breach of the UN Treaty. The question is whether the treaty will be enforced and by whom.

Edited by Realistbear

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you are not denying that Saddam commited atrocities it is odd that you are taking an anti UK/US position in relation to the MIddle East conflict. Iran and Iraq have been buying arms from the Russians and just about every other source you can name since the days of Lawrence.

You seem to be coming accross as pro-Iran and anti-Isreal and that it was wrong for the UK/US to intervene in Iraq after Saddam invaded Kuwait and subsequently refused to co-operate with inspections by the UN thereby arousing suspicion. Iran is doing the same thing as the above posts demonstrate. The UN have in place certain treaties that restrict the proliferation of Nukes. If Iran proceeds to build Nukes (and threatedn to blow away Isreal as a non-Islamic infidel nation) and exclude inspections they are in breach of the UN Treaty. The question is whether the treaty will be enforced and by whom.

You know, it must be luxurious being comfortable to argue using such lurching jumps of logic.

If I am against an invasion of Iran, I must be pro-Saddam? Please.

How come the UN's anti-nuke stance does not apply to Israel, or at least get enforced?

All the problems in the middle east are the result of dabbling by Western powers over the past century, with two intentions:

1. Secure oil.

2. Please Israel.

Every other stated policy goal is spin and doublespeak. Iran is arming itself, with defensive weapons such as SAMs and rather effective anti-shipping missiles.

And you know what? I don't blame them. If that makes me pro-Iran, so be it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You know, it must be luxurious being comfortable to argue using such lurching jumps of logic.

If I am against an invasion of Iran, I must be pro-Saddam? Please.

How come the UN's anti-nuke stance does not apply to Israel, or at least get enforced?

All the problems in the middle east are the result of dabbling by Western powers over the past century, with two intentions:

1. Secure oil.

2. Please Israel.

Every other stated policy goal is spin and doublespeak. Iran is arming itself, with defensive weapons such as SAMs and rather effective anti-shipping missiles.

And you know what? I don't blame them. If that makes me pro-Iran, so be it.

Tahoma, you seem to be obsessed with playing the blame game and arguing over the political history of the middle east.

Irresepctive of what has happened in the past, please answer these 2 simple questions :

1. Should Iran be allowed to develop nuclear weapons?

2a. If not, how can the world stop them from doing so?

2b. If yes, could you name a state or regime (if any) you believe shouldn't be allowed nuclear weapons.

I'd personally like to see less nukes in the world and don't believe all states/regimes are equal.

Edited by HPCheese

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If Iran proceeds to build Nukes (and threatedn to blow away Isreal as a non-Islamic infidel nation) and exclude inspections they are in breach of the UN Treaty. The question is whether the treaty will be enforced and by whom.

Iran has not built any nuclear weapons. Iran has not threatened to blow Israel away. Iran has not prevented inspections.

Perhaps Iran should just withdraw from the NPT treaty and then we won't have to worry about enforcing it, as has been the case with India, Pakistan, Israel, North Korea...

Peter.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You know, it must be luxurious being comfortable to argue using such lurching jumps of logic.

If I am against an invasion of Iran, I must be pro-Saddam? Please.

How come the UN's anti-nuke stance does not apply to Israel, or at least get enforced?

All the problems in the middle east are the result of dabbling by Western powers over the past century, with two intentions:

1. Secure oil.

2. Please Israel.

Gah, the oil is secure enough as is. It isn't going to run away, you know! (think about it...)

The anti-nuke stance does not get 'enforced' because realists know that Israel would be attacked if it hadn't got them.

What part of Iran's quip of: 'We will wipe Israel off the map' isn't clear to you as a declaration of war?

Are you some kind of racist who isn't willing to take the Arabs seriously here -- maybe you think of them as imbeciles afflicted by ADHD & Tourettes, and so, no matter what they say and do, they don't mean it and are thus not responsible?

This idea that anyone wants to 'please' Israel is silly -- international politics do not run along those lines at all, and the rumour that Iran would be happy with an Allah shaped cookie and behave themselves forever afterwards is also a fairytale...

And, have you ever considered that the arabs, who live in the ME, have some contributing role to play here? The corruption and the repression of their women is not something that is the fault of westerners -- if the Arabs stopped to rip each other off, it would immediatly reflect in economic prosperity and a much improved social fabric of public life. To NOT beat your wife and allowing and enabeling your daughters to have an education, a job and giving women equal rights and freedoms is simple, you don't need any special treatsies to do that. The same logic holds for corruption btw.

The entire situation isn't ideal, for anyone(including arabs) but as long as the theorcrats there are allowed to spout their crazy and destructive rubbish, people there will suffer. Europe suffered just the same way, until we reigned in our priests and stopped them peddling the worst nonsense and they no longer could turn our people into supersticious fruitcakes.

Ever since we neutralised the priests and gave people rights and a sense that it is their right to have rights, and the concept that they are responsible for themselves, instead of some 'God', Western society has been doing much better than all other societies.

Ps.: As for the 18 page handwritten rant that was delivered, what did you expect will be in there? Iran is run by religiously insane trolls who bother about such important questions as 'should men and woman have segregated pavements', whilst inflicting the Iranian inquision on their population. I'm not sure what you think those kind of people will come up with, but, maybe you also believed whilst reading 'Lord of the Flies' that the nasty guys in that book would grow up to be some kind of Mahatma Ghandi, eh?

Edited by Cinnamon

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Tahoma, you seem to be obsessed with playing the blame game and arguing over the political history of the middle east.

Irresepctive of what has happened in the past, please answer these 2 simple questions :

1. Should Iran be allowed to develop nuclear weapons?

2a. If not, how can the world stop them from doing so?

2b. If yes, could you name a state or regime (if any) you believe shouldn't be allowed nuclear weapons.

I'd personally like to see less nukes in the world and don't believe all states/regimes are equal.

1. No-one should be allowed to develop or hold nuclear weapons.

2a. Hard to stop any country doing something it really wants to on it's own soil, with the approval of it's people.

2b. See 1.

It's not about 'blame', apologies if I am a bit obsessed and off-topic. It's just that I am fed up of seeing world peace revolving around an arrogant, aggressive, self-righteous regime in the middle east. And I don't mean Iran.

What part of Iran's quip of: 'We will wipe Israel off the map' isn't clear to you as a declaration of war?

Hey you've convinced me. Launch the nukes at Tehran, then all those poor mistreated women won't have to suffer any more, because they will all be dead. Problem solved!

I bet you were really pleased with the ADHD and tourettes analogy weren't you? Well done! That showed me!

Edited by tahoma

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What part of Iran's quip of: 'We will wipe Israel off the map' isn't clear to you as a declaration of war?

Fortunately, this is not what Ahmadinejad said

It was October last year when we came home, flicked on the radio and listened aghast to the news that the Iranian president denied the Holocaust had happened and said the state of Israel should be wiped off the map. ‘Christ,’ we thought, ‘this nut job’s playing into their hands with this kind of rhetoric.’ Since then “the Cuban missile crisis in slow motion” as one US academic has described the Iran/US imbroglio has ratcheted up to high alert with Seymour Hersch of the New Yorker reporting that the White House is all prepared for nuclear strikes. It would take just 12 hours to deploy nuclear weapons for a bunker busting strike that would kill a million Iranians according to conservative estimates commissioned by the Pentagon. Nuclear armed planes are now on constant alert and public opinion has been framed around those mad, mad statements on Israel by Iran’s President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

But what if the pronouncements by Ahmadinejad that cast him as this season’s baddie incarnate had been a) mistranslated and B) taken out of context?

When properly translated the Iranian president actually calls for the removal of the regimes that are in power in Israel and in the USA as a goal for the future. Nowhere does he demand the elimination or annihilation of Israel. He called for greater governance for Palestine. The word map does not even feature. And the president makes plain that the Holocaust happened, but, he argues western powers have exploited the memory of the Holocaust for their own imperialistic purposes. What the mainstream ran with is complete deception.

http://peacepalestine.blogspot.com/2006/05...ranslation.html

Also see:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bill-scher/t...-v_b_20350.html

Peter.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Fortunately, this is not what Ahmadinejad said

Thanks Peter. It's nice to know I'm not alone on this side of the table at the mad-hatter's tea party. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Guy_Montag

Fortunately, this is not what Ahmadinejad said

Well done that man. :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Markets could see some huge movement tomorrow"

Bush too probably.. :lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol:

Edited by Wuluf

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks Peter. It's nice to know I'm not alone on this side of the table at the mad-hatter's tea party. :)

I think that there are many on this side. Unfortunately, the mainstream media seems determined to distort and under report the situation, just as they did with Iraq. Iran is now being demonized with the likely consequence that many innocent people will die in another show of power.

FWIW, www.medialens.org is a very useful resource,

Peter.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Incidentally the NPT does not prevent research and development of nuclear power - only nuclear weapons. It also calls for the reduction of existing stocks, and for existing weapon holders to not develop any new ones, or indeed replace them.

Funnily enough, Iran is well within its rights, however the UK is looking at redeveloping its existing stocks and the US is well on its way, developing smaller more _usable_ nuclear weapons as we speak. So,tell me again, who should withdraw from the NPT?

How about some home truths:

http://unbisnet.un.org:8080/ipac20/ipac.js...3;horizon#focus

http://unbisnet.un.org:8080/ipac20/ipac.js...3;horizon#focus

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How about some home truths:

I suppose we should be grateful there are 'Y's next to United Kingdom.

What does the USA think it gains from that stance?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"the only reason you deny these facts is because you think you are guaranteed entry to heaven once HE comes to do battle with the antichrist when your wet-dream-war in the middle east comes to pass."

Do you have any idea how normal people view this sort of non-argument? They mostly think you are a tosser I suspect. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think most people who are against the UK/US invasion, myself included, are basing their judgment upon the hypocrisy of it all. Whereas the Iranians have zero nuclear weapons, Israel has hundreds and the US has thousands. Hardly a level playingfield. I don't see where Tahoma's posts even come close to suggesting he is pro anything, least of all pro Iranian. My interpretation of his comments are that he is anti war, based upon the link he has provided which clearly illustrates the fact that the ones who have suffered the most since the latest episode started in 1990 are innocent children. That's not to discount the women and elderly who have been subjected to the same fate btw. The fact is, prior to the US invasion Iraq was considered as a role model by it's neighbours. Also, the Unicef mission to Iraq and the Economist's Economic Intelligence Unit had this to say;

Life before sanctions

Prior to 1990, when sanctions were imposed, "Iraq had one of the highest per caput food availabilities in the region, due to its relative prosperity and capacity to import large quantities of food"; The Economist's Economic Intelligence Unit actually puts Iraq at the top of this list by the end of the 1980s. With an estimated minimum requirement of 2,100 calories a day Iraqis were, on average, eating about 3,372 calories a day over 1984 to 1989; except for 1989 these were years of war with Iran. [FAO/WFP 1997; EIU 95/96, p.6 ]

Oil had moved Iraq away from its traditional mainstay, agriculture. By 1989 oil accounted for 61% of Iraq's GDP and agriculture for only 5%. Consequently, about two thirds of Iraq's food was imported before the war, even in years of good harvests. In bad years like 1989 domestic cereal production could fall to as low as 15% of needs. This amounted to imports of 3 million tons of cereals per year, or 8,220 tons per day (out of an estimated consumption of 10,000 tons), costing between $2 billion and $3 billion a year. [FAO/WFP 1997; WD 1992, p. 923-24]

Iraq's prosperity had not stopped at eating well. Adult literacy was reported to be 95% and Iraq boasted 22 Universities and Institutes of Higher Education [FAO 1995]. This well educated public built the Iraq described by John Field, a member of a 1991 Tufts University - Unicef mission to Iraq:

By the end of the 1980s, 92% of the population had access to safe water, somewhat less enjoyed modern sanitation, and an impressive 93% lived in the catchment areas served by modern health facilities. The government's network of health centers and hospitals was well disseminated, well supplied, well staffed, and effectively - if rather clinically - engaged with the populations in their jurisdiction. ... Iraq had converted oil wealth into enhanced social well-being with considerable success. ... Education expanded, child mortality declined, and life expectancy increased all quite impressively. [in Unicef 1998, p.2]

Iraq's public hospitals were free, attracting patients from throughout the Arab world. Many of Iraq's 9,000 physicians (one in 2,200 Iraqis) had trained in the UK; about a quarter were certified specialists. "Iraqi biomedical specialists provided some of the most sophisticated medical care in the Arab region. ... [but] relied heavily on import-dependent, high-technology curative biomedicine". While medical specialists tended to be male, female pharmacists and dentists outnumbered their male counterparts in hospitals so that women actually formed the majority in the group of doctors, dentists, pharmacists and specialists. Throughout Iraq, according to 1994 government figures, women slightly outnumbered men as specialists and technicians, partly in response to men's involvement in the war with Iran. [unicef 1998, p.10]

Iraq's medical sector was not unusual in its reliance upon technology. Urbanisation had left Iraq dependent upon electricity for clean water and sewage treatment as well. [NEJM 1991] Unicef explains that,

South/Central Iraq had an advanced system of 210 fixed water treatment plants which served urban and major rural areas and 1,200 compact mobile plants for mainly rural areas, with an extensive system of distribution pipes. Almost all water comes from the Tigris, the Euphrates, their branches and tributaries. Being surface water, most of the water systems require liquid chlorine gas and alum for treatment. [unicef 1998 p.31]

Summing up its accomplishments, The Economist's Economic Intelligence Unit stated that, "the Iraqi welfare state was, until recently, among the most comprehensive and generous in the Arab World". [EIU 95/96, p.6]; http://www.casi.org.uk/briefing/pamp_ed1.html

Saddam was no angel, not by any stretch of the imagination, but his Iraq was a far sight better off than the Iraq we have created in it's place.

Channel4 ran a program last night that clearly showed that Iraq has become a battlefield, outside the 'Green zone' that is. So much so that the reporter covering the story had to travel from the airport to the green zone by helicopter gunship because it was too dangerous to even travel there in a armed convoy ! Did anyone anyone else watch it ? What outrages me is that my taxes are contributing to this horror. The same media who continue to lie and twist the fact's about HPI in the UK are doing the same with the reality that is Iraq. There is no democracy in Iraq and there never will be as long as the UK/US continue to occupy the region as invaders, that much was made clear last night on Channel4.

On the other hand, the nightly nuclear media show from the BBC serves to distract the masses from the truth that the occupation is really about colonialism and plunder. It's the usual smoke and mirrors magician show, only this time it's the propaganda that is quicker than the eye. An interesting statistic is that there have been more journalists killed by American troops than have been killed by 'insurgents', which in my view has happened more by design than accident. It is vital for the US/UK coalition that they win the hearts of the population at home. They know if they fail to do this then the war in Iraq will be lost, hence the ongoing suppression of truth.

Also, IMO, the continued generation of wealth at home is an intrinsic factor in the process of distraction, and a primary indicator when trying to understanding why HPI in the UK continues to defy rationality. When the machine wants to make us feel good, (while it trashes civil rights, or wages senseless war) it makes the market go up. When it wants to fleece us, it crashes the market.

What part of Iran's quip of: 'We will wipe Israel off the map' isn't clear to you as a declaration of war?

Ahmedinijad did not say he wanted to wipe anywhere off anything; http://informationclearinghouse.info/article12790.htm

The corruption and the repression of their women is not something that is the fault of westerners

See above; "female pharmacists and dentists outnumbered their male counterparts in hospitals so that women actually formed the majority in the group of doctors, dentists, pharmacists and specialists. Throughout Iraq, according to 1994 government figures, women slightly outnumbered men as specialists and technicians,"

Whereas you don't have the first clue about just about anything you have mentioned in your post, I must say there is certainly nothing wrong with you're imagination :huh:

Hey you've convinced me. Launch the nukes at Tehran, then all those poor mistreated women won't have to suffer any more, because they will all be dead. Problem solved!

We can kill them to save them.

---

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1. No-one should be allowed to develop or hold nuclear weapons.

2a. Hard to stop any country doing something it really wants to on it's own soil, with the approval of it's people.

2b. See 1.

Nice idealistic ideas but sadly not really all that helpful.

You can't reconcile point 1 with point 2.

And although it is hard to stop countries doing what they want on their own (or occupied) soil, even with the approval of their people, I'm sure you can see that sometimes it is necessary to try. Can't you?

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...

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • 302 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.