Liverpool FC Forum

by **Madmax** » Wed Dec 16, 2009 4:41 pm

tonyeh wrote:Beside Moravia

moravia?

* a region in the central and eastern part of the Czech Republic; it lies to the east of Bohemia and to the west of the Carpathians

is that right? had to check that up...

by **Bad Bob** » Wed Dec 16, 2009 4:43 pm

tonyeh wrote:Well, it certainly isn't wipe Israel off the map, which is something else entirely.

As a hypothetical, which would be worse: being wiped off the map or erased from the pages of history?

Keanu's right, it's a real conundrum.

by **SouthCoastShankly** » Wed Dec 16, 2009 4:56 pm

tonyeh wrote:
bavlondon wrote:Well now that they have been found to be working on the trigger mechanism for a bomb it's safe to say they are definatley wanting to arm themselves.

I don't have any problem with Iran itself but it's comments about how Israel should be wiped of the map didn't do them any favours.

And they're damn well right to, as well. What, with the US openly threatening them for years, an illegal invasion in Iraq (based on lies) and Israel next door armed to the teeth with nuclear weapons.

Frankly, they'd be fools NOT to be working on some form of weapon.

BTW, Ahmadinejad never said anything about "wiping Israel off the map". That nonsense came from the New York Times and has been deliberately bandied about as propaganda since 2005. "A lie often repeated becomes the truth"

What he said was "The criminal regime in Jerusalem will vanish from the pages of time".

...and he was quoting a speech from the Ayatollah Khomeini, written years ago.

"Wiped off the map" is an idiom that doesn't exist in Persian.

Yawn....

You're clearly another muppet who cannot look at a situation objectively. You're just another conspiracy theorist who thinks he really knows the reasons behind all political activities in the world.

The facts are, although the "wiped from the map" translation is incorrect, most experts agree that a similar rendering -

"This regime that is occupying Jerusalem must be eliminated from the pages of history"

is more correct. Regardless of the translation, the gist is the current state if Israel is illegal and must be removed. Considering most Muslims do not see the creation of the state of Israel as legal, this must mean the removal of Jew's from that area.

Next. The war may very well have undertones of strategy and oil but it is clear that a state that has openly supported terrorism, which has significant civil strife and is openly aggressive in foreign policy is in no way an appropriate place for nuclear weapons.

Yes, they may well have a "right" to attempt to develop these weapons. But others also have a "right" to protect themselves against would be attackers, especially those with nuclear weapons (not much room for error you see). I see nothing wrong with pre-emptive action to prevent a clearly unstable nation arming itself with nuclear weapons.

by **tonyeh** » Wed Dec 16, 2009 5:09 pm

SouthCoastShankly wrote:
tonyeh wrote:
bavlondon wrote:Well now that they have been found to be working on the trigger mechanism for a bomb it's safe to say they are definatley wanting to arm themselves.

I don't have any problem with Iran itself but it's comments about how Israel should be wiped of the map didn't do them any favours.

And they're damn well right to, as well. What, with the US openly threatening them for years, an illegal invasion in Iraq (based on lies) and Israel next door armed to the teeth with nuclear weapons.

Frankly, they'd be fools NOT to be working on some form of weapon.

BTW, Ahmadinejad never said anything about "wiping Israel off the map". That nonsense came from the New York Times and has been deliberately bandied about as propaganda since 2005. "A lie often repeated becomes the truth"

What he said was "The criminal regime in Jerusalem will vanish from the pages of time".

...and he was quoting a speech from the Ayatollah Khomeini, written years ago.

"Wiped off the map" is an idiom that doesn't exist in Persian.

Yawn....

You're clearly another muppet who cannot look at a situation objectively. You're just another conspiracy theorist who thinks he really knows the reasons behind all political activities in the world.

The facts are, although the "wiped from the map" translation is incorrect, most experts agree that a similar rendering -

"This regime that is occupying Jerusalem must be eliminated from the pages of history"

is more correct. Regardless of the translation, the gist is the current state if Israel is illegal and must be removed. Considering most Muslims do not see the creation of the state of Israel as legal, this must mean the removal of Jew's from that area.

Next. The war may very well have undertones of strategy and oil but it is clear that a state that has openly supported terrorism, which has significant civil strife and is openly aggressive in foreign policy is in no way an appropriate place for nuclear weapons.

Yes, they may well have a "right" to attempt to develop these weapons. But others also have a "right" to protect themselves against would be attackers, especially those with nuclear weapons (not much room for error you see). I see nothing wrong with pre-emptive action to prevent a clearly unstable nation arming itself with nuclear weapons.

Bollocks talk.

Iran isn't going to attack anyone.

Objective my fuckin arse.

by **tonyeh** » Wed Dec 16, 2009 5:14 pm

Bad Bob wrote:
tonyeh wrote:Well, it certainly isn't wipe Israel off the map, which is something else entirely.

As a hypothetical, which would be worse: being wiped off the map or erased from the pages of history?

Keanu's right, it's a real conundrum.

Well, there's a huge difference between someone quoting an off the cuff remark about a government "...vanishing from the pages of time" and him saying "hey, let's go wipe Israel off the map".

A HUGE difference.

BTW, in that same 2005 conference, Ahmadinejad also called for a Jihad on terrorism.

Don't hear much about that though... :;):

by **Bad Bob** » Wed Dec 16, 2009 5:22 pm

So poor old Mahmoud's just misunderstood? Doubtful, mate. You may think it's a HUGE difference but I tend to think the core message is pretty much the same and just as troubling.

-----

Anger at Iranian Holocaust denial
Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad speaks at Tehran University, 18 September 2009
Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has repeatedly denied the Holocaust

The Iranian president's latest denial of the Nazi Holocaust has drawn strong condemnation from Western powers.

Speaking in the capital, Tehran, President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said the Holocaust was "a lie based on an unprovable and mythical claim".

Germany said the comments were a "disgrace to his country" while the US said they would "isolate Iran further".

Mr Ahmadinejad made the remarks at an annual rally where opposition supporters clashed with police.

Reformists, who have been banned from holding demonstrations since disputed presidential elections in June, defied warnings not to use the pro-Palestinian Quds (Jerusalem) Day marches to stage protests.

'Unacceptable and shocking'

As part of the Quds Day events, President Ahmadinejad delivered a speech in which he repeated previous assertions that the Holocaust was a lie.

Promoting those vicious lies serves only to isolate Iran further from the world
Robert Gibbs
White House press secretary

Clashes show unresolved Iran crisis
Iran eyewitness: Protest videos
In pictures: Tehran rallies

"The pretext [the Holocaust] for the creation of the Zionist regime [Israel] is false," he told worshippers at Tehran university.

"It is a lie based on an unprovable and mythical claim."

In reaction, White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs cited President Barack Obama's assertion in a speech to the Muslim world that "denying the Holocaust is baseless, ignorant and hateful".

"Promoting those vicious lies serves only to isolate Iran further from the world," Mr Gibbs said.

German Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier said: "This sheer anti-Semitism demands our collective condemnation.

"We will continue to confront it decisively in the future."

A French foreign ministry spokesman called the remarks "unacceptable and shocking", while British Foreign Secretary David Miliband said the denial was "abhorrent as well as ignorant".

"It is very important that the world community stands up against this tide of abuse," Mr Miliband said.

Reformists attacked

Meanwhile, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton warned Tehran that it also risked further isolation and economic pressure if it did not provide answers soon about its nuclear ambitions.

Western powers suspect Iran wants to develop nuclear weapons, though Iran insists its programme is purely to generate power for civilian uses.

UN Security Council powers and Germany are due to hold talks on the programme at the UN General Assembly next week.

The BBC's Kim Ghattas reports from Washington that despite Mr Ahmadinejad's Holocaust comments and Iran's disputed election, the US offer to engage diplomatically with Iran is still on the table.

Even so, the US ambassador to the UN said there would be no meeting between Mr Obama and Mr Ahmadinejad at the UN.

At the rally in Tehran, thousands of opposition supporters turned out, shouting slogans in support of defeated presidential candidate Mir-Hossein Mousavi.

Reports say there were clashes between police and protesters as the march progressed, with some arrests. Stones were thrown, and police used tear gas.

Iranian state-run channel Press TV showed footage of an opposition rally, with many supporters wearing green, the colour adopted by supporters of Mr Mousavi.

Mr Mousavi was forced to leave the rally after his car was attacked, the official Irna news agency reported, while former President Mohammad Khatami - also a reformist - was reportedly pushed to the ground and had his turban knocked off, before police intervened.

LINK to BBC STORY

by **tonyeh** » Wed Dec 16, 2009 5:27 pm

Big deal.

Uttering provocative nonsense about the holocaust to appeal to the lowest common denominator and "wiping a country off the map" are two very different things.

If Iran did move to such an action, it would mean the absolute and utter destruction of Iran, what with both Israel and the US just lining up and itching to pull the trigger.

It's an absurd notion.

by **JoeTerp** » Wed Dec 16, 2009 5:32 pm

I rise in strongest opposition to this new round of sanctions on Iran, which is another significant step toward a U.S. war on that country. I find it shocking that legislation this serious and consequential is brought up in such a cavalier manner. Suspending the normal rules of the House to pass legislation is a process generally reserved for "non-controversial" business such as the naming of post offices. Are we to believe that this House takes matters of war and peace as lightly as naming post offices?

This legislation seeks to bar from doing business in the United States any foreign entity that sells refined petroleum to Iran or otherwise enhances Iran’s ability to import refined petroleum such as financing, brokering, underwriting, or providing ships for such. Such sanctions also apply to any entity that provides goods or services that enhance Iran’s ability to maintain or expand its domestic production of refined petroleum. This casts the sanctions net worldwide, with enormous international economic implications. Recently, the Financial Times reported that, "[i]n recent months, Chinese companies have greatly expanded their presence in Iran’s oil sector. In the coming months, Sinopec, the state-owned Chinese oil company, is scheduled to complete the expansion of the Tabriz and Shazand refineries – adding 3.3 million gallons of gasoline per day."

Are we to conclude, with this in mind, that China or its major state-owned corporations will be forbidden by this legislation from doing business with the United States? What of our other trading partners who currently do business in Iran’s petroleum sector or insure those who do so? Has anyone seen an estimate of how this sanctions act will affect the U.S. economy if it is actually enforced?

As we have learned with U.S. sanctions on Iraq, and indeed with U.S. sanctions on Cuba and elsewhere, it is citizens rather than governments who suffer most. The purpose of these sanctions is to change the regime in Iran, but past practice has demonstrated time and again that sanctions only strengthen regimes they target and marginalize any opposition. As would be the case were we in the U.S. targeted for regime change by a foreign government, people in Iran will tend to put aside political and other differences to oppose that threatening external force. Thus this legislation will likely serve to strengthen the popularity of the current Iranian government. Any opposition continuing to function in Iran would be seen as operating in concert with the foreign entity seeking to overthrow the regime.

This legislation seeks to bring Iran in line with international demands regarding its nuclear materials enrichment programs, but what is ironic is that Section 2 of HR 2194 itself violates the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) to which both the United States and Iran are signatories. This section states that "[i]t shall be the policy of the United States … to prevent Iran from achieving the capability to make nuclear weapons, including by supporting international diplomatic efforts to halt Iran’s uranium enrichment program." Article V of the NPT states clearly that, "[n]othing in this treaty shall be interpreted as affecting the inalienable right of all the parties to the treaty to develop research, production, and use of nuclear energy for peaceful purposes without discrimination and in conformity with articles I and II of this treaty." As Iran has never been found in violation of the NPT – has never been found to have diverted nuclear materials for non-peaceful purposes – this legislation seeking to deny Iran the right to enrichment even for peaceful purposes itself violates the NPT.

Mr. Speaker, I am concerned that many of my colleagues opposing war on Iran will vote in favor of this legislation, seeing it as a step short of war to bring Iran into line with U.S. demands. I would remind them that sanctions and the blockades that are required to enforce them are themselves acts of war according to international law. I urge my colleagues to reject this saber-rattling but ultimately counterproductive legislation.

by Rep. Ron Paul

by **lakes10** » Wed Dec 16, 2009 5:37 pm

bavlondon wrote:Well now that they have been found to be working on the trigger mechanism for a bomb it's safe to say they are definatley wanting to arm themselves.

I don't have any problem with Iran itself but it's comments about how Israel should be wiped of the map didn't do them any favours.

good point mate, it was a big mistake in them saying that but as others have stated its all about oil, if all of a sudden we found a oil field in England you would see a change in tune from the americans to us. they would be giving us every thing we need to get the oil like they did when we found it in the north sea.

by **SouthCoastShankly** » Thu Dec 17, 2009 6:24 pm

JoeTerp wrote:I rise in strongest opposition to this new round of sanctions on ...

by Rep. Ron Paul

I'm not American but even I know that Ron Paul is an idiot. In fact I tend to view most Republicans as idiots.

by **metalhead** » Thu Dec 17, 2009 11:05 pm

bavlondon wrote:Well now that they have been found to be working on the trigger mechanism for a bomb it's safe to say they are definatley wanting to arm themselves.

I don't have any problem with Iran itself but it's comments about how Israel should be wiped of the map didn't do them any favours.

He didn't actually say that, the translation was all wrong. He basically said that the regime should be vanished not the country.

Everyone forgot what the Turks did to the Armenians back in 1915. Turkey denies the massacres, The U.S calls it a ''tragedy'' (not a holocaust or a massacre), Europe says it was just a war and no one is fuming. The Armenians were massacred, they were killed and put in camps like what the Nazi did with the Jews. estimated 2mil to 3mil Armenians died in the Ottoman's hand, but no one approves it was a massacre.

Politics and Propaganda if you tell me

by **puroresu** » Thu Dec 17, 2009 11:09 pm

America may strike Iran. They will never try and invade though. They cant even secure Afghanistan and Iraq. Iran have an army which could inflict heavy casualties and even though much of the population doesnt like the regime they will not sit back and watch there land be invaded.

As for weapons. Iran should be working on getting nuclear weapons. Israel has them and it would be stupid not to arm oneselves to the teeth to make sure they can defend themselves. The US has invaded Iraq and Afghanistan, two states which border Iran. If Iran had a weapon the US wouldnt even think about going after Iran.

by **metalhead** » Thu Dec 17, 2009 11:20 pm

puroresu wrote:America may strike Iran. They will never try and invade though. They cant even secure Afghanistan and Iraq. Iran have an army which could inflict heavy casualties and even though much of the population doesnt like the regime they will not sit back and watch there land be invaded.

As for weapons. Iran should be working on getting nuclear weapons. Israel has them and it would be stupid not to arm oneselves to the teeth to make sure they can defend themselves. The US has invaded Iraq and Afghanistan, two states which border Iran. If Iran had a weapon the US wouldnt even think about going after Iran.

I don't think they should, I don't even think that Israel should as well, because frankly speaking Israel is the same threat as Iran as well. U.S find Iran a threat, Lebanon, Palestine and Syria find Israel as a threat.

But hey, U.S are the big boys.

by **dawson99** » Thu Dec 17, 2009 11:21 pm

the US would rather fight an 'army' as theyd win that, its the guerilla tactics they don't know how to handle

by **puroresu** » Fri Dec 18, 2009 2:01 am

dawson99 wrote:the US would rather fight an 'army' as theyd win that, its the guerilla tactics they don't know how to handle

The point is not only would the Iranian army fight but you would have a whole heap of resistance from the people. If America hasnt realised by now that Muslims dont accept occupation then they really will never learn. Hopefully Pakistan will wake up soon and get the yanks out of there as well.

Liverpool FC Forum

The coming war with iran

Who is online