Connect with like-minded education professionals and have your say on the issues that matter to you.
Don't forget to look at the how to guide.
Discussion in 'Personal' started by keyboard2, Jul 11, 2019.
Or the The North Koreans.
Oh catch up OG... the Democratic People's Republic of Korea?
It has the word democracy in it's name!
Silly of me.
That's why Antifa are definitely anti-fascist and not just a group of black clad masked street thugs... and Hitler was a socialist ... erm derp derp
They already have them. Good luck if you try to remove them.
I never said anything about removing them.It is you that is arguing that aggressive nations should not have nuclear weapons.
Are they really trying to build nuclear weapons? The inspectorate visits them regularly and they are not huindering them.
Yes they should stop doing that and fighting proxy wars.
I wouldn't worry too much about taking military action against the USA. When was the last time they won a war without our help? Oh yes apart from the invasion of Grenada in 1983 of course, big deal.
Heck we even captured the White House in 1812 and raised the Union Flag over it, I don't remember ever seeing a "hostile" Stars and Stripes over Buck House. But if they ever do at least they can play their National Anthem, the one written by a Gloucester bloke,
Don't take this seriously
Artboy is a peacenik isolationist and has said so before. And what an interesting list! Although Artboy is curious about America's alleged aggression toward 'Korea 1950-53' and 'China 1950-53'. I believe it looked rather different to my father, who was serving there. And I wasn't aware that we ever invaded Tibet. I thought China did that. Or Somalia. Or...but anyway, you carry on shilling for the mullahs, Frank.
So if the Iranians are not trying to develop a Nuclear capability why should the Americans be so concerned they walked out of the talks and are using harsh economic sanctions against the Iranians?
Seems they have got them .so that will be fine if they act even more irrationally than other states and offer the weapon or have it stolen by groups who would not be so caring, assuming they are caring.
Some nations like North Korea openly seek the threaten others which simply heightens the risk of someone offering the first strike.
The more they spread the lass chance one has of them being abolished..well Corbyn's an exception, as he would, and wave a white flag if threatened.
Because of issues, we do not know about, or maybe Trump thinks they can be bullied into compliance and so will stop the spread of nuclear weapons.
The Iranians kept to the nuclear deal they agreed until Trump tore it up and applied crippling sanctions. Developing a nuclear capability is nothing more than a barganing chip.
Iran has two governments. One is the public face of government that the world can deal with. The other, more powerful one is led by religious extremists. It isn't dissimilar to the way the Tory Party is run. The men in grey suits pull the strings, the public face is the idiots who pretend they can promise the earth at election time and bluster their way through when difficult questions get asked.
Oh well if them having Nuclear capability is merely a bargaining chip we have nothing to worry about. Israel needn't worry about being wiped off the map. Global Nuclear conflict certainly wont happen because of Iran.
Well the UK and the EU are happy that Iran had met its side of the deal. The UK and EU wanted to continue build commercial links with Iran when most financial and economic sanctions against Iran were lifted, That happened after the International Atomic Energy Agency’s verified that Iran had completed all necessary steps to reach its non nuclear weapon development obligations. So the IAEA the UK and EU remian convinced that there is no nuclear weapons programme but remain concerned about human rights and exporting terrorist funding so some EU and UK sanctions do actually remain in place.
Obviously the US knows something that the UK, The EU and IAEA dont, or perhaps they just have a different agenda.
I've lived with the prospect of a nuclear armageddon hanging over me for my entire life. It was always the worry that when countries run by tin pot dictators get their hands on nuclear weapons, we'll be doomed.
To date, the only country that dropped nuclear bombs was Yankeeland and guess what? They've now got the most unstable idiot running their nation of any throughout my entire life.
For the life of me, I don't know why we aren't more worried about a nation that encourages the posession of guns and has shoot first, ask questions later policies for both its police force and citizens isn't being challenged over whether they are safe to have nuclear arms.
Any evidence of that? Sounds like WMD all over again to me.
If Greenpeace were preventing oil tankers from delivering oil so we could save the planet, a lot of people would say they were heroes. When Iran does it, everyone calls them warmongers. How do you work that out?
So the tanker stopped by the RN was delivering oil to save the planet? It wasn't delivering oil in order to dodge the economic sanctions? The Iranian theocracy care about the planet. Who woulda thought it?
The relevant UK authorities on the country are (or were) Michael Axworthy and Ali Ansari. Unfortunately, Axworthy died fairly recently.
But this is what he had to say a while ago:
Can't say that I fully agree with this sentence:
'To blame Iran for terrorism in the region is misleading at best – most terrorism there, and most of the Islamist terrorism worldwide, is inspired by extreme versions of Sunni Islam, not by the Shia Islam of Iran and the Iranian regime.'
I suppose that if it came down to the sheer quantity of Islamist activity that has taken place around the world, Shia activism would be lower than that perpetrated by Sunnis, though the Iranians have played their part and still are.
But anyway, here's a little extract from Axworthy's Empire of the Mind: A History of Iran:
'....there is good evidence that Iranians are today more sceptical of religious leadership and more inclined to secularism than most other nationalities in the Middle East. The failure of the West to take advantage of the opportunity offered by a reformist president in Iran already looks like a bad mistake. One such opportunity came after the September 11, 2001 attacks in the United States when members of the Iranian leadership (not just Khatami, but also Khamanei), condemned the terrorist action in forthright terms, and ordinary Iranians showed their sympathies with candlelit vigils in the streets of Tehran - more evidence of the marked difference of attitude between Iranians and other Middle Eastern peoples.
Another opportunity came after Iran gave significant help to the coalition forces against the Taliban later in 2001, helping to persuade the Northern Alliance to accept democratic arrangements for post-Taliban Afghanistan. In 2002, Iranians were rewarded with President George W. Bush's 'Axis of Evil' speech, which lumped Iran in with Iraq and North Korea. Finally, the Bush administration ignored an Iranian offer in the spring of 2003 (shortly after the fall of Baghdad), via the Swiss, for bilateral talks towards a Grand Bargain that appeared to promise a possible resolution of the nuclear issue and de facto Iranian recognition of the Israel.
The purpose of all this is not to reinforce the cringing sense of guilt that bedevils many Western observers who look at the Middle East. It is not All Our Fault, and no doubt if the Iranians had been in the position of strength that Britain was between 1815 and 1950, or that the United States has been in since then [both countries have interfered massively in Iranian affairs, culminating in a British SIS/US CIA inspired coup to displace Mossadeq, just as Iran was starting to embrace democracy - for details Google 'Operation Ajax'] they would have behaved as badly, and quite possibly worse. The Iranians also missed opportunities for rapprochement in the Khatami years But too often we have gotten things wrong, and that has had a cost. It is important to see events from an Iranian perspective, to see how we got things wrong, and to see what needs to be done in order to get them right. The most important thing is this: if we make commitments and assert certain principles, we must be more careful to say what we mean and uphold those principles.
The Iranian reaction after 9/11 shows in high relief the apparent paradox in Iranian attitudes to the West in general, and to the United States in particular. As we have seen, Iranians have real historical grounds for resentment that are unique to Iran and that go beyond the usual postures of of nationalism and anti-Americanism [earlier chapters of Axworthy's book explain why]. But among many ordinary Iranians there is also a liking and respect for Europeans and Americans that goes well beyond what one finds elsewhere in the Middle East. To some extent this is again a function of the Iranians' sense of their special status among other Middle Eastern nations. Plainly, different Iranians combine these attitudes in different ways, but the best way to explain this paradox is perhaps to say that many Iranians (irrespective of their attitude to their own government, which they may also partly blame for the situation), feel snubbed, abused, misunderstood and let down by the Westerners they think should have been their friends.'
And a little further on:
'The ruling regime in Iran has many faults, but it is more representative than most in the Middle East outside Israel.....Despite repressive measures by the state, Iran is not a totalitarian country like the Soviet Union during the Cold War. It is a complex polity, with different power centers and shades of opinion among those in power. There is space for dissent - within certain boundaries. Iran still has the potential for self-generated change, as has been recognised by observers from Paul Wolfowitz to Reza Pahlavi, the son of the last Shah.'
Unfortunately, I can't find any news articles featuring Ansari's views that aren't behind a paywall or that don't require a subscription. But he would be the person to keep tabs on.
For my money, Trump has got into bed with his big mates the Saudis with the aim of de-stabilizing and perhaps bringing about the collapse of the revolutionary Iranian government. I would also imagine that the present policy plays well will both Israel and the barking-mad fundamentalist Christians who vote for Trump and are motivated in their pro-Israeli outlook by their belief that the Jews must foregather in the Holy Land for the parousia and other events associated with their dismal end-time eschatology to get kick-started, a belief that gets cynically exploited by the Israeli government.
Of course, the Iranian regime subscribes to some fairly strange beliefs of their own:
It may also be worth reminding readers of this post that after 9/11, Trump was believed by many of his devotees when he claimed that he saw on that day, 'thousands and thousands' of Muslims in Jersey City, 'cheering as that building was coming down'. When Jersey City police and reporters were unable to find any trace of such a gathering, Trump claimed that he saw it on TV, though no-one could subsequently find any TV record that substantiated his claim.
Let's hope that that his current policy doesn't unravel, as the US track record isn't especially inspiring. For example, here are a few choice quotations from the time of the invasion of Iraq in 2003:
George W. Bush : 'It was unlikely that there would be internecine warfare between the different religious and ethnic groups'
Kenneth Adelman: 'Liberating Iraq would be a cakewalk.'
Richard Perle: 'Now it isn't going to be over in 24 hours, but it isn't going to be months either.'
Paul Wolfowitz: 'They will greet us as liberators.'