RE: Iran invades the UK

RE: Iran invades the UK (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

Politesub53 -> RE: Iran invades the UK (11/30/2011 6:46:16 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: kdsub Over and over in history when this type of aggression has been overlooked or appeased millions have suffered. Bullshit. I doubt you can name one instance other than the flowed notion of WW2, which would have happened sooner or later anyway.

kdsub -> RE: Iran invades the UK (11/30/2011 6:49:40 AM)
I agree that Pakistan is unstable but not Israel, if they truly have any ...at least when it comes to nuclear weapons...and don't forget India...I'm not so sure how stable they are as well. There is little we can do about those that have them...soooo should we just throw up our hands and say OK lets arm everyone and see how long it takes before we destroy ourselves?…Because if it is fair for one it is fair for all. Butch

kdsub -> RE: Iran invades the UK (11/30/2011 6:54:33 AM)
No need to point out instances to you... It has happened in every war every where every time. Perceived weakness by an aggressor means war...or a fight. How many times have you seen this behavior on the playground or in business or on the world stage? It is part of our makeup. An aggressor will not attack if he believes he can be defeated or will be apposed with equal force. Butch

LadyConstanze -> RE: Iran invades the UK (11/30/2011 6:56:03 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: kdsub No need to point out instances to you... It has happened in every war every where every time. Perceived weakness by an aggressor means war...or a fight. How many times have you seen this behavior on the playground or in business or on the world stage? It is part of our makeup. An aggressor will not attack if he believes he can be defeated or will be apposed with equal force. Butch Then surely it wouldn't be a problem to specify a few and support your argument with facts and examples?

Politesub53 -> RE: Iran invades the UK (11/30/2011 7:09:45 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: kdsub No need to point out instances to you... It has happened in every war every where every time. Perceived weakness by an aggressor means war...or a fight. How many times have you seen this behavior on the playground or in business or on the world stage? It is part of our makeup. An aggressor will not attack if he believes he can be defeated or will be apposed with equal force. Butch There is every need to point out instances, since you made the claim. The section I have bolded is also nonsense, since Iran invaded the American Embassy, without causing a war, as I recall. This despite knowing what America may or may not do. Like I said, point out some instances to back up your claim. My guess is you wont find any. Your post seems a desperate measure to equate yesterdays spat at our embassy, with Irans nuclear ambition. It wont wash.

RakeAndCo -> RE: Iran invades the UK (11/30/2011 7:19:06 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: SpanishMatMaster quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/30/world/middleeast/tehran-protesters-storm-british-embassy.html?_r=2&hp How many times do we stand by and let them invade a NATO nation before we take action? Let me guess... until the affected nation asks you for help? In Europe some people have a sticker with a US flag and the text "Behave, or we will bring democracy to your country..." So please wait until the UK actually asks you for help before starting with the bombs, ok? Fair enough? It helps to know what is the function and mission of NATO.

Arienos -> RE: Iran invades the UK (11/30/2011 7:24:31 AM)
quote: Govts. let this happen as a great propaganda tool, just like any number of 'things' that not only the 'west' lets happen but may also instigate or commit for the same purpose. It's all about keeping the people thinking they are always... always under attack. As much as I would like to debate your comment and delve into your thinking I believe it best to simply say the arts of social engineering along with war planning and strategies are not as obvious as you think.

Sanity -> RE: Iran invades the UK (11/30/2011 7:25:09 AM)
A "spat" at the embassy, was it quote: ORIGINAL: Politesub53 There is every need to point out instances, since you made the claim. The section I have bolded is also nonsense, since Iran invaded the American Embassy, without causing a war, as I recall. This despite knowing what America may or may not do. Like I said, point out some instances to back up your claim. My guess is you wont find any. Your post seems a desperate measure to equate yesterdays spat at our embassy, with Irans nuclear ambition. It wont wash.

mnottertail -> RE: Iran invades the UK (11/30/2011 7:42:37 AM)
I will point out it is a problem that; at this point, is one of solely concerning the UK. They have dipped their wick in the area for over 200 years (since the colonial times). If they choose to couch it as a 'spat', I think that is strictly their business (and they certainly are not going to listen to american armchair hotheads opinions, since we haven't shown anyone a visionary path in that area, so our examples are lacking in reality, innit?)

Anaxagoras -> RE: Iran invades the UK (11/30/2011 7:54:24 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: MrRodgers quote: ORIGINAL: Arienos quote: How many times do we stand by and let them invade a NATO nation before we take action? Ken, not only was this state sponsored protest predictable, it was preventable in that eyes on the ground reported its inciting days earlier and both your Nation and mine were fully aware of its coming. Govts. let this happen as a great propaganda tool, just like any number of 'things' that not only the 'west' lets happen but may also instigate or commit for the same purpose. It's all about keeping the people thinking they are always... always under attack. Thats more conspiracist stuff. There commonly are state-sponsored protests in Iran, just as one often has with other tyrannical regimes, which is always accompanied by a strong level of incitement but the surprise here was the security forces blithely letting the protestors into the compounds, along with the "rescue" afterward to avoid too much blowback. quote: ORIGINAL: SpanishMatMaster quote: ORIGINAL: kdsub especially with unstable countries like Korea and Iran. I beg your pardon, but Iran is not unstable. On the philosophy threads I thought you were just being intellectually dishonest in some sort of perverse desire to always prove you are superior intellectually to all other folk on this forum ("perverse" even by the standards of a BDSM forum - perhaps it is some sort of sapiosexual onanistic impulse?) but the above quote really proves you really are a fool.

SpanishMatMaster -> RE: Iran invades the UK (11/30/2011 8:12:29 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: kdsub I agree that Pakistan is unstable but not Israel, if they truly have any ...at least when it comes to nuclear weapons...and don't forget India...I'm not so sure how stable they are as well. There is little we can do about those that have them...soooo should we just throw up our hands and say OK lets arm everyone and see how long it takes before we destroy ourselves?…Because if it is fair for one it is fair for all. Well, there is little we can do about Iran either. Anyway I was just showing that you election of "unstable" countries was not quite objective (innocent), IMHO. It was a typical American selection. India (thank you for mentioning it) is pretty stable, quite much really. Israel is IMHO much more unstable as Iran: divided population, receiving constant attacks, surrounded by hostile populations, with increasing religious fanaticism, unbalanced Army costs and colonies in hostile territory which must be defended every day. Israel has much more changes to have an (unpleasant) change in the near future as Iran has to have any (pleasant one). I am not attacking Israel or defending Iran, I am speaking about stability, which is what you mentioned. And well, yes, I do not doubt that Israel has nukes. They have not even denied it since Mordechai Vanunu. Best regards.

tweakabelle -> RE: Iran invades the UK (11/30/2011 9:50:15 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: kdsub tweak...you are just out of touch with your own country and this one with your anti-Jewish stances. Not that anyone wants intervention in Iran...I sure don't. But people in this country are worried about the proliferation of nuclear weapons…especially with unstable countries like Korea and Iran. The attacks on international embassies, if sanctioned, are unsettling proof of this instability. Over and over in history when this type of aggression has been overlooked or appeased millions have suffered. I really don’t know what can and should be done in this situation but no response should be ruled out. Butch Butch please stop making elementary and offensive errors like confusing political criticism of Israel with anti-Jewish stances. It suggests ignorance. There's a world of difference between the two. Or describing Iran as "unstable". By ME standards, it isn't. The current regime (such as it is) has exercised power there virtually uncontested for several decades, nor has Iran invaded anywhere during that time. There is a non-violent solution available. Make the entire ME region nuclear arms-free. Why is it being ignored?

DomKen -> RE: Iran invades the UK (11/30/2011 9:57:55 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: LadyConstanze quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/30/world/middleeast/tehran-protesters-storm-british-embassy.html?_r=2&hp How many times do we stand by and let them invade a NATO nation before we take action? After your misleading headline I wondered if I slept through the invasion, then - to my great relief - I realized your header is simply wrong. Let's hope no Americans commit a crime, because it would of course be just then to make the whole nation responsible... No, the header is correct. The Iranian government sent people under its control into the UK and took control of that territory. If that isn't an invasion I don't know what is.

tweakabelle -> RE: Iran invades the UK (11/30/2011 10:19:05 AM)
quote: The Iranian government sent people under its control into the UK and took control of that territory. If that isn't an invasion I don't know what is. A street demonstration attacked the UK embassy. Is this an a Govt-inspired act of war? Elements of the Iranian establishment are suspected by elements in the West of orchestrating the attack. To date, no proof has been made public to support these suspicions. It is hyperbole to assert Iran Govt involvement as fact at this stage. Why is a fessed-up member of the Zionist lobby like DomKen leading the chorus for an aggressive response? Israel has gotten itself into the mess it's in. Let it get itself out.

RakeAndCo -> RE: Iran invades the UK (11/30/2011 10:31:10 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tweakabelle quote: The Iranian government sent people under its control into the UK and took control of that territory. If that isn't an invasion I don't know what is. A street demonstration attacked the UK embassy. Is this an a Govt-inspired act of war? Elements of the Iranian establishment are suspected by elements in the West of orchestrating the attack. To date, no proof has been made public to support these suspicions. It is hyperbole to assert Iran Govt involvement as fact at this stage. This illustrates in the most succulent way that you don't have even an ounce of clue about how embassies are protected. But here, let me educate you so you don't appear to be so clueless in future. The outer perimeter of embassies is protected by the host country. The host country's security is allowed and expected to use deadly force to prevent anyone non-invited by the guest country to enter its territory. The only thing that the host country's security is not allowed to do is enter the territory of the embassy. The inner perimeter of the embassy is protected by the security force of the embassy. It is authorized and expected to use deadly force to stop anyone from entering the territory of the embassy. It is not authorized to engage outside the demarcation line of the embassy. So yes, if the host country's security force did not stop the protesters by any means necessary and the government of the host country is still standing, then the host country did in fact engage in the act of war.

tweakabelle -> RE: Iran invades the UK (11/30/2011 10:35:46 AM)
[

tweakabelle -> RE: Iran invades the UK (11/30/2011 10:43:36 AM)
quote: But here, let me educate you so you don't appear to be so clueless in future. You're correct as the technical details, and legal implications of embassy security. However, attacks on embassies occur throughout the world at various intervals. I could be wrong but I can't recall a single instance of a country reacting to an attack on its embassy as an invasion in my lifetime. Even the US didn't react that way when its Teheran Embassy was seized during the 80s. The US didn't invade Kenya when it's embassy there was bombed. Even Israel (not a shrinking violet by any standard) didn't invade Egypt after the sacking of its embassy there recently. So why is this any different? Less of the pretentious war mongering dressed up as legalese thanks and start living in the real world.

SternSkipper -> RE: Iran invades the UK (11/30/2011 10:47:28 AM)
quote: Thank you sweetheart...now what is it you did not like about my post...maybe we can discuss our opinion differences like men instead of smart asses. Sure ... let me know when you start posting shit that isn't just an attack ad for the topical material in a thread I care to comment in, and you have a deal.

kalikshama -> RE: Iran invades the UK (11/30/2011 10:54:35 AM)
quote: There is a non-violent solution available. Make the entire ME region nuclear arms-free. Why is it being ignored? How would this be put into effect (without force > violence)?

tweakabelle -> RE: Iran invades the UK (11/30/2011 11:04:55 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: kalikshama quote: There is a non-violent solution available. Make the entire ME region nuclear arms-free. Why is it being ignored? How would this be put into effect (without force > violence)? An agreement/Treaty between all the states of the region to declare the region a nuclear-weapons free zone is one way of achieving this goal. It is my understanding that many States in the region have already indicated their approval in principle for this solution. Might I add that given the persistent instability of the region as a whole, this is a very desirable outcome IMHO.

Page: << < prev 1 2 [3] 4 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875