Collarspace Discussion Forums


Home  Login  Search 

RE: UK Govt: Iran strike "illegal"


View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
 
All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion >> RE: UK Govt: Iran strike "illegal" Page: <<   < prev  2 3 [4] 5 6   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: UK Govt: Iran strike "illegal" - 10/28/2012 6:38:03 PM   
vincentML


Posts: 9980
Joined: 10/31/2009
Status: offline
quote:

As far as the Americas are concerned you are correct. However as far as the Europeans (including the Russians) are concerned and the Chinese, this great game will be played, and it is necessary to use the United States military, as no European or Israeli force is powerful enough to prevail.

Thus fictions are needed, so as to get the United States involved.

Russia is already staking out claims in the Arctic. A source of future friction with Canada and America.

We agree re: the fictions needed.

(in reply to YN)
Profile   Post #: 61
RE: UK Govt: Iran strike "illegal" - 10/28/2012 6:39:54 PM   
vincentML


Posts: 9980
Joined: 10/31/2009
Status: offline
quote:

You lay out the grounds of the scenario, Israel who is outside the law, unilaterally attacks Iran, and then invokes its treatys with NATO and the United States when the retaliation inevitably occurs. Naturally the hapless English and United States must support their injured ally.

The commodity price of oil rises greatly worldwide though only the oil flowing from the Persian Gulf is really affected in terms of production costs, but the multi national oil fields in various other places sell their product at the inflated prices. The oil from the Gulf now goes in large part to Asia, thus damaging the East Asia economies. The Anglo-American oil companies take the huge profits while the consumers in Europe and North America pay this hideous tax twice, first for the military intervention needed, and then at the pump.

Yup. Sounds possible.

(in reply to YN)
Profile   Post #: 62
RE: UK Govt: Iran strike "illegal" - 10/28/2012 8:27:23 PM   
FatDomDaddy


Posts: 3183
Joined: 1/31/2004
Status: offline 		FR...

What are they going to do, shoot us down???

Just giving the Brits some world cover...that's all.

(BTW... I fully expect the MOD's live up to their tight reins or is it OK to say Brits??? I keep forgetting who we can and cannot use diminutives with when it comes to nationalities)

< Message edited by FatDomDaddy -- 10/28/2012 8:28:34 PM >

(in reply to vincentML)
Profile   Post #: 63
RE: UK Govt: Iran strike "illegal" - 10/28/2012 9:06:50 PM   
Aylee


Posts: 24103
Joined: 10/14/2007
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Politesub53


quote:

ORIGINAL: TheHeretic

I believe she's referring to the Nazi's, Mike. Google "Chamberlain," for a refresher.


She cant even get the quote right......go figure.


One word wrong. It was 74 years ago and not really something that I have to remember day to day. Plus my 'misquote' is often used.

Peace in our time versus Peace for our time. I do not see anything left out in translation.

aus dem Wege zu räumen, um auf diese Weise zur Sicherung des Friedens in Europa beizutragen.

to secure the peace in Europe

Yep, easy to get that confused.

_____________________________

Ceterum censeo Carthaginem esse delendam

I don’t always wgah’nagl fhtagn. But when I do, I ph’nglui mglw’nafh R’lyeh.

(in reply to Politesub53)
Profile   Post #: 64
RE: UK Govt: Iran strike "illegal" - 10/28/2012 10:47:51 PM   
tweakabelle


Posts: 7522
Joined: 10/16/2007
From: Sydney Australia
Status: offline
quote:

YN
Since the UN Security Council has China and Russia as members, and considering the significant deviations from the UN mandate in Libya, and the current refusal by them to sanction UN military activities in Syria, it is Certain Russia, China or both will veto any request for a military attack on Iran.

Thus if the UN is the arbiter of "international law" then there will not be any "legal" attack on Iran sanctioned by that body. Not that this will stop the US, the UK, Israel, or NATO for some pretext will be manufactured if needed, much as was done in the case of Iraq, and any "international court" will look the other way.


This is a realistic appraisal of the situation. The US and NATO have histories of ignoring international law whenever it suits them. Israel flagrantly violates international law and Security Council resolutions each and every day. The legality or other wise of their actions is not a concern to them, unless, as in this instance, the law just happens to coincide with the UK's preference not to get involved in another ME military adventure to preserve the nuclear privileges of an outlaw State that practices apartheid and ethnic cleansing.

Despite its many inadequacies, I would still argue that we should insist that international law prevail. It is far from a perfect framework for countries to manage their external relations equitably, but it is far better than no framework at all.



_____________________________



(in reply to YN)
Profile   Post #: 65
RE: UK Govt: Iran strike "illegal" - 10/28/2012 11:00:22 PM   
FMRFGOPGAL


Posts: 763
Joined: 9/1/2012
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML

quote:

Hahahahahahahahaha... Utter rubbish. And Vincent is for the first time in my recent memory, right.

LMAO!!! I will sleep well tonight, dear lady


Good for you.

(in reply to vincentML)
Profile   Post #: 66
RE: UK Govt: Iran strike "illegal" - 10/28/2012 11:02:44 PM   
FMRFGOPGAL


Posts: 763
Joined: 9/1/2012
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: YN
What part is rubbish?



Everything prior to the map.
Vincent covered most of it. Read his post.

(in reply to YN)
Profile   Post #: 67
RE: UK Govt: Iran strike "illegal" - 10/28/2012 11:02:57 PM   
FatDomDaddy


Posts: 3183
Joined: 1/31/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: tweakabelle

The US and NATO have histories of ignoring international law whenever it suits them.



I should hope so!

(in reply to tweakabelle)
Profile   Post #: 68
RE: UK Govt: Iran strike "illegal" - 10/28/2012 11:11:23 PM   
FMRFGOPGAL


Posts: 763
Joined: 9/1/2012
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: tweakabelle

quote:


They're a signatory, but they are FAR from "in good standing".


Have you got any credible evidence to back this claim up? Thus far, all we have seen from you is extravagant claims, no evidence or links.

There are numerous IAEA reports on the Iran question. If your claim has any validity, you ought to be able to find some support for your claims in one of those reports. As your claim is that Iran isn't keeping its obligations under the Non Proliferation Treaty, you will be able to identify specifically which of those obligations you believe Iran to be in breach of, with evidence to fully support your claims.

I look forward to seeing what you can produce - if you can produce any credible evidence at all.


This IAEA? Or do you mean some other IAEA?
The 11/2011 IAEA report expressed strong concerns about the military dimension of Iran’s nuclear ambitions in http://iaea.org/Publications/Documents/Board/2011/gov2011-65.pdf section G. Part 41. It said there are indications of the development of weapon technology. In part 42 it says the information is credible as it came from many sources over a number of years. Part 43 states there is evidence of the development of indigenous nuclear weapons technology. Part 44 states the technology has a specific military dimension.

The conclusion reaffirms the serious concerns, e.g. Part 53: "The Agency has serious concerns regarding possible military dimensions to Iran’s nuclear programme. After assessing carefully and critically the extensive information available to it, the Agency finds the information to be, overall, credible. The information indicates that Iran has carried out activities relevant to the development of a nuclear explosive device."

Quit pulling everyone's chain.

< Message edited by FMRFGOPGAL -- 10/28/2012 11:12:04 PM >

(in reply to tweakabelle)
Profile   Post #: 69
RE: UK Govt: Iran strike "illegal" - 10/28/2012 11:15:29 PM   
FMRFGOPGAL


Posts: 763
Joined: 9/1/2012
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: FatDomDaddy


quote:

ORIGINAL: tweakabelle

The US and NATO have histories of ignoring international law whenever it suits them.



I should hope so!


What's funny is how some outside this country don't get how transparent their 'Exploding People's Front' line of BS is.

(in reply to FatDomDaddy)
Profile   Post #: 70
RE: UK Govt: Iran strike "illegal" - 10/29/2012 12:22:50 AM   
tweakabelle


Posts: 7522
Joined: 10/16/2007
From: Sydney Australia
Status: offline
quote:


quote:


quote:


FMRFGOPGAL



They're a signatory, but they are FAR from "in good standing".


ORIGINAL: tweakabelle

Have you got any credible evidence to back this claim up? Thus far, all we have seen from you is extravagant claims, no evidence or links.

There are numerous IAEA reports on the Iran question. If your claim has any validity, you ought to be able to find some support for your claims in one of those reports. As your claim is that Iran isn't keeping its obligations under the Non Proliferation Treaty, you will be able to identify specifically which of those obligations you believe Iran to be in breach of, with evidence to fully support your claims.

I look forward to seeing what you can produce - if you can produce any credible evidence at all.



This IAEA? Or do you mean some other IAEA?
The 11/2011 IAEA report expressed strong concerns about the military dimension of Iran’s nuclear ambitions in http://iaea.org/Publications/Documents/Board/2011/gov2011-65.pdf section G. Part 41. It said there are indications of the development of weapon technology. In part 42 it says the information is credible as it came from many sources over a number of years. Part 43 states there is evidence of the development of indigenous nuclear weapons technology. Part 44 states the technology has a specific military dimension.

The conclusion reaffirms the serious concerns, e.g. Part 53: "The Agency has serious concerns regarding possible military dimensions to Iran’s nuclear programme. After assessing carefully and critically the extensive information available to it, the Agency finds the information to be, overall, credible. The information indicates that Iran has carried out activities relevant to the development of a nuclear explosive device."

Quit pulling everyone's chain.


You were asked to provide evidence to support your claim that Iran has failed to keep its obligations under the Non Proliferation Treaty. Specifically you were asked to identify those obligations that Iran has failed to meet.

There is an awfully wide gap between "serious concerns" of "possible military dimensions" the report mentions and the "specific breaches" or "breaching an obligation" you needed to provide. Any of us can have "serious concerns" about a person's possible criminal intentions, but until they have broken a specific law, they remain innocent. Until hard evidence is found to support those concerns, those concerns remain conjecture or speculation. Such concerns may have a basis in fact, or there may be no basis whatsoever for them. The word "possible" means that there is no definite intention, only a potential intention. It may or may not have a basis in fact. It may be realised in the future - possibly - or it may never happen. At this point, it is all conjecture.

I should add that, if the IAEA found any evidence of a breach by Iran of its obligations under the Non-Proliferation Treaty, it would have reported them as such - the IAEA would clearly and specifically identify the breach. The failure to specify any breaches means that the IAEA didn't find any such breaches.

Conjecture aside, you haven't identified a single obligation that Iran has failed to uphold, according to the IAEA. You are unable to provide any evidence of a single breach. Not a single word of the above mentions a specific breach of any obligation under the Treaty. Your post is an attempt to turn innuendo into fact.

If the above is the best you can do, then your claim fails and fails utterly. The is not the first time your claims have failed to be substantiated by evidence on ME issues. If there is anyone pulling chains, it is the people who make wild, unsubstantiated claims. Please try to stick to facts in future. If your perspective is a valid one, there is surely no need to make the kinds of wild unsubstantiated claims you have made on this (and other) occasions about ME issues.

< Message edited by tweakabelle -- 10/29/2012 12:32:19 AM >

_____________________________



(in reply to FMRFGOPGAL)
Profile   Post #: 71
RE: UK Govt: Iran strike "illegal" - 10/29/2012 12:46:16 AM   
FMRFGOPGAL


Posts: 763
Joined: 9/1/2012
Status: offline 		That was last year... I was just trashing youyr phoney assertions that there wasn't any reason to believe they're out of compliance. It must be frustrating having to continually be an apologist for a group of states that use Hezbollah, Hamas The Taliban and Al Qaeda
as their primary ambassadors.
 

(in reply to tweakabelle)
Profile   Post #: 72
RE: UK Govt: Iran strike "illegal" - 10/29/2012 4:57:32 AM   
tweakabelle


Posts: 7522
Joined: 10/16/2007
From: Sydney Australia
Status: offline
quote:

I was just trashing youyr phoney assertions that there wasn't any reason to believe they're out of compliance.


False. Your initial claim, which I disputed and called on you to substantiate was "Iran should be strung up for threarening[sic] the nuclear proliferation treaty." (post #13)

Whatever your intentions, your manifest failure to back up this wild assertion with any evidence only succeeded in trashing your own credibility. Just in case there was any doubt about your intentions, you repeat your error:
quote:

It must be frustrating having to continually be an apologist for a group of states that use Hezbollah, Hamas The Taliban and Al Qaeda
as their primary ambassadors.

If you read any of my posts, you will be familiar with the contempt I repeatedly express for all theocratic movements, including those so influential in your own country - the Religious Right. Again, the only thing trashed here is the cred of someone who would make such a nonsensical claim. It appears you are intent on turning self sabotage into a lifestyle. Good luck with that.

To help you setting your sights a little higher than self sabotage, here's the website of a group in Israel/Occupied Palestine that I support financially as it shares my commitment to peace, justice and human rights without compromise or favour: http://cfpeace.org/ As you can see it is composed of ex-combatants on both sides who have renounced violence and support peace human rights and justice for all in Palestine and Israel. I hope you can share in supporting that goal.

< Message edited by tweakabelle -- 10/29/2012 5:25:07 AM >

_____________________________



(in reply to FMRFGOPGAL)
Profile   Post #: 73
RE: UK Govt: Iran strike "illegal" - 10/30/2012 2:45:56 AM   
ermood


Posts: 267
Joined: 9/20/2012
Status: offline 		At least he's far better then any of the US presidents that ever existed;)

(in reply to Aylee)
Profile   Post #: 74
RE: UK Govt: Iran strike "illegal" - 10/30/2012 4:59:56 AM   
Edwynn


Posts: 4105
Joined: 10/26/2008
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Aylee


quote:

ORIGINAL: subrob1967

So the Brits are worried about their oil again... Didn't they make some back room deal with Saddam too? Fuck the UK


I recall from my history classes another group, bent on world domination and destroying the Jews, that the British tried to appease.


So the Brits are accused of "appeasement." What neither your or my history classes taught is that US corporations made out fantastically on their deal with the Nazis, and likewise.

Did your history classes tell you that both Ford's Henry Ford and GM's James Mooney were awarded the highest civilian honor by Hitler for their role in building up and supplying their war machine with so many critical components, planes, trucks, etc.? The Grand Cross of The Eagle, awarded to them both.

Let's not forget that every Western country had not only Nazi 'sympathizers' but active participants in their cause, domestically. In the US there were Claire Booth and others behind the "racial hygiene" movement, and Prescot Bush's equity group eagerly providing much financing for the Nazis, and of course Standard Oil (NJ), who refused to sell their leaded gasoline technology or artificial rubber technology (both new at that time) to the US Navy because they had given the Nazis prior license to all that.

Yeah, those damn Brits and their 'appeasement.'

I don't think they made much money off of that.

Hooray for the US.



< Message edited by Edwynn -- 10/30/2012 5:01:59 AM >

(in reply to Aylee)
Profile   Post #: 75
RE: UK Govt: Iran strike "illegal" - 10/30/2012 5:52:42 AM   
Moonhead


Posts: 16520
Joined: 9/21/2009
Status: offline 		While we're on that, maybe somebody with a revisionist bent could explain how waiting two years to join the allied war effort isn't appeasement?

_____________________________

I like to think he was eaten by rats, in the dark, during a fog. It's what he would have wanted...
(Simon R Green on the late James Herbert)

(in reply to Edwynn)
Profile   Post #: 76
RE: UK Govt: Iran strike "illegal" - 10/30/2012 8:24:14 AM   
YN


Posts: 699
Status: offline 		Regarding Chamberlin and appeasement -

The English had to play the hand they were dealt, and at the time there wasn't much that England or the rest of the Europeans could do besides what they did, being caught on one foot. Remember the Soviets were the German allies at the time,

quote:

Moonhead - While we're on that, maybe somebody with a revisionist bent could explain how waiting two years to join the allied war effort isn't appeasement?


The combined forces of the British Empire and the French Empire, along with assorted other Europeans should have easily deal with the Germans in this regional conflict. That Germany was able to beat the whole of Europe and its colonies into submission is astounding, just what do you think the United States or anyone else in the Americas could have done militarily to help? Warships, troop training, pilot training, etc. all take time.

Your empire had ~600 million people and you had the largest and most powerful military on the planet. France also had a large empire and a quite powerful military.The United States was a sixth your size and so was Germany at the time. In fact Nazi Germany at the time and the United States would have been about equals, assuming the United States was given the five years to militarize as the Germans had done.

And it was not a world war until the Japanese decided to toss the Europeans out of East Asia.

As for Iran, I fail top see any appeasement going on, save with the East Asian allies who now have Japan joining the pile of requests for exemptions to the sanctions. Nor do the Chinese pay any attention to sanctions in the first place.



< Message edited by YN -- 10/30/2012 8:26:57 AM >

(in reply to Moonhead)
Profile   Post #: 77
RE: UK Govt: Iran strike "illegal" - 10/30/2012 8:33:51 AM   
Lucylastic


Posts: 40310
Status: offline 		The Second World War officially began on September 1, 1939, with the German invasion of Poland. Britain and France declared war on the Nazi Third Reich on September 3, 1939. Seven days later, on September 10, 1939, the Parliament of Canada likewise declared war on Germany, the country's first independent declaration of war and the beginning of Canada's participation in the largest combined national effort in its history. By war's end, over 1 million citizens would serve in military uniform, and Canada would possess the fourth-largest air force and third-largest naval surface fleet in the world.
While the response to war was initially intended to be limited, resources were mobilized quickly. The Convoy HX-1 departed Halifax just six days after the nation declared war, escorted by HMCS St. Laurent and HMCS Saguenay. The 1st Canadian Infantry Division arrived in Britain on January 1, 1940. By June 13, 1940, the 1st Battalion of The Hastings and Prince Edward Regiment was deployed to France in an attempt to secure the southern flank of the British Expeditionary Force in Belgium. By the time the battalion arrived, the British and allies were cut off at Dunkirk, Paris had fallen, and after penetrating 200 km inland, the battalion returned to Brest and then to Britain.

The frustrated Canadian Army fought no significant engagement in the European theatre of operations until the invasion of Sicily in the summer of 1943. With the Sicily Campaign, the Canadians had the opportunity to enter combat and later were among the first to enter Rome.

Canada was the only country of the Americas to be actively involved in the war until the Attack on Pearl Harbor.

Canadian support for the war was mobilized through a propaganda campaign, including If Day, a staged 'Nazi' invasion of Winnipeg which generated more than $3 million in war bonds.

_____________________________

(•_•)
<) )╯SUCH
/ \

\(•_•)
( (> A NASTY
/ \

(•_•)
<) )> WOMAN
/ \

Duchess Of Dissent
Dont Hate Love

(in reply to YN)
Profile   Post #: 78
RE: UK Govt: Iran strike "illegal" - 10/30/2012 8:34:34 AM   
mnottertail


Posts: 60698
Joined: 11/3/2004
Status: offline 		Well, the Soviets had no choice but to ally with Germany till they were ready to war.   We rebuffed their overtures (US and UK).

Sometimes everybody marries the devil.

_____________________________

Have they not divided the prey; to every man a damsel or two? Judges 5:30


(in reply to YN)
Profile   Post #: 79
RE: UK Govt: Iran strike "illegal" - 10/30/2012 8:35:24 AM   
vincentML


Posts: 9980
Joined: 10/31/2009
Status: offline 		Oh good! Thread hijack!!!

The US was simply unprepared militarily, logistically, and politically. The best FDR could do was pass the Lend Lease Act in March 1941, so we could become the 'arsenal of democracy.' Although, by that time France had fallen and mobilization was underway.

However, if you had rather we had stayed home . . . .

http://www.battlefront.com/community/showthread.php?p=1128518

(in reply to Moonhead)
Profile   Post #: 80
Page:   <<   < prev  2 3 [4] 5 6   next >   >>
All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion >> RE: UK Govt: Iran strike "illegal" Page: <<   < prev  2 3 [4] 5 6   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy

0.094