Politics & Stuff

[bushman 2,043]

You have a good point. But if I may ask you, how does Iran having nuclear weapons ( which will take at least a decade with all the limitations they are facing) will solve the Israeli possession of nuclear weapon? Anyways that would be another topic I think, unless I am wrong ofcourse

I believe, every country has the right to decide for themselves. Why should someone in Washington tell Iran what to have?

Has anyone ever asked why Isreal can possess nuclear weapons & the others not?

The way I see it, a double standard is applied here. Recently, we have seen Russia in Crimea. NATO & the US are yapping loudly. What about Kosovo, was that legal?

[bushman 2,043]

We have nuclear weapons almost from the birth of our country, we were never close to use it. Iran has intentions to use it against us

Try again.

[Mohammed Seif 1,451]

I believe, every country has the right to decide for themselves. Why should someone in Washington tell Iran what to have?

Has anyone ever asked why Isreal can possess nuclear weapons & the others not?

The way I see it, a double standard is applied here. Recently, we have seen Russia in Crimea. NATO & the US are yapping loudly. What about Kosovo, was that legal?

I agree with you, every nation has the right to determine its own fate. I also agree that there are double standards and that the powerful nations bend and twist the rules all of the time to suit their own needs and interests. But if Iran has the right to own nuclear weapons it surely doesn't have the right to issue threats of annihilation to any country, right mate?

[bushman 2,043]

I agree with you, every nation has the right to determine its own fate. I also agree that there are double standards and that the powerful nations bend and twist the rules all of the time to suit their own needs and interests. But if Iran has the right to own nuclear weapons it surely doesn't have the right to issue threats of annihilation to any country, right mate?

Has America the right to bomb Jugoslavia, Vietnam, Iraq...?

As for talks on threats, talk is cheap. We both know, politicians talk too much.

[Mohammed Seif 1,451]

They on the verge of having it, everyone know's. and If nobody stops them they will use it

Allow me to disagree with you mate. They are not " on the verge " of having it at all. You recall Iraq, it wasn't that long ago . It was attacked based on " solid information from the world's best intelligence agencies" and the end NOTHING was found. Not even factories. I would really hate to see that happen again. This one is not as simple. I assure you, Iran will suffer from the attacks. I also assure you that Israel will face destruction that it has never seen before. Iran is no Iraq or Afghanistan mate.

[Mohammed Seif 1,451]

Has America the right to bomb Jugoslavia, Vietnam, Iraq...?

As for talks on threats, talk is cheap. We both know, politicians talk too much.

I previously said I do agree with you about the double standards. I am from the middle east. Trust me, I know ALL about it . Any person in the middle east can write books about the American double standards and interventions in countries I am not arguing with you there. I also agree that talk is cheap. Politicians always blabber too much and use the media to form a public opinion to support their ideas. Having said that, Iran's approach for nuclear weapon is hostile. They issue threats to the Gulf area all of the time. They kidnap people from the gulf in the gulf sea all of the time. They have their hands on islands that belong to the U.A.E. Iran being hostile is a fact to be honest. But how realistic these threats are and how to deal with those threats or hostile approach is a question. The fear of Iran's nuclear program is definitely EXAGGERATED. But also the way the Iranian government approach this is rather irrational. How can people leave them alone if they keep on bad mouthing all of the time? They should have a better approach. And frankly with such hostility, many neighboring countries should worry.

[Mohammed Seif 1,451]

How can you say they not on the verge? when there is satellite photographs that proves they have and when Iran leaders having speeches when they say they will wipe Israel from the map?

We know the danger very well believe me.

Well, pretty much the same thing was said about Iraq buddy. As I said, it turned out to be nothing. If they had it they would have tested it. It would have been known and clear. But the hassle about the inspections is because they are not sure and things are not clear . I respect your opinion mate but I totally disagree

[bushman 2,043]

I previously said I do agree with you about the double standards. I am from the middle east. Trust me, I know ALL about it . Any person in the middle east can write books about the American double standards and interventions in countries I am not arguing with you there. I also agree that talk is cheap. Politicians always blabber too much and use the media to form a public opinion to support their ideas. Having said that, Iran's approach for nuclear weapon is hostile. They issue threats to the Gulf area all of the time. They kidnap people from the gulf in the gulf sea all of the time. They have their hands on islands that belong to the U.A.E. Iran being hostile is a fact to be honest. But how realistic these threats are and how to deal with those threats or hostile approach is a question. The fear of Iran's nuclear program is definitely EXAGGERATED. But also the way the Iranian government approach this is rather irrational. How can people leave them alone if they keep on bad mouthing all of the time? They should have a better approach. And frankly with such hostility, many neighboring countries should worry.

Whether Iran´s issued threats or not, that´s irrelevant. Americans, kidnapped, tortured people throughout the world. Just because some cunt thought they terrorist?

Nuclear weapons are a deterrent. Why does Isreal have them if they are not going to use them, as written above?

Ok, see you later.

Just one thing, any satellite pictures, most likely is doctored. How about WMD in Iraq?

[xPetrCechx 13,546]

Elaborate please

Just want some normal life...

[Mohammed Seif 1,451]

You can disagree. I don't want to argue about it any more. I don't need your and everyone here agreement to know Iran true intentions.

I will just put this here:

http://www.cnn.com/2014/03/05/world/meast/israel-intercepted-weapons/

Well whatever makes you happy mate

[Fernando 6,376]

Dear Fernando, I am not that knowledgeable in politics . If you come from the region where I come from, it is practically an every day topic. A lot of generations haven't really known the meaning of stability in this region.

Regarding Iran, I hope it was a simple thing. You have to take in account many factors here when discussing Iran. Religion, Economy and Geography would be your basic foundation for this discussion in my opinion.Iranians follow a denomination of Islam called Shi'a while Saudi Arabia and Egypt ( the strongest Arabian Muslim countries in the region) are Sunnis. Iran wants to spread the Shi'a denomination so Saudi and Egypt are the main obstacles now that Iraq has been dismantled by the U.S. They have also posed and issued threats to the Gulf Region (mainly Sunni's or ruled by Sunni's) and they know that these countries also resemble U.S interests (oil). The hatred of the U.S.A doesn't only apply to Iranians, it applies to the majority of people in the middle east. Simply because people don't accept the fact that the U.S.A always interferes in their business. The U.S public are split regarding their foreign policy because they can feel how much the U.S is hated due their interventions. You also have to remember that the U.S.A helped Iraq in the 80's to start a war on the Iranians ( before they turned their back on Saddam). In a nut shell the reasons for the Iraqi invasion to Iran was so that Iraq would protect itself from "POSSIBLE" revolts that would be caused by the Iranians or Iraqis who were of shi'a denomination. The war lasted 8 years and it was brutal and inhuman as there was intensive use of chemical weapons.

With regards to Israel, Israel resembles the U.S interest in the middle east. The Iranians want to be the strongest power in the middle east and there are certain countries in its way. Israel is just one of them, Saudi Arabia is another and of course Egypt is another because it is the strongest Arabian country in the region (from a military point of view). They think that they have tested the strength of Israel through Hezbollah. Hezbollah are initially Lebanese people who were fighting off Israel's occupancy of areas in Southern Lebanon. Israel was forced to withdraw from Lebanon due to the casualties they suffered from the ongoing military conflicts. Hezbollah are Shi'as. And guess who were the main people that supplied them with arms and training? Iran. That doesn't make the Lebanese bad people, they are brave men who were fighting a country that occupied their lands. Just like any nation would do if their lands were occupied by a foreign power. I am sure you will find thousands of examples through out history. But what I am trying to stress on is that they have influence in the region because of religion. And you can easily make connections between Islamic militant groups in the region. About them saying they would want to wipe Israel off of the map, trust me, if you ask an Israeli who says this, they will tell you the entire Arab world, not just Iran. History has caused a lot of hatred between Israel and the Arab world. Discussing the reasons will be a very long story and each side has its debate. People in the middle east are what we call "hot blooded", can be very emotional and tempered people. That applies to Arabs, Israelis, Iranians, Turks...etc. It is kind of our nature that we got from our geography and history. That can also be clearly noticed from our day to day statement. You might have even realized that when you look at the Galata fans' comments and metaphors. When they say " Hell ", they don't really mean it literally. They just mean it will be a very tough place. They tend to exaggerate the meaning. "Wipe them off the map" is a similar exaggerated statement just t show the amount off hate they have.

Now can they wipe Israel off the map? If we were in the 16th century then sure, after all war was about horses and swords mainly. Right now, it is much more than that. Neither the Iranians nor the Arabs have decent technology to face Israel. So the answer is NO. They are consuming countries and not productive. Even the ones that have productions, are of low quality. The most they have is oil and that is a strong bargaining chip, but still not a weapon. So technologically the gap between Israel and the Iranians or Arabs is atleast 50 years in favor of Israel. Now let us assume and imagine that some miracle happens and those countries who are full of uneducated people, all of a sudden have the know how and secrets of technology and they are up to date like the Israelis and that they have nuclear weapons. Would Iran wipe Israel off of the map? Again the answer is No. Because the Iranians will be facing Israel and the strongest military in the world, the U.S. Not to mention other European countries that will aid Israel or the U.S. If such thing is to happen, Iran needs allies and that is not happening at all. Not now and not in the near future.

Economically they can't even go to war even if they had the weapons. War is not only about having bullets and guns. It is also about having financial power to buy or make bullets and guns. They are doing terribly economic wise. The people don't want to go to war. They want to live and provide for their families and loved ones. They are struggling with their day to day demands. They do not have that capability of going to war. It is all talk by politicians.

On the other hand they are not Afghanistan or Iraq. The U.S.A cannot do what they did to Afghanistan ( which was already broken up and had its internal conflicts) or with Iraq ( which was also exhausted from a war with Iran from 1980-1988 and a war with the world in the first Gulf war in 1990). The U.S knows that very well and the Israelis know that very well. It will not be a simple task where the planes would fly high and start bombing to set the way for ground troops. Israel is not far from Iran and its influenced groups. It will be a massacre for the Americans but mainly for the Israelis and Iranians. Even if the the U.S and Israelis have an upper hand technologically and economically.

But here is a question, what do you think will happen to you, Fernando, if war happens? The oil fields in the Gulf area will be the FIRST target and trust me that is an easy task for the Iranians. Now can you imagine the impact this would have on the world. Can you imagine what would economies all around the world be like if an ENTIRE MAIN OIL SUPPLYING REGION is in war. You will feel immediate impact in your country, simply because there will be shortage in supply. Prices will just fly, affecting every aspect of life. The Americans and the world know that very well. The Gulf region cut their supplies of oil during the 1973 war. They felt the effect. This time it will be much higher and the effect will be disastrous.

A strike is never a good thing. After all what happened in Iraq was a preemptive strike, because the media got the world convinced that Iraq have weapons of mass destruction. When the scandal was revealed, they started twisting things and saying that is was for the sake of "Democracy" and for the sake of Iraqi people. That didn't turn out very well either. Iran is not a threat. It will need at least half a century to be a threat. I am quiet sure that 50 years is more than enough time to solve the problems with Iran peacefully. The Israelis who call for war are not rational. Those politicians don't really care. Do you know that since Israel was established till now all generations have been to war. Weren't all these years enough to understand that with an ongoing conflict and with blood there will be no peace. The sad part is that those politicians in Israel or Iran or the Arab world do not send their kids to fight. They send people who love their country and if they had a choice, they would just live in peace and enjoy life.

To sum this up, Iran cannot start a war or can pose real threat on Israel for so many reasons. A strike on Iran will heavily damage Israel, the Gulf countries and the U.S as well as the Iranians.

Well again that is my opinion. I am not claiming in any sort of way that I know everything or that I have the right opinion on the matter. It is just my opinion based on many things and how I see them. I am also not implying in any way that peaceful talks are easy. But do not let the media take control of your opinion. Try to look at the matter from different angles. The media is biased and most of the time represents the interests of the powerful side or its ally. At the end of the day we all get manipulated by them easily. A simple truth that recently happened was Egypt's second revolutionary wave against the Muslim Brotherhood and the Revolution in Ukraine. Both revolutions were against a " Democratically elected president". In Egypt's case it was condemned because the U.S had already found its interests with the Muslim brotherhood. In Ukraine it was welcomed because the U.S found its interested against the president who pretty much represents Russian influence. I am not judging here. But what I am trying to say that politics is not a simple thing. It is not as straight forward as 1+1 = 2. It can always be changed and manipulated to serve the needs of politicians. The only truth in this is that the only party that really suffers is the people. People of Iran, people of Israel, people of Ukraine, people of Egypt.....people.

Now take what I have said and throw it out of the window. Think about it and tell me your thoughts. I would be more than happy to see things from your side. I will definitely learn something.

I am sorry my reply was than long. Hopefully I didn't bore you to death mate and it makes some sense

Wow men that's a very informative post.

Thank you.

The one thing that shock me was the her hezzbollah with Iran connection.

In fact your the second person who said that.

The first was from this Israel major in this Presentation that I watched recently, it's worth a watch as its informative like what you just gave me if your interested:

Monday March 25 2014: Major Elliot Chadoff: http://youtu.be/VWCei7dtDf0

As far as my thoughts, let me read this a couple of more times and I will come back to you. :-)

[SinineUltra 1,164]

I believe, every country has the right to decide for themselves. Why should someone in Washington tell Iran what to have?

Has anyone ever asked why Isreal can possess nuclear weapons & the others not?

The way I see it, a double standard is applied here. Recently, we have seen Russia in Crimea. NATO & the US are yapping loudly. What about Kosovo, was that legal?

- The Crimean parliament was taken over by heavily armed soldiers. The sitting prime minister was forced to resign and replaced by Sergei Aksyonov. The latter's separatist party had received just 4 percent of the vote in Crimea's most recent elections. As many as 14,000 Russian soldiers have occupied Crimea since late February.

- The Kosovo declaration did not involve military pressure or a government overthrow.

- The Crimea referendum provides for either joining with Russia or becoming a de facto independent state. There is no status quo option.

- Ethnic Russians make up the majority of Crimea's population but ethnic-Ukrainians and Crimean Tatars together make up the remaining nearly 40 percent. While Russians do not appear to be under threat, the Crimean Tatar minority has legitimate cause for concern. Hundreds of thousands were deported from the region by Soviet dictator Josef Stalin in 1944.

- Albanians made up 88% of the population of Kosovo around the time of the independence vote. (Still, several enclaves are majority Serbs.)

- Rather than seeking independence, Crimea's de facto leaders seek to join Russia.

- Kosovo separatists have sought independence, rather than union with another state.

- A bit over a month has passed between Kyiv's change of government and Crimea's declaration of independence and referendum on union with Russia.

- Kosovo declared independence almost a decade after gaining autonomy.

They are not comparable events. Before throwing around cliches, try to understand the subject in depth. Yes- there are similarities, in that I agree with you, but they are not similar. I don't want to turn this into a Russia vs USA debate that somehow develops into a religious dispute. They are as bad as each other but it depends on your geographic location, international relations and most of all historic background when it comes to choosing which super power is best for your country.

[Mohammed Seif 1,451]

Wow men that's a very informative post.

Thank you.

The one thing that shock me was the her hezzbollah with Iran connection.

In fact your the second person who said that.

The first was from this Israel major in this Presentation that I watched recently, it's worth a watch as its informative like what you just gave me if your interested:

Monday March 25 2014: Major Elliot Chadoff: http://youtu.be/VWCei7dtDf0

As far as my thoughts, let me read this a couple of more times and I will come back to you. :-)

This guy can talk. I respect him. There are vital key issues where I can debate with him, but I have to admit, his thoughts are very well organized and he knows he to address the public

[bushman 2,043]

- The Crimean parliament was taken over by heavily armed soldiers. The sitting prime minister was forced to resign and replaced by Sergei Aksyonov. The latter's separatist party had received just 4 percent of the vote in Crimea's most recent elections. As many as 14,000 Russian soldiers have occupied Crimea since late February.

- The Kosovo declaration did not involve military pressure or a government overthrow.

- The Crimea referendum provides for either joining with Russia or becoming a de facto independent state. There is no status quo option.

- Ethnic Russians make up the majority of Crimea's population but ethnic-Ukrainians and Crimean Tatars together make up the remaining nearly 40 percent. While Russians do not appear to be under threat, the Crimean Tatar minority has legitimate cause for concern. Hundreds of thousands were deported from the region by Soviet dictator Josef Stalin in 1944.

- Albanians made up 88% of the population of Kosovo around the time of the independence vote. (Still, several enclaves are majority Serbs.)

- Rather than seeking independence, Crimea's de facto leaders seek to join Russia.

- Kosovo separatists have sought independence, rather than union with another state.

- A bit over a month has passed between Kyiv's change of government and Crimea's declaration of independence and referendum on union with Russia.

- Kosovo declared independence almost a decade after gaining autonomy.

They are not comparable events. Before throwing around cliches, try to understand the subject in depth. Yes- there are similarities, in that I agree with you, but they are not similar. I don't want to turn this into a Russia vs USA debate that somehow develops into a religious dispute. They are as bad as each other but it depends on your geographic location, international relations and most of all historic background when it comes to choosing which super power is best for your country.

Basically, time was on the Russian side. Why procrastinate?

[Rmpr 8,977]

Allow me to disagree with you mate. They are not " on the verge " of having it at all. You recall Iraq, it wasn't that long ago . It was attacked based on " solid information from the world's best intelligence agencies" and the end NOTHING was found. Not even factories. I would really hate to see that happen again. This one is not as simple. I assure you, Iran will suffer from the attacks. I also assure you that Israel will face destruction that it has never seen before. Iran is no Iraq or Afghanistan mate.

To be fair, there was never solid information about Iraq's chemical weapons. That is why UN disapproved United State's invasion...

But overall, I completely agree with your point!

Also, why can some nations have access to nuclear weapons and others dont? It is the epiphany of hippcracy!!!

[Mohammed Seif 1,451]

To be fair, there was never solid information about Iraq's chemical weapons. That is why UN disapproved United State's invasion...

But overall, I completely agree with your point!

Also, why can some nations have access to nuclear weapons and others dont? It is the epiphany of hippcracy!!!

Well you should you followed the American media before the invasion of Iraq. It was all about SOLID proof from the American, British, French and other intelligence agencies .

If you are to ask me about my personal opinion with regards to nuclear weapon I would tell you I don't think any country should have that sort of destructive power. But who is going to tell these countries to drop their program? Whether you and I like it or not, the powerful dictates terms to the weak (powerful here meaning a wide range of aspects not just militarily). Is it hypocrisy? 100% in my opinion. Can anyone do anything about? I hardly doubt.

[Rmpr 8,977]

Well you should you followed the American media before the invasion of Iraq. It was all about SOLID proof from the American, British, French and other intelligence agencies .

If you are to ask me about my personal opinion with regards to nuclear weapon I would tell you I don't think any country should have that sort of destructive power. But who is going to tell these countries to drop their program? Whether you and I like it or not, the powerful dictates terms to the weak (powerful here meaning a wide range of aspects not just militarily). Is it hypocrisy? 100% in my opinion. Can anyone do anything about? I hardly doubt.

Of course they would say they had solid proof (although you are wrong about France, because they were one of the nations who voted against the invasion), but that doesnt mean they actually had any proof at all. And 11 years after it all happened, it is basically common knowledge that various directors of CIA stongly believed there was nothing in Iraq!!!

But whatever, that was not what the discussion was about...

[Mohammed Seif 1,451]

Of course they would say they had solid proof (although you are wrong about France, because they were one of the nations who voted against the invasion), but that doesnt mean they actually had any proof at all. And 11 years after it all happened, it is basically common knowledge that various directors of CIA stongly believed there was nothing in Iraq!!!

But whatever, that was not what the discussion was about...

My bad with France. Do you think Iran should have nuclear weapons? Do you think Israel with/without the U.S should strike Iran?