DELETED_74993

Yes, I think they are. We might not like some of the decisions they make on our behalf but there can be no doubt they are at least of sound mind. I know it's always fashionable to hate whoever is in power, but really some of this conspiracy stuff is just getting annoying. Making judgements on the internet based on whats probably not even a quarter of the story most of the time seems to be very much in vogue when it comes to world leaders these days.

I do not support action against Iran and do not think Iran poses us a direct threat. Iran has its sights firmly set far closer to home than us or the United States.

A key difference between 'us' and 'them' is that if you wanted to run our country, you could make a damn good go at it. You could try and get elected by joining one of the major political parties. Meanwhile in Iran, when somebody else arguably won the election, well, you saw what happened and what the outcome was.

The sad thing is that by all accounts Iran appears to be a really fascinating, fantastic place filled with friendly and welcoming people. My girlfriend visited in 2009 and said the people there were fantastic and friendly even to Westerners, and the country itself was very nice. Infact the only 'bad' things about Iran appeared to be directly related to the government and how it ran things..
 
[TW]Fox;20469272 said:
Yes, I think they are. We might not like some of the decisions they make on our behalf but there can be no doubt they are at least of sound mind. I know it's always fashionable to hate whoever is in power, but really some of this conspiracy stuff is just getting annoying. Making judgements on the internet based on whats probably not even a quarter of the story most of the time seems to be very much in vogue when it comes to world leaders these days.

I do not support action against Iran and do not think Iran poses us a direct threat. Iran has its sights firmly set far closer to home than us or the United States.

A key difference between 'us' and 'them' is that if you wanted to run our country, you could make a damn good go at it. You could try and get elected by joining one of the major political parties. Meanwhile in Iran, when somebody else arguably won the election, well, you saw what happened and what the outcome was.

The sad thing is that by all accounts Iran appears to be a really fascinating, fantastic place filled with friendly and welcoming people. My girlfriend visited in 2009 and said the people there were fantastic and friendly even to Westerners, and the country itself was very nice. Infact the only 'bad' things about Iran appeared to be directly related to the government and how it ran things..
Click to expand...
And look what happened when Nick Griffin won over a million votes. They declared his party illegal and it is now on the verge of bankruptcy.

Would be nice to have democracy in Britain first, before we preach to other countries.
 
We do have democracy in Britain and anyone who says otherwise is really clutching at straws. The fact the system we use to elect our government could be better doesn't mean we don't have democracy.

I've no idea what happened with the BNP 'being made illegal' or under what grounds that happened so I won't comment on it suffice to say that it's not quite as straightforward as just randomly declaring things you dont like 'illegal'. There must have been some merit in the case if thats truely what happened.
 
[TW]Fox;20469317 said:
We do have democracy in Britain and anyone who says otherwise is really clutching at straws. The fact the system we use to elect our government could be better doesn't mean we don't have democracy.
Click to expand...

:confused: so we vote Lib/Lab/Con

YET WE GET THE SAME POLICIES

That is democracy in your view?
 
dirtydog said:
:confused: so we vote Lib/Lab/Con

YET WE GET THE SAME POLICIES

That is democracy in your view?
Click to expand...

Of course it is. The fact all the candidates are crap, in your view, doesn't stop it being democracy. You can vote for whichever crappy candidate you like. The system is democratic.

Not entirely sure its quite as simplistic as that, though. There are policy differences after all.
 
[TW]Fox;20469317 said:
I've no idea what happened with the BNP 'being made illegal' or under what grounds that happened so I won't comment on it suffice to say that it's not quite as straightforward as just randomly declaring things you dont like 'illegal'. There must have been some merit in the case if thats truely what happened.
Click to expand...

No, there was no merit. It was just deemed illegal. Yet parties who are only for Islamist lunatics are deemed legal.

You might think this is ridiculous (you would be right) or that I am exaggerating or even lying (sadly not, google it yourself) but that is how British 'democracy' is today.
 
[TW]Fox;20469337 said:
Of course it is. The fact all the candidates are crap, in your view, doesn't stop it being democracy. You can vote for whichever crappy candidate you like. The system is democratic.

Not entirely sure its quite as simplistic as that, though. There are policy differences after all.
Click to expand...

Yeah - I used to think like you, before I looked into it more.
 
dirtydog said:
No, there was no merit. It was just deemed illegal. Yet parties who are only for Islamist lunatics are deemed legal.

You might think this is ridiculous (you would be right) or that I am exaggerating or even lying (sadly not, google it yourself) but that is how British 'democracy' is today.
Click to expand...

That sounds like a flawed legal system rather than a problem with democracy if thats how it went down. I agree that positive discrimination *is* an issue in society at the moment.

Nobody banned the Green Party for example.
 
Strife212 said:
The UK millitary is barely capable of fighting it's current wars, I don't see what we are going to do.
Click to expand...

erm did you read the links:

Britain's armed forces are stepping up their contingency planning for potential military action against Iran amid mounting concern about Tehran's nuclear enrichment programme, the Guardian has learned.

The Ministry of Defence believes the US may decide to fast-forward plans for targeted missile strikes at some key Iranian facilities. British officials say that if Washington presses ahead it will seek, and receive, UK military help for any mission, despite some deep reservations within the coalition government.
Click to expand...


FWIW Libya was something the UK and France instigated - that went our way... we're perfectly capable of carrying out air strikes - there is no need to even overthrow the regime in this instance, merely deprive them of facilities to enrich uranium/destroy their nuclear program. We've got bases in the area, subs capable of firing cruise missiles and tbh.. any strike is more likely going to be a mostly US effort albeit with some UK support for political reasons.
 
dirtydog and oldcoals in anti west post shocker!

I really would hate to see the state of the world if we had never gone to war with anyone ever, its an unpopular view to hold obviously but sometimes it necessary for the sake of civilisation.

Just posting this because its informative for the ignorant.

 
Last edited:
LabR@t said:
kind of funny that the jews suffered most in WWII and yet they will probably start WWIII
Click to expand...

Lesson never learnt.

I am sure there were other nations who equally suffered. Russians for one seem to have the highest death toll in world war 2 around 20 million, according to wikipedia anyway.
 
Johno please? said:
dirtydog and oldcoals in anti west post shocker!
Click to expand...

Why would I be anti myself :)

I am anti imperialism, anti illegal invasions etc.

You know, I support the rule of law, I know this might seem an odd concept.

I would advocate military action, maybe even war, AGAINST COUNTRIES WHO ATTACK OR INVADE US FIRST.
 
dirtydog said:
I would advocate military action, maybe even war, AGAINST COUNTRIES WHO ATTACK OR INVADE US FIRST.
Click to expand...

The problem with nuclear weapons though is that if they've attacked you first its already game over.

Although as I said I dont think we are the target of any Iranian ambitions for such weapons. I think its fairly obvious who is. And frankly I'm not very clued up on the whole Isreal thing and I'm often to be heard saying there is far more to things like this than we'll ever know, but every time Isreal is in the news it seems to be for something that seems wholly unreasonable on the part of Israel...
 
The last time I remember Iran was in the news for military stuff, it was because they photoshopped some military rockets being launched to make the display look more impressive. I doubt they have the capability of attacking any Western nation. As for their plans against Israel, I couldn't really care. **** the Zionists.
 
[TW]Fox;20469448 said:
The problem with nuclear weapons though is that if they've attacked you first its already game over.
Click to expand...
Not necessarily. The nukes on Japan in WW2 were relatively few kilotons. Modern WESTERN nukes are orders of magnitude more powerful.

Although as I said I dont think we are the target of any Iranian ambitions for such weapons. I think its fairly obvious who is.
Click to expand...
Fairly obvious to you it seems as you have presumably swallowed the Western propaganda that they want to acquire a nuke and then bomb Israel?

Do you think they are stupid enough to do that, given they would be WIPED OUT by a swift US response?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom