DELETED_74993

I've seen that list posted loads - does anyone know if its actually 100% true?

22. If you graduate from university and cannot find a job the government pays your wage until you find a job. So let’s say you graduated and the average pay for your line of work is $80,000 a year the government would pay you the monthly equivalent until you found work.

I mean how does that even work? Why would anyone bother to find work?

50% of the price of every car paid for by the government? Again, why? What even is the point in that? Seems like a waste of money.
 
10. Unlike in the UK and nearly all other countries the Libyan Government owns the national bank and prints its own currency. In the UK the bank of England is a private bank and nothing to do with the Government. Any money the government gets from the bank of England is always a loan with interest. Our government owes the Bank of England so much money it really only manages to pay off the interest. It’s the same in the US as the Federal Reserve is private bank and nothing to do with the Government.

The Bank of England is not a private bank.....It is the central bank of the United Kingdom. It is a public body. It hasn't been a private organisation since 1946 and is wholly owned by the UK Government (Treasury) albeit with independence to set monetary policy based on goals predetermined by the UK Govt.

The inaccuracy of this example infers that the rest is questionable as I am sure others will point out.
 
Last edited:
You stated that Iran has attacked our Forces regularly during the past decade and that I am afraid is patently not true, unless you lay the same accusations to every other nation that supplies militias, terrorists, insurgencies and states that do and have directly attacked our Forces. This would include those I have named already, as well as Israel and the United States.

I'll refer you to the links posted previously, there was clear intent there Iran wasn't simply selling arms it was quite deliberately attacking our forces and even tried to use it as diplomatic leverage. That is what I was referring to and that really isn't the same as having supplied weapons to some unsavoury groups. The UK has supplied weapons to groups/regimes which have later been used against us, it really isn't the same.
 
I'll refer you to the links posted previously, there was clear intent there Iran wasn't simply selling arms it was quite deliberately attacking our forces and even tried to use it as diplomatic leverage. That is what I was referring to and that really isn't the same as having supplied weapons to some unsavoury groups. The UK has supplied weapons to groups/regimes which have later been used against us, it really isn't the same.

The links refer to Iran offering to exercise its influence with the Shia militias and their hezbollah allies to stop the attacks on the British in Basra, specifically dealing with roadside bombs and by limiting their supply and support to such groups.

It was not attacking UK Forces directly. The Coalition supplied weapons and manpower to Sunni militias in Iran prior to and during the Iraq War, as well as mounting specific offensive operations within Iranian borders, nothing Iran done was contrary to it acting in what it percieves as it's own defence.


You are misreading or misrepresenting the allegations made in the links supplied, especially as they also relate how Iran offered to and attempted to aid the US/UK in it's campaign against the Taliban.

Iran offered to curb attacks on British troops in Iraq in exchange for British acceptance of its nuclear programme, a top British diplomat has said.

The claim is made by Sir John Sawers, now Britain's ambassador to the UN, in a BBC documentary to air tomorrow night. Iran and the West: Nuclear confrontation charts the diplomatic efforts to persuade Iran to stop enriching uranium since its secret enrichment plant in Natanz was exposed in 2002.

"There were various Iranians who would come to London and suggest we had tea in some hotel or other. They'd do the same in Paris, they'd do the same in Berlin, and then we'd compare notes among the three of us," Sawers, who was political director at the foreign office at the time, told the BBC.

At the time US and British officials suspected Iran of supplying Shia militants in Iraq with sophisticated roadside bombs and other weapons which were used against coalition troops.

Sawers said: "The Iranians wanted to be able to strike a deal whereby they stopped killing our forces in Iraq in return for them being allowed to carry on with their nuclear programme: 'We stop killing you in Iraq, stop undermining the political process there, you allow us to carry on with our nuclear programme without let or hindrance.' "

Britain dismissed the deal. Britain, together with the US, France, Germany, Russia and China, have offered economic incentives and support for Iran's nuclear energy plans in return for a suspension of uranium enrichment. The UN security council has also demanded suspension, and has imposed sanctions for Iran's failure to comply. Iran insists its nuclear programme is for peaceful energy generation.

The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) reported yesterday that Iran was continuing to expand its nuclear plant, although at a slower rate than last year, and had already amassed more than a tonne of low enriched uranium.

That is technically enough for a single nuclear weapon, but UN officials caution that Iran faces many more technical hurdles before it is capable of making a bomb.

The BBC documentary charts some of the missed diplomatic opportunities for defusing tensions between Iran and the west, particularly while Mohamed Khatami was president, from 1997 to 2005. For example, it details how much help Iran offered to the US in ousting the Taliban and al-Qaida in Afghanistan after the September 11 attacks.

Hillary Mann, a former US state department official recalled how an Iranian military official tried to guide the US at a meeting in New York in late 2001.

"He unfurled the map on the table and started to point to targets that the US needed to focus on, particularly in the north," said Mann. "We took the map to Centcom, the US Central Command, and certainly that did become the US military strategy."


The situation is never quite as clear as the media or individual diplomats would have you believe. Also, I'll ask you a question, where do you think Iran obtained the weapons they supplied to the militias, and if Iran was unable to obtain such weapons how would it continue to supply militias and insurgents alike?, also how is Iran supporting Shia Militias different from the West supporting the various Militias around the world that it does?
 
Last edited:
The links refer to Iran offering to exercise its influence with the Shia militias and their hezbollah allies to stop the attacks on the British in Basra, specifically dealing with roadside bombs.

That is most of what I'm referring to too. Not to mention some Iranian presence in country - tis more than simply selling arms - there is intent there too... the deliberate funding, training and support of these insurgents - funding them in order to attack coalition forces.

It was not attacking UK Forces directly. The Coalition supplied weapons and manpower to Sunni militias in Iran prior to and during the Iraq War, as well as mounting specific offensive operations within Iranian borders.

So what? Because we've attacked Iran doesn't negate that Iran has attacked our forces.

You are misreading or misrepresenting the allegations made in the links supplied.

No you're just making assumptions about other people's comments.
 
That is most of what I'm referring to too. Not to mention some Iranian presence in country - tis more than simply selling arms - there is intent there too... the deliberate funding, training and support of these insurgents - funding them in order to attack coalition forces.

Iran has been funding Shia groups long before the coalition entered Iraq, often with the support and implicit help of the US and UK, Iran's intentions never changed, they have an historic claim on Iraq (or so they believe) and have been opposed to Sunni ascendency in the region long before we got there.

And, if we consider the supply of the Shia militias as grounds for stating that is an attack on our soverignty then we must also include other countrues such as Russia and China in that conclusion, as they were implicitly involved. Not to mention Israeli arms trades to Iran during the Iran-Iraq War or even the UK, who were supplying both sides.....

So what? Because we've attacked Iran doesn't negate that Iran has attacked our forces.

Iran hasn't attack the UK directly, militias supplied by Iran as well as various other countries have.

No you're just making assumptions about other people's comments.

I'm pointing out the questionable logic and errors of those assumptions being made by others. Not to mention the hypocracy of nations supporting sanctions with Iran publicly while increasing trade and illicit arms deals under the table, these include EU countries such as Germany and Italy who have significant business interests in Iran and China who as Russia baulk at breaking the latest Arms Embargo, they increase their contribution of both Arms and Petroleum.

Again, Iran has done nothing that could not be considered as being indicative of their stated defensive posture.
 
Last edited:
Ha, what?

Tell that to the women of Iran.

last time i checkd women in Iran have substaintly more rights then most of the middle easy put together - stop believing the western hyperbole train for once and start taking things with a little perspective especially when it comes to issues of modern Sharia law.
 
Last edited:
And, if we consider the supply of the Shia militias as grounds for stating that is an attack on our soverignty then we must also include other countrues such as Russia and China in that conclusion, as they were implicitly involved.

Attack on our sovereignty? Who's saying that?

Again

"The Iranians wanted to be able to strike a deal whereby they stopped killing our forces in Iraq in return for them being allowed to carry on with their nuclear programme: 'We stop killing you in Iraq, stop undermining the political process there, you allow us to carry on with our nuclear programme without let or hindrance.'"

is what I was referring to


I'm pointing out the questionable logic and errors of those assumptions being made by others.

you're making assumptions yourself tbh... you're assuming what I meant, I'm then clarifying it (as I did so a few pages ago) and then you carry on arguing against an incorrect assumption...
 
last time i checkd women in Iran have substaintly more rights then most of the middle easy put together - stop believing the western hyperbole train for once and start taking things with a little perspective especially when it comes to issues of modern Sharia law.

exactly, women in Iran have more rights than other middle eastern countries.
 
Yes but unluckily for US citizens their government no longer cares what the people think. When Obama ran for president he knew the public was sick of all the wars. He made campaign speeches about pulling out of Iraq and Afghanistan etc. Did he do any of that? No. He actually increased the wars America is fighting. If the American government decides it is going after Iran the peoples views will not stop them
think you will find his pledges were to listen to what the forces suggested on the ground in afghanistan and a draw down in iraq which is happening. he never pledged withdrawl of afghanistan only stated he would hope for a end to the conflict, like most of us.

unfortunately getting hundreds of thousands of troops out of a country half way round the world which still needs your help is a slow progress.
 
Attack on our sovereignty? Who's saying that?

Again

"The Iranians wanted to be able to strike a deal whereby they stopped killing our forces in Iraq in return for them being allowed to carry on with their nuclear programme: 'We stop killing you in Iraq, stop undermining the political process there, you allow us to carry on with our nuclear programme without let or hindrance.'"

is what I was referring to

and I am pointing out that you are misinterpreting (in my opinion) what that means in the reality of the situation. It is similar to Egypt intervening in Hamas actions against Israel, it doesn't make them directly responsible, a case can be made that they are involved indirectly in those actions, but that doesn't mean they are attacking British Forces directly, and if we accept they are involved indirectly and that constitutes an attack by proxy, then the same accusations have to be levelled at numerous other nations who are doing the same which is what you are implying by countering Dirtydogs statement.

The scariest thing about this conversation is that I find myself defending DirtyDog......I need to lie down!

you're making assumptions yourself tbh... you're assuming what I meant, I'm then clarifying it (as I did so a few pages ago) and then you carry on arguing against an incorrect assumption...

Your clarification is what I am contesting, as it was when you originally stated it.

We will not agree obviously and I don't particularly want this to degenerate into a falling out tbh. I propose we simply agree to disagree on this....:)
 
Last edited:
but that doesn't mean they are attacking British Forces directly, and if we accept they are involved indirectly and that constitutes an attack by proxy, then the same accusations have to be levelled at numerous other nations who are doing the same

Well yes I agree - it certainly is/was attacks by proxy. They were quite deliberately using insurgent groups to attack us and they have some presence in the country (I wouldn't rule out the premise that part of that presence had some limited direct involvement with planting IEDs too).

Their level of involvement with insurgents far surpasses any other nation and is not just simply supplying arms but providing a lot of other support, training etc... IMO it does amount to Iran essentially 'attacking' our forces.

We will not agree obviously and I don't particularly this to degenerate into a falling out tbh. I propose we simply agree to disagree on this....:)

Fair enough, I don't mean to bicker about this either, no worries :)
 
I think Israel will attack Iran first. However If the UK and the USA do ever attack Iran our TV and press will tell you indirectly beforehand. Before any attack from us and America you will see an increase in news stories and TV documentaries telling us how bad Iran is and how much of a nutter and tyrant Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is....

I don't need news stories to tell me that, ive seen it with my own eyes and ears, this year and the last, when he gets and spouts his nonsense... everyone walks out.

I agree. So now they are saying we must get Iran because they have nuclear weapons (it's ok for us to have nuclear weapons though). What you mean like we had to get Saddam Hussein because he had weapons of mass destruction?

Except Iran is run by theocratic bell****.
 
I don't need news stories to tell me that, ive seen it with my own eyes and ears, this year and the last, when he gets and spouts his nonsense... everyone walks out.



Except Iran is run by theocratic bell****.

Other nations aren't?

Perhaps its just how subtle it is, but people get away with enormous amounts of activity by simply calling it an act of god.

Blair did it, Bush did it, Cheney did it...so on, don't remember if anyone else did, i wouldn't be surprised of Obama calls the war in Iran an act of god, to shift all the blame for the thousands dead on our side and hundreds of thousands if not millions in Iran.
 
Other nations aren't?

Perhaps its just how subtle it is, but people get away with enormous amounts of activity by simply calling it an act of god.

Blair did it, Bush did it, Cheney did it...so on, don't remember if anyone else did, i wouldn't be surprised of Obama calls the war in Iran an act of god, to shift all the blame for the thousands dead on our side and hundreds of thousands if not millions in Iran.

Huh? When has Tony blair ever brought god into the middle eastern conflicts?

Despite popular belief, the suicide murdering islamofacists have killed far more people in Iraq and Afghanistan, I love the way people try to absolve them of responsibility, somehow a man walking into a church or crowded market and killing innocent men, women and children is somehow Tony Blair's fault.

BTW im not advocating military action against Iran.
 
Saudi is worse than Iran, Saudi are our 'friends', Iran is 'bad'.

You are right, of course, but I don't think the reason Iran is considered 'bad' is because of how they treat women, so I'm not sure how thats relevent. It's more a reason why Saudi is 'bad' rather than a reason Iran should be considered 'good'.
 
Back
Top Bottom