Should Iran be prevented from having nuclear weapons?

by **Ivan** Fri Nov 18, 2011 10:53 pm

I used to think it was breathtaking arrogance and hypocrisy for those countries which have nuclear weapons to make judgements about which other countries could, or couldn’t, have them as well. After all, if you want to take the moral high ground on this issue, shouldn’t you get rid of your own nuclear weapons before telling other countries that they can’t have them?

My opinion changed immediately when I heard the President of the Islamofascist state of Iran (who goes by some name like ‘Ironmydinnerjacket’) say, on the first of several occasions, that he wanted "to wipe Israel off the map”. George W. Bush, with his talk of 'crusades' and his readiness to go to war against Saddam Hussein “because he tried to kill my daddy”, was a dangerous man to have in charge of nuclear weapons, but no Western power has talked of wiping out nations.

The five permanent members of the UN Security Council, and Germany, have expressed their "increasing concern" over Iran's nuclear programme, and they have called for clarification over any possible military uses. Iran insists that the programme is for purely peaceful purposes, but the International Atomic Agency says they want to send a high level mission to Iran to clear up any confusion.

With nuclear weapons, Iran could do very serious damage to Israel, and a pre-emptive strike by the Israelis must be a strong possibility. Should we support that, or even precipitate it? Are attempts at negotiation with Iran a waste of time?

by oftenwrong Fri Nov 18, 2011 11:05 pm

Such a pity that George W Bush thought that Iran had a "Q" in it.

by astra Fri Nov 18, 2011 11:37 pm

As we got NO thanks from Sharon, and only condemnation, I think UK should keep well out of this. For once we should be two steps behind Belgium on this one!

by ROB Sat Nov 19, 2011 12:50 am

astra wrote:
As we got NO thanks from Sharon, and only condemnation, I think UK should keep well out of this. For once we should be two steps behind Belgium on this one!

What Sharon says is irrelevant to the security of the United Kingdom. Don’t emulate my countrymen during the 1930’s and early 1940’s by embracing isolationism.

At sub-orbital speeds, just how long do you think it would take for Iran to blow up a significant portion of the UK?

by ROB Sat Nov 19, 2011 1:04 am

Ivan wrote:
“Should Iran be prevented from having nuclear weapons?”

Yes, unequivocally.

Ivan wrote:
I heard the President of the Islamofascist state of Iran (who goes by some name like ‘Ironmydinnerjacket’) say, on the first of several occasions, that he wanted "to wipe Israel off the map”

Repeated for emphasis.

Other “Islamic” leaders, individually and in council with one another, have repeatedly threatened to (substantively dead-on accurate quote) “drive Israel into the Mediterranean Sea”, an ominous threat indeed when one realizes that Israel, at its narrowest pre-1966 point, is about twelve miles (nineteen kilometers) wide, from Jordan to the Mediterranean Sea.

How long does it take for a modern strike fighter, loaded perhaps to eighteen thousand pounds of ordnance, traveling at five hundred knots (nautical miles per hour) to traverse twelve land miles?

Ivan wrote:
George W. Bush, with his talk of 'crusades' and his readiness to go to war against Saddam Hussein “because he tried to kill my daddy”, was a dangerous man to have in charge of nuclear weapons

Not really.

Baby Bush has gotten, and continues to get, a “bad rap”, mostly because of his non-propensity for eloquent speech. A US talk show host (whose show I’ve boycotted since early summer 2009) once ran a recurring piece called “Great Moments In Presidential Speeches”, in which some of George W’s “best” moments were compared with bits from speeches by Franklin Delano Roosevelt, John Fitzgerald Kennedy, Ronald Reagan, and other 20th Century Presidents of the United States.

It was, and is, hilarious, but judge for yourself.

Great Moments In Presidential Speeches 1

Great Moments In Presidential Speeches 2

Great Moments In Presidential Speeches 3

Great Moments In Presidential Speeches 4

Lest we forget: Saddam the beast contracted with a French company to have a nuclear reactor capable of producing weapons-grade nuclear material in Baghdad. The reactor was destroyed in 1981 (June?) by eight IDF F-16s which traversed hostile territory at sand dune level to deliver fourteen live one thousand pound “dumb” bombs dead on target by “popping up” and executing high risk dive bomb maneuvers with exquisite precision, thus preventing Saddam the beast from arming Scud missiles with nuclear warheads, and saving countless British, American, Kuwaiti, Saudi, Egyptian, and Frnch lives almost ten years later, during Operation Desert Shield/Storm, 1990-1991.

When Iraq and Iraqi citizens were liberated from the tyranny of Saddam the usurper in 2003, the primary weapons of mass destruction, Saddam the beast and his “beastlings”, were most definitely sought out and eliminated. As fractious as Iraq is today, with Sunni Arabs and Shia Arabs at each other’s throats, and both Sunni and Shia Arabs seeking to destroy Kurds, at least it’s their country now, and they co-own their own government.

Going a bit further into left field before retreating back to the topic at hand, I fully agree now, as I did in 2003, with taking Saddam down by any means possible. The post-Saddam world is a better place because of his absence. My disagreements with Baby Bush focus upon (1) tactics, and (2) lack of an exit plan. Regarding the latter, American, British, and British Commonwealth allies’ troops should have been withdrawn with a hearty cross-pond, cross hemisphere “Well done” by no later than early 2005. I’ve more on that if you wish to hear it, obtained by an expert whose expertise was earned by three tours “in harm’s way” on the ground in Iraq.

Back on topic, George W’s talk was far inferior to his walk. But then, listening to “Great Moments…” Remember that, in terms of foreign policy and actions, George W’s was accompanied in his walk by Secretary of State Colin Powell, National Security Advisor and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, and Secretary Of Defense Robert Gates, who President Barack Obama retained as a trusted confidante and counselor for more than two years, until Osama bin Laden was no more.

“Dr. Robert Michael Gates (born September 25, 1943) is a retired civil servant and university president who served as the 22nd United States Secretary of Defense from 2006 to 2011. Prior to this, Gates served for 26 years in the Central Intelligence Agency and the National Security Council, and under President George H. W. Bush as Director of Central Intelligence.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Gates

Ivan wrote:
With nuclear weapons, Iran could do very serious damage to Israel, and a pre-emptive strike by the Israelis must be a strong possibility. Should we support that, or even precipitate it? Are attempts at negotiation with Iran a waste of time?

Yes, we should support any pre-emptive Israeli Defence Force strike, and if we’ve sufficient cajones, mount a pre-emptive strike ourselves (Brits and Americans USV).

by Shirina Sat Nov 19, 2011 9:29 am

At sub-orbital speeds, just how long do you think it would take for Iran to blow up a significant portion of the UK?

About 20 years. Creating and maintaining multi-stage ballistic missiles is hugely expensive which is why, after 50 years after the technology was invented, only a handful of nations have them - even for conventional use. The engineering required is formidable. Just ask Japan how many times North Korea tried and failed.

by ROB Sat Nov 19, 2011 9:47 am

Shirina wrote:
At sub-orbital speeds, just how long do you think it would take for Iran to blow up a significant portion of the UK?
About 20 years. Creating and maintaining multi-stage ballistic missiles is hugely expensive which is why, after 50 years after the technology was invented, only a handful of nations have them - even for conventional use. The engineering required is formidable. Just ask Japan how many times North Korea tried and failed.

So if Iran is twenty years away from sub-orbital ballistic missiles in 2011, how log will it take them to close that gap? History teaches that totalitarian regimes hell bent on catching up often do so in fraction of the time projected.

I wonder how much of the required technology is “stealable” for the right price?

Back to my question, it seems to me (said Booker T) that USSR to USA over the pole was thirty minutes. If Iran is twenty years away, perhaps we ought to what w can to push them back to thirty years ay by any means that works.

by Shirina Sat Nov 19, 2011 7:20 pm

So if Iran is twenty years away from sub-orbital ballistic missiles in 2011, how log will it take them to close that gap? History teaches that totalitarian regimes hell bent on catching up often do so in fraction of the time projected.

Well, 20 years was an off-the-cuff time frame. It is just as possible that they will NEVER develop the technology themselves - not because they're stupid people - but because they don't have the infrastructure, the needed scientists, the raw materials, the engineering skills, or the money to pull it off.

Now, if by "totalitarian regimes" catching up you mean Russia, then you're both right and wrong. Yes, they did catch up quickly, but ... not really. They managed to develop an A-bomb, but only because the Russians pulled off one of the greatest espionage schemes ever during the Manhattan Project. Their first strategic bomber was an exact copy of a B-29 they reverse-engineered from American B-29s that made emergency landings in the USSR (they even reproduced the "Boeing" logo on the rudder pedals LOL!), and their ballistic missile program was derived from the German V-1s and V-2s. However, once their "extraneous" sources of technology ran out, the Soviet programs began to flounder. They could make nukes well enough, but they didn't have the technology to build a good delivery system for them. The US relied on strategic bombers to drop the nukes; the USSR tried doing the same but failed. They even resorted to a propeller-driven bomber (the Tu-95 "Bear") because they couldn't produce a jet engine capable of getting to the USA. Failing in that, they developed the ballistic missile and essentially bluffed the US into an arms race when Kruschev made the quip, "We are making missiles like sausages." Suddenly the US thought it was falling behind in the "missile gap," so they poured enormous sums of money into its own ballistic missile program. Kruschev's remark backfired because the Soviets still did not have the technology to make reliable and accurate ballistic missiles. Throughout the Cold War, the US had smaller, more powerful missiles with a much longer range than Soviet missiles - and the US had more of them. The USSR was still bungling with its own program, mainly because they did not have the computing or miniaturization technology that the US had.

And ... the ONLY way that the Soviets managed to develop these programs at all is because they poured most of their national wealth into these designs - and Russia was an enormous country with a huge infrastructure, plenty of brainpower, and a considerable amount of wealth. Iran has none of those things.

Iran would have to get outside help, and given only a few nations could help them, it would narrow the culprits down to essentially Russia or China. And if memory serves, even China is lacking in long range ICBM technology.

But more to the point, I agree with you and Ivan about Iran having nukes. While some might say that it is hypocritical for the nuclear nations to decide which other nations get to have nukes, but I say to hell with that! Nukes are simply to dangerous to play nice with. Iran is a tumultuous regime, somewhat unstable, and filled with religious zealots. While Iran today may not be ready to play the nuclear brinksmanship game, once those nukes are built, they're not going away. Who is to say what sort of nation Iran might be 10 or 20 years from now? Who will be in charge? A moderate or a radical? No thanks. I'd rather not gamble with nuclear weapons. If the "Nuclear Club" has to be hypocritical in order to keep nukes out of the hands of extremists, I can live with that.

by ROB Sat Nov 19, 2011 8:18 pm

Shirina wrote:
So if Iran is twenty years away from sub-orbital ballistic missiles in 2011, how log will it take them to close that gap? History teaches that totalitarian regimes hell bent on catching up often do so in fraction of the time projected.
Now, if by "totalitarian regimes" catching up you mean Russia, then you're both right and wrong. Yes, they did catch up quickly, but ... not really. They managed to develop an A-bomb, but only because the Russians pulled off one of the greatest espionage schemes ever during the Manhattan Project.

Exactly. Iran no doubt seeks to emulate the USSR.

Shirina wrote:
Their first strategic bomber was an exact copy of a B-29 they reverse-engineered from American B-29s that made emergency landings in the USSR (they even reproduced the "Boeing" logo on the rudder pedals LOL!)

Once again, exactly.

Shirina wrote:
… their ballistic missile program was derived from the German V-1s and V-2s.

Once again…

Shirina wrote:
Iran would have to get outside help, and given only a few nations could help them, it would narrow the culprits down to essentially Russia or China.

Perhaps, if the money’s right, Japan, or France? Remember Baghdad 1981.

Shirina wrote:
… I agree with you and Ivan about Iran having nukes. While some might say that it is hypocritical for the nuclear nations to decide which other nations get to have nukes, but I say to hell with that! Nukes are simply to dangerous to play nice with. Iran is a tumultuous regime, somewhat unstable, and filled with religious zealots. While Iran today may not be ready to play the nuclear brinksmanship game, once those nukes are built, they're not going away. Who is to say what sort of nation Iran might be 10 or 20 years from now? Who will be in charge? A moderate or a radical? No thanks. I'd rather not gamble with nuclear weapons. If the "Nuclear Club" has to be hypocritical in order to keep nukes out of the hands of extremists, I can live with that.

I concur.

by jackthelad Sat Nov 19, 2011 8:24 pm

Who is presently sending men into space, including Americans as well as their own. Russia, so please don't knock their technology. If you are going to destroy a place, why send a plane when a rocket can reach it faster than a plane.
Has far as Iran having nuclear weapons, the world should do it's utmost best to stop them. There leader is fanatic on the scale of Adolf Hitler, a very dangerous man, heaven help the people in the middle east if he gets it. He as already said he wants to destroy Israel, wipe it from the face of the earth.

by oftenwrong Sat Nov 19, 2011 10:14 pm

Should Iran be prevented from having nuclear weapons?

Obviously. The regime regards us as infidels, to be destroyed.

What's the delay?

by astra Sat Nov 19, 2011 10:22 pm

Is it me??
If Stafford Cripps had not given the ruskies the Nene, perhaps this discussion would be moot!

Together with other individuals he was instrumental in the foundation of the original College of Aeronautics, now Cranfield University, in 1946. The Vice-Chancellor's building is known as "Stafford-Cripps".

In 1946 Soviet jet engine designers approached Stalin with a request to buy jet designs from Western sources to overcome design difficulties. Stalin is said to have replied: "What fool will sell us his secrets?" However, he gave his assent to the proposal, and Soviet scientists and designers travelled to the United Kingdom to meet Cripps and request the engines. To Stalin's amazement, Cripps and the Labour government were perfectly willing to provide technical information on the Rolls-Royce Nene centrifugal-flow jet engine designed by RAF officer Frank Whittle, along with discussions of a licence to manufacture Nene engines. The Nene engine was promptly reverse-engineered and produced in modified form as the Soviet Klimov VK-1 jet engine, later incorporated into the MiG-15 which flew in time to deploy in combat against UN forces in North Korea in 1950, causing the loss of several B-29 bombers and cancellation of their daylight bombing missions over North Korea.[8]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sir_Stafford_Cripps

An FMA IAe 33 Pulqui II without tail section, showing its Rolls-Royce Nene II turbojet
Pratt and Whitney was given a licence to produce the Nene as the Pratt & Whitney J42, and it powered the Grumman F9F Panther.[2] Twenty-five were given to the Soviet Union as a gesture of goodwill - with reservation to not use for military purposes - with the agreement of Stafford Cripps. The Soviets reneged on the deal, and reverse engineered the Nene to develop the Klimov RD-45, and a larger version, the Klimov VK-1, which soon appeared in various Soviet fighters including Mikoyan-Gurevich MiG-15. It was briefly made under licence in Australia for use in the RAAF De Havilland Vampire fighters. It was also built by Orenda in

LINK

What would the value nowadays be of the 25 jets that Stalin never paid for?

by oftenwrong Sat Nov 19, 2011 10:43 pm

Prevented?

The longer you leave it, the harder it will be.

But, like the Euro, let's talk about the problem.

by ROB Sun Nov 20, 2011 3:51 am

jackthelad wrote:
Who is presently sending men into space, including Americans as well as their own. Russia, so please don't knock their technology. If you are going to destroy a place, why send a plane when a rocket can reach it faster than a plane.

Nonetheless, then Soviet and now Russian technology significantly trails that of the US and, for that matter, the UK. It turns out that Russia is still a third world country in transition.

Consider certain technological relationships: The MiG-15 was possible because (1) the Soviets won, at great human expense, German aircraft technology, including the swept wing, which greatly increases fighter aircraft performance in the transonic range. Technological flow: Germany to Soviet Union.

Left field for a moment: Sixty years after MiG-15 vs. Sabrejet in MiG alley over North Korea (murals of which “Carlton” and I drew while we were supposed to be paying attention to the lesson at hand during history class), dogfights are still fought in the high subsonic/transonic speed range.

Back on track, sometime in the late 1940s (Astra commented in detail upon this above), your fine aircraft engine company, Rolls-Royce, invited, with government approval, Soviet scientists and engineers to tour the Rolls-Royce turbojet engine factory. Several years later, “stolen” (copied) Rolls-Royce turbojet engines powered MiG-15s in MiG alley. Technological flow: United Kingdom to Soviet Union.

This pattern is basically unchanged since Peter the Great obtained naval technology from England centuries ago. Russia, then the Soviet Union, now Russia again, is the recipient of rather than the generator of military technology.

Contrast this with two key US Navy vessels, the CVN and the LCAC: The former, “four and a half acres of sovereign American territory” located anywhere on the world’s oceans that the President of the United States damned well pleases, is possible because of three absolutely essential technological innovations, (1) the angled deck, (2) the steam catapult, and (3) the “call the ball” landing light system. Technological flow: United Kingdom to United States. The latter, the LCAC, used to transport Marines and equipment, including M1-A1 Abrams main battle tanks, up to two hundred miles from ship to shore at around fifty knots, is based on British air cushion vehicles. UK governments chose to discontinue funding the pioneering and the US picked up the ball. Technological flow: United Kingdom to United States.

Insofar as I know, there’s never been a Union of Soviet Socialist Republic/Russia to Untied Sates or a Union of Soviet Socialist Republic/Russia to Untied Kingdom technological flow.

jackthelad wrote:
Has far as Iran having nuclear weapons, the world should do it's utmost best to stop them. There leader is fanatic on the scale of Adolf Hitler, a very dangerous man, heaven help the people in the middle east if he gets it. He as already said he wants to destroy Israel, wipe it from the face of the earth.

I concur.

by jackthelad Sun Nov 20, 2011 1:23 pm

I was doing ok till i got to this bit,

Quote
Insofar as I know, there’s never been a Union of Soviet Socialist Republic/Russia to Untied Sates or a Union of Soviet Socialist Republic/Russia to Untied Kingdom technological flow.

then i lost the plot, riddles have never been my speciality.

by ROB Sun Nov 20, 2011 1:44 pm

jackthelad wrote:
I was doing ok till i got to this bit,
Quote
Insofar as I know, there’s never been a Union of Soviet Socialist Republic/Russia to Untied Sates or a Union of Soviet Socialist Republic/Russia to Untied Kingdom technological flow.

then i lost the plot, riddles have never been my speciality.

I’ll try it again.

Insofar as I know (my disclaimer), the Russians/Soviets have never been the ones to originate technology and pass it one to others. They’ve always had others’ technology passed on to them.

For instance, the Soviets got jet engine technology from the UK, not the other way around.

Another instance: The technology of the Avro of Canada Arrow, double-sonic in its initial test phase, was stolen by Soviet spies and used to build the MiG-25, Mach 2.8 in its interceptor variant and Mach 3.0 in its reconnaissance variant. I just found out this year (2011) that the Avro Arrow was cancelled, the machinery and plans destroyed, and all test aircraft destroyed, because Canadian, UK, and US counterspy agencies had discovered the Soviet leak and whished to deny the Soviets any more Canadian technology.

Seems to have worked. The MiG-25 is a dog of a dogfighter; wings come off at more than a five-gee turn. It’s also a dog at high speed operations; push its engines to the max, and they burn out after one sortie. Kinda increases the turnaround time.

by Shirina Sun Nov 20, 2011 3:14 pm

Seems to have worked. The MiG-25 is a dog of a dogfighter; wings come off at more than a five-gee turn. It’s also a dog at high speed operations; push its engines to the max, and they burn out after one sortie. Kinda increases the turnaround time.

Heh, yeah, the Foxbat shook the Western world - or at least those who are abreast of military technology. It shook their world. The US thought it was going to be the quintessential dogfighter of its era, but it turned out to be a dud for anything other than bomber interception and recon flights. The Russians kept the Foxbat's abilities secret (as they do with all of their new aircraft), but as per usual, their secrecy backfired. Not knowing precisely what the MiG-25 could do, the US went running to their drawing boards and came up with a beautiful response: The F-15 Eagle, arguably the best air superiority fighter in the skies today and still undefeated in aerial combat.

by **astradt1** Sun Nov 20, 2011 4:09 pm

I wonder what the world would be like if the USA had managed to keep the secrets of the Nuclear Weapons to themselves?

How long would the Korean or Vietman Wars have lasted?

Would everone now be using the Dollar?

Would the One World Order now be a reality under some US Born Dictator?

by oftenwrong Sun Nov 20, 2011 5:50 pm

Nuclear weapons have only been actually used while in the possession of a single nation, and never since.

The thing which might keep Iran honest now is MAD, the mutually-assured destruction that held Russia back from deploying weapons on Cuba in 1961.

Netanyahu already has his finger hovering over the appropriate button.

by ROB Sun Nov 20, 2011 8:59 pm

astradt1 wrote:
I wonder what the world would be like if the USA had managed to keep the secrets of the Nuclear Weapons to themselves?

Neither Iran nor North Korea would have nukes, and the world would be a better place.

astradt1 wrote:
How long would the Korean or Vietman Wars have lasted?

Korea: 1950-1952.

Vietnam (US ground force regular troops): 1965-1973.

Vietnam (French post WWII re-colonization through fall of RVN government): circa 1847-1975.

astradt1 wrote:
Would everone now be using the Dollar?

No.

Brits would be using the pound sterling, continental Europeans would be using the failing euro, Japanese would be using the yen, Australians, Canadians, and New Zealanders would be using the Australian dollar, the Canadian dollar, and the New Zealand dollar, respectively, and so forth and so on.

astradt1 wrote:
Would the One World Order now be a reality under some US Born Dictator?

No.

by Shirina Sun Nov 20, 2011 9:55 pm

Would the One World Order now be a reality under some US Born Dictator?

Individual American citizens have no desire to see an American Empire and they certainly do not want the US at the head of a New World Order. Americans are a different breed, which is why, in 235 years, America has never had a dictator, a monarch, or an autocrat.

by **astradt1** Sun Nov 20, 2011 10:17 pm

ROB said "Neither Iran nor North Korea would have nukes, and the world would be a better place.

You forgot about Russia, China, India, Pakistan and not forgetting Israel.......
Oh and by the way Iran does NOT have 'Nuke'.....contrary to popular US belief....

astradt1 wrote:
How long would the Korean or Vietman Wars have lasted?

Korea: 1950-1952.

Vietnam (US ground force regular troops): 1965-1973.

Vietnam (French post WWII re-colonization through fall of RVN government): circa 1847-1975.

Sorry ROB I did not ask how long they lasted but how long the WOULD have lasted if the USA had been the only country in the world with Nuclear Weapons.....Gen Dougie McCarthy was in favour of using them against North Koreans but didn't get his way. Have you ever wondered why that was?

Shirina, while do not doubt that individual Americans do not have any desire for an 'American Empire' this does not account for the likes of Dick Chaney, who I could see has wanting World Domination and if someone like him had managed to get power with the only nuclear weapons, he would have used them to threaten other countries to bow to his will.............

by oftenwrong Sun Nov 20, 2011 10:45 pm

QUOTE: Gen Dougie McCarthy was in favour of using them against North Koreans but didn't get his way. Have you ever wondered why that was?

No need to wonder. General Douglas McArthur thought he could instruct President Harry S Truman on American foreign policy, but was under a misapprehension in that respect. He was sacked. Effectively for insubordination.

by ROB Mon Nov 21, 2011 4:54 am

astradt1 wrote:
ROB said "Neither Iran nor North Korea would have nukes, and the world would be a better place.
You forgot about Russia, China, India, Pakistan and not forgetting Israel.......

No, I didn’t.

astradt1 wrote:
Oh and by the way Iran does NOT have 'Nuke'.....contrary to popular US belief....

Cool. Let’s keep it that way.

astradt1 wrote:

astradt1 wrote:
How long would the Korean or Vietman Wars have lasted?

Korea: 1950-1952.

Vietnam (US ground force regular troops): 1965-1973.

Vietnam (French post WWII re-colonization through fall of RVN government): circa 1847-1975.

astradt1 did not write:

Korea: 1950-1952.

Vietnam (US ground force regular troops): 1965-1973.

Vietnam (French post WWII re-colonization through fall of RVN government): circa 1847-1975.

RockOnBrother wrote that.

astradt1 wrote:

Korea: 1950-1952.

Vietnam (US ground force regular troops): 1965-1973.

Vietnam (French post WWII re-colonization through fall of RVN government): circa 1847-1975.
Sorry ROB I did not ask how long they lasted but how long the WOULD have lasted if the USA had been the only country in the world with Nuclear Weapons

I apologize. Allow me to answer your question.

Korea: 1950-1952.

Vietnam (US ground force regular troops): 1965-1973.

Vietnam (French post WWII re-colonization through fall of RVN government): circa 1847-1975.

astradt1 wrote:
Gen Dougie McCarthy was in favour of using them against North Koreans but didn't get his way. Have you ever wondered why that was?

No, I’ve never “wondered why that was”; I know “why that was.”

by jackthelad Mon Nov 21, 2011 11:36 am

Shirina wrote:
Would the One World Order now be a reality under some US Born Dictator?
Individual American citizens have no desire to see an American Empire and they certainly do not want the US at the head of a New World Order. Americans are a different breed, which is why, in 235 years, America has never had a dictator, a monarch, or an autocrat.

America is a collections of breeds, not just one. That is why it takes them over twelve months to pick who they want to run for President. A dictator would have as much chance to rule America as a snow ball would in hell, and as for as royalty, they have no one posh enough. Unless they crowned posh spice girl Victoria Beckam, and even with the help of Hollywood that would be pushing it abit. An autocrat, wasn't Detroit the home for AUTO'S, i don't no much about American car manfacturers, but there must be many. They would have as much trouble picking one of those as they would a president. Laughing

by ROB Mon Nov 21, 2011 4:30 pm

jackthelad wrote:
Shirina wrote:
Americans are a different breed, which is why, in 235 years, America has never had a dictator, a monarch, or an autocrat.
America is a collections of breeds, not just one.

You’ve missed Shirina’s point entirely.

The United States of America, if you will, America US Variety or America USV, was forged within an idea, the idea that defines our breed, the idea encapsulated in the Pledge of Allegiance, which states,

I pledge allegiance (loyalty unto death) to the flag of the United States of America, and to the republic (this Constitution for the United States of America and the representative democracy ordained, established, and co-owned by We the People of the United States) for which it stands (those Stars and Stripes represent our representative democracy), one nation (e pluribus unum) under God (“to secure these [Creator-endowed unalienable] rights [unto all men [gender “race”/ethnicity inclusive], governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed”), indivisible (united We stand), with liberty and justice for all (“nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws”).

That’s my breed, that’s our breed, that’s the American breed. We don’t tolerate dictators, would-be monarchs, or autocrats. Ask “Tricky Dick”, if you can find a time machine.

jackthelad wrote:
That is why it takes them over twelve months to pick who they want to run for President.

No, it is not.

jackthelad wrote:
A dictator would have as much chance to rule America as a snow ball would in hell

True.

jackthelad wrote:
as for as royalty, they have no one posh enough.

We don’t take kindly to snooty folks who live in luxury on the dole.

by oftenwrong Mon Nov 21, 2011 5:33 pm

Iran will be living on the dole from now on.

The Rt Hon William Hague MP, Secretary of State for Foreign & Commonwealth Affairs has stopped their pocket-money!

by jackthelad Mon Nov 21, 2011 6:08 pm

jackthelad wrote:

That is why it takes them over twelve months to pick who they want to run for President.

Rock wrote
No, it is not.

Rock please enlighten me, how long does it take, nominees who are picked to stand for President, canvas from state to state to to win there approvel, Republican and Democrat. We as outsiders who keep seeing these rallys on TV with all the flag waving and hullaballoo, think it takes that long. We recently saw one of your presidential candidates on TV making a pratt of himself. That to us would have made him a big no no, if he can't prepare himself what to say, what use would he be as a president.

Our Queen isn't on the dole, she puts in an hell of a lot of work, even at the age of 85. More than our so called prime minister, plus the fact she pulls in more tourists to our country than your presidents do, past or present.

by witchfinder Mon Nov 21, 2011 7:12 pm

It is widely believed that India was the 6th nation to develop a nuclear bomb after the United States, Soviet Union ( now Russia ), the UK, France and China, but India was actualy the 7th nation to develop a nuclear capability, the 6th nation was in actual fact Israel.

The nuclear arsenal of Israel is very secret, the official line is that no one realy knows what Israels capabilities are, or what stocks of nuclear weapons are held, my guess is that the CIA - MI5 - the Russian FSB and others will have a good idea.

The state of Israel never acknowledges, admits or denies that it holds nuclear weapons, it is not part of any none proliferation treaty and is not open to UN or international inspection.

I therefore question Israels legitimate right to dictate to Iran as to whether Iran can or cannot develop or possess nuclear weapons, I also call into question the morality of the United States and the UK in condeming Iran whilst at the same time turning a blind eye (and probably helping to develop) existing nuclear weapons in the Middle East held by Israel.

One rule for one - a different rule for another

by ROB Mon Nov 21, 2011 7:20 pm

Iran + nukes = destruction of Israel and threat to US, UK, and even those continental Europeans that seek to usurp UK sovereignty/.

Israel + nukes = survival of Israel and greater security for US and UK.

It’s not even close.

by ROB Mon Nov 21, 2011 7:30 pm

Jack,

All the hooplah is of the parties and the people. Each party nominates in a fashion chosen by each party, which has come to be as long as it is, but is nowhere mandated.

The actual process whereby the forty-fifth President of the United States will be chosen is (1) perhaps twenty-four to forty-eight hours on and following the first Tuesday following the first Monday in November of the election year (2012), as long as it takes for all votes to be counted and certified in all fifty state elections, and (2) as long as it takes to officially count and certify the electoral votes submitted to Congress in early January of the flowing year (2013), perhaps under an hour.

That’s it. The only polls that count are the election polls on election day.

by oftenwrong Mon Nov 21, 2011 7:34 pm

The beauty of a quadratic equation is that all sides are in balance.

The formula Israel + nukes = survival of Israel and greater security for US and UK is not in balance due to the absence of symbols for "Russia" and "China".

The student is capable of better work.

by jackthelad Mon Nov 21, 2011 8:14 pm

Rock says
That’s it. The only polls that count are the election polls on election day.

I do know the election of a president is the same time scale has our elections, it the picking of a candidate that i am talking about. We are told presidential candidates takes about 12 months, canvasing their party in all the states.
You have two parties, Democrat and Republican, (if there are more, we never hear of them). Senators of each party should pick there own candidate for the presidency, not the rank and file, after all they are elected to speak for them.
The leader of our political party becomes Prime Minister, if their party has won the most parliament seats.
It would save a lot of money in the long run, all them posters, ribbons, streamers, travelling, hotel bills, and partying and entertaining trying to solicit votes.
I don't suppose the democrats will be doing it this time, as Obama is standing for a second term. So a dollar or two will be saved there.

by witchfinder Mon Nov 21, 2011 9:27 pm

I accept that the administration of Iran poses a threat to peace in the middle east region, I view Mahmoud Ahmadinejad with the contempt that he deserves.

I also believe that Israel is the cause of most of the instability in the middle east, and view the Israeli treatment of the Palestinian people as utterly disgusting and barbaric.

Its a chicken & egg situation - the Israelis must accept a free and independent Palestine, the Palestinians must accept Israels right to exist in peace, and if or when this happens, then the whole middle east and thus the wider world will be a better, safer place.

Ok so who s move is it first ?

by astra Tue Nov 22, 2011 12:03 am

All are sweating, they are standing in a minefield, and some dipstick has used the plan/map for ar5e wipe!

by ROB Tue Nov 22, 2011 2:08 am

witchfinder wrote:
I accept that the administration of Iran poses a threat to peace in the middle east region, I view Mahmoud Ahmadinejad with the contempt that he deserves.

Since the Shah’s ouster in 1979 (?), Jews, Baha’is, and Christians have been persecuted in Iran. Baha’u’llah was a Persian, the core culture of Iran, a significant number of Baha’is worldwide are native Persians, and, in 2011, a significant number of native Persian Baha’is are effectively refuges.

Most interesting is that the worldwide “hearts” of The Baha’i Faith, The Baha’i World Centre and The International House of Justice, are located in Haifa Israel. Thus, it is not surprising that many native Persian Baha’is fleeing persecution in their native Persia/Iran, particularly since 1979, have found refuge in Israel, the only Middle Eastern Country wherein freedom of religion is guaranteed to all (except Jews), including Baha’is, Christians, Buddhists, Hindus, Atheists, and Muslims.

My brother, to be clear, by persecution, I mean physical violence and death. And most ironically, Persian Baha’is were among those who spoke out loudly and unceasingly for the Shah’s despotic rule to end.

witchfinder wrote:
I also believe that Israel is the cause of most of the instability in the middle east

The existence of Israel and Jews is in fact the root of the Middle East problem.

That’s why Iraqi madmen sought to ally themselves with Adolf Hitler’s Nazis in 1941, and why one of them immigrated to Germany after the failed Nazi-supported 1941 Iraqi revolt against the British (effectively) and formed an SS battalion of Bosnian Muslims whose mission included the extermination of Jews.

Jews pre-existed Muslims in Persia. Please check legitimate sources to discover the enumeration of the remnant today.

Since 1948, the birth year of modern Israel, genocidal Arabs have resolved in council together to utterly destroy Israel and eradicate Jews from the land between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea. As long as Israel exists, and as long as one Jew remains alive, these genocidal conspirators will have a problem.

witchfinder wrote:
… the Israeli treatment of the Palestinian people as utterly disgusting and barbaric.

Oh, I don’t know about that. The only nation in the Middle East where Palestinians enjoy religious freedom is Israel. By the way, “Palestinians” are all people native to “Palestine”, which includes a significant portion of the Jewish population of Israel; thus, Sabras are by definition are “Palestinians.”

witchfinder wrote:
the Israelis must accept a free and independent Palestine

Israelis did in fact “accept a free and independent Palestine” in 1948. The fledging State of Israel was immediately attacked in a war of genocide by armed forces of every surrounding Arab state plus Iraq. Seems the Arab Muslims have been bully-boys for sixty-three years.

Ironically, Arab Muslim Iraqis, particularly Sunnis, hate Muslim Persians with a vengeance. One of the slogans of the 1940s Iraqi pro Nazi movement said something like, “exterminate all Jews and Persians.” If you desire the actual quote, I can see if a link is available to the enlightening History Channel documentary on the Saddam-Nazi tie that I viewed again a few days ago.

witchfinder wrote:
the Palestinians must accept Israel’s right to exist in peace

Don’t hold your breath. That being said, that is my desire.

witchfinder wrote:
… if or when this happens, then the whole middle east and thus the wider world will be a better, safer place.

True.

witchfinder wrote:
Ok so who s move is it first ?

Anwar Sadat made the first move. The Egyptian-Israeli border is secure, and has been since circa 1979, when Sadat and Begin negotiated a peace treaty at Camp David, under repeated “threats” of personal beat-downs form and by James Earl Carter.

Anwar Sadat was assassinated by Egyptian Muslim military bodyguards in Egypt while reviewing the troops. That’s what happened to a hero who sought world peace in the Middle East.

by GreatNPowerfulOz Tue Nov 22, 2011 2:36 am

"One rule for one - a different rule for another" ~ witchfinder

As well it should be...as one holds the weapons for self-defense from the other, the latter unabashedly vowing to wipe the former from the face of the earth.

by ROB Tue Nov 22, 2011 4:40 am

jackthelad wrote:
Rock says
That’s it. The only polls that count are the election polls on election day.

… it the picking of a candidate that i am talking about. We are told presidential candidates takes about 12 months, canvasing their party in all the states.

You are told correctly; however, it’s become so ridiculous now that candidates normally start campaigning for their parties’ nominations twenty-four months or more prior to the election.

In my opinion, this has grown to be a fundamental problem in US presidential politics.

jackthelad wrote:
… canvasing their party in all the states.

It’s more primary elections than canvassing. Each party sets its own rules as to selection/election of delegates to their national conventions, in which the candidate with the majority votes of the delegates normally are nominated for president. Vice presidential candidates are normally nominated at the behest of the presidential nominee, the two nominees forming a “ticket.”

None of this is mandated in the US Constitution. In fact, the Constitution doesn’t mention political parties.

by Shirina Tue Nov 22, 2011 9:15 am

I can see if a link is available to the enlightening History Channel documentary on the Saddam-Nazi tie that I viewed again a few days ago.

Yep, that is a good one - called Saddam and the Third Reich.

I think the exact quote you're looking for is how there are three things God should not have created - "Jews, Persians, and flies."

by oftenwrong Tue Nov 22, 2011 10:14 am

Saddam had cardboard-cutout replicas in many similar countries, as we have learned during the Arab Spring.

They won't all be dislodged any time soon, not least because their peoples have no practical experience of living in a democracy.

by Sponsored content