Happy Face

Thing is Isreal could currently forge themselves a serious empire in the area, as things stand. Now reverse the roles and put Iran in that position..... would Israel then even exist? Again, you keep going into unknowns and what if's. Israel are the major force and with every action they take in the Gaza Strip they are wiping out it's inhabitants....but your fear is that Iran might possibly take retribution if we allow them to get strong enough to make Israel think twice about it's apartheid regime. Back in reality Iran has been heavily chastised for following the rules and virtually nothing has been said about the Israeli refusal to abide by exactly the same rules. We continue to support the occupying army that flaunts international law and kills thousands of innocent people.

Last week... http://blog.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2009/0...t_israeli_nukes So Iran are a dangerous rogue state for co-operating and being completely transparent while Israel are only protecting themself from the loons and are within their right to flaunt international resolutions to keep their nuclear program secret. Honestly, if the mainstream reporting of this wasn't so frighteningly supportive of the war mongering states it would be funnier than viz.

Well post it if you see it anywhere would you. I've not seen anything that can categorically show what the facility is or is intended to be. Until there's an IAEA inspection (which Iran have welcomed) no-one can know, can they? Steve Hynd thinks that Iran's argument for secrecy around the second plant is plausible.... If I'd spent billions on a civilian nuclear power program and listened to the saber-rattling of the "Real Men Go To Tehran" set for all these years, I'd be inclined to do the same thing. That doesn't mean I think the site was non-military (or military) - Occam's Razor cuts both ways on this one. I'll wait for more information. http://www.newshoggers.com/blog/2009/09/ir...ck-threats.html Seem to say it there about the size. But the reasoning again seems bogus, why would they need a facility like this if their main facilities were gone? And if they weren't then why would they need it in the first place? Aren't you opposed to the proliferation of CCTV? Strange to hear you make the "if you've got nothing to hide" argument.

I think he was referring more to the regime in Jerusalem that keeps expanding Jewish settlements into Gaza in contravention of international law. That hardly justifies Iran's stance though. The other cause for concern here is that Iran gaining nukes would trigger a nuclear arms race in the most unstable part of the Earth. Saudi would certainly want them and probably have the money to develop them, for instance. It's not a pretty situation. What is Iran's stance? I don't believe what is widely reported to make Dinner Jacket into a holocaust denying Nuclear terrorist just waiting to press the red button and wipe out Israel. Or that they are the greates threat to world peace. I think a cease to the Gaza expansions would be a huge step to placating Iran. But as much as the US will politely say to Israel "now come on, that's not nice is it?" They will not say to them "stop, or else!"

Well post it if you see it anywhere would you. I've not seen anything that can categorically show what the facility is or is intended to be. Until there's an IAEA inspection (which Iran have welcomed) no-one can know, can they? Steve Hynd thinks that Iran's argument for secrecy around the second plant is plausible.... If I'd spent billions on a civilian nuclear power program and listened to the saber-rattling of the "Real Men Go To Tehran" set for all these years, I'd be inclined to do the same thing. That doesn't mean I think the site was non-military (or military) - Occam's Razor cuts both ways on this one. I'll wait for more information. http://www.newshoggers.com/blog/2009/09/ir...ck-threats.html

I think he was referring more to the regime in Jerusalem that keeps expanding Jewish settlements into Gaza in contravention of international law.

And if they have another secret facility (Iran is a HUGE place after all) that no one yet knows about? That would be another matter, if it was within 180 days of being operational. Not sure why you've quoted my pooint about the fear of unknowns with a fear mongering unknown, as if that proves any point other than mine.

More nuclear weapons might do the region good? And this is pretty damning evidence that it is purely weapons that they are after, not only because of the secrecy, but because the scale they are working in is completely impractical for energy use, but perfect for weapons projects. What Secrecy? They've announced it more than 180 days before it becomes operable and agreed to inspections. That's like saying Star Trek came out in the summer shrouded in secrecy. Could you also expand on it being 'completely impractical for energy use, but perfect for weapons projects'? I've not heard that view expressed and would be interested to know more. You do realise they only "announced" it because it had been discovered and was literally just about to be made public. They didn't "come clean"..... they were discovered and beat their opponents to the punch (and clearly their PR and Propaganda has worked because people like you believe they "came clean" ), but only because they had to. So now we've explained that to you, lets address the second part. It's a very small facility, completely useless for enriching the amounts they'd need for even fledgling energy generation use, it is however a perfect size for producing the small amounts needed for weapons use. International law doesn't require them to though. Unlike the USA, Iran generally comply with international law. And on your second point, I got that from the first time you said it. All you did there was repeat it. I was asking more for a source so I can judge it's level of impartiality for myself. Not that I doubt you. Just interested.

More nuclear weapons might do the region good? And this is pretty damning evidence that it is purely weapons that they are after, not only because of the secrecy, but because the scale they are working in is completely impractical for energy use, but perfect for weapons projects. What Secrecy? They've announced it more than 180 days before it becomes operable and agreed to inspections. That's like saying Star Trek came out in the summer shrouded in secrecy. Could you also expand on it being 'completely impractical for energy use, but perfect for weapons projects'? I've not heard that view expressed and would be interested to know more. According to the Times on Saturday they only annonced it because they had been rumbled. It was a pre-emptive anouncement. The Times also said the evidence pointed to weapons manufacture. I don't see why anyone would want to defend these lunatics tbh. It's a quite worrying situation. I'd also add, the guy that owns The Times...he's the same one who owns Fox "Yeehaw let's bomb the eye-rackies" News. Scott Ritter (Iraq weapons inspector and ex-marine) had this to say... http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/ci...ant-inspections Seems to me those on the attack are basing it on what they don't know and what they fear, rather than what we do know, which has not been shown to pose any threat.

More nuclear weapons might do the region good? And this is pretty damning evidence that it is purely weapons that they are after, not only because of the secrecy, but because the scale they are working in is completely impractical for energy use, but perfect for weapons projects. What Secrecy? They've announced it more than 180 days before it becomes operable and agreed to inspections. That's like saying Star Trek came out in the summer shrouded in secrecy. Could you also expand on it being 'completely impractical for energy use, but perfect for weapons projects'? I've not heard that view expressed and would be interested to know more. According to the Times on Saturday they only annonced it because they had been rumbled. It was a pre-emptive anouncement. The Times also said the evidence pointed to weapons manufacture. I don't see why anyone would want to defend these lunatics tbh. It's a quite worrying situation. I ain't defending the lunatics. I never defended Saddam Hussein either, but once the war drum starts banging you've got to question the justification being given. Iran haven't violated any international law here and have complied fully with the IAEA.

I thought the Orange Call Centre was in North Tyneside

More nuclear weapons might do the region good? And this is pretty damning evidence that it is purely weapons that they are after, not only because of the secrecy, but because the scale they are working in is completely impractical for energy use, but perfect for weapons projects. What Secrecy? They've announced it more than 180 days before it becomes operable and agreed to inspections. That's like saying Star Trek came out in the summer shrouded in secrecy. Could you also expand on it being 'completely impractical for energy use, but perfect for weapons projects'? I've not heard that view expressed and would be interested to know more.

Is this thread STILL going? Might as well discuss when we'll be in the Champions League.

I agree to an extent but if you sign up for the armed forces then you should know you're at the whim of politicians, it hardly comes as a surprise. I'm sure it comes as no surprise to 2Bias. He's still got every right to say "Fuck!" though. I moan when I have to be on call for the weekend, but everyone needs a job somewhere...or you end up riding the metro 16 hours a day with a black bag containing your life.

Lets keep the technology away from the foreigners Its only the good old us of a and uk that are responsible with weapons. Who is it that keeps wandering the world attacking countries? Iran / Iraq ........ Suppose we will be off into Pakistan / India / N Korea as well or might that be biting off more than we can chew. As for the civi remark I take it your a wren. If you dont want to fight, dont join the army. You do know its all about oil, dont you? You can slate the people in power for sending our soldiers into needless danger, while respecting the sacrifice those soldiers make. Lions led by Donkeys and all that. Agree to some degree with that but he slapped me first Miss. Aye, he did. From what I've read, I wouldn't be saying "good for Iran" just yet, but it's even more reactionary to give Iran the old "boo, hiss. Stop the evil muslims" line we were hoying at Iraq to justify that war.

Lets keep the technology away from the foreigners Its only the good old us of a and uk that are responsible with weapons. Who is it that keeps wandering the world attacking countries? Iran / Iraq ........ Suppose we will be off into Pakistan / India / N Korea as well or might that be biting off more than we can chew. As for the civi remark I take it your a wren. If you dont want to fight, dont join the army. You do know its all about oil, dont you? You can slate the people in power for sending our soldiers into needless danger, while respecting the sacrifice those soldiers make. Lions led by Donkeys and all that.

its an easy thing for any do gooder knucklehead to say, until they themselves become a target I love that you can accuse someone doing good in a pejorative sense. Much better to be a twat.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/ci...ant-inspections

http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/200...iran/index.html

You're the fucking deputy chairman, with Happy Faeces above you. ...and you're still here...and I've never said you should be banned, censored or admonished or even deterred from saying anything but what you want to. I think it's a shame you want to censor people like Renton from saying what they think though. I fuckin' luv Stevie at times Me too. All round legend tttt.

You're the fucking deputy chairman, with Happy Faeces above you. ...and you're still here...and I've never said you should be banned, censored or admonished or even deterred from saying anything but what you want to. I think it's a shame you want to censor people like Renton from saying what they think though.

As Fish says, do you have an example of censoring on this forum? Or is it really a case of you not liking people disagreeing with you? Anyway, fuck me, some of the shit you have come up with over the years has been ridiculous (basically your hatred of virtually everyone not from Newcastle) and yet you're still here. Are you suggesting there's more extreme stuff you want to say but won't for fear of banning? Ambiguous foundationless bollocks, I don't think I've ever written the word HATE on this board. A typical Renton baseless comment, masking the fact he's posted with nothing to say. Again. It's easy to find out... http://www.toontastic.net/board/index.php?...sts&hl=hate 11 pages

I thought the timing was suspicious to say the least like. To be fair, the BBC have still looked at the economic slant...away from the headlines... http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/8274046.stm None of which impresses me much. Reducing the huge bonuses isn't the kind of regulation that'll fix anything, it disincentivises the individual, but not the corporation. Forcing them to have more capital won't do owt either, if they can still roll up individual weak investments and sell them on as A rated packages.

What a coincidence that this has come out while the UN convene to discuss important stuff like trillions of dollars being taken from the poor and given to the rich by their governments and the end of human life on the earth. Fucking piss-take that the media get led by the nose to report on the UN from this angle and comply without thought.

Nerve touched? Recruitment agencies are scum holes. So what profession are you in? Nerve? we are soul less At the moment, application design. Notice i never said recruitment agents are necessarily scum. Among the comments on the letter is this quote "those 2 are the stand-out fuckwits of the industry" Can you guess which companies are being referred to? Other select quotes are... "Good recruitment consultant is such a fucking oxymoron. They are a bunch of parasitic scumbags who come below estate agents and double glazing salesmen in their vileness." "every single one of them is packed to the gills with idiots well-deserving of such an e-mail."