Police Hunt Chemical Device

[Guest alex]

Do you mean Iraq or Iran btw?

[LeazesMag 0]

My concern with the whole issue is that, those countries political leadership will think that by destorying Israel and or nuking the west, Allah will take them to heaven. Earthly things like living and breathing and mutually assured destruction are not in the equation.

 

Worryingly, an American friend of mine said, in response to a point I made about the USA using nukes, in an email conversation with me "GWB and this administration doesn't care, they believe Jesus will come and save them"

 

Same problem different fundamentalism

 

145133[/snapback]

 

Good point, there are fundamentalists on both sides. Bush believes in the rapture so isn't too concerned by little things like the environment or world war 3. However, I'm hopeful that the real powers behind the Bush dynasty aren't quite so insane.

 

Having said that a nuclear Iran would be a disaster and a real cause for concern. But I'm confident that that scenario can be avoided without the use of ground troops, which would be a catastrophe.

145159[/snapback]

 

And the president of Iran is really concerned by little things like the environment or world war 3.

 

Still, I'm sure that the President of Iran might be voted out at the next elections.

 

Or maybe he will show some responsibility if, or when, they do develop nukes

 

145185[/snapback]

 

 

Once again you attribute words to me I have never said and refuse to answer yourself. This despite me saying that I personally think the prospect of Iraq is a terrifying one.

 

For once will you answer a straight forward question, one that I have already answered, do you think we (the allies) should invade Iraq. Simple yes or no will suffice. Can you actually answer this, or yet again are you going to prove yourself too thick to read a post?

 

Incidentally, I was reading an interesting commentary in one of my fancy dan papers yesterday which more or less said Bush isn't so much a lame duck president but a dead duck president. Apparently there is no way there will be any military conflict with Iran, either on the ground or by air. The main reason for this is money - the US can't afford to open up a new front. Also, experts reckon to do so the price of a barrel of oil would automatically double over night. Perhaps Leazes knows better and they should have asked him first though.

145237[/snapback]

 

tut tut..a man of your intelligence sinking so low as to hurl insults....I hope luckyluke has noticed who is abusing who here...

 

My reply has been stated. Read it. Shame you read, or say you do, but don't understand what is read unless its in your little book your fancy dan lecturer told you to read. Your bias in your reply is amazing. The first paragraph is about Iran, and the madman running the country, yet you totally miss it out and only make a comment about Bush ? You really think the west ought to appease these people at every turn don't you ? I liked your pompous comment about being "confident it wouldn't resort to sending troops in" BTW ? Is this "confidence" from first hand info, or just a wild hope ? Do you have the same "confidence" that your methods of appeasement, an open immigration door, and allowing the bombers to hide behind their "rights" will prevent the escalation of terrorism and bombing of innocent civilians in the UK ?

 

Ref your comments about oil. Did you read my comment about the 2nd Iraq war being inevitable due to the fact that it wasn't finished the first time, or do you think we should have allowed Saddam to continue flouting the ceasefire agreement and taking the piss out of the whole world and the ceasefire agreement - the simple fact is what they should have done is just gone back in and finished it without needing an excuse, whether that be the growing suspicion of having weapons or the oil. But you would have jibbered on whenever they went in to finish it.

 

Did you agree with the first war BTW ? Or do you think invading another country can be solved by diplomacy ? At what point do you think Iran is going to say to itself "we have enough weapons now" and behave responsibly without turning its head to look at Israel ?

145327[/snapback]

 

Apologies if I have missed it. Do you think we should invade Iraq, yes or no.

 

Please answer one or the other, and we can discuss it. If you have already said what you would do, please link to it.

 

This post is completely irrelevant to the present day situation, I haven't got the time to get side tracked by the confused ramblings of your mind.

145381[/snapback]

 

Wierd, but I haven't got time for the appeasing nature of your mind.

 

I have said, like GF, invading Iran is a pretty scary thing, so probably not. On the other hand, I don't think it will go away. At some time in the future we may regret not taking firmer action while we can, but I hope this doesn't happen.

 

As for "confused ramblings" it is very strange that on one hand, you say you have "confidence the situation can be resolved without the use of ground troops" then imply you have no faith in the American President to resolve the situation !

Then you further imply that he is more dangerous than the completely mad Iranian President, despite the fact that the Americans can vote him out and Iranians don't have this freedom ... if something happens and a conflict starts, you would blame Bush wouldn't you ?

 

If anything starts in the middle east, it will be started by the middle east.

[Guest alex]

The Iranian President was democratically elected last year Leazes. Why am I not surprised you assumed this wasn't the case?

[Renton 22059]

Do you mean Iraq or Iran btw?

145383[/snapback]

 

Fuck. I meant Iran.

 

I'm actually pretty busy today so haven't had time to read or check things properly.

[Guest alex]

Do you mean Iraq or Iran btw?

145383[/snapback]

 

Fuck. I meant Iran.

 

I'm actually pretty busy today so haven't had time to read or check things properly.

145417[/snapback]

Thought you did, just checking.

[Renton 22059]

My concern with the whole issue is that, those countries political leadership will think that by destorying Israel and or nuking the west, Allah will take them to heaven. Earthly things like living and breathing and mutually assured destruction are not in the equation.

 

Worryingly, an American friend of mine said, in response to a point I made about the USA using nukes, in an email conversation with me "GWB and this administration doesn't care, they believe Jesus will come and save them"

 

Same problem different fundamentalism

 

145133[/snapback]

 

Good point, there are fundamentalists on both sides. Bush believes in the rapture so isn't too concerned by little things like the environment or world war 3. However, I'm hopeful that the real powers behind the Bush dynasty aren't quite so insane.

 

Having said that a nuclear Iran would be a disaster and a real cause for concern. But I'm confident that that scenario can be avoided without the use of ground troops, which would be a catastrophe.

145159[/snapback]

 

And the president of Iran is really concerned by little things like the environment or world war 3.

 

Still, I'm sure that the President of Iran might be voted out at the next elections.

 

Or maybe he will show some responsibility if, or when, they do develop nukes

 

145185[/snapback]

 

 

Once again you attribute words to me I have never said and refuse to answer yourself. This despite me saying that I personally think the prospect of Iraq is a terrifying one.

 

For once will you answer a straight forward question, one that I have already answered, do you think we (the allies) should invade Iraq. Simple yes or no will suffice. Can you actually answer this, or yet again are you going to prove yourself too thick to read a post?

 

Incidentally, I was reading an interesting commentary in one of my fancy dan papers yesterday which more or less said Bush isn't so much a lame duck president but a dead duck president. Apparently there is no way there will be any military conflict with Iran, either on the ground or by air. The main reason for this is money - the US can't afford to open up a new front. Also, experts reckon to do so the price of a barrel of oil would automatically double over night. Perhaps Leazes knows better and they should have asked him first though.

145237[/snapback]

 

tut tut..a man of your intelligence sinking so low as to hurl insults....I hope luckyluke has noticed who is abusing who here...

 

My reply has been stated. Read it. Shame you read, or say you do, but don't understand what is read unless its in your little book your fancy dan lecturer told you to read. Your bias in your reply is amazing. The first paragraph is about Iran, and the madman running the country, yet you totally miss it out and only make a comment about Bush ? You really think the west ought to appease these people at every turn don't you ? I liked your pompous comment about being "confident it wouldn't resort to sending troops in" BTW ? Is this "confidence" from first hand info, or just a wild hope ? Do you have the same "confidence" that your methods of appeasement, an open immigration door, and allowing the bombers to hide behind their "rights" will prevent the escalation of terrorism and bombing of innocent civilians in the UK ?

 

Ref your comments about oil. Did you read my comment about the 2nd Iraq war being inevitable due to the fact that it wasn't finished the first time, or do you think we should have allowed Saddam to continue flouting the ceasefire agreement and taking the piss out of the whole world and the ceasefire agreement - the simple fact is what they should have done is just gone back in and finished it without needing an excuse, whether that be the growing suspicion of having weapons or the oil. But you would have jibbered on whenever they went in to finish it.

 

Did you agree with the first war BTW ? Or do you think invading another country can be solved by diplomacy ? At what point do you think Iran is going to say to itself "we have enough weapons now" and behave responsibly without turning its head to look at Israel ?

145327[/snapback]

 

Apologies if I have missed it. Do you think we should invade Iraq, yes or no.

 

Please answer one or the other, and we can discuss it. If you have already said what you would do, please link to it.

 

This post is completely irrelevant to the present day situation, I haven't got the time to get side tracked by the confused ramblings of your mind.

145381[/snapback]

 

Wierd, but I haven't got time for the appeasing nature of your mind.

 

I have said, like GF, invading Iran is a pretty scary thing, so probably not. On the other hand, I don't think it will go away. At some time in the future we may regret not taking firmer action while we can, but I hope this doesn't happen.

 

As for "confused ramblings" it is very strange that on one hand, you say you have "confidence the situation can be resolved without the use of ground troops" then imply you have no faith in the American President to resolve the situation !

Then you further imply that he is more dangerous than the completely mad Iranian President, despite the fact that the Americans can vote him out and Iranians don't have this freedom ... if something happens and a conflict starts, you would blame Bush wouldn't you ?

 

If anything starts in the middle east, it will be started by the middle east.

145403[/snapback]

 

First of all, aplogies for getting my four lettered countries beginning with I mixed up, I was referring to Iran as you amazingly have sussed.

 

You won't give an answer on whether we should invade Iran though I see, instead you say you will employ hindsight at a later date depending on what happens. A bit ironic coming from you, no?

 

I have not passed comment on the Iranian president (who is elected btw), personally I think he is mad and a danger. Shame you haven't twigged onto this by reading my posts and make assumptions on what I think, as usual. I also think Bush is a dangerous man, there is no contradiction in this.

 

America cannot afford to fight Iran, this I am certain of, and yes, I am reasonably confident the dispute can be resolved through that thing you hate, negotiation, backed by embargoes.

 

The republican party are very unlikely to be re-elected in the US, btw, because the states that got Bush in last time (the Southern states) are the ones that are most affected by this war, as they provide most the soldiers. They are now turning against him, and without these states he cannot win. Under a new democrat regime, I would expect some of the tensions of the middle east to be eased, although as I have said I cannot see wjat the long term solution for Iraq or Iran is. But neither can you.

[luckyluke 2]

Leazes, I don't really know why you want me to notice who is insulting whom, but in this case I think you probably deserves it.

[luckypierre 0]

I think he means me. I mentioned he freely throws insults about and then decides to get on his high horse whenever it comes back. He's still doing it too

Edited June 6, 2006 by luckypierre

[Renton 22059]

Is calling Leazes thick an insult or a fair description though?

 

Personally I regard every insult he hurls as a compliment, given who's saying it.

[Guest alex]

Is calling Leazes thick an insult or a fair description though?

 

Personally I regard every insult he hurls as a compliment, given who's saying it.

145500[/snapback]

That's just the sort of thing I would expect from a naive, Guardian reading thicko like yourself.

[Renton 22059]

Is calling Leazes thick an insult or a fair description though?

 

Personally I regard every insult he hurls as a compliment, given who's saying it.

145500[/snapback]

That's just the sort of thing I would expect from a naive, Guardian reading thicko like yourself.

145501[/snapback]

 

Actually my fancy dan paper of choice is the Times. Hardly the Morning Star like.

[Guest alex]

He's the king of assumption tbh.

[Guest Sima]

Thick, naive, xenophobic knuckle-dragging, loser cunt would be a more fitting description of LM tbh

[The Fish 10978]

Thick,  naive, xenophobic knuckle-dragging,  loser cunt would be a more fitting description of LM tbh

145520[/snapback]

 

 

Way to take the high road

[LeazesMag 0]

Leazes, I don't really know why you want me to notice who is insulting whom, but in this case I think you probably deserves it. 

145443[/snapback]

 

Oh dear. Good English from one so intelligent. Shame you have just proved you haven't read the thread properly too. Accusing the wrong person of starting the abuse. Tut tut.

 

Whatever next.

[LeazesMag 0]

The Iranian President was democratically elected last year Leazes. Why am I not surprised you assumed this wasn't the case?

145406[/snapback]

 

Of course. And how long do you think he'll stay ? Longer than Bush or not ?

 

Why am I surprised you didn't understand that comment.

[Guest alex]

Ner, ner, ner, ner, ner!

[LeazesMag 0]

Thick,  naive, xenophobic knuckle-dragging,  loser cunt would be a more fitting description of LM tbh

145520[/snapback]

 

Oh dear. Time for someone like luckyluke to describe someone as being abusive again.

[LeazesMag 0]

Do you mean Iraq or Iran btw?

145383[/snapback]

 

Fuck. I meant Iran.

 

I'm actually pretty busy today so haven't had time to read or check things properly.

145417[/snapback]

 

Ah. You made a mis-type ? Ok for you then

[Guest alex]

The Iranian President was democratically elected last year Leazes. Why am I not surprised you assumed this wasn't the case?

145406[/snapback]

 

Of course. And how long do you think he'll stay ? Longer than Bush or not ?

 

Why am I surprised you didn't understand that comment.

145542[/snapback]

You said the Iranians couldn't vote their President out, whereas the Americans could do with Bush. In actual fact the opposite is true since Bush can't stand the next time.

[Guest Sima]

Thick,  naive, xenophobic knuckle-dragging,  loser cunt would be a more fitting description of LM tbh

145520[/snapback]

 

 

Way to take the high road

145536[/snapback]

 

I was taking the high road?

[The Fish 10978]

guess not.

[Guest alex]

Meanwhile Leazes tries to get us off the trail of the fact he totally jumped the gun in the first post in this thread. Probably because he was desperate for it to be the case that the initial reports were true.

Edited June 6, 2006 by alex

[LeazesMag 0]

My concern with the whole issue is that, those countries political leadership will think that by destorying Israel and or nuking the west, Allah will take them to heaven. Earthly things like living and breathing and mutually assured destruction are not in the equation.

 

Worryingly, an American friend of mine said, in response to a point I made about the USA using nukes, in an email conversation with me "GWB and this administration doesn't care, they believe Jesus will come and save them"

 

Same problem different fundamentalism

 

145133[/snapback]

 

Good point, there are fundamentalists on both sides. Bush believes in the rapture so isn't too concerned by little things like the environment or world war 3. However, I'm hopeful that the real powers behind the Bush dynasty aren't quite so insane.

 

Having said that a nuclear Iran would be a disaster and a real cause for concern. But I'm confident that that scenario can be avoided without the use of ground troops, which would be a catastrophe.

145159[/snapback]

 

And the president of Iran is really concerned by little things like the environment or world war 3.

 

Still, I'm sure that the President of Iran might be voted out at the next elections.

 

Or maybe he will show some responsibility if, or when, they do develop nukes

 

145185[/snapback]

 

 

Once again you attribute words to me I have never said and refuse to answer yourself. This despite me saying that I personally think the prospect of Iraq is a terrifying one.

 

For once will you answer a straight forward question, one that I have already answered, do you think we (the allies) should invade Iraq. Simple yes or no will suffice. Can you actually answer this, or yet again are you going to prove yourself too thick to read a post?

 

Incidentally, I was reading an interesting commentary in one of my fancy dan papers yesterday which more or less said Bush isn't so much a lame duck president but a dead duck president. Apparently there is no way there will be any military conflict with Iran, either on the ground or by air. The main reason for this is money - the US can't afford to open up a new front. Also, experts reckon to do so the price of a barrel of oil would automatically double over night. Perhaps Leazes knows better and they should have asked him first though.

145237[/snapback]

 

tut tut..a man of your intelligence sinking so low as to hurl insults....I hope luckyluke has noticed who is abusing who here...

 

My reply has been stated. Read it. Shame you read, or say you do, but don't understand what is read unless its in your little book your fancy dan lecturer told you to read. Your bias in your reply is amazing. The first paragraph is about Iran, and the madman running the country, yet you totally miss it out and only make a comment about Bush ? You really think the west ought to appease these people at every turn don't you ? I liked your pompous comment about being "confident it wouldn't resort to sending troops in" BTW ? Is this "confidence" from first hand info, or just a wild hope ? Do you have the same "confidence" that your methods of appeasement, an open immigration door, and allowing the bombers to hide behind their "rights" will prevent the escalation of terrorism and bombing of innocent civilians in the UK ?

 

Ref your comments about oil. Did you read my comment about the 2nd Iraq war being inevitable due to the fact that it wasn't finished the first time, or do you think we should have allowed Saddam to continue flouting the ceasefire agreement and taking the piss out of the whole world and the ceasefire agreement - the simple fact is what they should have done is just gone back in and finished it without needing an excuse, whether that be the growing suspicion of having weapons or the oil. But you would have jibbered on whenever they went in to finish it.

 

Did you agree with the first war BTW ? Or do you think invading another country can be solved by diplomacy ? At what point do you think Iran is going to say to itself "we have enough weapons now" and behave responsibly without turning its head to look at Israel ?

145327[/snapback]

 

Apologies if I have missed it. Do you think we should invade Iraq, yes or no.

 

Please answer one or the other, and we can discuss it. If you have already said what you would do, please link to it.

 

This post is completely irrelevant to the present day situation, I haven't got the time to get side tracked by the confused ramblings of your mind.

145381[/snapback]

 

Wierd, but I haven't got time for the appeasing nature of your mind.

 

I have said, like GF, invading Iran is a pretty scary thing, so probably not. On the other hand, I don't think it will go away. At some time in the future we may regret not taking firmer action while we can, but I hope this doesn't happen.

 

As for "confused ramblings" it is very strange that on one hand, you say you have "confidence the situation can be resolved without the use of ground troops" then imply you have no faith in the American President to resolve the situation !

Then you further imply that he is more dangerous than the completely mad Iranian President, despite the fact that the Americans can vote him out and Iranians don't have this freedom ... if something happens and a conflict starts, you would blame Bush wouldn't you ?

 

If anything starts in the middle east, it will be started by the middle east.

145403[/snapback]

 

First of all, aplogies for getting my four lettered countries beginning with I mixed up, I was referring to Iran as you amazingly have sussed.

 

You won't give an answer on whether we should invade Iran though I see, instead you say you will employ hindsight at a later date depending on what happens. A bit ironic coming from you, no?

 

I have not passed comment on the Iranian president (who is elected btw), personally I think he is mad and a danger. Shame you haven't twigged onto this by reading my posts and make assumptions on what I think, as usual. I also think Bush is a dangerous man, there is no contradiction in this.

 

America cannot afford to fight Iran, this I am certain of, and yes, I am reasonably confident the dispute can be resolved through that thing you hate, negotiation, backed by embargoes.

 

The republican party are very unlikely to be re-elected in the US, btw, because the states that got Bush in last time (the Southern states) are the ones that are most affected by this war, as they provide most the soldiers. They are now turning against him, and without these states he cannot win. Under a new democrat regime, I would expect some of the tensions of the middle east to be eased, although as I have said I cannot see wjat the long term solution for Iraq or Iran is. But neither can you.

145428[/snapback]

 

Firstly, I am not applying hindsight. I don't think the USA is a danger to world peace, whereas you obviously do ie your comments about Bush. I admit that I do not know if we should invade Iran or not, because it is scary. I hope we can avoid such a thing, but unlike you, if we don't, the blame for it will lie at the door of Iran, rather than the USA, I am sure of that, despite your persistent insinuation that it is the USA who is the warmonger. I certainly do not think that going down the appeasement route is the way to go, like you do, because concessions simply lead to more demands for more concessions. It's a logical conclusion to make, eventually you cannot make any more concessions and will end up going to war anyway.

 

If you say that we [meaning the West, or the USA] can't afford to fight Iran, then you are probably right, but the cost of fighting them if it happens when they are massively more armed, will be higher still. If they attack Israel, do you think we then even have a choice in the matter ?

 

How do you propose to stop more bombings of Britons on English soil ?

Edited June 6, 2006 by LeazesMag

[Guest alex]

If the US do invade Iran it will be the 3rd country they've invaded since 9/11. Not a threat to world peace though.