Iran: Should we go?

According to the recent reports from Iran (satellite pictures) it's quite apparent that the heavy-water reactor construction continues, and Iran is in fact making steady progress toward finishing it. Iranian officials said recently that they are going to try to finish it by 2009. Well, if they manage to do that, then by 2010 Iran will be producing enough plutonium for one or two bombs a year.

Please, we need to stop this insane country. It's more than urgent especially when the supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei said on April 25 that Iran would share the nuclear know-how and technology with other countries, like the Sudan! Even if Iran has got nothing, their voiced intentions are worth deep concerns.

I'll come up with recommendations later. But your ideas are welcome.

|| | ||| 6217|| 8 || 3 wrote: According to the recent reports from Iran (satellite pictures) it's quite apparent that the heavy-water reactor construction continues, and Iran is in fact making steady progress toward finishing it. Iranian officials said recently that they are going to try to finish it by 2009. Well, if they manage to do that, then by 2010 Iran will be producing enough plutonium for one or two bombs a year.

Please, we need to stop this insane country. I'll come up with recommendations later. But your ideas are welcome.

firstly... in answer to the thread title..

No. Not unless you want to lose a lot of people. Seems like a deliberately provoked process started to gain economic power, largely in the form of oil.

Secondly.. At the moment, while the Iranian president is clearly a bit 'unhinged'; Iran's current development of nuclear weapons (or whatever they want to disguise them as) is a direct response to the US's aggressive policy in the countries around them. Namely Iraq, Israel, and Afghanistan. I cannot blame them for trying to acquire a deterrent, especially considering the military might piled up on its borders. Wouldnt you feel in danger if Iran had invaded Canada, Mexico etc..?.. and do the same?

I think we should remember the Cold War. US and Russia had missiles pointed at each other for 40 years, with no real intention of using them. China now has them too.

Burt Reynolds wrote:

No. Not unless you want to lose a lot of people. Seems like a deliberately provoked process started to gain economic power, largely in the form of oil.

I never even thought of such a crazy idea as a real war on the ground in Iran. I'm not an expert in military technology, but a series of precise air attacks seem to be able to destroy at least the known suspicious constructions.

Secondly, you're right, the menace felt by the surrounding countries of the region made them go with their own way of defense. But don't you think they must know their place?

Burt Reynolds wrote:

|| | ||| 6217|| 8 || 3 wrote: According to the recent reports from Iran (satellite pictures) it's quite apparent that the heavy-water reactor construction continues, and Iran is in fact making steady progress toward finishing it. Iranian officials said recently that they are going to try to finish it by 2009. Well, if they manage to do that, then by 2010 Iran will be producing enough plutonium for one or two bombs a year.

Please, we need to stop this insane country. I'll come up with recommendations later. But your ideas are welcome.

firstly... in answer to the thread title..

No. Not unless you want to lose a lot of people. Seems like a deliberately provoked process started to gain economic power, largely in the form of oil.

Secondly.. At the moment, while the Iranian president is clearly a bit 'unhinged'; Iran's current development of nuclear weapons (or whatever they want to disguise them as) is a direct response to the US's aggressive policy in the countries around them. Namely Iraq, Israel, and Afghanistan. I cannot blame them for trying to acquire a deterrent, especially considering the military might piled up on its borders. Wouldnt you feel in danger if Iran had invaded Canada, Mexico etc..?.. and do the same?

I think we should remember the Cold War. US and Russia had missiles pointed at each other for 40 years, with no real intention of using them. China now has them too.

Well, you're right Burt, but then Ahmadinejad's got this stupid little habit of threatening to wipe out Israel every other day. I seriously doubt the U.S. is going to let this gang, or any of their potential friends, get their hands on nukes.

|| | ||| 6217|| 8 || 3 wrote:

Burt Reynolds wrote:

No. Not unless you want to lose a lot of people. Seems like a deliberately provoked process started to gain economic power, largely in the form of oil.

I never even thought of such a crazy idea as a real war on the ground in Iran. I'm not an expert in military technology, but a series of precise air attacks seem to be able to destroy at least the known suspicious constructions.

Secondly, you're right, the menace felt by the surrounding countries of the region made them go on their own way of defense. But don't you think they must know their place?

I just read an article yesterday which predicted war before September. Why September? Because Russia just signed a deal to supply Iran with a sophisticated air defense system, and if Israel intends to take these nukes out, they have to do it before the system comes on line in September.

Comrade Shampanyov, Gentleman wrote:

|| | ||| 6217|| 8 || 3 wrote:

Burt Reynolds wrote:

No. Not unless you want to lose a lot of people. Seems like a deliberately provoked process started to gain economic power, largely in the form of oil.

I never even thought of such a crazy idea as a real war on the ground in Iran. I'm not an expert in military technology, but a series of precise air attacks seem to be able to destroy at least the known suspicious constructions.

Secondly, you're right, the menace felt by the surrounding countries of the region made them go on their own way of defense. But don't you think they must know their place?

I just read an article yesterday which predicted war before September. Why September? Because Russia just signed a deal to supply Iran with a sophisticated air defense system, and if Israel intends to take these nukes out, they have to do it before the system comes on line in September.

So you imply that the White House secretly has been planning a well-organized military action against Iran before September. But it'll be brought up in public out of blue sometime in the summer? Well, of course, with a good solid reason given.

|| | ||| 6217|| 8 || 3 wrote:

Comrade Shampanyov, Gentleman wrote:

|| | ||| 6217|| 8 || 3 wrote:

Burt Reynolds wrote:

No. Not unless you want to lose a lot of people. Seems like a deliberately provoked process started to gain economic power, largely in the form of oil.

I never even thought of such a crazy idea as a real war on the ground in Iran. I'm not an expert in military technology, but a series of precise air attacks seem to be able to destroy at least the known suspicious constructions.

Secondly, you're right, the menace felt by the surrounding countries of the region made them go on their own way of defense. But don't you think they must know their place?

I just read an article yesterday which predicted war before September. Why September? Because Russia just signed a deal to supply Iran with a sophisticated air defense system, and if Israel intends to take these nukes out, they have to do it before the system comes on line in September.

So you imply that the White House secretly has been planning a well-organized military action against Iran before September. But it'll be brought up in public out of blue sometime in the summer? Well, of course, with a good solid reason given.

No, that's not what I implied. In fact, I don't think I implied anything. I merely repeated the analysis of an article I read yesterday, in which the author predicts a war before September, because after September, it will be too late for Israel to launch a pre-emptive strike. Given that the air-defense deal was just recently concluded, I don't think you can read too much into the article about "secret plans" for military action. In fact, the author accused the Bush administration of being asleep at the wheel on the air defense deal.

|| | ||| 6217|| 8 || 3 wrote:

Secondly, you're right, the menace felt by the surrounding countries of the region made them go with their own way of defense. But don't you think they must know their place?

Not at all. Their place is as the biggest country in the Middle East. Why have we a right to intervene?.. Israel has nukes, so has India and Pakistan. They allow American troops on their soil from time to time.

While I deeply mistrust the 'nuclear power programme' statement, I can totally understand why they are going down this road. We have surrounded them. Corner a caged lion etc. Any country with ambition and identity would do the same.

Besides if believed there was a humanitarian reason for aggression, I would support it. Currently, we are 5000 miles away, and clearly want their oil.

|| | ||| 6217|| 8 || 3 wrote:

Burt Reynolds wrote:

No. Not unless you want to lose a lot of people. Seems like a deliberately provoked process started to gain economic power, largely in the form of oil.

I never even thought of such a crazy idea as a real war on the ground in Iran. I'm not an expert in military technology, but a series of precise air attacks seem to be able to destroy at least the known suspicious constructions.

Secondly, you're right, the menace felt by the surrounding countries of the region made them go with their own way of defense. But don't you think they must know their place?

First, to blame the "nuclear movement" of Iran solely on the actions of Iraq, Afgan, and Isreal is not looking at the whole picture. This really isn't anything new with Iran. This type of threat to America from Iran has been present at least since the 80's with the Iatola Komani. Iran thinks it can finally get away with it because we are stretched across Iraq. It's not that they feel a need to defend themselves as much as them seeing an opportunity to finally be able to accomplish this and become part of the nuculear clique. . .a status symbol and use of leverage for economic reasons.

Missile strikes are possible, and wouldn't effect the occupation in Iraq as there is no use of cruise missiles there. I think the main concern, if there is a missile strike, how does that effect the region. All of our "Allies" in the area are shakey at best, and will it unify the region?

I'm not sure if there is a good solution to this. I think there's the messy way and the other messy way. I think the worst thing to do is in action, though.

Any other ideas out there?

JHC

Burt Reynolds wrote:

Currently, we are 5000 miles away, and clearly want their oil.

More we want stability in the region, for sure and the Iranian authorities' statements don't bring it any closer.

It's to Iran's benefits if they dropped all that crap about Israel and started playing the game like Pakistan and India do. Now the problem with Ahmadinejad is that he is a politician of "ideology" rather than Realpolitik and it's hard to tell what is a sheer propaganda and what is a fact.

What I'm saying is that either we want it or not, we have to do something about Iran, agree?

Generic wrote: erm...do they have WMDs like the Iraquis did???

Thats the problem. The first time we went to war against Iraq, I was against it, because it was obvious we had set Saddam Hussein up. The second time we went to war against Iraq, I was fed up with Hussein's decade of cat and mouse games with the U.N. inspectors, so while not being "for" a war, I wasn't "against" a war. At first. When it became obvious that Bush was throwing out whatever argument he could find to see what the American public would buy, I began to doubt the necessity of going to war, especially when Bush refused to let the Security Council handle its own resolutions.

Now we see some nutjob religious regime in Iran doing eveything they can to get their hands on nukes, while making daily noises about wiping Israel off the map. At the same time, Bush's ratings are lower than they've ever been, and he NEEDS to do something to change the subject. Something like a little war. So how much of this nuclear issue is attributable to a nutjob regime in Iran trying to get their hands on nukes, and how much is the Bush administration playing it's usual "manipulate and deceive" games to get us into a war and boost his popularity?

Don't know.

LOL.... I knew Pontiac would pipe up.

I assume by 'Iatola Komani', you mean the Ayatollah Khomeini?

just checking, old chap

Burt Reynolds wrote:

|| | ||| 6217|| 8 || 3 wrote:

Secondly, you're right, the menace felt by the surrounding countries of the region made them go with their own way of defense. But don't you think they must know their place?

Not at all. Their place is as the biggest country in the Middle East. Why have we a right to intervene?.. Israel has nukes, so has India and Pakistan. They allow American troops on their soil from time to time.

While I deeply mistrust the 'nuclear power programme' statement, I can totally understand why they are going down this road. We have surrounded them. Corner a caged lion etc. Any country with ambition and identity would do the same.

They are surrounded, and I understand why they want an effective deterrent. But they're not Israel. They're a country that is threatening to use nukes o wipe Israel out. Why have we a right to intervene? Because Iran has the will to launch a holy war against Israel, and they're looking for the means.

Burt Reynolds wrote: LOL.... I knew Pontiac would pipe up.

I assume by 'Iatola Komani', you mean the Ayatollah Khomeini?

just checking, old chap

Comrade Shampanyov, Gentleman wrote:

Burt Reynolds wrote:

|| | ||| 6217|| 8 || 3 wrote:

Secondly, you're right, the menace felt by the surrounding countries of the region made them go with their own way of defense. But don't you think they must know their place?

Not at all. Their place is as the biggest country in the Middle East. Why have we a right to intervene?.. Israel has nukes, so has India and Pakistan. They allow American troops on their soil from time to time.

While I deeply mistrust the 'nuclear power programme' statement, I can totally understand why they are going down this road. We have surrounded them. Corner a caged lion etc. Any country with ambition and identity would do the same.

They are surrounded, and I understand why they want an effective deterrent. But they're not Israel. They're a country that is threatening to use nukes o wipe Israel out. Why have we a right to intervene? Because Iran has the will to launch a holy war against Israel, and they're looking for the means.

True. Letting Iran have nuclear weapons sends a serious signal to other extremist regims about America's weakness. It should be stopped, even if America will have to carry out this dirty task alone.

Burt Reynolds wrote: LOL.... I knew Pontiac would pipe up.

I assume by 'Iatola Komani', you mean the Ayatollah Khomeini?

just checking, old chap

Congrats on being able to spell a name Burt. I think I went through this before, I don't see the need to waste time double checking my spelling. . .you did understand what I was talking about, and that's all that matters.

JHC

Comrade Shampanyov, Gentleman wrote: Bush's ratings are lower than they've ever been, and he NEEDS to do something to change the subject. Something like a little war.

This would be no little war though, Comrade. Potentially conscription perhaps. And, I've always been under the impression that Iran has been the ultimate target anyway. A 'tiny steps' approach.

This is the time you have to watch the media and its accuracy in terms of the information it gives us. I.E. not one sided. I see recently that George Bush is hell bent on destroying the Al Jazheera channel, even though the English version of it is highly informative.

Burt Reynolds wrote:

Comrade Shampanyov, Gentleman wrote: Bush's ratings are lower than they've ever been, and he NEEDS to do something to change the subject. Something like a little war.

This would be no little war though, Comrade. Potentially conscription perhaps. And, I've always been under the impression that Iran has been the ultimate target anyway. A 'tiny steps' approach.

This is the time you have to watch the media and its accuracy in terms of the information it gives us. I.E. not one sided. I see recently that George Bush is hell bent on destroying the Al Jazheera channel, even though the English version of it is highly informative.

Yep. I am very suspicious of Bush this time around, but Ahmadinejad's very public predilection for nuclear jihad is making it easy to suspect we may need to do something to stop him. Bush is now a known liar, but that doesn't mean Ahmadinejad doesn't intend to launch a nuclear strike against Israel.

Quite frankly we should just equip Isreal with the knowledge and equipment to handle their own affairs. That is good politics, getting somone else to do you dirty jobs.

Of course Isreal already has the knowledge and the equipment. They are much more resolute than we are. They are the ones in harms way as ICBM's are years beyone Iran's capability.

That being said any pre-emptive strikes put the region further in chaos, which is good for business. If you own Exxon stock or an SUV this may sway your opinion

Xoq wrote: Quite frankly we should just equip Isreal with the knowledge and equipment to handle their own affairs. That is good politics, getting somone else to do you dirty jobs.

Of course Isreal already has the knowledge and the equipment. They are much more resolute than we are. They are the ones in harms way as ICBM's are years beyone Iran's capability.

That being said any pre-emptive strikes put the region further in chaos, which is good for business. If you own Exxon stock or an SUV this may sway your opinion

True. When's Israel ever been capable of conducting its own politics in the Middle East without being backed up by the US?

I firmly believe that besides all those current and future possible military actions in the Middle East, America has to work on the ideological front.

Nothing has been done but talks about democracy, which remain inane for the Middle-Eastern ear. I reckon we have to influence the Muslim counties that are "loyal" to us and bring them to the simple idea that they also carry a significant share of responsibility in the region. It's them, not us, should, by this idea, be concerned about the Iranian intentions: because as a result we'll bring eventually more devastation to the region than before trying to clean up their politics. Moreover we have to have secret ties with the religious leaders of the those countries. Is there anything of this kind being done?

Let's take the Iraq case: how should America have done it? Instead of the poorly backed up insuniations about the nukes, America should have secretly incited the Kurds in the northern parts of Iraq to a mass insurrection. Of course, Saddam would supress it violently and right at this point the Security Council would hold a session on the Iraq issue (humanitarian catastrophy, etc.) and under the UN peacemaking umbrella, America would invade Iraq to "set the Kurds free". And the whole world would be happy, with the more or less same results.

|| | ||| 6217|| 8 || 3 wrote:

Xoq wrote: Quite frankly we should just equip Isreal with the knowledge and equipment to handle their own affairs. That is good politics, getting somone else to do you dirty jobs.

Of course Isreal already has the knowledge and the equipment. They are much more resolute than we are. They are the ones in harms way as ICBM's are years beyone Iran's capability.

That being said any pre-emptive strikes put the region further in chaos, which is good for business. If you own Exxon stock or an SUV this may sway your opinion

True. When's Israel ever been capable of conducting its own politics in the Middle East without being backed up by the US?

1. the six-day war. israel even bombed a US naval ship, later saying it was a case of mistaken identity.

2. when israel bombed iraq's osirak nuclear reactor in 1981. the US condemned the bombing.

I don't see the USA taking on the Chinese

That's true, and when we did, they poured a million soldiers into Korea. Not a good experience.

But then the Chinese President isn't threatening to unleash nuclear jihad on Israel, either. And the Chinese don't have friends who'd like to set off a nuclear suitcase bomb in Manhattan.

Good point, well made Comrade !

no to the original question. we, the us and allies still have problems with the recently invaded countries.

also i have made this point before. what will the Shiites in iraq, who have largely been peaceful till now, do if israel or the usa bomb that nuclear reactor.

that place would become an even bigger mess than now, and very very dangerous for allied soldiers. that reason alone will prevent any bombing of any nuclear reactor.

iran certainly doesn't need nuclear power to generate electricity, so it is only natural to suspect ulterior motives.

should a potentially hostile country like iran have nuclear capability. no most certainly not. perhaps sanctions would be the way to do.

AgentWood wrote:

|| | ||| 6217|| 8 || 3 wrote:

Xoq wrote: Quite frankly we should just equip Isreal with the knowledge and equipment to handle their own affairs. That is good politics, getting somone else to do you dirty jobs.

Of course Isreal already has the knowledge and the equipment. They are much more resolute than we are. They are the ones in harms way as ICBM's are years beyone Iran's capability.

That being said any pre-emptive strikes put the region further in chaos, which is good for business. If you own Exxon stock or an SUV this may sway your opinion

True. When's Israel ever been capable of conducting its own politics in the Middle East without being backed up by the US?

1. the six-day war. israel even bombed a US naval ship, later saying it was a case of mistaken identity.

2. when israel bombed iraq's osirak nuclear reactor in 1981. the US condemned the bombing.

It doesn't define own policy. It's rather caused by contradictions in their inner political circles (Israel). Of course, we're talking only hypothetical, but can you imagine the State of Israel without the USA? It'd have been sweeped off long time ago without a solid support (not only military) from the USA. But it's not the question of the thread, sorry!

NOOLigan wrote: should a potentially hostile country like iran have nuclear capability. no most certainly not. perhaps sanctions would be the way to do.

Your concerns are very solid but it's this situation when even if we don't want to do anything against Iran, we have to. And UN sanctions hardly will help in this serious case :(

|| | ||| 6217|| 8 || 3 wrote:

NOOLigan wrote: should a potentially hostile country like iran have nuclear capability. no most certainly not. perhaps sanctions would be the way to do.

Your concerns are very solid but it's this situation when even if we don't want to do anything against Iran, we have to. And UN sanctions hardly will help in this serious case :(

let us stop them selling their oil that should do it. no more funds for luxuries like nuclear power.

Well, as I see it there is only one country with a big enough stockpile of Nukes to dispatch us all. There is also only one country aho has ever used them (and on a purely civilian target...a survivor enclave no less...very clever way to test yield), despite their president being told the enemy was about to surrender anyway.

As to What Agent said....there's an excellent documentary called "dead in the water" about that ship (USS Liberty was it?). with Allies like that, who needs enemies. I think you can get it off demonoid.com if your azureus woes are ended.

Who "we"?

should we go?

more like should we nuke the long bearded bastards you mean.

J.A.K wrote: should we go?

more like should we nuke the long bearded bastards you mean.

long beardedness is the only substantial charge I've heard so far. :D

Steve Campbell wrote:

J.A.K wrote: should we go?

more like should we nuke the long bearded bastards you mean.

long beardedness is the only substantial charge I've heard so far. :D

you right i suppose. they've done fuck all so far anyway. still a cunt of a nation though. bring back the Shah.

good to see you got that Shed phase out of your system Ste. very well done. others take note.

(The Good Doctor) Martin Fradley wrote: Who "we"?

i guess that would be the usual suspects, usa, uk, australia and other allies.

NOOLigan wrote:

(The Good Doctor) Martin Fradley wrote: Who "we"?

i guess that would be the usual suspects, usa, uk, australia and other allies.

Right, those who speak English :D

|| | ||| 6217|| 8 || 3 wrote:

NOOLigan wrote:

(The Good Doctor) Martin Fradley wrote: Who "we"?

i guess that would be the usual suspects, usa, uk, australia and other allies.

Right, those who speak English :D

Yeah and the Yanks

UN sanctions hardly will help in this serious case

Come on. The UN will write them a letter telling Iran how very angry they are for having nukes. Iran will feel ashamed and give them up.

just send Team America in, they'll sort out all the worlds problems.

Well hell yeh!! Invade invade Life is just a giant game of 'risk' (old 80's board game for you young'ns & yanks)

in fairness tho..Risk doesn't end with the cockroaches taking over the house.

Andrew Sayer wrote: Well hell yeh!! Invade invade Life is just a giant game of 'risk' (old 80's board game for you young'ns & yanks)

erm, yeah. we have that game here.

and to answer several other posts:

ian: i can't imagine israel existing without the US, you're right. but it does pretty well militarily in its own right, considering.

steve: i can think of TWO countries that can blow the world to smithereens with nukes. you left out russia and its rusting nuclear subs in murmansk!

and, erm, kershie, i think it was: the shah wasn't any better than the ayatollah. he was just a bastard in a different way. an america-friendly bastard, if you will.

My solution to the problem is thus:

Iran clearly feels threatened by the fact that the Israelis have nukes. If the US could bribe the Israelis to dismantle their bomb, and then spend just a fraction of what it gives to the zionists to prop up their state, on health and improvement programmes in both Palestine & Iran then a whole bunch of peoples lives would improve immeasurably. This would win hearts & minds and so isolate the jihadists & muslim extremists.

Also the world has grown wise to the US crying wolf over Iraq, and any proposed military action against Iran would not be supported. Except possibly by Blair who loves Bush

According to information compiled by the Nuclear Threat Initiative, an organization devoted to monitoring the status of the nuclear threat worldwide, nine countries had nukes by April 2004. The nine countries are listed below. Each figure includes the approximate number of both tactical and strategic bombs (nuclear and thermonuclear, or "big" and "really humungous").

Country Warheads

United States 10,455

Russia 8,400

China 400

France 350

Israel 250

United Kingdom 200

India 65

Pakistan 40

North Korea 8 (crude estimates)

TOTAL 20,168

We are already living the globalization of the market... Why make an exception with the globalization of nuclear weapons ? I mean, who are we to not allow the others to play with the same toys than ours ?

I sometimes wonder how the world would look like if we were to live a new world order... a "non-Oceania" one...

James Thomas wrote: According to information compiled by the Nuclear Threat Initiative, an organization devoted to monitoring the status of the nuclear threat worldwide, nine countries had nukes by April 2004. The nine countries are listed below. Each figure includes the approximate number of both tactical and strategic bombs (nuclear and thermonuclear, or "big" and "really humungous").

Country Warheads

United States 10,455

Russia 8,400

China 400

France 350

Israel 250

United Kingdom 200

India 65

Pakistan 40

North Korea 8 (crude estimates)

TOTAL 20,168

Thats it. I'm off to my bunker. I've shat myself.

Night night.

:bag:

Jiphy wrote: We are already living the globalization of the market... Why make an exception with the globalization of nuclear weapons ? I mean, who are we to not allow the others to play with the same toys than ours ?

Shall we send them some?

Comrade Shampanyov, Gentleman wrote:

Jiphy wrote: We are already living the globalization of the market... Why make an exception with the globalization of nuclear weapons ? I mean, who are we to not allow the others to play with the same toys than ours ?

Shall we send them some?

According to the figures James gave us, we can... To sell some would be good to strenghten (sorry I think I haven't spelt this word correctly) our economies... I assume that we would still have more than them and that we could show them "we have teeth"...

Ad : I am surprised that we are ranked fourth...

Israel has the best ratio...

Jiphy wrote:

Comrade Shampanyov, Gentleman wrote:

Jiphy wrote: We are already living the globalization of the market... Why make an exception with the globalization of nuclear weapons ? I mean, who are we to not allow the others to play with the same toys than ours ?

Shall we send them some?

According to the figures James gave us, we can... To sell some would be good to strenghten (sorry I think I haven't spelt this word correctly) our economies... I assume that we would still have more than them and that we could show them "we have teeth"...

Ad : I am surprised that we are ranked fourth...

I meant send them, not sell them. If they want nukes so badly, perhaps we should send them some nukes. At the business end of a warhead.

Of course, I don't really think that we should nuke them, but it's clear that Iran wants nukes for non-peaceful purposes. Non-peaceful purposes like launching a holy war against Israel. Maybe even non-peaceful purposes like giving Islamic extremists the means to set off a suitcase nuke in Manhattan.

Israel has nukes because they're surrounded by hositile neighbors who've tried to wipe Israel out on many, many occasions. Iran wants nukes because it's run by religious extremists who want to wipe Israel out. Islamic extremists want to set nukes off in Manhattan because the U.S. won't let them wipe Israel out.

Should we turn a blind eye to these nutjobs builiding nukes? No way. Will we turn a blind eye? I doubt it.

When you have no choice, you follow the leaders... you do in Roma as the Romans do.

Western world society is far ahead comparing to the underdeveloped countries but I doubt that we quit the bad manners we "used" to have considering they are the most difficult to quit... which are to make short "shut up and behave"

Steve Campbell wrote:

J.A.K wrote: should we go?

more like should we nuke the long bearded bastards you mean.

long beardedness is the only substantial charge I've heard so far. :D

He doesn't like those other longbeards.

Jiphy wrote: We are already living the globalization of the market... Why make an exception with the globalization of nuclear weapons ? I mean, who are we to not allow the others to play with the same toys than ours ?

I sometimes wonder how the world would look like if we were to live a new world order... a "non-Oceania" one...

But Jean-Phillip, unless you being sarcastic here, I'd agree with you. Yet as you just sait there's a huge gap between Western society and the undeveloped (more significant - religy-driven) countries and giving them these toys would destroy the whole world. It's the toys for the chosen, and rightly so.

Jiphy wrote: When you have no choice, you follow the leaders... you do in Roma as the Romans do.

Western world society is far ahead comparing to the underdeveloped countries but I doubt that we quit the bad manners we "used" to have considering they are the most difficult to quit... which are to make short "shut up and behave"

They have a choice to live in coexsistence, and they reject that choice, so they keep trying for an Islamic bomb. That's not "following the leaders," it's a threat to commit mass murder. Which Islamic extremists have shown their willingness to engage in before.

So Comrade, in short, are you for a war against Iran, or not?

The question calls for too simplistic an answer.

Comrade Shampanyov, Gentleman wrote: The question calls for too simplistic an answer.

Yes, but we had an opportunity to hear your opinion about the issue, pros and contras, so after your elaborated statements feel free now to answer in a simplier way. So what is the final verdict?

|| | ||| 6217|| 8 || 3 wrote: So Comrade, in short, are you for a war against Iran, or not?

1. I have serious reservations about the information we're being presented with. Bush has already shown once his willingness to-- let's call a spade a spade-- lie to the American people, distort intelligence, manipulate the truth, in order to gain support for going to war. This isn't speculation at this point, it's well-documented fact. So I don't trust anything I hear fromthe Bush Administration.

2. I don't believe for a nanosecond that Iran wants nuclear technology for peaceful purposes.

3. It's clear that we've surrounded Iran, and it makes sense that Iran would want to have an effective deterrent to any planned U.S. military action.

4. Iran muddies the waters by calling for the annihilation of Israel every other day or so.

5. Iran is run by Islamic extremists. The United States was attacked by Islamic extremists. It's not hard to imagine secenarios in which one Islamic extremist helps another Islamic extremist detonate a nuclear bomb in the United States.

These facts don't add up to a necessity to go to war, but they do add up, in my opinion, to the necessity to destroy Iran's nuclear capability.

Can we launch a thread about the Sudan? I'm just afraid people will kill me for these kinds of topics.

|| | ||| 6217|| 8 || 3 wrote: Can we launch a thread about the Sudan? I'm just afraid people will kill me for these kinds of topics.

Yes, launch a thread about Sudan...

Comrade Shampanyov, Gentleman wrote:

|| | ||| 6217|| 8 || 3 wrote: So Comrade, in short, are you for a war against Iran, or not?

1. I have serious reservations about the information we're being presented with. Bush has already shown once his willingness to-- let's call a spade a spade-- lie to the American people, distort intelligence, manipulate the truth, in order to gain support for going to war. This isn't speculation at this point, it's well-documented fact. So I don't trust anything I hear fromthe Bush Administration.

2. I don't believe for a nanosecond that Iran wants nuclear technology for peaceful purposes.

3. It's clear that we've surrounded Iran, and it makes sense that Iran would want to have an effective deterrent to any planned U.S. military action.

4. Iran muddies the waters by calling for the annihilation of Israel every other day or so.

5. Iran is run by Islamic extremists. The United States was attacked by Islamic extremists. It's not hard to imagine secenarios in which one Islamic extremist helps another Islamic extremist detonate a nuclear bomb in the United States.

These facts don't add up to a necessity to go to war, but they do add up, in my opinion, to the necessity to destroy Iran's nuclear capability.

Good points and I understand your leaning towards possibly missile strikes on the known objects, instead of a real guerilla type of war.

Oh, I thought this thread was about going on vacation in Iran...

Boy, am I embarassed! :D

|| | ||| 6217|| 8 || 3 wrote:

Comrade Shampanyov, Gentleman wrote:

|| | ||| 6217|| 8 || 3 wrote: So Comrade, in short, are you for a war against Iran, or not?

1. I have serious reservations about the information we're being presented with. Bush has already shown once his willingness to-- let's call a spade a spade-- lie to the American people, distort intelligence, manipulate the truth, in order to gain support for going to war. This isn't speculation at this point, it's well-documented fact. So I don't trust anything I hear fromthe Bush Administration.

2. I don't believe for a nanosecond that Iran wants nuclear technology for peaceful purposes.

3. It's clear that we've surrounded Iran, and it makes sense that Iran would want to have an effective deterrent to any planned U.S. military action.

4. Iran muddies the waters by calling for the annihilation of Israel every other day or so.

5. Iran is run by Islamic extremists. The United States was attacked by Islamic extremists. It's not hard to imagine secenarios in which one Islamic extremist helps another Islamic extremist detonate a nuclear bomb in the United States.

These facts don't add up to a necessity to go to war, but they do add up, in my opinion, to the necessity to destroy Iran's nuclear capability.

Good points and I understand your leaning towards possibly missile strikes on the known objects, instead of a real guerilla type of war.

Well, missile strikes are certainly an option, but they don't have to be the first choice. One can imagine other possibilities. For example, diplomatic sanctions. Economic sanctions. An embargo on Iranian oil. Fomenting ethnic unrest within Iran-- for example, encouraging the Kurds within Iran to join with the Iraqi Kurds in forming their own state. Same thing with the Armenians and other groups. Fomenting political unrest within Iran. There are lots of opportunities for fucking with 'em that don't require military actionon our part.

Taboo # 7 wrote: Oh, I thought this thread was about going on vacation in Iran...

Boy, am I embarassed! :D

Pretty nice country, Iran. Uh, pretty good sheep country...

Comrade Shampanyov, Gentleman wrote:

Well, missile strikes are certainly an option, but they don't have to be the first choice. One can imagine other possibilities. For example, diplomatic sanctions. Economic sanctions. An embargo on Iranian oil. Fomenting ethnic unrest within Iran-- for example, encouraging the Kurds within Iran to join with the Iraqi Kurds in forming their own state. Same thing with the Armenians and other groups. Fomenting political unrest within Iran. There are lots of opportunities for fucking with 'em that don't require military actionon our part.

As for sanctions, I doubt they'll work as, like I said, Ahmanedijad builds his rule not on Realpolitik but rather ideology (in his case - extremist). To set unrest in the country by inciting different ethnical minorities could bring a greater chaos in te region for the whole new century.

Taboo # 7 wrote: Oh, I thought this thread was about going on vacation in Iran...

Boy, am I embarassed! :D

Actually you might be welcome to go

I want to believe that populations are not as nasty as their leaders. In fact, I do not want to believe it, I frankly believe it.

Today's world is no more divided into two like it was in Berlin. It is like a full and single fragmented hard-drive. And defrag it, by getting rid of these nasty people using intelligence services, would be a cheaper and safer way as a process. Why letting things do and having bugs like expensive wars in matters of lives, silly costs on environment and money ?

Jiphy wrote: It is like a full and single fragmented hard-drive. And defrag it, by getting rid of these nasty people using intelligence services, would be a cheaper and safer way as a process. Why letting things do and having bugs like expensive wars in matters of lives, silly costs on environment and money ?

I used to believe it but how many examples do you know? Castro, Hussein, Milosevic, Kim Jong Il and so forth - none of them was ever taken care of by "intelligent services", so this reality doesn't support such a reasonable idea.

Plus, as you know, militaries always want a real war - in every country - such is their nature :)

|| | ||| 6217|| 8 || 3 wrote:

Comrade Shampanyov, Gentleman wrote:

Well, missile strikes are certainly an option, but they don't have to be the first choice. One can imagine other possibilities. For example, diplomatic sanctions. Economic sanctions. An embargo on Iranian oil. Fomenting ethnic unrest within Iran-- for example, encouraging the Kurds within Iran to join with the Iraqi Kurds in forming their own state. Same thing with the Armenians and other groups. Fomenting political unrest within Iran. There are lots of opportunities for fucking with 'em that don't require military actionon our part.

As for sanctions, I doubt they'll work as, like I said, Ahmanedijad builds his rule not on Realpolitik but rather ideology (in his case - extremist). To set unrest in the country by inciting different ethnical minorities could bring a greater chaos in te region for the whole new century.

The point of sanctions is to cripple the regime. First, they have no capital for their projects-- building atomic weapons, for example. Second, at least theoretically, sanctions foment unrest within the nation, and that can lead to new leadership. Sanctions didn't foment unrest in Iraq, but they might in Iran, because Iran holds elections.

The closest thing to a democratic state in the Islamic middle east is the Kurdish autonomous region in Iraq. Encouraging the formation of a democratic Kurdish state would be a positive development. So would "chaos" within enemy states.

Comrade Shampanyov, Gentleman wrote:

Encouraging the formation of a democratic Kurdish state would be a positive development. So would "chaos" within enemy states.

Jeez, Comrade you're suggesting the worst scenario for the Middle East - war of all against all. Lucky if you can control those processes within that chaos. But something tells me no one will be able to gain control over it and under in the shade of these numerous chaotic inserrections, attacks etc. it'd be easier than ever to sneak nukes and make a big bang. Or you suggest US soldiers somewhere inbetween over there?

|| | ||| 6217|| 8 || 3 wrote:

Comrade Shampanyov, Gentleman wrote:

Encouraging the formation of a democratic Kurdish state would be a positive development. So would "chaos" within enemy states.

Jeez, Comrade you're suggesting the worst scenario for the Middle East - war of all against all. Lucky if you can control those processes within that chaos. But something tells me no one will be able to gain control over it and under in the shade of these numerous chaotic inserrections, attacks etc. it'd be easier than ever to sneak nukes and make a big bang. Or you suggest US soldiers somewhere inbetween over there?

Who's going to go to war against a Kurdish state? Turkey doesn't want a Kurdish state, but it's against Turkey's interests to go against our interests. So who else doesn't want a Kurdish state? Syria and Iran. From that perspective, a Kurdish state would be a good thing, because it would keep those countries busy dealing with internal unrest. It would also be a democratic, pro-U.S. state, which exists...nowhere. Another plus for us.

Stable extremist regimes aren't "stability." The "mideast stability" you're clinging to is an illusion. The only thing that's going to bring stability in the long run is a reshuffle of the deck.

Comrade Shampanyov, Gentleman wrote: encouraging the Kurds within Iran to join with the Iraqi Kurds in forming their own state.

No good way. For Kurds are in Iran, Iraq and Turkey. EU does everything possible to let things last with the problem of the integration of Turkey within itself. Just like if it wanted to cancel this option.

First point. W does everything possible to make Turkey join the EU, which is against most Europeans' will. He frightens us to death enough with the péril islamique that we are all afraid to live with a muslim country within us. Just remember what Fox and CNN showed you this winter with riots in France.

Second point. W's "go to war in the name of God" behavior. In Europe, at least on the Continent, we already had our religious war with Muslims. Holy Empire against Turkey... So a war against islam is not compatible with the help of Turkey in our mind, this country being the most immediate danger.

Third point. If Turkey were to be in the EU, the problem of the Kurds would be an internal affair. Can you seriously imagine a gathering of Christian countries trying to sort the problem of the Kurds with his two closest neighbors in the area which would be Iraq and Iran ?

Keep in mind that Europeans cannot see these problems as the US Foreign Office can see them. Even if they consider that Moscow still is, in a way, the enemy that it used to be as the capital city of former USSR, the average European feels that he has more in common with someone from Moscow than with someone from Ankara...

Comrade Shampanyov, Gentleman wrote:

a Kurdish state, but

Read my earlier post in this thread about a lost opportunity of using the Kurds for invading Iraq in 2003. Hardly they will do anything of this kind this time (I mean WH).

|| | ||| 6217|| 8 || 3 wrote: Plus, as you know, militaries always want a real war - in every country - such is their nature :)

the kaki brainwashing... sponsored by the Church, most of the time... as in the good old time of the Ancient Régime. The elder in the army, the second in the orders. Well, more than 200 years after the Revolution, it remains the same... surely un art de vivre...

|| | ||| 6217|| 8 || 3 wrote: I used to believe it but how many examples do you know? Castro, Hussein, Milosevic, Kim Jong Il and so forth - none of them was ever taken care of by "intelligent services", so this reality doesn't support such a reasonable idea.

Caucescu ?...

Alliende ?

Jiphy wrote: We are already living the globalization of the market... Why make an exception with the globalization of nuclear weapons ? I mean, who are we to not allow the others to play with the same toys than ours ?

I sometimes wonder how the world would look like if we were to live a new world order... a "non-Oceania" one...

well, that's been john mearsheimer's theory for decades. i've always found it a bit, oh, i don't know, dangerous. one nuclear weapon is one too many for me. i don't and never have bought into the idea of nuclear deterrence.

the arms race between the US and the USSR was meant to deter the other from the use of nuclear weapons. instead, the cuban missile crisis almost ended the world as we know it.and now, after the fall of the soviet union, russia is missing over 100 nuclear weapons. that's right. over 100 nuclear weapons it cannot account for. i believe the US was missing four at the last IAEA count i am aware of (this was in 1998--numbers may have changed).

also, india and pakistan possessing nuclear weapons hasn't prevented border clashes in kashmir. one may argue that the war in kashmir would be worse if the two countries didn't have nuclear weapons, but they've played nuclear brinksmanship too many times to justify expensive nuclear programmes.

AgentWood wrote: one nuclear weapon is one too many for me.

that is what I was thinking of typing "follow the leaders"

Jiphy wrote:

Comrade Shampanyov, Gentleman wrote: encouraging the Kurds within Iran to join with the Iraqi Kurds in forming their own state.

No good way. For Kurds are in Iran, Iraq and Turkey. EU does everything possible to let things last with the problem of the integration of Turkey within itself. Just like if it wanted to cancel this option.

First point. W does everything possible to make Turkey join the EU, which is against most Europeans' will. He frightens us to death enough with the péril islamique that we are all afraid to live with a muslim country within us. Just remember what Fox and CNN showed you this winter with riots in France.

Second point. W's "go to war in the name of God" behavior. In Europe, at least on the Continent, we already had our religious war with Muslims. Holy Empire against Turkey... So a war against islam is not compatible with the help of Turkey in our mind, this country being the most immediate danger.

Third point. If Turkey were to be in the EU, the problem of the Kurds would be an internal affair. Can you seriously imagine a gathering of Christian countries trying to sort the problem of the Kurds with his two closest neighbors in the area which would be Iraq and Iran ?

Keep in mind that Europeans cannot see these problems as the US Foreign Office can see them. Even if they consider that Moscow still is, in a way, the enemy that it used to be as the capital city of former USSR, the average European feels that he has more in common with someone from Moscow than with someone from Ankara...

We're losing sight of the big picture by getting bogged down in details. The point I began with is it's not necessary to invade Iran to stop their nuclear weapons program. Sanctions and fomenting unrest will derail their nuclear ambitions, in my opinion. If not, missiles are always an option. In George Bush's universe, military action is the first resort. In my universe, military action is what you resort to when your other options haven't worked out as you had hoped. Place a complete ecoomic embarge on Iran-- not a drop of Iranian oil on the world market-- and watch how long Ahmadinejad lasts. Stir up unrest in Iran and sit back and watch.

The details of exactly what to do are just that-- details.

In my own view, a Kurdish state can be created out of Iraq at a minimum, and potentially out of Iran and Syria if they're looking for a fight. Because Turkey is our ally, we can leave them out of the turmoil. How do we exert the kind of influence necessary to keep Turkish Kurds in line? Through their contrymen in Iraq, who recognize the value of having their own state, and the support of the United States in creating that state.

Anyway, those are details. The big picture is that we can play havoc with Iran without ever having to fire a shot.

Comrade Shampanyov, Gentleman wrote:

How do we exert the kind of influence necessary to keep Turkish Kurds in line? Through their contrymen in Iraq, who recognize the value of having their own state, and the support of the United States in creating that state.

i should send you a copy of my undergraduate dissertation: 'the war in kurdistan: turkish, american and european responses and solutions.' believe me, the turks have been keeping the kurds 'in line' quite well by themselves for decades--much like they did the armenians almost a century ago. now the PKK has been emasculated and ocalan captured, they're more 'in line' than ever.

AgentWood wrote:

Comrade Shampanyov, Gentleman wrote:

How do we exert the kind of influence necessary to keep Turkish Kurds in line? Through their contrymen in Iraq, who recognize the value of having their own state, and the support of the United States in creating that state.

i should send you a copy of my undergraduate dissertation: 'the war in kurdistan: turkish, american and european responses and solutions.' believe me, the turks have been keeping the kurds 'in line' quite well by themselves for decades--much like they did the armenians almost a century ago. now the PKK has been emasculated and ocalan captured, they're more 'in line' than ever.

What I mean is this: The Turks are dead set against a Kurdistan, because they're concerned that Turkish Kurds will agitate for secession. Our response to Turkish concerns should be "don't worry, that won't happen," because the Kurds themselves will respect Turkish territorial integrity if it means gaining a state and the backing of the U.S.

Comrade Shampanyov, Gentleman wrote:

AgentWood wrote:

Comrade Shampanyov, Gentleman wrote:

How do we exert the kind of influence necessary to keep Turkish Kurds in line? Through their contrymen in Iraq, who recognize the value of having their own state, and the support of the United States in creating that state.

i should send you a copy of my undergraduate dissertation: 'the war in kurdistan: turkish, american and european responses and solutions.' believe me, the turks have been keeping the kurds 'in line' quite well by themselves for decades--much like they did the armenians almost a century ago. now the PKK has been emasculated and ocalan captured, they're more 'in line' than ever.

What I mean is this: The Turks are dead set against a Kurdistan, because they're concerned that Turkish Kurds will agitate for secession. Our response to Turkish concerns should be "don't worry, that won't happen," because the Kurds themselves will respect Turkish territorial integrity if it means gaining a state and the backing of the U.S.

I see what you mean now. But I would worry about a mass expulsion of Kurds from Turkey if there were an independent Kurdistan. And because of America's symbiotic relationship with Turkey, I doubt the US would stop it. At least not until it was too late.

Yeah, I suspect some sort of turmoil would be a possibility. On the other hand, the Turks themselves want to behave, because they're trying to get into the E.U.

I really think that for long-term stability, the old imperial boundaries in the mideast (and in Africa, for that matter) need to undergo some sort of rationalization that recognizes nationality. That probably won't come without turmoil, but will, in my opinion, ultimately result in ethnic stability.

Comrade Shampanyov, Gentleman wrote: We're losing sight of the big picture by getting bogged down in details. The point I began with is it's not necessary to invade Iran to stop their nuclear weapons program. Sanctions and fomenting unrest will derail their nuclear ambitions, in my opinion. If not, missiles are always an option. In George Bush's universe, military action is the first resort. In my universe, military action is what you resort to when your other options haven't worked out as you had hoped. Place a complete ecoomic embarge on Iran-- not a drop of Iranian oil on the world market-- and watch how long Ahmadinejad lasts. Stir up unrest in Iran and sit back and watch.

The details of exactly what to do are just that-- details.

In my own view, a Kurdish state can be created out of Iraq at a minimum, and potentially out of Iran and Syria if they're looking for a fight. Because Turkey is our ally, we can leave them out of the turmoil. How do we exert the kind of influence necessary to keep Turkish Kurds in line? Through their contrymen in Iraq, who recognize the value of having their own state, and the support of the United States in creating that state.

Anyway, those are details. The big picture is that we can play havoc with Iran without ever having to fire a shot.

Comrade, Completely agree with both points. Interesting thoughts on the Kurds. Agree with the trade embargo, but the only reason that won't work is mainly China. China would never go for it, and if China doesn't care, neither would India. Iran could survive quite well with only China and India buying their oil. . .I think in the end the only one we would be hurting would be ourselves.

JHC

Yeah, I thought about China when i made that post, and in order for an embargo to work, everybody, including China, would have to be on board. That might mean some horsetrading with the Chinese, but it's at least a possibility.

Comrade Shampanyov, Gentleman wrote: Yeah, I thought about China when i made that post, and in order for an embargo to work, everybody, including China, would have to be on board. That might mean some horsetrading with the Chinese, but it's at least a possibility.

You think China would go for it? They are in a bad recession over there, from what I understand. . .not sure if they could take the hit. Not to mention their lack of caring for their own citizens and enviroment, let alone others around them.

Don't get me wrong, I agree totally that it would work, but I don't think China would go for it.

JHC

Even though making up Kurdistan is a fair idea in principle, it is definitely unrealistic and therefore not worth playing with. So I wouldn't go there.

BTW, Turkey, "our friend", don't think they're all eager into the E.U. Their judicial system is not up to the European requierements yet, even though Istambul is working hard to push it. But there are also arch-nationalist movements and islamic groups that don't care about any E.U. in Turkey and Kurds are one of the most sensitive cases in the region.

I second Comrade's idealistic idea about revising the colonial borders around the world to reduce ethnical conflicts but who's gonna conduct it? UN? USA? EU? Again quite unrealistic, it'll be an Armageddon. Take the example of Western Sahara: nothing really to fight about, everything's more or less simple and yet we get violence, claims from 2 if not 3 countries and etc. and that's fomrally under the UN umbrella.

68 Pontiac wrote:

Comrade Shampanyov, Gentleman wrote: Yeah, I thought about China when i made that post, and in order for an embargo to work, everybody, including China, would have to be on board. That might mean some horsetrading with the Chinese, but it's at least a possibility.

You think China would go for it? They are in a bad recession over there, from what I understand. . .not sure if they could take the hit. Not to mention their lack of caring for their own citizens and enviroment, let alone others around them.

Don't get me wrong, I agree totally that it would work, but I don't think China would go for it.

JHC

Details, details, details. All to be worked out in negotiations. The key is to make sure that there's an adequate supply for their needs. Get the Saudis to increase production. Get the Russians to increase production. Make some changes over here-- Impose fuel economy standards on light trucks and SUVs, finally, decades after it should have been done. Let the market work; higher gas prices will force Americans to conserve fuel, which will make more fuel available for China. All details. The big picture is sanctions will work. Just to keep things honest, we blockade the Persian Gulf to enforce the embargo. Sit back and watch the Ayatollahs fall.

Tis true Comrade.

I often see Americans moaning about gas prices approaching 4$ a gallon. Good but extremely unpopular way to increase revenue, especially as fuel levels are running out, slowly but surely.

Currently in UK, fuel is £0.99 a litre..

1,28 € per litre of 95 this week-end.

Burt Reynolds wrote: Tis true Comrade.

I often see Americans moaning about gas prices approaching 4$ a gallon. Good but extremely unpopular way to increase revenue, especially as fuel levels are running out, slowly but surely.

Currently in UK, fuel is £0.99 a litre..

That's about $2.50 Australian....

|| | ||| 6217|| 8 || 3 wrote: Even though making up Kurdistan is a fair idea in principle, it is definitely unrealistic and therefore not worth playing with. So I wouldn't go there.

BTW, Turkey, "our friend", don't think they're all eager into the E.U. Their judicial system is not up to the European requierements yet, even though Istambul is working hard to push it. But there are also arch-nationalist movements and islamic groups that don't care about any E.U. in Turkey and Kurds are one of the most sensitive cases in the region.

i think you mean ankara, not istanbul. and they're very keen about joining the EU, but their economy and the problems in cyprus have prevented this from happening. as far islamist groups: turkey is so secular that women are banned from wearing headscarves in schools, universities and at work. there's been a backlash (by women) against this law, which can only hurt the secular nature of the turkish state.

AgentWood wrote:

|| | ||| 6217|| 8 || 3 wrote: Even though making up Kurdistan is a fair idea in principle, it is definitely unrealistic and therefore not worth playing with. So I wouldn't go there.

BTW, Turkey, "our friend", don't think they're all eager into the E.U. Their judicial system is not up to the European requierements yet, even though Istambul is working hard to push it. But there are also arch-nationalist movements and islamic groups that don't care about any E.U. in Turkey and Kurds are one of the most sensitive cases in the region.

i think you mean ankara, not istanbul.

How stupid of me, indeed, :)

Anyway, with Turkey in the EU, Iran and Iraq would be on the other side of the border... I am not used to this idea yet. Where Europe ends ? Difficult to say... In my opinion, Istambul is half way in Europe. Depends on which bank of the channel you are... Where does the majority of the Turks live ? On the Europen part or in Asia ?

Because Spain have also territories on the other side of the Gibraltar Channel. Does it mean they can apply to an "African Union" ?

Jiphy wrote: Anyway, with Turkey in the EU, Iran and Iraq would be on the other side of the border... I am not used to this idea yet. Where Europe ends ? Difficult to say... In my opinion, Istambul is half way in Europe. Depends on which bank of the channel you are... Where does the majority of the Turks live ? On the Europen part or in Asia ?

Because Spain have also territories on the other side of the Gibraltar Channel. Does it mean they can apply to an "African Union" ?

And more important, another thing!

WTF are Israel doing in the Eurovision Song Contest?

Burt Reynolds wrote:

Jiphy wrote: Anyway, with Turkey in the EU, Iran and Iraq would be on the other side of the border... I am not used to this idea yet. Where Europe ends ? Difficult to say... In my opinion, Istambul is half way in Europe. Depends on which bank of the channel you are... Where does the majority of the Turks live ? On the Europen part or in Asia ?

Because Spain have also territories on the other side of the Gibraltar Channel. Does it mean they can apply to an "African Union" ?

And more important, another thing!

WTF are Israel doing in the Eurovision Song Contest?

remember the israeli transvestite (or was it transexual) who won a few years back? made me wonder the same thing....

AgentWood wrote:

Burt Reynolds wrote:

WTF are Israel doing in the Eurovision Song Contest?

remember the israeli transvestite (or was it transexual) who won a few years back? made me wonder the same thing....

Off-topic Was it actually Dana International?

|| | ||| 6217|| 8 || 3 wrote:

AgentWood wrote:

Burt Reynolds wrote:

WTF are Israel doing in the Eurovision Song Contest?

remember the israeli transvestite (or was it transexual) who won a few years back? made me wonder the same thing....

Off-topic Was it actually Dana International?

yep.