Iran Situation

[reclusivemonkey]

November 2007, unless I'm mistaken, so two more years of Duh-bya.


Amen to that. Anyone want to take bets on whether he proposes to repeal that Ammendment this year?

God help us if Jeb Bush runs....

I wasn't aware of this. Seems slightly odd to me. So even if you have a great leader that everyone like (I'm not Rich baiting there, honestly!), you still can't re-elect them?

 

[jsanders]

Make sure you get it right if you send in the planes, unlike last Fridays US attack in Pakistan. Yet another US ****-up killing more innocent people.



Col

I’m sorry about the innocent people dying. I can’t add anything now though I haven’t been listening to news for a couple of weeks.

Too busy trying to get stuff done in my business.

 

[Rich]

I wasn't aware of this. Seems slightly odd to me. So even if you have a great leader that everyone like (I'm not Rich baiting there, honestly!), you still can't re-elect them?

I used to think the limit far too restrictive, however with the current incumbent I now think it's far too generous

 

[FoFa]

Are you suggesting Iran supplied the materials for the July bombings?

No, I have no clue, I am just saying could you image what would happen if they had access to create something like a dirty bomb (maybe not a full blown nuke) instead.

 

[Kraj]

Yes, the article mentioned refers to events of the 1980's

I should have expected you wouldn't read past the first paragraph

I wasn't aware of this. Seems slightly odd to me. So even if you have a great leader that everyone like (I'm not Rich baiting there, honestly!), you still can't re-elect them?

Not without changing the Constitution, no. In a way it is odd, yes, but it also prevents one person from holding the most power for an extended period of time. There are good reasons for this, and there are good reasons for allowing a good leader to stay in power. The reason we chose to do it this way is largely due to George Washington.

When the current Constitution was created, the office of the Presidency was basically custom-made for George Washington. He was the one who set the bar for the rest to follow. When Washington's second term was finished he declined to run for a third. No President ever ran (or ran and won, I'm not positive) for more than two terms until FDR, who arguably only won his third and fourth terms because of WWII. Afterwards, Congress decided to make the two-term precedent into law.

 

[reclusivemonkey]

No, I have no clue, I am just saying could you image what would happen if they had access to create something like a dirty bomb (maybe not a full blown nuke) instead.

Bound to happen at some point I guess. I would hope that it wouldn't be easy though. The media did its best a while ago to scare everyone with stories of biological weapons, but there hasn't been a major attack. Personally, if I was a terrorist, I would think the easiest way to wreak havoc against the infidel would be through cyber-terrorism. I guess that just doesn't satisfy their bloodlust...

 

[Rich]

I should have expected you wouldn't read past the first paragraph

Perhaps you should, you can then quote the passage that specifically states Iran is supporting terrorists groups today

 

[BarryMK]

Why is it that innocent old Iran, holder of some of the largest energy reserves in the world needs nuclear power?

 

[ColinEssex]

Why is it that innocent old Iran, holder of some of the largest energy reserves in the world needs nuclear power?

same reason the USA does

 

[reclusivemonkey]

When the current Constitution was created, the office of the Presidency was basically custom-made for George Washington. He was the one who set the bar for the rest to follow. When Washington's second term was finished he declined to run for a third. No President ever ran (or ran and won, I'm not positive) for more than two terms until FDR, who arguably only won his third and fourth terms because of WWII. Afterwards, Congress decided to make the two-term precedent into law.

Kraj, once again I bow down before you scholarship

I must now remember to look up George Washington when I get home...

 

[Kraj]

Perhaps you should, you can then quote the passage that specifically states Iran is supporting terrorists groups today

It doesn't. What it does say is that Iran has supported Hezbollah from the very beggining and increased their support over (an unspecified period of) time. At no point does the article indicate any reduction or change in Iran's support. Also, a photo caption states, "Hezbollah's spiritual head Sheikh Fadlallah is close to Iran". That's a pretty strong implication that Iran and Hezbollah are still in bed together.

So there are two possibilities here: A.) I'm right and you are wrong or B.) you're right, I'm wrong, and the writers at your precious BBC are crap.

 

[reclusivemonkey]

and the writers at your precious BBC are crap.

Some of the technology writers are embarrassingly clueless.

 

[Rich]

It doesn't. What it does say is that Iran has supported Hezbollah from the very beggining and increased their support over (an unspecified period of) time. At no point does the article indicate any reduction or change in Iran's support. Also, a photo caption states, "Hezbollah's spiritual head Sheikh Fadlallah is close to Iran". That's a pretty strong implication that Iran and Hezbollah are still in bed together.

So there are two possibilities here: A.) I'm right and you are wrong or B.) you're right, I'm wrong, and the writers at your precious BBC are crap.

No, it says For some time Iran supported Hezbolah, but then the US supported terrorists groups when the mood suited too, what's the point you're trying to make?

 

[Kraj]

Kraj, once again I bow down before you scholarship

Thanks, but don't be too impressed. I knew the pieces of what I posted but I had to look up what the exact motivation behind the Amendment was.

 

[jsanders]

same reason the USA does

You guys were more than happy for us to maintain our huge arsenal to balance the Soviet threat.

 

[Rich]

You guys were more than happy for us to maintain our huge arsenal to balance the Soviet threat.

No we weren't, you're reading the wrong press yet again.

 

[ColinEssex]

You guys were more than happy for us to maintain our huge arsenal to balance the Soviet threat.

Wrong thats why loads of UK people had running battles with the police outside the US bases in the UK where you stored your nuclear weapons - the UK didn't want to be piggy-in-the-middle to some stupid mood the USA had with the USSR. Our police were protecting your bases from being attacked by the British.
Also, thats why UK people burned the USA flag outside US military bases and attacked US vehicles going into said bases.

Col

 

[Kraj]

Wrong thats why loads of UK people had running battles with the police outside the US bases in the UK where you stored your nuclear weapons - the UK didn't want to be piggy-in-the-middle to some stupid mood the USA had with the USSR. Our police were protecting your bases from being attacked by the British.
Also, thats why UK people burned the USA flag outside US military bases and attacked US vehicles going into said bases.

Col

So, would you say that in that situation, the policy of the UK government did not reflect the will of the UK's citizens?

 

[Brianwarnock]

It did not reflect the will of all of the UK's citizens but what the percentages were nobody knows, which applies to everyting a government does.

Brian

 

[reclusivemonkey]

So, would you say that in that situation, the policy of the UK government did not reflect the will of the UK's citizens?

LOL I think you could say that for pretty much any situation...