northbadawi

The Allies made good deal with Stalin in Teheran and Yalta.

You miss the calls (and actions) from presidents of "democratic" country to overthrow the leaders of sovereign nations; or dropping the nukes on civilian cities.

Oyibopeppeh

Hiroshima and Nagasaki were entirely justifiable, given the estimated 1 million plus casualties which the allies were expecting to suffer following an invasion of the Japanese mainland.

Norm_uk

Your point is? I've already stated I think it's a shame they didn't stand up to Stalin after Hitler was defeated.

But these calls are not based on them wanting to destroy sovereign nations for simply existing, only to change the leadership of said nations when they are threatening to cause regional instability. We're talking about leaders who murder thousands of their own people for speaking out and demanding change, not leaders who are a bit picky over trade deals or something.

Whether you agree in action to remove problematic leaders is a separate issue from wanting to wipe out who countries because you hate everything about them. History has plenty of examples of what happens when you try to make nice with a piranha...it's always more costly in lives to stop a problem after it's gained momentum.

N.

northbadawi

Eastern Europeans after 50 years of brainwashing have got good imunity against political demagogy. You didn't live under ruling both of Nazis and Soviets (my generation neither under Nazis, but our parents did under both) and you know about them only from the politically correct books. That's why we can not understand each other.
I'm not going to escalate this topic though.

Exactly this is my point!
WHO DECIDE who is the problematic leader and who does not? FOR WHOM he is problematic?
And "to remove problematic leaders" you destroy the entire countries and lifes of thousands and millions of their people as "entirely justifiable".

Think by your own brains:
Is the leader of your home country problematic? From the press I read it does, at least for many of your compatriots. Do you need the foreign help to remove him?

Meow

I think we can safely say that a leader is problematic when he kills his own people for disagreeing with him, when he rigs elections and when he threatens to wipe out other nations by nuclear means.

scrubbedexpat141

Couldn't have put it better.

David Cameron might be a bit of a prick, but he's not comparable to Saddam / Gaddafi et al.

Bahtatboy

You need to get out more, my friend.

scrubbedexpat141

The UN have had meetings / conferences in recent days where the Iranian representatives have just got up and walked out because they disagree with new sanctions and calls for allowing inspectors in. IF they have nothing to hide then why not let a full international inspection take place?

Going back West ever so slightly, there was a vote and something like 90% of the countries agreed that there needed to be some intervention in Syria. There have been huge sanctions put in place to try and strangle the government from directly attacking and killing their own people. The last time 7,500 people died from Britain was probably WW2 fighting Nazi's.


I know bringing Syria in isn't the idea of this topic but I think it's a fair example to use of where letting a country try to solve its own problems can't always be successful. Interventionism is not new. It's not always right and I think it's got to be a last resort......but how long do we let Iran puff their chest out and demonstrate a complete lack of intelligence marching towards a nuclear cold war? How long do we let the Syrian government kill innocent civilians (as well as those fighting).

Is a year long (for example) war waged by a UN coalition not the lesser of two evils? They can establish infrastructure and mechanisms to at least try and support the civilian population. It might not be great but it's more than their own government allow.

The shitter about Iran is that if they do have nuclear weapons capability and do decide that it's a good idea to use them, the longer this procrastination continues and the longer we just don't know how serious they are, the more likely (I believe) we are to end up in some form of conflict. The worry there is that Iran strike first and it's a strike containing the type of weaponry everyone suspects they have.

Anyway. Just my two fihls.

northbadawi

And again: don't trust the any propaganda brought by "activists", "passivists", "journalists", "president", "nation"... Read the official report of Arab League Mission: http://www.columbia.edu/~hauben/Repo...er_Mission.pdf

Here the summary if you are too lazy to read in full: http://www.infowars.com/arab-league-...d-subversives/
------------------------------

Ok, let's back to the maint topic about Iran: http://www.intelliot.com/2012/01/iran/

scrubbedexpat141

Your lazy link which states;

"the report points to shady armed gangs as responsible for hundreds of deaths among Syrian civilians, and over one thousand among the Syrian army, using lethal tactics such as bombing of civilian buses, bombing of trains carrying diesel oil, bombing of police buses and bombing of bridges and pipelines"

'shady armed gangs' don't strike me to have the capability to shell / bomb / attack a city for weeks constantly. I don't believe what that website says one bit. You mean to say that in Syria the Army / Government are doing nothing whilst little gangs run around killing both civilians and army? The army are doing nothing about this? There are no protests against government oppression? There's no footage / pictures of tanks firing on civilian cities?

I think you live in a dream world pal. The gangs are certainly there, fighting the government, but I don't think you can ever believe that the Gov / Army are doing nothing back? You can't honestly think that?



The Iran link is to a blokes blog.

I can do a MIchael Moore if you want and collect some dates, some after dinner speeches and some stats to show you that the US have already implemented a 10 year plan to ethnically cleanse the whole of Wales if you like. But it doesn't mean it's the truth mate.

scrubbedexpat141

Sorry, I've just noticed the title of the article / blog too.

"How the US pushes Iran to develop a nuclear weapon"

Really?

what next;

"How the UK forced the Scottish to dye their hair"
"How the Germans forced the Greeks to all wear flip flops"
"How the Chinese forced the North Koreans to sing Kanye West songs"

Ridiculous mate.


If I was scared of America attacking me, I'd let them see I'm not a threat, then they wouldn't. I'd suggest trade routes, oil deals, anything to stop one of the most powerful militaries in the world from beating 7 shades of shit out of me. I CERTAINLY wouldn't play with nuclear materials and deny any information leaving to clear up what it's for.......power or bombs? Who knows?

It can't come down to religious attitudes and relgious based laws - the Saudi's are a pretty extreme bunch by Western standards (and vice versa if you're a Saudi national).....but they get on with the Americans fine.....

I'm not saying the yanks are whiter than white...they've done and do their level best to meddle in everything and generally cause a bit of havoc where possible, BUT, I personally do not believe that the Syrian Government can be left to go on killing their own folk unpunished. Nor do I think that the Iranians can be trusted with any form of nuclear material.

Millhouse

I love the nuclear weapon debate. Remind me... which country has actually used one*? (Hint: there is only one). That said, I don't really want my Iranian, Pakistani or Korean brothers armed either.

Peace man...

*apparently it is also the only nuclear capable country never to have threatened to use them... nice

northbadawi

For lazy readers:
73. ... No restrictions were placed on the movement of the Mission and its ability to interview Syrian citizens, both those who opposed the Government and those loyal to it.
74. ... the citizens believe the crisis should be resolved peacefully through Arab mediation alone, without international intervention. Doing so would allow them to live in peace and complete the reform process and bring about the change they desire.
(signed by 144 Arab League observers onsite including Homs)

Regrettably, the Big Brother nows better what the citizens of sovereign country want...

Peace

Meow

Funny how all the Syrians I know want Assad out, all know people who have suffered in some way due to the current problems and hate seeing their country falling apart in this way. Most would happily accept outside intervention to get this horror over with.

I have also yet to meet an Iranian who is a fan of Ahmadinejad.

Millhouse

So why do they keep voting for them??