egafd.com

) Do take no nonsense, decisive, military action to quickly crush their nuclear ambitions?


Dibble you are simplyifying it this is military warfare not getting a tooth taken out at the dentist.I guess you are one of those who thought that Iraq would be a quick in and out job

A children's cartoon from Iranian TV (with subtitles) ... click on the small picture for it to start ... about the best you can say is it's interesting.

An Iranian children?s cartoon is now teaching young kids how to hate. It shows how a little boy?s father is brutally murdered by an Israeli officer. That?s the premise for revenge. The cartoon tells how the little boy learns how to throw hand grenades at Israelis, ending in his satisfying revenge as a suicide bomber. A glorious death!

Hmmmm. I'm not doubting the authenticity of that cartoon. But I always examine the sources. Interesting if you look at the aims of the organization. Doesn't seem to monitor Israeli TV. Isn't Israel in the Middle East.

Mart

IRIB is the official Iranian TV broadcaster ... on satellite I can watcch IRIB1 - IRIB6 and IRIB Quran .... you'd think the country was at war now judging by some of the broadcasts and I've never heard a good word spoken about the US. At the moment they're showing a football match on IRIB 2, but the mad Mullahs are banging out their stuff on other channels. They have the news in English/French every night and it is interesting to get their point of view. You can check out their views directly at ... or in English

the cartoon has also been shown on newsnight and channel4 news, they must also check their sources somewhat

Let me ask a couple of questions:

"a nutty, erratic, belligerent, third world regime, with a history of aggression"

History of aggression: please clarify this claim. Who has Iran ever attacked?

", is just months away from acquiring 'the bomb'."

Months? The IAEA, UN, CIA, MI5 say it's years off, if ever. What's your source?

"So, what do we do about it?"

Check the facts first?

"Check the facts first?"

Well, I'll turn that around and say maybe you should read my posts and questions a little more carefully first.

If I could draw your attention to the first line you quoted back at me, where I said "a nutty, erratic, belligerent, third world regime" I did not say Iran, I was not specific about any particular country, was I? Although the thread kicked off with Iran in mind I later condensed the question down, simplified it, and broadened it out to see what laypeople thought we should do in such circumstances as I had outlined. I took this course since simply focussing on Iran seemed to be clouding the issue and giving the people I wanted to put on the spot far to much opportunity to swerve the question and start talking about their own pet issues, which, broadly speaking, seem to be American hegemony, globalisation and the Palestinians (non-issues which are only of interest or concern to Guardian reading middleclass people, IMHO).

So, broadband, would you now care to address the question of unstable third world regimes acquiring the bomb head on and select one of the three options for dealing with that issue that I have suggested? Or are you too going to swerve the issue?








Officer Dibble

Daft set of possible responses.

Your fantastical set of responses assuming a situation has developed so far without anyone doing anything at all up to this stage is a nonesense.

The dismissal of all non-full scale war responses in such terms is puerile at best.

There is no such thing as a no-nonsense war. The Iraq invasion has created all sorts of nonsense.

You seem to enjoy the idea of other people going to war so that you can indulge in some sort of vicarious Rambo-esque fantasies. If you enjoy the idea so much - join the TA and get a taste of the action rather than spouting false bravado on message boards.

Ah, there you are, spooky. I was beginning to worry and thinking maybe the last time I had to smarten you up and give you an intellectual ?slapping? I might have gone over the top and done you some physiological harm? I thought you had retreated into a world of self-doubt and terminal angst, after I applied my remorseless logic to your cherished beliefs, forcing you to confront the reality of life outside your cosy middleclass enclave? ?Hey, spooky, you brought it on yourself, man. I don?t like having to do it, but you shouldn?t mess with Officer Dibbs.

But I see I needn?t have worried. Here you are again as condescending and patronising as ever, with yet another one of your celebratedly, ill considered, interjections. So, it begs the question - has your Spookiness been rejuvenated and reinvigorated by the recent ghastly goings-on on All Hallows Eve? Have you, in the manner of the evil count, risen, from The Guardian?s crypt to wreak condescension and distain upon all rational, right thinking, non-middleclass, people?

Never mind, Officer Dibble, armed with his trusty Stake of Logic and The Holy Cross of Truth, is more than equal to the challenge? Yea, though I walk through the valley of Keir Hardie, I shall fear no evil?

So, on with the show. I guess it would be rude for me not to rebut your interjections ? ill considered, or not.


?Your fantastical set of responses assuming a situation has developed so far without anyone doing anything at all up to this stage is a nonesense.?

?Fantastical?? ?Assuming?? ?Nonsense?? So why shouldn?t I assume? Have I made some awful intellectual faux pas in posing this question? Have I overstepped the bounds of intellectual inquiry as prescribed by Spook The Superior? Spook the Condescending?.. Oh dear, how will I ever live with myself? But, hold on. Isn?t your assertion that my straightforward ?no action? proposition is ?fantastical? grossly overstating the case? Isn?t suggesting the proposition to be extraordinary, strange or weird almost beyond the bounds of imagination, an absurdity in itself?

Hey, look, it?s just a hypothetical proposition that reflects society?s current climate of apathy and complacency. Far from it being nonsense, it seems to me that this is the course of action many, who might not like to confront the issue, would be content with ? till something unfortunate happened, of course.


?The dismissal of all non-full scale war responses in such terms is puerile at best.?

So, er, where did I dismiss non-full-scale war? I merely said ?decisive military action?, did I not?


?You seem to enjoy the idea of other people going to war so that you can indulge in some sort of vicarious Rambo-esque fantasies.?

Well, it?s true; I do derive satisfaction from kicking ass ? both physical and intellectual. Hey, it?s just that some people can be such infuriating idiots, wasters, scumbags, etc, etc. It?s an itch I have to scratch.


?If you enjoy the idea so much - join the TA and get a taste of the action rather than spouting false bravado on message boards.?

I?m afraid I?m getting a bit long in the tooth for that. However, being a chav, I have chinned a few people in the past?



Officer Dibble

Any country that violates the nuclear non-proliferation treaty deserves all it gets

Any action to bring the renegades back into line is OK IMHO but a full frontal invasion as we've seen causes more problems than it solves,if the problems actually ever existed

Decisive action needs to be taken against the Companies/Countries that keep selling all that is needed to set-up your own nuclear facility
Why we keep the stupid notion alive that Nuclear Power is the panacea to all our energy shortfalls we leave the gate open for those that wish to take it a step further and develop WMDs

Where would IRAQs Nuclear facilities have been without France,Russia & Germany...answer...nowhere

I still favour the work of the IAEA.If you were ever going to use Military Action it would be to protect them and if push comes to shove to keep them in the country

The farcical cases of Iraq & North Korea being able to kick out the inspectors should never be allowed to happen again

cheers
B....OZ