What do you think? Do you think America could attack Iran in the near future for terrorist support, nuclear program, supporting the Iraqi Shias and so on.
This is just a poll, but feel free to post your comments.
Printable View
What do you think? Do you think America could attack Iran in the near future for terrorist support, nuclear program, supporting the Iraqi Shias and so on.
This is just a poll, but feel free to post your comments.
Well...
If Iran doesn't already have nuclear weapons then yes.
If Iran does already have nuclear weapons then no.
I should damn well hope so, and that the UK joins in. In the Army, I want to command a company in at least one war, and I'm hoping that it is against half the Persian Army, and in a nice little pass like Thermopylae.
Never heard of 'Thermoylae'.
I don't think the US would. Not alone anyway. If the UN says so, maybe.
Its too late for US to attack on Iran.The Shiias would revolt against US troops in Iraq,Also Western Afghan warlords backed by Iran would fight also and Iran has the biggest conventional army among muslims.At the time US would have concentrated enough troops around Iran there would be too big risk that Iran could Nuke them.It is a sad fact that we just have to admit that Iran will have her Nuclear weapons and we cant do a thing about it.UN trade embargo is something that we could but i think we need Iranian oil too much.It also seems as if they arent agressive towards anybody as a state this time and so there is no legimate reason for Invasion.US havent even brought the whole thing up at the UN security council.
Generally yes. The current Gouverment won't care about the consequences of such an action, the "Hawks" Faction of Rumsfeld-Cheney would want to do it anyway.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sinan
Those policies anyway led Powell to leave the Administration.
Well, which Academy you belonged to Malcolm? ~;)Quote:
Originally Posted by King Malcolm
In your age (16) I don't think you finished the Grammar School, rather than Sandhurst anyway.
If you really want to command a Company:
- More attention in school
- No more attention in cheese and chocolade
- Reduce Videogameing
- Join the Army when you got a really good exam
- Apply for Academy
If you made it to be at Sandhurst - http://www.atra.mod.uk/atra/rmas/ - you will get your Company.
But don't tell them you would love to fight the half of the Persian Army with one Company at the Thermopylae, then they would certainly not put in place as an Officer. ~:cheers:
It makes no sense to "invade" Iran.
We may conduct a pinpoint strike against nuclear facilities or support an Israeli strike, but a full-scale invasion is pointless.
This is because Iran has a large-scale reform movement and wants closer ties to the U.S.
Also, the Shiites in Iraq will serve as an example to Iranian Shiites. Hopefully the democracy in Iraq will inspire others in Iran and elsewhere.
I think Iran will probably end up as a nuclear power. As long as they do not support terrorism, I don't care. Everyone is going to have the bomb sooner or later. Maybe this is for the better. Then everybody has permanent country insurance. good old mutually assured destruction prevents things like pre-emptive invasions. If Iraq had a nuke, we never would have invaded.
Currently, I belong to Harris Academy, a secondary school, and I am 15, not 16 till a week today...Quote:
Originally Posted by Stefan the Berserker
I've got another 5 or 6 years till I wish to apply to Sandhurst. 2 years of school, and 3 or 4 of University. Promotion is however no longer based on the officer's skill, but the length of service, so promotion to Major (commander of a company) is between 11 and 16 years. I'm hoping that as lieutenant, my COs will be killed, and I be left in command of the company.
So let's not invade Iran for about 10 years, and I'll be happy.
On my 16th birthday, and thence every other day, I shall go to the gym and get fitter.
Military members, feel free to correct me if I am wrong, but my general impression is that all of you would have prefered not to have had to have done what you did/it haunts you.Quote:
Originally Posted by King Malcolm
Be careful what you wish for, hoping for a war or invasion simply so you can be involved seems borderline psycopathic to me.
borderline?
According to Pat Buchanan's ultra-conservative magazine, American Conservative, the U.S. has drawn up contingency plans to attack Iran if there is a second 9/11 type attack on the U.S. in the future. In the Deep Background column of that mag, they suggest that the plan includes both nuclear and conventional strikes against Iran. http://www.amconmag.com/2005_08_01/article3.html ~D
I just wish to serve Queen and Country, God and the Empire. I also just wish to be honoured as a national hero who fought valiantly for those afore mentioned.Quote:
Originally Posted by dgb
Jesus, didnt World War One wipe out that sort of nonsense?
Dulce et decorum est - Wilfred Owen, 1917
Bent double, like old beggars under sacks,
Knock-kneed, coughing like hags, we cursed through sludge,
Till on the haunting flares we turned our backs,
And towards our distant rest began to trudge.
Men marched asleep. Many had lost their boots,
But limped on, blood-shod. All went lame, all blind;
Drunk with fatigue; deaf even to the hoots
Of gas-shells dropping softly behind.
Gas! Gas! Quick, boys! An ecstasy of fumbling,
Fitting the clumsy helmets just in time,
But someone still was yelling out and stumbling
And floundering like a man in fire or lime.
Dim through the misty panes and thick green light,
As under a green sea, I saw him drowning.
In all my dreams, before my helpless sight,
He plunges at me, guttering, choking, drowning.
If in some smothering dreams, you too could pace
Behind the wagon that we flung him in.
And watch the white eyes writhing in his face,
His hanging face, like a devil's sick of sin;
If you could hear, at every jolt, the blood
Come gargling from the froth-corrupted lungs,
Obscene as cancer, bitter as the cud
Of vile, incurable sores on innocent tongues,
My friend, you would not tell with such high zest
To children ardent for some desperate glory,
The old Lie: Dulce et decorum est
Pro patria mori.
I hope not, the US has built up enough hate among muslims as it is, and if Iran would build any nuclear weapons it close to 0 chance for that they`ll use them.
Do not seek to be honored by your country as a hero. Seek instead the humility and sacrifice of service to your country. True heros don't see themselves as heros. They see themselves as survivors.Quote:
Originally Posted by King Malcolm
Those who seek heroic recognition find death instead.
And why, pray, should we send in our lads to fight in somebody else's wars? America has the most technologically advanced, powerful army in the globe and I do not think it really needs the small, albeit excellent, army that Britain has. If you fight, it will not be for the Glory of God, Queen (or King perhaps) and Country, but Oil, Politics and "Freedom".Quote:
Originally Posted by King Malcolm
RE: Poll
I hope not, though I can conceive of the necessity depending upon circumstance. I would be far happier if the Iranian reformists can de-couple the government from the clerical hierarchy. Ultimately, any real change has to come because the Iranians themselves wish change. Jump-starting such change, as we are doing in Iraq, is a harder task.
RE: our soon-to-be-16 idealist soldier.
Don't be so harsh on him. Dreams of glory and adding GKB, VC, DSO after your name are perfectly normal for a teenager -- if they didn't have that spirit and willingness to reform the world we would lose something as a species. Remember, also, that a newlie officer's command in the UK usually comes complete with a sergeant with more than a hash mark or two (or however our brit allies indicate service time). It's her or his job to bring the newlie into reality. So I say go for it (But listen to the sarge's suggestions)! More than one roman scion went back to Rome with phalerae because they listened to a centurio.
But: REALLY hammer it on the physical side. Military academies will wash you out if you can't absorb the physical stresses. Preference reps over weight for the most part -- the ability to crack out another 3 reps when everyone else folds up is the ticket.
Seamus
I suppose you should read Hagakure, it'll help you on your path.Quote:
Originally Posted by King Malcolm
ISBN 4-7700-1106-7
Tsunetomo Yamamoto will help you to realise that beeing at war is nothing, beeing an wheel in the Machine is all the soldier is dedicted to be. And with age, you'll soon enough realise that combat is not that great as it is supposed to be.
When I was in your age I was the same way an awesome idealistic bastard, however... I still am. ~;)
Thanks for your answers all, intersting to hear your opinions and views. The paragraph on the Consrvative site was pretty unsurprising to me though I had not read that in black and white before.
About the young man, well go ahead and join the armed forces but remember not to fail the generations of soldiers before you by lusting for fame. Seek instead to be a good soldier and a good leader. If you focus on that, your time shall surely come, and fame should follow too.
But what is fame in war worth anyway ?
Can you really kill another man without killing part of yourself ?
If you can part of you is already dead, or never lived.
Sinan, someone who follows an Ideology by extreme will could kill and say it was done for a greater purpose.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sinan
Malcolm is a British Nationalist, with some really hard touch (eg. celtic language / Imperialist Club). It is impossible to confince him on something diffrent, he'll need to make his own experiance. And I'm sure he will.
Giving him the hind with the Hagakure as a Book to read is the most proper solution: After it he will either be boosted in wanting to be a Soldier, or he'll drop it as once. It is his decsision and he'll never accept our intellectual tips, if they are against his ideals.
It is good to see that there are youths like Malcolm still i think that tough training and life experience will smoothen the rough edges of this young man. :bow:
US will attack Iran in a near future, and it is a bad idea. The next nuclear weapons used will be from US against China in a not as near future........
To me USA lives and breeds from the war making. So yes wheter it's the exucuse of democracy of terrorism they'll attack any country that goes against their interest. There was elsewhere another thread "Nation of Warriors" where everybody believed that USA could not be qualified as a militarized nation but i'll say this: they've probably the greatest militiry force of all, the most advanced and the one with the greates capacity of response in all the world. If that doesn't make a nation militarized then i don't know what does. So this is a definitive yes.
I do not believe that the USA will attack Iran. Lousy tank country. I believe an unhappy detente is the best we can hope for. Too many soldiers would be required, too much money and equipment.
Diplomacy will be tried... and fail, as it always does. But without an enormous amount of support by the rest of the West, and some really really dumb actions by Iran, I do not think the USA will attack Iran.
What did you mean by this?Quote:
Originally Posted by Soulforged
Azi
The US will not attack Iran.
We simply don't have the ability.
All of our military force is already being used.
It's also good to note that Iran would be a much harder nut to crack than Iraq ever was. If we can't attack and occupy Iraq without over-using our military power to the point of delapidation, then we sure as hell won't try the same with Iran.
DA
Well when you go to war like it always has been you can take resources on the territory and force the occupating population to pay a debt to you, or replace the government allied to your policies. Also you can just sell your weapons to both sides of the conflict. And more important you can justify expenditures and size of the army. Even so I think that i really don't need to explain what that means.Quote:
Originally Posted by Azi Tohak
I'm curious. What is the nation that has participated the most in armed conflicts (if not the non-armed too) since the begining of contemporary age? (it's not sarcastic i really don't know). This will clearify some of my views.
I don't think that they would because of what happened last time regarding the WMD's etc. I don't think that they would gain enough support, but then again why should that be an obstacle.
Maybe, since the contingency plans mentioned in the American Conservative article originated at a request from Dick Cheney's office, this is really all about ol' Dick.
Maybe he's still feeling the stinging embarrassment of stating on national TV during the height of the invasion that he knew "exactly where the WMDs are" in Iraq. That really made him look like a fool; since it's clear that no one else knew where they were and none were ever found. And clearly, just from looking at him, he's either severely constipated or he doesn't enjoy looking like a fool. One or the other, maybe both.
So, maybe, what we're seeing is an attempt to make ol' Dick feel better about himself as a person, which is a little known driving force behind the insane politics of right-wing conservative nut jobs. If we invade and nuke Iran, then 'ol Dick can go back on national TV and restate his premise, claiming that he mispoke and that he meant to say that he knows exactly where the WMDs are in Iran. And with a few cleverly placed nukes, he can say "well, that's where they were! But the evidence was vaporized, you know!" Then everything will be OK, and ol' Dick can have a normal bowel movement and begin looking human again.
A. I do not go to war. Blaming me for the actions of the US government is as accurate as me blaming you for Leopoldo Galtieri and his Falklands war and his dirty war.Quote:
Originally Posted by Soulforged
B. Yes, you do need to explain. Living and breeding from war? Do you understand what that means in English? The US is not Sparta, not the Mongols. I do not live for war. Nor does my family or anyone else in this country. Most soldiers hate warfare as much as the rest of us, because they know what it can mean to them. But they do their job. The defense industry is only a small part of our economy. But, it is a private industry. The government does have a little say in who the industry can not sell to, and what is up for sale, but beyond that, it is capitalism at work. Has your anti-US bent so warped your perception that you actually believe the US government promotes wars?
The goal of wars should be to have a more perfect peace. Is that goal always the actual objective of those in charge? Of course not. I don't know if that has happened with Iraq (too early to tell).
After WWII, did the US take resources from Germany? Japan? Italy? Did we actually force Britain, France, the USSR to pay for all the goods and equipment that had been given? If you think the answers to those questions are yes, I daresay someone should do at least a modicum of research before claiming the US is no different than Rome, Sparta, the Mongols, the USSR.
Yes, the US did replace the government of Germany. According to your logic Goebbels should have been left, correct? Can't mess with another nations government can you? No matter how evil it is? Or were the Nazis just misunderstood? Afterall, how many emigrated to Argentina after WWII?
C. What in the hell is the 'contemporary age'? Since 1453? 1066? 1789? 1865? 1918? 1945? 1AD?
Since its inception, the US has been involved in ~25 wars, of which the Quasi war, First Barbary war, War of 1812, Mexican-American war, Philipine-American war, WWI & WW II, Korea, Iraq I, and the War on Terrorism were all started 'by the other guys'. Eight more were peace-keeping missions.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Militar..._United_States
Azi
Don't worry, Henry, I would claim as much of Iran as I can for Her Majesty.Quote:
Originally Posted by King Henry V
And it is not fame I am seeking, but to have my name written in some unread tome as a man who fought for his country and won a great victory, and lots of random letters after my name.
Malcom, sad though it may be, the time of wars of conquest, honourable warriors and great, set piece battles is passed. War is now a dirty affair of guerilla fighting, street brawls and house-to-house shoot-outs. Apart from the war itself, there are no great victories in modern warfare.
I know, henry, but that makes no difference. I wish to fight in the name of my country, and get some post-nominal letters. I'm hoping that if I get to a good enough rank, I'll get a life peerage, and perhaps a nice post in the MoD
If Bush stays, very probable.
If Bush's favour is low, less probable.
If he goes, no.
Don't think so, because the America military is spread thin and I don’t think the America people will one another war.
Be careful, you might get charged for war crimes instead.Quote:
Originally Posted by King Malcolm
Oh, I forgot how one can be charged with war crimes for shooting the enemy...
First i said that that's what i think. I've my reasons but you'll never understand them. Second when i talked about you i was refering to the state of USA, is obvious that i'm not talking about the people habitating it. Third, i really think that one of your industries is armament, nuclear industrie too, if that's what you meant in the part "private industries", but you need to make war to put that in activity.Quote:
Originally Posted by Azi Tohak
So for you the war is to make peace (is an old paradox) but i'll tell you this, those damaged by the war will never live in peace, so at least it will never be perfect, and second it doesn't matter if there's peace before the war i simply don't like the idea of that nation that goes through the world bringing "peace and democracy" like fanatics of this, changing government heads like they've the right too, and this is in my opinion the most important justification to attack Irak. So you also think that USA just helped Europe and take nothing in return: (i'm not saying that the following is wrong but you're too romantic about your country, vision that luckly we don't have here) USA took one part of Germany, USA helped the others reconstruct, this way making a debt that all this countries keep paying (so yes USA created a profit by going to war, anyway i'll not say that in this war they sold weapons to both sides, but from then on i say yes), but most important of all everytime that the French or Germans act against that "eternal debt" you always say after all we did for them, i don't know about you but it seems that non of this countries can go against your policies.
Oh this is so tipical. Man you just can't say that the other countries have "evil" government and go like a fanatic to throw them down, please, just think in what you're saying, i believed that most of the people in USA understood that, but i think i missed you. And Argentina did accept some Nazis here because all people deserve to be treated like innocents until they are proved guilty, and here we've a law of prescription of crimes no matter how bad they look to you. But this is really funny, because if i'm right your government helped the state of Israel (Well when not, right?) to "steal" those persons from here an judge them by their laws. USA always can kept their "criminals" there and judge them by their laws, it doesn't respect the International Court, though it makes others respect it, and it doesn't respect the soberanity of other countries. There's a recent case. An argentinian was mistaked by a criminal there and a cop killed him, did USA let us judge him not, there was no room for discussion. Even so we're not proud of keeping Nazis here, i'm indiferent, but i asure you that the people here will never believe that they've the right to impose democracy and constitutions through the world. You really don't know what is contemporary age? Well it's the one after the French Revolution (after 1789).Quote:
Yes, the US did replace the government of Germany. According to your logic Goebbels should have been left, correct? Can't mess with another nations government can you? No matter how evil it is? Or were the Nazis just misunderstood? Afterall, how many emigrated to Argentina after WWII?
And 25 wars that's interesting, is there another country in the world with so much participation?
But what i liked the most of your post is: Falkland (Malvinas really) war is dirty. LOL. Do you know that this territory was always part of our maritime plataform that's considered our territory. First the english didn't discover the Malvinas it was a guy called Obispo de Plasencia (an spanish i think). Second when England made plans to occupied the Malvinas it was for right ours. Period. They invaded first, we were just too weak to attack them, and even more if USA united them, and the traitor state of Chile. So there you have your answer, we had no terrorist, we didn't attacked England, they attacked first just because the place was in their interests. They were just occupating it without the right to do so. They never had the right to do so, then where's the dirty war.
The Falklands were discovered by an Englishman in 1502. The British settled on the island when the Spanish were also there, but the Spanish eventually yielded them. Buenos Aires claimed them because there were no British colonies, but was still a British possession. Buenos Aires eventually withdrew, leaving it in control of British settlers.
All is right, except the begging. Noboy agrees with the discovery of the island, and all the problem surges from there. Though the Malvinas still are in the maritime plataform of our country. And who will be the english adventurer who disvover the island? John Davis, 1592; 5. Richard Hawkins, 1594; 6. Sebald de Weert, 1600 ~:confused: . The discoverer wich history is the most probable is, like i said, Obispo de Plasencia by one of his commandants, Francisco Camargo who sailed in August of 1539. So...where's the misterious english man? In the date that you provide there's a posible (though much less probable) discoverer, but he's Américo Vespucci, the one who gave the name to our continent.Quote:
Originally Posted by King Malcolm
It is doubtful that Vespucci discovered the islands. Sorry, my year was a little typo...
Most records, including the islands' website, state that Davis discovered the islands.
No doubt the U.S. could hammer or outright destroy Iran, but it would be political suicide for the administration and a total disaster for the American treasury, American prestige and American alliances around the world. Not likely, therefore.
However, the U.S. could do an 'Osirak' on key Iranian nuclear installations and get away with it relatively easily. The downside is that American precision bombardments are hardly as precise as the U.S. military wants us to believe, as the example of Iraq has shown. And the bombs on Osirak did not change the Iraqi regime's determination to acquire atomic weapons either. The key installations were built or moved underground from then on.
I never said that. I'm more of the side of Camargo, as almost everyone else.Quote:
Originally Posted by King Malcolm
Yes, well... you look at english web sites. It's doubtful that they'll say the contrary.Quote:
Most records, including the islands' website, state that Davis discovered the islands.[/
Sorry, upon further reading, who actually discovered the island is an unclear subject.
The sides which people take are usually based on which country they are from, or their view on the islands.
Anyhoo, Spain and Argentina invaded the islands when Britain had sovereignty over them in the first place in 1820.
And by the same assumption you are looking at Argentinian sites, which are of course completely unbiased. ~;) Man, the hypocracy of some people. The xplorer largely credited with finding the Islands is the Dutch exporer, de Weert. Not Camargo.Quote:
Originally Posted by Soulforged
Anyhoo, Spain and Argentina invaded the islands when Britain had sovereignty over them in the first place in 1820.
What about the French ? The Spanish kicked them out before the British kicked out the Spanish or Argentinians , and who would have thought it , even the US went there to kick people out .
Back to topic , only a complete fool would attack Iran .....so wait and see if silly people get to call the shots again .
But the US didn't claim it, and the matter is that Britain has rightful sovereignty over the islands, not Argentina.
Not likely, unless seriously provoked.
The US people don’t want it and wouldn’t support it without a really good reason (9/11 size). Plus (this is a little out of character for me but) I think they will become a powerful ally to the US in the future. They want to be more like the US and the best way to do that is to hop in bed with us. It will make for some uncommon pillow talk but if they want to have power, financial growth and freedom to continue their own plans they will make friends with the US and stay on our good side because the repercussions of a war may be bad for the US but would completely ruin them (war with Iraq as an example).
For those of you with no understanding of military operations i present some comparitive demographics for iran and iraq:
Area:
Iraq - 437,072 sq km
Iran - 1.648 million sq km
Land boundaries:
Iraq - 3,650 km + bordering 6 countries
Iran - 5,440 km + bordering 8 countries
Coastline:
Iraq - 58 km
Iran - 2,440 km; note - Iran also borders the Caspian Sea (740 km)
Climate:
Iraq - mostly desert; mild to cool winters with dry, hot, cloudless summers
Iran - mostly arid or semiarid
Terrain
Iraq - mostly broad plains; reedy marshes along Iranian border in south with large flooded areas; mountains along borders with Iran and Turkey
Iran - rugged, mountainous rim; high, central basin with deserts, mountains; small, discontinuous plains along both coasts
Natural hazards:
Iraq - dust storms, sandstorms, floods
Iran - periodic droughts, floods; dust storms, sandstorms; earthquakes
Population:
Iraq - 26,074,906 (July 2005 est.)
Iran - 68,017,860 (July 2005 est.)
Ethnic groups:
Iraq - Arab 75%-80%, Kurdish 15%-20%, Turkoman, Assyrian or other 5%
Iran - Persian 51%, Azeri 24%, Gilaki and Mazandarani 8%, Kurd 7%, Arab 3%, Lur 2%, Baloch 2%, Turkmen 2%, other 1%
Religions:
Iraq - Muslim 97% (Shi'a 60%-65%, Sunni 32%-37%), Christian or other 3%
Iran - Shi'a Muslim 89%, Sunni Muslim 9%, Zoroastrian, Jewish, Christian, and Baha'i 2%
Languages:
Iraq - Arabic, Kurdish (official in Kurdish regions), Assyrian, Armenian
Iran - Persian and Persian dialects 58%, Turkic and Turkic dialects 26%, Kurdish 9%, Luri 2%, Balochi 1%, Arabic 1%, Turkish 1%, other 2%
GDP:
Iraq - purchasing power parity - $54.4 billion (2004 est.)
Iran - purchasing power parity - $516.7 billion (2004 est.)
Exports partners:
Iraq - US 55.8%, Spain 8%, Japan 7.3%, Italy 6.5%, Canada 5.8% (2004)
Iran - Japan 20%, China 9.9%, Italy 6.3%, South Africa 6.3%, Taiwan 4.8%, Turkey 4.7%, South Korea 4.7%, France 4.3%, Netherlands 4.3% (2004)
Imports partners:
Iraq - Turkey 25%, US 11.1%, Jordan 10%, Vietnam 7.7%, Germany 5.6%, Australia 4.8% (2004)
Iran - Germany 13%, France 8.9%, Italy 8%, China 7.7%, UAE 6.4%, South Korea 6.3%, Russia 4.9% (2004)
Telephones main lines in use:
Iraq - 675,000 (2003)
Iran - 14,571,100 (2003)
Telephones mobile cellular:
Iraq - 20,000 (2002)
Iran - 3,376,500 (2003)
Internet users:
Iraq - 25,000 (2002)
Iran - 4.3 million (2003)
Railways:
Iraq - 2,200 km
Iran - 7,203 km
Highways:
Iraq - 45,550 km
Iran - 167,157 km
Pipelines:
Iraq - gas 1,739 km; oil 5,418 km; refined products 1,343 km (2004)
Iran - condensate/gas 212 km; gas 16,998 km; liquid petroleum gas 570 km; oil 8,256 km; refined products 7,808 km (2004)
Airports with paved/unpaved runways:
Iraq - 79/32
Iran - 127/178
Military manpower fit for military service:
Iraq - males age 18-49: 4,930,074 (2005 est.)
Iran - males age 18-49: 15,665,725 (2005 est.)
Military expenditures dollar figure:
Iraq - $1.3 billion (FY00)
Iran - $4.3 billion (2003 est.)
Refugees and internally displaced persons:
Iraq - refugees (country of origin): 150,000 (Palestinian Territories)
IDPs: 1,340,280 (ongoing US-led war and Kurds' subsequent return) (2004)
Iran -refugees (country of origin): 1,223,823 (Afghanistan) 124,014 (Iraq) (2004)
Iran is not just more difficult than iraq, it is orders of magnitude more difficult!
Every single factor is more adverse in the case of iran when compared against iraq, every single one.
The US will NOT be invading Iran. nuff said.
and forswear the national goal of pushing the nation of israel into the sea..............?Quote:
Originally Posted by Divinus Arma
Nice bit of info “true believer” nuff said indeed. ~:)Quote:
Originally Posted by Peregrine_Tergiversate
Not the contrary. The Virreynato del Río de la Plata (the colony to wich we belonged in those times) established a colony in Malvinas. Then when we made ourselfs independent the right to the lands passed rightfully to us. A gobernor was designed, Luis Vernet. In 1833 the english violated the international law and invaded the lands claiming rights over them (obviously with the excuse of having discovered them, though this was never prooved, and it doesn't matter really because there was a law that forbidden this kind of invation), they took prisoner the governor and established by the force. Since that time the british claim false rights over the land, wich is rightfully under the territory protected by our Constitution (200 meters of maritime plataform). So the islands belongs rightfully to us, and england always makes use of their veto power on the ONU to shut up the matter. I think this is sufficient proof but if you want more then i can tell you about the plans of the british to claim or eventually seize continental lands that were being disputed between Chile and Argentina.Quote:
Originally Posted by King Malcolm
and the matter is that Britain has rightful sovereignty over the islands,
Yeah right :dizzy2: , change that to "disputed soveriegnty" then you may be more correct .
Look at who the US and OAS deigned to have a soveriegn claim at the time of the recent conflict , look at the UN and their numerous attempts to peacefully resolve the issue over the past 60 years , ask your own government about the new moves towards "joint soveriegnty" .
Then try saying "rightful" with a straight face .
The US will NOT be invading Iran. nuff said.
Unless they are really silly and want to trigger a worldwide economic crisis ~;)
Nothing is proof until you give the sources of your allegations. Those given, it is up to the reader to decide wther they are biased or not.Quote:
Originally Posted by Soulforged
Argentina no longer has a claim to the Falkland Islands. The English have purchased it with national suffering, as a famous Argentine explains:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/4176258.stm
~:cheers: ~:grouphug: ~:cheers: ~:grouphug: ~:cheers:
Back OT, Bush has 3.5 years left before he leaves the White House. Who knows what he will do? It would be foolish to attempt, but I'm sure there is an advisor on his staff who thinks it's a great idea.
Maradona is so full of himself. When fans at Azteca stadium cheered a German goal because it meant overtime periods, he (and his Argentinian worshippers) cut off contact with the Mexicans, starting by snubbing all of the Mexican press immediately after the game. The fact was that the Mexican fans were not cheering for Germany, they were cheering for overtime periods because they were enjoying the game so much. He said that neither he nor Argentina would ever forgive Mexico.
And yes, he is proud of his handball goal against Britain.... ~:rolleyes:
DA
Umm, can you guys maybe start another thread on the Falklands/Malvinas? You've basically hijacked this thread.
There is a nice little plaque on the Falkland Islands which says that the islands are under continuing British dominion, put there long before 1833 in 1774. Thus the Argentinians invaded British Sovereign Territory in 1820. In 1833, we were reclaiming the islands.Quote:
Originally Posted by Soulforged
Edit: and perhaps we should start a new thread...
"Thus the Argentinians invaded British Sovereign Territory in 1820"Quote:
Originally Posted by King Malcolm
No it was spanish sovereign territory. When they retreated, it passed to us.
Start it if you want. You'll loose anyway. And this has no trascendence at all. My people here is always fighting to get back those lands who rightfully we own.
Plese i don't like Maradona being worshiped as God (as it's here) but what you're saying is very normal in football. If you want to iniciate another thread about rant against Maradona i'll join. ~:cheers:Quote:
Originally Posted by Del Arroyo
I indeed suggest that you guys stay on topic.
If you want to discuss the Falklands or Maradona - do so in another thread, you have dragged this one off-topic for long enough (actually too long).
26 to 26. Wow... I'm impressed. Thank you Peregrine_Tergiversate for the info. Glad to see all that relevant information. Know where I could find that same data for China?...
If the sole goal is to deny nukes... well... probably should invade Russia too. But like Divinus said, everyone is going to have the darned things anyway. Pakistan and India (talk about a powder keg) both have them too.
MAD worked for a while. But how is it possible to avoid that using it again? Give N. Korea and Iran everything they want so they won't be naughty and make nukes? Have you ever tried to placate a brat with candy? Does it work? If you say yes... maybe we have different definitions of 'placate'.
So what are the alternatives?
Azi
don't give them any ideas...Quote:
Originally Posted by Azi Tohak
I said "No". If this was meant "militarily".
However, I believe the US will use all it's available diplomatic efforts to sanction IRAN, in order to stop it selling Oil for Euro's. The "Nuclear" stance is just a "smoke-screen", to divert attention from this plan. Because of it's growing alliance with Russia and China, any UN efforts will be vetoed.
Once they have "Nukes", the "MAD" doctrine will hold true for them as it does other countries. We may actually have peace in the Middle-East. If it worked for the "Cold-War", why not today. Were not the Russians as feared then (McCathyism, etc.) as the Iranians are now.
Because religious fundamentalists believe in being martyrs.
Much like Japanese fanatics were happy in being Kamikazes.
I think a theocracy is not so worried about this world as the next so martyrdom through death is far more likely then a more secular society.