Go to Naut's View
- Add a comment
- Go to The Iran Dilemma
Nautikos
So there, I came, saw I read and four years later you are close to being right but you haven't hit a home run yet. Now with Russia in Iran's camp sort of thing I don't think Israel will really attack Iran at all. So that's my take on it and I don't think Iran will strike Israel either. I think they will have nuclear power for peaceful means but Russia will control them as they wend their way back to becoming what they were, The Soviet Union with maybe Iran as part of it.
Wowie that other guy really got after you though at the end of the comments, his name escapes me but he did go on and on. LOL
Great talking with you tonight my friend and I have no idea what is going to happen with anything, but you have my best guess. LOL
posted by
WileyJohn
on December 14, 2009 at 7:31 PM
| link to this | reply
Do We Want to Buy the Scenario the Neo-Conservatives are Selling Us?
Obviously there are many takes on this subject. I wouldn't so easily dismiss those (actually most of the world with the exception of the neo-conservative faction within the United States and the right-wing element in Israel) who are calling for diplomacy as opposed to the rush to sanctions or (even worse) military action.
There are many strategic military and economic factors to take into account. These factors are often slighted in the US media. There are real implications to some of the actions that the neo-conservatives are attempting to sell us on -- and there are more sensible alternatives.
I encourage you to check out one of my recent posts on the subject:
http://www.blogit.com/Blogs/Blog.aspx/American_Journal/335294
You may also be interested in related entries in the same blog if you browse through the recent posts. Anyway, it will be interesting to see how the Americans, the British and the Israelis respond to an Iranian-Russian agreement in which Iran gets an anti-aircraft defense system in exchange for allowing the Russians to enrich Iran's uranium.
posted by
writersjourney
on January 26, 2006 at 2:18 AM
| link to this | reply
Thanks, Corbin
I really enjoyed your picture show!
posted by
Nautikos
on January 25, 2006 at 8:22 PM
| link to this | reply
Naut.....
Get used to the personal attacks........
An excellent and well thought out post....
Welcome to Blogit, I'm looking forward to many good reads from your site.......
posted by
Corbin_Dallas
on January 23, 2006 at 6:08 AM
| link to this | reply
You have things so thightly twisted up, that reason can barely find a grip.
Let me get this straight there, wise one, who knows all of the reasons why.
Tehran would be more of a threat to a country who does not comply with the world's nuclear sanctions but claims to have fifty such devices, Isreal.
A nation that was illegally founded by terrorist actions, disposesing native rightful owners of the land is to be honoured and trusted above a Nation with Mullahs who have made a little noise.
On what right in the first place, Oh wise, grand, all knowing miracle master of international politics and world power, does any one nation demand to limit the armament of another nation?
That it is scared that these weapons might be used against them? I have news for you, oh wise one, that is the purpose of all armament and always has been.
And the final act to prevent this from happening could only be an illegal act of aggression from the US who uses its power illegally because it can, because it has many such weapons.
The only reason that nations wish to arm themselves with nuclear weapons, is because the world's most aggressive nation is armed to the teeth with them, and they want a bit of security too.
All of your concern for Ireal strikes me a Zionist drivel. Isreal has made the bed she lies in/will lie in and her intransgence will surely cost her cirtizens and the world plenty in the end. Maybe there would be a better chance for compromise if there was a balance of power in the middle east, like you claimed was a benefit of detente in the cold war.
About my supporting crime here in Vancouver in regards to buying stolen bikes, it is because the theives have won and the law has no practical effect at the level where you can report your stolen bike. The cops laugh at you.
When I see a mass murderer having racked up the score to 65 missing, while the police were repeatedly warned about his activities I lost trust in their abilities to find bicycles.
When I see the Air India bmbers walk free after being under surveilance before the crime actually took place, by our vaunted security forces, CICIS, and having been tape recorded but mistakingly erased, I don't have much trust in our police abilities to find something so difficult as a stolen bike.
When I see miscarraige after miscaraige of justice, lies in court, murder by the police, and such incompetence that four of the doughnut munchers got wasted in an ambush by a fellon who was known to them this spring in Alberta, I don't trust their abilities to help me in any meaningful ways.
When I see their superiors break the Hate Crimes act in an effort to divert attention from their own incompetence, to blame Marijuana growers for the crime, I took it up singlehandedly with the CRTC and got The Commisioner of theRCMP to withdraw his statements all by myself.
I don't think much of our laws and those that inflict them if I can call the Commisioner of the RCMP at the Federal level to task with an email yet blatently no-one is reprimanded and no crrections are made. Hate criminals are left in charge of the police at the highest levels. These action don't instill confidence in the police or our legal system in me.
So you must be one of Steven's minions, knowing as much as you do about world politics and such things. Those that have all the answers like you, vote for people who wrap things up in nutshells. Perhaps it has something to do with size and complexity but it always takes a simpleton to paint simple pictures of complex scenarios.
posted by
Bud-Oracle
on January 22, 2006 at 8:29 PM
| link to this | reply