Stussy88

Your final point is unarguably true, your first point is strong. Your central point pre-supposes that the minute they get a nuke, the Iranians will start picking targets which is wild supposition, (especially if the targets they pick out class them in nuclear terms).

Phil, I don't believe in magic, I believe in logic. I do not believe a nuclear armed Iran would use such weapons against you or Tel Aviv because it would bring about their own immediate destruction. Perhaps the Iranians have concluded that when they lacked WMD's the Iraqis used them on Iran (Iran being the 2nd most damaged nation in recent times from WMD attack), and facing the same calls again from you and others, they would be wise to develop WMD's. This supports my earlier assertion that bellicose statements calling for the total destruction of Tehran, far from cowing the Iranians, actually strengthen the hard liners. How much more so would a nuclear strike bring support for terror on a much greater scale. As for your point about the kids being used as minesweepers, you are dead right, this did happen, but if you are implying that parents willingly sent thier kids off to do this, you are dead wrong, the government forces kidnapped kids en masse for this purpose. An utter murderous disgrace even in response to Saddam's invasion (that we helpfully supported).

Just picking up these points, I believe Ayn Rand talked about the destruction of the government, which would indeed have had casualties, but to take this as carte blanche to nuke people is to say the least stretching the point. If you are Iraqi now, you might say "I hated Saddam and I'm still glad he's gone because I may survive the war, it's a risk I'll take" But I can't see how someone from Tehran would say, absolutely, certainly, kill me any everyone else because I want to be free ash

How was killing German kids whilst they slept, in anyway tit for tat justice for the crimes of that regime? Our concepts of justice are different.

All good and interesting points. Japan did more or less get round to declaring war on the US albeit late, due to a crappy translation. I have seen two reasons for the nuking of Hiroshima and Nagasaki cited. First to prevent the need for a costly ground invasion, which looking at Iwo Jima, Okinawa and some other islands, may have been very costly indeed. Second, as a warning to the Russians who had vastly more troops in Europe than the British and Americans and might just have been tempted to roll on to Calais. The bombing of Japan was quite different from the USAAF action in Europe where they engaged in daylight bombing against military targets (of course collateral damage occurred) but the USAAF bravely took greater risks to hit military targets. The Brits by contrast, area bombed (because that's all we could hit at night and the Lancasters took too much punishment in the daytime). So I would suggest, it's one thing to be at a full-scale war with someone, and quite another for Iran. I simply think it is a difference of immediacy and scale of risk. The Iranians might nuke you, or Tel Aviv, but how would then not all die five minutes later ? Don’t buy this argument about suicide bombers, notice they always get someone else to do it and are happy in power themselves. No-one votes for his own destruction, if he has something to lose, like say, the country’s presidency, power and all the wealth you can steal. Now the question of counter-balancing rights is a good one. We should protect our citizens, ideally without murdering someone else’s. So how should we achieve that? I think, letting the president wither on the vine might be smart. I am pretty sure that if we nuke someone, just as after Sept 11, support for the incumbent solidifies. Indeed, in the wider world, a minority, a significant minority, but a minority nonetheless of Muslims are ultras. But I honestly think if you nuke a capital, you make most of 'em ultras and thus make the very thing you seek (security) less likely. Just like the Iraq war was going to make us all safe, and both CIA and MI6 regard it as terrorist recruiting poster. That’s not to say these guys wouldn’t exist without it, (some will always find reasons) but I believe there would be fewer of them, just as if we nuked Tehran, there would be far, far more of them. Good post incidentally.

I am not aware of any text where Ayn Rand supported mass murder. I do not regard mass murder as principled. And I have no wish whatsoever to become a policymaker, so in that regard, yes a layman. The thread mentioned nuking Tehran, which may or may not destroy the Islamic republic of Iran, but would certainly kill millions of innocents. Which if you will forgive me, is the policy of the collectivist tyrant, not the libertarian or the objectivist.

Fair, if semantic point. I should say, this was not meant to be a complete characterisation of the Iranian government. I had simply intended to signify I disapproved of it, as many posters do. Patently, such a short summary could not begin to be a complete characterisation, though I think the things I accuse them of are more or less unarguable, though certainly incomplete.

Then this is where we part company. Whilst like most right minded people, I do not support the theocratic government of Iran, and certainly oppose their collective tendancies, restriction of the press etc Indeed, having visited the country and spoken to many Iranians first hand, I can assure you that many, many of the people opose their government. Consequently, I cannot support mass murder in a single day on a greater scale then the world has ever seen before, as an instrument of policy.

Celebrities can’t really win with me. If they say nothing about current events, I kinda think “who cares what shoes you like when there’s a war going on” but the minute they open their mouths, I think “shut-up” So as for Miss Theron, well she’s a real nice looking, brainless halfwit who is sheltered by the desperate grinding poverty of Cuba and lack of basic freedom, by wealth and celebrity. Being a Brit, I’m not banned from visiting as I believe Americans were some years ago, but if you ever want to see a truly evil ‘Atlas-type’ system writ large, take a look. Ultra-widespread prostitution and poverty, simply lying history (the museum of the revolution is almost funny!) and of course, the communist party guys driving around in white suits in black limos, while everyone else starves and isn’t allowed to even protest. Castro has turned Cuba into a slave-state brothel; it is disgusting and the sooner that bastard dies the better, despite what Charlize may ‘think’ So, she doesn’t know what she’s talking about politically. She can still, act and is pretty, but empty headed. So on the M/F/K test, she (still) gets the F.

JJ interesting observations; when ever you hear someone citing a historic grievance (particularly if it's way distant history) or better yet, saying "God wills me to do this" you are almost always hearing someone preparing the ground for a monstrous current injustice, and often it's a smoke screen for what's really going on, witness Mugabe moaning on about British colonialism right now. Far better, as you point out, to move on and start trading. Quite amazing how money, freedom and therefore a full belly, will soothe. I might be slightly circumspect about the "ruling parasites" however, both the Shah of Iran and the house of Saud, we pretty much installed. In the case of the Shah, over the populist and I believe elected Mossadegh. It's an odd historical parallel to draw, but I see a lot in common between the middle east at present (autocratic government, versus popular fundamantalist religion, spewing into violence and factional shia/sunni unrest) and the English civil war (Autocrat Charles and some catholics, vs Republican Dictator Puritan Cromwell vs some insane levellers and ultra-protestants). That didn't really end quickly or well.

Interesting to note, those attacking the film, say the figures were all wrong but fail to offer any proof of the same. As for the pollutants being cooling agents, there was a similar thing a couple of guys were advocating over here, industrial towers and apparently aerosols? Now in the 80's the greens kicked me to death for using aerosols because I was causing an ozone hole or something (?) so we all had to switch to roll-on deodorants (or the green/hippie choice) smelling bad. Turns out I was doing good after all, whilst not smelling all stinky and thereby helping the immediate environment two feet from me. I shall await their letter of retraction and apology.

This is the same mentality of hatred that fired up the Sept 11 hijackers. Advocating genocide, even if meant as some kind of joke, is really not funny. Tehran has a population of about 12 million in the metropolitan area, you are joking about a “double holocaust” in an afternoon. Again, really, really not funny.

This is broadly true and as I udnerstand it they've been getting around it in three ways - Cannibalising older aircraft - smuggling spares, the world arms dealers will sel to anyone, and importantly - the recent retirement of the F-14 from US service, unless you are really careful what you guys do with these aircraft, might well provide a source of spares Again, I'm certainly not advocating this, merely raising it as a possibility

My bad, I just looked at Wikipedia for F-16 combat ranges with what I guessed as a combat load, but it is possible these have been enhanced/upgraded. Again from wikipedia, Iran whilst not a top draw air force, do possess fairly modern aircraft, certainly F-14 Tomcats and allegedly Mig-31's, not sure how good their radar or ground based air defence would be? Also, F-16 isn't a stealth aircraft, so I guess you would be looking at electronic counter measures? I really wouldn't fancy being an Israeli pilot shot down in Iran after I'd just bombed various facilities, (when you know the propaganda would show some bombed out orphanage). I think you would be looking at a significant risk profile, both for the raid, and for retaliation, as I believe the Iranians have some pretty long range missiles (basically upgraded scuds). Also my geography tells me you would be flying over hostile territory the whole time, as well as the minor issue of air space violation. So even if Israel could pull it off, it would be really risky in terms of the immediate mission and the possibility of retaliation, to say nothing of the legality, or lack there of. It would be hard for the Israelis to complain about Hezbollah shooting at them from Lebanon, if they engaged in a first strike against Iran. So, I'll take your word for the practical possibilities, but this isn't an easy option militarily or politically.

Ahmaninejad won't be in office for ever, and I see him as a 'one-term-charlie' He was elected in a two candidate run off, after the discredited reformers (Khatami's faction who had been frustrated in their reform attempts in his two terms) were eliminated. So the choice was between the unknown Ahmaninejad, and the well known and utterly detested Rafsanjani. Consequently, Ahmaninejad won, not so much on his program, but on the fact he wasn't Rafsanjani. Really, Netanyahu would have run Rafsanjani close ! However, the populace has now realised you need to look at what you are voting for, not simply what you are voting against. To a large extent, it will depend who opposes him, but short of a Sept 11 type event in Iran (which would surely consolidate support around Ahmaninejad, in the same way Sept 11 consolidated Bush's approval ratings for months afterwards), I can't see him being re-elected. With regard to Western options they are as follows: ~ Economic sanctions: okay, but you have to believe they will be ineffective, and truth be told we kind of need the oil. So on it's own, no good. ~ Ground invasion: neither the US or UK has the troops for an extended occupation, sure we could probably drive our tanks to Tehran, but as we learned in Iraq, then what? ~ Air strikes: I’m not sure Israeli F-16’s have the range so it would need to be a US strike and the bunker buster’s did not prove effective in the gulf war, and some of these bunkers are deep. That said, centrifuges are delicate things, and minor disruption renders then useless. ~ Nuclear strikes: I’ve seen this discussed, but you have to be kidding me? ~ Talking: it kind of sucks, but I think Condy has just woken up to an unpleasant reality, we don’t have a choice And as I said, ‘looney-tunes’ won’t be President of Iran for much longer unless we do something really, really stupid to entrench ‘conservative’ opinion.

If my maths is correct, UK petrol taxes equate to about $7 a (US) gallon. Now bear in mind the "greedy" oil companies receive 20%+ of that (depending on how the oil price varies) and the UK government get about 70-80% of it. So varying between 300% and 400% tax Which is not great, especially when the greens tell me, I need to pay for driving on the roads in addition to current taxes. It's also utterly counter-productive, because apart from the obvious damage it does to the UK economy via excess taxation, it means that foreign road haulage firms can simply fill up in Calais, haul goods all around the UK, in lorries that don't have the same kind of environmental standards UK lorries are compelled to have, whilst at the same time, taking business (ie the haulage contracts) outside of the UK. A simple, practical and real example of how high taxation is counter-productive, can have unforeseen consequences and harms the country that imposes it.

Sadly not, I simply came across the site when I was searching for the original DVD

I imagine many of you are American and don't get the BBC regularly (no loss trust me) but today the morning news lead on a story about how much food Brits apparently waste ~ some how or other, they had assessed it to be a third of everything we buy. This sounds like nonsense, but the subsequent comment really intrigued me. The various eco-freaks were going on about how years ago, when bread went mouldy we toasted it and you shouldn't waste, and I thought 'and as we are now richer we don't need to eat mouldy bread anymore, so what?' blah blah, familiar litany, but it occurs to me, this could be a stalking horse for something way more sinister. How's this for an idea? The eco's say, first off, we waste loads of food, which is destroying the planet (yes I know, but stay with me) and second, obesity is placing a burden on the health services (worse for Brits as it's state run and funded). So in the interests of the planet and for people's own good, the governemnt should issue food tax allowances. So maybe you get to consume say 2,000 calories a day or whatever, but anything over that, and you pay punitive "consumption" taxes on it. And with our bio-secure ID cards that the UK government really want, it would be easy to put some software in to do it. And hey presto, more taxes, more monitoring and rationing ~ think it couldn't happen ?

If anyone is interested, here is a link where you can purchase the DVD http://www.wagtv.com/acatalog/store.asp