Did this make your local news?

[formerly known as hf]

Mostly it's because Iran's too big, and has a fairly sizeable army. The hoo-ha over lost troops in Iraq is fairly high, so they wouldn't dare attack Iran, as US army casualties would be much greater.

I often feel the old phrase used on schoolyard bullies - 'pick on someone your own size' - regualrly applies to the US administration, in military, political and economic fields.

EDIT: As for the initial post, as richard pointed out, that's an old rumour, now a more substianted rumour, but there's little real proof yet.

I find it very strange, and somewhat hypocritical (like much of the US government's decisions) that they focus on countries in the middle east who are possibly developing nuclear weaponry, and leave Pakistan and India alone, when it is known they have weapons, and in recent history, have been more likely to use them. Also, why the lack of focus on North Korea, they're arguably much closer to nuclear capacity than Iran, but there's hardly ever any mention of them.

Someone needs to make the spotlight more diffuse, the middle east isn't the centre of the world's current problems...

[Stan]

Can you tell I was getting board so I thought I'd start another controversy.

I hope I didn't piss you off RKL with the issue over weapons. You seem to have a renewed sense of angst. Anyway...

The key point to that article is that never before (at least as far as I remember) was any explanation given as to how the weapons were moved.

You guys can say it's propaganda or whatever, but this allegation came from one of Saddam's guys...not the US government. You can bury your head in the sand if you want.

The whole world knows Hussein HAD WMD. Key point being HAD. Secondly, he never ACCOUNTED for what happened to them. Thirdly, the naysayers out there have never presented ANY other theory about what happened to what was KNOWN to exist.

So, Cookie can continue to spew his chips and HF can tote the party line (that being the Greenpeace line) but until you provide an alternative to what happened to them, I'm not going to be fooled.

By the way, I don't think Iran would be much of a threat. However, I don't believe all avenues have been exhausted. I also don't believe that North Korea poses that much of a real threat, yet.

As far as India and Pakistan, I agree with you HF. Unfortunately, that box is open already...where was the rest of the world when it happened? Why does the US have to fix the problem? Same with North Korea? Where's Europe?

By the way, just trying to stir the pot.

[Dee]

I find it very strange, and somewhat hypocritical (like much of the US government's decisions) that they focus on countries in the middle east who are possibly developing nuclear weaponry, and leave Pakistan and India alone, when it is known they have weapons, and in recent history, have been more likely to use them. Also, why the lack of focus on North Korea

Not only North Korea.. Isreal too, they're totally ignoring the fact that they do have weapons of mass destruction. Why? Why do they not focus on Isreal for a change?

It's because they use that reason (weapons of mass destruction) as an excuse to attack islamic countries, that's their main and only reason, to destory our countries. Why? Well, I don't know. I hope someone tells me though.

[formerly known as hf]

The whole world knows Hussein HAD WMD. Key point being HAD. Secondly, he never ACCOUNTED for what happened to them. Thirdly, the naysayers out there have never presented ANY other theory about what happened to what was KNOWN to exist.

There I disagree entirely. You cannot KNOW he had them, there's little to no evidence - sure, he wanted them, might have been doing his best to accquire them and build them, but that he had them - is doubtful at best.

If he did have WMDs - they were most likely chemical warfare based, not nuclear. There is almost no evidence that Iraq had the capaibility to produce nuclear weapons. There were plans, which were splattered all over the news, but anyone can have plans to build up a nuclear arsenal.

If Syria has nuclear capability, they did not get them from Iraq.

EDIT: As for the party line, I'm not a member of Greenpeace, nor do I wish to be. They have their sights set in the right direction, mostly, and I'm all for the kind of protesting they do, but in my mind, their sight is just far too narrow, they're prone to cocking up and picking the wrong fights every now and then.

And Dee: Islam has been built up to be the bogey-man for the west.

To be honest, it's a bit of an easy target, what with many Islamic nations being well known for horrendous human rights breaches (they're not the only ones mind you, not by a long shot) and a distinct lack of personal liberty and tolerance.
Unfiortunately, this has been used to tarnish all Muslims with the same brush. Like Christians, most are fairly harmless, with the exception of a few nutters. Unfortunately, with a distinct lack of participatory democracy, the nutters are the ones who get to run many of the nations.

Then again, it's very unsurprising that even when participatory democracy is embraced, that heavily oppressed people will choose the ones most voiceful and forceful about liberty (despite being labelled 'nutter's by the west) - as is clearly apparant in the case of Hammas.

[Cookie]

Wheres the democracy in the belief that only western countries are allowed weapons of mass destruction.

If theres any country in the world I wouldn't trust to have weapons of mass destruction, it would be america. It's like giving a kitchen knife to a baby.

In my opinion if they (iraq, iran, them lot) aint allowed to have em, no one should.

[Jos Elkink]

Then again, it's very unsurprising that even when participatory democracy is embraced, that heavily oppressed people will choose the ones most voiceful and forceful about liberty (despite being labelled 'nutter's by the west) - as is clearly apparant in the case of Hammas.

I keep having the impression that people underestimate how much Hamas did for the common people in Palestine. Perhaps my information is wrong - I usually have only a vague memory of things - but for as far as I know Fatah was losing quite some control over the region, and was unable to deliver common things like social welfare. They might be nicer to talk with Israel and better reputed abroad, they simply on domestic matters didn't manage to do very well. Hamas, on the other hand, has a strong grassroots organisation and did provide a lot of services the state was not providing. So I have the impression we, abroad, tend to look too much at the international consequences of the change of power, and too little at the local developments, which might be a more important explanation of the change of power.

Besides, for international politics I think this is much better. No point in having a peace deal with a group that can't control it's citizens. A peace deal with Hamas would be very important; one without Hamas kind of pointless.

Anyway, that wasn't the point ... Relating to HF point about Iran's army size - I was very surprised when I saw the list of biggest armies recently. After a discussion about it with a friend, he sent me this list:

http://www.mapsofworld.com/world-top-te ... s-map.html

So yes, Iran has quite a big army ...

LOL ... now that I check again, my lack of memory clearly shows ... Iran is not even on the list ... And I was convinced .... ah well, nm, but it's an interesting overview anyway ...

[Chris Johnson]

LOL ... now that I check again, my lack of memory clearly shows ... Iran is not even on the list ... And I was convinced .... ah well, nm, but it's an interesting overview anyway ...

c.520,000 regular personnel as of 2001 in 32 divisions , c.1700 Tanks
(+350,000 reserves) Still pretty large

(source: Middle East Military Balance 2001-2002, Brom & Shapir 2002)

Iraq at the time was 435,000 regular and 650,000 reserves

Syria for reference is 306,000 (+100,000 reserves)

[Stan]

I was just teasing you about Greenpeace.

I don't think Cookie Monster has chips either....I don't know, maybe he does. Nah...that's just hot air.

[formerly known as hf]

I keep having the impression that people underestimate how much Hamas did for the common people in Palestine. Perhaps my information is wrong - I usually have only a vague memory of things - but for as far as I know Fatah was losing quite some control over the region, and was unable to deliver common things like social welfare. They might be nicer to talk with Israel and better reputed abroad, they simply on domestic matters didn't manage to do very well. Hamas, on the other hand, has a strong grassroots organisation and did provide a lot of services the state was not providing. So I have the impression we, abroad, tend to look too much at the international consequences of the change of power, and too little at the local developments, which might be a more important explanation of the change of power.

I agree, Fatah may have been talking to Israel, but they were corrupt and generally useless at providing any form of social security at home. Hammas on a local level have been providing schools and hospitals as well as other important facilities for some time. They are not all about violence, by any stretch.

I see no problem with Hammas being in power, and actually welcome it. They won the election fighting over domestic matters. They will have to get their own house is order, which will take sometime, before they can begin to hit the international stage.

[Coramon]

I'm afraid it's all a load of propaganda bullshit created to stop your country falling appart, the only thing which is keeping it together is the sense of patriotism and unity. Knowing that your country made a huge f*** up would threaten that. Unfortuneatly some d***head named Tony had to get my country involved aswell.

Edit: I was angered. I meant that nobody likes bush. and moses would burn the man if he was here.

[Stan]

I like Bush....Burning Bush...that's a good one.

[Coramon]

You like bush? Whats wrong with you?

[Jos Elkink]

You like bush? Whats wrong with you?

Come on, that's not a nice way of having a discussion ... about 50% of Americans like Bush ... Or liked. Even I can see some positive things about him

[formerly known as hf]

I can see one positive thing about him:

He won't be President anymore after this term ends

[Jos Elkink]

He won't be President anymore after this term ends

Well, he's also very plain-speaking and clear what he wants, which is nice, and I can't but admire the blunt political strategies of this White House, which is quite impressive at times, even when I disagree with their policies. And well, I think he honestly believes in spreading democracy around the world, even when probably many of his powerful supporters care more about the oil ...

But I hope the Democrats win the next presidency ...