14 Oct 04
Originally posted by richhoeyAgreed. I just can't see the US taking any military action without at least some allies from the rest of the world. I believe we would need more than the ones we currently have in Iraq. Just my opinion.
Yeah, Iran probably. But the US will be on its own next time. Blair's grip on power is much too tenuous to contemplate another act of poodeldom and I can't imagine many other of the allies would have much appetite for war either.
Rich.
Right now we've reached the limit I think. Plus our military is stretched thin in terms of personnel and financially this war in Irag has cost about $125 billion with a total estimate of $200 billion by the time it's over. Whenever that is. The country is VERY divided over this war. The longer it drags on the worse it's getting for everyone. And not just Americans, but people in all countries around the world.
I just don't think the US can do any more, in regards to fighting on another front I mean.
14 Oct 04
Originally posted by Siskincailin (with a fada) is the right way to spell it, but its pronounced the same as colleen.
lass is a Sottish word - colleen is the Irish term
The Guinness reserves seems like an overestimate to me, that's almost 1 keg for every 2 adults in the country...or perhaps the CIA know something I don't
I don't think it is an over estimate, infact the opposite. Remember there is 1 pub for every 2 adults in Ireland. And each of those probably has at least enough for 3 nights drinking, which would work out at about 1500 pints, which is roughly 167 kegs per pub, so I reckon there are about 167,000,000 kegs of guinness in reserve. I might be wrong though. 😉
A little known fact, but if it wasn't for guinness and whiskey, Ireland would rule the world!!!! FACT!!!! Damn Arthur Guinness, instead of being hated and feared throughout the world, sending our lads to die fighting in exploitable countries, we have to put up with just being really welcomed everywhere we go. 🙁
Br Edwin, I think that ridiculous poster than Chan was talking about, might be from the old guinness adverts, where they used the slogan 'Guinness gives you strength!'. I think the poster in question was probably of the man holding a guinness in one hand, and a horse and trap over his head in the other.
Also, sorry to disappoint u wib, but there aren't a whole pile of red heads in Ireland. Defo more than any other country I can think of, but innumerable???? I think the ginger stereotype came about cos of hollywood movies like Darby O' Gill and the Little People. We don't tend to say 'Top a the marnin to ya', or 'To be shure to be shure' either. Well, I do when I'm in a foreign country just to keep the legend going.
D
14 Oct 04
Originally posted by Ragnorak2 adults could drink 1500 pints in 3 nights??? I've met some heavy drinkers in my time but that's going some.
I don't think it is an over estimate, infact the opposite. Remember there is 1 pub for every 2 adults in Ireland. And each of those probably has at least enough for 3 nights drinking, which would work out at about 1500 pints, which is roughly 167 kegs per pub, so I reckon there are about 167,000,000 kegs of guinness in reserve. I might be wrong though. 😉
14 Oct 04
Originally posted by RagnorakIreland is the one country I would really like to visit. I've never gotten a chance or the funds to travel, except years ago in the military (and I don't count that). Actually I think I'd like to live there one day. My wife won't budge though.
cailin (with a fada) is the right way to spell it, but its pronounced the same as colleen.
I don't think it is an over estimate, infact the opposite. Remember there is 1 pub for every 2 adults in Ireland. And each of those probably has at least enough for 3 nights drinking, which would work out at about 1500 pints, which is roughly 167 kegs per pub, s ...[text shortened]... shure' either. Well, I do when I'm in a foreign country just to keep the legend going.
D
So you don't have an unlimited number of redheads, but still you've admitted to a "large" number right? Right!? RIGHT!?!?!
And I can't believe you don't really say "top a the marnin to ya". Next thing you'll be telling me is that all of you DON'T wear green suits and those cool little hats. pffft! Yeah right. I ain't buying it. 🙂
15 Oct 04
Originally posted by RagnorakWhat a bunch of cynics you are. Iraq was invaded because it ignored repeated UN resolutions, invaded neighbouring countries, actively discriminated against civilians of different ethnic origins and was developing weapons of mass destruction including nuclear weapons. It had absolutely nothing to do with the large oil contracts negotiated between Saddam, the French and the Russians and which have now been re-negotiated with US companies.
It sounds like if Bush gets back into power that further nations will be invaded.
Here's his quote from Wednesday's debate...
"Yes, we can be safe and secure, if we stay on the offense against the terrorists and if we spread freedom and liberty around the world.
I have got a comprehensive strategy to not only chase down the Al Qaida, wherever it e ...[text shortened]... ortunately, Iran will be Bush's next invasion as part of his comprehensive strategy. 🙁
D
The USA is commited to civil rights, upholding the resolutions of the Security Council and preventing the production of weapons of mass destrucion in the middle east.
Clearly, Isreal is the next state to be invaded.
16 Oct 04
Originally posted by RagnorakI vote for Iran. That oil looks really good.
It sounds like if Bush gets back into power that further nations will be invaded.
Here's his quote from Wednesday's debate...
"Yes, we can be safe and secure, if we stay on the offense against the terrorists and if we spread freedom and liberty around the world.
I have got a comprehensive strategy to not only chase down the Al Qaida, wherever it e ...[text shortened]... ortunately, Iran will be Bush's next invasion as part of his comprehensive strategy. 🙁
D
But mostly all that oil should mean that there is no use of squandering 84 Billion Dollars US in building two fast Breeder Reactors that have no adjoining Power Plants. Those come later, you see. Righhht!
The good news is, that it will be easier to get their bombs into Europe than the US. <snark> That just makes my day. Heads are heads when it comes to losing them. Not?
16 Oct 04
Originally posted by Ragnorak
Do you think that's a good move? Do you agree with that move? Should Iran do the same to Israel's nuclear plants?
D
The issue is the non-proliferation of nuclear arms. If the normal negotiations will fail, I certainly do not want nuclear arms in the hands of fanatical religious nuts who intend to destroy a nation in the region. They allready have missiles with a long enough range to attack Israel and Southern Europe.
My aim is to understand the situation, not to play with my own or other peoples moral indignation about "consistency" or "fairness" in foreign policy issues.
Israel doesn't want to destroy other nations in the regions. In the surrounding Arab nations there is a real anti-semitic hate campaign going on implemented by the current authorities. Their aim is not peace with Israel but war and the destruction of the state of Israel. If one wants to decide on what's wrong and what's right in this complicated situation one has to look at things from this very perspective.
Answering your question: If Iran decides to continue their plans in acquiring nuclear weapons, I can understand why Israel wants to stonewall that development. If they decide to do so by bombing the Iranian nuclear sites, I will understand and at the same time I will be concerned about the escalation of the situation. The best thing for Iran to do is giving up the development of nuclear arms as asked by the International Community.
16 Oct 04
Originally posted by ivanhoeIsrael has, at one point or another, invaded every one of its neighboring countries, as well as bombing quite a few of the local non-neighboring countries. Israel remains in illegal occupation of Arab lands and its settlement policies and others are in violation of over 70 UN Security Council resolutions. Its government contains members who are every bit religious fanatics as the Islamic ones and make public statements supporting the ethnic cleansing of all Arabs from the occupied territories. It is hypocritical to criticize any other country in the region for desiring to develop nuclear weapons while Israel retains a stockpile of reportedly at least 200 nuclear bombs. Israel should also give up its nuclear weapons and join and abide by the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty; until there is a nuclear free Middle East it is unreasonable to expect that other countries will not develop a deterrance to Israel's nuclear weapons stockpile.
The issue is the non-proliferation of nuclear arms. If the normal negotiations will fail, I certainly do not want nuclear arms in the hands of fanatical religious nuts who intend to destroy a nation in the region. They allready have missiles with a long enough range to attack Israel and Southern Europe.
My aim is to understand the situation, not to pla ...[text shortened]... n to do is giving up the development of nuclear arms as asked by the International Community.
16 Oct 04
1 edit
Ivanhoe,
Your initial statement was:
'Israel will need these bunker buster missiles in case the international bodies fail to dismantle the Iranian nuclear power installations. If these installations will not be removed by political and diplomatic means Israel will use military force to destroy them.'
Was followed by my questions:
'Do you think that's a good move? Do you agree with that move? Should Iran do the same to Israel's nuclear plants? '
You answered with:
The issue is the non-proliferation of nuclear arms. If the normal negotiations will fail, I certainly do not want nuclear arms in the hands of fanatical religious nuts who intend to destroy a nation in the region.
In my view, Sharon is one of the biggest 'fanatical religious nuts' you're ever likely to encounter. Israel is breaking the non-proliferation treaty. My question to you was should other countries use bunker busters to attack Israeli installations seeing as they aren't prepared to comply with the NPT. How would you view this pre-emptive attack? Justified or not? If not, then why do you think it would be justified for Israel to attack Iran, a country which is probably yet to reach parity with Israel for non-compliance?
D
16 Oct 04
2 edits
Originally posted by RagnorakAfter the second world war people asked the Jewish people why didn't they defend themselves against their enemies ? Why they didn't resist more their destruction in the shoa ?
Ivanhoe,
Your initial statement was:
[i]'Israel will need these bunker buster missiles in case the international bodies fail to dismantle the Iranian nuclear power installations. If these installations will not be removed by political ...[text shortened]... ably yet to reach parity with Israel for non-compliance?
D[i]'
The Jewish people has decided they will defend themselves in the future against their enemies. Israel doesn't want to destroy the Arabs or the Iranians, but the extremist Arabs and Iranians want to destroy Israel. Israel is fighting for survival. The others are fighting to destroy Israel. They are not fighting for their own survival. They don't need nuclear weapons for their survival but for the destruction of the Jewish State.
Ragnorak: "Do you think that's a good move? Do you agree with that move?"
I will answer that question when the diplomatic negotiations between the world community and Iran have failed and Israel indeed decides to bomb the Iranian nuclear sites.
I hope the negotiations will be succesfull.
Ragnorak: "Should Iran do the same to Israel's nuclear plants?"
They will not do so. It's not in the Iranian interests. They are religious nuts however that doesn't imply they are stupid.
I do not want anybody to bomb whatever foreign installations. What I want is people to settle their conflicts by means of negotiations. If they fail structurally in doing so that will undoubtedly mean war in most cases, in particular in such a complicated and highly explosive one we can find in the Middle East.
What way do you propose to solve the problems ?