Quote:

---

Originally Posted by talaniman

I am sure the sensitive stuff was taken, but even your latest article points to the orderly planned in advance leaving of embassy personnel.

---

of course it was 'planned ' .I'm, just saying it was the wrong call.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by paraclete

Well of course it would be well planned the military were involved. A orderly evacuation upon a change of government. The rest is just someone getting their knickers in a knot. Hard luck you no longer rule Yemen

---

the rest of the world will regret it soon enough. The Iranians now control choke points out of the Arabian Gulf and into the Red Sea. They also influence the government in Sudan . So they now cover the whole length of the Red Sea to the Suez Canal.

How many dollars do you want invested in stopping THEIR influence, or troops, NUKES? Be specific King Tom.

The ironic thing is that they were ripe for toppling in 2009 -10 . All it would've taken was support for the Green Revolution. Yet even though the emperor went out of his way supporting every other revolutionary effort against Sunni nations ,he did NOTHING to help the revolution that would've had the biggest positive impact on the region.

Now because he did not support them ,and has done little positive to stop the advance of the Iranian nuke ,it might very well take nukes to stop them . Our ineffective and tepid efforts to stop them will lead to a proliferation ....and that will indeed probably lead to their use.

You have become nervious nellies Tom, given the time that has passed if the Iranians wanted a nuke they would have had one by now, even a backwards nation like NK has a nuke.

it is not easy to get nukes They needed help . The NORKS didn't get them on their own. They needed the help of the A Q Khan network . Not surprising; the gas centrifuges that the Iranians first used are the Pak-1s ....the ones invented by AQ Khan. .

A.Q. Khan boasts of helping Iran's nuclear programme - Telegraph

Help but you get the help you ask for. I really wonder whether the Paki's want an nuclear armed Iran on it's left flank, with India on the right it puts it squarely in the middle and Pakistan is a sunni nation and there is much persecution of shiites in Pakistan

AQ Khan was not an agent of the government . His goal in providing nukes to Iran was to neutralize Israel.......well that and $$$$ .The Iranians had plenty of petro-rial to spend . The Iranians also have purchased nuke and rocket technology from the NORKS .

I cannot imaging what you think a PF power like Iran can do, the boil has gone out of the Israel thing, the Eqyptians have cut off supply to the Palestinians and Iran finds Syria a more interesting playground to taunt the west with. They know you are not going to bomb them unless there is overt aggression so they play at proxy war just as you do, but you are fighting for the shiite cause now and backed off after a shiite victory in Yemen. Perhaps you want them to balance out the Saudi and keep the oil flowing to bankrupt Russia, Iran and Saudi in one stroke'.I would not be surprised if you have met yourself coming back in foreign policy. Evita certainly knew when to get out

Is Obama going to put boots on the ground in Libya too?

Islamic State: Video purports to show 21 Egyptians beheaded in Libya; Coptic Church confirms deaths - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)

The world has to take this ISIS thing much more seriously. For too long we have looked over the border and said not our problem. My government has begun to stiffen entry requirements and laws associated with security issues. We may even be reaching a time when the presumption of innocence may be questioned, to a time when guilt by association is the norm. It is already working in travel arrangements, go to the wrong place and have your passport cancelled.

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-31483631

Egypt will react as Jordan reacted so let's see some help from elsewhere to change the situation in Libya, another failed state that "benefited" from US interventionist foriegn policy. The count of failed arab states is now five. Syria, Libya, Iraq, Somalia and Yemen with Egypt having dodged the bullet

Sykes-Picot undone. One could say it was inevidible . Egypt was/is the only legitimate nation there anyway . The rest are tribes . The question really is ;so do we help forge a future Levant or do we sit on the sidelines and accept what emerges ? Yes there are prices to pay for involvement . There are equally prices to pay ,possibly more dire ,if we are aloof and uninvolved .

If all the other nations signed up to kick ISIS in the arse where they are, we wouldn't have this problem, but we would have a WAR until the job is done.

Tal there are thirty nations signed up already how many do you want? These nations have been bombing ISIS for months, I would say we have got a WAR, what we need is more than tokenism, particularly from Iraq who have lost territory to them. It is a disgrace that a few thousand terrorists should control a major city like Mosul and all that opposes them are Pesmerga militia. Who trained those troops who threw away their arms? These are not people who can be defeated in an war of degradation of economic assets. Meanwhile the threat grows as other terrorists join ISIS and fight in places like North Africa and the terrorists succeed in a reign of terror

30 nations and no boots. Just planes.

shows what happens when the US leads from behind.

Do you call this leadership? I call it tokenism. Obama and others can say we have responded, look what we have done. However we have reached the stage where territory has to be taken. We would all like the arabs to step up but they are better at running away than fighting, they lack that vital "intestinal fortutude", the more common term being "guts". Saddam used to get them to fight at the end of a gun, we might learn from that. No doubt the Iraqi army remembers a number of glorious defeats and the whole of the arab world couldn't defeat Israel, I also doubt they can defeat ISIS

you guys crack me up . When Saddam was mass murdering and torturing by the 10s of thousands all was cool because under him there was so called stability .Now the Islamic State puts it on video and it's O MY GOD !!!

Quote:

---

Saddam was mass murdering and torturing

---

Using the WMDs that weren't there, even though the Army bought them to destroy.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/16/wo...etType=nyt_now

wait a minute ...... those stockpiles of WMD that were unaccounted for didn't exist ....right ?

If they did exist they may be the same WMD Assad has given up for destruction, who knows, rumour has it they were transported to Syria and buried. If so there is urgent need to defeat ISIS before they gain control of them. You forget Saddam was your lackey before he got off his chain, a useful tool to conduct your proxy war against Iran. He would be there still if he had not invaded Kuwait so let's not get self righteous here.

As to ISIS and their murdering ways they appear particularly heinous because of who the victims are and the manner of their executions. We look back at what was done in France 200 years ago and consider it was the price of freedom and far more blood flowed out of severed necks there, but it has become fashionable not to execute people, even criminals guilty of heinous crimes.

I suggest that fitting punishment for every ISIS fighter is to loose his head but I doubt anyone has the stomach for it

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by paraclete

If they did exist they may be the same WMD Assad has given up for destruction, who knows, rumour has it they were transported to Syria and buried. If so there is urgent need to defeat ISIS before they gain control of them. You forget Saddam was your lackey before he got off his chain, a useful tool to conduct your proxy war against Iran. He would be there still if he had not invaded Kuwait so let's not get self righteous here.

As to ISIS and their murdering ways they appear particularly heinous because of who the victims are and the manner of their executions. We look back at what was done in France 200 years ago and consider it was the price of freedom and far more blood flowed out of severed necks there, but it has become fashionable not to execute people, even criminals guilty of heinous crimes.

I suggest that fitting punishment for every ISIS fighter is to loose his head but I doubt anyone has the stomach for it

---

yeah yeah yeah ... and everyone was friends with Uncle Joe in 1941 . But you are mistaken if you think the US had anything to do with Saddam invading Iran . The official position of the US during that war was that we did not take any sides . We only got involved against Iran when they threatened shipping in the Gulf.