Iranian blockade of persian gulf

[Tony 10]

Iran is next.. All this scare mongering is like Iraq and Afganistan. History just repeats itself.

 

America will not stop until it has control over everything.

 

Iran next.

 

Since they don't have control over Iraq and Afghanistan they aren't making a very good job of it.

[Tony 10]

One word that seems to be missing from the debate is alleged as there is no proof whatsoever that Iran are actively developing nuclear weapons. Its all just propaganda and guesswork.

 

They do not have the capacity or technology in place to enrich uranium enough for use in any bomb and even if they did it would take many more years to do so. Another point that has already been made is in order to do any damage to Israel, or any other country, they would need several high yield bombs to do so otherwise its Iran that would be wiped out.

 

Even with the resources and money available to the Manhattan project it took the US several years to get enough uranium enriched for just one simple low yield bomb.

You can fight your claim out with the International Atomic Energy Agency.

 

Implementation of Safeguards in the Islamic Republic of Iran

 

Mr. Chairman,

 

Preventing the proliferation of nuclear weapons is one of the IAEA's core responsibilities. In my recent reports on Implementation of the NPT Safeguards Agreement and Relevant Provisions of Security Council Resolutions in the Islamic Republic of Iran, I expressed serious concern regarding possible military dimensions to Iran's nuclear programme. The Agency has for some years been carefully and critically assessing the extensive information available to it on this issue. Throughout the past three years, we have obtained additional information which gives us a fuller picture of Iran's nuclear programme and increases our concerns about possible military dimensions. It is my duty to share important information, which has passed rigorous Agency scrutiny, with Member States and I have done so in my latest report, which is before the Board.

 

Our technical experts have spent years painstakingly and objectively analysing a huge quantity of information from a wide variety of independent sources, including from a number of Member States, from the Agency's own efforts and from information provided by Iran itself. The Agency finds the information to be, overall, credible. It is consistent in terms of technical content, individuals and organizations involved, and time frames. The information indicates that Iran has carried out activities relevant to the development of a nuclear explosive device. It also indicates that, prior to the end of 2003, these activities took place under a structured programme, and that some activities may still be ongoing.

 

My report identifies in detail the issues which Iran needs to address in order to restore international confidence in the exclusively peaceful nature of its nuclear programme. It is my hope that the report will contribute to solving these important outstanding issues. In response to his letter dated 30 October 2011, I wrote to Iran's Vice-President and President of the Atomic Energy Organization of Iran, Dr. Abbasi, on 2 November proposing to send a high-level team to Iran to clarify the issues outlined in the Annex. I hope a suitable date can be agreed soon. It is essential that any such mission should be well planned and that it should address the issues contained in my report. I ask Iran to engage substantively with the Agency without delay and provide the requested clarifications regarding possible military dimensions to its nuclear programme.

 

The Agency continues to verify the non-diversion of nuclear material declared by Iran under its Safeguards Agreement. But, as Iran is not providing the necessary cooperation, including by not implementing its Additional Protocol, the Agency is unable to provide credible assurance about the absence of undeclared nuclear material and activities in Iran, and therefore to conclude that all nuclear material in Iran is in peaceful activities.

 

I urge Iran to take steps towards the full implementation of its Safeguards Agreement and its other obligations. I remain willing to engage in dialogue with Iran.

[Rupert_Baehr 10]

...On the other hand, there are a lot less guns on the street in the UK than the US and a far lower rate of gun crime.

 

That depends on where you live. There are some cities in the US with very high rates of gun crime and there are some with little or no gun crime. There are some cities which, having relaxed firearm ownership, have seen a sustained drop in firearm crime.

 

Florida now has a 'Stand your ground' law. Prior to that, if somebody attacked you in your house and you had a gun, you could shoot him. (There was some question about what would happen if he attacked you on your property but outside the house. If he attacked you somewhere else, then your first defence was to flee.)

 

Under the current law, you don't have to do that (as the mugger who tried to knife a jogger a few months ago found out - to his cost.)

 

The law doesn't exempt the shooter from a court appearance, but instead of the question being "Did he do his best to flee the attacker?" It's now "Did he believe his life or that of another was at risk?"

 

As at Oct 2010 (5 years after the law was introduced) there were 93 cases reported in newspapers in which 'Stand your Ground' had been argued as a defence. In 57 of those cases, the shooter was not charged with a crime or the charges were dropped by prosecutors or dismissed by a judge before trial. Seven other defendants were acquitted. - The other 29 were convicted of unlawful homicide/unlawful wounding.

 

The area in which I live (about 1.5 square miles, with about 750 houses) probably has a far lower crime rate than any similar area in Sheffield. - One (unsuccessful - they were caught on the way out) house burglary and 3 or 4 instances of theft from an open garage or theft from a garden in 26 years.

 

It's a fairly affluent area, access is controlled, there are (unarmed) security patrols and the rate of gun ownership is (probably) extremely high. I don't own a gun (nor have I any intention of getting one) and I gather I am in a tiny minority. This area is not a popular venue for burglars or other armed criminals.

 

Most gun crime is committed by violent criminals. If you have a large number of violent criminals per head of population, then you will probably have a higher rate of gun crime than you will if there are fewer per head. That applies anywhere. The 1997 Act reduced the number of legally held handguns in the UK, but - in spite of what the government promised - it didn't reduce the number of illegally held firearms.

 

I don't know the figures, but I suspect that the number of gun crimes per capita in certain areas of Manchester is rather higher than that in any area in Sheffield. The laws are the same in both places.

 

... so simply handing them out to anyone who fancies it clearly isn't a good approach either.

 

I couldn't agree more! It is possible to get a permit for a handgun in Germany - but it will take you 6 months (or more), there is a lot of training, there are a lot of tests and potential owners are vetted strictly.

 

The Germans don't have a lot of gun crime (people seem to use knives ).

 

One of the advantages of extensive training in Germany is that you are (fairly) safe walking around in the forests when there are hunters in the same forest. The hunters seem to know what they are doing and they seem to know what they're shooting at before they pull the trigger.

 

I wouldn't go in the woods around here at the start of the hunting season!

[Harleyman 12]

Something in the US has failed then.

In the UK very few people are ever shot, including police officers.

 

But it will start and get more common as time goes by. 30 years ago guns were almost unknown among the criminal element in the UK but now the ingredienst are already there. Depressed post industrial inner city areas, high numbers of disaffected unemployed youth and third world immigrants whose passport to a quick bit of easy money is dealing in drugs. Unless things change drastically for the better some parts of large British cities will resemble Detroit in a couple of decades. See if I'm wrong or not.

 

Stopping criminals acquiring guns by illegal means is practically impossoble that's exactly why passing laws on gun control is just plain stupid. It only penalizes the majority of the law abiding There's already a market for illegal firearms in the UK.

 

The police do their best to stop it but at best it's a no win game in the long run.

[Rupert_Baehr 10]

Something in the US has failed then.

In the UK very few people are ever shot, including police officers.

 

 

During 2007, nine young people lost their lives in shootings, including the killing of 11-year-old Rhys Jones in Liverpool.

According to Home Office figures, there were 59 firearms-related homicides in 2006-07 compared with 49 in the previous year. That is an increase of 18% in just one year. There were 507 serious injuries from firearms - more than one incident a day.

But at the same time, the trend in gun crime overall has been going down...

 

Overall firearms offences, including air guns, fell 14% in 2006-07 from 21,527 incidents to 18,489.

 

Dated figures, but 18,500 offences doesn't sound like a rare occurrence. Firearm crime is statistically insignificant in most places in the UK, but if you happen to be the person on the receiving end, or if you live in one of those areas where it is more common (London, Greater Manchester, the West Midlands and parts of Bristol) it's probably a serious problem for you.

[Harleyman 12]

That depends on where you live. There are some cities in the US with very high rates of gun crime and there are some with little or no gun crime. There are some cities which, having relaxed firearm ownership, have seen a sustained drop in firearm crime.

 

Florida now has a 'Stand your ground' law. Prior to that, if somebody attacked you in your house and you had a gun, you could shoot him. (There was some question about what would happen if he attacked you on your property but outside the house. If he attacked you somewhere else, then your first defence was to flee.)

 

Under the current law, you don't have to do that (as the mugger who tried to knife a jogger a few months ago found out - to his cost.)

 

The law doesn't exempt the shooter from a court appearance, but instead of the question being "Did he do his best to flee the attacker?" It's now "Did he believe his life or that of another was at risk?"

 

As at Oct 2010 (5 years after the law was introduced) there were 93 cases reported in newspapers in which 'Stand your Ground' had been argued as a defence. In 57 of those cases, the shooter was not charged with a crime or the charges were dropped by prosecutors or dismissed by a judge before trial. Seven other defendants were acquitted. - The other 29 were convicted of unlawful homicide/unlawful wounding.

 

The area in which I live (about 1.5 square miles, with about 750 houses) probably has a far lower crime rate than any similar area in Sheffield. - One (unsuccessful - they were caught on the way out) house burglary and 3 or 4 instances of theft from an open garage or theft from a garden in 26 years.

 

It's a fairly affluent area, access is controlled, there are (unarmed) security patrols and the rate of gun ownership is (probably) extremely high. I don't own a gun (nor have I any intention of getting one) and I gather I am in a tiny minority. This area is not a popular venue for burglars or other armed criminals.

 

Most gun crime is committed by violent criminals. If you have a large number of violent criminals per head of population, then you will probably have a higher rate of gun crime than you will if there are fewer per head. That applies anywhere. The 1997 Act reduced the number of legally held handguns in the UK, but - in spite of what the government promised - it didn't reduce the number of illegally held firearms.

 

I don't know the figures, but I suspect that the number of gun crimes per capita in certain areas of Manchester is rather higher than that in any area in Sheffield. The laws are the same in both places.

 

 

 

I couldn't agree more! It is possible to get a permit for a handgun in Germany - but it will take you 6 months (or more), there is a lot of training, there are a lot of tests and potential owners are vetted strictly.

 

The Germans don't have a lot of gun crime (people seem to use knives ).

 

One of the advantages of extensive training in Germany is that you are (fairly) safe walking around in the forests when there are hunters in the same forest. The hunters seem to know what they are doing and they seem to know what they're shooting at before they pull the trigger.

 

I wouldn't go in the woods around here at the start of the hunting season!

 

 

The biggest number of shootings in Los Angeles occur in the predominantly Mexican and black communities. Most are because of disputes in the drug trade followed by gang turf wars or marital problems and infidelity Blame the latter on the Latino temperement where machismo and honor are at stake in many cases.

There has however been a marked decrease in shootings in the last few years due to more efficient policing methods thanks largely to the efforts of former police chief William Bratton who also enjoyed the same success while police chief of New York.

 

I live many miles from Los Angeles in a very low crime community. I could care less if foolish people shoot each other in L.A. I would however feel very upset if my firearms were confiscated because of the antics of those idiots

[Harleyman 12]

I was watching an episode of Prime Suspect yesterday which originally aired on TV back in 1996.

The story in this epsiode took place in Manchester. Unless the story is a fanciful concoction dreamed up by producers of that series then that city even back then had an element of gun owning criminals engaged in the drug trade

[Tradescanthia 10]

If the Arab nations didn't have oil they would already have been sorted out.

If Germany had won the war there wouldn't be any Arabs, only a few slaves to work in the oilfields.

[Rupert_Baehr 10]

... I would however feel very upset if my firearms were confiscated because of the antics of those idiots

 

I don't own any firearms because I have no use for one.

 

At one time (when I lived in the UK) I owned 4x7.62mm rifles, a 9mm pistol, about 10 .22 rifles, about half a dozen .22 single.shot pistols and 4 Beretta semi-automatic .22 pistols. I shot often - about 4 or 5 times a week.

 

I no longer shoot, so I don't bother owning a gun.

 

You could argue that I benefit from the deterrent offered by those of my neighbours who own guns - and I wouldn't contradict you. Owning a gun wouldn't make me feel more safe, however.

 

I accept the argument that - as a member of society - I should feel 'pain' or 'concern' at the loss of life amongst drug-dealers who shoot each other, but I seem to have a problem doing so. I have lived in areas where both gun ownership and gun crime were high, but I soon learned to be careful - and not to go outside at midnight on New Year's eve.

[fake 10]

You can fight your claim out with the International Atomic Energy Agency.

 

And that is really conclusive isn't it?

 

It uses words such as;

 

"possible military dimensions"

 

"some activities may still be ongoing."

 

"a huge quantity of information from a wide variety of independent sources."

 

Basically similar words to what was said from the allies about Iraq.

 

Basically they have said little about any ongoing bomb programme because they have so far not found any evidence and are just encouraging Iran to be open to dialogue.

 

A few months ago in the propaganda scare tactics it was reported that Iran was developing a nuclear detonator which is not needed for a bomb. In the past few days Hague announced that Iran had enriched uranium to 20%, which is an amazing feat since they can have no sample to test. 80%+ enrichment is needed for any viable bomb and that would take many years to produce even if they could.

 

The so called facts just don't add up.

[Tony 10]

And that is really conclusive isn't it?

You said

there is no proof whatsoever

The UN's IAEA disagree with you. You'll excuse me if I take their expertise on the topic over your opinion on SF.

[Harleyman 12]

I don't own any firearms because I have no use for one.

 

At one time (when I lived in the UK) I owned 4x7.62mm rifles, a 9mm pistol, about 10 .22 rifles, about half a dozen .22 single.shot pistols and 4 Beretta semi-automatic .22 pistols. I shot often - about 4 or 5 times a week.

 

I no longer shoot, so I don't bother owning a gun.

 

You could argue that I benefit from the deterrent offered by those of my neighbours who own guns - and I wouldn't contradict you. Owning a gun wouldn't make me feel more safe, however.

 

I accept the argument that - as a member of society - I should feel 'pain' or 'concern' at the loss of life amongst drug-dealers who shoot each other, but I seem to have a problem doing so. I have lived in areas where both gun ownership and gun crime were high, but I soon learned to be careful - and not to go outside at midnight on New Year's eve.

 

 

Firing guns into the air on New Year's Eve is a Mexican thing but the penalties are very severe if caught.

 

 

I have a Glock, a.357 Smith and Wesson, 12 gauge shotgun and a little peashooter of a gun (a .22 Ruger rifle) all which I still go shooting with occasionally.

I shoot at indoor and outdoor ranges and sometimes go with a group up into the mountains to shoot up old abandoned fridges, washing machines and a couple of old wrecked Fords at an unsupervised range tucked away in the woods.

 

I taught my kids to shoot and my wife already knew how to handle a gun when I met her.

 

It's probably very hard for someone in Britain to understand why this kind of sport is so much fun and a popular pastime here but I've had a couple of friends visit from England over the years and taken them shooting and by the time they left they were hooked on it

Edited January 26, 2012 by Harleyman