War with Iran

If there is a war between any Islamic
nation and Israel the Moslems will come together
Regardless of their sect the cult of Islam will always put a fellow cult member before anyone else
But we should credit the Islamic cult nations with the intelligence to know that they would never win a war with Israel
 
Last edited:
If there is a war between any Islamic
nation and Israel the Moslems will come together
Regardless of their sect the cult of Islam will always put a fellow cult member before anyone else
But we should credit the Islamic cult nations with the intelligence to know that they would never win a war with Israel

Can we credit any nation with intelligence when it comes to war?
 
If there is a war between any Islamic nation and Israel the Moslems will come together

I doubt it as they have never been able to in the past so why would they change now.


Paul
 
If there is a war between any Islamic
nation and Israel the Moslems will come together

And Saudi Arabia are offering their air space to Israel for bombing raids on Iran ???
 
Last edited:
when is this war with Iran gona kick off then ? Iv been hearing reports that Israel is getting ready for an attack and they aint gona do it without the US , .....could spark off WW3 ?

will draft dodgers have their spread-betting accounts seized :-0 ?

We need to nuke the living daylights out of Iran. They threaten our key ally, Israel.

God bless Israel.
 
It would be comical if it wasn't so sad

1.Nearly all the failed States on the planet are muslim ( Somalia, Yemen, Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan etc. ) and yet they try to spread their religion as if it had something to offer

2. The Americans are hopeless at wars. They get tangled up in their 2,000 year old Christian principles and get beaten by countries barely out of the stone age. They have bankrupted themselves and the West with their nonsensical policies, largely shaped by the Israelis and their Jewish lobby in the USA.

3. Pakistan and Iran waste their resources on nuclear weapons to kill ever more people.

4. Millions are starving and lack even basic supplies such as water

5. We are all fouling up the planet with our toxic waste

I would say all in all the human race's chances of survival diminish year by year. The sodding politicians are incredibly useless ( can't think of 1 I would trust ) - lots of hot air and useless policies

It could easily all be over this century

:eek::eek:
 
I would say all in all the human race's chances of survival diminish year by year. The sodding politicians are incredibly useless ( can't think of 1 I would trust ) - lots of hot air and useless policies

It could easily all be over this century

:eek::eek:






You sound a bit down in the dumps today Pat?




Your post prompted me to do a search on population growth and it appears not everyone is so pessimistic. Don't know who this Hans Rosling bloke is but he seems to know what he's bangin on about.





Hans Rosling on global population growth





Here is a fun chart to play around with for those going cold turkey whilst the markets are closed. I'm sure devout EW practitioners will love this one. You can select a specific country from the menu on the right and track it's progress against time.


dd
 
You sound a bit down in the dumps today Pat?




Your post prompted me to do a search on population growth and it appears not everyone is so pessimistic. Don't know who this Hans Rosling bloke is but he seems to know what he's bangin on about.





Hans Rosling on global population growth





Here is a fun chart to play around with for those going cold turkey whilst the markets are closed. I'm sure devout EW practitioners will love this one. You can select a specific country from the menu on the right and track it's progress against time.


dd

Doctor Fenner (Google him) gives us 100 years. It makes sense. 9 billion in 40 years (10 have already passed) How many in the next 50?

Where is the increased requirement for world resources going to come from?

I think that 100 years is a bit soon but whether life will be worth living in the West is another matter. Do we, really, believe that we are going to bring the third world populations up to our level in quality of life?

We are going to go down to theirs. Their peoples are, already coming into the West and are diluting our standard of living, because we have what they want.

I do not envy the future that my grandchildren have.

Humanity is self-destructive. It can't be helped or changed. It is the nature of us.
 
Doctor Fenner (Google him) gives us 100 years. It makes sense. 9 billion in 40 years (10 have already passed) How many in the next 50?

Where is the increased requirement for world resources going to come from?

Be it bacteria in a petri dish or intelligent animals living on the surface of a planet limiting factors must kick in a some point and the population level will plateau. You can't change the laws of mathematics.

I think that 100 years is a bit soon but whether life will be worth living in the West is another matter. Do we, really, believe that we are going to bring the third world populations up to our level in quality of life?

We are going to go down to theirs. Their peoples are, already coming into the West and are diluting our standard of living, because we have what they want.

There are more Malawian trained doctors practicing medicine in Manchester than in the whole of Malawi, Who benefits? Who suffers?


I do not envy the future that my grandchildren have.

Humanity is self-destructive. It can't be helped or changed. It is the nature of us.

yep, it's just maths!



dd
 
Non-Aligned Movement backs Iran

"In a strongly-worded statement, representatives of the Non-Aligned Movement (NAM) at the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) have supported Iran's position on the contentious issue of IAEA inspectors and have also expressed concern that the most recent IAEA report on Iran has "departed from standard verification language".

"NAM notes with concern, the possible implications of the continued departure from standard verification language in the summary of the report of the director general [Yukio Amano]," the statement said. The statement was read during the IAEA board of governors meeting on behalf of over 100 NAM member states.

http://wwww.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/LI17Ak02.html
 
Be it bacteria in a petri dish or intelligent animals living on the surface of a planet limiting factors must kick in a some point and the population level will plateau. You can't change the laws of mathematics.



There are more Malawian trained doctors practicing medicine in Manchester than in the whole of Malawi, Who benefits? Who suffers?




yep, it's just maths!



dd

It is not my intention to be a doomster because, for sure, I won't be around then, I do not know whether what you are saying is a better alternative, or not.

I don't think that we are going to self-destruct quite as quickly as Fenner suggests. Something really terrible would have to happen for that, but the "haves" are going to have to share with the "have nots". That must interfere with our quality of life , because there is not enough to go around.

Human population curtailment is the only solution to pollution. Birth control has been tried by the Chinese. It brings about an aging population.

It's a problem that must be resolved . War does not do it. 40 million died in Europe in WWII. That waste is terrible and does, absolutely, nothing.
 
Human population curtailment is the only solution to pollution.

Sorry, that is just plain wrong. The solutions to pollution of all kinds cannot come from anywhere other than science and engineering and the political will to apply them. A global population of 4 billion, with carbon emissions the same as Weston Europe would cause disastrous climate change.

The solution to the population issue lies in the areas of geopolitics and political economy. Countries with developed economies tend to have low on negative natural population growth. Very poor countries have high growth. Put together economic development with social factors such as the empowerment of women and education and it is very likely that would population will stabilize. The trick is to achieve sustainable development in the third world and clean energy is key to this.
 
IMO, Global pollution is caused by world demand for fossil fuels. We are going back to using coal because there is nothing else. What is science going to achieve before the 22nd century to replace fossil fuel consumption? I know that something will have been invented, but will it be in sufficient use to reverse the situation that we are facing today?

Your example of 4 billion people is history. We are on the way to 9 billion and science is not doing enough to solve the problem. In fact, science is supposed to be helping us to get oil out of deep ocean deposits and BP has shown us how advanced that is.

The planet is not waiting for science and engineering anymore. It is dying.
 
Top