i feel like wanting some of your opinions on this country and its future.
do they build a bomb?
should obama and the rest of the west really try to cooperate with iran or should there be even more isolization?
will the elections (they are relatively free in iran) bring any changes there?
do u know good articles on this issue?
do you give a shit anyways?
etc.etc.
Any problems that the world has with Iran will most certainly not be fixed by Obama. Seeing as how the US is the cause of all the dam problems in the first place.
u mean the iranian nuclear program (if it exists, but i believe so) is a reaction on being sourrounded by american outposts?
oh. do you think that european ambassadors would have more luck in diplomacy with the iran regime? (including russia)
Quote from: Nailec on Mar 20, 2009, 06:02 PM
u mean the iranian nuclear program (if it exists, but i believe so) is a reaction on being sourrounded by american outposts?
Iran is a member of the NPT (Non Proliferation Treaty) and has insisted that is acting in accordance with NPT.
According to the NPT regulations, IAEA (International Atomic Energy Agency) must support NPT members to acquire the technology that is needed to enrich Uranium, for peaceful purposes.
Iran has not been supported to do so, and now Iran is making these facilities by it's own scientists, and in accordance with NPT. But the USA likes you to believe otherwise...
1. Iran is a member of the NPT.
2. All members of the NPT have the right to enrich Uranium for peaceful purposes.
3. Based on the NPT, Iran must be given the right and support to have the Uranium Enrichment facilities.
It is not logical to have one set of NPT regulations, but yet Iran gets treated differently. If there is a set of regulations all members must be treated in the same way, otherwise you have violated your democratic values.
Iran IS a member of the NPT and officialy does NOT have any Nukes. But Israel has got Nuke Warheads and is NOT a member of the NPT!
Now you tell me who is a threat to the world?
One of the most sought after leaders in Iran in the last 60 years was Dr. Mossadegh. His Governoment was removed from power by direct intervention of the US and UK.
They replaced Dr. Mossadegh by Mohammad Reza Pahlavi (who dictated over Iran from the early 1950s to 1979) because Dr. Mossadegh had nationalized the Iranian Oil Industry!
The US is claiming to support democracy but how come the US removed Dr. Mossadegh from power and supported Pahlavi who dictated Iran for 3 decades? Is this the meaning of democracy lol? So what happened to the rights of the Iranian nation when the US removed Dr. Mossadegh from power?
Iran has been supported to build nuclear reactions until 1979. then the islamic revolution changed the circumstances. (as you pointed out: the USA had influence on the change of the political system in iran)
after the revolution however Iran defined itself as a country that hates the USA and Israel. Kidnapping, support of terrorists in lebanon and palestine.
in addition Ahmadinedschad has threaneted Israels existence multiple times. so y should they still be supported to build their reactors? btw. Iran still has trading relationship at least to some german companies.
many of the things you say explained the iranian nuclear program, but they dont justify it.
i am not really sure what to do with all the threatening coming from Iran. perhaps its just used to protect the Iranian identity and to deflect from inner problems. but i wouldnt go with the risky way and let them do what they want.
yep Israel posseses nuclear power, but they dont threatened anybody. not sure y they are not member of the NPT. but sadly enough this (and the nuclear bombs in possession of pakistan and india) are certanly a huge reason for other nations to get the bomb.
well stated my friends
You guys are asking the completely wrong questions. Instead of asking if Iran should be allowed to have nukes or not. You should be asking, who in the fuck has the right to tell another sovereign nation what to do? You guys are saying words like "allowed". Well, they are "allowed" to have nukes because they are their own country. No other country is really "allowed" to tell them what to do. How would you like if if another country would not "allow" your country to do something? I believe one nation has the right to boss around another nation after they have conquered it. I believe that is called imperialism, not democracy.
Quote from: Variable on Mar 21, 2009, 01:25 AM
You guys are asking the completely wrong questions. Instead of asking if Iran should be allowed to have nukes or not. You should be asking, who in the fuck has the right to tell another sovereign nation what to do? You guys are saying words like "allowed". Well, they are "allowed" to have nukes because they are their own country. No other country is really "allowed" to tell them what to do. How would you like if if another country would not "allow" your country to do something? I believe one nation has the right to boss around another nation after they have conquered it. I believe that is called imperialism, not democracy.
exactly.
you are asking the wrong question, too.
having nuclear bombs is no longer a judicial question, it is a moral one.
Quote from: Nailec on Mar 21, 2009, 01:15 PM
you are asking the wrong question, too.
having nuclear bombs is no longer a judicial question, it is a moral one.
all nukes aside, the bullies are the bombs.
(So Far Away)
-A Flock Of Seagulls
Quote from: Nailec on Mar 21, 2009, 01:15 PM
you are asking the wrong question, too.
having nuclear bombs is no longer a judicial question, it is a moral one.
And calling people war criminals based on preemption is not a moral issue? I think the millions of dead Iraqis who died based on preemptive war ( aka their country did nothing wrong but still got bombed ) would totally agree that sanctions and wars based on preemption is a very big moral issue here.
do agree. as u know there has been a lot of protest against this preventive war because of that.
anyways. in saddams name war crimes and crimes against humanity have been commited.
in the sense of human rights it was right to stop that.
i know that human rights obviously have not been the main reason for the us troops to invade iraq as they would have to invade multiple other countries in the world including themselves ;)
but how long would you wait? until the bomb is dropped? until antisemitism becomes destructive once again?
The movie minority report comes to mind.
If you want to go around policing the world. Then thats your opinion. But you dont know if you are right about how the world should be policed. You don't know if what you think might become, will actually become, if you stop it before it happens. Yeah, there is a lot of potential evil out there. Always has been, always will be. But trying to control it, is asinine. You can't see into the future to know what really would have happened. And you also cant see into the future to see the consequences of your actions should you take them.
How long would I wait? Ill wait till they fuck with me. Israel is their own independent and sovereign nation. Israel is perfectly capable of protecting itself without my help. I don't feel the need to fight another mans fight. Know what I mean?
Quote from: Variable on Mar 21, 2009, 06:05 PM
Quote from: Nailec on Mar 21, 2009, 01:15 PM
you are asking the wrong question, too.
having nuclear bombs is no longer a judicial question, it is a moral one.
And calling people war criminals based on preemption is not a moral issue? I think the millions of dead Iraqis who died based on preemptive war ( aka their country did nothing wrong but still got bombed ) would totally agree that sanctions and wars based on preemption is a very big moral issue here.
Quote from: Variable on Mar 22, 2009, 10:03 AM
The movie minority report comes to mind.
If you want to go around policing the world. Then thats your opinion. But you dont know if you are right about how the world should be policed. You don't know if what you think might become, will actually become, if you stop it before it happens. Yeah, there is a lot of potential evil out there. Always has been, always will be. But trying to control it, is asinine. You can't see into the future to know what really would have happened. And you also cant see into the future to see the consequences of your actions should you take them.
How long would I wait? Ill wait till they fuck with me. Israel is their own independent and sovereign nation. Israel is perfectly capable of protecting itself without my help. I don't feel the need to fight another mans fight. Know what I mean?
trey... thank you, for everything
your "everyone for himself"-attitude is not, what i expected from you.
someone points a gun on someone you love and threatens to pull the trigger.
you wouldnt stop him or her until the actually shot?
btw: a threat itself is an immoral action as it causes a disadvantage on the side that is threatened.
i will later write something to your total inadequate comparision between what is the idea of Minority Report and how we atually judge in political events. (i am sure if you would think about it for 5 minutes my post will not be necessary)
Look. Comparing a social contract to the love of one human to another is a bit silly. If I go to Texas to see my mom and sister and some ass hole points a gun at them, he's getting two to the chest one to the head way before he pulls the trigger. Of course. But I have no such unconditional love for one social contract to the other.
A government is set up for a reason. In the case of the United States and Israel it was set up based on the philosophy that all men are born free. All men are free to do as they please. Farm, paint, exercise, rape, kill, steal...ect ect. You can do as you please. Because you are free. But this also means that all other men are free to do the exact same. So since humans obviously don't want to be rapped, murdered, or burglarized, they looked for a solution. AKA the social contract. I will give up all of my freedoms to hurt people, as long as they give them up too. Thus became government.
This governments responsibility is only to the people in which it has a social contract ( citizens ). Government has no control of, or responsibility to anyone who is not their citizen. Let me say that again with emphasis. Government has no control of anyone who is not their citizen .
So my government ( the U.S.A. ) has no control over anyone who is not a U.S. citizen. Unless that is, you want to force your social contract onto other people or governments.
Imperialism is defined as "the policy of extending the rule or authority of an empire or nation over foreign countries......."
So if I demand that my government tell another government what to do, for whatever reason. I am an imperialist. And my friend, I am no imperialist. I believe in leaving other foreign countries with sovereign governments and their own social contracts, alone. Because I want mine to be left alone. The only time I want to have to worry about another social contract is when it threatens mine on my land. AKA war. But to try to preemptively stop war with...war. Seems a bit silly. Until you yourself see the mangled dead bodies. Then suddenly preemption on such a large scale becomes evil in the purest sense of the word.
Damn Trey, I couldn't agree more with you... I just had to state that fact...
Its because I'm high.
Quote from: wither-I on Mar 22, 2009, 06:56 PM
Quote from: Variable on Mar 21, 2009, 06:05 PM
Quote from: Nailec on Mar 21, 2009, 01:15 PM
you are asking the wrong question, too.
having nuclear bombs is no longer a judicial question, it is a moral one.
And calling people war criminals based on preemption is not a moral issue? I think the millions of dead Iraqis who died based on preemptive war ( aka their country did nothing wrong but still got bombed ) would totally agree that sanctions and wars based on preemption is a very big moral issue here.
Quote from: Variable on Mar 22, 2009, 10:03 AM
The movie minority report comes to mind.
If you want to go around policing the world. Then thats your opinion. But you dont know if you are right about how the world should be policed. You don't know if what you think might become, will actually become, if you stop it before it happens. Yeah, there is a lot of potential evil out there. Always has been, always will be. But trying to control it, is asinine. You can't see into the future to know what really would have happened. And you also cant see into the future to see the consequences of your actions should you take them.
How long would I wait? Ill wait till they fuck with me. Israel is their own independent and sovereign nation. Israel is perfectly capable of protecting itself without my help. I don't feel the need to fight another mans fight. Know what I mean?
trey... thank you, for everything
and hey man. I'm just glad to have people who are actually interested in intelligent conversation. I'm just glad to have people who will actually read my post. And I'm glad to have people who will give me post to read.
What do you mean you're high ?
You're high like in "high" ? How come !?
ha, no I'm not actually high. But I probably would make some pretty interesting post if I smoked pot for the first time in 6 years.
Quote from: Variable on Mar 23, 2009, 05:40 AM
ha, no I'm not actually high. But I probably would make some pretty interesting post if I smoked pot for the first time in 6 years.
I'll get ya high. That would be funny! I've seen "drunk Trey"... I wonder how "high Trey" is...
Quote from: Nailec on Mar 22, 2009, 08:56 PM
your "everyone for himself"-attitude is not, what i expected from you.
someone points a gun on someone you love and threatens to pull the trigger.
you wouldnt stop him or her until the actually shot?
btw: a threat itself is an immoral action as it causes a disadvantage on the side that is threatened.
i will later write something to your total inadequate comparision between what is the idea of Minority Report and how we atually judge in political events. (i am sure if you would think about it for 5 minutes my post will not be necessary)
Hey, if you want to try to have a valid opinion, try using some fucking grammar. You write like an 8 year old with a thesaurus.
i`ll do my best :D
it is wrong for any country to say to another country yeah we have nuclear weapons but you cant. So essentially we are saying "see this big stick, you cant have one. if you try we'll use our other big sticks to beat you down." starving a nation and causing its development to go backward is not a good foreign policy. that being said i would not want the leader of iran to have them. it amazes me that pakistan has been able to hold its arsenal so well (relatively speaking)
what about the following analogy:
in the USA everyone has the right to bear arms in order to protect themselves and because every American is a free citizen.
should the same right be valid for someone who has some mental problem where you would normally say that it would be really irresponsible to give him that gun.
the ideological background makes the big difference to me.
same thing with pakistan. everything was well as long as it is secularized. but you just dont want these weapons in the hands of fundamentalists.
and please do not just make the USA responsible for Iran`s people to starve. do you think they have a good foreign policy? do you think they have good politics in any issue? (talking about crimes against human rights)
Quote from: White Pwny on Mar 23, 2009, 02:08 PM
Quote from: Variable on Mar 23, 2009, 05:40 AM
ha, no I'm not actually high. But I probably would make some pretty interesting post if I smoked pot for the first time in 6 years.
I'll get ya high. That would be funny! I've seen "drunk Trey"... I wonder how "high Trey" is...
I laugh. A LOT.
Quote from: Corleone on Mar 23, 2009, 05:01 PM
Quote from: Nailec on Mar 22, 2009, 08:56 PM
your "everyone for himself"-attitude is not, what i expected from you.
someone points a gun on someone you love and threatens to pull the trigger.
you wouldnt stop him or her until the actually shot?
btw: a threat itself is an immoral action as it causes a disadvantage on the side that is threatened.
i will later write something to your total inadequate comparision between what is the idea of Minority Report and how we atually judge in political events. (i am sure if you would think about it for 5 minutes my post will not be necessary)
Hey, if you want to try to have a valid opinion, try using some fucking grammar. You write like an 8 year old with a thesaurus.
Ill stand up for him here. English isn't his first language.
Quote from: goldpony on Mar 23, 2009, 10:00 PM
it is wrong for any country to say to another country yeah we have nuclear weapons but you cant. So essentially we are saying "see this big stick, you cant have one. if you try we'll use our other big sticks to beat you down." starving a nation and causing its development to go backward is not a good foreign policy. that being said i would not want the leader of iran to have them. it amazes me that pakistan has been able to hold its arsenal so well (relatively speaking)
Yeah, it is very hypocritical. They throw all this rhetoric and propaganda at you about world stability and responsibility. But in the end its only to ensure the empire.
You're missing the point. My point isn't about if it is a good idea for Iran to have nukes or not. My point is that its not ok for one government to boss around another government. No, mentally handicapped people should probably not have firearms. But its not ok for my government to tell Mexico that they can't allow their mentally handicapped citizens to have weapons. Its ok for the U.S. government to say that about U.S. citizens, not ok for any other country to say that about U.S. citizens and vice versa.
If you try to solve all the worlds problems, you will always be at war. As soon as you " solve " one problem, another will arise in a new place. Then chances are you will end up having to go back and handle the blowback from the unintended consequences of solving the first problem. Like how Hitler more than likely would have never been able to take power if it was not for the treaty of Versailles. We would have never had to go after Saddam if we had not put him in power. Bin Laden probably never would have been able to gain support the U.S. never took a presence in the Arabian Peninsula. And now, speaking about this current issue. We would probably have never had to worry about Iran if the U.S. and Britain had not ousted Mossadegh and put the Shah back into power.
But you see, the more we interfere with other countries business and try to control everything, the more it spirals out of control. Where do you stop? Will you take action one time but not the other? Are you prepared to fight and die to try and prevent the inevitable? I don't want my country to be an Empire. I want it to be a land of solace. No matter how fucked up the rest of the world is, my country is still good and is an example to the rest of the world. We speak softly, but carry a big stick. We don't bother anybody, but we will crush anyone who tries to tread on us. But in now way do I want my country to be a symbol of a country that bombs the fuck out of other countries, killing innocent women , children, and non combatant men, all in the name of " moral foreign policy. " This game of controlling the world through foreign policy is really quite sick. But somehow they seem to have sucked the majority of people into buying it.
Oh and the US has had a foreign policy of putting sanctions and embargos on Nations for way more countries than just Iran. Historically all these policies do is hurt the people, not the government officials they were aimed at. We starve millions of children while the "bad guy" ruler of the country is still sitting fat. Then we pat ourselves on the back on CNN and in front of the UN for taking appropriate " peaceful " actions. Give me a break.
QuoteIll stand up for him here. English isn't his first language.
thanks you!
its a shame nonetheless.
i have been taught englisch for 9 years during school. i dont know how i managed not being able to write properly.
time by time i read some englisch articles. but that is all how i am involved in it. oh and yeah. this board here, too.
i want to go to sleep now. so i try to answer in a few words.
borders are artificial. they(boarders) shouldnt stop us from helping other people if they are surpressed, killed or whatever human right (that their rulers probablly give a shit about) is violated.
Human Rights have been declared after WW2. im not telling you anything new here. of course it is an overreaction if every crime against humanity would be answered with bombs by those defenders of human rights. i just thought about what would happen if someone decides to bomb china, russia or the usa for violating human rights. but by doing nothing, you would tolerate them and make the human rights declaration look like a total joke.
yes, sadly those sanctions hit the weakest people at first hand. all you can do is to hope that those sanctions destabilize (i hope that word exists) the country and force its rulers to stop their evil business.
now i dont know where to draw the line. but commiting genocide or announcing it and having the means to do so, would be one thing where i dont think that economic sanctions are enough. i mean seriously now.
i would call it a perverted tolerance if you just let each nation do whatever they want.
moral law> nations law
i know, this keeps the spiral, which you described, going. but we shouldnt turn our head either.
i believe the spiral can be broken if historic revisionism is fought by education.
it would really make you vomit if you hear how german neonazis make out of WW2 and the Holocaust. it is really important that those people never dictate the discourse and become able to turn their meanings into practice.
i think this is something that military interventions should always achieve, too.
nice responses! i wasnt trying to limit the US's involvement with sanctions just to Iran, but since the topis is Iran.... Anyway, i was also trying to say it is bad foreign policy for any goverment to use sanctions to pressure other goverments to do things, nukes or not. I do believe that we have to have a means to enforce things for special circumstances (in this case, a nutjob with a really big gun) but as a whole, i believe in the soveriegnty of nations to do as they please.
And when you talk of moral law, who's morals do you mean ;)
Quote from: Nailec on Mar 24, 2009, 02:40 AM
QuoteIll stand up for him here. English isn't his first language.
thanks you!
its a shame nonetheless.
i have been taught englisch for 9 years during school. i dont know how i managed not being able to write properly.
time by time i read some englisch articles. but that is all how i am involved in it. oh and yeah. this board here, too.
i want to go to sleep now. so i try to answer in a few words.
borders are artificial. they(boarders) shouldnt stop us from helping other people if they are surpressed, killed or whatever human right (that their rulers probablly give a shit about) is violated.
Human Rights have been declared after WW2. im not telling you anything new here. of course it is an overreaction if every crime against humanity would be answered with bombs by those defenders of human rights. i just thought about what would happen if someone decides to bomb china, russia or the usa for violating human rights. but by doing nothing, you would tolerate them and make the human rights declaration look like a total joke.
yes, sadly those sanctions hit the weakest people at first hand. all you can do is to hope that those sanctions destabilize (i hope that word exists) the country and force its rulers to stop their evil business.
now i dont know where to draw the line. but commiting genocide or announcing it and having the means to do so, would be one thing where i dont think that economic sanctions are enough. i mean seriously now.
i would call it a perverted tolerance if you just let each nation do whatever they want.
moral law> nations law
i know, this keeps the spiral, which you described, going. but we shouldnt turn our head either.
i believe the spiral can be broken if historic revisionism is fought by education.
it would really make you vomit if you hear how german neonazis make out of WW2 and the Holocaust. it is really important that those people never dictate the discourse and become able to turn their meanings into practice.
i think this is something that military interventions should always achieve, too.
Yes I know that borders are man made. But the reign of a governments power is very real. I'm all for civil right and human rights. But once again, starting a war to prevent a war, that may or may not every happen, is a bit ridiculous. Yeah sure, hopefully those sanctions destabilized the governments. But the fact is that in most cases they didn't. They just
starved the lower and middle class of that country while guys like Saddam and Castro were not effected one bit. Is the life of an Israeli or American really that much more valuable than that of an Iranian or Cuban to you? What about their human rights? Should they be punished because their totalitarian leaders are ass holes? If we take military action over this, the men of Iran will be forced to fight whether they agree with their crazy ass leader or not. Fight and die for what?
And don't forget that you are also not just asking the U.S. to wave a magic wand and make it go away. You are asking guys like me to up and leave their homes, families, and lives to go and possibly die, or at the very least sacrifice some of their mental sanity, for a country that is not their home. That is a BIG request, and why is it exactly that Israel can't step up to the plate on their own here?
And where does it stop? Fucked up foreign policy got us here in the first place. Then we tried to fix that with more government interaction, fucked it up even worse, and worse, and worse as time went on. What makes you think that government is going to fix it this time? Albert Einstein's famous quote "the definition of insanity is to try the same thing over and over and expect different results." Maybe we should think about that and try nonintervention for a change. What if we just left everything alone? What if we stopped starving the people of nations, stopped bombing their homes, stopped sending in massive ground forces that if nothing else at least give the perceptions of occupying invaders? Do you think that possibly, just maybe, there is a chance that people might stop hating us if we quit trying to control their lives and killing their children? So far to me, that seems to be the only thing we haven't tried.
I'm not saying tolerate genocide or gross human rights violations. But you can be a great example to the world and inspire nations to rise up against their oppressive regimes just as the U.S. revolution did for the French revolution. Americans speak a big game about freedoms and how all nations should be like us. But everyone is just rolling their eyes at us while we have more and more government control over our lives, and our government oppresses more and more people every day. You aren't even allowed to carry a pocket knife in New Jersy, but people should emulate our freedom? We oppress other countries by destroying their economies and throwing in puppet regimes to rule as we see fit. Suspend Habeas Corpus where we see fit. Torture anyone who tries to defend their home or nation. "But oh, we are spreading freedom and democracy to the world. You're welcome." Do you not see the ridiculousness behind that? No fucking shit that some dude from Iran is going to take the bit of power that he has and try to go against the US and its empire states.
So what if we look inward and fixed our own problems? Quit oppressing and killing other nations, and made a truly free republic. Perhaps maybe then people would listen when we spoke out about international issues. Maybe if we just accept that their is no way to control the entire world, and we just check ourselves, we will also realize that we could inspire the world to be better rather than inspire the world into fear though the barrel of a M4 and the under belly of a F22. War is war and death is death. If you really are all about throwing borders aside and having one great human love fest, you would be thinking about the lives of the Iranians and American troops before you started beating the war drum.
Quote from: goldpony on Mar 24, 2009, 06:39 PM
i believe in the soveriegnty of nations to do as they please.
As do I. As long as they aren't fucking around on our soil. So be it. I mean, nothing wrong with saying that you condemn a nations actions and refuse to trade with them anymore when some dude like Hitler comes along. But to invade a nation because they may or may not have something that may or may not hurt us if they decide, or maybe don't decide, to get real mad and start some shit with us.......did we not learn our lesson from Bush? I mean obviously that was rhetorical because you guys voted in Obama and all this horse shit is just going to get repeated. But still......how the fuck did no one learn their lesson?
Damn Trey, that's some enlightened talk you're spilling... If only more people from the US were like you, things would be much better....
Thanks for showing that not all of you are ignorant arrogant pricks... And you're in the Army...
If only more were like you my friend...
But is it me or you did change your mind a little bit on this kind of issue ?
Ill take that as a very big compliment.
And yeah, I have matured my views on the world a lot since I first came to this board. Probably partly due to being over seas in Japan. Then going and experiencing combat in Afghanistan. But even more so having the amazing opportunity to embed with the Afghan National Army and make great friends with guys from a 100% different culture. I think a lot of my experiences opened my mind, but then when I read Ron Pauls book, it filled it with great info. Of course that was just a start. I have kind of been trying to do more and more research since. But still, the man really inspired me.
QuoteBut still......how the fuck did no one learn their lesson?
the more important lesson in history is: when someone announces to kill the whole jewish race; he probablly will try to do that in praxis.
anyways i hope for the iranian youth that is inspired by western philosophy as Immanuel Kant and Jürgen Habermas (who probablly turns out to be my favourite philosopher allthough he is very hard to read and wrote a huge amount of books).
elections are coming in iran but they seem to be a huge fake. all candidates are nearly the same (at least Mousavi doesnt deny the Shoah), who is a candidate has been decided by the mullahs.
Quote from: Nailec on Jun 12, 2009, 12:48 AM
QuoteBut still......how the fuck did no one learn their lesson?
the more important lesson in history is: when someone announces to kill the whole jewish race; he probablly will try to do that in praxis.
Or not? Maybe Jews did not have a sovereign nation of their own during the Holocaust? Maybe Jews did not have a means to defend themselves before? They do now you know. Israel has a very modern military. Much more so than Iran.
But you just want what? To make sure that other countries bleed next to Israel for their lack of diplomacy with their neighbors? This has nothing to do with the USA, EU, NATO, ISAF, or any other country at that. This is between Iran and Israel. I'm sick of the USA making enemies trying to play big daddy to all this BS. Let Iran do something. Then we will talk. But preemptive war? If Israel and the US launched a preemptive war against Iran, it would just unify the Muslim world into a giant, unwinnable war. Thanks but no thanks.
and I really don't agree that remembering the Holocaust is a more important lesson in history than learning to stop electing fucked up government leaders. Especially seeing as how the Holocaust would have never happened if that lesson was learned in the early 1900s
yeah right. we are absolutely not sure what iran will do, if they will do anything at all. in fact iranian leaders proclaim the destruction of israel since 1979 and all they did until know was helping some terrorists.
i guee it was Chomeini who once said that the Iran does not matter as long as the Islam prevails. Iran may burn, as long as Israel is destroyed.
this argument gets stronger when u regard that islam is a religion that supports martyrdom.
the point is: we dont have a cold-war situation here. the iranian regime isnt as rational as russia or the usa, their religious background gives them an apocalyptic mentality.
en plus: Holocaust was not rational, it was some sick shit. so all in all i really dont know ir Iran gives a shit.
as you have noticed, my hopes are in the iranian youth, so i wouldnt vote for a preventive war, just for means that weaken the actual regime. i know that such a war could bring more islamic nations to the front and would create more ressentiment against western civilization. plz dont think that i want to see all persians dead ;)
so we can either make harder sanctions in order to weaken their regim, or vice versa, make more trade in order to make them more peaceful. of all things its germany that drives the second way and is all about making money with holocaust deniers :/
(http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/sanctions-what-sanctions-german-iranian-trade-booms/2/)
(http://www.mideastfreedomforum.org/node/74)
number 1: trey has already expressed what would be my position on this whole thing and if i kept going it would just be more rehashing of ron paul haha :)
number 2: i do really think this has been blown wayyyy out of proportion. i think iran probably has a pretty good idea of how much better israel's army is than theirs.
number 3: nailec, you really do let emotions weigh too heavily on your political ideals. i mean i clearly can't tell you what to think, but maybe try calming down a bit and taking a step back from things. and this is not meant to be an insult, but holy god you're liberal haha.
wow, you guys are pretty good..
i thought everyone is just sitting and supporting what they heard from news.
you know im in the zone and a muslim guy.
i ll never defend iran's management and life style.
but about that nuclear thing iran is completly right.
almost every country has it.
but israel,u.k. and usa will never want iran to improve that.
cuz if they let them ;
- iran will be stronger on army
- iran will develop more techonolgy
and ;
- these countries will have not enough power to take iran under their protection
- so they will not have their god damn patrol stocks
actually iran never thinks to use that power for attack or something.
but after that iraq war and usa's politics, they absoloutely think like''if usa or israel attack us or something we will make the same thing what they would have done to us''
I hope they can gain something out of this.
Whats up with north korea...
Quoteactually iran never thinks to use that power for attack or something.
but after that iraq war and usa's politics, they absoloutely think like''if usa or israel attack us or something we will make the same thing what they would have done to us''
ad 1. thesis: http://www.jcpa.org/text/ahmadinejad2-words.pdf
ad 2. thesis: antisemitism and antiamericanism can not only be understand as reactions to the actions by americans and jews. as a muslim i think you know what fanatics can read out of the Koran. i dont deny that some actions of americans and jews dont make things easier fot themselves (settlement-movent by hardcore-zionists e.g.)
i just found an older englisch article that warns from underestimation
http://www.tnr.com/politics/story.html?id=74ba2bfe-b30e-456e-94c6-d1e5d89b2eb2
@alvarez: this article might help you understand my emotions and thoghts. as a german im probablly more attentious (is that a word?), probablly too much...
i hope the present developement in iran wont worse the "relations" to the western world too much.
Mr. A. should learn his lesson out of what happened. i cant really say what the opposition is able to do on the long run but i hope they can build a pressure on Mr. A. that calmes him.
Iran's 'nuclear assets' (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=24G8UvU7jX4#ws)
I wonder if Nailec still believes that fucking garbage he was spouting 3 years ago.
what garbage ?