ForumGarden

spot wrote: I wonder whether we could discuss the political motive for a few moments, and see whether that holds water?




You do raise some very important points and I believe that they are a factor but ---

The common ground that I refer to is perception of reality.

One the one hand there is a people whose perception of reality is of temporal existence with an spiritual existence exactly abutted to it.

The certainty, the ABSOLUTE certainty of the existence of Allah and of Paradise or hell is matched only by the tiniest few of absolute fundamentalists in the Christian churches.

GWB is a raving pagan compared to such people whereas the belief in Allah and the hereafter is more than commonplace amongst the Muslim people, it is almost at 100%.

The result is that they really do almost hate life in many cases as it presents a series of traps and pitfalls not to mention having to co-exist with others that dismiss and in many cases even hate their beliefs, beliefs that they themselves hold to be exquisitely perfect and literally God-given.

I'm firmly of the opinion that this genie can go back into the bottle. It requires the removal of Western armed forces from the Middle East and the subsequent treatment of terrorism anywhere as a police matter, given that it is standard police practice to have a call on supplementary military support where the need arises. The fire feeding this groundswell of sympathy for resistance is the presence of foreign forces, that is surely obvious.

It's a purely internal matter whether the citizens of the United States review who has been responsible for the utter annihilation of worldwide sympathy and admiration that their country has suffered in recent years.

golem wrote: The result is that they really do almost hate life in many cases as it presents a series of traps and pitfalls not to mention having to co-exist with others that dismiss and in many cases even hate their beliefs, beliefs that they themselves hold to be exquisitely perfect and literally God-given.The consequence of your thinking this way is that the only solution you can present is the mass murder of what you regard as sub-human others. They think that way, they won't change, their way is bad, they must die before they kill us all. Is that a fair summary of your position?

I have been reading all your threads about going into Iran. Very intelligent thoughts I want to add. Russia wanted at one time to rule the world and we hated them for that, now we have a madman in office who thinks the USA should rule the world. What gives us the right to say our country, our religion, our polices are all supreme over any other country? I feel Iran has just as much right to have nuclear weapons as we do. Who says we have to police the world? Our own country is going to hell in a basket while we snoop around in all the foreign countries trying to contol them. I think we have enough problems in the USA to keep any sensible president busy for a very long time. :-5

Bridget wrote: .... Our own country is going to hell in a basket while we snoop around in all the foreign countries trying to contol them. I think we have enough problems in the USA to keep any sensible president busy for a very long time.


May we hope that you get one sometime soon!

Any sight of one on the horizon?

I wish I was more familier with the potential contenders

You know, we don't really have to invade Iran, let's just drop a "bunker-buster' on their nuclear facility. Pulling an "Israel" if you will!:wah:

spot wrote: The consequence of your thinking this way is that the only solution you can present is the mass murder of what you regard as sub-human others.


Oh no, Spot! Not at all! We consider them very intelligent and devious human beings. The kind of human beings that behead other humans. Was the Waffen SS made up of monsters? Nope! Just your regular human being with no concept of mercy and an intense racial hatred taught to them by their leaders.

Just like radical Islamists!



They think that way,


They sure do, that way being, "If you are not Islamic, you should be killed." Funny, I don't know any Christians who say that.

they won't change,


They don't want to. Radical islamics, including the clerics and leaders of Iran, want to spread islam to the rest of the world. Anyone who does not convert is sentenced to death. As a matter of fact, even if you change religions in Iran, you are sentenced to death.

their way is bad,


As bad as it gets, beheadings, homicide bombings of children's stores and teen hangouts, brutal mass murder of innocent civilians, you name it!

they must die before they kill us all.


No, they don't have to die, they just have to stop killing and threatening to kill everyone else. Oh yeah, and they absolutely should not be allowed nuclear technology. That's like giving a .357 magnum to a mental patient and hoping he doesn't shoot anyone.

Is that a fair summary of your position?


Yep!!!:D

Jives wrote: You know, we don't really have to invade Iran, let's just drop a "bunker-buster' on their nuclear facility. Pulling an "Israel" if you will!:wah:That's the problem with multithreading a single topic, Jives - people miss relevant background.

http://www.forumgarden.com/forums/showp ... stcount=30

I suppose I ought to copy it into place here? The point is - and it's been made here in less detail - that to do as you suggest requires a first-strike nuclear attack, the bunkers being too well shielded otherwise. Hence, in my opinion, the changes made to CONPLAN 8022, though that's not alleged in Hersh's article, I only mention it because it makes sense.

spot wrote: The Pentagon Preps for Iran

By William M. Arkin, The Washington Post

Sunday, April 16, 2006

"The day-to-day planning for dealing with Iran's missile force falls to the U.S. Strategic Command in Omaha. In June 2004, Rumsfeld alerted the command to be prepared to implement CONPLAN 8022, a global strike plan that includes Iran. CONPLAN 8022 calls for bombers and missiles to be able to act within 12 hours of a presidential order. The new task force, sources have told me, mostly worries that if it were called upon to deliver "prompt" global strikes against certain targets in Iran under some emergency circumstances, the president might have to be told that the only option is a nuclear one."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co ... 07_pf.html

Jives wrote: Oh no, Spot! Not at all! We consider them very intelligent and devious human beings.Jives, perhaps you'd better stand back for a while, you're obviously not following things very well. I was quoting golem's previous assertions - with which I also disagree - to golem.

Brutal Iranian Government Murders Thousands

The Islamic Revolution was a ghastly time in Iranian history, but there were mitigating influences in Persian Islamic culture, and they were not without effect: Thousands died in the revolution, but it never reached the blood-soaked frenzy that was seen in the Soviet Union under Lenin and Stalin, or in China during Mao's long reign, or even in Algeria after the French. But Mr. Bowden is right: Something horrible was unleashed in Iran by Khomeini -- a divinely sanctioned fanaticism that made decent people into monsters. The aftershocks of that event still torment and inspire Muslims world-wide.



Top Iranian Ministers Commit Atrocities

Of the two ministers, Pour-Mohammadi's record is the most ominous. In 1988, according to the report, he played a key role in a programme that resulted in the execution of thousands of political prisoners, most of whom had already been sentenced to prison terms.

The programme was launched toward the end of the Iran-Iraq war after an unsuccessful effort by the Iraq-based Mojahedin-e Khalq (MeK) to topple the government in Tehran. The incursion was used as a pretext for eliminating political prisoners, most of whom were in no position at the time to aid the MeK.

According to the memoirs of Ayatollah Hussein Ali Montazeri, who was then the designated successor of Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, "Death Committees" were set up under an order by Khomeini's office to interview political prisoners and order the execution of those deemed "unrepentant".

As the representative of the Information Ministry, Pour-Mohammadi presided over the Death Committee at Tehran's notorious Evin prison, according to Montazeri, who protested the lack of due process in a letter to Pour-Mohammadi and his Committee colleagues at the time.

Montazeri wrote that between 2,800 and 3,800 prisoners were executed, but independent Iranian activists have published the names of nearly 5,000 executed prisoners. According to HRW, the systematic and deliberate manner in which these executions took place may constitute a crime against humanity under international law.

Iranian Minister is a Serial Killer

Ten years later, Pour-Mohammadi was serving as a deputy information minister when agents of that ministry abducted and killed five prominent intellectuals over a three-week period in what came to be known as the "serial murders".

Iran Executes Gay Teenagers

Gay Teens Executed in Iran: Disturbing Pictures

Fri Jul 22, 2005 at 07:22:49 AM PDT

Two gay teenagers were executed three days ago in Iran on July 19.

Two gay Iranian teenagers -- one 18, the other believed to be 16 or 17, were executed this week for the "crime" of homosexuality, on July 19. The two youths -- identified only by their initials as M.A. and A.M., were hanged on July 19 in Edalat (Justice) Square in the city of Mashhad in north-eastern Iran, on the orders of Court No. 19. The hanging of the teens was also reported by the National Council of Resistance of Iran.



OK Spot. this is what I'm talking about.

Are you seriously saying in this thread that you think a country that executes gay teens should have nuclear weapons?

You said I thought that their way is wrong, (sarcastically.)

You're damn right I do.



Now...go ahead and tell me that I shouldn't judge them and their way "isn't ours." Then I can come back and tell you that their way "Isn't anyone's who is civilzed."

BTW...there's tons more of this stuff on the net. The Iranians are barbaric.

Not "sub-human" Spot, just barbaric and viciously, mercilessly brutal.

Jives wrote: OK Spot. this is what I'm talking about.

Are you seriously saying in this thread that you think a country that executes gay teens should have nuclear weapons?

You said I thought that their way is wrong, (sarcastically.)

You're damn right I do.If you teach the way you post here, your pupils must surely go away with an impression of a overbearing despotic bully who refuses to engage in constructive synthesis. If you teach better than you post here, why not improve your online style and become non-confrontational for once? I can't remember when I last saw you engage anyone as an equal instead of a superior. In normal threads, that is.

You know perfectly well that far worse goes on in China. The USA picks off small fry that it can hit with impunity, Jives. Facing anyone even slightly dangerous, it puts on its eyeshades and pretends that the garden's rosy. If you're prepared to say that different cultures develop internally instead of being torn asunder from without, then you stand back and let it grow. If you want to influence it, you develop International Treaties and adhere to them. You don't send in your air force.

OK Iraq had beheadings, mass murders, Hussin ruling with a vicous hand, the place was not safe for anyone. Ok, describe to me how Iraq is today after we have bombed hell out of their country, destroyed all their buildings, lights and water systems, have Hussin in jail and can't get him to prison. What really good have we done their country? So we do the same to Iran, same story and all we do is drain our country of our young men, financial stability, and are creating a mass destruction in our own country. Bush has only one country supporting his efforts and that is Tony Blair. I wonder where he will be after their elections next time? So he in reality is deystoying two countries. Ours and England.

spot wrote: If you teach the way you post here, your pupils must surely go away with an impression of a overbearing despotic bully who refuses to engage in constructive synthesis. If you teach better than you post here, why not improve your online style and become non-confrontational for once? I can't remember when I last saw you engage anyone as an equal instead of a superior. In normal threads, that is.


Tsk, Tsk. Personal attacks Spot? I guess that's all that's left for you when you realize your position is untenable.

You know perfectly well that far worse goes on in China.


To quote a man called "Spot" I thought this thread was about Iran.

The USA picks off small fry that it can hit with impunity, Jives.


small fry? Iran has a very large and well-equipped army. It's state of-the-art. Iran is a large country with a large population. And now they are trying for nuclear arms. Hardly "small fry" Spot.



If you want to influence it, you develop International Treaties and adhere to them.


Am I wrong, or isn't diplomacy being tried right now.

Let's see what the President of Iran's response was to that diplomatic initiative:

NEW YORK, Sept. 18 -- Five weeks ago, Iran's new president bought his country some time. Facing mounting criticism after walking away from negotiations with Europe and restarting part of Iran's nuclear program, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad asked the world to withhold diplomatic pressure while he put together new proposals.

On Saturday, dozens of international diplomats, including the foreign ministers of Britain, France and Germany, gathered at the United Nations to hear how Ahmadinejad planned to stave off a crisis.

Instead his speech, followed by a confused hour-long news conference, was able to do what weeks of high-level U.S. diplomacy had not: convince skeptical allies that Iran may, in fact, use its nuclear energy program to build atomic bombs.

Ahmadinejad appeared to threaten as much when he warned from the General Assembly podium that in the face of U.S. provocation, "we will reconsider our entire approach to the nuclear issue."

Senior European diplomats said immediately afterward that the speech had been "unhelpful." In fact, the opposite may be true.

"The effect of that speech will likely be a toughening of the international response to Iran because it was seen by so many countries as overly harsh, negative and uncompromising," Undersecretary of State R. Nicholas Burns said in an interview Sunday. "The strategic aim of a great many countries is to see Iran suspend its nuclear program and return to peaceful negotiations with the Europeans."

A European diplomat, who could discuss strategy only on the condition of anonymity, echoed Burns's remarks.

"There's no question this will make our case stronger and our task easier," when board members of the International Atomic Energy Agency meet Monday in Vienna to discuss Iran's case.

During his 25 minutes Saturday, Ahmadinejad delivered what began as a sermon praising the prophets of Islam, Christianity and Judaism and then descended into anti-American vitriol, conspiracy theories and threats.

You don't send in your air force.


When the other country won't back down and compromise...yes, you do.

:D

Bridget wrote: OK Iraq had beheadings, mass murders, Hussin ruling with a vicous hand, the place was not safe for anyone. Ok, describe to me how Iraq is today after we have bombed hell out of their country, destroyed all their buildings, lights and water systems, have Hussin in jail and can't get him to prison. What really good have we done their country? So we do the same to Iran, same story and all we do is drain our country of our young men, financial stability, and are creating a mass destruction in our own country. Bush has only one country supporting his efforts and that is Tony Blair. I wonder where he will be after their elections next time? So he in reality is deystoying two countries. Ours and England.


So...Bridgett. You are for Iran obtaining nuclear weapons. Would you mind explaining why?

What if they decided your city was a good target?

Jives wrote: What if they decided your city was a good target?So now it's not just that the Iranians might upgrade their currently civil nuclear program to weapons-grade in the future, it's that they might develop and deploy ICBM delivery systems too? I've not seen that suggested before. Or are you speculating in the same way that you are over the enrichment program?

Jives wrote: Tsk, Tsk. Personal attacks Spot? I guess that's all that's left for you when you realize your position is untenable.You mean you do teach like this? Frankly you don't surprise me.

Jives wrote:

small fry? Iran has a very large and well-equipped army. It's state of-the-art. Iran is a large country with a large population. And now they are trying for nuclear arms. Hardly "small fry" Spot.


Compared to the USA distinctly small fry - China is about the only country who could be expected to give you a fair fight.



Jives wrote:

Am I wrong, or isn't diplomacy being tried right now.




Diplomacy, lets see - "if you don't give in right now we'll bash you". That appears to be a rough translation of Washington's stance.

Might I ask you a question?

Whatever happened to Iraq's WMDs?

Might I ask you another?

What makes you thing the bastards are telling the truth this time?

The tactics are identical as are the motives

jives wrote:

[Quote=spot]

You don't send in your air force.








When the other country won't back down and compromise...yes, you do.




Then Iran is perfectly justified in sending her airforce into America?

spot wrote: You mean you do teach like this? Frankly you don't surprise me.


Here's where I get to tell you that I don't stoop to personal attacks, Spot. It just demeans the attacker. Sad, Spot, sad.

Jives wrote: Now...go ahead and tell me that I shouldn't judge them and their way "isn't ours." Then I can come back and tell you that their way "Isn't anyone's who is civilzed."You're defining "civilized" as meaning like us this year.

Two points, then. Firstly, why should every nation state develop their legal system in step with each other, year for year? Repeals of sodomy offences in the USA are laid out in http://www.aclu.org/lgbt/crimjustice/11 ... 30609.html

Secondly, if I show you areas of US law that I consider barbaric, and places in the world that don't do what you do, will you fell sufficiently abashed to attempt to bring your laws up to date and into civilized compliance?

Bryn Mawr wrote: Compared to the USA distinctly small fry


Well then, are you suggesting we wait until they develop nuclear weapons so that it'll be a "fair fight." Hahahahaha...You're killin' me!

Diplomacy, lets see - "if you don't give in right now we'll bash you". That appears to be a rough translation of Washington's stance.


Actually, I think we've been very reserved. Just what stance do you think is appropriate to a country that not only has threatened to "destroy" another but is activiely working on nuclear technology to make it happen?

Might I ask you a question?

Whatever happened to Iraq's WMDs?


Whoops! Off topic! This thread is about Iran! Oh, and for the record, I don't support the war in Iraq.

Might I ask you another?

What makes you thing the bastards are telling the truth this time?


The President of Iran admits it. Or were you talking about some other bastards?

None of you has yet to convince me that Iran has the responsibility to own nuclear technology. so in answer to the (very general) question of this thread.

"Would you support military action against Iran."

If they develop nuclear weapons, I would absolutely support military action. Wouldn't anyone?



Then Iran is perfectly justified in sending her airforce into America?


Sorry, direct confrontation isn't their style, they like homicide-bombing and beheading.

:wah:

Jives wrote: Here's where I get to tell you that I don't stoop to personal attacks, Spot. It just demeans the attacker. Sad, Spot, sad.If you see nothing personally offensive about "He is a dyed-in-the-wool America-hater and runs all srguments through that filter before he processes anything" then you're very insensitive to these matters.

spot wrote: You're defining "civilized" as meaning like us this year.


And why not? We are one of the most civilized countries on Earth!

Two points, then. Firstly, why should every nation state develop their legal system in step with each other, year for year? Repeals of sodomy offences in the USA are laid out in http://www.aclu.org/lgbt/crimjustice/11 ... 30609.html


There you go again, Spot! Trying to dodge the issue. But you won't get away so easily. Iran hangs gay teenagers. In what way is that "civilized?"

(Jives drumms his fingers on the table for a bit)

I'm still waiting.

Secondly, if I show you areas of US law that I consider barbaric,


Now, how can you do that? You said yesterday you love America. LOL! Go ahead, Spot, you know I can blow anything you post out of the water with comparisons to other countries.

and places in the world that don't do what you do, will you fell sufficiently abashed to attempt to bring your laws up to date and into civilized compliance?


Give us time, we're working on it! After all, we started the United Nations didn't we?

Jives wrote: Well then, are you suggesting we wait until they develop nuclear weapons so that it'll be a "fair fight." Hahahahaha...You're killin' me! :DIt can't ever be a fair fight though, can it. Nobody's pretending it can be a fair fight. Iran warheads: 4 US warheads: 10,000? Iran has a capacity to destroy the USA? No. The reverse? So many times over and the arsenal scarcely dented. Where's the "fair fight"? These are *your* words, Jives.

The point is that the USA isn't going to attack a country with even 4 warheads. That's the historical evidence of the last 55 years. And vice versa, though that's not the point.

spot wrote: If you see nothing personally offensive about "He is a dyed-in-the-wool America-hater and runs all arguments through that filter before he processes anything" then you're very insensitive to these matters.


Well, you told me that yourself, many moons ago...

But I forgot...

YOU"RE AN AMERICA LOVER NOW!!!:wah:

my apologies.

Jives wrote: And why not? We are one of the most civilized countries on Earth!

There you go again, Spot! Trying to dodge the issue. But you won't get away so easily. Iran hangs gay teenagers. In what way is that "civilized?"

(Jives drumms his fingers on the table for a bit)

I'm still waiting.To be honest, I don't mind it anything as much as I mind the idea that the USA currently incarcerates one in eight of the entire prison population of the planet. That I regard as staggeringly uncivilized, coercive, socially repressive and a good indicator of a failed society. If I'm going to discuss those hanging pictures, I'm obviously going to have to go and dig out some reports and statistics. I hate being pushed into work like that, but you're pushing. The reason I hate doing it? The total lack of understanding of what I find when I bring it back to you. The brick wall at which I present it. The lack of flexibility of mind to even read the stuff.

Jives wrote: Well, you told me that yourself, many moons ago...Finally, an outright demonstrable and plain lie after all this innuendo. Go on, dig it out, let's see what you think you mean. You're continually misrepresenting me, it's like a dripping tap, Jives, and I take exception to it.

Jives wrote: Well then, are you suggesting we wait until they develop nuclear weapons so that it'll be a "fair fight." Hahahahaha...You're killin' me!
I wasn't in the slightest suggesting that - I was disputing your contention that they were a significat military force.

Actually, I was suggesting that America butt out of their affairs.



Jives wrote: Actually, I think we've been very reserved. Just what stance do you think is appropriate to a country that not only has threatened to "destroy" another but is activiely working on nuclear technology to make it happen?
Certainly not bullying threats.

As I said before, apart from the media feeding frenzy that is lacking even a basic factual content, what make you think that Iran is actively developing wepons technology?



Jives wrote: Whoops! Off topic! This thread is about Iran! Oh, and for the record, I don't support the war in Iraq.
Totally on topic when dicussing the justification for attacking Iran and drawing parallels.



jives wrote:

The President of Iran admits it. Or were you talking about some other bastards?


I was referring to the bastards who lied through their back teeth in order to justify attacking Iraq - as was obvious from the context of the remark.



Jives wrote: None of you has yet to convince me that Iran has the responsibility to own nuclear technology. so in answer to the (very general) question of this thread.

"Would you support military action against Iran."

If they develop nuclear weapons, I would absolutely support military action. Wouldn't anyone?




Then you are as barbaric as you claim they are.

And no - I would not

spot wrote: The consequence of your thinking this way is that the only solution you can present is the mass murder of what you regard as sub-human others. They think that way, they won't change, their way is bad, they must die before they kill us all. Is that a fair summary of your position?


I don't see these people as being sub human at all. If anything they're all TOO human.

As for a solution - there are two very obvious - at least to me.

#1 - EDUCATION. use of the broadcast media to at least present the alternative to some 'god' created universe. At least raise the question 'does god exist' and offer the very good alternatives.

#2 - Social advancement. Again by making use of the broadcast media to present Western secular life as being other than the foul corrupt thing that we see as tasty entertainment but others see as truth and reality.

In short - expose the orduinary people on the streets to the realities of the enlightened world and move them away from religion as the only thing in life.

Bryn Mawr wrote: Actually, I was suggesting that America butt out of their affairs.


In a similar way to the way we "butted out" of the Taliban's affairs? We've all seen the results of that. The graves of 200 dead innocent Americans give testimony to the results of "butting out" of the affairs of radical extremist islamics.



As I said before, apart from the media feeding frenzy that is lacking even a basic factual content, what make you think that Iran is actively developing wepons technology?


Check out the post above where the President of Iran himself convinced the leaders of my country and yours he has nuclear ambitions..and not in a nice way.

I was referring to the bastards who lied through their back teeth in order to justify attacking Iraq - as was obvious from the context of the remark.


if you pull out Iraq, do I get to pull out the Boer War? Or any of the numerous British Imperial wars?

No...let's stick to Iran.



hen you are as barbaric as you claim they are.

And no - I would not


Then you are a sitting duck. Radical extremists have already bombed your subway system. how do you think that would have gone over if they had used a nuclear bomb?

I'm not closing my eyes. Unlike you, I'm not shovign my head under the sand and hoping for the best. I'm not saying, 'Oh they'll go away, let's just leave them be." That's all been tried. I'm a realist. 2000 dead Americans are the mute testimony to "leaving radical extremists" alone.

I notice that none of you are willing to state that Iranians are not radical extremists, so you are winning my argument for me by your silence.

And I still haven't heard a single logical argument as to why letting a radical extremist country have nuclear technology is a good idea.

Any day now, guys....

Since you can't prove that it's a good idea, (who could?) you resort to trying to change the subject or in Spot's case, attacking me personally.

Either way, you lose.

Now...it's been fun watching you guys try to justify letting Iran have nuclear weapons, even though it was such an exercise in futility on your part, but I have to go "indoctrinate" some kids! Have fun!

Oh! HAHAHahAhahahaha....I'm killin' myself!:wah:

golem wrote: I don't see these people as being sub human at all. If anything they're all TOO human.

As for a solution - there are two very obvious - at least to me.

#1 - EDUCATION. use of the broadcast media to at least present the alternative to some 'god' created universe. At least raise the question 'does god exist' and offer the very good alternatives.

#2 - Social advancement. Again by making use of the broadcast media to present Western secular life as being other than the foul corrupt thing that we see as tasty entertainment but others see as truth and reality.

In short - expose the orduinary people on the streets to the realities of the enlightened world and move them away from religion as the only thing in life.


OH! I just noticed that Golem posted again. Now here's a guy who's country has been specifically threatened with destruction by Iran's president! I'd be willing to bet that both Spot and Bryn would be singing a different tune if they lived in Israel, eh?

I love that, Golem....TOO HUMAN! Too True! All too true!

Great answer BTW.

Jives wrote: In a similar way to the way we "butted out" of the Taliban's affairs? We've all seen the results of that. The graves of 200 dead innocent Americans give testimony to the results of "butting out" of the affairs of radical extremist islamics.


Why did America butt into the Taliban's affairs? What was the justification there and did it work? The invasion of Afghanistan was as little justified as that of Iraq



jives wrote:

Check out the post above where the President of Iran himself convinced the leaders of my country and yours he has nuclear ambitions..and not in a nice way.




They did not take any convincing did they. Could you show, anywhere in that letter, a claim or an admission on the development of nuclear weapons.

If not then your just obscuring the view by raising it.



jives wrote: if you pull out Iraq, do I get to pull out the Boer War? Or any of the numerous British Imperial wars?

No...let's stick to Iran.


By all means - they aren't as immediately relevant to the threats currently being made by the USA or to their methods of whipping up approval for war but if you wish to use them in rebuttal then you may.



jives wrote:

Then you are a sitting duck. Radical extremists have already bombed your subway system. how do you think that would have gone over if they had used a nuclear bomb?




and I suppose they'd carry the nukes over in their rucksacks - shall we be a bit more realistic here?

jives wrote:

I'm not closing my eyes. Unlike you, I'm not shovign my head under the sand and hoping for the best. I'm not saying, 'Oh they'll go away, let's just leave them be." That's all been tried. I'm a realist. 2000 dead Americans are the mute testimony to "leaving radical extremists" alone.

I notice that none of you are willing to state that Iranians are not radical extremists, so you are winning my argument for me by your silence.

And I still haven't heard a single logical argument as to why letting a radical extremist country have nuclear technology is a good idea.

Any day now, guys....

Since you can't prove that it's a good idea, (who could?) you resort to trying to change the subject or in Spot's case, attacking me personally.

Either way, you lose.

Now...it's been fun watching you guys try to justify letting Iran have nuclear weapons, even though it was such an exercise in futility on your part, but I have to go "indoctrinate" some kids! Have fun!

Oh! HAHAHahAhahahaha....I'm killin' myself!:wah:


I'm in no way closing my eyes to the facts - my contention is that the quickest way to rampant worldwide terrorism is to follow the path being beaten out by George W Bush.

Show me how I have changed the subject. My stance, in this and several other threads, has been relevant and consistant.

It is not "letting Iran have nuclear weapons" - I have yet to be convinced that they are attempting to develop them and you have yet to provide a shread of evidence that they are - it is that the USA are currently the single biggest cause of war, death and distruction in the past 50 years and for the Bush administration to start yet another war would be criminal in the extreme.

BTW, there are several posts giving a reasoned argument for the wider dispersal of limited nuclear capability within this thread and other recent threads. If you haven heard then this you're listening with your eyes closed.

The current war plan is described at the Herald - http://www.theherald.co.uk/news/62043-print.shtml

More shock, more awe, no occupation. I can't see that reducing world tension or making many friends.

posted by jives

In a similar way to the way we "butted out" of the Taliban's affairs? We've all seen the results of that. The graves of 200 dead innocent Americans give testimony to the results of "butting out" of the affairs of radical extremist islamics.


perhaps if the west had refrained from interfering in afghanistan the taliban might never have got to power in the first place. Like it or not western policy has a lot to do with the taliban and osama bin laden and the overthrow of secular govvernment in Afghanistan simply to annoy the Russians.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mujahideen

Afghan Mujahideen

The best-known and most feared mujahideen were the various loosely-aligned opposition groups that fought against the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan during the 1980s and then fought against each other in the following civil war.

The mujahideen were significantly financed, armed, and trained by the United States (the Carter and Reagan administrations), China, Pakistan, and Saudi Arabia. President Reagan praised them as freedom fighters, and an American movie at this time, Rambo III, portrayed them as heroic. This connection is ironic, in light of the future turn of events in which many of the same men would end up as a major threat to the United States. This sort of blowback, in which a state helped to create a force to fight another state, only to have that force turn against them, was seen earlier in the 20th century, e.g., the German support for the Bolshevik underground in Russia which led to a Soviet Russia and the eventual occupation of East Germany by the Red Army.

Following the Soviet retreat, many of the larger mujahideen groups began to fight each other. After several years of this fighting, a village mullah organized religious students into an armed movement, with the backing of Pakistan, who was being funded by the United States, which found the existing government to be too Russia-influenced. This movement became known as the Taliban, meaning "students", and referring to the Saudi-backed religious schools which produced Islamic fundamentalism along the pacific coast of Asia. With each success the Taliban had, their popularity and numbers grew.



By 2001, the Taliban, with backing from the Pakistani ISI, had defeated most of the militias and controlled most of Afghanistan. The remaining militias were in the north-east of the country. They allied themselves together and became known as the National Islamic United Front for the Salvation of Afghanistan -- or the United Front, or Northern Alliance.

A wealthy Saudi named Osama bin Laden was a prominent mujahideen organizer and financier; his Maktab al-Khadamat (MAK) (Office of Services) funnelled money, arms, and Muslim fighters from around the world into Afghanistan, with the assistance and support of the Saudi government. In 1988, bin Laden broke away from the MAK.


One man's freedom fighter is another ones terrorist.

NB: I would say the US but I would probably get accused of being anti american and apart from that the SAS were involved as well in training.

posted by jives

And I still haven't heard a single logical argument as to why letting a radical extremist country have nuclear technology is a good idea.


Definitely not a good idea but I still haven't heard a single logical arguement as to how present policy is going to do anything for middle eastern peace or persuade the iranians not to bother developong nuclear weapons. More of the same is not going to work is it?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/pakistan/Stor ... 00,00.html

Pakistani Taliban take control of unruly tribal belt


Iran is not anywhere as big a problem as Pakistan is about to be. Why waste money developing nuclear weapons when you can just buy one off a neighbour.

Instead of Sunni and Shia think catholic and protestants or any other nutty religious groups. Left alone they will start fighting amongst themslves sooner rather than later.

Both christianity, hudaism and islam are desert religons with their roots in the middle east. Maybe the real problem is monotheistic religons that preach they are right and everybody else is wrong and it's morally OK to look down on and condemn those who differ. All our present main religons have their roots in the middle east and look at the trouble they cause.

posted by jives

Now...it's been fun watching you guys try to justify letting Iran have nuclear weapons, even though it was such an exercise in futility on your part, but I have to go "indoctrinate" some kids! Have fun!

Oh! HAHAHahAhahahaha....I'm killin' myself!


That's not worthy of you jives. Nobody is saying let them have nuclear weapons but rather the present approach is doing more harm than good and helping keep the fundamentalists in control. As a moderate in Iran you can hardly argue for peaceful co existence when people keep threatening to invade. It gives the extremists credibility. If Iran already had nuclear weapons nobody would be threatening them therefore they must have them to protect themselves you can see the logic loop can't you? What's ironic about it is it was the US that gave helped Iran with it's first reactor when it was ruled by the shah.

posted by jives

Originally Posted by jives

if you pull out Iraq, do I get to pull out the Boer War? Or any of the numerous British Imperial wars?

No...let's stick to Iran.


Why not if it's relevant. But it would be more relevanct to bring up british and french policy betwwen the wars and immedialtely post ww2. We did a good job of shafting all sides in the middle east.

It was us that set the borders of modern day Iraq and Iran. We were even the first to use chemical weapons in iraq on rebelling tribesmen. The British have always been viscious B*&^^S when it comes to warfare. It was all about oil and you will not find any british posters that are as unaware of their own history not to realise we were an imperialist nation quite openly and unashamedly so at the time. Nobody nowadays would argue that anything but perceived self interest was involved.

It's the hypocrisy of claiming to bring democracy to the present day middle east by force of arms that so galls. How anyone can actually believe it is beyond my comprehension. 21st century imperialism in a new guise.

Actually big business interests were at the back of most imperialist adventures. The opium wars for instance were started because we wanted to trade opium for tea and the chinese wouldn't cooperate on the grounds that too much opium was not good for china. If you dig closely enough youn will find a surprising number of scots up at the sharp end-but i digress.

Before arab terrorists were blowing up British troops it was jewish ones blowing up British troops in palestine. The jewish ones ended up forming the first jewish government ironic isn't it? Who knows, Sooner or later you have may find yourself sitting down talking to terrorists as fellow statesmen, especially if you want their oil.

(Nelson mandela must be the all time classic, from reviled terrorist to one of the most respected statesmen of the modern age, remember the day when US foreign policy supported apartheid)

posted by golem

don't see these people as being sub human at all. If anything they're all TOO human.

As for a solution - there are two very obvious - at least to me.

#1 - EDUCATION. use of the broadcast media to at least present the alternative to some 'god' created universe. At least raise the question 'does god exist' and offer the very good alternatives.

#2 - Social advancement. Again by making use of the broadcast media to present Western secular life as being other than the foul corrupt thing that we see as tasty entertainment but others see as truth and reality.

In short - expose the orduinary people on the streets to the realities of the enlightened world and move them away from religion as the only thing in life.


I like the first one, use the media for aetheist propoganda "Does god exist?" and the alternative no he doesn't. Let's wind up all religons at the same. Unite the moslem and jew. Personally I get fed up being told to respect the religious beliefs of others while also being told I shouldn't say it's a load of rubbish even if it's what I believe.

I would happlily join you in the free thinkers liberation front, we could leave copies of darwins theory of evolution along with condoms in the vatican to cause fear and terror amongst the clergy. Not sure what would annoy muslims-maybe we could get the women' liberation front arganised there-teach women to read and write and batter their husbands ( get some northern women for that,) distribute copies of the kama sutra outside mosques and all the fundamentalist protestant christian churches along with copies of sebastian, (it's in latin so the pseuds will like it) or brokeback mountain -get them on all fronts and let themn see what is lacking in theoir ouritanical lives.

joking aside, I would agree with you on this, But you can't do any of that while threatening all and sundry and bombing people you don't like.

Bridget wrote: I have been reading all your threads about going into Iran. Very intelligent thoughts I want to add. Russia wanted at one time to rule the world and we hated them for that, now we have a madman in office who thinks the USA should rule the world. What gives us the right to say our country, our religion, our polices are all supreme over any other country? I feel Iran has just as much right to have nuclear weapons as we do. Who says we have to police the world? Our own country is going to hell in a basket while we snoop around in all the foreign countries trying to contol them. I think we have enough problems in the USA to keep any sensible president busy for a very long time. :-5By & large I agree with you, Bridget. Mark the calendar. I'm sure it's more an intersection of thought than a parallel, but let's celebrate while we can. :-6

Jives wrote: So...Bridgett. You are for Iran obtaining nuclear weapons. Would you mind explaining why?



What if they decided your city was a good target?
I'm for Iran obtaining nuclear weapons. Why? Because they are a sovreign nation. I'm in an apartment complex in which I'm sure many residents possess firearms. Some are bigots, I'm sure. Some look at my lilly-white (some say fish-belly white) skin with loathing. Would I rather they not have guns? I guess so, for some of them. But I respect a man's home as much as I expect mine to be respected. I respect a sovreign nation's right to run their society as much as I expect mine to be respected.



I do unto others as I would have others do unto me.

Bryn Mawr wrote: The original

Given that 4 x 1kt devices (tagged and tracable) is not sufficient to provide a knockout blow to any other nation and the use of such a device would bring immediate retribution from the rest of the world, in what way would the existance of such devices decrease world stability?




Im just not willing to allow this, due to the fact that bigger weapons may result in more innocent casualties.

K.Snyder wrote: Im just not willing to allow this, due to the fact that bigger weapons may result in more innocent casualties.


If, because of the fear of retaiation, it prevents one country invading another, then it would reduce the loss of life.

The point being that it does not give you an offensive capability, only a retaliatory one.

Bridget wrote: OK Iraq had beheadings, mass murders, Hussin ruling with a vicous hand, the place was not safe for anyone. Ok, describe to me how Iraq is today after we have bombed hell out of their country, destroyed all their buildings, lights and water systems, have Hussin in jail and can't get him to prison. What really good have we done their country? So we do the same to Iran, same story and all we do is drain our country of our young men, financial stability, and are creating a mass destruction in our own country. Bush has only one country supporting his efforts and that is Tony Blair. I wonder where he will be after their elections next time? So he in reality is deystoying two countries. Ours and England.


Say hows Germany doing today??

Wasnt there country reduced to rubble, and is now one of the leading exporting countries in the world?

spot wrote: If you teach the way you post here, your pupils must surely go away with an impression of a overbearing despotic bully who refuses to engage in constructive synthesis. If you teach better than you post here, why not improve your online style and become non-confrontational for once? I can't remember when I last saw you engage anyone as an equal instead of a superior. In normal threads, that is.




When you dont have a legitimate argument about it dont cop-out and attack people personally.

spot wrote: If you see nothing personally offensive about "He is a dyed-in-the-wool America-hater and runs all srguments through that filter before he processes anything" then you're very insensitive to these matters.


Anyone being called this wouldnt mind, unless it were true. Afterall, what do you have to hide?

K.Snyder wrote: Anyone being called this wouldnt mind, unless it were true. Afterall, what do you have to hide?Have you quite finished? Now that Jives has decided on pastures new, I think we might like to calm matters rather than taunting like this. I had enough of the school playground to last me a lifetime.

spot wrote: Have you quite finished? Now that Jives has decided on pastures new, I think we might like to calm matters rather than taunting like this. I had enough of the school playground to last me a lifetime.


Fine.

But dont follow it up with your little school playground bit ok then. You posted the offensive bull, so dont get mad when someone mans up and says something about it.

SnoozeControl wrote: I have to disagree. You might track back and read Jives' posts from last night. Spot was a gentleman under the circumstances, IMO.


I dont doubt Spots integrity, but after all it all originated after he took a shot at his teaching am I wrong?

Teachers should be respected as equal as alot of other highly respectable jobs and shouldnt just be my opinion. Fairly low if you ask me.

K.Snyder wrote: Teachers should be respected as equal as alot of other highly respectable jobs and shouldnt just be my opinion. Fairly low if you ask me.My daughter is a teacher, as it happens. I encouraged her into teaching. I've done quite a bit of it myself, on and off. I have a great regard for teaching as a profession. That gives me all the more reason to explode at sanctimonious unwarranted displays of superiority when I see it dripped night after night from a man for whom I have, of late, despite much effort on my part, very little remaining regard at all.

spot wrote: My daughter is a teacher, as it happens. I encouraged her into teaching. I've done quite a bit of it myself, on and off. I have a great regard for teaching as a profession. That gives me all the more reason to explode at sanctimonious unwarranted displays of superiority when I see it dripped night after night from a man for whom I have, of late, despite much effort on my part, very little remaining regard at all.


That still dont give you the right to make it a personal attack. If he didnt have passion for it is one thing, but show a little empathy. If you knew anything about teaching, you wouldnt have taken such a low blow on the mans career.

K.Snyder wrote: That still dont give you the right to make it a personal attack. If he didnt have passion for it is one thing, but show a little empathy.I have spent the last twelve months showing empathy and a right bloody uphill task it was too. There are times when I turn the ship into the wind at a cry of "man overboard", but Jives has gone swimming with the sharks one time too often. There are plenty of other forums for him to recreate his online existence.

Now, for the second time, have you quite finished?