ForumGarden

spot wrote: 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?


Im finished when personal attacks are not trying to be justified.

spot wrote: 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.


:yh_silent :yh_eyebro

BabyRider wrote: :yh_silent :yh_eyebroHang on BR, I've another roll of sticking plaster here you can have - you look like you ran out half way through. Better safe than sorry.

SnoozeControl wrote: I don't believe there was any disrepect meant toward teachers in general, but toward Jives' in particular.


I know this, which is why I illustrated that it was a personal attack. I simply was making a point that teachers take their jobs seriously, perhaps more seriously than most jobs. Hence, my distaste for questioning his ability to teach, simply becasue you dont like the way he "comes off".

If ya'll are done, could you get back on point? I'm trying to study here.

K.Snyder wrote: I simply was making a point that teachers take their jobs seriously, perhaps more seriously than most jobs.


What an arrogant thing to say, which is BS I might add.

Sorry, carry on.

SnoozeControl wrote: Sorry Accountable, I'd like to make one more point then I'll shut up.



Being a teacher doesn't automatically make that person worthy of respect. There are idiots in every career field... just because someone's a teacher, doesn't make him a wise and loving counselor to humanity.
I'd like to agree with you and then I'll shut up too.

devist8me wrote: What an arrogant thing to say, which is BS I might add.

Sorry, carry on.


Name the majority of jobs and associate it with the average payrate they recieve and compare it to the profession of teaching.

Most means anything over 50%....

lets not get too defensive.

SnoozeControl wrote: Sorry Accountable, I'd like to make one more point then I'll shut up.

Being a teacher doesn't automatically make that person worthy of respect. There are idiots in every career field... just because someone's a teacher, doesn't make him a wise and loving counselor to humanity.


There are a lot of teachers Snooze. Perhaps more than should be judged incompetent given a few instances.

Bryn Mawr wrote:

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?

.


Right.

Not a knockout blow....but lets have our economy go to sh!t. Let our childeren starve to death, while we eat our turkey thats nice and fat.*sarcasm*

K.Snyder wrote: Name the majority of jobs and associate it with the average payrate they recieve and compare it to the profession of teaching.


Stop derailing the thread. My last statement in this thread is I find you arrogant and obnoxious, based on the fact you feel your profession is above par of every single other profession out there. Do you realize just how outlandish a statement like that is? (I doubt it) You've come off as if your profession ranks so high and I truly doubt it. If anything, your attitude has made me frown on the Teachers of America.

So how about backing military action?

devist8me wrote: Stop derailing the thread. My last statement in this thread is I find you arrogant and obnoxious, based on the fact you feel your profession is above par of every single other profession out there. Do you realize just how outlandish a statement like that is? (I doubt it) You've come off as if your profession ranks so high and I truly doubt it. If anything, your attitude has made me frown on the Teachers of America.

So how about backing military action?


Ha!

Its not MY profession.

If you would read the thread, you would have known I was sticking up for Jives(teacher)after he was insulted.

And about backing military action, I back moraly just wars ok.

I HATE wars.

But there are times that a war is the lesser of two evils.

THAT is why I unhesitatingly support military action against Iran as events are showing NOTHING SHORT OF WAR will work against these mad men and if not stopped now what WILL result will be far worse.

It must also be remembered that a military action against Iran will not actually be a war, it will be a new front in the existing World War three that was started by the proselytizeing and militant Islam activists against the West.

golem wrote: THAT is why I unhesitatingly support military action against Iran as events are showing NOTHING SHORT OF WAR will work against these mad men and if not stopped now what WILL result will be far worse.Are you familiar with the concept of mirror-writing, Golem? I don't mean the Harry Potter code stuff, I mean taking a sentence written by one faction and writing it down as though it were from the other, and noting the similarity.

Well, take out the word Iran and replace it with the word America and those words are filling the coffee-houses of Tehran this week. It's a consequence of allowing oneself the luxury of regarding an enemy as "mad men" incapable of reasoning or diplomatic negotiation. All that happens when you voice such a notion is that people regard you as intransigent. It is not a believable statement about any government. Can we not perhaps agree to restrict our vocabulary, deliberately, to allow some degree of discussion rather than listening to propagandist cant?

spot wrote: Are you familiar with the concept of mirror-writing, Golem? I don't mean the Harry Potter code stuff, I mean taking a sentence written by one faction and writing it down as though it were from the other, and noting the similarity.

Well, take out the word Iran and replace it with the word America and those words are filling the coffee-houses of Tehran this week. It's a consequence of allowing oneself the luxury of regarding an enemy as "mad men" incapable of reasoning or diplomatic negotiation. All that happens when you voice such a notion is that people regard you as intransigent. It is not a believable statement about any government. Can we not perhaps agree to restrict our vocabulary, deliberately, to allow some degree of discussion rather than listening to propagandist cant?


Not in the case of the mad men in Iran or other Islamic cells of archaic iniquity.

If you really can’t see that the present situation is a million miles from a mirror and more like the ends of a continuum and that there is no similarity between the stance let alone the aims of Iran et al and the West just as there is not equivalence between Israel and the palests then I guess it explains why you have such a distorted view of the world and express such weird opinions.

Look, all viewpoints are NOT equally valid. All societies are NOT equally legitimate, and despite what so many might like to believe all men are NOT equal. Like it or not it’s a fact of life. Deal with it.

sixyearsleft wrote: God what an obnoxious thread this is, all you do is abuse each other, cant you be more democratic?


Everybody seems to be getting abused which strikes me as being a fairly democratic approach. The people that should be getting abused are the politicians.

posted by golem

I HATE wars.

But there are times that a war is the lesser of two evils.

THAT is why I unhesitatingly support military action against Iran as events are showing NOTHING SHORT OF WAR will work against these mad men and if not stopped now what WILL result will be far worse.

It must also be remembered that a military action against Iran will not actually be a war, it will be a new front in the existing World War three that was started by the proselytizeing and militant Islam activists against the West.


Warfare is exactly what these madmen want as it is the only way they can thrive and remain in power. It's not just them though is it? There seem to be many in the US and Israel that want war as well and almost look forward to it. This isn't world war three unless we're stupid enough to let it escalate. Terrorists do not an army make, but the way you counteract them does. Iran even with nuclear weapons isn't that much of a threat. Shortly after using one they would cease to exist and they know it. Left alone how long do you think the iranian people will tolerate a fundamentalist regime?

There will never be peace in between israel and palestine unless those who can imagine not trying to kill each other get control or one side or the other ceases to exist. peaceful co-existence or warfare there is actually no third way in the 21st century. the days when one tribe would wipe out another and that was it are long gone. Not so long ago it seemed inconceivable that israel and egypt and syria would ever be able to live in peace with each other. O.K it's an uneasy peace and in truth I do not profess to be sufficiently informed to comment but it seems to me the odds of egypt and israel going to war again are failrly long.

The terrorist threat isn't that great either and is getting hyped out of all proportion seemingly to keep going a climate of fear so that democratic nations will not question the policies of their governments. The idea that someone in the mid west of america is likely to be killed by an islamic terrorist is frankly ludicrous. In the UK we have lived with terrorism for a long time so it's a bit hard to pay credence when we are told the police need to be able to arrest people and hold them without trial. (It's ironic, when the british government introduced internment in Northern ireland to curb IRA terrorism the biggest critics were the US Govt. It's also a moot point whether it worked in the long run.) The 7/7 bombers in london were home grown and it was an act that horrified most moslems in this country, finally made the moderate moslems realise they need to deal with the extremists themselves to curb their influence.

If terrorists really want to cause panic and disrupt our economy it is very easy to do so. A few petrol tankers being blown up in town centres or in oil refineries make a nice explosion If they want nuclear weapons to make a so called "dirty bomb" they don't have to bother buying the stuff there is enough radioactive material lying about in rubbish dumps to do so quite easily. If a device like that went off in washington you wouldn't have a clue who did it. Enough money would probably buy one off the russian mafia. Terrorists just need terror to be effective they don't actually need nuclear weapons

Don't know about the US but in the UK I think many are so angry over Iraq and being lied to by TB and his cronies that quite frankly nobody believes them any more and the credibility of the govt is at an historical low. Any hint of british troops going in to iran I doubt will get much support.

Military action in iran will result in long term warfare and hatred that will last over the generations to come . It will turn even the most moderate of moslems in to peole who hate america and the west and all it stands for-which won't be freedom and democracy. What it will not result in is peace in the middle east.

It's about time people stopped listening to the war mongers and ask what the F*(&^K they think they are playing at. Is the purpose of the military to defend against attack or is it to be used to impose the will of one nation on another by force of arms.

Iran is not a major problem. Left alone the problem will diminish and go away, keep scratching and it will become a festering sore.

Pakistan on the other hand. ah well actually in hope I am wrong but that's where the real nutters are now.

golem wrote: Look, all viewpoints are NOT equally valid. All societies are NOT equally legitimate, and despite what so many might like to believe all men are NOT equal. Like it or not it’s a fact of life. Deal with it.That is a reasonable view from a totalitarian position. From a centrist point of view it's untrue and unacceptable as a philosophy. Your perspective leaves you incapable of dialog and committed to conflict until you win or lose. The alternative perspective, "all viewpoints are equally valid, all societies are equally legitimate, all men are equal", has less to do with invariant literal accuracy than with inclusivity and balance. From the balanced starting point you can define exceptions, you can limit what you see as exceptional, you can work within those areas where the exceptions are potentially acceptable. From the totalitarian starting point that which is not with you, for you, like you is automatically your enemy. "You're either with us or against us in the fight against terror" is a totalitarian statement and yes, I am dealing with it. A lot more people recognise the insincerity and cynical opportunism of that speech now than did at the time. I think centrism will prevail.

spot wrote: That is a reasonable view from a totalitarian position. From a centrist point of view it's untrue and unacceptable as a philosophy. Your perspective leaves you incapable of dialog and committed to conflict until you win or lose. The alternative perspective, "all viewpoints are equally valid, all societies are equally legitimate, all men are equal", has less to do with invariant literal accuracy than with inclusivity and balance. From the balanced starting point you can define exceptions, you can limit what you see as exceptional, you can work within those areas where the exceptions are potentially acceptable. From the totalitarian starting point that which is not with you, for you, like you is automatically your enemy. "You're either with us or against us in the fight against terror" is a totalitarian statement and yes, I am dealing with it. A lot more people recognise the insincerity and cynical opportunism of that speech now than did at the time. I think centrism will prevail.


Centralism is fine and good just as long as there are not those to whom compromise is defeat as is the situation with our enemy. If the enemy is prepared to compromise then and only then can negotiations take place, compromise be made, and a resolution achieved.

Up to that point confrontation is the ONLY sane option just so long as the willingness to meet with an enemy who in turn has become willing to compromise remains on the table. Then the possibility of a ‘win – win’ becomes real.

Rake our situation. Time and again we have attempted to reach a genuine accommodation with the palests, even from day #1 minus our leaders begged them to join us for the mutual benefit of all, and they rejected it – or rather their leaders did and enforced and / or cajoled their people to do the same. Some didn’t they joined us and have succeeded.

Since then they have had chance after chance and blown it away. I had hoped that the unlamented death of the pig arafat might have brought a genuine opportunity to secure first an armistice and then, hopefully as wounds healed with time, a lasting peace. For a while it looked possible until hammas swept in and now we have no one who is willing to compromise.

So it is with Iran. The mad men are in charge. Iran has an option. Come to sense and adopt civilisation or fail to. An uncivilised nation with a weapon of mass destruction and the will to use it with no fear of the consequences is unacceptable.

My point of view is not totalitarian. My point of view is simply realistic and pragmatic. I deal with people and facts as they are. I think that you would do well to do the same.

golem wrote: Centralism is fine and good just as long as there are not those to whom compromise is defeat as is the situation with our enemy.How can you say that and not recognise that it's exactly your own situation? You seem incapable of realizing that the way you describe the "enemy" every time you use the word is a snapshot of yourself.

spot wrote: How can you say that and not recognise that it's exactly your own situation? You seem incapable of realizing that the way you describe the "enemy" every time you use the word is a snapshot of yourself.


If you really can’t see that statement is fundamentally flawed then that explains your strange perspective on the world.

We are, or at least have been fully prepared to reach compromise with the palests and time and again have tried whilst they have not been willing to compromise with us.

And as for the use of ‘enemy’ – what else do you call someone who has started a war against you? Competitor? Partner?

The palests who have voted for the party that is irrevocable committee to our destruction and if yiou doubt that the are read their foul charter and the nation who’s leader has committed himself and his nation to ‘wipe Israel off the map’ ARE our enemies. Likewise the Iranians and all islamic terrorists, themselves the fighting sector of the Islamic supra-national empire are the enemies of the Secular world and the sooner that more people realise this the better all round as the realities of the situation will then start to be addressed and this ‘all equal, mist tolerate’ BS can be put aside.

How CAN a nation tolerate another nation who are intolerant to the very heart and who will not and more to the point can not be other and remain true to their ‘religion’?

Get Real, Spot, these things mat offend your id4eas of the world but unfortunately the world is as it is and not as we would like it to be. Those who can live with that, fine, at least a peaceful coexistence is possible.

Those who can not must be either confronted and constrained or eliminated by one means or another because sure as eggs is eggs if WE don’t do it to them THEY will do it to us.

golem wrote: And as for the use of ‘enemy’ – what else do you call someone who has started a war against you? Competitor? Partner?My vocabulary wouldn't use the word "enemy" of Iran. If Iran had started a war against me then I would use the word to describe that nation. If Iraq had started a war against me then I would use the word to describe that nation. If Afghanistan had started a war against me then I would use the word to describe that nation. None of them did, though. You twist language, golem. "Started a war" is a very specific expression and it doesn't equate to "cheered when the towers came down" or "sponsored terrorism" or "subsidized Hamas" or "denied the Holocaust" or "hanged gay teenagers". Started a war is what the Coalition of the Willing did in Afghanistan and Iraq - you know? Airplanes? Cruise Missiles? Tanks? That's what war means. Starting a war against Iran, and employing nuclear weaponry against a non-nuclear equipped victim nation, would qualify as war crimes by any reasonable use of the term.

spot wrote: My vocabulary wouldn't use the word "enemy" of Iran. If Iran had started a war against me then I would use the word to describe that nation. If Iraq had started a war against me then I would use the word to describe that nation. If Afghanistan had started a war against me then I would use the word to describe that nation. None of them did, though. You twist language, golem. "Started a war" is a very specific expression and it doesn't equate to "cheered when the towers came down" or "sponsored terrorism" or "subsidized Hamas" or "denied the Holocaust" or "hanged gay teenagers". Started a war is what the Coalition of the Willing did in Afghanistan and Iraq - you know? Airplanes? Cruise Missiles? Tanks? That's what war means. Starting a war against Iran, and employing nuclear weaponry against a non-nuclear equipped victim nation, would qualify as war crimes by any reasonable use of the term.


The ‘gotcha’, the flaw in your argument is in the failure to recognise or accept that whereas we see Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan, and so on as nations our ENEMY doesn’t.

Our enemy sees the world comprising of these nations as a part of theEmpore of Dar ul Islam, an empire in its own right in which these ‘nations’ are little more than tribes.

spot wrote: Are you familiar with the concept of mirror-writing, Golem? I don't mean the Harry Potter code stuff, I mean taking a sentence written by one faction and writing it down as though it were from the other, and noting the similarity.

Well, take out the word Iran and replace it with the word America and those words are filling the coffee-houses of Tehran this week. It's a consequence of allowing oneself the luxury of regarding an enemy as "mad men" incapable of reasoning or diplomatic negotiation. All that happens when you voice such a notion is that people regard you as intransigent. It is not a believable statement about any government. Can we not perhaps agree to restrict our vocabulary, deliberately, to allow some degree of discussion rather than listening to propagandist cant?


With you always suggesting for us to show empathy for Iranians, I have to ask, Do you agree with Iranian ideology and its effect on its own willingness to go to war with America? And do you also believe that people with such ideology is trustworthy in having a weapon capable of killing people in their millions on one single weapon alone as opposed to four as you suggest?

golem wrote: The ‘gotcha’, the flaw in your argument is in the failure to recognise or accept that whereas we see Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan, and so on as nations our ENEMY doesn’t.

Our enemy sees the world comprising of these nations as a part of theEmpore of Dar ul Islam, an empire in its own right in which these ‘nations’ are little more than tribes.It may be your enemy, golem, but it isn't mine, neither Iran nor Israel. Your world view is dictated by your continual demand for vengeance, and that's not a way forward. Arafat was a tragic figure. To gratuitously call him "pig arafat" is typical of your rather distasteful style here. It's not a path to consensus, and I'm all in favor of developing a common core to which as many as possible can conscientiously subscribe. I accept that you're going to stay out in the cold, but it's entirely your own choice.

posted by golem

Look, all viewpoints are NOT equally valid. All societies are NOT equally legitimate, and despite what so many might like to believe all men are NOT equal. Like it or not it’s a fact of life. Deal with it.


How CAN a nation tolerate another nation who are intolerant to the very heart and who will not and more to the point can not be other and remain true to their ‘religion’?

Get Real, Spot, these things mat offend your id4eas of the world but unfortunately the world is as it is and not as we would like it to be. Those who can live with that, fine, at least a peaceful coexistence is possible.

Those who can not must be either confronted and constrained or eliminated by one means or another because sure as eggs is eggs if WE don’t do it to them THEY will do it to us.


That does it for me. If you really believe that then you are no different from the fundamantalists you so oppose. They come out with the same crap just with slightly different wording. Funnily enough those who espouse such views of cultural and racial superiority almost always assume that it is their benighted world view that is right and always seem surprised when their more tolerant brethern get annoyed and beat the crap out of them.

Hitler didn't believe all societies were equal either, or that all men are created equal. So in essence it appears you are saying you believe he was right. I dare say you might have disagreed over which race and culture was the better.

spot wrote: It may be your enemy, golem, but it isn't mine, neither Iran nor Israel.


Oh boy have you got a lot to learn and are you in for a very rude awakening.

spot wrote: Your world view is dictated by your continual demand for vengeance, and that's not a way forward.


Not vengeance, though venence does have its place, but facing up to the realities of life and seeing things as they are and not what it would be nice if they were.

spot wrote: Arafat was a tragic figure. To gratuitously call him "pig arafat" is typical of your rather distasteful style here. It's not a path to consensus, and I'm all in favor of developing a common core to which as many as possible can conscientiously subscribe. I accept that you're going to stay out in the cold, but it's entirely your own choice.


A tragic figure arafat-the-pig most certainly was not. He was a duplicitous lying dirt bag who caused more harm to the people that he was allegedly leading but in fact exploiting to achieve the foul agenda of him and those like him.

He repeatedly lied frequently saying one thing in English and the exact opposite in Arabic and his poison is now deeply engrained in a whole population who have been nurtured on his lies.

A tragic figure? The only tragedy that can e associated with that piece of filth is that he didn’t die at birth. I class him as the most evil man of the 20th. Century bar none.

K.Snyder wrote: With you always suggesting for us to show empathy for Iranians, I have to ask, Do you agree with Iranian ideology and its effect on its own willingness to go to war with America? And do you also believe that people with such ideology is trustworthy in having a weapon capable of killing people in their millions on one single weapon alone as opposed to four as you suggest?That's an interesting question. I don't think "Iranian ideology" is meaningful as an abbreviation. If you want to expand it into a statement that's complete rather than implicatory I'll see how I feel about it.

You refer to Iran's "willingness to go to war with America". I see no evidence whatever that Iran is or has been prepared either in the past or now or in the future to declare war on America, or to invade America, or to use military force to assault American interests outside of their own country. If Iran were ever to declare an expansionist war on the USA then I'd be startled and anti-Iranian.

If you mean a willingness to defend their national border if attacked by America then that's not unreasonable, we can both agree that.

I think there's a middle that needs stating - Iran's willingness to be attacked militarily by America and whoever the White House can drum up as Bastions of Democracy - the likes of Uzbekistan, Georgia, Romania, Bulgaria. Oh, and El Salvador, Nicaragua and Colombia. And Ethiopia and Eritrea were on the last list of the Coalition of the Willing too - do you think they'll continue to carry the Flag of Democracy in these trying times?

I think that's laudable, actually. To stretch America's ability to fund these outrages? To make even more clear to the world in general the media sycophancy involved? To expose the violence inherent in capitalism? It's a brave and principled stand, however costly it turns out to be. Do I wish them well if they're attacked? Definitely. Would I want to see them nuclear-armed? I'd be delighted, but I have always contended that the proposed attack wouldn't happen in such circumstances and that consequently nobody would employ their nuclear option.

spot wrote:

You refer to Iran's "willingness to go to war with America". I see no evidence whatever that Iran is or has been prepared either in the past or now or in the future to declare war on America, or to invade America, or to use military force to assault American interests outside of their own country. If Iran were ever to declare an expansionist war on the USA then I'd be startled and anti-Iranian.




I should rephrase this question.

Do you agree with Iranian ideology and its effect on its own willingness to go to war with anyone?

spot wrote:

If you mean a willingness to defend their national border if attacked by America then that's not unreasonable, we can both agree that.


This is irrelavent, because it is nullified by the fact that Iran is known for supporting terrorist attacks around the globe.

K.Snyder wrote: I should rephrase this question.

Do you agree with Iranian ideology and its effect on its own willingness to go to war with anyone?I don't think "Iranian ideology" is meaningful as an abbreviation. If you want to expand it into a statement that's complete rather than implicatory I'll see how I feel about it.

K.Snyder wrote: [QUOTE=spot]If you mean a willingness to defend their national border if attacked by America then that's not unreasonable, we can both agree that.This is irrelavent, because it is nullified by the fact that Iran is known for supporting terrorist attacks around the globe.[/QUOTE]I have tried to point out that US-sponsored terrorism exceeds anything that the Iranians have ever done. He who seeks equity must come with clean hands.

golem wrote: A tragic figure? The only tragedy that can e associated with that piece of filth is that he didn’t die at birth. I class him as the most evil man of the 20th. Century bar none.I was about to quote from Robert Fisk's first-hand account of Afarat in Lebanon, from "The Great War for Civilisation - The Conquest of the Middle East", but I remembered I lent it to my younger daughter last term and her flatmates are currently reading it. I'm sure that's a more productive use than wasting his words in an attempt to show you an alternative perspective.

spot wrote: I was about to quote from Robert Fisk's first-hand account of Afarat in Lebanon, from "The Great War for Civilisation - The Conquest of the Middle East", but I remembered I lent it to my younger daughter last term and her flatmates are currently reading it. I'm sure that's a more productive use than wasting his words in an attempt to show you an alternative perspective.


Did you ever hear arafat-the-pig saying one thing in English and then the precise opposite in Arabic?

I did.

Did you ever listen to what he was saying that sounded like one thing but meant another?

I did.

Time and again.

I rather fancy that when it comes to knowing a great deal more about the misbegotten spawn of a gutter dog and a whore that was arafat I am far closer to the truth than Robert Fisk and certainly more than you.

He was without doubt the worst thing that has ever happened to the palestinian people by far.

golem wrote: I rather fancy that when it comes to knowing a great deal more about the misbegotten spawn of a gutter dog and a whore that was arafat I am far closer to the truth than Robert Fisk and certainly more than you.That's strange then. Robert Fisk met him alone several times and I'm happy to believe his account of their meetings. I was, after all, discussing Robert Fisk's meetings with Arafat and his personal impression of the man.

spot wrote: That's strange then. Robert Fisk met him alone several times and I'm happy to believe his account of their meetings. I was, after all, discussing Robert Fisk's meetings with Arafat and his personal impression of the man.


As in so much that you use to form opinions you make many assumptions.

Mostky flawed.

spot wrote:

I have tried to point out that US-sponsored terrorism exceeds anything that the Iranians have ever done. He who seeks equity must come with clean hands.


Assuming that this is true, and it not being for the sake of the better, when has the United States ever used a nuclear bomb in a deliberate terrorist attack? And what makes you think that Iran wouldnt do so?

K.Snyder wrote: I should rephrase this question.

Do you agree with Iranian ideology and its effect on its own willingness to go to war with anyone?



This is irrelavent, because it is nullified by the fact that Iran is known for supporting terrorist attacks around the globe.


Why not change the wording. Do you agree with the American ideology and its effect on it's own willingness to go to war with anyone?

Iran is a shia muslim state, al queda is Sunni. Now I could see some iranians stirring up civil war in Iraq just on idealogical grounds. That would seem a more logical approach than supporting terrorists attacks around the world, certainly cheaper.

What terrorist attacks can you link back to Iran?

Come to that What about saudi arabia? It was saudis that attacked the world trade centre on 9/11 and saudi finance that funded the whole thing and saudi banks that refuse to do anything to stop monies flowing to terrorist groups. Without Saudi financial support none of the present crop of nutters would have half the resources they do. Al Queda would not have been able to fly planes in to the world trade centre without the tacit support of the saudi govt. Or do you really believe that the Saudi Arabian govt didn't know what Osama was up to and couldn't hace stopped him? he was always quite open about his intentions. Without financial support they would have remained mere rhetoris.

K.Snyder wrote: Assuming that this is true, and it not being for the sake of the better, when has the United States ever used a nuclear bomb in a deliberate terrorist attack? And what makes you think that Iran wouldnt do so?This is such a roundabout argument... It hasn't, on foreign soil. I've put my reason why no country would employ such a weapon against another nuclear-armed nation - that it would receive nuclear retaliation, and the cost would be too extreme to accept. That is a reasonable argument. To say that Iran's leadership is "mad" is not a reasonable argument, it is polemic.

spot wrote: This is such a roundabout argument... It hasn't, on foreign soil. I've put my reason why no country would employ such a weapon against another nuclear-armed nation - that it would receive nuclear retaliation, and the cost would be too extreme to accept. That is a reasonable argument. To say that Iran's leadership is "mad" is not a reasonable argument, it is polemic.


Wouldnt allowing Iran to have nuclear weapons give them a trump card over everyone else, by using their oil production as a negotiating tool to devert nuclear attacks, thus giving them an overwhelming advantage throughout the world?

spot wrote: I've put my reason why no country would employ such a weapon against another nuclear-armed nation - that it would receive nuclear retaliation, and the cost would be too extreme to accept. That is a reasonable argument. To say that Iran's leadership is "mad" is not a reasonable argument, it is polemic.


What I am saying is that "mad" is a reasonable arguement, due to the fact that they would not care about nuclear retaliation because of their willingness to die, as in mortyr. Yet, the only way to prove this, is by trusting it not to happen, and if it happens to happen, then by then it would be too late and the damage done.

K.Snyder wrote: Wouldnt allowing Iran to have nuclear weapons give them a trump card over everyone else, by using their oil production as a negotiating tool to devert nuclear attacks, thus giving them an overwhelming advantage throughout the world?What an odd turn of the discussion. Rather like asking whether American mass production expertise gives them an overwhelming advantage throughout the world, or Indian spiritual awareness gives them an overwhelming advantage throughout the world. To whom does the natural resource of any nation belong? Should South Africa not sell diamonds? Should Jamaica not sell aluminium? If the Iranians ever get an overwhelming advantage throughout the world, an event which last occurred 2,800 years ago, I'd hope people were very pleased for them. Turn and turn about, after all. It's not even remotely possible, for all that.

K.Snyder wrote: What I am saying is that "mad" is a reasonable arguement, due to the fact that they would not care about nuclear retaliation because of their willingness to die, as in mortyr. Yet, the only way to prove this, is by trusting it not to happen, and if it happens to happen, then by then it would be too late and the damage done.Fortunately the world has experienced diplomats. The rotten apple rocking the cart right now is the White House and its bull-at-a-gate reckless greed.

Ah good old Spot. Anytime we talk politics you always seem to come around to your tired, "It's all America's fault!" argument.:wah:

I am very concerned that you seem to have written off Iran's death threat to Israel. Just how do you do that?

You know, if Iran was a peaceful, law-abiding, civilized country like say for example, New Zealand, I'd be all for letting them have nuclear technology.

But when the leader of a country that sponsors terrorism announces flat out to the world that it's neighbor "should be destroyed, " they lose any kind of trust they might have had.

You are very blind if you can't see that.

The deal on offer to Iran at the moment is surely similar to the one documented at http://www.kedo.org/pdfs/AgreedFramework.pdf - I'll not copy anything here from it but it's short and readable. This week's Slate pointed to it.

What the Iranians will doubtless be bearing in mind as they hear the European sales pitch is that nothing in the 1994 document was ever delivered. I can't see the remotest chance that they'll settle for pie in the sky after the subsequent history of reactor sales and nuclear fuel supplies to North Korea. What was the consequence after the "letter of assurance from the U.S. President, the U.S. will undertake to make arrangements for the provision to the DPRK of a LWR project with a total generating capacity of approximately 2,000 MW(e) by a target date of 2003" was reneged on by the USA? North Korea reprocessed their existing stocks into bomb-grade plutonium, since when her borders have been inviolate. The only thing incoming in Pyongyang has been bluster.

As President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was quoted in yesterday's Washington Post as saying that morning, "Do you think you are dealing with a 4-year-old child to whom you can give some walnuts and chocolates and get gold from him?" - for which he got a round of applause from a large and enthusiastic crowd. I doubt they were bussed in unwillingly to hear it.

Nobody is pretending that the Iranian military can resist the USA. They and the Iraqi military fought a stand-off in the 1980s simply because they were so closely matched, and the Iraqi forces were steamrollered effortlessly once the USA decided to implant their own permanent fortresses in the Middle East. The Iranians know this perfectly well. They also know that, even attacked, the cost to them will be less than the cost to those attacking them. An attack will entrench support for the militant hard-liners for another generation. Why should those hard-liners not grasp that opportunity with both hands? They gained power last year in the first place on the back of Gulf 2. Iran left to itself is quite capable of modernizing into a more socially liberal stance, and that's the last thing the current Iranian administration wants to see happen.

Jives wrote: I am very concerned that you seem to have written off Iran's death threat to Israel. Just how do you do that?You're another of these let's-go-round-the-mulberry-bush bores, Jives. We've done this already. Israel has a stockpile of 400 nuclear warheads, with delivery systems. No nation is going to push to a point where Israel recognises no way forward and unleashes its firepower on the way down. That's the attraction of acquiring a nuclear arsenal, after all. It guarantees your security.

Ahmadinejad said Israel should be "wiped off the map", if I remember the quotes in the newspapers. In what way is that a death threat? It involves the political dismantling of the State of Israel, the reversal of the United Nations Resolution that legitimized the creation of the "Zionist Entity", to use the propagandist description of the 1948 State. It's a country "wiped off the map", not a people "wiped off the face of the earth". If you choose not to distinguish a political from a genocidal threat then that's indiscriminate of you, or simply an expression of partisan bias.

On what basis do you put "should be destroyed" in quotation marks?

I'm stepping back from this subject. Accountable I lift my glass to you. I did not realize I was crawling into a very nasty argument. They asked my opinion and I gave it. Take it or leave it. As for the Iranians hanging gay boys, didn't the USA hang black boys in the fifties? In my eyes there is not any difference in gay boys or black boys, they are all human beings. I still do not see what hanging gay boys has to do with Iran getting nuclear weapons.

spot wrote: That's the attraction of acquiring a nuclear arsenal, after all. It guarantees your security.


LOL! Yeah, tell that to the 2000 dead of 9/11.

Doesn't America have even more nuclear weapons than israel?

That didn't help us avoid being attacked, did it, Spot?

You see, let me explain this to you Spot. You keep arguing as if Iran was a sane country with a sane leader. Zealots are not sane and they do not make sane or logical decisions.

Jives wrote: LOL! Yeah, tell that to the 2000 dead of 9/11.

Doesn't America have even more nuclear weapons than israel?

That didn't help us avoid being attacked, did it, Spot?

You see, let me explain this to you Spot. You keep arguing as if Iran was a sane country with a sane leader. Zealots are not sane and they do not make sane or logical decisions.I doubt sometimes whether you read anyone's posts but your own. Round-in-a-circle time again. No foreign nation state, to the best of my knowledge, was responsible for 9/11.