• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

For those that think Iran has a right to nuclear energy

ProudAmerican

DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 13, 2005
Messages
2,694
Reaction score
0
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,183413,00.html

On Tuesday, the IAEA said in a report that Iran obtained documents and drawings on the black market that serve no other purpose than to make an atomic warhead. The report also confirmed information recently provided by diplomats familiar with the Iran probe that Tehran has not started small-scale uranium enrichment since announcing it would earlier this month.

This country can NOT be allowed to continue to persue nuclear energy.
 

ashurbanipal

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 8, 2005
Messages
7,030
Reaction score
2,051
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Private
If any country is allowed nuclear weapons, why wouldn't Iran be allowed them?
 

Calm2Chaos

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 20, 2005
Messages
3,967
Reaction score
7
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
ashurbanipal said:
If any country is allowed nuclear weapons, why wouldn't Iran be allowed them?

Because I don't want tem ending up on my back porch..... That alone is a good enough reason for Iran not to have nuclear weapons
 

VTA

DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 5, 2005
Messages
1,081
Reaction score
163
Location
America
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
ashurbanipal said:
If any country is allowed nuclear weapons, why wouldn't Iran be allowed them?
Because when you kick off your presidency with 'Israel should be wiped off the map', and have rallies with 'Death To America' being chanted, it's usually a good sign you should be kept away from nuclear weapons and sharp objects.
 

ashurbanipal

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 8, 2005
Messages
7,030
Reaction score
2,051
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Private
Whereas we invade countries we don't like after denouncing them...so I'm afraid either point has little merit.
 

oldreliable67

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 3, 2005
Messages
4,641
Reaction score
1,102
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
ashurbanipal said:
Whereas we invade countries we don't like after denouncing them...so I'm afraid either point has little merit.
Reductio ad absurdum.

Yeah, we sure nuked a lot of the so-and-so's in Iraq!

Seriously, I wish you were joking, but you're not - are you? You cannot possibly, even in the strangest hallucinatory dream imaginable, equate a government of religous fanatics and radical Islamist mullahs with their triggers on the nuclear button with the decision making process of any nation with a representative form of government. And don't bother with that horse-poop about Iran having an elected government; the world knows the deal with that.
 

ashurbanipal

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 8, 2005
Messages
7,030
Reaction score
2,051
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Private
Reductio ad absurdum.
I see no evidence of any Reductios being used in this thread, so I'm not sure what you mean.

Yeah, we sure nuked a lot of the so-and-so's in Iraq!
No, we did not nuke anyone in Iraq. We are using depeleted Uranium ammo there, though it's probably fair to say that the average commander in Iraq isn't aware of the potential consequences of doing so.

Seriously, I wish you were joking, but you're not - are you?
No, I am not joking.

You cannot possibly, even in the strangest hallucinatory dream imaginable, equate a government of religous fanatics and radical Islamist mullahs with their triggers on the nuclear button with the decision making process of any nation with a representative form of government. And don't bother with that horse-poop about Iran having an elected government; the world knows the deal with that.
No, I would expect, given the record of our actions recently (aren't actions supposed to speak louder than words? I'm sure I've heard that somewhere), their decision making process to be rather more reasonable than ours. But let's not stop there:

1) I'm not sure why a fundamentalist Muslim is any worse than a fundamentalist Christian. Just because G.W.B. is surrounded by 50 million other Christians in this country who more or less agree with his views doesn't make him any less reactionary, fundamentalist, or extreme.

2) Just what is the deal with Iran having an elected government? I'm unaware of the "deal the world knows with that," to paraphrase.

3) Ahmadinejiad is on record as having said that Israel should be wiped off the map. I don't think we should go that far, though I do think Israel has much to answer for in their treatment of the Palestinians. But Israeli rhetoric falls little short of that from time to time, as does ours. The whole "axis of evil" bit surely made a few people nervous.

4) In actual point of fact, our history over the last 50 years is far more bloody than Iran's, even per capita.

5) The point is bigger than that anyway: we have our way of looking at things, our friends in the world and our enemies. No one should claim that the United States, or any other country that currently possesses nuclear weapons, is the perfect judge of anyone or anything. So why should we few possess the means to singlehandedly destroy life on the planet?
 

ProudAmerican

DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 13, 2005
Messages
2,694
Reaction score
0
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
ashurbanipal said:
If any country is allowed nuclear weapons, why wouldn't Iran be allowed them?
ummmm.....


On Tuesday, the IAEA said in a report that Iran obtained documents and drawings on the black market that serve no other purpose than to make an atomic warhead. The report also confirmed information recently provided by diplomats familiar with the Iran probe that Tehran has not started small-scale uranium enrichment since announcing it would earlier this month.


Im not sure how much more I can elaborate on the subject.
 

ashurbanipal

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 8, 2005
Messages
7,030
Reaction score
2,051
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Private
Do you think that repeating yourself is a form of making an argument? I posted points in refutation of the implied position; you just restated the position without bothering so much as to change up the wording a little....
 

oldreliable67

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 3, 2005
Messages
4,641
Reaction score
1,102
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
ashurbanipal said:
No, I would expect, given the record of our actions recently (aren't actions supposed to speak louder than words? I'm sure I've heard that somewhere), their decision making process to be rather more reasonable than ours.
Whose decision making is more reasonable than ours? The decision making that cheered in the streets following 9/11? The bin Laden fatwa? The Iranian support of various terrorist organizations/activities? And various other little things. Yep, I would agree that actions do speak louder than words.
 

VTA

DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 5, 2005
Messages
1,081
Reaction score
163
Location
America
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
ashurbanipal said:
Whereas we invade countries we don't like after denouncing them...so I'm afraid either point has little merit.
Whereas, to wisely get to the root of and destroy the evolutionally retarded ideology of the trouble makers in the Middle East, America deposes a two-bit petty dictator and uses his ground as a base to do it.
 

Calm2Chaos

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 20, 2005
Messages
3,967
Reaction score
7
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
ashurbanipal said:
Whereas we invade countries we don't like after denouncing them...so I'm afraid either point has little merit.
So your comparing removing a murdering dictator to nuclear destruction. considering you feel that killing civilians in terrorist attacks is warranted, this post doesn't surprise me....:roll:
 

Calm2Chaos

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 20, 2005
Messages
3,967
Reaction score
7
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
ashurbanipal said:
I see no evidence of any Reductios being used in this thread, so I'm not sure what you mean.



No, we did not nuke anyone in Iraq. We are using depeleted Uranium ammo there, though it's probably fair to say that the average commander in Iraq isn't aware of the potential consequences of doing so.



No, I am not joking.



No, I would expect, given the record of our actions recently (aren't actions supposed to speak louder than words? I'm sure I've heard that somewhere), their decision making process to be rather more reasonable than ours. But let's not stop there:

1) I'm not sure why a fundamentalist Muslim is any worse than a fundamentalist Christian. Just because G.W.B. is surrounded by 50 million other Christians in this country who more or less agree with his views doesn't make him any less reactionary, fundamentalist, or extreme.

2) Just what is the deal with Iran having an elected government? I'm unaware of the "deal the world knows with that," to paraphrase.

3) Ahmadinejiad is on record as having said that Israel should be wiped off the map. I don't think we should go that far, though I do think Israel has much to answer for in their treatment of the Palestinians. But Israeli rhetoric falls little short of that from time to time, as does ours. The whole "axis of evil" bit surely made a few people nervous.

4) In actual point of fact, our history over the last 50 years is far more bloody than Iran's, even per capita.

5) The point is bigger than that anyway: we have our way of looking at things, our friends in the world and our enemies. No one should claim that the United States, or any other country that currently possesses nuclear weapons, is the perfect judge of anyone or anything. So why should we few possess the means to singlehandedly destroy life on the planet?
Why are you comparing DU which is essentially harmless (thats why it's caled "depleted". My understanding is the radoactive isotope is removed leaving its virtually harmless. And you again make an absurd comparison to this and detonating a nuclear weapon
 

ashurbanipal

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 8, 2005
Messages
7,030
Reaction score
2,051
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Private
Whose decision making is more reasonable than ours?
Lots of folks' decision making is emminently more reasonable than ours.

The decision making that cheered in the streets following 9/11?
Not only reasonable, but warranted. There's a reason that much of the world hates America, and it isn't because we have freedoms that they do not (which is for the most part not true anyway).

The bin Laden fatwa?
Again, both reasonable and warranted in light of the circumstances. His demands were not at all unreasonable or unjustified, except possibly his demand that the middle east adopt Shari'a as law.

The Iranian support of various terrorist organizations/activities?
Not entirely reasonable, and sometimes not warranted.

And various other little things. Yep, I would agree that actions do speak louder than words.
It follows, then, that the only thing we have to do is examine all the relevant actions by all parties. Americans are kept shielded, by and large, from the knowledge of actions carried out in their name. However, once you come to understand the sheer horror and monumental injustice we have brought the rest of the world, things like the 9/11 attacks fade into insignificance. We deserve worse.

This may seem like a remarkable thing to say, especially from someone who has everything to lose from another such attack. But let's consider a couple things--the first being that it's human nature to not accept the idea that one deserves any kind of negative consequences. Back when I managed several hundred people, I had to fire at least one person every week (on average). I didn't like doing it, but when someone's performance on the job warranted that they be let go, I didn't farm the matter out.

I never once came across anyone who thought they deserved to be fired. I caught people stealing cash from a register, committing timeclock fraud, failing to show up for their shift repeatedly, arriving drunk or stoned for work, destroying company property for nothing more than amusement, etc. etc. ad nauseum. Some of the things I saw during that time really gave me pause about human nature. But every single one of those people (some of whom--those that stole--I sent to jail) believed that they did not deserve to be fired. A disinterested party can look at an instance of malfeasance--say, someone being late for work repeatedly--and can see that the person in question deserves some kind of reprimand. But that same disinterested party will, if confronted with their own malfeasance, rationalize endless reasons why they do not deserve punishment. If we were to lay our actions abroad (especially our economic actions) before the American people, but we said they were committed by, say, the Swiss, there would be a call for destroying Switzerland. The minute we attribute those actions correctly, however, we end up with a near-infinite list of reasons why we ought to be allowed to do those thing, and why we ought to 'scape whipping because of it.

Consider that hijacking an airplace and piloting it into a building is an extreme act. How many people reading this post would have the resolve required? And what would it take to motivate someone to do such a thing? Try to imagine yourself doing this--spend some time with it and really try to visualize what it must be like to even board a plane knowing that your life will end within the hour by actions that you plan to commit. Anyone who could do that must either be insane or motivated by factors that most of us could scarcely imagine.

We do not want to consider what we've done to the rest of the world, but we've created our enemies. If you want to understand the extent of what we've done, I recommend a few books:

1) "When Corporations Rule the World" by David Korten. I've harped on this book at length elsewhere on these forums.

2) "Crossing the Rubicon" by Michael Ruppert. Ruppert sometimes gets a little paranoid, but he researches well and sources meticulously. Even disregarding his polemics, he makes a solid case that Western Governments are now, and have been for a long time, run by literal sociopaths.

3) "Guns, Germs, and Steel" by Jared Diamond. An account of how the West managed to rule and exploit everyone else. Useful mainly as background.

4) "Hopeful Harvest" by Jane Goodall. The politics of the world food supply ought to make one sick.

5) "Confessions of an Economic Hitman" by John Perkins. This is actually something of a limited hangout, but what it exposes is quite bad enough.

And there's plenty more material available. Essentially, we've established a system whereby the rest of the world is made to suffer unspeakably for our benefit. We will be paying for this soon enough.

Whereas, to wisely get to the root of and destroy the evolutionally retarded ideology of the trouble makers in the Middle East, America deposes a two-bit petty dictator and uses his ground as a base to do it.
I'm not sure what to make of the phrase "evolutionally retarded." Do you mean that people in the middle east are so retarded that they can't understand the theory of evolution? Or do you mean that evolution is slower in the middle east? Or that evolution has led to an abnormal concentration of retarded people in the middle east? Or something else? Clear that up, and I'll respond at more length. In the meantime, I will simply say that you ignore the very real human cost of what we've done, and the injustice of it. We were not justified in invading Iraq or, it turns out, Afganistan.

So your comparing removing a murdering dictator to nuclear destruction.
No, I made no such comparison. I said that we had committed considerable evil by the indiscriminate killing of civilians by conventional means, whereas Iran hasn't invaded any countries recently and killed any civilians.

considering you feel that killing civilians in terrorist attacks is warranted, this post doesn't surprise me
It's warranted in very extreme circumstances. We turn out to be living in times where those circumstances obtain. I wish that weren't the case.

Why are you comparing DU which is essentially harmless (thats why it's caled "depleted". My understanding is the radoactive isotope is removed leaving its virtually harmless. And you again make an absurd comparison to this and detonating a nuclear weapon.
DU turns out not the be entirely harmless (in ways other than the obvious--that is, I mean it causes more harm than that caused by the kinetic act of hurling it towards a target at great speeds). It isn't completely non-radioactive, and we've used so much of it that low levels of radioactivity are endemic to certain parts of Iraq. It poisons the water, causes crops to fail, and makes people and animals sick.

I did not mean to compare this to detonating a nuclear weapon per se; I did mean to suggest that we're causing great harm to Iraqi civilians needlessly. I further mean to suggest that in the final analysis, we'll have turned out to have killed far more innocent civilians than detonating a nuclear bomb will do.

That said, I hope a nuclear bomb is not detonated. I hope that people will come to their senses and stop killing each other. I just don't think that's likely to happen.
 

MSgt

Stabler Genius
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 10, 2005
Messages
23,722
Reaction score
8,409
Location
Highlands Ranch, CO
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
ashurbanipal said:
If any country is allowed nuclear weapons, why wouldn't Iran be allowed them?



Across the street is a man who has threatened to kill your neighbor and threatens you because you defend him. By all means...do the right thing and hand him a gun. After all, everyopne else has a gun...why shouldn't he? :roll:

Another individual opting to choose what is right and wrong over what is necessary. It's simple...it's us or them. History is all about nations that have done what they feel they must to protect their citizens or lands. It's called survival and these instincts are very much alive today. Our country doesn't thrive on accident and it doesn't thrive by handing our enemies the means in which to destroy us. Be thankful stronger men are in charge of your security and protection.
 
Last edited:

Calm2Chaos

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 20, 2005
Messages
3,967
Reaction score
7
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
ashurbanipal said:
No, I made no such comparison. I said that we had committed considerable evil by the indiscriminate killing of civilians by conventional means, whereas Iran hasn't invaded any countries recently and killed any civilians.

Please show me were we have targeted innocent civillians in Iraq...

ashurbanipal said:
It's warranted in very extreme circumstances. We turn out to be living in times where those circumstances obtain. I wish that weren't the case.

It's never warranted to go after and target innocent children. You sound like a sympathizer to me, shehan a hero of yours?

ashurbanipal said:
DU turns out not the be entirely harmless (in ways other than the obvious--that is, I mean it causes more harm than that caused by the kinetic act of hurling it towards a target at great speeds). It isn't completely non-radioactive, and we've used so much of it that low levels of radioactivity are endemic to certain parts of Iraq. It poisons the water, causes crops to fail, and makes people and animals sick.

Please show proof of this statement....

ashurbanipal said:
I did not mean to compare this to detonating a nuclear weapon per se; I did mean to suggest that we're causing great harm to Iraqi civilians needlessly. I further mean to suggest that in the final analysis, we'll have turned out to have killed far more innocent civilians than detonating a nuclear bomb will do.

Please show me some kind of proof of this statement also

ashurbanipal said:
That said, I hope a nuclear bomb is not detonated. I hope that people will come to their senses and stop killing each other. I just don't think that's likely to happen.
ON this I agree.... But its togh to teach an animal not to bite if it's been taught that, that is how it gets fed. I think you have a large group of people that use innocent people as bargaining chips. And there is no working with these people. The only choice you have is wiping them out. Cut them out of the populice like a cancer or it just continues to spread
 

ashurbanipal

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 8, 2005
Messages
7,030
Reaction score
2,051
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Private
Across the street is a man who has threatened to kill your neighbor and threatens you because you defend him. By all means...do the right thing and hand him a gun. After all, everyopne else has a gun...why shouldn't he?
The situation isn't precisely analogous. Add in that the neighbor you're defending, and you yourself, have done something to earn the ire of the threatening neighbor. Like, for instance, burned his house down and killed one of his children. Should a fourth, objective party fail to recognize that he has a right to a gun? This, especially if you and your neighbor have them and continually remind him that if he tries to do anything about what's already happened to him, you'll use your guns to kill him, his wife, his brother, and his other children?

Another individual opting to choose what is right and wrong over what is necessary.
If everyone did what is right, what is necessary would have been a lot less bloody.

It's simple...it's us or them.
Not necessarily, even now. What's really at stake is our lifestyle and our position of power. Even if Iran built all the nuclear bombs it could afford, it could not destroy America.

But of course, quite a lot of harm would be inflicted. The thing I'm asking people to recognize is that we created this situation by choosing what was easy over what was right. By choosing power over mutual respect. The only way out of it is to start choosing right over convenience.

History is all about nations that have done what they feel they must to protect their citizens or lands.
For the most part, this is correct. Why is this remotely an answer to my points, though?

It's called survival and these instincts are very much alive today.
Yes, this is also correct.

Our country doesn't thrive on accident and it doesn't thrive by handing our enemies the means in which to destroy us.
Our country thrives on the blood of other countries. We could have had a decent lifestyle and a simple, peaceful existence. We chose an extravagant lifestyle and a war-like existence. In the end, all the electronic whiz-bangs and huge SUVs we reward ourselves with for the killing and impoverishment of others are the devil's currency. There are things worse than death. For myself, I believe in honor. Death is inevitable; life is not. We will all be leaving this life; how many of us will do so with souls that truly shine? We've traded a chance at something meaningful and worthwhile for an existence of acquiring stuff through murder and mayhem and the constant denial of any fellowship or bond of fraternity. The result is that, right before the end, we will see that it was not worthwhile.

Be thankful stronger men are in charge of your security and protection.
I've fought (and run, ducked, rolled, dodged, etc.) for my life more than once, and I expect that I may have to again before much longer. I'd prefer that those men who call what they do protecting me would wise up and realize it's far better to not give someone a reason for aggression. It's far better to accept less for yourself if doing otherwise means others get nothing. It is not always strength to kill and torture and burn; it is not strength to grow angry, to hate, to remain impervious to sense. It is strength to do what is right and refrain from what is wrong.
 

Saboteur

DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 16, 2005
Messages
2,315
Reaction score
134
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
Calm2Chaos said:
Because I don't want tem ending up on my back porch..... That alone is a good enough reason for Iran not to have nuclear weapons
You are a total *****.
 

Calm2Chaos

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 20, 2005
Messages
3,967
Reaction score
7
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Saboteur said:
You are a total *****.
I'm trying to figure out how to take that.. So why don't you expand on your observation so I can make a better determination.....
 

MSgt

Stabler Genius
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 10, 2005
Messages
23,722
Reaction score
8,409
Location
Highlands Ranch, CO
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
ashurbanipal said:
The situation isn't precisely analogous. Add in that the neighbor you're defending, and you yourself, have done something to earn the ire of the threatening neighbor. Like, for instance, burned his house down and killed one of his children. Should a fourth, objective party fail to recognize that he has a right to a gun? This, especially if you and your neighbor have them and continually remind him that if he tries to do anything about what's already happened to him, you'll use your guns to kill him, his wife, his brother, and his other children?
It is precisely analogues. Your rational is weak and cowardice and highly imaginary. First you should ground yourself to the reality and not to fantasy. The Muslim world would have you believe that we do bombing runs all over their neighborhoods. They would have you believe that we suppress them and oppress them. They would have you believe that is our fault that they have no libraries or universities worth speaking of. That would have you believe that we are at fault for their complete lack of industry and failures to compete. They would have you belkieve that we are the reason that they lack infrastructure and opportunity for individual success. They would have you believe that we are the enemy simply because their God said so. Way to go for being the enemies best friend.


ashurbanipal said:
If everyone did what is right, what is necessary would have been a lot less bloody.
"Ifs" don't exist. Again, let go of your fantasy. Join us in reality.


ashurbanipal said:
Not necessarily, even now. What's really at stake is our lifestyle and our position of power. Even if Iran built all the nuclear bombs it could afford, it could not destroy America.

But of course, quite a lot of harm would be inflicted. The thing I'm asking people to recognize is that we created this situation by choosing what was easy over what was right. By choosing power over mutual respect. The only way out of it is to start choosing right over convenience.

As stated plenty of times, the threat of Iran having nukes is not a launch. It is there adherents to Islamic Radicalism and their support of it in any fashion. They applaud when terrorist destroy civillians. They fund and arm them. And you find no danger in them having nukes? Your faith in a fantasy has you blinded to reality.

Stop being foolish and again..you're being a coward. Choosing right is exactly what is happening. What you mean is "be fair." Your ideas of not giving a person a reason for aggression is to appease them. Why is it that your kind always cries about freedoms and liberties, but then are quick to blame America for antagonizing those who have no patience for freedom and liberties?

Mutual respect? Are we declaring them "infidels" and chanting death to Iraq, Syria, Saudi, Iran, and Pakistan? Are groups of Christians forming terror organizations where they are funded by government and venturing out to destroy other civilizations?



ashurbanipal said:
Our country thrives on the blood of other countries. We could have had a decent lifestyle and a simple, peaceful existence. We chose an extravagant lifestyle and a war-like existence. In the end, all the electronic whiz-bangs and huge SUVs we reward ourselves with for the killing and impoverishment of others are the devil's currency. There are things worse than death. For myself, I believe in honor. Death is inevitable; life is not. We will all be leaving this life; how many of us will do so with souls that truly shine? We've traded a chance at something meaningful and worthwhile for an existence of acquiring stuff through murder and mayhem and the constant denial of any fellowship or bond of fraternity. The result is that, right before the end, we will see that it was not worthwhile.
You sound like the unabomber.

You appear to have a complete lack of who our enemy is. You also have a complete lack of understanding of Radical Islam, the Middle Eastern civilization, and terrorism. Honor does not mean hugging your problems away. This is cowardice. Dismissing the notion of fighting for yourself and society today and gambling on the hope that the enemy won't hurt you in the future is pathetic. There is no honor in this.


ashurbanipal said:
I've fought (and run, ducked, rolled, dodged, etc.) for my life more than once, and I expect that I may have to again before much longer. I'd prefer that those men who call what they do protecting me would wise up and realize it's far better to not give someone a reason for aggression. It's far better to accept less for yourself if doing otherwise means others get nothing. It is not always strength to kill and torture and burn; it is not strength to grow angry, to hate, to remain impervious to sense. It is strength to do what is right and refrain from what is wrong.
How has America given these people a reason to murder and destroy? Once again, you have a complete lack of understanding into the social issues of this civilization. I must declare your stance that American Foreign Policy is to blame as complete ignorance, foolishness, and simpleton apologetics.....

The Muslim Brotherhood was founded in 1928 by Hassan al Banna. Their foundation belief is that “Allah is our objective and the Prophet is our leader. Qu’ran is our law. Jihad is our way. Dying in the way of Allah is our highest hope.” The vast majority of terrorists are members. They live within a sea of fundamentals full of futureless youth. At age 8, the combatant begins to read and learn the Qu’ran and the place of women. At age 12 he reads the Qu’ran several hours per day as the father indoctrinates him into the faith. At age 18 he has memorized the entire Qu’ran and after age 18 he comes to America and other countries as a member of the Brotherhood.

This is why your view that we have given them reasons for their behavior is stupid. I don't believe our Forein Policy was such a big deal in the late 1920's. It helps to know what you are talking about instead of settling for opinionated ideology based on fantasies - or based on what the Muslim world would want you echo.

Incidentally, Muslims everywhere are chanting "death to France" and "death to Denmark" over a cartoon. And these are the people of who's governments you wish to allow nukes to be fair? Strength is identifying what is right and what is wrong and then choosing what is necessary. This is called leadership. This is the kind of leadership that leaders of nations must adhere to and do not have the luxury of choosing "right" over necessity. It is very foolish to allow a country that has sworn to destroy our allies and has a history of funding terror organizations the means to build a nuclear weapon. Life is too valuable to take a chance on a country like Iran.

Pacifists.:roll:
 

icky

New member
Joined
Jan 23, 2006
Messages
8
Reaction score
0
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
OK... Let's imagine that GySgt (or whoever) is head of his/her own country. For fun, let's assume that they were elected through some democratic process... Let's also assume that the US doesn't really like them for some reason or another... maybe it's their wacky fundamentalist religious posture...

Now... GySgt, it seems to me that it would be your DUTY to Protect your country and its' interests. Seems to me that the best way to do this is to get your self a seat at the "Big Peoples Table". Just showing up and ringing doorbells probably won't get you much satisfaction and does NOTHING to protect you from your enemies.

Seems to me that IF you had the ability to make a nuclear weapon or two that you not only would have the RIGHT to do so, but you'd have the Obligation! IF you DIDN'T persue nuclear weapons you might be considered incompetent and criminally negligent! Your people deserve the BEST you can provide.

Notice, the most powerful countries in the world (G-8) are alllllll Nuclear Countries.

It seems hypocritical to me that we should have nuclear weapons but nobody else can - because they might use them! Well... we DID use them!

Perhaps, if everybody had them, then it just might force the US and other countries to realize that we are "all in this together" and that we need to find non-nuclear ways to solve our problems. It might just FORCE us to be diplomatic instead of being the 800 pound gorilla.
 

MSgt

Stabler Genius
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 10, 2005
Messages
23,722
Reaction score
8,409
Location
Highlands Ranch, CO
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
icky said:
OK... Let's imagine that GySgt (or whoever) is head of his/her own country. For fun, let's assume that they were elected through some democratic process... Let's also assume that the US doesn't really like them for some reason or another... maybe it's their wacky fundamentalist religious posture...

Now... GySgt, it seems to me that it would be your DUTY to Protect your country and its' interests. Seems to me that the best way to do this is to get your self a seat at the "Big Peoples Table". Just showing up and ringing doorbells probably won't get you much satisfaction and does NOTHING to protect you from your enemies.

Seems to me that IF you had the ability to make a nuclear weapon or two that you not only would have the RIGHT to do so, but you'd have the Obligation! IF you DIDN'T persue nuclear weapons you might be considered incompetent and criminally negligent! Your people deserve the BEST you can provide.

Notice, the most powerful countries in the world (G-8) are alllllll Nuclear Countries.

It seems hypocritical to me that we should have nuclear weapons but nobody else can - because they might use them! Well... we DID use them!

Perhaps, if everybody had them, then it just might force the US and other countries to realize that we are "all in this together" and that we need to find non-nuclear ways to solve our problems. It might just FORCE us to be diplomatic instead of being the 800 pound gorilla.

Pathetic.

The fact that we did use them after they were invented and have not used them since shows our sense of responsibility. In fact, since we have been the leaders to nuclear control ever since, shows that we are exactly the people on earth that should be dictating who has and who should not get them.

Where your arguement falls completely apart is the pasrt where you pretend that I run a country. I wouldn't rule my country through a domineering religion, because I know that in history, all governments that have used religion to control the state have failed. I also would not fund terror groups to go destroy and murder civillians. I also would not stand on national TV and declare my wishes that another country be destroyed, because I didn't like their religion. (This is what Muslims countries are doing to Israel and what Radical Islamists are doing to Christians and Hindus.)

Where your arguement also falls completely apart is where you say we are "all in this together and that we need to find non-nuclear ways to solve our problems." Last I checked we do not use our nukes to solve problems. Last I checked, we are not the aggressors through our religion. Last I checked we aren't the ones funding terrorists to murder. Last I checked, we aren't the ones calling for the destruction of another nation. Last I checked, Iran has nothing to fear from us. We are not threatening them with attack in any manner that would make them feel like they have to build nukes to protect themselves. Did you enjoy the Cold War? Do you want to have one with a Muslim world who sees their "martyrs" as heroes? THE THREAT IS NOT AN IRANIAN LAUNCH. IT IS THEIR ADHERENCE TO RADICAL ISLAM. a nuclear bomb detonating in our country or any other country will not come from a launch. It will come from a "martyr" and no Muslim government will claim it. But by all means...let's be fair.:roll:

Why are you so apologetic to something you clearly don't understand? Do you think these zealots care that you are willing to kiss their ass for survival? Do you think they care that you want to live in harmony with them? Got news for you....they don't want to live with you at all. Clearly you don't know the nature of these terrorists or their background definitions.

There is a lot of you apologists on the site these last few days. Did your college just start a group or something? Either you are all College kids with no direction to reality beyond your campus expertise or you simply aren't old enough to understand the real world and are lost in an idealogue fantasy.

Keep trolling for Al-Queda and those "wacky fundamentalist." Maybe they'll spare you after we allow them nukes out of "fairness." This is the real world....join us.
 
Last edited:

icky

New member
Joined
Jan 23, 2006
Messages
8
Reaction score
0
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
Sheesh...

Maybe I shoulda just left most of that out... apparently it's not helpful to draw hypotheticals pictures like that.

Just let me ask you this: Soverign Nations have certain rights. The right to defend oneself it absolute. IF a country has the ability to produce Nuclear Weapons then I would think they should be allowed to. You seem to have an inability to place yourself in the shoes of another. You seem to be unable to be objective. You seem to have one set of rules for some and another set of rules for others... You appear to be a bully. I am not sure people of your ideology are deserving of the 'power' and 'responsibility' required to make such World Decisions... You seem uninterrested in the lives and rights of NonAmericans... One could almost call you a bigot (A bigot is a prejudiced person who is intolerant of any opinions differing from their own.)

You suggest that Iran would use the Nukes to get rid of Israel... but this would certainly mean that Iran would simultaneously cease to exist... and I can't imagine this is what they have in mind. I'm not sure that your assumption is up to snuff.

Why is it that we (the US) feel that it is our right to determine which countries can (and cannot) persue this kind of technology? Remember, Pakistan has nukes... NK has nukes... Others will certainly acquire nukes, whether we like it or not... and when they do, I can assure you they will gain a place at the World Table and be taken seriously... and we (the US) will have to play nice with them...
 

VTA

DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 5, 2005
Messages
1,081
Reaction score
163
Location
America
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
ashurbanipal said:
I'm not sure what to make of the phrase "evolutionally retarded." Do you mean that people in the middle east are so retarded that they can't understand the theory of evolution? Or do you mean that evolution is slower in the middle east? Or that evolution has led to an abnormal concentration of retarded people in the middle east? Or something else? Clear that up, and I'll respond at more length.
Though there are flare ups and posturing, you'll see that Taiwan and China manage their differences without real threat. Though Russia is said to bully the Ukraine, you'll notice a certain aspect of hostility missing. In the societal and cultural wrangling of many nations on this planet, you'll notice something is missing. That something is the manacheistic attitude of demonizing the one you disagree with. The lack of diplomacy and the tendency toward violence first. Why? Because it's counter productive.

Now view the Middle East reactions to international differences. From the low end of the spectrum, there is silly name calling('brothers of monkeys', dogs, etc) and a complete demonizing of the alleged enemy. 'They're not just people we disagree with, they're the devil'. (Funny how everyone acts as though Americas policy is set by religious 'whacko's', our absence of declaring Holy War and condemning these people for their general priciples of life is telling- it's the acts of killing by a certain contingent that's condemned). To the utmost extreme of believing that dying in a glorious act of terrorism is honorable. The inability to accept your enemy as a person who can be reasoned with, again giving him status as a 'demon' or otherwise dehumanizing him and feeling that going out in a blaze of glory somehow legitimizes this belief. Very archaic way of thinking.

The examples given by bin Laden as to his problems with America are extremely weak. Am I to take it that while you are privy to these things, he doesn't know of America's supposed atrocities in the world, and really only hates us because we have soldiers on 'sacred ground' and that we help Israel and that our society is decadent?

Or am I to believe that he's nothing more than a hypocrite, who remains silent when millions of muslims are killed by fellow muslims? Any rants against the governments in Sudan? Not by bin Laden.

Am I to take it that when Muslim extremists behead catholic school girls in Indonesia that they are somehow justified in doing this? That slaughtering Buddhist farmers in Thailand is really just all of America's fault?

Or am I to recognize that these people are so completely inept at adapting to an ever evolving world, that they are unable to participate in a world where people hold different beliefs?


ashurbanipal said:
In the meantime, I will simply say that you ignore the very real human cost of what we've done, and the injustice of it. We were not justified in invading Iraq or, it turns out, Afganistan.
I'm well aware of what happens in war and am not at all for it's unfortunate toll on people, but I'm also not for appeasing low brow stooges who think they can enforce their wants by killing people. By declaring, 'kill all Americans, in all parts of the world and take their money'. By going out in a blaze of glory in a pizzeria or at a wedding full of civilians.

I'm not really interested in the circumstances that drives a man to do this. Responsibility for ones own life lies on the individuals shoulder. Do you take what life gives you and try to do better, or lash out and blame those you're lashing out at?
 

Saboteur

DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 16, 2005
Messages
2,315
Reaction score
134
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
Calm2Chaos said:
I'm trying to figure out how to take that.. So why don't you expand on your observation so I can make a better determination.....

Living in fear is not living.

Iran isn't going to kill the world anymore than we are.
 
Top Bottom