<!--QuoteBegin-Legat+Nov 12 2004, 06:14 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Legat @ Nov 12 2004, 06:14 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> You want stability in the middle east? You want an end to terror is israel and peace in Gaza? Then bring balance to the region. If Iran finally would aquire nuclear capability, Israel military dominace would come to an end. They could not threaten to retaliate on any agression with conventional military anymore, without fearing consequences. Israel now is able to do as they please as Israel is capable of nuking any army or any city. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> I do not feel that Israel needs to be balanced in this manner. They seem quite capable of not using nuclear weapons and yet they have had them for some 20 - 30 years. I think this illustrates the defensive nature of Israel. They have the capability of wiping out every country in the middle east yet they have not.
If they were as aggressive as you make them out to be, why have we not seen them attack any countries without provocation?
marine 01: there is a signifacnt differnce between bombing a reacont under construction adn an operating one. i think that droping bombs on a functioning nuclear reactor might make chernobyl look like a picnic.
i should have known that america is on straight and narrow and i appologize for my igonorance. We obviously are creating free and fair elections in countries. there arent reports of american troops putting down large scale insurrections. we are not holding persons in jail for no reason and with no charge. we are not violating international law. How could i have been so bold as to question our moral standing in the world?
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->I do not feel that Israel needs to be balanced in this manner. They seem quite capable of not using nuclear weapons and yet they have had them for some 20 - 30 years. I think this illustrates the defensive nature of Israel. They have the capability of wiping out every country in the middle east yet they have not.
If they were as aggressive as you make them out to be, why have we not seen them attack any countries without provocation?<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
They haven't had to use nukes yet, you don't start a war with nukes come on. They have successfully defended their country each time with their excellent military.
Theres a hijack? the world is humming and hawing, Israel flies in, kills the terrorists and frees the hostages, for every Israeli who dies in a suicide attack about 5 to 10 Palestinians are killed indirectly, they know how to take care of themselves...call it an aggressive defence.
If Columbia got rich and turned extremely anti-American, starting writing how they will crush America on the side of their rockets and then started going nuclear...I really think America would react swiftly to that regardless of world opinion...
Israel is surrounded by enemies who want to annihalate her, not as badly now as they wanted to in the seventies, she has nukes and they don't. If Iran gets them then that comfort zone will disappear.
<!--QuoteBegin-Timmythemoonpig+Nov 12 2004, 11:58 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Timmythemoonpig @ Nov 12 2004, 11:58 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->I do not feel that Israel needs to be balanced in this manner. They seem quite capable of not using nuclear weapons and yet they have had them for some 20 - 30 years. I think this illustrates the defensive nature of Israel. They have the capability of wiping out every country in the middle east yet they have not.
If they were as aggressive as you make them out to be, why have we not seen them attack any countries without provocation?<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
They haven't had to use nukes yet, you don't start a war with nukes come on. They have successfully defended their country each time with their excellent military.
Theres a hijack? the world is humming and hawing, Israel flies in, kills the terrorists and frees the hostages, for every Israeli who dies in a suicide attack about 5 to 10 Palestinians are killed indirectly, they know how to take care of themselves...call it an aggressive defence.
If Columbia got rich and turned extremely anti-American, starting writing how they will crush America on the side of their rockets and then started going nuclear...I really think America would react swiftly to that regardless of world opinion...
Israel is surrounded by enemies who want to annihalate her, not as badly now as they wanted to in the seventies, she has nukes and they don't. If Iran gets them then that comfort zone will disappear. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Israel has defended itself with its nukes before.
During the Yom Kippur war, Israel realized that its military could not support itself. The United States had cut the supply of military equipment to Israel in protest. Israel was feeling the crunch as its economy could not develop a military of its own of sufficient might.
Israel was about to lose, and they played one of the least known examples of brinkmanship yet one of the most dangerous.
Faced with defeat Israel rolled a squadron of strike aircraft out of their underground bunkers. They made sure to leave them exposed on the runways so that spies could see them. The reason? These aircraft were armed with nuclear munitions. They made sure that everyone knew they had rolled out these aircraft.
Why? To show the US that if they did not resume arm shipments to Israel that the only option left for Israel was a nuclear retaliation. Israel had realized that unless it could purchase premade military equipment and supplies its only option was a policy of nuclear retaliation. Not willing to trust the Arab nations to respect the threat of a nuclear willing Israel the United States resumed its supply of arms to Israel.
<!--QuoteBegin-Legat+Nov 12 2004, 06:14 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Legat @ Nov 12 2004, 06:14 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> You want stability in the middle east? You want an end to terror is israel and peace in Gaza? Then bring balance to the region. If Iran finally would aquire nuclear capability, Israel military dominace would come to an end. They could not threaten to retaliate on any agression with conventional military anymore, without fearing consequences. Israel now is able to do as they please as Israel is capable of nuking any army or any city. If however an islamic nation is capable of doing the same, and declares any attack on its islamic allies as a direct attack against themselves, Israel cannot risk to attack. Both sides will threaten each other with their nuclear weapons, yet nobody will use them. Nuclear weapons serve only one purpose. They prevent a war.
<!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> I guess it all comes down to trust, you see I trust Israel with their nukes, as I know they will only ever use them if their nation is on the brink of defeat, as would any nation. I do not trust Iran with nukes; I do not feel they need nukes, why should they have power equal to Israel’s? Israel is not the one tossing around random death threats, hell Israel is about as much a threat to Iran as Turkey is, as long as they don't build nukes.
You see in my mind it won't take very much for Iran to use its nukes, or for them to dole them out to terrorists to do their work for them, and the terrorists as we know have been actively pursuing nuclear weapons for some time now, as far as I know they haven’t gotten any. Iran will not help this situation in anyway.
Could you please find an example of Israel threatening to destroy Iran in some random offensive attack, other then its nuclear facilities? One that would justify Iran's need for such weapons.
Its not to do with trust of Iran or Israel with nukes, its the threat, Israel doesn't threaten the west, neither does the UK, neither does India or Pakistan...
We're safe with Pakistan, but if it had chosen not to help the US with war on terror, then it would definitely be considered a dangerous country with nukes...prehaps like Iran is becoming now...
If you're not a threat to the west you can have dictators, Uzbekistan, Saudi, Burma, Turkemenistan, etc you can even have nukes...e.g. Pakistan.
Meddling with another country no matter how long ago it was creates massive hate...I understand why many Iranians dislike their government, I also understand why many Iranians hate the US, then again I understand why plenty of Americans recently dislike the French (having 'Baghdad today, Paris tomorrow' on the barrels of Abraams tanks is kinda funny, but suddenly its not a funny joke when thats written on Iranian missiles with the words 'we will crush America under our feet')
Israel and Iran are very mutually suspicious of each other, spying and building up of arms creates the same kind of tension that can exists between countries that ideologically historically etc oppose each other, e.g. India Pakistan, China Taiwan, the military and intelligence gathering build up just makes it more and more pronounced.
Fear-mongering which is a blight in this post 911 world amongst media and politians seems to deem it an unavoidable fact that Iran will sometime in the future hand over very expensive and extremely valuble nuclear weapon (if it goes ahead and makes them) to a terrorist group. The majority of europeans have a hate for Bush, that doesn't mean they would help terrorists attack America, Iran has a hate for America but I dont think for one second that country would risk getting wiped off the face of this earth to do something as crazy as handing over such a thing to terrorists.
Also, why would Iran start a nuclear war? thats another crazy supposition. The clerics may be hardline, but Iran is soft compared to quite a few other countries. These other countries are trusted by the west. Speculating about something in the media and talking about it doesn't mean its going to happen. Its a simple case of 'if you're not with us you're against us' and that entails all the over-the-top fear mongering propaganda and negative media that country will receive, until we are told that the leaders of Iran are actually Al Qaeda terrorists in disguise just waiting till they have nukes.
<!--QuoteBegin-Timmythemoonpig+Nov 12 2004, 11:37 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Timmythemoonpig @ Nov 12 2004, 11:37 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Also, why would Iran start a nuclear war? thats another crazy supposition. The clerics may be hardline, but Iran is soft compared to quite a few other countries. These other countries are trusted by the west. Speculating about something in the media and talking about it doesn't mean its going to happen. Its a simple case of 'if you're not with us you're against us' and that entails all the over-the-top fear mongering propaganda and negative media that country will receive, until we are told that the leaders of Iran are actually Al Qaeda terrorists in disguise just waiting till they have nukes. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> My question is why are you so eager to distribute nuclear weapons to <i>anyone regardless</i> of so named "global political alignment." You may say, "nuclear capibility is sadly necessary for soverignity in this day and age." I'll be sure and remind you of that when we're huddled in a bunker.
Ok, unfair rhetoric aside, why is the final solution the only way of asserting soverignity? And seriously, what does soverignity mean if, to get it, you have to dominate your foreign policy with the quest for nuclear weapons? Even for countries that have nuclear weapons, are they really soverign? India and Pakistan seem locked in a complicated dance to solve (or continue to ignore) the problem of Kashmir now that they are nuclear powers, where before they might have had the oppurtunity to "assert their soverignity" over the region. China, on the coast, looks like Europe (with less traffic lights).
Now, specifically, how is Iran soft compared to quite a few other countries. The clerics are hard-line and the "democratically elected legislature" (the people who recently shouted "Death to America" whilst resuming nuclear development) are hand picked, for the most part, by those same hard-line clerics.
<!--QuoteBegin-Deus Ex Machina+Nov 10 2004, 02:30 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Deus Ex Machina @ Nov 10 2004, 02:30 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> But my biggest question is, how come the USA and Britain can have huge stockpiles of nuclear weapons and Iran can't have one? <!--emo&???--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/confused-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='confused-fix.gif' /><!--endemo--> <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Do you really have to ask? Seriously. If you can't tell the difference between USA and Britian and IRAN... I'm just shocked <!--emo&:(--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/sad-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='sad-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->
(e)kent: i will agree that the "democratic" system is not as open as it could be. but compared to 10 years ago the coutnry is being liberalized.
they have a film industry now, just as an example. while this may seem to be insignificant the fact hardline muslims generally consider an image to be a false idol detracting from god the existance of a film industry is an amazing step forward.
<!--QuoteBegin-confused!+Nov 12 2004, 12:32 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (confused! @ Nov 12 2004, 12:32 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> (e)kent: i will agree that the "democratic" system is not as open as it could be. but compared to 10 years ago the coutnry is being liberalized.
they have a film industry now, just as an example. while this may seem to be insignificant the fact hardline muslims generally consider an image to be a false idol detracting from god the existance of a film industry is an amazing step forward. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Is that what matters though? Do we have a litmus test for democracy when we're considering allowing the spread of nuclear weapons?
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->My question is why are you so eager to distribute nuclear weapons to <i>anyone regardless</i> of so named "global political alignment." You may say, "nuclear capibility is sadly necessary for soverignity in this day and age." I'll be sure and remind you of that when we're huddled in a bunker.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I dont think any of those things and I very much doubt I'll be huddled in a bunker unless of course someone decides to be pre-emptive and I think theres a much higher chance of the West once again being pre-emptive than any of the so called threats to the West real or media inspired. I wonder when the media will get back around to North Korea again, the one with the crazy dictator, the properly dangerous country.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Ok, unfair rhetoric aside, why is the final solution the only way of asserting soverignity? And seriously, what does soverignity mean if, to get it, you have to dominate your foreign policy with the quest for nuclear weapons? Even for countries that have nuclear weapons, are they really soverign? India and Pakistan seem locked in a complicated dance to solve (or continue to ignore) the problem of Kashmir now that they are nuclear powers, where before they might have had the oppurtunity to "assert their soverignity" over the region. China, on the coast, looks like Europe (with less traffic lights).<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Yeah I agree
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Now, specifically, how is Iran soft compared to quite a few other countries. The clerics are hard-line and the "democratically elected legislature" (the people who recently shouted "Death to America" whilst resuming nuclear development) are hand picked, for the most part, by those same hard-line clerics.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I will not go into the long long list of (evil mass-murdering) ictators supported and imposed by US foreign policy throughout the last few decades. Iran going nuclear is definitely to give them some cards to gain sway with Europe, Russia, Iran wants friends but not the US. The problem is that its been hyped up again by the media and being blown out of proportion, you may have to put tape on your windows yet if Iran goes totally nuclear.
The issue isn't so serious in the rest of the world really, the people of Iran have it much easier than the people of Sudan, or Zimbabwe, or Liberia, and who could forget Belarus, etc.
<!--QuoteBegin-wizard@psu+Nov 12 2004, 12:33 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (wizard@psu @ Nov 12 2004, 12:33 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Why? To show the US that if they did not resume arm shipments to Israel that the only option left for Israel was a nuclear retaliation. Israel had realized that unless it could purchase premade military equipment and supplies its only option was a policy of nuclear retaliation. Not willing to trust the Arab nations to respect the threat of a nuclear willing Israel the United States resumed its supply of arms to Israel. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> So you're saying Israel was in the wrong? They showed their intent to use nukes if they were to lose the war? A war they didn't start?
Don't get onto Israel because they showed they would take the rest of the middle east with them if the middle east succeeded into overrunning them.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->marine 01: there is a signifacnt differnce between bombing a reacont under construction adn an operating one. i think that droping bombs on a functioning nuclear reactor might make chernobyl look like a picnic. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Well, I was under the impression it worked either way. You can detonate nuclear weapons with C4 and all you'll do is scatter the radioactive material, not mushroom cloud.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->i should have known that america is on straight and narrow and i appologize for my igonorance. We obviously are creating free and fair elections in countries. there arent reports of american troops putting down large scale insurrections. we are not holding persons in jail for no reason and with no charge. we are not violating international law. How could i have been so bold as to question our moral standing in the world?<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
On behalf of the future democratic nation of Iraq, and the now democratic nation of Afghanistan - I accept your apology. As for your international law and moral standing - you saved both in 1994 by not intervening in the slaughter in Rwanda, the innocents of this world could do with a damn sight less of both. Everyone walks over international law when it suits them, and then hide behind it when the morally correct action is deemed "not in our best interests".
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->I will not go into the long long list of (evil mass-murdering) ictators supported and imposed by US foreign policy throughout the last few decades.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Good - because a greater exercise in pointlessness has yet to be discovered. How destabilising the democratic government of Iran in favour of Shah back in the 50's/60's has any relevance to their current desire to gain nuclear weapons while hollering Death to America has little to do with the pressing question of "what's to be done about it".
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->The issue isn't so serious in the rest of the world really, the people of Iran have it much easier than the people of Sudan, or Zimbabwe, or Liberia, and who could forget Belarus, etc.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
This issue isnt that serious - it doesnt need to be hyped. They'll get bombed by Israeli's exactly like last time, I dont lose sleep over this. What I do lose sleep over is people claiming "Iran is a great place, they should get nukes, its only fair" etc etc - because that demonstrates a dangerous lack of critical thinking.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->What I do lose sleep over is people claiming "Iran is a great place, they should get nukes, its only fair" etc etc - because that demonstrates a dangerous lack of critical thinking.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--QuoteBegin-Nadagast+Nov 12 2004, 03:16 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Nadagast @ Nov 12 2004, 03:16 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin-Deus Ex Machina+Nov 10 2004, 02:30 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Deus Ex Machina @ Nov 10 2004, 02:30 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> But my biggest question is, how come the USA and Britain can have huge stockpiles of nuclear weapons and Iran can't have one? <!--emo&???--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/confused-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='confused-fix.gif' /><!--endemo--> <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Do you really have to ask? Seriously. If you can't tell the difference between USA and Britian and IRAN... I'm just shocked <!--emo&:(--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/sad-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='sad-fix.gif' /><!--endemo--> <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> No, I just wanted to start a discussion. <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/smile-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->
I say to hell with the Middle East. Over the next 10 years America should develop the facilities to become <b>completely self-sufficient</b>. This means being able to produce everything we import and developing the facilities to replace our addiction to oil. Then at once, pull all our troops and diplomats from everywhere, stop all foreign trade, cut off all relations and watch what happens.
<!--QuoteBegin-othell+Nov 12 2004, 04:42 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (othell @ Nov 12 2004, 04:42 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin-wizard@psu+Nov 12 2004, 12:33 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (wizard@psu @ Nov 12 2004, 12:33 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Why? To show the US that if they did not resume arm shipments to Israel that the only option left for Israel was a nuclear retaliation. Israel had realized that unless it could purchase premade military equipment and supplies its only option was a policy of nuclear retaliation. Not willing to trust the Arab nations to respect the threat of a nuclear willing Israel the United States resumed its supply of arms to Israel. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> So you're saying Israel was in the wrong? They showed their intent to use nukes if they were to lose the war? A war they didn't start?
Don't get onto Israel because they showed they would take the rest of the middle east with them if the middle east succeeded into overrunning them. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Begining your post with a rhetorical question and then proceeding as if your first assumption was correct is not a good way to debate anyone. I have always been a supporter of Israel in general and from your response it seems that so are you. However I will not hesitate to call you out if I feel that you jumped to a conclusion.
Not once did I mention that Israel was in the wrong. In fact, I feel that they showed exactly how nuclear weapons can be used as an indirect threat to ensure their defense. They made no overt threats against other countries. On the contrary, their display of the nuclear weapons illustrated that they honorable enough to show that they were against the wall and did not wish to be pushed to the point where they would have to use their nuclear arsenal. In essence saying that they would much rather lose a conventional war on equal footing than win a nuclear one.
People mistaking my statements for a condemnation seems to occur often on these boards and I think it would happen less often if people would take the time to read what I wrote and think about it for a good 30 seconds at least before hitting the reply button.
Trust me. You will know when I am being critical of something beyond the shadow of a doubt.
<!--QuoteBegin-confused!+Nov 12 2004, 11:44 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (confused! @ Nov 12 2004, 11:44 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> marine 01: there is a signifacnt differnce between bombing a reacont under construction adn an operating one. i think that droping bombs on a functioning nuclear reactor might make chernobyl look like a picnic.
i should have known that america is on straight and narrow and i appologize for my igonorance. We obviously are creating free and fair elections in countries. there arent reports of american troops putting down large scale insurrections. we are not holding persons in jail for no reason and with no charge. we are not violating international law. How could i have been so bold as to question our moral standing in the world? <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> If every action were held to the expectation of perfection then the Human Race would accomplish nothing.
Re: Your mention of the dangers of demolishing a working nuclear reactor.
1. I suggest that if you are from a country whose politicians chant "Death to America" while voting to continue the processing of uranium that you get as far away from any nuclear facility as you can.
2. Is it better to have a destroyed reactor and irradiated area in a sparsly populated area or wait until a populated city is given a 1ms suntan?
<!--QuoteBegin-Timmythemoonpig+Nov 13 2004, 11:30 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Timmythemoonpig @ Nov 13 2004, 11:30 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->What I do lose sleep over is people claiming "Iran is a great place, they should get nukes, its only fair" etc etc - because that demonstrates a dangerous lack of critical thinking.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
rofl, who says that? <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> See the first post for "everyone should get nukes" - see the following posts for why "Iran aint all that bad". Put two and two together - it equals nuts <!--emo&:(--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/sad-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='sad-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->1. I suggest that if you are from a country whose politicians chant "Death to America" while voting to continue the processing of uranium that you get as far away from any nuclear facility as you can. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I wonder what chants the people in new England chanted when they danced under the scarecrow on the gallow with the sign "King George" on his chest, celebrating their declaration of independence <!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/biggrin-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->.
Seriously, it really puzzles me why especially US citizens, which certainly are accustomed to their own nations violent history, do not realize the reasons for those peoples aggresions. It is this ignorance that now backfires on us all.
<!--QuoteBegin-Legat+Nov 13 2004, 08:55 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Legat @ Nov 13 2004, 08:55 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> I wonder what chants the people in new England chanted when they danced under the scarecrow on the gallow with the sign "King George" on his chest, celebrating their declaration of independence <!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/biggrin-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->.
<!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Something about Healthcare being unaffordable. <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' /><!--endemo-->
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Seriously, it really puzzles me why especially US citizens, which certainly are accustomed to their own nations violent history, do not realize the reasons for those peoples aggresions. It is this ignorance that now backfires on us all.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Last I checked the people of Iran really don't hate Americans that much, or at least not our culture, and they really don't like their government a whole lot. Has anyone found out what the Iranian people think about developing nuclear weapons? I'm sure many of them think it will only bring unnecessary trouble, which it will.
<!--QuoteBegin-reasa+Nov 13 2004, 12:25 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (reasa @ Nov 13 2004, 12:25 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin-Legat+Nov 13 2004, 08:55 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Legat @ Nov 13 2004, 08:55 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> I wonder what chants the people in new England chanted when they danced under the scarecrow on the gallow with the sign "King George" on his chest, celebrating their declaration of independence <!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/biggrin-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Something about Healthcare being unaffordable. <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' /><!--endemo--> <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> The funniest comment I will see all day.
<!--QuoteBegin-Legat+Nov 10 2004, 06:42 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Legat @ Nov 10 2004, 06:42 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Can you tell me about one thing that actually makes them the evil people you want them to be? Besides trying to gain political independence by nuclear capability and thus installing a nuclear stalement in the middle east? I might add, just in case you forgot, that such a nuclear stalement has actually been the reason why we had 50 years of peace..... <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> I'm sorry, what? You call the Cold War a time of peace? Excuse me while I go tell that to my mom and grandma, and watch them die of heart attacks.
And Timmy, by "self-sufficient" he also meant "alternate power sources", as in hydrogen fuel cells or the like. Or nuclear-powered SUVs. Sweeeet.
<!--QuoteBegin-Legat+Nov 13 2004, 08:55 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Legat @ Nov 13 2004, 08:55 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->1. I suggest that if you are from a country whose politicians chant "Death to America" while voting to continue the processing of uranium that you get as far away from any nuclear facility as you can. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I wonder what chants the people in new England chanted when they danced under the scarecrow on the gallow with the sign "King George" on his chest, celebrating their declaration of independence <!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/biggrin-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->.
Seriously, it really puzzles me why especially US citizens, which certainly are accustomed to their own nations violent history, do not realize the reasons for those peoples aggresions. It is this ignorance that now backfires on us all. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Admitting <b>everything you said</b>, does this constitute an argument for allowing Iran to develop nukes? Ok that's a rhetorical question: no it doesn't constitute one. I think you're trying to make it <i>into</i> that type of argument, which it's not.
[edit for clarity's sake:] Here's a parallel argument that was used recently on these boards:
<i>Los Angeles has more murders per year than the amount of soldiers we've lost in Iraq. Thus, since no one is complaining about the number of people murdered in LA, you shouldn't complain about the number of soldiers lost in Iraq!</i>
Does that make it more clear to you why this is a bad argument?
[edit 2]
Just another aside: <!--QuoteBegin-wizard@psu+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (wizard@psu)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Begining your post with a rhetorical question and then proceeding as if your first assumption was correct is not a good way to debate anyone.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> You should give him the benefit of the doubt and assume that none of his questions are rhetorical. It's a respect thing, I know, but calling out other people's debating styles is <i>also</i> not a good way to debate anyone, IMHO.
<!--QuoteBegin-Legat+Nov 13 2004, 07:55 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Legat @ Nov 13 2004, 07:55 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> I wonder what chants the people in new England chanted when they danced under the scarecrow on the gallow with the sign "King George" on his chest, celebrating their declaration of independence <!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/biggrin-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> I'm pretty sure they didn't have nukes otherwise there'd be a huge green spot on the map of the world where the thirteen colonies used to be...
<!--QuoteBegin-Marine01+Nov 13 2004, 02:55 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Marine01 @ Nov 13 2004, 02:55 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin-Timmythemoonpig+Nov 13 2004, 11:30 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Timmythemoonpig @ Nov 13 2004, 11:30 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->What I do lose sleep over is people claiming "Iran is a great place, they should get nukes, its only fair" etc etc - because that demonstrates a dangerous lack of critical thinking.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
rofl, who says that? <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> See the first post for "everyone should get nukes" - see the following posts for why "Iran aint all that bad". Put two and two together - it equals nuts <!--emo&:(--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/sad-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='sad-fix.gif' /><!--endemo--> <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> <!--emo&???--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/confused-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='confused-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> (Legat @ Nov 13 2004, 08:55 AM) I wonder what chants the people in new England chanted when they danced under the scarecrow on the gallow with the sign "King George" on his chest, celebrating their declaration of independence biggrin-fix.gif. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Something about Healthcare being unaffordable. <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' /><!--endemo--> <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Big fat LOL. nice one Reasa! <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/smile-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Seriously, it really puzzles me why especially US citizens, which certainly are accustomed to their own nations violent history, do not realize the reasons for those peoples aggresions. It is this ignorance that now backfires on us all.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Last I checked the people of Iran really don't hate Americans that much, or at least not our culture, and they really don't like their government a whole lot. Has anyone found out what the Iranian people think about developing nuclear weapons? I'm sure many of them think it will only bring unnecessary trouble, which it will.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Exactly. The people do not hate america per se. However some....unlucky political developments (most notably the US involvements in the Iran/Irak war) in the past have given more radical elements the possibility to act and seize power. That is how things happen in underdeveloped or otherwhise economically/culturally handicapped nations under foreign influence. Its the normal way things work out. As for the peoples support for their government, well, that is difficult to say for outsiders. However, the Iranian government did actually improve certain aspects of dayly life and has begun to liberate the country. The iranian film industry someone mentioned is an actual and visible sign of that. The country is definately developing, something that cannot be said about Saudi Arabia for instance.
Iran is going to become a major political factor in the region. That development started without foreing help or dictation. Iran is slowly redefining itself. Like china is doing. China was left alone and not tempered with, and HUSH.... we have the new upcoming superpower for the second half of the 21. century. Maybe Iran is going to perform a similar development....that is, if nobody starts bombing them anytime soon.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> (Legat @ Nov 13 2004, 07:55 AM) I wonder what chants the people in new England chanted when they danced under the scarecrow on the gallow with the sign "King George" on his chest, celebrating their declaration of independence
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> I'm pretty sure they didn't have nukes otherwise there'd be a huge green spot on the map of the world where the thirteen colonies used to be<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> ?? Could you explain why? Because they would have nuked themselves? Ohh...no, they would have ignited the third world war because they are evil terrorist right?
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> I'm sorry, what? You call the Cold War a time of peace? Excuse me while I go tell that to my mom and grandma, and watch them die of heart attacks.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Well then ask them why they were so afraid of the Sovjets and the nuclear holocaust. Or why the Sovjet people lived in the same fear. Was it because it was really meant to happen, or was it because our governments told us who is our enemy, who is going to protect us and why we must be wary? I do not know how old you are, but I am old enough to have had a taste of the cold war when I was a small kid. Yet the times had changed, and there was perestroyka and all, however, the fear of war was still great just 25 years ago, people still watched documentations about emergency shelters on TV and frequently the alarms sounded to test the disaster warning signals. Tchernobyl was the last big issue that awoke these fears that were planted in the peoples head since the 1950s. Parents feared to let their children go to school because of radiation. Yet, we all kind of survived that big tragedy, did we? <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' /><!--endemo-->
However, despite all the fear, which was nothing more that an instrument to bring us in line, the time was a time of relative savety and peace. There were some pokergames, like cuba, and some really dirty conflicts that severd not more purpose that fire up the economy and determin everybodys resolve to do what "is nessesary". But the big descicive war between the thwo superpowers never happened. If the Nuclear stalement had not existed, then another wolrd war would have broken loose. Yet again, this war would not have been carried out in the USA. Again, it would been fought out on European soil.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Admitting everything you said, does this constitute an argument for allowing Iran to develop nukes? Ok that's a rhetorical question: no it doesn't constitute one. I think you're trying to make it into that type of argument, which it's not.
[edit for clarity's sake:] Here's a parallel argument that was used recently on these boards:
Los Angeles has more murders per year than the amount of soldiers we've lost in Iraq. Thus, since no one is complaining about the number of people murdered in LA, you shouldn't complain about the number of soldiers lost in Iraq!
Does that make it more clear to you why this is a bad argument?<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
You misunderstood me on that account. I did not argue for anything in this statement. I just wanted to provoke some thinking. My intention was to show certain parallel developments which occur over and over again in our history. It repeats in every historical period and it will alway stay the same. My intention is to bring peolple to see our inability to truely develope and break our most ancient behavior. In ancient times, we brought civilisation to babarians, then, we brought the holy word to the heretics, then we brought them freedom and democracy, free markets, thenn it was sozialism, which did not work so well and now we are again handing out democracy and human rights for free.... That is what we are told and we want to believe, however that is not more than a "democratic" way to make us look ahead and overlook them mess that happens around us and we leave in our wake.
Iran will govern itself and it will develope its sozial and cultural richness, for the good or the bad of its people. We will see. If it is for the bad, then some day the people will do something against it. they will do it <i>themselves</i>. This is the only way these nations can devlope. It is the only way any nation can grow. However this development will not happen when we interfere. It <i>cannot </i> happen as long as we interfere.
<!--QuoteBegin-Legat+Nov 14 2004, 05:08 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Legat @ Nov 14 2004, 05:08 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Iran will govern itself and it will develope its sozial and cultural richness, for the good or the bad of its people. We will see. If it is for the bad, then some day the people will do something against it. they will do it <i>themselves</i>. This is the only way these nations can devlope. It is the only way any nation can grow. However this development will not happen when we interfere. It <i>cannot </i> happen as long as we interfere.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> I am completely supportive of a nation's right to political self-determination. Even when I'm rather dubious about the outcome, such as the "balkanization" of Yugoslavia or other ex-communist countries, I do feel that it's important for them to seek their own solution to their own problems. Even supporters of the Iraq war tend to justify their position with the thought that they're empowering Iraqis with that ability. In that regard, you're preaching to the choir here.
Self-determination has its limitations, however. No nation exists in a political vacuum. Iran is making a decision which unavoidably impacts the rest of the world. How is it wrong for the rest of the world to exert their will when they feel this decision is going to hurt them? We're not talking about this country passing a law about how their women can wear their hair or what side of the street cars can drive on. Iran is attempting to enforce its will with - at the very least - the threat of nuclear war. This is in no way a positive thing.
I'm afraid you're going to dodge the bullet here and make a statement about provoking thoughts, when in actuality what you're saying is an argument whatever you want to call it personally. Your statements do have a greater context in this thread. So let me reiterate. In other discussions or contexts I would emphatically agree with Iran's right to govern themselves and develop their "social and cultural richness." When they try to do that (well I find it difficult to equate WMDs with cultural richness) by threatening the world it's a different matter though. Hopefully this made sense <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/smile-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile-fix.gif' /><!--endemo--> .
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Iran is going to become a major political factor in the region. That development started without foreing help or dictation. Iran is slowly redefining itself. Like china is doing. China was left alone and not tempered with, and HUSH.... we have the new upcoming superpower for the second half of the 21. century. Maybe Iran is going to perform a similar development....that is, if nobody starts bombing them anytime soon.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Being superpower is probably one thing that it is best to have a monopoly on. What has happened constantly throughout history when you have more then 1 or 2 superpowers of about equal power? Well let?s see we could go as far back as Rome and Carthage, but WWI, WWII, and the Cold War should be good enough examples. The world has seen one of it's most relaxed periods of peace from the time the USSR fell to 9/11, and lets face it 9/11 was just Cold War ghosts coming back to haunt us. Even what?s going on in the Middle East now pales in comparison to the examples above. I'm sorry but I can't say I want any more superpowers competing with us for the job, because I think I know how it's going to turn out.
Better to have a small conflict now then a nuclear standoff later, that?s the way I see it.
<!--QuoteBegin-Legat+Nov 14 2004, 04:08 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Legat @ Nov 14 2004, 04:08 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> ?? Could you explain why? Because they would have nuked themselves? Ohh...no, they would have ignited the third world war because they are evil terrorist right?
<!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Because I believe that the we we'rnt doing so well in the american revolution at first
Comments
You want stability in the middle east? You want an end to terror is israel and peace in Gaza? Then bring balance to the region.
If Iran finally would aquire nuclear capability, Israel military dominace would come to an end. They could not threaten to retaliate on any agression with conventional military anymore, without fearing consequences. Israel now is able to do as they please as Israel is capable of nuking any army or any city. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
I do not feel that Israel needs to be balanced in this manner. They seem quite capable of not using nuclear weapons and yet they have had them for some 20 - 30 years. I think this illustrates the defensive nature of Israel. They have the capability of wiping out every country in the middle east yet they have not.
If they were as aggressive as you make them out to be, why have we not seen them attack any countries without provocation?
i should have known that america is on straight and narrow and i appologize for my igonorance. We obviously are creating free and fair elections in countries. there arent reports of american troops putting down large scale insurrections. we are not holding persons in jail for no reason and with no charge. we are not violating international law. How could i have been so bold as to question our moral standing in the world?
If they were as aggressive as you make them out to be, why have we not seen them attack any countries without provocation?<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
They haven't had to use nukes yet, you don't start a war with nukes come on. They have successfully defended their country each time with their excellent military.
Theres a hijack? the world is humming and hawing, Israel flies in, kills the terrorists and frees the hostages, for every Israeli who dies in a suicide attack about 5 to 10 Palestinians are killed indirectly, they know how to take care of themselves...call it an aggressive defence.
If Columbia got rich and turned extremely anti-American, starting writing how they will crush America on the side of their rockets and then started going nuclear...I really think America would react swiftly to that regardless of world opinion...
Israel is surrounded by enemies who want to annihalate her, not as badly now as they wanted to in the seventies, she has nukes and they don't. If Iran gets them then that comfort zone will disappear.
If they were as aggressive as you make them out to be, why have we not seen them attack any countries without provocation?<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
They haven't had to use nukes yet, you don't start a war with nukes come on. They have successfully defended their country each time with their excellent military.
Theres a hijack? the world is humming and hawing, Israel flies in, kills the terrorists and frees the hostages, for every Israeli who dies in a suicide attack about 5 to 10 Palestinians are killed indirectly, they know how to take care of themselves...call it an aggressive defence.
If Columbia got rich and turned extremely anti-American, starting writing how they will crush America on the side of their rockets and then started going nuclear...I really think America would react swiftly to that regardless of world opinion...
Israel is surrounded by enemies who want to annihalate her, not as badly now as they wanted to in the seventies, she has nukes and they don't. If Iran gets them then that comfort zone will disappear. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Israel has defended itself with its nukes before.
During the Yom Kippur war, Israel realized that its military could not support itself. The United States had cut the supply of military equipment to Israel in protest. Israel was feeling the crunch as its economy could not develop a military of its own of sufficient might.
Israel was about to lose, and they played one of the least known examples of brinkmanship yet one of the most dangerous.
Faced with defeat Israel rolled a squadron of strike aircraft out of their underground bunkers. They made sure to leave them exposed on the runways so that spies could see them. The reason? These aircraft were armed with nuclear munitions. They made sure that everyone knew they had rolled out these aircraft.
Why? To show the US that if they did not resume arm shipments to Israel that the only option left for Israel was a nuclear retaliation. Israel had realized that unless it could purchase premade military equipment and supplies its only option was a policy of nuclear retaliation. Not willing to trust the Arab nations to respect the threat of a nuclear willing Israel the United States resumed its supply of arms to Israel.
If Iran finally would aquire nuclear capability, Israel military dominace would come to an end. They could not threaten to retaliate on any agression with conventional military anymore, without fearing consequences. Israel now is able to do as they please as Israel is capable of nuking any army or any city.
If however an islamic nation is capable of doing the same, and declares any attack on its islamic allies as a direct attack against themselves, Israel cannot risk to attack. Both sides will threaten each other with their nuclear weapons, yet nobody will use them.
Nuclear weapons serve only one purpose. They prevent a war.
<!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
I guess it all comes down to trust, you see I trust Israel with their nukes, as I know they will only ever use them if their nation is on the brink of defeat, as would any nation. I do not trust Iran with nukes; I do not feel they need nukes, why should they have power equal to Israel’s? Israel is not the one tossing around random death threats, hell Israel is about as much a threat to Iran as Turkey is, as long as they don't build nukes.
You see in my mind it won't take very much for Iran to use its nukes, or for them to dole them out to terrorists to do their work for them, and the terrorists as we know have been actively pursuing nuclear weapons for some time now, as far as I know they haven’t gotten any. Iran will not help this situation in anyway.
Could you please find an example of Israel threatening to destroy Iran in some random offensive attack, other then its nuclear facilities? One that would justify Iran's need for such weapons.
We're safe with Pakistan, but if it had chosen not to help the US with war on terror, then it would definitely be considered a dangerous country with nukes...prehaps like Iran is becoming now...
If you're not a threat to the west you can have dictators, Uzbekistan, Saudi, Burma, Turkemenistan, etc you can even have nukes...e.g. Pakistan.
Meddling with another country no matter how long ago it was creates massive hate...I understand why many Iranians dislike their government, I also understand why many Iranians hate the US, then again I understand why plenty of Americans recently dislike the French (having 'Baghdad today, Paris tomorrow' on the barrels of Abraams tanks is kinda funny, but suddenly its not a funny joke when thats written on Iranian missiles with the words 'we will crush America under our feet')
Israel and Iran are very mutually suspicious of each other, spying and building up of arms creates the same kind of tension that can exists between countries that ideologically historically etc oppose each other, e.g. India Pakistan, China Taiwan, the military and intelligence gathering build up just makes it more and more pronounced.
Fear-mongering which is a blight in this post 911 world amongst media and politians seems to deem it an unavoidable fact that Iran will sometime in the future hand over very expensive and extremely valuble nuclear weapon (if it goes ahead and makes them) to a terrorist group. The majority of europeans have a hate for Bush, that doesn't mean they would help terrorists attack America, Iran has a hate for America but I dont think for one second that country would risk getting wiped off the face of this earth to do something as crazy as handing over such a thing to terrorists.
Also, why would Iran start a nuclear war? thats another crazy supposition. The clerics may be hardline, but Iran is soft compared to quite a few other countries. These other countries are trusted by the west. Speculating about something in the media and talking about it doesn't mean its going to happen. Its a simple case of 'if you're not with us you're against us' and that entails all the over-the-top fear mongering propaganda and negative media that country will receive, until we are told that the leaders of Iran are actually Al Qaeda terrorists in disguise just waiting till they have nukes.
My question is why are you so eager to distribute nuclear weapons to <i>anyone regardless</i> of so named "global political alignment." You may say, "nuclear capibility is sadly necessary for soverignity in this day and age." I'll be sure and remind you of that when we're huddled in a bunker.
Ok, unfair rhetoric aside, why is the final solution the only way of asserting soverignity? And seriously, what does soverignity mean if, to get it, you have to dominate your foreign policy with the quest for nuclear weapons? Even for countries that have nuclear weapons, are they really soverign? India and Pakistan seem locked in a complicated dance to solve (or continue to ignore) the problem of Kashmir now that they are nuclear powers, where before they might have had the oppurtunity to "assert their soverignity" over the region. China, on the coast, looks like Europe (with less traffic lights).
Now, specifically, how is Iran soft compared to quite a few other countries. The clerics are hard-line and the "democratically elected legislature" (the people who recently shouted "Death to America" whilst resuming nuclear development) are hand picked, for the most part, by those same hard-line clerics.
Do you really have to ask? Seriously. If you can't tell the difference between USA and Britian and IRAN... I'm just shocked <!--emo&:(--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/sad-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='sad-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->
they have a film industry now, just as an example. while this may seem to be insignificant the fact hardline muslims generally consider an image to be a false idol detracting from god the existance of a film industry is an amazing step forward.
they have a film industry now, just as an example. while this may seem to be insignificant the fact hardline muslims generally consider an image to be a false idol detracting from god the existance of a film industry is an amazing step forward. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Is that what matters though? Do we have a litmus test for democracy when we're considering allowing the spread of nuclear weapons?
I dont think any of those things and I very much doubt I'll be huddled in a bunker unless of course someone decides to be pre-emptive and I think theres a much higher chance of the West once again being pre-emptive than any of the so called threats to the West real or media inspired. I wonder when the media will get back around to North Korea again, the one with the crazy dictator, the properly dangerous country.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Ok, unfair rhetoric aside, why is the final solution the only way of asserting soverignity? And seriously, what does soverignity mean if, to get it, you have to dominate your foreign policy with the quest for nuclear weapons? Even for countries that have nuclear weapons, are they really soverign? India and Pakistan seem locked in a complicated dance to solve (or continue to ignore) the problem of Kashmir now that they are nuclear powers, where before they might have had the oppurtunity to "assert their soverignity" over the region. China, on the coast, looks like Europe (with less traffic lights).<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Yeah I agree
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Now, specifically, how is Iran soft compared to quite a few other countries. The clerics are hard-line and the "democratically elected legislature" (the people who recently shouted "Death to America" whilst resuming nuclear development) are hand picked, for the most part, by those same hard-line clerics.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I will not go into the long long list of (evil mass-murdering) ictators supported and imposed by US foreign policy throughout the last few decades.
Iran going nuclear is definitely to give them some cards to gain sway with Europe, Russia, Iran wants friends but not the US. The problem is that its been hyped up again by the media and being blown out of proportion, you may have to put tape on your windows yet if Iran goes totally nuclear.
The issue isn't so serious in the rest of the world really, the people of Iran have it much easier than the people of Sudan, or Zimbabwe, or Liberia, and who could forget Belarus, etc.
So you're saying Israel was in the wrong? They showed their intent to use nukes if they were to lose the war? A war they didn't start?
Don't get onto Israel because they showed they would take the rest of the middle east with them if the middle east succeeded into overrunning them.
Well, I was under the impression it worked either way. You can detonate nuclear weapons with C4 and all you'll do is scatter the radioactive material, not mushroom cloud.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->i should have known that america is on straight and narrow and i appologize for my igonorance. We obviously are creating free and fair elections in countries. there arent reports of american troops putting down large scale insurrections. we are not holding persons in jail for no reason and with no charge. we are not violating international law. How could i have been so bold as to question our moral standing in the world?<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
On behalf of the future democratic nation of Iraq, and the now democratic nation of Afghanistan - I accept your apology. As for your international law and moral standing - you saved both in 1994 by not intervening in the slaughter in Rwanda, the innocents of this world could do with a damn sight less of both. Everyone walks over international law when it suits them, and then hide behind it when the morally correct action is deemed "not in our best interests".
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->I will not go into the long long list of (evil mass-murdering) ictators supported and imposed by US foreign policy throughout the last few decades.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Good - because a greater exercise in pointlessness has yet to be discovered. How destabilising the democratic government of Iran in favour of Shah back in the 50's/60's has any relevance to their current desire to gain nuclear weapons while hollering Death to America has little to do with the pressing question of "what's to be done about it".
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->The issue isn't so serious in the rest of the world really, the people of Iran have it much easier than the people of Sudan, or Zimbabwe, or Liberia, and who could forget Belarus, etc.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
This issue isnt that serious - it doesnt need to be hyped. They'll get bombed by Israeli's exactly like last time, I dont lose sleep over this. What I do lose sleep over is people claiming "Iran is a great place, they should get nukes, its only fair" etc etc - because that demonstrates a dangerous lack of critical thinking.
rofl, who says that?
Do you really have to ask? Seriously. If you can't tell the difference between USA and Britian and IRAN... I'm just shocked <!--emo&:(--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/sad-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='sad-fix.gif' /><!--endemo--> <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
No, I just wanted to start a discussion. <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/smile-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->
I say to hell with the Middle East. Over the next 10 years America should develop the facilities to become <b>completely self-sufficient</b>. This means being able to produce everything we import and developing the facilities to replace our addiction to oil. Then at once, pull all our troops and diplomats from everywhere, stop all foreign trade, cut off all relations and watch what happens.
So you're saying Israel was in the wrong? They showed their intent to use nukes if they were to lose the war? A war they didn't start?
Don't get onto Israel because they showed they would take the rest of the middle east with them if the middle east succeeded into overrunning them. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Begining your post with a rhetorical question and then proceeding as if your first assumption was correct is not a good way to debate anyone. I have always been a supporter of Israel in general and from your response it seems that so are you. However I will not hesitate to call you out if I feel that you jumped to a conclusion.
Not once did I mention that Israel was in the wrong. In fact, I feel that they showed exactly how nuclear weapons can be used as an indirect threat to ensure their defense. They made no overt threats against other countries. On the contrary, their display of the nuclear weapons illustrated that they honorable enough to show that they were against the wall and did not wish to be pushed to the point where they would have to use their nuclear arsenal. In essence saying that they would much rather lose a conventional war on equal footing than win a nuclear one.
People mistaking my statements for a condemnation seems to occur often on these boards and I think it would happen less often if people would take the time to read what I wrote and think about it for a good 30 seconds at least before hitting the reply button.
Trust me. You will know when I am being critical of something beyond the shadow of a doubt.
i should have known that america is on straight and narrow and i appologize for my igonorance. We obviously are creating free and fair elections in countries. there arent reports of american troops putting down large scale insurrections. we are not holding persons in jail for no reason and with no charge. we are not violating international law. How could i have been so bold as to question our moral standing in the world? <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
If every action were held to the expectation of perfection then the Human Race would accomplish nothing.
Re: Your mention of the dangers of demolishing a working nuclear reactor.
1. I suggest that if you are from a country whose politicians chant "Death to America" while voting to continue the processing of uranium that you get as far away from any nuclear facility as you can.
2. Is it better to have a destroyed reactor and irradiated area in a sparsly populated area or wait until a populated city is given a 1ms suntan?
rofl, who says that? <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
See the first post for "everyone should get nukes" - see the following posts for why "Iran aint all that bad". Put two and two together - it equals nuts <!--emo&:(--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/sad-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='sad-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I wonder what chants the people in new England chanted when they danced under the scarecrow on the gallow with the sign "King George" on his chest, celebrating their declaration of independence <!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/biggrin-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->.
Seriously, it really puzzles me why especially US citizens, which certainly are accustomed to their own nations violent history, do not realize the reasons for those peoples aggresions. It is this ignorance that now backfires on us all.
<!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Something about Healthcare being unaffordable. <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' /><!--endemo-->
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Seriously, it really puzzles me why especially US citizens, which certainly are accustomed to their own nations violent history, do not realize the reasons for those peoples aggresions. It is this ignorance that now backfires on us all.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Last I checked the people of Iran really don't hate Americans that much, or at least not our culture, and they really don't like their government a whole lot.
Has anyone found out what the Iranian people think about developing nuclear weapons? I'm sure many of them think it will only bring unnecessary trouble, which it will.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Something about Healthcare being unaffordable. <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' /><!--endemo-->
<!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
The funniest comment I will see all day.
<!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/smile-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->
Besides trying to gain political independence by nuclear capability and thus installing a nuclear stalement in the middle east? I might add, just in case you forgot, that such a nuclear stalement has actually been the reason why we had 50 years of peace..... <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
I'm sorry, what? You call the Cold War a time of peace? Excuse me while I go tell that to my mom and grandma, and watch them die of heart attacks.
And Timmy, by "self-sufficient" he also meant "alternate power sources", as in hydrogen fuel cells or the like. Or nuclear-powered SUVs. Sweeeet.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I wonder what chants the people in new England chanted when they danced under the scarecrow on the gallow with the sign "King George" on his chest, celebrating their declaration of independence <!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/biggrin-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->.
Seriously, it really puzzles me why especially US citizens, which certainly are accustomed to their own nations violent history, do not realize the reasons for those peoples aggresions. It is this ignorance that now backfires on us all. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Admitting <b>everything you said</b>, does this constitute an argument for allowing Iran to develop nukes? Ok that's a rhetorical question: no it doesn't constitute one. I think you're trying to make it <i>into</i> that type of argument, which it's not.
[edit for clarity's sake:] Here's a parallel argument that was used recently on these boards:
<i>Los Angeles has more murders per year than the amount of soldiers we've lost in Iraq. Thus, since no one is complaining about the number of people murdered in LA, you shouldn't complain about the number of soldiers lost in Iraq!</i>
Does that make it more clear to you why this is a bad argument?
[edit 2]
Just another aside: <!--QuoteBegin-wizard@psu+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (wizard@psu)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Begining your post with a rhetorical question and then proceeding as if your first assumption was correct is not a good way to debate anyone.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
You should give him the benefit of the doubt and assume that none of his questions are rhetorical. It's a respect thing, I know, but calling out other people's debating styles is <i>also</i> not a good way to debate anyone, IMHO.
I'm pretty sure they didn't have nukes
otherwise there'd be a huge green spot on the map of the world where the thirteen colonies used to be...
rofl, who says that? <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
See the first post for "everyone should get nukes" - see the following posts for why "Iran aint all that bad". Put two and two together - it equals nuts <!--emo&:(--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/sad-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='sad-fix.gif' /><!--endemo--> <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--emo&???--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/confused-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='confused-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> (Legat @ Nov 13 2004, 08:55 AM)
I wonder what chants the people in new England chanted when they danced under the scarecrow on the gallow with the sign "King George" on his chest, celebrating their declaration of independence biggrin-fix.gif.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Something about Healthcare being unaffordable. <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' /><!--endemo-->
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Big fat LOL. nice one Reasa! <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/smile-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->
Seriously, it really puzzles me why especially US citizens, which certainly are accustomed to their own nations violent history, do not realize the reasons for those peoples aggresions. It is this ignorance that now backfires on us all.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->
Last I checked the people of Iran really don't hate Americans that much, or at least not our culture, and they really don't like their government a whole lot.
Has anyone found out what the Iranian people think about developing nuclear weapons? I'm sure many of them think it will only bring unnecessary trouble, which it will.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Exactly. The people do not hate america per se. However some....unlucky political developments (most notably the US involvements in the Iran/Irak war) in the past have given more radical elements the possibility to act and seize power. That is how things happen in underdeveloped or otherwhise economically/culturally handicapped nations under foreign influence. Its the normal way things work out. As for the peoples support for their government, well, that is difficult to say for outsiders. However, the Iranian government did actually improve certain aspects of dayly life and has begun to liberate the country. The iranian film industry someone mentioned is an actual and visible sign of that. The country is definately developing, something that cannot be said about Saudi Arabia for instance.
Iran is going to become a major political factor in the region. That development started without foreing help or dictation. Iran is slowly redefining itself. Like china is doing. China was left alone and not tempered with, and HUSH.... we have the new upcoming superpower for the second half of the 21. century. Maybe Iran is going to perform a similar development....that is, if nobody starts bombing them anytime soon.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->
(Legat @ Nov 13 2004, 07:55 AM)
I wonder what chants the people in new England chanted when they danced under the scarecrow on the gallow with the sign "King George" on his chest, celebrating their declaration of independence
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->
I'm pretty sure they didn't have nukes
otherwise there'd be a huge green spot on the map of the world where the thirteen colonies used to be<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
??
Could you explain why? Because they would have nuked themselves? Ohh...no, they would have ignited the third world war because they are evil terrorist right?
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> I'm sorry, what? You call the Cold War a time of peace? Excuse me while I go tell that to my mom and grandma, and watch them die of heart attacks.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Well then ask them why they were so afraid of the Sovjets and the nuclear holocaust. Or why the Sovjet people lived in the same fear. Was it because it was really meant to happen, or was it because our governments told us who is our enemy, who is going to protect us and why we must be wary? I do not know how old you are, but I am old enough to have had a taste of the cold war when I was a small kid. Yet the times had changed, and there was perestroyka and all, however, the fear of war was still great just 25 years ago, people still watched documentations about emergency shelters on TV and frequently the alarms sounded to test the disaster warning signals.
Tchernobyl was the last big issue that awoke these fears that were planted in the peoples head since the 1950s. Parents feared to let their children go to school because of radiation. Yet, we all kind of survived that big tragedy, did we? <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' /><!--endemo-->
However, despite all the fear, which was nothing more that an instrument to bring us in line, the time was a time of relative savety and peace. There were some pokergames, like cuba, and some really dirty conflicts that severd not more purpose that fire up the economy and determin everybodys resolve to do what "is nessesary". But the big descicive war between the thwo superpowers never happened. If the Nuclear stalement had not existed, then another wolrd war would have broken loose.
Yet again, this war would not have been carried out in the USA. Again, it would been fought out on European soil.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->
Admitting everything you said, does this constitute an argument for allowing Iran to develop nukes? Ok that's a rhetorical question: no it doesn't constitute one. I think you're trying to make it into that type of argument, which it's not.
[edit for clarity's sake:] Here's a parallel argument that was used recently on these boards:
Los Angeles has more murders per year than the amount of soldiers we've lost in Iraq. Thus, since no one is complaining about the number of people murdered in LA, you shouldn't complain about the number of soldiers lost in Iraq!
Does that make it more clear to you why this is a bad argument?<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
You misunderstood me on that account.
I did not argue for anything in this statement. I just wanted to provoke some thinking.
My intention was to show certain parallel developments which occur over and over again in our history. It repeats in every historical period and it will alway stay the same. My intention is to bring peolple to see our inability to truely develope and break our most ancient behavior.
In ancient times, we brought civilisation to babarians, then, we brought the holy word to the heretics, then we brought them freedom and democracy, free markets, thenn it was sozialism, which did not work so well and now we are again handing out democracy and human rights for free....
That is what we are told and we want to believe, however that is not more than a "democratic" way to make us look ahead and overlook them mess that happens around us and we leave in our wake.
Iran will govern itself and it will develope its sozial and cultural richness, for the good or the bad of its people. We will see. If it is for the bad, then some day the people will do something against it. they will do it <i>themselves</i>.
This is the only way these nations can devlope. It is the only way any nation can grow. However this development will not happen when we interfere.
It <i>cannot </i> happen as long as we interfere.
This is the only way these nations can devlope. It is the only way any nation can grow. However this development will not happen when we interfere.
It <i>cannot </i> happen as long as we interfere.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I am completely supportive of a nation's right to political self-determination. Even when I'm rather dubious about the outcome, such as the "balkanization" of Yugoslavia or other ex-communist countries, I do feel that it's important for them to seek their own solution to their own problems. Even supporters of the Iraq war tend to justify their position with the thought that they're empowering Iraqis with that ability. In that regard, you're preaching to the choir here.
Self-determination has its limitations, however. No nation exists in a political vacuum. Iran is making a decision which unavoidably impacts the rest of the world. How is it wrong for the rest of the world to exert their will when they feel this decision is going to hurt them? We're not talking about this country passing a law about how their women can wear their hair or what side of the street cars can drive on. Iran is attempting to enforce its will with - at the very least - the threat of nuclear war. This is in no way a positive thing.
I'm afraid you're going to dodge the bullet here and make a statement about provoking thoughts, when in actuality what you're saying is an argument whatever you want to call it personally. Your statements do have a greater context in this thread. So let me reiterate. In other discussions or contexts I would emphatically agree with Iran's right to govern themselves and develop their "social and cultural richness." When they try to do that (well I find it difficult to equate WMDs with cultural richness) by threatening the world it's a different matter though. Hopefully this made sense <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/smile-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile-fix.gif' /><!--endemo--> .
Heh, I try. <!--emo&;)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/wink-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wink-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Iran is going to become a major political factor in the region. That development started without foreing help or dictation. Iran is slowly redefining itself. Like china is doing. China was left alone and not tempered with, and HUSH.... we have the new upcoming superpower for the second half of the 21. century. Maybe Iran is going to perform a similar development....that is, if nobody starts bombing them anytime soon.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Being superpower is probably one thing that it is best to have a monopoly on.
What has happened constantly throughout history when you have more then 1 or 2 superpowers of about equal power? Well let?s see we could go as far back as Rome and Carthage, but WWI, WWII, and the Cold War should be good enough examples. The world has seen one of it's most relaxed periods of peace from the time the USSR fell to 9/11, and lets face it 9/11 was just Cold War ghosts coming back to haunt us. Even what?s going on in the Middle East now pales in comparison to the examples above. I'm sorry but I can't say I want any more superpowers competing with us for the job, because I think I know how it's going to turn out.
Better to have a small conflict now then a nuclear standoff later, that?s the way I see it.
Could you explain why? Because they would have nuked themselves? Ohh...no, they would have ignited the third world war because they are evil terrorist right?
<!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Because I believe that the we we'rnt doing so well in the american revolution at first