Log in

View Full Version : Nuclear Showdown: Iran Says It Won't Stop Enrichment



Psycho4Bud
08-21-2006, 01:27 PM
TEHRAN, Iran Aug 21, 2006 (AP)â?? Iran's supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei said Monday that Tehran will continue to pursue nuclear technology, despite a U.N. Security Council deadline to suspend uranium enrichment by the end of the month or face the threat of economic and diplomatic sanctions.

"The Islamic Republic of Iran has made its own decision and in the nuclear case, God willing, with patience and power, will continue its path," Khamenei was quoted as saying by state television.

He accused the United States of putting pressure on Iran despite Tehran's assertions that it was not seeking nuclear weapons. "Arrogant powers and the U.S. are putting their utmost pressure on Iran while knowing Iran is not pursuing nuclear weapons," he said.
http://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory?id=2337100

Bong30
08-21-2006, 01:42 PM
Do ya want me to tell ya how I feel.............


I drive 2 japanesse cars............

thcbongman
08-21-2006, 02:02 PM
Not surprising......

It'll be interesting what happens next. They should've taken the European incentive deal which provides them the energy they need. Sure they'll be dependent on others for their energy needs, but it'll avoid escalating conflict.

Bong30
08-21-2006, 02:37 PM
THC, They dont need energy................

Iran Is FLOATING on oil.

oil = energy


then you ask, why they need nukes? cause we know energy is Hogwash.

Ozarks
08-21-2006, 03:47 PM
The fact they didn't take the deal brings their true motives into question. Given the opportunity the leadership in Tehran is going to murder hundreds of thousands if not millions of people...in the name of their God. Israel 1st, the "Great Satan" (us) 2nd.

Marlboroman
08-21-2006, 03:49 PM
Oil = blood of the war machine.

Iran may be floating on oil, but there is less and less oil on the earth.

Since our war machines dont operate without oil, in the end, he who has control of the oil wins.

If Iran were to use nuclear power that would effectively cut oil usage, adding years onto the life span of the defense for that country. Not to mention the nuclear deterent.

Maybe you dont want Iran to exist, but im sure the citizens of that country hold a different opinion.
Dont bother telling me how that opinion is to see me dead Bong, ive heard this enough from you, I know where you stand on this.

It doesnt make sense to me to think that Iran would spend millions to develope nuclear power, to only get nuclear weapons to then drop them on their neighbor, not only killing millions of a so called enemy, but also endangering the lives of their own citizens via fallout. Useing the nuclear weapons as a deterent holds much more power than actually dropping them.

Not only that, I dont think Iran has the capability to withstand the onslaught of the militaries that would then invade and take control.

To drop a nuclear weapon on another country would effectively write the death sentence for the controlling power on Iran.

Do you think they want to be outsted from their seats of power?

I think they know better, they know that dropping nuclear weapons, they would be commiting suicide, not only for themselves but the millions of citizens within their borders.

If their goal is to bring about total islamic control of the world, how does commiting suicide help that cause?

How can someone bring about haveing control, if they are bringing about their own death?

Peace.

Bong30
08-21-2006, 08:09 PM
MM
They dont care about killing people.....shit look at the Iran Iraq war....


How many Iranians died? They dont care about there own people, let alone us infidels.


You cant handle..... they want nukes to kill the jews. <<< so easy.


its ok.....you just are living in a fantasy, socialist, bullshit world.

The President of Iran.... Believes this why dont you?

Reappearance
Shi'as cite various references from the Qur'an and reports, or Hadith, from the Muhammad and the twelve Shi'a Imams with regards to the reappearance of Muhammad al-Mahdi who will, in accordance with God's command, bring justice and peace to the world by establishing Islam throughout the world.

The prophet Muhammad is reported to have said:
"During the last times, my people will be afflicted with terrible and unprecedented calamities and misfortunes from their rulers, so much so that this vast earth will appear small to them. Persecution and injustice will engulf the earth. The believers will find no shelter to seek refuge from these tortures and injustices. At such a time, God will raise from my progeny a man who will establish peace and justice on this earth in the same way as it had been filled with injustice and distress."

Shi'as believe that when Muhammad al-Mahdi will reappear, the prophet Isa (Jesus) will also reappear and that he will pray behind al-Mahdi.

Ozarks
08-21-2006, 08:17 PM
Oil = blood of the war machine.

Iran may be floating on oil, but there is less and less oil on the earth.

Since our war machines dont operate without oil, in the end, he who has control of the oil wins.

If Iran were to use nuclear power that would effectively cut oil usage, adding years onto the life span of the defense for that country. Not to mention the nuclear deterent.

Maybe you dont want Iran to exist, but im sure the citizens of that country hold a different opinion.
Dont bother telling me how that opinion is to see me dead Bong, ive heard this enough from you, I know where you stand on this.

It doesnt make sense to me to think that Iran would spend millions to develope nuclear power, to only get nuclear weapons to then drop them on their neighbor, not only killing millions of a so called enemy, but also endangering the lives of their own citizens via fallout. Useing the nuclear weapons as a deterent holds much more power than actually dropping them.

Not only that, I dont think Iran has the capability to withstand the onslaught of the militaries that would then invade and take control.

To drop a nuclear weapon on another country would effectively write the death sentence for the controlling power on Iran.

Do you think they want to be outsted from their seats of power?

I think they know better, they know that dropping nuclear weapons, they would be commiting suicide, not only for themselves but the millions of citizens within their borders.

If their goal is to bring about total islamic control of the world, how does commiting suicide help that cause?

How can someone bring about haveing control, if they are bringing about their own death?

Peace.


That all makes prefect sense if they think like you, which unfortunately they don't.
The Iranian leadership is perfectly willing kill themselves and their own children to start the world war that will cause the Messiah (Islamic in this case) to return, again this is all in the name of their God. If they get a bomb they'll use it. Paradise is just around the corner.





Islamic authoritarians love death and loathe life.

That is why MAD (Mutually Assured Destruction) worked with the Soviet Union. Communist leaders love life -- they loved their money, their power, their dachas, their mistresses, their fine wines -- and were hardly prepared to give all that up for Marx. But Iran's current leaders celebrate dying, and MAD may not work, because from our perspective, they are indeed mad. MAD only works with the sane.

There is much less you can do against people who value dying more than living.



Here's the Article in total,
[URL="http://http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2006/03/islamic_threat_is_greater_than.html"]

Breukelen advocaat
08-21-2006, 10:39 PM
Here's the Article in total,
[URL="http://http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2006/03/islamic_threat_is_greater_than.html"]

This article is worth having in total. Funny thing is, Prager is a religous person, Jewish, and correct about the religous extremism being a greater threat than the Communists or Nazis were, or are. I've read and heard Dennis Prager for years, and rarely agreed more with his editorials than now. He's getting clearer in his thinking, but I'm not with him on everything he espouses, especially regarding his respect for Judeo-Christian values.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2006/03/islamic_threat_is_greater_than.html

Islamic Threat Is Greater Than German & Soviet Threats Were
By Dennis Prager

Only four types of individuals can deny the threat to civilization posed by the violence-supporting segment of Islam: the willfully naive, America-haters, Jew-haters and those afraid to confront evil.

Anyone else sees the contemporary reality -- the genocidal Islamic regime in Sudan; the widespread Muslim theological and emotional support for the killing of a Muslim who converts to another religion; the absence of freedom in Muslim-majority countries; the widespread support for Palestinians who randomly murder Israelis; the primitive state in which women are kept in many Muslim countries; the celebration of death; the "honor killings" of daughters; and so much else that is terrible in significant parts of the Muslim world -- knows that civilized humanity has a new evil to fight.

Just as previous generations had to fight Nazism, communism and fascism, our generation has to confront militant Islam.

And whereas there were unique aspects to those evils, there are two unique aspects to the evil emanating from the Islamic world that render this latest threat to humanity particularly difficult to overcome.

One is the number of people who believe in it. This is a new phenomenon among organized evils. Far fewer people believed in Nazism or in communism than believe in Islam generally or in authoritarian Islam specifically. There are one billion Muslims in the world. If just 10 percent believe in the Islam of Hamas, the Taliban, the Sudanese regime, Saudi Arabia, Wahhabism, bin Ladin, Islamic Jihad, the Finley Park Mosque in London or Hizbollah -- and it is inconceivable that only one of 10 Muslims supports any of these groups' ideologies -- that means a true believing enemy of at least 100 million people.

Outside of Germany, how many people believed in Nazism? Outside of Japan, who believed in Japanese imperialism and militarism? And outside of universities, the arts world or Hollywood, how many people believed in Soviet-style totalitarianism?

A far larger number of people believe in Islamic authoritarianism than ever believed in Marxism. Virtually no one living in Marxist countries believed in Marxism or communism. Likewise, far fewer people believed in Nazism, an ideology confined largely to one country for less than one generation. This is one enormous difference between the radical Islamic threat to our civilization and the two previous ones.

But there is yet a second difference that is at least as significant and at least as frightening: Nazis and Communists wanted to live and feared death; Islamic authoritarians love death and loathe life.

That is why MAD (Mutually Assured Destruction) worked with the Soviet Union. Communist leaders love life -- they loved their money, their power, their dachas, their mistresses, their fine wines -- and were hardly prepared to give all that up for Marx. But Iran's current leaders celebrate dying, and MAD may not work, because from our perspective, they are indeed mad. MAD only works with the sane.

There is much less you can do against people who value dying more than living.

The existence of an unprecedentedly large number of people wishing to destroy decent civilization as we know it -- and who celebrate their own deaths -- poses a threat the likes of which no civilization in history has had to confront.

The evils committed by Nazism and Communism were, of course, greater than those committed by radical Islam. There has been no Muslim Gulag and no Muslim Auschwitz.

But the threat is far more serious.

psychocat
08-21-2006, 10:50 PM
It's simply a question of hypocrisy for me , how can the country with the largest nuclear arsenal (America) possibly have the gall to say who can and cannot have nuclear weapons.
If I remember rightly Isreal refused to sign up to the treaty and yet they weren't forced to stay non-nuclear,, double standards from the US and UN I would say.

Israel - Israel is not a member of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and refuses to officially confirm or deny having a nuclear arsenal, or to having developed nuclear weapons, or even to having a nuclear weapons program. Although Israel claims that the Negev Nuclear Research Center near Dimona is a "research reactor," no scientific reports based on work done there have ever been published. Extensive information about the program in Dimona was also disclosed by technician Mordechai Vanunu in 1986. Imagery analysts can identify weapon bunkers, mobile missile launchers, and launch sites in satellite photographs. It is believed to possess nuclear weapons by the International Atomic Energy Agency. Israel may have tested a nuclear weapon along with South Africa in 1979 (see Vela Incident). According to the Natural Resources Defense Council and the Federation of American Scientists, they may possess 300-400 weapons, a figure which would put them above the median in the declared list.

Marlboroman
08-21-2006, 10:53 PM
Bong, Ozark, Haveing a nuclear device and threatening to use it goes much farther to makeing a world islam state than actually useing it.

These people are very powerful, very educated, they know they dont have the military to stand up to the US and pals.

Haveing a nuclear weapon and not useing it is just about their only defense, I wouldnt put it past them to have biologicals as well.

If they start useing them, it brings about their own demise, dont think for a minute that these very powerful men are willing to put their own lives on the line for their cause, thats why they convince the young and poor to do it.

Im not saying I want Iran to have these weapons either, but I dont think they will use them even if they get them, it doesnt further their cause of a world islamic state.

In my opinion, it would bring about the complete end of the islamic religion more than likely, they must be smart enough to realize this.

Fanatical or not, I stand by my opinion that these weapons do more for their cause unused.

Peace.

Bong30
08-21-2006, 11:01 PM
MM.... They will use it.... There is no M.U.D.. when one side doest care.......


During the cold war......... Russians had uniforms... we knew where to strike.

Now..... We are killing civilians... cause the fighters wont put a uniform on.


Hezbullah= iran

IMO we have been fighting Iran in "Iraq" for the whole time.........

Bong30
08-21-2006, 11:02 PM
Thanks for the whole article.......... BA

Right on Point................ :)

Ozarks
08-21-2006, 11:40 PM
This article is worth having in total. Funny thing is, Prager is a religous person, Jewish, and correct about the religous extremism being a greater threat than the Communists or Nazis were, or are. I've read and heard Dennis Prager for years, and rarely agreed more with his editorials than now. He's getting clearer in his thinking, but I'm not with him on everything he espouses, especially regarding his respect for Judeo-Christian values.


To be honest I don't a history with him (Prager) I just happened upon this article and though it was pretty clearly presented.

thcbongman
08-22-2006, 09:25 AM
THC, They dont need energy................

Iran Is FLOATING on oil.

oil = energy


then you ask, why they need nukes? cause we know energy is Hogwash.

If that were the concept, no other country wouldn't need other sources of energy. America have coal, nuclear, oil, hydro, wind, and solar. 6 types. It's important to diversify energy resources, in case a source depletes. Iran has the 18th biggest population in the world. Why doesn't it need energy? The argument for increasing energy is limited. That's an entirely different issue than using nuclear technology to make a bomb, which I believe no country has the right to further develop nuclear technology for weapons. Which is why Iran should've taken the energy deal with the EU. It would've guaranteed energy was used for growth and peaceful means, and not nuclear bombs. It's flawed to dismiss the energy argument because you are bundling the two nuclear issues together. There are solutions to work-around providing Iran with the energy it needs, the problem is Iran won't make those concessions.

Torog
08-22-2006, 01:48 PM
Thanks for the whole article.......... BA

Right on Point................ :)

Howdy Bong30,

I second yer sentiment..it's a good article,but as we've seen by the responses,the 5th column is still refusing to accept the truth about Islam,I can attest to such truth,after living in Saudia Arabia and drillin water-wells for em..shame on me,for signing a contract with the devil..I danced with em and got burnt.

Have a good one !:stoned: :D

Great Spirit
08-22-2006, 06:16 PM
MM.... They will use it.... There is no M.U.D.. when one side doest care.......


During the cold war......... Russians had uniforms... we knew where to strike.

Now..... We are killing civilians... cause the fighters wont put a uniform on.


Hezbullah= iran

IMO we have been fighting Iran in "Iraq" for the whole time.........Indeed, Iran would be too dumb to use the bomb, as they would kill themselves along with all the others in the region. Thats why the 2 superpowers, the US and USSR never had the balls to launch their own missiles. Despite what George H.W. Bush says, there are no winners in a nuclear exchange.

Bong, you remind me of Fox News with your anti-Muslim Hezbollah equals Iran rhetoric. You think all Muslim nations are out to kill us, just as the government wants you to believe so they can take away our rights to protect us from the evil freedom hating Muslims. The Muslims are the modern scapegoats of the fascists, who once denounced communists, Jews, gypsies, homosexuals, and LIBERALS as the culprit of the world's problems. After 9/11, Muslims are the new Jews and are being blamed for this phony "war on terror".

Now if members of ALL religions could find the spiritual meaning in them, maybe for once we can all take a shit in peace!!

As for the oil, we can use hemp to replace our oil and energy needs. Tesla fucken make a wireless power plant which was shut down by the government, so we can save the Earth if we wanted to with our level of technology. But man is too damn greedy. Oh but wait...that means the Amerikan military will diminish! Uh oh! Can't have that! That means a few hundred oil businessman can't get rich!! That means if we use hemp, we'll have cleaner air and more nutritious food! Uh oh! Can't have that!

Hey, a Muslim never legislated my rights away, but George W. Bush and Congress sure did!!!!

Ozarks
08-22-2006, 09:17 PM
Indeed, Iran would be too dumb to use the bomb, as they would kill themselves along with all the others in the region.


We are dealing with murderers who are more then willing to blow themselves up, that's why they call them "suicide bombers" Listen to what the leadership in Iran says, they are very upfront about what they want (a nuclear bomb) and who their going to use it on. Zionists (Israel) 1st, the great Satan US 2nd. They see their deaths and the deaths of their own children (sick pukes) as perfectly acceptable, in the name of (their) God.



Thats why the 2 superpowers, the US and USSR never had the balls to launch their own missiles.


Yes both sides were sane, there is no deterrent when one side is suicidal and on a mission from God.




Despite what George H.W. Bush says, there are no winners in a nuclear exchange.

When did President Bush say that ? You are right there are no winners, unfortunately the Leadership in Tehran doesn't believe you.




Bong, you remind me of Fox News with your anti-Muslim Hezbollah equals Iran rhetoric. You think all Muslim nations are out to kill us, just as the government wants you to believe so they can take away our rights to protect us from the evil freedom hating Muslims.

If you think the Government "is taking away your rights" just remember it's the murdering Muslims who set the stage.




The Muslims are the modern scapegoats of the fascists, who once denounced communists, Jews, gypsies, homosexuals, and LIBERALS as the culprit of the world's problems. After 9/11, Muslims are the new Jews and are being blamed for this phony "war on terror".


Muslims aren't the scapegoats for anything, the murdering Muslims are being held responsible for their actions. They are hunted down and killed or captured everyday, and rightly so.




Now if members of ALL religions could find the spiritual meaning in them, maybe for once we can all take a shit in peace!!

Members of all other religions have, only murdering Muslims are killing themselves and as many innocent people as they possibly can, in the name of (their) God.






As for the oil, we can use hemp to replace our oil and energy needs. Tesla fucken make a wireless power plant which was shut down by the government, so we can save the Earth if we wanted to with our level of technology. But man is too damn greedy. Oh but wait...that means the Amerikan military will diminish! Uh oh! Can't have that! That means a few hundred oil businessman can't get rich!! That means if we use hemp, we'll have cleaner air and more nutritious food! Uh oh! Can't have that!

Oil justifies murdering Muslims ?





Hey, a Muslim never legislated my rights away, but George W. Bush and Congress sure did!!!!

When a murdering Muslim murders you, he take away all your rights, forever.

Ozarks
08-23-2006, 05:36 PM
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/newscomment.html?in_article_id=401858&in_page_id=1787




Why shouldn't Iran have nuclear weapons? We have them, so has America, France, Russia, Israel, China, Pakistan, India and possibly North Korea. So why make such a fuss about Iran?

After all, we gulped, but then decided to accept Pakistan's and India's nuclear bombs. Why? Because we recognized that their bombs are, essentially, a continuation of the Mutually Assured Destruction doctrine which, as a deterrent, kept us from nuclear Armageddon throughout the Cold War.

In fact, it could be argued that, not long ago, the M.A.D. doctrine actually kept Pakistan and India from going to war yet again over Kashmir.

So why shouldn't Iran have nuclear bombs to deter attack from the 'Great Satan', America, let alone the two 'Little Satans', Israel and Britain? Sounds reasonable. But that pre-supposes that the Iranian regime is reasonable.

The mullah-mafia lied through their teeth for 18 years, denying they had a nuclear programme, despite their obligations under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.

And all the evidence shows that they are lying now when they say they only want nuclear power for 'peaceful energy purposes', despite sitting on some of the largest oil reserves in the world.

But, alas, there's nothing which we would recognise as 'reasonable' about President Ahmadinejad, the small, bearded blacksmith's son from the slums of Tehran - who denies the existence of the Holocaust, promises to 'wipe Israel off the map' and who, moreover, urges Iranians to 'prepare to take over the world'.

The UN gave him until August 31 to reply to its package of proposals designed to stop his nuclear programme. Significantly he chose yesterday to, in effect, reject the UN ultimatum because yesterday was a sacred day in the Islamic calendar.

It is the day on which the Prophet Mohammed made his miraculous night flight from Jerusalem to heaven and back on Buraq, the winged horse.

As one Iranian exile told me yesterday: 'The trouble with you secular people is that you don't realise how firmly Ahmadinejad believes - literally - in things like the winged horse. By choosing this date for his decision, he is telling his followers that he is going to obey his religious duty.

'And he believes that his religious duty is to create chaos and bloodshed in the "infidel" world, in order to hasten the return of the Mahdi - the Hidden Imam. So don't expect him to behave, in your eyes, "reasonably".'

So who is this Hidden Imam? He was a direct descendant of the Prophet Mohammed who, at the age of five, disappeared down a well around AD940. He will only return after a period of utter chaos and bloodshed, whereupon peace, justice and Islam will reign worldwide.

When I was in Tehran, Ahmadinejad was its mayor, and an Iranian friend with links to the city council told me: 'He's instructed the council to build a grand avenue to prepare for the Mahdi's return.

'I wouldn't mind that, because our roads are rotten - it's just that the motivation for this expensive avenue strikes me as completely crazy.'

On coming to power, in order to hasten the return of the Hidden Imam, the Iranian President allocated the equivalent of £10m for the building of a blue-tiled mosque at Jamkaran, south of the capital, where the five-year-old Hidden Imam was said to have disappeared down the well.

When the President drew up a list of his cabinet ministers, he's rumoured to have dropped their names down the well in order to benefit from its alleged divine connection.

Previous Iranian negotiators from the mullah-mafia elite were corrupt, sinuous and deceitful - but, when necessary, could be pragmatic. You could, to a certain extent, do business with them.

Many of these mullahs would not - despite their rhetoric - welcome the bloody destruction of the Western world, not least because they have stuffed their wealth into secret 'infidel' bank accounts overseas.

The Western-educated nephew of one such wealthy mullah said to me: 'Ahmadinejad's fruitcake theology scares us as much as it should scare you!'

But according to the political editor of Iran's Resalat newspaper, the President's apocalyptic mindset 'makes you very strong. If I think the Mahdi will come in two, three, or four years, why should I be soft? Now is the time to stand strong, to be hard'.

Warm and welcoming


Of course ordinary Iranians are not, on the whole, apocalyptic types: they are warm, welcoming to 'infidels' like me and, frankly, deeply fed up.

They don't obsess about the return of the Mahdi, they don't want nuclear weapons, and they certainly don't want an apocalyptic world war.

As one young Tehrani told me: 'I don't know why we are spending so much time antagonising he West. We're just getting more and more isolated, and our economy is in a complete mess.'

The young are not even that interested in religion: a recent poll of young Iranians showed that only 5 per cent watched religious programmes, and only 6 per cent said that they were interested in religion at all.

Seventy per cent of Iranians are under the age of 30, and what they want is to be able to have fun, to travel and, above all, to have jobs.

But the puritanism, corruption, cruelty and incompetence of the regime induces fatalisticdepression and drives all too many of them to drugs: Iran now has (and, surprisingly, has acknowledged) one of the highest drug addiction rates in the world.

Yearning


So why is Ahmadinejad - as a result of this stand-off with the West - suddenly so popular among the grassroots?

It's partly a matter of Persian nationalist pride: Iranians - who are not Arabs - remember how they once possessed a great empire and were the supreme power in the Middle East.

They share with Ahmadinejad the yearning that they should be so once again. And they remember how the Western powers exploited and manipulated them in the past and fear they may do so again.

Even the most pro-Western of those I have met were horrified at the thought of America attempting to bomb their nuclear plants, let alone mount an invasion.

Ahmadinejad is triumphant about the 'victory' over Israel in Lebanon by Iran's proxy, Hezbollah.

But ordinary Iranians - while shocked at the devastation caused by Israel - have long felt resentful about the amounts of money, let alone weaponry, that Iran shovels into Hezbollah's armed 'state-within-a-state' in southern Lebanon.

After Friday prayers in Tehran one day, which included the ritual 'Death to Israel!' chants, one young graduate, with no hope of a job, told me: 'Look, I don't care about Israel. That's a problem for the Arabs, not for us.'

At a union May Day rally this year, one placard daringly read: 'Forget about Palestine! What about us?'

So what happens next? Sanctions, probably. But the kind of sanctions which hurt ordinary, poverty-stricken Iranians too much would be counterproductive. Those which most hurt the elite would be preferable: international banking restrictions will damage the corrupt mullahs, and a form of oil sanctions may also put pressure on them.

Despite those massive oil reserves, Iran actually has to import over 40 per cent of its refined oil because, thanks to its incompetence, it never got around to building enough refining capacity.

There are no easy answers. But nuclear-weapon technology in the hands of an Iranian President obsessed with ' fruitcake theology' and the destruction of all 'infidels' is something which should keep us all awake at night.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Just like all Germans weren't Nazis, all Iranians aren't religious mass murders, however just likes Germany, the Iranian "leadership" will murder millions of Innocent people given the opportunity.

eg420ne
08-23-2006, 05:54 PM
Whats with this comparing Iran-abublahblahscab with germany-hitler is that the new reich-wing talking points.........Give GwB enuff time and he can kill more people then Hitler-Stalin combine

Ozarks
08-23-2006, 06:15 PM
eg420ne I'm surprised to see you here, I though you would be busy in the "Drunkenpressconferance" thread, thats a real robust debate you have going on there, I can't what to see who wins.

Just remember what mother said, cause you may not look good in glasses. :D

Great Spirit
08-23-2006, 06:54 PM
Ozarks,

You are just like Bong30 with your defense of Amerika and Israel and the denounciation of Islam. You called them murdering Muslims. Lol, like there were never murdering Christians and Jews? Every country has its murderers, and there are far more murderous dictators in the world than Saddam Hussein.

Shit, North Korea has admitted it has nuclear weapons and was test firing them, but wait, Iraq who had no weapons of mass destructions was attacked with full force by a superpower.

Anyway, you need to understand that there are secret organizations who control the world, and the stage is being set by these Elite and extraterrestrials to bring about a one world prison planet. 9/11 was the pretext for this. It was Amerika's Reichstag Fire. It was blamed on Muslim hijackers to create a big fury and hatred towards Muslims so the US and its "allies" can invade the Middle East and then the world.

There was no plane found at the Pentagon, and Building 7 was "pulled" while other buildings who were by and closer to the WTC towers were not pulled that quickly. Building 7 was the command center to pull off 9/11, and then it was demolished to destroy the evidence.

The US needs that oil to remain superpower status. It was the same as Nazi Germany blaming the Reichstag Fire on communists. Thats why Germany attacke Poland, under the false pretext that the Polish government was going to attack germany, and thus needed to be attacked first. Wait, reminds me of Amerika's new policy of preemptive strike. Then it was the Jews, gypsies, liberals, freethinkers, and homosexuals who were targeted by the Nazis.

Amerika is the new fascist Germany. Accept it.

May Dec 21 2012 come!!

eg420ne
08-23-2006, 07:25 PM
eg420ne I'm surprised to see you here, I though you would be busy in the "Drunkenpressconferance" thread, thats a real robust debate you have going on there, I can't what to see who wins.

Just remember what mother said, cause you may not look good in glasses. :D

Well to tell you the truth ozarkmountain i dont give a rats ass(GwB)about it even though more then 30 people have check it out soo that tells me the seeds have been sown...I am sorry that your president is a drunken bitch though.....and it was not a debate what can you debate about that fuckass soo called president of YOURS.......:thumbsup: ozark imapatient

Ozarks
08-23-2006, 07:59 PM
Ozarks,

You are just like Bong30 with your defense of Amerika and Israel and the denounciation of Islam. You called them murdering Muslims.

I never "denounced" Islam, Only murdering Muslims who murder Innocent people, unable to defend the indefensible you accuse me of thinks I didn't say in an an desperate attempt to change the subject.


Lol, like there were never murdering Christians and Jews? Every country has its murderers, and there are far more murderous dictators in the world than Saddam Hussein.


This isn't about Iraq, it about Iran. Again, unable to to defend the indefensible you pick up the clicker and change the channel.




Shit, North Korea has admitted it has nuclear weapons and was test firing them,


NK has never "test fired" a nuclear weapon, and has never threatened to murder millions of Innocent people in the name of their God.



but wait, Iraq who had no weapons of mass destructions was attacked with full force by a superpower.


Agian unable to defend the indefensible you change subject.



Anyway, you need to understand that there are secret organizations who control the world,


No, there aren't. Paranoid delusional nonsense.




and the stage is being set by these Elite and extraterrestrials to bring about a one world prison planet. 9/11 was the pretext for this. It was Amerika's Reichstag Fire. It was blamed on Muslim hijackers to create a big fury and hatred towards Muslims so the US and its "allies" can invade the Middle East and then the world.


More paranoid,delusional nonsense. How about 20 cc's of Thorazine with a lithium chaser while you what for the mother ship?





There was no plane found at the Pentagon, and Building 7 was "pulled" while other buildings who were by and closer to the WTC towers were not pulled that quickly. Building 7 was the command center to pull off 9/11, and then it was demolished to destroy the evidence.


Again, unable to defend the indefensible you change the channel
BTW more paranoid delusional nonsense.





The US needs that oil to remain superpower status. It was the same as Nazi Germany blaming the Reichstag Fire on communists. Thats why Germany attacke Poland, under the false pretext that the Polish government was going to attack germany, and thus needed to be attacked first. Wait, reminds me of Amerika's new policy of preemptive strike. Then it was the Jews, gypsies, liberals, freethinkers, and homosexuals who were targeted by the Nazis.

Amerika is the new fascist Germany. Accept it.

May Dec 21 2012 come!!


Well once again...

eg420ne
08-23-2006, 08:10 PM
ozark---Thats twice.. do you mean wait? or is WHAT the same as wait, your from the Hills right, soo that maybe right. im just askin...i know we all mispell words but i asked myself if thats how you say it

yabatab
08-23-2006, 09:25 PM
I think Iran is using its nuclear program as leverage. Iran having a program
capable of creating nuclear weapons is a move to keep countries like
Israel in check. When it comes down to it, it will be about the "will"
factor "will they or will they not use a nuclear weapon." Mind you a
nuclear weapon is not as easy as making minute rice its still to be
seen if Iran can even make a nuclear weapon.

Good thing the US got that pesky country Iraq out of Iran's way hu?

Ozarks
08-23-2006, 09:41 PM
ozark---Thats twice.. do you mean wait? or is WHAT the same as wait, your from the Hills right, soo that maybe right. im just askin...i know we all mispel words but i asked myself if thats how you say it


Your Desperation is showing, :D

eg420ne
08-24-2006, 12:29 AM
Alright iamapatient

Krogith
08-24-2006, 12:51 AM
http://www.infowars.com/articles/iraq/bush_now_says_iraq_had_nothing_do_with_911.htm


Then after we cause WW3 and nuke fallout we get to see Bush do the same as the above thread but about Iran?

yabatab
08-24-2006, 01:06 AM
This shit is happening just as this administration planed all along
middle eastern countries falling into disarray and plotting against
each-other more so now that the one of the super powers is out
of the way (Iraq) and crumbling under a forced democracy. Maybe
we should just shove MacDonalds hamburgers down their throats
and staple bibles to their chest.

Bong30
08-24-2006, 01:27 AM
Yaba.... insted of micky ds and bibles.

How about just give women equal rights allow freedom of religon.. for a start.

I have Said it before... NOW i hear people talking about it.

ISLAM NEEDS A REFORMATION...............


The Batth Party is not it.............

yabatab
08-24-2006, 01:54 AM
Yaba.... insted of micky ds and bibles.

How about just give women equal rights allow freedom of religon.. for a start.

I have Said it before... NOW i hear people talking about it.

ISLAM NEEDS A REFORMATION...............


The Batth Party is not it.............

I understand where you are coming from but forcing a country to
change centuries of beliefs and its way of life is causing nothing
but civil war and chaos. A forced democracy will not work you can
see what imposing democracy on Iraq has done. They are worse off
now than they were before america decided to occupy. There is more
to this than merely riding a country of an evil dictator and giving them
democracy.

As far as Islam needing reform the religious fanatics are the minority
in the muslim religion. But nun-the-less dangerous, their views are
being herd more so now that the middle east is in turmoil.

Nylo
08-24-2006, 01:51 PM
It's simply a question of hypocrisy for me , how can the country with the largest nuclear arsenal (America) possibly have the gall to say who can and cannot have nuclear weapons.
If I remember rightly Isreal refused to sign up to the treaty and yet they weren't forced to stay non-nuclear,, double standards from the US and UN I would say.


I may be wrong, but Israel doesn't go around shouting

DEATH TO THE JEWS!!!
DEATH TO THE WEST!!!!!
LIFE IS GOOD, MARTYRDOM IS BETTER!!!!

I'm guessing you have to pass the "I'm not crazy as fuck" test first. Iran, by all standards, fails that test.

Bong30
08-24-2006, 02:38 PM
Nylo ............. you are right on point

SpiritLevel
08-24-2006, 03:04 PM
Everything Seems To Be Going... According To Plan. The Only Sortage This Planet Has Is One Of Real Soldiers Who Fight For What Is Right As Oppose To What They Are Conditioned To Think Is Right. See The Difference? Democracy Fucks Things Up! It Is Destructive Hypocrisy... is that the right term? People And What They Think About, Are More Dangerous Than Weapons.

Ozarks
08-24-2006, 04:30 PM
I may be wrong, but Israel doesn't go around shouting

DEATH TO THE JEWS!!!
DEATH TO THE WEST!!!!!
LIFE IS GOOD, MARTYRDOM IS BETTER!!!!

I'm guessing you have to pass the "I'm not crazy as fuck" test first. Iran, by all standards, fails that test.



The sad part is the majority of Iranians want to join the western world,the 21st century as modern Muslims with all it has to offer and live in piece.

It (a small group) the Leadership that wants to murder all they can following some perverted 12th century mentality.

jamstigator
08-24-2006, 06:09 PM
Careful, SpiritLevel, you're letting the 'real you' show a bit there with your "democracy fucks things up" comment. So, if the people shouldn't make decisions (directly or indirectly), then...who should? The people who are gonna 'save us' from the masses of crazed voters?

Democracy is the worst form of government...except for all the others.

psychocat
08-27-2006, 01:39 AM
I'm guessing you have to pass the "I'm not crazy as fuck" test first. Iran, by all standards, fails that test.


Then how in hells name did the US get to hold onto their nukes?? :D

SpiritLevel
08-27-2006, 11:36 AM
Careful, SpiritLevel, you're letting the 'real you' show a bit there with your "democracy fucks things up" comment. So, if the people shouldn't make decisions (directly or indirectly), then...who should? The people who are gonna 'save us' from the masses of crazed voters?

Democracy is the worst form of government...except for all the others.

I am interseted in your point about the 'real me'. Describe to me the appearance of who the real me is according to your new found perception. I thought the real me had been on show all this time, I think it has just taken some months for you to tune in.

Demonic Hypocrisy (democracy) does fuck things up. When I hear U.S and U.K politicians speaking of democracy (democratic states and shyt) and how all countries should have it, as soon as they try and implement it thousands of people wind up dead. All democracy does is put the west in a steadfast position to have countries adhere to western ideals and pile-of-lil-tricks (politics) direrectly and indirectly. Democracy doesn't give people their say. Democracy fools people into thinking they have had a say. If democracy is the worst form of government, and then you say other forms of governance are worse, then any kind of government that we are familiar with is inappropriate.

Can you elaborate on '...So, if the people shouldn't make decisions (directly or indirectly), then...who should? The people who are gonna 'save us' from the masses of crazed voters?...'. When do you make decissions, besides those that affect your self, your immediate home and family? Are those family/home based decissions democratic? I am almost certain the majority of decissions non-elite people make on a day to day do not affect the runnings of the world. Even voting at election time doesn't affect the running of some countries because if someone wants to get into power, they can wave a few bucks and bob's-your-uncle; they are in!

jamstigator
08-27-2006, 01:08 PM
And so, you would replace democracy and voting with...what? Socialism? Communism? Anarchy? Barbarism? Dictatorship? Theocracy? Got something new in mind that people haven't tried? You want to tear down democracy, okay, I get that. But what do you want to see it replaced with?

SpiritLevel
08-27-2006, 01:58 PM
I also wanted a description of the real me.

The stuctures that democracy has enforced on people over the years ensures that the average person will still want to be told what to do with their life (spoon fed). Any suggestion would seem too far fetched for most people to digest. For a start, to implement a new way of life takes a long time period of evolving ones' mind more over physically placing oneself into a new environment. Between me and a pal we quite like the idea of becoming self sufficient and not depending on the government for anything at all, including money. The discussion sounded nice while brainstorming, but giving up democracy will give a false sense of going back in time. There won't be non or many of the modern facilities available to someone who chooses to live without the government. Money is a main factor that influences deciding whether or not you want the government or not. If you think you can live without money, or would like to, then we'd be part way there. If one can consider living without the thing only money can buy, then we become a step closer. Reverting back to oldenday methods of survival but with modern knowledge of why it is better that way is necessary. jamstigator, your question cannot be answerd by me because I would then feel I'm dictating how one should live. Your question is also a lot bigger than simply asking 'what do you want it to be replaced with?'. If there was a one word answer, which there isn't, we'd both be happy but there isn't so I won't waste anymore time blabbering about reverting and going back in time. (for now!)

anycraic
08-27-2006, 02:22 PM
sigh

Iran: signatory of the nuclear non proliferation treaty, has always claimed that its nuclear technology will be used for peaceful energy production. "sea of oil" is bullshit, it has to export the vast majority of it just to pay the bills.

its close neighbours Pakistan and India: have never signed anything. have openly developed and possess HUNDREDS of nuclear warheads. Have openly threatened war on each other and commited terrorist acts on each other many many times. have been on the brink of nuclear apocalypse on several occasions over the issue of the disputed territory of kashmir.

hmm, i wonder who to be more scared of...

oh you fucking idiots, why do you think iran is suddenly so powerful and is spreading its hardcore shia madness through the region, supporting terrorists with impunity? because some fucking genius decided to overthrow the major moderating power in the area, with a secular government that clamped down on islamic extremism and kept crazy ol iran in check...IRAQ!... now witness the shitstorm that will unfold without it...

Oneironaut
08-27-2006, 02:28 PM
http://www.current.tv/pods/supernews/PD03720

jamstigator
08-27-2006, 03:19 PM
I see, so you're in favor of eradicating democracy (government of any kind, actually) but you don't know what to replace it with, other than some utopian dream of subsistence farming or something. Well, yeah, not many people are gonna go for something like that. People like their iPods, internet, computer games, electricity, space programs, advanced healthcare, ability to traverse the globe, cruises, television, cameras, microwaves, refrigerators, and so on. Can people live without any of that? Of course. Does it suck? Yes it does.

If you've never 'lived off the land' for an extended period of time, then you don't really know what it's like. I've lived in pretty neolithic conditions for about eight months, and it ain't no picnic. It's not the big things you miss initially, because you know you aren't gonna have those. What gets really annoying is missing the little things, like toilet paper, mosquito repellant, lighters, cold drinks, anything to read, music, shampoo, toothpaste, warm water, waterproof storage, razors, antibiotics, aspirin, that kind of stuff.

People who live without the perks of modern society die much younger. Like, in their 30s or 40s. One bad infection, kiss a leg or an arm goodbye, if you survive at all. Even if it didn't suck to live in such conditions, I personally believe the human race can accomplish more than breeding one vulnerable planet full of subsistence farmers, but to do so requires government of some form.

Another problem, and it's a huge one, with no government, is that people need law and order, or it they quickly sink into anarchy. You establish a nice peaceful cooperative subsistence farming village next to some stream with fish and fresh water. A neighboring village downstream decides they don't like your feces washing down the stream into 'their' area, so they attack with the goal of enslaving your villagers and taking control of that area. What then? He who has the biggest guns wins. Yeah, that's a real step up from what we have now. In fact, there already are such lawless areas, where government has little or no control. Iraq, for starters, some countries in Africa, Somalia, and so on. If that's REALLY what you want, it is available right now. You'd probably end up missing government protection when gangs of thugs arrive in the night and blow you away with machine guns, but hey, you'd be free of government. Dead, too.

You are an idealist with no ideas.

Hamlet
08-27-2006, 03:55 PM
Iran is just playing a mean hand of poker. And it seems we don't have any clever players on our team. We went with brute force instead of cunning and we're getting our ass handed to us.

Ozarks
08-27-2006, 05:57 PM
sigh

Iran: signatory of the nuclear non proliferation treaty, has alwaysclaimed that its nuclear technology will be used for peaceful energy production.


If you believe that, then so be it




"sea of oil" is bullshit, it has to export the vast majority of it just to pay the bills.


Yes, funding terrorists worldwide while keeping your own people unemployed (40%) The BILLIONS Iran take in every month at 70 + a barrel doesn't go to far.




its close neighbors Pakistan and India: have never signed anything. have openly developed and possess HUNDREDS of nuclear warheads. Have openly threatened war on each other and commited terrorist acts on each other many many times. have been on the brink of nuclear apocalypse on several occasions over the issue of the disputed territory of kashmir.

Actually Pakistan and India are negotiating over Kashmir, they bought have nukes and the leadership of both countries pocess some sanity. When they have a "border incident" it's with small arms, not nuclear bombs.



hmm, i wonder who to be more scared of...

India has and elected government, Pakistan has at least a stable Government, and a nuclear Iran (the leadership) wants to murder Jews and Americans and all other infidels in the name of their God, to start the war that will bring back their "Messiah"




oh you fucking idiots,

Did you have to google that, or did you come up with it on your own ?




why do you think Iran is suddenly so powerful and is spreading its hardcore shia madness through the region, supporting terrorists with impunity?

They are flush with money, The "Great Satan" will not be intimated by their threats and their perverted 12th century vision of Islam calls them to kill all who disagree with them





because some fucking genius decided to overthrow the major moderating power in the area, with a secular government that clamped down on islamic extremism and kept crazy ol iran in check...IRAQ!... now witness the shitstorm that will unfold without it...

Saddam was a psychopathic murderer, all the people (like you) willing to tolerate him are the same people who didn't have to live under him. There isn't a secular Government in Iraq, there's an elected Government in Iraq. What that Government ends up looking will decided by the Iraqis. BTW there was a Secular Government in Iraq under Saddam so what's your point ?

SpiritLevel
08-28-2006, 11:00 AM
jamstigator, you got me... hook line and sinker

psychocat
09-01-2006, 11:29 PM
Yeah folks lets trust the people who lie to us daily.
The US goverment , the UK goverment and all those who think they can bullshit us into killing in the name of peace or talk us into believing everyone is an enemy if they don't agree with you.


http://spikedhumor.com/articles/51259/Bush_Getting_Owned.html

Now tell me again who we should trust ??

joebhoy
09-04-2006, 11:52 PM
And so, you would replace democracy and voting with...what? Socialism? Communism? Anarchy? Barbarism? Dictatorship? Theocracy? Got something new in mind that people haven't tried? You want to tear down democracy, okay, I get that. But what do you want to see it replaced with?


What did America want to do in Palestine? Oh yeah bring democracy then when there was a vote and the PEOPLE elected Hamas wasn't that a fare vote? America didn't like it so they ignore it typical they didn't get there own way.

And just incase ye dont know do ye knowq who gave Iran there nuclear power plant in the 1960's?

Who gave them the uranium?

That's right Iran's good friend at the time the USA.

joebhoy
09-04-2006, 11:54 PM
And so, you would replace democracy and voting with...what? Socialism? Communism? Anarchy? Barbarism? Dictatorship? Theocracy? Got something new in mind that people haven't tried? You want to tear down democracy, okay, I get that. But what do you want to see it replaced with?


What did America want to do in Palestine? Oh yeah bring democracy then when there was a vote and the PEOPLE elected Hamas wasn't that a fare vote? America didn't like it so they ignore it typical they didn't get there own way.

And just incase ye dont know do ye knowq who gave Iran there nuclear power plant in the 1960's?

Who gave them the uranium?

That's right Iran's good friend at the time the USA. :thumbsup:

It's Iran's right there not doing anything illegal they say it's for power there is not one bit of proof to suggest other wise.

What's going to happen nothing, America wont go to war with them they would get there ass kicked. 50,000 suicide bomber's I wonder how many of ye they would kill. :dance:

graymatter
09-05-2006, 03:37 AM
What did America want to do in Palestine? Oh yeah bring democracy then when there was a vote and the PEOPLE elected Hamas wasn't that a fare vote? America didn't like it so they ignore it typical they didn't get there own way.

And just incase ye dont know do ye knowq who gave Iran there nuclear power plant in the 1960's?

Who gave them the uranium?

That's right Iran's good friend at the time the USA. :thumbsup:

It's Iran's right there not doing anything illegal they say it's for power there is not one bit of proof to suggest other wise.

What's going to happen nothing, America wont go to war with them they would get there ass kicked. 50,000 suicide bomber's I wonder how many of ye they would kill. :dance:


Exactly! America was cool with the Shah and his nuclear ambitions because... well, we, the U.S., put his lame ass there. If Iran is pissed at America (says we're their enemy) it's for a good reason: We fucked with their democracy. But now they're in a fix because the majority of Iranians aren't cool with their dip shit government.

Stop looking at the world through the lens of America first? The biggest threat to the world isn't terrorism or nuclear ambition. It's Nationalism. Johnson and Nixon got the biggest threat wrong and so has the idiot from Texas (Connecticut)... or, rather, his handlers.

joebhoy
09-05-2006, 03:56 AM
But now they're in a fix because the majority of Iranians aren't cool with their dip shit government.


That's fucking bullshit and you know it. Iran love's there leader's you must remember that it isn't the president of Iran who make's decision's.

It's isn't like Iraq where most people didn't give a shit about Saddam different story in Iran.

graymatter
09-05-2006, 04:07 AM
That's fucking bullshit and you know it. Iran love's there leader's you must remember that it isn't the president of Iran who make's decision's.

It's isn't like Iraq where most people didn't give a shit about Saddam different story in Iran.

Of course it's different.... we can move on from the elementary: who makes decisions in Iran bit. But tell me why urban Iranians love iPods and western culture?

BTW The MAJORITY of Iranians don't agree with their leaders...

joebhoy
09-05-2006, 04:23 AM
To be honest I think you should stop watching Fox news.

So where are all the people showing that they dont support it?

Oh let me guess they dont come out cause you say they will be killed or some shit. It's a load of bull you give country's like Israel nuclear bomb, buster bomb, cluster bombs, F16's, that ye pay for the tax payer and you wonder why country's dont like ye.

Yer all for one country like in Afganistan you help a bunch of terrorist's there right now who just planted bomb's in Turkey not so long ago. Wont be long when your saying they are your enemy.

Iranian's want there country to be a nuclear power WHICH THEY ARE IN THERE RIGHT'S to be.

graymatter
09-05-2006, 12:29 PM
Hey, Joebhoy, either I'm not writing clearly or you're not reading clearly. I AGREE with you, OK?

As for Fox News, if I ever run into Bill O'Reilly I'll punch him in his fat head... Peace, baby!

rightwinghippe
06-07-2008, 01:06 AM
Israel has the most to lose if Iran gets the bomb. Israel said yesterday that if Iran gets to far along on there enrichment program there not going to waite for the U.S to act. They said they will take care of it them selfs.

daihashi
06-07-2008, 02:25 AM
Israel has the most to lose if Iran gets the bomb. Israel said yesterday that if Iran gets to far along on there enrichment program there not going to waite for the U.S to act. They said they will take care of it them selfs.

ROFL.. I'd like to see israel do anything by themselves.

They're like an annoying kid brother who comes crying to you when they get beat up at school.

Personally I think they need to learn to fend for themselves. Unfortunatley though the US has too much interest in that region to allow Israel to fight on their own.

Israel will sit down and shut up if we tug on their leash hard enough.

FreshNugz
06-09-2008, 12:11 PM
Israel has a few big friends. Hey, here's a thought, maybe they think that's the best way to go about striking Iran. The US knows it can't sell its own public on another war but hell, why not have Israel do it for us. Each day this seems more and more the case, imo. They just want it to come off like it wasn't the idea of the US.
While I agree that Israel will "settle down" when America tugs the leash, in this case the US doesn't really want it to. It's important to consider also that many other nations are against a nuclear Iran. I for one am, as is my nation. Germany, France, Australia, New Zealand, Britain.
The shitty part is that Team Iran is pretty good too, given they share the bench with Russia and China.

The funny part of all of this is the contrast we see in Obama. I remember him saying that he would negotiate diplomatically with Iran and other enemies of the US. But just the other day, now Israel's security is of utmost importance..and "non-negotiable". I love that it shows he's just as much a liar as any other politician. Finally he demonstrates that he is not so original or amazing as everyone thinks; though it will be historical if and when he is elected, what will really come of it?
He is starting to grow on me though, only because he will ease tensions around the world, and help America be the great country it used to be - respected world wide. But he won't fix the US much...and people need to realize that.
Whats with all the people who want Jimmy Carter back, by the way. He got you into this damn mess!!

texas grass
06-09-2008, 01:00 PM
so because iran sits on oil they shouldnt have nuclear technology. thats stupid hogwash. keep on destroying our world with unrenewable oil cause we keep on waisting it. they have every right to have a RENEWABLE POWER SOURCE.

christians are just as fanatic as muslims. they both want the end of times. christian bush talks to god and god told him to attack muslims. hes said that on national tv. christians are extremist fanatics just like muslims.

dragonrider
06-09-2008, 03:30 PM
Don't we have some newer threads on Iran? Did we have to pick up and restart one from TWO YEARS ago?

daihashi
06-10-2008, 01:44 AM
so because iran sits on oil they shouldnt have nuclear technology. thats stupid hogwash. keep on destroying our world with unrenewable oil cause we keep on waisting it. they have every right to have a RENEWABLE POWER SOURCE.

christians are just as fanatic as muslims. they both want the end of times. christian bush talks to god and god told him to attack muslims. hes said that on national tv. christians are extremist fanatics just like muslims.

No, it's not hogwash, but to deny that the Iranian government has alterior motives is naive.

To be able to master the techonology necessary to create nuclear arms is the issue at hand here. Uranium Enrichment is not an easy task and requires very specific conditions to happen. Once they learn that it's only a matter of further refining the enrichment process to make weapons grade uranium.

Iran has said several times before that any action taken against them will result in them attacking Israel.

They seem a little over eager to attack don't you think?

While I do believe the general idea that if everyone has nukes then no one will want to use them is probably true.. I think I would rather err on the side of caution and try to pre-emptively stop this process diplomatically first.

And by the way, if you think that oil is the only way to destroy the world then you should look at the waste by product of nuclear power plants. Not only is it hazardous but it is generally of high enough grade to still be used for a Dirty bomb...

Yep, a weapon can be the byproduct of your clean renewable energy.

Who knew right?

In addition you would want the material waste to be buried deep in a insulated container that won't leak and contaminate the earth. We wouldn't want to possible destroy our precious planet with radioactive material after trying to move away from oil... which was also destroying our planet.

You would also want to make sure the grounds are well protected. Being radioactive material you could only imagine that it might be sought after from various terrorist groups (please notice I said terrorist and not muslims).

So yes.. there are alot of issues that should be of concern to the international community over a nation that has definitely shown their hostility towards neighboring nations.

Do I think we should invade... well like I said before in other posts, with me being half Iranian and having family over there it makes it a bit difficult to not be biased. I'm going to say no right away. My family is there.

Do I think we should do something... Yes, I do think this is a serious issue and it needs to be handled.

Do I think that we need to be the gungho leader that charges in there and forces the change. No, I honestly think this needs to be handled by a group of nations working together. I am not referring to the UN as they seem to do a piss poor job of enforcing any of their policies. I am referring to a reformed UN where the Member nations have some actual backbone and enforce their diplomacy and policies or else using their military power if necessary in the situation where other nations may be at danger/risk... like the one we see before us now.

I do agree with one thing in your post though:

fanatical christians are equally as bad as muslim extremists.. both have killed in the name of their religion. Thats just NUTS!

daihashi
06-10-2008, 01:53 AM
Israel has a few big friends. Hey, here's a thought, maybe they think that's the best way to go about striking Iran. The US knows it can't sell its own public on another war but hell, why not have Israel do it for us. Each day this seems more and more the case, imo. They just want it to come off like it wasn't the idea of the US.
While I agree that Israel will "settle down" when America tugs the leash, in this case the US doesn't really want it to. It's important to consider also that many other nations are against a nuclear Iran. I for one am, as is my nation. Germany, France, Australia, New Zealand, Britain.
The shitty part is that Team Iran is pretty good too, given they share the bench with Russia and China.


You know that is a very good point. I never thought about using Israel as a coverup to drag the US into another war. It will be interesting to see if it pans out that way.

Also thank you for pointing out that this is not just a US issue. Many nations around the globe do not want Iran to have Nuclear technology for many reasons which should be obvious.

Gandalf_The_Grey
06-10-2008, 02:54 AM
I just love America's hypocricy: "Hey, we can keep tens of thousands of nuclear weapons, our buddies in Israel can keep tons of nukes, but don't you dare!"

Then the government's actually convinced us that Iran is being outrageously unreasonable for not lying down and accepting that we, the enlightened Christians of the west, can be trusted with nukes, but you Iranians are all a bunch of savages who can't be trusted, and you should just agree with that! Riiiight, that's skillfull diplomacy right there. Last I heard, only twice has one country nuked another, and both times were America. But even with as much or more thumping for war against Iran, as they say to us, it can only be their fault if war breaks out.


Hey, who is it again that has the most colourful history of deposing democratically elected leaders and installing brutal dictators? The US's buddy Batista, before Castro gave him the boot, was so brutal he made Saddam look like the prime minster of Sweden. In fact they did a similar thing in.... oh what was that country.... oh that's right, IRAN (1953). But clearly, the US is the one who's suffered the injustices of Iran's agression over the decades. Iran has no reasonable cause for distrust of the US, of course.

daihashi
06-10-2008, 03:01 AM
I just love America's hypocricy: "Hey, we can keep tens of thousands of nuclear weapons, our buddies in Israel can keep tons of nukes, but don't you dare!"

Then the government's actually convinced us that Iran is being outrageously unreasonable for not lying down and accepting that we, the enlightened Christians of the west, can be trusted with nukes, but you Iranians are all a bunch of savages who can't be trusted, and you should just agree with that! Riiiight, that's skillfull diplomacy right there. Last I heard, only twice has one country nuked another, and both times were America. But even with as much or more thumping for war against Iran, as they say to us, it can only be their fault if war breaks out.


Hey, who is it again that has the most colourful history of deposing democratically elected leaders and installing brutal dictators? The US's buddy Batista, before Castro gave him the boot, was so brutal he made Saddam look like the prime minster of Sweden. In fact they did a similar thing in.... oh what was that country.... oh that's right, IRAN (1953). But clearly, the US is the one who's suffered the injustices of Iran's agression over the decades. Iran has no reasonable cause for distrust of the US, of course.

In case you've missed out there are a number of nations, including your own, who do not want Iran to have nuclear arms.

And I think the reasons listed above are enough cause to want to deter a nation, who has definitely voiced it's desires to destroy neighboring nations, away from Nuclear technology.

BTW, nuclear armament is not a US policy but rather a UN policy. You obviously did some research there at the end of your post, but had you done some research on the subject at the beginning of your post then I think you would find you're pointing your finger at the wrong person.

We are just one of the few nations that enforce this UN policy. It's not our fault if the UN typically cannot stand up for themselves.

FreshNugz
06-10-2008, 08:01 PM
I just love America's hypocricy: "Hey, we can keep tens of thousands of nuclear weapons, our buddies in Israel can keep tons of nukes, but don't you dare!"

Then the government's actually convinced us that Iran is being outrageously unreasonable for not lying down and accepting that we, the enlightened Christians of the west, can be trusted with nukes, but you Iranians are all a bunch of savages who can't be trusted, and you should just agree with that! Riiiight, that's skillfull diplomacy right there. Last I heard, only twice has one country nuked another, and both times were America. But even with as much or more thumping for war against Iran, as they say to us, it can only be their fault if war breaks out.

Hey, who is it again that has the most colourful history of deposing democratically elected leaders and installing brutal dictators? The US's buddy Batista, before Castro gave him the boot, was so brutal he made Saddam look like the prime minster of Sweden. In fact they did a similar thing in.... oh what was that country.... oh that's right, IRAN (1953). But clearly, the US is the one who's suffered the injustices of Iran's agression over the decades. Iran has no reasonable cause for distrust of the US, of course.


You make a lot of valid points that can't be argued against..and nobody is denying you those..
the point is to realize that there are other undeniable facts to pay attention to, like the fact that the government in Iran is a religious dictatorship disguised as democracy. Kinda like Russia, you know, where you vote with the Kremlin or you get killed. This type of country is not one that should be in possession of nuclear weapons. Thats why the cold war was so damn scary! Russia should never have had those type of weapons! Do you never think how lucky we all are that we had some rational people in office who must have been scared of the consequences? Do you realize how many times the world came close to complete destruction? What makes you think that this situation will automatically play out well, like the cold war. In case you haven't noticed there is already a renewed arms race. Laughing a nuclear Iran off as non-threatening, when it is an open enemy who is defying UN Sanctions is plain naive. No matter your thoughts on US imperialism or aggression, you cannot deny that this comes down to the fact that they can't have nukes because the country isn't stable, not because they are "muslim enemies" like you suggest.
It's just as frightening that Pakistan has them too, cause they are crooked as hell.
So that con kinda outweighs the points you make about the US overstepping its bounds. It isn't just America and Israel biting their nails.

Basically what I'm saying to you Gandalf is that I agree with your stance on the US ...everything from their illegal international activity to their world police behaviour and their world domination idea they have...but in the case of Iran, put those feelings aside, because not everything is about the evilness of the US government. Iran is a particularly dangerous threat, and you don't seem to realize that.

P.S. Why does everyone buy this peaceful energy creation crap??? Of course they have to say that!!! Think they would come out and say well yes, we're building the bomb.
According to the IAEA Iran has been quite vague with inspection principles.
If they just want the energy why not allow another country to build it and maintain it for them. And their "right" to do so is just bullshit. They have a few more "rights" to work on before nuclear power should be considered.

daihashi
06-10-2008, 08:43 PM
You make a lot of valid points that can't be argued against..and nobody is denying you those..
the point is to realize that there are other undeniable facts to pay attention to, like the fact that the government in Iran is a religious dictatorship disguised as democracy. Kinda like Russia, you know, where you vote with the Kremlin or you get killed. This type of country is not one that should be in possession of nuclear weapons. Thats why the cold war was so damn scary! Russia should never have had those type of weapons! Do you never think how lucky we all are that we had some rational people in office who must have been scared of the consequences? Do you realize how many times the world came close to complete destruction? What makes you think that this situation will automatically play out well, like the cold war. In case you haven't noticed there is already a renewed arms race. Laughing a nuclear Iran off as non-threatening, when it is an open enemy who is defying UN Sanctions is plain naive. No matter your thoughts on US imperialism or aggression, you cannot deny that this comes down to the fact that they can't have nukes because the country isn't stable, not because they are "muslim enemies" like you suggest.
It's just as frightening that Pakistan has them too, cause they are crooked as hell.
So that con kinda outweighs the points you make about the US overstepping its bounds. It isn't just America and Israel biting their nails.

Basically what I'm saying to you Gandalf is that I agree with your stance on the US ...everything from their illegal international activity to their world police behaviour and their world domination idea they have...but in the case of Iran, put those feelings aside, because not everything is about the evilness of the US government. Iran is a particularly dangerous threat, and you don't seem to realize that.

P.S. Why does everyone buy this peaceful energy creation crap??? Of course they have to say that!!! Think they would come out and say well yes, we're building the bomb.
According to the IAEA Iran has been quite vague with inspection principles.
If they just want the energy why not allow another country to build it and maintain it for them. And their "right" to do so is just bullshit. They have a few more "rights" to work on before nuclear power should be considered.

I agree with this post nearly 100%.

The only thing I disagree with is the US world police situation. While it may appear that we are simply butting out noses in where it doesn't belong... if you look at a number of the situations where the US goes in and flexes it's muscles it is usually due to some UN Sanction that has been violated or ignored.

Historically the UN has not enforced any of it's policies and is generally corrupt. I guarantee you many nations in the UN are as corrupt as people PERCEIVE the United States to be. (I don't argue that there is not corruptness occuring within our government. That would just be naive to think that).

The UN makes international Law.. has an international military and focuses on human rights and other things. Yet in the history of the UN I have never seen them step beyond diplomatic action. I am totally for handling things peacefully. I prefer it. The problem is that in many situations, like in Iraq for example where they would close their doors to UN inspectors on several occassions, the UN would just roll over and take it with a smile. They might as well apologized for interrupting Saddams valuable time.

The question is when is it time to stop diplomacy and take a course of action?

Russia, France, China and several other members even abuse policies that are put in place.. like the oil for food program. Which was abused by trading weapons for oil instead of food like the program suggests.

France had several interests in Iraq in the form of oil contracts. In addition Iraq was buying military arms from Russia and China.

When you have so many countries that have a fiscal interest in a nation and ignore problems or worse.. contribute to an ever expanding problem then I feel the finger should be pointed at them as well.

The United States put essentially put the Baath party in power and to be honest, even though I am opposed to the war, I'm somewhat glad that we cleaned up ONE of the messes we made.

The WORLD is corrupt and honestly it's a bit disgusting that everyone turns a blind eye to their own wrongs and only focus on the United States.

But then again I guess it's easier to place all your blame on one nation.. heh


ps: I am sincerely glad to see this post by you and wished more people shared the mentality of looking beyond just what they see in front of them. Beyond what the media spoon feeds them. Although I do not agree with your post 100% I found it very intelligible and written in a somewhat non biased fashion.

While I'm all for arguments and debate, I find that majority of the posts in regards to this are more Anti-American (even from Americans) sentiment as opposed to well thought out posts with historical, political, economic or even current event references.

Ghandi once said that we must become the change that we want to see in the world. :cool:

Thank you for taking the time to do this. I enjoy reading your posts. :thumbsup:

FreshNugz
06-11-2008, 05:47 PM
I agree with this post nearly 100%.

The only thing I disagree with is the US world police situation. While it may appear that we are simply butting out noses in where it doesn't belong... if you look at a number of the situations where the US goes in and flexes it's muscles it is usually due to some UN Sanction that has been violated or ignored.

Historically the UN has not enforced any of it's policies and is generally corrupt. I guarantee you many nations in the UN are as corrupt as people PERCEIVE the United States to be. (I don't argue that there is not corruptness occuring within our government. That would just be naive to think that).

The UN makes international Law.. has an international military and focuses on human rights and other things. Yet in the history of the UN I have never seen them step beyond diplomatic action. I am totally for handling things peacefully. I prefer it. The problem is that in many situations, like in Iraq for example where they would close their doors to UN inspectors on several occassions, the UN would just roll over and take it with a smile. They might as well apologized for interrupting Saddams valuable time.

The question is when is it time to stop diplomacy and take a course of action?

Russia, France, China and several other members even abuse policies that are put in place.. like the oil for food program. Which was abused by trading weapons for oil instead of food like the program suggests.

France had several interests in Iraq in the form of oil contracts. In addition Iraq was buying military arms from Russia and China.

When you have so many countries that have a fiscal interest in a nation and ignore problems or worse.. contribute to an ever expanding problem then I feel the finger should be pointed at them as well.

The United States put essentially put the Baath party in power and to be honest, even though I am opposed to the war, I'm somewhat glad that we cleaned up ONE of the messes we made.

The WORLD is corrupt and honestly it's a bit disgusting that everyone turns a blind eye to their own wrongs and only focus on the United States.

But then again I guess it's easier to place all your blame on one nation.. heh


ps: I am sincerely glad to see this post by you and wished more people shared the mentality of looking beyond just what they see in front of them. Beyond what the media spoon feeds them. Although I do not agree with your post 100% I found it very intelligible and written in a somewhat non biased fashion.

While I'm all for arguments and debate, I find that majority of the posts in regards to this are more Anti-American (even from Americans) sentiment as opposed to well thought out posts with historical, political, economic or even current event references.

Ghandi once said that we must become the change that we want to see in the world. :cool:

Thank you for taking the time to do this. I enjoy reading your posts. :thumbsup:


Thanks for your kind words. I too agree almost 100 percent with things you write. I am also glad that you can disagree with me intelligently, and not just shoot your mouth off because you don't agree. Its this type of debate that is good for the mind..not the childish bickering between those who actually don't know anything. :rasta:
That said ...you are about to disagree with me. I am going to try to make this as well argued as I can, and before you jump on me..remember we're both smart and can take a debate, right?:thumbsup:

Okay so I really wish I could find that post I did where I explain my negative views on the US. Alas, I cannot find it...but please don't think I am being anti-american. I'm not at all, its just that being anti-american is defined by saying ANYTHING NEGATIVE about the US, and lets face it, theres always negative things to say in life. So just because I criticize the country, doesn't mean I'm anti american.
Damn, I honestly am trying to find the nicest way to say this...basically, I just think your country has evolved in contrast to the vision laid out by your founding fathers. The original system of checks and balances and multiple political levels, ie. state vs. federal, the constitution and bill of rights, etc. are all great documents that shaped a wonderful country. The problem is, along the way, the US stepped into the forefront(I'd argue with their entrance to the second world war). And when they stepped into the forefront they did so very powerfully, and got a taste of what its like to be on top of the world. This has been the case since 1941, and it has only gotten more infested with power and corruption. Never do I say that other countries aren't corrupt, like you mention...just that some have a hard time swallowing the notion that great old USA isn't perfect. Well, thats what I take issue with, and thats why some things come off anti-american...some people just don't understand the arrogance you guys emit. I understand it...and realize that a superpower is always being prodded, and therefore has to clearly define its power. But sometimes America oversteps its bounds. The reason everything comes off so anti-american is that since America is the top dog, everyone has to nip at their heels. That's why as you said it seems most turn a blind eye to the fact that there is corruption around the world. And the reason its so easy to blame your one nation is because its at the top.
It is pretty hard to deny arrogance when your country ousts leaders and replaces them, starts a 'global war on terror', and basically controls the world economy. If a nation is the most powerful in the world, how can it not be arrogant??? So don't necessarily assume that people speaking the truth, whilst it may be negative, is anti-american.

Now to the part where I agree...pretty well everything you said about the UN i agree with. It is a useless waste of time even being around until it learns to set the tone. This is the connection to both of our arguments.
Your argument is the US is always having to step in to right wrongs on behalf of the useless nature of the UN. Agreed. My point is that the US thinks it controls too much...although it is responsible to a degree, its unilateral actions are much to the chagrin of the rest of the free world.
A good solution to both our grievances would be to make the UN into a more powerful body that is capable of standing without the firepower of the US. It can keep all its sanction crap, but when the time comes to do something about it, the UN should have UN troops, ones without spiderwebs cloaking the triggers of their shitty 9mm. And when they are needed, like they are in say DArfur for the part 9 years, they could be deployed. If the UN acts unilaterally its alright because its made up of all of our countries.....it comes off a hell of a lot less condescending when its not just the US. See what I'm saying?? Basically to fix the UN would solve a lot of the anti-american sentiment...because people would be less offended if an international body was controlling things, not a piece of North America.

I welcome and look forward to your rebuttal, sir;)
Or madame. Damn cannacom and its vague gender displays.

daihashi
06-11-2008, 06:14 PM
Thanks for your kind words. I too agree almost 100 percent with things you write. I am also glad that you can disagree with me intelligently, and not just shoot your mouth off because you don't agree. Its this type of debate that is good for the mind..not the childish bickering between those who actually don't know anything. :rasta:
That said ...you are about to disagree with me. I am going to try to make this as well argued as I can, and before you jump on me..remember we're both smart and can take a debate, right?:thumbsup:

Okay so I really wish I could find that post I did where I explain my negative views on the US. Alas, I cannot find it...but please don't think I am being anti-american. I'm not at all, its just that being anti-american is defined by saying ANYTHING NEGATIVE about the US, and lets face it, theres always negative things to say in life. So just because I criticize the country, doesn't mean I'm anti american.
Damn, I honestly am trying to find the nicest way to say this...basically, I just think your country has evolved in contrast to the vision laid out by your founding fathers. The original system of checks and balances and multiple political levels, ie. state vs. federal, the constitution and bill of rights, etc. are all great documents that shaped a wonderful country. The problem is, along the way, the US stepped into the forefront(I'd argue with their entrance to the second world war). And when they stepped into the forefront they did so very powerfully, and got a taste of what its like to be on top of the world. This has been the case since 1941, and it has only gotten more infested with power and corruption. Never do I say that other countries aren't corrupt, like you mention...just that some have a hard time swallowing the notion that great old USA isn't perfect. Well, thats what I take issue with, and thats why some things come off anti-american...some people just don't understand the arrogance you guys emit. I understand it...and realize that a superpower is always being prodded, and therefore has to clearly define its power. But sometimes America oversteps its bounds. The reason everything comes off so anti-american is that since America is the top dog, everyone has to nip at their heels. That's why as you said it seems most turn a blind eye to the fact that there is corruption around the world. And the reason its so easy to blame your one nation is because its at the top.
It is pretty hard to deny arrogance when your country ousts leaders and replaces them, starts a 'global war on terror', and basically controls the world economy. If a nation is the most powerful in the world, how can it not be arrogant??? So don't necessarily assume that people speaking the truth, whilst it may be negative, is anti-american.

Now to the part where I agree...pretty well everything you said about the UN i agree with. It is a useless waste of time even being around until it learns to set the tone. This is the connection to both of our arguments.
Your argument is the US is always having to step in to right wrongs on behalf of the useless nature of the UN. Agreed. My point is that the US thinks it controls too much...although it is responsible to a degree, its unilateral actions are much to the chagrin of the rest of the free world.
A good solution to both our grievances would be to make the UN into a more powerful body that is capable of standing without the firepower of the US. It can keep all its sanction crap, but when the time comes to do something about it, the UN should have UN troops, ones without spiderwebs cloaking the triggers of their shitty 9mm. And when they are needed, like they are in say DArfur for the part 9 years, they could be deployed. If the UN acts unilaterally its alright because its made up of all of our countries.....it comes off a hell of a lot less condescending when its not just the US. See what I'm saying?? Basically to fix the UN would solve a lot of the anti-american sentiment...because people would be less offended if an international body was controlling things, not a piece of North America.

I welcome and look forward to your rebuttal, sir;)
Or madame. Damn cannacom and its vague gender displays.

Oh, I don't disagree at all. I see your point and where you're coming from and I honestly can't argue against it, mostly because you see and understand the other side of the coin also.

I agree we overstep our bounds, and I agree since 1941 the United States has done whatever it could to stay in the lead of all the other world nations.

One thing you have to understand though is that it's not just the US that does this and while I am not justifying it, my problem with this is that everyone seems to ignore the fact that many other nations participate in the ousting of governments and replacing the head figures with someone of similar mind.

I do not think this is right, but I hate seeing the world look at America as we are the root of all evil.

I feel President Bush has really made America look far worse than we actually are.

It's very hard to rebuttal your post because the root of the problem at hand here, as both you and I have both said, is the UN.

You're right, it is simply too weak to perform it's job. The UN never acts on it's own and part of the problem is because of the countries that participate in it. Countries like the US, Russia, China, Britain all have huge sway in the UN. The only way you are going to remove personal interest and favoritism in the UN is to remove the countries from the UN.

I think the UN would work better as a seperate entity. Make it a world governing group as opposed to a group of nations who have different agendas and will work against each other. This is counter productive.

It could be setup similar to a State government vs federal government. Meaning let the UN handle all the big world issues and let the countries continue to handle any domestic issues themselves (within reason).

This would be hard to setup and may not even be feasible, but this is the only way I could see the UN working properly. As it stands now the UN cannot do it's own job because of people working against each other.

I do not think you're anti-american. The people I find that are Anti-America are the ones who make empty statements with no reason, history or anything to back what they say. Those statements just seem hateful to me.

I have no problem someone being against America but then explaining it as you did. We are all entitled to our own opinion after all. :thumbsup:

FreshNugz
06-11-2008, 07:28 PM
my problem with this is that everyone seems to ignore the fact that many other nations participate in the ousting of governments and replacing the head figures with someone of similar mind.

I do not think this is right, but I hate seeing the world look at America as we are the root of all evil.

I feel President Bush has really made America look far worse than we actually are.

You're right, it is simply too weak to perform it's job. The UN never acts on it's own and part of the problem is because of the countries that participate in it. Countries like the US, Russia, China, Britain all have huge sway in the UN. The only way you are going to remove personal interest and favoritism in the UN is to remove the countries from the UN.

I think the UN would work better as a seperate entity. Make it a world governing group as opposed to a group of nations who have different agendas and will work against each other. This is counter productive.

It could be setup similar to a State government vs federal government. Meaning let the UN handle all the big world issues and let the countries continue to handle any domestic issues themselves (within reason).

This would be hard to setup and may not even be feasible, but this is the only way I could see the UN working properly. As it stands now the UN cannot do it's own job because of people working against each other.



Absolutely agree! With many things said.
I understand your problem with people overlooking other actions similar to the US, like removing governments, etc. I know Putin has a series of puppet countries too. And China, etc. Evvvvveryone has issues, like I said. But its the superpower status that makes it take the forefront dude. People rag on you guys the most cause you're on top. Its just a way of life, so don't be angry about it. America just needs someone in office who can restore it to the proper principles it was founded on.

I agree your current president has done much to smear your reputation worldwide. What with openly declaring about 3 reasons for going in and making the mess that is Iraq, rendition, patriot act, Guantanamo, claiming to be following rules of war and caring about human rights but hasn't signed on to any sort of international legislation or justice because it doesn't want its crimes to be exposed, mistreating the veterans when they come home. Oh but wait!!! He quit GOLFING!!!! Come on man, how do you expect the world not to laugh a bit. Or not to mock that. And some people downright hate that. The impact around the world is something I don't think many of you understand because you live there and not outside.
That said I feel bad that he has made your reputation go to squat. I'm sorry to say that, but he has. And thats why the world so eagerly awaits and follows every nanosecond of this seemingly 40 year campaign for the next president. We all want the great America back.

I'm right on par with everything you said about the UN. And yes the problem is countries like Russia and China.
But the hostilities felt when the world took sides after WW2 made it necessary. If we didn't put Russia and China on the security council, we wouldn't have even come this far. That was the only way to balance...give them a share of the pie.
The international community reminds me of a group of children in a schoolyard...and until they mature a bit, we will never form some civilized, respectable and responsible world organization which peacefully regulates. If we can't get along however, there is a solution.
Perhaps it would be better if we just all had our own schoolyard, and we remained isolated from all the other ones. If we were all isolationist, we wouldn't need to worry about what the hell is going on in everyone else's backyard. Catching up to globalization politically, is possibly the hardest obstacle we've yet to face, imo.
The international community has become too interconnected through globalization and we need to figure out how to rationally get along with each other. Political globalization sucks!