-
Nuclear Showdown: Iran Says It Won't Stop Enrichment
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!)
-
Nuclear Showdown: Iran Says It Won't Stop Enrichment
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...
-
Nuclear Showdown: Iran Says It Won't Stop Enrichment
-
Nuclear Showdown: Iran Says It Won't Stop Enrichment
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.
-
Nuclear Showdown: Iran Says It Won't Stop Enrichment
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.
-
Nuclear Showdown: Iran Says It Won't Stop Enrichment
Quote:
Originally Posted by anycraic
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
Quote:
"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.
Quote:
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.
Quote:
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"
Quote:
oh you fucking idiots,
Did you have to google that, or did you come up with it on your own ?
Quote:
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
Quote:
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 ?
-
Nuclear Showdown: Iran Says It Won't Stop Enrichment
jamstigator, you got me... hook line and sinker
-
Nuclear Showdown: Iran Says It Won't Stop Enrichment
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/5125...ing_Owned.html
Now tell me again who we should trust ??
-
Nuclear Showdown: Iran Says It Won't Stop Enrichment
Quote:
Originally Posted by jamstigator
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.
-
Nuclear Showdown: Iran Says It Won't Stop Enrichment
Quote:
Originally Posted by jamstigator
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:
-
Nuclear Showdown: Iran Says It Won't Stop Enrichment
Quote:
Originally Posted by joebhoy
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.
-
Nuclear Showdown: Iran Says It Won't Stop Enrichment
Quote:
Originally Posted by graymatter
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.
-
Nuclear Showdown: Iran Says It Won't Stop Enrichment
Quote:
Originally Posted by joebhoy
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...
-
Nuclear Showdown: Iran Says It Won't Stop Enrichment
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.
-
Nuclear Showdown: Iran Says It Won't Stop Enrichment
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!
-
Nuclear Showdown: Iran Says It Won't Stop Enrichment
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.
-
Nuclear Showdown: Iran Says It Won't Stop Enrichment
Quote:
Originally Posted by rightwinghippe
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.
-
Nuclear Showdown: Iran Says It Won't Stop Enrichment
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!!
-
Nuclear Showdown: Iran Says It Won't Stop Enrichment
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.
-
Nuclear Showdown: Iran Says It Won't Stop Enrichment
Don't we have some newer threads on Iran? Did we have to pick up and restart one from TWO YEARS ago?
-
Nuclear Showdown: Iran Says It Won't Stop Enrichment
Quote:
Originally Posted by texas grass
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!
-
Nuclear Showdown: Iran Says It Won't Stop Enrichment
Quote:
Originally Posted by FreshNugz
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.
-
Nuclear Showdown: Iran Says It Won't Stop Enrichment
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.
-
Nuclear Showdown: Iran Says It Won't Stop Enrichment
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gandalf_The_Grey
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.
-
Nuclear Showdown: Iran Says It Won't Stop Enrichment
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gandalf_The_Grey
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.
-
Nuclear Showdown: Iran Says It Won't Stop Enrichment
Quote:
Originally Posted by FreshNugz
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:
-
Nuclear Showdown: Iran Says It Won't Stop Enrichment
Quote:
Originally Posted by daihashi
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.
-
Nuclear Showdown: Iran Says It Won't Stop Enrichment
Quote:
Originally Posted by FreshNugz
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:
-
Nuclear Showdown: Iran Says It Won't Stop Enrichment
Quote:
Originally Posted by daihashi
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!
