Originally posted by petrosianpupilThis statement is so simplistic and naive it hurts me. I can only assume you are being unclear. The alternative does not bear contemplating. Please explain what you mean.
Just as Hitler was a product of overzealous French/british fear and protectionism, so the fear that fools like simple seistse peddle creates monsters in a self fulfilling prophesy.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6378289.stm
Iran's President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has rejected international calls for Tehran to suspend uranium enrichment, a day before a UN deadline runs out.
For crying out loud, at least this guy should do it for the Iranian kids that will die as collateral damage in the invasion, damn it. Is his nuclear plan more important than his people?!?!?!?!
Come on, people, we all understand the crappy interests, businesses and stinky politiquery that is on both sides, everywhere, up to the top... but when a slaughter is so near, it's better to protect your people... damn damn damn.
Originally posted by SeitseWell...I guess that's one way of lookin' at it.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6378289.stm
Iran's President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has rejected international calls for Tehran to suspend uranium enrichment, a day before a UN deadline runs out.
For crying out loud, at least this guy should do it for the Iranian kids that will die as collateral damage in the invasion, damn it. Is his nuclear plan m ...[text shortened]... top... but when a slaughter is so near, it's better to protect your people... damn damn damn.
Another way would be to say: "Oh wait. We've got the moral highground, let's not go and kill other people's babies."
The post that was quoted here has been removedI agree with everyhting you say Shavi, however, i was rather referring to the guy's comment that Hitler was a product of France's and GB's fear and protectionism. That i want elabortion on, because it portrays a very simplistic view, which is nevertheless made very passionately (a dangerous comination, in my opinion.
Originally posted by shavixmirI agree. I think it was a good post well made and the terms used in it were used in a way that implies that that's how people think, not what the individual poster thinks.
[b]WHY the sweet bejesus was my post removed???
HAVE YOU ALL LOST YOUR EFFING MINDS????[/B]
Screw the lot of you.
I think it is too easy to remove a post just because it contains certain words.Look at it in context.
Sad! and I am angry because it throws the debate off track too.
Negative-rec to whoever complained and Negative-rec to the mods who removed it based on a superficial decision process
Originally posted by shavixmirThe heat merchant in me says you should post it again.
There wasn't a swear word in and I was using a Yoda quotation to make a point clear.
I don't know why it was removed, but until it's returned, I ain't postin' here no more.
F the lot of you.
Course, it also says I should take this opportunity to push your buttons. 😉
Say maybe both are wrong.
The U.S. should not attack Iran. As several others have stated, an attack on Iran would benefit absolutely noone. If, by some illogical, cowardly act the U.S. does attack Iran, it (obviously) won't be a pretty picture. The last thing we need to do is pile more of a situation with Iran onto Iraq.
Originally posted by wittywonkaWhile I agree with you about Iran, how is an attack cowardly?
The U.S. should not attack Iran. As several others have stated, an attack on Iran would benefit absolutely noone. If, by some illogical, cowardly act the U.S. does attack Iran, it (obviously) won't be a pretty picture. The last thing we need to do is pile more of a situation with Iran onto Iraq.