21 Feb 07
Originally posted by SeitseYou're ranting. Iran has done none of the things you stated. Not only have they NOT used nuclear waepons, we don't even know if they've built one yet. The world is still arguing over their "ability" to build one.
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.
Stop projecting yourself into some nightmarish, nuclear armegeddon. And stop trying to drag others into it with you. It makes you sound like you're nuts.
21 Feb 07
Originally posted by wittywonka"Iran just attacked my country with a nuclear weapon"
I may have seemed unclear. I was intimating that the main reason the U.S. would attack Iran would be fear of Iran's nuclear capabilities.
"PFFT just put a pour some take an advil on it coward"
21 Feb 07
Originally posted by shavixmirDon't be stupid, shav, what I'm saying is that at this point you and I,
Well...I guess that's one way of lookin' at it.
Another way would be to say: "Oh wait. We've got the moral highground, let's not go and kill other people's babies."
behind our comfortable chairs, have no power to stop the abundant
idiocy on both sides, thus there is nothing left for us, the normal
people, but to think about the innocents.
The military and the politicians and the big tycoons call the shots,
unfortunately, so if you want to sit back and make noises like a
parrot, go for it. RHP debates forum is not the way to change the world.
So maybe it will not suffice, but at least I will start posting letters to
key personalities asking to intervene. Hey, it may not work, but at
least I'm trying to save the innocent people, the one nobody cares
about.
21 Feb 07
Originally posted by wibGo hide behind your keyboard, my dear intellectually handicaped
You're ranting. Iran has done none of the things you stated. Not only have they NOT used nuclear waepons, we don't even know if they've built one yet. The world is still arguing over their "ability" to build one.
Stop projecting yourself into some nightmarish, nuclear armegeddon. And stop trying to drag others into it with you. It makes you sound like you're nuts.
friend. At this point neither you nor I can do anything to change the
whole status quo. Hey, not even our kids may be able to do it...
but at this point the best way to protect the innocent people that
may die, is to come out in worlwide TV and say "we have no nuclear
facilities and we do not want it and we do not want to wipe out
any country" and then let the UN check.
After that, there is no mediatic justification to attack.
So go under your bed, kiddo, and keep trying to save the world
in RHP debates forum. You're doing just fine.
21 Feb 07
Originally posted by knightwestThe treatment of Germany after ww1 was very negative. The treaty of versaille was punitive and meant to stop Germany becoming an threat in the future.
This 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.
The punitive nature of the treaty led to Lloyd George predicting ww2 as a result.
If a country feels punished/threatened a country, it is easy for a dictator type to gain power.
Stalin, Mao, etc etc all used external threats to rationalise building their power bases.
21 Feb 07
Originally posted by knightwestIs that a joke?
No,
it is a fallacy to assume that actions against muslim countries will increase the likelyhood of terrorist attacks.
Do you understand anything about the Muslim culture?
That statement is just breathtaking in its stupidity.
21 Feb 07
Originally posted by knightwestif one country uses nuclear weapons on another, then all the other nuclear powers will unite and oblitarate the first. how does joint attacks from russia, america, france,india, pakistan etc sound?n. korea will not join in the attack they need to conserve their nuclear missile.
Iran has already stated that it's goal will be to wipe Israel of the face of the world.
Surely allowing them to have nuclear weapons would be total madness.
"Once again, the world stood by and did nothing as millions of Jews were annihiliated." That's what the foreword to some history book about the Iranian nuclear strikes on Israel will say, 50 years from now.
there will be no iran left, just the golf of iran and the waters of the indian ocean.
i think iran just wants the weapon as leverage in future "negotiations".
21 Feb 07
Originally posted by knightwestMaybe not.
Iran has already stated that it's goal will be to wipe Israel of the face of the world.
The original Persian phrase translated as “Israel must be wiped off the map” seems to have read:
“een rezhim-e ishghalgar-e qods bayad az safheh-ye ruzgar mahv shavad”
The word-for-word translation is:
een = This
rezhim = regime
ishghalgar = occupying
qods = Jerusalem
bayad = must
az = from
safheh-ye = pages of
ruzgar = time/history
mahv = disappear
If so, this is an expressed wish for regime change, not a demand for annihilation.
21 Feb 07
Originally posted by PawnokeyholeWhat you have the is the translation of one statement. One that could be what you suggest.
Maybe not.
The original Persian phrase translated as “Israel must be wiped off the map” seems to have read:
“een rezhim-e ishghalgar-e qods bayad az safheh-ye ruzgar mahv shavad”
The word-for-word translation is:
een = This
rezhim = regime
ishghalgar = occupying
qods = Jerusalem
bayad = must
az = from
safheh-ye = pages of
ruzgar = t ...[text shortened]... disappear
If so, this is an expressed wish for regime change, not a demand for annihilation.
I'm not sure I see it though. Regime would be referring to the Israeli leadership and that's not who is occupying Jerusalem. The Israeli people are. This looks to me to be call for the removal of Israel not just it's leadership.
Besides all that, we have to assume that since these speeches are made in public, we are looking at the carefully chosen words of a politician.
21 Feb 07
Originally posted by shavixmirIt was removed, I guess, because you used derogatory terms too describe certain minorities.
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.
However, it was clear to everyone who read the post that this was not your opinion, but merely to paraphrase the people who were afraid what these minorities might do to them.
It is a common form of humour, one I like using myself, mock the racist by making ridiculously over the top racist statements, which make it very obvious that the racist is the butt of the joke. Sadly this form of humour is very often misunderstood by the overzealous PC crowd who cannot detect these (not so subtle) subtleties.
21 Feb 07
Originally posted by petrosianpupilCorrection: It is easier for a dictator to gain power.
If a country feels punished/threatened a country, it is easy for a dictator type to gain power.
You are by no means wrong when you pinpoint some of the blame on the Treaty of Versaille, however there were many many other factors that allowed Hitler coming to power.
Amongst these were large unemployment and hyperinflation brought on by the stock-market crash in the US, many local communist uprisings rampaging through the country which the various governments of the time were not able to deal with properly.
Additionally the political system in the Republic of Weimar was such that there were no safeguards protecting democracy, making it possible for Hitler to make parliament vote itself out of power (this would be totally impossible under Germany's post WW2 constitution).
The list goes on and on, but to blame it on British and French fear and protectionism is simplistic.