17 Mar 06
Originally posted by Rajk999So then, by choice, my pets have a right to be angry with me and get revenge?
You have a responsibility to look after your pets. The US and the West have no legal or moral duty to provide weapons to anyone (unless they choose to) so that they can win a war. If they want to fight wars let Allah provide them with nukes.
Thanks, I'll just sit on my ass knowing what I did was wrong, and make no attempt to uphold justice.
Yes, even against myself. A truly righteous person would do such a thing.
17 Mar 06
Originally posted by RedmikeOK, so it is worse to be technologically advanced. In which case there is no need for any fuss or panic, just display some regressive tendencies, like Iran does, and we'll all be good (Muslims) like the Iranians.
Being technologically more advanced isn't the same as better.
It doesn't give the west the right to make decisions for the rest of the world.
Technical superiority isn't moral superiority.
18 Mar 06
Originally posted by sonhouseSo, pretty much, you're saying "Screw those Iranians, they're not people, let's not let them find alternate energy sources and slowly drain them out. Then, when they've got nothing to use for energy and run their country, they'll starve."
Not true. Nuclear fission is NOT the way to go to get energy after the demise of oil. You should read up on that subject before you spout off on it. Using fission for electricity only puts off a situation which is nearly impossible to deal with: Spent nuclear material. You only get a few decades of honeymoon period before that sticks up its ugly head. And a ...[text shortened]... if we screw up the planet and it exterminates humans, we never deserved it in the first place.
20 Mar 06
Originally posted by evilpiagetTrue. However, not bomb them. That would give the world something else to cry about. I would disagree with that to I think. Bombing the inncoent does nothing. We stoop to their level. We need to have a military invasion just as with Iraq. And we need to do it now because of what you have said in your post.
From the developments of the past few years I gather that Iran will not give up nuclear weapons development of their own accord. They must be forced.
The idea is to stall the U.S. and Europe and buy time so that they can eventually bargain much like North Korea did once they attain a nuclear weapon. To me the best option is to attack Iran with the p ...[text shortened]... ince we already have air power in the region it also makes sense from a logistical standpoint.
Very well put.
20 Mar 06
Originally posted by abejnoodYes! Maybe if they didn't have this little habit of calling for other countries to be wiped of the map then we would believe that the wanted nuclear energy for peaceful purposes, as it is, only a fool would believe them.
So, pretty much, you're saying "Screw those Iranians, they're not people, let's not let them find alternate energy sources and slowly drain them out. Then, when they've got nothing to use for energy and run their country, they'll starve."
20 Mar 06
Originally posted by princeoforangearen't you more or less calling for iran to be wiped from the map?
Yes! Maybe if they didn't have this little habit of calling for other countries to be wiped of the map then we would believe that the wanted nuclear energy for peaceful purposes, as it is, only a fool would believe them.
20 Mar 06
1 edit
Originally posted by WulebgrPakistan is nothing more than a satellite state at this point. When they great 'ol U.S. of A. came over to negotiate the terms of cooperation, they just handed Pakistan a list of things they had to do or would otherwise be forced to do.
As a practical matter, it behooves the USA to invade Iran because it sits between Afghanistan and Iraq. It might work better if we had one broad war in the land between Syria and Pakistan, rather than several.
Way to respect the sovereignity of a state...
21 Mar 06
Originally posted by WulebgrThere is no front in a guerilla war, so it doesn't really matter. And, invading Iran would be stupid, becuase we can't afford the forces needed to mantain peace in the country. Better to just wipe out their military to show them that we aren't wimpy, and will not bend backwards like sycophantic nations such as China.
As a practical matter, it behooves the USA to invade Iran because it sits between Afghanistan and Iraq. It might work better if we had one broad war in the land between Syria and Pakistan, rather than several.
25 Mar 06
Originally posted by darvlayHis true colors show now.
Who's 'we'? Aren't you an American citizen born and raised?
While I appreciate the whole Gandhi impression, if the international community fears that Iran is seeking to arm themselves with nuclear weapons, then I can't help but get a tad nervous. It's not contempt, it's simply concern.
What does a theocratic nation need a nuclear arsenal for? Protection? That's irony for ya.
25 Mar 06
Originally posted by TetsujinWhether or not it is a 'satellite state' Pakistan seems to be a training ground for mass murderers masquerading as religious fanatics; some of them pupils of the hook-handed mullah of Finsbury, currently serving a 7-year jail sentence for providing recruits to the Paki training camps.
Pakistan is nothing more than a satellite state at this point. When they great 'ol U.S. of A. came over to negotiate the terms of cooperation, they just handed Pakistan a list of things they had to do or would otherwise be forced to do.
Way to respect the sovereignity of a state...