There are people who will kill you for continuing to elect governments which
support oppressive regimes, imprison and torture innocent members of their
religion, overthrow their governments whenever it feels like it, occupy their
land with its soldiers, and generally manipulate a whole region of the planet to
its own "energy security" ends.
If you don't recognise that Islamist terrorism is rooted in the actions of the
government you elect, then you have no chance of successfully dealing with
terrrorism because you do not understand it.
And thus the attempts to rewrite history begin.
The planning for 9/11 was started even before the November 2000 election. The
bombing of the USS Cole took place well before.
It's clear that you're refering to the Bush administration when you reference
"torture" and "overthrow governments."
Well, Clinton wasn't accused of any of that, but the Cole bombing took place
while he was in office, and 9/11 was well underway before Bush took office.
It's not propoganda. Our enemies hate us simply for being us. The United States
is referred to by our foes as "The Great Satan". You cannot negotiate
with a foe who thinks that you're evil incarnate, because they believe that
you're evil incarnate and won't negotiate with you.
They also think of us as evil for our alliance with Israel.
Our enemies would think nothing of detonating a nuke or a dirty bomb in the
middle of one of our cities. Would you justify their slaughter of innocent men,
women, and children on the justification that those people voted for our
government?
Force must be met with a greater force. That is the only way to quash our foes.
They don't want a settled peace, they have publicly stated that they want to
kill every American. They don't make those statements lightly, and they don't
retract them.
our only recourse is to defend ourselves as best we can. And to that end, we
must show an unwavering willingness to use EVERY weapon at our disposal. Up to
and including our nuclear arsenal.
Quote: I must point out that
sometimes the argument and the person making it can be indistinguishable. This
is generally the case for arguments of the form "we should do
X"
"We should do X" can be refuted by rebutting the implications and
nuances of point X, without resorting to insulting the "we" in
question. Personal value judgments can be refuted by pointing to the flaws of
the judgments, and one does not need to insult the ability to make judgments of
the individual.
Yes, I admit that with the current, highly polarized political atmosphere in the
United States, people on the two different ends of the political spectrum have
very different, but equally heart-felt views. However, I believe that members
here are all capable of engaging in a civil debate about their views and the
respective merits and flaws of them without needing to attack each other on the
basis of personal character.
I have been a member of the National Forensics League and have debated for the
past 4 years. In my time, we have had many hot-topic debates, including
terrorism and national security. I have encountered components who make peronal
value judgments in the form of "we ought to do X." I myself have made
many such assertions. But the best debate is one in which the debaters can
persuade the judge of the flaws in the argument and assertion. It is my sincere
hope that we can have such meaningful debates, because you all are raising some
very serious philosophical and political issues with your comments.
Now, please continue with the discussion, though I would like to remind members
that the original topic is Iran and its desire to obtain nuclear weapons.
Certainly, terrorism is a facet of the larger issue, but also keep in mind to
not go too far off of the main topic.
I think it would be a great idea to take out the Iranian government. Sure, there
are those who disagree, but there are also those who would fly planes into the
world trade center, so I am not interested in pleasing everyone.
There are people who will kill you for continuing to elect governments which
support oppressive regimes, imprison and torture innocent members of their
religion, overthrow their governments whenever it feels like it, occupy their
land with its soldiers, and generally manipulate a whole region of the planet to
its own "energy security" ends.
If you don't recognise that Islamist terrorism is rooted in the actions of the
government you elect, then you have no chance of successfully dealing with
terrrorism because you do not understand it.
And thus the attempts to rewrite history begin.
The planning for 9/11 was started even before the November 2000 election. The
bombing of the USS Cole took place well before.
It's clear that you're refering to the Bush administration when you reference
"torture" and "overthrow
governments."
Once again, you show your complete ignorance of the reality of the situation.
(To get back on-topic briefly), the single most significant government overthrow
in the region performed by America is probably when the US overthrew the Iranian
government in the 50's because it wanted to nationalise its oil industry. One of
the main men behind modern violent Islamism movements was tortured by
CIA-trained torturers in Egypt a couple of decades ago.
Go away, research the entire issue properly, watch the BBC documentary The Power of Nightmares, and then maybe there
will be a point in continuing to talk to you about this issue. For now, I have
no interest in continuing.
Quote by EternalParadox"We
should do X" can be refuted by rebutting the implications and nuances of
point X, without resorting to insulting the "we" in question. Personal
value judgments can be refuted by pointing to the flaws of the judgments, and
one does not need to insult the ability to make judgments of the
individual.
All of those only work on the assumption that it's actually one of the other
types of argument in disguise. Logic can only be used to attack (supposedly)
logical chains of thought, not ideas with the standing of fundamental axiomatic
principles.
Quote by BorisGrishenkoI think it
would be a great idea to take out the Iranian government. Sure, there are those
who disagree, but there are also those who would fly planes into the world trade
center, so I am not interested in pleasing
everyone.
The root cause of all these problems is the last time we took out the Iranian
government.
Quote by Cammie
Just need one crazy fanatic to get power and yeah that might very well
happen(Not saying the current warmonger aint a fanatic, that goes without saying
)
I grow very sick and tired of ignorant people calling our President a warmonger.
If you ask me, he's been far too lenient with our enemies.
The minute Afghanistan refused to hand over Bin Laden, we should have turned the
whole area to molten black glass. Instead, we launched a ground war, and have to
worry about getting a nation back on its feet.
The area we suspect Bin Laden of hiding in should be subjected to repeated
nuclear strikes to ensure we get him and all the rats hiding with him. Instead,
we're relying on hunting the old-fashioned way, and asking help of Afghanistan
and Pakistan to locate and capture him.
Since Bush hasn't done that, I'd have to say that he doesn't strike me as a
warmonger.
Well, I suppose that also depends on your definition of a warmonger. Here's some
interesting points.
A) There war on terrorism is completely unrelated to the war in Iraq, which
occured while searching for WMDs, and was later justified as an attempt to oust
Saddam. In no way was it connected to terrorism at all, but Bush used Americans
rage at 9/11 to fuel support for his pet war.
B) Nuclear bomns have one huge issue that prevents any ethical user from
unleashing them: specificity. Unless there happens to be a designated military
target (like a very large compound) that is larger than the bomb blast radius,
you are going to hurt/kill many innocent people who may have nothing to do with
your target.
C) I'm not going to be cliche and unleash Webster's definition of 'warmonger'
(seriously, i hate when people do that) but doesn't it seem that Bush acts
largely to protect his own interests? I can cite a few examples if necessary,
but the biggest one is his support from multiple weapons corporations
(haliburton, anyone?) and there's nothing better for weapons corporations than a
nice war. So, yeah Bush is definitely a warmonger in that he started the war for
fun and profit. The issue is that he's not so great at finishing it. The
insurgency was actually being well maintained, but after our military changed
leadership (multiple times) in Iraq, they would clear out and destroy old files
- including vital intelligence reports - which allowed the insurgency to grow to
an actual power. Not too bright, guys.
Da) In an effort to stay on topic, I'd like to mention that Iran having nuclear
capabilities is no better or worse than India, Pakistan, or other countries
having them. The only issue (from what I understand) is that we're not in
control of them. So what? If the threat is a nuclear strike by Iran, we're fine.
Those missiles are far away, and even if they had the capacity to travel to the
U.S., we could detect and shoot them down before that happened.
Db) If the threat is giving terrorists access to nuclear weapons... don't they
already? I think some people on the board have already mentioned this so I won't
go into it much further.
E) Honestly, the Muslim community in general seem more pissed at Denmark about
the caricature of the prophet Muhammed as a violent terrorist than us. Though,
isn't it ironic that members of a purportedly peaceful religion violently
protest a violent depiction of themselves? Ah, the irony...
Can't blame the US nor Bush for what happened there
unless u have allot of blood..ie both of your parents born in the balkans u cant
talk sh*t!
the reason for the conflict for the last centuary is because UK, Russia and
Germany wanted to play the pupet master in teh region. that ment 4 wars and
millions of dead.
the same f***ing thing is happening to the middle east. There is a very
important natural resource in that part of the world. OIL...dont worry i m not
going liberal on you.
now like some one said b4 in the 1950's american did some "regime
change" in iran ... teh result is what it is now.
Btw americans pay attention
RUSSIA build the nuclear reactor for Iran
now think for a second... if russia was americas best friend would it give
weapons to charvez, would it build a nuke reactor. there is another thing they
could do to hurt the us...ill let u guess that...
pseudoquantum
in regards to ur point E
last time i checked we(muslims) were HUMANS, hence we can get pissed and angry
like all PEOPLE. wait we have the right to get pissed at ignorant and insultive
****** ******* who got what they deserved!
I'm welll aware of the fact that Russia built Iran's reactor, just as I'm well
aware that our previous President gave N. Korea the ability to make their bombs.
That's not a blame game we can play as a nation because of the man who last held
office.
"Here, I'll give you the materials to make a nuclear reacotr if you promise
not to use it to make weapons."
That's like giving teenagers condoms and then telling them you don't want them
to have sex. Makes absolutely no sense.
So, yes, Russia gave Iran the ability to make "The Bomb", but we gave
N. Korea that ability. It's even feasible that Russia had the same stipulation
for Iran that we had for N. Korea. "We'll give you this if you promise to
behave."
Now, Iwhere Iran got the reactor is of far less pressing concern than what they
intend to do with it.
Offers have been made by Russia to enrich their uranium for them, thus giving
them fuel to generate power without giving them the ability to make bombs. They
didn't go for that deal, so we know that generating power isn't the goal. Thus,
it must be bombs.
Now, while it is true that the bombs cannot reach us, the Iranian arsenal does
have the range to strike nations like Israel, France, Germany, Russia, Iraq, and
several others against whom they bear grudges and whom we call allies.
Thus, we must act to prevent the creation of a new nuclear power. Especially
since Iran has publicly declared that they want to destroy Israel.
pseudoquantum
in regards to ur point E
last time i checked we(muslims) were HUMANS, hence we can get pissed and angry
like all PEOPLE. wait we have the right to get pissed at ignorant and insultive
****** ******* who got what they deserved!
yes, yes, of course. I don't see how you thought I implied you weren't people. I
was merely trying to point out the irony of people violently protesting violent
charicatures of themselves. Trust me, I think the U.S. have screwed over
everyone in the Middle East and made a right good hash of the whole situation
there. Besides, what you're doing on the forum, COMMUNICATING your thoughts and
beliefs, is much more constructive and helpful than BURNING **** down. You gotta
understand, I don't condone burning and maiming in general, no matter which
people do it. I especially can't stand unruly mobs, but that's something else
entirely.
Just as a thought though, I read an interesting editorial in the NY Times about
a very basic clash between democracy and fundamentalist religion (not just
Islam. All of it.). you see, with democracy, we've got this desire to discuss
things and talk about them and fill the air with our musings. On the other hand,
fundamentalist religons beleive that one way is right, and won't talk about it.
Why? Because engaging in a debate to decide whether or not a belief is viable is
tantamount to suggesting it might not be. Therefore, all we want to do is
discuss and dispute, which is the one thing you can do with fundamentalist
religion (when talking to fundamentalists anyway).
And look, I'm not saying the Danes are great for making fun of a religion. To be
quite honest , I don't care and I think people should lighten up, but I'm not
going to go out of my way and insult someone's beliefs either. Obviously some
people will. Get over it.
"who got what they deserved!"
pepeo, I'm not sure what you're suggesting. It sounds like you're trying to
blame the people of a nationality for the actions of one of their magazines. So,
you're saying that its good for random people to be harrassed by mobs? Because
people in no way related to them insulted this mob? Seriously?
Quote by BorisGrishenkoI think it
would be a great idea to take out the Iranian government. Sure, there are those
who disagree, but there are also those who would fly planes into the world trade
center, so I am not interested in pleasing everyone.
The root
cause of all these problems is the last time we took out the Iranian
government.
Just because Carter was an idiot for his entire presidency does not mean it is a
bad idea now to take out the mullahs. I think Reagan should have done it in
1980. Besides, how much worse can it get than the Mullahs? I don't really think
taking out the current government there could do anything except improve
situations rather than make them worse.
Of course it would make things worse. The US cannot control Irak, so what do you
think it would happen with Iran? That country is like 3 times bigger and almost
3 times more populated than Irak. The tensions are quite bad now and the world
doesn't need another country and an entire global region in chaos.
Well, not "control" but since you threw down the previous goverment is
your responsability to mantain the order until there's a new solid goverment
that can do that, but you cant. And iran would be worse.
And thus the attempts to rewrite history begin.
The planning for 9/11 was started even before the November 2000 election. The bombing of the USS Cole took place well before.
It's clear that you're refering to the Bush administration when you reference "torture" and "overthrow governments."
Well, Clinton wasn't accused of any of that, but the Cole bombing took place while he was in office, and 9/11 was well underway before Bush took office.
It's not propoganda. Our enemies hate us simply for being us. The United States is referred to by our foes as "The Great Satan". You cannot negotiate with a foe who thinks that you're evil incarnate, because they believe that you're evil incarnate and won't negotiate with you.
They also think of us as evil for our alliance with Israel.
Our enemies would think nothing of detonating a nuke or a dirty bomb in the middle of one of our cities. Would you justify their slaughter of innocent men, women, and children on the justification that those people voted for our government?
Force must be met with a greater force. That is the only way to quash our foes. They don't want a settled peace, they have publicly stated that they want to kill every American. They don't make those statements lightly, and they don't retract them.
our only recourse is to defend ourselves as best we can. And to that end, we must show an unwavering willingness to use EVERY weapon at our disposal. Up to and including our nuclear arsenal.
"We should do X" can be refuted by rebutting the implications and nuances of point X, without resorting to insulting the "we" in question. Personal value judgments can be refuted by pointing to the flaws of the judgments, and one does not need to insult the ability to make judgments of the individual.
Yes, I admit that with the current, highly polarized political atmosphere in the United States, people on the two different ends of the political spectrum have very different, but equally heart-felt views. However, I believe that members here are all capable of engaging in a civil debate about their views and the respective merits and flaws of them without needing to attack each other on the basis of personal character.
I have been a member of the National Forensics League and have debated for the past 4 years. In my time, we have had many hot-topic debates, including terrorism and national security. I have encountered components who make peronal value judgments in the form of "we ought to do X." I myself have made many such assertions. But the best debate is one in which the debaters can persuade the judge of the flaws in the argument and assertion. It is my sincere hope that we can have such meaningful debates, because you all are raising some very serious philosophical and political issues with your comments.
Now, please continue with the discussion, though I would like to remind members that the original topic is Iran and its desire to obtain nuclear weapons. Certainly, terrorism is a facet of the larger issue, but also keep in mind to not go too far off of the main topic.
I think it would be a great idea to take out the Iranian government. Sure, there are those who disagree, but there are also those who would fly planes into the world trade center, so I am not interested in pleasing everyone.
Once again, you show your complete ignorance of the reality of the situation. (To get back on-topic briefly), the single most significant government overthrow in the region performed by America is probably when the US overthrew the Iranian government in the 50's because it wanted to nationalise its oil industry. One of the main men behind modern violent Islamism movements was tortured by CIA-trained torturers in Egypt a couple of decades ago.
Go away, research the entire issue properly, watch the BBC documentary The Power of Nightmares, and then maybe there will be a point in continuing to talk to you about this issue. For now, I have no interest in continuing.
All of those only work on the assumption that it's actually one of the other types of argument in disguise. Logic can only be used to attack (supposedly) logical chains of thought, not ideas with the standing of fundamental axiomatic principles.
The root cause of all these problems is the last time we took out the Iranian government.
Well, I suppose that also depends on your definition of a warmonger. Here's some interesting points.
A) There war on terrorism is completely unrelated to the war in Iraq, which occured while searching for WMDs, and was later justified as an attempt to oust Saddam. In no way was it connected to terrorism at all, but Bush used Americans rage at 9/11 to fuel support for his pet war.
B) Nuclear bomns have one huge issue that prevents any ethical user from unleashing them: specificity. Unless there happens to be a designated military target (like a very large compound) that is larger than the bomb blast radius, you are going to hurt/kill many innocent people who may have nothing to do with your target.
C) I'm not going to be cliche and unleash Webster's definition of 'warmonger' (seriously, i hate when people do that) but doesn't it seem that Bush acts largely to protect his own interests? I can cite a few examples if necessary, but the biggest one is his support from multiple weapons corporations (haliburton, anyone?) and there's nothing better for weapons corporations than a nice war. So, yeah Bush is definitely a warmonger in that he started the war for fun and profit. The issue is that he's not so great at finishing it. The insurgency was actually being well maintained, but after our military changed leadership (multiple times) in Iraq, they would clear out and destroy old files - including vital intelligence reports - which allowed the insurgency to grow to an actual power. Not too bright, guys.
Da) In an effort to stay on topic, I'd like to mention that Iran having nuclear capabilities is no better or worse than India, Pakistan, or other countries having them. The only issue (from what I understand) is that we're not in control of them. So what? If the threat is a nuclear strike by Iran, we're fine. Those missiles are far away, and even if they had the capacity to travel to the U.S., we could detect and shoot them down before that happened.
Db) If the threat is giving terrorists access to nuclear weapons... don't they already? I think some people on the board have already mentioned this so I won't go into it much further.
E) Honestly, the Muslim community in general seem more pissed at Denmark about the caricature of the prophet Muhammed as a violent terrorist than us. Though, isn't it ironic that members of a purportedly peaceful religion violently protest a violent depiction of themselves? Ah, the irony...
1. Remember Kosovo? Bosina? The Balkans?
Can't blame the US nor Bush for what happened there
unless u have allot of blood..ie both of your parents born in the balkans u cant talk sh*t!
the reason for the conflict for the last centuary is because UK, Russia and Germany wanted to play the pupet master in teh region. that ment 4 wars and millions of dead.
the same f***ing thing is happening to the middle east. There is a very important natural resource in that part of the world. OIL...dont worry i m not going liberal on you.
now like some one said b4 in the 1950's american did some "regime change" in iran ... teh result is what it is now.
Btw americans pay attention
RUSSIA build the nuclear reactor for Iran
now think for a second... if russia was americas best friend would it give weapons to charvez, would it build a nuke reactor. there is another thing they could do to hurt the us...ill let u guess that...
pseudoquantum
in regards to ur point E
last time i checked we(muslims) were HUMANS, hence we can get pissed and angry like all PEOPLE. wait we have the right to get pissed at ignorant and insultive ****** ******* who got what they deserved!
peace
I'm welll aware of the fact that Russia built Iran's reactor, just as I'm well aware that our previous President gave N. Korea the ability to make their bombs. That's not a blame game we can play as a nation because of the man who last held office.
"Here, I'll give you the materials to make a nuclear reacotr if you promise not to use it to make weapons."
That's like giving teenagers condoms and then telling them you don't want them to have sex. Makes absolutely no sense.
So, yes, Russia gave Iran the ability to make "The Bomb", but we gave N. Korea that ability. It's even feasible that Russia had the same stipulation for Iran that we had for N. Korea. "We'll give you this if you promise to behave."
Now, Iwhere Iran got the reactor is of far less pressing concern than what they intend to do with it.
Offers have been made by Russia to enrich their uranium for them, thus giving them fuel to generate power without giving them the ability to make bombs. They didn't go for that deal, so we know that generating power isn't the goal. Thus, it must be bombs.
Now, while it is true that the bombs cannot reach us, the Iranian arsenal does have the range to strike nations like Israel, France, Germany, Russia, Iraq, and several others against whom they bear grudges and whom we call allies.
Thus, we must act to prevent the creation of a new nuclear power. Especially since Iran has publicly declared that they want to destroy Israel.
yes, yes, of course. I don't see how you thought I implied you weren't people. I was merely trying to point out the irony of people violently protesting violent charicatures of themselves. Trust me, I think the U.S. have screwed over everyone in the Middle East and made a right good hash of the whole situation there. Besides, what you're doing on the forum, COMMUNICATING your thoughts and beliefs, is much more constructive and helpful than BURNING **** down. You gotta understand, I don't condone burning and maiming in general, no matter which people do it. I especially can't stand unruly mobs, but that's something else entirely.
Just as a thought though, I read an interesting editorial in the NY Times about a very basic clash between democracy and fundamentalist religion (not just Islam. All of it.). you see, with democracy, we've got this desire to discuss things and talk about them and fill the air with our musings. On the other hand, fundamentalist religons beleive that one way is right, and won't talk about it. Why? Because engaging in a debate to decide whether or not a belief is viable is tantamount to suggesting it might not be. Therefore, all we want to do is discuss and dispute, which is the one thing you can do with fundamentalist religion (when talking to fundamentalists anyway).
And look, I'm not saying the Danes are great for making fun of a religion. To be quite honest , I don't care and I think people should lighten up, but I'm not going to go out of my way and insult someone's beliefs either. Obviously some people will. Get over it.
"who got what they deserved!"
pepeo, I'm not sure what you're suggesting. It sounds like you're trying to blame the people of a nationality for the actions of one of their magazines. So, you're saying that its good for random people to be harrassed by mobs? Because people in no way related to them insulted this mob? Seriously?
Just because Carter was an idiot for his entire presidency does not mean it is a bad idea now to take out the mullahs. I think Reagan should have done it in 1980. Besides, how much worse can it get than the Mullahs? I don't really think taking out the current government there could do anything except improve situations rather than make them worse.
Of course it would make things worse. The US cannot control Irak, so what do you think it would happen with Iran? That country is like 3 times bigger and almost 3 times more populated than Irak. The tensions are quite bad now and the world doesn't need another country and an entire global region in chaos.
we arent trying to control iraq, we're trying to steer it in the right direction
Well, not "control" but since you threw down the previous goverment is your responsability to mantain the order until there's a new solid goverment that can do that, but you cant. And iran would be worse.
we are maintaining order with most of the population. . .the only chaos is that caused by the few terrorists that keep blowing up car bombs