people should be respectful of other people not just because someone believes in God and I also see good being done by people who dont believe in God
and nuke'em'tilltheyglow I think is not the way to go about it...there are innocents there that dont not hate and follow their religion peacefully
New war coming soon to a theater not near you
Moderator: Priests of Syrinx
it was just an IDEA...sheesh....lolschuette wrote:people should be respectful of other people not just because someone believes in God and I also see good being done by people who dont believe in God
and nuke'em'tilltheyglow I think is not the way to go about it...there are innocents there that dont not hate and follow their religion peacefully
I'm wondering if those HOMICIDE bombers (they're NOT suicide bombers)
are considering innocents? hmmm.... I'm gonna give that a NO.
Last edited by CygnusX1 on Wed Sep 20, 2006 5:44 am, edited 1 time in total.
Don't start none...won't be none.
2005 was recorded the warmest year in history by NASA watch this year is going to be worst. With the run away global warming we are going to see more conflicts over resources, as we have already released too much CO2 in the atmosphere. The genocide in Darfur is in part due to desertification, scarcity of water. I think we have a responsibility to help these people, seeing in part it was our actions that created the problem in the first place. The U.N> came about to help people that can?t help themselves, so far they have not done very much as the local governments tie their hands, so to speak. Most conflicts are about sustainability, greed, power, ideologies concerning religion sometimes being used as a cloak, People need to divorc? the idea of religious conflicts. There is always more than meets the eye we have to be able to read between the lines sometimes and of course there are fanatics no matter where it is you go. Did you know that there are over 2 billion people living under the poverty line in the world and many of those don?t have clean drinking water? That America lets in around one hundred and fifty thousand Iranians every year to educate them. Do you also know that we have the technology to desalinate water, grow better crops in harsher conditions you ever wonder why it doesn?t happen we do nothing to help these people. Some are good at getting our attention other places than where it should be. At any rate it is a sad state of affairs and wish most people want a good education an economic future they don?t want conflicts but there governments puts them in that position so sometimes the only way is fight and as an American I for one believe others should have the same opportunities as I do good medical care, food, etc also if we don?t stop burning fossil fuel perhaps there will be just a couple hundred survivors left in the far reaches of the north to start it all over again. There is no future without nature and perhaps one good idea would be to limit child birth. I waffled on enough I?m buying Neil?s new book an escape from it all for awhile and as soon as I have my operation I?m buying me another new motorcycle and start living and yes it is going to be a sweet BMW 
When evil is allowed to compete with good, evil has an emotional populist appeal that wins out unless good men & women stand as a vanguard against abuse.
-
ElfDude
- Posts: 11085
- Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2003 1:19 pm
- Location: In the shadows of the everlasting hills
- Contact:
If Iran gets nuclear weapons, there will be big trouble. In his speech at the U.N. yesterday the president of Iran prayed three times (imagine the press reaction if Bush had done that). In the last prayer he prayed for the coming of the 12th Imam (or however you spell it)... in other words, the end of the world. He believes it's coming within the next two years and he's willing to do whatever it takes to start it.
So, the question is; how do we go about preventing Iran from getting nukes and then using them on Israel and then on us?
Can we prevent it by talking to them? Well... we could probably fool ourselves into believing that for a while. See Neville Chamberain's comments praising Hitler and how cooperative he was during their peace talks to understand what I'm talking about. But in the end, Iran has nukes.
Can we prevent it with UN sanctions? You don't need to dignify that with a response. UN sanctions and resolutions have a record that speaks for itself.
Could we bomb the snot out of the country? Well, yeah. But there are a lot of ugly repercussions to that.
So what's the best idea? My favorite would be to try to change the country from within. To turn the hearts of the population away from wanting to be led by insane religious zealots and instead have some freedom. When people see freedom, they tend to want it for themselves. And though it takes a number of years to figure out how to get a fledgling democracy running smoothly, it can certainly be worth the effort. Just ask Japan.
If you go back to 2003 and look at George Bush's speeches in the buildup to the Iraq invasion, read between the lines. As a politician he couldn't talk about Iran back then, but if you read between the lines of those speeches ("changing the face of the middle east" and all that stuff) you can see Iran all over the place. Iran now has freedom to the left and to the right of it. The grass has got to look greener over those fences if you're just a normal citizen there with no special priviledges. It's got to look really good.
Is it too little too late? Dunno. The president there is just a puppet of the Ayahtollas (spelling?), but they (ther president and the religious leaders of the country) WANT war. To fulfill a great prophecy they WANT to destroy Israel and then take out as much of the west as they can. I know at the U.N. yesterday he talked about peace but he can be quoted LOTS of other places to the contrary. The fact that this will bring death and destruction to their country is not a deterrent. That's one of the big differences between this and the cold war.
Is it too late to change the country from within? In my little opinion it kind of looks like it. Do I applaud W for being the first guy in a long long time with that kind of foresight and determination to try it anyway? Sure. And it was smart in other ways too. Liberating Iraq was a good thing to do. Entire villages there are no longer being bruned by Saddam. Mass graves are no longer being filled with people killed by Saddam's chemical weapons. And from a strategic standpoint, we now have a presence on both sides of Iran.
I do not believe we will make the first strike. Bush knows he hasn't got the political capital to try it. I don't know if we'll be attacked again before the 2008 elections or not. Attempts have been made but we keep thwarting them (darn Bush and Blair!!!). If we are, then we'll fight back. If not, and if the new president is someone like John Kerry, Al Gore, Howard Dean, Hillary Clinton, or whatever, we will be told that the nation is safer and we'll be working on rebuilding our image around the world. We'll start talking and negotaiting with these terrorist countries and it will all feel so good and the news agencies will praise the "progress". Then we'll be bombed and we'll have to fight back. And Bush will be blamed for not having done enough before 2008 to protect us.
So, the question is; how do we go about preventing Iran from getting nukes and then using them on Israel and then on us?
Can we prevent it by talking to them? Well... we could probably fool ourselves into believing that for a while. See Neville Chamberain's comments praising Hitler and how cooperative he was during their peace talks to understand what I'm talking about. But in the end, Iran has nukes.
Can we prevent it with UN sanctions? You don't need to dignify that with a response. UN sanctions and resolutions have a record that speaks for itself.
Could we bomb the snot out of the country? Well, yeah. But there are a lot of ugly repercussions to that.
So what's the best idea? My favorite would be to try to change the country from within. To turn the hearts of the population away from wanting to be led by insane religious zealots and instead have some freedom. When people see freedom, they tend to want it for themselves. And though it takes a number of years to figure out how to get a fledgling democracy running smoothly, it can certainly be worth the effort. Just ask Japan.
If you go back to 2003 and look at George Bush's speeches in the buildup to the Iraq invasion, read between the lines. As a politician he couldn't talk about Iran back then, but if you read between the lines of those speeches ("changing the face of the middle east" and all that stuff) you can see Iran all over the place. Iran now has freedom to the left and to the right of it. The grass has got to look greener over those fences if you're just a normal citizen there with no special priviledges. It's got to look really good.
Is it too little too late? Dunno. The president there is just a puppet of the Ayahtollas (spelling?), but they (ther president and the religious leaders of the country) WANT war. To fulfill a great prophecy they WANT to destroy Israel and then take out as much of the west as they can. I know at the U.N. yesterday he talked about peace but he can be quoted LOTS of other places to the contrary. The fact that this will bring death and destruction to their country is not a deterrent. That's one of the big differences between this and the cold war.
Is it too late to change the country from within? In my little opinion it kind of looks like it. Do I applaud W for being the first guy in a long long time with that kind of foresight and determination to try it anyway? Sure. And it was smart in other ways too. Liberating Iraq was a good thing to do. Entire villages there are no longer being bruned by Saddam. Mass graves are no longer being filled with people killed by Saddam's chemical weapons. And from a strategic standpoint, we now have a presence on both sides of Iran.
I do not believe we will make the first strike. Bush knows he hasn't got the political capital to try it. I don't know if we'll be attacked again before the 2008 elections or not. Attempts have been made but we keep thwarting them (darn Bush and Blair!!!). If we are, then we'll fight back. If not, and if the new president is someone like John Kerry, Al Gore, Howard Dean, Hillary Clinton, or whatever, we will be told that the nation is safer and we'll be working on rebuilding our image around the world. We'll start talking and negotaiting with these terrorist countries and it will all feel so good and the news agencies will praise the "progress". Then we'll be bombed and we'll have to fight back. And Bush will be blamed for not having done enough before 2008 to protect us.
Aren't you the guy who hit me in the eye?
It is looking more and more like war with Iran is inevitable and without us ever having to lift a finger too.
I have been looking at newspages online and in my local paper too, not one thing said about how he should keep his religion out of the public square or how intolerant he is because he has a faith. I do believe that if Bush had done the same thing, there would be great backlash, IF the UN had allowed him to continue.In his speech at the U.N. yesterday the president of Iran prayed three times (imagine the press reaction if Bush had done that).
Onward and Upward!
Dubya said some months ago...even a YEAR or so ago on a TV interview, that they WILL NOT possess a device....I think we can do the math after that.awip2062 wrote:It is looking more and more like war with Iran is inevitable and without us ever having to lift a finger too.
I have been looking at newspages online and in my local paper too, not one thing said about how he should keep his religion out of the public square or how intolerant he is because he has a faith. I do believe that if Bush had done the same thing, there would be great backlash, IF the UN had allowed him to continue.In his speech at the U.N. yesterday the president of Iran prayed three times (imagine the press reaction if Bush had done that).
Don't start none...won't be none.