Iran has Speeded Up Nuclear Projects

Sorry eagle, I'm siding with dbermanmd. You seem to justify the current-happening wrong doing commited by Muslim fundamentalists by saying .. "but but but the Christians killed alot of people too!" ..

They are a threat to this Free Nation. The Muslims Fundamentalists want to destroy our way of life and you try to justify it somehow. Why do liberals ALWAYS do this? It is always Americas fault, always the Christians fault.. liberals hardly ever side with their Countrymen.. they're always whining about something, yet offering no suggestions.

PS - The Christian Crusades were fueled by the oppression commited against them by.. guess who.. MUSLIMS.

 

Berman, every time you put words in my mouth you're insulting me. I never said anything about enslaving women or sharia law. You made that up out of your preconceived notions of me. I never said i wanted Iran to go nuclear - i just questioned the reasons and methods being proposed to stop them. I also am not so sure our "enemies" want us to leave Iraq. The longer we're there, the more we drive the people into hating us for invading them and disrupting their stable way of life (while things may not have been great under Sadam, they were stable and people knew what to expect. Now, with death squads and the threat of the government toppling when we finally leave, nothing is stable and the people there are unsure about their future). We've created an entire generation of terrorists and US haters in Iraq - That is why i feel it was wrong to go there in the first place, and why i feel it's wrong to stay there as we are now. We should either pull out or actually give it all we've got (massively more troops, better armor for all, unrestricted rules, etc) - but the current administration doesn't want either option.

Every time you make a list that starts with "you want...", you're putting words in my mouth.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(eagle33199 @ Feb 26 2007, 05:30 PM) [snapback]396850[/snapback]</div>

This is the exact time of liberal nonsense I'm talking about.. You think terrorists somehow liked us before we went in Iraq? Give me a break man.. Those Muslim Fundies hated us before Iraq, and they hate us still.

Stop blaming America for every problem in the world. The bad people have been around for alot longer than the United States has been a country. THey've been killing each other in the Middle East for Mohammad and Oil for thousands of years.. quit blaming America for trying to do something about it.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(desynch @ Feb 26 2007, 02:31 PM) [snapback]396818[/snapback]</div>

I'm not justifying anything... only saying that there is a better way for dealing with the situation than pulling out the guns and going to war. I'm not blaming America or Christians for the problem - I'm asking why we have to resort to violence to solve it.

There have been a lot of posts about how evil some of these national leaders are. And yet everyone fails to realize that these same national leaders are making progress in modernizing their country. It doesn't happen overnight. Unfortunate as it may sound, in order to rise to a position of power in some of these countries, they may have to spout the standard death threats against America or Israel or whatever. It's the same as our politicians saying they'll lower taxes, reduce the deficit, and improve health care - most of them don't actually do any of that.

Progress takes time.

Now, question for you - what sources do you have that the Crusades were fueled by oppression by Muslims? Many historians could tell you that the Crusades were for a different reason. Europe had recently "stabilized" it's borders, and most of the nobles didn't want any more local war. In order to take all the warriors away, the crusades were created to capture the holy land. While Islam and Christianity had many battles before the Crusades, Islam had left Europe relatively unscathed - It had conquered parts of the Byzantine Empire, Asia Minor, Palestine, Syria, Egypt, and North Africa. The only part of Europe (where the crusades stemmed from) that was touched was a small part of southern Spain.

Please, how did the Muslims oppress the Christians in Europe?

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(desynch @ Feb 26 2007, 03:47 PM) [snapback]396859[/snapback]</div>

I didn't say anything about terrorists. But think about this. You have your normal person, leading his normal life, and suddenly his city is turned into a war zone by people who invaded his country. As he lives through this war zone, he sees his friends and family dragged off by death squads. He sees these invaders acting as if they own the place (have you seen the video of how the soldiers have to drive through the city to avoid IEDs?). he starts to get a little upset. He tells his kids how great the place was before the invaders came in, and how horrible and dangerous it is now. He begins to hate those who created this war zone, placing the blame on America, and eventually he and his children turn into terrorists.

Tell me, what part of that story sounds implausible? I'm not blaming America for every problem. I am, however, blaming America for creating the current situation in Iraq - we invaded, and started a civil war.

Muslims haven't been killing themselves for "thousands of years". The faith itself has only been around for about 13,000 years. We've only been using oil for what, 200 years? Please, don't try to exaggerate things.

 

Crusades were started for several reasons, just like Iraq. Muslims had alot to do with it then, and they have alot to do with it now.

Yes, Muslims have been at war with each other, the Jews, Hindus, Buddhists, Christians.. anyone that isn't them for thousands of years.

No, Iraq was not a "better place" before the war. It is a terrible place and is continuing to be a terrible place. We just stirred the ants.

 

Keep putting words in my mouth, Berman, and insulting me - it only erodes your position more.

I never said i was unwilling to stop Iran - just that i don't see any sense behind doing so without international support. The war in Iraq cost us a lot - and i'm not just talking money. We lost a lot of international goodwill and face, and it's going to take years, if not generations to earn that back. There's absolutely no reason to go off half-cocked and attack Iran without international support. Thats something the President didn't understand with Iraq, and clearly something you and your friends here still don't understand.

Iraq was a state sponsor of terror, however look through your history books - The terrorist groups they supported only attacked neighboring states, not the US (with the exception of a few failed attempts when we were in the Gulf war). Iraq had no connection to Al-Queda.

I never said we were to blame for 9/11 or the WTC in 1993 - you're sticking words in my mouth again. You once again say i'm seeing good where there's evil, and evil where there's good, without a shred of evidence to back that up - I've completely agreed in most cases that the groups discussed are NOT good. I'm sick and tired of your attitude and personal attacks against me - note that i have refrained from ANY personal attacks against you, instead discussing the topic at hand.

Please, Berman, grow up. start discussing facts and ideas, instead of launching personal attacks.

 

By support i mean either UN support or, at the bare minimum the support of our Allies. Remember, when we started the war in Iraq, our Allies stayed out of it. Thats not the way to handle international relations.

As for other nations acting on their own... I would not support a preemptive strike without just cause. And a country saying "well, they would have attacked us if they had the chance" isn't just cause.

The US gained nuclear capabilities in 1945.
The Soviet Union gained nuclear capabilities in 1949.
The UK gained nuclear capabilities in 1952.
France gained nuclear capabilities in 1960.
China gained nuclear capabilities in 1964.
India gained nuclear capabilities in 1974.
Israel is suspected to have gained nuclear capabilities in 1979.
Pakistan gained nuclear capabilities in 1998.
North Korea gained nuclear capabilities in 2006.

Tell me, why should a preemptive strike be made against Iran when none was made against any of these countries? Iran, as previously stated, has a law on the books forbidding the development of nuclear weapons, something none of these countries had when they developed their nuclear capabilities, and then weapons. All of the countries listed above have had previous extensive conflicts with their neighbors and plenty of reason for using their new found power, and none (with the exception of the US) has used them.

I don't see why a countries chosen religion should cause us to treat them any differently in these regards, other than hatred and bigotry.

 

Perhaps our allies stayed out of it because they knew it was a no-win situation? Do you have a source for this 60 billion they pocketed by staying out of the war?

As stated before, the statements which are used as proof that Iran wants genocide are under controversy - the interpretation of those statements could mean that they want genocide, or it could mean that they want to destroy the government. Why do you assume the worst about the country? Iran has, to date, only sparingly used their military. They participated in the Dhofar Rebellion, the Iran-Iraq War, and shelling Kurdish positions in northern Iraq. Have they ever attacked Israel?

Sure, we could continue bombing and invading Muslim countries for the next 200 years, and nothing will change. There will still be fundamentalists, there will still be terrorists, and we'll lose a lot of good soldiers. The more our military interjects itself into the affairs of the middle east, the more those people will learn to hate us. Individuals that had previously been indifferent, or even supporters of the US, will start supporting the terrorists in an attempt to get us out of their lives. We'll be causing the very problem we're trying to stop. A much, much better way would be to work with the people and governments in the area. To help them bring the Islamic faith out of its dark ages and to stem the flood of violence.

You ask if i support the US using nuclear weapons to end WWII... i do support ending the war and the bloodshed. At the time, the exact results of the warheads was really unknown, they weren't aware of the pain and suffering the fall out would cause. I can't say that i think they shouldn't have done it - they didn't know enough about the weapons to know the consequences.

However, after the first bombing, the Soviet Union declared war on Japan. Japan knew it couldn't survive, but IMO the few days permitted between bombs wasn't enough time for Japan to fully realize its situation and surrender. The dropping of the second bomb was used more as a test of a different design (plutonium instead of uranium) than for actual military purposes.

Finally, i find the use of the weapons on civilian targets to be deplorable. The US had the option of using the bombs on civilian targets and causing as mush damage and casualties as possible, or instead choosing military targets, causing less damage and fewer civilian deaths, with the same size explosion. The threat would have been the same, the demonstration of power would have been the same, and all those lives would have been saved.


Where's the board Hitler when you need him? He needs to step in and declare the matter settled, according to Godwin's Law.

 

Eagle,

berman is nothing but a mindless neocon frak... you should just ignore him... his posts show up as user ignored. Very few people take him seriously.

Desynch... I'm sorry to say - when you sided with berman you lost all credibility.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Mirza @ Feb, 08:13 AM) [snapback]397205[/snapback]</div>

He lost credibility for me with his avatar.

 

Quick note Berman. You've accused me of it repeatedly, here for the record:

I do not want Iran to go nuclear (as I've said repeatedly).

I merely want appropriate actions to be taken with appropriate support for those actions.

I never said i would let Hitler have bombs - you're putting words in my mouth once again.

Surely you realize that you're ranting at us, accusing us of outlandish things, and have lost whatever credibility you might have had?

 

Berman is right. A Nuclear Iran is bad for everyone, especially the neighboring countries.

People that oppose the United States interjecting with Iran are either a) unaware of the threats Iran has made B) Don't care c) Waiting for Iran to commit genocide before stepping in.

Dragonfly, I could care less what you or any other Californian liberal hippy thinks about me. Go smoke some dope and beat in a drum circle or whatever you tree huggers do.

 

Believe it or not, Berman, there are ways that a skilled diplomat (AKA not Bush) could gain international approval for actions prior to taking them. I fully believe that, if we take the time, we could gain the support of the UN and all of our allies before taking action.

However, it has to make you wonder - if the world isn't willing to support us stopping Iran from going nuclear, why? Would it be possible, in such a situation, that the US might be wrong about Iran? That they might not be as bad and "evil" as you seem to think?