Did Iran become a player in space ?

Tom Kalbfus · 2008-05-21 09:17:49

What is demonstrated is "cart before the horse" reasoning. The reason the Israelis have seperate roads is directly attributed to the violent behavior of the Palestinians and their expressed support for violence as demostrated by their election of Hamas in the Gaza strip. Contrary to bulldozing houses of Palestinians so that Jews can live there, Jews have evacuated the Gaza strip and the Palestinians have either bulldozed or otherwise occupied former Jewish homes, and they've begun a program of missile contruction and launches of rockets with the intent of killing hapless Israeli civilians in Israel proper. All this Liberal rhetoric against Israel is in equal parts pandering to Arabs and a reflexive attack against George Bush's foreign policy in which they intend to do just the opposite of what he's doing. I've noticed alot of Jews who actually care about their Judaism have been becoming Republicans lately. Some Jews just can't contemplate marching in lockstep with pro-Palestinian demonstrators who chant "Death to Israel" and call for their blood, jews who have up to now been stalwart Democrats and liberals now find themselves in the crosshairs of non-jewish liberals and "antiwar" protestors.
You could be equally accused of "cart before the horse" reasoning! Palestinians aren't being violent for no reason, there are many many preceeding causes to it. Violence precceded the election of Hamas, and the other Palestinian faction Fatah was behind much of it (people have a short memory and tend to forget this)
Turning a country into hell because of who they democratically elected is both disturbing and gives the wrong message in the Middle East. It tells them that we are bunch of hypocrites who have no respect for democracy. What is the point of democracy if their leaders have to be who we tell them?

Freedom includes the freedom to choose wrong or commit evil, but that does not mean there should be no consequences for it of that the Israelis should not react to a Palestinian attack just because the government that does it was democratically elected. The voters are responsible for the actions of the government they democratically elect. If they vote for someone that they know is going to wage war on Israel, they should expect that their country is going to be turned into Hell. People have a natural tendency to defend themselves, it should not suprise them if the Israelis do so.

The so called liberal rhethoric against Israel is infact a rejection of US foreign policy for decades, well before Bush came into power. There is no reason why anyone should be "pandering to Arabs" anymore than the whole US Goverment should be pandering to a Jewish state. There is no sectarianism in the US constitution - so I find it all a little un-american and unpatriotic to support such a state. I'm sure you wouldn't support preferential treatment to on the base of race or religion in your own country.

Arabs get my support, although unwilling, when I fill my gas tank, the dollars from high oil prices flow into Arab hands and secondarily into the hands of Palestinians in the form of weapons and support for their terrorism, to balance that out, I think we should support Israel. In contrast to the Arabs, we support Israel willingly because they are more like us, they are democratic and our majority religion, Christianity is built on top of Judaism and the Judeo/Christian ethic. The Muslim ethic is quite alien to us, it involves degrading women and goes against the principle so vital to democracy that the people ought to be able to write their own laws rather than having them handed down to them by some interpreters of some Holy Book, as Islam seems presently constituted.

bobunf · 2008-05-21 11:24:17

“there's no substantial evidence that Israel possesses nuclear weapons”

In 1974, Israeli President Ephraim Katzir said that "it has always been our intention to develop a nuclear potential ... We now have that potential."

On September 22, 1979, an American "Vela" satellite detected a distinctive double flash off the southern coast of Africa indicative of a nuclear test.

In 1985 Los Angeles businessman Richard Smyth was indicted for smuggling to Israel 810 krytrons switches used as nuclear weapon detonators

In September 1986, Mordecai Vanunu, an Israeli arms technician who had worked at the secret Dimona site for eight years, provided the London Sunday Times with a detailed account of Israel's nuclear weapon progress. including almost 60 color photographs of what he said was Israel's underground bomb factory.

He said that Israel had produced 100 to 200 fission bombs by 1986, had mastered a thermonuclear design, and appeared to have a number of thermonuclear bombs ready for use.

In 1998, former Prime Minister Shimon Peres said that Israel "built a nuclear option, not in order to have a Hiroshima but an Oslo." Peres, as Director General of the Ministry of Defense in the early 1950s, was responsible for building Israel's nuclear capability

And on and on. It's not helpful to maintain a delusion.

The Samson Option, to bring down the whole world on our heads. Or, "Never again."

Bob

cIclops · 2008-05-21 12:18:39

“there's no substantial evidence that Israel possesses nuclear weapons”
In 1974, Israeli President Ephraim Katzir said that "it has always been our intention to develop a nuclear potential ... We now have that potential."
On September 22, 1979, an American "Vela" satellite detected a distinctive double flash off the southern coast of Africa indicative of a nuclear test.
In 1985 Los Angeles businessman Richard Smyth was indicted for smuggling to Israel 810 krytrons switches used as nuclear weapon detonators
In September 1986, Mordecai Vanunu, an Israeli arms technician who had worked at the secret Dimona site for eight years, provided the London Sunday Times with a detailed account of Israel's nuclear weapon progress. including almost 60 color photographs of what he said was Israel's underground bomb factory.
He said that Israel had produced 100 to 200 fission bombs by 1986, had mastered a thermonuclear design, and appeared to have a number of thermonuclear bombs ready for use.
In 1998, former Prime Minister Shimon Peres said that Israel "built a nuclear option, not in order to have a Hiroshima but an Oslo." Peres, as Director General of the Ministry of Defense in the early 1950s, was responsible for building Israel's nuclear capability
And on and on. It's not helpful to maintain a delusion.
The Samson Option, to bring down the whole world on our heads. Or, "Never again."

None of that is convincing or substantial. It's clearly in Israel's interest to let its enemies think it has nukes, but do they? The apparent test in the South Indian ocean in 1979 was said to be a South African-Israeli, if so why hasn't the new South African government confirmed it? An option is not a bomb. They may be close to doing it, but holding back for fear of losing US support.

noosfractal · 2008-05-21 12:39:46

http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/israel/nuke/

bobunf · 2008-05-21 13:34:10

I don’t think it is useful to debate whether or not Israel possesses nuclear weapons. Producing nuclear weapons has certainly been within their capability for at least four decades. I think, most Israeli officials over that period (in which Israel has fought four wars of survival) would have regarded the possession of nuclear weapons as in their interests.

It’s hard to understand why they would not have nuclear weapons. Add to that all of the tons of evidence, and I’m convinced a few times over.

In any case, it would be really foolish to act on the belief that they do not have nuclear weapons.

Bob

Stormrage · 2008-05-21 20:46:50

What was that about Hezbollah 'defending' Lebanon from Israel? Who started the fight? Hezbollah. So was Israel meant to just sit there with missiles reigning down on Israeli Civilians? No. The Lebanese wouldn't do anything to stop Hezbollah so the Israelis had to stop them.

The war between Hezbollah and Israel was never over. It's still not over now. Just beause the Israelis got their ass kicked after their original 80s invasion and occupation of Lebanon and then ran away doesn't mean. That the war is over. Israel is still occupying Lebanese land. All soldiers legitimate targets. Complaining about Israeli civilians being targetted is a bit of a moot point when the IAF attacked civilians and then broke international law by seeding Lebanese farms with cluster bombs 3 days before the ceasefire came into effect.

Islam has the cheek to lecture the rest of the world about tolerance when inIslamic Countries converting to another religon is, by law, punishable by death, Christains are beheaded, sharing a faith other than Islam is punishable by death...

Islam has to do nothing. Learn the difference. Islam = Religon. Muslims = People. Come back with a good argument when you can tell the difference.

Yes, I do in fact.

Well has we have already found out. Your knowledge of the Middle East is non-existent. So think what ever you want.

I'm sorry that I have to keep on giving this history lesson, but many people keep on forgetting this important point.

How can you give me a history lesson when you don't even know it?

"the sanctions that killed 100 000's of Iraqi were just horrendous."
This is a rather silly myth.

You mean like the myth that USA used chemicals on innocent Vietnamese? Or the myth that America jailed it's own citizens for being Japanese,Italian and German.

I know of only one apartheid regime, South Africa from 1948 or so to 1994 or so. Nobody invaded South Africa to change their system; perhaps because they weren’t threatening anybody else.

The other apartheid regime is Israel and nobody invaded SA. Thats because USA was paying South Africa to invade their African neighbours. The bolded part is really funny because for the last 30 years of South Africa's life they were invading sovereign African countries,occupied Namibia and funded terrorists. USA was there with them. America bank rolled South Africa. In fact the only time when South Africa faced real problems was after the Cold War was over and there were no excuses for helping them.

“I'm referring to Israel. They run a de-facto apartheid regime.”
I think that’s rather disrespectful of the tens of millions of Blacks who endured real Apartheid.
It’s easy to cheapen the currency of language, but then, of course, it’s a lot harder to know what we are really talking about. Misunderstanding is not usually a good thing when one seeks accommodation and reconciliation.

Has a Black African who has spent time in South Africa and actually meet both sides of the people involved. There is no way you can't call Israel an apartheid state. Their attempt at creating bantustans in West Bank is such an obvious example. I know how you Israeli supports like to rush to defend Israel. But take a look at the country your defending and compare it to South Africa before you complain over the word.

What is demonstrated is "cart before the horse" reasoning. The reason the Israelis have seperate roads is directly attributed to the violent behavior of the Palestinians and their expressed support for violence as demostrated by their election of Hamas in the Gaza strip.

psst. Jews kicked many Arabs who remained behind after the 48 war. Take a look at Israeli demographic maps. The only Israeli Arabs on the map are those in areas where Jews didn't want to live at 48.

What do the Israelis get for whatever they give? Land for promises doesn’t seem like a real good deal.

Israel has never given anything substantial. They think that giving at 60% of West Bank and all of Gaza should be enough to get peace. Unless Israel treats Arabs like decent human beings l who can't be bought off with paltry offerings they will never find peace.

They can’t give much in the way of land or they won’t have a viable state. They can’t allow a significant number of Arabs to return to Israel or they won’t have a viable state. The Israelis are not going to commit suicide.

They could buy off land taken from Palestinians. How about that? Besides what your just wrote is what the South Africans were thinking prior to 1990. Whites would be marginalised if they allowed Blacks to take over. They waited so long until finally when they lost power it was to late. Black people hated them for the years of suffering.

Firstly, there's no substantial evidence that Israel possesses nuclear weapons and if they do they are clearly useless against suicide bombers inside their country. If they exist they are also not a very effective deterrent against Iran as it continues to press ahead with its nuclear program while fighting a proxy war with Israel using Hezbollah, and promising to wipe Israel off the map.

Considering that the UK admitted to supplying Israel with water they knew was going to be used to make Nukes and the expose that Vanunu gave which earnt him a solitary cell in Israel for 18 years. The position that Israel has no nukes is really untenable.

It's really stupid for them to have developed Nuclear Weapons. The world is like 1945. People aren't going to accept using nuclear weapons. Any use of that weapon and there is no way any American President will be able to defend Israel.

Tom Kalbfus · 2008-05-24 08:42:04

What was that about Hezbollah 'defending' Lebanon from Israel? Who started the fight? Hezbollah. So was Israel meant to just sit there with missiles reigning down on Israeli Civilians? No. The Lebanese wouldn't do anything to stop Hezbollah so the Israelis had to stop them.
The war between Hezbollah and Israel was never over. It's still not over now. Just beause the Israelis got their ass kicked after their original 80s invasion and occupation of Lebanon and then ran away doesn't mean. That the war is over. Israel is still occupying Lebanese land. All soldiers legitimate targets. Complaining about Israeli civilians being targetted is a bit of a moot point when the IAF attacked civilians and then broke international law by seeding Lebanese farms with cluster bombs 3 days before the ceasefire came into effect.

Seems to me that Syria and Iran are occupying Lebanon right now. Israel holds no Lebanese land currently. Lebanon is not an independent country anyway, Hezbollah controls the streets and the Lebanese Parliment only has the power that Hezbollah allows them to have. I think Lebanon could easily have democracy again if they only sent all their muslims packing and ship them out to Iran or Syria where they belong, as they are acting as those countries' stooges anyway.

Stormrage · 2008-05-24 10:35:07

What was that about Hezbollah 'defending' Lebanon from Israel? Who started the fight? Hezbollah. So was Israel meant to just sit there with missiles reigning down on Israeli Civilians? No. The Lebanese wouldn't do anything to stop Hezbollah so the Israelis had to stop them.
The war between Hezbollah and Israel was never over. It's still not over now. Just beause the Israelis got their ass kicked after their original 80s invasion and occupation of Lebanon and then ran away doesn't mean. That the war is over. Israel is still occupying Lebanese land. All soldiers legitimate targets. Complaining about Israeli civilians being targetted is a bit of a moot point when the IAF attacked civilians and then broke international law by seeding Lebanese farms with cluster bombs 3 days before the ceasefire came into effect.
Seems to me that Syria and Iran are occupying Lebanon right now. Israel holds no Lebanese land currently. Lebanon is not an independent country anyway, Hezbollah controls the streets and the Lebanese Parliment only has the power that Hezbollah allows them to have. I think Lebanon could easily have democracy again if they only sent all their muslims packing and ship them out to Iran or Syria where they belong, as they are acting as those countries' stooges anyway.

So far the only two countries occupying in the middle east in USA and Israel. Lebanon is not occupied by Syria or Iran but parts of it is occupied by Israel. But Israel refuses to leave that part of Lebanon considering it part of Syria.

Hezbollah is a resistance movement. Hezbollah was responsible for destroying the militant Lebanese force who were armed by Israel and tortured Lebanese civilians. Israel left Southern Lebanon after the public refused to sit by and watch Israeli soldiers dying. Unlike Israel Hezbollah doesn't want to control Lebanon. If they wanted to do that they could so easily wipe out the Lebanese armies and the other parties.

The only part of Lebanon Hezbollah controls is Southern Lebanon and they allow the goverment to do what ever they want has long has it doesn't affect the capability of Hezbollah to fight Israel. Something even the Lebanese army realised was a stupid mistake to do.

By the way. What is is with you and your ethnic cleansing plans? Do you not have solutions to ideas that doesn't involve war crimes? Learn your facts before you say something stupid like that. The Muslims in Lebanon were forced to live in Lebanon because of France. They know identify has Lebanese.

In fact Lebanon is divided into two camps. Sunni Muslims and Christians and Shia Muslims and Christians. Now how the hell are you going to deport Muslims when the people in power (Sunni Muslims) are the ones being funded by Bush? That's basically shooting your friends in the face.

If you have an idea for that would work in Middle East and wouldn't end up with you being hanged by the a court. Please post. Other wise don't.

Terraformer · 2008-05-25 09:06:46

Let me do a Wikipedia.

Calling it anything less is pretty disrespecful to millions of Palestinians who have suffered at the hands of the Israeli regime. [Citation Required]

Rune · 2008-05-25 10:58:00

Unless Israel treats Arabs like decent human beings l who can't be bought off with paltry offerings they will never find peace.

The thing is I'm not sure peace is strategically interesting for Israel. As a country with little population an a strong military, and with few if any friends on the region, it is entirely understandable that they are so agressive.

After all, a continued peace would mean their economic asimilitation by their more popoulus and resource-rich arabic neighbours. Destroying their infrastructure periodically, as cruel as it sounds, is their best long-shot plan. Not that it isn't cruel, or wrong, it's just economically sound. Israel cannot continue to be a democratic jew state if it accepts an islamic majority of citizens...

Rune. Economics is another name for the driving force of the universe.

Terraformer · 2008-05-25 12:10:53

I can't believe I'm saying this, but....

Democracy isn't always the best form of government, not if it means dictatorship of the majority.

For instance: What if America decided to vote that 1 state, say Massacusates, should from now on bear the main federal taxes? I'm sure the majority of people would be fine with that. Does that make it right? Not in the least.

Stormrage · 2008-05-25 12:36:54

Let me do a Wikipedia.
Calling it anything less is pretty disrespecful to millions of Palestinians who have suffered at the hands of the Israeli regime. [citation needed]

It's actually citation needed. Let me fix that for you.

Anyway let me see

1: Taking Palestinian land in the West bank under the guise of a security wall? Check.

The barrier generally runs along or near the 1949 Jordanian-Israeli armistice/Green Line, but diverges in many places to include on the Israeli side several of the highly populated areas of Jewish settlements in the West Bank such as East Jerusalem, Ariel, Gush Etzion, Emmanuel, Karnei Shomron, Givat Ze'ev, Oranit, and Maale Adumim.[20] Because of the complex path it follows, most of the barrier is actually set in the West Bank.[2] It diverges from the "Green Line" by anywhere from 200 meters to as much as 20 kilometers, with the result that many Israeli settlements in the West Bank remain on the Israeli side of the barrier, and some Palestinian towns are nearly encircled by it. Approximately 20% is actually on the Green Line

http://tinyurl.com/55duhz

2: Restricting Palestinian activities? Check.

Israel enforces severe restrictions on Palestinians’ freedom of movement in the West Bank, using a system of permanent and temporary checkpoints, which are staffed, and physical obstructions, which are unmanned. ..... although most are actually located several kilometers from the Green Line. ... At some checkpoints, Israel occasionally prevents men of a certain age group, usually 16-35, from crossing. This restriction is especially common at the checkpoints in Nablus District.

http://tinyurl.com/63nemk

3: Favouring Israeli Settlers at the expense of the Palestinians trying to live a normal life? Check.

This system of restrictions enables Israel to designate some of the roads in the West Bank for primary or exclusive use by Israelis, mainly settlers living in the West Bank. Israel prohibits Palestinian vehicles from even crossing certain roads. As a result of this prohibition, Palestinian traffic is restricted to those roads that remain open to use. Upon reaching a prohibited road, Palestinian drivers and passengers have to leave their vehicles by the side of the road, cross it by foot, and then find alternate transportation on the other side. Palestinians are forbidden to use, or are restricted in their use of, more than 300 kilometers of roads in the West Bank; Israelis are free to use these roads with no restriction whatsoever. ..... One of the main purposes of the policy to restrict Palestinian movement is to protect Israeli settlers. Given that the settlements are illegal, the policy only aggravates the situation: it comprehensively and disproportionately impedes the freedom of movement of an entire population in order to perpetuate an illegal enterprise.

http://tinyurl.com/63nemk

4: Splitting Palestinian land into different enclaves? Check.

The restrictions on movement that Israel has imposed on Palestinians in the West Bank have split the area into six geographical areas: North, Center, South, the Jordan Valley and northern Dead Sea, the enclaves resulting from the Separation Barrier, and East Jerusalem. .... In addition to the restrictions on movement from area to area, Israel also severely restricts movement within each area by splitting them up into subsections, and by controlling and limiting movement between them. For example, in the North section, Israel separates the Nablus area, which is under siege, from the nearby villages, and also from the other northern districts – Jenin, Tubas, and Tulkarm. In the Central section, the restrictions on movement create two principal subsections, around Salfit and Ramallah. Not only do the restrictions separate nearby villages from these towns, they also detach villagers from their farmland.

http://tinyurl.com/6b4ntf

5: Making movements of Palestinians next to impossible? Check.

The restrictions have made traveling from one section to another an exceptional occurrence, subject to various conditions and proof of justification for the journey. Almost every trip in the West Bank entails a great loss of time, much uncertainty, friction with soldiers, and often substantial additional expense.

http://tinyurl.com/6b4ntf

Those are the ingredients of Apartheid. The only place where Israel differs from South Africa is the the fact that they have given up on annexing all of West Bank. They just want the best part of it. Kinda like the South Africans and their annexation attempts in Namibia.

This is not how you treat people like human beings. Most of the sh**the Palestinians go through has nothing to do with security. If Israel wanted the security they would have dismantled the settlements considered illegal byEU,UN and funnily enough Israeli law.

nearly 40% of the land the settlements sit on is, according to official data, "effectively stolen" from Palestinian landowners. .... In recent years the Israeli government has said repeatedly that it respects Palestinian property rights in the West Bank.

If Israel was really interested in it's own security. What they would have done is to build the wall ON Israel territory has international law requires. Get rid of all the checkpoints that aren't near Israel. Build bases in the West Bank to make sure the Palestinians aren't up to any shenanigans that could endanger Israelis. They haven't done that.

What they have been doing is trying to create a fait accompli. Has I said earlier. This is almost working. Ever since Reagan America has taken the stance some of the settlements should stay. Especially Bush.

resident George Bush has stated that he does not expect Israel to return entirely to pre-1967 borders, due to "new realities on the ground."

http://tinyurl.com/6xwkr3

noosfractal · 2008-05-25 12:44:32

I can't believe I'm saying this, but....
Democracy isn't always the best form of government, not if it means dictatorship of the majority.

What!? Minorities have rights? That's quite a big step for you Terraformer. Careful though, next you'll be imagining what your life would have been like if you'd been born into a minority, and we all know where that leads.

Stormrage · 2008-05-25 13:09:32

I can't believe I'm saying this, but....
Democracy isn't always the best form of government, not if it means dictatorship of the majority.
For instance: What if America decided to vote that 1 state, say Massacusates, should from now on bear the main federal taxes? I'm sure the majority of people would be fine with that. Does that make it right? Not in the least.

That would be a true democracy. A state where the people decide on the issues. What we have in the world today is a semi democracy. The people get to elect representatives who will decide for them. Someone who is more far sighted then the public. The people would want taxes to either be abolished or taken down to a low level. They would want special treatments. If someone was arrested in a foreign country. The people might get angry and wish to "nuke" that country/region. A good example is Tom. Who hates Arabs and wants to ethnically cleanse them from certain areas. Now the people in charge who can make that decisions will know that it would be very stupid to do that.

To me democracy isn't the best form of government. Any kind of government that will put the will of the people ahead is good. Be it dictatorships or democracies. The problem is that in dictatorships the government doesn't have to listen to the people which is why democracy is better then it.

China is nation to be looking at. Ever since the Tianamen Square crackdown they have been moving into less a repressive and secretive style. They are trying to stay in power by making the lives of their people netter so they won't agitated about their lack of democracy. All though they still have a very very long way to go. It's par of their harmonious society plan.

Rune · 2008-05-25 13:16:45

"All for the people, but without the people"

Rune. I think somebody has said that before...

Gregori · 2008-05-26 05:52:26

I can't believe I'm saying this, but....
Democracy isn't always the best form of government, not if it means dictatorship of the majority.
For instance: What if America decided to vote that 1 state, say Massacusates, should from now on bear the main federal taxes? I'm sure the majority of people would be fine with that. Does that make it right? Not in the least.

Give me a break! What, do you prefer a dictatorship of the minority?

The whole point of democracy is that the will of the majority of the population matters more than that of the few!!

The example you cited is totally absurd. It would never happen. People are mostly pretty fair and would never vote to pick on one state. Even if they did, that state would probably leave the Union..

cIclops · 2008-05-26 07:02:36

But that's exactly what has happened in most democracies, a very small part of the population is forced to pay the majority of the taxes.

In the US more than half the taxes are paid by less than 5% of the population.

Gregori · 2008-05-26 07:43:17

But that's exactly what has happened in most democracies, a very small part of the population is forced to pay the majority of the taxes.
In the US more than half the taxes are paid by less than 5% of the population.

Oh stop crying about it. Thats not what 'happened'. Terraformer said what if one single state in the union had to pay all the taxes.

The taxation system is designed around your ability to pay. If you're are very loaded, paying a lot of tax won't hurt you as much as if you are a relatively poor person. Even when you are poor. you're still have to pay taxes which are probably crushing you into the ground whereas a relatively rich person is doing just fine.

Lets remember that all the wealth of the "less than 5%" didn't just come from space

cIclops · 2008-05-26 08:24:07

The taxation system is designed around your ability to pay. If you're are very loaded, paying a lot of tax won't hurt you as much as if you are a relatively poor person. Even when you are poor. you're still have to pay taxes which are probably crushing you into the ground whereas a relatively rich person is doing just fine.
Lets remember that all the wealth of the "less than 5%" didn't just come from space

The system is designed to take as much as possible from as few voters as possible. Imagine paying for other services on that basis .. "excuse me Sir how much do you earn? ok, that will cost you much much more then"

Poor people in the US pay no taxes at all and even get tax benefits! Half the US population pay less than 3% of the taxes, is that fair? So why has that happened, because the majority have voted for a party that promises them that.

How much of the national wealth only exists because of those 5%? China has 5 times the population of the US, so why isn't it 5 times wealthier?

Rune · 2008-05-26 08:50:14

The system is designed to take as much as possible from as few voters as possible. Imagine paying for other services on that basis .. "excuse me Sir how much do you earn? ok, that will cost you much much more then"

Actually if US taxation system is any similar to European ones, there's a lot of taxes that apply equal to everyone, such as fuel,tobacco, etc... The "real" taxes that you pay each year are a way of evening out each citizen's taxation in funcion of their income, wich actually I think is a good way for the state to regulate class disparities and promote things such as equal opportunities for everyone. But correct me if I'm wrong.

Poor people in the US pay no taxes at all and even get tax benefits! Half the US population pay less than 3% of the taxes, is that fair? So why has that happened, because they have voted for a party that promises them that.

No direct ones, but in the country of "one car for everyone" (damn you for what that phrase has cost the planet!), I'm pretty sure they spend a fair percentage of their income in indirect taxation.

How much of the national wealth only exists because of those 5%? China has 5 times the population of the US, so why isn't it 5 times wealthier?

Wait till it reaches the same level of development as the US. And tremble in fear of their potential economic power.

Rune. Time to learn Mandarin.

Gregori · 2008-05-26 08:56:04

Just show me the millionaires begging on the street because of income taxation, and I will have sympathy...

These people mysteriously aren't getting any poorer! Their wealth also didn't come magically from a vacuum. One of the biggest functions of the state is to protect property rights. The people with the most property have to most to gain from laws protecting it, so they're pretty much doing very well...

Also, everything Rune just said!!

Stormrage · 2008-05-26 11:59:23

I can't believe your comparing the taxes the rich pay to the analogy of making Massachusetts. The reason why the rich get taxed more then the poor is because they can afford it. If a guy gives the government $50k a year when he earns $150k. It's not going to hurt him. He can live with that. Taking $3k from someone who earns $10k is going to condemn them to a life of poverty.

The tax system in modern European style nations who aren't into heavily into socialism is based on taxing people on what they can afford without hurting their banks. In the UK in the 70s the government went crazy with taxes and a lot of rich people left. So far thats not happening in the UK. Your making rich people look like victims when they clearly aren't.

Oh and poor people DO pay taxes. They just pay less taxes in numerical and percentages.

Gregori · 2008-05-26 14:19:49

wait, isn't this thread about Iran and space?

On that note:

Iran has done a bunch of very impressive stuff developing its own nuclear power aswell as satellite and missile lauching capabilities.

Most of this is to improve military and defence capabilities and doesn't really apply to space exploration atm.. I could see them getting into the commericial launch market at some point with their technology. In a few decades, they could play a role in space exploration. Nearly all other space exploration programs started of as millitary ventures. Iran could co-operate with other nations or entities in space, providing lauch technology etc etc.

I don't really approve of Iran's goverment or the human rights record, but that doesn't mean I think they should be isolated or threatened. Its slightly hyprocritical of the West considering their dealings with Saudi Arabia, an equally aweful regime.

I think we can have more of a positive influence on Iran and its public through openess and economic co-operation. Threats will just cause the country to become insular and rally behind its leadership. We should be heavily supporting pro-democracy groups in Iran, Saudi Arabia, Egypt..

Tom Kalbfus · 2008-05-27 09:17:36

Unless Israel treats Arabs like decent human beings l who can't be bought off with paltry offerings they will never find peace.
The thing is I'm not sure peace is strategically interesting for Israel. As a country with little population an a strong military, and with few if any friends on the region, it is entirely understandable that they are so agressive.
After all, a continued peace would mean their economic asimilitation by their more popoulus and resource-rich arabic neighbours. Destroying their infrastructure periodically, as cruel as it sounds, is their best long-shot plan. Not that it isn't cruel, or wrong, it's just economically sound. Israel cannot continue to be a democratic jew state if it accepts an islamic majority of citizens...

Rune. Economics is another name for the driving force of the universe.

Why should it accept an islamic majority of citizens anymore than we should accept a hispanic majority of illegal aliens from Mexico?
The problem is you can have either an islamic country or a democracy, not both. Muslims have a bad habit of imposing their will, religion, and customs on all minorities, they give muslims special status, special rights that others don't have, and woe to the fellow that insults Islam, or tries to convert a Muslim to a different religion, because the barbaric practise of head-chopping, stoning, or whiplashing may be employed to punish those transgressors. I think people in a more liberal Israel may have some qualms about letting in hordes of Muslims who will vote to change laws with their majority status and trample on many of their hard won freedoms of free speech, freedom of the Press, freedom of religion, seperation of church and state, and equality between men and women under the law. Muslims tend to be very pious, and their religion tells them that the supream law is derived from the will of Allah and the Koran and that anyone who opposes them is an infidel. I think its perfectly understandable that Israelis wouldn't want hordes of Muslims migrating to or "returning" to their country. One of the reasons they talk about ceding the West Bank and Gaza is so there will be places to put all the aggreived Muslims so they can live in their seperate societies that won't interfere with the democracy of Israel. So far though all Muslims know how to do is take, and there is no give in them. Israel may eventually grow tied of being missiled from Gaza and may simply choose to expel the entire population there when they feel they've had enough. Wouldn't you after all? Even Europe has found it Muslim populations difficult to live with, how can they expect Israel to do something they would not?

Tom Kalbfus · 2008-05-27 09:28:34

wait, isn't this thread about Iran and space?

On that note:
Iran has done a bunch of very impressive stuff developing its own nuclear power aswell as satellite and missile lauching capabilities.
Most of this is to improve military and defence capabilities and doesn't really apply to space exploration atm.. I could see them getting into the commericial launch market at some point with their technology. In a few decades, they could play a role in space exploration. Nearly all other space exploration programs started of as millitary ventures. Iran could co-operate with other nations or entities in space, providing lauch technology etc etc.
I don't really approve of Iran's goverment or the human rights record, but that doesn't mean I think they should be isolated or threatened. Its slightly hyprocritical of the West considering their dealings with Saudi Arabia, an equally aweful regime.
I think we can have more of a positive influence on Iran and its public through openess and economic co-operation. Threats will just cause the country to become insular and rally behind its leadership. We should be heavily supporting pro-democracy groups in Iran, Saudi Arabia, Egypt..

I think we can have a positive influence on Iran, just like we are now having a positive influence on Iraq and Afghanistan.

I think Iran has a very dangerous government, I'd hate to have to subdue Iran after it has aquired nuclear weapons and has attacked us with them! I don't want to have a Cold War and 75 years of b**s**t with them either. What I really find discouraging after the end of the Cold War is the return of the "Reality Bubbles" that many leftwing types have constructed around their heads. For a time after the collapse of the Soviet Union, they were forced to confront reality, after their "Planet Soviet" had collapsed and their "reality bubbles" had popped. After all those Soviet plots were reveals and Soviet villany unearthed, many left wing professors struggled with the situation and on how to proceed from there. Later on they got MoveOn.org and they managed to weave their own tale of American villany and their favorite Antichrist George W. Bush, who must be "evil" because they say so. The leftwing media has waisted no time in putting the "White Hat" on Iran and the "Black Hat" on the United States.

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#76 2008-05-21 09:17:49

Re: Did Iran become a player in space ?

#77 2008-05-21 11:24:17

Re: Did Iran become a player in space ?

#78 2008-05-21 12:18:39

Re: Did Iran become a player in space ?

#79 2008-05-21 12:39:46

Re: Did Iran become a player in space ?

#80 2008-05-21 13:34:10

Re: Did Iran become a player in space ?

#81 2008-05-21 20:46:50

Re: Did Iran become a player in space ?

#82 2008-05-24 08:42:04

Re: Did Iran become a player in space ?

#83 2008-05-24 10:35:07

Re: Did Iran become a player in space ?

#84 2008-05-25 09:06:46

Re: Did Iran become a player in space ?

#85 2008-05-25 10:58:00

Re: Did Iran become a player in space ?

#86 2008-05-25 12:10:53

Re: Did Iran become a player in space ?

#87 2008-05-25 12:36:54

Re: Did Iran become a player in space ?

#88 2008-05-25 12:44:32

Re: Did Iran become a player in space ?

#89 2008-05-25 13:09:32

Re: Did Iran become a player in space ?

#90 2008-05-25 13:16:45

Re: Did Iran become a player in space ?

#91 2008-05-26 05:52:26

Re: Did Iran become a player in space ?

#92 2008-05-26 07:02:36

Re: Did Iran become a player in space ?

#93 2008-05-26 07:43:17

Re: Did Iran become a player in space ?

#94 2008-05-26 08:24:07

Re: Did Iran become a player in space ?

#95 2008-05-26 08:50:14

Re: Did Iran become a player in space ?

#96 2008-05-26 08:56:04

Re: Did Iran become a player in space ?

#97 2008-05-26 11:59:23

Re: Did Iran become a player in space ?

#98 2008-05-26 14:19:49

Re: Did Iran become a player in space ?

#99 2008-05-27 09:17:36

Re: Did Iran become a player in space ?

#100 2008-05-27 09:28:34

Re: Did Iran become a player in space ?

Board footer