Bow Down Before Iran?

DonPanic · 2006-10-14 10:58:17

What do you call the Muslim Conquests prior to the first Chrisitian Crusade to retake the Holy Land?

Let me guess... a Jihad ?

Of the two, I find Islam not to be much of an improvement, it oppresses individuality and enslaves humanity into rigid cultural roles divided by sex.

I agree on some points, but Islam, if it has stagnated for centuries was a progress when it establshed among barbarians and idolatric peoples. It brought the Greek science and hydraulic gestion knowhow in countries where exhausted lands had been deserted by the populatons.

Does Moscow want Iran to have the Bomb? Do they or don't they? Do they want North Korea to have the bomb too? Has Moscow lost all interest in curtailing the spread of nuclear weapons?

For North korea, it seems a little bit late, they are proving they have the bomb.
For Iran, you just can delay, they want it , they will have it, there's nothing you can do, you bomb, they throw waves of terrorists. The only thing left is to deal with an nuclear Iran
For West, that's paying the price for having support Saddam's war at Iran which made 1.5 millions iranian victims .
It doesn't pease me neither, but that's the way it is.
Best for everybody is that Iranians are sure that no power wants to hold a hand on its oilfields. With the actual US administration on, they hurry on nuke bombs, for sure.

Tom Kalbfus · 2006-10-14 12:13:00

What do you call the Muslim Conquests prior to the first Chrisitian Crusade to retake the Holy Land?
Let me guess... a Jihad ?
Of the two, I find Islam not to be much of an improvement, it oppresses individuality and enslaves humanity into rigid cultural roles divided by sex.
I agree on some points, but Islam, if it has stagnated for centuries was a progress when it establshed among barbarians and idolatric peoples. It brought the Greek science and hydraulic gestion knowhow in countries where exhausted lands had been deserted by the populatons.
Does Moscow want Iran to have the Bomb? Do they or don't they? Do they want North Korea to have the bomb too? Has Moscow lost all interest in curtailing the spread of nuclear weapons?
For North korea, it seems a little bit late, they are proving they have the bomb.
For Iran, you just can delay, they want it , they will have it, there's nothing you can do, you bomb, they throw waves of terrorists. The only thing left is to deal with an nuclear Iran
For West, that's paying the price for having support Saddam's war at Iran which made 1.5 millions iranian victims.

Which is the price they paid for taking Americans Hostage in the US Embassy in Tehran, and then becomeing our enemies and chanting death to America and supporting terrorists against us. Before those 1.5 million Iranian victims, they made us their enemy, and thus we supported their enemy. Why shouldn't we? They gave us no reason to do otherwise. Also France played a role in giving refuge to the Ayatollah Khomeni, if the Shah was simply allowed to execute him, none of this mess would have happened.

It doesn't pease me neither, but that's the way it is.
Best for everybody is that Iranians are sure that no power wants to hold a hand on its oilfields. With the actual US administration on, they hurry on nuke bombs, for sure.

I don't give a damn what the Iranians do with their oil fields, but if they use that oil revenue to help finance nuclear bomb projects, that is another thing. Iran has always been calling for our deaths. Do we have to wait for them to blow up one of our cities before we get rid of them? Russia is playing a role, playing interference with the UN as Iran develops its nuclear weapons and then makes good on its threat to kill Americans. The North Koreans already threatened to launch a nuclear missile at us. I'd say right now the Second Cold War has already begun, I hope all the liberals are happy about it, that seems to be what they wanted all along. The French Government is going to have a field day with this New Cold War, they can play one side against another, a dangerous game, and then someday there will be a miscalculation and a full scale global thermonuclear war will occur and France will be engulfed in it too, all because some in the UN wanted to play a game of balance of powers and they wanted to democratize the spread of nuclear weapons so everyone can have some, and it only takes one nation to set the fire going. Religious fanatics with nukes, people who don't fear death won't fear nuclear retaliation either, so the only choice we have is to destroy them if they get some. Is that the world you want?

DonPanic · 2006-10-14 13:09:43

LO

Also France played a role in giving refuge to the Ayatollah Khomeni, if the Shah was simply allowed to execute him, none of this mess would have happened. Iran has always been calling for our deaths. Do we have to wait for them to blow up one of our cities before we get rid of them?

That's wrong, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mohammed_Mossadegh, as you see, the West crushed an iranian democratic regime which wanted Iran to take control over iranian oilfields. Seek Mossadegh on the web, there seems to be censorship with the link
We did attack Iran, not the contrary.
You liked the Shah much better, but to the eyes of average Iranians, he has always been the Man of the West, a megalomaniac dictator set in order to deprive the Iranian people off the oil benefits, spent to forge the army of the "local western policeman"
Yes, France played a role, authorities may had hopes of juicy markets with a regime change, so what ? The whole situation went unpredictable, the crowd anger at the Shah regime overwhelmed all calculations, any hope to have a friendly democratic regime.

Do we have to wait for them to blow up one of our cities before we get rid of them?

You reverse roles so easily... Up to now, USA is the only country which have launched nuclear attacks.
The Iranians don't want to blow you up, don't mix with Al Qaeda, they just don't want to be threatened by any foreign power.

Let Iran in peace and let them devellop their country as they can, modernisation and wealth is the only issue to have a nation which will be eager to oust mollahs and send them back into the mosques.

I'd say right now the Second Cold War has already begun, I hope all the liberals are happy about it

By some ways, I'm a liberal, by other ways, rather a harsh competitor and I'm not happy on world disorders.
I observe that the agressive attitude is a failure, USA, with an agressive leadership of peoples which tought that with no force challenger, they could allow themselves anything, like starting an illegal war on lies thrown publicly to whole world, has a historically law audience and credibility, not anymore moral with torture than any barbarian state.
Therefore, as a liberal citizen, nevertheless law, order and peace lover, I'd like some wiser leaders, more clever, in White House and in the US parliaments, be Dems or Reps.

people who don't fear death won't fear nuclear retaliation

You always talk about extremists.
I guess lot of Iranians love their children too.

Tom Kalbfus · 2006-10-14 14:15:47

LO
Also France played a role in giving refuge to the Ayatollah Khomeni, if the Shah was simply allowed to execute him, none of this mess would have happened. Iran has always been calling for our deaths. Do we have to wait for them to blow up one of our cities before we get rid of them?
That's wrong, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mohammed_Mossadegh, as you see, the West crushed an iranian democratic regime which wanted Iran to take control over iranian oilfields.

Says: Wikipedia doest have an article of this exact name.
I don't feel guilty about that. We were trying to contain Soviet influence in the 1950s and the opposite case occures in Venuzualia where we didn't attack a democracy and allowed the Venuzualians to elect their own dictator. What has that dictator done since? Collaborate with Iran, Cuba, and North Korea, we haven't done a damn thing to Venuzualia, yet the leader their, who got elected by democratic vote, has seen fit to help our enemies, and attempt to undermine the democracies in neighboring countries. if we keep out hands off, things still go bad. The Iranian government at that time was getting friendly with the Soviets. Damned if you do, damned if you don't. What happened in 1979 had nothing to do with that socialist government in Iran in the 1950s.

We did attack Iran, not the contrary.
You liked the Shah much better, but to the eyes of average Iranians, he has always been the Man of the West, a megalomaniac dictator set in order to deprive the Iranian people off the oil benefits, spent to forge the army of the "local western policeman"

And we can see how the Ayatollahs are so much more enlighted, with their head choppings and their constrained roles for women as babymakers and slaves to their husbands and fathers. As a male you probably don't appreciate the constrained role of women in that society, as a left wing liberal you just conveniently ignore it, when you can get a good America bash out of it. French society and Islam also clash, but it just bridles the French too much to make common cause with the Americans when fighting it. I saw the riots in Paris, and believe me my sympathies do not lie with the rioters. The French bash America, yet still they get their cars burned by unappreciative French Muslims, who thing the other French are infidels for not converting to their religion

Yes, France played a role, authorities may had hopes of juicy markets with a regime change, so what ? The whole situation went unpredictable, the crowd anger at the Shah regime overwhelmed all calculations, any hope to have a friendly democratic regime.

The Shah was Pro-Western, he didn't ask to be over thrown by religious fundamentalists, whatever it was they were fighting for in the Shah's overthrow, it wasn't increased liberty, that's for sure, they traded the lash of one master for the harsher lash of another, just like the dumb old Russians did when they got rid of their Czar.

Do we have to wait for them to blow up one of our cities before we get rid of them?
You reverse roles so easily... Up to now, USA is the only country which have launched nuclear attacks.

We didn't ask for the Japs to attack Pearl Harbor either, just like you French didn't ask the Germans to invade and occupy your country. The Japs were cruel, they were harsh, they chopped off many heads, they tortured people, and they fought like fanatics, we nuked them, oh yes we did, but only because we had to. Surely you don't equate Japanese occupation of many surrounding countries with America's influence with the Shah's Iran.

The Iranians don't want to blow you up, don't mix with Al Qaeda, they just don't want to be threatened by any foreign power.

They say they do, they say, "Death to America!" all the time, they use American flags as welcome mats and they wipe their feet on them. I have trouble believing their intentions are peaceful. Maybe if they said, "Death to the French!" you'd understand much better.

Let Iran in peace and let them devellop their country as they can, modernisation and wealth is the only issue to have a nation which will be eager to oust mollahs and send them back into the mosques.

I would love to, if only they would leave us in peace, but they don't.
I have better things to do than mess with Iran, but the Iranians leave us with no choice. We spend so much money on the middle east, and all because of a few trouble makers like Iran, Iraq, Syria, Sudan, and Al Qaeda. If they would live and let live, not attack us or our allies, not even by proxy terrorists, then I would be glad to do the same.

I'd say right now the Second Cold War has already begun, I hope all the liberals are happy about it
By some ways, I'm a liberal, by other ways, rather a harsh competitor and I'm not happy on world disorders.
I observe that the agressive attitude is a failure, USA, with an agressive leadership of peoples which tought that with no force challenger, they could allow themselves anything, like starting an illegal war on lies thrown publicly to whole world, has a historically law audience and credibility.
Therefore, as a liberal citizen, nevertheless law, order and peace lover, I'd like some wiser leaders in White House and in the US parliaments.

Ignoring your own country's non-aggressive stance toward Hitler. I think Hitler could have used a little aggression against his country in 1936.

people who don't fear death won't fear nuclear retaliation
You always talk about extremists.
I guess lot of Iranians love their children too.

Those Iranians aren't the ones who matter though. We try to bring them democracy, but they don't help us, and so the extremist rises to the top of their society instead of staying in the insane asylum where they belong.

Palomar · 2006-10-14 14:53:04

One thing which has struck me about many political viewpoints (found anywhere) involving current U.S. foreign policy is that "it takes two" doesn't apply; that it's only the U.S.'s fault, period.

No one else is to blame; just the U.S. alone.

Doesn't make sense. It always takes two.

::shrugs::

DonPanic · 2006-10-14 16:37:40

LO

I don't feel guilty about that.

I don't ask you to feel any guilt, I'm just trying to explain how Iranians feel, and since Brits-US plotted against Iran, they don't want any more foreign domination.
You argue as an american, I tell you the plausible Iranian opinion about the USA

The Iranian government at that time was getting friendly with the Soviets.

The real pretexts were 1) oil, 2) oil 3) oil again, Iran wasn't bound for communism.

And we can see how the Ayatollahs are so much more enlighted, with their head choppings and their constrained roles for women as babymakers and slaves to their husbands and fathers. As a male you probably don't appreciate the constrained role of women in that society, as a left wing liberal you just conveniently ignore it,
(...)The Shah was Pro-Western

Stop these attacks on my personnal political opinions, will you ? there is not anything equivalent to euro social-democracy in Dems or Reps.
It's nothing personnal, right now, I argue at arguements.
Anyways, I dont like any kind of a theocratic regime. Up to an iranian eye, one defect their mollarchy has not is to be born from a foreign diktat

We didn't ask for the Japs to attack Pearl Harbor either, just like you French didn't ask the Germans to invade and occupy your country. The Japs were cruel, they were harsh, they chopped off many heads, they tortured people, and they fought like fanatics, we nuked them, oh yes we did, but only because we had to.

What I said about nuclar attacks was to enuntiate a fact, not any kind of a condemnation on the facts.

They say they do, they say, "Death to America!" all the time, they use American flags

As long as they just burn a symbol, that just hurt your american pride, you can't say the dammage is so tremendous and endangers you, many thousands milles away.

I have better things to do than mess with Iran, but the Iranians leave us with no choice. We spend so much money on the middle east, and all because of a few trouble makers like Iran, Iraq, Syria, Sudan, and Al Qaeda.

A whole mixture again, Iraq was only a threat at Iraqis and at its neighbours, not at USA, Iran is a threat at whom, with its three hundred kilometers rocket range ?
Syria, a threat at USA? Let me laugh
Sudan, how many divisions ?
Al Qaeda, and islamist terrorism, that's the only real threat at Western capitals

Ignoring your own country's non-aggressive stance toward Hitler. I think Hitler could have used a little aggression against his country in 1936.

In 1936, boy, you forget that Chamberlain was less eager than Daladier to go at war. GB and France showed weakness and blindness. Would you hammer that kind of an argument with a British ? By chance they live upon an island.

Those Iranians aren't the ones who matter though. We try to bring them democracy,

Don't try anymore to "bring democracy" to a people which isn't ready for it and not demanding it, when US troops liberated France, the French were democracy thirsty.

One thing which has struck me about many political viewpoints (found anywhere) involving current U.S. foreign policy is that "it takes two" doesn't apply; that it's only the U.S.'s fault, period.
No one else is to blame; just the U.S. alone.
Doesn't make sense. It always takes two.
This is why I do believe a lot of anti-American sentiment is just plain unfair.

Hi, daughter of an Intelligent Designer , I guess that you aren't very chess competive, I'm trying to describe a chess game, and the actual US player is the worst strategist. Sorry he was elected.

Is anti-americanism to notice that the blind US support at Israel rise the muslims hate and feeds terrorism ?
We had the best relationships with USA when Clinton was in White House. Right now, I don't wish to tour USA. I don't feel an ally with Bushs' America. We have just one same ennemy, islamist terrorists, that's all with his administration.

I was too young to serve in the army when France fought against its greedy of independence colonial empire, using torture. As a french citizen , I must bare my part of load of that shame.

I know it's tought, but being the first world power, USA offer the image of the Great Devil to whole word unsatisfactions.
So little number of Americans have a real guilt in the world affairs.

I know it's unfair with you...

...but you know what ? Vietnam war let a 1,5 millions toll among vietnameses, for actual Iraq war latest estimations are 650000 Iraqi victims, so, don't be amazed if some people in the world see USA as a very lethal friend when aiming to bring democracy...and what else ? Oh yes, welfare state to happy Iraqis !

Stormrage · 2006-10-14 19:12:19

One thing which has struck me about many political viewpoints (found anywhere) involving current U.S. foreign policy is that "it takes two" doesn't apply; that it's only the U.S.'s fault, period.
No one else is to blame; just the U.S. alone.
Doesn't make sense. It always takes two.
::shrugs::

Most of the time. IT IS AMERICA. Sometimes they convince others that they should help them either through an economic incentive or political. Sometimes a military threat. Like Armitage threatning to nuke Pakistan. If i was the President of Pakistan i would have sworen at him but alas. Muslims are working with USA and Israel. Saddest part of it all. Working to help the destruction of their fellow muslims.

Palomar · 2006-10-14 21:00:44

One thing which has struck me about many political viewpoints (found anywhere) involving current U.S. foreign policy is that "it takes two" doesn't apply; that it's only the U.S.'s fault, period.
No one else is to blame; just the U.S. alone.
Doesn't make sense. It always takes two.
This is why I do believe a lot of anti-American sentiment is just plain unfair.
Hi, daughter of an Intelligent Designer

Yeah, I still dislike the "evolved from monkeys" notion. I'm too pretty to have evolved from a chimp. Lol!

I guess that you aren't very chess competive, I'm trying to describe a chess game

You've got me. I know nothing about chess. Voltaire would be disappointed in me. He used to play chess with a Roman Catholic priest who also lived at Ferney...imagine that. Voltaire was a Deist. See? I'm in good company.

Is anti-americanism to notice that the blind US support at Israel rise the muslims hate and feeds terrorism ?

So long as conservative Christians maintain their power here, the U.S. will support Israel. Why? Because it is believed Jews are God's Chosen People and the land which is Israel was promised to them by God. Also, it is believed that "they who bless Israel will be blessed; they who curse Israel will be cursed."

So, the U.S. will likely support Israel indefinitely.

Stormrage · 2006-10-14 21:04:36

So long as conservative Christians maintain their power here, the U.S. will support Israel. Why? Because it is believed Jews are God's Chosen People and the land which is Israel was promised to them by God. Also, it is believed that "they who bless Israel will be blessed; they who curse Israel will be cursed."
So, the U.S. will likely support Israel indefinitely.

Don't those crazy .... (you can use your imagination here) support Israel. So that the world can end?

Palomar · 2006-10-14 21:16:54

So long as conservative Christians maintain their power here, the U.S. will support Israel. Why? Because it is believed Jews are God's Chosen People and the land which is Israel was promised to them by God. Also, it is believed that "they who bless Israel will be blessed; they who curse Israel will be cursed."
So, the U.S. will likely support Israel indefinitely.
Don't those crazy .... (you can use your imagination here) support Israel. So that the world can end?

These conservative Christians also believe (I have seen this in print, though not online) that Great Britain lost favor with God and thus lost its Empire, wealth and strength when it (allegedly) "turned its back on the Jews" shortly after WWII, and that God bestowed favor upon the U.S. instead for supporting Israel.

I cannot recall what exact circumstances they consider as Britain's "proof of having betrayed Israel"; it's been many years since I read that claim.

But again, it is literally believed the U.S. will be cursed by God if we stop supporting Israel. So you see, to this point of view, it doesn't matter what anyone else thinks/wants: U.S. survival depends upon Israel's continuation and well-being.

DonPanic · 2006-10-15 06:30:16

Yeah, I still dislike the "evolved from monkeys" notion. I'm too pretty to have evolved from a chimp. Lol!(...)
You've got me. I know nothing about chess.

I guessed
Well, that's what I look like, playing chess, figuring what are the opponent motion possibilities, and foreseeing how to leave him no choice for the next moves

plainly admitting that I do share with Bonobos more than 98% genetic pool

nevertheless with a 145 IQ, mainly because of the 2% that make the difference,
with no special pride to have inherited the some gifts I have, both from genetic and quality education.

The point is that I find to much of the chimps in the human greed for dominance, and dominance characterizes all human political staffs

Stormrage · 2006-10-15 19:09:19

wow what cute animal. To bad that chimps are a vicious cannibalistic animal that tear their prey into pieces while it is still alive.

DonPanic · 2006-10-16 01:29:31

wow what cute animal. To bad that chimps are a vicious cannibalistic animal that tear their prey into pieces while it is still alive.

LO
On the picture, it's a Bonobo, unlike the Chimps, they are not known as other monkeys or self predators.

Recent observations in the wild have confirmed that the males among the Common Chimpanzee troops are extraordinarily hostile to males from outside of the troop. Murder parties are organized to "patrol" for the unfortunate males who might be living nearby in a solitary state. This does not appear to be the behavior of the Bonobo males or females, both of which seem to prefer sexual contact with their group rather than seek violent confrontation with outsiders. The Bonobo lives where the more aggressive Common Chimpanzee does not. Possibly the Bonobo has given a wide berth to their more violent and stronger cousins. Neither swim, and they generally inhabit ranges on opposite sides of the great rivers.
Richard Wrangham and Dale Peterson emphasize the Bonobo's use of sex as a mechanism to avoid violence.

After all, being pacifical by nature and practicising face to face sex, I feel a bit closer to Bonobos than to Chimpanzees....
and have my own classification on which forum member or human being I can rank in the Bonobo-type or in the Chimpanzee-type drawer.
I wouldn't settle on Mars or nowhere else with the Chimpanzee type Humans.

Palomar · 2006-10-16 08:47:05

Yeah, I still dislike the "evolved from monkeys" notion. I'm too pretty to have evolved from a chimp. Lol!(...)
You've got me. I know nothing about chess.
I guessed
Well, that's what I look like, playing chess, figuring what are the opponent motion possibilities, and foreseeing how to leave him no choice for the next moves

It's nice seeing you! What of you we can see.

plainly admitting that I do share with Bonobos more than 98% genetic pool...nevertheless with a 145 IQ, mainly because of the 2% that make the differencewith no special pride to have inherited the some gifts I have, both from genetic and quality education...

And I am definitely holding out for that 2%, lol.

Back on topic --

Tom Kalbfus · 2006-10-18 12:50:06

One thing which has struck me about many political viewpoints (found anywhere) involving current U.S. foreign policy is that "it takes two" doesn't apply; that it's only the U.S.'s fault, period.
No one else is to blame; just the U.S. alone.
Doesn't make sense. It always takes two.
::shrugs::
Most of the time. IT IS AMERICA. Sometimes they convince others that they should help them either through an economic incentive or political. Sometimes a military threat. Like Armitage threatning to nuke Pakistan. If i was the President of Pakistan i would have sworen at him but alas. Muslims are working with USA and Israel. Saddest part of it all. Working to help the destruction of their fellow muslims.

It is always convenient to blame someone else, isn't it. Its great being British, because you can always say, "its American's Fault, its America's fault!"

Terrible terrible, Muslims working with Americans and those "dirty Jews" isn't it, I think you've just revealed your predjudice with that statement above. So you think the only proper thing for Muslims to do is to be fighting and killing Americans and Jews? So much for Islam being the "religion of peace", at least the way you think of Islam. So you think Muslims shouldn't be doing anything else other than trying to exterminate everyone else on the whole planet? And not just any Muslims either, the only proper muslims in your view are the Sunni Muslims, all Shiites have got to go, and those "damnable" Kurds, right?

You are only 18 years old, why don't you try to wise up. Do you really want to live in a war torn world where everyone fights to exterminate the other. Learn to live and let live. The Muslims who are trying to work with Jews and Americans, are the ones who want peace, they are tired of fighting wars and sacrificing their children. The only reason this war goes on are the 18 year olds that don't know any better.

Cobra Commander · 2006-10-19 05:52:25

So much horse excrement in this discussion I don't know where to start. . .

Let's cut through the bull and break this all down, shall we? First, the assertion that America is causing more terrorism by its actions. Sure, that's a valid point. In the same way that resisting any opponent causes a war. Now I know Iraq had no working relationship with Al Qaeda and probably not much of a WMD program. But those things aren't the issue and to pretend they are is willful ignorance. The only reason anyone gives a damn about the MidEast is oil. Oil is why we put up with their backwardness, oil is why they have the illusion of functioning modern societies. Without oil, the Middle East is Africa with fewer trees. Iraq is about oil. Not stealing it like the knee-jerk Bush-haters like to claim, but securing a foothold and maintainign some semblance of order in the region that produces it.

Some would call Iraq the exact opposite of order, but from a global standpoint of regional leverage over oil production, it's not so chaotic as it seems. Petrol and Euros and bombs, oh my. . .

On one point Tom is right, there is a conflict of civilizations here. I'm not saying that all Muslims are terrorists waiting to happen, but there's a reason that the Muslim world so easily swings en masse against the West. Not just America, the West as a whole. Even the oh so accomodating France, as recent events illustrate.

We like to talk about multi-culturalism, self determination of peoples and other such feel-good rot, but it's all fantasy. Any nation, I don't care if it's the US, Britain, France, Iran, or North Korea has a sovereign right to keep out whomever they feel like. If a group of immigrants don't mesh with the host country's culture and values, it only makes sense for that country to not want them there.

But the US violated that by invading Iraq and Afghanistan!! Yes. That's why it's called an invasion. We didn't send 150,000 soldiers to "temporarily immigrate" into Iraq. Clear violation of sovereign rights.

Only it's playing out the other way too, but more subtlely. When people move into one country but retain stronger ties to their old culture than the new one they live in, they're foreign colonists. It doesn't matter if it's Arab Muslims in Britain, North African Muslims in France, Mexicans illegaly in the US or American oil workers in Saudi Arabia. To live in a place implies a certain acceptance and conformity to the local ways. Anything less is an invading element.

Add to this that numerous Muslims, both laymen and leaders in some Western countries have openly stated that they have no intention of assimilating and the problem becomes quite clear. No nation is obligated to tolerate foreign invaders. If the Iraqi's have the right to forcefully expel American troops (and I'd argue they do) then the people of other states have the same right to forcefully expel any invasive element in their lands.

Unfortunately very few Muslims speak out to condemn the rhetoric and actions of this minority element within their population. That makes it very easy to blanket them all.

But there's another factor here to consider. It isn't about fairness and we aren't all simply going to stay in our own countries and be happy. Humans don't work that way. Human societies, like everything else in the world, adhere to the simple rule that for anything to live, something else must die. Nothing exists in a vacuum.

I'm partial to Western civilization, the Anglo-American variety preferably. I have no desire to lay waste to anyone, but if it comes down to us or them. . . I have no qualms about make sure it's them that go the way of the dinosaur.

Are we using the best strategy to bring out a favorable outcome for ourselves at the moment? No, clearly not. Too many blunders have been made, too many shots have been called. Cowboys don't win chess tournaments, to use DonPanic's analogy.

But make no mistake, we're not the only player at the board and the opponent is using our own blindness and delusions against us. Hostile elements are seeping into Western states that are so terrified of being labeled "racist" that they won't even discuss whether there's a problem. Well, I don't care if someone wants to call me racist, even if I do reject the label.

I hate on a case by case basis.

When a foreign population moves in, doesn't speak the language, holds values at odds with the host nation's and cluster together into enclave communities while (actively or passively) undermining the sovereignty of the state in which they reside. . . That's a problem, I don't care what country we're talking about.

Bringing us to a comment by Stormrage:

If they were to lose support of USA. Islamists like Bin Laden would take over. Guess what would happen?
Israel would be over run. USA would lose their so called control in the middle east and the world would be a happy place. At least for me

That is the sort of thing one of those hostile, invasive elements would say. Don't be surprised when your fellow residents of Britain backlash against such sentiments because I assure you, for them it would most certainly not be a happy place if the MidEast fell entirely into the thrall of Islamic nutjobs, sparking all-out war with Israel and massive disruptions to the entire world economy.

And even though you'd come to realize that it isn't such a happy place, your fellow Britons won't be so forgiving of those who cheered it on.

DonPanic · 2006-10-20 06:09:22

LO

'm not saying that all Muslims are terrorists waiting to happen, but there's a reason that the Muslim world so easily swings en masse against the West. Not just America, the West as a whole. Even the oh so accomodating France, as recent events illustrate.

Just a remark, Mr Cobra, In France, violent troubles were a social rise of poor suburbs youngsters, where all ethnic groups were represented, against the police harassment they really suffer of, the facts are that police sould be ethnically similar to the populations it frames to be well accepted, which isn't the case.
Up to now, unlike in Great Britain, the french born youngsters do not blast themselves or launch terrorist attacks against their own country.

But make no mistake, we're not the only player at the board and the opponent is using our own blindness and delusions against us. Hostile elements are seeping into Western states that are so terrified of being labeled "racist" that they won't even discuss whether there's a problem. Well, I don't care if someone wants to call me racist, even if I do reject the label.

We're trying to fight wrong islamic conceptions, that's why we don't fear being called racists when we forbid veils in public schools, in administrative jobs, where we don't want any ethnic or religious group be favorized or mistreated by anyone.
So, we decided, that,
"Madame, if you want to enter the Town Hall, the social affair office, you take your veil off, this is the law, if you don't like this country's laws, quit it"

You're the kind of a US man we can have allies' quarrels
For the main of your message, I do agree,
except for the anglosaxon type civilization... we like our gallish type one, more messy

Mars_B4_Moon · 2006-10-20 09:46:36

Torture is wrong, period. How would any of you like to be at the mercy of a torturer? Just imagine it for a minute, an hour, day and night, with no assurance of intervention ... that's hell on Earth! I'd sing, convert, admit to anything, if only to be out of the clutches of such a regime. And I'd devote my life to getting even with the individule or organization responsible for my suffering. But I'd never torture them--only liquidate them quickly and painlessly, and feel no remorse. I leave you to draw your own conclusions regarding those "we" torture.

McCain: Guantanamo has hurt our image abroad
http://www.azcongresswatch.com/?p=2263

Tom Kalbfus · 2006-10-25 13:04:12

Torture is wrong, period. How would any of you like to be at the mercy of a torturer? Just imagine it for a minute, an hour, day and night, with no assurance of intervention ... that's hell on Earth! I'd sing, convert, admit to anything, if only to be out of the clutches of such a regime. And I'd devote my life to getting even with the individule or organization responsible for my suffering. But I'd never torture them--only liquidate them quickly and painlessly, and feel no remorse. I leave you to draw your own conclusions regarding those "we" torture.
McCain: Guantanamo has hurt our image abroad
http://www.azcongresswatch.com/?p=2263

Bad reporting and Media Fabrications have hurt our image. The Koran flushing incident for instance.

DonPanic · 2006-11-02 03:38:14

Bad reporting and Media Fabrications have hurt our image. The Koran flushing incident for instance.

Breaking thermometers do not avoid fever

dicktice · 2006-11-02 10:11:07

More and more ... Iran resembles Hitler's Germany in the 1930's, but with the addition now of long-range ballistic missles. Hitler could've taken "us" out without invading if he'd had them then. That little twit running Iran only has to change his name to something easier to pronounce like "Hitler" to make the comparison quite believeable....

Tom Kalbfus · 2006-11-02 11:54:55

Bad reporting and Media Fabrications have hurt our image. The Koran flushing incident for instance.
Breaking thermometers do not avoid fever

The Thermometer is already broken, it does not give accurate readings.

The Mainstream Media is so blatantly on the side of the Democrats and the Politcal left that its not even funny. I tend to discount their reports somewhat. The incident where John Kerry made his alleged "joke" to students that they'd better get good grades or else they might end up in Iraq, didn't get any media coverage. A local news outlet covered the speech once, and it was only because a conservative talk show host was taping that show that he was able to make a News Event out of it, the biased News media was trying its level best to ignore and avoid the story, it didn't even receive mention in the New York Times. A former Democratic Presidential Candidate insulting the troops by basically implying that the only reason they are there is that they are stupid or uneducated. the Mainstream News Media obviously didn't want this to influence the election, so this conservative talk show host put it on his website and repeated it, showing the video coverage until the mainstream press had to cover it also.

It seems that the press is mostly of a single mind about who they want running this country, so they attempt to control the information that gets to the voter. the are overly negative about Republican Candidates, and overly positive about the Democrats and it shows. I don't like it one bit, its sort of like an attempted coup by the News Media, its like they want a Media-ocracy running this country so they get to pick the government instead of the voters.

Tom Kalbfus · 2006-11-02 11:59:47

More and more ... Iran resembles Hitler's Germany in the 1930's, but with the addition now of long-range ballistic missles. Hitler could've taken "us" out without invading if he'd had them then. That little twit running Iran only has to change his name to something easier to pronounce like "Hitler" to make the comparison quite believeable....

the problem is they are Arabs, not white people as the German Nazis were, so as far as the extreme left wing is concerned its ok for them to be anti-semetic and intimate that they want to kill all the Jews in Israel while they seek to process Uranium.

dicktice · 2006-11-02 22:12:53

Ah, the Jewish card! I hadn't any thought of that when I mentioned Hitler's Germany. Their publicized ambition was world domination, and in the case of modern Iran, it is as you say regarding Isreal. But the sense I get is that of Germany in the 1930's which I remember well. Sticking to the saber rattling, I believe we have to move quicker than we did back then, in view of the fact of their multi-warhead long-range rocket demonstration this week, and prospective nuclear bomb-making capability. The United Nations didn't exist back then. The League of Nations did but wasn't supported by the United States. Hopefully, that won't be the case regarding the case of Iran, before it's too late to put the nuclear-tipped ballistic missile genie back in the bottle (meaning nuclear air bursts in the Gulf leading to a situation developing, as related by Nevil Shute's story of the end of the world, "On the Beach."

Grypd · 2006-11-03 05:45:18

More and more ... Iran resembles Hitler's Germany in the 1930's, but with the addition now of long-range ballistic missles. Hitler could've taken "us" out without invading if he'd had them then. That little twit running Iran only has to change his name to something easier to pronounce like "Hitler" to make the comparison quite believeable....
the problem is they are Arabs, not white people as the German Nazis were, so as far as the extreme left wing is concerned its ok for them to be anti-semetic and intimate that they want to kill all the Jews in Israel while they seek to process Uranium.

Iran is Not an Arabic country it may be Muslim but the population are Persians and Azeri. Actually there national blood enemy is Arabs. It is one of the reasons that Saddam thought a war with them as the main population of Iraq is Sunni arabs and Arabs and Iranians hate each other. There is also the religion card where Shi'te and Sunni religions just do not get on. Iran is Shi'te.

Saudia Arabia is arming itself just to protect itself from Iran.

Still what is Irans long term aims. Certainly it was an empire and every child is told stories of the great Persian empires of the past. It may be that they see themselves as becoming the regional power of the middle east again and certainly they see the Kingdom of Saudia Arabia as a block to this.

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#126 2006-10-14 10:58:17

Re: Bow Down Before Iran?

#127 2006-10-14 12:13:00

Re: Bow Down Before Iran?

#128 2006-10-14 13:09:43

Re: Bow Down Before Iran?

#129 2006-10-14 14:15:47

Re: Bow Down Before Iran?

#130 2006-10-14 14:53:04

Re: Bow Down Before Iran?

#131 2006-10-14 16:37:40

Re: Bow Down Before Iran?

#132 2006-10-14 19:12:19

Re: Bow Down Before Iran?

#133 2006-10-14 21:00:44

Re: Bow Down Before Iran?

#134 2006-10-14 21:04:36

Re: Bow Down Before Iran?

#135 2006-10-14 21:16:54

Re: Bow Down Before Iran?

#136 2006-10-15 06:30:16

Re: Bow Down Before Iran?

#137 2006-10-15 19:09:19

Re: Bow Down Before Iran?

#138 2006-10-16 01:29:31

Re: Bow Down Before Iran?

#139 2006-10-16 08:47:05

Re: Bow Down Before Iran?

#140 2006-10-18 12:50:06

Re: Bow Down Before Iran?

#141 2006-10-19 05:52:25

Re: Bow Down Before Iran?

#142 2006-10-20 06:09:22

Re: Bow Down Before Iran?

#143 2006-10-20 09:46:36

Re: Bow Down Before Iran?

#144 2006-10-25 13:04:12

Re: Bow Down Before Iran?

#145 2006-11-02 03:38:14

Re: Bow Down Before Iran?

#146 2006-11-02 10:11:07

Re: Bow Down Before Iran?

#147 2006-11-02 11:54:55

Re: Bow Down Before Iran?

#148 2006-11-02 11:59:47

Re: Bow Down Before Iran?

#149 2006-11-02 22:12:53

Re: Bow Down Before Iran?

#150 2006-11-03 05:45:18

Re: Bow Down Before Iran?

Board footer