You are not logged in.
This is the typical story of the clueless Westerner who sees cars, and airplanes and assumes the place is just like home, but somebody forgot to tell her they were doing reenactments of the middle ages over here.
So the moral of the story is here, you better examine the countries legal system with a magnifying glass and a fine toothed comb before going there. The teacher obviously didn't hire a Arabic-speaking lawyer, and didn't notice Article 42-b which specifically states in the Sudanese constituion that it is a Capital offense to name your teddy bear "Mohammad". Also Article 34-A states that it is a capital offense to carry a salt shaker in your right pocket because that is considered an offense to Islam punishable by head chopping with curved swords by a turbaned executioner, and Article 27-C says it is a capital offense to offer to shake someone's hand with you left hand on Tuesday and that violators will be put to death. Also article 14-B states that Jaywalking between the hours of 4 to 6 pm during the high holy days of Ramadan is a crime punishable by death, and the only approved form of execution is to have your head chopped off with a curved sword by an executioner wearing a turban.
Doesn't it seem like their are just too many "barbarian kingdoms" in the middle east, to travel there is like traveling back in time except the locals carry machine guns. They have lots of death penalties for every trivial offense. Of course no one tells the hapless foreigner of which laws they may run afoul of that may require the Death Penalty, its like they are trying to play a game of Gotcha!
Offline
But I thought everyone knew that Sudan is a barbarian kingdom? I mean, if the Islamists have a big big problem with a few (innocent) cartoons, they obviously aren't going to be very happy ith calling a teddy bear Mohammed.
"I'm gonna die surrounded by the biggest idiots in the galaxy." - If this forum was a Mars Colony
Offline
Obviously all Sudanese hate animals, they way they think about it all animals were put on thie Earth by Allah to be slaughtered by mankind, women were put on this Earth to be beaten and bruised by their husbands with whips and they disapline all their children by executing them so they never misbehave again. Ignorance is no excuse for violating their bureocratic legal system where most of the penalties are either 40 lashed or getting your head chopped off. I'm only being half sacrastic. They expect a foreigner to know all the tiny minutia of their legal system before coming to their country? Most countries invoke the death penalty of they do at all for crimes that involve murder, not for saying the lords name in vain. The punishment should be proportionate to the crime. 40 lashes for allowing children to name a stuffed animal Mohammad is a bit excessive, should they also give each of the children 40 lashes? I'd say the teacher and children were equally ignorant of this law about not naming teddy bears "Mohammad" I wonder how most parents of these children would feel about having their children whipped to death by these minor infractions? Most children will make mistakes of this magnitude, are most Sudanese children executed in this way?
I seriously don't think their constitution contains a clause for naming Teddy bears, I think the government is just making up excuses for their cruel excesses. I wonder how the Sudanese people feel about being treated like slaves by their government? How could they possibly allow a government like this to come to power treating them like slaves to be whipped? I wonder how they'd feel about the United States moving in to free the slaves? Will they say, "No no, we love our masters, we like getting whipped!" and then start lashing themselves with their own whips?
Middle east people are strange, really strange, I hope some time they start acting like human being again, instead of like extras in some remake of Ali Babba and the 40 thieves.
Offline
In other news, Mohammad is the most common boys name in the world.
Really just makes you want to nuke them from orbit. Its the only way to be sure.
"Yes, I was going to give this astronaut selection my best shot, I was determined when the NASA proctologist looked up my ass, he would see pipes so dazzling he would ask the nurse to get his sunglasses."
---Shuttle Astronaut Mike Mullane
Offline
Some heartening news from Canada. The Canadian Islamic Congress is encouraging its members to name teddy bears Mohammed and send them to the Sudanese Abbassador.
This *is* North Sudan we are talking about? Otherwise I'd like to know when the Civil War ended.
"I'm gonna die surrounded by the biggest idiots in the galaxy." - If this forum was a Mars Colony
Offline
In other news, Mohammad is the most common boys name in the world.
Really just makes you want to nuke them from orbit. Its the only way to be sure.
Just goes to show you that Middle east countries like Sudan are unpredicatable, and if you sneeze the wrong way, you could be arrested by the Thought Police and have your head chopped off. I call these cases "cultural traps". Basically the host country sets up a trap for unsuspecting Westerners, they make the assumption that you know how to act like a Muslim and if you don't they arrest you and threaten you with 40 lashes, a head chopping or whatever. If we had a similar law, we'd arrest some unsuspecting Muslim if he or she failed to remove his "Hat" when he walked indoors, as we all know that a person should remove his hat when moving indoors as a sign of respect for that building's owners.
Offline
I don't theres any trap here. Just a bunch of ruling backwards extremist mullahs who have raised the ire of some even more backwards extremist mullahs would like to rule, and discovered that there is a Western, female, unburka-ed, teacher, over which they can sir up a hornets nest for their own gain.
"Yes, I was going to give this astronaut selection my best shot, I was determined when the NASA proctologist looked up my ass, he would see pipes so dazzling he would ask the nurse to get his sunglasses."
---Shuttle Astronaut Mike Mullane
Offline
The teacher didn't name the teddy bear, her students did, yet it is the teacher that is being punished. For allowing a student to name an inanimate object, so therefore one must assume that the teacher must bind and gag all of the students so it is not possible for any of them to name anything that is not a person "Mohammad". I wonder if all students who go to school in Sudan are bound and gagged in class so there is no chance that they may name anything "Mohammad"? I wonder why we simply don't invade Sudan and wipe that country off the map of Africa so it no longer troubles us or presents such a hazard to Western Travellers.
Offline
While I agree that it’s a bit ridiculous…She did only get 15 days. Now that is no doubt due to political pressure from the rest of the world but it is what it is.
If I remember correctly the issue was brought up by parents of the students and then charges were laid in place. So, it seems to me that you have a lot of angry parents because their kids are being taught by a “Christian woman” ie, the devil.
It’s paranoia. And it’s not going to be solved by calling them backwards or barbaric. It’s the same kind of paranoia that leads parents to try and ban Harry Potter books from school libraries. From my view point, everyone just needs to chill out.
Offline
But they are backwards and barbaric, and I come to this conclusion because of their behavior towards this western woman. If they don't want the rest of the World not to think they are backwards and barbaric they ought to change their behavior, and in this I'm doing my part to put some social pressure on them to encourage them to become more civilized by calling them backwards and barbaric. I'm just telling how I see them due to their own behavior. If the Sudanese really cares about how the world sees them, they ought to stop acting like this. Apparently social pressure has worked to reduce the woman's sentence, but my point was this whole thing shouldn't have happened in the first place. Civilized Nations do not whip people for naming stuffed animals! Every once in a while you hear a story like this coming out of the Middle East and the Muslim World and I want this to stop. I wonder when these various barbarian nations, because thats what they are, will stop acting like a "world out of time" and start acting like they belong in the 21st century. Basically what I'm doing is holding up a mirror to them and indicating how I see them as of right now, I am giving them feedback, and I believe that if more people do the same, then maybe we'll start seeing fewer "Barbarian Kingdoms" on the face of the Earth, maybe the Sudanese will start feeling embarassed that they come from what the World considers such a backwards and uncivilized country and maybe those progressive-minded Sudanese will get together and change their government and that situation.
We should leave the barbarians in the past, it should not be as if someone stepped out of a time machine everytime they visit the Muslim World. What's the excuse for the retarded social development and the unenlightened world view that they have? I'm not giving them a pass on it, not giving them a pat on the back and allowing them to use their Muslim heritage as their excuse for social backwardness. Sudan is an area representing one of the oldest civilizations in the World, namely the Egyptian one, they should at least act like it and not as some savages that just came out of the woods.
Offline
It's very easy to point fingers.
Now Tom, I want you to understand that I agree with you completely. But you are going about it the wrong way.
You can't tell a kid to stop hitting because it's not nice. You have to show them why it's not nice. (That doesn't include hitting back)
I feel the same as you do that their views are completely backwards and holding the world back at a whole. But screaming at them to change will do nothing.
We should leave the barbarians in the past, it should not be as if someone stepped out of a time machine everytime they visit the Muslim World.
If it wasn't for the oil and other resources I bet you that we would. Most of the conflict in Africa has to do with war over resources the people are selling to us. If the Middle East wasn't full of oil, the west wouldn't pay as much attention to them.
Here is some food for your brain muscle.
Offline
I'm just saying we should demonstrate to the Sudanese that there are serious consequences for them acting that way. Show them that freedom of speech and religion are part of the civilized norm, and if they don't adhere to them make them outcasts. If the Sudanese whip of anti-western hysteria with this, we should just show them that it is world opinion that matters, not theirs, and if they make too big a nusance of themselves, if they support terrorism or begin building nuclear bomb programs, their government will be overthrown. We can't allow barbarians to threaten the civilized world.
It is interesting that Pat Buchanan recently wrote a book critical of US foreign policy, saying we shouldn't meddle on other country's foreign affairs, that we shouldn't get in Putin's face, we should respect Russia's near abroad and not try to recruit former East Block Countries and post Soviet ones into NATO because it promotes bad relations with Russia, and that we're destabilizing the Middle East by promoting Democracy their instead of minding our own business, he called our present foreign policy "Wilsonian". Ironically, this makes me want to take a closer look at Woodrow Wilson, the US President during World War I.
World War I was supposed to be the "War to end all Wars" unfortunately it was not, but is that the fault of Woodrow Wilson? Wilson wanted to make the "World safe for Democracy", he promoted the League of Nations, but couldn't get the Senate to approve membership in that organization. I just think the task turned out to be harder than he imagined it to be, but I think we are closer to establishing world wide democracy today than in Wilson's day. Woodrow Wilson was a Democrat with both a large and a small 'd', he was a Democratic Party member and he also belived in democracy, not only for the United States of America but for everyone, and it is that second point that Pat Buchanan criticises.
I feel that if one believes in the sentiments of our founding documents, that the right to govern is derived from the will of the people, one cannot believe that dictators and other self-serving undemocratic forms of government are just and right, and following that sentiment would lead naturally to a Wilsonian and interventionist foreign policy, rather than a cynical "shaking hands with dictators and inviting them to tea parties" realpolitic sort of foreign policy. We don't want to start wars of course, but we will exercise our freedom of speech and naturally tend to push for democratic revolutions and trends throughout the world, just as the Soviets used to push the old communist system with their propaganda, and if the payoff is large enough and the cost small enough we might just try to give certain undemocratic troublemakers a shove out the door in the interests of our own national security of course. I tend to agree with Wilson that we are safer in a democratic world than an undemocratic one. Most people have little interest in war, and the democratic countries that reflect that opinion are less likely to attack us, but for those greedy dictators, to whom their people are such a source of power and soldiers, they are more likely to attack us.
I think it is in our long term interest to promote democracy, some undemocratic forces don't like this and so will do everything in their power to sabotage this trend, governments like those in Sudan and Iran for instance. Our goal should be to wear them down with the minimum of violence, kind of like the way we won the Cold War for instance. Yes, Putin is trying to overthrow democracy, but look at all those other former East Bloc countries and Ex-Soviet Republics, they now have democracy because of our efforts, I'd say that's progress. I'd say we should both protect our gains in the Democratic world and continue to chip away at those undemocratic societies, the eventual goal of having a world where their are no more "Barbarian Kingdoms" with undemocratic rulers. In such a world their is greater chance of resolving disputes peacefully, and less of a motivation for going to war, although the chances will not be completely nonexistant. In a world were the individual matters, in a democratic setting, we can realize our potential more fully without these destractions of going to war.
Offline
Putin is a good nationalist who is trying to do what is in the long-term interests of his people. The overwhelmingly marxist western media try to rubbish him at every opportunity. But the fact is that he is overwhelmingly popular amongst his people and living standards have risen rapidly under his presidency.
As for Sudan, why should we care what the insignificant rulers of this desert state try to inflict on their people within their own borders? The only people that need to suffer their cruelty are those unfortunate enough to live in their country. Western governments should withdraw their people, cut off aid, issue a general warning against any western travel there and generally leave the Sudanese to their own devices. It is not our business to tell them how run their country, nor is it in our interests to risk the lives of our people in some pointless invasion and pacification activity. The value of this desert country does not justify the effort.
Generally, instead of attempting to force third world nations to accept our political will, western countries should minimise their dependance on the resources and people of these nations and generally involve ourselves as little as possible in their affairs. This is more cost effective than attempting to control them through colonial rule. If the US and Britain had invested the money required to invade and pasify Iraq in more and better electricity infrastructure and nuclear plants and had instituted an electric highway scheme, we would be well on our way to being independant of foreign oil imports and in a much more secure position than we are in now. Instead, we are stuck with an oil economy and every single day more young men and women are added to the toll of lives that has had to be paid to maintain our oil addiction.
Offline
But the fact is that he is overwhelmingly popular amongst his people and living standards have risen rapidly under his presidency.
Popular according to whom? The state controlled TV or the recent unvalidated national election?
[color=darkred]Let's go to Mars and far beyond - triple NASA's budget ![/color] [url=irc://freenode#space] #space channel !! [/url] [url=http://www.youtube.com/user/c1cl0ps] - videos !!![/url]
Offline
But the fact is that he is overwhelmingly popular amongst his people and living standards have risen rapidly under his presidency.
Popular according to whom? The state controlled TV or the recent unvalidated national election?
Should I overthrow democracy and takeover as dictator to prove what a great Patriot I am? :twisted:
I tell you with "patriots" like that who needs enemies?
Offline
Putin is a good nationalist who is trying to do what is in the long-term interests of his people. The overwhelmingly marxist western media try to rubbish him at every opportunity. But the fact is that he is overwhelmingly popular amongst his people and living standards have risen rapidly under his presidency.
Why is it in the long term interests of the Russian people to live under a tyrant and be our enemy? Why is it better for the Russians to always be prepared to wage World War III with us and to point their nukes at us so we point our nukes at them? Why can't we just get along with them like we do with Japan and Germany? I figure we should just treat Russia as we treat Japan and Germany and that should be enough. We don't grant those other countries a near abroad that we allow them to treat as their defacto Empire, why should things be any different with Russia? What makes Russia so special that we have to treat it differently from Japan and German who were also at one time our enemies? I see no difference.
As for Sudan, why should we care what the insignificant rulers of this desert state try to inflict on their people within their own borders? The only people that need to suffer their cruelty are those unfortunate enough to live in their country. Western governments should withdraw their people, cut off aid, issue a general warning against any western travel there and generally leave the Sudanese to their own devices. It is not our business to tell them how run their country, nor is it in our interests to risk the lives of our people in some pointless invasion and pacification activity. The value of this desert country does not justify the effort.
Why, as a deceased associate of Ebenezer Scrooge once said, "Humanity is our business." To put it more succinctly, the world has plenty of nukes, and they are only going to spread over time, I think it is in out long term interest to eliminate those who would start wars of conquest, put the people in charge of those countries instead of their rulers. The people are the ones who are going to do the fighting up close and personal. While we have to fight pacifists and anti-war people in our own country in order to protect our freedoms, I would like to see some of those pacifists gaining influence in Sudan and Iran and having political power and deciding on their government. In order to have a peaceful world, those pacifists have to be in power in the countries that are now our enemies and adversaries. People who are interested in avoiding war will not start a war with us, and we therefore will not have to worry about that, but Iran now chants "Death to America" and their are way too many crowds of sabre rattlers in the middle east, we just have to change their politics so their pacifist/antiwar types are in power instead of the sabre-rattlers, the main problem is that our own anti-war people get in the way of that goal. If they would only sieze power in Iran and Russia, things would be great with us.
Generally, instead of attempting to force third world nations to accept our political will, western countries should minimise their dependance on the resources and people of these nations and generally involve ourselves as little as possible in their affairs. This is more cost effective than attempting to control them through colonial rule. If the US and Britain had invested the money required to invade and pasify Iraq in more and better electricity infrastructure and nuclear plants and had instituted an electric highway scheme, we would be well on our way to being independant of foreign oil imports and in a much more secure position than we are in now. Instead, we are stuck with an oil economy and every single day more young men and women are added to the toll of lives that has had to be paid to maintain our oil addiction.
Yeah Antius, why don't you just switch to the alternatives? Not as easy as saying it. Your country has been taxing gasoline to the hilt, but it still runs on gasoline, I see no progress here. I don't accept the premise that we just turn our backs on large segments of humanity just because they live under dictators in third world countries. Tyranny anywhere affects freedom everywhere. If we try to learn to live with these dictators, we are always going to have to be on our guard against their attacking us, and we are going to have to devote a considerable proportion of our resources towards national defense as they will constantly seek to undermine us to increase their power. If people live in free democracies, they won't be as interested in war fighting or empire building, and I think we ought to help the process of democratization along in our own national interests rather than mind our own business like with did in the 1930s with regard to Hitler and Stalin. Dictators are an existential threat to us, so long as they exist, we democratic countries of the free world have to worry about what they might do. Deal with them on the short term if we must, but if their are opportunities to push them towards democracy we should take them. A democratic world is safer and more peaceful than an undemocratic one.
Offline
Putin is a good nationalist who is trying to do what is in the long-term interests of his people. The overwhelmingly marxist western media try to rubbish him at every opportunity. But the fact is that he is overwhelmingly popular amongst his people and living standards have risen rapidly under his presidency.
Why is it in the long term interests of the Russian people to live under a tyrant and be our enemy? Why is it better for the Russians to always be prepared to wage World War III with us and to point their nukes at us so we point our nukes at them? Why can't we just get along with them like we do with Japan and Germany? I figure we should just treat Russia as we treat Japan and Germany and that should be enough. We don't grant those other countries a near abroad that we allow them to treat as their defacto Empire, why should things be any different with Russia? What makes Russia so special that we have to treat it differently from Japan and German who were also at one time our enemies? I see no difference.
As for Sudan, why should we care what the insignificant rulers of this desert state try to inflict on their people within their own borders? The only people that need to suffer their cruelty are those unfortunate enough to live in their country. Western governments should withdraw their people, cut off aid, issue a general warning against any western travel there and generally leave the Sudanese to their own devices. It is not our business to tell them how run their country, nor is it in our interests to risk the lives of our people in some pointless invasion and pacification activity. The value of this desert country does not justify the effort.
Why, as a deceased associate of Ebenezer Scrooge once said, "Humanity is our business." To put it more succinctly, the world has plenty of nukes, and they are only going to spread over time, I think it is in out long term interest to eliminate those who would start wars of conquest, put the people in charge of those countries instead of their rulers. The people are the ones who are going to do the fighting up close and personal. While we have to fight pacifists and anti-war people in our own country in order to protect our freedoms, I would like to see some of those pacifists gaining influence in Sudan and Iran and having political power and deciding on their government. In order to have a peaceful world, those pacifists have to be in power in the countries that are now our enemies and adversaries. People who are interested in avoiding war will not start a war with us, and we therefore will not have to worry about that, but Iran now chants "Death to America" and their are way too many crowds of sabre rattlers in the middle east, we just have to change their politics so their pacifist/antiwar types are in power instead of the sabre-rattlers, the main problem is that our own anti-war people get in the way of that goal. If they would only sieze power in Iran and Russia, things would be great with us.
Generally, instead of attempting to force third world nations to accept our political will, western countries should minimise their dependance on the resources and people of these nations and generally involve ourselves as little as possible in their affairs. This is more cost effective than attempting to control them through colonial rule. If the US and Britain had invested the money required to invade and pasify Iraq in more and better electricity infrastructure and nuclear plants and had instituted an electric highway scheme, we would be well on our way to being independant of foreign oil imports and in a much more secure position than we are in now. Instead, we are stuck with an oil economy and every single day more young men and women are added to the toll of lives that has had to be paid to maintain our oil addiction.
Yeah Antius, why don't you just switch to the alternatives? Not as easy as saying it. Your country has been taxing gasoline to the hilt, but it still runs on gasoline, I see no progress here. I don't accept the premise that we just turn our backs on large segments of humanity just because they live under dictators in third world countries. Tyranny anywhere affects freedom everywhere. If we try to learn to live with these dictators, we are always going to have to be on our guard against their attacking us, and we are going to have to devote a considerable proportion of our resources towards national defense as they will constantly seek to undermine us to increase their power. If people live in free democracies, they won't be as interested in war fighting or empire building, and I think we ought to help the process of democratization along in our own national interests rather than mind our own business like with did in the 1930s with regard to Hitler and Stalin. Dictators are an existential threat to us, so long as they exist, we democratic countries of the free world have to worry about what they might do. Deal with them on the short term if we must, but if their are opportunities to push them towards democracy we should take them. A democratic world is safer and more peaceful than an undemocratic one.
I do not see that Putin has gone out of his way to make an enemy of the US. The fact is that the US and Russia are geopolitical rivals. But I could just as well ask:
'Why does the US set itself up as an adversary of China, Iran and Russia, when France, Switzerland, Netherlands, etc, seem happy to live in peace with these people? What makes the US think that it needs to control the rest of the world by force of arms?' 'how is it that China/Japan both manage to live on good terms with Iran, Russia, etc, wheras the US is locked in a continuous cold war with the aforementioned states'?
I do not think that it is the responsibility of the Western world to enforce parliamentary democracy on the rest of the world. I also question our ability to successfully do so. If I understand your point correctly, the western world must have absolute control over the politics of the rest of the world to prevent some rogue state from aquiring nukes and smuggling them into our cities. By that line of logic, US intervention in Iraq, Korea and Vietnam must have made the world a much safer place.
I do not suggest that we should ignore blatant security threats, but to attempt to control every corner of the world that happens to have a dictatorial government would be impossible and would actually generate adversaries that would otherwise not have become a threat to US interests. It is like taking a shotgun into a swamp rather puting up mosquito nets.
If the past 30 years has taught us anything, it should be that the western nations generally and the US in particular, simply do not have the power to control the internal affairs of the rest of the world. Trying to do that requires that we be continuously ready for war, pumping vast amounts of resources into weaponry and our miltary and be prepared to sacrifice tens of thousands of lives for the 'freedom' of people in irelevant far away lands, who will not appreciate our intervention anyhow. All of this draws resources away from worthy projects at home, which could genuinely improve US/British living standards.
As for electrically powering transport in the UK/Rest or the world, I would argue that sort of systems neccesary, require massive government investment or at least government coordination of private investment in order to take off. You also have to have the right idea in the first place. The US government is presently pumping millions of dollars into developmnet of fuel cell vehicles and hydrogen refuelling infrastructure which will niever be economic.
Offline
I do not see that Putin has gone out of his way to make an enemy of the US. The fact is that the US and Russia are geopolitical rivals. But I could just as well ask:
'Why does the US set itself up as an adversary of China, Iran and Russia, when France, Switzerland, Netherlands, etc, seem happy to live in peace with these people? What makes the US think that it needs to control the rest of the world by force of arms?' 'how is it that China/Japan both manage to live on good terms with Iran, Russia, etc, wheras the US is locked in a continuous cold war with the aforementioned states'?
Oh, whats with his chummery with Iran, helping it to build a nuclear reactor, it oppositions to sanctions on this country when it won't allow inspectors in to see that it is not making nuclear warheads, and not to mention that fact that Iran has made multiple death threats against the United States. Iran is like having a neighbor who says, "I'm going to kill you!" all the time. I think as a nation we should take such verbal threats seriously, and do something when it looks like Iran is trying to make good on those threats. Putin says, "never mind, they're not serious, they are interested only in peaceful uses of nuclear energy despite their multiple death threats against you country and their calling you the 'great Satan', but never mind its all talk of a mad man." Who's supporting terrorist attacks? Who made their great start as a new nation by taking American's hostage? We could end this cold war, but removing those in power who wage it, this becomes much easier now that Iraq has simmered down and our troops are positioned to accomplish this. I don't know what Putin's problem is, he complains about missile defenses in Poland. I don't see why we should respect his claim to an empire that doesn't exist any more. Poland and other East block countries are independent states able to determine their own independent foreign policy without Russia's meddling. Do they think they own the Poles or something?
Offline
But, Iran isn't making weapons.
http://www.time.com/time/world/article/ … 50,00.html
And Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has been mistranslated and his threats exaggerated.
http://www.informationclearinghouse.inf … e13641.htm
And there are several countires making claims to the North Pole. The weakest claim being that of the United States.
Offline
But, Iran isn't making weapons.
http://www.time.com/time/world/article/ … 50,00.html
And Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has been mistranslated and his threats exaggerated.
http://www.informationclearinghouse.inf … e13641.htm
It was written quite clearly in English: "Death to America!" and this has been going on ever since 1979. When did you become such an appologist for Islamic Fundamentalism?
And there are several countires making claims to the North Pole. The weakest claim being that of the United States.
The CIA is not the same thing as having an inspection regime. Listening in on their communications, and having spies amongst them is not the same thing as an inspection regime, and we can't tell with absolute certainty that Iran is not producing nuclear weapons, and Iran is a terrorist sponsor and the President of Iran is a terrorist, he was one of the hostage takes in the 1979 American Embassy seizure, and Iran has supported both Hezbollah and Hamas, two terrorist organizations. If Iran really wants peace then they should stop killing Americans, its as simple as that. If they want to have peace and kill Americans or attack Israel, then they won't have peace.
Offline
I do not think that it is the responsibility of the Western world to enforce parliamentary democracy on the rest of the world. I also question our ability to successfully do so. If I understand your point correctly, the western world must have absolute control over the politics of the rest of the world to prevent some rogue state from aquiring nukes and smuggling them into our cities. By that line of logic, US intervention in Iraq, Korea and Vietnam must have made the world a much safer place.
Why should we let Barbarian Kingdoms threaten our citizens with their barbaric customs and practises and do nothing about it? Tyranny anywhere threatens freedom everywhere. Are you suggesting that we should have no foreign policy? Because if you are suggesting that we do nothing about foreign states harassing our citizens, then that is advocating no foreign policy. Our belief is that certain rights are inalienable, and our foreign policy reflects those beliefs, if some foreign country does something to violate them, they will hear from us. Besides if you say the United States is not responsible for Earth's environment, political, then what responsibility do you say we have towards Global Warming? We can just say that Global Warming is none of our business and do nothing about it, couldn't we. We'll mind our own air quality however we want, and the Sudanese can enslave white people and whip women to death Quid pro quo. Is that how you'd like it? The World is a two-way street after all, if some country threatens us or our citizens then we will do something about it.
I do not suggest that we should ignore blatant security threats, but to attempt to control every corner of the world that happens to have a dictatorial government would be impossible and would actually generate adversaries that would otherwise not have become a threat to US interests. It is like taking a shotgun into a swamp rather puting up mosquito nets.
That straw man is of your own making. The fact that the Sudanese can do whatever they please to anyone within their border without justification indicates there are no international laws that protect people, so by that argument there are also no laws that prevent us from changing Sudan's government, with all other things being equal. Do Nation's rights trump individual rights? Well without laws or authority, then anyone can do whatever to anyone, or any nation to any nation, but that standard it defaults to rule of the strongest, and since we are stronger that Sudan, that means we don't have to tolerate their "white slavery ring" if we don't want to, also alot of black slavery goes on their as well, but if they try to start enforcing their Islamic religion on foreigners, then we might just decide to do a little "pushing and shoving" as well.
If the past 30 years has taught us anything, it should be that the western nations generally and the US in particular, simply do not have the power to control the internal affairs of the rest of the world. Trying to do that requires that we be continuously ready for war, pumping vast amounts of resources into weaponry and our miltary and be prepared to sacrifice tens of thousands of lives for the 'freedom' of people in irelevant far away lands, who will not appreciate our intervention anyhow. All of this draws resources away from worthy projects at home, which could genuinely improve US/British living standards.
What worthy projects are their other than safeguarding World Peace and stability, we can't have injustice in the world where some teacher gets whipped for allowing kids to name their teddy bear Mohammad, that is injustice, and it affects one of your citizens, of whom you apparently don't care about, as your willing to turn your back on her and let this government treat her as one of its slaves to be whipped. Are you willing to accept that your citizens leave their rights at home when they leave their country and become the slaves of whatever country they happen to visit? I find that intollerable, and she's not even one of my citizens.
As for electrically powering transport in the UK/Rest or the world, I would argue that sort of systems neccesary, require massive government investment or at least government coordination of private investment in order to take off. You also have to have the right idea in the first place. The US government is presently pumping millions of dollars into developmnet of fuel cell vehicles and hydrogen refuelling infrastructure which will niever be economic.
And airplanes will never fly either. Why if God wanted Man to fly, he would have given him wings!
Offline
When did you become such an appologist for Islamic Fundamentalism?
It's an issue of extremes. Their views are very different from ours. But, you have to understand that they are thinking the same thing. Tom, you are being an extremist as well. With two sides standing so far away from the table a fight is bound to happen.
I’m not being apologetic, but I’m definitely not being aggressive. The western world seems to think that it’s ok for them to decide who lives and who dies. We could argue this, but what’s the point?
Why is the US friends with China and not Cuba?
Why is the US friends with Saudi Arabia and not Syria?
Did you ever stop to consider that “Death to America” meant he wants the downfall of a society based consumption and pleasure? I know I for one share those feelings. I would much rather live in a world that holds true the value of family rather a new LCD TV.
It’s a matter of opinion in conflict resolution. I know that we are both firmly in different camps when it comes to this issue, so a resolution is never going to go around.
(Sound familiar?)
Offline
Putin is a good nationalist who is trying to do what is in the long-term interests of his people. The overwhelmingly marxist western media try to rubbish him at every opportunity. But the fact is that he is overwhelmingly popular amongst his people and living standards have risen rapidly under his presidency.
The economy has improved do to high oil prices, and Putin has about as much to do with that as Al Gore has to do with the internet boom of the 90's. Though it would explain why he would want to allow tension with Iran to simmer.
Bush has had to deal with an overwhelmingly Marxist western media trying to rubbish him at every opportunity as well. The people can tell and the only thing you can do is let them burn themselves up in their own hatred.
As for Sudan, why should we care what the insignificant rulers of this desert state try to inflict on their people within their own borders? The only people that need to suffer their cruelty are those unfortunate enough to live in their country. Western governments should withdraw their people, cut off aid, issue a general warning against any western travel there and generally leave the Sudanese to their own devices. It is not our business to tell them how run their country, nor is it in our interests to risk the lives of our people in some pointless invasion and pacification activity. The value of this desert country does not justify the effort.
Yeah, we tried that with Afghanistan. It didn't work.
Generally, instead of attempting to force third world nations to accept our political will, western countries should minimise their dependance on the resources and people of these nations and generally involve ourselves as little as possible in their affairs. This is more cost effective than attempting to control them through colonial rule.
Democratic intervention has nothing to do with enforcing political will onto another people, and everything to do will allowing the peoples will to be enforced in their own country, at least as far as any government of man can enforce the will of the people it pretends to represent.
If the US and Britain had invested the money required to invade and pasify Iraq in more and better electricity infrastructure and nuclear plants and had instituted an electric highway scheme, we would be well on our way to being independant of foreign oil imports and in a much more secure position than we are in now. Instead, we are stuck with an oil economy and every single day more young men and women are added to the toll of lives that has had to be paid to maintain our oil addiction.
This is perhaps the biggest oil myth out there. If the west stops buying oil, the price will drop only to the point were developing countries can afford it, and the oil states will then take advantage of them. And they are a lot easier to influence socially, politically, religiously, ect than we are. Remember the Sudanese genocide is little more than Arab colonization of Africa.
"Yes, I was going to give this astronaut selection my best shot, I was determined when the NASA proctologist looked up my ass, he would see pipes so dazzling he would ask the nurse to get his sunglasses."
---Shuttle Astronaut Mike Mullane
Offline
I do not see that Putin has gone out of his way to make an enemy of the US. The fact is that the US and Russia are geopolitical rivals. But I could just as well ask:
'Why does the US set itself up as an adversary of China, Iran and Russia, when France, Switzerland, Netherlands, etc, seem happy to live in peace with these people? What makes the US think that it needs to control the rest of the world by force of arms?' 'how is it that China/Japan both manage to live on good terms with Iran, Russia, etc, wheras the US is locked in a continuous cold war with the aforementioned states'?Oh, whats with his chummery with Iran, helping it to build a nuclear reactor, it oppositions to sanctions on this country when it won't allow inspectors in to see that it is not making nuclear warheads, and not to mention that fact that Iran has made multiple death threats against the United States. Iran is like having a neighbor who says, "I'm going to kill you!" all the time. I think as a nation we should take such verbal threats seriously, and do something when it looks like Iran is trying to make good on those threats. Putin says, "never mind, they're not serious, they are interested only in peaceful uses of nuclear energy despite their multiple death threats against you country and their calling you the 'great Satan', but never mind its all talk of a mad man." Who's supporting terrorist attacks? Who made their great start as a new nation by taking American's hostage? We could end this cold war, but removing those in power who wage it, this becomes much easier now that Iraq has simmered down and our troops are positioned to accomplish this. I don't know what Putin's problem is, he complains about missile defenses in Poland. I don't see why we should respect his claim to an empire that doesn't exist any more. Poland and other East block countries are independent states able to determine their own independent foreign policy without Russia's meddling. Do they think they own the Poles or something?
Iran simply isn't a geopolitical threat to the US. It is a waste of US time, lives and money to attempt to push around these desert states. As I said before, US money would be better spent developing new technologies that would genuinely benefit its people and maintain economic hegemony. US geopolitical dominance over the past 30 years has far more to do with silicon valley, developing new technologies and the overwhelming strength of the US economy, than it has to do with its military. It is in developing new technologies and new consumer products that the US should overwhelmingly concentrate its attention.
US foreign military intervention has not generally been succesful over the past 30 years and its attempts to coersively control the rest of the world has genertaed adversaries that would otherwise have remained relatively freindly. Iran has become a pain in the backside only in terms of the disruption it causes in Iraq. This would not have been a problem if the US/UK had not invaded Iraq. Zimbabwe is not a geopolitical threat to the UK. Sudan is not a geopolitical threat to either of us. Like I said, we should try to be on as freindly terms with the rest of the world as possible and maintain peace through example.
This does not mean ignoring genuine security threats. The US/UK were correct to intervene when Iraq invaded Kuwait, given that genuine US interests were threatened. But attempting to enforce regime change in Iraq, was clearly beyond our self-interest.
Offline
Iran simply isn't a geopolitical threat to the US. It is a waste of US time, lives and money to attempt to push around these desert states.
Iran controls a good chunk of the world's oil and gas reserves and much of the rest is in its neighborhood. Through its proxy terrorist organizations such as Hezbollah, Iran has destabilized the Middle East and brought endless conflict throughout the region. Iran has close alliances with Russia and China, who in turn use Iran as a proxy in their worldwide struggle with US power.
[color=darkred]Let's go to Mars and far beyond - triple NASA's budget ![/color] [url=irc://freenode#space] #space channel !! [/url] [url=http://www.youtube.com/user/c1cl0ps] - videos !!![/url]
Offline