[quote]Gkhan wrote:
On a similar note, did anyone hear about the Iranian Pres wanting to visit the 9-11 site in New York and place a wreath there?
Which got me thinking, a wreath for who exactly? The 3000 New Yorkers who died there or the 10 hijackers?[/quote]
On Iran and 9/11…
Iran’s Ayatollah Imami Kashani spoke of a catastrophic act of terrorism which could only be condemned by all Muslims, adding the whole world should mobilize against terrorism. In Iran, Tehran’s main soccer stadium observed an unprecedented minute’s silence in sympathy with the victims.
[quote]Sifu wrote:
Civil? Lixy you can’t be serious about that. If they were serious about keeping it solely civil they should take steps to reassure the rest of the world.
They could easily get the Russians or Chinese to do their enriching for them and avoid any controversy. [/quote]
Yes, they could but I guess they don’t wanna be anybody’s bitch…
Would you want your country to rely on some foreign state supplying it with fuel that you have every right to make on your own?
This whole story reeks of double-standard!
Did you somehow forget that Iran was in the “axis of evil” not too long ago? They aren’t bringing problems on themselves. The risk was there all along and regardless of their nuclear ambitions.
You are a sham, lixy. You do not abhor violence, as a true pacifist does.
Mahatma Gandhi was a pacifist. Did you ever hear him suggest retaliatory strikes? Ever?
Yes, actually.
“I do believe that, where there is only a choice between cowardice and violence, I would advise violence… I would rather have India resort to arms in order to defend her honour than that she should, in a cowardly manner, become or remain a helpless witness to her own dishonor.”–Mahatma Gandhi
I imagine an invasion of their country would be viewed by the Persians as an extreme affront of their honor, and failure to retaliate against the invader the height of cowardice. Were Gandhi an Iranian today, even being a pacifist, I believe he would express the same sentiments.[/quote]
Good find, my friend. Perhaps I’m projecting my morality on the memory of Gandhi, but I believe that he would shed a tear, nonetheless.
Edit:
Furthermore, there is the difference between retaliation and defense. If I may use examples to illustrate my point: armed resistance to defend ones’ home is quite different than detonating an incendiary device in Trafalgar Square on Midsummers Night Eve.
Dustin,
You do understand that sentences are in a paragraph for a reason, right? The analogy wrt the heart surgeon referred to Osama’s #2 being an expert on the Koran. He has to be, to use it to fool young Muslims. Heart surgeon…Imam…connection by analogy. Sinking in?
[/quote]
Your analogy is as bad as your overall argument. Naturally, OBL’s number two is not an expert on the Koran. Hence the term “Extremist”. An expert on the Koran would not advocate killing innocence anymore than an expert of the Christian Bible.
If I “missed” your analogy, it’s because your posts are void of any logic or rationale. At least that’s the case normally.
Meanwhile slaughtering everyone else that isn’t “evil”. Your solution to “evil” (that doesn’t exist) everywhere is to use force. It doesn’t matter who’s on the receiving end as long as it’s not you and the the action can cloaked in these ridiculous notions of democracy and Americanism.
The nation-state is not evil, good, or moral. Quit labeling everything as such. It’s pure propaganda, period.
Try to make coherent posts that aren’t filled with regurgitated slogans and silly rhetoric.
[quote]lixy wrote:
Sifu wrote:
Civil? Lixy you can’t be serious about that. If they were serious about keeping it solely civil they should take steps to reassure the rest of the world.
They could easily get the Russians or Chinese to do their enriching for them and avoid any controversy.
Yes, they could but I guess they don’t wanna be anybody’s bitch…
Would you want your country to rely on some foreign state supplying it with fuel that you have every right to make on your own?
This whole story reeks of double-standard![/quote]
Iran’s Ayatollah Imami Kashani spoke of a catastrophic act of terrorism which could only be condemned by all Muslims, adding the whole world should mobilize against terrorism. In Iran, Tehran’s main soccer stadium observed an unprecedented minute’s silence in sympathy with the victims.
If he said this we missed the boat in regards to normalizing relations with Iran. Like I’ve always said, the war on terror should be the war on al-qaeda, anyone who wants them destoryed, get on the band wagon. Too bad it did not turn out that way.
[quote]lixy wrote:
If you mean that Ethiopia can invade a sovereign country with your support and blessings, it is definitely not OK. I have not seen a single piece of hard evidence linking the Somali government to Al-Qaeda.
[/quote]
Bin Laden said Al-Qaeda were based in Somalia on a tape today.
Hey, I thought you said it was ok if two nations with a common border attacked one another if one were provoked. Also, I believe the Somalians called for Jihad against the Ethopians and the Ethopians went in to prevent this.
“Russia is the world’s top supplier of weapons, a spot it has held since 2001, accounting for around 30% of worldwide weapons sales.[18][19] Russia is the principal weapons supplier of China and India, and provides weapons to Iran, Algeria, Venezuella and other countries. Recent arms deals seem to show that Russia is building on its former influence, both in the Middle East and in Latin America.[20]”
see article below:
[/quote]
I did some research and you’re right, US lost the spot of top arms supplier, in 2005, not 2001 as your wikipedia claims.
Oh, as for the rest of your links, I don’t know if you’re new to this, but Wikipedia doesn’t fly as a source lol. Just FYI.
You are a sham, lixy. You do not abhor violence, as a true pacifist does.
Mahatma Gandhi was a pacifist. Did you ever hear him suggest retaliatory strikes? Ever?
Yes, actually.
“I do believe that, where there is only a choice between cowardice and violence, I would advise violence… I would rather have India resort to arms in order to defend her honour than that she should, in a cowardly manner, become or remain a helpless witness to her own dishonor.”–Mahatma Gandhi
I imagine an invasion of their country would be viewed by the Persians as an extreme affront of their honor, and failure to retaliate against the invader the height of cowardice. Were Gandhi an Iranian today, even being a pacifist, I believe he would express the same sentiments.
Good find, my friend. Perhaps I’m projecting my morality on the memory of Gandhi, but I believe that he would shed a tear, nonetheless.
Edit:
Furthermore, there is the difference between retaliation and defense. If I may use examples to illustrate my point: armed resistance to defend ones’ home is quite different than detonating an incendiary device in Trafalgar Square on Midsummers Night Eve.
Thanks for the refresher in History 101, but the Nazis have nothing to do with the current situation in the Middle East. Different time and different circumstances.
Dustin
[/quote]
Actually the Nazis did a lot to encourage Islamic fanatacism and sowed some of the seeds of what we are seeing today in ther middle east. Look up the Mufti of Jerusalem sometime.
Hey Katz. Thanks for the link. It is always instructional to read a passage in context.
Having read the entire, slightly more nuanced piece, however, I still find no contradiction in Gandhi’s essay of anything I wrote above.
To paraphrase: nonviolence is always superior to violence, all things being equal, and should be pursued until all options are exhausted. When all things become unequal, and it is a question of honorable fight or ignominious defeat, then it is right to fight. So says Mahatma Gandhi.
And so says Lixy as well, if I may be so bold as to venture a guess.
[quote]lixy wrote:
Sifu wrote:
Civil? Lixy you can’t be serious about that. If they were serious about keeping it solely civil they should take steps to reassure the rest of the world.
They could easily get the Russians or Chinese to do their enriching for them and avoid any controversy.
Yes, they could but I guess they don’t wanna be anybody’s bitch…
Would you want your country to rely on some foreign state supplying it with fuel that you have every right to make on your own?
This whole story reeks of double-standard!
If it is only a civil nuclear program then why are they bringing all these problems on themselves? Why risk a massive military strike against their nuclear facilities?
Did you somehow forget that Iran was in the “axis of evil” not too long ago? They aren’t bringing problems on themselves. The risk was there all along and regardless of their nuclear ambitions.[/quote]
In the west we do rely on foreign countries for our fuel. Countries which hate us, like Saudi Arabia and Iran.
Vietnam just two weeks ago gave up its highly enriched uranium fuel from it’s reactor at Da Lat. In exchange for this cooperation the US is supplying them with low enriched fuel and is going to help them develop their civilian nuclear power industry.
The Vietnamese have been through a whole lot more with the US than the Iranians. Yet they are willing to cooperate with the US. In exchange for that they get helped and they don’t have to deal with the problems of producing fuel, like radioactive waste.
If the Iranians cooperated all they would need to do for fuel, is mine uranium, put it on a train to Russia, get complete fuel rods back and avoid all the expense and mess of processing fuel. In the last few months the Russians have sent them fuel rods. So it is not like the Iranians cannot get fuel. The only thing they cannot get is the highly enriched uranium that is used for bombs.
Wether or not it is a double standard is immaterial. What matters is doing what is in the best interest of everyone. Keeping the present government of Iran from having nuclear weapons is in everyones best interest including the Iranian people.
You should give some thought as to what will happen if we have to start blowing up nuclear facilities. Iran could become one big Chernobyl. That the present government of Iran is willing to risk this for no reason, speaks volumes about their recklessness. It also lends credence to the idea that their nuclear program isn’t merely civil in purpose.
As for Iran “supplying” arms, all I’ll say is that the United States is the number 1 arms dealer in the world and if you don’t think a good portion of those end up in the hands of guerilla and rebel factions, militias, terrorist organizations, etc, then you’re an idiot.
I wonder why the AK-47 is the machine gun of choice among terrorists, militias and rebel factions. Why wouldn’t the US sell US made weapons if we are the biggest arms supplier? How does that work, we are the biggest arms supplier and we supply Russian made machine guns? Wouldn’t that make Russia the largest weapons supplier?[/quote]
No, AKs are in use in every corner of the globe because they’re cheap, reliable, and the USSR basically gave away millions of them. Some of the AKs kicking around the Third World are thirty years old are more.
My understanding is that most of what we sell is higher-end stuff, i.e. F-16s, electronics, old MBTs, etc. Pretty sure they do those calculations of weapons sales in price, not number of small arms.
[quote]lixy wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
So you support Iran developing nuclear weapons?
In a sense, it would make the region much more stable. [/quote]
No. The only really good reason I can think of to be seriously scared about a nuclear-armed Iran is the danger of everyone in the Middle East going in that direction. They can’t harm us with nukes without their own destruction, likewise Israel. The same can’t be said for Saudi Arabia, Egypt, the UAE, etc.
Iran with nukes, not a good thing, but just one more shitty situation to worry about, like Pakistan and North Korea. Three or four Arab dictatorships/kleptocracies with nukes, that is a much bigger problem.
[quote]Headhunter wrote:
Iran is not the Soviet Union or China. The leadership in those nations realized that attacking a nation as powerful as the USA was suicide.
The Iranians don’t care. They worship death, which they openly state. [/quote]
OK Headhunter, enlighten us. Who worships death? The nation of Iran? I find that kind of unlikely, given that it’s one of the youngest, most pro-Western countries in the region by almost any measure.
Their leaders? Well, the the country’s run by an aging, conservative/reactionary group of mullahs, so I find that pretty unlikely.
Ahmedinejad? More of a case there, but I doubt he “worships death.” He also isn’t in control of the country, something people like you seem unable to grasp.
But if you’ve got some deep insights into Shiite Islam that the rest of the world’s theologists, diplomats, academics and intelligence agencies don’t, I’d love to hear them.
[quote]GDollars37 wrote:
Iran with nukes, not a good thing, but just one more shitty situation to worry about, like Pakistan and North Korea. Three or four Arab dictatorships/kleptocracies with nukes, that is a much bigger problem.[/quote]
You are trying to invalidate my the-more-nukes-the-more-stability claim? You can’t do that. Look around. How many nuclear nations do you know off have been waging war consistently? Has anyone messed up with your territories after Hiroshima?
You are looking at the issue with America’s interests in mind. And yes, nuclearly armed countries are far less likely to take your shit any longer or let you dictate policy. That is a fact. But, it will make the region much more stable. The US and Israel will have to think twice before launching attacks and they’re not willing to give up these privileges.
[quote]GDollars37 wrote:
lixy wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
So you support Iran developing nuclear weapons?
In a sense, it would make the region much more stable.
No. The only really good reason I can think of to be seriously scared about a nuclear-armed Iran is the danger of everyone in the Middle East going in that direction. They can’t harm us with nukes without their own destruction, likewise Israel. The same can’t be said for Saudi Arabia, Egypt, the UAE, etc.
Iran with nukes, not a good thing, but just one more shitty situation to worry about, like Pakistan and North Korea. Three or four Arab dictatorships/kleptocracies with nukes, that is a much bigger problem.[/quote]
One nuke going off in the middle east would damage the world.
[quote]Sifu wrote:
lixy wrote:
Sifu wrote:
Civil? Lixy you can’t be serious about that. If they were serious about keeping it solely civil they should take steps to reassure the rest of the world.
They could easily get the Russians or Chinese to do their enriching for them and avoid any controversy.
Yes, they could but I guess they don’t wanna be anybody’s bitch…
Would you want your country to rely on some foreign state supplying it with fuel that you have every right to make on your own?
This whole story reeks of double-standard!
If it is only a civil nuclear program then why are they bringing all these problems on themselves? Why risk a massive military strike against their nuclear facilities?
Did you somehow forget that Iran was in the “axis of evil” not too long ago? They aren’t bringing problems on themselves. The risk was there all along and regardless of their nuclear ambitions.
In the west we do rely on foreign countries for our fuel. Countries which hate us, like Saudi Arabia and Iran.
Vietnam just two weeks ago gave up its highly enriched uranium fuel from it’s reactor at Da Lat. In exchange for this cooperation the US is supplying them with low enriched fuel and is going to help them develop their civilian nuclear power industry.
The Vietnamese have been through a whole lot more with the US than the Iranians. Yet they are willing to cooperate with the US. In exchange for that they get helped and they don’t have to deal with the problems of producing fuel, like radioactive waste.
If the Iranians cooperated all they would need to do for fuel, is mine uranium, put it on a train to Russia, get complete fuel rods back and avoid all the expense and mess of processing fuel. In the last few months the Russians have sent them fuel rods. So it is not like the Iranians cannot get fuel. The only thing they cannot get is the highly enriched uranium that is used for bombs.
Wether or not it is a double standard is immaterial. What matters is doing what is in the best interest of everyone. Keeping the present government of Iran from having nuclear weapons is in everyones best interest including the Iranian people.
You should give some thought as to what will happen if we have to start blowing up nuclear facilities. Iran could become one big Chernobyl. That the present government of Iran is willing to risk this for no reason, speaks volumes about their recklessness. It also lends credence to the idea that their nuclear program isn’t merely civil in purpose.[/quote]
Did anyone even hear what the French “diplomat” said?
You’re all buying into HH’s spin. By no way is France “preparing to attack Iran”. Kouchner said that Iran will be attacked if they get nukes. By any standard, they are 5 to 10 years away from getting nuclear weapons (assuming they are trying to build them in the first place).