DeletedUser5046
i say no to nukes....
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
DeletedUser
The fact that Iran is developing nuclear weapons absolutely insures there will be war there soon. Israel will not sit idly by and let them develop weapons that will allow them to fulfill their leaders' promise to "Wipe Israel off the map...".
WHEN this war happens, do not blame Israel, the U.S., or Britain. Iran can stop at any time yet they choose not to. This is their choice and that choice will, most assuredly, bring war.
WHEN this war happens, do not blame Israel, the U.S., or Britain. Iran can stop at any time yet they choose not to. This is their choice and that choice will, most assuredly, bring war.
DeletedUser
why should iran not have nukes when israel who shell daily arab civilians do.israel will not start a war without america's backing
DeletedUser
Selective reasoning there flyn? Why do you so conveniently ignore the provocation of shelling posed against Isreal?why should iran not have nukes when israel who shell daily arab civilians do.israel will not start a war without america's backing
DeletedUser
It does not matter if we prevent Iran form getting Nukes for now by destroying their infastrucutre or imposing sanctions because they will always have the knowledge that is the scientists and engineers to do it and being a highly educated culture they will always have a greater ability to so. As well as this the leader of the regime who is the main casue of what people see as the problem has the backing of his country on the nuclear issue because the common Iranian knows Brazil and Japan have nukes but nothing is being imposed against them so why should we not be allowed to have them. But wht most people don't agree with is the fact the The government is the rightful governing body and that is what we should be attacking Iran on something where they know they are weak and iof applied correctly this pressure could change things but the nukes will never leave.
DeletedUser
@hellstorm surely discussing the rights and wrongs of israel would be going off topic.but terrorists bomb israel, israel bombs school,U.N says stop terrorists and israel bomb U.N
DeletedUser
I was not making an argument, I was simply stating what will happen. If Iran does not stop with the nuke crap there will be war, period.
Flyn, if you think the Israelis don't ever get attacked by terrorists why don't you take a job as a bus driver in Tel Aviv.
Flyn, if you think the Israelis don't ever get attacked by terrorists why don't you take a job as a bus driver in Tel Aviv.
DeletedUser
flyn, it is not off-topic, because the argument you presented is that Israel has nuclear weapons, and thus so should Iran.
DeletedUser
The fact that Iran is developing nuclear weapons absolutely insures there will be war there soon. Israel will not sit idly by and let them develop weapons that will allow them to fulfill their leaders' promise to "Wipe Israel off the map...".
WHEN this war happens, do not blame Israel, the U.S., or Britain. Iran can stop at any time yet they choose not to. This is their choice and that choice will, most assuredly, bring war.
Israel likely feels the same about the Muslims or at least Muslim holy sites
-Dome of the Rock is the second holiest site in Islam.
-It is the first holiest site in Judaism.
-It is currently controlled by Muslims, I don't think its a particular country persay, but it may be by Palestine as they share Jerusaelem with them.
- It sits ontop of Solomon's Temple (which is why its most holiest site for Jews, the mosque isnt, but the ground its on)
- They beleive Solomon's Temple must be rebuilt for the Second Coming or Salvation, or such.
To do so, they would have to destroy the Mosque, this upsetting all Muslims, causing a great war. Muslims feel threatened by the Isreali government through harrassment to get to the Mosque as well as ideas which would conflict with Muslim ideas.
Iran would never nuke Israel as it would be destroying almost all, if not all Muslim holy sites ... whether destroying them or making it unsafe to be near or in them through fallout. The same with other Muslim lead nations. At least mainstream Muslims, the current Iranian president is a Sunni but he also beleieves in a hidden Imam ... forget the requirement for the Imam to show himself, I don't think it involves anything to do with Jews, Jewish holy sites, or Isreal
DeletedUser
everyone should have nukes it would solve all the worlds problems.i'd take a job as a tel aviv bus driver can't be more dangerous than being one in south armagh
DeletedUser
Israel likely feels the same about the Muslims or at least Muslim holy sites
-Dome of the Rock is the second holiest site in Islam.
-It is the first holiest site in Judaism.
-It is currently controlled by Muslims, I don't think its a particular country persay, but it may be by Palestine as they share Jerusaelem with them.
- It sits ontop of Solomon's Temple (which is why its most holiest site for Jews, the mosque isnt, but the ground its on)
- They beleive Solomon's Temple must be rebuilt for the Second Coming or Salvation, or such.
To do so, they would have to destroy the Mosque, this upsetting all Muslims, causing a great war. Muslims feel threatened by the Isreali government through harrassment to get to the Mosque as well as ideas which would conflict with Muslim ideas.
Iran would never nuke Israel as it would be destroying almost all, if not all Muslim holy sites ... whether destroying them or making it unsafe to be near or in them through fallout. The same with other Muslim lead nations. At least mainstream Muslims, the current Iranian president is a Sunni but he also beleieves in a hidden Imam ... forget the requirement for the Imam to show himself, I don't think it involves anything to do with Jews, Jewish holy sites, or Isreal
Ahmadinejad is a SHIA muslim not a Sunni.
DeletedUser
Now now, don't confuse his argument with important facts like that Bendos.
DeletedUser
Being Shia change the point, I had forgotten Iran was one of the few Shia majorities. I believe it is hard to have a high office if you aren't Shia, so that would make since.
I had known that it was a small sect who believed in the hidden Imam, but the majority of Muslims don't. I believe the Sunnis actually tried or succeeded in bombing some grave sites related to him, that of family members.
I think most people don't understand that bring democracy to Muslims is against their religious belief. That is why it is rare for Muslim countries to be democratic, they are best as a theocracy.
I had known that it was a small sect who believed in the hidden Imam, but the majority of Muslims don't. I believe the Sunnis actually tried or succeeded in bombing some grave sites related to him, that of family members.
I think most people don't understand that bring democracy to Muslims is against their religious belief. That is why it is rare for Muslim countries to be democratic, they are best as a theocracy.
DeletedUser
Wow, that was a great display of being wrong right there.
Don't confuse the terms "muslim country", and "islamic country".
There is a world of difference.
As for "shia", there are oodles of shia sects but it is used as an "umbrella" term, catching all the "non-sunni".
There are variations that are more common than others though, but this could easily be read up on.
I'd love to see where your argument about islam and democracy being incompatible goes though.
Don't confuse the terms "muslim country", and "islamic country".
There is a world of difference.
As for "shia", there are oodles of shia sects but it is used as an "umbrella" term, catching all the "non-sunni".
There are variations that are more common than others though, but this could easily be read up on.
I'd love to see where your argument about islam and democracy being incompatible goes though.
DeletedUser
Keep spouting your ignorance. It's entertaining.everyone should have nukes it would solve all the worlds problems.i'd take a job as a tel aviv bus driver can't be more dangerous than being one in south armagh
flyn, one of the reasons for limiting the spread of nuclear weapons is to, hopefully and eventually, disarm all nations of nuclear weapons. If more nations are in possession of them, all that much harder for international disarmament. Another reason is because some nations are simply not grounded, not stable, not based on logic/reason. Iran and North Korea both have unstable governments, one with a dictatorship and the other with a theocracy. And then there's also the issue I brought up earlier, which is that both Iran and North Korea have a history of supporting and selling arms to terrorist-like organizations, which gives a strong chance they will provide nuclear weapons to "non-nation" groups.
You have this ridiculous belief that if everyone has a nuclear weapon, it will prevent the use of such. Let me ask you this simple question: If everyone has a gun, is everyone going to store it on a mantelpiece? A few nuclear explosions, committed by non-nation entities, leaves no clear targets for retribution. A few nuclear explosions, committed by nation entities, leaves clear targets for retribution, but even retribution will not destroy the world. There are some nations' leaders who will use whatever power is within their possession to obtain their agenda, their goals, and nuclear weapons are not world-enders.
As the experiences of the U.S./U.S.S.R. cold war have taught us, stable governments/people ultimately come to reasoned management of power, whilst unstable governments/people use whatever is within their means to reach their goals, at whatever the resulting greater outcome.
But that's okay flyn, keep responding, for I enjoy reading your ridiculous one-liners. They tell me so much about so little that you can offer to this discussion. Truth is, I'm hoping maybe you'll surprise me and offer something substantive, relevant, cognitive.
Making claims does not make it true, and in this case, you're wrong on so many levels. Of course, if you're inclined to validate your arguments with something concrete, that would be nice; but I'm really not interested in make-believe statements.I think most people don't understand that bring democracy to Muslims is against their religious belief. That is why it is rare for Muslim countries to be democratic, they are best as a theocracy.
Last edited by a moderator:
DeletedUser
Democracy is a man-made concept, as is capitalism ... now if I had said Fascism and Communism, I doubt anyone would have objected, but these ideas are man made and therefore not absolute. The Military and many in America think they are doing what is best by saying "We bring Democracy!" But this is an ethnocentric view, as the view Democracy as the best thing. This is like if the Nazis had come to America saying they bring Eugenics. Eugenics is flawed, just as Democracy is flawed, but to a Muslim, the Koran is not. It is uncorrupted by man. Eugenics may sound good to a point ... better health, stronger, etc ... but it has its downsides, just as Democracy does.
The Muslims should decide what they want to do. Look at the recent Afghanistan election ... it failed, there was much corruption. They weren't given a choice to make their own government. They were forced to hold a democratic election. America has been pushing too hard and too fast and is making many blunders.
Theocracys are not perfect either, no government is. Yet Iran is one ... and if anyone kept up with news the past month or so, they had riots. The type of governments which have been around are feeling shaken by the Western intervention ... if not my physical means ... soldiers, contractors, preachers ... then by the intangible means ... Democracy, equality, and so on.
Look at the United States ... it has passed the 150th aniversary of the Emancipation Proclamation, and still inequality exist, slavery may not exist openly, but financially or socially it may.
Also Hellstromm ... US has sold weapons to terrorist or people they later fought. One day a friend, the next an enemy.
Anyways, it seems Iran is making a deal about its Uranium, having it processed in France to be downgraded. I think its hypocritical that the US is so against other nation obtaining Nuclear weapons when they have so many. I believe there should be NONE ... but it isn't balanced if only a few have them and most don't.
South Africa is the only country to ever achieve Nuclear weapons and totally dismount their weapons program.
The Muslims should decide what they want to do. Look at the recent Afghanistan election ... it failed, there was much corruption. They weren't given a choice to make their own government. They were forced to hold a democratic election. America has been pushing too hard and too fast and is making many blunders.
Theocracys are not perfect either, no government is. Yet Iran is one ... and if anyone kept up with news the past month or so, they had riots. The type of governments which have been around are feeling shaken by the Western intervention ... if not my physical means ... soldiers, contractors, preachers ... then by the intangible means ... Democracy, equality, and so on.
Look at the United States ... it has passed the 150th aniversary of the Emancipation Proclamation, and still inequality exist, slavery may not exist openly, but financially or socially it may.
Also Hellstromm ... US has sold weapons to terrorist or people they later fought. One day a friend, the next an enemy.
Anyways, it seems Iran is making a deal about its Uranium, having it processed in France to be downgraded. I think its hypocritical that the US is so against other nation obtaining Nuclear weapons when they have so many. I believe there should be NONE ... but it isn't balanced if only a few have them and most don't.
South Africa is the only country to ever achieve Nuclear weapons and totally dismount their weapons program.
DeletedUser
Breth, your rambling about democracy was, well, a ramble. It does not address the main point of discussion, which is that of nuclear weapons in the hands of North Korea or Iran. Also, the implementation of a theocracy is one interpretation of the Koran, but it is not a universal interpretation, as many Muslims feel it places certain men above others, which is contra to Koran law (or, more aptly, Allah's will). If you wish to argue anything, it is that they favor a theocratic democracy.
In the Afghanistan argument, you are confusing Islamic with Muslim, and confusing political corruption with Muslim beliefs. I cannot help but feel this is an intentional blurring on your part.
As to the U.S. selling arms to terrorist, this is not the case (at least there's no evidence to substantiate this), but they did sell to groups who were later opponents. However, much of this occurred during the Cold War, and the groups they assisted served a greater agenda at the time. It might help if you watch the movie, Charlie Wilson's War. It will give you insight into the motives, but will also show you how the U.S. dropped the ball in some instances that later proved to be problematic.
Your argument is also flawed, in that the U.S., whilst owning nuclear weapons, never sold nuclear weapons to any non-nation group, nor is there any evidence to support the "stories" that U.S. sold WMDs to any nation or group. But, I do not disagree the military-industrial complex, supported by the U.S. after WWII, has fostered many problems worldwide. Still, again, that has nothing to do with nuclear weapons, nor with the "destroy Isreal," "destroy the U.S.," destroy this or that rallying cries of Iran and North Korea's standing governments.
In the Afghanistan argument, you are confusing Islamic with Muslim, and confusing political corruption with Muslim beliefs. I cannot help but feel this is an intentional blurring on your part.
As to the U.S. selling arms to terrorist, this is not the case (at least there's no evidence to substantiate this), but they did sell to groups who were later opponents. However, much of this occurred during the Cold War, and the groups they assisted served a greater agenda at the time. It might help if you watch the movie, Charlie Wilson's War. It will give you insight into the motives, but will also show you how the U.S. dropped the ball in some instances that later proved to be problematic.
Your argument is also flawed, in that the U.S., whilst owning nuclear weapons, never sold nuclear weapons to any non-nation group, nor is there any evidence to support the "stories" that U.S. sold WMDs to any nation or group. But, I do not disagree the military-industrial complex, supported by the U.S. after WWII, has fostered many problems worldwide. Still, again, that has nothing to do with nuclear weapons, nor with the "destroy Isreal," "destroy the U.S.," destroy this or that rallying cries of Iran and North Korea's standing governments.
DeletedUser
You aren't making a lot of sense. Muslims are people too, just like everybody else, they can believe in capitalism, communism or fascism, and they can certainly live happily in a democracy.Democracy is a man-made concept, as is capitalism ... now if I had said Fascism and Communism, I doubt anyone would have objected, but these ideas are man made and therefore not absolute. The Military and many in America think they are doing what is best by saying "We bring Democracy!" But this is an ethnocentric view, as the view Democracy as the best thing. This is like if the Nazis had come to America saying they bring Eugenics. Eugenics is flawed, just as Democracy is flawed, but to a Muslim, the Koran is not. It is uncorrupted by man. Eugenics may sound good to a point ... better health, stronger, etc ... but it has its downsides, just as Democracy does.
You might as well claim that Christians and Jews cannot live in a stable democratic rule, because they would prefer a theocracy based on their sacred texts.
Iran had a burgeoning democracy after world war 2, until they wanted to nationalise their oil resources (which were controlled entirely by British corporations, as a legacy of colonialism) whereupon the English and Americans interceded, and installed an unpopular autocracy which was later overthrown and replaced by the current theocracy.
DeletedUser
Aye, forgot about that. Well argued George.Iran had a burgeoning democracy after world war 2, until they wanted to nationalise their oil resources (which were controlled entirely by British corporations, as a legacy of colonialism) whereupon the English and Americans interceded, and installed an unpopular autocracy which was later overthrown and replaced by the current theocracy.
DeletedUser
not once did i say giving nuclear weapons to everyone would stop using them quite the opposite they would use them and depopulate the earth to the extent that war and prejudice would end as everyone struggles to survive
Share: