Originally posted by: michaelpatrick33
Originally posted by: Dari
Originally posted by: michaelpatrick33
Originally posted by: Dari
Originally posted by: michaelpatrick33
Originally posted by: Dari
Originally posted by: Jaskalas
Originally posted by: flavio
The US and the UN should recognize that Iran had gone above and beyond the requirement of the NPT (which Israel won't sign) which had all but halted their nuclear energy program (which the US helped start).
While in full compliance (while the US hasn't been) they start getting threats.
I imagine this could piss people off.
Do you intend to say we should recognize Iran's right to shrouded nuclear technology? Suppose if you make excuses for it....
Why do you believe that they do not deserve nuclear technology? Are they any less of a people than the Indians, Israelis, Pakistanis, French, British, Russians, or Chinese? Science and technology is a double-edged sword. Tell me, whose the gatekeeper to science and technology? Israel/America/Britain? Who?
Maybe because the leader of the country developing the nuke technology is currently stating that a fellow nation should be "wiped off the map." Who are you kidding. I wish Pakistan did not have nukes either (or anyone for that matter) but until you have leaders who don't talk about obliterating other countries (and our President (US)and his bunker busting nuke idiocy is not to be ignored) you shouldn't have access to nukes. Irresponsible madness does not equate rights and historical wrongs don't allow for nuclear rights.
Iran should not have nuclear technology until such time they demonstrate rational thought processes. I wish my President didn't have bunker nukes at his command also.
And who is going to tell them when it's ok to have nukes? When they kowtow to Bush or another American President and we become allies? Who? The international community? The family of nations?
I seriously doubt that you can answer that question in a rational manner, unless you're telling me your wishes. The point is the people of Iran are not as dumb or crazy as people think they are. The President of Iran has a Ph.d in Civil Engineering and still teaches graduate level courses. Israel, like many countries in Africa and the Middle East, are synthetic states. If things had taken their natural course, Israel would not exist today. Many Muslims clearly don't want Israel around and a leader speaks for many. Nevertheless, the Iranian President is not an irrational individual and his talk is rhetoric, not unlike Bush saying things like "You're either with us or you're with the terrorists." Many people the world over don't want to be with either camp. But Bush, like the Iranian President, don't live in a vacuum and they have no problem solving their problems diplomatically, although Bush likes aggression more.
But the fact is the people of Iran have as much right as any other nation to science and technology.
Hmm you personally insult me by claiming I cannot answer in a rational manner?
You are seriously telling me that publically stating a neighboring country should be wiped off the map is nothing short than irrational extremism? I don't care if the president of Iran has a PhD or if he is an uneducated man. You have downplayed his "rhetoric" which is in itself telling. Point out to me where President Bush (who I never voted for, disagree with on most issues including foreign policy) stated that a nation (and its people) should be wiped off the map? A leader of a nation desiring nuclear technology making such statements automatically creates a mistrust in the international community and as such you will observe the the Security Council (with more than the US and Britain) are threatening sanctions.
Israel is a synthetic state? So that means what exactly in the current geopolitcial construct? They should be "wiped off the map?" I guess Germany and Japan are also "synthetic" states since the US and its allies helped remold them after World War II. Should they be "wiped off the map?" HMMM Israel existed before Mohammed (may Allah bless him and grant him peace) was given the Beloved message so I could argue that Palestine was in fact a synthetic state and as such the Allied powers were rectifying an ancient wrong.
I am not Jewish or particularly sympathetic to Israel either. I find their treatment of the Palestinians abominable but I also find the terrorists acts equally abominable because they use the name of Allah to justify their evils.
Yes that was simple rhetoric, not unlike what Bush said: "You're either with us or you're with the terrorists." What does Bush do with terrorists? What does that tell you?
As for Israel being synthetic, it was created from sympathy and grief of a punished people. The winners of WWII gave her land because they felt sorry for the Jewish cause celebre. Israel didn't fight to conquer that land, it was simply given. That is unnatural in human history.
Again, giving them nuclear reactors but not weapons is insulting, as if they're children. I don't expect it to happen and neither should you. We can argue 'til the end of time over the rights of nations, but the fact is a lot can be solved by respecting each other, not threatening. I can't imagine you backing down to a threat, then why would the people of Iran? God willing, this nuclear standoff will come to a conflict and we'll see who'll be left standing once the dust has cleared. What I mean is is America and the West willing to go for broke over the universal right of man, which is knowledge?
If yes, then the pain will be spread all around.
If no, then sensible heads would've prevailed and a dialogue between civilizations can commence at once.
I see you ignored my commentary on your rather amusing attempt to devalue my arguments with your personal attacks on my ability to rationally debate geopolitcal history and politics. Anyway ...
First lines: "Yes that was simple rhetoric, not unlike what Bush said: "You're either with us or you're with the terrorists." What does Bush do with terrorists? What does that tell you?"
It tells me that a President of a sovereign nation attacked by a group of individuals declared war on them.
To equate this statement with the "wipe a nation of the map" statement as equal rhetoric is simply a denial on your part about the irresponsibility of Iran's leader (as you have rather obviously ignored, I have stated my disagreements with my nations current Executive branch's policies for the most part). Stating you are with us or against us is politically naive and goofy in my opinion but stating another nation should be wiped off the map is not rhetoric it is extremism. The Iranian President has repeatedly made provacative comments concerning Israel which gives even China, France and Russia pause (most definitely not American allies on the Security Council).
Second line: As for Israel being synthetic, it was created from sympathy and grief of a punished people. The winners of WWII gave her land because they felt sorry for the Jewish cause celebre. Israel didn't fight to conquer that land, it was simply given. That is unnatural in human history.
Jewish cause celebre? first, how many million Jews died and you call it "cause celebre". Rather cavalier and disgusting in my opinion. The second part of the above line seems to indicate that conquering land (wiping it off the map?) is acceptable if it conquered and not given by another nation? You should go back and take some history courses concerning wars and nation building if you actually believe what you just stated. Unnatural in human history? I think not (except for the whole war concept which is disgusting but apparently natural to human history). By that argument I could simply say that the Great Powers conquered Palestine and simply gave the ruling of said Province to Israel. Circular logic abounds here.
Third lines: Again, giving them nuclear reactors but not weapons is insulting, as if they're children. I don't expect it to happen and neither should you. We can argue 'til the end of time over the rights of nations, but the fact is a lot can be solved by respecting each other, not threatening. I can't imagine you backing down to a threat, then why would the people of Iran?
God willing, this nuclear standoff will come to a conflict and we'll see who'll be left standing once the dust has cleared." What I mean is is America and the West willing to go for broke over the universal right of man, which is knowledge?
When the leaders of your nation make horrendously callous and inhumane statements concerning the genocide of millions of people you can expect them to be treated warily and like a child. Last time I checked Israel or any other nation has not stated that Iran should be wiped off the map. The bolded above sounds suspiciously like a warlike posture that rather closely parallels the Iranian President's "rhetoric". What exactly are you implying? Why have you introduced conflict and "we'll see who'll be left standing" to this debate? This sounds very similar to the position of certain extremists in the Middle East. You are actually stating in the bold above you want this to come to a conflict and that God willing innocents should/could die? Your use of God willing implies an Islamic faith; God willing Allah will bless the Israelis and Palestinians to a peaceful accord of sister and brotherhood. You talk about respecting each other and honestly can say that "wiping Israel off the map" is indicative of such respect. Ridiculous. Your lines in this section are completely paradoxical. Basically you are saying let us respect each other and come to war so that can be settled. Ridiculous.
Fourth and fifth line:If yes, then the pain will be spread all around. If no, then sensible heads would've prevailed and a dialogue between civilizations can commence at once.
Your arrogance is astonishing. You threaten conflict "God willing" concering the US, actually try to claim the Iranian's provacative dialogue (condemned by nations around the world) is rhetoric and act like you deserve nuclear weapons and that only the US and Great Britain are standing in your way (China, Russia and France you seem to ignore are also on the Security Council and are now accepting the threat of sanctions because of Irans' leaders rash actions). What pain will be spread around? Why has pain and war come into this debate? Who has introduced in this debate war and conflict? Again how can a you honestly rationally speak about dialogue between civilizations when one side is talking about "wiping another nation off the map?"
Edit: I have grown weary of this argument and let us agree to disagree. I will never agree that Iran should have access to nuclear technology as long as they have leaders making statements condoning mass genocide and you will never agree that the US and Great Britain are protecting the world from a leader who is at best irresponsible and at worst terrorist supporting and a madman.
Facebook
Twitter