Originally posted by Superstar
I disagree. Firstly, America is not a peaceful country. They've attacked more countries than Iran, Iraq and North Korea combined. Secondly, Iran has NEVER attacked another country, and I don't see why they would start now. Although I don't like any of the current leaders in Iran, they are not lunatics and would never use nuclear weapons unless it is in retaliation.
Now, some clarification to the "death to America" saying. The parliament in Iran really doesn't represent the people, especially in the recent elections where many reformers were banned from running for seats. The hardliners have a majority in the parliament and they say stupid things like that. The people don't really buy it and have stopped listening to this kind of nonsense. Most Iranians have nothing bad to say about Americans, it's always the American government that is not well liked.
The government of Iran controls its nuclear weapons however, not the people. The parliament saying that is much worse than the people saying the same thing.
When I say peaceful I am talking peaceful in terms of this discussion, with nuclear weapons in the modern age. I would put Pakistan, India and North Korea on the "rogue" list right now as North Korea has threatened nations, used blackmail, and has also received oil, food, and promises of various items just to stop it's program. India and Pakistan have openly threatened each other with nuclear weapons during their standoff last year and have since lead to a cold war type buildup which is a scary thought. Israel has never made a threat with its nuclear weapons and has never even declared or proof shown that they exist so you can't put them on a rogue list.
i think you should thread this. let everyone here see it.
Nov-01-2004 01:46
St_Andrew
I <3 NYC
Registered: May 2003
Location: Stockholm, Sweden
quote:
Originally posted by PHALPAX
I agree that if I was Iran, I would feel insecure right now seeing that the U.S. is in Iraq and Afghanistan. But honestly, their point of view is irrelevant on the issue of nuclear weapons (I emphasize nuclear weapons, not necessarily nuclear technology). In the grand view of things, there’s no genuine “right” for a nation to have nuclear weapons. Any nation can claim a right for nuclear weapons under the guise of defense. Just ask Kim Jong ll
No i agree that there is no right for any country to have nuclear weapons. That means that the US have no right either to have nuclear weapons. So before the US demand Iran to stop their nuclear weapons program, they should also considering stopping their own.
Nov-01-2004 02:39
Superstar
Senior tranceaddict
Registered: Mar 2003
Location: Ottawa, Canada
quote:
Originally posted by Q5echo
oh sure, i'm sure the government wouldn't but that same government has been sponsoring and harboring and exporting more terrorism longer than any middle eastern country in modern history.
Hmm, if they're not crazy enough to use the weapons directly you think they'd be willing to give terrorists nuclear weapons? I'm not sure they would do that either. It would be the end of the country.
quote:
i totally disagree with your notion that America is not a peaceful country. as far as nuclear weapons are concerned we have consistently demonstrated we are the most peacefull and peace seeking nuclear power in the world. can you count how many non-proliferation treaties and strategic arms agreements we have spearheaded in the last 50yrs on two hands?
Oh I know America is doing a lot good initiating and driving nuclear peace in the world. But I still don't see how you can say they are a peaceful country. It's one thing to say they are making the world a better place (and that is another discussion altogether), but saying that they are peaceful when they start most wars is not entirely accurate.
quote:
fantastic link!
bring on the second revolution!
i think you should thread this. let everyone here see it.
Awesome, glad you liked it. And good idea with putting it in a new thread.
Nov-01-2004 03:17
Superstar
Senior tranceaddict
Registered: Mar 2003
Location: Ottawa, Canada
quote:
Originally posted by BadBadNeil
The government of Iran controls its nuclear weapons however, not the people. The parliament saying that is much worse than the people saying the same thing.
Right, but the government wouldn't use those weapons on the offensive. And more clarification to that famous saying... although the literal translation is "death to America", what comes to my mind (and many other Iranians) when I hear it is more like "down with America [its government]". It has taken on a new meaning in peoples' minds.
Nov-01-2004 03:25
Q5echo
asymetrical scepticism
Registered: Feb 2004
Location: Dallas
quote:
Originally posted by Superstar
Hmm, if they're not crazy enough to use the weapons directly you think they'd be willing to give terrorists nuclear weapons? I'm not sure they would do that either. It would be the end of the country.
well, the Taliban proved that theory to be flawed. if given a choice between harboring terrorists that possesed a nuclear device bent on delivering it to New York or harboring terrorist hell bent on flying planes into New York, the Taliban would have no doubt chosen the former.
quote:
Oh I know America is doing a lot good initiating and driving nuclear peace in the world. But I still don't see how you can say they are a peaceful country. It's one thing to say they are making the world a better place (and that is another discussion altogether), but saying that they are peaceful when they start most wars is not entirely accurate.
this is the fundamental difference between the left and the right. i believe the use of force is a necessary evil. but i just happen to be in one of the tiny number of countries that has the will and the power to do so in the name of freedom. thats what i was brought up to believe, and thats what millions people from other countries have witnessed first hand and the rest take for granted.
Nov-01-2004 03:43
Superstar
Senior tranceaddict
Registered: Mar 2003
Location: Ottawa, Canada
I don't like the comparison between the Taliban and the Iranian government. The Iranian government doesn't take away the rights of its citizens to nearly the extent that the Taliban did. For example, women in Iran have more rights than in most middle eastern countries. The judicial system is also not like Taliban Afghanistan. There is some small amount of democracy involved in forming the Iranian government every couple of years. Universities do not get closed down. The media isn't non-existant, etc.
As for the the use of force being a necessity, I was trying to say that this is a different argument. I think your point should be that America is trying to make the world a safer, more peaceful place and help everyone. BUT they are not peaceful, which isn't necessarily a bad thing, and it's not right to say they are peaceful when they start wars every few years.
Nov-01-2004 05:52
hardcore trancer
Mystic Mind
Registered: Jan 2002
Location: Toronto,Canada
quote:
Originally posted by Q5echo
well, the Taliban proved that theory to be flawed. if given a choice between harboring terrorists that possesed a nuclear device bent on delivering it to New York or harboring terrorist hell bent on flying planes into New York, the Taliban would have no doubt chosen the former.
There is the problem right there,because we are beside Afghanistan it makes most American think that we have Al Quada operating in Iran and that we are terrorist and such,unfortunatly there is alot of lack ok knowledge from the people in the Us and the media makes everything even worse.
Originally posted by Superstar
I don't like the comparison between the Taliban and the Iranian government. The Iranian government doesn't take away the rights of its citizens to nearly the extent that the Taliban did. For example, women in Iran have more rights than in most middle eastern countries. The judicial system is also not like Taliban Afghanistan. There is some small amount of democracy involved in forming the Iranian government every couple of years. Universities do not get closed down. The media isn't non-existant, etc.
the only parallels between Iran and the Taliban that get my utmost attention are the ones that involve jihad. they are the only parallels i have brought up. and i agree that the whole of Iran is not the sum of it's people
quote:
As for the the use of force being a necessity, I was trying to say that this is a different argument. I think your point should be that America is trying to make the world a safer, more peaceful place and help everyone. BUT they are not peaceful, which isn't necessarily a bad thing, and it's not right to say they are peaceful when they start wars every few years.
originaly we were dicussing nuclear peace.
conventional force will always be necessary...some of the time.
it's usually the other guy that decides what time.
