Originally posted by Fir3start3r
This thread is moot anyways - everyone knows Iran has no love of anything 'Western'... :rolleyes:
wow you are even bigger of an idiot that I originaly thought you were.I think it is time for you to travel the world a little bit since you dont have a damn clue about anything.
hardcore trancer
quote:
Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN
really? why do they kill fags then? or rape victims? why do they routinely suppress freedom of expression? western music? why have they had a habit of discouraging socialising with the other gender
not saying the US should invade of course, but let's not pretend the (real) government of the day is anything but a religious dictatorship.
Why are you trying to make Iran look as if it is the worst country to live in? believe it or not I have many family members living there right now and they are just fine,I wont deny that things arent perfect there but they sure arent as bad you think they are.
we have bigger and greater problems in this world and they are simply being ignored,yet we go and pick on Irans way of dealing with its criminals.Let Iran be Iran and let the people choose their way.They got rid of Shah before and Iam sure they can get rid of this regime once they are ready,but untill then stay the away from Iran and let them be.
pkcRAISTLIN
quote:
Originally posted by hardcore trancer
Why are you trying to make Iran look as if it is the worst country to live in?
that really wasn't my intention. i just wanted a little bit of clarity for the rabid american-haters.
quote:
Originally posted by hardcore trancer
Let Iran be Iran and let the people choose their way. They got rid of Shah before and Iam sure they can get rid of this regime once they are ready,but untill then stay the away from Iran and let them be.
yes, i would agree that letting the people choose would be excellent. now if only someone would explain that to the islamic dogmatists at the pointy end of the government that seem content to bully the populace with antiquated superstitions.
hardcore trancer
quote:
Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN
yes, i would agree that letting the people choose would be excellent. now if only someone would explain that to the islamic dogmatists at the pointy end of the government that seem content to bully the populace with antiquated superstitions.
They got rid of Shah didnt they? when the time is right they will rise and make the right decision. The last thing Iran needs right now is a regime change by the US and the result of that will just everything up once again.
shaolin_Z
I fail to see why the eniter world should confrom to being a secular mess too btw. Modern secular states have more blood on their hands than non-secular systems ever could... plus the social fabric isn't totally ed like it is for us here. Regardless of how much you may or may not hate religion, it certainly has it's advantages over secular hedonism.
Q5echo
Admiral Fallon on CNN.
"I don’t believe for a second president bush wants a war with Iran. The situation with Iran is very complex. People sometimes portray it or try to portray it in very simplistic terms we’re against Iran, we want to go to war with Iran, we want to be close to them, the reality is in international politics that many aspects to many of these situations and I believe in our relationship with Iran we need to be strong and firm and convey the principles on which this country stands and upon which our policies are based. At the same time demonstrate a willingness and openness to engage in dialogue because there are things we can find in common."
some of you alarmist are being fed the same conspiracy driven garbage we've all come to associate with the politics of fear.
edit> player won't embed
shaolin_Z
mndeg
interesting spin by the media on what he said
there must be a group of people working together to coordinate this mass media spinning of information. there's no way it's separate entities deciding to do the same thing
there's still that thing with him saying gays don't exist in Iran, haha. that's funny.
pkcRAISTLIN
quote:
Originally posted by shaolin_Z
I fail to see why the eniter world should confrom to being a secular mess too btw. Modern secular states have more blood on their hands than non-secular systems ever could... plus the social fabric isn't totally ed like it is for us here. Regardless of how much you may or may not hate religion, it certainly has it's advantages over secular hedonism.
i'd like to hear the argument that explains the relationship between secular political systems and "mess[es]". or that the "blood on the hands" is somehow inherent to the secular nature of some societies.
nothing controls people like religion backed by violence.
anyway, are you really going to accuse countries like the US of being secular states? ;) :p
shaolin_Z
quote:
Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN
i'd like to hear the argument that explains the relationship between secular political systems and "mess[es]". or that the "blood on the hands" is somehow inherent to the secular nature of some societies.
Oh boy, that's a book in itself... but the point really was, everything has it's pros and cons and we tend to only view the pros of what we consider "ours" and see the cons of what we consider "theirs." I'm not refering to any specific place or people really, just contrast in general. :)
quote:
Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN
nothing controls people like religion backed by violence.
Indeed, but nothing controls people better than democracy backed up by a lapdog media and consumerism as the dominant value ;).
quote:
Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN
anyway, are you really going to accuse countries like the US of being secular states? ;) :p
Relative to other western countries... perhaps not entirely... but to the non-western world, yes! I think America is more insane as a nation than anything else to be honest :sadgreen:, both as a people and a state, and very schizophrenic, a danger to ourselves and the rest of the world. And royaly ed :wtf:.
EDIT: On American Empire
George Smiley
quote:
Originally posted by Krypton
Let's use our brains for just a second...
Erm you do realise you're talking to CHRles right!?
CHRles (and his mate e^mc2) are incapable of expanding their knowledge on a particular subject out of absolute fear that that knowledge might fly in the face of their ignorant prejudices they have been indoctrinated with, either through an extremist right wing Christian upbringing, or an extremist right wing Jewish upbringing
Point in case - anyone who criticises Israeli policy is an anti-Semitic terrorist lover who wants to see Israel "wiped off the map" and all Jews dead. Yet every single person that accusation has been made against, afaik, supports a two state solution where Israel is secure and left in peace!
Now we're talking about Iran and, predictably, the thread is split between two groups: Those who take with a pinch of salt the supposed threat Iran poses to Israel, and those who would like to capitalise on that supposed threat to take a harder line with Iran. Yet both sides will put forward (fairly!) rational arguments whereas CHRles and e^mc2 (when he undoubtedly turns up to give us all a laugh) cannot even read what anyone else says and just presses the paste button from their megaphones
I don't think Iran poses any kind of threat to anyone. I just think their leader has a very very similar personality to Boris Johnson. He's a complete populist who says what he needs to to appear a strong leader and popular with his population. Is he "mad"? No, no way. The "mad dictator" I think is more an invention of Hollywood films rather than an accurate portrayal of some world leaders. You don't get to rule a nation state if you're "mad". A bastard, yes, but mad? No.
So in my opinion, Ahmadinejad, as religious as he is (or appears), is certainly not irrational (you can read his thoughts on his own blog: here!). I therefore don't think he would do anything to put himself, and his regime, in jeopardy. Attacking Israel, I think we can ALL agree, would lead to the elimination of his regime (not by America, but by Israel alone)
Does anyone really think Ahmadinejad would seriously not care about that?
As for nuclear weapons, I think Iran probably would like to have nuclear weapons, but not as an offensive force (nuclear weapons are not offensive if your "enemy" also has nuclear weapons), but as a safety policy against America and the fate suffered by Saddam's regime
shaolin_Z
^^^ Nice post. Except, I actually have the most 'unrealistic' proposition of a single shared state solution which would be awesome but very unlikely... ultimately that is... ofcourse being somewhat of an anarchist I'm not fond of states in the first place, and I mean anarchist in the political sense not the completey misrepresented "chaos and disorder" sense.
