34 replies to this topic

[huhn_m]

Why do you do this America?

I don't want to join in to the discussion because you all know my stand-point but
I just want to know if you americans aggree with the threatening your president is
doing towards iran and why / why not!

PS: There are allready bets going on in our school when you will attack. The closest wins I set on October the first this year ...

Give peace a chance ...

[Bytefish]

huhn_m, do you really have knowledge about the Iran?
I guess not... I am working together with Iranian People, and
they say the Iran finally will be free if the regime is down.
Iran and Iraq are totally different countries.
The Iran has oil right? But why are the people so poor?
Why could I buy 4 houses or 1 beatiful appartement in the Iran, just
with the money I made from my civil service?
Why are still living all the people in Bam on the street?
Why are childrens consuming Opium and get no help, though they lost
almost all their family?

I am Pro on the war with Iran.

Make your bets, I don't care if I am the only one with that view.
People in the Iran are getting killed if they don't attend the Koran.
Open your mind people, open your mind.
If there is a war, the iran people will back the Americans or international troops.

Thanks for your attention!

[CrimsonCasio]

wow bytie, thats the first time ive heard you say something positive in a while

this is actualy the first i heard about this, so i'll have to turn on the news and get some more info (i basically slept through yesterday... )

[Bob Vila]

heh, this is the first time that i heard of it too

i didnt get to see the inagural speech (stupid chem lab ), but it dosent surprise me after i read a recap...

But the president maintained that the U.S. will support democratic movements in every nation "with the ultimate goal of ending tyranny in our world."

http://www.chicagotr...ack=1&cset=true


btw crimson, did you get my PM?

[CrimsonCasio]

yes, i did.

i havent heard anything specific about Iran... only that quote bob used. (ive been watching the news since i last posted)

[huhn_m]

it was nothing in the speech.

He said it on the start of last week I think.

He said that if Iran would not open its whole Atomar program and say
everything about it a war will be an option. There were even reports that
the army already sent people there to look for valueable targets. This was
not denied by the white house. THey only said that the "report was not exactly correct". THis is in my ears not a denial.

I will not comment on byties post to avoid flaming.


*edit*

I just read that Cheney said that war would not be an option at the moment.
A wise decission ...
http://news.bbc.co.u...ast/4193909.stm

Iran: We can repel U.S. attack

And although the report on CNN, that europes leaders congratulated bush for his speech there is also doubt in it since it is seen as an announcement for more violence. nothing concrete was said and what was said doesn't seem as if america would be too peacefull since americas way to promote peace and democracy seems not to be by the very values of these theories. And I do NOT believe that the US will listen to advisies from countries like russia, china, germany of france when it comes to their war making. I think the allies he means, when he said that he would listen to them are more likely to be the UK or Palao or Iceland ...

Peace Huhn

[CrimsonCasio]

by "Atomar program" do you mean their Nuclear Program? thats enough reason to go to war as it is. And if they really think they can stop us then I invite them to try.

why cant you comment on Byties post? i see nothing wrong with it other than that it expresses a view other than your own and has more merit than your own (or mine) because he's there and we arnt... were all grown up here, im sure he can take it if you get mad at him.

real quick, id like to test something i heard the other day, could everyone please answer these questions (yes or no will do, i'll explain it later), it might not work internationally but its worth a shot...

1) are you in favor of Abortion
2) are you in favor of the death penalty

here's a quote from that first link of yours:

The Bush administration has been repeatedly criticised by its opponents for not admitting mistakes were made in the handling of the occupation of Iraq.

its the last paragraph in the article. Its probably true, but here's my problem with it: in writing, the generally accepted format is to put the conclusion and suimmation of your work at the end, in the last paragraph, which is where this is. the writer of this article has made this comment the conclusion of his work, thus giving the impression that everything discussed in the article is proof of the conclusion, when in fact this statement is apparently pluged onto the end of the story with no relevance what so ever. it simply serves to turn the article from an unbiased presentation of facts into an agenda aginst the president.

still, im not going to say its not true, i think it is. but on a side note, most of the critisim of the war that ive heard has been comming from republicans, I and others think that the president shouldnt be as nice as he is being, i can see why he is, but I really dont care how we look to other countries (the same goes with me personally too, ive never cared what others think about me so long as i felt right with myself), id rather see the job done quickly and effeciently. As it is we're taking great steps to not offend muslims (ok) by not blowing up mosks, etc... even if they are terrorist strongholds. Id blow them to peices if i were in charge, any muslim with brains and the willingness to use them would see that a place of god should be destroyed before letting it be used for evil, i'd say the same about a church, Jesus himself became enraged when he saw that the temple had become a house for theives and so drove them out with violence, why should we not do the same with place that have become homes to murderers? In this, i think bush is being to soft, we should beat our enemies so compleatly that they will never dare to challenge us again, let the survivors remember how nothing they touch is holy and how no quarter was given, and lets see if they teach there children the practices of murder and anarchy. Total war is the only way to truely win, if you dont destroy your enemy to a point that they cannot ever again rise to fight you then you will forever fight the same battles over and over again. This is why japan is not our enemy, we so utterly destroyed their will to fight, but left them better for it.

tell me huhn, do you regret that the US and others made war aginst hitler? are you glad we drove him out, even though the german people were at a millitary high that you still havent recovered (if you'd want to)... hitler brought germany great power in the world, and made germans feared and repected through out the world, yet you are glad he's gone are you not? glad that tyranny has ended for you? glad that the concentration camps are now just examples of what must never happen again? then why do you protest our efforts to end it once and for all? Before this started I would have thought that Germany would be our greatest ally in this fight, why is this not so? the oil for food scandal explains a bit of things, but that should not effect your individual judgement... is it simply pride? i cannot fathom what ideas or beliefs you have to make you think that making war on evil is wrong, for if you dont make war on evil it will make war on you, and you will surely be destroyed.

[Bob Vila]

heh, once again crimson, i totally agree.

btw, for your questions...
1. No
2. Yes

[Andy.Davies]

1. Yes, under sertian surcumstances eg. the baby will me horibly deformed, mutilated, will lead a painful life. and even then im not convinced it should be allowed, as everyone should have the right to try and live.

2. No, no one has the right to kill another, it is just a form of revenge.

[CrimsonCasio]

i guess i should have posted my own response to that question to be fair

1) no, undver virtually no circumstances (only if the mothers and baby's life are surely in danger)

2) yes and no... it really depends on the situation. to be honest i really prefer a more babalonian system of having to endure your own crime. but most people would not like this... (now, note that i differentiate from malicious crime and other crimes, for other crimes I prefer our current system). generally, i'd say no, because i dont believe that its a great thing to kill anyone (though some times it is the right thing), and some people arnt people, their monsters.

[Bob Vila]

forgot to tag on what crimson said about #1

[huhn_m]

1) Yes, but only under certain circumstances (rape, danger of life, very strong illnesses like mental disease (you know what I mean do you?) )
2) I actually am undecided opn this. On one side I say yes because it prevents them from doing this kind of stuff again but on the other hand I'm with andy. I like your suggestion crimson

To Bytie:

1) they say the Iran finally will be free if the regime is down.
2) Iran and Iraq are totally different countries.
3) The Iran has oil right? But why are the people so poor?
4) Why could I buy 4 houses or 1 beatiful appartement in the Iran, just with the money I made from my civil service?
5) Why are still living all the people in Bam on the street?
6) Why are childrens consuming Opium and get no help, though they lost
almost all their family?
7) I am Pro on the war with Iran.
8) People in the Iran are getting killed if they don't attend the Koran.
9) If there is a war, the iran people will back the Americans or international troops.

1) yes but I don't think that they want this to be achived by violence. They HAVE a reasonable peace process already done and are quiote progressive by your threatening you encourage the anti-american and anti-western opinon in these countries and bring down the resistance that is there because the ones who criticise you would be right
2) I agree
3) Not so much that it would be interresting. After what I heared they are important for bauxit. (don't know the intl. name) So americans ... if your aluminium industry suddenly supports the american gov. then you should think ... So who does know nothing about iran?? And no, not all are poor. So what? Take over russia because there people die in winter of the cold on the streets?
4) you could also in coutries like china or brasil ... are these bad countries because of this. this is no reason. You can take nearly every african countrie and have the same situation. So what? Rob & conquer them all?`
5) A just question. but ...l they live not on the street. They live in containers And is this a reason for a war? Than I really must pitty this society.
6) I don't know where you want to get proof for this. And this statement is strange anyways .. in germany children consume heroin and crack ... so what? Take over germany?
7) Then you are pro with an atomar war. and the doom of humanity
8) Again I can't say wether this is true or not but there IS a resistance from within in the countrie and they have already achieved a lot. They are mainly students and if you back the anti-western opinions these will simply have no more chance of a revolution from within.
9) Are you sure? I don't think that a lot of people would watch their countrie beeing conquered by america. In fact I think no nation lies to be conquered. You would also meet HEAVY resistance and they would be right. WOuld you like germany to be taken over by the US because we can't master our countries household? You would not want this.

by "Atomar program" do you mean their Nuclear Program? thats enough reason to go to war as it is

So what with you? What if all nations would join together to go to war against the countrie that thinks it can flood the whole world with unneccesary death and war? And the countrie that exited international ant-atomar agreements? The countrie that exited the disarmement agreements? And do you think at all? They have the atomar bomb and they would for sure not hesitate to use it. just like you would not.

You have also an atomar program. Who gives you the right to denie this program to others? GOD??!?!??!?!?

[CrimsonCasio]

ok, im assuming that you mean Nuclear...

actually, if the united states was attacked right now by (say russia, since they probably have the most nukes), i dont think bush would give the call to return fire... he (and I) would let the US be obliterated and not end all life on earth by firing back. (my opinion)

there is no reason that any country to have nukes, since no one can use them... but if i had to pick a country to have them Id pick the US, since I know we wouldnt use them. (id also trust switzerland )

but anyway, you really didnt answer my question.

[2072]

so you don't trust France who have nuclear weapons?


About your questions:

1) Yes in all circumstances. But not after a certain age of the foetus, a woman knows when she is pregnant, she must decide at the beginning. (Except when the foetus have serious mental disabilities or other handicap that couldn't be detected before).
A woman who doesn't want a child have her reasons, if she cannot decide, those reasons will prevent her from raising her child correctly with all the consequences that implies.

2) No, when you execute someone (any thinking intelligent beeing - extraterests may read this one day ) you become a murderer, whoever you kill, and so (in your system) you should be executed (with a recursive algorithm like that, some countries -or part of some- would lost all their population and the last would execute himself).
Btw, also note that what we, humans, call "justice" isn't always "just" (how many innocents were executed?)

Now you may say that a human foetus is a human being and so that my logic is flawed (7 of 9 mode) but a foetus (from my point of view) isn't a thinking intelligent beeing, it isn't conscious of its own existence...

Now let's comment about some sentences you wrote:

This is why japan is not our enemy, we so utterly destroyed their will to fight, but left them better for it.

You should have written "This is why japan capitulated", the Japan of today have NOTHING in common with the one USA bombed... The people was brain-washed by the government.
If I were you I won't be so proud about that, USA targeted civilians (innocents). This is just like concentration camps "just examples of what must never happen again"...

tell me huhn, do you regret that the US and others made war aginst hitler?

They were defending themselves about a REAL EXISTING threat. If USA didn't join the Allies in the conflict, Hitler would have won, I let you guess what would have been his next target!

I would have thought that Germany would be our greatest ally in this fight, why is this not so?

Well, check the integrity of your president, his official reasons for going to war, his attitude of shoot first and talk after (cowboy). Iraq "problem" could have been resolved more diplomatically (This must still be on Bush' "New word of the month" list).

btw Iraq wasn't about to invade any country... (continuing your comparison with Hitler).

Total war is the only way to truely win

Or to destroy our civilisation

the oil for food scandal explains a bit of things, but that should not effect your individual judgement... is it simply pride?

No that is call education.

cannot fathom what ideas or beliefs you have to make you think that making war on evil is wrong,

First, what you call "evil" is a religious creation, you are not fighting against the "evil", you are fighting against other members of your species, don't you think something should be made about that stupidity?

Then you have to continue interrogating yourself about the meaning of life (forgetting "God answers") and you'll may understand one day.

I know a great (american) TV show (several in fact) that may help you understand these (our) values: "Star Trek: The next generation", "Star Trek: Deep space nine", "Star Trek: Voyager", "Star Trek: Enterprise" (Enterprise is the one I prefer the less). In Star Trek, every episode denounces (by using analogies) the consequences of the lack of these values... You should watch Star Trek.

[Bob Vila]

so you don't trust France who have nuclear weapons?

heh, i've never trusted the french any farther than i could throw them

If I were you I won't be so proud about that, USA targeted civilians (innocents). This is just like concentration camps "just examples of what must never happen again"...

all i have to say about hiroshima and nagasaki is, how many more people would have died if we hadnt dropped those bombs? you guys are beating a dead horse, those bombs were nessassry. no matter what you say, i think that you really know this.

Iraq "problem" could have been resolved more diplomatically

do you actually think that anything would have been solved "diplomaticly" in iraq? saddam would still be killing his own citizens had we not attacked.

No that is call education.

education is abusing the system? riiiiiight. you think education is funding a dictators killing of civilians?

First, what you call "evil" is a religious creation, you are not fighting against the "evil", you are fighting against other members of your species, don't you think something should be made about that stupidity?

are you implying that there would be no evil if there is no religion??? that is kinda dumb, evil will always exist. the most we can do is try our hardest to destroy it.

They were defending themselves about a REAL EXISTING threat. If USA didn't join the Allies in the conflict, Hitler would have won, I let you guess what would have been his next target!

ah, and if you dont join this conflict, you will be the terrorists next target. you cannot appease forever.

[2072]

all i have to say about hiroshima and nagasaki is, how many more people would have died if we hadnt dropped those bombs? you guys are beating a dead horse, those bombs were nessassry. no matter what you say, i think that you really know this.

That's right, but this is not a reason to be proud of killing milions of innocents.

do you actually think that anything would have been solved "diplomaticly" in iraq? saddam would still be killing his own citizens had we not attacked.

At least it could have been tried...

education is abusing the system? riiiiiight. you think education is funding a dictators killing of civilians?

Open your dictionnary and read the definition of the word "education", you may undersatnd what I meant.

are you implying that there would be no evil if there is no religion??? that is kinda dumb, evil will always exist. the most we can do is try our hardest to destroy it.

No, I said that "the fight against evil" is a concept taught by religion and that you should ask yourself "Why is there evil?" more often.

(before thinking I'm dumb -you know I'm not- try to understand what is written)

ah, and if you dont join this conflict, you will be the terrorists next target. you cannot appease forever.

I didn't knew Iraq and Iran had attacked the USA...

[Bob Vila]

(before thinking I'm dumb -you know I'm not- try to understand what is written)

not to bicker or anything, but i know you are not dumb. i never said that you were dumb, nor did i imply it. maybe you should go back and understand what i wrote. maybe you should also go take a gander at what you wrote because you did say that "evil" was a religius creation...

[dscoshpe]

Any invasion or otherwise long-term ground conflict with Iran unless provoked would be a major error. A larger error than Iraq (assuming for a second that it was - despite your opinion). As it is already the US military is stretched more than it would like to be. I believe that a military conflict can be won, if one were to occur, but something would have to break to allow for it. The US military is still a 100% volunteer service and as a result every generation gets it's conflict, I suspect Bush is doing no more than positioning the policy and conditioning the public for his brother's conflict when the time comes. huhn: put me down for war with Iran in 5 years.

About WW2:
Nobody is proud of dropping those bombs on Japan. It is well documented that the scientists, politicians, and military personnel had very large reservations about doing it but the factors involved were enough to promote a decision. Einstein, Oppenheimer, Feynman, Truman, and even those in the flight squadrons have many memoirs that express their feelings, most notably those of Einstein, the stalwart pacifist, who didn't directly participate in the Manhattan Project but was the catalyst that caused it's start and a major source of inspiration.

The considerations involved:
Japan is a densely populated nation made of very difficult terrain.
The Emperor (at least then) is considered to be a living god, his will is divine.
The Emperor willed to wage war.
Previous experience during the war proved the difficulties of waging war againt Japan.
These considerations made Japan a giant fortress of people who would did not surrender when defeated, unless the Emperor willed it - which he didn't.
Estimates were requiring a 1 million man force to establish a foothold in Japan with an initial landing force of over 100,000 men and extremely high casualties were anticipated.
In order to supply the men needed, over 90% of the soldiers left in Europe to oversee post-war dealings would have been transferred leaving other countries to pick up the duties. This in hindsight has HUGE implications.
.... etc, etc.. in a few words they were looking at death, death, and more death with no sign of letting up (in fact Japanese strategy was to simply fight so long that the US public revolt and end the war)

Here is the gamble:
4 nuclear bombs were planned. 1 was the test. 2 were left in reserve. 1 was in production but very very far off (plus there were issues acquiring enough uranium/plutonium - I forget which it used)
The triggering devices were still untested and experimental.
There were no guarantees that the bombs would explode, or the plane would even make it to the drop zone.
There were no guarantees that the bombs would do enough damage in an urban setting (first was in a desert).
There were no guarantees that the Emperor would be persuaded by use of the bombs.
The bombs used, compared to modern versions, were extremely small.

The invasion was GOING to happen. The decision to use nuclear weapons was a desperate one made in order to have a chance to avoid the looming blood bath. Also, there is a convincing politcal theory that a democracy can only wage a war for so many years before it's people grow weary of it, somehting in the area of 5 years. Interestingly, the US made it seem like we had a number of nuclear weapons in stockpile because it was feared that if the Emperor knew only 2 existed (and had already been used) and a third was not expected to be completed for quite a while that he would have not surrendered. Where would we be now?

I'm sure that most of this lesson was not needed but as I study physics in school and am a WW2 history enthusiast I couldn't pass it up. It is very intense to think about because nothing about the nuclear bombing was assumed to be true, it was almost lucky that they were even successfull.

- dscoshpe -

[Marco]

To questions 1) and 2): Totally agree with 2072 (nothing to be added).

if you dont make war on evil it will make war on you, and you will surely be destroyed.

I agree with you Crimson that our values like freedom and democracy have to be defended versus it's enemies, and that a war might be necessary thus sometimes. But ONLY the UN have the right to decide when the time has come and a war is necessary, not one single country alone.

For example with the Kosovo - or the Afghanistan - problem, the UN were who made the decision, not the US only, and that was good as it was! Imagine each country in the world would declare wars according it's temper? Do you know what the UN is good for? It's aim is to secure peace in the world. And do you also know that the US were originally one of it's initiators, although it seems the current government doesn't want to hear anything about it anymore?

I would have thought that Germany would be our greatest ally in this fight, why is this not so

This is why it's not so:

Most people who were against it (and not in Germany only btw) wouldn't have had sth. against the war on Iraq if it had been the decision of the UN, and if the majority of the countries in the world (UN members only) would have considerated it as really necessary to do. And I will say nothing, too, when UN decides that invading Iran is a really necessary thing to secure further peace in the world. As far as I know, UN did not make such a decision yet.

In fact the US government recently does simply what it wants concerning things the whole international community should decide. Bush is about to abandon the values you Americans have fought for so long; only what Bush wants cares.

You think conquering Iraq made your life more secure. Look at the Iraq today: it's out of control, it's a cooker of terrorism. Because Saddam former suppressed all, even potential terrorists. Furthermore it's attracting new terrorists to Al Quaida from allover the world right now because Iraq (hence the Islam) is represented as a martyr. And: you still have no real democracy there, situation for the people there has not improved, and it made your's even worse than it was before, too (because: more terrorists than before).

I guess conquering Iran (especially without a UN mandate) would end in a similar disaster.

In my eyes Bush is simply a megalomaniac. He wants to be the rescuer of the world, the one who spreads freedom and democracy into all it's corners. He wants to achieve this at all costs and with all ways he can use, even with ways like declaring unjustified wars or overriding the UN (and his cabinet is willingly to follow him boundless). Bushs behaviour reminds a bit to the crusades in the middle ages (another thing supporting this reminding is that Bush permanently refers to god - yeah I know, god himself enforced Bush, he's a kind of pope I guess).

Before the Iraq thing started I never had been able to imagine it ever would come that way, because for me, the US always have been THE symbol of freedom and democracy par excellence (currently, it's not). I also thought that things might change back with the election, but I was at mistake.

[huhn_m]

I liked your explanation about the Japan thing. I can agree that it was, from a military stabdpoint necessary but never ever was it necessary considdering the humanity. You may come with "thousands would have died or our soldiers" but you KILLED thouseands OF SEVERAL genenerations. does this make you any better?

"evil" was a religius creation

"evil" is a creation of George W. Bush. Because only a fool can part the world in evil and good like only a fool can see sth. as only good. The Problem is not the "evil" but to think about WHAT created it. You can say the hatred for the US but think again ...

Sorry crimson. Your text was too long and I had no time. 2072 awnsered most questions in a similar way I would have. Here are my add-ons:

but I really dont care how we look to other countries (the same goes with me personally too, ive never cared what others think about me so long as i felt right with myself

While the statement in brackets is your good rigth and also something I often do it has nothing to do with the first. Not caring for others is ignorance and you should refer to my comment on bobs post for more thinking about what causes evil ...

Jesus himself became enraged when he saw that the temple had become a house for theives and so drove them out with violence

FOOL! do not dare to cite the bible and base your violence on it. Jesus should have blown the temple? No! He did not destroy the temple he only drove them out (as you stated) the comparrision is BAD!

Total war is the only way to truely win

You would have cried YES when in the Sportpalast in Germany Goebbels asked "Do you want the total war".
War, wether total or not is NEVER a way to win. Only to loose, on the one or other way. You may win on the battle field but you'll loose the more in the eyes of further generations as you loose on humanity.

tell me huhn, do you regret that the US and others made war aginst hitler

Bad comparrision. Hitler began the war and I DO regret that he began it as I would regret if you would begin one.

hitler brought germany great power in the world, and made germans feared and repected through out the world, yet you are glad he's gone are you not

woow... I could instantly replace the name hitler with bush and the statement would be true as well.

Before this started I would have thought that Germany would be our greatest ally in this fight, why is this not so

we are your ally and we will probably always be because we owe it to you. But not in your fight since it is not a fight against terror anymore what you do but a fight against souvereignity. Beeing an ally does not mean to close eyes and ears and folow blindly to any decission you make but to work together and listen to each other. So YOU could probably not be considdered OUR ally.

s it simply pride

No! It is reason.

annot fathom what ideas or beliefs you have to make you think that making war on evil is wrong, for if you dont make war on evil it will make war on you, and you will surely be destroyed.

Assuiming there is such a thing as evil, of course I agree to fight it but I do definately not agree to the WAY you fight it since blaming nations for crimes they have not done will only raise more hatred and violence and bring up ever new terrorists. As long as you do not get this you'll go to your own doom. If not by beeing killed by those who you bring up against yourself then you will at least get the situation we currently have here in germany, that you must be ashamed by the evil you created arround the world and the wars YOU covered the world with NEEDLESSLY. As long as you do not get TERROR does not hold on to countries and borders you will NEVER win your war and NEVER get rest. YOu'll be a nation that is frightened of everything an that needs to spend more money on security than on enything else. Who do you wan't to attac next? Sudan? Syria? Korea? Germany -- because we housed (and probably still do) terrorists too? THen after your war there will be no world any more since you'll have attacked all countries including you own.

.... thats it. my 26 cent. Cu huhn

*edit* typed it before marcos post so I'll comment on this later.

[dscoshpe]

I liked your explanation about the Japan thing. I can agree that it was, from a military stabdpoint necessary but never ever was it necessary considdering the humanity. You may come with "thousands would have died or our soldiers"  but you KILLED thouseands OF SEVERAL genenerations. does this make you any better?

No doubt that thousands of our soldiers would have died but were spared at the cost of thousands of others who were civilians and non-combatants for the most part. However it is alternative that proves the justification, an invasion was going to happen and victory was going to be chased. So, from a humanitarian viewpoint (short of an idealist humanitarian viewpoint) a great number of Japanese were spared that would have been subject to fighting. Considering the kill ratio was somewhere in the area of 3:1 (Japan:US) in less dense areas you can estimate that well over 300,000 (probably much more) deaths would occur. Some liberal estimates put Hiroshima at 70,000 and Nagasaki at 40,000 deaths respectively. In addition to this consider the power vaccuum left in Europe. I argue that if Japan's surrender must happen then this was the preferable way even in a realistic humanitarian sence. On the other hand, I think that it was (hopefully) the only time they will ever be used in human history on Earth because now everyone knows very well the consequences because of the publicity. So ultimately it was a world lesson in respect for the weapons and that can spare an untold number of lives.

I would agree that I wish it wasn't neccessary. But as it is said, the world is not a perfect place.

Also I just wanted to tell everybody to not be driven too insane by the media. Nuclear weapons are very difficult to build, maintain, and conceal. Any nuclear detonation can be picked up by monitoring stations in space and on Earth. All radioactive material can be tracked remotely once identified, and all nuclear weapons inside the US (all 200+ of the publicly known ones.... ) are tracked. So what I'm saying is that 1) it's a very bad idea to steal a US nuke (some media outlets have proposed this) 2) if a government (any reasonable one that is) makes a statement saying that a nuclear weapons program exists in a certain country then it probably does to a very high degree of probability. This is just how the physics of nukes is.

- dscoshpe -

[CrimsonCasio]

I like the way this is going so far, seems a bit more productive than the last one...

@2072: personally, i love star trek, ive watched hundreds of episodes and even read several of the books , however, your wrong about the nature of evil. Evil does have religious context, but evil its self is not based on religion, for instance, evil can be something that is an offense to nature; like if a maniac let loose a plague to kill every one on earth except him, thats evil (sort of anti-darwinism). evil is also defineable as malicious acts (malicious meaning that it is done with the sole intent to cause pain or misfortune). one dictionary definition is "having or exerting a malignant influence". all of these meanings have no context in "morals" or "religion", and so prove that evil is not just an invention of religion, if you think about it im sure you'll realize you already knew this, you just hadnt thought about it that way. (btw, i do a really good kirk impersonation )

oh, and hitler qualifies as evil does he not?

as for trusting the french with a nuclear weapon, i'd trust you with a nuclear weapon, id trust huhn, but if france had nuclear weapons and nobody else did then i would loose sleep at night. I would probably trust germany though, because i cant imagine germany's population allowing anything like that to be used for any reason... but i can see france's population being swayed (you dont have monstrosities in your contries background, rather you've been the victim of most of the recent wars, so i can see a french hitler comming to power)...


@dsco: i like a lot of your japan discussion, but let me add that not only were the japanese rulers treated like gods, but they were also told that American soldiers would tourcher civilians and soldiers alike if they were caught alive, thus accounting for a huge amount of needless deaths by suicide and the voracity with which the japanese faught in their homeland. In the end there really was no other option than dropping the bombs, if the government hadn't thought that the next one was aimed of Kyoto then it would have been a war to the last man, woman, and child, only the emporer's order to surender could have ended it. In the end it saved uncountable lives, and truely was the far lesser of two evils, yet we had to comit those evils instead of letting the japanese people do it to themselves. Ive actually walked thought the caves in okinawa where towns gathered to commit suicide, sometimes they gave leathal injections to the children, sometimes they simpley pulled the pins on a few gernades, and held them untill they exploded, other times they would leap from high cliffs onto rocky beaches below. I'll tell you, its akin to visiting a concentration camp, and while that is bad enough, I'd say its far sadder to stand in a dark and damp cave where once fathers and mothers killed their own children, and worst of all that they did it over a monsterous lie made by foolish rulers. human hatred is one thing, but see what human love can do?

oh, and dsco, you may be right about jeb... i wouldnt put it past them (especially since i think he's probably the smartest of the bushes). Im just hoping that the democrats find a good candidate that I can vote for in good concence (not hillary, kerry). I really dont like electing people that are related to each other, reminds me to much of "inheriting the thrown", even if they actually do deserve it...

@huhn: (refrence the above too )
I can think again, but i can still arive at the same conclusion . as i see it Terrorism needs no real cause to thrive, just a handy target. I mean, heck, there are American terrorist orginizations that believe that the US government is out to get them all the time, so they decide to attack first and kill inocent people, thus the government actually starts to want them... i believe the Oklahoma city bombing was the most famous example of this. there are some people that are just born to think that someone is out to get them, and they teach their children to think the same way... I actually have a friend that is constantly remarking about how some person he just met (a waiter or cashier for example) hates him secretly, this is of course totally paranoid, and when pressed he cant justify his feeling (i always press him, so he knows what hes doing). he's just hardwired to think like that... terrorists are simply acting on these paranoid thoughts.

by not careing what others think, i didnt mean i dont listen to what people say, i just simply give my own feelings more weight than theirs, I allways consider a suggestion, and if i think its probably right I'll at least try it (or admit that they are probably right, but for whatever reason i might not actually do it...). for instance, fashion, some people think some things look good, i take than into consideration and try to figgure out why they think it looks good, then i examine my own opinions on what looks good and see if anything needs revision, if it does then i change my opinion; if i didnt have an opinion on that topic i will adopt the general consensus untill i find a differing perspective to look at it from. also, in terms of fashion, you have to weigh in things like comfort as well. now, on a national level im doing the same thing by listening to your viewpoints, you all have already changed several of my views, or at least marked them for later reconsideration, but in a few cases you've pushed them the oppisite way than what you ment to do.

FOOL! do not dare to cite the bible and base your violence on it. Jesus should have blown the temple? No! He did not destroy the temple he only drove them out (as you stated) the comparrision is BAD!

please refrain from insults, if you cant make an argument then you should just admit it

let me rebut your claim of my ignorance with logic: why should i not justify violence with the bible? Islamic terrorists do it all the time after all , anyway, violence is a big part of the bible, and a big part of life, in fact life IS conflict, wheather it is violent or not. firstly, Jesus didnt have the technology to blow up the temple, nor would he have killed the occupents and possible inocents over such a relatively minor offence, yet, if the offence had been greater (say human sacrifices or something) i seem to remember a certine city that got turned to salt... instead of reciprocating the theives with death, he justly delt out blows and stoped them from practicing their "trade" in a holy place. the comparison is not bad, it is merly relative. housing theives = blows, housing murderers = death.

as for your next bit, i dont really understand the first bit...

Bad comparrision. Hitler began the war and I DO regret that he began it as I would regret if you would begin one.

the terrorists started this war, and the justification for Iraq was believed by everyone (and it turns out justified anyway, but for diffrent reasons), including Kerry, the french, germans, etc... all of them can be quoted on it at one point or another, up utill some people decided to "forget" about what they had said.

woow... I could instantly replace the name hitler with bush and the statement would be true as well.

well, actually i think you would have to do this:
"bush brought america great infammy in the world, and made americans feared(?) and resented through out the world"

thats about what your thinking right?

in fact, i dont think this war is all that good for america, but i do think the world will be better off for it even if we arnt and even if you all refuse to admit it .

now, i could accept it if you simply said that you dissagree with us and wish no part of the war, thats not a problem to me, and i wouldnt (and would hope my country wouldnt) hold any grudges. what i do have a problem with is that not only have you and others (by "you" i typically mean your country) have declared your hatred for us, burning flags and such. this does not make me feel kind to you, it also does not help your cause. the same basically goes for lots of demonstrators in my own country, you probably saw the protests at bush's inagueration, well when i see stuff like that my thought is: "If people like that are aginst this guy he must have something good going for him...", there are hundreds of ways i can think of that people could protest something that would be far more effective than what they are doing. as it is they are simply widening the gap between the opposing sides with their own actions. todays protests are simply perversions of the old civil rights protests, which were actually effective. anyway, enough on that, if you want to hear more i could go on in pages worth of detail...

No! It is reason.

obviously you and I have a diffrent definition of reason... as far as i can tell what you have is "conviction". (I will admit that 2072 occasionally does seem to have reason... but not often )

Assuiming there is such a thing as evil, of course I agree to fight it but I do definately not agree to the WAY you fight it since blaming nations for crimes they have not done will only raise more hatred and violence and bring up ever new terrorists. As long as you do not get this you'll go to your own doom. If not by beeing killed by those who you bring up against yourself then you will at least get the situation we currently have here in germany, that you must be ashamed by the evil you created arround the world and the wars YOU covered the world with NEEDLESSLY. As long as you do not get TERROR does not hold on to countries and borders you will NEVER win your war and NEVER get rest. YOu'll be a nation that is frightened of everything an that needs to spend more money on security than on enything else. Who do you wan't to attac next? Sudan? Syria? Korea? Germany -- because we housed (and probably still do) terrorists too? THen after your war there will be no world any more since you'll have attacked all countries including you own.

ok, ive already proved the existance of evil, so we'll skip that.

"but I do definately not agree to the WAY you fight it since blaming nations for crimes they have not done will only raise more hatred and violence"

what do you think you are doing right now? by accusing us of making unjust war you are condeming yourself to the fate you have perscribed, as i said before I can understand you not agreeing with our reasons, but you are making war on us by attacking our beliefs and our nation (not physically of course, but its still war, in fact, this disscussion is a war). Terror may be a difficult enemy to face, but that does not mean we should hide from it or give in to it, the only way terror can be defeated is if every nation of the earth pursicutes it without mercy, and eventually (mabey after we're all dead) your countries will come to understand that too, in the mean time I at least intend to make it be known that attacking us results in an immediate and totall response aginst anyone involved. It will make them think twice, and though you may not realize this terrorists are bullies at heart and bullies are inevitably cowards at heart, terrorists differentiate themselves only by having a mob mentality.

@marco:


as for the UN, we tried that at first, and we eventually gave up on it, and as it turns out it was the right thing, since the UN had waved its right to be in on the decision by engaging in Illeagal bussiness deals with the very country they were supposed to be deciding on. Truely, do you think there was any chance of the UN supporting such a war? the UN was acting irresponsibly and criminally, and it failed horribly in its job. if we had obeyed the UN it never would have been exposed as corrupt, and we'd still be sitting here as the UN financed saddam's tyranny... does this make you feel good about yourselves? before you had some justification to this arguement and i could see where you were comming from, but now it just makes no sense.

eventually the practicers of Islam in the middle east will weed the fanatics from their folds, just as christians did (mostly ). and religion will at least for a time cease to be a major istigator of wolrd confilict, you have to remember than in the grand scheme of things Islam is relatively new, it isnt yet through its dark age. we'll simply help the process along.

[huhn_m]

So I will reply ...

[quote]oh, and hitler qualifies as evil does he not?[/quote]
It depends on the sight. Don't get me wrong I do not want to make hitler a good guy, especially not on the 60th aniversary of the liberation of auschwitz, but in the eye of most germans then he was not evil but the one who "saved the german race". He was more like a hero for most of the population then.

I just want to show you that evil is relative. While you do not qualify as evil for me you surely do for other nations (e.g. Iran) and they would be right because you threatened them. Maybe it seems like I can not change your black & white view of evil but at least I tried .. *sigh*

[quote]I would probably trust germany though, because i cant imagine germany's population allowing anything like that to be used for any reason[/quote]

Well, I would not trust germany in this respect. I DO trust the sense of our current governement and even of the opposition but there are current thendencies over here that make me worry. Some (especially young, uneducated people seem to have lost their mind and elect some "Nazi friend" party (ultra-conservative is what you could call them). ANd the gov. till now has no way to forbid this party. but It seems that we'll have to deal with this ourselfs.
I don't want to sound pessimistic (like bytie ) but this really worries me.

[quote]refrence the above too[/quote] I did

Of the "not careing for others views" ... you should not say it the way you did. This makes you seem selfish and arrogant to others but now as you explained it I DO understand what you ment and of course can agree with it.

[quote]please refrain from insults[/quote]Yeah, I'm sorry. I was .. you know ... somewhat heated up

[quote] why should i not justify violence with the bible? Islamic terrorists do it all the time after all[/quote] so you do the same? DOes this make you better then those people? Would you be happy if an american would blow himslef up in a crowd of muslims?

[quote]seem to remember a certine city that got turned to salt...[/quote]
This was not jesus but good. Do not dare to set yourself on one level with good. Its not yours to decide what goods will is and if he is to make iran(-k) to salt then he will but this is not YOUR task.

[quote]as for your next bit, i dont really understand the first bit... [/quote] oh, i think you did ... if not read again. (Sportpalast is a kind of arena where a lot of people were assembled when Goebbels, the minister of propaganda, asked them "Do you want the total war?")

[quote]the terrorists started this war, and the justification for Iraq was believed by everyone (and it turns out justified anyway, but for diffrent reasons), including Kerry, the french, germans, etc... all of them can be quoted on it at one point or another, up utill some people decided to "forget" about what they had said.[/quote]
No you did. Iraq had no connections with terrorists (e.g. Al-Quaeda). This is prooved. And show me a german quote by an official, not by the oposition those fools Merkel & Stoiber. We did not believe it and if someone believed it then because of wrong prooves your FBI gave.
(Some were even declared false as soon as you presented them by el-baradei(sp?)). And why did you listen to their phones and rooms secretly with your technologie? This is illegal, you know?!?!

[quote]"bush brought america great infammy in the world, and made americans feared(?) and resented through out the world"[/quote] well, not exactly but nearly and you don't need the questionmakr next to feared because you are. Not that we fear your military force but what you will do to the world with it if you continue to handle it with a lack of thinking and on a "I-want-I-get" basis.

[quote]what i do have a problem with is that not only have you and others have declared your hatred for us, burning flags and such[/quote]
I can not remember seeing burning US-Flags in germany. And I would never have blamed the american people for the things your gov. did until you reelected it. Now it truely represents the opinion of the majority of people. (Well at least of the half that cares ) and so if you fight another war you can not say "the president did this" but this is your own action then. I feel sorry for dsco fo he did not make this decission but this i the bad thing in a democracy if most people "abandon reason for madness" (I love this movie).

[quote]. this does not make me feel kind to you, it also does not help your cause.[/quote] the same could be said by an irani who just heread your threatening.

[quote] there are hundreds of ways i can think of that people could protest something that would be far more effective than what they are doing[/quote] fo what? Protecting of environment. Your preisdent is not likely to do anything there (Prompt: Kyoto). For oil? Not that would be nice. For less tsunamis? I'm sure the nature you destroy will listen.

[quote]as far as i can tell what you have is "conviction"[/quote] but as far as I can tell I can give reason for my convition if this is what you like to call it. Probably our definition of reason is too different

[quote] but you are making war on us by attacking our beliefs and our nation[/quote] this is one problem of you. If someone wants to give you advise and tell you that you do sth. wrong you call it making war on you. With this attitude you can never have a coalition where you are not in total controll (and then this is no coallition but a bunch of mindless slaves folowing you). And btw. I have not blamed you for doing anything you did not and if I did apologice afterwards. And I don't think that blaming someone for having WMD and beeing ready to use them and because of this invading a country is something you can say sorry afterwards. Its not like a word. (even this is not be taken back lightly )

[quote]attacking us results in an immediate and totall response aginst anyone involved[/quote] I seem to repeat myself but neither iran, nor iraq did attac you...

[quote]since the UN had waved its right to be in on the decision by engaging in Illeagal bussiness deals with the very country they were supposed to be deciding on[/quote] what? tell me more. I have not know this where do you have it from?

[quote]the UN was acting irresponsibly and criminally, and it failed horribly in its job[/quote] HAHAHAHAHHAAHAHAH!!!!
No ... think twice. You acted irrepsonsibly by starting a war where a peaceful way would have been posibly and unlike you the UN did not violate international law. So who do you call criminally? And who failed? Who found not WMD?

[quote]will weed the fanatics from their folds, just as christians did (mostly)[/quote] yeah. Right. Bush is still in office. Good you made a comment on ti

[dscoshpe]

but let me add that not only were the japanese rulers treated like gods, but they were also told that American soldiers would tourcher civilians and soldiers alike if they were caught alive

I'd say that threat is pretty much a given in any conflict. I read the People's Daily which is a Chinese news outlet and during the Abu-Gharib incident they ran an article about the Korean conflit. Apperently the writers were saying that they didn't understand why Americans did not surrender because they were treated so great with hot meals that generous Chinese infantrymen gave up just so that their captives could be fed and healthy... etc etc... it was quite a bizarre and definately twisted article. I think history would disagree with their point of view.

I tried to find that article but I'm time limited right now...
http://english.peopledaily.com.cn/
I did notice they have a story about an Iranian invasion.

- dscoshpe -

[Marco]

the UN was acting irresponsibly and criminally, and it failed horribly in its job

Hey, that's not the Sress Relief - thread so far (though I must admit this joke is pretty good )

Joke aside: I assume you speak about the oil for food campaign? "UN was acting irresponsibly and criminally", that?s simply not true!

Who do you think is "the UN"? It's an alliance of the countries in the world (including your own btw (hence you also are criminal?)), and not a clique of single criminal persons looking for how they can exploit the world. So who was it who committed the crime you talk about? Maybe there have been some mistakes with "oil for food": Iraqis didn't use this money for food only and UN missed to keep an eye on it exactly. But you really can't call UN "criminal" therefore.

The UN had waved its right to be in on the decision by engaging in Illeagal bussiness deals with the very country they were supposed to be deciding on... Before you had some justification to this arguement ..., but now it just makes no sense

They did NOT wave their right. And who engaged illegal business when you say "the UN did"? Was it US? UK? France? Germany? Italy? Spain? Japan? China? ...

How come the whole world can wave it's right and who actually assigned it to the US?

The other thing:

As for the UN, we tried that at first, and we eventually gave up on it, and as it turns out it was the right thing ... Do you think there was any chance of the UN supporting such a war?

No there was no chance, because: this war was not justified. Whatsoever you say. Or did you find those WMD? The only thing you found was this lousy t-shirt .

What you say about UN in the phrase I quoted above expressed with other words is this like: "We tried it with the UN, but they had another opinion than we [hence they were useless for us and we did what we want]." I think you should reconsider your definition of co-operation...

------

Btw, when you say "it was right even if we found no WMD there, because Saddam murdered and supressed his people": it's true that Saddam killed thousands of his people (Helabja; toxic gas attack, 8000 died). But this was in the 1980s already(!), why haven't you done anything earlier then? Or what about Africa, where you had horrible genocides with millions killed in the 1990s (Rwanda) and still today (Liberia). Why didn't US intervent though It would have been lots more necessary in order to save the people there than attacking Iraq or Iran? Just ask Bush for the reason - maybe because there is no oil in Africa? I think you should not believe all that your president says.

[2072]

[quote name='CrimsonCasio' date='Jan 25 2005, 09:39 AM']
@2072: personally, i love star trek, ive watched hundreds of episodes and even read several of the books
[/quote]

Then I don't understand how you can think the way you think....

[quote name='CrimsonCasio' date='Jan 25 2005, 09:39 AM'] , however, your wrong about the nature of evil. Evil does have religious context, but evil its self is not based on religion, for instance, evil can be something that is an offense to nature;
[/quote]

As Bob Vila pointed out, I was unclear about this, I was in fact talking about the "fight against evil" or "the fight between good and evil" which is a religious thing (God Vs Devil). Your Bush is always referencing to that kind of statements...

Btw: I heard something interesting about Hitler: Did you know that the words he used the most in his speeches was "freedom", "peace", "friendchip betwen peoples" (and others of the same kind I've forgotten)?

[quote name='CrimsonCasio' date='Jan 25 2005, 09:39 AM']. but i can see france's population being swayed (you dont have monstrosities in your contries background, rather you've been the victim of most of the recent wars, so i can see a french hitler comming to power)...
[/quote]

Well I can't imaging something like that happening in France we suffered almost as much of hitler than the Germans (or any country he directly attacked), we know what a Hitler looks like and can do...
And the fact that a country don't have monstrosities in its background won't make it easier for a Hitler to come in power... (btw: did USA had monstrosities in its past?)

From what we've seen during those 4 last years, if one people can be swayed it's the people of the United States of America... Believe it or not, you have been swayed!

[quote name='CrimsonCasio' date='Jan 25 2005, 09:39 AM']oh, and dsco, you may be right about jeb... i wouldnt put it past them (especially since i think he's probably the smartest of the bushes).  Im just hoping that the democrats find a good candidate that I can vote for in good concence (not hillary, kerry).  I really dont like electing people that are related to each other, reminds me to much of "inheriting the thrown", even if they actually do deserve it...
[/quote]

If there is no suitable democrat candidate, then don't vote at all. The fact that jeb is more intelligent than Bush is even more terrible...

[quote name='CrimsonCasio' date='Jan 25 2005, 09:39 AM'] as i see it Terrorism needs no real cause to thrive, just a handy target.
[/quote]

I think that a human beeing needs a cause to bomb himself with innocents. (even if that cause is wrong)

[quote name='CrimsonCasio' date='Jan 25 2005, 09:39 AM']there are some people that are just born to think that someone is out to get them, and they teach their children to think the same way... I actually have a friend that is constantly remarking about how some person he just met (a waiter or cashier for example) hates him secretly, this is of course totally paranoid and when pressed he cant justify his feeling (i always press him, so he knows what hes doing)..

[...]

terrorists are simply acting on these paranoid thoughts.
[/quote]


Then why don't USA do the same with terrorists (press them)? Proove them they are wrong? Instead of justifying terrorist's actions by attacking innocent countries?

That's what we seem not to be able to make you understand: to eliminate the terrorist threat, you have to eliminate its root, and this root cannot be bombed or destroyed, it have to die from natural causes: the environment must become toxic for it. I thought that this was taught in the Bible (since you are often refering to it): "evil" can only be defeated by "good".
If you continue to bomb the terrorists, you'll feed its root with hatred and it'll never end. If you spread love around the world the terrorist will have no ground to grow on since there would be no hatred to feed them... (think about that).

(Great analogy isn't it?)

[quote name='CrimsonCasio' date='Jan 25 2005, 09:39 AM']the terrorists started this war, and the justification for Iraq was believed by everyone (and it turns out justified anyway, but for diffrent reasons), including Kerry, the french, germans, etc...  all of them can be quoted on it at one point or another, up utill some people decided to "forget" about what they had said.
[/quote]

The terrorist started your desire for revenge... you started the war.
France or Germany never believed the justification for Iraq else we would have joined you without hesitating.


[quote name='CrimsonCasio' date='Jan 25 2005, 09:39 AM']now, i could accept it if you simply said that you dissagree with us and wish no part of the war, thats not a problem to me, and i wouldnt (and would hope my country wouldnt) hold any grudges.  what i do have a problem with is that not only have you and others (by "you" i typically mean your country) have declared your hatred for us, burning flags and such. this does not make me feel kind to you, it also does not help your cause.
[/quote]

We've never declared our hatred for you, you are becoming paranoid, and even if our/your stupid media showed a stupid asshole burning your flag, you don't have to assume all his country think the same... That's also one of your problem, you are to confident towards your media (Bush knows it very well)...

[quote name='CrimsonCasio' date='Jan 25 2005, 09:39 AM']obviously you and I have a diffrent definition of reason...  as far as i can tell what you have is "conviction".  (I will admit that 2072 occasionally does seem to have reason... but not often )

[/quote]

I always have reasons, but you seemed to be to confident in yourself to see them... Besides reasons I also used something called "logic" that your confidence in your government and in your medias prevents you to use.

I always explains my reasons with logic (like the analogy above).

[quote name='CrimsonCasio' date='Jan 25 2005, 09:39 AM']ok, ive already proved the existance of evil, so we'll skip that.
[/quote]

that kind of sentence is funny you know...



[quote name='CrimsonCasio' date='Jan 25 2005, 09:39 AM']what do you think you are doing right now? by accusing us of making unjust war you are condeming yourself to the fate you have perscribed, as i said before I can understand you not agreeing with our reasons, but you are making war on us by attacking our beliefs and our nation (not physically of course, but its still war, in fact, this disscussion is a war).
[/quote]

We are trying to make you realize that you are in a wrong path and that soon it will be to late to go back. We are not attacking your beliefs but your mistakes which are leading the world (not only you) to its doom.

When you see a friend making mistakes, don't you try to help him correct and understand those before it's to late?


[quote name='CrimsonCasio' date='Jan 25 2005, 09:39 AM']I at least intend to make it be known that attacking us results in an immediate and totall response aginst anyone involved.  It will make them think twice, and though you may not realize this terrorists are bullies at heart and bullies are inevitably cowards at heart, terrorists differentiate themselves only by having a mob mentality.
[/quote]

Yes in deed, they will think twice to a more radical way to eliminate you completely for once and for all... Don't you realize that each new large terrorist attack is worse and bigger than the previous one?
Terrorists are not cowared, how could they kill themselves without hesitating? Those people have nothing to loose, that is not true for your country...


[quote name='CrimsonCasio' date='Jan 25 2005, 09:39 AM']as for the UN, we tried that at first, and we eventually gave up on it, and as it turns out it was the right thing, since the UN had waved its right to be in on the decision by engaging in Illeagal bussiness deals with the very country they were supposed to be deciding on.
[/quote]

If you've watch a certain movie you'll never watch, you'll knew that some big enterprises of your very country were involved in business in Iraq. But it turned out that war was more profitable for them... (Were Bush relatives part of those enterprises? I'll let you guess)

[quote name='CrimsonCasio' date='Jan 25 2005, 09:39 AM']Truely, do you think there was any chance of the UN supporting such a war?  the UN was acting irresponsibly and criminally, and it failed horribly in its job.  if we had obeyed the UN it never would have been exposed as corrupt, and we'd still be sitting here as the UN financed saddam's tyranny... does this make you feel good about yourselves? before you had some justification to this arguement and i could see where you were comming from, but now it just makes no sense.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

[/quote]

Such a war certainly not. UN goes to war when it's prooved to be absolutely necessary and justified with real evidences. (Remember that you are part of the UN and that the worship to money in our countries isn't as important as in yours).

[Daruosh]

Dear friends,
I think most of you know that I'm Iraninan.
I can say a sentence: "Everything is a GAME, GAME for political power."
My nation hate the current regime, but I'm sure war is not a right solution. cuz it leads to destruction

[betoe]

War is bad, all are evil also the 80% (i think) of the people who die are most innocent. The war is needed for know who is the evil (losers) and the good guys (the one who "win" the war).

I think the most important and real post here is the Daroush one, he's the better that can talk us about the Iran situation.

[huhn_m]

yeah, bytie - you're right. It just didn't appear this way above.

What we wan't to state is that of course th iran did bad things but the US can not undo or prevent this by making war ("another bad thing")

thanks huhn.

[unique33]

------------------------------------< Imagine >------------------------------------

Imagine " Even if it is hard " the world in which each person is so blest .
the world in which the Money , Descent and Power are not values.
the answer of Unisons is not Muitiny Opponent Police !

the world that won,t have Nuclear Bomb , No Bomber , No Mortar!
so no child will mispalce his foot on Verily !
All people will be free , they will be Painless .
you won,t read in a newsletter that " the whales Suicided near the beach " !

Imagine a world without hate and gunpowder ,
Without Injustices of Tyrannies !
without panic and Coffin !

Imagine a world which is full of smile and freedom,
repleted with flower and kiss,
full of frequency of Reclamation .

Imagine " Even if it,s Imagination is a crime " ,
if by saying it,s name the gullet will become full of Antimony !
Imagine the world in which the prisons are Legendary!
all of the wars of the world are inclusived by cease fire !

No one is the Esquire of the world ,
the people are Equal,
so the body of each wheat seed is shared between all humans .

without boundary and confine , the Home is all of the world !
Imagine , " you can do " , you can become the construing of this Dream !

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Poem by : Siavash Ghomeishi
Year : 2005
Title : Imagine
Translated by : unique33
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[far2055]

Dear friends,
I think most of you know that I'm Iraninan.
I can say a sentence: "Everything is a GAME, GAME for political power."
My nation hate the current regime, but I'm sure war is not a right solution. cuz it leads to destruction

I agree with Daruosh.
I am an Iranian too.

Please study about nations and their history and then think about the war. why? because war isn't just about the guns. You can fight with a country and defeat it in a day but you can not preservation it even for a month. I mean after the war of guns, the war of people and ideas will start. Exactly it happened to USA in vietnam and Iraq. I think one of the reasons that USA and Europe don't war with Iran is that. Their government exactly know about my people and know that if they attack my country all the iranians man and woman even teenagers will fight them even without any gun just by their hands.

Another thing that I blive is that our government just trying to protect itself and earn more money. People aren't important. So they will do every thing to save themselves. It is for many years that they give our oil to french and some other countries for very cheap price even free! this is why my people are pure. They spent our money to protect themselves. And other countries know it very well! one they USA scare them, they give money to russia to protect them form USA! another day Russia scare them,they give money to Europe. and in these days USA and Europe scare them(unclear programs),they give money to Russia and Russia didn't help them, they give money to china!
As you see they are like a ball and your countries just give the ball to each other! Shame on them and all governments.

In this game just my people getting more and more pure. Just teenagers and young people like me getting more depressed and when a person got depressed very easily use opium and become addict to it. I am a student at university and every day I see my friends get more unhappy and by using the opium tries to escape from themselves and bad conditions. THEY CAN NOT IMAGIN THEIR FUTURE, THEY ARE HOPELESS, EVEN THEY CAN NOT SAY THAT THEY WILL BE ALIVE TOMORROW OR NOT. We are the group who study and think. One day we made a really great effort to enter university but after that we saw that all was just a mirage that out government made it for us! it is exactly why Iranian students escape from their country. But we are a small group that think about the things happened. So regime try to kill us(you can read about it! go to the news sites.)

As i said just small part of Iranians think! maybe it is a little strange! but i think it is correct because if a man want to start thinking about something, he need some information about that, and some hour to think about that. but my government never give people information and try to make them belive it's lies.So no information. And about the time for thinking: government push the wrong religuse ideas to the peoples mind witch tell them to repeat a sentences more and more(some religuse sentences in arabic that most of people even don't know their meaning!). it makes a cycle in their mind witch never comes to an end and people every minute become free(free from daily works that they should do) countinue this loop. So they don't have time to think ====>>> SO THEY NEVER CAN THINK.

Just a small group think in iran and regime try to kill them or put them in prison or kick them out from country. and other people just say yes to regime and regime try to show itself a regime from the GOD.
Iranians are nationalist and regime use it when it needs people! for example in president election. All the people know that the elections in iran are just a play. but regime use their ignorance and their nationalist emotions and make them to take part in election(I should say that other countries specially USA help regime very lot at these situations just by saying some sentences. because they love goverment witch is like a football ball.)

The last thing is about that: Why my people do not make a revolution agains regim?
1)they know revelution is the worest thing that they can do(history saies it and my people exprienced it clearly.)
2)regime makes them pure and addict and ignorant and hopeless.
3)regime block all the news and scare people from other countries and make them blive it's lies.
4)regime make itself the delegate of GOD in the people's view.

Other governments just try to keep this countinue, they never will help us. Any one who study the history and open his eyes about what governments do and about what they say will find it so clear. I can not condemn other governments, because they do the best for their nation.

There is many other points that I can not explain here . But remember one thing, most of the news networks try to give you an special view point and steal your conscious. Just see what happened and put the events together and then think about them and their relations.

I hope and I imagin a world without governments, just peoples live and work together with love. No Europe No Asia No America No Africa No Australia.

[NavidCal]

you stupid I insure that you a stupid. Im Irany and love my country and qoran . America if attack to iran!!! . just for oil , attack to russia and kille every mankind for example nuclear bobm in japon and kill 100000X3 people in japon . America is a international trorist .i want that you dont read watch and any lie new . "THE BIGGEST AIM OF AMERICA IS EMPERIAL IN WORLD "

[huhn_m]

well .... I see your point though a LITTLE grammar would probably have helped making it ...

[flyingfisch]

First of all, we still haven't attacked Iran. Secondly, I didn't know you UCF mathemetitians and scientists were so POLITICAL! LOL!