Aileron Posted January 20, 2006 Report Posted January 20, 2006 Bin Laden called for a truce yesterday. In our culture, a truce is sign that one doesn't wish bloodshed. In Bin Laden's though, its a sign that he knows he's losing this fight and needs a little mercy/stupidity from our part in order to win. The fact that Al Queda primarily uses suicide attacks proves that they care nothing for their own lives. One has to atleast care about their own lives before being capable of caring for the lives of others, because caring for someone else's life involves putting yourself in their shoes and imagining how you would feel if someone killed you. Basically, the golden rule "Do unto others as you would have others do unto you". If you don't care if others kills you, it is mentally impossible for you to truly comprehend that others may not want to die. Bin Laden, a mere conductor of suicide attacks and not a suicide attacker himself, may infact value his life, but not if he is at all worthy of the !@#$%^&*le of leader of Al Queda. Given Al Queda's past behavior, they are calling for truce to advance or preserve their political goals. Also, Bin Laden said Al Queda would cause more attacks if we did not agree to this truce, yet he said himself that the only reason that Al Queda hasn't hit the US after 9/11 is that they couldn't get past our intelligence network. Are they threatening to get themselves killed by our spies? This isn't the first time he said that either. The only way Al Queda can pull off an attack on us or any other first-world country is when we are off-guard and in peacetime. As long as we consider ourselves "at-war", they can't touch us. He probably wants us to let down our guard so he can attack us in peacetime again. He also cited the "mounting opposition" to this war. The opposition was mounting months ago, but currently it has kinda been waning. The left knows now that no matter how much they whine, the Republican party has the reins and have no interest in listening to them. Still, popular or not Bush has three years left, and though the left may oppose the War in Iraq, they are a far cry from helping Bin Laden with the War on Terror. I'd almost say we should pull out of Iraq just to show Bin Laden the extent of Al Queda's failure if this wasn't so serious. The Kurds have been fighting for freedom for over a millenium. Now that they have it, they will not give it up. Because of this, no matter how strong insurgents get they will never control Iraq again, for if they gained an acre of ground to stand on a Kurdish insurgency would show up to prevent them from using it. We could probably pull out of Iraq right now, and it still would form a democracy because the Kurds and to a lesser extent the Shi'ites will never allow any other government to form again. Still, that would cause a lot more casualties than if we just crushed the Al Queda insurgents here and now. Remember, as tough as this War in Iraq has been for us, it has been tougher for Al Queda. We have been facing off-and-on guerella resistence, wheras they have been devoting every resource they have to this war, and have lost all of their fixed infrastructure. They are out of weapons and soldiers, and their political support has not only erroded, but has begun to turn back at them. Overall though, the time to call for Al Queda to call for peace was Sept 12, 2001. Its too late now. They are a few months away from beaten and we know it. But the best reason of all why this offer is a pathetic ploy is that it was large and one-sided. Bin Laden asked us to pull out of Iraq and Afghanistan, but promised nothing hard in return. Negotiations occur when people stand face to face and both put something on the table. If this is negotiation, where is the Al Queda amb!@#$%^&*ador? Besides, even if we could trust Bin Laden on this, could we trust that every member of Al Queda would honor this? Most likely, many of them would split off and form another terrorist group that would attack us despite the "treaty". However, if we crush Al Queda's political dreams now, we could guarentee no attacks ever again. The overall message we can take home from this is that Bin Laden is afraid. We just hit a lot of Al Queda leaders last week, and its only a matter of time until we find him. He's finally starting to realise that while Al Queda could successfully attack and withdraw, they never had the capacity to hold ground or push foward. They lost this war when they started it.
»i88gerbils Posted January 20, 2006 Report Posted January 20, 2006 Awesome. Though not quite sure why the partisan politics was in the post. At the end of the day I get the job done at my workplace so I hope that no matter who's in the oval office the hiring policies for the CIA, DIA, NSA, which I know are strict, hire the employees that matter.
»Ducky Posted January 20, 2006 Report Posted January 20, 2006 Most likely, many of them would split off and form another terrorist group that would attack us despite the "treaty". However, if we crush Al Queda's political dreams now, we could guarentee no attacks ever again.The only part I disagreed with.Despite what happens, people will split off and start something new.Attacks never again? I doubt it. Maybe not to the scale of 9/11; but I certainly don't discount smaller attacks.
MonteZuma Posted January 20, 2006 Report Posted January 20, 2006 In Bin Laden's though, its a sign that he knows he's losing this fight and needs a little mercy/stupidity from our part in order to win.Bin Laden isn't losing. What he is doing is trying to manipulate public opinion and make the US appear unreasonable. In some parts of the world his manipulation will probably help his cause. Bin Laden, a mere conductor of suicide attacks and not a suicide attacker himself, may infact value his life, but not if he is at all worthy of the !@#$%^&*le of leader of Al Queda.I think time has shown that Bin Laden is a very skillful leader of Al Qaida. He has played the US and some other countries like puppets and increased the level of tension between Islamic countries and the west. As long as we consider ourselves "at-war", they can't touch us.This is !@#$%^&*y and obviously wrong. Do you really think a London-style attack could never happen in any US city at any time? The fact that this is a so-called 'time of war' is irrelevant. The US has gotten this far without a homeland attack due to a combination of luck, intelligence gathering and border control. But the US has been 'touched' many times outside of the US, especially in Iraq. He also cited the "mounting opposition" to this war. The opposition was mounting months ago, but currently it has kinda been waning.Media interest has waned, but opinion polls in the US and other countries with 'pro war' governments show that support for the war in Iraq is at an all-time low. The Kurds have been fighting for freedom for over a millenium. Now that they have it, they will not give it up. Because of this, no matter how strong insurgents get they will never control Iraq again...I think you overestimate the power of the Kurds. Still, that would cause a lot more casualties than if we just crushed the Al Queda insurgents here and now.I think most insurgents in Iraq are not from Al Qaida. They are local resistance fighters (mainly Sunnis) that sympathise with Al Qaida. They are out of weapons and soldiers, and their political support has not only erroded, but has begun to turn back at them.They are not out of weapons, soldiers or support. Their measly infrastructure has been damaged though - mainly communications. If this is negotiation, where is the Al Queda amb!@#$%^&*ador?Is this a serious question? Do terrorist groups need amb!@#$%^&*adors before they can 'negotiate'? In any case, I'm surprised you're taking this 'peace offer' so seriously. Every educated thinking person (including you) in the free world knows it is propaganda.
Greased_Lightning Posted January 20, 2006 Report Posted January 20, 2006 Yeah this is just bin laden trying to get everyone mixed up. Any kind of confusion from this benefits them. The only way to negotiate with these kinds of people is with a 1000 pound bomb or cruise missiles or something kewl and explodyriffic
»i88gerbils Posted January 21, 2006 Report Posted January 21, 2006 Even though it's hard to trust American & British intelligence sources we really have nothing else to go on, and so I must disagree with Montezuma and others. We do know that despite an increase American military presence in the Middle East Bin Laden & Al Qaida have failed to produce a real "jihad". However we still have fear. Americans will always fear another terrorist attack either on foreign soil or on our territory. Personally, I think Hamas is more of a threat right now then Al Qaida. Within a year they could forums.minegoboom.com/viewtopic.php?t=5854be in control of Palestinian politics & throw away the negotiations that were sought after by the West. If a Hamas Palestine renews a war with Israel will Syria be far behind? Israel-Palestine is probably more a threat to regional chaos then Iraq is. But what better way to improve the life in Iraq if all the "insurgent" fighters moved back to Syria, Jordan, Lebanon, Egypt, and Palestine to wage war against Israel?
spedhead Posted January 22, 2006 Report Posted January 22, 2006 lol thats kinda gay i mean who really cares.
Aileron Posted January 22, 2006 Author Report Posted January 22, 2006 This is !@#$%^&*y and obviously wrong. Do you really think a London-style attack could never happen in any US city at any time? The fact that this is a so-called 'time of war' is irrelevant. The US has gotten this far without a homeland attack due to a combination of luck, intelligence gathering and border control. But the US has been 'touched' many times outside of the US, especially in Iraq.That opinion isn't that !@#$%^&*y, the proper caution is in the statement "as long as we consider ourselves at war". Considering ourselves at war includes keeping our guard up and not underestimating our enemy. True, it isn't much more than a mindset, but it does mean keeping an eye out for enemies. The US has gotten this far without a homeland attack because we don't underestimate the terrorist threat, that and one of the reasons we went into Iraq is so Al Queda would attack us there and not at home. Overall though the intent of the statement is that the worst thing we could do is consider ourselves at peace. If we lower our guard then certainly an attack will get through. As long as we keep our guard up we will be fine. I think most insurgents in Iraq are not from Al Qaida. They are local resistance fighters (mainly Sunnis) that sympathise with Al Qaida. I remember reading a statistic one time stateing that 4/5 of the insurgents in Iraq are imported foreigners, not necessarily Al Queda, but generally most of the insurgents are not domestic. I don't overestimate the power of the Kurds though. If the Sunnis with Al Queda support can do this to us, the Kurds with our support can do this to any non-democratic government that ever would get control. Heck, they were doing it to Hussein long before we showed up. Al Queda is running out of support. There have been do!@#$%^&*ented cases of civilians shooting insurgents and the overall muslim community condemning Al Queda. Regardless, even those who believe in Islamic Jihad are turning away from Al Queda because they lost Afghanistan and Iraq to the United States. Their movement may be alive within those countries, but they have no way of routing us out of there because they have no ground holding capabilities. Because of this, it is impossible for them to win the wars they are fighting. This limits their recruitment to exclusively those who believe in dying for a lost cause. There may be as many people as ever who believe fighting a Jihad. There may be many who would give their lives if such a war could be won. However, as time goes on, Al Queda has not made any progress. It is regarded by almost all that one of the requirements for a just war is that the just war has to be won. Otherwise, all that sacrifice has been for nothing. Even if the are as many Jihadists as ever, they are beginning to see that Al Queda's Jihad cannot be won. It is becoming clear that Al Queda and their "martyrs" will go down in history as fools who started a war they could not finish. I agree with l88gerbils here. Hamas is more dangerous. Unlike Al Queda, Hamas has made foward progress. This proves that they have the capacity to win, which in turn means that they could recruit someone who isn't a complete fool.
MonteZuma Posted January 22, 2006 Report Posted January 22, 2006 ...The US has gotten this far without a homeland attack because we don't underestimate the terrorist threat, that and one of the reasons we went into Iraq is so Al Queda would attack us there and not at home.The Brits did not underestimate the terrorist threat. Iraq is not and was not a source of Al Qaida terrorists. Overall though the intent of the statement is that the worst thing we could do is consider ourselves at peace. If we lower our guard then certainly an attack will get through. As long as we keep our guard up we will be fine.I'm not so sure. I believe that a continued high level of vigilence in the US combined with calm in the middle east would lower the terrorist threat. As for the 'we will be fine' comment. If it helps you sleep at night, that's great. But every city in the world is vulnerable to a London-style attack, especially large, cosmopolitan cities. they have no way of routing us out of there because they have no ground holding capabilities. Because of this, it is impossible for them to win the wars they are fighting. This limits their recruitment to exclusively those who believe in dying for a lost cause.Terrorists and guerilla(sp?) fighters have never been strong enough to defeat the US military. No fighting force in the world is. But they are still very capable of wearing down the resolve of the US public and governement to continue to wage a futile war or maintain an occupation force. Vietnam-style.
Aileron Posted January 27, 2006 Author Report Posted January 27, 2006 The middle east has been constant violence since the mongols left in the 1300's. I doubt anything we do will calm them down. Iraq isn't like Vietnam. North Vietnam had the NVA, an actuall standing army. While this army couldn't stand up against the US on its own, it was a necessary part of the overall war effort. They needed the guerellas and terrorists to keep the US forces off balance and drain public support, but they also needed a standing army to turn those things into success for them. The insurgents don't have any standing army at all. Because of this they could attack infrastructure and drain public support all they want, but they still can't rout anything. Well, this thread does have an official winner....l88gerbils. He hit the nail right on the head. Here we are worrying about Al Queda, who have a terrible strategy and are well on their way to total annihilation, and Hamas just took over Palistine. Congradulations to I88gerbils for being the official "Bin Laden calls for truce" thread champion!
MonteZuma Posted January 28, 2006 Report Posted January 28, 2006 The middle east has been constant violence since the mongols left in the 1300's. I doubt anything we do will calm them down.Probably not. But poorly planned western interventions can make things worse. The insurgents don't have any standing army at all. Because of this they could attack infrastructure and drain public support all they want, but they still can't rout anything.They don't need to. All they need to do is drain public support. Well, this thread does have an official winner....l88gerbils. He hit the nail right on the head.Maybe. I'm not sure that Hamas is a greater threat to peace/security in the western world than Al Qaida. Hamas is certainly a greater threat to Israel. But Israel (with the usual US support) can take care of that.
Aileron Posted January 29, 2006 Author Report Posted January 29, 2006 Well, once the Mongols left, the Ottomans took over, and it was constant rebellion against them. This lasted until WWI when the Ottoman Empire finally died and the territory fell to European powers. Ofcourse by this time Europe was far to weak to control world-wide Empires any more, so these became independant countries by the end of WWII. Then, Europe formed Israel, and there was fighting against Israel. There wasn't much violence going on between WWI and WWII, but other than that the region is and practically always has been filled with violence and hatred. "Poorly planned" policies as in Europe not being able to see that (constant violence since the 1300s + modern weapons + globalization = that violence is going to spill over into the rest of the world if we don't do something about it) This also brings about respect for what Bush is trying to do. He is trying to end about 700 years of violence. I never expected him to be able to do it in four years, that is impossible. However, it has to be done because technology is advancing too fast for us to let medieval societies advance at their own pace any more. My only comment is that we have to be carefull. Our society is like the Ottomans were in a lot of ways...we need to make sure we don't replace them. Low Public support doesn't move troops from the ground they are standing on...only standing military can do that. Besides, the low public support is only from people who don't realise how big and important this war is. It has to be won or all society will collapse into another dark age (only with guns this time instead of swords). However, it has to take time, and I'll admit that the American public is usually impatient and doesn't like things that aren't quick and easy. Besides, American public support isn't important in Iraq right now. Its the Iraqi public support which is important....and push comes to shove the Iraqi population HAS to support their government because the only alternative is Al Queda rule. The difference between Hamas and Al Queda is that Al Queda has a major weakness in arrogance. Al Queda thought they could take on the whole western world, and lost. They have lost virtually every leader they have except Bin Laden. Hamas thought they could take on Israel if they isolated Israel, and have succeeded in gaining territorial consessions, and they succeeded. Successful terrorist organizations scare me more than mere civilian-killers. Israel is in major trouble with this war. It is a constant cycle of Israel being demanded by the UN to give concession for peace, and Palistine agreeing only to have the terrorists NOT agree and the violence continuing anyways. Just take the latest example...Israel pulls out of the Gaza strip and Palistine ellects Hamas. Even the US isn't supporting Israel the way we need to. I don't know why, but the world somehow thinks that this is a war of social classes rather than a war between a nation and a terrorist state. There are people richer than I am...I don't blow them up though. Israel should be allowed to go on the offensive, or at very least draw the line where it is and leave it there. (That's why I favor the wall they are building...its not that it is a wall...it is a line on the map that cannot be moved. When its up, Israel can't move the border east and Palistine can't move it west. The border will be where the wall is...thus there will be no reason to fight over the border anymore.)
MonteZuma Posted January 29, 2006 Report Posted January 29, 2006 This also brings about respect for what Bush is trying to do. He is trying to end about 700 years of violence. I never expected him to be able to do it in four years, that is impossible. However, it has to be done because technology is advancing too fast for us to let medieval societies advance at their own pace any more.If that is his goal, he has failed miserably. Iran are scared because of GWBs 'axis of evil' remark and probably plan to build a nuclear weapon to defend themselves. Iraq is a quagmire, with no sign yet of it having an ability to defend itself from insurgents and Hamas has a stronghold in 'Palestine'. GWB has done nothing to pacify the region. Low Public support doesn't move troops from the ground they are standing on...only standing military can do that.It got them out of Vietnam - and Somalia. Besides, the low public support is only from people who don't realise how big and important this war is. It has to be won or all society will collapse into another dark age (only with guns this time instead of swords).I disagree - 100% What will stop the world from decending into some less civilised state is the rule of law. Not the rule of war. (wow. I should give a speech at the UN using that as my slogan) However, it has to take time, and I'll admit that the American public is usually impatient and doesn't like things that aren't quick and easy.The American public doesn't like seeing a waste of American life. Besides, American public support isn't important in Iraq right now. Its the Iraqi public support which is important....and push comes to shove the Iraqi population HAS to support their government because the only alternative is Al Queda rule.Al Qaida was irrelevant to Iraq before the invasion. Even though GWB stirred up the hornest nest, I think the biggest threat to Iraqi democracy is still from local factions rather than Al Qaida. The difference between Hamas and Al Queda is that Al Queda has a major weakness in arrogance. Al Queda thought they could take on the whole western world, and lost. They have lost virtually every leader they have except Bin Laden. Hamas thought they could take on Israel if they isolated Israel, and have succeeded in gaining territorial consessions, and they succeeded. Successful terrorist organizations scare me more than mere civilian-killers.The difference between Hamas and Al Qaida is that Hamas is a gr!@#$%^&* roots organisation that, despite its terrorist activities, invests a large proportion of its income into community-building activities. Hamas's primary focus is Israel. Al Qaida's ambitions and interests are more global - that is why Al Qaida is a bigger threat to you and me and the western world. Israel is in major trouble with this war. It is a constant cycle of Israel being demanded by the UN to give concession for peace, and Palistine agreeing only to have the terrorists NOT agree and the violence continuing anyways. Just take the latest example...Israel pulls out of the Gaza strip and Palistine ellects Hamas. Even the US isn't supporting Israel the way we need to.I disagree. Democratically elected or not, all of the western world is opposed to Hamas. To say that Israel is not getting the aid it needs strikes me as a little odd. Israel would have collapsed long ago without continued support from the US - and others. I don't know why, but the world somehow thinks that this is a war of social classes rather than a war between a nation and a terrorist state. There are people richer than I am...I don't blow them up though.Maybe some people in the west are distracted, but for the terrorists, this isn't just about money, this is about religion, en!@#$%^&*lement and self-determination. Israel should be allowed to go on the offensive, or at very least draw the line where it is and leave it there. (That's why I favor the wall they are building...its not that it is a wall...it is a line on the map that cannot be moved. When its up, Israel can't move the border east and Palistine can't move it west. The border will be where the wall is...thus there will be no reason to fight over the border anymore.)If this is true, then Iran, North Korea, China and any other 'evil empire' "should be allowed to go on the offensive, or at very least draw the line where it is and leave it there". This is ridiculous.
Aileron Posted January 30, 2006 Author Report Posted January 30, 2006 Sure Bush has pacified the area...albeit not completely. Syria pulled out of Lebanon. Afghanistan's and Iraq's situation is atleast an improvement upon what it was. Bush is only failing in Palestine because he tried to push the same type of peace deal his last 3 predecessors did. As for Iran, public opposition to Iraq that is encouraging their behavior. They are betting that since worldwide support for the War in Iraq is low that Bush can't launch a campaign agaist them. To this I can say that I hope liberals WANT Iran to have nukes, because they have given them permission to build them by opposing the ousting of SADDAM HUSSEIN (you know, evil guy with a beard, launched WMDs on his own people, tortered executed millions of political opponants.) as long as they did. No, Vietnam needed the NVA...not to say public support wasn't a more important factor. Without the NVA they wouldn't have been able to occupy South Veitnam after we left. Without the NVA even if no one stood against them they wouldn't have been able to control South Vietnam. In Somalia we never stood and held ground. That time WE were the ones who lacked a real standing army...because some idiot in office decided not to really use it. The internal factions in Iraq can't remove democracy...the Sunnis are only 20% of the population. With Hussein and his army gone, its 4 to 1 odds. The factions can commit terrorist action, but bottom line they have no capacity for occupation. If by some miracle they drove support down enough to generate a pullout, how would they occupy Iraq? You can't occupy a country with suicide bombers and roadside bombs. You need an actual army that can control the ground they are standing on. The insurgents have no occupation force...if they ever built one it would just get blasted into oblivian by even the Iraqi standing army. Without the occupation force, they can fight, but they can't gain control. Thus, they cannot win. Oh goodie...rule of law...we'll just tell Bin Laden its wrong to break the Law and this will all be over... We need to remove terrorist states and international law doesn't mean much to a dictator. Just look at Hussein's trial. Hussein clearly thinks himself above the law...he is claiming that no court can try him - that was his opening statement and he was continuing along that line of arguement even yesterday. So does every other dictator who has ever wielded supreme power. Hitler commited suicide before submitting to rule of law. Napolean wasn't much of a dictator, but close enough to one that when he was sentenced to exile he escaped and tried to take over Europe a second time. Rule of law is irrelevent to terrorists and dictators. Or do you mean WE should obey rule of law. Like, for example, when Baathist Iraq violated rule of law we should have responded as was our legal responsability rather than writing yet another resolution. Besides, there is no such thing as International Law. There is no official world governing body...the closest thing to one is the EU. "International Law" is merely a group of diplomatic understandings...if you do this, we will do that, so don't do this. Thus, it really amounts to rule of war in most ways. Heck "Rule of Law" requires imperialism...it would require one nation to take over all the others in order to enact laws. Clearly "Rule of Law" is not how international relations can be done. Maybe there is an alternative to rule of war...but I don't know if the other forms of persuasion function on the suicidal...maybe if we offered terrorists 73 virgins instead of 72...(personally, I vote kill the terrorist and give me the 72 virgins.) And when was China ever referred to as an "evil empire"? I recall only three nations mentioned in the axis of Evil: Iraq, Iran, and North Korea. Given at the time we were officially at war with both Iraq and NK (technically we are STILL at war with North Korea...we just have a long-term ceasefire), that isn't really that unfair of a judgement.
MonteZuma Posted January 31, 2006 Report Posted January 31, 2006 To summarise what would otherwise be a long and quote-box ridden post, because I disagree with every paragraph you've written, let me try bullet points... * The region is not pacified at all. There have always been areas of relative calm. * Getting rid of Saddam certainly has not eased Irans fears. They till want nukes. They didn't need them to defend themselves from Saddam. He has been a lame duck since 1991. They need nukes to defend against Israel and the US. * The US didn't leave Vietnam because of the NVA. They left because the American public were not commited. * The US government was not commited to Somalia because no-one cared. It was a folly. * Saddam and the Sunnis ruled Iraq despite their minority status. What makes you think a similar thing could not happen again? In any case, they don't need to rule the country to keep it in a state of total disarray. * Who cares what Saddam thinks? Ultimately, it is what the UN and the Security Council thinks that is important. * Yes. Of course WE should obey the rule of law. If we don't we are uncivilised. * http://www.icj-cij.org/ and http://www.un.org/Docs/sc/ * http://www.icj-cij.org/ and http://www.un.org/Docs/sc/ * There are more than three countries in the axis of evil. Not all were named. You need to use your brain to figure out who Bush meant. Reread the speech.
X`terrania Posted February 2, 2006 Report Posted February 2, 2006 I believe that no law standing should be able to assist Saddam in this trial. He needs to be punished for his unhuman crimes against humanity.
Dr.Worthless Posted February 5, 2006 Report Posted February 5, 2006 A.) Iran didn't start developing nuclear weapons because they were scared of the current president and his rhetoric, unless they built a time machine in the 80's teleported to 2003 and listened to some the radio, then teleported back and started their ambitions. B.) If you think Iran is building a nuke for defensive purposes, you're as nutty as their current "president".
MonteZuma Posted February 5, 2006 Report Posted February 5, 2006 A ) Yeah. Iran has had nuclear ambitions for a long time. But Bush hasn't exactly done much (using diplomacy) to dissuade them from recommencing their programme. Hence the need to ramp up the threats and bring the world closer to another conflict - with Iran and with Islam - again. B ) As nutty as they may be, annihilation of Iran isn't on their agenda. That that is what will happen if they use a nuke against Israel or (probably) any other nation, especially those that are friendly to the west. Aside from defense, they also want nukes because they want to be a seen to be an important world power. Iran isn't as backward as many people think.
Aileron Posted February 6, 2006 Author Report Posted February 6, 2006 I think people see Iran more as "dangerous" than "backwards". I dunno, it may be in fact that they do just want a nuclear power plant. It has a lot of advantages, not having to import oil from your insano neighbors being the biggest. In order to become a first world economy, they need electricity, and without rivers their choices are either oil or nuclear. Maybe a good compromise would be they stop working on their nuclear power plant and the UN helps them build a solar power plant. (Given their environment solar might be a viable option here.)
MonteZuma Posted February 6, 2006 Report Posted February 6, 2006 Iran has plenty of oil. The most economical thing for them to do is make electricity with that. I don't think solar technology is sufficently advanced to replace traditional power generation (oil, coal, nuclear).
Aileron Posted February 7, 2006 Author Report Posted February 7, 2006 I don't think so either, I'm a major nuclear power advocate infact. However, solar's weakness is that it needs large areas of land and no cloud cover. That means that they might be viable in desert environments. I know Iran isn't entirely desert, but while its not the Sahara it certainly is not the Amazon. Really though, Iran might just be doing what the entire rest of the world is doing: Getting off fossil fuels. Even oil-exporting countries have a reason to do this. They less oil they burn at home, the more they can sell overseas. Okay, I don't necessarily believe myself here. All I'm saying is that while it is unlikely, it may very well be possible all Iran wants is electrical power.
Dr.Worthless Posted February 8, 2006 Report Posted February 8, 2006 Yeah. Iran has had nuclear ambitions for a long time. But Bush hasn't exactly done much (using diplomacy) to dissuade them from recommencing their programme. Hence the need to ramp up the threats and bring the world closer to another conflict - with Iran and with Islam - again.We've already agreed that Iran has had nuclear ambitions for nearly 20 years, why are you trying to half-!@#$%^&* blame the current administration for something that SHOULD have been brought up a long time ago? The current administration is doing the correct thing, the EXACT same thing we did with IRAQ when we first started going after them for developing a weapon, that is going through the UN. When/If the UN fails again on, we'll see what happens. How can you say "Bush" hasn't "exactly done much" when the issue is most likely going to go to the security councle? Don't tell me you're one of those "unilateral action is bad US, BAD, but take care of Iran now you terrible president!" people. B ) As nutty as they may be, annihilation of Iran isn't on their agenda. That that is what will happen if they use a nuke against Israel or (probably) any other nation, especially those that are friendly to the west. While this would make the most logical sense, how can we apply logic to the current situation, from a man that says the holocaust was a ploy, and that the recent islam cartoons were really setup by jews/"the west" because we're bitter over Hamas being elected in palestine? To the whole they need power spheel, the russians have offered to bring them the needed materials then haul off the byproducts and store them in russia for them, to ensure they don't have the spent material to further refine into weapon-grade plutonium. Of course, Iran refused...
MonteZuma Posted February 8, 2006 Report Posted February 8, 2006 We've already agreed that Iran has had nuclear ambitions for nearly 20 years, why are you trying to half-!@#$%^&* blame the current administration for something that SHOULD have been brought up a long time ago?There is nothing half-!@#$%^&*ed about it. GWB made a big mistake with his 'axis of evil remark'. He effectively shut down any opportunity for dialogue. Who negotiates with evil people? He should cut out the gung-ho jingo crap. The current administration is doing the correct thing, the EXACT same thing we did with IRAQ when we first started going after them for developing a weapon, that is going through the UN. When/If the UN fails again on, we'll see what happens.How did the UN fail? Iraq had no WMDs when the US decided to attack. How can you say "Bush" hasn't "exactly done much" when the issue is most likely going to go to the security councle?You left off the rest of the sentence. Bush has done a lot - but mostly he has screwed things up. Referring the issue to the Security Council is less than ideal. The best way to resolve this issue is with dialogue, using the IAEA and within the framework of the NPT. If Iran feels that those fora are unavailable and withdraws, the consequences could be ugly. Governments like India, China and Russia could be useful to mediate the dispute because they don't want Iran to have nukes either. They have much less room to manoeuver if they are put in a situation where they must choose to support the US or support Iran. Don't tell me you're one of those "unilateral action is bad US, BAD, but take care of Iran now you terrible president!" people.I'm "one of those "unilateral action is bad" people. Yes. This isn't a metter of taking care of Iran. This is a matter of avoiding war and avoiding proliferation of nuclear weapons and making the world a safer place. While this would make the most logical sense, how can we apply logic to the current situation, from a man that says the holocaust was a ploy, and that the recent islam cartoons were really setup by jews/"the west" because we're bitter over Hamas being elected in palestine?Yeah. Some nutty things have been said. I don't want Iran to have nuclear weapons any more than you do. The disagreement that we have is about methodology.
Dr.Worthless Posted February 8, 2006 Report Posted February 8, 2006 There is nothing half-!@#$%^&*ed about it. GWB made a big mistake with his 'axis of evil remark'. He effectively shut down any opportunity for dialogue. Who negotiates with evil people? He should cut out the gung-ho jingo crap.So its your opinion that Iran won't have anything to do with us because the current president said they were in the "axis of evil". Heh... How did the UN fail? Iraq had no WMDs when the US decided to attack. Ok, so its your opinion that the UN did its job. You left off the rest of the sentence. Bush has done a lot - but mostly he has screwed things up.So now why are you criticizing the president for wanting to take this issue to the UN? You make no sense... Referring the issue to the Security Council is less than ideal. The best way to resolve this issue is with dialogue, using the IAEA and within the framework of the NPT. If Iran feels that those fora are unavailable and withdraws, the consequences could be ugly. Governments like India, China and Russia could be useful to mediate the dispute because they don't want Iran to have nukes either. They have much less room to manoeuver if they are put in a situation where they must choose to support the US or support Iran. Monte, I'm convince its impossible for me to see things your way, and honestly i'm trying. You wanted Iraq to be delt with by the UN, you want Iran to be delt with by the United States. You say the UN did its job with Iraq, but say the UN isn't a good idea for Iran. Russia/China have been in talks with Iran, infact, im fairly certain that the president wants this situation worked out with Iran's neighbors spear heading the effort, much like with N.Korea. I'm "one of those "unilateral action is bad" people. Yes. This isn't a metter of taking care of Iran. This is a matter of avoiding war and avoiding proliferation of nuclear weapons and making the world a safer place. I agree, so I don't see how you can say "omg this is bush's fault he screwed up"...
»Ducky Posted February 8, 2006 Report Posted February 8, 2006 http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/FCE...F0-DD1F354F1D9A Haha. You can't buy good comedy like this.I say do it; Free speech is free speech.
Recommended Posts