ADN

I won't be that harsh, Kramer, as I enjoy the interchange of opinions that comes in forums such as this. And bottom line, we all have our opinions about what has happened, is happening, and will happen. I don't begrudge brains asking questions that require one to look more closely into the reasons behind one's own opinion. I will answer the question with an opinion of my own.

However, brains, when you just ask "Why?" it doesn't give us a sense of what is lurking in your reasoning. It helps us to answer those questions if we know what we need to answer (or at least pipe up with our opinions on that particular area).

My :2:

Harsh? Maybe. Called for? I think so. He's already stated numerous times that he doesn't know the history of a lot of situations and he doesn't bother with facts etc. So, when he comes in here and tries to throw shit around with everyone else, it's a little frustrating.

At least read the articles and try to understand them.

The first article is about Iran holding a conference about the Holocaust because their president thinks it's a myth. It's just another example of him spreading his hate toward Israel and the Jews. Do you want someone like him to poccess a nuke? We all know what happened the last time someone started spreading hate against the Jews.

The second article shows how the U.N. and EU are completely useless. They're letting Iran boss them around. They should be in a meeting right now discussing sanctions since Iran ignored the deadline. However, the EU, in all its wisdom, has decided to give Iran another two weeks. I'll bet you $100 once those two weeks are up, they still won't have made any progress.

The funny thing about this situation is you can't even say we've returned to square one because we've never even fucking left square one! :roll:

TFF about square one!

Makes you wish for the old days before the Ayatollah.

kramer: you have shown numerous times that you do not have a clue on how MY opinion is formed. You are NOT able to judge why I say the things I do. You are at a total loss in imagining how I think. This gives me an advantage. I do understand how YOU think... and - surprise, surprise - I am not okay with it. That is the reason why i asked "why". You won't accept another view from me; you will only change it when you reflect on your own.

As an example: when I said "I do not remember facts", I meant absolute numbers. I am NOT able to say "Tuesday April 4th 2006, at 12.53PM, 64 persons were registered dead in Basra." Neither can you unless you look things like that up. I AM able to say "over the last few months, there was an average death toll of 100 a day in Iraq". Do you understand?



back on-topic: The hardliner stance the US has adopted every since 9/11... where did THAT get us? Are we any more safe? Is there any less terror? NOT AT ALL (or do you disagree even there).

IMHO: You or rather your country would better start listening a bit to the UN and learn how it handles shit, because the last time you did not, you got yourselves into an immensely deep mess which has everyone wondering on how we are gonna get out again. (or do you disagree again).


dd: I do not like Iran's speeches. I do not like them pursuing nuclear weapons, BUT I can NOT blame them either. If they are so fucking keen at developing their own nuclears, I think the West is to blame for it. WE are not giving examples. WE are full of ourselves saying "You can't", while we do. Fuck: we got depleted uranium shells aplenty in Iraq. We got leftovers of cluster bombs on Lebanese civilian grounds. We are holding hundreds imprisoned for years and years without trial. I find it absolutely normal that there are persons NOT agreeing with all that and who the hell are we to say they have to?!

You know what we can do? Talk! But for some extremely obscure reason talking is just not done lately! Imagine that?!?!!!! (or do you disagree?)

If there's been one great lesson for the world's dictatorships in the last few years it's that you'd better get nukes and get them soon. the reason? iraq had no serious weaponry: result, invasion. korea has nukes: result, stalemate. i'd be amazed if iran doesn't become the powerhouse of the middle east over the next decade, especially if it's able to mop up parts of iraq after their (nearly inevitable) civil war.

as to the effectiveness or otherwise of the un, that's just a function of the countries who comprise it's membership. since it encompasses such a large number of different view points it's difficult to make decisions. it's probably better that than the dictatorship of the most powerful countries, which is the only obvious alternative.

on a slightly different tack, i suspect sanctions are going to become a more frequently used weapon as the years pass. they don't carry the same cost in body bags to the attacking nation, which are so bad for public relations. they do still have a cost for the nation under attack, but the deaths (of the elderly and infirm, mostly) are more hidden from the media spotlight.

QUOTE(Brains)dd: I do not like Iran's speeches. I do not like them pursuing nuclear weapons, BUT I can NOT blame them either. If they are so fucking keen at developing their own nuclears, I think the West is to blame for it. WE are not giving examples. WE are full of ourselves saying "You can't", while we do. Fuck: we got depleted uranium shells aplenty in Iraq. We got leftovers of cluster bombs on Lebanese civilian grounds. We are holding hundreds imprisoned for years and years without trial. I find it absolutely normal that there are persons NOT agreeing with all that and who the hell are we to say they have to?!  

You know what we can do? Talk! But for some extremely obscure reason talking is just not done lately! Imagine that?!?!!!! (or do you disagree?)

I can certain UNDERSTAND the why they're doing what they're doing; I just don't approve of it. You're right in that we're not setting a good example, but I honestly think we're doing the best we can given the cards we're being dealt. The world has looked at the US as the policeman on the corner ever since WWII, rightly or wrongly. And we've stepped into that role as well, sometimes putting our noses into places where we have limited reasons for putting it. But that is what is expected of us by the great majority of the world, including YOUR country.

You want us to talk more? Why? We've been talking for months if not years! Iran thumbs it's nose at the world, pretty much saying, "Go ahead and talk. We're gonna do what we want anyway." Once that reactor starts spitting out enriched Uranium, they can move the material to many different places to make it more difficult for anyone to keep track of and prevent the detection of a nuclear device. As for the example you gave of all the depleted Uranium shells in Iraq, the primary word there is depleted. The radioactivity is gone. It's an entirely different isotope of Uranium; one that cannot be used for weapons other than as highly dense anti-armor shells.

QUOTE(Brains)IMHO: You or rather your country would better start listening a bit to the UN and learn how it handles shit, because the last time you did not, you got yourselves into an immensely deep mess which has everyone wondering on how we are gonna get out again. (or do you disagree again).

I do. Canada never approved of the war in Iraq. When Bush asked for our support, Chritien told him to fuck off.

Did you think I was American? lol


Oh, and I could give you dates and numbers. I study history.

Oddly, when we supposedly bypassed the U.N. and started the war in Iraq, it was unjustified...Oddly, when Iran told the UN to kiss their ass and continued w/the reactor, they are justified...

Not seemingly to pick, Brains, but...How DO you form your opinion..?

BUT I can NOT blame them either. If they are so fucking keen at developing their own nuclears, I think the West is to blame for it.

At first, I thought that you were just anti war as a whole, but it seems you are just anti U.S...

You or rather your country would better start listening a bit to the UN and learn how it handles shit,

As far as I can tell, the UN is a babysitter run over by the kids she's supposed to be taking care of...I find that behavior unacceptable, wonder how you take that as a stance...

If I tell my son to stop doing something, and he doesn't stop...I put something on on his ass...Other parents may do timeout or they may do punishment, but the key here is something is done...What is the UN's course of action besided being a stressed out Mom with no will or rod..?

QUOTE(deepdiver32073)As for the example you gave of all the depleted Uranium shells in Iraq, the primary word there is depleted.  The radioactivity is gone. It's an entirely different isotope of Uranium; one that cannot be used for weapons other than as highly dense anti-armor shells.
the radioactivity is reduced, not really "gone", though the end result is fairly similar. depleted uranium is one of those things which is used to beat the us military, with little sense from what i can grok. do people really think the us top brass are deliberately exposing their grunts to dangerous levels of radiation? for what end? the shells have been tested by international organisations such as the iaea and found to be harmless.

on iran specifically, i reckon this is a far more dangerous country than iraq. unfortunately we've shot our bolt with the invasion of the second country, and it's nearly impossible now to do anything about iran. worrying times...

worrying times indeed lf.

look. I am NOT at all looking forward to Iran having nuclears. But I am not looking forward to ANYONE having nuclears. If the world needs nuclears, they should be controlled by the UN, so that there is a combined decision on when to use them.

kramer: the dates and numbers thing: if you say you can remember, good for you. I just need to accept ey?!

aj: where did I say "US" there? I said "the West", which is far bigger than the US. If I would have said US, I would have meant the current Bush administration. My kids go through the same cycle too: they wrong, I punish. I do find it strange that you compare "educating a country" to "educating kids"...

dd: I am on dial-up here, so I can't really research, but I think you can imagine quite a few headlines over the past years which said: "We do not negotiate with X or Y, because of reason A or B", even on explicit request, even with Iran. As an example: this letter Ahmedinejad sent to Bush, it was dismissed; it was not used as a basis for dialogue, although the request was there... why?! Again, the answer was something like: "we do not deal with countries which do not accept Israel." or "we do not negotiate with terrorist states" or whatever. WHY is that? Why can't you? WHAT is there to loose?