Defying U.N., Iran opens nuclear reactor
-
highlife
- Posts: 449
- Joined: Wed Feb 08, 2006 1:54 am
This mideast mess is getting more annoying by the day. I read an opinion piece that said bush and team wanted to squeez iran by being in afghan,, and iraq on the other side. They thought it would give the moderates in iran the courage to push for more. Seems like they instead gave the radicals all the amoe they needed to gain back control. I think after we made it so clear that nobodies army could stop us or even slow us down iran decided the only option was to go nuclear. It has nothing to do with energy. Combine that with what seems to be a nut case seeking to inflame the region and we have a problem.If he talked like a rational person insted of talking about wipping out the jews mabey we could show a little trust. I dont think hes interested in talking unless it furthers his goals. Everybody seems to agree they cant be alowed to have a bomb. I dought sanctions will stop them so the decession will be to bomb or not to bomb.Can we take out the nuke sites or just hurt them untill they decide its not worth it.Will it be us or Isrial. I guess its possible we could just sit back and hope for the best but i cant see Iseial doing that.
| BBcode: | |
| Hide post links |
-
Brains
- Posts: 549
- Joined: Fri Nov 25, 2005 8:14 am
okay. so the Western approach to tackling terrorism has little effect. it seems to polarize the factions, while we should be growing towards eachother. it seems to make the radicals (these which are radical to us, commonly referred to as "terrorist" lately) even more radical and it seems to strengthen their numbers. so. the war on terror is not really successful. it seems to be a feeding ground of terror instead, but well... we got ouselves into all sorts of problems and one is Iran.
so, while we are developing are devious little schemes of a shocking war and awesome destruction, why can't we talk in the mean time? What is their to loose? We got a "no" already, maybe we get a "yes" by negotiating. And again, planning an assault can still be done.
you know what bothers me? our refusal to talk! We did that with Afghanistan, we did that we Iraq (all while Saddam was coming forward all the time), we continue to do so with the Palestinians, with Hezbollah etc etc. I thought that the ability for negotiationg, the ability to talk made us human? Sure as hell fighting doesn't.
so. you did not answer my question: why can't we start talking in the mean time?
so, while we are developing are devious little schemes of a shocking war and awesome destruction, why can't we talk in the mean time? What is their to loose? We got a "no" already, maybe we get a "yes" by negotiating. And again, planning an assault can still be done.
you know what bothers me? our refusal to talk! We did that with Afghanistan, we did that we Iraq (all while Saddam was coming forward all the time), we continue to do so with the Palestinians, with Hezbollah etc etc. I thought that the ability for negotiationg, the ability to talk made us human? Sure as hell fighting doesn't.
so. you did not answer my question: why can't we start talking in the mean time?
| BBcode: | |
| Hide post links |
-
raum
- Posts: 3944
- Joined: Sun Jul 24, 2005 10:51 am
[q]the Western approach to tackling terrorism has little effect[/q]
we haven't seen "The Western Approach" yet. that involves boots on the ground that don't have to smile for the cameras doing the job they were sent to do, that most people couldn't stomach because sometimes it gets dirty and chaotic.
The convention the west has developed in trying to respect terrorists as combatants is what has little effect. Policing streets of DMZ's in suv's when citizens are still there. The application of the Laws of War to entities which have no right to declare war is what is not working. the Geneva convention is clear: detain the citizens who are refugees unless they try to resist violently, make decent and amiable provisions for them AWAY from the DMZ and UNLEASH HELL on the insurgents, and then go back and build them a new city if you have to.
It is quite certain that the original United Nations has a protocol that does not apply to terrorists, but did apply to Saddam Hussein's regime. The Geneva conventions do not apply anymore with anyone who assists or activey participates in terror, and nor do the notions of civility or goodwill.
The Western approach to tackling terrorism WOULD work, IF people would quit trying to change it, and would quit pandering to people who are naive about the dark side of the conflicts that reside within and between people who are intrisnically different. People have added a level of passivity to it that is borderline neurotic, and leaves no serious penalty for terrorism.
People have forgotten what war numbers look like. averages are used, and create an inhuman reaction. People are counting bodies before battles are ended. That is absurd.
--------
For Iran, I would say talk is useless. the basis of talking covering a mutiny was what they used to destroy our ally, Iran.
it didn't work..
we haven't seen "The Western Approach" yet. that involves boots on the ground that don't have to smile for the cameras doing the job they were sent to do, that most people couldn't stomach because sometimes it gets dirty and chaotic.
The convention the west has developed in trying to respect terrorists as combatants is what has little effect. Policing streets of DMZ's in suv's when citizens are still there. The application of the Laws of War to entities which have no right to declare war is what is not working. the Geneva convention is clear: detain the citizens who are refugees unless they try to resist violently, make decent and amiable provisions for them AWAY from the DMZ and UNLEASH HELL on the insurgents, and then go back and build them a new city if you have to.
It is quite certain that the original United Nations has a protocol that does not apply to terrorists, but did apply to Saddam Hussein's regime. The Geneva conventions do not apply anymore with anyone who assists or activey participates in terror, and nor do the notions of civility or goodwill.
The Western approach to tackling terrorism WOULD work, IF people would quit trying to change it, and would quit pandering to people who are naive about the dark side of the conflicts that reside within and between people who are intrisnically different. People have added a level of passivity to it that is borderline neurotic, and leaves no serious penalty for terrorism.
People have forgotten what war numbers look like. averages are used, and create an inhuman reaction. People are counting bodies before battles are ended. That is absurd.
--------
For Iran, I would say talk is useless. the basis of talking covering a mutiny was what they used to destroy our ally, Iran.
it didn't work..
| BBcode: | |
| Hide post links |
-
Brains
- Posts: 549
- Joined: Fri Nov 25, 2005 8:14 am
for all you wisdom raum, you are an extremely aggressive person.
you indeed HAVE seen too much bloodshed. you are asking for more and frankly, I think that is pathetic. I think it is very sad that you are not able to put that wisdom to use, but in a violent way.
again: "roots of terrorism". where? what? who? when? and more importantly: WHY is there not a multi-BILLION (for all I care) paper on it? a result of YEARS of intensive studying of why we are in the position we are in now.
WHY? because we would be confronted with our ill behaviour in this world. It would result in US (we, the west) needing to change our approach, because it would grind our divine temples (the stock markets) to a halt and it would destroy us from the inside out. BUT instead of following the corrupted way, we would be building a better world in the mean time.
ah. dreams.
btw: and again: WHY aren't we at least talking in the mean time? again, there is not answer from you guys.
you indeed HAVE seen too much bloodshed. you are asking for more and frankly, I think that is pathetic. I think it is very sad that you are not able to put that wisdom to use, but in a violent way.
again: "roots of terrorism". where? what? who? when? and more importantly: WHY is there not a multi-BILLION (for all I care) paper on it? a result of YEARS of intensive studying of why we are in the position we are in now.
WHY? because we would be confronted with our ill behaviour in this world. It would result in US (we, the west) needing to change our approach, because it would grind our divine temples (the stock markets) to a halt and it would destroy us from the inside out. BUT instead of following the corrupted way, we would be building a better world in the mean time.
ah. dreams.
btw: and again: WHY aren't we at least talking in the mean time? again, there is not answer from you guys.
| BBcode: | |
| Hide post links |
-
raum
- Posts: 3944
- Joined: Sun Jul 24, 2005 10:51 am
Brains, ultimately the "roots of terrorism" are unimportant. the SOLUTION is what we need. and it is not a pretty picture.
The U.S. did talk. SEVERAL TIMES. everytime we come to an agreement, it opens for more negotiations, and forces the world to waste more money and more time to give an enemy time to amass a force large enough to further intimidate us, and eventually strike us harder and harder.
I do not like violence, and I am not an agressive person. I am not asking for it, but I am VERY good at it because I hate it. The Samurai Miyamoto Musashi hated to fight. If someone forced his hand, HE DECIMATED THEM, because they had made him get ugly. Then, he would go back to ichibana practices of cultivating flower arrangements. The Sage Lao-Tze was challenged once, and he caused the guy who had sought violence against him to CEASE TO EXIST, and then he wept at that man's ignorance. Siddhartha was attacked by the Gunas who attacked him with branches and sharpened stones and he caused their heads to explode so no even their memories would remain.
That is how wisdom deals with conflict, EXTREME PREJUDICE that is so effective the world gives them a clear path of no opposition. because they know that is a can of worms they don't want to open.
I hate that out of all the stuff we have to worry about, people can't admit this is just inane. Iran is trying to form its own military, with nuclear capacity, and is now AGAIN engineering a conflict that gives them an excuse to. Furthermore, we OFFERED THEM INCENTIVES, AS WE SAID WE WOULD... and they said "hey, that incentive package looks good,.. we want that and our own nuclear capacity."
and NOW they changed their story, and said "let's drink the hard water from a reactor, to cure aids and cancer".. which is about stupid. Yeah, let's talk about the benefits of drinking Hard Water,..
Of course they will need a hardwater reactor for that,.. like the one at Nantz where they found Polonium 210, which can ONLY BE USED FOR WEAPONS GRADE NUCLEAR PROJECTS. this is the Weapons grade load from the only 2 nukes used in wartime, on Japan.
Now, they are refurbishing the F-5, making a 2,000 lb guided bomb, that can fit "various warheads in development" and creating sub-surface warfare.
if you can not see what they are doing, you are in complete denial.
The U.S. did talk. SEVERAL TIMES. everytime we come to an agreement, it opens for more negotiations, and forces the world to waste more money and more time to give an enemy time to amass a force large enough to further intimidate us, and eventually strike us harder and harder.
I do not like violence, and I am not an agressive person. I am not asking for it, but I am VERY good at it because I hate it. The Samurai Miyamoto Musashi hated to fight. If someone forced his hand, HE DECIMATED THEM, because they had made him get ugly. Then, he would go back to ichibana practices of cultivating flower arrangements. The Sage Lao-Tze was challenged once, and he caused the guy who had sought violence against him to CEASE TO EXIST, and then he wept at that man's ignorance. Siddhartha was attacked by the Gunas who attacked him with branches and sharpened stones and he caused their heads to explode so no even their memories would remain.
That is how wisdom deals with conflict, EXTREME PREJUDICE that is so effective the world gives them a clear path of no opposition. because they know that is a can of worms they don't want to open.
I hate that out of all the stuff we have to worry about, people can't admit this is just inane. Iran is trying to form its own military, with nuclear capacity, and is now AGAIN engineering a conflict that gives them an excuse to. Furthermore, we OFFERED THEM INCENTIVES, AS WE SAID WE WOULD... and they said "hey, that incentive package looks good,.. we want that and our own nuclear capacity."
and NOW they changed their story, and said "let's drink the hard water from a reactor, to cure aids and cancer".. which is about stupid. Yeah, let's talk about the benefits of drinking Hard Water,..
Of course they will need a hardwater reactor for that,.. like the one at Nantz where they found Polonium 210, which can ONLY BE USED FOR WEAPONS GRADE NUCLEAR PROJECTS. this is the Weapons grade load from the only 2 nukes used in wartime, on Japan.
Now, they are refurbishing the F-5, making a 2,000 lb guided bomb, that can fit "various warheads in development" and creating sub-surface warfare.
if you can not see what they are doing, you are in complete denial.
| BBcode: | |
| Hide post links |
-
Brains
- Posts: 549
- Joined: Fri Nov 25, 2005 8:14 am
i SEE what they are doing and would you not do the same?
they are feeling more threatened by the day and ARE indeed gearing up. what would YOUR country do huh?! EXACTLY the same. probably worse: strike "pre-emptively", no?!
read. it tells it better than I can.
oh and the complete fucked up world we are living in now, was predicted back before that bloody mini-coalition led illegal war in Iraq started.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/2816595.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/2919771.stm
there was another one with charts. a complete map of some kind of worst-case scenario. i am not finding it back. i got the above two pages open for a week now. i do not find the last one. but i be damned. slowly, but surely, that worst-case scenario is happening.
they are feeling more threatened by the day and ARE indeed gearing up. what would YOUR country do huh?! EXACTLY the same. probably worse: strike "pre-emptively", no?!
read. it tells it better than I can.
oh and the complete fucked up world we are living in now, was predicted back before that bloody mini-coalition led illegal war in Iraq started.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/2816595.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/2919771.stm
there was another one with charts. a complete map of some kind of worst-case scenario. i am not finding it back. i got the above two pages open for a week now. i do not find the last one. but i be damned. slowly, but surely, that worst-case scenario is happening.
| BBcode: | |
| Hide post links |
-
highlife
- Posts: 449
- Joined: Wed Feb 08, 2006 1:54 am
Brains...so, while we are developing are devious little schemes of a shocking war and awesome destruction, why can't we talk in the mean time? What is their to loose? We got a "no" already, maybe we get a "yes" by negotiating. And again, planning an assault can still be done.
me.....good point , we can still talk and scheme at the same time. I think the problem is we offerd a lot already in the way of insentives. When you turn down nuclear power plants and tons of other goodies your making it clear your not looking to negotiate.At this point the world would bend over backwords to give iran what it wants short of uranium. They are looking for a way to become a power in the region through military strength. Can we live with that is the question.
Raum.. the Geneva convention is clear: detain the citizens who are refugees unless they try to resist violently, make decent and amiable provisions for them AWAY from the DMZ and UNLEASH HELL on the insurgents, and then go back and build them a new city if you have to.
me....if now were talking about iraq I agree. You cant win a war like this and in a real war you would do what you suggest.Is it are right to do that in this situation to these peoples country who never attacked us.Did we in fact creat the playground for the swelling of terrorists in that country.Under what circumstance do we have the right to whip out a counrties history .Wouldnt the bad guys just move into another region like hezbolla did only to return latter. I understand whiping out a nuclear programe but this stuff i dont get.
Brains...again: "roots of terrorism". where? what? who? when? and more importantly: WHY is there not a multi-BILLION (for all I care) paper on it? a result of YEARS of intensive studying of why we are in the position we are in now.
me......We have much to do with how things got to were they are. The western dependence on oil gave the mideast vast amounts of money .It alows them to not have to devercify .They dont hve to adapt to the rest of the world. Also very few peaple control all that money and make most of the decessions about everything that goes on. I think terrorism is a result of bad people wanting to take control and useing hate for others as a recruitng tool to swell there numbers.They use us as the scapegoat but there real goal is about gaining control of there region..not ours
me.....good point , we can still talk and scheme at the same time. I think the problem is we offerd a lot already in the way of insentives. When you turn down nuclear power plants and tons of other goodies your making it clear your not looking to negotiate.At this point the world would bend over backwords to give iran what it wants short of uranium. They are looking for a way to become a power in the region through military strength. Can we live with that is the question.
Raum.. the Geneva convention is clear: detain the citizens who are refugees unless they try to resist violently, make decent and amiable provisions for them AWAY from the DMZ and UNLEASH HELL on the insurgents, and then go back and build them a new city if you have to.
me....if now were talking about iraq I agree. You cant win a war like this and in a real war you would do what you suggest.Is it are right to do that in this situation to these peoples country who never attacked us.Did we in fact creat the playground for the swelling of terrorists in that country.Under what circumstance do we have the right to whip out a counrties history .Wouldnt the bad guys just move into another region like hezbolla did only to return latter. I understand whiping out a nuclear programe but this stuff i dont get.
Brains...again: "roots of terrorism". where? what? who? when? and more importantly: WHY is there not a multi-BILLION (for all I care) paper on it? a result of YEARS of intensive studying of why we are in the position we are in now.
me......We have much to do with how things got to were they are. The western dependence on oil gave the mideast vast amounts of money .It alows them to not have to devercify .They dont hve to adapt to the rest of the world. Also very few peaple control all that money and make most of the decessions about everything that goes on. I think terrorism is a result of bad people wanting to take control and useing hate for others as a recruitng tool to swell there numbers.They use us as the scapegoat but there real goal is about gaining control of there region..not ours
| BBcode: | |
| Hide post links |