Dinnerjacket'll be gone by July. Why?

1. He has failed in his election promise to reduce corruption
2. Inflation has grown to 19%
3. Unemployment is at 11.2%
4. Moderate Iranians and reformists are slowly and quietly gaining ground

I guess I'd have to go over them in more detail. Point 1 is actually correct. The fewer powers there are with nukes, the easier the nuclear situation is to control. However, for a "have" to say this is utterly hypocritical. It is similar to a rich man saying that other people getting rich will drain our natural resources faster, so others shouldn't get rich. The first part is true but the 2nd part is hypocritical.

Point 2 is actually a self-kicker. He goes with the old one that democracies don't attack each other. In his next sentence, however, says that democracies like fighting. Since democracies don't like to fight each other but they like fighting, presumably it means they like fighting others that aren't democracies, which means they are very likely to attack places like Iran, the old Soviet Union ... no wonder they all feel like owning some nukes.

As for the other part, generally the decision to make war is highly centralized into the Executive branch of government even in democracies . Even with the US War Powers Act, a President still has 60-90 days of freedom. The legislative is simply too slow and has too many players to make the fast war decisions. Unfortunately, that means at the end of the day, nuclear launches also only require the connivance of a few men, whether in a democracy or dictatorship.

Point 3 is a whine - the other guy might be better at brinksmanship, so we can't let them win.

Point 4 is utterly hypocritical. The intentions of a leader is entirely externally perceived - Iran probably sees Bush as a barely stable leader. As the Soviet government did with Reagen. The other four are capability-related arguments for threat. To put it in perspective the US has enough money to buy influence and exemption, a nuclear and a conventional arsenal to threaten anyone it pleases, missiles and strategic bombers (why bother with terrorists or commandoes to deliver the nukes to where to want them when you have a first rate strategic delivery system).

Point 5 is a infringement of sovereignty. You don't do things according to my logic, so you must have evil intentions.

Point 6 is egocentric. For one thing, Russia is PART OF EUROPE. For another thing, the reality of life is that the basic principles of nuclear weapons are known and making them work is an engineering problem. While there is no doubt that espionage allowed the Soviet Union to avoid a few clear mistakes and get to the bomb faster, there is no justification for the arrogance of such statements as "In fact, the story of nuclear proliferation is exclusively one of espionage, stealthy commerce, or American and European-trained native engineers using their foreign-acquired expertise. Pakistan, North Korea, and Iran have no ability themselves to create such weapons, in the same manner that Russia, China, and India learned or stole a craft established only from the knowledge of European-American physics and industrial engineering."

So "anti-liberal regimes gained stature and advantage by the ability to destroy Western cities" is equivalent to haves and have-nots?

Fascinating.
Oldies are often goodies.
No. You twist words to suit yourself. He says:

"Although they are prone to fighting — imperial Athens and republican Venice both were in some sort of war about three out of four years during the 5th century B.C. and the 16th century respectively — consensual governments are not so ready to fight like kind."
Which he never said.
Which he never said.
Again you ignore the relevant point or maybe you just don't fathom it:

"but not the catastrophe of a nuclear Pakistan that, with impunity de facto, offers sanctuary to bin Laden and the planners of 9/11. The former governments operate under a free press, open elections, and free speech, and thus their war-making is subject to a series of checks and balances. Pakistan is a strongman's heartbeat away from an Islamic theocracy. And while India has volatile relations with its Islamic neighbor, the world is not nearly as worried about its arsenal as it is about autocratic Pakistan's."

SNIP SNIP SNIP.

No more time to deal with someone who cherry-picks half sentences to suit his fancy.

1) Your answer is a red herring because we were discussing the phenomena of people wanting nukes.
2) The State of Israel's VERY existence began as a ill-conceived UN plan decided to award the majority of land to a minority of Jews. Starting from that point, Israel has quietly eliminated a Arab nation (the state hasn't been formed yet, but the nation of people was there) called Palestine. What's left of them were either forced to flee to such paradises as Jordan or are subsisting in places like Gaza - neither of which are anywhere close to heaven AFAIK.
3) There are several ways to interpret Ahmadinejad's speech, not all of which calls for eliminating the Israeli people, though the State in its present location is definitely a goner. Considering that he did say that he wants Israel relocated to someplace like Germany ... actually, if you ignore the Holocaust Denial part, the idea actually makes moral sense (though it is way too late to practically consider executing it). The current placement has only the advantage of ancient religion. The position infringed on an Arab majority. It certainly did not provide much security (I think anyone can agree on that) for the Jewish people. And even without the threat of attacks, Europe is arguably a much better place to live than the Middle East desert!

4) What are we to think of a nation that actually EXECUTES an attack against the will of the United Nations (yes, I know it is the UN, but it is the closest body that comes to representing the will of all the states of the world).
5) Nations like Iran are your justification for continuing to own nukes. That's your guarantee that Iran won't attack you. In turn, Iran's nukes prevent (or so they hope) the US from attacking them.

Analogies must fly over your head. Anyway, the statement also means that before "anti-liberal regimes gained stature and advantage", the "liberal regimes" had the unilateral advantage of being able to destroy the cities that belong to regimes they think are "anti-liberal" with impunity. Tell me whether this is very good, and whether regimes that want to preserve such power are really so liberal in the first place.

True.



Which is exactly what I said. They don't like to fight with each other. But they get into fights a lot (they are prone to it). Tell me, if a democratic nation does not fight with other nations but fights a lot, what could it possibly be fighting against.

[quote]Again you ignore the relevant point or maybe you just don't fathom it:

"but not the catastrophe of a nuclear Pakistan that, with impunity de facto, offers sanctuary to bin Laden and the planners of 9/11. The former governments operate under a free press, open elections, and free speech, and thus their war-making is subject to a series of checks and balances. Pakistan is a strongman's heartbeat away from an Islamic theocracy. And while India has volatile relations with its Islamic neighbor, the world is not nearly as worried about its arsenal as it is about autocratic Pakistan's."

There are at least two points in your quoted section. I went for point 2. Seriously, however, the US is unlikely to invade Pakistan after they just did Afghanistan and Iraq, whether the Pakis got nukes or not, so Point 1 hardly matters.

Um, ever heard of the UN? Virtually the everyone in the UN want Iran to drop it's nuke program. We are not "out to get anyone" by ourselves. The US simply cannot attack Iran at this point. Until the UN (Unfortunatly) agrees on more strict sanctions, the Stennis and the other CVN will sit in the Persian Gulf, in International Waters, abiding by the law.



Hostile state? Unless you are talking about the Ayatollah and his cronies in the `80s, no body has touched Iran (Excluding the Iran-Iraq war).


Right. That's why we invaded Indonesia when the Tusnami hit, while they were weak.:roll:

State of the Art? You can shoot down a predator with a stinger. And if you know about the patrol patterns of the CIA/Army's UAV program, you should be expecting a knock at your front door by the "Men in Black."

Here's a link to an interview with Prince Hassan of Jordan, King Abdullah's uncle, given to the largest English language Turkish newspaper in Turkey. I found a lot of interesting insights in it.

http://www.todayszaman.com/tz-web/de...105953&bolum=8

What might those insights be?

Two words for your ilk: Dear World.

Summary of Video
 

The first ~105 seconds or so seems to be a sarcastic version of "We Jews had been persecuted for millenia."

The next ~15 seconds is a barely concealed ignorance of the fact that we barely recognize 100 year old land claims these days, let alone "nineteen hundred", especially if another population had already moved in and settled during the intervening 1900 years.

~15 seconds advance. Yes, I guess getting your own "little state" was a nice idea, EXCEPT you stepped over some people to do so. Why? Just to get a peace of crummy desert whose only advantage is that your ancestors "nineteen hundred years ago lived in?"

~45 seconds advance. 67 Jews were killed (1929 Palestinian riots, total of 133 Jews dead) in one town called Hebron or Habron. Maybe, however, they were feeling threatened by Britain's support to build the Jewish nation right on their soil? Furthermore, many Jews got saved by hiding out in Arab homes. When the riot blew over, 195 Arabs were sentenced, but also 34 Jews, including two that were to have received the death penalty. Gee, what have they done?

We are up to 3:30 now. The Palestinians want their self-determination. At the end, considering what happened to them, their efforts can be seen as prophetic. Let the Jews get a foothold and ... well, look what happened to them.

From 3:30-3:42, the narrator degenerates to lies. He's either very dumb or very biased to believe that 1967 was the only valid upset. The idea of the "tiny" Israel is rather hollow since it was BIGGER than tiny Palestine.

From 3:45-4:00, gee, maybe they are killing you because you are sitting on their land? And what about all the Israeli "security actions" in "response".

Nice whine b/w 4:00 and 4:20. The idea it was all the land they wanted when a Jewish minority got the majority of the land is ... ah... maybe they hate you because you are sitting on what they see as their land?

Maybe the Arabs tried so hard to push you off because the allocation was unjust? That once they even state they accept it, what little of getting it will go?

~4:30-4:50: Meanwhile, Israelis quietly write to each other (so they can't even justify their actions as trying to get support) about deliberately provoking the Syrians. And in the end, it was Israel who launched an all out attack, and ultimately proved that they had more than an adequately favorable correlation of forces.

4:50-5:05: Maybe you guys should have set up your nation where you don't have to work so hard to "stay alive".

Conclusion: Typical bland Israeli propaganda. I guess I shouldn't be surprised that it was made by a Rabbi. Nice production by amateur standards, though.

I'll have to agree that I view the Israeli nation as a bad idea. Not just for the Arabs, but for the Jews as well! I mean, why the hell do they want to move to a place where... people don't want them... and are willing to kill them for that?

And yes, the video is quite **** as it doesnt adress many impotant points, and manages to twist facts.

I have nothing against a Jewish state, as long as you arn't stepping on other people's toes.

Dear, an ethnic state it's a racial state
call it Sionist State
call it Suth Afrika....
And my country Palestine was not an ethnical state.
And never will be...because will be
and because it's Palestine
http://img209.imageshack.us/img209/4...magine1oz1.png

Oh god it's spreading... :damn: :damn: :damn: :damn:

Moderator team to damage control stations! I repeat Moderator team to damage control stations!!

http://www.navy.mil.nz/nr/rdonlyres/...agecontrol.jpg

I said before that I also think the way in which the state of Israel was founded in that place was a very bad idea and was doomed to create eternal problems. But this mistake was not done 6 years back, but sixty years back - two generations. Correcting it by deconstructing Israel now would cause the same kind and ammount of injustice than it did back then. So for pragmatical reasons, I recognize Israel's right to exist.

Before the jewish exodus to Palestine, there may have been the Palestinians in rule. but they also cannot claim to be the original owner of that place. And Islam also did not take the place peacefully, and before the Islamic invasion, it was a Roman province, rebellious-Jewish, but also orthodox christian due to Christianity being the state religion in late Rome. Before Rome, the place was the stage for endless tribal wars between different ethnicities. Everybody and nobody can say to have rightful claims for that piece of land full of sand and rocks and stones only.

In the end it is no holy land at all. It is a land doomed to cause endless conflict, forever. Sounds more like hell than holy land. From those generations living today, almost nobody rightfully can claim to have roots to the place before the time of WWII, by his own experience. That'S why I don'T understand the fetish being made out of Jeruslem, the country, and all that. It all is so highly irrational.

You reap like your people have sowed (?) in the past, and in the present. That is true for all tribes and ethnicites that claim to have a relations to that place. So maybe everybody is just getting what he deserves in that eternal conflict. Who is master and who is slave has changed several times there. And it will change several times again in future times to come, of this I am relatively sure. This construct called Israel is too fragile and too exposed and strategically too difficult to defend forever as if it could leave a major mark in the centuries of history.

No dear, it's not the point
The point was the agreement Husayn Mcmahon
and so on....

Very long and complicated existencial problem
for us
http://www.casalepodererosa.org/cult...ina/311205.jpg