US fears Israel would not advise it in advance if it strikes Iran

[Sammi79]

Right, Sky, all I have actually said or wanted to say I repeat one final time : I think it's Ironic. You can say you don't, and why, but you can't stop me thinking that or suggest I am wrong to do so. I have obviously annoyed you in a previous argument, and to be honest I am glad. Sorry for the ad hominem folks but you asked for it Sky, you consistently show yourself to be extremely right wing, fascistic and of totally reproachable character.

So now for your further entertainment, I shall respond in your own style.

Originally Posted by Skybird

I said that if they want a showdown over their damn bomb, then I prefer them to suffer instead of us.

They want a bomb like the bullies who would bully them, not a showdown. If they get a bomb, they can hardly bully anyone else who has one, a lesson from the cold war.

Originally Posted by Skybird

I prefer an Iranian bunker factory or research site being taken out to a suitcase bomb with radioactive material going off in Frankfurt or London.

I prefer taking out the logistics and infrastructure that facilitates such sites and avoiding possible nuclear disasters.

Originally Posted by Skybird

Oh they do.

No, they haven't.

Originally Posted by Skybird

I need no rehtorics to show you that.

I think you do.

Originally Posted by Skybird

They say they want to annihilate Israel.

Promises, promises.

Originally Posted by Skybird

They already shoot at Israel.

That's quite an accusation, definitive proof of Iranian military attacks upon Israel in the last decade please.

Originally Posted by Skybird

They support Islamic terror around the world, they finance it, equip it, support it by training and intel.

Bit like the CIA then, or Mossad. Oh right, Islamic, rather that Christian or Zionist. They are all the same, these extreme Abrahamic nutjubs.

Originally Posted by Skybird

They have infiltratred and taken over Lebanon.

That's between Lebanon and Iran.

Originally Posted by Skybird

Thanks to them, Hezbollah is there - and armed stronger than ever before.

But they don't have nuclear weapons.

Originally Posted by Skybird

Iranian RG commandoe are there and train Hezbollah.

Quite. Despicable behavior I agree. A bit like us training the Taliban to fight off those pesky commies during the cold war.

Originally Posted by Skybird

They want an Islamic global rule, which is the aim of Islam.

You are talking about a minority of religious idiots, and making a gross generalisation.

Originally Posted by Skybird

Is that aggressive and violent enough for you, yes?

No.

Originally Posted by Skybird

If Israel is being pushed into a corner.

Excuses, excuses.

Originally Posted by Skybird

Iran has not been pushed into a corner, and theirs is a record of proxy wars and violence and terror support.

Hmmm, again I see striking similarities here with the USA, Russia, China, etc...

Originally Posted by Skybird

Maybe you think it is clever to still give them the benefit of doubt when wanting to decidce whether or not leaving them nukes.

Maybe I think it's ironic that nations staggering under the weight of their own nuclear arsenal think they have any right to dictate who is or is not allowed a nuclear arsenal. Otherwise, you know, I might have said something different.

Originally Posted by Skybird

But that is insanity.

Maybe so, but those were your words, not mine.

Originally Posted by Skybird

Iran act offensiovely.

Like Israel then.

Originally Posted by Skybird

Iran acts agressively.

Like Israel...

Originally Posted by Skybird

Iran acts criminally and inhumane.

I could swear you meant to type Israel in place of Iran there.

Originally Posted by Skybird

Iran threatens extinction and annihilation not as a retaliatory means, but offensively.

Promises, promises.

Originally Posted by Skybird

If the people want not to be held respkjnbile for what is beign done in their name, then they have to raise up.

Like the Germans rose up against Hitler you mean?

Originally Posted by Skybird

That may come at a price, but that'S how it is.

So you think then that Germany and its people should be held permanently accountable for WW2 and all that sprung from it, the cold war, and the current situation in the ME regarding Israel then?

Originally Posted by Skybird

However, having spend loinger time in Iran years ago, I learned the many difefefnt people/classes there, and if yoiu think the regime has support only by a minority of the ordinary population, then you are simply wrong. It is not that simplistic.

Neither is it as simplistic as 'they all support it or are too weak to rise up therefore they should all suffer the same fate determined by us outsiders because oh, we're just so righteous' - pathetic. honestly.

Originally Posted by Skybird

We are not led to believe.

Yes we are.

Originally Posted by Skybird

We see it from their record of the past 30 years.

Shown to us via our own propaganda media.

Originally Posted by Skybird

And I refer again to the difefrence of the setting of the cold war, which desopite all overkill potential was cold rational and a mutual agreement for a balance that nobody wanted or dared to break (except Cuba), and the hysteric climaste and emotioanlly charged, irrational environment the ME is.

Sky have you any idea how wrong your interpretation of the cold war is? it was not rational, it damn near ended humanity more than once, and contained plenty of emotionally charged anti communist and anti capitalist hysteria.

Originally Posted by Skybird

You do not want a nuclear arms race there between 4 local rivals.

Not really, no. But our nations set the example they want to follow you know.

Originally Posted by Skybird

You really do not want that.

You already said that.

Originally Posted by Skybird

Not with these players.

You already said that as well.

Originally Posted by Skybird

The problem with you is that you ignore their own deeds and acts and words, claim to know ebtter what really goes on (while ignoring the evident), and give them the benefit of doubt as long as a terror strike has not killed or contaminated 50.000 people.

I don't claim anything, Sky, all I said was I think it's ironic... where are you getting all of this from my posts?

Originally Posted by Skybird

I accept that if you would pout only your own life and that of your own family at risk - then I couldn't care less.

Well thanks for your kind words. I see it's very easy for you to subhumanise people and use rhetoric to rationalise it. Now that is very familiar, where have we seen that before?

Originally Posted by Skybird

But if they trim their weapons at my directions and that of the country I live in, while having such a terrosit records marked on their behalf, then I warn them while the wepaon still is moving - but short before it actually is aimed at me I strrike them first if they do not stop.

all the while your weapons are trained on them and you deny this is threatening or intimidating and they should just accept it?

Originally Posted by Skybird

You see, I am not suicidal idiot enough to let them proceed beyond a certain critical mark. Yolu can prefer to do that, if you want, but again: do that with your own family only - not with 50.000 others as well.

Well now I don't feel so bad about my calling you a right wing fascist.

Islamaphobia = Anti semitism : you just switched the target of your persecution.

I don't agree with you Sky and I am prepared to leave it at that, I only replied as you seem to delight in picking apart my rather simplistic post stating a single opinion and turned it into a page of vehement diatribe with a fervor that equals that of the fundamentalists you aspire to hate, over which I feel compelled to defend my position. Mods I am sorry If this offends and I agree it is way off topic, so I understand if you feel the need to give me an infraction, but Sky here goaded me into it over a simple one line statement and I must give as good as I get. Apologies.

[MH]

Geee-some people must regard their freedom as god given thing.

a fervor that equals that of the fundamentalists you aspire to hate

Sky wanna be wahibi but thinks it may be a bit muslimish for him.

[CaptainHaplo]

Sammi....

While you obviously have an issue with Israel existing and countries like the US acting globally (which I agree we should not always do), your position regarding Iran and its "promises, promises", "well everyone else does it to" and "what they do isn't anyone else's business if it doesn't affect them" demonstrate a case of neville chamberlain syndrome. He too turned a blind eye to what could already be seen, and because of it the world suffered more than necessary.

While one could argue that "everyone else" like the US is doing bad things too - the comparison of working in Afghanistan to help that country defend itself against communist military aggression vs Iran supporting groups whose only goal is to kill the men, women and children of nations that do not share their religious views and zealotry - just doesn't work. One is a military action - the mujahaden were not targetting russian women and children during the time we were helping. Terrorists do not care who they kill, they are perfectly happy taking out their own people (look at Iraq for example) as well as their targets. The Afghani's during the Russo-Afghan conflict focused on military targets - Terrorists intentionally target civilians all too often. The differences are vast, your attempt to equate them just does not hold up under scrutiny.

Israel is the aggressor also doesn't fly. Israel was established not by force of a zionistic military action, but by the act of internation agreement within the UN. Since that time - they are the ones who have been attacked. In those attacks, their enemies (like Syria with the Golan Heights) lost significant territory. Perhaps you don't understand how war works - but to the winner goes the spoils. Israel didn't ask to be attacked. The countries that attacked paid a price in land loss. The people in those areas were, technically - conquered. Unrest happens. Having it fomented and supported by foreign entities however is an act of war - Israel's forbearance has been rather significant. Neighboring areas like lebanon have been supported and used to attack as well. Yes, Israel sends in the troops to regions sometimes - but name once where it did so without a causus belli occuring first. Every action taken is in response to violence or an attack. They are entitled to an active defense. Again your expounded perspective is demonstratably refusing to look at all the facts.

Finally - your position that Iran is just "talking". Iran right now is supplying terrorists in Iraq and Afghanistan. They are attacking their neighbors (as well as NATO forces and Israel) by proxy. And they are not even talking about doing that. They have continually acted to gain power, prestige and recognition at the cost of their own people, their neighbors and the world. They say they seek a caliphate - and their actions show that they are acting to that end. You talk about "well the terrorists haven't gotten a nuke yet" - your right - they do have Iranian explosives though. Iran simply doesn't have a nuke to give them - YET. There is a reason that all the other countries in the region are quietly working to isolate Iran - they all are threatened by what the Iranian government and its action arms do. To ignore that reality is to do exactly like Chamberlain more than a half a century ago. He stuck his head in the sand and refused to see the threat that was plain to everyone else. You seem to be choosing to do the same, apparently based on your anti-israel and anti-us views.

[MH]

Iran sees nuclear program as last line of defense against West, expert says

In interview with Haaretz, Mehdi Khalaji, senior Iranian scholar and son of Shi'ite Ayatollah, says sanctions, dialogue will not thwart Tehran's nuclear ambitions.

There isn't any real chance of thwarting Iran's nuclear program through escalated sanctions or negotiated compromise, an Iranian expert told Haaretz, days after the International Atomic Energy Agency published a report indicating that Tehran was seeking to develop nuclear weapons.
Mehdi Khalaji, a senior fellow at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, said that the Iranian regime considered its nuclear program as the utmost tool to preserve its survival, meaning that pressure by the West could not sway Tehran away from further advances.
An Iranian technician inside a uranium conversion facility near the city of Isfahan, in 2007. What’s holding Iran back is uranium enrichment, says nuclear expert Dr. Olli Heinonen.

Khalaji is considered one of Iran's premier scholars, also because of his own personal background. He was born and raised in the city of Qom, Iran's largest center for Shi'ite Muslim scholarship.
He studied theology and Shi'ite legislation for 14 years in one of the largest religious seminaries in Qom, a city which still serves as the home for Khalaji's father, a chief Shi'ite clergyman, or Ayatollah.
In 2000, Khalaji left Iran for France, later moving to the United States.
Speaking with Haaretz, the chief researcher said that Iranian Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei believes that the West is trying to depose Tehran's Islamic regime, going as far as considering U.S. President Barack Obama's offer for compromise to be a scam.
However, he added, Iran's leadership was equally distrustful of other nations for working to undermine their regime, including Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Pakistan, and even China and Russia.
He said Iran was very isolated, leading its rulers to believe that a nuclear program was the only way to forestall a future attack. That mistrust, Khalaji said, is not due to go away any time soon, which spells doom to any attempt for compromise.
When asked if Iran would use a nuclear weapon against Israel once it develops one, Khalaji said he didn't feel anyone in Iran is thinking of using a nuclear bomb, and that the regime's only goal was to achieve regional supremacy.
Moreover, the Iranian researcher said that the use of nuclear weapons would be a suicidal move by the Islamic Republic.
Referring to a possible Israeli strike, Khalaji said the Iranian regime did not consider that to be a viable option, adding that Tehran knows that the potential price of such a move deters anyone who would be involved from undertaking it.
He added that the fact that the subject was so extensively discussed in the media indicated that neither Israel nor any one of its potential partners were actually considering such a move.
When asked of Iran's reaction to a possible strike, Khalaji estimated that a strike would unite Iran's citizens around the regime, but adding that the direct consequences of a military strike were hard to predict.
The Iranian researcher also discounted the notion that Iran would initiate a preemptive strike, saying that the country's military doctrine stipulated that Tehran would try to avoid armed conflict on Iranian soil, choosing to wage its wars against the West elsewhere: Afghanistan, Iraq, Lebanon, and the Palestinian territories.
Iran's regime is threatened by both war and peace, Khalaji said, saying that was the reason Khamenei sought to preserve a tension that was neither peace nor war.
Khalaji also said he felt recent tensions between Khamenei and Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad would have no effect on Iran's nuclear path, since Khamenei had complete control over the country's nuclear program.
However, he added, there were those in Iran's political elite who felt the country did not need to develop nuclear weapons.
When asked who he thought would inherit Khamenei as Supreme Leader, Khalaji said that while Khamenei ruled Iran using the country's Revolutionary Guard, he thought that situation would reverse after his reign, believing that Revolutionary Guard officials would choose a weak spiritual leaders while they effectively run the country.
Khalaji also referred to the disappearance of Iran's political opposition, since the great rallies of 2009, saying that anti-government sentiment was in fact on the rise.
However, he added, dissenters had no real structure or framework, saying that it would take a while before a real opposition comes into being.
The Iranian scholar said, however, that Khamenei had turned Iran into a "classic dictatorship," a regime that the Iranian people have already shown to be able to depose.

**********

[Sammi79]

Originally Posted by CaptainHaplo

you obviously have an issue with Israel existing and countries like the US acting globally

CaptainHaplo : Wherein have I implied that I have a problem with the existence of Israel? I have a problem with Israels militarily occupying non-Israeli land indefinitely, or if as you suggest they take that land as the spoils of war, then they need to extend the same civilian rights to the people living in these places as people living inside the original borders, like voting etc... that would be OK IMHO too. In regard to any single nation acting globally, yes I do think that is wrong, global actions need to undertaken globally by a union of nations, or it is simply megalomania whichever way you try to push it.

Look if Iran decided (after getting nuclear weapons) to bomb Israel, or any of its neighbors, that would be the end of the entire country of Iran in a sense that no human being has ever truly witnessed save a few lucky Japanese survivors. Israel and their US buddies would absolutely guarantee it. I think even Iranian dictators can understand that. This is the political mess that is nuclear proliferation (which is OK for Israel and us and the US etc...) I personally have less faith than you in our leaders virtuous natures. What you lot are condoning is offensive, aggressive and exactly what you (however correctly) accuse Iran of being. I would certainly hope that things can be solved without those kind of actions, maybe they can't, fine but as I have stated multiple times and none here has been able to grasp this yet - I just think it's ironic. So sue me, I state a simple opinion and get bombarded by all this crap from an extreme right wing fascist, get accused of being anti Israel, anti American, I have Neville Chamberlain syndrome, I don't look the facts regardless that most of the 'facts' you guys are on about come to you through the media which to me means propaganda and I wasn't even arguing with you ? what gives ? Oh yeah, I also said I think bombing nuclear facilities is highly irresponsible and I stand by that, again though that is an opinion, and it's fine if you do not share it.

I'll let you in on a little secret - I'm anti religious, which may make me seem anti Israel and anti American, but there is a difference. I look admiringly on the US constitution as a secular document of laws and rights etc. your founding fathers had their heads screwed on tight I think, and it's a real shame you guys don't live by that any more. I'm anti corporatocracy vainly clinging to a dilapidated disguise of democracy, and I fully understand the power of the world media to manipulate peoples opinions and sensibilities on a truly global scale. Don't buy into it. Any of it. I am pro people, you know, the regular types who just want to live in a bit of peace and quiet, who are (I am certain) the largest majority of folks on the planet of all nations, myself included. Trouble is we are not extreme, nor militant, nor very vocal, and therefore are constantly being kicked in the teeth by people with a more feral nature. I also very much doubt if civilians care too much whether they got hit intentionally or by accident, seeing as the results are indistinguishable from each other.

@MH that's an interesting article, maybe you'd share your opinion on it's meaning, it's bias and it's intent? I think he says that no matter what external pressures Iran will continue its nuclear program [gaining nuclear weapons in the process] which it will use as a deterrent to possible future attacks by any of its neighbors or Israel and/or the rest of the West. Which to me is just as reasonable as any nation explaining why they should have them.

[Jimbuna]

There is nothing wrong with healthy debate and people sharing opinions etc.

Can we all ensure we don't fall into the category of personal attacks and insults please.

Thanks in anticipation of your co-operation.

[MH]

Originally Posted by Sammi79

@MH that's an interesting article, maybe you'd share your opinion on it's meaning, it's bias and it's intent? I think he says that no matter what external pressures Iran will continue its nuclear program [gaining nuclear weapons in the process] which it will use as a deterrent to possible future attacks by any of its neighbors or Israel and/or the rest of the West. Which to me is just as reasonable as any nation explaining why they should have them.

To my understanding Iran will continue its program at all coasts to be able to spread its influence.
The purpose of nukes its not necessarily to directly use them against Israel or European countries.
Its more a umbrella to allow Iran spread its influence in the region without the western ability for direct intervention...hence self defence against west.
This will allow Iranian regime to be more direct in meddling in neighboring oil reach countries to gain control over oil prices and maybe even aspects western economy.
When Iran achieves the above goals it can deal with Israel...and not necessarily by nukes....see...its just rational thinking to achieve regional goals.
So...they need those weapons for self defence and have good reason for it.

Again...with religious nuts you never know what else may happen.....
Why do think Saudis and Turks fear of nuclear Iran-is it islamophobia?

[1480]

Originally Posted by Sammi79

I'll let you in on a little secret - I'm anti religious, which may make me seem anti Israel and anti American, but there is a difference. I look admiringly on the US constitution as a secular document of laws and rights etc. your founding fathers had their heads screwed on tight I think, and it's a real shame you guys don't live by that any more.

The creation of the US is based on christian principles. In the Declaration of Independence, God is referenced three times.

The first amendment only prohibits congress from establishing a national religion.

The framers were all God fearing men, if you look at writings by them about the constitution you will see that they reference the divine. So, if you do not believe that the framers were not influenced by Christianity than not sure what will change your mind. It's on our currency and in the pledge of allegiance.

[Sailor Steve]

Originally Posted by 1480

The creation of the US is based on christian principles. In the Declaration of Independence, God is referenced three times.

No, it's not. The phrase "the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God" was a common Enlightenment term and was specifically used to make sure it was non-denominational. "Creator" was used in a like manner. Jefferson firmly believed that Jesus was a great moral teacher, but vehemently denied any divine connection. The founding documents were all specifically designed to avoid any connection with a particular belief. Were they Christians? A lot of them, yes, but the biggies were mostly not.

The first amendment only prohibits congress from establishing a national religion.

And its point was to keep any religion from controlling the government to the detriment of others.

The framers were all God fearing men, if you look at writings by them about the constitution you will see that they reference the divine.

But "the divine" is not necessarily "Christian", and while many of the professed Christ, or at least gave lip service, many others did not, most notably Adams, Franklin and Jefferson.

So, if you do not believe that the framers were not influenced by Christianity than not sure what will change your mind.

'Influenced', yes, as anyone raised around any group of believers will tend to be influenced by the prevalent belief system.

It's on our currency

First appeared on coins in 1864 and paper money in 1957. Nothing to do with the founders.

and in the pledge of allegiance.

Written in 1892, and not adopted by Congress until 1942. "Under God" not added until 1954, as part of the right-wing anti-communist surge. Again, nothing to do with the founders.

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by Sammi79

Islamaphobia = Anti semitism : you just switched the target of your persecution.
(...)
but Sky here goaded me into it

That is two fantastic jokes within just seconds! I goaded you. Yes, sure, I made you overstepping the line when you called me

a right wing fascist

By your reasoning, the Israelis make terrorists firing rockets into civilian areas in an attenmpt to commit civilian mass murder, and Germany made the RAF terrorists kidnapping and murdering their victims, and the West made terrorist hijacking planes and blowing them up. It'S all our own fault. We make them do these things. Why don't we play their ballgame, eh? Ideology justifies terrorism, right? Or just any offence, eh?

Well now I don't feel so bad about my calling you a right wing fascist.

I'm glad that you do not feel bad about misbehaving yourself. However, I am also glad, since I am not obligated to waste my time with an infantile fool ignoring reality even if it is laid out before his eyes, and who mistakes loud calling with argument and offending with historic fact, and lives by the bliss of having an extremely opportunistic, selective memory that simply ignores anything that does not fit into his scheme.

Welcome to the club then.

[Sammi79]

Originally Posted by Skybird

The problem with you is that you ignore their own deeds and acts and words, claim to know ebtter what really goes on (while ignoring the evident)...
You see, I am not suicidal idiot enough to let them proceed beyond a certain critical mark...

This is where you overstepped the line with me as you put it - you just called me (or implied that I am) an ignorant, arrogant and suicidal idiot. For what reason? Because I find it ironic that nuclear armed nations feel they have any right whatsoever to demand that other nations (not only but including Iran) may not develop their own nuclear weapons? Because I think it irresponsible to risk dispersing large amounts of highly radioactive materials into the environment without concern, no matter who or what or where?

And just now you write -

Originally Posted by Skybird

I am not obligated to waste my time with an infantile fool ignoring reality

So I called you - extreme because to me your views seem extreme - right wing because they also seem to me to be right wing - and fascist because you demonstrate an ability to verbally subhumanise with great ease and justify it with rhetoric and logical fallacy, all of which are adjective terms which you may find offensive, but I never used purely derogatory terms such as 'fool' or 'idiot' or 'infantile'. I am as guilty as you for goading - I admit it, but being from the UK I am reminded of the phrase "They don't like it up 'em" If you're prepared to dish it out, you should be prepared to take it as well.

So now I'm on your ignore list? Should I celebrate? I hope this will mean an end to bickering matches like this but somehow I can't shake this sneaking feeling, that you won't let it lie. From my end however, I'm sorry for any offense caused to anyone but this will be the last from me on this matter or in this thread.

Sincerely,
Sam.

Yes, sure, I made you overstepping the line when you called me

Yet by his own admission on his anti muslim fetish he protests with neo nazis and joined groups filled wth neo nazis.
So Sammi didn't overstep anything, if it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck and hangs out with other ducks doing the duck things other ducks are doing it is either a duck or a very very good immitation of a duck.

It is funny though Sky writes.....
lives by the bliss of having an extremely opportunistic, selective memory that simply ignores anything that does not fit into his scheme.
Yet repeats the same lies to fit his views again and again no matter how many people take them thoroughy apart and laughingly calls the "fact".

So now I'm on your ignore list? Should I celebrate?

Celebrate it, Skys ignorance is great.
It makes it easy to demonstrate his opportunistic selective memory.

[CaptainHaplo]

Originally Posted by Sammi79

CaptainHaplo : Wherein have I implied that I have a problem with the existence of Israel? I have a problem with Israels militarily occupying non-Israeli land indefinitely, or if as you suggest they take that land as the spoils of war, then they need to extend the same civilian rights to the people living in these places as people living inside the original borders, like voting etc... that would be OK IMHO too. In regard to any single nation acting globally, yes I do think that is wrong, global actions need to undertaken globally by a union of nations, or it is simply megalomania whichever way you try to push it.

Sammi - I didn't "attack" you. Yes, I said you showed Chamberlain syndrome. Your arguments bear that out in the light of facts. My hope was that calling your attention to it would help you re-evaluate /re-examine the data.

Now - you said you have a problem with Israel occupying land that it "conquered" - because they won't give voting rights to the people in that area. That is a wonderful, idealistic view. However, how can a government and nation extend voting rights to an area inhabited by a group of people that act, or condone, violence against the state that control it? To do so is suicidal. Note I said "idealistic" - because not only is it an unworkable option (for self-preservation reasons), the idea indicates that your reticence to accept the situation would be solved by suffrage rights. Ok, maybe YOUR objections would, but do you truly expect that the anti-Israeli sentiment and actions in the Middle East (or just in the "occupied territories") would suddenly cease if Israel extended such rights? If not, then your objection is a sham, if so - then there is nothing I can do to help you grasp the foundational hate that the Arab world - fed by Islamic teachings - has for any Jewish state or people.

Global actions need global support? Again - in an ideal world that would happen. But we don't live in an ideal world. In such a world, we could all accept different religions because different religious would accept and tolerate each other. There would be no greed - heck communism would actually be a working system - instead of a great idea on paper that will always be a failure in reality. You can't always get people on the same page - and self preservation requires a person, or in the context of what we are discussing - a nation - to act on its own.

To show you how global thinking cannot the only standard - look at how many nations have been ok with attacking / destroying Israel, it should be allowed to happen?

No one is in a position to threaten Iran regionally - they are only "threatened" because their acts of overt and clandestine violence (and support of such) against their neighbors threaten the regional and global stability. The bully on the field is mad because the rest of the world notices and some are not willing to just sit by. So everything from diplomacy to sanctions has been tried. Its failed - and the bully will whine when it gets its nose bloody because its trying to become more of a bully.

[Platapus]

Originally Posted by 1480

The creation of the US is based on christian principles. In the Declaration of Independence, God is referenced three times.

Well the Declaration of Independence is not a legally binding document. So how about we do look at a legally binding document -- a treaty.

Specifically the Treaty of Tripoli or to be more accurate "reaty of peace and friendship between the United States of America and the Bey and Subjects of Tripoli, of Barbary. It was signed by President Adams (the drafting of the treaty started with President Washington.

The US Senate approved this treaty on 7 June 1797 and it was ratified by the Senate and signed by President Adams on 10 June 1797. Let's look at Article 11 of that treaty.

As the Government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquility, of Musselmen; and as the said States never have entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mehomitan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.

Seems pretty clear and one can't get any more official than a ratified treaty.