It's always baking there in the middle east... they should just use solar power...
- Index »
- Community »
- Debate and Serious Talk »
- Looks Like Peace Loving and Tolerant Islam wants to "Spread the Love"
There is enough sunlight in Arizona to power the whole US.It's always baking there in the middle east... they should just use solar power...
Maybe the US should get off its flabby butt, stop driving SUVs and develop a system not reliant on the middle eastern oil.
Fuck Israel
Wow. Hate much?
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
Nope, its called lateral thinking.Wow. Hate much?
Something you forget about when you have lots of 'experience'
Fuck Israel
Lateral thinking is single-minded hatred for a particular country, posting negative things about it even when the thread doesn't involve it?
Yeah...I'll give that a try.
Yeah...I'll give that a try.
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
I wouldn't go staking my house on the claim that Iran, or at least Ahmedinejad, is the most completely sensible and stable nation in the world but I wouldn't go so far as to say they are "crazy". They're definitely not as crazy as Saudi Arabia where the women are treated like absolute shit and the predominant take on Islam is that all Westerners are scum. PureFodder makes a good point that with fossil fuels on the way out alternative means of fuel are going to be needed and nuclear energy is one of the most effective options available, the shitty thing is any country that the US have a beef with are going to be given a hard time if they try and develop nuclear energy because of the obvious threat of using the technology for weapons.lowing wrote:
I would agree with you except for the small point that Iran is crazy, and crazy nations ought not play with nukes.PureFodder wrote:
In the west it's obvious that fossil fuels are running out and so alternatives are being persued such as wind, solar and nuclear energy.
Unless the middle east secretly contains unlimited fossil fuels, they too will need to move to things like nuclear, wind, solar of which nuclear is the most tried, tested and reliable method. Remember that Iran has done nothing wrong. As signitories of the NPT they have the right to make nuclear fuel for civillian use. Also remember that getting Iran nuclear power is an American plan and relied chiefly on US support.
We have nuclear power and are planning to make more of it, does this automatically mean we're trying to make some kind of superweapon capable of destroying the planet?
There's no evidence against Iran, just hysteria. If you want to see some impressively concerning developments regarding the proliferation of WMDs then go look at the US's recent record of puling out of almost every WMD related treaty signed. That's scary.
Perhaps we pulled out of these treaties because the reality is, no one would honor it anyway?
I'm personally not convinced that Iran is the psycho nation you believe them to be, all I've heard so far is the same hot air the US was spouting about Iraq prior to their invasion.
But you're happy for a situation to exist where another nation can't progress because of the position of other countries?lowing wrote:
I do not endorse such a move as I do not endorse the US being in a position to have to rely on other countries for its own progress.
So America shouldn't give a damn what the International community thinks might be best in terms of nuclear energy but countries like Iran have to pander to every whim of the United States? One rule for us, another rule for them.
The EU and Gulf States feel the US is being to soft with Iran.Braddock wrote:
But you're happy for a situation to exist where another nation can't progress because of the position of other countries?lowing wrote:
I do not endorse such a move as I do not endorse the US being in a position to have to rely on other countries for its own progress.
So America shouldn't give a damn what the International community thinks might be best in terms of nuclear energy but countries like Iran have to pander to every whim of the United States? One rule for us, another rule for them.
It's not just the US. It's the EU.
It's not just the US. It's the GCC.
It's not just the US.
Is that clear enough for you?
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
I was arguing in US terms because lowing was talking about how his own nation (the US) should not have to take other nations opinions into account regarding nuclear energy. I know and accept it's not just the US who feel Iran need to be dealt with more closely and carefully...it is, however, the US that are making the most noise about Iran on the International stage.FEOS wrote:
The EU and Gulf States feel the US is being to soft with Iran.Braddock wrote:
But you're happy for a situation to exist where another nation can't progress because of the position of other countries?lowing wrote:
I do not endorse such a move as I do not endorse the US being in a position to have to rely on other countries for its own progress.
So America shouldn't give a damn what the International community thinks might be best in terms of nuclear energy but countries like Iran have to pander to every whim of the United States? One rule for us, another rule for them.
It's not just the US. It's the EU.
It's not just the US. It's the GCC.
It's not just the US.
Is that clear enough for you?
Also I dislike the hypocrisy in the International community regarding this kind of thing, am I supposed to cry blue murder when Iran attempts to develop nuclear power but close my eyes and ears when Israel goes out and develops nuclear weapons (like the US effectively did)?
The EU want sanctions related to weapons research. But nuclear power is something the EU have consistently said the Iranians are entitled to. Going so far as offering them ways of getting ahead in their nuclear energy program as enticements towards closer external moderation - which is something I support (a highly monitored Iranian nuclear energy program).FEOS wrote:
The EU and Gulf States feel the US is being to soft with Iran.Braddock wrote:
But you're happy for a situation to exist where another nation can't progress because of the position of other countries?lowing wrote:
I do not endorse such a move as I do not endorse the US being in a position to have to rely on other countries for its own progress.
So America shouldn't give a damn what the International community thinks might be best in terms of nuclear energy but countries like Iran have to pander to every whim of the United States? One rule for us, another rule for them.
It's not just the US. It's the EU.
It's not just the US. It's the GCC.
It's not just the US.
Is that clear enough for you?
Nope, not at all, given Iran's remarks and instabilty it would be in the best interest of the world t okeep a thumb on them. No one has to pander to the US, as a matter of fact everyone is free to not take our aid and handouts at any time. Or are you suggesting that the US should fund and help countries even though it is not in our best interests?Braddock wrote:
But you're happy for a situation to exist where another nation can't progress because of the position of other countries?lowing wrote:
I do not endorse such a move as I do not endorse the US being in a position to have to rely on other countries for its own progress.
So America shouldn't give a damn what the International community thinks might be best in terms of nuclear energy but countries like Iran have to pander to every whim of the United States? One rule for us, another rule for them.
and what is it about Iran, and its president that leads you to think they are in it for energy only?Bertster7 wrote:
The EU want sanctions related to weapons research. But nuclear power is something the EU have consistently said the Iranians are entitled to. Going so far as offering them ways of getting ahead in their nuclear energy program as enticements towards closer external moderation - which is something I support (a highly monitored Iranian nuclear energy program).FEOS wrote:
The EU and Gulf States feel the US is being to soft with Iran.Braddock wrote:
But you're happy for a situation to exist where another nation can't progress because of the position of other countries?
So America shouldn't give a damn what the International community thinks might be best in terms of nuclear energy but countries like Iran have to pander to every whim of the United States? One rule for us, another rule for them.
It's not just the US. It's the EU.
It's not just the US. It's the GCC.
It's not just the US.
Is that clear enough for you?
Please link me to a quote from Israel that endorses or intends to wipe all Arab/ Islamic countries off the facer of the earth. Cuz I can link you to them saying that about Israel.Braddock wrote:
I was arguing in US terms because lowing was talking about how his own nation (the US) should not have to take other nations opinions into account regarding nuclear energy. I know and accept it's not just the US who feel Iran need to be dealt with more closely and carefully...it is, however, the US that are making the most noise about Iran on the International stage.FEOS wrote:
The EU and Gulf States feel the US is being to soft with Iran.Braddock wrote:
But you're happy for a situation to exist where another nation can't progress because of the position of other countries?
So America shouldn't give a damn what the International community thinks might be best in terms of nuclear energy but countries like Iran have to pander to every whim of the United States? One rule for us, another rule for them.
It's not just the US. It's the EU.
It's not just the US. It's the GCC.
It's not just the US.
Is that clear enough for you?
Also I dislike the hypocrisy in the International community regarding this kind of thing, am I supposed to cry blue murder when Iran attempts to develop nuclear power but close my eyes and ears when Israel goes out and develops nuclear weapons (like the US effectively did)?
I'd be happier if the US kept itself to itself and saved it's handouts for it's own homeless and needy and maybe sorted out it's financial system. I agree that any nation, not just Iran, should be closely monitored when nuclear energy is involved and I welcome the idea Iran put forward where Russia could be brought in to deal with the more risky aspects of the nuclear process. Iran are entitled to nuclear energy for civilian use.lowing wrote:
Nope, not at all, given Iran's remarks and instabilty it would be in the best interest of the world t okeep a thumb on them. No one has to pander to the US, as a matter of fact everyone is free to not take our aid and handouts at any time. Or are you suggesting that the US should fund and help countries even though it is not in our best interests?Braddock wrote:
But you're happy for a situation to exist where another nation can't progress because of the position of other countries?lowing wrote:
I do not endorse such a move as I do not endorse the US being in a position to have to rely on other countries for its own progress.
So America shouldn't give a damn what the International community thinks might be best in terms of nuclear energy but countries like Iran have to pander to every whim of the United States? One rule for us, another rule for them.
The clue is in the flag lowing...lowing wrote:
Please link me to a quote from Israel that endorses or intends to wipe all Arab/ Islamic countries off the facer of the earth. Cuz I can link you to them saying that about Israel.Braddock wrote:
I was arguing in US terms because lowing was talking about how his own nation (the US) should not have to take other nations opinions into account regarding nuclear energy. I know and accept it's not just the US who feel Iran need to be dealt with more closely and carefully...it is, however, the US that are making the most noise about Iran on the International stage.FEOS wrote:
The EU and Gulf States feel the US is being to soft with Iran.
It's not just the US. It's the EU.
It's not just the US. It's the GCC.
It's not just the US.
Is that clear enough for you?
Also I dislike the hypocrisy in the International community regarding this kind of thing, am I supposed to cry blue murder when Iran attempts to develop nuclear power but close my eyes and ears when Israel goes out and develops nuclear weapons (like the US effectively did)?
I agree, nuclear energy should be available, but Iran has not earned the trust of the international community to have their program go unchecked. I gotta think threatening to destroy another country probably does not help their cause.Braddock wrote:
I'd be happier if the US kept itself to itself and saved it's handouts for it's own homeless and needy and maybe sorted out it's financial system. I agree that any nation, not just Iran, should be closely monitored when nuclear energy is involved and I welcome the idea Iran put forward where Russia could be brought in to deal with the more risky aspects of the nuclear process. Iran are entitled to nuclear energy for civilian use.lowing wrote:
Nope, not at all, given Iran's remarks and instabilty it would be in the best interest of the world t okeep a thumb on them. No one has to pander to the US, as a matter of fact everyone is free to not take our aid and handouts at any time. Or are you suggesting that the US should fund and help countries even though it is not in our best interests?Braddock wrote:
But you're happy for a situation to exist where another nation can't progress because of the position of other countries?
So America shouldn't give a damn what the International community thinks might be best in terms of nuclear energy but countries like Iran have to pander to every whim of the United States? One rule for us, another rule for them.
Nice flag, now as requested link me to a quote from Israel that says its intentions are to wipe out all Islamic and Arab nationsBraddock wrote:
The clue is in the flag lowing...lowing wrote:
Please link me to a quote from Israel that endorses or intends to wipe all Arab/ Islamic countries off the facer of the earth. Cuz I can link you to them saying that about Israel.Braddock wrote:
I was arguing in US terms because lowing was talking about how his own nation (the US) should not have to take other nations opinions into account regarding nuclear energy. I know and accept it's not just the US who feel Iran need to be dealt with more closely and carefully...it is, however, the US that are making the most noise about Iran on the International stage.
Also I dislike the hypocrisy in the International community regarding this kind of thing, am I supposed to cry blue murder when Iran attempts to develop nuclear power but close my eyes and ears when Israel goes out and develops nuclear weapons (like the US effectively did)?
http://levinejudaica.com/catalog/images … 20flag.jpg
Where did I say that?lowing wrote:
and what is it about Iran, and its president that leads you to think they are in it for energy only?Bertster7 wrote:
The EU want sanctions related to weapons research. But nuclear power is something the EU have consistently said the Iranians are entitled to. Going so far as offering them ways of getting ahead in their nuclear energy program as enticements towards closer external moderation - which is something I support (a highly monitored Iranian nuclear energy program).FEOS wrote:
The EU and Gulf States feel the US is being to soft with Iran.
It's not just the US. It's the EU.
It's not just the US. It's the GCC.
It's not just the US.
Is that clear enough for you?
I said I would support a highly monitored Iranian nuclear energy program. Why do you think I would want a high level of external moderation if I completely trusted them with nuclear technology?
I think it's possible they're in it for energy only. But that's simply not good enough. The global community needs to be sure they're in it for energy only.
Pretty much what I've been saying.lowing wrote:
I agree, nuclear energy should be available, but Iran has not earned the trust of the international community to have their program go unchecked. I gotta think threatening to destroy another country probably does not help their cause.
It shouldn't go unchecked. But with sufficient external moderation, an Iranian nuclear energy program could be a good thing.
Although Iran haven't threatened to destroy any other countries (I assume you're yet again referencing the mistranslated "wipe the Zionist regime from the page of time" comment, which simply does not mean that).
Last edited by Bertster7 (2008-04-12 08:21:19)
Israel didn't exactly conduct themselves like good little boys and girls now did they? They still went out and developed nukes.lowing wrote:
I agree, nuclear energy should be available, but Iran has not earned the trust of the international community to have their program go unchecked. I gotta think threatening to destroy another country probably does not help their cause.Braddock wrote:
I'd be happier if the US kept itself to itself and saved it's handouts for it's own homeless and needy and maybe sorted out it's financial system. I agree that any nation, not just Iran, should be closely monitored when nuclear energy is involved and I welcome the idea Iran put forward where Russia could be brought in to deal with the more risky aspects of the nuclear process. Iran are entitled to nuclear energy for civilian use.lowing wrote:
Nope, not at all, given Iran's remarks and instabilty it would be in the best interest of the world t okeep a thumb on them. No one has to pander to the US, as a matter of fact everyone is free to not take our aid and handouts at any time. Or are you suggesting that the US should fund and help countries even though it is not in our best interests?
How about this for a peace plan for the Middle East...all Muslim nations in the region are not allowed to develop nukes and are strictly monitored and Israel agree to give up all their nuclear weaponry and allow in inspectors..fair is fair.
So? So do the other countries pointing the finger at Iran. I do not see your point, all I see is the same OLD "blah blah blah America blah blah" from you. Quite old really.Dilbert_X wrote:
The US signs up to a lot of stuff it then ignores.So in this case what might the USA's interests be for signing out of nukes treaties?
United Nations
WMD
Nuclear proliferation
Ballistic Missiles
Torture
Free trade
etc
Which countries?usmarine wrote:
So? So do the other countries pointing the finger at Iran. I do not see your point, all I see is the same OLD "blah blah blah America blah blah" from you. Quite old really.Dilbert_X wrote:
The US signs up to a lot of stuff it then ignores.So in this case what might the USA's interests be for signing out of nukes treaties?
United Nations
WMD
Nuclear proliferation
Ballistic Missiles
Torture
Free trade
etc
I would have thought the fact that they adopted a flag advocating the annexing of all land between the rivers Nile and Euphrates was statement enough of their intentions to take over much of Egypt, all of Jordan, and some of Syria and Iraq.lowing wrote:
Nice flag, now as requested link me to a quote from Israel that says its intentions are to wipe out all Islamic and Arab nationsBraddock wrote:
The clue is in the flag lowing...lowing wrote:
Please link me to a quote from Israel that endorses or intends to wipe all Arab/ Islamic countries off the facer of the earth. Cuz I can link you to them saying that about Israel.
http://levinejudaica.com/catalog/images … 20flag.jpg
But fine you keep referring to a statement made by one person that isn't reflected in any actual foreign policy. You do realise that there is a lot of debate over the translation of this actual quote too btw? He apparently actually said "Israel must vanish from the page of time", a reference to an old speech by the Ayotollah Khomeini about the inevitability that the occupying regime's control of Jerusalem will inevitably be ended...not quite as catchy as "Israel Must be Wiped Off The Map". If Iran wanted rid of all Jews do you not think they would have started with the largest group of Middle Eastern Jews located outside of Israel in their own country?
Last edited by Braddock (2008-04-12 08:33:26)
Oh really!Dilbert_X wrote:
The US signs up to a lot of stuff it then ignores.So in this case what might the USA's interests be for signing out of nukes treaties?
United Nations
WMD
Nuclear proliferation
Ballistic Missiles
Torture
Free trade
etc
Ignoring UN resolutions is not an American trait. Thats done by the rest of the world.
Nuclear proliferation, explain what the US has ignored about this.
Ballistic Missles!!! What!!!
Torture = sticky.
Free Trade, lol. Did you not realise that the EU is one of the largest protectionist markets on the Planet.
I suggest you not throw everything into your argument and that comes to mind to proove your point.
I'll say it again
As long as Israel has nukes, other Middle Eastern states will continue to aim for acquiring them themselves, and you really can't blame them for doing so.
As long as Israel has nukes, other Middle Eastern states will continue to aim for acquiring them themselves, and you really can't blame them for doing so.
Last edited by Turquoise (2008-04-12 08:41:27)
If you're refering to Ahmenejad's 'wipe Israel off the map' threat then I'm quite happy to relieve your fears. He didn't say that, it was a complete load of BS. The actual translation was "The Imam said this regime occupying Jerusalem must vanish from the page of time." A reasonalbe comment against the mass human rights abusing Israeli regieme. Also his direct superior's position is to agree with the Arab League position on a two state solution.lowing wrote:
I agree, nuclear energy should be available, but Iran has not earned the trust of the international community to have their program go unchecked. I gotta think threatening to destroy another country probably does not help their cause.Braddock wrote:
I'd be happier if the US kept itself to itself and saved it's handouts for it's own homeless and needy and maybe sorted out it's financial system. I agree that any nation, not just Iran, should be closely monitored when nuclear energy is involved and I welcome the idea Iran put forward where Russia could be brought in to deal with the more risky aspects of the nuclear process. Iran are entitled to nuclear energy for civilian use.lowing wrote:
Nope, not at all, given Iran's remarks and instabilty it would be in the best interest of the world t okeep a thumb on them. No one has to pander to the US, as a matter of fact everyone is free to not take our aid and handouts at any time. Or are you suggesting that the US should fund and help countries even though it is not in our best interests?
- Index »
- Community »
- Debate and Serious Talk »
- Looks Like Peace Loving and Tolerant Islam wants to "Spread the Love"