Iran's Nuclear Plans

[BigV]

Adak, you seem determined to view these issues through a lens of religion, and I think that distorts what you see. Do you consider the war in Afghanistan a religious one? On our part? On the part of our enemy? Who is our enemy? Are we fighting against their religion?

Why do you insist that it will be MUSLIMS who are intent on starting a war?

I think your view would be much clearer if you substituted POWER for RELIGIOUS TRADITIONS in much of what you've said here. The number of non-violent Muslims is many thousands of times greater than the number of violent Muslims, for Islam's sake. Just as it is for Christians. And for Jews.

The Iranian leaders have proven so unwilling to negotiate, it's unimaginable that they would ever agree to a START type treaty, unless their economy collapsed very harshly.

Perhaps... let's take that as a starting point. If you think that's their position, then what? Attack? Since they'll never disarm? You, yourself, have to be the person who says

NO WAR!

[Adak]

Originally Posted by BigV

Adak, you seem determined to view these issues through a lens of religion, and I think that distorts what you see. Do you consider the war in Afghanistan a religious one? On our part? On the part of our enemy? Who is our enemy? Are we fighting against their religion?

Why do you insist that it will be MUSLIMS who are intent on starting a war?

Yes, I am determined to view these issues through the lens of religion, because the countries in the Middle East that have gone to war recently, view their fight through the lens of religion.

Islam is not just a religion. It is a religion with a substantial ideology that may go hand in hand, with it.

I think your view would be much clearer if you substituted POWER for RELIGIOUS TRADITIONS in much of what you've said here. The number of non-violent Muslims is many thousands of times greater than the number of violent Muslims, for Islam's sake. Just as it is for Christians. And for Jews.

Yes, but the non-violent Muslims have not been able to rein in the spread of the violent ideology of their fellow faithful. As long as Muslim schools, orphanages, and mosques are preaching how the infidel, the Christian, and the Jew, are all worth something akin to the pig, and that violence against others is OK, there will be religious violence. You can call it Jihad or anything you like, but it's killing, and Muslims are the one's doing it (far more than anyone else), worldwide.

People are susceptible to propaganda. They will come to believe what they hear over and over, eventually.

Perhaps... let's take that as a starting point. If you think that's their position, then what? Attack? Since they'll never disarm? You, yourself, have to be the person who says

I'm all in favor of peace, but I know better than to believe that the leaders in Iran, feel the same way. They've made their "sweep Israeli's into the sea" speech, too many times to somehow keep ignoring it. It isn't just that I'm tired of hearing their saber-rattling. (Which I am). It's that I believe they intend to do just that. It won't be this year. It won't be next year, it may not be for another 10-20 years, but they will attack Israel. No doubt in my mind. You can't just keep saying you're going to attack another country, and then never attack them - you lose all credibility with your people.

If they have nuclear weapons, I'm not sure they would use them, but they might. Who knows?

I know I don't want to see nuclear weapons proliferation, in the Middle East, for sure. THAT would be a recipe for disaster.

Right now, our best option is to see if the sanctions will collapse their economy, and thus force the Iranian leaders to stop their program to enrich Uranium. That's a hard thing to cause, but far better than a war.

[henry quirk]

"intelligent leaders"

HA!

Find one.

#

"you would be arrested"

Only if I'm caught.

#

"'wacko extremist' talk radio"

I don't listen to the talking heads on either side.

##

"NO WAR!"

As real a notion as ghost farts...good luck chasing rainbows...let me know when you catch one (I ain't holdin' my breath).

[BigV]

Originally Posted by henry quirk

"intelligent leaders"

HA!

Find one.
--snip

I can't believe you've overlooked my signature for the past several hundred posts.

[henry quirk]

'Cunning, glib, and mercenary' is not synonymous with 'intelligent'.

'nuff said...

[BigV]

No, they're not. Neither are they mutually exclusive traits. Obama is intelligent, and to say otherwise is wrong, whatever the reason.

[henry quirk]

He -- like his opponent, like pretty much any 'politician' -- is mediocre in intelligence and idea...he's a used car salesman looking to sell a lemon.

And: I don't care if that assessment is 'wrong'.

[infinite monkey]

henry, who WOULD be a good leader, or who HAS been a good leader? Anyone? Your neighbor? Your grocer? Some guy on TV? Churchill? Stalin? Juan Carlos of Spain? Generalissimo Francisco Franco (who, by the way, is still dead.)

You think NO ONE can be a good leader...therefore good leaders do not exist. Certainly PERFECT leaders don't exist, but 'shitty leader' is an oxymoron and frankly I get so freaking tired of people who rant and rail about how much everyone sucks and no one should ever lead or follow.

Which makes us LESS individualistic not MORE. We're all the same, then.

[henry quirk]

"who WOULD be a good leader"

Don't really know or care (I do know, however, the current crop is deficient).

'You' may need leading...I don't.

#

"I get so freaking tired of people who rant and rail about how much everyone sucks and no one should ever lead or follow."

And I get tired of every one being so willing to 'follow' any pissant who sports big brassy ones and declares him- or her-self 'leader'.

Not every one is 'wolf' (looking to find his or her place in the pack); some are 'bear' and just want to be left the fuck alone (by 'leaders and their 'followers').

*shrug*

[infinite monkey]

So, I and everyone else who support....well...anyone, are just ignorant following dumbfucks. All however many billion of us should all be completely independent of everyone else.

Seems reasonable and doable.

[henry quirk]

Where did I say (or imply), "All however many billion of us should all be completely independent of everyone else."?

Very clearly, I said, 'You' may need leading...I don't.

I wasn't being facetious...if you need leading, then go find yourself a leader or leaders, based on whatever criteria you set.

I don't want or need to be led.

I also never called anyone "ignorant following dumbfucks".

[infinite monkey]

Originally Posted by henry quirk

Where did I say (or imply), "All however many billion of us should all be completely independent of everyone else."?

Very clearly, I said, 'You' may need leading...I don't.

I wasn't being facetious...if you need leading, then go find yourself a leader or leaders, based on whatever criteria you set.

I don't want or need to be led.

I also never called anyone "ignorant following dumbfucks".

They seemed fair inferences, based on the find an intelligent leader comment and the 'everyone willing to follow' comment.

[henry quirk]

...I always say EXACTLY what I mean to.

If I was gonna call a body an "ignorant following dumbfuck" then that's EXACTLY what I'd do...I wouldn't dance 'round it, or imply it.

You do me a dis-service.

[tw]

Originally Posted by henry quirk

...I always say EXACTLY what I mean to.

In a Bruce Willis movie, everyone else is incompetant and dumb. Only Bruce Willis can do anything right. Bruce Willis portrays mythical characters. Reading these 'Bruce Willis' claims are just as absurd, contradictory, and fictional. Complete without even one reason to believe any of them.

[Ibby]

Adak: