Jump to content

Westerners Losing Heart to Preserve Greatness


jbg

Recommended Posts

When they get bombs they will use them. Downtown TelAviv will be the first target IMO.
Why? What makes the Mullas of Iran any crazier than the crackpots running China, Russia or Pakistan?

Or the psychopaths running Israel, for that matter. Sharon... Netenyahu... Begin...Shamir... not to mention the ones running Shin Beit.

If there were psychopaths running Israel they would already have nuked their neighbours. They also would have already evicted all the Palestinians from the surrounding areas, and, for that matter, could have stolen pretty much as much of their neighbours' lands as they desired.

Oddly, they have done none of that, have a free and lively press, democracy, freedom of worship, freedom of speech, and the only independant court system in the middle east. And the only time they seem to attack anyone is when they are attacked.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 52
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

When they get bombs they will use them. Downtown TelAviv will be the first target IMO.
Why? What makes the Mullas of Iran any crazier than the crackpots running China, Russia or Pakistan?

Well, those people don't seem to think God will give them 72 virgins and call them to his side in glorious paradise if they die killing infidels.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am quite sure that much of the former middle class, which under the Shah was quite extensive, would prefer to have their middle class economic lives and relative freedom back, to the "pride" of knowing that some madman has the nuclear trigger.

You clearly know nothing about what it was like to live in Iran under the Shah. I doubt you will find many Iranians who yearn for the days when that psychopath was running the country

What did he do that was so bad?

PS: Leave out anything the mullahs do.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, those people don't seem to think God will give them 72 virgins and call them to his side in glorious paradise if they die killing infidels.

The Mullahs don't either. When was the last time an Iranian Mullah blew himself up?

Are you suggesting the Mullahs don't actually believe in what they're preaching?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Are you suggesting the Mullahs don't actually believe in what they're preaching?

Hell, I'm not even sure they are preaching that (since suicide bombing seems to be more of thing with Sunnis). But anyway, they may preach it, they may believe it, but they sure aren't about to start practicing what they preach. Like I said: when was the last Iranian Mullah suicide bomber?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hell, I'm not even sure they are preaching that (since suicide bombing seems to be more of thing with Sunnis).

Actually, it started with Shi'ites. The Lebanon barracks attack of 1983 was Shi'ite. Even Lockerbie and WTC I weren't Sunni. The first Sunni suicide attacks were the "bin Laden specials", i.e. the Khobar Towers, 1998 US Embassy, USS Cole and September 11.

Well, those people don't seem to think God will give them 72 virgins and call them to his side in glorious paradise if they die killing infidels.

The Mullahs don't either. When was the last time an Iranian Mullah blew himself up?

But anyway, they may preach it, they may believe it, but they sure aren't about to start practicing what they preach. Like I said: when was the last Iranian Mullah suicide bomber?

They are the ultimate in cowards. They are prepared to shed the blood of hormone-fueled 17 year olds for their own power and glory. Utterly sick and depraved.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

They are the ultimate in cowards. They are prepared to shed the blood of hormone-fueled 17 year olds for their own power and glory. Utterly sick and depraved.
And what does that make Canadian and American politicians who depend on young soldiers willing to volunteer to 'spread the faith' (a.k.a democracy) with the end of a gun?

Elected representatives chosen to make those decisions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Elected representatives chosen to make those decisions.
Why does that make a difference? At certain level we are no different from Islamists - we have our religion (democracy) and we want all other peoples on earth to adopt that religion and are willing to go to war to ensure it. We have no Gods to appoint leaders so we rely on 'the people' to choose them instead. We are so absolutly convinced in the righteousness of our beliefs that we cannot even comprehend how someone cannot see why our 'religion' is superior to anything they have now.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

At certain level we are no different from Islamists

You mean the level that allows us to choose what to wear, where to go, who to lead us, who makes our laws, what those laws are, that allows us to falter and not be stoned to death, allows non democratics to live here without being killed, lets us see what a female looks like because other creeds stop ape morons from losing it by covering them up in lumber tarps. Those kinds of people? Yes, we are just like them, in a different way of course.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You mean the level that allows us to choose what to wear, where to go, who to lead us, who makes our laws, what those laws are
These are all things which are important to us because we have decided that they are important. They represent our religion. our way of thinking. indiviudal freedom is our god and there is no afterlife so we think we better make sure life is enjoyable today. people who choose a different god have different priorities - a different vision for how society should be run that is based on a broader spiritual values and the life that follows this one. there is no way to know which religion is right - maybe God is Allah and we are all going to be in big trouble when we die. But we don't belive that because we have _faith_ in our god - we just 'know' that our god is the true god and it is the Muslims who are wrong.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Elected representatives chosen to make those decisions.
Why does that make a difference? At certain level we are no different from Islamists - we have our religion (democracy) and we want all other peoples on earth to adopt that religion and are willing to go to war to ensure it. We have no Gods to appoint leaders so we rely on 'the people' to choose them instead. We are so absolutly convinced in the righteousness of our beliefs that we cannot even comprehend how someone cannot see why our 'religion' is superior to anything they have now.

You point outo, correctly, in the FN threads that one reason that ancient "treaties" may no longer be binding is the disproportionate number of non-FN's compared to FN's, and the needs of a democratic society in that regard. I find your arguments inconsistent; on one hand, forcing compliance with FN treaties is undemocratic (and I basically agree with you there), and on the other than leadrs of democracies are as bad as raping, slaughtering Islamists.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Actually, it started with Shi'ites. The Lebanon barracks attack of 1983 was Shi'ite. Even Lockerbie and WTC I weren't Sunni. The first Sunni suicide attacks were the "bin Laden specials", i.e. the Khobar Towers, 1998 US Embassy, USS Cole and September 11.

Lockerbie and WTC '93 weren't suicide attacks. And of course, you forget that the place where the whole 72 virgins thing gets the most play is in Sunni Palestine.

They are the ultimate in cowards. They are prepared to shed the blood of hormone-fueled 17 year olds for their own power and glory. Utterly sick and depraved.

Well, we certainly can't be too concerened about them using a nuclear weapon then.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

than leadrs of democracies are as bad as raping, slaughtering Islamists.
I absolutely defend our right to run our society by democratic principals and see nothing wrong with that. I absolutely reject the idea that we have a right to 'spread our religion' to other societies by force of arms. I also reject the notion that Islamic radicals represent a threat to our society - they are no different from criminals like the Hell Angels and we need to protect ourselves, however, this is no battle of civilizations.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Elected representatives chosen to make those decisions.
Why does that make a difference? At certain level we are no different from Islamists - we have our religion (democracy) and we want all other peoples on earth to adopt that religion and are willing to go to war to ensure it. We have no Gods to appoint leaders so we rely on 'the people' to choose them instead. We are so absolutly convinced in the righteousness of our beliefs that we cannot even comprehend how someone cannot see why our 'religion' is superior to anything they have now.

The biggest difference is that under our system we can have this debate because we aren't so absolutely convinced of the righteousness of our beliefs. Most of us are capable of modifying or changing our beliefs if presented with a good enough argument. That's why our governments come an go peacefully. There is no such opportunity with these people.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It may be that Iran may attck a neighbour or Israel or the USA some day. It may be that Iran will launch a nuclear attack against another nation some day. But I don't think you can attack some one for what they may do at some indefinite time to some indefinite nation.

IMO it's far worse than that. The "indefinite nations" are either Israel or Sunni Arab countries in the area. The real danger is it makes them invulnerable to conventional attack.

Japan was a rare case where offensive use of a nuclear weapon could work, because of the concentration of people and industry on Japan's East Coast. In most cases, nukes are more for creating an insuperable obstacle to a conventional attack, as was their use in Western Europe during the Cold War. I do not think an unattackable Iran is in anyone's interest.

Then Iran has a right and a duty to defend itself by developing the best defensive measures it can. That right is assured by tradition and coded in the UN Charter.

If we can't find a way to make Iran secure by negotiation , it will make itself secure by nuclear missiles capable of reaching everywhere on earth as provided by that right.

There have been plenty of negotiations with Iran. If we need to bomb it into the stone age to keep them away from nukes I'm okay with that. And no, it won't particularly bother me if that means a million dead Persians.

You should have noticed that the attack in Iraq and Afghanistan and Lebanon did not result in deaths only to one side.

How many Canadian deaths are you ok with resulting from an attack on Iran.

? Another million?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There have been plenty of negotiations with Iran. If we need to bomb it into the stone age to keep them away from nukes I'm okay with that. And no, it won't particularly bother me if that means a million dead Persians.

Of course it won't bother you. IIRC, you're a civil servant so your job is probably secure even when the world economy goes "blooey!" The five-hour long queues for gas on the way home from the office might put a crimp in your day, though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's why our governments come an go peacefully. There is no such opportunity with these people.
Says who? No Islamic society is static and changes over time. Iran is a different place today than it was when Kohemeni took over. It took hundreds of years for England to evolve from a feudal theocracy society to the democracy it is today. Why should Iranian society be expected to change over night?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

These are all things which are important to us because we have decided that they are important. They represent our religion. our way of thinking. indiviudal freedom is our god and there is no afterlife so we think we better make sure life is enjoyable today.

Most people in our country believe in Christisanity, the afterlife and personal freedom to choose here on earth so of what do you speak of?

there is no way to know which religion is right - maybe God is Allah and we are all going to be in big trouble when we die. But we don't belive that because we have _faith_ in our god - we just 'know' that our god is the true god and it is the Muslims who are wrong.

I don't care who your God is. But when people start to kikll us in the name of a carrot or bannana then it is time to shut that religion down.

No Islamic society is static and changes over time

Re install the Caliphate as per the medieval times of the eighth century. There is no modern version.

I absolutely reject the idea that we have a right to 'spread our religion' to other societies by force of arms.

We do have an obligation to provide the right to choose to people. If they choose to have an Islamic stae then so be it. If they choose to have a terrorist state and be attacked by us then so be it too.

I also reject the notion that Islamic radicals represent a threat to our society - they are no different from criminals like the Hell Angels and we need to protect ourselves, however, this is no battle of civilizations.

You don't think that people creating chaos until the right combination of clerics and people come to power is not a threat to an Islamic country? I certainly do as most ae centrally controlled and when the economic sector and the military are subverted by certain religious appeals and degredations the populace loses confidence in the avility for them to stop carnage they are ripe for a coup. We have seen coups in more stable situations with only political goals as the outcome. Try it with racial and religious overtones and it is a possible.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's why our governments come an go peacefully. There is no such opportunity with these people.
Says who? No Islamic society is static and changes over time. Iran is a different place today than it was when Kohemeni took over. It took hundreds of years for England to evolve from a feudal theocracy society to the democracy it is today. Why should Iranian society be expected to change over night?

We have to deal with things as they are not how they may or not be hundreds of years from now. China is a society that is far older than ours but as yet hasn't developed into a democracy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's why our governments come an go peacefully. There is no such opportunity with these people.
Says who? No Islamic society is static and changes over time. Iran is a different place today than it was when Kohemeni took over. It took hundreds of years for England to evolve from a feudal theocracy society to the democracy it is today. Why should Iranian society be expected to change over night?

We have to deal with things as they are not how they may or not be hundreds of years from now. China is a society that is far older than ours but as yet hasn't developed into a democracy.

Well if you mean democracy like in Canada of course. It has 4 billion people. If Canada ends up with 4 billion people, I think it is fair to say we will be a totalitarian police state like China. Shit happens when you have billions of people. I am not justifying China's totalitarian regime. I hate it. But I am also a realist. The sheer number of people really makes freedom of expression problematic.

All democracies face that challenge if we over-populate. Freedom of expression is easier with smaller, easier to manage populations not competing for the same water or resources.

Over crowd any living creature and it will get violent and intolerant.

That said, no we have to deal with today. I agree with you on that. I think we can not afford to sit and do nothing waiting for the Muslim world to evolve. In the interim we have to protect ourselves and if that means pre-emptive anti terrorist strikes to take out terrorists, that is the price we pay for living the way we do.

I differentiate strategic pre-emptive commando, anti-terrorist attacks, from occupying other nations with conventional armies and using those armies as political police.

So for example with our forces in Afghanistan, I understand if they engage in war with Taliban and limit themselves to that. Where I have a problem is when people then say our army are social workers and should be having tea with the natives and teaching them democracy. That is b..s. to me.

To me you want to encourage democracy you bring in civilians and non profit organizations and teach self-sufficiency without insulting the culture or values of the country you are in.

For me yes there should be UN chartered anti-terrorist commando units that have world-wide jurisdiction to hunt and capture/kill terrorists. Where I personally have a problem, is when we expect our soldiers to be politicians, social workers, etc., or run governments. I believe in seperation between religion and state and the military and state. I guess I am old fashioned that way.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Rue, if we are running into problems with trying to make our soldiers into social workers, doesn't that kind of ask the question, " Where are our social workers? "

I'm young, and I haven't seen this conflict up close like you have, but if we are only fighting against the enemy, and not for the friend, then are we really achieving anything? Yes, we're fighting the Taliban, but if we're not willing to give or help find the resources to rebuild, then why fight at all? Can you not help people in more ways than killing their enemies without trying to impart your values on them?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well if you mean democracy like in Canada of course. It has 4 billion people. If Canada ends up with 4 billion people, I think it is fair to say we will be a totalitarian police state like China. Shit happens when you have billions of people. I am not justifying China's totalitarian regime. I hate it. But I am also a realist. The sheer number of people really makes freedom of expression problematic.

The population of China is 1.4 billion, not 4 billion. The population of India is just under 1.1 billion and it is a democracy. It shares the same democratic heritage as we do which you will have to blame on those nasty old Brit imperialists. Not all societies are destined to become democratic.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We do have an obligation to provide the right to choose to people. If they choose to have an Islamic stae then so be it. If they choose to have a terrorist state and be attacked by us then so be it too.

As Hamas did in the "Palestinian authority" and Hezbollah did in "Lebanon". The people elected monsters, and Israel is thus, arguably, within its rights in taking a few more liberties with collateral damage than if the government had been imposed on the people.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Tell a friend

    Love Repolitics.com - Political Discussion Forums? Tell a friend!
  • Member Statistics

    • Total Members
      10,712
    • Most Online
      1,403

    Newest Member
    nyralucas
    Joined
  • Recent Achievements

    • Jeary earned a badge
      One Month Later
    • Venandi went up a rank
      Apprentice
    • Gaétan earned a badge
      Very Popular
    • Dictatords earned a badge
      First Post
    • babetteteets earned a badge
      One Year In
  • Recently Browsing

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...