Do we have the right to police them though? Especially when we hold onto nukes of our own? Really, we're one of the few countries capable of laying waste to another nation without the help of nuclear weapons.125gJoe said:
Iran Progresses with Nuke Program
- Thread starter 125gJoe
- Start date
Nursie- that's my point, it's not really the religion it's the culture. The religion doesn't give rise to terrorists, the culture their governments create does. The governments are self serving institutions that allow citizens to suffer and starve while the rich become richer.Terrorists- the people who are willing to strap bombs to themselves and do these appalling things are individuals who become violent out of despairation- but religion is just a tool their ring leaders use to get them to do this. Their objectives are different, like Bin Ladin for example, he's not attacking us because the general population here has violated some sacred tenant and warranted a jihad- he's going for an economic impact. I think with people like that it's just about power, twisting religion is just a vehicle to get that power. And I didn't mean to single out Christianity and offend you in any way, but it has been used to do some horrifying things even in very modern times. The Old Testament is full of violence- but I wouldn't say most Christians are violent any more than I would say most Muslims are. And you're right, I think Killen is a good example- I'm sure he could give you a scriptural justification for what he did, but that doesn't mean that he is representative of the majority of Christians.
As far as the comments on the Christians crusades 900 years ago, I have two comments:
1) The crusades would have never happened, NEVER HAPPENED, had Islam NOT FIRST SACKED the Holy Land and forcibly converted or killed thousands.
2) It was the popes who instigated the crusades, and the popes of the time are notorious for being worldly and crudely selfish, two fruits of wickedness. They were NOT Christians.
I agree that gov't should not institutionalize religion. However, morals have always been based on religion where society and religion intersect. The "behavioral" Commandments "thou shalt not kill, lie, steal, commit adultry, etc..." are what I'm talking about. Morals have absolutely no basis without religion backing it, or you wind up with a culture war like we have in America with people killing their own unborn babies in the name of convenience, men marrying men, and Micheal Jackson and OJ Simpson running free.
BTW, I do not intend to offend any peaceful Muslims on this site (or anywhere for that matter) you're welcome in my house or to go fishing with me anyday. But please take a look at the behavior of the prophet Muhammad and the "four rightly guided caliphs", his immediate successors. Most of them were assasinated by their own brother muslims, and all of them including Muhammad were incredibly cruel imperialists, advancing this new religion by the sword and NOT by peace unless the city under siege surrendered unconditionally and quickly. Muhammad was NOT peaceful, he was a full-blooded terrorist, as was his immediate followers. Christ was not, nor were ANY of His immediate followers. The Crusades, as mentioned above, were by worldy, politically and greed-inspired popes who knew nothing of the Savior.
1) The crusades would have never happened, NEVER HAPPENED, had Islam NOT FIRST SACKED the Holy Land and forcibly converted or killed thousands.
2) It was the popes who instigated the crusades, and the popes of the time are notorious for being worldly and crudely selfish, two fruits of wickedness. They were NOT Christians.
ash said:
I agree that gov't should not institutionalize religion. However, morals have always been based on religion where society and religion intersect. The "behavioral" Commandments "thou shalt not kill, lie, steal, commit adultry, etc..." are what I'm talking about. Morals have absolutely no basis without religion backing it, or you wind up with a culture war like we have in America with people killing their own unborn babies in the name of convenience, men marrying men, and Micheal Jackson and OJ Simpson running free.
BTW, I do not intend to offend any peaceful Muslims on this site (or anywhere for that matter) you're welcome in my house or to go fishing with me anyday. But please take a look at the behavior of the prophet Muhammad and the "four rightly guided caliphs", his immediate successors. Most of them were assasinated by their own brother muslims, and all of them including Muhammad were incredibly cruel imperialists, advancing this new religion by the sword and NOT by peace unless the city under siege surrendered unconditionally and quickly. Muhammad was NOT peaceful, he was a full-blooded terrorist, as was his immediate followers. Christ was not, nor were ANY of His immediate followers. The Crusades, as mentioned above, were by worldy, politically and greed-inspired popes who knew nothing of the Savior.
^ What he said.cgrabe said:
Extremists on just about anything are never good. Look at Greenpeace and PETA. Then, of course, look to the idiots that you see on TV who get arrested because they have 15 starving quarterhorses or something. Same with religion. You have people so into it as to either roll over and be killed and let their home, family and way of life be utterly destroyed and then you have the kind that cram it down your throat with a gun to your back. I mean really, does any higher being really want people to just give lip service conversions while staring down the barrel of a gun? The people don't mean it. Aren't omnipotent gods supposed to know that? The answer is: obviously. So the question isn't about religion after all, is it? Isn't it about power and manipulation? Sad.
I do not think of it as much as a right as I do a duty. For better or worse, we are the major superpower in the world. That means a few things. First, it makes us a target. I really don't think that needs any more proof than 9/11 and hey, just for kicks, the last Summer Olympics (really obscure reference, but if you think back to the major controversy, you will surely see it).cgrabe said:
It also damns us to a double edged sword of aid. Being the biggest and the best also means we should help our worldwide neighbors. We have more to spare. If you need proof, go serve in the Peace Corps or on a church mission to a third world country. You'll find out America's idea of poverty and crappy working conditions is most peoples' idea of living the high life. It's double-edged because if we don't help someone we are targetted further. We didn't when we could have, the people hate us, etc. If we do help, we are throwing our weight around, sticking our noses where it doesn't belong, etc. If you need proof, read a French newspaper. They hate us. If we help someone, we are forcing our ways and values on someone. If we do not help, we are selfish and greedy. What's worse, is even the folks back home love and hate you for it. I know we have all heard and maybe even thought, "Why are we sending aid to those people when there are homeless people living in our own streets?"
Aid comes in many ways. Maybe it is in the form of a Desert Storm or World War where we go in and liberate a country that has been taken over by an unwelcome potentate. Maybe it is in the form of an Iraqi Freedom where a potentate thumbs his nose at UN reolution after UN resolution just begging to draw us into a conflict. Maybe it is in the form of completely non-violent aid, like some of the government aid in the wake of the terrible tsunami. Maybe it isn't as evident that we are not at war with a certani country more than we are simply trying to save all the other countries around it. This would be the case in Iran. We know it is a volatile region. We know the damage an extremist government with a nuke could wreak in that region. We know we have some obligation to prevent a radical government to threaten its neighbors, possibly grow larger and more powerful and then become a REAL LARGE problem with nukes they are willing to use on a large scale for their extremist values don't place the value on human life, only their extremist values.
Imagine, if you would, an Iran that is capable of long range, intercontinental ballistic missiles equipped with nuclear devices. Imagine them rolling through the Middle East, taking over more lands, more people, growing larger and more powerful. Imagine them controlling most of the world's oil by themselves. Would they not then become a super power? Do you think they would excercise any restraint whatsoever, based on previous track records in how they would use their power? Would they aid others, or simply use them?
Now, I am not saying the USA are saints. We are not. There are corrupt people on all levels of the government, right down to your local civic system. So what? At least we still have a vote. We still have a system that seems to be working. When we have entered these last two wars we haven't forced religion on people, though we have pushed for Democracy. At least this way the people can choose what they want rather than having some dictatorial regime tell them what they want.
So, yes, we have some obligation to the world at large to not only protect our freedom, but to police others. Don't expect others to stay out of it for much longer either. The EU just may be a super power if Turkey does actually get into gear and clean up its act for admission. Other Middle Eastern nations may follow. Then, who knows what? Northern Africa? Might there be a Pan-Asian Union soon? Tomorrow never knows, to quote a wiser man than I, but for now I think Iran poses a threat to its neighbors and in so doing, to Freedom throughout the world.
Here's an interesting article about how ex-UN weapons inspector Hans Blix states that Iran is far from building a nuclear bomb
http://www.spacewar.com/2005/050623114540.z12uijz7.html
Regarding to what Harlock mentioned, in order to be a mature superpower we have to know when and how to use this power, otherwise we'll get ourselves into messes that could have been avoided
http://www.spacewar.com/2005/050623114540.z12uijz7.html
Regarding to what Harlock mentioned, in order to be a mature superpower we have to know when and how to use this power, otherwise we'll get ourselves into messes that could have been avoided
Last edited:
if you want to see a counrty that has problems abusing nuclear power you should look at our own country. here is a short video which I feel more than illustrates my point
NOT FOR THE FAINT OF HEART*** GRAPHIC IMAGES*****
http://www.ericblumrich.com/pl_lo.html
may god have mercy on our souls.....
NOT FOR THE FAINT OF HEART*** GRAPHIC IMAGES*****
http://www.ericblumrich.com/pl_lo.html
may god have mercy on our souls.....
Wow, amazingly the video doesn't even use American English spelling, leaves the word du in at one point and still talks about "our" tax dollars and how much depleted uranium "we" have dropped. Come on, if you want to actually look into the facts, please do and don't link to propaganda, most especially that with a specific bias.ticklemepunk473 said:
http://www.gulflink.osd.mil/faq_17apr.htm said:
DU shells are meant to pierce heavy, dense armor like that of tanks. You see, lead just cannot do it. Even jacketed ammo has trouble. DU rounds are made of that ultra dense depleted uranium in order to pierce the tank, then the round detonates. The video linked to by you talks about "dropping" DU like we were carpet bombing Iraq. Look at the videos of the war. Look at how we even chose from which direction we smart bomed buildings to minimize civilian damage and limit blast radii. Recall, these were most likely not DU munitions. Then, remember, most of Iraq's tanks were destroyed in 1991 out in the desert.
Last edited:
I am sorry if my bias offends you. I dont believe that this is propaganda since it is just one persons flash video website. I guess it is very very biased but I have read the facts and frankly after all the info we are recieving now about the EPA doctoring reports I am not really eager to take any "government sponsored" study on the effects or uranium to heart. OF COURSE A STUDY FROM THE DEPLOYMENT HEALTH ORGANIZATION WOULD WANT TO MINIMIZE THE EFFECTS OF DU! I guess I am kind of going on a conspiracy theory rant so sorry! :duh: anyone who wants to see other videos go to the guys site he actually has some funny parodies not just the sad stuff.
I thought this one was pretty ironic and kind of lame.
ANOTHER WARNING!! EXTREME BIAS AHEAD!!! NON-LIBERALS BEWARE!! lol
http://www.ericblumrich.com/14.html
I thought this one was pretty ironic and kind of lame.
ANOTHER WARNING!! EXTREME BIAS AHEAD!!! NON-LIBERALS BEWARE!! lol
http://www.ericblumrich.com/14.html
