Badassbab said:
Slimebeast said:
bouzane said:
Slimebeast said:
Icy-Zone said:
Kasz216 said:
Oh... and I think most Iranians would generally take offense at that video "Telling their side of the story".
I quite think you'd be arrested as soon as you hit the section on Religion...
So i'm not quite sure why you thought that video was going to give me the Iranian perspective.
|
Because the film was focused purely on religion and didn't cover topics such as the Israel's unlawful occupation of land, and the threat of a very unstable and aggressive country called America. I'm sure the majority (keyword since you love democracy so much) of Iranians would agree with, and already understand much of what was shown.
Basically put, if Iran isn't allowed nukes, the US shouldn't be allowed either.
If you want to follow a scoreboard for nuke usage (this could possibly be a way to measure stability, even though stability is hardly quantifiable) we can say that the US has two points: for the bombings of Nagasaki and Hiroshima, whilst the Iranians have a score of 0. So to say that Iran is the type that would drop nukes should they acquire some, is purely speculation as there has been no past behaviour, on their part, that would suggeset they would.
Thank you and have a great day.
|
It always comes down to Israel.
Israel is the big obsession of communists and muslims. Apart from the persecution of Jews throughout history, the hate towards Israel is by far the strongest in political history ever.
|
Um, Evangelists seem to be just as obsessed with Israel as anybody else. Such a liability should not determine so much American legislation. Also, America's nuclear track record is one of, if not the single most irresponsible. As frightening as Iranian nukes would be, America's nuclear arsenal is far more dangerous to the people's of the earth.
Also, I must laugh at the concept of "Western freedom & secular democracy". I wish I lived in Russia where I would be free to buy a Saiga and smoke up. As far as democracy goes, it doesn't work. That's why America's founding fathers insisted upon a republic. Oh well, the religious right still gets to routinely impose their will upon the entire populace anyway :/
|
As an evangelical myself I have no problem to admit I have an obsession with Israel though. And it's for supernatural reasons, based on Biblical prophecies, not some hypocritical quasi-ethical lies that the socialists put forth (and some people from the Arab world too, but in their defense; that's only for tactical reasons - to make the Israeli-Arab conflict appear as a human-rights issue in front of a naive Western world). I want Israel to win and to keep Jerusalem forever, and I know they will win no matter how much Satan and the world hates them.
American nukes are no threat to the world. It's ridiculous to claim otherwise. What happened in the 40's is not relevant today.
The Mullah controlled Iran is an entrely different issue. Their hate towards Israel, and like Kasz described, in a desperate situation that nuclear threat would be a very serious threat. Then there's the risk of smaller dirty bombs. It's not wild fantasies to imagine a nuclear Iran sell primitive dirty bombs to Hizbollah to use against Israel. Such a scenario could hurt Israel a lot and with Israel's hands pretty tightly tied politically it wouldn't be that easy for them to retaliate if they wouldn't have clear evidence (and the world would blame them anyway).
|
So basically you're a nutter like those Mullahs then?
|
No.
My point is that nearly everyone involved with the Arab-Israeli conflict, even civilians who only have opinions on the matter, is a nutter, meaning that they don't take their stand on it on a rational ethical basis but on an emotional or religious basis. Some just pretend to be ethically rooted or they lie even to themselves that they are when they are in fact emotionally invested.
