Dealing with Achmedinajad

[the]

I can not help but notice that you misspelled "Ahmadinejad". I find it hard to believe that you do not have the capacity to spell the man's name correctly and that you do this kind of thing deliberately in order to put the Iranian point of view in a position of inferiority. I for one would appreciate it if you would be a little more respectful of the oppositions point of view when you start these threads. Since only a portion of the INFJs forum is visible to the non member internet it smears us all with the brush of intolerance to differing points of view.

I noticed that as well but I googled it and it is supposedly an alternate spelling.

Also I was hoping to get the OPs reaction to my post. Thanks

 

[Stu]

I noticed that as well but I googled it and it is supposedly an alternate spelling.

not buying it, looks like a common misspelling by rabid bloggers

 

[Billy]

Your reply assumes all governments are equal, when in reality people are not the same, and governments are not the same. We don't give guns to 5 year olds or paranoid schizophrenics or old people with alzehimers. In the same way, there are some governments in the world that can be trusted with nukes, and other governments that cannot.

There are all sorts of neo nazis right here in this country who would kill the Jews and nonwhites before the President of Iran would, does that mean we should rob them of thier right to bear arms too?

 

[GracieRuth]

Nah, it just means that I'm often too sloppy to edit my spelling and grammar before posting. Sure I think correct spelling matters, but in the end this is just a forum, and I can't be bothered with that amount of effort for something that really doesn't matter all that much.

It seems to me that I've seen numerous transliterations of Ahmedinajad. Sometimes it has a ch rather than an h (similar to the way sometimes Hannukah is spelled Chanukah -- the particular sound made does not exist in English). Sometimes the unaccented second syllable is spelt with an e and other times with an a. Whatever. I'm just so used to multiple spellings for words in languages with different alphabets that my mind doesn't consider it significant.

 

[GracieRuth]

This is a very biased poll.

Of course it is. All polls are biased. Here is my bias:
1. We have learned from history that if the Jewish people are to survive, it does NOT work for us to live in other lands, as we cannot trust even modern democratic societies to protect us. We need to return to the Land, and protect ourselves. The survival of the Jews is contingent upon the state of Israel.
2. The world is being put into a moral dilemma: Either Iran can survive or Israel can survive, but not both. It would have been nice if both nations could have co-existed, but obviously that is not an option. So... CHOOSE.

 

[Sir]

Of course it is. All polls are biased.

It's biased in the sense that you haven't considered any other options. It's biased in options.
What about: appealing to their ethics with logic? The whole issue has been brought on by communication problems IMO.

Here is my bias:
1. We have learned from history that if the Jewish people are to survive, it does NOT work for us to live in other lands, as we cannot trust even modern democratic societies to protect us. We need to return to the Land, and protect ourselves. The survival of the Jews is contingent upon the state of Israel.

Okay, so from your bias, you believe that every Jew feels segregation from the rest of the world is the only way to live without being persecuted? Black people and women went through the same thing, they didn't segregate themselves from the rest of the world to achieve their rights, the integrated themselves into society and changed the minds of people by appealing to their ethos. They never felt entitled to their own land. Your view reflects those of extremists because of the issue of "trust".

2. The world is being put into a moral dilemma: Either Iran can survive or Israel can survive, but not both. It would have been nice if both nations could have co-existed, but obviously that is not an option. So... CHOOSE.

Co-existence is not an option? This is ignorance on your part, no offense intended. Are you even reading anyone's posts with an open mind? Specifically muir's and magister343's.

 

[Stu]

Co-existence is not an option? This is ignorance on your part, no offense intended. Are you even reading anyone's posts with an open mind? Specifically muir's and magister343's.

That might entail too much of an effort, I believe she is only interested in variations of her own opinion.

.........this is just a forum, and I can't be bothered with that amount of effort for something that really doesn't matter all that much........

 

[just me]

I think many people fail to see the real dangers of a nuclear-armed Iran. Most people think the only threat is nuking Israel.

not finished.............but tired.

 

[Sir]

Many people do see the dangers of a nuclear-armed Iran, I'm pretty sure they have taken that into consideration.

But many people fail to see that the same dangers also apply to every country that possesses nuclear weapons.

It is a matter of HOW countries use nuclear weapons. Some use it as a way to defend themselves and some use it as a way to attack others. The middle ground is using it as a deterrent for violence in the first place. This is how North Korea operates, we fear attacking them because they have nuclear weapons, they use it as a deterrent. If they didn't have nukes, we'd be all over North Korea for refusing to respect civil liberties. This is not something that Iran has a problem with, they respect the civil liberties of its own people, and I'm sure they do for people of other countries as well.

 

[just me]

Add the Taepo Dong ICBMs to the equation and see what you get. Iran may very well use their "threat" to control the oil avenues in their proximity. They have already offered to share their nuclear ambitions with other countries for trade in politics. Nuclear proliferation in the Middle East will go ballistic, so to speak. It is not like a trustworthy country having a nuclear capability.

North Korea is still North Korea only because of China. It would have been gone long ago if it weren't for China's will to not have American presence so close to their borders. North Korea will always be there as long as China wants them to be there, the way I see it. They do not need nuclear and delivery systems for their own protection as long as China is there.

 

[Sir]

First point: How is the United States any different? We use nuclear weapons as a way of exercising control over oil avenues not even in our proximity.

Second point: That's a valid point, but take away China and they'd still have the same 'protection' because of their nukes. Not to mention that the relationship between China and North Korea has been significantly strained since NK developed nuclear weapons.

 

[just me]

First point: How is the United States any different? We use nuclear weapons as a way of exercising control over oil avenues not even in our proximity.

Second point: That's a valid point, but take away China and they'd still have the same 'protection' because of their nukes. Not to mention that the relationship between China and North Korea has been significantly strained since NK developed nuclear weapons.

Nobody over there is scared of our nuclear arsenal, as we do not flaunt it nor do we mention it. We have proved our ability to restrain the use of our nuclear weapons and have worked many long years trying to slowly rid the world of them bit by bit. Our wars are not fought with the thought of nuclear weapons. We have looked into R&D of tactical nukes, but that is just moot when we do not exercise them. We even help certain others maintain their nukes. Our military and intelligence is what they fear over there, along with our allies.

If China and Pyongyang are strained because of the North's nuclear program and ICBMs, why is it so hard to see where Iran will lead the arena if it pursues its program? When we go in, we go in carefully and strategically. We help rebuild when we are finished. We have not threatened annihilating a country and destroying a race of people. Iran has many times over. I'm not disagreeing but trying to share the way I see things through much studying.

Israel has taken out nuclear programs in Syria and Iraq. Iran may well be next. Israel is not going to try to destroy Iran or its people. Yet, all of Iran's allies will try to vigorously kill every Jew they can if war breaks out. Israel is after a program, and everyone else is after the Jews. Gracie Ruth makes a valid point, and the writing is on the wall for all to see.

Ever wonder what Hitler would have done with nukes? Think about it for awhile.

 

[This]

there are some governments in the world that can be trusted with nukes, and other governments that cannot.

I agree


Nagasaki 1944

Nagasaki 1945

 

[the]

Of course it is. All polls are biased. Here is my bias:
1. We have learned from history that if the Jewish people are to survive, it does NOT work for us to live in other lands, as we cannot trust even modern democratic societies to protect us. We need to return to the Land, and protect ourselves. The survival of the Jews is contingent upon the state of Israel.
2. The world is being put into a moral dilemma: Either Iran can survive or Israel can survive, but not both. It would have been nice if both nations could have co-existed, but obviously that is not an option. So... CHOOSE.

If you want to live then move! You cannot trust us to allow you to exist! Run, swim, fly back while you still can to Israel! If you truly believed this you would be gone already.

 

[Billy]

If you want to live then move! You cannot trust us to allow you to exist! Run, swim, fly back while you still can to Israel! If you truly believed this you would be gone already.

Well she only recently became jewish afterall. Give her time, shes still in the butterflies and new car smell of the religion, in a few months she will just be another complacdnt american jew who doesnt care about proving her jewishness.

 

[just me]

Billy, that hasn't happened to me over the years and I am not a Jew....

 

[Barnabas]

1. We have learned from history that if the Jewish people are to survive, it does NOT work for us to live in other lands, as we cannot trust even modern democratic societies to protect us. We need to return to the Land, and protect ourselves. The survival of the Jews is contingent upon the state of Israel.

Holy crap you'er missing the point of at least half of the books of the Bible

 

[muir]

Nobody over there is scared of our nuclear arsenal, as we do not flaunt it nor do we mention it. We have proved our ability to restrain the use of our nuclear weapons.

Not true the world has been living in the shadow of the US government's nuclear bombs for 60 years now. The older generation in my country used to have drills as schoolchildren where they would practice ducking under their tables when they got the 5 minute warning.

The US kept flying U2 spyplanes planes over the USSR whilst encircling it with military bases and missiles until the Russians responded by sending missiles to Cuba at which point the US threatened war and once again cast the world under a shadow of possible nuclear annihilation, until the US pulled its forward missile base out of Turkey.

People all around the world are terrified of the US. That's why Iran wants a bomb because it fears that the US will attack it like it has done to Iran's neighbours.

The US hasn't proved it's safe with bombs, it is the only country in the world to have used nuclear bombs and it supplied Israel with bombs which has caused the current arms race in the middle east

and have worked many long years trying to slowly rid the world of them bit by bit. .

Not true the US sparked off an arms race with the USSR which has seen nuclear proliferation not a scaling back. The US still has the most nuclear missiles in the world and is building a missile defence shield to stop other countries missiles whilst allowing US missiles to strike other countries, which is only adding to the paranoia of other countries.

If it genuinly wants to scale back it could, but when it says it is scaling back what it means is it is scaling back from having enough nuclear weapons to destroy the earth 3 times over to having enough weapons to destroy it once or twice

Fear has been the prime driver behind nuclear proliferation and the US government has created a lot of fear around the world

Our wars are not fought with the thought of nuclear weapons. .

Not true, the US is encircling Russia and China with missiles and early warning bases and developing the missile defence sheild which undermines the whole point of peace through avoidance of mutual destruction suggesting to the rest of the world that they will at some point not be safe from a possible nuclear attack from the US

The US also threatened the Iraqis that they would nuke Bagdad if the Iraqis used chemical weapons on their troops as they invaded

US politicians have talked publically about bombing Iran

We have looked into R&D of tactical nukes, but that is just moot when we do not exercise them. We even help certain others maintain their nukes. Our military and intelligence is what they fear over there, along with our allies.

No what they fear is being turned into 'collateral damage', held in prisons without trial, being tortured, being attacked and raped (rape of female personel in the US military is rife as well), being killed by 'kill squads' or by trigger happy blackwater employees and just generally scared of a US government that seems to pay no heed to international law prefering instead to unleash a vast array of weaponry against soldiers and civilians alike.

If China and Pyongyang are strained because of the North's nuclear program and ICBMs, why is it so hard to see where Iran will lead the arena if it pursues its program? When we go in, we go in carefully and strategically. We help rebuild when we are finished. We have not threatened annihilating a country and destroying a race of people. Iran has many times over. I'm not disagreeing but trying to share the way I see things through much studying..

The US does not go in carefully which is why it has killed over a million Iraqis in the second gulf war conflict alone. It scattered depleted uranium shells across swathes of Iraq as well as cluster bombs. It sprayed carcinogenic agent orange all over peoples crops and water supplies in Vietnam and bombed large sections of Cambodia. It has killed countless civilians in many conflicts and it killed more British troops in 'friendly fire' incidents in the first Iraq war than the Iraqis did. It carpet bombed more people in Japan with conventional bombs then it did with the atom bombs.

There's nothing clean about the way the US fights wars. I think you really need to do some research into this stuff, you'll be shocked.

You say that Iran has threatened to destroy another country many times over but who in Iran are you claiming has said this? Iran is no threat to the US mainland. The only americans potentially endangered by Iran are ones that are in places they shouldn't be in in the first place. Iran however lives in constant fear of attack from US ally Israel which has 200 nuclear bombs.

Go on youtube however and you can find John McCain joking about bombing Iran!

Israel has taken out nuclear programs in Syria and Iraq. Iran may well be next. Israel is not going to try to destroy Iran or its people. Yet, all of Iran's allies will try to vigorously kill every Jew they can if war breaks out. Israel is after a program, and everyone else is after the Jews. Gracie Ruth makes a valid point, and the writing is on the wall for all to see. .

Not true The sites Israel bombed were not nuclear programs. Israel should not be attacking anyone. How can you not see that the US and Israel have no more right to attack anyone else then any other country?

Everyone else is not after the jews, most people are just busy defending their resources...there are many jews living in Iran who have refused offers from israel to move.

Ever wonder what Hitler would have done with nukes? Think about it for awhile.

Here's a thought actually rooted in reality: many of the nazi rocket scientists were captured by the US and went and worked for the US helping them to build weapons and the space program.

 

[muir]

Of course it is. All polls are biased. Here is my bias:
1. We have learned from history that if the Jewish people are to survive, it does NOT work for us to live in other lands, as we cannot trust even modern democratic societies to protect us. We need to return to the Land, and protect ourselves. The survival of the Jews is contingent upon the state of Israel.
2. The world is being put into a moral dilemma: Either Iran can survive or Israel can survive, but not both. It would have been nice if both nations could have co-existed, but obviously that is not an option. So... CHOOSE.

We don't need to choose between Israel and Iran, we can work to ensure peace between the two instead; that option is still there

 

[just me]

The sites were bombed for nuclear-related activities. What would Hitler have done with nukes? I did not get even a guesstimate.

If you do not know who Iran has threatened to obliterate, I'm not going to tell you. Nobody is trying to destroy the Jews in Israel?
Maybe I have been living in a different world.....

The days of smart bombs have drastically changed American warfare and goals. I have to do no research to see this.