Stop World War #3.

[Sweet Katie]

Quote by: Technosoul The difference is she wants to sign the international treaty that would establish a plan, with oversite inspectors, to disarm all countries by downsizing nuclear stock piles and by disarming missles with nuclear war heads. And the Bush White House has authorized the building of more nuclear bombs, and has proposed developing hand held weapons that discharge nuclear bombs. She supports the idea of not allowing a lot of other nations from attaining nuclear warheads, which is possible if they get nuclear energy plants. America must take the leadership when it comes to downsizing our nukes and Russia was willing to do likewise, as were other nations. We must support U.N. inspectors to insure the Israel does not have a nuclear program along with inspectors for other middle-eastern countries. Such a plan must be established on an internatonal bases and not just "policed" by the USA for those countries we might not be on friendly terms with. With another Bush style frist strike war. Of course Hillary is firm about not permitting Iran to develope nuclear bombs, who would not be? Nuclear energy plants is another matter, as not every country can use water power, etc. to provide electric power to thier cities. That is where the problem come into play because we have promoted the idea that nuclear energy is a "peaceful use" of nuclear technology. But to prevent the spread of nuclear arms we must, as HIllary pointed out in the link you provided, get involved in signing those treaties and international agreements about nuclear weapons of mass distruction. For anything short of that is just hypocritical. Bush, and the Repubicans who want to replace him, are not willing to even concider signing those treaties being proposed or to get involved in talks to do this on a global scale. And concerning Iraq their is a difference, the democrats want to pull out and the republicans want to stay and continue the war.

Nice post. Lots of good information here.

However, this also scares the bejesus out of me. After World War I, progressive countries wanted to disarm and not endure another world tragedy. World War I was suppose to have been the war to end all wars. It was agreed upon that countries would limit their armies. Sadly, it didn't work. It scares the bejesus out of me that H. Clinton doesn't see these scary connections.

I also believe that nuclear disarmament (I may have misspelled it) is not the answer. Evolution shows that people need to feel safe in order to progress. If all the countries disarm, all the countries become vulnerable. I theorize that the solution is in emphasizing humanity and education, putting aside differences and working toward peaceful solutions. Iran has to accept realities. It is 2007, Israel is a country, and the horror of the Hallocaust isn't fabricated. Until Iran proves that its leaders thinking patterns aren't askewed, the country is a threat to the world no less than Hitler's Germany. The similarities are as obvious as they are terrifiying.

[Sweet Katie]

Quote by: grandpa 2. The US set a bad precedent by attacking a country just for having alleged nuclear weapons. Grandpa h.

Nice post. Agree with most of it. Just a comment on the last sentence, which I agree with entirely. However, there was also a humanitarian crisis in Iraq, and I theorize that in a decade we'll have a different take on the war in Iraq (I hope, I hope, I hope . . . ). But, the reasons our United States government gave for deployment in Iraq is the single boldest lie I know of an administration having said ot its people.

[bishop]

refusal to be a mindless lemming shows character and genuine honesty - as opposed to those who follow the party line, or believe that leaders should follow rather than lead. if you follow like a sheep, if you support a sheep, then that must make you a sheep yourself.

so much for independent thinking. just follow the herd of donkeys.

fyi - being a hypocrite in my book is bashing bush for his position on iran, and hailing hillary - whose position is identical when you toss out the rhetorical b.s. designed to confuse simple minds.

in addition, the unsc will not produce a resolution that authorizing a war on iran, just as it did no such thing with regard to iraq.

[Sweet Katie]

Quote by: Praxius Iran still claims they are not producing nuclear weapons, there has been no evidence yet proving they are gearing up for weapon development, and they have clearly stated that if they are attacked, they will respond.... Therefore so long as the US or IZ doesn't attack Iran, and Iran keeps to their word, then there will be no WWIII. If WWIII starts, I'll be sure to remember who started it and I know exactly which side I'll choose. This is the same damn tactic and methods of getting people to believe they have weapons as what was used in Getting everybody on board with invading Iraq.... we all know how much of a blunder that was, and that nothing was ever found, so why the hell is anybody still listening to these clowns? There is a lot at stake when it comes to starting or even throwing the word WWIII around.... I would hope those idiots in power would work on solid and provable evidence, rather then this Soap Opera on TV trying to make people believe in somethng that doesn't exist.

The problem is that Iran doesn't recognize Israel as a nation, doesn't believe that it exists. It also doesn't believe that the Hallocaust happened. Chaos and history trends . . . s-c-a-r-y.

The cold war between USSR and US was different. The governments were different. Each country recognized the others right to exist. Each country recognized the others existence.

[grandpa]

Quote by: Sweet Katie The problem is that Iran doesn't recognize Israel as a nation, doesn't believe that it exists. It also doesn't believe that the Hallocaust happened.

Among the biggest problems are beliefs in an omnipotent god, and belief that such a God has human representatives on earth. I'm talking about all three Abrahamic religions here, not just picking and choosing like so many want to do.

Such crazy people with nukes and powerful states makes the matter even scarier.

Grandpa h.

[Sweet Katie]

Quote by: grandpa Among the biggest problems are beliefs in an omnipotent god, and belief that such a God has human representatives on earth. I'm talking about all three Abrahamic religions here, not just picking and choosing like so many want to do. Such crazy people with nukes and powerful states makes the matter even scarier. Grandpa h.

Human beings must realize that we are all created equal and embrace diversity as beautiful. At some point, the human race will undoubtedly have to decide whether to put the human race or beliefs first.

[Praxius]

Quote by: Sweet Katie The problem is that Iran doesn't recognize Israel as a nation, doesn't believe that it exists. It also doesn't believe that the Hallocaust happened. Chaos and history trends . . . s-c-a-r-y.

So? None of that means they are an evil country bent on mass destruction and global warfare.

A lot of people around the world have hatred for Israel for many various reasons. Apparently the President of Iran was quoted as saying he wanted to see the destruction of that country, but as with other translations from Iran, this was taken way out of context. Just because one said they want the destruction of Israel, that doesn't mean to physically destroy the country by attack, killing everyone..... it could be as simple as wanting the state itself and government to fall, because they feel it's illegal or whatever their reasons are, and a new country in it's place where all are happy with borders, etc.

And whether or not they think the holocaust happened or not is also irrelevent to the current situation. I don't remember hearing anybody over there planning on repeating the Holocaust. And what I heard from those in Iran, is they want to open up a few things for questioning, and it's this flack on wanting to ask questions where more has been taken out of context and people just jump and assume that they are denying that it ever occured.

The cold war between USSR and US was different. The governments were different. Each country recognized the others right to exist. Each country recognized the others existence.

Once again, that doesn't mean they plan on taking the matter into their own hands on removing the country by military force.

Innocent until proven guilty, I always thought. I see no solid evidence at this time for the grounds Bush and Clinton are using to set up for war..... WWIII for that matter.

And if someone is gonna start shooting their mouths about starting the next World War, then they better have their act together and have some seriously solid proof to back them up, because I certainly don't take WWIII talk as lightly as some.

[Sweet Katie]

I like your post, especially your passion. However, the following invalidates it:

At a conference in Tehran on Wednesday entitled “The World without Zionism,” President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad called for Israel to be “wiped off the map.” “The establishment of the Zionist regime was a move by the world oppressor against the Islamic world,” he added. He also denounced moves by some Arab states to recognize Israel or normalize relations with it.

[triad]

This is what is going to happen:


1. Bush will be out of office
2. Ron Paul will win the 2008 election
3. Ron Paul will "pull-out" of Iraq
4. Everyone will shutup for awhile.
5. 100 years will be needed to heal all the wounds.
6. No one will launch a nuclear bomb - if they do, bye-bye mankind.

[Sweet Katie]

Time after time, the 35-nation International Atomic Energy Agency has demanded that Iran stop enriching uranium. Yet Tehran keeps on thumbing its nose at the U.N. body, saying its uranium enrichment is just a peaceful effort to produce electricity.

[Sweet Katie]

Quote by: triad This is what is going to happen: 1. Bush will be out of office 2. Ron Paul will win the 2008 election 3. Ron Paul will "pull-out" of Iraq 4. Everyone will shutup for awhile. 5. 100 years will be needed to heal all the wounds. 6. No one will launch a nuclear bomb - if they do, bye-bye mankind.

How do you see nuclear advancement in Iran?

[Praxius]

Quote by: Sweet Katie I like your post, especially your passion. However, the following invalidates it: At a conference in Tehran on Wednesday entitled “The World without Zionism,” President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad called for Israel to be “wiped off the map.” “The establishment of the Zionist regime was a move by the world oppressor against the Islamic world,” he added. He also denounced moves by some Arab states to recognize Israel or normalize relations with it.

Still that doesn't mean they are going to blow them up with nukes. By the same mentality should we think the same way towards the US and how the US treats Cuba? You guys don't like Castro that much, and you guys have been continually trying to thwart his control over the country and attempted a few assasianation attempts... you guys feel that his controll over the country is illegal or unjust, etc.... seems like the same mentality, where you guys want the destruction of Cuba as it currently stands..... but I don't see you guys wanting to buildup military to Cuba and level the whole country..... just as I don't see Iran doing this with Israel at this time.

Other countries in the world can have hatred for another country and still not decide to actually go and start a war over it. If that was the case, there'd be a lot of countries declaring war on the US for how much they hate the US...... everybody's entitled to their opinions, even Iran.

But Iran's opinions are not their actions, and until I see solid action, My opinion will not change on this.

[Wol]

Quote by: grandpa Trustwirthiness is a problem here, obviously. That's why I recommend only exercising the window shopping approach to a given politician: Just look and don't buy. I don't know if there have been many candidates who are not financed by corporations, by religious loons or what have you. On this issue, I expect as much or as little from the US as I do from the Iranian political system. Grandpa h.

I think history has already proved you right. They are all puppets.

[Praxius]

Which is why I would recomend a revolution.

Think about it.... why would islamic terrorists think of attacking you guys while you guys are taking out the main thing they hate?

But not just for their benifit, my god no, lol.... but get the country back on track to where it used to be.... or better would be nice

Why continue going through the same damn hoops every 4 years, always hoping not to get screwed, and yet get screwed regardless? It's a country for and by the people.... take the damn thing back before you no longer have any usable freedom to fight back.

Then before you know it... they'll start WWIII, they'll start Martial Law and have military everywhere in the country for in case of terrorist threats, and then you guys won't be able to pee without asking, and then the allies will have to come and liberate you guys from this "Nazish regiem" and then things will go back to normal after a few hundred years.

Revolution in one or two? Wait for nuclear radiation to clear out for normal life in many many years? Which is easiest?

[BobbyO]

Quote by: Praxius Hmmm... that also sounds familar towards another country we couldn't trust. Apparently they were telling the truth. I look past the media spin and a president's wild finger pointings, because everything they do have for building nuclear tech, can be used for both. Now They are not pulling a N.Korea giving the world the finger telling them to kick them in the ballz and see what happens because they got a gun and they'll use it...... So far, Iran is saying they want energy and a means to help their economy and enviroment. Considdering everybody is complaining about industrialization, wouldn't improving their enviroment be a good way to get further assistance from other countries? And yeah, they could be building a nuclear weapon, so what? They already said they will not use such devices unless in self defense, and considdering how moody the US has been with their cowboy hang'em high attitudes, I think we should all have nukes. Well hey think about it. You guys have the mentality that you all need firearms for your protection, because everybody else will have a gun regardless and you can't rely on the police...... ..... so why should the guys with the nukes go around shoving talk about WWIII and nuclear war like a gun in the worlds face and pointing fingers at the next country to hang because they're the next bad guy? I don't see the logic. I'm not suprised more countries are not seeking nuclear weapons, cripes. Sorry, but in my personal opinion, the US government has gone Lo-Co in the Co-Co. Seriously, do you guys actually think Iran would be stupid enough to launch a nuke as an attack anyways? Does anybody realise what would happen once any country pulls that stunt? It ain't gonna be pretty.... and I'm gonna be long friggin gone while all you hosers nuke each other, because I'm gonna see it all happen days beforehand, and I know exactly where to go. BWAAA HA HA HA HA HA HA So long Suckers! But seriously, all this war stuff is just a peeing match. There isn't going to be one friggin country dumb enough to start WWIII.... well except one. :rolleyes: So long as the people finally take control of the country, we may actually avoid one, because we all know Bush will want to keep showing his grape sack to the rest of the world and will never want to back down.... if somebody doesn't put a fabric softener in the dryer with his teddy bear, he'll start pushing all kinds of buttons. And we all know he'll want to stir more crap up before he looses power.... that is unless he uses that bill he passed where he can be dictator..... oh goodie, the next 12 years are gonna be fun!

You keep insisting that Iran's drive for nuclear weaponry is a result of bellicosity from the West. This is not the case. Their drive for nuclear weaponry is because their methods of advancing their goals for the past quarter century (terrorism) has failed. Nuclear weaponry will give Iran that chip far more effectively than which Hezbollah has failed to do.

[BobbyO]

Quote by: Praxius So? None of that means they are an evil country bent on mass destruction and global warfare. A lot of people around the world have hatred for Israel for many various reasons. Apparently the President of Iran was quoted as saying he wanted to see the destruction of that country, but as with other translations from Iran, this was taken way out of context. Just because one said they want the destruction of Israel, that doesn't mean to physically destroy the country by attack, killing everyone..... it could be as simple as wanting the state itself and government to fall, because they feel it's illegal or whatever their reasons are, and a new country in it's place where all are happy with borders, etc. And whether or not they think the holocaust happened or not is also irrelevent to the current situation. I don't remember hearing anybody over there planning on repeating the Holocaust. And what I heard from those in Iran, is they want to open up a few things for questioning, and it's this flack on wanting to ask questions where more has been taken out of context and people just jump and assume that they are denying that it ever occured. Once again, that doesn't mean they plan on taking the matter into their own hands on removing the country by military force. Innocent until proven guilty, I always thought. I see no solid evidence at this time for the grounds Bush and Clinton are using to set up for war..... WWIII for that matter. And if someone is gonna start shooting their mouths about starting the next World War, then they better have their act together and have some seriously solid proof to back them up, because I certainly don't take WWIII talk as lightly as some.

A-Jad has suggested shipping the Jews of Israel off to America to establish that country there. Maybe Nova Scotia could be included (in the spirit of sharing)?

Exactly what proof would you need to determine that Iran harbors ill will toward Israel? You seem to claim that statements to the effect of wanting Israel wiped out is not sufficient evidence of ill will. Just what is?

[Praxius]

Quote by: BobbyO You keep insisting that Iran's drive for nuclear weaponry is a result of bellicosity from the West. This is not the case. Their drive for nuclear weaponry is because their methods of advancing their goals for the past quarter century (terrorism) has failed. Nuclear weaponry will give Iran that chip far more effectively than which Hezbollah has failed to do.

Yeah yeah, the big T word.... I honestly don't think the word holds any meaning anymore these days. I see terrorism everywhere by every country, by even their own governments.

Quite simply, we have Pakistan, India and Turkey of all places which have nukes and hold all kinds of extremist by Western standards.... I don't see any difference here.

This is the exact same thing that was done with Iraq, and this is the exact same thing that was done to N.Korea until they sent us up the bomb in a cave and then the US chicken shatted out and then started talking about sanctions.

And you know what? If Iran said they set off a Nuclear explosion in their country, chances are, Bush would wang out and do the same thing.

North Korea is right above South Korea (Go figure) and there's plenty of troops stationed there now, yet I don't remember hearing Bush shooting his guns at N.K. and talk of WWIII like this.

Why? Because he'll only pick on countries he thinks he can push around but look a little tough,

But we all know about men and our one track minds... it seems as though Bush tends to forget about one war and decides to go off to another before finishing the last one.

Geez... at least Hitler made sure he had the countries he invaded in check before heading to the next, to avoid thinning forces too much. But then again, he did end up going totally mad and screwed the whole thing up..... maybe that's what's happening to Bush.

[Sweet Katie]

Quote by: Praxius Still that doesn't mean they are going to blow them up with nukes. By the same mentality should we think the same way towards the US and how the US treats Cuba? You guys don't like Castro that much, and you guys have been continually trying to thwart his control over the country and attempted a few assasianation attempts... you guys feel that his controll over the country is illegal or unjust, etc.... seems like the same mentality, where you guys want the destruction of Cuba as it currently stands..... but I don't see you guys wanting to buildup military to Cuba and level the whole country..... just as I don't see Iran doing this with Israel at this time. Other countries in the world can have hatred for another country and still not decide to actually go and start a war over it. If that was the case, there'd be a lot of countries declaring war on the US for how much they hate the US...... everybody's entitled to their opinions, even Iran. But Iran's opinions are not their actions, and until I see solid action, My opinion will not change on this.

I congratulate you on your firm stance. I have many of them myself, and this isn't one, so there's opportunity for you to change my mind.

The problem that isn't being addressed in your argument is this: Iran has been told not to progress with nuclear; they ignored the notion. Iran doesn't acknowledge Israel as a country. This is a country whose officials appear to be suffering from a mental illness. Iran must acknowledge that it is 2007 and Israel is a country before I'll sleep well at night. There's just too much reminder of German defience.

Now regarding Korea. Korea isn't denying the existence of any country. And Cuba is a threat to the United States but the government does not deny its existence.

It's partially the inability to accept the realities of the now that scares me. It's partially the refusal to back down from mandates that scares me. And, it's the terrorism that scares me.

[BobbyO]

Quote by: Praxius Yeah yeah, the big T word.... I honestly don't think the word holds any meaning anymore these days. I see terrorism everywhere by every country, by even their own governments. Quite simply, we have Pakistan, India and Turkey of all places which have nukes and hold all kinds of extremist by Western standards.... I don't see any difference here. This is the exact same thing that was done with Iraq, and this is the exact same thing that was done to N.Korea until they sent us up the bomb in a cave and then the US chicken shatted out and then started talking about sanctions. And you know what? If Iran said they set off a Nuclear explosion in their country, chances are, Bush would wang out and do the same thing. North Korea is right above South Korea (Go figure) and there's plenty of troops stationed there now, yet I don't remember hearing Bush shooting his guns at N.K. and talk of WWIII like this. Why? Because he'll only pick on countries he thinks he can push around but look a little tough, But we all know about men and our one track minds... it seems as though Bush tends to forget about one war and decides to go off to another before finishing the last one. Geez... at least Hitler made sure he had the countries he invaded in check before heading to the next, to avoid thinning forces too much. But then again, he did end up going totally mad and screwed the whole thing up..... maybe that's what's happening to Bush.

I see... You would be happier if Bush went to war against North Korea (BTW, is Canada still in a state of war with North Korea? Would it be obligated then to fight? I do not know. Might be interetsing to find out). It would seem that would be quite bloody an affair.
I do realize you are not serious.

The idea would seem to be quite solid: To avoid a situation in Iraq and Iran which has occurred in North Korea.
Still, there remains that bizzare and baffling belief that a nuclear armed Iran or North Korea is good because it keeps the USA in check. The worful inability of educated people to be unable to distinguish between the USA, North Korea, and Iran remains quite the puzzle.

[BobbyO]

Quote by: Praxius But Iran's opinions are not their actions, and until I see solid action, My opinion will not change on this.

The United States has not bombed Iran. There has been no "action." Nor for that matter, has it even expressed the "opinion" of wanting to do so.
Yet you are diatribing that they will do so anyhow.

But when presented with Iran's "opinions" it doesn't matter. Proof of Iran's hostility to Israel, and the region in general, will come, presumably, with Iranian bombers and not a moment before.

Even if it is true that "all" governments engage in the "T" word, why do you wish to cut Iran a break here? What does Tehran do that you believe allows it to claim its actions can be beneficial to the mideast and perhaps the world at large?