Iran?
-
Personally, I get tired of reading article after article in my American papers about "peace in the Middle East". I think the only practical path to peace in that region is to erect a big wall around all the countries, give everyone as many weapons as they want, lock the door, and throw away the key. In the end, some group will have wiped out every other group, and then you'll have peace. Peace in the Middle East is a joke. None of the countries there truly want peace. What they want is not to establish benevolent and tolerant relations between all the countries in the region, but rather for their adversaries to simply disappear. Until that attitude changes, peace talks are a waste of time and the area will continually be plagued with wars, violence and repression. Personally, I'd rather see my tax dollars spent on our own issues instead of wasting them interfering with countries who don't want peace to begin with. Chistopher Duncan Author - The Career Programmer: Guerilla Tactics for an Imperfect World (Apress)
Christopher Duncan wrote: I think the only practical path to peace in that region is to erect a big wall around all the countries, give everyone as many weapons as they want, lock the door, and throw away the key. In the end, some group will have wiped out every other group, and then you'll have peace. LOL :laugh: :laugh: Yes,thats a fact. Mazy "The more I search, the more my need For you, The more I bless, the more I bleed For you."The Outlaw Torn-Metallica
-
Mazdak wrote: but government because of its own dictatorship does not accept it and force people in every things that you can think of.( You are talking about the dictatorship i.e hard policies of your government. Since Iran is a very good friend of Pakistan, here we consider this "dictatorship" as the "internal affair" of Iran. Still what i believe is that there are different kind of opinions among different group of people in Iran. Its not easy for the current government to change everything overnight, because hardliners can launch strong protests. By the way the best feature of your "dictatorship" is that it never cares about the "dictation" given by US. Imran Farooqui
By the way the best feature of your "dictatorship" is that it never cares about the "dictation" given by US. "Dictation" given by the US is not the correct term. There simply is not one country in the entire world that follows exactly what the US says. (This idea of "dictation" is largely a ploy by the status-quo in a particular country to maintain power - by creating fear that if they leave power, the country's next regime will do whatever the US wants. But, as I've explained, there aren't any examples in the whole world of any government having their policies dictated by the US.)
-
Richard Stringer wrote: You are of course kidding - right ? No man not at all. Richard Stringer wrote: If not you are at best delusioned Actually you didn't get my statement correctly. You know that these days there are some news that USA plans to attack on Iran. In this connection few protests taken place in Iran where leaders boldly stated that "Iran knows how to teach lesson to US". Now you again read my statement regarding "eye-ball to eye-ball" you'll definitely understand what i mean to say. Richard Stringer wrote: . Iran had enough trouble with Iraq. Dream on bro. Dream on. Now what this has to take here ??? Imran Farooqui
You know that these days there are some news that USA plans to attack on Iran. In this connection few protests taken place in Iran where leaders boldly stated that "Iran knows how to teach lesson to US" Where do you get your news? There's virtually zero chance of the US making an attack on Iran. Any news to the contrary is largely fear-mongering to create support for the existing government.
-
Personally, I get tired of reading article after article in my American papers about "peace in the Middle East". I think the only practical path to peace in that region is to erect a big wall around all the countries, give everyone as many weapons as they want, lock the door, and throw away the key. In the end, some group will have wiped out every other group, and then you'll have peace. Peace in the Middle East is a joke. None of the countries there truly want peace. What they want is not to establish benevolent and tolerant relations between all the countries in the region, but rather for their adversaries to simply disappear. Until that attitude changes, peace talks are a waste of time and the area will continually be plagued with wars, violence and repression. Personally, I'd rather see my tax dollars spent on our own issues instead of wasting them interfering with countries who don't want peace to begin with. Chistopher Duncan Author - The Career Programmer: Guerilla Tactics for an Imperfect World (Apress)
Christopher Duncan wrote: I think the only practical path to peace in that region is to erect a big wall around all the countries, give everyone as many weapons as they want, lock the door, and throw away the key. In the end, some group will have wiped out every other group, and then you'll have peace. Often I think that way as well. Christopher Duncan wrote: Personally, I'd rather see my tax dollars spent on our own issues instead of wasting them interfering with countries who don't want peace to begin with. I also wish this also, Unfortunatly a lot of your diplomatic missions are pushed by trade lobbyists. If you could stop them the meddling would stop as well. Regardz Colin J Davies
Sonork ID 100.9197:Colin
More about me :-)
-
John Morales wrote: With the recent history (30+ years) of bad relations between the USA and Iran USA government already labeled Iran as a part of "Axis of evil". Iran recently conducts missile tests of "Shahab" missile series and USA condemns it. Interesting to note that Israel has already constructed destructive weapons but USA didn't taken notice about them. Iran is only country in this region that is capable of looking eye-ball to eye-ball in front of US. Whether US is right or Iran....God knows only Imran Farooqui
USA government already labeled Iran as a part of "Axis of evil". Iran recently conducts missile tests of "Shahab" missile series and USA condemns it. Well, Iran has been shouting "Death to the US" for twenty years now, and it's religious/government leaders say that Israel is a cancer that needs to be cut-out completely from the earth. Additionally, it pays a great deal of money to terrorist groups, and has for a long time. What's wrong with them becoming a nuclear power with missles capable of reaching Israel? Iran seems to know a great deal about taking a hard-line on issues and using violence. The worst thing is to give Iran the ability to carry out this violence. The problem with religous regimes, in general, is that they tend to be illogical and intolerant (even Europe went through it's religious wars but at least they didn't have nukes). Interesting to note that Israel has already constructed destructive weapons but USA didn't taken notice about them. It's probably true that Israel is an undeclared nuclear power. They've probably had them since the 1970s. But, at least they haven't used them. At least Israel has a good defensive reason to have them - they are surrounded by a dozen Middle Eastern countries that would rather wipe them off the face of the earth than make peace with them. In contrast, no one shouts "death to Iran". Whether US is right or Iran....God knows only Or, we can think about the issue and come to the obvious conclusion that countries who aren't tolerant and who use violence to backup their religious ideologies should not gain the ability to carry out their violence.
-
USA government already labeled Iran as a part of "Axis of evil". Iran recently conducts missile tests of "Shahab" missile series and USA condemns it. Well, Iran has been shouting "Death to the US" for twenty years now, and it's religious/government leaders say that Israel is a cancer that needs to be cut-out completely from the earth. Additionally, it pays a great deal of money to terrorist groups, and has for a long time. What's wrong with them becoming a nuclear power with missles capable of reaching Israel? Iran seems to know a great deal about taking a hard-line on issues and using violence. The worst thing is to give Iran the ability to carry out this violence. The problem with religous regimes, in general, is that they tend to be illogical and intolerant (even Europe went through it's religious wars but at least they didn't have nukes). Interesting to note that Israel has already constructed destructive weapons but USA didn't taken notice about them. It's probably true that Israel is an undeclared nuclear power. They've probably had them since the 1970s. But, at least they haven't used them. At least Israel has a good defensive reason to have them - they are surrounded by a dozen Middle Eastern countries that would rather wipe them off the face of the earth than make peace with them. In contrast, no one shouts "death to Iran". Whether US is right or Iran....God knows only Or, we can think about the issue and come to the obvious conclusion that countries who aren't tolerant and who use violence to backup their religious ideologies should not gain the ability to carry out their violence.
-
I'm Iranian guy and I believe in 99% you are right. Beyond nationality we can be friend,can't we? :) :rose: Mazy "The more I search, the more my need For you, The more I bless, the more I bleed For you."The Outlaw Torn-Metallica
Mazdak wrote: Beyond nationality we can be friend,can't we? Yes Jeremy L. Falcon Homepage : Sonork = 100.16311
"It was a blind man who taught me how to see." - Aerosmith -
I'm Iranian guy and I believe in 99% you are right. Beyond nationality we can be friend,can't we? :) :rose: Mazy "The more I search, the more my need For you, The more I bless, the more I bleed For you."The Outlaw Torn-Metallica
-
By the way the best feature of your "dictatorship" is that it never cares about the "dictation" given by US. "Dictation" given by the US is not the correct term. There simply is not one country in the entire world that follows exactly what the US says. (This idea of "dictation" is largely a ploy by the status-quo in a particular country to maintain power - by creating fear that if they leave power, the country's next regime will do whatever the US wants. But, as I've explained, there aren't any examples in the whole world of any government having their policies dictated by the US.)
Brit wrote: there aren't any examples in the whole world of any government having their policies dictated by the US Almost true. In Denmark we never wanted any nuclear devices on our territory, but in the cold war the US pressured the government to allow Nuclear bombs to be stored in Greenland. If a transport plane hadn't crashed and contaminated a large piece of land with radicoactive trash, then the Danish people probably never would have known about it. By the way: What about all the countries that in some way or another have been handled by CIA?. "It could have been worse, it could have been ME!"
-
Brit wrote: there aren't any examples in the whole world of any government having their policies dictated by the US Almost true. In Denmark we never wanted any nuclear devices on our territory, but in the cold war the US pressured the government to allow Nuclear bombs to be stored in Greenland. If a transport plane hadn't crashed and contaminated a large piece of land with radicoactive trash, then the Danish people probably never would have known about it. By the way: What about all the countries that in some way or another have been handled by CIA?. "It could have been worse, it could have been ME!"
The original statement was "Iran's policies aren't dictated by the US". I wasn't arguing that the US doesn't pressure governments to follow its policy on some issues. I was arguing against the statement that governments are puppets of the US government, doing whatever they say in all cases. To make the reverse statement "Iran's policies are dictated by the US" says that all of Iran's policies are controlled by the US, but there aren't any examples of any other countries doing this. Taking a look at the specific case of Denmark, and ignoring the question of whether the US had a legitimate reason to ask this of Denmark*, it would still be incorrect to say that "Denmark's policies are dictated by the US", wouldn't it? Sure, there may be instances where they did what the US wanted (for better or worse), but I see this as a big step away from having their policies, in general, dictated by the US. * Taking into account the fact that during the Cold War, the US spent as much as all the European NATO members combined on the defense of Europe, and therefore it is arguably legitimate for the US should be allowed to ask members to contribute a little more.