I am so angry at my country right now (re: North Korea, Nukes, Iraq, Trans Fats)

[Spectacular_Insanity]

Originally Posted by Kyuusai

There's a major nitpick here: Bush may have supported it, and he darn well should have vetoed it, but CONGRESS did it.

Isn't that what I said?

Originally Posted by Spactacular_Insanity

This could present a problem, as Congressmen were the ones that passed it in the first place....

Please read my entire post before you respond to it. I know I rant a lot, but still...

[Spectacular_Insanity]

Originally Posted by Demongod86

Bear in mind that the conditions that the constitution was written under are different conditions than we face today. When G.Washington and Ben Franklin and whoever were around, we didn't have people blowing themselves up in restaurants or flying planes into our workplaces.

Hitler, Stalin, Mao Zedong...we've learned from their errors, and we will not repeat those mistakes.

The conditions may have changed, but not peoples basic human rights. Despite what you say about them giving up their right to humanity, I completely and utterly disagree. Not matter how horrible a person is, above all they are a living, thinking, feeling creature; a human. Despite how angry we might be at injustice and undisputable evil they do, they are still human. If we degrade ourselves to their level and kill, torture, and arrest people like they do, we BECOME them. This is unavoidable.

This is the exact kind of mentality that leads to dictatorships. Hitler and the Nazis, Stalin, and other facists arrested people without a lawfully good reason, other than they suspected some "crime against the state". Kind of like what Bush is doing. When the victim of this injustice becomes you, will you still be willing to support the state?

[Kamui4356]

Originally Posted by SpecterVR

Not quite true. An interesting little article was pointed out to me back when this was sorta kinda being brought up in a debate. Read and understand its not the only time this has occured.

http://www.informationclearinghouse....ticle12790.htm

That appears to be quibbling over symantics... I don't think he's calling for the removal of the current isreali adminstration via elections, rather the overthrow of the isreali government. Might not be as colorful as saying wipe isreal off the map, but the intent still comes through. Of course you can say he isn't actually saying it, rather quoting, but he makes it clear he agrees with it.

Iran might not be much of a threat to the US, but they can cause a lot of trouble in the region. That said, I doubt they'll launch a strike against isreal as lots of palistinians would be killed, and they'd face massive retaliation from the US.

We should look at this issue realisticly, rather than give in to fear mongering or dismiss the potental regional threat faced by Iran all together.

[ImClueless]

Iran might only be a regional power, but it would be follish to dismiss them as a threat. It is true that Iran does not pose a direct military threat to North America or Europe, but they are a significant economic threat. Iran is capable of blockading the Straight of Hormuz. That shuts off the Persian Gulf and 20% of the world's oil supply instantly. Iran is also has the second largest conventional oil reserves in the world after Saudi Arabia and produces 9% of the world's oil itself. Also destabilization will affect all the oil producing countries in the region.

I agree that fear mongering is bad and unproductive, but I do think that Iran is a threat. Iran is essentially a theocracy. When people are ruled by religion they do not necessarily make rational or reasonable decisions. If you sincerely believe that when you will die, you will go to heaven, get a river of milk and honey, and dozens of virgin wives, there is no reason to fear death. The leaders of Iran do not necessarily think the same way as westerners do so we cannot apply our way of thinking to them. Just because they face massive retaliation for something doesn't mean they won't do it when pressured. In other words I agree with the Pope regarding his opinion of Islam and reason ( Im not Catholic or even Christian).

[Paranoia833]

Originally Posted by ImClueless

Just because they face massive retaliation for something doesn't mean they won't do it when pressured.

Then how come they haven't destroyed themselves before now? While it would be a mistake to assume that they'll react to a situation in the same manner a secular western politician would, the fact that Iran has demonstratably backed down in the past would seem to indicate that they are at least capable of acting in their own self-interest. I'd say they're far more likely to use nuclear weapons to deter American intervention than they are to use them against Israel or give to terrorist groups on a whim.

Remember that despite Iran's funding and arming of terrorists in Iraq and all over the middle east, most terrorist groups do not represent Iran's interests. They're mostly religious idealists (many of a completely different branch of Islam than Iran's rulers) , Arab nationalists or glorified warlords. Iran's not going to give a multibillion dollar toy to a group they can't say for certain won't turn on them in the future.

[ImClueless]

Originally Posted by Paranoia833

Then how come they haven't destroyed themselves before now? While it would be a mistake to assume that they'll react to a situation in the same manner a secular western politician would, the fact that Iran has demonstratably backed down in the past would seem to indicate that they are at least capable of acting in their own self-interest. I'd say they're far more likely to use nuclear weapons to deter American intervention than they are to use them against Israel or give to terrorist groups on a whim.

Remember that despite Iran's funding and arming of terrorists in Iraq and all over the middle east, most terrorist groups do not represent Iran's interests. They're mostly religious idealists (many of a completely different branch of Islam than Iran's rulers) , Arab nationalists or glorified warlords. Iran's not going to give a multibillion dollar toy to a group they can't say for certain won't turn on them in the future.

Would you please provide some examples of Iran backing down in the past? As far as I am aware, Iran hasn't been, up until recently, significantly pressured or threatened internationally since the Iran-Iraq war. With the chaos in Iraq, Iran feels that it is the big dog on the street now and is seeking mark is territory. I agree that one of the reasons Iran is getting nukes is to deter US intervention. However, if the US calls Iran's bluff, then things can go to hell in a hand basket pretty quickly. I would not put it past Bush to do it either. As for the terrorists, yes they are religious zealots, but Iran's "Supreme Leader" is a religious zealot too. I would not put it past the leaders of Iran to martyr their entire country since they will all go to heaven anyway.

All sides are shitty in the dispute. The US is being Imperialist and trying to control the world and Iran wants to convert the world to Islam by the sword. Personally, I would still choose the US with its materialistic goals over religious fervor. The evil that I can understand over something that has always been beyond me.

[Spectacular_Insanity]

Originally Posted by Paranoia833

Then how come they haven't destroyed themselves before now? While it would be a mistake to assume that they'll react to a situation in the same manner a secular western politician would, the fact that Iran has demonstratably backed down in the past would seem to indicate that they are at least capable of acting in their own self-interest. I'd say they're far more likely to use nuclear weapons to deter American intervention than they are to use them against Israel or give to terrorist groups on a whim.

Remember that despite Iran's funding and arming of terrorists in Iraq and all over the middle east, most terrorist groups do not represent Iran's interests. They're mostly religious idealists (many of a completely different branch of Islam than Iran's rulers) , Arab nationalists or glorified warlords. Iran's not going to give a multibillion dollar toy to a group they can't say for certain won't turn on them in the future.

A lot of this is pure conjecture. I see no concrete evidence to support your viewpoint.

How do you know they are arming terrorists? While its more than likely, it is, until actually proved just guessing. If we assume things and start attacking Iran, we could cause more trouble for ourselves, since technically other countries would inevitably reach for the moral high-ground of defending themselves against invasion. Like anyone would, really.

I frankly have little knowledge about Iran, so I would like to see some evidence here. As I said before, because until you do, it's nothing but words.