and by others you surely must include yourself. Iranians? wtf is that, did you not sit through any geography lessons, or do you not watch any tv at all? calling me ignorant? atleast i put up an argument from another perspective that isnt 100% from the western world, have you even thought that someone else can be brought up with different ideals and a different education base?Did you even read my post, and if you did, why not refute it, instead of trying to ignore it with some sort of "funny comment" Ill bet you even Irani's arent illiterate enough to call us Americans as Americinians. Pathetic
I agree the conference is a mockery, I agree 100%, but how in the hell does it hurt anyone if they are having that conference in their country, with their resources. They arent hurting anyone. Honestly, WHO CARES? Yes, its very childish on their part, but its really not this big of a deal, especially since it doesnt affect any current affairs at all.
What the hell are you talking about? Ok since you're so open and cool about questioning things, let's hold an annual US government sponsored conference every year on the invalidity of the Islam religion, the fraudulence of the pedophile Mohammed, and the complete and utter bullcrap godfigure that is Allah. But hey, we're just asking questions, noone's getting hurt. Someone can tell Rushdie that it's ok to go visit Iran since there's no harm in asking questions. What are Irani's?
washingtonpost.Com The Iran Charade, Part II By Charles Krauthammer Wednesday, January 18, 2006; Page A17 "It was what made this E.U. Three approach so successful. They [Britain, France and Germany] stood together and they had one uniform position." -- German Chancellor Makes you want to weep. One day earlier, Britain, France and Germany admitted that their two years of talks to stop Iran's nuclear weapons program had collapsed. The Iranians had broken the seals on their nuclear facilities and were resuming activity in defiance of their pledges to the "E.U. Three." This negotiating exercise, designed as an alternative to the U.S. approach of imposing sanctions on Iran for its violations of the Non-Proliferation Treaty, had proved entirely futile. If anything, the two-year hiatus gave Iran time to harden its nuclear facilities against bombardment, acquire new antiaircraft capacities and clandestinely advance its program. With all this, the chancellor of Germany declared the exercise a success because the allies stuck together! The last such success was Dunkirk. Lots of solidarity there, too. Most dismaying was that this assessment came from a genuinely good friend, the new German chancellor, who, unlike her predecessor, Gerhard Schroeder (now a wholly owned Putin flunky working for Russia's state-run oil monopoly), actually wants to do something about terrorism and nuclear proliferation. Ah, success. Instead of being years away from the point of no return for an Iranian bomb, as we were before we allowed Europe to divert anti-proliferation efforts into transparently useless talks, Iran is probably just months away. And now, of course, Iran is run by an even more radical government, led by a president who fervently believes in the imminence of the apocalypse. Ah, success. Having delayed two years, we now have to deal with a set of fanatical Islamists who we know will not be deterred from pursuing nuclear weapons by any sanctions. Even if we could get real sanctions. Which we will not. The remaining months before Iran goes nuclear are about to be frittered away in pursuit of this newest placebo. First, because Russia and China will threaten to veto any serious sanctions. The Chinese in particular have secured in Iran a source of oil and gas outside the American sphere to feed their growing economy and are quite happy geopolitically to support a rogue power that -- like North Korea -- threatens, distracts and diminishes the power of China's chief global rival, the United States. Second, because the Europeans have no appetite for real sanctions either. A travel ban on Iranian leaders would be a joke; they don't travel anyway. A cutoff of investment and high-tech trade from Europe would be a minor irritant to a country of 70 million people with the second-largest oil reserves in the world and with oil at $60 a barrel. North Korea tolerated 2 million dead from starvation to get its nuclear weapons. Iran will tolerate a shortage of flat-screen TVs. The only sanctions that might conceivably have any effect would be a boycott of Iranian oil. No one is even talking about that, because no one can bear the thought of the oil shock that would follow, taking 4.2 million barrels a day off the market, from a total output of about 84 million barrels. The threat works in reverse. It is the Iranians who have the world over a barrel. On Jan. 15, Iran's economy minister warned that Iran would retaliate for any sanctions by cutting its exports to "raise oil prices beyond levels the West expects." A full cutoff could bring $100 oil and plunge the world into economic crisis. Which is one of the reasons the Europeans are so mortified by the very thought of a military strike against Iran's nuclear facilities. The problem is not just that they are spread out and hardened, making them difficult to find and to damage sufficiently to seriously set back Iran's program. The problem that mortifies the Europeans is what Iran might do after such an attack -- not just cut off its oil exports but shut down the Strait of Hormuz by firing missiles at tankers or scuttling its vessels to make the strait impassable. It would require an international armada led by the United States to break such a blockade. Such consequences -- serious economic disruption and possible naval action -- are something a cocooned, aging, post-historic Europe cannot even contemplate. Which is why the Europeans have had their heads in the sand for two years. And why they will spend the little time remaining -- before a group of apocalyptic madmen go nuclear -- putting their heads back in the sand. And congratulating themselves on allied solidarity as they do so in unison. I'm not sure who's stupider...us, the EU3, or Iran.
Just FYI, that already happens in some churchs around the country and on nearly daily basis if you watch some of the Christian broadcasts. Also, questioning the religion is not the same as examining a historical event. One has to do with theology while the other has to do with history.
I'm referring to government sponsored talks. And I brought it up to show the poster how people who claim to only be examining or questioning things with malicious intent can be offensive/insulting to other people, particularly those in question. Ok then lets have the US government start a conference discussing why Mohammed is a fictious character whose religious contributions were widly exxagerated by desert nomads. Again, we're only examining things. I once again bring up the Satanic Verses, which "examines" historical "truths" about Islam.
Come on, Mr. Clutch... please try to avoid the "broad brush" when you are referring to liberals, or liberal Democrats. Liberals and liberal Democrats do not march in lock-step, like so much of the GOP to Bush/Rove's tune. We spend so much time fighting amongst ourselves, that I personally believe it cost us the last two presidential elections. Keep D&D Civil.
That's a lie. I don't know what you're talking about. Now excuse me while I go listen to a recorded message from Carville.
Isreal wouldn't exist if the West didn't feel guilty from their passive participation in the Holocaust. We still feel guilty to this day, as evidenced by the overreaction to Iran's stupidity.
Doesn't Iran have anything better to do with their time and money? Like, improve their healthcare system or something?
