Well at least we are closer to agreeing on something. I don't think it's a policy of hardheadedness. But you have to be tough - otherwise you will not accomplish anything. Sanctions are hard and have a price - but they were effective in preventing Iraq from acquiring weapons. There was an oil for food program to address the harm on the population - but it was abused by both the UN and Saddam. If you always take the route of diplomacy - you'll be as effective as Europe is in effecting change. Nothing will get done because the opposition will just play lip service and do whatever. With Iran, there must be a message to the entire countries political and religious system - that the World no longer tolerates hate mongering by governments - anything that supports or encourages people to become fanatics and potential terrorists can no longer be tolerated. In fact, I think it's more important to put Sanctions on Iran for what the president said to his own people then it is for Iran's nuclear program. If Iran was a peaceful responsible nation - that had no links to terrorism (Hezbelloh), was without the sabre rattling, and didn't have gov't organized protests with chants of "Death to America", and didn't play games with the Atomic Energy Commission - ya know what, I wouldn't be too bothered with that country having nukes. Are we the world's police? Well, we are the most powerful nation. No one else is going to do anything ya know. That's why the U.S. had to get involved in Bosnia. It's why if the U.S. does nothing, the world will do nothing. It's the mantle of being not just an imperalistic power like all powers are in the history of civilization - but it's about being something different where leadership comes into play. And part of leadership is taking a hard stance to counteract unacceptable behavior. If we wimp out now, then we will have a bigger problem later. No, I don't want the U.S. to invade Iran. I, like yourself - want Iran to evolve on it's own accord. The only way the Islamic world will support democracy and tolerance is if it comes from within on their terms - we know this. But...at the same time, we must use our power when a nation acts against our interests. Our leaders have a responsibility to the people of this country to do that. And that is why I would like to see some kind of sanctions for a period of time - something that will pinch Iranians across the board. They need to know that when they have a leader that encourages hate to us our our allies, we will react to it. Better sanctions now then full out war later. And yes, i still favor taking out their nuclear facilities after what the President stated.
I've skimmed this thread and have read many of the other threads concerning Muslims and from these I'm frankly lost in what is the point of these threads. We have people here getting critical of Islam and Muslims saying that they aren't bashing Islam as a religion or Muslims in general just extremists Muslims. We have Muslims on the board saying that Islam isn't a single unified entity and that Muslims are of all differnt views and that they don't support violent extremists and condemn violence. What's the point of arguing when it seems like y'all agree with each other? What's the point of posting 50 threads a day about every violent or extremists act committed by a Muslim somewhere in the World? For that matter what's the point of emphasizing that its a Muslim committing such and such act or saying such and such if you hate Islam or don't think Muslims are evil?
It's easier, I guess, than outright admitting what you believe/have believed all along. At least that way you can continue to deny any 'bias' or having an already formed opinion on a group of people/issue.
Well, we already have sanctions against Iran, I think it will be damn near impossible, however, to get the UN to play along...Europe may be, but the Chinese and the Russians likely won't budge.
i blame gwayneco but ya, i learned that its stupid to argue on the internet... From now on, if i feel someone genuinely needs or wants info, or is really misunderstanding something ill post telling em whats really up... but if their just passing time and wanting to diss a particular religion or race, it aint worth my time.
It's political shorthand for knowing where people stand. The majority of people behind one position here will undoubtedly support the Patriot Act or the ongoing Gitmo horrors and vice versa. Of course, there's always one person in the outlier that will magically appear to prove me wrong, but that person usually lurks or plays a minor role in these topics. Other ostensibly innocuous political shorthand references- "states rights" "reverse discrimination" (what does it actually mean??) "fair and balanced"
