The USA should leave Iran in peace

axialturban, you keep making excuses so you don't have to think about it hard.

"they didn't own the land" etc.

Come on, try a little harder. I know it can difficult for one to challenge a belief once it's been cemented, but one should at least try.

Basically, you're relying on single perception. I am not, because i was raised on 30 years of essentially (moderately) pro-Israeli media reporting. Luckily, in Australia, our media was not the mess the USAs is (until, i fear, the last few years - but maybe it always has been and i just didn't notice).

Ayn Rand believed that because Native Americans didn't 'own' the land they were on, the colonisers had every right to take it:
http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Talk:Ayn_Rand

If you read further, she basically says that because they didn't own it (in the sense that is acceptable to her philosophy) - whites had every right (duty even?) to take it.

My point is that because she believed it was ok - it was ok. It didn't matter what was in place, because we do it our way, which, by virtue that it is our way, is superior or 'right'.

In Australia, a lot of people STILL bag the aboriginal population back 200 years. "We saved them from savagery", "they had no technology" etc. And it's true they were comparatively technologically 'primative'. But when one reads or listens, one begins to see things differently. As you know, our culture is about taking nature and bending it to our will. According to a Canadian anthropologist whose name eludes me, Aboriginals figured out the unsustainable ways were, well, unsustainable and adjusted their culture to suit. The point of life for an Aboriginal was about not making an impact. It was about leaving everything the way it was when you arrived. This explains why so few technological achievements were made by them: they didn't want them. This was (and still is) as culturally foreign to us as anything - so of course they were useless and needed to be saved. We have lost an untold amount of knowledge about food, and what we still have we don't use anyway. Virtually no native foods are available on our supermarket shelves.

Vaguely related but mostly off topic but very interesting:
There was a tribe (still is?) in Australia who can tell which direction they're facing instantly. The reason? They use N,S,E,W in their language. So when someone asks "where is the tree?", they might say "it's a short distance west of you" - even if it's only two meters away. They just know where they are at all times. Primative?

 

The first real trouble was internal - not imported. When the USA essentially demobilised the government and the military with the 'de-baathification' order. For memory it was the first order of Bremmer. To get a job in the public service - you needed to sign up to the Baath party.

By doing this, there was no government and the military was sent home - guns and all. No government, no jobs, no security. Time to blow stuff up. Of course the power vacuum couldn't be filled by the USA and their effed up contractors 'fixing stuff', so it was time to rebel. I mean, it was just so obvious it makes me believe that the de-baathification was not a blunder (as our media presents it), but a calculated move. A country without a government can hardly resist the wholesale theft of natural resources and their potential self-governance. But, they did resist. Perhaps the USA didn't expect such an effective anti-US presence.

Then, as you say, the foreigners came in and started their own trouble.

Oh, and before you have a go at Saddam for eventual refusal of inspectors (who, by the way, were compromised by spies) - ask yourself: "Will the USA, a country far more aggressive than Iraq allow a UN inspection of it's nuclear, chemical and biological facilities?" Then ask if you reckon they'd be ok with letting in Russian or Chinese spies in too.

Be fair - apply the same principal to both parties.

I just don't think you know enough, and when i tell you - you seem to do this: (ignore).

 

It was you that said "keep it simple. I presume you live in a house: try imagining someone else just giving half of it away and your reaction."

I said if I didnt own the house then it wouldnt matter what I thought if I lived in it, its the owners house to do with what they wanted. Since we were talking about Israel/Palestine, then it was owned and administered by the British and so they decided to split it. Trying to use simplified models and different situations to try and make a point doesnt change the reality of what actually happened.

 

Even if you do believe (or have proof!) than Iran is developing nukes - does Israel still have the 'right' to take out Iranian facilities?

Iranian nuclear scientists are already being murdered, the most obvious suspect is Israel.

Can Iran use the same 'possible threat' rationale/legitimacy to launch a strike against Israel or the USA? If not, why not?

 

Let me get this straight, you and your relatives have been there, unopposed, for a few hundred but somehow you don't 'own' it? By what measure do you not own it? (see the Ayn Rand point)

The Brits and the UN assigned borders - they didn't kick out inhabitants. The Jews did that.

Are you avoiding the moral questions to focus on the legal ones?

 

Nope. World War 2 was fought through there by Commonwealth forces against the Turks and won and held and managed.... it wasnt just some lines drawn on a map. As I said it was quite sparsely populated except for the small towns and most inhabitants outside of the towns were nomadic in those days. Once the owners and managers of the land created two states, and the locals did not have to leave. You seem to miss that point. The problem was some of the hardline locals didnt want to associate that closely to the Jews and muslims around the world rallied under religious reasons to destroy Israel basically immediatly. You can mislead by simplifying the causative conditions as much as you like but you'll still be wrong in your conclusions as a result.

 

Your perception of Aboriginal land use is in error by 180 degrees. Traditional Aborigines had policy of burning the land on an anual basis. This practice made hunting easier while animals tried to escape the fires, and when animals returned after the fires to eat green grass shoots. Traditional Aboriginals were highly knowledgable and skilled in many ways, but green they were not. Although traditional Aborigines were blameless in the sense that they were a product of their environment, the noble savage theory is just that, a theory. In fact the truth is more awe inspiring than fiction. Aborigines were among the most free, wild people on earth, we could learn a lot from them, about the true nature of humainity.

 

Hitler was left in peace and look what happened to the world.

Iran needs to behave itself, play by the rules of international law and come clean with all requests of the international community.

Without it, there will be no peace, but IRAN might find itself in pieces.


They are asking for trouble and let's hope the wiseup before it's too late.

 

I wonder what Israel and the US would say and behave if the rest of the world wanted to see what exactly they are doing with nuclear weapons?

I bet they would tell us all to get niked.

The mouth piece (Israel) is picking a fight because its got big brother (bully) behind it.

I say leave them in peace, live and let live.

BTW even though Iran has talked heavy against Israel and the US they haven't started a war for honks.

And if you go back to Iraq well we all know what the propaganda beihnd that one was.

If anyone is going to start something its going to be Israel and the US.

I say go home and leave the rest of the world in peace.

We're sick and tired of the US continually blowing up other nations in the name of national security, democracy, freedom or what ever else the choose to call it.

 

Iran isn`t "In Peace", Iran isn`t capable of peace. Iran is a cesspit.

 

Iran and its hideous mouthpiece,the frantic lunatic, misogynst, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad,.should be put in its place ASAP,together with all the other Muslim fruitcakes!

 

Unless this man has multiple personalities like a Jeckle and Hyde i dont really see anything too fanatical about him.

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k4phNuwx8Hs"]'9/11 was an inside job': Full speech by Mahmoud Ahmadinejad at UN - YouTube[/ame]

If you want fanatical i recon this is it, she will wipe a race of the face of the Earth? Isn't that why so many westerners dont like Iran?

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=08n4bj1Mz4A"]Hillary Clinton on the Nuclear Deterrence of Iran - YouTube[/ame]

 

Anyone who believes that 9/11 was an inside job and that the slaughter of millions of Jews in WW11 is a myth, must be a fruitcake. But a very dangerous fruitcake that endangers the whole of civilisation.

 

The slaughter of millions of Jews in WW2 is definetly not a myth and is real history.

But i'll be (*)(*)(*)(*)ed if you tell me that the twin towers and building 7 weren't controlled demolishions with a free fall to Earth.

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tRecwsDXF7Q"]9/11: Controlled Demolition vs. North Tower - YouTube[/ame]

 

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6CeSPA0IVvc"]Jim Hoffman 911 Guilt Pt 1 of 3 - YouTube[/ame]
[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-ZfIjMiIAbc"]Jim Hoffman 911 Guilt Pt 2 of 3 - YouTube[/ame]
[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PW2WH_TgBOQ"]Jim Hoffman 911 Guilt Pt 3 of 3 - YouTube[/ame]

 

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k3OGuEJtTOM"]Prof. David Ray Griffin - 911 - The Myth and the Reality (2006-10-17).wmv - YouTube[/ame]

 

Anyone who really believes that the destruction of the Twin Towers in NY was a controlled demolition and not an act of terrorism by outside anti- democratic forces must be an absolute nutter.Or just a hater of Western Democracy or probably both of the above.

 

All your assumptions are wrong and i think you're very naive to believe everything the media presents as gospel.

If you have some time take a look at the videos above, there are many engineers and architects in the US who believe it was a controlled demolition.

And many more prominent Americans who think it was a false flag operation.

 

The first words out of his mouth was 'In the name of God..."

That's textbook fanatical.

 

There has been no credible argument I've seen which has not been fully explained at some point. Small people make things up which seem big to make themselves feel bigger.

 

Ok here's a few that shouldn't take you long then,

1a. Why did 325,000 cubic meters of concrete just vapourise into a cloud of dust?

1b. Why weren't there big chunks medium and small pieces of concrete on the ground?

2. Why didn't the building fall side ways as a whole where the planes made impact? like getting chopped in half?

3. Why wasn't the biggest investigation EVER not carried out to see exactly what happened and why they fell, instead within a month the steel was being cut and shipped to china and india.

I would have thought they would go over it with a fine tooth comb would you???????????

There you go.

 

Last one for the night

 

I didnt say I had the answers, I said there'd been no credible argument which hadnt been answered. They got things called search engines these days, apparantly better then alta vista and excite, something called go ogle.

The building didnt topple over because it wasnt knocked over by the aircraft... duh. It was the heat further destroying the damaged floors. The building is quite wide and it fell into itself which is why the debris didnt spill over much beyond the immediate area. It fell into itself because the facades are connected to the central structure which is where the failure and weight failed - those connections dragged the facades down the middle.

As for nanothermite, I'd guess it base materials get crushed a lot when an aircraft smashes into a building which then burns and collapses to the ground. There is explosives on commercial aircraft anyway, as part of the eggress systems.

Not at all, the whole rational world saw it happen on TV and thousands of ppl saw it happen live in person. I watched it happen live on Sandra Sully's late night news.

 

Hey axialturban

Just because millions of people saw the buildings fall on tv it doesn't mean that they wouldn't have an investigation as to why they failed?

Stop talking nonesense, they should have analysed it down to the last grain of dust.

It should have been the biggest ever crime scene the world has ever seen.

Many American and international engineers and Architects are disputing the official reason given as to why the buildings collapsed.



.

 

The Septics mightn`t be the most honest people lm the galaxy, but there`s no way that 911 could be an inside job without word getting out. The issue of the Twin Towers attack is a highly complex one. Within any such complex issue, there will always be a number of factors, seemingly contradictory to a correct conclusion if taken in isolation.