PDA

View Full Version : Nuclear facilities


xmad
12-01-2006, 23:29
What do you think of Iran's nuclear facilities ?
I see many countries dont wanna let Iran has this kind of facilities even those top countries.
Why do they find it dangerous ?

haku
12-01-2006, 23:45
Because countries that already have nuclear capabilities do not like to see other countries acquiring that technology, they want to feel superior and special. Originally only the 5 permanent members of the UN security council had nuclear capabilities, and they would have liked if things had remained that way since it gave them a tremendous power over all other countries.

Iran being a sovereign country, i personally think that Iran has the right to develop its nuclear program as it wants, it's an internal matter and no other country should interfere.

However, things being what they are at the moment (only one superpower that no-one can challenge), it is likely that Iran will be bombed by the US in the coming months and its nuclear facilities destroyed.

Rachel
12-01-2006, 23:48
Why do they find it dangerous ?Because the European governments know half the time we deserve some kind of nuclear bomb dropped over us. :p America deserve it too, but they'll never accept they deserve it :rolleyes:

EDIT:
Because countries that already have nuclear capabilities do not like to see other countries acquiring that technology, they want to feel superior and special.Totally agree with you Amber! (As usual!) :p

freddie
12-01-2006, 23:49
Because it can be disasterous in the wrong hands... which is basically ANYONE'S hands. :p ... but that goes double for a country as politically extreme as Iran. Not to mention it represents a huge potential to make political threats to people you don't like - so a rather dangerous bargaining chip.

No ofence xmad, but I think the question you're asking is ridiculous. Borderline rhetorical.

Rachel
12-01-2006, 23:50
No ofence xmad, but I think the question you're asking is ridiculous. Borderline rhetorical.:no: :no: :no: Not when the countries that are against Iran having nuclear facilities have them themselves.

freddie
12-01-2006, 23:56
In the perfect world... I'd disarm everyone's nukes. But that's hardly happening anytime soon (it is a distant plan though). So we have an extremist country like Iran who's president made open remarks about how Israel shouldn't exist, going as far as to question the holocaust, wanting to build their own nuke program. Yeah... not exactly the rigth step towards the world stability. And this has NOTHING to do with the existing countries with nuclear capabilities, or their "advantage" over the rest of the world. It's about common sense. Iran & nukes = nono.

Rachel
13-01-2006, 00:06
Iran & nukes = nono.The world & nukes = nono.

xmad
13-01-2006, 00:08
but I think the question you're asking is ridiculous
It isnt ridiculous at all.
People in Iran think this means another war.

Not when the countries that are against Iran having nuclear facilities have them themselves.
:done:

haku
13-01-2006, 00:10
Iran & nukes = nono.Well, if we had prevented North Korea, Pakistan, and Israel from having nuclear capabilities, then it would be reasonable (even logical) to prevent Iran from having them as well, but we didn't, those 3 countries have nuclear capabilities (including North Korea which has a total nutcase as an absolute leader). So if those countries can have them, so can Iran, there is no reason to target Iran and only Iran.

But once again, we see here a perverted side effect of the illegal invasion of Iraq. What did the Iranian leaders see?
North Korea > crazy and extremely dangerous dictator > has nuclear capabilities > is totally left alone by the US and can do whatever he wants
Iraq > irritating but not very dangerous dictator > does not have nuclear capabilities > is invaded and destroyed by the US
Conclusion? To be left alone by the US you need to acquire nuclear capabilities as fast as possible.

xmad
13-01-2006, 00:15
Well, if we had prevented North Korea, Pakistan, and Israel from having nuclear capabilities, then it would be reasonable (even logical) to prevent Iran from having them as well, but we didn't, those 3 countries have nuclear capabilities (including North Korea which has a total nutcase as an absolute leader). So if those countries can have them, so can Iran, there is no reason to target Iran and only Iran.
Totally agree with that.
I dont agree with Iran regime but the current situation isnt fair at all.

freddie
13-01-2006, 00:34
Did they ALLOW North Korea? North Korea never ASKED anyone. Nor will Iran. The difference is Iran doesn't want to be as isolated from the international community as North Korea. I agree that no country should have it but it's still the neccesary evil of the 21st century. IAEA isn't as concerned as Pakistan's or Israel's capabilities, yet it's rather concerned with North Korea's development in that respect. And what it DOESN'T need is another North Korea to worry about...

xmad
13-01-2006, 00:48
North Korea never ASKED anyone
Did US or others ask?

haku
13-01-2006, 00:57
Did US or others ask?Exactly, none of the countries that currently have nuclear weapons have ever asked anyone if they were allowed to develop them, they just did, but now that they do have those weapons, they would want all other countries to ask their persmission first, and not just nuclear weapons, but even nuclear power plants too, it's total double standards.

Iran totally has the right to develop nuclear power plants to power its population.

freddie
13-01-2006, 01:10
US and the former USSR developed their nuclear programs during the cold war days. It was a matter of super-power watching over one another.

Sure... Iran can develop their nuclear program... no one can really say no to them directly. But if they want to be taken seriously and not get into conflicts with the international community (like NK did many times before), it shouldn't. It is my opinion Iran's nuklear program would cause further destabilisation in that delicate part of the world. And that's like rubbing salt to the wounds.

zelda05
13-01-2006, 14:15
Because countries that already have nuclear capabilities do not like to see other countries acquiring that technology, they want to feel superior and special.
I agree!

Well, if we had prevented North Korea, Pakistan, and Israel from having nuclear capabilities then it would be reasonable (even logical)
Pakistan having nuclear capabilities seems reasonable. Considering the fact, their enemy (India) have nuclear technology. Beside, Pakistan had suffered economically when the sanctions were imposed on them.

EDIT: I am not suggesting that nuclear technology should be used by either of these two neighboring countries nor am I saying that nuclear capabilities are good to have.

Rachel
13-01-2006, 14:24
Pakistan having nuclear capabilities seems reasonable. Considering the fact, their enemy (India) have nuclear technology.I don't know anything about that situation, but the fact is no one should have nuclear capabilities.

It's like teenagers that go out with knifes. Lots do it because they fear others have them, so they want to protect themselves. But the others have them because they know others have them and they want to protect themselves aswell. So fear causes chaos. They are their own worst enemies.

I just want peace in the world, but of course we know while there are maniacs ruling countries taht will never happen :rolleyes:

zelda05
13-01-2006, 14:33
the fact is no one should have nuclear capabilities.
I couldn't agree with you more!

I just want peace in the world, but of course we know while there are maniacs ruling countries taht will never happen :rolleyes:
Yep, you are right on point!

haku
13-01-2006, 16:25
Pakistan having nuclear capabilities seems reasonable. Considering the fact, their enemy (India) have nuclear technology. Beside, Pakistan had suffered economically when the sanctions were imposed on them.
Well, nuclear weapons are all about creating a "balance of terror", i can destroy you, you can destroy me, so we do nothing, this was obviously the case in the USA/USSR confrontation.

India did not acquire nuclear weapons because of Pakistan though, but because of China. India and China have been historical enemies for centuries. To this day, even though India and China share one of the longest border in the world, they do not recognize a single km of it and have many border disputes (including Chinese and Indian border guards shooting regularly at each other). Indians still have the Mongol invasion of India in mind, and they see a possible attack from China as a totally credible threat (and the invasion of Tibet by China has shown that this is not an imaginary threat), so when China got nuclear weapons, India had to get them too to reestablish a "balance of terror" in the region.

India do not see Pakistan as an enemy exactly, after all Pakistanis are just muslim Indians, it's more like a familly quarrel. It's actually China that provided Pakistan with nuclear weapons, precisely to shift the "balance of terror" in their favor. The goal of the Chinese was to create a second nuclear threat for India so the "balance of terror" would be broken and India would be in a weakened position, and it worked perfectly. Now India is alone and has to worry about 2 nuclear threats which makes the situation much more unstable than it used to be when India and China were in a deadlock.

Now in the Middle East it should also be a question of balance, Israel has nuclear weapons and is totally backed by the US, Middle Eastern countries know that Israel and the US can destroy them, but of course they can't destroy Israel or the US.
If Iran had nuclear weapons, it would create some balance between Israel and the rest of the region since each side would know that the other can destroy them.

intervolkov
13-01-2006, 17:26
the trouble is the new Iran President

In fact he want come back at the time of Islamic Revolution by Khoiemi

zelda05
13-01-2006, 18:32
Well, nuclear weapons are all about creating a "balance of terror", i can destroy you, you can destroy me
I agree!

India did not acquire nuclear weapons because of Pakistan
Very well aware of this fact. Pakistan, on the contrary, did acquire nuclear weapon because it felt it was necessary just like any other country and that because India had nuclear capabilities. India and Pakistan relations are not at its best (It never has been). They have many disputes especially the Kashmir issue, which apparently no one in the international community find interesting enough to solve. There is always news about Pakistani's and Indians border guards shooting at each other. Both countries have/are held/ing each others citizens in captivity.

India do not see Pakistan as an enemy exactly, after all Pakistanis are just muslim Indians
They are muslim indeed but indians impossible. Yes, Pakistan and India used to be one country before the 1947 independence. However, no Pakistani will call him/herself an Indian. Unless of course, those that they call themselves Indians (instead of Pakistani) have family history that goes to the time in which their families lived on the side, which is now we know called India.

China that provided Pakistan with nuclear weapons, precisely to shift the "balance of terror" in their favor.
Every country has its own interest. China provided the necessary chemicals to develop nuclear and Pakistan had the genius scientist.

Now in the Middle East it should also be a question of balance, Israel has nuclear weapons and is totally backed by the US, Middle Eastern countries know that Israel and the US can destroy them, but of course they can't destroy Israel or the US.
If Iran had nuclear weapons, it would create some balance between Israel and the rest of the region since each side would know that the other can destroy them.
I am very impressed with you Amber! :D
.... well informed!

xmad
13-01-2006, 19:18
if they want to be taken seriously
If they want to be taken seriously??
I think there's no need to remind that Iran has so many things which the most important one is the OIL.
the trouble is the new Iran President
This issue has been before the new president.

freddie
13-01-2006, 20:32
If they want to be taken seriously??
I think there's no need to remind that Iran has so many things which the most important one is the OIL.

Which is exactly why they could be taken TOO seriously. As seriously as Iraq was. Catch my drift? ;)

xmad
13-01-2006, 21:06
Do you compare Iran to Iraq?There are so much differences between them.

freddie
13-01-2006, 22:50
Do you compare Iran to Iraq?There are so much differences between them.
Comparing them doesn't mean there aren't any dfferences between them.

PowerPuff Grrl
14-01-2006, 02:09
Now in the Middle East it should also be a question of balance, Israel has nuclear weapons and is totally backed by the US, Middle Eastern countries know that Israel and the US can destroy them, but of course they can't destroy Israel or the US.
If Iran had nuclear weapons, it would create some balance between Israel and the rest of the region since each side would know that the other can destroy them.

But would it create a balance?
Arabs hate Persians (or more specifically; Sunnis hate Shiites) as much as they hate Israelis*. This will only make a huge demand for an Arab state to acquire nuclear weapons as well. Iraq was their only defense against Iran, now with that gone it only seems inevitable that an Arab country will be seeking weapons too.
Syria perhaps?
If that's the case, Israel's out-numbered.

In all honesty, nuclear weapons have only been used once against another country; US to Japan. And that was when nobody else had them, no threat of retaliation. The more countries have it the more they'll be reluctant to ever use it. Of course that all depends if leaders aren't crazy enough to use it.
So far so good... right?
:(

*They all hate each other, really.

freddie
14-01-2006, 02:39
If that's the case, Israel's out-numbered.

Possibly. But Israel has a huge ally in the US, which is the first and the strongest nuclear force. I doubt any Arab country present or future would be stupid enough to nuke Israel or even threaten to do so. The result would be nothing but complete annihilation of the said country. I don't think any Arab leader, no matter how extreme is willing to go that far to achieve wishes of Allah.

xmad
14-01-2006, 02:54
achieve wishes of Allah
wishes of Allah? Are you saying that God wants them to do that?
Iraq was their only defense against Iran
Who did start the war?(Iran-Iraq war) Iraq, because those days Iraq knew that Iran was weak because of the revolution.

freddie
14-01-2006, 03:17
wishes of Allah? Are you saying that God wants them to do that?

That was sarcasm. :)

PowerPuff Grrl
14-01-2006, 03:50
Who did start the war?(Iran-Iraq war) Iraq, because those days Iraq knew that Iran was weak because of the revolution.

Iraq started it in 1980; they claimed that some oil-rich part of Iran was originally under Mesopotamia and that the Ottoman Empire unfairly gave it to Persia. Though I'm not too sure, I think this conflict actually goes back for centuries and, as you said, Saddam saw an opportunity in the Iranian Revolution.

xmad
14-01-2006, 04:48
That was sarcasm.
No offense, Dont you think what you said was ridiculous? and even offensive.
they claimed that some oil-rich part of Iran was originally under Mesopotamia and that the Ottoman Empire unfairly gave it to Persia.
Ooooooooooppppppppppssssssss,what are you saying?Before the Ottoman empire, Iraq was part of IRAN ruled under the Aq Qoyunlu dynasty.

PowerPuff Grrl
14-01-2006, 06:47
Ooooooooooppppppppppssssssss,what are you saying?Before the Ottoman empire, Iraq was part of IRAN ruled under the Aq Qoyunlu dynasty.

Yeah, and after its partition under the Ottomans the Iraqis have been having issues with it since. Obviously Iraqis aren't too keen on remembering the Persian occupation back then, it must have further enraged them to know that the parts they were fighting for during the Gulf War was/is still inhabited by ethnic Arabs; remnants of Persia's occupation.

Not that they were justified or anything.

freddie
14-01-2006, 11:00
No offense, Dont you think what you said was ridiculous? and even offensive.

What do you mean? In what way?:confused:

Yeah, and after its partition under the Ottomans the Iraqis have been having issues with it since. Obviously Iraqis aren't too keen on remembering the Persian occupation back then, it must have further enraged them to know that the parts they were fighting for during the Gulf War was/is still inhabited by ethnic Arabs; remnants of Persia's occupation.

On that point... I always wondered something. Aren't Persians today genetically much closer to Arabs than to Indo-european tribes? Inevitable mixing HAD to happen during the centuries. Or maybe they're a mix of the two.

marina
14-01-2006, 12:48
I see many countries dont wanna let Iran has this kind of facilities even those top countries.
Why do they find it dangerous ?

I couldn't really tell why,xmad . Maybe it's something to do with the Mullah-ruled , extremist country , which don't want their women rising above the rank of house pets, they don't want to contend with alternative lifestyles, a competetive capitalist consumer culture, or a world where they don't have a death strangle on their people. Dangerous in another words .
No ?

spyretto
14-01-2006, 20:39
I couldn't really tell why,xmad . Maybe it's something to do with the Mullah-ruled , extremist country , which don't want their women rising above the rank of house pets, they don't want to contend with alternative lifestyles, a competetive capitalist consumer culture, or a world where they don't have a death strangle on their people. Dangerous in another words .
No ?

No. The creation of the Islamic Republic and the anti-Western sentiment was a reaction towards the American-UK led coup against the people's elected prime minister of Iran which reinstated a former dictatorial regime backed by the aforementioned superpowrers - which went against the people's will, crashing civil liberties etc.
Actually, 20th century world politics are quite simple: the U.S. and their close allies would crash democratic regimes whenever it suited their own interests. 21th century world politics would see the U.S. undoing their own doings in a pledge to fight for democracy.
The propaganda on how extremist the Irani goverment is, and how the people of Iran suffer, may serve Bush just right if he decides to invade Iran to "liberate" them - despite the fact that Iran was always in the receiving end in recent history and never showed any territorial claims over its neighbours - as, other, former U.S. allies did.
What we're doing, in reality, is creating even more enemies in the Arab world, an area in the world which is in our best interest to have only friends.
As for Iran's development of nuclear technology, it's perfectly ok, as long as it is developed as a source of energy; that is what they claim anyway. Nuclear energy will become a priority in this century as the recources of natural energy are being exhausted and the pollution of the environment continues to the same dramatic acceleration.


Our so much celebrated "competetive capitalist consumer culture" is actually destroying our planet.

haku
14-01-2006, 21:02
On that point... I always wondered something. Aren't Persians today genetically much closer to Arabs than to Indo-european tribes? Inevitable mixing HAD to happen during the centuries. Or maybe they're a mix of the two.This is a very sensitive topic in Iran, officially Iranians consider themselves as of pure Indo-European descent, the country was renamed from Persia to Iran precisely to assert their Aryan origin. I doubt any Iranian government as ever allowed any genetic research to determine exactly the part of Indo-European heritage in modern Iranians.

That being said, modern Iranians are probably like modern Europeans, a mix-up of Indo-European tribes who came from the Indo-European homeland and prehistorical indigenous populations, the Semite influence seems relatively marginal to me as modern Iranians are physically rather close to Indians and don't exhibit the typical Semite facial traits.

PowerPuff Grrl
14-01-2006, 21:25
I couldn't really tell why,xmad . Maybe it's something to do with the Mullah-ruled , extremist country , which don't want their women rising above the rank of house pets, they don't want to contend with alternative lifestyles, a competetive capitalist consumer culture, or a world where they don't have a death strangle on their people. Dangerous in another words .
No ?

Iranians aren't expansionists so they pose no threat to any else. It doesn't matter if a country is terrible to its people. You have China, not exactly a shining beacon of human rights executing more journalists than any one else and they have their eye on Taiwan. By your reasoning they shouldn't have any nukes either.


No. The creation of the Islamic Republic and the anti-Western sentiment was a reaction towards the American-UK led coup against the people's elected prime minister of Iran which reinstated a former dictatorial regime backed by the aforementioned superpowrers - which went against the people's will, crashing civil liberties etc.
Actually, 20th century world politics are quite simple: the U.S. and their close allies would crash democratic regimes whenever it suited their own interests. 21th century world politics would see the U.S. undoing their own doings in a pledge to fight for democracy.
The propaganda on how extremist the Irani goverment is, and how the people of Iran suffer, may serve Bush just right if he decides to invade Iran to "liberate" them - despite the fact that Iran was always in the receiving end in recent history and never showed any territorial claims over its neighbours - as, other, former U.S. allies did.
What we're doing, in reality, is creating even more enemies in the Arab world, an area in the world which is in our best interest to have only friends.
As for Iran's development of nuclear technology, it's perfectly ok, as long as it is developed as a source of energy; that is what they claim anyway. Nuclear energy will become a priority in this century as the recources of natural energy are being exhausted and the pollution of the environment continues to the same dramatic acceleration.

Mohammed Mossadegh, the former elected leader of Iran, was a communist. Had the Iranian Revolution actually been about the deseating of Mossadegh than Iran would have reverted back to communism. Iranians were angry about the Shah, yes, but the Fundamentalists manipulated all of the political parties involved in the Revolution and after it was won the Ayatollah arrested every single one of them. This was a tragic case of Iranians getting more than what they bargained for. As well, the exact same result happened with the past election of Ahmednijad (sp?); all of the moderates protested the election by refusing to vote, they argued that the leaders that they elected never actually did anything. Once again they got more than what they bargained for.

Though the West may have been implicit in Iranian politics back then, what is happening now has nothing to do with them. Iran is so pro-West that if Bush had in fact invaded Iran rather Iraq, the troops would have actually been greeted as liberators.

the country was renamed from Persia to Iran precisely to assert their Aryan origin

Actually it was the other way around, it is now called Iran to assert their Islamic origin and deny everything else.

xmad
14-01-2006, 22:39
On that point... I always wondered something. Aren't Persians today genetically much closer to Arabs than to Indo-european tribes? Inevitable mixing HAD to happen during the centuries. Or maybe they're a mix of the two.
OH MY GOD,Are you brave enough to say this in Iran?I got really angry when I read your post.

some countries that now exist, were part of Iran.(not only Iraq)

Maybe it's something to do with the Mullah-ruled , extremist country , which don't want their women rising above the rank of house pets,
Do you mean in Iran women are not allowed to do anything??If so,I'd say that's so not true.(I hate our current regime but what you are saying is wrong)
The propaganda on how extremist the Irani goverment is, and how the people of Iran suffer, may serve Bush just right if he decides to invade Iran to "liberate" them -
No,I personally dont want this to happen,how can you say this,when you dont know what the war is?I've seen and lived the war and I know how terrible it is.
Actually it was the other way around, it is now called Iran to assert their Islamic origin and deny everything else
Really??As an Iranian I didnt know this.
PowerPuff Grrl, you dont have to talk this sure about something that you dont have enough information,cuz in all of your posts I see so many wrong Information.

spyretto
14-01-2006, 23:11
Mohammed Mossadegh, the former elected leader of Iran, was a communist.

Not at all. He wanted to end the British exploitation of Iranian oil and nationalize the industry so as to be run by the Iranians themselves. The Brits forced an embargo on Iranian oil and when that didn't work tried to make the Americans involved in the first place, and what best way than to spread the rumour that Iran's leader is moving towards the Soviet influence. Then the Americans started accusing Mossadegh of being harmful to its people, in an efford to turn the Iranian public and the international community against him. Finally, the US and UK forces led the coup backed by pro-monarchy elements and Mossadegh was left stranded. He was arrested and the former Shakh was rushed back to the country. ( he left the country on his own, afraid that Mossadegh would prevail the coup ;))

For more information, you can look in any historical book/encynclopedia available.

Though the West may have been implicit in Iranian politics back then, what is happening now has nothing to do with them. Iran is so pro-West that if Bush had in fact invaded Iran rather Iraq, the troops would have actually been greeted as liberators.

This is perhaps what the West wants to believe then. Maybe that's what they thought of Iraq too. It makes no sense whatsoever though.

freddie
15-01-2006, 00:38
OH MY GOD,Are you brave enough to say this in Iran?I got really angry when I read your post.

some countries that now exist, were part of Iran.(not only Iraq)

So you have a different opinion? Okay. Lets hear it. :p
And I don't know what connection countries being a part of Iran has with what I was saying.

Do you mean in Iran women are not allowed to do anything??If so,I'd say that's so not true.(I hate our current regime but what you are saying is wrong)

I wouldn't go that far but they sure aren't considered equal in that sociaty. Not that this is anything unusual in middle-eastern cultures.

We're straying off-topic here, though. We were talking about Iran's nuclear facilities and their right in having it I believe.

PowerPuff Grrl
15-01-2006, 00:51
Really??As an Iranian I didnt know this.
PowerPuff Grrl, you dont have to talk this sure about something that you dont have enough information,cuz in all of your posts I see so many wrong Information.


Info I get of Iran are from people who have lived there, much like yourself. The chances of them being wrong is just about the same as yours. Rather than pointing to different posts and dictating what is right and wrong based on the authority of your nationality I suggest just giving another explanation for it. Your nationality doesn't give you a final say on things even if you're only one here that is actually Iranian. History is always up for debate (such as the racial make-up of your country), especially when viewed from other countries as exemplified in this forum. Just ask the Americans and the Turks in this forum.

This is perhaps what the West wants to believe then. Maybe that's what they thought of Iraq too. It makes no sense whatsoever though.

Once again I got this from Iranians. The last direct image the West, particularly the States, received from Iran was from the Revolution so most people across N. America believe its all just the typical run of the mill fundamentalism.
The impression I get is quite the opposite. Iran has a huge demographic of overeducated youth that are increasingly becoming more disaffected with the current government. The pro-West attitude is merely a reaction to this government.

xmad
15-01-2006, 01:10
So you have a different opinion?
Was not clear my idea?
I wouldn't go that far but they sure aren't considered equal in that sociaty. Not that this is anything unusual in middle-eastern cultures.
As I've said so many times, in Iran so many things are forbidden.but it isnt what we can call Iran culture.People do not want those stupid rules but they have no other chance.We're straying off-topic here, though. We were talking about Iran's nuclear facilities and their right in having it I believe.
I agree with that.Your nationality doesn't give you a final say on things even if you're only one here that is actually Iranian.
It gives as long as I know what you are saying is not right.

simon
15-01-2006, 01:14
Well, if we had prevented North Korea, Pakistan, and Israel from having nuclear capabilities, then it would be reasonable (even logical) to prevent Iran from having them as well, but we didn't, those 3 countries have nuclear capabilities (including North Korea which has a total nutcase as an absolute leader). So if those countries can have them, so can Iran, there is no reason to target Iran and only Iran.

So youre argument is that since North Korea's nutcase leader secretly acquired the Bomb (from Pakistan, who secretly got it from China, who got it from Russia) it's blatantly unfair and discriminatory to prevent Iran's nutcase leader from getting it too? Yes, why not let every nutcase leader have the Bomb? It would be inconsistent not to. What possible harm can it do? Yes, Ahmedinejad has threatened to wipe out Israel, but that's a trivial detail compared to the important principle at stake here - that every nutcase leader should be allowed to have nuclear weapons.

xmad
15-01-2006, 01:18
I agree with what Amber said.
But did Iran say we want nuclear weapons?
They say we want nuclear energy.

freddie
15-01-2006, 02:40
I'm sure. And Sadam said he wanted to "liberate" Kuwait. :p
It's not really what they SAID that matters. It's what they're capable of doing with the technology once they master it. Just having the potential to build an A-bomb is a powerful bargaining chip on it's own. Not to mention the official stand-point of Teheran for 18 years was that they don't research nuclear energy to bulild nuclear weapons, only to be proven wrong 3 years ago, when initial plans for a bomb were found.

I mean what did you expect them to say? "Yes we will of course build an atomic bomb and drop it on Tel Aviv" *accompany that with an evil laugh*

PowerPuff Grrl
15-01-2006, 02:41
Doesn't matter either way, the West cannot do anything about it (http://scotlandonsunday.scotsman.com/international.cfm?id=68662006).

freddie
15-01-2006, 02:58
Doesn't matter either way, the West cannot do anything about it (http://scotlandonsunday.scotsman.com/international.cfm?id=68662006).
This just bolds another problem of international politics: UN is a totally outdated and inefficient institution. Cases like this were one of the reasons UN was established in teh first place: to directly or indirectly force a country that could pose a threat to peace or destabilize the area. Most military actions tend to be an act of a sole superpower chasing it's own interests (USSR in Afghanistan, Vietnam or USA in Afghanistan, Vietnam, Iraq...), rather than a case of a clear consensus between all the nations of the world to take actions against a country. The only such case that I can remember was operation Desert Storm in Iraq.

simon
15-01-2006, 02:59
The crisis was precipitated when it was discovered that Iran had been lying to the IAEA about its nuclear activities for 18 years. Then it was discovered that they had instruction manuals from Pakistan on how to build a nuclear bomb - they said they'd been received by mistake. The EU finally gave up on negotiations when Iran turned down a Russian offer to enrich their nuclear fuel for them. Enrichment is crucial. You enrich uranium slightly to make nuclear fuel. You enrich it to 99% to make a nuclear bomb. Why does Iran think it so vital to do their own enrichment?

Rachel
15-01-2006, 05:51
I guess Iran better be careful or the USA will drop some missiles somewhere in Iran like they did in Pakistan which killed 18 people and then claim Zawahiri was hiding there somewhere. :rolleyes:

xmad
15-01-2006, 14:02
It's not really what they SAID that matters. It's what they're capable of doing with the technology once they master it.
Can you really judge?
as you see :
the West cannot do anything about it.
I guess Iran better be careful or the USA will drop some missiles somewhere in Iran like they did in Pakistan which killed 18 people and then claim Zawahiri was hiding there somewhere.
The USA and Iran both of them are crazy,lets see what will happen.:epopcorn:

simon
16-01-2006, 02:50
Israel could bomb Iran's nuclear facilities. They're worried that Iran could have usable nuclear devices within months. It probably wouldn't stop Iran getting the bomb eventually, but it would delay them a long time. Iran would retaliate with terrorism against Israel, but after Ahmedinejad's call to wipe Israel off the map, they don't want to take chances.

haku
16-01-2006, 03:23
Iran would retaliate with terrorism against IsraelBombing Iran's nuclear facilities would be an act of war, therefore whatever Iran would do to Israel in retaliation would not be terrorism, just a counter attack to an act of war.

marina
17-01-2006, 14:22
therefore whatever Iran would do to Israel in retaliation would not be terrorism, just a counter attack to an act of war.

If worse come to worse they can all well, as Reagan said, make sure they have enough shovels.

spyretto
17-01-2006, 23:50
Can you really judge?
as you see :


The USA and Iran both of them are crazy,lets see what will happen.:epopcorn: [/OFF]

The difference being that Iran is like that temporarily while the US is permanently. In fact they're the biggest disruptors/protectors of world peace. They disrupt peace in the first place to re-establish it later ( in their own terms of course, and according to the value of the dollar ).
And not to forget that the biggest threat to peace that our world is facing in the last 50+ years is the West's own creation. ( Israel )

Israel could bomb Iran's nuclear facilities. They're worried that Iran could have usable nuclear devices within months. It probably wouldn't stop Iran getting the bomb eventually, but it would delay them a long time. Iran would retaliate with terrorism against Israel, but after Ahmedinejad's call to wipe Israel off the map, they don't want to take
chances.

That would be a picnic for the "allied forces" . Because Israel can retaliate on its own with its own nukes without the help of the U.S. And I doubt that the other Arab nations/Europeans would react to it other than condemning the move. ( as they usually do ). More innocent people will die for nothing and Dick Cheney will take the responsibility of rebuilding and remodernising Iran :p

Bombing Iran's nuclear facilities would be an act of war, therefore whatever Iran would do to Israel in retaliation would not be terrorism, just a counter attack to an act of war.

It depends who does it. If the US does it, its an act of peace not war :D

simon
18-01-2006, 01:48
Bombing Iran's nuclear facilities would be an act of war, therefore whatever Iran would do to Israel in retaliation would not be terrorism, just a counter attack to an act of war.

Get real. Targeting civilians is terrorism. The Iranian president has called for Israel to be "wiped off the map" and you don't think Israel has the right to try to stop him getting nuclear weapons? You would instead support Iran retaliating by getting Hamas to say blow up a school full of Jewish children? Maybe not a school? Perhaps a disco? Or a wedding party? Military targets like that are what Hamas usually goes for.

spyretto
18-01-2006, 01:57
Get real. Targeting civilians is terrorism. The Iranian president has called for Israel to be "wiped off the map" and you don't think Israel has the right to try to stop him getting nuclear weapons? You would instead support Iran retaliating by getting Hamas to say blow up a school full of Jewish children? Maybe not a school? Perhaps a disco? Or a wedding party? Military targets like that are what Hamas usually goes for.

No I don't think they have the right to stop him. By the same analogy I should find you in the street and assault you because I don't like what you say.
How about blowing up a hospital or a shopping centre? I'm sure the Iranian president can control not only Hamas but Al Quada and Osama Bin Laden himself. And yeah, that's it , order then to blow up Israel to pieces.
Now, that I think about it, we should stop them yesterday. Lets throw a few bombs and we can check about the weapons of mass destruction later.

simon
18-01-2006, 02:03
And not to forget that the biggest threat to peace that our world is facing in the last 50+ years is the West's own creation. ( Israel )

So you think Israel was behind the Cold War? The Vietnam War? The Cambodian genocide? The Afghan War? The Gulf War? The Bosnian war? The Rwandan genocide? The genocide happening today in Darfur? All those events have killed more people than all the Arab-Israeli wars put together. But it's more fun to demonise the Jews, isn't it?

That would be a picnic for the "allied forces" . Because Israel can retaliate on its own with its own nukes without the help of the U.S. And I doubt that the other Arab nations/Europeans would react to it other than condemning the move. ( as they usually do ). More innocent people will die for nothing and Dick Cheney will take the responsibility of rebuilding and remodernising Iran :p

Israel would try to take out the Iranian nuclear programme with conventional weapons, not nuclear ones. Rather like they took out Saddam's nuclear programme in 1981. The world condemned them for that too.

simon
18-01-2006, 02:13
No I don't think they have the right to stop him. By the same analogy I should find you in the street and assault you because I don't like what you say.

If you say you want to kill me I have the right to try to disarm you.

How about blowing up a hospital or a shopping centre?

Hamas has blown up shopping centres too, like discos and wedding parties.

I'm sure the Iranian president can control not only Hamas but Al Quada and Osama Bin Laden himself. And yeah, that's it , order then to blow up Israel to pieces.

Iran supports Hamas and give it money, whereas Iran and Al Qaeda are enemies. The fact you find the idea that Iran has influence over Hamas funny reveals your massive ignorance of Middle Eastern politics.

haku
18-01-2006, 02:26
Get real. Targeting civilians is terrorism. The Iranian president has called for Israel to be "wiped off the map" and you don't think Israel has the right to try to stop him getting nuclear weapons? You would instead support Iran retaliating by getting Hamas to say blow up a school full of Jewish children? Maybe not a school? Perhaps a disco? Or a wedding party? Military targets like that are what Hamas usually goes for.
Well, Iran's nuclear facilities are also civilian facilities, Israel would be killing civilians too if it destroyed those facilities. Israel has no rights whatsoever to destroy industrial facilities in another country, Iran is a sovereign country and Israel has no saying in what Iran does within its borders.

And Israel is just as careless about its targets as the Hamas, the difference is that when Israel attacks Palestinians, it's called an 'assassination' with some 'colateral damages'. The reality is that Israel does not hesitate to launch a missile from an helicopter just to kill *one* person in a Palestinian street, it doesn't care if 20 other people die in the explosion, no more than the Hamas cares who is killed in one of its attacks, both sides have plenty of blood on their hands.

Recreating Israel 2000 years after its destruction was an historical mistake, one that we've been paying with 50 years of terrorism. Israel was artificially recreated on Arab lands, that land was stolen to Arabs, tenths of thousands of Arabs who had been living there for centuries were expelled (and hundreds were killed) to make room for those new Jewish immigrants. Arabs have always rightfully seen this as a profound injustice, and it is that injustice which is the root of fundamentalism and terrorism.

If Israel had not been recreated, if Arabs had not violently been robbed of their lands, the Middle East would be a relatively peaceful region, Muslim extremism would be a marginal problem, and terrorism would have no desparation to thrive upon.

spyretto
18-01-2006, 03:31
If you say you want to kill me I have the right to try to disarm you.

If I say I want to kill you, even the police wouldn't do anything about it and if you try to disarm me when I don't have a weapon and you hurt me I can sue you and you can end up in jail. So it's not quite the same thing, is it? furthermore you wouldn't even know I told the truth if I said to you I'll get a gun tomorrow and kill you. There's no evidence or real intent just my words.
Not to mention that the Iran president did not not even say that all Israeli's should be killed. It's like me saying, "I have some petrol at home I'll get it tomorrow and go and burn your house". Then you'd try to hunt me down on the basis of me saying that? Or try to protect youself? Well, the Irani didn't even say that either, it's like he said that "your house deserves to be burned", because he said the Israel should be wiped off the map, correct? That's the equivalent of what he said. We got there at the end ;)
That's what you're proposing the U.S ahould be doing. Hunting me down = the cowboy way. Protecting youself = diplomacy. I guess you prefer strict measures. So maybe next time you get into a row with somebody for whatever reason, you'd take the law into your own hands, right? It's not a civilised way though.



Hamas has blown up shopping centres too, like discos and wedding parties.

It's true, but it's not controlled by the Irani government. An air fighter though, indirectly controlled by GW Bush, blew a house and killed 18 innocent people the other day in Pakistan. And wasn't even considered an act of aggression. Oh, sorry, wrong intelligence :rolleyes:



Iran supports Hamas and give it money, whereas Iran and Al Qaeda are enemies. The fact you find the idea that Iran has influence over Hamas funny reveals your massive ignorance of Middle Eastern politics.

might have influence over Hamas in the way Yassir Arafat had influence over Hamas. Which is not much of an influence, as Arafat could not control them.

spyretto
18-01-2006, 03:51
Recreating Israel 2000 years after its destruction was an historical mistake, one that we've been paying with 50 years of terrorism. Israel was artificially recreated on Arab lands, that land was stolen to Arabs, tenths of thousands of Arabs who had been living there for centuries were expelled (and hundreds were killed) to make room for those new Jewish immigrants. Arabs have always rightfully seen this as a profound injustice, and it is that injustice which is the root of fundamentalism and terrorism.

Absolutely. Because the West promised a haven for the Jewish after the holocaust, they had to go into the lion's nest and take it from the other Arab countries. The creation of the Israeli country was forced, not conceded. And what about the Palestinians? Is that fair to them? to live under constant threat and struggle?
And the reason for all that? Not because the Jewish suffered but because they control global commerce, and they're ruthless in doing so. It's always about their fucking money.
Hitler wanted to get rid of them for the same reason as well. All the bullshit about the Aryan race was, well...bullshit... and he was VERY aware of that.

If Israel had not been recreated, if Arabs had not violently been robbed of their lands, the Middle East would be a relatively peaceful region, Muslim extremism would be a marginal problem, and terrorism would have no desparation to thrive upon.

Agreed. The Arab people are A LOT more sophisticated and civilised that the West takes them for. But when you're constantly faced with injustice you have to resort to whatever means can be affective.

PowerPuff Grrl
18-01-2006, 07:17
Recreating Israel 2000 years after its destruction was an historical mistake, one that we've been paying with 50 years of terrorism. Israel was artificially recreated on Arab lands, that land was stolen to Arabs, tenths of thousands of Arabs who had been living there for centuries were expelled (and hundreds were killed) to make room for those new Jewish immigrants. Arabs have always rightfully seen this as a profound injustice, and it is that injustice which is the root of fundamentalism and terrorism.

-Expelling the Jews from Israel 2000 years ago by the Romans was a "mistake."
-Constructing anti-semitic pathologies about the Jews to conceal Christian hypocrisy was a "mistake."
-Frequently executing pogroms against the Jews was a "mistake."
-Attempting to wipe out the population of them was a ... "mistake."

Finally giving back their home after how many years of overt discrimination?
Mistake towards Arabs?

No.
->Colonising the Middle East and Africa for years only to divide the land between feuding ethnic groups; leaving them to determine who'll win to rule the land or reduce them to gathering scraps of land here and there;
HUGE MOTHERFUCKING MISTAKE!!!!


And the reason for all that? Not because the Jewish suffered but because they control global commerce, and they're ruthless in doing so. It's always about their fucking money.
Hitler wanted to get rid of them for the same reason as well. All the bullshit about the Aryan race was, well...bullshit... and he was VERY aware of that.

Holy shit! Have some fucking decency!
At least back your rampant anti-semitism with some logic, not some Nazi-sympathising bullshit!

simon
18-01-2006, 09:55
If I say I want to kill you, even the police wouldn't do anything about it and if you try to disarm me when I don't have a weapon and you hurt me I can sue you and you can end up in jail. So it's not quite the same thing, is it? furthermore you wouldn't even know I told the truth if I said to you I'll get a gun tomorrow and kill you. There's no evidence or real intent just my words.

The police should take such a threat seriously. If they won't, I have the moral right to stop you getting a weapon. This isn't someone saying something like that in the heat of an argument, it's a calculated and verified threat, which many countries (including the members of the EU) take seriously, but the international community seems unable to agree on actually taking meaningful action. A reasonable jury wouldn't convict someone who told the police, but couldn't get the police to do anything, they would treat it as self-defence.

Not to mention that the Iran president did not not even say that all Israeli's should be killed. It's like me saying, "I have some petrol at home I'll get it tomorrow and go and burn your house". Then you'd try to hunt me down on the basis of me saying that? Or try to protect youself?

Of course I'd try to protect myself. If the threat was made seriously, I'd take it seriously.

Well, the Irani didn't even say that either, it's like he said that "your house deserves to be burned", because he said the Israel should be wiped off the map, correct? That's the equivalent of what he said. We got there at the end ;)

Saying Israel should be wiped off the map is rather stronger than that. The Jews have been in this situation before. Adolf Hitler made rather similar threats, saying Europe should be free of Jews, and nobody did anything until too late. Six million Jews died. Israel is right not to want that to happen again. Once bitten, twice shy.

That's what you're proposing the U.S ahould be doing. Hunting me down = the cowboy way. Protecting youself = diplomacy. I guess you prefer strict measures. So maybe next time you get into a row with somebody for whatever reason, you'd take the law into your own hands, right? It's not a civilised way though.

So Israel should just wait for an Iranian nuclear attack? If someone makes threats like that, they should be stopped from carrying them out. Israel is letting the diplomatic process be carried out, but they've said that they won't let Iran acquire nuclear weapons if the international community fails to stop Iran peacefully.

simon
18-01-2006, 10:06
Well, Iran's nuclear facilities are also civilian facilities, Israel would be killing civilians too if it destroyed those facilities. Israel has no rights whatsoever to destroy industrial facilities in another country, Iran is a sovereign country and Israel has no saying in what Iran does within its borders.

Iran's nuclear facilities aren't civilian, they're military. Many countries have civilian nuclear programmes, but Iran has been caught engaged secretly in activities preparatory to building a nuclear bomb. Israel is waiting to see what action the international community takes. If Iran continues to develop a nuclear bomb, Israel has the right to defend itself against the threat of a nuclear holocaust.

And Israel is just as careless about its targets as the Hamas, the difference is that when Israel attacks Palestinians, it's called an 'assassination' with some 'colateral damages'. The reality is that Israel does not hesitate to launch a missile from an helicopter just to kill *one* person in a Palestinian street, it doesn't care if 20 other people die in the explosion, no more than the Hamas cares who is killed in one of its attacks, both sides have plenty of blood on their hands.

There is a difference between going for a military target (such as a terrorist leader) and killing civilians by mistake, one the one hand, and deliberately targeting civilians as Hamas does. I think Israel is too indiscriminate, but there is a moral difference.

Recreating Israel 2000 years after its destruction was an historical mistake, one that we've been paying with 50 years of terrorism. Israel was artificially recreated on Arab lands, that land was stolen to Arabs, tenths of thousands of Arabs who had been living there for centuries were expelled (and hundreds were killed) to make room for those new Jewish immigrants. Arabs have always rightfully seen this as a profound injustice, and it is that injustice which is the root of fundamentalism and terrorism.

I condemn the way that Israel was created by driving Palestinians from their homes. But there are two sides to it. In 1948 the United Nations had a plan to partition Mandate Palestine more or less equally between a Jewish state and an Arab state, with Jerusalem under international control. The Jews accepted this, the Arabs didn't. Four Arab armies attacked the new Jewish state, saying they were going to "drive the Jews into the sea". There was a war, which Israel won, getting 78% of Mandate Palestine. Armistice boundaries were agreed with the Arab states in 1949 and accepted as legitimate borders of Israel by the international community. Israel was seen as the victim, the Arab states as the aggressors, particularly in the light of the recent Holocaust and the Arab threats against the Jews. Arab states from Morocco to Iraq expelled their oppressed Jewish minorities, who went to Israel. The Israeli population doubled within a year. There was a population exchange, with both sides creating and taking refugees. The Palestinian refugees were forced by the Arab states to live in camps for many years (they still are in Lebanon), the Jewish refugees in Israel were made free citizens. In 1967, the Arab states again threatened war to "drive the Jews into the sea", but Israel attacked before they were ready and occupied the remainder of Mandate Palestine. It was after 1967 that people began to stop seeing Israel as the underdog.

If Israel had not been recreated, if Arabs had not violently been robbed of their lands, the Middle East would be a relatively peaceful region, Muslim extremism would be a marginal problem, and terrorism would have no desparation to thrive upon.

Islamic fundamentalism developed as a movement in Egypt in the 1960s as a reaction against the secularism of Nasser, it had nothing to do with Israel. It emerged as a serious political force in Iran, which of course isn't an Arab country, in the revolution of 1979 as a reaction against the secularism of the Shah, it had nothing to do with Israel. Osama bin Laden didn't go to fight the Israelis, he fought the Soviets in Afghanistan. Saddam Hussein started two big wars in the Middle East, first invading Iran (and no, the Americans weren't behind it, he was a Soviet ally, initially armed by them and France) and later Kuwait. It had nothing to do with Israel. Islamic fundamentalist terrorism got going in the Lebanese civil war that began in 1975, it only began to see Israel as a target after the Israeli invasion of 1982. The existence of Israel has of course caused conflict with the Palestinians and the Arab states, but it's not true that without Israel the Middle East would be a peaceful region, there would be little Muslim extremism and terrorism would have no desperation to thrive on. Palestinian desperation has driven Palestinian terrorism, but Al Qaeda came out of Afghanistan and resentment of US troops in Saudi Arabia to protect the kingdom from Saddam Hussein.

simon
18-01-2006, 10:22
And the reason for all that? Not because the Jewish suffered but because they control global commerce, and they're ruthless in doing so. It's always about their fucking money. Hitler wanted to get rid of them for the same reason as well. All the bullshit about the Aryan race was, well...bullshit... and he was VERY aware of that.

That remark proves beyond doubt that you're an anti-semite - someone with a racist hatred of Jews. You're even justifying the Holocaust!

Holy shit! Have some fucking decency!
At least back your rampant anti-semitism with some logic, not some Nazi-sympathising bullshit!

Yes, he's a Nazi sympathiser.

xmad
18-01-2006, 12:32
Iran's nuclear facilities aren't civilian, they're military. Many countries have civilian nuclear programmes, but Iran has been caught engaged secretly in activities preparatory to building a nuclear bomb. Israel is waiting to see what action the international community takes. If Iran continues to develop a nuclear bomb, Israel has the right to defend itself against the threat of a nuclear holocaust.
There's NO evidence to prove that Iran's nuclear facilities are military.Israel,USA and others have no right to do anything about this.Does Iran ask them why they have those facilities?Does Iran say I have right to destroy those facilities(which are military)?

Anyway I think there's something else behind all these things that you dont know.

Well, Here comes a question:What's the connection between sport and politic?
I found this question over the net:
"Should Iran be banned from soccer's 2006 World Cup over its nuclear activities?"
And they let you to vote.
The source:http://edition.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/01/13/iran.nuclear/
I cant believe how they can say that.

spyretto
18-01-2006, 12:43
That remark proves beyond doubt that you're an anti-semite - someone with a racist hatred of Jews. You're even justifying the Holocaust!

Really? and how did you deduce that from my statement above? Is that a justification of the Holocaust or maybe a possible underlying reason behind what the Nazi did? Just for the record I neither justify nor condone any attempt of aggression/terrorism/mass annihilation against specific ethnic groups. What the Nazi did to the Jews was one of the most despicable things that ever happened during the course of history, and an atrocity that goes beyond human understanding; and then you're telling me that I "justify" that? No I do not.

Stop putting words in my mouth ;)

PowerPuff Grrl
18-01-2006, 12:52
Well, Here comes a question:What's the connection between sport and politic?
I found this question over the net:
"Should Iran be banned from soccer's 2006 World Cup over its nuclear activities?"
And they let you to vote.
The source:http://edition.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/01/13/iran.nuclear/
I cant believe how they can say that.

I think, think its a ridiculous attempt to get the people riled up against the government.
I can't think of any other reason.

spyretto
18-01-2006, 12:58
The police should take such a threat seriously. If they won't, I have the moral right to stop you getting a weapon. This isn't someone saying something like that in the heat of an argument, it's a calculated and verified threat, which many countries (including the members of the EU) take seriously, but the international community seems unable to agree on actually taking meaningful action. A reasonable jury wouldn't convict someone who told the police, but couldn't get the police to do anything, they would treat it as self-defence.

Where do you see that calculated act by the Iranian government? I'm not saying that their intention excludes the making of an atomic bomb but you're jumping waaaay too high in your conclusions to support your view that the U.S should commence a military aggression against Iran in the same way they did against Iraq. and there were no weapons before.


Of course I'd try to protect myself. If the threat was made seriously, I'd take it seriously.

There are ways to protect yourself that go beyond the use of physical violence. Physical voilence should be used as a last resort.


Saying Israel should be wiped off the map is rather stronger than that. The Jews have been in this situation before. Adolf Hitler made rather similar threats, saying Europe should be free of Jews, and nobody did anything until too late. Six million Jews died. Israel is right not to want that to happen again. Once bitten, twice shy.

The way I interpret it, he means what Amber explained above about the creation of the Israeli state, and that might be the sentiment of the majority of Arabs. He's not gonna go and wipe Israel off the map himself. Then you're saying that we should attack the country on the basis of that. Go figure.


[So Israel should just wait for an Iranian nuclear attack? If someone makes threats like that, they should be stopped from carrying them out. Israel is letting the diplomatic process be carried out, but they've said that they won't let Iran acquire nuclear weapons if the international community fails to stop Iran peacefully.

Why would Iran want to create a bomb to threaten Israel, have you thought yourself about that? What kind of purpose would that serve. They're not threathened by Israel are they? It makes no logical sense to me. Unless of course you share the view that all Arabs are evil and terrorists, they want to kill the Jews, they want to kill or "islamise" the western world and destroy our civilization. In that case I do pass.

It seems that some people can't let off their prejudices and personal beliefs and try to see things from a different perspective. I'm not saying that the U.S is responsible for everything, of course not. Everybody plays their part. But we're discussing different interpretations here. No, I'm sorry, I can't agree that the world is made in black and white terms like some - including Bush and the terrorists - want us to think they believe. Cause I don't believe that Bush or the terrorists believe that either ;) But it serves their purpose.

Expelling the Jews from Israel 2000 years ago by the Romans was a "mistake."
-Constructing anti-semitic pathologies about the Jews to conceal Christian hypocrisy was a "mistake."
-Frequently executing pogroms against the Jews was a "mistake."
-Attempting to wipe out the population of them was a ... "mistake."

I propose we hand over the land the Brits took off the American Indians and the American immigrants kept for themselves.. That was a mistake too and it was taken off them by force. I also propose we re-establish the Byzantine Empire and get its capital back from the Turks in Istanbul. It was a centre of Christianity, and the descendants of the Byzantines were forced out. Some are still there. I'd also propose that we get Babylonia, Carthage and the other former empires rebuilt. Then lay back and see what happens...
And that would be more fair than what the westererns did with the creation of Israel. Jerusalem was an historically religious centre of the Jews, not the capital of an empire. It should be an independent cosmopolitan state in itself, allowing the peaceful coexistence of all its people, as it was historically. But that is never going to happen under the present status quo, the armament industry that is called Israel and the reaction of the Arab states.

Are the Jewish the only nation that didn't have a land? No, they're not, they're just the most powerful, the ones that matter to the Americans. The others don't matter at much...

simon
18-01-2006, 14:29
Really? and how did you deduce that from my statement above? Is that a justification of the Holocaust or maybe a possible underlying reason behind what the Nazi did? Just for the record I neither justify nor condone any attempt of aggression/terrorism/mass annihilation against specific ethnic groups. What the Nazi did to the Jews was one of the most despicable things that ever happened during the course of history, and an atrocity that goes beyond human understanding; and then you're telling me that I "justify" that? No I do not.

Stop putting words in my mouth ;)

You wrote:

And the reason for all that? Not because the Jewish suffered but because they control global commerce, and they're ruthless in doing so. It's always about their fucking money. Hitler wanted to get rid of them for the same reason as well. All the bullshit about the Aryan race was, well...bullshit... and he was VERY aware of that.

That is an anti-semitic comment, a racial slur. You know that very well. You even stated that Hitler "wanted to get rid of them for the same reason" that you hate Jews.

simon
18-01-2006, 16:58
There's NO evidence to prove that Iran's nuclear facilities are military.Israel,USA and others have no right to do anything about this.Does Iran ask them why they have those facilities?Does Iran say I have right to destroy those facilities(which are military)?

Nuclear facilities kept secret from IAEA inspectors for 18 years, including a uranium enrichment facility hidden deep underground, black market centrifuges for enrichment sold by the same Pakistani gang that sold Libya them for its admitted atomic bomb project, manuals from the same source describing the technical details of how to make an atomic bomb. Surely that's evidence that Iran's nuclear facilities are for military purposes? And when Russia offers to provide them with nuclear fuel, they turn them down, insisting they must do their own enrichment. Highly enriched uranium is what you use to make an atomic bomb.

haku
18-01-2006, 18:03
Colonising the Middle East and Africa for years only to divide the land between feuding ethnic groups; leaving them to determine who'll win to rule the land or reduce them to gathering scraps of land here and there;
HUGE MOTHERFUCKING MISTAKE!!!!Of course cutting up the former Arab empire into numerous artificial states was a mistake, i never said otherwise, recreating Israel was a mistake, and creating many Arab states was a mistake, because all of that is totally artificial. But you can't support one (the artificial recreation of Israel) and disagree with the other (the artificial creation of Arab states) because both were done by the same people during the same political circumstances (the end of colonization), it's precisely because European powers were in control of the former Arab empire that they were able to draw whatever borders they wanted, without that European control, there would have never been a new Israel state.

Personaly i think that only one big Arab state (from Marocco to Arabia) should have been created at the end of colonization, one state for all Arabs and of course no Israel.

No Israel, because like Spyretto said, if we go around recreating ancient kingdoms of the Mediterranean region, we have a lot of work! Why not recreate Phenicia or the Hittite kingdom? Or if it is about 'giving back' lands to people, why not give back to Greece the territories in Western Anatolia that were stolen from them by Turks? Prestigious Greek cities like Troy or Ephese or now in Turkey, how outrageous is that?
Or maybe we should start by expelling all people of European and African descent from the American continent and give back their stolen lands to American natives? After all if it is justifiable to give back to Jews territories that were lost 2000 years ago, surely it's even more justifiable to give back to native Americans territories that were lost only a few centuries ago.


In 1948 the United Nations had a plan to partition Mandate Palestine more or less equally between a Jewish state and an Arab state, with Jerusalem under international control. The Jews accepted this, the Arabs didn't.Yeah, but the decision to split Palestine and give a part of it to the Jews was decided by the winners of WWII without the Arabs being consulted at all. It *was* Arab land and had been for centuries, so of course they did not agree to have a part of their land stolen from them! Who would?
It's Mister A and Mister B deciding that they should steal a part of Mister C's land to give it to Mister D, and surprisingly Mister C does not agree… What a jerk! :rolleyes:

Arabs have said it many times, if Europeans felt so bad about what happened to the Jews, they should have given them a part of European land, not Arab!

spyretto
18-01-2006, 18:25
You wrote:



That is an anti-semitic comment, a racial slur. You know that very well. You even stated that Hitler "wanted to get rid of them for the same reason" that you hate Jews.

You can think whatever you want. I know for a fact that the neutral people who are reading these comments and they know me in this forum for years can see that I'm not anti-anything; I have no interest in being anti-anything.
And I do stand by my earlier comment 100%. You can find a million reasons why certain nations are not very sympathetic towards the Jews and I stated my own opinion about THAT. I absolutely stated no personal opinion about the Jews, because generalising like that that would be stupid. If you can't read between the lines , it's not my problem.
Then again, I can safely say that I can sense that you DO harbour a certain hatred towards ethnic groups on your own. The fact that you're proposing that the US. should preemptively attack Iran on the basis of mere speculations and things that their leader said is preposterous. The fact that you disregard that innocent people will most certainly die during the attacks is disgusting. So my conclusion is that although I do not harbour any anti-semitic views myself, you do indeed harbour some hatred-apathy-indignation towards the Iranian people. Which makes me wonder whether they have done anything to you personally.


And the reason for all that? Not because the Jewish suffered but because they control global commerce, and they're ruthless in doing so. It's always about their fucking money. Hitler wanted to get rid of them for the same reason as well. All the bullshit about the Aryan race was, well...bullshit... and he was VERY aware of that.

Lets see now how this comment is not antisemitic in any shape or form - to make it clearer to you:
statement 1: I believe that the Americans did not promise a land for the Jews because they suffered - are they the first? - but because they control global commerce. You can see that in every big corporation the Jewish are on top. That means that they're very capable people when it comes to business. And "ruthless" refers to that indeed. They wouldn't care about anything else when it comes to business. That was the situation prior to WWII, that is the situation now.
statement 2: "It's always about their fucking money". That doesn't refer to the Jewish but to everybody. It's all about controlling the wealth in every conflict around the world. So that statement refers to everybody, got it?
The third statement expresses my personal opinion that Hitler used the racial facade to try and exterminate the Jews for the reason stated above. Hitler depended upon mindless racial hatred to achieve that goal. It could have been a religious one instead like others do. That time it was racial. But the underlying reasons behind the racial hatred were economical

Hating you because of the colour of your skin or your ethnic origin is nonsense. Hating you because you deprive me of something is more common sensical.

Does it make more sense to you now?

simon
18-01-2006, 20:53
You can think whatever you want. I know for a fact that the neutral people who are reading these comments and they know me in this forum for years can see that I'm not anti-anything; I have no interest in being anti-anything.
And I do stand by my earlier comment 100%. You can find a million reasons why certain nations are not very sympathetic towards the Jews and I stated my own opinion about THAT. I absolutely stated no personal opinion about the Jews, because generalising like that that would be stupid. If you can't read between the lines , it's not my problem.
You weren't generalising about the Jews? You wrote:

And the reason for all that? Not because the Jewish suffered but because they control global commerce, and they're ruthless in doing so. It's always about their fucking money. Hitler wanted to get rid of them for the same reason as well. All the bullshit about the Aryan race was, well...bullshit... and he was VERY aware of that.
You're clearly generalising about Jews controlling global commerce and being ruthless.

Lets see now how this comment is not antisemitic in any shape or form - to make it clearer to you:
statement 1: I believe that the Americans did not promise a land for the Jews because they suffered - are they the first? - but because they control global commerce. You can see that in every big corporation the Jewish are on top.
It's completely untrue that Jews control global commerce and are at the top of every big corporation. These ideas are anti-semitic fantasies.

That means that they're very capable people when it comes to business. And "ruthless" refers to that indeed. They wouldn't care about anything else when it comes to business. That was the situation prior to WWII, that is the situation now.
You say you don't generalise about Jews, but you say that the Jews are ruthless about money, that's why Hitler really hated them. You're the one who identified your beliefs about Jews with Hitler's, not me, yet you try to deny you're anti-semitic!

statement 2: "It's always about their fucking money". That doesn't refer to the Jewish but to everybody. It's all about controlling the wealth in every conflict around the world. So that statement refers to everybody, got it?
You actually wrote:

And the reason for all that? Not because the Jewish suffered but because they control global commerce, and they're ruthless in doing so. It's always about their fucking money. Hitler wanted to get rid of them for the same reason as well.
There's no way that remark referred to people in general - "it's always about their fucking money". It referred to Jews.

The third statement expresses my personal opinion that Hitler used the racial facade to try and exterminate the Jews for the reason stated above. Hitler depended upon mindless racial hatred to achieve that goal. It could have been a religious one instead like others do. That time it was racial. But the underlying reasons behind the racial hatred were economical
You make anti-semitic comments and say that Hitler thought the same, but deny you're an anti-semite. It's laughable.

Hating you because of the colour of your skin or your ethnic origin is nonsense. Hating you because you deprive me of something is more common sensical.
Hating Jews because you imagine that they have all the money is nonsense as well. It's an anti-semitic fantasy.

spyretto
18-01-2006, 21:06
You weren't generalising about the Jews? You wrote:



It's completely untrue that Jews control global commerce and are at the top of every big corporation. These ideas are anti-semitic fantasies.


You say you don't generalise about Jews, but you say that the Jews are ruthless about money.

What I wrote is not a generilisation because I didn't say all the Jews. If I said that , THAT would be a generilisation. You like playing with words, don't you. You'd also like to read the history behind the rise of anti-semitism that led to the WWII and the situation in Germany prior to Hitler's ascentancy to power. People didn't follow Hitler because they're racist.



There's no way that remark referred to people in general - "it's always about their fucking money". It referred to Jews.


It was placed next to my previous sentence but it didn't specifically target the Jews. Having said that, it does read like it was, so the placement of the sentences together was a bit unfortunate. I don't have to justify myself to you if I were an anti-semitic, nor apologise or whatever. I'm just explaining what I meant when I wrote that paragraph. Even If I were an antisemitic it'd be my own problem. But I'm not. Then again, if you like to think so much about me being one, fine. I'm an antisemitic to you and a non-antisemitic to myself. I don't have to convince you, in particular. You're beyond convincing.
I also never said that Hitler thought the same as me and hated the Jews for the same reasons I hate the Jewish. I never said I hate the Jews. Go back and read again what I wrote. You completely made that up, and you contiue going in circles about it.


Hating Jews because you imagine that they have all the money is nonsense as well. It's an anti-semitic fantasy.

It's not fantasy, it's fact. The Jewish control the wealth - and the destiny of this planet. If I analysed it to you, you'd come up with a thousand ways to deflect it, so I don't think I should bother at all. and I don't hate the Jews for that because I do not care about who controls the wealth, as long as people don't suffer. I'm interested in all cultures, all cultures have a lot to offer, and the Jews have an important culture. I explained to you before. Maybe you're a bit slow in understanding or don't want to understand what I'm saying?

So what made you a hater of Arabs and the other nations in the region? Have you lived in the region to consider yourself an expert of the politics of the region? Or you do that in the comfort of your home in England?
You seem to be taking GW Bush's and the Americans stance: Israel are our allies and we will support them whether they're right or not. This is the wrong politics.

And this is the last time I will reply to you about this issue. I think I made myself crystal clear.

freddie
19-01-2006, 00:08
Okay, this discussion is getting a little heated. Chill you guys, okay? I'm sure spyretto didn't mean to sound anti-semitic, though I understand how one might percieve his statements as such. It's just a discussion. No need for unneccesary tension! :)

I'd just like to comment on the legitimacy of creating the Israeli state and it's comparison to possible revivals of old kingdoms or even giving native americans their land back. There are two sides of this (delicate) story. It's not like the jewish people just flooded the place after WW2, driving the Arabs out. The teritory that is today's Israel has always been at any point in time a native home to AT LEAST 10.000 jewish people which could trace their ancestors back 3000 years... the number was usually much higher than that. And furthermore - the influx of jewish migrations to Israel happened in two significant stages: 1800's and 1933+... so it wasn't strickly a matter of a country that came to be soley because of the holocaust.

I think that the main problem that will forever render the middle-eastern problem unsolvable is and will be unwilingness to compromise. From both sides. Both sides look at the matters very absolutely and ideologically (also religiously which is of course dangerous as hell). Arabs will always feel like they were "raped" by the forming of a jewish state. They'll forever feel the resentment because something that was theirs was taken away from them. Jewish people will forever claim they just rightfully took reign of something that was theirs since all eternity. The truth? Somewhere in the middle. There are no definite rights or wrongs. Both sides lost a great deal and both sides got huge injustices done to them... they were a product of an inefficient institution called the League Of Nations (though honestly... is UN any better?!) The fact is... Israel EXISTS. And nothing will ever change that. Arabs living in the area should come to terms with that. That's the way the historical dice rolls. It's futile discussing which ethnic group had a RIGHT to establish a counry and where it could establish it... because lets face it: most modern countries were gained by conquest, murder, deceit and manipulation. If we start playing that game it's better to just dissolve every national entity which forms a country because it's obviously been established in a non-moral way. Also... Jewish people living there were put there by a political circumstance... not God... that's something THEY should realize. Solution: compromise and understanding. So simple and yet so hard.

spyretto
19-01-2006, 05:14
Thanks, freddie. I was beginning to feel a little apprehended over here with people trying to force an opinion about me to me and to others. Even if I did mean exactly my comment about the money as it read - which, as i said, I didn't - it wouldn't be an antisemitic view; let alone a Nazi sympathiser view. Preposterous. But people have their own agendas and they weren't even willing to try and see the point I was stressing in the first place, even after I explain it 100 times; by that, missing the gist of the discussion. They prefer to easily dismiss a view that challenges their own as an "antisemitic dream" even when it's a valid one, without providing an alternative of their own. It's the easy way out to label someone as whatever and turn a discussion on the Israeli-arab conflict to a personal attack on the basis of simply presenting an alternative view to the one that suits them - about former historical events - while they can easily get away with presenting a much more dangerous view on how the world should move forward from now on; and ultimately missing the point of the discussion and turning it into something else.

simon
19-01-2006, 09:34
What I wrote is not a generilisation because I didn't say all the Jews. If I said that , THAT would be a generilisation. You like playing with words, don't you.

You're the one playing with words now. You wrote: And the reason for all that? Not because the Jewish suffered but because they control global commerce, and they're ruthless in doing so. It's always about their fucking money. Hitler wanted to get rid of them for the same reason as well.
That's a generalisation about Jews. You don't have to say 'all Jews' to generalise about Jews.

It was placed next to my previous sentence but it didn't specifically target the Jews. Having said that, it does read like it was, so the placement of the sentences together was a bit unfortunate.
It's sandwiched between the statement immediately before, which is anti-semitic itself, and the statement immediately after, about Hitler's view of the Jews, so it's a bit extraordinary to be told that it doesn't refer to Jews.

I don't have to justify myself to you if I were an anti-semitic, nor apologise or whatever. I'm just explaining what I meant when I wrote that paragraph. Even If I were an antisemitic it'd be my own problem. But I'm not. Then again, if you like to think so much about me being one, fine. I'm an antisemitic to you and a non-antisemitic to myself. I don't have to convince you, in particular. You're beyond convincing.
I don't want to think you're anti-semitic. I came to that opinion because you made statements that read as anti-semitic, as you admit yourself.

I also never said that Hitler thought the same as me and hated the Jews for the same reasons I hate the Jewish. I never said I hate the Jews. Go back and read again what I wrote. You completely made that up, and you contiue going in circles about it.
You didn't directly hated the Jews, you just said they controlled global commerce, were ruthless about it and Hitler had wanted to get rid of them for it.

[quote=spyretto]It's not fantasy, it's fact. The Jewish control the wealth - and the destiny of this planet. If I analysed it to you, you'd come up with a thousand ways to deflect it, so I don't think I should bother at all.
The belief that the Jews control the wealth and the destiny of the planet is a fantasy. It's a classic anti-semitic fantasy. You stated in support of the claim: "in every big corporation the Jewish are on top". I pointed out that isn't true. Look at a list of CEOs of the 100 largest corporations in the world. Are they all Jewish? Is Bill Gates, to take the most famous example, Jewish? You'll find that there are very few Jewish business leaders except in the movie industry.

and I don't hate the Jews for that because I do not care about who controls the wealth, as long as people don't suffer. I'm interested in all cultures, all cultures have a lot to offer, and the Jews have an important culture. I explained to you before. Maybe you're a bit slow in understanding or don't want to understand what I'm saying?
Don't be patronising.

So what made you a hater of Arabs and the other nations in the region?

I don't hate Arabs or Iranians. I support the Palestinians, I think that they have been treated badly by the Israelis. I have criticised Israel, I think that expelling the Palestinians from their homes was terrible. What I did was point out that the Arab side was not blameless, they said they planned to "drive the Jews into the sea".

You seem to be taking GW Bush's and the Americans stance: Israel are our allies and we will support them whether they're right or not. This is the wrong politics.
I don't support the Israelis right or wrong. I regret the creation of Israel, but I agree with freddie that it can't be undone now. I think that the Palestinians should have a state in the West Bank, Gaza and East Jerusalem and financial compensation for the loss of the rest of their lands. But I think that faced with a not-so-veiled threat of a nuclear attack from a nutcase like Ahmadinejad, the Israelis have the right to protect themselves by bombing Iranian nuclear sites to stop him acquiring the bomb.

spyretto
19-01-2006, 12:07
The belief that the Jews control the wealth and the destiny of the planet is a fantasy. It's a classic anti-semitic fantasy. You stated in support of the claim: "in every big corporation the Jewish are on top". I pointed out that isn't true. Look at a list of CEOs of the 100 largest corporations in the world. Are they all Jewish? Is Bill Gates, to take the most famous example, Jewish? You'll find that there are very few Jewish business leaders except in the movie industry.

When I said that the Jews control global commerce did not mean that they dominate the list of the richest men in the world but I meant what I actually said: that they occupy vital top positions in big corporations and organizations around the world and the U.S in particular. Their lobby in the U.S is extremely powerful. For the ratio of the Jewish population/world population that is disporportionate. I didn't mean it as an anti-semitic comment but as an alternative look at the underlying reasons behind the hatred that other nations harbour towards the Jews ( other than the racial/religious ones, of course ).
And of course, the continuous turmoil and violence in the Gaza strip and the dispute of the other Arab states with regards to Israel complicates things further.

PowerPuff Grrl
19-01-2006, 14:37
It's not fantasy, it's fact. The Jewish control the wealth - and the destiny of this planet. If I analysed it to you, you'd come up with a thousand ways to deflect it, so I don't think I should bother at all. and I don't hate the Jews for that because I do not care about who controls the wealth, as long as people don't suffer. I'm interested in all cultures, all cultures have a lot to offer, and the Jews have an important culture. I explained to you before. Maybe you're a bit slow in understanding or don't want to understand what I'm saying?

And this is the last time I will reply to you about this issue. I think I made myself crystal clear.

I hope it isn't the last time you discuss about this topic because there is so much more that needs to be explored. Sorry freddie.

I for one have always believed that it was in fact White people, not Jews, who control the wealth and the direction this world heading towards. So I'm really interested in your take on things, honestly. Though I have heard people ramble on about this, nobody has taken the liberty of actually elaborating how exactly the Jews control the world.
Of course, if I disagree with you I will let it be known.

Of course cutting up the former Arab empire into numerous artificial states was a mistake, i never said otherwise, recreating Israel was a mistake, and creating many Arab states was a mistake, because all of that is totally artificial. But you can't support one (the artificial recreation of Israel) and disagree with the other (the artificial creation of Arab states) because both were done by the same people during the same political circumstances (the end of colonization), it's precisely because European powers were in control of the former Arab empire that they were able to draw whatever borders they wanted, without that European control, there would have never been a new Israel state.

It isn't that I support one over the other. I just realize that those are things that have been done and cannot be undone; like what Freddie said; it is all in the past. It's just that I'm quite baffled that of all the things you claim were mistakes not once do you mention the motivation behind the creation of the Isareli state; what made the Jews clamour for self-determination. You're decontextualising history trying to isolate the creation of Israel from how the Jews were treated in Europe before. Don't you think that had the Jews not have been unfairly persecuted for thousands of years they most probably would not have the need for an independent state?
The one thing Europe has done that was not for its own self-interest (colonisation) but for the benefit of another people and most of you regret it? Why?

Because you sold out the Palestinians?
Of all the people you sold out (and there were/are plenty) why are they so special?
Now don't get wrong I am in no way implying that Palestinians are worthless, I just don't get why they stand out among other disenfranchised people.
You guys aren't the only ones that sold them out... and you certainly aren't the last.
Turkey sold Palestinian land to the Jews despite the protesting of their Muslim tenants near the turn of the century when they ruled over it. They don't feel bad about it at all and nobody, including Muslims, are calling them on it.
Even Arabs sold out the Palestinians (though some for a good reason), nobody gave a shit when 2000 refugees were slaughtered with Israeli approval during the Lebanese civil war, they were more concerned about the World Cup. Besides Jordan, no other Arab nation welcomes Palestinians with citizenships. And if they do, they have been kicked out (Kuwait). Oman actually has a ban, barring any Palestinian from entering.
A common preconcieved notion about Arabs is that they are all united and fight for the right for Palestine to exist. They aren't and most Arabs in the Middle East genuinely hate Palestinians. It's only the ones outside the Middle East that do under some Muslim obligation.


Personaly i think that only one big Arab state (from Marocco to Arabia) should have been created at the end of colonization, one state for all Arabs and of course no Israel.

I personally think people should just leave everything alone, as they should have done in the first place, and let everything come out organically rather than forcing it onto people. But then, even if properly functioning nations spring out nobody would recognize it without the West's approval; as is the case with Somaliland.


Or maybe we should start by expelling all people of European and African descent from the American continent and give back their stolen lands to American natives? After all if it is justifiable to give back to Jews territories that were lost 2000 years ago, surely it's even more justifiable to give back to native Americans territories that were lost only a few centuries ago.

Shit, maybe you're right!
I'm a first generation immigrant and so are many people in Canada so really if the First Nations' People all of a sudden had a giant revolt all accross the Western Hemisphere people like me wouldn't exactly mind. They are the only people who have any authority to tell us "go back to where you came from!" Whereas if a white person said that, we normally all just have a good laugh.
African Americans on the other hand never really chose to be in the States, so I don't they'd really give a shit.
Which leaves us with white people... Amber, do you really want a sudden influx of people from Quebec who speak the language in a horrible accent (according to a French person I once knew) and Americans who have no idea how to speak it let alone be as obnoxious as an American could be? Please note that many Americans of French descendence are from the southern states.
"Does that croissant come with low-carbs?"
:heh:

spyretto
19-01-2006, 15:29
I hope it isn't the last time you discuss about this topic because there is so much more that needs to be explored. Sorry freddie.

I for one have always believed that it was in fact White people, not Jews, who control the wealth and the direction this world heading towards. So I'm really interested in your take on things, honestly. Though I have heard people ramble on about this, nobody has taken the liberty of actually elaborating how exactly the Jews control the world.
Of course, if I disagree with you I will let it be known.

What I'm saying is that I'm not willing to discuss the issue with regards to the statement I made about the Jews and Hitler and what I meant by it. I explained it enough and simon has quoted it enough. It's time to give it a rest.

Jews are historically linked with the rise of international trade. I'm copying from Yossi Schwartz's "The Origin Of the Jews; The Rise of anti-Semitism"

Throughout the ages the participation of the Jews in the evolution of commerce was far out of proportion to their numbers.
It goes on and on about the role of the Jews in monopolising global commerce during the Roman Times and well into the Middle Ages and thereafter. This is written by a Jew so there's no need to dispute it as propaganda.

http://www.marxist.com/History/origins_jews2.htm

On the rise of antisemitism:

The Jews living in feudal Europe dominated by the Christian ideology had more a difficult existence than the Jews living in Islamic states. They were excluded from most occupations except trading and the lending of money. Anti-Semitism was encouraged amongst the commoners who also believed a good deal of nonsense about the Jews. They held the Jews collectively responsible for Jesus' death since it was the Pharisees who had pushed the Roman government into executing him. Widespread rumors in the Middle Ages claimed that the Jews practiced blood sacrifices at their religious ceremonies and killed Christian children, poisoned wells, and spread disease. The Jews were subject to massive attacks during the Crusades and during the spread of the Black Death in the 1300s, when the European population went truly hysterical.

The key to understanding the origins of anti-Semitism in this period is the fact that the Church, as a part of feudal society, wanted to discourage the growth of the cities. The common feature of the Jews since the exile by the Babylonians has been their mode of living as city dwellers.

From the time of the Babylonian exile, Jewish communities were rarely established in the hinterlands. Jews have lived in ports, or along trade routes, or in administrative and industrial centers, rather than in the country-side as peasants living off the land. Feudal society was essentially a caste society. It was desired that everyone "should remain in his place." It was extremely difficult, if not impossible for bourgeois to enter the nobility, just as the noble who lowered himself to the practice of a trade or to engaging in business was disdained. Peasants were prevented from escaping to the cities, and the Jews for them were part of the dangerous city.

It goes on and on about the role of the Jews in global commerce prior to the Holocaust. I thought that was indisputable.

But I'm looking forward to reading your alternative explanation on why such "nonsense" was spread. The Trojan war was not made because of the chastity of Helen, you know ;)

haku
21-01-2006, 02:51
Why? Because you sold out the Palestinians?It's not that i see Arabs as victims, not on a grand historical scale anyway. Arabs are an expansionist culture, they started from a small region in the Arabic peninsula and managed to conquer and colonize the entire Middle-East and North Africa, they spread Islam as far as South-East Asia, at the peak of their power they even entered Europe, conquered Iberia (and stayed there several centuries) and pushed northward within the Frankish Empire. If a few key historical events had turned out a bit differently, Arabs could have easily conquered the whole of Europe and probably would have been the ones to colonize America.
Arabs have played a major role in world history and most of the time they were on the conquering side, they were victims only in a very limited number of occasions.
No, i regret the creation of Israel simply because it created an unnecessary and unsolvable conflict which has been threatening world security for half a century now. Maybe the people who decided the creation of Israel thought that it would work, that somehow things would settle down after some time, i don't know… Whatever they thought, the reality of today is that it's not working, the conflict is ongoing and i don't see any solution being ever achieved.
If Israel had not been created, if Arab lands had been left to Arabs, there would obviously be no conflict, sometimes conflicts are unavoidable, but this one was easily avoidable and that's why i regret it.

do you really want a sudden influx of people from Quebec who speak the language in a horrible accent:gigi: I am actually closely related to French Canadians since many French colonists who settled in North America were from Normandy, many Quebec family names are obviously Norman and the Quebec accent is quite close to the old Norman accent that can still be heard in the countryside over here, though of course the Norman accent has considerably faded those past decades since we all more or less adopted the Parisian talk from TV.

But anyway, my point was precisely that you can't go back, conquest and colonization is part of world history, even Europe was conquered and colonized at some point. Only Basque people are pure descendants of the original indigenous Europeans, the rest of Europe and its indigenous population (the so-called Megalithic people who raised dolmens and menhirs) was entirely conquered and colonized by Indo-European tribes from Western Asia.
We can't expel Indo-Europeans from Europe and India to give it back to natives, we can't expel Arabs from North Africa to give it back to natives, we can't expel Turks from Anatolia to give it back to natives, we can't expel Europeans and Africans from America to give it back to natives, and in the same logic, we shouldn't have expelled Arabs to give Palestine back to natives (the Jews) who lived there 2000 years ago.

Of course, people may argue that the Jews are simply conquering and colonizing Arab lands just like Arabs conquered and colonized many territories, which is actually a valid argument and a more correct assessment of what is really happening over there. But where i think that people are pushing it too far is when they make it sound like Arabs should be happy about it, abandon their lands with a smile and go away without a fight. Yes, conquest is a common process in human history and maybe Israelis can't be blamed for colonizing Arab lands, but resisting to conquest is just as common, and therefore Arabs can't be blamed for it either.

PowerPuff Grrl
21-01-2006, 08:00
:gigi: I am actually closely related to French Canadians since many French colonists who settled in North America were from Normandy, many Quebec family names are obviously Norman and the Quebec accent is quite close to the old Norman accent that can still be heard in the countryside over here, though of course the Norman accent has considerably faded those past decades since we all more or less adopted the Parisian talk from TV.

Yeah, yeah.
I still know you guys still hate hearing it.
:D

Of course, people may argue that the Jews are simply conquering and colonizing Arab lands just like Arabs conquered and colonized many territories, which is actually a valid argument and a more correct assessment of what is really happening over there.

One could see that way I guess but the motivation behind the Arabs and the Isarelis are two completely different things. And I would argue that one is more valid than the other.

But where i think that people are pushing it too far is when they make it sound like Arabs should be happy about it, abandon their lands with a smile and go away without a fight. Yes, conquest is a common process in human history and maybe Israelis can't be blamed for colonizing Arab lands, but resisting to conquest is just as common, and therefore Arabs can't be blamed for it either.

I'm glad to see that we finally agree on one thing.
:coctail:

But I'm looking forward to reading your alternative explanation on why such "nonsense" was spread. The Trojan war was not made because of the chastity of Helen, you know

Thank you for replying.
You'll see my response in the Racial Tension thread, I think we're dangerously veering off-topic here.

You can argue whether Jews are a race there.
Warning however, it is one long-ass post.

Rachel
05-10-2006, 01:22
Well, it looks like North Korea is next (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/5403572.stm). Can't say I really blame them, I would say they are possibly doing this as they feel under constant threat from the likes of Bush & co.

freddie
05-10-2006, 01:53
They're shit-stirrers of global politics and are doing their job marvelously. That whole regime is based on oppression and isolation combined with producing quasi enemies to their soverignty. That's the only way their "bellowed leader" could stay in power. The "US hostility" is just a convenient excuse. Though I doubt they'd ever want to attack anyone, as they know damn well this would be the end of the country. They just want to hold on to that little piece of tyranic paradise they have. I'm just sad to hear about all the horrid things the people of North Korea have to withstand. There's nothing to eat. There's basically a full-censorship on ALL news coming in and leaving out of the country. You can get killed in the middle of the street by goverments agents for no apparent reason. For the sake of these people I hope the regime falls soon. Doesn't look like it though.

Rachel
05-10-2006, 02:11
Any nuclear power especially the US has no right to object to others having such weapons unless they themselves give up theirs.

The worst offenders of all - the 8 "nuclear states" say they need the "nuclear deterrent". Why should North Korea not have the nuclear deterrent also? North Korea has been threatened for years by the US which has thousands of nuclear weapons and is planning a new generation of them.

North Korea has asked for dialogue with the US - the US refuses to talk with them. Why? Nuclear disarmament is the only way to go for the hypocritical West.

I do not agree that any country should have nuclear weapons, and think that further testing is unnecessary but I do think that a country does have a right to test them when other countries have already done so, and that the US has no right whatsoever for criticising countries who choose to test them as they are the only country to have actually used nuclear weapons.

dradeel
05-10-2006, 02:18
I don't think anyone should create nuclear bombs (or store any, for that matter), but why is it that some countries can easily have several thousand Nuclear Warheads, while others will be whipped if they even talk about creating some? Well, okay, North Korea is talking about testing them - which I dislike alot - but why can't they do when western countries have been doing so before? I really dislike people for making nuclear weapons, but on the other hand; how can countries that are filled to the brink with nuclear weapons tell others they can't have any? I just find it all very annoying and morally outragous. Noone should have any Nuclear Weapons at all! I think we've seen what such forces does, and are still doing! It's not good for anything.

As a huge defender of nuclear power, I think every country should be allowed to build as many nuclear plants as they wish, but international observers should still be allowed to see that everything is done properly. Not only to see that it's not being used for creating warheads, but especially that it's by the international safety regulations. :) It's a pity Iran haven't been very positive to the idea of letting the international community see what they're doing. That way they would examplify that they could be trusted (at least a little more than what they're being now :p)...

freddie
05-10-2006, 02:44
Any nuclear power especially the US has no right to object to others having such weapons unless they themselves give up theirs.

The worst offenders of all - the 8 "nuclear states" say they need the "nuclear deterrent". Why should North Korea not have the nuclear deterrent also? North Korea has been threatened for years by the US which has thousands of nuclear weapons and is planning a new generation of them.

North Korea has asked for dialogue with the US - the US refuses to talk with them. Why? Nuclear disarmament is the only way to go for the hypocritical West.

I do not agree that any country should have nuclear weapons, and think that further testing is unnecessary but I do think that a country does have a right to test them when other countries have already done so, and that the US has no right whatsoever for criticising countries who choose to test them as they are the only country to have actually used nuclear weapons.

You can't compare a volatile dictatorship like NA to any of the other nuclear powers. It's not just about nuclear power. It's about everything. NA is a hazard even with an AK-47. :p And from what I know the west has been more than willing to negotiate with them time and time again... it just so happenes that all such attempts ended in NA monologue and almost hostage-situation-like listings of their demand. I can totally undestand why especially countries like the US, Japan and South Korea would be quite nervous about them building up into a formidable nuclear power. It is just my opionion that they're not going to attack and their ultimate goal is to stay as isolated from the rest of the world as possible (the only way to retain tehir specific way of politics). However - I might be wrong. Maybe they'd want to go out with a bang once they see the inevitable is approaching and unleash a full-on attack on their southern neibour in a valiant attempt to... *cough* liberate them from the evil clenches of capitalism.

As a huge defender of nuclear power, I think every country should be allowed to build as many nuclear plants as they wish, but international observers should still be allowed to see that everything is done properly.

I've stopped being a defender of nuclear power back in 1986. :p
I think it's highly efficient but just too dangerous. There are other alternatives.

Rachel
05-10-2006, 02:54
It is just my opionion that they're not going to attackThen why is everyone getting their underwear in a twist? :p If it's just NK's attempt to bring focus to their country and ask for money to feed their starving people then let them have their 5 minutes of fame.

I've stopped being a defender of nuclear power back in 1986. :p
I think it's highly efficient but just too dangerous. There are other alternatives.Not to mention what will we do with all the waste?

Sorry if I'm not making much sense tonight, I'm feeling *really* ill right now :ill:

haku
05-10-2006, 03:37
There are other alternatives.Nothing that can produce the terawatts needed by nearly 10 billion people. :p

Rachel
05-10-2006, 11:39
Nothing that can produce the terawatts needed by nearly 10 billion people. :p We don't know that, not enough money is being put into research for alternatives. Most governments seem so stuck on the idea of nuclear they won't even consider anything else.

dradeel
05-10-2006, 16:25
I've stopped being a defender of nuclear power back in 1986.
I think it's highly efficient but just too dangerous. There are other alternatives.
You cannot let Tsjernobyl destroy your view on nuclear power. It's a really bad example. That power plant wasn't really anywhere near the safety regulations for nuclear power plants today, and technology have gone skyhigh since 1986. We're actually talking 20 years here. I have no worries as long as you have enough money and a tight maintenance and upkeep, which Norway have ... that's why I'm a huge defender of nuclear power :)

Rachel
05-10-2006, 16:35
They are ideal terrorist targets. I have the Sizewell nuclear power plants (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sizewell_B) 20 miles from me and it's not a great thought that if a terrorist targeted them millions of people in England would probably be dead. I don't think it's a risk we should be taking when there are other alternatives.

Radioactive waste will remain dangerous for thousands of years, and it's bound to get into the food chain. We NEED to find an alternative.

dradeel
05-10-2006, 16:38
We don't know that, not enough money is being put into research for alternatives. Most governments seem so stuck on the idea of nuclear they won't even consider anything else.
Actually, wrong ... there aren't anything that are being researched more than alternative energy source ... especially here in Norway, not to mention Denmark. Gass, water and wind-power have been researched for maaaany years.

Power from ocean waves are actually quite efficient (nothing to compare to nuclear power tho), but the costs for upkeep on "wave plants" are just too big. So you have to go with dams and power plants in rivers ... cheap but not very efficient - and you destroy alot of nice rivers for fish. Wind is the same, cheap but inefficient. You need houndreds and thousands of windmills which destroy the whole landscape.

Power from gass is actually quite efficient (yet, nowhere near nuclear power) and the upkeep isn't that bad, but there you have pollution. There are actually filter systems that give you 0% pollution, but they cost alot. It's a good alternative tho, and something we're building here in Norway today. This way we can make use of the huge amounts of gass that come from the oil rigs in the North Sea.

Also, you have sun energy. Sun panels aren't very dependable and can easily be damaged...

What are you left with that produce superb amounts of energy compared to price and upkeep? Nuclear power. The difference are actually huuuge. We could produce more than enough electricity in norway with only a couple of nuclear power plants, but today we have tens - if not over a houndred power plants from water - and still we don't have enough when the summer is dry (like it have been the last 2-3 years). So what is the only thing that aren't depending on nature's good will? Yet again the choice is nuclear power - with the only accaptable alternative being gass. Coal and oil is out of the question either way!

Rachel
05-10-2006, 17:02
Actually, wrong ... there aren't anything that are being researched more than alternative energy source ... especially here in Norway, not to mention Denmark. Gass, water and wind-power have been researched for maaaany years.They may research it but then the research is totally disregarded. How much money is being put into alternative research? Not enough, clearly.

Power from ocean waves are actually quite efficient (nothing to compare to nuclear power tho), but the costs for upkeep on "wave plants" are just too big.I dunno about you, but I would rather energy prices go up than end up with nuclear waste being spilled all over the world. The idea that we need to spend as little money as possible with total disregard for the envoronment is such a shorted sighted and stupid solution.

Wind is the same, cheap but inefficient. You need houndreds and thousands of windmills which destroy the whole landscape.I think windmills are actually very pretty. I'd have one in my back garden if it meant helping the current situation.

There are actually filter systems that give you 0% pollution, but they cost alot.Again, we need to spend a bit to keep the world free of the nasty shit.

Also, you have sun energy. Sun panels aren't very dependable and can easily be damaged...Sun panels aren't exactly that expensive, surely we should at least give it a try? If everyone had one on their house it would mean we would need a lot less of these power plants that are producing so much waste. We need to use what we are given freely!

What are you left with that produce superb amounts of energy compared to price and upkeep?If I didn't know you better I would think you were an American Republican Bush supporter! ;)

freddie
05-10-2006, 17:16
Then why is everyone getting their underwear in a twist? If it's just NK's attempt to bring focus to their country and ask for money to feed their starving people then let them have their 5 minutes of fame.

It's my feeling they won't attack and that's what a lot of analists think as well, but when it all comes down to it... no one really knows. They're unpredictable as fuck. Leniency didn't help back in 39... I think such an extreme case of governance deserves to be kept a close eye on.

Actually, wrong ... there aren't anything that are being researched more than alternative energy source ... especially here in Norway, not to mention Denmark. Gass, water and wind-power have been researched for maaaany years.

Power from ocean waves are actually quite efficient (nothing to compare to nuclear power tho), but the costs for upkeep on "wave plants" are just too big. So you have to go with dams and power plants in rivers ... cheap but not very efficient - and you destroy alot of nice rivers for fish. Wind is the same, cheap but inefficient. You need houndreds and thousands of windmills which destroy the whole landscape.

Power from gass is actually quite efficient (yet, nowhere near nuclear power) and the upkeep isn't that bad, but there you have pollution. There are actually filter systems that give you 0% pollution, but they cost alot. It's a good alternative tho, and something we're building here in Norway today. This way we can make use of the huge amounts of gass that come from the oil rigs in the North Sea.

Also, you have sun energy. Sun panels aren't very dependable and can easily be damaged...

What are you left with that produce superb amounts of energy compared to price and upkeep? Nuclear power. The difference are actually huuuge. We could produce more than enough electricity in norway with only a couple of nuclear power plants, but today we have tens - if not over a houndred power plants from water - and still we don't have enough when the summer is dry (like it have been the last 2-3 years). So what is the only thing that aren't depending on nature's good will? Yet again the choice is nuclear power - with the only accaptable alternative being gass. Coal and oil is out of the question either way!

I'm quite certain power-plants in developed countries are pretty safe these days. I'm more concerned about tens of nuclear plants in former USSR countries which don't have the neccessary financial means to keep them operating at 100% safety levels - actually the very same nuclear plant in Chernobil that had one of it's reactors blown up in 1986, got some pretty low marks when evaluated by EU experts for nuclear safety. Don't forget that the accident in 20 years ago didn't happen due to obsolete technology, but rather human negligence and failure to follow safety standards. It could happen again - in many of these poorely maintained facilities. One of the main reason these impoverished countries are using nuclear power in the first place is due to it's cost efficiency - so they don't want to add cost to what is otherwise a cheap way of gaining energy (compared to development of alternatives).

I'm not saying nuclear physics should be abandoned completely though. If anything has the potential to bring us to the stars it's cold fusion.

dradeel
05-10-2006, 17:23
The idea that we need to spend as little money as possible with total disregard for the envoronment is such a shorted sighted and stupid solution.
Thing is; noone is willing to pay the bill if it's too high. And also, the expensive alternatives doesn't necessarily mean expensive to build, but expensive to maintain.

And hey; nuclear power plants are much more expensive to both build and maintain than any other alternative - it's just that they produce such huuuge amounts of electricity that it's much more worth it.

Also; if you build a nuclear power plant after the international safety regulations (which are really stright) there are no danger regarding the nuclear waste - and we have more than enough space to store it ... yes, we do! There's no need of saying anything else. And the safety regulations also demand tight upkeep ... also, new nuclear power plants are built so that it won't all go up in a boom if there is an error. Also, the water that is used to cool down the reactor has no danger of getting radioactive. It's a hell more safe than you'd think. We're not living in the cold war anymore when the russians fed the world with time bombs - which are still counting down. New nuclear plants aren't dangerous at all.
I think windmills are actually very pretty
Hehe. That's a matter of personal taste :) Personally I don't care, but there are many that dislikes them, and they do demand alot from the nature!
Again, we need to spend a bit to keep the world free of the nasty shit.
I couldn't agree more. Nasty shit that come from oil and coal plants! A huge percentage of the world is actually getting electricity from coal plants. That's where the biggest enviornmental bomb is. Nuclear power is actually a enviormental FRIENDLY alternative. The friendliest there is. You don't have to depend on nature to feed you with energy - meaning you don't fuck up the landscape or nature in any way --- and it feed you with huge amounts of electricity at the same time.
I would think you were an American Republican Bush supporter!
Hahaha. I'm glad you know me better than that! :D
I'm more concerned about tens of nuclear plants in former USSR countries which don't have the neccessary financial means to keep them operating at 100% safety levels
Absolutely. They are dangerous as hell. As I mentioned; "time bombs that are still counting down". But should these lethal buildings destroy the reputation of the ones that are strighly maintained and using top notch modern technology? :)

haku
05-10-2006, 18:26
Personally i've never had any problem with nuclear energy, and i agree with dradeel that nuclear power plants are less damaging to the environment in the long run than other energies. One nuclear power plant replaces several gas/petrol power plants (and those are no good since gas and petrol will run out in a few decades and they contribute to the global warming) so it has a minimal impact on a landscape, and nuclear power plants do not emit greenhouse gases so they don't affect the climate.

Here in Normandy we have 3 nuclear power plants producing 10 gigawatts combined (soon to be expanded to 12 gigawatts) and there is no realistic way of replacing such power by any other type of energy production.
I don't support windmill farms as i think they destroy landscapes, we would need tens of thousands of them to produce 10 gigawatts and the whole region would be covered with them, so no. And tidal power plants don't produce enough energy to be useable.
I do support solar energy (but solar energy is technically nuclear since the Sun is a fusion reactor) but it's only realistic for small needs, for example here the emergency phones along motorways each have a solar panel and future public lampposts will be equiped similarly, but it's not possible to provide for the general massive energy needs with solar panels.
And nuclear wastes are not such a big deal in my opinion, first of all, once they've been stored in appropriate containers, they are perfectly safe and clean, and second, they are tiny in volume and take very little space to store. An average family actually produces more garbage every year than an entire nuclear power plant, and i'm much more worried by all the crap people throw away everywhere in nature and contaminates soil and water than by the small nuclear wastes which are stored safely and cleanly.

And nuclear energy will continue to progress, current fission reactors will be replaced by fusion reactors in a few decades, and fusion reactors will be 10 to 100 times more powerful than fission reactors and wasteless, for a similar cost of construction and maintenance, so i definitely think it's the right direction to go.

freddie
05-10-2006, 19:03
Absolutely. They are dangerous as hell. As I mentioned; "time bombs that are still counting down". But should these lethal buildings destroy the reputation of the ones that are strighly maintained and using top notch modern technology? :)

Yeah but that's like saying that an AK-47 in the hands of a serial killer shouldn't destroy the reputation of weapons in general. There is ALWAYS danger when we're dealing with something volatile. And somehow we just have to predict that - given the number of nuclear powerplants in this world - at least a dosen of them are being negligently handled. Just one mishap is more than enough to cause a continental disaster. And let me not even get into the subject of nuclear waste. I'm not as optimistic as Haku, when it comes to fusion development. 100 years from now, maybe? But what'll a 100 years of nuke-waste cause to our environment? I'm not saying gas or coal dependant energy sources are any better. I seriously think both technologies are dead ends both in relation to safety hazards as well as environmental burden. At least in it's current application. I still have faith for the nuclear energy of the future, though.

Rachel
05-10-2006, 19:37
I don't support windmill farms as i think they destroy landscapesJust wait for the terrorists then, they'll destroy more than a bit of landscape ;)

For once I totally disagree with you!

dradeel
05-10-2006, 21:25
Yeah but that's like saying that an AK-47 in the hands of a serial killer shouldn't destroy the reputation of weapons in general.
No, not really. The nuclear power plant isn't a WEAPON. And an AK-47 is working perfectly fine. Actually, it's the weapon that tend to work the best whatever happens to it ... hehe. Anyways, this isn't the case with the badly shape nuclear plants in Russia.

We're talking the difference between a hand grenade that won't hurt you at all if handed nicely by professionals, compared to a bottle of highly unstabile nitroglycerin handed by people who are careless and don't know how to deal with it at all! The difference is that the nuclear plant (as I mentioned) isn't a weapon like the hand grenade, but still, the comparison wasn't that bad imo. Sure, you could say that all weapons are bad because you don't like them - that's what I say -, but can you reason your sceptisism to nuclear power with the same? "Nuclear power is bad, because I don't like it" - Imo that doesn't sound very good :)

So - if I can drag my comparison even longer down the alley of absurdness :laugh: - I'm saying that we shouldn't arm military personell with bottles of unstabile nitroglycerin, but with hand grenades that won't blow up in their faces. Like we would have safe, super-modern and extremely well maintained nuclear power plants compared to the time bombs that haven't been looked after in decades.
But what'll a 100 years of nuke-waste cause to our environment?
Nothing, if handed correctly - which we are easily capable of doing. (I hope I'm remembering the documentary-thingie correctly when saying the following, but I think I am and I can easily recheck :)) A thousand years of estimated future crap/dump/garbage of the whole world can actually be filled into quite a relatively small area - Just a little dot on the map. Of course, that's a insanely huge area when standing in the middle of it, but it's just a dot on a map over USA, in the middle of a no-man's-land. If you spread this around the globe, you don't even notice it's there.
...
As haku said; nuclear waste from one power plant during a year is less than what one average family would produce of normal garbage. If the crap of the whole globe can be put into an acceptable area for a thousand years, we could easily store the nuke waste for .. say ... 500 years? until we find a solution to the "problem". We actually have no problems with this. The whole "we're running out of space"-issue is actually one of the biggest myths in today's society. We have huge amounts of space. That's not the problem. The problem is maintainance to keep oneself well inside the safety regulations - which "the west" is actually doing. Russia lack the money to do this, that's why I think they shouldn't have nuclear power plants at all.
I still have faith for the nuclear energy of the future, though.
Well, that's good. Then we agree on that at least. Of course, I don't like us producing nuke waste that will stay there (possibly) forever, but since we have technology to store it super-safe for an eternity I don't think it's a problem at all. I guess that's where the gap is :)

freddie
06-10-2006, 02:20
You're forgeting one thing. The volume of the nuclear waste is not important - what's worrying is it's radioactive properties. and we all know realistically at least 30% of produced waste won't be disposed of properly (just a cost of doing business... you have to expect it in any area). Not to mention as emerging markets grow and our energy consumption needs become ridiculously high we'll need a lot more nuclear powerplants to keep the demand happy. Maybe hundreds of times of today's capacities. I still don't think you can just dispose of radioactive waste so elegantly with it having absolutely no impact on the environmet - I've heard chilling tales of radioactive elemets - supposedly stored in safe facilities underground - leaking into waters bellow and eventually into drinking water and water used for irrigation of crop.

I think the main problem here is the fact that most countries who'll need nuke-power in the future are the same countries who are least likely to follow safety procedures. I'm talking mainly about Asian tigers here. Them - along with Russia, Ukraine and quite possibly countries like Iran - will pose a great threat to the eco-system as well as a potencial for another catastrophe of gigantic proportions.

Rachel
06-10-2006, 15:27
freddie, totally agree! :done:

Another thing to think about - what about earthquakes? Of course they are not gonna bury nuclear waste where there is a risk of an earthquake, but the world is constantly changing, therefore somewhere that could be totally safe now may be incredibly dangerous in the future. Are we really that selfish that we can condemn others to death in the future? The same goes for windmills - to be as selfish as to use "it ruins the view" as an excuse not to build them is incredibly self-centrered and it's excuses like this that are condemning the world to total chaos.

dradeel
06-10-2006, 16:23
I've heard chilling tales of radioactive elemets - supposedly stored in safe facilities underground - leaking into waters bellow and eventually into drinking water and water used for irrigation of crop.
Well, that's of course unacceptable. And obviously not following the safety regulations. I dislike that, of course, and it's a pity that some sloppy people will put the whole opportunity we have with nuclear power "in shame".
Not to mention as emerging markets grow and our energy consumption needs become ridiculously high we'll need a lot more nuclear powerplants to keep the demand happy.
Heh, perhaps, but first you have to come up with an alternative that is just as powerful as nuclear power, with less risks and no pollution. That's hard.. The only thing that can meet our growing energy consumption are nuclear power plants.
Of course they are not gonna bury nuclear waste where there is a risk of an earthquake, but the world is constantly changing, therefore somewhere that could be totally safe now may be incredibly dangerous in the futur
I can't talk for other than "myself" and my country (as I don't have that much knowledge about geography in other countries) and there are no danger of such disasters to happen in Norway. Yes, the world is constantly changing, but we have no problem with meeting these extremely slow changes. + We're actually storing such waste and have a couple of inactive reactors in Norway today. They're all safe and sound. No problem at all. We have all that takes to build a couple of nuclear power plants, but the political leaders are sceptical... Yet we have extremely expensive electricity prices. "Go Norway and water power!" :rolleyes:

Rachel
09-10-2006, 15:51
I can't talk for other than "myself" and my country (as I don't have that much knowledge about geography in other countries) and there are no danger of such disasters to happen in Norway.You're thinking too short-term.


***


Outcry at N Korea 'nuclear test'

North Korea's claim to have successfully carried out a nuclear weapon test underground has sparked international condemnation.

President George W Bush said the US was working to confirm the claim, which he branded a "provocative" act.

He said he and regional leaders agreed North Korea's actions were unacceptable and deserved an immediate response from the United Nations Security Council.

Security Council members are meeting in New York to discuss their reaction.

South Korean media said the test took place in Gilju in Hamgyong province at 1036 (0136 GMT).

But both the US and Japan said they had detected seismic waves. Russia said it was "100% certain" a nuclear test had occurred.

The size of the bomb is uncertain. South Korean reports put it as low as 550 tons of destructive power but Russia said it was between five and 15 kilotons. The 1945 Hiroshima bomb was 12.5-15 kilotons.

BBC diplomatic correspondent Jonathan Marcus says North Korea's claimed test does not necessarily mean it has a fully-fledged nuclear bomb or warhead that it can deliver to a target.

'Unpardonable'

In his first public statement, the US president said the North Korean claim "constitutes a threat to international peace and security."

He said he had telephoned Chinese, Japanese, Russian and South Korean leaders, who had all reaffirmed their commitment to a nuclear-free Korean peninsula.

"Once again, North Korea has defied the will of the international community, and the international community will respond," he said.

"The North Korea regime remains one of the world's leading proliferators of missile technology including transfers to Iran and Syria."

Mr Bush added that the development would not help North Korea's "oppressed and impoverished" people, who deserved a better future.

Japan's foreign ministry said Mr Bush and Japan's Prime Minister Shinzo Abe had agreed there should be "decisive UN action".

Mr Abe, currently visiting Seoul, earlier called the claimed test "unpardonable".

The region was "entering a new, dangerous nuclear age", Mr Abe said.

He said Japan and the US would step up co-operation on the missile defence system they began after a North Korean missile test in 1998.

South Korean President Roh Moo-hyun said it would be "difficult" to maintain his country's policy of engagement with the North. He feared the move could "spark a nuclear arms build-up in other countries".

The head of the South's intelligence service told lawmakers it had detected more movement at a North Korean test site and he could not rule out further nuclear tests.

In Seoul, about 500 protesters rallied against the claimed test, burning a portrait of North Korean leader Kim Jong-il.

South Korea has also suspended a scheduled aid shipment of concrete to North Korea.

In an unusually strong statement against its ally, China said the claimed test "defied the universal opposition of international society".

The BBC's Rupert Wingfield-Hayes in Beijing says China's statement is an indication of how strongly it is angered by North Korea's action, although Beijing will still be loath to support tougher sanctions against Pyongyang.

'Historic event'

When it announced the test, the North's KCNA media agency described it as an "historic event that brought happiness to our military and people".

It said the test would maintain "peace and stability" in the region and was "a great leap forward in the building of a great prosperous, powerful socialist nation". There was no radiation leak, it said.

The development comes three days after the UN Security Council agreed on a formal statement urging North Korea to cancel any planned nuclear test and return to disarmament talks.

Pyongyang pulled out of the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty in 2003 and has refused for a year to attend talks aimed at ending its nuclear ambitions.

North Korea's official media has long warned that the US was preparing to attack and developing a nuclear capability was the only way to prevent this.

If confirmed, the test would make North Korea the ninth country known to have nuclear weapons.

Source: BBC News (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/6033457.stm)

Opinions (http://newsforums.bbc.co.uk/nol/thread.jspa?threadID=4191&&&edition=1&ttl=20061009155145)

haku
14-10-2006, 03:12
N Korea 'nuclear test'It's looking more and more like this "nuclear" test was actually fake, they probably just piled up a big amount of conventional explosives and made a big boom with it. Kim Jong-il is a raging lunatic, lol.
It happened at the same time a South Korean was chosen to become the next UN secretary general, North Korea probably wanted to make a statement or something.

freddie
14-10-2006, 12:49
US goverment found traces of radiactivity in air measurements around North Korea. This would confirm a nuclear test if true.

haku
14-10-2006, 15:11
Yeah, but Japan, South Korea, and China have all said that they haven't detected any radioactivity, so at the moment i am more inclined to believe those who actually live there. :p

The simple fact that everybody is wondering if that was a nuclear explosion or not is proof enough that something is not quite right. When a nuclear explosion happens, even underground, there's no debate, everybody immediately knows that it's a nuclear explosion from its sheer power. This explosion was only 500t while a typical nuclear explosion will be considerably larger around 10kt to 20kt, so if that was indeed a nuclear test, it was a failure, that's the one thing everybody agrees on.

dradeel
14-10-2006, 16:37
You're thinking too short-term.
No, I'm not. The chance for a war to break out in Norway is minimal, and if it'll break out It'll happen far away from here before reaching norwegian soil, so we can take safety messures if so were to be the problem. The chance for a terror attack is much more likely to hit bigger countries, + if we were to live in fear of some possible terror attack all the time I think the terrorists have already won. We don't have big natural disasters as earthquakes in Norway because of the location of the country, we don't have major floods and tidal waves and stuff because of how the whole country is build up by mountains, and a soil that can get rid of large amounts of water very effective, because it rains alot up here. We have the technology to make the safest and most modern type of nuclear power plants which doesn't go up in a boom, we are already storing nuclear waste at top security, we have the money and last, but not least; we acctually have the need..! Poor people are suffering 'cause of the huge electricity prices in Norway!

What is short term about any of this..? -- Building another water plant, a houndred windmills and whatnot, is what I'd call short term. We'll only cover a small percentage of our need at the time, so we have to keep building and building, repairing and repairing, destroying more and more waterfalls, destroy more and more areas because of windmills (we can't build windmills everywhere because of too little wind or too much wind. Conditions must be perfect, therefor we'd have to fill up perfect areas with the windmills and permenantly destroy living conditions for the local inhabitants). That's not acceptable imo. THAT'S what I call short term. Why not make nuclear power plants that give us a big surplus of electricity, and at the same time use the same amount of money - if not a bigger amount - to research other alternatives or make nuclear power even safer than the ultra safe plants we are able to build today...

Would you rather that everybody closed down all their nuclear power plants at once and spend a hell alotta money to find a better alternative to build instead?
N Korea 'nuclear test'
:/ It's a pity they are doing these things. If it's actually true tho. It could be fake, aye? Hmm... either way, they are pushing limits not necessary to push.

haku
16-10-2006, 18:18
Korea 'nuclear test'So it seems it was really a nuclear test (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/6056370.stm). It's still a failure though with a yield of only about 500t.

haku
03-11-2006, 21:11
The US government has just closed one of its websites (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6114458.stm) after it was told that it contained detailed technical documents about how to make nuclear bombs. Those confidential documents were seized in Iraq afer the invasion, and the US government simply posted them online for everybody to see without even checking what was in them.
Those nuclear bomb tech specs were freely available online for several weeks, so closing the website is of little effect as it's ovious that its content has been duplicated many times and spread all over the net by now.

The stupidity of Bush and his pals knows no limit.

Invading Iraq: $100 billion
Setting up a website to publish stuff you don't understand: $100,000
Posting online nuclear bomb schematics without even noticing it: priceless

spyretto
03-11-2006, 21:55
The North Korean nuclear test was very real, and they'll be hitting Alaska next.
The tidal wave will be enough to drown the coastal areas.
Good to see so many experts in nuclear science in here :)

dradeel
03-11-2006, 22:48
Invading Iraq: $100 billion
Setting up a website to publish stuff you don't understand: $100,000
Posting online nuclear bomb schematics without even noticing it: priceless
:laugh: Someone should make a little commercial-thingie like that. Hehehe. It would be a youtube-hit, easily ;)