Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

http://hosted.ap.org/specials/interactives/_documents/ahmadinejad0509.pdf

Of course Bush did not even want to read it.

I don't think he can read, anyways.

bush is a useless puppet. who gives a **** if he reads it?
however, you would think that two psychotic wingnut religion freaks would see eye to eye.

That is my point in posting this, he might be religous but do not hold that against him, he(The President of Iran) is obviously a very intelligent man and I was surprised at how great this letter is, he says everything so respectfully and I do not think you can compare him to someone like Bush.

Originally posted by crazy
That is my point in posting this, he might be religous but do not hold that against him, he(The President of Iran) is obviously a very intelligent man and I was surprised at how great this letter is, he says everything so respectfully and I do not think you can compare him to someone like Bush.

hitler was far more intelligent. speaking of seeing eye to eye, notice his denial of the holocaust and damnation of isreals right to exist. the guy is an a$$hole, and a dangerous one. and if you cant see the endless barbs of his "respect" you are blind. i'll grant that he makes some good points, but his twisted rhetoric as i stated discredits him, as well as you for offering such unconditional agreement.

Bush is a pure coward ... he only knows violence and he actually thinks that killing is the answer to everything, which will lead him to no good

Damn, this forum's pretty liberal. I thought I was realitively liberal, but after this I'm not sure. It's like being stuck inside a Green Day song.

im sorry, but unconditional agreement with the iranian president is not a liberal quality...more of an a$$hole quality.

bush zombie: "SAME THING!!! LOLZZZ!!!111"

wow that was funny

Originally posted by PVS
im sorry, but unconditional agreement with the iranian president is not a liberal quality...more of an a$$hole quality.

bush zombie: "SAME THING!!! LOLZZZ!!!111"

wow that was funny

To be against Iran having the right to use Nuclear Power for peacful purposes is pretty unliberal as well.

read the letter, for it was what i adressed.
hint: it does not read:

dear mr. bush,

can we have nuclear power? please please pretty please?

all my love,
mahmood

Originally posted by PVS
read the letter, for it was what i adressed.
hint: it does not read:

dear mr. bush,

can we have nuclear power? please please pretty please?

all my love,
mahmood How did you adress the letter?


But anyways, he makes some very good points. And then he makes some very religious points, which, seeing that he writes the letter to the Religious George Bush are probably also right.

So with what in the letter do you disagree, the first 8 pages are just right.

Sure, it is propaganda rhetoric. But the points he makes are right. And liberal thinkers should agree.

the guy denies that the holocaust ever happened along with his denial that isreal has a right to exist as a state. its in the letter.

yeah, what a diplomatic champion.

Originally posted by PVS
the guy denies that the holocaust ever happened along with his denial that isreal has a right to exist as a state. its in the letter.

yeah, what a diplomatic champion.

Wait....you said you only adress the letter. He didn't say the Holocaust never happend.

As for the Israel thing. His points are quite clear. And i think he is right.

here it is:

"Students are saying that sixty years ago such a country did not exist. They show old documents and globes and say try as we have, we have not been able to find a country named Israel.

I tell them to study the history of WWI and II. One of my students told me that during WWII, which more than tens of millions of people perished in, news about the war, was quickly disseminated by the warring parties. Each touted their victories and the most recent battlefront defeat of the other party. After the war they claimed that six million Jews had been killed. Six million people that were surely related to at least two million families.

Again let us assume that these events are true. Does that logically translate into the establishment of the state of Israel in the Middle East or support for such a state? How can this phenomenon be rationalized or explained?"


again:
"After the war they claimed that six million Jews had been killed."
"Again let us assume that these events are true."

do you want to be a sucker for mildly coded speak, or shall we call a spade a spade?

Originally posted by PVS
here it is:

"Students are saying that sixty years ago such a country did not exist. They show old documents and globes and say try as we have, we have not been able to find a country named Israel.

I tell them to study the history of WWI and II. One of my students told me that during WWII, which more than tens of millions of people perished in, news about the war, was quickly disseminated by the warring parties. Each touted their victories and the most recent battlefront defeat of the other party. After the war they claimed that six million Jews had been killed. Six million people that were surely related to at least two million families.

Again let us assume that these events are true. Does that logically translate into the establishment of the state of Israel in the Middle East or support for such a state? How can this phenomenon be rationalized or explained?"


again:
"After the war they claimed that six million Jews had been killed."
"Again let us assume that these events are true."

do you want to be a sucker for mildly coded speak, or shall we call a spade a spade?

I'd prefer to be a sucker for mildly coded speak. So he didn't say it after all. Good, good.

So he still makes very good points, doesn't he?

Originally posted by PVS
i'll grant that he makes some good points, but his twisted rhetoric as i stated discredits him,

Originally posted by PVS


Yeah, so he still makes good points. Why does his rhetoric discredit him, since he is clearly making good points?

he is obviously an antisemite bent of destroying isreal. so lets give him nuclear capabilities? there are very few things i agree with bush about.

1-barbeque ribs: yummy
2-choking on a prezel: bad
3-giving that psychotic ******* nuclear capability: insane and suicidal

Originally posted by PVS
he is obviously an antisemite bent of destroying isreal. so lets give him nuclear capabilities? there are very few things i agree with bush about.

1-barbeque ribs: yummy
2-choking on a prezel: bad
3-giving that psychotic ******* nuclear capability: insane and suicidal

I see....well I disagree. Iran just like any other country has the right to use Nuclear Energy.It is clean and cheap and rather safe....so good for them. Israel on the other hand already HAS nuclear energy (not to forget that chances are they also have nuclear weapons)...quite a double standard. Not very liberal. Actually rather fascist....

Originally posted by Bardock42
I see....well I disagree. Iran just like any other country has the right to use Nuclear Energy.It is clean and cheap and rather safe....so good for them. Israel on the other hand already HAS nuclear energy (not to forget that chances are they also have nuclear weapons)...quite a double standard. Not very liberal. Actually rather fascist....

yeah i know. double standard. hypocrite. america wages so many wars and is the only nation to have actually USED nuclear weapons on an enemy...etc. well its all true and by principal you are correct.

reality though is much more harsh and far less neatly packaged and fairly dealt.
the answer is to get rid of nukes, not give them to everyone. i refuse to die of radiation burns in the name of good principles. fascist? whatever. i'd rather be a living breathing facist than a dead smouldering idealist who handed his enemy the means to render his people extinct, all just to be fair.

Originally posted by PVS
yeah i know. double standard. hypocrite. america wages so many wars and is the only nation to have actually USED nuclear weapons on an enemy...etc. well its all true and by principal you are correct.

reality though is much more harsh and far less neatly packaged and fairly dealt.
the answer is to get rid of nukes, not give them to everyone. i refuse to die of radiation burns in the name of good principles. fascist? whatever. i'd rather be a living breathing facist than a dead smouldering idealist who handed his enemy the means to render his people extinct, all just to be fair.

Not only America. All nations that claim to be "free" and "liberal"....all liars it turns out.

Reality is, you don't give them nuclear weapons. You giver them the right to use Nuclear Energy. A right they have. Or should at least
Even if they had Nuclear Warheads...would they be able to use them on America....or Europe? Probably not. There is no real threat.

Originally posted by Bardock42
There is no real threat.

i'm not going to pretend that the western world didnt bring it upon themselves/ourselves, but we made them a threat. now the end result is a population who hates america and wouldnt lose a wink of sleep if isreal was blown off the map, and most likely wouldnt have any moral dilemma if their own president ordered the strike. but is it relevant here who created the threat, or is the existance of that threat more relevant?

Originally posted by PVS
i'm not going to pretend that the western world didnt bring it upon themselves/ourselves, but we made them a threat. now the end result is a population who hates america and wouldnt lose a wink of sleep if isreal was blown off the map, and most likely wouldnt have any moral dilemma if their own president ordered the strike. but is it relevant here who created the threat, or is the existance of that threat more relevant?

Don't see it. Wouldn't lose any sleep if Iran had a billion nukes. Then again I don't live in teh US....but still. I think people are always jsut to scared nowadays. Pointless.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Don't see it. Wouldn't lose any sleep if Iran had a billion nukes. Then again I don't live in teh US....but still. I think people are always jsut to scared nowadays. Pointless.

ever hear of fallout? or the fact that if the wind blew in another direction on 4/25/86 you might have 3 heads and five arms?

Originally posted by PVS
ever hear of fallout? or the fact that if the wind blew in another direction on 4/25/86 you might have 3 heads and five arms?

Yeah, shit happens. So what. Being scared 24/7 is not much better than being dead. So taking the chances that I die because of Iran developing Nuclear Wepons. Well **** it, I think I will just stay calm and be not scared of the killer bees, the mad cow disease, the communists or the Avian flu that will kill us all...boo hoo.

scared? why not just let a rabid weasel crawl up your pants leg to prove how brave you are. i'll be impressed

but nowhere did i meantion fear. i only implied prevention.
if there is a cure for the avian flu will you refuse it to prove that you're not scared?

Originally posted by PVS
scared? why not just let a rabid weasel crawl up your pants leg to prove how brave you are. i'll be impressed

but nowhere did i meantion fear. i only implied prevention.
if there is a cure for the avian flu will you refuse it to prove that you're not scared?

Nah, I don't like pain. Or being dead I suppose. Or dying in pain....hmmm yeah. But being scared of stuff that is just not scary. Like Iran using nuclear energy is stupid. And that#S the point. People don't want IRan to have the energy because they are scared. There's not really any other reason. Or is there?

Originally posted by Bardock42
Nah, I don't like pain. Or being dead I suppose. Or dying in pain....hmmm yeah. But being scared of stuff that is just not scary. Like Iran using nuclear energy is stupid. And that#S the point. People don't want IRan to have the energy because they are scared. There's not really any other reason. Or is there?

perhaps thier reason would be the same as yours for not proving what a man you are via weasel up the pants leg:
"Nah, I don't like pain. Or being dead I suppose. Or dying in pain....hmmm yeah."

Originally posted by PVS
perhaps thier reason would be the same as yours for not proving what a man you are via weasel up the pants leg:
"Nah, I don't like pain. Or being dead I suppose. Or dying in pain....hmmm yeah."

Rabid weasel up my leg = real pain
Iran having nuclear energy = no pain
Being a hypocrite, claiming freedom for everyone but denying it out of selfishness = very much real pain (then again hypocrites don't realize what they are, so it's fine I guess)

Originally posted by Bardock42
Rabid weasel up my leg = real pain
Iran having nuclear energy = no pain
Being a hypocrite, claiming freedom for everyone but denying it out of selfishness = very much real pain (then again hypocrites don't realize what they are, so it's fine I guess)

oh well. so im a hypocrite for not wanting to allow a psychotic freak the power to obliterate me.


<----hypocrite

whatever

Originally posted by PVS
oh well. so im a hypocrite for not wanting to allow a psychotic freak the power to obliterate me.


<----hypocrite

whatever

Yeah...basically. Sorry 'bout that.

Originally posted by PVS
oh well. so im a hypocrite for not wanting to allow a psychotic freak the power to obliterate me.


<----hypocrite

whatever

Couldn't have said that any better.

Bardock, I'm not sure what world you're living in, but Iran isn't exactly "STABLE" as a country. It's not fear, it's common sense. Iran is leaded by a religious leader who would probably like nothing more than to hold the entire world hostage in order to benefit his own "SELF-INTEREST".

Originally posted by Phoenix2001
Couldn't have said that any better.

Bardock, I'm not sure what world you're living in, but Iran isn't exactly "STABLE" as a country. It's not fear, it's common sense. Iran is leaded by a religious leader who would probably like nothing more than to hold the entire world hostage in order to benefit his own "SELF-INTEREST".

Nuclear Energy for peaceful purposes.

If your crazy dictator may invade a country for the fun of it I think the people in Iran deserve the chance to use nuclear energy.
I know, it will be much harder to conquer Iran then, so I guess I understand why Bush doesn't want it, but, well, that's why he is a hypocrite after all.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Nuclear Energy for peaceful purposes.

If your crazy dictator may invade a country for the fun of it I think the people in Iran deserve the chance to use nuclear energy.

there is the flaw in your logic. basically "if one lunatic can have nuclear capabilities than ALL lunatics should have nuclear capabilities"
there are some bad cops out there who are basically criminals with a badge and gun. so should we give all criminals a badge and a gun to make it fair?

Originally posted by Bardock42
Nuclear Energy for peaceful purposes.

Nuclear power given to a middle-eastern country that raises soldiers into believing that all other countries that do not believe the same they do and then attacking them because they're mindwashed in thinking those countries are part of the Devil's order for peacful purposes? Riiiiiggggggghhhhhtttt......

Originally posted by Bardock42
If your crazy dictator may invade a country for the fun of it I think the people in Iran deserve the chance to use nuclear energy.
I know, it will be much harder to conquer Iran then, so I guess I understand why Bush doesn't want it, but, well, that's why he is a hypocrite after all.

Well, when your country is attacked and a few thousand people are killed, then you can say that liberal countries are hypocrites.

Originally posted by Phoenix2001
Well, when your country is attacked and a few thousand people are killed, then you can say that liberal countries are hypocrites.

this has nothing to do with 9/11 at all.

Originally posted by Phoenix2001
Nuclear power given to a middle-eastern country that raises soldiers into believing that all other countries that do not believe the same they do and then attacking them because they're mindwashed in thinking those countries are part of the Devil's order for peacful purposes? Riiiiiggggggghhhhhtttt......



Well, when your country is attacked and a few thousand people are killed, then you can say that liberal countries are hypocrites.

Yes.

No, you get me wrong I am not saying that liberal countries are hypocrites. I am saying that a country claiming to be liberal and then denying others freedom is hypocritical. So, not liberal at all.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Yes.

No, you get me wrong I am not saying that liberal countries are hypocrites. I am saying that a country claiming to be liberal and then denying others freedom is hypocritical. So, not liberal at all.

well, that certainly applies to those who think america is unconditionally liberal. however i think that being unconditionally liberal is the way of the jackass

Originally posted by PVS
well, that certainly applies to those who think america is unconditionally liberal. however i think that being unconditionally liberal is the way of the jackass

Yeah. That's probably true. Still, I think allowing Iran to have Nuclear Energy, and obviously checking on that, would be not only acceptable, but very much fair as well.

I did not mean to say that I unconditionally agree with him, I said he makes good points which is true. The thing is you see him as some kind of monster comparing him to Hitler, that he is not. I do not think he was saying that the Holocaust did not occur but that it did not give them the right to make the state of Israel.

bush is f uckin idiot eveyone agrees and his voters are much more f uken idiots

i know ... i cant believe people still vote for him .. its so sad

Originally posted by crazy
I do not think he was saying that the Holocaust did not occur but that it did not give them the right to make the state of Israel.

read the words i quoted. im not going to argue the obvious.
i find it annoying that people's hatred for bush would drive them to
overlook the twisted shit his enemies say and do. its called coded speak. "lets just assume that this is true" means "this is bullshit, but i'll play along". it pisses me off till no end when people refuse to open their eyes and see the truth of what others say.

Originally posted by Phoenix2001
but Iran isn't exactly "STABLE" as a country.

No more or less so than is Iraq.


This letter is interesting. It comes from one man that extends his middle finger to us in one respect, but feels the need to write us a letter in another. Grand standing suddenly has a new meaning.

Long story short, this guy is trying to avoid Nuclear War, while possesing none of the ability to wage such a war. It's loud mouth nonsense from a ...well...loud mouth, nonsensical, person.

For the time being, the third world is still not a threat. But that won't stay the same forever. And why not give the repressed class an equal chance?

Don't forget on which basis this man was elected. This is a theocrisy. If you want to do something about this stupidity, then elect someone who knows what it means to have a true seperation of church and state. Bush doesn't. And not because he does or does not believe in god. But, because he brings that card to the table in the first fu*king place. God granted us "free will"?..."free will" implies a seperation of church and state....not the other way round.

Originally posted by PVS
read the words i quoted. im not going to argue the obvious.
i find it annoying that people's hatred for bush would drive them to
overlook the twisted shit his enemies say and do. its called coded speak. "lets just assume that this is true" means "this is bullshit, but i'll play along". it pisses me off till no end when people refuse to open their eyes and see the truth of what others say.

Dude, it is known that he doesn't believe the Holocaust happen, but guess what just because eh thinks something that I don't agree with doesn't mean that the rest of his opinions are wrong (especially the ones clearly stated in the letter).

Originally posted by Bardock42
Dude, it is known that he doesn't believe the Holocaust happen, but guess what just because eh thinks something that I don't agree with doesn't mean that the rest of his opinions are wrong (especially the ones clearly stated in the letter).

when he uses it to justify his will to eliminate isreal, yes its a huge problem. this isnt some dumb redneck sitting on his porch with a banjo on his knee waiting for his welfare check. this is a man who can spark a war at the snap of his fingers.

Originally posted by PVS
when he uses it to justify his will to eliminate isreal, yes its a huge problem. this isnt some dumb redneck sitting on his porch with a banjo on his knee waiting for his welfare check. this is a man who can spark a war at the snap of his fingers.

Yeah. he didn't do it yet, did he.

Also he has a point, how is Israel justified?

how is any nation justified?

Originally posted by PVS
how is any nation justified?

Yeah exactly...so what's yout problem?

Originally posted by Bardock42
Yeah exactly...so what's yout problem?

because the overthrow and destruction of a nation is not justified.

Originally posted by PVS
because the overthrow and destruction of a nation is not justified.

Just as much as nations themselves are I'd say. Also, he didn't do it. Also, the letter is not about it. Also, Iran using Nuclear Energy for PEACEFUL purposes has nothing to do with it.

be blind if you wish. lets just pretend his hatred for jews isnt so powerful that he couldnt even leave it out of a letter appealing to the u.s. president for nuclear capabilities.

mahmood: "ok...here we go....stay on the point...dont bash the jews...focus on nuclear energy..*deap breath* *begins typing*


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
dear mr. bush,

we are only a peaceful people and only wish to harness nuclear
power to benefit our people and further prosperity. i fail to see why
our nation should be forbidden from enjoying the same luxury as our
foreign neighbors. please, with all due respect, i emplore you to reconsider your decision.

love,
mahmood

p.s. did you know that the holocaust never happened and the jews dont belong in the middle east? its a funny story actually. you see, back when the allies won the war---
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

mahmood: "I DID IT AGAIN!!! DAMNIT!" *crinkles up paper and types letter again*

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
dear mr. bush,

we are a peaceful people and only wish to kill the jews---.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

mahmood: "SHIT!!!!" *crinkle up second piece of paper*

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
dear mr. bush,

SEIG HEIL!!!! SEIG HEIL!!!! SEIG HEIL!!!!!---


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

mahmood: "ok i'll just have to try again tomorrow"

It's "Sieg Heil" actually, but still pretty amusing.


But his hate for Jews has nothing....wait, what was that? Nothing? Yes, NOTHING to do with what he wants from Bush....totally pointless.

Iran deserves and has by all means the right to use Nuclear Energy...that'S the point...nothing else. Jews have nothing to do with it.

Originally posted by Bardock42
It's "Sieg Heil" actually, but still pretty amusing.


But his hate for Jews has nothing....wait, what was that? Nothing? Yes, NOTHING to do with what he wants from Bush....totally pointless.

Iran deserves and has by all means the right to use Nuclear Energy...that'S the point...nothing else. Jews have nothing to do with it.

then i guess the letter has nothing to do with the topic...but it IS the topic...hmmm.....im confused now....its like a topical paradox

oh well, while we are making pointless absolute statements:
Iran does NOT deserve and has by all means NO right to use Nuclear Energy...that'S the point

Originally posted by PVS
then i guess the letter has nothing to do with the topic...but it IS the topic...hmmm.....im confused now....its like a topical paradox

oh well, while we are making pointless absolute statements:
Iran does NOT deserve and has by all means NO right to use Nuclear Energy...that'S the point

I think the letter pretty much asks for them being allowed to use nuclear energy, doesn't it? Yeah it does.

It does on the other hand NOT say a word about the Holocaust not happening. Coded speak sure...whatever, but it is only one line anyways. So, just drop the pointlessness would be nice.

I see. Good then, voted NSDAP lately?

Originally posted by Bardock42
I think the letter pretty much asks for them being allowed to use nuclear energy, doesn't it? Yeah it does.

It does on the other hand NOT say a word about the Holocaust not happening. Coded speak sure...whatever, but it is only one line anyways. So, just drop the pointlessness would be nice.

I see. Good then, voted NSDAP lately?

it discredits him and exposes an agenda.

so, no i will not drop it, for it is part of the letter and the letter is the topic.
i will not selectively ignore key points of this letter just because YOU want the
topic to only be about nuclear energy, which it obviously isnt. sorry if that annoys you...but tough titties

Originally posted by PVS
it discredits him and exposes an agenda.

so, no i will not drop it, for it is part of the letter and the letter is the topic.
i will not selectively ignore key points of this letter just because YOU want the
topic to only be about nuclear energy, which it obviously isnt. sorry if that annoys you...but tough titties

It's ONE issue. And with most others actually mentioned in the letter he is spot on.

Yeah, the letter is the topic. He does not say that the Holocaust never happened.
Nuclear Energy is his topic. He wrote the letter for that reason. And a few other propaganda ones. You only want to talk about him denying the Holocaust though. That's unfair. If you want to talk about the letter then talk about it. Not what he didn't say in the letter but what he did.

Originally posted by Bardock42
You only want to talk about him denying the Holocaust though. That's unfair. If you want to talk about the letter then talk about it. Not what he didn't say in the letter but what he did.

lets assume, just for the sake of argument, that world war 2 actually happened and that there was such a thing as isreal...would this argument still have a point?

i think its very fair to deny his ass nuclear capabilities on the grounds that he is a frikin lunatic. to try to rewrite history to fit yout agenda is the act of a lunatic. and quite frankly i find it a cheap ploy to pretend that said coded speak doesnt exist. to argue it beyond that is pointless if you refuse to see it.

Originally posted by PVS
this has nothing to do with 9/11 at all.

This has EVERYTHING to do with 9/11. I'm sure that if the middle-east had another chance, they'd do it again.

Originally posted by PVS
lets assume, just for the sake of argument, that world war 2 actually happened and that there was such a thing as isreal...would this argument still have a point?

i think its very fair to deny his ass nuclear capabilities on the grounds that he is a frikin lunatic. to try to rewrite history to fit yout agenda is the act of a lunatic. and quite frankly i find it a cheap ploy to pretend that said coded speak doesnt exist. to argue it beyond that is pointless if you refuse to see it.
Okay, lets assume it. For the sake of the argument.


I didn't say that it doesn't exist. I said it doesn't matter. It's a whole different issue.
Also, why him? Why not Israel? Why not Pakistan? Why not the US (yeah, to be honest, much more afraid of the US than of Iran.....)

Originally posted by Bardock42
Okay, lets assume it. For the sake of the argument.


I didn't say that it doesn't exist. I said it doesn't matter. It's a whole different issue.
Also, why him? Why not Israel? Why not Pakistan? Why not the US (yeah, to be honest, much more afraid of the US than of Iran.....)

Wow... why not give a whole load of weapons to a bunch folks who would like nothing better than to take the world for their own. Rather, not the weapons, they already have those... just the ingredients such as, well, I don't know... PLUTONIUM.

Honestly, do you really think blind religious physchos will sit back and let the world live in an open minded global community? I wouldn't if I wanted to be famous for conquering the world.

Originally posted by Phoenix2001
Wow... why not give a whole load of weapons to a bunch folks who would like nothing better than to take the world for their own.

Honestly, do you really think blind religious physchos will sit back and let the world live in an open minded global community? I wouldn't if I wanted to be famous for conquering the world.

What the...it's not giving them weapons. If at all, they develope them on their own (and that would not be allowed by the UN) ...and this is about them having the right to use Nuclear Energy for peaceful purposes....how can youd eny them that? And people wonder why there is hate for the West.

They don't have the chance to, since the world is not an open minded community......it seems like it at some points but turns out they are jsut selfish fascists....what a surprise.

Originally posted by Bardock42
What the...it's not giving them weapons. If at all, they develope them on their own (and that would not be allowed by the UN) ...and this is about them having the right to use Nuclear Energy for peaceful purposes....how can youd eny them that? And people wonder why there is hate for the West.

And what do you think they need to build nuclear weapons with?

If anyone hates the West, it's mostly out of jealous idiocy.

Originally posted by Phoenix2001
And what do you think they need to build nuclear weapons with?

If anyone hates the West, it's mostly out of jealous idiocy.

Dunno....water, some sort of metal...explosives...plutonium....you know the usual. What's your point?

Originally posted by Bardock42
They don't have the chance to, since the world is not an open minded community......it seems like it at some points but turns out they are jsut selfish fascists....what a surprise.

Then tell why exactly are we having these debates then.

Originally posted by Phoenix2001
Then tell why exactly are we having these debates then.

Because I don't like it.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Dunno....water, some sort of metal...explosives...plutonium....you know the usual. What's your point?

My point is Iran, and any third world country that has no seperation of their religious beliefs from their state, would like nothing better than to dominate you, me, and everyone else in it so that they can satisfy their own ego. And I am speaking of the leaders of these little rogue countries.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Because I don't like it.

I don't suppose a dictator would actually care what you like. He would kill you instead.

Originally posted by Phoenix2001
I don't suppose a dictator would actually care what you like. He would kill you instead.

Probably not, but just because we do have freedom doesn't mean we should deny it others.

Originally posted by Phoenix2001
My point is Iran, and any third world country that has no seperation of their religious beliefs from their state, would like nothing better than to dominate you, me, and everyone else in it so that they can satisfy their own ego. And I am speaking of the leaders of these little rogue countries.

Only assumptions.

Nut why do not all those free and fair countries set an example and not only destroy their nukes but also stop using nuclear energy? Hypocrites.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Probably not, but just because we do have freedom doesn't mean we should deny it others.

Nobody is denying them any freedom.


Originally posted by Bardock42
Only assumptions.

Nut why do not all those free and fair countries set an example and not only destroy their nukes but also stop using nuclear energy? Hypocrites.

If you wanna get deeper than what it already is, then yes it is an assumption. But can you really prove that Iran wants nuclear energy for peaceful purposes? Don't think so.

If anything, free and fair countries are setting an example. Countries such as Iran don't want to follow the example.

Originally posted by Phoenix2001
Nobody is denying them any freedom.




If you wanna get deeper than what it already is, then yes it is an assumption. But can you really prove that Iran wants nuclear energy for peaceful purposes? Don't think so.

If anything, free and fair countries are setting an example. Countries such as Iran don't want to follow the example.

So they can develope nuclear energy? Well, then everything is jsut dandy.


No, can I prove that you want to buy this fork for peaceful purposes? No, i can't. But I think you have the right to.

Not at all. Those "free" and "fair" coutries do not set an example, they are behaving very ignorant. And when the countries like Iran want to follow the example and built Nuclear Plants as well the "free" and "fair" countries deny them that.

Originally posted by Bardock42
So they can develope nuclear energy? Well, then everything is jsut dandy.


No, can I prove that you want to buy this fork for peaceful purposes? No, i can't. But I think you have the right to.

Not at all. Those "free" and "fair" coutries do not set an example, they are behaving very ignorant. And when the countries like Iran want to follow the example and built Nuclear Plants as well the "free" and "fair" countries deny them that.

It's not a matter of rights. It's a matter of trust. And they've done nothing in the past to be trusted with nuclear energy. If Iran is truly trying to follow the example of a free country then how is it that we can see no sign of democracy being exercised?

Originally posted by Phoenix2001
It's not a matter of rights. It's a matter of trust. And they've done nothing in the past to be trusted with nuclear energy. If Iran is truly trying to follow the example of a free country then how is it that we can see no sign of democracy being exercised?

It's not a matter of trust. No one asked for trust when the US made Nukes...or when the USSR did...or France....or Britain...or India...or Pakistan...or Israel....

And here it is not about Nuclear Warheads...it is about simple Nuclear Energy for peaceful purposes.

Originally posted by Bardock42
It's not a matter of trust. No one asked for trust when the US made Nukes...or when the USSR did...or France....or Britain...or India...or Pakistan...or Israel....

And here it is not about Nuclear Warheads...it is about simple Nuclear Energy for peaceful purposes.

Only, today, the world is not at a full scale war.

Originally posted by Phoenix2001
Only, today, the world is not at a full scale war.

So the world became less free after teh "full scale war"? Pathetic.

Originally posted by Bardock42
So the world became less free after teh "full scale war"? Pathetic.

What? How has the world become less free? You did say one time that you were from Germany, yes? Considering the fact that there's no Nazi dictatorship existing there anymore, I'd say the world has done a pretty good job in expanding liberty in the last 60 years, don't you think?

Originally posted by Phoenix2001
This has EVERYTHING to do with 9/11. I'm sure that if the middle-east had another chance, they'd do it again.

so i guess after WW2 we should have disarmed all european nations?
or are you just thinking in the manner of double standards in which you were trained to think?

sit...now heel

How come the US and its allies are allowed to have NUKES will the rest of the world doesnt. Why cant CANADA have at least 1 nuke, CANADAs tugboats cant be doing peace keeping for ever.

i think nobody should have nukes, but thats not the issue.
nuclear power, a PORTION of the topic, also presents direct access
to materials for making nuclear weapons.

anyway, quite frankly i think in its current state iran is in no way a safe candidate for this technology.
so far i have seen no decent rebuttal to that which helps me see that they in fact are. all i see are accusations of hypocrisy and PC mentallity stretched to its extreme and irrational end. given iran's recent history, i feel they are unsafe. unsafe. unsafe.




think im scared? a coward?
if caution makes me a coward, than your bravery makes you a reckless idiot.

The point is it doesn't have to be safe. It's not a safe world.

thats great. why dont you go play russian roulette to back up this genius philosophy.

oops double post

Originally posted by PVS
thats great. why dont you go play russian roulette to back up this genius philosophy.

You seriously think if they allow Iran to use Nuclear Energy....that this will lead to the usage of Nuclear Bombs?

Originally posted by Bardock42
You seriously think if they allow Iran to use Nuclear Energy....that this will lead to the usage of Nuclear Bombs?

yes.

Originally posted by PVS
yes.

Alright....how do you think it will be possible to stop Iran?

Originally posted by Bardock42
Alright....how do you think it will be possible to stop Iran?

i dont think it is really possible. i think only time will cure everything. time+u.s. and western nations not making a grand frikin experiment out of the entire region and making them hate us with a rabid viciousness.

Originally posted by PVS
i dont think it is really possible. i think only time will cure everything. time+u.s. and western nations not making a grand frikin experiment out of the entire region and making them hate us with a rabid viciousness.

Yeah, would really suck to make them hate us that much....wait a minute...aren't we jsut doing that by denying them to use Nuclear Energy?

Originally posted by PVS
so i guess after WW2 we should have disarmed all european nations?
or are you just thinking in the manner of double standards in which you were trained to think?

sit...now heel

If you're trying to compare Europe in those days to the middle-east of today then you're trying to compare apples with oranges.

Originally posted by PVS
i think nobody should have nukes, but thats not the issue.
nuclear power, a PORTION of the topic, also presents direct access
to materials for making nuclear weapons.

anyway, quite frankly i think in its current state iran is in no way a safe candidate for this technology.
so far i have seen no decent rebuttal to that which helps me see that they in fact are. all i see are accusations of hypocrisy and PC mentallity stretched to its extreme and irrational end. given iran's recent history, i feel they are unsafe. unsafe. unsafe.




think im scared? a coward?
if caution makes me a coward, than your bravery makes you a reckless idiot.

Well said.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Yeah, would really suck to make them hate us that much....wait a minute...aren't we jsut doing that by denying them to use Nuclear Energy?
yes, because nuclear energy is the only way they can advance and improve their infrastructure. there are no other sources of power for them to exploit. without nuclear energy we are damning them to the stone age. is that what you think?

and btw, i think the greatest step to not pissing the commoners of the region off is to...oh i dont know...stop bombing the shit out of them. i think once that hurdle is achieved solutions will miraculously present themselves and we wouldnt have to debate this any longer.

Originally posted by PVS
yes, because nuclear energy is the only way they can advance and improve their infrastructure. there are no other sources of power for them to exploit. without nuclear energy we are damning them to the stone age. is that what you think?

and btw, i think the greatest step to not pissing the commoners of the region off is to...oh i dont know...stop bombing the shit out of them. i think once that hurdle is achieved solutions will miraculously present themselves and we wouldnt have to debate this any longer.

No, but it is certainly a technology that advances a society.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Yeah, would really suck to make them hate us that much....wait a minute...aren't we jsut doing that by denying them to use Nuclear Energy?

Iranians have hated us for years.

Originally posted by Bardock42
No, but it is certainly a technology that advances a society.

it is not a necessity, nor is it a power source of such dwarving magnitude to be essential. they dont need it. and furthermore, if the region is stablized i doubt the people would care either way. its just a buzz topic which their president keeps pushing to rally support for him and anger for the u.s. and isreal. its a tool for him, not a solution.

Originally posted by Bardock42
No, but it is certainly a technology that advances a society.

And as soon as they can learn to behave they will advance.

Originally posted by PVS
it is not a necessity, nor is it a power source of such dwarving magnitude to be essential. they dont need it. and furthermore, if the region is stablized i doubt the people would care either way. its just a buzz topic which their president keeps pushing to rally support for him and anger for the u.s. and isreal. its a tool for him, not a solution.

Yeah...a strong tool....lets take that tool.

Also, what should they use as energy instead? Nuclear Energy is quite good...and clean.

Originally posted by Phoenix2001
And as soon as they can learn to behave they will advance.

Ah, yeah...right...maybe as soon as you don't hold them back they will advance.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Yeah...a strong tool....lets take that tool.

Also, what should they use as energy instead? Nuclear Energy is quite good...and clean.


they could perhaps use oil, though im sure they may have trouble finding it.
and...clean? yeah, im sure the iranian president wants nuclear energy because he's very concerned over global warming and melting icecaps.

Originally posted by PVS
they could perhaps use oil, though im sure they may have trouble finding it.
and...clean? yeah, im sure the iranian president wants nuclear energy because he's very concerned over global warming and melting icecaps.

Well, the Iranian President maybe not...but we are, aren't we?

I very, very much prefer them using nuclear energy to them using oil....

Originally posted by Phoenix2001
I suppose. Or rather it is just the leaders lieing to them saying that all democracies are a part of the Devil's doing.

do me a favor. if you agree with anything else i have to say on this topic, please keep it to yourself. kthx

Originally posted by Bardock42
Well, the Iranian President maybe not...but we are, aren't we?

I very, very much prefer them using nuclear energy to them using oil....

in an ideal situation, yes. however radiation fallout can have far worse of an environmental impact than burning oil. i'll choose the lesser of two pollutants.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Yeah...a strong tool....lets take that tool.

Also, what should they use as energy instead? Nuclear Energy is quite good...and clean.



Ah, yeah...right...maybe as soon as you don't hold them back they will advance.

You have to understand that the people are not making the decisions. Their leaders are. And usually their leaders are murder committing asswhipes that take advantage of their ****ing religion in order to serve their own interest.

Originally posted by Phoenix2001
You have to understand that the people are not making the decisions. Their leaders are. And usually their leaders are murder committing asswhipes that take advantage of their ****ing religion in order to serve their own interest.

what a double edged sword you wield

Originally posted by PVS
do me a favor. if you agree with anything else i have to say on this topic, please keep it to yourself. kthx

Alright. But some of the stuff you have stated is very good, so I just figured I'd compliment you on some of it.

Originally posted by PVS
in an ideal situation, yes. however radiation fallout can have far worse of an environmental impact than burning oil. i'll choose the lesser of two pollutants.

I don't know...if global warming is due to burning oil, I'd say I take Chernobyl over Melting Ice Caps

Originally posted by Phoenix2001
You have to understand that the people are not making the decisions. Their leaders are. And usually their leaders are murder committing asswhipes that take advantage of their ****ing religion in order to serve their own interest.

You have to understand that you have no clue what you are talking about.
I somehow feel the urge to bring Bush back up...but even if it's true, the Nuclear Energy could still be a great advantage to the people that live there.

Originally posted by Bardock42
I don't know...if global warming is due to burning oil, I'd say I take Chernobyl over Melting Ice Caps

so long as the wind blows east?

i dont know...i can swim pretty good, but radiation is a b!tch

Originally posted by Bardock42
I somehow feel the urge to bring Bush back up..

beat you to it

Originally posted by PVS
what a double edged sword you wield

Originally posted by Bardock42
I don't know...if global warming is due to burning oil, I'd say I take Chernobyl over Melting Ice Caps



You have to understand that you have no clue what you are talking about.
I somehow feel the urge to bring Bush back up...but even if it's true, the Nuclear Energy could still be a great advantage to the people that live there.

Then educate me.

Originally posted by PVS
so long as the wind blows east?

i dont know...i can swim pretty good, but radiation is a b!tch

Maybe, but Melting Ice Caps is pretty certain.....another Chernobyl most unlikely.


Originally posted by PVS
beat you to it

Yeah, was close though.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Maybe, but Melting Ice Caps is pretty certain.....another Chernobyl most unlikely.

however global warming has not been determined to be caused by man. not only that but the impact iran would have would be miniscule considering the fuel consumption of everyone else. but we are in devils advocate land arent we?

Originally posted by PVS
however global warming has not been determined to be caused by man. not only that but the impact iran would have would be miniscule considering the fuel consumption of everyone else. but we are in devils advocate land arent we? Yeah, probably...I'm just wondering what the West could do about it anyways...I mean considering the US had an Atomic Bomb a good 60 years ago...I just think if Iran really wants a nuke...they probably can get one (or a few). Without going through the trouble of using Nuclear Power Plants.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Yeah, probably...I'm just wondering what the West could do about it anyways...I mean considering the US had an Atomic Bomb a good 60 years ago...I just think if Iran really wants a nuke...they probably can get one (or a few). Without going through the trouble of using Nuclear Power Plants.

im sure that the c.i.a. is all over that, and iran wont just be able to pull uranium out of their bungholes...(assuming bush and cheney dont expose and recklessly jeopardize every c.i.a. operation for political gain)