Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Am I the only one who agrees with Iran?

page: 9
0
<< 6  7  8    10 >>

log in

join

posted on Sep, 8 2006 @ 12:03 AM
link   
Iran states that it's nuclear program is for purposes other than making bombs, however, they have all the oil they need for the next 800 years at about 25 cents per gallon; why on earth do they need nuclear power?
Moreover, they feel Israel should be "wiped off the map." Is this a country to trust with nuclear material? I - DON'T - THINK - SO!!!!! HOMEY DON'T PLAY THAT!




posted on Sep, 8 2006 @ 03:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by rich23
I can't figure out which is worse... militant religious nutters or militant atheist nutters.

Nephyx, you overestimate your won rightness and importance in equal measure.


Agnostic nutter, thanks though.

I didnt realize i was overestimating anything. Last I checked, intelligent people dont support religion. Why should I care about someone who reads the bible or koran instead of going to school? Why should I care about islamics who preach martyrdom and paradise to those who die in the name of allah? Why should I support christians who preach holy hellfire onto others without a shred of proof that their god is even real?

It doesnt matter if you are fundamental or not. You are on the same team. Why does anyone need to feel the need to align themselves with any religious factions? Why are people such cowards that they feel the need to hide behind the lies of their church. Its disgusting that in the 21'st century people havent woken up and realized how pathetic we are acting as human beings.

I have faith that wars like this will do a good enough job in thinning out the numbers on both sides. If there was an english country that seperated religion completely from state and preached intelligence and evolution to its children, trust me, i would move there. If there was an English speaking country that spent its money on new power and fuel alternatives instead of knowingly killing off the planet and its resources I would move.

This war has nothing to do with me. It has to do with two religious forces fighting it out for world dominance and money. If they kill eachother I dont see what the problem is. Let them fight it out. I wont lose sleep.

Have you met most american soldiers? Laff. No wonder we look like idiots to the rest of the world. These thugs and meatheads represent our interests in other countries. Its pathetic. You think our president is bad? take a look at our troops. I do not support them AT ALL. Have fun dying, you joined the military, what the hell do you expect me to have? Compassion? PFFF

The nation of Islam?
Dont even get me started! Why should anyone who spreads lies be worthy of living? Sure its sounds like a sweeping generalization but heres another sweeping argument. The world is over populated. Idiots dying isnt always a bad thing.

As far as im concerned this is just one big fireworks show. Its a win win situation because you have complete morons dying on both side of the spectrum.

Although what happened on 911 was tragic I dont think this war has anything to do with it.



posted on Sep, 8 2006 @ 05:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by nephyx
I didnt realize i was overestimating anything. Last I checked, intelligent people dont support religion.


I don't think you've done much checking. Einstein, for example, was not an atheist. If you want I could come up with a long list of more recent candidates, but really, you should do your own checking.


Why should I care about someone who reads the bible or koran instead of going to school?


For someone who considers himself an intellectual, you don't seem to understand that these categories ("people who read the Bible or Koran", and "people who go to school") are not mutually exclusive. Applying some basic logic to your thought processes would bolster your case that you are an intellectual.


Why should I care about islamics who preach martyrdom and paradise to those who die in the name of allah?


Because they're a part of the world and trying to understand the world is the goal of an intellectual, surely? (Although, I admit, this is not quite what you meant by "care about")


Why should I support christians who preach holy hellfire onto others without a shred of proof that their god is even real?


You shouldn't, although it might do you good to investigate the claims for intelligent design of the universe; it's a more finely balanced case than you seem to understand.


It doesnt matter if you are fundamental or not. You are on the same team.


This is just an opinion, and you have provided no argument or evidence to back this up. Many people would disagree, and I myself know many people of both faiths who are not fundamentalist and who derive a great deal of strength from their religion.


Why does anyone need to feel the need to align themselves with any religious factions?


Huge question, and I'll actually dignify it with a very short answer: because praying in groups increases its power. I realise that you won't accept this answer, but nonetheless, as a short answer it's true.


Why are people such cowards that they feel the need to hide behind the lies of their church.


There are people, for example, the "liberation theologists" in south and central America, who risk their lives for their beliefs. They are certainly not cowards and they inspire bravery in others. Like so many of your points, it doesn't exactly support a large and balanced view of the facts.


I have faith that wars like this will do a good enough job in thinning out the numbers on both sides.


Refreshing to see that you do have faith: depressing to see that you have faith that widespread death and destruction is a good thing. And lazy, too. It's much harder to try and educate people. Let's just gloat as they kill each other instead.


Have you met most american soldiers? Laff. No wonder we look like idiots to the rest of the world.


I've met a few on this forum, and quite a lot of them are thoughtful and articulate, even if we disagree. Not that there aren't meatheads too.


Have fun dying, you joined the military, what the hell do you expect me to have? Compassion? PFFF


Maybe you haven't had much compassion shown to you in your life. We all need it at some time - and compassion, actually, is something that should be shown even to those who don't deserve it.


As far as im concerned this is just one big fireworks show. Its a win win situation because you have complete morons dying on both side of the spectrum.


This kind of inhumane rant does you no favours.



posted on Sep, 8 2006 @ 05:27 AM
link   
your not the only one on this forum who agrees with him



posted on Sep, 8 2006 @ 05:52 AM
link   
Look richard. If i wanted to spend as much time disecting and analysing everything I say before i write it, I could. I write as quickly as I speak and alot of my experiences and opinions are based off evidence that I dont feel the need to include in a basic argument of why I disagree with religion as a whole.

It stuns me to see that people still lash at me for attacking religion. My whole point is that Religion does nothing for the Advancement and UNITY of mankind. Especially in our day and age.

As long as there is religion there will always be boundaries, and these boundaries will be crossed. Whether it be the enemy, other countries, or the people who wrote the boundaries themselves, they will be crossed and as a result, cause drama.

I just dont think that religion and government should have anything to do with eachother because it causes more death and destruction than anything else.

What do you want from me? you want me to bust out my books on Nietzche and support the reasons that I believe the origins of morality and religion come from a slave mentality? l, I didnt know that it would be so hard to discuss the problems of religion with a website that prides itself on denying ignorance.

Last I checked, having blind faith is pretty far from being a rational and intelligent person. Sure some people disagree, but why?

Do you think the world would be worse with out it?

So what if Einstein was religious, that excuses every other christian and muslim in the world? How is that a good point? There will always be exceptions to the rule, but I ask those people, why affiliate yourself?

Sure christians and Islamics go to school, but the obvious point I was making was that religion detracts from education. Why cant people just have faith and leave it at that? Why should I accept people telling me to convert or burn in hell?



posted on Sep, 8 2006 @ 12:33 PM
link   
Im glad to see this thread still going strong after my "moderator impossed hiatus"...

Its nice to see more people with a global sense of the big picture besides the typical "the world ends at my countries border" and ofcourse the typical stereotypical American response of "nuke them till they glow"



posted on Sep, 8 2006 @ 09:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by nephyx
Look richard. If i wanted to spend as much time disecting and analysing everything I say before i write it, I could. I write as quickly as I speak and alot of my experiences and opinions are based off evidence that I dont feel the need to include in a basic argument of why I disagree with religion as a whole.

It stuns me to see that people still lash at me for attacking religion. My whole point is that Religion does nothing for the Advancement and UNITY of mankind. Especially in our day and age.

As long as there is religion there will always be boundaries, and these boundaries will be crossed. Whether it be the enemy, other countries, or the people who wrote the boundaries themselves, they will be crossed and as a result, cause drama.

I just dont think that religion and government should have anything to do with eachother because it causes more death and destruction than anything else.

What do you want from me? you want me to bust out my books on Nietzche and support the reasons that I believe the origins of morality and religion come from a slave mentality? l, I didnt know that it would be so hard to discuss the problems of religion with a website that prides itself on denying ignorance.

Last I checked, having blind faith is pretty far from being a rational and intelligent person. Sure some people disagree, but why?

Do you think the world would be worse with out it?

So what if Einstein was religious, that excuses every other christian and muslim in the world? How is that a good point? There will always be exceptions to the rule, but I ask those people, why affiliate yourself?

Sure christians and Islamics go to school, but the obvious point I was making was that religion detracts from education. Why cant people just have faith and leave it at that? Why should I accept people telling me to convert or burn in hell?


ok i'ma christian, and i go to church every once in a while, i pray sometimes bnefore i go to bed because there might actually be a god, and still i'm right here denying ignorance as you and many others, so having a religious faith isn't a bad thing, actually it's good because people tend to do by the commandments which advocate good morals, and that makes a better society. but boundaries between religions is one bad point unless we can seem to bind together and not keep fighting over faith, let them be muslims if they want, and let them be chrisitans if they want, and let them be jews, and let them follow confoiusim(soory for spelling), and if they want to follow buddha then why not. looka thte crusades, maybe millions died when they could've just said let those live like they want, and let those live there way....



posted on Sep, 9 2006 @ 09:19 AM
link   
I'm of the opinion that Iran is totally allowed to have nuclear technology for power generation if they want. No problem. However, they've gone about it in totally the wrong way and now they have some work to do if they're to be trusted.

They signed the NPT and this means they can (if I understand it correctly) have nuclear power stations - as long as they follow certain rules and regulations designed to ease any worries that they might be trying to weaponize said technology. They didn't do this. They lied to the IAEA for nearly 20 years in direct violation of the NPT. Now they're being asked (100% fairly, in my opinion) to stop what they're doing and cooperate with the UN/IAEA, so that it can be sorted out.

They're argument that they're "allowed" is utterly ridiculous. I'm "allowed" to drive a car, that doesn't mean I should be allowed to if I don't have a license, insurance and a history of dangerous driving!

It's also become a test of the UNSC and its effectiveness. As it stands now they may as well just scrap it and let states get on with whatever they want. The 5 veto-holding members will never agree on anything as China & Russia will nearly always have conflicting interests with the USA & UK - it's a totally pointless and ineffective exercise. Even if Iran is totally on the level, it would be very easy for a country that had more sinister plans to work its way past the UNSC.

Iran should listen to the world and stop what it's doing. It can still have nuclear tech, if it starts playing by the rules. If it doesn't then the UNSC should act quickly and effectively......or pack up and go home.

And before the usual crowd start with their predictable responses, yes, that means Israel and USA (and anybody else for that matter) need to clean their act up as well. But we're not talking about them - we're talking about Iran.



posted on Sep, 10 2006 @ 10:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by Curio
I'm of the opinion that Iran is totally allowed to have nuclear technology for power generation if they want. No problem. However, they've gone about it in totally the wrong way and now they have some work to do if they're to be trusted.

They signed the NPT and this means they can (if I understand it correctly) have nuclear power stations - as long as they follow certain rules and regulations designed to ease any worries that they might be trying to weaponize said technology. They didn't do this. They lied to the IAEA for nearly 20 years in direct violation of the NPT. Now they're being asked (100% fairly, in my opinion) to stop what they're doing and cooperate with the UN/IAEA, so that it can be sorted out.

They're argument that they're "allowed" is utterly ridiculous. I'm "allowed" to drive a car, that doesn't mean I should be allowed to if I don't have a license, insurance and a history of dangerous driving!

It's also become a test of the UNSC and its effectiveness. As it stands now they may as well just scrap it and let states get on with whatever they want. The 5 veto-holding members will never agree on anything as China & Russia will nearly always have conflicting interests with the USA & UK - it's a totally pointless and ineffective exercise. Even if Iran is totally on the level, it would be very easy for a country that had more sinister plans to work its way past the UNSC.

Iran should listen to the world and stop what it's doing. It can still have nuclear tech, if it starts playing by the rules. If it doesn't then the UNSC should act quickly and effectively......or pack up and go home.

And before the usual crowd start with their predictable responses, yes, that means Israel and USA (and anybody else for that matter) need to clean their act up as well. But we're not talking about them - we're talking about Iran.


actually that's the right thing, wonder why not so many people think like that, i mean on this thread alone, we just spent 9 pages arguing this with people who just well, you can't say don't understand, because hell we might be wrong, but just dont seem to "denying ignorance" as this is supposedly made for, they just stick to what they hear on watever news channel, and voila they don't even think that not everything you see on TV is real!!!>...



posted on Sep, 11 2006 @ 04:04 AM
link   
Richard, your lack of response tells me that you have nothing else to say in regards to my final words. Thank you for bowing out of this argument because you have no ammunition.



posted on Sep, 11 2006 @ 04:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by Curio
they've gone about it in totally the wrong way and now they have some work to do if they're to be trusted.


So basically Iran should solely be treated differently from other countries?
If not, explain me why South Korea should be freely allowed - and get away with it - to secretly enrich uranium up till 77%. Other examples are Taiwan and Egypt.

What evidence do you have Iran is enriching uranium for developing a nuclear weapon? I guess the same evidence as ''we'' had on Saddam's Weapons of Mass Destruction?
Assuming that Iran is developing a nuclear weapon is no justifiable claim to attack a country.


Originally posted by Curio
They signed the NPT and this means they can (if I understand it correctly) have nuclear power stations - as long as they follow certain rules and regulations designed to ease any worries that they might be trying to weaponize said technology.


Israel, India and Pakistan did not sign the NPT and have been allowed to develop nuclear weapons, why should Iran again get a ''special treatment''?



posted on Sep, 11 2006 @ 11:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by Mdv2

Originally posted by Curio
they've gone about it in totally the wrong way and now they have some work to do if they're to be trusted.


So basically Iran should solely be treated differently from other countries?
If not, explain me why South Korea should be freely allowed - and get away with it - to secretly enrich uranium up till 77%. Other examples are Taiwan and Egypt.

What evidence do you have Iran is enriching uranium for developing a nuclear weapon? I guess the same evidence as ''we'' had on Saddam's Weapons of Mass Destruction?
Assuming that Iran is developing a nuclear weapon is no justifiable claim to attack a country.


Originally posted by Curio
They signed the NPT and this means they can (if I understand it correctly) have nuclear power stations - as long as they follow certain rules and regulations designed to ease any worries that they might be trying to weaponize said technology.


Israel, India and Pakistan did not sign the NPT and have been allowed to develop nuclear weapons, why should Iran again get a ''special treatment''?



well i dunno, you tell me? well israel can do so because it is backed by the US and the UK, taiwan is backed by the US, and SK is also backed by the US against the communist north. while Iran gets criticism because it is more on the Russian side. read this article and you'll figure out a lot of the cause for the US foreign policy: www.globalresearch.ca...
if it doesn't work just copy paste it into the addresss bar.

much of the US foreign policy is still structured on competition with russia, and on sorrounding russia with countries in the EU or in NATO, that's why russia raised the price of gas on Ukraine, just to show there president that your economy and your energy is here with russia and not with your western buddies. read that article it would be beneficial.



posted on Sep, 12 2006 @ 01:09 PM
link   
When Iran finishes their nuke-building, and they will -soon, it will only be a matter of time before they pull the trigger (and not much time at that). They are currently stalling the UN and the rest of the world as long as they can simply to buy time to rush through their R&D.

The Russians, poor bastards, are desparate for Iranian cash, so they will continue to 'support' the stall and sell Iran everything it needs in the interim. They also don't want to be on the receiving end of Iran's wrath, so will placate to buy future 'appeasement' votes. The Russians also hate the fact that they lost in Afgh and the Americans are in there. Nor are they happy that all of the other '-stans bailed on them and their former mighty empire crumbled. And, like the Iranians, they're livid that the arrogant US is now entrenched on both sides of Iran and not going anywhere anytime soon. This also buys Iran more R&D stall time.

There are other players (e.g., the sneaky Chinese, the spineless French, etc)., but that's another discussion.

In the meantime, our benevolent 'observers', if they exist, must be shalkng their heads in utter disbelief. What a choice they have: Violate the 'Prime Directive' and save us miserable humans from ourselves, or wait anothe 5-10 years and watch us blow ourselves up. Maybe that's what they're waiting for - then they can take over this lovely water-filled planet for themselves.

In the meantime - I'm with the camp that Iran has evil intentions for thie nucleur technology and no good will come of it.

Does the US need 20,000 warheads? Of course not (more head-shaking going on there). More importantly, Iran does not subscribe to the MAD doctrine of the Cold War. Unlike the Soviets, once they pull the trigger, they'll consider their mission accomplished and won't care if they're all sent to heavan to join their virgins.

THAT, to me, is the scary part...

Good luck all - keep up the good posts...



posted on Sep, 12 2006 @ 07:43 PM
link   
Osama has stated:

"We fight for death; the US fights for life, that is the difference between us"

This if anything shows the problem between the 2 ideologies....I have no clue how there can possibly be a compromise.



posted on Sep, 12 2006 @ 09:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by Outrageo
When Iran finishes their nuke-building, and they will -soon, it will only be a matter of time before they pull the trigger (and not much time at that). They are currently stalling the UN and the rest of the world as long as they can simply to buy time to rush through their R&D.



once again read the article i just posted the link for, and you'll understand the russian support for the iran, and btw not all the -stans are with the US, uzbekistan and a few others are still within the russian umbrella, Ukraine is back with teh russians, belarus is typically a russian territory, and many other countries are still tied to the russians. and once again read the article please!

mod edit: Trim Those Quotes – Please Review This Link.

[edit on 14-9-2006 by sanctum]



posted on Sep, 14 2006 @ 07:55 AM
link   
lets go over the history of the United States and foreign policy and use of nuclear weapons:
FACT 1: Only one nation in the world has ever used Nuclear weapons...the United States. They dropped them on 2 cities full of everyday CIVILIANS when the war was already all but done. That makes them the LEAST responsible of the countries who have or had the tech.

FACT 2: The US has on record admitted to numerous false flag ops and is now engaged in what their 4th undeclared war?

FACT 3: Theres is nothing, and i mean nothing that the Iranian leader has said that has been any worse than the stuff coming out GW's mouth.

FACT 4: BBC newsreporter has an arrest warrant out for taking pictures of the concentration camp that katrina victims are housed in STILL. The people inside are not bums, many of them had jobs and they are not being allowed back to their homes and need permission just to leave the camp which is next to a giant pollution spewing exxon factory. This arrest comes at the request of the Exxon corp...and was approved under your PATRIOT ACT.

FACT 5: Pictures of the factory can be googled by anyone and had the BBC reporter agreed to spin the story in Exxon's favor he would have not only been allowed but gotten a tour of the place lol.

FACT 6: A country that treats its own people this way has no right telling anybody wha to do.



posted on Sep, 14 2006 @ 12:01 PM
link   
Or-die-trying....you need to go back to school.

Falsehood #1. The atomic bombs were dropped to prevent invading the Japanese mainland, where it has been estimated over 1 million additional lifes would be lost.

Falsehood #2. Iraq was in voilation of the 1991 cease-fire agreement, there was no treaty. Technically the US is still at war with North Korea because no treaty was signed only an armisest.

Falsehood #3. The Iranian President has called for the extermination of isreal, 'Iseal should be wiped off the map'.

Please quote a similar quote by president bush.

Falsehood #4. Care to provide a link to such an outrageous claim?

Falsehood #5. see #4

Falsehood #6. see #4



posted on Sep, 16 2006 @ 12:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by ferretman2
Or-die-trying....you need to go back to school.

Falsehood #1. The atomic bombs were dropped to prevent invading the Japanese mainland, where it has been estimated over 1 million additional lifes would be lost.

Falsehood #2. Iraq was in voilation of the 1991 cease-fire agreement, there was no treaty. Technically the US is still at war with North Korea because no treaty was signed only an armisest.

Falsehood #3. The Iranian President has called for the extermination of isreal, 'Iseal should be wiped off the map'.

Please quote a similar quote by president bush.

Falsehood #4. Care to provide a link to such an outrageous claim?

Falsehood #5. see #4

Falsehood #6. see #4



#1: negotiations could've ended the war, even if it took a year or two more, japan was on it's knees and could'nt do any damage. or a show of force with dropping a nuke on some secluded island nearby japan, could've ended the war.

#2 once again the link i have posted explains the invasion of iraq and the tensions with Iran and the invasion of afghanistan it's all russia vs. US competition, still the cold war with a nice little cover over it.

#3 i don't know but there are many different ideas about what hte iranian president meant or said, some people say he said "wipe israel off the map" which means litterally just that, and some say he said "wipe the zionist regime of the map" ie: regime change. and even if the translation meant "wipe israel off the map" it doesn't mean what he said, because translation from such different languages such as Iranian to English always messes up words and meanings that it could end up with a whole new meaning in english that it is in persian or arabic.



posted on Sep, 16 2006 @ 11:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by Mdv2

Originally posted by Curio
they've gone about it in totally the wrong way and now they have some work to do if they're to be trusted.


So basically Iran should solely be treated differently from other countries?
If not, explain me why South Korea should be freely allowed - and get away with it - to secretly enrich uranium up till 77%. Other examples are Taiwan and Egypt.

What evidence do you have Iran is enriching uranium for developing a nuclear weapon? I guess the same evidence as ''we'' had on Saddam's Weapons of Mass Destruction?
Assuming that Iran is developing a nuclear weapon is no justifiable claim to attack a country.


Originally posted by Curio
They signed the NPT and this means they can (if I understand it correctly) have nuclear power stations - as long as they follow certain rules and regulations designed to ease any worries that they might be trying to weaponize said technology.


Israel, India and Pakistan did not sign the NPT and have been allowed to develop nuclear weapons, why should Iran again get a ''special treatment''?



As usual, the debate gets side-tracked into "this country did this and that country did that....". We have to draw the line somewhere. Or are you saying that because other countries have got away with things then we should just give up and let people do what they want? So, somebody got away with a hit and run a few years ago.....so lets not bother trying to prosecute somebody else when they get caught
The system isn't perfect, but that doesn't mean we should stop trying to uphold international law!

Also, Iran are a serious worry because their mouthpiece spends most weeks telling the world that Israel should be removed and that the holocaust didn't happen. And yes, yes, I'm sure you'll tell me how the poor little darling had his words totally misinterpreted.....yeah, right....we all know what he means.



posted on Sep, 16 2006 @ 11:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by Curio

As usual, the debate gets side-tracked into "this country did this and that country did that....". We have to draw the line somewhere. Or are you saying that because other countries have got away with things then we should just give up and let people do what they want? So, somebody got away with a hit and run a few years ago.....so lets not bother trying to prosecute somebody else when they get caught
The system isn't perfect, but that doesn't mean we should stop trying to uphold international law!


What are you talking about. The US, the IAEA, the EU were all fully aware of South Korea's enrichment program, they did get away with it because Bush decided so.




2004

The Bush administration has decided against moving to report South Korea to the U.N. Security Council today for conducting secret nuclear experiments four years ago, U.S. officials said.

Washington Post.


Oh yes, in your opinion our ''friends'' are allowed to enrich uranium while those we consider to be bad, aren't. Logic explanation, but fair no, not according democratic principles.






top topics



 
0
<< 6  7  8    10 >>

log in

join