Iran - Bush - Your Views

[Muezzin]

Ahadinejad doesnt have the power to wipe Israel from the map. Whether he would really do it, I dont know.

But if someone says he is going to kill people, and tries to get a gun, is it really that smart to let him get the gun?

Of course not, but I'm one of those peaceniks who thinks we shouldn't have guns or nukes in the first place.

The fact that in my posts above I basically equated both Bush and Ahmadinejad with dogs should tell you where I stand on this whole issue.

 

[islamirama]

Doesn't this forum hav an edit button for the threads?

khair, check this out....

We gona attack iran and here's the plan!

http://www.yousendit.com/transfer.php?action=download&ufid=72EF94BF1CE35058

 

[Suomipoika]

Of course not, but I'm one of those peaceniks who thinks we shouldn't have guns or nukes in the first place.

The fact that in my posts above I basically equated both Bush and Ahmadinejad with dogs should tell you where I stand on this whole issue.

I guess I misunderstood you a bit, I thought you were supporting the right of Iran to have nuclear weapons, since that is what against I had been arguing when I said what you quoted in the first place.

 

[islamirama]

oh here we go, now it is a "crusade"

Don't you watch tv, those were his exact words! something like we're going to "crusade" into iraq or middle east was it...

 

[Cognescenti]

Which of course we all know wasn't in the context of the "crusades" that started in 1098....

That is exactly right. Speakers of American English (and, I suspect English English :smile: ) will immediatly recognize that the word "crusade" has a much more general meaning in present usage. It means any type of effort or mission based on a strongly held opinion by the "crusader". For eg., it is often used in phrases such as "anti-smoking crusader" or a "crusader for women's rights".

Given the historical illiteracy of most Americans I suspect many don't even know the original meaning of the word. In contrast, it seems too many in the ME are waiting for the return of Saladdin and see everything through a 12th century prism.

The Islamic press is often guilty of inflaming opinion based on sloppy translations or failure to provide proper context. Another exampl were the Pope's comments which were taken entirely out of context and, indeed were critical of intolerance fromthe Christian camp in the past.

 

[MTAFFI]

Don't you watch tv, those were his exact words! something like we're going to "crusade" into iraq or middle east was it...

tell me how do you interpret the use of the word crusade in this speech?

 

[islamirama]

tell me how do you interpret the use of the word crusade in this speech?

US Crusades; An Inspirational Mission ?
Statement Of Faith From President George W. Bush
From George W. Bush when asked about his religious faith:
http://www.findthepower.com/PageOne/SiteStartStatementOfFaithGWBush.htm

"Actually, the seeds of my decision had been planted the year before, by the Reverend Billy Graham . He visited my family for a summer weekend in Maine. I saw him preach at the small summer church, St. Ann's by the Sea. We all had lunch on the patio overlooking the ocean. One evening my dad asked Billy to answer questions from a big group of family gathered for the weekend. He sat by the fire and talked. And what he said sparked a change in my heart. I don't remember the exact words. It was more the power of his example. The Lord was so clearly reflected in his gentle and loving demeanor. The next day we walked and talked at Walker's Point, and I knew I was in the presence of a great man. He was like a magnet; I felt drawn to seek something different. He didn't lecture or admonish; he shared warmth and concern. Billy Graham didn't make you feel guilty; he made you feel loved.

Over the course of that weekend, Reverend Graham planted a mustard seed in my soul, a seed that grew over the next year. He led me to the path, and I began walking. It was the beginning of a change in my life. I had always been a "religious" person, had regularly attended church, even taught Sunday School and served as an altar boy. But that weekend my faith took on a new meaning. It was the beginning of a new walk where I would commit my heart to Jesus Christ.

I was humbled to learn that God sent His Son to die for a sinner like me. I was comforted to know that through the Son, I could find God's amazing grace, a grace that crosses every border, every barrier and is open to everyone. Through the love of Christ's life, I could understand the life-changing powers of faith.

When I returned to Midland, I began reading the Bible regularly. Don Evans talked me into joining him and another friend, Don Jones, at a men's community Bible study. The group had first assembled the year before, in Spring of 1984, at the beginning of the downturn in the energy industry.

Midland was hurting. A lot of people were looking for comfort and strength and direction. A couple of men started the Bible study as a support group, and it grew. By the time I began attending, in the fall of 1985, almost 120 men would gather. We met in small discussion groups of ten or twelve, then joined the larger group for full meetings. Don Jones picked me up every week for the meetings. I remember looking forward to them.

My interest in reading the Bible grew stronger and stronger, and the words became clearer and more meaningful. We studied Acts, the story of the Apostles building the Christian Church, and next year, the Gospel of Luke. The preparation for each meeting took several hours, reading the Scripture passages and thinking through responses to discussion questions. I took it seriously, with my usual touch of humor....

Laura and I were active members of the First Methodist Church of Midland, and we participated in many family programs, including James Dobson's Focus on the Family series on raising children. As I studied and learned, Scripture took on greater meaning, and gained confidence and understanding in my faith. I read the Bible regularly. Don Evans gave me the "One-year Bible", a Bible divided into 365 daily readings, each one including a section from the New Testament, the Old Testament, Psalms, and Proverbs. I read through that Bible every other year. During the years in between, I pick different chapters to study at different times. I have also learned the power of prayer. I pray for guidance. I do not pray for earthly things, but for heavenly things, for wisdom and patience and understanding. My faith gives me focus and perspective. It teaches humility. But I also recognize that faith can be misinterpreted in the political process. Faith is an important part of my life. I believe it is important to live my faith, not flaunt it. America is a great country because of our religious freedoms. It is important for any leader to respect the faith of others. That point was driven home when Laura and I visited Israel in 1998. We had traveled to Rome to spend Thanksgiving with our daughter, who was attending a school program there, and spent three days in Israel on the way home. It was an incredible experience. I remember waking up at the Jerusalem Hilton and opening the curtains and seeing the Old City before us, the Jerusalem stone glowing gold.

We visited the Western Wall and the Church of the Holy Sepulcher. And we went to the Sea of Galilee and stood atop the hill where Jesus delivered the Sermon on the Mount. It was an overwhelming feeling to stand in the spot where the most famous speech in the history of the world was delivered, the spot where Jesus outlined the character and conduct of a believer and gave his disciples and the world the beatitudes, the golden rule, and the Lord's Prayer.

Our delegation included four Gentile governors-one Methodist, two Catholics, and a Mormon, and several Jewish-American friends. Someone suggested we read Scripture. I chose to read "Amazing Grace," my favorite hymn. Later that night we all gathered at a restaurant in Tel Aviv for dinner before we boarded our middle-of-night flight back to America. We talked about the wonderful experiences and thanked the guides and government officials who had introduced us to their country. And toward the end of the meal, one of our friends rose to share a story, to tell us how he, a Gentile, and his friend, a Jew, had (unbeknownst to the rest of us) walked down to the Sea of Galilee, joined hands underwater, and prayed together, on bended knee. Then out of his mouth came a hymn he had known as a child, a hymn he hadn't thought about in years. He got every word right: "Now is the time approaching, by prophets long foretold, when all shall dwell together, One Shepherd and one fold. Now Jew and Gentile, meeting, from many a distant shore, around an altar kneeling, one common Lord adore. Faith changes lives. I know, because faith has changed mine." I could not be governor if I did not believe in a divine plan that supersedes all human plans. Politics is a fickle business. Polls change. Today's friend is tomorrow's adversary. People lavish praise and attention. Many times it is genuine; sometimes it is not. Yet I build my life on a foundation that will not shift. My faith frees me. Frees me to put the problem of the moment in proper perspective. Frees me to make decisions that others might not like. Frees me to try to do the right thing, even though it may not poll well... The death penalty is a difficult issue for supporters as well as its opponents. I have a reverence for life; my faith teaches that life is a gift from our Creator. In a perfect world, life is given by God and only taken by God. I hope someday our society will respect life, the full spectrum of life, from the unborn to the elderly. I hope someday unborn children will be protected by law and welcomed in life. I support the death penalty because I believe, if administered swiftly and justly, capital punishment is a deterrent against future violence and will save other innocent lives. Some advocates of life will challenge why I oppose abortion yet support the death penalty. To me, it's the difference between innocence and guilt.

Today, two weeks after Jeb's inauguration, in my church in downtown Austin, Pastor Mark Craig, was telling me that my re-election was the first Governor to win back-to-back, four-year terms in the history of the State of Texas. It was a beginning, not an end.... People are starved for faithfulness. He talked of the need for honesty in government. He warned that leaders who cheat on their wives will cheat their country, will cheat their colleagues, will cheat themselves. Pastor Craig said that America is starved for honest leaders. He told the story of Moses, asked by God to lead his people to a land of milk and honey. Moses had a lot of reasons to shirk the task. As the Pastor told it, Moses' basic reaction was, "Sorry, God, I'm busy. I've got a family. I've got sheep to tend. I've got a life. "Who am I that I should go to Pharaoh, and bring the sons of Israel out of Egypt? The people won't believe me, he protested. I'm not a very good speaker. Oh, my Lord, send, I pray, some other person, "Moses pleaded. But God did not, and Moses ultimately did His bidding, leading his people through forty years of wilderness and wandering, relying on God for strength and direction and inspiration. "People are starved for leadership," Pastor Craig said, "starved for leaders who have ethical and moral courage. It is not enough to have an ethical compass to know right from wrong," he argued. "America needs leaders who have the moral courage to do what is right for the right reason. It's not always easy or convenient for leaders to step forward," he acknowledged. "Remember, even Moses had doubts." "He was talking to you," my mother later said. The pastor was, of course, talking to all of us, challenging each one of us to make the most of our lives, to assume the mantle of leadership and responsibility wherever we find it. He was calling on us to use whatever power we have, in business, in politics, in our communities, and in our families, to do good for the right reason. And his sermon spoke directly to my heart and my life....

There was no magic moment of decision. After talking with my family during the Christmas holidays, then hearing this rousing sermon, to make most of every moment, during my inaugural church service, I gradually felt more comfortable with the prospect of a presidential campaign. My family would love me, my faith would sustain me, no matter what. During the more than half century of my life, we have seen an unprecedented decay in our American culture, a decay that has eroded the foundations of our collective values and moral standards of conduct. Our sense of personal responsibility has declined dramatically, just as the role and responsibility of the federal government have increased. The changing culture blurred the sharp contrast between right and wrong and created a new standard of conduct: "If it feels good, do it." and 'If you've got a problem, blame somebody else." "Individuals are not responsible for their actions," the new culture has said. "We are all victims of forces beyond our control." We have gone from a culture of sacrifice and saving to a culture obsessed with grabbing all the gusto. We went from accepting responsibility to assigning blame. As government did more and more, individuals were required to do less and less. The new culture said: if people were poor, the government should feed them. If someone had no house, the government should provide one. If criminals are not responsible for their acts, then the answers are not prisons, but social programs.... "For our culture to change, it must change one heart, one soul, and one conscience at a time. Government can spend money, but it cannot put hope in our hearts or a sense of purpose in our lives." "But government should welcome the active involvement of people who are following a religious imperative to love their neighbors through after-school programs, child care, drug treatment, maternity group homes, and a range of other services. Supporting these men and women – the soldiers in the armies of compassion - is the next bold step of welfare reform, because I know that changing hearts will change our entire society."

During the opening months of my presidential campaign, I have traveled our country and my heart has been warmed. My experiences have reinvigorated my faith in the greatness of Americans. They have reminded me that societies are renewed from the bottom up, not the top down. Everywhere I go, I see people of love and faith, taking time to help a neighbor in need... These people and thousands like them are the heart and soul and greatness of America. And want to do my part.



"I am running for President because I believe America must seize this moment, America must lead. We must give our prosperity a greater purpose, a purpose of peace and freedom and hope. We are a great nation of good and loving people. And together, we have a charge to keep."

• Before initiating the Gulf War, President Bush and his wife Barbara, fearing that the war would result in deaths of many civilians, including children, invited Billy Graham to the White House to obtain his advice on this matter. Reverend Graham based his spiritual counsel on the church doctrine of the just war. After the pictures of the civilian casualties caused by the Gulf War became known, especially the pictures from the Amiriyah shelter destroyed by the U.S. smart bombs and resulting in death of over four hundred women and children, questions were raised about the morality and wisdom of the Reverend Graham's counsel.
• Graham has been accused of a lack of tolerance for other religions, as well as anti-Semitism on the basis of covert recordings of conversations with President Richard Nixon.

Joining Hands For The Battle
http://www.findthepower.com/PageOne/SiteStartJoiningHandsForTheBattle.htm
John 15:13 Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends. (KJV)


If you are a Protestant or you are a Catholic and you had someone in your home that was of the other faith, would you lay down your life for him or her? If the New Order Religion police came to your door and wanted to take this other person away, would you risk your own life to save theirs? Would you give up your life to preserve this other person's right to worship as a Catholic or as a Protestant?


Ephesians 6:12 For our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the powers of this dark world and against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly realms. (NIV)


There may come a time in the near future when we are under even more visible attack by the powers of darkness. There may come a time when we must all stand together or fall separately. Even now, there are issues like abortion, euthanasia, religious training in the school systems, and the appalling decline in morality in our world that should bring us together as brothers and sisters in Christ whether we are Protestant or Catholic. As brothers and sisters in Christ, we must urgently pray for each other to remain strong. As brothers and sisters in Christ we must put our differences aside and be willing to come to the aid of each other now, rather than waiting until the dark forces control the world. It is better for us to aid, support, and pray for each other now so we can try to prevent the open persecution of all of us later on. We must all have the right kind of Christian love that engenders respect and a willingness to defend to the death our right to worship and glorify our Savior.


Luke 6:41"Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother's eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye? 42 How can you say to your brother, `Brother, let me take the speck out of your eye,' when you yourself fail to see the plank in your own eye? (NIV)


The time for finding fault and disagreeing just to be disagreeable is over. The time for bigotry is over. Our world and our lives are under attack by the forces of evil and darkness. Disorder and dissension reigns in so many parts of our world that joining hands in respectful Christian love is mandatory if we are to put up any kind of defense against the dark powers and forces of this world. In the spiritual battle and the spiritual war that is now being waged, we must all stand together as Christians. It should make no difference what our personal theological beliefs or belief systems are if we are to survive as a faith.


Matthew 18:19 "Again, I tell you that if two of you on earth agree about anything you ask for, it will be done for you by my Father in heaven. 20For where two or three come together in my name, there am I with them." (NIV)


Our Christian faith is threatened. Our Christian faith, unless we join hands and all kneel at the foot of the Cross in unity of the Christian faith, will evaporate from the earth. From the perspective of most devout Protestants and Catholics, our Christian faith is already in an advanced stage of evaporation. The rapid decline in morality all over the world should serve notice to all of us that the time is growing short for us to join together in an effort to beat back the darkness of sin and immorality.


This essay is not a call to bury our theological differences but is instead a prayerful call to love each other. It is a call to defend the common ground and holy ground of our faith, and to stand together to fight our common foe.


Why Charities & Missioneries?
http://www.tnr.com/doc.mhtml?i=20030421&s=cottle042103


The Reverend Franklin Graham has long been something of a thrill seeker. In his quarter-century as head of the Christian relief agency Samaritan's Purse, the eldest son of the legendary Billy Graham (and heir to his evangelical empire) has earned international respect for supplying food, water, shelter, and medical care to regions where other angels fear to tread. Somalia, Rwanda, Bosnia, Kosovo, Afghanistan, southern Sudan—the more stricken and war torn the area, the greater the opportunity to help, reasons Graham....


... But the graver danger may be the one Graham's workers pose to U.S. policy in the Middle East—specifically, their potential to convince the Arab world that Operation Iraqi Freedom was, in fact, the opening salvo in a modern crusade against Islam.
Like many faith-based relief agencies, Samaritan's Purse mixes its humanitarian aid with a liberal dose of proselytizing. Unlike the leaders of other organizations, however, Graham has long been an outspoken critic of Islam, the official religion of some 97 percent of Iraqis. And, since the attacks of September 11, Graham's harsh remarks against Islam—including his November 2001 assertion on "NBC Nightly News" that it is "a very evil and wicked religion"—have earned the reverend a reputation as one of this country's leading purveyors of anti-Islamic bigotry. Already, news of Graham's intention to extend his aid ministry into Iraq has set off alarm bells among Muslim groups both at home and abroad. The Council on American-Islamic Relations ( CAIR) has loudly denounced Graham's mission as an attempt to take advantage of a desperate, vulnerable people, with CAIR spokesman Ibrahim Hooper predicting to the Web publication Beliefnet, "If it becomes generally known it's going to be a public relations disaster for the Bush administration." The publisher of the British Muslim magazine Q-News wrote of Graham's plan in The Guardian, "For the few remaining Muslims who doubted the crusading nature of the coalition forces, the final blow came last week."
When confronted with critics' concerns about their mission in Iraq, representatives of Samaritan's Purse seem offended that anyone would question their motives—even as their responses send contradictory and often disquieting messages. Ken Isaacs, the group's international director of projects, told Newhouse News Service in March, "We do not deny the name of Christ. We believe in sharing him in deed and word. We'll be who we are." In a March 26 Beliefnet interview, Graham noted, "We realize we're in an Arab country and we just can't go out and preach." But he added that "I believe as we work, God will always give us opportunities to tell others about his Son. ... We are there to reach out to love them and to save them, and as a Christian I do this in the name of Jesus Christ."


Indeed, the history of Samaritan's Purse suggests that, when it comes to spreading the Good News, Graham and Co. often cannot help themselves. In 2001, for instance, Samaritan's Purse received a USAID grant to help with the reconstruction of El Salvador following a devastating earthquake. The organization soon came under fire, however, when The New York Times reported that agency volunteers were holding half-hour prayer services before each construction seminar. As the group's El Salvador director explained, "We are first a Christian organization and second an aid organization. We can't really separate the two. We really believe Jesus Christ told us to do relief work." Since no government money had been used to fund the actual religious meetings, Samaritan's Purse was ruled not to have technically violated government guidelines; USAID officials, however, directed the group to ensure a clearer separation between its ministry and its relief work in the future. Similarly, Samaritan's Purse sparked controversy in both Great Britain and Canada last December when it was reported that the group was soliciting donations for its "Operation Christmas Child" (which encourages school children to donate gifts to needy children overseas) without making it clear that Christian literature would be included with many of the packages.


Of greatest relevance to the recent debate, however, was Graham's clash with General Norman Schwarzkopf during the first Gulf war. As part of a project termed "Operation Desert Save," Graham arranged for the shipment of tens of thousands of Arabic-language New Testaments to the troops in Saudi Arabia to be passed along to the locals. The project was in direct violation of Saudi law and flew in the face of an understanding between the U.S. and Saudi governments to eschew proselytizing. As Graham later recalled to Newsday , Schwarzkopf had a chaplain from his office phone the reverend to complain about the diplomatic difficulties he was causing. Graham's response: "Sir, I understand that, and I appreciate that, but I'm also under orders, and that's from the King of Kings and Lord of Lords." Schwarzkopf went on to publicly slap Graham and Samaritan's Purse in a section of his 1993 autobiography—a scolding the reverend proudly points to as a symbol of his willingness tofight the good fight, no matter how unpopular.


In fact, Graham, like many evangelical leaders, regards criticism of his proselytizing and aggressive sectarianism as a badge of honor. His 2002 book, The Name, boasts of the various storms provoked by his insistence on invoking Jesus' name at politically sensitive times, such as during President Bush's 2001 inaugural or the prayer service following the 1999 Columbine massacre; there, Graham informed the crowd that only those willing to "ask God for his forgiveness and to receive his son, Jesus Christ, by faith into our hearts and into our lives" were eligible for eternity in heaven.


In many cases, the good that Samaritan's Purse achieves is arguably worth the risk of alienating some people's religious sensibilities. (The organization has, after all, been ranked the most efficient religious charity for three years running by Smart Money magazine.) But Graham's long-standing, increasingly vehement antipathy toward Islam suggests he is far too loose a cannon to unleash in an environment as politically volatile as postwar Iraq. While Graham's smear of Islam as "evil" and "wicked" prompted the fiercest firestorm, it was neither his first nor final remark along these lines. In the fall of 2000, for instance, Graham told a Kentucky journalist that "the Arabs will not be happy until every Jew is dead." More recently, in The Name, Graham writes extensively about the inherently violent nature of Islam, calls Christianity and Islam "as different as lightness and darkness," and asserts that the two religions are locked in an eternal struggle that will only end with the triumphant return of Christ. On his book tour last August, Graham warned Fox News that Islam poses "a greater threat than anyone's willing to speak." And, this February, he told the Sunday Times of London, "I don't wish evil on any Muslim, but their God is not my God. The true God is the God of the Bible, not the Koran." Even other faith-based organizations and aid groups have expressed concerns that the presence of Graham and his group in postwar Iraq could ultimately make life harder for everyone from nonsectarian aid workers to the country's Christian minority to other evangelicals. As Donna Derr, an official with the Protestant and Eastern Orthodox aid group Church World Service, told Beliefnet in March, "I would hate to see the tenuous balance that has been created [between the Christian and Muslim communities] made unbalanced by the entry into Iraq by people who may have less sensitivity." Last September, for instance, Reverend Jerry Falwell's characterization of Mohammad as "a terrorist" touched off a riot in Solapur, India, that left eight people dead and 90 injured. Who knows what might have happened if his missionaries had been on the ground at the time.


Despite all this, the Bush administration appears unwilling to ask Graham to tread lightly—or not at all—in Iraq. In part, this may be the result of domestic political concerns: Karl Rove would likely rather risk an international holy war than a drop in Bush's support among Christian conservatives. But Graham's personal ties to Republican leaders surely impact the situation as well. The Bush and Graham clans are longtime friends, and George W. loves to tell the story of how Billy Graham helped lead him to Jesus. Franklin, too, is fast carving out his own spot among the party players. He delivered the benediction at the Republican National Conventions in both 1996 and 2000, as well as the invocation at George W.'s inauguration. Later in 2001, Graham was one of a dozen religious leaders invited to the Pentagon by Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld to discuss the moral implications of the war on terrorism. Graham has also become fast friends with Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, who has traveled to Sudan with Samaritan's Purse a number of times to deliver medical care. So it seems unlikely that Senate Republicans will be leading the charge to have Bush rein Graham in anytime soon.


With the war's end, rebuilding America's image in the Arab world may well prove even more complicated than rebuilding Iraq. The last thing a postwar Middle East needs is an uncontrollable Reverend Graham dashing around trying to save the heathen hordes. Indeed, at this point, Graham's ugly disquisitions on the nature of Islam have made him so radioactive that, even if he doesn't utter one word about Jesus while in Iraq, his mere presence in the region could be considered a provocation. None of which is to suggest that Graham is operating with anything but the best of intentions. But, like the road to hell, the road to holy war is paved with good intentions.

 

[Eric H]

Greetings and peace be with you all,

If America sincerely wants Iran to scrap its nuclear programme then the solution is really obvious and simple.

America should first disarm all its own weapons as an example to the world.

In the spirit of praying for peace on Earth

Eric

 

[wilberhum]

Did anyone read all that? :uuh:

 

[Keltoi]

Did anyone read all that? :uuh:

The first part was dedicated to George Bush's faith, which I assume was meant to convince us of his Christian ideals....call the press!

The second part was dedicated to Reverend Graham's attempt to bring the message of Christ to the Middle East by shipping Bibles to the region. I suppose it was meant to convince us that there is mass Christian conspiracy, with George Bush at the head, which will take over the Middle East in an attempt to convert everyone to Christianity....at least that is what I got out of a rather bloviating essay.

 

[MTAFFI]

^^^
islamirama,

I am not really sure what you are getting at or why you posted this, I must admit I read no more than the first section, I saw nothing wrong with it, please do tell

 

[wilberhum]

Keitol,
Thank you. I didn't think it was worth the read or contained any new information. :rant: :rant:

 

[Cognescenti]

Islamirama;

Remind us which office of government Billy Graham holds at this time?

We are accustomed to being told that Dick Cheney and Rumsfeld and assorted neocon demons instructed Bush on what to do. Now, you tell us Billy Graham is really the man behind the power?

You don't even have the first scintilla of a clue what you are talking about.

The US has designs on Pakistan? :uuh: :giggling:


Friend;

If you ever find yourself in a meeting with a big group of people and the guy up front offers free Kool-aid....do not drink it!

 

[north_malaysian]

Greetings and peace be with you all,

If America sincerely wants Iran to scrap its nuclear programme then the solution is really obvious and simple.

America should first disarm all its own weapons as an example to the world.

In the spirit of praying for peace on Earth

Eric

Yupp....

 

[islamirama]

We gona attack iran and here's the plan!

http://www.yousendit.com/transfer.php?action=download&ufid=72EF94BF1CE35058

long post was just a throw off, check the vido :shade:

 

[Keltoi]

Greetings and peace be with you all,

If America sincerely wants Iran to scrap its nuclear programme then the solution is really obvious and simple.

America should first disarm all its own weapons as an example to the world.

In the spirit of praying for peace on Earth

Eric

That sounds great in theory...but of course we all know that the minute the U.S. ended its nuclear program, China, Russia, North Korea, etc, etc, would be scrambling to create the best nuclear stockpile to take the position of world super power.

 

[aamirsaab]

So what are you actually saying? We should be worried because USA defends itself? And because USA defends itself, we should ignore their complaints about Iranian nuclear program?

North Korea has a nuclear program, but I don't see any invasion by the US. If you recall, oil was given.

What are you actually saying? It would have been better if USA had done nothing in cases like when Kuwait was invaded by Iraq, or when Kosovo muslims were slaughtered by Serbs?

Negotiations first. If these fail, then draw your blade/gun.

Better for USA to do nothing to stop bullies if they actually benefit from it one way or another? What does it matter if sometimes they benefit from doing good things?

War is not a good thing though.

Overkills? I dont know. But considering how brutal World War II was, and how far Japan was ready to go, Im not sure I can judge it that simply. Plus Truman never had the hindsight we do. Instead of using nukes, what would you have suggested Truman to do to force Japan to surrender?

Negotiate. Or, seeing as military action seems the most used, at least airstrike a military base, not civilians.

No one. But in the case of Osama, the US army isnt trying to be the saviour of all mankind, rather they are defending themselves in a war started by Osama in september 2001.

This is debatable as it depends on which side of the fence you are on, but I acknowledge your point.

H Greetings and peace be with you all,

If America sincerely wants Iran to scrap its nuclear programme then the solution is really obvious and simple.

America should first disarm all its own weapons as an example to the world.

Bingo - this is what I was trying to get at.

That sounds great in theory...but of course we all know that the minute the U.S. ended its nuclear program, China, Russia, North Korea, etc, etc, would be scrambling to create the best nuclear stockpile to take the position of world super power.

Good point, but do remember that the US will eventually lose it's super power status (it happens to all super powers), so it is really only a matter of time.

 

[Keltoi]

All superpowers eventually decline, but that is a different issue than the U.S. ending its nuclear program and the rest of the world doing the same. That will never happen. I'm afraid the only thing that will convince the world to end all nuclear weapons technology would be a world conflict with the use of nuclear weapons. The question would be if there would be anyone alive to learn the lesson after that.

 

[Cognescenti]

The US has thousands of nukes in it's stockpile...they have used exactly two in anger since 1945. Pretty good restraint if you ask me. :smile:

It is unarguable that nuclear weapons prevented a direct military confrontation between the US and the USSR in Europe for 40 years.

Eliminating nuclear weapons is a dream. It is completely impossible. The incentive to cheat would be frightening...and the distrust would soar that one's potential opponenet would cheat. Note that in talks between the US and USSR, they didn't even waste their time trying to count the number of potential weapons...they only counted the delivery vehicles..because that is the only part that is verifiable.

Even if nukes were eliminated..the world would still be a dangerous place..ask the people of Rwanda what can be accomplished with a machete or a club.

It is well that Eric H should pray for world peace because that is about the only thing that could possibly work...aside from a really nasty interplanetary or interstellar war with the fighting somewhere else.

In the meantime..the US will not be giving up her defences any time soon. Someone is going to have to come over here and take them. Good luck.

 

[Suomipoika]

North Korea has a nuclear program, but I don't see any invasion by the US. If you recall, oil was given.

I already said about this earlier, EU has been trying to make a deal to prevent Iranian nuclear program. So if it fails, because there is peaceful deal with North Korea, it means there cant be use of military force to stop people who want to wipe out countries from maps. The negotiation part with Iran has been going on for years now.

But that doesnt really explain my question, what is there to be worried about when USA defends itself? And why when its defending itself, their complaints about Iranian nuclear program should be ignored?

Negotiations first. If these fail, then draw your blade/gun.

In most of the cases, especially in the more recent ones, thats exactly what the US has done. Also, while civilians are being massacred, how long do you think we should give time for negotiations? Day? Week? Month?

War is not a good thing though.

Of course it isnt. But again, that doesnt answer the question, is it better for USA to do nothing to prevent genocide in former Yugoslavia or defend countries like Kuwait if they might profit from it?

Negotiate. Or, seeing as military action seems the most used, at least airstrike a military base, not civilians.

All the while the war goes on around Pacific, I think by the time Japan was nuked, it still controlled most of its conquests in China, Korea and Vietnam, infact Burma/Myanmar wasnt liberated before the summer of 45, just few months before the Japanese surrender. Civilian population keeps starving and getting caught between the fighting all around the pacific. Would you have halted the allied advance against the Japanese for the duration of these negotiations? Which would have meant continued Japanese occupation policies, and commitment of more war crimes.

Also striking against military targets would have meant the use of inaccurate heavy bombers, and Japan didnt exactly build its military targets kilometers away from their cities, give proper wind conditions, and another 100 000 civilians die in burning paper houses the Japanese were fond of.

Im going to make a claim that your solution would have actually meant more dead people and no quarantee of Japanese surrender.