What were they thinking

[Cdls]

Schme, are you really so ignorant as to think that I would call on the death of millions for a statement like that? What makes you think you can claim to know my beliefs?
And stop being such a hypocrite. You critisize me for saying that an attack against a hostile nation would be justified, yet defend Irans president for saying that Isreal should be destroyed.
You claim that I dont really believe in freedom of speech and that I am hiding behind it and that I should say what I really want...well, I have no idea what the hell you are talking about so, since you surely know so much, why dont you tell me.

[Nick]

I have no idea what the hell you are talking about so, since you surely know so much, why dont you tell me.

Um, good one? If you didn't understand it the first time, you're just asking for him to make you look like an idiot. He's good at it too.

What the UN is about or not, will change very soon. This has been in the works for a while, and I think how they are relooking at their role in the world will be a bad situation for many of us. Some viagra for their impotence.

[Schme]

Well, that's very nice of you to say, Nick, but to be truthful, I don't actually want to make anyone look bad. It just gets people upset and angry, and isn't constructive at all.

Not trying to make anyone look bad. Nice of you to say I’m good at it, though.






This here to Cdls.


I’m ignorant, am I now?


Man, if the U.S. invaded Iran, many many people would die, and astronomical amount. To deny that would be ignorant.


And you think I’m defending Iran for calling for Israel’s destruction? Seems pretty ignorant of you not to understand what I mean. I’m saying that Iran is just saying it for the hell of it. They don’t really mean it. Most of that government couldn’t care less, and the ones who do are fucks anyways. I’m defending Iran’s right to say what they want under your precious freedom of speech. If you really believe in the concept of freedom of speech, rather than just freedom to say what you believe should be allowed to be said, than you’d agree that Iran’s government can say whatever it wants. If not, then you don’t really believe in it. Personally, I don’t believe in it either. And besides, freedom of speech wasn’t supposed to apply to governments, or outside of America, for that matter.

And guess what, Freedom of Speech man? Me being able to critisieze your completely idiotic and apocalyptic suggestion is what freedom of speech is all about, aswell as you’re right to make foolish suggestions. That’s the whole point. It looks to me that you’re being the hypocrite.




And what I’m saying about the you not believing in freedom of speech is that you say you believe people should be able to say whatever they want, but you then say that what Iran’s president said does is an exception. And so, really, you don’t believe that people should be able to say anything they want.

That’s what I’m saying.

[Nick]

Well, that's very nice of you to say, Nick, but to be truthful, I don't actually want to make anyone look bad. It just gets people upset and angry, and isn't constructive at all.
...
And guess what, Freedom of Speech man? Me being able to critisieze your completely idiotic and apocalyptic suggestion is what freedom of speech is all about, aswell as you’re right to make foolish suggestions. That’s the whole point. It looks to me that you’re being the hypocrite.

Now who's the hypocrite?

[Schme]

It's not me who made anyone look bad. People make themselves look bad with what they write. I'm not trying to make anyone look bad.

You, on the other hand, are.

[Cdls]

First off, i dont think anyone has been trying to make anyone look bad. I believe its in the viewers eyes to take in what (s)he sees. Second, I think I should explain what I meant as it looks as if I really didnt do a good job explaining.

Heres the statement I believe is causing the confusion:I would give my full support to an attack on Iran. Freedom of speech is good...but not when its coming from a president of a country giving the support to destroy another

Now, what I meant was if he was going to follow through with the statement. Maybe I should have put something like "and actually following up on the threat" to the end, I dont know. The way I read it, it sounded fine to me.

And as for the part of calling you ignorant, I meant to my beliefs. If you were to read the post you would see that.

Here is what I think...I will write it as clearly as I am able to at the moment

1)Iran has every right to say what they want to who they want about anything they want
2)If Iran was to go through on threat, then they should be attacked
3)I do believe in the freedom of speech and that it should apply to others as well

Also please explain to me how I am a hypocrite, I never once claimed you didnt have the right to say something, no matter what your view may have been, and if I have then please show me what was written so I can explain it to you.

I hope this clears up whatever misunderstanding there may have been.

[Schme]

First off, i dont think anyone has been trying to make anyone look bad. I believe its in the viewers eyes to take in what (s)he sees.

I think you're right.

Heres the statement I believe is causing the confusion:I would give my full support to an attack on Iran. Freedom of speech is good...but not when its coming from a president of a country giving the support to destroy another

What I meant is that if freedom of speech should apply to everyone, as you say, then that should not exclude Iranian presidents, or anyone for that matter. Now, I don't personally believe that freedom of speech is a good idea, but if it is supposed to be for everyone, that should include the powerful and prominent.

You say that Freedom of Speech is a good concept and should apply to everyone, except when someone powerful and prominent says something "bad". That's why I accused you of hypocrisy.

Now, what I meant was if he was going to follow through with the statement. Maybe I should have put something like "and actually following up on the threat" to the end, I dont know. The way I read it, it sounded fine to me.

For the Iranian government to say something is one thing. But saying things is just words.

The concept of freedom of speech does not protect people from doing unacceptable things, such as Iran taking aggressive action against Israel. But according too the theory that everyone should be free to say what they want, the Iranian government has every right to call for Israel's destruction.

And as for the part of calling you ignorant, I meant to my beliefs. If you were to read the post you would see that.

All that you said is that I was ignorant.






Also, I said that Iran's government is very unlikely to mean too mean to take any aggressive action against Israel. And they made no threats. All they did was call for Israel's destruction.

I also said that you're statement that you would support the invasion of Iran was foolish and ill informed, and then cited the reasons why I thought so.

[Cdls]

I agree that an attack on Iran would be stupid. I only stated that I would support the reason should they attack another country like that. I feel the same about how our war crazed president here is acting. I do not support his war motives in any way.
Anyways, from what I hear, looks as if Syria is next anyways. Cant wait till we get a new president, and hopefully that one will end the wars

[Wolf]

Anyways, from what I hear, looks as if Syria is next anyways. Cant wait till we get a new president, and hopefully that one will end the wars

(crud, hit that submit-button too soon again!)
I dunno, somehow I think the Bushes might have another one of their "clan" ready to try and fill the spot after Dubya gets out.

As for another point in this (not directed at anyone, simply a statement)...
Iran's government calls for the destruction of Israel, and suddenly military intervention becomes an option.
But where was such an official responce from other countries when mr. chokesonpretzels came out with his list of the countries for "the axis of evil"?
He made it clear that he was set for military actions against that axis of evil, and any country in it, but which country officially went against that statement, not including the ones listed in it?
Yet some bearded dress-wearing nut calls for the destruction of one country, and suddenly leaders of countries all over the place start considering military actions against Iran.

[Dee]

Why do you think Syria is next? Is it because they think it is involved in the asassination of the Hariri? Or is there some other reason?

[Cdls]

Well...Im just looking at the history our dumbass president has gone through and look at the stance his administration is taking. Too familiar, and its been a couple years since hes declared war on a country...I think hes overdue for another one...

[KiNG KiLL]

How can you take a nations foreign politics seriously, when they force other nations to get rid of their nuclear weapons (that obviously doesn't even exists sometimes), while they are the only country that has ever used a nuclear weapon in war? On a non-military target I might add... dropped the bomb in the middle of a city... I know, it was 50 years ago, but still... I think you get the point? Why should USA have nuclear weapons at all? When they don't seem to think anyone else are allowed?

[Nick]

How can you take a nations foreign politics seriously, when they force other nations to get rid of their nuclear weapons (that obviously doesn't even exists sometimes), while they are the only country that has ever used a nuclear weapon in war? On a non-military target I might add... dropped the bomb in the middle of a city... I know, it was 50 years ago, but still... I think you get the point? Why should USA have nuclear weapons at all? When they don't seem to think anyone else are allowed?

I've never gotten an answer for this question that's been in my mind for a long time now, before the Iraq situation even.

[ratm]

How can you take a nations foreign politics seriously, when they force other nations to get rid of their nuclear weapons (that obviously doesn't even exists sometimes), while they are the only country that has ever used a nuclear weapon in war? On a non-military target I might add... dropped the bomb in the middle of a city... I know, it was 50 years ago, but still... I think you get the point? Why should USA have nuclear weapons at all? When they don't seem to think anyone else are allowed?

Might makes right. And if you're looking at it morally, apart from Japan during WWII, America never used its nuclear armada. The debate over whether we should have used Little Boy on Japan is another topic, but we've shown, since that day, that we don't just throw our nuclear weapons around. I know I'd much rather America be in possession of nuclear weapons than Saddam Hussein.

I guess it could be looked at as "Why do cops get to have guns?" Sure, cops use their guns if they have to, but they're mostly used for intimidation purposes. I guess that raises the question "Who died and made America the Global Police?" I guess, even if America did arrogantly apoint themselves, they're at least trying to keep nuclear weapons out of as many dictators as possible.

By the way, I applaud the diplomatic victory with North Korea regarding their nuclear program. One of the few crisises (sp?) Bush has actually handled well.

(Note: Geez, I hope I didn't come off as too hardcore conservative. I used to hate the idea of nukes, I guess my stay in Australia has made me more patriotic.)

[KiNG KiLL]

ratm wrote:

I know I'd much rather America be in possession of nuclear weapons than Saddam Hussein.

Why? At least he has never used any nuclear weapons as of yet, while USA is without a doubt the country in the world that is most eager to use theor weapons and technology. We all know USA will be involved in another big scale military situation before 2015. USA needs war. Does someone really believe USA is just a nice country that wants to help people in the rest of the world? Even though it costs billions and billions of dollars to do so? And get nothing in return? Does someone actually, for real, believes the occupation of Iraq is for the sake of the people of Iraq?

Of course dictatorship should always be seriously questioned, and in Saddams Hussein's ace, the people obviously was suffering very much from his regime. No question about that. But you can not turn your eyes away from the fact that USA both needed war because the military forces wants it, and because they wanted to get their hands on Iraq's oil resources. If they didn't want the oil, why the hell aren't they in the hands of the UN instead? No, because USA wanted to get something back from all the billions they have invested in the war.

But you know, USA have the right to decide wich dictators and terrorists that are baaad and wich ones that are goood. Yep. Saddam was baaad. But he used to be goood, when he served USA's interests. Al qaida used to be goood, since american forces gave them weapons and trained them in combat, so they could kill off the evil russians. But now... they are obviously baaad! Why? Because they attacked WTC and Pentagon? But hey, the americans trained them to attack Russian targets, isn't that just as bad? Or are the russians worth less that americans?

Don't get me wrong, I hate terrorism and all that it stands for. But what happened 9/11 has happened many times before, just not no way near the same magnitude. You know there's a reason so many people hates america, it's not just fashion. USA steps on everyone, including UN. How the hell are the rest of the world suppose to accept and respect them after that?