Some random thoughs. My colleagues and I were bored after the game waiting for our reporter and came up with a few weird debates. Obviously these are pretty outlandish but both sides seem pretty possible to defend.

The first comes from Akipt's thread about the mall shooter. There is anger from the NRA croud that banning certain weapons in areas makes individuals unable to defend themselves ... yet doesn't Iran want nuclear weapons to defend itself from nuclear Israel? Why allow one and not the other? Where is the line drawn between what is reasonable to allow?

Then there is a lot of science coming out supporting that homosexuality is genetic or at least nature, not nurture. The support is that these people can't help who they love and should be allowed to practice their love however they want. But there is also a lot of science coming out saying pedophilia is a disease and can't be helped, either. Why is one celebrated and one illegal?

Curious what everyone will have to say.

The issue in your first comparison is that the line is drawn through misinformation. If information regarding Iran and other issues in the middle east did not come to us from such bias sources, we would be hard pressed to find any difference between guns and Iranian Nukes.

On the second issue... Children in most cases do not yet know what is right and wrong, and do not quite know the results of their decisions, they are also not suffering from the same issue that the pedophile is suffering from therefore it is not consensual in that regard.

Homosexuals hook up with other homosexuals, therefore it is not only consensual, but they are both able to make the decision as they are adults.

I don't think that pedophilia is, at present, classified as a disease in the same way that, say, cancer is a disease. It might be more akin to alcoholism, but while people can be predisposed toward alcoholism (or maybe just addiction) due to genetic factors, I've not seen the same thing demonstrated -- or even asserted -- in the case of pedophilia.

And yeah, homosexuality generally results in consensual relationships between adults (forgetting younger gays for the moment), while pedophilia generally results in a "relationship" between an adult and someone who legally, and realistically, can't give consent (especially when you're talking about very young children).

but if you can't help how you feel, why is it a crime?

The feeling isn't the crime. It's acting on that feeling.

For the same reason rape is a crime even if the perp is incredibly horny. You are getting into the realm of consent, which is the obvious difference in your later question.

In your first question, the difference is probably in that you can't wipe out a million people with one gun. A felon can't purchase a gun, and in the eyes of many within our government, Iran might as well be a convicted felon. It's a lot easier to approve of an ally with a nuke, than an enemy with one (yes that's hypocritical, but it's called self preservation). I wouldn't want an enemy with a gun pointed at me, but I wouldn't care if a friend just happened to possess a gun. I also wouldn't want an enemy pointing said gun at my friend either, even if my friend had a gun.

Some Arsonists just love fire and can't help themselves, but it is still a crime to set a fire.

We don’t allow felons or the mentally ill to carry guns. Iran seems to fit in to this category.

There is anger from the NRA croud that banning certain weapons in areas makes individuals unable to defend themselves ... yet doesn't Iran want nuclear weapons to defend itself from nuclear Israel? Why allow one and not the other? Where is the line drawn between what is reasonable to allow?

We 'allow' what is in the best interest of America (Note: not the world or humanity). The only difference is the politics behind each situation. The line is drawn quite arbitrarily by whomever is in power, based off what they think the best thing for America (Hopefully) is.


But there is also a lot of science coming out saying pedophilia is a disease and can't be helped, either. Why is one celebrated and one illegal?

No issue causes me more distress than the over-medicalization of every deviant behavior in our society. The science in most of these 'unwanted behaviors as disease' is completely bullshit. Even something like addiction, which the general population certainly holds to be a 'disease', has no scientific basis behind it. It's a mechanism to negate responsibility.

Even something like addiction, which the general population certainly holds to be a 'disease', has no scientific basis behind it. It's a mechanism to negate responsibility.I disagree that the general population considers addiction a disease and suspect that Nydia or some simple research can reveal considerable scientific basis behind genetic factors playing a role in at least certain addictions.

We don’t allow felons or the mentally ill to carry guns. Iran seems to fit in to this category.

Good thing they don't have to listen to people like us :)

Like i said... If our news wasn't biased then we would find no excuse.

If information regarding Iran and other issues in the middle east did not come to us from such bias sources, we would be hard pressed to find any difference between guns and Iranian Nukes.

Like i said... If our news wasn't biased then we would find no excuse.The media wrongly influences us to see a difference between guns and nukes? :rolleyes:

The media wrongly influences us to see a difference between guns and nukes? :rolleyes:

No, the Media wrongly influences us to see Iran as a backward 3rd world country that wants to kill Americans. Therefore we cannot comprehend how anyone would let them have Nukes.

Simpy put, if we saw Iran as one of the largest and most modern countries in the Middle East, with 70 million population, and a system of government that works somewhat like a corporation rather then the percieved Dictatorship, Perhaps we would think differently of them. Death to America is pretty much a part of their nationality, ever since the coup, and the Shah. They have never attacked anyone, and they will not unless they feel they are in Danger.. That is an opinion that has more fact to back it up then any other.

Enough about this though... the fact is that they are very much the same, only one is on a larger scale.

Leprosy was considered a bad enough disease that they established colonies solely for the lepers to live with each other.

I see no reason why we could not do the same with pedophiles. Preferably a small atoll in the Pacific, with high tides.

They have never attacked anyoneSurely you jest and aren't that clueless.

They have never attacked anyone

Excuse me Jedd, but attacking the US Embassy, killing Americans and taking hostages, kind of refutes your statement.

... pirating British sailors ... manufacturing improved IEDs ... inciting rebellion against an allie ... etc etc

LOL...

Sorry, but i don't count rebelling against the country that instilled a puppet government in your country's Embassy, attacking another country... Lets compare how many more countries we have attacked or interfered in to Iran shall we?

Oh, and pirating British sailors? LOL its called Iranian waters for a reason, just cause the British didn't think they would get captured in Iranian waters, doesn't mean Iran is wrong for having captured them... Prove to me that Iran Manufactures Improved IED's for Iraqi Insurgents please... just try.

Inciting rebellion against an ally? Who?

Iran has supported directly the US forces in Afghanistan in fighting the Taliban, and has also helped curb the flow of gun runners between Irans and Iraq's borders. Iran has never been the aggressor against another country. Bottom line...

Regime change is an act of war in case you didn't know.

'Oh, and pirating British sailors? LOL its called Iranian waters for a reason, just cause the British didn't think they would get captured in Iranian waters, doesn't mean Iran is wrong for having captured them...'

- Silly boy, the British proved with actual technical satellite evidence the position of British personnel in the Gulf. They were more than a mile outside of Iranian waters. The Iranians, on their behalf, changed their story three times as a response.

It was indeed pirating. It's something we consider wrong, but the Iranians consider national policy. But that's OK - they have the hatred of the international world for a reason. They're undermined from within as well as without, they stand isolated and alone, poor and backward, hopeless and straggling, all from their own doing.

Move on, silly boy.

More then a mile... Well we can say that is debateable. Truth is, if the US felt Iran was a threat they would capture them even if it was just 1 mile out of their waters. I am sure Britain would do the same...

And also, If you think Iran has the hatred of the international community, you are so very sadly mistaken. Iran has more support in the world from citizens in every country then the United States. Many governments fall in line with the US because of the incentives, but the world population in general respect Iran standing up to the United States on its right to enrich Uranium for Civilian Purposes.

It isn't letting me edit so making a new post for this...

I'd like to see Israel who is our ally join the NPT. It is so easy to talk about Iran when our own ally is sitting on over 200 nukes and not a signatory of the NPT and probably the most likely to use nukes against a non nuclear armed country in a war.

Why don't you ask your fellow Brit George Galloway what he thinks about Iran, Israel, and the entire situation in the Middle East. He is a wise man.

Good thing they don't have to listen to people like us :)

Like i said... If our news wasn't biased then we would find no excuse.

You prove more and more what a nutjob you are.

Iran backing Hamas and Hezbollah is enough to consider them criminal.

Iran holding our people hostage when I was 14 is enough to consider them criminal.

Your Iranian president saying he plans on nuking Israel when he can is enough to consider them criminal.

Idiot, good lord go back to Iran soon please...

please do source the "plans on nuking Israel" claim.

You prove more and more what a nutjob you are.

Iran backing Hamas and Hezbollah is enough to consider them criminal.

Iran holding our people hostage when I was 14 is enough to consider them criminal.

Your Iranian president saying he plans on nuking Israel when he can is enough to consider them criminal.

Idiot, good lord go back to Iran soon please...

You prove your ignorance with every post...

Hezbollah is the resistance movement of Lebanon, they fight for their country and are supported by Iran just the same as the US supports groups they believe just.

Hamas is the elected government of the Palestinian people... You can call anyone you want a terrorist, doesn't mean you are right.

Iran has been fighting the Taliban and Al qaeda just as we have for even longer then us.

Regime change is an act of war, and our hostages were lucky to be released at all... Idiot.

Show me where Mahmoud said he would nuke Iran you incompetent Twit... Iran has never threatened to attack anyone, Ahmadenijad has only in a speech declared that the Israeli Regime must be removed and refers to the rightful name of Israel as Palestine.

Keep it up with your Fox news bullshit.

http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=16208

wasn't my original source but a quick google found it.

The hostage crisis is all the reason I need to loathe and distrust the Iranian powers that be.

They're rogue and until such time as the moderates in the country gain control I stand on them NEVER having nukes.

Fandros
"counting the days till Jedd returns to his motherland"

Yet you do not loathe any American for what was done to Iran... For overthrowing a democratic system to install a puppet government, for Shooting down an Iranian Passenger Airliner, for Helping Iraq in an 8 year war against Iran, in which over a million Iranians died... Your hypocrisy is expected.

Iran has every right to have and produce Nuclear fuel for Civilian Enrichment, and with Assholes like you in the world who never think they are wrong and are willing to kill Iranians because you are so close minded as to never put yourself into the place of a people who have had America as an enemy from before most of them were born, I would even support them having Nuclear Weapons. With the bully that is the US and Israel in the Middle East, god knows they will not survive without a deterrent...

You dare call a country that has never attempted to take over anyones land, or attack any other country as evil, while you sit in the Most imperialistic country there is on this Planet Earth?

so uh, that ''article" (Jihad Watch? lol) doesn't really support your claim in any way.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=249JaIaubVw

George Galloway? You seriously posted something by him to make your point?

LMFAO. You really are a tool.

Oh my young Akipt... listen to the mans words, it could be the prince of Saudi Arabia, and the words would still be true.

Frankly I don't give a shit whether he says the truth or not in that little blip you're getting wet over.

That excremet that is moving his lips has praised every dictatoriship from Saddam to Assad. I would like to say he supported the invasion of Afghanistan, but you'd get the wrong impression it was the most recent one. And let's not forget his part he played in the Oil-for-Food scam with Iraq.

No sorry, George Galloway can go fuck himself and I'll leave you alone to watch.

You mean like this oil for food scandal? where Galloway OWNS the US Senate!?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wj0m0dSUPR8

Oh and I am sure Akipt is more qualified then George Galloway to speak on world affairs... pfft...

I would also like to know why no one seemed to consider it newsworthy what the NIE reported it had found in its investigating the Iranian "Nuclear Threat"

Not news unless you like it huh?

You mean this thread? http://www.ayonae.ro/showthread.php?t=10106

The one where you've posted multiple times?

Yea... the thread that died after 2 pages and turned into a crap filled insult session, between me and Halo?

Amazing that Fandros didn't have a comment in that thread... Typical

I don't post nearly as much as I used to.

To be honest your America is evil tirade is so boring as to fail to interest me.

Fandros
"counting the days till Jedd returns to the motherland which spewed him"

Americans are not Evil... America is not even Evil... Our government is corrupt, as are many governments in the world. At least its better then being a Government fanboy Fandros.

I would rather question those i follow, then follow without question.

LOL...

Sorry, but i don't count rebelling against the country that instilled a puppet government in your country's Embassy, attacking another country...

Regime change is an act of war in case you didn't know.


It was Iranians that initiated regime change. That they were supported by the U.S., who saw better trading partners, is not being argued; but, it was Iranians. Now, according to your logic which is excusing the attack on the Embassy, the killings and hostage taking, after almost 20 years had elapsed, why should any Amercian citizen not attack YOU in retaliation for the deaths of Americans never involved and the hostage taking of journalists? It would seem to me that you are as much complicit in the actions of the Iranians you are defending as the American journalists who were held hostage over 400 days for something that happened almost two decades before they entered the country.

Byl, the truth is Iran was attacked... by an Iraq that was supported fully by the US... if anything i say they are even.

Oh and one more thing... The hostages form the Embassy were eventually released... These people didn't have the same luck.


1988: US warship shoots down Iranian airliner
An American naval warship patrolling in the Persian Gulf has shot down an Iranian passenger jet after apparently mistaking it for an F-14 fighter.

All those on board the airliner - almost 300 people - are believed dead.

The plane, an Airbus A300, was making a routine flight from Bandar Abbas, in Iran, to Dubai in the United Arab Emirates.

The USS Vincennes had tracked the plane electronically and warned it to keep away. When it did not the ship fired two surface-to-air missiles, at least one of which hit the airliner.

Navy officials said the Vincennes' crew believed they were firing at an Iranian F14 jet fighter, although they had not confirmed this visually.

No survivors

The plane blew up six miles from the Vincennes, the wreckage falling in Iranian territorial waters.

Iranian ships and helicopters have been searching for survivors but none have so far been found. Iranian television broadcast scenes of bodies floating amid scattered debris.

Iran has reacted with outrage, accusing the United States of a "barbaric massacre" and vowed to "avenge the blood of our martyrs".

President Reagan said the Vincennes had taken "a proper defensive action" and called the incident an "understandable accident", although he said he regretted the loss of life.

'Deep regret'

Admiral William J Crowe, Jr, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said at a Pentagon news conference that the US government deeply regretted the incident.

However, he said, the Airbus was four miles west of the usual commercial airline route and the pilot ignored repeated radio warnings from the Vincennes to change course.

Less than an hour before the shooting down of the passenger jet, he added, the Vincennes was engaged in a gun battle with three Iranian gunboats after a helicopter from the Vincennes was fired on.

The president promised a full investigation into how a passenger jet came to be mistaken for a fighter jet, which is two-thirds smaller.

US warships have been escorting Kuwaiti tankers in and out of the Persian Gulf since last July as part of its controversial undertaking to keep the Straits of Hormuz open during the eight-year-old Iran-Iraq War.

Pentagon officials acknowledged at the time that increased US military presence would risk provoking confrontations with Iran.

Last May the patrol frigate USS Stark was almost sunk by an Iraqi fighter-bomber, killing 37 sailors. Vigilance was tightened after the incident.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/july/3/newsid_4678000/4678707.stm

However, he said, the Airbus was four miles west of the usual commercial airline route and the pilot ignored repeated radio warnings from the Vincennes to change course.

...Less than an hour before the shooting down of the passenger jet, he added, the Vincennes was engaged in a gun battle with three Iranian gunboats after a helicopter from the Vincennes was fired on.

So did Iran learn not to fly civilian airliners nearby their instigated naval and air combat?

So, what is your point?

You keep defending the Embassy attacks and what followed, to the point of now comparing it to the downing of a passenger plane. But what is your point? Iranians can do no wrong?

Innocent lives were lost on the plane. Innocents were attacked by Iran as well. Why do you insist on defending the actions of Iran, spinning history to make your positions "right" the same as these disgusting pigs in the White House have been spinning to justify their positions?

Iranians who wanted to change the regime were supported by the U.S. The Shah took over the governing of Iran, for good or bad, as a result of Iranian actions supported by the U.S., and possibly others. Almsot two decades later the religious freaks (excuse me, leaders) incited the young radicals to attack the U.S. Embassy, an act of war. Americans were killed and taken hostage, who had no connection to the events surrounding the "regime change". Only because we did not have a President with any balls at the time, Iran was not neutralized, or at least those radical so-called "religious leaders". We should have put two or three brigades in downtown Tehran immediately, with the intent of retrieving our kidnapped citizens and putting those responsible in custody. By cowtowing to the fanatics we have only created a scenario where s nutjob like Ahmanutjob could hold office (similar to the scenario we have created allowing our own nutjob to take office).

Iran is not this holier than thou innocent you portray, Jedd, so get over it.
As much as I will defend them in some regards, I would have not hesitated to support military action when they attacked the embassy.

I am not trying to make Iran sound like the cleanest country in the world or anything.... Far from it, I am simply defending them with facts when it comes to the accusations laid before them by you guys.

I will accept that any attack on an innocent person is wrong, and i will stand with you that there are some issues in Iran like Gays and Women rights, that i think Iran is disgusting about. However, there is simply a lot of misinformation when it comes to the Iranian people and government that is spewed forth daily.

Also in response to Akipt, Did you know that the Military was trying to contact the airliner on a military frequency, and did not even attempt it in the commercial channels?

Also here is a comparison to show you how you people sound...

KAL 007 and Iran Air 655
Comparing the Coverage

By Norman Solomon

The day after a Soviet interceptor plane blew up a Korean passenger jet, the first sentence of a New York Times editorial (9/2/83) was unequivocal: "There is no conceivable excuse for any nation shooting down a harmless airliner." Headlined "Murder in the Air", the editorial asserted that "no circumstance whatever justifies attacking an innocent plane."

Confronted with the sudden reality of a similar action by the U.S. government, the New York Times inverted every standard invoked with righteous indignation five years earlier. Editorials condemning the KAL shoot down were filled with phrases like "wanton killing," "reckless aerial murder" and "no conceivable excuse." But when Iran Air's flight 655 was blown out of the sky on July 3, excuses were more than conceivable – they were profuse.

Two days after the Iranian passenger jet went down in flames killing 290 people, the Times (7/5/88) editorialized that "while horrifying, it was nonetheless an accident." The editorial concluded, "The onus for avoiding such accidents in the future rests on civilian aircraft: avoid combat zones, fly high, acknowledge warnings."

A similar pattern pervaded electronic media coverage. In the aftermath of the KAL incident, America's airwaves routinely carried journalistic denunciations. CBS anchor Dan Rather, for example, called it a "barbaric act." No such adjectives were heard from America's TV commentators when discussing the U.S. shoot down of a civilian jet.

As soon as the Iranian Airbus crashed into the Persian Gulf, the Reagan administration set out to discourage what should have been obvious comparisons between the Soviet Union's tragic mistake and our tragic mistake. The New York Times and other media uncritically quoted the President's July 4 resurrection of his administration's timeworn deceit: "Remember the KAL, a group of Soviet fighter planes went up, identified the plane for what it was and then proceeded to shoot it down. There's no comparison."

Virtually ignored was a key finding of Seymour Hersh's 1986 book The Target Is Destroyed -- that the Reagan administration knew within days of the KAL shootdown that the Soviets had believed it to be a military aircraft on a spy mission. Soviet commanders had no idea that they were tracking a plane with civilians on board. The Times had acknowledged this long after the fact in an editorial, "The Lie That Wasn't Shot Down" (1/18/88); yet when Reagan lied again, the failed again to shoot it down.

Instead, Times correspondent R.W. Apple, Jr. weighed in (7/5/88) with an analysis headlined, "Military Errors: The Snafu as History". In his lead, Apple observed that "the destruction of an Iranian airliner...came as a sharp reminder of the pervasive role of error in military history." The piece drew many parallels to the Iran jetliner's tragic end – citing examples from the American Revolution, World War II and Vietnam – while ignoring the most obvious analogy. About the KAL 007 shootdown, Apple said not a word.

If anything, the recent tragedy was less defensible than the KAL disaster. The Iran Air jet went down in broad daylight, well within its approved commercial airline course over international waters, without ever having strayed into any unauthorized air space. In contrast, the Korean plane flew way off course, deep into Soviet territory above sensitive military installations, in the dead of night.

But, as with Washington's policy-makers, the mass media was intent on debunking relevant comparisons rather than exploring them. The government's public relations spin quickly became the mass media's: A tragic mishap had occurred in the Persian Gulf, amid puzzling behavior of the passenger jet. Blaming the victim was standard fare, as reporters focused on the plight of U.S.S. Vincennes commander Capt. Will Rodgers III, whose picture appeared on tabloid covers (7/5/88) with bold headlines: "Captain's Anguish" (Newsday) and "Captain's Agony" (New York Post).

At the same time, U.S. journalists asserted that the Iranian government was eager to exploit its new propaganda advantage. Correspondent Tom Fenton informed viewers of the CBS Evening News (7/6/88) that Iran was intent on making sure the event would not slip from the world's front pages; colleague Bert Quint followed up minutes later with a similar theme.

Sorely lacking from the outset was any semblance of soul-searching about the holier-than-Moscow Soviet-bashing that followed the KAL accident. The last thing that White House officials wanted was any such national self-examination. But we might have hoped for more independence from the U.S. media, which allowed their proclaimed precepts to spin 180 degrees in an instant, while discarding basic insights like the one expressed in a New York Times editorial six days after KAL 007 exploded (9/7/83): "To proclaim a 'right' to shoot down suspicious planes does not make it right to do so."

http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=1527

It is this holier then thou attitude that is shown daily from this Administration and from those supporting it.

Like i said... Iran has some shit that it needs to deal with, but one problem doesn't mean that all your other misinformation is accurate and correct.

Sorely lacking is your continued gloss-over of the fact that Iran had made the area a war zone before the airliner was shot down.

Probably because they were in a War against Iraq, and Iraq was being supplied by sea? Would we just sit there and say... "Oh well let them use this waterway"

Iran didn't start the Iran Iraq War... Iraq did, with our Blessings.

'but the world population in general respect Iran standing up to the United States on its right to enrich Uranium for Civilian Purposes.'


- Hello, I belong to the Galloway School of Random Generalisations. Have a breath mint.

You fucking idiot.

I'm not sure how the world population respects Iran, seen as every Iranian I've met hates the administration, most of them being refugees or exiles.

Get a clue, or leave Los Angeles once in a while - Emir of Inglewood.

Many Iranians dislike the government in Iran... But Many Americans dislike the Government in America.

Put two and two together.

It is very sad that grown adults aren't mature enough to avoid resorting to ad hominem attacks when trying to argue a position. While you may not agree with Jedd, he argues the politics and you attack him personally.

A thousand pardons to you and the Emir of Inglewood for upsetting you both.

May the rains bless you and smite the Yankee foe.

Praise be to Allah, and Mohammad is his prophet!

Thank you Ainwein, I have been dealing with that for awhile, but i guess it helps build a thicker skin :)

Halo, I do not believe in Religion.

Thank you Ainwein, I have been dealing with that for awhile, but i guess it helps build a thicker skin :)

Halo, I do not believe in Religion.

Don't believe in Religion as in don't believe in Santa Claus so I can totally discount anyone's claims of it absolutely ruling most Middle East countries?

Or Don't believe in it on a personal level and ascribe to no faith?

I do not believe in Religion, as in i believe in god, but not a certain faith that dictates his demands and teachings.

'Thank you Ainwein, I have been dealing with that for awhile, but i guess it helps build a thicker skin '

- Dear Oprah...

- Dear Oprah...

Dear Oprah:

I was so upset today to read that my dear Prime Minister Gordon Brown is being described with adjectives that could leave him being confused with that upstart across the sea in the colonies: petulant, irascible and defensive when being challenged or having his positions and party attacked. His handling of the disasters and scandals he has been steadily confronted with since taking office has left him unable to make good on his stance that he would be a better PM than Tony Blair.

Please Oprah, assure me that the honeymoon is not over already.

signed,

Halo, the Hapless Historian







(couldn't resist, Halo)

Words hurt like a fist.

Historians have feelings to you know. :(

Can we go back to pedophilia and homosexuality, now? :D

Jedd never departed from those.

Halomedinjad lawl when is the wedding? err Hanging...? err uh yea

Some random thoughs. My colleagues and I were bored after the game waiting for our reporter and came up with a few weird debates. Obviously these are pretty outlandish but both sides seem pretty possible to defend.

The first comes from Akipt's thread about the mall shooter. There is anger from the NRA croud that banning certain weapons in areas makes individuals unable to defend themselves ... yet doesn't Iran want nuclear weapons to defend itself from nuclear Israel? Why allow one and not the other? Where is the line drawn between what is reasonable to allow?

Then there is a lot of science coming out supporting that homosexuality is genetic or at least nature, not nurture. The support is that these people can't help who they love and should be allowed to practice their love however they want. But there is also a lot of science coming out saying pedophilia is a disease and can't be helped, either. Why is one celebrated and one illegal?

Curious what everyone will have to say.


For some odd reason, I felt like returning to the topic here.

I don't believe it is rational to attempt to make comparisons between individual "rights" and those of a country. And the example being used to do so is laughable, in that you have gone from arguing whether an individual should be able to have a weapon that can take out (worst case scenario) possibly a couple dozen people, versus a country having a weapon that can take out several hundred thousand initially, and many thousands more over the course of the following decade. The sheer scale of the two makes the debate untenable.

And back to the homosexual versus pedophile, and the theory of both being genetic, or a disease, I don't buy it. I believe nurture is just as big a part in the development of the personality and psychological makeup as nature. In fact, the majority of pedophiles convicted of abusing children can be found to have been victims of abuse themselves.

But as to why we react differently to the two, I believe it has to do with the "parent" that we all have lurking inside of us, whether we have actually had children of our own or not. If either my son or daughter were to suddenly show up with someone of the same sex and reveal they had "found themself", I have no doubt I would feel queasy and need to work hard at accepting it; but, I love my kids, and would rather see them happy than interfere with my outdated values. On the other hand, the visceral reaction to someone attempting to, or actually, abusing one of my children (or now one of my grandchildren) would be immediate, and would no doubt result in my being arrested.

I believe it has been stated already, but homosexual activity usually occurs between persons of a fairly similar age, and usually (I am speculating here) after the people have reached high school and have decided pretty much who they are. The victims of pedophilia on the other hand are innocent children who should be able to enjoy the pleasures of childhood. That they have been instead forced to endure something as confusing as a sexual assault, and especially when committed by someone that they may have trusted, should be met with the most extreme levels of outrage by any who are able to come to their defense.

Now, does that give you more to think about in terms of hypocrisy? I can probably learn to accept if a child of mine has a gay relationship, but I will do as much violence as possible to anyone that would attempt to sexually abuse a child, or one of my grandkids. Guess I am just a parent. (And, this topic has been on my mind since it was first posted, wondering just how to really reply to it)

It's a good topic, and I'll add my two cents worth in....
A handgun is no comparison to nuclear weapons. One poses a threat on a singular basis, and the other poses a long lasting, generational threat.

On the homosexual/pedophile issue, there generally tends to be a difference between the two in regards to what each is attracted to.

I was suprised as to how many of my X-wife's gay friends had been molested by an older male when they were in their early teens. They didn't seem to draw a correlation from the abuse to their behavior, and the accompanying drug and alcohol abuse they were participating in. That sort of behavior destroys a person be it hetero or homo pedophilia.

My gut reaction is if someone is hurting a kid, there isn't a punishment harsh enough to apply to that individual.

A handgun is no comparison to nuclear weapons. One poses a threat on a singular basis, and the other poses a long lasting, generational threat.

So generational threat is the barometer then of what is acceptable and what isn't? I bet they'd be happy with a few of these instead: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GBU-43/B_Massive_Ordnance_Air_Blast_bomb (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Father_of_All_Bombs)

That'll solve the problem for everyone. They'll then have their self defense and the rest of the world can be happy.

Kel, you're being juvenile (what's new.)

Even if your interpretation of the 2nd Amendment's language doesn't guarantee a right for an individual to own a firearm, every state (but 6) grants that explicit right to its citizens without the fuzzy militia language. Of those 6 all but 2 joined the Union well after the 2nd Amendment was practically assumed to be an individual's right to defend themselves.

"That every citizen has a right to bear arms in defense of himself and the state." is the most common phrasing.

A handgun is no comparison to nuclear weapons. One poses a threat on a singular basis, and the other poses a long lasting, generational threat.

Ah, how easily avoided this is though...

Compare Apples with Apples.

If 1 person threatens another, then a handgun would be the appropriate defense...

If 1 gigantic nation threatens another, or another country who has Nuclear weapons threatens you... Would a simple handgun be enough? The deterrent to defend yourself would have to be equally proportionate to the threat.

I don't buy this comparison you all are making.

Nuclear weapons have no practical use.
It's not the use of the weapons, it's the threat of the use. Diplomacy generally wins the day in those situations.
So far, I've seen no attempt at diplomacy from Iran, other than the standard "Death to America and/or Israel".
If the starting point for diplomacy is the complete annihilation of the other side, why should they be granted the means to do so?

Nuclear weapons have no practical use.
It's not the use of the weapons, it's the threat of the use. Diplomacy generally wins the day in those situations.
So far, I've seen no attempt at diplomacy from Iran, other than the standard "Death to America and/or Israel".
If the starting point for diplomacy is the complete annihilation of the other side, why should they be granted the means to do so?

Nuclear Weapons are a deterrent. No more, no less!

The government of Iran has never said Death to America, or Death to Israel.. Ahmadenijad has before said that the Zionist regime must be wiped off the face of the earth, but only the Iranian people have gone as far as to chant Death to America. Even Jews in New York have chanted Death to the Zionist regime of Israel, and burned Israeli Flags in the streets, and Americans chant "Bomb Iran"

Should the United States be disarmed of Nuclear weapons because of its citizens words? If you are American, and you travel to Iran the very same people that chant "Death to America" treat you like you are a rock star.

Bottom line is this... Do you believe that a government should be restriced based on the words of its people? and if so, would you be willing to be held accountable for all the things Americans have chanted in the past, present and future?

The Iranian government may not have said "Death to America or Israel", but thier support of the terrorists that do bring death to both countries speaks louder than any words.

The Iranian government may not have said "Death to America or Israel", but thier support of the terrorists that do bring death to both countries speaks louder than any words.

They do not support Terrorists...

One mans Terrorist is another mans Freedom fighter.

Hezbollah = Peoples Resistance of Lebanon
Hamas = Elected party representing the Palestinian people

If you want to get down and dirty, we can say the same about America, how many groups have we and do we help that are terrorists to other people under the guise of, ''the enemy of our enemy is our friend''?

Israel could be considered a terrorist state for its actions against the palestinians, and its Apartheid treatment of said people.

When you cannot accept that anyone against us is considered a terrorist even when they may not be so, you cannot discuss the matter without bias.

Iran has been fighting the Taliban, and Al queda since before most of you guys even knew who they were.

If you want to get down and dirty, we can say the same about America, how many groups have we and do we help that are terrorists to other people under the guise of, ''the enemy of our enemy is our friend''?


Iran has been fighting the Taliban, and Al queda since before most of you guys even knew who they were.

I guess there's one instance where the enemy of our enemy is our enemy.....

I guess there's one instance where the enemy of our enemy is our enemy.....

Iran has been America's enemy for far longer then Al queda or the Taliban... Remember? who was it that helped the Taliban again? oh yea America!

Who helped Al queda? oh yea America!!! and the whole time Iran has been fighting against them considering them terrorists.

Are you so blind?

So, what happens if Hamas or Hezbollah turns on Iran, like the Taliban and Al Quedia did against us?
Do you think Iran could keep its nuclear materials from falling into the hands of its former allies?
Do you really think the risk of the mushroom cloud is balanced against that of allowing Iran "Equal Footing"?

So, what happens if Hamas or Hezbollah turns on Iran, like the Taliban and Al Quedia did against us?
Do you think Iran could keep its nuclear materials from falling into the hands of its former allies?
Do you really think the risk of the mushroom cloud is balanced against that of allowing Iran "Equal Footing"?

Do we have the right as Americans to even discuss this matter?

What if Israel turns and uses nukes on us, or what if Israel gives nukes to a group against Iran... Can Iran afford for Israel to have the nukes we gave them?

Hezbollah is not in it for world domination my friend, they want their country back... They are fighting for their land and people. Iran trained them to help them stand a chance, and armed them so that they could fight against Israeli aggression such as they did in 2006.

We are in no position to decide who has the right and who does not have the right to have nuclear weapons or energy. If someone has proven without a shadow of a doubt that they are building nukes and they are a threat to the world as Iraq would have been had they aqquired Nuclear weapons, then i would agree with you.

Hamas is fighting for the palestinians against Israel, and Iran finds their cause just, and will assist them in minimal ways. However they would never give them nukes. You just do not understand enough about Islam. Iran is the Islamic Republic of Iran, they follow Islamic law in all things and that is usually a complaint used against them, however if you aknowledge this, then you must also aknolwedge that Islam prohibits the use of Mass killing, and the use of chemical and biological weapons to kill innocent people.

Also, using a nuke against Israel would also kill thousands if not millions of Muslims, and it would be against their goals for the palestinian people.

The problem here is that our Media paints a picture of savages living in slums who want to kill western way of life. Some of them do, and those are called fanatics, most of those are Arabs and they are as psycho as most evangelicals.

The truth however is far less interesting, as it would show you people no different then yourself, with different culture and close family ties.

Islam prohibits the use of Mass killing If only it were true.

If only it were true.

It is true... Fanatics however do not represent Islam as they twist the religion to justify their crimes. Just as there are Christians and Jews, who tarnish the name of their own religion by using it as justification for a crime.

Then why aren't there more followers of Islam standing up and stopping the fanatics like we tend to do to the Christian fanatics here in the US?

Also if it is against Islam to kill innocents, then Iran shouldn't even want nuclear weapons, as all they can do is kill innocents.

Then why aren't there more followers of Islam standing up and stopping the fanatics like we tend to do to the Christian fanatics here in the US?

They are, like i said you don't hear about it much in our news...

Iran has been fighting the Taliban and Al queda for a long time. The issue is that a lot of them are starting to believe we are evil in America, because instead of just targeting the ones that are fanatics, we start pointing fingers at the ones that are not.

Being allies with Saudi Arabia for instance, when the terrorists that attacked us on 9/11 turned out to be Saudi, we attacked Afghanistan and Iraq, and now are headed towards Iran.

The way to fight terrorism is not 100% military, it is through diplomacy and cultural acceptance and compromise. How can we fight terrorism when we turn to fight others that are already fighting it? If anything, we will be creating more.

-Edit- Iran has also been fighting Pjak, and MEK which are both deemed by the US and Britain, Terrorist Organizations.

Nukes are a deterrent, they are not to kill people with. Iran has also not said they are going for nuclear weapons, we are simply discussing why they would or would not have the right.

I must post this one more time, for whoever said Iran offered no diplomacy and only talks of destroying Israel...

Iran Proposal to U.S. Offered Peace with Israel
by Gareth Porter
WASHINGTON - Iran offered in 2003 to accept peace with Israel and to cut off material assistance to Palestinian armed groups and pressure them to halt terrorist attacks within Israel's 1967 borders, according to the secret Iranian proposal to the United States. The two-page proposal for a broad Iran-U.S. agreement covering all the issues separating the two countries, a copy of which was obtained by IPS, was conveyed to the United States in late April or early May 2003. Trita Parsi, a specialist on Iranian foreign policy at Johns Hopkins University School of Advanced International Studies who provided the document to IPS, says he got it from an Iranian official earlier this year but is not at liberty to reveal the source.

The two-page document contradicts the official line of the George W. Bush administration that Iran is committed to the destruction of Israel and the sponsorship of terrorism in the region.

Parsi says the document is a summary of an even more detailed Iranian negotiating proposal which he learned about in 2003 from the U.S. intermediary who carried it to the State Department on behalf of the Swiss Embassy in late April or early May 2003. The intermediary has not yet agreed to be identified, according to Parsi.

The Iranian negotiating proposal indicated clearly that Iran was prepared to give up its role as a supporter of armed groups in the region in return for a larger bargain with the United States. What the Iranians wanted in return, as suggested by the document itself as well as expert observers of Iranian policy, was an end to U.S. hostility and recognition of Iran as a legitimate power in the region.

Before the 2003 proposal, Iran had attacked Arab governments which had supported the Israeli-Palestinian peace process. The negotiating document, however, offered "acceptance of the Arab League Beirut declaration", which it also referred to as the "Saudi initiative, two-states approach."

The March 2002 Beirut declaration represented the Arab League's first official acceptance of the land-for-peace principle as well as a comprehensive peace with Israel in return for Israel's withdrawal to the territory it had controlled before the 1967 war.. Iran's proposed concession on the issue would have aligned its policy with that of Egypt and Saudi Arabia, among others with whom the United States enjoyed intimate relations.

Another concession in the document was a "stop of any material support to Palestinian opposition groups (Hamas, Jihad, etc.) from Iranian territory" along with "pressure on these organizations to stop violent actions against civilians within borders of 1967".

Even more surprising, given the extremely close relationship between Iran and the Lebanon-based Hizbollah Shiite organisation, the proposal offered to take "action on Hizbollah to become a mere political organization within Lebanon".

The Iranian proposal also offered to accept much tighter controls by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) in exchange for "full access to peaceful nuclear technology". It offered "full cooperation with IAEA based on Iranian adoption of all relevant instruments (93+2 and all further IAEA protocols)".

That was a reference to protocols which would require Iran to provide IAEA monitors with access to any facility they might request, whether it had been declared by Iran or not. That would have made it much more difficult for Iran to carry out any secret nuclear activities without being detected.

In return for these concessions, which contradicted Iran's public rhetoric about Israel and anti-Israeli forces, the secret Iranian proposal sought U.S. agreement to a list of Iranian aims. The list included a "Halt in U.S. hostile behavior and rectification of status of Iran in the U.S.", as well as the "abolishment of all sanctions".

Also included among Iran's aims was "recognition of Iran's legitimate security interests in the region with according defense capacity". According to a number of Iran specialists, the aim of security and an official acknowledgment of Iran's status as a regional power were central to the Iranian interest in a broad agreement with the United States.

Negotiation of a deal with the United States that would advance Iran's security and fundamental geopolitical political interests in the Persian Gulf region in return for accepting the existence of Israel and other Iranian concessions has long been discussed among senior Iranian national security officials, according to Parsi and other analysts of Iranian national security policy.

An Iranian threat to destroy Israel has been a major propaganda theme of the Bush administration for months. On Mar. 10, Bush said, "The Iranian president has stated his desire to destroy our ally, Israel. So when you start listening to what he has said to their desire to develop a nuclear weapon, then you begin to see an issue of grave national security concern."

But in 2003, Bush refused to allow any response to the Iranian offer to negotiate an agreement that would have accepted the existence of Israel. Flynt Leverett, then the senior specialist on the Middle East on the National Security Council staff, recalled in an interview with IPS that it was "literally a few days" between the receipt of the Iranian proposal and the dispatch of a message to the Swiss ambassador expressing displeasure that he had forwarded it to Washington.

Interest in such a deal is still very much alive in Tehran, despite the U.S. refusal to respond to the 2003 proposal. Turkish international relations professor Mustafa Kibaroglu of Bilkent University writes in the latest issue of Middle East Journal that "senior analysts" from Iran told him in July 2005 that "the formal recognition of Israel by Iran may also be possible if essentially a 'grand bargain' can be achieved between the U.S. and Iran".

The proposal's offer to dismantle the main thrust of Iran's Islamic and anti-Israel policy would be strongly opposed by some of the extreme conservatives among the mullahs who engineered the repression of the reformist movement in 2004 and who backed President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad in last year's election.

However, many conservative opponents of the reform movement in Iran have also supported a negotiated deal with the United States that would benefit Iran, according to Paul Pillar, the former national intelligence officer on Iran. "Even some of the hardliners accepted the idea that if you could strike a deal with the devil, you would do it," he said in an interview with IPS last month.

The conservatives were unhappy not with the idea of a deal with the United States but with the fact that it was a supporter of the reform movement of Pres. Mohammad Khatami, who would get the credit for the breakthrough, Pillar said.

Parsi says that the ultimate authority on Iran's foreign policy, Iran's Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, was "directly involved" in the Iranian proposal, according to the senior Iranian national security officials he interviewed in 2004. Kamenei has aligned himself with the conservatives in opposing the pro-democratic movement.

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines06/0525-05.htm

http://ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=33348

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6274147.stm

'The way to fight terrorism is not 100% military, it is through diplomacy and cultural acceptance and compromise. '

- Yeah, 'cause that'd work.

'The way to fight terrorism is not 100% military, it is through diplomacy and cultural acceptance and compromise. '

- Yeah, 'cause that'd work.

Of course it would... at least better then bombing anyone we don't like.

Example...

If we bomb Iran, will that fight terrorism, or create new terrorism, and fuel terrorists with more justification and support?

Let me translate Jeddese for ya.

Accept Islam as the one true faith or die= compromise and diplomacy...

There is no middle ground there boobalah....

Let me translate Jeddese for ya.

Accept Islam as the one true faith or die= compromise and diplomacy...

There is no middle ground there boobalah....

Would you like to comment on every single fact i posted that you totally glossed over to post bullshit?

The Quran specifically sais that it is not the job of Muslims to punish those who do not believe in Allah, and his teachings.

Iran has no goals of spreading Islam, but rather wants to show that an Islamic Republic can work. That is why they are so interested in showing that they are a modern country in the middle east.

Oh and Fandros... Grow up

Thing is , twit, you gloss over the facts that the extremists are more and more in the driving seat of Iran and such.

So , at what point do they stop being extremists and become core?

I say when they control the ugliness that spews from it's core it is no longer extremist..


Oh and Jedd....

go home...

Fandros my dear idiot,

You have no clue what you are talking about, once again your daily activity of watching Fox news has led you astray.

The leaders of Iran are not extremists, they are simply Islamic. Though they do not make all the right decisions in running their country, neither does our happy idiot George Bush.

If anything Iran was heading towards reform, before Bush came into office and started his threats, and labeling countries as part of the axis of evil... Remember that?

Ahmadenijad is a clear answer to the United States. Yet even he is nobody.

Bush could also be called an Extremist... seeing as how he not only said God told him to attack Iraq, he also has completely destroyed this country's image around the world, quite the same as you think ahmadenijad has.

You completely ignored everything i posted, which proves that you have nothing... and you are nothing in this debate... Now shutup and go watch some Fox.

Once again Fandros, shut your damn mouth about me going home. I was born in America and am an American. With us or against us does not apply to me asshole.

Witness what could happen if Iran just turned from being the evil terrorist supporting bastards that they are.

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=071211142156.1dd1q31d&show_article=1

Witness what could happen if Iran just turned from being the evil terrorist supporting bastards that they are.

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=071211142156.1dd1q31d&show_article=1

So you are not going to refute anything i say, but continue to refer to Iran as terrorist supporting bastards? and you also think they really give a fuck what we think?

our happy idiot George Bush


That's Village Idiot to you pal!!!!!

So you are not going to refute anything i sayYou're the idiot who thinks Iran isn't supporting terrorists. But then you call them freedom fighters.

Sorry, but I really don't give a fuck what you think if you can't get beyond that.

Oh, and get a clue. It's more than George Bush who says these things. But continue to blame the biased media for why the French hate your piss ant little backwoods country.

You're the idiot who thinks Iran isn't supporting terrorists. But then you call them freedom fighters.

Sorry, but I really don't give a fuck what you think if you can't get beyond that.

Oh, and get a clue. It's more than George Bush who says these things. But continue to blame the biased media for why the French hate your piss ant little backwoods country.

Unfortunately you do not know the truth about either Hezbollah or Hamas, therefore you accept the lies you are told. Enjoy misinformation.

It goes both ways tho. Just because you are taught one thing doesn't mean it's right. If you taught someone from birth that the USA is evil and needs to be destroyed in the name of god or because they don't make good pastries, how do you think this person will act toward the US? (Just an example)
I always agreed with what Tommy lee Jones told Will Smith in "Men In Black", "Individually, people are smart, but when in a crowd they are stupid" Or something like that. Pretty much a true statement imho anyhow.

You're the idiot who thinks Iran isn't supporting terrorists. But then you call them freedom fighters.

Sorry, but I really don't give a fuck what you think if you can't get beyond that.

Oh, and get a clue. It's more than George Bush who says these things. But continue to blame the biased media for why the French hate your piss ant little backwoods country.

You still can't tell me why you are right and I am wrong... And i am the clueless one?

None of you can even keep up with me in this discussion so you resort to attacking me personally... I laugh at your childish rhetoric.

How about if the Government of Iran were to tell their people, "Hey, Knock off the 'Death to America' chants. They aren't exactly helping our cause."

And instead of providing Hamas and Hezbollah Explosives, guns and training, why doesn't Iran just say, "Come on over here and live with us, until we can get this all straightened out, peacefully"?

The main problem I have with the article you posted is that the sources for this document are not revealed. This could be a ruse by Iran to bolser its "image" as peacful nation.

Do you really think the Administration would balk at the terms of this agreement, just because Iran wanted to be recognized?

The more likely story is Iran is trying to rewrite history.

Do you really think the Administration would balk at the terms of this agreement, just because Iran wanted to be recognized?


The current administration? Yeah I am sure they would balk at the terms because Cheney then would have an even more difficult time trying to force the US into a conflict with Iran.

As far as Hamas and Hezbollah, they both have a history of terrorist practices. It will be difficult, if not impossible for the US to recognize them as legitimate political forces because of their history of violence to Israel and American interests. Whether you like Israel or not Jedd, they are a major ally to the US, if a paramilitary/terrorist/freedom fighter group attacks Israel, they become the enemy of the US. If they strike American interests/Ally interests in a terrorist fashion (suicide bombings, kidnapping across boarders, etc.), they will be branded a terrorist organization. Once they become branded a terrorist organization, they pretty much become irrelevant politically in the eyes of the US.

Once they become branded a terrorist organization, they pretty much become irrelevant politically in the eyes of the US.Problematic when that group or its primary backers become the democratically elected leadership of a region.

You still can't tell me why you are right and I am wrong... And i am the clueless one?

Pirating away British sailors and Israeli soldiers, improved manufactured IEDs and their triggering devices, convoys of weapons and aid going to AQ and the Taliban, ... etc etc.

The international community has not ignored those things as you have. But blame Cheney and Bush for all the angst. There's a reason the sane half of Europe wets their pants when Iran talks about having nukes.

And no, you're not fighting the Taliban and AQ in Afghanistan.

Problematic when that group or its primary backers become the democratically elected leadership of a region.

Definitely.

Should that "democratically" be placed in quotes?

I mean how farfetched is it to believe that if they hadn't been "elected" to power, some car bombs woulda gone off?

Well in 2000, Bush wasn't elected "democratically" technically either...

Taleren, under that thinking, no U.S. President has been technically elected democratically.

No, but he won the Electoral vote which is what matters in this country.

Presidents Hayes and Harrison weren't elected "democratically", but also won the Electoral vote.

Regardless, I'm pretty sure car bombs wouldn't have gone off it Al Gore had been elected President.

My only point is Sixee is disputing the validity of another countries elections. Right, we don't elect any president in this country democratically, technically, so why in seemingly every other election around the world do certain people in this country question the validity of their democratically elected leaders.

Sure there is corruption here and there around the world, but we question any election around the world that doesn't produce the winner we think should win. I'm not saying it's a good thing that Hamas won any seats, but it also doesn't mean said election was rigged because we didn't like the results.

No, but he won the Electoral vote which is what matters in this country.

Presidents Hayes and Harrison weren't elected "democratically", but also won the Electoral vote.

Regardless, I'm pretty sure car bombs wouldn't have gone off it Al Gore had been elected President.

Who's to say what would have happened? Two planes might or might not have flown into buildings, we might or might not be in two wars (we would probably be in Afghanistan, probably not in Iraq). Other elections around the world might have happened differantly. Gas prices might be differant (good or bad). We might be moving towards alternate fuels more quickly. Etc., etc., who knows what would have happened if our president had been elected "democratically."

The current administration? Yeah I am sure they would balk at the terms because Cheney then would have an even more difficult time trying to force the US into a conflict with Iran.

As far as Hamas and Hezbollah, they both have a history of terrorist practices. It will be difficult, if not impossible for the US to recognize them as legitimate political forces because of their history of violence to Israel and American interests. Whether you like Israel or not Jedd, they are a major ally to the US, if a paramilitary/terrorist/freedom fighter group attacks Israel, they become the enemy of the US. If they strike American interests/Ally interests in a terrorist fashion (suicide bombings, kidnapping across boarders, etc.), they will be branded a terrorist organization. Once they become branded a terrorist organization, they pretty much become irrelevant politically in the eyes of the US.

Hezbollah is not responsible for Car bombings or any attack such as that whatsoever, they kidnapped Israeli soldiers and launch rockets into Israel, because Israel still holds thousands of Lebanese in their prisons, and because Israel will not relenquish hold of the Lebanese land they have stolen (Sheba Farms)

You are however correct that our country labels anyone who is against any of our interests our enemy and a terrorist. My only argument is that such an argument cannot be used against Iran, as Hezbollah is praised around the world as the defender of the Lebanese people. If you look closer at the offer Iran made to the US also, it shows you that They were willing to even restrain Hezbollah and have them get more involved politically and less militarily.

If you are so concerned about Democratic elections, why does no one care that in Lebanon, if Elections were fair and democratic, Nassralah would be the leader of Lebanon?

It seems that to America democracy is only worth spreading as long as someone we like gets put in power.The issue is that Iran was shrugged off as "Evil Doers" even when they offered to recognize Israel, Halt enrichment, stop Hamas, and open trade and friendly ties with the US...

What kind of president shrugs such an offer off, and dares later accuse them of being a threat to world peace and accuse them of wanting to create nuclear weapons?

The fact of the matter is this. Iran fights terrorism, supports those who need support to defend their land and people, has as a signatory of the NPT gone above and beyond to be transparent, going as far as to sign additional security measures that they were not required to sign... And all most of you guys do is say... They are evil bomb them. How is this concievable?

Probably due to the whole hostage situation in the 70's.
Tends to leave a bad taste in the mouth when the ones responsible for keeping your people rise to power, rather than being pushed to the fringe.....

Probably due to the whole hostage situation in the 70's.
Tends to leave a bad taste in the mouth when the ones responsible for keeping your people rise to power, rather than being pushed to the fringe.....

Yea, i see how that is remembered, It was a pretty big deal. I think the issue is though that the government in Iran is there to stay, and the US just doesn't want to show that we recognize the government to give it legitimacy.

I think it is time to rework our policy, and hold talks with them to resolve everything. As far as I am concerned Iran and America are even as far as the hostage situation compared to shooting down an airliner and such. Not to mention the Iran Iraq war.

I think its time for both sides to grow up, stop trying to embarass the other side and talk.

If you are so concerned about Democratic elections, why does no one care that in Lebanon, if Elections were fair and democratic, Nassralah would be the leader of Lebanon?

It seems that to America democracy is only worth spreading as long as someone we like gets put in power.


I don't understand why you quote me, and then add these things as if they are contrary to what I've said in my prior few posts on this thread. I know there are people here that you would like to direct these comments, but I think directing them at me is wasted energy when I stated these points already.

I don't understand why you quote me, and then add these things as if they are contrary to what I've said in my prior few posts on this thread. I know there are people here that you would like to direct these comments, but I think directing them at me is wasted energy when I stated these points already.

Only the first paragraph was a response to you, Sorry if it seemed that was directed at you. I just continued in response to the general thread.

Hezbollah is not responsible for Car bombings or any attack such as that whatsoever


How can you even say that with a straight face. Google October 23rd 1983, I think you'll find about 250 reasons that prove you wrong. We were there protecting both Muslims and Christians.

If we recognize the government of Iran, it legitimizes the taking of hostages.

Whether they were justified or not, is irrelevant. The method of holding people against their will to achieve an end result will never sit well with people whose culture abhors infringement of personal freedom.

If we recognize the government of Iran, it legitimizes the taking of hostages.

Whether they were justified or not, is irrelevant. The method of holding people against their will to achieve an end result will never sit well with people whose culture abhors infringement of personal freedom.

Not neccesarily, We can still condemn the act and aknowledge that it was done at a time of instability in the country. Iran did not hold Americans hostage to become our friends, it was to become our enemy. To put the past in the past where it belongs and go forward with our relations is not legitimizing what was done, it is simply accepting the fact that the future should be different.

How can you even say that with a straight face. Google October 23rd 1983, I think you'll find about 250 reasons that prove you wrong. We were there protecting both Muslims and Christians.

The 1983 Beirut barracks bombing was a major incident on October 23 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/October_23), 1983 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1983), during the Lebanese Civil War (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lebanese_Civil_War). Two truck bombs (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Truck_bomb) struck separate buildings in Beirut (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beirut) housing U.S. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States) and French (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/France) members of the Multinational Force in Lebanon (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multinational_Force_in_Lebanon), killing hundreds of servicemen, the majority being U.S. Marines (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._Marines). The blasts led to the withdrawal of the international peacekeeping (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peacekeeping) force from Lebanon (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lebanon), where they had been stationed since the Israeli (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israel) 1982 invasion of Lebanon (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1982_invasion_of_Lebanon). "Islamic Jihad" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_Jihad_Organization) took responsibility for the bombing, but that organization is thought to have been a nom de guerre for Hezbollah (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hezbollah) receiving help from the Islamic Republic of Iran (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran).[ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1983_Beirut_barracks_bombing#_note-Ranstorp)

Firstly, there was a civil war in the country, and Hezbollah being a group comprised of the people of Lebanon were obviously fighting... correct?

You also have Islamic Jihad take responsibility for the bombing...


The Islamic Jihad Organization was the name used by telephone callers demanding the departure of all Americans (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States) from Lebanon and taking responsibility for a number of kidnappings (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kidnapping) and of bombings in Lebanon which killed several hundred people. There most attacks were the 1983 Beirut barracks bombing (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1983_Beirut_barracks_bombing) of French and U.S. MNF peacekeeping troops, and the April 1983 U.S. Embassy bombing (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/April_1983_U.S._Embassy_bombing) in Beirut (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beirut).

Whether this Islamic Jihad was a nom de guerre used by the Lebanese Shia Islamist (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamist) political movement, party, militia, and social services organization known as Hezbollah (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hezbollah), for terrorist activities; a Lebanese tool of Iranian (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran) Intelligence services; or something more nebulous is disputed.


No one knows if they were related to Hezbollah or not. It is all prediction, and Hezbollah is considered a terrorist organization based on a prediction?

So we shouldn't hold those responsible for the Beruit Marine Corps bombing and the taking of hostages accountable for their actions?

No handing those responsible over to the US? No trials and sentences? No apologies? Nothing except, their rise to power within the Iranian government?

Sorry, doesn't sit well with this American, and I doubt I'm the only one that feels that way.

So we shouldn't hold those responsible for the Beruit Marine Corps bombing and the taking of hostages accountable for their actions?

Like i said, no one knows who was responsible, so we can look all we want, and if we find out the truth, sure. But from the hostage situation, the hostages were released, its over.

No handing those responsible over to the US? No tirals and sentences? No apologies? Nothing except, their rise to power within the Iranian government?

Like i said, i believe we are even when it comes to payback. Over a million Iranians died in the Iran Iraq war which we backed Iraq during, and we also shot down a passenger Airliner during that war and killed over 250 Iranians.

I think its time to move on.

Sorry, doesn't sit well with this American, and I doubt I'm the only one that feels that way.

Unfortunately it is the only way to move forward in a positive manner. Especially when we expect them to also forgive and forget when it comes to their millions of citizens they lost and such thanks to our support of Sadaam.

In the end, we all need to move forward

Yea, i see how that is remembered, It was a pretty big deal. I think the issue is though that the government in Iran is there to stay, and the US just doesn't want to show that we recognize the government to give it legitimacy.

I think it is time to rework our policy, and hold talks with them to resolve everything. As far as I am concerned Iran and America are even as far as the hostage situation compared to shooting down an airliner and such. Not to mention the Iran Iraq war.

I think its time for both sides to grow up, stop trying to embarass the other side and talk.

We will be getting rid of the dipshit duo within 13 months, but how much longer is the term for Ahmanutjob?

I think the need for bilateral communication has been recognized by many in our present government, as well as by many other nations. I just do not believe there can be real progress until Ahmanutjob is also gone, It would be almost impossible I am sure to bypass him and deal directly with the supreme leader, and so it is important to have an Iranian president that whoever is in charge next in this country can have a dialog with, and look for some common ground, and healing of the wounds both sides have suffered.

I have made my feelings on the hostage situation clear, and I do not see myself ever changing my idea that we should have gone military immediately when the embassy was attacked. Now, tho', it is over 30 years later, and the entire region there has seen enough changes on many levels that it should be possible to rework some treaties.

I would much rather see us develop more cooperation with Iran, and start backing off on the handholding we have been doing with Saudi Arabia, who are not the allies we are so eager to believe.

But, I will not hold my breath for any major change to come over there. The Islamic hardliners need to adjust their positions a tad as well as our need to retool our thinking.

We will be getting rid of the dipshit duo within 13 months, but how much longer is the term for Ahmanutjob?

I think the need for bilateral communication has been recognized by many in our present government, as well as by many other nations. I just do not believe there can be real progress until Ahmanutjob is also gone, It would be almost impossible I am sure to bypass him and deal directly with the supreme leader, and so it is important to have an Iranian president that whoever is in charge next in this country can have a dialog with, and look for some common ground, and healing of the wounds both sides have suffered.

I have made my feelings on the hostage situation clear, and I do not see myself ever changing my idea that we should have gone military immediately when the embassy was attacked. Now, tho', it is over 30 years later, and the entire region there has seen enough changes on many levels that it should be possible to rework some treaties.

I would much rather see us develop more cooperation with Iran, and start backing off on the handholding we have been doing with Saudi Arabia, who are not the allies we are so eager to believe.

But, I will not hold my breath for any major change to come over there. The Islamic hardliners need to adjust their positions a tad as well as our need to retool our thinking.

I believe Ahmadenijad has about 1 year to 16 months max left in his term as well, and from what i am hearing, he most likely will not be re-elected.

And i couldn't agree with you more.

CNN special - Iran, Fact or Fiction?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oyTK24z5gT0