i think nuclear weapons should be distributed to every country on earth. it would be interesting to see whether or not unnecessary wars are declared or waged when everyone has nuclear weapons.

Written by LeChron James on 30.09.2008 at 18:43

i think nuclear weapons should be distributed to every country on earth. it would be interesting to see whether or not unnecessary wars are declared or waged when everyone has nuclear weapons.

I don't think that is a good idea... but honestly I think the worst country that could possibly have nuclear weapons already does, so it doesn't even matter. I'm talking about a country that has a leader who thinks the earth is less than 10,000 years old and that it is his responsibility to prepare the earth for Jesus' return through a doomsday war.

i just think less stupid acts would be carried out if everybody was a formidable nuclear power. sure there might be a rogue nation out there who might nuke the shit out of someone, but that just means that people aren't working logically enough to solve their problems.

Written by LeChron James on 01.10.2008 at 01:59

i just think less stupid acts would be carried out if everybody was a formidable nuclear power. sure there might be a rogue nation out there who might nuke the shit out of someone, but that just means that people aren't working logically enough to solve their problems.

Could be a nice experiment if in a petri dish. Bit I find the risk for a nucleair war way to big.

Written by Introspekrieg on 30.09.2008 at 19:30

Written by LeChron James on 30.09.2008 at 18:43

i think nuclear weapons should be distributed to every country on earth. it would be interesting to see whether or not unnecessary wars are declared or waged when everyone has nuclear weapons.

I don't think that is a good idea... but honestly I think the worst country that could possibly have nuclear weapons already does, so it doesn't even matter. I'm talking about a country that has a leader who thinks the earth is less than 10,000 years old and that it is his responsibility to prepare the earth for Jesus' return through a doomsday war.

i'm having troubles thinking of a fundamentalist Christian/Jewish country with a LEADER.
it might be Israel but there's NO leader or it might be Iran/Pakistan/North Korea but there's NO belief in preparing the earth for Jesus...
all you said can be applied to Iran's LEADER if you replace Jesus with the final (Islamic) Saviour he believes in...

EDIT: got it...i see the sarcasm now.

So a thought crossed my mind, and I would appreciate a comment from an individual who actually resides in Iran.

I've been following the politically situation in Iran from mainstream media. Most of it suggests or states that there is evidence of rigging in the polls, but yet, I have yet to see any detailed responses providing evidence to the claim. In fact, I think the most was that some officials reckoned it was rigged because certain people from the opponent's town were registered as voting for Ahmedinijad.

It's pretty sad what's happening there. I could understand the frustration and anger, but just hoping this doesn't turn into some bloodbath that will be forgetten by the media/world in time. I just think it's a little extreme to be fighting with the authorities when there's a high chance that the situation will only amplify the current tension. I guess I'm kind of a pacifist on this one.

From what I have heard, is it correct that North Korea believes that the US wishes to start another Korean War? And that if the US provokes this imaginary war then NK will feel free to use its Nuclear warheads against the US or allied nation?

that guys F***** up. I think we can all agree on that.

Ok two thing I would like to say about this topic, besides stating the obvious that nuclear weapons are bad.
1 - the last 64 years since Hiroshima have been the most peaceful era in the last 5000 years ok human history.
2 - Yes that peace is built on the ever famous idea of Mutually Assured Destruction or (MAD) for short, but it has work. Any other time in human history and the USA and USSR would have gone and killed eachother over an idea... Yes and idea (Communism).
Oh and one more thing NK and Iran may be seeking nuclear weapons but I assure you all they know full well that if they use them their respective nations will be turned into a waste land. And regardless of weather you are a member of NATO the Comintern or some other international organization, if the bombs ever do fly, we are all dead... Not just NK or Iran or Russia but the USA, China and probably every nation on the planet.

The fact that Nuclear weapons even exist is the reason why humanity has no respect for life WARS are legally being allowed to take anothers life due to government consent which basically means legalised murder anyway Hiroshima was a terrible event, if only they had half a brain and realised one bomb is going to murder 200,000 people

Cant see why it would be the end of the world if Iran built nuclear weapons ? .. i mean, there are about 10 countries or more who own nuclear weapons, tell me ONE reason why is it okay for them to have nukes and iran shouldn't !!

i -personally- hate nukes and war and killing... and i think the world should be nuke-free... but the USA doesnt have a saying in who should own nukes and who shouldnt... if u think nukes should only be in the hands of "wise and sane" people.. then how the hell did u elect president Bush ? ... for eight years he was in control of hundreds of nukes and he didnt go batshit insane on everyone.. coz even the retarded KNOW how dangerous they can be.. so, if Iran owns nukes.. they will NOT terrorize the rest of the world.. and will probably NEVER use them in attack.. it'll only be a guarantee or a backup so that is the US tries to take over iran for their oil (as they did in Iraq) they'd think twice before doing so... same as north korea, pakistan, and any other nuclear country.. just for defense !

Written by JohnWayneGacy666 on 08.04.2010 at 16:19

The fact that Nuclear weapons even exist is the reason why humanity has no respect for life

Nice said.

I don't see why anyone should even produce them. Who cares what country it is - people have difficulties with understanding that nuclear weapons don't protect them from other countries' nuclear weapons or anything, they just destroy all and take away thousands of lives.
Lets put it this way: country with nuclear weapons is nothing more than a revengeful murderer. All that "safety" thing is bullshit.

Written by Ragana on 09.04.2010 at 15:47

Written by JohnWayneGacy666 on 08.04.2010 at 16:19

The fact that Nuclear weapons even exist is the reason why humanity has no respect for life

Nice said.

I don't see why anyone should even produce them. Who cares what country it is - people have difficulties with understanding that nuclear weapons don't protect them from other countries' nuclear weapons or anything, they just destroy all and take away thousands of lives.
Lets put it this way: country with nuclear weapons is nothing more than a revengeful murderer. All that "safety" thing is bullshit.

Well, North Korea has one of the worse dictatorship regimes in the world but u dont see the united states "spreading its democracy" there, they just back the fuck away coz Korea's got nukes... so, when you have no nukes.. u're like poor iraq... you get invaded by an imperialistic country claiming to spread democracy while infact it only gives a fuck about your oil wells ... so, if Saddam had nukes.. USA wouldnt have dared to mess with iraq...

i'm not saying nukes are good.. but when you have the "bully of the world aka. United States of America" fucking around other peoples countries and robbing them of their land and resources... you gotta have yourself a good "pepper spray aka. nukes" so that nobody rapes your land !!

I'm for no nuclear weapons at all, by any one.

The latest and immediate is Iran, which is fucked up.

Written by Candlemass on 22.04.2010 at 18:17

I'm for no nuclear weapons at all, by any one.

The latest and immediate is Iran, which is fucked up.

Right, and preferably Israel right before that.

Written by Zombie on 22.04.2010 at 19:57

Written by Candlemass on 22.04.2010 at 18:17

I'm for no nuclear weapons at all, by any one.

The latest and immediate is Iran, which is fucked up.

Right, and preferably Israel right before that.

I'm such a troll

Anyhow I ask please try to drop your biases against Israel,
The logical structure of "he can so I can" or "he started it"
is not only none productive but fails to deal with the problems.
Other then that Iran is signed on NPR, while Israel is not.

Well yes, overall I would like to see Israel without nuclear weapons, no doubt about that.
But it's less a threat then Iran...especially as an offensive weapon.
Israel also did not threaten, at least not the way Iran is, to use nuclear weapons upon a people/state.
Its not a religious state (i.e does not justify actions by FAITH),
and it has a pretty clear criteria, about when using and why.


Other then this issue and exploding nuclear weapons in the middle east, from another aspect
the immediate problem,
is explosion of population of nuclear weapons (meaning numbers of weapons in more states).

It's mainly a political and power-crane, which other states will not accept from this perspective (including Israel).
The Saudis and Egyptians will likely also want nuclear weapons turning the middle east into where 4 powers will have nuclear weapons.
Other then that the NPR effect will expire WORDWIDE, and it will not be 2 more states with nuclear weapons but a dozen.

According to my initial claim, this is a bad thing.
Military options are mostly not on the table,
to make sanctions work we need Russia and China, this is a problem from hell.


Other then that Saudi Arabia (Sunni) is one of the most extreme Islamic states,
which is monopolizing Islam to it's version (which is as far as I know far from traditional Islam in the golden age)
, the same with Iran (Shi'a)

Written by Candlemass on 22.04.2010 at 20:42

Written by Zombie on 22.04.2010 at 19:57

Written by Candlemass on 22.04.2010 at 18:17

I'm for no nuclear weapons at all, by any one.

The latest and immediate is Iran, which is fucked up.

Right, and preferably Israel right before that.

I'm such a troll

Anyhow I ask please try to drop your biases against Israel,
The logical structure of "he can so I can" or "he started it"
is not only none productive but fails to deal with the problems.
Other then that Iran is signed on NPR, while Israel is not.

Well yes, overall I would like to see Israel without nuclear weapons, no doubt about that.
But it's less a threat then Iran...especially as an offensive weapon.
Israel also did not threaten, at least not the way Iran is, to use nuclear weapons upon a people/state.
Its not a religious state (i.e does not justify actions by FAITH),
and it has a pretty clear criteria, about when using and why.


Other then this issue and exploding nuclear weapons in the middle east, from another aspect
the immediate problem,
is explosion of population of nuclear weapons (meaning numbers of weapons in more states).

It's mainly a political and power-crane, which other states will not accept from this perspective (including Israel).
The Saudis and Egyptians will likely also want nuclear weapons turning the middle east into where 4 powers will have nuclear weapons.
Other then that the NPR effect will expire WORDWIDE, and it will not be 2 more states with nuclear weapons but a dozen.

According to my initial claim, this is a bad thing.
Military options are mostly not on the table,
to make sanctions work we need Russia and China, this is a problem from hell.


Other then that Saudi Arabia (Sunni) is one of the most extreme Islamic states,
which is monopolizing Islam to it's version (which is as far as I know far from traditional Islam in the golden age)
, the same with Iran (Shi'a)

Calm down man ...
i agree with what you said, and the "Iran problem" is more severe right now... however, If iran would give up its nuclear program, so should israel (shortly after that) and the middle east would be a nuke-free zone... which is much better... dont u agree ?

so, the problem is: how do we guarantee that israel will disarm its nuclear arsenal after iran quits its nuke program? .. you can NEVER have any guarantee, especially that international "laws" dont apply on israel and you know that, not even ONCE throughout israel's history has an embargo any kind of punishment has been enforced on israel so, as a "proposed" solution, if israel would show good intention and disarm its nukes first (i know they're only defense and never threatened to use'em) .. then iran would have no "excuse" to build nukes, and if they still insist, then i dont thank that a single country would disagree on bombing them back to the stone age

but until then, it's their "right" to own nukes.

Written by Zombie on 23.04.2010 at 07:23

Written by Candlemass on 22.04.2010 at 20:42

Written by Zombie on 22.04.2010 at 19:57

Written by Candlemass on 22.04.2010 at 18:17

I'm for no nuclear weapons at all, by any one.

The latest and immediate is Iran, which is fucked up.

Right, and preferably Israel right before that.

I'm such a troll

Anyhow I ask please try to drop your biases against Israel,
The logical structure of "he can so I can" or "he started it"
is not only none productive but fails to deal with the problems.
Other then that Iran is signed on NPR, while Israel is not.

Well yes, overall I would like to see Israel without nuclear weapons, no doubt about that.
But it's less a threat then Iran...especially as an offensive weapon.
Israel also did not threaten, at least not the way Iran is, to use nuclear weapons upon a people/state.
Its not a religious state (i.e does not justify actions by FAITH),
and it has a pretty clear criteria, about when using and why.


Other then this issue and exploding nuclear weapons in the middle east, from another aspect
the immediate problem,
is explosion of population of nuclear weapons (meaning numbers of weapons in more states).

It's mainly a political and power-crane, which other states will not accept from this perspective (including Israel).
The Saudis and Egyptians will likely also want nuclear weapons turning the middle east into where 4 powers will have nuclear weapons.
Other then that the NPR effect will expire WORDWIDE, and it will not be 2 more states with nuclear weapons but a dozen.

According to my initial claim, this is a bad thing.
Military options are mostly not on the table,
to make sanctions work we need Russia and China, this is a problem from hell.


Other then that Saudi Arabia (Sunni) is one of the most extreme Islamic states,
which is monopolizing Islam to it's version (which is as far as I know far from traditional Islam in the golden age)
, the same with Iran (Shi'a)

Calm down man ...
i agree with what you said, and the "Iran problem" is more severe right now... however, If iran would give up its nuclear program, so should israel (shortly after that) and the middle east would be a nuke-free zone... which is much better... dont u agree ?

so, the problem is: how do we guarantee that israel will disarm its nuclear arsenal after iran quits its nuke program? .. you can NEVER have any guarantee, especially that international "laws" dont apply on israel and you know that, not even ONCE throughout israel's history has an embargo any kind of punishment has been enforced on israel so, as a "proposed" solution, if israel would show good intention and disarm its nukes first (i know they're only defense and never threatened to use'em) .. then iran would have no "excuse" to build nukes, and if they still insist, then i dont thank that a single country would disagree on bombing them back to the stone age

but until then, it's their "right" to own nukes.

You actually ignored my whole post, if you want to think like that it's OK with me.
I just think it's absurd.
You don't sound consistent first you claim Iran should disarm, but Iran's excuse is Israeli nuclear arms (Israel should disarm first)? (other then that Iran's excuse also is 'nuclear power', and why not use the US?)

Written by Candlemass on 23.04.2010 at 10:57


You actually ignored my whole post, if you want to think like that it's OK with me.
I just think it's absurd.
You don't sound consistent first you claim Iran should disarm, but Iran's excuse is Israeli nuclear arms (Israel should disarm first)? (other then that Iran's excuse also is 'nuclear power', and why not use the US?)

i didnt ignore it, i support your "middle east free of nukes" suhhestion, which is a WAY better idea thn the "all middle east countries owning nukes" ..
secondly, consistency? .. really? .. do you think that ignoring facts, turning the tables in speach, writing long posts, and avoiding to be dragged into a debate or a "heated discussion" is consistency.. and other than that its just incoherent blabbering ?

so, lets be practical about this mr. consistent, and lets not ignore eachothers points.. and to make it easy, i'll make it in the form of numbered questions:

1) If you dont want nukes in the middle east, then, accorgind to LOGIC, we should work on disarming BOTH; iran AND isreal at the same time, right?

2) every nation in the world has the right to defend itself, including israel AND iran (and Egypt and Sauidi arabia and US, ...etc) .. then why is it ok for some countries to have them, while it is not ok for others not to?

3) if, as you claim, israel preserves its right to bear nukes for "defensive purposes", then why would it be such a disster if "egypt" and "saudi arabia" own nukes too (as you mentioned b4)? keeping in mind both Egypt and Saudi arabia have a clean record of "agression" and have never been in engaged in wars except fr defensive pruposed since the 1500's , while israel is in a wr RIGHT NOW with palestine, and they keep expanding their territory day by day ? (nd dont tell me israel is showing good intentions by not nukeing palestinians coz they CANT do that, they're too close)

4) so, back to iran, does threatening to nuke another country deprive them of their right to defend themselves? ... what about USA ? .. how can iran POSSIBLY defend itself against a US invasion (such as the one on its neighbour, iraq) if it doesnt own a nuclear arsenal.. keeping in mind NO INTERNATIONAL RULES what-so-ever applies in the USA, nd any war against the is a one-sided-war, which the other country surely to lose (keeping in mind iran did NOT start its nuke program until it felt "threatened" after the invasion of iraq)

so, i'm done with questions here, if you would like to engage in a civilized, consistent discussion.. answer my questions followed by some questions of your own, and i'll surely answer those too.

and if you wish to keep calling everyone else inconsistent and claim superior logical discussion skills while ignoring other people posts, then go ahead, and ignore this post.... but you're only exposing your sneaky ways in discussion...

good day to you, neighbor.

(1) is a FALSE DILEMMA
No, you cannot deduce that what I wrote (=If Iran should disarm so should Israel - at the same time).
Iran is an immediate and more serious threat to everyone and will effect us in a manner that other countries won't (as I wrote two posts ago).
and should disarm with no straight relation to Israel from the following reasons addressing the rest of your claims (2,3,4).

(2) Iran signed the NPR, and no no country should have nuclear weapons, if some hold it, they should get rid of them
why and when, return to my answer to (1) and my previous post.

(3) it's not specific that Egypt will hold for example, but the spreading of these weapons is even more frighting.
(Besides the point Egypt fought aggressive wars against Israel in 48, 67 (kicking UN from Sinai, moving military forces in there and other proactive moves) , 73.)

Again your logic does not solve problems but only create more, your argument is not valid for this reason below.
In other words because someone does break the law/principle - this does not allow the other to do so.
If in your country someone will murder can the other do it? If someone steals and gets away with it, should all people get away with it?
Simply put NO, so let's get passed "he started it", "he did it so I can too" mentality.

If someone that broke the law argues that you CANNOT, that has nothing to do with the validly of the argument
or the problem of the content represented.
I can be a murderer and preach against violence, it would be perfectly valid.

We need to concentrate on how spreading of nuclear weapons will effect the life of all of us, together (For Jews, Muslims or who ever Human).
You can attack me ("sneaky ways"), it changes nothing of the argument.

Okay first of all thanks for replying (however u didnt answer question 4)... and a quick response on number (3) .. egypt DID attack in 48 and 67 (even though that was a part of the common-defence treatey between egypt and arab countries) .. and egypt was NOT the agressor in 73, sinai has always been egyptian.. so, lets not get dragged into this argument right now.

so, i agree again with you on the "lets not create more problems, and lets solve the current ones" .. so, what is your views on peaceful middle east ? .. that iran is disarmed and israel remains in possession of nuclaer power ? .. i understand that Iran has signed the NPR treaty and now they're violating it.. but israel did not even sign it in the first place.. which doesnt show good intentions... so, i will not justify iran's intention to own nukes by israels.. but if iran disarms its nukes... israel wont. dont u think ?

Written by Zombie on 23.04.2010 at 15:21

Okay first of all thanks for replying (however u didnt answer question 4)... and a quick response on number (3) .. egypt DID attack in 48 and 67 (even though that was a part of the common-defence treatey between egypt and arab countries) .. and egypt was NOT the agressor in 73, sinai has always been egyptian.. so, lets not get dragged into this argument right now.

so, i agree again with you on the "lets not create more problems, and lets solve the current ones" .. so, what is your views on peaceful middle east ? .. that iran is disarmed and israel remains in possession of nuclaer power ? .. i understand that Iran has signed the NPR treaty and now they're violating it.. but israel did not even sign it in the first place.. which doesnt show good intentions... so, i will not justify iran's intention to own nukes by israels.. but if iran disarms its nukes... israel wont. dont u think ?

A Palestinian state on ~67 borders should be advanced, for that we need;
most Jewish settlements should be evacuated by the Israeli army (see Gush Katif) returning these lands,
And a united, potent, accountable Palestinian leadership (and a willing Israeli government unlike the one now which I'm not a fan of).

More so a peaceful middle-east is an educated one, no more anti-Semitism, racism & Holocuast denying in Palestinian schools.
And school meetings between children (carried out now, but now wide enough).
Also CIVILIAN adult groups that bring people together in meetings (like http://yerushalom.com/, a very interesting new group of religious Jewish settlers who prompt meetings between Palestinians and Jews in the West Bank).

Hopefully a more honest approach from Israelis towards Palestinians human rights and compensations to certain Palestinians (debatable to which). Letting go of victim-hood of two of the sides bad history, understanding we all are human who should look towards a better future for our children - and that means letting go of some of our past, because holding on it has not yielded anything.

I think we should try and convince Israeli terror victim families and Palestinian families hurt from Israeli military actions (i.e bystanders in no means families of Israeli soldiers killed in action or Palestinian suicide bomber terrorists).

Obviously none of the sides of willing to do this for several reasons;
not very wise religious settlers think Israel is given by god, same by other religious Palestinians.
i.e given up the idea of a whole control of ALL the land from these reasons and victim-hood reasons (will it help by turning others into victims?).


Israel never admitted to hold nuclear weapons, which is obviously bullshit.
Israel is attacked by many countries at one period of time in the past and has from all the nations in the middle east the biggest existential threat,
this is the reason I see Israel should hold for longer nuclear weapons.
Also as safe as it can be Israel is less likely to use them and has a tight control unlike other countries in the area and the is simply less religious (Hizbullah for example in Lebanon, Saudi clerics etc).

Generally in the middle east I have no idea how the Saudi people or Iranian people should deal with there governments (Iranian tried with no success). But I see no way how nuclear weapons should help the people's of these nations or the peace in the region.

Written by Candlemass on 23.04.2010 at 16:39

Written by Zombie on 23.04.2010 at 15:21

Okay first of all thanks for replying (however u didnt answer question 4)... and a quick response on number (3) .. egypt DID attack in 48 and 67 (even though that was a part of the common-defence treatey between egypt and arab countries) .. and egypt was NOT the agressor in 73, sinai has always been egyptian.. so, lets not get dragged into this argument right now.

so, i agree again with you on the "lets not create more problems, and lets solve the current ones" .. so, what is your views on peaceful middle east ? .. that iran is disarmed and israel remains in possession of nuclaer power ? .. i understand that Iran has signed the NPR treaty and now they're violating it.. but israel did not even sign it in the first place.. which doesnt show good intentions... so, i will not justify iran's intention to own nukes by israels.. but if iran disarms its nukes... israel wont. dont u think ?

A Palestinian state on ~67 borders should be advanced, for that we need;
most Jewish settlements should be evacuated by the Israeli army (see Gush Katif) returning these lands,
And a united, potent, accountable Palestinian leadership (and a willing Israeli government unlike the one now which I'm not a fan of).

More so a peaceful middle-east is an educated one, no more anti-Semitism, racism & Holocuast denying in Palestinian schools.
And school meetings between children (carried out now, but now wide enough).
Also CIVILIAN adult groups that bring people together in meetings (like http://yerushalom.com/, a very interesting new group of religious Jewish settlers who prompt meetings between Palestinians and Jews in the West Bank).

Hopefully a more honest approach from Israelis towards Palestinians human rights and compensations to certain Palestinians (debatable to which). Letting go of victim-hood of two of the sides bad history, understanding we all are human who should look towards a better future for our children - and that means letting go of some of our past, because holding on it has not yielded anything.

I think we should try and convince Israeli terror victim families and Palestinian families hurt from Israeli military actions (i.e bystanders in no means families of Israeli soldiers killed in action or Palestinian suicide bomber terrorists).

Obviously none of the sides of willing to do this for several reasons;
not very wise religious settlers think Israel is given by god, same by other religious Palestinians.
i.e given up the idea of a whole control of ALL the land from these reasons and victim-hood reasons (will it help by turning others into victims?).


Israel never admitted to hold nuclear weapons, which is obviously bullshit.
Israel is attacked by many countries at one period of time in the past and has from all the nations in the middle east the biggest existential threat,
this is the reason I see Israel should hold for longer nuclear weapons.
Also as safe as it can be Israel is less likely to use them and has a tight control unlike other countries in the area and the is simply less religious (Hizbullah for example in Lebanon, Saudi clerics etc).

Generally in the middle east I have no idea how the Saudi people or Iranian people should deal with there governments (Iranian tried with no success). But I see no way how nuclear weapons should help the people's of these nations or the peace in the region.

THANK YOU !! .. now we can be friends
ok, i seriously agree with 100% of what you wrote... AND.. i admit it is more dangerous for muslim countries to own nukes than it is for israel or the USA (not coz muslims are bad or anything, but coz they'll go all jihad n shit and not think of the consequences.. while israel and USA use more sinister ways than just brutal violence ) ...

Written by Zombie on 23.04.2010 at 18:12

Written by Candlemass on 23.04.2010 at 16:39

Written by Zombie on 23.04.2010 at 15:21

Okay first of all thanks for replying (however u didnt answer question 4)... and a quick response on number (3) .. egypt DID attack in 48 and 67 (even though that was a part of the common-defence treatey between egypt and arab countries) .. and egypt was NOT the agressor in 73, sinai has always been egyptian.. so, lets not get dragged into this argument right now.

so, i agree again with you on the "lets not create more problems, and lets solve the current ones" .. so, what is your views on peaceful middle east ? .. that iran is disarmed and israel remains in possession of nuclaer power ? .. i understand that Iran has signed the NPR treaty and now they're violating it.. but israel did not even sign it in the first place.. which doesnt show good intentions... so, i will not justify iran's intention to own nukes by israels.. but if iran disarms its nukes... israel wont. dont u think ?

A Palestinian state on ~67 borders should be advanced, for that we need;
most Jewish settlements should be evacuated by the Israeli army (see Gush Katif) returning these lands,
And a united, potent, accountable Palestinian leadership (and a willing Israeli government unlike the one now which I'm not a fan of).

More so a peaceful middle-east is an educated one, no more anti-Semitism, racism & Holocuast denying in Palestinian schools.
And school meetings between children (carried out now, but now wide enough).
Also CIVILIAN adult groups that bring people together in meetings (like http://yerushalom.com/, a very interesting new group of religious Jewish settlers who prompt meetings between Palestinians and Jews in the West Bank).

Hopefully a more honest approach from Israelis towards Palestinians human rights and compensations to certain Palestinians (debatable to which). Letting go of victim-hood of two of the sides bad history, understanding we all are human who should look towards a better future for our children - and that means letting go of some of our past, because holding on it has not yielded anything.

I think we should try and convince Israeli terror victim families and Palestinian families hurt from Israeli military actions (i.e bystanders in no means families of Israeli soldiers killed in action or Palestinian suicide bomber terrorists).

Obviously none of the sides of willing to do this for several reasons;
not very wise religious settlers think Israel is given by god, same by other religious Palestinians.
i.e given up the idea of a whole control of ALL the land from these reasons and victim-hood reasons (will it help by turning others into victims?).


Israel never admitted to hold nuclear weapons, which is obviously bullshit.
Israel is attacked by many countries at one period of time in the past and has from all the nations in the middle east the biggest existential threat,
this is the reason I see Israel should hold for longer nuclear weapons.
Also as safe as it can be Israel is less likely to use them and has a tight control unlike other countries in the area and the is simply less religious (Hizbullah for example in Lebanon, Saudi clerics etc).

Generally in the middle east I have no idea how the Saudi people or Iranian people should deal with there governments (Iranian tried with no success). But I see no way how nuclear weapons should help the people's of these nations or the peace in the region.

THANK YOU !! .. now we can be friends
ok, i seriously agree with 100% of what you wrote... AND.. i admit it is more dangerous for muslim countries to own nukes than it is for israel or the USA (not coz muslims are bad or anything, but coz they'll go all jihad n shit and not think of the consequences.. while israel and USA use more sinister ways than just brutal violence ) ...

Well, even if we don't agree we can be friends.
I'm sure we like many of the same foods and other similar aspects.
Other then that I find the Egyptian Arabic the most beautiful and my grandmother loved the (I forgot how you call this genre I think it has a special name..) Egyptian soap opera's.
I don't find mostly ugly things in Arab culture, they are overflowing many beautiful things too.
I hope people will take good care of it ("Interestingly, the report found that the total number of books translated into Arabic yearly is no more than 330, or one-fifth of those translated in a small country like Greece. ", probably because of extreme Islamic movements)

lol..well, I wish for no more brutal violence and obviously no government support for that.
And no nuclear weapons for anyone, which seems like a far 'dream' but worthy one.

WE ARE AMERICA, we want to tell everyone what to do and expand our empire with taxpayers' money. We're allowed to have nukes and use them. Nobody else is because everyone is a terrorist.

Fuck all this shit. Give every country enough nukes to destroy other countries and nobody will ever use them. That's the real solution.

Small cities in America, btw, who require everyone to own a firearm have FAR LESS crime than everyone else. Unfortunately this doesn't fit into the agenda of the corporate media so they don't report on it.

And for all naive Europeans who believe guns are terrible and nobody should have them (I don't disagree with the first part)...wait until your government fucking rapes you like the Gestapo. Then you'll realize, oh wait, the founding fathers of America were correct. Everyone should have guns to protect themselves from the government.

Fuck the current American govt. Fuck the Iranian govt. Fuck the Israeli govt. Fuck politicians and bankers who ruin the world for everyone else who just want to be happy and get along.

Written by Konrad on 19.05.2010 at 19:17

WE ARE AMERICA, we want to tell everyone what to do and expand our empire with taxpayers' money. We're allowed to have nukes and use them. Nobody else is because everyone is a terrorist.

Fuck all this shit. Give every country enough nukes to destroy other countries and nobody will ever use them. That's the real solution.

Small cities in America, btw, who require everyone to own a firearm have FAR LESS crime than everyone else. Unfortunately this doesn't fit into the agenda of the corporate media so they don't report on it.

And for all naive Europeans who believe guns are terrible and nobody should have them (I don't disagree with the first part)...wait until your government fucking rapes you like the Gestapo. Then you'll realize, oh wait, the founding fathers of America were correct. Everyone should have guns to protect themselves from the government.

Fuck the current American govt. Fuck the Iranian govt. Fuck the Israeli govt. Fuck politicians and bankers who ruin the world for everyone else who just want to be happy and get along.

EPIC WIN

Written by Konrad on 19.05.2010 at 19:17

WE ARE AMERICA, we want to tell everyone what to do and expand our empire with taxpayers' money. We're allowed to have nukes and use them. Nobody else is because everyone is a terrorist.

Fuck all this shit. Give every country enough nukes to destroy other countries and nobody will ever use them. That's the real solution.

Small cities in America, btw, who require everyone to own a firearm have FAR LESS crime than everyone else. Unfortunately this doesn't fit into the agenda of the corporate media so they don't report on it.

And for all naive Europeans who believe guns are terrible and nobody should have them (I don't disagree with the first part)...wait until your government fucking rapes you like the Gestapo. Then you'll realize, oh wait, the founding fathers of America were correct. Everyone should have guns to protect themselves from the government.

Fuck the current American govt. Fuck the Iranian govt. Fuck the Israeli govt. Fuck politicians and bankers who ruin the world for everyone else who just want to be happy and get along.

I just don't see how the nearly nihilistic proposition works.
Spread nukes they will eventually get into the wrong hands, it's just a matter of time.
Especially considering unstable countries or very religious one's.
As an example, of a situation of a world holding so many nukes, take the Cold War.
It distorted US culture (in 1952 "in god we trust" was added to the dollar bill), we the way we spend our government money (extreme militray production) and the way we view "the other" (estrangement).
This is a constant state of emergency & alarm.
The political philosopher Carl Schmitt reminds us of "Sovereign is he who decides on the exception."
His concept repeats itself though out history, a contemporary would be Gorge W Bush and his disgusting "patriot" laws.
To propose that most of US power is in nuclear weapons is at the best partial.
It would be more true to suggest in economic & military force & tech.

It's sad that people should respect force and not there own ethical principals.
Yes, I agree that some deterrence of both sides or of a third side is important tho, and it's not only military force.
When it comes to spreading of nuclear weapons, the opposite should happen then spreading them.
It seems like the cancer of hatred to the capitalist US is more important then anything else, I'm not a big fan either,
but I don't see at the horizon any better alternatives.

Your gun assumptions (based on "statistics" in this case) is just not convincing.
How many children are killed yearly from guns?
How many suicides are committed by guns?
And this is a very relevant question, since suicide is taken place if one hold a firearm are more likely to happen.
I know this by experience in my military service.
How many homicides are committed yearly?

What is the percentage guns are used for self-protection in comparison to crimes?
According to Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence_in_the_United_States#Self-protection), if I understood correctly, 0.2% are used as self protection.
You complete the other.

Written by Candlemass on 20.05.2010 at 10:02

Spread nukes they will eventually get into the wrong hands, it's just a matter of time.
Especially considering unstable countries or very religious one's.

This hits the nail on the head. I can't comment on gun laws (it's outside the scope of this thread, I think), but from a nuclear politics perspective the United States can be seen either as being hypocritical due to their failure to denounce their own nuclear arsenal or as being pragmatic due to their unwillingness to allow the spread of nuclear technology to potentially volatile states. Many people may point out that the United States is the only nation to have ever used nuclear weapons in combat, and use this as a base from which they can label the United States government's policies towards Iran and North Korea as being hypocritical, especially given their eternal leniency towards Israel. They are partially correct, but while everyone in theory should have the right to possess such technology without their access being impeded by the United States, not everyone can shoulder the responsibility that comes with such technology, due to various domestic affairs coming in the way.

This is the problem that faces a nation like Pakistan today. Pakistan is a nuclear power, yet allows militant forces like the Taliban to seize control of areas barely 100km from the capital city. While the Pakistani government and military may be able to shoulder the responsibility of being a nuclear power, if the Taliban were to get their hands on a Pakistani nuclear weapon I highly doubt they would show the same restraint.

I have a feeling that this is similar to what the United States is worried about with Iran and North Korea. While they don't have problems with militants (Iran has secessionist movements active in Kurdistan and Sistan va Baluchistan provinces but both regions are quite removed from the seat of power), they do not have the same system of control over their military arsenal. If Ayatollah Khamenei wakes up on the wrong side of the bed and has access to nuclear technology, as the Supreme Leader of the Islamic Republic of Iran, he can order a nuclear strike anywhere he wants and it will happen. However, if Barack Obama or Benjamin Netanyahu wants to drop a nuclear bomb on someone, it isn't so easy because of the various processes such a thing has to go through before it is carried out.

I will admit that the Iranian situation is exacerbated by Israel's undeclared nuclear arsenal and this does carry a certain stain of hypocrisy on the part of the United States. I will also admit that the United States is not the only nuclear nation implicated in this. Russia, Pakistan, India and China all have their own agendas and they are not always in accordance with those of the United States. Ultimately, it's important to remember that all nations will put their own well-being as their number one priority. Israel isn't a threat to the United States, so the United States doesn't see a problem with Israel having nuclear weapons. However, Iran and North Korea are viewed as being threats and so their access to nuclear technology is being curtailed.

Written by Judas on 20.05.2010 at 20:01

Written by Candlemass on 20.05.2010 at 10:02

Spread nukes they will eventually get into the wrong hands, it's just a matter of time.
Especially considering unstable countries or very religious one's.

I will admit that the Iranian situation is exacerbated by Israel's undeclared nuclear arsenal and this does carry a certain stain of hypocrisy on the part of the United States. I will also admit that the United States is not the only nuclear nation implicated in this. Russia, Pakistan, India and China all have their own agendas and they are not always in accordance with those of the United States. Ultimately, it's important to remember that all nations will put their own well-being as their number one priority. Israel isn't a threat to the United States, so the United States doesn't see a problem with Israel having nuclear weapons. However, Iran and North Korea are viewed as being threats and so their access to nuclear technology is being curtailed.

Good analysis and formulation.
Repeating the main point of my last post, the hypocrisy of the United States on this issue,
isn't a reason for spreading further more nuclear weapons because of the problematical nature of these weapons & countries.

The Nukes are already in the wrong hands. The USA is the only country ever to have used them...and on civilians I might add. If you want to bring up Pearl Harbor as an excuse, I suggest you research how badly FDR was dying to enter the war...despite all of his bullshit promises that "our boys would never be drafted." We gave Japanese citizens absolutely no warning, and destroyed two of their cities. Although Pearl Harbor was a bit of a surprise, we had already tried to prove the Japanese and the Germans on numerous occasions.

If you still trust the US government, research OPERATION NORTHWOODS, courtesy of the freedom of information act. I'm not saying I support nukes even existing. But they do exist, and will continue to exist. Take my situation here in New Orleans for example. During Katrina, many of the police officers confiscated REGISTERED weapons from good, honest citizens. As a result, they were robbed by people with unregistered weapons. Drugs are illegal. Many things are illegal. This doesn't stop people from acquiring them.

The bottom line is this, governments are never here to protect us. They never have been, and they never will be. The key to having a civilization that prospers is limiting governments. Guns exist, nukes exist. They are not going anywhere. Isn't it understandable that Iran would want a nuclear weapon considering the fact that people around them have nuclear weapons? Who the FUCK is America to tell anybody what they can and cannot do.

Regardless of your opinions on intervention, preventative war, etc. we are going bankrupt. We don't have money for these wars and we don't have money to have US military bases in every fucking country. I hate war. I hate weapons...but if you seriously believe guns are the reason why the suicide rate is so high...you should check other countries who have higher suicide rates and less guns. I understand your points and realize that I am not 100% correct with my opinions, but some of your arguments are very weak. Study history, that is the key to everything.

Written by Konrad on 21.05.2010 at 13:36

The Nukes are already in the wrong hands. The USA is the only country ever to have used them...and on civilians I might add. If you want to bring up Pearl Harbor as an excuse, I suggest you research how badly FDR was dying to enter the war...despite all of his bullshit promises that "our boys would never be drafted." We gave Japanese citizens absolutely no warning, and destroyed two of their cities. Although Pearl Harbor was a bit of a surprise, we had already tried to prove the Japanese and the Germans on numerous occasions.

If you still trust the US government, research OPERATION NORTHWOODS, courtesy of the freedom of information act. I'm not saying I support nukes even existing. But they do exist, and will continue to exist. Take my situation here in New Orleans for example. During Katrina, many of the police officers confiscated REGISTERED weapons from good, honest citizens. As a result, they were robbed by people with unregistered weapons. Drugs are illegal. Many things are illegal. This doesn't stop people from acquiring them.

The bottom line is this, governments are never here to protect us. They never have been, and they never will be. The key to having a civilization that prospers is limiting governments. Guns exist, nukes exist. They are not going anywhere. Isn't it understandable that Iran would want a nuclear weapon considering the fact that people around them have nuclear weapons? Who the FUCK is America to tell anybody what they can and cannot do.

Regardless of your opinions on intervention, preventative war, etc. we are going bankrupt. We don't have money for these wars and we don't have money to have US military bases in every fucking country. I hate war. I hate weapons...but if you seriously believe guns are the reason why the suicide rate is so high...you should check other countries who have higher suicide rates and less guns. I understand your points and realize that I am not 100% correct with my opinions, but some of your arguments are very weak. Study history, that is the key to everything.

AGAIN, POST FULL OF EPIC WIN !!!