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.

The history of the US using nuclear weapons is simply put, irrelevant.
US then isn't the US now, you cannot conclude that if Harry S. Truman used NW towards the end of WWII so
will Obama today in different conditions or any future president.
Today, the US holding nuclear weapons is far more likely NOT to use them then in Iranian hands or other
NOT democratic states, that some of them actually are leaded by religious manics, see Judas's post for elaboration.
BTW I'm just happy Bush is out of office, which is a +.

-"Many things are illegal..."

Crossing the street against red light is illegal, still some people do it.
This is not an excuse of making it legal or putative.
You are not referring to the reason of the law, but falling to the mentality of "But he started it!".
With this mentality no law is possible and worse, when one country will use nuclear weapons simply everyone could & would.
The ideal is no body with nukes or using nukes, is which we should aspire to (the problem with your solution is below).
Especially concerning countries more likely to use them for various reasons (for instance Iran actually threatening to destroy another country, or some whimsical religious command is likely).

You suggestion to getting to half of that ideal (nobody using nuclear weapons) is the a balance of power situation (which gives up the first as unachievable.)
Which is valid as long as two of the sides are playing an equal game (as worrying for the life of it's own civilians) and rational game (as calculating what the next step should be), which simply isn't the case.
Also the a constant balance of power is unlikely, while countries open an arms race.
If you want to enter another cold war, it's your lose.

The solution should come from the US itself with UN supervision.
The details of such a plan should be put forward & debated, seems more plausible then your alternative.

Who is the US to do so? Who is anyone to do anything? US foreign policy should address it's interests & values and hopefully Western interests & values, which seems plausible to me.

Time will tell my friend. One thing is certain, the Israeli, US and Iranian governments are all full of shit. If you think Iran is any worse than Israel, maybe you need to try to view things from a different perspective.

You bring up some valid points and I don't think it's worth even discussing anymore, because we agree to disagree. I just wanted to add my two cents to the conversation because I think it's a good one, and I think a lot of people on metalstorm are very mature and intelligent. It's nice to have a civil debate without name calling.

One more thing though, don't forget atomic warfare is a different kind of warfare. Think if every country had nuclear power to destroy cities. Would they ever use it on anyone? I think the odds are far less because their fears for someone else retaliating would be much greater. What the US, Israel and other regimes are creating is a monopoly on violence. Having US army bases in around 130 countries in the world is just pure arrogance, and it's the reason why terrorists might want to attack us, and not Canada or Mexico. IMO.

Name calling is unproductive, arguments should be addressed (unless the guy's claiming to see something and his blind! Hah).

Yes, according to my humanistic values, some governments are better then other (and some way way better then others).
Iranian court hanging a 16 year old girl because she was RAPED before she got married (as if raping while she is is fine) or Saudi police stooping schoolgirls from leaving a blazing building because they were not wearing correct Islamic dress (15 killed), etc.
No, no body is perfect, one should keep sense of judgment and proportion.

The reasons for terrorists attacking the US are varied, some say it's a adverse response to western imperialism, some call it the clash of civilizations or a war of secular versus religious, etc.
Honesty I haven't read enough in the area to hold a good based opinion, so I will give up a positive stance on this at the moment.

Written by Konrad on 21.05.2010 at 23:17

One more thing though, don't forget atomic warfare is a different kind of warfare. Think if every country had nuclear power to destroy cities. Would they ever use it on anyone? I think the odds are far less because their fears for someone else retaliating would be much greater. What the US, Israel and other regimes are creating is a monopoly on violence. Having US army bases in around 130 countries in the world is just pure arrogance, and it's the reason why terrorists might want to attack us, and not Canada or Mexico. IMO.

Dude, RESPECT ++ !!

Written by Candlemass on 21.05.2010 at 19:19

The history of the US using nuclear weapons is simply put, irrelevant.
US then isn't the US now, you cannot conclude that if Harry S. Truman used NW towards the end of WWII so
will Obama today in different conditions or any future president.
Today, the US holding nuclear weapons is far more likely NOT to use them then in Iranian hands or other
NOT democratic states, that some of them actually are leaded by religious manics, see Judas's post for elaboration.
BTW I'm just happy Bush is out of office, which is a +.

-"Many things are illegal..."

Crossing the street against red light is illegal, still some people do it.
This is not an excuse of making it legal or putative.
You are not referring to the reason of the law, but falling to the mentality of "But he started it!".
With this mentality no law is possible and worse, when one country will use nuclear weapons simply everyone could & would.
The ideal is no body with nukes or using nukes, is which we should aspire to (the problem with your solution is below).
Especially concerning countries more likely to use them for various reasons (for instance Iran actually threatening to destroy another country, or some whimsical religious command is likely).

You suggestion to getting to half of that ideal (nobody using nuclear weapons) is the a balance of power situation (which gives up the first as unachievable.)
Which is valid as long as two of the sides are playing an equal game (as worrying for the life of it's own civilians) and rational game (as calculating what the next step should be), which simply isn't the case.
Also the a constant balance of power is unlikely, while countries open an arms race.
If you want to enter another cold war, it's your lose.

The solution should come from the US itself with UN supervision.
The details of such a plan should be put forward & debated, seems more plausible then your alternative.

Who is the US to do so? Who is anyone to do anything? US foreign policy should address it's interests & values and hopefully Western interests & values, which seems plausible to me.

I wouldn't expect such post from you man, we had similar debates and i respect how knowledgeable, logical, and intelligent you are.. so, you CANT be serious about what u mentioned in this post..

do you REALLY think the USA today is different than the US 50 years ago? .. and you say it's even BETTER ? .... also, how is Truman or Obama even relevant? you, me, and EVERYONE knows that presidents dont rule the country, obama's foreign diplomacy is not his own point of view, same was truman's... all the crap about "change" and "democratics vs. republicans" is irrelevant and history has proved that time after time... so, let's skip the "USA is good now and Obama is just awesome and they'd NEVER use violence as an option" .. okay ?

also, "the crossing street is illegal" conversation is again irrelevant, you cannot possibly compare this to that ... please explain to me how is "equality/balance in world nuclear power" is equal to "we should make traffic laws obsolete " ... is "chaos" for example ur point of argument ? .. that without traffic laws there would be chaos just as if all countries had nukes it would be chaos? .. well, let me tell you two things my friend:

1) if we apply your "traffic laws" theory then you're saying; "There should be traffic lws so tht there wouldnt be chaos, but.. very skilled drivers can (aka USA, Israel, Russia, France, UK, Pakistan, China, India, N. Korea) break the traffic law, just coz they're so damn good at driving there's no risk of them causing trouble.. ... which, i appologize, is complete bullshit

2) As Konrad said; if everyone had nukes, then all countries would think a billion times b4 attemtping anything as they KNOW their opponents would retaliate.. and that would make the world a more "balanced" place without any absolute brutal powers that abuse their powers OFTEN and invade other countries for .. lets say.. oil ? ....

anyways, what makes you think these "extremist religious" countries are "bad" and the current nuke-owning countries arent? .. infact, in terms of agression... the current nuke-owning countries ALL have a black history of agression and invasion, imperialistic greed, and blood-stained past... while.. these "yet-to-have" nukes countries have a somehow semi-clean history.. so, how come you decide which countries should have nukes and who shouldnt.. and who are you to classify countries as "extremist" and "so-called peaceful and sane" ?

anyways, i'm STRICTLY against all kinds of super weapons, all weapons of mass destruction are simply inhumane, and any government who owns them should be put to question, hell, to trial for why they have such tools of destruction? .. and i certainly dont encourage anymore countries to make nukes.... not even for defensive purposes.

but again, i say, you cannot POSSIBLY blame any country who wants to posses a nuclear arsenal... it's their RIGHT s long as they power-scale in the world is imbalanced... coz as the ancient proverb says: "might makes right" .. and that does NOT mean i take this proverb as "arm urself to be right" ... i take it as" whoever posses power (military or media) is the one who determines who's "good" and who's "bad" ... so, all i'm saying is ... maybe Iran ain't the "asshole of the world" country as the media portrays it... Iran surely have some fucked up strict religious laws that i dont understand.. so as saudi arabia... so as egypt.. so as most third-world "not-so-civilized" countries.. but that does notjustify USA fucking with them after sucking up all of Iraq's oil.. and now it's Iran's turn.

fuck this.. no blood for oil !

Written by Zombie on 22.05.2010 at 03:14

Written by Konrad on 21.05.2010 at 23:17

One more thing though, don't forget atomic warfare is a different kind of warfare. Think if every country had nuclear power to destroy cities. Would they ever use it on anyone? I think the odds are far less because their fears for someone else retaliating would be much greater. What the US, Israel and other regimes are creating is a monopoly on violence. Having US army bases in around 130 countries in the world is just pure arrogance, and it's the reason why terrorists might want to attack us, and not Canada or Mexico. IMO.

Dude, RESPECT ++ !!

Written by Candlemass on 21.05.2010 at 19:19

The history of the US using nuclear weapons is simply put, irrelevant.
US then isn't the US now, you cannot conclude that if Harry S. Truman used NW towards the end of WWII so
will Obama today in different conditions or any future president.
Today, the US holding nuclear weapons is far more likely NOT to use them then in Iranian hands or other
NOT democratic states, that some of them actually are leaded by religious manics, see Judas's post for elaboration.
BTW I'm just happy Bush is out of office, which is a +.

-"Many things are illegal..."

Crossing the street against red light is illegal, still some people do it.
This is not an excuse of making it legal or putative.
You are not referring to the reason of the law, but falling to the mentality of "But he started it!".
With this mentality no law is possible and worse, when one country will use nuclear weapons simply everyone could & would.
The ideal is no body with nukes or using nukes, is which we should aspire to (the problem with your solution is below).
Especially concerning countries more likely to use them for various reasons (for instance Iran actually threatening to destroy another country, or some whimsical religious command is likely).

You suggestion to getting to half of that ideal (nobody using nuclear weapons) is the a balance of power situation (which gives up the first as unachievable.)
Which is valid as long as two of the sides are playing an equal game (as worrying for the life of it's own civilians) and rational game (as calculating what the next step should be), which simply isn't the case.
Also the a constant balance of power is unlikely, while countries open an arms race.
If you want to enter another cold war, it's your lose.

The solution should come from the US itself with UN supervision.
The details of such a plan should be put forward & debated, seems more plausible then your alternative.

Who is the US to do so? Who is anyone to do anything? US foreign policy should address it's interests & values and hopefully Western interests & values, which seems plausible to me.

I wouldn't expect such post from you man, we had similar debates and i respect how knowledgeable, logical, and intelligent you are.. so, you CANT be serious about what u mentioned in this post..

do you REALLY think the USA today is different than the US 50 years ago? .. and you say it's even BETTER ? .... also, how is Truman or Obama even relevant? you, me, and EVERYONE knows that presidents dont rule the country, obama's foreign diplomacy is not his own point of view, same was truman's... all the crap about "change" and "democratics vs. republicans" is irrelevant and history has proved that time after time... so, let's skip the "USA is good now and Obama is just awesome and they'd NEVER use violence as an option" .. okay ?

also, "the crossing street is illegal" conversation is again irrelevant, you cannot possibly compare this to that ... please explain to me how is "equality/balance in world nuclear power" is equal to "we should make traffic laws obsolete " ... is "chaos" for example ur point of argument ? .. that without traffic laws there would be chaos just as if all countries had nukes it would be chaos? .. well, let me tell you two things my friend:

1) if we apply your "traffic laws" theory then you're saying; "There should be traffic lws so tht there wouldnt be chaos, but.. very skilled drivers can (aka USA, Israel, Russia, France, UK, Pakistan, China, India, N. Korea) break the traffic law, just coz they're so damn good at driving there's no risk of them causing trouble.. ... which, i appologize, is complete bullshit

2) As Konrad said; if everyone had nukes, then all countries would think a billion times b4 attemtping anything as they KNOW their opponents would retaliate.. and that would make the world a more "balanced" place without any absolute brutal powers that abuse their powers OFTEN and invade other countries for .. lets say.. oil ? ....

anyways, what makes you think these "extremist religious" countries are "bad" and the current nuke-owning countries arent? .. infact, in terms of agression... the current nuke-owning countries ALL have a black history of agression and invasion, imperialistic greed, and blood-stained past... while.. these "yet-to-have" nukes countries have a somehow semi-clean history.. so, how come you decide which countries should have nukes and who shouldnt.. and who are you to classify countries as "extremist" and "so-called peaceful and sane" ?

anyways, i'm STRICTLY against all kinds of super weapons, all weapons of mass destruction are simply inhumane, and any government who owns them should be put to question, hell, to trial for why they have such tools of destruction? .. and i certainly dont encourage anymore countries to make nukes.... not even for defensive purposes.

but again, i say, you cannot POSSIBLY blame any country who wants to posses a nuclear arsenal... it's their RIGHT s long as they power-scale in the world is imbalanced... coz as the ancient proverb says: "might makes right" .. and that does NOT mean i take this proverb as "arm urself to be right" ... i take it as" whoever posses power (military or media) is the one who determines who's "good" and who's "bad" ... so, all i'm saying is ... maybe Iran ain't the "asshole of the world" country as the media portrays it... Iran surely have some fucked up strict religious laws that i dont understand.. so as saudi arabia... so as egypt.. so as most third-world "not-so-civilized" countries.. but that does notjustify USA fucking with them after sucking up all of Iraq's oil.. and now it's Iran's turn.

fuck this.. no blood for oil !

BUMP.

@ezz_zombie

I'm comparing to reveal a logical structure (in which you can use any example X Y Z, I used a traffic light), which is fine as long as it's content is meaningful compared to the other.
This is why I find the analogy to US history as a false analogy, since the content is different meaningfully (i.e different conditions & properties).

(1)"if we apply your "traffic laws"... is complete bullshit"

But this isn't what I'm saying.
What Konard is saying in his second paragraph ("...Many things are illegal. This doesn't stop people from acquiring them.)
Is that because some break the law - it's only fair others should too, bringing forward the "Katrina example" to support this
After that the 'balance of power situation' thesis as a solution.
Therefor my reply of "traffic light analogy" to lighten that others breaking the law isn't an excuse for you breaking it, and it's even worse to cancel the law totally that has good reasons (ןn this case preventing harm).
My ideal again, is that no one should hold nuclear weapons, yet Iran is a bigger threat & spreading nuclear weapons isn't a good idea at all. The 'balance of power situation' thesis is not workable from reasons I have posted and I will elaborate on next;

About point (2), I think I gave a decent objection of this thesis, I will elaborate my point.
Not when some people think that the messiah/Imam will come at the end of days, while the other side is playing for civilian life.
This is a concept I have learned from philosophy of game Theory - players are assumed to be rational & in control, and also they seek to win (which is different in our case, one could prefer heaven & the other life).
There are conditions for equilibrium, which are not possible in our situation.

And concerning Iran who signed the NPT, it isn't there right and it isn't rational to let them hold nuclear weapons for the above reasons.

Did the US attack Iraq for Oil? I think the answer is more vague then you think.
Actually the thesis of US invading Iraq because of oil, seem less plausible if these facts are right:

Importance of Iraqi Oil to the U.S.
during December 2002, the United States imported 11.3 million barrels of oil from Iraq.
Other imports at the time:
Saudi Arabia - 56.2 million barrels
Venezuela 20.2 million barrels
Nigeria 19.3 million barrels
Kuwait - 5.9 million barrels
Algeria - 1.2 million barrels
Canada 46.2 million barrels
Mexico 53.8 million barrels
United Kingdom 11.7 million barrels
Norway 4.5 million barrels

Iraqi oil is about 5% ofl imports (not including oil yielded within the US, like Texas and Alaska).
Is it worth the cost of invasion?
Is the US government incapable of doing this simple calculus?
Maybe it's connection of the oil corporations to the goverment?
Or is it a Christian cowboy attitude that lead them to the war?
I don't know the answer, I have no worth while opinion on this.
Seems to me worth checking out & considering the evidence, before getting all rude and pissed.

ezz_zombie, I have basic respect (I try) for you, I ask for you to do the same,
and try to avoid speaking of me, if it has nothing to do with the argument or subject.

@ candlemass

Fair enough, but i have a quick reply and i'll brief it in bullets to avoid the confusion:

+ You did not even mention the "Obama, Truman, Bush" thing in your reply, which -obviously- was my first and strongest point of argument.. you chose to ignore replying to that, so, i ask you again, do you think Obama, truman, Bush, or even Bin Laden (if hypothetically assumed US presidency office) would make different decisions according foreign diplomacy? .. it's not a one-man show u know.. it's either a corporate-greed fueled war machine (the pessimistic view) or a democratic, peaceful public opinion (the optimistic view) but it's NEVER the president's call... America's bigger than to be ruled by one man, and that is why the overall general diplomacy of the USA hasn't changed throughout history, every president is slightly different than the other but they still all share the same broad concept ... a RECENT proof to that is Hilary Clinton's speech about how democracy and free speech in Egypt is getting better while the country has NEVER seen such period of oppression more than the current period. so, talk about double standards, and masks unveiled.

+ Neither me, nor Konrad (as i think) say that it's BETTER that all of us break the law rather than some of us breaking it and some dont... we surely dont want absolute chaos... but, equality is the key to ending terrorism, muslim people dont do blow off themselves just coz it's "cool".. they do it coz they have nothing else left to lose, they gave up hope in this unjust life, and they're aiming for the "second chance" in heaven.. they're delusional, but can u blame them? .. do they even stand a chance against the western war-machine ? ... so, fighting terrorism shouldn't be by the use of violence.. it should be by fixing the cause of the hatred in the first place.. and Konrad provided the fine example of why muslims hate USA and not Canada or mexico even though they're as "western" as the USA is ...so, equality in nuclear power (which is WRONG) is STILL better than inequality.. trust me, this would cause LESS violence than the violence in the world today.. and you can tell how fucked up the world we live in is bu it's unbalanced power scales..

+ you say the "balance of power" is inworkble.. well, i agree with you, but it is because the nuke-owning countries would NEVER let weaker countries own nukes.. and for all countries to disarm their nukes it's VERY UNLIKELY.. coz then an asshole country would develop nukes and become the sole superpower.. so, the ONLY way for the balance to happen is that everyone would be "strong". rather than everyone "weak"... and remember, "balance" is good.. it's the keyword here... we cant just say it's impossible and look the other way, coz we'll NEVER solve the violence issue unless the power balance problem is fixed... it's basic "democracy" .. every one has equal rights, so, the USA is not really practicing what it preaches... they "rape" other countries in the name of spreading democracy while they have Vito power in the UN, they have a nuclear arsenal larger than the world's combined, and they have powerful media than can influence the masses and get FORCE their message of self-righteousness and all arabs, communists, colored people are the "axis of evil" ... racism has NEVER been practiced on a global scale as much as the USA and it's allies does... and by allies.. i mean its spoiled little baby sister state, israel

+ The argument about iranians following what their "imam" says and not being rational and would nuke their enemies and could not care about being nuked too afterwards as they're seeking "heaven" .. well as scarey that though it (trust me, in egypt we're scared of that too as egypt are sunni muslims while iran are shia muslims.. and those two HATE eachothers even more than jew-muslim hatred) .. but, i highly doubt anycountry would do this self-destructive acts.. coz if the PEOPLE are brainwashed religious fucktards who follow their imam blindly, their leaders aren't.. the leaders are VERY smart... and infact, they USE those imams to get the people to do what they want.. and they hold onto life more than you or any westerner would do... so, i wouldnt worry much about the "jihad" kinda crap.. we're talking about COUNTRIES not two rednecks fighting in a bar.. or two arabs fighting in a cave over a camel or some veiled chick

+ not coz the USA imports 5% of its oil does it mean that they didnt need iraq's oil in the first place and that is why they're importing only 5% of their needs.. i think they did that coz saddam wouldnt give them more.. or maybe iraqi oil was overpriced.. or maybe USA didnt want to rely completely in iraqi oil so that iraq couldnt threaten USA to cut its supply and black mail it.. so, really.. this is just pointless to argue about

...

i am NOT trying to convince you with my point of view.. i wouldnt gain a thing if i did .. you're not a US president .. so, we have conflicting opinions, so what? to each his own.

Shalom bro

I will give an example of US presidents since 1900 who were anti-establishment, and were not puppets the council on foreign relations, nor the royal institute of international affairs, respectively. (In other words, who actually made, or tried to make a real difference.)

President Kennedy
President Eisenhower

These are the best two presidents in 20th century. Watch Obama closely. FOLLOW THE MONEY FOLLOW THE MONEY FOLLOW THE MONEY. If Obama got all his campaign money from the Military Industrial Complex, the Israeli lobby, Wall St. etc, he will always succumb to their wishes and desires. Right now, we have only seen the iceberg of a major financial crisis, which Obama and the majority of the congress is doing nothing to fix. Generally, with this type of drastic recession, America hides behind war. Look for more terror attacks, whether they be false flag, government sponsored terrorism (operation northwoods) or simply the US provoking IRAN to attack, like they did in Vietnam (even though that event ended up being a lie) and with the Lusitania. Sanctions will almost always lead to war. That means Iran will look like the bad guy because they struck first. Obama will most likely lead the US against a war with IRAN. I pray that this does not happen...but I fear that it will. I do not believe IRAN is more dangerous than the US.

Remember, weapons manufactures and bankers make a lot of money on war. In WWII, they financed both sides of the war. Many of these bankers and weapons companies also own or are affiliated with media channels. It is a conflict of interest, because they can just encourage the people to hate other countries...so that there is always war. Always follow the money. Every other argument should be secondary.

@ezz_zombie
I think Konard answers you first paragraph.
US policy does change, I think it's a trivial fact.

Second paragraph, well, this is what I understand from Konard:
"...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...Guns exist, nukes exist."
So Iran should have nukes because others do even tho it's illegal? I think Konard answers yes to this, and I think to avoid confusion he can speak for himself.

In your third paragraph, you overlooked what I wrote on 'balance of power', which simply isn't workable,
'strong' for Iran holds a different definition then the US, nukes are used differently.
The rest sounds like slander to me.

I don't think Iran cares about there people, I think the last election and the human rights conditions there speak for themselves.
I think they care for for there heaven and messiah.

Yes, the only thing currently holding together most of the Muslim world is it's hatred to Israel.

I'm not looking for polemics but discourse.

@Konrad

I don't see how the health reform does any good to wealthy owners of private health insurance.
Other then that, hopefully he will pull out from Iraq soon.
I don't know if there doing nothing to fix the situation, or if they should it's a free market, not communist Russia.
I don't think you should look always at the money, but at what's relevant.

Aside from conspiracies, hidden agendas, and intentions; i wish to emphasize the "power balance" issue, as -i believe- remains the main issue behind terrorism, extremism, and hatred towards USA and Israel, not towards mexico or Canada (as Konrad said)..

we could go on debating forever about trivial details, and leave the root of the problem, so i'm not gonna argue about or distract the attention off the main issue.. which is the imbalance of powers in the world today

- not all muslims hate the USA or Israel, only the oppressed, poor, helpless ones do... no wealthy muslim would go and blow himself up inorder to have heaven and his 72 virgins (which btw is a COMPLETE hoax, i dare anyone to mention the koran verse about the 72 virgins, i live in a muslim country and the first time i heard about this was in a standup comedy show on the internet 3 or 4 years ago, when i was 20 years old) so, muslims dont hate the west coz it's their "holy duty" .. its coz of the feeling of unjustice, and feeling dwarfed by USA's might and absolute power... so these poor people have no where to turn to but god .. they seek superstitous invisible spooky creatures and hope for their returning messiah and that as they know they can never stand up against the US without "divine help" ... the extremist religious groups rise according to that basis... while, on the other hand... there are filthy-rich muslims who have absoluetly no problem with making buissiness with the US or israel, and they certainly would not go and blow them selves up in hopes of this aclaimed "heaven"... so, its a matter of injustice.. the feeling of helplessness is what makes people turn to god.. and gives radical corrupt extremist religion figures power over the naive public...

so, again, in terms of COUNTRY LEADERS.. you can rest assured they do not put "religion" as a part of the equation.. religion for them is a tool to control their people.. same as their brutal police forces, and their mind-washing propaganda...etc

so, we learn from this four things:

1) the power-balance is the root of the problem, once fixed no one would feel the need to blow themselves up at anyone else
2) religion is NOT the driving force of country leaders, it is to the naive public... so, you shouldnt fear "religious governments" as they're just pretending to be so, while really, they aren't.. they're interested in their own power only
3) Practice what you preach; apply the concepts of democracy on a global scale rather than on a national scale... in the constitution everyone is given the right to bear arms, for defensive pruposes, same should be applied to countries
4) Monopoly is never good; monopoly of WMDs, media, political influence and power (vito), ...etc inbalances the scales and natuarally causes the rebel of the "weakened" faction.. which means more violence

so, lets leave the biased US presidency issue behind, lets skip the corporate greed war machine issue.. and lets have a more constructive argument about suggestions on how to balance the scales without causing more chaos.. either eliminating all nuclaer power, or giving every country the right to have them.. i dont have the exact answer.. this is what we should be debating (as posted in the original thread post)...

Konrad and ezz_zombie, am I to understand that in your view, the philosophy of Mutual Assured Destruction (MAD) from the Cold War is a good one to apply to the world of today to ensure that the United States (and by extension, the nuclear club) stop bullying nations into submission?

@ Judas
i'm not saying it is the best solution, ideally, if all nuclear powers would give up their nuke arsenal that would be for the best, and i SURELY want this, BUT... sadly, it'll never happen ... so, the next best thing would be the cold war's "MAD" solution, and i think that proved effectiveness during the cold war... no violence or one-sided bullying was practiced. so, i'm sorry, but this is the best "patching up" solution till now.. dont blame me, i'm not the one making up the rules in this crazy world... and ANY counter-opinions are welcomed. but so far, this is the best i could think of, let us hear more suggestions

EDIT: well, there IS another very very VERY far-fetched idealistic solution, which is to make "money" obsolete... if there is no money, and natural resources would be free-of-charge (such as oil and such) then, no country would ever need to use violence to take what it needs... BUT, so, a world living in peace and harmony and sharing each other's resources is a far too perfectionist and idealist place.. but.. it IS a solution... (btw, that would make "countries" obsolete too.. we'd be basically living in one big country, called "EARTH" .. or better called "utopia"...

so, instead of accusing me of hallucinating, lets return to the real world, the dystopia, and put the "MAD" philosophy into practice

Written by Candlemass on 22.05.2010 at 12:50


@Konrad

I don't see how the health reform does any good to wealthy owners of private health insurance.
Other then that, hopefully he will pull out from Iraq soon.
I don't know if there doing nothing to fix the situation, or if they should it's a free market, not communist Russia.
I don't think you should look always at the money, but at what's relevant.

Not the place for this but I'll answer it quickly. The wealthy owner of private health insurance are now making more money. The bill actually hurt the smaller insurance companies because their prices are higher. Even though the govt. has forced the large insurance companies to lower their prices, they still force everyone to have insurance. This is against the US constitution that the govt. can not force anyone to buy a commodity. Therefore, they lowered their prices but received many more customers. They benefit. The small guys get hurt. Everyone is forced to be covered.

He will not pull out from Iraq soon, IMO. All he has done so far, despite his promises, is add troops to Afghanistan.

Unfortunately, in this world, money (or power, rather) is the cause of most problems.

Written by Zombie on 22.05.2010 at 14:57



so, we learn from this four things:

1) the power-balance is the root of the problem, once fixed no one would feel the need to blow themselves up at anyone else
2) religion is NOT the driving force of country leaders, it is to the naive public... so, you shouldnt fear "religious governments" as they're just pretending to be so, while really, they aren't.. they're interested in their own power only
3) Practice what you preach; apply the concepts of democracy on a global scale rather than on a national scale... in the constitution everyone is given the right to bear arms, for defensive pruposes, same should be applied to countries
4) Monopoly is never good; monopoly of WMDs, media, political influence and power (vito), ...etc inbalances the scales and natuarally causes the rebel of the "weakened" faction.. which means more violence

Yes, bump this...most important thing that was said.

Also bump The Koran, The Torah, The Book of Mormon, The Avesta etc. If people claiming to be religious actually read, understood and followed these books, we would not have the problems we do now. Perhaps education is really the main issue, and the key to solving the problems.

Sorry for the late reply, very busy week.

Why a government seeking local power, will want to hold nuclear weapons?
Concerning the evidence, religion (political ideologies) is a strong influence on leaders (if not strongest), not only on there power but also decision making, from communist Russia to Nazi Germany & the European wars of religion etc.
I think it's an trivial fact that the history & strongly held beliefs of a figure will influence it's decisions.

Actually the right to bare arms isn't a essential tenety in democratic societies, in other words according to your argument it follows that most of Europe is not democratic, probably the only democracy in the world is the US, which is silly.

No body said monopoly is bad or good or is the case at all, I think you suffer from black & white thinking which leads you to your conclusions.
Sited as a psychological defence mechanism, at the end of this post I think your ideas are based not in fact and reason but psychology (negative towards the US).

The cold war if far from a solution at all, since in that period the world was on brink of nuclear war often (see Cuban Missile Crisis).
Are we interested in this? Again I don't think so.

Judas again posts an elegant post worth noting.
It seems like much of what I've claimed is already based strongly in research, I suggest at least light reading
in Wikipedia in the following entries, before continuing the conversation.

Historian's fallacy,
Mutual assured destruction

This whole conversation seems to me based around
Kinard's and ezz_zombie deep enmity concerning the US.
There attitude is of revenge & ranting rather then offering a sound solution best for human being as human beings, since there 'solutions' (as Mutual assured destruction) offers more & bigger problems (as seen in short WIKI entry), falling again and again to fallacious arguments.

First of all, I am an American, so if you would like to come to conclusions, you are welcome to it...but saying that I have a "deep enmity" for my own country, which I love dearly, is over the line. If I didn't care about the country, I wouldn't have such a strong opinion. If I didn't love my country for the principles upon which it was founded, I wouldn't care. What is wrong with being self-critical in this day and age? It seems like anyone who criticizes their own government is looked down upon by the mainstream and classified as an extremist or racist. I also do not "suffer" from black and white thinking, since I have said earlier you make valid points and you are entitled to your own opinion. I don't claim to be right about everything I say. If you want to criticize something I say, I'm happy to consider your arguments. But if you want to criticize me, I say forget this entire conversation. In fact, there really isn't any arguing with you is there, Candlemass? You love to be right so much, that it actually frustrates you that I agree with someone else in this thread. IMO, you were biased as soon as he defended what I said.

Why is it that you assume all of my knowledge comes from wikipedia? Just because it doesn't match up with you supposed "strong, infallible research?" Tell me, at age 19, do you consider yourself a historian? Are all your facts true and 100% valid? I know mine aren't, and I have no problem admitting that. At least I read books containing opinions different from my own, and facts that may be hard to accept.

Keep pointing fingers at everyone. It's only helping my case.

A country is a concept, it does not matter from where you are.
The biggest critics of Israeli policy & history are Jews and Israelis (From Noam Chomsky to Ilan Pappe, to the ship cruise this week to break 'Gaza blockade', Human rights groups, etc).
It's less important from where you are, it's the opinions you hold.
Like a 'patriot' (left wing or right wing, its a "national feeling") it's emotional, not rational inquiry.

I did not say your an extremist, I found no value in that term (racist, what does that have to do with anything?).
Nor did I say you are lending from Wikipedia.

Well, I do cahnge my mind according to reason when it comes to politics. if I thought MAD was the best solution, I would simply agree.
I don't label myself as anything (from fear of circulatory), and if I do, I bother to notice it's temporary ("At this time I support the stance against MAD policy").

Obviously no one can get an absolute objectivity ("100 valid") Kant thought us this in the 18century, but the search for the truth should be a light to our path. No human is infallible.
And when it comes to politics & social sciences, it's far from 99% sure.

I just think the best explanation for your opinions, is your emotions towards US policy & history as what I see from the posts.
And your right, it's not the point, but I want a conversation that could lead somewhere.

Written by Candlemass on 27.05.2010 at 18:20


... your argument .. is silly.

... I think you suffer from black & white thinking which leads you to your conclusions.

...I think your ideas are based not in fact and reason but psychology (negative towards the US).

Judas again posts an elegant post worth noting.

... I suggest at least light reading
in Wikipedia in the following entries, before continuing the conversation.

This whole conversation seems to me based around
Kinard's and ezz_zombie deep enmity concerning the US.
There attitude is of revenge & ranting rather then offering a sound solution best for human being as human beings, since there 'solutions' (as Mutual assured destruction) offers more & bigger problems (as seen in short WIKI entry), falling again and again to fallacious arguments.

That's it, i cannot further continue a discussion with such a disrespectful person. thank you very much for the 'lovely" conversation.

Written by Irritable Ted on 23.11.2010 at 20:43

I think the shit is about to hit the fan in Korea any moment. Probably the closest we have got to a possible nuclear strike in a while.

I think that the new North Korean leader is showing off to daddy, that he can do the job of threatening South Korea and showing that he is not scared of international condemnation.

He probably is. Though, he isn't anything without big ol' China backing North Korea up. It seems like this situation's responsibility for diplomacy is going to be deflected onto the Chinese. Although the whole 'democratic' world is calling out North Korea, China seems to be the only one who isn't going to directly lay blame on them. I think they're scared. They've been supplying and aiding the republic for so long that even if China could crush a resistance forged from resentment of the Chinese by North korea, a humanitarian crisis where refugees is just something they are not willing to deal with.

I read today that the US is planning to conduct wargames as planned with the south. I can't help but think that the hard headed-ness of the decision to carry out this training exercise after such a sensitive event happened, might irritate the North Koreans even more. Even if the Americans and South Koreans are in the right, North Korea is obviously not in the right state of mind to think things rationally. They really, have nothing to lose.

We'll see how things play out. Meanwhile, I read this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeju_massacre

Absolutely shocking story, I never heard of it until today. Everyone seems to have blood on their hands. We're all fucked. Hahaha.

I still can't see why is everybody worried about small countries making nukes when we ALL know they will NEVER fire themas they're bound to dissapear off the face of the earth at such incidence ... its only a defensive measure, M.A.D.
and already the world's biggest terrorist (the US governament) owns a shit-load of nukes and they never use'em.. why? coz nobody would dare attack the US.

same with Korea, Iran, and any other small country. even if they get a handful of nukes, they will NOT fire them, and if (for any suicidal reason they do) then they will not be a threat anymore as nuke-owning countries would wipe that pesky little trouble maker off the face of the planet.

so, imagine this, a world where no country ever attacks its neighbors (because if they do their neighbor will nuke their asses off) wouldnt it be a much more peaceful world ? true its 'peace out of fear' but its 'guaranteed' peace ... beats the hell out of the current situation; India and Pakistan fucking around with their neighbours, the US invading middle eastern countries for oil and gold, genocide of the palestini people by Israeli forces and the whole Arab world cowards out of fear of israel and USA's nuclear might, S. korea living in constant fear from its psycho northern neighbour...etc

i say let us all have nukes.. and let there be either no more wars ever, or a total armageddon that wipes out the whole human race.. its fucked up but at least its 'fair' this way .. no bullies in the game

Written by Zombie on 24.11.2010 at 22:40

I still can't see why is everybody worried about small countries making nukes when we ALL know they will NEVER fire themas they're bound to dissapear off the face of the earth at such incidence ... its only a defensive measure, M.A.D.
and already the world's biggest terrorist (the US governament) owns a shit-load of nukes and they never use'em.. why? coz nobody would dare attack the US.

same with Korea, Iran, and any other small country. even if they get a handful of nukes, they will NOT fire them, and if (for any suicidal reason they do) then they will not be a threat anymore as nuke-owning countries would wipe that pesky little trouble maker off the face of the planet.

so, imagine this, a world where no country ever attacks its neighbors (because if they do their neighbor will nuke their asses off) wouldnt it be a much more peaceful world ? true its 'peace out of fear' but its 'guaranteed' peace ... beats the hell out of the current situation; India and Pakistan fucking around with their neighbours, the US invading middle eastern countries for oil and gold, genocide of the palestini people by Israeli forces and the whole Arab world cowards out of fear of israel and USA's nuclear might, S. korea living in constant fear from its psycho northern neighbour...etc

i say let us all have nukes.. and let there be either no more wars ever, or a total armageddon that wipes out the whole human race.. its fucked up but at least its 'fair' this way .. no bullies in the game

Yeah... sure.

I'd rather trust Israel with nukes than some lunatic dictators like the ones in N. Korea and Iran. The western world is accountable to their actions, constantly. There's a bunch of people in Israel that can't even travel to Europe because the Hague has a warrant for their arrest. If you don't think Israel has accountability on its shoulders, don't forget that Europe, the UN and America has a microscope on every clash that happens in Israel.

It's not like there isn't a reason for it either. Israel is important, economically and strategically to the West and therefore is their face of their 'democracy'. Israel may get away with a lot, but at the same time they are held for a lot of actions - unlike a lot of countries surrounding it.

Think of it this way... if Israel nuked Lebanon, Israel would be fucked. Let's forget about the Arabic armies marching to Jerusalem. But also every tie that Israel has economically would be severed and heavy sanctions would absolutely destroy Israel. Weapons contracts for munitions... micro technology contracts. Puff. Gone.

Iran? Korea? They're already sanctioned, maybe the IAEA is watching them but its not like things can get any worse for them. Therefore, they have nothing else to be accountable for. That's why they can get away with shooting students in the streets or shelling civilian villages under whatever pretext they want.

Plus, I'm not worried about Korea firing nukes. I'm worried about them causing instability in the East Asia region. If Seoul becomes a target for N. Korea, it will be burnt to the ground and that will have a drastic effect on the economic stability involving many of the surrounding countries. If China becomes a target of isolation because of their ties to N. Korea, than that's probably worse. China suspended rare earth material processing towards Japan because of their recent political stances, recently.

You're right... people do worry about all these stupid little countries policies. But I think its less conventional/cold warfare and more about diplomatic/economic competitiveness these days and assessing liability in countries resources that are at risk because of their neighbor.

So, what you're saying is.. the destruction of a nation is unimportant, but the 'unstability' in the region tht it would cause is what you're worried about?

what about the war on Iraq? no nukes involved there, and yet that war fucked up the whole region... Iran didnt give a crap about nukes until the uncle sam fucked up their neighbour and it seemed like they're next in line so they started getting readin for the ass-fucking that is yet to come. and alot of arab countries now is considering opting out of the nuke-ban treaty to be able to build nukes to ensure their safety incase the Irqai oil isn't enough and the USA decides it needs to invade another arab country.

so, an unjust, and a stupid move made by Bush (and backed by millions of americans) caused unstability and even more trouble and threats in the region ... i admit that the afghanistan war was a must as it is the terrorism-hub of the world, and for the USA to ensure its safetey and make sure 9/11 doesnt happen again they had to take it out.. agreed, but what the fuck Iraq ? and u know what? if u bomb Iran more countries in the region would start building nukes. just stop bullying the world and you'll be safe and no country would spend all of its resources on nuclear programs for defence, the middle east is already poor and developing and needs the money spend on nukes for better use.

@Zombie
I don't support the war in Iraq and I don't understand the point of it from the start. Because of previous mistakes we should do more mistakes in your opinion?
Do you think repeating the same tactic & fallacy of Red Herring every-time something unpleasant comes up actually holds substance?

Iran publicly declared it's intentions and isn't a peaceful democracy. It's a theocracy controlled by an small, and worst of all, religious elite (the guardian council).
And they don't give a bleep about human rights, well being or defense of them - they have a very different agenda.
Iran has more problems with it's Arab neighbors then with the west, and the concerns of these countries are intense (most of all Saudi Arabia and Egypt. And the prognostication of the article is actualizing - Egypt is seeking now nuclear technology).
After Iran acquirers such weapons, it will not be used, not at least straight away - but for blackmail first and foremost of the neighboring countries rich in oil.
Nuclear weapons will be wanted by many other countries and will spread (like Egypt). This does not serve humanity nor the strength of a good formed international law, which Iran is committed too (NPT which Saudi Arabia and Egypt will probably break).
The spread of nuclear weapons does not serve the interests of the people of Iran nor humanity, and will be caused directly by the Iranian program.

What are your interests a better future or apologizing for mistakes by what you grasp as your "group"?
You are not your group, as I'm not my group and should not be judged as so.
-In general to capture what is probably the fallacy in some of its nature:
"Group Think - A reasoner commits the group think fallacy if he or she substitutes pride of membership in the group for reasons to support the group's policy. If that's what our group thinks, then that's good enough for me. It's what I think, too. "Blind" patriotism is a rather nasty version of the fallacy."
-Fallacies [Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy]

There are two clocks ticking that in Iran. The democratic clock, which serves the people and the nuclear clock which serves the elite and there control.
If the second one happens before the first, we will know how it is in our lifetime, that so much power is held by a small group of fanatics.
Another important question is why Europe does not support the feminists, pacifists and human rights activists in these countries?

Agreed, but how can we prevent another 'mistake' such as Iraq ? suggestions are welcomed my friend, but i doubt any of them could stand in the way of the US war machine. if Iran dumps its nuclear program the USA would find any other reason to invade Iran, just like they did with Iraq, the IAEA declared that there were no sufficient evidence of nuclear weapons and yet the US went ahead and 'liberated' the fuck out of Iraq, and look how much of a mess that turned out. True that saddam and ahmedi nejad occosionaly threaten that if they ever own nukes they'd target Israel, but the Isreali-Arab tension is no secret to anyone, hell, when i was at the mandatory military-service application, the military guy announcing the names of who would be expemted (including me) was shouting at us as we were cheering for not getting into the army and he said: you're so happy now, but when your conscripted friends defeat Israel you'd wish you were with them. lol wtf, are we at war with Israel ? so, back to the point, Arab-Israeli tension will last forever until a palestini-state is recognized by Israel.. so the iranian adn iraqi threats shouldnt be taken litteraly, we're in a 'tough neighbourhood', and you guys shouldv'e been already got used to it. that doesnt mean you're in real nuclear-danger, as no country in the world can afford firing a nuke at another, even Israel, in all its military might, and backed by the unvulnerable USA, still cant afford to fire nukes at any of its neighbours or they would've signed their own death warrant.

so, nukes are CLEARLY a defensive measure, that is used as a last resort if pushed too far.
A world with all countries equally strong/weak is a just and fair world, where no country would ever dare to mess with another.

i'm not such a fan of the Iranian regime or any of the arab dictatorships, and already the whole forum knows i loathe living in Egypt, but the nuclear arms race is a natural development to the US bullying.

have you ever wondered why isn't .. mmm.. estonia for example .. worried about being nuked ? ... or bulgaria, or nepal ? coz these countries dont fuck around with others. now, the hatred towards the US or Isrel, that didn't come out of no where ... the threats to israel, the current threats to germany, and the attacks on US cities, this is all about each country reaping what you've committed.

i wish to see peace in the middle east, and i dont want to be forced to 'hate' israel, but i have to 'dislike' it for what it does, and trust me, i WANT to like the US but i cant get myself to do that, how can i do that when i know that my country is on their 'to-invade' list ?

its messed up already how things escalated in the middle east, i think we should tone it down a bit and NOT bomb Iran, let them have their nukes and be patient, acknowledge a palestini state and those people's right to live, and stop the settlements, i know Israel is about the size of the nile delta, but still, co-exist with arabs and live together.. and maybe then you can feell safe from being nuked by Iran or Iraq, and you can demolish the 'wall of fear' surrounding your communities.

Written by Zombie on 25.11.2010 at 08:24

So, what you're saying is.. the destruction of a nation is unimportant, but the 'unstability' in the region tht it would cause is what you're worried about?

what about the war on Iraq? no nukes involved there, and yet that war fucked up the whole region... Iran didnt give a crap about nukes until the uncle sam fucked up their neighbour and it seemed like they're next in line so they started getting readin for the ass-fucking that is yet to come. and alot of arab countries now is considering opting out of the nuke-ban treaty to be able to build nukes to ensure their safety incase the Irqai oil isn't enough and the USA decides it needs to invade another arab country.

so, an unjust, and a stupid move made by Bush (and backed by millions of americans) caused unstability and even more trouble and threats in the region ... i admit that the afghanistan war was a must as it is the terrorism-hub of the world, and for the USA to ensure its safetey and make sure 9/11 doesnt happen again they had to take it out.. agreed, but what the fuck Iraq ? and u know what? if u bomb Iran more countries in the region would start building nukes. just stop bullying the world and you'll be safe and no country would spend all of its resources on nuclear programs for defence, the middle east is already poor and developing and needs the money spend on nukes for better use.

No, that's... not what I'm saying at all. Any conflict in a neighboring country causes concern and potential instability.

No nukes in Iraq, you're right. That was stupid reasoning by Bush. But how do you expect the rest of the world to trust that a country like Iraq DOESNT have anything to hide when it has in the past used nerve gas on its own people and on the Iranians. How could its neighbors, not fear the stability of its own oil contracts with the West when Iraq has in the past, invaded other Arabic countries for their oil?

The reasoning for Iran to have its own weapons of mass destruction can be argued that it originated during the Iraq-Iranian war. It can also be said that because of Iran's ties to Hizbullah (which seeks the destruction of Israel), that it is looking to acquire nukes. Which isn't a farcry because hell... everytime that ugly fucking rat opens his mouth (Ahmedinajad) , he talks about destroying the country I was born in. Ahmed is just asking for something bad to happen. I just think its incredibly naive and irresponsible when people ignore that and say "Iran is just talking shit.. ignore them".

That's why I have mixed feelings about op Iraqi Freedom. I'm not going to lie and say that I wasn't happy to see the regime crushed. But I will admit that a lot of the way it was done was particularly irresponsible and almost unprovoked, other than the speculation that Iraq might have WMDs i.e. nerve gas, I'd say there is almost no reason for its invasion. For a country that is just decaying in its own dictatorship, that isn't a threat to others? I'd say just let them rot.

But let's say that 10 years from now, Iraq happens to be a bustling democracy? What are people going to say then?

I'd highly doubt that MOST Arabic countries that already provide oil to the West have anything to fear about being invaded by the US. It doesn't work in the best interest of any country to invade a country when they are already getting resources from it. It doesn't make any sense.

Quote:
its messed up already how things escalated in the middle east, i think we should tone it down a bit and NOT bomb Iran, let them have their nukes and be patient, acknowledge a palestini state and those people's right to live, and stop the settlements, i know Israel is about the size of the nile delta, but still, co-exist with arabs and live together.. and maybe then you can feell safe from being nuked by Iran or Iraq, and you can demolish the 'wall of fear' surrounding your communities.

Pakistan has nukes. Why doesn't America invade them? Oh... be patient and let them have their own nukes when they keep on threatening Israel? Are you out of your mind?

Lets get one thing straight. The day that Iran gets nukes, is the day that I want the Iranian dictatorship crushed like a bug with whatever it takes.

@Zombie
I fail to understand the tension between Egypt and Israel as states as something rational and justifiable. It seems as nothing but a tool to exploit
by power hungry politicians & clerics (on both sides of the border, but it certainly isn't mainstream and so fervent in Israel towards Egypt.).
Peace will not come...Palestinian-state is recognized by Israel Or a Jewish state by Palestinians, I'm not optimistic about a solution anytime soon.
Some people try to some how label this as "racist" to have a "Jewish state", which is shamming piety in my eyes since the right of self-determination is universal.
Even if somewhat vacant agreements on paper between politicians will change the situation, the significant change ought to be between peoples.
And that is the hardest as we can see (look at Egypt/Israel for example).
There is no perfect solution as I see it, and I do not have offered one nor pretended to.

A defensive measure by whom? analogies won't work here I think.
The argument from balance of power is irrational & unworkable. Besides, from a moral point of view how does this serve human interest & rights if all countries (including Iran) have equal power? I'd rather have the power with countries that less remind me of Orwell's 1984, however fallible they are.

What seems as your main point "everything is equal", is wrong and can be used in politics but not in daily life.
Somewhere between a false dilemma, false stereotype and black & white thinking.
In reality there is more then options between "because he did it - and he did it - so there equal". An old Fiat that crashed into a tree, isn't a BMW that crashed into a tree. Nor is US policies as destructive and violent they were in the last ten years, makes the US equal to Iran or North Korea.

"this is all about each country reaping what you've committed." is what is called in psychology the just world fallacy. Which is of coursed asserted in hindsight.
Do you think the violence in the Quran or the poor treatment of woman could also be blamed on these countries? Causes for events are not always single and threats on the German people, Jewish or any people is not justifiable under these circumstances.
In Arab culture today there is a popular myth in which Jews control the world and Israel is to be blamed for there most intimate problems. This arises probably because of the honor centered culture (Mistakes were made - but not by me), which maybe also explains the strong nationalism.

Imposing democracy on people who are not "ready" (culturally) for it was indeed unrealistic. I just hope republicans (mostly Palin) won't get reelected.
I always heard criticism of Fox News, but never watched it (to watch it here, you gotta buy it). Then I watched a few clips on youtube and understood that parts of America are really messed up in someway to give this channel any rating.
I wish things were so simple as just wishing to co-exist, would make it happen.
Things are bad, but if Iran isn't stopped, the situation could be much worst. Actions must be taken even if not ideal (they never are by the way).
Work with the least worst/most best of what you have, and strive with it.

@ candlemass: "Mistakes were made - but not by me" ... i like that, and i really believe that this is how things should be between Arabs and Israelis.

However, supposedly when u live in a democracy, you're responsible for shit that your leaders do, coz you guys elect them. That's why we can't help but get pissed whenever you condemn Iranian or Iraqi dictatorship, as we -arabs- believe in the 'illusion of democracy' and we certainly see its flaws (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy#Criticism_of_democracy)

don't get me wrong, its not that we like living in dictatorships, or that we don't aspire to reach true democracy, but from the current democracies in the world today, few are 'true'. and neither the US nor Israel is among those few.

an example would be: me, living in Egypt, in a dictatorship rule, and i disapprove of my countries military policy towards Israel, and i dont think we should always be ready for a possible war with Israel. BUT i cant do anything about it coz i dont live in a democratic country and my voice would not be heard.

now YOUR turn, you, candlemass, you dissaprove of building Israeli settelmenst on arab lands, and you also disapprove of the inhumane blockade of Gaza. BUT even though you have the power to vote, and change who's in charge, Israeli government policy will remain to building settelments and killing palestini women and children. It has been the case with Netanyahu, Ariel Sharon, Ehud Barack, ...etc

so, how am i different that you exactly? we both live in dictatorship countries, as while my country is a more 'obvious' dictatorship, yours is just better at making itself look good.

So, that being said, its total hypocrisy when you say: Iran shouldnt have nukes as they're a dangerous 'dictatorship', and Iraq can't have nerve gas coz they're dangerous dictatorship.. while its ok for Israel and the USA to have nukes coz they're 'safe and sane' democracies.

so, in a perfect world neither would have nukes, and 'true' democracy would spread in all, but neither are the case, 'extremist regimes' will always be dangerous either having nukes or not, and 'true democracy' will never happen as long as your country and ours (arabs) are ruled by 'groups' of people who are interested in their own power and ideologies, and don't give about about their people. The faces change, and the leaders are shuffled every couple of years, yet the policies remain the same. and that is the 'Just-world fallacy' you mentioned but on a smaller country-by-country scale.

so, back to the starting quote; "Mistakes were made - but not by me". Yes you're right, and no one is blaming you now for anything as we KNOW you're as helpless as us, dictator-ruled people. we just ask you not to point at Iran, Iraq, Syria, Yemen, or any of these countries and say that their regime is worse than yours, both are shittier than can be, and will remain that way for a long time as i'm not optimistic about peace in the region with all the illiteracy, racism, religious dogma, escalating violence, and corruption.

however, i'm optimistic that eventually, peace would probably happen; 20 years ago i bet you couldnt find a single arab who would recognize the right is the state of Israel to exist, now a portion of arabs do. and also you wouldnt find an Israeli who doesnt believe in Hertzel's dream and want to wipe out all arabs from the Nile to the Euphrates, but now i can that the new generations dont necessarily think that way, and some Israeli humanitarians support the right of a palestini-recognized state. so, its slowly happening, i just hope that good overcomes bad eventually like they always do in movies.

I also doubt the efficiency of democracy (to stand up to its own standarts), it isn't a holy cow to me.
But to be realistic, its the least worst I know so far (more is worth looking into).

I disagree that because you elect them you are responsible, only at least to a certain measure, to there actions.
Or else i would support the blockade on Gaza.

I don't know what you think is essential to democracies so I cannot tell you if to count the US and Israel into it, but Norway is a fucking great place to live, I gotta give you that.

Yes, I agree that it would ideal that no one would have nukes. But you should be careful about confusing ideal and what to expect about reality and take this into account (to be a pacifist during WWII is in actuality to be pro-Nazi).
I really have reservations from your attempts to make everything equal somehow. Life in western countries in general is better to human well-being then in other countries around the world. Being mistaken on this, will lead to grim consequences.

Israelis are not as helpless as citizens Arab countries. Virtually all the human rights groups in the occupied territories are Israelis, the left-wing movement isn't mainstream, but it has somewhat significant power. Don't get me wrong, it ain't popular to stand on that side, but these societies (Israeli and Arab) are still very different.

I think you have a grave misconception (caused by misinformation or cultural prejudice) about Zionism and "Hertzel's dream", you should to check it out even in wikipedia.
To stimulate you a little maybe, you should know Hertzel was a cosmopolitan:
"It is founded on the ideas which are a common product of all civilized nations? It would be immoral if we would exclude anyone, whatever his origin, his descent, or his religion, from participating in our achievements. For we stand on the shoulders of other civilized peoples. ? What we own we owe to the preparatory work of other peoples. Therefore, we have to repay our debt. There is only one way to do it, the highest tolerance. Our motto must therefore be, now and ever: 'Man, you are my brother.'"
Nationalism to him was an realistic attempt to end Jewish suffering and threat on the scattered small communities,
and give them real autonomy as a solution (he saw it as the only workable solution).
His vision is very different from today's Israel (and what's the surprise? he was somewhat romantic and wrote an Utopian novel).
He was the father of modern (i.e. secular) Zionism (to the religious, it was going against god's will at the time). He never lived to see the holocaust. He was mainly affected by European, Russian & Christian anti-Semitism which was horrific even at the time.

"wipe out all arabs from the Nile to the Euphrates", Is a religious nationalists ethos, mostly of settlers (maybe also for the ultra-nationalistic in Israel)
which reminds me of the annoying connection between religion (of the masses and those who control them) and politics.
For votes politicians in the Israeli government unjustly pay huge amounts of money (relative to the budget of center-support) to religious centers and even-settlements.
Which seems to be an universal problem with organized religion (all times, all places)

"Religion supports the political government
as malicious as it may be; and in turn, the political government
supports religion as vain and false as it may be.
On the one side, the priests, who are ministers of religion - advice
you- under penalty of wrath and eternal damnation, to obey [the
politicians]...[who to vote in favor of]...as being established by God
to govern others; and on the other side, the [politicians] make you
respect the priests, they give them good stipends and incomes, they
maintain them in the vain and abusive duties of their ministry, they
compel the ignorant to look upon as holy and sacred everything they do
and everything they order others to do and believe, on the good and
specious pretext of religion and divine cult... [this is how] they
maintain the great misfortunes of the poor people who groan under such
hard and heavy yokes." - Jean Meslier, Testament

I like Herzel's quote you mentioned, but i doubt how can anyone be 'the father of modern zionism' and at the same time a cosmopolitan who believed in equality of all people, while zionism in its core is the 'extremist version' of judaism.
you should check these quotes out, those rabbis think that zionism is linked (and possibly) the cause of the holocaust, and i doubt that they were pro-nazi.
http://www.jewsagainstzionism.com/rabbi_quotes/index.cfm

anyways, religious dogma is a problem that is here to stay, and it is what is fueling the 'holy wars' in the middle east. don't u agree it is about time to take religious leaders out of the equation to reach a settle in the peace process? i doubt that palestini side (Hamas or fatah) would ever agree to a 'true' peace with israel, and on the other hand, i KNOW netanyahu and his pals will always think of arabs as expendable dogs who can be shot in the streets with no remorse.

It's rather ironic that two of your paragraphs are inconsistent.
I read some of the quotes till they had a "TEMPORARY PROCESSING ERROR", whatever that means. Cannot you see the irony in "true" torah Jews? every sect in religion thinks it's the right one (hence the word orthodox from greek, meaning "the right opinion").
The reason some Rabbis believe the Holocaust is linked to Zionism, are religious "causal" concepts. Every-time Jews try to escape there duties as Jews, God sends his wrath down to earth (a biblical motif), even in the Quran I think this is mentioned.
(modern) Zionism isn't a derivative of Judaism (the religion). Orthodox Jews did call it blasphemy, who later took it back.
The ultra-Orthodox (even those living in Israel) think that there is no such thing as a secular Jew (.ie. Cultural Judaism)
and the "holy land" should be built by religion only (the messiah).
Don't you think rabbis that are actually in favor of human rights, a better idea?
Or maybe settlers for human rights that work for peace? (beautiful pictuers by the way)
They actually promote peace for the right reasons (our shared humanity). [hence the idiom: Right For The Wrong Reasons).

It's an historical fact that Herzel was the father of modern Zionism, in any meaningful sense of the word.
I think you fail to conceive the [important] complexities in Jewish history and the Zionist movement(s), and I think you should try some other little more reliable historically sources for your inquiry.
Zionism became an Orwellian term, instead of a meaningful one.
I find it hard to believe (which is too easy in hindsight, or not?) that Zionism was such a good idea (Herzel was a science-fiction author after all).
But here we are.

I don't like netanyahu, but I don't think it's your left-sided-lobe speaking here (KNOW? always? dogs in the streets?)
Religion is here to stay any time soon, so I use the good views of it as I can (as the link for the religious settlers who promote mutual respect).
Hamas don't call it true peace, they call it "Hudna". Which even not a very smart militiaman (and Umdat as-Salik) means "regroup and rearm".
Peace should come between people.