Should Iran have a nuclear bomb?

[Shorts]

Yeah, I'm not saying he doesn't. But I know why, and I don't fault him for it. Others do, and that's always how it'll be with any leader, if he so chooses to divulge why. Bush isn't afraid to hide it, like a lot are.

So, he can't win. But I make my decisions everyday based on God, but should I warrant any more or less ridicule than Bush just because I don't always say I made that decision based on God? But because I make my decisions based on God, I get accused of cramming religion down people's throats. But what about atheist, making decisions every day based on their atheist beliefs, I don't tromp around complaining their cramming their "religion" down my throat. I just go about my business. Yeah, I have the same right as anyone else to complain. The difference is when and where I choose to use it.

Any person should (and does) make their decisions, regardless if its work life or home life based on their faith, regardless if they're a one man band or running the country.

Every person has some "thing" that is their central point for making decisions. And not everyone will agree on that one central "thing" is.

Christians don't "cram religion down anyone's throats" any more than atheist cram their practices down mine. Both exist. Both will practice.

I think people just need something to grab hold of and bash, regardless of what it is.

[Nalian]

Any person should (and does) make their decisions, regardless if its work life or home life based on their faith, regardless if they're a one man band or running the country.

Every person has some "thing" that is their central point for making decisions. And not everyone will agree on that one central "thing" is.

I absolutely disagree with you 100% that a president or leader of a country should make their decisions based on their faith. It should come from what is in the best interests of all the citizens, as well as what the citizens want. A president should be representative of his/her citizenship - his or her faith has to come second there.

[swatter555]

Let me say that the length of the replies has also worn thin my time. It is an interesting debate that I might take up with you in PMs on occasion. Also, as far as world views I must seem radical right to you. To be honest, you transend what what be considered radical left in the US. Im not implying that is a negative, but our views are very different. Chomsky lost alot of respect in this country, though I can't remember what exactly it was he was espousing. It might have been a 911 conspiracy theories or something, I could be wrong.

Anyway, I normally like to conduct converstations in argument form. I don't like it when debates come down to making a bunch of assertions on each side. The topics are too varied and broad to make much progress in trying to convince each other. Attempting to show an argument to be true can be tedious, but an exchange of opinions isnt all that useful either.

"East Timorese peasants whose government until recently was able to carry out a policy of extermination with the U.S.’s connivance, material support and active co-operation."

If you have any real evidence of this, 99.9% of Americans would be just as appalled as you seem to be. If you have such evidence, I suggest you contact the New York Times. If there is any real evidence, there would be an endless line of journalists wanting to make the story of their career.

You will have to link me a story to explain that Kurdish comment, because I don't know what your talking about.

I will leave it at that, for the sake of time. Also, I wish you well in your personal life, I know you have been through alot.

[Shorts]

I absolutely disagree with you 100% that a president or leader of a country should make their decisions based on their faith. It should come from what is in the best interests of all the citizens, as well as what the citizens want. A president should be representative of his/her citizenship - his or her faith has to come second there.

Spoken like a true nonChriistian. As a Christian, I disagree with you 100%.

Faith is not a noun. Faith is a verb. And with that, faith in what exactly do you mean? What do you think faith is? It seems you have no clue, as faith isn't about making wrong decisions.

Democracy should be about a smaller group of leaders representing what the majority wants. And that's what we're suppose to have here. I really don't agree with everything that is done by some leaders representing me, but that's the way it is, religion, or lack there of.

[swatter555]

I absolutely disagree with you 100% that a president or leader of a country should make their decisions based on their faith. It should come from what is in the best interests of all the citizens, as well as what the citizens want. A president should be representative of his/her citizenship - his or her faith has to come second there.

Spoken like a true nonChriistian. As a Christian, I disagree with you 100%.

Faith is not a noun. Faith is a verb. And with that, faith in what exactly do you mean? What do you think faith is? It seems you have no clue, as faith isn't about making wrong decisions.

Democracy should be about a smaller group of leaders representing what the majority wants. And that's what we're suppose to have here. I really don't agree with everything that is done by some leaders representing me, but that's the way it is, religion, or lack there of.

I would consider the ideal leader is one that has the best interests of the people in mind, but his own value system should be the basis of his/her decisions. Otherwise you will have to many people that govern based on polls.

[Shorts]

Sorry, I ran this thread off-course

What in the world are you folks doing up this late at night? Well I guess it isn't too late if you're on the west coast.

[Kal]

I would consider the ideal leader is one that has the best interests of the people in mind, but his own value system should be the basis of his/her decisions. Otherwise you will have to many people that govern based on polls.

A number of the more totalitarian Islamic leaders would say that they already do that.

[Kal]

Uranium rounds are as discriminate as a rifle round. They're used for their density and ability to penetrate armor. It's about the furthest thing from a WMD as possible. By your definition, any weapon, including small arms can be included in the WMD umbrella. If you do this how do you distinguish between the massive destruction caused by the standard definition of WMD(nukes, bio and chem) and your definition?

DU rounds are still radioactive, just not as much as theybwere a while ago!

The Geneva Covention outlaws automatic rifles as Weapons of Mass Destruction. However everyone ignores that in the same way that they ignore the inconvenient bit about landmines and a number of other 'unacceptable' weapons...

Iran wants nukes, and is developing them. The UN wont do jack to stop them aside from telling them they shouldn't do it. The US wont attack them (Bush will never be able to get approval for any more military action), and the Iranians ARE crazy enough to use them against Israel.

It isn't a matter of approval. It's a matter of having too many troops engaged on too many battlefields.

Can the US and the US economy afford to go in and suppress Iran while maintaining current levels of troops in territories already suppressed?

I'd suspect not. especially not as North Korea looks like it going to go as soon as American forces are committed elsewhere.

At the end of the day the West must arrive at a Political solution to the problems as anything else will give rise to more extreme problems later on.

If you kill me you anger my brother. If you kill my brother you enrage our cousins who will also fight you. When you kill our cousins their families fight. And so on, and so on and so on.

This form of warfare has been practised and refined throguhout this Centuary. In the early '60s as America was getting drawn into a a Police action Robert Taber predicted America would lose and why it would lose in his book War of the Flea. War of the Flea was such an excellent primer on Gurriella/Terrorist Operations that the entire first printing was bought by the US military and became required reading for Special Operations Personnel.

I suggest you find it and read it.

[NorthernPete]

jebus, cant you all just turn thast place into a big glass parking lot allready?

[Kal]

Just as soon as I have a biodiesel bike...