Discussion in 'Politics and Society' started by Resigned, Feb 21, 2009.
Not to mention disco.
don't knock it till u try it
Gotta love the Bee Gees:
"Whether you're a brother
Or whether you're a mother,
You're stayin' alive, stayin' alive.
Feel the city breakin'
And ev'rybody shakin'
And we're stayin' alive, stayin' alive.
Ah, ha, ha, ha,
Ah, ha, ha, ha,
The whole Saturday Night Fever Sountrack rocks!
Yes, my disco past comes back to haunt me.
I think ballistic weapons might be outmoded. Shields, laser and EMP defenses continue to improve, along with AI targeting. If ballistic nukes lose their major strategic effectiveness, it will become easier to decommission them. Another thing is that most countries are tired of worrying about nuclear winter, so if things come together just right we may see a governmental willingness to do away with nukes. Maybe within, oh, 20 years.
What do most posters in this forum think of Ahmadinejad ? Are we entering a period in history where Iran is trying to become the dominating power in the Middle East ? If this happens will it be good or bad for the M.E. ? Is Iran the most fundamentalist country in the M.E. or is it Saudi Arabia or other ?
You mean other than the fact that he needs a good shave and nicer coat?
I think he's the president of Iran. I think we need to treat him and his country with respect. I think we need to engage Iran diplomatically in order to forge some common ground between them and the west.
I think that any desire to engage Iran militarily is a horrible mistake, not because the operation might fail, but because sooner or later we will have to realize that violence and war are barbaric and unnecessary.
We do not need to dominate and destroy others to achieve our goals. Peaceful coexistence is within our grasp. When will we finally realize this? When will we finally act like the civilized, intelligent beings we claim to be?
You are on fire, bro! Huzzah!
Hi Citizenzen, thanks for responding to my question.
Since I am new to this forum I do not know your perspective. So I have a few questions more for you. Why do you think we should treat Ahmadinejad diplomatically ? Do you think he has shown himself to operate in good faith ? Do you have any religious allegiance in this situation ?
Do you feel that violence and war should always be avoided, are you a pacifist ? I do not believe that pacifism was the proper direction when Europe chose that path leading to WWII.
Do you believe that Ahmadinejad is a peaceful man ?
Can you also give me your thoughts on my other questions which I asked on the earlier post ?
I tried to edit to give more of my thoughts, but I was locked out (newbie problem ).
I do not believe Ahmadinejad operates in good faith. I lost a lot of respect for him when he held the "holocaust denyers" conference and brought in the ultra-orthodox Israelis to put them on the world stage.
Also, his recent approach of sending missiles into space demonstrates where he is headed. He is trying to achieve regional dominance. I do not believe he is a peaceful man.
I still don't get the bent logic behind it.... Oh let us keep this really really nasty killing tool. Why is -anyone- allowed such freaking creations of destruction...
Ask that to the UN.
I must agree with citizenzen on this one. As long as a single nation has access to nuclear weapons, they all should. There is no better way to prevent a nation from using nukes than giving nukes to his enemies. Does the mutual destruction principle ring a bell?!
I don't think we've given him the opportunity to demonstrate whether he operates in good faith or bad. Engage Iran diplomatically and it should become evident what sort of faith he deals in.
I am zen Buddhist. I have allegiance with all beings, even poorly shaved ones.
Yes, I am a pacifist. When we possess so many tools to solve problems, why do we continually reach for invasion, destruction and death?
WWII may be the only "justifiable" war that I can think of.
WWII doesn't differ that much from other 20th century wars, you know...
As I stated in my previous post... No one should have these, no one... So I will skip passed your usual agenda of attacking the west/mostly america lol..... And just ask why is it marvelous news for someone to have the technology to kill millions?
Because when both sides have it, the chances of either side using it decreases. Again, I'd like to refer to the mutual destruction principle.
Obviously the world would be better off is none had access to nuclear bombs, but unfortunately that's not reality and it would be naieve to believe that this will or could change within the next few decades.
Actually, the correct term is Mutual assured destruction and not Mutual destruction.
From Wikipedia (Mutual assured destruction - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia ) :
because others have it too...either nobody should have them, or everybody....something like that i guess
Ok fair enough lol.... I think the latter is a bad idea though It's like hey I know how to stop gun crime... If we all have guns!
If the logical consequence of shooting someone would be getting shot yourself, then the number of gun crimes would indeed seriously decrease.
Separate names with a comma.