Print

[Tabby]

Tabby

Re: The Iran crisis

Can you find any real evidence for them having/developing nuclear weapons? Besides a) they have and are enriching uranium and b) they have adapted missiles. Perfectly reasonable explainations for both of those.

They've certainly been threatening us.

That could be a false statement you know USA threatened Iran with war, how do you think Iran would respond?

You know, if some guy was to run at me with a piece of plastic that I thought was a gun, and he's charging toward me and my family threatening us, I'd shoot him dead.  I come to find out that he probably wasn't a threat.  The law still defends my right for me to protect myself.  It's a very basic human right.

Maybe Iran needs to protect themselves in that way too. USA (and other countries of course) has got nuclear weapons. Someone needs to controll USA, i think that's what USA is afraid of. That they no longer have controll over the entire world -_----.

Seems kinda unfair... the US developed and used nukes before there even WERE any rules. Even IF Iran is developing nuclear weapons, they have perfectly good reasons to do so.

What?  So they can act upon how they've been threatening us and kill millions of people?

If you want me to be honest I have never heard of that (that they have threatened to kill). And second.. USA has already killed millions of people... @_@..
And Pyru has got a good point there. And what's the difference between already having nuclear weapons and to be on the way to create them?

Brief definition of a terrorist: Someone who incites terrorism; to cause disruption to a greater extent than the destruction caused by destructive acts through terror. Has Bush done this? Well, you could say that the actions in Afganistan and Iraq were to scare "rogue" (i.e. anyone the US doesn't like) nations and terrorist groups into line. Sounds like terrorism to me. Merely justified through military action.

Doesn't change it from being an extremist position, because there is very little evidence to support this.  Especially considering how these were in the interest of self-defense.

As much evidence as it is that Iran has threatened to kill or even will pursue nuclear weapons? See...
 

Just trying to proove that what you said before was wrong " Iran is in violation of these rules. ". There is no proove for that. You have probably only heard it in media, right?

Well, yes.  How else am I supposed to find out what the UN said?

<_< I'm just saying that media could lie, it could all be a propaganda. Nobody has even backed up Iran, so there could be a missunderstanding. Like I said before, USA wanted war first of all, this is most likely Iran's respond to that (to threat back).

And war is not the key to solve the problem

That's why we're not going to war with them.  Trust me, Bush won't go into Iran.  Our next president might, but Bush won't (unless Europe goes to war with them, since they're the ones that have been pushing it... seems like a bit of a 180 for Europe if you ask me).

I most likely doubt EUROPE would do that. But it wouldn't surprise me if USA did, and if there would be any war, then we could just say hi to World war 3.

You're just saying this because Iran doesn't have democracy.

That statement is false.

Ok, then what makes you think that Iran would use these nuclear weapons for violence?
Why is it more dangerous that Iran will have nuclear weapons than at least 5 other countries?

I can't really remember iran doing anything illegal the paste years

Well, not as a country, no.  But say the Democrats started threatening your National security.  They're not the entire US!  But they're a group within the US, so your country would go to war with us, in the interest of protecting millions of innocent lives.
[/quote]
Still not worse than what USA already have done That's just an example anyway, it's not even a clear statement.

USA has already broken the rules when it comes to weapons

Give me an example.

As in using the weapons in the illegall war in Iraq. And then taking their oil o_O.
USA supporting Israel to "clean up the Palestinians".
The war in Afghanistan, total of waste of time and causing more suffering and hunger to the Afgan people.
Basically USA has been mass killing in years now. And i'm sick of it. USA kills more people in a week than terrorists do in months :/
And I don't mean by weapons only, but also because of the causing of hunger etc.
But what most worries me most  is that USA actually might be the background to 9-11 =/ After seeing documents I'm pretty sure they have done it. But lets not go too off topic.

And example, wasn't the Iraq war even illegal?

Nope.  Not by definition.  Sure, there are those people such as Michael Moore who will claim it is, but this is far and few from what most people know differently from.

The UN claimed that war illegall, since it broke the UN rule... if i'm not wrong.,

Then yours must be too.

I'm not going around saying "George Bush is God", but you ARE going around saying "George Bush is Evil!"

There's a huge difference in the tone of mine and your arguements.

No, I'm not o_O I'm just giving you perfect examples of why I disslike the USA administrator.
Calling Bush and the rest of the administrator terrorists is different from saying "George Bush is Evil!".

The war in Iraq was a) Illegal

<_< This is a debate in itself.  It's clearly not an undisputed fact, or else we wouldn't have such different opinions on the matter

Or maybe YOU haven't got enough facts there.

In fact, here in America, it's rare for us to hear this even from the liberal media!  You know why?  Even most of those people on the Left won't claim that it was illegal.

USA can't tell if it was illegall or not o_O It's the UN.
 

[2awesome4apossum]

2awesome4apossum

Re: The Iran crisis

That could be a false statement you know USA threatened Iran with war, how do you think Iran would respond?

Afraid not.  Let me be the first to have the nerve to give resources for my facts:

Iran has violated its Non-Proliferation Treaty safeguards obligations and refuses to provide objective guarantees that its nuclear program is solely for peaceful purposes.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/nsc/nss/2006/sectionV.html

Now, you're bound to shout "conspiracy" at my link.  But if you don't believe me maybe turn on the TV and watch the news.  Maybe listen to the UN.  They agree.  It's an undisputed fact.  You can't argue undisputed facts.  So please don't continue to

Maybe Iran needs to protect themselves in that way too. USA (and other countries of course) has got nuclear weapons. Someone needs to controll USA, i think that's what USA is afraid of. That they no longer have controll over the entire world -_----.

See link above.  They're not building these nukes for self-defense.  They themselves claim otherwise (and DON'T make me say that again ).

As for the USA being the police of the world, again, I'm more than willing to shoot ANYONE in self-defense, even though I'm not a police officer.  If I feel threatened, I'll shoot.

that they have threatened to kill

Well, it's not that they phrased it that way (reread my sentance ).  The death of people would be a blindingly obvious result, though.

And what's the difference between already having nuclear weapons and to be on the way to create them?

The difference is that we can prevent it now, if we act now.  If they already had everything, it may be too late (and thank God that Europe's fighting this battle more upfront than the US is).

As much evidence as it is that Iran has threatened to kill or even will pursue nuclear weapons? See...

No, I don't.  Show me.

<_< I'm just saying that media could lie, it could all be a propaganda. Nobody has even backed up Iran, so there could be a missunderstanding. Like I said before, USA wanted war first of all, this is most likely Iran's respond to that (to threat back).

Are you freakin' kidding me?  Turn on the news to your favorite Left winged station (basically anything except Fox News ), and you'll find Liberals up in arms over Germany and many of the cooperating countries who are for protecting themselves from Iran's threats.

I most likely doubt EUROPE would do that. But it wouldn't surprise me if USA did, and if there would be any war, then we could just say hi to World war 3.

I'm really getting sick of this.  Just take 5 minutes to google this topic.  Look at Germany.  They're perhaps Iran's greatest enemy for the time being.

Ok, then what makes you think that Iran would use these nuclear weapons for violence?

Because they are in violation of several International agreements.

Why is it more dangerous that Iran will have nuclear weapons than at least 5 other countries?

Because these 5 other countries that you may be reffering to are following these international agreements.

Still not worse than what USA already have done

Like?

As in using the weapons in the illegall war in Iraq.

It's not illegal.  The UN didn't declare it illegal.  Even that idiot Prime Minister of France didn't use this as a point as to why he wouldn't help the US in a war of national security.

You know, I used to be against the Iraqi war.  Wanna know what changed?  One day I was watching CNN, and I saw this interview with the French Prime minister.  He COULD NOT come up with ONE valid reason for not joining the US in war.  All he said was "there was more that could be done before war".  But when asked what that might be all he said was "another UN resolution".    Even CNN was laughing at that one

And then taking their oil o_O.

This is a purely ficticious statement, that I take offense to.  We were VERY careful to let the Iraqis have their oil.  Back this up (preferably with a reliable source), or withdraw your statement.

USA supporting Israel to "clean up the Palestinians".

We never said that.  But I'd love to listen to more of your complaints if you could but lead me to a reliable source (however, if I took upon myself your stance, I wouldn't believe it regardless, because of the "media propaganda"--FYI, the majority of media is liberal).

The war in Afghanistan, total of waste of time and causing more suffering and hunger to the Afgan people.

Oh yes, because we kill people, and we're not giving them medical aid, food or any of that stuff.  Wait!  We ARE helping them out and giving them food, medical aid, etc.!

The UN claimed that war illegall, since it broke the UN rule... if i'm not wrong.

Link please.

Basically USA has been mass killing in years now. And i'm sick of it. USA kills more people in a week than terrorists do in months :/

We don't go around intentionally killing Iraqis just because they're Iraqis.  We WILL go around killing terrorists, but they don't even have the nerve to fight our army and let all of the innocent women and children go!  They attack our suvilians!  And what do we do?  Kill the enemy.  We try to keep it at that if at all possible.

I'm just giving you perfect examples of why I disslike the USA administrator.

"because he's a terrorist"?  That's an example?

Calling Bush and the rest of the administrator terrorists is different from saying "George Bush is Evil!".

O_o  Wait... terrorists aren't evil?  Saddam wasn't evil, but Bush is evil? O_o

Or maybe YOU haven't got enough facts there.

Yet whenever you argue what I say directly, you usually just declare my statements false with no backup.

USA can't tell if it was illegall or not o_O It's the UN.

You're misreading what I say and taking it out of context.  There are critics of Bush in the US you know... it's not rocket science, bashing Bush.  All you have to do is call him bad names, and declare false statements.  IE. Michael Moore (I'd really like to see someone take that man to court someday).

[MG-Zero]

MG-Zero

Re: The Iran crisis

Yeah, but it doesn't seem fair to shoot someone, or threaten to shoot someone, because you think they might have a gun

really?  You should bring that one up with the police, because they follow the same policy.  You reach into your pocket when your hands should be up, they shoot you.

The democracy countries were actually the ones who started using nuclear weapons,

True, but Nazi Germany originally began development of them.

i love big weenies and i cannot lie

[2awesome4apossum]

2awesome4apossum

Re: The Iran crisis

really?  You should bring that one up with the police, because they follow the same policy.  You reach into your pocket when your hands should be up, they shoot you.

As they should.  A police officer was shot dead around here a while ago, and I cannot ever being so furious in my entire life.

[Pyru]

Pyru

Re: The Iran crisis

really?  You should bring that one up with the police, because they follow the same policy.  You reach into your pocket when your hands should be up, they shoot you.

As they should.  A police officer was shot dead around here a while ago, and I cannot ever being so furious in my entire life.

Fair enough, but you don't stop random people walking in the street, threatening to shoot them because you think they've got a gun, telling them to drop the cake they're eating on the ground because you think it's in there.

And as for police officers being shot dead? Well... y'know. It comes with the job. Better them than an innocent bystander, y'know? Cops sign up for that stuff. And I could go on about "well, that wouldn't happen if you people would just ban guns", y'know?

[Tabby]

Tabby

Re: The Iran crisis

That could be a false statement you know USA threatened Iran with war, how do you think Iran would respond?

Afraid not.  Let me be the first to have the nerve to give resources for my facts:

Iran has violated its Non-Proliferation Treaty safeguards obligations and refuses to provide objective guarantees that its nuclear program is solely for peaceful purposes.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/nsc/nss/2006/sectionV.html

Now, you're bound to shout "conspiracy" at my link.  But if you don't believe me maybe turn on the TV and watch the news.  Maybe listen to the UN.  They agree.  It's an undisputed fact.  You can't argue undisputed facts.  So please don't continue to

After thinking a bit, it shouldn't really matter for USA if Iran has threatened or not. I mean, did Iraq threaten with anything?
No, they did not. But I still believe that there must've been a reason why Iran has "threatened" USA in any way, now if they really have done that...

Maybe Iran needs to protect themselves in that way too. USA (and other countries of course) has got nuclear weapons. Someone needs to controll USA, i think that's what USA is afraid of. That they no longer have controll over the entire world -_----.

See link above.  They're not building these nukes for self-defense.  They themselves claim otherwise (and DON'T make me say that again ).

As for the USA being the police of the world, again, I'm more than willing to shoot ANYONE in self-defense, even though I'm not a police officer.  If I feel threatened, I'll shoot.

They have said that they are pursuing nuclear weapons for "peace-making" reasons or whatever we should call it.

If it would be that easy, everyone could just go around killing everyone and then say that they were feeling threatened. Oh wait, that's what they're already doing in the USA!

And what's the difference between already having nuclear weapons and to be on the way to create them?

The difference is that we can prevent it now, if we act now.  If they already had everything, it may be too late (and thank God that Europe's fighting this battle more upfront than the US is).

That's like saying "I have a gun, but you can't get one. If you get one i will feel threatened and then I WILL shoot. It's against the laws to get a gun.. unless you aren't a police of course. But since I already have one, I can go on having it."
Doesn't really make any sense to me.

As much evidence as it is that Iran has threatened to kill or even will pursue nuclear weapons? See...

No, I don't.  Show me.

I can't show you that @_@ I didn't mean "see" literally

<_< I'm just saying that media could lie, it could all be a propaganda. Nobody has even backed up Iran, so there could be a missunderstanding. Like I said before, USA wanted war first of all, this is most likely Iran's respond to that (to threat back).

Are you freakin' kidding me?  Turn on the news to your favorite Left winged station (basically anything except Fox News ), and you'll find Liberals up in arms over Germany and many of the cooperating countries who are for protecting themselves from Iran's threats.

Haven't even seen a pic of that. I even live in Europe, how come I have never heard of that? And they have been talking about this thing in the news for ages now.

I most likely doubt EUROPE would do that. But it wouldn't surprise me if USA did, and if there would be any war, then we could just say hi to World war 3.

I'm really getting sick of this.  Just take 5 minutes to google this topic.  Look at Germany.  They're perhaps Iran's greatest enemy for the time being.

Germany? In Iran? Can I say mission impossible?

Ok, then what makes you think that Iran would use these nuclear weapons for violence?

Because they are in violation of several International agreements.

Give me an example?

Why is it more dangerous that Iran will have nuclear weapons than at least 5 other countries?

Because these 5 other countries that you may be reffering to are following these international agreements.

What international agreements give you the right to have nuclear weapons? Obviously it says "YOU CAN'T HAVE NUCLEAR WEAPONS", then these agreements couldn't have been followed when they got these weapons, i'm talking about the thing Pyru said before.

Still not worse than what USA already have done

Like?

Those mentioned.

As in using the weapons in the illegall war in Iraq.

It's not illegal.  The UN didn't declare it illegal.  Even that idiot Prime Minister of France didn't use this as a point as to why he wouldn't help the US in a war of national security.

You know, I used to be against the Iraqi war.  Wanna know what changed?  One day I was watching CNN, and I saw this interview with the French Prime minister.  He COULD NOT come up with ONE valid reason for not joining the US in war.  All he said was "there was more that could be done before war".  But when asked what that might be all he said was "another UN resolution".    Even CNN was laughing at that one

He couldn't come up with anything because there never was a reason to go into Iraq. It wasn't even planned.
And the war WAS illegal, where have you got this thing from that it wasn't?? It was even OBVIOUSLY illegal :S

And then taking their oil o_O.

This is a purely ficticious statement, that I take offense to.  We were VERY careful to let the Iraqis have their oil.  Back this up (preferably with a reliable source), or withdraw your statement.

I have no reason to back up or withdraw my statement. It's the truth. How were you careful? You shouldn't even have  touched the oil. And it gets veerry suspecious since the reason to start the war was to get Saddam and bring peace to the people @_@...

USA supporting Israel to "clean up the Palestinians".

We never said that.  But I'd love to listen to more of your complaints if you could but lead me to a reliable source (however, if I took upon myself your stance, I wouldn't believe it regardless, because of the "media propaganda"--FYI, the majority of media is liberal).

What other reason would there be?! Please give me one. The reason of why they are having a war there is cause the Israel's are trying to get back their so called preciouse mark.
I shouldn't even have to give you a source, cause this is so obvious, you could find about this anywhere by yourself.

The war in Afghanistan, total of waste of time and causing more suffering and hunger to the Afgan people.

Oh yes, because we kill people, and we're not giving them medical aid, food or any of that stuff.  Wait!  We ARE helping them out and giving them food, medical aid, etc.!

You have no choice! You HAVE to help them! It's the least you can do after all the, if you excuse me, !@#$% you caused over there for no reason at all.

The UN claimed that war illegall, since it broke the UN rule... if i'm not wrong.

Link please.

Notice "if i'm not wrong". I can't give you a link cause I heard this from debates etc.
I'm sure you can find this by googling though.

Basically USA has been mass killing in years now. And i'm sick of it. USA kills more people in a week than terrorists do in months :/

We don't go around intentionally killing Iraqis just because they're Iraqis.  We WILL go around killing terrorists, but they don't even have the nerve to fight our army and let all of the innocent women and children go!  They attack our suvilians!  And what do we do?  Kill the enemy.  We try to keep it at that if at all possible.

First of all, they NEVER threatened any of your american civilians. You had no reason to go to a war with Iraq. They haven't done a crap to you. Bush wanted war cause he SUSPECTED the iraq people, he said SADDAM was the one who kept the terrorists etc and CLAIMED him as terrorist.
The terrorism started AFTER you invaded Iraq, after you started killing poor Iraqis, after you started killing unprepared people without weapons.
There never was an enemy, you created them.

I'm just giving you perfect examples of why I disslike the USA administrator.

"because he's a terrorist"?  That's an example?

No, i'm also telling you why I think he's a terrorist, though I haven't told you everything, but since this topic really hasn't anything to do with Bush being a terrorist or not, i'm not going to go any further into that n_n.

Calling Bush and the rest of the administrator terrorists is different from saying "George Bush is Evil!".

O_o  Wait... terrorists aren't evil?  Saddam wasn't evil, but Bush is evil? O_o

You made it sound like I said it in a "oMG BuSH IS TEH EEVULL HOOREE" way while you were the mature etc one.
I'm kinda confused, cause by terrorist i didn't mean it in that way, i meant what it means :S
...and yes... terrorists are evil o_O When did I say Saddam isn't evil? I haven't actually got a real proof of if Saddam is a terrorist or not. They have only shoved some pics where he kills some Iraqis, they could've even been terrorists.
But I have seen more things that Bush has done and caused. Things that even have been scientifically prooved etc, and now i'm talking about the "The 9/11" document for EXAMPLE.

Or maybe YOU haven't got enough facts there.

Yet whenever you argue what I say directly, you usually just declare my statements false with no backup.

What do you mean? :S I don't NEED any backup I tell you all the time why I think this or  that, you're the one who have barely given me any backup to proove your statement right.

USA can't tell if it was illegall or not o_O It's the UN.

You're misreading what I say and taking it out of context.  There are critics of Bush in the US you know... it's not rocket science, bashing Bush.  All you have to do is call him bad names, and declare false statements.  IE. Michael Moore (I'd really like to see someone take that man to court someday).

Michael Moore didn't waste hours for nothing. He's perfectly shoving everything, those aren't statements he's making, those are facts. If you call them statements, then God knows what Bush is talking about.  He has never told us exactly why he's doing whatever he has planned. The background, good reasons etc. Show us some facts, some proof. He's just like "HE'S A TERRORIST, KILL HIM AND HIS COUNTRY!" End of line. That's one of the biggest thing I don't understand.
And then there are of course soldiers who come back after the war and they have no freaking idea of what the hell they were doing there. To kill enemies that never existed?  What explains that? Bush not being resposible at all or is there something really big thing going on over there (once again, The 9/11 documents and some own statements.)

[2awesome4apossum]

2awesome4apossum

Re: The Iran crisis

That could be a false statement you know USA threatened Iran with war, how do you think Iran would respond?

Afraid not.  Let me be the first to have the nerve to give resources for my facts:

Iran has violated its Non-Proliferation Treaty safeguards obligations and refuses to provide objective guarantees that its nuclear program is solely for peaceful purposes.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/nsc/nss/2006/sectionV.html

Now, you're bound to shout "conspiracy" at my link.  But if you don't believe me maybe turn on the TV and watch the news.  Maybe listen to the UN.  They agree.  It's an undisputed fact.  You can't argue undisputed facts.  So please don't continue to

After thinking a bit, it shouldn't really matter for USA if Iran has threatened or not. I mean, did Iraq threaten with anything?
No, they did not.

Did you even read my link?  Yes, they did.

Maybe Iran needs to protect themselves in that way too. USA (and other countries of course) has got nuclear weapons. Someone needs to controll USA, i think that's what USA is afraid of. That they no longer have controll over the entire world -_----.

See link above.  They're not building these nukes for self-defense.  They themselves claim otherwise (and DON'T make me say that again ).

As for the USA being the police of the world, again, I'm more than willing to shoot ANYONE in self-defense, even though I'm not a police officer.  If I feel threatened, I'll shoot.

They have said that they are pursuing nuclear weapons for "peace-making" reasons or whatever we should call it.

Afraid not.  In fact, they won't obey international law and garentee to us that this IS in the intention of peace.  Again, all you have to do is click on my link.  Do. it. now.

If it would be that easy, everyone could just go around killing everyone and then say that they were feeling threatened. Oh wait, that's what they're already doing in the USA!

Please behave yourself.  They are not.  And you cannot prove me otherwise.  Especially if you keep up the current trend of not backing ANY of your statements up.

And what's the difference between already having nuclear weapons and to be on the way to create them?

The difference is that we can prevent it now, if we act now.  If they already had everything, it may be too late (and thank God that Europe's fighting this battle more upfront than the US is).

That's like saying "I have a gun, but you can't get one. If you get one i will feel threatened and then I WILL shoot. It's against the laws to get a gun.. unless you aren't a police of course. But since I already have one, I can go on having it."
Doesn't really make any sense to me.

Look up the definition "straw man argument".   What you are doing is presenting a point that I made in a much weaker form, and associating it with the actual point I made.  This is wrong.

As much evidence as it is that Iran has threatened to kill or even will pursue nuclear weapons? See...

No, I don't.  Show me.

I can't show you that @_@ I didn't mean "see" literally

I'm just asking you to back your statements up.  Give me a link or something to prove your point.

<_< I'm just saying that media could lie, it could all be a propaganda. Nobody has even backed up Iran, so there could be a missunderstanding. Like I said before, USA wanted war first of all, this is most likely Iran's respond to that (to threat back).

Are you freakin' kidding me?  Turn on the news to your favorite Left winged station (basically anything except Fox News ), and you'll find Liberals up in arms over Germany and many of the cooperating countries who are for protecting themselves from Iran's threats.

Haven't even seen a pic of that. I even live in Europe, how come I have never heard of that? And they have been talking about this thing in the news for ages now.

http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/0414/p08s01-comv.html

Read that now please.  Don't brush it aside as you did my last one (and it also continues to talk about Iran's violation of international law, etc., etc.).

I most likely doubt EUROPE would do that. But it wouldn't surprise me if USA did, and if there would be any war, then we could just say hi to World war 3.

I'm really getting sick of this.  Just take 5 minutes to google this topic.  Look at Germany.  They're perhaps Iran's greatest enemy for the time being.

Germany? In Iran? Can I say mission impossible?

See above link.

Ok, then what makes you think that Iran would use these nuclear weapons for violence?

Because they are in violation of several International agreements.

Give me an example?

See ANY of the links that I have given you.  Read the one that you brushed aside in your last post.  You're dodging my point.  I have already given you my proof.

Why is it more dangerous that Iran will have nuclear weapons than at least 5 other countries?

Because these 5 other countries that you may be reffering to are following these international agreements.

What international agreements give you the right to have nuclear weapons? Obviously it says "YOU CAN'T HAVE NUCLEAR WEAPONS", then these agreements couldn't have been followed when they got these weapons, i'm talking about the thing Pyru said before.

Still not worse than what USA already have done

Like?

Those mentioned.

Link please.

As in using the weapons in the illegall war in Iraq.

It's not illegal.  The UN didn't declare it illegal.  Even that idiot Prime Minister of France didn't use this as a point as to why he wouldn't help the US in a war of national security.

You know, I used to be against the Iraqi war.  Wanna know what changed?  One day I was watching CNN, and I saw this interview with the French Prime minister.  He COULD NOT come up with ONE valid reason for not joining the US in war.  All he said was "there was more that could be done before war".  But when asked what that might be all he said was "another UN resolution".    Even CNN was laughing at that one

He couldn't come up with anything because there never was a reason to go into Iraq. It wasn't even planned.
And the war WAS illegal, where have you got this thing from that it wasn't?? It was even OBVIOUSLY illegal :S

Prove it.  Just give me a link.  Please.

And then taking their oil o_O.

This is a purely ficticious statement, that I take offense to.  We were VERY careful to let the Iraqis have their oil.  Back this up (preferably with a reliable source), or withdraw your statement.

I have no reason to back up or withdraw my statement.

Then your point is now void if you refuse to back it up with proof or even *evidence*.

It's the truth. How were you careful? You shouldn't even have  touched the oil. And it gets veerry suspecious since the reason to start the war was to get Saddam and bring peace to the people @_@...

The Iraqis are in control of their own oil.

USA supporting Israel to "clean up the Palestinians".

We never said that.  But I'd love to listen to more of your complaints if you could but lead me to a reliable source (however, if I took upon myself your stance, I wouldn't believe it regardless, because of the "media propaganda"--FYI, the majority of media is liberal).

What other reason would there be?! Please give me one. The reason of why they are having a war there is cause the Israel's are trying to get back their so called preciouse mark.

Because we have an alliance with Isreal, we help them, they help us.  We favor their leadership, although we try to stay out of their affairs concerning the "holy wars" (although it is true that we have given them supplies and such, but this is in the interest of economics).

I shouldn't even have to give you a source, cause this is so obvious, you could find about this anywhere by yourself.

Why?  Can't find a valid source?  I give you sources, you brush them aside.  I *ask* you for YOU to give me a source, you brush it aside.  So either you're lazy, or you're wrong, and until you prove me otherwise, we will assume the latter.

The war in Afghanistan, total of waste of time and causing more suffering and hunger to the Afgan people.

Oh yes, because we kill people, and we're not giving them medical aid, food or any of that stuff.  Wait!  We ARE helping them out and giving them food, medical aid, etc.!

You have no choice! You HAVE to help them! It's the least you can do after all the, if you excuse me, **** you caused over there for no reason at all.

Um... they actually needed aid *before* the war, but we weren't allowed to help them previous to it, because of the Nazi-esque state of the country.

The UN claimed that war illegall, since it broke the UN rule... if i'm not wrong.

Link please.

Notice "if i'm not wrong". I can't give you a link cause I heard this from debates etc.
I'm sure you can find this by googling though.

I've tried, tried and tried again.  It doesn't work.  Let's assume you're wrong, then?

Basically USA has been mass killing in years now. And i'm sick of it. USA kills more people in a week than terrorists do in months :/

We don't go around intentionally killing Iraqis just because they're Iraqis.  We WILL go around killing terrorists, but they don't even have the nerve to fight our army and let all of the innocent women and children go!  They attack our suvilians!  And what do we do?  Kill the enemy.  We try to keep it at that if at all possible.

First of all, they NEVER threatened any of your american civilians. You had no reason to go to a war with Iraq. They haven't done a crap to you. Bush wanted war cause he SUSPECTED the iraq people, he said SADDAM was the one who kept the terrorists etc and CLAIMED him as terrorist.

Never?  What about them aiding terrorist groups that kill Americans?  What Saddam aiding the culprits of events like 9/11 with money?  What about Saddam killing millions of people WITHIN his own country?  What about Operation Desert Storm?  This should PROVE that he's an enemy to America.

The terrorism started AFTER you invaded Iraq, after you started killing poor Iraqis, after you started killing unprepared people without weapons.

That's not the way that warfare works.  We did not EVER do that intentionally.  We ONLY kill the bad guys if at all possible.

And tell that to the millions of victims from terorrism that happened previous to the war.

There never was an enemy, you created them.

So... terrorism from within Iraq didn't exist previous to the war?  I'm starting to wonder if you're joking (very cynical if you are)?

I'm just giving you perfect examples of why I disslike the USA administrator.

"because he's a terrorist"?  That's an example?

No, i'm also telling you why I think he's a terrorist, though I haven't told you everything, but since this topic really hasn't anything to do with Bush being a terrorist or not, i'm not going to go any further into that n_n.

Feel free to start a topic

But I have seen more things that Bush has done and caused. Things that even have been scientifically prooved etc, and now i'm talking about the "The 9/11" document for EXAMPLE.

"Bush was responsible for 9/11" was scientifically proven?  Then why hasn't he recieved capital punishment, yet?

Or maybe YOU haven't got enough facts there.

Yet whenever you argue what I say directly, you usually just declare my statements false with no backup.

What do you mean? :S I don't NEED any backup I tell you all the time why I think this or  that, you're the one who have barely given me any backup to proove your statement right.

I've given you more than you've asked for from me, and you've yet to give me ONE source that I've asked for.  You "NEED" backup for debating.

USA can't tell if it was illegall or not o_O It's the UN.

You're misreading what I say and taking it out of context.  There are critics of Bush in the US you know... it's not rocket science, bashing Bush.  All you have to do is call him bad names, and declare false statements.  IE. Michael Moore (I'd really like to see someone take that man to court someday).

Michael Moore didn't waste hours for nothing. He's perfectly shoving everything, those aren't statements he's making, those are facts. If you call them statements, then God knows what Bush is talking about.  He has never told us exactly why he's doing whatever he has planned.

Yes he has.  Help yourself to the information that you'd like to know:
http://www.firstgov.gov/

Note that there is a lot of documentation on plans and such for the war in Iraq.  Including an exit strategy.

And what is ONE fact that Michael Moore used against Bush, that is undisputed/factual?

The background, good reasons etc. Show us some facts, some proof. He's just like "HE'S A TERRORIST, KILL HIM AND HIS COUNTRY!" End of line. That's one of the biggest thing I don't understand.

And I'm confused as to what you are saying ???

And then there are of course soldiers who come back after the war and they have no freaking idea of what the hell they were doing there. To kill enemies that never existed?  What explains that?

But those soldiers are far and few, and are the obvious minority.

Besides, education can fix that!

[Tabby]

Tabby

Re: The Iran crisis

Did you even read my link?  Yes, they did.

No, I didn't, cause I don't trust links from your governement. As much power they have they could do and say whatever they want to.

They have said that they are pursuing nuclear weapons for "peace-making" reasons or whatever we should call it.

Afraid not.  In fact, they won't obey international law and garentee to us that this IS in the intention of peace.  Again, all you have to do is click on my link.  Do. it. now.

No, it IS for "peace-making" reasons. But it doesn't matter, cause they still won't let Iran pursue nuclear weapons. Iran has signed the NPT (Non-Proliferation Treaty) and here's what one of the top civil servant of AFP has said:
"The whole premise of the question is that Iran has this right to enrich. Iran does not.
No non-nuclear weapons state party to the NPT (Non-Proliferation Treaty) has the right to enrich if the purpose of that enrichment is for a weapons program.".
Israel and Pakistan on the other hand, has not signed the NPT and both countries have nuclear weapons (although Isreal won't confess that they actually do have nuclear weapons). How come USA has nothing to say there?
USA thinks that Iran has something going on due to lack of respect for international agreements etc, but they should take a look of their palestinian and israel friends first.

Please behave yourself.  They are not.  And you cannot prove me otherwise.  Especially if you keep up the current trend of not backing ANY of your statements up.

You can't proove yourself right either.
Does your nation even show you any of the bad things going on over there? No, of course they aren't.
They only show you the "good" things of course like how you "punish" these "terrorists" and help the poor people by
throwing out some candies etc.
But have they even EVER shoved you the damaged houses? All the dead children, families etc? It's almost like they're trying to brain wash you all, cause you are definitely not looking at the bad sides (not that i can see any good sides).

Look up the definition "straw man argument".   What you are doing is presenting a point that I made in a much weaker form, and associating it with the actual point I made.  This is wrong.

No, I'm not. I also brought in some other points just to make you understand what i'm talking about a bit more.
Basically I mean that this guy with the gun think he's better than the other guy.

I'm just asking you to back your statements up.  Give me a link or something to prove your point.

You haven't quoted me telling you that i've got all these things from news on TV, debates etc. I got some swedish links if you want, but I doubt you will understand a thing.

http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/0414/p08s01-comv.html

Read that now please.  Don't brush it aside as you did my last one (and it also continues to talk about Iran's violation of international law, etc., etc.).

"They helped persuade Saddam Hussein to eliminate Iraq's weapons of mass destruction, but they hurt Iraqis"
They didn't even find any nuclear weapons!!!

And about Germany, they have also along france and great britain gone to iran and got good news from Iran's Foreign Minister who said that Iran has accepted full view of the nuclear power/energy project. Now how do you explain that?

See above link.

Can't see anything there considering Germany literally, just Europe, but that's nothing new.
Banning foreign investments in Iran etc, is that what you are talking about?

See ANY of the links that I have given you.  Read the one that you brushed aside in your last post.  You're dodging my point.  I have already given you my proof.

Ok, but if you read the thing I wrote above (the meeting with Iran's Foreign Minister) it might change your view at least a bit.
I have read your link, but be aware that those "threats" were words, and it only happened once.
And again, try to remember what your own country already has done. USA suspected afghanistan and iraq for terrorism and for having nuclear weapons (while they had them themselves) and decided to bomb the place up.
USA has nuclear weapons, USA has a big controll over the world and many suspect the USA for being LED by terrorists. Any country could do the same thing to you as you did to the other countries, so you shouldn't really take those "threat words" surprisly.

Those mentioned.

Link please.

Lol, I mean those things I mentioned before Like "illegal war in iraq = using weapons illegally", "the israel support" etc.
Oh, btw. Did you even know that your USA used CHEMICAL WEAPONS in IRAQ? Of course not!
Link: http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,12271,1642989,00.html
And of course you didn't know this, why would your government do such an idiotic confession ?
Oh, wait, they already have o_O? http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Italian_TV_alleges_U.S.A_used_incendiary_weapons_against_Iraqi_civilians
Don't you call that terrorism? But hmhm, of course they say "it was "against the law of land warfare to employ WP against personnel targets". Now if an Iraqi would say that he would be called terrorist
Plus, what they had done was banned 1980 (the use of phosphore and napalm)!

He couldn't come up with anything because there never was a reason to go into Iraq. It wasn't even planned.
And the war WAS illegal, where have you got this thing from that it wasn't?? It was even OBVIOUSLY illegal :S

Prove it.  Just give me a link.  Please.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3661134.stm
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/iraqwar.html
Mass destruction, violation, everything you have blaimed or suspected other countries for, you have done it all yourself.
Now those are "just" links, I did not find this out from links, but there are links of this too (again, obviously).

I have no reason to back up or withdraw my statement.

Then your point is now void if you refuse to back it up with proof or even *evidence*.

You HAVE heard it EVERYWHERE. It's so obvious. I don't have any link, i don't get everything from links.
I do actually have a TV and debates to listen to.

The Iraqis are in control of their own oil.

And there is not as much oil left there as it was before.
How do you think THEY'RE supposed to take care of their oil when your soldiers have full controll over the whole place??
And they need an election first until they can start controlling their oil, and that's when USA leaves Iraq.

Because we have an alliance with Isreal, we help them, they help us.  We favor their leadership, although we try to stay out of their affairs concerning the "holy wars" (although it is true that we have given them supplies and such, but this is in the interest of economics).

Now that's what scares me most, USA does anything for their economics :/ And this is sick, very sick.
It even scares me that you seem to be all OK with this.
Now something i'd like to bring up, as I said before, USA would do anything to improve their economics, without a doubt.
All the war, everything, do you know how much money you have gained from all of that?
What i'm trying to say, I think this is all happening on purpose. I'm calling the US admins. terrorists cause I think they're cooperating in some kind of terrorist group, a group that help each other to gain money.
And you asked before "And what is ONE fact that Michael Moore used against Bush, that is undisputed/factual?".
The saudi-arabia cooperation. ... and the whole video.
You need to read between the lines and look back and forth on everything, you're just listening to the words spoken out of Bush's mouth.
 

I shouldn't even have to give you a source, cause this is so obvious, you could find about this anywhere by yourself.

Why?  Can't find a valid source?  I give you sources, you brush them aside.  I *ask* you for YOU to give me a source, you brush it aside.  So either you're lazy, or you're wrong, and until you prove me otherwise, we will assume the latter.

I don't, and again, you ignore the part where i have told you that i have got all these facts etc from other things than LINKS.
And if there are links they're often swedish or some old link i can't find for you now.
But here are some damn good things you should take a look at; http://www.projectcensored.org/censored_2006/ .
This link is probably the most used one attm.

The war in Afghanistan, total of waste of time and causing more suffering and hunger to the Afgan people.

Oh yes, because we kill people, and we're not giving them medical aid, food or any of that stuff.  Wait!  We ARE helping them out and giving them food, medical aid, etc.!

You have no choice! You HAVE to help them! It's the least you can do after all the, if you excuse me, **** you caused over there for no reason at all.

Um... they actually needed aid *before* the war, but we weren't allowed to help them previous to it, because of the Nazi-esque state of the country.

You had the consideration to help them before the war @_@?
So what you did instead was to go and bomb up the place and then give them aid?!... err..

I've tried, tried and tried again.  It doesn't work.  Let's assume you're wrong, then?

I'm not wrong, i gave you a link above. Here it is again; http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3661134.stm (along several others i could give you).

Never?  What about them aiding terrorist groups that kill Americans?  What Saddam aiding the culprits of events like 9/11 with money?  What about Saddam killing millions of people WITHIN his own country?  What about Operation Desert Storm?  This should PROVE that he's an enemy to America.

HE'S an enemy to America you say, but did he EVER threat USA? Again, he did not. He never killed a single american.
There was no terrorism before 9/11, it increased dramatically after you caught Saddam.
 I still see no link between 9/11 and/or Iraq/Al quaida. You still don't have enough evidence that iraq/al qaida was behind 9/11.
And Operation Desert Storm was from freaking 1991 and lasted for 100 hours!

The terrorism started AFTER you invaded Iraq, after you started killing poor Iraqis, after you started killing unprepared people without weapons.

That's not the way that warfare works.  We did not EVER do that intentionally.  We ONLY kill the bad guys if at all possible.

And tell that to the millions of victims from terorrism that happened previous to the war.

You weren't even sure if they were bad guys, again, you never had evidence.
Even found a link about this, read more here if you want to: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5223932/
And you are miserably failing on "only killing the "bad guys"". I don't see blowing up children and houses necessary.
How is that worse than having a terrorist blowing himself up in an american cafeteria? Sorry, but I had to make that comparation. 
Why are you americans seeing yourselves so much more special than other people around you?
These iraqi's don't even have a chance to defend themselves, and if they had nuclear weapons they would use them long time ago, probably the day you invaded Iraq.  USA is doing the "if i suspect i defend" waaay to many times...

There never was an enemy, you created them.

So... terrorism from within Iraq didn't exist previous to the war?  I'm starting to wonder if you're joking (very cynical if you are)?

No terrorists that really had something to do with USA, that's why i'm saying that there never was an enemy.
If there would be then there wouldn't be as many people complaining about the reason to start a war in Iraq.

Feel free to start a topic

Sure.

But I have seen more things that Bush has done and caused. Things that even have been scientifically prooved etc, and now i'm talking about the "The 9/11" document for EXAMPLE.

"Bush was responsible for 9/11" was scientifically proven?  Then why hasn't he recieved capital punishment, yet?

Because people deny it? Bush has too much power? US administrator = terrorists/"terrorists"? Mission impossible?

Yes he has.  Help yourself to the information that you'd like to know:
http://www.firstgov.gov/

Note that there is a lot of documentation on plans and such for the war in Iraq.  Including an exit strategy.

And what is ONE fact that Michael Moore used against Bush, that is undisputed/factual?

Again, I don't trust the US gov in any way. But I searched after some things but I still only find things that I already knew, nothing new at all. There are too many questions the gov. won't make any comments on. The 9/11 questions are probably the biggest now. How come the gov. won't make any comments on them? Cause they're lying.
www.ny911truth.org http://www.rense.com/general67/gut.htm http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8260059923762628848&q=911
all of these are questions. I got more links, i could give you millions of them, but links aren't everything.

The background, good reasons etc. Show us some facts, some proof. He's just like "HE'S A TERRORIST, KILL HIM AND HIS COUNTRY!" End of line. That's one of the biggest thing I don't understand.

And I'm confused as to what you are saying ???

He doesn't have enough evidence.

And then there are of course soldiers who come back after the war and they have no freaking idea of what the hell they were doing there. To kill enemies that never existed?  What explains that?

But those soldiers are far and few, and are the obvious minority.

Besides, education can fix that!

And how do you know that? Cause your american tv only shows the happy soldiers? Though hy would they
show you the complaining americans? The answer is obvious.

Education can fix that>? What are you talking about?
People go into that war cause they have no choice. And most of them have no money for education.
Why won't George bush send his kids to help him clean up his mess, hmm, wouldn't that be sweet?

[Limey]

Limey

Re: The Iran crisis

, wow big posts in this debate, lol.

Well, lemme just say, Iran is screwed... We're gonna nuke 'em soon... just wait :/

[2awesome4apossum]

2awesome4apossum

Re: The Iran crisis

, wow big posts in this debate, lol.

Heh... yeah, I *was* going to make a reply to the last post, and I made a huge one that I still have saved in a notepad file, but then I came across this part:

There was no terrorism before 9/11

And I think I'm done debating in this topic...

[Pyru]

Pyru

Re: The Iran crisis

There was no terrorism before 9/11

And I think I'm done debating in this topic...

You have to admit, before 9/11 terrorism wasn't so big, or so often, or so public. It became a buzzword and an international fear because of 9/11.

[2awesome4apossum]

2awesome4apossum

Re: The Iran crisis

There was no terrorism before 9/11

And I think I'm done debating in this topic...

You have to admit, before 9/11 terrorism wasn't so big, or so often, or so public. It became a buzzword and an international fear because of 9/11.

What... are you blind?  Just because in Britain you didn't go through the Oklahoma City Bombing, just because it wasn't YOUR embassy's being bombed... just because YOU didn't witness first-hand Libya declaring war on the US... just because Pearl Harbor didn't happen within YOUR lifetime... <_<

I mean, it's stupidity to say that a few decades ago Libya wasn't as feared, if not more than Iraq!

Those embassy bombings during Clinton's presidency were pretty tramatic.  Um... yeah, terrorism's always been a big thing.  Perhaps you're not old enough to know about any of these kind of things (I'm sure there are many incidents within your own country), even so, you should be able to remember at LEAST the US embassy bombings which happened just a few years ago.  Terrorism has been happening much longer than any of us have been alive, and it happens on a regular basis.

9/11 did not in any way increase the terrorism... it might have been the worst incident of it in modern times, but in no way is it any more terrorism than any other of thousands and thousands of incidents that have happened in the last few decades.

...and besides, even if that *was* true, it still doesn't stop that statement from being one of the dumbest things that I have ever witnessed in my entire life (no offense to the giver of that statement, just to the very nature of the lie itself).

[Pyru]

Pyru

Re: The Iran crisis

The IRA in Britain? Yeah, I remember that. But terrorism wasn't so much of a buzzword back then. Yeah, it existed, yeah, people cared about it, but not nearly as much, not to the same extent, and people weren't SO scared.

The difference before was the motivation and direction of terrorism; before, terrorism was chiefly aimed at directly significant targets with a specific agenda to push across; statements were publicly issued before many attacks, reminding of the organisation's intention.

In more recent times, terrorism has- supposedly- had the intention of completely destorying an enemy. No agenda, merely killing.

[Who are the brain police?]

Who are the brain police?

Re: The Iran crisis

In my humble opinion for what its worth, I dont think they are using it for the purposes they say they are, there is no way a country like that with a fanatic for a leader wants that sort of power to generate energy.

• 

[Pyru]

Pyru

Re: The Iran crisis

In my humble opinion for what its worth, I dont think they are using it for the purposes they say they are, there is no way a country like that with a fanatic for a leader wants that sort of power to generate energy.

Iran's biggest export is oil. Think about how they could improve their balance of payments (total exports compared to total imports) if they were able to massively reduce how much oil they consumed inside their own country, and therefore export that oil instead?

That seems a plausible reason for them to want nuclear-generated electricity, doesn't it?

[2awesome4apossum]

2awesome4apossum

Re: The Iran crisis

That seems a plausible reason for them to want nuclear-generated electricity, doesn't it?

Not when they said that they'd wipe Isreal off the face of the earth.

[Pyru]

Pyru

Re: The Iran crisis

That seems a plausible reason for them to want nuclear-generated electricity, doesn't it?

Not when they said that they'd wipe Isreal off the face of the earth.

1. Israel already has nukes.
2. If they used nukes against Israel, they'd be destroyed by most of the rest of the nuclear-equipped countries before they could blink.
3. There is very little solid evidence to indicate that they are developing nuclear weapons.

[2awesome4apossum]

2awesome4apossum

Re: The Iran crisis

2. If they used nukes against Israel, they'd be destroyed by most of the rest of the nuclear-equipped countries before they could blink.

Thank God for that.

3. There is very little solid evidence to indicate that they are developing nuclear weapons.

they say they are.  If someone yells "bomb", by law they must be dealt with.

[Cassyblanca]

Cassyblanca

Re: The Iran crisis

The IRA in Britain? Yeah, I remember that. But terrorism wasn't so much of a buzzword back then. Yeah, it existed, yeah, people cared about it, but not nearly as much, not to the same extent, and people weren't SO scared.

How many wars have been fought against terrorists in the past, though? Mostly, terrorists have been taken out by relatively small means. However, after the attack on September 11, the United States took up arms against the terrorists. Because such a large country which many, MANY people try to demonize for their size and power took arms against a somewhat smaller country that was threatening it, a spark was set off that flared something much larger. The REASON people are so scared is because it is discussed so much more often now and is seen almost every day. The reason it is heard about and seen every day is because the United States has taken an initiative against these terrorists, and it is a larger country. Had another country started a campaign against these terrorists, it may have been somewhat less heard about, but it would still be heard about by people with the will to listen.


Edit
On another note, Tabby, you're a good friend of mine. However, I read all of your debate with Pyru against possum (you three were the main debaters in here), but I haven't seen either you or Pyru post decent proof. You claim what you say to be "obvious" and "common sense", however, much of what you say seems more to be your own opinion formed by what you are told by the media. Provide links, there are ways to translate entire websites from swedish to english, it may not be a perfect translation, but we can work out what it says.

There's such a double standard about religion in the modern world. Catholics can gather, wear white robes, and say "In nomine Patris, et Filii, et Spiritus Sancti" and be considered normal.

But if my friends and I gather, wear black robes, and say  "Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn", we're considered cultists.

• 

[4Sword]

4Sword

Re: The Iran crisis

If you are going to say something, do not try debating with people who are not here anymore.  It only makes you look weak. 

Also, editting over a mod edit is disrespectful to the moderation and doing it again will get you reprimanded.