Who is more of a threat as a nuclear power, Iran or North Korea

[chabibi]

give reasons

ill go first

i believe Iran is much more dangerous than North Korea. the Mullahs in charge of Iran are religious zealots and are much more likely to attack pre-emptively

[lastchance]

We know North Korea has nukes. We know N. Korea is upgrading them.

North Korea, and forgive me, but it's not even close.

[bholdr]

I agree. Iran is still 'several years away' according to the administration (so who knows, i suppose /images/graemlins/tongue.gif), ad NK also has much more advanced missle technology, and a much bigger potential reason to use the nukes- it's still only a cease-fire over there, right? throw in some nuclear neighbors, china, russia, and likely Japan (i predict they'll arm in the next twenty years or less), a meglomanical sociopath leader, and you've got a recipie for disaster.

the rulers of Iran are fanatics, but they're nt patently nuts or totally unaccountable like Kim Jong Il.

...and i live in seattle. /images/graemlins/frown.gif

[The_Tracker]

LOL.

The OP really believes that Iran is "much more" of a threat to the US than N.Korea? Yeah, and Iraq was a nuclear threat to right? LOL.

Keep drinking the kool-aid bro.

[chabibi]

the question was "who is more of a threat as a nuclear power" not who has nuclear weapons. assuming Iran has weapons (which i dont know for sure hence assuming)i believe iran is more likely to use these weapons or give them to terrorists than north korea

[lastchance]

Oh, I didn't read this question well enough. Are we assuming Iran already has weapons, or the state of things as they are now?

Then, it's a lot different question.

[PokerCat69]

I would say neither country would be a threat if left alone.
Lets take a random country, oh lets say Brazil. Tell me how come Brazil isn't scared of N.Korea?
Heres a clue: N.Korea has no reason to attack Brazil.

[lastchance]

Because Brazil doesn't have any influence. North Korea isn't going halfway across the world to attack Brazil.

America not only has already supported South Korea, America is also powerful. And unless you want to give up the 'top dog' spot (which no sane country does), then people are going to gun for America.

[Broken Glass Can]

Iran clearly.

Iran has already actively supported state terrorism against the West. They have the motive to develop a delivery system across the world that reaches us, or to let a group like Al Quaeda do it for them.

North Korea is a bigger risk to South Korea, Japan and China. China is the country that should rein them in, and has the reason to do so.

[PokerCat69]

[ QUOTE ]
China is the country that should rein them in, and has the reason to do so.

[/ QUOTE ]
China exports a lot of weapons to N.Korea.

[Broken Glass Can]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
China is the country that should rein them in, and has the reason to do so.

[/ QUOTE ]
China exports a lot of weapons to N.Korea.

[/ QUOTE ]

What's you point?

I said "rein them in", not go to war with them. A controlled North Korea is what we need.

[Felix_Nietsche]

NK has already threatened to sell nuclear weapons for cash.

If they sell nukes to terrorists, I predict NK will become a nuclear wasteland. Perhaps nuking NK now, will stop an American City from getting nuked later....

[PokerCat69]

[ QUOTE ]

I said "rein them in", not go to war with them. A controlled North Korea is what we need.

[/ QUOTE ]
Why is it China's responsibility to "rein them in" ?

[bholdr]

ah, but NK has also supported terrorism, albeit indirectly. By exporting missle technology to other rouge states, by terrorising our allies in the east, etc, NK, IMO, poses as great of a terrorisim threat as Iran, with the caveat that there isn't an ideology backing it up, but rather an insane all-powerful dictator on the edge of senility with missles that could hit seattle. ...and the only reasons that NK can't also use a group like al Queda are logistical ones.

perhaps in five years or so iran will outpace NK as a threat to the US, but for the time being, i think it's NK by a long shot(pun intended).

I also think Pakistan poses a pretty clear threat, if Mursharaff ever loses control.


I think a lot of it boils down to the idea that the Iranians have a lot more to lose than Kim Jong Il.

[bholdr]

because:

a- they are most able
b- throughout the latter half of the century it's their support that allowed NK to get where they are
c- china has a stated intention of acheivinf hedgemon status in the east, this is what superpowers do
d- they have a geographic intrest, fallout from a NK/SK was would affect them
e- they have an economic interest, they don't want SK and japan, their biggest trading partners in the area nuked.
f- they have a humanitarian intrest. two milloin people have starved within miles of their border. this is no good.
etc, etc, etc...

[jokerthief]

If we are talking in hypothetical then I would say Iran because they are apt to "glorify Allah". In reality it's N. Korea because I don't think the US and Europe will allow Iran to develop nukes.

[andyfox]

Perhpas nuking NK now will guarantee a US city getting nuked later . . . It will certainly guarantee that nobody will ever take what we say about the dangers of nuclear proliferation seriously.

[Felix_Nietsche]

"Perhpas nuking NK now will guarantee a US city getting nuked later . . ."
*******************************
Not by North Korea...
If anyone is that stupid to nuke the USA, then their gene pool will not survive to the next generation...
Unless John Kerry gets elected then the USA will surrender and agree to convert to Islam...


"It will certainly guarantee that nobody will ever take what we say about the dangers of nuclear proliferation seriously."
**********************************
Well, that is a risk I'm willing to take. /images/graemlins/smile.gif
However, I would want other countries to know if they help a terrorist group nuke a US city, then they can expect a little nuclear payback....

The ancient Romans knew how to control viscious people. And it was not by using the "Oprah/Dr Phil" approach. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[tolbiny]

"The ancient Romans knew how to control viscious people. And it was not by using the "Oprah/Dr Phil" approach"

And it was those very same viscious people who ended up shredding the Roman empire in later years.

Also, when you are crucifying thousands, forcing slaves to fight to the death and taking over as much territory as you can by military might i dont think that you get to use the word "vicious" to describe your enimies.

[Felix_Nietsche]

I think you like most people, learned your Roman history from the movies.....
The Roman empire was one of the most advanced and enlightened cultures of the ancient world.

"And it was those very same viscious people who ended up shredding the Roman empire in later years."
******************************
Not exactly. The German tribes had become rather 'Romanized'. In fact Rome and the German tribes were allies against Attila the Hun. As allies, they even won a HUGE battle against Attila the Hun that sent Attila running away with his tail between his legs. When the Western Roman empire fell, it was because it had become so weak and corrupt through poor management that it was a shadow of its former self... The goths that took down the Western Empire were civilized... Relatively speaking. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

Also, when you are crucifying thousands,
**************************************
The ancient Romans did not have life without parole as a punishment.
If you study the punishment practices of Roman's neighbors, you'll find they weren't exactly very lenient either...

"forcing slaves to fight to the death"
*****************************
Gladiator fights were part of their religious beliefs. What can a say. The ancients had lots of weird religions... The Roman religious practices were a delight compared to some of the Carthaginian practices... Also, a surprising amount of Romans voluntarily became gladiators. The fighters were the rock stars of the ancient world and people wanted to idolize them. In fact one senator's wife divorce her husband and married a gladiator... /images/graemlins/smile.gif

"and taking over as much territory as you can by military might"
*******************************
Actually the emperor Augustus started the policy to maintain Roman territory and not to expand the Empire. Their policy was to maintain the status quo. With a few exceptions (Claudius/England, Trajan?/Parthia). One of the big problems the Romans had was that too many of their subjects WANTED TO BE ROMAN CITIZENS.... It was a case where living in every other kingdom sucked so living in a Roman provence was a step up... It was kind of like Mexico and the USA.

"i dont think that you get to use the word "vicious" to describe your enimies."
*****************************
The Romans were less viscious compared to most of their neighbors except for the Greeks who were VERY enlightened. After Rome conquer Greece, there was a joke that it was the Greeks who conquered the Romans (through the Greek Culture which many Romans admired).

[Il_Mostro]

[ QUOTE ]
If they sell nukes to terrorists, I predict NK will become a nuclear wasteland. Perhaps nuking NK now, will stop an American City from getting nuked later....

[/ QUOTE ]
You don't think China, SK and Japan might have something to say about the US nuking their neighbour country, spreading radiation over their capitals?

You sure are prone to argue for the use of nukes, without thinking things through.

[tolbiny]

YOu brought up the quote that Rome had its way of dealing with Vicious enimies. I was mentioning a few practicies of roman times that very very few people would be willing to associate themselves with. Just because rome contributed philosophy and democracy (and engineering and art) doesn't mean that we should ignore their cruelties and willingness to destroy anything that wasn't roman if they thought it would suit them. The same way that we shouldn't let those cruelties overshadow that benefits we reap from their progressive sides.

And those germanic tribes that were "allies" against Atilla did so out of necessity, and turned on Rome the first chance they got.

[Felix_Nietsche]

It may be a case of choosing the lesser of two evils.
Nuclear fallout is not desirable but neither is an entire city getting nuked....and more cities in the future.

I believe the following to be true.
1. North Korea is desperate for money.
2. Their leader Kim is insane.
3. They will sell nukes for cash.
4. They will sell nukes to anyone who has the money, including terrorists.
5. If Arab terrorists get a nuke, they will use it. If they were to put a nuke on a ship and sail in to SanFrancisco Bay and set the nuke off, it would be a nuclear holocost.

The best time to kill a poisoness serpent is while it is in the egg.
The next best time to kill a poisoness serpent is when it is a baby.
The worst time to kill a poisoness serpent is when it is a adult.

I don't no whether the North Korean nuke program has truly hatched or if their lying. But I think North Korea is very dangerous and that can NOT be allowed to sell nukes.

[lastchance]

Guerilla warfare. Nukes are perhaps the scariest thing ever invented by man, and in the next 50 years, I predict that any madman will be able to get his hands on nukes on the black market the same way one gets guns and drugs right now. Guerilla warfaring is about quick, deadly strikes. There's nothing like a nuke when it comes to this quick, deadly strike.

The first time I heard this solution, I thought it was ludicrous. But when you realize that nuclear proliferation is inevitable, and there are some people who are clearly willing to kill themselves for the cause.

You can't win in this situation. You stand back, and you give certain countries all time in the world to come after you. You move forward, and you ensure that other countries are scrambling to nukes.

Making the nuclear statement is correct when dealing with rational and sane people who want to live.

Clearly, there are some people who are not like this. A nuke will speed up one of them getting their hands on a nuke by about 10 years.

A nuclear shield must be created. A madman can kill a million people with this singular weapon from almost any spot on the world. And, IMHO, 50 years, this WILL be a reality. By nature, technology expands outwards. You can't stop this spread.

There are four things that are really becoming a threat toward the US:
1. Exponential Growth. Capitalism will be nearing the end of it's run. Eventually, you run out of resources to use. You can't go sprawling forever, and we're hitting that wall. This is a primary reason the Roman Empire (cited earlier) crumbled. Too much to do.
2. Nuclear devastation. Stated above.
3. China. Economic power is always important, and this country is kicking it in gear.
4. Terrorism. By far the most immediate threat, but at the same time, the threat least likely to bring about the end/downfall of the US (unless they use 2). No nation has ever crumbled because of guerilla warfare. Guerilla warfare and terrorism are great at getting an enemy's troops out of your home, but not effective toward bringing about the downfall of a mighty empire.

PS. Biological weapons are much scarier the nuclear weapons, but they're also much farther off. If we survive nukes, hopefully, it means we can survive bio weaps. But an effective biological weapon is much smaller, easier to smuggle and probably much more lethal than any nuke. So I guess that's a fifth, probably ranks right up there alongside nuclear devastation.

[jokerswild]

Your response shows that you are very ignorant of Islam.
Perhaps you should actually read the Koran.

[Felix_Nietsche]

Don't forget about neutron bombs.

These are nuclear weapons design to kill people and minimize envrionmental damge. There are neutron bombs small enough to be drop a few miles away from the South Korea border and leave S.Korea untouched...

The tricky part about a nuclear strike against North Korea is what to do with the underground complexes which have been bored into the mountains. Some military planners have said it would be better to use conventional weapons to destroy the entrances to seal up these complexes forever. Some argue to use full nukes to collapse the upper levels of these complezes. With the later option there will obvious be a radioactive fallout problem... With the former, option every entrance would need to be sealed to prevent escape... There are no easy solutions to attacking North Korea.

I believe that if North Korea tries to sell nuclear weapons on the open market, then nuclear terrorism will happen. Therefore I beleive the day that North Korea tries to sell nuclear weapons is the day that NK needs to die...

Some may say this is evil but I say this is the lesser of two evils....

[Koller]

[ QUOTE ]
The tricky part about a nuclear strike against North Korea is what to do with the underground complexes which have been bored into the mountains. Some military planners have said it would be better to use conventional weapons to destroy the entrances to seal up these complexes forever. Some argue to use full nukes to collapse the upper levels of these complezes. With the later option there will obvious be a radioactive fallout problem... With the former, option every entrance would need to be sealed to prevent escape... There are no easy solutions to attacking North Korea.



[/ QUOTE ]

Felix, you need help. Please, call 1800-lunatic /images/graemlins/mad.gif

And yes, I hate North Korea more than I hate Texas. /images/graemlins/blush.gif /images/graemlins/grin.gif

[Felix_Nietsche]

"Felix, you need help. Please, call 1800-lunatic"
*********************
I called this number and the wanted to charge my credit card $3.99 a minute..........

I did an internet search and discovered Koller was the owner of these scam phone#.
Nice try Koller, the only way you'll get my money is by SUCKING OUT ON ME at the poker tables. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[Koller]

[ QUOTE ]
I called this number and the wanted to charge my credit card $3.99 a minute..........

I did an internet search and discovered Koller was the owner of these scam phone#.
Nice try Koller, the only way you'll get my money is by SUCKING OUT ON ME at the poker tables. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

Well played. Funny post. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

BTW, I play poker for a living.

[jcx]

The answer: Neither. Nuclear weapons tend to stabilize relations between countries, not the other way around. The mullahs in Iran may be religious fanatics and Kim Jong Il may be insane, but neither group is stupid. Having seen what has recently happened to their non-nuclear "Axis of Evil" brother, they want nuclear weapons for one reason: To guarantee survival.

As far as the Iranians giving nukes to terrorists or the DPRK selling them on the open market, I don't buy this for a minute. Any nuke sold or given to a terrorist organization could certainly be traced back to the benefactor and the consequences would be dire. This kind of flies right into the face of the self preservation goals of the respective regimes.

North Korea would not sell a nuke because it does not need to. Kim makes enough money selling conventional weapons and smuggling drugs through his diplomats to keep the army fed and the elites in luxury. That's enough to get by when you could care less if a few million peasants starve.

Shiite Iran would not supply a nuke to Sunni Al-Quaeda. They are enemies. They would certainly not give one to Hezbollah. They know that if a nuke went off in Tel Aviv the entire Middle East would be glowing within 5 minutes.

Nuclear weapons might actually force these regimes to grow up and become responsible, which can't be a bad thing. Once the concept of mutually assured destruction sinks in, nations tend to turn away from saber rattling and rely more on diplomacy. Nuclear weapons are very likely the only reason western Europe was spared a Soviet invasion post WWII. They have helped to stabilize the relationship between India and Pakistan, who likely would have fought an all out war over Kashmir (Among other issues) were it not for the knowledge that each side had nuclear weapons.

Would I keep a close eye on Iran and N. Korea? Sure. Carefully monitor (By satellite and whatever other means available) their nuclear facilities? Absolutely. Go to war to prevent them from procuring these weapons? No way. Look to our current Iraqi adventure for a clue as to why not.

[BCPVP]

Both are threats. But I think Iran is more of a threat, as it does not have as many highly developed countries surrounding it like NK does. What I think needs to happen is Mr. Jong-Il as well as other top NK leaders need to have a couple of "accidents". I just haven't seen a very clean way to take out NK. They spend the highest % of their GDP on the military then any other country in the world, so they wouldn't be the pushover that Saddam's forces were. And I don't fear NK disreetly selling anything nuclear to third-world terrorists. 1) These terrorists are not as close in proximity to NK as they are to Iran and 2) We've probably got a satellite or two tasked to keeping a radiological eye on NK.
But Iran has many neighbors who support terror and if history has shown us anything, enemies can and do join together to attack common enemies (i.e. U.S. and U.S.S.R in WWII) regardless of ideological differences. And whether or not we can quickly trace a nuclear attack back through a terrorist group and to the mother country, at least IMO, is not as assured as has been suggested. Even so, we'd still find out too late. There'd already be a mushroom cloud if that's how we find out who has nukes. Now Iran is clearly lying about it's nuclear intent. The country is sitting on about 100 billion barrels of oil. And they only consume less then 1.5 million barrels. AND, when you look at Iran and NK geographically, you'll see that Iran has more neighbors that lack nukes then NK does. With NK, only SK and Japan lack nukes while China and Russia have nukes. Iran, OTOH, has several neighboring countries that lack nukes. So we have much more to worry about with security of nuclear material if Iran obtains nukes because they have more neighbors who don't have nukes.
That's why I think Iran is more dangerous.

[the alex]

[ QUOTE ]
i believe Iran is much more dangerous than North Korea. the Mullahs in charge of Iran are religious zealots and are much more likely to attack pre-emptively

[/ QUOTE ]

More likely to attack pre-emptively? Do you know what pre-emptive means?

[ QUOTE ]
If we are talking in hypothetical then I would say Iran because they are apt to "glorify Allah".

[/ QUOTE ]

The only people that have claimed that violence by people who claim to be Muslims are to "glorify Allah" have been American propogandists. Allah means God in Arabic and Muslims worship the same God as Christians. They just don't believe that God walked the earth in the form of whom we cal Jesus.

If you lived in an Arabic country, you'd say Allah whether you were Muslim or Christian.

[ QUOTE ]
In reality it's N. Korea because I don't think the US and Europe will allow Iran to develop nukes.

[/ QUOTE ]

I disagree that either is a threat to harm us. If we get out of Iraq soon, they'll have no reason to if we begin to evacuate the Middle East as a whole. Russia, India, China, Pakistan, and Britain all have nukes. We have befriended Pakistan who is enemies with India who has more nukes that N.Korea and Iran. But India is a democratic state that has as many policy problems with America as Iran and N.Korea. India's not a threat and neither is Iran or N.Korea.

[ QUOTE ]
Perhpas nuking NK now will guarantee a US city getting nuked later . . . It will certainly guarantee that nobody will ever take what we say about the dangers of nuclear proliferation seriously.

[/ QUOTE ]

I couldn't agree with you more.

[ QUOTE ]
However, I would want other countries to know if they help a terrorist group nuke a US city, then they can expect a little nuclear payback....

[/ QUOTE ]

OK. Which states are doing that? None. Look at the countries that the U.S. have sold nukes to and compare those countries to Iran and N.Korea. Think what you will, but the countries that we've sold nukes to have done more harm with those nukes than Iran and N.Korea.

Maybe, a summit in which the U.S. claims negligence and condemns actions of the past will give us more credibility in the negotiation process. Iran and NK lack credibility with many Americans. Why?

I think JCX has the best response here:
http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showthreaded.php?Cat=&Number=1712756&page=&view=&s b=5&o=&vc=1

Everyone is saying "lesser of two evils," yet no one has said what makes either evil or more evil than Russia, Britain, India, Pakistan, China, or US who also possess nukes.

[Zygote]

I think you missed the point. The question is, "who is more of a threat as a nuclear power", not, "who is more likely to have weapons."

Iran is far more likely, IMO, to misuse nuclear power.

[Zygote]

"I would say neither country would be a threat if left alone.
Lets take a random country, oh lets say Brazil. Tell me how come Brazil isn't scared of N.Korea?
Heres a clue: N.Korea has no reason to attack Brazil.
"

Boy, you thought this one out well. Ever think that North Korea might sell the weapons to someone who does have a vested interest in attacking a specifc country?

Also, if you think Iran wouldn't use a nuclear weopon if they were simply "left alone", you are quite naive. More importantly, they are a brutal country and should never be "left alone."

[Cyrus]

Why do you have only Iran and North Korea in your poll? Are they at the top of your list of "threats to world peace"?

When we are dealing in matters of Poker, the experts ask us to "consider all the relevant factors", eg pot odds, outs, style of opponent, etc. When we are talking about Politics, we are supposed to forget all about logical and intelligent analysis? I don't think so.

Would we feel more threatened by the big stack at out tournament table if some wild and inexperienced player is sitting behind it or if Danny Negreanu had it? Would the world be more threatened if a pacifist country had nukes or if some extremely beligerent country had nukes?

Here are some of the criteria through which on can judge if a country is a threat to others or not:
General level of militarisation of everyday life; percentage of GDP dedicated to the military; irredentist aspirations; number of invasions of other countries; abiding by international treaties, bodies of governance and law; democratic governance domestically; etc.

By the aforementioned criteria, the countries that are Most Likely To Start Something in the world today are, surprise surprise, first and foremost, the United States, closely followed by Israel. A distant third would be North Korea, by the criteria above.

Now, add nuclear weapons into the mix...

* * * * * * * * * *

Footnotes:
* Here's what the world (http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,12271,1394393,00.html) thinks of the prospects of peace on Earth with Bush at the helm.
* Earlier this year TIME Europe asked its readers: "Who really poses the greatest danger to world peace? Iraq, North Korea or The United States." Here's the tally (http://www.time.com/time/europe/gdml/peace2003.html).

[Koller]

Cyrus, great post.

Bush is a maniac. Very dangerous maniac, like Stalin. /images/graemlins/frown.gif

[zaxx19]

Yeah just like Stalin....minus oh 20-30 million dead Americans...

You morons are getting more and more funny as the weeks pass.

[Koller]

[ QUOTE ]
Yeah just like Stalin....minus oh 20-30 million dead Americans...

[/ QUOTE ]

Wake up! I'm from Finland (Europe). We don't care about America or (Israel). We care about rest of the world.

Stalin was a maniac.

Bush is a maniac.

[zaxx19]

Wake up! I'm from Finland (Europe). We don't care about America or (Israel). We care about rest of the world.



Who can argue with sublime logic such as this....

[Koller]

OK, I'm retarded. So what? /images/graemlins/grin.gif

[Kaz The Original]

How many countries has Iran or North Korea invaded in the last 10 years?

How many countries has America invaded?

How would a martian view the American invasion of Afghanistan, a nation which commited no noticable hostile act towards the aggressor?

[BCPVP]

[ QUOTE ]
Would the world be more threatened if a pacifist country had nukes or if some extremely beligerent country had nukes?

[/ QUOTE ]
Since when have NK or Iran been pacifist countries? Both have been involved in wars with their neighbors in the latter half-century.

[ QUOTE ]
Here are some of the criteria through which on can judge if a country is a threat to others or not:
General level of militarisation of everyday life; percentage of GDP dedicated to the military; irredentist aspirations; number of invasions of other countries; abiding by international treaties, bodies of governance and law; democratic governance domestically; etc.

[/ QUOTE ]
1) NK's army is the reason NK's people are starving.
2) Neither NK nor Iran have %GDP used by military that is less than the U.S. In fact, NK spends the most by far, as a percentage of GDP, then any other country in the world. They're %GDP is SEVEN times that of the U.S.
3) "Irridentist aspirations": had to look that one up, but according to the definition, both NK and Iran have far greater claims to irridentist aspirations then the U.S. does.
4) Unfair criticism. We've had to bail Europe out of two world wars in which we had to "invade" several nations. And the number of times a country "invades" another doesn't have much significance, IMO, on how much of a threat they are. Neither NK nor Iran has the capablility of hitting the U.S. directly, but both are capable of hitting us indirectly via terrorists; Iran more so than NK, IMO.
5)Neither the U.S., NK, or Iran has abided by every single international treaty. NK and Iran for the very reason we're discussing them!
6 & 7) The U.S. is infinitely more democratic and law-abiding than Nk and Iran put together. A woman isn't going to be executed for adultry if she was raped in the U.S. The same can't be said for a woman in Iran. And do we need to get into a discussion about the outrageous human rights record of NK is?

So it looks like the U.S. is always ahead of these countries, so by your definition, we do not pose as much of a threat than either Iran or NK. I don't know how you contorted those "criteria" into negatives for the U.S. other than simply wishing it to be so.

And since you mentioned Israel, I thought I'd share an interesting idea I'd read about. Lefties love to pick on Israel. Probably almost as much as they love to pick on the U.S. But Israel was one tiny democracy in a sea of thugocracies, theocracies, and psuedo-democracies. Israel was the victim of several (4?) aggressive wars by its neighbors and got to play catch-the-scud in Desert Storm. Why is it lefties criticize everything about Israel when it is its neighbors who are really what the left claims to stand against. Oppression of women, oppression of minorities, violent limits on speech, oligarchies that control all the wealth and let the people rot...the list goes on and on. Lefties claim to stand against these things, yet will criticize Israel at the drop of a hat. Why aren't more libs being critical of the other Middleastern countries?

And Cyrus, few people in the States care what Europe thinks anymore. Bunch of socialist ingrates is what many of you are over there. What's Europe's GDP growth rate at these days? How's that unemployment coming?

[zaxx19]

How would a martian view the American invasion of Afghanistan, a nation which commited no noticable hostile act towards the aggressor?

Are you smoking crack?? Im actually being dead serious??

Are you engaged in the use of crack cocaine?? Is it habitual? Are there treatment centers you can check yourself into??

Am I a martian?? Why would I care what a Martian view of the liberation of Afghanistan would be??

Is Afganistan better off now than it was 4 yrs ago?? Most certainly.

Was the Taliban any more legitimate than the US army in running the country? Absolutely not.

Do religious minorities have to wear arm bands now??

Can girls become educated now??

Are buddhist religious sites being desecrated now??

Is the Afghani infrustrcture being upgraded slowly but surely now??

I mean what goes on in your head ?? Obviously it isnt concern for the actual condition of human beings.

[Kaz The Original]

zaxx, your style of debate is most quaint, however unprofessional.

The reason we would ask how a martian would view the invasion of afghanistan is because what I am really asking is "how would a neutral third party view it".

"Is Afganistan better off now than it was 4 yrs ago??"
I do not know the answer to this question, and I doubt you do as well. There are probably alot more dead people there.

I do not believe that a country should invade another country, except for reasons of national defense. I am going to present a radical idea, and you are going to attack it, but that is ok. That is what you do.

Much as a personal should have the right to their beliefs, and a family should have the right to raise their children a certain way, so should a country have the right to determine their socio/political/economic system. Who is to say ours is better than theirs?

[zaxx19]

zaxx, your style of debate is most quaint, however unprofessional.

Most quaint?? Your a Frosh in college or a Sr. in HS arent you....lol lol lol

Dude they say people with IQ differentials of over 30 cant have meaningful discourse...I think we better drop this thread .....

[Kaz The Original]

"
Dude they say people with IQ differentials of over 30 cant have meaningful discourse...I think we better drop this thread ....."

I could not agree more.

[Cyrus]

"Neither NK nor Iran have %GDP used by military that is less than the U.S."

Indeed, as far as GDP percentage (http://www.nationmaster.com/graph-T/mil_exp_dol_fig_gdp) goes. But check out the military spending per capita (http://www.nationmaster.com/graph-T/mil_exp_dol_fig_cap), for an additional perspective. Wow, huh?

"Both NK and Iran have far greater claims to irredentist aspirations then the U.S. does."

The United States needs no such aspirations, since it already rules over the whole world. (And neo-colonialism no longer requires physical occupation of a land.) The North Koreans have the sole(theoretical and dormant for decades )objective of "re-uniting Korea". Well, they have been quite peaceful for fifty years and been holding re-unification talks with the South for some years now without the sky falling!

As to Iran, it has no irredentist aspirations whatsoever.

You are writing up stuff without knowing the first thing about it.

"Neither the U.S., NK, or Iran have abided by every single international treaty.

Well, every country in the world has broken at least one treaty. This is not what we are saying here, though. (Nice try.) Let's compare:

Iran has broken no int'l laws that I know of.
North Korea is, most probably, in violation of the Non-Proliferation treaty and the Korean Armistice Treaty -- if indeed it is developing nukes.

But the United States, ah! the Unites States is in a class of its own! It's the only country in the world which has made it an official policy to try and force int'l law, treaties and courts onto all other countries and is explicitly refusing to abide by any such constraint! That's the staff world champions are made of.

"Israel was the victim of several (4?) aggressive wars by its neighbours."

Israel attacked in 1956 and 1967 (although you will hear protests that they were both "pre-emptive" wars). It was attacked in 1948 and 1973. It attacked in 1982 (again, they will say, a "pre-emptive war"). From 1993 onwards, Israel only has to "attack" domestically: it is killing some 10 or 20 Palestinians per day. Not bad, admittedly, but they are breeding faster ---the towelhead bastards.

"The number of times a country invades another doesn't have much significance, IMO, on how much of a threat they are."

Come again?! You can't be serious. If this is not a primary criterion, then what is?? (Intentions, maybe? You want psychics to define foreign policy?)

The United States has been routinely invading other countries ever since World War II ended. North Korea "invaded" the South in the 1950s -- barely making it into your "half century" limit! Who did Iran invade last? I can only recall Iran been invaded by a neighbouring country led by a man who was strongly assisted in his "irredentist" effort by the United States.
(Shall I name names?)

"Few people in the States care what Europe thinks anymore."

You got it all wrong, baby! It's the world that has stopped listening to the United States. Here (http://www.iht.com/articles/115911.html)'s an American journalist who shall explain it all :

[ QUOTE ]
THE AMERICAN STORY
.
Every nation has a story - a narrative it tells to explain its place in the flow of history and to give meaning to its actions. The American story since 1942 is well known, and is considered by Americans and others a story reflecting responsibility and high-mindedness.
.
Despite aberrations in Vietnam and Latin America, the American story of responsible world leadership has been accepted among democracies as an essentially valid account of the role modern America played during the years leading up to the collapse of the Soviet Union. The problem today is that, in the view of many others, the story has changed. Another one has taken its place, even though most Americans deny that this is so.
.
Because of the powerful Calvinist influence - predestinarian and theocratic - in American Protestantism, the American story has always described a confrontation between the Elect and the Evil.
.
When the Soviet Union no longer fulfilled the latter role, Washington tried out several possible successors, finally settling on "rogue nations" - those professing radically un-American ideas and that give evidence of wanting to possess nuclear deterrents.
.
The rogue states’ feebleness, however, tended to diminish their credibility when cast in the role of global Evil.
.
Then came Sept. 11, and the problem was solved. The rogue nations now became the Axis of Evil. They were integral to a vast international threat, capable of striking the United States itself.
.
Americans declared that "everything has changed, and nothing can be the same." The nation was at war with "terror".
.
Terror expressed itself through Al Qaeda, the Taliban, Palestinian suicide-bombers, South American narco-terrorists, Chechen separatists and Moro separatists in the southern Philippines. Terror was a ubiquitous force that could ultimately manifest itself in weapons of mass destruction, supplied by the rogue states.
.
Hence, preventive wars were necessary; Afghanistan and Iraq had to be invaded to seize terror's leaders and their nuclear and biological weapons. International law must step aside.
.
But what actually has happened is something Americans have yet to grasp, and that others have yet to say out loud: People outside the United States have stopped believing the American story.
.
They don't think terrorism is an Evil force the United States is going to defeat. They say instead that terrorism is a way people wage war when they don't have F-16's or armoured divisions.
.
They say that Chechens, Moros, Taliban, Colombian insurgents, Palestinian bombers and Iraqi enemies of the U.S. occupation do not really make up a single global phenomenon that the world must mobilize to defeat.
.
They say that, actually, they had never really believed the American story in the first place. They had listened to it because Washington said it, and they respected Washington. Now they don't.
.
This is the reason why there is trouble between the United States and the countries that have been its allies. And this is why it may indeed prove true that between them, things "will never be the same.


[/ QUOTE ]

[Zygote]

"The only people that have claimed that violence by people who claim to be Muslims are to "glorify Allah" have been American propogandists. Allah means God in Arabic and Muslims worship the same God as Christians. They just don't believe that God walked the earth in the form of whom we cal Jesus.

If you lived in an Arabic country, you'd say Allah whether you were Muslim or Christian.
"

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH. So you've proven you know nothing about either religion. Go read a Koran and a bible, then read commentaries on both.

[Kaz The Original]

You are not adding anything with this post. If you wish to refute a claim do so. Typing "
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH." is just being an ass.

[Wake up CALL]

[ QUOTE ]
Wake up! I'm from Finland (Europe). We don't care about America or (Israel). We care about rest of the world.


[/ QUOTE ]

This attitude is akin to purchasing a book and only reading the appendix.

[Zygote]

[ QUOTE ]
I do not believe that a country should invade another country, except for reasons of national defense.

[/ QUOTE ]

this is very unfortunate. You must remember that this is just an opinion of yours and one that is far from the mainstream.

I'm very curious about your opinion and I've got two questions, would you allow your son be tortured if your own life was not put in danger?
If no, do you believe your son has more of right to be saved then a non-relative in the same situation?

You can also, by matter of opinion, not want to risk your life to help others, but this doesn't mean you have to stop respecting or understanding those who do.

[chabibi]

[ QUOTE ]
Iran has broken no int'l laws that I know of

[/ QUOTE ]
to quote zaxx, are you smoking crack?
you already mentioned NK violating the non proliferation treaty. as far as i know only one country in the world did not sign this treaty and it wasn’t iran. but thats no bigie because Pakistan, India and south Africa all violated it. but i did not know that state sponsored torture and murder were internationally accepted practices

[ QUOTE ]
Israel attacked in 1956 and 1967 (although you will hear protests that they were both "pre-emptive" wars)

[/ QUOTE ]

to say that the six day war was an unprovoked attack is laughable to anyone with a little sense and common knowledge. when 3 of your 4 neighbours mobilize their entire militaries on your boarders with the goal of driving the jews in to the sea. you dont wait until they are successful, you attack first. thos revisionist history that is so popular in Europe, the arab world and know liberal america is truly dangerous. it is only a matter of time until Europe justifies things like the holocaust by saying the jews were taking over Europe from the inside.

[Il_Mostro]

Even though I don't agree with you, Wake, and think this is a frightening way to look at the world, I must say that it was a striking comeback...

[Zygote]

Why must i take the time to educate him on something that is easily avaible to anyone who wants to make an effort to develop an educated opinion.

I will however re-read his post and make some more specifc complaints.

[Zygote]

"The only people that have claimed that violence by people who claim to be Muslims are to "glorify Allah" have been American propogandists."

Everything I will say or present has nothing to do with moderate muslims for they have mostly reformed the religion appropriately.

Question, are you saying that Americans invented Jihad? Are you saying that the Koran doesnt say the following:

*This is not written by me and i have not veryfied everything stated, but most things i already knew to be accurate and do feel it will have enough credibility to make my point.


As the Koran is supposed to be timeless and universal, the verses in it hold true even today and are used everyday by pious Muslims to justify their brutal and terrorist activities.


1. (Koran 8:12) "Remember Thy Lord inspired the angels (with the message): "I am with you: give firmness to the believers, I will instill terror into the hearts of the unbelievers, Smite ye above their necks and smite all their finger tips of them."



In the above verse the great prophet of Islam, Mohammed, is giving step by step instructions on how to torture and kill the unbelievers if they don't follow Islam. He is clearly instructing Muslims to commit cold-blooded murder in the name of religion.



2. (Koran 2:216) "Warfare is ordained for you, though it is hateful unto you; but it may happen that you hate a thing which is good for you and it may happen that you love a thing which is bad for you. Allah knoweth, you knew not."



The above verse was stated by Mohammed after his first terrorist attack. He and his followers mercilessly massacred four innocent and unarmed merchants at Nakhla in 623 AD. The massacre came in January, the sacred month of Rejeb. Arabs regard this month as a sacred month, when warfare and violence is forbidden. Since this barbaric criminal act was led and sanctioned by the "great" prophet Mohammed, we can conclude that Islam's sacred activities include loot and cold-blooded murder of innocent individuals. The very beginnings of Islam are stained with the blood of innocents.



By stating the above verse, Mohammed completely absolved himself from all blame for having murdered innocents. The most insidious and devilish implication of this verse is that God is completely justifying Mohammed’s murder of the innocent Meccans. The import of this verse is that killing and violence are JUSTIFIED for Muslims, because they are doing it by divine ordinance! It is a religious duty of every Muslim to murder anyone who comes in the way of Islam. Since it is also the duty of every Muslim to ensure that the entire world is converted to Islam by force if necessary, one must directly conclude that it is the religious duty of Muslims to kill all those who are non-Muslim. This conclusion is derived directly from the supreme edict of Allah, who admonishes that even the Muslim who feels it is wrong to kill, must murder in the name of Allah, otherwise he is not a true Muslim. Over and above this, Mohammed is hypocritically implying that warfare is hateful to him, but he participated in it because God ordained it.



3. (Koran 69:30-37) "It is not for any Prophet to have captives until he hath made slaughter in the land. You desire the lure of this world and Allah desires for you the hereafter and Allah is Mighty, Wise.. Now enjoy what you have won as lawful and good and keep your duty to Allah. Lo! Allah is forgiving, merciful."



This verse is in reference to the prisoners that Mohammed held for ransom after the battle of Badr. This battle occurred on March 17, 623 AD. This is the month of Ramadan—another sacred month for the Muslims! In this battle, Mohammed and his followers killed at least 70 innocent merchants from the Quraysh tribe of Mecca and slaughtered several hundred soldiers who came forward to defend them.



Here God the "Merciful" is saying that all the non-believers deserve to be killed! In addition, God is conveniently commenting that whatever loot Mohammed has plundered is "lawful and good" because it was done in service to God. So murder, rape, plunder and destruction are all perfectly legal with the Muslim God as long as they are done in the name of Islam! Mohammed is also insidiously making himself seem very kind for having spared the lives of the prisoners, when in fact he only let them live so he could ransom their lives for more money. In today’s world this is called "taking hostages" and defines "Terrorism" of the worst kind.



4. (Koran 69:30-37) "(It will be said) Take him and fetter him and expose him to hell fire. And then insert him in a chain whereof the length is seventy cubits. Lo! he used not to believe in God the tremendous, and urged not on the feeding of the wretched. Therefore hath he no lover hear this day nor any food save filth which none but sinners eat."



The above verses from the Koran prove that Muslims are specifically instructed not to tolerate unbelievers. It directly states that people who do not believe in Mohammed and the Islamic God are to be tortured and murdered.. Not only does this verse clearly implicate that unbelievers must be tortured and killed, it goes on further to state prescribed methods for committing torture. The horrific acts mentioned above are in practice even today in Islamic countries. In fact, in India, Muslims tortured the Sikh Gurus and their families exactly as prescribed by the Koran. For example, the Sikh guru Tegh Bahadur was imprisoned in a cage like a wild animal, when he refused to forsake his religion for Islam. Three of his disciples were murdered in front of his eyes. One of them was Bhai Mati Das. He was sawed alive into little pieces. The other was wrapped up in cotton and burnt alive. Bhai Dyala, the third one, was boiled alive in a cauldron. Guru Tegh Bahadur himself was brutally tortured and killed in a similar fashion. One wonders at the mercy of "The all beneficent Allah" who enjoys watching the roasted burnt flesh of hapless innocents falling off their bones.



5. (Koran 5: 33-34) "The only reward of those who make war upon Allah and His messenger and strive after corruption in the land will be that they will be killed or crucified, or have their hands and feet and alternate sides cut off, or will be expelled out of the land. Such will be their degradation in the world, and in the Hereafter theirs will be an awful doom; Save those who repent before ye overpower them. For know that Allah is forgiving, merciful."



6. (Koran 22: 19-22) "These twain (the believers and the disbelievers) are two opponents who contend concerning their Lord. But as for those who disbelieve, garments of fire will be cut out for them, boiling fluid will be poured down their heads. Whereby that which is in their bellies, and their skins too, will be melted; And for them are hooked rods of iron. Whenever, in their anguish, they would go forth from thence they are driven back therein and (it is said unto them): Taste the doom of burning."



7. (Koran 76: 4) "Lo! We have prepared for disbelievers chains, yokes and a blazing fire."



The above verses clearly state extreme terrorist activities, as they contain nothing but detailed recipes of horrific torture. Cutting off the hands and feet of individuals and then making them walk and jump, pouring boiling waters over their victims, making them drink it, burning them alive, inserting hot iron rods into their bodies, dismemberment and disembowelment, genital mutilation etc. are common Islamic practices.


I have mentioned only a few of the verses from the Koran to show that Islam is nothing but an excuse to legalize terrorism, genocide, massacre and other criminal activities. Many other verses that demonstrate these specific qualities, are to be found throughout the Koran . As Muslims worldwide regard the Koran to be the ultimate holy book, it is followed to the word. Their daily lives are guided specifically by such passages from the Koran . Moreover, the terrorist, lecherous and criminal activities described in the Koran are considered to be the sacred words of God. Is it any wonder that mindless Muslims all over the world, justify their criminal activities of destruction, loot, torture, rape and murder by pointing to the Koran? They actually consider their acts to be holy and believe that for committing such holy acts they will go to paradise—a paradise where they will have plenty of wine, women and young boys for their sexual pleasure. (How Mohammed uses bribery in the Koran to attract mindless human beings is above the scope of this article and will be described in later ones).



Today, many followers of Islam such as Saddam Hussein, Idi Amin, Momar Gaddafi, Louis Farrakhan, Yasser Arafat, Dawood Ibrahim, Abu Nidal, etc. are famed for the brutality of their crimes and terrorism. The entire world is marred by violence and murder, wherever Muslims reside. The entire world is suffering due to the barbaric activities of Islamic terrorists. Pick up a newspaper today and you will note that 98% of terrorist activities that occur involve Muslims. I have named a few of the countries below as examples:


(1) India - Muslims have been terrorizing this country since the 7th century AD. Muslim regimes throughout India have a record of unparalleled terror and torture described in gory detail by contemporary Muslim chronicles themselves. Subjecting all non-Muslims to abject atrocities, plundering their wealth, abducting their women and usurping their houses of worship to be used as mosques and tombs, has been considered sacred duty of every Muslim. Such acts earned for the tormentors the coveted title of Ghazi, to be paraded as a citation of great Islamic glory and greatness. Aurangzeb, one of the last Muslim emperors had 10,000 Hindus massacred everyday for an entire year. He alone was responsible for the massacre of at least 3,650,000 Hindus and destruction of more than 11,000 Hindu temples. William Durant, author of the voluminous "Story of Civilization" has described the Muslim conquests in India as constituting the saddest and goriest chapter in human history. Muslims have destroyed and looted the whole country and have killed countless innocent Hindus in the process.



The Muslims forced the violent partition of India into three parts in 1947 (India, West Pakistan and East Pakistan). Even today, they terrorize the innocent people of India by causing bomb blasts and killing innocent individuals. Currently, the followers of Islam are concentrating their efforts in Kashmir, a northern state in India. Kashmir has been the land of the Hindus since ancient times. The word Kashmir itself is derived from Rishi Kashyap—a great spiritual leader of Hinduism. The Muslims have destroyed this beautiful land completely. Today the Pakistan-sponsored Muslim terrorists continue to kill, torture and rape the innocent Hindus of Kashmir. To cite the most recent incidents: In a cold-blooded massacre on the night of January 25th 1998, 23 Kashmiri Hindus, including 10 women and four children, were gunned down by a group of Islamic terrorists from Pakistan in Wandhama, 27 km from Srinagar. On April 19th Islamic terrorists belonging to the Pakistani Lashkar-e-Tobia terrorist organization claimed responsibility for gunning down at least 13 Kashmiri Hindus in Prankot village near Mahore in Udhampur district. The victims included four women and two children. Pakistan’s aim is to separate Kashmir from India and declare it as an Islamic state. I will provide you with more information on Islamic terrorism in India and Kashmir in a separate article.



(2) The Assyrian Nation - The horrible crimes committed by Islamic terrorists against the Assyrian nation is a well documented fact. Between 1980 and 1988 the Iraqi regime exiled thousands of Iraqi citizens to Iran on the charges that they were of Persian ancestry. Many Assyrians were targeted in this illegal and barbarous act. During this bloody war, it is estimated that up to 10,000 Assyrian men from Iraq were killed. The most disturbing aspect of this tragedy is that many of these Assyrians were killed in cold blood by their own Arab countrymen, just for being Assyrians. On December 13th 1997, a group of militants belonging to the Kurdish Labour Party (PKK), treacherously attacked six Assyrians through an ambush laid for them in the district of Mangeesh-Duhok, Northern Iraq. Two of them were killed immediately and the others were wounded, then the armed group charged over them and cold-bloodedly killed the wounded.



Ever since the invasion of their homelands by barbaric Muslims, the Assyrians have been fighting for their rights. The persecution of Assyrian Christians by the Islamic terrorists has brought them to the brink of extinction!



(3) Bangladesh - Bangladesh was a part of India before the Muslim terrorists led by Mohammed Ali Jinnah separated it from India in 1947. It was then called East Pakistan. Jinnah lied to the thirteen million Hindus, Buddhists and Christians in East Pakistan and told them that they would not be persecuted against. He promised that they would be given full freedom under the Islamic rule. However, these religious minorities—especially the Hindus and the Buddhists have been tortured, raped and murdered by the pious Muslims ever since 1947. Over 2.5 million Hindus alone were slaughtered during the Pakistan-Bangladesh war in 1971. The types of crimes committed were perfectly in accordance with the Koran. Robert E. Burns, the author of Wrath of Allah states, "The mutilation was disgusting—eyes gouged out, pregnant women disemboweled, male genitals cut off, women’s breasts cut off….."



The persecution of "unbelievers" in the name of Allah , continues even today in Bangladesh under the Islamic rule. For example, Taslima Nasreen, the author of Lajja was given a death sentence for just stating the facts and speaking against the inhumane, cruel and barbaric nature of Islam.



(4) Egypt - Egypt has been terrorized by Muslims since the time of Umar II (8th Century AD.). With Umar’s raid on Egypt began the destruction of Egypt’s Christians. Their Churches were destroyed, Umar imposed Jizya—a special tax that was invented by Mohammed , where all the "non-believers" had to pay or face death. They lost ownership of all their land and had to pay a special land tax, kharaj, simply in order to use it . They were ridiculed, made to wear discriminatory clothing and were made to ride on donkeys. Anyone not complying with the wishes of the Islamic terrorists was tortured to death in absolute accordance with the Koran. The ongoing Islamic terrorist attacks on innocent people in Egypt even today prove that Islamic terrorism is alive and kicking in this country as well. In this country the tourists are special targets of the Muslim terrorists. Just last year in Cairo, the pious followers of Mohammed murdered an entire bus load of German tourists. In another incident, Muslim fundamentalists killed more than 40 tourists near the Pyramids.



The terrorists continue to commit these horrible crimes to achieve their goal of declaration of Egypt as an Islamic state. An Islamic state is desired by these terrorists, so that they will be able to commit more such crimes freely. As per the Koran, they will go to the typical Islamic Paradise for committing these "holy" acts! Apparently, the most important condition by far, for entering "Jannat" (Islamic Heaven) is that you must have the blood of innocents, stained on your hands!



(5) Algeria - Algeria has been under Islamic terrorist attack for quite some time now. Accurate casualty figures are difficult to acquire, but as many as 50,000 Algerians (militants, security personnel, and civilians) have died as a result of the nearly four-year-old insurgency. Even the U.S. embassy's warehouse was the target of Islamic terrorists. They set fire to the warehouse and threatened to kill the security guard just because he was working for the United States. The Islamic terrorist organization which carries out most of these attacks is called GIA (Algerian Armed Islamic Group). The GIA was responsible for the deaths of 31 foreigners in Algeria in 1995, compared to at least 64 in 1994. Most of the foreigners killed were "soft targets," such as teachers and nuns. Cowardly Islamic terrorists, conform to this pattern of targeting the most vulnerable and helpless segment of the population, in imitation of Prophet Mohammed's life. From July to October, a terrorist bombing campaign in France began against civilian targets, killing eight persons and wounding 160. And such attacks continue on even today in Algeria.



(6) Pakistan - Like East Pakistan (Bangladesh), Pakistan was also founded by the terrorist leader, Mohammed Ali Jinnah. Ever since its foundation, Pakistan has sponsored terrorism and Islamic terrorist groups all over the world. Pakistan’s main focus of terrorist activity has always been India. This nation is obsessed with the downfall of India and will do anything to accomplish this goal. It has gone to war with India three times in the past and failed miserably all three times. Pakistan continues to support Islamic terrorist organizations such as Harakat ul-Ansar (HUA) and Al-Faran. Al-Faran is the group that claimed responsibility for the kidnapping in Kashmir of two US citizens, two Britons, a German, and a Norwegian. Other Pakistan-backed groups have claimed responsibility for numerous bombings in Kashmir, including one against foreign journalists.



It is a well-known fact today that Pakistan is an Islamic terrorist state. The mastermind of the World Trade Center bombing hailed from Pakistan. The Islamic terrorists in Kashmir are trained and supplied by Pakistan. There is even proof that Pakistan is supporting and helping the Taliban—the barbaric Islamic organization of Afghanistan.


Many other countries such as Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan, Germany, Syria, Indonesia, Israel, Libya, Malaysia, Saudi Arabia, Sudan, Mauritania, Cyprus, Bosnia-Herzegovina, etc. can be added to the above list.



As we can clearly see Muslims are actively committing acts of terrorism in many other parts of the world and justifying it by pointing towards the Koran. Even the West is not untouched anymore. The fact that countries such as the U.K, U.S.A and France have already experienced Islamic terrorism first hand is a testament to this. It remains to be seen whether countries such as these will learn from the past and recognize Islam for what it is—a religious sanction to legalize barbaric and horrific crimes! I urge each and everyone to read the Koran, the terrorist's instruction manual, for their own personal safety. It is necessary to know what you are up against before you can begin to defend yourself.


This is just a simple introduction to Islamic terrorism.

[Zygote]

Jews, muslims, and christians worship the same god (which is questionable because they all present this god somewhat differently), but that doesn't mean all three have all the same beliefs?

[cardcounter0]

General Electric, Conoco-Phillips, and Halliburton.

Halliburton provides millions in oil field equipment and services. We all know what Iran does with it's oil money, right? Thanks, Halliburton for helping Iran spread world-wide terror.

Oh, and I guess if you wanted to build a nuke, General Electric would be a very good business partner to have. In fact, GE has subsidaries that actually build nuclear weapons for the US. Thanks GE, think of all the future sales and weapon system development contracts you guys are going to get to counter the Iranian threat.

I'm glad to see that these companies are doing their best to circumvate US Law and do business with Iran. What is wrong with supporting a known Terrorist Country when there is a buck to be made?

[chabibi]

[ QUOTE ]
What is wrong with supporting a known Terrorist Country when there is a buck to be made?

[/ QUOTE ]
nothing, just ask the french

[BCPVP]

[ QUOTE ]
Indeed, as far as GDP percentage goes. But check out the military spending per capita, for an additional perspective. Wow, huh?

[/ QUOTE ]
Ah, changing the criteria when they don't come out in your favor, huh?

[ QUOTE ]
"Both NK and Iran have far greater claims to irredentist aspirations then the U.S. does."

The United States needs no such aspirations, since it already rules over the whole world. (And neo-colonialism no longer requires physical occupation of a land.) The North Koreans have the sole(theoretical and dormant for decades )objective of "re-uniting Korea". Well, they have been quite peaceful for fifty years and been holding re-unification talks with the South for some years now without the sky falling!

As to Iran, it has no irredentist aspirations whatsoever.

You are writing up stuff without knowing the first thing about it.

[/ QUOTE ]
I don't think you understand the definition of "irredentist". So I will provide you with the English definition:
ir·re·den·tist ( P ) Pronunciation Key (r-dntst)
n.
One who advocates the recovery of territory culturally or historically related to one's nation but now subject to a foreign government.
By this definition, the U.S. can't possibly have any such aspirations at this time in history as we have no territory that is culturally or historically related to our country that we would be able to recover. Recovering territory implies you lost it. A stupid criteria for the present arguement. I think you are the one making things up without knowing the definitions of the words you use.

[ QUOTE ]
Well, every country in the world has broken at least one treaty. This is not what we are saying here, though. (Nice try.) Let's compare:

Iran has broken no int'l laws that I know of.
North Korea is, most probably, in violation of the Non-Proliferation treaty and the Korean Armistice Treaty -- if indeed it is developing nukes.

But the United States, ah! the Unites States is in a class of its own! It's the only country in the world which has made it an official policy to try and force int'l law, treaties and courts onto all other countries and is explicitly refusing to abide by any such constraint! That's the staff world champions are made of.

[/ QUOTE ]
Wait, you just said that every country has broken an international treaty. Therefor Iran must have. Ask Amnesty International if Iran is really just a misunderstood country who really does care about human rights.

[ QUOTE ]
"The number of times a country invades another doesn't have much significance, IMO, on how much of a threat they are."

Come again?! You can't be serious. If this is not a primary criterion, then what is?? (Intentions, maybe? You want psychics to define foreign policy?)

The United States has been routinely invading other countries ever since World War II ended. North Korea "invaded" the South in the 1950s -- barely making it into your "half century" limit! Who did Iran invade last? I can only recall Iran been invaded by a neighbouring country led by a man who was strongly assisted in his "irredentist" effort by the United States.
(Shall I name names?)

[/ QUOTE ]
I think I mentioned why this criteria was so dumb but I guess I'll do it again. How many single countries as Germany invaded in the last century? Almost all of Europe? Is the world trembling in fear of what Germany might do these days? Of course not! Yet, by your own definition, the world should feel threatened by Germany for all of its irredentist aspirations. How about Britain? How many countries have they colonized (invaded)? Does the world feel threatened by the UK? What about Spain? They are responsible for invading most of Central And South America. Aren't they a big threat based on this criteria of yours?

[ QUOTE ]
"Few people in the States care what Europe thinks anymore."

You got it all wrong, baby! It's the world that has stopped listening to the United States. Here's an American journalist who shall explain it all :

[/ QUOTE ]
Good for you. But if you've "stopped listening", why are you still talking? And congratulations on finding a liberal self-hating American journalist. I'm sure it took hours to find one... /images/graemlins/smirk.gif

[the alex]

1.) These verses speak of what is to be done to unbelievers. Have you ever read The Book of Revelation?

2.) The violence that spoken of are defensive words that are misinterpreted as aggressive. Islam is evangelical. A big difference between the Christian New Covenenant and the Quran is that the Quran does not preach to turn the other cheek as the Old Testament does not either.

3.) A "fundamentalist," whether it's Osama bin-Laden or Jerry Falwell, does not adhere to the fundamentals. They misinterpret the words.

4.) I haven't heard of Mohammed's terrorist attack.

5.) Yes, it's the same God. No, I'm not saying that the beliefs are the same. Islam:Judaism :: Buddhism:Hinduism.

6.) This is my real point. No one is a threat to us, imperically. The truth about 9/11 is not really known and never will be known by the people for a very long time. We have no real evidence, as citizens, that al-Qaeda was responsible. There have been interpretations of bin-Laden's words that are viewed as him taking responsibility, but as far as we can see, it's conspiracy theory.

No one is a threat to us now and no one will be if we stop attempting to tell countries how to govern their people. If democratizing a country is what should be done, answer this, "When's the last time that Pakistan and Saudi Arabia, our allies, had an election?"

7.) NK might sell nukes to terrorists? What terrorists? The Palestinans and Iraqi "insurgents" are nothing more than local rebels, not fighting for Allah, but for their voice to be heard and listened to. I'm not saying they're right and I think that Ward Churchill stepped over the line, but I do agree that if Britain came here and forced us to change to a Parliamentary system, I'd be all for it and would fight American rebels for that Parliamentary system. Would those rebels be terrorists? Or would I be the terrorist?

So many words like "Islamist" (which isn't even a word), "insurgents," "terrorists," and this new pronunciation of "Iranians" (which makes the word sound like uranium) have been tossed around so loosely by the media over the last few years that they're being used WAY out of context to the point where the people are actually associating the TRUE definitions of these words with people that are not accurately classified as such.

[Felix_Nietsche]

Quote:
"Few people in the States care what Europe thinks anymore."

You got it all wrong, baby! It's the world that has stopped listening to the United States. Here's an American journalist who shall explain it all :


***********************
Oh no! "The world" stopped listening to the USA. I'm so sad. /images/graemlins/frown.gif
Please "world", don't give us the USA the "silent treatment". /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[Zygote]

You must be hallucinating. OOOOOh........ this has nothing to do with religion or islam. Chechnya, who would love to buy nukes from North Korea by the way, Palestine, and Iraqi insurgents are just about nationalism? I'm sure the sudanese are massacaring christians for a just cause as well. Here is some info from Hamas, not American officials. goto www.hamasonline.com (http://www.hamasonline.com) if you wnat to delve further.

Would love to hear why when you disagree with the people who are acutally waging the war, why I should credit your opinion?


THE CHARTER OF THE HAMAS:
Ideological Starting-Points:
In the Name of Allah, the Merciful, the Compassionate
"Ye are the best nation that hath been raised up unto mankind: ye command that which is just, and ye forbid that which is unjust, and ye believe in Allah. And if they who have received the scriptures had believed, it had surely been the better for them. Some of them are believers; but most of them are evil-doers. They shall not hurt you, unless with a slight hurt; and if they fight against you, they shall turn their backs to you, and they shall not be helped. Ignominy shall be their portion wheresoever they are found save [where they grasp] a rope from Allah and a rope from man. They have incurred anger from their Lord, and wretchedness is laid upon them. That is because they used to disbelieve the revelations of Allah, and slew the Prophets wrongfully. That is because they were rebellious and used to transgress."( Surat Al-Imran (III), verses 109-111)
"Israel will rise and will remain erect until Islam eliminates it as it had eliminated its predecessors." (The Martyr, Imam Hassan al-Banna, May Allah Pity his Soul).
"The Islamic world is on fire. It is incumbent upon each one of us to pour some water, no matter how little, to extinguish whatever one can without waiting for the others." (Sheikh Amjad al-Zahawi, of blessed memory).

In the Name of Allah, the Merciful, the Compassionate
Grace to Allah, whose help we seek, whose forgiveness we beseech, whose guidance we implore and on whom we rely. We pray and bid peace upon the Messenger of Allah, his family, his companions, his followers and those who his tradition; and to those who carried out his message and adopted his laws - everlasting prayers and salvation as long as the earth and heaven will last. Hereafter:
O, people! In the midst of misadventure, from the depth of suffering, from the believing hearts and purified arms; aware of our duty and in response to the decree of Allah, we direct our call, we rally together and join each other. We educate in the path of Allah and we make our firm determination prevail so as to take its proper role in life, to overcome all difficulties and to cross all hurdles. Hence our permanent state of preparedness and our readiness to sacrifice our souls and dearest [possessions] in the path of Allah.
Thus it was that the nucleus (of the movement) was formed and started to pave its way through the tempestuous sea of hopes and expectations, of wishes and yearnings, of troubles and obstacles, of pain and challenges, both inside and outside
When the thought matured, the seed grew and the plant took root in the land of reality, detached from temporary emotion and unwelcome haste, the Islamic Resistance Movement erupted in order to play its role in the path of its Lord. In so doing, it joined its hands with those of all Jihad_fighters for the purpose of liberating Palestine. The souls of its Jihad fighters will encounter those of all Jihad-fighters who have sacrificed their lives in the land of Palestine since it was conquered by the Companion of the Prophet, be Allah's prayer and peace upon him, and until this very day.
This is the Charter of the Islamic Resistance (Hamas) which will reveal its face, unveil its identity, state its position, clarify its purpose, discuss its hopes, call for support to its cause and reinforcement, and for joining its ranks. For our struggle against the Jews is extremely wide-ranging and grave, so much so that it will need all the loyal efforts we can wield, to be followed by further steps and reinforced by successive battalions from the multifarious Arab and Islamic world, until the enemies are defeated and Allah's victory prevails. Thus we shall perceive them approaching in the horizon, and this will be known before long:
"Allah hath written, Verily I will prevail, and my apostles: for Allah is strong and mighty." (Sura 58 - Al-Mujadilah - verse 21).
"Say: This is my way: I call on Allah with sure knowledge, I and whosoever follows me. Glory be to Allah! and I am not of the idolaters." (Sura 12 - Yussuf - verse 17) (108 in Pickthall).

Definition of the Movement

The Islamic Resistance Movement: The Islamic Resistance Movement draws its guidelines from Islam; its ideas, ways of thinking and understanding of the universe, life and man. It resorts to it for judgement in all its conduct, and it is inspired by it in whatever step it takes.

The Islamic Resistance Movement's Relation With the Muslim Brotherhood Group:
The Islamic Resistance Movement is one of the wings of Muslim Brotherhood in Palestine. Muslim Brotherhood Movement is a universal organization which constitutes the largest Islamic movement in modern times. It is characterised by its deep understanding, accurate comprehension and its complete embrace of all Islamic concepts of all aspects of life, culture, creed, politics, economics, education, society, justice and judgement, the spreading of Islam, education, art, information, science of the occult and conversion to Islam, and all the other domains of life.

Structure and Formation:
The basic structure of the Islamic Resistance Movement consists of Muslims who have given their allegiance to Allah and are devoted to Allah and worship Him verily [as it is written]:whom - "I have created the jinn and humans only for the purpose of worshipping" [of Allah]. who know their duty towards duty towards themselves, their families and country. In all that, they fear Allah and raise the banner of Jihad in the in the face of the oppressors, so that they would rid the land and the people of their uncleanliness, vileness and evils.
"Dost thou not see how Allah putteth forth a parable; representing a good word, as a good tree, whose root is firmly fixed in the earth, and whose branches reach into heaven; Which giving its fruit every season, by the will of its Lord? Allah propoundeth parables unto men, that they may be instructed." (Sura 14 - Abraham - verses 24-25).

Characteristics and Independence:
The Islamic Resistance Movement is a distinguished Palestinian movement, whose allegiance is to Allah, and whose way of life derives from Islam. It strives to raise the banner of Allah over every inch of Palestine, for under the wing of Islam, followers of all religions can coexist in security and safety where their lives, possessions and rights are concerned. In the absence of Islam, strife will be rife, oppression spreads, evil prevails and schisms, conflict arises, corruption is rampant and wars will break out.
Allah had inspired the Muslim poet, Mohamed Ikbal, when he wrote: "If faith is lost, there is no security and there is no life for him who does not adhere to religion. He who accepts life without religion, has taken annihilation as his companion for life."

The Universality of the Islamic Resistance Movement:
As a result of the fact that those Muslims who adhere to the ways of the Islamic Resistance Movement spread all over the world, rally support for it and its stands, strive towards enhancing its struggle, for the encouragement of its Jihad, and strive for its victory, the Movement is a universal one. It is well-equipped for that because of the clarity of its ideology and thinking,the nobility of its aim and the loftiness of its objectives.
On this basis, the Movement should be viewed and evaluated, and its role be recognised. He whoever denigrates its worth, or avoids supporting it, and turns a blind eye to facts and is challenging Fate itself, whether intentionally or unintentionally, would awaken to see that events have overtaken him and and will find no excuses to justify his position. One should certainly learn from past examples.
The injustice of those who are closest to you, is harder to bear than the smite of an Indian sword.
"We have also sent down unto thee the book of the Quran with truth, confirming that scripture which was revealed before it, and a watcher over it, and preserving the same safe from corruption. So judge between them by that which Allah hath revealed, and follow not their desires away from the truth which has come unto thee. For each we have appointed a divine law and a traced-out way. Had Allah willed, He could have made you one community. But that He may try you by that which he has given you [He has made you as you are]. So vie with one another in good works. Unto Allah, you will all return. He will then inform you of that wherein you differ." (Sura V - The Table - verse 48).
Hamas is one of the links in the Chain of Jihad in the confrontation with the Zionist invasion. It links up with the setting out of the Martyr Izz a-din al-Qassam and his brothers in the Muslim Brotherhood who fought the Holy War in 1936; it further relates to another link of the Palestinian Jihad and the Jihad and efforts of the Muslim Brothers during the 1948 War, and to the Jihad operations of the Muslim Brothers in 1968 and thereafter.
But even if the links have become distant from each other, and even if the obstacles erected by those who revolve in the Zionist orbit, aiming at obstructing the road before the Jihad fighters, have rendered the pursuance of Jihad impossible; nevertheless, the Islamic Resistance Movement aspires to the realisation of Allah's promise, no matter how long that should take. The Prophet, Allah bless him and grant him salvation, has said:
"The time will not come until Muslims will fight the Jews (and kill them); until the Jews hide behind rocks and trees, which will cry: 0 Muslim! there is a Jew hiding behind me, come on and kill him! This will not apply to the Gharqad, which is a Jewish tree." (cited by al-Bukhari and Muslim).

The Slogan of the Islamic Resistance Movement:
Allah is its goal, the Prophet its model, the Quran its Constitution, Jihad its path and death for the sake of Allah is the loftiest of its wishes.

Objectives

Incentives and Objectives:
The Islamic Resistance Movement found itself at a time when Islam has disappeared from life. Thus rules shook, concepts were upset, values changed and evil people took control, oppression and darkness prevailed, cowards became like tigers: homelands were usurped, people were scattered and were caused to wander all over the world, the state of justice disappeared and the state of falsehood replaced it. Nothing remained in its right place. Thus, when Islam is absent from the arena, everything changes. From this state of affairs the incentives are drawn.
As to the objectives: discarding the evil, crushing it and defeating it and vanquishing it so that so that truth may prevail, homelands revert [to their owners], calls for prayer be heard from their mosques, announcing the reinstitution of the Muslim state. Thus, people and things will revert to their true place and Allah is our helper.
"...And if Allah had not repelled some men by others the earth would have been corrupted. But Allah is the Lord of kindness to [His] creatures."(Sura 2 - The Cow - verse 251).
As the Islamic Resistance Movement paves its way, it will back the oppressed and support the wronged with all its might, a defense to all the oppressed. It will spare no effort to implement the truth and abolish evil, in word and deed, in this place and any other location it can reach out and exert influence therein.

Strategies and Methods

Strategies of the Islamic Resistance Movement: Palestine Is Isalmic Waqf:
The Islamic Resistance Movement believes that the land of Palestine is an Islamic Waqf consecrated for future Muslim generations until Judgement Day. It, or any part of it, should not be squandered: it, or any part of it, should not be given up. Neither a single Arab country nor all Arab countries, neither any king or president, nor all the kings and presidents, neither any organization nor all of them, be they Palestinian or Arab, possess the right to do that. Palestine is an Islamic Waqf land consecrated for Muslim generations until Judgement Day. This being so, who can presume to speak for all Islamic generations to the Day of Resurrection?
This is the status [of the land] in Islamic Sharia (law), and the same goes for all lands conquered by Muslims by force, during the times of (Islamic) conquests, and made thereby Waqf lands upon their conquest, for all generations of Muslims until the Day of Resurrection.
It happened like this: When the leaders of the Islamic armies conquered Syria and Iraq, they sent to the Caliph of the Muslims, Umar bin-el-Khatab, asking for his advice concerning the conquered land - whether they should divide it among the soldiers, or leave it for its owners, or what? After consultations and discussions between the Caliph of the Muslims, Omar bin-el-Khatab and companions of the Prophet, Allah bless him and grant him salvation, it was decided that the land should be left with its owners who could benefit by its fruit, but the control of the land and the land itself ought to be endowed as a Waqf [in perpetuity] for all generations of Muslims until the Day of Resurrection. The ownership of the land by its owners is only one of usufruct, and this Waqf will endure as long as Heaven and earth last. Any demarche in violation of this law of Islam, with regard to Palestine, is baseless and reflects on its perpetrators.
"Verily, this is a certain truth. Wherefore praise the name of thy Lord, the great Allah." (The Inevitable - verse 95).

Homeland and Nationalism from the Point of View of the Islamic Resistance Movement in Palestine:
Hamas regards Nationalism (Wataniyya) as part and parcel of the religious faith. Nothing is loftier or deeper in Nationalism than waging Jihad against the enemy and confronting him when he sets foot on the land of the Muslims. And this becomes an individual duty binding on every Muslim man and woman; a woman may fight the enemy even without her husband's authorization, and a slave without his masters' permission.
This [principle] does not exist under any other regime, and it is a truth not to be questioned. While other nationalisms consist of material, human and territorial considerations, the nationality of Hamas also carries, in addition to all those, the all important divine factors which lend to it its spirit and life; so much so that it connects with the origin of the spirit and the source of life and raises in the skies of the Homeland the Banner of the Lord, thus inexorably connecting earth with Heaven.
When Moses came and threw his baton, sorcery and sorcerers became futile.
"Now is the right direction manifestly distinguished from deceit:And he who rejects false deities and believes in Allah has grasped a firm handhold which will never break. Allah is Hearer, Knower." (Sura II - The Cow - verse 256)

Peaceful Solutions, Initiatives and International Conferences :
[Peace] initiatives, the so-called peaceful solutions, and the international conferences to resolve the Palestinian problem, are all contrary to the beliefs of the Islamic Resistance Movement. For renouncing any part of Palestine means renouncing part of the religion; the nationalism of the Islamic Resistance Movement is part of its faith, the movement educates its members to adhere to its principles and to raise the banner of Allah over their homeland as they fight their Jihad: "Allah is the all-powerful, but most people are not aware."
From time to time a clamouring is voiced, to hold an International Conference in search for a solution to the problem. Some accept the idea, others reject it, for one reason or another, demanding the implementation of this or that conditions, as a prerequisite for agreeing to convene the Conference or for participating in it. But the Islamic Resistance Movement, which is aware of the [prospective] parties to this conference, and of their past and present positions towards the problems of the Muslims, does not believe that those conferences are capable of responding to demands, or of restoring rights or doing justice to the oppressed. Those conferences are no more than a means to appoint the nonbelievers as arbitrators in the lands of Islam. Since when did the Unbelievers do justice to the Believers?
"But the Jews will not be pleased with thee, neither the Christians, until thou follow their religion; say, The direction of Allah is the true direction. And verily if thou follow their desires, after the knowledge which hath been given thee, thou shalt find no protector or helper from Allah." (Sura 2 - The Cow - verse 120).
There is no solution to the Palestinian problem except by Jihad. The initiatives, proposals and International Conferences are but a waste of time, an exercise in futility. The Palestinian people know better than to consent to having their future, rights and fate toyed with. As in said in the honourable Hadith:
"The people of Syria are Allah's lash in His land. He wreaks His vengeance through them against whomsoever He wishes among His worshippers. It is unthinkable that those who are double-faced among them should prosper over the faithful. They will certainly die out of grief and desperation." (Told by Tabarani, who is traceable in ascending order of traditionaries to Muhammed, and by Ahmed whose chain of transmission is incomplete. But it is bound to be a true hadith, for both story tellers are reliable. Allah knows best).

The Three Circles:
The question of the liberation of Palestine is bound to three circles: the Palestinian, the Arab and the Islamic. Each one of these circles has a role to play in the struggle against Zionism and it has duties to fulfill. It would be an enormous mistake and an abysmal act of ignorance to disregard anyone of these circles. For Palestine is an Islamic land where the First Qibla and the third holiest site are located. That is also the place whence the Prophet, be Allah's prayer and peace upon him, ascended to Heavens.
"Praise be unto him who transported his servant by night, from the sacred temple of Mecca to the farther temple of Jerusalem, the circuit of which we have blessed, that we might show him some of our tokens; for Allah is he who heareth, and seeth."(Sura XVII - The Night-Journey - verse 1).
In consequence of this state of affairs, the liberation of that land is an individual duty binding on all Muslims everywhere. This is the base on which all Muslims have to regard the problem; this has to be understood by all Muslims. When the problem is dealt with on this basis, where the full potential of the three circles is mobilized, then the current circumstances will change and the day of liberation will come closer.
"Verily ye are stronger than they, by reason of the terror cast into their breasts from Allah. That is because they are a folk who understand not." (Sura LIX - Al-Hashr, the Exile - verse 13).

The Jihad for the Liberation of Palestine is an Individual Duty:
When our enemies usurp some Islamic lands, Jihad becomes a duty binding on all Muslims. In order to face the usurpation of Palestine by the Jews, we have no escape from raising the banner of Jihad. This would require the propagation of Islamic consciousness among the masses on all local, Arab and Islamic levels. We must spread the spirit of Jihad among the [Islamic] Umma, clash with the enemies and join the ranks of the Jihad fighters.
It is necessary that scientists, educators and teachers, information and media people, as well as the educated masses, especially the youth and sheikhs of the Islamic movements, should take part in the operation of awakening (the masses). It is important that basic changes be made in the school curriculum, to cleanse it of the traces of ideological invasion that affected it as a result of the orientalists and missionaries who infiltrated the region following the defeat of the Crusaders at the hands of Salah el-Din (Saladin). The Crusaders realised that it was impossible to defeat the Muslims without first having ideological invasion pave the way by upsetting their thoughts, disfiguring their heritage and violating their ideals. Only then could they invade with soldiers. This, in its turn, paved the way for the imperialistic invasion that made Allenby declare on entering Jerusalem: "Only now have the Crusades ended." General Guru stood at Salah el-Din's grave and said: "We have returned, O Salah el-Din." Imperialism has helped towards the strengthening of ideological invasion, deepening, and still does, its roots. All this has paved the way towards the loss of Palestine.
It is necessary to instill in the minds of the Muslim generations that the Palestinian problem is a religious problem, and should be dealt with on this basis. Palestine contains Islamic holy sites. In it there is al- Aqsa Mosque which is bound to the great Mosque in Mecca in an inseparable bond as long as heaven and earth speak of Isra` (Mohammed's midnight journey to the seven heavens) and Mi'raj (Mohammed's ascension to the seven heavens from Jerusalem).
"The bond of one day for the sake of Allah is better than the world and whatever there is on it. The place of one's whip in Paradise is far better than the world and whatever there is on it. A worshipper's going and coming in the service of Allah is better than the world and whatever there is on it." (As related by al-Bukhari, Muslim, al-Tarmdhi and Ibn Maja).
"I swear by the holder of Mohammed's soul that I would like to invade and be killed for the sake of Allah, then invade and be killed, and then invade again and be killed." (As related by al-Bukhari and Muslim).

The Education of the Generations:
We must accord the Islamic [young] generations in our area, an Islamic education based on the implementation of religious precepts, on the conscientious study of the Book of Allah; on the Study of the Prophetic Tradition, on the study of Islamic history and heritage from its reliable sources, under the guidance of experts and scientists; and on singling out the paths which constitute for the Muslims sound concepts of thinking and faith. It is also necessary to study conscientiously the enemy and its material and human potential; to detect its weak and strong spots, and to recognize the powers that support it and stand by it. At the same time, we must be aware of current events, follow the news and study the analyses and commentaries on it, together with drawing plans for the present and the future and examining every phenomenon, so that every Muslim, fighting Jihad, could live out his era aware of his objective, his goals, his way and the things happening round him.
"O my son, verily every matter, whether good or bad, though it be the weight of a grain of mustard-seed, and be hidden in a rock, or in the heavens, or in the earth, Allah will bring the same to light; for Allah is clear-sighted and knowing. O my son, be constant at prayer, and command that which is just, and forbid that which is evil: and be patient under the afflictions which shall befall thee; for this is a duty absolutely incumbent on all men. Distort not thy face out of contempt to men, neither walk in the earth with insolence; for Allah loveth no arrogant, vain-glorious person."(Sura I - Lokman - verses 16-18).

The Role of the Muslim Woman:
The Muslim women have a no lesser role than that of men in the war of liberation; they manufacture men and play a great role in guiding and educating the [new] generation. The enemies have understood that role, therefore they realize that if they can guide and educate [the Muslim women] in a way that would distance them from Islam, they would have won that war. Therefore, you can see them making consistent efforts [in that direction] by way of publicity and movies, curriculi of education and culture, using as their intermediaries their craftsmen who are part of the various Zionist Organizations which take on all sorts of names and shapes such as: the Free Masons, Rotary Clubs, gangs of spies and the like. All of them are nests of saboteurs and sabotage. Those Zionist organizations control vast material resources, which enable them to fulfill their mission amidst societies, with a view of implementing Zionist goals and sowing the concepts that can be of use to the enemy. Those organizations operate [in a situation] where Islam is absent from the arena and alienated from its people. Thus, the Muslims must fulfill their duty in confronting the schemes of those saboteurs. When Islam will retake possession of [the means to] guide the life [of the Muslims], it will wipe out those organizations which are the enemy of humanity and Islam.
The women in the house and the family of Jihad fighters, whether they are mothers or sisters, carry out the most important duty of caring for the home and raising the children upon the moral concepts and values which derive from Islam; and of educating their sons to observe the religious injunctions in preparation for the duty of Jihad awaiting them. Therefore, we must pay attention to the schools and curriculi upon which Muslim girls are educated, so as to make them righteous mothers, who are conscious of their duties in the war of liberation. They must be fully capable of being aware and of grasping the ways to manage their households. Economy and avoiding waste in household expenditures are prerequisites to our ability to pursue our cause in the difficult circumstances surrounding us. Therefore let them remember at all times that money saved is equivalent to blood, which must be made to run in the veins in order to ensure the continuity of life of our young and old.
"Verily, men who surrender unto Allah, and women who surrender and men who believe and women who believe, and men who obey and women who obey, and men who speak the truth and women who speak the truth and men who persevere (in righteousness) and women who persevere and men who are humble and women who are humble, and men who give alms and women who give alms, and men who fast and women who fast, and men who guard their modesty and women who guard [their modesty], and men who remember Allah much and women who remember Allah; for them hath Allah has prepared for them forgiveness and a vast reward." (Sura 33 - Al-Ahzab, the Clans - verse 35).

The Role of Islamic Art in the Battle of Liberation:
Art has regulations and measures by which it can be determined whether it is Islamic or pre-Islamic (Jahiliya) art. The issues of Islamic liberation are in need of Islamic art that would take the spirit high, without raising one side of human nature above the other, but rather raise all of them harmoniously an in equilibrium.
Man is a strange and miraculous being, made out of a handful of clay and a breath of soul; Islamic art is to address man on this basis, while Jahili art addresses the body giving preference to the clay component in it. So, books, articles, publications, religious exhortations, epistles, songs, poems, hymns, plays, and the like, if they possess the characteristics of Islamic art, have the requisites of ideological mobilization, renewed food for the journey and recreation for the soul. The road is long and suffering is plenty. The soul will be bored, but Islamic art renews the energies, resurrects the movement, arousing in them lofty meanings and proper conduct. "Nothing can improve the self if it is in retreat except shifting from one mood to another."
All this is a serious matter, no jesting. For the umma fighting its Jihad knows no jesting.

Social Solidarity:
What a wonderful tribe were the Ash'aris! When they were overtaxed, either in their location or during their journeys, they would collect all their possessions and then would divide them equally among themselves.
The Islamic spirit is what should prevail in every Muslim society. The society that confronts a vicious enemy which acts in a way similar to Nazism, making no differentiation between man and woman, between children and old people - such a society is entitled to this Islamic spirit. Our enemy relies on the methods of collective punishment. He has deprived people of their homeland and properties, pursued them in their places of exile and gathering, breaking bones, shooting at women, children and old people, with or without a reason. The enemy has opened detention camps where thousands and thousands of people are thrown and kept under sub-human conditions. Added to this, are the demolition of houses, rendering children orphans, meting cruel sentences against thousands of young people, and causing them to spend the best years of their lives in the dungeons of prisons.
In their Nazi treatment, the Jews made no exception for women or children. Their policy of striking fear in the heart is meant for all. They attack people where their breadwinning is concerned, extorting their money and threatening their honour. They deal with people as if they were the worst war criminals. Exiling people from their country is another way of killing them.
To counter these deeds, it is necessary that social mutual responsibility should prevail among the people. The enemy should be faced by the people as a single body which if one member of it should complain, the rest of the body would respond by feeling the same pains.
Mutual social responsibility means extending assistance, financial or moral, to all those who are in need and joining in the execution of some of the work. Members of the Islamic Resistance Movement should consider the interests of the masses as their own personal interests. They must spare no effort in achieving and preserving them. They must prevent any foul play with the future of the upcoming generations and anything that could cause loss to society. The masses are part of them and they are part of the masses. Their strength is theirs, and their future is theirs. Members of the Islamic Resistance Movement should share the people's joy and grief, adopt the demands of the public and whatever means by which they could be realised. The day that such a spirit prevails, brotherliness would deepen, cooperation, sympathy and unity will be enhanced and the ranks will be solidified to confront the enemies.

The Powers which Support the Enemy:
For a long time, the enemies have been planning, skillfully and with precision, for the achievement of what they have attained. They took into consideration the causes affecting the current of events. They strived to amass great and substantive material wealth which they devoted to the realisation of their dream. With their money, they took control of the world media, news agencies, the press, publishing houses, broadcasting stations, and others. With their money they stirred revolutions in various parts of the world with the purpose of achieving their interests and reaping the fruit therein. They were behind the French Revolution, the Communist revolution and most of the revolutions we heard and hear about, here and there. With their money they formed secret societies, such as Freemasons, Rotary Clubs, the Lions and others in different parts of the world for the purpose of sabotaging societies and achieving Zionist interests. With their money they were able to control imperialistic countries and instigate them to colonize many countries in order to enable them to exploit their resources and spread corruption there.
As regards local and world wars, it has come to pass and no one objects, they were behind World War I, when they were able to destroy the Islamic Caliphate, making financial gains and controlling resources. They obtained the Balfour Declaration, formed the League of Nations through which they could rule the world. They were behind World War II, through which they made huge financial gains by trading in armaments, and paved the way for the establishment of their state. It was they who instigated the replacement of the League of Nations with the United Nations and the Security Council to enable them to rule the world through them. There is no war going on anywhere, without having their finger in it.
"...As often as they light a fire for war, Allah extinguishes it. Their efforts is for corruption in the land and Allah loves not corrupters." (Sura V - Al-Ma'ida - the Tablespread - verse 64)
The forces of Imperialism in both the Capitalist West and the Communist East support the enemy with all their might, in material and human terms, taking turns between themselves. When Islam appears, all the forces of Unbelief unite to confront it, because the Community of Unbelief is one.
"O true believers, contract not an intimate friendship with any besides yourselves: they will not fail to corrupt you. They wish for that which may cause you to perish: their hatred hath already appeared from out of their mouths; but what their breasts conceal is yet more inveterate. We have already shown you signs of their ill will towards you, if ye understand." (Sura III - The Family of Imran - verse 118).
It is not in vain that the verse ends with Allah's saying: 'If ye understand."

Our Attitudes Towards

Islamic Movements:
The Islamic Resistance Movement views other Islamic movements with respect and appreciation. If it were at variance with them on one point or opinion, it is in agreement with them on other points and understandings. It reads those movements as included in the framework of striving [for the sake of Allah], as long as they hold sound intentions and abide by their devotion to Allah, and as long as their conduct remains within the perimeter of the Islamic circle. All the fighters of Jihad have their reward.
The Islamic Resistance Movement views other Islamic movements with respect and appreciation. If it were at variance with them on one point or opinion, it is in agreement with them on other points and understandings. It reads those movements as included in the framework of striving [for the sake of Allah], as long as they hold sound intentions and abide by their devotion to Allah, and as long as their conduct remains within the perimeter of the Islamic circle. All the fighters of Jihad have their reward.
"And hold fast, all of you together, to the cable of Allah, and do not separate. And remember Allah's favor unto you how ye were enemies and He made friendship between your hearts so that ye became as brothers by His grace; and (how) ye were upon the brink of an abyss of fire, and He did save you from it. Thus Allah makes clear His revelations unto you, that happily ye may be guided." (Sura III - Al-Imran - verse 102)
The Islamic Resistance Movement does not allow slandering or speaking ill of individuals or groups, for the believer does not indulge in such malpractices. It is necessary to differentiate between this behaviour and the stands taken by certain individuals and groups. Whenever those stands are erroneous, the Islamic Resistance Movement preserves the right to expound the error and to warn against it. It will strive to show the right path and to judge the case in question with objectivity. Wisdom is roaming around, and the Believer ought to grasp it wherever he can find it.
"Allah loves not the utterance of harsh speech save by one who has been wronged. Allah is ever Hearer, Knower. If you do good openly or keep it secret, or give evil, verily Allah is forgiving and powerful." (Sura IV - Women - verses 147-148).

Nationalist Movements in the Palestinian Arena:
[Hamas] reciprocates its respect to them, appreciates their condition and the factors surrounding them and influencing them, and supports them firmly as long as they do not owe their loyalty to the Communist East or to the Crusader West. We reiterate to every one who is part of them or sympathizes with them that the Hamas is a movement of Jihad, or morality and consciousness in its concept of life. It moves forward with the others, detests opportunism, and only wishes well to individuals and groups. It does not aspire to material gains, or to personal fame, nor does it solicit remuneration from the people. It sets out relying on its own material resources, and what is available to it, [as it is said] 'afford them the power you can avail yourself of." [All that] in order to carry out its duty, to gain Allah's favor; it has no ambition other than that.
All the nationalist streams, operating in the Palestinian arena for the sake of the liberation of Palestine, may rest assured that they will definitely and resolutely get support and assistance, in speech and in action, at the present and in the future, [because Hamas aspires] to unite, not to divide; to safeguard, not to squander; to bring together, not to fragment. It values every kind word, every devoted effort and every commendable endeavor. It closes the door before marginal quarrels, it does not heed rumours and biased statements, and it is aware of the right of self-defense.
Anything that runs counter or contradicts this orientation is trumped up by the enemies or by those who run in their orbit in order to create confusion, to divide our ranks or to divert to marginal things.
"O true believers, if a wicked man come unto you with a tale, inquire strictly into the truth thereof; lest ye hurt people through ignorance, and afterwards repent of what ye have done." (Sura XLIX - al Hujurat, the Private Apartments - verse 6).
The Hamas, while it views positively the Palestinian National Movements which do not owe their loyalty to the East or to the West, does not refrain from debating unfolding events regarding the Palestinian problem, on the local and international scenes. These debates are realistic and expose the extent to which [these developments] go along with, or contradict, national interests as viewed from the Islamic vantage point.

The Palestinian Liberation Organization:
The PLO is among the closest to the Hamas, for its constitutes a father, a brother, a relative, a friend. Can a Muslim turn away from his father, his brother, his relative or his friend? Our homeland is one, our calamity is one, our destiny is one and our enemy is common to both of us. Under the influence of the circumstances which surrounded the founding of the PLO, and the ideological confusion which prevails in the Arab world as a result of the ideological invasion which has swept the Arab world since the rout of the Crusades, and which has been reinforced by Orientalism and the Christian Mission, the PLO has adopted the idea of a Secular State, and that it how we view it.
Secularism completely contradicts religious ideology. Attitudes, conduct and decisions stem from ideologies.
That is why, with all our appreciation for The Palestinian Liberation Organization - and what it can develop into - and without belittling its role in the Arab-Israeli conflict, we are unable to exchange the present or future Islamic Palestine with the secular idea. For the Islamic nature of Palestine is part of our religion, and anyone who neglects his religion is bound to lose.
"And who forsakes the religion of Abraham, save him who befools himself.?" (Sura II - Al-Baqra - the Co - verse 130).
When the PLO adopts Islam as the guideline for life, then we shall become its soldiers, the fuel of its fire which will bum the enemies. And until that happens, and we pray to Allah that it will happen soon, the position of the Hamas towards the PLO is one of a son towards his father, a brother towards his brother, and a relative towards his relative who suffers the other's pain when a thorn hits him, who supports the other in the Confrontation with the enemies and who wishes him divine guidance and integrity of conduct.
"Stand by your brother, for he who is brotherless is like the fighter who goes to battle without arms. One's cousin is the wing one flies with - could the bird fly without wings?"

Arab and Islamic States and Governments:
The Zionist invasion is a vicious invasion. It does not refrain from resorting to all methods, using all evil and despicable and repulsive ways to achieve its desires. It relies greatly in its infiltration and espionage operations on the secret organizations it gave rise to, such as the Freemasons, The Rotary and Lions clubs, and other sabotage groups. All these organizations, whether secret or open, work in the interest of Zionism and according to its instructions. They aim at undermining societies, destroying values, corrupting consciences, deteriorating character and annihilating Islam. It is behind the drug trade and alcoholism in all its kinds so as to facilitate its control and expansion.
The Arab states surrounding the Zionist entity are required to open their borders to the Jihad fighters, the sons of the Arab and Islamic peoples, to enable them to play their role and to join their efforts to those of their brothers among the Muslim Brothers in Palestine.
The other Arab and Islamic states are required, at the very least, to facilitate the movement of the Jihad fighters from and to them. We cannot fail to remind every Muslim that when the Jews occupied Holy Jerusalem in 1967 and stood at the doorstep of the Blessed Aqsa Mosque, they shouted with joy:
"Muhammed is dead, he left daughters behind."
Zionisme, Judaism and Jews, defies Islam and the Muslim people.

Nationalist and Religious Groupings, Institutions, Intellectuals, The Arab and Islamic World:
Hamas hopes that those Associations will stand by it on all levels, will support it, adopt its positions, boost its activities and moves and encourage support for it, so as to render the Islamic peoples its backers and helpers, and its strategic depth in all human and material domains as well as in information, in time and place. Among other things, they hold solidarity meetings, issue explanatory publications, supportive articles and tendentious leaflets to make the masses aware of the Palestinian issue, the problems it faces and of the plans to resolve them; and they should mobilize the Islamic nations, ideologically, educationally and culturally, so that these peoples would be equipped to perform their role in the decisive battle of liberation, just as they did when they vanquished the Crusaders and the Tatars and saved human civilization. How all that is dear to Allah!
"Allah hath written, Verily I will prevail, and my messengers: for Allah is strong and mighty." (The Dispute - verse 21).
Men of letters, members of the intelligentsia, media people, preachers, teachers and educators and all different sectors in the Arab and Islamic world, are all called upon to play their role and to carry out their duty in view of the wickedness of Zionist invasion, of its penetration into many countries, and its control over material means and the media, with all the ramifications thereof in most countries of the world.
Jihad means not only carrying arms and denigrating the enemies. Uttering positive words, writing good articles and useful books, support and solidarity and assistance, all that too is Jihad in the path of Allah, as long as intentions are sincere to make Allah's banner supreme.
"Those who prepare for a raid in the path of Allah are considered as if they participated themselves in the raid. Those who successfully rear a raider in their home, are considered as if they participated themselves in the raid" (Told by Bukhari, Muslim, Abu Dawud and Tirmidhi).
"Whosoever mobilises a fighter for the sake of Allah is himself a fighter. Whosoever supports the relatives of a fighter, he himself is a fighter." (related by al-Bukhari, Muslim, Abu Dawud and Tirmidhi).

Followers of Other Religions: The Islamic Resistance Movement Is A Humane Movement:
Hamas is a humane movement, which cares for human rights and is committed to the tolerance inherent in Islam as regards attitudes towards other religions. It is only hostile to those who are hostile towards it, or stand in its way in order to disturb its moves or to frustrate its efforts.
Under the shadow of Islam it is possible for the members of the three religions: Islam, Christianity and Judaism to coexist in safety and security. Safety and security can only prevail under the shadow of Islam, and recent and ancient history is the best witness to that effect. The members of other religions must desist from struggling against Islam over sovereignty in this region. For if they were to gain the upper hand, fighting, torture and uprooting would follow; they would be fed up with each other, to say nothing of members of other religions. The past and the present are full of evidence to that effect.
"They will not fight against you in a body, except in fortified towns, or from behind walls. Their strength in war among themselves is great: thou thinkest them to be united; but their hearts are divided. This, because they are people who do not understand." (Sura 59 - al-Hashr, the Exile - verse 14).
Islam confers upon everyone his legitimate rights. Islam prevents the incursion on other people's rights. The Nazi Zionist practices against our people will not last the lifetime of their invasion, for "States built upon oppression last only one hour, states based upon justice will last until the hour of Resurrection."
"Allah forbids you not those who warred not against you on account of religion and drove you not out from your houses, that you should show them kindness and deal justly with them. for Allah loveth those who act justly." (Sura 60 - Al-Mumtahana - verse 8).

The Attempt to Isolate the Palestinian People:
World Zionism and Imperialist forces have been attempting, with smart moves and considered planning, to push the Arab countries, one after another, out of the circle of conflict with Zionism, in order, ultimately, to isolate the Palestinian People. Egypt has already been cast out of the conflict, to a very great extent through the treacherous Camp David Accords, and she has been trying to drag other countries into similar agreements in order to push them out of the circle of conflict.
Hamas is calling upon the Arab and Islamic nations to act seriously and tirelessly in order to frustrate that dreadful scheme and to make the masses aware of the danger of coping out of the circle of struggle with Zionism. Today it is Palestine and tomorrow it may be another country or other countries. For Zionist scheming has no end, and after Palestine they will covet expansion from the Nile to the Euphrates. Only when they have completed digesting the area on which they will have laid their hand, they will look forward to more expansion, etc. Their scheme has been laid out in the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, and their present [conduct] is the the best proof of what is said there.
Leaving the circle of conflict with the Zionists is a major act of treason and it will bring curse on its perpetrators.
"Who so on that day turns his back to them, unless manoeuvering for battle or intent to join a company, he truly has incurred wrath from Allah, and his habitation will be hell, a hapless journey's end." Sura 8 (Al-Anfal - spoils of war), verse 16.
There is no way out except pooling together all the forces and energies to face this despicable Nazi-Tatar invasion. Otherwise we shall witness the loss of [our] countries, the uprooting of their inhabitants, the spreading of corruption on earth and the destruction of all religious values. Let every realize that he is accountable to Allah.
For "the doer of the slightest good deed is rewarded in like, and the does of the slightest evil deed is also rewarded in like."
Within the circle of the conflict with world Zionism, the Hamas regards itself the spearhead and the avant-garde. It joins its efforts to all those who are active on the Palestinian scene, but more steps need to be taken by the Arab and Islamic peoples and Islamic associations throughout the Arab and Islamic world in order to make possible the next round with the the warmongering Jews, the merchants of war.
"..and we have put enmity and hatred between them, until the day of resurrection. So often as they shall kindle a fire of war, Allah shall extinguish it; and they shall set their minds to act corruptly in the earth, but Allah loveth not the corrupt doers."(Sura V - Al-Ma'idah - the Table spread - verse 64).
The Hamas sets out from these general concepts which are consistent and in accordance with the rules of the universe, and gushes forth in the river of Fate in its confrontation and Jihad waging against the enemies, in defense of the Muslim human being, of Islamic Civilization and of the Islamic Holy Places, primarily the Blessed Aqsa Mosque. This, for the purpose of calling upon the Arab and Islamic peoples as well as their governments, popular and official associations, to fear Allah in their attitude towards and dealings with Hamas, and to be, in accordance with Allah's will, its supporters and partisans who extend assistance to it and provide it with reinforcement after reinforcement, until the Decree of Allah is fulfilled, the ranks are over-swollen, Jihad fighters join other Jihad fighters, and all this accumulation sets out from everywhere in the Islamic world, obeying the call of duty, while loudly proclaiming: Hail to Jihad.." This call will tear apart the clouds in the skies and it will continue to ring until liberation is completed, the invaders are vanquished and Allah's victory sets in.
"And Allah will certainly assist him who shall be on his side: for Allah is strong and mighty." (Sura XXII - Pilgrimage - verse 40).

The Testimony of History

Confronting Aggressors Throughout History :
Palestine is the navel of the globe and the crossroad of the continents. Since the dawn of history, it has been the target of expansionists. The Prophet, Allah bless him and grant him salvation, had himself pointed to this fact in the noble Hadith in which he called on his honourable companion, Ma'adh ben-Jabal, saying:
"O Ma'adh, Allah is going to grant you victory over Syria after me, from Al-Arish to the Euphrates, while its men, women, and female slaves will be dwelling there until the Day of Resurrection. Those of you who chose [to dwell] in one of the plains of Syria or Palestine will be in a state of Jihad to the Day of Resurrection."
The greedy have coveted Palestine more than once and they raided it with armies in order to fulfill their covetousness. Multitudes of Crusades descended on it, carrying their faith with them and waving their Cross. They were able to defeat the-Muslims for a long time, and the Muslims were not able to redeem it until their sought the protection of their religious banner; then, they unified their forces, sang the praise of their God and set out for Jihad under the Command of Saladin al-Ayyubi, for the duration of nearly two decades, and then the obvious conquest took place when the Crusaders were defeated and Palestine was liberated.
"Say (O Muhammed) unto those who disbelieve: ye shall be overcome and gathered unto Hell, an evil resting place." (Sura 3 - Al-Imran - verse 12).
This is the only way to liberation, there is no doubt in the testimony of history. That is one of the rules of the universe and one of the laws of existence. Only iron can blunt iron, only the true faith of Islam can vanquish their false and falsified faith. Faith can only be fought by faith. Ultimately victory is reserved to the truth, and truth is victorious.
"And verily Our word went forth of old unto Our bordmen sent [to warn]. That they verily would be helped against the infidels. And that Our armies, they verily would be the victors." (Sura 38 - Al-saffat - verses 17l-3).
Hamas takes a serious look at the defeat of the Crusades at the hand of Saladin the Ayyubid and the rescue of Palestine from their hands; at the defeat of the Tatars at Ein Jalut (65) where their spine was broken by Qutuz(66) and Al-Dhahir Baibars(67), and the Arab world was rescued from the sweep of the Tatars which which aimed at the destruction of all aspects of human civilization. Hamas draws lessons and examples from all this, that the current Zionist invasion had been preceded by a Crusader invasion from the West; and another one, the Tatars, from the East. And exactly as the Muslims had faced those invasions and planned their removal and defeat, they are able to face the Zionist invasion and defeat it. This is indeed no problem for the Almighty Allah, provided that the intentions are pure, and our determination is sincere; if the Muslims draw useful lessons from the experiences of the past, and rid themselves of the effects of [western] ideological invasion and followed the customs of their ancestors; and if they follow the traditions of Islam.

The Islamic Resistance Movement is Composed of Soldiers:
While paving its way, the Islamic Resistance Movement, emphasizes time and again to all the sons of our people, to the Arab and Islamic nations, that it does not seek personal fame, material gain, or social prominence. It does not aim to compete against any one from among our people, or take his place. Nothing of the sort at all. It will not act against any of the sons of Moslems or those who are peaceful towards it from among non-Moslems, be they here or anywhere else. It will only serve as a support for all groupings and organizations operating against the Zionist enemy and its lackeys.
The Islamic Resistance Movement adopts Islam as its way of life. Islam is its creed and religion. Whoever takes Islam as his way of life, be it an organization, a grouping, a country or any other body, the Islamic Resistance Movement considers itself as their soldiers and nothing more.
We ask Allah to show us the right course, to make us an example to others and to judge between us and our people with truth.
"O Lord, do thou judge between us and our nation with truth; for thou art the best of those who make decision." (Sura VII - Al Araf - Verse 89).

Islamic Resistance Movement - HamasOnline.com - Harakat al-Muqawamah al-Islamiyya

[Wake up CALL]

[ QUOTE ]
Halliburton provides millions in oil field equipment and services. We all know what Iran does with it's oil money, right? Thanks, Halliburton for helping Iran spread world-wide terror.


[/ QUOTE ]

Cardcounter is just another Liberal who refuses to allow facts to get in his way. Halliburton hasn't exported products, technology or manpower to Iraq for over two decades. The oil fields were nationalized during the reign of the Shah of Iran so no American oil companies own nor produce any oil from Iran either. BP was the last oil company allowed to have any independent oil rights in this country. As far as GE if you want to blame them for allowing the TV broadcast signals from that Liberal network they own ,(NBC) you are welcome to have at it.

[Cyrus]

"I don't think you understand the definition of irredentist. So I will provide you with the English definition."

This from the guy who one post ago confessed he looked up the dictionary to see what the word means. (And still misspelt it!) /images/graemlins/grin.gif

"Changing the criteria when they don't come out in your favor, huh?"

Snideness is not your forte. Try sarcasm instead. FYI, I gave as examples (look up "e.g." in that dictionary!) some of the criteria that should be used. One among 'em was "GDP percentage" -- and I already knew the countries on top of that. (Wouldn't you think so?)

The idea was to use criteria and not some abstract and generic pronouncements. An approach I'm glad to see you adopting!

"The U.S. can't possibly have any [irredentist] aspirations at this time in history."

I didn't say it had, dufus! Read carefully if you want to keep me interested. I posted "irredentist aspirations" as one of the criteria which make a country, any country, "dangerous for peace". The US doesn't have 'em, others do. Think Kashmir. (Or, simply think -- period.)

"Ask Amnesty International."

Iran has been, of course, violating human rights domestically, that's correct. Do you argue that this makes them "a threat to world peace", though? Interesting.

"I mentioned why this criteria [sic] was so dumb but I guess I'll do it again. How many countries has Germany invaded in the last century? Almost all of Europe? Is the world trembling in fear of what Germany might do these days?"

In the words of Chris Alger -- Are all you guys morons?

I mean, if I was detecting a modicum of general knowledge, I'd ask you abt the relevance of the Helsinki Accords as an end to irredentism in Europe -- but now forget about that.

Irredentist aspirations is clearly a criterion to be used strictly in the current context -- and NOT historically! Why would you ever think that a country that invaded the whole of known Asia two thousand years ago, would still be a threat to world peace today??

Then I give you Alexander the Great -- and (fanfare!) Macedonia. /images/graemlins/grin.gif

(Tell me. Are you posting while smoking shit?)

[cardcounter0]

Halliburton currently has at least two major projects in Iran. Along the Iraqi border, a subsidiary of Halliburton is helping to build one of the world’s largest fertilizer plants. Another subsidiary is providing a $226 million drilling rig to the Iranian National Oil Company.

Halliburton Products and Services, Ltd., is wholly owned by the U.S.-based Halliburton and is registered in a building in the capital of the Cayman Islands – a building owned by the local Calidonian Bank. Halliburton and other companies set up in this Caribbean Island, because of tax and secrecy laws that are corporate friendly.

Since 1995, Halliburton Products and Services set up shop in Iran. Today, it sells about $40 million a year worth of oil field services to the Iranian government.

But then you could just ask Halliburton itself, this was from a company spokesman in response to a government inquiry:

""Halliburton intends to work with the government and assist in any way possible so we can get resolution on this matter," the company said in a release Monday. "We continue to believe that Halliburton's business in Iran is in compliance with applicable laws and regulations.""

[cardcounter0]

Halliburton said it would comply with the subpoena on the Iranian operations, and reiterated it believed its links to Iran through the Cayman Islands unit were in compliance with applicable laws and regulations.

The company said in its annual report that revenues from its subsidiary's business in Iran amounted to about $80 million, or one-half of 1 percent of total revenues of $16.3 billion in 2003.

In a report issued in October 2003 in response to shareholder complaints about its Iranian links, Halliburton said that it was not illegal for U.S. companies' independent foreign subsidiaries to conduct business in Iran, and that it had taken steps to isolate its U.S. operations and managers from its work there.

Halliburton said its Cayman Islands subsidiary, Halliburton Products & Services Limited, has its headquarters in Dubai and is active only in Iran, where it provides a range of services to the state-run Iranian National Oil Company.

In addition to that subsidiary, Halliburton has three British-based units and a Swedish-based unit that conduct business with Iran, the company said.

[cardcounter0]

>>>>>>>>
An offshore subsidiary of Halliburton earlier this month won a contract to develop Iran's huge South Pars gas field, which sits on the world's biggest reservoir of gas.
<<<<<<<<


HOUSTON, Jan 28 (Reuters) - U.S. oilfield services company Halliburton Co.will pull out of Iran after its current contracts there are wound down, its chief executive said on Friday, citing a poor business climate in the Islamic Republic.
"The business environment currently in Iran is not conducive to our overall strategy and objectives. As a result, we have decided to exit Iran and wind down our operations there while fulfilling our existing contracts and commitments," CEO Dave Lesar said on a conference call with investors.

The Houston-based company, formerly headed by Vice President Dick Cheney, has also been criticized for its work for the Pentagon in Iraq, where it is the largest private contractor with revenues totaling more than $10 billion.

The company is under investigation by the U.S. Justice Department for possible overcharges for fuel and food services connected to its Iraq contracts.

Halliburton said in July it had received a subpoena seeking information about operations in Iran of its Cayman Islands-based Halliburton Products & Services Ltd. unit.

Halliburton has argued that using a Cayman Islands subsidiary exempts it from a trade embargo against Iran imposed by Washington, which accuses Tehran of seeking nuclear arms and funding terror networks.

The company said its Cayman Island subsidiary booked between $30 million and $40 million in revenues in Iran in 2003.

An offshore subsidiary of Halliburton earlier this month won a contract to develop Iran's huge South Pars gas field, which sits on the world's biggest reservoir of gas.

That report stoked criticism of the company in the United States, as well as among Iran's conservative newspapers.

Lesar said the pullback from Iran was temporary, and if U.S. laws or the business climate changed, Halliburton would return to the Islamic Republic.

"If the U.S. sanctions are lifted in the future, or more of our major customers go there we will return to this market," he said.

Halliburton provided no details on when its current contracts in Iran would be completed or on the value of the work.

Lesar also said several of its competitors were active in Iraq, but have not been demonized like Halliburton.

"It is inexplicable why these activities have not drawn equal attention, but once again it points out the political nature of the attacks on Halliburton," he said.

[Cyrus]

[ QUOTE ]
Cardcounter is just another Liberal who refuses to allow facts to get in his way. The oil fields were nationalized during the reign of the Shah of Iran so no American oil companies own nor produce any oil from Iran either.

[/ QUOTE ]

Wake Up is just another neo-con who will not allow facts to get in the way of a good argument!

For Wakey's edification, this li'l link (http://www.moreorless.au.com/heroes/mossadegh.html) will give you the necessary background on Iranian oil.

Cut to the chase: After the Shah returned to power in Iran, in 1953, a consortium was formed to produce and export Iranian petroleum. The consortium agreed to share with Iran a greater portion of the oil revenue than before.

The consortium was made up of British Petroleum, Holland's Shell, France's Compagnie Francaise des Petroles and America's Standard Oil New Jersey (later Exxon), Standard Oil California (later Chevron), Standard Oil New York (later Mobil), the Texas Company (later Texaco) and Gulf Oil Corporation.

[BCPVP]

[ QUOTE ]
"I don't think you understand the definition of irredentist. So I will provide you with the English definition."

This from the guy who one post ago confessed he looked up the dictionary to see what the word means. (And still misspelt it!)

[/ QUOTE ]
Ouch, you got me for misspelling a word once. Congrats. Enjoy your shallow victory.

[ QUOTE ]
"Changing the criteria when they don't come out in your favor, huh?"

Snideness is not your forte. Try sarcasm instead. FYI, I gave as examples (look up "e.g." in that dictionary!) some of the criteria that should be used. One among 'em was "GDP percentage" -- and I already knew the countries on top of that. (Wouldn't you think so?)

[/ QUOTE ]
Fine. But one of your criterion for whether a country was a threat included % of GDP spent on the military and NK is bar none the highest on that list. According to your little list, NK qualifies (at least partly) as a threat.

[ QUOTE ]
"The U.S. can't possibly have any [irredentist] aspirations at this time in history."

I didn't say it had, dufus! Read carefully if you want to keep me interested. I posted "irredentist aspirations" as one of the criteria which make a country, any country, "dangerous for peace". The US doesn't have 'em, others do. Think Kashmir. (Or, simply think -- period.)

[/ QUOTE ]
Namecalling. Classy. I read it that you were trying to use these criteria to show that the U.S. is somehow a greater threat than Iran or NK. I'm glad we agree that the U.S. has no irredentist aspirations. NK clearly does have such aspirations, thereby making them more of a threat.

[ QUOTE ]
"Ask Amnesty International."

Iran has been, of course, violating human rights domestically, that's correct. Do you argue that this makes them "a threat to world peace", though? Interesting.

[/ QUOTE ]
That is not the only treaty Iran has violated. But under the right circumstances, yes. Yugoslavia would be a good example. That was domestic abuse of human rights on the highest order and NATO stepped in. Should everyone have just left Yugoslavia alone?

[ QUOTE ]
"I mentioned why this criteria [sic] was so dumb but I guess I'll do it again. How many countries has Germany invaded in the last century? Almost all of Europe? Is the world trembling in fear of what Germany might do these days?"

In the words of Chris Alger -- Are all you guys morons?

I mean, if I was detecting a modicum of general knowledge, I'd ask you abt the relevance of the Helsinki Accords as an end to irredentism in Europe -- but now forget about that.

Irredentist aspirations is clearly a criterion to be used strictly in the current context -- and NOT historically! Why would you ever think that a country that invaded the whole of known Asia two thousand years ago, would still be a threat to world peace today??

[/ QUOTE ]
So who defines how current the context for irredentist aspirations should be? We both have agreed that the U.S. has no irredentist aspirations, so I need to know what your point was in mentioning them.
And by the way, you spelled about wrong, which I'd argue is much easier to spell then "irredentist"... /images/graemlins/grin.gif

So what's your point? According to your own criteria, Europe is wrong and NK is a much greater threat than the U.S.

[ QUOTE ]
(Tell me. Are you posting while smoking [censored]?)

[/ QUOTE ]
No, though I'm beginning to suspect much of Europe to be doing this...

[Cyrus]

[ QUOTE ]
You got me for misspelling a word once. Congrats. Enjoy your shallow victory.

[/ QUOTE ]

I never comment on orthography, except as a joke. But when you confess to not knowing what a word means and then ..explaining that word to me (and in a snide context too), then you place your shallow behind on the oven.

[ QUOTE ]
According to your little list, NK qualifies (at least partly) as a threat.

[/ QUOTE ]

It took you some posts to figure out that mine was not a made-for-anti-Americans list, but the genuine article, i.e. a primer for the criteria used to evaluate a country's level of menace towards (world) peace. See, most conservatives on this forum simply mouth off platitudes, about this or that country being "a threat", without the least bit of qualification.

So, North Korea definitely qualifies as a threat. More than Saddam Hussein's Iraq, much less than the United States. (I already posted a link to a worldwide poll showing that the majority of the people polled around the globe shares the latter belief.)

[ QUOTE ]
We agree that the U.S. has no irredentist aspirations.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yep, and that's because it don't need 'em! See, physical occupation of a land is no longer necessary for imperialistic and colonial purposes, not in our day and age. The United States simply keeps military bases spread around the world (bases which enjoy the status of practically sovereign nations, a nation-within-a-nation), uses its Air carrier Fleets to "show the flag" and, if necessary attack inland, binds with various unequally weighted treaties other countries, forces all other countries to obey the UN, the World Court, the IMF, etc, but refuses to do so itself, etc etc.

And one more thing:

[ QUOTE ]
So what's your point? According to your own criteria, Europe is wrong and NK is a much greater threat than the U.S.

[/ QUOTE ]

Permit me to give much more weight to Past & Current Performance than other criteria. The United States has been attacking other countries all over the globe for the last hundred years or so (excluding the two World Wars) at the rate of about a country per decade -- and I am being perhaps gracious. This is a truly atrocious precedent and certainly not a record on which one can seriously claim to be "for peace".

Forget about "motives" for a moment: Suppose you have to bet $1000 to win $1000 and guess correctly which country would be the first in the coming years to attack another. Where would you place your bet, on Iran, North Korea or the United States?

Take care.

--Cyrus

PS:[ QUOTE ]
By the way, you spelled "about" wrong.

[/ QUOTE ] I spelled it "abt". When you grow up and write your first memo, you'll thank me. /images/graemlins/cool.gif

[the alex]

So Muslims with nukes are scarier than Communists with nukes or a secular Hindu/Christian country like India just because the groups that have nothing to do with these governments in these countries that are predominantly Muslim say that aggression is the only way to please God?

I'm not saying that Hamas isn't dangerous. I'm saying that their religion doesn't make them dangerous. If Palestine was a state, as they're progressing toward being one, Hamas loses their motive.

And, the word "jihad" has nothing to do with violence. It is an inner battle with one's faith. 9/11 wasn't an act of Jihad. Jesus questioning his fate while praying in Gethsemane was a jihad.

[MMMMMM]

[ QUOTE ]
And, the word "jihad" has nothing to do with violence. It is an inner battle with one's faith.

[/ QUOTE ]

Actually, Islamic scholars consider there to be both "inner" and "outer" jihads. Sometimes they argue as to which is the foremost definition of jihad.

Inner jihad is much as you describe, an inner struggle, whereas outer jihad is frequently military in nature.

bin-Laden is waging a jihad against the West.

[Kaz The Original]

No I would not allow my son to be tortured for any reason. No I do not believe my son has more of a right to be saved than a non relative, but I would do more to save him than I would a non relative.

[BCPVP]

[ QUOTE ]
So, North Korea definitely qualifies as a threat. More than Saddam Hussein's Iraq, much less than the United States. (I already posted a link to a worldwide poll showing that the majority of the people polled around the globe shares the latter belief.)

[/ QUOTE ]
Interesting situation. The U.S. is considered more of a threat when it really isn't. Why is that, do you think?

[ QUOTE ]
Yep, and that's because it don't need 'em! See, physical occupation of a land is no longer necessary for imperialistic and colonial purposes, not in our day and age. The United States simply keeps military bases spread around the world (bases which enjoy the status of practically sovereign nations, a nation-within-a-nation), uses its Air carrier Fleets to "show the flag" and, if necessary attack inland, binds with various unequally weighted treaties other countries, forces all other countries to obey the UN, the World Court, the IMF, etc, but refuses to do so itself, etc etc.

[/ QUOTE ]
1) Military bases? Is our presence at Rammestein allowing us to rule over Germany? Often times we have a military base in a country because there was a war there that we took part in. Germany, Japan, Korea... none of which are our lap dogs.
2) How much attacking inland has the U.S. done in the countries we do have military bases in? I doubt it's so frequent as to qualify it as imperialistic.
3) Any examples of these unequally weighted treaties?
4) I don't see us forcing Sudan to obey the UN. If no one forces countries to obey the U.N., who will? The UN has authority because of the U.S. And the World Court? How long has Milosevic been on trial?

[ QUOTE ]
Permit me to give much more weight to Past & Current Performance than other criteria. The United States has been attacking other countries all over the globe for the last hundred years or so (excluding the two World Wars) at the rate of about a country per decade -- and I am being perhaps gracious. This is a truly atrocious precedent and certainly not a record on which one can seriously claim to be "for peace".

[/ QUOTE ]
I would hope that you're smart enough to recognize that there is more to it than that. Why do you automatically assume that because we've taken action against another country, or group, that that action is automatically wrong?
Was action against Iraq wrong? How bout against Yugoslavia?
There's a saying that goes "No war, no peace. Know war, know peace." Peace is not just the absence of war and I would hope that you would understand that.

[Zygote]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm saying that their religion doesn't make them dangerous

[/ QUOTE ]

like i said, i don't really care what you are saying if it has no credibility. Hamas is saying that religion is why they are dangerous; you can live in self-denial as much as you want.

[ QUOTE ]
If Palestine was a state, as they're progressing toward being one, Hamas loses their motive.



[/ QUOTE ]
If you read what they said or visitied their webpage, you will see that they are not satisfied with a palestinian state. They want the destruction of israel. Better yet, they wnat all jews out of the Arabian land.

goto www.memri.org (http://www.memri.org) and watch some videos.

[Zygote]

From hamas' constitution which you obviously didn't read,

"The Slogan of the Islamic Resistance Movement:
Allah is its goal, the Prophet its model, the Quran its Constitution, Jihad its path and death for the sake of Allah is the loftiest of its wishes."

[BadBoyBenny]

Neither Iran or North Korea would nuke the US or one of our allies. I just don't see anything in it for them. OK, maybe Iran would try to nuke Israel but I doubt it. North Korea needs money more and would probably be the most likely to put a nuke up on the black market. Maybe they will even sell them to Iran.

[BCPVP]

[ QUOTE ]
Neither Iran or North Korea would nuke the US or one of our allies. I just don't see anything in it for them. OK, maybe Iran would try to nuke Israel but I doubt it. North Korea needs money more and would probably be the most likely to put a nuke up on the black market. Maybe they will even sell them to Iran.

[/ QUOTE ]
That is the threat they both pose. Clearly Iran and NK at this stage have no chance of really striking the U.S., but you have to ask yourself whether you're willing to let a money-desperate despot or group of homicidal fundamentalist mullahs sell or "lose" a nuke or two.

But when it comes down to it, I don't believe we'll go to war with either country. NK already admits to having nukes and spends almost 25% of their GDP on their military. Plus an attack would be very easy to spot unless it came from China and/or Russia and even still would be obvious what we intended. Not worth the risk. Similarily, Iran is like Afghanistan's landscape with a much bigger, real military. Also not worth the risk. That's why we have to support the popular opposition in Iran and isolate NK.

On a side note, isn't it interesting that the countries who's governments we support usually contain the general public who hate us, while the countries who's gov'ts we don't support usually contain the majority who like us?

[Cyrus]

[ QUOTE ]
Interesting situation. The U.S. is considered more of a threat when it really isn't.

[/ QUOTE ] You're not paying attention - again. People around the world (but you can always claim that you can fool all the people, all of the time) take into account a lot of criteria, whether meticulously or intuitively, and come up with their opinion of the United States being the #1 threat to world peace today.

If we were to judge threats by one criterion only, and that criterion to be "GDP percentage going to the military", then N. Korea would be numero uno.

[ QUOTE ]
Military bases? Is our presence at Rammestein allowing us to rule over Germany?

[/ QUOTE ] Are you suggesting that the United States exerts exactly the same influence, politically and/or militarily, in a country (a) if the US has military bases there, and (b) if it doesn't?

[ QUOTE ]
Often times we have a military base in a country because there was a war there that we took part in.

[/ QUOTE ] That's right! But now there is no war anymore. So, explain to me the use of military bases such as in Cuba or in Germany! (Besides feeding military families.)

[ QUOTE ]
How much attacking inland has the U.S. done in the countries we do have military bases in?

[/ QUOTE ] I mentioned Cuba above, so I will pick that country at random. You want me to elaborate about US+attacking+Cuba? (No, I'm not referring only to the Bay of Pigs!) I didn't think so.

[ QUOTE ]
I doubt it's so frequent as to qualify it as imperialistic.

[/ QUOTE ] No, they are not imperialistic. The United States' military "excursions" abroad are so frequent as to be on a class of their own!

[ QUOTE ]
Any examples of these unequally weighted treaties?

[/ QUOTE ] Sure. Take a treaty between, let's say, Italy and the United States about how military personnel from one country serving in a military base on the other's soil, is exempt from the laws of the latter! This is typical of such treaties: They come off smelling equal but actually are not. (Unless I missed the huge Italian military base in New Jersey! Must've been the turnpike traffic.)

[ QUOTE ]
If no one forces countries to obey the U.N., who will? The UN has authority because of the U.S. ?

[/ QUOTE ]The United Stations has specific procedures for enforcing matters, escalating from the most civilised to the most belligerent, i.e. war. The United States, which was for years undermining the power of the UN (it still owes it a huge backload of money!), is now actively demoting it to a true eunuch. The reasoning is obvious: In a world where one country only rules supreme as world power, institutions such as the UN are obstacles to the assertion of that country's power in the world.

If you can understand this, the rest is easy. The rest is technique.

[ QUOTE ]
And the World Court? How long has Milosevic been on trial?

[/ QUOTE ](shrug) About as long as any trial in a civilised country would take for crimes of such enormity AND difficulty in proving. AND when the court is striving to establish clear and supportable precedent.

Of course, we could always line up Milosevic and his cronies against a wall, and shoot 'em. Like they did to Rumania's Ceausescu (and his wife). But would that be a system of justice in which you would feel safe to have your day in court ?

[ QUOTE ]
There's a saying that goes "No war, no peace. Know war, know peace." Peace is not just the absence of war and I would hope that you would understand that.

[/ QUOTE ]The problem with the United States, as I already said, is that, since the Civil War, Americans have not experienced war at home, first hand. The horror of war has not left scars on the collective American psyche. The closest they got was through films, watching the 6 0'clock news and (now) video games. There is a gigantic gap in perception abd experience about war between Europe and Russia on the one hand (as well as the most of the rest of the world, too, actually) and the United States on the other.

In fact, I would go as far as claiming that Americans, in general, have a somewhat unique understanding of war! "War is something that happens to other people"...
<font color="white"> . </font>

[Il_Mostro]

[ QUOTE ]
goto www.memri.org (http://www.memri.org) and watch some videos.

[/ QUOTE ]
wasn't memri completely disreputed a while ago?

[Zygote]

not as far as i know?

[Zygote]

[ QUOTE ]
NK might sell nukes to terrorists? What terrorists? The Palestinans and Iraqi "insurgents" are nothing more than local rebels, not fighting for Allah, but for their voice to be heard and listened to. I'm not saying they're right

[/ QUOTE ]

If your not saying they are right, i don't really understand. You think they are fighting for just rights, but you think they are wrong? Care to ease my confusion?

[the alex]

I'm not saying that their cause is just or not. I'm saying that what they're doing whether right, wrong, necessary, unecessary are things that I might do if I were in their shoes as I stated in my earlier example.

Isn't that what American troops are doing now? Just because a government, our government is a part of the conflict doesn't mean that we are right or that we're wrong. What's different between the Sunni problem now and the Kurdish problem 15 years ago? Or Somalia? Or Rwanda? Or America in the mid-1800's? Or the Black Panthers in the 60's? Or the Western sympathizers in East Germany while the wall was up?

Very few revolutions have been as peaceful as India's in the mid-50's and I can actually think of no other off the top of my head.

Is every rebellous group that are violently defensive or aggressive toward their goals to be called terrorists? Whether it's correct or not, the media and our government understands full well that the average American defines a terrorist as someone who hates freedom and they all wanna fly planes into buildings because American men are allowed to wear earrings or stupid [censored] like that.

Hamas does not and has never been a representative portion of true Islam just as Jerry Falwell (who isn't a terrorist but never has opposed US aggression and always is a propogandist towards US aggression) is not a true representative of a Christ that preached of a loving God with standards but loves us enough to grant us free will.

Zionists just as hateful as Palestinian rebels do not represent Judaism. We are blacklisting a contributive part of America when we associate terrorists with Islam so loosely instead of listening to the rationalization of real Muslims as to why no God would ever justify the acts of these rebels that harm innocent people.

[Zygote]

"I'm not saying that their cause is just or not. I'm saying that what they're doing whether right, wrong, necessary, unecessary are things that I might do if I were in their shoes as I stated in my earlier example."

Does being in their shoes mean that you experience their propaganda and are built to believe that you must use these types of aggression to reach a fruitful hevean? If not, and you are just saying that you could see yourself blowing up a school of kids because of a shitty political situation, then i guess you and i are very different.

[ QUOTE ]
Isn't that what American troops are doing now? Just because a government, our government is a part of the conflict doesn't mean that we are right or that we're wrong. What's different between the Sunni problem now and the Kurdish problem 15 years ago? Or Somalia? Or Rwanda? Or America in the mid-1800's? Or the Black Panthers in the 60's? Or the Western sympathizers in East Germany while the wall was up?

[/ QUOTE ]

Your examples are a little scattered, can you tie them together a little better? Is your point that people have used aggression under necessary circumstances in the past? I would consider the iraqi terrorists more of an army if they did not target innocent civilians.

[ QUOTE ]
Is every rebellous group that are violently defensive or aggressive toward their goals to be called terrorists? Whether it's correct or not, the media and our government understands full well that the average American defines a terrorist as someone who hates freedom and they all wanna fly planes into buildings because American men are allowed to wear earrings or stupid [censored] like that.


[/ QUOTE ]

Are you saying they didn't fly airplanes into buildings?
When Nelson Mandella was rebelling agains the Apratheid governemnt of south africa, he would have a public area evacuated and they would then blow it up. They were making political stances by aggressive means without harming innocent civilians. Also, Nelson Mandella never had the right to do anything else. It was that or slavery. These terrorists have many choices, espeacially once they have a democracy (unfortunately we can't give them the options of being terrorist, do you understand why?). By not being terrorists, how are they really being oppressed to the point that they should kill 20+ people a day?

[ QUOTE ]
Hamas does not and has never been a representative portion of true Islam just as Jerry Falwell (who isn't a terrorist but never has opposed US aggression and always is a propogandist towards US aggression) is not a true representative of a Christ that preached of a loving God with standards but loves us enough to grant us free will.

[/ QUOTE ]

They are a representation of several particular islamic cultures and sects. I never said all muslims are this or that, but there are large amounts of muslims who have interpreted the koran in way that justifies terrorist acts. Does every muslim have to be a terrorist before i'm allowed to say its bad that a certain person are?

[ QUOTE ]
Zionists just as hateful as Palestinian rebels do not represent Judaism. We are blacklisting a contributive part of America when we associate terrorists with Islam so loosely instead of listening to the rationalization of real Muslims as to why no God would ever justify the acts of these rebels that harm innocent people

[/ QUOTE ]

We didn't associate terrorists with islam, they did? Do you want me to copy that Hamas constitution again? You would have to be completely retarted to ignore the fact that these people are justifying their acts as holy.

Whats a real muslim and whats a fake muslim? There are different kinds of muslims... there are those who have chosen to interpret the text in harmless fashions, and often reform things for the sake of being humane and civilized. On the other hand, there are those who interpret the text in harmful fashions and are not willing to reform anything for the sake of being civilized or humane. They are both real muslims, IMO.

[jaxmike]

[ QUOTE ]

Look at the countries that the U.S. have sold nukes to and compare those countries to Iran and N.Korea. Think what you will, but the countries that we've sold nukes to have done more harm with those nukes than Iran and N.Korea.


[/ QUOTE ]

WHAT?

[Felix_Nietsche]

"Look at the countries that the U.S. have sold nukes to and compare those countries to Iran and N.Korea. Think what you will, but the countries that we've sold nukes to have done more harm with those nukes than Iran and N.Korea."
************************************************** *****
The USA has sold nukes?!. That is Pulitzer prize news!
Perhaps you will be kind enough to support your assertion.

But lets save time, just admit you were drunk/stoned when you made this statement and I'll drop the matter.... /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[BCPVP]

[ QUOTE ]
Are you suggesting that the United States exerts exactly the same influence, politically and/or militarily, in a country (a) if the US has military bases there, and (b) if it doesn't?

[/ QUOTE ]
I repeat. Does the U.S. really exert that much power over Germany simply because of Rammstein? If so, why didn't Germany join the U.S. in OIF? I guess we don't exert that much pressure...

[ QUOTE ]
That's right! But now there is no war anymore. So, explain to me the use of military bases such as in Cuba or in Germany! (Besides feeding military families.)

[/ QUOTE ]
Readiness. And the U.S. very well might leave Germany so that the military can be more mobile. We don't need to worry so much about Communists stomping all over Europe anymore, so you might get your wish.

[ QUOTE ]
I mentioned Cuba above, so I will pick that country at random. You want me to elaborate about US+attacking+Cuba? (No, I'm not referring only to the Bay of Pigs!) I didn't think so.

[/ QUOTE ]
Do so if you like, I won't stop you. I don't support everything the U.S. has done, but I also don't like foreigners attacking almost everything the U.S. does and has done.

[ QUOTE ]
Sure. Take a treaty between, let's say, Italy and the United States about how military personnel from one country serving in a military base on the other's soil, is exempt from the laws of the latter! This is typical of such treaties: They come off smelling equal but actually are not. (Unless I missed the huge Italian military base in New Jersey! Must've been the turnpike traffic.)

[/ QUOTE ]
If Italy agreed to such a treaty, it is their own fault. That's not imperialistic. It diplomacy. We still wouldn't be ruling over Italy or having such a massive influence on their gov't decisions as to qualify them as a colony.

[ QUOTE ]
The United States, which was for years undermining the power of the UN (it still owes it a huge backload of money!)

[/ QUOTE ]
Ha! That's like saying that the mother owes the son if the mother has agreed to give the son some allowance. There'd be no U.N. without the U.S.

[ QUOTE ]
In a world where one country only rules supreme as world power, institutions such as the UN are obstacles to the assertion of that country's power in the world.

[/ QUOTE ]
Perhaps. But countries will almost always act within their best interest, regardless of whether there is a U.N. or not.
The U.N.'s job is not to look out for the U.S.'s interests. That's our job.

[ QUOTE ]
In fact, I would go as far as claiming that Americans, in general, have a somewhat unique understanding of war! "War is something that happens to other people"...

[/ QUOTE ]
And I wouldn't have it any other way. But you're one to talk. The last war in Sweden looks like almost 200 years ago. So I guess the Swedes could share in the expression "War is something that happens to other people"... /images/graemlins/smirk.gif

[Cyrus]

[ QUOTE ]
You're one to talk. The last war in Sweden looks like almost 200 years ago.

[/ QUOTE ] You think perhaps that the Swedes are feeling somewhat "left out"? /images/graemlins/grin.gif

[ QUOTE ]
There'd be no U.N. without the U.S.

[/ QUOTE ] Sure there would be! It would simply be a different United Nations.


[ QUOTE ]
Countries will almost always act within their best interest, regardless of whether there is a U.N. or not.
The U.N.'s job is not to look out for the U.S.'s interests. That's our job.

[/ QUOTE ] The UN and all such mechanisms are established by the strongest world powers in order to promote their interests. When those powers see that they can achieve approximately the same things through "peace" rather than war, they promote (enforce) organisations, such as the League Of Nations, that are ostensibly aiming for peaceful resolutions of conflicts.

When a world power feels so strong that it no longer needs anybody else along for the ride, eg Germany 1930s, United States 2000s, that power stays out of and undermines the workings of such organisations.

[ QUOTE ]
"The U.S. still owes to the U.N. a huge backload of money". Ha! That's like saying that the mother owes the son if the mother has agreed to give the son some allowance.

[/ QUOTE ] Nope, Wrong analogy, That's like forming a corporation and one shareholder refusing to put in his share. In case, you are forgetting, the United States has signed treaties and agreements that specify those obligations that are in arrears. (Of course, the United States could not care less about such papers! See above.)

[ QUOTE ]
If Italy agreed to such a treaty, it is its own fault. That's not imperialistic. It diplomacy.

[/ QUOTE ] That's a right laugh. I must remember to use that line if I ever get the chance to point a gun to a cashier and order him to hand over the money. I'll promise him that if we ever find ourselves in reversed positions, I will oblige him...

[ QUOTE ]
We still wouldn't be ruling over Italy or having such a massive influence on their gov't decisions as to qualify them as a colony.

[/ QUOTE ] I was only giving Italy as one example.

Even so, you are obviously ignorant of your History, for making such cavalier remarks. After the end of World War II, the Communist Party of Italy was polling around 48%, in (free) elections. You think the U.S. did not involve itself extremely forcibly in Italian politics, then and later on??


[ QUOTE ]
"Explain to me the use of military bases such as in Cuba!" --&gt;Readiness.

[/ QUOTE ]Readiness?! Against whom?? The Havana Philharmonic? The newest batch of Cuban boxers? Inferior quality Cuban cigars? What, for god's sake?

But you seem to be tap dancing around the issue of U.S. military bases abroad. Here's the question again, for ya :

The United States exerts exactly the same influence, politically and/or militarily, in a country whether the US has or doesn't have military bases there ?

[ QUOTE ]
I don't support everything the U.S. has done, but I also don't like foreigners attacking almost everything the U.S. does and has done.

[/ QUOTE ] This presumes, erroneously, that the following parameters are concurrently true:

1. I'm a foreigner, i.e. non-American.
2. I attack everything the U.S. does or has done.
3. I claimed that you support everything the U.S. does or has done.

[CORed]

This is a tough one, as both scare the crap out of me. I voted for North Korea. North Korea got my vote because they have already started down the path of nuclear blackmail. They said, in effect, "Give us some money or we'll develop nuclear weapons". We paid them off so they tried it again and we didn't pay them off. Now, so they claim, they have nuclear weapons. I'm afraid that Kim Jong Il might be just desparate enough and just crazy enough to try to up the stakes to "give us more money or we'll nuke [Japan, South Korea, US]". If he does, we may have no alternative but a premptive first strike. Irrational people with nukes is scary because you can't be sure that Mutual Assured Destruction, or even just assured destruction (Iran or North Korea could hurt us badly, if they find a way to deliver their weapons, but probably not completely destroy us. We can completetly destroy either of them) will work. A rational person is going to say, "I guess this isn't worth killing a few hundred million peopole". Kruschev and Kennedy made that decision in 1962, and while it still galls me that the price was having to tolerate Castro in Cuba, int the grand scheme it was a small price to pay for not destroying everything. An irrational person might just say "If I don't get what I want I'm going to blow up everything." and then follow through when he doesn't get what he wants. While I don't think the Mullahs in Iran qualify as rational, I think Kim Jonh Il might be even crazier. But it's close.

[BCPVP]

[ QUOTE ]
You think perhaps that the Swedes are feeling somewhat "left out"?

[/ QUOTE ]
No, I'd say that it doesn't seem that the Swedes believe there's anything worth fighting for.

[ QUOTE ]
Sure there would be! It would simply be a different United Nations.

[/ QUOTE ]
No, because you'd either be speaking Russian or German.

[ QUOTE ]
The UN and all such mechanisms are established by the strongest world powers in order to promote their interests. When those powers see that they can achieve approximately the same things through "peace" rather than war, they promote (enforce) organisations, such as the League Of Nations, that are ostensibly aiming for peaceful resolutions of conflicts.
When a world power feels so strong that it no longer needs anybody else along for the ride, eg Germany 1930s, United States 2000s, that power stays out of and undermines the workings of such organisations.

[/ QUOTE ]
The U.N. does not run the world. The U.S. does not need to bow down to every decision the U.N. makes. There are some things it is good for, but otherwise it's just a big bureacracy.

[ QUOTE ]
Nope, Wrong analogy, That's like forming a corporation and one shareholder refusing to put in his share. In case, you are forgetting, the United States has signed treaties and agreements that specify those obligations that are in arrears. (Of course, the United States could not care less about such papers! See above.)

[/ QUOTE ]
And the U.N. is the only country who hasn't paid all of their debt... /images/graemlins/smirk.gif I say the U.N. owes the U.S. for several peacekeeping missions that we've performed for them.

[ QUOTE ]
That's a right laugh. I must remember to use that line if I ever get the chance to point a gun to a cashier and order him to hand over the money. I'll promise him that if we ever find ourselves in reversed positions, I will oblige him...

[/ QUOTE ]
And of course, a military base in a country is an absolute horror for that country, right? These countries gain absolutely no economic or protection benefits, right? I'm going to have to ask you for a few examples of the U.S. threatening violence against a country unless that country agreed to such a treaty.

[ QUOTE ]
I was only giving Italy as one example.

Even so, you are obviously ignorant of your History, for making such cavalier remarks. After the end of World War II, the Communist Party of Italy was polling around 48%, in (free) elections. You think the U.S. did not involve itself extremely forcibly in Italian politics, then and later on??

[/ QUOTE ]
I wouldn't say that the U.S. has never been imperialistic. But presently, does the U.S. exert so much influence in Italy as to qualify it as a colony?

[ QUOTE ]
Readiness?! Against whom?? The Havana Philharmonic? The newest batch of Cuban boxers? Inferior quality Cuban cigars? What, for god's sake?

[/ QUOTE ]
I was speaking about military bases around the world. If the U.S. needed to deploy to a particular part of the world, it'd be much better for us to have a base there to help smooth out the logistics. A lot of those bases were built post-WWII during the Cold War.

[ QUOTE ]
The United States exerts exactly the same influence, politically and/or militarily, in a country whether the US has or doesn't have military bases there ?

[/ QUOTE ]
It depends.

[ QUOTE ]
This presumes, erroneously, that the following parameters are concurrently true:

1. I'm a foreigner, i.e. non-American.
2. I attack everything the U.S. does or has done.
3. I claimed that you support everything the U.S. does or has done.

[/ QUOTE ]
Who said I was only talking about you?

[Cyrus]

[ QUOTE ]
[sarcastically]Of course, a military base in a country is an absolute horror for that country, right? These countries gain absolutely no economic ... benefits, right?

[/ QUOTE ] Alright. If military bases are such a boon, how come the U.S. does not invite other countries to post a dozen bases on U.S. soil? It'd be just like inviting Japs and Germans and Saudis to buy bonds and T-bills and real estate in America.

How 'bout it? Let's start with a Japanese military base in San Diego. (That's where they were supposed to land anyway.)

[ QUOTE ]
"Sure there would be [still a United Nations if the U.S. did not participate in it]! It would simply be a different United Nations." &lt;-- No, because you'd either be speaking Russian or German.

[/ QUOTE ] You are engaging in yet another logical inconsistency.

You claim that the U.N. is useless and at the same time you are saying that if the U.S. was not in the U.N. (in that useless organisation), we would be speaking Russian or German. But the world was not saved by the United Nations from speaking Russian or German ! Either you have the United Nations confused with NATO or you simply do not realise the logical fallacies (and historical errors) in your arguments.

Let me tell you also something else. You are assuming something false: That the United Nations so far has been acting only through and because of the United States. Which is simply not true. Except in the case of the Korean War (ca. 1950s), the United Nations has engaged only in peacekeeping missions; the majority of those were manned by non-American troops.

The times that the U.S. has vetoed U.N. Resolutions would fill a book; the times it did this alone, would fill a large part of that book. The times that the U.S. has ignored the U.N. and went right ahead and (not defended itself from attack but) attacked and invaded another country would fill another book.

To even suggest that the U.S. ever had much respect for institutions such as the U.N. is a sick joke. Only now, after the Cold War is over, is the true attitude of the U.S. regarding the U.N. being made clear.

[ QUOTE ]
I'd say that it doesn't seem that the Swedes believe there's anything worth fighting for.

[/ QUOTE ] Right. Tell me. Have you any idea, at all, about the history of Sweden?

(You sure you are not confusing it with Switzerland? Different accounts.)

[ QUOTE ]
I was speaking about military bases around the world. If the U.S. needed to deploy to a particular part of the world, it'd be much better for us to have a base there to help smooth out the logistics. A lot of those bases were built post-WWII during the Cold War.

[/ QUOTE ] Thanks for conceding that the United States, uniquely in the world, feels the need to be ready to "intervene" everywhere! Remember this the next time there's whining from the neo-con side, when people describe the U.S. as the self-appointed policeman of the planet.

But, do you still see the need to "intervene everywhere"?! This used to be a Cold War "argument". What is the need now to keep such a gigantic military machine, hundreds of military bases and a budget that is on automatic overspend pilot? Surely there's not much need for all that in the War On Terror! Or, for any kind of foreseeable war.

A rhetorical question, you understand, since the answer is obvious: The United States never intervened anywhere in order to "improve things" but to impose and/or promote American hegemony. A simple look at the times it chose NOT to intervene, and help out, proves the point.

...And I will repeat the question, which you declined to answer:

<font color="blue">The United States exerts exactly the same influence, politically and/or militarily, in a country whether the US has or doesn't have military bases there ? </font>

[Il_Mostro]

[ QUOTE ]
A rational person is going to say, "I guess this isn't worth killing a few hundred million peopole".

[/ QUOTE ]
You have people saying exactly the opposite in the US as well. Look at some of Felix:es posts on nukeing the ME.

[Cyrus]

[ QUOTE ]
A rational person is going to say, "I guess this isn't worth killing a few hundred million people".

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
You have people saying exactly the opposite in the US as well. Look at some of Felix's posts on nukeing the ME.

[/ QUOTE ]

These two statements are not compatible. Can you see why ?

<font color="white">Felix a rational person ?? :-)</font>

[Il_Mostro]

Yeah yeah, don't get all semantic on me now, Cy (the photo guy?)
What I meant (as you know) is that while NE leaders might be crazy and don't regard human life you have people in the US equally crazy.

[Felix_Nietsche]

The difference is self-defense and self preservation.

If Arab terrorists kill 1,000,000 Americans with a Nuke. Then the USA is perfectly justified in retaliating. Not just with equal force but OVER-WHELMING force. Self-defense and self-preservation are a rights that belongs to all creatures. Even Americans.

If the Arab nuts do not learn their lesson the first time and nuke a second US city, then the USA is perfectly justified in nuking them again to make sure there will not be a third nuclear attack on the USA.

And if the the second US retaliation results in there being NO MORE Arabs....well, then so be it.
Perhaps a little social darwism would not be a bad thing.

If anything, I would hold the Arabs at fault for:
(1)Letting the nuclear genie out of the bottle.
(2)Being dumb enough to use nukes a SECOND time.

But again, all this depends on if the Arabs are dumb enough to nuke the USA. If they do, glass will be the biggest natural resource in the middle east. This of course assume the USA has a MAN as president (a Republican).

Lets hope I underestimate the rationality of the Arabs...

[elwoodblues]

[ QUOTE ]
If anything, I would hold the Arabs at fault for:
(1)Letting the nuclear genie out of the bottle.
(2)Being dumb enough to use nukes a SECOND time.

[/ QUOTE ]

Agreed. I mean who would be dumb enough to let the nuclear genie out of the bottle and actually use two of them...

[BCPVP]

[ QUOTE ]
Alright. If military bases are such a boon, how come the U.S. does not invite other countries to post a dozen bases on U.S. soil? It'd be just like inviting Japs and Germans and Saudis to buy bonds and T-bills and real estate in America.

[/ QUOTE ]
Because the way we came about having a military base in most cases is because there was a war in that country. It might be a show of gratitude in allowing us to base troops. But you must be happy with Bush's proposal to withdraw military bases from several countries like Germany and SKorea. Why would we consider that if that base was such a boost in our influence over that country?

[ QUOTE ]
You are engaging in yet another logical inconsistency.

You claim that the U.N. is useless and at the same time you are saying that if the U.S. was not in the U.N. (in that useless organisation), we would be speaking Russian or German. But the world was not saved by the United Nations from speaking Russian or German ! Either you have the United Nations confused with NATO or you simply do not realise the logical fallacies (and historical errors) in your arguments.

[/ QUOTE ]
I don't think you understood. If the U.S. did not exist during WWII there wouldn't be a United Nations period and many of the citizens in the world would either be speaking German or Russian (had it not been for the Cold War). I was not talking about the United Nations saving the world or NATO. Sorry for the misunderstanding.

[ QUOTE ]
Let me tell you also something else. You are assuming something false: That the United Nations so far has been acting only through and because of the United States. Which is simply not true. Except in the case of the Korean War (ca. 1950s), the United Nations has engaged only in peacekeeping missions; the majority of those were manned by non-American troops.

[/ QUOTE ]
Actually, you're assuming things about me! /images/graemlins/smile.gif I've never assumed that the U.N. only acts through the U.S. And I don't think the U.S. should be the tool of the U.N.

[ QUOTE ]
To even suggest that the U.S. ever had much respect for institutions such as the U.N. is a sick joke. Only now, after the Cold War is over, is the true attitude of the U.S. regarding the U.N. being made clear.

[/ QUOTE ]
Then why are we still in it?

[ QUOTE ]
Right. Tell me. Have you any idea, at all, about the history of Sweden?

(You sure you are not confusing it with Switzerland? Different accounts.)

[/ QUOTE ]
An idea, yes. A detailed idea, no. I concede that you probably know more about Sweden's history than I do.
Don't take that joke too personally. If Sweden doesn't want to choose sides in major wars, fine.

[ QUOTE ]
Thanks for conceding that the United States, uniquely in the world, feels the need to be ready to "intervene" everywhere! Remember this the next time there's whining from the neo-con side, when people describe the U.S. as the self-appointed policeman of the planet.

[/ QUOTE ]
"Felt". Hence the proposals to withdraw several military bases. IF a war breaks out, it makes more sense to have staging grounds that will ease the logistics of said war.
And btw, I don't get bothered when people call the U.S. the world police.

[ QUOTE ]
But, do you still see the need to "intervene everywhere"?! This used to be a Cold War "argument". What is the need now to keep such a gigantic military machine, hundreds of military bases and a budget that is on automatic overspend pilot? Surely there's not much need for all that in the War On Terror! Or, for any kind of foreseeable war.

[/ QUOTE ]
Do I still see the need? Not in some areas. Europe is more or less safe from being taken over by Communism so our services there aren't really needed. But I don't think we should start cutting our defense budget. OIF is a good example. Many libs and anti-war people whine that we are stretched too thin. Well why is that? 15 years ago we probably wouldn't have been stretched thin. Cutting almost a million jobs from the military probably wasn't a great idea.

[ QUOTE ]
The United States exerts exactly the same influence, politically and/or militarily, in a country whether the US has or doesn't have military bases there ?

[/ QUOTE ]
The famous poker question answer: It depends.

[Il_Mostro]

If an arab, or other, state attack the US with nukes, I agree you would have an argument for retaliation with nukes.

The situation is a lot more tricky if you were to be attacked by non-state ("terrorists"). Who exactly are you reatliating on?

You've also made the argument that you think the US should nuke NK if they anounce that they where to sell nukes. That kinda goes against your points here.

I will not get into this argument, just stating a few problems with your approach.

Have a pleasant friday evening.

[Cyrus]

[ QUOTE ]
I don't think the U.S. should be the tool of the U.N.

[/ QUOTE ] This repartee is dying out fast! Who said anything about the US being a "tool"? (Dubya is not the US...) Simply getting along with the world's co-habitants would do.

[ QUOTE ]
The way we came about having a military base in most cases is because there was a war in that country. It might be a show of gratitude in allowing us to base troops

[/ QUOTE ] More display of ignorance of History. The United States started the war in the Philippines and then presto, Subic Bay. The United States invaded Cuba and then presto Guantanamo. When did the citizens of Guam get to vote on having their island taken away from them? What happened to the inhabitants of Diego Garcia, in the Indian Ocean? I could go on.

[ QUOTE ]
If the U.S. did not exist during WWII there wouldn't be a United Nations period and many of the citizens in the world would either be speaking German or Russian.

[/ QUOTE ] The world should be grateful for America's participation in World War II, true enough.

Should I add here that the US was in it for its own sake and not much more, i.e. the US wanted the Pacific, the East Asia markets and to take over world hegemony from the European powers? Or would that spoil the moment? OK, I won't. Thanks, America!

[ QUOTE ]
If Sweden doesn't want to choose sides in major wars, fine.

[/ QUOTE ] Sweden was a warrior nation for centuries before deciding on neutrality and staying the hell out of the continuous European bloodletting. Who can blame 'em?

[ QUOTE ]
Then why are we still in [the United Nations]?

[/ QUOTE ] Because leaving without having ready a better (for the US) alternative is worse than staying. Besides, the UN adds the perennial veneer of legitimacy!

[ QUOTE ]
I don't get bothered when people call the U.S. the world police.

[/ QUOTE ] Of course, you don't. Your belief in the idea of a world cop is quite evident. Although, the US looks less than the neighbourhood cop and more like the neighbourhood protection racketeer, way I see it!

[ QUOTE ]
I don't think we should start cutting our defence budget.

[/ QUOTE ] Yes, you're right, you never know when Mars will attack.

[BCPVP]

[ QUOTE ]
Who said anything about the US being a "tool"?

[/ QUOTE ]
The reference was in you saying that I would be wrong if I thought that the U.N. acted only through the U.S. I said I don't think the U.S. should be the U.N.'s lapdog.

[ QUOTE ]
More display of ignorance of History. The United States started the war in the Philippines and then presto, Subic Bay. The United States invaded Cuba and then presto Guantanamo. When did the citizens of Guam get to vote on having their island taken away from them? What happened to the inhabitants of Diego Garcia, in the Indian Ocean? I could go on.

[/ QUOTE ]
I guess we forgot to read the qualifer "most". If I'd meant all cases, I would have said all. I don't feel obligated to defend every single action of the U.S. throughout its existance. Some military bases in some places is a good thing for both countries (i.e. South Korea). Nowadays, some military bases in some places is not a good idea (i.e. Germany).

[ QUOTE ]
Sweden was a warrior nation for centuries before deciding on neutrality and staying the hell out of the continuous European bloodletting. Who can blame 'em?

[/ QUOTE ]
And I'm not arguing that they should start getting involved in wars. Some things are worth fighting for, however, and it is because of the U.S. that these neutral countries are neutral today instead of being part of another country.

[ QUOTE ]
Of course, you don't. Your belief in the idea of a world cop is quite evident. Although, the US looks less than the neighbourhood cop and more like the neighbourhood protection racketeer, way I see it!

[/ QUOTE ]
No, I just don't believe the U.S. is actually a world cop. If we were, we'd be involved in even more countries than we already are. The U.S. acts in its interests, some of which include violence against other countries.

[ QUOTE ]
Yes, you're right, you never know when Mars will attack.

[/ QUOTE ]
Or another world war starts. It seems that everytime we cut our military, we find it is not up to snuff in handling a large scale war situation.

[MMMMMM]

[ QUOTE ]
Because leaving without having ready a better (for the US) alternative is worse than staying. Besides, the UN adds the perennial veneer of legitimacy!

[/ QUOTE ]

Considering that the U.N. is chock-full of totalitarian and thug regimes, I really don't think it does. Also, the U.N. has done precious little ever to stop true oppression or genocide. To further stain its reputation, it does nothing much good now in Sudan, Darfur, etc.--and Clinton had to "go it alone" without the U.N. in Bosnia, etc. The oil-for-food scandal, and recent reports of U.N. troops and advisors involved in the rape and exploitation of young girls in the Congo (where they were supposed to be helping), is just disgusting.

Overall I would say the U.N. confers more illegitimacy than it does legitimacy. It's a crock and a disgrace in its present state. The world would be better off without the bloated and pernicious bureaucracy--and sounding board for depots--known today as the U.N.

[BCPVP]

We've sure gotten off topic, haven't we? /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[Felix_Nietsche]

"The situation is a lot more tricky if you were to be attacked by non-state ("terrorists"). Who exactly are you reatliating on?"
**********************************************
If North Korea were to sell a nuke to a terrorist group. And that nuke was exploded in the USA.
My position is the USA would be justified in nuking North Korea and the Arab country which had funded the terrorists.
Since many private Arab families fund terrorism (with or without official sanction), defining which Arab countries are 'responsible' becomes somewhat subjective...

If the USA learned in advance that NK was in the process of selling nukes to terrorists, then I think the USA would be completely justified in a pre-emptive nuke attack on NK.

[MMMMMM]

The image just occurred to me and I thought I'd share;-)

[Cyrus]

[ QUOTE ]
The U.N. is chock-full of totalitarian and thug regimes.

[/ QUOTE ] The world is chock-full of totalitarian and thug regimes, what else is new? Deal with the world, deal with the U.N.

[ QUOTE ]
The U.N. has done precious little ever to stop true oppression or genocide.

[/ QUOTE ] The U.N. is steered by the Security Council. As the SC goes, so does the UN. What else is new? (You want a better UN, start improving on the SC!)

[ QUOTE ]
[The U.N.] does nothing much good now in Sudan, Darfur.

[/ QUOTE ] On the contrary, the UN, through its Secretary General, has repeatedly and quite strongly called on the members of the Security Council to (drop Iraq from the front page for a minute and) get busy on the human tragedy of Sudan. But the United States had other priorities at the time...

As to the "bloated bureaucracy" of the U.N., I recognize it but also accept that any organisation that is meant to process the input and policies of two hundred different (and powerful) entities is, when compared to any private corporation, frustratingly slow, inefficient and improperly run. This is the price for having a forum for world diplomacy. The alternatives to the U.N. are either the "efficiency" of one country getting to decide on belaf of the world, or no world diplomacy as such. Excuse me but I will side with the "corrupt" U.N.!

[ QUOTE ]
The world would be better off without the sounding board for depots--known today as the U.N.

[/ QUOTE ] What sounding board? Dubya only spoke once.

[MMMMMM]

[ QUOTE ]
The alternatives to the U.N. are either the "efficiency" of one country getting to decide on belaf of the world, or no world diplomacy as such. Excuse me but I will side with the "corrupt" U.N.!

[/ QUOTE ]

Another (and better, IMO) alternative would be an organization of democratic-style countries. Dicatators and totalitarian regimes need not apply.

I see no great value in giving a say to rogue and totalitarian regimes--and many drawbacks.

Granted, that isn't exactly full "world diplomacy", but who needs those bastard regimes anyway. The free world doesn't need them and the people oppressed by them don't need them. So screw 'em. The sooner they are marginalized and deposed, the better.

[Cyrus]

[ QUOTE ]
Who needs those bastard regimes anyway. The free world doesn't need them and the people oppressed by them don't need them.

[/ QUOTE ] You realize that the people oppressed by the totalitarian regimes will continue to be under those regimes, whether the regimes stay in the UN or not, right? The statement "the people oppressed by them don't need them" does not make sense.

[ QUOTE ]
A better alternative [is] an organization of democratic-style countries

[/ QUOTE ] That takes out almost all of Africa and half of Asia. Not very promising for world trade, or world diplomacy.

Do you have in mind perhaps NAFTA+NATO?

[MMMMMM]

[ QUOTE ]
That takes out almost all of Africa and half of Asia. Not very promising for world trade...

[/ QUOTE ]

World trade will continue regardless.

[ QUOTE ]
...or world diplomacy.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think diplomacy with totalitarian thugs is somewhat overrated. The main exception may be China (and, before the breakup of the Soviet Union, the USSR).

[lastchance]

North Korea? Pakistan? Saudi Arabia? And who knows how that'll change in the next 50 years or so?

[MMMMMM]

I'm not saying to sever all diplomatic relations with all such regimes.

I'm just suggesting that the free nations of the worlds form an organization to replace the U.N. Any country may join if they have some sort of a representative democratically based government.

[Cyrus]

[ QUOTE ]
I think diplomacy with totalitarian thugs is somewhat overrated. The main exception may be China (and, before the break-up of the Soviet Union, the USSR).

[/ QUOTE ]

You posit that the US should give the cold shoulder to all regimes it deems "un-democratic". There are 2 things that are wrong with that position, and these two things show the fallacy of it.

One is a fallacy and the other is an unwanted consequence.

The unwanted consequence first: If this was ever to become the official policy of the U.S., i.e. to engage in active diplomacy only with the likes of China and the USSR, then all other "un-democratic" countries would have an incentive to become as strong and as potentially dangerous as those two colossi. Imagine twenty North Koreas. (A sure-fire recipe for disaster, this Korean policy of yer Dubya. Check here (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0815793863/qid=1108902109/sr=2-1/ref=pd_bbs_b_2_1/104-2668082-1863166), for a better perspective.)

But the prominent fallacy in your argument is, naturally, this: Conversing with the big bully and refusing to converse with the little bully is being inconsistent in policy. If a superpower like America can try to find ways towards peaceful co-existence and economic prosperity in the world through contacts with other superpowers, diametrically opposite in ideology, such as China and the Russkies, it follows that, with less effort and less commitments (and compromises in ideology) America could relatively easily and profitably engage in diplomacy with countries that are weaker than its two major opponents.

[MMMMMM]

Cyrus,

I did not suggest severing all diplomatic relations with all such regimes. I just said it would be good to form an organization somewhat like the U.N., but with a qualifying criteria. This organization could eventually replace the U.N.

You suggested that would not be good for "world diplomacy". I agreed, but pointed out that diplomacy with thug regimes is overrated anyway. That isn't the same as suggesting breaking all diplomatic ties with them.

I'm not suggesting that China, with its current government, should be allowed into the new organization of freed states. I'm just saying that diplomacy with China is more important than diplomacy with Zimbabwe or even Syria. If diplomatic ties are harmed somewhat by the existence of this new organization, well so be it. That doesn't mean diplomatic ties necessarily need be severed entirely.

On a separate note, I'm not even sure that such an organization would be a good idea, as it might lead to pressures to have a world government. However such an organization would probably be a lot better than the current duplicitous, ineffective, tyrant-coddling U.N.

[the alex]

I will correct myself on the US selling nukes as nukes.

But forumlas, scientists, and materials have gone to Iraq, Israel, India, Indonesia, the Kurds (who were an Islamic civilian militia that killed many civilians in the late 80's), and the Sauds. The only people that have been non-violent thus far with these resources are India and Saudi Arabia, but India has had these fully developed nukes aimed in Pakistans directions for over a decade and Sauds don't need to fight. We do more fighting for them than we do for the Zionist government in Israel.

[masse75]

I think Dr. Evil and the nukes he stole from Krebleckistan are the biggest threat out there. Why don't we just pay him the $1 Million?

[Chris_P]

[ QUOTE ]
i believe Iran is much more dangerous than North Korea. the Mullahs in charge of Iran are religious zealots and are much more likely to attack pre-emptively

[/ QUOTE ]

two questions, where do you get your information on the religious tendencies of iranians...media, government other political spheres of influence?

if those "religious zealots" you speak of have got these radical views, where do you think they have got them from, envy of the American way of life? i think not... prehaps it is the continued militaristic prescence of the U.S and U.K in the middle east.

Contrast this to the North Koreans who are also pissed of with the americans but havent been ecconomically devestated to quite the same degree as the Iranians, syrians etc..have...

and this therefore gives them more cabability to attack with there supposed "nuclear weapons." ultimately we all know if North Korea does launch a nuclear weapon it'll be wiped of the face of the earth before there missle lands.

and maybe we might see starwars (not the film the intergrated defence system america supposedly doesnt have).

Irony: an american foriegn policy of democracy and peace resulting in lots of pissed of countries all around the world....