3
   

Bush won't tolerate nuclear Iran

 
 
Zippo
 
  1  
Reply Wed 8 Feb, 2006 12:36 pm
Quote:
What’s next?


Its easy to get rid of 1.3 billion moslems, but what about China ?

Quote:
China has "the greatest potential to compete militarily with the United States and field disruptive military technologies that could, over time, offset U.S. military advantages absent U.S. counter strategies."


Is China the New Threat?

And....what if Russia China and Iran/Middle East form a coalition ?
0 Replies
 
DontTreadOnMe
 
  1  
Reply Wed 8 Feb, 2006 01:02 pm
OCCOM BILL wrote:
Only religion can offer post-death rewards or punishment to the individual. No ism can.


bingo.

isms are limited in the promise of benefit to this life, this world, this time.
0 Replies
 
DontTreadOnMe
 
  1  
Reply Wed 8 Feb, 2006 01:10 pm
Zippo wrote:
And....what if Russia China and Iran/Middle East form a coalition ?


world war III.
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Wed 8 Feb, 2006 01:16 pm
DontTreadOnMe wrote:
OCCOM BILL wrote:
Only religion can offer post-death rewards or punishment to the individual. No ism can.


bingo.

isms are limited in the promise of benefit to this life, this world, this time.


The thing that you discount is that many, if not most, religions have pretty strict rules about how one gets to benefits of an afterlife, and behaving badly in this one, especially blowing up innocent men, women, and children, is not generally considered a plus.

So you have to consider the moderating effects of religion as well as those who use it destructively.
0 Replies
 
DontTreadOnMe
 
  1  
Reply Wed 8 Feb, 2006 02:01 pm
Foxfyre wrote:
DontTreadOnMe wrote:
OCCOM BILL wrote:
Only religion can offer post-death rewards or punishment to the individual. No ism can.


bingo.

isms are limited in the promise of benefit to this life, this world, this time.


The thing that you discount is that many, if not most, religions have pretty strict rules about how one gets to benefits of an afterlife, and behaving badly in this one, especially blowing up innocent men, women, and children, is not generally considered a plus.

So you have to consider the moderating effects of religion as well as those who use it destructively.


your responses seem to indicate that you believe my remarks are mostly intended to simply denegrate religion as a concept. maybe i'm misreading you.

the only thing that i'm working with here is that the promise of benefits and praise coming from the allmighty (or whatever godhead) are a very powerful inducement to do things that you would not if the only judgement for those actions were to be delivered by mortal man.

suicide bombers and abortion clinic bombers are not simply answering a call to action by the guy next door with a beef.

they are responding to a call that guarantees them, that although mortally repugnant, the actions that they are taking are approved by and in service of a higher authority and will be rewarded as such.

is that a little better explanation ?
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Wed 8 Feb, 2006 02:24 pm
DontTreadOnMe wrote:
Foxfyre wrote:
DontTreadOnMe wrote:
OCCOM BILL wrote:
Only religion can offer post-death rewards or punishment to the individual. No ism can.


bingo.

isms are limited in the promise of benefit to this life, this world, this time.


The thing that you discount is that many, if not most, religions have pretty strict rules about how one gets to benefits of an afterlife, and behaving badly in this one, especially blowing up innocent men, women, and children, is not generally considered a plus.

So you have to consider the moderating effects of religion as well as those who use it destructively.


your responses seem to indicate that you believe my remarks are mostly intended to simply denegrate religion as a concept. maybe i'm misreading you.

the only thing that i'm working with here is that the promise of benefits and praise coming from the allmighty (or whatever godhead) are a very powerful inducement to do things that you would not if the only judgement for those actions were to be delivered by mortal man.

suicide bombers and abortion clinic bombers are not simply answering a call to action by the guy next door with a beef.

they are responding to a call that guarantees them, that although mortally repugnant, the actions that they are taking are approved by and in service of a higher authority and will be rewarded as such.

is that a little better explanation ?


No, I didn't mean to imply that you were denigrating religion and apologize if I gave that impression. It's just that I've been around the block enough times to hear just about every perspective there is, and I have a lot of volunteer and professional experience in the religious community both in the United States and around the world. When not privy to the larger picture, it is too easy to draw incomplete conclusions from a more narrow view.

It kind of goes back to my previous argument. Yes, the promise of 10,000 virgins or some such magnificent image is a powerful incentive if properly manipulated by people intent on doing evil.

Conversely, there are millions of Christians, Hindus, Buddhists, etc. who are instructed in non violence, extending mercy amd justice, and doing good to please God or the gods or Buddha or whatever diety or image is involved. And this phenomenon does as much to modify behavior and reduce violence in a positive way.

Still others are lured to do good or to do evil by promises of secular rewards such as wealth, power, prestige, recognition, honor, status, etc. and others are coerced by threats and fear for the welfare of their person, property, or loved ones.

To blame the phenomenon of Islamic violence on the fact that they are religious people or to conclude that the religious are more easily manipulated just doesn't hold up within a wider view of human nature. Again, if religion was completely removed from the equation, evil men would just find a different carrot to lure the gullible to do their bidding.
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Wed 8 Feb, 2006 02:51 pm
foxfyre wrote
Quote:
To blame the phenomenon of Islamic violence on the fact that they are religious people or to conclude that the religious are more easily manipulated just doesn't hold up within a wider view of human nature. Again, if religion was completely removed from the equation, evil men would just find a different carrot to lure the gullible to do their bidding.


This is a tough question. In the main, I agree with foxfyre. I don't think religious ideas (which are, after all, exceedingly diverse in human societies) present the problem we are looking at here. Such ideas can, as we saw in South Africa at the end of the apartheid era, work as a highly beneficial moderating influence just as fox claims.

The tentative notion that I've come to regarding the question is that the problem is more properly attributed to particular sorts of group formations, specifically those which demand cohesion/compliance/ideological purity and which punish dissent. That sort of formation, when "complimented" by uncharitable leadership seems a surefire route to the worst of what we humans get up to.
0 Replies
 
freedom4free
 
  1  
Reply Thu 9 Feb, 2006 08:55 am
Military action on a nuclear Iran not inevitable: UK

Quote:

http://abcnews.go.com/images/site/story/feature_txt_filler_rt.gif

Feb 8, 2006 — By Madeline Chambers

LONDON (Reuters) - Military action against Iran is not inevitable even if the Islamic state develops the technology to build a nuclear bomb, British Foreign Minister Jack Straw said on Wednesday.


U.S. goal: Delay Iran's nuke aims

Quote:
Experts say stopping nuclear program is highly unlikely; the best idea is to delay it


Looks like we can't stop him...
0 Replies
 
au1929
 
  1  
Reply Thu 9 Feb, 2006 09:00 am
freedom4free wrote:
Military action on a nuclear Iran not inevitable: UK

Quote:

http://abcnews.go.com/images/site/story/feature_txt_filler_rt.gif



LONDON (Reuters) - Military action against Iran is not inevitable even if the Islamic state develops the technology to build a nuclear bomb, British Foreign Minister Jack Straw said on Wednesday.


U.S. goal: Delay Iran's nuke aims

Quote:
Experts say stopping nuclear program is highly unlikely; the best idea is to delay it


Looks like we can't stop him...



That fact has been evident from the start. Iran holds the key card being the second largest supplier of Black Gold in the world.
0 Replies
 
Steve 41oo
 
  1  
Reply Thu 9 Feb, 2006 10:17 am
not only that but they plan to sell the stuff in euros too (as has been expounded elsewhere) which will undermine the dollar. Saddam did this and look what happened to him.
0 Replies
 
freedom4free
 
  1  
Reply Thu 9 Feb, 2006 10:33 am
Quote:
not only that but they plan to sell the stuff in euros too (as has been expounded elsewhere) which will undermine the dollar. Saddam did this and look what happened to him.


Steve, i'am not with you, are you trying to say that US will attack Iran ?

Dont forget, Saddam didn't get any support from Russia or/and China.

No one should compare Iran with Iraq
0 Replies
 
Steve 41oo
 
  1  
Reply Thu 9 Feb, 2006 10:56 am
freedom4free wrote:
Quote:
not only that but they plan to sell the stuff in euros too (as has been expounded elsewhere) which will undermine the dollar. Saddam did this and look what happened to him.
Steve, i'am not with you, are you trying to say that US will attack Iran?
I dont know. I thought the US would never be stupid enough to attack Iraq in such a blatant manner. But these are desperate times. The US simply has to consolidate its grip over the middle east, and it can never do so while an anti western islamic theocracy forms the government of Iran.
0 Replies
 
freedom4free
 
  1  
Reply Thu 9 Feb, 2006 11:16 am
You maybe be right Steve, it's always smart to plan for the unexpected.
0 Replies
 
OCCOM BILL
 
  1  
Reply Thu 9 Feb, 2006 01:22 pm
Zippo wrote:
And....what if Russia China and Iran/Middle East form a coalition ?
Quite simply; in an "end game", the United States suffers an enormous human death toll while their enemies suffer near total annihilation. This would likely be the case, were the question not extremely far fetched. Frankly, Russia has proven more responsible than the U.S. with their nuclear arsenal (historically)(and Putin may be a prick, but he's not stupid) and China not only knows they are ridiculously overmatched, but also has more to lose backing Iran than the U.S. in such a nightmare scenario. The simple truth there is; while the U.S would suffer horribly in such a WW3 scenario, it is virtually impossible for any of her enemies to win. Militarily, we really are that lethal… and unlike the potential lethality of more than a few countries, it's no secret with the U.S. Fortunately, we're nowhere near such a catastrophic equation.

Back in the real world; the WW3 equation has plagued me today… Not only because I disagree that a Billion and a Half Muslims would be easy to kill, but because what sane person would want to? The moderate's sympathy for the extremists is foreign to me to the point of pulling at my hair. Why is there a "but" to every apology for heinous actions and reactions from what seems to be the majority of moderate Muslims? I really don't want to be a bigot, but I'm just not hearing the type of nay-saying I think a rational person should reasonably be able to expect from another reasonable person discussing the irrational behavior of their peers. Is it fear of reprisal that keeps the moderates from coming full circle in their condemnation of hideously misguided idiocy? I'm at a loss to understand why, absent some ideological hurdle, reasonable Muslims aren't coming out in force to set the record straight in regard to what constitutes their true beliefs, as opposed to letting us layman judge them from the examples of their worst.

I, like any rational adult, would like to believe that people of other beliefs are just as horrified by the mere possibility of escalation to a WW3 type scenario. I would very much appreciate it if I heard more Muslims speak out against the idiocy that's taking place now, suicide bombings, etc, just to set the record straight for those of us who don't share their beliefs and can't fathom how they can look past the heinous behavior of some of those who do. Frankly, they are making it far too easy for their enemies to illustrate them as unreasonable fools not only in cartoons, but in the real world as well. The reaction of the irrational masses only serves to demonstrate idiocy, and if there really is a more rational Muslim majority, its high time they step up to the microphone and be heard. Timidity of the rational majority of Muslims may very well result in the radical fool's success in their pursuits… which is a road that only leads to misery and defeat. Who, but a total psychopath, would want that to happen?

Muslims: Speak now! Speak loud!
0 Replies
 
au1929
 
  1  
Reply Thu 9 Feb, 2006 01:30 pm
OCCOM BILL

I fear you are looking for a needle in a haystack.
0 Replies
 
DontTreadOnMe
 
  1  
Reply Thu 9 Feb, 2006 01:45 pm
sadly, it appears so at this point. guess there's always hope, but the twig seems to have been bent and the tree is grown crooked.
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Thu 9 Feb, 2006 02:13 pm
I don't believe that. I have long believed that all things being equal, good will triumph over evil every time. All it needs it the will, the encouragement, the support, and the faith.
0 Replies
 
au1929
 
  1  
Reply Thu 9 Feb, 2006 02:20 pm
Foxfyre
What you do not seem to understand, that which you consider to be evil is considered good and righteous in Muslim theology.
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Thu 9 Feb, 2006 02:27 pm
au1929 wrote:
Foxfyre
What you do not seem to understand, that which you consider to be evil is considered good and righteous in Muslim theology.


No, it is not considered good and righteous in Muslim theology. The vast majority of Muslims in the world want pretty much the same things we want including confidence that they won't be blown up in their homes, on their busses, in their places of worship, or in their super market. And those with that confidence largely condemn the Islamo-facist extremists who are doing evil.
0 Replies
 
OCCOM BILL
 
  1  
Reply Thu 9 Feb, 2006 02:39 pm
Sounds good Foxy, and I hope you're right, but I see very little evidence to support your conclusion. Where do you read about this vast majority of Muslims condemning extremists? I would very much appreciate it if you could quantify that. Or is it something that must be taken on faith?
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.08 seconds on 12/22/2024 at 05:50:00