Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?

News: Long live the Glorious Revolution!

Author Topic: Nuclear Iran  (Read 20473 times)

Offline Myroria

  • Citizen
  • *
  • Posts: 4345
Re: Nuclear Iran
« Reply #45 on: October 01, 2007, 03:02:23 AM »
* Libertarian Monarchy of Myroria stands up
* Libertarian Monarchy of Myroria claps
"I assure you -- I will be quite content to be a mere mortal again, dedicated to my own amusements."

Offline St Oz

  • Sub-Commandante
  • Citizen-Delegate
  • *
  • Posts: 2158
  • www.something.com
Re: Nuclear Iran
« Reply #46 on: October 01, 2007, 03:04:38 AM »
I-S posts for all of us ^_^

Offline Prydania

  • The King of Sting
  • *
  • Posts: 1342
  • Ezekiel 25:17
    • Basically a Sports Show
Re: Nuclear Iran
« Reply #47 on: October 01, 2007, 03:06:02 AM »
*Takes a bow.
Thank you.
 :tai:

Offline Aquatoria

  • *
  • Posts: 1704
  • For King and Country
Re: Nuclear Iran
« Reply #48 on: October 01, 2007, 03:06:32 AM »
God Bless you Inglo-Scotia. :clap:
Quote
Article II: The Legislative

4. The Senate shall have the power to remove the Delegate or Vice Delegate from office if they in their opinion have violated the Constitution and laws of Taijitu, broken their oath or failed to fulfill their duties, by a two-thirds majority vote.

"YES WE CAN!" Barack Obama 2007

Offline Tacolicious

  • Your Friendly Neighborhood Tacoman
  • *
  • Posts: 4898
Re: Nuclear Iran
« Reply #49 on: October 01, 2007, 03:59:27 AM »
The American government, on the other hand, despite its (many) flaws, has embraced freedom of religion, thought, and conscience. The United States is the world's lone superpower. We all know that. But think for a moment, why is that? It's because the American government, by upholding freedom of religion, thought, and conscience, has allowed innovation to not only survive but flourish. This is a nation that put a man on the moon for crying out loud. Think about that for a moment. The moon. We take that achievement for granted, but just think about it, and you realize how amazing an accomplishment that was. Now think. Would the current government of Iran allow for the scientific innovation needed to put a man on the moon to exist? No. Intellectuals are the natural enemy of a fanatical regime. Why? Because they're smart enough to see what's really going on. Hence any type of serious intellectual development in Iran is snuffed out.

You brought up history. Ok, lets look at history and where each nation's history has lead.
Iran-third world nation ruled by a fanatical Theocracy.
United States-the world's loan super power, the first true republic since Rome, allowed the thought of "All men are created equal" to grow in the western world. More scientific and cultural innovations then any other nation.

This is the only part I'm going to dispute in all that, so let's get to it  :clap:

Quote
The United States is the world's lone superpower.

I'd have to disagree with this statement. Given it's large hold on the world's manufacturing I think China now deserves to be called a superpower. The quality of life is not a factor in determining a superpower, but rather the power which they wield.

Quote
It's because the American government, by upholding freedom of religion, thought, and conscience, has allowed innovation to not only survive but flourish.

Freedom of thought? First off the ability to think can't be restricted, what goes on in the mind is solely determined by that which controls the mind. So freedom of thought is a silly term. The ability to express one's thoughts freely, that holds some value... but then again given the intolerance which American history is rife with, McCarthyism, the Salem burnings and the recent labeling of disagreeable ideas as "un-American" I have to disagree when you say Americans have that freedom.

Additionally the education of most Americans is sadly lacking, 17 other countries graduate more scientists and overall "American" innovations rely heavily on bringing in foreign talent. So I wouldn't say innovation is flourishing in the US.

Quote
This is a nation that put a man on the moon for crying out loud. Think about that for a moment. The moon.

I guess we'll wait for the Japanese moon probe to see if it can find the landing site, but it's questionable as to if this actually happened or not. It was 1969, here we are in 2007 and the last time we went to the moon was 1969... we've sent several remote control cars to Mars, but not more people to the moon... you'd think we'd be sending people there more often. Ultimately this can't be proven one way or another (yet) so if they did good for them, if not they do deserve the credit for pulling off the greatest hoax in world history (and yes the 2000 Florida election is included in calculating that acclaim  ;D)

Quote
allowed the thought of "All men are created equal" to grow in the western world.

Said the white, unelected slave owning landholders who suggested their class be the only one allowed to vote in their "new" land which was stolen from the natives. It should also be noted that this thought is incredibly sexist as well. So yeah, the idea may have grown, but the practice of that idea certainly didn't.

Quote
More scientific and cultural innovations then any other nation.

Culturally: Canada
Scientifically: Germany and Japan. Also as I said much of their talent is foreign, for example the nuclear bomb was pretty much invented by Canadians, they just happened to be in the employ of the US government.
http://www.nationstates.net/wheresoever

"Reality is an illusion albeit a persistant one"
"Wisest is he who knows he is not wise"
"Nothing is fun when you have to do it, that's why you don't see a lot of old whores giggling over sex"


Delicious Comrade of the most Awesome Party

Offline Delfos

  • Citizen
  • *
  • Posts: 6975
  • Who is Aniane?
Re: Nuclear Iran
« Reply #50 on: October 01, 2007, 11:28:23 AM »
First of all, I'm letting you know this is the last time I plan on replying to you.
As a Tory (not a Conservative, a Tory, there's a world of difference), I would like to think I'm tolerant of the opinions of others. But you, I'm sorry, you're just blind to the views of others, you let the EU and Euronews tell you what to think. I'm not going to bother myself with someone who took me simply posting the basics of the Jewish faith as an excuse to attack the State of Israel.
I've had it with your closeted anti-Semetism, your blatant anti-Americanism (anyone who knows me will tell you I don't love my southern neighbour, far from it), your blind spouting of Marxisms (G-China, for example, is a socialist I can respect because he doesn't argue his point of view like a 12 year old), and your all-around attitude of self-superiority. I'm responding here, to defend my opinions on the matter, then I'm washing my hands of you. Go ahead and believe that capitalism is evil, Jews cause all of the world's wars, and that the United States is the "Great Satan."

So i have no right to express my opinion however i want, gotta deal with insults?

Quote
You're what, fourteen? Take a chill-pill, and calm down. You're letting yourself get caught up in a whirlwind of Eurocentral fanaticism.
Anti-this, Anti-that, euro-fanatic whatever. Thanks for going to the extreme, if when i disagree with an ideology I'm Anti-that-ideology, than you are anti-Portuguese because you say we're anti-semitic (dunno where you got that from) and anti-European, like the rest of you. That's nuts, i defend my point without calling you absurd names. And no, sorry to mislead you.


Quote
Well considering the name of topic is "Nuclear Iran" I would think "n00kz" would be what we were discussing. If you were thinking of something else, perhaps a change in the thread's title is in order.
Very smart, so when we are talking about clean energy we are talking about nukes. Every topic changes while we discuss, shouldn't be but it happens.

Quote
First off, I'm by no means a Bush fan. I think both the USA and the American Republican Party can do much better.
Still, compared to Ahmadinejad, he's a beacon of enlightenment. Between Bush and Ahmadinejad, which one has made the destruction of an entire nation (and in a lesser sense an entire race) official government policy? You always conveniently seem to forget that fact....
And Bush did what in Afghanistan and Iraq? oh he freed them...yes!

Quote
*Slaps head. Dude, have you not yet figured out I'm a flag nut? I study Vexillology, of course I know what flag you're talking about. Here's a free tip, cut out the condescending BS. It'll go a long way to getting you respected in the field of intelligent discussion.
As for your Iranian friend, what does that say? A guy who's from Iran would prefer the past regime to the fanatical Islamic regime in power today. While you preach from an ivory tower someone on the ground level is telling you you're wrong.
Glad to know. I did argued with the Iranian about the regime, his only point is fanaticism. And to tell you that, I'm no fan of Iran's President, i just don't see how he can be considered something while others are practically the same or did worse. They are all bad boys. My ivory tower never claimed Iran was better than any other, including Israel. What i say is that USA is no better than Iran in most of the matters, or some others can be balanced by the lack of each other regime, example freedom vs reason. Anyway it seems you all see USA as the best of the world, because when i say it isn't any better than Iran you seem to claim that I'm supporting Iran or Ahmadinejad. That's not true, and if you knew me in real life you would see how much i like both USA and Iran.

Quote
If Ahmadinejad is the best Iran can do at the moment, then maybe the US should ditch Iraq and invade Iran. Because even the worst occupation plan Bush and co. can put together is a hell of a lot better then a government who has advocated the destruction of an other sovereign state, and who seems to be itching to go to war for no good reason. Ahmadinejad got lucky that Tony Blair had no balls. Any British PM with a shred of national pride would have gone in and kicked his ass to Russia and back for pulling the stunt he did.
true

Quote
Simply put, there's no competence behind the Iranian government's fanaticism, and don't kid yourself, they are fanatics. Any government that advocates the destruction of a sovereign nation isn't functioning on all cylinders.
Given that it's Israel, I wouldn't expect you to care, but what if Spain made the destruction of Portugal official government policy? Just imagine you weren't aloof from all of it for a moment.
Wouldn't happen, we like our neighbors, if they wanted to destroy us we would think they are nuts and probably some weird minority.

Offline Bender1968

  • *
  • Posts: 196
Re: Nuclear Iran
« Reply #51 on: October 01, 2007, 12:46:13 PM »
Quote
Quote
Well considering the name of topic is "Nuclear Iran" I would think "n00kz" would be what we were discussing. If you were thinking of something else, perhaps a change in the thread's title is in order.
Very smart, so when we are talking about clean energy we are talking about nukes. Every topic changes while we discuss, shouldn't be but it happens.

Ummmm, I would really look up how a nuclear reactor works before talking about clean energy vs. weapons grade fissionable material.  You can't have a "peaceful" nuclear program.  There are by-products that used only for nuclear weapons.

Delfos, the problem I'm having with you on this whole thing is you want to express your opinion and have everyone say "oh he's right".  You want to express your views, you have to give people the opportunity to express their's.  You have taken an extremist position, and are now getting mad that you have been called an extremist. 


Quote
Quote
Simply put, there's no competence behind the Iranian government's fanaticism, and don't kid yourself, they are fanatics. Any government that advocates the destruction of a sovereign nation isn't functioning on all cylinders.
Given that it's Israel, I wouldn't expect you to care, but what if Spain made the destruction of Portugal official government policy? Just imagine you weren't aloof from all of it for a moment.
Wouldn't happen, we like our neighbors, if they wanted to destroy us we would think they are nuts and probably some weird minority.

So if you don't like your neighbors, you have the right to make it official government policy to eradicate them?  You still haven't answered the question, just said it doesn't matter to me because it doesn't happen around me. 

Offline Prydania

  • The King of Sting
  • *
  • Posts: 1342
  • Ezekiel 25:17
    • Basically a Sports Show
Re: Nuclear Iran
« Reply #52 on: October 01, 2007, 05:20:03 PM »
Quote
The United States is the world's lone superpower.

I'd have to disagree with this statement. Given it's large hold on the world's manufacturing I think China now deserves to be called a superpower. The quality of life is not a factor in determining a superpower, but rather the power which they wield.
China is approaching superpower status, but it hasn't reached it yet. Their economy, while expanding, is still behind that of the western powers. Militarily they don't command the same presence on the world stage the United States does. China will be a superpower one day, but it isn't at the moment.

Quote
Quote
It's because the American government, by upholding freedom of religion, thought, and conscience, has allowed innovation to not only survive but flourish.
Freedom of thought? First off the ability to think can't be restricted, what goes on in the mind is solely determined by that which controls the mind. So freedom of thought is a silly term. The ability to express one's thoughts freely, that holds some value... but then again given the intolerance which American history is rife with, McCarthyism, the Salem burnings and the recent labeling of disagreeable ideas as "un-American" I have to disagree when you say Americans have that freedom.
I said the American government upholds the idea of freedom of thought, not freedom of thought itself. Of course we're free to think whatever we want, regardless of what our government says. The freedom to act on those thoughts is something the United States government embraces and the Iranian government oppresses.
The Salem burning happened 100 or so years prior to the United States becoming a nation, so I don't see how they're a reflection on the American government.
McCarthyism was evil, no doubt, but if I remember correctly McCarthy was eventually kicked out of the US Senate in disgrace, and died a lonely alcoholic. A short bout with McCarthyism that was rectified is hardly the same as the oppression seen in Nazi Germany, Soviet Russia, or modern day Iran.
Yes, recently right wing Americans have taken to the nasty habit of labelling opposing views "un-American."
I ask you, however, is the American government acting on these accusations? Is the FBI rounding up those with "un-American" views and sending them to interrogation centres? No. Not at all.
The "un-American" crap is coming from a fringe group of the American population. The American government, on the other hand, continues to uphold the freedom of speech.

Quote
Additionally the education of most Americans is sadly lacking, 17 other countries graduate more scientists and overall "American" innovations rely heavily on bringing in foreign talent. So I wouldn't say innovation is flourishing in the US.
See though, that's the beauty of it all. Why are these foreigners coming to the US? Because the basic concepts of freedom the US upholds allows them to continue and perfect their work in ways that would be limited by the governments of their native lands.

Quote
Quote
This is a nation that put a man on the moon for crying out loud. Think about that for a moment. The moon.

I guess we'll wait for the Japanese moon probe to see if it can find the landing site, but it's questionable as to if this actually happened or not. It was 1969, here we are in 2007 and the last time we went to the moon was 1969... we've sent several remote control cars to Mars, but not more people to the moon... you'd think we'd be sending people there more often. Ultimately this can't be proven one way or another (yet) so if they did good for them, if not they do deserve the credit for pulling off the greatest hoax in world history (and yes the 2000 Florida election is included in calculating that acclaim  ;D)
Oh man, please Taco, I have to much respect for you. Don't start that "ZOMG TEH AMERICANZZZ FAKED THE MOON LANDING!!1!11!!11oneoneeleven" crap.
Honestly, cut it out. The moon landing happened, please to don't fall to deep into the anti-American way of thinking that you try to discount their greatest achievements. What's next? The American Revolution never happened, it wall just one big stage play?
Besides, if the American DID fake the moon landing this Japanese probe would have been snuffed out before it even got going.
On that note, if you're willing to believe the Americans faked landing on the moon, then who's to say this Japanese probe won't be another hoax? Or heck, maybe the Earth's flat.

Quote
Quote
allowed the thought of "All men are created equal" to grow in the western world.

Said the white, unelected slave owning landholders who suggested their class be the only one allowed to vote in their "new" land which was stolen from the natives. It should also be noted that this thought is incredibly sexist as well. So yeah, the idea may have grown, but the practice of that idea certainly didn't.
Please cut the "stole from natives" crap out. We're Canadians, we're just as guilty as stealing land from the Natives as the Yanks are. Even then, don't hold something that happened 200+ years ago as a reason for current national shame.
As for the unelected slave holders part, that is true. Still, they did make the US the first government to officially recognize that "all men are created equal."
The British Empire took that idea and ran with it, abolishing the slave trade in 1833-34, but it was the Americans who first made that simple idea a fundamental truth.

Quote
Quote
More scientific and cultural innovations then any other nation.

Culturally: Canada
Scientifically: Germany and Japan. Also as I said much of their talent is foreign, for example the nuclear bomb was pretty much invented by Canadians, they just happened to be in the employ of the US government.
I love Canada to, but do you seriously believe we have had more of a cultural impact on the world then the US? Outside of our seemingly endless supply of (fantastic) comedians and our inventions of hockey, lacrosse, and basketball, what have we done to impact the world significantly in a cultural manner?
We've done our fair share, no doubt, but more then the Americans? I, a patriotic Canuck, find that hard to believe.
Scientifically? The nuclear bomb can be traced back to one man, Albert Einstein. Though German by birth, politics in Germany made his living there "unpleasant" so he packed up and moved to the States. Everyone else who worked on the atomic bomb was just working off of Einstein's original theories. Again, I would consider Einstein's work a plus for the Americans, seeing as it was the USA who offered him the freedom to pursue his work, while Germany would have killed him because of his religion.
Foreigners came to the United States to pursue scientific interests because their natives lands hampered their innovation. Albert Einstein is the best example of this.

Fact is, and it's quite sad, that many Canadians fall so deep into the pool of anti-Americanism that they can't even give credit where credit is due.
As a student of history I know that Canada can not simply follow America blindly, that in the past we considered the Americans our primary enemies. Even today we must make our own way in the world (personally I would like to see that way joined closer to Britain), and keep a watchful eye on our southern neighbours.

Yet we must also remember to "give the devil his due."
Yes, we may find Americans loud, obnoxious, bully-like, and rude, with an unpleasant appetite for expansion. And sometimes those traits come into direct conflict with our sovereignty as a nation. 
Yet we must not let anti-Americanism become a national doctrine, blinding to our neighbour's greatest achievements.
Sure, we may disagree with them, but there's no denying their many contributions to mankind.

Offline Myroria

  • Citizen
  • *
  • Posts: 4345
Re: Nuclear Iran
« Reply #53 on: October 01, 2007, 07:23:39 PM »
Taco: The first time we landed on the moon was 1969. The last time we went was in the late seventies, I think '78. And don't compare being able to land a replaceable probe on the moon to being able to put living men on the moon, and have all but one mission succeed.

EDIT: I reread your post. You actually do hold the idiotic belief we faked it. Here's some ways to tell it did happen:

December 21, 1968 - 18:00 UT - INDEPENDENT Amateur astronomers (H.R. Hatfield, M.J. Hendrie, F. Kent, Alan Heath, and M.J. Oates) in the UK photographed a fuel dump from the jettisoned S-IVB stage of Apollo 8.

The Madrid Apollo Station, part of the Deep Space Network, built in Fresnedillas, near Madrid, Spain tracked Apollo 11.

Elaine Halbedel, from the Corralitos Observatory photographed Apollo 14.

Sven Grahn describes several amateur sightings of Apollo 17.

Paul Maley reports several sightings of the Apollo 12 Command Module.

Parts of Surveyor 3, which landed on the Moon in April 1967, were brought back to Earth by Apollo 12. These samples were determined to have been exposed to lunar conditions.



This is a gif of the two photos taken of Buzz Aldrin saluting the flag. If the landings were faked, the air conditioning needed to cool the astronauts in their "fake" space suits would surely wave the flag.








One must also remember the British Empire payed the slaveholders for their slave's freedom. Here, we realized there's no compensation due for forcibly removing someone from their home and taking them back to work for no money.



Though, taking into account Iran's situation, and everything being talked about on the forum, 2007 is hardly an improvement from 1969. 2001: A Space Odyssey didn't fail in its prediction, we failed in meeting it. We're spending money that could go to flying to other stars, and making other planets habitable for when the next big meteor strikes, for Bluetooth technology, TV on your cell phone, and Fleshlights.
« Last Edit: October 01, 2007, 07:40:30 PM by Libertarian Monarchy of Myroria »
"I assure you -- I will be quite content to be a mere mortal again, dedicated to my own amusements."

Offline Sovereign Dixie

  • I regret nothing!
  • *
  • Posts: 1630
  • Fuck the revolution.
Re: Nuclear Iran
« Reply #54 on: October 01, 2007, 10:41:18 PM »
I-S, you're a bastion of common sense in a region with more than it's share of idiots, God bless ya man.


Offline Zimmerwald

  • *
  • Posts: 2414
  • Demon Barber of Taijitu
Re: Nuclear Iran
« Reply #55 on: October 02, 2007, 12:41:04 AM »
Quote
I said the American government upholds the idea of freedom of thought, not freedom of thought itself. Of course we're free to think whatever we want, regardless of what our government says. The freedom to act on those thoughts is something the United States government embraces and the Iranian government oppresses.
If one compares the United States to Iran, then yes, this statement is true.  The United States has historically been, and is at present, more hospitable to divergent political speech than Iran.  However, in absolute terms, the United States is only moderately friendly to the concept of freedom of thought and speech, and is downright hostile to many types of political action.  Obviously, no State is going to tolerate violent insurrectionary activity, and I'm not including that in my admonition of the United States.  But the United States has been particularly hostile to strikes and large citizen mobilizations, neither of which posed a significant threat to the persons of the government members or the structure of the American State, but which might have had levelling effects on the distribution of wealth and power. 

Quote
The Salem burning happened 100 or so years prior to the United States becoming a nation, so I don't see how they're a reflection on the American government.
McCarthyism was evil, no doubt, but if I remember correctly McCarthy was eventually kicked out of the US Senate in disgrace, and died a lonely alcoholic. A short bout with McCarthyism that was rectified is hardly the same as the oppression seen in Nazi Germany, Soviet Russia, or modern day Iran.
Yes, recently right wing Americans have taken to the nasty habit of labelling opposing views "un-American."
The censure of McCarthy actually cited "conduct unbecoming of a US Senator," and was left that vague at the request of future President Johnson.  In the original wording of the resolution, McCarthy was cited specifically for unlawful defamation of character, conspiracy to limit free speech, and other similar offenses that I'm forgetting because my work area's a mess and I can't look things up.  McCarthy's main contention, that there are dangerous internal enemies that must be hunted out and destroyed, was never refuted by the censure resolution, and indeed the government continued to act in that manner after McCarthy left the Senate.  The practices shifted, however, to the Executive branch, particularly Hoover's FBI.

Quote
I ask you, however, is the American government acting on these accusations? Is the FBI rounding up those with "un-American" views and sending them to interrogation centres? No. Not at all.
The "un-American" crap is coming from a fringe group of the American population. The American government, on the other hand, continues to uphold the freedom of speech.
Now, the FBI is not "disappearing" people.  You're absolutely right.  But they have the power do to so if the Secretary of State designates an organzation a "terrorist group."  Furthermore, they do have the power of surveillance over any group designated by the Attorney General as suspect.  This is not reminiscent of the Gestapo (Nazi comparisons are really immature, by the way), but it is reminiscent of COINTELPRO, particularly as these programs target ethnic and religious minorities.

Quote
See though, that's the beauty of it all. Why are these foreigners coming to the US? Because the basic concepts of freedom the US upholds allows them to continue and perfect their work in ways that would be limited by the governments of their native lands.
Not necessarily.  The research grants are bigger, the salaries larger, and the social capital (networks) that can be generated are more productive.  The reason these people are moving to the United States has little to do with freedom of thought, but rather with the fact that the United States' upper class has more wealth to share with them.

Quote
Please cut the "stole from natives" crap out. We're Canadians, we're just as guilty as stealing land from the Natives as the Yanks are. Even then, don't hold something that happened 200+ years ago as a reason for current national shame.
As for the unelected slave holders part, that is true. Still, they did make the US the first government to officially recognize that "all men are created equal."
The British Empire took that idea and ran with it, abolishing the slave trade in 1833-34, but it was the Americans who first made that simple idea a fundamental truth.

I knew there was a reason people respected you.


ProP Spokesperson

Offline Prydania

  • The King of Sting
  • *
  • Posts: 1342
  • Ezekiel 25:17
    • Basically a Sports Show
Re: Nuclear Iran
« Reply #56 on: October 02, 2007, 01:30:02 AM »
Ah, finally someone I can disagree with and respect.

Quote
I said the American government upholds the idea of freedom of thought, not freedom of thought itself. Of course we're free to think whatever we want, regardless of what our government says. The freedom to act on those thoughts is something the United States government embraces and the Iranian government oppresses.
If one compares the United States to Iran, then yes, this statement is true.  The United States has historically been, and is at present, more hospitable to divergent political speech than Iran.  However, in absolute terms, the United States is only moderately friendly to the concept of freedom of thought and speech, and is downright hostile to many types of political action.  Obviously, no State is going to tolerate violent insurrectionary activity, and I'm not including that in my admonition of the United States.  But the United States has been particularly hostile to strikes and large citizen mobilizations, neither of which posed a significant threat to the persons of the government members or the structure of the American State, but which might have had levelling effects on the distribution of wealth and power.
Isn't that the general direction we've been heading in? The US vs Iran? Between the US and Iran, the US wins the freedom of thought/conscience/belief debate hands down, we both agree with this.

Historically you're right, the US has been hostile to strikes, labour movements, and other large scale civilian movements. Still, the US has gotten better in this regard over time. Was Martin Luther King Jr. arrested for voicing his dissatisfaction with the system? Are labour union leaders thrown in prison today for simply calling a strike like they were a half a century ago?
We have to separate American government policy from American public opinion. While Americans may still find these large scale movements distasteful, the leaders of these movements no longer live in fear of the US government violating their freedom of speech.

Look at it this way. During the 1950's you would have been arrested for simply taking part in a Communist demonstration in Washington DC. Today you're free to do so without fear of retaliation from the government. Yes, the American people might grumble "those damn commies" but the American government won't arrest you for simply speaking your mind.

Now if you took part in a Communist demonstration in Tehran....
Which brings me to my original point....the US vs Iran, the subject of discussion. Between those two which one is more tolerant and more likely to protect freedom of thought, conscience, and speech? We both agree on the answer there. 
 
Quote
Quote
The Salem burning happened 100 or so years prior to the United States becoming a nation, so I don't see how they're a reflection on the American government.
McCarthyism was evil, no doubt, but if I remember correctly McCarthy was eventually kicked out of the US Senate in disgrace, and died a lonely alcoholic. A short bout with McCarthyism that was rectified is hardly the same as the oppression seen in Nazi Germany, Soviet Russia, or modern day Iran.
Yes, recently right wing Americans have taken to the nasty habit of labelling opposing views "un-American."
The censure of McCarthy actually cited "conduct unbecoming of a US Senator," and was left that vague at the request of future President Johnson.  In the original wording of the resolution, McCarthy was cited specifically for unlawful defamation of character, conspiracy to limit free speech, and other similar offenses that I'm forgetting because my work area's a mess and I can't look things up.  McCarthy's main contention, that there are dangerous internal enemies that must be hunted out and destroyed, was never refuted by the censure resolution, and indeed the government continued to act in that manner after McCarthy left the Senate.  The practices shifted, however, to the Executive branch, particularly Hoover's FBI.
The reason McCarthy's main contention wasn't refuted was because it was a solid principal in theory. If there are active groups within the nation attempting to bring the government down, then the government has every right to hunt these groups down, if for no other reason then ideal of self preservation.
The problem was how McCarthy went about doing that. Rather then honestly attempting to go after groups who were working to bring down the US government he used the label of "Communist" to arrest and imprison innocent people in a ploy to gain personal power.
Every government has the right to try and preserve itself from violent groups within the state. McCarthy just used that as an excuse to further his personal political carrier, in a disgusting manner.

Quote
Quote
I ask you, however, is the American government acting on these accusations? Is the FBI rounding up those with "un-American" views and sending them to interrogation centres? No. Not at all.
The "un-American" crap is coming from a fringe group of the American population. The American government, on the other hand, continues to uphold the freedom of speech.
Now, the FBI is not "disappearing" people.  You're absolutely right.  But they have the power do to so if the Secretary of State designates an organzation a "terrorist group."  Furthermore, they do have the power of surveillance over any group designated by the Attorney General as suspect.  This is not reminiscent of the Gestapo (Nazi comparisons are really immature, by the way), but it is reminiscent of COINTELPRO, particularly as these programs target ethnic and religious minorities.
The power to do something is only a problem if the government actually acts on it.
Example. The US constitution only mentions that of-age citizens can not be denied the vote on the basis of race. Nothing about religion. In theory it would be legal to pass a law forbidding Jews, Muslims, etc.... the right to vote on the basis of religion. That would be completely within the provisions of the US Constitution.
Will that ever happen? Not on your life.
Just because the government has the power to do something doesn't mean they'll act on that power.
In Canada the Governor-General theoretically has the power to run the country as an absolute dictatorship. Will the GG ever do this? Nope.

*FYI, I didn't make the Nazi Germany comparison in an immature fashion. I was simply using them as a past precedent of an oppressive regime.

Quote
Quote
See though, that's the beauty of it all. Why are these foreigners coming to the US? Because the basic concepts of freedom the US upholds allows them to continue and perfect their work in ways that would be limited by the governments of their native lands.
Not necessarily.  The research grants are bigger, the salaries larger, and the social capital (networks) that can be generated are more productive.  The reason these people are moving to the United States has little to do with freedom of thought, but rather with the fact that the United States' upper class has more wealth to share with them.
That's a question of debate. Yes, some come for the grants. Call me idealistic, but I would bet a good portion come over because they don't want to see their work perverted into a weapon by some third world dictator.

Quote
Quote
Please cut the "stole from natives" crap out. We're Canadians, we're just as guilty as stealing land from the Natives as the Yanks are. Even then, don't hold something that happened 200+ years ago as a reason for current national shame.
As for the unelected slave holders part, that is true. Still, they did make the US the first government to officially recognize that "all men are created equal."
The British Empire took that idea and ran with it, abolishing the slave trade in 1833-34, but it was the Americans who first made that simple idea a fundamental truth.

I knew there was a reason people respected you.
Interesting....this could go either way....you have something to tell me? Be open about it.

Offline Tacolicious

  • Your Friendly Neighborhood Tacoman
  • *
  • Posts: 4898
Re: Nuclear Iran
« Reply #57 on: October 02, 2007, 05:38:42 AM »
Quote
Oh man, please Taco, I have to much respect for you. Don't start that "ZOMG TEH AMERICANZZZ FAKED THE MOON LANDING!!1!11!!11oneoneeleven" crap.
Honestly, cut it out. The moon landing happened, please to don't fall to deep into the anti-American way of thinking that you try to discount their greatest achievements. What's next? The American Revolution never happened, it wall just one big stage play?
Besides, if the American DID fake the moon landing this Japanese probe would have been snuffed out before it even got going.
On that note, if you're willing to believe the Americans faked landing on the moon, then who's to say this Japanese probe won't be another hoax? Or heck, maybe the Earth's flat.

First off, don't insult me by putting my views into some sort of immature poorly spelt young kid argument. I never have and never will conduct myself in that manner. My arguments are professionally stated and just because you don't agree is no reason to slander my character and put words in my mouth. Furthermore if you're going to loose respect for an eccentric person because they're eccentric... well that's your issue. If you loose respect because you disagree on a single point be careful because soon you'll have no respect for anyone.

When it comes to the issue of the fake moon landing I choose to believe that the possibility of it's being faked exists. If it is within our ability to land on the moon then it is certainly within our ability to fake landing on the moon, I believe it was Descartes who said (and I'm paraphrasing) "I will question all those things in which I can have doubt" and I can have doubt in our ability to land a person on the moon so I'm willing to question it. I'm not going to say "it has to have been done" because that is what the majority of people believe and all too often in my life I've been called paranoid only to later be called right on the same issue.

So we have:
-eye witness accounts
-pictures "from the moon"

Well we have eye witness accounts of all sorts of insane things, aliens, God, angels, pixies, monsters and the list goes on. So that someone said they say a rocket land on the moon buys no weight with me.

As for the pictures, if we can fake the moon why can't we fake the pictures? We have plenty of faked images, if an image is truth then I guess Forest Gump met JFK



Nixon



and others...



and people are fooled by pictures all the time, Illusion is certainly within our grasp. So if the flag not moving because they would have had to have air conditioning which would have had to have moved the flag is proof... ever heard of starch? Who says it's made of cloth anywho.. if stone can look like cloth then why must that flag be made of cloth?



So unless you have proof which isn't full of holes I'd have to declare the issue still in the air, I'm not here to tell you what to believe and I ask the same courtesy.

Now then, on to other issues:

Quote
I said the American government upholds the idea of freedom of thought, not freedom of thought itself. Of course we're free to think whatever we want, regardless of what our government says. The freedom to act on those thoughts is something the United States government embraces and the Iranian government oppresses.
The Salem burning happened 100 or so years prior to the United States becoming a nation, so I don't see how they're a reflection on the American government.
McCarthyism was evil, no doubt, but if I remember correctly McCarthy was eventually kicked out of the US Senate in disgrace, and died a lonely alcoholic. A short bout with McCarthyism that was rectified is hardly the same as the oppression seen in Nazi Germany, Soviet Russia, or modern day Iran.
Yes, recently right wing Americans have taken to the nasty habit of labelling opposing views "un-American."
I ask you, however, is the American government acting on these accusations? Is the FBI rounding up those with "un-American" views and sending them to interrogation centres? No. Not at all.
The "un-American" crap is coming from a fringe group of the American population. The American government, on the other hand, continues to uphold the freedom of speech.

Well if the Americans are so open to allowing people to express as they please then why is it that there are censorship in the media? Why is it that at one time all movies scripts had to be run through the DEA, and any movies which put forth questionable use of drugs are banned? And for that matter why can't Americans smoke a joint in the privacy of their own homes?

Now the history I brought up is part of what I like to call "a trend". It stands to logic you can't build a solid home on a shaky foundation, so the Salem incidents show the foundation of what America was built on. These are also the same people who locked up American citizens of Japanese decent during WW2 simply for being Japanese, these are people who today are spying on their citizens and plenty of people just vanish. Don't confuse the illusion of freedom for actual freedom.

Quote
Please cut the "stole from natives" crap out. We're Canadians, we're just as guilty as stealing land from the Natives as the Yanks are. Even then, don't hold something that happened 200+ years ago as a reason for current national shame.
As for the unelected slave holders part, that is true. Still, they did make the US the first government to officially recognize that "all men are created equal."
The British Empire took that idea and ran with it, abolishing the slave trade in 1833-34, but it was the Americans who first made that simple idea a fundamental truth.

So we're glossing over history then? I never said the Canadian government didn't have blood on its hands, but the Americans did in fact steal the land from the natives, and this is part of the whole trend thing... first off this shows that American politicians have always been full of bullsh*t, which actually gives more weight to my trend argument and as long as we're giving credit where credit is due, the Americans didn't invent this idea... it can be seen in the philosophies of Buddhism, Christianity, Islam and many other faiths and philosophies. That all people are created equal is an idea nearly as old as humanity itself.

It's not that I'm anti-American, I'm just looking over the history and being honest in how I see it. I'm not even upset with the Americans because what they're doing is just what every other group in power does. Cutting throats and trying to bath itself in holy light while doing it.

Quote
I love Canada to, but do you seriously believe we have had more of a cultural impact on the world then the US?

Well first off we're a multi-cultural mosaic as compared to a melting pot. We opened our arms to the people of the world as they are, we don't try to force them to become "Canadian" and that blend has made Canada a unique culture made of many cultures. Ask most Europeans who they'd rather have a pint with, an American or a Canadian... you don't see Canadians pretending to be American elsewhere in the world, but man you see the vise versa. Maybe we haven't made as big of an impact as the Americans, but their biggest contributions are economic... sending McDonalds and Starbucks around the world has not been good for culture, in fact it destroys culture. So I'd say we've had the more positive cultural effect on the world, we've made more distinct artists, writers, musicians and created a lifestyle which is recognizable the world over AND one which we can be proud of, hence the better cultural impact.
http://www.nationstates.net/wheresoever

"Reality is an illusion albeit a persistant one"
"Wisest is he who knows he is not wise"
"Nothing is fun when you have to do it, that's why you don't see a lot of old whores giggling over sex"


Delicious Comrade of the most Awesome Party

Offline Bender1968

  • *
  • Posts: 196
Re: Nuclear Iran
« Reply #58 on: October 02, 2007, 07:10:19 AM »
Quote
I'm not going to say "it has to have been done" because that is what the majority of people believe and all too often in my life I've been called paranoid only to later be called right on the same issue.

I'm not saying that this didn't happen to you, I'd just like to know what those issues were.  I don't mean this to be sarcastic or nasty, I'm really just curious.


Quote
Well if the Americans are so open to allowing people to express as they please then why is it that there are censorship in the media? Why is it that at one time all movies scripts had to be run through the DEA, and any movies which put forth questionable use of drugs are banned? And for that matter why can't Americans smoke a joint in the privacy of their own homes?

What do you mean by "censorship in the media"?  Movie scripts are not run through the DEA, its usually through standards and practices of the company releasing the movie to then give it an "R" rating.  they are not banned.  Americans can not smoke a joint in their own homes because marijuana is considered a controlled substance.  There are movements, especially in California that you are allowed a certain amount in your own home. 

Quote
So unless you have proof which isn't full of holes I'd have to declare the issue still in the air, I'm not here to tell you what to believe and I ask the same courtesy.

I'm going to ask what proof you have that it didn't happen?  I'm hoping its not that FOX special that exposed it.  Its the same network that showed a "real" alien autopsy.  I know people that worked for Grumman (the company that made the lunar landers) that explained to me that there was no giant government conspiracy and that they weren't paid off to keep their mouths quiet. 

Quote
It's not that I'm anti-American, I'm just looking over the history and being honest in how I see it. I'm not even upset with the Americans because what they're doing is just what every other group in power does. Cutting throats and trying to bath itself in holy light while doing it.

Yeah you come off as anti-American, but at least you hit the nail on the head when it comes to a lot of our policies lately. 
« Last Edit: October 02, 2007, 10:49:06 AM by Bender1968 »

Offline Prydania

  • The King of Sting
  • *
  • Posts: 1342
  • Ezekiel 25:17
    • Basically a Sports Show
Re: Nuclear Iran
« Reply #59 on: October 02, 2007, 12:06:42 PM »
You wanna believe the US faked the moon landing? Fine. I'm not going to stop you. Believe whatever you want.
BTW, by your logic it's just as possible that the world is flat. Just putting that out there.

Quote
I said the American government upholds the idea of freedom of thought, not freedom of thought itself. Of course we're free to think whatever we want, regardless of what our government says. The freedom to act on those thoughts is something the United States government embraces and the Iranian government oppresses.
The Salem burning happened 100 or so years prior to the United States becoming a nation, so I don't see how they're a reflection on the American government.
McCarthyism was evil, no doubt, but if I remember correctly McCarthy was eventually kicked out of the US Senate in disgrace, and died a lonely alcoholic. A short bout with McCarthyism that was rectified is hardly the same as the oppression seen in Nazi Germany, Soviet Russia, or modern day Iran.
Yes, recently right wing Americans have taken to the nasty habit of labelling opposing views "un-American."
I ask you, however, is the American government acting on these accusations? Is the FBI rounding up those with "un-American" views and sending them to interrogation centres? No. Not at all.
The "un-American" crap is coming from a fringe group of the American population. The American government, on the other hand, continues to uphold the freedom of speech.

Well if the Americans are so open to allowing people to express as they please then why is it that there are censorship in the media? Why is it that at one time all movies scripts had to be run through the DEA, and any movies which put forth questionable use of drugs are banned? And for that matter why can't Americans smoke a joint in the privacy of their own homes?

Now the history I brought up is part of what I like to call "a trend". It stands to logic you can't build a solid home on a shaky foundation, so the Salem incidents show the foundation of what America was built on. These are also the same people who locked up American citizens of Japanese decent during WW2 simply for being Japanese, these are people who today are spying on their citizens and plenty of people just vanish. Don't confuse the illusion of freedom for actual freedom.
"At one time"
Do movie scripts still need to be run through the DEA? Nope.
As for censorship in the media, no freedom is absolute. Take freedom of speech. Freedom of speech does not imply that I can run into a crowded movie theatre and yell "Fire!"
The same goes for censorship in the media. You have to have some boundaries. If you go by the Japanese model that everything is ok, then you end up with Kiss Players.

You do realize Salem wasn't the first and only case of a witch hunt caused my mass hysteria right? It happened all throughout Europe during the Middle Ages. So if you wanna count that as a point against the USA then you have to count that against most of western Europe, which by Proxy is basically the entire western world. 

As for the Japanese internment camps, yes, that was wrong. But it happened in Canada as well.
It was caused by fear, fear that a sub-sect of our society was working against us. In the US and Canada we eventually saw the error of our ways and let them go. In Germany, where they were sending Jews to worse camps for similar reasons, a much worse fate awaited.
So which government comes out on top again?

Quote
Quote
Please cut the "stole from natives" crap out. We're Canadians, we're just as guilty as stealing land from the Natives as the Yanks are. Even then, don't hold something that happened 200+ years ago as a reason for current national shame.
As for the unelected slave holders part, that is true. Still, they did make the US the first government to officially recognize that "all men are created equal."
The British Empire took that idea and ran with it, abolishing the slave trade in 1833-34, but it was the Americans who first made that simple idea a fundamental truth.

So we're glossing over history then? I never said the Canadian government didn't have blood on its hands, but the Americans did in fact steal the land from the natives, and this is part of the whole trend thing... first off this shows that American politicians have always been full of bullsh*t, which actually gives more weight to my trend argument and as long as we're giving credit where credit is due, the Americans didn't invent this idea... it can be seen in the philosophies of Buddhism, Christianity, Islam and many other faiths and philosophies. That all people are created equal is an idea nearly as old as humanity itself.
News flash, all Canadian politicians are full of shit to. So are British politicians, French politicians, Spanish politicians, etc.... A politician who's full of shit isn't uniquely American. Politicians were full of shit before the US came into being, and they'll still be full of shit after the US is long gone.

Yes, "all men are created equal" was an idea long before the USA. I never said Americans invented the idea. I just said they were the first to take that philosophy and make it a fundamental truth. 

Quote
It's not that I'm anti-American, I'm just looking over the history and being honest in how I see it. I'm not even upset with the Americans because what they're doing is just what every other group in power does. Cutting throats and trying to bath itself in holy light while doing it.
As I student of history I'm in full agreement that the USA has done many stupid things in the past (and present) and many grievous wrongs. No one's denying that. It should be important that the USA be reminded of these mistakes and wrongs so that they may better themselves in the future. I don't think you'll disagree.

What I don't agree with is using those wrongs and mistakes to blindly dismiss the good the US has actually done.
Simply put "give the devil his due."

Quote
Quote
I love Canada to, but do you seriously believe we have had more of a cultural impact on the world then the US?

Well first off we're a multi-cultural mosaic as compared to a melting pot. We opened our arms to the people of the world as they are, we don't try to force them to become "Canadian" and that blend has made Canada a unique culture made of many cultures.
Good Lord....
It's this type of self-loathing attitude that's killing the country I love. The "multi-cultural mosaic" ideal is a false prophet. It's left us with no idea of who we really are as Canadians. We don't have a culture anymore, just a mis-mash of cultures from other parts of the world.

I see it all the time on tv or in newspapers.
"What does it mean to be a Canadian?"
CBC ran a special on that very question. Why is that question so prevalent? Because we're so caught up in the magical world of unicorns and a multi-cultural mosaic that we've forgotten who we are as a people.

There is a very simple answer to the question of "What does it mean to be a Canadian?". You just have to dig through all the crap to find it.
Who are we? We're a British nation. Despite what the Liberals, NDP, and Bloc would have you believe, there is Canadian history before 1965.
We're a British nation. Our full name as a country is the "Dominion of Canada."
Dominion....a title originally created specifically for Canada, because when we given the title we were unique in the world. We are a self-governing nation within the British Empire.
Through the decades the amount of self-governance has increased, and the British Empire has given way to the British Commonwealth, but the idea is the same. We're loyal subjects of HRM Queen Elizabeth II.
Our nation's military heroes are Wolfe, Provost, and Brock. We risked life and limb to keep the Yanks out in 1812 so we could remain free and part of the Empire.
We sent men to South Africa once and to Europe twice to defend not only freedom, not only our own nation, but to defend the Empire. My family has sacrificed men for King, Queen, and country in the South African War.
They didn't die for Canada to simply slip into a cultural abyss. They died to protect the crown, so that the Union Jack way always wave above our Dominion (even today, the Union Jack is our second official flag).

No, we don't require newcomers to Canada to "become Canadian" and to adopt to our culture. We should though.
I'm not against immigration in the slightest, I just believe that if you're coming to Canada you should learn the culture and history and adapt. You want to move to Canada because Canada can provide a better life for you and your family? By all means come on over.
Don't expect Canada to change who she is to accommodate you though, you should change to accommodate what it means to be a Canadian.
Maybe if we followed this model for a few years we would actually be aware of what it means to be ourselves.

Quote
Ask most Europeans who they'd rather have a pint with, an American or a Canadian... you don't see Canadians pretending to be American elsewhere in the world, but man you see the vise versa.
I know all about that. An uncle of mine is a pilot for the RCAF, his first posting was at a NATO base in Germany during the 80's. He would tell us that the American pilots would buy fake Canadian IDs so they would receive better treatment from the locals.
That is indeed something to be proud of, but I don't see what that has to do with us sacrificing our national identity to a false idol and unrealistic dream.

Quote
Maybe we haven't made as big of an impact as the Americans, but their biggest contributions are economic... sending McDonalds and Starbucks around the world has not been good for culture, in fact it destroys culture. So I'd say we've had the more positive cultural effect on the world, we've made more distinct artists, writers, musicians and created a lifestyle which is recognizable the world over AND one which we can be proud of, hence the better cultural impact.
As a university student, let me say thank G-d the Yanks came up with McDonald's, Wendy's, etc....
When you're low on cash they come in handy. If some idiot is to stupid to realize that if you eat to much of it then you'll get fat and die of heart disease, that's their own fault.

What I mean by American cultural impact is stuff like rock 'n roll, blue jeans, Bugs Bunny, movies as a major form of entertainment. Nothing drastically important, but nothing bad either.
Just....culture. Things that we see all over the place, but have their origins in the States.

As for our "lifestyle which is recognizable the world over AND one which we can be proud of", well look above to see what I think of this country pissing away its identity to false idols.
PC can go to far people.
« Last Edit: October 02, 2007, 12:37:41 PM by Inglo-Scotia »