Nuclear Iran

[Zimmerwald]

I think that it's a great example. It highlights that while we must cherish freedom of speech there are limits. Limits like not allowing robo-porn on tv, or actively trying to hamper the nation in a time of crisis (war).

Yes, there are limits to the right to free speech.  The limit as it should be define is this: any speech which directly incites action which involves personal harm to an individual should be outlawed.  Any other speech should be allowed, including incindiary speech thatindirectly provoke violence to persons, speech that promotes violence to property rather than persons, or speech that advocates nonviolent resistence to a policy.  All of these things have landed the speakers in jail under the "fire in a crowded theatre" or "clear & present danger" doctrine as it is currently formulated.  While there are limits on free speech, the limits as currently defined are too strict.

Now I don't believe that every war is just, the Vietnam War and the current Iraqi War are prime examples of wars that run contrary to the nation's best interests.

I couldn't agree with you more.
 

Still, when the nation is attacked without provocation, the retaliation is always just. I would liken the War on Terrorism (not the war in Iraq, the general idea of a war on terrorism) to WWI. The US was attacked. The US therefore has the right to retaliate, and anyone trying to hamper the effectiveness of that retaliation is abusing freedom of speech.

 
I would hotly dispute the notion that the US was attacked without provokation in both situations you cite.  In WWI, the US was loaning massive amounts of cash and shipping slightly smaller amounts of war materials and other contraband to Great Britain in contravention of strict neutrality.  Germany percieved this as a measure against itself by the United States, and felt that attacks on United States shipping were legitimate.  The situation is similar with the attacks on September 11, 2001.  The United States was attacked not without reason, but because it is the largest imperial interest in the Middle East, with military bases and investments commiting it to events in the region, and a long history of intervention in that area.  I'm not justifying either unrestricted submarine warfare or the use of airliners as missiles.  Rather I am saying that both Imperial Germany and al Quaeda considered their actions legitimate retaliations against percieved wrongs, and that neither attack was "unprovoked" as you claim.

As to the legitimacy of a "war on terror," I would dispute that as well.  A "war" is a military contest between two or more States.  The "war on terror," rather than an international police action to find and apprehend terrorist leaders (which would be effective and cheap) has turned into several inter-State conflicts.  None of these conflicts can be said to have decreased the prevalence of terrorism on Earth, and thus, from the standpoint of effectiveness, none of them are legitimate.

So which government comes out on top again?

Only a complete idiot would argue that Iran guarantees more rights for its citizens than does the United States.  There is no debate there, and I would say that we have moved past that debate and are now, once again, comparing the policies of the United States to a universal standard of "rightness."

"Rightness" is a subjective term. You feel a classless society is "right."
I feel a "liberal democracy" is "right."
Even on things we agree on, such as freedom of speech, we disagree on its limitations of that freedom and the responsibilities of those who are protected by it. There is no universal standard of rightness.
Even in societies we both considered "right" we would find injustices.

If there is no universal standard of "rightness," then there is no basis on which we can compare Iran and the United States.  If what you say is true, then both States are equally moral, because there is no real standard or metric to compare them to.  If they can be quantitatively compared, then there must be some preexisting standard to which we can compare them.

I happen to think that Iran is quantitatively no better than the United States when it comes to achieving a classless society.  However, that is not the metric we're using.  We're using your metric of liberal democracy.  Iran is incredibly illiberal and not in the least bit democratic.  Nobody disputes that.  However, the United States, while higher up on the scale of liberal democracy than Iran, certainly does not embody within itself the most pure form of that ideal.  That is the basis of which these criticisms of the United States come: from liberal democracy, and the United States' failures to embody it wholly.

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.

If the Americans "made it a fundemental truth" then it wasn't true before the United States came into being, and was therefore a false doctrine.  If it was true, then your statement doesn't make any sense.  Yes, this is a meaningless semantic argument, but I've got to fill space somehow.  Now for a proper argument.

What you seem to be saying is that the United States was the first country to codify that principle in law.  However, that is not the case.  The only legal classifications that the United States finds suspect, and that the government must provide a compelling reason for the courts to uphold, relate to race, religion, and national origin.  Sex is somewhat less suspect than those three.  Legal classifications based on any other factors (age, income, sexual orientation, for example) are perfectly acceptable in the eyes of the American legal system.  As strongly as the doctrine of equal creation may have been enunciated in the Declaration of Independence, it is very difficult to argue that the United States court system follows that doctrine in practice.

Yes, I've already said that the US, while being the first to embrace that principal was not the first to actually implement it (the British Empire gets points for that).
Still, what I'm trying to say, is that you can not simply dismiss the importance of documents such as the Declaration of Independence, the US Constitution when discussing works furthering the cause of human equality.

You can't dispense with their existence, it is true, but the Declaration of Independence forms no actual legal basis for any actual practice that currently exists in the United States.  And the Constitution says whatever the Supreme Court wants it to say, so its opinions are the actual basis for what happens in the United States.  The Supreme Court has said that most classifications (some I forgot to include are political affilitation, and profession) are legal, which totally undermines the principle of absolute equal protection.  While the Constitution and Declaration pay lip service to the notion of legal equality, it is very foolish to take those provisions at face value and totally disregard the legal practice and precedent that determines who is more equal than everyone else in the United States.

And that's a major point of disagreement between us. I feel that the nation, state, what have you, shouldn't be destroyed, but should be maintained. Different groups of people have different cultures. They recognize this, and divide themselves into "nations" based on those cultures. Thus the "nation" is the natural development of human self-actualization.
Yes, cultures may be similar, and they may barrow form one and other, but at the end of the day two people from two different societies will always consider themselves different. Language, history, customs, food, the tiniest thing in a society will often be held to be unique to that society.

The problem with your argument is that you expect the process of cultural diffusion and syncretism to stop after some point, when in reality culture is, naturally, fluid and ever-changing, albeit over long periods of time.  If this weren't true, then culture would never have evolved in the first place, and we'd still be writing with cuneiform.  Attempts to stop this cultural change have historically led to nativist and, more recently, racist reaction, which I think we can agree is never progressive.

Now, your point about the "nation" being the highest form of human self-actualization is completely false.  If the nation is based mainly on shared culture, and culture is fluid unless it is deliberately cut off from contact with other cultures, then why bother to maintain the nation in its current form?  There is no objective value to maintaining it, and you have yet to provide that value.

Historically is the key word. The blending of cultures has already occurred.
Think of each culture as a dish. The ingredients have already been put in, and it's now out of the oven. Yes, Russian culture is a hybrid of Mongol and western cultures, but the syncretism ends there. Those two have already combined to form "Russian."

I've mentioned the problem with this line of reasoning, which is that you expect that the historical period in which you live is the culmination of all human society, and will forever remain so.  In reality, cultures continue to shift, grow, and change.  Think of modern China, a syncretic mixing of ancient Chinese culture, Western, and Russian cultures.  Or perhaps modern India, with its blend of Hindu, Western, and Islamic cultures, would be a better example.  There is absolutely no reason to believe that the process of cultural diffusion has stopped of its own accord, and the only reason it would ever stop is if a State erected unnatural barriers to block its path.

The same goes for the vast majority of the world's societies. The periods of cultural emergence is over. We have simply world cultures now.

The same could be said in the First Century, with the flowering of Roman, Chinese, and Parthian cultures.  The same could be said of the Thirteenth Century, with the replacement of the first and the last by Medieval and Muslim cultures.  "World Cultures" have always been present, and they have always mixed and matched, and the situation is little different today.
 

And different cultures are good, as long as they don't try to force others to adapt to them.
Which is what we see in Canada.
Canada is a British nation, but we've been to busy pissing that identity, our identity, away to appease the false idol of multi-culturalism. So our society is a mosaic? Well guess what, when you have a society made up of different pieces you're left with no unifying culture at all.

Wrong.  Simply wrong.  What you have is a syncretic culture rather than a majority culture dominating several minority cultures.  You still haven't provided what that identity provides you, what tangible benefit one gains from having Canadian, or any one, culture.  
 

Bottom line? It's time Canada rediscovered what it is, and embraced that. It's not unreasonable to expect immigrants to learn the history and culture of their new home, and to adapt to that culture. If they want to move to Canada, great. But they need to become Canadians. Not Syrian-Canadians, or Croatian-Canadians, just Canadians. Respect the society of the country you're moving to and adapt. Don't expect us to change how we do things to appease you.

You completely ignore the reality of the immigrant experience, which involves assimilation more often than not.  The cultural changes that the host society adapts from the immigrants are almost always beneficial, otherwise the population would not adapt them.

Throughout this debate, you have not provided one tangible benefit that is derived from maintaining a culture indefinately in its existing form, while I have said consistently that the sharing of the best elements of all cultures only serves to meet human needs, and encourages the barbaric aspects of cultures to die out.  Please provide a tangible benefit of your side, or this debate will have been won, and not by you  

We can then focus our entire attention on the conduct of the United States

[Prydania]

The social contract theory, the foundation of the American Constitution and like-minded documents that followed, states that we're all born with unlimited freedom, but that in order to promote order and allow society to function, we give up some of those freedoms (to kill someone for example) so that the government will protect the most important of those freedoms; freedom of speech, conscience, religion, etc....

"Those who trade freedom for security shall have neither", the government has always done a VERY poor job of protecting any freedoms aside from the freedom to exploit for their own interests. That's why the individual has to decide how to be responsible in a system, not the system itself. Perhaps if we weren't exploiting people left right and centre, denying medical care to those who can' afford it and addressed social problems such as education, health care and poverty instead of blowing up people seeking justice on the path of revenge the amount of murders and crimes we'd see would come down.

You do realize we get free healthcare, right? Or is that infringing on your right to break your leg and not receive treatment?
You're view of humanity is, IMO, unrealistically optimistic.
"If we all just got along..."
Well of course if we all just got along we would all be happy, but society doesn't work that way. Someone will always be disenfranchised, or at least feel they are, and they, and other people like them, will resort to crime to "balance" the system.
War will always be a reality. Someone will always think someone else wronged them, and sooner or latter guns will go off. Human nature is ugly. We make the best out of the situation G-d gave us. Hopelessly dreaming for a world with no crime, war, or unnecessary death will only depress you as you come closer to the reality of the matter.
Freedom is not absolute, it has to work side-by-side with laws to maintain the balance of security and freedom, not one or the other. Either extreme is dangerous.

Simply put, human beings aren't capable of restraining themselves when granted complete freedom. Limits are needed.

We have as much free will as we have imagination.

Again, overly optimistic. See above.

Now I ask you, is Kiss Players something you think young kids, the target demographic for most other Transformers shows, should be watching? We can't just say "anything goes" when it comes to television.
Yes, responsible adults are capable of changing the channel if something they don't like is on. Adults, however, aren't the only ones watching tv, and many times mommy and daddy aren't there watching with their kids.

Perhaps these "responsible" adults shouldn't be letting their kids surf through any channel. But then again shows of that nature are usually broadcast at those hours for one simple reason: 10 year old kids aren't up then. But to keep on with that theory I guess we should ban cars too because little kids might get run over... after all adults aren't the only ones crossing the road. Again the responsibility to control what media our kids consume (and in general to raise our kids) lies with the parents, not with the government.

In a world where an increasing amount of families have both the mom and dad as the primary wage earner, this simply isn't possible. Either mom or dad are at home, but swamped with the combination of office and house work, or a nanny is raising the kid. If it's just mom and dad, many times letting them sit in front of the television is the best way to keep the kids preoccupied while they catch up on whatever work they need to do. As for a nanny, it's a mixed bag. Many times they see television as a simple way of collecting their cheque. Let Jr sit in front of the tv all day, read a few magazines, wait for mom and dad to come home.
You're describing the way you want things to work, I'm describing how they actually work.

You think the US had 9/11 coming? Dude, your Ameriphobia is a problem.

You're the one going on about the "right to retaliation", do you know how much shit the Americans stirred up in Afghanistan in the 80's? So if the Americans were justified in defending their homeland by attacking another why should the Afghan's not have that exact same right? Aren't "All men created equal" and isn't this a cherished part of US governing? So why don't the actions live up to the words... oh right... because the words were bullshit to start with.

I do honestly think the US had 9/11 coming, I also believe they allowed 9/11 to happen because it works too perfectly for them. Any objector to an unjust war is "Un-American" or "Ameriphobic" or "a terrorist"

So know they knew about 9/11?
So not only did they fake mankind's greatest scientific accomplishment, but they allowed 3,000+ people die?
Face it, the American government isn't that good at keeping secrets. The X-Files was a great show, but in reality the American, or any anyone else's government is to bogged down with corruption, backstabbing, and minor players looking to make a name fore themselves with "the big leak" for anything on the scale you're suggesting to not only work, but for the lie to be maintained. 

Is a Liberal capable of arguing with someone without calling his opponent brainwashed, a fascist, or ignorant?

Can't I be critical of the actions of a government by rationally reviewing the history and making an assessment on the information at hand without being labeled an Ameriphob?

Saying the US faked mankind's greatest achievement and allowed 3,000 people to die in an attack they could have prevented if they had prior knowledge isn't rationally reviewing history. It's the end result of selectively picking the parts of history you like to make a point, while ignoring the rest. 

To effect change you engage in diplomacy, you take to the streets, you protest peacefully.

Sort of like the change in government in Iraq?

Have I not said on numerous occasions that the Iraq War (the current one) was a mistake? America's fuck up in Iraq, however, does not let suicide bombers in Israel or Al Quieda for their attack on 9/11 off the hook.

Iraq was a huge mistake, but Afghanistan was justified, as is the concept of the War on Terror. You may see a freedom fighter, I see a murderer.

First of all, revenge is never justified.

In many cases it is. What's the US suppose to do? Let 9/11 happen and not respond? Should they have just kicked back and taken it easy when Japan bombed Pearl Harbour? Should Israel just let Hezbullah fire rockets into its cities? In 1812 should we have just let the Americans come in and occupy our country? When someone hits you, you hit back as hard as you can.

Second, it has less to do with an attack and more to do with the economic benefit of a select few.

Someone will always benefit from war. That doesn't mean the war was waged just so they could make a profit, however. I'm pretty sure the British and French declaring war on Nazi Germany had more to do with stopping a madman then making the arms manufacturers in Britain and France rich.
Despite what St. Marx said, history does not revolve around class.

Third, it's impossible to war against an idea and win, a poorly defined one doubly so. I don't see a freedom fighter or a murderer... I see a guy with a gun that should be in the comfort of his home having a meal with his family and living free instead of being trapped in some endless cycle of revenge.

Yes, he should, but he isn't. Again, how we wish things were vs how things actually are.

Freedom is a two way street.[ We have to use it responsibly.

Exactly, how responsible is it to just throw something away when you're still not entirely sure how it should work?

Easy. We do know how it works. Read Locke. Read Hobbs. Read the US Constitution, the British Bill of Rights, and the BNA Act (the Canadian Constitution for those unaware). We give up some freedoms so that the government may protect the ones we hold most dear. Every major work dedicated to preserving freedom has taken that stance. Limitless freedom is just a nice way to say anarchy and mob rule.   

Glad to see Mr. Ahmadinejad and Mr. bin Laden reached you in much the same way.

Right, because they go live to air on the censored North American media... I want you to really think about how ridiculous what you just said ^ is.

First off, you don't need to watch tv to listen to the speeches and propaganda of Ahmadinejad and bin Laden. You can easily use the net to find their speeches and statements, either in transcript form, or by way of video.
Second of all, if you hadn't conveniently spliced my original post to take what I wrote out of context, you would see that I wasn't actually accusing you of blindly following Ahmadinejad and bin Laden.
You accused me of being brainwashed by the American government simply because I don't agree with you. So I replied in kind, using Ahmadinejad and bin Laden to show you how stupid you sound when you simply label someone who disagrees with you "brainwashed."
Give people enough credit to make up their own minds.
BTW I hate Fox News. Just thought I'd get that out to nip any further baseless accusations and generalizations in the bud.

[Prydania]

I think that it's a great example. It highlights that while we must cherish freedom of speech there are limits. Limits like not allowing robo-porn on tv, or actively trying to hamper the nation in a time of crisis (war).

Yes, there are limits to the right to free speech.  The limit as it should be define is this: any speech which directly incites action which involves personal harm to an individual should be outlawed.  Any other speech should be allowed, including incindiary speech thatindirectly provoke violence to persons, speech that promotes violence to property rather than persons, or speech that advocates nonviolent resistence to a policy.  All of these things have landed the speakers in jail under the "fire in a crowded theatre" or "clear & present danger" doctrine as it is currently formulated.  While there are limits on free speech, the limits as currently defined are too strict.

I can agree with that. 

Now I don't believe that every war is just, the Vietnam War and the current Iraqi War are prime examples of wars that run contrary to the nation's best interests.

I couldn't agree with you more.
 

Still, when the nation is attacked without provocation, the retaliation is always just. I would liken the War on Terrorism (not the war in Iraq, the general idea of a war on terrorism) to WWI. The US was attacked. The US therefore has the right to retaliate, and anyone trying to hamper the effectiveness of that retaliation is abusing freedom of speech.

 
I would hotly dispute the notion that the US was attacked without provokation in both situations you cite.  In WWI, the US was loaning massive amounts of cash and shipping slightly smaller amounts of war materials and other contraband to Great Britain in contravention of strict neutrality.  Germany percieved this as a measure against itself by the United States, and felt that attacks on United States shipping were legitimate.  The situation is similar with the attacks on September 11, 2001.  The United States was attacked not without reason, but because it is the largest imperial interest in the Middle East, with military bases and investments commiting it to events in the region, and a long history of intervention in that area.  I'm not justifying either unrestricted submarine warfare or the use of airliners as missiles.  Rather I am saying that both Imperial Germany and al Quaeda considered their actions legitimate retaliations against percieved wrongs, and that neither attack was "unprovoked" as you claim.

Yes, of course they felt wronged, if they hadn't they wouldn't have done what they did. The question is, were the injustices they perceived actually present? I would say no.
Germany must have known that a war with against Britain would place the US in Britain's camp, in terms of arms manufacturing, if not as an actual war-time ally. This is made even clearer when we look at history and see the United States have always ignored neutrality laws when dealing with a Europe in war. Look at the situation from 1807-1812 when Britain and Napoleonic France were at war. The United States defied the neutrality laws of both nations, and some say it lead to the War of 1812. So Germany must have known that they would be dealing a US operating on their own agenda the day they declared war.

The wrongs al Quaeda claims should be attributed to the US are even more laughable. They claim the US was an evil imperial power, an immoral "Great Satan."
Prior to the 9/11 attacks, how many nations in the middle east were occupied by the USA? I don't mean they had a few military bases, I mean how many middle-eastern nations were occupied by the US Army before 9/11? Where were the evil forces of the Great Satan blowing up Mosques, destroying Qur'an, forcing the locals to convert or take a loyalty oath to the American occupiers?

Of course both groups felt their actions were justified. Were they in actuality? No. In that sense both nations attacked the US unprovoked. 

As to the legitimacy of a "war on terror," I would dispute that as well.  A "war" is a military contest between two or more States.  The "war on terror," rather than an international police action to find and apprehend terrorist leaders (which would be effective and cheap) has turned into several inter-State conflicts.  None of these conflicts can be said to have decreased the prevalence of terrorism on Earth, and thus, from the standpoint of effectiveness, none of them are legitimate.

As far as terminology goes, I was simply using "War" because that seems to be the common term people use these days anytime they see two groups of people shooting at each other. Simply, it was a time saver.
"War on Terror" is shorter to type then "International Police Action Aimed Against Terrorist Leaders."
As for the failure of the "war" so far, I wouldn't say that makes it illegitimate, it just proves that up till now the war has been conducted by morons.

So which government comes out on top again?

Only a complete idiot would argue that Iran guarantees more rights for its citizens than does the United States.  There is no debate there, and I would say that we have moved past that debate and are now, once again, comparing the policies of the United States to a universal standard of "rightness."

"Rightness" is a subjective term. You feel a classless society is "right."
I feel a "liberal democracy" is "right."
Even on things we agree on, such as freedom of speech, we disagree on its limitations of that freedom and the responsibilities of those who are protected by it. There is no universal standard of rightness.
Even in societies we both considered "right" we would find injustices.

If there is no universal standard of "rightness," then there is no basis on which we can compare Iran and the United States.  If what you say is true, then both States are equally moral, because there is no real standard or metric to compare them to.  If they can be quantitatively compared, then there must be some preexisting standard to which we can compare them.
I happen to think that Iran is quantitatively no better than the United States when it comes to achieving a classless society.  However, that is not the metric we're using.  We're using your metric of liberal democracy.  Iran is incredibly illiberal and not in the least bit democratic.  Nobody disputes that.  However, the United States, while higher up on the scale of liberal democracy than Iran, certainly does not embody within itself the most pure form of that ideal.  That is the basis of which these criticisms of the United States come: from liberal democracy, and the United States' failures to embody it wholly.

The preexisting standard we use is what we both have common ground on, that all men are created equal, and that he has the freedom to worship, think, say, and congregate with whoever he pleases, within reasonable limits. That's what we use as the measuring stick.
What I mean by no universal standard of "rightness" is simply that Ahmadinejad probably thinks that his view of the world is right. In that sense, no there isn't a universal standard of "rightness."
As two people from the western world who have grown up in the late 20th/early 21st centuries we're using the standards we have in common, but by no means are those standards shared by everyone.

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.

If the Americans "made it a fundemental truth" then it wasn't true before the United States came into being, and was therefore a false doctrine.  If it was true, then your statement doesn't make any sense.  Yes, this is a meaningless semantic argument, but I've got to fill space somehow.  Now for a proper argument.

What you seem to be saying is that the United States was the first country to codify that principle in law.  However, that is not the case.  The only legal classifications that the United States finds suspect, and that the government must provide a compelling reason for the courts to uphold, relate to race, religion, and national origin.  Sex is somewhat less suspect than those three.  Legal classifications based on any other factors (age, income, sexual orientation, for example) are perfectly acceptable in the eyes of the American legal system.  As strongly as the doctrine of equal creation may have been enunciated in the Declaration of Independence, it is very difficult to argue that the United States court system follows that doctrine in practice.

Yes, I've already said that the US, while being the first to embrace that principal was not the first to actually implement it (the British Empire gets points for that).
Still, what I'm trying to say, is that you can not simply dismiss the importance of documents such as the Declaration of Independence, the US Constitution when discussing works furthering the cause of human equality.

You can't dispense with their existence, it is true, but the Declaration of Independence forms no actual legal basis for any actual practice that currently exists in the United States.  And the Constitution says whatever the Supreme Court wants it to say, so its opinions are the actual basis for what happens in the United States.  The Supreme Court has said that most classifications (some I forgot to include are political affilitation, and profession) are legal, which totally undermines the principle of absolute equal protection.  While the Constitution and Declaration pay lip service to the notion of legal equality, it is very foolish to take those provisions at face value and totally disregard the legal practice and precedent that determines who is more equal than everyone else in the United States.

Which was my original point when I first brought up the whole thing. The US gave the world the Declaration of Independence and the US Constitution. Both of which were watershed documents when it comes to the concept of human equality. The US gave the world those, which was my original point. I can't help it if they don't follow their own principals.

And that's a major point of disagreement between us. I feel that the nation, state, what have you, shouldn't be destroyed, but should be maintained. Different groups of people have different cultures. They recognize this, and divide themselves into "nations" based on those cultures. Thus the "nation" is the natural development of human self-actualization.
Yes, cultures may be similar, and they may barrow form one and other, but at the end of the day two people from two different societies will always consider themselves different. Language, history, customs, food, the tiniest thing in a society will often be held to be unique to that society.

The problem with your argument is that you expect the process of cultural diffusion and syncretism to stop after some point, when in reality culture is, naturally, fluid and ever-changing, albeit over long periods of time.  If this weren't true, then culture would never have evolved in the first place, and we'd still be writing with cuneiform.  Attempts to stop this cultural change have historically led to nativist and, more recently, racist reaction, which I think we can agree is never progressive.

Now, your point about the "nation" being the highest form of human self-actualization is completely false.  If the nation is based mainly on shared culture, and culture is fluid unless it is deliberately cut off from contact with other cultures, then why bother to maintain the nation in its current form?  There is no objective value to maintaining it, and you have yet to provide that value.

Historically is the key word. The blending of cultures has already occurred.
Think of each culture as a dish. The ingredients have already been put in, and it's now out of the oven. Yes, Russian culture is a hybrid of Mongol and western cultures, but the syncretism ends there. Those two have already combined to form "Russian."

I've mentioned the problem with this line of reasoning, which is that you expect that the historical period in which you live is the culmination of all human society, and will forever remain so.  In reality, cultures continue to shift, grow, and change.  Think of modern China, a syncretic mixing of ancient Chinese culture, Western, and Russian cultures.  Or perhaps modern India, with its blend of Hindu, Western, and Islamic cultures, would be a better example.  There is absolutely no reason to believe that the process of cultural diffusion has stopped of its own accord, and the only reason it would ever stop is if a State erected unnatural barriers to block its path.

The same goes for the vast majority of the world's societies. The periods of cultural emergence is over. We have simply world cultures now.

The same could be said in the First Century, with the flowering of Roman, Chinese, and Parthian cultures.  The same could be said of the Thirteenth Century, with the replacement of the first and the last by Medieval and Muslim cultures.  "World Cultures" have always been present, and they have always mixed and matched, and the situation is little different today.
 

And different cultures are good, as long as they don't try to force others to adapt to them.
Which is what we see in Canada.
Canada is a British nation, but we've been to busy pissing that identity, our identity, away to appease the false idol of multi-culturalism. So our society is a mosaic? Well guess what, when you have a society made up of different pieces you're left with no unifying culture at all.

Wrong.  Simply wrong.  What you have is a syncretic culture rather than a majority culture dominating several minority cultures.  You still haven't provided what that identity provides you, what tangible benefit one gains from having Canadian, or any one, culture. 
 

Bottom line? It's time Canada rediscovered what it is, and embraced that. It's not unreasonable to expect immigrants to learn the history and culture of their new home, and to adapt to that culture. If they want to move to Canada, great. But they need to become Canadians. Not Syrian-Canadians, or Croatian-Canadians, just Canadians. Respect the society of the country you're moving to and adapt. Don't expect us to change how we do things to appease you.

You completely ignore the reality of the immigrant experience, which involves assimilation more often than not.  The cultural changes that the host society adapts from the immigrants are almost always beneficial, otherwise the population would not adapt them.

Throughout this debate, you have not provided one tangible benefit that is derived from maintaining a culture indefinately in its existing form, while I have said consistently that the sharing of the best elements of all cultures only serves to meet human needs, and encourages the barbaric aspects of cultures to die out.  Please provide a tangible benefit of your side, or this debate will have been won, and not by you 

We can then focus our entire attention on the conduct of the United States

The cultural changes a society accepts must be positive? It's positive that Canadians can't name their second PM? Or that most Canadians don't know the details of the Seven Years War, the War of 1812, or the South African War? Three defining conflicts in Canadian history. Normally one would simply attribute this to youthful ignorance of their studies, and I wish that were the case. Rather most Canadians are unaware of the country's basic history because they're simply not taught it.
The War of 1812, which is as important to Canada as the American Revolution was to the USA, is only briefly skimmed over in most school districts. Why?
The false prophet of the multi-cultural mosaic. Guilty liberals are so afraid to offend newcomers that they have pushed laws through limiting the study of our own history. Why? Out of fear that an immigrant will complain that their child is being force-fed a history that's not his own. That's the essence of what I'm fighting for here.
We shouldn't piss our society away to appease people who came here to seek a better life to begin with.
If you move here your kid's going to be taught Canadian history with is strongly British and French in content. I don't see what's so wrong about that. They're living in Canada, they're going to learn history. Likewise, if I move to India I won't complain when they're talking about Gandhi in history class. "When in Rome."

Preserving our culture is important seeing as failing to do so will result in the death of the nation itself.
Back to 1812. Why was that war so important to Canadians? It was the success of our defence of this country that galvanized the people into realizing that this land called Canada was worth fighting for, worth saving, worth strengthening, all within the Empire. Fifty-five years later the Dominion of Canada was formed under that principal, a self-governing nation within the British world.
That's what we've been. It's what our nation was founded to be. Millions of Canadians would die to defend not only their home land, but the mother country as well. That helped strengthen the sense of who we were. 
Then it happened. Suddenly we weren't allowed to teach the history of the nation because it might offend a newcomer. Suddenly we were pissing who we were to build "a multi-cultural mosaic."
Now what Canada actually is, who Canadians are, has been marginalized. Not even that, it hasn't even been marginalized in favour of a new culture. It's been replaced by nothing, really. We have no culture anymore.
When we look at the multi-cultural mosaic we see all kinds of cultures, but nothing unifying. There is no "Canadian" anymore, just pieces of cultures from all over transplanted into Canada.
And honestly that pisses me off. My family has sent men to die for Dominion, Empire, King, and Queen, since the South African war. They died upholding the founding principals of this country. The sacrifices of them, and the millions of other Canadians are being made irrelevant by this cultural abyss we've sank into. If the ideals of Canada these men died for are being done away with, what did they die for? If the ideals of Canada they died to protect are being flushed away so easily then what's the point of the country even existing?

As for the destruction of the state in general, you'll never convince me that the class is the primary ideal that mankind should identify with, just as I'll never convince you that the state is. So we'll agree to disagree there.

[Tacolicious]

You do realize we get free healthcare, right? Or is that infringing on your right to break your leg and not receive treatment?
You're view of humanity is, IMO, unrealistically optimistic.
"If we all just got along..."
Well of course if we all just got along we would all be happy, but society doesn't work that way. Someone will always be disenfranchised, or at least feel they are, and they, and other people like them, will resort to crime to "balance" the system.
War will always be a reality. Someone will always think someone else wronged them, and sooner or latter guns will go off. Human nature is ugly. We make the best out of the situation G-d gave us. Hopelessly dreaming for a world with no crime, war, or unnecessary death will only depress you as you come closer to the reality of the matter.
Freedom is not absolute, it has to work side-by-side with laws to maintain the balance of security and freedom, not one or the other. Either extreme is dangerous.

Oh I know about free health care, my mom is a nurse and believe you me I know about the waste that occurs of that system. About the constant cut backs that occur while administrators and consultants seat in freshly painted offices with nice new furniture.. meanwhile the cafeteria for the nurses no longer even provides salt and pepper at the tables. I should also mention she's been on a waiting list for surgery for about 2/3 years now and still has no date set for that.

So tell me exactly where free health care is in any way shape or form a substitute for free speech? Tell how this analogy even applies because it's pretty along the same lines as arguing that grapes are better then plums because apples have more seeds. In fact your example is not infringing on my not to choose not to be treated should I choose to do so, it's called "not going to the hospital". Again freedom is personal choice so if someone chooses not to treat a broken leg it is certainly within their rights to do so and they bear the ultimate burden of extending the force of their will.

Maybe my view is too optimistic, I'm sure Jesus and Buddha had the same problem. If we're all just a bunch of homicidal apes with no control over our actions then why even debate anything? We have free will and that free will is not freedom in a cage, as such it is completely free. So we either have free will or we don't. If we have it we can choose to work together and collectively better our lots as many people have done on smaller scales and which we could do on a larger scale... or we have a nature, a function of instinct and thus do not have free will and as such should not even be questioning our own actions because that is our instinct. A scorpion doesn't question if it is right or wrong to sting, it just does so out of instinct, so what does it say that we question our actions? Perhaps if we had a little more faith in our ability to get things done and spent a little less time dooming and glooming about how it can never be done. Think of how many things have been impossible... we'll never cross that mountain.. it's impossible... and we got across and came to an ocean which was impossible to cross... we took to the clouds which was also an impossible feat and maybe, just maybe we even made it to the moon {you seem to confuse my willingness to question for blind acceptance of the other side... silly goose}. We said it was impossible for life to live without the light of the sun and found life living at the bottom of the ocean, far from the light of the sun... so do you honestly think we know in this day and age what is actually impossible or possible? As far as I'm concerned nothing is impossible, so suck it.

In a world where an increasing amount of families have both the mom and dad as the primary wage earner, this simply isn't possible. Either mom or dad are at home, but swamped with the combination of office and house work, or a nanny is raising the kid. If it's just mom and dad, many times letting them sit in front of the television is the best way to keep the kids preoccupied while they catch up on whatever work they need to do. As for a nanny, it's a mixed bag. Many times they see television as a simple way of collecting their cheque. Let Jr sit in front of the tv all day, read a few magazines, wait for mom and dad to come home.
You're describing the way you want things to work, I'm describing how they actually work.

Yet more reason to stop trying to defend a system we know not to work and try something new however "impossible" it may seem...  This selective interest which you seem to feel is impossible to dispose of to keep a system running has been shrinking back the middle class, the rich get morbidly richer and the poor dreadfully poorer. The cost of living goes up faster then the average wage, does this seem like the results a working system delivers?

As for those TV's used to pacify kids, most of them have parental locks, few are ever used. Again this is parents shucking responsibility on two levels. First not actually taking the time to spend with their kids and second not using the tools available. All these parents have so much time to bitch and moan about why someones creation can't be shown on TV but they don't have 5 minutes to set the V-chip or the will power to not give in to kids nagging if they truly feel so strongly that it should not be seen?

You can describe the ways things work all you want, explaining how the horse works never designed the car; talking about the way you want a car to work did.

So know they knew about 9/11?
So not only did they fake mankind's greatest scientific accomplishment, but they allowed 3,000+ people die?
Face it, the American government isn't that good at keeping secrets. The X-Files was a great show, but in reality the American, or any anyone else's government is to bogged down with corruption, backstabbing, and minor players looking to make a name fore themselves with "the big leak" for anything on the scale you're suggesting to not only work, but for the lie to be maintained.

Yes, they did allow 3000 people to die. Who wouldn't want 3000 martyrs for the economic crusades? And you're right it's not going to stay secret, so what they do is dub these people "conspiracy theorists" and paint a picture of them as buggy little men hanging out in dark dusty apartments scattered with many papers bobbles and painted in the glow of flickering computer screen muttering on about aliens and big foot and assassinations. That way the average person dismisses what they say out of hand instead of actually considering what they have to say or giving them a fair hearing. Again the world could be so much better if only it's residents thought things through a little more and kept an open mind.

Do you honestly think a government willing to go to war so often, founded on slavery and dedicated to expansion, assimilation and extermination through out the course of it's history and running strong right to the present day honestly gives a shit about 3000 people. To those truly in power those 3000 people weren't important and are worth far more dead then they ever could have been alive, for all the US's talk of freedom and equality and rights it is essentially an oligarchy wearing the guise of a democracy.

So why would they do it? Does this sound familiar:

After Adolf Hitler had been appointed Reichskanzler on 30 January 1933, the building was set on fire on 27 February 1933, under circumstances still not entirely clear (see Reichstag fire). This proved to be a valuable excuse for the Nazis to suspend most human rights provided for by the 1919 constitution in the Reichstag Fire Decree.

Saying the US faked mankind's greatest achievement and allowed 3,000 people to die in an attack they could have prevented if they had prior knowledge isn't rationally reviewing history. It's the end result of selectively picking the parts of history you like to make a point, while ignoring the rest.

So establishing a trend is wrong? What exactly would you like me to do here, include the entire history of the world? First off, no one has that knowledge since history changes with time and interpretation. Second, I don't have enough time to type it all nor you to read it all. Third, how are you not doing the exact same thing?

I've highlighted trends, you've return ridiculous arguments that don't always apply to situation at hand or which lack any logic. You've become so dogmatically entrenched in the version of history you were told is right that you never though to question the form of the story or the other side there of. You want to mock me for considering the motives behind 9/11 aside from the official "they hate freedom and democracy and our way of life"... you refuse to even consider the notion that maybe we haven't been to the moon because the majority of people don't consider it either. At one time the majority of people considered the Earth to be flat and anything else was an impossible story or just against the will of God or just plain stupid. Case in point, just because the majority agrees it doesn't make the majority right.

Have I not said on numerous occasions that the Iraq War (the current one) was a mistake? America's fuck up in Iraq, however, does not let suicide bombers in Israel or Al Quieda for their attack on 9/11 off the hook.

No one said it did, how many innocent civilians have to die to punish a small group which only sought the "right to retribution" you feel justifies the American "response" (and we could chicken and egg that for a looong time). Hundreds of thousands of people who were not involved being killed, injured, displaced and terrorized by Western troops is justice for 3000 people killed? Over a thousand fold people have been killed for 9/11 then were killed in 9/11, when exactly is enough a enough? When we beat an idea? It'll never happen because we can't beat an idea and in fighting that idea we create that state and set the stage for even worse forms of it. I'm not saying let those who go around crashing planes into buildings get off scott free, but don't have innocent people pay in blood for it either.

In many cases it is. What's the US suppose to do? Let 9/11 happen and not respond? Should they have just kicked back and taken it easy when Japan bombed Pearl Harbour? Should Israel just let Hezbullah fire rockets into its cities? In 1812 should we have just let the Americans come in and occupy our country? When someone hits you, you hit back as hard as you can.

No... it's not... and see above.

Someone will always benefit from war. That doesn't mean the war was waged just so they could make a profit, however. I'm pretty sure the British and French declaring war on Nazi Germany had more to do with stopping a madman then making the arms manufacturers in Britain and France rich.
Despite what St. Marx said, history does not revolve around class.

Alright mister "respect for history", lets actually compare the war on terror with WWII.

WWII -

Hitler sends out a huge army and starts taking over countries in Europe and Africa.. sets up death camps and kills millions upon millions of people for no other reason then their heritage... performs medical experimentation on prisoners and uses them as slave labour and keeps a massive army moving aggressively outwards to conquer more lands.

War on Terror -

A plane crashes into a building one day and kills 3000 people. Since then the US has been invading countries in the middle east on lies and misinformation, abandons the Geneva convention and upon taking over the sovereign nation of Iraq which never made any aggressive moves against the invading nation and had no such capabilities if it even has any desire to do so begins handing out contracts to oil companies to develop the area. I

Now yes this is a VERY condensed history but as basic plot lines go it's about as accurate as it needs to be. So clearly the War on Terror is not the same situation IN ANY WAY as WWII and if you had even the slightest respect for history or the millions of people who died in that tragic war you wouldn't even try to say that it is. The WoT is about profit and corporate expansion and ignoring the facts of history to try and defend it is despicable. Those who benefited from WWII did so as a result of acting on conscience and defending the rights and freedoms of those who needed it and for themselves. Those who benefit from the WoT went to war for the benefits and do so by opposing the rights and freedoms of those who need it for the benefit of only themselves. If you honestly believe that this is about bringing freedom and democracy to a region then I've truly lost any respect I had for you as an intellectual.

If the worst I do is selectively pick history then it's still no where near as monstrous as completely ignoring it while calling on it's name.

Third, it's impossible to war against an idea and win, a poorly defined one doubly so. I don't see a freedom fighter or a murderer... I see a guy with a gun that should be in the comfort of his home having a meal with his family and living free instead of being trapped in some endless cycle of revenge.

Yes, he should, but he isn't. Again, how we wish things were vs how things actually are.

And how things could be. I feel sorry for you that you accepted the situation as hopeless before you ever tried to do anything about it.

Easy. We do know how it works. Read Locke. Read Hobbs. Read the US Constitution, the British Bill of Rights, and the BNA Act (the Canadian Constitution for those unaware).We give up some freedoms so that the government may protect the ones we hold most dear. Every major work dedicated to preserving freedom has taken that stance. Limitless freedom is just a nice way to say anarchy and mob rule.

If only the government actually protected them... I guess thats the way things should be versus the way things are. With all the corruption backstabbing and greed your rights and freedoms are very low on the list of priorities, probably right above your life.

As long as your reading all those fine documents to tell you how things are why not read the three little pigs to learn about building structures to stand up in a wind storm or jack and the bean stalk to learn about gardening. Those documents are there to give you the illusion of freedom and choice, not to guarantee them. What hold does a piece of paper have on a government with the power to change that piece of paper? Words don't keep
a government honest, citizens do. All the paper in the world wouldn't end the military rule of Burma but all the citizens of Burma could (and hopefully will). It is then up to those people to maintain a vigil to keep their newly won rights and freedoms from slipping away.

Besides all the world is under mob rule, we just sometimes call the mob the police or the military or the governing party but it's still a group of people who say "we say you do this and you better do it or else". I'll protect my own rights thank you kindly, I don't trust those crazy bastards to protect it for me when they want for themselves.

First off, you don't need to watch tv to listen to the speeches and propaganda of Ahmadinejad and bin Laden. You can easily use the net to find their speeches and statements, either in transcript form, or by way of video.
Second of all, if you hadn't conveniently spliced my original post to take what I wrote out of context, you would see that I wasn't actually accusing you of blindly following Ahmadinejad and bin Laden.
You accused me of being brainwashed by the American government simply because I don't agree with you. So I replied in kind, using Ahmadinejad and bin Laden to show you how stupid you sound when you simply label someone who disagrees with you "brainwashed."
Give people enough credit to make up their own minds.
BTW I hate Fox News. Just thought I'd get that out to nip any further baseless accusations and generalizations in the bud.

Yes, because I speak Arabic and I really trust the english translations. The internet can be censored just as easily and even if Bin Laden was out there somewhere recording angry VHS journal entries to send to the west I'd be just a skeptical of his propaganda as I would of the American governments.

Difference here being that I'm not following their line of speech and their reasoning for the war, I'm not calling for the destruction of the great Satan or answering the call to Jihad or any of that, I'm not even saying that what they did was right or wrong. You on the other hand are falling right in line with the message the American government is putting forward and defending a monstrous action while doing so. I didn't call you brainwashed, but I do have to wonder how much you've assessed the bias of the things you've been told.

Start taking things with a grain of salt, reading between the lines and stop equating 'What we say' with 'What we do', because in the operations of governments the two seldom match up.

 

[Kaleckton]

Honestly, i don't want to read all of it so I'm going to ask one basic question, has anyone mentioned the fact that the Iranian Leader has already said once that hes going to "Blow Israel off the map....." and if no one has said that, how come? I mean, if we had a nuclear power plant ran by a foreign country from the west which is fortified, I'm okay with them having a nuclear power plant, otherwise, NO! I DO NOT LIKE THAT IDEA! If I'm too late sorry, I'm out of touch of the world since I've been moving so much.

[Zimmerwald]

Let's repeat this, shall we?  Ahmadinejad has about as much real power as the White House Press Secretary.  Sure he's a nut, but he can't do much more than make inflammatory speeches that get the Ayatollahs, and everyone else, mad at him.

Germany must have known that a war with against Britain would place the US in Britain's camp, in terms of arms manufacturing, if not as an actual war-time ally. This is made even clearer when we look at history and see the United States have always ignored neutrality laws when dealing with a Europe in war. Look at the situation from 1807-1812 when Britain and Napoleonic France were at war. The United States defied the neutrality laws of both nations, and some say it lead to the War of 1812. So Germany must have known that they would be dealing a US operating on their own agenda the day they declared war.

And that's why they felt justified in sinking the U.S.' ships.  Thanks for proving my point.

The wrongs al Quaeda claims should be attributed to the US are even more laughable. They claim the US was an evil imperial power, an immoral "Great Satan."
Prior to the 9/11 attacks, how many nations in the middle east were occupied by the USA? I don't mean they had a few military bases, I mean how many middle-eastern nations were occupied by the US Army before 9/11? Where were the evil forces of the Great Satan blowing up Mosques, destroying Qur'an, forcing the locals to convert or take a loyalty oath to the American occupiers?

Prior to 9/11, the United States felt its interests could best be protected by acting through Israel (and you know it's perfectly true that the U.S. can coerce Israel by threatening to cut off arms sales) and Saudi Arabia, rather than actually occupying countries.  And you also know it's true that imperialism, particularly that kind practiced by the U.S., does not require occupation.
The Great Satan comment has been totally misconstrued.  "Satan" is not simply a symbol of unspeakable evil, rather it represents a tempter.  "Great Satan" thus refers to the spread of American culture, which Arab and Persian nationalists want to prevent.  Which ties into my next point.

I'm not even going to bother quoting your statements on nationality because you again fail to provide evidence.  Your entire argument on that score is "national consciousness is a good in itself," which is absurd.  National consciousness, like any sort of consciousness, must make people's material lives better in order to be a positive good, and you have still not provided one bit of evidence saying that it does.

[Prydania]

Maybe my view is too optimistic, I'm sure Jesus and Buddha had the same problem.

Wow, you compared yourself to both Jesus and Buddha. Congratulations. Really, I mean it, I thought I had a big ego....

You do realize we get free healthcare, right? Or is that infringing on your right to break your leg and not receive treatment?
You're view of humanity is, IMO, unrealistically optimistic.
"If we all just got along..."
Well of course if we all just got along we would all be happy, but society doesn't work that way. Someone will always be disenfranchised, or at least feel they are, and they, and other people like them, will resort to crime to "balance" the system.
War will always be a reality. Someone will always think someone else wronged them, and sooner or latter guns will go off. Human nature is ugly. We make the best out of the situation G-d gave us. Hopelessly dreaming for a world with no crime, war, or unnecessary death will only depress you as you come closer to the reality of the matter.
Freedom is not absolute, it has to work side-by-side with laws to maintain the balance of security and freedom, not one or the other. Either extreme is dangerous.

Oh I know about free health care, my mom is a nurse and believe you me I know about the waste that occurs of that system. About the constant cut backs that occur while administrators and consultants seat in freshly painted offices with nice new furniture.. meanwhile the cafeteria for the nurses no longer even provides salt and pepper at the tables. I should also mention she's been on a waiting list for surgery for about 2/3 years now and still has no date set for that.

So tell me exactly where free health care is in any way shape or form a substitute for free speech? Tell how this analogy even applies because it's pretty along the same lines as arguing that grapes are better then plums because apples have more seeds. In fact your example is not infringing on my not to choose not to be treated should I choose to do so, it's called "not going to the hospital". Again freedom is personal choice so if someone chooses not to treat a broken leg it is certainly within their rights to do so and they bear the ultimate burden of extending the force of their will.

My dad's a doctor, my grandfather revolutionized eye surgery in Canada. I know all about the pros and cons of national healthcare, it's been a contestant topic of discussion at my dinner table as long as I can remember.
You know, I'm not sure what healthcare has to do with the basic tenants of freedom, but you brought it up, so I thought I'd add my 
At least with our current system everyone is covered. The only realistic alternative is privatization, which I admit wouldn't be that bad if done right.

If we're all just a bunch of homicidal apes with no control over our actions then why even debate anything? We have free will and that free will is not freedom in a cage, as such it is completely free. So we either have free will or we don't. If we have it we can choose to work together and collectively better our lots as many people have done on smaller scales and which we could do on a larger scale... or we have a nature, a function of instinct and thus do not have free will and as such should not even be questioning our own actions because that is our instinct. A scorpion doesn't question if it is right or wrong to sting, it just does so out of instinct, so what does it say that we question our actions? Perhaps if we had a little more faith in our ability to get things done and spent a little less time dooming and glooming about how it can never be done. Think of how many things have been impossible... we'll never cross that mountain.. it's impossible... and we got across and came to an ocean which was impossible to cross... we took to the clouds which was also an impossible feat and maybe, just maybe we even made it to the moon {you seem to confuse my willingness to question for blind acceptance of the other side... silly goose}. We said it was impossible for life to live without the light of the sun and found life living at the bottom of the ocean, far from the light of the sun... so do you honestly think we know in this day and age what is actually impossible or possible?

We're more then just "psychotic apes," but that doesn't mean we're still not an aggressive species. We aren't this care bear, smurf-like species that's willing to get together for a big group hug at the end of the day.
We're flawed, that's the bottom line. We're a flawed species. We do the best that we can to live in a civilized world. Still, there's no denying that a large portion of the population would degenerate into anarchy if we have absolute freedom.
So no, it's not as simple as "we either have freedom or we don't."
That's a very simplistic view. Very few times are things so black and white in the world.
You said we should work to collectively better our lots as so many people have done in smaller groups. You go on to say that this type of system can be accomplished on a larger scale (I assume you mean nationally, or even internationally).
Well that's a great ideal, I'll admit, and anyone who doesn't feel some kind of attraction to that goal is heartless, plain and simple. It's a great theory, a great dream.
That's all it is, a dream. What you're describing is Communism, as described by Karl Marx. Well that idea has been tried.
Don't kid yourself, Lenin tried to make that society work as best as he could during the Soviet Union's early days. In fact he came pretty close, during the mid 1920's. What happened though? The system devolved into a totalitarian regime. The same process occurred in China, Yougoslavia, Cuba, and anywhere else a revolutionary socialist regime attempted to implement Communism.
Your suggestion, that we work to collectively better our lots, is simply unattainable. I say that by looking at societies that have chosen to go down that path, in each and every case the end result was the lose of freedoms, not the protection of them.
I admit, communistic societies work on small social groups, like a tribe, village, or even a city. Any larger then that, however, and the system devolves into totalitarianism.

No, the best way to safeguard our freedoms is the liberal democracy, that we see in Japan, the States, here in Canada, and in Western Europe (as well as a growing number of eastern European States).
This system also emphasizes responsibilities, however. We have a responsibility to balance freedoms with law and order. Either one in extreme is dangerous. Essentially we have to work in finding a balance between the two extremes you say are our only choices.

As far as I'm concerned nothing is impossible, so suck it.

Wooo. That was close. This almost evolved into an intelligent discussion.

In a world where an increasing amount of families have both the mom and dad as the primary wage earner, this simply isn't possible. Either mom or dad are at home, but swamped with the combination of office and house work, or a nanny is raising the kid. If it's just mom and dad, many times letting them sit in front of the television is the best way to keep the kids preoccupied while they catch up on whatever work they need to do. As for a nanny, it's a mixed bag. Many times they see television as a simple way of collecting their cheque. Let Jr sit in front of the tv all day, read a few magazines, wait for mom and dad to come home.
You're describing the way you want things to work, I'm describing how they actually work.

Yet more reason to stop trying to defend a system we know not to work and try something new however "impossible" it may seem...  This selective interest which you seem to feel is impossible to dispose of to keep a system running has been shrinking back the middle class, the rich get morbidly richer and the poor dreadfully poorer. The cost of living goes up faster then the average wage, does this seem like the results a working system delivers?

No, that describes the flow of a free-market economy. Free-market economies always experience upturns and downturns, and in rare cases surges and depressions. It's a fact of the system. We experienced an upturn in the mid and late 90's, and now we're coming down from that high. I agree it's not perfect, but to barrow a phrase from Winston Churchill, "it's the worst system we have except all the others that have been tried."
Are there room for improvements? Yes. Governments could exercise more control in the economy to make the downturns and (G-d forbid) depressions less severe. In the end though the economy will always follow this pattern, as it has since at least the 1800's.
If you have a perfect, guaranteed never to dip economic plan, please tell. I promise you, I won't be the only one interested.

As for those TV's used to pacify kids, most of them have parental locks, few are ever used. Again this is parents shucking responsibility on two levels. First not actually taking the time to spend with their kids and second not using the tools available. All these parents have so much time to bitch and moan about why someones creation can't be shown on TV but they don't have 5 minutes to set the V-chip or the will power to not give in to kids nagging if they truly feel so strongly that it should not be seen?

You can describe the ways things work all you want, explaining how the horse works never designed the car; talking about the way you want a car to work did.

No, I'm discussing the reality of the situation. If we were both working on inventing the car, I would be the one arguing for a fossil-fuel based system because I understand that's the best way to get the car to work. You would be busy hopelessly pursuing a pipe-dream about an engine that runs on water.

So know they knew about 9/11?
So not only did they fake mankind's greatest scientific accomplishment, but they allowed 3,000+ people die?
Face it, the American government isn't that good at keeping secrets. The X-Files was a great show, but in reality the American, or any anyone else's government is to bogged down with corruption, backstabbing, and minor players looking to make a name fore themselves with "the big leak" for anything on the scale you're suggesting to not only work, but for the lie to be maintained.

Yes, they did allow 3000 people to die. Who wouldn't want 3000 martyrs for the economic crusades? And you're right it's not going to stay secret, so what they do is dub these people "conspiracy theorists" and paint a picture of them as buggy little men hanging out in dark dusty apartments scattered with many papers bobbles and painted in the glow of flickering computer screen muttering on about aliens and big foot and assassinations. That way the average person dismisses what they say out of hand instead of actually considering what they have to say or giving them a fair hearing. Again the world could be so much better if only it's residents thought things through a little more and kept an open mind.

Those "conspiracy theorists" are labelled nuts because they don't have any solid proof. They don't have anything of significant value to prove that the American government knew about 9/11 ahead of time, or that the lunar landings were faked. They're marginalized not because of a government plot to hide the truth, but because they lack any real proof that such cover ups exist. If either the lunar landings being faked or the American government knowing about 9/11 ahead of time were a reality then these "conspiracy theorists" would have blown the lid wide open.
Read All the President's Men. Carl Bernstein and Bob Woodward investigated an alleged conspiracy within the American government (Nixon's involvement in the Watergate break-ins). They proved the reality of this conspiracy because the cover up actually existed. They were able to break the story in short order. Why? Because there was actually something there to investigate. Had Nixon been innocent Bernstein and Woodward would have just been a couple of nuts.
Likewise, if there was any truth to the lunar landings hoax theory or the theory that the US let 9/11 happen despite knowing about it ahead of time, these "conspiracy theorists" would have uncovered some hard facts to back their theories up.

Do you honestly think a government willing to go to war so often, founded on slavery and dedicated to expansion, assimilation and extermination through out the course of it's history and running strong right to the present day honestly gives a shit about 3000 people. To those truly in power those 3000 people weren't important and are worth far more dead then they ever could have been alive, for all the US's talk of freedom and equality and rights it is essentially an oligarchy wearing the guise of a democracy.

No, Russian society was founded on slavery, American society was founded on the principals of freedom, it's founders were just hypocrites who happened to own slaves (except for Benjamin Franklin). There's a huge difference. You just have to look at the big picture, not the big picture through "America Sucks" lenses.
I'm sorry, I can't see the American government allowing 3000 people die in the largest terrorist attack on their soil if they could have stopped it.

"An oligarchy wearing the guise of a democracy"?
That's only as true as you can stretch the meaning of the word, and in this case it's stretched a little to thin.
Again, St. Marx, believe it or not, does not have all the answers, and his theories can't realistically be used to measure the society we live in.

So why would they do it? Does this sound familiar:

After Adolf Hitler had been appointed Reichskanzler on 30 January 1933, the building was set on fire on 27 February 1933, under circumstances still not entirely clear (see Reichstag fire). This proved to be a valuable excuse for the Nazis to suspend most human rights provided for by the 1919 constitution in the Reichstag Fire Decree.

So not only have you compared yourself to Jesus and Buddha, told me to "suck it", but you've also compared Bush to Hitler. Bravo.

[Prydania]

Saying the US faked mankind's greatest achievement and allowed 3,000 people to die in an attack they could have prevented if they had prior knowledge isn't rationally reviewing history. It's the end result of selectively picking the parts of history you like to make a point, while ignoring the rest.

So establishing a trend is wrong? What exactly would you like me to do here, include the entire history of the world? First off, no one has that knowledge since history changes with time and interpretation. Second, I don't have enough time to type it all nor you to read it all. Third, how are you not doing the exact same thing?

I've highlighted trends, you've return ridiculous arguments that don't always apply to situation at hand or which lack any logic. You've become so dogmatically entrenched in the version of history you were told is right that you never though to question the form of the story or the other side there of. You want to mock me for considering the motives behind 9/11 aside from the official "they hate freedom and democracy and our way of life"... you refuse to even consider the notion that maybe we haven't been to the moon because the majority of people don't consider it either. At one time the majority of people considered the Earth to be flat and anything else was an impossible story or just against the will of God or just plain stupid. Case in point, just because the majority agrees it doesn't make the majority right.

You've done nothing but picked pieces of history that agree with your twisted version of reality, and used them as a justification to vindicate murderers, and vilify those who have been generally contributed more to mankind then they've detracted, as well as delude yourself into believing St. Marx's grand dream for humanity.
You've only been able to see a trend because you discount everything that goes against that trend.
Just because the majority believe something is true, doesn't mean it's untrue, and that higher powers are propagating that untruth. You should question authority, yes. But not so much that you believe every authority figure is hiding some secret government agenda. That's not only ludicrously false, it's also unhealthy. 

Have I not said on numerous occasions that the Iraq War (the current one) was a mistake? America's fuck up in Iraq, however, does not let suicide bombers in Israel or Al Quieda for their attack on 9/11 off the hook.

No one said it did, how many innocent civilians have to die to punish a small group which only sought the "right to retribution" you feel justifies the American "response" (and we could chicken and egg that for a looong time). Hundreds of thousands of people who were not involved being killed, injured, displaced and terrorized by Western troops is justice for 3000 people killed? Over a thousand fold people have been killed for 9/11 then were killed in 9/11, when exactly is enough a enough? When we beat an idea? It'll never happen because we can't beat an idea and in fighting that idea we create that state and set the stage for even worse forms of it. I'm not saying let those who go around crashing planes into buildings get off scott free, but don't have innocent people pay in blood for it either.

In many cases it is. What's the US suppose to do? Let 9/11 happen and not respond? Should they have just kicked back and taken it easy when Japan bombed Pearl Harbour? Should Israel just let Hezbullah fire rockets into its cities? In 1812 should we have just let the Americans come in and occupy our country? When someone hits you, you hit back as hard as you can.

No... it's not... and see above.

Again, an unrealistic view of the world. Going to war, seeking retribution, will result in civilian lose. That's unalterable fact of not only war, but human existence. Yet when it comes to war, if the ends are truly justified, then the means are just as justified.
When asked a question on this very subject Marshal Arthur Harris, commander of RAF Bomber Command during WWII, once remarked that in the pursuit of defeating Nazi Germany the deaths of all the people in Hamburg during a huge bombing raid weren't even worth the bones of one British soldier.
Point being, if your cause is just, the ends justify the means. If you forget this fact you'll never be able to wage a successful war, and you will fall to those who can.
Again, if someone hits you, you hit back.

Someone will always benefit from war. That doesn't mean the war was waged just so they could make a profit, however. I'm pretty sure the British and French declaring war on Nazi Germany had more to do with stopping a madman then making the arms manufacturers in Britain and France rich.
Despite what St. Marx said, history does not revolve around class.

Oh, nice job calling someone who disagreed with you brainwashed...again. Give the other side some credit. People can make up their own minds, even if their opinions differ from yours.

Alright mister "respect for history", lets actually compare the war on terror with WWII.

WWII -

Hitler sends out a huge army and starts taking over countries in Europe and Africa.. sets up death camps and kills millions upon millions of people for no other reason then their heritage... performs medical experimentation on prisoners and uses them as slave labour and keeps a massive army moving aggressively outwards to conquer more lands.

War on Terror -

A plane crashes into a building one day and kills 3000 people. Since then the US has been invading countries in the middle east on lies and misinformation, abandons the Geneva convention and upon taking over the sovereign nation of Iraq which never made any aggressive moves against the invading nation and had no such capabilities if it even has any desire to do so begins handing out contracts to oil companies to develop the area. I

Now yes this is a VERY condensed history but as basic plot lines go it's about as accurate as it needs to be. So clearly the War on Terror is not the same situation IN ANY WAY as WWII and if you had even the slightest respect for history or the millions of people who died in that tragic war you wouldn't even try to say that it is. The WoT is about profit and corporate expansion and ignoring the facts of history to try and defend it is despicable. Those who benefited from WWII did so as a result of acting on conscience and defending the rights and freedoms of those who needed it and for themselves. Those who benefit from the WoT went to war for the benefits and do so by opposing the rights and freedoms of those who need it for the benefit of only themselves. If you honestly believe that this is about bringing freedom and democracy to a region then I've truly lost any respect I had for you as an intellectual.

I thought you lost respect for me when you told me to "suck it."
That's about the point that I lost respect for you.
No, I'm not comparing WWII to the War on Terror. The two conflicts are about as different as two wars can be.
The point I was making was that during WWII the aim was to stop a madman. I think we can agree on that.
Still, there's no denying the arms manufacturers of the Allied powers did make a profit from the war. Does that mean that the war was waged just to make them money, just because they benefited from hostilities? No. The financial gain of those manufacturers was simply a side-effect of waging a war on the grounds that differed completely from financial gain.
The same can be said for the War on Terror. No, I don't believe it's about bringing democracy to the Middle East. In principal at least, the war is simply about bringing those who perpetrated 9/11. Just because it's gone wrong doesn't invalidate the war, it simply means that those who have run it so far are complete morons. The goal should be the capture of bin Ladin and his cohorts. Not to go gallivanting around the middle east blowing shit up.
No, the War on Terror is a noble concept. The leadership just needs to be changed, and strategy refocused on the original objective. 

Third, it's impossible to war against an idea and win, a poorly defined one doubly so. I don't see a freedom fighter or a murderer... I see a guy with a gun that should be in the comfort of his home having a meal with his family and living free instead of being trapped in some endless cycle of revenge.

Yes, he should, but he isn't. Again, how we wish things were vs how things actually are.

And how things could be. I feel sorry for you that you accepted the situation as hopeless before you ever tried to do anything about it.

I accept the situation you provided as hopeless, because it's not my authority or responsibility to fix the problems in the middle east. I live in Canada, I'll work on making Canada a better place.
Likewise that guy with a gun in the middle east, rather then shooting at infidels in the name of Allah, should work to make his country a better place for his people. Instead of planning attacks on the US Osama bin Ladin should maybe work to use his family's vast fortune to help the Arab world revitalize itself.
You talked about responsibility. Well it's not my responsibility to fix the middle east. It's the people in the middle east's responsibility. They're the ones who have to put the guns down and work to improve their countries.

Easy. We do know how it works. Read Locke. Read Hobbs. Read the US Constitution, the British Bill of Rights, and the BNA Act (the Canadian Constitution for those unaware).We give up some freedoms so that the government may protect the ones we hold most dear. Every major work dedicated to preserving freedom has taken that stance. Limitless freedom is just a nice way to say anarchy and mob rule.

If only the government actually protected them... I guess thats the way things should be versus the way things are. With all the corruption backstabbing and greed your rights and freedoms are very low on the list of priorities, probably right above your life.

News flash. The government does protect them. I can walk outside, get on a soapbox, and preach about the evils of the government and I won't be arrested for that. I can worship the religion I was brought up in. I can read whatever I want, and newspapers and magazines are free to print what they want. If the Globe and Mail (Canada) or the New York Times (USA) want to run articles criticizing their respective government's policies, they're free to do so without reprisal. The freedoms you cherish so much are very much protected. 

As long as your reading all those fine documents to tell you how things are why not read the three little pigs to learn about building structures to stand up in a wind storm or jack and the bean stalk to learn about gardening. Those documents are there to give you the illusion of freedom and choice, not to guarantee them. What hold does a piece of paper have on a government with the power to change that piece of paper? Words don't keep a government honest, citizens do. All the paper in the world wouldn't end the military rule of Burma but all the citizens of Burma could (and hopefully will). It is then up to those people to maintain a vigil to keep their newly won rights and freedoms from slipping away.

See above. The governments of the western world do indeed protect the freedoms you cherish.
As for Burma, same goes for the middle east. It's up to the people of Burma to secure their freedom.

Besides all the world is under mob rule, we just sometimes call the mob the police or the military or the governing party but it's still a group of people who say "we say you do this and you better do it or else". I'll protect my own rights thank you kindly, I don't trust those crazy bastards to protect it for me when they want for themselves.

Again, being suspicious of everyone in power is unhealthy, to say the least.
Would you rather we all live in anarchy, no authority what so ever? You think we're living in mob rule now....

First off, you don't need to watch tv to listen to the speeches and propaganda of Ahmadinejad and bin Laden. You can easily use the net to find their speeches and statements, either in transcript form, or by way of video.
Second of all, if you hadn't conveniently spliced my original post to take what I wrote out of context, you would see that I wasn't actually accusing you of blindly following Ahmadinejad and bin Laden.
You accused me of being brainwashed by the American government simply because I don't agree with you. So I replied in kind, using Ahmadinejad and bin Laden to show you how stupid you sound when you simply label someone who disagrees with you "brainwashed."
Give people enough credit to make up their own minds.
BTW I hate Fox News. Just thought I'd get that out to nip any further baseless accusations and generalizations in the bud.

Yes, because I speak Arabic and I really trust the english translations. The internet can be censored just as easily and even if Bin Laden was out there somewhere recording angry VHS journal entries to send to the west I'd be just a skeptical of his propaganda as I would of the American governments.

Difference here being that I'm not following their line of speech and their reasoning for the war, I'm not calling for the destruction of the great Satan or answering the call to Jihad or any of that, I'm not even saying that what they did was right or wrong. You on the other hand are falling right in line with the message the American government is putting forward and defending a monstrous action while doing so. I didn't call you brainwashed, but I do have to wonder how much you've assessed the bias of the things you've been told.

Start taking things with a grain of salt, reading between the lines and stop equating 'What we say' with 'What we do', because in the operations of governments the two seldom match up.

Again, you managed to add calling someone who disagreed with you brainwashed (twice!). You're on a roll.
I do take things with a grain of salt, but most of the time the most obvious answer is the simplest one, and you have to start looking to the real world for the protectors of our freedom. Not pipe dreams that'll only depress you when you find out what they really are.
As for that grain of salt, just through it on your popcorn

[Prydania]

Let's repeat this, shall we?  Ahmadinejad has about as much real power as the White House Press Secretary.  Sure he's a nut, but he can't do much more than make inflammatory speeches that get the Ayatollahs, and everyone else, mad at him.

And you have all the inside info on the Iranian government? You know who really wields power? If so, I have to say I'm impressed.

Germany must have known that a war with against Britain would place the US in Britain's camp, in terms of arms manufacturing, if not as an actual war-time ally. This is made even clearer when we look at history and see the United States have always ignored neutrality laws when dealing with a Europe in war. Look at the situation from 1807-1812 when Britain and Napoleonic France were at war. The United States defied the neutrality laws of both nations, and some say it lead to the War of 1812. So Germany must have known that they would be dealing a US operating on their own agenda the day they declared war.

And that's why they felt justified in sinking the U.S.' ships.  Thanks for proving my point.

Yes, they felt justified, we both agree on that. The question is, were they really justified? I would argue that they weren't, and from that perspective their attacks on the US were unprovoked.

The wrongs al Quaeda claims should be attributed to the US are even more laughable. They claim the US was an evil imperial power, an immoral "Great Satan."
Prior to the 9/11 attacks, how many nations in the middle east were occupied by the USA? I don't mean they had a few military bases, I mean how many middle-eastern nations were occupied by the US Army before 9/11? Where were the evil forces of the Great Satan blowing up Mosques, destroying Qur'an, forcing the locals to convert or take a loyalty oath to the American occupiers?

Prior to 9/11, the United States felt its interests could best be protected by acting through Israel (and you know it's perfectly true that the U.S. can coerce Israel by threatening to cut off arms sales) and Saudi Arabia, rather than actually occupying countries.  And you also know it's true that imperialism, particularly that kind practiced by the U.S., does not require occupation.
The Great Satan comment has been totally misconstrued.  "Satan" is not simply a symbol of unspeakable evil, rather it represents a tempter.  "Great Satan" thus refers to the spread of American culture, which Arab and Persian nationalists want to prevent.  Which ties into my next point.

Yes, the US wields considerable influence in Israel, but not through Israel. As you're probably aware the majority of the Muslim middle east HATES Israel. The US trying to dictate middle eastern policy through Israel would be like me trying to convince you of something through Myro. If I'm trying to get you to agree to do something why would I use someone you regularly disagree with?
Saudi Arabia, yes, you have a point. Still, I'm of the opinion that the Saudis are working toward their own agenda not completely in tune with the American agenda.

I'm not even going to bother quoting your statements on nationality because you again fail to provide evidence.  Your entire argument on that score is "national consciousness is a good in itself," which is absurd.  National consciousness, like any sort of consciousness, must make people's material lives better in order to be a positive good, and you have still not provided one bit of evidence saying that it does.

Simply put, something is always worth as much as people put into it, be it faith, money, tradition, history, etc...
People, since ancient times, have been willing to die for their land, their state. Their nation forms the basis of their identity, and provides for a the structures society needs to function. A centralized nation has the ability to provide not only a form of self-identification, but the ability to provide roads, schools, hospitals, a police force to protect against crime, and a military to protect against those who wish to subjugate your people.

In the end though, I don't feel I need to justify the need or the very existence of the nation-state as the best basis for a world-wide conscience. All I really need to do is tell you to look at human history from ancient times to the present. Man has always divided himself along national lines. And he will continue to do so. Why? Because the nation-state fits in with human nature then any other form of self-identification. Look in nature. It's full of "us vs them" situations. We're not that far removed from nature. We still recognize and act on that mentality, something the nation-state fits perfectly into. We always have divided ourselves along cultural lines, and that leads to the nation-state, the ultimate when it comes to mankind's self-consciousness. The nation has always been, and will in all likelihood will continue to be, the norm.
The more important question that needs to be asked here is, what evidence do you have that self-identification along class lines is more beneficial then self-identification along national lines?

[Myroria]

Also to support how the WTC attacks were not conspiracies - Why would the government want to kill 3000 of its own taxpayers? And if it has no qualms about killing 3000 of its own people, then why wouldn't they shut down conspiracy websites within hours, if not minutes of their creation?

Yes, my posts aren't as long as IS', but I don't have that kind of patience. Or attention span.

[Prydania]

Also to support how the WTC attacks were not conspiracies - Why would the government want to kill 3000 of its own taxpayers? And if it has no qualms about killing 3000 of its own people, then why wouldn't they shut down conspiracy websites within hours, if not minutes of their creation?

Yes, my posts aren't as long as IS', but I don't have that kind of patience. Or attention span.

They don't need to be 

Anyway, I've said my part. I want to thank G-China for providing a stimulating discussion (look forward to the ₮50 bill).

This thread has taken way to much of my time anyway. I need to get back to RPing, the reason why I come here in the first place.

[Delfos]

It's more arrogant to deny or challenge someone for what you call arrogant points in my point of view, but seriously, Taco never directly compared any of those, and actually is entitled to. He didn't say "Hey I've done miracles!". He's a witch, burn him.
Any from that, i think it's even more immature and insulting to infantilize what someone believes. I haven't yet seen any real answer, question or point about the Topic since you guys started to hit each other saying "He's stupid, how can he think that way?". It's OK if you can't admit he has a strong point but it's stupid to argue about the person instead on what he actually said. So if you consider yourself anti-nazi because you're pro-jew, that's extreme but legit, also contradictory when you defend absolute freedom, that's not the case in some of you. I actually think the cartoons went too far, from simple mockery and the purpose on what cartoons were made to insulting. So I'm against the abuse of 'the system' and specially against any action made against people. (In ND you can throw cheese at people but i don't actually think that way, there's limits). What I'm watching here is that whenever someone disagrees starts an aggressive attack to the person in disagreement, like the Bush stuff on Al Gore and others. Grow up. OK that this is just a forum and whatever, but what's with all the insults.

Oh let me get back off topic to the competence issue. Collin Powell said Bush Administration was incompetent in the Iraq issue. I don't think i need to quote him, but i agree with him and go further saying there's even more incompetence than that. That's one of my strongest points to think Iranian Government is more competent.

Competence is the ability to perform some task. Incompetence is its opposite.

Competence isn't about being fair, respecting human rights and things like that. Katrina and any other scenes where the US government should or shouldn't take the lead or show competence, it failed. Being the leading of one of the strongest countries in the world comes with responsibility, why don't Bush uses it where it is really needed? There expressed, I wont care for this issue anymore.

I think we can all agree that if Iran gets Nuclear power they will develop nuclear weaponry, if not now some decades later. Can't we?

I think they need Nuclear power to develop their society, i hope to something better. Nuclear power has the power to make this things, that's how Ukrain and Russia Progressed...well not the best examples but look at them, not exactly stone age. I don't like Nuclear power, and i support the Portuguese government decision to stay out of it, i also agree with Taco about clean energies should be the step to the future instead of Nuclear Plants, but how can we demand it to a place of the world so exploited and divided and marginalized? Can we? by force?

If Iran gets attacked, what will be the causes? Whining about not complying with 'the western world' about nuclear power? Or more Massive Destruction Weapons?

[Prydania]

Didn't I wash my hands of you? And you still continue to yap. Take a hint, I don't want to have anything to do with you. I'm not telling you to leave the region, I'm just requesting that you LEAVE ME ALONE.
How about you experience the real world a little bit. Maybe, I don't know, reach high school first before you start talking down to people who have lived longer and know more then you.

It's OK if you can't admit he has a strong point but it's stupid to argue about the person instead on what he actually said.

He doesn't. Move on.

So if you consider yourself anti-nazi because you're pro-jew, that's extreme but legit, also contradictory when you defend absolute freedom, that's not the case in some of you.

I'm pro-Jew? No, I am a Jew. Again, mature, learn something about how the world works. Until then I don't want to have anything to do with you.
Besides, I don't really trust someone who used a religious discussion involving the simple basis of the Jewish faith as an excuse for you to attack Israel, when I never even mentioned the State of Israel in my discussion.

I think we can all agree that if Iran gets Nuclear power they will develop nuclear weaponry, if not now some decades later. Can't we?

Yes, we can agree on that.
The question is, should Iran be allowed to develop nuclear weaponry when their president has made the destruction of an entire nation a national agenda?
Yet again, would you want Spain to have nuclear capabilities if they made the destruction of Portugal official policy? Try not to dodge the question this time.

Anyway, I'm done with you. Leave your bubble, experience how the world works, and get back to me.

[Delfos]

You really don't know me, very bad assumptions. I never spoke directly to you, only about Taco but always generally. Finishing High School? What does that have to do? Have you finished University?
This topic isn't about you, and destruction is in USA's agenda too, and have put it in action much more times Iran ever will like bombing entire villages in Afghanistan.

The matter of destruction is for everyone, not just Israel. How can we prevent some nation to build nuclear weapons? is there a way to do it without not letting Iran have nuclear power? I don't know, and i don't think not letting them have nuclear power is the best answer either. My guess if the nuclear power is run in cooperation with neutral foreign institutes for supervision then maybe they won't be able to produce nuclear weapons. But it's inevitable, some day they will, but i bet Israel have them too. Last time Israel defended themselves they ended up bombing Lebanon (excluding Gaza). Not really plain clean angels.

[Gecko1]

Make nuclear weapons ineffective, a global antimissile-shield should do it, if America did that to support the human wellbeing then I would support their little project.