Iran nuclear issues...

Discussion in 'Every Day Debating' started by azuren82, Mar 16, 2007.

  1. Justice

    Justice New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 8, 2003
    Messages:
    1,260
    Likes Received:
    16
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Southern California
    Ratings:
    +16 / 0 / -0
    Stop lying about the issues. If you're not lying, do some research. The US isn't bullying Iran. The ENTIRE United Nations Security Panels and Nuclear Proliferation panels are against Iran gaining nuclear weapons UNANIMOUSLY. That is not just the US but a collection of well over 100 different nations. If you want to say the US is bullying Iran, include all the other nations involved to that are trying to increase economic sanctions on Iran because you are belittling your argument just to point out the US.

    The vast majority of nuclear weaponry was developed during the cold war and served as a deterrent against Soviet agression. they did their purpose. Now the weapons are no longer needed as they once were, but no one can simply disarm.



    because it is a militaristic dictatorship with perhaps the lowest quality of life on the planet. The United States took the forefront on this issue and defused the situation, and now North Korea is under international obligation to dismantle their nuclear facilities. Because of this the US has record high approval ratings in many Asian nations, especially Japan which hit something like 82% recently after the crisis.

    You see, the US can use diplomacy. In fact for every war we've been involved with, there have been hundreds avoided through US diplomacy.

    Sure you can. China has threatened North Korea with severe economic sanctions since their nuclear program was threatening other nations China has economic interests in.

    Mahmoud Ahmaddinejad has made dozens of references to wiping out Israel and all its inhabitants. He's trying to secure nuclear weapons, and has publicly stated that a nuclear Iran is their right. They also have refused nuclear technology from Russia which cannot be used to make nuclear weapons.

    And second, Iran wouldn't attack Israel. They would give a nuclear weapon to a terrorist group which would in turn use in inside Israel. Despite supplying the weaponry, they would deny responsibility.

    That's a terrible idea. Why wait until they have a nuclear weapon to do anything? If you find out a medicine brand is poisonous, do you wait until people start buying it, or do you stop producing it at the source?

    They also said they captured British soldiers in Iranian waters, but GPS locators proved the British soldiers were within 1.7 miles inside Iraqi waters.

    http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpa...cs/Subjects/B/Biological and Chemical Warfare

    The bombers came from Iraq, traveled through Syria, and into Jordan. They had vast quantities of VX Nerve gas, which Syria does not have the capability to produce in any capacity, and they had direct orders from Abu Musab Al Zarqawi, the butcher of Baghdad, the Al Quaeda leader responsible for the heinous sectarian violence in Iraq today. VX Nerve gas was used during the Kurdish genocide of 1988.

    Despite the fact this story is evidence that these terrorists acquired WMD inside Iraq in a stockpile volume and tried to use them. It got virtually no press despite the fact you think a WMD in Iraq story would be a significant story.
     
  2. Foinikas

    Foinikas Playing backgammon!

    Joined:
    Mar 21, 2005
    Messages:
    7,802
    Likes Received:
    96
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    VDNH Station,Moscow
    Ratings:
    +97 / 0 / -0
    Ok I gotta say this,do you ONLY post here in subjects that have to do with Israel or USA going to war and how they are always right on everything they do?

    Because I don't remember seeing you posting in other Fantasy or medieval threads.

    And heck I'm not "lying" about stuff I say.You know that USA is the only country that has a major fit against Iran and is the one that's doing it's best to keep Iran from having nuclear power.And is also the one(apart from Israel) who threatened to attack Iran.

    And when I said you can't just bully someone when they want to have nuclear power I meant it's not right to bully someone.Who do you think you are?The policeman of the world?
     
  3. Justice

    Justice New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 8, 2003
    Messages:
    1,260
    Likes Received:
    16
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Southern California
    Ratings:
    +16 / 0 / -0
    Why do you always post about how America is evil in everything they do?

    Besides, I have critisized America, the War on Terror, and the War in Iraq many times.

    This website used to be a completely different place a while ago. I don't post here as often as I used to but I do when I feel that something needs to be corrected.

    http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2006/sc8928.doc.htm

    This was the first sanction placed on Iran for their Nuclear Program. Nations involved are the US, The UK, France, Qatar (look at that, an Arab county), Argentina, Japan, Russia, and China were all involved in sanctions, and that is only a few nations out of the entire IAEA which gave statements.

    So again, you're very much uninformed.

    And when have we threatened Iran? We have stated that no option is off the table in regards to Iran, and that includes a military strike, but NOONE in the US governemtn has said we will attack Iran if they do not stop. Our very first stop was the United Nations and their Security Council and the International Atomic Enegery Association.

    Again, you just like to single out the USA and say they are running around bullying Iran, especially when it isn't true. We have DOZENS of countries bullying Iran.

    And again, you seem to gloss over Mahmoud Ahmadenijad's NUMEROUS references to wanting to destroy Israel. This guy is clearly not a stable and peaceful person, he is the LAST person who should have nuclear weaponry.

    And again, you didn't even bother to check to see what kind of nuclear power he wants. Russia has offered Iran nuclear technology that CANNOT be used to enrich unraniam and make a nuclear weapon. Iran turned it down. Do you still believe their nuclear program is peaceful when they want yellow cake uranium reactors that can be used to make nuclear weapons?
     
  4. Foinikas

    Foinikas Playing backgammon!

    Joined:
    Mar 21, 2005
    Messages:
    7,802
    Likes Received:
    96
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    VDNH Station,Moscow
    Ratings:
    +97 / 0 / -0
    Ahmadinejad has said a lot of stuff against Israel in the same attitude that Israel talks about other countries as well.We will do this,we will do that.Yeah well I seriously doubt if the Persians would risk to attack Israel or another country with nuclear weapons.They might as well kill thousands of Palestinians and others who have nothing to do in Israel,but are inside Israel.The ones who have been threating Iran with attacks are USA and Israel and don't deny that if Bush didn't get his ass kicked in Iraq wouldn't attack Iran.

    He said Iran is one of the "evil" countries along with Syria and Iraq.Afghanistan was attacked,Iraq was attacked and everything points to Iran now.But they can't attack Iran so easily because they know they will get smashed if they do that.

    And if you wanna check my posts I don't always post and say that USA is evil or stuff like that.What you are doing on the contrary is post in a Fantasy forum most of them times about political matters.
     
  5. chimera_789

    chimera_789 Queen of Air and Darkness

    Joined:
    Aug 30, 2006
    Messages:
    385
    Likes Received:
    43
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    New Orleans, LA
    Ratings:
    +43 / 0 / -0
    Yes, in fairness principle since we and a bunch of other countries have nukes and since is Iran is a soveriegn nation, we don't have any real right to tell them they can't have their own nukes, especially since we gave their greatest enemy (Israel) nukes of its own. However, fairness principle has never been much a part of international politics except in flowery speeches and, given the nature of the international system, that's pretty understandable. The practical concerns of individual nations are always gonna trump any theory of fairness that it or anyone else espouses. Iran is just as guilty of it - in theory if its not planning to use nuclear weapons then it doesn't need them anyway and should just let it all go; but of course, they have other political reasons for wanting to have them that have nothing to do with their "fair due" or intent to use them and they trump any such rational, peaceful stance. So life's not fair.

    From a purely practical perspective (not in any way meant to comment on the legitimacy of its existence or actions) Israel is kind of a giant pain in the ass. If it weren't there and/or we weren't so closely tied up with it, we could just let the whole region go and happily mind our own business on this side of the planet. (Lives and fortunes in several mid-east countries are deeply dependent on oil revenue so the oil would flow regardless of the situation we left behind) Iran could have all the nuclear weapons it wanted since they'd be useless against us without a closer proxy target. It's unbeleivably difficult to sneak a nuclear weapon into the country, because they are fairly easy to detect and screen for (unlike, say, bio or chem weapons) and, as North Korea recently demonstrated, long range delivery systems are difficult to develop and build and you're highly likely to accidentally hit one of your nuclear neighbors in the attempt. It would also be amusing to let Russia be in the hot seat for awhile since they just love to go around "supporting" the rights of some of these countries (there's money to be made after all) while letting us take all the flak for refusing to allow them to have nukes (which given their proximity Russia really doesn't want them to have either). Ah, Israel. If only God had just "given" you a nice chuck of land in Canada.

    Anyway, as to Iran in reality as is, I think this http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17888449/site/newsweek/ article is pretty good and I pretty much agree.
     
  6. Foinikas

    Foinikas Playing backgammon!

    Joined:
    Mar 21, 2005
    Messages:
    7,802
    Likes Received:
    96
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    VDNH Station,Moscow
    Ratings:
    +97 / 0 / -0
    Well said!
     
  7. Justice

    Justice New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 8, 2003
    Messages:
    1,260
    Likes Received:
    16
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Southern California
    Ratings:
    +16 / 0 / -0
    I would like to see some quotes from high ranking government officials in Israel calling for other nations to be wiped off the map.


    Have you not seen the slaughter in Iraq? Radical muslims would gladly kill THOUSANDS of each other based ENTIRELY on opinion as the Sunni's and Shiites do, all over the ancestry of Mohammed the prophet. Haven't you noticed how many thousands of suicide bombers have killed themselves in the last few decades? Radical muslims don't cherish life.


    We have never threatened military against Iran yet. That's why we are at the United Nations pushing for sanctions. Israel has threatened retaliation if Iran threatens them like they have been with their support of terrorist factions like Hezbollah and Hamas.

    He certainly did. Along with North Korea which was pushing for Nuclear Weapons. Syria is a state sponsor of terrorism, it is funded by the government themselves. Iraq was in violation of UN sanctions for over 12 years and the UN decided to do nothing about it, in fact they were profitting of the UN "Oil for Food Scandal".

    Which was certainly justified.

    UN Resolution 1441 allowed for a military incursion if Saddam did not cooperate with the UN Weapons inspectors. They didn't.

    http://www.un.int/usa/sres-iraq.htm

    The Iraq war has been one horrible mistake after another. No one would do it again if we got to do it over. But that is neither here or there, it happened. Now we have to figure out how to fix it, or just leave it to destroy itself. Iraq is not failing because of the US. Iraq is failing because Iraqi's won't stop killing one another.

    If Iran defies both the UN Security Council and the International Atomic Energy Agency and produce enough enriched uranium and have the capability of turning into a weapon, the US and Britain SHOULD bomb every nuclear facility to the ground. Israel did it in 1981 on Saddam's nuclear program and it protected their citizenry. Iran having a nuclear weaponry arsenal does not benefit ANYONE.


    There will not be boots on the ground. But the US has enough air superiority to conduct a full scale air and sea campaign without combat troops.

    #1, it's a debate thread, I'm free to post wherever I want.
    #2, you continually single out the US and make statements like "we're bullying Iran" when there are over a hundred nations in the UN doing the same exact thing by approving sanctions against them.
     
  8. Justice

    Justice New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 8, 2003
    Messages:
    1,260
    Likes Received:
    16
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Southern California
    Ratings:
    +16 / 0 / -0
    Again, I will make this point and hopefully someone will be able to explain it.

    Both the United States and Russia have offered Iran Nuclear Reactor technology which CANNOT be used to enrich uranium, and thus cannot be used to make nuclear weaponry.

    Iran has refused this.

    What else are we to think they are trying to do?

    http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/13165152/
     
  9. Disco Jezebel

    Disco Jezebel Speak Your Right Words

    Joined:
    Jan 30, 2007
    Messages:
    595
    Likes Received:
    98
    Trophy Points:
    28
    Location:
    Eastern North Carolina
    Ratings:
    +100 / 0 / -0
    Idk, anymore It just seems to be propaganda on own end..
     
  10. Mububban

    Mububban Administrator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2003
    Messages:
    4,705
    Likes Received:
    144
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Location:
    West Australia
    Ratings:
    +186 / 1 / -0
    This snippet agrees with another article I read in my local paper a few weeks ago, saying that despite the leaders being vocally anti-west, there's a huge number of Iranians who simply want their leaders to shut up so that they can join the rest of the international community. Proving again that most people are just like you and me - we just want to get on with things and not have trouble in our daily lives. Unfortauntely the leaders don't seem to share that opinion.
     
  11. Blackness

    Blackness Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 28, 2006
    Messages:
    2,947
    Likes Received:
    145
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Ratings:
    +145 / 0 / -0
    I believe that no country should posses nuclear weaponry, or nuclear machinery of any kind, but if one country has them, why should another be stopped in trying to do the same?

    So, ok, Iran is trying to make atomic bombs... but that does not concern me? Know why? Because there are more countries with nucler weaponry, so Iran will be just one more, among many others, so i really don't understand what's this ''Iraq is making weapons, we must stop them'' thing... when in fact, no one is crazy enough to start a nuclear war, for that will lead to the end... the REAL end...
    Just as Einstein said on the question ''What weapons will be used in World War 3?''
    He said ''I don't know, but i know that 4th World War will be with clubs'' (or somenthing in that fashion)...

    I conclude, no country should have such a destructive force like nukes... but hell, if America and Russia together have (don't know the exact number, but i'm pretty sure no one here does, so I'll just use the number i heard somewhere) 35000 nuclear bombs..

    Even if the number is in truth just one tenth of this, it would still be enough to destroy the Earth many many many times over...

    So, why have nuclear weapons, i ask? :confused: :confused: :confused: :confused:

    And by the way, hi Justice, long time no see :D
     
  12. Mububban

    Mububban Administrator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2003
    Messages:
    4,705
    Likes Received:
    144
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Location:
    West Australia
    Ratings:
    +186 / 1 / -0
    Blackness, I'm guessing you didn't bother to read the rest of the posts.

    The seemingly legitimate concern with Iran specifically is that their leader has stated several times he wants to destroy another country entirely. Eveyr last man, woman and child, wiped off the face of the earth.

    Whereas other countries have them with the hope of never using them, because they know they in turn will get nuked, a country that believes they will go to heaven if they die fighting their enemies is a dangerous proposition.
     
  13. Blackness

    Blackness Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 28, 2006
    Messages:
    2,947
    Likes Received:
    145
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Ratings:
    +145 / 0 / -0
    Oh...
    My bad :(
     
  14. chimera_789

    chimera_789 Queen of Air and Darkness

    Joined:
    Aug 30, 2006
    Messages:
    385
    Likes Received:
    43
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    New Orleans, LA
    Ratings:
    +43 / 0 / -0
    The problem with the Iranian president is that he has backed himself into a corner. The more moderate majority hate him, and even a more moderate change in his stance would not gain him their support. So in order to hang on to his power he must keep the support of his radical conservative base, by promoting the death of Israel and Iran's right to nuclear weapons, which in turn simply widens the gap between him and moderates, perpetuating his situation. The key for us therefore is to find some way to either get his people to remove him finally, or to get him to back down without losing face to his supporters. A tall order if you ask me. Of course the easiest thing would be just to ignore the situation completely but we are kept in it by Israel, just as we are kept in the North Korea problem by Seoul. Like I said before Iran can't really threaten us, and neither for that matter can NK, but as long as we maintain ties of responsibility to precariously situated allies, countries like Iran will be able to hold their futures hostage to ensure our involvement. I'm not at this time saying we shouldn't maintain such ties, but we must understand the consequences. George Washington I believe it was, warned us against such permanent international entanglements, and political parties I believe, and we have not listened on both counts. So our situations become ever more complex.
     
  15. Turambar

    Turambar Harebrained Staff Member

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2004
    Messages:
    7,784
    Likes Received:
    162
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Location:
    Not in Amsterdam :)
    Ratings:
    +189 / 0 / -0
    Ahh... let's dust this one off, shall we?

    So, the latest CIA report suggests Iran probably stopped developing a nuclear devise in 2003. Great, one should say. Right?

    Not the Bush administration. It's the Iraq issue all over again. Even though the direct threat of a nuclear bomb coming fron Iran has dwindled, republicans stumble over each other ensuring the world Iran is still a big threat.

    Now, I'm glad that they are pretty well alone in this. I mean, the democrats for one reason or another say the US should stop the language of war towards Iran. The European Union seems to be content, Russia and China are laughing their arses off. I don't know about Israel, but they sort of spoiled their credit for me. But at any rate, the Bush administration stresses this is not quite the moment to give a Iran the least bit of slack.

    What is it with the Bushians. Is it something like Trotski said; only freedom through struggle, wherever, whenever? I'm sorry, but to me it sounds like this report didn't fit their agenda at all. And to me, this paints the picture of an administration that would go to war, whatever the reason; it taints the other wars as well. Bush is finally showing his true colour.

    If there was still a grain of credibility in the Bush administration left, it's made sure that's been blown away as well.

    *sigh*

    So, enought ranting. Iran. Yes.

    Erm, so who's with me on saying this report should be a fresh start for approaching Iran in international relations. I think, after all that has been said and done against them, it's time to give them at least some credit. Live and let live, right? Pleas note that Ahmedinejad became president in 2005, so far as we know, that whole nuclear bomb thing was before his time. Yay Iran?
     
  16. Justice

    Justice New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 8, 2003
    Messages:
    1,260
    Likes Received:
    16
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Southern California
    Ratings:
    +16 / 0 / -0

    And yet Iran continues to enrich uranium despite the fact they were offered nuclear technology from the Russians that cannot be used to create weapons. However they turned it down. And they choose to defy the IAEA and refuse to allow inspectors to check to see if Iran doesn't have a COVERT weapons program as they obviously don't have an overt one. And even if they don't have a weapons program they can easily sell enriched uranium to anyone who has the least bit of know how to create a dirty bomb, and by God I am certain they know the value of that. If they sell the materials to another nation they can wipe their hands clean of the entire ordeal, sort of like how they wipe their hands of all the Quds force members being captured and killed in Iraq trying to restart the insurgency. So no, everything seems fine then. No worries. Let's forget this whole thing then...

    When a madman says he intends to wipe a country off the face of the earth, it's rather foolish just to sit back and twiddle your thumbs when he is still producing the capability to do it.

    And also, Turumbar, seriously, what makes you think Bush was lying about the Intelligence on Iran? I mean, please, back up your assertions. I know you hate Bush, but as I have pointed out time and time again you need legitimate reasons for doing so. This intelligence report was not compiled and given to the President until last week, so I know you want to play it up like Bush had the proper intelligence and wanted to continue lying to people. The facts just don't support your suppositions on this one.
     
  17. Turambar

    Turambar Harebrained Staff Member

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2004
    Messages:
    7,784
    Likes Received:
    162
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Location:
    Not in Amsterdam :)
    Ratings:
    +189 / 0 / -0
    Israel has a covert weapons program. And I'd be damned if Russia and the US would have told everything that's up their sleeves either....

    The thing is, Iran is not the nicest boy in the class. They just aren't. And there is some reason behind it, especially now they find themselves surrounded by "invading armies of the arch enemy", the US. Ahmedinejad is a noticable lad, but merely took over from Saddam Hussein, since the position of oriental statesmen standing up against Western domination opened. Iran feels threatened, so it... moves. And it doesn't move in the expected way. Learn to live with that.

    There's enriching uranium and Enriching Uranium. Big difference. And besides, Enriched Uranium takes way longer to produce in production quantity. And, from what the CIA has to tell, there's no reason to assume they're working on that.

    Well, as far as I can recollect, I didn't say they lied about Iran. For all we knew, Iran could have been working on the Bomb and a range of actions was indeed indicated. However, things point into a different direction right now.

    And what I blame Bush et al. for is apparently not changing their policy on Iran after this recent report. Yes, they continue to be a threat, but from what I can tell, they're not jumping out with the trumpets and banners as they used to do under the previous estimates. His current aggressive language sounds as though Bush prefers war over peace. And to me, that places the other two wars in a different light. That was what I tried to point out.
     
  18. Justice

    Justice New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 8, 2003
    Messages:
    1,260
    Likes Received:
    16
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Southern California
    Ratings:
    +16 / 0 / -0


    In your last post you said, "I'm sorry, but to me it sounds like this report didn't fit their agenda at all. And to me, this paints the picture of an administration that would go to war, whatever the reason; it taints the other wars as well. Bush is finally showing his true colour."

    That suggests to me that you think Bush has been stating the opposite of what the intelligence says, on purpose that is.

    Second, I still haven't seen Bush make a case for war. Time and time again he has gone for sanctions against Iran for not cooperating with the IAEA. And since the UN has no intentions of ever enforcing their own policies (we learned that with Iraq) then what good is the UN for anything?

    And again, in what interest is it of the US to start another war seeing that the last one was so disastrous?

    This entire Iran thing is a mess. No one is going to want to do anything now. If I were Iran now would be the perfect time to restart the suspended weapons program. After all, the means to make a bomb isn't really that difficult. it's enriching uranium that's the lengthy process.

    Yes, Israel has a covert nuclear program, and I am pretty certain it was the US that gave them the technology. And? Of what interest is it to Israel to randomly attack a nation? Israel has nuclear weapons so that any of the Arabic nations that have attacked them numerous times in the past know that the reprocussions of attacking them is risking a nuclear showdown.
     
  19. Justice

    Justice New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 8, 2003
    Messages:
    1,260
    Likes Received:
    16
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Southern California
    Ratings:
    +16 / 0 / -0


    In your last post you said, "I'm sorry, but to me it sounds like this report didn't fit their agenda at all. And to me, this paints the picture of an administration that would go to war, whatever the reason; it taints the other wars as well. Bush is finally showing his true colour."

    That suggests to me that you think Bush has been stating the opposite of what the intelligence says.

    Second, I still haven't seen Bush make a case for war. Time and time again he has gone for sanctions against Iran for not cooperating with the IAEA. And since the UN has no intentions of ever enforcing their own policies (we learned that with Iraq) then what good is the UN for anything?

    And again, in what interest is it of the US to start another war seeing that the last one was so disastrous?

    This entire Iran thing is a mess. No one is going to want to do anything now. If I were Iran now would be the perfect time to restart the suspended weapons program. After all, the means to make a bomb isn't really that difficult. it's enriching uranium that's the lengthy process.

    That much we know is certain. They have nuclear technology and they are enriching uranium. A US Intelligence report says they halted their weapons program, but an intelligence report is really a compilation of information that amounts to a best guess. Iran is an incredibly closed nation, and they refuse to let anyone verify they aren't creating nuclear weapons. Iran could halt all sanctions overnight if they wanted to.

    Yes, Israel has a covert nuclear program, and I am pretty certain it was the US that gave them the technology. And? Of what interest is it to Israel to randomly attack a nation? Israel has nuclear weapons so that any of the Arabic nations that have attacked them numerous times in the past know that the reprocussions of attacking them is risking a nuclear showdown.

    And what a lot of people don't seem to realize is that Iran, a relatively large oil producing country, doesn't even need nuclear reactors. They could produce electricity with oil at perhaps pennies on the dollar it will cost them in nuclear power. It honestly doesn't make any sense.

    This truly is a mess. No one wants war, it is not in anyones interest to start one. But because intelligence suggests the weapons program in Iran was suspended, everything is okay.



    UN IAEA Inspector: Since you say your weapons program is over, let us tour your nuclear facility to make sure there isn't anything else going on other than creating electricity.

    Ahmedinejad: ......No.
     
  20. volksmenner

    volksmenner practitioner of æsthetics

    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2005
    Messages:
    1,648
    Likes Received:
    29
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    california republic
    Ratings:
    +30 / 0 / -0
    it is time to get real. iran poses absolutely no credible threat to the united states. the only threat that exists to the united states and her people is the threat that united states at the behest of w. bush may expand the war with a preemptive strike on iran.

    the dollar is devalued. the country is broke. the military, the national guard, the border guard are all overseas. the borders are wide-open. the congress, the executive and the courts are derelict in their duty to uphold the constitution. "human sacrifice, dogs and cats living together - mass hysteria." and somehow we the citizens of the united states of america are suppose to be afraid of men in caves and countries that have no weapons.

    god, am i living in the twilight zone?

    how do empires rise and fall? economically, that's how. the only way the united states of america could ever fall is not militarily, but yes, economically. and i fear its happening now. if the united states attacks iran, its all over. "game over man."
     
    Last edited: Dec 8, 2007