Iran calls to destroy Israel, solves the "who's gonna hit Iran's nukes" question.

[merphie]

??? You mean Iran? Iran has been under the same political regime (Islamic republic with a kind of partially democratic system with elections and all) since 1979. Iraq was ruled by the same guy (Hussein) since 1979. Pakistan has been periodically oscillating between military dictatorship and civilian "democratic" rule ever since its creation in 1947... By the way, Pakistan is also an Islamic republic, and Islamic extremists have been extremely active in its territory... If Ben Laden is still alive, there's a pretty good chance he is hiding in Pakistan.

Iran as well.

Iraq started with a monarchy which was overthrown by the military in 1958.
The next government was overthrown again in 1963. The Ba'ath's party overthrew that in 1968. And in 1979 Hussein took became "president". Stable indeed.

He tried to invade Iran and then he invaded Kuwait (iran and Pakistan haven't recently) and he stole billions through your beloved UN.

Just because Bin Laden may or may not be in Pakistan doesn't mean they want him there. Does your government always catch the bad guys?

PS: I think you put too much faith in the UN. Remember the League of Nations? Let us also not forget the USA pays 90% of the UN's bills.

 

[Orwell]

Iran as well.

Iraq started with a monarchy which was overthrown by the military in 1958.
The next government was overthrown again in 1963. The Ba'ath's party overthrew that in 1968. And in 1979 Hussein took became "president". Stable indeed.

He tried to invade Iran and then he invaded Kuwait (iran and Pakistan haven't recently) and he stole billions through your beloved UN.

Just because Bin Laden may or may not be in Pakistan doesn't mean they want him there. Does your government always catch the bad guys?

PS: I think you put too much faith in the UN. Remember the League of Nations? Let us also not forget the USA pays 90% of the UN's bills.

Yes, and Pakistan is a model of stability and friendliness to the west, that's why they deserve to have the bomb and blah blah blah, even though a good chunk of the country hates your guts enough to help public enemy numero uno hide, right?

Look, mentioning Iraq in the context of the present discussion is a non sequitur. If you are unable to distinguish between different middle eastern countries, I suggest you leave the discussion to those that can. By the way, the United States funds about 22 percent of the UN regular budget, not 90%.

http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ei/rls/24236.htm

Oh and Mr. merphie microcephalic, I don't "love" the UN, I just happen to think that, in spite of all its defects and problems, the UN is needed and is better than nothing. Can you understand that, or is that something a tad too complicated for you to get your tiny little head around, eh?

 

[merphie]

Yes, and Pakistan is a model of stability and friendliness to the west, that's why they deserve to have the bomb and blah blah blah, right?

No one said deserve. In fact the US place sanctions on them for doing it.

Mentioning Iraq in the context of the present discussion is a non sequitur. If you are unable to distinguish between different middle eastern countries, I suggest you leave the discussion to those that can.

Talk about a hypocrite. You bring in Japanese and several other countries not even in the same region and now I make an example and it's not good enough?

If you don't understand it it's ok. It's like the whole Japanese things. You made personal attacks against me until someone else said pretty much the same idea. The only difference is they spelled it out in crayon for you. I didn't because it's a waste of time. If you don't understand history it is not my job to teach it to you.

By the way, the United States funds about 22 percent of the UN regular budget, not 90%.

http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ei/rls/24236.htm

Fortunately I didn't say 90% as an actual value. However, it's almost 1/4 of their budget and not to mention it's on USA soil.

Oh and Mr. merphie microcephalic, I don't "love" the UN, I just happen to think that, in spite of all its defects and problems, the UN is needed and is better than nothing. Can you understand that, or is that something a tad too complicated for you to get your tiny little head around, eh?

The UN is worthless. (aside from their humanitarian activities) Try to wrap your head around that. It's my opinion and just because you don't agree doesn't mean you it's worth less than yours.

You really can't defend you opinion without Ad-hominem. This is exactly what freakshow was talking about. You seem unable to have a civil discussion without making personal attacks on someone. In your perfect world such things would never happen. However, you see unable to stop yourself. So how would the other 4 trillion people in the world?

 

[Orwell]

If you are unable to understand why I ever mentioned the japanese in the context of the discussion, don't bother posting. If you are unable to distinguish between Iran and Iraq, don't bother posting on a thread about Iran. If you can't get your facts straight, don't bother posting. Finally, if you are unable to just say "I meant to say Iran, sorry", don't bother posting.

You're obviously just posting here to engage in pissing contests and bad faith arguments, and I have better things to do.

 

[ceo_esq]

By the way, the United States funds about 22 percent of the UN regular budget, not 90%.

http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ei/rls/24236.htm

Very true - although to put things in perspective, the total assessed and voluntary contributions of the United States to the UN ($3 billion) exceeded the UN's entire budget for the year in question. Moreover, I doubt the evaluation included forgoing the potential annual tax revenue on a billion dollars' worth of Manhattan real estate.

 

[Orwell]

Very true - although to put things in perspective, the total assessed and voluntary contributions of the United States to the UN ($3 billion) exceeded the UN's entire budget for the year in question. Moreover, I doubt the evaluation included forgoing the potential annual tax revenue on a billion dollars' worth of Manhattan real estate.

What do you mean by that? Are you comparing all of the contributions to the different agencies to the regular UN budget? If you are doing that, you have to equally take into account all the contributions of other nations to the different UN agencies. You'll notice that according to the US gov. own numbers, in no case does the US contribute alone 90% of the UN budget.

Also, didn't the US used to owe over a billion dollars in arrears to the UN for a while? Was that problem fixed? I really don't know...

 

[Mycroft]

You forgot to add "...and they don't kiss US hinie", because that's the main reason why they make you nervous. They're not your boys. See, I believe Pakistan to be politically much more unstable than Iran. But you don't see americans freaking out because Pakistan has the bomb. Why do you think that is, Mycroft?

I suggest you spend some time here: http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/ir.html

I agree with you that Pakistan is also a major concern, but far behind Iran. Why? Because Pakistan is just an ordinary dictatorship, but Iran is a fundamentalist theocracy. We have experience dealing with the dictators of the world, even nuclear armed ones. We understand what motivates them and how to apply pressure without escalating the conflict to dangerous levels. Pakistan and India have their own cold war going, and that's bad, but for them MAD works. In the end, neither of them wants to die.

Iran is very different. They've already had a former president openly state that in a nuclear exchange, their losses would be acceptable because while the Muslim world could withstand the loss of Iran, Israel would be destroyed. It’s that kind of thinking, that religiously inspired hate can trump both common sense and self preservation, that makes them so much more dangerous.

 

[Beerina]

And in 1979 Hussein took became "president".

Fool of a Took! Fool of a Took!

 

[merphie]

If you are unable to understand why I ever mentioned the japanese in the context of the discussion, don't bother posting. If you are unable to distinguish between Iran and Iraq, don't bother posting on a thread about Iran. If you can't get your facts straight, don't bother posting. Finally, if you are unable to just say "I meant to say Iran, sorry", don't bother posting.

You're obviously just posting here to engage in pissing contests and bad faith arguments, and I have better things to do.

No I don't understand why you mentioned the japanese and you refuse to clarify. You can only throw out insults.

I said Iraq for a reason and you clearly don't understand nor do you seem to want to. So has nothing to do with being unable to say "I meant to say Iran." Those are your words. You seem only able to make personal attacks.

I'm not engaging in any pissing contest. I'm not the one who has been making personal attacks. You are the one who refuses to make any sort of argument or explainations.

 

[merphie]

Fool of a Took! Fool of a Took!

Yeah, yeah. Typo.

 

[Orwell]

No I don't understand why you mentioned the japanese and you refuse to clarify. You can only throw out insults.

I said Iraq for a reason and you clearly don't understand nor do you seem to want to. So has nothing to do with being unable to say "I meant to say Iran." Those are your words. You seem only able to make personal attacks.

I'm not engaging in any pissing contest. I'm not the one who has been making personal attacks. You are the one who refuses to make any sort of argument or explainations.

What do I do with this guy? I know...

Cartman: Maury, I am out of control. Yeah, I use drugs. I can do what I waunt, biatch! Yeah, I have sex, and I don't use protection! It's my hot body; I'll do what I waunt! I don't go to school and I kill people! What-evah! I'll do what I waunt!

 

[Orwell]

I agree with you that Pakistan is also a major concern, but far behind Iran. Why? Because Pakistan is just an ordinary dictatorship, but Iran is a fundamentalist theocracy. We have experience dealing with the dictators of the world, even nuclear armed ones. We understand what motivates them and how to apply pressure without escalating the conflict to dangerous levels. Pakistan and India have their own cold war going, and that's bad, but for them MAD works. In the end, neither of them wants to die.

Iran is very different. They've already had a former president openly state that in a nuclear exchange, their losses would be acceptable because while the Muslim world could withstand the loss of Iran, Israel would be destroyed. It’s that kind of thinking, that religiously inspired hate can trump both common sense and self preservation, that makes them so much more dangerous.

Frankly, I think you give too much importance to this guy's rhetoric. As I said before, these types have been making calls for the annihilation of Israel for decades now, that's what they do, Israel is their Emmanuel Goldstein, their scapegoat. Personally, I think (and I hope) that most Iranians want to live just as much as most Pakistanis want to live. I also think that these extremists will soon loose their grip on power if you let nature take its course. As far as I know, they represent a dwindling minority in Iran... I mean, just as an example, elements inside the Iranian gov. have spent quite a lot of time this week trying to spin their president's rhetoric into something that looks less nutty. Don't let the extremists drive your policies, man!

 

[zenith-nadir]

Ahmadinejad's Israel Remarks Split Iran - Associated Press - Mon Oct 31,12:01 AM ET

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051031/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iran_israel_2

TEHRAN, Iran - Pro-democracy reformers denounced Iran's hard-line president Sunday for calling for Israel's annihilation, saying it harmed the country's international standing.

On Sunday, Ahmadinejad said his comments represented Iran's long-standing policy toward the Jewish state enunciated by the late Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, who led the 1979 revolution, the Islamic Republic News Agency, or IRNA, said.

"Ahmadinejad's remarks harmed Iran. It was irresponsible and illogical," said Rajabali Mazrouei, a prominent reformer and former deputy. "We can't be more extremist than Palestinians themselves."

Morad Veisi, a leading political analyst, said it was the first time that an Iranian head of state was openly calling for the destruction of Israel.

Extremists, however, were motivated by Ahmadinejad's remarks. About 300 men and women turned up Sunday at the offices of the Headquarters for Commemorating Martyrs of the Global Islamic Movement to volunteer for suicide bomb attacks against Israel.

A spokesman for the group said it had signed up more than 45,000 volunteers to undergo training for suicide attacks since it began recruiting in June 2004.

"The Headquarters for Commemorating Martyrs of the Global Islamic Movement"....how quaint.

 

[merphie]

What do I do with this guy? I know...

Cop-out noted.

 

[Orwell]

Cop-out noted.

Yeah, yeah...

Cartman: It's a man's obligation to stick his boneration in a women's separation; this sort of penetration will increase the population of the younger generation.

 

[Mycroft]

Frankly, I think you give too much importance to this guy's rhetoric...

When a leader of a country openly threatens genocide and is demonstratably pursuing the means to accomplish it, there is no such thing as placing "too much importance" on his words. They are very important, the issue is deadly serious.

…Don't let the extremists drive your policies, man!

We are not talking about a handful of white-trash losers holed up in a camp near Haydn Lake, Idaho. We are talking about the leader of an oil rich nation with vast resources at his disposal. It’s the extremists who are in charge in Iran, it’s the extremists who set their policy, it’s the extremists who need to be paid attention to.

Are there other factions in Iran as well? Yes, but they are not in charge. We can hope, pray for, and even actively support anything that might lead to a change in power, but for now it’s still the extremists who are in charge. Pollyannaish wistful thinking will not change that.

 

[Orwell]

When a leader of a country openly threatens genocide and is demonstratably pursuing the means to accomplish it, there is no such thing as placing "too much importance" on his words. They are very important, the issue is deadly serious.



We are not talking about a handful of white-trash losers holed up in a camp near Haydn Lake, Idaho. We are talking about the leader of an oil rich nation with vast resources at his disposal. It’s the extremists who are in charge in Iran, it’s the extremists who set their policy, it’s the extremists who need to be paid attention to.

Are there other factions in Iran as well? Yes, but they are not in charge. We can hope, pray for, and even actively support anything that might lead to a change in power, but for now it’s still the extremists who are in charge. Pollyannaish wistful thinking will not change that.

Pollyannaish, eh? Well, Mycroft, if the US bombs Iran right now, when no one seems to know much about Iran's nuke capability, could not only be a complete failure, but it could also consolidate the power of the extremists, making sure that moderate elements inside Iran will never get a shot at changing things.

 

[Orwell]

Also, if push comes to shove, make sure you have the support of the international community and your allies behind you before taking aggressive measures against Iran this time.

 

[Jocko]

Also, if push comes to shove, make sure you have the support of the international community and your allies behind you before taking aggressive measures against Iran this time.

I must say it's quite interesting for you to effortlessly pooh-pooh any significance behind one leader's actions, and latch so monomaniacally onto the significance of another leader's actions.

How you maintain your double standards without your head exploding is a mystery to me, the likes of which I've not seen since Mr. Manifesto vanished.

 

[ceo_esq]

What do you mean by that?

Simply to underscore that the full scope of the United States' contribution to the UN is not reflected in assessed payments.

Are you comparing all of the contributions to the different agencies to the regular UN budget? If you are doing that, you have to equally take into account all the contributions of other nations to the different UN agencies.

I am not doing that.

You'll notice that according to the US gov. own numbers, in no case does the US contribute alone 90% of the UN budget.

I did not suggest the contrary.

Also, didn't the US used to owe over a billion dollars in arrears to the UN for a while?

Yes. The United States eventually paid its outstanding arrearages, although it is still not very timely in making assessed contributions.

Was that problem fixed? I really don't know...

If you are referring to the problem for which withholding dues was intended to be a solution, then no, the problem was not entirely fixed. The UN is still a broken organization badly in need of reform. However, there is some basis for concluding that withholding dues did provide an impetus in the right direction.