Time to kick Iran

[KoihimeNakamura]

The parody has a mnior flaw of equivocation. The two governments aren't that alike.

 

[MaGZ]

Mohammed didn't like jews?

The reformer Martin Luther didn’t like Jews. So why don’t you add the Lutherans to the list of your religious war against Islam?

Come to think of it, Oliver might be a Lutheran.

 

[MaGZ]

The parody has a mnior flaw of equivocation. The two governments aren't that alike.

Really?
Both governments want their own hegemony in the region. Both governments want weapons of mass destruction.

 

[Oliver]

The reformer Martin Luther didn’t like Jews. So why don’t you add the Lutherans to the list of your religious war against Islam?

Come to think of it, Oliver might be a Lutheran.

Quite Frankly - that Martin Luther was opposed to Jewish Ideologies, was new to me. Can you point out some links regarding this issue?

Well, I'm roman-catholic - but I also think the Bible is nuts because it was phrased by humans anyway.

 

[jsiv]

Quite Frankly - that Martin Luther was opposed to Jewish Ideologies, was new to me. Can you point out some links regarding this issue?

Well, I'm roman-catholic - but I also think the Bible is nuts because it was phrased by humans anyway.

Oh no, Luther really did hate the jews with a passion. He hated them so much that he wrote an entire book about it (called "the jews and their lies" or something like that.) The same hate for jews has persisted up until very recently, infact, several evangelical-lutheran countries (like Norway) constitutionally banned jews from the country well into the mid-19th century for no rational reason.

Today, things are different. A sign that religion can change, but Islam is sadly behind the other religions when it comes to reform and modernization.

 

[jsiv]

The reformer Martin Luther didn’t like Jews. So why don’t you add the Lutherans to the list of your religious war against Islam?

I would if it was still part of mainstream lutheran beliefs.

 

[Oliver]

Oh no, Luther really did hate the jews with a passion. He hated them so much that he wrote an entire book about it (called "the jews and their lies" or something like that.) The same hate for jews has persisted up until very recently, infact, several evangelical-lutheran countries (like Norway) constitutionally banned jews from the country well into the mid-19th century for no rational reason.

Today, things are different. A sign that religion can change, but Islam is sadly behind the other religions when it comes to reform and modernization.

I would if it was still part of mainstream lutheran beliefs.

While I will look into the Lutherans POV about the world - did you see the initial Documentary yet and can you explain why you think they're not heading towards a modern way of Life and Society?

 

[jsiv]

Nope, I don't think so. Well, Christians and the Bible also addressed the "Don't like Jews"-Aspect because they claim that it was the Jews fault that Jesus died. So this isn't really an explanation.

It is an explanation. Some religions are quicker to reform than others.

I think it is this one: If the State of Israel wouldn't exist, no one would care about the Jews in the Middle-East, wrong?

If "the muslims" got to control the jews and rule the whole region themselves, then sure, there would be less trouble. However, even you have to see that this isn't an option.

Well, and how do you settle conflicts like that? Do you agree that peace between Israel and the Palestinians, including the access to the holy sites to Muslims, would finally and positively change the minds all over the world?

Yes, but as long as "the muslims" aren't willing to accept Israel as a friendly neighbor that is there to stay, nothing will happen. They still dream of a world without Israel.

That's not true. An accepted Palestinian state would be a good start for peace down there. But even that is a pain in the Ass of Israel, isn't it? (Was: Oppression)

I don't see how a palestinian state would be a "pain in the ass" for Israel, unless it were to declare war on Israel (or continue its campaign of terrorism.)

And what "alternative" do you mean by that? My alternative is: Fair chances for everyone. That includes: Nuclear Power for all - or for nobody, including America and Israel. Fair&Balanced.

Nobody (except maybe Greenpeace) opposes bringing safe nuclear power to the world. What is opposed is powerful weapons in the hands of potential enemies.

If you can't figure out what the alternative to a world without America would have been, then I suggest that you think a little harder.

So you support a robbery if the Robber has nothing to eat and it's his only chance to get money quick?

Poor example. If your life is in danger from starvation and there is no other way of obtaining food, it is perfectly legal to steal it.

Since I didn't pick my side, I indeed consider myself unbiased. Of course, this is part of my cultural expose - seeing both sides of the story and considering both extremes as nuts.

Sadly, that is not the impression I get from reading your messages, and I think a lot of other people here feel the same.

And while I agree that every opinion about the world "outside" is mainly based on the Media reporting about it, it's also an advantage for neutrality in the Media and the Government if both of them are "culturally exposed" to both sides of the issue. So yes, we truly hear about both sides of this issue.

I do not think you truly are. Much of the media here has a subtle "leftist" bias to everything they say, even when they are reporting "facts."

Well, I guess that you also don't consider one reporter as indication for bias in your Media, do you? Why the heck was he crying about his death?

It was an example. She cried because she was a fan of Arafat and his politics.

Then you may have missed the opposition against US-policies coming from inside the US. Or as some experts put it: "With a honest coverage in the US, the Iraq war wouldn't have happened in the first place".

Which would have been dependant on there actually having been a substantial enough amount of critical and "honest" material to report on at the time. Large parts of the world was fooled by the intelligence and apparent good motives.

There is a chance to change the world and to make it a better place.

I'm not so sure. Some things just can't be fixed, and are best left to just join the pages of history.

And I completely understand this type of apathy in "general Joe's Mind". But if a Government blusters about Freedoms, Humanity, "Good and Evil" ones, it should make sure that this is meant in a honest way. It wasn't - so here I am to complain about that.

The government is made up of the people, and can only represent their opinions and beliefs.

 

[jsiv]

While I will look into the Lutherans POV about the world

Okay. I believe one of Luther's more well-known rantings is known as "Von den juden und ihren lügen."

did you see the initial Documentary yet

No, I didn't see it, but Iran is a bit of a sad case. It was heading in the right direction, becoming a modern society with fairly liberal religious beliefs. All that changed with the revolution, and they are now on a fast track back to the dark ages.

and can you explain why you think they're not heading towards a modern way of Life and Society?

Iran? See above.


Spending all your time bickering over the past and adhering to the literal and eternal word of holy books is never good.

 

[Oliver]

Okay. I believe one of Luther's more well-known rantings is known as "Von den juden und ihren lügen."

No, I didn't see it, but Iran is a bit of a sad case. It was heading in the right direction, becoming a modern society with fairly liberal religious beliefs. All that changed with the revolution, and they are now on a fast track back to the dark ages.

Iran? See above.

Spending all your time bickering over the past and adhering to the literal and eternal word of holy books is never good.

I will answer your other post later because I'm also discussing "Covert Ops" within the "Loose Change Forum" at the same time - which is a little bit overwhelming to me.

You really should watch the Documentary because it shows that Iran today is not what you have in mind when you think about this country. So it's an unique chance to look into this country ... and to update your Point of View ...

Google Video This video is not hosted by the ISF, the ISF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.

I AGREE

 

[jsiv]

I will answer your other post later because I'm also discussing "Covert Ops" within the "Loose Change Forum" at the same time - which is a little bit overwhelming to me.

Take whatever time you need, the forum isn't going anywhere (I think.)

You really should watch the Documentary because it shows that Iran today is not what you have in mind when you think about this country. So it's an unique chance to look into this country ... and to update your Point of View ...

Today's Iran is exactly what I think it is. Ahmadinejad and the [SIZE=-1]ayatollah[/SIZE] has booked the whole country a one-way ticket on the express train to the dark ages. Moral police? Beating people because of how they dress? Segregated streets? Government-sponsored antisemitic rallies? Warmongering? Government-mandated religious beliefs? Imprisoning and killing political opponents? And so on and so forth, the list goes on.

Yes, I realize that there are still people left who oppose it (it has only been a couple of decades, after all), but give it a few more generations and there will be nothing but a hell-hole left.

There is nothing good about Ahmadinejad's rule, Oliver. NOTHING.

 

[Travis]

I have to reply to your whole post later when I filled up my Refrigerator and Stomach... However: If you were for the Iraq War and not opposed to give your vote to an Iran War, either, it is exactly for this reason:

We are the good and better ones than ""evil Jews, Gays, Blacks, Muslims, Natives, Women, Communists, etc ... take your pick". Oh, it seems you did already.

Oliver, I don't hate anyone for who they are only for what they have done.

evil Jews,

I don't hate Jews. In fact I'm 1/8 Jewish.

Gays,

I'm a big supporter for gay rights. I fought very hard against prop 22 which made gay marriage illegal in California. I handed out pamphlets, I worked the phones, I even participated in a debate on the subject at my school.

Blacks,

I know that you seem to think racism is rampant in the USA but allow me to let you in on something--not only am I not racist against black people but I've never even met anybody, in person, in my whole life that is racist against black people. In fact if it weren't for history books and movies I might not even have known of such a concept.

Muslims,

Sigh... no I do not hate Muslims. In fact I have a little story to tell. I was still in school at the time that September 11th happened. As I was watching the news early that morning the speculation that it was Islamist extremists was already rampant. Suddenly it dawned on me that we had some students from the United Arab Emirates at the college living in the dorms.

I was afraid that someone might do something stupid to them. So I called a girl I knew that lived in the dorms and asked for her to check on them and make sure they were safe. She called me back a few minutes later to assure me that the campus police were already on it and were posted outside their rooms to protect them.

Natives,

Natives of where? It doesn't matter, I don't hate any natives because they are natives of.... wherever.

Women,

No, I'm not a misogynist or male chauvinist either.

Communists, etc ... take your pick

I disagree with communism as a political concept but I don't want it outlawed or suppressed. The actions of the Second Red Scare were shameful. Of course we never had an attempted Communist Revolution in the USA like you did in Germany in 1918-1919 so there really wasn't much of an excuse for the rampant communist paranoia.

 

[Travis]

The question was not directed at me but, yes, I think that a person ( you ) who would like to see the ( more or less, democratically ) elected government of another nation " annihilated ",

So you feel that all "more or less" democratically elected governments should be protected simply because they were "more or less" democratically elected? You are aware that the Supreme Leader (who is Commander in Chief, has the power to declare war and can dismiss the President who is elected by the people) is not elected but appointed by the Assembly of Experts who are also not elected but get to do decide, amongst themselves, who can be a member of their club. Furthermore the Assembly of Experts meetings are all "secret" with not even the Supreme Leader being in attendance. "More or less" democratic indeed.

But what if it were completely democratic? Does that, in and of itself, still insulate it from the possibility of attack no matter what it does?

when this other nation poses no direct threat to his,

Suppose for a moment that the United States had the power to go back to April 17, 1975 and invade Cambodia thus preventing it from becoming Democratic Kampuchea. It poses no threat to the United States but doing so would prevent the deaths of 1.5 million Cambodians at the hands of the Khmer Rouge. Would this be out of the question since the United States was not threatened?

Or suppose an intervention into Rwanda on April 7th, 1994 were possible. 800,000 Tutsi might still be alive if such an intervention had happened. Would that be acceptable?

yes, I would consider this guy a terrorist and I would consider him not so much differently from the guys of Hamas, Al-Qaeda, and so on..

Great. You consider me a terrorist despite the fact that I have never advocated the deliberate targeting of civilians and support the right to self determination and universal suffrage. Good to know your definition of "terrorist" is so flexible.

 

[Travis]

*cough*
While I don't want to get involved in this fight, a couple of corrections:
The USA helped Britain a great deal to overthrow Mossadegh, and of course is famous for backing the Shah. That makes life more complex than you describe here.

Operation Ajax was still a mostly British operation and I don't see Oliver calling the UK "oppressors". Plus it was back in 1954. If one is going to hold the present adminstration accountable for actions in 1954 why not hold Sarkozy accountable for the actions of France during the Algerian War of 1954-1962 particularly the atrocities associated with the Battle of Algiers?

Uh, no. Nope.
Strangely enough, people detest a foreigh oppressor even more than a native oppressor even if the foreign oppressor was only as oppressive or even a mite less oppressive than the native oppressor.

Saying the US is as oppressive as the former regime is just plain wrong. Law 109 prescribed that anyone who stole anything worth more than $12 (which at that time was about 5,000 dinars) would have their hand amputated for a first offense and an "X" branded onto their foreheads for a second offense. Law 117 decreed that any doctor who attempted to cosmetically improve the appearance of those "punished" would have their own ears removed. Let's not forget the mass killings of Al-Anfal or during the 1991 uprising.

 

[Undesired Walrus]

Today's Iran is exactly what I think it is. Ahmadinejad and the [SIZE=-1]ayatollah[/SIZE] has booked the whole country a one-way ticket on the express train to the dark ages. Moral police? Beating people because of how they dress? Segregated streets? Government-sponsored antisemitic rallies? Warmongering? Government-mandated religious beliefs? Imprisoning and killing political opponents? And so on and so forth, the list goes on.

Yes, I realize that there are still people left who oppose it (it has only been a couple of decades, after all), but give it a few more generations and there will be nothing but a hell-hole left.

There is nothing good about Ahmadinejad's rule, Oliver. NOTHING.

I'd disagree.

The oppressive Iranian regime has given birth to some of the greatest cinema I have ever seen.
They give insight and poetry to the ideals of oppression and voilent restraint that I hope will live on throughout history. 'The Apple' may be the greatest feminist movie in the history of man.

And interestingly enough, from the most acclaimed and youngest female director in the world, Samira Makhmalbaf.

Prefer there to be no oppression, but you get the message.

 

[Gurdur]

Operation Ajax was still a mostly British operation and I don't see Oliver calling the UK "oppressors".

None of that changes one bit what I said in correcting you.

why not hold Sarkozy accountable

I'm not here to argue about what should be. I'm simply telling you what is.

Saying the US is as oppressive as the former regime is just plain wrong.

You seem to have badly misunderstood. Re-read what I wrote:

Strangely enough, people detest a foreign oppressor even more than a native oppressor even if the foreign oppressor was only as oppressive or even a mite less oppressive than the native oppressor.

What I wrote then is a fact of life.
If you like, I can change a bit to:
"even much less oppressive than the native oppressor."

Let's not forget the mass killings of Al-Anfal or during the 1991 uprising.

To repeat:
I'm not here to argue about what should be. I'm simply telling you what is.

 

[Elizabeth I]

That's not true. An accepted Palestinian state would be a good start for peace down there. But even that is a pain in the Ass of Israel, isn't it? (Was: Oppression)

The Palestinians have been offered their own state on several occasions, including that of the formation of Israel, and have declined the offer every time, preferring instead to call for the destruction of Israel.

And what "alternative" do you mean by that? My alternative is: Fair chances for everyone. That includes: Nuclear Power for all - or for nobody, including America and Israel. Fair&Balanced.

Oliver, do you really think Kim Jong Il's having access to the nuclear button is equivalent to ANY American president's having the same access? Please don't trot out your same old tired refrain that the U.S. is the only nation to have ever used nuclear weapons. That was a different time, and a decision taken after long and exhaustive consideration, in an effort to bring to an end a long, destructive and bloody war. And we have never used them since.

And if we want to bring up the behavior of certain nations during World War II, well, your house is certainly made of glass, isn't it? That particular stone might be one you would want to avoid throwing.

Since I didn't pick my side, I indeed consider myself unbiased.

ROFL. Are you honestly saying that because where you were born and brought up was a complete accident (as it is for everyone), your society and its beliefs and values have no influence on your beliefs, values or point of view? I don't know whether you are naïve beyond belief or intellectually dishonest beyond redemption.

 

[MaGZ]

Quite Frankly - that Martin Luther was opposed to Jewish Ideologies, was new to me. Can you point out some links regarding this issue?

Well, I'm roman-catholic - but I also think the Bible is nuts because it was phrased by humans anyway.

Luther did not like what he read in the Talmud. After reading it, he wanted to burn every synagogue in Germany.

http://www.humanitas-international.org/showcase/chronography/documents/luther-jews.htm

 

[Travis]

The first war that was a result of- and ended in the State of Israel.

How in the world can you describe the 1948 Arab-Israeli War as a US military operation?

I'm accusing aggressive politics in the Region down there. You may take your pick who started it: Britain, US, Israel, Palestine, Iran, Iraq...

What do you consider to be aggressive politics?

If the "Neighbors" took the house some thousand years ago, I would say: In Heavens sake, get over it. But unfortunately, this is too late. The House is taken already.

If this is in regard to Israel, it might interest you to know that in fact Jews were living in the land that would eventually be part of the UN partition since the 8th century BCE. The land the Jews got in the partition was selected because Jews were already living there. In fact the vast bulk of the Jewish partition was the Negev desert, a barren uninhabited wasteland. Also, don't even think of saying the UN partitioning was some US scheme. The following countries voted in favor of the partition that the Arab Coalition thought was so unreasonable:

Australia, Belgium, Bolivia, Brazil, Byelorussian SSR, Canada, Costa Rica, Czechoslovakia, Denmark, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, France, Guatemala, Haiti, Iceland, Liberia, Luxembourg, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Norway, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Sweden, South Africa, Ukrainian SSR, United States of America, Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, Uruguay and Venezuela.

No, I'm accusing the US of playing "Good Cop - Bad Cop". You know: old LAPD-Style, "protecting the rich and kicking the blacks".

I'm not sure what you're saying here. "Good Cop -Bad Cop" is an interrogation technique. Characterizing the LAPD as protecting the rich while "kicking the blacks" is so horrifically untrue, and out of line, I'm not sure what to say.

I know. But imperialism isn't a territorial issue. Imperialism can also be archived by political, military, economical influence. And this is exactly what America is doing since decades. (By the way: Without archiving any positive Image about their policies for any kind of reconciliation from non US/Israel Point of View.)

By your broader meaning of the term "imperialism" just about every country, in this world of business without borders, is imperialistic.

As for achieving a positive image. It's my firm belief that the United States could end all wars, eliminate poverty, stop all famine, cure cancer and AIDS, reverse global warming and ensure that every orphan, the whole planet over, gets a nice loving home with a cute adorable puppy and the rest of the world, Europe especially, would still hate the United States. So creating a positive image is simply impossible and therefore shouldn't be considered a priority.

Basically you're right. Oppression is about Freedoms. This, of course, includes a countries Freedom to find their own way into their own future. Iraq was a good example of that.

Do you really think the Iraqi people could have had the right to self determination without Saddam being removed by an outsider by force? Are you really that naive? Saddam had brutally crushed every challenge to his authority ever raised by the Iraqi people themselves. His success in this area is marked in his vast prison system and the huge mass graves that yielded over 300,000+ bodies.

I wonder what would have happened if there where no sanctions against them, which, by the way, was responsible for millions of deaths in Iraq, and there would have been friendly and exemplary Diplomatics instead. You know: the kind of "We accept your believes and wishes for your own future instead this.

The sanctions were put in place by the UN and Saddam could have had them lifted anytime he wanted if he had been willing to abide by the conditions. As for the effects on the civilians, well there was a program called Oil for Food that was supposed to help them but didn't due to corruption. Peter van Walsum, former Ambassador of the Netherlands to the United Nations, stated he encountered a number of cases in which he felt the lack of Iraqi cooperation was designed to exacerbate the suffering of its own people.

And it includes accepting that countries have to reform themselves to get to this point, doesn't it?

Where feasible this is the case. I feel that Iran is likely to reform itself through internal reform. I would prefer that to happen. In Iraq peaceful internal reform resulting in the removal of the Baathists and the punishment of its leaders for crimes against humanity was about as likely to happen as for me to wake up tomorrow and find Jessica Alba in bed with me. Saddam's grip was too tight and the terror in the people too deeply embedded.

Well, I agree - but until the US Government manages to clean up their own backyard, I guess they don't qualify for this Job. Recent events show what I mean by that:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opposition_to_United_States_foreign_policy
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-americanism

(Please Note that I don't agree with all points of the posted links above. However: A critical mind should be aware of these points.)

Don't worry I am very familiar with those points.

What do you mean by "clean up their own backyard"? Do you mean account for past failures?

As for not being qualified, who is qualified to do the job? Perhaps more importantly, who is qualified, capable and willing to do the job? You might be able to argue the United States isn't the most qualified, but it is capable and willing.

You're kidding here. What's the bigger scandal in the US - Paris Hilton, Gonzales, Libby -or- deadly Foreign Politics affecting World-Peace? See what I mean?

First off, Oliver, you need to keep in mind that the media in the US is a for profit business. They are not in the business of giving the people what they need to see they are giving the people what they want to see. A media concern that doesn't cater to the wishes of its consuming customers will quickly go bankrupt.

Secondly, what do they show? Well I watched the news last night and I can tell you that at least 2/3 of the coverage was on international affairs.

What's more, if you don't want the mass marketed stuff there is always PBS which I personally watch a lot. There's also the internet and many, many Americans get their news and info primarily from the internet.

I'm sorry but Al Qaida is indeed a "resistance organization" and it was build/gains sympathy just because of that.

If Al-Qaeda were defending a particular land, or a particular people, from a particular threat you could call it a resistance. But it is nebulous not attaching itself to any state permanently, representing a whole host of people, and attacks an enemy defined only as those that aren't Wahhabist Muslims. As such Al-Qaeda is an instrument of Jihad.

As for their intentions this is from the February 28, 1998 fatwa:

[t]he ruling to kill the Americans and their allies- civilians and military— is an individual duty for every Muslim who can do it in any country in which it is possible to do it, in order to liberate the al-Aqsa Mosque (in Jerusalem) and the holy mosque (in Makka) from their grip, and in order for their armies to move out of all the lands of Islam, defeated and unable to threaten any Muslim.

Now the real key in that statement is at the end. "...defeated and unable to threaten any Muslim." What that amounts to, since Muslims are everywhere, is stating that so long as there are non-Muslims with weapons, and/or aren't subjugated, there will be a war. They will only stop the war, in other words, when all positions of power will be held by Muslims. That, Oliver, is not the attitude of a "resistance" organization, that is the attitude of an organization bent on ideological conquest.

Or to explain it in another way: Without interference in the Middle East from US-Side, Al Qaida couldn't survive or exist. (You should watch the documentary in the OP)

Sure, if everyone just gave in to them and gave them what they want they would cease to exist in their present form. I, however, am not too fond of the "surrender at will" tactic.

There is no reason to complain about helping others to gain freedom. The Problem I have is that places like Iraq isn't about Freedoms.

My support for the war was entirely dependent on it being about freedom. If it had been about revenge, I wouldn't have supported it. If it had been about oil, I wouldn't have supported it. If it had been about installing a pro-US puppet, I wouldn't have supported it. If it was about making money, I wouldn't have supported it.

So tell me Oliver, if you know it wasn't about freedoms, what was it about? Bear in mind you will have to show evidence to back it up.

And I think the modern, free, western world should be an Ideal for other countries. But unfortunately the Western World isn't perfect, either. So who is able to determinate who's right and who's not?

I agree that the Western World isn't perfect. But tell me Oliver, who had more civil liberties and basic rights guaranteed to them by their government, US citizens or Iraqi citizens under Saddam?

Yes, and there where 400.000 to 1,000,000 Plus children killed as a result of sanctions against Iraq. Seriously, Embargo's, violence and military interventions doesn't look like the solution for these problems. A fair diplomatics does.

I already covered the embargo issue.

When diplomacy can work, without simply conceding to the wishes of the malicious, it is preferable. But it doesn't always work. It didn't work so well in Bosnia, or in Rwanda, or in Kosovo, or in East Timor, or in Somalia, or in Darfur, or in Sri Lanka.....etc.

Millions died because the Government wasn't able to find the solution for these Problems as a result of interventions. Iraq is a rich country - but only if they are able to keep their Export intact. To cut them off their imports and exports automatically leads to starvation, do you know what I mean?

I believe the point was to starve the country into acceding to the UN's demands.

For me it is. Because you didn't mention the countries that pose a humanitarian threat like the Genocides in Africa, for example.

Are you implying that I do not know of or do not care about genocides in Africa? Because I am aware of them and do care about it. I care about genocide no matter who it happens to and no matter where it occurs. The wholesale massacres of Burundian Hutus, of Rwandan Tutsis, the slaughters in Freetown, the wasting of Somalia and Darfur are terrible and I do care about them.

Guess what? This isn't big "Freedom-News" in the US but instead we still hear that Iraq was responsible for 9/11 - who cares about Genocides while facing such a (propagated) threat?

I have never, and I mean NEVER, met anyone that actually thought Iraq was responsible for 9/11. This characterization seems grossly irresponsible. I've also already stated that I care about, and condemn, genocides and other human rights abuses including those committed by my fellow countryman in the name of a cause I supported.

Do you see the double moral standards?

Nope.

 

[Pardalis]

I will answer your other post later because I'm also discussing "Covert Ops" within the "Loose Change Forum" at the same time - which is a little bit overwhelming to me.

My god! No wonder you are so confused. Don't you know that the Loose Change forum is the last place you want to go for unbiased and accurate information about anything?

They're a bunch of paranoid kids for heaven's sake! The average age is 15 and they believe every damn nutty conspiracy theories imaginable..

Why on earth are you seeking their input? It's like asking MaGZ for information about Judaism... Oh wait, you are asking him about that.

Why don't you join a more serious board about politics, if you want a second opinion than here? I'm sure you can find one.