What the hell is the big deal about North Korea testing nukes?  With that question asked, it's only necessary that I also ask why the hell the Bush regime is so hell bent on stopping Iran from enriching uranium?  Both rhetorical questions, but feel free to answer.

Wondering if anyone here follows this stuff.

This world is ripe with hypocrisy.

Kim jong IL is trying to recreate his favorite episide of wile e coyote...

Seeing all the Japanese people around me nervously glancing at the sky all the time since yesterday because they know exactly what it's like when someone uses a nuclear bomb seems good enough reason for me to condemn any antagonistic dictator from carrying out that kind of test...

It is indeed. I don't want any country to have nuclear weapons. Not one. I'd rather we didn't go above name-calling and even that should be frowned upon.

And yet for any country with nuclear weapons to have the audacity to tell another they can't have them, well, that just doesn't sit right with me.

Me either. Ostensibly, the idea is that you want to at least keep the heavy weaponry out of the hands of nations with conquest in their eyes. So what happens is the larger, well-stocked nations try to use their dominance to keep the smaller ones in line, which not surprisingly leads to anger, resentment, and an even keener desire on the have-nots' parts to get the goods. Every country will be armed eventually, but hopefully the spectre of Mutually Assured Destruction will keep everyone at bay...at least until the next 'Awesomely Killtastic Weapon We Hope We Never Have To Use' makes it out of R&D, then it's a race to reverse engineer that. Sigh.

That's true.  But what I think the Japanese are more concerned with the fact that they're not the top dogs in the Far East anymore (militarily).  Couple that with the fact that the Koreans and Chinese haven't forgotten about the atrocities of Imperial Japan that took place not so long ago, and... yeah.

I wholeheartedly agree.

Exactly.  That's the hypocrisy I'm speaking of.  Why is it OK for the U.S. and certain other European countries to have nukes but no one else!?  That's the real question, and they're never asked this. 

Agreed.  It's no coinicidence that the nations with the nukes are also the nations that have a misproportionate amount of the world's wealth.  Which came about through imperialism - conquest of foreign lands.  Life is too good at the top of the status quo, so they have to employ all types of clandestine schemes and develope all kinds of insane weaponry (you should see some of the shit they have - it takes a sick and desperate mind to have to propensity to come up with this stuff) to make sure it doesn't falter. 
People are fighting against this system, and it's giving way.  The Western governments know this very well, and they're in a crisis.  I bet they never expected that the Israelis, with all of their 'made-in-America' military might, would get their asses handed to 'em by Hezbollah.

Although it would be wonderful if we were living in the Garden of Eden where there was no war, no wants, no lawyers...
we live on Earth where there ARE wars, lawyers, and all the bad things that go with it!  That being said, I think it's important to try to contain nuclear weapons as much as possible.  Kim Dae Jung is not only a psychotic dictator, he's a piece of crap that doesn't care a bit about his people (which is why so many North Koreans are starving)!  Letting him have as many nukes as possible and giving him free range is a VERY VERY bad idea.  He just might one day decide to attack Japan, or the US...
He won't do it you say?  How the hell do you know he won't?  He is absolutely the most unstable dictator I can think of, and with nukes that is a danger to the whole world.

Iran is even worse!  If they were to develop nuclear weapons, they wouldn't use them directly, but would get terrorists to try and blow them up in the US, Israel, England, any country that they don't like.  In fact, they've already said that the US and Israel should be wiped off the face of the Earth many times!  Gee...let's think about this, if someone who claims to be your enemy, and who has given lots of money and weapons to your enemies (ie terrorists), and then says they want to destroy you, do you think we should let them get their hands on the ultimate weapon of mass destruction??? 

So, if you think North Korea and Iran having nuclear weapons is not a big deal, I say you can go back to playing your video games because you're living in a fantasy world anway.

-avatar!

I don't know you personally, so I'm not trying to make a personal attack on you as a person, but when it comes to politics I feel that you have NO CLUE about what you're talking about.  I know both Israeli and Lebanese, hell I lived in Israel years ago.  Although Israel did not destroy Hezbollah, and they were sloppy in the war, they certainly accomplished what they expected (sending a clear message to terrorists).  The big losses are all on the Lebanese side, and many blame Hezbollah for this.  The political situation is much more complicated than you might think, and you notion of "get their asses handed to 'em" is so far from the truth that I really wonder where you get your news from.

Furthermore, you seem to have all these anti-US sentiments & conspiracy theories for some reason.  I'm the first to say that I'm not happy with Bush, and I think our government needs better leaders, but if you think you're living under such an evil government why don't you go live in China for a few years??  Try to say something bad about the government over there, and once you get out of jail (if you do) in say 15 years or so, let me know if it's changed your viewpoint.

Lastly, I do think you are certainly entitled to your own opinion.  I would like to add that many countries before WWII, including the US, saw Hitler as a threat, and figured the best course of action was to let things run their own course... I feel that you have this same sentiment.  "We should let other countries do what they want, who are we to judge them?"  Well, the consequences of WWII (over 40 million lives later) are all in the history books.  A replay in this case, with nukes involved, could easy cost billions of lives.  Not a risk worth taking.

-avatar!

edit: made an addendum

I love avatar! Agree 100%.

Dude, don't go all ad hominem on me!  Your words are choke full of sentiment with very little objectivity.  If I don't know what I'm talkin' about, then school me.  Because you did a really poor job of it.  I'll show you: 

Actually, it was the other way around.  Hezbollah sent a clear message to the imperialists.  And who's the terrorist?  Hezbollah?  It's crazy how out of touch with reality people actually are.  Israel is a terrorist state... and an illegitimate state at that.  They terrorize Palestinians day in and day out, occupying Palestinian land and oppressing the indigenous population.  The media (particularly in the U.S.) sanitizes and skews these stories to make it seem like it's the Palestinians who are the aggressors and Israel is just "retaliating" -- it's blatantly taken out of context. 

Who blames Hezbollah for this?  Only the people who back Israel's Zionist regime would blame Hezbollah for Israel firing missiles and killing innocent civilians.  It's not a coincidence that these same people control the media as well.  They even killed UN workers, but I bet you blame Hezbollah for that too.  How about asking yourself WHY Israel exists in the Middle East in the first place?  Why did the Zionist (and British) choose Palestine in 1948?  Why not create an Israeli state in Europe, particularly Germany, as Ahmadinejad said?
Israel purposely bombed Lebanese infrastructure and killed civilians.  Who's the terrorist again!?

The professional, U.S. backed and armed Israeli army got shutdown by a bunch of Hezbollah guerillas.  It's an objective fact.  Get over it.

Here's a great 9 minute video regarding some of the history of Lebanon and Israel, Hezbollah handing Israel it's ass, and the blatantly biased media.  This video is insanely entertaining by the way!!!

Also, it was confirmed that Hezbollah badly damaged or even destroyed an Israeli battle ship and shot down Israeli helicopters.  Even the New York Times (or was it the Washington Post?) had to admit that Israel got pimp slapped at the end of the day when all was said and done (I'll try to dig up those links - I'm at work, so gimme some time).

Anyways, back to nukes...

EDIT: Sorry, I missed your last paragraph:

"Seeming to have", and actually "having", are two totally different things.  Point out what you mean by that and be specific.  Also, conspiracy theories aren't theories anymore once they're proven to be true...

You and I have two totally different realities, avatar!.  I'm gonna assume we don't come from the same walks of life, and that alone can greatly affect our political dispositions.

Anyways, BACK TO NUKES!  I mean it this time...!

How many of you believe that the West should DISARM their own nukes as well to show that they are serious about peace and living in a world without nuclear energy?

Hey, just noticed, we by far didn't have as many political discussions on this new board compared to the previous board system, did we? Time to catch up!

Pardon my general ignorance, but these are the only politics I really care about:

http://www.amazon.com/Politics-Dancing- … 64?ie=UTF8

http://www.amazon.com/Politics-Dancing- … 64?ie=UTF8

Wow, Ken & Av are really hitting it with more than just opinions. I'm more on Kenology's side though. Avatar keeps on using the word terrorist. But heck, the very word terrorist nowadays is just a term used by America & friends. Ask the people in the Middle-East; terrorist means really nothing to them, in fact to them America is the 'terrorist', and checking up on history of last 18 something years, well ehm that's not really wrong to think.

That's a pretty narrow term of the word 'evil' my friend...evil comes in many forms.

Avatar, without sounding rude, I'd say that Bush has succeeded splendidly in his plan to legitimize his wargames by planting fear in your life.

WONDERFUL how you're quoting Ahmadinejad!!!!
I'm sure if this was now WWII, you would be quoting Hitler and saying how he's right about the Jews and they are to blame for all poverty in the world.  Is there a difference between Hitler and Ahmajinejad, let's look at facts:

1)Ahmadinejad repeatedly made controversial statements questioning the Holocaust, and criticized European laws against Holocaust denial. These statements were condemned by many governments, by United Nations Security Council and Secretary General Kofi Annan, and led to accusations of anti-Semitism.
Here are some sources for you (lots more exist of course):
*Iran's signals mixed ahead of UN debate by Farshid Motahari (Gulf Times) August 30, 2006
*Iran team face mass protest by Luke Harding in Berlin and Denis Campbell in Cologne (The Observer) June 11, 2006
*Editorial: Ceasefire leaves a region at risk (The Australian) August 14, 2006]
*Iran's psychopath in chief, by Israel by Uzi Mahnaimi in Tel Aviv, Marie Colvin and Sarah Baxter in Washington (The Sunday Times, April 30, 2006): "Ahmadinejad speaks today like Hitler before taking power ... So you see, we are dealing with a psychopath of the worst kind — with an anti-semite." (Ehud Olmert in an interview with the German newspaper Bild)

According to numerous media reports, he stated that "they have invented a myth that Jews were massacred".
*Iranian leader: Holocaust a 'myth' , CNN, 14 December, 2005
*"Iran's President Calls Holocaust 'Myth' in Latest Assault on Jews", (The Washington Post), Dec. 15, 2005]

UN Secretary General Kofi Annan, who is far FROM a friend of Israel and the US, in response to reporters' questions on Ahmadinejad in August 2006, said through a spokesman that Annan "considers anyone who would try to deny the truth of the Holocaust or make false claims about it to be a bigot."
*Secretary-General views Holocaust deniers as bigots, says spokesman. UN News Center. United Nations (August 23, 2006).

2)In October 2005 Ahmadinejad gave a speech that contained where published translations noted that he agreed with a statement he attributed to Ayatollah Khomeini that the "occupying regime" had to be removed, and referred to Israel as a "disgraceful stain [on] the Islamic world" that would be eliminated."
*NY Times October 30, 2005.

Ahmadinejad's comments were condemned by major Western governments, the European Union, Russia, the United Nations Security Council and UN Secretary General Kofi Annan, Egyptian, Turkish and Palestinian leaders (again, these guys are FAR from friends of Israel) also expressed displeasure over Ahmadinejad's remark. Canada's then Prime Minister Paul Martin said, "this threat to Israel's existence, this call for genocide coupled with Iran's obvious nuclear ambitions is a matter that the world cannot ignore."  I totally agree with Paul Martin!  Oh, and if you think this citation is wrong, that the media in the West is making a big deal of nothing, in June 2006, Guardian columnist and foreign correspondent Jonathan Steele cited several Farsi speakers and translators who state that the phrase in question is more accurately translated as "eliminated" or "wiped off" or "wiped away" from "the page of time" or "the pages of history", rather than "wiped off the map". Reviewing the controversy over the translation, New York Times deputy foreign editor Ethan Bronner observed that "all official translations" of the comments, including the foreign ministry and president's office, "refer to wiping Israel away".
*Steele, Jonathan. Lost in translation, The Guardian, June 14, 2006.
*Just How Far Did They Go, Those Words Against Israel?.  The New York Times.  June 11, 2006.

Sounds like Hitler to me!!  The fact that you are citing him, along with all the other garbage you have said is clear evidence that you don't know what you're talking about, and you are obviously lost. 

Oh, and Israel originally was formed with consent by the UN!  Do you know what that means?  It means the world (except for the Arab world) agreed to give Jews (who had been living in the land since Biblical days) a State.  Of course the Arabs refused any compromise, and declared WAR right on the day Israel was declared a state.  THEY attacked first, no diplomacy, no nothing... Of course the Jews were faced with annihilation (once again, since most of those people had escaped the Nazis), but they fought and achieved freedom.  Yes, Israel is the ONLY country which is free in the Middle East!  And Israel also has a population that is 20% Arab, but other Arab states have no Jewish populations because in their minds if you're not Muslim you are lower than a dog.  Don't believe me?  Look at:

http://www.freedomhouse.org

ranks Israel as being free, while on the other hand the lovely regimes of Iran and North Korea are at the bottom!  In fact, Former President of Iran, Mohammad Khatami came to Boston recently, and one of the things he talked about was how it was right for Iran to behead homosexuals!!  It's just unbelieveable in my mind, but sadly that's how it is.

Although I don't agree with Bush, I don't like Bush, I didn't vote for Bush, I think anyone who tries to compare the US with a State like Iran or North Korea knows nothing.

-avatar!

ps I could go on and on... but I'm not sure there's any reason, because no matter what I say, no matter how many articles I reference, Kenology will not believe in anything and simply dismiss them.  Hopefully others will understand.

edit: corrected typo

I have to tell you, my personal opinion is that the war in Iraq is wrong.  However, I am (and have always been) very worried about Iran, because they are led by a crazy president who speaks just like Hitler!  As for North Korea, they also are led by a dictator who is even more psychotic than that of Iran.  Today with nuclear bombs there is no going back.  One nuke will not destroy a house, it'll destory a huge city!  In a second NYC could be destroyed, along with millions of people.  Same for London, Tokyo, Tel-Aviv, LA, Boston, any city is not safe.  This doesn't mean I don't sleep at night, it just means I believe the world is full of crazy people, and crazy people with nukes is a bad combination!!  My suggestion, keep the crazy people away from nukes.  That's all I'm saying.

cheers,

-avatar!

ps If Hitler had made nuclear weapons first (the Germans were trying hard), what kind of world would exist today?  Ask yourself...

I live in the United States, have voted once before and I have not felt any more fearful than on 9/11. I think this brand of "fear tactics" is something the hyper partisans and anti-Bush leagues trumpet in a way to denegrate the president.

I also believe that George W. Bush is a fallable human being like all president's before him in that he has and continues to make mistakes on our current situation (one of which is the lack of his reporting and leveling with people about the war and his *political* inability to be tougher on the US border situation). Furthermore, it's factual that the intelligence received by the country was not only reviewed by former president Clinton and a few other presidents such as Egypt's and Russia's displaying that Iraq had W.M.D.s. Calling Bush a liar and a wormonger is simply irresponsible knowing this alone (apart from silly, baseless namecalling).

Let's just end by saying this: some of the world's biggest threats and instagators are indeed North Korea, and Iran. Most of their rhetoric is hateful and threatening. These are two countries which harbor and condone terrorist activity and do not need to have nuclear weapons in that they will most likely use them against us. The United Nations has continued to do nothing (if you don't believe that just look at the horrible acts in Darfur - everyone expects the US to do something when the UN should be doing more than throwing money at the issue) as they are an impetant and corrupt institution who sees only to denegrate the US. Let's also state that Israel has nuclear weapons - if they're the perceived terrorists why don't they threaten their enemies with them?

In order to be rational debaters, we stick to facts and keep irrational emotional outbreak out.

Now you're putting words in my mouth and saying what I would have said given x circumstances.  You have issues!

Actually, I didn't quote Ahmadinejad.  I just agree that Israel should be in Europe as opposed to the Middle East.  There will never be peace as long as Israel's there.  You can demonize Ahmadinejad all you want to, doesn't matter to me.  Also, notice that I never gave you my personal opinion of Ahmadinejad.  I simply agreed with him on one point, and you go on a tyraid and noticeably avoid all the other questions I threw out there.  This just shows how weak your arguement is.  And it's still choke full of sentiment and devoid of much objectivity - as I said earlier.  Don't let your emotions blind you.

Since when does the UN reflect WORLD agreement?  Who controls the UN?  Which countries have veto power?  Avatar!, you're clueless, man.  You have no idea about what's really goin' on.  Also, all that "Biblical land of the Jews" is all bullshit.  Propaganda used to justify all the messed up shit that they do.  I don't wish to get into it about religion though. 

Uhhm... actually...  Iran has a sizable Jewish population.  Again, you're putting yourself on blast, showing how little you actually know about all of this. 

I think that was directed at Yuvraj moreso than me.  I never said anything about the US other than that it provides military weaponry to Israel and has nukes.

I see that artificial womb is very comfortable!  It's clear you have no idea what's going on -- still plugged in the Matrix.  But whatever.   

EDIT: 

But who is the BIGGEST THREAT to world peace and openly declares it's intention to be the WORLD hegemon?

... and this is why I never talk politics.

LOL!

I will admit I learned my lesson pretty early on. Half my family is Democrat and the other half is Republican. Oh, the drama.

Fine, you *cited* and agreed with a man whose sentiments are akin to Hilter.  Good for you...
Since Israel is such a tiny country in such a huge Middle East, why do the Arabs have a problem with it?  Israel has never started a war!  Israel has never had suicide bombers!  Israel has always said they want peace when the Arabs always (and are still saying) they want the death and destruction of Israel and the US!  You know why they're saying that?  Because they're fanatics and are not willing to live in peace...

The only one clueless here is you!  Since when does the UN reflect world agreement?  Since 1945.  Have you ever heard of International Law?  It all comes from the UN.  Since you don't seem to know anything, let me tell you some history (although I'm really telling it to others, since you're obviously going to say that this is biased, and everything in the history books is written by blood-thirsty American bastards...which of course isn't true)  Anyway, for anyone who really wants to learn something:

Both the League of Nations's 1922 Mandate for Palestine and the 1947 UN Partition Plan supported an aim of Zionism: the establishment of a Jewish national homeland in the region of Palestine.

The UN General Assembly Resolution 181 (November 29, 1947), which served as the foundation for the Israeli Declaration of Independence, with Jerusalem to be an internationalised city (Corpus separatum), was passed by the General Assembly with 33 votes in favor, 13 against, and 10 absentions (notice this was NOT done by the Security Council). It was the first and only time the United Nations has recommended creating two states by way of a General Assembly vote.

By 1947, Jews constituted 60% of the population in the areas designated to the Jewish state by the partition; while the total territory assigned to the Jewish state exceeded proportionally the land allotted to the Arabs (not taking to account the massive wave of Jewish immigrants and refugees soon to come), a substantial part of the former was the Negev desert. Substantial Jewish immigration, whose quantity was determined by the British government, had increased the proportion of Jewish inhabitants of Palestine from 11% in 1922 to 33%.

The Arab leaders rejected the plan involving partition and refused to officially negotiate with the Jewish leadership. Arab League Secretary, Abdul Rahman Hassan Azzam told the Jewish Agency in September 1947: "You won't get anything by peaceful means or compromise ... "
*Horowitz, David. State in the Making. New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1953, p233

As the Mandate expired on May 14, 1948 and the State of Israel was announced according to the UN Partition Plan, joint Jordanian, Egyptian, Syrian, Lebanese and Iraqi troops invaded and fought Israel.  On May 15, 1948, the Arab League Secretary General Abdul Razek Azzam announced the intention to wage "a war of extermination and a momentous massacre which will be spoken of like the Mongolian massacres and the Crusades."
*Benny Morris, Righteous Victims, p.219
*http://badgerherald.com/oped/2006/08/08/us_assistance_a_ne.php

Large numbers of the Arab population fled the newly-created Jewish State during the Palestinian exodus. Many historians suggest that the Palestinians fled because of orders from Arab generals. Many Palestinians left under the belief that the Arab armies would prevail and they would return. Moreover, Israel offered — in the Declaration of the Establishment of the State of Israel — to the Arab inhabitants of the State of Israel the full and equal citizenship and due representation in all its provisional and permanent institutions, but many refused.
*historical reference: The Arab Refugees, The New York Post. November 30, 1948

Um actually, you're mistaken once again (not a surprise to anyone).  Iran USED to have a "large" (relatively speaking) Jewish population.  In the 70s Iran was actually friendly toward Israel, and there were in fact commercial jets flying between the two countries.  After the revolution and crackdown (full of human rights violations) on non-Muslims (and some Muslims) almost all Jews fled the country, including the family of one Iranian-born Jew I know here in Boston.  He told me all about it.  Where the hell are your sources by the way?  Why haven't you given ONE single source to everything you've spewed thus far???

You tell us?  We're all waiting!!  How many countries officially have threatened to destroy other countries?  Let's see, I can cite Iran, North Korea, Syria, the Palestinians (which are not really a country)...  By the way, if a country like Israel is so keen on killing civilians as you claim, why the hell did they drop leaflets telling civilians to get out days before they bombed??  Wouldn't it make more sense just to bomb first?  Of course it would... you know why they dropped leaflets, because they had no intentions of killing civilians. 

-avatar!

Because they are the indigenous population and they're being oppressed and displaced from their own land.  How would you feel if people just came to your house, apartment, or condo (wherever you live) and place you under their jurisdiction and you have no say so?  Think about it, man.  It's colonization.  They don't belong there.  You're totally oblivious to the true circumstance that exist in the Middle East. 

And with this, I'm done.  I won't even read the rest of what you wrote.  You're incredibly naive, and not worth my time - you don't know what you're talking about anyways.  Talk to me when you're ready to objectively discuss these issues.  You've internalized the biased U.S. media and are completely brainwashed.  If you want to have the last word, go right ahead and reply...  And with all this said, avatar!... I don't blame you for having "your" opinions, or for basically being the brainwashed drone that they want you to be.  It's not your fault, it's by design.  But try to be more open-minded and objective - that's all I'll say to you.

For everyone else, here's a very good documentary about Israel and Palestine, the filtering, sanitation, and skewing of the news by American media, and the terrorist activities carried out daily by the illegitimate state of Israel, and a telling compare and contrasting of the media coverage of Israel in both the British and American media outlets.  Click here to watch "Peace, Propaganda, and The Promised Land".

Another, shorter, documentary...  "False Media".  It's limited to the media coverage of the Iraq invasion, but I'm sure you all get the point.

You can of course draw your own conclusions, avatar, but I'd look a little deeper into things if I were you. You ask very valid questions and yet the answers may not be as obvious as you think they are.

Yeah you said it Jay. Avatar, everything you wrote here is just ridiculous. It's pretty clear that you lare on the side of America and Israel, hey no prob, but you sound like an American farmer to me now, and the way you talk down to Ken is absurd. Your self-proclaimed superior knowledge on this matter is in itself ridiculous but that singleminded aggressive view of yours makes you -I'm sorry but- more ignorant than anything else.

Bush also claims America wants peace. Actually Bush just wants us all to get along and spread democracy to the entire world.

I'm quite curious to your religious background.

Jay: I know that politics is often convoluted, however I don't really buy into the "everything is a conspiracy" theory.  On the other hand if you have facts, please do share.  Otherwise just saying "look deeper into it" doesn't mean much. 

Yuvraj: Saying someone is ignorant, without showing one single piece of evidence is in my mind rather ignorant.  You are right, I am pro-American, however that doesn't mean I'm pro-Bush (which I'm not).  As for Israel, I believe all countries (including Israel) are entitled to live in peace and security.  Note that Israel has had peace, security, and relationships including economic ones with Egypt and Jordan for years now, so I don't see why other Arab countries couldn't live in peace with Israel!  Kenology on the other hand seems to believe that Israel should be wiped out (remember,  he not only cited Ahmadinejad, he also said there will never be peace as long as Israel is there)!  This blatant disregard for human life shows me that nothing he says can be good. 
I'm not entirely certain what you mean by saying that I "sound like an American farmer"??  What I gather from that is that you believe farmers are simple and ignorant, namely because they have opinions different than you.  So it seems to me that you are saying if someone has different opinions than your own, they are ignorant.  At any rate, as I stated earlier, I like facts and sources.  You can dismiss what I say all you want, but unless you can cite me some hard facts, I think all you say is simply your own opinion.  Of course I'm giving you my opinion too, I won't deny that, but I do try to back what I say with facts (citations from major Newspapers, things you can look up on your own).  You do the same. 

-avatar!

You don't need facts from me. I never said there's a conspiracy (although you seem to believe in an arab conspiracy - I guess that might make you the conspiracy theorist). I never even said I had any answers. What I believe to be true isn't important here. You don't have to listen to me or anyone if you so choose.

All I suggested is that you put a bit of thought into it yourself and find your own answers. That piece I quoted that you wrote yourself has more than enough 'facts' to consider as it is.

But your response to that suggestion speaks volumes.

Interesting how you paint your dissenters as single-minded and igorant when you, sir, seem to fall under those same demeaning names. I guess we should accept a few things from your enlightened perspective that a) *all* Middle Easterners hate the U.S. (because Saddam Hussein, of course, never did anything as bad as America) and b) It's somehow bad to "spread democracy to the entire world." c) Only people who are in the tank for America use judgmental terminology like "terrorism".

You sound like, to me, you lack objective thought seeming to blame the U.S. for everything wrong in the world today and that doesn't equal objective credability on your behalf. Let me ask you this: Do you believe there's a war of cultures and that there are terrorists who will kill and give their lives for a fundamental cause? How would you classify a catastrophe like 9/11/2001? Also, why would you object to Democracy to most or all nations?

I know you didn't ask me, but...

I will say that I  think U.S. has a lot to do with most of the instability in the world today.

As for 9/11, I'll just say that the official story isn't believeable AT ALL.

As for "democracy", I don't understand how a nation can use bombs to *impose* a so-called "democracy" onto other nations.  It doesn't make sense.

I support that statement.  Except that, I'd say American terrorism started as far back as Manifest Destiny.

Politics aside...how great would it be if we had neo-technology that allowed a super-power to wipe out the 'bad people' with a cosmic laser-ray, while keeping the infrastruce (buildings, etc) in place, un harmed, all the while without spreading toxic nuclear waste...With current technology, one major bomb goes along way to f'ing up the rest of the world.  I hope this is clear whenever someone with wayyyy too much power decides to detonate their 'stock' of world-ending imperfect bombs...

Reminds me of a song

Kevin Gilbert - All Fall Down

http://www.stormedheaven.com/fall.zip

Lyrics:

"I guess this is it.
Time for what's been called the finale
And this one comes as no surprise
One of a kind, you'll never see this anywhere else, friends,
Sort of brings a tear to your eye
So be watching closely and you'll be impressed
An order is given and a button is pressed
Then a light that is blinding and a sound that is shrill
Don't blink or you'll miss it, it's the end of free will

So turn the radio up and pass the bottle round
And then we'll have one more drink before we all fall down
I'll wear my favorite tie, you can wear your wedding gown
And then we'll both look real sharp when we all fall down

Look at them now, drawing little lines with their speeches
Each daring the other to cross
It won't be long now, one will make a stand he believes in
Believing it's well worth the cost
Then the other gets angry refuses to budge
Fueled by some understandable grudge
And now we wait quietly till the missile arrives
There's no need to shout about the end of our lives

So bring your friends now, and we'll laugh at all the clowns
Who think there'll be a better world when we all fall down
And we can sing this song, we'll make a joyful sound
We'll be singing na na na when we all fall down

Buildings and bridges all leveled to the ground
Cities and nations and we just stand around
Someone unlocked the big cage
and the beast cannot be found
So strike up the music and we'll all fall down."

This wouldn't work in the best interests of interested economic parties - if you don't destroy infrastructure, there will be no contracts to hand out for rebuilding a country.

Also see: 2 Minutes to Midnight (Iron Maiden)

Dunno...It's scary enough the Doomsday Clock actually exists. Sounds like something fresh out of a comic book.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doomsday_Clock

That's exactly how the world comes to an end too...In the back of my mind, I know that's exactly what's going to happen. I don't think humans are smart enough to not abuse that type of power, regardless of the consequences. You can't get away from it and most aren't able to do anything about. I just hope I'm long gone (or I've lived a long enough life) when it happens.

I'm not exactly a US flag waver, but I feel better with us having nukes than I do North Korea. I mean, North Korea is an extremely poor country...What would they have to lose by blowing up...Oh, say, Tokyo and trying to establish itself? Might be their best move (in their minds at least) I don't see a situation where the US would be tempted to use them nowadays, considering how many enemies we'd make.

(BTW, I don't go around in a constant depressed state with the thought the world is coming to an end in giant mushroom cloud...It's just something I shrug off now and then and don't really think about. Comes up in conversation a bit though).

To XISMZERO:

Funny how from the very little pieces of text I wrote down you gathered that I blame US for everything wrong in the world.  I never stated such thing. In fact I never stated an opinion. This discussion is heated, but we should try to maintain logical deduction and interpretation.

Again, I find it bewildering how you have concluded this from my two posts. Your words 'all' and 'bad'  in a) and b) respectively are very bad cases of fallacy.

Yes, unfortunately there is a war between cultures now. But fundamentalism is also present in Christianity (and has been for much longer), but it's just not so evident through the media. I don't want to sound cliche, but 'it takes two to tango'. In this time, the Islam is clouded by lots of negative energy. Not nearly reaching the violent heights of Christianity during the era of the inquisition, but definitely far far from the golden age it once was in. But the whole anti Middle-Eastern mentalilty here is just the type of thinking that world doesn't need right now. The polarization that is in effect now is just plain freightening. There are claims that America ignited this polarization for a very clear purpose and that the whole 9/11 was done by it's own goverment. I'm not sure of that yet. I wouldn't be too suprised if it was true. But I'm not going to blame anyone so easily as you guys do, which is why I reacted to Avatar like that, and I think he should be aware of the fact that there are A LOT of people who think he is totally wrong on this thing.

To AVATAR:

Because they have a different opinion than me??? Again a case of bad information gathering. I mean, I haven't even stated an opinion yet. I called you ignorant for just pointing a finger to some countries without ever giving a hint of relativizing the whole matter. It bothered me. Oh, poor Israel just wants peace & harmony. Dude, I don't even feel like going into a whole Israel-Palestina debate, but Israel is far from innocent.

Oh, and I suppose I could turn this into a scientifically valid argument by citing everything I'm writing down, but that is just a waist of my time. I mean, yeah you read newspapers all you want: 'and another islamic terrorist attack today in Europe', but I must say that that a citation from a major American newspaper doesn't necessarily mean anything. Like Jay said, this matter is so immensily complex, you can read whatever you want, but in the end it all comes down to your own belief, but you think you know so much, while you know no more or less than me or Ken. And you are caught in the polarizing web with your extreme anti-Arab and pro-US and Israel sentiments.

So what I think: I'm not anti-America or anything. In fact, I love America for many things. But the oh so typical superior feeling that the American government (and many of it's citizens) radiate does bother me a bit. The US is arguable the most powerful empire at this moment in time, and they are very aware of it. And, I surely hope that we agree that with such great power comes a lot of terrotorial, conquering behaviour. I think I can say that the American government has no cultural values (hey, the nation was built by criminals and conquerors ), and it's one singular value is to retain it's power in the world. Read SonicPanda's post btw. And no, Im not pro-Arabic or something

You mean terrorists didn't really destroy the Twin Towers?  Perhaps they're still standing, and we just can't see them!  Or was it a government plot?? 

What a joke!!!  You believe whatever you want, I'm just happy the vast majority of the world can use basic logic and understand clearly what happened:

Which is that Islamic fudamentalists used terrorists to ram planes into the Twin Towers, thus killing thousands of innocent people (not to mention hundreds more on two other planes). 

-avatar!