http://www.vintage-music-equipment.d...20gong%201.jpgQuote:
Originally Posted by Lyle
Lyle
http://www.ocie.com/images_products/...let_s10386.jpg
Kirkland Laing
Printable View
http://www.vintage-music-equipment.d...20gong%201.jpgQuote:
Originally Posted by Lyle
Lyle
http://www.ocie.com/images_products/...let_s10386.jpg
Kirkland Laing
....I do not find your "cymbolism" accurate or amusing.
OK.....I'll go that route
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LqoqKVY_50k
This from someone who supports the Republican ethos :rolleyes:.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lyle
Pretty much every American President from the Civil War onwards has meddled in the affairs of other sovereign nations. Not that it makes it right. So I assume by your comments about the Shah that you would rather Iran have been run by a ultra-nationalist, anti-imperialist (ie anti-American)?
so when is the general election (isit called that in the states?) happening?! and whats the general feel on it...i gathered Bush is as good as fucked off outta there....so who does it look like is going to take control??
Bush has already served two terms, which is unbelievable, so he is not allowed to run again. It's between McCain (Rep) and Obama (Dem).Quote:
Originally Posted by cockey cockney
any indications on whose favourite atm mate? and when exactly does this take place?
I believe it takes place in early Nov., but I could be wrong. I'm not sure if there is a favorite at this point. Obviously the real battle is for the independent/undecided voters, as well as those who don't normally vote, as Republicans almost always vote for the Republican and Democrats almost always vote for the Democrat. Honestly, I think they're both shit, but if I was an American, which I'm not, I would vote for Obama because McCain represents the old guard of US politics, which quite frankly disgusts me.Quote:
Originally Posted by cockey cockney
got to be honest here and say i know very little about American politics....so i cant relate to this Old Guard politics you speak of? What is meant by that? Obama supports the same football (Soccer) team as me lol....apparently got introduced to them on a trip to Britain and had a soft spot for them ever since!Quote:
Originally Posted by CFHI believe it takes place in early Nov., but I could be wrong. I'm not sure if there is a favorite at this point. Obviously the real battle is for the independent/undecided voters, as well as those who don't normally vote, as Republicans almost always vote for the Republican and Democrats almost always vote for the Democrat. Honestly, I think they're both shit, but if I was an American, which I'm not, I would vote for Obama because McCain represents the old guard of US politics, which quite frankly disgusts me.Quote:
Originally Posted by cockey cockney
By old guard I just meant more of the same (though it is not confined only to the Republican party). I actually don't think McCain would be that bad of a President, when compared to the Bushes or Reagan.Quote:
Originally Posted by cockey cockneygot to be honest here and say i know very little about American politics....so i cant relate to this Old Guard politics you speak of? What is meant by that? Obama supports the same football (Soccer) team as me lol....apparently got introduced to them on a trip to Britain and had a soft spot for them ever since!Quote:
Originally Posted by CFHI believe it takes place in early Nov., but I could be wrong. I'm not sure if there is a favorite at this point. Obviously the real battle is for the independent/undecided voters, as well as those who don't normally vote, as Republicans almost always vote for the Republican and Democrats almost always vote for the Democrat. Honestly, I think they're both shit, but if I was an American, which I'm not, I would vote for Obama because McCain represents the old guard of US politics, which quite frankly disgusts me.Quote:
Originally Posted by cockey cockney
From what I have seen, Obama promises a great deal of change, such as health-care, a more liberal agenda, different foreign policy etc., though he'd never use the word liberal as it would be political suicide. However, so far he has been very light on the specific details. I think McCain will win, and honestly he's probably more qualified to run the country, I just like the concept of change promoted by Obama. In reality, whoever wins will likely effect very little real change in the political process.
same old same.....politics these days no matter where they are, will be exactly the same. IE two main parties fighting it out...withvery little scope for really significant movements ie Old Labour and Tory in the old days could enforce real changes which just are not possible anymore, the middle ground is what wins elections now, parties have recognised this and have moulded there policies to fit is the sad truth of it!
No doubt about that. We have 4 major parties here, with a 5th on the rise. At times one of them has had the stated goal of breaking up the country (well, putting it to a referendum) and it only represents the wishes of one province.Quote:
Originally Posted by cockey cockney
In reality though, only 2 of the parties have a real chance at getting elected, and one of the (the Liberals) hold office the vast majority of the time.
I'm still hoping someone in the Middle East is a rational leaderQuote:
Originally Posted by CFH
Just because an Arab leader doesn't say or do the things you want don't mean they're irrational. I'm not by any means an expert on him but for King Hussein of Jordan to have survived as long as he did with all the problems he had to deal with, he must have been pretty rational. Even Ahmininejad (one of these days I'm gonna learn how to spell that) is just playing to the crowd, at least partly.
McCain has a boring problem. He's just flat out boring. I know that's not something that should make or break a candidacy, it should be about more important things, but it doesn't help. I just couldn't get through his whole speech last night, it was just dire. And this morning again, he's just boring. That monotone, the way he chooses his words, spit it out man and move on.
Hillary's speech last night was comic genius.
All Middle Eastern leaders are rational.
....yeah, I'm gonna have to disagree with that and suggest you seek mental helpQuote:
Originally Posted by Kirkland Laing
Which ones are irrational?Quote:
Originally Posted by Lyle....yeah, I'm gonna have to disagree with that and suggest you seek mental helpQuote:
Originally Posted by Kirkland Laing
Ahmadinijad, al-Otari, The Saudi's, Abbas....basically all of them
Ahmadinejad doesn't rule Iran, the clerics do, it's a theocracy, remember? Ahmadinejad runs the country, the clerics rule the nation, and they're plenty rational. They certainly outsmarted dumbass George Bush in Iraq, didn't they?Quote:
Originally Posted by Lyle
In what way are the Saudis irrational? Or Abbas? Otari is a placeman for the Assad family, who again are plenty rational. What do these guys do that's irrational?
The Saudi's meeting with Osama and doing other extremely sketchy things....and they expect America to just be OK with that....THAT is irrational.
Abbas wants to destroy Israel...Memoirs of a Palestinian Terrorist...that's his autobiography where he says he partially funded the 1972 Munich Olympic massacre.
If Ahmadinijad doesn't run things then OK so the mullahs are irrational then and yes they are....they live in the past and still tell stories of the fucking Crusades. They need to get real and start cooperating with the rest of the world.
The Bush family still do business with the Bin Laden family, as do the Saudis. And it's not irrational for Muslim nationalists like those guys to meet. You'll have to come up with something better than that. Bin Laden also met with representatives of all major Arab governments, all governments which we currently prop up.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lyle
All Palestinian leaders are former terrorists, just like the current Catholic leaders in Northern Ireland or Israel's leaders for the first fifty years of its existence. And it's a rational position for Abbas to take. If a foreign power was occupying North Carolina and building houses all over it and declaring it their territory, what would your rational response be?
The Iranian mullahs would love a rational relationship with the rest of the world but are prevented from having one by the US.
....Iran wants to sue the US basically for defamation of character.....is that rational? Iran a country with gigantic oil reserves wants nuclear capabilities......I wonder why....perhaps to make missles :rolleyes: . And if we can't get more nuclear power plants built here then no one else should be building one anywhere.
Who's waging "Holy Wars"....is it the US??? I don't think so! Our citizens aren't clammoring for the beheading of anyone looking like a muslim....but maybe we should because apparently that is rational....do we call muslims "infidels" and tell them they are going to hell and we're going to martyr ourselves to send them there???
Kirk...you have lost this debate...America has a couple crazies but the crazies here don't blow everyone up and then make internet videos about it saying how they are doing the work of a supernatural all seeing all knowing all powerful supreme being....Pat Robertson might THINK about doing bad things to muslim mullahs but he doesn't personally see to their deaths nor does he go out and train people to kill the aforementioned people.
Western society is just a tad more laid back than over there...for example OUR girls dress however the fuck they want to and the worst that may happen is that they get called 'whores'...and over there they either dress like Cousin It or get stoned to death....over here a woman can vote, drive a car (supposedly), and run for President....over there women get stoned to death.
Nobody thinks Iran is trying to build a nuke, apart from a few American crazies. Even US intelligence doesn't think they are. Iran has been after nuclear power from a time pre-dating the mullahs :Quote:
Originally Posted by Lyle
http://www.iranian.com/Pictory/2006/...ages/guess.jpg
And that picture explains a lot about why so many people in Iran don't like the US. If a Muslim superpower had overthrown the democratic government in America and imposed a dictator on you for a quarter of a century whose hideous repressive secret police state had killed or tortured at least one member of every American family in that time until you'd managed to overthrow him, how well-disposed would Americans be towards that superpower?
Who is waging holy wars Lyle? The US is the country doing all the invading after their president announced a crusade. I see people fighting back in any way they can. I can assure you that if you gave the people you're fighting laser-guided bombs and cruise missiles they'd use them against you instead of chopping off heads.
There's no way you can ever beat me in a debate because all the facts and the evidence are on my side. You using radical cleric Pat Robertson is a good example -- he recently called for America to assassinate the democratically-elected head of state of another country. Crazies like radical cleric Pat and the religious nuts he represents have lived in the richest country in the world during a time of unparallelled peace and prosperity all their lives, yet they're happy to nuke other countries when you get a couple of New York office building knocked over.
Imagine how full of rage and anger they'd be if they'd been living under regimes who were controlled and manipulated by a foreign superpower all their lives, like the religious nuts in the Middle east have been. To pretend that there's any difference between Christian and Muslim religious nuts/nationalists is just abject hypocrisy.
Finally we're more advanced in the west regarding women's rights etc. because a couple of centuries of liberalism have made vast progress against the backwardness of our societies when morals were governed by religious conservatives. Is it really fair to pick on Muslim countries for being dominated by religious conservatives, especially when our interference in and manipulation of those countries has helped religious conservatives in those countries keep a stranglehold on power? Just be thankful you live in the liberal west.
OK.....I'm not saying it IS happening...but I'm saying it has a greater chance of happening after they have the material to build such a weapon. And their bellicose tone doesn't really ease my feelings about things.
This is how the situation looks from Iran's point of view Lyle. The stars are US military bases :
http://jack.link-u.com/wp-content/usbases.jpeg
Plus you control the waters of the Persian Gulf. So who has a legitimate case to be worried here, especially regarding, you know, recent history and who is wetting the bed for no reason at all?
...believe what you want but no I don't want them having nuclear anything.
So make peace with them. Attacking them is guaranteed to have them build a nuke. Or force Israel to abandon its nuclear arsenal so that the nuclear arms race that's currently under way in the region ends.
I'm not in charge over here buddy...in case you haven't noticed
I'm just pointing out rational alternatives to wetting the bed over a nonexistent threat.
...it's not existant until the nuclear material is aquired and then it becomes more of a reality
Assuming Iran spends a decade getting a bomb together, then develops a missile that can travel more than a few hundred miles. Do you seriously think they're going to use it, especially when you look at the map and see we've got them surrounded? Bearing in mind US-Iranian history since 1953, do you think they might just want a nuke to deter us from invading them or manipulating their country?
There are US bases around the middle east and all they have to do is get a bomb to Israel to really start something. They don't have to make a huge bomb and they don't have to make a rocket that will travel across the world to cause trouble
Why invite their own destruction? Israel have 200 nukes that would be used in retaliation even if the US did nothing. Why would Iran invite destruction of its cities?