Debate and Discussion

How will Obama's presidencey change America?
zaneeba_slave at 9:37AM, Nov. 23, 2008
(online)
posts: 87
joined: 1-12-2007
Alot of pressure on ol' Obama. People expect him to be the next Abraham Lincoln, while the other think he will be the anti-christ.

Truth of the matter is, America is too far in the hole. Obama will have to do miracles to even get America back to a fraction of the way it was.

Sorry to say it, but change isnt going to come in Obama's time.
I like to imagine myself as a goblin in a tuxedo. -Zaneeba_slave
last edited on July 14, 2011 4:54PM
rufus_edge at 3:31PM, Nov. 23, 2008
(online)
posts: 131
joined: 10-25-2007
I think that the sole reason for the existence of Iran's nuclear program is to wipe Israel off the map. So far, we have only have had one type of effort to avoid conflict. I think that any negotiations similar to what we already went through with the UN are not going to work. I think any type of appeasement will not work. It's still possible to avoid conflict, but we aren't headed in the right direction.

I don't want Israel to bomb Iran now and I sure don't want them to bomb anything in Iran that doesn't pose a direct threat to them. However, I think if they were to bomb the nuclear facilities now, it would be at least somewhat justified because the continuation of the nuclear program is completely unnecessary and in violation of international sanctions.

Right now, Iran has enough fuel for one weapon. They need to reconfigure the centrifuges and do a few months of additional processing in order to further purify the uranium to the point where it can be used in a nuclear warhead. We don't know if they know how to design the actual bomb.

If they continue developing nuclear weapons past this point, the will have to either tip us off or breach the international agreements by kicking out inspectors. I say that at that point, Israel should give them one month to stop and let the inspectors back in, or they will bomb the facilities.

They are on track to have a nuclear bomb sometime between 2009 and 2015.

radarig
Do you believe that Iran will accept its own destruction in order to destroy Israel?

This is what I'm talking about. Peace through strength. Reagan and Hunter. It doesn't work if the other person is a maniac or you're too weak to use the weapons you have.



last edited on July 14, 2011 3:12PM
ozoneocean at 7:08PM, Nov. 23, 2008
(online)
posts: 25,053
joined: 1-2-2004
rufus_edge
I think that the sole reason for the existence of Iran's nuclear program is to wipe Israel off the map.
This assumption is the problem. It's pretty common and if people examine it they find that it's faulty.

Consider: The real reason, the only reason, the truth behind the antipathy of the Arab world towards Israel is the occupation of Palestine. Everything else is piss, wind, shit, and bravado.

What would a nuclear attack on Israel achieve? Answer: dead Palestinians and Iraq being annihilated by the U.S. and Europe. This is 100% certainty. And the reality is that Iranian's are not crazy mad-men, bent on their own destruction for idealogical ends. The whole country are NOT suicide bombers and Islam is not a crazy mad suicidal cult of death.

—————————-

I'm sure that Iran DOES want to develop a nuclear capacity, but for an extremely logical reason that it doesn't take a genius to see:
They are afraid.
They are scared shitless by the threats that the U.S. continues to make against them and has done since the Islamic revolution. They're afraid of Israel, which could take them easily in any sort of conflict, especially with its allies. Iran knows it has no friends, Syria won't help it in any conflict, Saudi Arabia definitely will not help, nor will Jordan, Egypt or the U.A.E.
They see the potential of a nuclear weapon as an ultimate deterrent. Just like everyone else who've ever developed them.

—————————-

As to the motives of the U.S. and other countries for preventing them from having a deterrent:
Well, it's also simply logical they they want to keep the option open to be able to viably attack Iran if they feel they need to. With a nuclear threat, they know this will be much harder. Plus: it will change the power dynamic in the Middle East, make the Iranians not so frightened… and all the complications THAT brings- Iran would be a superpower in the region, which would make the rest of the Arab countries rather less sure of themselves. And unlike the imaginary scenario of Iran trying to destroy Israel, this is really would be something to worry about.

—————————-
Now I know this coldly logical, SANE assessment is harder for people to take because it assumes that Iranians are not insane evil beasts the way people like to think and it also assumes the defence policies of the U.S., Israel and other countries are quite cold blooded, but that's cold hard reality for you. If that seems to nasty and not black and white enough for you, buy all means, run back to the idea that Iranians are mad death loving evil monsters with no brains and the beneficent guiding spirit of the West will guide the godless heathens to the true path.
 
last edited on July 14, 2011 2:32PM
imshard at 1:27PM, Nov. 24, 2008
(online)
posts: 2,961
joined: 7-26-2007
ozoneocean
People think that Iran is populated by mindless evil demons that need to be destroyed.

Look, reasonable people know that the populous of any country are not inherently evil.

Yet when Ahmadinejad swears a blood oath to destroy Israel and her allies, you kinda don't want the guy to have access to the weapon to end all weapons. The whole country doesn't have to be willing to use it, just the man holding the trigger. Do I think he is evil? No. Do I think his countrymen are evil? No. As well, the ayatollahs still in the country DO in fact feel they have a religious obligation to destroy the infidels and can be quoted as saying so any day of the week.


ozoneocean
I'm sure that Iran DOES want to develop a nuclear capacity, but for an extremely logical reason that it doesn't take a genius to see:
They are afraid.
They are scared shitless by the threats that the U.S. continues to make against them and has done since the Islamic revolution. They're afraid of Israel, which could take them easily in any sort of conflict, especially with its allies. Iran knows it has no friends, Syria won't help it in any conflict, Saudi Arabia definitely will not help, nor will Jordan, Egypt or the U.A.E.
They see the potential of a nuclear weapon as an ultimate deterrent. Just like everyone else who've ever developed them.

The reason Iran has no friends is because it is unfriendly, and has a history of attacking its neighbors. Even the non-US allied countries that border Iran see it as a threat.

Being the deterred, the rest of the world should see to it that Iran Does NOT develop nukes. The “everyone else who've ever developed them” knows this. Think of all the mess we could have avoided if nuclear proliferation never occurred? The whole world should be united in disarming nukes not fighting about who gets to build more.
Don't be a stick in the mud traditionalist! Support global warming!

Tech Support: The Comic!! Updates Somedays!!
last edited on July 14, 2011 12:58PM
ozoneocean at 3:57PM, Nov. 24, 2008
(online)
posts: 25,053
joined: 1-2-2004
imshard
Yet when Ahmadinejad swears a blood oath to destroy Israel and her allies, you kinda don't want the guy to have access to the weapon to end all weapons. The whole country doesn't have to be willing to use it, just the man holding the trigger. Do I think he is evil? No. Do I think his countrymen are evil? No. As well, the ayatollahs still in the country DO in fact feel they have a religious obligation to destroy the infidels and can be quoted as saying so any day of the week.
Sorry, but this is so much nonsense. What Ahmadinejad said was in reference to Palestine and the Palestinians. Extrapolating it to nuclear annihilation is foolish.
imshard
The reason Iran has no friends is because it is unfriendly, and has a history of attacking its neighbors. Even the non-US allied countries that border Iran see it as a threat.
No it doesn't. Iran has a history of being Isolated and attacked because of the antipathy towards the U.S.
Lest we forget the million that died during the Iraq Iran war where the Iraqis were supported by both the U.S.A. and U.S.S.R. at times, and when chemical weapons were used against the Iranians, the U.S. blocked any motions in the U.N. against Iraq for doing that.

They're victims more than anything else in world affairs, not demons.

You have the wrong impression Imshard. I don't support Iran developing a nuclear capacity, I also don't support idiot invasions or harmful sanctions against them. If there weren't such hostile forces and threats arrayed against the country it wouldn't feel the NEED to develop such a capacity, that's obvious. If the country was engaged in an open and sensible manner and not handled idiotically by the sorts of blithering imbeciles that come up with and use phrases like “sponsors of terror” or “rogue states”, or “axis of evil” things would start to be sorted out a lot quicker.
 
last edited on July 14, 2011 2:32PM
rufus_edge at 8:57AM, Nov. 25, 2008
(online)
posts: 131
joined: 10-25-2007
I know you think World War II and the Holocaust were fine because The Treaty of Versailles was unfair and the Jews were being mean, but I think the world would be just a tiny bit better off if we stopped this Hitler.
last edited on July 14, 2011 3:12PM
radarig at 10:12AM, Nov. 25, 2008
(online)
posts: 73
joined: 1-12-2006
This thread is light on straw-men. What can we do about this, team?
rufus_edge
I know you think World War II and the Holocaust were fine because The Treaty of Versailles was unfair and the Jews were being mean, but I think the world would be just a tiny bit better off if we stopped this Hitler.
Alright! Way to hustle!
last edited on July 14, 2011 2:58PM
imshard at 1:02PM, Nov. 25, 2008
(online)
posts: 2,961
joined: 7-26-2007
ozoneocean
Sorry, but this is so much nonsense. What Ahmadinejad said was in reference to Palestine and the Palestinians. Extrapolating it to nuclear annihilation is foolish.

No it doesn't. Iran has a history of being Isolated and attacked because of the antipathy towards the U.S.
Lest we forget the million that died during the Iraq Iran war where the Iraqis were supported by both the U.S.A. and U.S.S.R. at times, and when chemical weapons were used against the Iranians, the U.S. blocked any motions in the U.N. against Iraq for doing that.

They're victims more than anything else in world affairs, not demons.

You have the wrong impression Imshard. I don't support Iran developing a nuclear capacity, I also don't support idiot invasions or harmful sanctions against them. If there weren't such hostile forces and threats arrayed against the country it wouldn't feel the NEED to develop such a capacity, that's obvious. If the country was engaged in an open and sensible manner and not handled idiotically by the sorts of blithering imbeciles that come up with and use phrases like “sponsors of terror” or “rogue states”, or “axis of evil” things would start to be sorted out a lot quicker.

Sorry but you don't attend conferences called “a world without Zionism” Say that the state of Israel is a stain upon the islamic world, and advocate that it needs to “wiped from the pages of history” and then claim peace. That is one of many rather well-quoted incidents where he clearly shows his view that Israel needs to be removed not simply “live in co-existence” with the Palestine. Indeed when he was a governor of a province circa 1995 he gave a speech in which he said “There can be no Israel, all the lands there should and do belong to Palestine”. Not exactly indicative of a man who simply believes in regime change and equal rights.
Don't be a stick in the mud traditionalist! Support global warming!

Tech Support: The Comic!! Updates Somedays!!
last edited on July 14, 2011 12:58PM
ozoneocean at 2:19PM, Nov. 25, 2008
(online)
posts: 25,053
joined: 1-2-2004
rufus_edge
I know you think World War II and the Holocaust were fine because The Treaty of Versailles was unfair and the Jews were being mean, but I think the world would be just a tiny bit better off if we stopped this Hitler.
Twit.
imshard
Sorry but you don't attend conferences called “a world without Zionism” Say that the state of Israel is a stain upon the islamic world, and advocate that it needs to “wiped from the pages of history” and then claim peace. That is one of many rather well-quoted incidents where he clearly shows his view that Israel needs to be removed not simply “live in co-existence” with the Palestine. Indeed when he was a governor of a province circa 1995 he gave a speech in which he said “There can be no Israel, all the lands there should and do belong to Palestine”. Not exactly indicative of a man who simply believes in regime change and equal rights.
Duh: context of the Palestinian situation, Like I said.
In terms of the nuclear question this is another straw man.
 
last edited on July 14, 2011 2:32PM
rufus_edge at 10:55AM, Nov. 26, 2008
(online)
posts: 131
joined: 10-25-2007
So now I've been personally attacked by three “admins”.

Hitler Jr.
Israel must vanish from the page of time.

Those who think they can revive the stinking corpse of the usurping and fake Israeli regime by throwing a birthday party are seriously mistaken. Today the reason for the Zionist regime's existence is questioned, and this regime is on its way to annihilation.

has reached the end like a dead rat after being slapped by the Lebanese.

The Zionist regime is dying.

The criminals imagine that by holding celebrations… they can save the Zionist regime from death.

They should know that regional nations hate this fake and criminal regime and if the smallest and briefest chance is given to regional nations they will destroy .

You should know that the criminal and terrorist Zionist regime which has 60 years of plundering, aggression and crimes in its file has reached the end of its work and will soon disappear off the geographical scene.

The regime resembles an airplane that has lost its engine and is kind of going down; and no one can help it.

I would like to declare that the idea of “smaller Israel” is also dead. The very notion of Israel is dead, but they are lagging behind the times. Just like the idea of Greater Israel died 30 years ago, and they did not realize this, and have continued to perpetrate crimes for 30 years… Today, I say to them: The idea of smaller Israel is dead.

They are walking in your illuminated path and the Zionist regime has reached a total dead end. Thanks to God, your wish will soon be realized, and this germ of corruption will be wiped off.

Hopefully, the news that the criminal (Sharon) of Sabra and Shatila has joined his ancestors is final.

Some European countries insist on saying that during World War II, Hitler burned millions of Jews and put them in concentration camps… Any historian, commentator or scientist who doubts that is taken to prison or gets condemned. Although we don't accept this claim, if we suppose it is true, if the Europeans are honest they should give some of their provinces in Europe - like in Germany, Austria or other countries - to the Zionists and the Zionists can establish their state in Europe. You offer part of Europe and we will support it.

They have invented a myth that Jews were massacred and place this above God, religions and the prophets. The West has given more significance to the myth of the genocide of the Jews, even more significant than God, religion, and the prophets.

Four or five years ago a suspect event took place in New York… A building collapsed and they said 3,000 people had been killed but never published their names.

In Iran, we don't have homosexuals, like in your country.

Someone can say these things and he's a “victim”, but if someone says “peace and love” a couple of times, he's an “idiot”, eh Ozzy?
last edited on July 14, 2011 3:12PM
ozoneocean at 6:43PM, Nov. 26, 2008
(online)
posts: 25,053
joined: 1-2-2004
Your argument technique is what I'm attacking here, not you.

If I were to personally attack you, it'd be a lot more severe than what SpANG or anyone else has said. I'm very creative and nasty when I put my mind to it.

Your quoting here is meaningless and redundant. The speech is rhetoric. DO you realise that?
We're talking about strategic realities and the lives of REAL people here, not the ravings of a leader who is on the way out of power in his own country, regarding the usual anti Israeli rubbish that may popular Arab leaders usually spew forth to please a certain part of their constituents.

If I wanted to go on this twittish level I'd quote all the times when Idiot European and American and Israeli leaders have said they should bomb all of Iran, turn it into a glassy wasteland, bomb it back to the stone age, blah, blah blah.

The difference is: Unlike the crap in that speech, which is impossible, (he can't do it and will NEVER be able to), the threats of various American,s Israelis and Europeans ARE possible to fulfil.
i.e. They HAVE the money, the weapons, the troops, the missiles and ALL THE REST of it as well as the backing of allies AND if they did crush Iran to nothing it WOULD NOT ensure their own destruction.

Now quit being a twit and use that brain you obviously have. :)

———————————-
I DON'T defend hateful speeches and I don't support the wiping out of ANY country or killing people or starting wars: that means I don't want Americans, Israelis OR Iranians dead.
With the REALITIES as they are -people actually having weapons, weapons tech, allies, staging posts, resources, backing- Iran is in more danger than anyone else right now.
-Which is why they'd like a nuclear capacity.
-Which is bad, not because they would use it against someone, but because it will make them more confident to dictate terms to their naighbours as well as alter the regional power dynamic.
-the best way to reslove this is not by murder and war, but by removing the presure and threat that made them feel they needed a nuclear deterent in the first place


In the mind of the terrified fantasists, a spider is more dangerous than a lion. Such is the case here.
 
last edited on July 14, 2011 2:32PM
imshard at 11:15PM, Nov. 26, 2008
(online)
posts: 2,961
joined: 7-26-2007
ozoneocean
Duh: context of the Palestinian situation, Like I said.
In terms of the nuclear question this is another straw man.

The point being that Ahmadinejad will never recognize Israel as a legitimate state, regardless of whatever concessions or degree of independence is granted to Palestine.
The man has stated that we are his enemies. It would be folly to allow such an openly hostile country to threaten ourselves and our friends with nuclear weapons. The strength of a deterrent is the promise to use it. Why would you even want to run the risk of the situation turning sour to a point where he would use them? What if there is another coup or a security leak and an extremist starts WW3?Nukes are simply TOO dangerous to even risk them entering the equation, and far too tempting. No, its far safer to ensure Iran never has the nukes to start with.

Right now Iran IS backed into a corner. They have no way out of that corner. All creatures either lash out, or become subdued in that situation. Better if they don't have an A-bomb to lash out with. The alternative being a tense albeit peaceful negotiation, that any reasonable person would prefer. Pardon me for sitting on the lion's share but I LIKE my country to have the upper hand militarily and technologically. Remember: “walk softly and carry a big stick”? It only works if your stick is bigger or at least big enough to hurt.

Peacefully intended or not the Iranian nuclear reactors automatically give them the ability to build weapons. They have refused to let outsiders run them or monitor them. Until their national policy cools off it simply is not safe for them to have them. I hope that President Obama will be able to find a way to settle this without Iran going nuclear.

EDIT: The black widow's sting is just as deadly as the lion's bite
Don't be a stick in the mud traditionalist! Support global warming!

Tech Support: The Comic!! Updates Somedays!!
last edited on July 14, 2011 12:58PM
ozoneocean at 4:37AM, Nov. 27, 2008
(online)
posts: 25,053
joined: 1-2-2004
imshard
EDIT: The black widow's sting is just as deadly as the lion's bite
No it's not, which is the point. I live in a country with the most venomous spiders and snakes in the world and here we know what little threat and how harmless those creatures are. People here rarely die from snake or spider bite, more people die from crocodile and shark attack. But people are more afraid of spiders and snakes than either crocodiles or sharks.

The more Iran is backed into a corner in such an idiot way, the more they have a real need to build up their military capacity. All because of idiot fears which only result in creating a threat, not diminishing it. They need to betaken in a friends, engaged economically.- Countries tied economically to others will have a more difficult time being aggressive against them. :)

And for heaven's sake, stop referring to the rhetorical bombast of that idiot leader. He hasn't the power to do what you imagine, and he won't even hold onto it for too much longer anyway. And the speeches in the West and elsewhere regarding Iran have been JUST as vitriolic. The main difference being that those people can carry out their threats.
 
last edited on July 14, 2011 2:32PM
StaceyMontgomery at 11:25AM, Nov. 27, 2008
(offline)
posts: 520
joined: 4-7-2007
imshard
[ Remember: “walk softly and carry a big stick”? It only works if your stick is bigger or at least big enough to hurt.

Fair enough. But it also requires that you walk softly.
last edited on July 14, 2011 3:55PM
imshard at 11:50AM, Nov. 27, 2008
(online)
posts: 2,961
joined: 7-26-2007
StaceyMontgomery
imshard
[ Remember: “walk softly and carry a big stick”? It only works if your stick is bigger or at least big enough to hurt.
Fair enough. But it also requires that you walk softly.

Oh believe me, I'd very much prefer diplomacy. I've lost friends and family to war, I'd like to avoid any more of that experience.

ozoneocean
In the mind of the terrified fantasists, a spider is more dangerous than a lion. Such is the case here.
imshard
The black widow's sting is just as deadly as the lion's bite

It was a philosophical response to a metaphoric statement. Having lost a relative to a venom sting from a black widow, and having survived a severe mauling myself I can attest that my assertion stands anyway.

Not really even the point. My stance is simply that the Iranian government identifies Western world as the enemy and they should not be allowed access to a bigger arsenal. Whether or not Ahmadinejad is in power, he continues a trend of hostile Iranian leaders that is likely to continue, and mirrors the views of those controlling the country. As it relates to Obama, Iran represents a diplomatic challenge that has stood since the cold war and seems to be escalating in the face of Bush's recklessness.
Don't be a stick in the mud traditionalist! Support global warming!

Tech Support: The Comic!! Updates Somedays!!
last edited on July 14, 2011 12:58PM
radarig at 8:33AM, Nov. 29, 2008
(online)
posts: 73
joined: 1-12-2006
imshard
Not really even the point. My stance is simply that the Iranian government identifies Western world as the enemy and they should not be allowed access to a bigger arsenal. Whether or not Ahmadinejad is in power, he continues a trend of hostile Iranian leaders that is likely to continue, and mirrors the views of those controlling the country. As it relates to Obama, Iran represents a diplomatic challenge that has stood since the cold war and seems to be escalating in the face of Bush's recklessness.
Conversely, the United States stated that Iran, Iraq, and North Korea were the enemy; by your logic, wouldn't that justify them in trying to curb our military power, perhaps by obtaining nuclear weapons of their own?
last edited on July 14, 2011 2:58PM
bravo1102 at 1:39PM, Dec. 1, 2008
(online)
posts: 3,355
joined: 1-21-2008
Ozone is right about this one. You back a country (or anyone for that matter) into a corner they are going to get defensive, wish for better and bigger weaponry and their rhetoric can and will get very bombastic.

This sums up the history of Russia and Germany. There were numerous wars and arms races with both and Russia is reacting again like it always has and eyeing threats form Europe and the USA. Any wonder that Iran is doing the same? The Persians have always been a great Eastern power and can you blame them for wanting to be so again? Look at the Middle East and there is no truly strong nation (outside of Israel, Syria gets beaten up everytime she goes toe-to-toe, come on Israel sent in a air strike halfway through the country and Syria could do nothing!)

Egypt just wants to left alone, Pakistan's eyes are on India and Afganistan (as always) so into this vacuum steps Iran. It's high time the USA had a reproachment with Iran (and Cuba) We haven't gotten anywhere with G.W.'s bombast versus Ah'm on a jihad's bombast(Ahmadinejad, Hitler jr? More like the pathetic paperhanging corporal in the song “Der Fuehrer's Face”)

Speak softly and carry a big stick means you don't label someone an enemy and then denounce everything they say. G.W. is no TR.
last edited on July 14, 2011 11:33AM
imshard at 11:17AM, Dec. 2, 2008
(online)
posts: 2,961
joined: 7-26-2007
radarig
imshard
Not really even the point. My stance is simply that the Iranian government identifies Western world as the enemy and they should not be allowed access to a bigger arsenal. Whether or not Ahmadinejad is in power, he continues a trend of hostile Iranian leaders that is likely to continue, and mirrors the views of those controlling the country. As it relates to Obama, Iran represents a diplomatic challenge that has stood since the cold war and seems to be escalating in the face of Bush's recklessness.
Conversely, the United States stated that Iran, Iraq, and North Korea were the enemy; by your logic, wouldn't that justify them in trying to curb our military power, perhaps by obtaining nuclear weapons of their own?

Not quite, Iranian government considered “the West” to be evil ever since they overthrew the Shah in the 70s. The same Shah who was overthrown for his support of modernization, and recognition of Israel as a state. That pre-dates Bush's “Axis of Evil” statement by a few decades.
Though clearly recent events and rhetoric HAVE aggravated the old tensions to a fevered pitch, with US military action next door to make it worse.
Don't be a stick in the mud traditionalist! Support global warming!

Tech Support: The Comic!! Updates Somedays!!
last edited on July 14, 2011 12:58PM
ozoneocean at 7:57PM, Dec. 2, 2008
(online)
posts: 25,053
joined: 1-2-2004
imshard
Not quite, Iranian government considered “the West” to be evil ever since they overthrew the Shah in the 70s. The same Shah who was overthrown for his support of modernization, and recognition of Israel as a state.
They didn't like the “West” because the unpopular and actively fascist Shah was imposed upon them by the United States. Western Oil companies thought they could control the resources of the country as if they were their own. It was a nice little example of a certain kind of economic American imperialism that was so unpopular in the mid 20th C with so many countries, Cuba being a good example.

Self determination is important to countries. The old model of imperialism (foreign states dictating the culture or economic destiny of other states), just isn't going to work any longer. I think that's the biggest trick that the U.S. missed… The whole idea of “democracy” isn't as important as independence. Indeed, due to the culture, prevailing traditions, social make up, or history of a place, sometimes democracy is inappropriate-
in many African and Arab states where sectarian and tribal differences are just too insurmountable within the country, attempts at democracy will always inevitably result in conflict. And yet the national pride of those diverse groups is generally such that they hate outsiders who try and dictate conditions to them even more than they hate each other.
 
last edited on July 14, 2011 2:32PM
bravo1102 at 12:11PM, Dec. 4, 2008
(online)
posts: 3,355
joined: 1-21-2008
But Ozone, every group can't realisitcally be its nation. That's called Balkanization and it isn't a pretty picture because neat borders can never be drawn and one group will always try to be dominant even if the majority is the another group. Democracy means they have to be encouraged to sort themselves out and find a way to all get along. And Europeans shouldn't be sitting in Versailles drawing borders on maps of nations on the other side of the world seemingly at random. Nor should corporations run what should be a sovereign nation. Kingdom of Hawai'i, a wholely owned subsidarary of Dole Pineapple and then they convinced the US gov't to annex the place; made Dole Pineapple happy.

Cuba is fortunate to have gotten away. If certain Americans had had their way at the turn of the 20th Century each former Spainish island would have been another star on the American flag. Instead over time the people of all those nations are moving to the mainland USA. :)
last edited on July 14, 2011 11:33AM
ozoneocean at 1:10PM, Dec. 4, 2008
(online)
posts: 25,053
joined: 1-2-2004
bravo1102
But Ozone, every group can't realisitcally be its nation.
I never suggested that.
Even when those disparate groups of people get into violent wars over attempts at democracy, they still tend to be proud of their countries as a whole.

The better solution for them isn't to impose alien systems of government that aren't right for them. If a ruling tribal King works, let it, if it's a theocracy that works there, that's what it has to be, if they want an emperor, or even a socialist state, then that's what they should have.
 
last edited on July 14, 2011 2:32PM

Forgot Password
©2011 WOWIO, Inc. All Rights Reserved