Nationalistic fervour can only be outdone by religious fervour.
But some of us are busily trying to make up ground, right? 
Historically, I don’t think that’s even correct. I think nationalistic feelings have generally trumped religious beliefs.
“Let’s try this again. What is your source of information that tells you that Iran has a nuclear capability?”
Well I was under the impression that this time it was a well known fact. The Iranians themselves stating as such. Ther stage now is where several nations have approached Iran to talk about their on going nucleur programme. I mean it’s an on going programme that is there for all to recognize … Iranians and everyone else. I think there has been no effort to hide that. Unless we have some kind of David Copperfield trickery at play like a reverse of the Statue of Liberty disappearing?
When you were a kid was the story of the Boy who Cried Wolf your favourite bedtime story? Maybe there’s an analogy there. Or maybe not since everyone else believes it accept you.
But who do we trust ay? Western media CNN, BBC and Fox just to name a few is just all Western propaganda …right?
So Ken where do you get your unadulterated info from? Aljazeera?
Problem is, other Arab nations have us by the balls. If we start attacking stuff without pursuing any diplomacy, they cut us off from oil.
Do you know of any other countries besides Iran in the world with nucleur, entertaining serious notions and desires of wiping out other nations?
North Korea. India and Pakistan don’t have any love loss between(moreover, what happens the next time the Kashmir region boils over if the U.S. has already nuked someone?). Can’t say I trust China all that much.
As for the rest of your post, it seriously makes me wonder which country you enjoy your free life in and whether you actually realize it and whose side are you actually on.
Again with the McCarthy-istic type rhetoric.
And fyi, there are serious serious questions as to whether Iran is even close to achieving any type of nuclear capabilities, regardless of what they are saying.
Well I was under the impression that this time it was a well known fact.
It is the farthest thing from a well known fact.
The Iranians themselves stating as such.
No, I don’t think they have. They’ve made a lot of statements that they have the right to pursue a nuclear capability.
Western media CNN, BBC and Fox just to name a few is just all Western propaganda …right?
Please provide some references from any of those sources that says that Iran has a nuclear capability.
Iran, as far as we know, does not have a nuclear capability at this time. They’re making some noise that they are pursuing it, or maybe they’re not, but they can if they want to, or they will, or they will unless other demands are met, etc etc. I don’t think there’s even much knowledge about how close or far they are to gettting a nuclear capability.
Casey please provide me one single instance where I said anything about nuking Iran much less invading them. You can’t because I never said it so shut up. Your idiotic reference of some dumbass American burning a flag has nothing to do with the argument that a large % of Iranians hate and despise the US. Thats no secret. The president of this very peaceful nation had this to say:
***“Israel must be wiped off the map.” "Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said his remarks were “just” - and the criticism did not “have any validity”. ***
Now if Iran wants to start saber rattling and makes some kind of threat to the US then I am all in favor of making the country a parking lot. I am not in favor of playing defense with these nuts. I have not seen or heard of any threats to us yet though so you won’t hear me calling for nuking them.
Historically, I don’t think that’s even correct. I think nationalistic feelings have generally trumped religious beliefs.
Historically nationalism is a pretty recent concept
Please provide some references from any of those sources that says that Iran has a nuclear capability.
Iran, as far as we know, does not have a nuclear capability at this time. They’re making some noise that they are pursuing it, or maybe they’re not, but they can if they want to, or they will, or they will unless other demands are met, etc etc. I don’t think there’s even much knowledge about how close or far they are to gettting a nuclear capability.
Not going to argue about whether Iran has “right” to nuclear exploration or not but to answer your question as to their intent.
Well you know so far Saudi Arabia’s diplomatic relationship is pretty good . So is Kuwait and the USA saved their bacon. … (oops no pork allowed please.) As well as others in the region. Not so much by the balls but let’s say mutual benefit. Last I checked that’s what the laissez faire free market economic principles were about.
Trouble is all this is devil talk to them loonies. That’s why they even perpetuate attacks on their own brother Muslims. How is the end to all this just going to happen by just fading away? A question I keep on asking myself.
Yeah and it’s about time them oil companies started to take all that technology on alternative energy that they have bought and shelved and start developing it for serious.
I’m still not clear what your source is, but from the 2nd of August “Iran Is Judged 10 Years From Nuclear Bomb
U.S. Intelligence Review Contrasts With Administration Statements. - A major U.S. intelligence review has projected that Iran is about a decade away from manufacturing the key ingredient for a nuclear weapon, roughly doubling the previous estimate of five years, according to government sources with firsthand knowledge of the new analysis.”
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/08/01/AR2005080101453_pf.html
So someone is going to be wrong about this. At this point in time it appears the adminstration’s assessment about Iraq’s WMD situation was wrong, maybe this will be amended in the future. However, either the intelligence specialists are wrong by 10 years, or your sources are.
None of those nucleur capable countries you mention fit the bill to my question by a lon shot. Not even North Korea. Since you don’t appreciate my McCarthy type rhetoric I’ll save myself the tedious trouble of explaining a description of why for each country.
Historically nationalism is a pretty recent concept
If we understand it in the limited sense of a nationalistic supremacist ideology, maybe. I meant it in a broader sense, though, and I think that history pretty clearly shows that national concerns usually outweigh religious faith when things get down to brass tacks.
“Please provide some references from any of those sources that says that Iran has a nuclear capability.”
No can do, don’t have that capability. I just watch the news an read the papers. I really can’t reproduce it right here. I’ll keep a look out and keep in mind notes to take for future references I can refer you to. In the meantime maybe you can give some references which prove to the contrary???
If we understand it in the limited sense of a nationalistic supremacist ideology, maybe. I meant it in a broader sense, though, and I think that history pretty clearly shows that national concerns usually outweigh religious faith when things get down to brass tacks.
I’m not sure what exactly nationalistic supremacist is, but nationalism according the standard definition only really developed fully in the 19th century. Throughout most of history, family/tribal and religious affilitations were more important.
(I’m only making this argument because the rest of this thread is too retarded to reply to)
“history pretty clearly shows that national concerns usually outweigh religious faith when things get down to brass tacks.”
I don’t believe it. Religious fervor is the extreme. We even have whole communities in the past committing mass suicide. The Islamic Fundamentalism. That’s current real live telecast right here and now for us to see in technicolour without even refering to history. With all that’s gone on why do you think it’s called extremism?
By the way. Which history did you get that so clearly from?
nationalism according the standard definition only really developed fully in the 19th century.
Maybe we need to define our terms. What’s the standard definition?
“They are the minority and are negligeable if they cannot have any influence over their fellow countrymen to not be a major threat to the safety of others in the world. Well before the time we wait for them to grow up and take over the leadership as you imagine and I can’t see happening (the Ayatollahs will still be prevailing) that nucleur threat may well have manufested into our deepest darkest moment in history.”
I think you’re underestimating this influence in Iranian society, and being over-dramattic with that last line. Sounds ominous though,…well done.
"Well isn’t this a world war with a pretty clear division of sides and differences? "
Maybe, but we are not at war with the nation state of Iran like we were with the nation state of Japan. There is a big difference.
“Like it or not let the facts speak for themselves. History has played out for all to see, no guessing games needed. The way they were, with their imperialistic fanatisism do you think they could have developed into a major trading partner and a world super economy?”
I don’t know, but pointing to Japan’s recent success as a reason to justify nuking Iran is pretty dumb. Japan during WWII and Iran now are two vastly different entities. Our nuking Japan wasn’t the sole reason they have had success since then and there’s no real reason to suspect that nuking Iran would result in any kind of similar development there.
“That’s your opinion.”
No. It’s what is likely to be the opinion of the rest of the world.
"They will realize that their beloved Allah is not going to protect their hides even though they are the only true believers and not all of them are willing for themselves and their families lock stock to go to heaven prematurely. "
Are you alive? Have you been paying any attention over the last decades? Death in this struggle is not seen as Allah deserting them. It is seen as a justifiable and even honorable sacrifice in the holy struggle. It would galvanize those remaining, not frighten them into a hole.
“C’mon yerself! Using sarcasm by stating the ridiculous doesn’t really make me your opposite in the debate ridiculous as you would like to imply. Neither does it strengthen your argument any”
Nope, but given the strength of what I was arguing against, I wasn’t too worried.
“As for anything the enemy wants to do, they won’t have any ground to stand on literally, let alone do anything.”
Really? All you said was nuke Iran, but you also said the whole ME was united in an effort against us. You don’t think our enemies in other countries will be able to do anything? You’re crazy if you really believe that.
“And do you think them Mother Fu…er crazies, can you honestly say that they really have any restrictions to the nasty things they want to do?”
I think you probably haven’t been having coffee shops blow up in your neighborhood recently. I also think you probably don’t want that to begin as a result of the extremists thinking they have no options left and nothing left to lose.
“Never mind that their President has already announced his country’s desire to wipe out another in the worst way.”
Not a good development, but hardly the first time this objective has been voiced.
Please provide some references from any of those sources that says that Iran has a nuclear capability.
Iran, as far as we know, does not have a nuclear capability at this time. They’re making some noise that they are pursuing it, or maybe they’re not, but they can if they want to, or they will, or they will unless other demands are met, etc etc. I don’t think there’s even much knowledge about how close or far they are to gettting a nuclear capability.
Not going to argue about whether Iran has “right” to nuclear exploration or not but to answer your question as to their intent.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/4279468.stm
Are you referring to this:
"Under IAEA rules, a country has the right to make its own fuel - though many do not and import it from others - but it has to be under inspection.
Issue of trust
Subsequently Iran made moves to get into compliance and now argues that it wants to exercise its right to develop the whole fuel cycle. It says that it wants to diversify its energy sources and has no intention of building a bomb.
The West suspects that Iran is either intending one day to use this technology to make a nuclear device or wants to give itself the option of doing so.
The Western argument has been that Iran is not to be trusted and that it has lost the right to this technology because it broke the rules previously."
Gosh, sounds a lot like the arguments against Iraq (“they used WMD before, therefore they can’t be trusted”), which turned out to be false.
"(I’m only making this argument because the rest of this thread is too retarded to reply to) "
So why are you even gracing us with your able bodiedness and brain here? Making an argument in a debate you label as retarded? Now that’s pretty retarded wouldn’t you say?
"***“Israel must be wiped off the map.” "Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said his remarks were “just” - and the criticism did not “have any validity”. ***
Now if Iran wants to start saber rattling and makes some kind of threat to the US then I am all in favor of making the country a parking lot."
Army, if you’re going to complain against threats against the US, you can’t rely on a quote that threatens another country altogether.