French Fires Fuel Fury; Iran Incinerated?

Starting a new topic to continue this thread. "World events, business, etc"

As for the pharmeceutical industry one of the great untold stories is that we subsidize the rest of the world's pharmeceuticals. If Pfizer buts a few hundred million into a new drug and gets it approved in the US, they may figure that based on the cost to produce it, plus research, given the demand they need to sell it for $1 a pill to recover costs and make a profit. Ahh, but there are other markets, like Canada, the UK, etc. OK, that expands the customer base so they may only need to sell it for $.75 if you take all those consumers into account. But then Canada decides they'll pay $.60 per pill since it only costs $.50 to manufacture, and Germany decides they'll pay $.65, and the UK decides that $.70 is fair. All of a sudden they need to come down on the price if they want to be in these other markets, and have any chance of profiting outside the US. OK, so their profits overseas aren't as high as they expected, but still enough to cover costs and recover something. The answer, sell it for $1.25 in the US. We pay for Canada's cheap drugs and they know it. As soon as re-importing drugs to the US becomes widespread the companies will cut Canada off. I read a few stories about the Canadian politicians starting to panic when US politicians were proposing re-importing as a solution to high drug costs in the US.

AN: I understand that the quote was more than patriotic and I appreciate you taking the time to send me the quote and engage me in my concerns. I give thanks everyday for my opportunities, freedom, excellent health, and the sacrifices made by others in defense of these freedoms.

The last week in June 2001, I spent in Manhattan near 30th and Lexington. One of my cousins invited me to go to the top of the WTC to Windows of the World. Instead I went to the top of the Empire State building and my child got some good photos of the WTC towers. We (child & I) went back to NYC this summer and I took two pictures of the metal structure twisted into the shape of a cross where the towers once stood.

FONDL, Yes, the pharmaceutical industry is one that invests in R&D. I've benefited from immunizations and antibiotics. Thank you for the example. I've also had a few meals and been entertained on the pharm reps expense accounts. I was offered employment as a pharmaceutical rep - the perks are tempting.

Ford and GMC: the reasons for closing plants are obvious, yet sad.

shadowcat: Just b/c the only thing in life you think about is strippers and how much they must have to trust you to let them pay your for sex, doesn't meant there isn't more going on in the world.

Idiot.

Shadowcat, T is a stripper and she has asked some very intelligent questions about issues that are troubling her. I don't mind responding. She strikes me as being a very interesting person, even if we are off topic. I think that dialogue between customers and strippers is very appropriate here, regardless of the topic. In fact I'm finding it to be a breath of fresh air because we seem to have exhausted most of the strip-club topics, and much of the discussion on this board has degenerated into name-calling, which I find pretty boring.

FONDL, at the risk of having this sound like one of RL's psycho questions, where do you think the money comes from to keep these corporations profitable? If companys are expected to continually grow, where out of the consumer's budget should the money to support this growth come from?

Incidently, T, you lament the fact that GM and Ford are closing plants. But you fail to mention the reason they are doing so - they haven't been profitable. If they were making the kind of profits that the oil and pharmaceutical companies make, they'd be building plants, not closing them. Which would you rather have, healthy and profitable companies building new plants and hiring more people, or sick unprofitable ones closing plants and laying people off? That's the choice.

T, if you're asking me to defend the actions of some senior executives you're going to be disappointed. I worked for a couple of large corporations and was pretty disgusted with what I saw among some senior executives. But guess what, I also worked for a large environmental non-profit organization and it wasn't any different, in fact if anything they were more dishonest than the business executives. Both groups justified their actions by saying it was good for the country.

But to get back to the oil industry, it's an incredibly capital intensive industry, and if they didn't keep making huge investments oil prices would be much higher today. Just to put it in perspective - oil is pumped out of the ground from depths of maybe a mile or so, shipped half way around the world to a huge refinery where it's separated into various different products and chemically modified, then shipped hundresd of miles to your local gas station where you pay less per gallon for the gasoline than you pay the same station for bottled water that required none of the extensive drilling, shipping or processing of the oil. And the profit margin is maybe 5%, which means 10 cents on $2 gasoline. So if they dropped the price 10 cents their entire profitability would disappear. You really think they should do that? That doesn't sound like "obscene profits" to me, in fact I don't even know how to define that term. I think the amount of money TO was paid to totally screw up the Eagles is obscene, but that's another issue.

But to answer your question of an example of an industry that's plowed huge profits back into R&D for everyone's benefit I'd suggest the pharmaceuticals industry. The life-saving drugs that we have today are a direct result of their past profitability. It's the main reason why people are living so much longer today than did their parents and grandparents.

AN I lost a friend on 9/11 too. He worked in the towers there. Also my sister was living in NYC at the time so I know what you mean about it being personal.

I almost forgot one thing. We were discussing the reality of 9/11 hiting home. I work in DC. I don't want to say too much but my work is government affiliated. I am a civilian employee of the DOD. I work at a government facility. While I was not at the pentagon or on a flight, or in the WTC that day, 9/11 was a very real event for me. 9/11 was not just something I saw on TV. In addition to my experiences that day, it involved people I know and knew.

One more thing T. That quote isn't about rah rah flag waving. It is about taking responsibility for and protecting your freedom. We don't just do that through force of arms. The decayed feeling also means those who see nothing good worth protecting in our country while ignoring the depravity and evil abroad.

T- As for the California electricity crisis, I'll dig up some articles, but the short story is that the state government thought they could legislate low prices. Any economist will tell you there is a very simple formula. Price controls = shortage. There may have been some piling on, but the reason it was possible was that California's government set up a system that was begging for it.

This thread is getting a little bit long. Are we done or would you like to start a new thread?

GM and Ford are closing many of their plants. This is a shame. Have you noticed that new cars dent really easily? The cars made in the 80's and early 90's still had exteriors with fairly thick metal that usually resisted most door dings. Newer cars are made out of the cheapest, thinnest metal and many of these new cars are full of dings and sustain major damage with the slightest fender bender.

Cars built with the plastic bumbers and some styrofoam looking stuff underneath are ridiculous. Bumpers are designed to fall apart in the slighted collision. Even Mercedes Benzes are made of poor quality metal.

If I were Ford or GM I'd have my engineering/design team build an attractive economy car with real, durable bumpers (metal with some rubber) and a more durable body. I think people are disappointed with cars that can't withstand a minor tap without major damage. I'd advertise the superior durability of the car, the afforable price and I bet it would sell. Parents might even feel better about having kids drive these 'safer cars'. -T

AN: I enjoyed your quote. It's very patriotic. I would fight, if necessary to protect my family or property. In Israel, young Jews female and male spend two years being trained and serving in the military.

When I was in high school I had a job and always had a Summer job. I moved out when I was 17 and bounced between two or three part-time jobs while maintaining decent grades. I enrolled in Junior College summer classes two weeks before graduating from high school.
There are a lot of kids who are not getting jobs and I think that it's good for kids to work, earn their own money and have responsibility. When young people are given everything without having to work for it, it doesn't allow them struggle a bit and appreciate what the've worked for. If I needed money, I'd clean someone else's home or do what ever I had to make ends meet. I could earn a lot more giving massages or dancing but don't feel that there are many jobs that are beneath me. You are probably having trouble following my ramblings.

What I'm trying to say is that I am humble and I know and appreciate the opportunities I have here in the US.

FONDL, I'm not trying to ignore your 2 points. No, I do not believe that retired women get too much in retirement money. (If that was the question). Yes, I know that the employees get the lion's share of the salaries, medical benefits and retirement money and not the few top executives.

What I'm referring to are the few dishonest corporations that clearly violated laws in falsifying their net worth and became billionaires while employees lost out on the value of their company stock and retirement benefits.

Are you able to give me an example of a couple of large companies that have made large profits and reinvested a portion of theses profits into R&D or something else that decreased prices for consumers?

The benefactors of California's electricity fiasco that cost the state it's surplus financial reserves seems to have parallels in the current inflated gas prices and heating fuel prices that people are paying throughout the US. One could look at California as a test market that worked in favor of large corportions with making billions with little or no backlash. Prices do not need to be as high as they are. Sure we need more refineries, but the oil corportations are making obscene profits. It's not simple supply and demand, it's a money grab.

And hey if I'm bugging you with my naivity, forgive me or just suggest something for me to read or tell me gently that you don't want to discuss economics with someone who's less educated in this field. I've taken micro&macro economics, marketing & accounting. I worked for a corporation dealing with bills of lading and 4 different banks pushing to get multi-million dollar invoices paid quickly by getting the companies to accept overseas shipments that had minor discrepancies, saving the corp thousands in interest fees by getting the money paid quickly. I admit that I am naive, gullable (sp?) and influenced by the media.

As far as oil prices and profits go, let me add one comment. Oil companies dont set the price. Oil is a comodity, it goes to the highest bidder. That bidder bids based on what he thinks he can sell it for. Shell, BP, and all the others pump it our of the ground for $5 to $15 a barrel. That is based on what it costs to pump it out of the ground. You can only pump so much at one time, and that makes it a comodity. If you want it now, you pay what you need to get it. When it costs Shell $5 a barrel to pump it, and they are paid $60, guess what, they'll make huge profits. Is it because they are cheating us? No, it's because we need to pay $60 to have it come to the US because China is willing to pay $59. Shell's obligation is to their stockholders, which includes me and probably anybody else with a 501K.

FONDL, I'm not sure that we're on the same page here. I'm talking about a few people getting obscenely wealthy. Enron, for example.

I agree that lower income, middle income and some upper middle class people will spend more money when earned or given a bonus. The may upgrade their car, house or buy some luxury items or be more generous in the club. The difference I'm talking about are Haliburton Corporate owners/stock holders or people who ripped off the dot.com companies to the tune of millions or billions. With that kind of illegally gotten gains or more money than they can spend, they unlikely to put it back into the system, making prices lower for consumers. The would want to hide and protect that money in Swiss bank accounts or in off shore investments. I admit that I'm giving on opinion about something that I know very little about and may be misguided. This is only my perception. There was a film made about Enron that I wanted to see, but didn't.

Aren't there several companies that are not paying or significantly reducing retirement benefits? I heard that the Federal Gov't has made a deal with the US Post Office to pay Postal Workers who served in the military all of their retirement funds instead of getting a retirement from both the military and the post office (all of the years served plus postal years worked, combined). Are you following what I'm saying? I understand that the Federal Government is testing this plan to have the US Post Office cover the Feds responsibility. Stamp prices will likely go up to cover this cost. If this is a trend, it's a poor one - a way of weaseling out on an obligation so money can be spent on the war and other programs. The tax payers and end users will end up paying.

FONDL it amazes me that anyone actualy believes that oil / gas prices will ever come down. The prices we pay now are just a stepping stone to get everyone used to paying $5.00 a gallon. This will probably happen within the next two years.

T, I also have been meaning to comment on your statement that the only ones who benefit from current policies are big business and the rich. Do you know who benefits the most when profits rise? Profits can only go one of two places, either they're reinvested in the business or they are paid out to shareholders in dividends. Turns out for most businesses those two are about equal.

So what happens to money that's reinvested? Mostly it goes to adding capacity or modernizing plants to lower future costs. Take the oil industry for example. With record profits they now have more money to invest in exploring for oil and for more refining capacity, both of which will lower future prices. In other words higher prices today mean lower prices tomorrow.

And who gets the dividends? Most common stocks are owned by mutual funds in retirement accounts, so the biggest beneficiaries are retired people, present and future, the vast majority of whom are women.

So when you say you're opposed to high profits by big business, what you're really saying is that (1) you're opposed to reivnestment that will lead to lower future prices; and (2) you think reitred women make too much money. Sure there are top executives who get big bonuses, but that's peanuts in comparison to the benefits we all get. The big bonuses, while excessive in my view, don't bother me any more that equally huge sums paid to rock stars, movie and TV stars, and pro athletes. At least the executives are doing something that benefits us all.

AN, great quote. We need to keep in mind that the Geneva Convention doesn't apply to this war, because the terrorist organizations which we are fighting never signed it. We should not feel bound by its provisions, our opponents certainly aren't abiding by it.

Tropical, I feel pretty much the same way about our illegal immigrant problem as I do about the war on drugs: I don't know what the right answer is but I do know what the worng answer is, and that's what we are doing now. Our present approach costs a lot and in both money and negative impact on our society and clearly doesn't work. It's time to try another approach.

T- I think one of the best treatments I've read on the subject of interrogation and torture was done by Mark Bowden. (He wrote the book "Blackhawk Down", which the movie was based on.)

http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200310/bo…

I trust just about anything Bowden writes. He's proven to be a very good reporter, and very adept at telling an accurate story. Another good one is Karl Zinsmeister.

I'll leave you with a quote that summs up my view of our current war and those who oppose it.

"War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things. The decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks that nothing is worth war is much worse. The person who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself."

-- John Stuart Mill

AN: We are in agreement on many levels, although it is not politically correct to admit this. I don't think that placing underwear on a prisoner's head is torture. It was stupid to have those photographs published. We are at war, right or wrong.

I know that there are people plotting to harm US civilians in our country, and yet it is unpopular to talk about it. "Don't worry your pretty, little head". My cousin watched the second tower fall in Manhattan from her office window.

I wouldn't want to read anything more graphic on that link. I understand what is going on and the intent. I think that a lot of people are in denial.-T

FONDL, thank you for your response. The US-Mexican border is a complex issue. Mexico's a third world country with a corrupt government. It is not the United State's responsibility to provide for non-citizens. Where does it stop?

I hold a Public Nurse certification. Not so long ago Public Nurse's went out into the community to track down people with TB to give them their medicine and make sure they took it, to prevent a TB pandemic. Nurse's were known to go into bars and comb neighborhoods in search of their patients.

Many people from Mexico have been exposed to TB and test positive for exposure. Testing positive for TB as a public school applicant no longer requires a chest x-ray to determine if the person has active TB and requires no prophalactic medication to protect the person exposed and the people they will come into close personal contact with.

One of my girlfriends who works in the Pediatric ICU was exposed to someone with active TB and was given the prophallactic medication to prevent the disease. She had a severe allergic reaction to the medication and was rushed to the ED (emergency dept) for anaphalaxis treatment. So she's been exposed and will likely develop TB at some point in her life when her immune system is fragile.

I don't have concrete answers, but it's interesting to consider the options. -T

T- MEMRI gets a lot scarier than that sometimes. I do get tired of all the "torture" talk. It seems that it is now considered torture if your prisoners aren't provided with fresh clothes, daily showers, three meals, a copy of the Koran, an air conditioned cell and a lawyer. News flash, in past wars they could be legally shot upon capture as spies. Meanwhile our enemies are glorified for hacking the heads off helpless civilian prisoners. The Geneva conventions were not only established to protect soldiers, but to protect civilians. It was a principle that so long as combatants distinguished themselves from civilians they were protected, but this also protected the civilians. It was well understood when the conventions were adopted that if you acted outside the guidlines of the conventions ground rules you were outside it's protections. In this present war our enemies hide among the civilians, knowing we won't endanger innocent lives, and then are afforded the protections of regular combatants. Now I don't condone torture, but we have to decide what constitutes torture.

T, religious intolerance and fanatacism is insane but there's nothing new about it, it's been going on for thousands of years. Remember the Salem witch trials? The Crusades? There must be something innate in humans that makes some people go wacky over this stuff. I think it's mostly fear.

As far as the Mexican border is concerned, we're already spending a huge amount to try to stop illegals from entering but as you point out it doesn't seem to do much good. Given the length of the border we could probably spend ten time as much and it still wouldn't be very effective. Probably the only thing that would work would be if they were shot on sight, but I don't think the public would have much tolerance for that. I live in an area that is heavily agricultural and we have a lot of both permanent and migrant Mexican workers around here and they don't seem to cause much of a problem, not nearly as much as some groups of Americans cause. They're doing work that no one else wants for peanut wages, if it weren't for them food prices would be much higher. Personally I think the only answer is for the Mexican economy to grow to the point that these people can make a living at home. Which means opening our borders to Mexican imports. Which is strongly opposed by our unions. It's a complex issue.

The only rationale for rebuilding in low-lying coastal areas that have been damaged by hurricanes is if you believe that there's no global warming, that storms aren't therefore increasing in frequency and intensity, and that ocean levels aren't rising. If you think that these phenomena are real and will continue to worsen, it's insane to spend huge amounts of tax money to rebuild in these areas.

Interesting website, MEMRI. I read one article that called for cutting off the hands of the infidels and also how terrible the Great Satan, America and Britain are for torturing people. Nice juxtaposition!

When people throughout the world are facing Mecca five times a day, every day and praying in unison, this is powerful.

Did anyone see the cartoon(s) in the Danish press that got some practitioners of the M*sl*m faith so offended?

In France people are not allowed to wear headscarves, yamikas, crosses or Stars of David in public, because the climate is combustible. Is the world becoming so religiously insane/intolerant that we're losing our sense of humor?

When people become fanatic about their religion, they sometimes start acting "religiously insane". We can't prove to anyone else that our god/higher power exists or doesn't. Each of the religious books sounds unbelievable to an outsider. this person had a 'vision', a 'hallucination', a 'visitation', or an 'immaculate conception', etc.

Now there are people murdering each other for promised virgins in the next life. It's like a fanatic wanting to take out healthcare workers at a clinic to protect the unborn. An ultimate act of violence to prove allegiance to a religion or belief which is not tolerant of others and their differences or even anothers mistakes.

Is it best to ignore these problems or to try to get community leaders talking with one another in our own neighborhoods? I ask my Palestinian Christian neighbors questions because I am curious and want to understand better how they view things. Some of my other neighbors are from Iraq, but follow western culture. Understanding how others think and what they value helps me know how I can best interact with people respectfully. So I won't be dressing up in a full pigskin costume on Sunday, even though it is Superbowl Sunday.-T

Well I actually read some of davids posts above, well at least a few seconds of it and that was too much I believe. davids has a valid point. davids said he was an infidel. I will agree with that. Good point. I also read that he was not American. Now, I'm wondering what country or side he really favors.

FONDL, I'm not sure that rebuilding in an area that is below sea level is a good idea and perhaps the State of the Union Address is not the place to discuss at lenght the Hurricane Katrina issue; however I expected more of an update in the speech.

I'm not a Bush Basher. I am sincerely trying to follow what is going on with our nation economically. In California a few years ago we had rolling blackouts and electric costs went through the roof at the mercy of states that 'sold us' electricity for huge, inflated costs. In the process, California went from a thriving, financially stable state to a bankrupt one a matter of months. I'm watching money change hands and big business become wealthier as some people are unable to afford health insurance premiums and other people's retirement plans are being stolen out from underneath them. I'm curiously, almost morbidly, observing as greed and deceipt are unveiled.

You asked me how much I think it would cost to secure the US-Mexican border. I don't have an answer for you. How much does it cost not to protect the border? There was a young cop in Oceanside (a city in San Diego county) who was gunned down by an illegal Mexican gang member. The illegal had been arrested 3 times before, but he just kept coming back across the border. The officer, Tony Zapatello (sp?) was slain while trying to stop the bastard who had just robbed a bank. Tony died. How much does it cost his family to grow up without him? Money is not the answer or excuse for everything. Perhaps something isn't 100% successful but that doesn't mean that you give up, does it.

The spending priorities seem askew. Times are strange, I don't remember when dishonesty and unaccountability seemed so familiar.

AN, for the same reason that it's OK for liberals to try to get the government to adopt their religious views, but when conservatives do the same thing the liberals cry, "separation of church and state."

I always wonder why Haliburton wasn't evil 10 years ago when Cheney was actually running the company and they were getting the exact same kind of no-bid contracts from the Clinton administration.

Great line from "The Simpsons" where Bart is running for class president; "My opponent says there are no easy solutions! Well I say he's not trying hard enough!"

T-water, do you have any idea how much it would cost to secure the Mexican border? Do you really think that's a good use of tax dollars? And why do do think it's a federal responsibility to rebuild New Orleans and other coastal towns? Is it fair to ask middle income families in the rest of the US to subsidize wealthy coastal development? Wouldn't it make more sense not to rebuild in areas that are so subject to hurricane damage? I agree that the federal government spends too much subsidizind big business, but I also recognize that without those subsidies our economy wouldn't be as strong as it is nor would our standard of living be as high. The problem with all these issues is that there are two sides to every story and the solution isn't as simple as we'd like it to be.

Interesting State of the Union speech last night. We've got issues here in the US that need attending to. Plans to safeguard our borders were not addressed. The rebuilding of Katrina ravaged Louisiana and Mississippi were glossed over. Concerns about "out of control spending on the Iraq war and obscene profit-making by Haliburton (sp?) were also ignored in the pep-rally speech.

The impression I came away with from the speech was that funds will continue to be spent on BS crap that only helps big business get wealthier and the illegal immigration issue will continue to be ignored because addressing this would hurt the bottom line. Americans are addicted to oil and "switch grass" (sounds like a Texas crop) will be the solution to "our addiction".

Oh well, at least I live in the US where I appreciate many freedoms and am grateful for many opportunities.

Congratulations, AN, you've discovered another facet of "the great liberal lie." Otherwise stated as pretending to care about the weak and downtrodden while favoring policies that keep them that way.

In the words of Tonto, "What do you mean "we" paleface". I know there is a very strong movement on the left, especially among environmentalists, to "preserve traditional and authentic cultures" as they put it. They seem to think that working for $0.50 for a 12 hour day in a factory is exploitation when the alternative is an 16 hour day farming for subsistance (if you're lucky). I am sure that there is some exploitation, and there are some disreputable practices abroad, but as you said virtually every industrial society has gone through it. I'd concede that since we know a little more about how to make things safe and healthy nowdays that at the very least we could mitigate some of the worst practices if they asked for our advice, but then forcing them to adopt our ways would be imperialistic, wouldn't it? The people who claim to be most against our "imperialistic" foreign policy are some of the ones most ready to tell other countries what they can and can't do on their way to modernization.

AN, I actually think we have given many developing countries good reason to hate us. For example, every economically advanced country including our own went through a very long period where we exploited our resources with abandon, trashed the environment, killed off any species that got in the way, and enslaved our workers including children with long hours in unsafe conditions for little pay. That has been a necessary stage of every developed country's history. And now we are exerting great pressure on poor countries to prohibit them from following a similar path.

FONDL, considering that the Saudi's fund some of the most radical Islamists I view them with mixed feelings at best. I think our best ally will be Iraq. I also think that a well trained Iraqi army is part of the plan to deal with Iran in the short term.

I agree it would be best if we needed less oil, but the time to do something about that was over the last 15-20 years. We still get 50% of our energy from coal for goodness sake. The only thing available to take over from oil and gas (other than coal of course) in the short term, and by that I mean the next decade or so, is nuclear power. It is presently supplying 20% of our electricity, and there hasn't been a new reactor in over 20 years. The problem is that soon all those 30 year old reactors will need to start going offline. Just to replace them we need to go on a major reactor building push. Considering the irrational resistance to anything nuclear I think we will be more dependant on foreign sources of energy in the short term.

AN:

"around the enlightenment most christians gave up on conversion by the sword and conquest."

OMG, AN is so retarded. Tell that to the American Indians massacared after this time.

Clue in, you stupid old fucked up alcoholic no mind.

Just correct one of idiot, retards casualguy's worst strawmen:

"equate Bush as being similiar to a second version of Hitler"

This is not what I said. I said if was for my likely that Bush would be Hitler II than the president of Iran. I don't think either is that likely. Something you would know if you actually read my posts "unlikely chain of events...".

Retard.

Please read a history book and think a bit rather than blindly believing what the media and idiots on this board tell you.

This is a message for people who think the leader of Iran is sensible and for people who equate Bush as being similiar to a second version of Hitler. Please put your idiotic posts on some other anti-US, terrorist chat board instead of this one. You are not wanted here.

tropical: sorry that you are single. But you work in a strip club and interact with probably a few dozen men a night. Shouldn't be too hard to find one you like and who is interested in dating you right? Don't despair.

casualguy: "Iran is definitely a major concern right now. I'm hoping things can be resolved peacefully. However it doesn't help when the leader of Iran says he wants to wipe Israel out and as soon as they acquire nuclear know how, then intend to share it with all of their arab friends. If Iran acquires nuclear weapons, it's probably only a matter of time before the first nuclear bombs start falling. Radioactive oil probably won't sell that well either so oil prices will really skyrocket."

More evidence of how clueless casualguy is. Shoot where to start?

First if they get nukes they are very unlikely to share the technology with any of their "arab" neighbors.

Here's a clue casualguy: Iranians are not arabs. They are persians. They are very conscious and proud of the distinction too. In fact they feel threatened by the sea of Arabs around them. Won't you after the Iraq war (started by Iraq I will point out since I am sure you are too clueless to know on your own)?

One of the big reasons the Iranians desires nukes is to protect their sovereignity give their historically threatening Arab neighbors. No way they are sharing nuclear technology. Go read a history book, before you spout off, retard.

2nd of all let's get real: They will drop a nuke on Israel as soon as they get it? Um, Israel has minimum 300 nukes of their own. More than enough to wipe out the whole region, Iran included. So ain't no nukes going to be falling unless Israel or the US or France does a pre-emptive strike. That's a way more likely scenario.

As for dropping nukes making the oil radioactive and hence unsellable, will this is so clueless w/ regards to physics I am going to give you the benefit of doubt here and assume it was another one of your lame attempts at humor. Perhaps I am being too generous though.

As for the Iranian president saying he would wipe Israel off the map. Here's what he said:

"There is no doubt that the new wave [of attacks] in Palestine will soon wipe off this disgraceful blot [Israel] from the face of the Islamic world. As the Imam [Khomeini] said, Israel must be wiped off the map."

He did not say he was going to do it personally with nukes or even with the Iranian military. That is just media hype.

Also note that by "wipe off the map" he probably just means make Israel cease to exist as a nation, as opposed to massacaring all its inhabitants (elsewhere he has suggested they move to the US or Canada, which makes a ton of sense).

Muslims have, historically, been much less prone to massacares of the Jews and Christians they conquered than other religions. In fact, before the creation of Israel, Muslims were probably the least anti-jewish (I won't say semitic since that properly includes arabs) people in the world.

This has been an interesting thread: I see that the cluelessness of the old people and retards here is not just confined to your opinions on strip clubs. It part of more general mental defeciencies. How about you guys focus more of your energies on getting better educated by hanging out less in strip clubs like a bunch of pathetic losers? Then maybe you could comment intelligently on these subjects.

Iran is definitely a major concern right now. I'm hoping things can be resolved peacefully. However it doesn't help when the leader of Iran says he wants to wipe Israel out and as soon as they acquire nuclear know how, then intend to share it with all of their arab friends. If Iran acquires nuclear weapons, it's probably only a matter of time before the first nuclear bombs start falling. Radioactive oil probably won't sell that well either so oil prices will really skyrocket.

I read that the pentagon requested the draft age be moved up to 42. Also our government is conducting nuclear exercises and apparently staying quiet about it. Supposedly testing a scenario where a 10 megaton warhead went off in a US city and we had thousands of deaths. I suppose the tests are to improve coordination between government and local officials or something. There is also a lot of chatter about possibly something happening in February maybe in Texas City or Houston, or a few other cities. Of course I think or hope that is more rumor than anything.

FONDL, I know we don't send troops everywhere in large numbers, I've also said we shouldn't. My point once again is that we are the only nation that CAN send troops anywhere on the face of the earth at very short notice, and therefore are unique. You are correct that we do have to decide if it is in our interests to do so beforehand. There will however be a lot of pressure from the rest of the world to act in their interests, which we will do, since we are the only nation capable of doing so. Do you think we are the only nation depending on cheap oil? If all we wanted was the oil we could have dropped the sanctions on Iraq, cut a deal with Saddam, and we could have had the spigots open. If all we wanted was oil why would we support Israel against our interests? Yes, oil makes the middle east a very important region, but it isn't their only export. Terrorism and a fascist ideology are coming out of there and it needs to be adressed.
The Iranians say they want to spread their religious order throughout the muslim world. I take them at their word. Those who claim they really don't mean it are both infantalizing the Iranians and deluding themselves.

Also, as a matter of fact there are US military people in small numbers engaged in advisory and training roles in far more nations than most people realize. It does come very close to everywhere.

AN, we don't send troops everywhere in the world. There have been a lot of local wars and despots killing their citizens that we've ignored. We usually only send troops where we perceive that there's a US interest in the outcome. If it weren't for oil, we wouldn't be in the Middle East. Which is why we've attacked Iraq but not North Korea. It's all about our dependence on cheap oil, without which our economy would collapse.

T, the best thing you can do to promote world peace is to start with yourself. Live a peaceful life free of hatred. Be the example - spread love, peace and joy to others everywhere you go and with everything you do. When enough people do that, world peace will happen. That's been the message of every great spiritual leader.

Thanks guys for engaging me. Everyone once in awhile I get concerned about things that I can't do anything about and I get 'keyed up'. Thanks for explaining your points of view and for answering my questions.

This time last year I had a boyfriend and was happier. That's what's missing - a lover to occupy more of my time.

CIA involvement is a big part of the Iran problem. It was the CIA who sponsored the overthrow of a democratic government in Iran, and propped up the Shah for years. Then the CIA who sponsored Iraq during the Iran/Iraq war (along with sponsoring Iran too: the idea being to promote a stalemate.)

And let's look at Iran's current geographic situation: It is surronded by US controlled states: Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan. Won't you be worried if you were Iran and had a country with such historical antagonism toward you surronding you. Makes sense that they would seek nukes to guarentee their sovereignity?

During any of its modern history has Iran showed an expansionist ambitions? They are clearly seeking nukes for defense proposes.

Please get a clue old men and alcoholics!

AN's 2nd most retarded statement ever (his synopsis of Godel's theorem by an elleged professor of astrophysics being the 1st):

"From any historical standard this war has gone spectacularly well so far. "

Oh, except for the standard of winning.

Not even getting close to that. US will run like it did from from Vietnam, Lebanon, Sudan and it will be a great victory for Al Qaeda.

Lay off the alcohol, dude. It clouds your thinking.

stpetedan, I can't think of any way whatsoever that the CIA was involved in the Balkans war or the Rawandan genocide. The involvement of the CIA in North Korea's nuclear ambitions, Pakistan's nuclear proliferation, and Iran's nuclear ambitions consists of underestimating and missing every one of them until it was too late.

T- I agree with you that we shouldn't be sending troops to every corner of the world where something goes wrong. My point is that we are the only nation on the earth that has the ability to send troops anywhere in the world. No other nation is anything more than a regional power. We are THE ONLY world power, and as such we will be looked at as the worlds policeman by the rest of the world, like it or not. We are also the worlds EMT. Having aircraft carriers, heavy transport capability, and a well trained and organized force who can set up facilities for rescue, medical care, clean water, food, and shelter means that we are the first people called on when there is a disaster.

As for Iraq, wether people admit it or not the first gulf war never ended. We were still patrolling their airspace and they were still trying to shoot down our planes 10 years after the ceasefire. After 9/11 the logic changed and we couldn't afford to leave Iraq as a destabilizing or hostile force in the area if we were going to fight al Qaida. That is the same reason Iran is now a problem. When al Quada was sponsored by Afghanistan, a country barely out of the middle ages, they managed to kill 3000 people. What if Iraq or Iran supplied them with the means to kill 100,000? Do you think that they'd hesitate? Iran could always claim they had nothing to do with it, after all, it was terrorists.

I'm not really interested in debating Iraq other than to say that we're at war, like it or not, admit it or not. From any historical standard this war has gone spectacularly well so far. In 1944 we lost 6,000 soldiers in one day on D-Day. They were draftees for the most part. Can you imagine what our press would say about that today?

George Bush senior was head of the CIA, right? A person has to be tough and sure of himself and his intelligence gathering to make those hit list decisions.

This is directed at davids but applies to anyone who wants only to stir up trouble: -- It troubles me when someone makes up some bullshit statistics about your chances of being injured or killed in a terrorist attack. But even worse is when you start talking about going to war with someone.

davids - where do you get this flippant attitude about violence and killing people? Do you have any real experience with either? I would guess not. You seem like the typical loud mouthed pussy who just craves attention and will talk just to hear himself. Do us all a favor and shut up on this subject until you can answer yes to one of these questions.

1. Have you ever been in a real fight? Not in grammar school but as an adult and for your life?

2. Have you either with your bare hands or a weapon hurt or killed another person?

3. Have you ever thought what gives me the right to do these things that are generally accepted as wrong?

Stop being such a loser and try to man up a little and think before you speak.

AN:
If you go to roots, 3/4th of the problems you mentioned were caused/funded by CIA that's history wheather you agree or not.

I'm surprised that no one has called me a racist. I know that I am not. I would like to see the border get the kind of attention that the airlines are receiving to ward off another hijacking. This week alone three underground tunnels from Tijuana, MX to San Ysidro, CA have been discovered. One of these tunnels was the most sophisticated to date and contained 1,900 pounds of weed. There is concern that people and perhaps weapons were smuggled through this sophisticated, cement reinforced tunnel. Terrorists have openly discussed using Mexico as an entry into the US. As long as the've got the war on terrorism going on, why not put the manpower where it could do some good?

I couldn't quite follow the logic of a previous post. We are in agreement that a small radical segment of the Islamic Religion, the fringe radicals cannot tolerate us because they consider us to be infidels. They also despise us for our movie industry, pornography, alcohol consumption and the fact that women have rights in this country. I wonder though if we and are lifestyle are so offensive, why do they choose to live here?

While doing my clinical rotations I gave full physicals to Muslim men, checking their testicles for abnormalities, their prostates, their throats, lymphnodes, mouths everything so that they could collect worker's compensation. I did this as a student, as instructed by the doc. After having a friendly conversation and washing my hands I went to shake the first patient's hand and got the nub (wrist flexed to make sure I didn't touch his hand). In their culture women are unclean. I wasn't offended just surprised. I never tried to shake another Muslim man's hand.

I attended to many mothers and children who immigrated from from Somalia through Kenya where they have the English school to prepare people for immigration to America. These patients actually liked me and seemed to have a very gentle nature.

I attended a celebration at the end of Ramadan (sp?). They had a llama for the kids to ride, one of those astro jumping things that kids often have at birthday parties and food. I asked my child's friend to show me the inside of the mosque. She showed me the little general store at the entrance, the place people store their shoes when they enter, the downstairs area where the men pray. I asked her if the women were allowed inside and she indicated that they pray separately upstairs.

AN: The US cannot afford to send its young men to every area of the world to protect others. I follow what you said, but these young men dying over there in Iraq in such great numbers is heartless. I'm hoping that they all come home and that their withdrawal is safe and speedy.

"US President should not try to be President of the World"

Yeah, it all sounds nice, but without the US, the Europeans allowed genocide in the Balkans, the Africans allowed genocide in Rawanda, the UN turned "Oil for Food" into a black market, A.Q. Kahn set up shop as a retail outlet for Nukes, and Pakistan, North Korea, Palestine, etc, etc, etc have refused to negotiate on any number of matters without US guarantees. Grow up kids, we are the worlds cop like it or not. No country will do anything to stop any genocide, any dictator, any holocaust, because they aren't able, and because we are and they know that we will. When we won't, and when we ask them to step up to the plate, people die and things go to shit. We're in the situation we're in with Iran because we allowed the Europeans to negotiate for 3 years. The Iranians love it. They push till they get concessions, take the concessions, violate the agreements, then negotiate for more concessions.

I know it doesn't sound PC, but the president of the US IS the president of the world because the rest of the world has abdicated, not because we went looking for it.

"US President should not try to be President of the World."
I second that statement and I think that's one of the main reasons for issues in today's world.

TH20: "I don't agree that radical Muslims hate us for just one or two reasons. The radicals hate us because were are "infidels" and they can't just live and let live through tolerance. "

First of all this statement is inhernetly contradictory. You say they don't hate us for one or two reasons, it's for one reason: b/c we are infidels.

Second of all, do you really think your average radical muslim would give a fuck about the US/UK if was not for Israel, and the US/UK's history of occupation and interference in the middle east?

Let's do a thought experiment:

Pretend you were American and Iran had overthrown a democratically elected governement and help keep a corrupt monarch in power for years. Oh, and Iran had also set up a muslim homeland in Canada (MuslimLandEh?), which the Canadians rightfully thought had not right to be there?

Then when the rest of the world continuously voted against the "MuslimLandEh's" actions for decades, Iran who held veto power was the only nation to side ith "MuslimLandEh'. Do you think many Americans would be very found of Iran?

When analyzing history, or philosophy, it always important to try and see things through their eyes and ask if they have credible grievences. To do otherwise is pretty shallow and intolerant.

If I were a Mexican national and living in poverty, I would probably come to America. There are laws though and it's right to follow the laws and do things legally.

I was married to someone who became a US citizen legally. It took 5 years. As American citizens we have the right to expect our government to protect us from people who are trying to enter our country illegally. Part of this protection includes having people who wish to come into the US submit to laws and regulations.

When I'm in another country, I am hypervigilent about obeying the laws. If the laws are too restrictive then they could be changed or an amnesty enacted for people who have been here for a certain amount of time or who are employed for a certain amount of time. I don't think that it's fair for a pregnant woman to 'run for the border' when she's pregnant, give birth and then have the child rewarded by becoming a US citizen, just because she was stealth enough to cross the border illegally.

I know that there are many people who work diligently and this is not about their work ethic. Along with people coming to this country for a better life are also people with mal intent. I think that protection of the US-Mexican border should be of higher priority then it is and government from the bottom to the top seems to be uninterested in addressing this issue.

All of this is very sad but there's not much we can do about it, it's been going on for thousands of years and probably will continue for thousands more. It's called intolerance, espcecially religious intolerance. We certainly see that here as well. Just look, for example, at how many people are trying to stop religious conservatives from having their views considered in the making of public policy. Or the intolerance of the conservatives for other points of view.

Do any of us really know which is the morally superior response toward the Middle East? Are the people there better off if we withdraw and let the despots have free reign? Or are they better off if we try to give democracy a cahnce to grow? Which course of action is better for the people there in the long run? I sure don't know. I don't think our politicians know either. But I honestly think that the right course is to try to find the right answer, and it really pisses me off to see people trying to gain political advantage in what we're doing. To me the people who are doing so are those who lack morality.

I have a different perspective on the Mexican border thing, perhaps because I live so far from it. We used to condemn the Russians because they wouldn't let people leave, that is cross the border into a country where they had a better chance in life. If we close the Mexican border, aren't we doing exactly the same thing? Does it matter to the people trying to cross a border to a better life which country is stopping them from doing so? Isn't the result exactly the same? I think our fairly open policy toward Mexican immigrants is the right thing to do, and I think it has benefitted both of our countries enormously.

Got news for you T- If they're Palestinian christians they aren't welcome in "Palestine" anymore, and it doubt it was the Israelis that wouldn't let them practice their religion. Israel has muslim and christian citizens who are allowed to vote and practice their religion. In the PA, the christians are being driven out, and the PA has made it very clear they want their country to be Judenfrie as the Germans put it back in 1939.

My neighbors are Palestinian Christians. They left Israel to pursue their religious freedom here in the US and to provide good opportunities for their children. After 9/11, one of the kids said to me, "I'm glad about 9/11 because now maybe the Americans will b*mb the Jews in Israel". I gave the kid a quick education of why the US wouldn't do this and told him to talk with his dad about it and not to mention this to anyone else, as people here in the US wouldn't agree.

Yes, I agree that the US President should not try to be President of the World. I don't think that anything would happen militarily (sp?) with US forces in Iran (except maybe a drone or a special forces going after one person). I don't know though, because I never thought that anything would happen in Iraq.

I don't like to spend my time worrying about things. Power is changing hands in the Middle East. These changes affect us here and I am having trouble shaking this feeling of 'calm before the storm'. There's not much I can do except to take good care of my child, enjoy myself and pray for peace and resolution.

I don't agree that radical Muslims hate us for just one or two reasons. The radicals hate us because were are "infidels" and they can't just live and let live through tolerance.

It doesn't help Middle Eastern Public Relations that our military is in Iraq. When our military are gone from that region there will be in-fighting amongst the people for power and ownership of territory. The fighting will also continue in the other places where there are currently Radical Muslim attacks on non-military civilians.

Back to my studies . . .

T- I will agree with your take on the southern border. It is not only very porous, it's practically a free fire zone from what I've been reading. Renegade Mexican soldiers have found that the drug dealers pay better than the army, and so are willing to protect the smugglers now. That spells trouble. Mexico is another country where a longstanding corrupt government has kept the country in poverty. For years we've had the devils bargain of illegal immigration (we get ultra-cheap labor, they get an outlet where their poor can go rather than foment revolution) so both sides winked at it. Now I think things are getting more serious there too.

TH20: History/IR is definitely my strong suit:

"Relocating Jews has very little to do with these conflicts and would not appease those who are bent on destruction."

Israel has very much to do with why muslims are so pissed off at us. In fact it is probably the number one reason why they hate us so much. But there are others: having American troops in their holy land (Saudi Arabia) was a big concern. Then invading Iraq. Past interference in the region like overthrowing democratic governments in Iran annd supporting the Shah are also factors.

Why does the US/UK think it has any right to be involved in the region at all? Makes no sense. Get the US and Israel out of the region and what will the terrorists have to be all upset about? They will just start killing each other over who is right: Sunni or Shiite? Whatever that is all about.

TH20: "I'm not worried about Iran sending something our way at this time. I am more concerned about unrest being stirred up by the Iranian leader's hateful talk and it's potential to inspire others to take action here in our country."

Ah, now this may be a legitmiate concern. Thank you for clarifying.

Iran is mostly focused on Israel not the US. So I don't think Iran or any of its sponsored groups would directly attack the US: That's Al Qaeda's job, anyway.

But let's dig deeper, shall we?

If the US decides to do an air campaign against Iran (no way they have the forces for a ground war, I think even the incompetent military planner Neo-Cons ought to be able to recongize this.) then yeah you might see some Iranian retaliation inside the US.

But I mean realisitically, let's say they are massively successful and kill 100 people? What are the odds of it being you? 1 in 3 million? Someone you are connected to? 1 in 15,000? I won't worry about any physical harm. An least get real here is 100 people that big a deal in an histocial context?

Now OTOH, there is something else to worry beyond the economic reprucutions of an air campaign against Iran:

Let's follow this chain: The west tells the Iran to cut it out with the nukes. Iran refuses. West bombs Iran. Iran cuts off oil, and inspires suicide bombers inside the US.

The real thing to be concerned with is how the fascist Bush administration would capitalize on that to restrict/violate civil liberties and other rights even more than it currently already does.

Some maybe I have to go back on my earlier position and side with you a bit:

The Hitler II you allude to is more likely to be Bush rather than the rather sensible president of Iran.

Still I don't think the scenario is too likley though, give how long a chain of unlikely event it is:

The US, hopefully, would realize how much it had to lose economically by starting an air war with Iran and having Iranian oil cut.

But, on the OTOH, if the neo-cons are completely fascist and machivellian they might even provoke the scenario I just mentioned in order to set up a fascism INSIDE THE US.

Now you got me a bit more worried than coke over pepsi.

AN and FONDL, thank you for your perspectives. FONDL your words soothe me. I put both of my televisions in storage in December, because my child was getting distracted and not getting homework completed. I've just been listening to bits and pieces of radio news and talk shows, and reading the paper once a week while I'm 'locked away' in my study completing a dissertation.

It's true that these are fairly peaceful times and we enjoy many freedoms. I know about the IRA attacks in London, I shopped at Harrods while the "b. team" was outside. I met an Algerian living in France. He seemed to be dissatisfied with his lot in life. He had a job as a cook on a boat and wasn't poor, he just had an unpleasantness about him. It would be difficult to live in France in poverty and have no hope. If a country is going to allow people to live within its borders, it should do so if opportunities exist for the immigrants so they can thrive and prosper. It does no one any good to be 'let in' but have no chance to earn a living.

Thank you AN for your view. Sometimes I need someone to discuss my concerns with.-T

FONDL, I agree we are living in a very peaceful and prosperous time. That doesn't mean it can't change very quickly.

T- Actually the French millitants were mostly French born citizens of foreign parents (mostly Algerian I believe). Their problem in France is that they have left foreigners unassimilated well into the second and even third generation. Now I'm not a fan of the poverty breeds terrorism school of thought, but if you read up on these French suburbs you'll see that they are really combining a virtual aparthied system with housing projects. The police don't go there, and neither do any others who don't live there. The unassimilated culture left on its own is not particularly religious, but it is largely criminal and directionless and has very little attachment to France as a nation. This is a breeding ground for recriutement.

Despite what many would have you believe America is about the most open and tolerant country in the world. I would much rather be a Mexican living in the US than a Turk in Germany, an Algerian in France, or a Jew in Russia.

And you are right, Israel has nothing to do with this other than as a scapegoat for a group of fascist thugs who are sitting on a sea of oil but need to explain to their people why they are all poor.

T, your pessimism and that of so many others in our society really puzzles me. I think it's largely because of the distortions presented nightly on TV news, which always puts the worst possible face on anything that happens anywhere, and which is totally lacking in historical perspective. Truth be told, we are extremely fortunate to be living in one of the most peaceful times and in one of the safest countries in the history of the planet. I can't think of any other time in the last thousand years or so where such a large percentage of the world's population was living without war. I hope we never go back to the "normal" that AN hopes for, because throughout history "normal" has usually been far worse than anything we've seen since WWII. Let' face it, war in the Middle East has been going on for thousands of years and it makes no difference whether we are there or not. In fact the only reason that we are involved in that region of the world is becuse of their oil reserves. Stop watching the news and start enjoying the peace that surrounds most of the world's population - it is unprecedented.

Shadow Cat: I was trying to ignore the news and was able to for awhile, but my gut is telling me something different. I've even thought about the lyrics to the song by Don Henley, "All She Wants to do is Dance" to try to change my thoughts, it only works for awhile.

I don't think that having the Jews move out of Israel will accomplish anything good. Since the Gaza Strip has been turned over the call for violence has increased. The man-made wall is what is keeping the violence in the streets down. There are many other places in the world now that are having problems with radicals who want to kill and terrorize others. My geography and history are not my strong suits, but I know that budhists are being killed in Asia?, there is conflict over the Kashmir region; blasts that killed Australian tourists in Bali; 9/11 here in the US; trains being destroyed in Italy or Spain?; same in London. Relocating Jews has very little to do with these conflicts and would not appease those who are bent on destruction.

I'm not worried about Iran sending something our way at this time. I am more concerned about unrest being stirred up by the Iranian leader's hateful talk and it's potential to inspire others to take action here in our country.

I am disappointed that the Mexican border is so porous. I believe that our government should be enforcing the laws and stopping anyone at gunpoint who doesn't have reason to be here. I further believe that students and others who are not citizens shouldn't be living in the US or attending school here. It is imperative to protect our national security at home. How would you feel if militants started simultaneous fires or other more violent coordinated simultaneous destructive acts in the US, as was done in France a few months ago?

Wow, I have to agree with the spirit of the old fart's post on this one: Iran is no bigger a concern than whether you will get coke or pepsi with your lunch. Ignore the media hype on this one.

Party while you can, we're all doomed. Mostly because of what passes for enlightened opinion on most campus' nowdays. Kind of hard to win a war when you won't admit you're in one.

Well, in case you had any doubt about david's lack of mental acuity this latest post demonstrates that his mindless ramblings are not limited to stiffing working dancers- he's done gone geo-political on us... I wish he would just stick to commenting on things he knows because if that were the case, he would not be posting at all.

Not that any further evidence of how retarded AN was was needed, but please, going to war with Iran? The US can't even handle Iraq. Iran use the bomb? Um, hate to tell you this dumbass but Israel already has their own strategic deterent so that ain't going to happen. Israel is way more likely to us nukes than any other nation in the region.

Yeah, Israel wants the US to go to war with Iran because they want to be the only country in the region in nukes. In fact, I think that was the goal of the Iraq war right from the beginning. Today bad they fucked it up and can't even take care of Iraq on their own.

The US will have to withdrawal like we did from Vietnam. Yeah will put up a pretense that the war has been Iraq'ized and they can take care of themselves, but then it will fall (unclear to whom exactly) just like South Vietnam did.

Oh, and good for Iran supporting pro-Palestenian fighters. Can you imagine if Israel had total free reign in that region? Would control everything from the nile to the euphratese.

Just admit Israel was ill-conceived from the start and move all Jews to a nice part of the US or Canada and let the Muslims fight each other over how many angels can sit on the head of a pin or whatever else they like to fight about.

T- Hate to say it but your pessimism is well founded. The world didn't really change so much on 9/11, we just woke up to what was really going on in much of it. There are sick and evil people out there who want to kill us, and much as we'd like to pretend things are back to normal it will be a long time before things get back to "normal", however we'll define it.

Iran wants the bomb, that much is clear, and it's not because they feel threatened by their neighbors and need a defensive weapon. They've been very clear about that. They want it to wipe Israel off the map. Go to MEMRI and read what is being said in the middle east. They sound even worse when their speeches are not in english and are intended for their own audience. I think we ignore them at our peril. "Smart" people who negotiate for a living also thought Hitler's rhetoric was a pose for the masses and dismissed Mein Kampf as political boilerplate. Those "smart" people were sure that Hitler was a reasonable man like the rest of them. I hope we've learned our lesson. I think the one saving grace in Iran is that the leaders don't have popular support and the regime is very fragile.

Wish I could be more cheery, but I'm affraid things will get worse before they get better. We'll be at war with Iran soon, wether we like it or not, and wether we admit it or not. Iran is the worlds largest sponsor of islamic terrorism, or terrorism in general. We've already ignored them and Syria too long. There is no way we can allow them to get the bomb. They will use it and they will supply it to terrorists.

No need to be worried about Iran. So what if Iran gets nukes? Nukes are defense only weapons (for nations that is: terrorist groups may be different) and having nukes will only stabilize the region.

Don't worry about what the Iranian president says: it is blown out of all porportion by the media. In fact, if you read it directly you will find that it makes alot of sense.

The Iranian president is the one with the balls, IMO: I like his plain spokenness.

Also funny as hell to see Hamas get elected by the Palestenians.

US should just sevre all ties with Israel: maybe let all the Jews move into so part of the US or Canada as their homeland as the Iranian president suggests.

Agreed, but radical despots (which is maybe redundant) everywhere have been making similar claims for decades. Even without oil the Middle East is a vital strategic area because of it's location - the Suez Canal and it's proximity to Western Europe. My own view is that we should snuggle up to the Saudis, they've always been the most pro-Western group in the region and also have the most oil.

FONDL, we also have a stake because their leaders in many cases blame the imperialists (us) for the fact that they are all impoverished even though they float on a sea of oil. See it's not that the fascist kleptocracies that run those countries have to keep their wife's third cousins in Mercedes S-class no more than 2 years old for appearance sake, it's that Israel exists and we support their right to exist... That's why they're poor. Oh, and also we are Satan. After 50ish years of marinating in this a few of them take it seriously enough to decide to take on the great Satan by killing lots of Americans. It is now our concern oil or no oil.

AN, if you're suggesting that much of the Middle East still lives as if it were 2,000 years ago, I totally agree. Last time I was there I saw areas where you could have made a movie about biblical times without doing anything other than removing a few Coca Cola signs. Which is my point - these tribes have been killing each other for thousands of years and no matter what we do they're not ging to stop any time soon. But we do need to be involved because we have a stake in the outcome. And that stake would be a whole lot smaller if it wasn't for oil.

FONDL, the difference is that around the enlightenment most christians gave up on conversion by the sword and conquest. They aren't talking about Koran study groups and pamphlets at your door.

AN, I agree with you for the most part. We are the only superpower in the world and that places certain responsibilities on us whether we like it or not. And I'm well aware that we have "advisors" scattered through out the world, and I think that's essential even if it sometimes gets us into trouble. And while I agree that Isreal increases tensions in the Middle East (my personal opinion is that the creation of Isreal was a huge mistake), I don't really think it makes much difference - the Middle East would still be at war even if Isreal didn't exist, and we'd still be involved because of the oil there. And before you get too upset about Iranians wanting to spread their religion thorughout the Muslim world, isn't that what every Christian faith has been doing for the past 4 centuries or so? All religions try to export their faith.

Casualguy, I totally agree with your last post. As a veteran, I don't have much time for critism from people who were too chicken to serve their country. If they think other countries are better, why don't they move? We'd all be better off.

AN: Yeah, the US does lots to stop genocide: Like how it stepped to stop the genocide of American Indians.

How about genocide in Indonesia if you want a more recent example?

Oh, still not recent enough? How about how we stopped the Iraqis from massacaring Kurds after the first Gulf War?

US will stop genocide if the genocide threatens American economic interests, but otherwise the US could care less.

Fuck you're a retard, AN. Lay off the alcohol long enough to get a fucking clue, please.