full article here:
comment of the day: (haha)
"The entire debate is a red herring. First of all, Iran has missiles presently capable of hitting Israel, if that that were indeed the goal. Secondly, Ahmadinejad is only a figurehead in Iran. Iran is a theocracy, controlled by the mullahs, who call all shots - your raving against Ahmdinejad only highlights your ignorance. Thirdly, the uranium enrichment hype is entirely beside the point. As a previous poster noted, they can buy enriched uranium to make a nuclear bomb if they desired, they don't have to enrich their own. Sitting next to Pakistan and Indian, who both have nuclear bombs and unlike Iran, have not signed the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, the hypocracy is palatable. If you know anything about the NPT and nuclear technology, you would know that they have no chance whatsoever of being able to enrich uranium to the extent that it could be used for nuclear device, without the assistance of experts and technology from other countries. Perhaps the West would be more successful if they the used the trumped up WMD claims - it worked for Iraq."
Friday, September 25, 2009
Saturday, September 19, 2009
geo
i have a lot of "friends" on facebook. each with their own political/ideological/religious beliefs. and for the most part, i respect and appreciate all of them.
but lately, it seems, i can't get myself to agree with any of them. not fully anyway.
the way i see it, there are a myrad number of people (and groups of people, aka governements), political parties, and businesses who are involved with the 'crisis' in iran. (i put quotation marks on the word crisis because although the situation right now is not as catastrophic as the word suggests, it definitely passes the basic requirements of a slow-brewing crisis)
but even all theses people can be simplified, and broken down into 3 main groups. majorities. the key players.
defining these groups is what i'll be focusing on first. lets see where the observations (and conversation) will take me.
but lately, it seems, i can't get myself to agree with any of them. not fully anyway.
the way i see it, there are a myrad number of people (and groups of people, aka governements), political parties, and businesses who are involved with the 'crisis' in iran. (i put quotation marks on the word crisis because although the situation right now is not as catastrophic as the word suggests, it definitely passes the basic requirements of a slow-brewing crisis)
but even all theses people can be simplified, and broken down into 3 main groups. majorities. the key players.
defining these groups is what i'll be focusing on first. lets see where the observations (and conversation) will take me.
initiation
quotes.
"You may fool all the people some of the time. you can even fool some of the people all the time. but you can never fool all of the people, all of the time"
- Abraham Lincoln
"Those who are too smart to engage in politics are punshied by being governed by those who are dumber"
- Plato
"if you want something said, ask a man. if you want something done, ask a woman."
- Margaret Thatcher
"You may fool all the people some of the time. you can even fool some of the people all the time. but you can never fool all of the people, all of the time"
- Abraham Lincoln
"Those who are too smart to engage in politics are punshied by being governed by those who are dumber"
- Plato
"if you want something said, ask a man. if you want something done, ask a woman."
- Margaret Thatcher
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
