QueenZone discussion #672058

<b><font color = "crimson">ThomasQuinn wrote: No, I will not. Although I do not support Iran the slightest bit, I do not trust the US any more, and they will undoubtedly take it upon themselves to carry out such a 'heroic' strike. Iran will not use these weapons, they will at best intimidate others with them, as they are very much aware that their country will be literally flattened the minute they use nuclear arms.

Serry<h6>Inventor of terrible English wrote: I know only one country what have used once nuclear weapon... Japanese Queen fans know this country too... Anyway my answer is no. Why? I won't explain because if this is poll - then I don't want someone to explain why explaination was wrong, if it's not poll - I don't want it anyway.

Barry © wrote: Nope, a few countries have nuclear arms so why pick on them? The moment they try to use them yes but not until then. That's if it's not too late. ;-)

John S Stuart wrote: I find this so problematical, but NO - I would NOT support such a preemptive strike. As a resident of the UK, I take many things for granted. Not only nuclear arms or power, but also things like everyday conveniences - cars, electrical goods, Medicare etc. Many developing countries are denied these luxuries, because we in the ‘West’ rather selfishly have decided that these peoples are ‘undeserving’, and unless there is a fast buck to be made, are not interested in assisting these cultures. Why is it that ‘our’ countries are allowed a ‘civil defence’ but those who are not ‘worthy’ denied a similar right? What other rights are we to deny? I read recently that the US objects to a new Chinese ‘middle class’ as their appetite for new motorcars, could spark environmental change. Now (and this is NOT anti-US) but isn’t this a tad hypocritical? That the world’s greatest gas guzzling consumers over the last 75 years or so, now object to the Chinese, in case they MAY draw upon the same limited resources? (I say may as no-one really knows what energy reserves are available to the Chinese). In sum: No I do not object (in priciple) to Iran having these arms – if they are used for defensive purposes, as they too deserve a modicum of security for their people, regardless of their politics. As for your title: 'The Iranian Nuclear Threat' is that fact, or Western paranoia? I do not believe anyone or any country would be stupid enough to develop these arms as a means of aggression – as we all know this aggression would spell ‘Total annihilation’ in retaliatory strikes.

John S Stuart wrote: Guy: I do see your point, but any chance you can re-make it without the use of 'wikipedia', because as we all know, anyone can change whatever they like on that site to suit their own particular dogma. I think such a move would carry more weight. As for the Israeli's they have nuclear weapons too. This is similar to the Pakistan/India situation - in that we seem to support one side or another, YET Pakistan legitimately claim, they only need such weapons because their neighbours do. The middle east is very complicated, and, I think if one country has them, that means they have a very strong advantage over their neighbours. On the other side of the coin, if they all had them, it would surely redress the balance of power, so either no-one has them, or they all have them. It could be argued that such weapons have held the peace over the last 60 years, but in the face of Korea, Afghanastan, Vietnam, Falklands, etc, it could also be argued that they do not. But I am just an idealist on a music internet site, I am not really qualified to say, as I do not live in such places, nor do I deal with their politics on a daily basis. What I do see over the next one hundred years is that developing countries like Argentina, China, Singapore, and large parts of Russia and Africa, will continue to develop inspite of the west, while more established nations like the UK, and the USA will undoubtedly see a deteriation in both standards of living and quality of life, and I think it would be better to be 'on-side' with these countries rather than face economical and ecological differences. As for Iran, we need to cultivate some sort of trust their too, otherwise your nightmare scenario of nuke them all - may well be the only thing left if all offers of diplomacy fails. And if that happens - what next - nuke Canada because they impose a grain embargo against the US?

John S Stuart wrote: I read recently that the US objects to a new Chinese ‘middle class’ as their appetite for new motorcars, could spark environmental change.

Mr.Jingles wrote: I do not agree one bit with the policies of North Korea, Iran, or Sudan. However, diplomatic talks and economic embargos are the first thing the international community should try in order to bring opossition to ruthless regimes. Guy, why always make Israel look like the victim in the middle east conflict? I'm not going to get into an argument about whether Palestinians or Israelis have been worse? The truth of the matter is that both sides have been wrong for the past 50 years. Now it seems like some small progress is being made towards achieving peace, and let's hope that it remains that way. Personally, anyone who takes sides in the middle east conflict is a fuckin' idiot. Peace and freedom for both sides is what should be in everybody's mind, not some dumb excuse to bomb each other.

Fairy wrote: If nothing else works, yes. Sept. 11 should teach us a lot.

Serry<h6>Inventor of terrible English wrote:

Fairy wrote: If nothing else works, yes. Sept. 11 should teach us a lot.

Terrorist attacks started in Moscow in 1994 - we've lost few thousands people in them (only in Moscow, Russia is not only Moscow, to be honest...), therefore Sept. 11 taught me nothing, except "It could happens with anyone!". Ask guys in Israel, Spain, Ireland etc. - what Sept. 11 taught them? Maybe for some lucky countries Sept. 11 was like a revelation, but it's only because of lack of TRUE information about what is going on on the Earth.

Serry<h6>Inventor of terrible English wrote: As I said - we have explainations why our explainations of our opinion were wrong...

<b><font color = "crimson">ThomasQuinn wrote:

Guy wrote: Because Iran has a tyran, extremist & fanatic regime. Most other countries with nuclear power don't.

- N. Korea - Israel

Mr.Jingles wrote: Israel is not particularly an extremist state. However, the Zionist faction of the Israeli government is indeed extremist.

Guy wrote:

Mr.Jingles wrote: Israel is not particularly an extremist state. However, the Zionist faction of the Israeli government is indeed extremist.

I didn't answer Thomas regarding the "extremist & fanatic" part because it's 'open for debate'. I'd say 95% of the government is Zionist. But what's wrong with being Zionist, anyway? "Zionism: Movement founded by the Viennese Jewish journalist Theodor Herzl, who argued in his 1896 book Der Judenstaat (The Jewish State) that the best way of avoiding anti-Semitism in Europe was to create an independent Jewish state in Palestine" (link Herzl was right, you know... Anti-semitism in various countries (ie. France & Russia) continues to this day. The only country in the world with no anti-semitism is Israel, for obvious reasons. We do have prejudice against Arabs, but so do other countries, and I honestly believe it doesn't derive from our religion. Unfortunately, a Jewish state was founded too late.

Music Man wrote:

Guy wrote:

Mr.Jingles wrote: Israel is not particularly an extremist state. However, the Zionist faction of the Israeli government is indeed extremist.

I didn't answer Thomas regarding the "extremist & fanatic" part because it's 'open for debate'. I'd say 95% of the government is Zionist. But what's wrong with being Zionist, anyway? "Zionism: Movement founded by the Viennese Jewish journalist Theodor Herzl, who argued in his 1896 book Der Judenstaat (The Jewish State) that the best way of avoiding anti-Semitism in Europe was to create an independent Jewish state in Palestine" (link Herzl was right, you know... Anti-semitism in various countries (ie. France & Russia) continues to this day. The only country in the world with no anti-semitism is Israel, for obvious reasons. We do have prejudice against Arabs, but so do other countries, and I honestly believe it doesn't derive from our religion. Unfortunately, a Jewish state was founded too late.

Well, some countries like Germany and Egypt have never expressed any sort of anti-semitism, so I don't know where you're coming from.

Serry<h6>Inventor of terrible English wrote: And by the way - I can't see what's the connection between North Korea politic system and terrorism... By the way - there's no terrorism in North Korea, to be honest... Why we need to bomb North Korea? Because Bin Laden attacked USA in 2001?

Guy wrote:

Music Man wrote:

Guy wrote:

Mr.Jingles wrote: Israel is not particularly an extremist state. However, the Zionist faction of the Israeli government is indeed extremist.

I didn't answer Thomas regarding the "extremist & fanatic" part because it's 'open for debate'. I'd say 95% of the government is Zionist. But what's wrong with being Zionist, anyway? "Zionism: Movement founded by the Viennese Jewish journalist Theodor Herzl, who argued in his 1896 book Der Judenstaat (The Jewish State) that the best way of avoiding anti-Semitism in Europe was to create an independent Jewish state in Palestine" (link Herzl was right, you know... Anti-semitism in various countries (ie. France & Russia) continues to this day. The only country in the world with no anti-semitism is Israel, for obvious reasons. We do have prejudice against Arabs, but so do other countries, and I honestly believe it doesn't derive from our religion. Unfortunately, a Jewish state was founded too late.

Well, some countries like Germany and Egypt have never expressed any sort of anti-semitism, so I don't know where you're coming from.

Are you serious? If you are, you managed to pick the 2 worst examples.

John S Stuart wrote: Guy: "...doesn't terror from the administration itself count? I remember seeing photos from a labor camp in North Korea, to which "political prisoners" were sent." I expect you overlook these - or is it one law for us - and a different law for everyone else? link As they say, one man's terrorist, is another's Freedom Fighter.

Music Man wrote: I hope you're not seriously responding to me like that.

Barry © wrote: Enjoy your trip Serry.

<b><font color = "crimson">ThomasQuinn wrote:

Guy wrote:

Mr.Jingles wrote: Israel is not particularly an extremist state. However, the Zionist faction of the Israeli government is indeed extremist.

I didn't answer Thomas regarding the "extremist & fanatic" part because it's 'open for debate'. I'd say 95% of the government is Zionist. But what's wrong with being Zionist, anyway? "Zionism: Movement founded by the Viennese Jewish journalist Theodor Herzl, who argued in his 1896 book Der Judenstaat (The Jewish State) that the best way of avoiding anti-Semitism in Europe was to create an independent Jewish state in Palestine" (link Herzl was right, you know... Anti-semitism in various countries (ie. France & Russia) continues to this day. The only country in the world with no anti-semitism is Israel, for obvious reasons. We do have prejudice against Arabs, but so do other countries, and I honestly believe it doesn't derive from our religion. Unfortunately, a Jewish state was founded too late.

"Unfortunately, a Jewish state was founded too late." Yes, and sadly it was also founded in other peoples' territory. I happen to agree with ORTHODOX JEWS on this subject: you can have the holy land. Just not until your messiah shows up.

<b><font color = "crimson">ThomasQuinn wrote: I happen to know of rather large groups of non-Zionist and Orthodox Jews. In fact, they are larger than the entire Zionist faction is. As a people, the Jews had not been living in the area currently known as Israel for many, many centuries (apart from the select few, who DID get along with the Arabs living there). However, when they were given the land after the second world war, the Arab states agreed...sadly the Zionists didn't think twice about kicking the Palestines, who had been living there for quite some time (think: multiple centuries) from that land. After all, it had been given to the Israeli people. Now, that didn't seem to be enough, so they took South Africa's example and started enforcing an Apartheid-regime. Which is presently still in function. Finally, yes, I do have a wrath against Israel. It would probably be to do with several members of your army knowingly shooting and killing the cameraman of a Dutch documentary-crew, and attempting to shoot the others (who were CLEARLY MAKING THEMSELVES KNOWN). As if that wasn't bad enough, the soldiers were not prosecuted. Sounds like a totalitarian state to me. Not to mention the fact that you are a theocracy, just like, for instance, Iran.

Mr.Jingles wrote: Why is it that so many Jewish people take disagreeing with the policies of the Israeli government as anti-semitism?

Mr.Jingles wrote: I do agree with bringing terrorists from groups like Hamas to justice, but I also disagree with putting the lives of innocents at risk, the destruction of homes, and all violations of human rights committed by the Israeli army. The number of innocents who have died in the pursue for chasing terrorists and militias is possibly even bigger than the numbers of members of terrorist groups captured or killed.

Mr.Jingles wrote: I also disagree with the lack of effectiveness of the Palestinian government for bringing terrorists to justice. Both sides have done so few to bring peace to the region.