Forum Home Forum Home > Topics not related to music > General discussions
  New Posts New Posts RSS Feed - Iran Crisis
  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Events   Register Register  Login Login

Topic ClosedIran Crisis

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  123 10>
Author
Message Reverse Sort Order
NetsNJFan View Drop Down
Prog Reviewer
Prog Reviewer


Joined: April 12 2005
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 3047
Direct Link To This Post Topic: Iran Crisis
    Posted: June 16 2006 at 22:55

^ I'm pretty much baffled Crimson.  He tries to play off Israel as one big European conspiracy in which the Holocaust was a supporting argument that was fabricated, but even for Europe this is extreme reasoning.  Surprisingly, Iran is one of the more tolerant and open societies in the Mid-East (for one they aren't Arabs so they don't hate Israel quite as much), but really their Gov't is nuts.  Statements like these do nothing to warm him up to Europe., and hes lost the US.

Note:  Mahmoud Abbas (Palestinian Prez)'s doctoral thesis also claimed that the Holocaust was really only 800,000 Jews at most.

Back to Top
crimson thing View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member


Joined: April 28 2006
Location: United Kingdom
Status: Offline
Points: 848
Direct Link To This Post Posted: June 16 2006 at 19:57
I'm somewhat puzzled by the reasoning behind Ahmadinejad's comments on the Holocaust. (I assume he doesn't really believe it didn't happen - unless he's very stupid, and that seems unlikely.) And, I also assume, his words are often intended for a domestic audience, rather than to us in the West. So why the provocation? You'd think he'd be a little more emollient talking to the Chinese or to a German magazine........What's your reading, Nets?
"Every man over forty is a scoundrel." GBS
Back to Top
NetsNJFan View Drop Down
Prog Reviewer
Prog Reviewer


Joined: April 12 2005
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 3047
Direct Link To This Post Posted: June 16 2006 at 19:30
Dead
 
Ahmadinejad: Investigate the Holocaust

"I think we have sufficiently talked about this matter and these Holocaust events need to be further investigated by independent and impartial parties," Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said at a news conference on Friday following a meeting with China's president.

"An event that has influenced so many diplomatic and political equations of the world needs to investigated and researched by impartial and independent groups," he said.

 
Speaking in Shanghai, China, he added that Jews, Christians and Muslims all had the "right to be respected."

Ahmadinejad has come in for sharp criticism in Europe for repeatedly casting doubt on the Holocaust and calling for Israel to be destroyed or shifted to Europe.

On Monday, German Jews and politicians protested Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's repeated denial of the Holocaust while his country kicked off its World Cup campaign on Sunday, declaring that he would be unwelcome at the tournament.

About 1,200 people, according to police estimates, gathered in a downtown Nuremberg square, many waving Israeli flags.

In the end of May, during a Spiegel interview, Ahmadinejad was quoted as saying that he doubted the magazine would write 'the truth' about the Nazi genocide against Europe's Jews.

'We want to know whether this crime really happened or not. If so, then those responsible should be punished and not the Palestinians ... If it didn't happen, then the Jews have to go back where they came from,' he was quoted as saying.

He also played up the credentials of Western Holocaust deniers such as the British historian David Irving and echoed some of their views.

AP contributed to this report.

from Jpost.com
Back to Top
crimson thing View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member


Joined: April 28 2006
Location: United Kingdom
Status: Offline
Points: 848
Direct Link To This Post Posted: June 04 2006 at 14:18
Originally posted by NetsNJFan NetsNJFan wrote:

^ Sharon's cabinet was actually against the Iraq war, because they knew that the world would see them as the cause, and as for Netanyahu against a Palestinian state, I don't blame him at this point.  Gaza is pretty much a failed state as it is, why hand over mountains 2 miles from Tel Aviv when they are firing Qassam rockets from Gaza.  Israel doesn't need that from the West Bank as well.
...hand over... ?
...hand back... ?
 
This is the very crux of the problem.........
"Every man over forty is a scoundrel." GBS
Back to Top
Blacksword View Drop Down
Prog Reviewer
Prog Reviewer
Avatar

Joined: June 22 2004
Location: England
Status: Offline
Points: 16130
Direct Link To This Post Posted: June 04 2006 at 13:26
Originally posted by NetsNJFan NetsNJFan wrote:

^ Sharon's cabinet was actually against the Iraq war, because they knew that the world would see them as the cause, and as for Netanyahu against a Palestinian state, I don't blame him at this point.  Gaza is pretty much a failed state as it is, why hand over mountains 2 miles from Tel Aviv when they are firing Qassam rockets from Gaza.  Israel doesn't need that from the West Bank as well.


I cant believe Sharon was opposed to that war. I know what his public line was, but Iraq hit Israel with Scud missiles in the first Gulf War, surely Sharon - privately - wanted them dealt with? Maybe not..

The international community is not helping the situation, but cutting off funds to the Palestinian authority. Gaza will remain a failed state unless the plight of the Palestinian people as a whole is given the same urgency as that of the Israeli people. Annexing and impoversing innocent people is going to purpetuate the violence, not curtail it. It would help if every Israeli PM who tried to bring about peace wasn't assassinated by extremist Jews.
    
Ultimately bored by endless ecstasy!
Back to Top
NetsNJFan View Drop Down
Prog Reviewer
Prog Reviewer


Joined: April 12 2005
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 3047
Direct Link To This Post Posted: June 04 2006 at 13:19
^ Sharon's cabinet was actually against the Iraq war, because they knew that the world would see them as the cause, and as for Netanyahu against a Palestinian state, I don't blame him at this point.  Gaza is pretty much a failed state as it is, why hand over mountains 2 miles from Tel Aviv when they are firing Qassam rockets from Gaza.  Israel doesn't need that from the West Bank as well.
Back to Top
Blacksword View Drop Down
Prog Reviewer
Prog Reviewer
Avatar

Joined: June 22 2004
Location: England
Status: Offline
Points: 16130
Direct Link To This Post Posted: June 04 2006 at 12:57
Originally posted by NetsNJFan NetsNJFan wrote:

Originally posted by Blacksword Blacksword wrote:

Originally posted by NetsNJFan NetsNJFan wrote:


^ I'm not saying the bomb is defensive, I'm saying Israel "may or may not having the bomb" is a deterrant


Secondly, I'm not criticizing Iran getting a bomb here.  What I was criticizing was Blacksword incessantly bashing Israel out of nowhere, just like the rest of the world does, to divert attention from other issues.
Oh please, Nets, with respect, your response is a tired one. 'Bashing Israel like the rest of the world does to divert attention from other issues' I was not bashing Israel, I was pointing out a double standard that has played a part in bringing us to where we are with instability in the ME. THAT is the issue we are forced to avoid discussing in the mainstream media. A culture has been created where any public criticism of Israeli policy is dismissed as anti-Semitic. It's a great way of shutting her critics up, and placing ALL the blame for the violence and instability on the Arab world. It's a two way street. What is the point of having international law if Israel, and a few selected countries that support her are exempt from it. If you want to see real bashing of Israel then go to the AlJazeera website and check out their news forum. The anti semitic filth posted on there is genuinely disturbing. I accept Israels right to exist, but I think their governments agenda is bigger than we realise, and extends beyond 'defence'.     

 

and what exactly is this supposed agenda?


It depends who you choose to believe.

I believe their agenda is similar in principle to our own, that is to say our 'real' agenda. It's been said before, but if I have to say it again I will 'Oil' This is the primary reason we went into Iraq. All our claims of WMD etc had been rubbished by the UN, and even the 9/11 Commission conlcluded there was no Iraqi complicity in the attacks on 9/11.

Israel has benefited enormously from us securing the Iraqi oil, and of course one of their potential threats had been overthrown. Good you may say! Yeah, I agree but why all the lies. Surely going to war to protect our friends in Israel would have been a good enough reason in itself..

A coincidence perhaps, but in 1996, a white paper was drafted for then PM Netanyahu, entitled something like 'A new vision for securing the region' Netanyahu was opposed to the idea of a Palestinian state, and his paper outlined Israels concerns over Iraq, Iran and Syria. A desire to topple Saddams regime was expressed. The document was endorsed in washington by prominant neo conservatives, notably, Richard Perle. The rest is history as they say..

Netanyahu himself said, openly '9/11 was a good thing. I mean good for Israeli/US relations'


    
Ultimately bored by endless ecstasy!
Back to Top
NetsNJFan View Drop Down
Prog Reviewer
Prog Reviewer


Joined: April 12 2005
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 3047
Direct Link To This Post Posted: June 04 2006 at 11:38
Originally posted by Blacksword Blacksword wrote:

Originally posted by NetsNJFan NetsNJFan wrote:

^ I'm not saying the bomb is defensive, I'm saying Israel "may or may not having the bomb" is a deterrant


Secondly, I'm not criticizing Iran getting a bomb here.  What I was criticizing was Blacksword incessantly bashing Israel out of nowhere, just like the rest of the world does, to divert attention from other issues.


Oh please, Nets, with respect, your response is a tired one. 'Bashing Israel like the rest of the world does to divert attention from other issues'

I was not bashing Israel, I was pointing out a double standard that has played a part in bringing us to where we are with instability in the ME. THAT is the issue we are forced to avoid discussing in the mainstream media. A culture has been created where any public criticism of Israeli policy is dismissed as anti-Semitic. It's a great way of shutting her critics up, and placing ALL the blame for the violence and instability on the Arab world. It's a two way street. What is the point of having international law if Israel, and a few selected countries that support her are exempt from it.

If you want to see real bashing of Israel then go to the AlJazeera website and check out their news forum. The anti semitic filth posted on there is genuinely disturbing.

I accept Israels right to exist, but I think their governments agenda is bigger than we realise, and extends beyond 'defence'.

    
 
and what exactly is this supposed agenda?
Back to Top
stonebeard View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: May 27 2005
Location: NE Indiana
Status: Offline
Points: 28057
Direct Link To This Post Posted: June 04 2006 at 11:12
Originally posted by Blacksword Blacksword wrote:

Originally posted by stonebeard stonebeard wrote:

I'll tell you one thing. I will not go to war with Iran. [IMG]height=17 alt="Stern Smile" src="http://www.progarchives.com/forum/smileys/smiley22.gif" width=17 align=absMiddle> Go ahead, draft me. See how much I care. [IMG]height=17 alt="Stern Smile" src="http://www.progarchives.com/forum/smileys/smiley22.gif" width=17 align=absMiddle> If it's not a war I believe in, I won't fight for it. [IMG]height=17 alt="Stern Smile" src="http://www.progarchives.com/forum/smileys/smiley22.gif" width=17 align=absMiddle>


Good for you!
      
I tell you, I would fight, but only if I'm provided with a picture of the nuclear weapon. No pre-emptive strike. No fuzzy pictures of a doughnut box or whatever the hell it might be from space. I'll fight for the good of the world, not because Bush gets off on overthrowing governments.
Back to Top
Blacksword View Drop Down
Prog Reviewer
Prog Reviewer
Avatar

Joined: June 22 2004
Location: England
Status: Offline
Points: 16130
Direct Link To This Post Posted: June 04 2006 at 11:08
Originally posted by stonebeard stonebeard wrote:

I'll tell you one thing. I will not go to war with Iran. [IMG]height=17 alt="Stern Smile" src="http://www.progarchives.com/forum/smileys/smiley22.gif" width=17 align=absMiddle> Go ahead, draft me. See how much I care. [IMG]height=17 alt="Stern Smile" src="http://www.progarchives.com/forum/smileys/smiley22.gif" width=17 align=absMiddle> If it's not a war I believe in, I won't fight for it. [IMG]height=17 alt="Stern Smile" src="http://www.progarchives.com/forum/smileys/smiley22.gif" width=17 align=absMiddle>


Good for you!
      
Ultimately bored by endless ecstasy!
Back to Top
stonebeard View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: May 27 2005
Location: NE Indiana
Status: Offline
Points: 28057
Direct Link To This Post Posted: June 04 2006 at 10:39
I'll tell you one thing. I will not go to war with Iran. Stern Smile Go ahead, draft me. See how much I care. Stern Smile If it's not a war I believe in, I won't fight for it. Stern Smile
Back to Top
Blacksword View Drop Down
Prog Reviewer
Prog Reviewer
Avatar

Joined: June 22 2004
Location: England
Status: Offline
Points: 16130
Direct Link To This Post Posted: June 04 2006 at 08:56
Update:

Irans supreme leader, Ayatollah Khamenei, has warned the US that fuel shipments from the gulf region will be severely disrupted if the US makes a 'wrong move' In a speech on state TV he also said the US claims that Iran were seeking to make a bomb were 'sheer lies' and added that Iran would never give up its legitimate and legal right to produce nuclear fuel.

The Iranian governemtn has agreed to study proposals drafted by the six world powers at the UNSC, but 'not in a hurry'
    CBS Report

Edited by Blacksword - June 04 2006 at 08:57
Ultimately bored by endless ecstasy!
Back to Top
Blacksword View Drop Down
Prog Reviewer
Prog Reviewer
Avatar

Joined: June 22 2004
Location: England
Status: Offline
Points: 16130
Direct Link To This Post Posted: June 04 2006 at 07:27
Originally posted by NetsNJFan NetsNJFan wrote:

^ I'm not saying the bomb is defensive, I'm saying Israel "may or may not having the bomb" is a deterrant


Secondly, I'm not criticizing Iran getting a bomb here.  What I was criticizing was Blacksword incessantly bashing Israel out of nowhere, just like the rest of the world does, to divert attention from other issues.


Oh please, Nets, with respect, your response is a tired one. 'Bashing Israel like the rest of the world does to divert attention from other issues'

I was not bashing Israel, I was pointing out a double standard that has played a part in bringing us to where we are with instability in the ME. THAT is the issue we are forced to avoid discussing in the mainstream media. A culture has been created where any public criticism of Israeli policy is dismissed as anti-Semitic. It's a great way of shutting her critics up, and placing ALL the blame for the violence and instability on the Arab world. It's a two way street. What is the point of having international law if Israel, and a few selected countries that support her are exempt from it.

If you want to see real bashing of Israel then go to the AlJazeera website and check out their news forum. The anti semitic filth posted on there is genuinely disturbing.

I accept Israels right to exist, but I think their governments agenda is bigger than we realise, and extends beyond 'defence'.

    

Edited by Blacksword - June 04 2006 at 07:30
Ultimately bored by endless ecstasy!
Back to Top
NetsNJFan View Drop Down
Prog Reviewer
Prog Reviewer


Joined: April 12 2005
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 3047
Direct Link To This Post Posted: June 03 2006 at 22:10

^ I'm not saying the bomb is defensive, I'm saying Israel "may or may not having the bomb" is a deterrant

Secondly, I'm not criticizing Iran getting a bomb here.  What I was criticizing was Blacksword incessantly bashing Israel out of nowhere, just like the rest of the world does, to divert attention from other issues.
Back to Top
crimson thing View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member


Joined: April 28 2006
Location: United Kingdom
Status: Offline
Points: 848
Direct Link To This Post Posted: June 03 2006 at 09:13
Hmmm....trouble is when you argue, 1) Israel is entitled to have the bomb, to "defend" itself against the arab countries (and what bomb is "defensive"?), and 2) Israel (your words) is basically a "f+ck you" platform to the rest of world - well, then, you can hardly blame Iran if they did want a bomb? And, by your argument, faced with an illogical enemy who ignored the ROW, Iran would be equally as justified in having one, and we would be hypocritical to deny them!
Back to Top
NetsNJFan View Drop Down
Prog Reviewer
Prog Reviewer


Joined: April 12 2005
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 3047
Direct Link To This Post Posted: June 03 2006 at 00:09
Originally posted by Blacksword Blacksword wrote:

Originally posted by James Lee James Lee wrote:

Hands up, who thinks the world would be a better place if Iran had nuclear weapons?Anyone?


No, but I dint think the world is any safer with the bomb in Israeli hands either. Israel operates outside international law, with the blessing of the US. That is a dangerous situation, IMO. They could have up to 400 nuclear warheads, capable of striking targets anywhere in the ME, the EU and Russia. Is it really any surprise Iran may want the bomb.

Although, I do believe that Iran wants the bomb, it's worth remembering that the IAEA has so far concluded there is no actual evidence of a weapons program.

    
 
Israel needs those nukes.  Its the only deterrent against Arab aggression.  Israel can't count on the US, UN to defend it.  It has to protect itself.  Look at the 1956 war.  Israel withdrew from the Sinai with the condition that the UN monitor it, so Egypt couldn't attack.  Of course the UN pulls out at Gamal Nasser's polite request, and his calls for a second holocaust seem that much closer to Israelis.
 
Israel has no incentive whatsoever to comply with International law.  It has completely lost faith in the UN and its neighbors.  There were really two turning points:  Nasser asking the UN to leave the Sinai, and the UN saying, "ok, why not, whats the worst that could happen?", leading directly to the Six-Day War.   The second is the 1975 resolution stating that Zionism is Racism, a slap in the face to Israel as a nation, a people --- saying "you don't belong". 
 
This is controversial, but it is my sincere view:  People get angry when Israel uses the holocaust as justification for its actions, and I do to.  Its exploitave.  But people that criticize that ethos fail to see the whole point of the country.  Israel is basically founded on a "f*ck-you" platform to the world, stemming from the Holocaust.  "We looked to the world for help in 1933-1945, and you didn't do anything, you didn't care.  Well screw you.  Now we have any army to protect ourselves, since you won't, and we aren't going to take sh*t from you anymore.  There won't be another Holocaust because we say so, not because the UN or the EU says so." 
 
The Arabs lost their chance to get back their lost territories (Golan, Judea & Samaria).  Israel offered full withdrawal in exchange for full peace, immediately after the war.  Instead of peace overtures, we get the Arab Summit at Khartoum's three no's:  NO PEACE WITH ISRAEL, NO NEGOTIATIONS WITH ISRAEL, NO RECOGNITION OF ISRAEL.  Gee, is it any wonder Israel continues the occupation?
 
The extreme one-sidedness with which the world treats Israel is why Israel ignores the world.  This goes all the way back to 1948, when the U.N. created an entire division (UNRWA) to tend to Palestinian Refugees from Israel (some 600-800,000), but offered no such support to the 700-800,000 Jewish refugees displaced in the Arab world during the 1948-49 war. 
 
Israel would follow Int'l law if International law wasn't a puppet of the UN General Assembly, which deftly diverts any progress on worldwide issues, by spending half its time censuring Israel.  Darfur, Rwanda, Cambodia --- those genocides never forced a General Assembly emergency meeting --- though Israel has done it six times, including when they locked Yasser Arafat in his compound.  200,000 dead in Darfur, the world doesn't care --- but (God Forbid) a Terrorist/warlord-cum-dictator is punished for his actions --- the world flips a sh*t.   
 
I agree, Israel has done some awful things, just like any other country.  But the world can forget about it reforming unless it treats it like "any other country", i.e. not spending the entire UN budget criticizing everything it does and ignoring Arab foibles.  Hafez Assad kills 25,000 of his own people at Hama, the world says nada.  Israel kills 200 militants at Jenin, its another Holocaust.
 
This British Boycott is a perfect example.  Boycott Israel, the Jews should know better.  No boycotts for Sudan, Syria, SAUDI ARABIA, or any one of the other Tyrannical regimes in the world.  No, they are just simple Moslems, they don't know any better.  It makes me hysterical when the European Left says to support Hamas, because we have to "support the democratic choice of the Palestinian People, even if we disagree".  Yet again, Israel's DEMOCRATICALLY ELECTED government is bashed for 60 years, with none-such sympathy.  Again:  the Jews should know better.

Pfff.  I'm to annoyed to continue. 
 
Blacksword, your arguments are like the UN General Assembly distilled.  "Hmm, we are presented with a world issue we'd rather not spend time working to solve, that's too costly and time consuming -- instead we'll use the go-to debate, Israel."


Edited by NetsNJFan - June 03 2006 at 00:21
Back to Top
James Lee View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator

Honorary Collaborator

Joined: June 05 2004
Status: Offline
Points: 3525
Direct Link To This Post Posted: June 02 2006 at 21:49
VC: Good idea! LOL
Back to Top
marktheshark View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member


Joined: April 24 2005
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 1695
Direct Link To This Post Posted: June 02 2006 at 17:53
Originally posted by Blacksword Blacksword wrote:

Originally posted by marktheshark marktheshark wrote:

Blacksword quote:

"I’m not convinced the US has the right to police who has the bomb, just because it was a US invention. The fact that ‘unstable’ regimes already have or seek to have the bomb, is in part the fault of the US and of course the former Soviet Union, not to mention France and the UK. After WWII, father of the A bomb, Robert Oppenheimer, sat on an advisory panel in Washington. He advised on arms control, and always underpinned any recommendation with an insistence that there were very tight controls on who had the bomb. He wanted the US to be in constant negotiation with the USSR over limiting numbers of bombs being produced, as well as an ongoing discussion to ensure that the bomb was never used again. He always maintained that Israel should never be allowed to have the bomb, as this would inevitably lead to A NUCLEAR ARMS RACE IN THE ME!! A view later shared by JFK, but not his successor, President Johnson. Oppenheimer was dismissed by Washington as a pacifist. His philosophy did not fit in with the post war admins plans, and he was eventually outed as a communist sympathiser, and potential Soviet spy, during the McCarthy witch hunts. His position was filled by Edward Teller, who masterminded the H-Bomb project and was more sympathetic to the governments more aggressive approach to ensuring the US always had the upper hand over the Soviets. In short we’ve had ample opportunity to engage with the Arab/Muslim world in the past, but instead we choose to ignore Israels weapons program - which IS illegal - and have perpetuated a double standard in our foreign policy, which has partially led to the current problem. The milk has been spilt and there’s not much use in crying over it. I can only conclude that history has gone this way, because someone somewhere is benefiting from it."

It's because these very reasons that make us even more responsible. Many errors have been made with this coward's weapon and if it means slamming our foot down, then so be it. Hawk as I may be, I hate nukes with a passion. And keep in mind, it's these little ridiculous wars like Korea, Vietnam, Desert Storm and now the Iraqi War that has actually kept us and anybody else from using them.

I know that doesn't sound very comforting and in reality it DOES suck! But take your pick. 20,000 killed in a conventional war or 20 million in a nuclear exchange. I know this is twisted logic, but it's true and what else are you going to do?


Perhaps I'm playing Devils advocate here, and I'm not trying to bait you, Mark, I'm genuinely interested in your views. I'm sure you realise that..
     
But, you say nukes are cowards weapons. I'm inclined to agree in principle, but lets not forget why the bomb was invented in the first place. Hitler had an A bomb project which thankfully never came to fruition. The scientists working on the Manhattan project never for one moment considered the moral implications of their work, until they were about to detonate the 'Trinity' test. They were developing a weapon that would hopefully end the war with Japan, and it did.

Do you believe that a nuclear attack was the only way to make Japan surrender? If so, do you not think it inevitable that an arms race would ensue, after this Genie was let out of its bottle.

Oh I understand where you're coming from and I agree that we had no choice to invent the damn thing. It was either Hitler or us so naturally we had to.

Could we have cornered the Japanese without the A-Bomb? Eventually yes, but it would've taken more time. We out-manned them considerably but they in turned had an advantage with submarines. If memory serves me, we were already in missile research at the time and if accelerated, conventional missiles alone probably would've done the job. At least I guess, it's been a long time since I read up on this.

As for James' point on a coward's weapon being the case of technological superiority, I don't think that was the case in the European campaign. The Germans were right up there neck and neck with us in the technology dept. We simply out-manned them and were stratgically superior. One of Hitler's most fatal losses was the loss of Rommel and overall the German military was becoming more and more resentful to the Nazi Party. The military morale was just sinking to a new low everyday. To quote Gen. Patton: "You can have all the weapons you want, but what good are they if the soldiers don't want to use them."
    
Back to Top
Velvetclown View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: February 13 2004
Status: Offline
Points: 8548
Direct Link To This Post Posted: June 02 2006 at 14:51
So a sharp wit is a cowards weapon ???

Get new friends !!!
Back to Top
James Lee View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator

Honorary Collaborator

Joined: June 05 2004
Status: Offline
Points: 3525
Direct Link To This Post Posted: June 02 2006 at 13:46
just got me thinking...

I had a similar discussion with a friend of mine. He says guns are cowards' weapons (I think he means not just firearms but anything that allows you to be out of the reach of your opponent). My usual answer is that essentially he's saying that anything that makes you more powerful than your opponent is a cowards' weapon...as, for instance, an edged metal weapon would be to a society of wood and stone. (I could go on to say that it's foolish to attach personality characteristics to mere objects, but he's not the kind of guy who could really sink his teeth into that line of debate).
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  123 10>

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down



This page was generated in 0.188 seconds.
Donate monthly and keep PA fast-loading and ad-free forever.