kafka Posted June 4, 2009 Share Posted June 4, 2009 [quote name='dominicansoul' post='1882927' date='Jun 4 2009, 11:22 AM']we've been in the "end times" since Jesus' Ascension[/quote] I meant the Tribulation. The sequence of specific and interconnected events which span over a few centuries and culminate in the Second Coming of Jesus. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dominicansoul Posted June 4, 2009 Share Posted June 4, 2009 [quote name='kafka' post='1883018' date='Jun 4 2009, 11:43 AM'] I meant the Tribulation. The sequence of specific and interconnected events which span over a few centuries and culminate in the Second Coming of Jesus.[/quote] no kafka, i wasn't referring to anything you posted. I haven't even read this thread! I just looked at the title, and make that response... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kafka Posted June 4, 2009 Share Posted June 4, 2009 [quote name='dominicansoul' post='1883020' date='Jun 4 2009, 12:45 PM'] no kafka, i wasn't referring to anything you posted. I haven't even read this thread! I just looked at the title, and make that response...[/quote] oh, sorry. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brother Adam Posted June 4, 2009 Share Posted June 4, 2009 Mr. Obama has invited Hamas to Middle East peace talks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hassan Posted June 4, 2009 Share Posted June 4, 2009 [quote name='Brother Adam' post='1883022' date='Jun 4 2009, 11:47 AM']Mr. Obama has invited Hamas to Middle East peace talks.[/quote] Seeing as there are the elected government for Gaza that would probably be a good idea. Unless you are under the impression that we only negotiate with "good guys". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BG45 Posted June 4, 2009 Share Posted June 4, 2009 [quote name='ironmonk' post='1883009' date='Jun 4 2009, 01:37 PM']The current Iran gov is extreme. They were the coup. The previous gov was democratic loving and a good government. If the previous gov from the early 70's was in place, then things wouldn't be an issue. God Bless, ironmonk[/quote] With all due respect, I don't think we could call any Iranian government of late peaceful, democratic, or good. In the 1940s you had a joint Soviet-Commonwealth invasion to keep the Iranian oil fields out of Nazi hands. As recent as 2000, Secretary of State Madeleine Albright acknowledged the role of the Eisenhower administration in 1953 in deposing a democratically elected government in Iran following the forced nationalization of Western oil assets and expulsion of Western workers. Following that we put the last Shah into power, who aided in the waging of wars and putting down of rebellions across the Middle East, one bloody incident was aiding the Sultan of Oman in killing the rebels in the region of Dhofar in 1971. On the side of aiding rebellions, he also was one of many who would supply arms to the Kurdish rebels in Iraq, hoping to destabilize his neighbor. Within a couple of years of aiding in the crushing of rebels in Dhofar he abolished the two party system and declared any who did not join his new Rastakhiz Party to be traitors to the state. Those things aren't to say he didn't have his good points; broadened education efforts, helped millions of farmers by suppressing various factions who had held them down, gave suffrage to women, built new factories (along with new labor laws), and so forth. Still, hard to call his government peaceful when he's either crushing or supplying half the insurgencies in the region and refueling Pakistan's aircraft for free in a war with India. That said, secular dictators are easier to negotiate with than theocrats. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ironmonk Posted June 4, 2009 Author Share Posted June 4, 2009 [quote name='BG45' post='1883091' date='Jun 4 2009, 02:58 PM']With all due respect, I don't think we could call any Iranian government of late peaceful, democratic, or good.[/quote] I didn't call the current Iran gov peaceful. The Shah was compared to what is the standard in that area. The Shah rocked and there is a nice read on him at Wikipedia. [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mohammad_Reza_Pahlavi"]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mohammad_Reza_Pahlavi[/url] [quote]The Shah of Iran was the first Muslim leader to recognize the State of Israel, although when interviewed on CBS 60 Minutes by reporter, Mike Wallace, he criticized US Jews for their control over US media and finance ... [b]Achievements[/b] The Shah made major changes to curb the power of certain ancient elite factions by expropriating large and medium-sized estates for the benefit of more than four million small farmers. In the White Revolution, he took a number of major modernization measures, including extending suffrage to women, much to the discontent and opposition of the Islamic clergy, the participation of workers in factories through shares and other measures, the improvement of the educational system through new elementary schools and literacy courses set up in remote villages by the Imperial Iranian Armed Forces. The latter step was called "Sepāh e Dānesh", "Army of Knowledge". As part of the White Revolution, the Armed Forces were engaged in infrastructural and other educational projects throughout the country ("Sepāh e Tarvij va Âbādāni") as well as in health education and promotion ("Sepāh e Behdāsht"). Moreover, he instituted exams for Islamic theologians to become established clerics. As a further step, in the seventies the governmental program of a free of charge nourishment for children at school ("Taghzieh e Rāigān") was implemented. Under the Shah's reign, the national Iranian income showed an unprecedented rise. In the field of diplomacy, Iran realized and maintained friendly relations with Western and East European countries as well as the state of Israel and China and became, especially through the close friendship with the United States of America, more and more a hegemonial power in the Persian Gulf region and the Middle East. The suppression of the communist guerilla movement in the region of Dhofar in Oman with the help of the Iranian army after a formal request by Sultan Qaboos was widely regarded in this context. As to infrastructural and technological progress, the Shah continued and developed further the policies introduced by his father. As part of his programs, projects in several technologies, such as steel, telecommunications, petrochemical facilities, power plants, dams and the automobile industry may be named. In terms of cultural activities, international cooperations were encouraged and organized, such as the Shiraz Festival of Arts. Many Iranian students were sent[/quote] God Bless, ironmonk Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hassan Posted June 4, 2009 Share Posted June 4, 2009 [quote name='ironmonk' post='1883107' date='Jun 4 2009, 01:12 PM']I didn't call the current Iran gov peaceful. The Shah was compared to what is the standard in that area. The Shah rocked and there is a nice read on him at Wikipedia. [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mohammad_Reza_Pahlavi"]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mohammad_Reza_Pahlavi[/url] God Bless, ironmonk[/quote] Funny that such a wondeful leader was usurped in a large, popular movement. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dominicansoul Posted June 4, 2009 Share Posted June 4, 2009 [quote name='Brother Adam' post='1883022' date='Jun 4 2009, 11:47 AM']Mr. Obama has invited Hamas to Middle East peace talks.[/quote] [quote name='Hassan' post='1883023' date='Jun 4 2009, 11:48 AM']Seeing as there are the elected government for Gaza that would probably be a good idea. Unless you are under the impression that we only negotiate with "good guys".[/quote] it is unreal to think we can negotiate with hamas, as they are very strict on their belief system and abide with the sentiment that Jewish israel must be destroyed... obama's speeches to the muslims are weak. he cannot even mention the attacks in recent years made by muslim terrorists, but instead he decries the west's attitudes towards islam... i highly doubt that any negotiations made will only usurp our national security and israel's as well... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BG45 Posted June 4, 2009 Share Posted June 4, 2009 Nor did I call the current Iranian government peaceful. I did indeed give the Shah kudos, so to speak, on his achievements in a far less verbose, but almost equally substantive form than an encyclopedia that anyone can edit. Many of the Shah's accomplishments were mirrored by a man in Iraq by the name of Saddam Hussein. Saddam at one point had some of the best literary programs and children's education in the world. He greatly expanded the modernization of Iraq and the rights of women. He helped build a modern economy and had several major mutually beneficial trade deals with other powers; all before 1991. Much like the Shah of Iran, Saddam Hussein ended his years by instituting a one party system and reigning as a tyrannical despot. Unlike the Shah, Saddam was deposed by the Coalition of nations that aided the United States in the most recent war in Iraq; the Shah was deposed by his own citizens. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MithLuin Posted June 4, 2009 Share Posted June 4, 2009 This is all politics and diplomacy. Iran does not have the need for nuclear power - there is no energy crisis there that would call for it. But Iran wants to develop nuclear power. Why? Why is this so important to national identity? Because a country with nuclear power is within sight of becoming a country with nuclear weapons. Sure, maybe nuclear weapons are unIslamic (especially if only your enemies have them). Maybe using them would be suicidal. But to be able to [i]threaten[/i] to make them? Or to make them and then not use them? Or to make people [i]think[/i] you have them? That gives you power in the region, and warns Israel - hey, don't mess with us. We have [i]nukes[/i]. The problem is that if they develop nuclear energy, they [i]will[/i] threaten to develop nukes (that being the whole point of developing nuclear energy), and if they carry out that threat, they'll have nukes. Few countries can be trusted with such weapons, and Iran certainly isn't one of them. I think the entire Middle East is a bad place for nuclear weapons - and I don't make an exception for Israel. It makes perfect sense to me that if India has nukes, Pakistan needs to have them too. It's an arms race scenario, where your enemy can't be more powerful than you. If Iran can't have nukes, Israel shouldn't have them either. Israel has had nukes for years. [url="http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/israel/nuke/"]SOURCE[/url] It's no surprise that Iran views it as a matter of national pride to take steps in the same direction. But are these countries wise enough not to use such weapons? Maybe. Some of the time. The US has plenty of reason not to trust them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BG45 Posted June 4, 2009 Share Posted June 4, 2009 [quote name='MithLuin' post='1883230' date='Jun 4 2009, 04:38 PM']*snips pure reason*[/quote] :yes!: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dominicansoul Posted June 4, 2009 Share Posted June 4, 2009 i also believe that if muslim states want respect, they need to show respect to other countries and quit supporting extremists... stating that a country known for it's global terrorism, "has a right" to nuclear energy is completely ridiculous... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now