NationStates Jolt Archive

http://edition.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/12/24/un.iran.ap/index.html

Guys, I think it's time to... DUCK AND COVER.

No, it isn't he's just doing a little sabre rattlin'.

http://edition.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/12/24/un.iran.ap/index.html

Guys, I think it's time to... DUCK AND COVER.

No, no, no, it's more of an "I am Ahmadinejad, hear me roar!" type dealie.

No, it isn't he's just doing a little sabre rattlin'.

*rattles saber back*

http://edition.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/12/24/un.iran.ap/index.html

Guys, I think it's time to... DUCK AND COVER.

What's he gonna do? Pout in the corner? Fuck him.

What's he gonna do? Pout in the corner? Fuck him.
:eek:

That's not the LG we know...

:eek:

That's not the LG we know...

I like to keep people guessing. :)

he want's nuke's still just give them to him,by dropping them on him

:eek:

That's not the LG we know...

It's his supressed dark side.

Hey you never know, the nuke program could legitimately be just for electrics and stuff, I mean really have we all been overcome by the stereotype that every Islamic nation is filled with warlords and psychopaths, stop reading the tabloids!

Bonus question: "agreeance?" Is that British usage or something? Just curious.

Bonus question: "agreeance?" Is that British usage or something? Just curious.

It is a perfectly cromulent word.

No, it isn't he's just doing a little sabre rattlin'.

They said this about Hitler, too.

Hey you never know, the nuke program could legitimately be just for electrics and stuff, I mean really have we all been overcome by the stereotype that every Islamic nation is filled with warlords and psychopaths, stop reading the tabloids!
Hey, he's trying his hardest to portray the psychopath himself!

And even if he's perfectly rational, his whole "let's get rid of Israel" policy really isn't my cup of tea, so I still don't like him.

They said this about Hitler, too.

an look what happen

Hey, he's trying his hardest to portray the psychopath himself!

And even if he's perfectly rational, his whole "let's get rid of Israel" policy really isn't my cup of tea, so I still don't like him.

Yeah thats the main shortcoming in his foreign policy I'll admit. But everyone deserves a fair chance right, are you going to judge a country on something that hasn't and probably wont happen?

Yeah thats the main shortcoming in his foreign policy I'll admit. But everyone deserves a fair chance right, are you going to judge a country on something that hasn't and probably wont happen?
Well, I'm certainly going to judge whether or not they get themselves a nuclear arsenal, because that's a matter that does concern me. Nukes concern everyone.

But theres no proof they have a nuclear arsenal or intend to use one, believe me I'd be the first person to condemn them if they had one but first I want concrete evidence that they do rather than diving arse first into a third war. Two at once is quite enough thank you.

Would you like to instead dive head-first in it?

Gimmie proof a parachute and a gun and then tell me how many to kill.

But theres no proof they have a nuclear arsenal or intend to use one, believe me I'd be the first person to condemn them if they had one but first I want concrete evidence that they do rather than diving arse first into a third war. Two at once is quite enough thank you.
Oh, I for one don't think war could be a solution, even if it was the right thing to do.

As for the evidence, I'd love to believe that they really wanted nuclear power...but not even the Iranian people themselves do. Iran's got plenty more gas and oil than it could ever hope to use. They've got friends in Russia, China and India who could all build nuclear power plants for them, and deliver ready-made fuel elements (as was indeed offered). And the IAEA just wants to have a look to see what's going on with this "research" the Iranians are doing.

Iran's been refusing all of these things. It just reeks of North Korea-style "play the game for time, and then boom, you're a nuclear power and they can't hurt you anymore".

Well if they did have a nuclear arsenal and fully intended to deploy it we wouldn't have much choice other than to go a little bang bang crazy ourselves.

Well if they did have a nuclear arsenal and fully intended to deploy it we wouldn't have much choice other than to go a little bang bang crazy ourselves.
The thing is that even if you could assume that Iran would be a responsible nuclear power (and not, for example, hand one over to Hezbollah), it having nukes would still spark the protectors of Sunni Islam, Saudi Arabia, to get their own. Followed by the other regional heavyweight, Egypt.

Maybe Turkey too, and if Syria isn't as broke by then, they'll get one too.

I for one don't think the Middle East is a place I want to see stockpiling nuclear weapons. It's been, shall we say...rather unstable in recent memory.

Well, I kind of have to agree with him on how the UN sanctions aren't going to stop him from his plans. If we'd wait for the UN to enforce their sanctions soon to be resolutions, he'll have a full warehouse of Nukes.

They said this about Hitler, too.

:rolleyes: Hitler had the motive AND the means to start a world war. Ahmadinejad, even if he has a motive (which he doesn't, Iran is a very pacifist/cowardly nation) he does not have the means.

Threats and risks should be estimated based on the facts, not on propagandistic self-Godwins.

Bonus question: "agreeance?" Is that British usage or something? Just curious.

Apparently, it's not a word; I should have used "agreement." But agreeance sounds a lot better... :(

To my liberterian eyes, that doesnt sound like a threat at all.

The thing is that even if you could assume that Iran would be a responsible nuclear power (and not, for example, hand one over to Hezbollah), it having nukes would still spark the protectors of Sunni Islam, Saudi Arabia, to get their own. Followed by the other regional heavyweight, Egypt.

Maybe Turkey too, and if Syria isn't as broke by then, they'll get one too.

I for one don't think the Middle East is a place I want to see stockpiling nuclear weapons. It's been, shall we say...rather unstable in recent memory.

I would argue that Iran could be a responsible nuclear power. The Iranian elite are replaceable (if not electable, even the Supreme Leader is liable for impeachment) politicians, and are thus a group of people who must be skilled in the art of compromise. Indeed, I have observed that politicians are much more likely to fully understand the concept of MAD than any other set of people, because it requires a uniquely politicianesque doublethink faith in the contradictory beliefs that a) if ever a nuclear weapon is fired, all the others will be fired in return, and b) that no-one will ever fire a nuclear weapon.

Iranians have to think like this in order to come into power, and thus we can be assured that Iran has systems in place to secure a certain level of sane leadership, (Ahmedinejad represents but a blip, who will surely not be re-elected). The danger lies in regimes where politically-minded people do not rise into politics, but are rather replaced with sadistic psychopaths: North Korea is one of those regimes, but Iran, despite what the tabloids say, is not.

Sheesh, doesn't everyone realize that nuclear ANYTHING is teh eviiiil!!!

That's why das president has been so vociferous against it in all it's forms. Just check the last couple of State of the Union addresses to see what I mean!

2005: (http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2005/02/20050202-11.html)

To keep our economy growing, we also need reliable supplies of affordable, environmentally responsible energy. (Applause.) Nearly four years ago, I submitted a comprehensive energy strategy that encourages conservation, alternative sources, a modernized electricity grid, and more production here at home -- including safe, clean nuclear energy. (Applause.)

2006 (http://www.whitehouse.gov/stateoftheunion/2006/)
So tonight, I announce the Advanced Energy Initiative -- a 22-percent increase in clean-energy research -- at the Department of Energy, to push for breakthroughs in two vital areas. To change how we power our homes and offices, we will invest more in zero-emission coal-fired plants, revolutionary solar and wind technologies, and clean, safe nuclear energy. (Applause.)

Oh. Errr, nevermind.....

I for one don't think the Middle East is a place I want to see stockpiling nuclear weapons. It's been, shall we say...rather unstable in recent memory.
Problem #1: Israel has nuclear weapons.
Problem #2: The Israeli/Palestinian situation has not been resolved.
Problem #3: The US invaded Iraq.
Problem #4: The Israelis bombed and invaded Lebanon.
Problem #5: The US has been mucking about in the Middle East for the past 50+ years.

Sheesh, doesn't everyone realize that nuclear ANYTHING is teh eviiiil!!!

That's why das president has been so vociferous against it in all it's forms. Just check the last couple of State of the Union addresses to see what I mean!

2005: (http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2005/02/20050202-11.html)

To keep our economy growing, we also need reliable supplies of affordable, environmentally responsible energy. (Applause.) Nearly four years ago, I submitted a comprehensive energy strategy that encourages conservation, alternative sources, a modernized electricity grid, and more production here at home -- including safe, clean nuclear energy. (Applause.)

2006 (http://www.whitehouse.gov/stateoftheunion/2006/)
So tonight, I announce the Advanced Energy Initiative -- a 22-percent increase in clean-energy research -- at the Department of Energy, to push for breakthroughs in two vital areas. To change how we power our homes and offices, we will invest more in zero-emission coal-fired plants, revolutionary solar and wind technologies, and clean, safe nuclear energy. (Applause.)

Oh. Errr, nevermind.....
You forgot the most important one:

Mini-Nuclear Weapons and the U.S. Nuclear Posture Review (http://www.cns.miis.edu/pubs/week/020408.htm)

Mini-nukes on US agenda (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/3126141.stm)

The Dangers of a Middle East Nuclear War (http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=20060217&articleId=1988)

It is difficult to ask other countries to discourage nuclear proliferation when in fact your own country is contributing to said proliferation? Especially when one of those countries (Iran), has witnessed what happens to countries that cannot protect themselves from invasion (Iraq), and with the full realization that their country (Iran) is next on the list of Bush's "Axis of Evil" list?

No, it isn't he's just doing a little sabre rattlin'.

Isnn't that what Chaimberlin said about Adolf?

Oh, I for one don't think war could be a solution, even if it was the right thing to do.

:confused: WTF :confused:

Isnn't that what Chaimberlin said about Adolf?
Sorry I'm affraid you've been beaten to it.
However. I doubt Iran has the sort of conviction needed to confront the US/NATO/UN in an armed conflict. Remember for Hitler there was little initial opposition from the US (unlike now). and no strong international bodt like the UN(The leage of nations was quite feeble at the time).

:rolleyes: Ahmadinejad, even if he has a motive (which he doesn't, Iran is a very pacifist/cowardly nation)

The motive is to control Mid-East Oil, and I guess the Iran/Iraq war was a "love feast". :rolleyes:

he does not have the means.

Does not have the means YET. However, if he does get nuclear weapons there is not a country in the region that could oppose him.

Problem #1: Israel has nuclear weapons.
Problem #2: The Israeli/Palestinian situation has not been resolved.
Problem #3: The US invaded Iraq.
Problem #4: The Israelis bombed and invaded Lebanon.
Problem #5: The US has been mucking about in the Middle East for the past 50+ years.

Ahh, the good old "Let's blame America and Israel" for the problem. I guess all the Arab nations in the region have no responsibility for anything going on in the region. They are all victims of "yankee imperialism" and the "zionists." :rolleyes: Gieve me a break! :(

Sorry I'm affraid you've been beaten to it.
However. I doubt Iran has the sort of conviction needed to confront the US/NATO/UN in an armed conflict. Remember for Hitler there was little initial opposition from the US (unlike now). and no strong international bodt like the UN(The leage of nations was quite feeble at the time).

The UN isn't what I would consider "a strong international body." Take a good look at my sig.

The motive is to control Mid-East Oil, and I guess the Iran/Iraq war was a "love feast". :rolleyes:

Source?

Does not have the means YET. However, if he does get nuclear weapons there is not a country in the region that could oppose him.

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is not a dictator. He doesn't have the luxury for planning military engagements decades from now. Painting him as a tactical genius with his eye set on taking over the Middle East is insane, he is very much a localist, more interested in reforming the Tehran Tram System than enforcing some kind of Pax Persica.

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is not a dictator.

No, he's a figurehead. The ayatollah above him, now HE'S a dictator.

Isnn't that what Chaimberlin said about Adolf?

Actually, no, it isn't.

Problem #1: Israel has nuclear weapons.
Problem #2: The Israeli/Palestinian situation has not been resolved.
Problem #3: The US invaded Iraq.
Problem #4: The Israelis bombed and invaded Lebanon.
Problem #5: The US has been mucking about in the Middle East for the past 50+ years.
All true, all true. But that doesn't make the idea of all these autocratic regimes with sizable and well-connected Islamist groups having nukes any more attractive to me.

We have 10000 more nuclear weapons than they do, I'm not scared.

http://edition.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/12/24/un.iran.ap/index.html

Guys, I think it's time to... DUCK AND COVER.

Damn posturing buffoons.

But other than that...

Who gives a shit?

:confused: WTF :confused:
What are we gonna do?

We can't invade them, they're too strong and we'd just have Iraq * 50.

We can't quickly eradicate their nuclear program, because their installations are much better protected, often far underground and include lots of secret places hidden away somewhere. It would take weeks and weeks of bombing runs.

During that time they can attack Iraq, supported by the Shia militias there. The US Military is great and all, but they're going to have a massive problem on their hands in such a case.

Plus, did I mention that Iran can shut the Hormuz Straight and drive the oil prices on the far side of $150+?

And even if they don't attack back, they're just gonna start afresh with the nukes, and that time you can be sure they won't give much of a thought to the consequences of having nukes.

And all this is dependent on India, Russia and China just accepting their resource interests being compromised. Which they won't.

[QUOTE=Serragonia;12128754] I mean really have we all been overcome by the stereotype that every Islamic nation is filled with warlords and psychopaths, [QUOTE]

they're not? Name one that isn't, or isn't basically a dictatorship supported by teh US...

I mean really have we all been overcome by the stereotype that every Islamic nation is filled with warlords and psychopaths,

they're not? Name one that isn't, or isn't basically a dictatorship supported by teh US...

Malaysia?

They said this about Hitler, too.
True, but Hitler also had one of the world's most powerful and advanced militaries at his command.

Malaysia?


Malaysia is a multi-religious society, and Islam is the country's official religion. The four main religions are Islam (58% of the population), Buddhism (22.9%), Christianity (11.1%, mostly in Sabah and Sarawak), and Hinduism (6.3%), according to government census figures in 2004. Until the 20th century, most practiced traditional beliefs, which arguably still linger on to a greater degree than Malaysian officialdom is prepared to acknowledge. The aforementioned figures may be skewed as they do not take into account the fact that all Malay persons are officially regarded and treated as Muslim, regardless of private belief.[35]

Although the Malaysian constitution theoretically guarantees religious freedom, in practice the situation is not so simple (See Status of religious freedom in Malaysia). Non-Muslims often experience restrictions in activities such as construction of religious buildings and the celebration of certain religious events in some Islamic states [36] [37]. Meanwhile Muslims are obliged to follow the decisions of sharia courts. As a legal matter, it is not yet clear whether Muslims may freely leave Islam. In some situations, the Malaysian courts have denied one's right to freedom of religion even when one has renounced Islam (such as the Joshua Jamaluddin versus the Minister of Home Affairs case in the 1980s).[38] Generally one who wishes to leave Islam makes a legal declaration, but this is still not recognised by the Malaysian civil courts. One is said to have to obtain a declaration of apostasy with a Sharia Court, but the court will not grant one.

Malaysians tend to personally respect one another's religious beliefs, with inter-religious problems arising mainly from the political sphere.
Malaysia is not as muslim as you seem to think. also, they aren't exactly stable yet. democracy has come and gone a lot in the last few years, tending towards an autocratic disctatorship.

Under Mahathir’s long Prime Ministership (1981-2003), Malaysia’s political culture became increasingly authoritarian, culminating in the dismissal and imprisonment on unsubstantiated charges of the Deputy Prime Minister, Anwar Ibrahim, in 1997 after an internal dispute within the government. The complicity of the judiciary in this piece of persecution was seen as a particularly clear sign of the decline of Malaysian democracy. The Anwar affair led to the formation of a new party, the People's Justice Party , or Keadilan, led by Anwar’s wife, Dr Wan Azizah Wan Ismail. At the 1999 elections Keadilan formed a coalition with the DAP and the PAS known as the Alternative Front (Barisan Alternatif). The result of this was that the PAS won a number of Malay seats from UMNO, but many Chinese voters disapproved of this unnatural alliance with the Islamist PAS, causing the DAP to lose many of its seats to the MCA, including that of its veteran leader, Lim Kit Siang. Wan Azizah won her husband’s former constituency in Penang but otherwise Keadilan made little impact.

Mahathir retired in 2003, and his successor, Dato Seri Abdullah Ahmad Badawi, freed Anwar and allowed him to go abroad, which was seen as a portent of a mild liberalisation. At the 2004 election, the National Front led by Abdullah had a massive victory, virtually wiping out the PAS and Keadilan, although the DAP recovered the seats it had lost in 1999. This victory was seen as the result mainly of Abdullah’s personal popularity, and the strong recovery of Malaysia’s economy, which has lifted the living standards of most Malaysians to almost “first world” standards and an ineffective opposition. The government's objective is for Malaysia to become a fully developed country by 2020, and this seems quite achievable. It leaves unanswered, however, the question of when and how Malaysia will acquire a first world political system (a multi-party democracy, a free press, an independent judiciary and the restoration of civil and political liberties) to go with its new economic maturity
It's not exactly awful, but i wouldn't live there.

No, it isn't he's just doing a little sabre rattlin'.

When I saw that post I thought you were saying that Ahmadinejad was in color guard or something. :p

I've been in marching band way too long....

:D do yo go to BAND CAMP? *leers*

all right, I admit it. That was awful. but at least I laughed.

:D do yo go to BAND CAMP? *leers*

all right, I admit it. That was awful. but at least I laughed.

Yes, I do.... :rolleyes: :headbang:

But only once, I'm only a freshman.

Malaysia is not as muslim as you seem to think...
Are you just looking for a Muslim country that isn't radical nutcase territory, with a half-decent government?

Turkey?
Algeria?
Morocco?
Jordan?
Yemen?
Kyrgyzstan?
Lebanon?
Indonesia?

I'd say religion's got little to do with it.

warlords, psychopaths or a dictatorship supported by the US. I'll be back with better descriptions of your replies. Although a couple seem safe :)

Although a couple seem safe :)
With the exception perhaps of Jordan, which is something of a monarchy (but the king seems quite popular, and people do get to vote in a parliament - it's just that the king has the last say in all matters) and Kyrgyzstan (because Islam is more part of the culture than devout practice there), they're all democratic countries with Muslim majorities.

Are you just looking for a Muslim country that isn't radical nutcase territory, with a half-decent government?

Turkey? (BAD and getting worse) REmember the Armenians? about whom Turkey recently passed a law that allowed prosection for talking badly about Turkey?



Algeria? (bad and getting better) In December 1991, the Islamic Salvation Front won the first round of the country's first multiparty elections. The military then canceled the second round, forced then-president Bendjedid to resign, and banned the Islamic Salvation Front. The ensuing conflict engulfed Algeria in the violent Algerian Civil War.
More than 160,000 people were killed (17 Jan 1992 to June 2002), often in unprovoked massacres of civilians. The question of who was responsible for these massacres remains controversial among academic observers; many were claimed by the Armed Islamic Group. After 1998, the war waned, and by 2002 the main guerrilla groups had either been destroyed or surrendered, taking advantage of an amnesty program, though sporadic fighting continued in some areas.
Elections resumed in 1995, and on 27 April 1999, after a series of short-term leaders representing the military, Abdelaziz Bouteflika, the current president, was elected.
Morocco? (still got problems but I think getting better) Despite improvements under Mohammed VI, international organisations continue raising criticism against the human rights situation in Morocco in general (i.e. arrests of suspected Islamist extremists during 2004 and 2005 related to 2003 Casablanca bombings), and in Western Sahara in particular. [1]
Jordan? (american fiefdom)
Yemen? (american feifdom)
Kyrgyzstan? (isn't this where BOrat is from?) Bad and not getting much better) In March 2002, in the southern district of Aksy, five people protesting the arbitrary arrest of an opposition politician were shot dead by police, sparking nationwide protests. President Akayev initiated a constitutional reform process which initially included the participation of a broad range of government, civil, and social representatives in an open dialogue, leading to a February 2003 referendum marred by voting irregularities. The amendments to the constitution approved by the referendum resulted in stronger control by the president and weakened the parliament and the Constitutional Court. Parliamentary elections for a new, 75-seat unicameral legislature were held on February 27 and March 13, 2005, but were widely viewed as corrupt. The subsequent protests led to a bloodless coup on March 24, after which Akayev fled the country and was replaced by acting president Kurmanbek Bakiyev.

Lebanon? (you mean where Israel got blasted by a militia that is stronger than the national Lebanese army?) Lebanon's current situation is highly fragile, as opposition to the standing government recently spiked in an uprising reminiscent of the Cedar Revolution and the events that precipitated the 1975-1990 civil war. Hezbollah, a guerrilla group that gained increasing political clout after its summer war with Israel [104] and that is currently the most powerful militia in Lebanon, the Christian Free Patriotic Movement (FPM), and the Amal Movement joined forces, demanding more seats in the government. They claimed that this was necessary in order to establish a "national unity government"[105][106], while others viewed it was an attempt to gain veto power over all government actions

Indonesia? (the best of the lot but not great)Significant separatist movements in the provinces of Aceh and Papua have led to armed conflict and allegations of human rights abuses. Following a long standing guerrilla war between the Free Aceh Movement (GAM) and the Indonesian military, a ceasefire agreement was reached in 2005. In Papua there has been a significant, albeit imperfect, implementation of regional autonomy laws, and a reported decline in the levels of violence and human rights abuses.[36][37]


National flags at the site of the 2002 terrorist bombing in Kuta, Bali.Terrorist bombings linked to extreme Islamism and Al-Qaeda[38] have occurred in Bali and Jakarta; the most deadly attack came in 2002, killing 202 people (including 164 international tourists) in the resort town of Kuta.[39] The attacks and travel warnings issued by other countries have severely damaged the country’s important tourist industry and the economy's foreign investment prospects.[40] In cooperation with other countries, the Government has achieved substantial but so far incomplete success in apprehending and prosecuting the perpetrators and fracturing their organizations.[41][42]


I'd say religion's got little to do with it.

I'd say religion has a LOT to do with it. Mind, I don't think Christianity is any better, but in general CHristian nations tend to have settled down into nice smug self satisfied, fat places.

Problem #1: Israel has nuclear weapons.
Problem #2: The Israeli/Palestinian situation has not been resolved.
Problem #3: The US invaded Iraq.
Problem #4: The Israelis bombed and invaded Lebanon.
Problem #5: The US has been mucking about in the Middle East for the past 50+ years.

Problem #6: Russia was mucking about in the Middle East for the past 50+ years.
Problem #7: China has been mucking about in the Middle East for the past 30+? years.
Problem #8: Europe has been mucking about in the Middle East for the past 90+? years.
Problem #9: The three largest religions in the world have roots in the area, and there is a lot of bad blood there.
Problem #10: The Region itself is very harsh.

Problem #1: Israel has nuclear weapons.
Problem #2: The Israeli/Palestinian situation has not been resolved.
Problem #3: The US invaded Iraq.
Problem #4: The Israelis bombed and invaded Lebanon.
Problem #5: The US has been mucking about in the Middle East for the past 50+ years.

Problem #6: Russia was mucking about in the Middle East for the past 50+ years.
Problem #7: China has been mucking about in the Middle East for the past 30+? years.
Problem #8: Europe has been mucking about in the Middle East for the past 90+? years.
Problem #9: The three largest religions in the world have roots in the area, and there is a lot of bad blood there.
Problem #10: The Region itself is very harsh.
Problem #11: When Iraq (backed by the US) started to win the war against Iran back in the 80's, the US supplied weapons to Iran.
Problem #12: The Middle East is cursed with the highest reserve oil deposits.

Problem #13: Poor sense of humor.

Everything wrong with the middle east can be traced back to this. Like many societies, they went into decline shortly after they got rid of the jesters. Coincidence? I think not. :p

I'd say religion has a LOT to do with it. Mind, I don't think Christianity is any better, but in general CHristian nations tend to have settled down into nice smug self satisfied, fat places.
So you pick up on little things that aren't exactly representative of what's happening.

I dare you to find me a non-Muslim developing country that doesn't have issues like the one you highlighted.

as far as I know, the united states hasn't had a rebellion in 150 years.
We haven't offcilally condoned genocide within our own borders EVER.-the indians were before the civil war, when I consider the US as becoming a full federal nation. Before we were a bunch of states taht couldn't tie our own shoelaces.
We have only illegally helped genocide outside our borders and generally stopped it when we found out about it publicly.
We haven't ever been a dictatorship.
We haven't been a theocracy.
no intended support of terrorism
sure, we have had blips. But none of the things you regularly see in Islamic theocracies regularly happen in the western world.

I aten't saying that the US is great. We have the death penalty which stinks. We imprison far more blacks proprtionally than whites, which suggests bigotry if only by income.

I am only saying that IN GENERAL islamic nations have gained a reputation for being depndably evil in one way or another. Western nations seem to hide their "official evil" well enough to not get that stigma.

Please don't think I am claiming the west is better than the east. Certainly isn't true. They're just better at obfuscating it. Which is why I think the east has gotten so angry at us. The same way I want to punch out republicans when I speak to them> I know they are dirty bastards and are hding bnehind legalities. and political correctness, and at the same time you know they are thinking nasty things. THe east is just sick of that being considered justice.

Problem #13: Poor sense of humor.

Everything wrong with the middle east can be traced back to this. Like many societies, they went into decline shortly after they got rid of the jesters. Coincidence? I think not. :p

You may have a point there.... :)

But none of the things you regularly see in Islamic theocracies regularly happen in the western world.
So, are the Hutu and the Tutsi Muslims?

The thing is that you can't compare the Western world to the Islamic World because the two are in different stages of economic and technological development.

Go back 60 years and some decidedly Christian nations did some decidedly nasty things. Go back further, and everyone did nasty stuff all the time.

Hutus and Tutsies are class distinctions really (did I mention I am an anth major (my masters) now at UCLA? bleh he he) so I don't know how that drops into this conversation...explain for me please.


And our religions are at different stages of development as well. Look at what happened to christianity during the industrial revolution, especially the very begininng. The islamic world is facing a very simliar issue, where their whole world is changing and they are thrust into facing it. So they trun to taht "old tyme religion" and it becomes literally harder to adjust to the new world, so they then become angry and resentful of thsoe with the money and power and decide to fight them.

as I said ealier: 60 years was just the end of our reallycrazy stage.
I'd say religion has a LOT to do with it. Mind, I don't think Christianity is any better, but in general CHristian nations tend to have settled down into nice smug self satisfied, fat places.
It's all about treligion. And timing. And change :) all those things that make us nuts as a species. bear in mind I am not debating so much as I am commenting on what I see.

I mean really have we all been overcome by the stereotype that every Islamic nation is filled with warlords and psychopaths,

they're not? Name one that isn't, or isn't basically a dictatorship supported by teh US...
Malaysia?Malaysia is not as muslim as you seem to think. also, they aren't exactly stable yet. democracy has come and gone a lot in the last few years, tending towards an autocratic disctatorship.

Sooo... It is an islamic country, where Islam is the country's official religion and the majority are muslim, and Sharia law is practised in some states in the country. Yet it is not "as muslim" as I seem to think? What? How so?

Is it or is it not an islamic country? I believe it is.
Is it or is it not filled with warlords and psychopats? I don't believe it is.
Is it a dictatorship supported by the US? I don't believe it is.

Objective completed, you have been shown a country as per your request.

so I don't know how that drops into this conversation...explain for me please.
I'm saying that problems like the ones you found to somehow disprove that there are stable, democratic Muslim countries out there (and again, the issues you pointed out are minor and don't show that the governments are dictatorships or psychopathic) are to be found everywhere in the developing world, and sometimes in the developed world too.

It's got nothing to do with Islam or Christianity. The Lord's Resistance Army could be mentioned, for example.

Problem #13: Poor sense of humor.

Everything wrong with the middle east can be traced back to this. Like many societies, they went into decline shortly after they got rid of the jesters. Coincidence? I think not. :p
Shirley you jest? :p

We have only illegally helped genocide outside our borders and generally stopped it when we found out about it publicly.
..

Not all the time as you like to believe. Your president wrote "To all hands: Don't squeeze Yahya" when his men were killing the Bangledeshis by the hundreds of thousands (some accounts put the eventual figure at 3 million) with arms supplied by your government.

http://img175.imageshack.us/img175/867/untitledow7.png


no intended support of terrorism

Not when the terror is directed against others. Your continued support of the Pakistani regime knowing fully well that the arms and money you give them are used against India and lately Afghanistan as well, contradicts your claim above.

You are just as "politically expedient" as any other state. Having the means to do better and not doing it but instead resorting to taking undeserved moral high ground tends to become irritating after a while.