• Welcome to the Off-Topic/Schweb's Lounge

    In addition to the Mac-Forums Community Guidelines, there are a few things you should pay attention to while in The Lounge.

    Lounge Rules
    • If your post belongs in a different forum, please post it there.
    • While this area is for off-topic conversations, that doesn't mean that every conversation will be permitted. The moderators will, at their sole discretion, close or delete any threads which do not serve a beneficial purpose to the community.

    Understand that while The Lounge is here as a place to relax and discuss random topics, that doesn't mean we will allow any topic. Topics which are inflammatory, hurtful, or otherwise clash with our Mac-Forums Community Guidelines will be removed.

In a normal country, this would be good news.

Joined
Aug 28, 2007
Messages
255
Reaction score
12
Points
18
Your Mac's Specs
Black Macbook C2D, 2Ghz, 2 GB RAM, 120 GB HD, ipod nano 8GB, 500GB MyBook
The administration is grasping at straws trying to continue laying the groundwork for their next invasion...
 
Joined
Sep 13, 2006
Messages
3,570
Reaction score
470
Points
83
Location
Colorado
Your Mac's Specs
Mac's
I agree that we should be happy to hear reports that Iran is not as close to obtaining Nuclear Weapons as was previously believed.. But I would disagree that because of this new information, Iran is no longer a dangerous nation... This is a leader that is extremely outspoken about his desire to wipe another country, and even a race "off the map".

With that being said.. I certainly hope that Bush is not planning to invade Iran.
 
Joined
Nov 18, 2006
Messages
4,934
Reaction score
207
Points
63
Location
Anytown, USA
Your Mac's Specs
27" iMac 2.7GHz Core i5, iPhone 6, iPad Air 2, 4th gen Apple TV
They misquoted Bush, It should be spelled nucular when it's a quote from him. Somehow, I just can't trust the words of a man who can't even pronounce correctly what he's talking about.

I think we should kill off all of their scientists as well, because they can use them to create a nuclear weapon.

Then bomb their schools so they can't learn to build them. "No child gets ahead".

The administration is grasping at straws trying to continue laying the groundwork for their next invasion...

True. I mean, whatever happened to that other "axis of evil", North Korea. Weren't they testing nuclear weapons they already built? Why are we not worried about them?

If we really want to stop Iran from building nukes, we don't need to fight them. We just need to create a cheap, renewable energy method and give it to them so they don't have any excuses to work on nuclear technology. But I guess that solves too many problems.

How about this, if Iran wants nuclear power plants for energy, we make ourselves the supplier and subsidize the cost so it's really cheap for them. That way they don't have to have anything to do with production of nuclear material. If my tax dollars have to go towards something that doesn't actually help me in any way, I'd rather it go to that then used to build weapons and kill people. I don't like being a financier of death.
 
Joined
Oct 10, 2004
Messages
10,345
Reaction score
597
Points
113
Location
Margaritaville
Your Mac's Specs
3.4 Ghz i7 MacBook Pro (2015), iPad Pro (2014), iPhone Xs Max. Apple TV 4K
True. I mean, whatever happened to that other "axis of evil", North Korea. Weren't they testing nuclear weapons they already built? Why are we not worried about them?

Are you kidding me? Do you not realize how much money the US spent on that "worry" over the last 10 years? As it is, the North Koreans renounced their programs, allowed the IAEA back in the country for open inspections and has stopped building Nukes all together. The supposed sale of their technology to Syria is what the Isralies bombed to oblivion a few months back.

How about this, if Iran wants nuclear power plants for energy, we make ourselves the supplier and subsidize the cost so it's really cheap for them. That way they don't have to have anything to do with production of nuclear material. If my tax dollars have to go towards something that doesn't actually help me in any way, I'd rather it go to that then used to build weapons and kill people. I don't like being a financier of death.

Sorry, I don't want my tax dollars going anywhere near that country unless it's from 50,000 feet or at Mach 1+. I might reconsider if they were to allow the IAEA back in for open inspections, but not until then. As it is, even with this new claim, I'm still not buying it.

I consider the announcement to be good news and I really don't think the US is going to take any military action against Iran. That being said, it doesn't mean they are not dangerous. They still sponsor international terrorism and still have a stated goal of wiping Israel "off the map" by force.
 
Joined
Apr 4, 2007
Messages
2,641
Reaction score
134
Points
63
Location
Durtburg, WV
Your Mac's Specs
Sooper Fast!
Heh....I remember when the Irianian president came to the US. I think it was Brown University he visited and spoke at. He definitely hates us, there's no denying that while he's in power we're probably never going to find a peace with him and his people.

Just like a bunch of Islamic extremist were touting the English teacher in Sudan, who got arrested for naming a bear mohammed (because her kids voted on it), as a ploy from the Western nations and religions to destroy Islam from the inside out.

What tools extremist be. I wish some one would knock some sense into them. Practice what ever religion you feel like, just don't use it as an excuse for terrorism and for murdering innocent people. I wonder how they would feel if some 7th Day Adventist extremist sent some homocide bombers into the midst of their groups of women and children.
 
Joined
Dec 3, 2006
Messages
9,383
Reaction score
417
Points
83
Location
Irvine, CA
Your Mac's Specs
Black Macbook C2D 2GHz 3GB RAM 250GB HD iPhone 4 iPad 3G
Seriously? You guys think Ahmadinejad is an actual threat to this country? The man has no serious power, he's a ceremonial figurehead. The real man with the power in the country is the Ayatollah, and last I checked, he hasn't called for the destruction of anything.

Also, the whole "wipe Israel off the map" thing was actually a mistranslation. If you look at the actual Farsi, what he really said was:

The Imam said this regime occupying Jerusalem must vanish from the page of time.

He's simply quoting the Ayatollah Khomeini, who was the Supreme Leader back in 1979. He used it in reference to the various American-backed regimes that have collapsed without direct Iranian interference, such as the Shah of Iran and Saddam Hussein. The "page of time" is a reference to history books, which clearly is the place where you'll find the remaining vestiges of those two regimes.

Sure, Iran backs terrorist cells in the Middle East, but it's not a threat to this country. The only reason we think it's a threat is because our government tells us it is, just like they told us Saddam Hussein was a threat. Hussein was a petty dictator who we had been bombing for the past decade and didn't care much for Islamic fundamentalist terrorist groups.

And VI, Ahmadinejad spoke at Columbia and it's not Iran's "leader" that is preventing peace, it's OUR leader.
 
Joined
Oct 10, 2004
Messages
10,345
Reaction score
597
Points
113
Location
Margaritaville
Your Mac's Specs
3.4 Ghz i7 MacBook Pro (2015), iPad Pro (2014), iPhone Xs Max. Apple TV 4K
I never said he was a direct threat to the US, although Irans sponsorship of terrorism does make potentially make them so, but he is a threat to US interests around the world and thus still a threat to the US.

Heck, Columbia's president even said they would have let Hitler speak if they had the chance. Amazingly, even the many European countries who did not support Bush's stance on Iraq do support the stance on Iran. I can't see how any rational person can believe that Ahmadinejad is "for" peace.

I can see this thread going downhill fast if this keeps up....
 
Joined
Dec 3, 2006
Messages
9,383
Reaction score
417
Points
83
Location
Irvine, CA
Your Mac's Specs
Black Macbook C2D 2GHz 3GB RAM 250GB HD iPhone 4 iPad 3G
Like I said, I'm not saying Iran isn't a threat, it's just that the threat has been hyped up. Granted, Europe has a legitimate concern because Iranian missiles would easily be able to reach Europe, which is made worse by the fact that many European countries don't have much in the way of countermeasures for such an attack.

I believe the main Iranian sponsored terrorist group is Hezbollah, which has been more of a thorn in Israel's side than our own. Saudi Arabia isn't much of a fan of Iran, but that's because of religious differences. But at least Iran isn't a threat to Saudi Arabia, which obviously means we don't have to worry about our oil interests being tampered with.

The Iran issue has only been getting worse because we have been provoking them. If you poke an animal enough times, you shouldn't be surprised when it attacks you.
 
Joined
Sep 26, 2007
Messages
300
Reaction score
20
Points
18
Location
Santa Monica
Your Mac's Specs
MacBook Pro 15". 2.4GHz. - 2GB RAM. - 60GB HD@7200 rpm.
Kash I agree with you with one exception. Iran isn't capable of attacking anyone, especially the U.S. At best, what they're able to do is finance terrorism.

The way I see it (regarding this issue), the U.S has two major problems right now, one will be gone in a year, and when that problem is gone, the successor will have to clean house in the department known as the CIA.
 
Joined
Nov 18, 2006
Messages
4,934
Reaction score
207
Points
63
Location
Anytown, USA
Your Mac's Specs
27" iMac 2.7GHz Core i5, iPhone 6, iPad Air 2, 4th gen Apple TV
Sorry, I don't want my tax dollars going anywhere near that country unless it's from 50,000 feet or at Mach 1+. I might reconsider if they were to allow the IAEA back in for open inspections, but not until then. As it is, even with this new claim, I'm still not buying it.

I was pretty much kidding with my comment anyway. Iran has more oil than they know what to do with, so why are they so interested in nuclear power? I doubt they are doing it to prevent global warming from burning fossil fuels.

The Iran issue has only been getting worse because we have been provoking them. If you poke an animal enough times, you shouldn't be surprised when it attacks you.

I think that's pretty much what's going on here and the agenda of this administration. I would even say that if there was a majority of support for the war in Iraq, we would probably be in Iran already.

I don't know a whole lot about foreign policy, but it doesn't seem like our past an present leaders do either. There was a time when we supported the Taliban in their fight against the Russians. And then there was that time we gave Saddam Hussein loads of weapons and support so he could fight Iran. I'm not saying these were really bad moves, but they always seem to come back and bite us.

In his farewell address, George Washington made 3 recommendations for the future US Government. I can't remember one, but the other two were avoid a partisan government and keep involvement in foreign countries to a minimum. I think we're suffering the negative affects of both of those issues. I'm not advocating isolationism, which is pretty much impossible today. But I think we are clearly overstepping the bounds of necessity, which is how much of world views are actions, and as a result, have a very negative opinion and hatred of us.
 
Joined
Dec 3, 2006
Messages
9,383
Reaction score
417
Points
83
Location
Irvine, CA
Your Mac's Specs
Black Macbook C2D 2GHz 3GB RAM 250GB HD iPhone 4 iPad 3G
Peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations, entangling alliances with none.

-Jefferson


I agree, isolationism isn't going to work in a time of global commerce. It would actually be quite detrimental to not only us, but the entire world as the loss of their number one consumer would devastate their export economies. However, non-interventionism is the foreign policy we should pursue. If we stop messing around in other countries' internal affairs, they'll stop hating us. It doesn't matter if it's Latin America or the Middle East, we just need to stop messing around with them.
 
Joined
Oct 10, 2004
Messages
10,345
Reaction score
597
Points
113
Location
Margaritaville
Your Mac's Specs
3.4 Ghz i7 MacBook Pro (2015), iPad Pro (2014), iPhone Xs Max. Apple TV 4K
If we stop messing around in other countries' internal affairs, they'll stop hating us. It doesn't matter if it's Latin America or the Middle East, we just need to stop messing around with them.

Sort of like we didn't mess around with Nazi Germany, Fascist Italy, Fascist Spain, Imperial Japan or Communist Russia (at least initially)? That hands off approach (espoused by the likes of Joe Kennedy Sr, JFKs dad) certainly worked out well for us and the rest of the world.

If we want to stop messing around lets just stop spending billions (if not trillions) of tax dollars on aid money around the world for people who don't seem to much like us anyhow. Lets cut off Africa and Central America from our tax dollars for starters. Lets see where that goes. I'm sure Chavez, Ortega and Castro (to name a few) would love to lose the greenbacks and it if we turned a blind eye to whatever they want to do, it's their countries, let them deal with it, right? We don't need to keep armed troops Korea, bring them home and save some money. The North won't harm them, it's not our business anyhow China? They're our friends, no worries. Heck they even built my Mac! How could a country that mass produces wonderful Apple computers (while brutally beating Tibetan Monks) be bad? Russia? They'd never try to unduly influence the fates of Eastern European countries who desperately want to be free. I'm not talking isolationism here, I'm simply talking pairing back Americas responsibilities around the world, getting out of other affairs and saving us some tax dollars. Heck, the Iranians would never try to cut off our oil supply from the Persian Gulf and lord knows the Saudis, Kuwaiti's, Omanies and others in the area are not at all nervous about them, so we should get out of there too. Pakistan and India want to duke it out with Nukes? Hey, it's none of OUR business, they can't hit us from there (yet). The Taliban and their form of government are just misunderstood by the west. We should get out of Afghanistan and let them sort it out for themselves. If they want to kill homosexuals, repress women and generally live in the 9th century because they think the Koran says so, what business is it of ours?

This is a "****ed if you do and ****ed if you don't" sort of deal. We meddle, they hate us, we don't meddle, they hate us. That's just how it is and has been for the past 60 or 70 years of US foreign policy.
 
Joined
Dec 3, 2006
Messages
9,383
Reaction score
417
Points
83
Location
Irvine, CA
Your Mac's Specs
Black Macbook C2D 2GHz 3GB RAM 250GB HD iPhone 4 iPad 3G
A bit extreme, but a good point nonetheless.

However, I'll disagree on the aid money part. We stop sending money and free stuff to Africa, they'll fix themselves in no time. When a farmer and tailor can't compete with free, when their corrupt governments are receiving billions in foreign aid, and crippling debt, it's a bit difficult to institute change. Stop support the regimes and stop stifling their economies and Africa will finally be able to pull itself up by its bootstraps, not to mention facilitate foreign investment. It's an entire continent full of consumers and workers that is waiting to be tapped.
 
Joined
Oct 10, 2004
Messages
10,345
Reaction score
597
Points
113
Location
Margaritaville
Your Mac's Specs
3.4 Ghz i7 MacBook Pro (2015), iPad Pro (2014), iPhone Xs Max. Apple TV 4K
A bit extreme, but a good point nonetheless.

However, I'll disagree on the aid money part. We stop sending money and free stuff to Africa, they'll fix themselves in no time. When a farmer and tailor can't compete with free, when their corrupt governments are receiving billions in foreign aid, and crippling debt, it's a bit difficult to institute change. Stop support the regimes and stop stifling their economies and Africa will finally be able to pull itself up by its bootstraps, not to mention facilitate foreign investment. It's an entire continent full of consumers and workers that is waiting to be tapped.


Perhaps. Or perhaps it's the greatest human disaster ever waiting to happen. Something like a mix of the holocaust and the plague all rolled together. Personally, I have no problem with it one way or the other. Either they get their act together or they kill themselves off. I'd like to save the tax dollars. Then again, isn't it better to maybe have some impact on the eventual outcome than to leave it up to whoever else will fill the void we would leave? Do you think those that survive would particularly appreciate or look kindly on us for just leaving them on their own when it's all finished?

My above example was a bit extreme, but realistic. We may not like it, but we are filling a vacuum right now. Perhaps we could be a bit more careful how we fill it, but even when there was an significantly less desirable alternative (that was much more active), lots of folks still hated us.
 
Joined
Dec 3, 2006
Messages
9,383
Reaction score
417
Points
83
Location
Irvine, CA
Your Mac's Specs
Black Macbook C2D 2GHz 3GB RAM 250GB HD iPhone 4 iPad 3G
African officials who are intent on growth have been pleading with the West to stop sending aid money and free clothes/food. The West has poured trillions of dollars into the continent with little to no effect. The African reformers know what kind of effect such aid has had in their countries and would like for it to stop. I for one am all for following such advice. Granted, foreign aid comprises of only 1% of the federal budget, but that's money that could be better spent either domestically or paying off our debt.

I'll agree that the US is acting as a buffer in many volatile regions, Korea especially. But we have to stop doing stupid things like invading Iraq. We did great in the 90s with a passive approach. Our main goal should be to provide regional stability and promote economic expansion. Remember, we've never been to war with a country that has a McDonald's ;P
 
Joined
Oct 10, 2004
Messages
10,345
Reaction score
597
Points
113
Location
Margaritaville
Your Mac's Specs
3.4 Ghz i7 MacBook Pro (2015), iPad Pro (2014), iPhone Xs Max. Apple TV 4K
Heck, it's money that could be better spent improving the Interstate Highway system!

Sorry, but I do no consider invading Iraq to have been stupid. Poorly planned? Yes. Stupid? No. We did so good in the 90s with the "passive" approach that Somalia is still a mess and thousands (or perhaps hundreds of thousands) died in the Balkans while we "negotiated" with mass murderess hoping they would come to their senses. Good approach.
 
Joined
Dec 3, 2006
Messages
9,383
Reaction score
417
Points
83
Location
Irvine, CA
Your Mac's Specs
Black Macbook C2D 2GHz 3GB RAM 250GB HD iPhone 4 iPad 3G
Care to explain why you think the Iraq War was a good idea? As far as I can tell, there really was no national interest in ousting Saddam and bogging ourselves down in the region.
 
Joined
Oct 10, 2004
Messages
10,345
Reaction score
597
Points
113
Location
Margaritaville
Your Mac's Specs
3.4 Ghz i7 MacBook Pro (2015), iPad Pro (2014), iPhone Xs Max. Apple TV 4K
Not really. This thread is off topic as it is and I don't really feel like getting into it with you or dragging it down that path.
 

Shop Amazon


Shop for your Apple, Mac, iPhone and other computer products on Amazon.
We are a participant in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program, an affiliate program designed to provide a means for us to earn fees by linking to Amazon and affiliated sites.
Top