Nuclear Iran?

[Deepwater6]

Moderation note: the first 2 post of this thread were moved from the Physics and Mathematics forum thread Nuclear Iran?, because they are about politics, not physics.

 

This topic has vexed me and many others for some time now Ludwik. Recently the White House has been making steady progress with the Cuban government on better relations and the opening of an embassy. I expected the military hawks and ultra conservative factions being displeased with this, What surprised me was so much pressure from Americans with Cuban roots not liking it. 

 

Deep seeded hatred born of years and centuries of government propaganda to dislike the other may be a wall we cannot get over. However painful it may be for both sides we cannot continue to point guns at each others heads forever. Now Cuba does not make me think of mutual assured destruction for us, but I can't speak for Israel. I happen to believe that the country has one of the best intelligence agencies in the world and they are watching this very closely. I also believe many Israelis  see the Iranians as fanatical. It is for that reason, I'm convinced, The day Iran enriches enough or tightens the last bolt on a bomb, that a line will be crossed and Israel will attack with or without American support.

 

Although some see this as a winnable scenario, attacking that close to a trade partner and neighbor of Russia war will more than likely draw them in. Although some on this site disagree with me, when you see that happen it's going to be ugly. Putin is ego-maniac with his own band of motorcycle gang members who are right now doing his bidding in the Ukraine. Look it up.

[Racoon]

Sorry Ludwik, but you're misinformed if you think the United States, Israel, and the world should support the Iran deal..

 

Please give examples of HOW it would be such a good deal..

 

 

I can tell you how its not.

 

#1 Obama is endorsing it. -- a la Bergadahl deserter prison swap deal for 5 Taliban generals

#2 We relieve them of sanctions and give them hundreds of billions of dollars to expand their known International terrorist operations.

#3 the Inspections are scant, and dictated by the Iranians themselves 

#4 Iranians still are shouting death to Israel, Death to America

#5 you create a pathway and circumstance to where other countries are going to want a bomb also : Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Jordan, others..

 

Explain Exactly HOW this deal is a good deal and we'll shut up and accept it..

You won't be able to, but it would be interesting to see you point out those great compromises.

 

Obama didn't even demand the release of US held prisoners...(at least 4 I think are still there)  How hard would that have been ?

 

Nothing Better?? No better deal to be had??

Who says there has to be something better?

How about we keep them sanctioned and just destroy their nuclear targets on demand...Tell those Mullahs and Ayatollahs to F*ck Off.

Edited August 22, 2015 by Racoon

[CraigD]

Thu, 20 July 2015, the UN Security Council, which consists of 5 permanent members, China, France, Russia, the UK, and the US, and 10 non-permanent members, currently Angola, Chad, Chile, Jordan, Lithuania, Malaysia, New Zealand, Nigeria, Spain and Venezuela, unanimously approved the JCPOA. (source: this UN News Centre story)

 

Sorry Ludwik, but you're misinformed if you think the United States, Israel, and the world should support the Iran deal..

In the language of the JPCOA – “the deal” – The US and 14 other nations already have approved it.

 

According to the agreement, the most impactful part of it, the lifting of sanctions against Iran, won’t occur until the IAEA issues a report verifying Iran has complied with its nuclear-related measures.

 

Israel is not a member of the UN Security Council, so has no approval role in the JPCOA.

 

Explain Exactly HOW this deal is a good deal and we'll shut up and accept it.

I believe the JCPOA is a good thing. Although both its supporters and opponents refer to it as “the Iran Deal”, I wouldn’t call it a deal, as it’s not a contract where parties give one another goods or services.

 

It’s also, I think, a much less important document than the 1970 Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, of which nearly all countries, including Iran, are signators. Non-compliance with the NPT is the reason that Iran is under UN sanction. Thus, the JCPOA can be viewed as a codicil to the NPT, intended to bring Iran back into compliance with this older, nearly globally accepted treaty.

 

How about we keep them sanctioned and just destroy their nuclear targets on demand...Tell those Mullahs and Ayatollahs to F*ck Off.

For the US to do that after implementation of the JCPOA would be a violation of international law, so I don’t think it’s a good idea.

 

I also think it’s important to understand that international sanctions don’t hurt powerful people like Mullahs and Ayatollahs, but ordinary citizens. I personally like most of the little-powerful Iranians I’ve met or read about, I don’t like hurting them.

 

Also, as has been said about the recently ended US embargo on Cuba, I think the most effective way to reduce and ultimately eliminate the power of dictators and theocrats is more open trade, travel, and immigration between countries. I hope that, with sanctions against Iran lifted, commerce of all kinds between ordinary Iranians and people of other nations will increase, and the governmental power of their religious leaders decrease, ultimately leading to a rewriting of the Iranian constitution to formally remove them from government.

[sanctus]

 

#1 Obama is endorsing it. -- a la Bergadahl deserter prison swap deal for 5 Taliban generals

#2 We relieve them of sanctions and give them hundreds of billions of dollars to expand their known International terrorist operations.

#3 the Inspections are scant, and dictated by the Iranians themselves 

#4 Iranians still are shouting death to Israel, Death to America

#5 you create a pathway and circumstance to where other countries are going to want a bomb also : Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Jordan, others..

 

 

#1: No point in replying: the idea is what counts not from which political camp it comes from. Eg. in passed I agreed with right wing politicians, when it was about not arming swiss peace-keeper soldiers (for other reasons than they though, they were for neutrality, I against violent pseudo-solutions).

#2: That's why they are supporting Iraqis in the fight against IS, because they are terrorists...I don't deny there are terrorists in Iran, but did you ever wonder what percentage of the population it is?

#3: On this one you will come back harsh at me: who decided that we (=the West) can decide who gets atomic weapons and who not? And why when Israel acquired them nothing happened? Just because they deny having them?

#4: see number #2, some are not the whole country.

#5: see number #3

 

That said, I am against all atomic bombs, but I can't see how there can be a body deciding that those who had them early on are allowed to keep them and those who come late not...

[Racoon]

Any way you look at it, the Iran deal only benefits Iran...

 

The US gets NO benefit from any of these deals... Inspections are performed with 24 days advanced notice with no American presence.

Can anyone name one deal that America gets in concession??

The promise that the worlds state sponsor of terrorism is going to play nice once they get full control of an atomic weapon and billions of dollars in freezed assets??

 

There are secret side deals we don't even know about,, and the whitehouse Spokes-liar Josh Earnest even admitted to without admitting it... Nobody's been allowed to see those things yet.

 

This is a Terrible deal, orchestrated by  piss-poor negotiators in Obama and Kerry.

I wouldn't trust Obama to negotiate a Free Lunch Program for an inner-city school...

 

Instead of using the strength to the U.S. advantage, Obama thinks it better to kowtow to people who wish us dead at any cost..

 

Obama is a ****ing idiot.

 

Anyone... and I mean anyone who thinks this is such a great deal, Please name one article that makes it such a good deal for the U.S., Israel, and any other country who is within threat range of a nuclear armd Iran..???

Edited August 26, 2015 by Racoon

[billvon]

>

 

 

>#1 Obama is endorsing it. -- a la Bergadahl deserter prison swap deal for 5 Taliban generals

 

"I don't like the guy who made the deal" is not really a valid reason for claiming a deal is a poor one.

 

>#2 We relieve them of sanctions and give them hundreds of billions of dollars to expand their known International terrorist operations.

 

We don't give them anything.  We allow them to resume making money themselves.

 

>#3 the Inspections are scant, and dictated by the Iranians themselves 

 

Then you do not understand how the inspections work.  They are run by the IAEA, not the Iranians.  The IAEA dictates what gets inspected and when, not the Iranians.

 

>#4 Iranians still are shouting death to Israel, Death to America

 

Yep.  At any given time in the world there are thousands of people shouting a variation of that theme.  Some of them are right here in the US.  Some are our allies.  A lot are our enemies.

 

>#5 you create a pathway and circumstance to where other countries are going to want a bomb also : Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Jordan, others..

 

That's been true for the past 50 years.

 

>Nothing Better?? No better deal to be had??

 

There could surely have been both better and worse deals.  This one was pretty good.  We go from zero inspections to relatively regular inspections, they get freer trade.

 

>How about we keep them sanctioned and just destroy their nuclear targets on demand...

 

Because then we would unite the Arab world against us, including our allies - and then we'd have no control over who had nuclear weapons at all.

[sanctus]

Well said billvon!

[Racoon]

Well said billvon!

 

Uh... No.

 

 Iran wants Israel and the United States Destroyed.

They will use the money for nefarious purposes.

Bergdahl is a stupid f*ing army corporal-level traitor who Obama used to negotiate the release of multiple known Taliban Generals...

Iran has 24 days to respond to a "Check" which gives them plenty of time to hide their deeds.

 

And please answer WHAT the U.S. and the International community gets from the deal?? That it didn't already have?

 

Name 1 significant thing.  Anything.

 

Nope..

 

Lets give the Radical Muslim Clerics a Bomb then...  You'll love your stupidity and political correctness as soon as a few of those go off...

[billvon]

>They will use the money for nefarious purposes.

 

Many people do.  It's their money.

 

>And please answer WHAT the U.S. and the International community gets from the deal?

 

Regular IAEA inspections.

 

>Lets give the Radical Muslim Clerics a Bomb then...  You'll love your stupidity and political correctness as soon as a few of those go off...

 

Only one country has ever used nuclear bombs against civilians.  Can you name which country those "radical muslim clerics" were from?  Come on, it's not hard . . .

[Racoon]

>They will use the money for nefarious purposes.

 

Many people do.  It's their money.

 

>And please answer WHAT the U.S. and the International community gets from the deal?

 

Regular IAEA inspections.

 

>Lets give the Radical Muslim Clerics a Bomb then...  You'll love your stupidity and political correctness as soon as a few of those go off...

 

Only one country has ever used nuclear bombs against civilians.  Can you name which country those "radical muslim clerics" were from?  Come on, it's not hard . . .

Do you have even a shred of a clue as to why the the US dropped a bomb on Nagasaki and Hiroshima??

 

I'm guessing you don't because you see it *** some sort of affront.

 

When in Reality it actually saved millions of lives from further gruesome warfare, and to stave off a Stalin who was power-mad hungry insane.

 

You don't even realize that Japan was ready to to fight to the end every last man, woman, and child because that was in their Bushido code.. Millions would have been killed.

The Atomic Bomb was an end to the war and a Warning to Stalin about his aspirations.

 

Now give that power to Iran, like a dumb-fool idiot you think its just a warm welcome gift to the international club of awesome Leaders. and now  you have a whole new dynamic of power shifting in the Middle East ....

Edited September 22, 2015 by Racoon

[sanctus]

 

 

>And please answer WHAT the U.S. and the International community gets from the deal?

 

In addition to what billvon said, the good conscience of having increased the quality of life of the Iranians (remember the media only shows us the hardcore stuff about Iran, there is a majority of not radical people there, just talk with any acquaintance from Iran you have...) by easing the sanctions; you also get the positive thing of contributing to easing substantially the tensions with the Arab world (which is not something you can think is badly timed).

[NotBrad]

I cannot claim to be well versed in the political sciences or in this particular issue, but I can tell you one thing for certain. If you allow a repeat offender to bargain for their freedom by promising not to do it again, they cannot be expected to do as they promised. Now, of course this may sound politically incorrect, but all of them are a threat to both our national sovereignty and our very way of life. Yes, there are some pacifists that refrain from committing "crimes" as we see them but that does not mean they would not be capable if provoked. But as is explained in Steven Runciman's history of the crusades(I did a seven page research essay on the topic), the religion of Islam was created as a response to issues faced by the people of the Middle-East. The whole point was to create a universal religion to prevent further conflict between the people of the middle east for the sole purpose of easing assimilation following conquest, and to create a distinction between Muslim and European only. The whole religion was written by a conqueror as a means of creating for himself an image of divine authority. That power still exists to this day, and their culture cannot ever be anything more than simply a means of imposing control and authority over others. The reason most of the threats we face today all stem from the Muslim world is almost undeniably stemming from this history. Look at the crusades, they were a retaliation to the invasion of Jerusalem and Syria in an effort to reclaim lost territory and return to the holy land. So long as other cultures that clash with our own exist, we cannot hope for any real or lasting peace. Goodwill and faith can only be pushed so far before exploitation and corruption begin to taint the system, and with all of us trapped on the same little blue marble sharing the same diminishing resources, eventually they will win. I hate the idea that my children will live in a world where us Whites, Blacks, and Indians will become the minority, in Canada we are slowly substituting immigration for childbirth as a means of creating new citizens. But they are still having two, three, four children when they get here, its just a matter of time. Look up the incident in Calgary involving Palestinian demonstrators; the police refused to get involved and several people were hospitalised. 

 

Pardon my bias, but I am entitled to defend my own rights both vocally and with force if necessary. I know someday that either we will kill them all off, or they will kill us all off. It does not matter whether that is through attrition or literal war. Thanks for your time, and feel free to be in denial and/or proclaim your hopes for the eventual demise of my culture in the comments below.

Edited September 24, 2015 by NotBrad

[Racoon]

So can ANYONE name anything the United States and its Allies get in Concession for the Iran deal???

 

Name 1 thing??

 

 

Anything would be great...  Thats what we tried to tell the Traitor in Chief Obama

[Buffy]

I cannot claim to be well versed in the political sciences or in this particular issue, but I can tell you one thing for certain. If you allow a repeat offender to bargain for their freedom by promising not to do it again, they cannot be expected to do as they promised. 

 

By this logic, why should we be friends with Germany? Why indeed aren't we in a state of war with them?

 

Heck why should any country that overthrows elected governments and installs a dictator who tortures all political enemies be trusted? After we overthrew Mossadegh in 1953 and put the Shah in power, why should Iran ever trust us ever again?

 

Now, of course this may sound politically incorrect, but all of them are a threat to both our national sovereignty and our very way of life. Yes, there are some pacifists that refrain from committing "crimes" as we see them but that does not mean they would not be capable if provoked.

 

There's nothing politically incorrect about your analysis, it's just so highly selective in the facts it uses to be basically worthless as a hypothesis in political science.

 

You don't have to be a pacifist to desire a foreign policy that is predicated on something a bit more sophisticated than "They HATE us! The only thing to do is kill 'em all and let God sort 'em out!"

 

The notion that countries are exactly like saints or criminals is, shall we say, delusional. They're not. Most importantly, they do change over time: Germany is an excellent example, going from worst mass murdering nation to one of the fairest and best run societies in the world in a span of just half a century. Ditto Japan.

 

Conversely, to not see why Iran has been hostile to the US since 1979 is to be willfully ignorant of what a truly cruel and evil guy the Shah was, and to deny he was OUR GUY.

 

 

But as is explained in Steven Runciman's history of the crusades(I did a seven page research essay on the topic), the religion of Islam was created as a response to issues faced by the people of the Middle-East. The whole point was to create a universal religion to prevent further conflict between the people of the middle east for the sole purpose of easing assimilation following conquest, and to create a distinction between Muslim and European only. The whole religion was written by a conqueror as a means of creating for himself an image of divine authority. 

 

Runciman is still considered to be an essential work for it's scholarly thoroughness in combining many overlooked contemporary sources for it's information, but even he admitted it was an attempt to reframe the Crusades as an invasion from the East, casting the Muslims as an evil Other, and any Medieval historian will tell you have to ignore that part because it's basically a racist screed on that point. 

 

You've summed up that racism quite well here, blasting Islam as a "whole religion...written by a conqueror as a means of creating for himself divine authority."

 

Followers of Jesus kinda did that too if you squint in the same way you're doing for Islam.

 

That power still exists to this day, and their culture cannot ever be anything more than simply a means of imposing control and authority over others. The reason most of the threats we face today all stem from the Muslim world is almost undeniably stemming from this history. Look at the crusades, they were a retaliation to the invasion of Jerusalem and Syria in an effort to reclaim lost territory and return to the holy land. 

 

So here's the problem: If you look at Arab and Persian scholarship on the crusades, there's plenty of Runcimans on the other side, who claim the same things about the Crusaders invading the Middle East: you've included that in your analysis but you've kind of ignored that they ought to be, you know, mad with some justification that the Europeans overran Turkey, Syria and Palestine and enslaved their citizens to the thumb of the Knights Templar. Why SHOULDN'T they have rebelled, using this new-fangled Islam thing as a mechanism to rally folks around the flag?

 

Isn't that what you're trying to do here? Whip up hatred and righteousness to justify starting a war in the middle east because the Iranians are "bad people by definition?"

 

But it does not seem to occur to you that what we did in colonizing the Middle East for oil in the early 20th century and in 1953 to Mossadegh is proof to them that we're doing the same thing the Crusaders did in the Middle Ages?

 

Seriously, why should they trust US?

 

So long as other cultures that clash with our own exist, we cannot hope for any real or lasting peace. Goodwill and faith can only be pushed so far before exploitation and corruption begin to taint the system, and with all of us trapped on the same little blue marble sharing the same diminishing resources, eventually they will win. 

 

So, yah, why even bother? It's *inevitable* that they're going to just continue to hate us because they're all just human trash anyway right?

 

So why don't we just bomb the hell out of 'em and put an end to it. I mean if we don't attack soon "with all of us trapped on the same little blue marble sharing the same diminishing resources, eventually they will win," right?

 

Well, if you were an Iranian right now listening to the John McCain singing "Bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb Iran" what do you think might be a reasonable conclusion? "Those crazies in America want to kill us all! We'd better defend ourselves! And since they have nukes, we need nukes too!"

 

I'm not sure you can see the basis for choosing not to go to war but rather try to find some means of STARTING to build trust, putting some basic agreements in place and trying to build on them to create a relationship that looks a whole lot more like the one we have with Germany.

 

If you think that they can't change though, obviously what I'm saying is silly and the only solution is to "Bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb Iran"

 

I hate the idea that my children will live in a world where us Whites, Blacks, and Indians will become the minority, in Canada we are slowly substituting immigration for childbirth as a means of creating new citizens. But they are still having two, three, four children when they get here, its just a matter of time. Look up the incident in Calgary involving Palestinian demonstrators; the police refused to get involved and several people were hospitalised.

 

Hey, it's your country and you can control how many "undesirable" people you let in. I'd be worried about all those Chinese invading Vancouver if I were you.

 

But of course if you're going to say that those Palestinians had no justification for protesting and it's all because the Koran forces all Muslims to be haters who will never stop their "crusade" against the west, then you're conveniently forgetting an awful lot of history.

 

Honestly, we're no saints.

 

Pardon my bias, but I am entitled to defend my own rights both vocally and with force if necessary. I know someday that either we will kill them all off, or they will kill us all off. It does not matter whether that is through attrition or literal war. Thanks for your time, and feel free to be in denial and/or proclaim your hopes for the eventual demise of my culture in the comments below.

 

Well of course you have a right to free speech, although it's important to note, if you speak, you have no right to be free from ridicule for saying stuff that just ain't so.

 

So when you insist on going to war and to "kill them all off" you're not just speaking for yourself but you're taking a foreign policy position that includes causing pain and suffering to people who don't agree with you.

 

And if you're going to insist on that and go against the majority "with force if necessary" you need to go back and read some history of democracy. 

 

----------------------------------------------------------------------

 

So can ANYONE name anything the United States and its Allies get in Concession for the Iran deal???

 

Name 1 thing??

 

 

Anything would be great...  Thats what we tried to tell the Traitor in Chief Obama

 

Racc, Racc, Racc, you really need to stop reading Newsmax.

 

Here's ONE THING (and there are a bunch of others but I won't waste my breath because you only asked for one): Iran won't have a nuke in 6 months, and (bonus reason) they won't have one for quite a while AS LONG AS we can continue to build trust with them AND verify (on both sides) that we're keeping our promises.

 

Now BOTH of you two are coming from the position that we CAN'T TRUST IRAN, but the only other alternative is to BOMB IRAN (eventually). So basically both of you are demanding war with them because as long as you say they can't be trusted, they're not going to trust us and their only solution is the same one you're arguing for us: build a nuke and use it.

 

Seriously, how do you think this is going to end up? If we kill millions of Iranians--and remember, using your own logic, if we only bomb their facilities and don't kill 'em all they'll just keep trying because, you know, EVIL KORAN and all--how do you think we go down in history? Are we really so Exceptional that there's no way we'll ever be compared to Hitler's Germany? 

 

Really?

 

 

To jaw-jaw is always better than to war-war, :phones:

Buffy

[billvon]

So can ANYONE name anything the United States and its Allies get in Concession for the Iran deal???

 

Regular inspections of their nuclear facilities.  Would you rather that Iran be able to do whatever it wants with its nuclear facilities?

Thats what we tried to tell the Traitor in Chief Obama

 

Sorry to hear about your ODS.  

[billvon]

I cannot claim to be well versed in the political sciences or in this particular issue, but I can tell you one thing for certain. If you allow a repeat offender to bargain for their freedom by promising not to do it again, they cannot be expected to do as they promised. Now, of course this may sound politically incorrect, but all of them are a threat to both our national sovereignty and our very way of life.

Who is "they?"  The Muslims?  The Iranians?  People with brown skin?  Foreigners in general?

 Yes, there are some pacifists that refrain from committing "crimes" as we see them but that does not mean they would not be capable if provoked.

 

Well, that's true of you as well.  What should we do about the "problem" you pose to our way of life?

 

The whole religion was written by a conqueror as a means of creating for himself an image of divine authority. That power still exists to this day, and their culture cannot ever be anything more than simply a means of imposing control and authority over others.

 

That's true of both Christianity and Islam.   (Google the Thirty Years War.)

[NotBrad]

Okay, you have made your points painfully clear, and I would like to clear something up. I do not hate Muslims, or followers of Islam. I would also like to state that I do not believe in religion, but am not atheist. Now with that cleared up some things should become clear, I am not making any defense for the actions that western nations have made in the past, and I understand that Christianity falls under the same category of self-established divine authority. But that changes nothing, any religious individual with military power is a crime against the values set forth by democracy. Yes, it is almost entirely impossible to weed out those who follow religion as a great many individuals still practice both organized and liberal religion worldwide. But these individuals are only an issue if they use said military power for the benefit of their religion. But more on topic, I do not disagree with the opinion that if others are allowed to arm themselves for their own defense, that I should be able to as well. But if anything can be proven historically, it is that preparation will always increase the will of the prepared to use the weapons at their disposal. I am not defending the actions of either the Crusaders or their Muslim foes during the eleventh and twelfth centuries, but the actions taken by the Catholic Church during this period are historically said to have been a re-direction of building military power and tension between European nations into a universal goal against an ethnic group that had been labelled a common foe. This is not to say that there was no fault to be be laid at the feet of Muslims, but there is more than enough war-crimes and blame to be shared equally by all involved parties. I do not agree with the actions taken by the Crusaders, they too closely resemble those of groups such as ISIS, who consider all who fail to join their ranks as less than human. The fact that there are young Muslims who are trying to join ISIS from western countries at all is proof that the religion still has those who would take up the call for Jihad. But needless to say, there are always those who will heed the call for blood, and that is not to paint the entire global Muslim community as terrorists. But even with this it is a simple calculation in my mind, so long as we are different, we are easier to kill than those who are similar.

 

I will just start a new paragraph to explain the message that I failed to communicate in my first post due to some significant historical bias.

 

I do not hate them, them being any person who lives a different lifestyle, has a different appearance, speaks a different language, or follows a different religion. But there is one simple fact that I can honestly tell you, when **** hits the fan, and the oil runs out, the life we live will change. Whether or not that is the futuristic idealism we see in science fiction, the chaotic apocalypse we see in films such as MAD MAX, or the desolate wastelands depicted in games like Fallout, will change the outcome. But if war is what comes, there will undoubtedly be lines drawn according to culture, then race, then language, and perhaps even religion before all is said and done. And that is an irrefutable fact. People will always trust those who look the same, sound the same, and act the same more than those who do not. And I am no exception, if war were to break out with China I think that we will have the same issue that the the US had during the first world war, which was that, due to their German population, they had to remain neutral to truly represent their people. I personally believe that the Chinese living in Canada, and believe me, not all are truly Canadian, regardless of their vote or citizenship, are an expansion of China, simple as that. If you come to our country, accept our hospitality that is grated conditionally on the grounds that you assimilate, you should assimilate. I am relatively certain that many of you are likely from abroad, and will likely not have seen our capital city of Toronto recently, but IT IS APPALLING. Plain and simple. There are parts of the city like Richmond Hill that have entire malls that have Chinese signage only. WHICH IS ILLEGAL BY THE WAY, and there are no white people, black people, Indian people, and perhaps the rare middle-eastern family around. Don't get me wrong, some of them are nice people, and one of my friends is even Chinese, but he has assimilated, so I accept him into my country. 

 

I will simply state my opinion, in case it does not come through as clearly as I had intended.

 

YOU ARE NOT EVIL FOR FOLLOWING ANOTHER LIFESTYLE, RELIGION, OR EVEN BEING OF A DIFFERENT ETHNICITY. BUT YOU ARE A THREAT TO MY WAY OF LIFE SIMPLY BY BEING DIFFERENT. REGARDLESS OF WHETHER IT IS INTENTIONAL OR NOT. I ALSO DO NOT HATE IMMIGRANTS, I ONLY HATE COLONISTS WHO PRETEND TO BE IMMIGRANTS, AND MAKE NO MISTAKE, THEY ARE COLONISTS. THEY MAY NOT BE EVIL BUT THEY ARE TAKING ADVANTAGE OF US, THE FACT THAT THEY ARE COMING HERE AND LIVING DIFFERENTLY THAN THE REST OF US, SPEAKING A DIFFERENT LANGUAGE THAN US, AND NOT DILUTING THEMSELVES INTO OUR SOCIETY PROVES THAT. JUST LIKE WE DID NOT TAKE UP THE LIFESTYLE OF THE NORTH AMERICAN INDIAN WHEN WE GOT HERE, THEY ARE NOT TAKING UP OUR LIFESTYLE. AND I THINK WE ALL KNOW WHAT HAPPENED TO THE INDIAN ONCE ENOUGH PEOPLE WERE GOT OFF THE BOATS.

 

To conclude it is quite simple, while we as the north american white man went west in the hopes of a brighter future, they too came east, and when all is said and done, when it becomes apparent that there is no longer enough to share, we will all fight for what remains, and I simply believe that we are allowing them to invade us without the use of military, because as we all know, there already isn't enough to share.

Edited September 28, 2015 by NotBrad