174 replies to this topic

[Pascal]

A television poll conducted by Iranian state television backfired on Wednesday when 63 percent of respondents said they wanted to abandon Iran's nuclear program, according to a report by The Telegraph. The results led the channel to hastily shut down voting and accuse the BBC of manipulating results.

The poll, which was conducted online by state broadcaster IRIB, asked viewers how Iran should respond to a new oil embargo imposed by the European Union. Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has criticized the new sanctions, calling them "the strongest ones that have ever been applied against a country" and vowing not to cave to Western pressure.

"Our enemies assume that they are able to corner Iran in a weak position with these sanctions," he told IRIB earlier this week.

But contrary to Ahmadinejad's defiant stance, Iranians overwhelmingly backed the poll's option for "giving up uranium enrichment in return of the gradual removal of sanctions." Only 20 percent of respondents said they supported closing the Strait of Hormuz, the passage for oil shipments from the Persian Gulf, in retaliation.

IRIB blamed the results on Western interference, accusing the BBC of having hacked into their website to alter the poll. The Daily Telegraph reported that "the Iranian broadcaster insisted the true figure supporting uranium enrichment suspension was only 24% while the rest backed retaliatory measures."

The BBC issued a statement on Thursday calling the accusations "both ludicrous and completely false."

The channel also claimed that the poll did not represent the views of Iranians because only 2000 people had participated.

However, the aftermath of the poll seemed to suggest otherwise. According to the Telegraph, the channel pulled down the poll on Wednesday, but suffered more embarrassment when a follow-up question on closing the Strait found 89 percent of voters against the move. The polls then disappeared in favor of an article on Persepolis, a popular Tehran soccer club.

http://www.huffingto..._n_1654353.html

[alimohamad40]

any one who thinks giving up the ligitimate peaceful nuclear program will change the position of the global zionists is delusional


the only real thing which will change thier position is if you become thier slaves,

thier real problem with iran is its independence

no one can be independent
its a crime to be independent and its even a bigger crime for any independent entity to develop and improve and not beg from the global tyrants.

teh worse developement is if they develop in the energy sector


the energy sector will encourage all other developements and hence if done by an independent country it would be a big danger for the global tyrants


if energy is cheap companies will come and invest in that place , economy would grow and people will be happy and whenever the people are happy the system becomes stable and people will conclude that its a sucess


its a nighmare for the forerunners of the antichrist that an islamic experiment is sucessful

[titumir]

Isn't this the same Telegraph which reported that Iran had made it compulsory for Jews to wear a david's cross in public?

Abandoning the nuclear program will have absolutely zero effect. Tomorrow America will find another excuse to put in sanctions against Iran. The real problem is that Iran threw out the American-installed puppet dictator in 1979, and America will not forgive Iranians for it.

[Belial]

I think Iran would be wise to abandon their nuclear proliferation.  At least until they gain some respect from the rest of the world.  Their economy and country would be perfectly fine without it. For the time being.

By continuing their operations, all they are doing is putting their own country in unnecessary danger. And their own people.

[titumir]

Belial, on 07 July 2012 - 08:53 AM, said:

I think Iran would be wise to abandon their nuclear proliferation.  At least until they gain some respect from the rest of the world.  Their economy and country would be perfectly fine without it. For the time being.

By continuing their operations, all they are doing is putting their own country in unnecessary danger. And their own people.

You know, I think the West would be wise to abandon all their "gay rights" laws. At least until they gain some respect from the Taliban. Their economy and country would be perfectly fine without it. For the time being.

By continuing their "gay rights" legislation, all they are doing is putting their own country in unnecessary danger (from Al Qaeda). And their own people.

[Belial]

titumir, on 07 July 2012 - 09:13 AM, said:

You know, I think the West would be wise to abandon all their "gay rights" laws. At least until they gain some respect from the Taliban. Their economy and country would be perfectly fine without it. For the time being.

By continuing their "gay rights" legislation, all they are doing is putting their own country in unnecessary danger (from Al Qaeda). And their own people.

Good thing the taliban are a minority in comparison to the international community. And good thing gays have been around for generations and the west has been fine with them.  Whereas building nuclear weapons, can lead to your country being turned into a sheet of ice...poverty, desolation.  Do we need to name countries that have picked fights with the international community to give a clear example of what would happen to Iran if it kept making bold remarks?  You cannot compare the dangers of something like...the potential for war with the west, to something like a handful of random gay people in california.

And this is why, Iran should be careful.  They can prosper without it, they already are prospering without it (aside from recent days). So why not take the time to get on the good side of the rest of the world, and then work on nuclear proliferation?

Instead, they are putting the lives of millions on the line.  And not only western lives, and their own.  But that of their neighboring countries too.  Saudi Arabia, their neighbors are threatened.  Kuwait, UAE, Turkey.  Obviously Israel. Syria too arguably depends on Iran.

There are ways of gaining nuclear capabilities, without putting your country at the brink of war with the world.  And its not like its the US or China or Russia picking a war with the world.  Its Iran.  It was just yesterday that Saddam was running tanks over their border. And in later days, we see what happened to Iraq when he picked a fight with Saudi, Kuwait and others.

And this is why, I would be right along side the people of Iran, making those votes.   Its just a bad idea.

I remember back when a lot of this kicked off.  One of the first things that had been said at the time, was that Saudi Arabia, if it felt threatened by a neighbors enhancement of nuclear energy, it too would build up its own nuclear energy, and even weapons.  Its more than just Iran looking for freedom of uranium inrichement.  Its the potential for a nuclear arms race, in a region that is...unstable.  Which is the equivelant of self termination.

Edited by Belial, 07 July 2012 - 10:38 AM.

[Pascal]

I dont think people noticed this...

kingpomba, on 07 July 2012 - 05:04 AM, said:

The channel also claimed that the poll did not represent the views of Iranians because only 2000 people had participated.

I was pointing out a humurous situation about how their poll messed up and how they had to pull two seperate polls rather than anything too serious.

But if you guys insist...

alimohamad40, on 07 July 2012 - 07:05 AM, said:

any one who thinks giving up the ligitimate peaceful nuclear program

Fun fact: Iran has a lot of oil. Cheap, Local oil, in abundance. You can use oil to make energy.

Iran barely has any supplies of local nuclear material, almost all of it has to be imported, this is expensive.

Explain why they're choosing expensive and dangerous nuclear energy over much cheaper, local oil?

Oil and Natural Gas already make up 97% of Irans energy supplies and they are a net EXPORTER of electricity, so, they definitely have a surplus.

It makes no sense for them to start up a civilian nuclear program to produce electricity.

titumir, on 07 July 2012 - 07:30 AM, said:

Isn't this the same Telegraph which reported that Iran had made it compulsory for Jews to wear a david's cross in public?

There are plenty of other papers, i first read it in my local (printed) paper and just found the first similar online story.

titumir, on 07 July 2012 - 07:30 AM, said:

Abandoning the nuclear program will have absolutely zero effect.

Well, it'd certainly calm the region down. The thought of Iran having nuclear weapons isn't the most relaxing one for a lot of countries in the region. In an ideal world no one should have nuclear weapons but we are where we are. You're going along the line of reasoning that they're not doing clandestine weapons research but many people follow an opposite line of thought, so, you could see why they might want this to happen (abandoning the program)

titumir, on 07 July 2012 - 07:30 AM, said:

The real problem is that Iran threw out the American-installed puppet dictator in 1979, and America will not forgive Iranians for it.

Happens all the time, sadly. They dont seem to have a grudge against every country who throws out their dictator though. Even the Americans really didn't like him in the end anyway.

Also, cool moustache.

Edited by kingpomba, 07 July 2012 - 11:46 AM.

[ShiaBen]

Hejsanvejsan's twin brother posting about Iran lol.

[Asr]

Belial, on 07 July 2012 - 09:57 AM, said:

Good thing the taliban are a minority in comparison to the international community. And good thing gays have been around for generations and the west has been fine with them.  Whereas building nuclear weapons, can lead to your country being turned into a sheet of ice...poverty, desolation.  Do we need to name countries that have picked fights with the international community to give a clear example of what would happen to Iran if it kept making bold remarks?  You cannot compare the dangers of something like...the potential for war with the west, to something like a handful of random gay people in california.

And this is why, Iran should be careful.  They can prosper without it, they already are prospering without it (aside from recent days). So why not take the time to get on the good side of the rest of the world, and then work on nuclear proliferation?

Instead, they are putting the lives of millions on the line.  And not only western lives, and their own.  But that of their neighboring countries too.  Saudi Arabia, their neighbors are threatened.  Kuwait, UAE, Turkey.  Obviously Israel. Syria too arguably depends on Iran.

There are ways of gaining nuclear capabilities, without putting your country at the brink of war with the world.  And its not like its the US or China or Russia picking a war with the world.  Its Iran.  It was just yesterday that Saddam was running tanks over their border. And in later days, we see what happened to Iraq when he picked a fight with Saudi, Kuwait and others.

And this is why, I would be right along side the people of Iran, making those votes.   Its just a bad idea.

I remember back when a lot of this kicked off.  One of the first things that had been said at the time, was that Saudi Arabia, if it felt threatened by a neighbors enhancement of nuclear energy, it too would build up its own nuclear energy, and even weapons.  Its more than just Iran looking for freedom of uranium inrichement.  Its the potential for a nuclear arms race, in a region that is...unstable.  Which is the equivelant of self termination.

Ii think youll find the majority of the 'internationional community' support irans nuclear program or are indifferent eitherway.  There are a minority of countries who are getting bent out if shape, for their own reasons... even though they know iran nuclear program is legit and peaceful, but they intend to lie and manipulate inorder to isolate and force iran into submission.  If it wasnt the nukes issue theyd be a big hoo haa about something else.  Iran is one of the few remaining countries with self respect, and independant, and is the only state that  knows the true meaning of kerbala. Submit to yazid it will not.

Edited by Asr, 07 July 2012 - 11:37 AM.

[Belial]

Asr, on 07 July 2012 - 11:34 AM, said:

Ii think youll find the majority of the 'internationional community' support irans nuclear program or are indifferent eitherway.  There are a minority of countries who are getting bent out if shape, for their own reasons... even though they know iran nuclear program is legit and peaceful, but they intend to lie and manipulate inorder to isolate and force iran into submission.  If it wasnt the nukes issue theyd be a big hoo haa about something else.  Iran is one of the few remaining countries with self respect, and independant, and is the only state that  knows the true meaning of kerbala. Submit to yazid it will not.

Considering the number of countries that have taken action, or made public statements against Iran.  I wouldnt call them a minority in anything aside from the population of the entire planet.

[Aarash_Australia]

Asr, on 07 July 2012 - 11:34 AM, said:

Ii think youll find the majority of the 'internationional community' support irans nuclear program or are indifferent eitherway.  There are a minority of countries who are getting bent out if shape, for their own reasons... even though they know iran nuclear program is legit and peaceful, but they intend to lie and manipulate inorder to isolate and force iran into submission.  If it wasnt the nukes issue theyd be a big hoo haa about something else.  Iran is one of the few remaining countries with self respect, and independant, and is the only state that  knows the true meaning of kerbala. Submit to yazid it will not.

UN, IAEA, EU -- all oppose Iran's continued insistence on enrichment to levels unnecessary for peaceful purposes.

[alimohamad40]

Belial, on 07 July 2012 - 08:53 AM, said:

I think Iran would be wise to abandon their nuclear proliferation.  At least until they gain some respect from the rest of the world.  Their economy and country would be perfectly fine without it. For the time being.

By continuing their operations, all they are doing is putting their own country in unnecessary danger. And their own people.

this is a situation of principals and exposure of the hypocricy

first of all the word prolifiration is false and a lie

secondly iran does nto have a nuclear weapons programe and is within the international law of NNPT which clearly states the right of all countries to the use for peaceful purposes

thirdly the zionist entity which has the actual weapon and 200 war heads is ont even a signitory to the NNPT

fourthly the alleged police THE United states of hypcorisy   is the only evil entity in the world which ever used this dirty weapon against innnocent people in heroshima and nakazaki

fifth:  the united states of hypcorisy has more nuclear weapons that the whole world put together and its prolifirating right now while we talk and is developing 5th generation ncuelar weapons


the treaty states that no one can prolifirate  and that the big bully countries to only keep what they have and not increase it or prolifirate


prolifirate means give the weapons to others

the USH is saying we are not increasing the arsenal... its true they are not increasing the number of warheads but they are advancing the same warheads to make them 100s of times more destrcutive

they posess more nuclear weapons that the whole world put together and they conducted so many inspection on iran more than the whole world put together eventhuogh iran is the same as egypt its only a programmme

there are countries who are not ecven signitories and actually have weapons programme or the actual weapons but thier file is never opened ??? who decided whos file should be opened?

who is the real nuclear threat to the world ?

[Pascal]

You still haven't justified why they even need one when they have such cheap oil and they have so much energy that they can export it to other countries with plenty still left over..

Saw something very good about this on aljazeera. I know it has a rep amongst a few here of being biased but it was a pannel interview style thing. So, people just spoke their mind, including some supporters of the iranians. They make some very good points. The west by trying to get Iran to remove their nuclear program has signed their own doom so to speak. If Iran removed it after all this pressure, it would look weak to its own people. It would be political suicide for any politician to try it. If the west didnt make such a big deal about it, it might of been a lot easier to dismantle it.

http://www.aljazeera...6953971483.html

[Ugly Jinn]

Iran has some of the dumbest politicians I've ever seen - Ahmadinejad should be ranked #1 in that department.

Iran has to make major concessions now or they will die a slow death (maybe for the better to change the current incompetent regime).

[titumir]

Have any of our Western friends hear of the word: APPEASEMENT and why its not the "done" thing?

Iran should not for a second follow a policy of appeasement for the West.

[aliasghark]

kingpomba, on 07 July 2012 - 03:47 PM, said:

You still haven't justified why they even need one when they have such cheap oil and they have so much energy that they can export it to other countries with plenty still left over..

It may be the same reason why Iran is having to ration its internal consumption of oil, and imported some because its internal refining wasn't enough... perhaps your FUD isn't working.

[Belial]

kingpomba, on 07 July 2012 - 03:47 PM, said:

You still haven't justified why they even need one when they have such cheap oil and they have so much energy that they can export it to other countries with plenty still left over..

Saw something very good about this on aljazeera. I know it has a rep amongst a few here of being biased but it was a pannel interview style thing. So, people just spoke their mind, including some supporters of the iranians. They make some very good points. The west by trying to get Iran to remove their nuclear program has signed their own doom so to speak. If Iran removed it after all this pressure, it would look weak to its own people. It would be political suicide for any politician to try it. If the west didnt make such a big deal about it, it might of been a lot easier to dismantle it.

http://www.aljazeera...6953971483.html

Thats a good point.

However, if the people are tilting toward the govt halting its program, then it wouldnt make their govt look so bad by accepting that as well.

Edited by Belial, 07 July 2012 - 10:04 PM.

[Belial]

alimohamad40, on 07 July 2012 - 02:54 PM, said:

secondly iran does nto have a nuclear weapons programe and is within the international law of NNPT which clearly states the right of all countries to the use for peaceful purposes

fourthly the alleged police THE United states of hypcorisy   is the only evil entity in the world which ever used this dirty weapon against innnocent people in heroshima and nakazaki

who is the real nuclear threat to the world ?

Iran has broken International law with its proliferation. It had essentially been illegally hiding its proliferation and all of its actions from the world.  They also are hiding information about the equipment they are using with these operations.  Then on top of that, they are continuing their operations under this guise.

It's just a bad idea, and they are crippling themselves with these bold moves.

Also, the US has not and will not use its nuclear weapons, even China are strong allies with the US and trusts them with those weapons.  Nor will countries like Russia or China use theirs.  However, small countries, riddled with conflict and with unstable economies, are the not the ideal countries to have a hand on nuclear weapons.

And it is indeed true that if one weaker country can defy international law while simultaneously putting the region at risk, then any country can. And if any and every country had nuclear weapons, then...well, realistically it would be the end of the middle east.  And for the western world, it would be the end of resources in that region and allies who provide them.

[aliasghark]

Belial, on 07 July 2012 - 10:03 PM, said:

Also, the US has not and will not use its nuclear weapons,

Oh wow, are you actually ignorant or willfully trying to misguide? The USA is the only country to have ever used nuclear weapons: http://en.wikipedia....ma_and_Nagasaki (therefore they are a proven threat and in a fair world, they would be the first country to be prohibited from owning such weapons of mass destruction).

Quote

even China are strong allies with the US and trusts them with those weapons.  Nor will countries like Russia or China use theirs.  However, small countries, riddled with conflict and with unstable economies, are the not the ideal countries to have a hand on nuclear weapons.

So you must be against Israel's nuclear weapons then? (considering how frequently it attacks its neighbors, and is 'riddled with conflict' as you said)

[570]

Belial, on 07 July 2012 - 10:03 PM, said:

Also, the US has not and will not use its nuclear weapons, even China are strong allies with the US and trusts them with those weapons.  Nor will countries like Russia or China use theirs.  However, small countries, riddled with conflict and with unstable economies, are the not the ideal countries to have a hand on nuclear weapons.

This is just an excuse.

What about Pakistan? A country that has nuclear weapons and way more 'riddled with conflict and with unstable economies' than Iran, doesn't get much 'International pressure' as Iran gets?

[Belial]

aliasghark, on 07 July 2012 - 10:13 PM, said:

Oh wow, are you actually ignorant or willfully trying to misguide? The USA is the only country to have ever used nuclear weapons: http://en.wikipedia....ma_and_Nagasaki (therefore they are a proven threat and in a fair world, they would be the first country to be prohibited from owning such weapons of mass destruction).


So you must be against Israel's nuclear weapons then? (considering how frequently it attacks its neighbors, and is 'riddled with conflict' as you said)

I know about WW2.  I am referring to post WW2.  Those weapons used were the first, and the last. And Israel shouldnt have them either.

570, on 07 July 2012 - 10:23 PM, said:

This is just an excuse.

What about Pakistan? A country that has nuclear weapons and way more 'riddled with conflict and with unstable economies' than Iran, doesn't get much 'International pressure' as Iran gets?

Oh yea, I completely agree.  Pakistan should not have nuclear weapons.  We all recognize the frequency of topics relating to Pakistans government stability. There is no doubt about that. The difference is, Pakistan already has its weapons.  And they need to be protected.  And ya know, we can look over at India too.  India wouldnt be testing out newly designed warhead technology, if not for a nuclear threat next to it.

This is a fine demonstration of...its essentially the initial stages of an arms race. Really, its not even the initial stages.  India is and has been continuing to arm itself due to conflicts with Pakistan.

We all, absolutely understand the dangers over there.  Which is why Pakistan is being looked after.  Iran on the other hand, does not have these weapons as Pakistan does.

If nations all develop nuclear weapons, and extensively powerful arms.  It is only a matter of time before one shoots one off.  And in todays time, now that everyone fully understands what these weapons are, and what they can do (after use in Japan in WW2), if a weapon like that is fired again, it would lead to the annihilation of potentially millions of people. Not over the span of many years, but in the span of seconds.

For the survival of the middle east itself, Iran should refrain from inriching uranium.  It should follow international law and should not show such defiance.

Instead, what we have is a government, that wants to "stand up to the west". Or so they believe.  And in doing so, they are putting everyones lives at risk.

I know people always say Saudi Arabia or turkey or UAE or Kuwait etc., are all sell outs to the west.  We'll, they arent sell outs.  They are just being smart.  Just because Turkey works with the US for example, doesnt mean they are satanic or evil.  Right, they are just utilizing trade to fund their country.

And Iran can do the same thing without looking weak. But its not. They are trying to put themselves above the rest of the region.

Its like the saying.  We arent on this planet working against eachother.  We are working together with eachother.  And yet, Iran is speaking of something like the straight of hormuz being its property, as if it can do whatever it wants with it. Nuclear energy is its property and it can do whatever it wants with it.

Regardless of what it means for the rest of the world, they believe that they can do it.

I mean really, who here thinks that Iran can take full control over the worlds primary resource, primary trade route, and in defiance of international law, run secretive nuclear development operations?  Only a bunch of bafoons would think they could do that without suffering consequences.  Which apparently the govt of Iran is doing.  That is why, I would agree with people, when they say that their government isnt exactly the smartest group.

It is wreckless and self destructive.

Edited by Belial, 08 July 2012 - 11:43 AM.

[macisaac]

aliasghark, on 07 July 2012 - 09:02 PM, said:

It may be the same reason why Iran is having to ration its internal consumption of oil, and imported some because its internal refining wasn't enough... perhaps your FUD isn't working.

Maybe instead of spending all this money on developing nuclear technology (both in terms of whatever it's costing them to fund it, which I can't imagine comes cheap, as well as the cost to the nation of increased sanctions against it) they could have spent it on improving and upgrading their refining capability...?

[kadhim]

kingpomba, on 07 July 2012 - 03:47 PM, said:

You still haven't justified why they even need one when they have such cheap oil and they have so much energy that they can export it to other countries with plenty still left over..

Saw something very good about this on aljazeera. I know it has a rep amongst a few here of being biased but it was a pannel interview style thing. So, people just spoke their mind, including some supporters of the iranians. They make some very good points. The west by trying to get Iran to remove their nuclear program has signed their own doom so to speak. If Iran removed it after all this pressure, it would look weak to its own people. It would be political suicide for any politician to try it. If the west didnt make such a big deal about it, it might of been a lot easier to dismantle it.

http://www.aljazeera...6953971483.html

If you bother doing a little thinking and research, it's not hard to understand. Iran is a developing economy whose energy needs are expanding, and will expand rapidly in coming decades. If they did not seek other means of generating electricity, and simply burned oil, the remainder available for export would steadily decline.
What is more, nuclear energy has some advantages long term in terms of the energy density that nuclear makes available. It's simply a step beyond fossil fuel burning, and the transition step to the higher energy sources of the future such as fusion.
In addition, nuclear technology has spin off applications to medicine.

[Belial]

kadhim, on 08 July 2012 - 12:02 PM, said:

If you bother doing a little thinking and research, it's not hard to understand. Iran is a developing economy whose energy needs are expanding, and will expand rapidly in coming decades. If they did not seek other means of generating electricity, and simply burned oil, the remainder available for export would steadily decline.
What is more, nuclear energy has some advantages long term in terms of the energy density that nuclear makes available. It's simply a step beyond fossil fuel burning, and the transition step to the higher energy sources of the future such as fusion.
In addition, nuclear technology has spin off applications to medicine.

If you actually bothered doing research, in reality, you would find that Iran has more than enough natural gas and oil to fund electrical needs for its country. If you want, we can both present actual research, if you really believe what you are saying. Iran's has very large natural gas reserves.

It is true that oil reserves would steadily decline (because their oil reserves are not infinitely existent), however, that doesnt mean their nuclear power would exist indefinitely (depending on the source), nor does it mean Iran couldn
t utilize fossil fuels for generations to come.

The US has a population 4 times greater, and far less oil and gas, and it powers itself just fine (granted, it imports a lot, but that still doesnt take the spotlight off of Iran and its oil reserves). And will continue to do so for some time.

Nuclear energy also has its health and safety downsides as well.  We can look right over at Japan for that.  Or 3 mile Island.  People have no clear way of disposing of radioactive nuclear energy (not that Iran is concerned about its environment to begin with, its Environmental laws are almost non existant).

It is subjective to say that it is an energy of the future.  It too is and even to a greater degree, limitted as oil or gas is.  And in regards to Iran, there is no doubt that they could be self sufficient for generations, should they use fossil fuels.

laughs*...sorry Kadhim. I dont mean to pick at you.

Iran, on top  of all of this, shouldnt be running secret underground nuclear operations.  It should partake in joint nuclear operations and development.

Edited by Belial, 08 July 2012 - 12:57 PM.

[aliasghark]

Belial, on 08 July 2012 - 11:10 AM, said:

I know about WW2.  I am referring to post WW2.  Those weapons used were the first, and the last. And Israel shouldnt have them either.

Ok, now that we've established that one country has been the most irresponsible with nuclear weapons, I think we can agree that that country should not be allowed to keep nuclear weapons (let alone advice other nations on it).

Further, as the claim 'Also, the US has not and will not use its nuclear weapons' was demonstrably false, and America is a country riddled with conflict, I hope you will redirect your propaganda from Iran to America.

macisaac, on 08 July 2012 - 11:55 AM, said:

Maybe instead of spending all this money on developing nuclear technology (both in terms of whatever it's costing them to fund it, which I can't imagine comes cheap, as well as the cost to the nation of increased sanctions against it) they could have spent it on improving and upgrading their refining capability...?

Good idea, and that is one of the schools of thought for Iran's near-term interests. If I were in their position though, I would plan for and invest the country's long-term energy independence.

Belial, on 08 July 2012 - 12:12 PM, said:

The US has a population 10 times greater, and far less oil and gas, and it powers itself just fine.

  

Oi Belial, you should really be listening to kadhim and read at least a little bit before you make such absurd statements.