|
On June 13 2010 13:38 Blanke wrote:Show nested quote +On June 13 2010 13:37 Romantic wrote:
Leave it to Saudi Arabia to support terrorism against Iran. Nothing new. Just another thing to dislike about Saudi Arabia. It is almost as if they want the peace movements in Iran to fail. I think you're underestimating how potentially catastropic this event can be! Yes, I know I'm being fear mongering, but Saudi is essentially letting Israel throw anything they like against Iran! I'm just unsurprised that two US puppets are agreeing to work together. Bombing Iran will probably give them a bomb even quicker and strengthen their resolve, obviously. Bombing Iran will legitimize the regime. Of course it is catastrophic, it just isn't unpredictable lol.
|
On June 13 2010 13:08 Lysdexia wrote:Show nested quote +On June 13 2010 02:22 Monst3r wrote:On June 13 2010 02:15 zer0das wrote:On June 13 2010 02:08 Monst3r wrote:
Why would Saudi Arabia do such a thing. Probably because Iran is a huge threat to the stability of their government... monarchy vs revolution. And whole region even. Nukes in the hands of Iran probably make them just as nervous as Israel. If America has nukes, every single country in the world deserves nukes too. User was temp banned for this post. Why was this ban worthy? It's true. The reasons we (the U.S. and allies) don't want countries like Iran to have nukes is rooted in racism and orientalism. Can't let those crazy a-rabs have nukes, only us civilized enlightened westerners can be trusted with them. Our whole foreign policy towards Iran is based on creating a dichotomy where we are 'rational' and they are 'irrational' which is why we do things like label them a "rouge state", which is obviously a self-serving and meaningless label because they're only "rouge" in the sense that they don't do what we say. America does not deserve nukes, no state has any possible moral claim to such destructive weapons, but if we have them then why doesn't every single country in the world also deserve them?
This isn't about racism or moral claims. It's about preventing a nation and a leader that we consider to be hostile to our interests from attaining nuclear weaponry. Every nation and alliance is ultimately out there to preserve their position of power in the world and to protect their interests. Iran developing nuclear weapons is a threat to the western world and Israel not because Arabs are irrational, but because the leadership of Iran wants the western world along with Israel to burn... If we didn't perceive instability and violence on their part, perhaps we wouldn't have such a problem with them having nuclear power.
Whether America is deserving of nuclear weapons or not is irrelevant. It was the first nation to develop them and since then, it's held a significant position of power in this world. History isn't fair nor is the world and there's no unwritten rule suggesting that it should be. No nation is entitled to anything. If you want something, you have to either earn it yourself or put yourself in a position where you will get it by the good graces of someone who already has. Also, for the sake of world peace, it's best to limit the number of parties in possession of such destructive power. Even the world as it is today can be volatile at times and the more nations and personalities you throw into the mix, the more difficult it becomes to preserve peace and avoid conflict. Can you imagine a world in which every single nation and leader had nuclear weapons at their disposal to be at all a good one? It's just not practical for there to be peace in such a world because each new faction throws in a new variable and it becomes far more likely for otherwise conventional conflicts to escalate into nuclear ones...
Keep in mind that the world today is pretty united and it's not just the USA that doesn't want Iran under it's current leadership to become a nuclear armed country.
|
On June 13 2010 13:43 Lysdexia wrote:Show nested quote +On June 13 2010 13:14 eMbrace wrote:On June 13 2010 13:08 Lysdexia wrote:On June 13 2010 02:22 Monst3r wrote:On June 13 2010 02:15 zer0das wrote:On June 13 2010 02:08 Monst3r wrote:
Why would Saudi Arabia do such a thing. Probably because Iran is a huge threat to the stability of their government... monarchy vs revolution. And whole region even. Nukes in the hands of Iran probably make them just as nervous as Israel. If America has nukes, every single country in the world deserves nukes too. User was temp banned for this post. Why was this ban worthy? It's true. The reasons we (the U.S. and allies) don't want countries like Iran to have nukes is rooted in racism and orientalism. Can't let those crazy a-rabs have nukes, only us civilized enlightened westerners can be trusted with them. Our whole foreign policy towards Iran is based on creating a dichotomy where we are 'rational' and they are 'irrational' which is why we do things like label them a "rouge state", which is obviously a self-serving and meaningless label because they're only "rouge" in the sense that they don't do what we say. America does not deserve nukes, no state has any possible moral claim to such destructive weapons, but if we have them then why doesn't every single country in the world also deserve them? i've tried to rewrite my response to this for the past 5 minutes, and honestly i'm just going to leave it. you win, you're right, and you are most definitely completely sane. the forums need more people like you -- no, the world needs more people like you. Wow you brilliantly refuted everything I said. Why shouldn't every country in the middle east have nukes? The way Iran is typically characterized in discussions of nuclear proliferation relies on a binary where we are rational and disciplined and they are impulsive and crazy. Lets look at some of the responses to the person I quoted on the 1st page: Show nested quote +Nigeria-"Hm, those neighbors we have, the Nigers, are stealing water from our well. NUKE THE FUCKERS!"
Niger- "Oh SHIT! RETALIATE!"
the REST OF AFRICA-"NUKES ARE FLYING! SHIT! EVERYONE RETALIATE!"
Thats just a TASTE of something that could happen.
How can you read this and not see the thinly veiled racist assumptions about Africa and 3rd world countries in general? How did this poster come to know that African countries are crazy and would nuke each other for "stealing water from our well"? This is basically a caricature of all discussions of nuclear proliferation in the 3rd world. It's based on an assumed otherness between the 3rd world and the west where we are rational and they are not. This discourse is then used to advance and universalize the interests of the west. let's go back to my example of labeling Iran as a "rouge state". What are we really saying when we call them this? All it means is that we view them as a threat to our security interests and that they don't do what we tell them to do, but framing them as an outlaw state pretends like this view is objective when it's actually subjective based on our own security interests. Once the assumption of Iran's irrationality is cemented we can use it to advance our own security interests by making it appear like they were objectively everyone's interests. The U.S.'s discourse on nuclear proliferation makes it seem like the current order, where a few elite powers and their allies have nuclear weapons and no one else does, is natural and objectively desirable when it's actually something that we have shaped and have a vested interest in maintaining so we can stay on top. There's a large body of academic literature about why nuclear proliferation is actually a stabilizing factor -- it makes conventional war less likely because the involved countries know any war could potentially go nuclear. If every country in the middle east had nukes then no one would want to go to war because they might get blown up. Presenting proliferation as a threat rests on the racist assumption that third world countries are backwards and irrational, and only serves as an attempt to legitimate our nuclear monopoly.
This was a close second to the Pat Barry/Mirko CroCop manhug for most hilarious moment of my night. Thanks.
~.^
EDIT: Oh jeebuz, just re-read it and saw "rouge". Priceless.
|
Well its kinda of no surprise America thought that once Iran got a nuke they were going to use on poor Israel, It is kinda of funny how America supported them more than any other country but now their actions are finally going into question.
|
On June 13 2010 12:33 Mascherano wrote:
This is so high up on the fucked up scale there are no words to describe it. Practically every country has nuclear power plants these days. These plants use enriched uranium to give energy to huge regions. Denying this to a developing country is like making them go back to the stone age. Where is the proof that they are even contemplating making nukes? Uranium enrichment does not equal nukes FFS.
I believe we've offered deals in which they would receive nuclear power plants, and they rejected them. That was years ago iirc.
Also, use common sense. Iran has been using violence to position itself in a strong geopolitical position for the last decade. "Revolutionary" entities like Iran have to keep spreading and expanding, ala the Roman Empire, or they fail. Without constant conflict and success they cannot whip up enough nationalism to keep their regime in power. Nuclear weapons would be a huge source of national pride and power.
|
On June 13 2010 13:45 The_Voidless wrote:
It is kinda of funny how America supported them more than any other country but now their actions are finally going into question.
It's unfortunate how time can change things. Your friend today can be your foe tomorrow. Be it through coupes or changes in global politics, we've run into quite a few of these instances. If I remember correctly, there were times when we were on friendly terms with characters such as Hussein and Bin Laden...
How the world changes...
|
On June 13 2010 13:47 brain_ wrote:Show nested quote +On June 13 2010 12:33 Mascherano wrote:
This is so high up on the fucked up scale there are no words to describe it. Practically every country has nuclear power plants these days. These plants use enriched uranium to give energy to huge regions. Denying this to a developing country is like making them go back to the stone age. Where is the proof that they are even contemplating making nukes? Uranium enrichment does not equal nukes FFS. I believe we've offered deals in which they would receive nuclear power plants, and they rejected them. That was years ago iirc. Also, use common sense. Iran has been using violence to position itself in a strong geopolitical position for the last decade. "Revolutionary" entities like Iran have to keep spreading and expanding, ala the Roman Empire, or they fail. Without constant conflict and success they cannot whip up enough nationalism to keep their regime in power. Nuclear weapons would be a huge source of nuclear pride and power. By Iran you meant to say "United States" right? 
BTW, it is easier to make deals with countries that you have diplomatic ties with. Like the Iran-Turkey deal? Funny how people make deals when they talk to each other.
|
A huge source of national pride and power . . . until you're arrogant, or crazy enough, to think launching them is a good idea!
|
|
|
On June 13 2010 13:45 neohero9 wrote:Show nested quote +On June 13 2010 13:43 Lysdexia wrote:On June 13 2010 13:14 eMbrace wrote:On June 13 2010 13:08 Lysdexia wrote:On June 13 2010 02:22 Monst3r wrote:On June 13 2010 02:15 zer0das wrote:On June 13 2010 02:08 Monst3r wrote:
Why would Saudi Arabia do such a thing. Probably because Iran is a huge threat to the stability of their government... monarchy vs revolution. And whole region even. Nukes in the hands of Iran probably make them just as nervous as Israel. If America has nukes, every single country in the world deserves nukes too. User was temp banned for this post. Why was this ban worthy? It's true. The reasons we (the U.S. and allies) don't want countries like Iran to have nukes is rooted in racism and orientalism. Can't let those crazy a-rabs have nukes, only us civilized enlightened westerners can be trusted with them. Our whole foreign policy towards Iran is based on creating a dichotomy where we are 'rational' and they are 'irrational' which is why we do things like label them a "rouge state", which is obviously a self-serving and meaningless label because they're only "rouge" in the sense that they don't do what we say. America does not deserve nukes, no state has any possible moral claim to such destructive weapons, but if we have them then why doesn't every single country in the world also deserve them? i've tried to rewrite my response to this for the past 5 minutes, and honestly i'm just going to leave it. you win, you're right, and you are most definitely completely sane. the forums need more people like you -- no, the world needs more people like you. Wow you brilliantly refuted everything I said. Why shouldn't every country in the middle east have nukes? The way Iran is typically characterized in discussions of nuclear proliferation relies on a binary where we are rational and disciplined and they are impulsive and crazy. Lets look at some of the responses to the person I quoted on the 1st page: Nigeria-"Hm, those neighbors we have, the Nigers, are stealing water from our well. NUKE THE FUCKERS!"
Niger- "Oh SHIT! RETALIATE!"
the REST OF AFRICA-"NUKES ARE FLYING! SHIT! EVERYONE RETALIATE!"
Thats just a TASTE of something that could happen.
How can you read this and not see the thinly veiled racist assumptions about Africa and 3rd world countries in general? How did this poster come to know that African countries are crazy and would nuke each other for "stealing water from our well"? This is basically a caricature of all discussions of nuclear proliferation in the 3rd world. It's based on an assumed otherness between the 3rd world and the west where we are rational and they are not. This discourse is then used to advance and universalize the interests of the west. let's go back to my example of labeling Iran as a "rouge state". What are we really saying when we call them this? All it means is that we view them as a threat to our security interests and that they don't do what we tell them to do, but framing them as an outlaw state pretends like this view is objective when it's actually subjective based on our own security interests. Once the assumption of Iran's irrationality is cemented we can use it to advance our own security interests by making it appear like they were objectively everyone's interests. The U.S.'s discourse on nuclear proliferation makes it seem like the current order, where a few elite powers and their allies have nuclear weapons and no one else does, is natural and objectively desirable when it's actually something that we have shaped and have a vested interest in maintaining so we can stay on top. There's a large body of academic literature about why nuclear proliferation is actually a stabilizing factor -- it makes conventional war less likely because the involved countries know any war could potentially go nuclear. If every country in the middle east had nukes then no one would want to go to war because they might get blown up. Presenting proliferation as a threat rests on the racist assumption that third world countries are backwards and irrational, and only serves as an attempt to legitimate our nuclear monopoly. This was a close second to the Pat Barry/Mirko CroCop manhug for most hilarious moment of my night. Thanks. ~.^ EDIT: Oh jeebuz, just re-read it and saw "rouge". Priceless.
Oh jeebuz I just re-read your post and saw that you contributed nothing and didn't answer anything I said. Priceless.
I guess you must have been laughing about how you have no defense of your view of international relations. It is pretty funny.
|
On June 13 2010 13:51 JinMaikeul wrote:Show nested quote +On June 13 2010 13:45 The_Voidless wrote:
It is kinda of funny how America supported them more than any other country but now their actions are finally going into question. It's unfortunate how time can change things. Your friend today can be your foe tomorrow. Be it through coupes or changes in global politics, we've run into quite a few of these instances. If I remember correctly, there were times when we were on friendly terms with characters such as Hussein and Bin Laden... How the world changes...
We were never on friendly terms with Bin Laden. We were on "friendly" terms with Hussein during the Iran-Iraq War, since Iran had just overthrown the Shah (whom we were friendly with) and threatened to take over the entire region. We supplied Hussein in order to keep the balance of power even.
|
Here's a simple argument.
The more nukes there are in the world the higher the chance that some truely bad people get them and use them or that a mistake happens or that they become a solution to non-worthy troubles if everyone becomes comfortable with the idea of having nukes.
Having more nukes than there already is doesn't make the world safer. It just increases the chance of the terrible happening.
|
On June 13 2010 13:37 Romantic wrote:
Leave it to Saudi Arabia to support terrorism against Iran. Nothing new. Just another thing to dislike about Saudi Arabia. It is almost as if they want the peace movements in Iran to fail.
The peace movements had their chance to change the regime, and they failed. I'm sure that the Saudi's would love it if the peace movements were successful in overthrowing the current regime, assuming they would be replaced by a better regime, but it's clearly been proven that that's not going to happen. At this point, Saudi Arabia, which is as much an enemy of Iran as is Israel, is forced to start taking a stronger stance now that regime change has been taken off the chance. While I doubt that Israel would be stupid enough to go through the Saudi strip of land, as it would probably destroy any real sense of surprise, it's important because it's showing Iran that the region's main actors are really starting to harden in their opposition, especially as Iran gets closer to developing a nuclear weapon. This announcement will probably have the opposite effect of that which was intended (To force Iran to stop the development of nuclear arms), as the Iranian leadership will feel that they have to rush forward in their development before they are attacked.
What I find personally to be most interesting about this, is the timing. This kind of aggressive posturing realistically only starts when all other venues of approach have failed. Thus, it would seem that the Saudi's believe that the UN efforts to curtail Iran have failed, and in all likelihood, the intelligence agencies of Saudi Arabia are probably warning the monarchy that time is quickly running out. Otherwise, such aggressive posturing probably would not be necessary.
Just my 2 cents on it though.
|
On June 13 2010 13:59 brain_ wrote:Show nested quote +On June 13 2010 13:51 JinMaikeul wrote:On June 13 2010 13:45 The_Voidless wrote:
It is kinda of funny how America supported them more than any other country but now their actions are finally going into question. It's unfortunate how time can change things. Your friend today can be your foe tomorrow. Be it through coupes or changes in global politics, we've run into quite a few of these instances. If I remember correctly, there were times when we were on friendly terms with characters such as Hussein and Bin Laden... How the world changes... We were never on friendly terms with Bin Laden. We were on "friendly" terms with Hussein during the Iran-Iraq War, since Iran had just overthrown the Shah (whom we were friendly with) and threatened to take over the entire region. We supplied Hussein in order to keep the balance of power even.
I seem to recall that the USA was supplying the Mujahideen with weapons and supplies to fight the Soviets during the Cold War era and Osama Bin Laden was one of the main figures in that fights against the USSR.
|
The simple truth is that nuclear weapons have the ability to destroy the world, and no country should actually be allowed to posses them. However, they have been discovered and used, and there is really no reason to allow more countries to have them? What is the point? Its like giving each member of a family a hand grenade, just because the Dad has one.
There especially is no reason to allow nuclear weapons into a region of the world that is incredibly unstable, and will only become more so after the western dependence on oil is over, either because of technological advances or the oil running out. The simple truth is that the middle east is doomed to falling back into poverty because of their complete dependence on oil production at the expense of creating sustainable industrial production. A desperate country with the power to end all life on the planet is not something that can be supported by anyone in their right mind.
That being said, if it can be proven that Iran is not trying to weaponize (long shot as it is) then one cannot support the change in policy that could allow world war III to begin due to world powers becoming entangled in alliances not seen since the days prior to the assassination of franz ferdinand.
|
On June 13 2010 14:03 JinMaikeul wrote:Show nested quote +On June 13 2010 13:59 brain_ wrote:On June 13 2010 13:51 JinMaikeul wrote:On June 13 2010 13:45 The_Voidless wrote:
It is kinda of funny how America supported them more than any other country but now their actions are finally going into question. It's unfortunate how time can change things. Your friend today can be your foe tomorrow. Be it through coupes or changes in global politics, we've run into quite a few of these instances. If I remember correctly, there were times when we were on friendly terms with characters such as Hussein and Bin Laden... How the world changes... We were never on friendly terms with Bin Laden. We were on "friendly" terms with Hussein during the Iran-Iraq War, since Iran had just overthrown the Shah (whom we were friendly with) and threatened to take over the entire region. We supplied Hussein in order to keep the balance of power even. I seem to recall that the USA was supplying the Mujahideen with weapons and supplies to fight the Soviets during the Cold War era and Osama Bin Laden was one of the main figures in that fights against the USSR.
Nothing was given directly to Bin Laden. Supplies given to the Mujahideen percolated down to Bin Laden's little cell within the organization. Al-Qaeda was also founded in 1988, toward the end of the conflict just before Russia withdrew from Afghanistan, and didn't have its true terrorist identity yet.
|
Lysdexia, you've written a lot of stuff I don't feel like reading anymore so I'm just going to ask you a yes or no question.
Lean back in your chair, take a deep breath, and reassess this argument. We all think nukes are terrible. We all want them to go away. That being said:
Are you just as comfortable with North Korea and Iran having nukes as you are with the United States having nukes?
|
On June 13 2010 14:11 eMbrace wrote:
Lysdexia, you've written a lot of stuff I don't feel like reading anymore so I'm just going to ask you a yes or no question.
Lean back in your chair, take a deep breath, and reassess this argument. We all think nukes are terrible. We all want them to go away. That being said:
Are you just as comfortable with North Korea and Iran having nukes as you are with the United States having nukes?
This question is the acid test for "batshit crazy foreigner".
User was warned for this post
|
I know that North Korea loves to talk shit and never take action versus South Korea, but if Israel were to nuke Iran, do you think such a shocking event might motivate them to make their move? I'm just saying that a nuke being dropped on anybodies' soil has global repercussions and unforseeable outcomes.
We should scan the internet over the next few days for possible updates. This is definately a topic worth following!
|
On June 13 2010 14:11 eMbrace wrote:
Lysdexia, you've written a lot of stuff I don't feel like reading anymore so I'm just going to ask you a yes or no question.
Lean back in your chair, take a deep breath, and reassess this argument. We all think nukes are terrible. We all want them to go away. That being said:
Are you just as comfortable with North Korea and Iran having nukes as you are with the United States having nukes?
Yes to Iran. I'm not sure I'm familiar enough with the situation in North Korea to answer about them but I thought they already had nukes?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
