|
On June 13 2010 14:21 neohero9 wrote:Show nested quote +On June 13 2010 13:43 Lysdexia wrote: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. Edit: If your response to nukes stabilizing the middle east is "but those countries are crazy and would just nuke each other!", then thanks for proving my point. The characterization is not that the entire populace of the middle east and third world are insane; it's that the leadership of certain nations is. Is that characterization biased based on our religious and political interests? Of course. Should it be? Of course not. You have to admit that the rhetoric coming from the likes of Ahmedinejad, Kim Jong Il, et al is pretty anti-Western, and anti-America. Do they have a right to be? Probably. We've meddled in shit that wasn't ours to meddle in for the past 50 years, from the end of WWII on. But what are we to do? When a country routinely issues threats against us, are we to stand there and let them act, just shaking our hand and assuming they won't follow through? Or even better-- hand them the schematics, materials, and experts that will let them arm themselves on the (ridiculous) level we are, and then wave them off with the same lightness? In the interest of full disclosure: I'm not for the state of Israel, or for its destruction. I think religious states, and religions, are inherently stupid-- they breed the animosity we see in the Middle East today, just as racial boundaries bred the animosity we see in Kyrgyzstan right now, and tribal distinctions create situations like in Darfur and Rwanda. I don't think anyone should have nukes, especially in very heated political climates-- were it up to me, I'd snatch the nukes from Israel, Pakistan, and India first, and then work my way down the list from there. I see your point about an assumption of irrationality about Africa and the Middle East. It must have come from somewhere, so where? We certainly don't have the same thoughts about South Korea, Japan, Russia (anymore), Turkey, and many other nations. The existing hostility between our nations is a factor, certainly. But what of the religiously-fueled hatred for the West that Ahmedinejad has? (Please notice that I'm using the leader's name, not the name of the nation-- no common people want war, and I don't think the Iranians are different in this respect). Religion is a tool used to create passions in the populace and justify horrible things. It goes all the way back to AT LEAST the book of Numbers in the Old Testament. In the face of absolute control of one's populace, and the morale in one's army on the level of fanaticism, a leader can unleash terrible forces if he is able. Case: Adolf Hitler in post-WWI and WWII Germany. He had charisma, propaganda, and united Germany on two fronts: common hatred of the Jewish people, and common love of the Aryans. He turned Germany into a fanatical war-machine, and murdered some 20 million civilians, and cost many nations, many FAMILIES, their soldiers. Am I saying Ahmedinejad or Kim are the next Hitlers? No. I'm saying it's possible, and that we are better served by being safe than sorry. I'm saying that Iran ought to have nuclear power, and deserve nuclear POWER, but that their leadership does not. You have a choice here: you can stick your fingers in your ears and leap from the fact that I disagree with you into your "racist" spiel, or you can seriously consider what I've said and develop counterarguments, and foster a mutually fruitful discussion. I'm not a bigot, and as arrogant as I am, I would rather be shown that I'm wrong than be wrong without knowing.
First, South Korea, Japan and Russia are all more economically developed than the middle east and Africa. My argument is that the way proliferation is commonly thought of is racist/orientalist against 3rd world countries. Turkey is our ally and a member of NATO but if they decided to pursue nuclear weapons we would probably label them a rogue state too.
Next, your distinction about leaders vs population is easy to make after the fact but unfortunately not the way proliferation is talked about unless the assumptions behind it are specifically challenged. Countries are referred to collectively, just look at the title of this thread.
This also begs the question of why you think those leaders are irrational. Kim Jung Il probably is crazy but he's different from Ahmedinejad because he's a dictator and has total control over North Korea and Ahmedinejad was elected and Iran has a parliament and stuff. Most of my posts were in the context of Iran and I don't think I can or should have to defend Kim Jung Il having unilateral control of nuclear weapons.
How can you say that Ahmedinejad and the entire parliament of Iran are crazy and irrational without implicating the population that elected them?
Additionally, proliferation is framed as a problem for any 3rd world state not just Iran. This is based on the blanket notion that there is a dichotomy between us and the 3rd world that makes us more capable and deserving of nukes while the 3rd world is impulsive and crazy and would just blow everything up.
Much more importantly, whether or not this discourse is intended as racist against the citizens of 3rd world countries our characterization of proliferation as a problem still legitimates domination and violence against them. We invaded Iraq because we thought they had WMDs and we wanted to control the spread of WMDs. Whether or not this was racist, the way we though about WMD proliferation still had a massive negative impact on the lives of people in Iraq.
You also haven't answered that nuclear weapons make war LESS likely because countries fear escalation. The only nuclear weapons ever used were in WW2 when retaliation was impossible because no one else had them. We did not have a conventional war with Russia that then escalated and went nuclear. Rather, the fact that we both had nukes prevented that conventional war in the 1st place.
|
On June 13 2010 14:58 JinMaikeul wrote:Show nested quote +On June 13 2010 14:24 Blanke wrote:
@Jinmakieul And when Iran does indeed choose to retaliate, how will they go about doing so? It's hard to predict exactly how serious any retaliation would be. I'm pretty certain it will remain within the realms of conventional warfare in any case. I'm sure Iran does have some sort of weaponry to counterbalance Israel's nuclear capabilities (be they chemical or biological), but I really think any retaliation will be in the form or minor skirmishes rather than full-fledged war. I just can't see the world tolerating another serious war in that region of the world.
There's been a lot of talk about US and Canadian troops (especially Canadian on CBC, something I've been following) exiting in 2011. If this escalates however, we may have to tolerate another war!
|
Saudi Arabia is butt buddy's with US. Sudi Arabias Royal family invests in US's forutune 500 companies in america and import oil to US which US loves and knowing that Saudi Arabia is one of there the best middle eastern ally to help this so called, spreading peace and stability to middle east and let them take there oil and there soverignty and put a puppet government which they have been with iran and now afghan / iraq but who doesnt bow down to US regime with U.N backing which is planned by the black nobility to set up the new world order. U.S bombs middle eastern countries since decades and still now killing innocent civilians and making them live in a hostile poor enviroment which theres always civil wars and facist puppet dictator doing genocides and we call them terrorists because there so jealous of white folks fortune and being a christian when those most white folks and people in the world living in a fantasy world where people dont even know what reality is.
|
On June 13 2010 14:51 Ramsing wrote:Show nested quote +On June 13 2010 14:34 Romantic wrote:On June 13 2010 14:02 Ramsing wrote: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. Really, the UN is about as useful as a wet paper towel. Peace movements may have "failed" in that they did not change the regime, but they will continue. You can't really expect a country to become peaceful and modernize ON YOUR TERMS, when you have no diplomatic ties, threaten it with terrorism with a history of abusing the oil resources and sponsoring dictators, invade its neighbors, shoot down some of their passenger planes, infiltrate their country with the CIA to conduct resistance, organize protests, and kidnap people, and keep an economic blockade. I guess the US policy of placing anti-communist dictators who will support US business is going to be replaced by anti-terrorist dictators. Luckily terrorism doesn't have a definition. Easier to label someone a terrorist than a communist, for sure. tl;dr aggressive posturing isnt necessary unless you have a policy of being aggressive. I said nothing about the US, and instead related it to Saudi Arabia's policies. Don't try to make a straw-man of my argument. Aggressive posturing is very necessary, when other, more peaceful means of policy have failed. As a final point, your use of the word terrorism is hilarious. Iran's sponsorship of terrorism makes your rhetoric hypocritical, at best.
I wasn't saying anything against you or making a strawman, just talking. It wasn't intended as a rebuttal or anything like that.
"peaceful policy" created the Iran we have today. US policy created a theocratic authoritarian regime, I don't see that as any excuse to bomb them. Specifically there is a large body of DoD leadership that thinks military action would be the worst possible solution to the problem.
What makes the USA's terrorism any different than anyone else's supposed terrorism? Aside from we have much more power to carry out our threats. I'm not pro-Iran and I don't agree with any terrorism they may or may not be doing so it isn't hypocritical. It is understandable though why someone could reach a line of thinking in the Iranian leadership that they need a nuclear weapon.
If Iraq is any guide the last people you want to listen to are US policy advisors. The inspectors would have told you there were no WMDs, Bush or his advisors wouldn't have.
|
This Iran situation with the sanctions draw some similarities to Japan in the 30s. The US put so many sanctions and trade embargoes on Japan that the Japanese had no choice but to take a huge risk and go to war for an empire that would give them all the resources they needed. Now with Iran I fear that all these sanctions and aggressive posturing is going to back them into a corner and eventually force them into a war for survival.
Also I think it's pretty clear that preemptive strikes on the possibility that a country may or may not have nuclear weapons (Iraq) have proven to lead to nothing. In this day and age it's pretty stupid to act on assumptions.
The best thing for the region would be if Iran allowed some international inspectors to make sure that they aren't working on weapons and only energy.
|
On June 13 2010 15:11 sleeepy wrote:
This Iran situation with the sanctions draw some similarities to Japan in the 30s. The US put so many sanctions and trade embargoes on Japan that the Japanese had no choice but to take a huge risk and go to war for an empire that would give them all the resources they needed. Now with Iran I fear that all these sanctions and aggressive posturing is going to back them into a corner and eventually force them into a war for survival.
Also I think it's pretty clear that preemptive strikes on the possibility that a country may or may not have nuclear weapons (Iraq) have proven to lead to nothing. In this day and age it's pretty stupid to act on assumptions.
The best thing for the region would be if Iran allowed some international inspectors to make sure that they aren't working on weapons and only energy.
I agree. It will be hard to get Iran to agree to things like this with the economic blockade, tough talk, threats, and CIA infiltration though. It leads to the problem that the USA will never end these things. We'd sooner start wars than admit we've made a mistake. See Vietnam, Iraq.
We need talks to get these things cleared up.
|
The division of the middle east runs deep, especially for Muslims. It all falls back to before the ottoman empire when you had two different sects of Islam, todays modern Sunni and Shi'a.
This is one of the main reasons as to why Iraq and Iran didn't get along in the first place and Saudi Arabia doesn't mind it. (Iran is Shi'a and Saudi Arabi is Sunni)
But one would HIGHLY doubt that any type of military action will take place against Iran if they aren't the primary aggressor.
And I'm not surprised this is coming out of the UK, some of the articles that come out of Times are just to cause more of a fear/confusion than actually analyze what is occurring.
|
This also begs the question of why you think those leaders are irrational. Kim Jung Il probably is crazy but he's different from Ahmedinejad because he's a dictator and has total control over North Korea and Ahmedinejad was elected and Iran has a parliament and stuff.
Don't end a point with "and stuff," it weakens your rhetoric 
Iran's election is hotly contested, both here and inside the country. I won't out-and-out call it a sham, but if it happens again, with the same results, I probably would. The younger generation had a very loud anti-Ahmewhatshisface voice, and their numbers will only grow as time goes on.
I think the Iranian leadership is irrational because they're militant religiosos, and enjoy quite a lot of power. Ahmewhatever rules with the absolute sanction of the Ayatollah, who is the figurehead if not the actual power. All we have to go on are their actions and their rhetoric, and both have been combative.
While you may not agree with submitting to the system of the UN, all they have to do to defuse the situation is agree to the things other nations are willing to give them. Sure this might take away from national prestige, but I'm sure they'll get over not graduating to big-boy pants on their own.
How can you say that Ahmedinejad and the entire parliament of Iran are crazy and irrational without implicating the population that elected them?
The same way that I can say the entire Congress and population of the United States wasn't as retarded, aggressive, and corrupt as G W Bush and select members of administration.
Additionally, proliferation is framed as a problem for any 3rd world state not just Iran. This is based on the blanket notion that there is a dichotomy between us and the 3rd world that makes us more capable and deserving of nukes while the 3rd world is impulsive and crazy and would just blow everything up.
We have moral resources at our disposal that the third world does not. Moral experts have a lot of influence in policy; a lot more than many think. They're all over. Everyone has advisors, and their advisors probably have advisors. In contrast, much of the third world is either in conflict or run by warlords who routinely have their opponents dragged through the streets behind trucks. Ok maybe not literally, but something along those lines. Barbarism.
I don't count Iran in the same league as nations in sub-Saharan Africa, tho. Iran has resources and access to many sources of information, their leadership just chooses to ignore rationale and instead drive their iron hand to whatever they want.
Much more importantly, whether or not this discourse is intended as racist against the citizens of 3rd world countries our characterization of proliferation as a problem still legitimates domination and violence against them. We invaded Iraq because we thought they had WMDs and we wanted to control the spread of WMDs. Whether or not this was racist, the way we though about WMD proliferation still had a massive negative impact on the lives of people in Iraq.
If you honestly believe the publicized reasons for going into Iraq, I'm sorry. If you're just using them to further your argument, then shame on you.
We went to Iraq to have a big gigantic foothold in the mid-East, to get oil for Cheney, and so Shrub could finish what Pappy started and make daddy proud.
You also haven't answered that nuclear weapons make war LESS likely because countries fear escalation. The only nuclear weapons ever used were in WW2 when retaliation was impossible because no one else had them. We did not have a conventional war with Russia that then escalated and went nuclear. Rather, the fact that we both had nukes prevented that conventional war in the 1st place.
Yes. I don't see why everyone needs them, tho. Let's pretend Iran gets them. They don't use them, because everyone they hate is already armed. We don't use them, because it's a stupid idea, and both the domestic and international political fallout would be devastating, and it's a stupid idea.
We don't invade Iran because after Iraq no one wants to anymore. It would take Iran making the first move (not a Gulf of Tonkin first move, but a Kuwait first move), for a conflict to happen. Why won't they do that? Because we, and everyone else they hate that hates them, will smash them. Nukes don't change the equation.
We're in a state of armistice right now. Why add the potential for nuclear strikes to the equation, to gain nothing?
Nuclear weaponry isn't a right; it's a danger. Mutual danger may be good for the political situation of two opposing states; it's murder for the population. The population is the concern.
|
On June 13 2010 15:01 Lysdexia wrote:Show nested quote +On June 13 2010 14:21 neohero9 wrote:On June 13 2010 13:43 Lysdexia wrote: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. Edit: If your response to nukes stabilizing the middle east is "but those countries are crazy and would just nuke each other!", then thanks for proving my point. The characterization is not that the entire populace of the middle east and third world are insane; it's that the leadership of certain nations is. Is that characterization biased based on our religious and political interests? Of course. Should it be? Of course not. You have to admit that the rhetoric coming from the likes of Ahmedinejad, Kim Jong Il, et al is pretty anti-Western, and anti-America. Do they have a right to be? Probably. We've meddled in shit that wasn't ours to meddle in for the past 50 years, from the end of WWII on. But what are we to do? When a country routinely issues threats against us, are we to stand there and let them act, just shaking our hand and assuming they won't follow through? Or even better-- hand them the schematics, materials, and experts that will let them arm themselves on the (ridiculous) level we are, and then wave them off with the same lightness? In the interest of full disclosure: I'm not for the state of Israel, or for its destruction. I think religious states, and religions, are inherently stupid-- they breed the animosity we see in the Middle East today, just as racial boundaries bred the animosity we see in Kyrgyzstan right now, and tribal distinctions create situations like in Darfur and Rwanda. I don't think anyone should have nukes, especially in very heated political climates-- were it up to me, I'd snatch the nukes from Israel, Pakistan, and India first, and then work my way down the list from there. I see your point about an assumption of irrationality about Africa and the Middle East. It must have come from somewhere, so where? We certainly don't have the same thoughts about South Korea, Japan, Russia (anymore), Turkey, and many other nations. The existing hostility between our nations is a factor, certainly. But what of the religiously-fueled hatred for the West that Ahmedinejad has? (Please notice that I'm using the leader's name, not the name of the nation-- no common people want war, and I don't think the Iranians are different in this respect). Religion is a tool used to create passions in the populace and justify horrible things. It goes all the way back to AT LEAST the book of Numbers in the Old Testament. In the face of absolute control of one's populace, and the morale in one's army on the level of fanaticism, a leader can unleash terrible forces if he is able. Case: Adolf Hitler in post-WWI and WWII Germany. He had charisma, propaganda, and united Germany on two fronts: common hatred of the Jewish people, and common love of the Aryans. He turned Germany into a fanatical war-machine, and murdered some 20 million civilians, and cost many nations, many FAMILIES, their soldiers. Am I saying Ahmedinejad or Kim are the next Hitlers? No. I'm saying it's possible, and that we are better served by being safe than sorry. I'm saying that Iran ought to have nuclear power, and deserve nuclear POWER, but that their leadership does not. You have a choice here: you can stick your fingers in your ears and leap from the fact that I disagree with you into your "racist" spiel, or you can seriously consider what I've said and develop counterarguments, and foster a mutually fruitful discussion. I'm not a bigot, and as arrogant as I am, I would rather be shown that I'm wrong than be wrong without knowing. First, South Korea, Japan and Russia are all more economically developed than the middle east and Africa. My argument is that the way proliferation is commonly thought of is racist/orientalist against 3rd world countries. Turkey is our ally and a member of NATO but if they decided to pursue nuclear weapons we would probably label them a rogue state too. Next, your distinction about leaders vs population is easy to make after the fact but unfortunately not the way proliferation is talked about unless the assumptions behind it are specifically challenged. Countries are referred to collectively, just look at the title of this thread. This also begs the question of why you think those leaders are irrational. Kim Jung Il probably is crazy but he's different from Ahmedinejad because he's a dictator and has total control over North Korea and Ahmedinejad was elected and Iran has a parliament and stuff. Most of my posts were in the context of Iran and I don't think I can or should have to defend Kim Jung Il having unilateral control of nuclear weapons. How can you say that Ahmedinejad and the entire parliament of Iran are crazy and irrational without implicating the population that elected them? Additionally, proliferation is framed as a problem for any 3rd world state not just Iran. This is based on the blanket notion that there is a dichotomy between us and the 3rd world that makes us more capable and deserving of nukes while the 3rd world is impulsive and crazy and would just blow everything up. Much more importantly, whether or not this discourse is intended as racist against the citizens of 3rd world countries our characterization of proliferation as a problem still legitimates domination and violence against them. We invaded Iraq because we thought they had WMDs and we wanted to control the spread of WMDs. Whether or not this was racist, the way we though about WMD proliferation still had a massive negative impact on the lives of people in Iraq. You also haven't answered that nuclear weapons make war LESS likely because countries fear escalation. The only nuclear weapons ever used were in WW2 when retaliation was impossible because no one else had them. We did not have a conventional war with Russia that then escalated and went nuclear. Rather, the fact that we both had nukes prevented that conventional war in the 1st place.
I'm pretty sure Iran is not a 3rd world state... Also you essentially went from your initial argument that all nations are entitled to nuclear weapons to some nations (such as military dictatorships) probably shouldn't have them. If it is your belief that nuclear proliferation will actually make war less likely, then why would you have a problem with North Korea or another unilateral dictatorship having nuclear power? It becomes pretty clear that it's most likely because of an increased risk factor that arises when you start putting these weapons in the hands of potentially unstable and unpredictable people.
The reason the Cold War never broke out into a serious military conflict was because both the USSR and the USA for the most part were rational and pretty evenly matched powers in completely different hemispheres. That's simply not true of every nation in the world. Also, do you have any idea what kind of fear people lived under during the Cold War era where you had two conflicting nuclear-armed superpowers and how often it could've actually escalated into a serious conflict? All it takes is a glitch in the system saying an enemy missile was launched when it wasn't or one rogue faction or commander creating an incident to start a conflict.
While I'm sure you have your opinions about Iran's stability, you simply cannot seriously suggest that all nations are or should be considered equal in this regard. Also in regard to Iran and the Middle East in general, in a region of the world where you have governments that amount to theocracies and people on a regular basis being encouraged by people with incredible influence on the politics of the nation to strap bombs to their chests and blow themselves up for God, I find it difficult to argue that these people are as rational as you seem to think they are. Of course there are perfectly rational people among them, but their governments and laws in many instances seem to reflect the direct opposite.
|
On June 13 2010 15:27 JinMaikeul wrote:
If it is your belief that nuclear proliferation will actually make war less likely, then why would you have a problem with North Korea or another unilateral dictatorship having nuclear power? It becomes pretty clear that it's most likely because of an increased risk factor that arises when you start putting these weapons in the hands of potentially unstable and unpredictable people.
Good point.
|
On June 13 2010 02:35 SpartiK1S 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. wait wait wait, what the FU$%? "If America has nukes, EVERYONE GETS NUKES"????? You are either a teenager that doesn't understand world politics, or else a , god i can't say it without it getting deleted. What you are suggesting is the equivalent of giving a DOOMSDAY DEVICE to someone like a highschool bully. WHILE HE IS STILL IN HIGHSCHOOL! You are either an Iranian praying for America's downfall or else completely noob and retarded at world relations. We WORKED to get where we are in this world. We Americans, through fu$%ing sweat, blood, and death of WW2 saved the world from fascism, and discovered the most deadly weapon in the history of EVERYTHING on the way. Thats like winning a starcraft game, and then saying, bah, im too greedy, i should give the guy all my minerals and 3 hours to build while i go look at porn and lose. Just handing that treasure over to third world countries and such would result in EVERYONE DYING. 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. No matter how good you are anyone deems you at computer games, world political relations takes more than "pro starcraft apm" to master and think about correctly.
First off, I find you saying that teenagers don't understand world politics quite insulting considering that a very many of us do. Second, don't blow up at him dude. Look at him as a troll. Calm down. Third... I'm not sure what the intention of your post was. Did you intend to express displeasure at his post? If so I don't understand what the purpose of spouting a ton of stuff about Nigeria. Third... why Nigeria? Why use a specific country as an example? What exactly was your intention in that? Did you mean to insult an entire nation by calling every 124 million people who live in the country primitive and barbaric? One more thing, it doesn't take a genius like you to realize that nuclear weapons shouldn't be something to be distributed into the wrong hands. I think the vast majority of people reading this thread already realize this. That guy was probably trolln' or he's got some serious issues to work out.
Also another point that I'd like to bring up is the fact that when you say we AMERICANS worked to get where we are in this world.... correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't einstein a signifigant contributor to the developement of the first nuclear weapons? And... was he french... no no no... he was polish... no no... he had to have been american... WAIT he was german oh wow... and now you're probably going to post a responce to my post calling me immature and saying that because I'm a teenager I know nothing about the world and that I should just stop talking because I should wait a couple years before speaking 
|
On June 13 2010 13:06 JinMaikeul wrote:Show nested quote +On June 13 2010 12:34 L wrote:
I can see plenty good coming out of it. A secular Muslim country being able to counterbalance Israel will force the US's hand and will probably force them to pull aid from Israel which will force Israel to make concessions which will probably relieve Islamic/western tensions in general.
Most people are more worried because if Iran can get nukes, can't everyone? Until it hits that point, its pretty irrelevant. Dude... are you actually calling Iran a secular country?
Yes.
Amazing, I know.
|
On June 13 2010 15:54 L wrote:Show nested quote +On June 13 2010 13:06 JinMaikeul wrote:On June 13 2010 12:34 L wrote:
I can see plenty good coming out of it. A secular Muslim country being able to counterbalance Israel will force the US's hand and will probably force them to pull aid from Israel which will force Israel to make concessions which will probably relieve Islamic/western tensions in general.
Most people are more worried because if Iran can get nukes, can't everyone? Until it hits that point, its pretty irrelevant. Dude... are you actually calling Iran a secular country? Yes. Amazing, I know.
You may need to explain your point of view. It is run by Muslim clerics, and headed by the Ayatollah, a religious leader. It has an official religion, with public reinforcement of its rituals.
Care to share?
|
On June 13 2010 15:54 L wrote:Show nested quote +On June 13 2010 13:06 JinMaikeul wrote:On June 13 2010 12:34 L wrote:
I can see plenty good coming out of it. A secular Muslim country being able to counterbalance Israel will force the US's hand and will probably force them to pull aid from Israel which will force Israel to make concessions which will probably relieve Islamic/western tensions in general.
Most people are more worried because if Iran can get nukes, can't everyone? Until it hits that point, its pretty irrelevant. Dude... are you actually calling Iran a secular country? Yes. Amazing, I know.
Aside from the fact that their laws and culture obviously say otherwise, how can you describe a country as being both secular and Muslim at the same time?
|
Just throwing it out there than Jews in Iran have a member of legislature despite only having 25,000 Jewish people. Christians have 4.
|
On June 13 2010 16:01 Romantic wrote:
Just throwing it out there than Jews in Iran have a member of legislature despite only having 25,000 Jewish people. Christians have 4.
This is good to know.
|
On June 13 2010 15:57 JinMaikeul wrote:Show nested quote +On June 13 2010 15:54 L wrote:On June 13 2010 13:06 JinMaikeul wrote:On June 13 2010 12:34 L wrote:
I can see plenty good coming out of it. A secular Muslim country being able to counterbalance Israel will force the US's hand and will probably force them to pull aid from Israel which will force Israel to make concessions which will probably relieve Islamic/western tensions in general.
Most people are more worried because if Iran can get nukes, can't everyone? Until it hits that point, its pretty irrelevant. Dude... are you actually calling Iran a secular country? Yes. Amazing, I know. Aside from the fact that their laws and culture obviously say otherwise, how can you describe a country as being both secular and Muslim at the same time?
The united states is largely a secular protestant nation.
The structure of government institutions is what differentiates between a secular nation and a theocratic one. The Iranian supreme leader is appointed by the council of experts, who themselves are elected officials. If the public really wanted to vote someone new in, they could to the greatest extent that a representational system of government allows.
If you want to argue that there's been institutional capture in Iran, the exact same can be said of nearly every representational democracy, and not just those in the traditional west either.
|
On June 13 2010 16:01 Romantic wrote:
Just throwing it out there than Jews in Iran have a member of legislature despite only having 25,000 Jewish people. Christians have 4.
How many members are in the legislature total?
I suppose it's possible that L is working from the same kind of point of view that would label the US as a "secular Christian" nation-- one with no official religion, but which has a dominant religion which influences its policy.
I would then say the difference is that there is official promotion of the US as such, indeed there is a legally-enforced separation of church and state, in contrast to Iran, which has a theocratic constitution headed by a Muslim cleric: Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei.
|
On June 13 2010 16:09 L wrote:Show nested quote +On June 13 2010 15:57 JinMaikeul wrote:On June 13 2010 15:54 L wrote:On June 13 2010 13:06 JinMaikeul wrote:On June 13 2010 12:34 L wrote:
I can see plenty good coming out of it. A secular Muslim country being able to counterbalance Israel will force the US's hand and will probably force them to pull aid from Israel which will force Israel to make concessions which will probably relieve Islamic/western tensions in general.
Most people are more worried because if Iran can get nukes, can't everyone? Until it hits that point, its pretty irrelevant. Dude... are you actually calling Iran a secular country? Yes. Amazing, I know. Aside from the fact that their laws and culture obviously say otherwise, how can you describe a country as being both secular and Muslim at the same time? The united states is largely a secular protestant nation. The structure of government institutions is what differentiates between a secular nation and a theocratic one. The Iranian supreme leader is appointed by the council of experts, who themselves are elected officials. If the public really wanted to vote someone new in, they could to the greatest extent that a representational system of government allows. If you want to argue that there's been institutional capture in Iran, the exact same can be said of nearly every representational democracy, and not just those in the traditional west either.
The Supreme Leader is elected by a "Council of Experts", which is essentially a group of Muslim scholars. These Muslim scholars are elected from a government-screened list of candidates. The elected President must be approved by this Supreme Leader who is elected by a group of Muslim scholars who are elected by the people from a list of government-screened candidates. Do you see where I'm going with this here?
A Muslim must be approved by a Muslim elected by a group of Muslims from a list pre-screened by a Muslim government. All leading to laws which stem from Islamic law and are enforced upon the population. What part of this is secular again? Throw in the fact that the Irani constitution specifically states that being a Muslim and keeping to Islamic principles is a prerequisite for these positions and I don't see how Iran is not a theocracy despite it's democratic process of electing leaders.
The United States despite having a large Protestant population is hardly a Protestant nation... We have an enforced separation of church and state in this nation that ensures that we are not. Can you say anything remotely similar about Iran's government?
|
On June 13 2010 16:09 neohero9 wrote:Show nested quote +On June 13 2010 16:01 Romantic wrote:
Just throwing it out there than Jews in Iran have a member of legislature despite only having 25,000 Jewish people. Christians have 4. How many members are in the legislature total? I suppose it's possible that L is working from the same kind of point of view that would label the US as a "secular Christian" nation-- one with no official religion, but which has a dominant religion which influences its policy. I would then say the difference is that there is official promotion of the US as such, indeed there is a legally-enforced separation of church and state, in contrast to Iran, which has a theocratic constitution headed by a Muslim cleric: Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. 290, I think. Although, without the given legislator the Jews wouldn't have the population to elect one under normal circumstances. Of course they don't have political power by themselves, but it is a little gesture.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
