|
United States22883 Posts
On June 13 2010 23:17 angelicfolly wrote:Show nested quote +I'm not sure that you know how it "quacks" since you're referencing the back and forth statements of a corrupt populist. What he wants is to be in office. That doesn't mean they're willing to sacrifice the country in order to defend a different group of people. Again, it's a rational actor and there's no evidence to suggest otherwise. They're acquiring them so that they won't be used, just the same as nearly every other country that has. It advances technology, it allows them to reduce the size of their army, which costs much more to maintain than the weapons, injecting more young men into the economy. You did NOT get where that was aimed at, the elections. Anyway the guy is NOT the head of Iran, the Imans (whatever they're called) ARE. THEY dictate who gets elected, what gets what. Look do you deny them SMUGGLING weapons into Iraq? Do you deny them supplying Hazbollah and Hamas? THEY WILL give Nuclear weapons to terrorists, and if they do there goes world stability. Hey if they so cared about their people, you think they wouldn't killed them over elections? EVEN the UN believes this! Show nested quote +They will not go out of their way to harm Israel directly, because there's no benefit or perceived benefit, especially as Turkey's status is increased. If you think true ideologues run the country, then you simply don't know very much about Iran. Wow, are you denying all the crap that has come out of that country, They literally killed people because they called the election FAKE? Do you deny the last election results? Oh they don't have to go after Israel directly they will just give the bomb to Hamas/Hezbollah and let them get it in. People like them don't think in terms of "more sane" person. Why else would they SUICIDE bomb things? Show nested quote +Except you then point to Germany and WWII. This is the issue I have with your comparison. Israel is planning for a pre-emptive strike, just like they did on Iraq, and it seems that you're saying without it, Iran could possibly descend into that position. There's just no evidence of that occurring, however, which is what makes the attack so problematic. Before WW2 Germany was BUILDING UP arms, they actually tested them out in Spain. SO you would guess they wouldn't been pro-active to put into places things to stop that. They didn't care and looked what bit them. WoW, in no way was that the thing I was advocating, actually I was advocating everything they could do. I also don't believe I was making those statements in light of Israel, but in light of someone saying war is never justified. Yes, they give money to Hamas and Hezbollah, but in the amounts given it's not for the purpose of removing Israel, and its evidenced by the fact that neither Hamas or Hezbollah are doing very well right now. Israel is a nice opposition point for Iran and if it were gone, they would not be in on the land grab, one of their competitors would.
They killed protesters. It's sad but it happens all over the world. See Greece, China, etc. It doesn't make them irrational towards human life.
You don't simply "give" nuclear weapons to people. I don't know if you're watching 24 or too much CNN but both are equally misinformative. Right now, the technology is such that to have anything of significance, you need a bit of infrastructure around it. The kind that ONLY governments have. And the fissile material of every single weapon is traceable back to its origin.
Assuming they are crazy (we'll get to why you're wrong on that in a bit), if their struggle is over the plight of Palestinians and they're willing to attack Israel over it, why would they nuke the place the Palestinians are going to live? If they did have that disregard for Palestinian life, why not use biological weapons which are 1. cheaper 2. easier to acquire 3. easier to use and 4. more effective? If you want to kill someone, you don't waste effort on developing nuclear weapons. Their power comes from the prestige and stigma around them.
As for this: "People like them don't think in terms of "more sane" person. Why else would they SUICIDE bomb things?" A couple of short things about suicide bombing, based on the 3 main academic source son the subject this decade (Dying to Win: The Strategic Logic of Suicide Terrorism - Pape, How the Weak Win Wars - something-Toft, Terror in the Mind of God - Juergensmeyer).
Terrorism, or asymmetric warfare makes sense. It has a far greater effect than just the initial act itself, and it's literally the only way to win a fight when there's a significant power disadvantage. It's also the case that with less of a perceived power differential, both sides are more willing to fight a conventional war, but that's an aside. In such a conventional war, Israel is at a distinct advantage over all of its neighbors. The result has been replicated multiple times throughout history.
Next, terrorism and suicide bombing aren't about religious zeal. It helps create a culture where it can come from, but that can be substituted for a lot of different things. It almost always, almost every single case of it comes down to nationalism and a fight for sovereignty, and it's usually between occupied and occupier.
Iran does not fit into either of those molds. It's just another corrupt political player in the region, and it happens to be a major one. That doesn't mean it's a major risk to anyone outside of its borders, and within them its liberalizing. It's a rational actor concerned mostly with its own stability and its own economy. Challenging Israel helps with #1, nuclear weapons help with #2.
EDIT: I think all of those books/articles are probably available online from Google Books or one of the university libraries.
|
On June 13 2010 07:04 Tyraz wrote:
Thread progression:
Saudi's give Israel clear skys
Some justify this and say "well... they might have nukes"
Turns into a justification for american nukes
Turns into a justification for ww2 & 1
Turns into a justification for the holocaust.
Turns into a justification for taking out 'a jihad'
Latest trend: Saudi's aren't democratic either, y'all
Wait.. what?
Who had page 2 for WW2 getting involved in the argument?
Taking all bets! Let's see who can show they know the least about politics and history!
|
On June 13 2010 16:17 JinMaikeul wrote:Show nested quote +On June 13 2010 16:09 L wrote: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? Sure I can, because the vast majority of your statements are incredibly simplistic. If I oppose abortion rights in the name of a secular cause, but do it because of my religious values, does that make the action secular or does that make it religious in nature?
In the States there are a huge amount of secular political power which is simply masked religious power exerting itself through secular institutions. That Iran is honest enough to call a spade a spade doesn't change the fact that at their core the institutions still run on the foundation of political accountability via elections which is a fundamentally secular concept. Power there comes from the people, it doesn't come as a divine ordinance from god. The second philosophical structure is the hallmark of theocracies. The first is not.
Whether or not that plays out practically is somewhat irrelevant to our level of discussion because there is no government in the western tradition that has it play out perfectly. That means we're now stuck talking about issues of scale and magnitudes of varying degrees which needs a nuanced approach which pretty much no one on this board has enough information to make.
|
Yes, they give money to Hamas and Hezbollah, but in the amounts given it's not for the purpose of removing Israel, and its evidenced by the fact that neither Hamas or Hezbollah are doing very well right now. Israel is a nice opposition point for Iran and if it were gone, they would not be in on the land grab, one of their competitors would.
Some things just amaze me.
Please they don't just give money to them they give weapons and training. Wither they are doing well or not is completely irrelevant to the fact that Iran supports/proxies them to fright there wars.
And it's not true to say they don't use them to fight Israel.
http://www.businessweek.com/news/2010-04-20/iran-gives-weapons-funds-to-help-lebanese-hezbollah-re-arm.html
You do Realize that Iran does NOT recognize Israel, meaning they don't even put it on the map!
They killed protesters. It's sad but it happens all over the world. See Greece, China, etc. It doesn't make them irrational towards human life.
Wow, just speechless
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_Neda_Agha-Soltan
It's contested so make sure you look at the sources
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2009_Iranian_election_protests
Let's read up on our dear friend!
Here's some quotes
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mahmoud_Ahmadinejad_and_Israel#Iranian_responses_to_the_speech_controversy
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mahmoud_Ahmadinejad#Human_rights
You don't simply "give" nuclear weapons to people. I don't know if you're watching 24 or too much CNN but both are equally misinformative. Right now, the technology is such that to have anything of significance, you need a bit of infrastructure around it. The kind that ONLY governments have. And the fissile material of every single weapon is traceable back to its origin.
Don't watch either, and I highly doubt that's relevant anyways (bordering a straw-man there). Ummm, Iran builds bomb, Iran plays lottery and contacts winner. Said winner gets weapon. Iran tells said winner how to set it off. They can create a trigger from a phone they most certainly can do the same for a bomb (oh those IDE can kill Abrams tanks so that should tell you how handy they are with destruction).
Your point of being traceable? When did that stop Iran from smuggling weapons into Iraq? Or giving them to Hezbollah or Hamas? At this point I really don't think they care, or to far to notice.
As for this: "People like them don't think in terms of "more sane" person. Why else would they SUICIDE bomb things?" A couple of short things about suicide bombing, based on the 3 main academic source son the subject this decade (Dying to Win: The Strategic Logic of Suicide Terrorism - Pape, How the Weak Win Wars - something-Toft, Terror in the Mind of God - Juergensmeyer).
I still fail to see how because of a occupation that would make one a suicide bomber. You can make up whatever reason you want but to fly a plane into a building, full of civilians is NOT a sane thing to do. Or is saying all infidels need to die, and countries need to be wiped out. Yeah that's in line with recapturing there "homeland".
Assuming they are crazy (we'll get to why you're wrong on that in a bit), if their struggle is over the plight of Palestinians and they're willing to attack Israel over it, why would they nuke the place the Palestinians are going to live? If they did have that disregard for Palestinian life, why not use biological weapons which are 1. cheaper 2. easier to acquire 3. easier to use and 4. more effective? If you want to kill someone, you don't waste effort on developing nuclear weapons. Their power comes from the prestige and stigma around them.
Please neither Hamas, nor Iran cares about Palestinians. You see all this time along I have stated they would nuke it because they are out of their minds, meaning they really don't see logic into what they think is there holly right to accomplish. Oh who says they have to just used it in Israel, they can pass the bomb around the world if they want. Sorry south Korea your macros skills can't stop that bomb from frieing all the computer and electronical equipment you have. Hey at least Blizzard would be happy no-more kespa hold.
Terrorism, or asymmetric warfare makes sense. It has a far greater effect than just the initial act itself, and it's literally the only way to win a fight when there's a significant power disadvantage. It's also the case that with less of a perceived power differential, both sides are more willing to fight a conventional war, but that's an aside. In such a conventional war, Israel is at a distinct advantage over all of its neighbors. The result has been replicated multiple times throughout history
Truthfully I'm very erked by this one. Let's call a duck a duck shall we? Also lets not justify terrorism either.
Next, terrorism and suicide bombing aren't about religious zeal. It helps create a culture where it can come from, but that can be substituted for a lot of different things. It almost always, almost every single case of it comes down to nationalism and a fight for sovereignty, and it's usually between occupied and occupier.
Amuse me, where did I state that terrorism is religious zeal? Saying something is crazy is not the same as calling it from a religion. I guess for some reason the twin towers didn't belong to the United States. Even then if you really want to go down that route its beyond reasonable to hide and primary target civilians.
Iran does not fit into either of those molds. It's just another corrupt political player in the region, and it happens to be a major one. That doesn't mean it's a major risk to anyone outside of its borders, and within them its liberalizing. It's a rational actor concerned mostly with its own stability and its own economy. Challenging Israel helps with #1, nuclear weapons help with #2.
Iran so does fit into both molds. Wither you really want to believe or not, Iran is a DANGER to everyone. Iran liberalizing? Yeah after all the people got fed up with pretty much being enslaved to their government with no say whatsoever.
I will say the world begs to differ.
Do you honeslty expect someone go out and check out three books and read them to keep up with the conversation (which can be accomplished in a easier manner)? It's not practical. I wouldn't ask someone to watch a hour video so I wouldn't expect someone to ask to read a good size book.
Let's see if I missed anything again.
|
On June 13 2010 22:27 jello_biafra wrote:Show nested quote +On June 13 2010 22:24 Romantic wrote:On June 13 2010 21:52 jello_biafra wrote:On June 13 2010 20:03 hEruS wrote:
I'm pretty sure we will never see a world without nuclear weapons. What would happen is there wasn't a WW3 will most likely begin when someone comes to power in the US or Russia and gets rid of all nuclear weapons, they're the main thing that has stopped a major conflict from happening since WW2 so IMO getting rid of them is a terrible idea. Nuclear weapons, especially in a military sense, are nearly useless. They haven't stopped any major conflicts lol. Nukes are possibly the worst human invention in history. They're the ultimate deterrent, two nuclear powers will not engage in total war with each other because it's suicide for them both.
All it takes is one nuke to make up for every single death that would of happened from massive wars had nukes never been created.
And with the world we have today it will never just be "one" that is dropped.
Deterrence is just something we use to come to terms with the fact that we have the means to destroy our entire species with.
And for those people who keep spouting this shit about how no two countries with nukes have gone to war and that everyoen should have one please respond to the fact that having more nukes in the world increases the chances that an accident happens or that they get in the hands of someone you really don't want to have them. Remember it only takes one to make all this deterrance shit go out the window.
|
On June 14 2010 01:50 liepzig wrote:
And I don't even want to begin on Israel. I 100% respect the intelligence and the talent of the Jewish people. Many people in Asia even think they are genetically superior to other races. But the Israeli country has been anything but smart or savvy in it's diplomacy. If, 60 years ago, they had entered Palestine, integrated with the locals, and tried to forge harmonious relations with their neighbors, I doubt the middle east would be in such a mess right now.
I think that the arab leaders are actually, in better shape because Israel gives them a mutual enemy they can Co-Op against, and blame for their troubles.
PLEASE READ THIS:
The root of the trouble is that this entire Moslem region is totally dysfunctional, by any standard of the word, and would have been so even if Israel would have joined the Arab league and an independent Palestine would have existed for 100 years. The 22 member countries of the Arab league, from Mauritania to the Gulf States, have a total population of 300 millions, larger than the US and almost as large as the EU before its expansion. They have a land area larger than either the US or all of Europe. These 22 countries, with all their oil and natural resources, have a combined GDP smaller than that of Netherlands plus Belgium and equal to half of the GDP of California alone. Within this meager GDP, the gaps between rich and poor are beyond belief and too many of the rich made their money not by succeeding in business, but by being corrupt rulers. The social status of women is far below what it was in the Western World 150 years ago. Human rights are below any reasonable standard, in spite of the grotesque fact that Libya was elected Chair of the UN Human Rights commission. According to a report prepared by a committee of Arab intellectuals and published under the auspices of the U.N., the number of books translated by the entire Arab world is much smaller than what little Greece alone translates. The total number of scientific publications of 300 million Arabs is less than that of 6 million Israelis. Birth rates in the region are very high, increasing the poverty, the social gaps and the cultural decline. And all of this is happening in a region, which only 30 years ago, was believed to be the next wealthy part of the world, and in a Moslem area, which developed, at some point in history, one of the most advanced cultures in the world.
(The writer is an israeli physics professor)
Source:
http://southerncrossreview.org/35/harari.htmh
|
United States22883 Posts
On June 14 2010 03:46 angelicfolly wrote:Show nested quote +Yes, they give money to Hamas and Hezbollah, but in the amounts given it's not for the purpose of removing Israel, and its evidenced by the fact that neither Hamas or Hezbollah are doing very well right now. Israel is a nice opposition point for Iran and if it were gone, they would not be in on the land grab, one of their competitors would. Some things just amaze me. Please they don't just give money to them they give weapons and training. Wither they are doing well or not is completely irrelevant to the fact that Iran supports/proxies them to fright there wars. And it's not true to say they don't use them to fight Israel. http://www.businessweek.com/news/2010-04-20/iran-gives-weapons-funds-to-help-lebanese-hezbollah-re-arm.htmlYou do Realize that Iran does NOT recognize Israel, meaning they don't even put it on the map! Show nested quote +They killed protesters. It's sad but it happens all over the world. See Greece, China, etc. It doesn't make them irrational towards human life. Wow, just speechless http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_Neda_Agha-SoltanIt's contested so make sure you look at the sources http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2009_Iranian_election_protestsLet's read up on our dear friend! Here's some quotes http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mahmoud_Ahmadinejad_and_Israel#Iranian_responses_to_the_speech_controversyhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mahmoud_Ahmadinejad#Human_rightsShow nested quote +You don't simply "give" nuclear weapons to people. I don't know if you're watching 24 or too much CNN but both are equally misinformative. Right now, the technology is such that to have anything of significance, you need a bit of infrastructure around it. The kind that ONLY governments have. And the fissile material of every single weapon is traceable back to its origin. Don't watch either, and I highly doubt that's relevant anyways (bordering a straw-man there). Ummm, Iran builds bomb, Iran plays lottery and contacts winner. Said winner gets weapon. Iran tells said winner how to set it off. They can create a trigger from a phone they most certainly can do the same for a bomb (oh those IDE can kill Abrams tanks so that should tell you how handy they are with destruction). Your point of being traceable? When did that stop Iran from smuggling weapons into Iraq? Or giving them to Hezbollah or Hamas? At this point I really don't think they care, or to far to notice. Show nested quote +As for this: "People like them don't think in terms of "more sane" person. Why else would they SUICIDE bomb things?" A couple of short things about suicide bombing, based on the 3 main academic source son the subject this decade (Dying to Win: The Strategic Logic of Suicide Terrorism - Pape, How the Weak Win Wars - something-Toft, Terror in the Mind of God - Juergensmeyer). I still fail to see how because of a occupation that would make one a suicide bomber. You can make up whatever reason you want but to fly a plane into a building, full of civilians is NOT a sane thing to do. Or is saying all infidels need to die, and countries need to be wiped out. Yeah that's in line with recapturing there "homeland". Show nested quote +Assuming they are crazy (we'll get to why you're wrong on that in a bit), if their struggle is over the plight of Palestinians and they're willing to attack Israel over it, why would they nuke the place the Palestinians are going to live? If they did have that disregard for Palestinian life, why not use biological weapons which are 1. cheaper 2. easier to acquire 3. easier to use and 4. more effective? If you want to kill someone, you don't waste effort on developing nuclear weapons. Their power comes from the prestige and stigma around them. Please neither Hamas, nor Iran cares about Palestinians. You see all this time along I have stated they would nuke it because they are out of their minds, meaning they really don't see logic into what they think is there holly right to accomplish. Oh who says they have to just used it in Israel, they can pass the bomb around the world if they want. Sorry south Korea your macros skills can't stop that bomb from frieing all the computer and electronical equipment you have. Hey at least Blizzard would be happy no-more kespa hold. Show nested quote +Terrorism, or asymmetric warfare makes sense. It has a far greater effect than just the initial act itself, and it's literally the only way to win a fight when there's a significant power disadvantage. It's also the case that with less of a perceived power differential, both sides are more willing to fight a conventional war, but that's an aside. In such a conventional war, Israel is at a distinct advantage over all of its neighbors. The result has been replicated multiple times throughout history Truthfully I'm very erked by this one. Let's call a duck a duck shall we? Also lets not justify terrorism either. Show nested quote +Next, terrorism and suicide bombing aren't about religious zeal. It helps create a culture where it can come from, but that can be substituted for a lot of different things. It almost always, almost every single case of it comes down to nationalism and a fight for sovereignty, and it's usually between occupied and occupier. Amuse me, where did I state that terrorism is religious zeal? Saying something is crazy is not the same as calling it from a religion. I guess for some reason the twin towers didn't belong to the United States. Even then if you really want to go down that route its beyond reasonable to hide and primary target civilians. Show nested quote +Iran does not fit into either of those molds. It's just another corrupt political player in the region, and it happens to be a major one. That doesn't mean it's a major risk to anyone outside of its borders, and within them its liberalizing. It's a rational actor concerned mostly with its own stability and its own economy. Challenging Israel helps with #1, nuclear weapons help with #2. Iran so does fit into both molds. Wither you really want to believe or not, Iran is a DANGER to everyone. Iran liberalizing? Yeah after all the people got fed up with pretty much being enslaved to their government with no say whatsoever. I will say the world begs to differ. Do you honeslty expect someone go out and check out three books and read them to keep up with the conversation (which can be accomplished in a easier manner)? It's not practical. I wouldn't ask someone to watch a hour video so I wouldn't expect someone to ask to read a good size book. Let's see if I missed anything again.
No, I expect someone to be educated in things like intentional relations, terrorism and the middle east when engaging in this discussion You have a very myopic view of all of these things, and I'm no longer willing to play professor on TL. You're going by what you feel to be true, I'm going by qualitative and quantitative research by experts. News headlines and wikipedia articles aren't enough to get it done, if you want to have a serious IR discussion.
"Enslaved by their government?" I assume you've never been to Tehran, but have you even seen pictures? It's clear to me now that you just don't know anything about Iran. I'm sorry I've been wasting my time.
|
|
|
Just a publicity stunt in oder to take the eyes off the aid flotilla incident.
On June 14 2010 04:19 Jibba wrote:
No, I expect someone to be educated in things like intentional relations, terrorism and the middle east when engaging in this discussion You have a very myopic view of all of these things, and I'm no longer willing to play professor on TL. You're going by what you feel to be true, I'm going by qualitative and quantitative research by experts. News headlines and wikipedia articles aren't enough to get it done, if you want to have a serious IR discussion.
"Enslaved by their government?" I assume you've never been to Tehran, but have you even seen pictures? It's clear to me now that you just don't know anything about Iran. I'm sorry I've been wasting my time.
Mature choice, you've figured him out before it was too late. Guy posts pages and pages of Israeli officials statements and articles.
|
On June 14 2010 04:29 condoriano wrote:Just a publicity stunt in oder to take the eyes off the aid flotilla incident. Show nested quote +On June 14 2010 04:19 Jibba wrote:
No, I expect someone to be educated in things like intentional relations, terrorism and the middle east when engaging in this discussion You have a very myopic view of all of these things, and I'm no longer willing to play professor on TL. You're going by what you feel to be true, I'm going by qualitative and quantitative research by experts. News headlines and wikipedia articles aren't enough to get it done, if you want to have a serious IR discussion.
"Enslaved by their government?" I assume you've never been to Tehran, but have you even seen pictures? It's clear to me now that you just don't know anything about Iran. I'm sorry I've been wasting my time. Mature choice, you've figured him out before it was too late. Guy posts pages and pages of Israeli officials statements and articles.
seems so
"LONDON TIMES STORY OUTLINING NUKE ATTACK ON IRAN CITED
AS ISRAELI DECEPTION TO MANIPULATE U.S. STOCK MARKET
By Gordon Duff STAFF WRITER/Senior Editor"
|
On June 13 2010 19:52 Cain0 wrote:Show nested quote +On June 13 2010 03:33 ArKaDo wrote:LoL @ all those bans Well, I think the main problem is that Israel have the bomb while they are not supposed to... Since they have it and the entire international community doesn't do shit about it, country like Iran think that they need it to survive and that they will not be punished if they were to purchase it. We Americans, through fu$%ing sweat, blood, and death of WW2 saved the world from fascism I totally agree that US did sweat blood in the WW2, but you didn't "save the world from facism" alone please. The Russian victories were very important and the english also played a big part in the war. Well, at least we French were pretty useless in WW2 (we did most of the job in WW1 though). Dont feel too down, if we were attached to the rest of Europe, we would have fallen a few weeks after france did. To be honest, Americans didnt save the world from facism, nor the British, it was the river situated directly behind stalingrad.
Russian winters FTW!!!!! Yeah the thing is I don't think that any sole country can lay claim to the victory in the second world war. The thing about the United States and WW2 was that it was a huge deal for us to be able to come out of an economic crisis and at the same, fight a two front war and win.
On June 13 2010 19:38 Cheerio wrote:Show nested quote +On June 13 2010 02:35 SpartiK1S wrote:
We WORKED to get where we are in this world. We Americans, through fu$%ing sweat, blood, and death of WW2 saved the world from fascism
Don't act like WW2 victory was just yours. Your role in taking down Germany was minimal. By the time you shipped the forces to France the USSR was already on it's way to Berlin. You just fastened the process and didn't let USSR capture the whole Europe. Now I really hate USSR but there is no point distorting history because of that. Victory over Japan was yours though.
Well let's put it this way. What if the United States hadn't come in? What if after Pearl Harbor happened we decided... you know what we don't want to fight Germany, we want to go and fight the Japanese? What would have happened then? I agree that the United States' role in taking down Germany is smaller than what most Americans would like to believe, but saying our role was minimal would be as you would like to say "pointless because there is no point in distorting history."
|
|
|
No, I expect someone to be educated in things like intentional relations, terrorism and the middle east when engaging in this discussion You have a very myopic view of all of these things, and I'm no longer willing to play professor on TL. You're going by what you feel to be true, I'm going by qualitative and quantitative research by experts. News headlines and wikipedia articles aren't enough to get it done, if you want to have a serious IR discussion.
"Enslaved by their government?" I assume you've never been to Tehran, but have you even seen pictures? It's clear to me now that you just don't know anything about Iran. I'm sorry I've been wasting my time.
Don't play professor, I really don't care and you don't to need to make reasons why.
I'm going by what I fell is true, ok I'll ignore the wealth of information I provided you on this subject, I'll also ignore all the points you dropped since you really don't want to deal with the actual things.
That's besides the fact you just question every journalist out there, I'm sure they like that.
WoW, he attacks my sources now, what does that say? Next time you want to pull that crap make sure you understand when you can/cant use wiki.You just ignored ignore my points and what I use to back them up, that does not make for a good arugment. Oh the phrase Pretty much enslaved should of not been taken literally, but to say the people really don't have much power in their own country.
http://edition.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/meast/07/01/iran.election/index.html
Three top "experts" on the Iran government Question the legitimacy of the election.
http://edition.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/meast/07/01/analysis.iran.whats.next/index.html
Still, other Iran experts who have watched the chaos unfold compare the opposition movement not to the Islamic Revolution that ushered in Iran's theocratic establishment, but to the civil rights movement that sought to outlaw racial discrimination against black Americans in the United States in the 1950s and '60s: A long-term push, bolstered by conviction, challenged by setbacks, moments of progress and, at times, bloodshed.
Iranians understand the restrictive regime they live under. What's at stake, experts say, is the big picture: The Islamic republic could grow into a militaristic state with more power handed to its Revolutionary Guard (think North Korea), or it could maintain its repressive state and still open lines to the West (think China).
"We know that there will not be some sort of huge power change or revolution, but what I believe is that Iran is at a crossroads," Beigi said. "One road is complete militarization and control of the people and being completely cut off from the rest of the world like North Korea, and another road is being the dictatorship it is but opening up to the rest of the world and moving forward with the rest of the world in technology, in athletics and many other respects, which would in turn naturally provide a little bit more freedom for the youth each step of the way."
http://www.hrw.org/reports/1999/iran/Iran99o-03.htm
http://www.hrw.org/reports/1997/iran/Iran-04.htm
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/iran/1321090/Khomeini-fatwa-led-to-killing-of-30000-in-Iran.html
I really could spend all day collecting and posting these links.
would a mod get some of these guys off my back because I posted in the Israel thread, Isn't there a rule against stalking?
|
On June 13 2010 02:31 Monst3r wrote:Show nested quote +On June 13 2010 02:29 Whiplash 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. You really think countries like Iran and North Korea are going to be more responsible with nukes than America? Not North Korea but Iran sure is. How many wars has Iran started and how many has America started?
Technically, 0 have been started by America.
If you want to drop the technicalities, then maybe two?
No, I'd still say 0 were started by America.
|
On June 14 2010 05:58 Stratos_speAr wrote:Show nested quote +On June 13 2010 02:31 Monst3r wrote:On June 13 2010 02:29 Whiplash 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. You really think countries like Iran and North Korea are going to be more responsible with nukes than America? Not North Korea but Iran sure is. How many wars has Iran started and how many has America started? Technically, 0 have been started by America. If you want to drop the technicalities, then maybe two? No, I'd still say 0 were started by America.
vietnam, iraq ,afhanistan... 3 started by America..
|
On June 13 2010 02:08 Monst3r wrote:
Why would Saudi Arabia do such a thing.
Saudi Arabia is a staunch US, and therefore, Israeli ally
|
On June 14 2010 05:47 angelicfolly wrote:Show nested quote +No, I expect someone to be educated in things like intentional relations, terrorism and the middle east when engaging in this discussion You have a very myopic view of all of these things, and I'm no longer willing to play professor on TL. You're going by what you feel to be true, I'm going by qualitative and quantitative research by experts. News headlines and wikipedia articles aren't enough to get it done, if you want to have a serious IR discussion.
"Enslaved by their government?" I assume you've never been to Tehran, but have you even seen pictures? It's clear to me now that you just don't know anything about Iran. I'm sorry I've been wasting my time. Don't play professor, I really don't care and you don't to need to make reasons why. I'm going by what I fell is true, ok I'll ignore the wealth of information I provided you on this subject, I'll also ignore all the points you dropped since you really don't want to deal with the actual things. That's besides the fact you just question every journalist out there, I'm sure they like that. WoW, he attacks my sources now, what does that say? Next time you want to pull that crap make sure you understand when you can/cant use wiki.You just ignored ignore my points and what I use to back them up, that does not make for a good arugment. Oh the phrase Pretty much enslaved should of not been taken literally, but to say the people really don't have much power in their own country. http://edition.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/meast/07/01/iran.election/index.htmlThree top "experts" on the Iran government Question the legitimacy of the election. http://edition.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/meast/07/01/analysis.iran.whats.next/index.html
Still, other Iran experts who have watched the chaos unfold compare the opposition movement not to the Islamic Revolution that ushered in Iran's theocratic establishment, but to the civil rights movement that sought to outlaw racial discrimination against black Americans in the United States in the 1950s and '60s: A long-term push, bolstered by conviction, challenged by setbacks, moments of progress and, at times, bloodshed.Iranians understand the restrictive regime they live under. What's at stake, experts say, is the big picture: The Islamic republic could grow into a militaristic state with more power handed to its Revolutionary Guard (think North Korea), or it could maintain its repressive state and still open lines to the West (think China)."We know that there will not be some sort of huge power change or revolution, but what I believe is that Iran is at a crossroads," Beigi said. "One road is complete militarization and control of the people and being completely cut off from the rest of the world like North Korea, and another road is being the dictatorship it is but opening up to the rest of the world and moving forward with the rest of the world in technology, in athletics and many other respects, which would in turn naturally provide a little bit more freedom for the youth each step of the way."
http://www.hrw.org/reports/1999/iran/Iran99o-03.htmhttp://www.hrw.org/reports/1997/iran/Iran-04.htmhttp://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/iran/1321090/Khomeini-fatwa-led-to-killing-of-30000-in-Iran.htmlI really could spend all day collecting and posting these links. would a mod get some of these guys off my back because I posted in the Israel thread, Isn't there a rule against stalking?
Useless babble, incoherent defense of nonexistent position, hypocritical complaints about expressed opinions being used against you aside, I do agree with you on one part. People in democracies like Iran or the USA don't have much of a say at all  .
I'm glad the Saudis have decided to deny Israel the access. At least, that is what it seems like happened. Haven't read the posted links.
|
On June 14 2010 06:18 Romantic wrote:Show nested quote +On June 14 2010 05:47 angelicfolly wrote:No, I expect someone to be educated in things like intentional relations, terrorism and the middle east when engaging in this discussion You have a very myopic view of all of these things, and I'm no longer willing to play professor on TL. You're going by what you feel to be true, I'm going by qualitative and quantitative research by experts. News headlines and wikipedia articles aren't enough to get it done, if you want to have a serious IR discussion.
"Enslaved by their government?" I assume you've never been to Tehran, but have you even seen pictures? It's clear to me now that you just don't know anything about Iran. I'm sorry I've been wasting my time. Don't play professor, I really don't care and you don't to need to make reasons why. I'm going by what I fell is true, ok I'll ignore the wealth of information I provided you on this subject, I'll also ignore all the points you dropped since you really don't want to deal with the actual things. That's besides the fact you just question every journalist out there, I'm sure they like that. WoW, he attacks my sources now, what does that say? Next time you want to pull that crap make sure you understand when you can/cant use wiki.You just ignored ignore my points and what I use to back them up, that does not make for a good arugment. Oh the phrase Pretty much enslaved should of not been taken literally, but to say the people really don't have much power in their own country. http://edition.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/meast/07/01/iran.election/index.htmlThree top "experts" on the Iran government Question the legitimacy of the election. http://edition.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/meast/07/01/analysis.iran.whats.next/index.html
Still, other Iran experts who have watched the chaos unfold compare the opposition movement not to the Islamic Revolution that ushered in Iran's theocratic establishment, but to the civil rights movement that sought to outlaw racial discrimination against black Americans in the United States in the 1950s and '60s: A long-term push, bolstered by conviction, challenged by setbacks, moments of progress and, at times, bloodshed.Iranians understand the restrictive regime they live under. What's at stake, experts say, is the big picture: The Islamic republic could grow into a militaristic state with more power handed to its Revolutionary Guard (think North Korea), or it could maintain its repressive state and still open lines to the West (think China)."We know that there will not be some sort of huge power change or revolution, but what I believe is that Iran is at a crossroads," Beigi said. "One road is complete militarization and control of the people and being completely cut off from the rest of the world like North Korea, and another road is being the dictatorship it is but opening up to the rest of the world and moving forward with the rest of the world in technology, in athletics and many other respects, which would in turn naturally provide a little bit more freedom for the youth each step of the way."
http://www.hrw.org/reports/1999/iran/Iran99o-03.htmhttp://www.hrw.org/reports/1997/iran/Iran-04.htmhttp://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/iran/1321090/Khomeini-fatwa-led-to-killing-of-30000-in-Iran.htmlI really could spend all day collecting and posting these links. would a mod get some of these guys off my back because I posted in the Israel thread, Isn't there a rule against stalking? Useless babble, incoherent defense of nonexistent position, hypocritical complaints about expressed opinions being used against you aside, I do agree with you on one part. People in democracies like Iran or the USA don't have much of a say at all . I'm glad the Saudis have decided to deny Israel the access. At least, that is what it seems like happened. Haven't read the posted links.
Well if your not going to read the link don't bother to post, simple really.
All you want to do is insult that's fine, That really destroys my position.
Guess people cannot be civil...
|
On June 14 2010 06:30 angelicfolly wrote:Show nested quote +On June 14 2010 06:18 Romantic wrote:On June 14 2010 05:47 angelicfolly wrote:No, I expect someone to be educated in things like intentional relations, terrorism and the middle east when engaging in this discussion You have a very myopic view of all of these things, and I'm no longer willing to play professor on TL. You're going by what you feel to be true, I'm going by qualitative and quantitative research by experts. News headlines and wikipedia articles aren't enough to get it done, if you want to have a serious IR discussion.
"Enslaved by their government?" I assume you've never been to Tehran, but have you even seen pictures? It's clear to me now that you just don't know anything about Iran. I'm sorry I've been wasting my time. Don't play professor, I really don't care and you don't to need to make reasons why. I'm going by what I fell is true, ok I'll ignore the wealth of information I provided you on this subject, I'll also ignore all the points you dropped since you really don't want to deal with the actual things. That's besides the fact you just question every journalist out there, I'm sure they like that. WoW, he attacks my sources now, what does that say? Next time you want to pull that crap make sure you understand when you can/cant use wiki.You just ignored ignore my points and what I use to back them up, that does not make for a good arugment. Oh the phrase Pretty much enslaved should of not been taken literally, but to say the people really don't have much power in their own country. http://edition.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/meast/07/01/iran.election/index.htmlThree top "experts" on the Iran government Question the legitimacy of the election. http://edition.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/meast/07/01/analysis.iran.whats.next/index.html
Still, other Iran experts who have watched the chaos unfold compare the opposition movement not to the Islamic Revolution that ushered in Iran's theocratic establishment, but to the civil rights movement that sought to outlaw racial discrimination against black Americans in the United States in the 1950s and '60s: A long-term push, bolstered by conviction, challenged by setbacks, moments of progress and, at times, bloodshed.Iranians understand the restrictive regime they live under. What's at stake, experts say, is the big picture: The Islamic republic could grow into a militaristic state with more power handed to its Revolutionary Guard (think North Korea), or it could maintain its repressive state and still open lines to the West (think China)."We know that there will not be some sort of huge power change or revolution, but what I believe is that Iran is at a crossroads," Beigi said. "One road is complete militarization and control of the people and being completely cut off from the rest of the world like North Korea, and another road is being the dictatorship it is but opening up to the rest of the world and moving forward with the rest of the world in technology, in athletics and many other respects, which would in turn naturally provide a little bit more freedom for the youth each step of the way."
http://www.hrw.org/reports/1999/iran/Iran99o-03.htmhttp://www.hrw.org/reports/1997/iran/Iran-04.htmhttp://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/iran/1321090/Khomeini-fatwa-led-to-killing-of-30000-in-Iran.htmlI really could spend all day collecting and posting these links. would a mod get some of these guys off my back because I posted in the Israel thread, Isn't there a rule against stalking? Useless babble, incoherent defense of nonexistent position, hypocritical complaints about expressed opinions being used against you aside, I do agree with you on one part. People in democracies like Iran or the USA don't have much of a say at all . I'm glad the Saudis have decided to deny Israel the access. At least, that is what it seems like happened. Haven't read the posted links. Well if your not going to read the link don't bother to post, simple really. All you want to do is insult that's fine, That really destroys my position. Guess people cannot be civil...
Oh, I read a few of your links. I didn't read the one regarding the Saudi thing. Well, if your best defense of bombing Iran is that the opposition said Ahmadiney rigged the elections then there really isn't anything to say to you.
Might as well ask my redneck neighbors what Obama is. Their answer will be communist Muslim. Must be true  . You know what we do to Reds 'round here, boy?
|
On June 14 2010 06:39 Romantic wrote:Show nested quote +On June 14 2010 06:30 angelicfolly wrote:On June 14 2010 06:18 Romantic wrote:On June 14 2010 05:47 angelicfolly wrote:No, I expect someone to be educated in things like intentional relations, terrorism and the middle east when engaging in this discussion You have a very myopic view of all of these things, and I'm no longer willing to play professor on TL. You're going by what you feel to be true, I'm going by qualitative and quantitative research by experts. News headlines and wikipedia articles aren't enough to get it done, if you want to have a serious IR discussion.
"Enslaved by their government?" I assume you've never been to Tehran, but have you even seen pictures? It's clear to me now that you just don't know anything about Iran. I'm sorry I've been wasting my time. Don't play professor, I really don't care and you don't to need to make reasons why. I'm going by what I fell is true, ok I'll ignore the wealth of information I provided you on this subject, I'll also ignore all the points you dropped since you really don't want to deal with the actual things. That's besides the fact you just question every journalist out there, I'm sure they like that. WoW, he attacks my sources now, what does that say? Next time you want to pull that crap make sure you understand when you can/cant use wiki.You just ignored ignore my points and what I use to back them up, that does not make for a good arugment. Oh the phrase Pretty much enslaved should of not been taken literally, but to say the people really don't have much power in their own country. http://edition.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/meast/07/01/iran.election/index.htmlThree top "experts" on the Iran government Question the legitimacy of the election. http://edition.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/meast/07/01/analysis.iran.whats.next/index.html
Still, other Iran experts who have watched the chaos unfold compare the opposition movement not to the Islamic Revolution that ushered in Iran's theocratic establishment, but to the civil rights movement that sought to outlaw racial discrimination against black Americans in the United States in the 1950s and '60s: A long-term push, bolstered by conviction, challenged by setbacks, moments of progress and, at times, bloodshed.Iranians understand the restrictive regime they live under. What's at stake, experts say, is the big picture: The Islamic republic could grow into a militaristic state with more power handed to its Revolutionary Guard (think North Korea), or it could maintain its repressive state and still open lines to the West (think China)."We know that there will not be some sort of huge power change or revolution, but what I believe is that Iran is at a crossroads," Beigi said. "One road is complete militarization and control of the people and being completely cut off from the rest of the world like North Korea, and another road is being the dictatorship it is but opening up to the rest of the world and moving forward with the rest of the world in technology, in athletics and many other respects, which would in turn naturally provide a little bit more freedom for the youth each step of the way."
http://www.hrw.org/reports/1999/iran/Iran99o-03.htmhttp://www.hrw.org/reports/1997/iran/Iran-04.htmhttp://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/iran/1321090/Khomeini-fatwa-led-to-killing-of-30000-in-Iran.htmlI really could spend all day collecting and posting these links. would a mod get some of these guys off my back because I posted in the Israel thread, Isn't there a rule against stalking? Useless babble, incoherent defense of nonexistent position, hypocritical complaints about expressed opinions being used against you aside, I do agree with you on one part. People in democracies like Iran or the USA don't have much of a say at all . I'm glad the Saudis have decided to deny Israel the access. At least, that is what it seems like happened. Haven't read the posted links. Well if your not going to read the link don't bother to post, simple really. All you want to do is insult that's fine, That really destroys my position. Guess people cannot be civil... Oh, I read a few of your links. I didn't read the one regarding the Saudi thing. Well, if your best defense of bombing Iran is that the opposition said Ahmadiney rigged the elections then there really isn't anything to say to you. Might as well ask my redneck neighbors what Obama is. Their answer will be communist Muslim. Must be true . You know what we do to Reds 'round here, boy?
Way to be over the line. Thats borderline trollish.
Did I give a Saudi link? I'm almost sure all my links have been about Iran in the current order of things.
I have a challenge for you, QUOTE me where I said we should bomb Iran because of elections. I'm really tired of some people putting words into my mouth here.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
