|
On June 13 2010 08:47 Squeegy wrote:Show nested quote +On June 13 2010 08:30 ArKaDo wrote:
Yes but you don't want them to have the nuke because you picture them as "evil". Unlike Israel.
I consider Israel much more likely to use the nuke than Iran. (talking to Squeegy). No. You should really stop putting words in my mouth. It's not nice and it makes me see constructive posts as useless. I said I consider Iran unlikely to use nukes. I said I don't want them to have nukes because it would destabilize the area even further. And because sometimes wars end up happening although neither side wants them to happen. In other words, although I believe nukes aren't completely a bad thing, the more we have nukes. Or rather, the more factions that have nukes, the more likely it is that they are used. I'd rather no faction get nukes anymore and that the factions with existing nukes would get rid of theirs. Or at least the majority of their nukes. To put it simply, I don't want Iran to get nukes because I don't see anything good coming out of it.
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.
|
On June 13 2010 12:33 Mascherano wrote:
This is so high up on the fucked up scale there are no words to describe it. Practically every country has nuclear power plants these days. These plants use enriched uranium to give energy to huge regions. Denying this to a developing country is like making them go back to the stone age. Where is the proof that they are even contemplating making nukes? Uranium enrichment does not equal nukes FFS.
Many years ago when Iran and USA were allied, the USA and Europe decided to help out Iran by building nuclear power plants there ( for a very heft sum). They were happy Iran had nuclear power as long as they payed a shit ton for it. Then Iran had a revolution and a change of leadership and 'shit happened' ( who was at fault here? well depends who you ask) that created bad blood between iran and usa. Mix in religion, culture, history, oil, and neighbours and this is not just about 'nukes'
From the article in the OP: "The four main targets for any raid on Iran would be the uranium enrichment facilities at Natanz and Qom, the gas storage development at Isfahan and the heavy-water reactor at Arak. Secondary targets include the lightwater reactor at Bushehr, which could produce weapons-grade plutonium when complete."
Why not just bomb schools which could educate future engineers/scientists/etc.
Or better yet, just bomb the shit out of every house and hospital, there could be terrorists being born there!
I agree with your point but isn't Iran going for nukes a commonly accepted fact these days? Like it used to be how you described it, but not anymore.
|
It's not the fact that the country of Iran is working on nuclear power that the world is afraid of. It's the fact that Mahmoud Ahmedinejad and the rest of their leadership is.
The Iranian people are much like the rest of the world: workers, humble, average folk; but they're not the ones with the power to do something with nuclear weapons. It's the crazy ass "scorch the Westerners and the Jews" people that have the potential power, and they represent a very real danger.
In an ideal world we wouldn't have to worry about this, or N Korea, or any other ignorant, fanatical shit in any nation; we don't live in such a world, tho.
|
This is actually really, really serious guys. I noticed we've drifted off -topic with arguing over America's possession of nukes (why I have absolutely no idea, this thread involves Saudi Arabia, Israel and Iran) so I'll refocus us. Israel and Iran are pretty much mortal enemies, just puttin' that out there. Why Saudi Arabia however would make such a controversial move by promoting war leads me to suggest a conspiracy is about! Someone in high places in Saudi Arabia must be working for Israel, or was at least bribed under the table. Israel has nukes, and after witnessing what their special forces did to those protestors on the flotilla, I think it's reasonable to suggest that Israel is crazy enough to use them, especially when they're potentially motivated by religion! Theorists have suggested that religion would be the root cause of WWIII, I guess now we'll just have to sit tight and watch the skies for doomsday!
|
I don't know though, the idea of a full out war seems so beyond what the modern world will allow. I can't imagine Israel just bombing Iran and all without consent of the rest of the world first.
And I highly doubt anyone is going to use a nuke in the near future, besides some rogue terrorist group but I'm not even sure how likely that is. Maybe I'm too optimistic, and I underestimate how crazy Iran is.
|
Iran will retaliate in any way possible. This is Amahindinjad we are talking about. (Butchered his name, lol.) Does Iran have nukes prepped and ready for launch? Probably not just yet, but you can expect some form of retaliation. After that, it's anyones game. It's called escalation, and throughout history we've seen it occur far too often, with deadly results.
Remember MAD: Mutually Assured Destruction!
|
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?
|
On June 13 2010 09:22 Zoler wrote:Show nested quote +On June 13 2010 09:17 On_Slaught wrote:On June 13 2010 09:14 Zoler wrote:On June 13 2010 09:13 Ghostcom wrote:
ITT: a lot of people who didn't attend their history classes... +1 The fact that you agree with this when you basically just said that those who listen to what their history classes teach them are brainwashed and/or stupid doesn't make much sense. Tho I assume that the text books say something quite different over there which might teach something different. We should accept that Sweden can provide a better account eh? Or maybe we just did some research and didn't listen to our teachers / books and then said "hey, that's how it's gotta be". I know that some things are wrong in our history books about Swedish history, like how we stole the northern land areas from the native population and also it says we conquered Finland, when Finland actually wanted to join Sweden and did it peacefully. I also know it's the same in USA regarding a lot of facts. Every country does this, it's called propaganda. USA isn't the country with the most freedom of press and freedom overall if that's what you think. USA at #41, regarding to freedom of press (I do realize this is not a question about freedom of press but I just felt like adding it):
Instead of claiming rampant propaganda, why not provide examples and cite some respected sources accurately illustrating the historic events you put into question? As it is, you just come across as paranoid.
I also don't see why you included a "fact" (if a random image on the internet could even laughably be considered a source) about freedom of the press, as it has little to no correlation with educational propaganda. It seems like you're trying to suggest otherwise.
|
On June 13 2010 02:22 Monst3r wrote:Show nested quote +On June 13 2010 02:15 zer0das wrote:On June 13 2010 02:08 Monst3r wrote:
Why would Saudi Arabia do such a thing. Probably because Iran is a huge threat to the stability of their government... monarchy vs revolution. And whole region even. Nukes in the hands of Iran probably make them just as nervous as Israel. If America has nukes, every single country in the world deserves nukes too. User was temp banned for this post.
Why was this ban worthy? It's true.
The reasons we (the U.S. and allies) don't want countries like Iran to have nukes is rooted in racism and orientalism. Can't let those crazy a-rabs have nukes, only us civilized enlightened westerners can be trusted with them. Our whole foreign policy towards Iran is based on creating a dichotomy where we are 'rational' and they are 'irrational' which is why we do things like label them a "rouge state", which is obviously a self-serving and meaningless label because they're only "rouge" in the sense that they don't do what we say.
America does not deserve nukes, no state has any possible moral claim to such destructive weapons, but if we have them then why doesn't every single country in the world also deserve them?
|
On June 13 2010 13:08 Lysdexia wrote:Show nested quote +On June 13 2010 02:22 Monst3r wrote:On June 13 2010 02:15 zer0das wrote:On June 13 2010 02:08 Monst3r wrote:
Why would Saudi Arabia do such a thing. Probably because Iran is a huge threat to the stability of their government... monarchy vs revolution. And whole region even. Nukes in the hands of Iran probably make them just as nervous as Israel. If America has nukes, every single country in the world deserves nukes too. User was temp banned for this post. Why was this ban worthy? It's true. The reasons we (the U.S. and allies) don't want countries like Iran to have nukes is rooted in racism and orientalism. Can't let those crazy a-rabs have nukes, only us civilized enlightened westerners can be trusted with them. Our whole foreign policy towards Iran is based on creating a dichotomy where we are 'rational' and they are 'irrational' which is why we do things like label them a "rouge state", which is obviously a self-serving and meaningless label because they're only "rouge" in the sense that they don't do what we say. America does not deserve nukes, no state has any possible moral claim to such destructive weapons, but if we have them then why doesn't every single country in the world also deserve them?
i've tried to rewrite my response to this for the past 5 minutes, and honestly i'm just going to leave it.
you win, you're right, and you are most definitely completely sane. the forums need more people like you -- no, the world needs more people like you.
|
On June 13 2010 13:14 eMbrace wrote:Show nested quote +On June 13 2010 13:08 Lysdexia wrote:On June 13 2010 02:22 Monst3r wrote:On June 13 2010 02:15 zer0das wrote:On June 13 2010 02:08 Monst3r wrote:
Why would Saudi Arabia do such a thing. Probably because Iran is a huge threat to the stability of their government... monarchy vs revolution. And whole region even. Nukes in the hands of Iran probably make them just as nervous as Israel. If America has nukes, every single country in the world deserves nukes too. User was temp banned for this post. Why was this ban worthy? It's true. The reasons we (the U.S. and allies) don't want countries like Iran to have nukes is rooted in racism and orientalism. Can't let those crazy a-rabs have nukes, only us civilized enlightened westerners can be trusted with them. Our whole foreign policy towards Iran is based on creating a dichotomy where we are 'rational' and they are 'irrational' which is why we do things like label them a "rouge state", which is obviously a self-serving and meaningless label because they're only "rouge" in the sense that they don't do what we say. America does not deserve nukes, no state has any possible moral claim to such destructive weapons, but if we have them then why doesn't every single country in the world also deserve them? i've tried to rewrite my response to this for the past 5 minutes, and honestly i'm just going to leave it. you win, you're right, and you are most definitely completely sane. the forums need more people like you -- no, the world needs more people like you.
The internet is a frustrating, tiring thing to argue against 
I sympathize.
|
While I don't like ANYONE having nukes, you really can't say anything to a country that says "your country has nukes, why can't I?" From their point of view telling them they can't have nukes for world peace really is just a scheme to keep their country vulnerable, which is why we need to take some other approach than "YOU MOFOS WE'RE GONNA BUST YO ASS IF YOU GET NUKES" approach.
|
Guys, don't you agree that Israel is capable of more than just tough talk, unlike North Korea? This isn't an empty threat we are dealing with here, Saudi Arabia is allowing Israel to potentially destroy Iran!
|
On June 13 2010 13:23 Blanke wrote:
Guys, don't you agree that Israel is capable of more than just tough talk, unlike North Korea? This isn't an empty threat we are dealing with here, Saudi Arabia is allowing Israel to potentially destroy Iran!
it sounds like it would be a pretty brutal conflict that i personally would like to avoid, and while Israel is capable it'd be a huge toll on them IMO.
|
On June 13 2010 13:25 eMbrace wrote:Show nested quote +On June 13 2010 13:23 Blanke wrote:
Guys, don't you agree that Israel is capable of more than just tough talk, unlike North Korea? This isn't an empty threat we are dealing with here, Saudi Arabia is allowing Israel to potentially destroy Iran! it sounds like it would be a pretty brutal conflict that i personally would like to avoid, and while Israel is capable it'd be a huge toll on them IMO.
Remember, Saudi Arabia is America's ally. They're the ones supplying America's oil addiction. (Ever since the massive BP leak, they need all they can get!) America wouldn't risk jepordizing their relationship with Saudi Arabia by questioning why they opened up their airspace! Expect the US Government to pull some scheme that justifies the destruction of Iran.
|
On June 13 2010 13:08 Lysdexia wrote:Show nested quote +On June 13 2010 02:22 Monst3r wrote:On June 13 2010 02:15 zer0das wrote:On June 13 2010 02:08 Monst3r wrote:
Why would Saudi Arabia do such a thing. Probably because Iran is a huge threat to the stability of their government... monarchy vs revolution. And whole region even. Nukes in the hands of Iran probably make them just as nervous as Israel. If America has nukes, every single country in the world deserves nukes too. User was temp banned for this post. Why was this ban worthy? It's true. The reasons we (the U.S. and allies) don't want countries like Iran to have nukes is rooted in racism and orientalism. Can't let those crazy a-rabs have nukes, only us civilized enlightened westerners can be trusted with them. Our whole foreign policy towards Iran is based on creating a dichotomy where we are 'rational' and they are 'irrational' which is why we do things like label them a "rouge state", which is obviously a self-serving and meaningless label because they're only "rouge" in the sense that they don't do what we say. America does not deserve nukes, no state has any possible moral claim to such destructive weapons, but if we have them then why doesn't every single country in the world also deserve them?
Unbelievable. Yeah, let's just arm every unstable country in the world with nukes. Your brilliance is astounding.
Racism has nothing to do with it. Fairness has nothing to do with it. Morality has nothing to do with it. No sane country would ever allow its enemies to acquire nuclear weapons. Period.
|
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.
|
On June 13 2010 13:37 Romantic wrote:
Leave it to Saudi Arabia to support terrorism against Iran. Nothing new. Just another thing to dislike about Saudi Arabia. It is almost as if they want the peace movements in Iran to fail.
I think you're underestimating how potentially catastropic this event can be! Yes, I know I'm being fear mongering, but Saudi is essentially letting Israel throw anything they like against Iran!
|
On June 13 2010 13:14 eMbrace wrote:Show nested quote +On June 13 2010 13:08 Lysdexia wrote:On June 13 2010 02:22 Monst3r wrote:On June 13 2010 02:15 zer0das wrote:On June 13 2010 02:08 Monst3r wrote:
Why would Saudi Arabia do such a thing. Probably because Iran is a huge threat to the stability of their government... monarchy vs revolution. And whole region even. Nukes in the hands of Iran probably make them just as nervous as Israel. If America has nukes, every single country in the world deserves nukes too. User was temp banned for this post. Why was this ban worthy? It's true. The reasons we (the U.S. and allies) don't want countries like Iran to have nukes is rooted in racism and orientalism. Can't let those crazy a-rabs have nukes, only us civilized enlightened westerners can be trusted with them. Our whole foreign policy towards Iran is based on creating a dichotomy where we are 'rational' and they are 'irrational' which is why we do things like label them a "rouge state", which is obviously a self-serving and meaningless label because they're only "rouge" in the sense that they don't do what we say. America does not deserve nukes, no state has any possible moral claim to such destructive weapons, but if we have them then why doesn't every single country in the world also deserve them? i've tried to rewrite my response to this for the past 5 minutes, and honestly i'm just going to leave it. you win, you're right, and you are most definitely completely sane. the forums need more people like you -- no, the world needs more people like you.
Wow you brilliantly refuted everything I said.
Why shouldn't every country in the middle east have nukes?
The way Iran is typically characterized in discussions of nuclear proliferation relies on a binary where we are rational and disciplined and they are impulsive and crazy. Lets look at some of the responses to the person I quoted on the 1st page:
Nigeria-"Hm, those neighbors we have, the Nigers, are stealing water from our well. NUKE THE FUCKERS!"
Niger- "Oh SHIT! RETALIATE!"
the REST OF AFRICA-"NUKES ARE FLYING! SHIT! EVERYONE RETALIATE!"
Thats just a TASTE of something that could happen.
How can you read this and not see the thinly veiled racist assumptions about Africa and 3rd world countries in general? How did this poster come to know that African countries are crazy and would nuke each other for "stealing water from our well"?
This is basically a caricature of all discussions of nuclear proliferation in the 3rd world. It's based on an assumed otherness between the 3rd world and the west where we are rational and they are not. This discourse is then used to advance and universalize the interests of the west.
let's go back to my example of labeling Iran as a "rouge state". What are we really saying when we call them this? All it means is that we view them as a threat to our security interests and that they don't do what we tell them to do, but framing them as an outlaw state pretends like this view is objective when it's actually subjective based on our own security interests. Once the assumption of Iran's irrationality is cemented we can use it to advance our own security interests by making it appear like they were objectively everyone's interests.
The U.S.'s discourse on nuclear proliferation makes it seem like the current order, where a few elite powers and their allies have nuclear weapons and no one else does, is natural and objectively desirable when it's actually something that we have shaped and have a vested interest in maintaining so we can stay on top.
There's a large body of academic literature about why nuclear proliferation is actually a stabilizing factor -- it makes conventional war less likely because the involved countries know any war could potentially go nuclear. If every country in the middle east had nukes then no one would want to go to war because they might get blown up.
Presenting proliferation as a threat rests on the racist assumption that third world countries are backwards and irrational, and only serves as an attempt to legitimate our nuclear monopoly.
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.
|
On June 13 2010 06:33 ArKaDo wrote:Show nested quote +"All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing." That's one of the most moronic statement I have ever see. It must come from the bible or the coran, I'm sure of it.
Seriously, dude?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
