Saudi Arabia has conducted tests to stand down its air defences to enable Israeli jets to make a bombing raid on Iran’s nuclear facilities, The Times can reveal.
In the week that the UN Security Council imposed a new round of sanctions on Tehran, defence sources in the Gulf say that Riyadh has agreed to allow Israel to use a narrow corridor of its airspace in the north of the country to shorten the distance for a bombing run on Iran.
To ensure the Israeli bombers pass unmolested, Riyadh has carried out tests to make certain its own jets are not scrambled and missile defence systems not activated. Once the Israelis are through, the kingdom’s air defences will return to full alert.
On June 13 2010 02:08 Monst3r wrote: Why would Saudi Arabia do such a thing.
Shia vs Sunni and the two countries are rivals so Saudi Arabia doesn't want a nuclearized Iran hence "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" even if they still hate Israel.
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.
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.
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?
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?
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.
Game balance.
As a side note, I just find it strange that this is public news. It's so weird to announce "I'm going to bomb you now."
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 Korean but Iran sure is. How many wars has Iran started and how many has America started?
How many times has America said Israel will be wiped out in one great storm? And Iran?
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.
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 Korean but Iran sure is. How many wars has Iran started and how many has America started?
How many times has America said Israel will be wiped out in one great storm? And Iran?
America doesn't need to say it because it actually does it.
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.
Okay, so just because America was the first country to make a nuclear weapon, that means no other country should get it? Cause that's what your implying.
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.
Are you saying that you are PROUD you invented the nuke?
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.
If a war actually takes place then get ready to witness oil prices sky rocket to ridiculous height. Be prepared to pay 50USD for a gallon at your nearest petrol station. hyperinflation here we come
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.
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?
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.
There's no real reason to temp-ban this person. He just has an outlandish opinion--since when do we temp ban people just because they think differently? That's absurd.
User was warned for this post because he fails to check the ban thread when complaining about a ban
Okay, so just because America was the first country to make a nuclear weapon, that means no other country should get it? Cause that's what your implying.
I'll edit this post more when I'm done eating
I believe he meant that other countries shouldn't just get all the technology and know-how for free, and that they'd haft to invest effort into it.
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.
Are you saying that you are PROUD you invented the nuke?
Lol, America saving the world. What textbooks did you read in school?
At least he isn't some pussy who sits around blaming America for actually doing something when we all know Canada would be royally fucked if America didn't do all the things it does. You think Canada could exist w/o America? Do you realize almost your entire population is off the border of America? You think America is bad? We stopped Facism and Communism, you think lol mounted royal police are going to stop panzer divisions or japanese carriers?
The nuke saved Americans lives against an aggressor that would otherwise take years and money and lives to end. The Japanese were insane, they kamikazee and suicide, jump off cliffs, think the emperor is God, did all sorts of sick torture to civillians (raping of nanking rite?) and DIDNT SURRENDER ON THE FIRST NUKE!!! Do you understand that? THEY DIDNT SURRENDER WHEN ONE OF THEIR MAJOR CITIES GOT NUKED. Meaning it took more than a nuke to get them to surrender. Canada is almost as bad ad France holy crap.
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?
Responsibility with nukes =/= # of wars started
I am not taking sides but rather playing devils advocate. How does one judge/define "responsibility"? By their words or their actions? Because USA has both the history of using nukes and habit of engaging in wars.
Sorry If I went a little off topic, The debate of moral superiority and moral authority is intriguing and interesting.
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.
There's no real reason to temp-ban this person. He just has an outlandish opinion--since when do we temp ban people just because they think differently? That's absurd.
The percent of people who actually believe this is so small it is 1000x more likely he is trolling. And besides that it is absolutely stupid. America has never used a "nuke", we used two atom bombs to end WW2, see my other post.
Iran is less likely to use nukes than israel imo. There is no good argument for why they shouldn't be allowed to have them when israel does. Now of course if it was up to me no countries would have them.
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$%ing sweat, blood, and death of WW2 saved the world from fascism
I totally agree that US did sweat blood in the WW2, but you didn't "save the world from facism" alone please. The Russian victories were very important and the english also played a big part in the war. Well, at least we French were pretty useless in WW2 (we did most of the job in WW1 though).
You are either a teenager that doesn't understand world politics, or else a , god i can't say it without it getting deleted. What you are suggesting is the equivalent of giving a DOOMSDAY DEVICE to someone like a highschool bully. WHILE HE IS STILL IN HIGHSCHOOL!
You are either an Iranian praying for America's downfall or else completely noob and retarded at world relations.
We WORKED to get where we are in this world. We Americans, through fu$%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.
and there i thought the "best country in the world" bs was a relic of the last centry...
technicly america hardly "discovered" the atomic bomb, it is merely the direct result of einsteins research set into practice. neither is it the "deadliest weapon in the history of everything" ;>
the nigeria analogy is pretty awfull. iran is in a unique situation, not really compareable with north korea or any other "evil" country for that matter.
it doesnt take much to see the relation between israels attack on the aid fleet and its politicly very convincing attempt to "save the world from evil" days later. i wonder who will assist israel in playing world police :F
Claiming that other countries deserve nukes because America has them or that only America deserves nuke because "fuck yeah glorious America that always does the right thing and has never wrongfully hurt anyone" is retarded.
Everyone should be pushing to ensure that Iran complies with the IAEA, everyone should be pushing to force Israel, Pakistan, India and North Korea to sign the NPT and undergo inspections from the IAEA and everyone should be pushing for America, Russia, United Kingdom, France and China to dismantle their weapons as quickly and safely as possible. Stop giving a shit about just your country or hating on just one country and start giving a shit about the entirety of humanity.
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?
Which country has used nuclear technology in a war? USA, twice.
Which country has the most bases around the world outside of their own country? USA.
Which country has the most soldiers outside of it's own country? USA.
How many countries that have acted this way in history have been viewed as ethical, and moral, in their use of war technology? 0.
Currently, we live in an empire, and every single empire ever, has fallen from greatness at one time when it overextended itself to the point we have. Every single one. If you really want to know what is right and wrong, and what a country should do as far as wars, just look to history for the answers.
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.
Game balance.
As a side note, I just find it strange that this is public news. It's so weird to announce "I'm going to bomb you now."
Not that strange really given recent announcements. Hillary Clinton announced that it was highly likely Iran was going to pull some stunt "with 24 to 48 hours" a few days ago, and nothing happened. Immediately after that time frame ran out, tighter sanctions got slapped onto Iran. Now this even gets publicized. Why the hell would you publicize something like this unless you are trying to provoke a response?
Hope I am wrong, but I am kind of fearing that a Gulf of Tonkin type incident is being attempted. Just really feels like a buildup towards such a thing is being done...
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?
Which country has used nuclear technology in a war? USA, twice.
Which country has the most bases around the world outside of their own country? USA.
Which country has the most soldiers outside of it's own country? USA.
How many countries that have acted this way in history have been viewed as ethical, and moral, in their use of war technology? 0.
Currently, we live in an empire, and every single empire ever, has fallen from greatness at one time when it overextended itself to the point we have. Every single one. If you really want to know what is right and wrong, and what a country should do as far as wars, just look to history for the answers.
I'll help with a few examples.
Alexander's Empire Roman Empire Ottoman Empire Spanish Empire French Empire British Empire German Empire U.S.S.R. United States
Yes, we are on the decline. We had our "peak" in the decades after WW2 and now that we no longer have the excuse of communism, we can no longer justify our worldwide bases except for being the "global policemen".
Please don't ban me for this post, if you think that I'm trolling then just warn me and I'll delete it.
For those of you advocating Iran having nuclear missiles, have you lost your minds?
I am not advocating that america be the only country with nuclear weapons, I wouldn't mind if a STABLE country get their hands on them. But to argue posts saying that Iran shouldn't have nuclear weapons is just downright ridiculous/retarded, and you all need to go back to school/watch the news more often to understand world politics a bit more before you get on the internet and post absurd things.
Iran is NOT a stable country, and has a corrupt/religiously based government (which is always bad).
Edit - Meaning stable ->government/army<- due to a later post
Wow, people are getting their posts warned because of their opinions and views on this subject. It's similar to the real problem in that area: no matter the opinions and views of either side, whenever there is any shred of a chance for dialogue, you can guarantee someone will escalate the situation to ensure it dies a death
On June 13 2010 04:37 ranyhin wrote: For those of you advocating Iran having nuclear missiles, have you lost your minds?
I am not advocating that america be the only country with nuclear weapons, I wouldn't mind if a STABLE country get their hands on them. But to argue posts saying that Iran shouldn't have nuclear weapons is just downright ridiculous/retarded, and you all need to go back to school/watch the news more often to understand world politics a bit more before you get on the internet and post absurd things.
Iran is NOT a stable country, and has a corrupt/religiously based government (which is always bad).
Not that I disagree with you or anything but you might want to re-word your post. Israel isn't exactly stable and has nuclear weapons. I would change it to stable government/military.
On June 13 2010 04:38 reza wrote: Wow, people are getting their posts warned because of their opinions and views on this subject. It's similar to the real problem in that area: no matter the opinions and views of either side, whenever there is any shred of a chance for dialogue, you can guarantee someone will escalate the situation to ensure it dies a death
The nature of your post makes that I'm reluctant banning you for it, but your ignorance and incapability of reading through the topic would be enough to get banned in another topic. Let's look at the bans:
Crappy one liner post, user looked up and turns out to be a previously banned user who we asked to improve the quality of his posts.
Mis-use of the word troll.
Warning for complaining about a ban without bothering to open the ban-topic to look for a reason.
How many wars has USA fought in? How many chances did they have to use nukes? How many times did they? This is why people consider USA responsible. Same goes for Israel. If Israel has nukes, they haven't used them. I don't think Iran or any other nation has anything to worry about as long as they don't attack Israel, so they do not need them for defensive purposes. But we all know nukes bring political power.
Iran has made it clear that they don't want Israel to exist in its current state. I don't believe Iran has any real plans to use nukes though, they aren't suicidal. But I do think a nuclear Iran would destabilize the area even further. Wars are sometimes fought although neither side actually wants it. Things simply escalate and run out of control. This is why I think the fewer nations that acquire nukes, the better.
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.
Wow, you have no room to tell him that he doesn't know what he's talking about. From how you wrote this I would say you are either 10 or one of those 16 year old kids that think they know how the world works.
Mmm, interesting piece of news. IMO that's just to provoke an answer of Iran or scare if off as in "don't move now Israel's backed up by Saudi Arabia".
However, I'm actually more scared by Pakistan and India than I'd ever be by Iran. Mainly because the Pakistani government seems a lot less stable atm and are loosing some parts of the country to tribal fighters. And regarding Iran, the leaders are, imo, just concerned in retaining their power over the country. Which is why their are all "we wanna blast Israel out of there" - blaming a nation of economy difficulties has always been the easy way. It can be noted that Israel's current behaviour facilitates it greatly.
Oh and regarding the US getting the A bomb, well, it's partly because of this that other countries acquired it.
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 am say you are ignorant as fuck. Who is USA to deem countries what they can and can't have. If they have scientists working on these break-troughs to make the material then props to them. It's not that hard to make a nuke, the difficult part is purifying that Uranium, which is the most guarded secret any nation has with nuclear power.
Your argument is faulty. Just because the government is radical does not mean they are more prone to use the nuclear weapons than USA. I mean look at Israel, they don't have a necesseraly radical government but seem very willing to use nuclear weapons. Should we ban them from the use of nuclear weapons?
I mean look at China, they have nuclear weapons, they are communist, should we stop them? Look at Russia? I mean where do we draw the line on who can and can't have something if they invented it?
O and ummm, the people who actually invented the Nuclear Bomb were scientists who escaped from Nazi Germans in Europe. Just a small history lesson for ya. ?
Iran has Hezbollah to it's dirty work around the world. Not to mention the constant smuggling of arms into Iraq. You also must take into account the slaughtering of it's own civilians to keep some in power.
the main problem with Iran having a nuke is not so much of them using it, but who they would give it to.
Irans a lose cannon, Not so much like North Korea (which at the most is somewhat predicable).
Every times there is a post about Israel, you see the exact same faces.
I agree with you BeJe77 but saying that China is communist is a bit... well ^^
Israel is a "reponsible" country, killing thousands of civilian, breaking international law as they please and kidnapping people in the sea. Don't mess USA & Israel please...
edit: lol Ghost[Shield] how you fear to be called antisemitic... don't worry you are not on TV.
On June 13 2010 02:08 Monst3r wrote: Why would Saudi Arabia do such a thing.
Saudi Arabia and the United States are allies. More importantly since S. Arabia is about the only ally US has in the area beyond Israel which is nominally small in the geographic location. The Israeli lobby in the US is powerful, influential and has successfully lobbied for large amounts of support both economically and militarily with Israel. See how the dots connect? Check out this book if you want to read about how Israel lobby policy has fundamentally affected American Foreign Policy.
Israel needs to resist the temptation to bomb Iran. Iran is going to be at civil war in the next 10-15 years and aggrevating them will only unite the country behind its leader. Israel just needs to wait, the CIA will start a revolution in Iran soon enough.
imo 2 possiblities - either iran didnt cooperate fully with the saudis about leting them drill a oil pipe to their reserves and that iran is doing what usa wants it to do with the nuclear material by converting em to rods so there is no way they can make em into nukes - other is that its a trap and they wanna fuck over israil LOL either way saudis wanna fuck some1
On June 13 2010 02:08 Monst3r wrote: Why would Saudi Arabia do such a thing.
Saudi Arabia and the United States are allies. More importantly since S. Arabia is about the only ally US has in the area beyond Israel which is nominally small in the geographic location. The Israeli lobby in the US is powerful, influential and has successfully lobbied for large amounts of support both economically and militarily with Israel. See how the dots connect? Check out this book if you want to read about how Israel lobby policy has fundamentally affected American Foreign Policy.
On June 13 2010 05:49 ArKaDo wrote: Every times there is a post about Israel, you see the exact same faces.
I agree with you BeJe77 but saying that China is communist is a bit... well ^^
Israel is a "reponsible" country, killing thousands of civilian, breaking international law as they please and kidnapping people in the sea. Don't mess USA & Israel please...
edit: lol Ghost[Shield] how you fear to be called antisemitic... don't worry you are not on TV.
You're so neutral, your mom calls you a wikipedia article.
On June 13 2010 05:49 ArKaDo wrote: Every times there is a post about Israel, you see the exact same faces.
I agree with you BeJe77 but saying that China is communist is a bit... well ^^
Israel is a "reponsible" country, killing thousands of civilian, breaking international law as they please and kidnapping people in the sea. Don't mess USA & Israel please...
edit: lol Ghost[Shield] how you fear to be called antisemitic... don't worry you are not on TV.
Was that necessarily, I see you here?
So I ask you what does my post have to do with Israel? Nothing! it's purely about Iran and nothing else
Iran is not doing what the USA wants it to in terms of Uranium enrichment.
On June 13 2010 03:57 Pervect wrote: Claiming that other countries deserve nukes because America has them or that only America deserves nuke because "fuck yeah glorious America that always does the right thing and has never wrongfully hurt anyone" is retarded.
Everyone should be pushing to ensure that Iran complies with the IAEA, everyone should be pushing to force Israel, Pakistan, India and North Korea to sign the NPT and undergo inspections from the IAEA and everyone should be pushing for America, Russia, United Kingdom, France and China to dismantle their weapons as quickly and safely as possible. Stop giving a shit about just your country or hating on just one country and start giving a shit about the entirety of humanity.
I'm glad at least one person thinks the same as me. Weapons, violence and war won't ever cause anything good or related with peace (fight war to get peace is so ironical, ignorantly blind to believe such things). However sadly this is only a wish and dream of mine, though i believe time will come and revolution will bring true changes
First of all, Iran has consistently denied that it is making nuclear weapons ie. "using nuclear power for peaceful purposes." Everyone knows that Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is a crazy USA hating dictator, and I believe should NOT have nuclear weapons under any circumstances. He sees the complete and utter destruction of Israel as the only end game, and will lie or do anything else to achieve this end.
Maybe some of you think along Helen Thomas lines and that Jews should "go back where they came from." They never would have left where they came from if it wasn't for the Holocaust. I think Israel is justified if they attack Iran in a preemptive fashion, because it may be the only way to prevent being nuked.
On June 13 2010 02:08 Monst3r wrote: Why would Saudi Arabia do such a thing.
Saudi Arabia and the United States are allies. More importantly since S. Arabia is about the only ally US has in the area beyond Israel which is nominally small in the geographic location. The Israeli lobby in the US is powerful, influential and has successfully lobbied for large amounts of support both economically and militarily with Israel. See how the dots connect? Check out this book if you want to read about how Israel lobby policy has fundamentally affected American Foreign Policy.
On June 13 2010 05:55 GiantEnemyCrab wrote: imo 2 possiblities - either iran didnt cooperate fully with the saudis about leting them drill a oil pipe to their reserves and that iran is doing what usa wants it to do with the nuclear material by converting em to rods so there is no way they can make em into nukes - other is that its a trap and they wanna fuck over israil LOL either way saudis wanna fuck some1
ignorance, certainly not a trap, a majority of countries in the middle east are quietly trying to help america/israel to stop iran from getting a nuke.
PS: nukes are good for the world, they have prevented sooo many wars.
On June 13 2010 03:57 Pervect wrote: Claiming that other countries deserve nukes because America has them or that only America deserves nuke because "fuck yeah glorious America that always does the right thing and has never wrongfully hurt anyone" is retarded.
Everyone should be pushing to ensure that Iran complies with the IAEA, everyone should be pushing to force Israel, Pakistan, India and North Korea to sign the NPT and undergo inspections from the IAEA and everyone should be pushing for America, Russia, United Kingdom, France and China to dismantle their weapons as quickly and safely as possible. Stop giving a shit about just your country or hating on just one country and start giving a shit about the entirety of humanity.
I'm glad at least one person thinks the same as me. Weapons, violence and war won't ever cause anything good or related with peace (fight war to get peace is so ironical, ignorantly blind to believe such things). However sadly this is only a wish and dream of mine, though i believe time will come and revolution will bring true changes
In order to have peace in ww2 you had to fight. The direct result of fighting saved MANY lives in concentration camps.
These a saying that if your not willing to fight for your beliefs then those beliefs are not worth having.
Don't understand why you are so agressiv, well I understand for Squeegy since he is such a kid, but angelic well I never talked to you, I just noticed that I was there, you too and the kid too. Maybe Klaz will come and the family will be happy. There is no bad meaning behind my words, stop feeling so agressed.
What I don't understand is: yes maybe Saudis (king i think) are USA's allies, but their population is deeply pro palestinian like all the population in this area (I think ? except israel of course). Will the saudis accept this statement ?
You're so neutral, your mom calls you a wikipedia article.
You read only read news in hebrew so you should not taunt about neutrality or anything else.
Israel is still in the political shit over the Gaza boat fight. They won't do anything in the near future and it seems that Iran is still a while away from getting nukes so they won't feel a need to do anything just yet.
Honestly tho I think that Ahmadinejad wants to get attacked since he has a very very low approval rating and if they got attacked it would unite everyone behind him. I think this is the reason for the crazy shit he keeps saying.
Christ. Israel will do whatever it thinks is necessary to survive. Heh. The Israelis probably told Saudi arabia that they would take out their defense system if they didn't help.
It could be between five to ten years before Iran has a nuke if not sooner. You really need to be pro-active on these events or they spiral out of control. Look at WW2 for this, just about everyone let Germany break the treaties it was supposed to keep, and paid dearly for it.
Honestly tho I think that Ahmadinejad wants to get attacked since he has a very very low approval rating and if they got attacked it would unite everyone behind him. I think this is the reason for the crazy shit he keeps saying.
I really don't think they are thinking this, it may be a by-product of attacking. He and his government has already killed people who protest over they're rule so I really don't think he has that much thinking power to realize that. Ahmadinejad not the one really in power anyway, more of a spokesperson.
On June 13 2010 03:57 Pervect wrote: Claiming that other countries deserve nukes because America has them or that only America deserves nuke because "fuck yeah glorious America that always does the right thing and has never wrongfully hurt anyone" is retarded.
Everyone should be pushing to ensure that Iran complies with the IAEA, everyone should be pushing to force Israel, Pakistan, India and North Korea to sign the NPT and undergo inspections from the IAEA and everyone should be pushing for America, Russia, United Kingdom, France and China to dismantle their weapons as quickly and safely as possible. Stop giving a shit about just your country or hating on just one country and start giving a shit about the entirety of humanity.
I'm glad at least one person thinks the same as me. Weapons, violence and war won't ever cause anything good or related with peace (fight war to get peace is so ironical, ignorantly blind to believe such things). However sadly this is only a wish and dream of mine, though i believe time will come and revolution will bring true changes
In order to have peace in ww2 you had to fight. The direct result of fighting saved MANY lives in concentration camps.
These a saying that if your not willing to fight for your beliefs then those beliefs are not worth having.
but who determines if those beliefs are right or wrong? The US government? (expect ww2, which of course was something completely different than nowadays issues) The US government aren't policemen or the court of the world, they don't fight wars and impose sanctions to bring peace and safety, they do it for selfish profit, like everything or everyone is based on profit.
On June 13 2010 03:57 Pervect wrote: Claiming that other countries deserve nukes because America has them or that only America deserves nuke because "fuck yeah glorious America that always does the right thing and has never wrongfully hurt anyone" is retarded.
Everyone should be pushing to ensure that Iran complies with the IAEA, everyone should be pushing to force Israel, Pakistan, India and North Korea to sign the NPT and undergo inspections from the IAEA and everyone should be pushing for America, Russia, United Kingdom, France and China to dismantle their weapons as quickly and safely as possible. Stop giving a shit about just your country or hating on just one country and start giving a shit about the entirety of humanity.
I'm glad at least one person thinks the same as me. Weapons, violence and war won't ever cause anything good or related with peace (fight war to get peace is so ironical, ignorantly blind to believe such things). However sadly this is only a wish and dream of mine, though i believe time will come and revolution will bring true changes
In order to have peace in ww2 you had to fight. The direct result of fighting saved MANY lives in concentration camps.
These a saying that if your not willing to fight for your beliefs then those beliefs are not worth having.
but who determines if those beliefs are right or wrong? The US government? (expect ww2, which of course was something completely different than nowadays issues) The US government aren't policemen or the court of the world, they don't fight wars and impose sanctions to bring peace and safety, they do it for selfish profit, like everything or everyone is based on profit.
Wither your beliefs are right or wrong wasn't the issue with the saying, If those beliefs are not important enough to defend them then they where not that important anyway (Good/bad beliefs are not the issue). WW2 is a exact example of why war can be good.
I'm not debating the merits of US interest not the point of the saying.
On June 13 2010 03:57 Pervect wrote: Claiming that other countries deserve nukes because America has them or that only America deserves nuke because "fuck yeah glorious America that always does the right thing and has never wrongfully hurt anyone" is retarded.
Everyone should be pushing to ensure that Iran complies with the IAEA, everyone should be pushing to force Israel, Pakistan, India and North Korea to sign the NPT and undergo inspections from the IAEA and everyone should be pushing for America, Russia, United Kingdom, France and China to dismantle their weapons as quickly and safely as possible. Stop giving a shit about just your country or hating on just one country and start giving a shit about the entirety of humanity.
I'm glad at least one person thinks the same as me. Weapons, violence and war won't ever cause anything good or related with peace (fight war to get peace is so ironical, ignorantly blind to believe such things). However sadly this is only a wish and dream of mine, though i believe time will come and revolution will bring true changes
In order to have peace in ww2 you had to fight. The direct result of fighting saved MANY lives in concentration camps.
These a saying that if your not willing to fight for your beliefs then those beliefs are not worth having.
but who determines if those beliefs are right or wrong? The US government? (expect ww2, which of course was something completely different than nowadays issues) The US government aren't policemen or the court of the world, they don't fight wars and impose sanctions to bring peace and safety, they do it for selfish profit, like everything or everyone is based on profit.
Wither your beliefs are right or wrong wasn't the issue with the saying, If those beliefs are not important enough to defend them then they where not that important anyway (Good/bad beliefs are not the issue). WW2 is a exact example of why war can be good.
I'm not debating the merits of US interest not the point of the saying.
WW2 is the great exemple why war can't be good. WW2 is only the repercussion of the indecent will of the winner (France in the lead) of WW1. After the great war, they wanted to crush germany down accusing them of all the shit that happen during 1914-1918 when everybody knows that France wanted the war almost as much (if not more) than germany.
On June 13 2010 03:57 Pervect wrote: Claiming that other countries deserve nukes because America has them or that only America deserves nuke because "fuck yeah glorious America that always does the right thing and has never wrongfully hurt anyone" is retarded.
Everyone should be pushing to ensure that Iran complies with the IAEA, everyone should be pushing to force Israel, Pakistan, India and North Korea to sign the NPT and undergo inspections from the IAEA and everyone should be pushing for America, Russia, United Kingdom, France and China to dismantle their weapons as quickly and safely as possible. Stop giving a shit about just your country or hating on just one country and start giving a shit about the entirety of humanity.
I'm glad at least one person thinks the same as me. Weapons, violence and war won't ever cause anything good or related with peace (fight war to get peace is so ironical, ignorantly blind to believe such things). However sadly this is only a wish and dream of mine, though i believe time will come and revolution will bring true changes
In order to have peace in ww2 you had to fight. The direct result of fighting saved MANY lives in concentration camps.
These a saying that if your not willing to fight for your beliefs then those beliefs are not worth having.
but who determines if those beliefs are right or wrong? The US government? (expect ww2, which of course was something completely different than nowadays issues) The US government aren't policemen or the court of the world, they don't fight wars and impose sanctions to bring peace and safety, they do it for selfish profit, like everything or everyone is based on profit.
Wither your beliefs are right or wrong wasn't the issue with the saying, If those beliefs are not important enough to defend them then they where not that important anyway (Good/bad beliefs are not the issue). WW2 is a exact example of why war can be good.
I'm not debating the merits of US interest not the point of the saying.
Entering a war and pre-emptive war are two different things. WW1 was a case of countries entering war for the sake of being the first one to enter the war, and it was the worst mess of the 20th century.
All 3 countries are rational actors, and it's extremely unlikely that Iran would ever use a nuclear weapon in that fashion. There's plenty of other reasons to strive for nuclear weapons besides actually expecting to use them. Saudi Arabia is concerned about their own stability and role in the region.
And that AIPAC book is awful. Mearsheimer and Walt were totally out of their element.
On June 13 2010 03:04 Ploppytheman wrote:At least he isn't some pussy who sits around blaming America for actually doing something when we all know Canada would be royally fucked if America didn't do all the things it does. You think Canada could exist w/o America? Do you realize almost your entire population is off the border of America? You think America is bad? We stopped Facism and Communism, you think lol mounted royal police are going to stop panzer divisions or japanese carriers?
The nuke saved Americans lives against an aggressor that would otherwise take years and money and lives to end. The Japanese were insane, they kamikazee and suicide, jump off cliffs, think the emperor is God, did all sorts of sick torture to civillians (raping of nanking rite?) and DIDNT SURRENDER ON THE FIRST NUKE!!! Do you understand that? THEY DIDNT SURRENDER WHEN ONE OF THEIR MAJOR CITIES GOT NUKED. Meaning it took more than a nuke to get them to surrender. Canada is almost as bad ad France holy crap.
User was temp banned for this post.
Oh man this post had me rollin'. I love it when somebody tells it how it is (then gets banned for it ). The best part was Mounties vs Panzer divisions.
PS: Iran is a repressive theocracy. Allowing them to have the most destructive weapons in the history of the world does not seem like a wise choice. Especially when they are already using many of the weapons in their disposal to kill Israeli citizens, and formerly American soldiers in Iraq...
On June 13 2010 06:09 angelicfolly wrote:
In order to have peace in ww2 you had to fight. The direct result of fighting saved MANY lives in concentration camps.
These a saying that if your not willing to fight for your beliefs then those beliefs are not worth having.
"All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing."
On June 13 2010 06:05 TheMaleficOne wrote: First of all, Iran has consistently denied that it is making nuclear weapons ie. "using nuclear power for peaceful purposes." Everyone knows that Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is a crazy USA hating dictator, and I believe should NOT have nuclear weapons under any circumstances. He sees the complete and utter destruction of Israel as the only end game, and will lie or do anything else to achieve this end.
Maybe some of you think along Helen Thomas lines and that Jews should "go back where they came from." They never would have left where they came from if it wasn't for the Holocaust. I think Israel is justified if they attack Iran in a preemptive fashion, because it may be the only way to prevent being nuked.
Right.. so you know nothing about the Middle East. Ahmadinejad is a democratically elected populist, with fairly little power. And no one is planning on wiping Israel off the map. It's a bad translation of farsi.
On June 13 2010 02:08 Monst3r wrote: Why would Saudi Arabia do such a thing.
Saudi Arabia and the United States are allies. More importantly since S. Arabia is about the only ally US has in the area beyond Israel which is nominally small in the geographic location. The Israeli lobby in the US is powerful, influential and has successfully lobbied for large amounts of support both economically and militarily with Israel. See how the dots connect? Check out this book if you want to read about how Israel lobby policy has fundamentally affected American Foreign Policy.
The criticism from scholars is interesting - there are sources of criticism that I wouldn't normally expect. I honestly don't put much weight into criticisms by politicians of it not reflecting what they experienced in person, because american politicians have been known to mislead the public even decades after the relevant actions are done. The response by Woolsey [ http://www.theaugeanstables.com/2007/12/13/woolsey-on-waltmearsheimerwelcome-to-wamworld/print/ ] is interesting however, since it actually points out events instead of just being a rebuttal with no backing evidence.
All this criticism for a prominent article (rebuttal was made as well by the authors: http://www.wcfia.harvard.edu/node/3639 though I have yet to read it) really makes me want to read it more, due to how it seems in America these days any open criticism of Israel gets labeled as anti-Semitic. I'm sure there will be biases and misrepresentations which I will need to catch, upon more detailed research. The authors admitted in the rebuttal that there were things they should have clarified better, and which they should have represented differently.
It's obvious that the "Zionist lobby" is not all powerful; if it were, Israel wouldn't be worried that it might be falling out of favor with the US. It certainly has an influence however, and I would imagine it may have influenced US policy like so many other lobbies. If you have any better sources that go into this subject in detail, I'd love to know about them.
Right.. so you know nothing about the Middle East. Ahmadinejad is a democratically elected populist, with fairly little power. And no one is planning on wiping Israel off the map. It's a bad translation of farsi.
He was NOT elected democratically, why do you think there was violence recently?
He doesn't want to wipe Israel off, but wants to wipe the government off. Ok, but that's also added to all the stupid crap he keeps pulling. No holocaust anyone?
On June 13 2010 06:05 TheMaleficOne wrote: First of all, Iran has consistently denied that it is making nuclear weapons ie. "using nuclear power for peaceful purposes." Everyone knows that Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is a crazy USA hating dictator, and I believe should NOT have nuclear weapons under any circumstances. He sees the complete and utter destruction of Israel as the only end game, and will lie or do anything else to achieve this end.
Maybe some of you think along Helen Thomas lines and that Jews should "go back where they came from." They never would have left where they came from if it wasn't for the Holocaust. I think Israel is justified if they attack Iran in a preemptive fashion, because it may be the only way to prevent being nuked.
Right.. so you know nothing about the Middle East. Ahmadinejad is a democratically elected populist, with fairly little power. And no one is planning on wiping Israel off the map. It's a bad translation of farsi.
His statements have been far too consistent and incendiary to be "a bad translation". He has called them "bacteria", or "parasite", and/or said they should be destroyed on HUNDREDS of occasions.
Also, his beliefs reflect those of the reactionary mullahs who actually control the country- otherwise they wouldn't have rigged the elections and repressed citizens to keep him in power.
Germany Nazi wanted to create a superior race disparaging everyone else.
People where put into concentration camps (NOT just Jews) to be killed because they didn't fit that superior race.
The repercussion of ww1 allowed Hitler into place, that DOESN'T excuse the actions of later, that's also besides the point of personal vendettas.
You are one of the few to ever say ww2 isn't a "good" war.
Jibba,
I wasn't talking about ww1 so I don't understand why you quoted me?
Yes but you cannot understand the rise of the nazi (especially in germany were, in the history, the jews were really well accepted by the population) without understanding how the winner of WW1 humiliated the german by asking them to pay a big tribute.
"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.
On June 13 2010 05:49 ArKaDo wrote: Every times there is a post about Israel, you see the exact same faces.
I agree with you BeJe77 but saying that China is communist is a bit... well ^^
Israel is a "reponsible" country, killing thousands of civilian, breaking international law as they please and kidnapping people in the sea. Don't mess USA & Israel please...
edit: lol Ghost[Shield] how you fear to be called antisemitic... don't worry you are not on TV.
You're so neutral, your mom calls you a wikipedia article.
Germany Nazi wanted to create a superior race disparaging everyone else.
People where put into concentration camps (NOT just Jews) to be killed because they didn't fit that superior race.
The repercussion of ww1 allowed Hitler into place, that DOESN'T excuse the actions of later, that's also besides the point of personal vendettas.
You are one of the few to ever say ww2 isn't a "good" war.
Jibba,
I wasn't talking about ww1 so I don't understand why you quoted me?
Yes but you cannot understand the rise of the nazi (especially in germany were, in the history, the jews were really well accepted by the population) without understanding how the winner of WW1 humiliated the german by asking them to paid a big tribute.
But what does that have to do with anything Angelicfolly said?
Here let me help you guys:
Angelicfolly: WW2 was a war that had to be fought. Else we'd all be speaking German now.
Right.. so you know nothing about the Middle East. Ahmadinejad is a democratically elected populist, with fairly little power. And no one is planning on wiping Israel off the map. It's a bad translation of farsi.
He was NOT elected democratically, why do you think there was violence recently?
He doesn't want to wipe Israel off, but wants to wipe the government off. Ok, but that's also added to all the stupid crap he keeps pulling. No holocaust anyone?
You can argue the legitimacy of the voting process (in which case, places like Italy would still be run by dictators as well) but it was still done through free elections.
His infamous comment was about a regime change. Iran is not the only country that despises the Israeli government.
I compared WWI because your analogy was terrible. You're comparing a war that began through a completely different nature, knowing after-the-fact that the result was acceptable. US Congress at the time certainly didn't think it was. Pre-emptive strikes are horrible.
It almost led the US to completely annihilating the USSR in 1952. Killing tens of millions of people in order to destroy their nuclear capabilities and military infrastructure was "worth it in the long run." We know today that that thinking was completely wrong, which is why consequentialist arguments are terrible, and why Watchmen has such a shitty ending.
Right.. so you know nothing about the Middle East. Ahmadinejad is a democratically elected populist, with fairly little power. And no one is planning on wiping Israel off the map. It's a bad translation of farsi.
He was NOT elected democratically, why do you think there was violence recently?
He doesn't want to wipe Israel off, but wants to wipe the government off. Ok, but that's also added to all the stupid crap he keeps pulling. No holocaust anyone?
You can argue the legitimacy of the voting process (in which case, places like Italy would still be run by dictators as well) but it was still done through free elections.
His infamous comment was about a regime change. Iran is not the only country that despises the Israeli government.
I compared WWI because your analogy was terrible. You're comparing a war that began through a completely different nature, knowing after-the-fact that the result was acceptable. US Congress at the time certainly didn't think it was. Pre-emptive strikes are horrible.
It almost led the US to completely annihilating the USSR in 1952. Killing tens of millions of people in order to destroy their nuclear capabilities and military infrastructure was "worth it in the long run." We know today that that thinking was completely wrong, which is why consequentialist arguments are terrible, and why Watchmen has such a shitty ending.
If it was terrible, it was so because it wasn't an analogy at all. It was an example.
Germany Nazi wanted to create a superior race disparaging everyone else.
People where put into concentration camps (NOT just Jews) to be killed because they didn't fit that superior race.
The repercussion of ww1 allowed Hitler into place, that DOESN'T excuse the actions of later, that's also besides the point of personal vendettas.
You are one of the few to ever say ww2 isn't a "good" war.
Jibba,
I wasn't talking about ww1 so I don't understand why you quoted me?
Yes but you cannot understand the rise of the nazi (especially in germany were, in the history, the jews were really well accepted by the population) without understanding how the winner of WW1 humiliated the german by asking them to paid a big tribute.
But what does that have to do with anything Angelicfolly said?
Here let me help you guys:
Angelicfolly: WW2 was a war that had to be fought. Else we'd all be speaking German now.
Well, all the shit that happen in germany, the holocaust for exemple, were the concequence of the WW1, so war is bad. What would had happen if everybody listened to Jaurèss in France? Who knows.
Right.. so you know nothing about the Middle East. Ahmadinejad is a democratically elected populist, with fairly little power. And no one is planning on wiping Israel off the map. It's a bad translation of farsi.
He was NOT elected democratically, why do you think there was violence recently?
He doesn't want to wipe Israel off, but wants to wipe the government off. Ok, but that's also added to all the stupid crap he keeps pulling. No holocaust anyone?
You can argue the legitimacy of the voting process (in which case, places like Italy would still be run by dictators as well) but it was still done through free elections.
His infamous comment was about a regime change. Iran is not the only country that despises the Israeli government.
I compared WWI because your analogy was terrible. You're comparing a war that began through a completely different nature, knowing after-the-fact that the result was acceptable. US Congress at the time certainly didn't think it was. Pre-emptive strikes are horrible.
It almost led the US to completely annihilating the USSR in 1952. Killing tens of millions of people in order to destroy their nuclear capabilities and military infrastructure was "worth it in the long run." We know today that that thinking was completely wrong, which is why consequentialist arguments are terrible, and why Watchmen has such a shitty ending.
If it was terrible, it was so because it wasn't an analogy at all. It was an example.
Boy, you got me there! Another valuable contribution by Squeegy!
I'm happy that the United States got the nuke first because if Germany, the USSR, or Japan had gotten the nuke first things would have gotten pret-ty dicey.
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 am say you are ignorant as fuck. Who is USA to deem countries what they can and can't have. If they have scientists working on these break-troughs to make the material then props to them. It's not that hard to make a nuke, the difficult part is purifying that Uranium, which is the most guarded secret any nation has with nuclear power.
Your argument is faulty. Just because the government is radical does not mean they are more prone to use the nuclear weapons than USA. I mean look at Israel, they don't have a necesseraly radical government but seem very willing to use nuclear weapons. Should we ban them from the use of nuclear weapons?
I mean look at China, they have nuclear weapons, they are communist, should we stop them? Look at Russia? I mean where do we draw the line on who can and can't have something if they invented it?
O and ummm, the people who actually invented the Nuclear Bomb were scientists who escaped from Nazi Germans in Europe. Just a small history lesson for ya. ?
So many things wrong with this post - where do I start? These "break-troughs" as you call them has the potential to destroy civilization. So I will not give my props to them. Purifying uranium isn't a guarded secret, I'm pretty sure you can find a manual online if you looked hard enough.
If a country is ruled by a radical tyrant, they are more prone to do radical things, such as using nuclear weapons on their enemies. Think of all the batshit insane leaders of countries in the past and what they have done without the use of nuclear weapons...and now think of them with nuclear capabilities.
Also China and Russia are part Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treat and they also have permanent seat in the United Nations Security Council. We regularly have inspections and meetings to make sure we're not abusing our nuclear capabilities, something Iran refuses to do.
Oh and by the way the head researcher for the Manhattan Project was an American. Also, there were over 130,000 who worked on the project, so it's safe to say it was a collective achievement, not just German scientists who escaped from the Nazis.
So, basically is the main topic of this thread whether or not every country should be able to have nukes because America has them or something?
Damn TL...just damn.
It's not America who is saying "DONT HAVE NUKES LOL" it's common freaking sense. Don't give the guy who denies the holocaust and wants to eradicate an entire country in any means possible the strongest weapon in history openly.
On June 13 2010 06:49 Fruscainte wrote: So, basically is the main topic of this thread whether or not every country should be able to have nukes because America has them or something?
Damn TL...just damn.
The question is more: who should punish Iran for trying to get the ABomb ? USA who don't say shit about Israel having it ? Israel, who already have it while they should not ? Launching bomb on Iran will not make them understand that the bomb is a bad thing.
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 am say you are ignorant as fuck. Who is USA to deem countries what they can and can't have. If they have scientists working on these break-troughs to make the material then props to them. It's not that hard to make a nuke, the difficult part is purifying that Uranium, which is the most guarded secret any nation has with nuclear power.
Your argument is faulty. Just because the government is radical does not mean they are more prone to use the nuclear weapons than USA. I mean look at Israel, they don't have a necesseraly radical government but seem very willing to use nuclear weapons. Should we ban them from the use of nuclear weapons?
I mean look at China, they have nuclear weapons, they are communist, should we stop them? Look at Russia? I mean where do we draw the line on who can and can't have something if they invented it?
O and ummm, the people who actually invented the Nuclear Bomb were scientists who escaped from Nazi Germans in Europe. Just a small history lesson for ya. ?
If a country is ruled by a radical tyrant, they are more prone to do radical things, such as using nuclear weapons on their enemies. Think of all the batshit insane leaders of countries in the past and what they have done without the use of nuclear weapons...and now think of them with nuclear capabilities.
What? That's not true at all. Failed governments and anarchy is where the threat lies. Not "batshit insane leaders," who are usually quite calculating and rational.
Also China and Russia are part Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treat and they also have permanent seat in the United Nations Security Council. We regularly have inspections and meetings to make sure we're not abusing our nuclear capabilities, something Iran refuses to do.
And what about the country doing the attacking in this case? How do they justify their nuclear weapons?
Again, acquiring nuclear weapons is generally a good thing for any country (until they're used.) Technological advancement which helps other industries, pride, decrease in military size, etc. In a statist world, it makes sense to go for them.
Germany Nazi wanted to create a superior race disparaging everyone else.
People where put into concentration camps (NOT just Jews) to be killed because they didn't fit that superior race.
The repercussion of ww1 allowed Hitler into place, that DOESN'T excuse the actions of later, that's also besides the point of personal vendettas.
You are one of the few to ever say ww2 isn't a "good" war.
Jibba,
I wasn't talking about ww1 so I don't understand why you quoted me?
Yes but you cannot understand the rise of the nazi (especially in germany were, in the history, the jews were really well accepted by the population) without understanding how the winner of WW1 humiliated the german by asking them to paid a big tribute.
But what does that have to do with anything Angelicfolly said?
Here let me help you guys:
Angelicfolly: WW2 was a war that had to be fought. Else we'd all be speaking German now.
Well, all the shit that happen in germany, the holocaust for exemple, were the concequence of the WW1, so war is bad. What would had happen if everybody listened to Jaurèss in France? Who knows.
WW2 had a cause (a war, if that matters), therefore it was bad. Okay!
But not everybody listened to Jaurèss. And that is the whole point (I suggest you read carefully here, Jibba!). Nazis came and they weren't nice. What do you suggest people do other than fight?
Germany Nazi wanted to create a superior race disparaging everyone else.
People where put into concentration camps (NOT just Jews) to be killed because they didn't fit that superior race.
The repercussion of ww1 allowed Hitler into place, that DOESN'T excuse the actions of later, that's also besides the point of personal vendettas.
You are one of the few to ever say ww2 isn't a "good" war.
Jibba,
I wasn't talking about ww1 so I don't understand why you quoted me?
Yes but you cannot understand the rise of the nazi (especially in germany were, in the history, the jews were really well accepted by the population) without understanding how the winner of WW1 humiliated the german by asking them to paid a big tribute.
But what does that have to do with anything Angelicfolly said?
Here let me help you guys:
Angelicfolly: WW2 was a war that had to be fought. Else we'd all be speaking German now.
Well, all the shit that happen in germany, the holocaust for exemple, were the concequence of the WW1, so war is bad. What would had happen if everybody listened to Jaurèss in France? Who knows.
WW2 had a cause (a war, if that matters), therefore it was bad. Okay!
But not everybody listened to Jaurèss. And that is the whole point (I suggest you read carefully here, Jibba!). Nazis came and they weren't nice. What do you suggest people do other than fight?
You don't understand... War cause War. That's all there is to understand. Attack Iran now, get 200 years of jihad.
Germany Nazi wanted to create a superior race disparaging everyone else.
People where put into concentration camps (NOT just Jews) to be killed because they didn't fit that superior race.
The repercussion of ww1 allowed Hitler into place, that DOESN'T excuse the actions of later, that's also besides the point of personal vendettas.
You are one of the few to ever say ww2 isn't a "good" war.
Jibba,
I wasn't talking about ww1 so I don't understand why you quoted me?
Yes but you cannot understand the rise of the nazi (especially in germany were, in the history, the jews were really well accepted by the population) without understanding how the winner of WW1 humiliated the german by asking them to paid a big tribute.
But what does that have to do with anything Angelicfolly said?
Here let me help you guys:
Angelicfolly: WW2 was a war that had to be fought. Else we'd all be speaking German now.
Well, all the shit that happen in germany, the holocaust for exemple, were the concequence of the WW1, so war is bad. What would had happen if everybody listened to Jaurèss in France? Who knows.
WW2 had a cause (a war, if that matters), therefore it was bad. Okay!
But not everybody listened to Jaurèss. And that is the whole point (I suggest you read carefully here, Jibba!). Nazis came and they weren't nice. What do you suggest people do other than fight?
So we should have attacked them before they moved into Czechoslovakia? Just like we should have laid waste to the Soviet Union?
If there is a right way to conduct war, it's through brutal retaliation. Not pre-emptive destruction.
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 am say you are ignorant as fuck. Who is USA to deem countries what they can and can't have. If they have scientists working on these break-troughs to make the material then props to them. It's not that hard to make a nuke, the difficult part is purifying that Uranium, which is the most guarded secret any nation has with nuclear power.
Your argument is faulty. Just because the government is radical does not mean they are more prone to use the nuclear weapons than USA. I mean look at Israel, they don't have a necesseraly radical government but seem very willing to use nuclear weapons. Should we ban them from the use of nuclear weapons?
I mean look at China, they have nuclear weapons, they are communist, should we stop them? Look at Russia? I mean where do we draw the line on who can and can't have something if they invented it?
O and ummm, the people who actually invented the Nuclear Bomb were scientists who escaped from Nazi Germans in Europe. Just a small history lesson for ya. ?
If a country is ruled by a radical tyrant, they are more prone to do radical things, such as using nuclear weapons on their enemies. Think of all the batshit insane leaders of countries in the past and what they have done without the use of nuclear weapons...and now think of them with nuclear capabilities.
What? That's not true at all. Failed governments and anarchy is where the threat lies. Not "batshit insane leaders," who are usually quite calculating and rational.
Also China and Russia are part Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treat and they also have permanent seat in the United Nations Security Council. We regularly have inspections and meetings to make sure we're not abusing our nuclear capabilities, something Iran refuses to do.
And what about the country doing the attacking in this case? How do they justify their nuclear weapons?
I very much doubt Pol Pot and Hitler was rational. Calculating, yes. And I'm not justifying anything that Israel is doing. Actually, I find it ironic that Israel is doing this. They're denying having nuclear weapons as is Iran, so I see them very similar to each other.
Saudi Arabia's un-democratic government has been allies with the US for years. It's been theorized that part of the reason we are so obsessed with Iraq is to curb their production to make more money for our "friends" the Saudies. (by "our" I mean our leaders) So it's only natural they would support anything Isreal wanted to do, being that its practically a US state. The actions of the government in that country have nothing to do with what the people want.
As far as the nuclear issue... why does it seem that there is some general assumption that the us is such a benign country when it comes to Aggression? The US was one of the most aggressive countries of the 20th century and is shaping up to be the same in the 21st. The only reason we dont "use nukes" is because we dont have to. We can launch cruise missile's from the coast, drop bombs from 30,000 feet and just plain invade countries. We have invaded more countries, killed FAR more civilians, and dropped far more bombs that Iran has in the last 20 years. In fact, by many many thousand fold.
Where does this assumption come from that the US so kind? Anyone outside the US is going to have many examples of our aggression across the globe.
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 am say you are ignorant as fuck. Who is USA to deem countries what they can and can't have. If they have scientists working on these break-troughs to make the material then props to them. It's not that hard to make a nuke, the difficult part is purifying that Uranium, which is the most guarded secret any nation has with nuclear power.
Your argument is faulty. Just because the government is radical does not mean they are more prone to use the nuclear weapons than USA. I mean look at Israel, they don't have a necesseraly radical government but seem very willing to use nuclear weapons. Should we ban them from the use of nuclear weapons?
I mean look at China, they have nuclear weapons, they are communist, should we stop them? Look at Russia? I mean where do we draw the line on who can and can't have something if they invented it?
O and ummm, the people who actually invented the Nuclear Bomb were scientists who escaped from Nazi Germans in Europe. Just a small history lesson for ya. ?
If a country is ruled by a radical tyrant, they are more prone to do radical things, such as using nuclear weapons on their enemies. Think of all the batshit insane leaders of countries in the past and what they have done without the use of nuclear weapons...and now think of them with nuclear capabilities.
What? That's not true at all. Failed governments and anarchy is where the threat lies. Not "batshit insane leaders," who are usually quite calculating and rational.
Also China and Russia are part Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treat and they also have permanent seat in the United Nations Security Council. We regularly have inspections and meetings to make sure we're not abusing our nuclear capabilities, something Iran refuses to do.
And what about the country doing the attacking in this case? How do they justify their nuclear weapons?
I very much doubt Pol Pot and Hitler was rational. Calculating, yes. And I'm not justifying anything that Israel is doing. Actually, I find it ironic that Israel is doing this. They're denying having nuclear weapons as is Iran, so I see them very similar to each other.
Why weren't they? Do you think Hitler would have begun the Holocaust if he didn't believe Germany would win the war? Of course not. Rational is about self-serving behavior, and in this case serving the interest of a nation. A nuclear attack on Israel would be in no way rational, given the subsequent regime change by force. The Ayatollah knows that.
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'
On June 13 2010 07:01 cursor wrote: Saudi Arabia's un-democratic government has been allies with the US for years. It's been theorized that part of the reason we are so obsessed with Iraq is to curb their production to make more money for our "friends" the Saudies. (by "our" I mean our leaders) So it's only natrual they would support anything Isreal wanted to do. The actions of the government in that country have nothing to do with what the people want.
As far as the nuclear issue... why does it seem that there is some general assumption that the us is such a benign country when it comes to Aggression? The US was one of the most aggressive countries of the 20th century and is shaping up to be the same in the 21st. The only reason we dont "use nukes" is because we dont have to. We can launch cruise missle's from the coast, drop bombs from 30,000 feet and just plain invade countries. We have invaded more countries, killed FAR more civilians, and dropped far more bombs that Iran has in the last 20 years. In fact, by many many thousand fold.
Where does this assumption come from that the US so kind? Anyone outside the US is going to have many examples of our aggression across the globe.
And people living in the states are gonna state the same tired argument on why the US has to be the global police force.
Germany Nazi wanted to create a superior race disparaging everyone else.
People where put into concentration camps (NOT just Jews) to be killed because they didn't fit that superior race.
The repercussion of ww1 allowed Hitler into place, that DOESN'T excuse the actions of later, that's also besides the point of personal vendettas.
You are one of the few to ever say ww2 isn't a "good" war.
Jibba,
I wasn't talking about ww1 so I don't understand why you quoted me?
Yes but you cannot understand the rise of the nazi (especially in germany were, in the history, the jews were really well accepted by the population) without understanding how the winner of WW1 humiliated the german by asking them to paid a big tribute.
But what does that have to do with anything Angelicfolly said?
Here let me help you guys:
Angelicfolly: WW2 was a war that had to be fought. Else we'd all be speaking German now.
Well, all the shit that happen in germany, the holocaust for exemple, were the concequence of the WW1, so war is bad. What would had happen if everybody listened to Jaurèss in France? Who knows.
WW2 had a cause (a war, if that matters), therefore it was bad. Okay!
But not everybody listened to Jaurèss. And that is the whole point (I suggest you read carefully here, Jibba!). Nazis came and they weren't nice. What do you suggest people do other than fight?
You don't understand... War cause War. That's all there is to understand. Attack Iran now, get 200 years of jihad.
But a lot of other things cause war too. And I did ask you a question. What do you suggest people do other than fight (against Nazi-Germany)?
Germany Nazi wanted to create a superior race disparaging everyone else.
People where put into concentration camps (NOT just Jews) to be killed because they didn't fit that superior race.
The repercussion of ww1 allowed Hitler into place, that DOESN'T excuse the actions of later, that's also besides the point of personal vendettas.
You are one of the few to ever say ww2 isn't a "good" war.
Jibba,
I wasn't talking about ww1 so I don't understand why you quoted me?
Yes but you cannot understand the rise of the nazi (especially in germany were, in the history, the jews were really well accepted by the population) without understanding how the winner of WW1 humiliated the german by asking them to paid a big tribute.
But what does that have to do with anything Angelicfolly said?
Here let me help you guys:
Angelicfolly: WW2 was a war that had to be fought. Else we'd all be speaking German now.
Well, all the shit that happen in germany, the holocaust for exemple, were the concequence of the WW1, so war is bad. What would had happen if everybody listened to Jaurèss in France? Who knows.
WW2 had a cause (a war, if that matters), therefore it was bad. Okay!
But not everybody listened to Jaurèss. And that is the whole point (I suggest you read carefully here, Jibba!). Nazis came and they weren't nice. What do you suggest people do other than fight?
So we should have attacked them before they moved into Czechoslovakia? Just like we should have laid waste to the Soviet Union?
Wrong answer! Here's a hint: pre-emptive attack has absolutely nothing to do with what Angelicfolly said.
Saudi Arabia denies it will allow Israel to use its airspace
LoLmao you REALLY only read israeli's newspaper. Funny.
Great news by the way. This could only lead to more bad event.
I knew posting it would only encourage you. However, this may shock you, but I'm not a Jew nor can I speak Hebrew. Even the link I found from another site.
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 am say you are ignorant as fuck. Who is USA to deem countries what they can and can't have. If they have scientists working on these break-troughs to make the material then props to them. It's not that hard to make a nuke, the difficult part is purifying that Uranium, which is the most guarded secret any nation has with nuclear power.
Your argument is faulty. Just because the government is radical does not mean they are more prone to use the nuclear weapons than USA. I mean look at Israel, they don't have a necesseraly radical government but seem very willing to use nuclear weapons. Should we ban them from the use of nuclear weapons?
I mean look at China, they have nuclear weapons, they are communist, should we stop them? Look at Russia? I mean where do we draw the line on who can and can't have something if they invented it?
O and ummm, the people who actually invented the Nuclear Bomb were scientists who escaped from Nazi Germans in Europe. Just a small history lesson for ya. ?
If a country is ruled by a radical tyrant, they are more prone to do radical things, such as using nuclear weapons on their enemies. Think of all the batshit insane leaders of countries in the past and what they have done without the use of nuclear weapons...and now think of them with nuclear capabilities.
What? That's not true at all. Failed governments and anarchy is where the threat lies. Not "batshit insane leaders," who are usually quite calculating and rational.
Also China and Russia are part Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treat and they also have permanent seat in the United Nations Security Council. We regularly have inspections and meetings to make sure we're not abusing our nuclear capabilities, something Iran refuses to do.
And what about the country doing the attacking in this case? How do they justify their nuclear weapons?
I very much doubt Pol Pot and Hitler was rational. Calculating, yes. And I'm not justifying anything that Israel is doing. Actually, I find it ironic that Israel is doing this. They're denying having nuclear weapons as is Iran, so I see them very similar to each other.
Why weren't they? Do you think Hitler would have begun the Holocaust if he didn't believe Germany would win the war? Of course not. Rational is about self-serving behavior, and in this case serving the interest of a nation. A nuclear attack on Israel would be in no way rational, given the subsequent regime change by force. The Ayatollah knows that.
A rational human fucking being does not systematically kill off 6 million Jews because he thinks he's doing his country a favor.
On June 13 2010 06:15 angelicfolly wrote: It could be between five to ten years before Iran has a nuke if not sooner. You really need to be pro-active on these events or they spiral out of control. Look at WW2 for this, just about everyone let Germany break the treaties it was supposed to keep, and paid dearly for it.
Squeegy, what do you get out of the term "pro-active"? Because clearly we have different interpretations of his post.
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 am say you are ignorant as fuck. Who is USA to deem countries what they can and can't have. If they have scientists working on these break-troughs to make the material then props to them. It's not that hard to make a nuke, the difficult part is purifying that Uranium, which is the most guarded secret any nation has with nuclear power.
Your argument is faulty. Just because the government is radical does not mean they are more prone to use the nuclear weapons than USA. I mean look at Israel, they don't have a necesseraly radical government but seem very willing to use nuclear weapons. Should we ban them from the use of nuclear weapons?
I mean look at China, they have nuclear weapons, they are communist, should we stop them? Look at Russia? I mean where do we draw the line on who can and can't have something if they invented it?
O and ummm, the people who actually invented the Nuclear Bomb were scientists who escaped from Nazi Germans in Europe. Just a small history lesson for ya. ?
If a country is ruled by a radical tyrant, they are more prone to do radical things, such as using nuclear weapons on their enemies. Think of all the batshit insane leaders of countries in the past and what they have done without the use of nuclear weapons...and now think of them with nuclear capabilities.
What? That's not true at all. Failed governments and anarchy is where the threat lies. Not "batshit insane leaders," who are usually quite calculating and rational.
Also China and Russia are part Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treat and they also have permanent seat in the United Nations Security Council. We regularly have inspections and meetings to make sure we're not abusing our nuclear capabilities, something Iran refuses to do.
And what about the country doing the attacking in this case? How do they justify their nuclear weapons?
I very much doubt Pol Pot and Hitler was rational. Calculating, yes. And I'm not justifying anything that Israel is doing. Actually, I find it ironic that Israel is doing this. They're denying having nuclear weapons as is Iran, so I see them very similar to each other.
Why weren't they? Do you think Hitler would have begun the Holocaust if he didn't believe Germany would win the war? Of course not. Rational is about self-serving behavior, and in this case serving the interest of a nation. A nuclear attack on Israel would be in no way rational, given the subsequent regime change by force. The Ayatollah knows that.
Well, they have a limited rationality (it's an economic concept made by Simons & such). The problem with the "limited part" is that people are usually pushed to stop their choice to the first solution (an not the most optimal solution) who gave them a minimal source of satisfaction. Saying a tyrant is rational is misleading: he doesn't have all the card in the hands and he can think that he have less cards in the hand that he actually have. It's very possible for anyone in some precise context to launch the bomb, rational or not. The Ayatollah can think that they are going to be attacked and respond by launching an Abomb.
Amadinejad (don't really care about how the name is actually written) said in an interview that "1 bomb against 20000" is useless. It's interesting to understand their state of mind (which is the exact same state of mind as the Israeli by the way): they think are alone against the world, against the big USA and all the occidentals. Rationaly, they can think that launching the bomb is their only way to survive in one exact context.
But a lot of other things cause war too. And I did ask you a question. What do you suggest people do other than fight (against Nazi-Germany)?
Defend themselves. That's what they did. I'm not a pro pacifist, I'm just saying attacking someone only leads to more war.
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 am say you are ignorant as fuck. Who is USA to deem countries what they can and can't have. If they have scientists working on these break-troughs to make the material then props to them. It's not that hard to make a nuke, the difficult part is purifying that Uranium, which is the most guarded secret any nation has with nuclear power.
Your argument is faulty. Just because the government is radical does not mean they are more prone to use the nuclear weapons than USA. I mean look at Israel, they don't have a necesseraly radical government but seem very willing to use nuclear weapons. Should we ban them from the use of nuclear weapons?
I mean look at China, they have nuclear weapons, they are communist, should we stop them? Look at Russia? I mean where do we draw the line on who can and can't have something if they invented it?
O and ummm, the people who actually invented the Nuclear Bomb were scientists who escaped from Nazi Germans in Europe. Just a small history lesson for ya. ?
If a country is ruled by a radical tyrant, they are more prone to do radical things, such as using nuclear weapons on their enemies. Think of all the batshit insane leaders of countries in the past and what they have done without the use of nuclear weapons...and now think of them with nuclear capabilities.
What? That's not true at all. Failed governments and anarchy is where the threat lies. Not "batshit insane leaders," who are usually quite calculating and rational.
Also China and Russia are part Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treat and they also have permanent seat in the United Nations Security Council. We regularly have inspections and meetings to make sure we're not abusing our nuclear capabilities, something Iran refuses to do.
And what about the country doing the attacking in this case? How do they justify their nuclear weapons?
I very much doubt Pol Pot and Hitler was rational. Calculating, yes. And I'm not justifying anything that Israel is doing. Actually, I find it ironic that Israel is doing this. They're denying having nuclear weapons as is Iran, so I see them very similar to each other.
Why weren't they? Do you think Hitler would have begun the Holocaust if he didn't believe Germany would win the war? Of course not. Rational is about self-serving behavior, and in this case serving the interest of a nation. A nuclear attack on Israel would be in no way rational, given the subsequent regime change by force. The Ayatollah knows that.
Well, they have a limited rationality (it's an economic concept made by Simons & such). The problem with the "limited part" is that people are usually pushed to stop their choice to the first solution (an not the most optimal solution) who gave them a minimal source of satisfaction. Saying a tyrant is rational is misleading: he doesn't have all the card in the hands and he can think that he have less cards in the hand that he actually have. It's very possible for anyone in some precise context to launch the bomb, rational or not. The Ayatollah can think that they are going to be attacked and respond by launching an Abomb.
Amadinejad (don't really care about how the name is actually written) said in an interview that "1 bomb against 20000" is useless. It's interesting to understand their state of mind (which is the exact same state of mind as the Israeli by the way): they think are alone against the world, against the big USA and all the occidentals. Rationaly, they can think that launching the bomb is their only way to survive in one exact context.
It's a defense to protect themselves from being attacked. There is no survival once their own is used. Again, deterrence is about response. You only attack first when you believe you have the capability of winning, which is why Israel would attack first. Iran, however, would not.
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 am say you are ignorant as fuck. Who is USA to deem countries what they can and can't have. If they have scientists working on these break-troughs to make the material then props to them. It's not that hard to make a nuke, the difficult part is purifying that Uranium, which is the most guarded secret any nation has with nuclear power.
Your argument is faulty. Just because the government is radical does not mean they are more prone to use the nuclear weapons than USA. I mean look at Israel, they don't have a necesseraly radical government but seem very willing to use nuclear weapons. Should we ban them from the use of nuclear weapons?
I mean look at China, they have nuclear weapons, they are communist, should we stop them? Look at Russia? I mean where do we draw the line on who can and can't have something if they invented it?
O and ummm, the people who actually invented the Nuclear Bomb were scientists who escaped from Nazi Germans in Europe. Just a small history lesson for ya. ?
If a country is ruled by a radical tyrant, they are more prone to do radical things, such as using nuclear weapons on their enemies. Think of all the batshit insane leaders of countries in the past and what they have done without the use of nuclear weapons...and now think of them with nuclear capabilities.
What? That's not true at all. Failed governments and anarchy is where the threat lies. Not "batshit insane leaders," who are usually quite calculating and rational.
Also China and Russia are part Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treat and they also have permanent seat in the United Nations Security Council. We regularly have inspections and meetings to make sure we're not abusing our nuclear capabilities, something Iran refuses to do.
And what about the country doing the attacking in this case? How do they justify their nuclear weapons?
I very much doubt Pol Pot and Hitler was rational. Calculating, yes. And I'm not justifying anything that Israel is doing. Actually, I find it ironic that Israel is doing this. They're denying having nuclear weapons as is Iran, so I see them very similar to each other.
Why weren't they? Do you think Hitler would have begun the Holocaust if he didn't believe Germany would win the war? Of course not. Rational is about self-serving behavior, and in this case serving the interest of a nation. A nuclear attack on Israel would be in no way rational, given the subsequent regime change by force. The Ayatollah knows that.
Well, they have a limited rationality (it's an economic concept made by Simons & such). The problem with the "limited part" is that people are usually pushed to stop their choice to the first solution (an not the most optimal solution) who gave them a minimal source of satisfaction. Saying a tyrant is rational is misleading: he doesn't have all the card in the hands and he can think that he have less cards in the hand that he actually have. It's very possible for anyone in some precise context to launch the bomb, rational or not. The Ayatollah can think that they are going to be attacked and respond by launching an Abomb.
Amadinejad (don't really care about how the name is actually written) said in an interview that "1 bomb against 20000" is useless. It's interesting to understand their state of mind (which is the exact same state of mind as the Israeli by the way): they think are alone against the world, against the big USA and all the occidentals. Rationaly, they can think that launching the bomb is their only way to survive in one exact context.
It's a defense to protect themselves from being attacked. There is no survival once their own is used. Again, deterrence is about response.
Yeah I agree for that, but I'm pretty sure that having the bomb will not give them peace. The battlefield will change: palestine, irak. There is always possibilities for them to think they are in a corner and use the bomb. Well I'm saying that just to argue a bit with you, since I think like you that letting them have the bomb is not a problem, Iran is not a belligerant country, just fancy.
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?
people seem to forget that America is the only country to ever use a nuclear weapon against another country.
First of all, I felt like including this so you might hopefully learn SOMETHING about the situation in Iran:
The population isn't bad, the government is retarded.
SpartiK1S.. wow..
=Dozle: Lol, America saving the world. What textbooks did you read in school?
Ones approved by the Texas board of education I'm sure.
=ranyhin: Iran is NOT a stable country, and has a corrupt/religiously based government (which is always bad).
Iran is not stable, and it is corrupt. But really you seem oblivious to the corruption of your own country.
Yours caused a global financial meltdown.
=Squeegy: How many wars has USA fought in? How many chances did they have to use nukes? How many times did they? This is why people consider USA responsible.
Actually every single war the US has fought has been to "liberate" the country they invade. It's hard to pitch that angle if you nuke the place making it inhabitable for all human life, so that's why they don't nuke.
=Squeegy: Iran has made it clear that they don't want Israel to exist in its current state.
You believe Ahmadinejad is the voice of his people? He's not.
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 am say you are ignorant as fuck. Who is USA to deem countries what they can and can't have. If they have scientists working on these break-troughs to make the material then props to them. It's not that hard to make a nuke, the difficult part is purifying that Uranium, which is the most guarded secret any nation has with nuclear power.
Your argument is faulty. Just because the government is radical does not mean they are more prone to use the nuclear weapons than USA. I mean look at Israel, they don't have a necesseraly radical government but seem very willing to use nuclear weapons. Should we ban them from the use of nuclear weapons?
I mean look at China, they have nuclear weapons, they are communist, should we stop them? Look at Russia? I mean where do we draw the line on who can and can't have something if they invented it?
O and ummm, the people who actually invented the Nuclear Bomb were scientists who escaped from Nazi Germans in Europe. Just a small history lesson for ya. ?
If a country is ruled by a radical tyrant, they are more prone to do radical things, such as using nuclear weapons on their enemies. Think of all the batshit insane leaders of countries in the past and what they have done without the use of nuclear weapons...and now think of them with nuclear capabilities.
What? That's not true at all. Failed governments and anarchy is where the threat lies. Not "batshit insane leaders," who are usually quite calculating and rational.
Also China and Russia are part Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treat and they also have permanent seat in the United Nations Security Council. We regularly have inspections and meetings to make sure we're not abusing our nuclear capabilities, something Iran refuses to do.
And what about the country doing the attacking in this case? How do they justify their nuclear weapons?
I very much doubt Pol Pot and Hitler was rational. Calculating, yes. And I'm not justifying anything that Israel is doing. Actually, I find it ironic that Israel is doing this. They're denying having nuclear weapons as is Iran, so I see them very similar to each other.
Why weren't they? Do you think Hitler would have begun the Holocaust if he didn't believe Germany would win the war? Of course not. Rational is about self-serving behavior, and in this case serving the interest of a nation. A nuclear attack on Israel would be in no way rational, given the subsequent regime change by force. The Ayatollah knows that.
Well, they have a limited rationality (it's an economic concept made by Simons & such). The problem with the "limited part" is that people are usually pushed to stop their choice to the first solution (an not the most optimal solution) who gave them a minimal source of satisfaction. Saying a tyrant is rational is misleading: he doesn't have all the card in the hands and he can think that he have less cards in the hand that he actually have. It's very possible for anyone in some precise context to launch the bomb, rational or not. The Ayatollah can think that they are going to be attacked and respond by launching an Abomb.
Amadinejad (don't really care about how the name is actually written) said in an interview that "1 bomb against 20000" is useless. It's interesting to understand their state of mind (which is the exact same state of mind as the Israeli by the way): they think are alone against the world, against the big USA and all the occidentals. Rationaly, they can think that launching the bomb is their only way to survive in one exact context.
But a lot of other things cause war too. And I did ask you a question. What do you suggest people do other than fight (against Nazi-Germany)?
Defend themselves. That's what they did. I'm not a pro pacifist, I'm just saying attacking someone only leads to more war.
Well, Germany has been strangely peaceful ever since WW2. Of course we've had more wars, but I don't think fighting against Germany (and I mean just that) has been that big of a cause. But that is just me thinking that "attacking someone only leads to more war" is simplistic. The point Angelicfolly was making is that WW2 was good because it prevented Nazis from getting what they wanted. Because that was unacceptable. In that sense WW2 was a good war. I prefer to call it (and other wars that could be deemed good by this logic) a necessary war. Because it had to be fought.
In other words, Angelicfolly claims (as do I) that some wars need to be fought. Ghandi would have ended up as paint for tank tracks.
On June 13 2010 06:15 angelicfolly wrote: It could be between five to ten years before Iran has a nuke if not sooner. You really need to be pro-active on these events or they spiral out of control. Look at WW2 for this, just about everyone let Germany break the treaties it was supposed to keep, and paid dearly for it.
Squeegy, what do you get out of the term "pro-active"? Because clearly we have different interpretations of his post.
On June 13 2010 03:57 Pervect wrote: Claiming that other countries deserve nukes because America has them or that only America deserves nuke because "fuck yeah glorious America that always does the right thing and has never wrongfully hurt anyone" is retarded.
Everyone should be pushing to ensure that Iran complies with the IAEA, everyone should be pushing to force Israel, Pakistan, India and North Korea to sign the NPT and undergo inspections from the IAEA and everyone should be pushing for America, Russia, United Kingdom, France and China to dismantle their weapons as quickly and safely as possible. Stop giving a shit about just your country or hating on just one country and start giving a shit about the entirety of humanity.
I'm glad at least one person thinks the same as me. Weapons, violence and war won't ever cause anything good or related with peace (fight war to get peace is so ironical, ignorantly blind to believe such things). However sadly this is only a wish and dream of mine, though i believe time will come and revolution will bring true changes
In order to have peace in ww2 you had to fight. The direct result of fighting saved MANY lives in concentration camps.
These a saying that if your not willing to fight for your beliefs then those beliefs are not worth having.
but who determines if those beliefs are right or wrong? The US government? (expect ww2, which of course was something completely different than nowadays issues) The US government aren't policemen or the court of the world, they don't fight wars and impose sanctions to bring peace and safety, they do it for selfish profit, like everything or everyone is based on profit.
Wither your beliefs are right or wrong wasn't the issue with the saying, If those beliefs are not important enough to defend them then they where not that important anyway (Good/bad beliefs are not the issue). WW2 is a exact example of why war can be good.
I'm not debating the merits of US interest not the point of the saying.
Entering a war and pre-emptive war are two different things. WW1 was a case of countries entering war for the sake of being the first one to enter the war, and it was the worst mess of the 20th century.
All 3 countries are rational actors, and it's extremely unlikely that Iran would ever use a nuclear weapon in that fashion. There's plenty of other reasons to strive for nuclear weapons besides actually expecting to use them. Saudi Arabia is concerned about their own stability and role in the region.
And that AIPAC book is awful. Mearsheimer and Walt were totally out of their element.
Interesting that almost everyone wants to control Iran and no one trusts em. One great philosopher ones said - "Only slaves are forbidden to have weapons!"
On June 13 2010 07:27 Hazard wrote: Interesting that almost everyone wants to control Iran and no one trusts em. One great philosopher ones said - "Only slaves are forbidden to have weapons!"
Just my 2 cents.
Wouldn't you want to control someone's reach to a weapon if you couldn't trust him to behave well with it?
It's interesting that this thread started out as a discussion on a news topic, and has turned into an arguement about Who should be allowed what.
The way I see the current situation, is that both sides are igniting public suspicion toward the other side. The simplest way of saying this, is that in places such as the US and UK, both the government and the media are taking the fact that Iran has been enriching uranium, and turning it into "They are going to turn around and destroy the world" The same is true for Iran, where they are basicly taking the caution that the west if having towards them, and turning it into "They are trying to turn this situation into an excuse to destroy us."
The truth about the current situation, is that neither side is being completely open with each over. The west is proclaiming that Iran is secretly trying to build nuclear weapons, which could be a threat to security. Whereas Iran is trying to keep all foreign interest away from the situation, since (at least as far as they are telling it), it is a harmless operation focused towards power. This creates a point of anxiety, where both sides begin accusing each other of being the "bad guys".
Currently, the way I see it, both sides are being completely irrational! On one side, Iran has turned down several offers from foreign powers, to provide the matierals, to allow Iran to build Nuclear Power Plants, without giving them the matierals for Nukes. Since Iran essentially declined this, howelse could they have expected people to react, other than to assume they are aiming for Nukes. On the other side, the US seems to believe that as soon as any more nukes are created, its going to be shoved up their asses. This also, doesnt make sense, considering the current notion of Mutually assured desctruction.
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 am say you are ignorant as fuck. Who is USA to deem countries what they can and can't have. If they have scientists working on these break-troughs to make the material then props to them. It's not that hard to make a nuke, the difficult part is purifying that Uranium, which is the most guarded secret any nation has with nuclear power.
Your argument is faulty. Just because the government is radical does not mean they are more prone to use the nuclear weapons than USA. I mean look at Israel, they don't have a necesseraly radical government but seem very willing to use nuclear weapons. Should we ban them from the use of nuclear weapons?
I mean look at China, they have nuclear weapons, they are communist, should we stop them? Look at Russia? I mean where do we draw the line on who can and can't have something if they invented it?
O and ummm, the people who actually invented the Nuclear Bomb were scientists who escaped from Nazi Germans in Europe. Just a small history lesson for ya. ?
If a country is ruled by a radical tyrant, they are more prone to do radical things, such as using nuclear weapons on their enemies. Think of all the batshit insane leaders of countries in the past and what they have done without the use of nuclear weapons...and now think of them with nuclear capabilities.
What? That's not true at all. Failed governments and anarchy is where the threat lies. Not "batshit insane leaders," who are usually quite calculating and rational.
Also China and Russia are part Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treat and they also have permanent seat in the United Nations Security Council. We regularly have inspections and meetings to make sure we're not abusing our nuclear capabilities, something Iran refuses to do.
And what about the country doing the attacking in this case? How do they justify their nuclear weapons?
I very much doubt Pol Pot and Hitler was rational. Calculating, yes. And I'm not justifying anything that Israel is doing. Actually, I find it ironic that Israel is doing this. They're denying having nuclear weapons as is Iran, so I see them very similar to each other.
I invoke Godwin's law. This thread must hereby die.
Squeegy on the run again, ignoring things that would prevent him from advocating Israel and United States.
-I am really suprised reading posts advocating "Lesser number of nukes is better." When ideal should be "No nukes is better." Even it's not the reality, I as a human being think that I am obligated to protest nuke for every situation, and advocate no nukes for nobody."
-Squeegy asked about how many times U.S. had a chance to use nukes but didn't and sth about talking german, a: most of those situtations were because of U.S.' policies, many situations are raised because of U.S., don't worry U.S. wouldn't use nukes for the situtations they started in the first place. b: I don't recognize U.S. nuking Nazi Germany, but I remember nuking Japan (twice) (may be U.S. thought that if they had not nuke Japan, we would be speaking Japan now.) c: I don't think U.S. being responsible with nukes worked for world peace after WW2, they used their power to intimidate many countries, blocked many nations' rising economy, and made those different world economies bound to U.S. and so on, when a country wanted to raise her head to have power of her own and make her citizens live in better conditions, there, there were U.S. with nukes, -emposing bound economy, -having military bases in the country(this is very intimidating in practice).
I think U.S. had her profit a lot of this so called "responsible wielding of nukes" in a bad way.
Ppl's ideology here is "if my ally holds nukes, I would ignore things, because he is my ally in the first place, but if my enemy/or a country which is unfriendly to me holds nukes there is "always" a risk that he can use it and that is enough justification to act necessarily against him"
It is so sad to see ppl defending nukes "in responsible hands".
Believe me friends, today, if you have nukes, you are right. Ppl will eventually listen to you, even if you don't use your nukes.
Using / abusing the power of holding a nuke in every aspect of world relations is no better than using nukes for me. Defending U.S. to have nukes because of her "non-violent" history is another biggy, since if you count the nukes used in history and how many of them was used by U.S., it's very interesting.
No America isn't the only nation who should have nukes. And we aren't.
No, third world countries (especially the ones who have a history of violence and unrest) should not have nukes. (Especailly those who have huge amounts to gain by nuking a current or past enemy)
No, noone but Terran should have nukes. Think of Zerg with nukes. How awful would that be? Iran is the Zerg. America is Terran. Imagine the implications!!!
It's interesting how quick people are to harp out that America is the only country to use nukes against another country like it's some trump card to prove that the US is least responsible with it's nuclear arsenal. In the context of the era, would it really be any different if they just firebombed hiroshima and nagasaaki and killed just as many civillians? Kind of like saying it's less responsible to use 1 bomb instead of 1000 bombs even though they do the same damage. Any single country involved in ww2 would have instantly used nuclear weapons if they were the first to obtain them, so inventing them is almost synonymous with being the only country to use them.
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 am say you are ignorant as fuck. Who is USA to deem countries what they can and can't have. If they have scientists working on these break-troughs to make the material then props to them. It's not that hard to make a nuke, the difficult part is purifying that Uranium, which is the most guarded secret any nation has with nuclear power.
Your argument is faulty. Just because the government is radical does not mean they are more prone to use the nuclear weapons than USA. I mean look at Israel, they don't have a necesseraly radical government but seem very willing to use nuclear weapons. Should we ban them from the use of nuclear weapons?
I mean look at China, they have nuclear weapons, they are communist, should we stop them? Look at Russia? I mean where do we draw the line on who can and can't have something if they invented it?
O and ummm, the people who actually invented the Nuclear Bomb were scientists who escaped from Nazi Germans in Europe. Just a small history lesson for ya. ?
If a country is ruled by a radical tyrant, they are more prone to do radical things, such as using nuclear weapons on their enemies. Think of all the batshit insane leaders of countries in the past and what they have done without the use of nuclear weapons...and now think of them with nuclear capabilities.
What? That's not true at all. Failed governments and anarchy is where the threat lies. Not "batshit insane leaders," who are usually quite calculating and rational.
Also China and Russia are part Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treat and they also have permanent seat in the United Nations Security Council. We regularly have inspections and meetings to make sure we're not abusing our nuclear capabilities, something Iran refuses to do.
And what about the country doing the attacking in this case? How do they justify their nuclear weapons?
I very much doubt Pol Pot and Hitler was rational. Calculating, yes. And I'm not justifying anything that Israel is doing. Actually, I find it ironic that Israel is doing this. They're denying having nuclear weapons as is Iran, so I see them very similar to each other.
Why weren't they? Do you think Hitler would have begun the Holocaust if he didn't believe Germany would win the war? Of course not. Rational is about self-serving behavior, and in this case serving the interest of a nation. A nuclear attack on Israel would be in no way rational, given the subsequent regime change by force. The Ayatollah knows that.
Well, they have a limited rationality (it's an economic concept made by Simons & such). The problem with the "limited part" is that people are usually pushed to stop their choice to the first solution (an not the most optimal solution) who gave them a minimal source of satisfaction. Saying a tyrant is rational is misleading: he doesn't have all the card in the hands and he can think that he have less cards in the hand that he actually have. It's very possible for anyone in some precise context to launch the bomb, rational or not. The Ayatollah can think that they are going to be attacked and respond by launching an Abomb.
Amadinejad (don't really care about how the name is actually written) said in an interview that "1 bomb against 20000" is useless. It's interesting to understand their state of mind (which is the exact same state of mind as the Israeli by the way): they think are alone against the world, against the big USA and all the occidentals. Rationaly, they can think that launching the bomb is their only way to survive in one exact context.
But a lot of other things cause war too. And I did ask you a question. What do you suggest people do other than fight (against Nazi-Germany)?
Defend themselves. That's what they did. I'm not a pro pacifist, I'm just saying attacking someone only leads to more war.
Well, Germany has been strangely peaceful ever since WW2. Of course we've had more wars, but I don't think fighting against Germany (and I mean just that) has been that big of a cause. But that is just me thinking that "attacking someone only leads to more war" is simplistic. The point Angelicfolly was making is that WW2 was good because it prevented Nazis from getting what they wanted. Because that was unacceptable. In that sense WW2 was a good war. I prefer to call it (and other wars that could be deemed good by this logic) a necessary war. Because it had to be fought.
In other words, Angelicfolly claims (as do I) that some wars need to be fought. Ghandi would have ended up as paint for tank tracks.
On June 13 2010 06:15 angelicfolly wrote: It could be between five to ten years before Iran has a nuke if not sooner. You really need to be pro-active on these events or they spiral out of control. Look at WW2 for this, just about everyone let Germany break the treaties it was supposed to keep, and paid dearly for it.
Squeegy, what do you get out of the term "pro-active"? Because clearly we have different interpretations of his post.
On June 13 2010 03:57 Pervect wrote: Claiming that other countries deserve nukes because America has them or that only America deserves nuke because "fuck yeah glorious America that always does the right thing and has never wrongfully hurt anyone" is retarded.
Everyone should be pushing to ensure that Iran complies with the IAEA, everyone should be pushing to force Israel, Pakistan, India and North Korea to sign the NPT and undergo inspections from the IAEA and everyone should be pushing for America, Russia, United Kingdom, France and China to dismantle their weapons as quickly and safely as possible. Stop giving a shit about just your country or hating on just one country and start giving a shit about the entirety of humanity.
I'm glad at least one person thinks the same as me. Weapons, violence and war won't ever cause anything good or related with peace (fight war to get peace is so ironical, ignorantly blind to believe such things). However sadly this is only a wish and dream of mine, though i believe time will come and revolution will bring true changes
In order to have peace in ww2 you had to fight. The direct result of fighting saved MANY lives in concentration camps.
These a saying that if your not willing to fight for your beliefs then those beliefs are not worth having.
but who determines if those beliefs are right or wrong? The US government? (expect ww2, which of course was something completely different than nowadays issues) The US government aren't policemen or the court of the world, they don't fight wars and impose sanctions to bring peace and safety, they do it for selfish profit, like everything or everyone is based on profit.
Wither your beliefs are right or wrong wasn't the issue with the saying, If those beliefs are not important enough to defend them then they where not that important anyway (Good/bad beliefs are not the issue). WW2 is a exact example of why war can be good.
I'm not debating the merits of US interest not the point of the saying.
Entering a war and pre-emptive war are two different things. WW1 was a case of countries entering war for the sake of being the first one to enter the war, and it was the worst mess of the 20th century.
All 3 countries are rational actors, and it's extremely unlikely that Iran would ever use a nuclear weapon in that fashion. There's plenty of other reasons to strive for nuclear weapons besides actually expecting to use them. Saudi Arabia is concerned about their own stability and role in the region.
And that AIPAC book is awful. Mearsheimer and Walt were totally out of their element.
I'm not a pacifist as I said, so I think there are some wars that are necessary so i must agree with you. I even think that peace is just a value made by bourgeois to assure that the low grades don't move from their shitty position. I just think that the WW2 is a bad exemple, because it is too complicated. There has been no war in europe since WW2, yes, because of what the europeans build since then (europe and the ties between germany & france for exemple). The events that leads to WW2 needs to be understood trought a long history, way way before WW1 in fact. It's so easy to say: "you must fight evil nazis!" and then just switch names to "you must fight evil iranian!". Iran is a pretty beautiful country, with an amazing culture. There are many jews living there peacefully without any problems. (Well it's not a beautiful democratie i must agree). It's just the beginning of the clash between the arabic world and the occidental world, by picturing them as "evil" and only defending the idea that the only answer to the problem between our civilisation is war, it will only lead to another WW2. That's the difference between attack and defense. See the cold war, nobody risked to attack and now russia & us relation are pretty cool.
On June 13 2010 08:04 -Desu- wrote: Squeegy on the run again, ignoring things that would prevent him from advocating Israel and United States.
-I am really suprised reading posts advocating "Lesser number of nukes is better." When ideal should be "No nukes is better." Even it's not the reality, I as a human being think that I am obligated to protest nuke for every situation, and advocate no nukes for nobody."
-Squeegy asked about how many times U.S. had a chance to use nukes but didn't and sth about talking german, a: most of those situtations were because of U.S.' policies, many situations are raised because of U.S., don't worry U.S. wouldn't use nukes for the situtations they started in the first place. b: I don't recognize U.S. nuking Nazi Germany, but I remember nuking Japan (twice) (may be U.S. thought that if they had not nuke Japan, we would be speaking Japan now.) c: I don't think U.S. being responsible with nukes worked for world peace after WW2, they used their power to intimidate many countries, blocked many nations' rising economy, and made those different world economies bound to U.S. and so on, when a country wanted to raise her head to have power of her own and make her citizens live in better conditions, there, there were U.S. with nukes, -emposing bound economy, -having military bases in the country(this is very intimidating in practice).
I think U.S. had her profit a lot of this so called "responsible wielding of nukes" in a bad way.
Ppl's ideology here is "if my ally holds nukes, I would ignore things, because he is my ally in the first place, but if my enemy/or a country which is unfriendly to me holds nukes there is "always" a risk that he can use it and that is enough justification to act necessarily against him"
It is so sad to see ppl defending nukes "in responsible hands".
Believe me friends, today, if you have nukes, you are right. Ppl will eventually listen to you, even if you don't use your nukes.
Using / abusing the power of holding a nuke in every aspect of world relations is no better than using nukes for me.
"No nukes is better" doesn't entail "lesser number of nukes is better". "Lesser number of nukes is better" entails "no nukes is better". Moreover, it is probably safe to say that nukes prevent an all-out-war between USSR and USA. In this sense, I recognize that nukes have not been all bad and that maybe only a lesser number of nukes is good.
A) So you agree that US would only use nukes in situations they didn't start. Good. B) Yup, they nuked Japan. C) Yup, with nukes comes political power.
Ps. I didn't say I'm for attacking Iran. I don't think Iran should have nukes, but I'm not sure if military intervention is the answer.
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.
Hello, I don't want to be mean here, but this is the exact mentality why a lot of the countries hate America. Some "hate" them in a harmless way (e.g: Europe, Canada, etc...), but other times with more disastrous consequences such as the events happening in China (flexing its military muscles), India/Pakistan, North Korea and Iran.
I'm not sure how you can justify America (or any country for that matter) to "deserve" having nuclear arms...
Now I didn't come here to bash America (and I'm actually usually pro-American when debating with others elsewhere in the world), but I think we have to understand why countries such as Iran are developing nuclear arms. Iran will finish its nuclear development because it is a matter of survival. Militarily they are ever-more pressed by enemies in Saudi Arabia, Iraq and Israel. They are being squeezed heavily by the embargo and the regime will be ousted from the inside if they fail to develop a nuclear weapon. Having it is political bargain chips, propaganda publicity of Iran's might and deters its enemies from attacking.
How do they justify developing one? "America has it too...in the thousands". That is why you won't have much moral qualm within the Iranian people. Their mentality is "why shouldn't we develop one? Why should America have thousands and not us?"
As long as the United States have a massive stockpile of nukes, other countries will continue to pursue for one.
On a last sidenote, I'm not blaming America, but we have to understand why all this is happening. None of the countries (Iran, Israel or America) are in the wrong side, but one of these countries have to compromise on something else this will escalate into something pretty disastrous.
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).
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?
Are you refering to the country that droped two nukes on civilian targets?
Is that responsible to you?
The road to world disarm must be lead by the ones holding the guns (The only undeniable road to a safer world). That is not the case.
So, however sad, it's reasonable that small and unestables regions are trying to get nukes of their own.
Germany Nazi wanted to create a superior race disparaging everyone else.
People where put into concentration camps (NOT just Jews) to be killed because they didn't fit that superior race.
The repercussion of ww1 allowed Hitler into place, that DOESN'T excuse the actions of later, that's also besides the point of personal vendettas.
You are one of the few to ever say ww2 isn't a "good" war.
Jibba,
I wasn't talking about ww1 so I don't understand why you quoted me?
Nazi Germany wasn't about this evil genius to create a superior race. It was their belief that if the Jewish race was singled out of Germany, the German "race" would eventually become extinct within a few hundred years. That was their most basic belief in which they actually devouted much resources in science/philosophy/research into trying to prove this.
What we mistake with Nazi Germany is to say "they did what they did because they are evil". They weren't evil; they massively ignorant. They believed in the wrong things; in things that weren't true. Germany was a paranoid country in the verge of economic collapse, absolute civil war and complete disintegration. The sad truth is that Hitler became that glue. The basic premise of his ideas being: "Spend A LOT to re-establish the economy, get the money back through war and stomp on all Communists to prevent German civil war".
That of course doesn't excuse of the things he did. However, we have to understand what happened with Nazi Germany wasn't evil, but stupidity & ignorance. This same stupidity & ignorance is something EVERY country (U.S, U.K, Canadian, Iran, Israel, etc...) is vulnerable to. Each of these countries have strong motives of the things they are doing now.
On June 13 2010 07:36 Squeegy wrote: Wouldn't you want to control someone's reach to a weapon if you couldn't trust him to behave well with it?
Sure (kinda like bullying) but US soldier ones said to Russian that there is no reason to hate each other just because we play for different teams. Fair play is the best control
Germany Nazi wanted to create a superior race disparaging everyone else.
People where put into concentration camps (NOT just Jews) to be killed because they didn't fit that superior race.
The repercussion of ww1 allowed Hitler into place, that DOESN'T excuse the actions of later, that's also besides the point of personal vendettas.
You are one of the few to ever say ww2 isn't a "good" war.
Jibba,
I wasn't talking about ww1 so I don't understand why you quoted me?
Yes but you cannot understand the rise of the nazi (especially in germany were, in the history, the jews were really well accepted by the population) without understanding how the winner of WW1 humiliated the german by asking them to paid a big tribute.
But what does that have to do with anything Angelicfolly said?
Here let me help you guys:
Angelicfolly: WW2 was a war that had to be fought. Else we'd all be speaking German now.
Well, all the shit that happen in germany, the holocaust for exemple, were the concequence of the WW1, so war is bad. What would had happen if everybody listened to Jaurèss in France? Who knows.
WW2 had a cause (a war, if that matters), therefore it was bad. Okay!
But not everybody listened to Jaurèss. And that is the whole point (I suggest you read carefully here, Jibba!). Nazis came and they weren't nice. What do you suggest people do other than fight?
You don't understand... War cause War. That's all there is to understand. Attack Iran now, get 200 years of jihad.
But a lot of other things cause war too. And I did ask you a question. What do you suggest people do other than fight (against Nazi-Germany)?
On June 13 2010 06:59 Jibba wrote:
On June 13 2010 06:55 Squeegy wrote:
On June 13 2010 06:44 ArKaDo wrote:
On June 13 2010 06:37 Squeegy wrote:
On June 13 2010 06:33 ArKaDo wrote:
On June 13 2010 06:30 angelicfolly wrote: Arkado,
What? I can't understand half of that.
Germany Nazi wanted to create a superior race disparaging everyone else.
People where put into concentration camps (NOT just Jews) to be killed because they didn't fit that superior race.
The repercussion of ww1 allowed Hitler into place, that DOESN'T excuse the actions of later, that's also besides the point of personal vendettas.
You are one of the few to ever say ww2 isn't a "good" war.
Jibba,
I wasn't talking about ww1 so I don't understand why you quoted me?
Yes but you cannot understand the rise of the nazi (especially in germany were, in the history, the jews were really well accepted by the population) without understanding how the winner of WW1 humiliated the german by asking them to paid a big tribute.
But what does that have to do with anything Angelicfolly said?
Here let me help you guys:
Angelicfolly: WW2 was a war that had to be fought. Else we'd all be speaking German now.
Well, all the shit that happen in germany, the holocaust for exemple, were the concequence of the WW1, so war is bad. What would had happen if everybody listened to Jaurèss in France? Who knows.
WW2 had a cause (a war, if that matters), therefore it was bad. Okay!
But not everybody listened to Jaurèss. And that is the whole point (I suggest you read carefully here, Jibba!). Nazis came and they weren't nice. What do you suggest people do other than fight?
So we should have attacked them before they moved into Czechoslovakia? Just like we should have laid waste to the Soviet Union?
Wrong answer! Here's a hint: pre-emptive attack has absolutely nothing to do with what Angelicfolly said.
Saudi Arabia denies it will allow Israel to use its airspace
LoLmao you REALLY only read israeli's newspaper. Funny.
Great news by the way. This could only lead to more bad event.
I knew posting it would only encourage you. However, this may shock you, but I'm not a Jew nor can I speak Hebrew. Even the link I found from another site.
I'm not a pacifist as I said, so I think there are some wars that are necessary so i must agree with you. I think that peace is just a value made by bourgeois to assure that the low grades don't move from their shitty position. I just think that the WW2 is a bad exemple, because it is too complicated. There has been no war in europe since WW2, yes, because of what the europeans build since then (europe and the ties between germany & france for exemple). The events that leads to WW2 needs to be understood trought a long history, way way before WW1 in fact. It's so easy to say: "you must fight evil nazis!" and then just switch names to "you must fight evil iranian!". Iran is a pretty beautiful country, with an amazing culture. There are many jews living there peacefully without any problems. (Well it's not a beautiful democratie i must agree). It's just the beginning of the clash between the arabic world and the occidental world, by picturing them as "evil" and only defending the idea that the only answer to the problem between our civilisation is war, it will only lead to another WW2.
Yes, it indeed is very complicated. This is why I think "war leads to war" is simplistic. War does lead to war in the sense that there will probably always be wars. So a war is always followed by a war (with varying time periods in-between). But, as I think you noted, WW2 was not caused directly by WW1 but by the events that followed WW1. Fighting a war against Germany in WW2 was necessary and good because it stopped the atrocities that Germany was commiting. The wars that followed were partially caused by the war itself but mostly because of other reasons. Of course sometimes war does directly cause war. When Israeli plane drops a bomb that kills a child's family, the child may very well live the rest of their live looking for revenge.
Iran is a different subject altogether. What should be done with Iran, I don't know. And I didn't see Angelicfolly say we should be wage a war against them either. Maybe he thinks this, I don't know, but when he said that war can be good, he wasn't referring to a war against Iran. He was simply contesting a claim made by someone else (that war is always bad).
Ps. I really have no special bond with Jews, so you don't have to mention them everytime. And I know that there are Jews in Iran. Many of them in good terms with Ahmadinejad even!
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?
Are you refering to the country that droped two nukes on civilian targets?
Is that responsible to you?
The road to world disarm must be lead by the ones holding the guns (The only undeniable road to a safer world). That is not the case.
So, however sad, it's reasonable that small and unestables regions are trying to get nukes of their own.
The Atomic Bomb drops on Hiroshima and Nagasaki were pretty justifiable. You either risk the war to prolong by months or years. Every month, you have a hundred thousand Chinese dying under Japanese occupation and you have 20,000 Koreans dying too. Every month, you have Americans, British and Canadian soldiers dying from captvity or from combat.
What is the alternative to nuking Japan? Air Bombing? Famine (from shipping blockades?) Is that any more morally correct? You rather have millions of Japanese dying from conventional bombing & famine than have a few hundred thousands die from the Atomic Bomb?
Hiroshima/Nagasaki is very dear to me, if ever you want to debate, e-mail at ShcShc11@gmail.com (I don't visit TL that often lol).
On June 13 2010 08:06 kryto wrote: No America isn't the only nation who should have nukes. And we aren't.
No, third world countries (especially the ones who have a history of violence and unrest) should not have nukes. (Especailly those who have huge amounts to gain by nuking a current or past enemy)
No, noone but Terran should have nukes. Think of Zerg with nukes. How awful would that be? Iran is the Zerg. America is Terran. Imagine the implications!!!
Is this some kind of ironic rant or does your brain actually work like this?
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.
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.
You didn't do shit, your ancestors or whatever did it. History means nothing, only what happens right now. Just putting this in here.
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?
Are you refering to the country that droped two nukes on civilian targets?
Is that responsible to you?
The road to world disarm must be lead by the ones holding the guns (The only undeniable road to a safer world). That is not the case.
So, however sad, it's reasonable that small and unestables regions are trying to get nukes of their own.
Pretty much everything you said was wrong.
Both Hiroshima and Nagasaki were major military industrial cities and while this topic shouldn't devolve into a debate on this, there are clearly reasonable and "responsible" reasons for having used them when they were used.
The US and Russia just took apart hundreds upon hundreds of nukes in an attempt to be the leader. England recently revealed new information on their arms and how many they have. America, as well as other nuclear powers, have, and continue to, take steps towards lowering nuke numbers significantly.
The reason I trust Iran less than Israel is that Israel hasn't dedicated itself to the destruction of a race or state. The mere existance of Jihad is enough to make me want to keep nukes out of the hands of every Islamic state that we can. I agree with what someone said in the gaza ship thread which somewhat relates. "If you disarm the Palestines you will have peace in Israel and there will be a Palestinian state. If you disarm Israel there will be genocide." That's simply the way the dichotomy is set up atm.
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 Korean but Iran sure is. How many wars has Iran started and how many has America started?
How many times has America said Israel will be wiped out in one great storm? And Iran?
iran leader never said anythink like that....thats just bullshit propaganda because u dont understand iranisch or what they are speaking
I don't think Israel bombing Iran is in the best interest of it's public relations within the Arab world/world in general at the moment. Would make more sense for the US to do it, from it's Iraqi bases.
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 Korean but Iran sure is. How many wars has Iran started and how many has America started?
How many times has America said Israel will be wiped out in one great storm? And Iran?
iran leader never said anythink like that....thats just bullshit propaganda because u dont understand iranisch or what they are speaking
Iran doesn't continue to arm Hamas for fun you know.
ShcShc wrote: Hiroshima/Nagasaki is very dear to me, if ever you want to debate, e-mail at ShcShc11@gmail.com (I don't visit TL that often lol).
I'd like to quote a brilliant man on the subject.
Jon Stewart once said in a debate, with someone who's name I can't remember, on the Daily Show, that the responsible thing would have been to drop one off shore and go: "The next one will hit you." Then give them a chance to surrender.
Also he said:
Jon Stewart said: "I'm saying that war is by definition temporary insanity"
ShcShc wrote: Hiroshima/Nagasaki is very dear to me, if ever you want to debate, e-mail at ShcShc11@gmail.com (I don't visit TL that often lol).
I'd like to quote a brilliant man on the subject.
Jon Stewart once said in a debate, with someone who's name I can't remember, on the Daily Show, that the responsible thing would have been to drop one off shore and go: "The next one will hit you." Then give them a chance to surrender.
Jon Stewart said: "I'm saying that war is by definition temporary insanity"
Japan was trying to surrender practically the entire summer of 1945, the US just wouldn't let them. The atomic bombs had nothing to do with ending the war, it was a display of strength to scare Stalin since the war-time alliance was now over.
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?
Are you refering to the country that droped two nukes on civilian targets?
Is that responsible to you?
The road to world disarm must be lead by the ones holding the guns (The only undeniable road to a safer world). That is not the case.
So, however sad, it's reasonable that small and unestables regions are trying to get nukes of their own.
Pretty much everything you said was wrong.
Both Hiroshima and Nagasaki were major military industrial cities and while this topic shouldn't devolve into a debate on this, there are clearly reasonable and "responsible" reasons for having used them when they were used.
The US and Russia just took apart hundreds upon hundreds of nukes in an attempt to be the leader. England recently revealed new information on their arms and how many they have. America, as well as other nuclear powers, have, and continue to, take steps towards lowering nuke numbers significantly.
The reason I trust Iran less than Israel is that Israel hasn't dedicated itself to the destruction of a race or state. The mere existance of Jihad is enough to make me want to keep nukes out of the hands of every Islamic state that we can. I agree with what someone said in the gaza ship thread which somewhat relates. "If you disarm the Palestines you will have peace in Israel and there will be a Palestinian state. If you disarm Israel there will be genocide." That's simply the way the dichotomy is set up atm.
What you say is based on nothing. Just some representation of the area you have made watching too much occidental television. "If you disarm the palestines you will have peace in Israel and there will be a Palestinian state. If you disarm Israel there will be a genocide": it's not the subject of the topic and it's not true. All the arabic nation killed less than israel + US, saying they are dedicated to the destruction of are race is untrue. First: it's a tribal zone, (except iran, i m talking for pakistan, syria, jordan, afghanistan) where tribes a really important (more than the state) in some country: religion is NOT and should NOT be considered as the only thing that move those people. It is merely a way of justifying their action, but not the real cause of there action (i would have been way more clear in french sorry). The recent developpement of religion is to be linked with the disparition of all the communist faction (thx to the action of the occidentals). Saying all arabic want blood is considering that there is a unity in the arabic world (while it is a tribal world) and it is also thinking that they are all extremist.
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 thought you said Iran was not a "reponsible" country. That's almost the same as saying evil, it's a moral jugement. But maybe it wasn't you so my bad. It's difficult to see anything bad coming out of Iran having a bomb, except giving a security to Iran and maybe stopping Israel to attack it's neighbour as the pleased.
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?
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):
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 Korean but Iran sure is. How many wars has Iran started and how many has America started?
How many times has America said Israel will be wiped out in one great storm? And Iran?
iran leader never said anythink like that....thats just bullshit propaganda because u dont understand iranisch or what they are speaking
Iran doesn't continue to arm Hamas for fun you know.
Conventional weapons sales are largely unmonitored right now, so it's difficult to know all of the deals that go on. We know Israel sold weapons to Iran, as Russia and China do, and to most governments around the Middle East, as well as the Burmese government. The US also sells weapons to 5+ Arab stats, including Saudi Arabia, and we were also selling to both sides of the Iran-Iraq war. Ukranians sold weapons to Iran, an Italian group did, I believe Syria has arms deals with both countries.
Basically, everyone sells to everyone at some point. If you could trace every single death to its weapon and find that weapon's home country, most would probably be Russia, US, Israel, UK in that order.
Makes you feel safe knowing that there's more AK-47s in the world than people, huh?
On June 13 2010 09:38 Jibba wrote: Basically, everyone sells to everyone at some point. If you could trace every single death to its weapon and find that weapon's home country, most would probably be Russia, US, Israel, UK in that order.
Makes you feel safe knowing that there's more AK-47s in the world than people, huh?
True but many if not most of AK-47's aren't "Made in Russia". AK-47 is like Nike or Coca-Cola product and almost any weapon producer have em on their menu List of AK (ex) producers officially includes ~24 countries + Russia.
On June 13 2010 02:08 Monst3r wrote: "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!
LOL America IS the high school bully of the world.... Israel and USA are far more a threat to world peace than Iran or Iraq ever were.
On June 13 2010 02:08 Monst3r wrote: "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!
LOL America IS the high school bully of the world.... Israel and USA are far more a threat to world peace than Iran or Iraq ever were.
Exactly. I'd feel much more comfortable if the situation was switched and Iran and Iraq held all the power.
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 Korean but Iran sure is. How many wars has Iran started and how many has America started?
How many times has America said Israel will be wiped out in one great storm? And Iran?
America doesn't need to say it because it actually does it.
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.
Okay, so just because America was the first country to make a nuclear weapon, that means no other country should get it? Cause that's what your implying.
I'll edit this post more when I'm done eating
hey douchebag if you have such a problem with america stop posting on a community forum where the majority of us are american
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.
as you can see people don't like countries having nukes, if USA said the will nuke everyone In a matter of few hours 10+ countries would declare war and pwn USA, and NO ONE deserves to have Nukes.
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 Korean but Iran sure is. How many wars has Iran started and how many has America started?
How many times has America said Israel will be wiped out in one great storm? And Iran?
America doesn't need to say it because it actually does it.
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.
Okay, so just because America was the first country to make a nuclear weapon, that means no other country should get it? Cause that's what your implying.
I'll edit this post more when I'm done eating
hey douchebag if you have such a problem with america stop posting on a community forum where the majority of us are american
It's probably true that americans are in the majority here on tl, but why should that mean that forum members (be they american or not) can't criticize your country just like we would regarding any other country in certain discussions?
Also I love it how whenever someone points out any flaws in U.S. foreign policy over the last half decade some americans will always be like "Omg we single-handedly saved your asses in WW2 just be quiet and thankful."
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 Korean but Iran sure is. How many wars has Iran started and how many has America started?
How many times has America said Israel will be wiped out in one great storm? And Iran?
America doesn't need to say it because it actually does it.
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.
Okay, so just because America was the first country to make a nuclear weapon, that means no other country should get it? Cause that's what your implying.
I'll edit this post more when I'm done eating
hey douchebag if you have such a problem with america stop posting on a community forum where the majority of us are american
It's probably true that americans are in the majority here on tl, but why should that mean that forum members (be they american or not) can't criticize your country just like we would regarding any other country in certain discussions?
Also I love it how whenever someone points out any flaws in U.S. foreign policy over the last half decade some americans will always be like "Omg we single-handedly saved your asses in WW2 just be quiet and thankful."
I thought TL was pretty international with the whole "you must use English thing". In fact, look up, you'll see that while there are more people from the states than other countries individually, there are more people from other countries combined than there are people from the US.
On June 13 2010 11:15 Hidden_MotiveS wrote: I thought TL was pretty international with the whole "you must use English thing". In fact, look up, you'll see that while there are more people from the states than other countries individually, there are more people from other countries combined than there are people from the US.
Well if you're going to compare the number of people one country has on a site to the combined number of people of the rest of the world, I don't think that's really a fair comparison.
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!
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.
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 09:13 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 02:08 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 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 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 13:23 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 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 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 13:37 Romantic wrote: Leave it to Saudi Arabia to support terrorism against Iran. Nothing new. Just another thing to dislike about Saudi Arabia. It is almost as if they want the peace movements in Iran to fail.
I think you're underestimating how potentially catastropic this event can be! Yes, I know I'm being fear mongering, but Saudi is essentially letting Israel throw anything they like against Iran!
I'm just unsurprised that two US puppets are agreeing to work together. Bombing Iran will probably give them a bomb even quicker and strengthen their resolve, obviously. Bombing Iran will legitimize the regime. Of course it is catastrophic, it just isn't unpredictable lol.
On June 13 2010 02:08 Monst3r wrote: Why would Saudi Arabia do such a thing.
Probably because Iran is a huge threat to the stability of their government... monarchy vs revolution. And whole region even. Nukes in the hands of Iran probably make them just as nervous as Israel.
If America has nukes, every single country in the world deserves nukes too.
User was temp banned for this post.
Why was this ban worthy? It's true.
The reasons we (the U.S. and allies) don't want countries like Iran to have nukes is rooted in racism and orientalism. Can't let those crazy a-rabs have nukes, only us civilized enlightened westerners can be trusted with them. Our whole foreign policy towards Iran is based on creating a dichotomy where we are 'rational' and they are 'irrational' which is why we do things like label them a "rouge state", which is obviously a self-serving and meaningless label because they're only "rouge" in the sense that they don't do what we say.
America does not deserve nukes, no state has any possible moral claim to such destructive weapons, but if we have them then why doesn't every single country in the world also deserve them?
This isn't about racism or moral claims. It's about preventing a nation and a leader that we consider to be hostile to our interests from attaining nuclear weaponry. Every nation and alliance is ultimately out there to preserve their position of power in the world and to protect their interests. Iran developing nuclear weapons is a threat to the western world and Israel not because Arabs are irrational, but because the leadership of Iran wants the western world along with Israel to burn... If we didn't perceive instability and violence on their part, perhaps we wouldn't have such a problem with them having nuclear power.
Whether America is deserving of nuclear weapons or not is irrelevant. It was the first nation to develop them and since then, it's held a significant position of power in this world. History isn't fair nor is the world and there's no unwritten rule suggesting that it should be. No nation is entitled to anything. If you want something, you have to either earn it yourself or put yourself in a position where you will get it by the good graces of someone who already has. Also, for the sake of world peace, it's best to limit the number of parties in possession of such destructive power. Even the world as it is today can be volatile at times and the more nations and personalities you throw into the mix, the more difficult it becomes to preserve peace and avoid conflict. Can you imagine a world in which every single nation and leader had nuclear weapons at their disposal to be at all a good one? It's just not practical for there to be peace in such a world because each new faction throws in a new variable and it becomes far more likely for otherwise conventional conflicts to escalate into nuclear ones...
Keep in mind that the world today is pretty united and it's not just the USA that doesn't want Iran under it's current leadership to become a nuclear armed country.
On June 13 2010 02:08 Monst3r wrote: Why would Saudi Arabia do such a thing.
Probably because Iran is a huge threat to the stability of their government... monarchy vs revolution. And whole region even. Nukes in the hands of Iran probably make them just as nervous as Israel.
If America has nukes, every single country in the world deserves nukes too.
User was temp banned for this post.
Why was this ban worthy? It's true.
The reasons we (the U.S. and allies) don't want countries like Iran to have nukes is rooted in racism and orientalism. Can't let those crazy a-rabs have nukes, only us civilized enlightened westerners can be trusted with them. Our whole foreign policy towards Iran is based on creating a dichotomy where we are 'rational' and they are 'irrational' which is why we do things like label them a "rouge state", which is obviously a self-serving and meaningless label because they're only "rouge" in the sense that they don't do what we say.
America does not deserve nukes, no state has any possible moral claim to such destructive weapons, but if we have them then why doesn't every single country in the world also deserve them?
i've tried to rewrite my response to this for the past 5 minutes, and honestly i'm just going to leave it.
you win, you're right, and you are most definitely completely sane. the forums need more people like you -- no, the world needs more people like you.
Wow you brilliantly refuted everything I said.
Why shouldn't every country in the middle east have nukes?
The way Iran is typically characterized in discussions of nuclear proliferation relies on a binary where we are rational and disciplined and they are impulsive and crazy. Lets look at some of the responses to the person I quoted on the 1st page:
Nigeria-"Hm, those neighbors we have, the Nigers, are stealing water from our well. NUKE THE FUCKERS!" Niger- "Oh SHIT! RETALIATE!" the REST OF AFRICA-"NUKES ARE FLYING! SHIT! EVERYONE RETALIATE!"
Thats just a TASTE of something that could happen.
How can you read this and not see the thinly veiled racist assumptions about Africa and 3rd world countries in general? How did this poster come to know that African countries are crazy and would nuke each other for "stealing water from our well"?
This is basically a caricature of all discussions of nuclear proliferation in the 3rd world. It's based on an assumed otherness between the 3rd world and the west where we are rational and they are not. This discourse is then used to advance and universalize the interests of the west.
let's go back to my example of labeling Iran as a "rouge state". What are we really saying when we call them this? All it means is that we view them as a threat to our security interests and that they don't do what we tell them to do, but framing them as an outlaw state pretends like this view is objective when it's actually subjective based on our own security interests. Once the assumption of Iran's irrationality is cemented we can use it to advance our own security interests by making it appear like they were objectively everyone's interests.
The U.S.'s discourse on nuclear proliferation makes it seem like the current order, where a few elite powers and their allies have nuclear weapons and no one else does, is natural and objectively desirable when it's actually something that we have shaped and have a vested interest in maintaining so we can stay on top.
There's a large body of academic literature about why nuclear proliferation is actually a stabilizing factor -- it makes conventional war less likely because the involved countries know any war could potentially go nuclear. If every country in the middle east had nukes then no one would want to go to war because they might get blown up.
Presenting proliferation as a threat rests on the racist assumption that third world countries are backwards and irrational, and only serves as an attempt to legitimate our nuclear monopoly.
This was a close second to the Pat Barry/Mirko CroCop manhug for most hilarious moment of my night. Thanks.
~.^
EDIT: Oh jeebuz, just re-read it and saw "rouge". Priceless.
Well its kinda of no surprise America thought that once Iran got a nuke they were going to use on poor Israel, It is kinda of funny how America supported them more than any other country but now their actions are finally going into question.
On June 13 2010 12:33 Mascherano wrote: This is so high up on the fucked up scale there are no words to describe it. Practically every country has nuclear power plants these days. These plants use enriched uranium to give energy to huge regions. Denying this to a developing country is like making them go back to the stone age. Where is the proof that they are even contemplating making nukes? Uranium enrichment does not equal nukes FFS.
I believe we've offered deals in which they would receive nuclear power plants, and they rejected them. That was years ago iirc.
Also, use common sense. Iran has been using violence to position itself in a strong geopolitical position for the last decade. "Revolutionary" entities like Iran have to keep spreading and expanding, ala the Roman Empire, or they fail. Without constant conflict and success they cannot whip up enough nationalism to keep their regime in power. Nuclear weapons would be a huge source of national pride and power.
On June 13 2010 13:45 The_Voidless wrote: It is kinda of funny how America supported them more than any other country but now their actions are finally going into question.
It's unfortunate how time can change things. Your friend today can be your foe tomorrow. Be it through coupes or changes in global politics, we've run into quite a few of these instances. If I remember correctly, there were times when we were on friendly terms with characters such as Hussein and Bin Laden...
On June 13 2010 12:33 Mascherano wrote: This is so high up on the fucked up scale there are no words to describe it. Practically every country has nuclear power plants these days. These plants use enriched uranium to give energy to huge regions. Denying this to a developing country is like making them go back to the stone age. Where is the proof that they are even contemplating making nukes? Uranium enrichment does not equal nukes FFS.
I believe we've offered deals in which they would receive nuclear power plants, and they rejected them. That was years ago iirc.
Also, use common sense. Iran has been using violence to position itself in a strong geopolitical position for the last decade. "Revolutionary" entities like Iran have to keep spreading and expanding, ala the Roman Empire, or they fail. Without constant conflict and success they cannot whip up enough nationalism to keep their regime in power. Nuclear weapons would be a huge source of nuclear pride and power.
By Iran you meant to say "United States" right?
BTW, it is easier to make deals with countries that you have diplomatic ties with. Like the Iran-Turkey deal? Funny how people make deals when they talk to each other.
On June 13 2010 02:08 Monst3r wrote: Why would Saudi Arabia do such a thing.
Probably because Iran is a huge threat to the stability of their government... monarchy vs revolution. And whole region even. Nukes in the hands of Iran probably make them just as nervous as Israel.
If America has nukes, every single country in the world deserves nukes too.
User was temp banned for this post.
Why was this ban worthy? It's true.
The reasons we (the U.S. and allies) don't want countries like Iran to have nukes is rooted in racism and orientalism. Can't let those crazy a-rabs have nukes, only us civilized enlightened westerners can be trusted with them. Our whole foreign policy towards Iran is based on creating a dichotomy where we are 'rational' and they are 'irrational' which is why we do things like label them a "rouge state", which is obviously a self-serving and meaningless label because they're only "rouge" in the sense that they don't do what we say.
America does not deserve nukes, no state has any possible moral claim to such destructive weapons, but if we have them then why doesn't every single country in the world also deserve them?
i've tried to rewrite my response to this for the past 5 minutes, and honestly i'm just going to leave it.
you win, you're right, and you are most definitely completely sane. the forums need more people like you -- no, the world needs more people like you.
Wow you brilliantly refuted everything I said.
Why shouldn't every country in the middle east have nukes?
The way Iran is typically characterized in discussions of nuclear proliferation relies on a binary where we are rational and disciplined and they are impulsive and crazy. Lets look at some of the responses to the person I quoted on the 1st page:
Nigeria-"Hm, those neighbors we have, the Nigers, are stealing water from our well. NUKE THE FUCKERS!" Niger- "Oh SHIT! RETALIATE!" the REST OF AFRICA-"NUKES ARE FLYING! SHIT! EVERYONE RETALIATE!"
Thats just a TASTE of something that could happen.
How can you read this and not see the thinly veiled racist assumptions about Africa and 3rd world countries in general? How did this poster come to know that African countries are crazy and would nuke each other for "stealing water from our well"?
This is basically a caricature of all discussions of nuclear proliferation in the 3rd world. It's based on an assumed otherness between the 3rd world and the west where we are rational and they are not. This discourse is then used to advance and universalize the interests of the west.
let's go back to my example of labeling Iran as a "rouge state". What are we really saying when we call them this? All it means is that we view them as a threat to our security interests and that they don't do what we tell them to do, but framing them as an outlaw state pretends like this view is objective when it's actually subjective based on our own security interests. Once the assumption of Iran's irrationality is cemented we can use it to advance our own security interests by making it appear like they were objectively everyone's interests.
The U.S.'s discourse on nuclear proliferation makes it seem like the current order, where a few elite powers and their allies have nuclear weapons and no one else does, is natural and objectively desirable when it's actually something that we have shaped and have a vested interest in maintaining so we can stay on top.
There's a large body of academic literature about why nuclear proliferation is actually a stabilizing factor -- it makes conventional war less likely because the involved countries know any war could potentially go nuclear. If every country in the middle east had nukes then no one would want to go to war because they might get blown up.
Presenting proliferation as a threat rests on the racist assumption that third world countries are backwards and irrational, and only serves as an attempt to legitimate our nuclear monopoly.
This was a close second to the Pat Barry/Mirko CroCop manhug for most hilarious moment of my night. Thanks.
~.^
EDIT: Oh jeebuz, just re-read it and saw "rouge". Priceless.
Oh jeebuz I just re-read your post and saw that you contributed nothing and didn't answer anything I said. Priceless.
I guess you must have been laughing about how you have no defense of your view of international relations. It is pretty funny.
On June 13 2010 13:45 The_Voidless wrote: It is kinda of funny how America supported them more than any other country but now their actions are finally going into question.
It's unfortunate how time can change things. Your friend today can be your foe tomorrow. Be it through coupes or changes in global politics, we've run into quite a few of these instances. If I remember correctly, there were times when we were on friendly terms with characters such as Hussein and Bin Laden...
How the world changes...
We were never on friendly terms with Bin Laden. We were on "friendly" terms with Hussein during the Iran-Iraq War, since Iran had just overthrown the Shah (whom we were friendly with) and threatened to take over the entire region. We supplied Hussein in order to keep the balance of power even.
The more nukes there are in the world the higher the chance that some truely bad people get them and use them or that a mistake happens or that they become a solution to non-worthy troubles if everyone becomes comfortable with the idea of having nukes.
Having more nukes than there already is doesn't make the world safer. It just increases the chance of the terrible happening.
On June 13 2010 13:37 Romantic wrote: Leave it to Saudi Arabia to support terrorism against Iran. Nothing new. Just another thing to dislike about Saudi Arabia. It is almost as if they want the peace movements in Iran to fail.
The peace movements had their chance to change the regime, and they failed. I'm sure that the Saudi's would love it if the peace movements were successful in overthrowing the current regime, assuming they would be replaced by a better regime, but it's clearly been proven that that's not going to happen. At this point, Saudi Arabia, which is as much an enemy of Iran as is Israel, is forced to start taking a stronger stance now that regime change has been taken off the chance. While I doubt that Israel would be stupid enough to go through the Saudi strip of land, as it would probably destroy any real sense of surprise, it's important because it's showing Iran that the region's main actors are really starting to harden in their opposition, especially as Iran gets closer to developing a nuclear weapon. This announcement will probably have the opposite effect of that which was intended (To force Iran to stop the development of nuclear arms), as the Iranian leadership will feel that they have to rush forward in their development before they are attacked.
What I find personally to be most interesting about this, is the timing. This kind of aggressive posturing realistically only starts when all other venues of approach have failed. Thus, it would seem that the Saudi's believe that the UN efforts to curtail Iran have failed, and in all likelihood, the intelligence agencies of Saudi Arabia are probably warning the monarchy that time is quickly running out. Otherwise, such aggressive posturing probably would not be necessary.
On June 13 2010 13:45 The_Voidless wrote: It is kinda of funny how America supported them more than any other country but now their actions are finally going into question.
It's unfortunate how time can change things. Your friend today can be your foe tomorrow. Be it through coupes or changes in global politics, we've run into quite a few of these instances. If I remember correctly, there were times when we were on friendly terms with characters such as Hussein and Bin Laden...
How the world changes...
We were never on friendly terms with Bin Laden. We were on "friendly" terms with Hussein during the Iran-Iraq War, since Iran had just overthrown the Shah (whom we were friendly with) and threatened to take over the entire region. We supplied Hussein in order to keep the balance of power even.
I seem to recall that the USA was supplying the Mujahideen with weapons and supplies to fight the Soviets during the Cold War era and Osama Bin Laden was one of the main figures in that fights against the USSR.
The simple truth is that nuclear weapons have the ability to destroy the world, and no country should actually be allowed to posses them. However, they have been discovered and used, and there is really no reason to allow more countries to have them? What is the point? Its like giving each member of a family a hand grenade, just because the Dad has one.
There especially is no reason to allow nuclear weapons into a region of the world that is incredibly unstable, and will only become more so after the western dependence on oil is over, either because of technological advances or the oil running out. The simple truth is that the middle east is doomed to falling back into poverty because of their complete dependence on oil production at the expense of creating sustainable industrial production. A desperate country with the power to end all life on the planet is not something that can be supported by anyone in their right mind.
That being said, if it can be proven that Iran is not trying to weaponize (long shot as it is) then one cannot support the change in policy that could allow world war III to begin due to world powers becoming entangled in alliances not seen since the days prior to the assassination of franz ferdinand.
On June 13 2010 13:45 The_Voidless wrote: It is kinda of funny how America supported them more than any other country but now their actions are finally going into question.
It's unfortunate how time can change things. Your friend today can be your foe tomorrow. Be it through coupes or changes in global politics, we've run into quite a few of these instances. If I remember correctly, there were times when we were on friendly terms with characters such as Hussein and Bin Laden...
How the world changes...
We were never on friendly terms with Bin Laden. We were on "friendly" terms with Hussein during the Iran-Iraq War, since Iran had just overthrown the Shah (whom we were friendly with) and threatened to take over the entire region. We supplied Hussein in order to keep the balance of power even.
I seem to recall that the USA was supplying the Mujahideen with weapons and supplies to fight the Soviets during the Cold War era and Osama Bin Laden was one of the main figures in that fights against the USSR.
Nothing was given directly to Bin Laden. Supplies given to the Mujahideen percolated down to Bin Laden's little cell within the organization. Al-Qaeda was also founded in 1988, toward the end of the conflict just before Russia withdrew from Afghanistan, and didn't have its true terrorist identity yet.
Lysdexia, you've written a lot of stuff I don't feel like reading anymore so I'm just going to ask you a yes or no question.
Lean back in your chair, take a deep breath, and reassess this argument. We all think nukes are terrible. We all want them to go away. That being said:
Are you just as comfortable with North Korea and Iran having nukes as you are with the United States having nukes?
On June 13 2010 14:11 eMbrace wrote: Lysdexia, you've written a lot of stuff I don't feel like reading anymore so I'm just going to ask you a yes or no question.
Lean back in your chair, take a deep breath, and reassess this argument. We all think nukes are terrible. We all want them to go away. That being said:
Are you just as comfortable with North Korea and Iran having nukes as you are with the United States having nukes?
This question is the acid test for "batshit crazy foreigner".
I know that North Korea loves to talk shit and never take action versus South Korea, but if Israel were to nuke Iran, do you think such a shocking event might motivate them to make their move? I'm just saying that a nuke being dropped on anybodies' soil has global repercussions and unforseeable outcomes.
We should scan the internet over the next few days for possible updates. This is definately a topic worth following!
On June 13 2010 14:11 eMbrace wrote: Lysdexia, you've written a lot of stuff I don't feel like reading anymore so I'm just going to ask you a yes or no question.
Lean back in your chair, take a deep breath, and reassess this argument. We all think nukes are terrible. We all want them to go away. That being said:
Are you just as comfortable with North Korea and Iran having nukes as you are with the United States having nukes?
Yes to Iran. I'm not sure I'm familiar enough with the situation in North Korea to answer about them but I thought they already had nukes?
On June 13 2010 14:14 Blanke wrote: I know that North Korea loves to talk shit and never take action versus South Korea, but if Israel were to nuke Iran, do you think such a shocking event might motivate them to make their move? I'm just saying that a nuke being dropped on anybodies' soil has global repercussions and unforseeable outcomes.
We should scan the internet over the next few days for possible updates. This is definately a topic worth following!
Despite the friction in the region, I highly doubt that Israel would use a nuclear weapon against Iran out of the blue. It's overkill for what they want to achieve, which is the destruction of Iran's nuclear capabilities. If Israel does launch attacks on Iran, it will most likely be some sort of precision bombing against specific strategic targets with conventional weaponry. As for whether or not that might provoke Iran to retaliate, I'm certain it probably would...
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.
On June 13 2010 14:11 eMbrace wrote: Lysdexia, you've written a lot of stuff I don't feel like reading anymore so I'm just going to ask you a yes or no question.
Lean back in your chair, take a deep breath, and reassess this argument. We all think nukes are terrible. We all want them to go away. That being said:
Are you just as comfortable with North Korea and Iran having nukes as you are with the United States having nukes?
Yes to Iran. I'm not sure I'm familiar enough with the situation in North Korea to answer about them but I thought they already had nukes?
Ok I'll just ignore North Korea bit for a second to advance this discussion to the next step.
Yes or no once again:
Are you aware of the recent history of Iran, the state of their government, who their leader is, and what he has said and done?
On June 13 2010 14:00 On_Slaught wrote: Here's a simple argument.
The more nukes there are in the world the higher the chance that some truely bad people get them and use them or that a mistake happens or that they become a solution to non-worthy troubles if everyone becomes comfortable with the idea of having nukes.
Having more nukes than there already is doesn't make the world safer. It just increases the chance of the terrible happening.
Exactly! This is why the US should dismantle 99% of its N.Weapon storage. We have the power to reduce the numbers more than anyone... but we just haven't yet. It would be an unprecedented gesture. AND show that we are truly concerned about the problem of weapons... we would destroy them. Trying to prevent a country from developing them, when we have the power to dismantle hundreds seems- petty.
On June 13 2010 14:11 eMbrace wrote: Lysdexia, you've written a lot of stuff I don't feel like reading anymore so I'm just going to ask you a yes or no question.
Lean back in your chair, take a deep breath, and reassess this argument. We all think nukes are terrible. We all want them to go away. That being said:
Are you just as comfortable with North Korea and Iran having nukes as you are with the United States having nukes?
Yes to Iran. I'm not sure I'm familiar enough with the situation in North Korea to answer about them but I thought they already had nukes?
Ok I'll just ignore North Korea bit for a second to advance this discussion to the next step.
Yes or no once again:
Are you aware of the recent history of Iran, the state of their government, who their leader is, and what he has said and done?
Yes. Iran's population is largely anti-Israel and given the state of their government it makes sense that Ahmadinejad would try to drum up nationalist/ethic support by making anti-Israeli statements. I don't think that they would actually nuke Israel because they know that they would face retaliation from both Israel and the U.S.
Are you aware of the recent history of the U.S. who are former leader was, and what he said and did? A lot of the instability in Iran is because of U.S. sanctions.
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.
Just like Brazil, argentina and many other countries, iran has the right to posses nuclear tech for pacific means, and this US bullshit trying to make iran look like the bad guy when they just want energy is discusting
On June 13 2010 14:34 D10 wrote: Just like Brazil, argentina and many other countries, iran has the right to posses nuclear tech for pacific means, and this US bullshit trying to make iran look like the bad guy when they just want energy is discusting
obama lost all my respect
I don't think there's a country in this world that seriously believes that Iran is only looking for energy just like there's not a country in this world that believes that North Korea is only looking for energy. It's not just the USA that's against this either so please stop making it seem like it's some "US bullshit". There's a good reason why nobody believes that either of these nations have benign intentions with their pursuit of nuclear power. Perhaps you should consider why all these nations around the world might feel this way and have these suspicions rather than believe what the guy under suspicion says... It's not like the country that wants to develop nuclear weapons is going to come right out and say, "Hey, we're going to build nuclear weapons so we can stand up to you."
On June 13 2010 14:00 On_Slaught wrote: Here's a simple argument.
The more nukes there are in the world the higher the chance that some truely bad people get them and use them or that a mistake happens or that they become a solution to non-worthy troubles if everyone becomes comfortable with the idea of having nukes.
Having more nukes than there already is doesn't make the world safer. It just increases the chance of the terrible happening.
Exactly! This is why the US should dismantle 99% of its N.Weapon storage. We have the power to reduce the numbers more than anyone... but we just haven't yet. It would be an unprecedented gesture. AND show that we are truly concerned about the problem of weapons... we would destroy them. Trying to prevent a country from developing them, when we have the power to dismantle hundreds seems- petty.
I heard some general did a report that found that we could get rid of thousands of nukes and only keep a few hundred (there was a specific number but I dont remember) and it would keep us with enough to still do everything we would want to in the event of a nuclear war.
On June 13 2010 14:34 D10 wrote: Just like Brazil, argentina and many other countries, iran has the right to posses nuclear tech for pacific means, and this US bullshit trying to make iran look like the bad guy when they just want energy is discusting
obama lost all my respect
I assume this anger is comming from the fact that the international community turned down the waste-of-time deal that Brazil and Turkey tried to set up with Iran. You offered to take some of their materials and give them energy resources without doing a SINGLE THING to stop their personal production of nuclear material (for weapons or energy) which makes it pointless.
We have already asked Iran to give up all of their material and we will give them the energy-specific results they claim they are after but they have turned it down.
If you listen to the crazy rhetoric comming from Ahmadinijad (sp) plus what his government has done then you have no basis for thinking that this is only for peaceful means.
Also... where is it comming from that this is US only? Pretty much every international atomic orginization as well as the vast majority of security council countries agrees with these actions otherwise a 4th set of sanctions wouldn't of been passed today.
On June 13 2010 14:24 cursor wrote: Exactly! This is why the US should dismantle 99% of its N.Weapon storage. We have the power to reduce the numbers more than anyone... but we just haven't yet. It would be an unprecedented gesture. AND show that we are truly concerned about the problem of weapons... we would destroy them. Trying to prevent a country from developing them, when we have the power to dismantle hundreds seems- petty.
Yeah.. this isn't going to happen... ever. If you stopped for 5 seconds and actually thought about it, you'd understand why.
Besides, the concern isn't the sheer number of nuclear weapons, but rather the number of different factions and interests that have access to them. It's the latter that contributes to greater instability and unpredictability.
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.
Saudi Arabia can't be seen to be publicly helping Israel, so naturally they would deny it. Practically speaking though, I wouldn't be surprised if the Saudi's purposely leaked the info knowing full well that domestically they can just say the London paper is full of shit, while still sending a very clear message to Iran.
Yeah it was a reported in a jpost link a couple of pages back. It's most likely an off the record comment by some general or defense minister that has been taken as massive news.
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.
On June 13 2010 14:34 D10 wrote: Just like Brazil, argentina and many other countries, iran has the right to posses nuclear tech for pacific means, and this US bullshit trying to make iran look like the bad guy when they just want energy is discusting
obama lost all my respect
The exact same argument was made for Pakistan in the 80's, with the Pakistani's claiming that they only wanted nuclear power. This proved to be totally fallacious however, and given the current Iranian regime's record of reverting to military power, to say nothing of the tensions in the region, they will be working to develop nuclear arms. Brazil, Argentina and many other countries are very different from Iran because the motivations they have for developing nuclear technology are by and large mostly peaceful: the same is unfortunately not true of Iran.
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 14:24 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 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.
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.
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.
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 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 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.
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?
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.
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 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 16:01 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.
On June 13 2010 16:41 Romantic wrote: 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.
That's precisely why I was asking-- whether their presence in the legislature was a gesture, or whether they could actually play politics with their representative.
On June 13 2010 07:22 Jayve wrote: First of all, I felt like including this so you might hopefully learn SOMETHING about the situation in Iran: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F48SinuEHIk
The population isn't bad, the government is retarded.
=Squeegy: How many wars has USA fought in? How many chances did they have to use nukes? How many times did they? This is why people consider USA responsible.
Actually every single war the US has fought has been to "liberate" the country they invade. It's hard to pitch that angle if you nuke the place making it inhabitable for all human life, so that's why they don't nuke.
On June 13 2010 02:08 Monst3r wrote: Why would Saudi Arabia do such a thing.
Saudi Arabia and the United States are allies. More importantly since S. Arabia is about the only ally US has in the area beyond Israel which is nominally small in the geographic location. The Israeli lobby in the US is powerful, influential and has successfully lobbied for large amounts of support both economically and militarily with Israel. See how the dots connect? Check out this book if you want to read about how Israel lobby policy has fundamentally affected American Foreign Policy.
The criticism from scholars is interesting - there are sources of criticism that I wouldn't normally expect. I honestly don't put much weight into criticisms by politicians of it not reflecting what they experienced in person, because american politicians have been known to mislead the public even decades after the relevant actions are done. The response by Woolsey [ http://www.theaugeanstables.com/2007/12/13/woolsey-on-waltmearsheimerwelcome-to-wamworld/print/ ] is interesting however, since it actually points out events instead of just being a rebuttal with no backing evidence.
All this criticism for a prominent article (rebuttal was made as well by the authors: http://www.wcfia.harvard.edu/node/3639 though I have yet to read it) really makes me want to read it more, due to how it seems in America these days any open criticism of Israel gets labeled as anti-Semitic. I'm sure there will be biases and misrepresentations which I will need to catch, upon more detailed research. The authors admitted in the rebuttal that there were things they should have clarified better, and which they should have represented differently.
It's obvious that the "Zionist lobby" is not all powerful; if it were, Israel wouldn't be worried that it might be falling out of favor with the US. It certainly has an influence however, and I would imagine it may have influenced US policy like so many other lobbies. If you have any better sources that go into this subject in detail, I'd love to know about them.
Chomsky should be enough for you to figure out the book is really a no go.
that wasn't a rebuttal, they never posted a link to the so-called articles they sent out.
Right.. so you know nothing about the Middle East. Ahmadinejad is a democratically elected populist, with fairly little power. And no one is planning on wiping Israel off the map. It's a bad translation of farsi.
He was NOT elected democratically, why do you think there was violence recently?
He doesn't want to wipe Israel off, but wants to wipe the government off. Ok, but that's also added to all the stupid crap he keeps pulling. No holocaust anyone?
You can argue the legitimacy of the voting process (in which case, places like Italy would still be run by dictators as well) but it was still done through free elections.
His infamous comment was about a regime change. Iran is not the only country that despises the Israeli government.
I compared WWI because your analogy was terrible. You're comparing a war that began through a completely different nature, knowing after-the-fact that the result was acceptable. US Congress at the time certainly didn't think it was. Pre-emptive strikes are horrible.
It almost led the US to completely annihilating the USSR in 1952. Killing tens of millions of people in order to destroy their nuclear capabilities and military infrastructure was "worth it in the long run." We know today that that thinking was completely wrong, which is why consequentialist arguments are terrible, and why Watchmen has such a shitty ending.
If it does not quack like a duck, walk like a duck, look like a duck, it's not a duck.
Oh but Iran is one of the few if not the only one that really makes it there goal to stand out there for it. The funding of Hezbollah, hams constant belittling of the Jewish people, and holocaust denies really show you want he wants. He doesn't want to destroy he country he wants the people dead.
What was a analogy, I still am at a lost at to what your hitting? Was I specifically talking about pre-emptive strikes to you, because I wasn't.
Hindsight is something good ( and no hindsight doesn't apply to ww2 because frankly a lot of things where known about what the Nazis where doing). Fighting for your belief is such a ambiguous term isn't it? Care to explain why your focusing on this specific attribute that doesn't completely stand for what I'm saying?
On June 13 2010 06:15 angelicfolly wrote: It could be between five to ten years before Iran has a nuke if not sooner. You really need to be pro-active on these events or they spiral out of control. Look at WW2 for this, just about everyone let Germany break the treaties it was supposed to keep, and paid dearly for it.
Squeegy, what do you get out of the term "pro-active"? Because clearly we have different interpretations of his post.
Pro-active does not specifically mean attack. Pro-active is generic for TRYING to stop whatever it is you don't want. Oh that does mean leaving certain "actions" for very last if must be.
Germany Nazi wanted to create a superior race disparaging everyone else.
People where put into concentration camps (NOT just Jews) to be killed because they didn't fit that superior race.
The repercussion of ww1 allowed Hitler into place, that DOESN'T excuse the actions of later, that's also besides the point of personal vendettas.
You are one of the few to ever say ww2 isn't a "good" war.
Jibba,
I wasn't talking about ww1 so I don't understand why you quoted me?
Nazi Germany wasn't about this evil genius to create a superior race. It was their belief that if the Jewish race was singled out of Germany, the German "race" would eventually become extinct within a few hundred years. That was their most basic belief in which they actually devouted much resources in science/philosophy/research into trying to prove this.
What we mistake with Nazi Germany is to say "they did what they did because they are evil". They weren't evil; they massively ignorant. They believed in the wrong things; in things that weren't true. Germany was a paranoid country in the verge of economic collapse, absolute civil war and complete disintegration. The sad truth is that Hitler became that glue. The basic premise of his ideas being: "Spend A LOT to re-establish the economy, get the money back through war and stomp on all Communists to prevent German civil war".
That of course doesn't excuse of the things he did. However, we have to understand what happened with Nazi Germany wasn't evil, but stupidity & ignorance. This same stupidity & ignorance is something EVERY country (U.S, U.K, Canadian, Iran, Israel, etc...) is vulnerable to. Each of these countries have strong motives of the things they are doing now.
Yeah they also donated the Jews to be made into lamps, tried to breed them with animals. Killed them in the thousands. Forced them to manual labor without keeping there health up. That's not accounting the other "unwanted" the Nazis didn't like.
Massively ignorant is not mutually exclusive to commenting Evil actions. Don't sit there and try to justify (that doesn't specifically mean make "good") there actions.
If it doesn't justify there actions wouldn't it be correct to call those actions Evil, or wrong? Yeah and any other country that does such actions is in the same category of Nazism. If your not going to excuse their actions don't sit there and give reasons (in a pity sort of way) why they did that.
Post is interesting, and sadly I cannot be as "pro-active" As I want because of space and time constraints. So I will let this post be my easing back into this topic. If you have a previous post, and want me to respond please post again, so it's easier on me and the flow of the topic.
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.
Thats the most stupid thing ive ever heard. Crazy dictators should have nukes? Youre fucking crazy.
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.
On June 13 2010 02:08 Monst3r wrote: Why would Saudi Arabia do such a thing.
Saudi Arabia and the United States are allies. More importantly since S. Arabia is about the only ally US has in the area beyond Israel which is nominally small in the geographic location. The Israeli lobby in the US is powerful, influential and has successfully lobbied for large amounts of support both economically and militarily with Israel. See how the dots connect? Check out this book if you want to read about how Israel lobby policy has fundamentally affected American Foreign Policy.
The criticism from scholars is interesting - there are sources of criticism that I wouldn't normally expect. I honestly don't put much weight into criticisms by politicians of it not reflecting what they experienced in person, because american politicians have been known to mislead the public even decades after the relevant actions are done. The response by Woolsey [ http://www.theaugeanstables.com/2007/12/13/woolsey-on-waltmearsheimerwelcome-to-wamworld/print/ ] is interesting however, since it actually points out events instead of just being a rebuttal with no backing evidence.
All this criticism for a prominent article (rebuttal was made as well by the authors: http://www.wcfia.harvard.edu/node/3639 though I have yet to read it) really makes me want to read it more, due to how it seems in America these days any open criticism of Israel gets labeled as anti-Semitic. I'm sure there will be biases and misrepresentations which I will need to catch, upon more detailed research. The authors admitted in the rebuttal that there were things they should have clarified better, and which they should have represented differently.
It's obvious that the "Zionist lobby" is not all powerful; if it were, Israel wouldn't be worried that it might be falling out of favor with the US. It certainly has an influence however, and I would imagine it may have influenced US policy like so many other lobbies. If you have any better sources that go into this subject in detail, I'd love to know about them.
Chomsky should be enough for you to figure out the book is really a no go.
that wasn't a rebuttal, they never posted a link to the so-called articles they sent out.
Right.. so you know nothing about the Middle East. Ahmadinejad is a democratically elected populist, with fairly little power. And no one is planning on wiping Israel off the map. It's a bad translation of farsi.
He was NOT elected democratically, why do you think there was violence recently?
He doesn't want to wipe Israel off, but wants to wipe the government off. Ok, but that's also added to all the stupid crap he keeps pulling. No holocaust anyone?
You can argue the legitimacy of the voting process (in which case, places like Italy would still be run by dictators as well) but it was still done through free elections.
His infamous comment was about a regime change. Iran is not the only country that despises the Israeli government.
I compared WWI because your analogy was terrible. You're comparing a war that began through a completely different nature, knowing after-the-fact that the result was acceptable. US Congress at the time certainly didn't think it was. Pre-emptive strikes are horrible.
It almost led the US to completely annihilating the USSR in 1952. Killing tens of millions of people in order to destroy their nuclear capabilities and military infrastructure was "worth it in the long run." We know today that that thinking was completely wrong, which is why consequentialist arguments are terrible, and why Watchmen has such a shitty ending.
If it does not quack like a duck, walk like a duck, look like a duck, it's not a duck.
Oh but Iran is one of the few if not the only one that really makes it there goal to stand out there for it. The funding of Hezbollah, hams constant belittling of the Jewish people, and holocaust denies really show you want he wants. He doesn't want to destroy he country he wants the people dead.
What was a analogy, I still am at a lost at to what your hitting? Was I specifically talking about pre-emptive strikes to you, because I wasn't.
Hindsight is something good ( and no hindsight doesn't apply to ww2 because frankly a lot of things where known about what the Nazis where doing). Fighting for your belief is such a ambiguous term isn't it? Care to explain why your focusing on this specific attribute that doesn't completely stand for what I'm saying?
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.
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.
On June 13 2010 06:15 angelicfolly wrote: It could be between five to ten years before Iran has a nuke if not sooner. You really need to be pro-active on these events or they spiral out of control. Look at WW2 for this, just about everyone let Germany break the treaties it was supposed to keep, and paid dearly for it.
Squeegy, what do you get out of the term "pro-active"? Because clearly we have different interpretations of his post.
Pro-active does not specifically mean attack. Pro-active is generic for TRYING to stop whatever it is you don't want. Oh that does mean leaving certain "actions" for very last if must be.
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.
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.
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.
this is what i was going to write as well...
But on a sidenote how did we come from Saudi Arabia not shooting down Israeli jets to WW2?
I think both of them having common allies makes it a natural move. It s not as if Saudi Arabia and Israel are going to attack each other anyways, plus i would be very surprise if Saudi Arabia didnt get any sort of compensation in the process
On June 13 2010 03:57 Pervect wrote: Claiming that other countries deserve nukes because America has them or that only America deserves nuke because "fuck yeah glorious America that always does the right thing and has never wrongfully hurt anyone" is retarded.
Everyone should be pushing to ensure that Iran complies with the IAEA, everyone should be pushing to force Israel, Pakistan, India and North Korea to sign the NPT and undergo inspections from the IAEA and everyone should be pushing for America, Russia, United Kingdom, France and China to dismantle their weapons as quickly and safely as possible. Stop giving a shit about just your country or hating on just one country and start giving a shit about the entirety of humanity.
Haven't read the whole thread but this is a pretty nice post. The next reply about "history" was a nice post as well.
As a dutchman with an Egyptian father I can say that I'm not really a fan of Israël at all. On the other hand, we have to look at the reality here, not at what's "the right thing". Iran IS an unstable country. Their government is a dictatorship which just doesn't have any international friends. Don't forget lots of Iranians want chance but just can't accomplish it.
The USA is the most powerful nation in the world now and some people like that, some people don't. The reality is that the most powerful nation will defend that position and generally will have a lot of allies which makes it less dangerous if they have nukes. It doesn't seem a good situation when opposing sides both have nukes and are ready to use them...
Only history will tell how the USA's story will unfold. For me, USA's aggression is about expanding power/resources and keeping that power, just like every other powerful nation did in the past. I'm pretty sure we will never see a world without nuclear weapons. What would happen is there wasn't a country like the US which has nukes and "polices" the world? Right, WW III. Sooner or later someone will create a nuclear weapon anyway.
Just never forget how difficult the US has it. For someone in Iran it's indeed weird they can't get nuked while lots of countries have them. I just don't think Israel is the right country to deal with it...
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.
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.
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 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.
Edmund Burke actually, and it makes sense to me.
Not only to you my friend. It takes great ignorance to not understand the message behind that saying and a lot of stupidity to compare it (in a bad comparison) to a quote from the bible or the coran...
Even if I dont believe in some of the bible tales I do think there is a lot of good quotes that we should take out from it and apply it to our lives... so Arkado:
"That is one of the most moronic posts I have ever seen. It must come from a stupid or a mentally disabled person. Im sure of it."
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!
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?
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.
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.
it can also be said that if the Americans weren't so strong in the pacific front that Russia would not have been able to transfer so many troops from the east to the west to fight germany.
There have been alot of talk shows on the radio lately saying that they were going to bomb the crap out of the reactors very soon this year..Guess it will be sooner then I have thought..
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.
this is what i was going to write as well...
But on a sidenote how did we come from Saudi Arabia not shooting down Israeli jets to WW2?
I think both of them having common allies makes it a natural move. It s not as if Saudi Arabia and Israel are going to attack each other anyways, plus i would be very surprise if Saudi Arabia didnt get any sort of compensation in the process
I was as well, on a different note all i have to say is "all that is necessary for evil to succeed is for good men to do nothing" -Edmund Burke
On June 13 2010 14:34 D10 wrote: Just like Brazil, argentina and many other countries, iran has the right to posses nuclear tech for pacific means, and this US bullshit trying to make iran look like the bad guy when they just want energy is discusting
obama lost all my respect
The exact same argument was made for Pakistan in the 80's, with the Pakistani's claiming that they only wanted nuclear power. This proved to be totally fallacious however, and given the current Iranian regime's record of reverting to military power, to say nothing of the tensions in the region, they will be working to develop nuclear arms. Brazil, Argentina and many other countries are very different from Iran because the motivations they have for developing nuclear technology are by and large mostly peaceful: the same is unfortunately not true of Iran.
And Pakistan never used nuclear weapons on anyone
edit: my point is, USA is not to be trusted, all countries should have nuclear weapons, 2 countries with nuclear weapons never engaged in a war ever.
On June 13 2010 14:34 D10 wrote: Just like Brazil, argentina and many other countries, iran has the right to posses nuclear tech for pacific means, and this US bullshit trying to make iran look like the bad guy when they just want energy is discusting
obama lost all my respect
The exact same argument was made for Pakistan in the 80's, with the Pakistani's claiming that they only wanted nuclear power. This proved to be totally fallacious however, and given the current Iranian regime's record of reverting to military power, to say nothing of the tensions in the region, they will be working to develop nuclear arms. Brazil, Argentina and many other countries are very different from Iran because the motivations they have for developing nuclear technology are by and large mostly peaceful: the same is unfortunately not true of Iran.
And Pakistan never used nuclear weapons on anyone
edit: my point is, USA is not to be trusted, all countries should have nuclear weapons, 2 countries with nuclear weapons never engaged in a war ever.
What are you talking about ? usa is a great country no matter how you put it IT IS NOT A PERFECT COUNTRY yes it has some level of corruption etc.. but most countries do, and the reason why pakistan never used nuclear weapons is because no one ever tempted them too they have good relations with the west also. If Iran gets those nukes that crazy prisedent of theirs will use them which is not something that will help the world in anyway,shape, and/or form.
I usually come to TL only to read up on SC strats and BOs, so I've never felt the urge to register or post on the forum. But reading this thread has made me want to share my own opinion on the issue.
First of all, I know the original topic was specifically about Saudi Arabia opening up it's airspace to Israeli jets, but it's kinda expanded into a discussion about nukes/Israel's right to existence/US military aggression, and those are the issues I wish to speak about. So forgive me if I appear to be off topic.
Coming from a small, neutral country thousands of miles from both the US and the middle east, I just want to say that I am personally thankful for the effects of US world dominance. Yes, the US has military bases spread all across the globe. Yes, it's navy practically owns both the Atlantic and Pacific oceans. But honestly, that has done nothing but bring peace and prosperity to most of the world. Of course, if I were an Iraqi or an Afghan or a Vietcong from the 70s, I would definitely argue otherwise, but in general, the US has proven itself to be a responsible steward of world peace. It has not sought to oppress nor conquer foreign nations with its superior military might, but acts only in defense of it's own national security. Sometimes, this means stepping on the sovereignty of other countries, but guess what, the world wasn't built to be fair. The US is like the big kid at school; sometimes he picks on the kids who piss him off, but in general he's not a bully, and so other students aren't afraid of him and even befriend him.
What irritates me is not American dominance/aggression/might, but rather American hypocrisy. Yes, everyone knows you hate Ahmadinejed and the rest of the Persian govt, and yes, we know you can bomb the crap out of Iran just as you did our good friend Mr Hussein, but please, don't try to publicize this as some battle of good vs. evil. Iran is NOT a democratic nation, let's not pretend otherwise. It's people are repressed and it's elections are rigged. But how does that make it more evil than, say, Saudi Arabia? Saudi Arabia is one of the most undemocratic and theocratic nations in the world. 90% of it's wealth is concentrated in the royal family and it's cronies. The average Saudi is not only poorer, but also more politically repressed than the average Iranian. Yes, Iran funds Hamas and Hezbollah, and while one may label those as terrorist organizations, they are insignificant compared to Al Qaeda and Jemaah Islamiyah, both of which are directly funded and led by Wahabi extremists straight out of Saudi Arabia. Yet Saudi Arabia remains one of the US's staunchest allies, enjoying support and aid and political backing, while Iran is "evil" and a "danger to the world".
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. One could argue than the Muslim nations would never act nice to the Israeli state, but trade and economics has always been more powerful than guns and war. Once they realize that 1) Israel does not intend any harm and 2) Israel can beat the shit out of you any day in a real war, the only logical thing to do is to cooperate and trade. Instead, Israel still behaves as if this were Biblical times, and as God's chosen people they are called to create a nation from the ashes of the infidels. The holocaust was a terrible, terrible tragedy, and the Israeli people certainly deserve a right to existence and self-identity, but that is a poor excuse for the way they have oppressed and terrorized the average Palestinian citizen for the past half a century. How does that make them any different from the hated Nazis of before?
I personally don't care about all the politicking and power play. Frankly, i'm unconcerned about how Iranian ambitions affects the mood and appetite of Binyamin Netanyahu and Barrack Obama. They can argue about who's right or who's wrong all they want. It's petty, it's ugly, it's stupid. I care about the innocent people out there who are suffering because of all this bullshit. When you bomb a supposed "nuclear facility", you aren't just disarming a potential threat, you're also destroying people's lives. So don't preach to the rest of the world and tell us that Iran is evil because it wants to destroy Israel. The US and Israel are doing the exact same thing to Iran. If instead you tell the truth; that you're the big boy around town and you refuse to let Iran get their bomb whether the rest of the world likes it or not, than I think maybe people will just shrug their shoulders and get on with their lives.
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?
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?
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'
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
UPDATE:Saudi Arabia: We will not give Israel air corridor for Iran strike Prince Mohammed bin Nawaf refutes Times of London report saying Saudi Arabia practiced standing down its anti-aircraft systems to allow an Israeli bomb run.
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 04:19 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
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 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.
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."
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?
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..
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.
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."
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?
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.
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.
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."
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?
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.
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.
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."
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?
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?
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.
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."
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?
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.
I would like to respond to some of the posts on the first couple of pages about the nukes and etc.
The person who said if America has nuclear bombs every country in the world has the privilege to have the same thing. That is very unintelligent of that person. The United States of America has done a lot of things for this world. Like it or not. Ill point out in WWII the United States didn't want to get into the war at all. Sure they aided allies with equipment but never engaged into any battles before hand. The Empire of Japan though then attack us because we were putting sanctions on their oil. They had to attack to hopefully get some kind of oil.
Without the United States I personally believe that the Axis nations could have won the war and then turned most of Europe and Asia into complete hell holes filled with camps of tortured people and slaves.
On the Nuclear subject we only used the bomb on Japan for 1 reason. We would rather kill 100 Japanese people then 100 Americans. And I'm sure it could go the other way for Japan people as well. But if we invaded Japan like we planned to the United States casualties would have hovered around 1,000,000 people dead. This does not include Japan personal or civilians that only is the number of American Marines,Air Force, Army,Navy personal that would have died or been injured. so we used the Nukes. Which killed around 200,000 people in a couple days but had effects in the future.
( I suggest you all look up the documentary The World Without Us)
Now onto Saudi Arabia and etc.
I think that Saudi Arabia is in a position of confusing. They aren't going to bomb Iran them selves but will allow Israel to do it. This allows Saudi to be looked at as a friendly nation that isn't about to go Jew killing but instead is more worried about what country has Nuclear power which is Iran. Iran with that president of theirs will probably use nukes if possible. And I'm sure that Iran would love to kill everyone in Israel and die themselves because they would think they would have helped the Muslim world. But their causing more hell in the area. And to all out there. If you believe in the bible Israel cannot be defeated and will prosper. I think..Lol
And also if Iran posses nuclear capabilities they will fund terrorist groups which they will try to use on every country that isn't Muslim or supports the Middle Eastern Conflict. We cannot just look at this problem in 2D we need to look in 3D and at every perspective. Because this is very dangerous to our current world. And that president in Iran lies so who knows what the hell he can do and wont do. He has no morals when he lies to the whole world and even rigs the elections. The SOB needs imo to be taken out with force my its people because even they know he lies.
holy McJesus there's a lot of bans in this thread. I fear I might get banned for even mentioning how many people got banned. It's almost like it's a stand off between the posters and the mods and the second someone opens their mouths the mods quickly reach out for their hammers and BAN. TL imo needs to set up a new system where it's easier to know what justifies as a ban and what doesn't, and at the same time, I don't think that every single decision to ban someone was correct in this thread.
And getting on topic, I hope that Israel doesn't enter any large war because I used to live in that country when i was little. It's a really beautiful country and it would be a shame if it would be turned into a large pile of steaming rocks.
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.
User was temp banned for this post.
Pretty hilarious post right here... America wouldn't be where it's at right now if they didn't decide to play out WW2 and claim that they saved the world.
I am from Pakistan and i personally think that IRAN should not be allowed to have nukes due to the various reasons people have posted here. Pakistan only have nukes because of its neighbour India(the US gave it to them, if you ask why? there is no answer or valid reason about it yet). Pakistan showed off its nuke after India did.
But if you look from Iran's prospective they should have them because others do have them as well.
None of us know how the world politics works unless some of us work with that topic so its better to close this discussion.
And ofcourse it is a dick move by neighbour countries to ally with the US (specially if they dont have nukes / or cant get them), but then again they will think of their own national interest.Its a security matter in the middle east and the superpower which is the US is trying to control it and i dont see any problem with it cause something like this will create more problems in the world.
Someone posted about wars that America started, I wont say much about it but they claimed the same thing about Iraq which they coudlnt find but in case of Iran its very strongly possible that they have them.
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.
I think you're getting yourself hung up on semantics here. In the USA, we don't have a clause in our constitution that states that the President of the USA must be a Protestant and uphold Protestant values. Our laws while they may certainly reflect Christian principles to an extent, are not specifically based on Biblical law nor do we have an official national religion whose tenets are enforced upon the population. Religion in the USA for the most part is separate from politics with the exception of its influence on politicians.
Iran, however, is a completely different story. Islam and Islamic law are directly tied into the government of Iran not only by its influence on its followers, but within the Constitution of Iran itself. Your argument that it is not a theocracy because the power is in the hands of the people despite the fact that the Supreme Leader (above the president) can only be elected by Muslim scholars pre-screened by the government before they can be elected to that position is something that I can't help but disagree with. By that logic, a military dictatorship would be a Democracy so long as the people are allowed to vote their leader into power, even if there is only a single political party allowed to run for office and a single candidate for that political party that people are forced to vote for. In both scenarios, while the power is in the hands of the people on paper, it's really not in practice. There are plenty of things in this world that may technically be one thing on paper, but are something completely different in reality. So when you look at these things, do you define them by what they are on paper or what they are when practically applied? I prefer to do the latter because that's what matters in the end.
Perhaps Iran may not fit into your dictionary definition of a theocracy, but in practice, that's pretty much what it is. It is a state governmed by specifically by religious authorities with laws taken straight out of their religious scripture. While the voting system makes it democratic, it doesn't change the fact that religion is the ultimate basis of their government as written into their constitution. It's simply the modern version of a theocratic government, much like the Puritan communities that existed in early America. Those communities didn't have a leader with divine ordinance either, but they would arrest you for not attending church on Sunday... When religion becomes government, it's a theocracy. That's what Iran is today.
Pretty hilarious post right here... America wouldn't be where it's at right now if they didn't decide to play out WW2 and claim that they saved the world.
Are you argueing that the allies could have defeated the Nazis without U.S support?
Not a fucking chance. They could probably have won the European front without direct military reinforcements from the U.S, but not without the billions of dollars funneled to them in the form of munitions, weapons, supplies and vehicle.
tl;dr
We did "save the world". As in the war could not have been won without extreme US support.
Pretty hilarious post right here... America wouldn't be where it's at right now if they didn't decide to play out WW2 and claim that they saved the world.
Are you argueing that the allies could have defeated the Nazis without U.S support?
Not a fucking chance. They could probably have won the European front without direct military reinforcements from the U.S, but not without the billions of dollars funneled to them in the form of munitions, weapons, supplies and vehicle.
tl;dr
We did "save the world". As in the war could not have been won without extreme US support.
lmao, you were funding the 2 sides the allies and the axis... or you dont know that ?:D
Pretty hilarious post right here... America wouldn't be where it's at right now if they didn't decide to play out WW2 and claim that they saved the world.
Are you argueing that the allies could have defeated the Nazis without U.S support?
Not a fucking chance. They could probably have won the European front without direct military reinforcements from the U.S, but not without the billions of dollars funneled to them in the form of munitions, weapons, supplies and vehicle.
tl;dr
We did "save the world". As in the war could not have been won without extreme US support.
lmao, you were funding the 2 sides the allies and the axis... or you dont know that ?:D
Your kidding me right? technically we had to engage in trade with both sides due to the treaties like the neutrality acts of 1930.
In actuality the amount we gave to germany was small while the overwhelming majority went towards Britain, including the Transfer of 50 destroyers for basically nothing.
The main source of arms trade throughout WW2 was done through the
policy, an agreement which was only ever opened with allied nations.
The vast majority of companies did not trade with Germany after WW2 started. Some companies continued to, like Ford motors and some banks (not even close to all) but the overall level was incomparable to the amount we traded with Britain.
This is certainly significant, and detestable. But if we compare this to the amount we funded Britain in throughout the war, it is completely incomparable. Our investment into Britain throughout WW2 was 50 billion dollars.
Then theirs the vast majority of that 300million pounds was done through illegal channels and not sanctioned by the government. Many of the conspirators involved were tried during Nuremburg.
Pretty hilarious post right here... America wouldn't be where it's at right now if they didn't decide to play out WW2 and claim that they saved the world.
Are you argueing that the allies could have defeated the Nazis without U.S support?
Not a fucking chance. They could probably have won the European front without direct military reinforcements from the U.S, but not without the billions of dollars funneled to them in the form of munitions, weapons, supplies and vehicle.
tl;dr
We did "save the world". As in the war could not have been won without extreme US support.
lmao, you were funding the 2 sides the allies and the axis... or you dont know that ?:D
Your kidding me right? technically we had to engage in trade with both sides due to the treaties like the neutrality acts of 1930.
In actuality the amount we gave to germany was small while the overwhelming majority went towards Britain, including the Transfer of 50 destroyers for basically nothing.
The main source of arms trade throughout WW2 was done through the
policy, an agreement which was only ever opened with allied nations.
The vast majority of companies did not trade with Germany after WW2 started. Some companies continued to, like Ford motors and some banks (not even close to all) but the overall level was incomparable to the amount we traded with Britain.
This is certainly significant, and detestable. But if we compare this to the amount we funded Britain in a SINGLE AGREEMENT, it is just totally incomparable. From the previously mentioned Lend Lease agreement, we supplied 1.075 billion pounds. Thats from a single agreement, among many.
Even then, the vast majority of that 300million pounds was done through illegal channels and not sanctioned by the government. Many of the conspirators involved were tried during Nuremburg.
have fun my american friend, i have little pacience to ad hominem argumentation, and to argue with virtual people
I'm convinced you're trying to troll me (Especially considering all you've don is post idiotic one liners). What you just posted has absolutely nothing to do with what we were previously argueing. And at no point did I try to Ad-hominem you
I'm not trying to portray America as "teh perfect nation". In fact, I'll readily admit American companies like General Electric helped fund Hitlers militarization of germany. Your article states that Bushes grandfather funded Hitler at several points prior to the war. Ok.
But that doesn't change the fact that America was responsible for Allied victory, and not just "a little bit". We dispensed 50 billion in direct aid to Britain, with total trade in the hundreds of billions.
We also engaged in trade with Nazi Germany at several points prior, and even during the War. But the amount we gave them is largely insignificant, even the most wild estimates do not apply more then 600 million to Hitlers germany.
600 million even with the most liberal sources to the undebatable amouunt of trade in excess of Hundreds of billions of dollars. Its clear that the amount we traded with Nazi germany on behalf of private multi-national corporations was dwarfed by our national support of Britain in the form of hundreds of billions of Dollars.
You can blindly hate America all you want. But the fact remains that without significant American aid towards allied powers, the allies could not have possibly won the War.
Did our investment in the Allies secure us a prominent role in Post-War politics? Of course it did. Thats what happens when you invest in the winning side. Are you suggesting it was wrong we invested in the allies?
Also I'm a citizen of mainland China. Greencard residence here in America. Stop using Ad-hominemin. You know nothing about me and that IP address label there has nothing to do with my argument.
Get a clue.
I know its hip to hate America. Its what the kool kids are doing. And you can hate America all you want. But it doesn't change the fact that America was among those primarily responsible for Allied victory in WW2, rivaling Russia. (And that Portugal was a facistic pro-nazi state...sorry about that.).
I honestly think to know the true meaning behind a countries reasoning such as in WWII and Indea getting Nuclear weapons from the US can only be understand by professional analyist and people who are top rank in the United States military and government. Our attempts to understand the ins and outs of these is probably a worthless attempt. (Even though I even tried to figure it out myself)
But I also still stand firm with Half on his belief that without the United States WWII would of went down the tube quicker and easier. Considering the ONLY European nation to not be taken over by Germany other then Germanys allies was Britian if I remember.
And The USA does take pride in the fact that we helped the world in WWII because its mostly true in most peoples opinions I think. And as Americans we like showing our power. Sometimes forcefully. We are cocky at times but that is a small flaw with what we have done.
And no more posts about wars weve started please..Because it the documentary The World Without US. Their are interviews with people in past conflicts that WANTEd the United States to interfer but we didn't because we thought if we did we would just get pissed on by the rest of the world. But when we don't interfer people get pissed off because since were such a power that they think its our duty to do this. So either way all those wars that we started are either Bull shit or were in a pickle where if we dont were screwed if we do were screwed.
And let me add there are good things that come with Nuclear weapons..They deter enemies from attacking and can lead to technology advancement.
On June 14 2010 10:23 TopJet[95] wrote: And no more posts about wars weve started please..Because it the documentary The World Without US. Their are interviews with people in past conflicts that WANTEd the United States to interfer but we didn't because we thought if we did we would just get pissed on by the rest of the world. But when we don't interfer people get pissed off because since were such a power that they think its our duty to do this. So either way all those wars that we started are either Bull shit or were in a pickle where if we dont were screwed if we do were screwed.
Grayscale, dude. Grayscale.
First of all people need to realise that usa, just as any other nation would, primarily acts for it's own interests and benefits. There are conflicts where U.S. involvment has been extremely questionable, and there are others where the consensus is that USA has acted in a manner that is beneficial to most of the world.
And yeah, it could be argued that USA could have helped put an early end to the whole ww2 conflict if they didn't stay out of it up until a point where it was virtually impossible to remain neutral.
Pretty hilarious post right here... America wouldn't be where it's at right now if they didn't decide to play out WW2 and claim that they saved the world.
Are you argueing that the allies could have defeated the Nazis without U.S support?
Not a fucking chance. They could probably have won the European front without direct military reinforcements from the U.S, but not without the billions of dollars funneled to them in the form of munitions, weapons, supplies and vehicle.
tl;dr
We did "save the world". As in the war could not have been won without extreme US support.
USSR would have won it anyway but then more than half of the world would have been communist (which, under Staline, wasn't particularly cool )
Anyway to stay on topic of course it's a bad thing than Iran gets the nuke but this kind of raids also motivates the harsh feelings towards the west among the arab and overall muslim world. I mean if I was them I'd be pissed off. My country is considered as a menace to world peace and on the other hand we have Israel, who has screwed over so many UN resolutions nobody pays attention anymore and gets away with having a load of nukes and fucking around with it's military every two month.
On June 15 2010 02:09 DJhozy wrote: These days, having a nuke is just a form of deterrence. Nobody wants to start a nuclear war as it does not benefit anyone in this world.
this is probably in the wrong line of thinking, what you could say is that No one wants to start a nuclear war without haveing sufficient counter measures for both the initial shitstorm and the side effects.
Similar to how radar jamming / scrambling was not used untill the end of ww2 even though both parties had the technology to do so, they had no counter measure. Scared shitless of the enemy developing a counter measure they hid the tech only to use in the last stages of the war.
My country is considered as a menace to world peace and on the other hand we have Israel, who has screwed over so many UN resolutions nobody pays attention anymore and gets away with having a load of nukes and fucking around with it's military every two month
its either that or sharia law, hostile front towards the west and our infidelity, if you ask me Israel is the lesser evil and id rather have a mad dog with nukes but on our side than a solidified Islam unified by a caliphate.
If by perfect you mean set us up for World War 3 then yes, it would be.
as much as we want it, with each passing year the possibility of ww3 declines. Because of cross nation trade no country can efficiently wage a large scale war, nor does there exist incentive to wage one for the bigger countries.
Pretty hilarious post right here... America wouldn't be where it's at right now if they didn't decide to play out WW2 and claim that they saved the world.
Are you argueing that the allies could have defeated the Nazis without U.S support?
Not a fucking chance. They could probably have won the European front without direct military reinforcements from the U.S, but not without the billions of dollars funneled to them in the form of munitions, weapons, supplies and vehicle.
tl;dr
We did "save the world". As in the war could not have been won without extreme US support.
USSR would have won it anyway but then more than half of the world would have been communist (which, under Staline, wasn't particularly cool )
Anyway to stay on topic of course it's a bad thing than Iran gets the nuke but this kind of raids also motivates the harsh feelings towards the west among the arab and overall muslim world. I mean if I was them I'd be pissed off. My country is considered as a menace to world peace and on the other hand we have Israel, who has screwed over so many UN resolutions nobody pays attention anymore and gets away with having a load of nukes and fucking around with it's military every two month.
The USSR also received substantial support from the US though in the form of money, weaponry, vehicles, clothing and other military equipment that the SU was severely lacking in. The US also took away the threat of a Japanese invasion from Japan, helped to stop the Italians from being of any real use to the Germans and bombed a lot of German industry into the ground which could have helped Germany's war effort on the ostfront out a lot. The USSR could not have defeated Germany by itself, as it was it was only Hitler's major failings as a general that caused Germany's invasion to fail.
To be fair though Stalin also made a lot of disastrous mistakes that lost him countless entire armies of men.
On topic: I fully support an Israeli raid to destroy Iran's underground nuclear facilities, they're one of the two countries in the world crazy enough to launch a nuke for no reason.
... how exactly did we get from Saudis potentially allowing overly rights for the IAF into this again?
On Topic:
Just out of morbid curiosity I started thinking about what this scenario would look like if it played out, since Israel seems intent on destroying whatever facilities they "think" are involved, even though so far the Western world hasn't been able prove that Iran is developing nuclear weapons.
1. Iran's Air Force will definitely be tested. Ironically, Saudi Arabia might have already given Iran an unintentional signal as to when to expect a strike - all the Iranians have to do is monitor the Saudi air defense network.
2. Bombing a nuclear reactor sitting right next to the Persian Gulf is a pretty stupid idea to me. Huge risk of contamination if you can't do it exactly right.
3. If I'm Iran, I'm getting ready to mine the Strait of Hormuz, with teams ready to go the instant the first bomb hits. Anyone who believes the Iranians (like anyone else) would just sit back and take this is dreaming. Yeah, their air defense network could certainly be improved, but you can retaliate in all kinds of ways, many of which will probably have a negative impact on gas prices, at least. Israel already gets away with a ton of crap, but it would be interesting to see how people react if they're perceived to be the reason for increased prices, if only temporarily.
4. This could backfire on Israel in epic fashion. Suppose it's not perfect - planes get shot down (likely). Pilots get captured or killed. Huge propaganda boost for Tehran. Potential targets ae probably hardened, but not necessarily isolated away from civilization. When Iraq's reactor complex was bombed in the 80s, the site wasn't active yet, in contrast to Iran's, which means that the risk of radioactive material spreading after an attack is huge. Does Israel *really* want to deal with the political fallout from that scenario? Then again, it seems like the Israeli government doesn't actually give a fuck what people think.
All in all, I have no idea why Iran doesn't just leave the NPT. Then they can actually get nukes legally and military action is even harder to justify.
I think the pro-bomb if all other options fail arguments rely to heavily on the assumption the bombing will prevent Iran's acquisition of a bomb. I'm fairly unconvinced that Iran couldn't decentralize the effort or just dig deeper. As far as I know nuclear bunker busters were even ruled out because they are useless.
Knowing Isreal they will just nuke the crap out of all of Iran including residential areas then they will just claim that all of the attacked areas were nuclear facilities.
On June 15 2010 04:32 Cain0 wrote: "Islamic Republic of Iran", everyone knows nukes are not saves in the hands of religious extremists.
Then why does America have them?
I'm not trying to troll here (merely playing devil's advocate), but the USA are zealously religious to the point where atheists are the least trusted group in America, "In God We Trust" on the money, Pledge of Allegiance, the whole controversy over the fact that Obama has a Muslim name.
Whilst I understand the argument that countries such as North Korea shouldn't have nuclear weapons because they would be prone to use them, having the USA as the "world police" to prevent others from gaining them seems irresponsible. The USA have started more wars in the past 50 years than North Korea have, so why does the USA "deserve" them and not others?
Ideally no country should have nuclear weapons, but now that the technology is out there that is impossible. I doubt that even a country like North Korea (sorry to use them as my only example, but I believe them to be the most suited) would nuke someone without provocation; at the moment they already have enough artillery to wipe out Seoul but they refrain.
Nuclear weapons are being used to strengthen the people who already have them. The allies of the USA, UK etc. are allowed them but anyone who disagrees with us isn't. It's not because they're more prone to use them, it's because we want complete control of the world.
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..
If you want to go into technics you could say that the American Revolution for independence was an "American started war," but then again America didn't exist back then. Also the civil war was completely American so if you want to count that then that would work too.
Well actually if you re looking for a countrey to blame it would be mine. We helped the israeli with their nuclear technology,
we built the reactor in Iraq, twice! (we rebuilt when it was first destroyed) and we also helped Iran with his, even offering to enrich their nuclear fuel in France.
But guess what, i dont think anybody hates us (okay Sarkozy might have changed this) because France actually gives logical reasons to its actions.
Now everyone can disagreee with a state policy but when they give logical reasons, it s more likely to be accepted than if they make up reasons.
As it has been said by a coule of people in this thread, most countries are tied with each other by their economy. No state actually has any sort of true independance. Just look at what s happening with the Eurozone right now.
Making threat is also a good way to save the face when local elections come.
Imagine you re a top official and you see North Korea building up and showing off. You have two choices :
a) Declare war and go for it
b) warn than if they go on you l ldeclare war, and give sanctions every time they go on anyways.
Which one do you think is the most likely to happen?
Obviously it doesnt work all the time (Georgia_Russia, 2008) but it s a more logical course of actions
and one last line for the whole "evil" and "good" thing. International politics dont revolve around religious notions (or very rarely), those are merely a cover or a way to explain the situation more simply than it actually is.
"LEt s attack A because they are evil" is easier to say that "Let s attack A because if we dont, they might cause the market to become unfavorable to us, and we ll lose money'.
humans are neither evil nor good, they are sentient imperfect beings and they live with their default, greed being the dominant one at a political level. The rest is control or belief but doesnt weigh much for actual decision. or else we would attack England because they drive on the opposite side of the road (and that s an heresy!)
Offtopic on WW2: we have a saying " with "if" you d put Paris in a bottle". It is pointless to argue what would have happend with or without America. Since most of the informations are secret anyways (real axis/ally trade, why was Russia not at war with japan until mid 1945? etc....). so grow up and get over it, it really looks like a stupid kid debate to me (like I m the best because i m from the best place, nah!)
Without getting drawn into the greater debate I'd just like to make some points: Since the advent of nuclear weapons, there have been no full blown wars between nuclear powers. Nukes make people tread carefully and place a ceiling on the intensity of a war before everything spirals out of control. It is quite likely that without nukes, at some point the Cold War would have turned into a Hot War. I'd take a dozen wars the size of the Vietnam War over another WWII any day.
Iran makes make a lot of noise but keeps its actions mostly low-key. The last war Iran was involved in was, what, when Iraq invaded Iran in the 80s? In all likelihood, theocracy or not, they aren't looking to start spreading instant sunshine around. This does not mean I think that Iran having nukes is a good thing - I just don't think it's going to bring down Armageddon, and if it comes to it, I'm sure we'll manage to live with it. By the way, total nuclear disarmament is just about impossible as long as nukes are effective and one could argue that reducing stockpiles actually increases the chances somebody will try for a first-strike. If you're looking towards reducing military spending, nukes are the last place I'd look, since they're one of the most cost effective strategic weapons.
There's no denying that the US works towards its own interests, like any other state. On the whole, however, I think we could have done much worse. Any action the US takes is bound to step on some toes - in fact, one might even say that any action any state takes is bound to do so.
Going off topic, but the people proclaiming that the US singlehandedly saved Europe from the Nazis need to get some perspective. The Soviet Union was the primary force behind the defeat of the Nazis - something like 80% of all casualties were on the Eastern Front. Lend-Lease was very helpful, but didn't really kick in until after the Red Army already managed to halt the German offensive. We might have paid in materiel, but the Russians paid in blood. It's quite unfair their contribution is downplayed so often.
In this sort of situation, it's unlikely Israel would act unilaterally. If there was to be an air-strike on Iran's reactor's which is possible. It would be with at least tacit approval from the US and likely European/Asian nations.
Israel ends up being the bad cop that does the dirty work in this situation. As far as a nuclear Iran, no way in hell. Sorry, I'd rather no nuclear powers with state sponsored terrorism. They don't have to have it and use it, though I'm not so sure they wouldn't try and play hard ball once they got it... so much as give it to someone else to use. There was a real big stink awhile ago with the Pakistani nukes and the Taliban's offensive possibly claiming control over some of them, a serious threat indeed.
Then again, it's not as if you need a full on nuclear bomb to get notice, even simple dirty bombs are a major issue and threat.
On June 15 2010 02:52 Funnytoss wrote: ... how exactly did we get from Saudis potentially allowing overly rights for the IAF into this again?
On Topic:
Just out of morbid curiosity I started thinking about what this scenario would look like if it played out, since Israel seems intent on destroying whatever facilities they "think" are involved, even though so far the Western world hasn't been able prove that Iran is developing nuclear weapons.
1. Iran's Air Force will definitely be tested. Ironically, Saudi Arabia might have already given Iran an unintentional signal as to when to expect a strike - all the Iranians have to do is monitor the Saudi air defense network.
2. Bombing a nuclear reactor sitting right next to the Persian Gulf is a pretty stupid idea to me. Huge risk of contamination if you can't do it exactly right.
3. If I'm Iran, I'm getting ready to mine the Strait of Hormuz, with teams ready to go the instant the first bomb hits. Anyone who believes the Iranians (like anyone else) would just sit back and take this is dreaming. Yeah, their air defense network could certainly be improved, but you can retaliate in all kinds of ways, many of which will probably have a negative impact on gas prices, at least. Israel already gets away with a ton of crap, but it would be interesting to see how people react if they're perceived to be the reason for increased prices, if only temporarily.
4. This could backfire on Israel in epic fashion. Suppose it's not perfect - planes get shot down (likely). Pilots get captured or killed. Huge propaganda boost for Tehran. Potential targets ae probably hardened, but not necessarily isolated away from civilization. When Iraq's reactor complex was bombed in the 80s, the site wasn't active yet, in contrast to Iran's, which means that the risk of radioactive material spreading after an attack is huge. Does Israel *really* want to deal with the political fallout from that scenario? Then again, it seems like the Israeli government doesn't actually give a fuck what people think.
All in all, I have no idea why Iran doesn't just leave the NPT. Then they can actually get nukes legally and military action is even harder to justify.
Headline News Monday, July 19, 2010 Israel Today Staff
Report: Israel convinces Obama to plan for Iran strike
"According to a report in Time magazine Israel has managed to convince Washington to put the option of a military strike against Iran's nuclear facilities back on the table.
Israel has long argued that all of the international sanctions against Iran are pointless unless Western powers are prepared to back them up with the threat of force.
Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has been pressing that point since US President Barack Obama pushed through a new package of sanctions at the UN Security Council last month.
In the past few weeks, Time reported that US Central Command has been devising a thorough plan of targeted air strikes on Iran's nuclear facilities. The article claimed that Israel has been brought into that planning process.
Israel is also reportedly still revising its own independent plan of attack, should a solo mission against Iran become necessary."
Although this may be rude, people who are siding with Iran are the most idiotic people. Finally, Israel can take care of the nuclear threat Iran had. Iran having a nuke is the last thing anyone wants.
On July 20 2010 14:11 Illusion. wrote: Although this may be rude, people who are siding with Iran are the most idiotic people. Finally, Israel can take care of the nuclear threat Iran had. Iran having a nuke is the last thing anyone wants.
and u think the rest of the muslims in the world are going to just take that?
i m sure the jews have killed enuf ppl. and if they want more blood, they should be going after the germans.
On July 20 2010 14:11 Illusion. wrote: Although this may be rude, people who are siding with Iran are the most idiotic people. Finally, Israel can take care of the nuclear threat Iran had. Iran having a nuke is the last thing anyone wants.
and u think the rest of the muslims in the world are going to just take that?
i m sure the jews have killed enuf ppl. and if they want more blood, they should be going after the germans.
Where are these "rest of the muslims" going to come from? Saudi Arabia? The single most conservative Shiite country in the world that detests Iran and most of what it stands for? Or perhaps Egypt? Egypt has, after all, so much to gain from another disastrous war with Israel. Maybe...Syria. Yeah, Syria is a regional powerhouse alright, especially with outdated Soviet equipment up against the IDF. Indonesia? Nope. Maybe the North African states? Lybia! Doubt it.
On July 20 2010 14:11 Illusion. wrote: Although this may be rude, people who are siding with Iran are the most idiotic people. Finally, Israel can take care of the nuclear threat Iran had. Iran having a nuke is the last thing anyone wants.
and u think the rest of the muslims in the world are going to just take that?
i m sure the jews have killed enuf ppl. and if they want more blood, they should be going after the germans.
lol, i dont know why so many naive people like you fall for that kind of anti-semetic propaganda.
On July 20 2010 14:25 Illusion. wrote: lol, i dont know why so many naive people like you fall for that kind of anti-semetic propaganda.
perhaps because you live in a country run by jews?
most Americans dont realize this, since the USSR is dissolved, USA has been the most frequent use of veto power in the UN and majority of it was used to protect Israel when the rest of the world has condemned their atrocities.
On July 20 2010 14:25 Illusion. wrote: lol, i dont know why so many naive people like you fall for that kind of anti-semetic propaganda.
perhaps because you live in a country run by jews?
most Americans dont realize this, since the USSR is dissolved, USA has been the most frequent use of veto power in the UN and majority of it was used to protect Israel when the rest of the world has condemned their atrocities.
give me an example of these "Atrocities" your making yourself sound like a neo-nazi.
On July 20 2010 14:25 Illusion. wrote: lol, i dont know why so many naive people like you fall for that kind of anti-semetic propaganda.
perhaps because you live in a country run by jews?
most Americans dont realize this, since the USSR is dissolved, USA has been the most frequent use of veto power in the UN and majority of it was used to protect Israel when the rest of the world has condemned their atrocities.
give me an example of these "Atrocities" your making yourself sound like a neo-nazi.
Blatant violation of international law as it pertains to settlements in occupied territories, denial of humanitarian aid in many cases (as certified by Amnesty), and other shady activities involving the diverting of drinking water to Israeli settlements for swimming pools whilst the Gazans go thirsty for lack of water, to name a few.
america and israel know full well that iran will never use a nuke...it would be national and political suicide to those who run and control iran...they may have the ability to train suicide bombers and finance radicals....but they are not stupid to destroy everything they have achieved over some palestinians they don't even like...
if anything israel and USA are scared shitless that they're monopoly on the nuclear weapon in the region is being threatened and a country unlike pakistan who is USA's bitch is going to have them...they are going to lose their ability, option and constant threat of military action against iran....nuclear powers do not go to war with eachother. so any future beef between iran and the west that goes violent will be fought through proxies...and thats a battle that iran can win unlike a conventional war with israel/USA...and this scenario scares the US and Israel
basically, the US, its lap dogs like saudi arabia and israel are throwing a hissyfit because their ability to bully a country around and contain its power is being threatened
Bullying or not, just because the US happens to own nukes doesn't mean other countries should. The less that owns them, the better, since all it really takes is one person in charge to decide to make that "crazy" decision. You are trying to argue a case of "ethics" in international politics, which is flawed in and by itself. Ethically, I don't support a fuck ton that this country is doing but as a citizen, boy am I glad it's following through with them since it benefits this country and by extension, me.
However, I fail to see how Saudi Arabia giving Israel clear skies to attack Iran is a positive thing for us. As many have mentioned, we are already carrying flak for the support of Israel and I'm not sure how playing out another Middle Eastern conflict is good for our interests. Israel can only play the "preemptive strike defense" card for so long.
Given Israel's history I don't think it's at all unreasonable for Israel to maintain that if its neighbours ever got another chance they'd act to wipe Israel out. They've tried it several times already. The only thing that keeps the peace is that history suggests Israel would win which would just be embarrassing. So on the contrary, the longer Israel keeps doing pre-emptive strikes the better. By maintaining a strong defence Israel stops the Middle East from imploding.
On July 20 2010 14:25 Illusion. wrote: lol, i dont know why so many naive people like you fall for that kind of anti-semetic propaganda.
perhaps because you live in a country run by jews?
most Americans dont realize this, since the USSR is dissolved, USA has been the most frequent use of veto power in the UN and majority of it was used to protect Israel when the rest of the world has condemned their atrocities.
give me an example of these "Atrocities" your making yourself sound like a neo-nazi.
On July 20 2010 14:53 KissBlade wrote: Bullying or not, just because the US happens to own nukes doesn't mean other countries should. The less that owns them, the better, since all it really takes is one person in charge to decide to make that "crazy" decision. You are trying to argue a case of "ethics" in international politics, which is flawed in and by itself. Ethically, I don't support a fuck ton that this country is doing but as a citizen, boy am I glad it's following through with them since it benefits this country and by extension, me.
However, I fail to see how Saudi Arabia giving Israel clear skies to attack Iran is a positive thing for us. As many have mentioned, we are already carrying flak for the support of Israel and I'm not sure how playing out another Middle Eastern conflict is good for our interests. Israel can only play the "preemptive strike defense" card for so long.
if every major power has a nuclear weapon, conventional war and actual military action against countries that own nukes will not be a logical option...the cold war didn't turn hot because both sides knew they would both be destroyed....if say only US or Russia had nukes, the war would have gone hot and the side without nukes would have lost or bowed down to the side that did...
basically, the US and Israel are afraid that they are going to lose leverage over Iran...if Iran remains nuke free, the US and Israel can bomb it, destroy infrastructure, contain its economy and or destabilize it as much as they want...a nuclear iran means those things would not be a smart idea.
its not like the US owns 1 or 2 nukes and no one else should have them...they have more than a 1000 located in places in the world where they could strike any place whenever they want...Israel has nuclear weapons pointed at probably every one of its neighbours. this is what allows israel to fuck everyone and not care what their neighbours do...if iran gets a nuke, israel will have to start behaving itself....and israel like a child is throwing a hissyfit.
On July 20 2010 14:58 KwarK wrote: Given Israel's history I don't think it's at all unreasonable for Israel to maintain that if its neighbours ever got another chance they'd act to wipe Israel out. They've tried it several times already. The only thing that keeps the peace is that history suggests Israel would win which would just be embarrassing. So on the contrary, the longer Israel keeps doing pre-emptive strikes the better. By maintaining a strong defence Israel stops the Middle East from imploding.
except israel's enemies will eventually acquire nuclear weapons. in fact, iran has actually gotten a lot stronger because its only major enemy Iraq was destroyed while the iraqi government, army and police are shia muslims with strong loyalties to the iranian clergy and mullahs
On July 20 2010 14:39 Elegy wrote: Blatant violation of international law as it pertains to settlements in occupied territories,
I would like to stress, once again, the ludicrous nature of the very concept of "international law". Law requires authority to back it. There is no authority that can "legitimately" claim the right to enforce international law, nor is there an authority that even has the strength to stand up to Israel that actually wants to do so.
There are no laws in war, and Israel is in a war, no matter what idealists say.
denial of humanitarian aid in many cases (as certified by Amnesty),
Because Amnesty international is a completely unbiased source whose word is gospel, right?
There's as much evidence for the "aid" that was denied being military in nature as there is against it.
On July 20 2010 14:39 Elegy wrote: Blatant violation of international law as it pertains to settlements in occupied territories,
I would like to stress, once again, the ludicrous nature of the very concept of "international law". Law requires authority to back it. There is no authority that can "legitimately" claim the right to enforce international law, nor is there an authority that even has the strength to stand up to Israel that actually wants to do so.
There are no laws in war, and Israel is in a war, no matter what idealists say.
denial of humanitarian aid in many cases (as certified by Amnesty),
Because Amnesty international is a completely unbiased source whose word is gospel, right?
There's as much evidence for the "aid" that was denied being military in nature as there is against it.
your right there is no international law...i never really believed in it either. its just something the powerful use against their weaker enemies when its convenient...it works one way only really
On July 20 2010 15:12 afg-warrior wrote: your right there is no international law...i never really believed in it either. its just something the powerful use against their weaker enemies when its convenient...it works one way only really
so Iran is still vulnerable to any aistrike, the S-300 promised by Russia long ago are not going to be delivered, now the Russian say its because of the sanctions but the deal was made long before any of this happened. The s-300 would boost iranians defense capabilities and make any airstrike by Usa or Israel even more difficult.
"The S-300 is regarded as one of the most potent anti-aircraft missile systems currently fielded [2]. Its radars have the ability to simultaneously track up to 100 targets while engaging up to 12."
On July 21 2010 03:52 ImFromPortugal wrote: "Russia dismisses Iran, insists pending missile deliveries covered by sanctions (AP)"
so Iran is still vulnerable to any aistrike, the S-300 promised by Russia long ago are not going to be delivered, now the Russian say its because of the sanctions but the deal was made long before any of this happened. The s-300 would boost iranians defense capabilities and make any airstrike by Usa or Israel even more difficult.
"The S-300 is regarded as one of the most potent anti-aircraft missile systems currently fielded [2]. Its radars have the ability to simultaneously track up to 100 targets while engaging up to 12."
That's good. The delivery of the S-300 system was what was most likely to percipitate war, since Isreal does not have access to F-22 or B-2 bomber. F-35 stealth is a crapshot.
In any event, I think that people are too hard on Isreal's strategies and tactics. Look at it this way. If one day a bunch of people from Mexico started lobbing rockets over the US border at US cities, the US would say "WTF YOU STOP THAT RIGHT NOW MEXICO"
If it happened again the US would say "THAT'S IT YOU RETARDS" and invade mexico to take control of the situation. But of course when Isreal does it everyone says "noooooooo it's been going on for decades, you doing stuff now is out of proportion!"
I mean, Iran having nukes would be like Cuba having nukes - a hostile nation (Except I think Iran is much more hostile to Isreal than Cuba is to the US) next door that repeatedly said they wanted to wipe you off the map.
I'm in Canada, and I for one welcome our (old) American overlords!
On July 21 2010 03:52 ImFromPortugal wrote: "Russia dismisses Iran, insists pending missile deliveries covered by sanctions (AP)"
so Iran is still vulnerable to any aistrike, the S-300 promised by Russia long ago are not going to be delivered, now the Russian say its because of the sanctions but the deal was made long before any of this happened. The s-300 would boost iranians defense capabilities and make any airstrike by Usa or Israel even more difficult.
"The S-300 is regarded as one of the most potent anti-aircraft missile systems currently fielded [2]. Its radars have the ability to simultaneously track up to 100 targets while engaging up to 12."
That's good. The delivery of the S-300 system was what was most likely to percipitate war, since Isreal does not have access to F-22 or B-2 bomber. F-35 stealth is a crapshot.
In any event, I think that people are too hard on Isreal's strategies and tactics. Look at it this way. If one day a bunch of people from Mexico started lobbing rockets over the US border at US cities, the US would say "WTF YOU STOP THAT RIGHT NOW MEXICO"
If it happened again the US would say "THAT'S IT YOU RETARDS" and invade mexico to take control of the situation. But of course when Isreal does it everyone says "noooooooo it's been going on for decades, you doing stuff now is out of proportion!"
I mean, Iran having nukes would be like Cuba having nukes - a hostile nation (Except I think Iran is much more hostile to Isreal than Cuba is to the US) next door that repeatedly said they wanted to wipe you off the map.
I'm in Canada, and I for one welcome our (old) American overlords!
can you please state or quote where they said they want to wipe israel of the map?
On June 13 2010 02:15 Zionner wrote: I have a bad feeling some serious shit is going to go down soon
lol @ this...
cmon dude, really? were going to war with iran. its going to be somewhere between bad and nuclear holocaust.
ill bet any1 cold hard $$ were (USA + friends) at war with iran within 3 years. ill give 3:1. ill give 1:1 its within 18 months.
I'll take that bet at 1:1 odds with USA + friends, which means what exactly. UN involvement. 2+ countries that we have good relations with at time of war decleration? How much you thinking about betting?
On June 13 2010 02:15 Zionner wrote: I have a bad feeling some serious shit is going to go down soon
lol @ this...
cmon dude, really? were going to war with iran. its going to be somewhere between bad and nuclear holocaust.
ill bet any1 cold hard $$ were (USA + friends) at war with iran within 3 years. ill give 3:1. ill give 1:1 its within 18 months.
I'll take that bet at 1:1 odds with USA + friends, which means what exactly. UN involvement. 2+ countries that we have good relations with at time of war decleration? How much you thinking about betting?
the iranian retaliation would make the world tremble.
All of the arab states have condonned wiping Isreal war. See: Yom-kippur war, 6 days war, etc.
The funny thing is that they have it backwards. Alot of Arab states seem to believe that Isreal controls the west, while I would argue that it is infact the west that uses Isreal as a proxy to fight for them in the middle east.
On June 13 2010 02:15 Zionner wrote: I have a bad feeling some serious shit is going to go down soon
lol @ this...
cmon dude, really? were going to war with iran. its going to be somewhere between bad and nuclear holocaust.
ill bet any1 cold hard $$ were (USA + friends) at war with iran within 3 years. ill give 3:1. ill give 1:1 its within 18 months.
I'll take that bet at 1:1 odds with USA + friends, which means what exactly. UN involvement. 2+ countries that we have good relations with at time of war decleration? How much you thinking about betting?
the iranian retaliation would make the world tremble.
What retaliation?
Edit: Let me remind you that even with a fictional nuclear warhead, Iran has no balistic missile capability for striking the US. The US is literally on the other side of the world, and Iran has no intercontinental ballistic missile technology, no nuclear submarines and no bombers capable of reaching the US.
On July 21 2010 03:52 ImFromPortugal wrote: "Russia dismisses Iran, insists pending missile deliveries covered by sanctions (AP)"
so Iran is still vulnerable to any aistrike, the S-300 promised by Russia long ago are not going to be delivered, now the Russian say its because of the sanctions but the deal was made long before any of this happened. The s-300 would boost iranians defense capabilities and make any airstrike by Usa or Israel even more difficult.
"The S-300 is regarded as one of the most potent anti-aircraft missile systems currently fielded [2]. Its radars have the ability to simultaneously track up to 100 targets while engaging up to 12."
In any event, I think that people are too hard on Isreal's strategies and tactics. Look at it this way. If one day a bunch of people from Mexico started lobbing rockets over the US border at US cities, the US would say "WTF YOU STOP THAT RIGHT NOW MEXICO"
If it happened again the US would say "THAT'S IT YOU RETARDS" and invade mexico to take control of the situation. But of course when Isreal does it everyone says "noooooooo it's been going on for decades, you doing stuff now is out of proportion!"
That's because Israel came into Palestine, took it over, then put all of the palestinians in the Gaza Strip and started bulldozing their towns and killing their civilians, then they cry victim when Gaza fights back.
All of the arab states have condonned wiping Isreal war. See: Yom-kippur war, 6 days war, etc.
The funny thing is that they have it backwards. Alot of Arab states seem to believe that Isreal controls the west, while I would argue that it is infact the west that uses Isreal as a proxy to fight for them in the middle east.
On July 21 2010 03:52 ImFromPortugal wrote: "Russia dismisses Iran, insists pending missile deliveries covered by sanctions (AP)"
so Iran is still vulnerable to any aistrike, the S-300 promised by Russia long ago are not going to be delivered, now the Russian say its because of the sanctions but the deal was made long before any of this happened. The s-300 would boost iranians defense capabilities and make any airstrike by Usa or Israel even more difficult.
"The S-300 is regarded as one of the most potent anti-aircraft missile systems currently fielded [2]. Its radars have the ability to simultaneously track up to 100 targets while engaging up to 12."
In any event, I think that people are too hard on Isreal's strategies and tactics. Look at it this way. If one day a bunch of people from Mexico started lobbing rockets over the US border at US cities, the US would say "WTF YOU STOP THAT RIGHT NOW MEXICO"
If it happened again the US would say "THAT'S IT YOU RETARDS" and invade mexico to take control of the situation. But of course when Isreal does it everyone says "noooooooo it's been going on for decades, you doing stuff now is out of proportion!"
That's because Israel came into Palestine, took it over, then put all of the palestinians in the Gaza Strip and started bulldozing their towns and killing their civilians, then they cry victim when Gaza fights back.
It still wouldn't matter. If, for example, the US invaded mexico and hollowed out a new state for themselves, displacing tons of people, and the remaining mexicans started lobbing rockets at the US, there would be no understanding or forgivness or mercy. Just look at what happened with 9/11. Sure, the US has been screwing with the middle east and arab nations as a whole for a long time. But as soon as an attack happens on US home soil, shit will HIT THE FAN and this is accepted by the people as basically saying "OK you can retaliate against our foreign interests, but as soon as you attack our homes, I don't care what has happened in the past. We will obliterate you because we are much, much stronger than you are and you just picked the wrong fight."
I'm not saying it's particuarly moral, or particularly "fair." I'm just saying put yourself in Isreal's shoes and pretend your country was the one being shelled. What would happen.
All of the arab states have condonned wiping Isreal war. See: Yom-kippur war, 6 days war, etc.
The funny thing is that they have it backwards. Alot of Arab states seem to believe that Isreal controls the west, while I would argue that it is infact the west that uses Isreal as a proxy to fight for them in the middle east.
did you saw the vid i posted?
Nope no youtube at work. Care to describe it? Does it refute all of the anti-isreal comments by virtually every Iranian leader for the last 60 years?
On June 13 2010 02:15 Zionner wrote: I have a bad feeling some serious shit is going to go down soon
lol @ this...
cmon dude, really? were going to war with iran. its going to be somewhere between bad and nuclear holocaust.
ill bet any1 cold hard $$ were (USA + friends) at war with iran within 3 years. ill give 3:1. ill give 1:1 its within 18 months.
I'll take that bet at 1:1 odds with USA + friends, which means what exactly. UN involvement. 2+ countries that we have good relations with at time of war decleration? How much you thinking about betting?
the iranian retaliation would make the world tremble.
What retaliation?
Edit: Let me remind you that even with a fictional nuclear warhead, Iran has no balistic missile capability for striking the US. The US is literally on the other side of the world, and Iran has no intercontinental ballistic missile technology, no nuclear submarines and no bombers capable of reaching the US.
Striking the US with missiles? im talking about striking israel with missiles both from Iran , Lebanon and syria, waging a global war with terrorism against the USA and helping the "insurgents" in iraq and afhganistan ?? do you understand that they have ways to strik your country others than using missiles ?
All of the arab states have condonned wiping Isreal war. See: Yom-kippur war, 6 days war, etc.
The funny thing is that they have it backwards. Alot of Arab states seem to believe that Isreal controls the west, while I would argue that it is infact the west that uses Isreal as a proxy to fight for them in the middle east.
did you saw the vid i posted?
Nope no youtube at work. Care to describe it? Does it refute all of the anti-isreal comments by virtually every Iranian leader for the last 60 years?
You know, for part of those 60 years the Iranian leader was a paid puppet of the US government
All of the arab states have condonned wiping Isreal war. See: Yom-kippur war, 6 days war, etc.
The funny thing is that they have it backwards. Alot of Arab states seem to believe that Isreal controls the west, while I would argue that it is infact the west that uses Isreal as a proxy to fight for them in the middle east.
"EVERY TIME WE DO SOMETHING, YOU TELL ME AMERICANS WILL DO THIS AND WILL DO THAT. I WANT TO TELL YOU SOMETHING VERY CLEAR: DON'T WORRY ABOUT AMERICAN PRESSURE ON ISRAEL;
WE, THE JEWISH PEOPLE, CONTROL AMERICA. AND THE AMERICANS KNOW IT."
-- Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon October 3, 2001 (IAP News)
“I know what America is,” Netanyahu replied. “America is a thing you can move very easily, move it in the right direction. They won’t get in their way.” Benjamin Netanyahu 2001
All of the arab states have condonned wiping Isreal war. See: Yom-kippur war, 6 days war, etc.
The funny thing is that they have it backwards. Alot of Arab states seem to believe that Isreal controls the west, while I would argue that it is infact the west that uses Isreal as a proxy to fight for them in the middle east.
did you saw the vid i posted?
Nope no youtube at work. Care to describe it? Does it refute all of the anti-isreal comments by virtually every Iranian leader for the last 60 years?
You know, for part of those 60 years the Iranian leader was a paid puppet of the US government
He seems to have forgotten that part, the cruel regime of the Sha.
On June 13 2010 02:15 Zionner wrote: I have a bad feeling some serious shit is going to go down soon
lol @ this...
cmon dude, really? were going to war with iran. its going to be somewhere between bad and nuclear holocaust.
ill bet any1 cold hard $$ were (USA + friends) at war with iran within 3 years. ill give 3:1. ill give 1:1 its within 18 months.
I'll take that bet at 1:1 odds with USA + friends, which means what exactly. UN involvement. 2+ countries that we have good relations with at time of war decleration? How much you thinking about betting?
the iranian retaliation would make the world tremble.
What retaliation?
Edit: Let me remind you that even with a fictional nuclear warhead, Iran has no balistic missile capability for striking the US. The US is literally on the other side of the world, and Iran has no intercontinental ballistic missile technology, no nuclear submarines and no bombers capable of reaching the US.
Striking the US with missiles? im talking about striking israel with missiles both from Iran , Lebanon and syria, waging a global war with terrorism against the USA and helping the "insurgents" in iraq and afhganistan ?? do you understand that they have ways to strik your country others than using missiles ?
Do you think the US really cares about Isreal except as a proxy? If Isreal got nuked tommorow my reaction would be "looks like we're going to wipe the middle east off the map tommorow".
A global war with terrorism? Don't even make me laugh. Terrorism does very small amounts of damage compared to an actual war. If middle eastern countries directly supported terrorists (which I'm sure the CIA could prove if it were true) then they would immediatly come under the crosshairs of NATO. Except if you push the US people too far, it won't be a war of "liberation" that they will be fighting. It will be a war to cripple these country's ability to fund terrorists. That means massive infrastructure damage. The governments will have no more money to pay terrorists. And then guess what. The US does the most horrible thing imaginable - they leave. The different ethinic groups in the Middle east then proceed to fight over what scraps of civiilization remain, and the entire region decends into chaos.
The only thing that stops this from happening is that American people are fundamentally people who don't want to see lots of others die. So they try and achieve "occupations" of territories and improve the lives of people there. But just imagine what happens if you push these normally nice people too far.
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 Korean but Iran sure is. How many wars has Iran started and how many has America started?
How many times has America said Israel will be wiped out in one great storm? And Iran?
Saying stuff isn't the same as using nukes on human beings. USA is the only country to date to do so. Also I 'hate' Israel government as much as I hate Iran or NK. Israel can be sons of bitches too if they want.
OK, I understand what you're saying. You are saying:
"There should be an eye for an eye."
If Isreal takes land from some people, they should fight back. But then Isreal should have no right to further attack back.
What I am saying is:
"If a 260 pound delta force operative takes an eye from you, you had better not try and take his eye too. Instead, you had better lie down on the ground and hope he does't decide to smash your tiny skull in"
No, might does not make right. But never think that right will save you from might.
On June 13 2010 02:15 Zionner wrote: I have a bad feeling some serious shit is going to go down soon
lol @ this...
cmon dude, really? were going to war with iran. its going to be somewhere between bad and nuclear holocaust.
ill bet any1 cold hard $$ were (USA + friends) at war with iran within 3 years. ill give 3:1. ill give 1:1 its within 18 months.
I'll take that bet at 1:1 odds with USA + friends, which means what exactly. UN involvement. 2+ countries that we have good relations with at time of war decleration? How much you thinking about betting?
the iranian retaliation would make the world tremble.
What retaliation?
Edit: Let me remind you that even with a fictional nuclear warhead, Iran has no balistic missile capability for striking the US. The US is literally on the other side of the world, and Iran has no intercontinental ballistic missile technology, no nuclear submarines and no bombers capable of reaching the US.
Striking the US with missiles? im talking about striking israel with missiles both from Iran , Lebanon and syria, waging a global war with terrorism against the USA and helping the "insurgents" in iraq and afhganistan ?? do you understand that they have ways to strik your country others than using missiles ?
Do you think the US really cares about Isreal except as a proxy? If Isreal got nuked tommorow my reaction would be "looks like we're going to wipe the middle east off the map tommorow".
A global war with terrorism? Don't even make me laugh. Terrorism does very small amounts of damage compared to an actual war. If middle eastern countries directly supported terrorists (which I'm sure the CIA could prove if it were true) then they would immediatly come under the crosshairs of NATO. Except if you push the US people too far, it won't be a war of "liberation" that they will be fighting. It will be a war to cripple these country's ability to fund terrorists. That means massive infrastructure damage. The governments will have no more money to pay terrorists. And then guess what. The US does the most horrible thing imaginable - they leave. The different ethinic groups in the Middle east then proceed to fight over what scraps of civiilization remain, and the entire region decends into chaos.
The only thing that stops this from happening is that American people are fundamentally people who don't want to see lots of others die. So they try and achieve "occupations" of territories and improve the lives of people there. But just imagine what happens if you push these normally nice people too far.
Ofc the USA cares about ISrael , the jewish lobby is very strong, if USA didnt care about israel you wouldnt be gaving them aid and billions off dollars every year. "Terrorism does very small amounts of damage" really ? say that when cars start blowing in your cities, say that to the victims and to the ones that lost family and friends in terrorist acts, what you think would happen if highly trained terrorists started blowing stuff up in new york and other major USA cities? I used the term terrorism because its the only way we can call the direct targetting of civilians.
I'm sure a lot of you would flip out if you knew the Pentagon also had battle plans for how to attack Iran - Like this move by the Saudi government - this is just "Just in case" type of scenario. Really no reason to get your nickers in a twist. If Israel bombs a reactor and Iran stays hush hush, then you know something was up.
Why does Israel have this belief that they were literally promised some of the most bitterly fought over land in the world by god himself? And why does America take them seriously for that belief?
It's like some random guy saying he had a dream where god said he should become the governor of a state so we just let him walk into office without an election.
It's almost like the Israel supporters don't even realize that they (the Israeli's) just walked onto Palestinian land and killed or "relocated" thousands of people and then declared it their own country. What would happen if somebody tried that in the US?
And more on topic i guess, if Israel did actually involve itself in a war with Iran they would find tens of thousands of angry muslims for many different countries streaming across their borders. What they have now can't even be defined as "uneasy" peace but at least while people are holding rallies calling for your destruction they aren't suicide bombing you.
On June 13 2010 02:15 Zionner wrote: I have a bad feeling some serious shit is going to go down soon
lol @ this...
cmon dude, really? were going to war with iran. its going to be somewhere between bad and nuclear holocaust.
ill bet any1 cold hard $$ were (USA + friends) at war with iran within 3 years. ill give 3:1. ill give 1:1 its within 18 months.
I'll take that bet at 1:1 odds with USA + friends, which means what exactly. UN involvement. 2+ countries that we have good relations with at time of war decleration? How much you thinking about betting?
the iranian retaliation would make the world tremble.
What retaliation?
Edit: Let me remind you that even with a fictional nuclear warhead, Iran has no balistic missile capability for striking the US. The US is literally on the other side of the world, and Iran has no intercontinental ballistic missile technology, no nuclear submarines and no bombers capable of reaching the US.
Striking the US with missiles? im talking about striking israel with missiles both from Iran , Lebanon and syria, waging a global war with terrorism against the USA and helping the "insurgents" in iraq and afhganistan ?? do you understand that they have ways to strik your country others than using missiles ?
Do you think the US really cares about Isreal except as a proxy? If Isreal got nuked tommorow my reaction would be "looks like we're going to wipe the middle east off the map tommorow".
A global war with terrorism? Don't even make me laugh. Terrorism does very small amounts of damage compared to an actual war. If middle eastern countries directly supported terrorists (which I'm sure the CIA could prove if it were true) then they would immediatly come under the crosshairs of NATO. Except if you push the US people too far, it won't be a war of "liberation" that they will be fighting. It will be a war to cripple these country's ability to fund terrorists. That means massive infrastructure damage. The governments will have no more money to pay terrorists. And then guess what. The US does the most horrible thing imaginable - they leave. The different ethinic groups in the Middle east then proceed to fight over what scraps of civiilization remain, and the entire region decends into chaos.
The only thing that stops this from happening is that American people are fundamentally people who don't want to see lots of others die. So they try and achieve "occupations" of territories and improve the lives of people there. But just imagine what happens if you push these normally nice people too far.
Ofc the USA cares about ISrael , the jewish lobby is very strong, if USA didnt care about israel you wouldnt be gaving them aid and billions off dollars every year. "Terrorism does very small amounts of damage" really ? say that when cars start blowing in your cities, say that to the victims and to the ones that lost family and friends in terrorist acts, what you think would happen if highly trained terrorists started blowing stuff up in new york and other major USA cities? I used the term terrorism because its the only way we can call the direct targetting of civilians.
Can terrorism prevent the USA from producing nuclear weapons? Can terorism stop the USA from churning out war machiens? Can terrorism stop the USA from producing food? Can terrorism put a serious dent in ANY activity?
Terrorism doesn't do jack all to the actual ability of the USA to make goods and services. It cannot bring the USA down. Meanwhile, the terrorists need money from somewhere. They need food from somewhere. When they can't get it from sponsoring countries that are being invaded and they can't get it form the local people who hate and despise them and their every piece of evidence is being hounded by the FBI, they will not last long.
The very best that terrorism can do is curtail civil liberties and make the US more authoritarian. It cannot save their countries from anhiallation nor can it save their people. All it can do is make life more uncomfortable and alittle bit more dangerous for the US people.
On July 21 2010 05:38 ghermination wrote: Why does Israel have this belief that they were literally promised some of the most bitterly fought over land in the world by god himself? And why does America take them seriously for that belief?
It's like some random guy saying he had a dream where god said he should become the governor of a state so we just let him walk into office without an election.
It's almost like the Israel supporters don't even realize that they (the Israeli's) just walked onto Palestinian land and killed or "relocated" thousands of people and then declared it their own country. What would happen if somebody tried that in the US?
hey pal, you mind reading up on the history of the foundation of israel before you start spouting your mouth off, which is probably just repeating other people's uninformed views?
On July 21 2010 05:38 ghermination wrote: Why does Israel have this belief that they were literally promised some of the most bitterly fought over land in the world by god himself? And why does America take them seriously for that belief?
It's like some random guy saying he had a dream where god said he should become the governor of a state so we just let him walk into office without an election.
It's almost like the Israel supporters don't even realize that they (the Israeli's) just walked onto Palestinian land and killed or "relocated" thousands of people and then declared it their own country. What would happen if somebody tried that in the US?
hey pal, you mind reading up on the history of the foundation of israel before you start spouting your mouth off, which is probably just repeating other people's uninformed views?
On June 13 2010 02:15 Zionner wrote: I have a bad feeling some serious shit is going to go down soon
lol @ this...
cmon dude, really? were going to war with iran. its going to be somewhere between bad and nuclear holocaust.
ill bet any1 cold hard $$ were (USA + friends) at war with iran within 3 years. ill give 3:1. ill give 1:1 its within 18 months.
I'll take that bet at 1:1 odds with USA + friends, which means what exactly. UN involvement. 2+ countries that we have good relations with at time of war decleration? How much you thinking about betting?
the iranian retaliation would make the world tremble.
What retaliation?
Edit: Let me remind you that even with a fictional nuclear warhead, Iran has no balistic missile capability for striking the US. The US is literally on the other side of the world, and Iran has no intercontinental ballistic missile technology, no nuclear submarines and no bombers capable of reaching the US.
Striking the US with missiles? im talking about striking israel with missiles both from Iran , Lebanon and syria, waging a global war with terrorism against the USA and helping the "insurgents" in iraq and afhganistan ?? do you understand that they have ways to strik your country others than using missiles ?
Do you think the US really cares about Isreal except as a proxy? If Isreal got nuked tommorow my reaction would be "looks like we're going to wipe the middle east off the map tommorow".
A global war with terrorism? Don't even make me laugh. Terrorism does very small amounts of damage compared to an actual war. If middle eastern countries directly supported terrorists (which I'm sure the CIA could prove if it were true) then they would immediatly come under the crosshairs of NATO. Except if you push the US people too far, it won't be a war of "liberation" that they will be fighting. It will be a war to cripple these country's ability to fund terrorists. That means massive infrastructure damage. The governments will have no more money to pay terrorists. And then guess what. The US does the most horrible thing imaginable - they leave. The different ethinic groups in the Middle east then proceed to fight over what scraps of civiilization remain, and the entire region decends into chaos.
The only thing that stops this from happening is that American people are fundamentally people who don't want to see lots of others die. So they try and achieve "occupations" of territories and improve the lives of people there. But just imagine what happens if you push these normally nice people too far.
Ofc the USA cares about ISrael , the jewish lobby is very strong, if USA didnt care about israel you wouldnt be gaving them aid and billions off dollars every year. "Terrorism does very small amounts of damage" really ? say that when cars start blowing in your cities, say that to the victims and to the ones that lost family and friends in terrorist acts, what you think would happen if highly trained terrorists started blowing stuff up in new york and other major USA cities? I used the term terrorism because its the only way we can call the direct targetting of civilians.
Can terrorism prevent the USA from producing nuclear weapons? Can terorism stop the USA from churning out war machiens? Can terrorism stop the USA from producing food? Can terrorism put a serious dent in ANY activity?
Terrorism doesn't do jack all to the actual ability of the USA to make goods and services. It cannot bring the USA down. Meanwhile, the terrorists need money from somewhere. They need food from somewhere. When they can't get it from sponsoring countries that are being invaded and they can't get it form the local people who hate and despise them and their every piece of evidence is being hounded by the FBI, they will not last long.
The very best that terrorism can do is curtail civil liberties and make the US more authoritarian. It cannot save their countries from anhiallation nor can it save their people. All it can do is make life more uncomfortable and alittle bit more dangerous for the US people.
Ofc terrorism can do all of that! have you faced actual terrorism lately? im saying that if you infact attack Iran you will sure learn what terrorism really is. If they dont get money from countries who sponsor terrorism they will get from the CIA , "Undoubtedly, the leader of the terrorist group, Abdulmalek Rigi, is in Pakistan, and the members of the group have been trained by some arrogant countries, such as the US and Britain, on Pakistani territory," the commander of the IRGC Ground Forces, Brigadier General Mohammad Pakpour, said.
I have heard the UNEDITED version of the interview with the "President" of Iran. Being Persian myself and fluent in Farsi, I know for a fact that he did not EVER say he wanted to wipe Israel off the map. Someone a page or two before me posted a video of the unedited part of the interview and I listened to what the "President" said and the translation is correct.
Besides that, I in no way support the President at all. The government in Iran is very corrupt. I was born in Iran and I visit almost every summer. The people of Iran are not to blame for anything that is going on now or in the past 60 years. They have tried to vote and tried to form democracy but every time they came even close it was halted by the government or by foreign government ( ). In my opinion, Iran is one of the least hostile nations in the world.
On July 21 2010 06:00 Avid221 wrote: I have heard the UNEDITED version of the interview with the "President" of Iran. Being Persian myself and fluent in Farsi, I know for a fact that he did not EVER say he wanted to wipe Israel off the map. Someone a page or two before me posted a video of the unedited part of the interview and I listened to what the "President" said and the translation is correct.
Besides that, I in no way support the President at all. The government in Iran is very corrupt. I was born in Iran and I visit almost every summer. The people of Iran are not to blame for anything that is going on now or in the past 60 years. They have tried to vote and tried to form democracy but every time they came even close it was halted by the government or by foreign government ( ). In my opinion, Iran is one of the least hostile nations in the world.
that seem to be the problem with American media. i recall CNN was officially banned from operating in Iran because their translation of the Iranian Pres' speech was done to make it more offensive and inflammatory.
the same crap happens with Iraq and NK. personally i m not a big fan of their leaders but obviously the media didnt do their job rite.
On July 21 2010 06:00 Avid221 wrote: I have heard the UNEDITED version of the interview with the "President" of Iran. Being Persian myself and fluent in Farsi, I know for a fact that he did not EVER say he wanted to wipe Israel off the map. Someone a page or two before me posted a video of the unedited part of the interview and I listened to what the "President" said and the translation is correct.
Besides that, I in no way support the President at all. The government in Iran is very corrupt. I was born in Iran and I visit almost every summer. The people of Iran are not to blame for anything that is going on now or in the past 60 years. They have tried to vote and tried to form democracy but every time they came even close it was halted by the government or by foreign government ( ). In my opinion, Iran is one of the least hostile nations in the world.
that seem to be the problem with American media. i recall CNN was officially banned from operating in Iran because their translation of the Iranian Pres' speech was done to make it more offensive and inflammatory.
the same crap happens with Iraq and NK. personally i m not a big fan of their leaders but obviously the media didnt do their job rite.
how ironic is this video now, he was really telling the truth.
On July 21 2010 05:55 ImFromPortugal wrote: Ofc terrorism can do all of that! have you faced actual terrorism lately? im saying that if you infact attack Iran you will sure learn what terrorism really is.
No, it can't. The only thing terrorism does or can do is create fear among a population. In some cases, that may result in popular pressure to stop, say, producing weapons - but that is highly unlikely in the case of the US.
People seem to be under the impression that the backlash against the Iraq war would have shown up regardless. This is false. If the US was under constant and visible terrorist threats, with actual fatalities and damage occurring regularly, there wouldn't be even a remotely significant portion of the population that would be against full on invasions of any country with terrorists present, or even countries where there was suspicion of such.
The reaction of a population to terrorism changes quite radically when that population is in the only remaining superpower on the planet. While many hesitate to admit it, everyone knows that if the US really wanted to, they could do pretty much whatever the fuck they wanted.
Terrorism wont do shit except shift the country rightwards.
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 to hurt anyone limbo, but the only nuclear bombs used against people by any country that has them is the USA.
I certainly wouldn't want any more countries making them, but USA surely would not have won the Japan war without them and the world could have been in a different political mindset.
Anyways the solution to this is to prove definitely that Iran plans to use its nuclear facilities for energy or for nuclear bombs.
On July 21 2010 05:55 ImFromPortugal wrote: Ofc terrorism can do all of that! have you faced actual terrorism lately? im saying that if you infact attack Iran you will sure learn what terrorism really is.
No, it can't. The only thing terrorism does or can do is create fear among a population. In some cases, that may result in popular pressure to stop, say, producing weapons - but that is highly unlikely in the case of the US.
People seem to be under the impression that the backlash against the Iraq war would have shown up regardless. This is false. If the US was under constant and visible terrorist threats, with actual fatalities and damage occurring regularly, there wouldn't be even a remotely significant portion of the population that would be against full on invasions of any country with terrorists present, or even countries where there was suspicion of such.
The reaction of a population to terrorism changes quite radically when that population is in the only remaining superpower on the planet. While many hesitate to admit it, everyone knows that if the US really wanted to, they could do pretty much whatever the fuck they wanted.
Terrorism wont do shit except shift the country rightwards.
Dude im saying if USA attacks Iran the retaliation will be tremendous. I dont think thats the way things work in the world, if you try something stupid the rest of the world will be against you, the public oppinion would make the politics take a strong stance against any country trying to "dominate the world" , so i dont think USA could do wtv they want without a global outcry, and as history shows us all empires fall, its just a matter of time
On July 21 2010 07:57 thehitman wrote: I certainly wouldn't want any more countries making them, but USA surely would not have won the Japan war without them and the world could have been in a different political mindset.
On July 21 2010 05:38 ghermination wrote: Why does Israel have this belief that they were literally promised some of the most bitterly fought over land in the world by god himself? And why does America take them seriously for that belief?
It's like some random guy saying he had a dream where god said he should become the governor of a state so we just let him walk into office without an election.
It's almost like the Israel supporters don't even realize that they (the Israeli's) just walked onto Palestinian land and killed or "relocated" thousands of people and then declared it their own country. What would happen if somebody tried that in the US?
hey pal, you mind reading up on the history of the foundation of israel before you start spouting your mouth off, which is probably just repeating other people's uninformed views?
Uh, what? While he surely isn't the definitive answer to such a philosophical debate as the right to exist of the Israeli state, Noam Chomsky is a guy who i've listened to a lot. His thinking seems to be sound, and i agree with his policies. He's definitely more educated about Israeli history then you or I, so unless you want to call Chomsky "uninformed", then i'm pretty sure that i have a firm basis for my arguments.
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 guy banned for this post?! Anyways the buffer zone removal by Saudis is only going to increase the chances or nuclear war. Having them be afraid of each other without any real advantage is the best way to deal with nuclear threats. If the USSR could nuke USA without taking any casualties i wouldn't be surprised if they took that opportunity.
and as history shows us all empires fall, its just a matter of time
That would be relevant if we were talking about an empire.
I think that bases allover the world in strategical points , influence in countries in all the Continents , and waging wars for profit and resources are the actions of an empire, there are many ways of controlling countries and their resouces, american doesnt need to invade to get what they want
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 guy banned for this post?! Anyways the buffer zone removal by Saudis is only going to increase the chances or nuclear war. Having them be afraid of each other without any real advantage is the best way to deal with nuclear threats. If the USSR could nuke USA without taking any casualties i wouldn't be surprised if they took that opportunity.
He was banned more for the entirety of his posts in this thread. That was just the thread that broke the camel's back. It may be strange to see him banned for a specific post, but if you consider all of his posts, he deserved the ban.
On July 21 2010 10:10 ImFromPortugal wrote: I think that bases allover the world in strategical points , influence in countries in all the Continents ,
Quite different from being an empire.
and waging wars for profit and resources are the actions of an empire,
I cannot understand how people can still believe nonsense like this.
there are many ways of controlling countries and their resouces, american doesnt need to invade to get what they want
Then it doesn't share the same vulnerabilities as an empire.
On July 21 2010 10:10 ImFromPortugal wrote: I think that bases allover the world in strategical points , influence in countries in all the Continents ,
there are many ways of controlling countries and their resouces, american doesnt need to invade to get what they want
Then it doesn't share the same vulnerabilities as an empire.
Modern empires my friend the world changes , the empire adapts : ) Which other reason you had to invade iraq? other than the israeli lobby.. resources and strategical country to have troops and bases. "Then it doesn't share the same vulnerabilities as an empire" it falls the same way, internal implosion economic chaos.
"Then it doesn't share the same vulnerabilities as an empire" it falls the same way, internal implosion economic chaos.
Not if it adapted.
THe empires have their time , a new empire arises and to stay in power it as to adapt to the world, see hitler for example he gained the trust of the people using the jews as scapegoats for the economical problem of Germany, he "hypnotized" the masses with dellusions of grandeur, and made them believe it was for the greater good of the nation. -> Empire rises feeding of the dreams and fears of the people, adapting to their needs and expanding for pure greed or madness.
Saudi Arabia supports terrorists and havent been invaded yet ^^
1980s: Iraq
CNN found that intervention is often weighed against political and economic costs.
"Declassified U.S. government documents show that while Saddam Hussein was gassing Iraqi Kurds, the U.S. opposed punishing Iraq with a trade embargo because it was cultivating Iraq as an ally against Iran and as a market for U.S. farm exports."
All friends until...its time to go...then they are monsters and support terrorism.
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?
I certainly wouldn't want any more countries making them, but USA surely would not have won the Japan war without them and the world could have been in a different political mindset.
What? I'm sorry but you're completely wrong on this point. Do some research beyond just what they teach you in elementary school. Japan had already lost their main army forces in Russia as well as lost control of China before the US dropped the bomb. In fact, Japan was already in the state of sending it's surrender to the Soviets which was what prompted the dropping of the bomb. As mentioned there, the US role in WWII is severely overstated in most American textbooks. I'd argue their most significant contribution was Normandy and D-Day with Battle of Midway being a significant achievement in the Pacific theater. Beyond that though, by and large, WWII was won by the resistance efforts of England and the massive manpower the Soviets had to offer. Also the fact that Japan had to stretch it's lines so thinly just to cover the Chinese coast added to the maxim "never fight a land war in Asia". It was very much argued that Hitler's sole and costliest mistake was breaking the alliance with Stalin and choosing to shift the Luftwafte to bomb civilian targets in London rather than keep up the pressure on the RAF.
Which other reason you had to invade iraq? other than the israeli lobby.. resources and strategical country to have troops and bases.
Getting rid of Hussein, fun, he actually did support terrorists even if not necessarily the "right" ones.
the USA sponsored way more terrorist programs than Saddam. using this excuse to remove Saddam is just the pot calling the kettle black. especially when Saddam was once a puppet of the USA.
Which other reason you had to invade iraq? other than the israeli lobby.. resources and strategical country to have troops and bases.
Getting rid of Hussein, fun, he actually did support terrorists even if not necessarily the "right" ones.
the USA sponsored way more terrorist programs than Saddam. using this excuse to remove Saddam is just the pot calling the kettle black. especially when Saddam was once a puppet of the USA.
Nobody cares about guerilla warfare tactics. The very fact that the US is being attacked by terrorists establishes all the justification needed there.
Which other reason you had to invade iraq? other than the israeli lobby.. resources and strategical country to have troops and bases.
Getting rid of Hussein, fun, he actually did support terrorists even if not necessarily the "right" ones.
the USA sponsored way more terrorist programs than Saddam. using this excuse to remove Saddam is just the pot calling the kettle black. especially when Saddam was once a puppet of the USA.
Nobody cares about guerilla warfare tactics. The very fact that the US is being attacked by terrorists establishes all the justification needed there.
Your point?
i've heard some accusations that Saddam had ties with various underground groups. but if you are referring to the Sep 11, 2001 attack on USA, then i have no idea what you are talking about.
AFAIK, Saddam had no participation in the 9/11 attack nor was he a sponsor of Bin Laden or Al Qaeda.
besides, the USA funded Al Qaeda anyways..... so why not arrest those very same Americans who were in fact responsible behind 9/11.
"Then it doesn't share the same vulnerabilities as an empire" it falls the same way, internal implosion economic chaos.
Not if it adapted.
lol @ hussein point.
saddam was a united states strategic asset in the middle east back when at the height of his power, he was using chemical weapons and 100,000s of troops against iran....using american and european economic and military aid. he gassed kurds and shook hands with US officials.
he only became a problem when he tried to take kuwait. that was a big no no because kuwait had lots and lots of oil just like iraq and had a coast. the US could not allow that to happen...so they went in, fucked up iraq's army and economy and left saddam in power for another 10 years because they could still use him to keep iran in check and keep the lid on those crazy iran loving shiite majority that saddam had beaten into submission.
I'm going to speak as a fair Canadian citizen who is not engulfed with nationalism. I do not think Canadians should be criticizing the U.S. for the things they've done, because of the benefits that we are receiving from neighboring the U.S. The only reason that we are not paying alot more taxes than we should be, if the U.S. was not our neighbor, is because we are dependent on the military might of our superpower neighbor. U.S. spends trillions of dollars on their military, while Canadians spend very, very little. Why? We have the U.S. as our support. Due to this minimal military budget, Canadians are able to enjoy a great lifestyle with both relatively low taxes, and an aspect of democratic socialism which provides Universal Healthcare to everyone. So, to all the Canadians that are criticizing the U.S. for the "shits" they've done, please think about the benefits that they are bringing us next time we start bashing the U.S.
in regards to your comment, I live in Canada too. AFAIK, Canada has made significant security contributions to the world stage in its peacekeeping mission. where as the USA has been delinquent in contributing its fair share of fees to pay the on going peace mission.
Also the USA is the largest seller of weapons, some of these weapons were later used in acts which are questionable or outright immoral.
In fact, USA sold weapons to Saddam-era Iraq and Israel, apparently both sides of the Arab-Israeli conflict.
On July 21 2010 14:51 renzy wrote: I'm going to speak as a fair Canadian citizen who is not engulfed with nationalism. I do not think Canadians should be criticizing the U.S. for the things they've done, because of the benefits that we are receiving from neighboring the U.S. The only reason that we are not paying alot more taxes than we should be, if the U.S. was not our neighbor, is because we are dependent on the military might of our superpower neighbor. U.S. spends trillions of dollars on their military, while Canadians spend very, very little. Why? We have the U.S. as our support. Due to this minimal military budget, Canadians are able to enjoy a great lifestyle with both relatively low taxes, and an aspect of democratic socialism which provides Universal Healthcare to everyone. So, to all the Canadians that are criticizing the U.S. for the "shits" they've done, please think about the benefits that they are bringing us next time we start bashing the U.S.
I appreciate the call for awareness and gratefulness for what we do have. We are truly lucky in a sense, but so is every being on earth for SOMETHING. Our relationship with America is purely diplomatic. They have hands in our pockets as well. There's no need to be bowing to international policy. We fought for this. I'll fight everyday but it has to be the right fight! I think it's righteous to scrutinize war mongering.
I think that most of the modern spending on wars has been anything but beneficial to the human state, imo its all big business affairs. It's not really about being a "great" nation. Vietnam? Iraq? Afghanistan? Why? Now they're pushing for Iran. Haven't these proven to be lies and failures yet the ball keeps rolling. All it takes is being somewhat content with our condition and we become complacent with our politicians.
Which other reason you had to invade iraq? other than the israeli lobby.. resources and strategical country to have troops and bases.
Getting rid of Hussein, fun, he actually did support terrorists even if not necessarily the "right" ones.
No he didnt. He actually was an asshole dictator who terrorized and killed his own population with poison gas and secret police and such and who sent a few hundred thousands of them to die in a pointless war on behalf of the USA after Iran threw out the Shah.
If you are so sure about the terrorists Saddam supported then name the groups ... and please dont make it AlQaeda, because that is proven to have been a lie by George W. Bush. The CIA supported so many dictatorial regimes since its founding that you might argue that the USA is a bigger supporter of terrorism than any dictator ever was.
So it is a good thing Saddam is gone, but the reasons given were wrong ... AND the US Army did so many irreversible things there that I can;t say if it was good or bad that he was removed. - "Oh, a bunch of sand dunes? Lets build a parking lot and dont mind the fact that its the archaeological ruins of old Babylon you are destroying there." Source - Did you ever wonder where the song On ebay got its inspiration from? From the fact that the US Army rather secured destroyed water and power control than the unique cultural heritage in the museums in Baghdad. As a result looters broke into the museums and sold the unique pieces on ebay. It is this ignorance which makes the US Army a bad world police ... because they destroy a lot in the process of "saving a populace".
so when will people understand that there is no good side or bad side in this whole pre-ww3 dilemma
every govt has their own personal agendas and we the people are not in their priorities.
and WHEN THE FUCK will you people stop misquoting ahmadinejad? he never said "wipe out israel" holy fuck, talking about getting baited into media propaganda. ahmadinejad is a powerless idiot, he doesnt run iran and ur fooling urself if u think he does.
"The Zionist regime will be wiped out soon the same way the Soviet Union was, and humanity will achieve freedom. Jews, Christians and Muslims so the population of Palestine can select their government and destiny for themselves in a democratic manner." Ahmadinejad "says explicitly that he does not want to annihilate Israel,"
On July 21 2010 16:17 buKe wrote: so when will people understand that there is no good side or bad side in this whole pre-ww3 dilemma
every govt has their own personal agendas and we the people are not in their priorities.
and WHEN THE FUCK will you people stop misquoting ahmadinejad? he never said "wipe out israel" holy fuck, talking about getting baited into media propaganda. ahmadinejad is a powerless idiot, he doesnt run iran and ur fooling urself if u think he does.
"The Zionist regime will be wiped out soon the same way the Soviet Union was, and humanity will achieve freedom. Jews, Christians and Muslims so the population of Palestine can select their government and destiny for themselves in a democratic manner." Ahmadinejad "says explicitly that he does not want to annihilate Israel,"
imo, all those reporters for FoxNews should be sent to Iran for swimming lessons and questioning.
sadly, The Daily Show is actually one of the more reliable news sources in USA.
I'd rather not see them in the hands of the somewhat erratic north korean government. But there's nothing to indicate that Iran would be less responsible with nukes than for example israel would be/is. In fact i think it would be safer with Iran having nukes and not Israel, Israel would no doubt push the button if things got ugly.
On July 21 2010 16:17 buKe wrote: so when will people understand that there is no good side or bad side in this whole pre-ww3 dilemma
every govt has their own personal agendas and we the people are not in their priorities.
and WHEN THE FUCK will you people stop misquoting ahmadinejad? he never said "wipe out israel" holy fuck, talking about getting baited into media propaganda. ahmadinejad is a powerless idiot, he doesnt run iran and ur fooling urself if u think he does.
"The Zionist regime will be wiped out soon the same way the Soviet Union was, and humanity will achieve freedom. Jews, Christians and Muslims so the population of Palestine can select their government and destiny for themselves in a democratic manner." Ahmadinejad "says explicitly that he does not want to annihilate Israel,"
imo, all those reporters for FoxNews should be sent to Iran for swimming lessons and questioning.
sadly, The Daily Show is actually one of the more reliable news sources in USA.
Please please please,
The Daily Show is NOT a news source. Shouldn't be taken any more then a comedy show.
Stewart and other Daily Show writers have responded to both criticisms by saying that they do not have any journalistic responsibility and that as comedians their only duty is to provide entertainment. Stewart's appearance on the CNN show "Crossfire" outlined this debate, where he chastised the CNN production and hosts for not conducting informative and current interviews on a news network.
And do not take this comment in a vacuum, the guy has a history of outlandish speech towards Jews.
It does matter if this guy is in a position of "power". He is THEIR SPOKESPERSON, he represents THEM (not the people, but the government).
nttea,
The UN does not agree with you, on this. A good amount of countries do not agree that Iran can be peaceful with nuclear weapons. Note that they are not against helping the country get Nuclear power, but want it to be crystal clear.
On July 21 2010 15:38 Rabiator wrote: No he didnt. He actually was an asshole dictator who terrorized and killed his own population with poison gas and secret police and such and who sent a few hundred thousands of them to die in a pointless war on behalf of the USA after Iran threw out the Shah.
Yes, he did. He had a standing policy of paying $10k to the families of suicide bombers after a bombing.
If you are so sure about the terrorists Saddam supported then name the groups ... and please dont make it AlQaeda, because that is proven to have been a lie by George W. Bush. The CIA supported so many dictatorial regimes since its founding that you might argue that the USA is a bigger supporter of terrorism than any dictator ever was.
And even if thats true you still don't have a point.
- Did you ever wonder where the song On ebay got its inspiration from? From the fact that the US Army rather secured destroyed water and power control than the unique cultural heritage in the museums in Baghdad. As a result looters broke into the museums and sold the unique pieces on ebay. It is this ignorance which makes the US Army a bad world police ... because they destroy a lot in the process of "saving a populace".
Yep, if I was stuck in a building in the middle of a warzone, without water or power, I'd sure be thinking "by golly I hope our UNIQUE CULTURAL HERITAGE is safe!".
No, wait, I'm not retarded. And nor is the army. Its a fucking war, you don't secure museums in a war.
On July 21 2010 16:57 angelicfolly wrote: Please please please,
The Daily Show is NOT a news source. Shouldn't be taken any more then a comedy show.
dats the irony to it.
the daily show pride itself as a comedy show delivering fake news, yet they are doing a better job a providing facts than their "leading competitor" - FoxNews.
a good number of FoxNews viewers still believe that... 1. Saddam has ties to Al Qaeda 2. There is WMD in Iraq 3. Obama was not born in the USA. [O RLY????] and more...
Anything that doesn't have significance in winning really doesn't matter no matter how much you would like it. That said, all that matters is the value that it brings to the table in war.
On July 21 2010 17:06 dybydx wrote: 2. There is WMD in Iraq
Just to be pedantic, you realize that the the only claim that actually matters is that there were, and until you start specifying specific sections of time it is patently true that there were, right?
On July 21 2010 16:57 angelicfolly wrote: Please please please,
The Daily Show is NOT a news source. Shouldn't be taken any more then a comedy show.
dats the irony to it.
the daily show pride itself as a comedy show delivering fake news, yet they are doing a better job a providing facts than their "leading competitor" - FoxNews.
a good number of FoxNews viewers still believe that... 1. Saddam has ties to Al Qaeda 2. There is WMD in Iraq 3. Obama was not born in the USA. [O RLY????] and more...
I can play this game too, if you want...
But I tend to stick to BACK UP MY POINTS, if you know what I mean.
Hum this is kind of relevant i guess, only confirms what most people believe but still
There is one video Benjamin Netanyahu, the Israeli prime minister, must be praying never gets posted on YouTube with English subtitles. To date, the 10-minute segment has been broadcast only in Hebrew on Israel’s Channel 10.
Its contents, however, threaten to gravely embarrass not only Netanyahu but also the US administration of Barack Obama.
The film was shot, apparently without Netanyahu’s knowledge, nine years ago, when the government of Ariel Sharon had started reinvading the main cities of the West Bank to crush Palestinian resistance in the early stages of the second intifada.
On July 21 2010 16:57 angelicfolly wrote: Please please please,
The Daily Show is NOT a news source. Shouldn't be taken any more then a comedy show.
dats the irony to it.
the daily show pride itself as a comedy show delivering fake news, yet they are doing a better job a providing facts than their "leading competitor" - FoxNews.
a good number of FoxNews viewers still believe that... 1. Saddam has ties to Al Qaeda 2. There is WMD in Iraq 3. Obama was not born in the USA. [O RLY????] and more...
I can play this game too, if you want...
But I tend to stick to BACK UP MY POINTS, if you know what I mean.
On July 21 2010 16:57 angelicfolly wrote: Please please please,
The Daily Show is NOT a news source. Shouldn't be taken any more then a comedy show.
dats the irony to it.
the daily show pride itself as a comedy show delivering fake news, yet they are doing a better job a providing facts than their "leading competitor" - FoxNews.
a good number of FoxNews viewers still believe that... 1. Saddam has ties to Al Qaeda 2. There is WMD in Iraq 3. Obama was not born in the USA. [O RLY????] and more...
I can play this game too, if you want...
But I tend to stick to BACK UP MY POINTS, if you know what I mean.
This is NOT what was asked of you. Giving me a wiki page without any indication that the information is on there, is lazy, and shows you really don't know what your talking about. Which is futher componded by this little statment in the wiki to several of those points I had to find myself.
PIPA issued a clarification on October 17, 2003, stating that "The findings were not meant to and cannot be used as a basis for making broad judgments about the general accuracy of the reporting of various networks or the general accuracy of the beliefs of those who get their news from those networks. Only a substantially more comprehensive study could undertake such broad research questions," and that the results of the poll show correlation, but do not prove causation
Also while you're at it, read up on that little section.
I don't know why you linked me to a wiki article about the Daily Show, because like posted above the audience is irrelevant here. My point also still stands about the actual purpose of the show.
On June 13 2010 02:08 Monst3r wrote: Why would Saudi Arabia do such a thing.
B/c Saudi Arabia is Sunni Muslim and Iran is Shiite. Saudi Arabia and Iran are the two major powers in the middle east and the decline of one would mean the rise of the other.
On June 13 2010 02:08 Monst3r wrote: Why would Saudi Arabia do such a thing.
B/c Saudi Arabia is Sunni Muslim and Iran is Shiite. Saudi Arabia and Iran are the two major powers in the middle east and the decline of one would mean the rise of the other.
On June 13 2010 02:08 Monst3r wrote: Why would Saudi Arabia do such a thing.
B/c Saudi Arabia is Sunni Muslim and Iran is Shiite. Saudi Arabia and Iran are the two major powers in the middle east and the decline of one would mean the rise of the other.
Not North Korea but Iran sure is. How many wars has Iran started and how many has America started?
Eh forgive me if i wrong but the only war America actually started was the Revolutionary War, and the Mexican American War, which was mostly about land.
Spanish American war = Was started because the Spanish sank the USS Maine WW1 = America got involved because of the sinking of the USS Lusitania WW2 = Pearl Harbor, need i say more. Korea = America entered to suport democracy in South Korea. (never actually declared a war) Vietnam = America entered to support Democracy once again. (never actually declared a war) Desert Storm (First war in Iraq) = Saddams hooligans were stealing all kuwaits shit, thats about it. Afganistan/Iraq = 9/11, as a member of the military, I'm saying this, not sure if we should be there or not but i support everyone who goes over because I myself have a 7 month tour under my belt and know what its like. and lets face it.. Saddam was an utter piece of shit and deserves every bit he got.
Not North Korea but Iran sure is. How many wars has Iran started and how many has America started?
Eh forgive me if i wrong but the only war America actually started was the Revolutionary War, and the Mexican American War, which was mostly about land.
Spanish American war = Was started because the Spanish sank the USS Maine WW1 = America got involved because of the sinking of the USS Lusitania WW2 = Pearl Harbor, need i say more. Korea = America entered to suport democracy in South Korea. (never actually declared a war) Vietnam = America entered to support Democracy once again. (never actually declared a war) Desert Storm (First war in Iraq) = Saddams hooligans were stealing all kuwaits shit, thats about it. Afganistan/Iraq = 9/11, as a member of the military, I'm saying this, not sure if we should be there or not but i support everyone who goes over because I myself have a 7 month tour under my belt and know what its like. and lets face it.. Saddam was an utter piece of shit and deserves every bit he got.
Sad to say, But Iraq was started by us. I do believe intentions where good, but we still started that war.
On June 13 2010 02:08 Monst3r wrote: Why would Saudi Arabia do such a thing.
B/c Saudi Arabia is Sunni Muslim and Iran is Shiite. Saudi Arabia and Iran are the two major powers in the middle east and the decline of one would mean the rise of the other.
Not North Korea but Iran sure is. How many wars has Iran started and how many has America started?
Eh forgive me if i wrong but the only war America actually started was the Revolutionary War, and the Mexican American War, which was mostly about land.
Spanish American war = Was started because the Spanish sank the USS Maine WW1 = America got involved because of the sinking of the USS Lusitania WW2 = Pearl Harbor, need i say more. Korea = America entered to suport democracy in South Korea. (never actually declared a war) Vietnam = America entered to support Democracy once again. (never actually declared a war) Desert Storm (First war in Iraq) = Saddams hooligans were stealing all kuwaits shit, thats about it. Afganistan/Iraq = 9/11, as a member of the military, I'm saying this, not sure if we should be there or not but i support everyone who goes over because I myself have a 7 month tour under my belt and know what its like. and lets face it.. Saddam was an utter piece of shit and deserves every bit he got.
So kuwaits "shit" is your shit ?LOL what Iraq had to do with 911? And lets not forget the sponsored coupes and overthrowing of elected governments in south America, and the proxy wars in África ex: Angola.
Not North Korea but Iran sure is. How many wars has Iran started and how many has America started?
Eh forgive me if i wrong but the only war America actually started was the Revolutionary War, and the Mexican American War, which was mostly about land.
Spanish American war = Was started because the Spanish sank the USS Maine WW1 = America got involved because of the sinking of the USS Lusitania WW2 = Pearl Harbor, need i say more. Korea = America entered to suport democracy in South Korea. (never actually declared a war) Vietnam = America entered to support Democracy once again. (never actually declared a war) Desert Storm (First war in Iraq) = Saddams hooligans were stealing all kuwaits shit, thats about it. Afganistan/Iraq = 9/11, as a member of the military, I'm saying this, not sure if we should be there or not but i support everyone who goes over because I myself have a 7 month tour under my belt and know what its like. and lets face it.. Saddam was an utter piece of shit and deserves every bit he got.
Sad to say, But Iraq was started by us. I do believe intentions where good, but we still started that war.
And also, Saddam was not the one paying for what he had done, the people of Iraq was. Sure, he deserved to get brought to justice like he was, but all of the innocent people killed in Iraq can never EVER be justified.
And also, Saddam was not the one paying for what he had done, the people of Iraq was. Sure, he deserved to get brought to justice like he was, but all of the innocent people killed in Iraq can never EVER be justified.
Are you saying the innocents that were killed by Saddam or the innocents killed by US Troops? Because you have no clue how scary it is to be on patrol in Iraq not knowing who is who, War is fuckin terrible and causes the deaths of many innocents either purposely or not.
Ex: I was on post manning a checkpoint and this women came running at us screaming and we could see something under her robe or dress w/e they call them, it was bulging out We gave warnings, and followed our SOP. my finger was on the trigger and i was shaking.. at the last second and i mean the LAST second she pulls her baby out of her robes, if she had done that maybe 5 seconds later we would have killed a child and mother... thats every day shit over there. It's a different war over there than we're used to. We have no idea who's on our side and who isn't. and thats the main problem.
On July 22 2010 03:21 Kalpman wrote: And also, Saddam was not the one paying for what he had done, the people of Iraq was. Sure, he deserved to get brought to justice like he was, but all of the innocent people killed in Iraq can never EVER be justified.
Not North Korea but Iran sure is. How many wars has Iran started and how many has America started?
Eh forgive me if i wrong but the only war America actually started was the Revolutionary War, and the Mexican American War, which was mostly about land.
Spanish American war = Was started because the Spanish sank the USS Maine WW1 = America got involved because of the sinking of the USS Lusitania WW2 = Pearl Harbor, need i say more. Korea = America entered to suport democracy in South Korea. (never actually declared a war) Vietnam = America entered to support Democracy once again. (never actually declared a war) Desert Storm (First war in Iraq) = Saddams hooligans were stealing all kuwaits shit, thats about it. Afganistan/Iraq = 9/11, as a member of the military, I'm saying this, not sure if we should be there or not but i support everyone who goes over because I myself have a 7 month tour under my belt and know what its like. and lets face it.. Saddam was an utter piece of shit and deserves every bit he got.
You're missing a few wars/points there.
1812: Not started by the US Spanish American War: Was started actually because US has been offering support to revolting colonies and encouraging areas to revolt. WW1: Not started by the US. However, US involvement was heavily in favored for the Allied side previous to the sinking of the Lusitania. WW2: Similar, though Pearl Harbor occurred due to US cutting off Japan's demands for oil, etc. However, both WW's, US involvement was IMO justified. Korean War: Not started by the US as I believe NK invaded SK first. Vietnam: Started by the US. Desert Storm: US actually gave support to Saddam as Kuwait was actually siphoning Iraqi oil. It was only after we realized that giving Saddam Kuwait would lead to Iraq being too strong in the Middle East when we did a 180. Afgan/Iraq: Speaks for itself.
I've seen enough. This debate has turned into drivel where people think they can just post a Wikipedia or Youtube link in order to prove a point in what's actually a complex discussion. As a result, a lot of things are being incorrectly assumed. The original topic is dead. Maybe I'll bring it back in the extremely off-chance an attack actually does occur soon.
By the way, we did provoke the War of 1812. Get your US History straight.
Republicans in the US House of Representatives have introduced a measure that would green-light a possible Israeli bombing campaign against Iran.
Resolution 1553 provides explicit support for military strikes against Iran, stating that Congress backs Israel's use of 'all means necessary' against Iran, "including the use of military force," BBC Persian reported.
"H.Res.1553 - Expressing support for the State of Israel's right to defend Israeli sovereignty, to protect the lives and safety of the Israeli people, and to use all means necessary to confront and eliminate nuclear threats posed by the Islamic Republic of Iran, including the use of military force if no other peaceful solution can be found within reasonable time to protect against such an immediate and existential threat to the State of Israel."
1. This is a terrible resolution. Many of the things cited are false or questionable.
2. This is just a resolution. Lots of resolutions get introduced and lots get passed. They usually don't mean anything by themselves. The 4 points outlined are that the US 1) condemns Iran's threats against Israel, 2) supports all means of persuading the Iranian government not to build or pursue nuclear weapons, 3) reaffirms support of Israel and 4) expresses support for Israel to use military force to protect its people if no other peaceful solution can be found within a reasonable time.
If that sounds familiar, it'd because it is. It's what various members of the government have been saying for a decade, and it's conclusions are essentially reasonable, except that the premise is questionable (that Iran will attack Israel.)
So what to think about this? Not sure. It doesn't actually do anything. Sometimes resolutions are used as a way to appear hard on an issue, while actually doing nothing. "We think ______ should be done, but we're not actually going to do ______." In this case, it's probably just a tool for domestic politics. Tehran certainly won't care, because we've been saying all of these things for a while, and Jerusalem won't care, for that very same reason and because they don't really care what the House FRC thinks. It might be telling that instead of talking about doing something, they've just been talking about talking about doing something.
I find it a bit laughable that its characterized as a green light for the bombing to begin. The green light for the bombing to begin is the Pentagon giving them a green light for the bombing to begin. Israel would not wait for US Congress to make a decision, in order to protect its own citizens.
On July 25 2010 01:08 ImFromPortugal wrote: I think the question arises: What they are waiting for ?
An opportunity perhaps? Something big enough to distract the rest of the world so they avoid public scrutiny. Get in, destroy key targets, get out, blame it all on a freak accident.
I find it very disconcerting that Russia is providing Iran with mobile Anti-air defense. Whose side are they on, and how would they react to an invasion of Iran?
On July 25 2010 01:08 ImFromPortugal wrote: I think the question arises: What they are waiting for ?
An opportunity perhaps? Something big enough to distract the rest of the world so they avoid public scrutiny. Get in, destroy key targets, get out, blame it all on a freak accident.
I find it very disconcerting that Russia is providing Iran with mobile Anti-air defense. Whose side are they on, and how would they react to an invasion of Iran?
Russia is still in absolutely no position to be on anyones side in anything. Their economy is still not functioning after the turmoils of the 90s. Diplomatically their name is still worth something but they'd have trouble intervening in a war involving a great power, let alone a superpower.
On July 25 2010 01:08 ImFromPortugal wrote: I think the question arises: What they are waiting for ?
An opportunity perhaps? Something big enough to distract the rest of the world so they avoid public scrutiny. Get in, destroy key targets, get out, blame it all on a freak accident.
I find it very disconcerting that Russia is providing Iran with mobile Anti-air defense. Whose side are they on, and how would they react to an invasion of Iran?
"Russian officials confirm Iran sanctions block S-300 missile sale "
The new round of UN sanctions against Iran rule out Russia's delivery of S-300 missile defense systems to the Islamic Republic, Russian officials concluded in a report published on Friday.
"An analysis of the provisions of the UN Security Council Resolution 1929 adopted on June 9, 2010, conducted by the FSMTC experts, shows that the restrictive measures contained in the document apply to the delivery of S-300 air defense systems to Iran as well," the Federal Service on Military-Technical Cooperation said on Friday.
God the world is getting a scary place, with the confligt to be in edge of war: Israel - iran, North korea-, Venezuela - cuba? Turkey - North iraq, war in afghanistan and iraq.
Every time someone talks about war, that stuff reminds me of the movie "The Book of Eli" about a post apocalyptic world where there is now laws. Kinda creepy as everyone would get screwed over with no laws or society :O
On July 25 2010 00:43 ImFromPortugal wrote: UPDATE: Resolution 1553 Source
"Whereas the United States and Israel have a special friendship based on shared values, and together share the common goal of peace and security in the Middle-East;" Wow, that's a load off my mind! For a few decades there I thought that The American state was a ruthless money making machine for the private jet-class. I thought that the US policy was allowing nuclear proliferation when it suited them and I thought that the US was intent on constantly undermining peace and security all over the world. I have to say, I am relieved to know that for years I have been living in a fantasy world. God, lordy, lordy, lord. I was blind and now I see. Reading the American press..listening to politicians and government officials.. I just feel like cumming out of every pore of my body. Pleeeeeaaasse, try contain your great rulers. The button is located in Washington, not in Israel. This isn't going to end until you make it stop. I know it sounds naive, but it should be possible in a quasi-democracy. I'm not American so there's very little I can do to stop the misery machine. If I did live there I'd probably stop paying (part of my) taxes.
On July 25 2010 01:08 ImFromPortugal wrote: I think the question arises: What they are waiting for ?
An opportunity perhaps? Something big enough to distract the rest of the world so they avoid public scrutiny. Get in, destroy key targets, get out, blame it all on a freak accident.
I find it very disconcerting that Russia is providing Iran with mobile Anti-air defense. Whose side are they on, and how would they react to an invasion of Iran?
Russia is still in absolutely no position to be on anyones side in anything. Their economy is still not functioning after the turmoils of the 90s. Diplomatically their name is still worth something but they'd have trouble intervening in a war involving a great power, let alone a superpower.
Well, I guess it all depends on their relationship with China then. If China were to ever side with them, we'd be screwed.
With all this BS and the North Korea thing I think were closer to WW3 than ever except now we have more weapons that will cause pain and suffering to MORE people than ever. This is so sad... My heart goes out to the innocent people who have to go through this BS every year and whose family members are accidentally killed due to government provocations. So sad...
On July 25 2010 01:08 ImFromPortugal wrote: I think the question arises: What they are waiting for ?
An opportunity perhaps? Something big enough to distract the rest of the world so they avoid public scrutiny. Get in, destroy key targets, get out, blame it all on a freak accident.
I find it very disconcerting that Russia is providing Iran with mobile Anti-air defense. Whose side are they on, and how would they react to an invasion of Iran?
Russia is still in absolutely no position to be on anyones side in anything. Their economy is still not functioning after the turmoils of the 90s. Diplomatically their name is still worth something but they'd have trouble intervening in a war involving a great power, let alone a superpower.
Well, I guess it all depends on their relationship with China then. If China were to ever side with them, we'd be screwed.
Well they would be screwed too, both sides would get f'd up.
On July 25 2010 08:11 ckw wrote: With all this BS and the North Korea thing I think were closer to WW3 than ever except now we have more weapons that will cause pain and suffering to MORE people than ever. This is so sad... My heart goes out to the innocent people who have to go through this BS every year and whose family members are accidentally killed due to government provocations. So sad...
It's just a window. Once Cold war era politicians leave office in both the US and Russia relations will be alot easier, and the threat will slow down on that front, as well as most of asia, as the two powers could actually work together.
On July 25 2010 04:11 Bambooca wrote: God the world is getting a scary place, with the confligt to be in edge of war: Israel - iran, North korea-, Venezuela - cuba? Turkey - North iraq, war in afghanistan and iraq.
Agreed. And somehow the US and Israel are often painted as an evil force. Europe has to step up its game and start playing a more important role in creating a safer and freer world b/c the U.S. and Israel by themselves for sure won't be able to do it.
All this self hate that's so prevalent in the west really reminds me of the appeasement prior to WWII. We have to learn how to be more proud of ourselves and remember that although we are imperfect we are at least trying to move humanity towards a better direction.
On July 25 2010 00:43 ImFromPortugal wrote: UPDATE:
House OK's possible Israeli raid on Iran
Republicans in the US House of Representatives have introduced a measure that would green-light a possible Israeli bombing campaign against Iran.
Resolution 1553 provides explicit support for military strikes against Iran, stating that Congress backs Israel's use of 'all means necessary' against Iran, "including the use of military force," BBC Persian reported.
OMFG.... the Americans arnt even out of Iraq and now they are gonna f'ck up Iran?
On July 25 2010 00:43 ImFromPortugal wrote: UPDATE:
House OK's possible Israeli raid on Iran
Republicans in the US House of Representatives have introduced a measure that would green-light a possible Israeli bombing campaign against Iran.
Resolution 1553 provides explicit support for military strikes against Iran, stating that Congress backs Israel's use of 'all means necessary' against Iran, "including the use of military force," BBC Persian reported.
OMFG.... the Americans arnt even out of Iraq and now they are gonna f'ck up Iran?
America is a failed democracy. >.<
Democracy is not necessarily the same thing as pacifistic lol. That's a false conclusion.
On July 25 2010 00:43 ImFromPortugal wrote: UPDATE:
House OK's possible Israeli raid on Iran
Republicans in the US House of Representatives have introduced a measure that would green-light a possible Israeli bombing campaign against Iran.
Resolution 1553 provides explicit support for military strikes against Iran, stating that Congress backs Israel's use of 'all means necessary' against Iran, "including the use of military force," BBC Persian reported.
OMFG.... the Americans arnt even out of Iraq and now they are gonna f'ck up Iran?
America is a failed democracy. >.<
Yes, because a House resolution is oh-so-binding, and a war with Iran would obviously mean a long-term occupation of the entire Iranian nation.
On July 25 2010 01:08 ImFromPortugal wrote: I think the question arises: What they are waiting for ?
An opportunity perhaps? Something big enough to distract the rest of the world so they avoid public scrutiny. Get in, destroy key targets, get out, blame it all on a freak accident.
I find it very disconcerting that Russia is providing Iran with mobile Anti-air defense. Whose side are they on, and how would they react to an invasion of Iran?
Russia is still in absolutely no position to be on anyones side in anything. Their economy is still not functioning after the turmoils of the 90s. Diplomatically their name is still worth something but they'd have trouble intervening in a war involving a great power, let alone a superpower.
Russia's economy is only not functioning on domestic level. Internationally disregarding Russian trade power is impossible- strictly because of how much oil/gas/valuable metals they export. And obviously Russia has enough firepower to annihilate the planet, but thats an unlikely scenario, the military conflict would pretty much be carried out cold war style, and who knows how powerful russian intelligence is these days. It's likely to not be able to hold a candle to the US counterparts, but ignoring their actions perhaps would not be possible either.
On July 25 2010 00:43 ImFromPortugal wrote: UPDATE:
House OK's possible Israeli raid on Iran
Republicans in the US House of Representatives have introduced a measure that would green-light a possible Israeli bombing campaign against Iran.
Resolution 1553 provides explicit support for military strikes against Iran, stating that Congress backs Israel's use of 'all means necessary' against Iran, "including the use of military force," BBC Persian reported.
OMFG.... the Americans arnt even out of Iraq and now they are gonna f'ck up Iran?
America is a failed democracy. >.<
Democracy is not necessarily the same thing as pacifistic lol. That's a false conclusion.
yea but nobody wants war with Iran. Even the dumbest of the dumb and the most violent of the violent comprehend what 3 wars and an economic crisis means.
I will also be very dissapointed if Iran will be dragged into a military conflict. I was really hoping modern society would not allow nations to attempt building empires by conquering.
On July 25 2010 01:08 ImFromPortugal wrote: I think the question arises: What they are waiting for ?
An opportunity perhaps? Something big enough to distract the rest of the world so they avoid public scrutiny. Get in, destroy key targets, get out, blame it all on a freak accident.
I find it very disconcerting that Russia is providing Iran with mobile Anti-air defense. Whose side are they on, and how would they react to an invasion of Iran?
Russia is still in absolutely no position to be on anyones side in anything. Their economy is still not functioning after the turmoils of the 90s. Diplomatically their name is still worth something but they'd have trouble intervening in a war involving a great power, let alone a superpower.
Russia's economy is only not functioning on domestic level. Internationally disregarding Russian trade power is impossible- strictly because of how much oil/gas/valuable metals they export. And obviously Russia has enough firepower to annihilate the planet, but thats an unlikely scenario, the military conflict would pretty much be carried out cold war style, and who knows how powerful russian intelligence is these days. It's likely to not be able to hold a candle to the US counterparts, but ignoring their actions perhaps would not be possible either.
Nukes are worthless in a localised conflict and the Russian economy, while still impressive, is less capable than that of any Western power right now. Diplomatically they're a power but I would be extremely surprised if they thought it was a good idea to actually get into a conflict. They have nothing to gain and are in no position to throw shit away.
On July 25 2010 01:08 ImFromPortugal wrote: I think the question arises: What they are waiting for ?
An opportunity perhaps? Something big enough to distract the rest of the world so they avoid public scrutiny. Get in, destroy key targets, get out, blame it all on a freak accident.
I find it very disconcerting that Russia is providing Iran with mobile Anti-air defense. Whose side are they on, and how would they react to an invasion of Iran?
Russia is still in absolutely no position to be on anyones side in anything. Their economy is still not functioning after the turmoils of the 90s. Diplomatically their name is still worth something but they'd have trouble intervening in a war involving a great power, let alone a superpower.
Russia's economy is only not functioning on domestic level. Internationally disregarding Russian trade power is impossible- strictly because of how much oil/gas/valuable metals they export. And obviously Russia has enough firepower to annihilate the planet, but thats an unlikely scenario, the military conflict would pretty much be carried out cold war style, and who knows how powerful russian intelligence is these days. It's likely to not be able to hold a candle to the US counterparts, but ignoring their actions perhaps would not be possible either.
Nukes are worthless in a localised conflict and the Russian economy, while still impressive, is less capable than that of any Western power right now. Diplomatically they're a power but I would be extremely surprised if they thought it was a good idea to actually get into a conflict. They have nothing to gain and are in no position to throw shit away.
somewhat agree. I think if Russia had any interest in preserving the independence of middle east, the military action against iran wouldn't be possible, however i indeed don't think they give a fuck. Strategically speaking, conflict in Iran would allow Russia to side with China and Pakistan, so i think allowing it to happen is more profitable for RF then preventing it.
On July 25 2010 00:43 ImFromPortugal wrote: UPDATE:
House OK's possible Israeli raid on Iran
Republicans in the US House of Representatives have introduced a measure that would green-light a possible Israeli bombing campaign against Iran.
Resolution 1553 provides explicit support for military strikes against Iran, stating that Congress backs Israel's use of 'all means necessary' against Iran, "including the use of military force," BBC Persian reported.
OMFG.... the Americans arnt even out of Iraq and now they are gonna f'ck up Iran?
America is a failed democracy. >.<
Yes, because a House resolution is oh-so-binding, and a war with Iran would obviously mean a long-term occupation of the entire Iranian nation.
/sarcasm T_T
Don't be an idiot. The US wants to control Iran, because that would mean control of the oil + benifits for western (especially US ( 'defense' )) corporations. Iran isn't being branded as evil because it's an Islamic regime, or because it wants a nuclear deterrent (allegedly). It's being targeted ever since they overthrew the US-backed dictator in the seventies. Just like the situation with Cuba, it is true independance from the US (the freedom to disobey) that they want to destroy. Do you think the Iranians will freely elect a US stooge after they're bombed into submission? Dream on. The US is a failed democracy because it allows corporations to 'influence' elections. There isn't as much as a membrane seperating the buisiness community from the congress (or the media for that matter). If you let the money machines run your country then it is hardly surprising that expansion and invester profits will be the drivers behind every single policy, except perhaps certain cultural policies that don't matter. Institutionalised election fraud, it's a bitch. Have some self-respect. Israeli politics, but the way, is no longer very rational at all. It is a regime to be feared by its neighbours. If your more rational terror state allows its mad dogs to run wild, then the chances of war and every imaginable ensuing related misery will become likely. Anyone who gives a damn about peoples lives should be very worried about every step closer to war. Iran having nuclear weapons is also dangerous, but it's only more dangerous than the current situation if Israel remains committed to its rabid brand of foreign policy (= if the US lets them).
On June 13 2010 02:08 Monst3r wrote: Why would Saudi Arabia do such a thing.
So once the Jews attack that they could go back and say that Israel attacked first and they wouldn't get in trouble.
ISRAELIS, NOT JEWS ISRAELIS
that's like nigeria attacking a country and you saying "so once the blacks attack..."
Hmmm, you've got a point, but aren't Palestinians still in reality a part of Israel.. shouldn't the people who live in a country be referred to as inhabitants of that country regardless of whether they are second class citizens in their second class territories. "Jews" isn't perfect, but I wonder why you don't see a problem with "Israelis"... Also, it's not the palestinian population, or any other ethnic or religious super-minority within the first class territories that will initiate or support any attack, right? How about Israeli jews? Too long? Ah, fuck it, just say jews if the context clearly suggests that you mean Israeli jews. Or should I have screamed that shit at the top of my e-lungs?
On July 25 2010 00:43 ImFromPortugal wrote: UPDATE:
House OK's possible Israeli raid on Iran
Republicans in the US House of Representatives have introduced a measure that would green-light a possible Israeli bombing campaign against Iran.
Resolution 1553 provides explicit support for military strikes against Iran, stating that Congress backs Israel's use of 'all means necessary' against Iran, "including the use of military force," BBC Persian reported.
OMFG.... the Americans arnt even out of Iraq and now they are gonna f'ck up Iran?
America is a failed democracy. >.<
Yes, because a House resolution is oh-so-binding, and a war with Iran would obviously mean a long-term occupation of the entire Iranian nation.
/sarcasm T_T
Don't be an idiot. The US wants to control Iran, because that would mean control of the oil + benifits for western (especially US ( 'defense' )) corporations. Iran isn't being branded as evil because it's an Islamic regime, or because it wants a nuclear deterrent (allegedly). It's being targeted ever since they overthrew the US-backed dictator in the seventies. Just like the situation with Cuba, it is true independance from the US (the freedom to disobey) that they want to destroy. Do you think the Iranians will freely elect a US stooge after they're bombed into submission? Dream on. The US is a failed democracy because it allows corporations to 'influence' elections. There isn't as much as a membrane seperating the buisiness community from the congress (or the media for that matter). If you let the money machines run your country then it is hardly surprising that expansion and invester profits will be the drivers behind every single policy, except perhaps certain cultural policies that don't matter. Institutionalised election fraud, it's a bitch. Have some self-respect. Israeli politics, but the way, is no longer very rational at all. It is a regime to be feared by its neighbours. If your more rational terror state allows its mad dogs to run wild, then the chances of war and every imaginable ensuing related misery will become likely. Anyone who gives a damn about peoples lives should be very worried about every step closer to war. Iran having nuclear weapons is also dangerous, but it's only more dangerous than the current situation if Israel remains committed to its rabid brand of foreign policy (= if the US lets them).
actually one of the things that make Iran so lucrative for the US is because they have large pro-western population. So it's hardly out of realm of possibility that a US-backed political figure will be elected if the war if fought with minimum casualties.
On July 25 2010 23:05 Sfydjklm wrote: actually one of the things that make Iran so lucrative for the US is because they have large pro-western population. So it's hardly out of realm of possibility that a US-backed political figure will be elected if the war if fought with minimum casualties.
but isnt the whole pt of democracy is for the ppl choose their own representatives?
if some foreign entity is going to put someone in charge to ensure their own interests how is this different from colonialism?
On July 25 2010 23:05 Sfydjklm wrote: actually one of the things that make Iran so lucrative for the US is because they have large pro-western population. So it's hardly out of realm of possibility that a US-backed political figure will be elected if the war if fought with minimum casualties.
but isnt the whole pt of democracy is for the ppl choose their own representatives?
if some foreign entity is going to put someone in charge to ensure their own interests how is this different from colonialism?
the iranian unrest of last year was caused by elections being rigged. So it's a grey-territory question. One can describe it as a semi-democracy aimed at creating a full-fledged democratic state in the future.
The proclamation of Baghdad from 1917 pretty much sums up the repeated lie, and really shows how language/rhetoric have deteriorated into something null and void.
Other than activism, there's nothing indicating a change in the pattern imo
To the People of Baghdad Vilayet:
....our armies do not come into your cities and lands as conquerors or enemies, but as liberators. Since the days of Halaka your city and your lands have been subject to the tyranny of strangers, your palaces have fallen into ruins, your gardens have sunk in desolation, and your forefathers and yourselves have groaned in bondage. Your sons have been carried off to wars not of your seeking, your wealth has been stripped from you by unjust men and squandered in distant places.
"U.S. strike on Iran likelier than ever, former CIA chief says"
Michael Hayden says Iran intends to reach the point where it's just below having a nuclear weapon, adding that such a step would be as destabilizing to the region as the 'real thing.' By The Associated Press and Haaretz Service
A former CIA director says military action against Iran now seems more likely because no matter what the U.S. does diplomatically, Tehran keeps pushing ahead with its suspected nuclear program.
On July 26 2010 00:20 Sfydjklm wrote: the iranian unrest of last year was caused by elections being rigged. So it's a grey-territory question. One can describe it as a semi-democracy aimed at creating a full-fledged democratic state in the future.
from what i've heard, the current iranian prez is actually a quite popular man in rural Iran. majority of the protests occurred in Tehran, which gathered alot of western media coverage but expert opinion on the issue seem to agree that Ahmadinejad did win the popular vote.
On July 25 2010 00:43 ImFromPortugal wrote: UPDATE:
House OK's possible Israeli raid on Iran
Republicans in the US House of Representatives have introduced a measure that would green-light a possible Israeli bombing campaign against Iran.
Resolution 1553 provides explicit support for military strikes against Iran, stating that Congress backs Israel's use of 'all means necessary' against Iran, "including the use of military force," BBC Persian reported.
OMFG.... the Americans arnt even out of Iraq and now they are gonna f'ck up Iran?
America is a failed democracy. >.<
Yes, because a House resolution is oh-so-binding, and a war with Iran would obviously mean a long-term occupation of the entire Iranian nation.
/sarcasm T_T
Don't be an idiot. The US wants to control Iran, because that would mean control of the oil + benifits for western (especially US ( 'defense' )) corporations. Iran isn't being branded as evil because it's an Islamic regime, or because it wants a nuclear deterrent (allegedly). It's being targeted ever since they overthrew the US-backed dictator in the seventies. Just like the situation with Cuba, it is true independance from the US (the freedom to disobey) that they want to destroy. Do you think the Iranians will freely elect a US stooge after they're bombed into submission? Dream on. The US is a failed democracy because it allows corporations to 'influence' elections. There isn't as much as a membrane seperating the buisiness community from the congress (or the media for that matter). If you let the money machines run your country then it is hardly surprising that expansion and invester profits will be the drivers behind every single policy, except perhaps certain cultural policies that don't matter. Institutionalised election fraud, it's a bitch. Have some self-respect. Israeli politics, but the way, is no longer very rational at all. It is a regime to be feared by its neighbours. If your more rational terror state allows its mad dogs to run wild, then the chances of war and every imaginable ensuing related misery will become likely. Anyone who gives a damn about peoples lives should be very worried about every step closer to war. Iran having nuclear weapons is also dangerous, but it's only more dangerous than the current situation if Israel remains committed to its rabid brand of foreign policy (= if the US lets them).
actually one of the things that make Iran so lucrative for the US is because they have large pro-western population. So it's hardly out of realm of possibility that a US-backed political figure will be elected if the war if fought with minimum casualties.
How is the war going to be fought with minimal casualties? You're talking about the Iraq plan here.. You can't fight a proud people (even a somewhat disgruntled people) and expect them to do nothing...to cheer while their brother or mother is being burried, their city lies in ruin, etc. The only way to achieve a 'clean' victory is to convince the current rulers that resistance is futile and even then the government would have to sell out the sovereignty of their own people. This is fantasy-land stuff. Armed islamists will just move or spread to the streets of Iran and there's no way America can occupy 3 countries at once. War is misery and democracy is a fickle beast. I'm not saying that the war can't be won, I'm just saying that the plans would be full of holes. Israel doesn't care about controlling the oil though.. so I'm only affraid that the US will use Israel to (help) bomb Iran and that there's going to be very little follow-up. It's way to early to try the Iraq experiment again... Americans wouldn't put up with yet another huge long-term investment.
On June 13 2010 02:08 Monst3r wrote: Why would Saudi Arabia do such a thing.
So once the Jews attack that they could go back and say that Israel attacked first and they wouldn't get in trouble.
ISRAELIS, NOT JEWS ISRAELIS
that's like nigeria attacking a country and you saying "so once the blacks attack..."
Hmmm, you've got a point, but aren't Palestinians still in reality a part of Israel.. shouldn't the people who live in a country be referred to as inhabitants of that country regardless of whether they are second class citizens in their second class territories. "Jews" isn't perfect, but I wonder why you don't see a problem with "Israelis"... Also, it's not the palestinian population, or any other ethnic or religious super-minority within the first class territories that will initiate or support any attack, right? How about Israeli jews? Too long? Ah, fuck it, just say jews if the context clearly suggests that you mean Israeli jews. Or should I have screamed that shit at the top of my e-lungs?
Let's think about this for a bit here.
so, your argument is that calling them "israelis" doesn't make sense because palestinians are also israelis(not worth arguing). that doesn't make any sense at all. if they are also israelis then what is the problem with calling them israelis. saying "the israelis attack" says absolutely nothing about what % of the country is for or against that attack.
"the japanese attacked china"
"the germans attacked russia"
"the persians attacked sparta"
do any of those statements talk about how much support there is for the attack? or talk about the ethnicities within the countries?
Every single person of minority in the U.S. could have against for the war in Iraq and every single white person could have been for it but people would still say "when the U.S. attacked..." or "when america attacked...". They wouldn't say "when the whites attacked", because that's racist. There are white people outside of america.
I was talking about differentiating between ethnicity/race and nationality - because to not do so is racist.
On July 25 2010 00:43 ImFromPortugal wrote: UPDATE:
House OK's possible Israeli raid on Iran
Republicans in the US House of Representatives have introduced a measure that would green-light a possible Israeli bombing campaign against Iran.
Resolution 1553 provides explicit support for military strikes against Iran, stating that Congress backs Israel's use of 'all means necessary' against Iran, "including the use of military force," BBC Persian reported.
OMFG.... the Americans arnt even out of Iraq and now they are gonna f'ck up Iran?
America is a failed democracy. >.<
Yes, because a House resolution is oh-so-binding, and a war with Iran would obviously mean a long-term occupation of the entire Iranian nation.
/sarcasm T_T
Don't be an idiot. The US wants to control Iran, because that would mean control of the oil + benifits for western (especially US ( 'defense' )) corporations. Iran isn't being branded as evil because it's an Islamic regime, or because it wants a nuclear deterrent (allegedly). It's being targeted ever since they overthrew the US-backed dictator in the seventies. Just like the situation with Cuba, it is true independance from the US (the freedom to disobey) that they want to destroy. Do you think the Iranians will freely elect a US stooge after they're bombed into submission? Dream on. The US is a failed democracy because it allows corporations to 'influence' elections. There isn't as much as a membrane seperating the buisiness community from the congress (or the media for that matter). If you let the money machines run your country then it is hardly surprising that expansion and invester profits will be the drivers behind every single policy, except perhaps certain cultural policies that don't matter. Institutionalised election fraud, it's a bitch. Have some self-respect. Israeli politics, but the way, is no longer very rational at all. It is a regime to be feared by its neighbours. If your more rational terror state allows its mad dogs to run wild, then the chances of war and every imaginable ensuing related misery will become likely. Anyone who gives a damn about peoples lives should be very worried about every step closer to war. Iran having nuclear weapons is also dangerous, but it's only more dangerous than the current situation if Israel remains committed to its rabid brand of foreign policy (= if the US lets them).
actually one of the things that make Iran so lucrative for the US is because they have large pro-western population. So it's hardly out of realm of possibility that a US-backed political figure will be elected if the war if fought with minimum casualties.
How is the war going to be fought with minimal casualties? You're talking about the Iraq plan here.. You can't fight a proud people (even a somewhat disgruntled people) and expect them to do nothing...to cheer while their brother or mother is being burried, their city lies in ruin, etc. The only way to achieve a 'clean' victory is to convince the current rulers that resistance is futile and even then the government would have to sell out the sovereignty of their own people. This is fantasy-land stuff. Armed islamists will just move or spread to the streets of Iran and there's no way America can occupy 3 countries at once. War is misery and democracy is a fickle beast. I'm not saying that the war can't be won, I'm just saying that the plans would be full of holes. Israel doesn't care about controlling the oil though.. so I'm only affraid that the US will use Israel to (help) bomb Iran and that there's going to be very little follow-up. It's way to early to try the Iraq experiment again... Americans wouldn't put up with yet another huge long-term investment.
a revolution based invasion is one way to make the casualties minimum. But I don't have much faith in it. When was the last time a large country has displayed any brilliant strategy?
On June 13 2010 02:08 Monst3r wrote: Why would Saudi Arabia do such a thing.
So once the Jews attack that they could go back and say that Israel attacked first and they wouldn't get in trouble.
ISRAELIS, NOT JEWS ISRAELIS
that's like nigeria attacking a country and you saying "so once the blacks attack..."
Hmmm, you've got a point, but aren't Palestinians still in reality a part of Israel.. shouldn't the people who live in a country be referred to as inhabitants of that country regardless of whether they are second class citizens in their second class territories. "Jews" isn't perfect, but I wonder why you don't see a problem with "Israelis"... Also, it's not the palestinian population, or any other ethnic or religious super-minority within the first class territories that will initiate or support any attack, right? How about Israeli jews? Too long? Ah, fuck it, just say jews if the context clearly suggests that you mean Israeli jews. Or should I have screamed that shit at the top of my e-lungs?
Let's think about this for a bit here.
so, your argument is that calling them "israelis" doesn't make sense because palestinians are also israelis(not worth arguing). that doesn't make any sense at all. if they are also israelis then what is the problem with calling them israelis. saying "the israelis attack" says absolutely nothing about what % of the country is for or against that attack.
"the japanese attacked china"
"the germans attacked russia"
"the persians attacked sparta"
do any of those statements talk about how much support there is for the attack? or talk about the ethnicities within the countries?
Every single person of minority in the U.S. could have against for the war in Iraq and every single white person could have been for it but people would still say "when the U.S. attacked..." or "when america attacked...". They wouldn't say "when the whites attacked", because that's racist. There are white people outside of america.
I was talking about differentiating between ethnicity/race and nationality - because to not do so is racist.
But it was completely obvious from the context! Doesn't that matter? Aren't you being a little bit over-zealous here. Don't you get it? This is a racial (religious) conflict and removing race (religion) from the verbiage is intellectually dishonest. I just think that sometimes we forget that while support for killing Arabs is extremely high in jewish Israel (the peace movement is all but dead), there are a few jewish communities in other countries that may not like the whole project. This is the only reason "Israeli jews" is better than "THE jews", or something of the sort. There is no Palestinian state and saying that it's not worth discussing puzzles me. Not that I'm interested in discussing it.. It's a unique situation, EVEN IF the military occupation of part of the Palestinian "territories" didn't exist. I said what I said, because it's an accurate description of the reality. Reality matters. Words do too.
On July 25 2010 00:43 ImFromPortugal wrote: UPDATE:
House OK's possible Israeli raid on Iran
Republicans in the US House of Representatives have introduced a measure that would green-light a possible Israeli bombing campaign against Iran.
Resolution 1553 provides explicit support for military strikes against Iran, stating that Congress backs Israel's use of 'all means necessary' against Iran, "including the use of military force," BBC Persian reported.
OMFG.... the Americans arnt even out of Iraq and now they are gonna f'ck up Iran?
America is a failed democracy. >.<
Yes, because a House resolution is oh-so-binding, and a war with Iran would obviously mean a long-term occupation of the entire Iranian nation.
/sarcasm T_T
Don't be an idiot. The US wants to control Iran, because that would mean control of the oil + benifits for western (especially US ( 'defense' )) corporations. Iran isn't being branded as evil because it's an Islamic regime, or because it wants a nuclear deterrent (allegedly). It's being targeted ever since they overthrew the US-backed dictator in the seventies. Just like the situation with Cuba, it is true independance from the US (the freedom to disobey) that they want to destroy. Do you think the Iranians will freely elect a US stooge after they're bombed into submission? Dream on. The US is a failed democracy because it allows corporations to 'influence' elections. There isn't as much as a membrane seperating the buisiness community from the congress (or the media for that matter). If you let the money machines run your country then it is hardly surprising that expansion and invester profits will be the drivers behind every single policy, except perhaps certain cultural policies that don't matter. Institutionalised election fraud, it's a bitch. Have some self-respect. Israeli politics, but the way, is no longer very rational at all. It is a regime to be feared by its neighbours. If your more rational terror state allows its mad dogs to run wild, then the chances of war and every imaginable ensuing related misery will become likely. Anyone who gives a damn about peoples lives should be very worried about every step closer to war. Iran having nuclear weapons is also dangerous, but it's only more dangerous than the current situation if Israel remains committed to its rabid brand of foreign policy (= if the US lets them).
actually one of the things that make Iran so lucrative for the US is because they have large pro-western population. So it's hardly out of realm of possibility that a US-backed political figure will be elected if the war if fought with minimum casualties.
How is the war going to be fought with minimal casualties? You're talking about the Iraq plan here.. You can't fight a proud people (even a somewhat disgruntled people) and expect them to do nothing...to cheer while their brother or mother is being burried, their city lies in ruin, etc. The only way to achieve a 'clean' victory is to convince the current rulers that resistance is futile and even then the government would have to sell out the sovereignty of their own people. This is fantasy-land stuff. Armed islamists will just move or spread to the streets of Iran and there's no way America can occupy 3 countries at once. War is misery and democracy is a fickle beast. I'm not saying that the war can't be won, I'm just saying that the plans would be full of holes. Israel doesn't care about controlling the oil though.. so I'm only affraid that the US will use Israel to (help) bomb Iran and that there's going to be very little follow-up. It's way to early to try the Iraq experiment again... Americans wouldn't put up with yet another huge long-term investment.
a revolution based invasion is one way to make the casualties minimum. But I don't have much faith in it. When was the last time a large country has displayed any brilliant strategy?
Otto von Bismarck was a pretty clever dude, but then his (German) emperor got a little bit too greedy and got his people involved in WWI... which in turn created the conditions for WWII. We shouldn't try to be too clever, I think. International law and pre-emptive diplomacy are the only way for peace. I've often heard people who should know that people in government are not as smart as we might think they are.. just whiny children with huge egos playing with our toys.
You said "I wonder why you don't see a problem with calling them israelis". I was replying to that.
No I'm not being overzealous. Israel - the state - is doing the attacking. Judaism is not. You're not very discerning. Whether or not 100% of them are jews has absolutely jack shit to do with proper labeling. Israel, a country, declares war. Judaism, a religion, does not.
If you want to call them "israeli jews" then that's fine, although I suspect wrong because I bet out of the hundreds of thousands of people there are some non-jews that fight for Israel.
The fact that you actually defend the guy who calls them "jews" rather than "israelis" or the less-accurate "israeli jews" shows how non-discerning you are. If I was a jew I would be pissed at the racism, as I am sure I wouldn't be pro-israel since "jew" does not mean "zionist".
On July 26 2010 04:04 travis wrote: You said "I wonder why you don't see a problem with calling them israelis". I was replying to that.
No I'm not being overzealous. Israel - the state - is doing the attacking. Judaism is not. You're not very discerning. Whether or not 100% of them are jews has absolutely jack shit to do with proper labeling. Israel, a country, declares war. Judaism, a religion, does not.
If you want to call them "israeli jews" then that's fine, although I suspect wrong because I bet out of the hundreds of thousands of people there are some non-jews that fight for Israel.
The fact that you actually defend the guy who calls them "jews" rather than "israelis" or the less-accurate "israeli jews" shows how non-discerning you are. If I was a jew I would be pissed at the racism, as I am sure I wouldn't be pro-israel since "jew" does not mean "zionist".
I don't think I was defending him. I was challengling your reaction. No matter, I obviously agree with most of what you say.
On July 26 2010 04:04 travis wrote: You said "I wonder why you don't see a problem with calling them israelis". I was replying to that.
No I'm not being overzealous. Israel - the state - is doing the attacking. Judaism is not. You're not very discerning. Whether or not 100% of them are jews has absolutely jack shit to do with proper labeling. Israel, a country, declares war. Judaism, a religion, does not.
If you want to call them "israeli jews" then that's fine, although I suspect wrong because I bet out of the hundreds of thousands of people there are some non-jews that fight for Israel.
The fact that you actually defend the guy who calls them "jews" rather than "israelis" or the less-accurate "israeli jews" shows how non-discerning you are. If I was a jew I would be pissed at the racism, as I am sure I wouldn't be pro-israel since "jew" does not mean "zionist".
Now if only people would realize the same thing about Muslims....
Anyway, I'm not sure if a strike is the best way to deal with it. The problem is, is stopping Iran get nukes worth the risk of a destabilization in the middle east? For that's what would happen. Whether it would be good or not overall, I don't know. It would be bad because of the lack of stability, but at least another country wouldn't have nukes.
International sanction aren't working either, so that's a bummer. I feel like Iran is bringing it upon itself yet I really really wouldn't want to punish the Iranians themselves.
On July 26 2010 00:21 ImFromPortugal wrote: UPDATE:
"U.S. strike on Iran likelier than ever, former CIA chief says"
Michael Hayden says Iran intends to reach the point where it's just below having a nuclear weapon, adding that such a step would be as destabilizing to the region as the 'real thing.' By The Associated Press and Haaretz Service
A former CIA director says military action against Iran now seems more likely because no matter what the U.S. does diplomatically, Tehran keeps pushing ahead with its suspected nuclear program.
Everyone seems to be ignoring this post and instead arguing over demographics.
This is bad. Really, really bad. The consequences of starting another war are truly unforseeable, with the exception of mass civillian casualties. (Since the Bosnian War, it's been proven that in modern warfare, 50-90% of the casualties are civillians.) Now I have personal qualms with the CIA and their notorious buisness in Latin and South America, however this former CIA director most likely knows what he's talking about. Once again, the general population of America has no say or control over what their government does overseas. This shit is gonna go down, and it's gonna go down hard.
Another war over oil. America would find a bullshit reason to attack Iran, them getting nuclear weapons to protect themselves would stop that from happening so the U.S has to attack now.
On July 26 2010 04:04 travis wrote: You said "I wonder why you don't see a problem with calling them israelis". I was replying to that.
No I'm not being overzealous. Israel - the state - is doing the attacking. Judaism is not. You're not very discerning. Whether or not 100% of them are jews has absolutely jack shit to do with proper labeling. Israel, a country, declares war. Judaism, a religion, does not.
If you want to call them "israeli jews" then that's fine, although I suspect wrong because I bet out of the hundreds of thousands of people there are some non-jews that fight for Israel.
The fact that you actually defend the guy who calls them "jews" rather than "israelis" or the less-accurate "israeli jews" shows how non-discerning you are. If I was a jew I would be pissed at the racism, as I am sure I wouldn't be pro-israel since "jew" does not mean "zionist".
Now if only people would realize the same thing about Muslims....
Anyway, I'm not sure if a strike is the best way to deal with it. The problem is, is stopping Iran get nukes worth the risk of a destabilization in the middle east? For that's what would happen. Whether it would be good or not overall, I don't know. It would be bad because of the lack of stability, but at least another country wouldn't have nukes.
International sanction aren't working either, so that's a bummer. I feel like Iran is bringing it upon itself yet I really really wouldn't want to punish the Iranians themselves.
Iran is "bringing this upon itself" if you choose to follow the chronology of Washington (which is what most of the Western media do). The history goes farther back and there is no proof remember, it has been "alleged" and it "seems" as if Iran is developing weapons. We heard the same things about Iraq and powerful states (governments) have a proven record of extreme and relentless dishonesty.. this includes Iran. No one knows as of yet, and to be honest it's not the "stability of the Middle East" that's at stake here. A nuclear weapon for Iran would just mean that it could not be invaded (by the US)... the horror, the horror...It would also mean that nuclear war would become marginally more likely. But Iran will not get nuclear weapons.. no wories. One way or another this will end long before that point. If I were religious I'd pray for the people of the region..
On July 26 2010 04:04 travis wrote: You said "I wonder why you don't see a problem with calling them israelis". I was replying to that.
No I'm not being overzealous. Israel - the state - is doing the attacking. Judaism is not. You're not very discerning. Whether or not 100% of them are jews has absolutely jack shit to do with proper labeling. Israel, a country, declares war. Judaism, a religion, does not.
If you want to call them "israeli jews" then that's fine, although I suspect wrong because I bet out of the hundreds of thousands of people there are some non-jews that fight for Israel.
The fact that you actually defend the guy who calls them "jews" rather than "israelis" or the less-accurate "israeli jews" shows how non-discerning you are. If I was a jew I would be pissed at the racism, as I am sure I wouldn't be pro-israel since "jew" does not mean "zionist".
Now if only people would realize the same thing about Muslims....
Anyway, I'm not sure if a strike is the best way to deal with it. The problem is, is stopping Iran get nukes worth the risk of a destabilization in the middle east? For that's what would happen. Whether it would be good or not overall, I don't know. It would be bad because of the lack of stability, but at least another country wouldn't have nukes.
International sanction aren't working either, so that's a bummer. I feel like Iran is bringing it upon itself yet I really really wouldn't want to punish the Iranians themselves.
Iran is "bringing this upon itself" if you choose to follow the chronology of Washington (which is what most of the Western media do). The history goes farther back and there is no proof remember, it has been "alleged" and it "seems" as if Iran is developing weapons. We heard the same things about Iraq and powerful states (governments) have a proven record of extreme and relentless dishonesty.. this includes Iran. No one knows as of yet, and to be honest it's not the "stability of the Middle East" that's at stake here. A nuclear weapon for Iran would just mean that it could not be invaded (by the US)... the horror, the horror...It would also mean that nuclear war would become marginally more likely. But Iran will not get nuclear weapons.. no wories. One way or another this will end long before that point. If I were religious I'd pray for the people of the region..
Agreed 100%. How would you Americans feel if Canada just got invaded by Russia for whatever Canadians have that is important (mostly good weed.) I'm pretty sure you would support your country arming up and getting prepared in case that situation is going to happen to you. Iran is scared of the U.S right now, and btw Obama is a puppet.
Personally I think obama is actually trying to do well by the american public whilst fulfilling the plans of the new world order. This is just what my intuition says.
He may be a puppet but he still wields a certain amount of power.
But clearly the industrial-military complex has been running things for quite a while. I mean geesh, George H. W. Bush becomes president after serving as director for the CIA. How much clearer can it be.
Personally I think obama is actually trying to do well by the american public whilst fulfilling the plans of the new world order. This is just what my intuition says.
imo it just gets worse when it's coloured with the most carefully constructed rethoric-bullshit, compared to bush. Atleast there were no possibility of being in doubt with bush
On July 26 2010 06:06 Diuqil wrote: Another war over oil. America would find a bullshit reason to attack Iran, them getting nuclear weapons to protect themselves would stop that from happening so the U.S has to attack now.
I would hardly say that this is a war over oil, or that Iran needs nuclear weapons to protect itself. Keep in mind that this is a country that has outright declared that it wants western civilization dead. Nuclear weapons in the hands of those who would use them against us is a major threat to not just American national security, but the security of the entire world.
Also, to "America would find a bullshit reason to attack Iran, them getting nuclear weapons to protect themselves would stop that from happening so the U.S has to attack now," America isn't the one attacking Iran, it's Israel.
The world doesn't want Iran to have nukes because guess who supports the Palestinians...
Israel needs to be a little nicer to the Palestinians, then they might have to worry less about the consequences of taking Palestinian lands in the 1940's.
Politics are complicated and messy. We could all throw our conspiracy theories into the discussion as to why things are going on the way they are, but until we're actually part of a government administration, we will never fully understand.
P.S. It's just my opinion that Iran wants to nuke Israel not a fact.
On July 26 2010 06:06 Diuqil wrote: Another war over oil. America would find a bullshit reason to attack Iran, them getting nuclear weapons to protect themselves would stop that from happening so the U.S has to attack now.
I would hardly say that this is a war over oil, or that Iran needs nuclear weapons to protect itself. Keep in mind that this is a country that has outright declared that it wants western civilization dead. Nuclear weapons in the hands of those who would use them against us is a major threat to not just American national security, but the security of the entire world.
Also, to "America would find a bullshit reason to attack Iran, them getting nuclear weapons to protect themselves would stop that from happening so the U.S has to attack now," America isn't the one attacking Iran, it's Israel.
omfg, do you really believe this? you seriously need to study the history of your own country(!!!!!), stop worrying about statements by governments and start looking at actions. i obviously don't know how old you are, but this is a shameful display of ignorance. If you don't care about human life then it obviously doesn't matter what you believe to be true. Otherwise, you've got some catching up to do. This is not a football game. Do you at least know that the Iranians overthrew their Us-backed dictator in the late 1970s and were subsequently forced to fight a bitter war against then US ally Sadam Hussein for 8 years and that the US heavily funded Hussein's agression? Do you know about the Iran-Contra scandal? Did you see The Lord Of The Rings at least? Power has nothing to do with benevolence. Power doesn't do anything unless it results in more power/money. USA does not = "the world"..........
EDIT : at least Twiggy is Canadian. Still pretty bad though..
Also, I'm not saying that the US needs the oil. But the larger picture is about oil and the advantages for US-based trans-national corporations. Iran couldn't care less about the Palestinians... sure, they don't like what's happening to those people, but that would never be a good enough reason for them to get completely obliterated in any confrontation with the military superpower of the region (=Israel). Iranians aren't suicidal, you know... well, not that suicidal.
On July 26 2010 04:04 travis wrote: You said "I wonder why you don't see a problem with calling them israelis". I was replying to that.
No I'm not being overzealous. Israel - the state - is doing the attacking. Judaism is not. You're not very discerning. Whether or not 100% of them are jews has absolutely jack shit to do with proper labeling. Israel, a country, declares war. Judaism, a religion, does not.
If you want to call them "israeli jews" then that's fine, although I suspect wrong because I bet out of the hundreds of thousands of people there are some non-jews that fight for Israel.
The fact that you actually defend the guy who calls them "jews" rather than "israelis" or the less-accurate "israeli jews" shows how non-discerning you are. If I was a jew I would be pissed at the racism, as I am sure I wouldn't be pro-israel since "jew" does not mean "zionist".
Now if only people would realize the same thing about Muslims....
Anyway, I'm not sure if a strike is the best way to deal with it. The problem is, is stopping Iran get nukes worth the risk of a destabilization in the middle east? For that's what would happen. Whether it would be good or not overall, I don't know. It would be bad because of the lack of stability, but at least another country wouldn't have nukes.
International sanction aren't working either, so that's a bummer. I feel like Iran is bringing it upon itself yet I really really wouldn't want to punish the Iranians themselves.
I don't buy that at all. When the Osirak reactor was blown in Iraq, it certainly did destabilize the region; in fact it had the opposite effect. Compare that to when the reactors that the Pakistanis were making were not blown up though, and you see quite clearly that the entire region was destabilized by them getting nukes (And the region remains destabilized to this day).The idea that blowing up Iran's reactors would somehow destabilize the region is simply ludicrous.
When you put aside the issue of oil, which I don't doubt is why the Americans are pushing so hard on Iran, the issue of Iran's instability becomes a serious problem. Not only does the government not have the support of its own population, as evidenced by the massive protests around the country that have sporadically popped up every few years only to be brutally quelled by the countries security forces, but Iran is composed of several minority groups that could pose serious problems to Iran's long-term stability. Many of these minorities have strong militas too, with Baluchistan sticking out the most; consider that Baluchistan is basically what Afghanistan was when the mujahideen were supplied by the CIA back in the 80s...incidentally, it appears that the Baluchi's are being supplied by the CIA too. The Iran of today resembles Pakistan back when they were getting nuclear weapons (It might be interesting to point out that the Pakistanis also made the claim that they only wanted nuclear power too) and so, for the rest of the world this poses a serious concern that goes far beyond simply oil rights.
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?
Its not a matter of "starting" wars with iran its a matter of crazy people who are in power in iran.. lets face it the goverment over there is very unstable and lead mostly by religous zealots who would love nothing more then to destroy every single jew in exsistance.. starting with the israel. You think muslims are more peaceful in that part of the world then jew's are? They are both guilty horrible hate crimes against the other. The very root of the problem being religious intolerance for eachother! Unfortunately for the rest of the world this could lead to a nuclear exchange of missles which doesnt make anyone comfortable.
Mossad chief reportedly visited Saudi Arabia for talks on Iran Account on WorldNetDaily follows series of recent reports on increasing secret cooperation between Israel and the Saudis, including defense coordination on matters related to possible military action.
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?
Its not a matter of "starting" wars with iran its a matter of crazy people who are in power in iran.. lets face it the goverment over there is very unstable and lead mostly by religous zealots who would love nothing more then to destroy every single jew in exsistance.. starting with the israel. You think muslims are more peaceful in that part of the world then jew's are? They are both guilty horrible hate crimes against the other. The very root of the problem being religious intolerance for eachother! Unfortunately for the rest of the world this could lead to a nuclear exchange of missles which doesnt make anyone comfortable.
Actually Amenidijad has jewish roots : | And there is a large jewish community living in Teheran with no problems :o
On July 26 2010 13:18 ImFromPortugal wrote: UPDATE:
Mossad chief reportedly visited Saudi Arabia for talks on Iran Account on WorldNetDaily follows series of recent reports on increasing secret cooperation between Israel and the Saudis, including defense coordination on matters related to possible military action.
On July 26 2010 13:18 ImFromPortugal wrote: Actually Amenidijad has jewish roots : | And there is a large jewish community living in Teheran with no problems :o
Ive heard this too. I have a friend at school from Iran and he seems to say the same thing.
(Although hes pretty wealthy and his perception might be skewed)
He seems to believe people his age arent as crazy as they are made out to be here. Granted hes not arab and would probably Identify himself more as "Persian" but he seems to think the Islamic government isnt going to last anyway.
I think Iran gets a bad rap here in the US, but people who arent comfortable with them having nuclear weapons arent exactly wackjobs. From the various statements by Amendinijhad*sp* (even though my friend seems to think no one in Iran respects him anyway and hes just a figurehead(which pretty much everyone thinks/knows)) people have a right to be worried.
I dont believe any non secular government should have WOMD's anyway though. But meh.
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?
Its not a matter of "starting" wars with iran its a matter of crazy people who are in power in iran.. lets face it the goverment over there is very unstable and lead mostly by religous zealots who would love nothing more then to destroy every single jew in exsistance.. starting with the israel. You think muslims are more peaceful in that part of the world then jew's are? They are both guilty horrible hate crimes against the other. The very root of the problem being religious intolerance for eachother! Unfortunately for the rest of the world this could lead to a nuclear exchange of missles which doesnt make anyone comfortable.
"How many wars has Iran started and how many has America" War is terror. War mongerers in the West love pointing out the grave imperfections of other cultures/states to rally support for their terror-for-profit scheme. What's more insane : wanting to kill people because they are an existential threat to their country (learn Iran-US history!! and the role of Israel) or consistently using public funds to wage war in the interest of US investors and corporations? The US has supported far worse human rights abusers all over the world when it didn't conflict with their buisiness interests.. the record is consistent and thinking that war=peace is violently retarded. War creates poverty, resentment, death, extremists and more war.
On July 26 2010 04:04 travis wrote: You said "I wonder why you don't see a problem with calling them israelis". I was replying to that.
No I'm not being overzealous. Israel - the state - is doing the attacking. Judaism is not. You're not very discerning. Whether or not 100% of them are jews has absolutely jack shit to do with proper labeling. Israel, a country, declares war. Judaism, a religion, does not.
If you want to call them "israeli jews" then that's fine, although I suspect wrong because I bet out of the hundreds of thousands of people there are some non-jews that fight for Israel.
The fact that you actually defend the guy who calls them "jews" rather than "israelis" or the less-accurate "israeli jews" shows how non-discerning you are. If I was a jew I would be pissed at the racism, as I am sure I wouldn't be pro-israel since "jew" does not mean "zionist".
Now if only people would realize the same thing about Muslims....
Anyway, I'm not sure if a strike is the best way to deal with it. The problem is, is stopping Iran get nukes worth the risk of a destabilization in the middle east? For that's what would happen. Whether it would be good or not overall, I don't know. It would be bad because of the lack of stability, but at least another country wouldn't have nukes.
International sanction aren't working either, so that's a bummer. I feel like Iran is bringing it upon itself yet I really really wouldn't want to punish the Iranians themselves.
I don't buy that at all. When the Osirak reactor was blown in Iraq, it certainly did destabilize the region; in fact it had the opposite effect. Compare that to when the reactors that the Pakistanis were making were not blown up though, and you see quite clearly that the entire region was destabilized by them getting nukes (And the region remains destabilized to this day).The idea that blowing up Iran's reactors would somehow destabilize the region is simply ludicrous.
When you put aside the issue of oil, which I don't doubt is why the Americans are pushing so hard on Iran, the issue of Iran's instability becomes a serious problem. Not only does the government not have the support of its own population, as evidenced by the massive protests around the country that have sporadically popped up every few years only to be brutally quelled by the countries security forces, but Iran is composed of several minority groups that could pose serious problems to Iran's long-term stability. Many of these minorities have strong militas too, with Baluchistan sticking out the most; consider that Baluchistan is basically what Afghanistan was when the mujahideen were supplied by the CIA back in the 80s...incidentally, it appears that the Baluchi's are being supplied by the CIA too. The Iran of today resembles Pakistan back when they were getting nuclear weapons (It might be interesting to point out that the Pakistanis also made the claim that they only wanted nuclear power too) and so, for the rest of the world this poses a serious concern that goes far beyond simply oil rights.
"stability" means US control. You're not using the word correctly.
It's americans trying to protect/expand their empire and Iran standing up against them. Because they know they're next on USA's agenda. They have what, 10% of the world's oil reserves, 3rd largest oil reserves after Saudi Arabia and Canada?
To make matters clearer, why are they tougher on Iranians than they are on North Koreans in terms of sanctions or warnings? If it's threats, NK does a better job than Iran at that. Obviously, they don't have any oil.
Also, don't care to list Israel's wrong-doings as any educated person with half a brain would know that they're just racist, religious zealots who are trying to fulfill their destiny by trying to get some land that was promised to them by a guy with a beard some thousands of years ago. The territory was his to promise apparently, heh.
Anyone who thinks the US is actually going to attack Iran any time soon is just ignorant. No way Mr. Hayden of all people thinks that. His statements are just bluff and propaganda.
Far to many people here are of the opinion that taking out Iran's Nuclear capability is akin to both a full on invasion, and 'for the oil'.
There's something to be said for preventing a fanatical, unstable government with ties to many terrorist organizations, access to nuclear weapons. In the very least it could well provoke a massive response from Israel, let alone other countries. America actually has the least to fear directly, as Iran's ICBM capability isn't enough to reach the US I believe, but they have more than enough reach to touch most of Europe, and nobody want's Iran to have the bomb too.
A hostile government + 'The Bomb' + current world tensions = Fun times for all.
I can see targeted precision strikes against the nuclear facilities, with no full on war and invasion, Oil is secondary to nuclear apocalypse.
On July 26 2010 23:17 Obsidian wrote: Far to many people here are of the opinion that taking out Iran's Nuclear capability is akin to both a full on invasion, and 'for the oil'.
There's something to be said for preventing a fanatical, unstable government with ties to many terrorist organizations, access to nuclear weapons. In the very least it could well provoke a massive response from Israel, let alone other countries. America actually has the least to fear directly, as Iran's ICBM capability isn't enough to reach the US I believe, but they have more than enough reach to touch most of Europe, and nobody want's Iran to have the bomb too.
A hostile government + 'The Bomb' + current world tensions = Fun times for all.
I can see targeted precision strikes against the nuclear facilities, with no full on war and invasion, Oil is secondary to nuclear apocalypse.
At first i thought you were talking about the American Government
- 'Israel trains PKK militants in Iraq' - CIA and Contras cocaine trafficking in the US - CIA Acknowledges Ties to Pinochet's Repression - Ex-CIA agent confirms US ties with Jundullah
On July 26 2010 23:17 Obsidian wrote: Far to many people here are of the opinion that taking out Iran's Nuclear capability is akin to both a full on invasion, and 'for the oil'.
There's something to be said for preventing a fanatical, unstable government with ties to many terrorist organizations, access to nuclear weapons. In the very least it could well provoke a massive response from Israel, let alone other countries. America actually has the least to fear directly, as Iran's ICBM capability isn't enough to reach the US I believe, but they have more than enough reach to touch most of Europe, and nobody want's Iran to have the bomb too.
A hostile government + 'The Bomb' + current world tensions = Fun times for all.
I can see targeted precision strikes against the nuclear facilities, with no full on war and invasion, Oil is secondary to nuclear apocalypse.
Hostile to who? Hostile to the states that have attacked (see US funding of Sadam's agressive war on Iran in the 80s) and threatened it relentlessly since the people of the country overthrew the US dictator? Bush called Iran 'evil' and that's based on nothing but the fact that Iran doesn't answer to the US. Iran has a terrible human rights record at home, but that never stopped any world power from maintaining the friendliest of relations. The US is not 'special', okay!? This is international politics mixed in with the usual propaganda messages which are aimed at the respective domestic populations and the populations of their "allies". You must understand that Europe is full of nukes and that Iran has not a single good reason to fire at it. None. The Iranian elite may be a littlke foolish to think that trying to get more powerful weapons will keep them safe but these people are not crazy. You are talking shit! Also Iran is not unstable.. whatever that means. Any (quasi-)dictatorship has dissidents, dissatisfaction and rebels. Capitalist democracy is not a more 'stable' model, by the way.. just often less brutal towards towards its own people. The US power game is already responsible for the deaths of millions since the end of WWII. There's nothing comforting about that either.
Anyone who thinks the US is actually going to attack Iran any time soon is just ignorant. No way Mr. Hayden of all people thinks that. His statements are just bluff and propaganda.
You are an american living in Germany, right? Anyway, he may be delusional but I suspect you're the one who's "ignorant". Maybe you should go back and read the revelations of Seymour Hersh about what people within the military were telling him back in 2004. I haven't read any of his stuff recently.. I guess I'll go check for that right now so I can tell people who don't know shit what they don't even want to consider... One more question.. Am I not allowed to post relevant video in this thread. It's not my desire to break any rules, I just think it might be interesting to crawl out of our own assholes in the search for truth. Just a thought.
On July 26 2010 04:04 travis wrote: You said "I wonder why you don't see a problem with calling them israelis". I was replying to that.
No I'm not being overzealous. Israel - the state - is doing the attacking. Judaism is not. You're not very discerning. Whether or not 100% of them are jews has absolutely jack shit to do with proper labeling. Israel, a country, declares war. Judaism, a religion, does not.
If you want to call them "israeli jews" then that's fine, although I suspect wrong because I bet out of the hundreds of thousands of people there are some non-jews that fight for Israel.
The fact that you actually defend the guy who calls them "jews" rather than "israelis" or the less-accurate "israeli jews" shows how non-discerning you are. If I was a jew I would be pissed at the racism, as I am sure I wouldn't be pro-israel since "jew" does not mean "zionist".
Now if only people would realize the same thing about Muslims....
Anyway, I'm not sure if a strike is the best way to deal with it. The problem is, is stopping Iran get nukes worth the risk of a destabilization in the middle east? For that's what would happen. Whether it would be good or not overall, I don't know. It would be bad because of the lack of stability, but at least another country wouldn't have nukes.
International sanction aren't working either, so that's a bummer. I feel like Iran is bringing it upon itself yet I really really wouldn't want to punish the Iranians themselves.
I don't buy that at all. When the Osirak reactor was blown in Iraq, it certainly did destabilize the region; in fact it had the opposite effect. Compare that to when the reactors that the Pakistanis were making were not blown up though, and you see quite clearly that the entire region was destabilized by them getting nukes (And the region remains destabilized to this day).The idea that blowing up Iran's reactors would somehow destabilize the region is simply ludicrous. .
I don't see what Pakistani nukes have to do with the destabilization of the region, is that wild conjecture or do you have any solid proof for that?.
We will use the bases in Iraq and Afgan to right against Iran when this happens. Might be another reason why we invaded those countries and why we want to develop the Iraq so much to help against Iran because Iraq and Iran had conflicts before. Just a theory not sure if anyone has said this yet.
And who is this guy on the video? Why is he important and why should I believe what he is saying?
Anyone who thinks the US is actually going to attack Iran any time soon is just ignorant. No way Mr. Hayden of all people thinks that. His statements are just bluff and propaganda.
You are an american living in Germany, right? Anyway, he may be delusional but I suspect you're the one who's "ignorant". Maybe you should go back and read the revelations of Seymour Hersh about what people within the military were telling him back in 2004. I haven't read any of his stuff recently.. I guess I'll go check for that right now so I can tell people who don't know shit what they don't even want to consider... One more question.. Am I not allowed to post relevant video in this thread. It's not my desire to break any rules, I just think it might be interesting to crawl out of our own assholes in the search for truth. Just a thought.
Well you are definitely German by your posting.
I don't care what people were saying in 2004 and I don't know why you think it is relevant. The US is not going to attack Iran any time soon, and Mr. Hayder knows that well enough. If you disagree and think they will go ahead fine, but unless war actually breaks out I'll be right and you'll be wrong.
As to what you can post and what not: Just don't make one liner posts. You can post a link to a Youtube video along with your own post, just don't post nothing but a link.
On July 26 2010 23:17 Obsidian wrote: Far to many people here are of the opinion that taking out Iran's Nuclear capability is akin to both a full on invasion, and 'for the oil'.
There's something to be said for preventing a fanatical, unstable government with ties to many terrorist organizations, access to nuclear weapons. In the very least it could well provoke a massive response from Israel, let alone other countries. America actually has the least to fear directly, as Iran's ICBM capability isn't enough to reach the US I believe, but they have more than enough reach to touch most of Europe, and nobody want's Iran to have the bomb too.
A hostile government + 'The Bomb' + current world tensions = Fun times for all.
I can see targeted precision strikes against the nuclear facilities, with no full on war and invasion, Oil is secondary to nuclear apocalypse.
At first i thought you were talking about the American Government
- 'Israel trains PKK militants in Iraq' - CIA and Contras cocaine trafficking in the US - CIA Acknowledges Ties to Pinochet's Repression - Ex-CIA agent confirms US ties with Jundullah
etc etc etc
So wait how much of this "information" have you gotten from Press Tv?
you are talking shit! Also Iran is not unstable.. whatever that means. Any (quasi-)dictatorship has dissidents, dissatisfaction and rebels. Capitalist democracy is not a more 'stable' model, by the way.. just often less brutal towards towards its own people. The US power game is already responsible for the deaths of millions since the end of WWII. There's nothing comforting about that either.
You know, I would be the one to point that right at you (about talking BS).
With that said, are you from Iran? the denial that Iran is unstable( HELLO, recent elections anybody?). Capitalist democracy is unstable, based on what!? Less brutal do you have any backing for that?
Oh wait, lets forget that Iran kills it's own civilians, runs two proxy armies. But no, the US is the one who goes after civilians and kills them, with disregard for the truth...
I wonder, I just wonder how this will play out.... I do have a clue.
On July 26 2010 23:17 Obsidian wrote: Far to many people here are of the opinion that taking out Iran's Nuclear capability is akin to both a full on invasion, and 'for the oil'.
There's something to be said for preventing a fanatical, unstable government with ties to many terrorist organizations, access to nuclear weapons. In the very least it could well provoke a massive response from Israel, let alone other countries. America actually has the least to fear directly, as Iran's ICBM capability isn't enough to reach the US I believe, but they have more than enough reach to touch most of Europe, and nobody want's Iran to have the bomb too.
A hostile government + 'The Bomb' + current world tensions = Fun times for all.
I can see targeted precision strikes against the nuclear facilities, with no full on war and invasion, Oil is secondary to nuclear apocalypse.
Hostile to who? Hostile to the states that have attacked (see US funding of Sadam's agressive war on Iran in the 80s) and threatened it relentlessly since the people of the country overthrew the US dictator?
The US also sold weapons to Khomeini during the Iran-Iraq war.
Anyways, I think the rest of your post is right but that still doesn't leave any indication that they're at threat of an attack. It actually just further emphasizes the point that we're stuck in international relations territory here.
On July 26 2010 23:17 Obsidian wrote: Far to many people here are of the opinion that taking out Iran's Nuclear capability is akin to both a full on invasion, and 'for the oil'.
There's something to be said for preventing a fanatical, unstable government with ties to many terrorist organizations, access to nuclear weapons. In the very least it could well provoke a massive response from Israel, let alone other countries. America actually has the least to fear directly, as Iran's ICBM capability isn't enough to reach the US I believe, but they have more than enough reach to touch most of Europe, and nobody want's Iran to have the bomb too.
A hostile government + 'The Bomb' + current world tensions = Fun times for all.
I can see targeted precision strikes against the nuclear facilities, with no full on war and invasion, Oil is secondary to nuclear apocalypse.
At first i thought you were talking about the American Government
- 'Israel trains PKK militants in Iraq' - CIA and Contras cocaine trafficking in the US - CIA Acknowledges Ties to Pinochet's Repression - Ex-CIA agent confirms US ties with Jundullah
etc etc etc
So wait how much of this "information" have you gotten from Press Tv?
you are talking shit! Also Iran is not unstable.. whatever that means. Any (quasi-)dictatorship has dissidents, dissatisfaction and rebels. Capitalist democracy is not a more 'stable' model, by the way.. just often less brutal towards towards its own people. The US power game is already responsible for the deaths of millions since the end of WWII. There's nothing comforting about that either.
You know, I would be the one to point that right at you (about talking BS).
With that said, are you from Iran? the denial that Iran is unstable( HELLO, recent elections anybody?). Capitalist democracy is unstable, based on what!? Less brutal do you have any backing for that?
Oh wait, lets forget that Iran kills it's own civilians, runs two proxy armies. But no, the US is the one who goes after civilians and kills them, with disregard for the truth...
I wonder, I just wonder how this will play out.... I do have a clue.
Perspective ? Say that to the dead people, American crimes body count is too big for them to try to excuse.
On July 26 2010 23:17 Obsidian wrote: Far to many people here are of the opinion that taking out Iran's Nuclear capability is akin to both a full on invasion, and 'for the oil'.
There's something to be said for preventing a fanatical, unstable government with ties to many terrorist organizations, access to nuclear weapons. In the very least it could well provoke a massive response from Israel, let alone other countries. America actually has the least to fear directly, as Iran's ICBM capability isn't enough to reach the US I believe, but they have more than enough reach to touch most of Europe, and nobody want's Iran to have the bomb too.
A hostile government + 'The Bomb' + current world tensions = Fun times for all.
I can see targeted precision strikes against the nuclear facilities, with no full on war and invasion, Oil is secondary to nuclear apocalypse.
At first i thought you were talking about the American Government
- 'Israel trains PKK militants in Iraq' - CIA and Contras cocaine trafficking in the US - CIA Acknowledges Ties to Pinochet's Repression - Ex-CIA agent confirms US ties with Jundullah
etc etc etc
So wait how much of this "information" have you gotten from Press Tv?
you are talking shit! Also Iran is not unstable.. whatever that means. Any (quasi-)dictatorship has dissidents, dissatisfaction and rebels. Capitalist democracy is not a more 'stable' model, by the way.. just often less brutal towards towards its own people. The US power game is already responsible for the deaths of millions since the end of WWII. There's nothing comforting about that either.
You know, I would be the one to point that right at you (about talking BS).
With that said, are you from Iran? the denial that Iran is unstable( HELLO, recent elections anybody?). Capitalist democracy is unstable, based on what!? Less brutal do you have any backing for that?
Oh wait, lets forget that Iran kills it's own civilians, runs two proxy armies. But no, the US is the one who goes after civilians and kills them, with disregard for the truth...
I wonder, I just wonder how this will play out.... I do have a clue.
Perspective ? Say that to the dead people, American crimes body count is too big for them to try to excuse.
Yet, again you offer no substance...
Way to ignore what I posted while your at it. I'll ask you, read what I posted before responding.
On July 26 2010 23:17 Obsidian wrote: Far to many people here are of the opinion that taking out Iran's Nuclear capability is akin to both a full on invasion, and 'for the oil'.
There's something to be said for preventing a fanatical, unstable government with ties to many terrorist organizations, access to nuclear weapons. In the very least it could well provoke a massive response from Israel, let alone other countries. America actually has the least to fear directly, as Iran's ICBM capability isn't enough to reach the US I believe, but they have more than enough reach to touch most of Europe, and nobody want's Iran to have the bomb too.
A hostile government + 'The Bomb' + current world tensions = Fun times for all.
I can see targeted precision strikes against the nuclear facilities, with no full on war and invasion, Oil is secondary to nuclear apocalypse.
At first i thought you were talking about the American Government
- 'Israel trains PKK militants in Iraq' - CIA and Contras cocaine trafficking in the US - CIA Acknowledges Ties to Pinochet's Repression - Ex-CIA agent confirms US ties with Jundullah
etc etc etc
So wait how much of this "information" have you gotten from Press Tv?
you are talking shit! Also Iran is not unstable.. whatever that means. Any (quasi-)dictatorship has dissidents, dissatisfaction and rebels. Capitalist democracy is not a more 'stable' model, by the way.. just often less brutal towards towards its own people. The US power game is already responsible for the deaths of millions since the end of WWII. There's nothing comforting about that either.
You know, I would be the one to point that right at you (about talking BS).
With that said, are you from Iran? the denial that Iran is unstable( HELLO, recent elections anybody?). Capitalist democracy is unstable, based on what!? Less brutal do you have any backing for that?
Oh wait, lets forget that Iran kills it's own civilians, runs two proxy armies. But no, the US is the one who goes after civilians and kills them, with disregard for the truth...
I wonder, I just wonder how this will play out.... I do have a clue.
Perspective ? Say that to the dead people, American crimes body count is too big for them to try to excuse.
Yet, again you offer no substance...
Way to ignore what I posted while your at it. I'll ask you, read what I posted before responding.
Wanna talk about the everlasting civil war in Angola ? The rebels helped by America with weapons and money, and then you talk about Iran having proxy armies lol...
On July 26 2010 23:17 Obsidian wrote: Far to many people here are of the opinion that taking out Iran's Nuclear capability is akin to both a full on invasion, and 'for the oil'.
There's something to be said for preventing a fanatical, unstable government with ties to many terrorist organizations, access to nuclear weapons. In the very least it could well provoke a massive response from Israel, let alone other countries. America actually has the least to fear directly, as Iran's ICBM capability isn't enough to reach the US I believe, but they have more than enough reach to touch most of Europe, and nobody want's Iran to have the bomb too.
A hostile government + 'The Bomb' + current world tensions = Fun times for all.
I can see targeted precision strikes against the nuclear facilities, with no full on war and invasion, Oil is secondary to nuclear apocalypse.
At first i thought you were talking about the American Government
- 'Israel trains PKK militants in Iraq' - CIA and Contras cocaine trafficking in the US - CIA Acknowledges Ties to Pinochet's Repression - Ex-CIA agent confirms US ties with Jundullah
etc etc etc
So wait how much of this "information" have you gotten from Press Tv?
you are talking shit! Also Iran is not unstable.. whatever that means. Any (quasi-)dictatorship has dissidents, dissatisfaction and rebels. Capitalist democracy is not a more 'stable' model, by the way.. just often less brutal towards towards its own people. The US power game is already responsible for the deaths of millions since the end of WWII. There's nothing comforting about that either.
You know, I would be the one to point that right at you (about talking BS).
With that said, are you from Iran? the denial that Iran is unstable( HELLO, recent elections anybody?). Capitalist democracy is unstable, based on what!? Less brutal do you have any backing for that?
Oh wait, lets forget that Iran kills it's own civilians, runs two proxy armies. But no, the US is the one who goes after civilians and kills them, with disregard for the truth...
I wonder, I just wonder how this will play out.... I do have a clue.
Perspective ? Say that to the dead people, American crimes body count is too big for them to try to excuse.
Yet, again you offer no substance...
Way to ignore what I posted while your at it. I'll ask you, read what I posted before responding.
Wanna talk about the everlasting civil war in Angola ? The rebels helped by America with weapons and money, and then you talk about Iran having proxy armies lol...
On July 26 2010 23:17 Obsidian wrote: Far to many people here are of the opinion that taking out Iran's Nuclear capability is akin to both a full on invasion, and 'for the oil'.
There's something to be said for preventing a fanatical, unstable government with ties to many terrorist organizations, access to nuclear weapons. In the very least it could well provoke a massive response from Israel, let alone other countries. America actually has the least to fear directly, as Iran's ICBM capability isn't enough to reach the US I believe, but they have more than enough reach to touch most of Europe, and nobody want's Iran to have the bomb too.
A hostile government + 'The Bomb' + current world tensions = Fun times for all.
I can see targeted precision strikes against the nuclear facilities, with no full on war and invasion, Oil is secondary to nuclear apocalypse.
At first i thought you were talking about the American Government
- 'Israel trains PKK militants in Iraq' - CIA and Contras cocaine trafficking in the US - CIA Acknowledges Ties to Pinochet's Repression - Ex-CIA agent confirms US ties with Jundullah
etc etc etc
So wait how much of this "information" have you gotten from Press Tv?
you are talking shit! Also Iran is not unstable.. whatever that means. Any (quasi-)dictatorship has dissidents, dissatisfaction and rebels. Capitalist democracy is not a more 'stable' model, by the way.. just often less brutal towards towards its own people. The US power game is already responsible for the deaths of millions since the end of WWII. There's nothing comforting about that either.
You know, I would be the one to point that right at you (about talking BS).
With that said, are you from Iran? the denial that Iran is unstable( HELLO, recent elections anybody?). Capitalist democracy is unstable, based on what!? Less brutal do you have any backing for that?
Oh wait, lets forget that Iran kills it's own civilians, runs two proxy armies. But no, the US is the one who goes after civilians and kills them, with disregard for the truth...
I wonder, I just wonder how this will play out.... I do have a clue.
Perspective ? Say that to the dead people, American crimes body count is too big for them to try to excuse.
Yet, again you offer no substance...
Way to ignore what I posted while your at it. I'll ask you, read what I posted before responding.
Wanna talk about the everlasting civil war in Angola ? The rebels helped by America with weapons and money, and then you talk about Iran having proxy armies lol...
On July 26 2010 23:17 Obsidian wrote: Far to many people here are of the opinion that taking out Iran's Nuclear capability is akin to both a full on invasion, and 'for the oil'.
There's something to be said for preventing a fanatical, unstable government with ties to many terrorist organizations, access to nuclear weapons. In the very least it could well provoke a massive response from Israel, let alone other countries. America actually has the least to fear directly, as Iran's ICBM capability isn't enough to reach the US I believe, but they have more than enough reach to touch most of Europe, and nobody want's Iran to have the bomb too.
A hostile government + 'The Bomb' + current world tensions = Fun times for all.
I can see targeted precision strikes against the nuclear facilities, with no full on war and invasion, Oil is secondary to nuclear apocalypse.
At first i thought you were talking about the American Government
- 'Israel trains PKK militants in Iraq' - CIA and Contras cocaine trafficking in the US - CIA Acknowledges Ties to Pinochet's Repression - Ex-CIA agent confirms US ties with Jundullah
etc etc etc
So wait how much of this "information" have you gotten from Press Tv?
you are talking shit! Also Iran is not unstable.. whatever that means. Any (quasi-)dictatorship has dissidents, dissatisfaction and rebels. Capitalist democracy is not a more 'stable' model, by the way.. just often less brutal towards towards its own people. The US power game is already responsible for the deaths of millions since the end of WWII. There's nothing comforting about that either.
You know, I would be the one to point that right at you (about talking BS).
With that said, are you from Iran? the denial that Iran is unstable( HELLO, recent elections anybody?). Capitalist democracy is unstable, based on what!? Less brutal do you have any backing for that?
Oh wait, lets forget that Iran kills it's own civilians, runs two proxy armies. But no, the US is the one who goes after civilians and kills them, with disregard for the truth...
I wonder, I just wonder how this will play out.... I do have a clue.
Perspective ? Say that to the dead people, American crimes body count is too big for them to try to excuse.
Yet, again you offer no substance...
Way to ignore what I posted while your at it. I'll ask you, read what I posted before responding.
Wanna talk about the everlasting civil war in Angola ? The rebels helped by America with weapons and money, and then you talk about Iran having proxy armies lol...
On July 26 2010 23:17 Obsidian wrote: Far to many people here are of the opinion that taking out Iran's Nuclear capability is akin to both a full on invasion, and 'for the oil'.
There's something to be said for preventing a fanatical, unstable government with ties to many terrorist organizations, access to nuclear weapons. In the very least it could well provoke a massive response from Israel, let alone other countries. America actually has the least to fear directly, as Iran's ICBM capability isn't enough to reach the US I believe, but they have more than enough reach to touch most of Europe, and nobody want's Iran to have the bomb too.
A hostile government + 'The Bomb' + current world tensions = Fun times for all.
I can see targeted precision strikes against the nuclear facilities, with no full on war and invasion, Oil is secondary to nuclear apocalypse.
At first i thought you were talking about the American Government
- 'Israel trains PKK militants in Iraq' - CIA and Contras cocaine trafficking in the US - CIA Acknowledges Ties to Pinochet's Repression - Ex-CIA agent confirms US ties with Jundullah
etc etc etc
So wait how much of this "information" have you gotten from Press Tv?
you are talking shit! Also Iran is not unstable.. whatever that means. Any (quasi-)dictatorship has dissidents, dissatisfaction and rebels. Capitalist democracy is not a more 'stable' model, by the way.. just often less brutal towards towards its own people. The US power game is already responsible for the deaths of millions since the end of WWII. There's nothing comforting about that either.
You know, I would be the one to point that right at you (about talking BS).
With that said, are you from Iran? the denial that Iran is unstable( HELLO, recent elections anybody?). Capitalist democracy is unstable, based on what!? Less brutal do you have any backing for that?
Oh wait, lets forget that Iran kills it's own civilians, runs two proxy armies. But no, the US is the one who goes after civilians and kills them, with disregard for the truth...
I wonder, I just wonder how this will play out.... I do have a clue.
Perspective ? Say that to the dead people, American crimes body count is too big for them to try to excuse.
Yet, again you offer no substance...
Way to ignore what I posted while your at it. I'll ask you, read what I posted before responding.
Wanna talk about the everlasting civil war in Angola ? The rebels helped by America with weapons and money, and then you talk about Iran having proxy armies lol...
On July 26 2010 23:17 Obsidian wrote: Far to many people here are of the opinion that taking out Iran's Nuclear capability is akin to both a full on invasion, and 'for the oil'.
There's something to be said for preventing a fanatical, unstable government with ties to many terrorist organizations, access to nuclear weapons. In the very least it could well provoke a massive response from Israel, let alone other countries. America actually has the least to fear directly, as Iran's ICBM capability isn't enough to reach the US I believe, but they have more than enough reach to touch most of Europe, and nobody want's Iran to have the bomb too.
A hostile government + 'The Bomb' + current world tensions = Fun times for all.
I can see targeted precision strikes against the nuclear facilities, with no full on war and invasion, Oil is secondary to nuclear apocalypse.
At first i thought you were talking about the American Government
- 'Israel trains PKK militants in Iraq' - CIA and Contras cocaine trafficking in the US - CIA Acknowledges Ties to Pinochet's Repression - Ex-CIA agent confirms US ties with Jundullah
etc etc etc
So wait how much of this "information" have you gotten from Press Tv?
you are talking shit! Also Iran is not unstable.. whatever that means. Any (quasi-)dictatorship has dissidents, dissatisfaction and rebels. Capitalist democracy is not a more 'stable' model, by the way.. just often less brutal towards towards its own people. The US power game is already responsible for the deaths of millions since the end of WWII. There's nothing comforting about that either.
You know, I would be the one to point that right at you (about talking BS).
With that said, are you from Iran? the denial that Iran is unstable( HELLO, recent elections anybody?). Capitalist democracy is unstable, based on what!? Less brutal do you have any backing for that?
Oh wait, lets forget that Iran kills it's own civilians, runs two proxy armies. But no, the US is the one who goes after civilians and kills them, with disregard for the truth...
I wonder, I just wonder how this will play out.... I do have a clue.
Perspective ? Say that to the dead people, American crimes body count is too big for them to try to excuse.
Yet, again you offer no substance...
Way to ignore what I posted while your at it. I'll ask you, read what I posted before responding.
Wanna talk about the everlasting civil war in Angola ? The rebels helped by America with weapons and money, and then you talk about Iran having proxy armies lol...
On July 26 2010 23:40 ImFromPortugal wrote: [quote]
At first i thought you were talking about the American Government
- 'Israel trains PKK militants in Iraq' - CIA and Contras cocaine trafficking in the US - CIA Acknowledges Ties to Pinochet's Repression - Ex-CIA agent confirms US ties with Jundullah
etc etc etc
So wait how much of this "information" have you gotten from Press Tv?
you are talking shit! Also Iran is not unstable.. whatever that means. Any (quasi-)dictatorship has dissidents, dissatisfaction and rebels. Capitalist democracy is not a more 'stable' model, by the way.. just often less brutal towards towards its own people. The US power game is already responsible for the deaths of millions since the end of WWII. There's nothing comforting about that either.
You know, I would be the one to point that right at you (about talking BS).
With that said, are you from Iran? the denial that Iran is unstable( HELLO, recent elections anybody?). Capitalist democracy is unstable, based on what!? Less brutal do you have any backing for that?
Oh wait, lets forget that Iran kills it's own civilians, runs two proxy armies. But no, the US is the one who goes after civilians and kills them, with disregard for the truth...
I wonder, I just wonder how this will play out.... I do have a clue.
Perspective ? Say that to the dead people, American crimes body count is too big for them to try to excuse.
Yet, again you offer no substance...
Way to ignore what I posted while your at it. I'll ask you, read what I posted before responding.
Wanna talk about the everlasting civil war in Angola ? The rebels helped by America with weapons and money, and then you talk about Iran having proxy armies lol...
"Wanna talk about the everlasting civil war in Angola ? The rebels helped by America with weapons and money, and then you talk about Iran having proxy armies lol..."
I was ....so you wanna say anything about the killing financed by the USA ? or its just "lol" ?
The CIA and Crack Cocaine US secret wars fought in South America Chile (PinoChet) Indonesia (Overthrow of Indonesia ) Cambodia Laos Secrets of The CIA - Congo Secrets of The CIA - Afghanistan
[quote] You know, I would be the one to point that right at you (about talking BS).
With that said, are you from Iran? the denial that Iran is unstable( HELLO, recent elections anybody?). Capitalist democracy is unstable, based on what!? Less brutal do you have any backing for that?
Oh wait, lets forget that Iran kills it's own civilians, runs two proxy armies. But no, the US is the one who goes after civilians and kills them, with disregard for the truth...
I wonder, I just wonder how this will play out.... I do have a clue.
Perspective ? Say that to the dead people, American crimes body count is too big for them to try to excuse.
Yet, again you offer no substance...
Way to ignore what I posted while your at it. I'll ask you, read what I posted before responding.
Wanna talk about the everlasting civil war in Angola ? The rebels helped by America with weapons and money, and then you talk about Iran having proxy armies lol...
"Wanna talk about the everlasting civil war in Angola ? The rebels helped by America with weapons and money, and then you talk about Iran having proxy armies lol..."
I was ....so you wanna say anything about the killing financed by the USA ? or its just "lol" ?
I have no clue now what you're trying to say. You don't get to write what you want into my post. And it seems I have to hold your hand on understanding this little "lol" moment you keep bashing. It was in contrast to you trying to promote the AnglolAN civil war to be the same as Iran's proxy Armies.
So it would be in your best interest to stop with the provocative liners. AND read that link I posted.
I'm not dealing with videos (this isn't YouTube), find the articles you like and post them.
On July 27 2010 01:07 ImFromPortugal wrote: [quote]
Perspective ? Say that to the dead people, American crimes body count is too big for them to try to excuse.
Yet, again you offer no substance...
Way to ignore what I posted while your at it. I'll ask you, read what I posted before responding.
Wanna talk about the everlasting civil war in Angola ? The rebels helped by America with weapons and money, and then you talk about Iran having proxy armies lol...
"Wanna talk about the everlasting civil war in Angola ? The rebels helped by America with weapons and money, and then you talk about Iran having proxy armies lol..."
I was ....so you wanna say anything about the killing financed by the USA ? or its just "lol" ?
I have no clue now what you're trying to say. You don't get to write what you want into my post. And it seems I have to hold your hand on understanding this little "lol" moment you keep bashing. It was in contrast to you trying to promote the AnglolAN civil war to be the same as Iran's proxy Armies.
So it would be in your best interest to stop with the provocative liners. AND read that link I posted.
I'm not dealing with videos (this isn't YouTube), find the articles you like and post them.
YOu are right this isnt youtube, ive edited my post now, too many videos anyway. What i was trying to say is that Americans have used and still use other countries to fight their proxy wars , with extreme destruction and consequences to the inhabitants of the countries targeted, ex: Angola.
Way to ignore what I posted while your at it. I'll ask you, read what I posted before responding.
Wanna talk about the everlasting civil war in Angola ? The rebels helped by America with weapons and money, and then you talk about Iran having proxy armies lol...
"Wanna talk about the everlasting civil war in Angola ? The rebels helped by America with weapons and money, and then you talk about Iran having proxy armies lol..."
I was ....so you wanna say anything about the killing financed by the USA ? or its just "lol" ?
I have no clue now what you're trying to say. You don't get to write what you want into my post. And it seems I have to hold your hand on understanding this little "lol" moment you keep bashing. It was in contrast to you trying to promote the AnglolAN civil war to be the same as Iran's proxy Armies.
So it would be in your best interest to stop with the provocative liners. AND read that link I posted.
I'm not dealing with videos (this isn't YouTube), find the articles you like and post them.
YOu are right this isnt youtube, ive edited my post now, too many videos anyway. What i was trying to say is that Americans have used and still use other countries to fight their proxy wars , with extreme destruction and consequences to the inhabitants of the countries targeted, ex: Angola.
Your edited post still doesn't help with the generalities. I didn't ask for titles also.
Secrets of The CIA (the last two, and same with US secret wars) Does nothing for me, to know what your aiming at.
Read up again on Angola little event, and you will find you cannot make some claims you are trying to now.
What's the difference between American so-called proxies, and Irans? One the cold war (this is actually the most or biggest element here). Two the goals involved in each. Three US criticizes those who it supports/aids, and goes after rouge elements.
On July 27 2010 01:15 ImFromPortugal wrote: [quote]
Wanna talk about the everlasting civil war in Angola ? The rebels helped by America with weapons and money, and then you talk about Iran having proxy armies lol...
"Wanna talk about the everlasting civil war in Angola ? The rebels helped by America with weapons and money, and then you talk about Iran having proxy armies lol..."
I was ....so you wanna say anything about the killing financed by the USA ? or its just "lol" ?
I have no clue now what you're trying to say. You don't get to write what you want into my post. And it seems I have to hold your hand on understanding this little "lol" moment you keep bashing. It was in contrast to you trying to promote the AnglolAN civil war to be the same as Iran's proxy Armies.
So it would be in your best interest to stop with the provocative liners. AND read that link I posted.
I'm not dealing with videos (this isn't YouTube), find the articles you like and post them.
YOu are right this isnt youtube, ive edited my post now, too many videos anyway. What i was trying to say is that Americans have used and still use other countries to fight their proxy wars , with extreme destruction and consequences to the inhabitants of the countries targeted, ex: Angola.
Your edited post still doesn't help with the generalities. I didn't ask for titles also.
Secrets of The CIA (the last two, and same with US secret wars) Does nothing for me, to know what your aiming at.
Read up again on Angola little event, and you will find you cannot make some claims you are trying to now.
What's the difference between American so-called proxies, and Irans? One the cold war (this is actually the most or biggest element here). Two the goals involved in each. Three US criticizes those who it supports/aids, and goes after rouge elements.
Angola little event that killed 500k people ..."and you will find you cannot make some claims you are trying to now. " are you crazy then? are you? lol..im not making claims im telling you the facts.
Anyone who thinks the US is actually going to attack Iran any time soon is just ignorant. No way Mr. Hayden of all people thinks that. His statements are just bluff and propaganda.
You are an american living in Germany, right? Anyway, he may be delusional but I suspect you're the one who's "ignorant". Maybe you should go back and read the revelations of Seymour Hersh about what people within the military were telling him back in 2004. I haven't read any of his stuff recently.. I guess I'll go check for that right now so I can tell people who don't know shit what they don't even want to consider... One more question.. Am I not allowed to post relevant video in this thread. It's not my desire to break any rules, I just think it might be interesting to crawl out of our own assholes in the search for truth. Just a thought.
Well you are definitely German by your posting.
I don't care what people were saying in 2004 and I don't know why you think it is relevant. The US is not going to attack Iran any time soon, and Mr. Hayder knows that well enough. If you disagree and think they will go ahead fine, but unless war actually breaks out I'll be right and you'll be wrong.
As to what you can post and what not: Just don't make one liner posts. You can post a link to a Youtube video along with your own post, just don't post nothing but a link.
So all those US and Israeli warships chilling out in the Red Sea are there just for a fishing trip? And the US taking over Canadian military operations in Kandahar and most of eastern Afghanistan has nothing to do with the fact that Afghanistan borders Iran? C'mon Zatic, the clues are obvious here. You're trusting the American government more than they deserve. Look at the rest of the Middle East, virtually every nation has US military presence in it with the exceptions of U.A.E., Pakistan and of course, Iran. Yet, Iran is essentially boxed in. So from a colonistic perspective, (something the US has yet to abandon) it only makes sense to take over Iran as well, especially since they have 10% of the world's oil reserves. Complete hegemony over the Middle East is what the US strives to achieve.
There are over 700 foreign US military bases in the world. Guess how many other countries have foreign military bases inside the US? That's right, ZERO! Colonistic ideals, gotta love em.
Anyone who thinks the US is actually going to attack Iran any time soon is just ignorant. No way Mr. Hayden of all people thinks that. His statements are just bluff and propaganda.
You are an american living in Germany, right? Anyway, he may be delusional but I suspect you're the one who's "ignorant". Maybe you should go back and read the revelations of Seymour Hersh about what people within the military were telling him back in 2004. I haven't read any of his stuff recently.. I guess I'll go check for that right now so I can tell people who don't know shit what they don't even want to consider... One more question.. Am I not allowed to post relevant video in this thread. It's not my desire to break any rules, I just think it might be interesting to crawl out of our own assholes in the search for truth. Just a thought.
Well you are definitely German by your posting.
I don't care what people were saying in 2004 and I don't know why you think it is relevant. The US is not going to attack Iran any time soon, and Mr. Hayder knows that well enough. If you disagree and think they will go ahead fine, but unless war actually breaks out I'll be right and you'll be wrong.
As to what you can post and what not: Just don't make one liner posts. You can post a link to a Youtube video along with your own post, just don't post nothing but a link.
So all those US and Israeli warships chilling out in the Red Sea are there just for a fishing trip? And the US taking over Canadian military operations in Kandahar and most of eastern Afghanistan has nothing to do with the fact that Afghanistan borders Iran? C'mon Zatic, the clues are obvious here. You're trusting the American government more than they deserve. Look at the rest of the Middle East, virtually every nation has US military presence in it with the exceptions of U.A.E., Pakistan and of course, Iran. Yet, Iran is essentially boxed in. So from a colonistic perspective, (something the US has yet to abandon) it only makes sense to take over Iran as well, especially since they have 10% of the world's oil reserves. Complete hegemony over the Middle East is what the US strives to achieve.
There are over 700 foreign US military bases in the world. Guess how many other countries have foreign military bases inside the US? That's right, ZERO! Colonistic ideals, gotta love em.
Well they are in and outside of the Red Sea to fight Somali pirates. The Red Sea isn't exactly near Iran anyway. The military is in Afghanistan, well, because there is an actual war going on. They concentrate on the East because that borders to Pakistan where most of the action is taking place. They are in Iraq because until recently there was a war going on, and you can at best call Iraq somewhat stable, but not at all peaceful. They are in Kuwait and Qatar as a result of the first and second gulf war.
Point is, if military presence in the region would be an indicator they should have attacked Iran 20 years ago. It's not like they have more oil of a sudden so that hasn't changed either. So I can safely give it another 20 years from those "clues" alone which is within my "any time soon" constraint.
And I don't trust them. I said repeatedly in this thread that I call BS on former CIA chief Hayden's claim an attack is more likely than ever.
On July 27 2010 03:16 ImFromPortugal wrote: What you think of this guys? Is Iran trying to buy some time?
Definitely, Iran is simply playing the game (and the system), the talks will go nowhere, because they don't want them to go anywhere. Iran may try to use it as a major bartering chip to get something out of the UN or US.
I personally wish US would just get the hell out of there, I do. It's not as if we've ever really done any good in the region, but I don't know if there's a way to extract ourselves at this point. Are corporate master's interests not withstanding, there's a very real reason to stop Iran from getting the bomb.
I'd dare say that their relentless pursuit of the bomb puts them in more dire straights than not, and though they may have reason to fear attack, that's largely due to the actions of their proxy armies and the policies they support.
Their recent elections is also one of the major reasons I have a strong dislike for the idea of them possessing the bomb, they are decidedly not-stable, and could break out in revolution within a few years potentially (if some sources are to be believed), and that's never good for military discipline and control.
On July 26 2010 04:04 travis wrote: You said "I wonder why you don't see a problem with calling them israelis". I was replying to that.
No I'm not being overzealous. Israel - the state - is doing the attacking. Judaism is not. You're not very discerning. Whether or not 100% of them are jews has absolutely jack shit to do with proper labeling. Israel, a country, declares war. Judaism, a religion, does not.
If you want to call them "israeli jews" then that's fine, although I suspect wrong because I bet out of the hundreds of thousands of people there are some non-jews that fight for Israel.
The fact that you actually defend the guy who calls them "jews" rather than "israelis" or the less-accurate "israeli jews" shows how non-discerning you are. If I was a jew I would be pissed at the racism, as I am sure I wouldn't be pro-israel since "jew" does not mean "zionist".
Now if only people would realize the same thing about Muslims....
Anyway, I'm not sure if a strike is the best way to deal with it. The problem is, is stopping Iran get nukes worth the risk of a destabilization in the middle east? For that's what would happen. Whether it would be good or not overall, I don't know. It would be bad because of the lack of stability, but at least another country wouldn't have nukes.
International sanction aren't working either, so that's a bummer. I feel like Iran is bringing it upon itself yet I really really wouldn't want to punish the Iranians themselves.
I don't buy that at all. When the Osirak reactor was blown in Iraq, it certainly did destabilize the region; in fact it had the opposite effect. Compare that to when the reactors that the Pakistanis were making were not blown up though, and you see quite clearly that the entire region was destabilized by them getting nukes (And the region remains destabilized to this day).The idea that blowing up Iran's reactors would somehow destabilize the region is simply ludicrous. .
I don't see what Pakistani nukes have to do with the destabilization of the region, is that wild conjecture or do you have any solid proof for that?.
Did you miss the whole nuclear standoff between Pakistan and India that's been happening for the last few decades?
On July 26 2010 04:04 travis wrote: You said "I wonder why you don't see a problem with calling them israelis". I was replying to that.
No I'm not being overzealous. Israel - the state - is doing the attacking. Judaism is not. You're not very discerning. Whether or not 100% of them are jews has absolutely jack shit to do with proper labeling. Israel, a country, declares war. Judaism, a religion, does not.
If you want to call them "israeli jews" then that's fine, although I suspect wrong because I bet out of the hundreds of thousands of people there are some non-jews that fight for Israel.
The fact that you actually defend the guy who calls them "jews" rather than "israelis" or the less-accurate "israeli jews" shows how non-discerning you are. If I was a jew I would be pissed at the racism, as I am sure I wouldn't be pro-israel since "jew" does not mean "zionist".
Now if only people would realize the same thing about Muslims....
Anyway, I'm not sure if a strike is the best way to deal with it. The problem is, is stopping Iran get nukes worth the risk of a destabilization in the middle east? For that's what would happen. Whether it would be good or not overall, I don't know. It would be bad because of the lack of stability, but at least another country wouldn't have nukes.
International sanction aren't working either, so that's a bummer. I feel like Iran is bringing it upon itself yet I really really wouldn't want to punish the Iranians themselves.
I don't buy that at all. When the Osirak reactor was blown in Iraq, it certainly did destabilize the region; in fact it had the opposite effect. Compare that to when the reactors that the Pakistanis were making were not blown up though, and you see quite clearly that the entire region was destabilized by them getting nukes (And the region remains destabilized to this day).The idea that blowing up Iran's reactors would somehow destabilize the region is simply ludicrous. .
I don't see what Pakistani nukes have to do with the destabilization of the region, is that wild conjecture or do you have any solid proof for that?.
Did you miss the whole nuclear standoff between Pakistan and India that's been happening for the last few decades?
Pakistan has nukes since 1998. If anything the region is pretty stable compared to the 3 wars they were fighting in the previous decades, wouldn't you think? The term "Nuclear standoff" itself carries a very "stable" connotation.
Historically there has been no better bringer of peace than nuclear weapons. They certainly helped in the case of India and Pakistan.
On July 26 2010 04:04 travis wrote: You said "I wonder why you don't see a problem with calling them israelis". I was replying to that.
No I'm not being overzealous. Israel - the state - is doing the attacking. Judaism is not. You're not very discerning. Whether or not 100% of them are jews has absolutely jack shit to do with proper labeling. Israel, a country, declares war. Judaism, a religion, does not.
If you want to call them "israeli jews" then that's fine, although I suspect wrong because I bet out of the hundreds of thousands of people there are some non-jews that fight for Israel.
The fact that you actually defend the guy who calls them "jews" rather than "israelis" or the less-accurate "israeli jews" shows how non-discerning you are. If I was a jew I would be pissed at the racism, as I am sure I wouldn't be pro-israel since "jew" does not mean "zionist".
Now if only people would realize the same thing about Muslims....
Anyway, I'm not sure if a strike is the best way to deal with it. The problem is, is stopping Iran get nukes worth the risk of a destabilization in the middle east? For that's what would happen. Whether it would be good or not overall, I don't know. It would be bad because of the lack of stability, but at least another country wouldn't have nukes.
International sanction aren't working either, so that's a bummer. I feel like Iran is bringing it upon itself yet I really really wouldn't want to punish the Iranians themselves.
I don't buy that at all. When the Osirak reactor was blown in Iraq, it certainly did destabilize the region; in fact it had the opposite effect. Compare that to when the reactors that the Pakistanis were making were not blown up though, and you see quite clearly that the entire region was destabilized by them getting nukes (And the region remains destabilized to this day).The idea that blowing up Iran's reactors would somehow destabilize the region is simply ludicrous. .
I don't see what Pakistani nukes have to do with the destabilization of the region, is that wild conjecture or do you have any solid proof for that?.
Did you miss the whole nuclear standoff between Pakistan and India that's been happening for the last few decades?
Pakistan has nukes since 1998. If anything the region is pretty stable compared to the 3 wars they were fighting in the previous decades, wouldn't you think? The term "Nuclear standoff" itself carries a very "stable" connotation.
Historically there has been no better bringer of peace than nuclear weapons. They certainly helped in the case of India and Pakistan.
Are you familiar with the 1962 Cuban missile crisis? I am inclined to argue that nukes are the harbinger of doom upon learning just how close we were to annilihation.
India and Pakistan may accept the Great Equalizer of nukes to stand down, but the US is a global tyrant who doesn't accept anything less than 1st place - even in the face of obliteration.
BAGHDAD – The U.S. Defense Department is unable to properly account for over 95 percent of $9.1 billion in Iraqi oil money tapped by the U.S. for rebuilding the war ravaged nation, according to an audit released Tuesday.
The report by the U.S. Special Investigator for Iraq Reconstruction offers a compelling look at continued laxness in how such funds are being spent in a country where people complain basic services like electricity and clean water are sharply lacking seven years after the U.S.-led invasion that toppled Saddam Hussein.
The audit found that shoddy record keeping by the Defense Department left the Pentagon unable to fully account for $8.7 billion it withdrew between 2004 and 2007 from a special fund set up by the U.N. Security Council. Of that amount, Pentagon "could not provide documentation to substantiate how it spent $2.6 billion."
Well, if you guys can remember back, there was a major stink when the Taliban got pushed into Pakistan from Afghanistan, and they started effectively annexing whole districts at a time, that they could get a hold on a few of the Pakistani nukes, their controls are horribly lax.
i think ur assumptions are taking it too far to assume talibans can "just get the nukes from Pakistan". most countries other than US/Russia only have a handful of nukes anyways.
still, world wide opinion is, the USA is really fucking up this war on terror and WMD witch-hunt.
Well, thanks for not really understanding what I was saying...
I don't think Pakistan would hand nukes over, that's silly. But there was some mention that they might loose control of the Silos that contain them, and granted I doubt the Taliban would have had technical knowledge to make use of that, the very idea is still rather alarming.
On June 13 2010 02:46 Antiochus wrote: I would like to say that I was a surprised but i really wasn't after all there has been talk about doing this for a while now.
Anyone who thinks the US is actually going to attack Iran any time soon is just ignorant. No way Mr. Hayden of all people thinks that. His statements are just bluff and propaganda.
You are an american living in Germany, right? Anyway, he may be delusional but I suspect you're the one who's "ignorant". Maybe you should go back and read the revelations of Seymour Hersh about what people within the military were telling him back in 2004. I haven't read any of his stuff recently.. I guess I'll go check for that right now so I can tell people who don't know shit what they don't even want to consider... One more question.. Am I not allowed to post relevant video in this thread. It's not my desire to break any rules, I just think it might be interesting to crawl out of our own assholes in the search for truth. Just a thought.
Well you are definitely German by your posting.
I don't care what people were saying in 2004 and I don't know why you think it is relevant. The US is not going to attack Iran any time soon, and Mr. Hayder knows that well enough. If you disagree and think they will go ahead fine, but unless war actually breaks out I'll be right and you'll be wrong.
As to what you can post and what not: Just don't make one liner posts. You can post a link to a Youtube video along with your own post, just don't post nothing but a link.
sigh I posted a youtube video and you only looked at one aspect of it£. I was not trying to prove anything, but if you look at his arguments then you could have checked whether or not his facts are genuine facts and drawn your own conclusions. Personall, I can't imagine full scale invasion by the US, but I can imagine Israel striking Iran in a major way and the US and allies being ready to deal with any retaliatory measures by Iran. I'm not at all convinced that the US government actually believes that Iran is (still) developing any nukes. The mere fact that Iran is buying more defensive and probably also offensive weapons could be a reason for the US to make a move. Iran is not allowed to be strong in the region. The US only attack weak nations. That's official policy since forever. I wouldn't discount what the guy was saying about alliances being formed. The US is making moves while it can still do so with impunity. In 30 years time this will no longer be possible, and it won't be because the US helped build up international order, or at least an effective way of dealing with agressors. The legacy is one of mass murder, terrorism and assassinations. This fact should not be controversial and the conversations here would be a little more constructive if we could all agree on the well-documented historic record (=the basics), and not get lost in the US media talking points and neo-con-style crazy talk..
Threads like these suck because: 1.) People go on stupid tangents that should be saved for PMs. 2.) Nobody reads what anybody else writes and it becomes a finger-in-ear "my posts are more inflammatory than yours." 3.) There is insufficient love.
That said, nukes are like giant teddy bears of great affection and should be launched to bring warmth and delight to all corners of globe, including Antarctica, which is a way better continent than Europe, Asia, or the Americas.
but do not fear, the global police is on their way...
"U.S. Navy Investigating Report of Persian Gulf Tanker Attack"
July 28, 2010
An explosion, possibly caused by an attack, damaged an oil tanker Wednesday near the mouth of the Persian Gulf, Japanese shipping company Mitsui O.S.K. Lines said.
The company said the blast on its tanker M. Star caused one minor injury but did not cause an oil leak.
The ship was damaged due to "an explosion from a suspected attack from the outside" in the waters off Oman, near the strategically important Strait of Hormuz, the company said.
The strait leads into the Persian Gulf past Oman and Iran, and is a transit point for about 40 percent of oil shipped by tankers worldwide.
"We believe it's highly likely an attack," Mitsui spokeswoman Eiko Mizuno said. "There is nothing that can explode in that part of the vessel."
On July 28 2010 20:10 ImFromPortugal wrote: UPDATE:
Crazy stuff going on people ~~
but do not fear, the global police is on their way...
"U.S. Navy Investigating Report of Persian Gulf Tanker Attack"
July 28, 2010
An explosion, possibly caused by an attack, damaged an oil tanker Wednesday near the mouth of the Persian Gulf, Japanese shipping company Mitsui O.S.K. Lines said.
The company said the blast on its tanker M. Star caused one minor injury but did not cause an oil leak.
The ship was damaged due to "an explosion from a suspected attack from the outside" in the waters off Oman, near the strategically important Strait of Hormuz, the company said.
The strait leads into the Persian Gulf past Oman and Iran, and is a transit point for about 40 percent of oil shipped by tankers worldwide.
"We believe it's highly likely an attack," Mitsui spokeswoman Eiko Mizuno said. "There is nothing that can explode in that part of the vessel."
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.
User was temp banned for this post.
Tell poster he doesn't understand world relations. Relate world relations to StarCraft.
Zatic had me convinced earlier that an attack was foolhardy and would never materialize itself beyond empty threats, but upon discovering this recent video on Russia Today, I'm starting to feel concerned again.
Apparently US Congress is trying to pass bill HR 1553, which would give Israel the green light to engage Iran, obviously with American support. I never thought such an insane idea was up for debate to begin with, but if this bill gets passed, Zatic may just have to eat his own words.
On July 28 2010 20:10 ImFromPortugal wrote: UPDATE:
Crazy stuff going on people ~~
but do not fear, the global police is on their way...
"U.S. Navy Investigating Report of Persian Gulf Tanker Attack"
July 28, 2010
An explosion, possibly caused by an attack, damaged an oil tanker Wednesday near the mouth of the Persian Gulf, Japanese shipping company Mitsui O.S.K. Lines said.
The company said the blast on its tanker M. Star caused one minor injury but did not cause an oil leak.
The ship was damaged due to "an explosion from a suspected attack from the outside" in the waters off Oman, near the strategically important Strait of Hormuz, the company said.
The strait leads into the Persian Gulf past Oman and Iran, and is a transit point for about 40 percent of oil shipped by tankers worldwide.
"We believe it's highly likely an attack," Mitsui spokeswoman Eiko Mizuno said. "There is nothing that can explode in that part of the vessel."
Someone has to be in control, and because humans are flawed, their systems and nations are flawed. There is no perfect way for the world to be at peace and have humans still living in it, but ask yourself this: No matter what the reigning ideology is in America, it remains a country of laws and rules. Would you rather have a nation rooted in jurisprudence as a superpower, or a nation rooted in a particular religion?
Back on topic, not sure if anyone has mentioned this, but Saudi Arabia and Iran have been fighting a proxy conflict in Yemen the past two years. It is one of the largest conflicts in the world (which nobody has heard about). Not to mention the fact that the Sunni and Shia sects have hated each other for over 1300 years.
On July 31 2010 06:48 tehemperorer wrote: Someone has to be in control, and because humans are flawed, their systems and nations are flawed. There is no perfect way for the world to be at peace and have humans still living in it, but ask yourself this: No matter what the reigning ideology is in America, it remains a country of laws and rules. Would you rather have a nation rooted in jurisprudence as a superpower, or a nation rooted in a particular religion?
Does anyone have any sense of intelligence?? Why do you think the US is the one who's been telling the news this??? BECAUSE THEY PRESSURED THE SAUDIS TO DO IT!!!!!
Iran official: We have obtained the S-300 missile system Fars news agency says Tehran signs deal with Belarus after Russia reportedly refused to provide Iran with the surface-to-air system over recent UN sanctions. By The Associated Press and Haaretz Service
On July 31 2010 04:55 Blanke wrote: Zatic had me convinced earlier that an attack was foolhardy and would never materialize itself beyond empty threats, but upon discovering this recent video on Russia Today, I'm starting to feel concerned again.
Apparently US Congress is trying to pass bill HR 1553, which would give Israel the green light to engage Iran, obviously with American support. I never thought such an insane idea was up for debate to begin with, but if this bill gets passed, Zatic may just have to eat his own words.
Congress also passed the American Service Members Protection Act to green light a US invasion of the Netherlands in 2002 after the International Criminal Court was established in Den Haag. A pretty insane idea if you ask me. Still in addition to my claim the US won't attack Iran I state they won't attack the Netherlands any time soon either, even though the bill has already passed Congress 8 years ago.
I will gladly eat my word when the cruise missiles start flying.
I should have known, Portugal! Israel is dictating the outcome of this standoff right now, not the US. They're spread way too thin and their economy is far too weak to afford another war, but Israel has a bone to pick with Iran. While Israel would most likely avoid using nukes (overkill), they are in a firm position to begin conventional warfare anytime they like with bombers. Question is, how will the rest of the world react?
Israel doesn't have bombers.... Here comes some hardware nerding:
The only aircraft Isreal really has to strike Iran is the F15E, of which they have about 25 in service. Each F15E can carry two bombs large enough to destroy larger ground installations. The F15 can not reach Iran to strike but would have to be refueled in flight, twice. The IDF has not enough refueling aircraft nor the bases in the region to operate such crafts.
Syria, Lebanon, and Jordan would never give Israel clear skies. That leaves Saudi Arabia and Turkey as potential partners. Relations to Turkey are at an all time low, so they also will not grand overflight rights in the next couple of years.
Which leaves Saudi Arabia. Saudi and Israel have excellent relations on the political level, but both can never admit that. That's why Saudi immediately denied granting Israel clear skies.
But lets assume they stand down and the 25 F15 can cross the Gulf. First given their range they could only attack sites near the coast. If you look where the most important nuclear site, Isfahan, is located, that's not helping much.
Now let's say they can theoretically reach targets within Iran. That still leaves out the Iranian air defense. They will be completely ready since with hours of flight time and in flight refueling the attack just can not come at a surprise. Even with the sorry shape of the Iranian air force, they are not 80ies Iraq. Their MIG 29 could easily take on F15E which are out on a air to ground attack and as such only carry light air to air weapons. And then there is the much more effective ground to air defense, where they field the most excellent S-300 Russian GTA missile systems.
In theory you could imagine the IDF arming half their strike force with air to air and anti radar missiles, but that would leave you a total of 24 bombs to drop, assuming 0 losses to air defense flying in. That will just not ever stop any nuclear program, unless they go all in an drop 24 nukes.
In addition to their airforce the navy could deploy their subs which are said to be armed with cruise missiles, 4 per sub of which they have 4, which would give them another 16 potential strikes, but again only in coastal near regions.
If you look at it realistically, the IDF has about 0% chance to destroy anything in Iran unless they drop the big ones, or even reach Iran with their airforce for that matter.
To perform any successful attack, it has to be closely coordinated with their US allies, who would have to refuel the IDF planes and clear the Iranian air defense as much as possible. But then they could just as well go out and total out bomb Iran themselves with cruise missiles and wouldn't have to worry about the few Israeli F15s at all.
So, the Israel is not going to "drag the US into war with Iran". If Israel strikes, it will be together with the US, and the US doing about 98% of the work.
but really, from a political stand point, Israel receive alot of aids from the US. the US had always wanted Israel to have peaceful relations with its neighbors so for Israel to strike anyone would be political suicide.
without US support, Israel would have been "wiped off the map" already.
hello everyone, now I did indeed register here.. but not to argue with some douchebags over sc2 related stuff, to complain about the bragging, flaming and stupitity going on in some threads, and sometimes even the arrogance of the admins ("... otherweise, shut the fuck up!"), but to express how glad I am with the opinions shared here concerning the ME crisis. I read a lot about the ME, esp. israel, and in every german newspaper forum, where the people think of themselves as educated and having an objective opinion and so on (what makes it worse), 95% of the comments make me sick cause its raging israel (or US)-bashing without even trying to understand the facts. it makes me sick, so now I dont visit any political forum.. but now I see that the ME is discussed HERE! I thought "uh oh" and only read the first page - to see that nearly every comment was at least reasonable. I laughed when i saw that the user of the only stupid comment on page1 got temp. banned..! I guess on the other 27pages there will be posts that would make me rage too, but Im really glad to see that a good %age of the sc2 players here still got some reason and sanity concerning their assessment of the most important conflict of this generation. the world media is SO fucked up in all this, playing sc2 for me is also a way to forget about all this for a while.. we (the still sane people) can only hope, that israel still knows where irans nuke program exactly is, and that israel has more tricks up her sleeve than her enemys anticipate. israel still has to military edge, and the whole civilized world has to hope that it stays that way. the irianian regime has to fall, as soon as possible. it would be the best thing ever if the oppressed people themselves topple the regime, but thats unlikely, also because stupid europe doesnt support the opposition nearly enough. if it doesnt collapse or give in - it wont give in, because everything the regime focuses on, is the bring about armaggeddon (to hasten the coming of the 12th imam), and before it collapses it will peroform an all out attack (which would be good for several reasons). if iran becomes democratic, peace will be achieved in the ME, but only then! its important that we all gonna stand with israel and the iranian opposition
"If you look at it realistically, the IDF has about 0% chance to destroy anything in Iran unless they drop the big ones, or even reach Iran with their airforce for that matter. "
1. the IAF can reach every target in iran 2. the S-300 air defense is not in the hands of the iranian regime. (they claimed they got 2-3 batteries now. I hope not. but that wouldnt be enough.) 3. the rest the the air defense as well as the iranian air force is shit compared to the israeli army. Iran is bluffing in many ways. a devastating attack on the nuke facilities by israel is more than possible. but the US could still do it much better, also from a political standpoint, the US should attack if the other options have prooved to be not enough. so I dont see how your view is realistic at all.
oh and by the way, the US is already at war with iran! since 1979. and israel doesnt have anything to do with it.
"Herp, derp! Non democratic government detected in middle east, captain. They are probably building weapons of mass destruction somewhere! Bomb the shit out of them Y/N?" I begin to see a pattern.
Should rather attack Israel, that pseudo-nazi democracy. Also I really doubt the US would consider attacking Iran, that's just a bad idea. Unless you want thousands of soldiers dead and 30 years of suicide bombing.
Well I guess we just have to disagree on this. The F-15E has a combat range of 1200km. It's 800 km to the border flying over Syria (which they can't), and about 1000 to the nearest coastline flying over Saudi. It's more than twice that to the more remote areas of Iran. Isfahan is outside that range as well as Natanz which they wouldn't have any hope to hit anyway.
Let's say they can fly in straight. That still doesn't change that they only have 25 of those birds.
Agreed though the 0% was an exaggeration. Much like your "they can hit anything anywhere". My original point was anyway that if Israel is going to strike, then it's going to alongside the US.
Other than that welcome to TL. Please consider reading the rules of this forum, especially the one about typing in English, which includes proper capitalization.
On August 06 2010 20:09 dybydx wrote: lol zatic knows his shit.
but really, from a political stand point, Israel receive alot of aids from the US. the US had always wanted Israel to have peaceful relations with its neighbors so for Israel to strike anyone would be political suicide.
without US support, Israel would have been "wiped off the map" already.
Hardly. At this point Israel is very much secure among its neighbors. It provides their leaders domestic political leverage while still selling them the best guns money can buy. The only war that's fought now is in PR because none of them want to admit there is no national will to protect Palestinians. As of now, its presence stabilizes the region. It's unfortunate that things like the recent border deaths are tolerable for the sake of politics.
Also, don't use the misquoted Ahmadinejad line like that. :/
EDIT: And yeah, zatic is right. Israel may have the best military in the region but they don't have the numbers to conduct a legitimate bombing campaign on Iran, especially given they'll really need to be using much heavier bunker busters to get anything done, and I'm not even sure their bomb technology is adequate for that.
i dont believe any country 'deserves' nukes... just because america right now is the 'world police' doesn't mean they should have them..
soon china will be the new super power, this doesn't mean they are suddenly allowed to produce nukes..
in my opinion, the only group who should be able to produce nukes is the UEC "united earth confederacy" .. and we're still 400 years away from that ever happening.
On August 06 2010 20:09 dybydx wrote: lol zatic knows his shit.
but really, from a political stand point, Israel receive alot of aids from the US. the US had always wanted Israel to have peaceful relations with its neighbors so for Israel to strike anyone would be political suicide.
without US support, Israel would have been "wiped off the map" already.
Hardly. At this point Israel is very much secure among its neighbors. It provides their leaders domestic political leverage while still selling them the best guns money can buy. The only war that's fought now is in PR because none of them want to admit there is no national will to protect Palestinians. As of now, its presence stabilizes the region. It's unfortunate that things like the recent border deaths are tolerable for the sake of politics.
Also, don't use the misquoted Ahmadinejad line like that. :/
EDIT: And yeah, zatic is right. Israel may have the best military in the region but they don't have the numbers to conduct a legitimate bombing campaign on Iran, especially given they'll really need to be using much heavier bunker busters to get anything done, and I'm not even sure their bomb technology is adequate for that.
of course israel wouldnt exist without US support. they wouldve been overrun decades ago. thats why israelis are very nervous about obama beeing in charge now. he has great intensions and is very articulate, but he is indeed naive when it comes to the Middle east. his appeasment attempts are very dangerous, in the long run for all democratic nations. I hope he'll listen to the right advice..!
"the US had always wanted Israel to have peaceful relations with its neighbors so for Israel to strike anyone would be political suicide." the majority in the US understands that israel will have no choice if sanctions wont work (and they wont). so israel will strike only with the ok from the US obviously. given the fact that israel is already isolated (only having a few friendly countries left), it wont be political suicide.
"The only war that's fought now is in PR because none of them want to admit there is no national will to protect Palestinians. As of now, its presence stabilizes the region. It's unfortunate that things like the recent border deaths are tolerable for the sake of politics."
there is much more going on than a PR war. israel is relatively secure only cuz of its qualitative military edge (thats to the US too obv.). what do you mean by "protect the pal.."? who, protect from what? the palestinian presence stabilizes the region? that doesnt make sense to me. the last sentence I also dont get. :-/
the US should do the military strike. but obama wont do it I guess.. so israel will. I only gotta say, dont underestimate the israeli military. by that I mean "best military in the region" is a clear understatement. they can do it because they have to be able to.
On August 06 2010 20:09 dybydx wrote: lol zatic knows his shit.
but really, from a political stand point, Israel receive alot of aids from the US. the US had always wanted Israel to have peaceful relations with its neighbors so for Israel to strike anyone would be political suicide.
without US support, Israel would have been "wiped off the map" already.
Hardly. At this point Israel is very much secure among its neighbors. It provides their leaders domestic political leverage while still selling them the best guns money can buy. The only war that's fought now is in PR because none of them want to admit there is no national will to protect Palestinians. As of now, its presence stabilizes the region. It's unfortunate that things like the recent border deaths are tolerable for the sake of politics.
Also, don't use the misquoted Ahmadinejad line like that. :/
EDIT: And yeah, zatic is right. Israel may have the best military in the region but they don't have the numbers to conduct a legitimate bombing campaign on Iran, especially given they'll really need to be using much heavier bunker busters to get anything done, and I'm not even sure their bomb technology is adequate for that.
of course israel wouldnt exist without US support. they wouldve been overrun decades ago. thats why israelis are very nervous about obama beeing in charge now. he has great intensions and is very articulate, but he is indeed naive when it comes to the Middle east. his appeasment attempts are very dangerous, in the long run for all democratic nations. I hope he'll listen to the right advice..!
"the US had always wanted Israel to have peaceful relations with its neighbors so for Israel to strike anyone would be political suicide." the majority in the US understands that israel will have no choice if sanctions wont work (and they wont). so israel will strike only with the ok from the US obviously. given the fact that israel is already isolated (only having a few friendly countries left), it wont be political suicide.
"The only war that's fought now is in PR because none of them want to admit there is no national will to protect Palestinians. As of now, its presence stabilizes the region. It's unfortunate that things like the recent border deaths are tolerable for the sake of politics."
there is much more going on than a PR war. israel is relatively secure only cuz of its qualitative military edge (thats to the US too obv.). what do you mean by "protect the pal.."? who, protect from what? the palestinian presence stabilizes the region? that doesnt make sense to me. the last sentence I also dont get. :-/
the US should do the military strike. but obama wont do it I guess.. so israel will. I only gotta say, dont underestimate the israeli military. by that I mean "best military in the region" is a clear understatement. they can do it because they have to be able to.
What do you know of Obama's intentions? And why do you assume that Iran is even working on nuclear weapons? I'm not saying that there isn't or wasn't something to that claim, but there's certainly no conclusive evidence. Ah, the old appeasement line. Whenever there's the choice between war and peace some guy feels it's appropriate to reference Hitler's expansionism. Well, don't you think that the Iranian regime has displayed vastly more rational behaviour than Hitler? Maybe that's still not good enough. I'm just saying that just because Iran isn't a democracy that it merits bombing campains or anything of the sort. In fact it might be a reasonable policy if it were applied consistently. This isn't about freedom. You're free to imagine that such elevated goals are at the heart of real world considerations, but they're not. It's really complete nonsense that Israel has no other choice than to strike Iran (if it really is developing nuclear weapons). Israel could just accept that Iran is also a nuclear nation and it would have to behave accordingly in relation to it. Obviously it's always a nasty situation when two nations that consider eachother as enemies both aquire nuclear weapons. I hardly think that a situation like the India-Pakistan one is desirable. It could also be argued that the Middle-East should be a nuclear free zone, but for some reason that's the silliest idea in the world. No, we must remain determined to, in practice, support any policy of the Israelis. Why? Stability. Oh, okay. And peace. Oh yes, of course. Where would all those poor countries in the region be if it weren't for a single nuclear god towering over them. Seriously though, it's hard to know with absolute certainty what all the motivations of the US governments are/were but one could remark that the whole Israeli-Palestinian situation isn't to the disadvantage of local dictators. People in most of the Middle East lack half-decent journalism and the place is rife with conspiracy theories. The only extra thing one needs to channel thinking away from adressing the real problems in those countries is a great demon and Israel performs that role admirably. 'Stability' may seem like the best thing in the world if you're living a thousand miles away, but doing away with the oppression of Palestinians could be benificial to more than just the Palestinians (and the Israelis themselves). The US has the power to allow sanctions on Israel. Or it could choose to change its relationship; perhaps apply some mild pressure? The US could do a lot of good without even dropping one bomb. They prefer control though, which is also evident when one looks at the situation in Egypt, Saudi-Arabia and a lot of other 'allies', official or not.
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.
If the military have AK's then mass murderers should have them too!
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?
Responsibility with nukes =/= # of wars started
I am not taking sides but rather playing devils advocate. How does one judge/define "responsibility"? By their words or their actions? Because USA has both the history of using nukes and habit of engaging in wars.
Sorry If I went a little off topic, The debate of moral superiority and moral authority is intriguing and interesting.
Ok, would you rather have the US invade japan and lose 50000+ soldiers? Honestly I'm sick of when people piss on Truman for using the bombs. Roosevelt would've done it. Woodrow would've done it. Any other american president would've done it because the american opinion of 150000 dead japanese is not worth a single american boy. Not to mention what would've happened to the presidents if the public found out that he had a weapon that could've saved 50000 soldiers.
On August 06 2010 20:09 dybydx wrote: lol zatic knows his shit.
but really, from a political stand point, Israel receive alot of aids from the US. the US had always wanted Israel to have peaceful relations with its neighbors so for Israel to strike anyone would be political suicide.
without US support, Israel would have been "wiped off the map" already.
Hardly. At this point Israel is very much secure among its neighbors. It provides their leaders domestic political leverage while still selling them the best guns money can buy. The only war that's fought now is in PR because none of them want to admit there is no national will to protect Palestinians. As of now, its presence stabilizes the region. It's unfortunate that things like the recent border deaths are tolerable for the sake of politics.
Also, don't use the misquoted Ahmadinejad line like that. :/
EDIT: And yeah, zatic is right. Israel may have the best military in the region but they don't have the numbers to conduct a legitimate bombing campaign on Iran, especially given they'll really need to be using much heavier bunker busters to get anything done, and I'm not even sure their bomb technology is adequate for that.
of course israel wouldnt exist without US support. they wouldve been overrun decades ago. thats why israelis are very nervous about obama beeing in charge now. he has great intensions and is very articulate, but he is indeed naive when it comes to the Middle east. his appeasment attempts are very dangerous, in the long run for all democratic nations. I hope he'll listen to the right advice..!
"the US had always wanted Israel to have peaceful relations with its neighbors so for Israel to strike anyone would be political suicide." the majority in the US understands that israel will have no choice if sanctions wont work (and they wont). so israel will strike only with the ok from the US obviously. given the fact that israel is already isolated (only having a few friendly countries left), it wont be political suicide.
"The only war that's fought now is in PR because none of them want to admit there is no national will to protect Palestinians. As of now, its presence stabilizes the region. It's unfortunate that things like the recent border deaths are tolerable for the sake of politics."
there is much more going on than a PR war. israel is relatively secure only cuz of its qualitative military edge (thats to the US too obv.). what do you mean by "protect the pal.."? who, protect from what? the palestinian presence stabilizes the region? that doesnt make sense to me. the last sentence I also dont get. :-/
the US should do the military strike. but obama wont do it I guess.. so israel will. I only gotta say, dont underestimate the israeli military. by that I mean "best military in the region" is a clear understatement. they can do it because they have to be able to.
What do you know of Obama's intentions? And why do you assume that Iran is even working on nuclear weapons? I'm not saying that there isn't or wasn't something to that claim, but there's certainly no conclusive evidence. Ah, the old appeasement line. Whenever there's the choice between war and peace some guy feels it's appropriate to reference Hitler's expansionism. Well, don't you think that the Iranian regime has displayed vastly more rational behaviour than Hitler? Maybe that's still not good enough. I'm just saying that just because Iran isn't a democracy that it merits bombing campains or anything of the sort. In fact it might be a reasonable policy if it were applied consistently. This isn't about freedom. You're free to imagine that such elevated goals are at the heart of real world considerations, but they're not. It's really complete nonsense that Israel has no other choice than to strike Iran (if it really is developing nuclear weapons). Israel could just accept that Iran is also a nuclear nation and it would have to behave accordingly in relation to it. Obviously it's always a nasty situation when two nations that consider eachother as enemies both aquire nuclear weapons. I hardly think that a situation like the India-Pakistan one is desirable. It could also be argued that the Middle-East should be a nuclear free zone, but for some reason that's the silliest idea in the world. No, we must remain determined to, in practice, support any policy of the Israelis. Why? Stability. Oh, okay. And peace. Oh yes, of course. Where would all those poor countries in the region be if it weren't for a single nuclear god towering over them. Seriously though, it's hard to know with absolute certainty what all the motivations of the US governments are/were but one could remark that the whole Israeli-Palestinian situation isn't to the disadvantage of local dictators. People in most of the Middle East lack half-decent journalism and the place is rife with conspiracy theories. The only extra thing one needs to channel thinking away from adressing the real problems in those countries is a great demon and Israel performs that role admirably. 'Stability' may seem like the best thing in the world if you're living a thousand miles away, but doing away with the oppression of Palestinians could be benificial to more than just the Palestinians (and the Israelis themselves). The US has the power to allow sanctions on Israel. Or it could choose to change its relationship; perhaps apply some mild pressure? The US could do a lot of good without even dropping one bomb. They prefer control though, which is also evident when one looks at the situation in Egypt, Saudi-Arabia and a lot of other 'allies', official or not.
User was warned for this post
I will make the effort to answer you because I think you may not have those opinions out of arrogance and a disgusting ideology, but because you just dont know better. you seem honest and you're not insulting, so... I'll try to change your mind a bit first of all, what you're writing is the opinion of the vast majority of europeans, and this makes me so sick, I cant even tell you.
I'll try to keep it short so I wont sit on this post the whole day, gotta train my zerg macro later
"What do you know of Obama's intentions? And why do you assume that Iran is even working on nuclear weapons? I'm not saying that there isn't or wasn't something to that claim, but there's certainly no conclusive evidence."
1. you can conclude his intensions and views on the topic by watching his speeches (esp. his kairo speech), his actions (shaking hands with chavez, saying he still wants to sit at the table with the "islamic republic of iran" one week after the crackdown of the protests in iran - thereby stabbing the opposition in the back.. etc etc.). but hey, as i said, his intensions are good ofc., achieving peace in the ME. but his road to peace is exactly the wrong one. later maybe more on that if ya want. 2. at this point you have to admit that you actually dont know much about iran - about the regime, its ideology (!), history, current politics.. right? its really obvious so dont be stubborn. If you insist I will give you some quotes of irans leaders, but you might aswell just believe me, or even better, look for yourself, that iran wants the atomic bomb and works as hard as it can to get it. thats just an undisputable fact. there is evidence, tons of evidence. to sum up their ideology rly short: its first and foremost antisemetic, and its apocalypical. even the considered moderade ex-prsident of around 2000 said that it would be a fair trade to drop a nuke on israel to remove this cancer, and reveive one as retailiation. the perish of iranian nation would be worth it. the ideology of the regime is not nationalistic after all. its all about the higher purpose: the 2nd coming of the 12th imam, whose law will rule the entire world etc. ahmadinejad and his clique truly believe that they can hasten the coming of the imam by spreading chaos through war, by fighting the unbelievers etc etc., to clean the world from all the..erm..sins etc. israel is first in line. these facts, summed up badly, are important to keep in mind when talking about their intentions, and the difference between a nuke in the hands of this crazy dangerous regime and the US or israel.
"Ah, the old appeasement line. Whenever there's the choice between war and peace some guy feels it's appropriate to reference Hitler's expansionism. Well, don't you think that the Iranian regime has displayed vastly more rational behaviour than Hitler? Maybe that's still not good enough. I'm just saying that just because Iran isn't a democracy that it merits bombing campains or anything of the sort. In fact it might be a reasonable policy if it were applied consistently"
1.yeah well, the appeasement didnt work with hitler, did it? and ahmadinejad talking about zionism as being a cancer(!!) thats responsible for all evil in the world, controling the US.. he is denying the holocaust, making a conference called "the world without zionism..", calling for israels destruction hundreds of times..when is the reference to the nazis fitting if not in this case? 2.the regime seems to act rational, yes. even many so called "middle east experts" say that the regime is rational and therefore wont commit suicide by going all out war against israel. well, thats just not true. everyone who will have an honest and close look at the ideology and behavior of the regime will see that its in fact suicidal. it couldnt be more dangerous, only if they acquire an atomic bomb. even the israel-hating arabic countries like the saudis and egypt know that and hope that israel will do the dirty work for them..
"This isn't about freedom. You're free to imagine that such elevated goals are at the heart of real world considerations, but they're not." In the end, it is about freedom, as cheesy as this sounds. for the majority of the iranians it is too. for israel its about survival, ones more. and europe doesnt give a shit.
"Israel could just accept that Iran is also a nuclear nation and it would have to behave accordingly in relation to it." giving the facts that I've written just now, israel can of course not accept that. and to write that they then "have to behave accordingly in relation to it" is just disgusting, im sorry. what do you mean by that anyway. in reality it would mean that 6 mio. jews have to leave israel or just die sooner or later in one of the most horrible wars ever. and another thing: its obvious that israel has nuke as deterriation. it would NEVER use it, every sane person knows that. thats why israels neighbours dont have a problem with it since decades. I have to jump to the end of your post cause I dont have much time left (im at work till 7 :D)
The US has the power to allow sanctions on Israel. Or it could choose to change its relationship; perhaps apply some mild pressure? The US could do a lot of good without even dropping one bomb. They prefer control though, which is also evident when one looks at the situation in Egypt, Saudi-Arabia and a lot of other 'allies', official or not. you got it wrong. why should the US put sanctions on israel? the already are apllying mild pressure (whats stupid enough). for what do you blame israel now? what should they do? I guess to "end the oppression of the palestinians?" another mindless myth about what I could write pages now.. there is no oppression, israel conquered some land in a defensive war for strategical reasons and was ready to trade it for peace. today they build checkpoints and fences cause suicide bombers want to get into heaven by blwoing up jews. someone smart stated the obvious in the following words: "if the arabs lay down their weapons there would be peace, if the israelis did there would be genocide." its thats simple, really
DrZogg, you're conflating Ahmadinejad with the leadership of Iran (pretty much every instance of "extremist views" you've cited have stemmed from Ahmedininjad), which isn't true - the Ayatollah is the actual theocratic ruler. Even if you might make the leap in assuming that there is some tacit consent of the clergy when they do not suppress Ahmadinejad's statements, that's less the case since there has been a straining of their relationship - their support of Ahmadinejad is more a "he's not the other guy": the other primary candidate Rafsanjani, who has opposed the Ayatollah in matter of politics. If anything, the clergy prefer to throw Ahmadinejad around to try to secure their own practical goals.
On August 13 2010 02:00 LlamaNamedOsama wrote: DrZogg, you're conflating Ahmadinejad with the leadership of Iran (pretty much every instance of "extremist views" you've cited have stemmed from Ahmedininjad), which isn't true - the Ayatollah is the actual theocratic ruler. Even if you might make the leap in assuming that there is some tacit consent of the clergy when they do not suppress Ahmadinejad's statements, that's less the case since there has been a straining of their relationship - their support of Ahmadinejad is more a "he's not the other guy": the other primary candidate Rafsanjani, who has opposed the Ayatollah in matter of politics. If anything, the clergy prefer to throw Ahmadinejad around to try to secure their own practical goals.
I know that khomenei is the one with the actual power and that the views of ahmadinejad are actually not that important. but it doesnt make a difference. to keep it simple I talked about "the regime" most of the time. its actually a little more complicated, but the important thing is that khomenei wants to hasten the coming of the 12 imam as badly as ahmadinejad does. there is obviously a power struggle going on in iran. the mullahs are losing the power (to say it in very simple, maybe too simple words) to the even more extreme revolutionary guards.the views and ideology Ive explained are of course not only those of ahmadinejad but of the whole ruling regime, which only two years ago where just the mullahs, but today even many of them are opposing the agenda of the revolutionary guards, on whose side khomenei is on.
On August 06 2010 20:09 dybydx wrote: lol zatic knows his shit.
but really, from a political stand point, Israel receive alot of aids from the US. the US had always wanted Israel to have peaceful relations with its neighbors so for Israel to strike anyone would be political suicide.
without US support, Israel would have been "wiped off the map" already.
Hardly. At this point Israel is very much secure among its neighbors. It provides their leaders domestic political leverage while still selling them the best guns money can buy. The only war that's fought now is in PR because none of them want to admit there is no national will to protect Palestinians. As of now, its presence stabilizes the region. It's unfortunate that things like the recent border deaths are tolerable for the sake of politics.
Also, don't use the misquoted Ahmadinejad line like that. :/
EDIT: And yeah, zatic is right. Israel may have the best military in the region but they don't have the numbers to conduct a legitimate bombing campaign on Iran, especially given they'll really need to be using much heavier bunker busters to get anything done, and I'm not even sure their bomb technology is adequate for that.
of course israel wouldnt exist without US support. they wouldve been overrun decades ago. thats why israelis are very nervous about obama beeing in charge now. he has great intensions and is very articulate, but he is indeed naive when it comes to the Middle east. his appeasment attempts are very dangerous, in the long run for all democratic nations. I hope he'll listen to the right advice..!
"the US had always wanted Israel to have peaceful relations with its neighbors so for Israel to strike anyone would be political suicide." the majority in the US understands that israel will have no choice if sanctions wont work (and they wont). so israel will strike only with the ok from the US obviously. given the fact that israel is already isolated (only having a few friendly countries left), it wont be political suicide.
"The only war that's fought now is in PR because none of them want to admit there is no national will to protect Palestinians. As of now, its presence stabilizes the region. It's unfortunate that things like the recent border deaths are tolerable for the sake of politics."
there is much more going on than a PR war. israel is relatively secure only cuz of its qualitative military edge (thats to the US too obv.). what do you mean by "protect the pal.."? who, protect from what? the palestinian presence stabilizes the region? that doesnt make sense to me. the last sentence I also dont get. :-/
the US should do the military strike. but obama wont do it I guess.. so israel will. I only gotta say, dont underestimate the israeli military. by that I mean "best military in the region" is a clear understatement. they can do it because they have to be able to.
What do you know of Obama's intentions? And why do you assume that Iran is even working on nuclear weapons? I'm not saying that there isn't or wasn't something to that claim, but there's certainly no conclusive evidence. Ah, the old appeasement line. Whenever there's the choice between war and peace some guy feels it's appropriate to reference Hitler's expansionism. Well, don't you think that the Iranian regime has displayed vastly more rational behaviour than Hitler? Maybe that's still not good enough. I'm just saying that just because Iran isn't a democracy that it merits bombing campains or anything of the sort. In fact it might be a reasonable policy if it were applied consistently. This isn't about freedom. You're free to imagine that such elevated goals are at the heart of real world considerations, but they're not. It's really complete nonsense that Israel has no other choice than to strike Iran (if it really is developing nuclear weapons). Israel could just accept that Iran is also a nuclear nation and it would have to behave accordingly in relation to it. Obviously it's always a nasty situation when two nations that consider eachother as enemies both aquire nuclear weapons. I hardly think that a situation like the India-Pakistan one is desirable. It could also be argued that the Middle-East should be a nuclear free zone, but for some reason that's the silliest idea in the world. No, we must remain determined to, in practice, support any policy of the Israelis. Why? Stability. Oh, okay. And peace. Oh yes, of course. Where would all those poor countries in the region be if it weren't for a single nuclear god towering over them. Seriously though, it's hard to know with absolute certainty what all the motivations of the US governments are/were but one could remark that the whole Israeli-Palestinian situation isn't to the disadvantage of local dictators. People in most of the Middle East lack half-decent journalism and the place is rife with conspiracy theories. The only extra thing one needs to channel thinking away from adressing the real problems in those countries is a great demon and Israel performs that role admirably. 'Stability' may seem like the best thing in the world if you're living a thousand miles away, but doing away with the oppression of Palestinians could be benificial to more than just the Palestinians (and the Israelis themselves). The US has the power to allow sanctions on Israel. Or it could choose to change its relationship; perhaps apply some mild pressure? The US could do a lot of good without even dropping one bomb. They prefer control though, which is also evident when one looks at the situation in Egypt, Saudi-Arabia and a lot of other 'allies', official or not.
User was warned for this post
"Please try to post on teamliquid.net using proper English. This includes spelling out words like "you" and "you're" and appropriate grammar and spelling. If you can't be bothered to make your post readable why should anyone be bothered to read it." I was warned for this? Maybe someone sent me the wrong standardized warning.. I have to say that I read my comment again, and maybe it's due to the fact that English isn't my mother tongue, but I failed to see any mistakes beyond perhaps punctuation. I'm so confused. I'm pretty sure that I'm breaking some rule now, but I'd just like to be sure of which rule I broke (=which warning I should heed), and in what way.
"if the arabs lay down their weapons there would be peace, if the israelis did there would be genocide."
mindfuck
ye I know, those sentences are hard to swallow when one is bombarded with essentially anti-israeli propaganda, that comes along as seemingly "objective news". lets keep it simple. tell me: how, in what way does israel oppress the palestinians? they sort of rule over them in the west bank, but not because they want to...you think israel should just leave the west bank and the palestinians will accept the state of israel? and 2nd: are there not several arab countries (plus non-arabic like venezuela, iran..) that want to annihilate israel? does israel want to destroy any other country? every war israel fought was a just self-defensive war. that's a fact too.
On August 13 2010 02:00 LlamaNamedOsama wrote: DrZogg, you're conflating Ahmadinejad with the leadership of Iran (pretty much every instance of "extremist views" you've cited have stemmed from Ahmedininjad), which isn't true - the Ayatollah is the actual theocratic ruler. Even if you might make the leap in assuming that there is some tacit consent of the clergy when they do not suppress Ahmadinejad's statements, that's less the case since there has been a straining of their relationship - their support of Ahmadinejad is more a "he's not the other guy": the other primary candidate Rafsanjani, who has opposed the Ayatollah in matter of politics. If anything, the clergy prefer to throw Ahmadinejad around to try to secure their own practical goals.
I know that khomenei is the one with the actual power and that the views of ahmadinejad are actually not that important. but it doesnt make a difference. to keep it simple I talked about "the regime" most of the time. its actually a little more complicated, but the important thing is that khomenei wants to hasten the coming of the 12 imam as badly as ahmadinejad does. there is obviously a power struggle going on in iran. the mullahs are losing the power (to say it in very simple, maybe too simple words) to the even more extreme revolutionary guards.the views and ideology Ive explained are of course not only those of ahmadinejad but of the whole ruling regime, which only two years ago where just the mullahs, but today even many of them are opposing the agenda of the revolutionary guards, on whose side khomenei is on.
You haven't been giving any cites or proof for most of those claims, particularly for why this "extreme radicalism" applies to all parts of the regime.
For instance, the claim about "more extreme revolutionary guards" isn't really true:
Wehrey doubts the guard and its commanders would go that far. For one, Wehrey notes, the organization today is overly factionalized and made up of competing currents. During the Khatami era, for instance, the guard's leadership supported conservative elements within the Iranian establishment, while the rank-and-file were more empathetic to the reformists. Under Ahmadinejad, splits have emerged most noticeably on economic policy. And to suggest that the guard would orchestrate an overt bid for power misses the "checks and balances on the system," Wehrey says. "There is so much else going on behind the scenes. It's intensely driven by personalities, by political differences that overlap the formal structures. To say that the guards are acting in lockstep to assert themselves as a political actor ignores the factional divisions ... that permeate the guard."
DrZogg, I read your reply and I can only echo what the two people before me have stated. I would also like to mention that I do not propose that Israel lays down its arms. Ending the occupation of Palestinian territories would be a good first step. Reaching/imposing a more lasting settlement (no pun intended) would be a nice second step. I also didn't call on the US to impose sanctions on Israel. It would merely be nice if it stopped vetoing UN resolutions. You're certainly right in what you said about European leaders. You forgot North American leaders, but that's probably an honest msitake. Also, Ahmadinejad often seems to behave like a (anti-semitic) lunatic bent on self-destruction. Where Israel might be perceived as the perfect villain for the East, so is Ahmadinejad the perfect villain for the West. That's where our agreement ends. Don't bother quoting Iranian speeches. I do know a thing or two about the history of modern Iran. I value actions over words in trying to understand the behaviour of states. Maybe that's a flaw, but I've just heard so much lying from the mouths of people in power that I've developed somewhat of an allergy to it. Yes, I realize exactly how problematic many strands of (Islamic) fundamentalism are. I also realize that there is hope for a more peaceful coexistence, but only if the idea of making concessions isn't automatically regarded as dangerous because the enemy is supposedly insane or evil.
how, in what way does israel oppress the palestinians?
If you take the position that there's no oppression of Arabs/Palestinians in the Israel/Palestine territories then i don't think anything will convince you either way, I'm sorry I wont interfere with this thread anymore
alright whatever. I guess I tend to write a little too passionate about the topic, mostly because I think that it's very important, and because there are so many misconceptions concerning the ME conflict..
On August 13 2010 17:17 DrZogg wrote: alright whatever. I guess I tend to write a little too passionate about the topic, mostly because I think that it's very important, and because there are so many misconceptions concerning the ME conflict..
In a sense any reasonable disagreement over the behaviour of Iran, Israel, the US etc. comes down to the question whether or not it's healthy for states to adhere to an international framework of rules and laws. All the facts matter, but it's hard to escape the perception that powerful and power-hungry states feel more inclined to answer the question negatively unless they feel that they have a satisfactory degree of disproportionate control over the existing regulatory bodies. Answering the question negatively implies that it is reasonable for states/populations to engage in actions that seem barbaric at best to the 'informed', 'impartial' observer. How can there be real peace if the so-called stability is built on foundations (=power) that cannot be challenged in a non-violent way? It is misguided to regard the actions of states that do not wish to engage in building or adhering to a stabilizing international framework (based on principles that seems reasonable to all participants) as just. The seemingly inevitable chain of events that emanate from 'illegal' actions should perhaps not be used to justify the rejection of the principle of international law. I probably said this before. The reason I think it's imporatant to mention in response to your comments is that much of the reason for Iranian and Israeli paranoia is not based on mere rhetoric. It exists because there is a recognition that dominance is the only dependable currency in a system where justice depends on the goodwill of the dominant. Since some (or all) of the parties feel that is not in their (expansionist) interest to propose any kind of alternative system of international justice, the result is the current international dick-waving. Many people don't think about it exactly in this way, but rather resort to designing all kinds of elaborate mazes of reasoning, constructed to show just how fit they are for dominance and why the enemy clearly doesn't make the cut. This is not productive, even when there's some truth to it. If the desire for peace exists, then the desire for reasonable rules and adherence to those rules should exist as well. It's all too easy to concoct a rationalization for brutality when one is allowed to independently determine which events are of note and which aren't. All transgressions must be dealt with in a timely fashion.
On August 14 2010 07:05 vnlegend wrote: We need to send in the Deltas or SAS and just blow up their reactors. No need for formal war.
It is perhaps possible that sending soldiers into a foreign nation to blow up assets they consider vital to national security could in many ways be considered an invasion. And invasions are usually followed by formal declarations of war.
IMO, nukes aren't for everyone, and following the same thought, they aren't just for one people. Yes, I like USA for what they've done, but the world would be like a weghing scale in which the USA are 1000000000000 pounds and the rest of the world is at 10.
On August 14 2010 07:05 vnlegend wrote: We need to send in the Deltas or SAS and just blow up their reactors. No need for formal war.
It is perhaps possible that sending soldiers into a foreign nation to blow up assets they consider vital to national security could in many ways be considered an invasion. And invasions are usually followed by formal declarations of war.
I think he's talking about one of those special troops. You know, like when you go to that russian snowbase with Soap in MW2 and blow up whatever that was.
That's the point. The US can use covert military to sabotage their stuff and try to have deniability. I think Iran is more mountainous and not so easy to rollover like Iraq.
On June 13 2010 02:15 Zionner wrote: I have a bad feeling some serious shit is going to go down soon
web bot predicted world war 3 on November 15th of this year. My birthday is the 16th. I'm not saying the web bot is all knowing or anything. Just food for thought.
On June 13 2010 02:15 Zionner wrote: I have a bad feeling some serious shit is going to go down soon
web bot predicted world war 3 on November 15th of this year. My birthday is the 16th. I'm not saying the web bot is all knowing or anything. Just food for thought.
If wikipedia is correct, I believe Webbot said, "a major tipping point that's U.S. centric, possibly the beginning of WWIII or the collapse of the US dollar" from Nov. 8-11th, 2010. (No war between Israel and Iran until at least November as well, it claims.)
The page also says that on Dec. 14th, 2010 the first nuclear missile will be launched. Where does webbot get this from? I'm not entirely sure, and it could easily be a load of bollocks, but after watching the following video predicting economic downfall in the US, I'm beginning to think Webbot has merit.
Please pardon the double post, but shit just got real:
Israel has a very small timing window to attack Iran before the fuel rods reach their reactors. Attacking afterwards would essentially create a Chernobyl: Reloaded scenario, with global repercussions. (The radiation could reach India!) What will come of this? We must wait and see!
On August 18 2010 04:03 Blanke wrote: Please pardon the double post, but shit just got real
Israel has a very small timing window to attack Iran before the fuel rods reach their reactors. Attacking afterwards would essentially create a Chernobyl: Reloaded scenario, with global repercussions. (The radiation could reach India!) What will come of this? We must wait and see!
This sounds like the plot to one of the terrible new C&C games.
On August 18 2010 04:03 Blanke wrote: Please pardon the double post, but shit just got real
Israel has a very small timing window to attack Iran before the fuel rods reach their reactors. Attacking afterwards would essentially create a Chernobyl: Reloaded scenario, with global repercussions. (The radiation could reach India!) What will come of this? We must wait and see!
This sounds like the plot to one of the terrible new C&C games.
Uh, sorry I'm not familiar with the latest C&C game.
One of the reporters mentioned how the media will explode over this on Saturday, when the rods are finally in place. I have to agree, Iran hasn't been occupying the mainstream media scene lately, but this will likely be capitalized on to stir up controversy. Obama and Netanyahu publicly stated they wish to achieve a, "robust peace in the Middle East." Robust is a very disconcerting word to me. I'm convinced that within the coming months, we'll be seeing war in Iran.
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$%ing sweat, blood, and death of WW2 saved the world from fascism, and discovered the most deadly weapon in the history of EVERYTHING on the way. Thats like winning a starcraft game, and then saying, bah, im too greedy, i should give the guy all my minerals and 3 hours to build while i go look at porn and lose. Just handing that treasure over to third world countries and such would result in EVERYONE DYING.
Nigeria-"Hm, those neighbors we have, the Nigers, are stealing water from our well. NUKE THE FUCKERS!" Niger- "Oh SHIT! RETALIATE!" the REST OF AFRICA-"NUKES ARE FLYING! SHIT! EVERYONE RETALIATE!"
Thats just a TASTE of something that could happen.
No matter how good you are anyone deems you at computer games, world political relations takes more than "pro starcraft apm" to master and think about correctly.
Are you saying that you are PROUD you invented the nuke?
Lol, America saving the world. What textbooks did you read in school?
Yeah and Canada has helped shape the world into what it is today right?
It's amazing how you guys can sit on your asses throughout almost every major war and bitch about what America has done to make the world it is today. Your rofl pony riding police were a big help vs japanese carriers and panzer divisions I'm sure.
Lol, Canada doing something other than bitching about everything. What textbooks did YOU read in school?
On June 13 2010 02:08 Monst3r wrote: Why would Saudi Arabia do such a thing.
Probably because Iran is a huge threat to the stability of their government... monarchy vs revolution. And whole region even. Nukes in the hands of Iran probably make them just as nervous as Israel.
If America has nukes, every single country in the world deserves nukes too.
wait wait wait, what the FU$%?
"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.
Are you saying that you are PROUD you invented the nuke?
Lol, America saving the world. What textbooks did you read in school?
Yeah and Canada has helped shape the world into what it is today right?
It's amazing how you guys can sit on your asses throughout almost every major war and bitch about what America has done to make the world it is today. Your rofl pony riding police were a big help vs japanese carriers and panzer divisions I'm sure.
Lol, Canada doing something other than bitching about everything. What textbooks did YOU read in school?
Oh dear.
I guess Vimy Ridge in WW1 didn't really happen. Guess those Canadians were sitting on their asses then ^^
Canada also played a major role in WW2, all things considered. 1.1 million men in arms + a massive navy + a critically important merchant marine...
Also saying America """WON""" WW2 and "saved the world" is pretty ignorant as well. Could the USA have done it without a beachhead in Europe and North Africa thanks to the British? Or the fact that so much of the German military was occupied in the East (where, I might add, the Soviets and Eastern Europeans suffered much more and shed many more tears and blood than the US ever did).
It's like saying....hey, my control group of carriers finally won this PvT. What about those zealots and templars and dragoons and reavers that all did their part just so the carriers could eventually finish the job. Did the carriers WIN the game by all themselves? Perhaps, but Stork never would have gotten them without the help of all the other units ^^
On June 13 2010 02:15 Zionner wrote: I have a bad feeling some serious shit is going to go down soon
web bot predicted world war 3 on November 15th of this year. My birthday is the 16th. I'm not saying the web bot is all knowing or anything. Just food for thought.
If wikipedia is correct, I believe Webbot said, "a major tipping point that's U.S. centric, possibly the beginning of WWIII or the collapse of the US dollar" from Nov. 8-11th, 2010. (No war between Israel and Iran until at least November as well, it claims.)
The page also says that on Dec. 14th, 2010 the first nuclear missile will be launched. Where does webbot get this from? I'm not entirely sure, and it could easily be a load of bollocks, but after watching the following video predicting economic downfall in the US, I'm beginning to think Webbot has merit.
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.
Are you saying that you are PROUD you invented the nuke?
Lol, America saving the world. What textbooks did you read in school?
Yeah and Canada has helped shape the world into what it is today right?
It's amazing how you guys can sit on your asses throughout almost every major war and bitch about what America has done to make the world it is today. Your rofl pony riding police were a big help vs japanese carriers and panzer divisions I'm sure.
Lol, Canada doing something other than bitching about everything. What textbooks did YOU read in school?
Oh dear.
I guess Vimy Ridge in WW1 didn't really happen. Guess those Canadians were sitting on their asses then ^^
Canada also played a major role in WW2, all things considered. 1.1 million men in arms + a massive navy + a critically important merchant marine...
Also saying America """WON""" WW2 and "saved the world" is pretty ignorant as well. Could the USA have done it without a beachhead in Europe and North Africa thanks to the British? Or the fact that so much of the German military was occupied in the East (where, I might add, the Soviets and Eastern Europeans suffered much more and shed many more tears and blood than the US ever did).
It's like saying....hey, my control group of carriers finally won this PvT. What about those zealots and templars and dragoons and reavers that all did their part just so the carriers could eventually finish the job. Did the carriers WIN the game by all themselves? Perhaps, but Stork never would have gotten them without the help of all the other units ^^
So World War 2 could have been won without America? The annihilation of the Imperial Japanese Navy would've come at the hands of Canada? You think Britain, Soviets and the Chinese would've got their equipment from Canada? If USA didn't join in the war, there would be no Russia or France or China. The Allies were almost upon defeat until the USA joined in. Canada was fighting then right, and what major battle were they known for winning? The Dieppe raid (lol)?
We had 16 million soldiers serve, I think we could pump out another 1.1 million soldiers EZ.
Canada had 45000 casualties and it's country wasn't touched by the war, while the USA was hit HARD at pearl harbor (and our navy still fucked the japanese hard, while Canada's navy did what?) and had over 400000 casualties. 45 000 casualties out of 1.1 million men armed isn't shit. It's like breaking a finger while Russia and China lost an arm and a leg.
Oh and your comment about Vimy Ridge is invalid, cause I said ALMOST EVERY WAR. And I never said US suffered more casualties than the Soviets and Low Countries/ Poland.
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.
Are you saying that you are PROUD you invented the nuke?
Lol, America saving the world. What textbooks did you read in school?
Yeah and Canada has helped shape the world into what it is today right?
It's amazing how you guys can sit on your asses throughout almost every major war and bitch about what America has done to make the world it is today. Your rofl pony riding police were a big help vs japanese carriers and panzer divisions I'm sure.
Lol, Canada doing something other than bitching about everything. What textbooks did YOU read in school?
Oh dear.
I guess Vimy Ridge in WW1 didn't really happen. Guess those Canadians were sitting on their asses then ^^
Canada also played a major role in WW2, all things considered. 1.1 million men in arms + a massive navy + a critically important merchant marine...
Also saying America """WON""" WW2 and "saved the world" is pretty ignorant as well. Could the USA have done it without a beachhead in Europe and North Africa thanks to the British? Or the fact that so much of the German military was occupied in the East (where, I might add, the Soviets and Eastern Europeans suffered much more and shed many more tears and blood than the US ever did).
It's like saying....hey, my control group of carriers finally won this PvT. What about those zealots and templars and dragoons and reavers that all did their part just so the carriers could eventually finish the job. Did the carriers WIN the game by all themselves? Perhaps, but Stork never would have gotten them without the help of all the other units ^^
So World War 2 could have been won without America? The annihilation of the Imperial Japanese Navy would've come at the hands of Canada? You think Britain, Soviets and the Chinese would've got their equipment from Canada? If USA didn't join in the war, there would be no Russia or France or China. The Allies were almost upon defeat until the USA joined in. Canada was fighting then right, and what major battle were they known for winning? The Dieppe raid (lol)?
Canada had 45000 casualties and it's country wasn't touched by the war, while the USA was hit HARD at pearl harbor and had over 400000 casualties. 45 000 casualties out of 1.1 million men armed isn't shit. It's like breaking a finger while Russia and China lost an arm and a leg.
Oh and your comment about Vimy Ridge is invalid, cause I said ALMOST EVERY WAR. And I never said US suffered more casualties than the Soviets and Low Countries.
Could WW2 have been won without the USA and all of her help towards the Soviets and British? Highly unlikely... But could the USA have won the war without Russia and the Commonwealth nations? all by her lonesome? not a chance
there is a very real difference in saying "WW2 was won by the USA" and saying "Without the USA, WW2 could not have been won"
also i dont get what u mean with "every major war"...WW1 and WW2 are the only truly "major wars" of the 20th century and Canada participated in both to a pretty large extent given their population, resources, domestic politics, and international political standing
What other major wars do u count? korea? vietnam? hardly major wars given the magnitude of the previous conflicts and also (arguably) much more irrelevant
again this is pretty off-topic, new thread about ww2 might be in order to better protect the integrity and solid, effective discussion seen in the last several pages of this thread (sarcasm btw)
Where did I say the war was won by USA? They 2 main statements were that the Allies did not need Canadian help to win and that the Allies could not win without help from the US.
I don't think Israel will hit the reactor before Russia fuels it. Israel has previously bombed nuclear reactors in Iraq and Syria, but those countries at the time were much weaker than the current Iran. Also, Busheshr is Iran's most prominent and visible reactor. If Iran wanted to build a nuke, it wouldn't be at that site.
That being said, if Iran decides to pursue a nuke, Israel will destroy the reactor by any means necessary. General Israeli opinion is that a nuclear Arab state would threaten Israel's existence.
"Former US envoy to the UN John Bolton said Monday that if Israel wants to prevent Iran from acquiring a working nuclear plant, then a military strike must be launched against the Bushehr nuclear power facility within the next eight days. The comments were made in an interview with the Fox Business Network."
[QUOTE]On August 18 2010 15:05 Jibba wrote: [QUOTE]On August 15 2010 14:25 Blanke wrote: [QUOTE]On August 15 2010 10:14 Jackafur wrote: [QUOTE]On June 13 2010 02:15 Zionner wrote: I have a bad feeling some serious shit is going to go down soon[/QUOTE]
web bot predicted world war 3 on November 15th of this year. My birthday is the 16th. I'm not saying the web bot is all knowing or anything. Just food for thought. [/QUOTE]
If wikipedia is correct, I believe Webbot said, "a major tipping point that's U.S. centric, possibly the beginning of WWIII or the collapse of the US dollar" from Nov. 8-11th, 2010. (No war between Israel and Iran until at least November as well, it claims.)
The page also says that on Dec. 14th, 2010 the first nuclear missile will be launched. Where does webbot get this from? I'm not entirely sure, and it could easily be a load of bollocks, but after watching the following video predicting economic downfall in the US, I'm beginning to think Webbot has merit.
Wikipedia link: [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Webbot]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Webbot[/url]
Before this post, I didn't think this thread could reach a higher level of absurdity and misinformation. Bravo, TLers.[/QUOTE]
Jibba, you're gonna have to elaborate on why exactly the video I posted was absurd. (Or perhaps Webbot truly is a load of bollocks?) The narrator drew reasonable analogies between the US and Japanese economy, explaining the struggles of each nation but highlighting how Japan was prepared for their downfall while the US . . . well, let's be honest - you guys are in pretty rough shape. Pretty soon Iran's oil fields, which contain 10% of the worlds oil supply, will become a necessity for US military interest. But I'm getting ahead of myself. The most pressing concern right now is whether or not Israel will capitalize on their timing window, as ImFromPortugal was kindly enough to update us with. If they miss this opportunity and bomb the reactors later with US support, we basically have Chernobyl: Reloaded, as I may mentioned in previous posts. Pulling a stunt like that would destabilize global security faster than discovering Soviet nukes in Cuba. You can't have radiation poisoning thousands of civillians and expect to get away with it. There's a reason why radioactive, chemical and biological warfare is avoided in the US militaries' collateral damage in modern combat - the effects are horrific and extremely detrimental to one's reputation as a commander.
EPT
). The best part was Mounties vs Panzer divisions.
![[image loading]](http://data.fuskbugg.se/skalman01/-1269642571943.png)
. 
. You know what we do to Reds 'round here, boy?![[image loading]](http://www.andypryke.com/twiki/pub/Andypublic/BlogJuly2005/naive_water.jpg)
). In my opinion, Iran is one of the least hostile nations in the world. 
