|
On December 31 2008 13:20 Mindcrime wrote:Show nested quote +On December 31 2008 13:06 HeadBangaa wrote:On December 31 2008 11:32 Mindcrime wrote:On December 31 2008 09:16 HeadBangaa wrote:
The only counterpoint is to argue that Israel shouldn't exist in the first place, because Arabs have occupied the land for X-amount of time.
Firstly, recognize the existence of Judah's Kingdom of Israel in palestine, where Jews lived until 500BC, when they were conquered by the Babylonians. And how was it that the Hebrews came into possession of the land and established their kingdom in the first place? How does anybody take any land? There are several ways of acquiring land, and most don't involve slaughtering or enslaving the men , women and children that already live on that land.
Uhhh..I am pretty sure that the Jews didn't just charge into the middle East after WW2 blowing people away with guns. The UN set that land apart for them and the moved there. Then on the date that they became an official country rather than a piece of UN protected land, all their surrounding countries attacked them and then got messed up.
So for Israel their acquiring their land when it was first established as a country, did not come by bloodshed but by UN edict. Then only AFTER they were attacked, did they expand on their land.
This continues the long history Israel has of being attacked first, then counterattacking and coming out victorious because they use American equipment.
But the point is that Israel's enemies almost always are the ones who start the bloodshed. Israel is almost always the one who counterattacks and defends itself with what some might call "disproportionate" force--which is a stupid term as I have shown anyway.
|
Didn't bother to read the op or any other post
Frankly taking the history of the Gaza strip and the actions taken by the active power of that country, who has sworn death to Israel more or less, I mean how do you respond to a small country constantly harassing your own? Obviously you can't let their actions go unchecked.
Frankly 2 ways to see this Highlight the uneven death count due to the fact that Israel has one of the most advanced military force in that region.
Or highlight the fact that Hamas has continued it's aggression in firing small rockets into Israel on a daily basis.
Personally i side with Israel on this part just due it's not the aggressor.
The death ratio may be unfortunate but actions cannot go unpunished.
Seriously this is as old as the 7 day war =p people attack israel israel has the best military might in the region they freaking loose you can't really sympathise with that if israel is doing nothing but countering.
|
On December 31 2008 15:10 Savio wrote:Show nested quote +On December 31 2008 13:20 Mindcrime wrote:On December 31 2008 13:06 HeadBangaa wrote:On December 31 2008 11:32 Mindcrime wrote:On December 31 2008 09:16 HeadBangaa wrote:
The only counterpoint is to argue that Israel shouldn't exist in the first place, because Arabs have occupied the land for X-amount of time.
Firstly, recognize the existence of Judah's Kingdom of Israel in palestine, where Jews lived until 500BC, when they were conquered by the Babylonians. And how was it that the Hebrews came into possession of the land and established their kingdom in the first place? How does anybody take any land? There are several ways of acquiring land, and most don't involve slaughtering or enslaving the men , women and children that already live on that land. Uhhh..I am pretty sure that the Jews didn't just charge into the middle East after WW2 blowing people away with guns. The UN set that land apart for them and the moved there. Then on the date that they became an official country rather than a piece of UN protected land, all their surrounding countries attacked them and then got messed up. So for Israel their acquiring their land when it was first established as a country, did not come by bloodshed but by UN edict. Then only AFTER they were attacked, did they expand on their land. This continues the long history Israel has of being attacked first, then counterattacking and coming out victorious because they use American equipment. But the point is that Israel's enemies almost always are the ones who start the bloodshed. Israel is almost always the one who counterattacks and defends itself with what some might call "disproportionate" force--which is a stupid term as I have shown anyway.
Kingdom of Israel =/= modern state of Israel
|
On December 31 2008 13:35 Xeris wrote:
Savio or whatever, it's a fallacy to say that if Hamas never bomed Israel, they would have never bombed Hamas. Israel is just as aggressive as any of the Arab states that are against it - Western media is just heavily biased towards Israel and you don't see it.
So you are saying that the free media in free countries is LESS reliable than the media in countries with government controlled media?
From Wikipedia about Iran:
"The Supreme Leader is Commander-in-Chief of the armed forces, controls the military intelligence and security operations; and has sole power to declare war or peace. The heads of the judiciary, state radio and television networks, the commanders of the police and military forces and six of the twelve members of the Council of Guardians are appointed by the Supreme Leader."
I bet Iranian news is SUPER reliable and not influenced in any way by what the Iranian government wants.
Its possible that you think our media is biased (in favor of Israel), because that's what the media that was appointed by your Supreme Ruler told you (I'm assuming you are in Iran).
You say that Western media is biased in favor of Israel and THAT is why Western media largely ignores rocket attacks against Israel but blares images of every injured Palenstinian child during primetime. There is extensive coverage of the anti-Israeli protests and LOTS of coverage of every military act they do.
I think you are deluding yourself. There is no doubt that the US is heavily allied to Israel but it is not because the media is biased in their favor.
As an example, I get my news from American sources and I heard nothing about the rocket attacks that Hamas began against Israel when the ceasefire ended. But now that Israel decided not to just sit there and get hit, I have seen TONS of closeup views of bleeding Palestinians.
Apparently, Israel being attacked is not newsworthy. People just expect that I guess, but when Israel fights back, we have to watch every protest in every country around the world.
I don't buy your claim.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
where do you get this stuff? free media in free countries? what
|
On December 31 2008 14:10 Xeris wrote:Show nested quote +On December 31 2008 13:54 ahrara_ wrote:
1.) Ahmadenijad is a loud, obnoxious, figurehead who takes the credit and the blame for policies ultimately determined by Iran's Supreme Leader, Ali Khamanei. Khamanei also exercises power through the council of guardians, a group of six "islamic jurists" who get veto power over any legislation and candidate for office. Almost everyone agrees that who is president has little influence of Iran's foreign policy, namely its nuclear program.
2.) Unless I missed it, why has nobody brought up the fact that the whole "wipe off the map" thing is a translational error and a stupid stupid stupid thing to repeat? A more accurate representation is "remove from power Israel's government," which every middle eastern country has always wanted, and is nothing new. 2) How would it get smuggled? Would terrorists steal them? Because Iran sure as hell wouldn't GIVE THEM AWAY. They wouldn't sell them either.
Why wouldn't Iran want an Islamic extremist organization to have a nuke? Why wouldn't they give them away? Sure they are expensive but that doesn't seem to matter to Iran. Imagine, the world's 2nd largest oil producer claiming that they need nuclear energy in order to provide energy to their people. Maybe Alaska should build snow machines to provide snow for their people.....
Iran is spending a LOT of money developing nuclear capabilities even though their whole country is floating on more oil than they could ever use and they already have the technology and infrastructure to pump it out and use it.
For Iran any trouble for the US is a good thing. This is why they team up with Chavez and why they support terrorists in Iraq. Don't you think a nuke in an Islamic fundamentalist terrorist group's hands would be worse for the US than for Iran? Its like they get to do the damage without taking the blame.
Now, I am not sure that Iran would actually DO such a thing, but I DO think that Iran developing nukes raises GREATLY the possibility of a terrorist organization getting one. Plus, if it was about money, I am sure extremely weathly fundamentalists like bin Laden would be willing to pay more than the cost of making the material.
Iran having nukes is just trouble no matter how you look at it.
|
|
|
On December 31 2008 15:27 Savio wrote:Show nested quote +On December 31 2008 13:35 Xeris wrote:
Savio or whatever, it's a fallacy to say that if Hamas never bomed Israel, they would have never bombed Hamas. Israel is just as aggressive as any of the Arab states that are against it - Western media is just heavily biased towards Israel and you don't see it.
So you are saying that the free media in free countries is LESS reliable than the media in countries with totalitarian governments? From Wikipedia about Iran: "The Supreme Leader is Commander-in-Chief of the armed forces, controls the military intelligence and security operations; and has sole power to declare war or peace. The heads of the judiciary, state radio and television networks, the commanders of the police and military forces and six of the twelve members of the Council of Guardians are appointed by the Supreme Leader." I bet Iranian news is SUPER reliable and not influenced in any way by what the Iranian government wants. You might think our media is biased, because that's what the media that was appointed by your Supreme Ruler told you (I'm assuming you are in Iran). You say that Western media is biased in favor of Israel and THAT is why Western media largely ignores rocket attacks against Israel but blares images of every injured Palenstinian child during primetime. There is extensive coverage of the anti-Israeli protests and LOTS of coverage of every military act they do. I think you are deluding yourself. There is no doubt that the US is heavily allied to Israel but it is not because the media is biased in their favor. As an example, I get my news from American sources and I heard nothing about the rocket attacks that Hamas began against Israel when the ceasefire ended. But now that Israel decided not to just sit there and get hit, I have seen TONS of closeup views of bleeding Palestinians. Apparently, Israel being attacked is not newsworthy. People just expect that I guess, but when Israel fights back, we have to watch every protest in every country around the world. I don't buy your claim.
1) You can't quote Wikipedia as a reliable source for anything.
2) I'm writing a 100+ page thesis on the Middle East right now, and I've read 3409534908 books, articles, and news from tons of different viewpoints
3) I live in the United States, and have lived here for most of my life.
4) Because people in this country are so supportive of Israel and its policies, funds Israel's military and gives other economic aid, trade, and other shit... the media in this country has taken a biased viewpoint in favor of Israel.
5) There isn't news written about every bomb that goes off in Israel, just like there isn't news written about every bomb that goes off in the Gaza territory, or in Lebanon, that Israeli forces set off... because it happens so often
6) When Israel invades another state's territory, of course the media is going to be flooded with news about it, even if they are Israeli-biased sources generally. They would be fucking retarded to ignore this crisis. Israel hasn't been the target of an invasion - which is why nobody hears about it!
As I said 34095834098x before - both sides BOMB EACH OTHER ALL THE TIME - which is why you don't hear about it on the news that much. But it's not too fucking common for one country to invade another (I.E Israel -> Gaza, or Russia -> Georgia)
|
On December 31 2008 15:38 Savio wrote:Show nested quote +On December 31 2008 14:10 Xeris wrote:On December 31 2008 13:54 ahrara_ wrote:
1.) Ahmadenijad is a loud, obnoxious, figurehead who takes the credit and the blame for policies ultimately determined by Iran's Supreme Leader, Ali Khamanei. Khamanei also exercises power through the council of guardians, a group of six "islamic jurists" who get veto power over any legislation and candidate for office. Almost everyone agrees that who is president has little influence of Iran's foreign policy, namely its nuclear program.
2.) Unless I missed it, why has nobody brought up the fact that the whole "wipe off the map" thing is a translational error and a stupid stupid stupid thing to repeat? A more accurate representation is "remove from power Israel's government," which every middle eastern country has always wanted, and is nothing new. 2) How would it get smuggled? Would terrorists steal them? Because Iran sure as hell wouldn't GIVE THEM AWAY. They wouldn't sell them either. Why wouldn't Iran want an Islamic extremist organization to have a nuke? Why wouldn't they give them away? Sure they are expensive but that doesn't seem to matter to Iran. Imagine, the world's 2nd largest oil producer claiming that they need nuclear energy in order to provide energy to their people. Maybe Alaska should build snow machines to provide snow for their people..... Iran is spending a LOT of money developing nuclear capabilities even though their whole country is floating on more oil than they could ever use and they already have the technology and infrastructure to pump it out and use it. For Iran any trouble for the US is a good thing. This is why they team up with Chavez and why they support terrorists in Iraq. Don't you think a nuke in an Islamic fundamentalist terrorist group's hands would be worse for the US than for Iran? Its like they get to do the damage without taking the blame. Now, I am not sure that Iran would actually DO such a thing, but I DO think that Iran developing nukes raises GREATLY the possibility of a terrorist organization getting one. Plus, if it was about money, I am sure extremely weathly fundamentalists like bin Laden would be willing to pay more than the cost of making the material. Iran having nukes is just trouble no matter how you look at it.
Anyone having nukes is trouble no matter how you look at it, iran, israel... its all the same. Judging who should have nukes and who shouldn't is just retarded(hi UN). So much for equality among nations.
|
On December 31 2008 15:38 Savio wrote:Show nested quote +On December 31 2008 14:10 Xeris wrote:On December 31 2008 13:54 ahrara_ wrote:
1.) Ahmadenijad is a loud, obnoxious, figurehead who takes the credit and the blame for policies ultimately determined by Iran's Supreme Leader, Ali Khamanei. Khamanei also exercises power through the council of guardians, a group of six "islamic jurists" who get veto power over any legislation and candidate for office. Almost everyone agrees that who is president has little influence of Iran's foreign policy, namely its nuclear program.
2.) Unless I missed it, why has nobody brought up the fact that the whole "wipe off the map" thing is a translational error and a stupid stupid stupid thing to repeat? A more accurate representation is "remove from power Israel's government," which every middle eastern country has always wanted, and is nothing new. 2) How would it get smuggled? Would terrorists steal them? Because Iran sure as hell wouldn't GIVE THEM AWAY. They wouldn't sell them either. Why wouldn't Iran want an Islamic extremist organization to have a nuke? Why wouldn't they give them away? Sure they are expensive but that doesn't seem to matter to Iran. Imagine, the world's 2nd largest oil producer claiming that they need nuclear energy in order to provide energy to their people. Maybe Alaska should build snow machines to provide snow for their people..... Iran is spending a LOT of money developing nuclear capabilities even though their whole country is floating on more oil than they could ever use and they already have the technology and infrastructure to pump it out and use it. For Iran any trouble for the US is a good thing. This is why they team up with Chavez and why they support terrorists in Iraq. Don't you think a nuke in an Islamic fundamentalist terrorist group's hands would be worse for the US than for Iran? Its like they get to do the damage without taking the blame. Now, I am not sure that Iran would actually DO such a thing, but I DO think that Iran developing nukes raises GREATLY the possibility of a terrorist organization getting one. Plus, if it was about money, I am sure extremely weathly fundamentalists like bin Laden would be willing to pay more than the cost of making the material. Iran having nukes is just trouble no matter how you look at it.
This post shows how ignorant you really are about the issue. First off, I already explained why Iran wouldn't give their nukes away. How the fuck do you get around explaining why a terrorist group GOT A NUKE IN THE FIRST PLACE??? "They built it themselves, it wasn't us I swear" isn't gonna fly. Everyone will know it was Iran - they wouldn't do that, their government is not retarded. The fact that you seem to think they are is the biggest mistake anyone who ever deals with Iran will make.
Iran is "floating on oil" but do you have any idea what their oil production actually looks like? No you don't, because if you DID KNOW, you would know that Iranian oil production is not nearly producing at its peak capacity, their oil refining infrastructure is still weakened from the Iran-Iraq war and from 50 years of imperialism to British influences, who pretty much controlled their oil and didn't let Iranians run it, Iran is still figuring out how to refine it's oil better. In fact, Iran is actually a net importer of oil, that shows how much farther they have to go when it comes to their oil.
The nuclear program if completed and used wisely will be the best thing they've ever done because it will given them cleaner, cheaper, and more renewable energy.
Again, a nuke given to a fundamentalist group would be a fucking terrible idea. Money alone doesn't explain it, what the fuck good is $50 billion (for example) going to do them if they are invaded by the entire world? None.
Please don't talk about the region, ESPECIALLY IRAN, if you haven't actually done research and don't know wtf you are talking about.
|
On December 31 2008 15:43 Xeris wrote:Show nested quote +On December 31 2008 15:27 Savio wrote:On December 31 2008 13:35 Xeris wrote:
Savio or whatever, it's a fallacy to say that if Hamas never bomed Israel, they would have never bombed Hamas. Israel is just as aggressive as any of the Arab states that are against it - Western media is just heavily biased towards Israel and you don't see it.
So you are saying that the free media in free countries is LESS reliable than the media in countries with totalitarian governments? From Wikipedia about Iran: "The Supreme Leader is Commander-in-Chief of the armed forces, controls the military intelligence and security operations; and has sole power to declare war or peace. The heads of the judiciary, state radio and television networks, the commanders of the police and military forces and six of the twelve members of the Council of Guardians are appointed by the Supreme Leader." I bet Iranian news is SUPER reliable and not influenced in any way by what the Iranian government wants. You might think our media is biased, because that's what the media that was appointed by your Supreme Ruler told you (I'm assuming you are in Iran). You say that Western media is biased in favor of Israel and THAT is why Western media largely ignores rocket attacks against Israel but blares images of every injured Palenstinian child during primetime. There is extensive coverage of the anti-Israeli protests and LOTS of coverage of every military act they do. I think you are deluding yourself. There is no doubt that the US is heavily allied to Israel but it is not because the media is biased in their favor. As an example, I get my news from American sources and I heard nothing about the rocket attacks that Hamas began against Israel when the ceasefire ended. But now that Israel decided not to just sit there and get hit, I have seen TONS of closeup views of bleeding Palestinians. Apparently, Israel being attacked is not newsworthy. People just expect that I guess, but when Israel fights back, we have to watch every protest in every country around the world. I don't buy your claim. 1) You can't quote Wikipedia as a reliable source for anything. 2) I'm writing a 100+ page thesis on the Middle East right now, and I've read 3409534908 books, articles, and news from tons of different viewpoints 3) I live in the United States, and have lived here for most of my life. 4) Because people in this country are so supportive of Israel and its policies, funds Israel's military and gives other economic aid, trade, and other shit... the media in this country has taken a biased viewpoint in favor of Israel. 5) There isn't news written about every bomb that goes off in Israel, just like there isn't news written about every bomb that goes off in the Gaza territory, or in Lebanon, that Israeli forces set off... because it happens so often6) When Israel invades another state's territory, of course the media is going to be flooded with news about it, even if they are Israeli-biased sources generally. They would be fucking retarded to ignore this crisis. Israel hasn't been the target of an invasion - which is why nobody hears about it! As I said 34095834098x before - both sides BOMB EACH OTHER ALL THE TIME - which is why you don't hear about it on the news that much. But it's not too fucking common for one country to invade another (I.E Israel -> Gaza, or Russia -> Georgia)
Israel is not invading. They are just bombing at this point.
The only viable argument you could make is that perhaps the media didn't cover the attacks of Hamas on Israel because they weren't killing very many people, but now Israel's attacks are killing much more people. That might be a large part of it.
If you believe it so strongly, I want you to explain HOW the media is biased in favor is Israel. Do they downplay the destruction Israel does in Gaza? What is it?
You have read infinity books by man, women, children and animals apparently, so perhaps you could enlighten us.
I made a thread earlier about liberal bias in the media but I explain in what ways it is there and gave multiple sources as proof. Do at least what I did.
|
On December 31 2008 15:37 oneofthem wrote:
where do you get this stuff? free media in free countries? what
I guess you probably think that the current President of the US gets to appoint who will head Foxnews and CNN huh?
Well it doesn't work that way...at least not in the US.
|
Xeris did you purposefully punch in very very similar numbers (I've read 3409534908 books and As I said 34095834098x before) or did your fingers just happen to hit them like that? Not that it's extremely unlikely, since spamming keys with your fingers usually involves similar patterns of movements in your fingers. Heh.
Anyways, to keep this post from being totally off topic - If negotiations were to occur between Israelis and Palestinians, what would they even agree to? A ceasefire? That wouldn't be a solution in the long run because it doesn't solve their problem. Who gets Jerusalem? Shared? How to set borders/territories? Neither will be willing to change their religious/ideological beliefs, so it doesn't seem like a peaceful solution can ever be satisfactory to both sides.
|
I would agree with Xeris that no country would ever knowingly hand a nuclear weapon to a terrorist organization it doesn't directly control. The risk is too high, in fact it is almost certain in Iran's case, that the weapon could be traced back to its original owner. Moreover, these groups are unpredictable and have a history of biting the hand that feeds it -- Pakistan and the Taliban are a good example. Their loyalties are fickle and they have their own agenda which ultimately conflict with that of any nation-state. Not even Khamanei wants an Islamic Caliphate telling him what to do, for example.
The real proliferation threat in this instance comes in the case of political instability. There's a significant, if not very likely, chance that if Iran were to experience enough of a political upset that the military chain of command were to fall apart (highly unlikely), radical elements within the regime could covertly get their hands on a weapon. But then again, the last time this happened -- in the instance of the Soviet Union, which owned several thousand nukes, IIRC, there were no nuclear weapons lost.
The problem of proliferation comes from the accumulation of many such insignificant threats. If all of a sudden there's a dozen nuclear armed middle eastern countries with radicalist sympathies, then the chances of a nuke being placed in the wrong hands increases exponentially. This scenario is much more likely to happen if Iran were to get its hands on a nuclear weapon. Like with Pakistan, China, and France, it's likely they'll want to share or trade that information with allies, encouraging further proliferation.
So yes, a nuclear armed Iran is bad.
|
On December 31 2008 15:51 Savio wrote:Show nested quote +On December 31 2008 15:43 Xeris wrote:On December 31 2008 15:27 Savio wrote:On December 31 2008 13:35 Xeris wrote:
Savio or whatever, it's a fallacy to say that if Hamas never bomed Israel, they would have never bombed Hamas. Israel is just as aggressive as any of the Arab states that are against it - Western media is just heavily biased towards Israel and you don't see it.
So you are saying that the free media in free countries is LESS reliable than the media in countries with totalitarian governments? From Wikipedia about Iran: "The Supreme Leader is Commander-in-Chief of the armed forces, controls the military intelligence and security operations; and has sole power to declare war or peace. The heads of the judiciary, state radio and television networks, the commanders of the police and military forces and six of the twelve members of the Council of Guardians are appointed by the Supreme Leader." I bet Iranian news is SUPER reliable and not influenced in any way by what the Iranian government wants. You might think our media is biased, because that's what the media that was appointed by your Supreme Ruler told you (I'm assuming you are in Iran). You say that Western media is biased in favor of Israel and THAT is why Western media largely ignores rocket attacks against Israel but blares images of every injured Palenstinian child during primetime. There is extensive coverage of the anti-Israeli protests and LOTS of coverage of every military act they do. I think you are deluding yourself. There is no doubt that the US is heavily allied to Israel but it is not because the media is biased in their favor. As an example, I get my news from American sources and I heard nothing about the rocket attacks that Hamas began against Israel when the ceasefire ended. But now that Israel decided not to just sit there and get hit, I have seen TONS of closeup views of bleeding Palestinians. Apparently, Israel being attacked is not newsworthy. People just expect that I guess, but when Israel fights back, we have to watch every protest in every country around the world. I don't buy your claim. 1) You can't quote Wikipedia as a reliable source for anything. 2) I'm writing a 100+ page thesis on the Middle East right now, and I've read 3409534908 books, articles, and news from tons of different viewpoints 3) I live in the United States, and have lived here for most of my life. 4) Because people in this country are so supportive of Israel and its policies, funds Israel's military and gives other economic aid, trade, and other shit... the media in this country has taken a biased viewpoint in favor of Israel. 5) There isn't news written about every bomb that goes off in Israel, just like there isn't news written about every bomb that goes off in the Gaza territory, or in Lebanon, that Israeli forces set off... because it happens so often6) When Israel invades another state's territory, of course the media is going to be flooded with news about it, even if they are Israeli-biased sources generally. They would be fucking retarded to ignore this crisis. Israel hasn't been the target of an invasion - which is why nobody hears about it! As I said 34095834098x before - both sides BOMB EACH OTHER ALL THE TIME - which is why you don't hear about it on the news that much. But it's not too fucking common for one country to invade another (I.E Israel -> Gaza, or Russia -> Georgia) Israel is not invading. They are just bombing at this point. The only viable argument you could make is that perhaps the media didn't cover the attacks of Hamas on Israel because they weren't killing very many people, but now Israel's attacks are killing much more people. That might be a large part of it. If you believe it so strongly, I want you to explain HOW the media is biased in favor is Israel. Do they downplay the destruction Israel does in Gaza? What is it? You have read infinity books by man, women, children and animals apparently, so perhaps you could enlighten us. I made a thread earlier about liberal bias in the media but I explain in what ways it is there and gave multiple sources as proof. Do at least what I did.
Israel is just bombing, but they've stated that this is just a first phase of a larger operation, which will likely include a ground invasion, unless the violence is halted soon.
Actually, this whole Gaza situation recently has been one of the few times I've seen American media possibly portraying Israel as a bad guy. I don't have news stories about Israeli bias and stuff on hand, but I can talk a little bit about Iran because that's where my research has been most extensive.
It has been really difficult to find literature with a positive view of Iran from a domestic standpoint. For example, if you pick up a random book about Iran - I can almost guarantee that it will talk about how women are oppressed, how the population hates their repressive regime, how there is widespread dissident, how Iranians are unsatisfied with Islamicst lifestyles, etc.
It is really difficult to find literature that will say - actually, Iranians generally approve of their President, and think the government is doing a pretty good job, for example.
In fact, there have been a few polls in the past two years that have said just that. There is obviously one HUGE exception - Iranians highly have a dissatisfied view of how the government has handled the economy (Iran's economy is pretty poor right now, but it's all relative because it is still 2nd largest in the Middle East)... but otherwise in other domestic and social matters, Ahmadinejad's office has pretty favorable numbers. But again, this is not really something you'll find very much in Western media or literature.
Also, Iran is one of the most educated countries in the region, with more females going to University's, 75% of all web traffic in the Middle East is from Iran, etc etc... but these things are difficult to find in Western media.
|
On December 31 2008 15:58 ahrara_ wrote:
The real proliferation threat in this instance comes in the case of political instability. There's a significant, if not very likely, chance that if Iran were to experience enough of a political upset that the military chain of command were to fall apart (highly unlikely), radical elements within the regime could covertly get their hands on a weapon. But then again, the last time this happened -- in the instance of the Soviet Union, which owned several thousand nukes, IIRC, there were no nuclear weapons lost.
...So yes, a nuclear armed Iran is bad.
YES, I agree with you on this point - this is the real issue. HOWEVER, we are talking about Iran. The Iranian government is quite stable, I can assure you. So, a nuclear Iran is "bad", but their government is stable... maybe not AS stable as Israel for example, but it is no less bad than really any other country in the region that already has nuclear weapons.
|
On December 31 2008 15:58 ieatkids5 wrote:
Xeris did you purposefully punch in very very similar numbers (I've read 3409534908 books and As I said 34095834098x before) or did your fingers just happen to hit them like that? Not that it's extremely unlikely, since spamming keys with your fingers usually involves similar patterns of movements in your fingers. Heh.
No, I guess the number of books I've read is about 30-35, not including about 10-15 different public opinion polls, hundreds of news articles (I thumb through them daily and look for interesting stuff), and a couple other online articles / video conferences and interviews.
|
On December 31 2008 15:49 Xeris wrote:Show nested quote +On December 31 2008 15:38 Savio wrote:On December 31 2008 14:10 Xeris wrote:On December 31 2008 13:54 ahrara_ wrote:
1.) Ahmadenijad is a loud, obnoxious, figurehead who takes the credit and the blame for policies ultimately determined by Iran's Supreme Leader, Ali Khamanei. Khamanei also exercises power through the council of guardians, a group of six "islamic jurists" who get veto power over any legislation and candidate for office. Almost everyone agrees that who is president has little influence of Iran's foreign policy, namely its nuclear program.
2.) Unless I missed it, why has nobody brought up the fact that the whole "wipe off the map" thing is a translational error and a stupid stupid stupid thing to repeat? A more accurate representation is "remove from power Israel's government," which every middle eastern country has always wanted, and is nothing new. 2) How would it get smuggled? Would terrorists steal them? Because Iran sure as hell wouldn't GIVE THEM AWAY. They wouldn't sell them either. Why wouldn't Iran want an Islamic extremist organization to have a nuke? Why wouldn't they give them away? Sure they are expensive but that doesn't seem to matter to Iran. Imagine, the world's 2nd largest oil producer claiming that they need nuclear energy in order to provide energy to their people. Maybe Alaska should build snow machines to provide snow for their people..... Iran is spending a LOT of money developing nuclear capabilities even though their whole country is floating on more oil than they could ever use and they already have the technology and infrastructure to pump it out and use it. For Iran any trouble for the US is a good thing. This is why they team up with Chavez and why they support terrorists in Iraq. Don't you think a nuke in an Islamic fundamentalist terrorist group's hands would be worse for the US than for Iran? Its like they get to do the damage without taking the blame. Now, I am not sure that Iran would actually DO such a thing, but I DO think that Iran developing nukes raises GREATLY the possibility of a terrorist organization getting one. Plus, if it was about money, I am sure extremely weathly fundamentalists like bin Laden would be willing to pay more than the cost of making the material. Iran having nukes is just trouble no matter how you look at it. This post shows how ignorant you really are about the issue. First off, I already explained why Iran wouldn't give their nukes away. How the fuck do you get around explaining why a terrorist group GOT A NUKE IN THE FIRST PLACE??? "They built it themselves, it wasn't us I swear" isn't gonna fly. Everyone will know it was Iran - they wouldn't do that, their government is not retarded. The fact that you seem to think they are is the biggest mistake anyone who ever deals with Iran will make. Iran is "floating on oil" but do you have any idea what their oil production actually looks like? No you don't, because if you DID KNOW, you would know that Iranian oil production is not nearly producing at its peak capacity, their oil refining infrastructure is still weakened from the Iran-Iraq war and from 50 years of imperialism to British influences, who pretty much controlled their oil and didn't let Iranians run it, Iran is still figuring out how to refine it's oil better. In fact, Iran is actually a net importer of oil, that shows how much farther they have to go when it comes to their oil.
Iran is not a net importer of oil what are you smoking? Just to make sure I didn't pull a van winkle and wake up in an altered dimension I looked it on the CIA world factbook:
https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/ir.html#Econ
If Iran is a net exporter, and it is, then there is no reason for it to want to invest in nuclear power unless it's to help develop weapons. It doesn't get to export as much, but developing nuclear power is in itself an extremely costly endeavour. The reason the US or net importing nations has an interest in developing nuclear power is more strategic than economic. First, they know how to and have a lot more experience with them. Second, it allows them to reduce dependence on imports, enhancing their soft power. Down the road, it could become a profitable investment for Iran, but for now, its money could be spent on better things than nuclear weapons.
The fact is, Iran exports nothing but oil today. Western sanctions have all but obliterated its export sector. These sanctions don't work for oil because demand is high in places like China. Iran could greatly improve its own economy if it were to comply with western demands. It doesn't do so for a couple of geopolitical reasons: a.) Nuclear power enhances its status in the region. Iran would very much like to be a leader in the Middle East. b.) Nuclear power keeps the US from executing, erm, "regime change."
|
On December 31 2008 16:11 Xeris wrote:Show nested quote +On December 31 2008 15:58 ieatkids5 wrote:
Xeris did you purposefully punch in very very similar numbers (I've read 3409534908 books and As I said 34095834098x before) or did your fingers just happen to hit them like that? Not that it's extremely unlikely, since spamming keys with your fingers usually involves similar patterns of movements in your fingers. Heh.
No, I guess the number of books I've read is about 30-35, not including about 10-15 different public opinion polls, hundreds of news articles (I thumb through them daily and look for interesting stuff), and a couple other online articles / video conferences and interviews.
I was commenting on the similarity of the two numbers entered, presumably at random, to lighten up the thread 
Wasn't questioning what you've read
|
On December 31 2008 16:09 Xeris wrote:Show nested quote +On December 31 2008 15:58 ahrara_ wrote:
The real proliferation threat in this instance comes in the case of political instability. There's a significant, if not very likely, chance that if Iran were to experience enough of a political upset that the military chain of command were to fall apart (highly unlikely), radical elements within the regime could covertly get their hands on a weapon. But then again, the last time this happened -- in the instance of the Soviet Union, which owned several thousand nukes, IIRC, there were no nuclear weapons lost.
...So yes, a nuclear armed Iran is bad. YES, I agree with you on this point - this is the real issue. HOWEVER, we are talking about Iran. The Iranian government is quite stable, I can assure you. So, a nuclear Iran is "bad", but their government is stable... maybe not AS stable as Israel for example, but it is no less bad than really any other country in the region that already has nuclear weapons.
Not with the price of oil dropping like it is it won't be.
edit: this is fun. i'm finally starting to develop interest in what has been until now a thread full of moronic argumentation. let's keep talking about nukes, that's always real fun.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
