191 replies to this topic

[Johnny Henning]

So... are you now conceding that Iran does have the right to pursue nuclear energy?

Really, all the US or Israel has to present is a solid case that (a.) Iran is actually pursuing nuclear weapons, (b.) Iran has the conceivable ability to produce functioning nuclear weapons or that (c.) Iran having a nuke is any more frightening than Israel having a nuke.

Otherwise, all this debate and posturing is just a waste of time and energy, and this stupid covert war we're engaged in is a freakin' idiotic tragicomedy.

If I thought you were a "responsible poster" on this board you would merit more.

However, l you have ever shown is that you have made up your mind and will not listen to anything someone with experience or expertise has to say.

So no, I'm not going to waste time in another pointless debate with you.

If you would like to discuss this further I will be happy to do so via PMs.

Just remember, Will, what doesn't make you spew alcoholic beverages through your nose only makes you stronger.

And, b. of all, good job, general!

[Jim Ohara]

Iran isn't responsible enough to have nuclear power. Their government acts like a bunch of assholes and doesn't know how to conduct itself on the world stage. 30 countries already have nuclear power and no-one gives a crap. Iran finds itself in the position of sanctions because it's the loud mouthed troublemaker at the party that keeps threatening the other guests. If they grew up and acted like globally responsible adults then they should get their nukes. But Iran shows no willingness to conduct themselves in an adult manner. At the end of the day, like it or not, Israel has a point about Iran.

[Ogul]

So... are you now conceding that Iran does have the right to pursue nuclear energy?

I don't think this is an issue of "conceding" anything, any country has the right to do anything they want, how everyone else reacts to their actions is what matters. They have the right to pursue nuclear power all they want, IF they want many other countries to view them unfavorably, sanction them, and perhaps, if they feel it necessary, blow them up a bit. OR they could pursue nuclear power in a more responsible manner, with layers of oversight and security they seem unwilling to accept so far, that would restrict them to all the nuclear power capability they need but without any potential to further that program to weapon's grade status, OR they could pursue forms of energy that are less dangerous and more economical than nuclear. Those are all options they can choose from, but they can't eat their cake and have it too, they can't have everything that they want without accepting any of the consequences.

[Johnny Henning]

Still, we are getting most of our information about Iran from... people who hate Iran. I know people who live and have lived in Iran. Iranians and American relatives of Iranians and it is not America at all and it is not a democracy, but it is not particularly extreme or unusual when it comes to middle eastern nations including Israel. In fact, the reason Iran is such a "threat" to US and Israel is that it actually has its s**t together much better than places like Yemen and Iraq and Afghanistan and Saudi Arabia and Libya and Bahrain and Lebanon and Pakistan and Egypt and, of course, Syria. It's really not that far from China or Russia, but we're not calling for sanctions on their nuclear capabilities, are we?


No matter how democratic the US seems to be, we really get a very skewwed picture of the world and especially of our nominated enemies.

As far as the oversight of Iran, remember, George Bush declared war on Iraq while the international investigators were still in the damn country. Then later he declared that the reason he invaded is Iraq refused to let the investigators in. Iran's let UN inspectors in as well, but again you get the same rhetoric that "we can't trust 'em." So, when our leaders keep moving the goal posts, why do we trust them in this situation?

[Jim Ohara]

You can't say Death to Israel in your government chambers and expect to be treated seriously. Mind you, America keeps talking about bombing Iran (and the Axis of Evil) so we shouldn't take it seriously either.

[Johnny Henning]

Thank you - that's what I mean. Egypt, when it was an ally of Israel, had prominent clerics and political figures declaring Israel was an infidel state that must be destroyed. Iran's rhetoric can't be judged by our own internal politics which, surprisingly, are relatively tame, but by the rhetorical tone of the entire region which we really aren't educated in or exposed to over here.

Now, fortunately, I think Obama is actually against further military action. But we are really a GOP candidate away from some serious stupid s**t.

[Jim Ohara]

Luckily the GOP have only got absolute clowns as options for President. Not just in 2012 but back in 2008 too. Their insane rhetoric and strange bedfellows have ensured than anyone of reasoned mind and diplomatic stature has no chance of advancing, leaving only the crooks, the zealots, the chancers and the bullshit artists. I doubt anyone with serious sensible perspective on what it takes to run this country will back a GOP candidate anytime soon. So long as America has at least a majority of its citizens containing some sort of reason in them there should be no chance of an idiot taking over. I like to hope everyone learned a lesson after George W Bush.

Mind you, this is a ridiculous country, so lets just say I'm not letting go of my European citizenship anytime soon.

[Johnny Henning]

I remember back before the election when a co-worker was really for George Bush - this is 1999 - and she was talking about how he was gonna fix this country - I blurted out "if George Bush gets elected, we'll be at war with Iraq and the stock market will crash!"

And I was just making it up!

Honestly, no one knows what's gonna happen. The Internet obfuscates history, but go back to 2001 or 1999 or 1995 and look at the newspaper headlines and then look at what really mattered later on. Chances are this Iran B.S. will vanish next month and next year or five years from now, it'll suddenly reappear or we'll be all concerned about something going on in some African nation we never heard of.

[Arjan Dirkse]

Still, it is worth realizing it isn't just the US being suspicious about the Iranian nuclear activities. Even Russia and China are onboard in calling for more clarity from Iran. It's fashionable to call the government stupid and to say they are only after oil and securing their own interests, but that is a point of view I can't agree with.

Of course we can't do anything about China or Russia or India or Pakistan having nukes, but we'll have to live with it. The prospect of nations in the Middle East all developing their own nuclear arsenal is pretty damned scary, and if there is a way to stop that it is lunacy not to. And I definitely understand Israel's hawkish attitude about it, even though I am not sure it is the best course for them. (And yes, Netanyahu is a giant f*ck*ng douche)

Edited by Arjan Dirkse, 09 March 2012 - 04:52 AM.

[Johnny Henning]

Okay, I think you have a good point, but you have to also consider that Russia and China can't really just come out and say "you guys are f**king nuts" to the US and Israel. On top of that, Russia and China just nixed any intervention in Syria, so it is politically in their interests not to cockblock the US and Israel's posturing at this moment. In fact, the whole show is a nice distraction for them. And, I have to admit that Iran apparently wants the attention as well. Just like N Korea when it threatens whatever idiocy.

I'm not saying it is about oil - the actual motivations, incentives and intentions are as mixed up as the players involved, but I am saying that it's a lot of political puppeteering from our representatives that, as usual, doesn't take into account the first people who are going to suffer from this are going to be Iranian civilians and any hope Iran had of democratic reform.

I mean, the dickheads in Washington were completely taken by surprise by the so-called Arab Spring, and they are still acting like nothing fundamental has changed as far as our relationship to the entire region and, really, to the world, even though everything has changed.

[Ogul]

Of course we can't do anything about China or Russia or India or Pakistan having nukes, but we'll have to live with it. The prospect of nations in the Middle East all developing their own nuclear arsenal is pretty damned scary, and if there is a way to stop that it is lunacy not to. And I definitely understand Israel's hawkish attitude about it, even though I am not sure it is the best course for them. (And yes, Netanyahu is a giant f*ck*ng douche)

Exactly. There's always the old cliche, "if you could go back in time and kill Hitler as a baby, would you?" but yes, if we could go back in time and stop Pakistan from developing nuclear weapons we'd totally do so, in a heartbeat. At least half the mess over there is because they have nuclear weapons, if they didn't we probably would have taken them out by now and neither they nor Afghanistan would be half the mess it is now (for their own sakes as much as ours). ANY country that we have any means to prevent them from acquiring nuclear capabilities, we should definitely do so. Is that "fair", considering that we already have them? Heavens no, but it's still the right thing to do. The world would be best off if nobody had nuclear weapons (aside from a few left over in case of aliens), but as that's not on the table, the second best option is to keep them in the hands of as few people as possible, and preferably in the hands of as reasonable people as we can manage.

I mean, the dickheads in Washington were completely taken by surprise by the so-called Arab Spring, and they are still acting like nothing fundamental has changed as far as our relationship to the entire region and, really, to the world, even though everything has changed.

Things have changed, but it mostly just balances out. Some countries like us more, some less, whatever.

[garjones]

At least half the mess over there is because they have nuclear weapons,

Really? If anything I'd say it has stopped them and India going to war on several occassions.

[Ogul]

Really? If anything I'd say it has stopped them and India going to war on several occassions.

Perhaps so, but a war between the two of them wouldn't be the worst thing possible (a nuclear exchange might). The bad news is that we have a country that's about as stable as a giraffe on roller skates, and they have nuclear weapons. We may be able to reasonably count on their formal government to not use them, but we cannot claim that they are "secure," particularly if there is any sort of coup. Of all the nuclear weapons currently known to exist in the world, I'd say the most likely to actually go off in some form are in Pakistan right now (or where at some point, who knows?). And that aside, if we didn't have to worry about them having nuclear weapons, then we could have been more firm with them about their interference in Afghanistan. India are our fairly firm allies, Pakistan are our allies of convenience. As I said, if they didn't have nuclear weapons, I believe we would have been able to pressure them firmly enough to get boots on the ground in their terrorist areas, and clear them out completely, rather than having to work with messy airstrikes (which would likely lead to less Pakistani civilian casualties if we did), and worst case scenario we could have supported an Indian-lead regime change. In either case, the region could have been made more stable overall. Right now we've just got a bit Jenga tower going on.

[jamon g]

apparently the election is predicted to cost $1 billion US. The most expensive in history except for the 1890's.

[Ogul]

apparently the election is predicted to cost $1 billion US. The most expensive in history except for the 1890's.

Huh, ironic that we're facing the sort of robber barrons and trust busting issues that they had around that time.

[jamon g]

what's interesting is that the supreme court decision to allow corporations to fund political advertising without revealing the source of the money means that countries like Iran can dedicate huge amounts of money to help elect the party who has an anti-war platform. Conversely they could fund a Republican campaign, and then at the last minute have it 'leaked' that the Republican campaign was funded by Iran thus destroying their chances.

[Todd Gross]

apparently the election is predicted to cost $1 billion US. The most expensive in history except for the 1890's.

That makes some sense.

In 2008, Obama spent like $500 million and McCain $375 million.

[jamon g]

it's pretty gross really. todd gross.

[Ogul]

what's interesting is that the supreme court decision to allow corporations to fund political advertising without revealing the source of the money means that countries like Iran can dedicate huge amounts of money to help elect the party who has an anti-war platform. Conversely they could fund a Republican campaign, and then at the last minute have it 'leaked' that the Republican campaign was funded by Iran thus destroying their chances.

Actually they'd probably try to get the Republican to win, since they'd be no more likely to attack them than Obama would, but their rhetoric would be "spicier", which gives them more to fight back against, which increases their internal support.

In related news, Japan is phasing out nuclear power. Right now most of their plants are offline, and while they'd like to start some of them back up temporarily just until alternatives can be brought on line, they'll never get back to their pre-Fukushima levels again, and probably be entirely out of the game within a few years. Maybe they can send all their stuff to Iran.

[Jim Ohara]

Didn't take long: http://defendrush.org/