http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/35343465/ns/world_news-mideastn_africa

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TEHRAN, Iran - President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad claimed Thursday that Iran has produced its first batch of uranium enriched to a higher level, saying his country will not be bullied by the West into curtailing its nuclear program a day after the U.S. imposed new sanctions.

Ahmadinejad reiterated to hundreds of thousands of cheering Iranians on the anniversary of the 1979 foundation of the Islamic republic that the country was now a "nuclear state," an announcement he's made before. He insisted that Iran had no intention of building nuclear weapons.

It was not clear how much enriched material had actually been produced just two days after the process was announced to have started.



David Albright of the Washington-based Institute for Science and International Security said that any 20-percent enriched uranium produced just a few days after the start of the process would be "a tiny amount."

The United States and some of its allies accuse Tehran of using its civilian nuclear program as a cover to build nuclear weapons but Tehran denies the charge, saying the program is just geared toward generating electricity.

"I want to announce with a loud voice here that the first package of 20 percent fuel was produced and provided to the scientists," he said.

Enriching uranium produces fuel for nuclear power plants but can also be used to create material for atomic weapons if enriched further to 90 percent or more.

"We have the capability to enrich uranium more than 20 percent or 80 percent but we don't enrich (to this level) because we don't need it," he said in a speech broadcast live on state television.

Iran announced Tuesday it was beginning the process of enriching its uranium stockpile to a higher level. The international community reacted by discussing the imposition of new U.N. sanctions.


Revolutionary Guard assets frozen
The U.S. Treasury Department went ahead on Wednesday and froze the assets in U.S. jurisdictions of a Revolutionary Guard general and four subsidiaries of a construction firm he runs for their alleged involvement in producing and spreading weapons of mass destruction.

Tehran has said it wants to further enrich the uranium — which is still substantially below the 90 percent plus level used in the fissile core of nuclear warheads — as a part of a plan to fuel its research reactor that provides medical isotopes to hundreds of thousands of Iranians undergoing cancer treatment.

But the West says Tehran is not capable of turning the material into the fuel rods needed by the reactor. Instead it fears that Iran wants to enrich the uranium to make nuclear weapons.

Ahmadinejad restated Iran's position that it was not seeking to build nuclear weapons.

"When we say we do not manufacture the bomb, we mean it, and we do not believe in manufacturing a bomb," he told the crowd. "If we wanted to manufacture a bomb, we would announce it."

"We told them the Iranian nation will never give in to bullying and illogical remarks," Ahmadinejad added.


Western powers blame Tehran for rejecting an internationally endorsed plan to defuse the situation by having Iran export its low enriched uranium for enrichment abroad and returned as fuel rods for the Tehran reactor.


Iran, in turn, asserts it had no choice but to start enriching to higher levels because its suggested changes to the international plan were rejected.

The president said Iran will triple the production of its low-enriched uranium in the future but didn't elaborate.

"God willing, daily production (of low enriched uranium) will be tripled," he said.

A confidential document from the U.N. nuclear agency shared Wednesday with The Associated Press said Iran's initial effort at higher enrichment is modest, using only a small amount of feedstock and a fraction of its capacities.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


My question is how long before Isreal drops bombs? They obviously aren't worried about it yet, since Iran hasn't been bombed yet.

GG

...edited out nuke reference.

If they want nukes so bad I say we give them 2-3. And we won't even bill Iran for them.

Change I can believe in.

Iran export its low enriched uranium for enrichment abroad and returned as fuel rods for the Tehran reactor

This combinded with this:

Tehran is not capable of turning the material into the fuel rods needed by the reactor.

Makes this pretty suspicous.

jbunny wrote:If they want nukes so bad I say we give them 2-3. And we won't even bill Iran for them.

I'd be down with that. Hell, I say we send them express delivery. Bet we could get them there in about 15 minutes.

What Is it with you Americans and wanting to bomb the Middle East?

Not quite. They've not developed a warhead or tested one. They haven't even admitted it is their plan. But they're getting closer...

Lord-Loss wrote:What Is it with you Americans and wanting to bomb the Middle East?

Beard envy.

Lord-Loss wrote:What Is it with you Americans and wanting to bomb the Middle East?

Blanket stereotypes about blanket stereotypes.

Here is another blanket stereotype:

"What is with you europeans, and your need to continually follow the herd by making such blanket stereotypes? Dont you have teeth that need to be brushed?"

Neither are constructive. I, for one, do not share the belief that nuclear arms or talk of using them should be so glibly bantied about.

Please curb your blanket stereotypes in the future for not only the sake of avoiding Rule #1 of Dakka, but for the sake of just being civil.

Lord-Loss wrote:What Is it with you Americans and wanting to bomb the Middle East?

Dunno. Something about the whole sawing off of heads I'd suspect. That and the whole "Great Satan" thing. Oh, and their stated goal of killing every Jew on the planet starting with the country of Israel. The bombing of the USS Cole might play too. Oh, and that whole Marine compound thing in Beirut still smarts a little. I'd imagine the fact the World Trade Center no longer stands also has a little to do with it. Petty reasons really, I know.

Let's not even bring up the infiltration of Western civilization (including your beloved UK) with the intent purpose of bringing Sharia law into force around the globe.

avantgarde wrote:

Lord-Loss wrote:What Is it with you Americans and wanting to bomb the Middle East?

Neck Beard envy.

Corrected your typo

HellFury wrote:Dont you have teeth that need to be brushed?"

That reminds me, I forgot to brush my teeth this morning. Thank you for reminding me.

Lord-Loss wrote:What Is it with you Americans and wanting to bomb the Middle East?

Thats where alot of the terrorist live, and it's cost effective to drop one big bomb in one location. If they were to spread out more then we would want to bomb other locations as well.

Iran is nothing more than a radical terrorist state that has threatened to wipe Isreal from the face of the earth. I have no doubt that if they were to get a nuke they would either use it on Isreal or try to smuggle it here to set it off on American soil. I have no problem with a First Strike Defense

The lives of the innocent people mean nothing to you?

Israel's monopoly on nuclear weapons in the middle-east is bound to end sooner or later....

It means the same to me as it does to them.

They don't. They never cared. It's the Oil, thats the ONLY reason that the west got involved with the Middle East A century ago, and that turned into waht it is today. Then we used them like toilet paper so we sould out do the Soviets, aka afghanistan.

As an Arab, muslim cow, i went to to the West Bank and Jordan for a year or so I can learn about my ancestors. And this is what i got form the locals:

they feel angry at the west. Not because of the culture, or how its coming here, they don't really mind it. They just feel that the Amercans, and the Europeans have backstabbed them, that they gave them the short end of the stick. And its true, in the past, whenever the U.S. wanted something from the region, they got it, and left them in the dark.

So all that anger grows into hate, and the terrorists ride on the hate into power. It like how Hitler Became Chancellor of Germany.

Yeah, they hate Americans so much but they sure as hell will sell us oil and take our money.

They've got a ways to go before reaching NK's status. Kim Jung Il > Mahmoud Ahmadinejad

Cane wrote:They've got a ways to go before reaching NK's status. Kim Jung Il > Mahmoud Ahmadinejad

North Korea is BEST Korea!!!

Well I feel we're safe for now. It's when you see Israeli fighter bombers dropping daisy cutters in the desert that we should start worrying.

GG

I have a feeling this will not end well....

olympia wrote:Israel's monopoly on nuclear weapons in the middle-east is bound to end sooner or later....

Turkey has had nuclear weapons for some time, though only 40 or so.

Iran still doesn't have nuclear weapons, though its unlikely that we'll do anything serious to prevent them from acquiring them. We might launch air strikes, but it seems more likely that we'll let Israel handle that; not that it really matters given the fact that the Iranians, more or less correctly, view Israel as a US appendage.

We would be in a better position were we not running Iraq.

Dogma, tell that to our great Overlord who's promise to pull out of Iraq still hasn't happened yet.

Amongst many other promises he has yet to keep.

Fateweaver wrote:Dogma, tell that to our great Overlord who's promise to pull out of Iraq still hasn't happened yet.

Amongst many other promises he has yet to keep.

Fateweaver...why do you feel the need to rub peoples nose in it?

As a republican and fellow Obama dislikist, please take this stuff out of my thread...OK?

GG

Just to point out that not all Europeans agree with Lord Loss, i am British and i entirely agree with bombing people.

On topic, i dont see the problem, a massive war between Isreal and Iran + whoever else sides with them is on the cards, if you are on polar opposites, it HAS to end in a fight eventually.

They hate each other so bad that it will end up turning ugly... no amount of talk will change it. I honestly do not see how at least a small scale war cant kick off in the next few years.

For myself, im not too concerned. Iran will most definately smash Isreal if/when it gets the chance, but the Isrealis have a truly terrifying arsenal. They will either pre-strike the Iranians when it looks like they are getting ready to pounce, or maybe just maybe the Iranians will manage to pull it off and drop something nasty on the Isrealis first, but then all hell will break loose.

So.. im just going to laugh my ass off when the Isrealis wipe the floor with them. Im not overly fond of the Jews out there, but the enemy of my enemy is most definately my friend, and i do freely admit a healthy yet slightly irrational dislike of Muslims after 4 tours of the sandbox and a healthy dislike for the most aggresive mono-theistic dogma on the globe.

I just hope to gak that nukes dont get tossed around so much that it pretty much feths the entire world up.

And a small part of me feels sorry for the countless thousands that will die in the ensuing conflict. But... hey, wars have always gone on. Ill just keep on trying to smile unless i end up as ash myself!

Kinda sad but hey.. i dont have issues dealing with sad anymore, war is war, and it doesnt overly concern me. The planet has dealt with mass extinctions before, im sure something else will evolve eventually!

generalgrog wrote:

Fateweaver wrote:Dogma, tell that to our great Overlord who's promise to pull out of Iraq still hasn't happened yet.

Amongst many other promises he has yet to keep.

Fateweaver...why do you feel the need to rub peoples nose in it?

As a republican and fellow Obama dislikist, please take this stuff out of my thread...OK?

GG

What?

jbunny wrote:

generalgrog wrote:

Fateweaver wrote:Dogma, tell that to our great Overlord who's promise to pull out of Iraq still hasn't happened yet.

Amongst many other promises he has yet to keep.

Fateweaver...why do you feel the need to rub peoples nose in it?

As a republican and fellow Obama dislikist, please take this stuff out of my thread...OK?

GG

What?

I thought it was obvious that I was trying to keep the thread on topic, and what fate was doing was an obvious attempt to steer the topic to Obama bashing. Which could be ok if it was pertaining to Obama's policy toward Iran....however he brought up Iraq, tottally taking it off topic for no reason.

GG

They’ve been working on it for a long time.

Iran’s younger population is relatively well-educated, egalitarian, and technologically literate. Remember that they held demonstrations in the street in OUR SUPPORT after 9/11.

Did none of you nuke-‘em advocates watch the demonstrations after the last election? The government is still pretty scummy, but the people are largely good folks, and would make good allies. I don’t want those people dead. As they gradually inherit the reins of power, Iran will be less and less of a threat, and more and more of an ally.


I’m not sure how peacefully the next few years will go, though.

marching and fighting as we speak Ragnar. Power to the people!

Oh well had to happen sooner or later, I have a sneaking feeling this is somehow going to end in a mushroom cloud somehwere in the world.

generalgrog wrote:

jbunny wrote:

generalgrog wrote:

Fateweaver wrote:Dogma, tell that to our great Overlord who's promise to pull out of Iraq still hasn't happened yet.

Amongst many other promises he has yet to keep.

Fateweaver...why do you feel the need to rub peoples nose in it?

As a republican and fellow Obama dislikist, please take this stuff out of my thread...OK?

GG

What?

I thought it was obvious that I was trying to keep the thread on topic, and what fate was doing was an obvious attempt to steer the topic to Obama bashing. Which could be ok if it was pertaining to Obama's policy toward Iran....however he brought up Iraq, tottally taking it off topic for no reason.

GG

Sorry GG but I wasn't trying to steer the thread to Obama bashing. I was just saying........bah nevermind.

Frazzled wrote:marching and fighting as we speak Ragnar. Power to the people!

Democracy's inspiring, isn't it?

Fateweaver wrote:Dogma, tell that to our great Overlord who's promise to pull out of Iraq still hasn't happened yet.

It would be unwise to leave a weak state without support, we have to run Iraq for now, simply because Iraq can't run itself yet. Though Obama has drawn done troop levels in that nation, and it was said early on that the quickest realistic timetable (based on nothing more than military logistical data) was something like 42 months.

Mattyrm wrote:Just to point out that not all Europeans agree with Lord Loss

Everyone has there own opinions, this is pretty obvious.

dislike of Muslims after 4 tours of the sandbox

So you compare all Muslims to the Muslim extremists you fought in Afghanistan?

Frazzled wrote:marching and fighting as we speak Ragnar. Power to the people!

One of the main reasons we should try to rein in Israel for as long as possible.

Mannahnin wrote:

Frazzled wrote:marching and fighting as we speak Ragnar. Power to the people!

Democracy's inspiring, isn't it?

To quote the last line of Charlie Wilson's war (represented in laws district strangely enough)
"we'll see."

I think most people feel that a showdown is coming soon. There is no way that Israel will allow a "nukular" armed Iran under the current regime. Am I right?

GG

No-one wants a nukular Iran under the current regime, except maybe some other extremist states.

Half the Iranians don't want the current regime.

generalgrog wrote:I think most people feel that a showdown is coming soon. There is no way that Israel will allow a "nukular" armed Iran under the current regime. Am I right?

GG

I don't see why not. There was no way Korea, Japan, or America wanted a nuclear north korea. Grandstanding aside, I won't bet against the isrealites taking action, but I'm not going to bet for them either.

Hey LL as i said, its not rational, but i fear my mind may have been warped slightly. I dont have nightmares or post traumatic stress, but i genuinelly have a problem with giving a gak when i hear about the Iraqis blowing each other up...

Does that make me a bad person?

mattyrm wrote:Hey LL as i said, its not rational, but i fear my mind may have been warped slightly. I dont have nightmares or post traumatic stress, but i genuinelly have a problem with giving a gak when i hear about the Iraqis blowing each other up...

Does that make me a bad person?

Yes.

generalgrog wrote:I think most people feel that a showdown is coming soon. There is no way that Israel will allow a "nukular" armed Iran under the current regime. Am I right?

GG

The issue isn't one of desire, but capacity. We can't afford a land war with Iran. It would be like Iraq, but much, much worse. Airstrikes are an option, but they don't guarantee the elimination of nuclear material, and would very likely galvanize the population against us. Targeted sanctions are a good idea, as they will limit what Iran can do to support Hezbollah and other militants; hopefully giving Israel room for progress on that front. Unfortunately, the Chinese are reticent to agree to them, and we need them on board for maximum effectiveness.

Honestly, in this particular case, our long relationship with Israel is a huge liability. We need to control them, as any action they take will directly affect our position in the region. Not that we can't adapt to a world in which Israel is actively bombing Iran, but it would be nice to avoid the inconvenience.

Remind me again, what's the only state that has actually used a nuclear weapon in warfare? (Two of them, in point of fact.)

Mannahnin wrote:They’ve been working on it for a long time.

Iran’s younger population is relatively well-educated, egalitarian, and technologically literate. Remember that they held demonstrations in the street in OUR SUPPORT after 9/11.

Did none of you nuke-‘em advocates watch the demonstrations after the last election? The government is still pretty scummy, but the people are largely good folks, and would make good allies. I don’t want those people dead. As they gradually inherit the reins of power, Iran will be less and less of a threat, and more and more of an ally.


I’m not sure how peacefully the next few years will go, though.

I am sure there are some very nice people in Iran. I know a girl whose father was from Iran. I also have no doubt in my mind that if Iran got a nuke they would use it on us or Isreal at the first most oppertune time for time. I'm all for peaceful options, but if they get a nuke there will be no peaceful end to this situtation.

And sorry but if it is going to come down to my family dieing or thier families dieing i will choice theirs every day. You have to protect your own first and foremost.

dogma wrote:

generalgrog wrote:I think most people feel that a showdown is coming soon. There is no way that Israel will allow a "nukular" armed Iran under the current regime. Am I right?

GG

The issue isn't one of desire, but capacity. We can't afford a land war with Iran. It would be like Iraq, but much, much worse. Airstrikes are an option, but they don't guarantee the elimination of nuclear material, and would very likely galvanize the population against us. Targeted sanctions are a good idea, as they will limit what Iran can do to support Hezbollah and other militants; hopefully giving Israel room for progress on that front. Unfortunately, the Chinese are reticent to agree to them, and we need them on board for maximum effectiveness.

Honestly, in this particular case, our long relationship with Israel is a huge liability. We need to control them, as any action they take will directly affect our position in the region. Not that we can't adapt to a world in which Israel is actively bombing Iran, but it would be nice to avoid the inconvenience.

I agree with most of this except for the "Israel is a liability part". My belief is that the Israeli intellegence knows 100 times more than we do about what's going on in Iran, so until Israel starts to get nervous, we don't really have much to worry about. Putting sanctions and such is a good way to try and slow the confrontation down I guess.

GG

Shhhh jbunny.

That is anti-American to speak that way. It's only American that all Iranians are = to all US citizens.

Matty- It's understandable. Whether you're a bad person on the whole depends on a much bigger picture, but not giving a crap about people dying doe tend to weigh in on the negative.

Shuma at least i have realised i have an issue, and there is a good reason behind my slightly irrational dislike of a certain group of people, im not proud of it. I would argue however that being one of the most sizeable trolls i have ever witnessed in ten years of forum use makes you a bad person, and for no reason other than you like upsetting people via keyboard?

mattyrm wrote:Shuma at least i have realised i have an issue, and there is a good reason behind my slightly irrational dislike of a certain group of people, im not proud of it.

Same thing happened to Vietnam vets, WWII vets.

GG

Oooh matty, now I owe you a pint. I just spit 7-UP all over my keyboard.

Profiling is wrong or something. I'm willing to bet 90% of the so called "humanitarians" have profiled in their lives. Not on purpose mind you but subconsciously most people will profile or stereotype based on personal experience.

I profiled every retail job I worked. I'd keep one eye on 80yo women in walkers that came into the liquor store I worked at. I kept 2 eyes on young males and females between 21 and 35. I guess that makes me a bad person to worry more about a spry 21yo trying to steal a bottle of vodka than to worry about an 80yo that can barely walk faster than a turtle stealing a bottle of Chianti.

jbunny wrote:

Mannahnin wrote:Did none of you nuke-‘em advocates watch the demonstrations after the last election? The government is still pretty scummy, but the people are largely good folks, and would make good allies. I don’t want those people dead. As they gradually inherit the reins of power, Iran will be less and less of a threat, and more and more of an ally.

I’m not sure how peacefully the next few years will go, though.

I am sure there are some very nice people in Iran. I know a girl whose father was from Iran. I also have no doubt in my mind that if Iran got a nuke they would use it on us or Isreal at the first most oppertune time for time. I'm all for peaceful options, but if they get a nuke there will be no peaceful end to this situtation.

And sorry but if it is going to come down to my family dieing or thier families dieing i will choice theirs every day. You have to protect your own first and foremost.

Well of course, if we have to choose them or us. But I don't believe it'll actually come to that. I doubt that even the pretty scummy and repressive government of Iran would drop the bomb, because they know Israel would annihilate them in return. It's Mutually Assured Destruction, much like us and the Soviets back in the day. All through the 60s, 70s, and 80s there were a whole lot of people who grew up expecting we would all die in a nuclear exchange with the USSR. Thankfully, it didn't turn out that way. Maybe I'm an optimist to think that a standoff with Iran will turn out similar, but so far history's suggested that I may be right.

Or the real fear is they give one to Hezzbullah which does it for them.

chaplaingrabthar wrote:Remind me again, what's the only state that has actually used a nuclear weapon in warfare? (Two of them, in point of fact.)

The US, and how many American lifes did it save by not having to invade Japan? Operation Downfall put the lost of Allied troops in the millions and Japanese troops and civilians in the tens of millions. now compare that to the 500,000 that died in each blast.

mattyrm wrote:Just to point out that not all Europeans agree with Lord Loss, i am British and i entirely agree with bombing people.

I totally did not expect this...



Automatically Appended Next Post:

jbunny wrote:The US, and how many American lives did it save by not having to invade Japan? Operation Downfall put the loss of Allied troops in the millions and Japanese troops and civilians in the tens of millions. now compare that to the 128,000 people in Hiroshima and 70,000 in Nagasaki.

Fixed. No need to overestimate for dramatic effect now...

Mann, the difference is the US and Russia were not lead by radical religious leaders that think they are doing God's work by killing all of the Jews.

Why not JEB? I was in the military, i realise that sometimes, people need bombing! Maybe im not as bomb happy as some people.. but hey, its gotta happen sometimes. I dont think war is nice, but if theres gonna be one, i like to think we can win. And that needs bombs!

There isn't a whole lot of difference between wanting to wipe out an ideology (Communism or Capitalism) and wanting to wipe out an ethnicity. Both entail a lack of rational decision making, as evidence in large part by the 'evil empire' rhetoric that came out of, and directed, the US in the late 70's/early 80's.

I just wasn't expecting you to throw it out so freely Matt. I often muse over Robert E. Lee when people become a bit too hawkish for my tastes. He was a gentlemen to a tee, and I find his writing to be both liberating and calming. A strange paradox to be sure...

"It is well that war is so terrible -- lest we should grow too fond of it." - Gen. Robert E. Lee

Frazzled wrote:Or the real fear is they give one to Hezzbullah which does it for them.

That's why sanctions aimed at cutting the logistical ties to Hezbollah are a good idea; placating the fear of the unlikely, but terrible.

ere isn't a whole lot of difference between wanting to wipe out an ideology (Communism or Capitalism) and wanting to wipe out an ethnicity. Both entail a lack of rational decision making, as evidence in large part by the 'evil empire' rhetoric that came out of, and directed, the US in the late 70's/early 80's.

Wow thats such a blanket statement that its just...wow.


Not a lot difference between wanting to wipe out tyranny and genocide. Brilliant, absolutely brilliant. Dogma wins the Frazzled wiener dog WTF? thread award. I mean I thought I was in the running right up until then.

dogma wrote:There isn't a whole lot of difference between wanting to wipe out an ideology (Communism or Capitalism) and wanting to wipe out an ethnicity. Both entail a lack of rational decision making, as evidence in large part by the 'evil empire' rhetoric that came out of, and directed, the US in the late 70's/early 80's.

There is a huge differnce between. "I hate those guys" and "God tells us to kill them and we get into Heaven"

Do you really think that if Isreal was not a Jewish state there would still be problem in the Mid-East? And I mean problems on the scale that there is now.

I think it would be a different set of problems. After all, Iraq and Iran went at it hammer and tongs in the 80s.

jbunny wrote:
There is a huge differnce between. "I hate those guys" and "God tells us to kill them and we get into Heaven"

I don't recall any Cold War rhetoric which stopped at "I hate those guys", you're being reductionist; something that I can do just as easily. After all, the fact that God sent you to kill someone is essentially tacit to "I hate those guys".

jbunny wrote:
Do you really think that if Isreal was not a Jewish state there would still be problem in the Mid-East? And I mean problems on the scale that there is now.

So long as it was created by Western powers as part of their exit strategy from the Imperial rule, yes. Even if I didn't, why does Judaism get a free pass here? Why is that distinctly different from living in a capitalist nation, or a communist nation?

I miss the 80s.

jbunny wrote:Mann, the difference is the US and Russia were not lead by radical religious leaders that think they are doing God's work by killing all of the Jews.

That’s the thing, though. Religious people don’t have a monopoly on crazy. Stalin was crazy. Kim Jong Il is crazy. Both Bushes were theoretically born-again Christians believing in Revelations. But they didn’t push the button.

As crazy as you may think the Iranian leadership is, the majority of them are canny old bastards who want to hang on to power, not die in a mutual nuclear holocaust with Israel. Ahmadinejad is just the scary, crazy face that they use to intimidate people.

Frazzled wrote:
Not a lot difference between wanting to wipe out tyranny and genocide.

Genocide? Ahmadinejad has never said anything about genocide, or even killing all Jews. He's said a lot about destroying, removing, or otherwise eliminating Israel and Zionism, but that's not the same thing as genocide.

Yeah Jeb dont misunderstand me mate, i think im a nice fella deep down, and i wasnt advocating carpet bombing orphanages or anything, i was merely pointing out that a jolly good bombing is sometimes entirely the right thing to do..

For example, a jolly good bombing to weaken the fortified positions of the enemy before we launch a ground assault?

Good bombing!

dogma wrote:Genocide? Ahmadinejad has never said anything about genocide, or even killing all Jews. He's said a lot about destroying, removing, or otherwise eliminating Israel and Zionism, but that's not the same thing as genocide.

Yeah I am pretty sure by, "Blasting Israel from the face of the Earth," he really meant, "Send them all on vacation to Jamaica!" Those silly Iranians!


Automatically Appended Next Post:
@Matt: I was mostly just shocked at your comment...I didn't say I didn't laugh...

Yeah Jeb is right Dogma, i heard he was in some sense misquoted, but it most definately was something along the lines of "Im not overly fond of these Jew types old boy"

dogma wrote: He's said a lot about destroying, removing, or otherwise eliminating Israel and Zionism, but that's not the same thing as genocide.

Twice in one thread

mattyrm wrote:but it most definitely was something along the lines of "Im not overly fond of these Jew types old boy"

I have now lol'd twice in this thread

I wonder if he is going to help with the Relocation of the Jews once he removes Isreal?

israel is a western power inflicted on the east because of nazi guilt and soviet fear and so on, turning it into the spoiled rich kid of the region as far as military assistance, while plenty of the region's people became misplaced by its existance. Now I really don't give a crap about what the bible says about the jews needing to rebuild a temple or how far muhammed walked from point a to point be... but some people do. That's what scares the nuclear community. The possibility of one guy or the next, turban or tie, doesn't matter, with the ability to say "HAR HAR SCREW EVERYONE" is enough to say NO DO NOT DEVELOP NUKES....

The wierd part develops. The people who say 'dont have nukes' are the people that have them. Those people, however, have PROVEN their lack of using them. If nobody wants to use one why do you want one? That would be the concerning question. Sure, get some nukes so your country can join the club of other countries who have nukes but don't use them?
duh.

The more obvious answer is CEASE THIS DEVELOPMENT OF DESCTRUCTION AND SHUT UP SIT DOWN AND BEHAVE, or we will use the ALREADY DEVELOPED DESTRUCTIVE POWER WE HAVE TO MAKE YOU SHUT UP AND SIT DOWN!!! RAAAH!

That causes diplomatical problems, though, and i'm sure ther neighbors, or civilian population would be kind of upset about all that would bring about.

It seems like a hostage situation to me. 'I COULD KILL ISRAEL... so let me have a nuke so that I can prove that I didn't?

meh. doesn't fly. If I am pointing a gun at someone and saying "don't try it" as he reaches for a gun, I wouldn't feel at all morally worried if he reaches for the gun and I kill him for doing so.

Iran will develop a nuke and, use-it-or-not, make all of their neghbors worried, again upsetting the already insane power structure of the place. We cannot just be picking up the pieces and avenging aggression after it happens. Powering down on Iranian nuke capability is preventative, not just waiting for something to happen to warrant it.

If I was president I would just say "HEY STOP OR WE'LL SHOOT!" and if they didn't, say "fine, we warned ya, have fun with yer wierdo afterlife expectancies or whatever we're done with that gak..."
blow the whole damn place up and more people would need hybrids, and a new religion (maybe one that doesn't involve the word 'infidel' or 'chosen' - might help stabilise folks... and so on.

I think that through the grammatical errors, and nonsensical structuring, there is a point in there that I might agree with...but I am not sure yet...

JEB_Stuart wrote:Yeah I am pretty sure by, "Blasting Israel from the face of the Earth," he really meant, "Send them all on vacation to Jamaica!" Those silly Iranians!

No, he meant destroying Israel, and at the very least killing the majority of its inhabitants. Not all Israelis are Jews, and not all Jews are Israeli. You can't commit genocide against Israelis, as they are not an ethnicity. What Ahmadinejad said is deplorable as is, there is no need to further confuse the issue by equivocation.

Honestly, I find it hilarious that the assumptive response to any statement which isn't "ZOMG!!! Ahmadinnerjacket is a genocidal, religious, psychopath without any human characteristics at all!!!" is that the speaker believes Ahmadinejad is entirely reasonable, and not at all antisemitic.

It boggles the mind how horrible reading comprehension becomes once value judgments and hyperbole are removed from a conversation.

Anyway, the Iranian state, and large swathes of the Iranian people, aren't simply antisemitic, they're also anti-Western. Israel is both Jewish, and a manifestation of Western imperialism. Any time it is discussed by the Iranian state, both these concepts are being referenced. If Iran were an Arab client state of the US, the rhetoric directed that way would still be just as bad. We would be able to deal with it on a more rational level, because there is less stigma surrounding the hatred between Arabs and Persians, but it would still be there. Underneath all the moralistic nonsense, this is an incredibly complex issue that gets whitewashed because of the Western tendency to both sympathize with Israel, and equate it with Judaism as a whole.

Mannahnin wrote: I doubt that even the pretty scummy and repressive government of Iran would drop the bomb, because they know Israel would annihilate them in return. It's Mutually Assured Destruction, much like us and the Soviets back in the day.

Here's where your argument fails: You assume the Iranian regime in power cares about it's continued existence at all costs.

I would submit to you that if the Ayatollah or Ahmadinejad thought that there was even a CHANCE that he could get a nuclear first strike on Israel and could destroy or cripple that nation (not an unrealistic expectation with nukes given you can traverse the entire country in minutes in a fast jet) he would be willing to take it, even if he thought he faced certain nuclear retaliation. After all, that just means he gets to his 70 virgins a little sooner.

Don't assume everyone's top motivation is self-preservation. What do you think makes suicide bombers tick? It ain't self preservation.

I would submit to you that if the Ayatollah or Ahmadinejad thought that there was even a CHANCE that he could get a nuclear first strike on Israel and could destroy or cripple that nation (not an unrealistic expectation with nukes given you can traverse the entire country in minutes in a fast jet) he would be willing to take it, even if he thought he faced certain nuclear retaliation. After all, that just means he gets to his 70 virgins a little sooner.

Your character assessment of the leadership of Iran falls fairly short of reality.

The Green Git wrote:
Don't assume everyone's top motivation is self-preservation. What do you think makes suicide bombers tick? It ain't self preservation.

Oh this is so true.

ShumaGorath wrote:Your character assessment of the leadership of Iran falls fairly short of reality.

Based on what? You? You do lunch with these guys?

I mean I know, all I have to go on is the stated goal from the lips of the leadership, and the observed behavior of the religious fanatics that share the beliefs of these two, along with the teachings of the 12th Imam which Ahmadinejad spouts... but then again all pales in the face of the Most Enlightened One, Shuma.

The Green Git wrote:
I would submit to you that if the Ayatollah or Ahmadinejad thought that there was even a CHANCE that he could get a nuclear first strike on Israel and could destroy or cripple that nation (not an unrealistic expectation with nukes given you can traverse the entire country in minutes in a fast jet) he would be willing to take it, even if he thought he faced certain nuclear retaliation. After all, that just means he gets to his 70 virgins a little sooner.

Ahmadinejad doesn't have that kind of authority; leaving us with Khamenei. Khamenei doesn't have the same theological convictions as Ahadinejad (he isn't a Twelver Shi'ite), and so doesn't hold to the same apocalyptic beliefs that Ahadinejad does. He's declared a fatwa on nuclear weapons, and Iran hasn't made any direct moves to actually weaponize its nuclear fuel. You're literally jumping 3-4 steps down the line in declaring that the Iranian state would certainly use nuclear weapons that it has not even been proven to be seeking with intention.

We can go into further detail in dissecting Khamenei's motivations, if you wish. I've got hundreds of pages of notes on the man's life and religious beliefs, but the strongest argument that exists against your stance is this:

If self-preservation is not important to Iran, then why are they showing restraint with respect to their policies in the Middle East? They could invade Iraq, and engage the US in open war to strike a blow against the West. They would almost certainly lose, but that shouldn't matter if your postulate is correct.

Moreover, your understanding of the potency of nuclear weapons is woeful. It would take far more than one primitive warhead to cripple Israel; especially considering the massive amount of aid they would receive in the wake of such an attack.

The Green Git wrote:
Don't assume everyone's top motivation is self-preservation. What do you think makes suicide bombers tick? It ain't self preservation.

Individualism in Islam isn't the same thing as individualism in the West. It is considered acceptable by many, but not all, to knowingly sacrifice yourself in the name of Islam. Though by a strict reading of the Koran it is wholly forbidden. However, to knowingly sacrifice an entire nation of Muslims is not comparable to the use of a suicide bomb, which sacrifices only a few lives at most.

To put it more simply: decisions which affect a nation are not grounded in self preservation, they are grounded in national preservation. It isn't a one to one comparison.

Guitardian, that's two posts of yours now that were nothing but ramblings.

I see that you are new here, please try to be a little more concise and less "all over the place".

It read more like a street bum rant than anything.

GG

Mannahin wrote:Iran’s younger population is relatively well-educated, egalitarian, and technologically literate. Remember that they held demonstrations in the street in OUR SUPPORT after 9/11.

Did none of you nuke-‘em advocates watch the demonstrations after the last election? The government is still pretty scummy, but the people are largely good folks, and would make good allies. I don’t want those people dead. As they gradually inherit the reins of power, Iran will be less and less of a threat, and more and more of an ally.


I’m not sure how peacefully the next few years will go, though.

I pretty much agree with Mannahin - Iran is actually one of the LEAST backwards (in terms of the population) countries in the Middle East. To be honest, there doesn't seem to be much difference between Israel and Iran - if anything, Israel is more aggressive. I'm not in favour of aligning ourselves with the Israelis - we don't owe them jack gak.

Of course Iran is going to engage in some some sabre-rattling and the occasional powerplay - they justifiably feel under threat.

Frazzled wrote:Or the real fear is they give one to Hezzbullah which does it for them.

Assuming they're Bond villains, as you are, why wouldn't they just launch it themselves? Far less chance of it being intercepted, and either everyone would know it was Iran that orchestrated the attack (nuclear scientists are very good at identifying the source of nuclear material).


Automatically Appended Next Post:

jbunny wrote:Mann, the difference is the US and Russia were not lead by radical religious leaders that think they are doing God's work by killing all of the Jews.

Is your entire assessment of Iran's politics based on the snippets of Ahmadinejad's rhetoric shown in the popular media?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

jbunny wrote:Do you really think that if Isreal was not a Jewish state there would still be problem in the Mid-East? And I mean problems on the scale that there is now.

Not a jewish state? So, like, patriate the Palestinians in Israel and the West Bank, resulting in Jews become a minority in the near future? I don't think that'll stop all the problems, but it'd likely be a huge step towards ending the violence. I'm not sure the Jews would be too happy with it, though, and I can't say I blame them.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

The Green Git wrote:Based on what? You? You do lunch with these guys?

There isn't a shortage of text out there about the Iranian leadership. It's been a subject heavily studied by academics and intelligence professionals.

Your assertion that Iran's leadership has some apocalyptic vision akin to suicide bombers has not been reinforced by any of them. At this point you look like just another bloodthirsty netizen trying to justify killing a lot of people with a fantastical worldview.

So, now we have the possibility of nuclear fallout and Obama still isn't hurrying our troops out of the area? Perhaps all those black plastic FEMA coffins that are stockpiled all over the country should be in with their next supply shipments.

mattyrm wrote:...carpet bombing orphanages...

Hmm. Sounds like an idea.

We'll look into it.

warpcrafter wrote:So, now we have the possibility of nuclear fallout and Obama still isn't hurrying our troops out of the area? Perhaps all those black plastic FEMA coffins that are stockpiled all over the country should be in with their next supply shipments.

Coffin LINERS. They actually go around the coffin to ensure the corpses decay doesn't taint the surrounding Earth (or something).

Fateweaver wrote:

warpcrafter wrote:So, now we have the possibility of nuclear fallout and Obama still isn't hurrying our troops out of the area? Perhaps all those black plastic FEMA coffins that are stockpiled all over the country should be in with their next supply shipments.

Coffin LINERS. They actually go around the coffin to ensure the corpses decay doesn't taint the surrounding Earth (or something).

Yeah, liners go on the inside. These are meant to dispose of all the people who can't hack it in the concentration camps after the shadow government declares martial law. Besides, with all the barium chemtrails being shot into the sky to augment the HAARP array, the Earth is already pretty tainted.

Someone has been reading Angels and Daemons.

warpcrafter wrote:So, now we have the possibility of nuclear fallout and Obama still isn't hurrying our troops out of the area? Perhaps all those black plastic FEMA coffins that are stockpiled all over the country should be in with their next supply shipments.

Man, you people seriously have no idea how powerful a nuclear bomb is and isn't. The iranians don't have a four stage hydrogen fusion device like the kind we do, the best they could possibly hope for with what they have is a dirty bomb or a hiroshima-esque fission bomb, which is powerful enough to demolish a city, but would not spread a significant amount of fallout outside of its target city.

ShumaGorath wrote:Man, you people seriously have no idea how powerful a nuclear bomb is and isn't. The iranians don't have a four stage hydrogen fusion device like the kind we do, the best they could possibly hope for with what they have is a dirty bomb or a hiroshima-esque fission bomb, which is powerful enough to demolish a city, but would not spread a significant amount of fallout outside of its target city.

I am glad you find that comforting...

I don't think he finds it comforting, so much as enlightening. Nuclear attacks are very bad, but that doesn't mean we have to deliberately overestimate their destructive potential in order to ramp up the badness to the max. It cheapens reality, and leads to poor decision making.

JEB_Stuart wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:Man, you people seriously have no idea how powerful a nuclear bomb is and isn't. The iranians don't have a four stage hydrogen fusion device like the kind we do, the best they could possibly hope for with what they have is a dirty bomb or a hiroshima-esque fission bomb, which is powerful enough to demolish a city, but would not spread a significant amount of fallout outside of its target city.

I am glad you find that comforting...

It's important to understand the reality. There's a difference between a thermonuclear fusion device and the crap they have. People act like Iran getting a nuke puts the future of all nearby countries on a knifes edge. The best nuke they could deploy wouldn't even prevent a military response from the country they hit, let alone the world. As it is, Iran is far less likely to use it's nuke (that it doesn't have and can't right now make) than North Korea is to use the 6-8 it has. People are staring at the wrong part of the world.

Exactly, Iran is actually in a pretty solid situation vis a vis security.; especially given its expanding economic ties with China. They have no reason to use any potential nuke they might obtain. In fact, its likely that their current pursuit of nuclear technology is the direct result of their primary opponent (the US) being tied up in two unpopular wars. It would have been incredibly foolish for them to do anything but push for greater regional power, at least provided the country doesn't rend itself in two.

dogma wrote:I don't think he finds it comforting, so much as enlightening. Nuclear attacks are very bad, but that doesn't mean we have to deliberately overestimate their destructive potential in order to ramp up the badness to the max. It cheapens reality, and leads to poor decision making.

Well, according to his response it is comforting. Truth be told, it is annoying when people overestimate the destructive capability of any nuclear weapon, but even a weapon on the scale of the Little Boy or Fat Man bombs is still capable of killing millions. I prefer to not remain comfortable with the idea of any of them being in the hands of Iran...but that's just me. Just as I find your new avatar discomforting

The robotypus is capable of intercepting any nuclear warhead launched at the United States. You should find it very comforting.

dogma wrote:Exactly, Iran is actually in a pretty solid situation vis a vis security.; especially given its expanding economic ties with China. They have no reason to use any potential nuke they might obtain. In fact, its likely that their current pursuit of nuclear technology is the direct result of their primary opponent (the US) being tied up in two unpopular wars.

This is based on Western logic of keeping self-preservation and expanded prosperity as the goal of any country. They practically reject this outright, and are governed by a true religious nutcase. I don't think your assertion works here.

JEB_Stuart wrote:

dogma wrote:I don't think he finds it comforting, so much as enlightening. Nuclear attacks are very bad, but that doesn't mean we have to deliberately overestimate their destructive potential in order to ramp up the badness to the max. It cheapens reality, and leads to poor decision making.

Well, according to his response it is comforting. Truth be told, it is annoying when people overestimate the destructive capability of any nuclear weapon, but even a weapon on the scale of the Little Boy or Fat Man bombs is still capable of killing millions. I prefer to not remain comfortable with the idea of any of them being in the hands of Iran...but that's just me. Just as I find your new avatar discomforting

I find correct knowledge comforting. Not the fact that they have a nuke. I prefer that people not be under the illusion of world ending supernukes, and I find it comforting when they can talk about such things factually and realistically.

This is based on Western logic of keeping self-preservation and expanded prosperity as the goal of any country. They practically reject this outright, and are governed by a true religious nutcase. I don't think your assertion works here.

You don't really have any idea what you're talking about there.

ShumaGorath wrote:You don't really have any idea what you're talking about there.

And you hardly ever do...

JEB_Stuart wrote:This is based on Western logic of keeping self-preservation and expanded prosperity as the goal of any country. They practically reject this outright,

If you haven't noticed, the Iranian state is influenced by a number of classically Western political devices. Including representative democracy, the rule of law, and socialist services. In fact, the only thing they don't get down with is the separation of church and state. And that 'church' which is connected to the state? Its primary goal is self-preservation, and the expansion of its prosperity.

The idea that the Islamic world rejects all Western influence is internally driven propaganda. Hell, even the Islamist movement draws heavily on European fascism, both historically, and rhetorically; going so far as to use loan words and phrases like 'third way'.

JEB_Stuart wrote:
and are governed by a true religious nutcase.

No, their popular representative is a religious nutcase, in public anyway. The person who actually governs the state is not a religious nutcase.

JEB_Stuart wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:You don't really have any idea what you're talking about there.

And you hardly ever do...

I'm not the one calling a country of millions a giant suicide bomber with absolutely no intention towards self preservation or prosperity. Lets review who is being more hyperbolic and fantastical here.

dogma wrote:If you haven't noticed, the Iranian state is influenced by a number of classically Western political devices. Including representative democracy, the rule of law, and socialist services. In fact, the only thing they don't get down with is the separation of church and state. And that 'church' which is connected to the state? Its primary goal is self-preservation, and the expansion of its prosperity.

Ok, really, how representative is it? There have been numerous allegations of election fraud, and not to mention the states oppression of the opposition and opposition leader. Just because it claims one thing, doesn't necessarily mean it is what it claims. The rule of law? That remains to be seen. But I will give you socialist services, even if they can't afford them at the moment because oil is to cheap for their budget. But they are missing much more then just SOCAS. I am sure that you know this, and are just ignoring the long list of Western values that it rejects in order to keep things simple for the sake of discussion.

dogma wrote:No, their popular representative is a religious nutcase, in public anyway. The person who actually governs the state is not a religious nutcase.

To whom are you referring? I assume that you think that Mahmoud Amembersonlyjacket is the religious nutcase, and that the Grand Ayatollah is not. That is what it sounds like anyway, MA is their popular representative. Regardless though, they are both nutcases. I find it unnerving that we were so willing to go to war in Iraq over perceived WMDs, but now that we have a country that actually CAN make them, and no one is willing to do anything...

ShumaGorath wrote:I'm not the one calling a country of millions a giant suicide bomber with absolutely no intention towards self preservation or prosperity. Lets review who is being more hyperbolic and fantastical here.

Hmm, I don't recall saying anything like that, I was referring to their government for one, and it was a dig at the perceived notion that they think of things in the same terms we do. Read what you want, but that is what I said.

Ok, really, how representative is it? There have been numerous allegations of election fraud, and not to mention the states oppression of the opposition and opposition leader. Just because it claims one thing, doesn't necessarily mean it is what it claims.

I remember two hotly contested elections with Bush, where our own representative system was called into question (he did lose the popular vote in one of those).

The rule of law? That remains to be seen. But I will give you socialist services, even if they can't afford them at the moment because oil is to cheap for their budget. But they are missing much more then just SOCAS. I am sure that you know this, and are just ignoring the long list of Western values that it rejects in order to keep things simple for the sake of discussion.

Which western values specifically?

To whom are you referring? I assume that you think that Mahmoud Amembersonlyjacket is the religious nutcase, and that the Grand Ayatollah is not. That is what it sounds like anyway, MA is their popular representative. Regardless though, they are both nutcases. I find it unnerving that we were so willing to go to war in Iraq over perceived WMDs, but now that we have a country that actually CAN make them, and no one is willing to do anything...

I was saying the same thing when we went into Iraq over north korea. Almost makes you want to question our actual reasoning for doing so doesn't it?

Hmm, I don't recall calling that either, I was referring to their government for one, and it was a dig at the perceived notion that they think of things in the same terms we do. Read what you want, but that is what I said.

I read what you said.

ShumaGorath wrote:I remember two hotly contested elections with Bush, where our own representative system was called into question (he did lose the popular vote in one of those).

I only remember one being hotly contested. He won 2004 outright, both in popular and electoral vote. I expected that, as did many people. The election in 2000 is technically settled, but if you want a discussion on the merits and problems of the Electoral College that is a different thread.

ShumaGorath wrote:Which western values specifically?

Really? REALLY? Ok, I guess you want a list: women's rights, freedom of speech, freedom of expression, freedom of religion, political freedom, freedom of movement, CHILDREN'S EXECUTIONS, etc, etc. Come on, that should not have even been asked for...

ShumaGorath wrote:I read what you said.

No you read what you wanted. You do it quite often...unless its Fateweaver, then you can read what is actually said.

women's rights

Not even 50 years old, and we're still working on improving that one. It's also not universally western.

freedom of speech

Except for when muslims want to wear burkas I guess, though Iran does have relative freedom of speech outside of political right to assemble (which they do often utilize).

freedom of expression

Like how we let gays marry or join the military.

freedom of religion

We're good about that one in the U.S., europes having a hard time not keeping its muslims down though.

freedom of movement

Tell that to someone in guantanamo.

CHILDREN'S EXECUTIONS

Well, you know, outside of wartime.

Come on, that should not have even been asked for...

I find when someone talks about western ideals in a thread two down from one about offshore torture prisons it clouds the whole issue.

No you read what you wanted.

I wanted you to say that? I must be a more powerful sorcerer than I realize.

ShumaGorath wrote:Not even 50 years old, and we're still working on improving that one. It's also not universally western.

Your history is waaay off.

ShumaGorath wrote:Except for when muslims want to wear burkas I guess, though Iran does have relative freedom of speech outside of political right to assemble (which they do often utilize).

Well, since that isn't actually banned, its only a thought, your argument is null.

ShumaGorath wrote:Like how we let gays marry or join the military.

That isn't freedom of expression and you know it.

ShumaGorath wrote:Tell that to someone in guantanamo.

Uh comparing a prison to society at large is stupid...

ShumaGorath wrote:Well, you know, outside of wartime.

You are making fething stupid statements today...

Hang on, guys. I've read through what you've both posted and can't really see started this little flamefest.

1) Shuma: I don't like it when people act like "ZOMG! Iran will blowz up whole worldz!1!!" They don't have that kind of power. It's North Korea we should worry about.

2) JEB: They may not have that ability, but even little A-bombs (EF: Which I'd like to point out they still don't have) are more than capable of killing several millions. That is bad enough in itself.

It looks to me that you're both right.

IMHO, why should Iran be refused the chance to become a 'nukular' state?

JEB_Stuart wrote:Ok, really, how representative is it? There have been numerous allegations of election fraud, and not to mention the states oppression of the opposition and opposition leader. Just because it claims one thing, doesn't necessarily mean it is what it claims.

It was set up as a representative democracy, and claims to it as an ideal. It seems to me that you're making the mistake of assuming a system is not a representative democracy if it does not follow the ideal function of one, which leaves much of the conduct in US politics wanting with respect to our own claims; particularly in our early history.

JEB_Stuart wrote:
The rule of law? That remains to be seen.

They have a legal code, and courts which make judgments against it. The relative bias implicit in those judgment does not eliminate it as a legal system, unless there was no rule of law in the US prior to the Civil Rights movement.

JEB_Stuart wrote:
But they are missing much more then just SOCAS. I am sure that you know this, and are just ignoring the long list of Western values that it rejects in order to keep things simple for the sake of discussion.

Honestly, I'm keeping things simple because it appears as if you obtain your knowledge of Iran from publicly available news outlets. Most of the information presented there is wildly inaccurate, and deliberately filtered to appeal to Western audiences. If you're referring to social values, that fine, but I'm not and never was. I'm referring to political values because those are the only values relevant to this conversation.

JEB_Stuart wrote:
To whom are you referring? I assume that you think that Mahmoud Amembersonlyjacket is the religious nutcase, and that the Grand Ayatollah is not. That is what it sounds like anyway, MA is their popular representative. Regardless though, they are both nutcases.

No, they're not. You seem really out of your depth here, so I'll just be brief. Khamenei was hand picked by Khomeini to succeed him as Supreme Leader. This had as much to do with his adherence to the concept of rule by Islamic jurists as it did with his loyalty to the system of popular involvement envisioned by Khomeini. This is central to everything Khamenei does as a ruler. He has no interest in seeing the state he helped build destroyed, its something he considers to be a good, and just influence on the world. Whether or not he is right about that is irrelevant, what is relevant is that he value the Islamic Republic of Iran, and is about as likely to engage in a war of suicide as any US President would be.

JEB_Stuart wrote:
I find it unnerving that we were so willing to go to war in Iraq over perceived WMDs, but now that we have a country that actually CAN make them, and no one is willing to do anything...

Iran is four times the size of Iraq, has a far more popular government, and a fervently loyal, and well organized military. The situation only appears similar if you aren't paying attention, and that's without even broaching the issues with perception and WMDs as they relate to Iraq.

JEB_Stuart wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:Not even 50 years old, and we're still working on improving that one. It's also not universally western.

Your history is waaay off.

Not really.

ShumaGorath wrote:Except for when muslims want to wear burkas I guess, though Iran does have relative freedom of speech outside of political right to assemble (which they do often utilize).

Well, since that isn't actually banned, its only a thought, your argument is null.

No it's not. Your reasoning is a bit faulty here. Banned Minaret towers? 'Random' search checks in airports? Banning of burkas in schools ect? I think these are all very valid points.

ShumaGorath wrote:Like how we let gays marry or join the military.

That isn't freedom of expression and you know it.

It...isn't?

ShumaGorath wrote:Tell that to someone in guantanamo.

Uh comparing a prison to society at large is stupid...

Saying that Guantanamo is a proper and legal prison like any other isn't that accurate either...

ShumaGorath wrote:Well, you know, outside of wartime.

You are making fething stupid statements today...

No need to make this personal, JEB. But I will agree on the fact that I don't really know of any western child executions. Not in this century at least.

Emperors Faithful wrote:why should Iran be refused the chance to become a 'nukular' state?

I think they shouldn't because it will create a major imbalance in terms of power structuring in the Middle East, which we can all agree will be a major bad thing. Israel is widely speculated to having nuclear weapons already, but this has never been substantiated and Israel, for whatever reason, has seen fit to keep silent on the issue. Regardless, Iran developing nukes will force an arms race in an already unstable region. Given the longstanding dislike the Persians and Arabs already have for each other, and their mutual hatred of Israel, I think that it would be better to just keep them all nuclear free.

All of them...except Israel. Israel is purpoted to have one of the largest amount of Nuclear Missile silo's after the US/Russia and (I think) France.

I was not aware in any way that this was some sort of 'secret.'

JEB_Stuart wrote:Israel is widely speculated to having nuclear weapons already, but this has never been substantiated and Israel, for whatever reason, has seen fit to keep silent on the issue.

Primarily done to avoid an arms race. Its better for them to maintain a physical advantage over any perceived adversary, than it is for them to use a 'nuclear club' of the sort that the US enjoyed during the Cold War.

JEB_Stuart wrote:
Regardless, Iran developing nukes will force an arms race in an already unstable region.

That remains to be seen. Turkey is already nuclear capable, though only in a limited sense. Jordan lacks the monetary resources, and international will to secure such weapons. Iraq is a US puppet.

The primary worries are Saudi Arabia, and Syria. Syria already has a heavily policed nuclear program, and Saudi Arabia is in talks with other gulf states to engage in a joint, civilian research effort. Of the two, the Syrian program is the most likely to be covertly weaponized, as Saudi Arabia is essentially an American protectorate.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

Emperors Faithful wrote:
I was not aware in any way that this was some sort of 'secret.'

Its not really secret, so much as ambiguous. Israel tends to drop 'hints' every now and again, mostly when it feels threatened.

Most estimate places their total stockpile somewhere between 400-500 warheads.

Albatross wrote: I'm not in favour of aligning ourselves with the Israelis - we don't owe them jack gak.
.

You do realise the British were the ones who dumped them there in the first place, after relocating them from camps post World War 2? Admittedly, they'd changed their midns about the whole idea, and were pressured into it by the US and French, but to claim no responsibility for the current situation strikes me as a tad blase.

No need to make this personal, JEB. But I will agree on the fact that I don't really know of any western child executions. Not in this century at least.

There have been a significant number of incidences of child death at the hands of U.S. soldiers in Iraq, several of which involved errors on the point of the families to respect checkpoints. One such soldier attended my school last year. Innocent people being killed extrajudicially for the sake of security, hence "Outside of wartime" implying it occurs in wartime. There are also several cases of mass killings in vietnam at the hands of american soldiers.

Ketara wrote:
You do realise the British were the ones who dumped them there in the first place, after relocating them from camps post World War 2? Admittedly, they'd changed their midns about the whole idea, and were pressured into it by the US and French, but to claim no responsibility for the current situation strikes me as a tad blase.

And do you realise that Israelis still celebrate the King David Hotel Bombing, in which British civilians were killed by Zionist terrorists? In fact, there was a lot of Zionist terrorism back then. The Israelis are not our friends. We owe them absolutley nothing. The Palestinians, on the other hand....

I say we sit back, relax and get a tan off of the nuclear blasts before nuclear winter sets in. It could last a while.

To be fair we should just let the middle east slit its own throat. They pretty much all hate each other anyway, they just need a push in the right direction.

Colossal Donkey wrote:I say we sit back, relax and get a tan off of the nuclear blasts before nuclear winter sets in. It could last a while.

To be fair we should just let the middle east slit its own throat. They pretty much all hate each other anyway, they just need a push in the right direction.

Enlightening.

ShumaGorath wrote:

No need to make this personal, JEB. But I will agree on the fact that I don't really know of any western child executions. Not in this century at least.

There have been a significant number of incidences of child death at the hands of U.S. soldiers in Iraq, several of which involved errors on the point of the families to respect checkpoints. One such soldier attended my school last year. Innocent people being killed extrajudicially for the sake of security, hence "Outside of wartime" implying it occurs in wartime. There are also several cases of mass killings in vietnam at the hands of american soldiers.

Goop point. Currently reading up about some famous military trials. Some Lt. or other almost single-handedly killed a whole village numbering 100 men, women and children. He even shot point-blank a baby, claiming in court that he thought it was a 'small man'. Disgusting. He claimed that he had been ordered to wipe everyone out, but the higher ups denied this. (Even though there was a very real attempt to shush the case up at least until the war was done)

In the end, he was found guilty, but only served 3 years under house arrest. There's some western justice for you.

To be fair, a lot of unsavory stuff is necessary in the course of war. However, that doesn't mean we shouldn't drop the hammer on people that can't keep it discreet.

dogma wrote:To be fair, a lot of unsavory stuff is necessary in the course of war. However, that doesn't mean we shouldn't drop the hammer on people that can't keep it discreet.

I...am I reading this post correctly, dogma?!?

For me, information control is more important than having clean hands. Essentially, I see bans on certain conduct as more of a means of vetting by necessity.

For example: you ban torture, but your people can use torture if it produces results. If it it produces results, and is made public, you try them and make them disappear in a non-violent way. If it doesn't produce results, you stick it to them quietly. If it doesn't produce results, and its found out, you throw them to the wolves. The net effect is to make people think long and hard about morally questionable actions.

I want my security personnel to have options, but not options without appropriate consequences.

No it's not. If it works, and if it ISN'T found out, then it's all fair game then? Morals and 'Rules of War' (which are held so highly in the Western World) really do mean nothing then...

The world is a really fethed up place, but that in no means makes it inherently bad. It is obviously 'bad' in general, to take advantage of peoples field of view, but it is inherent to global politics, local politics, etc...

I do not condone, but I cannot disagree entirely.

Emperors Faithful wrote:No it's not. If it works, and if it ISN'T found out, then it's all fair game then? Morals and 'Rules of War' (which are held so highly in the Western World) really do mean nothing then...

I am quite sure that many people of power, are not oblivious to these facts, but limiting actions to what is and isn't moral, limits progress. What I do not want, is people getting it into their heads, that their tiny little worlds, are anywhere near as important as the entire world. I can't argue this point very effectively, without offending people.

I am sitting here looking at posts DEFENDING the actions of a man who shot a newborn baby point-blank range, along with one hundred other civillians (might I add that no resistance was offered, nor were any questionable supplies found.)

This sickens me. I thought you better men than that. I really hope your arguing just for the sake of arguing.

Emperors Faithful wrote:I am sitting here looking at posts DEFENDING the actions of a man who shot a newborn baby point-blank range, along with one hundred other civillians (might I add that no resistance was offered, nor were any questionable supplies found.)

I think you may be missing the point here. I am not explicitly arguing that actions such as your example, are in any way acceptable. Nor am I arguing that specific example, benefits anyone at all. The point here is that the stream runs deep, and some of those monsters are much more than, most are less than (acceptable or beneficial).

This sickens me. I thought you better men than that. I really hope your arguing just for the sake of arguing.

Trust me mate, logic, and consequence, disturbs me occasionally as well. I am also not a fan of being entirely utopian in my views, through the necessity of others.

Wrexasaur wrote:

Emperors Faithful wrote:I am sitting here looking at posts DEFENDING the actions of a man who shot a newborn baby point-blank range, along with one hundred other civillians (might I add that no resistance was offered, nor were any questionable supplies found.)

I think you may be missing the point here. I am not explicitly arguing that actions such as your example, are in any way acceptable. Nor am I arguing that specific example, benefits anyone at all. The point here is that the stream runs deep, and some of those monsters are much more than, most are less than (acceptable or beneficial).

I'm not sure I understand what you're saying.

A simple example.

Do people commit various crimes, and get away with it for reasons that are almost purely logistical? Of course they do.

If your car is stolen, the police are not going to be focused on your case as if it is the most important thing on their plate. Thus, they do something that many would feel is wrong, by basically ignoring you entirely. This is not entirely acceptable, but it is a necessity of the current system.

A persons vehicle, can be the difference between them feeding their family, and not doing so.

There are many 'real-world' examples of this, and you can look towards your government programs for that. I am not saying our problems in the U.S. are the same as yours, just that those problems exist, and there is little in the way of effectively dealing with them. Aside, ignoring you entirely, which is 'killing' you.

The point here is that the stream runs deep, and some of those monsters are much more than, most are less than (acceptable or beneficial).

The monsters are the problems in the world. Some are walls blocking our success, others are not (generally speaking). Some problems deal with other ones, and in basic terms, benefit us collectively, though some individually will be harmed. That is the point of society, and in it's various forms, these problems take different shapes, and have different effects.

Emperors Faithful wrote:No it's not. If it works, and if it ISN'T found out, then it's all fair game then? Morals and 'Rules of War' (which are held so highly in the Western World) really do mean nothing then...

Essentially yes. I've never claimed to be a moral person, or someone who values ethics as anything other than a tool. I talk about everything in terms of utility, and consequence. Granted, that's a form of ethic, though a minimal one.

I'm not entirely sure how that example is comparable to a mass-murder/literal baby-killer being giving a paltry 3 years under house arrest. Why? In your example, the police may have bigger things to worry about such as homicide, and simply can't spare the manpower to investigate. How is this similar to a mass murder that is found guilty of the cold mass-murder of civilians being swept under the rug?

Emperors Faithful wrote:I am sitting here looking at posts DEFENDING the actions of a man who shot a newborn baby point-blank range, along with one hundred other civillians (might I add that no resistance was offered, nor were any questionable supplies found.)

This sickens me. I thought you better men than that. I really hope your arguing just for the sake of arguing.

His actions achieved nothing, and he should have been thrown to the wolves, along with anyone who ordered him to take the action without cause.

I think you're looking at my instrumental comment, and missing out on the net effect of it.

Then why wasn't he, dogma? Why wasn't he?

Becuase in the end, he was an American Soldier, and they were just a bunch of [see forum posting rules].


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Oops. (I meant from their point of view, not mine.)


Automatically Appended Next Post:
BTW, the word rhymses with 'spooks'.

Emperors Faithful wrote:I'm not entirely sure how that example is comparable to a mass-murder/literal baby-killer being giving a paltry 3 years under house arrest. Why? In your example, the police may have bigger things to worry about such as homicide, and simply can't spare the manpower to investigate. How is this similar to a mass murder that is found guilty of the cold mass-murder of civilians being swept under the rug?

In one word: Morale.

If the government agencies committing various 'moral crimes of necessity', feel they can better deal with various problems through them. They may be correct, and I am not in a particularly strong position to dispute their tactics. I can disagree with them, through my personal opinion, but I will generally lack the information required to logically defeat their reasoning. These are professionals on the front line, and I am still not referring to boots on the ground, more along the lines of eyes in the sky.

To be entirely clear, and I will say this again, I do not attempt to say that your example is what I am arguing for.

Soldiers of any nation have committed atrocious acts, and I personally feel every single one of them should be locked up in concrete boxes for the rest of their lives. When it comes to the dynamics of those situations, and the consequences of those soldiers actions, I do not have the option to take action myself.

I understand it being delayed until the war was over (which it was, in fact it was forgotten until one lowly soldier demanded it be brought to court) but even AFTER the public outrage and full judicial hearing, the man is THEN let off the hook via a presidential order?

God damn that fether Nixon.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Anyway's...slightly OT, yes?

Emperors Faithful wrote:Then why wasn't he, dogma? Why wasn't he?

Racial prejudice, stupidity, unfamiliarity, the list goes on.

Also, and more importantly, the lack of digital media to levy public opinion.

But hey, Nixon is my favorite President. Smart man.

Emperors Faithful wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:

No need to make this personal, JEB. But I will agree on the fact that I don't really know of any western child executions. Not in this century at least.

There have been a significant number of incidences of child death at the hands of U.S. soldiers in Iraq, several of which involved errors on the point of the families to respect checkpoints. One such soldier attended my school last year. Innocent people being killed extrajudicially for the sake of security, hence "Outside of wartime" implying it occurs in wartime. There are also several cases of mass killings in vietnam at the hands of american soldiers.

Goop point. Currently reading up about some famous military trials. Some Lt. or other almost single-handedly killed a whole village numbering 100 men, women and children. He even shot point-blank a baby, claiming in court that he thought it was a 'small man'. Disgusting. He claimed that he had been ordered to wipe everyone out, but the higher ups denied this. (Even though there was a very real attempt to shush the case up at least until the war was done)

In the end, he was found guilty, but only served 3 years under house arrest. There's some western justice for you.

Can you provide a link and evidence for this story? That is a pretty horrendous thing to claim with no substantiation.

JEB_Stuart wrote:

Emperors Faithful wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:

No need to make this personal, JEB. But I will agree on the fact that I don't really know of any western child executions. Not in this century at least.

There have been a significant number of incidences of child death at the hands of U.S. soldiers in Iraq, several of which involved errors on the point of the families to respect checkpoints. One such soldier attended my school last year. Innocent people being killed extrajudicially for the sake of security, hence "Outside of wartime" implying it occurs in wartime. There are also several cases of mass killings in vietnam at the hands of american soldiers.

Goop point. Currently reading up about some famous military trials. Some Lt. or other almost single-handedly killed a whole village numbering 100 men, women and children. He even shot point-blank a baby, claiming in court that he thought it was a 'small man'. Disgusting. He claimed that he had been ordered to wipe everyone out, but the higher ups denied this. (Even though there was a very real attempt to shush the case up at least until the war was done)

In the end, he was found guilty, but only served 3 years under house arrest. There's some western justice for you.

Can you provide a link and evidence for this story? That is a pretty horrendous thing to claim with no substantiation.

It's from a book of Famous Military Trials (I should also point out that I forgot to mention that this was in the Vietnam War, not the Gulf War. Not that it really makes it that much better.)
I'm looking for an internet link now.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/special_report/1998/03/98/mylai/65065.stm

If you consider the BBC reliable.

http://socialistworker.org/2003-1/446/446_09_MyLai.shtml
(300 may be more accurate, since only the Lt. was ever found guilty of the killings. Court Records state that only one other soldier actually followed his orders to kill civilians.)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/My_Lai_Massacre

dogma wrote:To be fair, a lot of unsavory stuff is necessary in the course of war. However, that doesn't mean we shouldn't drop the hammer on people that can't keep it discreet.

I question that philosophy.

Most people do, though once you run it through all potential consequences it doesn't turn out all that bad.

dogma wrote:Most people do, though once you run it through all potential consequences it doesn't turn out all that bad.

Elaborate.

Consequences force people to consider their actions more carefully. If you remind people that failure is punishable to the public extent of the law, say 30-40 years in prison for torture, they will think long and hard before they use torture; thereby minimizing its use. This is further hedged by the punishment implicit in the discovery of effective uses of torture; even quiet disappearance is quite the punishment. Not many people would be happy about being forcefully relocated.

Its the best of both worlds. Minimal use of torture, and flexibility in intelligence gathering.

Yet when it 'works', you still find torture permissable?

Yes. Consequentialism is your friend in this case.

My foreign policy is somewhere between neo-conservatism, and neo-internationalism. Neo-liberalism is a crock.

So 'Anything goes, as long as it works.' then?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
That's a lot of Neo's there...

I imagine that Dogma and I agree on much more then anyone might guess...

And so long as it isn't discovered. Though that is a form of function. It doesn't do away with the rules of war, it just changes their meaning.

JEB_Stuart wrote:I imagine that Dogma and I agree on much more then anyone might guess...

Yeah, I think we agree on a lot of points. Our only differences seem to stem from differing areas of academic grounding.

dogma wrote:And so long as it isn't discovered. Though that is a form of function. It doesn't do away with the rules of war, it just changes their meaning.

IMHO, and in the kindest way possible, that is a crock of .

Especially this.

It doesn't do away with the rules of war, it just changes their meaning.

Emperors Faithful wrote:
That's a lot of Neo's there...

That's sort of how political theory works, now anyway. If you want a non-neo term, then I would call myself of a constructivist. Though even that isn't fully accurate. I see myself as a realist of the purest sort; ie. willing to discard ideology when facts interrupt it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Emperors Faithful wrote:
IMHO, and in the kindest way possible, that is a crock of .

Especially this.

It doesn't do away with the rules of war, it just changes their meaning.

You do love your absolutes. Yes and no don't command the majority of logical responses.

No, the fact that you're cliaming that torture doesn't do away with the rules of war. I understand that morals and such are not universal (though I do believe there to be some things which CAN be seen as universally wrong, or right, in an unquestionable way) however that statement there is really...something.

The issue is that you're thinking of rules as absolutes. They aren't.

Though, if you're the sort of humanist you seem to be, it is unlikely that we'll ever agree.

What I don't understand is how you think 'results' change the 'meaning' of the rules of war. I thought that they were fairly clear in their intention. I understand (though do not agree) if torture was to ignore the rules of war, but not how it simply changes thier meaning.

Ah, ok. Reality changes the meaning of the rules of war. Humanity's own failures affect the meaning of 'no torture' such that we must account for those cases in which torture occurs, and direct them towards a 'positive' end. Results are simply our barometer for reality.

A similar dilemma has arisen for the UK government, in the case of US torture of Islamic prisoners which has produced potentially useful information. Should the information be used, even though it was obtained illegally?

The problem with a system such as advocated is that the armed forces and police, etc. are supposed to operate within the rule of law of the country to which they belong. Western law forbids torture, which is why the CIA were exporting prisoners to countries where it is allowed.

It would be impossible for a western commander to order his men to torture subjects, as that would be illegal under current law.

If they tortured the subject without orders, and he found out, he would be duty bound to have them prosecuted, regardless of the results.

Thus, if we wish our govt. and security forces to operate within the rule of law, the law on torture has to be relaxed to allow its use.

That brings back the dilemma that some people believe torture is always wrong, even if it can produce beneficial results.

The Bush government attempted to solve this dilemma by declaring that some extreme interrogation techniques, such as waterboarding, are not torture. That is avoiding the issue, though.

JEB_Stuart wrote:I think they shouldn't because it will create a major imbalance in terms of power structuring in the Middle East, which we can all agree will be a major bad thing.

Whereas bombing Iran will stabilise the region?

I don't think it'd be good for Iran to have the bomb, it isn't good for the region, isn't good for the world, and isn't good for Iran. However, there's a limit to quarantine and the consequences of military strikes are far worse than the benefits of possibly delaying Iranian nuclear ambition.

What Iran wants is local power and recognition of such. While you don't just hand over power, it's certainly possible for Iran to be allowed such power in the course of negotiations with the West - played well these talks could be built around Iran engaging more with the West and improving their own internal politics. An approach along those lines will be challenging, but it's the method most likely to prevent Iran acquiring the bomb, and the method that won't kill a load of people.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

JEB_Stuart wrote:Israel is widely speculated to having nuclear weapons already, but this has never been substantiated and Israel, for whatever reason, has seen fit to keep silent on the issue.

Israel has the bomb. French scientists who helped the Israelis in developing the bomb have come out and said so quite directly. Their prep for use during the Arab Israeli war has been very heavily documented. Mordecai Vanunu, an Israeli nuclear technician, provided substantial evidence of the program decades ago (he was then kidnapped by Mossad and kept in solitary for a decade or two - whatever you do in life don't piss off Mossad).

It's substantiated.

It's no secret that Israel was a nuclear power. Every weapon they wield in that region has been handed to them by some foreign influence or other wanting to stake their claim in the region. They

However, Israel has had plenty of opportunity to use "the bomb" with the same kind of diplomatic immunity to the wishes of the rest of the world, barricaded with excuses and nazi guilt making everyone else just have to accept that they will do their own thing.

Israel is not a power on its own and they all know this, 'thems' and 'usses' know this. They can ignore the wishes of the U.N. only to an extent. They have not, however, used "the bomb" so much as "the tank" in their border fights so far, because they know they will cut off their own power base if they go too far out of line. A tank blowing up a neighborhood is for some reason less aggressive than a bomb blowing up a city, but there it is.

It seems to be that Iran is like the second child... "how come he has a later bed time?..." Israel has a powerful military. Iran has 80s leftovers. Iran want's to be bigger in their neighbors eyes. That doesn't mean they want to use it, it just means they want to have it to show off.

I liken world politics to sandbox arguements between 6 year olds. Some of the fights occur because one guy doesn't like what the other guy said, or because some one had more toys, whatever. What the nuclear powers would be with such an infantile analogy (yes I meant that) would be like the playground lady with the whistle telling kids off for getting into fights. They are grownups watching over a bunch of bickering kids. If the grownup says 'No Akhmed, you can't have your lunchbox because we know you will just throw it at Abraham's head (or whatever)' then what is the kid likely to do? its not fair that cain gets a lunchbox but abel doesn't...

I hope, for the world, that some cultures would just grow up. Wan't to call me an elitist for saying that? I wan't my own culture to grow too. But my own culture isn't teetering on the brink of a nuclear hardon waiting to explode. Has been, but got over it, and grew up.

I think the difficulty with the torture question centers around a fundamental problem: we are supposed to be the 'good' guys, the ones who believe in freedom and rights. You can claim that it's too idealistic to discount evidence obtained using torture, but this current 'war on terror' is basically a clash of opposing ideologies. The more we come to resemble our enemies, the more pointless the war becomes.

sebster wrote:Whereas bombing Iran will stabilise the region?

Never said that. In fact, I expressed concern at that very same suggestion earlier in the thread. That being said, it shouldn't be taken off the table as an option.

sebster wrote:I don't think it'd be good for Iran to have the bomb, it isn't good for the region, isn't good for the world, and isn't good for Iran. However, there's a limit to quarantine and the consequences of military strikes are far worse than the benefits of possibly delaying Iranian nuclear ambition.

Your logic doesn't follow here. If a nuclear Iran isn't bad for all of that, we should only try to delay them from getting it?

sebster wrote:What Iran wants is local power and recognition of such. While you don't just hand over power, it's certainly possible for Iran to be allowed such power in the course of negotiations with the West - played well these talks could be built around Iran engaging more with the West and improving their own internal politics. An approach along those lines will be challenging, but it's the method most likely to prevent Iran acquiring the bomb, and the method that won't kill a load of people.

Maybe, but it could also be seen as the path to appeasement. You seem to place a greater importance on shying away from the risk of a war with Iran rather then actually denying them a nuclear weapon that could do far worse things to the region.

sebster wrote:Israel has the bomb. French scientists who helped the Israelis in developing the bomb have come out and said so quite directly. Their prep for use during the Arab Israeli war has been very heavily documented. Mordecai Vanunu, an Israeli nuclear technician, provided substantial evidence of the program decades ago (he was then kidnapped by Mossad and kept in solitary for a decade or two - whatever you do in life don't piss off Mossad).

It's substantiated.

No it isn't. Conspiracy theorists consider it to be substantiated, but realists do not. That is widely agreed upon by, well anyone with a grasp of international politics. Is it widely speculated that they do? Yes. Is it likely? Highly probable. Has it ever been substantiated in any tangible way? No.

Never said that. In fact, I expressed concern at that very same suggestion earlier in the thread. That being said, it shouldn't be taken off the table as an option.

Are you referring to targeted strikes, aimed at their nuclear centers? Or are you talking about a fullscale intervention in the country?

Your logic doesn't follow here. If a nuclear Iran isn't bad for all of that, we should only try to delay them from getting it?

It's a matter of degrees. A nuclear Iran is a poor thing, and all available diplomatic and economic forces should be used to prevent it. However a full scale war within the borders of Iran would be likely to produce a similar result to anything the war would intend to prevent, while simultaneously destabilizing the region in a much more profound way than the slightly altered balance of international arms in the region produced by a single low grade nuclear device.

Maybe, but it could also be seen as the path to appeasement. You seem to place a greater importance on shying away from the risk of a war with Iran rather then actually denying them a nuclear weapon that could do far worse things to the region.

I question the idea of a nuclear weapon somehow irreparably damaging the region. A city is a city, this is not under dispute, but a full scale war can cause far more damage than to a single city, and international forces are already stretched thin dealing with two other unstable powder kegs.

No it isn't. Conspiracy theorists consider it to be substantiated, but realists do not. That is widely agreed upon by, well anyone with a grasp of international politics. Is it widely speculated that they do? Yes. Is it likely? Highly probable. Has it ever been substantiated in any tangible way? No.

There's only so much beating around the bush in regards to the presence of an Israeli nuclear arsenal that can work. In the last several years Israel has committed far more aggressive acts of conflict than Iran, and multiple acts of terrorism. Why does their nuclear arsenal not worry us? Why do we not focus more on a nuclear exchange between india and pakistan? Why is north korea ignored, while Iran maintains our full attention?

JEB_Stuart wrote:Your logic doesn't follow here. If a nuclear Iran isn't bad for all of that, we should only try to delay them from getting it?

Because its impossible to prevent them from getting it. Nonproliferation is a losing game insofar as the target state maintains the will to acquire nuclear technology.

JEB_Stuart wrote:
Maybe, but it could also be seen as the path to appeasement. You seem to place a greater importance on shying away from the risk of a war with Iran rather then actually denying them a nuclear weapon that could do far worse things to the region.

He's right to do so; going to war with Iran would be incredibly stupid.

In any case, public opinion of international decisions (the only area in which appeasement is relevant) should always be seen as irrelevant. The mob is stupid.

JEB_Stuart wrote:
No it isn't. Conspiracy theorists consider it to be substantiated, but realists do not. That is widely agreed upon by, well anyone with a grasp of international politics. Is it widely speculated that they do? Yes. Is it likely? Highly probable. Has it ever been substantiated in any tangible way? No.

Actually, he's right. It has been substantiated, just not in an official capacity as defined by the Israeli state.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

ShumaGorath wrote:Why is north korea ignored, while Iran maintains our full attention?

Jews are our friends, and Muslims are scary.

Jews are our friends, and Muslims are scary.

The japanese aren't our friends anymore and communists are no longer scary?

Communists are still scary, so are socialists, and capitalists. The Japanese are scary too, but only because of their sexual oddities.

Really, everything is scary all the time. Except apple pie. Though if that's served in a gourmet restaurant it becomes scary again.

JEB_Stuart wrote:Never said that. In fact, I expressed concern at that very same suggestion earlier in the thread. That being said, it shouldn't be taken off the table as an option.

Cool.

Your logic doesn't follow here. If a nuclear Iran isn't bad for all of that, we should only try to delay them from getting it?

I probably didn't make my point very clearly. I think that quarantine and military action can only delay a nation getting the bomb if they really want it. So instead I'm arguing to move to a new state of affairs where the status Iran desires can be gained through other means.

]Maybe, but it could also be seen as the path to appeasement. You seem to place a greater importance on shying away from the risk of a war with Iran rather then actually denying them a nuclear weapon that could do far worse things to the region.

It's appeasement if you simply give Iran things in exchange in response to them threatening to get the bomb. It isn't appeasement if you allow Iran the status and local power it demands, on condition of meeting internal reform standards. Want to chair a US sponsored regional economic development committee? Then undertake a formal review of electoral policies to ensure fair elections next time around.

Right now Iran is kept on the outer, so their means to achieving power can only be oppositional. I'm arguing to change the dynamic, give Iran a means of gaining power through becoming a more open country.

And yeah, I do place an importance on avoiding war, because it sucks when lots of people die. There are necessary wars, but this isn't anywhere near that.

No it isn't. Conspiracy theorists consider it to be substantiated, but realists do not. That is widely agreed upon by, well anyone with a grasp of international politics. Is it widely speculated that they do? Yes. Is it likely? Highly probable. Has it ever been substantiated in any tangible way? No.

I'm kind of disappointed you went with the 'people only believe that thing (Israel has the bomb) if there's something wrong with them (they're conspiracy theorists)'. It's a pretty lazy line of argument.

Again, we statements by French nuclear scientists that they helped Israel develop their bombs. We have photos released by an Israeli nuclear technician, that have have been verified by experts in the field. What more do you want?

sebster wrote:
Right now Iran is kept on the outer, so their means to achieving power can only be oppositional. I'm arguing to change the dynamic, give Iran a means of gaining power through becoming a more open country.

To be fair, that's unlikely to work until Khamenei dies. He believes that Iranian power, and security, are contingent upon independence through nuclear possession; civilian or military. And he isn't wrong. It's unlikely that we'll convince him to change his mind, though if we can stall until he kicks it (or until someone kicks him), we will be in prime position to extend our influence to a successor.

Our best bet, for the moment, is to hedge the bet towards a nuclear Iran. That means buffing up Iraq, enabling the Saudis in a nuclear sense, and finding a way to turn Kuwait into a US appendage. Oh, and turning a blind eye to the resultant Israeli air strikes on Syrian nuclear plant wouldn't hurt either.

dogma wrote:To be fair, that's unlikely to work until Khamenei dies. He believes that Iranian power, and security, are contingent upon independence through nuclear possession; civilian or military. And he isn't wrong. It's unlikely that we'll convince him to change his mind, though if we can stall until he kicks it (or until someone kicks him), we will be in prime position to extend our influence to a successor.

Simply changing the nature of discourse available to Iran will undermine Khamenei's position. I accept that it's an approach that won't solve the problem in the course of an election cycle.

In the meantime all effort should be taken to stall Iran's nuclear ambition, which doesn't have to be subtle or secretive, as any effort from Iran to develop the bomb is in breach of their signing of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation treaty. But the long term, lasting solution is to create a political environment in which Iran doesn't want the bomb.

Honestly, its difficult to determine whether or not Iran is even seeking the bomb. Public reports by the CIA, and NSA, seem to indicate that they are keeping it on the table, but that their nuclear program may very well be what they describe: civilian. Iranian academics seem to agree with this idea as well.

You are right though, its best to leverage against Khamenei's position; even if only to push possible successors.

Can we prohibit a country from nuclear arsenal? Yes. we can just give weapons to all of their neighbors.... "you wan't to join the club? good luck when your crazy neighbor gets it too..." that will ensure nobody will use it? Or if they do, then only the stupid countries will be blowing each other up. Proliferations is so stupid.

dogma wrote:Honestly, its difficult to determine whether or not Iran is even seeking the bomb. Public reports by the CIA, and NSA, seem to indicate that they are keeping it on the table, but that their nuclear program may very well be what they describe: civilian. Iranian academics seem to agree with this idea as well.

You are right though, its best to leverage against Khamenei's position; even if only to push possible successors.

You and Imadinnerjacket are the only ones making that statement. How does it feel to be a potential apologist for a dictatorship?

Is it just me or is Frazzled extra trolly today?

RustyKnight wrote:Is it just me or is Frazzled extra trolly today?

Lack of V8 juice most likely. I picked a bad week to quit sniffing glue.

No, I'm making that statement, and so are the CIA, and the NSA.

You don't seem to understand what fact, and reality are.

You would be right to request substantiation, but that's not you're doing.

Guitardian wrote:Can we prohibit a country from nuclear arsenal? Yes. we can just give weapons to all of their neighbors.... "you wan't to join the club? good luck when your crazy neighbor gets it too..." that will ensure nobody will use it? Or if they do, then only the stupid countries will be blowing each other up. Proliferations is so stupid.

It's a bit contrary to non-proliferation policy to hand out nukes like firecrackers. It might actually be illegal under the current treaties.

Clearly, developing nuclear power and weapons is a matter of (a) natural physical law (b) engineering expertise and (c) access to essential raw materials like Uranium. It's very hard to prevent a country from doing it, especially when some rogue states will help out others.

Any determined country can develop nuclear weapons if they want to. The Indians, Pakistanis, North Koreans, Israelis and South Africans all managed it.

KK has the right of it.

dogma wrote:No, I'm making that statement, and so are the CIA, and the NSA.

You don't seem to understand what fact, and reality are.

You would be right to request substantiation, but that's not you're doing.

Evidently the US government disagrees with you.
http://www.cnas.org/node/3867

The offer did not satisfy Western concerns about Iran's potential to make nuclear weapons. Iran, which denies it wants to make nuclear weapons, has declined to return to multilateral talks about its program.

Read before you post.

The US government agrees with me, almost to the letter, on Non-pro policy. As evidenced by my statements throughout this thread, and the article you foolishly linked to.

As ever, you don't pay attention.

Read this and you might have a leg to stand on.

You're claiming their use might not be for nukes. yet the US government is looking to do harder sanctions to stop nukes.

I like this quote at the beginning of the article

Efforts by the Obama administration to reach out to Iran have not produced a deal to halt Tehran's apparent pursuit of nuclear weapons, Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton said Monday, and the U.S. now appears closer to moving forward with potentially crippling new sanctions.

Here's what you said

Honestly, its difficult to determine whether or not Iran is even seeking the bomb. Public reports by the CIA, and NSA, seem to indicate that they are keeping it on the table, but that their nuclear program may very well be what they describe: civilian. Iranian academics seem to agree with this idea as well.

Frazzled wrote:You're claiming their use might not be for nukes. yet the US government is looking to do harder sanctions to stop nukes.

No, to stop the development of nuclear technology. Nuclear technology is not only used to build bombs.

Frazzled wrote:
I like this quote at the beginning of the article

Efforts by the Obama administration to reach out to Iran have not produced a deal to halt Tehran's apparent pursuit of nuclear weapons, Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton said Monday, and the U.S. now appears closer to moving forward with potentially crippling new sanctions.

Here's what you said

Honestly, its difficult to determine whether or not Iran is even seeking the bomb. Public reports by the CIA, and NSA, seem to indicate that they are keeping it on the table, but that their nuclear program may very well be what they describe: civilian. Iranian academics seem to agree with this idea as well.

Quote from the writer, not from a policy professional, or employed analyst. Read before you post.

Can't admit when you're wrong can you there Dogma. Oh well, about what I expected.

I'm not wrong at all. Everything I've said, on this page at least, has been factually correct. It isn't my fault that you're incapable of reading, or discussing something which you lack knowledge of.

dogma wrote:I'm not wrong at all. Everything I've said, on this page at least, has been factually correct. It isn't my fault that you're incapable of reading, or discussing something which you lack knowledge of.

Again with the insults. When you can't win, insult. Is that how it works in the gym?

Its not an insult, its a statement of fact. You're claiming that I'm incorrect about the nature of government policy because a Washington Post reporter wrote a single, incorrect, sentence in an article which was linked to a security journal.

This is all the more baffling given that I gave you a link to the report in which the US Non-pro strategy with respect to Iran is actually outlined.

You're either trolling, or irresponsible.

And lets just call it a day at that. No need to take up more of this valuable thread space when we can all poke fun at Mahmoud A*($)#*@()$*# together!

I gotta say I'm with dogma one this one.

Nice try though, Frazzled.

Yup. Be afraid. I voted for Tzeentch.

Heh, what do you know? A thread that isn't the "Dogma/Fateweaver" show or "Shuma/Fateweaver" show. It's a "Frazzled/Dogma" show.

I must be slipping.

Fateweaver wrote:Heh, what do you know? A thread that isn't the "Dogma/Fateweaver" show or "Shuma/Fateweaver" show. It's a "Frazzled/Dogma" show.

I must be slipping.

You're both quite similar.

Ty for that Shuma.

If I could be like any member on Dakka it would be Frazz.

This argument is a lot more fun than Kilkrazy and my argument over what pricing policies of the postal service provide the most social cohesion.

I'll say "we should drop nuclear bombs on North Korea, as a warning to Iran". What do you all think of that?!

Orkeosaurus wrote:This argument is a lot more fun than Kilkrazy and my argument over what pricing policies of the postal service provide the most social cohesion.

I'll say "we should drop nuclear bombs on North Korea, as a warning to Iran". What do you all think of that?!

Well china is required by treaty to respond militarily.

Well to solve that problem, we'll just round up all the Chinese people and put them in camps.

Orkeosaurus wrote:Well to solve that problem, we'll just round up all the Chinese people and put them in camps.

There aren't enough camps in the western hemisphere.

Why would we put them there? They'd be in the United States.

Orkeosaurus wrote:Well to solve that problem, we'll just round up all the Chinese people and put them in camps.

and then use them to deliver the mail ! They can just form vast human chains across the country and simply pass on any/all mail by hand.

Now that is joined up Govt. thinking.

Fateweaver wrote:
If I could be like any member on Dakka it would be Frazz.

You're both horribly ignorant. It isn't surprising that you would choose him as an idol. He doesn't challenge. He simply affirms. Is there an echo here?

Fateweaver wrote:Ty for that Shuma.

If I could be like any member on Dakka it would be Frazz.

You would have to age a thousand years and lose a few gene pairs.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Orkeosaurus wrote:This argument is a lot more fun than Kilkrazy and my argument over what pricing policies of the postal service provide the most social cohesion.

I'll say "we should drop nuclear bombs on North Korea, as a warning to Iran". What do you all think of that?!

That is only feasible if we launch a simultaneous pincer strike to invade Tahiti. Let it never be said Frazzled would ask someone esle to take his place. I will personally lead this assault and occupation.

As a MOD is it entirely within Frazz's power to say 'I winz!' and lock the thread?

If so InB4tehLok.

http://www.euthanasia.com/definitions.html