Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

murdog wrote:Maybe they say they want to wipe Isreal off the map, but how much of that is bluster, sabre-rattling and showmanship? How would they continue to rule Iran if they invite nuclear armageddon? The prime factor in all that Tehran does is regime survival - risking it all to destroy Isreal doesn't mesh with that.

It depends on how willing your opponents are to use nuclear weapons against you. If you don't think the US will retaliate with a nuclear strike on Tehran in response to a nuclear weapon detonated in Tel Aviv, then it might be worth the risk.

If the nuke is delivered and detonated secretly it could take several days or weeks to even find out that it was an Iranian nuke. Would the other nuclear countries retaliate as strongly given a few days to cool off?

I'm a non interventionist so Israel is not a terrible concern to me, they have shown that they can handle themselves in a conflict. My biggest concern is that when Iran gets Nukes they will pull the same crap that North Korea and Pakistan pull, which is Nuclear blackmail for aid money and such. Then of course funneling that aid money straight to terrorists of their own weapons programs. Having a nuke pretty much means you no longer have to bargain, and you can hold responsible countries up for their money/resources.

How do you keep a Nuclear Iran from closing the straight of Hormuz, whenever they want some attention and money?

WarOne wrote:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_energy_independence

U.S. energy independence relates to the goal of reducing the U.S imports of oil and other foreign sources of energy. If total energy is looked at, the U.S. is over 70% self-sufficient.

Source: http://www.ihs.com/products/cera/index.aspx

Same source:

Energy independence is espoused by those who want to leave America unaffected by global energy supply disruptions, and to restrict a reliance upon politically unstable states for its energy purposes.

Energy independence is highly concerned with oil, being perhaps the most important imported energy sources for purposes of both transportation and electricity

The U.S. currently produces about 40% of the oil that it consumes; its oil production peaked in 1970[5] and its imports have exceeded domestic production since the early 1990s.

Since the U.S.'s oil consumption continues to rise, and its oil production continues to fall, this ratio may continue to decline

Then we get into the whole ANWR, and to some extent fracking, debate.

Melissia wrote:Yes, well, we can't nuke ourselves in to energy independence.

Well, we could, if only by way of deprivation.

One might also compare completely unrestricted access to petroleum to a sort of "nuclear option".

Frazzled wrote:
What do they do when they actually have a nuke?

Pretty much the same thing, with an insurance policy.

Andrew1975 wrote:My biggest concern is that when Iran gets Nukes they will pull the same crap that North Korea and Pakistan pull, which is Nuclear blackmail for aid money and such.

Thing is, if you have something and you want to keep it, but you also want to go around telling other people they shouldn't have it, then you basically have to give them something to make them not get it too.

Then of course funneling that aid money straight to terrorists of their own weapons programs. Having a nuke pretty much means you no longer have to bargain, and you can hold responsible countries up for their money/resources.

Except, of course, that bargaining still goes on, both with North Korea and Pakistan. Nor is the Pakistani bargaining position based around their ownership of nukes (then it'd be India at the bargaining table)... but about effectively countering terrorist forces.

How do you keep a Nuclear Iran from closing the straight of Hormuz, whenever they want some attention and money?

How do you keep them from doing it now, given the immense cost that'd be suffered by any conventional means of forcing its re-opening. You do it by making the strait very costly for them to close... which is fine because it's the lifeblood of the Iranian economy. The only reason it's now an option is because of the economic sanctions already in place mean that the Iranian economy is going down the gakker with or without the strait being open.

Thing is, if you have something and you want to keep it, but you also want to go around telling other people they shouldn't have it, then you basically have to give them something to make them not get it too.

No you don't. You just tell them they can't have it and if they want nuclear energy then they better be willing to play ball. You have to have that backed up by the full force of the international community.

Except, of course, that bargaining still goes on, both with North Korea and Pakistan. Nor is the Pakistani bargaining position based around their ownership of nukes (then it'd be India at the bargaining table)... but about effectively countering terrorist forces.

The bargaining continues with North Korea only because they have the nuke and threaten to use it. Is there any other reason the world sends so much humanitarian aid to such a pissant country? If they didn't have the nuke there would be no reason to even let them sit at a table, much less bargain at one.

If Pakistan didn't have nukes the place wouldn't need babysitting like it does and certainly wouldn't get the aid it does. Yes we are worried about the terrorists, but we are also worried about the terrorists getting the nukes so we prop up the current regime. Which in turn is actively hiding the terrorists from us.

How do you keep them from doing it now, given the immense cost that'd be suffered by any conventional means of forcing its re-opening. You do it by making the strait very costly for them to close... which is fine because it's the lifeblood of the Iranian economy. The only reason it's now an option is because of the economic sanctions already in place mean that the Iranian economy is going down the gakker with or without the strait being open.

Well that and the fleet keep it open. When Iran has nuclear capability that fleet becomes very vulnerable.

There are people that claim nuclear energy is a right, I don't see it that way. Nuclear energy is a privilege that you can have if you show you are responsible enough to have it. Iran fails that test.

Andrew1975 wrote:The bargaining continues with North Korea only because they have the nuke and threaten to use it. Is there any other reason the world sends so much humanitarian aid to such a pissant country?

Because their economy is incredibly fragile, and collapse would send refugees pouring into South Korea and China, which is something no-one wants (think of the difficulties of re-integrating East Germany into the West, and consider how much worse North Korea is than East Germany ever was).

If Pakistan didn't have nukes the place wouldn't need babysitting like it does and certainly wouldn't get the aid it does. Yes we are worried about the terrorists, but we are also worried about the terrorists getting the nukes so we prop up the current regime.

Pakistan became a major issue as terrorism expanded in the region, and as the US became more sensitive to the needs to control overseas terrorism. They'd had the bomb some time before that, and it hadn't prompted any great flood of aid.

Which in turn is actively hiding the terrorists from us.

Which is where the issue gets very complicated, but complicated for matters relating entirely to issues of terrorism, not issues relating to the bomb.

Well that and the fleet keep it open. When Iran has nuclear capability that fleet becomes very vulnerable.

The cost of keeping a fleet at sea, constantly, to prevent the deployment of minelayers, is prohibitive. Iran could easily use that as bait, except as we know Iran would suffer more than anyone from shutting down the strait... except their economy is so fethed because of sanctions that closing the strait wouldn't really matter.

Meanwhile, you didn't make any comment on my point that the US has the bomb, but wants others not to. If you don't want someone to have something, you can either say "you don't have it and I won't either", or you say "if you don't have it, then I'll give you something". You won't do the former, so that only leaves with the latter.

I mean, I'm just really puzzled by how incapable people are of seeing the basics of this situation. You all know the Cold War, the US and the USSR sat there building vast stockpiles of nukes, because they wanted to be sure any capability the other side had to blow them up was countered by their own capability. It's a simple and intuitive thing. But then it comes to Iran, and we all know they're opposed by Israel and the USA, both of whom have the bomb. But suddenly the idea of Iran wanting the bomb just to level the playing field is this idea that people can't possibly consider. No, it has to be all about Iran being these crazy in the coconut loons who are planning to sneak bombs into Israel because they're Saturday morning cartoon villains. It's very odd.

I did address that we have something and we don't want others to have it.

Iran is one of the craziest regimes out there. All you have to do is look at Imaneedajob, no matter what your politics you don't go in front of the UN and say the Israel has no right to exist and that Gays are created by the decadence of the west because there are no gay people in Iran. They are completely delusional. Not to mention that they just killed a bunch of their own people to put down a revolution. They are not to be trusted with Nuclear technology.

Now I'm not looking for US military intervention, but I have no problem with Israel striking Iran.

Andrew1975 wrote:I did address that we have something and we don't want others to have it.

I missed it. My apologies.

It wasn't much of answer though, basically amounting to 'we can do what we want and they have to agree'. I mean, it kind of works in the short term, like any big kid soon learns that if he's hungry he can take anyone's lunch money. Long term it's an absolute loser of a strategy, though, as that big kid finds all the littler kids just stay away from the bully, preferring to deal in trades of mutual benefit.

Iran is one of the craziest regimes out there. All you have to do is look at Imaneedajob, no matter what your politics you don't go in front of the UN and say the Israel has no right to exist and that Gays are created by the decadence of the west because there are no gay people in Iran. They are completely delusional. Not to mention that they just killed a bunch of their own people to put down a revolution. They are not to be trusted with Nuclear technology.

Go read the constitution of Iran. You'll find out despite all the time he gets in the press, Ahmadinejad is about 20th in line in power. It's like complaining that the UK is mad because the Chief Whip of the major opposition party said something nutty.

Now I'm not looking for US military intervention, but I have no problem with Israel striking Iran.

If you think Iran is crazy, you should go look up the kind of things major players in Israeli politics have said about gays. And killing people to maintain government status quo is more or less standard operating procedure there. I mean, fething hell...

Yet, they've never used the bomb in a pre-emptive strike because nations do not sign their own death warrants. Even nations that don't like gay people.

we can do what we want and they have to agree

Isn't this actually Iran's position? The UN has tried to work with Iran and even made overtures to allowing them to have a civilian Nuclear program. Iran would not bite. Nuclear proliferation is not a good thing, and Iran's previous actions show that they are not worthy of the trust needed to allow them the program. They do not toe the line.

Because their economy is incredibly fragile, and collapse would send refugees pouring into South Korea and China, which is something no-one wants

Would it really matter, So China gets a few million more people? I mean there are plenty of other insolvent dictatorships that would love the aid that North Korea gets. So anytime you have a nuke and your economy isn't working you just get whatever you want? That is a great message to send.

Pakistan became a major issue as terrorism expanded in the region, and as the US became more sensitive to the needs to control overseas terrorism. They'd had the bomb some time before that, and it hadn't prompted any great flood of aid.

Because it was a relatively stable country. Now that it is unstable and full of government supported terrorists we placate them with money. Why is this a good way to do things?

Which is where the issue gets very complicated, but complicated for matters relating entirely to issues of terrorism, not issues relating to the bomb.

There are plenty of places that have terrorists, I don't see the US propping up the other obviously traitorous governments with billions of dollars worth of aid.

The cost of keeping a fleet at sea, constantly, to prevent the deployment of minelayers, is prohibitive. Iran could easily use that as bait, except as we know Iran would suffer more than anyone from shutting down the strait... except their economy is so fethed because of sanctions that closing the strait wouldn't really matter.

Right, but the fleet is there operating and being paid for anyway. Now I don't like it, but if its there we might as well make the most use of it.

I mean, I'm just really puzzled by how incapable people are of seeing the basics of this situation. You all know the Cold War, the US and the USSR sat there building vast stockpiles of nukes, because they wanted to be sure any capability the other side had to blow them up was countered by their own capability. It's a simple and intuitive thing. But then it comes to Iran, and we all know they're opposed by Israel and the USA, both of whom have the bomb. But suddenly the idea of Iran wanting the bomb just to level the playing field is this idea that people can't possibly consider. No, it has to be all about Iran being these crazy in the coconut loons who are planning to sneak bombs into Israel because they're Saturday morning cartoon villains. It's very odd.

See, I just think too many people already have the bomb. We don't need anymore crazies having it. I totally understand they myriad of reasons why they want it, which is exactly why I don't want them to have it.

Go read the constitution of Iran. You'll find out despite all the time he gets in the press, Ahmadinejad is about 20th in line in power. It's like complaining that the UK is mad because the Chief Whip of the major opposition party said something nutty.

It doesn't matter. If you allow that person to be your mouthpiece it shows a major lack of judgment. The US gets crap for the bush years, he said a lot of dumb things but he never said anything as antagonistic as the stuff that comes out of Ahmadinejad's mouth on a semi regular basis.

If you think Iran is crazy, you should go look up the kind of things major players in Israeli politics have said about gays. And killing people to maintain government status quo is more or less standard operating procedure there. I mean, fething hell...

The fact is I would have to look those up because they don't announce these things at giant press conferences like MA does. As for killing people, I assume you are talking about how Israel treats Palestinians which is hardly the same issue as the Iranian shootings

Andrew1975 wrote:Isn't this actually Iran's position?

Yes, but it's their country. Doing what one wants within one's own boundaries is the basic principal of sovereignty, and from that it becomes the cornerstone of international law. If you want someone to stop doing something within their own country, you have to offer them enough to get them to want to stop doing it.

Would it really matter, So China gets a few million more people? I mean there are plenty of other insolvent dictatorships that would love the aid that North Korea gets.

You live in the US. You understand the nonsense that is "would it really matter, open the southern border and the US gets a few more million people"... but you can't see how that same thing is just as much nonsense when applied to China?

So anytime you have a nuke and your economy isn't working you just get whatever you want? That is a great message to send.

Only if there's no penalties in becoming a pariah state. Which, obviously, there is.

Because it was a relatively stable country. Now that it is unstable and full of government supported terrorists we placate them with money. Why is this a good way to do things?

You don't placate them with money. As long as you keep framing your thoughts with such loaded language you'll always end up drawing these kinds of conclusions, no matter the reality on the ground. You give Pakistan money so that they are capable and willing to do things you want them to do.

Now, you can debate whether the idea has actually worked, and there are good arguments for both sides, but the issue simply has nothing to do with placating anyone.

There are plenty of places that have terrorists, I don't see the US propping up the other obviously traitorous governments with billions of dollars worth of aid.

Yeah, the US doesn't have any operations in Yemen at all. Nope, not one bit.

Right, but the fleet is there operating and being paid for anyway. Now I don't like it, but if its there we might as well make the most use of it.

A fleet at sea, in operations, on war footing, has running costs miles beyond those of a fleet in harbour. Not to mention the risk of losing a boat to a mine (which is how the US have lost most of its ships since WWII).

See, I just think too many people already have the bomb. We don't need anymore crazies having it. I totally understand they myriad of reasons why they want it, which is exactly why I don't want them to have it.

I agree, I don't want them to have the bomb either. But you just can't tell a country who's primary enemy has the bomb that they don't get to have it. They won't listen. They can't listen. As such, telling them that's just how it has to be won't work, can't work.

And what's more, that kind of mentality begins to unpin the idea that international relations are run on international law, which is basically the thing that stops nations being crazy in the first place.

It doesn't matter. If you allow that person to be your mouthpiece it shows a major lack of judgment. The US gets crap for the bush years, he said a lot of dumb things but he never said anything as antagonistic as the stuff that comes out of Ahmadinejad's mouth on a semi regular basis.

Bush was so condemned because he headed up the most powerful nation in the world. He was never as bad as, say, Putin or Berlesconi, and that's just among the major players in the world. Add in the smaller, non-democratic countries and Bush starts looking a little bit like the erudite, reasoned world leader that Republicans used to pretend he was.

But none of that has anything to do with anything. Fact is, while there might be a guy running around shouting all kinds of nonsense, it's all theatre. It means nothing compared to how a country actually acts, especially when the guy doing all that shouting has no influence over international relations.

Consider Kruschev, shoe banging, shouting, 'history will bury you' Kruschev. In the theatre of world politics he looked utterly crazy. But at the height of the Cuban Missile Crisis it was Kruschev who took the big decision to back down, turn the ships around, for nothing more than a promise from Kennedy that they would take the missiles out of Turkey in some months time.

The fact is I would have to look those up because they don't announce these things at giant press conferences like MA does. As for killing people, I assume you are talking about how Israel treats Palestinians which is hardly the same issue as the Iranian shootings

Unless, of course, you think that that killing people to maintain the social order is the same thing, no matter who is doing it to their people.

I've also got no idea why it matters whether it was said at an international conference or as part of the manifesto of a major political party. Unless theatre is what defines things.

Andrew1975 wrote:

we can do what we want and they have to agree

Isn't this actually Iran's position?

Well, no one has to agree, but they have to stop them if they wish to; and that's pretty much everyone's position.

Andrew1975 wrote:
So anytime you have a nuke and your economy isn't working you just get whatever you want? That is a great message to send.

Well, a nuke, oil, and a strategic geographic position. We don't really need to send that message though, anyone with any acumen for Ipoli already figured that out.

Andrew1975 wrote:
Because it was a relatively stable country. Now that it is unstable and full of government supported terrorists we placate them with money. Why is this a good way to do things?

Pakistan was only "relatively stable" because the masses didn't pay attention to it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Andrew1975 wrote:
There are plenty of places that have terrorists, I don't see the US propping up the other obviously traitorous governments with billions of dollars worth of aid.

Someone has no sense of history.

Terrorism isn't in and of itself bad, its only bad when it targets things we don't want to be targeted.

dogma wrote:
Terrorism isn't in and of itself bad.

Come again?

dogma wrote:Terrorism isn't in and of itself bad, its only bad when it targets things we don't want to be targeted.

Isn't that how all the good terrorism works?

AustonT wrote:

dogma wrote:
Terrorism isn't in and of itself bad.

Come again?

Were the Sandinistas bad, or were the Contras bad?

And that's before we get into what terrorism really is.

Mr Hyena wrote:Your willing to risk that on a whim?

Frazzled wrote:

murdog wrote:Maybe they say they want to wipe Isreal off the map, but how much of that is bluster, sabre-rattling and showmanship? How would they continue to rule Iran if they invite nuclear armageddon? The prime factor in all that Tehran does is regime survival - risking it all to destroy Isreal doesn't mesh with that.

You could say trhat NOW though.

Iran supports Hamas and Hessbullah finnaiclaly and via arms. The HHs routinely lob rockets into Israel killing Israelis. Israel has nukes now.
In effect they are attacking a nuclear power who could radiate them from stem to stern without reprisal.

If we're going down that road.
Iran actively supports forces in Iraq that were killing US soldiers and may be doing the same in Afghanistan.
We have more nukes than god and could radiate them from stem to stern without reprisal.

What do they do when they actually have a nuke?

I understand that this is not a whimsical situation, and that the threat is very real. The more regimes that possess the technology, the greater the chance that someone willing to use them gets one. My point of view is that they will get a bomb if they want one. From what I've read in my armchair, the chance of stopping the program with airpower is not 100%, and it seems to me like the chance of an successful regime change by invasion is significantly less, to say the least. I don't see sanctions working in the long term, as they are far from isolated, and China will soon be getting Iranian energy at a discount if the West won't buy it.

I understand there is a proxy war going on, and I think that Iran has correctly decided that Isreal and the US will not use their nuclear weapons first, or at least without direct confrontation. I'm definitely not on the side of the regime in Tehran, or the organizations it supports, but from a military standpoint they likely value the proxy war as a testing/training ground for a future war against Isreal or the US, among other more or less aggressive reasons. Iraq especially has cleary been a place where Tehran has tested weapons and tactics to be used against the US in an asymetrical campaign, notably the Explosively Shaped Penetrators. I'm certain their reasons are vastly more complicated than that, and I'm not defending them.

However I don't think it follows that because they are willing to confront nuclear powers with proxies, then they will be willing to supply those proxies with nukes to be used on their nuclear enemies. For if Hezbollah annihilates Tel Aviv with nuke soon after Iran tests a bomb, whose door will everyone come knocking at?

That's not to say that I want to see Iran with nukes, or that I don't think that increases the danger to us all. I'm saying that there may be a better way to control or ameliorate the threat than by attacking them, which won't guaruntee the end result anyways, and if it fails, may make it more likely that a nuke gets deployed.

Quite the dilemma. I took a senior international relations seminar on the US-Iran relationship a few years ago. At the end the professor summed up his view as being 'We're all '.

AustonT wrote:Come again?

Was Mandela the good guy?

sebster wrote:

Now I'm not looking for US military intervention, but I have no problem with Israel striking Iran.

If you think Iran is crazy, you should go look up the kind of things major players in Israeli politics have said about gays. And killing people to maintain government status quo is more or less standard operating procedure there. I mean, fething hell...

Yet, they've never used the bomb in a pre-emptive strike because nations do not sign their own death warrants. Even nations that don't like gay people.

You don't even have to go to the Middle East. The Prime Minister of Poland said, about 5-6 years ago, that homosexuality was a 'disease that had to be eradicated'. And this is from a country that is part of the EU.

Pacific wrote:

sebster wrote:

Now I'm not looking for US military intervention, but I have no problem with Israel striking Iran.

If you think Iran is crazy, you should go look up the kind of things major players in Israeli politics have said about gays. And killing people to maintain government status quo is more or less standard operating procedure there. I mean, fething hell...

Yet, they've never used the bomb in a pre-emptive strike because nations do not sign their own death warrants. Even nations that don't like gay people.

You don't even have to go to the Middle East. The Prime Minister of Poland said, about 5-6 years ago, that homosexuality was a 'disease that had to be eradicated'. And this is from a country that has Auschwitz.

Fixed it for you.

You live in the US. You understand the nonsense that is "would it really matter, open the southern border and the US gets a few more million people"... but you can't see how that same thing is just as much nonsense when applied to China?

No, I understand, I just don't care. That's China's problem. There is no reason that the UN or the US needs to be providing North Korea aid to solve China's problems

Only if there's no penalties in becoming a pariah state. Which, obviously, there is.

A lot of those problems go away once you have the nuke. Right now there are sanctions on Iran to keep them from getting the Nuke, yet they choose to push forward anyway. Those sanctions will be hard to enforce on a Nuclear Iran. The carrot at the end of the stick for Iran is that if the halt their drive for a independent nuclear program they can have one that is watched over by the international community.

You don't placate them with money. As long as you keep framing your thoughts with such loaded language you'll always end up drawing these kinds of conclusions, no matter the reality on the ground. You give Pakistan money so that they are capable and willing to do things you want them to do.

But they don't, they actually actively do the oppisite many times, so the aid should end, or at least such action should be threatened and consequences put in place.

Now, you can debate whether the idea has actually worked, and there are good arguments for both sides, but the issue simply has nothing to do with placating anyone.

Is bribery a better word?

Yeah, the US doesn't have any operations in Yemen at all. Nope, not one bit.

Not to the extent that they do Pakistan, and Yeman is not as in your face about it.

A fleet at sea, in operations, on war footing, has running costs miles beyond those of a fleet in harbour. Not to mention the risk of losing a boat to a mine (which is how the US have lost most of its ships since WWII).

That flleet is rarely sitting in dock and is very much on alert most of the time.

Terrorism isn't in and of itself bad, its only bad when it targets things we don't want to be targeted.

The US has never supported terrorists we support freedom fighters. Ok I'll amend the statement to terrorists, that are not our terrorists if that makes you feel better. Or possibly terrorists that were at one time our terrorists that currently are someone else's.

We have more nukes than god and could radiate them from stem to stern without reprisal.

Well maybe without reprisal from Iran because they would cease to exist. But there would definitely be reprisals of one form or another. The bill in political capital alone for nuking Iran would be very substantial.

I would like to not see any direct US involvement in this situation at all. However if Israel does something and needs our aid afterward, I think we should at least back their play (maybe not publicly), much like when they took out the Syrian facility.

I don't think an invasion is the answer, nor do I think the US striking Iran is a good idea. I believe in letting the regional powers handle it. Israel is not the only regional power that fears Iran getting a nuclear program.

dogma wrote:

AustonT wrote:

dogma wrote:
Terrorism isn't in and of itself bad.

Come again?

Were the Sandinistas bad, or were the Contras bad?

And that's before we get into what terrorism really is.

Yes.Yes. I would love (with no sarcasm) to hear you define what terrorism really is.

sebster wrote:

AustonT wrote:Come again?

Was Mandela the good guy?

Terrorist.

Terrorism is the (non governmental) use of force and the threat of force to achieve political goals? Surely?

Whether that is always the Evil will depend on your views on that sort of thing, but it has been used for less-than-terrible reasons in the past.

AustonT wrote:

sebster wrote:

AustonT wrote:Come again?

Was Mandela the good guy?

Terrorist.

Was Mandela the one who put tires filled with gasoline around people's necks then lit them on fire?

biccat wrote:

AustonT wrote:

sebster wrote:

AustonT wrote:Come again?

Was Mandela the good guy?

Terrorist.

Was Mandela the one who put tires filled with gasoline around people's necks then lit them on fire?

No that was his wife.

"She did what? No I'll stay here thanks. She's crazy."
- Nelson Mandela, on being offered early release.

I have no idea, I know he lead the militant arm of the ANC. He is responsible at least for organizing a terrorist group much like bin laden, but I'd be hard pressed to find individual acts from the 60's in South Africa. Partially because reports may not exist, partially because if they do they have probably been tampered with either by the Apartheid regime or the new one.

Da Boss wrote:Terrorism is the (non governmental) use of force and the threat of force to achieve political goals? Surely?

Whether that is always the Evil will depend on your views on that sort of thing, but it has been used for less-than-terrible reasons in the past.

I think that depends on the type of force and how it is applied. Terrorists use fear and terror tactics, by your definition all armed revolutionaries are terrorists, which I don't believe is the case.

Does this sound right Taken from the web very quickly

"A Revolutionary is someone who acts alone or with others to change the form of government or society or an economy (or in fact any social institution) by sudden, extra - legal means. Revolutionaries may or may not use terror as a weapon or tactic.

A terrorist is someone who uses random violence to cause people to act as the terrorist desires out of fear. Terrorists may or may not be revolutionaries. As often as not they are reactionaries who are trying to prevent a social change."

I don't think it is complete or in fact very difinative, but it might help.

Frazzled wrote:No that was his wife.

"She did what? No I'll stay here thanks. She's crazy."
- Nelson Mandela, on being offered early release.

Well, I was thinking of the right guy at least.

new update

MOSCOW (Reuters) - Iran is capable of carrying out military strikes on U.S. interests all around the world if the Islamic Republic is attacked by the United States, Iran's ambassador to Moscow said on Wednesday.

The United States has tried to force Tehran to scrap sensitive nuclear work by imposing sanctions targeting Iran's central bank and giving U.S. banks new powers to freeze Iranian government assets.

Iran's ambassador to Moscow said that the United States would be making a serious mistake, akin to suicide, if it risked a military strike on OPEC's No. 2 oil exporter.

Washington has announced no such plans, but has said a military option is always on the table if Iran cannot be otherwise prevented from developing atomic weapons.

"The Americans know what kind of country Iran is. They are well aware of our people's unity," Iranian ambassador Seyed Mahmoud-Reza Sajjadi told a news conference in Moscow.

"And that's why Iran is fully able to deliver retaliatory strikes on the United States anywhere in the world," he said, speaking through an interpreter.

"Even if it attacks, we have a list of counter actions. (The United States) would be disappointed with their huge mistake."

Iran has increasingly issued threatening statements against the West in recent weeks as tension has increased over its uranium enrichment program, which it moved last month to a mountain bunker better protected from possible air strikes.

Iran says its nuclear program is peaceful while Western powers fear Tehran is trying to build a nuclear bomb.

"The issue of a military attack from America on the Islamic Republic of Iran has been on the agenda for several years," said Sajjadi, adding that Iran would never strike first.

Iran has warned its response to any such strike would be "painful," threatening to target Israel and U.S. bases in the Gulf, along with closing the Strait of Hormuz used by one third of the world's seaborne oil traffic.

Russia, the world's biggest energy producer, opposes further U.N. Security Council sanctions over Tehran's nuclear program and has sharply criticized U.S. and European Union sanctions.

adding that Iran would never strike first.

Suuure they won't....

And that's why Iran is fully able to deliver retaliatory strikes on the United States anywhere in the world

Iran seems to be the only country able to get away with this kind of talk...

Lets just flatten the whole place so this gak stops.

AustonT wrote:
Yes.Yes. I would love (with no sarcasm) to hear you define what terrorism really is.

Technically, its any systematic use of terror to coerce.

Colloquially, its any action taken by irregular combatants (and regular combatants that we don't like) that targets civilians.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Mr Hyena wrote:

And that's why Iran is fully able to deliver retaliatory strikes on the United States anywhere in the world

Iran seems to be the only country able to get away with this kind of talk...

Pacific wrote:You don't even have to go to the Middle East. The Prime Minister of Poland said, about 5-6 years ago, that homosexuality was a 'disease that had to be eradicated'. And this is from a country that is part of the EU.

Good point. Funny how these things are just ignored when they come from countries that play along with the US dominated world order, but become unthinkable statements from crazy people when they're said by nations outside the world order.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

AustonT wrote:Fixed it for you.

Seriously? You're going to use a concentration camp built by Germans in Poland as a means to write Poland off as racist?

What the hell?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Andrew1975 wrote:No, I understand, I just don't care. That's China's problem. There is no reason that the UN or the US needs to be providing North Korea aid to solve China's problems

The probably collapse of a nation and likely impact on it's neighbours isn't a concern for the UN? The provision of aid to starving people isn't a concern for the UN? Exactly what do you think the UN is?

A lot of those problems go away once you have the nuke. Right now there are sanctions on Iran to keep them from getting the Nuke, yet they choose to push forward anyway. Those sanctions will be hard to enforce on a Nuclear Iran. The carrot at the end of the stick for Iran is that if the halt their drive for a independent nuclear program they can have one that is watched over by the international community.

Except that isn't true. South Africa was a pariah state throughout the entire period in which it owned nukes. They didn't suddenly gain any kind of legitimacy, the nukes only made things worse for them.

But they don't, they actually actively do the oppisite many times, so the aid should end, or at least such action should be threatened and consequences put in place.

And there's presently all kinds of debate into that issue. Whether the money makes the problem better or worse, and if a solution is needed, whether it involves putting in place systems to make sure the money is spent better, or if it just best to stop giving money and combat terrorism some other way.

And exactly none of that debate is centred around the existance of nukes in Pakistan.

Is bribery a better word?

No.

Not to the extent that they do Pakistan, and Yeman is not as in your face about it.

Because of local sensitivity.

That flleet is rarely sitting in dock and is very much on alert most of the time.

Being aware of possible small scale attacks is entirely unlike actually being in a hostile environment, and you know that.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

AustonT wrote:Terrorist.

And did he play a major part in the fall of apartheid, and was the fall of apartheid a good thing?