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.

 d-usa wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:
The issue with guns is that, fundamentally, they are a civil right, an individual one, affirmed by the supreme court and incorporated to the states. Putting tests and restrictions on guns therefore runs into many of the same issues that putting restrictions on speech or self incrimination does, and attempting to undercut that leaves those other rights open to attack in much the same way.

Then we, as a society, need to take a stand together after the next school shooting and say "we are sorry these kids are dead, but we accept that as a consequence of our right to own firearms, the needs of the many outweigh the lives of the few, and an armed society will have dead children from time to time."

The reality is that this is a very true statement, we are okay with that, we accept that terrorists can legally get guns and shoot up a holiday party, we accept that terrorists can legally get guns and shoot up a gay nightclub, and we accept that someone with a legally owned firearm can shoot up a grade school. As a society, we bitch and moan when it happens and talk about "we need to do something about guns" and 'we need to do something to keep mentally ill people from owning guns" and "we need to do something about mental illness". But the truth is, we are okay with the risk of all of these things happening because that is just the reality of living in a society where the 2nd Amendment exists.

Just like we are sad when a friend or family member dies in a car accident and we accept the risk and are okay with the fact that it can happen anytime they are inside of a vehicle, we need to accept the risk and are okay with the fact that anybody can kill a friend or family member in an attack involving weapons.

I'm just sick and tired of politicians now having the guts to speak what they are actually thinking, to acknowledge what the country as a whole is thinking.

Edit: Making this my last post on this subject, because it's pissing me off.

The terrorists who shot up a holiday party did not get their guns legally. The scum bag who shot up SandyHook may have used a 'legally owned firearm', but it was legally owned by his mother, who he murdered to take the guns...

The truth is, until folks like you quit blurring actual facts there is no reason to discuss giving in to a lessening of our rights.

 whembly wrote:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
Kellyanne Conway blames refugees for 'Bowling Green massacre' that never happened

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/feb/03/kellyanne-conway-refugees-bowling-green-massacre-never-happened

This is honestly hilarious.

Okay... that's funny...

She obviously got Chattanooga (where lone wolf muslim shot up Military recruitment center) to Bowling Green (where 2 person were charged in a foiled planned attack).

AFAIK, there wasn't even a planned attack, the people arrested in Bowling Green helped terrorists when they were in the middle east (one of their fingerprints was found on IEDs.

 d-usa wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:
The issue with guns is that, fundamentally, they are a civil right, an individual one, affirmed by the supreme court and incorporated to the states. Putting tests and restrictions on guns therefore runs into many of the same issues that putting restrictions on speech or self incrimination does, and attempting to undercut that leaves those other rights open to attack in much the same way.

Then we, as a society, need to take a stand together after the next school shooting and say "we are sorry these kids are dead, but we accept that as a consequence of our right to own firearms, the needs of the many outweigh the lives of the few, and an armed society will have dead children from time to time."

I think, perhaps in different words, that's been the general concensus. The US has always been willing to accept more discomfort, more risk, for greater exercise of personal freedom, than most other nations. Same way you can say things on Facebook or TV that would get you arrested in most of Europe.

The reality is that this is a very true statement, we are okay with that, we accept that terrorists can legally get guns and shoot up a holiday party

Are we referring to San Bernadino here? In this instance, the guns were acquired through a straw-purchase (illegal) and modified in a manner illegal under state law.

we accept that terrorists can legally get guns and shoot up a gay nightclub

In the case of Omar Mateen, the dude had been investigated and cleared by the FBI, certified and licensed by the state of Florida to be a security guard with a background check, and passed a background check to buy a gun. Short of simply banning guns, not sure what else more could be done.

, and we accept that someone with a legally owned firearm can shoot up a grade school.

If we're referring to Sandy Hook here, the legal owner (Lanza's mother) was murdered and her weapons stolen.

As a society, we bitch and moan when it happens and talk about "we need to do something about guns" and 'we need to do something to keep mentally ill people from owning guns" and "we need to do something about mental illness". But the truth is, we are okay with the risk of all of these things happening because that is just the reality of living in a society where the 2nd Amendment exists.

On some level, yes. Same way we are ok with it not being illegal for people to say "all (insert demographic of choice here) should die!" or advocate for denial of the Holocaust.

Just like we are sad when a friend or family member dies in a car accident and we accept the risk and are okay with the fact that it can happen anytime they are inside of a vehicle, we need to accept the risk and are okay with the fact that anybody can kill a friend or family member in an attack involving weapons.

Sure, but that's always been true, and is true in nations where civilian ownership of firearms is illegal or far more controlled as well. Again, we're also ok with people saying things and advocating for things that would see them jailed or imprisoned for years even in relatively developed and free nations like the UK or France or Germany. The US trend in these regards has been towards greater personal freedom with greater potential risk.

The US also just has an issue with violence in general, even removing every single gun crime would leave the US with a far higher incidence of murder and assault than most other developed nations, which is an issue unto itself.

 d-usa wrote:


That's why I think we should just ditch the whole "representative democracy" thing and switch to a system of awarding party seats by percentage of total vote rather than by "person wins a district". More and more it doesn't matter what the district wants, it doesn't even matter what the representative wants. It's all about what the party wants. The very existence of majority and minority whips goes against the principle of representing your districts or your state.

It also doesn't help that the districts themselves all too often only make sense in the light of party politics.

I mean, a district like this in Chicago only has a purpose to existing for creating a safe seat for a certain party or cramming everyone from one party into a single district and allowing the other party to take the rest of the districts.

 Co'tor Shas wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
Kellyanne Conway blames refugees for 'Bowling Green massacre' that never happened

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/feb/03/kellyanne-conway-refugees-bowling-green-massacre-never-happened

This is honestly hilarious.

Okay... that's funny...

She obviously got Chattanooga (where lone wolf muslim shot up Military recruitment center) to Bowling Green (where 2 person were charged in a foiled planned attack).

AFAIK, there wasn't even a planned attack, the people arrested in Bowling Green helped terrorists when they were in the middle east (one of their fingerprints was found on IEDs.

Yup... I was mistaken...

Just like Conway's obvious mistake.

If I remember correct, Bowling green was the even that precipitated Obama's program of labeling those 7 countries.

 Vaktathi wrote:

I mean, a district like this in Chicago only has a purpose to existing for creating a safe seat for a certain party or cramming everyone from one party into a single district and allowing the other party to take the rest of the districts.

You don't know! Maybe it's a tribute to Pac Man!

 Vaktathi wrote:

I mean, a district like this in Chicago only has a purpose to existing for creating a safe seat for a certain party or cramming everyone from one party into a single district and allowing the other party to take the rest of the districts.

Man... Luis Gutiérre's (D) seat is hella gerrymandered....

It's a bipartisan problem for sure...

 whembly wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:

I mean, a district like this in Chicago only has a purpose to existing for creating a safe seat for a certain party or cramming everyone from one party into a single district and allowing the other party to take the rest of the districts.

Man... Luis Gutiérre's (D) seat is hella gerrymandered....

It's a bipartisan problem for sure...

WoPo has a good article with examples (even shows you the most gerrymandered states)
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2014/05/15/americas-most-gerrymandered-congressional-districts/
.

Yep the 4th is mine, I was in 3rd for a while but I didn't mind switching because I hated the dude

 d-usa wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:
The issue with guns is that, fundamentally, they are a civil right, an individual one, affirmed by the supreme court and incorporated to the states. Putting tests and restrictions on guns therefore runs into many of the same issues that putting restrictions on speech or self incrimination does, and attempting to undercut that leaves those other rights open to attack in much the same way.

Then we, as a society, need to take a stand together after the next school shooting and say "we are sorry these kids are dead, but we accept that as a consequence of our right to own firearms, the needs of the many outweigh the lives of the few, and an armed society will have dead children from time to time."

The reality is that this is a very true statement, we are okay with that, we accept that terrorists can legally get guns and shoot up a holiday party, we accept that terrorists can legally get guns and shoot up a gay nightclub, and we accept that someone with a legally owned firearm can shoot up a grade school. As a society, we bitch and moan when it happens and talk about "we need to do something about guns" and 'we need to do something to keep mentally ill people from owning guns" and "we need to do something about mental illness". But the truth is, we are okay with the risk of all of these things happening because that is just the reality of living in a society where the 2nd Amendment exists.

Just like we are sad when a friend or family member dies in a car accident and we accept the risk and are okay with the fact that it can happen anytime they are inside of a vehicle, we need to accept the risk and are okay with the fact that anybody can kill a friend or family member in an attack involving weapons.

I'm just sick and tired of politicians now having the guts to speak what they are actually thinking, to acknowledge what the country as a whole is thinking.

Edit: Making this my last post on this subject, because it's pissing me off.

We already accept adults and in many cases, teenagers and younger children having access to alcohol, even though over 80, 000 people a year die from alcohol related causes and 2 out of 3 domestic abuse cases are alcohol related, not to mention numerous health issues, broken marriages, lost jobs, etc.

Relapse wrote:

 d-usa wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:
The issue with guns is that, fundamentally, they are a civil right, an individual one, affirmed by the supreme court and incorporated to the states. Putting tests and restrictions on guns therefore runs into many of the same issues that putting restrictions on speech or self incrimination does, and attempting to undercut that leaves those other rights open to attack in much the same way.

Then we, as a society, need to take a stand together after the next school shooting and say "we are sorry these kids are dead, but we accept that as a consequence of our right to own firearms, the needs of the many outweigh the lives of the few, and an armed society will have dead children from time to time."

The reality is that this is a very true statement, we are okay with that, we accept that terrorists can legally get guns and shoot up a holiday party, we accept that terrorists can legally get guns and shoot up a gay nightclub, and we accept that someone with a legally owned firearm can shoot up a grade school. As a society, we bitch and moan when it happens and talk about "we need to do something about guns" and 'we need to do something to keep mentally ill people from owning guns" and "we need to do something about mental illness". But the truth is, we are okay with the risk of all of these things happening because that is just the reality of living in a society where the 2nd Amendment exists.

Just like we are sad when a friend or family member dies in a car accident and we accept the risk and are okay with the fact that it can happen anytime they are inside of a vehicle, we need to accept the risk and are okay with the fact that anybody can kill a friend or family member in an attack involving weapons.

I'm just sick and tired of politicians now having the guts to speak what they are actually thinking, to acknowledge what the country as a whole is thinking.

Edit: Making this my last post on this subject, because it's pissing me off.

We already accept adults and in many cases, teenagers and younger children having access to alcohol, even though over 80, 000 people a year die from alcohol related causes and 2 out of 3 domestic abuse cases are alcohol related, not to mention numerous health issues, broken marriages, lost jobs, etc.

Guns and alcohol are not analogous, nor are they topical in the US Politics thread.

So, the Bowling Green "Massacre" gaffe from Ms Conway. A simple mistake or yet another example of the new administration flailing about with no regard for the facts?

 d-usa wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 d-usa wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

 NuggzTheNinja wrote:
CNN spreading some more fake news re: Obama's gun control measures that received the axe.

http://twitchy.com/brettt-3136/2017/02/02/so-misleading-gun-control-crowd-triggered-by-headlines-about-house-rolling-back-background-checks/

Long story short: They are claiming that the GOP and NRA shot down a gun control measure aimed at keeping guns out of the hands of the mentally ill. In reality, the provision that was axed deals with veterans and social security beneficiaries who have their finances managed by another party.

Exactly.

Wrong.

But feth it, not going to bother with it.

It's a clumsy statist way to fix a problem that ignores due process.

Don't get me wrong, the law needs a fethton of work to empower family/mental health officials to go in front of a judge to remove certain rights from the mentally ill...

It takes a lot of "due process" to get on disability. And it has to be one of these mental health issues to qualify:

- Affective disorders
- Anxiety Disorders
- Autism and related disorders
- Mental retardation
- Organic Mental Disorders
- Personality disorders
- Schizophrenia, paranoia, and psychotic disorders
- Somatoform disorders
- Substance addiction

And it's not just "I have some anxiety, so I get a free government paycheck", it's "I have such severe anxiety that I cannot function enough in society to go out and maintain gainful employment" and "I have such severe anxiety that I cannot function enough to manage my own finances".

But eat up the NRA propaganda. They long ago stopped caring about the people on either end of the gun, they only care about keeping the gun manufacturers busy. And more customers = more business.

This was terrible legislation that needed to be overturned by Congress and it has nothing to do with NRA propaganda.

This was typical terrible one size fits all lawmaking that the govt loves to pass because expending the time and effort to treat people as individuals is too much of a bother. Mental health is different for each individual. Just because you have a diagnosis like the ones mentioned doesn't guarantee that you are unable to be a safe and responsible gun owner and it certainly doesn't mean that your constitutional rights should be forfeited. You can't take away Bob's right to own a gun just because he has the same mental health condition as Jimmy over there. Bob and Jimmy are different people the govt has to make a case against each individual not just lump people together for the sake of convenience.

My nephew is autistic and he is going to struggle mightily to work a job when he grows up. That doesn't mean that he can't safely and responsibly operate a Ruger 10/22 alongside my kids, it doesn't mean that he should have fewer constitutional rights than my kids.

There is a huge legal difference between a person being adjudicated as mentally ill by a court and a person filling Social Security disability paperwork. Neither the PotUS or Congress can magically empower the Social Security administration with the same legal authority of a court nor does filing disability paperwork qualify as judicial due process.

This is like telling the Social Security Disability administration to revoke the drivers licenses from these people because they menta health makes them too dangerous to drive. Of course that can't happen because the SS Disability admins don't have jurisdiction to strip people of their state issues DLs just like they don't have the authority to take away constitutional rights.

Are the all of people on Social Security Disability for mental health even a danger? Is there any evidence of these people buying guns? They can't hold a job or manage their finances so how would they accomplish walking into a gun store and filling out the Form 4473b paperwork and completing the transaction by themselves? Nobody can do that for them, that would constitute a straw luchase which is a federal felony. It looks like this law wasn't based on real evidence it was just easy to find a govt list of crazy people and strip their rights away to score some political points which is the worst kind of tyrannical governance.

 CptJake wrote:
The terrorists who shot up a holiday party did not get their guns legally. The scum bag who shot up SandyHook may have used a 'legally owned firearm', but it was legally owned by his mother, who he murdered to take the guns...

The truth is, until folks like you quit blurring actual facts there is no reason to discuss giving in to a lessening of our rights.

I hear this argument a lot from pro-gun Americans, but the way I see gun control is it's an all or nothing thing. You have to control guns tightly to the point that it's hard for mentally unstable people to get guns ILLEGALLY as well otherwise, yes, people will just illegally get them. If your crazy person just has to go over to the next state or in to their parent's sock drawer to illegally obtain a gun, it doesn't help. If your crazy person has to go down to the docks and negotiate with organised crime mobsters who are just as likely to kill them and throw them in bay as they are to sell them a gun then your crazy person has to be much more organised, focused and possessing sufficient money to get the guns.

Like, you can absolutely get a gun illegally in Australia, but it's not easy which makes it a deterrent for your average mentally unstable person going to shoot up a school or commit suicide.

Personally I'm neither for or against guns, I see pros and cons both ways, but the "bad people will just disobey the law anyway" argument often comes from a warped perspective.

Feeder, I'm going with blatant lie as it took just a minute on google to prove it false. Like all the other gak they try to peddle as alternative facts.

 feeder wrote:

Relapse wrote:

 d-usa wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:
The issue with guns is that, fundamentally, they are a civil right, an individual one, affirmed by the supreme court and incorporated to the states. Putting tests and restrictions on guns therefore runs into many of the same issues that putting restrictions on speech or self incrimination does, and attempting to undercut that leaves those other rights open to attack in much the same way.

Then we, as a society, need to take a stand together after the next school shooting and say "we are sorry these kids are dead, but we accept that as a consequence of our right to own firearms, the needs of the many outweigh the lives of the few, and an armed society will have dead children from time to time."

The reality is that this is a very true statement, we are okay with that, we accept that terrorists can legally get guns and shoot up a holiday party, we accept that terrorists can legally get guns and shoot up a gay nightclub, and we accept that someone with a legally owned firearm can shoot up a grade school. As a society, we bitch and moan when it happens and talk about "we need to do something about guns" and 'we need to do something to keep mentally ill people from owning guns" and "we need to do something about mental illness". But the truth is, we are okay with the risk of all of these things happening because that is just the reality of living in a society where the 2nd Amendment exists.

Just like we are sad when a friend or family member dies in a car accident and we accept the risk and are okay with the fact that it can happen anytime they are inside of a vehicle, we need to accept the risk and are okay with the fact that anybody can kill a friend or family member in an attack involving weapons.

I'm just sick and tired of politicians now having the guts to speak what they are actually thinking, to acknowledge what the country as a whole is thinking.

Edit: Making this my last post on this subject, because it's pissing me off.

We already accept adults and in many cases, teenagers and younger children having access to alcohol, even though over 80, 000 people a year die from alcohol related causes and 2 out of 3 domestic abuse cases are alcohol related, not to mention numerous health issues, broken marriages, lost jobs, etc.

Guns and alcohol are not analogous, nor are they topical in the US Politics thread.

So, the Bowling Green "Massacre" gaffe from Ms Conway. A simple mistake or yet another example of the new administration flailing about with no regard for the facts?

Con job is just trying to keep the gaslighting going

 feeder wrote:

Relapse wrote:

 d-usa wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:
The issue with guns is that, fundamentally, they are a civil right, an individual one, affirmed by the supreme court and incorporated to the states. Putting tests and restrictions on guns therefore runs into many of the same issues that putting restrictions on speech or self incrimination does, and attempting to undercut that leaves those other rights open to attack in much the same way.

Then we, as a society, need to take a stand together after the next school shooting and say "we are sorry these kids are dead, but we accept that as a consequence of our right to own firearms, the needs of the many outweigh the lives of the few, and an armed society will have dead children from time to time."

The reality is that this is a very true statement, we are okay with that, we accept that terrorists can legally get guns and shoot up a holiday party, we accept that terrorists can legally get guns and shoot up a gay nightclub, and we accept that someone with a legally owned firearm can shoot up a grade school. As a society, we bitch and moan when it happens and talk about "we need to do something about guns" and 'we need to do something to keep mentally ill people from owning guns" and "we need to do something about mental illness". But the truth is, we are okay with the risk of all of these things happening because that is just the reality of living in a society where the 2nd Amendment exists.

Just like we are sad when a friend or family member dies in a car accident and we accept the risk and are okay with the fact that it can happen anytime they are inside of a vehicle, we need to accept the risk and are okay with the fact that anybody can kill a friend or family member in an attack involving weapons.

I'm just sick and tired of politicians now having the guts to speak what they are actually thinking, to acknowledge what the country as a whole is thinking.

Edit: Making this my last post on this subject, because it's pissing me off.

We already accept adults and in many cases, teenagers and younger children having access to alcohol, even though over 80, 000 people a year die from alcohol related causes and 2 out of 3 domestic abuse cases are alcohol related, not to mention numerous health issues, broken marriages, lost jobs, etc.

Guns and alcohol are not analogous, nor are they topical in the US Politics thread.

So, the Bowling Green "Massacre" gaffe from Ms Conway. A simple mistake or yet another example of the new administration flailing about with no regard for the facts?

Actually in the context they were brought up, they seem to belong in the thread, and they both can kill people. Alcohol, however, creates a lot more carnage than guns among citizens in the U.S.

 Lord of Deeds wrote:
On another tangent......Iran and missles. Good or bad? What, if anything, should the US do about it?

Frankly, at this point, I believe the Iranian leaders to be much more competent and stable than the US leaders, so I wouldn't oppose a nuclear Iran. That might at least give Trump a little pause.
Note that I did not say that Khamenei was morally better than Trump, just that he was much more competent. He has lead his country which is a very a difficult place geopolitically because of the US, he faced some crisis, and if we look at the result, he is not doing too bad with a quite hard task. Trump seems incapable not to fudge everything he tries.

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

 Lord of Deeds wrote:
On another tangent......Iran and missles. Good or bad? What, if anything, should the US do about it?

Frankly, at this point, I believe the Iranian leaders to be much more competent and stable than the US leaders, so I wouldn't oppose a nuclear Iran. That might at least give Trump a little pause.
Note that I did not say that Khamenei was morally better than Trump, just that he was much more competent. He has lead his country which is a very a difficult place geopolitically because of the US, he faced some crisis, and if we look at the result, he is not doing too bad with a quite hard task. Trump seems incapable not to fudge everything he tries.

Iran has a large potential of starting a nuclear war than the US (or so I would of thought before cheeto jesus and President Bannon were elected), still I do not want them with any nuclear capabilities.

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

 Lord of Deeds wrote:
On another tangent......Iran and missles. Good or bad? What, if anything, should the US do about it?

Frankly, at this point, I believe the Iranian leaders to be much more competent and stable than the US leaders, so I wouldn't oppose a nuclear Iran. That might at least give Trump a little pause.
Note that I did not say that Khamenei was morally better than Trump, just that he was much more competent. He has lead his country which is a very a difficult place geopolitically because of the US, he faced some crisis, and if we look at the result, he is not doing too bad with a quite hard task. Trump seems incapable not to fudge everything he tries.

Whatever one might think of the US administration, Iran having a nuclear weapon is probably not a good thing. In general, more nations having nuclear weapons is probably not a good thing. Nuclear weapons are issues unto themselves in ways that we have luckily avoided major problems up until now, and Iran has engaged in morally dubious actions regarding weapons proliferation (though so has the US)

That said, I think the deal worked out under the previous administration was largely a good one, the Iranians have a right to peaceful power generation purposes of atomic energy, and there are some very good reasons on the part of the Iranians to deeply distrust the United States that often is overlooked or ignored in the US, particularly on the right, in ways that, had they occurred to the US, we certainly would not be ignoring.

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

 Lord of Deeds wrote:
On another tangent......Iran and missles. Good or bad? What, if anything, should the US do about it?

Frankly, at this point, I believe the Iranian leaders to be much more competent and stable than the US leaders, so I wouldn't oppose a nuclear Iran. That might at least give Trump a little pause.
Note that I did not say that Khamenei was morally better than Trump, just that he was much more competent. He has lead his country which is a very a difficult place geopolitically because of the US, he faced some crisis, and if we look at the result, he is not doing too bad with a quite hard task. Trump seems incapable not to fudge everything he tries.

It's an interesting point you put across, but I still would come down on the side of Iran not getting nukes based on their constant death to the U.S. and Israel drum they beat.

The only reason Iran makes constant death threats to the U.S. and Israel is because we made them an enemy through our own foolishness. Iran was supportive of Israel until the 80s (conveniently when much of the world started becoming less supportive), and a major US ally.

At some point the wagon needs to stop being put in front of the horse, and people need to accept that US policy on Iran has resulted in the hostility of people who live there, and it's not just "Iran hates us how dare they."

 Ustrello wrote:
Iran has a large potential of starting a nuclear war than the US

You got this the wrong way. The US has a large potential to start a nuclear war with Iran.
None of the Iranian leaders are suicidal. What they care for is the continuation of the Islamic Republic, and turning it into a regional power. Not, you know, killing all the Christians or whatever Trump believes…
As for the US leaders, we are talking about a bunch of lunatics with no experience and the recent ban show how out of touch with reality they are.

Again, it should be pointed out that the "death to" thing in Farsi is a colloquialism that isn't generally meant to be literal, it's used in the same way we might use "down with" or "against", hence why when there was a scandal of potatoes being used as bribes to get poor votes, people chanted "death to potatoes" in protests.

That statement towards Israel was very ...measured.

"Let's not outright bad mouth the Israelis", hell if you read it the right way they're not condemning the settlements at all - "keep building them, just keep quiet about them". However, the flip side ...appealing to the same base which saw the lack of mention of the Jews during Holocaust Memorial Day, it can be interpreted the other way.

I'd hope, which is extremely, that the current administration errs away from the later here. Sure, try moderation all you like, but a US which is hostile to the Israelis, whilst also crapping all over the rest of the region, seems like a very bad idea.

Relapse wrote:
It's an interesting point you put across, but I still would come down on the side of Iran not getting nukes based on their constant death to the U.S. and Israel drum they beat.

If Iranians leaders decide to go down in a blaze of glory, it won't be the US or Israel that they nuke. Saudi should be worried a nuclear Iran.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Wyrmalla wrote:
Sure, try moderation all you like, but a US which is hostile to the Israelis, whilst also crapping all over the rest of the region, seems like a very bad idea.

Don't worry, Trump will stay best buddy with Saudi Arabia. See the ban. Some things just don't change .

 LordofHats wrote:
The only reason Iran makes constant death threats to the U.S. and Israel is because we made them an enemy through our own foolishness. Iran was supportive of Israel until the 80s (conveniently when much of the world started becoming less supportive), and a major US ally.

At some point the wagon needs to stop being put in front of the horse, and people need to accept that US policy on Iran has resulted in the hostility of people who live there, and it's not just "Iran hates us how dare they."

Yes, Iran was an ally until the 80s, quite a progressive one in fact...

And then, well there was that whole revolution thing which put a guy who hated Israel and the US in charge, who then went onto purge the moderates. That may have also had something to do with it. I mean the US' involvement in that whole affair didn't help things, but saying that the Iranian regime didn't begin with a hostile stance is understating things

I hear this argument a lot from pro-gun Americans, but the way I see gun control is it's an all or nothing thing.

Finally an honest antigunner.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

 Lord of Deeds wrote:
On another tangent......Iran and missles. Good or bad? What, if anything, should the US do about it?

Frankly, at this point, I believe the Iranian leaders to be much more competent and stable than the US leaders, so I wouldn't oppose a nuclear Iran. That might at least give Trump a little pause.
Note that I did not say that Khamenei was morally better than Trump, just that he was much more competent. He has lead his country which is a very a difficult place geopolitically because of the US, he faced some crisis, and if we look at the result, he is not doing too bad with a quite hard task. Trump seems incapable not to fudge everything he tries.

Once Iran declares they have a nuclear weapon every Gulf State will have multiple nuclear weapons within 18 months. They will have to. Egypt as well. Turkey will want them too.

 Vaktathi wrote:

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

 Lord of Deeds wrote:
On another tangent......Iran and missles. Good or bad? What, if anything, should the US do about it?

Frankly, at this point, I believe the Iranian leaders to be much more competent and stable than the US leaders, so I wouldn't oppose a nuclear Iran. That might at least give Trump a little pause.
Note that I did not say that Khamenei was morally better than Trump, just that he was much more competent. He has lead his country which is a very a difficult place geopolitically because of the US, he faced some crisis, and if we look at the result, he is not doing too bad with a quite hard task. Trump seems incapable not to fudge everything he tries.

Whatever one might think of the US administration, Iran having a nuclear weapon is probably not a good thing. In general, more nations having nuclear weapons is probably not a good thing. Nuclear weapons are issues unto themselves in ways that we have luckily avoided major problems up until now, and Iran has engaged in morally dubious actions regarding weapons proliferation (though so has the US)

That said, I think the deal worked out under the previous administration was largely a good one, the Iranians have a right to peaceful power generation purposes of atomic energy, and there are some very good reasons on the part of the Iranians to deeply distrust the United States that often is overlooked or ignored in the US, particularly on the right, in ways that, had they occurred to the US, we certainly would not be ignoring.

The deal is only as good as you can trust the Iranians. Building nuclear power stations is a good thing, but developing missiles is quite different. Now I know I have no authority to presume what a country should spend its money on, but I think Iran has more important things to focus on than building missiles to help its people. With or without any sanctions, down the line Iran will be trying to make a nuclear weapon, like all other nuclear age developing countries, to assert its status and power as a counterbalance to its neighbours. As for current US foreign policy, I think we are seeing more of the White Houses advisors opinions taking place than Trumps own to keep steady relations in volatile areas.

I am surprised Trump is against a Nuclear armed Iran considering his views on nuclear proliferation on the campaign trail.

 LordofHats wrote:
The only reason Iran makes constant death threats to the U.S. and Israel is because we made them an enemy through our own foolishness. Iran was supportive of Israel until the 80s (conveniently when much of the world started becoming less supportive), and a major US ally.

At some point the wagon needs to stop being put in front of the horse, and people need to accept that US policy on Iran has resulted in the hostility of people who live there, and it's not just "Iran hates us how dare they."

Whilst it's been a while might be an idea not to have your Presidential candidates stand on stage and sing "Bomb Iran " to a Beach Boy tune.

Doesn't really tend to endear you over there.

meantime :
https://www.bowlinggreenmassacrefund.com/

give what you can people.

 Easy E wrote:
I am surprised Trump is against a Nuclear armed Iran considering his views on nuclear proliferation on the campaign trail.

Maybe because he realized by keeping his usual Bully Strategy on the rest of the world, that would mean proliferation of nuclear warheads pointed at his house.

Or just the simpler answer he already forgot what he said. This president has certainly a short attention span.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 reds8n wrote:


meantime :
https://www.bowlinggreenmassacrefund.com/

give what you can people.

Please tell me this is a joke. Please.