I went when I was really young. I think I mainly visited resorts and amusement parks.
Nuclear Iran
-
that sounds like post-modern BS to me. What is diplomacy based upon if not the willingness to harshly use econamic or military power? sure, many nations have common interests, but then diplomacy is easy. Right now Iran wants power it does not deserve and will use negitivly, so how do you purpose we stop them?
Diplomacy is what Obama and Russia did to mutually agree on scrapping missiles in Eastern Europe. Deserve? By what determinant?
You are using a political parody movie as evidence? Come on. That’s absurd.
In this situation the US or any other country would have a very difficult time stopping Iran from attacking its neighbors, Isreal, or Hormuz.
What’s stopping them from doing it now? You know, besides Iraq being between Iran and Israel, the US semiresiding in Iraq currently, and Israel having a superior air force. And Hormuz is a body of water. Big deal.
You have misunderstood my Goering quote. Both Goering and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad were/are both crazy and abusive rulers, so the quote helps understand what Ahmadinejad may be thinking. I am quite offended that you decided to attack me persoanaly for citing a historical figure instead attacking my argument.
Ahmadinejad is not a ruler. He’s an elected official with very little power. Really, just a tokenhead. Goering was not a ruler either, for that matter.
It sounds to me like you are a pacifist( you said you are not willing to kill people to save people.) Pacfism is impracticle and is a complacent philosphy that cannot defeat evil. Explain your pacifism, give some support.
Those who act in preemption, not at all different in manner than the behavior to be carried out by “evil” agents, are then themselves no different than the enemy they condemn. If an action makes one evil, I fail to see how succumbing to and propagating said evil helps to combat it.
“If you will not fight for right when you can easily win without bloodshed; if you will not fight when your victory is sure and not too costly; you may come to the moment when you will have to fight with all the odds against you and only a precarious chance of survival. There may even be a worse case. You may have to fight when there is no hope of victory, because it is better to perish than to live as slaves.”
– Winston ChurchillThis does nothing to say what we are trying to “win”. What is the purpose of bombing Iran?
-
Ahmadinejad is not a ruler. He’s an elected official with very little power. Really, just a tokenhead.
Exactly. Khamenei is the man with all of the power. Ahmadinejad is nothing more than the propaganda wing for his party. He is similar to Rush Limbaugh,Keith Olberman, and the rest of their ilk in that respect. His job is to make firebrand speeches to keep as many people as possible suspicious and resentful of the West which gives his party legitimacy and allows them to maintain control of the country. Khamenei will let Ahmadinejad talk all he wants but, in the end, I seriously doubt that he would be so stupid as to threaten his own position as Supreme Leader by authorizing the use of nuclear weapons on another country. The entire world would turn against him and no one would oppose an invasion to depose him from power. Just because Khamenei is a strict Islamist doesn’t mean that he is just another blind fundamentalist knuckledragger.
Those who act in preemption, not at all different in manner than the behavior to be carried out by “evil” agents, are then themselves no different than the enemy they condemn. If an action makes one evil, I fail to see how succumbing to and propagating said evil helps to combat it.
I agree with this as well.
In this country, it is illegal, immoral, and unjust for the police to arrest a person, even a career criminal, just because they “think” he or she will commit a crime. It would be pure hypocrisy for me to live by that principle but not hold my country to that same standard when dealing with a foreign country.
We can all speculate what Iran would do with nuclear weapons, but that’s all it is: speculation. There is no more proof that they will use it in a malevolent manner than there is proof that they will keep it simply for it’s deterrent effects.
No one, not an individual, group, or even country can be found guilty and punished for a crime that they may or may not commit. Accepting the premise that it is legal to preemptively attack a country simply because you “think” they will do something bad allows situations like fabricated evidence of “intent” to occur. Have we heard this argument before?: “Our intelligence says that they have WMD’s and that they ‘intend’ to use them.”
The argument “Iran is developing nuclear weapons therefore they will use them to attack their enemies” is a logical fallacy. You could have applied that argument to every country that has developed nuclear weapons and you’d have been wrong in every single case, except one.
-
Just because Khamenei is a strict Islamist doesn’t mean that he is just another blind fundamentalist knuckledragger.
I couldnt have said it better myself. India and China have had the bomb for years. So has americas pet Isreal. And you dont see people condemning them for trying to build more or having the missile in the first place.
-
What’s stopping them from doing it now? You know, besides Iraq being between Iran and Israel, the US semiresiding in Iraq currently, and Israel having a superior air force. And Hormuz is a body of water. Big deal.
Right now, Iran cant ensure their protection against any reprecutions that they might face after they make an overtly agressive action. If they have nukes, any country that tried to retaliate against them will be very weary, espeacialy if they do not have nukes themselves.
And have fun filling up your gas tank or paying for almost any form of transport when we lose Hormuz.
And I understand the Ahmadinejad does order all the shots, and so maybe calling him ruler is misleading but he is some type of leader and he is the president, and he dosnt say these things just because he is a hot head, he says them because someone in the gov who accauly controls stuff , (mullahs/Khamenei), wants him to say it. And everything that you can say about ahmedinejad you can say about Khamenei, Khamenei is not some kinda moderate you know, he is crazy and anti-west too.
India and China are more stable and responsible governments. They are not as demacratic as the west, but their soceity works pretty well. Iran has something to gaine from attacking its neighbors, mainly more oil, possibly more stablity and control in their own countries.
I am not saying i can predict the furture, but the probablity that Iran could have the bomb and start a war, is a serious threat that could result in many deaths, so it simply irresponsible to not take this issue seriously
-
Right now, Iran cant ensure their protection against any reprecutions that they might face after they make an overtly agressive action. If they have nukes, any country that tried to retaliate against them will be very weary, espeacialy if they do not have nukes themselves.
You still haven’t established why Iran would attack anyone. There’s no motive that I can see.
And have fun filling up your gas tank or paying for almost any form of transport when we lose Hormuz.
Who do you think “owns” the Straits currently? It’s not us. Most oil shipping goes through Iran’s side already. Also, if you look at the countries we import oil from, in the Top 15 there are only 3 countries that require that route, and account for less than 10% of the oil imported.
And I understand the Ahmadinejad does order all the shots, and so maybe calling him ruler is misleading but he is some type of leader and he is the president, and he dosnt say these things just because he is a hot head, he says them because someone in the gov who accauly controls stuff , (mullahs/Khamenei), wants him to say it. And everything that you can say about ahmedinejad you can say about Khamenei, Khamenei is not some kinda moderate you know, he is crazy and anti-west too.
Why don’t you look at the history of Iran, BP, and the meddling done by England and the US and then maybe you’ll understand the situation more. People are generally not too thrilled at countries that usurp power for financial gain.
India and China are more stable and responsible governments. They are not as demacratic as the west, but their soceity works pretty well. Iran has something to gaine from attacking its neighbors, mainly more oil, possibly more stablity and control in their own countries.
Bombing countries because you feel like it isn’t democratic. If democracy is key, then you have to accept who is voted in.
I am not saying i can predict the furture, but the probablity that Iran could have the bomb and start a war, is a serious threat that could result in many deaths, so it simply irresponsible to not take this issue seriously
Saying that Iran is going to get a bomb, and then start a war because it has one (for no valid reason) is pretty Chicken Little crap to me.
Really, threatening to attack Iran is creating a self-fulfilling prophecy. You continue to threaten them and start bombing and you will have another military mess on your hands. Why don’t we take one country at a time, hmmm?
-
I dont really see how much more simply I can explain this, but I will try again.
If a nation does not have a nuke they are at a disadvatage to a nation that does. If they do have a nuke they have an advantage over nations that dont. The Iranian leadership is ambitious and wants to retain increase control of the country, anyone can see that from their support of terrorists, attack against their own people, and defiant pursuit of nuclear engery and weapons.
If Iran wants to extend their power (they are surrounded by nations with strategic resources). A nuke is prerequiste to doing this, because it profinds them with more security.
Going off your calcualtion of 10% for the Hormuz that is a big deal and iran blocking it would wreck the saudi and iraqi ecoanmies which would give Iran much more power in the region, which is what they want because they want control and there ambitious.
Again this is not certain, but it isnt that unlikly either.
And just because you have elected leaders does not make your government responsible. Democacry is not the key its just a good sign, and to be a true democracy/liberal democracy you need a lot more than elections.
-
I couldnt have said it better myself. I completely agree with you Omega.
I agree, but there must be a military option threat to force Diplomacy.
-
Unfortunatly hes right. You dont see canada or madagascar threatening anyone do you?
Canada threatens Maple Trees and Madagascar often theatens Lemurs. :-)
-
If a nation does not have a nuke they are at a disadvatage to a nation that does. If they do have a nuke they have an advantage over nations that dont. The Iranian leadership is ambitious and wants to retain increase control of the country, anyone can see that from their support of terrorists, attack against their own people, and defiant pursuit of nuclear engery and weapons.
A nuke wouldn’t help that. Nuclear power would of course help the country, but those are two separate things.
If Iran wants to extend their power (they are surrounded by nations with strategic resources). A nuke is prerequiste to doing this, because it profinds them with more security.
Who the hell are they going to invade? Their last open conflict went no where. They already neighbor one country with nukes and have another few not too far from them. Not to mention sandwiched between two countries being assisted by the US. Who buys a gun for their house then goes out guns blazing in the name of more security?
Going off your calcualtion of 10% for the Hormuz that is a big deal and iran blocking it would wreck the saudi and iraqi ecoanmies which would give Iran much more power in the region, which is what they want because they want control and there ambitious.
Not really. It may take a slight military action to correct the situation, should it ever happen. But that would require overcoming the US 5th fleet that is posted there along with other nations’ warships. It’s also just as easy to divert imports to other countries in the short term and in the long term continue on energy alternatives. Saudi Arabia also does not have to rely on the Straits.
And just because you have elected leaders does not make your government responsible. Democacry is not the key its just a good sign, and to be a true democracy/liberal democracy you need a lot more than elections.
Yes, but you must respect nation sovereignty. Saudi Arabia is a kingdom (scored as one of the 10 worst, and far below Iran, in the Democracy index) with incredible economic disparity, human rights issues, and has nuclear ambitions yet you never hear anyone talking about bombing them. Why is that? What else aren’t you saying that makes a difference here?
-
@ABWorsham:
I couldnt have said it better myself. I completely agree with you Omega.
I agree, but there must be a military option threat to force Diplomacy.
There is a military threat. It is an implied retaliatory threat. If you use nuclear weapons in an offensive manner without provocation, then you will be destroyed. Period. It doesn’t have to be said to be understood.
If you live in a country with any form of civil rights policies, then you know that it is simply absurd to punish anyone for “assumed intent to do harm”. In this case, reasonable doubt guarantees that you can’t come to that conclusion with anything even close to 100% certainty.
-
I don’t feel Iran would ever launch a Nuke at anyone even Israel irregardless of Imadinnerjaket’s rhetoric. They simply are not that suicidal. Now them quietly slipping one to one of their little client organizations such as Hezbullah or Hamass is another story.
I also could be wrong but if I recall correctly the last time Israel flattened someone’s nuclear program they did not ask permission of anyone.
-
Now them quietly slipping one to one of their little client organizations such as Hezbullah or Hamass is another story.
I doubt they would do this, either. The trail leading back to Iran would be lit up with big neon signs.
-
Why does Iran even sponsor them in the first place?
-
There is no way of stopping Iran to get nukes. Air attacks and conventional missiles could only set back the nuclear program by a few years. The strat brains in the US’ think tanks and Pentagon understands this, although the former president didn’t….
-
@Subotai:
There is no way of stopping Iran to get nukes. Air attacks and conventional missiles could only set back the nuclear program by a few years. The strat brains in the US’ think tanks and Pentagon understands this, although the former president didn’t….
then bomb them every few years. The Iranians are putting alot of effort into this, and they work likly stop if they new we had the gut to destory their labors. And where are you getting your info on the think tanks and Pentagon.
Yes, but you must respect nation sovereignty. Saudi Arabia is a kingdom (scored as one of the 10 worst, and far below Iran, in the Democracy index) with incredible economic disparity, human rights issues, and has nuclear ambitions yet you never hear anyone talking about bombing them. Why is that? What else aren’t you saying that makes a difference here?
I am not trying to defend saudi arabia, but they are better than Iran because they are not aiming for nukes and are not interested in having an empire. Mostly they are interested in wasting their wealth on their absurd lifestyles, and while that is horrible it is better than Iran who may accauly be considering seizing oil in Iraq, Kuwiat, and Saudi Arabia. It really would not be that crazy for them to invade. Americans are not interested in fighting another war with Iran, much less a nuclear Iran, (even if Iran is smart and does not resort to nukes, the media/politicians/voters at home will start spazing out about a nuclear war getting started) might bank on the softness of western nations. It has happened before. Persoanly i think western nations dont have the gut for this and that Iran would be right it calling our bluff.
Iran has a strong military, its had twenty years to work on it and is surrounded by week and destabalized states, it is a mistake to assume that a war with them will be easy or cheap, especaily if we let them have the initiaitve or wait till they have nukes. Think back to the churchill quote.
-
Guys, war shouldnt even be in your top 5 options. Thiers diplomacy, sanctions, and a whole bunch of OTHER methods that arent for war. Not that Im a pacifist, its just wars are expensive…If only they were cheaper…
-
then bomb them every few years. The Iranians are putting alot of effort into this, and they work likly stop if they new we had the gut to destory their labors. And where are you getting your info on the think tanks and Pentagon.
I don’t think so. http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2009-10-01-iran-talks_N.htm
Here is what diplomacy gets you:
•Iran agreed to let inspectors from the United Nations’ nuclear regulatory agency inspect its newest nuclear fuel enrichment facility, buried in a mountain near Qom, south of Tehran, within two weeks. The United States, Britain and France announced its existence last week and demanded such a response.
•Western powers agreed to let Iran transfer low-enriched uranium to Russia for further enrichment. The move lets Iran pursue peaceful nuclear research. (I’ve also read France and that the uranium will be converted to fuel rods for a medical reactor)
•Both sides agreed to further meetings this month. At the United Nations, Iranian officials even suggested they would be open to “summit” meetings involving their nation’s leaders.
I am not trying to defend saudi arabia, but they are better than Iran because they are not aiming for nukes and are not interested in having an empire.
They have the same desire for nuclear energy as Iran. What makes you think Iran wants an empire?
Mostly they are interested in wasting their wealth on their absurd lifestyles, and while that is horrible it is better than Iran who may accauly be considering seizing oil in Iraq, Kuwiat, and Saudi Arabia.
You mean like the US? There is no reason for Iran to do that. It would have no chance for success.
Americans are not interested in fighting another war with Iran, much less a nuclear Iran, (even if Iran is smart and does not resort to nukes, the media/politicians/voters at home will start spazing out about a nuclear war getting started) might bank on the softness of western nations. It has happened before. Persoanly i think western nations dont have the gut for this and that Iran would be right it calling our bluff.
Desert Storm. That was an international address to Iraq invading Kuwait. The same thing would happen with Iran, if they were so stupid to do so. As pointed out previously, they would be destroyed in no time.
Iran has a strong military, its had twenty years to work on it and is surrounded by week and destabalized states, it is a mistake to assume that a war with them will be easy or cheap, especaily if we let them have the initiaitve or wait till they have nukes. Think back to the churchill quote.
That’s why we negotiate if there is a concern, which is working. Save the chicken hawk stuff for another day. We already got burned the last time for WMD scares.
-
i beleive these recent breakthoughs are a result of iran being scared of the west giving the green light to isreal. What do you think they are a result of, nice dinner conversation? I never said we should not conduct diplomacy with Iran, I am just saying it would not be good if they got a nuclear weapon or could quickly assemble one. Diplomacy only works if backed up by power, or maybe East Timor could settle this dispute for us.
In general the saudis have no interest in their own country, they are compalcent like the west and only interest in blowing their own cash on luxuries. Iranian leadership is in interested in its own countries power and i dont see why they would not want a monopoly on middle east oil. If the US was almost going to pull out of Iraq after 4,000 dead over the course of 5 years( from 06-07 was when the anti-war movement was at its highest) , i dont see them putting up a fight against the full military power of Iran.
Also, I know this is going to proably start another debate that is very tried, but you brought it up.
it was not just a scare,Saddam was trying to get nukes( which they would have eventually and now we would be dealing with a nuclear arms race between Iran and Iraq) aswell as suppoting terrorism and being an abusive dictator.If John McCain(John McCain was the first critic of the US occuaption stratagy that aslo supported the orinignal invasion) had won in 2000 the US would have won the war alot sooner, but we won the war anyways and as long as we deal with Iran properly the war will have been very much been worth it. -
Please leave out political figures/references out of thread. (John McCain). We don’t want to go in this direction
-
If I remember well, they haven’t found any nuclear facility/WMD in Iraqi.
I completely agree with the fact that you can’t act against a nation based on the assumption that he will do something stupid. There is nothing as absolute certainty in world affairs.
You say I am a pacifist. I am not sure if I understand what you imply.
If by pacifist, you mean someone who believes in peaceful discussions first, then yes, I am a pacifist.
If by pacifist, you mean someone who believes Military should NEVER be used, then you are incorrect, or I have not expressed myself correctly.Say self-defence. I agree that every nation on this planet has the right to exist. I think most people can agree. Thus, if someone attacks, say Canada, Canada will have the right to defend itself. But that right is only limited to defence. Should Canada attack the aggressor, than he becomes an aggressor and the attacked country has the right to defend itself too, which leads to an infinite wheel.
I do not really believe in absolute (except maybe that we live and die, and that numbers can go on infinitely). I will never agree with someone who believes that it is INEVITABLE that a country will attack another one. Nobody can read into the future.
That is why I refuse any argumentations about pre-emptive strike. This is something that goes against my thinking. How can you be so sure that one will attack you that you give yourself the right to attack them?
But we are getting into the Right war discussion, and I do not believe that I am capable at the moment to express my thoughts logically.“If a nation does not have a nuke they are at a disadvatage to a nation that does. If they do have a nuke they have an advantage over nations that dont. The Iranian leadership is ambitious and wants to retain increase control of the country, anyone can see that from their support of terrorists, attack against their own people, and defiant pursuit of nuclear engery and weapons. »
First, do we have proofs that they are attacking their own country? You are getting into the ideas of plot (of government trying to control its people). Its very possible, and I must admit I have little to no interest in Iranian politics.
What makes you think they support terrorists attack?
Second, I fail to see exactly what kind disadvantage you are talking about. It’s a military weapon/threat, yes. But how exactly is one disadvantaged to not possess nuclear weapons? Like, is Canada disadvantaged to USA because we don’t have nukes?Do we have the right to nuclear weapons? That is a big question. I’d love to reply NO. Not sure how though and if its possible logically.
Instead, let me say things this way : Either NO country has the right to nuclear weapons, either ALL country has the right to nuclear weapons. Its that simple to me. If USA. Russia and other big countries can have nuclear weapons, why shouldn’t smaller countries like Iran be allowed to get them?
I do agree though that having the technology to build such weapon does not mean that one is ready to possess them. But quoting Transformers 2 :D “Who are you to judge us” Like who are we to say that Iran is not fitted in having nuclear weapons? Do we have any criteria?
Russia is also very ambitious. And one can say that Russia government is trying to control opposition in China. Some even say that Russia eliminate their opponents (there was this story of journalists killed/poisoned)Don’t get me wrong. I completely disagree with Iran trying to get the bomb (if that is what they seek). I also feel that there are better alternatives to energy problems. Hydro energy, aerial energy, for example. Of course, none of those can generate as much energy as nuclear energy can.
Suggested Topics
