War should be a last resort. I hate all this pre-emptive maneuvering and strikes based on what could or what ifs. They are using fear to trick people into the most profitable business of going to war.
munchkin, are you really comparing a bet someone made w/ me on how many ppg t-mac would average last year w/ a bet about when your nation will bomb iran? what a low-life. and once again you show how badly you talk out of your ass - not drinking liquor does not make one a teetotaller and im not from tomball.
of course this entire piece will come off as a total shock to a certain height-challenged poster, but i think anyone who doesnt have their head up their ass will not find it to be so outrageous. and as for sanctions that have only increased under obama, who do you think it effects the most? do yall agree w/ clintons sec. of state albright that 500,000 dead iraqi children was "worth it"? <iframe width="420" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/x4PgpbQfxgo" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
Mathloom, in the first place, you screwed up your quote. It looks more like you're quoting glynch, than me, but I'll attempt to answer your question, assuming I figure out your question. Look, that Israel has atomic weapons, and they most certainly do, probably around 200 of them, more or less (and 200 is way more than plenty. 100 is way more than plenty. 1 is way more than plenty), has nothing to do with current US foreign policy. President Obama neither supplied those weapons to Israel, nor provided technology to Israel to build those weapons. The United States didn't assist Israel in developing her atomic weapons. First France, pre-de Gaulle, and then Britain were the primary countries involved. That ship sailed years ago. Obama has to deal with the fact of their existence. Nothing can be done about it. Israel has them, and there is little we can do about it, except attempt to restrain them from using those weapons. Frankly, the Iranian government's resistance is evidence that: 1) As insane and corrupt as some people are, they will not bow to silly propositions from a couple of countries who themselves are not willing to commit to not producing and using nuclear weapons, despite the fact that per capita they are among the most internationally (US) and domestically (Israel) violent countries in the world. 2) Anyone who does give in to these demands are puppets of the American government, and based on what is now historic data, they are not any less likely to be corrupt, aggressive, violent, etc. There is no selectivity in quality of government, there is only selectivity in friendliness. It's like we're having a popularity contest. ................. "But it ignores the fact that there actually are various countries who own nuclear weapons coupled with politically aggressive governments. Certainly, if what you were saying was true, the countries placing pressure would make demands to a group of countries who are current and potentially aggressive nuclear states. This would be in stark contrast to the US (the only country to ever use a nuclear bomb aggressively) and Israel (arsenal of undeclared nuclear weapons) making demads of Iran (certainly seeking nuclear tech, probably seeking nuclear weapons, ZERO CURRENT NUKES)." I'm trying to figure this out. You think it is wrong that the United States, far from being alone, by the way, to be "making demands" on Iran to halt her atomic weapons program because we used two of them, developed during a conflict with two world devouring empires, to end World War II? Seriously? What possible sense does that make? How many atomic weapons has the US used for anything besides testing since 1945, 67 years ago? Zero? "they will not bow to silly propositions from a couple of countries who themselves are not willing to commit to not producing and using nuclear weapons, despite the fact that per capita they are among the most internationally (US) and domestically (Israel) violent countries in the world." Silly? Really? Is that how you view this? And those who "give in to those demands are puppets of the American government." As Spock would say, fascinating. If you have a chance, describe those countries that "gave in" to the "demands" of the American government and remain our "puppets." Give me a list of "puppet states" who gave up the idea of atomic weapons for the glory of being a dog in our kennel. So you place the United States on the same level as the theocracy in Iran. And what history does the regime in Iran have since the fall of the Shah? A history of exporting arms and revolution to extremists. A history of operating outside the norms of diplomatic relations between nation states. A history of brutalizing her own people, rigging elections, conducting show trials for political purposes. A history that does nothing to cause the world to believe that her theocratic oligarchy isn't capable of using atomic weapons, if she has them, or giving them to surrogates, or using the threat of the use of atomic weapons to blackmail her neighbors. A country whose extreme religious government has its own private military, more powerful than the national military of Iran. And why is that? It couldn't possibly be to protect their dictatorship from it's own people, and to have a military that will do exactly what it wants, whatever that might be. Of course not. In your fantasy world, they are really, at the heart of things, just like us.
saddams iraq and gadaffis libya gave up their nuke programs...how did that work out for those dudes? compare those two w/ north korea or pakistan, who have more "pull" in part b/c of their nuke capabilities and its easy to see why iran would be pursuing such a program. that sounds alot like the united states too they did this under the shah, whom our government put in place and supported after overthrowing their democratically elected prime minister. it was our guy the shah who killed 250k iranians and our meddling in iran that lead to the islamic revolution.
And once again you completely miss the point. It has been repeated, over and over and over again by both me and Deckard, that we can understand why Iran would be pursuing such a program. It makes perfect sense for the Iranian mullahs to go after the bomb for many reasons. Just because they have very good reasons from their perspective, that does NOT lead to "The United States should just sit around and watch the Iranians get nuclear weapons." If anything, it leads to the exact opposite conclusion - the US is very much worse off with North Korea and Pakistan having nukes as opposed to if they didn't. Once again, irrelevant, especially since this current government had nothing to do with the overthrowing of Mossadeq ( whom was NOT this democratic hero that isolationists and Communists make him out to be - the guy was just another Allende, who's also another fake hero by those groups). Deckard's not talking about the shah. He's talking about the mullahs, whom I don't think even you would believe serve as models of human rights. The fact that the Shah was a fool is also irrelevant to the fact that Iran having nuclear weapons is bad for us. And that's really the fundamental issue.
Didn't the Israelis blow up Iraq's nuke program? Then after the US kicked them out of Kuwait, they had to agree to weapons inspectors just to get a cease fire agreement. Saddam's Iraq is not exactly the model Iran would be following if they chose not to develop nuclear weapons. In fact, Saddam's Iraq might end up being the model they follow if they continue trying.
it is you who missed the point - i was simply answering deckards question of which countries forsake their nuke program in order to get in our good graces...and pointed out that in those two cases they ended up getting deposed anyway. it sets a bad example for iran if we dont want them to get nukes. they see other leaders give up their programs and get overthrown. and they see other leaders acquire nukes and get respect in the international community. second, you completely and dangerously miss the point when you refuse to address the symptoms and root cause of all this trouble - instead you advocate bombing a country w/out realizing that its the actions of our government that led them down the path they took. you dont want to change the policy wrt iran, instead just drop bombs on them and continue business as usual, which only seems to be making things worse. no wonder you are a fan of people like kissinger and romney, who as president would bomb iran. the policies you advocate are what drive iran to seek nukes and instead of discussing changing the policies, you just want to bomb them. that is insane and immoral. history is not irrelevant. anyway, it was deckard who cited those things - all i did was point out that we do the exact same thing - why didnt you tell deckard that what the said was "irrelevant"? it was the actions of our government that led to the islamic revolution and it is the actions of our government right now that force iran to see seek nukes. and again, instead of addressing the root causes and thinking about changing policy you just want to drop bombs. first of all, the guy was democratically elected by his own people. second, as ive said over and over and over again, not wanting to bomb a country does not make one an isolationist (or a communist). its not worth bombing and going to war over, and thats my fundamental issue. another fundamental issue is that the actions our government takes are what drives iran to seek nukes and people like you refuse to acknowledge this, instead calling for bombing them, which is an act of war. its an insane and hypocritical way to conduct foreign policy.
Unlike what they did to other foreign countries, the American people do not have the freedom here to **** with them. IMO, Nukes are a must for a free country.
Ignoring the fact that we don't actually know how well developed the North Korean nuclear program is, it would obviously be very bad if they ever decided to use them, if not on us, then on the South Koreans or the Japanese - North Korea possessing weapons reduces the amount of leverage we can use on them. And Pakistan's the better example as they have a much more advanced nuclear program - we can't afford to let that region fall into chaos explicitly because they have nuclear weapons. Those aren't the root causes. Those are either minor causes, or excuses that the Iranian regime uses to befuddle people who act like the point of diplomacy is to consistently hold some moral high ground. If you think I'm wrong, my question: do you think that if we completely withdrew from the Middle East like you are such a big fan of, Iran wouldn't bother getting nuclear weapons? I've already demonstrated that launching an air strike is not quite the same thing as launching an all-out invasion - how does the United States fundamentally lose if we launch an air strike and successfully take out their nuclear facilities? Besides, Deckard and I both don't like air strikes, albeit for very different reasons. Besides, I'm under the impression that you also have a problem with the various avenues of soft power we're using to pressure the Iranians into giving up their nukes, such as sanctions. Am I wrong?
which is exactly why they have them. this arrogant attitude is not surprising coming from someone who says that the united states has the right to use military force to tell other countries what to do. its like you think other countries are not allowed to act in their own interests. and even worse, when they do things we dont like you think we reserve the right to bomb them into "compliance". this attitude is not surprising coming from someone who thinks history is "irrelevant". this is the epitome of homerism - for the last decade we have been antagonizing iran, arming their neighbors and enemies, threatening them, surrounding them w/ our military and bases, carrying out covert-ops w/in their country...and get mad when they try to play catch-up. and the point of diplomacy is to avoid war - our country seems to be more interested in antagonizing iran into a conflict. there is no desire for peace or even an attempt to sit down and talk. war should always be a last resort - not the first option. they probably would at this point. they cant really back down now. but thats not the issue - the issue is whether or not we should go to war over them getting them and i dont believe we should. you, on the other hand, believe the u.s. has the right to unilaterally attack other counties who do things we dont like. i think that is insane. and ive already pointed out how stupid it would be to launch an air strike and think that would be the end of it. what you are saying is just a bunch of orwellian-double speak - "i want to bomb them, but not go to war". you continue to fail to understand that bombing iran is an act of war which would more than likely result in a wider conflict. look - you are an advocate of the bush-doctrine of preemptive war. thats your opinion and you are entitled to it. and im also entitled to my opinion that you only go to war w/ other countries if they attack you or declare war on you first. well, aside from risking WWIII, forcing our military to start up on their 6th, 7th and 8th tours, spending billions of dollars that we dont have, preemptively bombing a sovereign nation and killing a bunch of innocent people, turning even more of the international community against us, ect i dont know how we could lose! i wonder if the fact that ron paul is the leading fundrasier among active duty military has anything to do w/ the fact that he is the only candidate who is opposed to preemptively bombing another country.
Short insults don't really seem to work on the internet. First off I would have to know that Samfisher is short which I have no idea. I mean I guess you have some insider info into how tall he is but I find myself wondering is he 5'9" short or 5'5" short? And then really you would have to be tall to have any room to talk and I mean 6'3" or over really. Since this is a basketball forum I guess that is very possible. To that end I have never seen actual tall people make short jokes. It is always the guy who claims to be 6' but you can tell he is stretching that quite a bit. Also I am not really sure if he cares about being short (if he is even short). He doesn't play professional sports so it doesn't stifle his career, and he doesn't seem to be very broken up about your height comments. He might actually be tall or average and is just trolling people into thinking he is short.
you said we were worse off in the present tense. you're talking what-ifs here. we could talk what-ifs all day and if you base your foreign policy on what-ifs you could invade half the globe. need i remind you that there are 9 (maybe 10) states with nuclear weapons but only ONE country has ever used nuclear weapons in warfare. and they did it twice.
We are worse off because we lack leverage. It's pretty basic. If our enemies get better weapons, we're worse off because of the potential harm they can do. People like to talk about how the ideal world is one where no state has no nukes. I disagree - for me, the ideal world is one where only the United States possesses nukes. We must nevertheless, work within the boundaries of reality - which means making sure that no further countries get nukes, and all the more so for our enemies. And? I view it as the opposite - you don't think we have the right to act in ours. What the hell has the world been doing for the last eight years if not negotiating with Iran to persuade them to give up their designs for nuclear weapons? Besides, I've made it clear that I doubt a war will actually occur anytime soon. After all, I've stated that I do oppose a proper invasion of Iran..... and if someone like me does, I doubt Obama will be doing it anytime soon. I'm working to be a historian, first off. But because of that, I understand its limits. The history of American intervention in Iran helps to explain the "why", why Iran wants nuclear weapons - to reduce the power of American hegemony, as they don't trust us, and with good reason. But why Iran wants nuclear weapons really isn't all that important. The fact that they do is an inherent problem in and of itself, both for us and the world, regardless of the reasons the theocrats give to justify their desires. This is all the more so since you've conceded that they probably will try to build regardless of whether we keep our hegemony in the Middle East.
