Iran calls to destroy Israel, solves the "who's gonna hit Iran's nukes" question.

[Orwell]

Really? So either everyone in a society should be allowed to drive cars, or no one should? Either everyone should be allowed to vote, or no one should? Either everyone should be in jail, or no one should? Either everyone should be allowed to drink alcohol, or no one should?

And as for nations...either everyone should have nukes, or no one should?

See the problem? By our own actions, we each earn or lose different things in life.

Nations aren't people. And the US is ill placed to give morality lessons on nuclear weapons, considering that the present administration is consistently undermining the non-proliferation treaties that were signed by past administrations.

Self serving? You bet! That doesn't always mean at the expense of everybody else, though. It is self-serving for me to make choices at work that improve my income. It doesn't hurt the rest of society, though. It helps it, actually (I will have more money to spend and invest.) Its the same thing here. Everyone in the world (except for a small number of people in Iran) is better off if Iran does not have nukes. Do you disagree?

Everyone in the world (except for a small number of people in the US, the UK, Israel, Iran, Russia, etc.) is better off if the (insert country here) does not have nukes. Do you disagree?

 

[Freakshow]

Nations aren't people.

The same principles apply.

Everyone in the world (except for a small number of people in the US, the UK, Israel, Iran, Russia, etc.) is better off if the (insert country here) does not have nukes. Do you disagree?

Yes, I disagree.

 

[Orwell]

The same principles apply.

No they don't, and I'll tell you one obvious reason why: relations between nations are still at the dog-eat-dog, me-first-and-gimme-gimme stage, while relations between individuals living in a civilised society are restrained by all kinds of laws and rules typically enforced by some authority with a certain degree of legitimacy.

Yes, I disagree.

I know you disagree, but that's mostly because you're american. Put yourself in the shoes of an Iranian, or even, I dunno, a Canadian, or better yet, a Japanese, and maybe you'll see what i mean.

 

[Freakshow]

No they don't, and I'll tell you one obvious reason why: relations between nations are still at the dog-eat-dog, me first and gimme gimme, while relations between individuals living in a civilised society are restrained by all kinds of laws and rules.

There's still lots of violence between individuals living in civilized societies. Laws don't stop all bad behavior. So I would suggest you be prepared to defend yourself, if it ever comes to that. But if you had a choice, wouldn't you rather have the situation such that you are better equipped to fight than those that would attack you? You don't get that choice, but imagine for a second you did...would you take that choice? Or would you WANT the murderers and muggers and rapists to be on equal footing with you?

I know you disagree, but that's mostly because you're american.

No, it is because I don't delude myself into believing that there is no "evil" aspect to human nature, and that it is possible for us to always get along. It isn't. Never has been. Never will be. YOU can want to get along. But it only takes one to fight, not two. See my statement above about being ready to defend yourself...

 

[Orwell]

Better read my last post again, there were a few things added.

 

[Orwell]

How many nukes do you need to "defend yourself"? Wikipedia says the US has about 10 500, by the way. Is that enough? China has 400, and I gather they feel perfectly safe. And why can't Iran use the same logic to justify their actions, why can't they just say "we need nukes to defend ourselves against, for instance, the US, who just invaded a neighbouring country"?

Right now, all the US gov. can say is you can't have nukes, and we can, and that's because were stronger than you. It's the kind of argument that is bound to make people pissed off and unwilling to comply.

I'm not deluding myself at all. If you think that having lots of nukes around brings some kind of long term safety, then I should point out that there's a pretty good chance that you're the one who's delusional.

 

[Freakshow]

Better read my last post again, there were a few things added.

I'm too quick for ya, man!

Actually, if I was Canadian or Japanese, I would STILL want the countries that are friendly with me (like...maybe...the US?) to have a very strong military, including nukes. The stronger my friends are, the better shape I'm in. It is a cruel, mean world, with a lot of very bad people in it. You'd better be prepared to defend yourself. You may not like that, but that is reality. There's a lot of things I don't like about reality, too. But I have to accept it and work within it. Working within delusional ideals doesn't help me solve anything. To fix a problem, you first must correctly identify and understand the problem.

 

[Freakshow]

How many nukes do you need to "defend yourself"? Wikipedia says the US has about 10 500, by the way. Is that enough? China has 400, and I gather they feel perfectly safe. And why can't Iran use the same logic to justify their actions, why can't they just say "we need nukes to defend ourselves against, for instance, the US, who just invaded a neighbouring country?

I'm not deluding myself at all. If you think that having lots of nukes around brings some kind of long term safety, then I should point out that there's a pretty good chance that you're the one who's delusional.

The high number has a lot to do with where they are placed. It's not like they are all sitting in one place. And the number is a bit of a distraction from what we are talking about here. It isn't relevant to the topic.

And I don't CARE what Iran wants and what logic they use. I don't care what a rapist wants and what logic he uses, either. Some people deserve no consideration of what they want, or how they justify things. The leaders of Iran fit into that category.

I had another thread here regarding the possibility that the existence of nuclear weapons prevented the US and the USSR from getting into a war with each other. Nobody seems to really know the answer to that, of course, since it is totally hypothetical. But it is worth thinking about, don't you think?

 

[Orwell]

I'm too quick for ya, man!

Actually, if I was Canadian or Japanese, I would STILL want the countries that are friendly with me (like...maybe...the US?) to have a very strong military, including nukes. The stronger my friends are, the better shape I'm in. It is a cruel, mean world, with a lot of very bad people in it. You'd better be prepared to defend yourself. You may not like that, but that is reality. There's a lot of things I don't like about reality, too. But I have to accept it and work within it. Working within delusional ideals doesn't help me solve anything. To fix a problem, you first must correctly identify and understand the problem.

I'm not arguing for unilateral disarmament. But I'm in favour of a serious decrease in the number of nukes. And then maybe one day, sometime in the future, the remaining small nuclear arsenals could be dismantled.

As I have already said before, I don't think my country needs your country's protection. And my country certainly doesn't need to be protected from Iran.

 

[merphie]

I know you disagree, but that's mostly because you're american. Put yourself in the shoes of an Iranian, or even, I dunno, a Canadian, or better yet, a Japanese, and maybe you'll see what i mean.

That's not even a close to meaningful statement. The Japanese were a different story in where I believe that the use of Nuclear weapons was completely necessary given the circumstances at the time in which they were used.

Are you going to tell me that nuclear weapons should have never been used in WWII? I guess the only reason they were used was to scare the Russians?

 

[a_unique_person]

TEHRAN (Reuters) - Iran on Saturday cautiously retreated from remarks by its president that Israel should be "wiped off the map", saying it stood by its U.N. commitments and would not use violence against another country.
"The Islamic Republic of Iran is committed to its U.N. charter commitments. It has never used force against a second country or threatened the use of force," the Foreign Ministry said in a statement..
Conservative President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad on Friday stood by his sabre-rattling rhetoric, calling for Israel to be destroyed.
While not specifically refuting the president, the Foreign Ministry said Tehran had no intention of launching an assault on the Jewish state and would back whatever course the Palestinians chose to resolve the Middle East conflict.

http://today.reuters.com/news/newsA...10Z_01_SCH752579_RTRUKOC_0_US-IRAN-ISRAEL.xml


Some differences of opinion appearing within Iran.

 

[Ed]

People have been saying for years that Iran needed a break from the USA back when it had more moderates in power. It would have given a legitimacy to a realtionship with the rest of the world, and the numerous benefits that would have brought.

instead the US pursued a policy of isolation against Iran, and now we are where we are in many situations where rigidity and lack of compromise bring us, painted into a corner with no easy way out. The extremists control Iran, and people are talking about nuking them because of aggressive statements about Israel. What a goddam disaster all around.

Othere countries when they lost a wrong fight have had to face up to their errors, and have gone on and prospered. The US conservatives never got over the revolution in Iran, and the bloody nose it gave them.

Wait a minute, are you blaming the US?

Note that this guys presidential victory was "overwhelming", the "radicals" are the people of the country.

No comment on the Red Cross?

 

[Ed]

http://today.reuters.com/news/newsA...10Z_01_SCH752579_RTRUKOC_0_US-IRAN-ISRAEL.xml


Some differences of opinion appearing within Iran.

No, not at all..

The ministry did not specifically turn away from President Ahmadinejad's remarks, but said that Iran, which has ballistic missiles capable of hitting Israel, had no intention of launching attack on Israel. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/mai...ml&sSheet=/portal/2005/10/29/ixportaltop.html

Amazing how you will given the benefit of the doubt to these characters.

 

[a_unique_person]

Wait a minute, are you blaming the US?

Note that this guys presidential victory was "overwhelming", the "radicals" are the people of the country.

No comment on the Red Cross?

It was 'overwhelming' because the Mullahs who effectively run the democratic election process have nobbled it. Years ago, there was a chance for the more moderate factions to take over, but they needed to be able to demonstrate that moderation brought success.

As to the red cross, I heard a spokesperson on this topic recently.

The issue for them wasn't the integration of the Israeli equivalent, but their insistence on using the Star of David. That is, Israel could have joined if it used the existing symbol.

The Red Cross has taken a while to get around to it, (too long perhaps), but they didn't want every new religious group to have it's own symbol. (There are other's wanting to join too, believe it or not). Then the 'corporate' identity is not consistent. (The Red Cross is not there as Christian Symbol, but as a tribute to the man who invented the Red Cross, who was Swiss. The Red Cross is a reference to the Swedish flag's colours.)

The compromise is to be that any religion can use it's own preferred symbol, which will be placed inside a common enclosing device, IIRC a lozenge shape. There will then be a readily recognisable outer shape, which will enclose whatever shape the sub group wants to use.

 

[a_unique_person]

No, not at all..



Amazing how you will given the benefit of the doubt to these characters.

It was more a case of hope. The statement is not a definitive one, such as 'Iran rejects Presidents statement'.

 

[Ed]

The Red Cross has taken a while to get around to it, (too long perhaps), but they didn't want every new religious group to have it's own symbol.

The Jews are a "new religious group". Now I have heard everything. And you buy that?

 

[zenith-nadir]

The issue for them wasn't the integration of the Israeli equivalent, but their insistence on using the Star of David. That is, Israel could have joined if it used the existing symbol.

Forget that the MDA is not a government agency...forget that Magen David Adom's purpose is to protect life and health and to alleviate human suffering...forget that the MDA is the only national emergency relief society to be excluded from the world's largest humanitarian network....forget that the cross is a symbol of Christianity and the crescent is a symbol of the Muslim world. So as long as "the jews" abandon the "Star of David" as their 50-year-old symbol for the MDA then and only then can they join the Red Cross.

Doesn't that sound a wee bit racist to you?

 

[a_unique_person]

The Jews are a "new religious group". Now I have heard everything. And you buy that?

Come on, Ed. You know what I meant. "new" as in new to the Red Cross, not 'new' as in, appeared yesterday. All I am doing is relating what I heard on the radio.

 

[a_unique_person]

Forget that the MDA is not a government agency...forget that Magen David Adom's purpose is to protect life and health and to alleviate human suffering...forget that the MDA is the only national emergency relief society to be excluded from the world's largest humanitarian network....forget that the cross is a symbol of Christianity and the crescent is a symbol of the Muslim world. So as long as "the jews" abandon the "Star of David" as their 50-year-old symbol for the MDA then and only then can they join the Red Cross.

Doesn't that sound a wee bit racist to you?

According to the interview, they are not the only one. Perhaps others have compromised by using the cross until the issue could be resolved. Also note, the Cross is not used as a Xian reference, but a reference to the Swiss flag.

The issue has now been resolved, if they insist on using the Star of David. It can be used, inside a new 'neutral' symbol, that does not relate to any religion or State.

The Crescent dates back to the 1800's, IIRC, so it was not a recent decision to allow it's use, while denying the Star of David.

 

[zenith-nadir]

According to the interview

I don't care about "an interview" a_u_p. Think about it. As long as the 50-year-old Magen David Adom abandons it's "Star of David" as it's symbol then and only then can it be allowed into the world's largest humanitarian network.

The hypocrisy is evident.


[edited to add]

And this is the kind of condoned hypocrisy Israelis live with every day. See: Iran getting it's diplomatic hand slapped for declaring to wipe out Israel as a muslim duty.