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

[merphie]

That statement was made as an answer to something Freakshow said. It is only meaningful in its context.

It doesn't mean anything in that context either.

 

[Orwell]

It doesn't mean anything in that context either.

Oh well, maybe you just don't get it then, eh?

 

[merphie]

Oh well, maybe you just don't get it then, eh?

Or maybe you don't understand. You can't revise history because you don't like it.

 

[Orwell]

Or maybe you don't understand. You can't revise history because you don't like it.

Look dude, I'm not "re-writing history". I'm just saying something you don't agree with. I don't mind you disagreeing with me, that's actually perfectly normal. But apparently, you're either too lazy, or too dumb, to actually folow the real discussion, and contribute with some meaningful argumenst. If you can't have an honest discussion about an issue, well, I suggest you move on, 'k? We all have better things to do.

 

[merphie]

Look dude, I'm not "re-writing history". I'm just saying something you don't agree with. I don't mind you disagreeing with me, that's actually perfectly normal. But apparently, you're either too lazy, or too dumb, to actual come up with a good counter argument. If you can't have an honest discussion about an issue, if you need to come up with male bovine manure "arguments" just because someone doesn't agree with your particular take on reality, well, I suggest you move on, 'k? I've got better things to do.

Who can't come up with a good arguement? I never resorted to personal attacks.

I told you the reason. You are giving a poor example taken out of context. You completely ignored the reason why the bomb was dropped on Japan so you could make them into the victim and make an appeal to emotion.

You seem to live in a love filled world where no one would want to harm another human being. Like if the USA destroyed all it's nuclear arms on Monday everyone would destroy theirs on Tuesday.

The amount of nuclear weapons in the world is probably one of the biggest reasons there hasn't been a WW3. It's called MAD.

Make a statement that makes a little sense and I will be glad to spend time on more indepth debates.

Somehow being called lazy stupid and something about manure doesn't push the "take this person seriously" button.

 

[Orwell]

Who can't come up with a good arguement? I never resorted to personal attacks.

Saying that my statements don't make sense when in fact they're perfectly clear, and this just because you happen not to agree with them, is, I believe, a kind of personal attack. It's also pretty annoying.

I told you the reason. You are giving a poor example taken out of context. You completely ignored the reason why the bomb was dropped on Japan so you could make them into the victim and make an appeal to emotion.

You are picking up on something totally secondary to the main discussion and trying to make a big deal out of it, turning it into something I never said. See, Japanese responsibility doesn't alter the fact that a nuclear bombing is an horrible event, and it is horrible regardless of who gets the bomb dropped on them and if they deserved it or not. Do you expect the Japanese "To Stop Worrying And Love The Bomb" because they "deserved it"?

You seem to live in a love filled world where no one would want to harm another human being. Like if the USA destroyed all it's nuclear arms on Monday everyone would destroy theirs on Tuesday.

You're distorting and deforming what I have said so far. More evidence that you are unable to argue with someone who happens to disagree with your particular view of the world.

The amount of nuclear weapons in the world is probably one of the biggest reasons there hasn't been a WW3. It's called MAD.

First, you don't know that. Second, supposing that MAD makes sense, you do not need 10 500 nukes to make MAD work. Thirdly, the world's present day situation is very different from what was going on 30 years ago. The same rules don't apply anymore.

This is pretty simple stuff. Even you should be able to get it. But no, the same dumb argument comes up again and again.

Make a statement that makes a little sense and I will be glad to spend time on more indepth debates.

Somehow being called lazy stupid and something about manure doesn't push the "take this person seriously" button.

You seem to be unable to carry on a discussion in good faith. I don't see why I should bother putting up with your crap.

Good night.

 

[Seismosaurus]

I wouldn't be too sure about that. Some influential Iranian political figures, including former president Hashemi Rafsanjani, argue that Western retaliation would be a tolerable price to pay for the sublime joy of nuking Israel.

Scary stuff:

http://www.memri.org/bin/articles.cgi?Area=iran&ID=SP32502

I'll believe it when I see it.

 

[merphie]

Saying that my statements don't make sense when in fact they're perfectly clear, and this just because you happen not to agree with them, is, I believe, a kind of personal attack. It's also pretty annoying.

If you are unable to justify your statements I would find that annoying. You are using something out of context 30 years ago.

You are picking up on something totally secondary to the main discussion and trying to make a big deal out of it, turning it into something I never said. See, Japanese responsibility doesn't alter the fact that a nuclear bombing is an horrible event, and it is horrible regardless of who gets the bomb dropped on them and if they deserved it or not. Do you expect the Japanese "To Stop Worrying And Love The Bomb" because they "deserved it"? You're distorting and deforming what I have said so far. More evidence that you are unable to argue with someone who happens to disagree with your particular view of the world.

It's central to your main idea. You used such quotes as evidence. Am I not allowed to question you evidence? I find your evidence irrelevant to the point you are trying to make.

I never said anything about the Japanese deserving the bomb. i do think dropping the bomb was necessary. Who is distoring?

First, you don't know that. Second, supposing that MAD makes sense, you do not need 10 500 nukes to make MAD work. Thirdly, the world's present day situation is very different from what was going on 30 years ago. The same rules don't apply anymore.

No, I don't know that. I can safely assume MAD works because WW3 hasn't happened. I could also safely assume that North Korean and Iran will not stop their ambitions because we destroy all our nuclear weapons.

The rules haven't changed, only the players.

This is pretty simple stuff. Even you should be able to get it. But no, the same dumb argument comes up again and again.

I agree. You seem unable to defend your claims and evidence.

You seem to be unable to carry on a discussion in good faith. I don't see why I should bother putting up with your crap.

Running for the old ivory tower?

 

[Freakshow]

Second, supposing that MAD makes sense, you do not need 10 500 nukes to make MAD work.

As I stated before, I fail to see where the actual number is relevant to the discussion.

Thirdly, the world's present day situation is very different from what was going on 30 years ago. The same rules don't apply anymore.

Human nature has not changed in 30 years. In fact, it hasn't changed in 4,000 years. I firmly believe it never will. So the same rules do apply. And the 1st rule is this: Survival can only be assured by your own strength.

As long as that rule never changes (and it never will; it is an immutable part of human existence), I am in favor of our keeping our nukes.

 

[Ralph]

Rhetorical, hypothetical and irrelevant. You don't know that, I'm not talking about the old deceased Soviet Union and, as I said before, that was then, I'm talking about now, so mentioning the old USSR is pretty pointless. And it makes you sound like some old "better dead then red" relic who misses the cold war.


The global political situation has enormously changed. But you (and your government) seem to be having trouble adjusting.

That kind of technology is, actually, a lot harder and more expensive to develop than most WMDs. Very few countries can afford stealth bombers and aircraft carriers, and those that can afford them probably won't ask for US permission to build them, if they ever desire to do so.



I'm not arguing for immediate world wide nuclear disarmament. I'm talking about a severe decrease in the number of nukes. 300 nukes offer as much protection as 10 000. I would like it if there were no more nukes, yes. Who, in his right mind, would be against that? But I also know that realistically, that's not possible right now.

I'm simply pointing out that the US, who has over 10 000 nukes, has been abandoning its non-proliferation treaty obligations, and spends almost as much on its military as the rest of the world combined, has no moral legitimacy to go around ordering countries to not get WMDs.

I'm well aware that the global political climate has changed. If I repeat it enough perhaps you'll stop harping about still being stuck in the cold war.

My point was that while global politics have changed--human nature has not.

The Manhattan Project wasn't a result of the US deciding it wanted the biggest gun in town. It was because a megalomaniac bent on world domination was well on his way to having it before anyone else did.

It's always been that way & I don't see the current rulers of Iran as being much different than the nazis yet you seem to feel that they'll behave rationally if only we make a few concessions.

You're more concerned with numbers than you are with who has their hand on the trigger. I grew up in the 50s & still remember the air raid drills.
I also knew that it was pointless since we lived only a few miles from a SAC base.

The fact is though--I'm a lot more worried about Iran having 5 nukes than I am about Russia or the old Soviet Union having 10,000.

I think a nuclear armed Iran is a far greater threat to world peace & stibility than the SU ever was yet all you can do is make excuses for them & justify their actions on the basis of what the US does...........

I hope before we all disarm and live in that nice little world you've pictured---we find an absolute, 100% guaranteed way to insure nobody cheats.

 

[Ed]

Originally Posted by ceo_esq :
I wouldn't be too sure about that. Some influential Iranian political figures, including former president Hashemi Rafsanjani, argue that Western retaliation would be a tolerable price to pay for the sublime joy of nuking Israel.

Scary stuff:

http://www.memri.org/bin/articles.cg...ran&ID=SP32502

I'll believe it when I see it.

That sure souds like a plan to me.

 

[Mycroft]

I'm well aware that the global political climate has changed. If I repeat it enough perhaps you'll stop harping about still being stuck in the cold war.

My point was that while global politics have changed--human nature has not.

The Manhattan Project wasn't a result of the US deciding it wanted the biggest gun in town. It was because a megalomaniac bent on world domination was well on his way to having it before anyone else did.

It's always been that way & I don't see the current rulers of Iran as being much different than the nazis yet you seem to feel that they'll behave rationally if only we make a few concessions.

You're more concerned with numbers than you are with who has their hand on the trigger. I grew up in the 50s & still remember the air raid drills.
I also knew that it was pointless since we lived only a few miles from a SAC base.

The fact is though--I'm a lot more worried about Iran having 5 nukes than I am about Russia or the old Soviet Union having 10,000.

I think a nuclear armed Iran is a far greater threat to world peace & stibility than the SU ever was yet all you can do is make excuses for them & justify their actions on the basis of what the US does...........

I hope before we all disarm and live in that nice little world you've pictured---we find an absolute, 100% guaranteed way to insure nobody cheats.

Very well said!

 

[Orwell]

As I stated before, I fail to see where the actual number is relevant to the discussion.


Human nature has not changed in 30 years. In fact, it hasn't changed in 4,000 years. I firmly believe it never will. So the same rules do apply. And the 1st rule is this: Survival can only be assured by your own strength.

As long as that rule never changes (and it never will; it is an immutable part of human existence), I am in favor of our keeping our nukes.

Except that, thanks to our technology, humans have become so powerful that business as usual will probably insure our demise in the medium to long term.

Human nature is not written in stone: we're capable of the worse, as we are capable of the best. Right now, we increasingly don't have much of a choice. It's either we listen to "the better angels of our nature", or we face extinction.

 

[Freakshow]

Except that, thanks to our technology, humans have become so powerful that business as usual will probably insure our demise in the medium to long term.

Human nature is not written in stone: we're capable of the worse, as we are capable of the best. Right now, we increasingly don't have much of a choice. It's either we listen to "the better angels of our nature", or we face extinction.

Human nature IS written in stone. Our brains are a certain way, and short of generations of genetic manipulation on a world-wide scale, human nature is not changing.

And you can't account for what OTHERS want to do. You can only account for what YOU want to do. How do you have some magical influence on what others want to do? Tell me how you are suddenly going to eliminate the desire to murder, rape, and rob from EVERY human being on the earth? It can't be done. It has nothing to do with what YOU want to "listen to".

 

[Orwell]

I'm well aware that the global political climate has changed. If I repeat it enough perhaps you'll stop harping about still being stuck in the cold war.

My point was that while global politics have changed--human nature has not.

The Manhattan Project wasn't a result of the US deciding it wanted the biggest gun in town. It was because a megalomaniac bent on world domination was well on his way to having it before anyone else did.

It's always been that way & I don't see the current rulers of Iran as being much different than the nazis yet you seem to feel that they'll behave rationally if only we make a few concessions.

The current leaders of Iran may or may not be much different from the Nazis, but Iran is, comparatively, much different from Nazi Germany. We're talking about a third world country on the other side of the world pretty much surrounded by enemies who spends a tiny fraction of what either the US or Israel spend in arms.

You're more concerned with numbers than you are with who has their hand on the trigger. I grew up in the 50s & still remember the air raid drills.
I also knew that it was pointless since we lived only a few miles from a SAC base.

The fact is though--I'm a lot more worried about Iran having 5 nukes than I am about Russia or the old Soviet Union having 10,000.

I think a nuclear armed Iran is a far greater threat to world peace & stibility than the SU ever was yet all you can do is make excuses for them & justify their actions on the basis of what the US does...........

I'm not justifying their actions. I'm pointing out that you can't expect countries to go along willingly with US calls for arms control when the US itself does whatever it wishes on this subject.

I hope before we all disarm and live in that nice little world you've pictured---we find an absolute, 100% guaranteed way to insure nobody cheats.

You see, the thing is it takes two to tango. Right now, I think US foreign policy is as much of a major impediment to any kind of negotiated settlement as Iranian president's idiotic sabre rattling is.

 

[Freakshow]

You see, the thing is it takes two to tango.

Wrong, wrong, wrong.

It takes two to get along. But it only takes one to fight. One fights, the other stands there and gets beaten or killed. Only ONE side is needed to fight.

 

[Mycroft]

The current leaders of Iran may or may not be much different from the Nazis, but Iran is, comparatively, much different from Nazi Germany. We're talking about a third world country on the other side of the world pretty much surrounded by enemies who spends a tiny fraction of what either the US or Israel spend in arms.

In what way do you classify Iran as a third world country? They're wealthy, educated, enjoy a high standard of living and are capable of building nukes.

 

[Freakshow]

In what way do you classify Iran as a third world country? They're wealthy, educated, enjoy a high standard of living and are capable of building nukes.

What was that, Mycroft? I needed you to speak up a little louder.

 

[Orwell]

Human nature IS written in stone. Our brains are a certain way, and short of generations of genetic manipulation on a world-wide scale, human nature is not changing.

And you can't account for what OTHERS want to do. You can only account for what YOU want to do. How do you have some magical influence on what others want to do? Tell me how you are suddenly going to eliminate the desire to murder, rape, and rob from EVERY human being on the earth? It can't be done. It has nothing to do with what YOU want to "listen to".

Most humans don't murder, rob, or rape. I'm not suggesting that "human nature" change. What I'm suggesting is that, for starters, US foreign policy should stop being the self-serving exercise in massive hypocrisy and bullying that it is right now. A little virtue could go a long way.

 

[Freakshow]

Most humans don't murder, rob, or rape. I'm not suggesting that "human nature" change. What I'm suggesting is that, for starters, US foreign policy should stop being the self-serving exercise in massive hypocrisy and bullying that it is right now. A little virtue could go a long way.

I didn't say "most" did. I said that the existence of SOME humans that want to do those things will never change.

You aren't at all addressing the issue. You are continuing to retreat to a point of saying "If we would just be nice, everybody else would be nice, too."