Time to kick Iran

[Oliver]

How many of these Israeli nukes are aimed to USA or any of its millitary bases located at other countries?

And the Iranian nukes... They would be aimed at?

"They could, they should, they would, they shmoufwd."
Welcome to La La Land.

If they do - fine, let's stop it. But unless they are nasty - we
don't say they will probably be nasty. You also don't imprison
black people just because "The could pose a threat", would you?

 

[Tailgater]

So?



Your point?

Taking hostages, creating textbooks in the school systems to encourage children to become martyrs, supporting organizations that are used as tools for spreading violence,....nevermind. I don't know why I thought I could have an open conversation with you.

"it isn't Iran who
has a long history of violent politics against others. It's some-
one else. Guess who?"

This is your one sided comment. I was open to discuss that the river runs both ways (I accept many idiot moves by the US), but your foaming at the mouth need to put the stamp on the US as the sole problem in the world makes you just as much of a sheep to propaganda that you claim others to be. Farewell.

 

[Tailgater]

"The western point of view always was anti-eastern."

"Why?"

"Because they are different."

"Does that mean that "Different" means I or we are good and they are evil?"

"Uhm ... No."

This was not my quote, but was put under my name by Oliver in post 1240.

 

[Oliver]

Taking hostages, creating textbooks in the school systems to encourage children to become martyrs, supporting organizations that are used as tools for spreading violence,....nevermind. I don't know why I thought I could have an open conversation with you.

"it isn't Iran who
has a long history of violent politics against others. It's some-
one else. Guess who?"

This is your one sided comment. I was open to discuss that the river runs both ways (I accept many idiot moves by the US), but your foaming at the mouth need to put the stamp on the US as the sole problem in the world makes you just as much of a sheep to propaganda that you claim others to be. Farewell.

Well, study Irans history and how many foreign interventions they
started. This way you will see who's "casting the stones around"
and who's not.

But of course: "We're (I'm) the good one's, therefore - using my
Woo-Logic, everyone else is wrong."

Blödsinn! This will lead us nowhere. And you may underestimate
what will happen once we turn the whole Muslim world against
us. Supporting Israel is fine - but there are limits if we're talking
about broader stabilities and national security.

If the Middle-East conflict threatens EU-Security, neither the
US nor Israel will get any further support. So the US should
think about their foreign policies twice - especially if they plan
to ignore the international community again...

 

[Gurdur]

This was not my quote, but was put under my name by Oliver in post 1240.

Just when you think someone can't get worse, they do.

 

[Gurdur]

This will lead us nowhere.

You certainly won't.

And you may underestimate what will happen once we turn the whole ...

green aliens against us? Centipedes? Spiders? I'm referring to the senseless dramatics of your post, which bear no connection to reality.

 

[Tailgater]

Well, study Irans history and how many foreign interventions they
started. This way you will see who's "casting the stones around"
and who's not.

Iran sponsors Hizbollah, Hamas, Palestinian Islamic Jihad and the al-Mahdi army.

Directly supporting and supplying groups like this is not foreign intervention?
hmm. Do you need a longer list of state-sponsered terrorists?

 

[Oliver]

You certainly won't.

green aliens against us? Centipedes? Spiders? I'm referring to the senseless dramatics of your post, which bear no connection to reality.

Neither does the "Iran-nuclear-holocaust-mushroom-cloud"-fearmongering.
So what's your point?

You probably disagree with the Iraq lie and the mess the western world
is in - no matter if they supported the invasion or not. Germany also is
involved in it, isn't it?

So what is your opinion about military or military covert actions against
Iran. Do you support it - and if so, why???

 

[Oliver]

Iran sponsors Hizbollah, Hamas, Palestinian Islamic Jihad and the al-Mahdi army.

Directly supporting and supplying groups like this is not foreign intervention?
hmm. Do you need a longer list of state-sponsered terrorists?

Oh God. Hezbollah and Hamas are attacking the US.
Now I get it...

 

[Ziggurat]

Well, study Irans history and how many foreign interventions they started.

Iran is militarily weak without nukes, and so most of the interventions they started (and it's been a large number) have been through terrorist proxies. Why you think this is really preferable is beyond me. Furthermore, there's an implicit assumption here that interventions are always and necessarily an evil, and so there's no need to examine the context of those interventions or the likely consequences of alternatives. Quite convenient, that.

This way you will see who's "casting the stones around" and who's not.

Oh, the irony of saying that about a country that still uses stoning as a form of execution for adulterers. It's not just a metaphor, you know.

But of course: "We're (I'm) the good one's, therefore - using my Woo-Logic, everyone else is wrong."

"everyone else"? Who ever said anything about "everyone else"? When complaining about a lack of logic from an opponent, it helps if you actually talk about what they actually said.

Blödsinn! This will lead us nowhere. And you may underestimate what will happen once we turn the whole Muslim world against us.

Sounds alot like you're scared for Europe, and you want to appease the radicals so they don't hurt you. Don't worry, I'm sure the alligator will eat you last.

If the Middle-East conflict threatens EU-Security, neither the US nor Israel will get any further support.

Of course not. Germany has never stuck its neck out for anyone else, I'm not about to expect them to change that now.

 

[Gurdur]

...So what is your opinion

That you should pipe down.

 

[Tailgater]

Oh God. Hezbollah and Hamas are attacking the US.
Now I get it...

No, you don't get it. All these groups are agressive in foreign interventions which you claim Iran is totally clean of. Roll your eyes all you want. That is a small list of groups that does Irans bidding so Iran can sit back and look like they have no involvement. The fourth group in the list is one that has killed allies in the war that they claim to want to help resolve. If they really wanted to help, they would put a leash on these groups and help curb the killings. But thats too easy. Better to fund and supply these groups to drag out the violence (yes, America started Iraq, no need for comments) since the US takes all the heat for any body count, then demonize the war in public so useful idiots like you can gobble it up.

 

[Oliver]

Iran is militarily weak without nukes, and so most of the interventions they started (and it's been a large number) have been through terrorist proxies. Why you think this is really preferable is beyond me. Furthermore, there's an implicit assumption here that interventions are always and necessarily an evil, and so there's no need to examine the context of those interventions or the likely consequences of alternatives. Quite convenient, that.

Well, I think Iran recognizes that their military is weak without
nuclear weapons. But you may understand that Israels nuclear
weapons pose a threat to non-nuclear states, don't you?

So what's the solution? Either everyone says "WMD's suck" or
everyone should be allowed to have them.

To say they will Nuke Israel is pretty naive - because Iran knows
that this means that Iran would be nuked as well. So what's your
point? That Iran loves to destroy themselves by nuking Israel?

Are you that naive?

Oh, the irony of saying that about a country that still uses stoning as a form of execution for adulterers. It's not just a metaphor, you know.

So what? The US still uses execution. We don't. Does that mean
that the US are a bunch of Neanderthals? ... No, it doesn't.

"everyone else"? Who ever said anything about "everyone else"? When complaining about a lack of logic from an opponent, it helps if you actually talk about what they actually said.

Here you go:
http://edition.cnn.com/video/#/video/world/2007/09/12/sot.ahmadinegad.itn.itn

So? What did he say that is hunting you in your nightmares?

Sounds alot like you're scared for Europe, and you want to appease the radicals so they don't hurt you.

Blödsinn! I care more about peace than forcing ones world-view upon
others. This means that I understand both sides of the story while
others still whine about: "But me, me, me"....

Of course not. Germany has never stuck its neck out for anyone else, I'm not about to expect them to change that now.

Nice fallacy. You may have noticed that todays Germany is trying
to solve problems peacefully - especially because it's history and
what they learned from it. So yes - they're trying to find peaceful
solutions concerning their Muslim citizens and partners, but also
are friendly towards Israel.

Because if they had to decide - I doubt that Jewish interests would
overrule the Muslim citizens interests, don't you agree?

 

[Oliver]

No, you don't get it. All these groups are agressive in foreign interventions which you claim Iran is totally clean of. Roll your eyes all you want. That is a small list of groups that does Irans bidding so Iran can sit back and look like they have no involvement. The fourth group in the list is one that has killed allies in the war that they claim to want to help resolve. If they really wanted to help, they would put a leash on these groups and help curb the killings. But thats too easy. Better to fund and supply these groups to drag out the violence (yes, America started Iraq, no need for comments) since the US takes all the heat for any body count, then demonize the war in public so useful idiots like you can gobble it up.

So? What is the Threat for the US concerning Hamas and Hezbollah???
Feel free to point your fallacy out...

 

[Tailgater]

So? What is the Threat for the US concerning Hamas and Hezbollah???
Feel free to point your fallacy out...

You stated Iran was not involved in agressive foreign interventions. They intervene by supporting groups with Iranian interests (something you routinely condemn the US for) in other countries. I only responded to that point while including support for a group that killed Americans and allies. Feel free to quote me where I said otherwise.

....without quoting someone else as before.

 

[Tailgater]

double post.

 

[Ziggurat]

Well, I think Iran recognizes that their military is weak without
nuclear weapons. But you may understand that Israels nuclear
weapons pose a threat to non-nuclear states, don't you?

And do you have any clue as to why sometimes having a threat can be a good thing?

So what's the solution? Either everyone says "WMD's suck" or
everyone should be allowed to have them.

No, Oliver, those aren't the only options. It really is possible to distinguish between states. And we can say WMD's suck all we want to, they aren't going to go away completely. Existing nuclear powers will not disarm, and further proliferation will increase the likelihood for disaster. That is the reality we face.

To say they will Nuke Israel is pretty naive - because Iran knows
that this means that Iran would be nuked as well. So what's your point? That Iran loves to destroy themselves by nuking Israel?

Are you that naive?

Well, considering the magnitude of the consequences if it happened, I'm actually not comfortably confident that they would not do so. But that simply isn't the only threat that their posession of nukes would create. Having nuclear weapons means they can scale up their support for terrorism dramatically without having to worry about retaliation. And since you haven't even considered that issue, I'd say you are the one who is naive.

So what? The US still uses execution. We don't. Does that mean
that the US are a bunch of Neanderthals? ... No, it doesn't.

So you're saying stoning is no different than other forms of execution. Sorry, but that's moral relativism at its most pathetic.

Blödsinn! I care more about peace than forcing ones world-view upon
others.

You can "care" all you want to. But Germany isn't actually doing anything to make it happen.

Nice fallacy. You may have noticed that todays Germany is trying
to solve problems peacefully

In other words, they're trying to find a solution which doesn't cost them anything.

- especially because it's history and what they learned from it.

You seem to have learned the wrong lesson. Instead of learning that there are right and wrong reasons and ways to use force, you learned that one should never use force at all. But that's not the lesson of WWII at all. IIRC, you once said something to the effect that one can't use force to topple dictatorships and install democracy. But that's exactly what WWII demonstrates you can and must do, at least in some cases.

Because if they had to decide - I doubt that Jewish interests would
overrule the Muslim citizens interests, don't you agree?

Yes, they probably wouldn't. Why you're touting that is beyond me, though, because the reason they wouldn't has nothing to do with the correctness of either side and everything to do with which side you're more scared of.

 

[Oliver]

And do you have any clue as to why sometimes having a threat can be a good thing?

No, Oliver, those aren't the only options. It really is possible to distinguish between states. And we can say WMD's suck all we want to, they aren't going to go away completely. Existing nuclear powers will not disarm, and further proliferation will increase the likelihood for disaster. That is the reality we face.

Well, considering the magnitude of the consequences if it happened, I'm actually not comfortably confident that they would not do so. But that simply isn't the only threat that their posession of nukes would create. Having nuclear weapons means they can scale up their support for terrorism dramatically without having to worry about retaliation. And since you haven't even considered that issue, I'd say you are the one who is naive.

So you're saying stoning is no different than other forms of execution. Sorry, but that's moral relativism at its most pathetic.

You can "care" all you want to. But Germany isn't actually doing anything to make it happen.

In other words, they're trying to find a solution which doesn't cost them anything.

You seem to have learned the wrong lesson. Instead of learning that there are right and wrong reasons and ways to use force, you learned that one should never use force at all. But that's not the lesson of WWII at all. IIRC, you once said something to the effect that one can't use force to topple dictatorships and install democracy. But that's exactly what WWII demonstrates you can and must do, at least in some cases.

Yes, they probably wouldn't. Why you're touting that is beyond me, though, because the reason they wouldn't has nothing to do with the correctness of either side and everything to do with which side you're more scared of.

Having a threat may be a good thing from time to time, I agree.
Anyway: Having NO threat and pretending otherwise will result in chaos.

And I agree concerning WMD's. But I don't agree to claim "Our WMD's are
good - and your WMD's are bad" - because people on the "bad" side wont
understand such a stupid remark, would they?

So? Israel has estimated 250 to 300 WMD's - and Iran is a threat once
they have one louse WMD???????? Oh, wait - they're even a threat once
they think about anything nuclear....

Stoning and execution is a matter of moral standards. That's it, nothing
we're supposed to attack in foreign countries. And yes - I thing kosher
food is gruesome and "Neanderthalic" as well. I see no reason to attack
other countries because of that - do you?

That's not true - Germany started several diplomatic missions to find
a non-violent solution. In fact they are opposed to put more pressure
on Iran. And because of that - the US claims it has no other solution
than a military one ... Yeah, sure...

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,296450,00.html
http://rawstory.com//news/2007/Fox_US_makes_Iran_bombing_plan_0912.html

No, the lesson isn't "Never use force" - the lesson is: If there is a threat,
than we shall react. Not "If there is no threat, there might be a threat
nevertheless". That's how the US is handling it. Crying "Wolf!" instead
telling the truth...

 

[Ziggurat]

And I agree concerning WMD's. But I don't agree to claim "Our WMD's are good - and your WMD's are bad" - because people on the "bad" side wont understand such a stupid remark, would they?

This isn't about "understanding". It's about interests. We could give up our nukes, demand that they never obtain any, and they'd understand our position perfectly. But that would do absolutely no good in dissuading them from getting nukes - why on earth would it? Understanding is not the problem here.

So? Israel has estimated 250 to 300 WMD's - and Iran is a threat once they have one louse WMD???????? Oh, wait - they're even a threat once they think about anything nuclear....

Once again, I see you are refusing to make distinctions between different states. To paraphrase Pauli, that's not even naive.

Stoning and execution is a matter of moral standards. That's it, nothing we're supposed to attack in foreign countries.

Did I say it was a reason to attack? No, I don't recall doing anything of the sort. Did I even say we should attack Iran? No, I have not.

That's not true - Germany started several diplomatic missions to find
a non-violent solution.

I didn't say they weren't trying, I said they weren't doing anything to solve the problem. Their missions have not accomplished anything, so my claim stands.

In fact they are opposed to put more pressure on Iran.

Of course they are. Because lord knows, the less pressure we put on them, the more likely they are to give up trying to get what they want.

 

[dsm]

To say they will Nuke Israel is pretty naive - because Iran knows
that this means that Iran would be nuked as well. So what's your
point? That Iran loves to destroy themselves by nuking Israel?

Martyrs for Allah...?