• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Time to kick Iran

Diplomacy means that no party will get what they want.

What compromises do you think the US and Iran should make, Oliver?
 
Oliver said:
"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?
Click to expand...
Wow, that was a poor analogy coupled with a fallacious Godwininian-like argument if I ever saw one...

Welcome to the Fallacious Godwinland...

How would you react to an individual (regardless of his/hers ethnical/cultural group) that openly threats to harm you?
 
Ziggurat said:
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.
Click to expand...

You mean..
If America ( and Russia, China, India, Pakistan, Israel, .. ) had no nukes, this would do no good in dissuading them from having nukes?
I think it would take off a sound excuse many countries ( including Iran ) have to think about acquiring nukes.
If Isreal have them, Iranians think, why not us?
And, they may not be 100% wrong..
 
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.
Click to expand...

I have to agree,sadly.And Oliver is not the only European who thinks that way.
I am convinced a desire to appease the Islamic Radicals is behind a lot of the Anti Israeli attitude that is so widespread in Europe...and the recent rise in General Anti Semetism as well.
And once again the fact that Israel is surrounded by countries who have sworn to destroy her seems to pass some people by.
 
dudalb said:
I have to agree,sadly.And Oliver is not the only European who thinks that way.
I am convinced a desire to appease the Islamic Radicals is behind a lot of the Anti Israeli attitude that is so widespread in Europe...and the recent rise in General Anti Semetism as well.
And once again the fact that Israel is surrounded by countries who have sworn to destroy her seems to pass some people by.
Click to expand...

I am an European and I have traveled around Europe quite extensively in the past.
I can tell you you are dead wrong.
There is no way Europeans have " desire to appease the Islamic Radicals ", your idea are just mis-conceptions based on stereoptypes.
 
Matteo Martini said:
You mean..
If America ( and Russia, China, India, Pakistan, Israel, .. ) had no nukes, this would do no good in dissuading them from having nukes?
Click to expand...

Of course not. How could you possibly fool yourself into believing it would be otherwise? Because the mullahs care about fairness?

I think it would take off a sound excuse many countries ( including Iran ) have to think about acquiring nukes.
Click to expand...

Dictatorships don't need excuses to do what they want to do. All they need is ability.
 
Ziggurat said:
Of course not. How could you possibly fool yourself into believing it would be otherwise? Because the mullahs care about fairness?

Dictatorships don't need excuses to do what they want to do. All they need is ability.
Click to expand...

Wait a second.
DO you think that it is fair for America to have nukes and, say, Mexico to have none?
 
Matteo Martini said:
Wait a second.
DO you think that it is fair for America to have nukes and, say, Mexico to have none?
Click to expand...

That question has no relationship to your previous question, or to my response to that question. Until you come to grips with my previous response (either conceeding the point or stating the basis on which you object to it), I'm not interested in changing the topic.
 
Correa Neto said:
Forgive me my obtuse ignorance, but...

Isn't it a standard part of jobs of strategists and millitary folks to probe possible threats (even if theoretical) and make plans on how to act if the situation requires?

So, USA has a plan to bomb Iran. So what?...
Click to expand...
The problem is that with Iraq, U.S. showed itself to have no credibility, but to be a Fascist power.

So the situation in Iran shouldn't be trusted to U.S..

The situation in Iran should be trusted to U.N. and I.E.A.E. (which ironically U.S. tried again to tamper with six months ago, shades of how U.S. manipulated data about Iraq).
Correa Neto said:
The point is not if Iraq was or not a potential threat...

The point is if Iran is or not a threat. The way I see it, for USA interests,...
Click to expand...
That's the problem: "...for USA interests..."...
 
Ziggurat said:
That question has no relationship to your previous question, or to my response to that question. Until you come to grips with my previous response (either conceeding the point or stating the basis on which you object to it), I'm not interested in changing the topic.
Click to expand...

It has relationship.
You are just stubbornly not even trying to address the topic from my point of view.

I wrote:

You mean..
If America ( and Russia, China, India, Pakistan, Israel, .. ) had no nukes, this would do no good in dissuading them [ Iranians, and you can add all the other nations which are seeking nukes ] from having nukes?

You wrote:

Of course not. How could you possibly fool yourself into believing it would be otherwise? Because the mullahs care about fairness?

Dictatorships don't need excuses to do what they want to do. All they need is ability.

I replied:

Wait a second.
DO you think that it is fair for America to have nukes and, say, Mexico [ or Iran, or Venezuela ] to have none?

My point is pretty clear.
Why the US and Russia and China yes, and Iran, Mexico, Brazil, no?
 
Oliver said:
I speak for everyone outside the US and Israel if I say that no one wants another Iraq.
Click to expand...
Sure, you bet. Right, EVERYONE... sheesh.

I don't speak for everyone but I'm quite certain many people outside of the US don't want Iran to have nuclear weapons.
 
Matteo Martini said:
It has relationship.
You are just stubbornly not even trying to address the topic from my point of view.
Click to expand...

No, Matteo. I "see" your point of view quite clearly. The problem is that your point of view doesn't actually have anything to do with whether or not Iran will actually get nukes.

My point is pretty clear.
Why the US and Russia and China yes, and Iran, Mexico, Brazil, no?
Click to expand...

And I've given you an answer before. If all you want is a justification to wave around, all you need is the NPT: Iran, Mexico, and Brazil promised not to get nukes. If you're concerned about what actually motivates countries like Iran, then our posession of nukes is irrelevant. Iran's desire for nukes will not diminish in any way if we, or even all the nuclear powers, got rid of ours. That is the reality of the situation, and it is something your "point of view" still hasn't addressed in any way, shape or form.
 
Matteo Martini said:
If Isreal have them, Iranians think, why not us?
And, they may not be 100% wrong..
Click to expand...


Exactly. Either the western moral ideology is:

A. Same freedoms for all
B. More freedoms to us (I call this the Jamestown-Fallacy)

You can't have it both ways. Either being opposed to weapons of
Mass Destruction - or oppressing others for having them as well.
The latter one creates tensions - the first one reduces tensions.

And we don't even know if Iran has the intention to build nuclear
weapons. We just declare this to be true. (see Jamestown Fallacy)

If Bush wouldn't be the coward that he is - he would personally
visit Iran to at least try to settle the oppositions. But that would
make little nuclear Israel cry, wouldn't it? :rolleyes:
 
In other words, Oliver, you have no problem with Iran acquiring nuclear weapons. Is that correct?
 
Oliver said:
You can't have it both ways. Either being opposed to weapons of Mass Destruction - or oppressing others for having them as well. The latter one creates tensions - the first one reduces tensions.
Click to expand...
Naive and simplistic. BS.

And we don't even know if Iran has the intention to build nuclear weapons. We just declare this to be true. (see Jamestown Fallacy)
Click to expand...
  • Iran has vast oil reserves.
  • Other nations have offered to provide Iran the nuclear fuel with the promise that if the fuel is ever withheld Iran can make it themselves without outside interference.
Why does Iran refuse nuclear fuel from the outside?

If Bush wouldn't be the coward that he is - he would personally visit Iran to at least try to settle the oppositions. But that would make little nuclear Israel cry, wouldn't it? :rolleyes:
Click to expand...
:rolleyes: :confused: :eek: :eye-poppi :boggled:

If you weren't the weenie that you are you wouldn't engage in silly and spurious rhetoric.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom