• 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.

Ed Ofama... On Iran

citizenzen said:
I'll wait for a few more voices to join the thread.

I think we've said enough between ourselves.
Click to expand...

Well, I second the request you elaborate on your earlier statements. Or are you going to ignore me as well?

WildCat said:
I think you'll find that all the land mines which are killing children were proliferated largely by communist governments spreading the revolution you wax wistfully about. In fact, children are still dying today from land mines laid by Cuban soldiers in Angola.

Just a few more of those eggs you have to break for the revolution!
Click to expand...

Don't forget Afghanistan which I believe held the record.
 
Travis said:
Why?

What good would come from that?

But we know the bad that would come from signing it.
Click to expand...

It was just a passing point. My main point was that the U.S. didn't even sign the treaty and therefore couldn't have violated it. I'm not going to derail the thread by going into the cost/benefits of that treaty in detail.
 
respect said:
A nuclear Iran could cause a lot of potential problems, whether or not the nations opposed have done hypocritical things is irrelevant to that. It is an issue to be addressed on its own merits, there is no need or advantage to looking for moral equivalence with America or any other country. Basically your claim is, "Iran is a doody head but so is America." America's status as a doody head is neither here nor there in terms of whether or not it is a good idea to stop Iran's doody head behavior and how to go about it if it is.
Click to expand...
I broadly agree with your argument with one caveat. Since dealing with Iran is a global political problem, it probably helps with the discussions and negotiations if the USA would be less of a doody head itself, thereby increasing its credibility.
 
Darth Rotor said:
Persia (aka Iran) on the other hand, is a semi- choesive cultural entity that goes back about 2500 years, which gives them a cultural legitimacy and staying power of a China, a Greece, any attempts a the Caliphate, or Israel as somehow "OLD AND GOOD" and FWIW, Imperial Rome's inertial stumbling into the current day (see EU, fourth attempt at HRE, however secular). I like small too, so how about the Basques for twenty centuries of staying power, eh? If Pakistan can have nukes, why not anybody? Why not everybody? At least the Koreans mostly speak the same language as they praise the Il of the week ...
Click to expand...
Like NK?

I'd rather Iran have nukes than the Pakistani nitwits (who already have them) and the NoKors as well. (Point to recall: the average Pakistani on the street is doubtless a decent enough chap or lady, but my own experience in dealing with those clowns at the policy and operational level leaves me disgusted).
Click to expand...
Welcome to a magical world, where Pakistan's nuclear capability is taken away in its entirety and given to another oppressive regime with actual end-of-world-days itching like Iran.

The Israelis, for those who fear Iran's nefarious nukes vicariously for Israel, have enough deterrent vis a vis any nascent nuclear weapons capability in Iran, for the next decade or so, to render the fear mongering on that score null and void from the get go.
Click to expand...
Deterrent against proxies? Hasn't worked, has it? Proliferation has also not been prevented, how would nuclear-related weaponry be prevented from proliferation?

This also has been addressed in a number of other nuclear threads.

It is time to end the stupid. As I have previously suggested, it is OK for Iran to join the nuclear club. All it means for the US is that Iran is now added to our target list.
Click to expand...
And another nuclear proliferator. Don't understand the reasoning behind making the issue more complicated and dangerous just for the sake of winning a short-sighted argument on a forum.

And this is where the comical BD and citizenzen ran off to with their fallacious arguing. Comedy gold.
 
SezMe said:
It speaks directly to Travis in #112.
Click to expand...
It does? Can you quote the part about it being US landmines which caused those injuries in Vietnam? I can't seem to find it... but I'm sure we can rule out North Vietnam and the Viet Cong, no way would those human-rights oriented organizations scatter land mines willy nilly around the countryside!
 
bigjelmapro said:
And this is where the comical BD and citizenzen ran off to with their fallacious arguing. Comedy gold.
Click to expand...


It's so nice to see that I could put a smile on a few faces.

But here's my point. Have at it ...

It seems to me that Iran has a very good reason to pursue nukes. They have seen that possessing them provides a country added protect against foreign attacks and added leverage in negotiations. Both the United States and Israel have amply demonstrated the willingness to invade or attack mideast nations to further their goals. How can we not expect Iran to work towards strengthening its hand by acquiring nukes?

Does that mean I personally want Iran to have them? No. I'd prefer that no nation have nuclear arms. I'd prefer that nations respect one another and work towards peaceful long-term, mutually beneficial relationships. But that isn't reality right now. So while I'm not agreeing with Iran's pursuit of nuclear weapons, I'm understanding why in this climate they might feel compelled to get them. But if it's proven that they have violated the NPR treaty, then the response should be an international one, not merely a military action by the United States.

Though I don't always agree with Ron Paul, we are in agreement on this matter [excerpts from Christian Science Monitor] ...


Ron Paul: "You know what I really fear? ... It's another Iraq coming. It's war propaganda going on," he said. "To me, the greatest danger is that we will have a president that will overreact."

He likened the current situation to views of Iraq in 2003: an atomosphere of alarm without solid evidence on the question of weapons capability. "If we lived through cold war, which we did, with 30,000 missiles pointed at us, we ought to really sit back and think, and not jump the gun.... That’s how we got involved in the useless war in Iraq and lost so much."

Similar to his position on Iraq back then, he voiced skepticism that Iran is close to obtaining a nuclear weapon. Paul said it's also important for US policymakers to keep the regional context in mind: Iran feels surrounded by other nations that have nuclear arms, and has seen evidence that nuclear nations get some respect.

"To declare war on 1.2 billion Muslims and say all Muslims are the same, this is dangerous talk. Yeah, there are some radicals. But they don't come here to kill us because we're free and prosperous. Do they go to Switzerland and Sweden? I mean, that's absurd. If you think that is the reason, we have no chance of winning this. They come here and they explicitly explain it to us. The CIA has explained it to us. They said they come here and want to do us harm because we're bombing them."

He espoused a view of limited war powers for the executive branch, and of economic limits to American military engagement. "Why do we have to bomb so many countries? Why are we [having] 900 bases in 130 countries and we're totally bankrupt? How are you going to rebuild the military when we have no money?... We need a strong national defense ... and we need to only go to war with a declaration of war."​
 
WildCat said:
It does? Can you quote the part about it being US landmines which caused those injuries in Vietnam? I can't seem to find it... but I'm sure we can rule out North Vietnam and the Viet Cong, no way would those human-rights oriented organizations scatter land mines willy nilly around the countryside!
Click to expand...

Dunno, maybe the amount of money and help the US is offering the Vietnamese government to combat this problem suggests they agree they are part of the problem

34% of those killed, died scavenging unexploded bombs. Now I would happily be proved wrong, but I am completely unaware of any serious bombing campaigns undertaken by the North Vietnam air-force during the war.
 
SezMe said:
I broadly agree with your argument with one caveat. Since dealing with Iran is a global political problem, it probably helps with the discussions and negotiations if the USA would be less of a doody head itself, thereby increasing its credibility.
Click to expand...

But in recent years the US has definitely been minding its own business when it comes to Iran. This is the reason (I believe) Iran has begun to manufacture crisis such as the closing of the straits, otherwise the steady diet of Satanic America becomes very thin

Iran desperately needs to turn the population away from its own internal struggles, in the past 'Blame America' was a good fall back. Today however America has not been handing the country these opportunities
 
MG1962 said:
Dunno, maybe the amount of money and help the US is offering the Vietnamese government to combat this problem suggests they agree they are part of the problem

34% of those killed, died scavenging unexploded bombs. Now I would happily be proved wrong, but I am completely unaware of any serious bombing campaigns undertaken by the North Vietnam air-force during the war.
Click to expand...
We were talking about land mines, not unexploded ordnance. I like the goal poats right where they are, thank you.
 
WildCat said:
I like the goal poats right where they are, thank you.
Click to expand...
Always a good idea. You can read about the ordinance used by the USA in 'Nam right here. It includes the Claymore M18A1 land mine which you can read about here. Or you can go here to get a somewhat broader picture of USA land mine production:

From 1969 to 1992 the United States exported nearly four and a half million antipersonnel landmines to at least thirty-four different countries (including Afghanistan, Angola, Vietnam and Iraq). For these landmines America received on average one hundred twenty-five million dollars per year. Over forty-seven American companies manufacture APL, their components or delivery systems. Landmine production contracts in the late 1980s and early 1990s have earned companies upwards of three hundred thirty-six million dollars (Alliant technologies; 1985-95).
Click to expand...
We love our solid goalposts, don't we.
 
bikerdruid said:
that america is in no position to bitch about iran breaking treaties?
or that the topic of this thread is about just that?
Click to expand...

So you'll stick with the tu quoque. Oh, and I wasn't aware that DR was 'america'.

You don't have to agree with, or even like America for Iran to be wrong you know. Hell, you can believe that America is a horrid, evil place and still not be alright with Iran doing what it's doing.
 
tyr_13 said:
So you'll stick with the tu quoque. Oh, and I wasn't aware that DR was 'america'.

You don't have to agree with, or even like America for Iran to be wrong you know. Hell, you can believe that America is a horrid, evil place and still not be alright with Iran doing what it's doing.
Click to expand...

i have no problem with what iran is doing.
the 'fact' that they are building a bomb, is much like the 'fact' that saddam had WMD's.
even if they are....
they are a sovereign nation with nuclear armed hostile neighbours.
they have every right to defend themselves.
 
bikerdruid said:
i have no problem with what iran is doing.
the 'fact' that they are building a bomb, is much like the 'fact' that saddam had WMD's.
even if they are....
Click to expand...

If they are they are in clear breach of the NPT.

Do you recognize the IAEA's authority on the matter? Why do you think it is so concerned?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom