• 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

Pardalis said:
Of course, Iran is just the victim here... :rolleyes:
Click to expand...


IMO, Iran is neither villain nor victim. And Iran, Israel, the United States and the Middle East in general have passed up opportunity after opportunity to forge a meaningful, lasting peace.
 
bikerdruid said:
when they are preemptively attacked, iran will indeed be the victim.
(and guess what?.....the u.s. and israel will claim the moral high-ground, unjustly)
Click to expand...

To you, the moral high ground is to add yet another player to the nuclear club.

Why are you so fond of nuclear weapons?
 
Pardalis said:
It means you have no idea of what's been going on in Iran in the past 30 years.
Click to expand...


I'm 51 years old. I am aware of "what's been going on in Iran in the past 30 years".

So here's my question for you. What do you propose we do about it?
 
Apologies for the landmine ban mention (and honestly, I'm very much open to challenge on that point. It's not something I know an enormous amount about. But this thread simply isn't the place for that discussion, which is why I ignored it).

As for the topic at hand, I think I did make a salient point regarding Iran's position toward nuclear weapons which no one on the pro-Iran side has answered: If Iran says they don't want nuclear weapons (and claims to be in complete support and compliance of the NPT) then why should they have nuclear weapons? Why offer them something they claim to find abhorrent?

The Iranian nuclear question is often framed as a straw man which assumes Iran wants nukes and the U.S. is unilaterally (and hypocritically) saying "nope." That is not even close to the reality, which is much more complicated and inconvenient for the knee-jerk anti-U.S. crowd.
 
cambion said:
As for the topic at hand, I think I did make a salient point regarding Iran's position toward nuclear weapons which no one on the pro-Iran side has answered: If Iran says they don't want nuclear weapons (and claims to be in complete support and compliance of the NPT) then why should they have nuclear weapons? Why offer them something they claim to find abhorrent?

The Iranian nuclear question is often framed as a straw man which assumes Iran wants nukes and the U.S. is unilaterally (and hypocritically) saying "nope." That is not even close to the reality, which is much more complicated and inconvenient for the knee-jerk anti-U.S. crowd.
Click to expand...

This is something I think I completely agree with.
 
citizenzen said:
Is it just coincidence that Pardalis left the conversation when asked this question?
Click to expand...

That is surely a much better explanation that dinner, a date, a bath, darts, bowling, a favorite television show, sleep, reading a book, boredom...

I guess I'm saying wait more than an hour before even considering posting such an accusation.
 
tyr_13 said:
I guess I'm saying wait more than an hour before even considering posting such an accusation.
Click to expand...


My bad. I neglected to consult the forum etiquette booklet.

I'm sure he'll return to lend his wisdom eventually.
 
citizenzen said:
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?
Click to expand...
Sorry to say, but Iran has pursued proxy warfare long before the US's involvement in Iraq or Afghanistan for that matter. The only leverage I see Iran would have with nuclear arms is another threat of escalating this proxy warfare in a number of ME countries with the use of non-conventional means (apart from the chemical variants already used by their proxies, ie chlorine bombs) and that Iran could now threaten nuclear retaliatory measures if NATO and/or coalition troops were to act on Iran's already abundant acts of perfidy/war throughout the region.

Iran's deterrent has been its large cache of ballistic missiles as well its threat to threaten trade in the Persian gulf. I don't see how adding nuclear would add even more leverage other than an open invitation to invade its country.

I like how you added Israel in there. Curious as to what goals you're referring to here. On top of these supposed US goals.

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.
Click to expand...
What do you think has been occurring with the numerous sanctions? As for the motivations for Iran's pursuit of nuclear weapons, refer to the previous ontop of this ficitional threat to Iran by Israel's ambiguous nuclear deterrent which has supposedly existed since the 1960's.

Though I don't always agree with Ron Paul, we are in agreement on this matter [excerpts from Christian Science Monitor] ...
Click to expand...
Agreement on which part?
 
bigjelmapro said:
Agreement [with Ron Paul] on which part?
Click to expand...


Agreements bolded in red ...


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."​
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom