Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Iran, The real issue, An open discussion

page: 24
74
<< 21  22  23    25  26 >>

log in

join

posted on Aug, 22 2012 @ 03:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by nwtrucker

The logic that if one has em, then everyone who wants em should have them is lost on me. Sounds more like a suicide pact than logic.



Exactly. it's that "suicide pact" that made MAD work. No one wants to be either the first OR the last to die, because it involves, well, DYING. Doesn't matter that you're the last man standing when you won't be standing long enough to enjoy your victory.



edit on 2012/8/22 by nenothtu because: (no reason given)




posted on Aug, 22 2012 @ 03:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by Starseek

Seriously, is this an argument? So it is better for North Korea to create 100 nuclear missiles than for Iran to legally enrich uranium, just because Iran is member of an arbitrary treaty and North Korea isn't? Good as their word?
edit on 22-8-2012 by Starseek because: Itchy trigger finger
edit on 22-8-2012 by Starseek because: ..again


Seriously, no. It's not an argument, it's a discussion - and an opinion.

Yes, it's better for NK to ring their whole damned country with nuke-tipped missiles than it is for Iran to make even one, because they gave their word. You'll note, if you look closely, that nowhere have I mentioned "Iran legally enriching uranium". You don't get to change the horse in the middle of the stream, and misdirect what I said to something I DIDN'T say. The legalities of said enrichment are governed by their treaty agreements.

Yes, "good as their word". If they can't be trusted to keep their word in one matter, they can't be trusted to keep their word in anything. Then there is no basis for discussion at all.



edit on 2012/8/22 by nenothtu because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 22 2012 @ 03:57 PM
link   
reply to post by Starseek
 


Hmm, Apparently, I do not know Iran very well. I have a pretty good grip on human nature though. I'd like to point out that friendly to the west isn't the goal by assassinating the Iranian President. It's self-preservation.LOL.

If the president isn't the source of the foreign policy and Iran continues with the wipe out Israel rhetoric then the Iranians deserve a spanking from the west or Israel and confirms to me that the "peace loving" Iranians are as loopy as the rest of the middle east

So, an assassination gives the Iranian people an opportunity to revise their foreign policy statements. They either take advantage of the opportunity or face a rude and painful result. Either way, Iran is in a no-win scenario from what I can see and it looks self-generated as well.



posted on Aug, 22 2012 @ 05:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by nwtrucker
reply to post by Starseek
 


Hmm, Apparently, I do not know Iran very well. I have a pretty good grip on human nature though. I'd like to point out that friendly to the west isn't the goal by assassinating the Iranian President. It's self-preservation.LOL.

If the president isn't the source of the foreign policy and Iran continues with the wipe out Israel rhetoric then the Iranians deserve a spanking from the west or Israel and confirms to me that the "peace loving" Iranians are as loopy as the rest of the middle east

So, an assassination gives the Iranian people an opportunity to revise their foreign policy statements. They either take advantage of the opportunity or face a rude and painful result. Either way, Iran is in a no-win scenario from what I can see and it looks self-generated as well.


Geez...I don't know. I don't agree with Ahmedinejad on much...but his stance on Israel is splendid.

Tell me again why you think it shouldn't be a secular state called "Palestine" as was originally planned in the aftermath of WWI?



posted on Aug, 22 2012 @ 05:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by nenothtu

Originally posted by Starseek

Seriously, is this an argument? So it is better for North Korea to create 100 nuclear missiles than for Iran to legally enrich uranium, just because Iran is member of an arbitrary treaty and North Korea isn't? Good as their word?
edit on 22-8-2012 by Starseek because: Itchy trigger finger
edit on 22-8-2012 by Starseek because: ..again


Seriously, no. It's not an argument, it's a discussion - and an opinion.

Yes, it's better for NK to ring their whole damned country with nuke-tipped missiles than it is for Iran to make even one, because they gave their word. You'll note, if you look closely, that nowhere have I mentioned "Iran legally enriching uranium". You don't get to change the horse in the middle of the stream, and misdirect what I said to something I DIDN'T say. The legalities of said enrichment are governed by their treaty agreements.

Yes, "good as their word". If they can't be trusted to keep their word in one matter, they can't be trusted to keep their word in anything. Then there is no basis for discussion at all.

edit on 2012/8/22 by nenothtu because: (no reason given)


Agreed. If we aren't basing diplomatic relations upon treaties, the rule of law, and contractual agreements...then what precisely are basing them on?



posted on Aug, 22 2012 @ 05:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by nenothtu

Originally posted by nwtrucker

The logic that if one has em, then everyone who wants em should have them is lost on me. Sounds more like a suicide pact than logic.



Exactly. it's that "suicide pact" that made MAD work. No one wants to be either the first OR the last to die, because it involves, well, DYING. Doesn't matter that you're the last man standing when you won't be standing long enough to enjoy your victory.

edit on 2012/8/22 by nenothtu because: (no reason given)


Correct.

NWTrucker: I know the logic is lost on you. That's precisely why I recommended brushing up on Game Theory a bit. While nothing is "foolproof"...only an outright fool bets against the numerical odds and probabilities. MAD effectively turns all Games into zero-sum variants...thus establishing peace.

-It worked between the US and the USSR.
-It IS working in the Korean Peninsula right now.
-It's working between China and the US right now...in TWO different capacities. With China we MAD in a nuclear sense...but also in an economic sense given that our economies are so inexorably intertwined.

Again...it would be totally cool if the human race woke up tomorrow and realized that it stands more to gain by cooperation than by adversarial relationships. However...I'm not very optimistic of that happening in the near-future.

So...until then we have MAD.



posted on Aug, 22 2012 @ 06:03 PM
link   


So, an assassination gives the Iranian people an opportunity to revise their foreign policy statements. They either take advantage of the opportunity or face a rude and painful result. Either way, Iran is in a no-win scenario from what I can see and it looks self-generated as well.


Yep. That's exactly what will happen.

...just like after 9-11 how all of us Americans got very introspective and started seriously questioning the policies of US interventionism in the Middle East which precipitated so much hatred that a bunch of bunch of guys ACTUALLY thought it was "worth it" to kamikaze a few jet liners into our buildings.

I'm sure the Iranians wouldn't succumb to knee-jerk reactionism featuring their propagandists going "double-down" on the "Death to America" and "Wipe Israel Off The Map" rhetoric. Especially since the assassination would be proof-positive of everything the professional fear-mongers have been attempting to sell to the Iranian people since the 50's.

Similarly, I'm sure none of the Iranians will even recall that the US Government and it's Intelligence Apparatus has been fomenting civil war inside Iran ever since we toppled their peace-loving, western-style democratically elected and secular government in the 50's.

Are you even aware that essentially every single Iranian alive has lost friends or family members due to US interventionism in the Middle East? Even the one's who were born AFTER we funded BOTH SIDES OF THE IRANIAN CIVIL WAR most certainly have heard stories about uncles and grandparents whom they never met who died in the fighting.

Yeah...I'm sure deploying a bunch of hit men inside their country to assassinate their President would be just the thing to make them invite us in and ask us to start setting up strip malls and Starbucks for as far as the eye could see.

What could possibly go wrong...right?



posted on Aug, 22 2012 @ 06:21 PM
link   
reply to post by milominderbinder
 


Tell you again? This'll be the first time, methinks.. Ok, I couldn't care less what they call it, who lives in it or who runs it.

You use the word "originally", that's a long time ago, don't you think? These things sort themselves out, food chain issues usually do. looks like this one did too. If the issue is going to be reopened, unlikely due to armament issues, then it will sort itself out again...

If you want Israel gone, your gonna have to convince the Israelis, not me. I can't see them suiciding, can you?

My money is on Israel, any takers??



posted on Aug, 22 2012 @ 06:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by nenothtu
reply to post by milominderbinder
 


Well, it could be that I just don't have a very firm grasp on the notion of "Social Justice". It would seem to me that, by relegation it to legislative actions, one has removed it from the realm of "Social Justice" and attempted to insinuate it into the realm of Legal Justice. In effect, one is attempting to legislate morality, and that seldom turns out well in the end, simply because there are so many different versions and conceptions of what constitutes "morality" floating around.

For example, most agree that killing folks for no good reason is a bad thing. It runs afoul, however, when we delve into what constitutes "good reason" from person to person.

In the matter of "wealth redistribution", I'm entirely against accomplishing said redistribution by legislative fiat. I don't have much, nor do I want much. I'm content to leave most of everything for someone else to gather. Where it starts raising my hackles is when someone else thinks it's my responsibility to gather it up to myself, and then just hand it over to them. Likewise, I don't expect anyone else to hand over to me what they have gathered to themselves. I'm all for letting everyone gather their own, and not taking more than they need. When we introduce legislation into that equation, however, some one, on one side or the other, is going to undergo oppression, simply by virtue of being forced into the economy of the collective. Forcing me to hand over what is mine to the collective down the street for their redistribution among themselves is no different at all that is forcing them to hand over what is theirs to a Carnegie, a Rockefeller, or a Rothschild. Highway robbery is highway robbery, regardless of the status of the perpetrator.



Good points all the way around.

Surely, there are linguistic problems with the term "social justice" in defining precisely what that even means. I typically take the more literal of interpretations and go with a definition akin to "justice for all socio-economic groups" where one's position, status, or bank account does not give them more or less legal rights or warrant any sort of special treatment for the benefit OR their detriment. Sure...this will never be realized in "perfect" form...but I think it's something that we ought to strive for.

As for the redistribution of wealth via taxation. I DO see where your coming from. On a purely philosophical level..isn't taxation simply legalized theft? Perhaps. However...isn't it ALSO true that we now essentially have a situation amongst the aristocracy where wealth, social standing, and power is essentially transmitted right down the bloodline irrespective of competence or merit? Isn't that essentially a monarchy? Christ...at least in Medieval times Monarchs were once in a while overthrown by a particularly clever peasant rebellion. Today the aristocracy is simply untouchable.

Should we REALLY be OK with Paris Hilton making and inheriting bajillions simply for having the dumb luck of being born to rich people...even while we don't provide adequate medical care for OUR VETERANS? Why is it that Americans aren't appalled at these political dynasties like the Bush's, Romney's and Kennedy's...I thought the ideas was to GET AWAY FROM the failed feudal system? Grandpappy John D. Rockefeller was an incredibly driven, successful, and hardworking individual...does that mean that now we ought to let people starve and die in the streets so his great-great-great grandkids can be spoiled brats who have never worked a day in their lives...and whose PARENTS have ALSO not ever worked a day in THEIR lives, either?

To each their own...but I say "bullsh^t". Philosophically it's called "stealing"...but pragmatically it's called "re-establishing a meritocracy".



posted on Aug, 22 2012 @ 06:42 PM
link   
reply to post by milominderbinder
 


Again, I could care less, the dynamics of a cold war that motivated the U.S. at the time of those screw ups.(As if the Persians/Iranians were without their own stupidities.) The simple truth of it is U.S. policy worked, in general, and the Soviets lost. This was to the benifit of all nations in my opinion. Spare me the interventionism, argument of 9-11. Where is the interventionism by Sudan, Somalia, Indonesia? Many countries suffering attrocities unconnected to intereventionism. That was nothing more than an excuse!!

It is obvious that Iran has some serious internal issues.(I know many Iranians in the U.S. who are very pro-U.S..

The bottem line is it doesn't really matter who is "right" or on the moral high ground here. Iranian threats to Israel are just as interventionist in and of themselves. The difference being, they cannot win...



posted on Aug, 22 2012 @ 07:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by milominderbinder

Originally posted by nenothtu

Originally posted by Starseek

Seriously, is this an argument? So it is better for North Korea to create 100 nuclear missiles than for Iran to legally enrich uranium, just because Iran is member of an arbitrary treaty and North Korea isn't? Good as their word?
edit on 22-8-2012 by Starseek because: Itchy trigger finger
edit on 22-8-2012 by Starseek because: ..again


Seriously, no. It's not an argument, it's a discussion - and an opinion.

Yes, it's better for NK to ring their whole damned country with nuke-tipped missiles than it is for Iran to make even one, because they gave their word. You'll note, if you look closely, that nowhere have I mentioned "Iran legally enriching uranium". You don't get to change the horse in the middle of the stream, and misdirect what I said to something I DIDN'T say. The legalities of said enrichment are governed by their treaty agreements.

Yes, "good as their word". If they can't be trusted to keep their word in one matter, they can't be trusted to keep their word in anything. Then there is no basis for discussion at all.

edit on 2012/8/22 by nenothtu because: (no reason given)


Agreed. If we aren't basing diplomatic relations upon treaties, the rule of law, and contractual agreements...then what precisely are basing them on?


Iran sometimes threatens to withdraw from the NPT because they feel they are being treated unfairly (which is what North Korea did). So perhaps Iran should withdraw from the NPT and build a weapon. That would be fine, I guess? And as far as countries 'keeping their word,' how many countries do you think are in violation of treaty obligations? The Vienna Conventions being only one example. And let's not even go into the rights and wrongs (in International Law) of regime change and the occupation of foreign states...



posted on Aug, 22 2012 @ 07:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by nwtrucker
reply to post by Starseek
 


Hmm, Apparently, I do not know Iran very well. I have a pretty good grip on human nature though. I'd like to point out that friendly to the west isn't the goal by assassinating the Iranian President. It's self-preservation.LOL.

If the president isn't the source of the foreign policy and Iran continues with the wipe out Israel rhetoric then the Iranians deserve a spanking from the west or Israel and confirms to me that the "peace loving" Iranians are as loopy as the rest of the middle east

So, an assassination gives the Iranian people an opportunity to revise their foreign policy statements. They either take advantage of the opportunity or face a rude and painful result. Either way, Iran is in a no-win scenario from what I can see and it looks self-generated as well.


No, the President does not control foreign policy. Neither is Iran a full democracy, so 'they' won't have the opportunity to revise anything. Assassinating Ahmadinejad (especially this close to him leaving office) is silly and will only start a war. 'Self preservation?' US and Israel are the ones with all the nukes...

Good luck to any state trying to give Iran a 'spanking' though.



posted on Aug, 22 2012 @ 08:24 PM
link   
reply to post by nenothtu
 


in another thread maes2 showed where according to the treaty Iran has the right to enrich further than they currently are....

message him for further information on this please....



posted on Aug, 22 2012 @ 08:41 PM
link   
reply to post by OpinionatedB
 


Suits me. as long as they are living up to the obligations they make, I've no quarrel with it.



posted on Aug, 22 2012 @ 09:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by Starseek

Iran sometimes threatens to withdraw from the NPT because they feel they are being treated unfairly (which is what North Korea did). So perhaps Iran should withdraw from the NPT and build a weapon. That would be fine, I guess?


Yep, that would be fine. it would jerk the rug right out from under all the folks whining about "NPT this" and "NPT that". There would no longer be a legitimate (or perceived legitimate, given the rhetoric and propaganda involved) basis for complaint.

Seriously - do you really think Iran would nuke Israel? that's all tall talk. If they had a nuke - or even a few hundred of them - they'd do what everyone else with nukes does. they'd sit on it and brag about it, and that's about it. "Crazy like a fox" comes to mind. people may THINK they're crazy, but there is method to their madness, and they're not going to risk national erasure just to irradiate a few holy sites in Palestine - that would pretty much ruin the land for those "poor, poor Palestinians" too, wouldn't it?

So, as long as they can make people THINK they're crazy, people are more likely to tread lightly. People are scared of crazy people, period. they give them a wider berth. So if one can convince everyone else he's nuts, then they are more likely to leave him be.

Yeah, they're crazy - crazy like a fox.



And as far as countries 'keeping their word,' how many countries do you think are in violation of treaty obligations? The Vienna Conventions being only one example. And let's not even go into the rights and wrongs (in International Law) of regime change and the occupation of foreign states...


Pretty much all of them are in violation, at one point or another. So what's your point? it's ok to lie and cheat yourself because the guy next door does it to? You live that way if you like - I'm not going to. It catches up with you in the end, and we ALL have an end.



posted on Aug, 22 2012 @ 11:35 PM
link   
[img]http:// www.ippnw-students.org...[/img]

America wants that chunk too. They are trying hard to find a reason and a way to do it without losing. It's inevitably going to happen.



posted on Aug, 22 2012 @ 11:49 PM
link   
reply to post by Poopooplatter
 


Here you go

If I'm not mistaken they're all Islamic countries.





posted on Aug, 23 2012 @ 10:16 AM
link   


Tell you again? This'll be the first time, methinks.. Ok, I couldn't care less what they call it, who lives in it or who runs it.

I was a literary device known as a rhetorical question. I wasn't literally implying that you told me previously why Israel should have been allowed to throw the Middle East into chaos by defying the long tradition of religious tolerance and impartiality which governments in the region adopted in the years following the Crusades and summarily denying the Arab states and the Palestinian majority their right to legal appeal of the issue in international court by leveraging support from the US and UK. However, it should be noted that if our government adopted the same stance of not caring less whether or not Israel exists...we likely wouldn't be having this discussion right now as their would be little to no motive for Iran to want to "wipe Palestine off the map".



You use the word "originally", that's a long time ago, don't you think?

No, I don't think 1948 was a long time ago when it comes to foreign relations and the geo-political landscape. However, in fairness, the same 64 years are almost an eternity when it comes to other things such as the density and relative cost of semiconducting transistors.



These things sort themselves out, food chain issues usually do. looks like this one did too. If the issue is going to be reopened, unlikely due to armament issues, then it will sort itself out again...


Yes...they do tend to "sort themselves out" via the natural mechanisms of "survival of the fittest". History tells us that since the advent of globalization in the wake of European colonialism these things almost always "sort themselves out" with a myriad of small wars and skirmishes which culminate into larger "World Wars" featuring armed conflict by many nations on multiple continents simultaneously. (See: The French Indian-War, WWI, and WWII). Call me crazy...but I personally think that WWIII is something that we at least ought to make an attempt to avoid.


If you want Israel gone, your gonna have to convince the Israelis, not me. I can't see them suiciding, can you?


Aside from the really poor grammar...I have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. The "Israeli's" are a government...not a religious or ethnic group. There are lots and lots of people of the Hebrew descent and the Jewish faith who live in countries OTHER than Israel and there are statistically about 40-45% of Israeli Jews who adamantly disagree with the policies and ethnocentric racism of their theocratic government.

You are making the common mistake by Westerners who think that Arab cries to "destroy Israel" equates to genocide or ethnic cleansing of some sort. This is due mostly to Americans watching TV instead of reading their history books. Iran has it's own Jewish population who are perfectly free to practice their religion in peace. Indeed, there are even Iranian Jews in positions of authority within the Iranian government itself.



My money is on Israel, any takers??


Well...put a time frame on it. If you are talking about next week...sure...Israel will remain in power and illegally occupying the West Bank. If you are talking about long-term...sure...I'll take that bet. The only instances in the History of mankind which feature a minority population surrounded by enemies to "win" long and protracted wars against opponents using asymetrical tactics have been when those outnumbered forces have vast technological superiority and ALSO resort to outright genocide and/or slavery of their opponents. (See: The United States vs. The Native Americans and the history of South Africa).

You need to read more books.



posted on Aug, 23 2012 @ 10:33 AM
link   


Spare me the interventionism, argument of 9-11. Where is the interventionism by Sudan, Somalia, Indonesia? Many countries suffering attrocities unconnected to intereventionism. That was nothing more than an excuse!!

Really? When has Somalia or the Sudan crashed planes into our buildings? No one is saying that these countries don't have lots and lots of problems...what I'm saying is that INTERVENING IN THOSE PROBLEMS simply makes us a target for future attacks.


It is obvious that Iran has some serious internal issues.(I know many Iranians in the U.S. who are very pro-U.S.

Sure. Right up until we start bombing Iran and a bunch of civilians who "get in the way". People have a remarkable propensity to change their opinion when their friends and family members are blown to bits.



The bottem line is it doesn't really matter who is "right" or on the moral high ground here. Iranian threats to Israel are just as interventionist in and of themselves. The difference being, they cannot win...


Really? Why do you say "they cannot win"? The United States has not been able to decisively win a major armed conflict IN SIXTY-SEVEN YEARS!!! We managed a stalemate in Korea, got our ass handed to us in Vietnam, went halfway in the Gulf War 1.0, went "all the way" in the Gulf War 2.0...but are still mired in the conflict almost a decade after killing Saddam, and have absolutely ZERO goals or objectives in whatever it is that we are doing in Afghanistan. Today we sit with a broken economy, a stressed military in which our soldiers have been deployed 3-10 times, and a war-weary public that is far more concerned about jobs going to the grocery store than in self-righteous "democracy-spreading" efforts in desert wastelands.

Assuming Russia and China would side with Iran as ALL data are indicating...just how in the hell to you propose we could possibly beat Iran? What quantitative or qualitative evidence do you have that would even SUGGEST we wouldn't absolutely get our asses kicked into the dirt?

There is no precedent for the US "winning" ANY major armed conflict from post WWII...why would this suddenly change NOW?? It's completely irrational.



posted on Aug, 23 2012 @ 10:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by SLAYER69
reply to post by Poopooplatter
 


Here you go

If I'm not mistaken they're all Islamic countries.




Yes...you are mistaken.

You are evaluating the religious traditions of the countries instead of looking at whether or not the US has it's military and economic meathooks into the governments of the region.





new topics




 
74
<< 21  22  23    25  26 >>

log in

join