Originally posted by nenothtu

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.

Yep. And really a nuke is just security against being destroyed yourself. The only way the Iranian government would have an incentive to use a nuke was if they were on the verge of being invaded, toppled, or destroyed themselves as a last ditch "screw you".

Hence the reason why they are so effective in keeping peace. If you leave the other side with "nothing to lose" you THEN run the risk of somebody pushing the button. It brings everybody to the negotiating table in a fair manner and both sides have to leave feeling as though true compromise was made.

Do you really think that equation will hold up with people who believe there's 72 virgins waiting in paradise?

*Sigh*

First of alll...Game Theory is not "an equation". It's entire branch and field of behavioral mathematics which has been proven, re-prove, and re-proven again to be scientifically valid and which has contributed heavily to Nobel Prize winning discovers, Fields Medals, and innovations in almost every facet of scientific, economic, political, and sociological thinking. Instead of commenting on the subject as though you understand it...just check out those courses which I provided you.

Secondly...in answer to your question..."Yes. The branch of mathematics known as Game Theory absolutely holds up to people who think they will get 72 virgins after they blow themselves up in a suicide attack". In fact...you have actually provided an exemplary instance of a "Rational Actor" (again...mathematical definition) and how they are motivated by perceived gain.

Sorry, that equation gets too many variables as the number of countries increase. Also, it leaves out the "keeping up with the Jones'", phenomena which in the long run defeats it..

Huh? There are no limits as to how many players, chances, variables, or coefficients which can be included in a payoff matrix.

Actually, instead of checking out those Game Theory courses...you should probably start with a remedial Pre-Algebra course or go find a seventh-grader whose textbook you can borrow for awhile.

Instead of pretending you understand what you're talking about...why not just say "Sure...I'll look into the information you provided and get back to you."

Anybody wonder what happened to the Al Qaeda terrorists active in Libya and Egypt? Have they all left to be relocated in Syria and Iran?
To me it seams like Al Qaeda moves parallel to US interests. And now suddenly active in Syria and Iran.

Have nobody paid any attention to this?

Food chain issues tend to be regional. As there has been, at least in modern times, two world wars and neither of them were of the food chain variety,

"Food chain issues"[SIC] are "regional" when the parties/players OUTSIDE OF THE REGION don't have an economic and/or vested interest in the outcome of the Game.

...it's safe to say that the Palastinian-Israeli issue won't lead to a world war by itself.

Sure. Except that the Palestinian-Israeli conflict ISN'T "by itself" any more than the German bond crisis in wake of WWI reparations was "by itself". Instead, the Germans debt crisis CREATED the conditions necessary for Hitler's rise to power, the blitzkrieg, and the Holocaust.

At best, an excuse for one, by many countries who couldn't care less about the Palastinians whatsoever. Both Muslim and non-muslim.

What's an excuse? You're being semi-coherent again.

You quote percentages of Israeli votes. That is a complete hoot. That vote split is about where the line is drawn on the issue, not the erasing of it,(the line) as in no more Israel. That vote would be somewhere around 98%..

Ummm...what Israeli "votes"? To my knowledge the Israeli's don't "vote" on whether whether or not to continue defying international law. In fact...many would say that this is one of the biggest problems. The approximately 40-45% that I referenced was a ballpark of figure of various polls that have been taken over the last 10 years or so illustrating civilian sentiment in Israel. It's like stating that "roughly half of the US is Republican and half is Democrat". For the most part and in a general sense...this is a true statement...although certainly polls fluctuate and will show different results in different trials.

As a matter of fact, the current regime in Iran would probably do cart-wheels if they could actually recieve 45% favorable vote. Not to mention all Muslim nations, as apparently, they bail out of their native countries as fast as they can, move to Europe, Canada, the U.S....anywhere but under the "enlightened sharia law" . Economies and democracies don't seem to flourish in those conditions.

All the more reason the more well-read of Arabs also have a loathing of Israel. After the nuttery of The Crusades, the nations of the Middle East largely considered themselves religious "melting pots" and individuals politically identified with their COUNTRIES more so than their religions....and for good reason. They had just gone through 300 years of incessant religious warfare and barbarian invasions.

When Israel arbitrarily declared themselves a "Jewish State" and informed the good people of British Palestine that they would not be allowed to self-govern per the previously agreed upon treaty in 1948, it set off a chain reaction of religious fundamentalism which has gotten ever-nuttier to present day. Again...read a history or two. The Middle East was well on it's way to Western-Style secular democracy in the '40's and '50's until the US and Britain began meddling in their affairs and supporting the illegal Israeli government.

As far as Israel being "illegal", it depends on who you talk to, doesn't it?

Not at all. That Isreal was abruptly formed in a last-minute bait-and-switch and that the Arab states and Palestinians were denied their right to legal appeal is a matter of fact and record. Even the ISRAELI'S agree on that one...that's why turn to all the "prophecy and destiny" rhetoric to justify their existence...because they cannot do it legally.

As far as reading books goes, you might consider doing a bit less reading, lift your head up and look at that thing called reality....it's all around you, if you could but precieve.

And perhaps if you read more books you know that "precieve" is not word, people do not "suicide themselves" and the there is no such thing as a "food chain fight" in the Middle East.

You do have my condolences, however, that whatever "reality" you live in features so much willful ignorance. Especially when pretty much every town in America has a library full of books that you could read for free.

Israel-Muslim is a different story. Israel cannot win that one. But they can take out the vast majority of the Muslim world, starting with Mecca and Medina. The question isn't whether Israel would/will do so, the question is will the Muslim world allow Israeli survival and thus survive themselves as well??

Well...you have struck directly upon the reason why so many countries in the Middle East hate America and Americans. Your astounding level of ignorance on the subject STARTS with the presupposition that the nation known as "Israel" ought to have any legal standing as a sovereign entity in the first place.

Read "The Gun & The Olive Branch" by David Hirst and then get back to me.

Originally posted by spy66
Anybody wonder what happened to the Al Qaeda terrorists active in Libya and Egypt? Have they all left to be relocated in Syria and Iran?
To me it seams like Al Qaeda moves parallel to US interests. And now suddenly active in Syria and Iran.

Have nobody paid any attention to this?

Iran would kill Al Qaeda fighters on sight and without hesitation or mercy. There is more than East/West in this conflict and those two are as opposite as it can ever get.

Syria? Er.... Announcements last week were of Libyan rebels joining up with the Free Syrian Army..so I guess that question answers itself. Yup... AQ is represented in the latest fight and like Libya, on the same side we're backing and supplying.. Madness... total madness.

Originally posted by milominderbinder
.

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.

Just to add, there's the whole "patriotism" thing. It's not just available to be exploited in the US - other countries have it, too. there's nothing like attacking a country to pull the citizens all together and get them aimed in the same direction, regardless of their previous bickering.

Originally posted by nenothtu

Originally posted by milominderbinder
.

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.

Just to add, there's the whole "patriotism" thing. It's not just available to be exploited in the US - other countries have it, too. there's nothing like attacking a country to pull the citizens all together and get them aimed in the same direction, regardless of their previous bickering.

THANK YOU!!!

It's a survival mechanism which has been evolved in us since time immemorial...it's not going to vanish overnight just because the pundits tell you it will.

First, let me address the issue of "Educated". It is your idea of the "Educated" that has gotten this planet in the mess that it is in.

Really? I always blamed the masses of fools who pay more attention to sports teams and sales at Macy's than they do to the actions of politicians and the lessons of history. Although, in fairness, I can see why you blame people who are educated and well read. It's way more convenient than taking a little responsibility and admitting that these crooks can only stay in power because so many voters are simply dumber than a box of rocks.

From the "political scientists", another psuedo science, to the lawyers,political leaders who "decide" what is "Legal".

Wow...you consider political science to a "psuedo[SIC] science" as well? Is chemistry "witchcraft" in the alternate dimension which you call home? Or is it just that you call anything you don't understand and/or flunked in High School a "psuedo[SIC] science"?

This disaster lies fully at your genre's feet.

People can't be "genre's"...only inanimate objects can be. Most typically works of art, literature, music, or film.

Throw in your now worn out" I'm Educated, your not, learn before you opine" . It doesn't wash any more.
Your attitude is even worse, in my opinion. You profess education, spout a biased viewpoint that's blatantly one-sided then dive behind "Education".

To clarify...I'm not saying you should necessarily go to college or finally go back and get that GED. There are lots and lots of VERY intelligent and educated people who have never once set foot inside of a university. I'm just stating that you should become knowledgeable about the subject material before you form such strong opinions. There really is no excuse. If if you have severe dyslexia and find reading to be difficult there are a plethora of excellent audiobooks on the the history of the Middle East in most libraries.

Any validity in your argument becomes lessened by the bias, especially when nothing is that one-sided.

Not true at all. I'm also completely and totally biased in the idea that the Earth orbits the sun and I refuse to present any alternatives to this as fact given that it is demonstrably false. There simply is no alternative hypothesis that is correct.

You paint a picture that the Middle-east would be flourishing, sane, productive democratic nations if it wasn't for England and the U.S. Frankly, your stance is insulting as it is incomplete/onesided.

No I don't. I can't begin to guess what would have happened in alternative timelines. What I stated was that the Middle East as a whole either had or were moving towards western-style, secular, democratically-inspired republics... but that this was ESPECIALLY the case in Iraq, Iran, and Syria. This isn't my opinion. It is 100% fact as ANYONE who has any knowledge whatsoever of ANYTHING in the Middle East already knows. Similarly, it is also indisputable fact that the US intelligence apparati toppled these governments and installed puppet dictators and religious zealots.

...continued in next post.

...Continued from previous response

Crusades don't even occur without invasion of Europe by these peaceful Muslims.

This is precisely why you should probably read a book before you make yourself look so foolish. I did not reference "crusades". I referenced "THE Crusades! You know...the roughly 200 years or so that completely defined and shaped both European and Middle Eastern history? Yes...in part Pope Urban II's Call to Crusade was to aid the fallen Byzantium in battling the Seljuk Turks. However, it can hardly be called a war against "muslims" given that the first thing these "christian" warriors did was slaughter Jews in Germany in France. They would only get around to fighting Muslims a year or two later. In fact...they were so slow that Peter the Hermit led a couple hundred thousand peasants to Constantinople AHEAD of the troops by allegedly receiving navigational instructions from a divinely inspired goose. (Yes...you did read that correctly).

The first war the U.S. was involved in after it became a country was against Muslims.

Again...read a book...would you? The first war the US was involved after the Revolutionary War was the NW Indian War(s) in which had about 1,050 casualties for the newly-formed US. The second one was what has been dubbed the "Quasi-War" which was a series of skirmishes against French...albeit never a formal declaration of War. The third war and the one you are referring to is the First Barbary War which was fought against a handful of pirate vessels off the coast of North Africa because the Ottomans weren't willing to contribute any resources to it themselves. A whopping 35 Americans died over a four year timespan. If you want to go on record and call that a "War"...go nuts...but it's kind of a joke if you're using to illustrate some sort of inherent and long-standing struggle the US has had w/ Muslims. Note: There was also a Second Barbary "War" in which 4 guys died about 10 years later.

The idea of what was "legal" in 1948 has somewhat changed since then.

Maybe...but it hardly matters. Events are judged by the laws at the time an act takes place...not by the laws which come later. Notwithstanding...Israel still is occupying the West Bank in violation CURRENT law right now.

The original members of the U.N. would be stunned at what the U.N. has morphed into and laugh at the current regime's definition of "Legal". In case it hasn't been pointed out in your classes, the definition of "lawful", hencde legal changes depending who's in power with what agenda.

Really? What are you basing this on besides your own imagination? Tell me..who has been "in power" in the UN from it's inception to present day?

What you completely ignore, is Israel isn't going away, isn't committing a national suicide as, apparently, you and those of your ilk would like, will NEVER, give in. No matter how you spin the political vote swings in Israel, none vote to cede the existance of their nation.

Well...of course they won't CHOOSE to behave like grown-ups. I never said they would. I said I agree with Ahmadinejad that Israel should be wiped off the map. Likewise, I also said that Israel will be overrun by the enemies it has surrounded itself with....just as has happened to any and all countries, nations, city-states, and empires since the dawn of time when they simply refuse to get along with their neighbors.

Rome was around for 2000 years and eventually fell. Israel has been around for 64 years. I wouldn't be so certain that they'll "be around forever". Forever is very long time.