Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Iran, The real issue, An open discussion

page: 26
74
<< 23  24  25   >>

log in

join

posted on Aug, 24 2012 @ 04:29 PM
link   


I agree completely. There's always a price. yet, I have a problem with all the "innocents" blather.

Who said anything about "innocents"? All I said is that essentially US and UK foreign policy relating to Israel and the toppling of all the stable, western-style, democratically-inspired republics is what CAUSED the chaos and revival of fundamentalist nuttery in the Middle East.


no country in history has done more bending over backwards to avoid collateral damage and been taken advantage of by the insurgents using the so-called innocents as protection.

Of course...it's an asymetric foe. If we want to fight wars with people who will square off on an open field battle then we shouldn't ever engage militarily in the Middle East because we KNOW that it will not be that kind of war.


Lets not forget there was plenty of Germans and Japanese living in the U.S. back in the day as well. Nothing new really..


Sure...but in those cases we didn't have a 60 year history of toppling the Japanese or German government three times, or bequeathing Austria to Italy because it "used to be their land" during the Roman Empire.
How would you feel if China and Russia got together and arbitrarily decided to give Texas back to Mexico...and then gave Mexico tanks, guns, and nukes so that we couldn't take it back without a thermonuclear war?

You would be pissed too. Even if your home state was Kansas or Oregon.




posted on Aug, 24 2012 @ 09:31 PM
link   
reply to post by milominderbinder
 


Of course, I'd be pissed. Which is utterly irrelevant. and my point. Right through the '67 war, Israel survived, even flourished without U.S. Materials. Now they've a well equipped military with nukes be it U.S. or South African in origin.
Can the "pissed' win? I doubt it. My comment on the "innocents" was just a comment, not directed at you per say.
I am no fan of Israel. I'm not an enemy of Israel either. They do more with what they have, more tenacious, creative,yes, deadly. I admire them.
I cannot solve every inequity that man has brought on himself. Nor do I think most are even solvable. I believe this is one of them. Let them "work it out", but without nuclear weapons. If that means outside interference in Iran then so be it. Unfair? Oh well....



posted on Aug, 25 2012 @ 02:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by nwtrucker
reply to post by RimDaas
 


You have to go back a lot further than that to find a flourishing middle east. From an scientific and cultural beacon, the whole region can now lay claim to Afgan rugs as it's sole valuable, manufactured export. Great job, Imams!!!

When you bring up popularity, you omit Iran and it's present course, also highly "unpopular". Both in Europe and among it's neighbours. You omit much in your arguments. As unpopular as Israel is, iran has managed to match it, or at least negate it by their own actions. If you don't see that well.....

Neither your view of it nor mine will change anything.

It will be interesting to see who gets spanked first, Israel or Iran?


Should we go back time? Lawrence of Arabia helped the Arabs revolt against the Ottoman empire. Independence for many Arab states. There was going to be a good future ahead. Then suddenly, Britain takes over Arabia.
You forget. Look at UAE. Look at Qatar. Look at Oman. Look at Bahrain. All 4 of these countries are very rich and thousands of immigrants move here every year.
Qatar will host the World Football cup.
The UAE is now a very popular tourist destination
So is Oman.
Bahrain has one of the freest economies in the world.
You look at Saudi Arabia as barbaric. But you won't every think of the many luxurious hotels in Mecca or how the Saudis live there is wealth and luxury.
All these countries are thriving.
Iran will get spanked first of course. But after that Israel will be in greater threat.



posted on Aug, 25 2012 @ 11:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by nwtrucker
reply to post by milominderbinder
 


Of course, I'd be pissed. Which is utterly irrelevant. and my point. Right through the '67 war, Israel survived, even flourished without U.S. Materials. Now they've a well equipped military with nukes be it U.S. or South African in origin.
Can the "pissed' win? I doubt it. My comment on the "innocents" was just a comment, not directed at you per say.
I am no fan of Israel. I'm not an enemy of Israel either. They do more with what they have, more tenacious, creative,yes, deadly. I admire them.
I cannot solve every inequity that man has brought on himself. Nor do I think most are even solvable. I believe this is one of them. Let them "work it out", but without nuclear weapons. If that means outside interference in Iran then so be it. Unfair? Oh well....



So...how can we "let them work it out for themselves" and ALSO invade Iran for them? This is the root of the matter.

I'm all for "letting them work it out themselves" and adopting a laissez-faire foreign policy to the ENTIRE Middle East. If Israel wants to continue unlawfully occupy foreign land...great...let them go nuts. But they will do so without ANY US money, arms, or intelligence support. Likewise, if Iran wants nuclear weapons so they can be on even footing with Israel...great...no problem at all. We just make sure that everyone in the Middle East knows that anyone who goes all nutty with their nukes faces US NUCLEAR retaliation.

Letting them "sort it out by themselves" runs 100% contradictory to all of our sanctions and sabre-rattling towards. Iran. Whether it's "morally" right or wrong...I really don't care at all how many Jews, Muslims and Christians die while fighting over scraps of worthless desert land whose only saving grace is that there is soon-to-be-obsolete oil underneath them.

Unfortunately, that isn't the case. The situation we currently have on the table is asking us to send more of our children into the meat grinder for a war that we cannot possibly afford or win in order to prevent the historically unstoppable dissemination of technology. Talk about futile efforts.

Why don't we just go ahead and wage war on gravity or tidal currents? In the history of mankind there is not even so much as ONE single example where one nation-state has been able to keep it's technology from disseminating to another nation-state in the long-run.

These efforts commonly succeed in the short-term such as for a few decades or during the course of an ongoing armed conflict...but the idea that in the Information Age we can possibly keep an entire country from developing nuclear technology, whether for power or weaponry is absolutely idiotic. Nuclear fission electrical plants have been around since BEFORE pocket calculators and television became ubiquitous.

To give you an idea of how truly foolish the premise of this is, check out the following website.
Link: 49chevy.blogs.com...

If you click on the "Fusioneers" hyperlink in the 1st paragraph you will get a listing of all the people who have built nuclear FUSION reactors IN THEIR BASEMENTS. In fact...here is a list of the HIGH SCHOOL STUDENTS who have done so.

Michael Li - winner $75k Intel scholarship (fusor), 2003
Craig Wallace - winner $1.5k Intel 2nd place (Fusor)
Adam Parker - winner of $10k Alabama scholarship in science
Thiago Olson - beautiful project, passed muster with state inspectors
Taylor Wilson - Youngest fusioneer - 14 years old.
Tyler Christensen
Ben Bartlett- Also young 14 year old. Ben attended ISEF 2009
Matthew Honickman
Chad Ramey – Student of Promise Award. Grand Award Georgia State
Engineering and Science fair...Beat out over 600 other exhibits.
Brian McDermott
Raymond Jimenez
Will Jack - science fair winner with fusor
Conrad Farnsworth

....so in an age where minors are fusing deuterium in devices often constructed for less than $5,000 of parts from science supply and hardware stores with minimal permitting and background checks...isn't it kind of ridiculous to get so worked up over Iran's clunky, inefficient, and obsolete nuclear fission technology?

Do we REALLY want to listen to Israel and get into YET ANOTHER war over this?

It's beyond dumb. What are we going to do when Iran gets up to the technological proficiency of our H.S. students which would allow them to build a much more powerful H-bomb? Take away all their hydrogen atoms? Put an embargo on Blu-Ray players so the lasers can't be repurposed? Confiscate all of their plumbing supplies in their hardware stores? Send UN inspectors in to seize vacuum pumps and air compressors? Take their magnets away?

It's just plain dumb.



posted on Aug, 25 2012 @ 11:40 AM
link   
reply to post by RimDaas
 


What you say is true. There is some very nice countries in the region. Well developed. No argument from me on that.
I will point out that every one of those countries you mentioned work "with" the west, not against. No "saber rattling". No large military build-ups, as a rule.
Non-threatening to anyone to speak of, these countries seem to have an understanding of how to maximize their lot, economically.
A little better wealth distribution to their populations might be in order to insure no "revolution' reaches them as it has others.....



posted on Aug, 26 2012 @ 01:32 AM
link   
reply to post by nwtrucker
 


I don't understand. The native populations in these countries live extravagantly with little or no taxes, and the expatriate populations who usually come from South East Asia don't mind how much money they get since it's better pay than in their native countries.



posted on Aug, 26 2012 @ 10:20 AM
link   
reply to post by RimDaas
 


I haven't been in the area myself, but my understanding is it's a very small percentage of the populations living the high life, so to speak. I believe Saudi Arabia has something like a 30-40% unemployment rate with all the oil income ending up with the House of Saud and it's family members themselves.



posted on Aug, 26 2012 @ 01:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by nwtrucker
reply to post by RimDaas
 


What you say is true. There is some very nice countries in the region. Well developed. No argument from me on that.
I will point out that every one of those countries you mentioned work "with" the west, not against. No "saber rattling". No large military build-ups, as a rule.
Non-threatening to anyone to speak of, these countries seem to have an understanding of how to maximize their lot, economically.
A little better wealth distribution to their populations might be in order to insure no "revolution' reaches them as it has others.....


So...let me get this straight. Nations such as Abu Dhabi, Kuwait, and Libya (under Khaddaffi) already have free medical care, free college educations, and in some cases...interest-free state sponsored mortgages.

So...if they need BETTER wealth distribution...then you must be WAY to the left of Obama on our own domestic programs...right?

LOL.



posted on Aug, 26 2012 @ 01:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by nwtrucker
reply to post by RimDaas
 


I haven't been in the area myself, but my understanding is it's a very small percentage of the populations living the high life, so to speak. I believe Saudi Arabia has something like a 30-40% unemployment rate with all the oil income ending up with the House of Saud and it's family members themselves.


Our buddy Saudi Arabia has by far the largest contingent of Muslim fundamentalists in the region. This is a beautiful illustration of how little you understand the subject material.

You view the Saudi's as being more "sane" because they play ball with the US...yet this is the home base of the fundamentalist nutters that you so vilify.



posted on Aug, 26 2012 @ 01:28 PM
link   



Iran will get spanked first of course. But after that Israel will be in greater threat.



How refreshing. Someone who thinks before they type.

Hence my point with the "unwinnable wars in the Middle East". When you go into battle in the Middle East you either "kinda lose" and are forced to pack up and go home...or you "REALLY LOSE" by defeating your opponent militarily...and then being forced to deal with a fresh wave of religiously fueled resentment and hatred for our meddling in the region's foreign affairs.

The only way to "win" in the Middle East IS TO STAY OUT OF IT!!



posted on Aug, 26 2012 @ 04:47 PM
link   
reply to post by milominderbinder
 


My bad. I shouldn't have used "wealth redistribution". Prosperity more evenly availiable? I was thinking mostly of the ridiculous life-style of the house of Saud and the poverty in that State.
One thing is they are smarter by a light year than Persians. Dispite equal or even more extreme fundamentalism, they don't challenge militarily, they don't threaten death to a nation on a hourly basis. They don't threaten to cut oil supplies, either by closing transportation lanes of the spigots themselves.

Besides, I've heard it's about in thirds, 1/3 of the House of saud is fundamental, 1/3 likes things the way they are, and the last third swings whichever way will keep their heads attached.

The smaller countries, if you want to call them that, I have no idea and don't really care.

No, I'm not a socialist, But, if you are rich and your next door neighbour is broke and his family is starving, he's likely gonna try and get your food...or die trying. Might want to do something about it....



posted on Aug, 26 2012 @ 04:52 PM
link   
reply to post by milominderbinder
 


Huh? I just made a critical comment of the House of Saud and you somehow twist it into saying that I say they're sane??

The whole freeking bunch of them are insane. Looney tunes. Apparently it's catchy.



posted on Aug, 27 2012 @ 03:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by milominderbinder

Originally posted by nwtrucker
reply to post by RimDaas
 


What you say is true. There is some very nice countries in the region. Well developed. No argument from me on that.
I will point out that every one of those countries you mentioned work "with" the west, not against. No "saber rattling". No large military build-ups, as a rule.
Non-threatening to anyone to speak of, these countries seem to have an understanding of how to maximize their lot, economically.
A little better wealth distribution to their populations might be in order to insure no "revolution' reaches them as it has others.....


So...let me get this straight. Nations such as Abu Dhabi, Kuwait, and Libya (under Khaddaffi) already have free medical care, free college educations, and in some cases...interest-free state sponsored mortgages.

So...if they need BETTER wealth distribution...then you must be WAY to the left of Obama on our own domestic programs...right?

LOL.

First of all:
Abu Dhabi is not a country
Second of all:
I never mentioned Kuwait of Libya
And third:
What are you trying to say?



posted on Aug, 27 2012 @ 11:25 AM
link   


First of all:
Abu Dhabi is not a country

Correct. I mispoke. Abu Dhabi is the capital of the UAE. I didn't get much sleep the night before and was thinking of the opulence of Abu Dhabi but should have referenced the UAE as I was talking about nations. My bad.


Second of all:
I never mentioned Kuwait of Libya

Correct again...I did. However, you seem to have odd understandings the countries that which "take advantage of their lot economically" and have fair distributions of wealth in the Middle East.

Libya had an EXTREMELY fair distribution of wealth under Khadafi. That was precisely the problem and the reason the CIA and Al-CIAda fomented the "revolution" there. Likewise, look at the "US friendly" Saudi Arabia. They have one of the largest percentages of fundamentalist nutters, a massively lopsided distribution of wealth, and treat their women perhaps the worst in the region save for Taliban-controlled Afghanistan.

If you look...most of the less bass ackwards countries in the Middle East are HIGHLY SOCIALIZED. This really shouldn't be a surprise to anyone. Third world hell-holes come in all sorts of varieties ranging from monarchies, republics, dictatorships, oligarchies, communist, socialist, capitalist, mercantilist, theocracies, and secular societies...but the ONLY thing that ALL third world hell holes have in common is a small aristocracy which controls virtually all of the wealth in society while the vast majority of the population is relegated to fighting over the table scraps.

My point is that you are taking disconnected attributes of these countries and erroneously assuming that the "good" parts are due to pro-west philosophy. Khadafi is largely responsible for brining Libya into the modern age where women have rights, and the common peasant can experience upward mobility is they work hard and do a good job. Look at what we did to him? Did he practice some brutal tactics? Sure...you bet. But then again...if the CIA has been trying to throw your government into a state of civil unrest since the '80's...you might be a bit brutal towards their operatives as well.

Meanwhile, Saudi Arabia stands in polar opposition to pretty much ALL generally accepted western ideals...and people think their just swell because they don't have a large military build-up and let us park our bombers there. Christ...if you were Iran and you just saw what they did to Khadafi and long-time US puppet-ally Mubarek...wouldn't YOU feel compelled to have a big military too?

Similarly, given that you (correctly) ascertain that a fair distribution of a civilizations wealth is a key component to them being a "first world" sort of nation AND feel that Middle East nations would benefit from INCREASING this parity...I'm wondering if you also support such measures in the United States in order to PREVENT us from becoming a third world hell-hole governed by our own theocratic lunatics?



posted on Aug, 27 2012 @ 11:54 AM
link   


The smaller countries, if you want to call them that, I have no idea and don't really care.

Spoken just like a willfully ignorant American. Kuwait was a small country...we fought Iraq 1.0 over it.
Israel is a small country...perhaps you shouldn't give a rip if they survive or not. After all...Iran is a much bigger country. Serbia isn't even as large as South Carolina...and they started WWI.



No, I'm not a socialist, But, if you are rich and your next door neighbour is broke and his family is starving, he's likely gonna try and get your food...or die trying. Might want to do something about it....


Correct. I'm glad you can now see how and why the Palestinians feel as though they have no choice but to attempt to take back what is rightfully and lawfully their land or die trying. Perhaps Israel should consider at the very least returning to the 1967 border in an effort to make peace with their neighbors, since they are the agressors who stole it in the first place, huh?

Now tell me...do you think that Iran could be persuaded to tone down some of the anti-Israeli rhetoric if Israel followed the good sense you yourself just suggested?

I sure do. Negotiating is as much about respect as it is about whatever is being haggled over...whether it's money, land, the price of a car, or union benefits. Yes...each party has underlying interests...but THE FIRST step in ALL negotiations are establishing clear signs that each party respects the other....even if they vehemently disagree.

Why do you think Kissenger argued with Vietnamese for three months during the Geneva Peace Accords on whether or not the ashtrays would be circular or square? It seems like a petty detail...but anybody who REALLY understands the psychology involved in negotiations knows that in order for meaningful negotiations to occur...the weaker side typically must obtain some clear signs that the stronger side respects them FIRST. Otherwise...the weaker side feels bullied...even if they receive a WONDERFUL offer.

In the famous case of the ashtrays at the Geneva Peace Accords...it wasn't about the ashtrays at all. It was about forcing the United States to recognize that they would HAVE to give careful consideration to things which they did not necessarily care about as well as a demonstration that the Vietnamese were holding all the cards given that they had been fighting guerrilla wars against foreign invaders pretty much nonstop for 1,000 years previous to the US showing up.

So my question is...why are you so surprised that Israel's neighbors want them dead given your comment above? It would seem that you understand Iran and Palestine's perspective perfectly and feel that the only logical solution would be for the US and Israel to just quit screwing with them.



posted on Aug, 27 2012 @ 12:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by nwtrucker
reply to post by milominderbinder
 


Huh? I just made a critical comment of the House of Saud and you somehow twist it into saying that I say they're sane??

The whole freeking bunch of them are insane. Looney tunes. Apparently it's catchy.


Well...its confusing. First you DESCRIBE a country like Saudi Arabia as being one of the more "reasonable" countries in the Middle East. Your exact words were:
"What you say is true. There is some very nice countries in the region. Well developed. No argument from me on that.
I will point out that every one of those countries you mentioned work "with" the west, not against. No "saber rattling". No large military build-ups, as a rule.
Non-threatening to anyone to speak of, these countries seem to have an understanding of how to maximize their lot, economically.
A little better wealth distribution to their populations might be in order to insure no "revolution' reaches them as it has others.....


Then proceed to criticize the House of Saud in particular for hoarding wealth at the expense of the peasant folk.

So...then what you are saying is that you mispoke and they're aren't any nice countries in the area? Or are you saying that your DESCRIPTION of what constitutes a nice country in the region doesn't make much sense given that Saudi Arabia works with the west, doesn't rattle sabers, and has a very strong understanding of how to maximize their lot, doesn't threaten Israel or anyone else directly....but is still a complete and utter hell hole?

I'm not arguing with you that Saudi Arabia is a hell hole. I'm just pointing out that there isn't really a correlation to being "sane" and "working with the west" at all. Generally speaking "working with the west" simply means raping the land and your people for the benefit of Exxon-Mobile and Dick Cheney.

Tell you what...go watch the Oliver Stone documentary entitled "South of the Border" about Hugo Chavez and you'll see a perfect example of the propaganda and distorted world views that so many of us Americans have. Hugo Chavez is sold to us as a military dictator who seized power during a coup and arbitrarily nationalized private corporations.

All of these statements are TECHNICALLY true. However...in REAL LIFE Hugo Chavez's "coup" was marked by a REFUSAL to engage in violence. Chavez was a general in the Venezuelan army. The "democratically" elected criminal who is in office prior to Chavez ordered him to deploy military forces on peaceful protestors. Chavez did so the first time as he followed orders when he was informed that there was a "riot". After he saw what he did and that he ordered his troops to open fire on UNARMED AND PEACEFUL peasant-folk he was tormented by it. The next time he was ordered to do so...he refused. Instead he informed the Venezuelan people that the military stood with the people and would not be massacring peaceful protestors. Chavez was arrested and taken to be executed without trial...but the soldiers who formed the firing squad refused to shoot him.

Given that when Chavez took power the only thing Venezuela had going for it was oil exports...he nationalized the oil wells and used the proceeds to develop the country. Since he has taken power the standard of living for the average venezuelan has increased something like 500%, agricultural exports are up dramatically, and crime is down WITHOUT INCREASING THE INCARCERATION RATE OR POLICE SPENDING. The people LOVE him.

Why is he such and "enemy of the US"? Because he refused to sell out his people for the benefit of an oil company and a bunch of already rich Americans took a hit in their investment portfolios. Big frickin' deal. This is the same strategy Khadafi was employing. He nationalized the oil exports and used the proceeds to build infrastructure, provide health care, and educate his people.

So...why is it that Venezuela was a "good guy" when they slaughtered their citizens...and they are a "bad guy" now that they treat them well? Why is Iran a "bad guy" for essentially mirroring the religious nuttery of our closest ally in the region?

It's incoherent.





new topics

top topics



 
74
<< 23  24  25   >>

log in

join