PDA

View Full Version : Iran and Nuclear Weapons


Please visit our sponsor:
 

AikiWeb Sponsored Links - Place your Aikido link here for only $10!


mj
01-15-2006, 06:48 AM
Iran and Nukes.

Let's look at it from the Western point of view:-


Iran is breaking the Non-Proliferation Treaty.

The Iranian President, Mahmoud Ahmedinajad, has publicly stated he wishes Israel to be wiped off the world map.

Iran has removed the seals from its nuclear test facilities - in violation of the Paris Treaty (2004)

Iran is run by a fundamentalist government which is reactionary. Claims are constantly made thet many terrorists are crossing the Iran/Iraq border.

Condoleeza Rice, as America's spokeswoman and Jack Straw (British counterpart), has been firm that Iran has no right to pursue nuclear weapons.

Sanctions are being proposed. And of course Bush has mentioned military intervention.

Seems simple enough.


Let's look at it from Iran's point of view:-


Iran may be, allegedly, breaking the NPT but in the Middle East area so is India, Pakistan, Israel and (a bit further away) North Korea.

Threatening Israel is the quickest way to make your country love you, in the Middle East.

Although removing the seals on its facilities is in violation of the Paris Treaty, Iran has the legal right to develop nuclear power. In fact the US signed an agreement on this.

Iran has Iraq to the West and Afghanistan to the East, both under US military control. Pakistan touches its border and the current government is allowing US operations. (Given that, the population is anti-Western)

It seems to be you are only threatened up until the point you develop nukes, after that you are left alone. North Korea being the prime (na dmost relevant) example as along with Iran and Iraq they were the 'axis of evil'.

And of course, has Iran attacked anyone? Surely Iran is now in the position where it needs nukes so it is not attacked?


Another diplomatic disaster waiting to happen. The West doesn't have the resources or the public support for another intervention, Iran has *plenty* of public support.

Amir Krause
01-15-2006, 07:24 AM
some simple comments:


Who are the nukes supposed to defend against?
The only one who attacked Iran is Sadam Hussain. The U.S. has removed this threat. Who else is CURRENTLY threatening Iran out of the contest of it's Mass destruction weapons plans?[

Israel did not break the NPT, it simply never agreed to sign this treaty. Iran has signed the treaty and now, after using it to gain nuclear know-how, wishes out.
I dont know about the status of India, North Korea or Pakistan with this regard.

Iran is financing and arming Hezbollah to attack Israel. Hence it's treat to attack Israel with nuclear weapons is more credible then most.




Amir

mj
01-15-2006, 07:50 AM
Right.

1 - as I said Pakistan and Israel both have nukes. America has military installations in Afghanistan, Saudi Arabia, Iraq and so on. Iraq attacked Iran in the 80s at the behest of the West, after the overthrow of the West friendly Shah.

I seem to recall we were all selling arms to Saddam so he could attack Iran - Iran did not attack Iraq afaik.

2 Israel has illegal nukes - are you arguing that point or just being pedantic? If you're not going to contribute why bother posting?

3 You can now provide a link to prove your allegation that Iran has said it will nuke Israel. :)

Amir Krause
01-15-2006, 10:43 AM
1 - as I said Pakistan and Israel both have nukes. America has military installations in Afghanistan, Saudi Arabia, Iraq and so on. Iraq attacked Iran in the 80s at the behest of the West, after the overthrow of the West friendly Shah.

I seem to recall we were all selling arms to Saddam so he could attack Iran - Iran did not attack Iraq afaik.

As I wrote, the only actual threat to Iran was Saddam. The US recently removed him.


2 Israel has illegal nukes - are you arguing that point or just being pedantic? If you're not going to contribute why bother posting?

As I wrote earlier, Israel never signed the NPT. Hence, even if Israel has nukes (the Israeli governments keep trying to be unclear about this for the last 30 yrs), there is nothing that make them less legal then the U.S., Soviet or France Nukes.
Iran signed the NPT in order of receiving aid in developing a nuclear program. Now, it decided it has acquired enough know-how to build nuclear weapons, and wishes to leave the agreement. This is the "illegal action" if you wish, though I suspect if one will check, he will find there is no law that truly prohibits it.



3 You can now provide a link to prove your allegation that Iran has said it will nuke Israel.

Since you agree with me that such links exist. I don't see any reason to bother.


Have a nice day and enjoy the practice.
Amir

mj
01-15-2006, 11:18 AM
I started this thread for reasonable debate, but if you present anything as a fact be prepared to back it up or don't bother making it.

Frankly I have zero interest discussing Israel here unless it is directly relevant. This thread is about the current situation in Iran.

For instance, regarding your point on Israel, why is Iran getting so much pressure whereas Pakistan, India and Israel are not being threatened with sanctions? And how would the Muslim world see this?

Neil Mick
01-15-2006, 11:34 AM
From my perspective, this is simply the latest dance-step, in the US flexing its muscle in the MidEast. The speech that Bolton will make when the UN Security Council does NOT vote with the US has already been written. Bolton will declare the UN obsolete, and the US will commence a bombing campaign against Iran.

All the rest of it (the threats, the "urgency" in Iran's breaking with the UN) is diplomatic posturing.

mj
01-15-2006, 02:02 PM
The US has already demanded that military force remains an option, link (http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/N15194172.htm)

This was not, of course, the reaction with India, Pakistan and Israel. Thus we further alienate Muslims and enhance the view that it is one rule for the West, and another rule for them.

dan guthrie
01-15-2006, 08:08 PM
The US has already demanded that military force remains an option, link (http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/N15194172.htm)

This was not, of course, the reaction with India, Pakistan and Israel. Thus we further alienate Muslims and enhance the view that it is one rule for the West, and another rule for them.


Pakistan is emphatically Muslim so I don't quite understand your point.
I have not kept up with this as much as I should but I've been getting the impression that the Bush White House has been letting (I'm not implying that they need his permission, either) diplomacy and the EU take full responsibility for dealing with Iran's program. I have seen several prominent Neocons bemoan on teevee.

I remain hopeful that sanctions aren't going to be imposed.
Imagine what Cuba would be like if it had oil and pipelines/shipping lines to wealthy European countries. Sanctions imposed on Iran would be gossamer thin.

Also, Mark, could you provide a link to show how Iraq attacked Iran at our "behest?" I'm not being provacative. I honestly want a link. I'm going to Wikipedia so I may be back to withdraw this.

James Davis
01-16-2006, 11:08 AM
I find it interesting that everyone assumes Iran's plan is to produce nuclear weapons, seeing that they claim to be conducting nuclear research to acquire a power source. I understand how one could come to this conclusion, since Iran was ranked fourth in the world for oil exports in 2004. (a google search of "top oil exporters" can lead you to the iea website.)

Why would they need nuclear power?... :confused:

mj
01-16-2006, 11:14 AM
Also, Mark, could you provide a link to show how Iraq attacked Iran at our "behest?" I'm not being provacative. I honestly want a link. I'm going to Wikipedia so I may be back to withdraw this.
Of course. Check the part titled 'U.S.-Iraqi arms transfers in the war' in the wiki link here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran_iraq_war)

Amir Krause
01-17-2006, 04:15 AM
I started this thread for reasonable debate, but if you present anything as a fact be prepared to back it up or don't bother making it.


Well, in this case, would you mind giving an widely accepted definition for "illegal nukes", The definition should also explain which nukes are legal and legit, and why.
I believe such a definition would essential to any continued debate.

After you bring such a definition, hopefully a definition that can be accepted by people from all over the world (and not only by people from nations who are allowed to have weapons according to it). We could all examine which of the countries you mentioned Iran, India, Afghanistan, Israel is believed to have illegal weapons and how does that correspond with the definition.

For instance, regarding your point on Israel, why is Iran getting so much pressure whereas Pakistan, India and Israel are not being threatened with sanctions? And how would the Muslim world see this?

At the moment, I would agree with you the argument against Iran possessing Nuclear weapons is not based on any "natural justice" but rather on the interests of those who feel threatened by it. Namely - the arab oil states which are the main cause for the US concern, Israel (considering "Ahmedinajad's much-publicized remarks about wanting to wipe Israel off the map" as written in time-magazine: http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1149323,00.html I am sure you could look for other sources too), and Europe (the Iranian missiles range already covers the southern parts of Italy.

As for the reason Iran is getting much more pressure compared to Pakistan and India, the reason is quite obvious. Iran has taken upon itself the purpose of propagating the Shi'a Muslim religion world-wide. It has been accused more then once for financing terrorists out-side its borders and taking a militant role. Nobody wishes a person with the reputation of Iran’s leaders to hold a gun to his head, let a lone a nuclear missile.

Amir

P.S.
I rarely add links since finding links in English for things I have already read about in Hebrew takes too much of my time. I suggest that next time, when obvious facts are disputed I will add the link in Hebrew. As far as Israel not signing the NPT, even Arab sources write this down (look at the last paragraph of this paragraph which is definitely not pro-Israel): http://www.aljazeerah.info/Opinion%20editorials/2005%20Opinion%20Editorials/February/14%20o/German%20Gifting%20of%20Nuclear%20Submarines%20to%20Israel%20NPT%20Delinquency%2 0By%20Warren%20Hastings.htm

Amir Krause
01-17-2006, 04:28 AM
Just found a link that explains the major difference between Iran and between India, Pakistan and Israel:
Iran signed the NPT and is now announcing it intentions to violate it, even though Iran has received aid in developing nuclear science and energy based on the commitment for NPT compliance.

India, Pakistan and Israel all refused to join the NPT. In accordance, the world may dislike those countries holding nuclear weapons, but it has no international legal claim. Joining the NPT is voluntary.

The link is to an old article, but the facts are still relevant.
http://faculty.biu.ac.il/~steing/arms/techrev.htm

Amir

mj
01-17-2006, 11:29 AM
I would argue that *not* signing the NPT is just as bad as signing it then violating it. The fact is that there is absolutely no difference between any of the countries regarding nuclear weapon development.

Apart from the fact that Israel, India and Pakistan have nukes and are not being threatened in any way. Does one hear any threats from America or Britain regarding India?

The idea of America proposing military action against Israel is laughable - this highlights the perceived hypocrisy.

Iran does not have nukes, as everyone freely admits - but is being threatened with sanctions and military action. Iran primarily deals with Russia and China - China receives 13% of its oil imports from Iran and would immediately veto any sanctions put on the table at the UN. In the same way that the US always vetos proposals against Israel for its own purposes.

Ron Tisdale
01-17-2006, 12:51 PM
well, I'm not an expert in this area, but here's my thoughts...

India and Pakistan threaten each other...and both have nukes.

Iran threatens Israel, and Israel has nukes (not sure about Iran).

Iran should not be surprised if their threats are taken seriously, and they suffer the consequences of that. Especially since THEY KNOW Israel has nukes.

Signatories to a document should be bound by that document.

Non-signatories cannot be bound to a document they didn't sign.

Seems pretty common sense to me.

Best,
Ron (lord, I hope the US doesn't end up in a war in Iran after the fiasco in Iraq)

Neil Mick
01-17-2006, 12:56 PM
Iran should not be surprised if their threats are taken seriously, and they suffer the consequences of that. Especially since THEY KNOW Israel has nukes.

Yeah, I bet Pat Robertson could tell a thing or two to Iran about the peril of making stupid public comments about Israel (or, its leaders), hehe. :)

Ron Tisdale
01-17-2006, 01:04 PM
oh ick...PR needs to find a new planet...

Best,
R

Neil Mick
01-17-2006, 03:39 PM
Yeah, agreed: but "Planet Robertson" will have to be somewhere other than Israel, hehehehe...

Israel: Woe unto Pat Robertson for criticizing Sharon (http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/01/12/israel.robertson/)

Amir Krause
01-19-2006, 08:23 AM
I would argue that *not* signing the NPT is just as bad as signing it then violating it. The fact is that there is absolutely no difference between any of the countries regarding nuclear weapon development.

Excuse me "just as bad" under which criteria ?

Previously you referred to illegal weapons, and you accused me of not bringing links to prove my claim that Iran case is different compared to India, Israel and Pakistan. In retrospect, you are the one who compared apples and oranges, and forgot to bring any link. So now you change your argument from "illegal" to "just as bad" and so I must ask, based on whose morality?

Would you mind informing us what does the NPT agreement state? And what exactly turns it to a moral righteous thing ? (links please)

To my best knowledge, the basis is a decision that only 5 countries should have nuclear weapons, and therefore - world wide military supremacy.
There is nothing righteous, virtuous or moral with regard to this agreement. This agreement does not force the removal of world-wrecking nuclear weapons. At best, one could say there is some practicality concerning the future of man-kind, since fewer parties with nuclear weapons would reduce the likelihood of such weapons being used in any war. Though it would not prevent other atrocities from happening as has been demonstrated through-out the world, and particularly in Africa in the last decade - genocide does not require any special technology.
However, any country that agreed to this agreement, should be committed to it. Particularly since the NPT signatory countries assist other countries in developing nuclear science based on the agreement from those countries to sign the NPT.
I do find your willingness to forgive countries from breaking this type of agreement to be very troublesome. Given this willingness, to consider international agreements on the basis of your momentary preferences, why should any country be willing to count on an international agreement? Why should anyone keep a peace agreement if he finds an opportunity to renegade on it (and yes, this time I am implying to the middle –east situation).

Personally, I fear the day Iran has nuclear weapons. Since I am not sure Iranian leaders way of viewing the world coincides with mine with regard to survival of the species. I fear it more having read the threats Iran has made with regards to annihilating the place I live. My fear is substantiated by the Iranian insistence to be involved in funding and supplying terrorist organizations such as Hezbollah ( a Lebanonise Shiite terrorist organization that keeps attacking Israel under the cover of the UN, even though the UN has decreed that Israel retreated from all of Lebanon grounds).


Iran does not have nukes, as everyone freely admits - but is being threatened with sanctions and military action.

It is much more difficult to take nukes from a country and much easier to stop the process of gaining such weaponry. Suppose you knew I had some things against you, and had history of violence, would you wait until I held a charged gun at your head before reacting? Is this the timing we are taught to act in Aikido – wait until the threat is such that the action would have to be very severe? Or act when minimal energy is required. ?


Iran primarily deals with Russia and China - China receives 13% of its oil imports from Iran and would immediately veto any sanctions put on the table at the UN. In the same way that the US always vetos proposals against Israel for its own purposes.
I agree with you international politics analysis. This topic is ruled by interest first.


Amir

Ron Tisdale
01-19-2006, 08:34 AM
Hi Amir,

I agree with all of your statements except this one:

and particularly in Africa in the last decade - genocide does not require any special technology.

Africa is NOT the only continent in the last decade to deal with genocide. Eastern Europe is also notable in this regard (Bosnia, Chechnia, etc.). I'm sure you didn't mean anything in particular by your statement, but such things are often taken out of context by people not so well meaning as yourself.

Best,
Ron

Neil Mick
01-19-2006, 10:11 AM
some simple comments:
Who are the nukes supposed to defend against?
The only one who attacked Iran is Sadam Hussain. The U.S. has removed this threat. Who else is CURRENTLY threatening Iran out of the contest of it's Mass destruction weapons plans?

Hi Amir,

It should be obvious who the nuc's are supposed to defend against (that is, assuming that Iran will actually MAKE nuc's): the US. The lesson of N. Korea vs. Iraq as part of the "Axis o' Eevel" is simple: you have nuc's, the US leaves you alone.

Iran is simply trying to survive. They're not stupid: all the latest noise is one big PR push for the next big, violent thing. It's the American Way.

Excuse me "just as bad" under which criteria ?

Bad, as in, really stupid, and dangerously destabilizing to world peace.

Nuclear weapons have the opposite effect upon Israel, than Iran. Israel is surrounded by real, and perceived, enemies. They all view Israel as an even greater threat, now that it has nuclear weapons.

And, Israel doesn't even need these weapons: ironically, they're a threat to Israel's security, as well. Israel has never been more secure from external threats. Syria's forces are retreating from Lebanon; the Taliban has been neutralized in Afghanistan and there is no longer a Soviet Union to encourage Arab nations to antagonize Israel. Hussein is gone, and any nation stupid enough to try to invade Israel would receive the immediate attention of the US war-machine.

Israel's having nuclear weapons only encourages other nations in the region, to follow suit.

To my best knowledge, the basis is a decision that only 5 countries should have nuclear weapons, and therefore - world wide military supremacy.
There is nothing righteous, virtuous or moral with regard to this agreement. This agreement does not force the removal of world-wrecking nuclear weapons. At best, one could say there is some practicality concerning the future of man-kind, since fewer parties with nuclear weapons would reduce the likelihood of such weapons being used in any war.

Yes. The best thing would be a total ban on nuclear weapons and technology, for all.


Though it would not prevent other atrocities from happening as has been demonstrated through-out the world, and particularly in Africa in the last decade - genocide does not require any special technology.


Africa is NOT the only continent in the last decade to deal with genocide. Eastern Europe is also notable in this regard (Bosnia, Chechnia, etc.).

Not to mention E. Timor, Aceh, in Asia, etc.

Personally, I fear the day Iran has nuclear weapons.

I fear the day some US commander decides to try out their shiny, new, battlefield-nuc toys...that will happen a lot sooner, than Iran shooting a nuc at Israel.

It is much more difficult to take nukes from a country and much easier to stop the process of gaining such weaponry. Suppose you knew I had some things against you, and had history of violence, would you wait until I held a charged gun at your head before reacting?

But (going by this example): suppose I had a history of violence, and had some things against you, too. Worse, I already had a gun pointed at your head.

Don't you think it's better that we put down all the toys and start talking like adults?

Is this the timing we are taught to act in Aikido -- wait until the threat is such that the action would have to be very severe? Or act when minimal energy is required. ?

Please: I live in a country where our leaders told us we had a threat, where there was none. Over and over, I heard the same mantra: "What are we supposed to DO?? How can we just WAIT??" "We cannot wait for verification to come in the form of a mushroom cloud," blah blah blah.

The important thing is distinguishing btw an actual threat, or becoming a threat yourself, to others. :ai: :ki: :do:

James Davis
01-19-2006, 11:02 AM
Yes. The best thing would be a total ban on nuclear weapons and technology, for all.
Don't you think it's better that we put down all the toys and start talking like adults?

Talking like adults has been attempted many times in the past, in the middle east and plenty of other places. A large problem with this course of action is that the U.N. doesn't follow up on its promises of punishment for those who break the law. While people die under the thumb of a dictator, we can find the U.N. shooting up slums in third world countries. Any member nation of the U.N. that thinks about doing something about said dictator will have their hands tied by other member nations.

All of the talking in the world sometimes won't even break up two high school boys in a fistfight! What makes us think that we can just talk to a murderous dictator and everything will be okay every time?

I'm all for trying to solve things through reasonable discussion, but not everyone is reasonable! I think trying to talk about our problems is the best thing to do when the situation allows it, but being all talk is out of the question.

The group that kidnapped Jill Carroll isn't interested in intellectually honest debate. They want their friends released from prison and they will kill her unless that happens. They're not listening. They could have mailed a statement to Al Jazeera(sp?), but dropped off a video of a scared kidnapping victim instead. These people aren't interested in talking. They think the rules that we follow shouldn't apply to them; they think they're special. Jill Carroll has never done anything to hurt these people, and has in fact worked damn hard at getting out the story of war-weary Iraqis. It doesn't look like these terrorists care too much about what kind of person she is.

:rolleyes: What's the big deal about these terrorists, huh? They're just misunderstood! They just want us to leave! Then, when we're gone, they'll only want Israel... :rolleyes:

...just like Hitler only wanted Austria. :disgust:

We've all been talking for a long damn time. We started peace summits, and they started hijacking planes and taking hostages. If we start giving in to their demands, they'll start taking more hostages. What a great world that'll make. :rolleyes:

No nation is perfect. The U.S.A. have made plenty of mistakes. Should we spend all of our time all of our time wringing our hands and crying about the past trying to make every last person happy? If that's the case, I demand an immediate apology from Scotland...

...because I live in south Florida, and I think golf sucks. ;)

Neil Mick
01-19-2006, 11:21 AM
Talking like adults has been attempted many times in the past, in the middle east and plenty of other places.

That's right. Sometimes it works: sometimes not.

What makes us think that we can just talk to a murderous dictator and everything will be okay every time?

What makes us think that we can just pour all our resources into "defence" and nuc's and be okay every time?

I'm all for trying to solve things through reasonable discussion, but not everyone is reasonable! I think trying to talk about our problems is the best thing to do when the situation allows it, but being all talk is out of the question.

Consider this article:

Should We Negotiate With Terrorists? (http://www.mediate.com/articles/currie4.cfm)

In answer to the question, should we negotiate with terrorists, Roger Fisher replies with a resounding yes, because the better our communication, the better our chances of exerting influence. But doesn't negotiating with someone whose behavior you abhor grant them legitimacy that they didn't have before, and therefore reward criminal activity? Won't this encourage further bad behavior because it means we have given into pressure? According to Fisher, it may confer a little legitimacy, but this effect can be minimized by involving relatively low level or non-governmental personnel in the initial talks. The effect could actually be eliminated if we had a policy of negotiating with anyone. With such a policy, no one could attain special status just because negotiations were opened.

The group that kidnapped Jill Carroll isn't interested in intellectually honest debate. They want their friends released from prison and they will kill her unless that happens. They're not listening.

You don't know this; because we're not talking.

These people aren't interested in talking. They think the rules that we follow shouldn't apply to them; they think they're special.

As opposed to the Defender's o' Freedom, whose leader has a direct line to God. :rolleyes:



...just like Hitler only wanted Austria. :disgust:

Negotiation does not = Appeasement

We've all been talking for a long damn time. We started peace summits, and they started hijacking planes and taking hostages.

Oversimplified. The Iranian's released the hostages; Guiliana Sgrena was released. Negotiation sometimes works; sometimes doesn't. To start talking extremes and oversimplicities is to start down the road of "either for us, or again' us;" all the while cozy'ing up to other mass-murdering despots (see my sig).

mj
01-19-2006, 12:56 PM
Amir if you are going to ask me directly to answer questions...just ask one or two please - not a ridiculous amount like you did in that post.

I prefer debate to ad hominems. :)

However I will answer some of your points.
Excuse me "just as bad" under which criteria ?
under my criteria - I said "I would argue" it is not a yes or no, it is an argument. Allow me to expand on it. If one country has nukes and has signed the NPT then I don't think they are any more moral than another country that does not sign it and develops them. Is that plainer?
Would you mind informing us what does the NPT agreement state?
don't be insulting please - get up off your ass and tell me what it says if it concerns you, but don't tell me to do something you can do just as quickly yourself :)
I do find your willingness to forgive countries from breaking this type of agreement to be very troublesome.
another accusation...please provide a link to where I am forgiving anyone - back it up this time
Personally, I fear the day Iran has nuclear weapons
well I don't. but then I've never done anything to enrage them :)

more seriously - iran having nukes will balance things out nicely and we might all get some peace

Neil Mick
01-22-2006, 03:45 PM
Now, THIS article puts a whole new curl on Iran, Iraq, and Bush's motivations to attack certain Middle East countries who threaten to switch to the Euro standard in exchange for oil.

The Proposed Iranian Oil Bourse (http://www.countercurrents.org/us-petrov200106.htm)

Many have criticized Bush for staging the war in Iraq in order to seize Iraqi oil fields. However, those critics can't explain why Bush would want to seize those fields-he could simply print dollars for nothing and use them to get all the oil in the world that he needs. He must have had some other reason to invade Iraq.

History teaches that an empire should go to war for one of two reasons: (1) to defend itself or (2) benefit from war; if not, as Paul Kennedy illustrates in his magisterial The Rise and Fall of the Great Powers, a military overstretch will drain its economic resources and precipitate its collapse. Economically speaking, in order for an empire to initiate and conduct a war, its benefits must outweigh its military and social costs. Benefits from Iraqi oil fields are hardly worth the long-term, multi-year military cost. Instead, Bush must have gone into Iraq to defend his Empire. Indeed, this is the case: two months after the United States invaded Iraq, the Oil for Food Program was terminated, the Iraqi Euro accounts were switched back to dollars, and oil was sold once again only for U.S. dollars. No longer could the world buy oil from Iraq with Euro. Global dollar supremacy was once again restored. Bush descended victoriously from a fighter jet and declared the mission accomplished-he had successfully defended the U.S. dollar, and thus the American Empire.

Lorien Lowe
01-22-2006, 08:05 PM
Why would [Iran] need nuclear power?...
For the same reason that the Bush admin is pushing nuclear (nuculur) power here in the US: it dosen't produce huge ammounts of smog, and depending on whether one is more afraid of global warming or of spent nuclear fuel, it is arguably more environmentally friendly.

As to whether they want bombs to defend themselves from the US, well sure - maybe that's the primary objective. Given their support of terrorism, and their tendancy towards religious extremism, I wouldn't bet that defense is the only thing they have on their minds.

Gods, we have religious fundamentalists here in the US (a frightening number of whom have more political power than I like) saying we should 'just nuke them' whenever we have a problem with some other country; why should we imagine humans are so different anywhere else?

LK

roosvelt
01-23-2006, 10:26 AM
Iran does not have nukes, as everyone freely admits - but is being threatened with sanctions and military action.




I have problem with your usage of "but". I think "therefore" or "so" is more correct.

Taliesin
01-23-2006, 10:52 AM
Fair Point

mj
01-24-2006, 11:43 AM
... Given their support of terrorism, and their tendancy towards religious extremism...
er....are you talking about US or Iran? :)

Roosvelt - well said. As I said if they all had nukes none of this crap would be happening. All or none, otherwise no-one is ever safe.

Lorien Lowe
01-25-2006, 10:28 AM
er....are you talking about US or Iran?
Both, at this point. I *hope* public opinion in the US is strongly enough against nukes to prevent their use, but the current admin. seems to be willing to justify anything. Bombing some third-world country (or some supposed 'enemy' - remember the calls to 'nuke France,' the 'freedom fries,' etc towards the beginning of the Iraq war) would actually be looked upon with favor by some in this contry.
However, the fact that we have nukes and behave badly dosen't mean that it's ok for other countries - Iran included - do do the same. It means that we should behave better.

-LK

James Davis
01-25-2006, 10:52 AM
Both, at this point. I *hope* public opinion in the US is strongly enough against nukes to prevent their use, but the current admin. seems to be willing to justify anything.
-LK
Anyone who's read anything about what happened in Hiroshima and Nagasaki would want nothing to do with their use. As for "freedom fries" and "nuke France", that's just bumper sticker crap. If the Bush administration were the loose cannons that some like to portray them as being, Afghanistan or Iraq would have been bombed flat; Instead, we're conducting house-to-house searched for terrorists and innocent kidnapped journalists. I'm not saying that this is the perfect course of action, but I am saying that it's not "press the button and destroy everything without trying to root out terrorists".

Some people (inside and outside the U.S.) hated America long before 9-11 ever happened. Whatever we try to do to defend ourselves is wrong in their eyes, no matter what it is. We can't win with some people. We will never please everyone.

Maybe we should try isolationism...

People will still hate us, just for a different reason.

Ron Tisdale
01-25-2006, 11:09 AM
Yeah, well, to me the problem is that we don't seem to care about the things we do that cause people to hate us. Some people will hate no matter what...it's simply the way they view the world...they hate anything they can't understand, they hate anything that's different, they just hate because there's nothing else going on.

But there are many others that stand by and watch them do what they do because they are tired of being treated badly...ignored, taken advantage of, etc. Too many times we make the wrong choices and alienate people we don't have to. Poor judgement. In my mind, THAT would be worth changing, even if it didn't solve ALL of our problems.

Best,
Ron

Hogan
01-25-2006, 11:36 AM
Hmmmm, seems the frenchy's are starting to get a little trigger happy with their arsenal of nukes.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20060119/wl_nm/nuclear_arms_france_dc_2


I wonder what would be better, having a leader that''ll wait until attacked and then nuke someone in retaliation, or having a leader that'll take pre-emptive action to prevent the terror attack and avoid using nukes ?

Neil Mick
01-25-2006, 12:25 PM
Hmmmm, seems the frenchy's are starting to get a little trigger happy with their arsenal of nukes.

Of course, France is acting irrationally, and independently. No other nation is threatening to use nuc's in response to conventional attacks...it's not taking its aggressive lead from the biggest war-profiteer ever assembled on the planet. :rolleyes:

uh huh. riight.

I wonder what would be better, having a leader that''ll wait until attacked and then nuke someone in retaliation, or having a leader that'll take pre-emptive action to prevent the terror attack and avoid using nukes ?

How about a leader that obeys international law, doesn't take pre-emptive action and avoids using nukes? Now, that would be far better than your options listed so far.

Neil Mick
01-25-2006, 12:35 PM
Both, at this point. I *hope* public opinion in the US is strongly enough against nukes to prevent their use, but the current admin. seems to be willing to justify anything.

Frankly, I don't think the Administration really CARES about public opinion, much. :eek:

Hogan
01-25-2006, 05:17 PM
Frankly, I don't think the Administration really CARES about public opinion, much. :eek:

We should all rue the day when there is a president who cares about public opinion. Why, the president may start to follow public opinion polls on where to vacation because of his lack of backbone, or have presidential candidates waffling all over the place. Oh, wait, we have; never mind.

dan guthrie
01-25-2006, 10:14 PM
Of course, France is acting irrationally, and independently. No other nation is threatening to use nuc's in response to conventional attacks...it's not taking its aggressive lead from the biggest war-profiteer ever assembled on the planet. :rolleyes:

uh huh. riight.



How about a leader that obeys international law, doesn't take pre-emptive action and avoids using nukes? Now, that would be far better than your options listed so far.


The French have a history of this kind of posturing.

When DeGaulle was President it became the policy of France to respond to any attack on French soil with the total commitment of French might. This included nuclear weapons.
NATO's policy was to retaliate incrementally: a Soviet bullet west over the German border means a NATO bullet goes east.
Subsequently the French pulled out of NATO military war games and all foreign (U.S., German, UK, etc.) troops were forced out. I just talked to a lady who was part of the ejected troops.


The wikipedia entry:
"1966: Charles de Gaulle removes French armed forces from NATO's integrated military command to pursue its own nuclear defence programme. All non-French NATO troops are forced to leave France. This precipitates the relocation of the NATO Headquarters from Paris to Brussels by October 16, 1967. While the political headquarters are located in Brussels the military headquarters, the Supreme Headquarters Allied Powers Europe (SHAPE), are located just south of Brussels, in the town of Mons."

Neil Mick
01-26-2006, 12:27 AM
The French have a history of this kind of posturing.

True enough. Don't get me wrong: France is hardly pure as snow. But, they certainly take their recent bellicose stance from the US...as do others.

Mark Freeman
01-26-2006, 05:42 AM
Anyone who's read anything about what happened in Hiroshima and Nagasaki would want nothing to do with their use. As for "freedom fries" and "nuke France", that's just bumper sticker crap. If the Bush administration were the loose cannons that some like to portray them as being, Afghanistan or Iraq would have been bombed flat; Instead, we're conducting house-to-house searched for terrorists and innocent kidnapped journalists. I'm not saying that this is the perfect course of action, but I am saying that it's not "press the button and destroy everything without trying to root out terrorists".

Some people (inside and outside the U.S.) hated America long before 9-11 ever happened. Whatever we try to do to defend ourselves is wrong in their eyes, no matter what it is. We can't win with some people. We will never please everyone.

Maybe we should try isolationism...

People will still hate us, just for a different reason.

Hi James,
I agree with you about the horrors of atomic bombs, who could not?

While admittedly the Bush administration has not gone into Iraq and Afghanistan and 'bombed them flat'. In their search for terrorist and innocent journos, they have managed to kill many thousands of totally innocent civillians. Which in its own turn feeds the fire of dissent against it. Note the recent rocket attack on a village in Pakistan, where US Intelligence thought Bin Laden's deputy was. 28 innocent people were wiped out. The intelligence turned out to be wrong ( hmm seems we've been here before! ). Since then there have been mass demonstrations in that country whipping up anti US sentiment...
Heavy handed military force rarely wins the hearts and minds of the people you are trying to 'liberate'
Every nation has a right to defend themselves, that is a given. But the U.S led invasion of Iraq seems to have created more terrorists than it captured. And while I accept that Saddam Hussein was a dictator with alot of blood on his hands, very little of it was American. In the words of the late Bill Hicks "We know Saddam has WMD, why? we've got the receipts!"
Bin Laden and Hussein were openly hostile to one another. The US administration concocted reasons to invade Iraq for their own ends, whatever they were ( the economy? ratings? plays well in crucial states? ), self defence seems to be lower down the agenda.

"Maybe we should try isolationism"

Well Mr Bush has refused to ratify the Kyoto agreement, along with other international treaties on chemical and germ warfare. He is way out on his own with his views on climate change, so isolationism is already having an effect and believe me from someone on the outside it's not a very good one.

post 9/11 the US had massive global support, what happened was simply appalling, no question. Howeve,r over the subsequent years, Mr Bush has managed to squander much of that good feeling.

The feeling I get from being in Europe is that we here, really want to be great friends with the US, but it's a bit like having an older, stronger, slightly autistic brother. You wish they had a little better understanding about how their actions create problems for other people, and that they wern't so heavy handed in their dealings with folk. I know that sounds patronising, it's not meant to be. It's just that we get worried when the big brother gets angry and starts throwing his weight around.
IMHO you can't legislate against suicide bombers, and you can't bomb terrorism out of existance. We have to look for the root causes of the problems and work on those, even if we don't like what we have to do to set things in motion i.e. 'talking with terrorists'
I know in public the politicians will say "We don't negotiate with terrorists" but the IRA for one will tell you otherwise.

It must be difficult living in a country feeling that many 'out there' 'hate' us. I would rather it was not so. But you can only change that by the actions that you as a nation take, not by forcing others to change their ways first. ** Rant off**

Regards,

Mark

dan guthrie
01-26-2006, 07:43 AM
they certainly take their recent bellicose stance from the US...as do others.

And I'll give you a thousand dollars if you can find one Frenchman who'll admit it. :D

especially if you'll give me a nickel for each rude answer.

Neil Mick
01-29-2006, 10:58 AM
And I'll give you a thousand dollars if you can find one Frenchman who'll admit it. :D

Really?? Better be careful...a lot of Frenchmen are likely anti-nuc (just as in this country). It might be easier to lose that $1000 than you think. ;)

Neil Mick
01-29-2006, 11:02 AM
Anyway, I just read this in the news. After the illegal invasion of Iraq: a friend once opined that "we deserved 9-11," because we don't seem to learn our lessons.

This news adds fuel to that perspective.

57% Back a Hit on Iran if Defiance Persists (http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-fornpoll27jan27,0,5687029.story?coll=la-home-headlines)

The war has not diminished Americans' support for military action against Iraq's neighbor if nuclear pursuits aren't dropped.

Despite persistent disillusionment with the war in Iraq, a majority of Americans supports taking military action against Iran if that country continues to produce material that can be used to develop nuclear weapons, a Los Angeles Times/Bloomberg poll has found.

The poll, conducted Sunday through Wednesday, found that 57% of Americans favor military intervention if Iran's Islamic government pursues a program that could enable it to build nuclear arms.

Support for military action against Tehran has increased over the last year, the poll found, even though public sentiment is running against the war in neighboring Iraq: 53% said they believe the situation there was not worth going to war.

We're just not getting it, are we?? :( :( War doesn't make us "safer." It's as if we're all a bunch of scared addicts, who cannot seem to stop bombing someone whenever we hear a noise under the bed!

Hogan
01-29-2006, 02:12 PM
...How about a leader that obeys international law, doesn't take pre-emptive action and avoids using nukes? Now, that would be far better than your options listed so far.

Nah, I'd go for killing the terrorists before they hit here... but you let me know how your option works...

Lorien Lowe
01-29-2006, 06:18 PM
Nah, I'd go for killing the terrorists before they hit here... but you let me know how your option works...
Great Idea!
Let's kill binLaden before his org. hits here (again), why don't we? Let's kill his top aids, too.

Oh, right - we don't know where he is. And we keep on missing the other ones.

We let him go in order to attack a country that was no danger to us. Saddam is an evil f***er, granted, but he had no wmd's that he didn't get from us, and if the administration didn't see that based on the evidence then they were delusional.

The 'war on terror' isn't such a bad idea, but it's not being fought; instead, we have the war/occupation of Iraq and the war/occupation of Afghanistan. We have more terrorists now than when we started.

-lk

Neil Mick
01-29-2006, 07:11 PM
Nah, I'd go for killing the terrorists before they hit here..

along with every man, woman, and child in between here, and there.

Don't bother reporting on the success of your option: we already know. The reports of its failure come in, daily. :dead: :dead:

Lorien Lowe
01-29-2006, 07:15 PM
The 'war on terror' isn't such a bad idea, but it's not being fought...
...and whether or not it is even possible to 'fight' is very open to debate.

Neil Mick
01-29-2006, 08:56 PM
...and whether or not it is even possible to 'fight' is very open to debate.

Exactly. You cannot make "war" on an activity. Terrorism is an action committed by "US," as well as "them." To halt the "war on terror:" we'd have to first take a good, hard look why.

Look at the kidnappping of the journalist and the peace-team members in Iraq, whose kidnappers are demanding a release of female Iraqi prisoners. The US Occupation Army started the whole ball rolling by detaining wives whose husbands are suspect.

Hogan
01-30-2006, 07:40 AM
along with every man, woman, and child in between here, and there.

Don't bother reporting on the success of your option: we already know. The reports of its failure come in, daily. :dead: :dead:

Well, if they come after us with bombs and guns, you bet Sparky.

Hogan
01-30-2006, 07:41 AM
...and whether or not it is even possible to 'fight' is very open to debate.


Yes, let us give up because it's tough. Cry me a river.

Hogan
01-30-2006, 07:42 AM
Exactly. You cannot make "war" on an activity. Terrorism is an action committed by "US," as well as "them." To halt the "war on terror:" we'd have to first take a good, hard look why.

Look at the kidnappping of the journalist and the peace-team members in Iraq, whose kidnappers are demanding a release of female Iraqi prisoners. The US Occupation Army started the whole ball rolling by detaining wives whose husbands are suspect.


Wha? Ummm.... Hitler invading Poland was an 'activity', too. So was Pearl Harbor - shall we have not participated in WWII ? The only thing that'll stop a terrorist is a bullet. Accept it - they want to die, so let us accommodate them.

Hogan
01-30-2006, 07:44 AM
Great Idea!
Let's kill binLaden before his org. hits here (again), why don't we? Let's kill his top aids, too.

Oh, right - we don't know where he is. And we keep on missing the other ones.

We let him go in order to attack a country that was no danger to us. Saddam is an evil f***er, granted, but he had no wmd's that he didn't get from us, and if the administration didn't see that based on the evidence then they were delusional.

The 'war on terror' isn't such a bad idea, but it's not being fought; instead, we have the war/occupation of Iraq and the war/occupation of Afghanistan. We have more terrorists now than when we started.

-lk


Your naiveté is quaint.

Mark Freeman
01-30-2006, 08:56 AM
The only thing that'll stop a terrorist is a bullet. Accept it - they want to die, so let us accommodate them.

John your simplicity is as quaint as the naivete you accuse others of.
It's not the 'only' way, although I agree it is a way. Not all 'terrorists' want to die, and one man's terrorist is another man's 'freedom fighter'. Nelson mandela was a 'terrorist' in the eyes of his country's government. Should he have been shot. Not in my opinion!

Simplistic solutions to complex problems create more difficulties as they usually fail to address the underlying issues that create the 'terrorist' in the first place. The 'war on terror' is as probably as un-win-able as the war on drugs. How can you wage war on a nominalisation like 'terror' or for that matter on an inanimate object like a drug. Just for the record, since the war on terror in Afghanistan, the opium / heroin trade has increased massively since. So the war on one has exacerbated the war on the other.

I think we need to look at trying to find more intelligent ways of dealing with issues other than just declaring war on them. Some of them may mean we have to take a long hard look at ourselves and what we do especially when it may have a direct affect on people outside our own borders ( govnt foreign policy, use of resources etc )

I read in the press today that 53% of Americans are in favour of military intervention in Iran should that country continue on it's present nuclear path, can this be so?

Anyway, just my 2c

regards

Mark

Mark Uttech
01-30-2006, 10:41 AM
In aikido we are taught to 'step back and get the big picture'. That alone can make the difference for each one of us. In gassho

Neil Mick
01-30-2006, 10:59 AM
Wha? Ummm.... Hitler invading Poland was an 'activity', too. So was Pearl Harbor - shall we have not participated in WWII ?

1. Hitler was a leader, representing a country.
2. When the US declared war in WW2: they declared war on GERMANY, the country, not "war on all invaders."
3. Ergo, your example, is misplaced, as usual.
4. Besides, you lose...Godwin's Law! (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin's_law) :p

The only thing that'll stop a terrorist is a bullet.

Simple, pat, bumper-sticker outlooks won't solve the world's problems. But, since you like to present things in simplicities...here ya go:

*The only thing that will stop the US terrorist war-machine is peace.
*The major thing motivating the other terrorists is the US war-machine.
*Stop the US "full-spectrum dominance," and you stop a major cause for their violence.

Accept it - they want to die, so let us accommodate them.

Accept it - no one really wants to die, unless we give them a reason.

Hogan
01-30-2006, 04:55 PM
John your simplicity is as quaint as the naivete you accuse others of....

Nah, I just understand the issue so thoroughly that it really is that simple. At least that's my story and I'm sticking to it.

:)

Hogan
01-30-2006, 05:03 PM
1. Hitler was a leader, representing a country.
2. When the US declared war in WW2: they declared war on GERMANY, the country, not "war on all invaders."
3. Ergo, your example, is misplaced, as usual.
4. Besides, you lose...Godwin's Law! (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin's_law) :p



So, let me understand you:
1 - Since Bin Laden (or "Uncle Binny") was not a head of a country (debatable since he controlled Afganistan), we can't attack him and wage war against his ilk or the states that sponsor terrorists ?
2 - The US declared war on Germany BEFORE Germany declared war on the US, don't forget. FDR was 'preemptive".
3 - Ergo, read history & get your facts straight, then your criticism may hold water.
4 - *sigh*... Law created by people that got tired of being made fools of I suppose, by examples of history.




*The only thing that will stop the US terrorist war-machine is peace.
No, the only thing that'll stop the US war machine is the death of our enemies.


*The major thing motivating the other terrorists is the US war-machine.
AHAHAH !!! I almost lost my mint on that one...


*Stop the US "full-spectrum dominance," and you stop a major cause for their violence.
You get this 'full-spectrum dominance' from an xbox game or something?


Accept it - no one really wants to die, unless we give them a reason.
Oh YES. Sorry, the US is the root of all evil - forgot that one.

Mark Freeman
01-30-2006, 05:26 PM
Nah, I just understand the issue so thoroughly that it really is that simple. At least that's my story and I'm sticking to it.

:)

I'm going to assume that you are joking. As reading your reply to Neil Mick above has some statements that just don't hold up.

How can you possibly think that Bin Laden controlled Afghanistan?? Where did this piece of creative storytelling come from?. The Taliban may have allowed him to operate from within their country but that is about as far as it goes!! And then go on to say to someone "read your history and get your facts straight" Pots and Kettles come to mind.

No, the only thing that'll stop the US war machine is the death of our enemies.
Please stop for one minute and consider for a moment, that it is this sort of thinking that got us to where we are at the moment. As long as men like you think like you do, then there will be no end to conflict. Maybe you are happy with that, I certainly am not.
We could do so much better, but seeing the level of the debate here, I fear for the future. and that my input will be futile :(

regards

Mark

Neil Mick
01-30-2006, 09:53 PM
Ah yes, the tried-and-true method of "fit-my-notion-of-what-he's-saying," is still alive and well here, on aikiweb. So, let's look in on the latest...

So, let me understand you:

ha.

1 - Since Bin Laden (or "Uncle Binny") was not a head of a country (debatable since he controlled Afganistan), we can't attack him and wage war against his ilk or the states that sponsor terrorists ?

Yep. But yet again you try to fit more into what I'm saying, than what was my intent. I'm saying that you can't simply claim a "war on terror." Terrorism, as you well know, is an abstraction. An activity. Can you tell me "terror's" address? His cell-phone #? :crazy:

Plus, the US cannot wage war on a person. Or even a group. Countries wage war on countries. Countries CAN neutralize, blacklist, annoy, pester, harass, murder, and isolate individuals. But of course, we're in danger of getting semantical.

2 - The US declared war on Germany BEFORE Germany declared war on the US, don't forget. FDR was 'preemptive".

What is it with you and WW2??

What part of "Godwin's Rule" did you miss? There's a GOOD REASON for it. Every time WW2 is brought into the picture: facts and concepts get distorted.

And, going by your reasoning: Japan had EVERY RIGHT to attack Pearl Harbor. The American press was filled with jingoist calls to invade Japan. In fact, they declared a pre-emptive attack to stop America from attacking Japan.

So please, take your distorted revisions of WW2 and peddle them somewhere else. If you want to use an historical precedent, fine: but please make the analogy relevant. Bin Ladin wasn''t Hitler; Bush isn't Churchill; and we didn't invade Iraq, to "rescue" the Iraqi people from the eeevel dictator. :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

3 - Ergo, read history & get your facts straight, then your criticism may hold water.

Boy, now THAT's rich. :D

4 - *sigh*... Law created by people that got tired of being made fools of I suppose, by examples of history.

Relevance? Nah, don't bother...probably a random sentence, inspired by almost choking on a pretzel...

No, the only thing that'll stop the US war machine is the death of our enemies.

AHAHAH !!! I almost lost my mint on that one...

or even a mint! :eek:

But, it sure is funny, isn't it? The US never, ever seems to run out of enemies. And if you truly believe that someday, this war-machine will end when the President says "enough," then I fear for the ingredients of those mints! :p

You get this 'full-spectrum dominance' from an xbox game or something?

Yeah... you might have heard of him...Rummy? he's a real cartoon character...thinks he's a poet... :rolleyes:

Oh YES. Sorry, the US is the root of all evil - forgot that one.

Oh yes. Sorry, the US can murder, jail, and torture whomever it likes...forgot that one.

Cost of expressing your dissent to the war-machine in nonviolent civil disobedience? 4 months jail, (http://www.stpatricksfour.org/) and/or being spied upon by your local police, (http://www.santacruzsentinel.com/archive/2006/January/11/local/stories/01local.htm) or the FBI. (http://www.aclu.org/safefree/spying/23268prs20051229.html)

Cost of torturing and killing an Iraqi detainee? A stern letter, a cut in your allowance, and grounded for 2 months (http://www.humanrightsfirst.org/us_law/etn/trial/welshofer-012406m.asp) :eek:

Cost of running an empire into the ground so that the have-more's get paid, a little faster? See my sig, below.

Cost of the picture of Johnny-boy's face, on that grey, grey morning when his best friend, The Man, kicks in HIS door, looking for terrorists? Priceless. :cool: :)

Hogan
01-31-2006, 08:34 AM
What is it with you and WW2?? What part of "Godwin's Rule" did you miss? There's a GOOD REASON for it. Every time WW2 is brought into the picture: facts and concepts get distorted.
Uh, dude, YOU were the one that brought up WWII. So, let's be clear, you bring it up, then criticise me for bringing it up in my response. Cute.


And, going by your reasoning: Japan had EVERY RIGHT to attack Pearl Harbor. The American press was filled with jingoist calls to invade Japan. In fact, they declared a pre-emptive attack to stop America from attacking Japan.
Okay, Tokyo Mick.

..and we didn't invade Iraq, to "rescue" the Iraqi people from the eeevel dictator. :rolleyes: :rolleyes:
Okay, Saddam lover. (Man, you are getting to be quite the friend of the dictators of the world - you wanna' kiss Castro, too?).



Yeah... you might have heard of him...Rummy? he's a real cartoon character...thinks he's a poet... :rolleyes:
Ahhhhh, Rummy - I like Rummy.

Neil Mick
01-31-2006, 11:43 AM
Uh, dude, YOU were the one that brought up WWII. So, let's be clear, you bring it up, then criticise me for bringing it up in my response. Cute.

How sad: now poor John, left without a single piece of propaganda to buttress his yes-man theories for a tyrant, now has to resort to outright untruths.

Oh, Johnny-boy, Johnny-boy....tsk, tsk. :dead: :dead: Anyone who bothers to look can see that YOU were the first to mention WW2 in this thread...it starts at post #49:

Wha? Ummm.... Hitler invading Poland was an 'activity', too. So was Pearl Harbor - shall we have not participated in WWII ? The only thing that'll stop a terrorist is a bullet. Accept it - they want to die, so let us accommodate them.

It's so sad when a post'er starts making up stuff, that is so easy to disprove. Ah well...

Okay, Tokyo Mick.

Okay, Saddam lover. (Man, you are getting to be quite the friend of the dictators of the world - you wanna' kiss Castro, too?).

Yep, you really are down to your last gasp, debate-wise: when you start in with the "terrorist-lover" stuff, it usually means that you cannot find any other source to ditto-head.

Someday, tho...someday: I look forward to a real debate, where you don't try to slime the conversation with patently untrue facts (my favorite was your claim that the US "fought" the Contra's); hide behind US strawman propaganda (i.e., "US foreign Occupation, involving torture and mass imprisonment = Freedom," etc, ad nauseum); or try to attack the character of the person with whom you disagree.

I fear I'll be waiting a long, long time, for that day. :uch:

Until that time I fear our discussion will be frightfully one-sided, with you taking your usual trollish route, through the thicket of political debate.

Ahhhhh, Rummy - I like Rummy.

Big surprise. At times I liked Arnold Schwartzenegger as an action-figure: until he decided to ruin my state.

Hogan
01-31-2006, 12:11 PM
How sad: now poor John, left without a single piece of propaganda to buttress his yes-man theories for a tyrant, now has to resort to outright untruths.

Oh, Johnny-boy, Johnny-boy....tsk, tsk. :dead: :dead: Anyone who bothers to look can see that YOU were the first to mention WW2 in this thread...it starts at post #49:
Man, did I relly bring it up 1st and say you did ? Well, then sorry. I must be thinking of all the other times you brought it up.... BUT, anology is still valid.

Yep, you really are down to your last gasp, debate-wise: when you start in with the "terrorist-lover" stuff, it usually means that you cannot find any other source to ditto-head.
Well, I have seen no other proof to prove me wrong. Sorry, I call 'em like I see 'em.

Someday, tho...someday: I look forward to a real debate, where you don't try to slime the conversation with patently untrue facts (my favorite was your claim that the US "fought" the Contra's); hide behind US strawman propaganda (i.e., "US foreign Occupation, involving torture and mass imprisonment = Freedom," etc, ad nauseum); or try to attack the character of the person with whom you disagree.
What I say is truth. When you accept it, you will lead a better life.

... with you taking your usual trollish route, through the thicket of political debate.
What has amazed me and my psychologist friends is how someone can be so oblivious such as yourself.


...Big surprise. At times I liked Arnold Schwartzenegger as an action-figure: until he decided to ruin my state.
Yes, I see how your state was perfect before he came into office.

Neil Mick
01-31-2006, 12:20 PM
Man, did I relly bring it up 1st and say you did ? Well, then sorry. I must be thinking of all the other times you brought it up

No: I don't like using WW2 as a comparison, for the reasons I've already given. You must be thinking of someone else.

.... BUT, anology is still valid.

Wrong again, for the reasons I've already given. The comparison does not apply, and even if it did, then Japan must have been acting properly, in bombing Pearl Harbor.

Well, I have seen no other proof to prove me wrong. Sorry, I call 'em like I see 'em.

Yeah, a President admitting to breaking the law, authorizing torture and attempting to jail people forever sure is a tough thing to argue against...nope, no proof here. :rolleyes:

What I say is truth. When you accept it, you will lead a better life.

John, if these things you write here are any indication of your perspective: then I fear that you and the truth have been separated for a long, long time...

What has amazed me and my psychologist friends is how someone can be so oblivious such as yourself.

Its a bad idea to talk about other people in the midst of your own psych-session. :p

Yes, I see how your state was perfect before he came into office.

OK, ya got me, there. :crazy:

Lorien Lowe
01-31-2006, 06:55 PM
Your naiveté is quaint.
Since you didn't cite any specific disagreements, I'll just have to assume that this was a tantrum.

-LK

roosvelt
02-01-2006, 07:49 AM
This thread is getting stupid every day.

Bush wants to make trouble with Iran has nothing to do with nuke except the fact that Iran doesn't have nuke to defend itself. The real matter is about Iraq

Bush now has a nasty situation in Iraq. The US public wants its army coming home while the US army is gettting killed left and right. Bush knows the Iraq situation will be out of control without US army presence. Bush will lose Iraq if he withdraw US military. He'll lose public poll if he doesn't. Here is Iran coming in handy. To have "war" with Iran will give him a legit excuse to keep US army in Iraq, maybe send more. Any one with a IQ over 100 will see through Bush's "tactic".

The "nuke" thing makes me laugh. You'd think Bush would come up with a better excuse this term to have beef with Iran. Not, the same old "nuke" lie as with Iraq. Hey, it worked once, why not this time? Iraq turned out didn't have nuke, so what? Bush is still president, and the US public is still behind him in this Iran nuke again.

This time, I think Bush will be smarter. He'll just lip service about war with Iran. He doesn't want another Iraq in his hand this time. So long Iran will along with Bush to keep the army in Iraq, every thing will be fine except the poor parents who will mourn over their lost sons and daughters in US army.

Bush is public enemy no. 1 of US people.

Hogan
02-01-2006, 08:54 AM
Since you didn't cite any specific disagreements, I'll just have to assume that this was a tantrum.

-LK

Nah, sort of a mixture of fact & opinion. Naiveté = fact; quaint = opinion.

Lorien Lowe
02-01-2006, 09:28 PM
<shrug>.
again, you have resorted to the intellectual equivilant of calling me a booger head. Since you can't do any better than that, my assertions stand.

-LK

Hogan
02-02-2006, 04:03 PM
<shrug>.
again, you have resorted to the intellectual equivilant of calling me a booger head. Since you can't do any better than that, my assertions stand.

-LK

I wuold suggest you read a dictionary - calling some naive is not equivalent to calling someone a 'booger head', as you put it. Now, if I called you an 'idiot', that would be something different...

Lorien Lowe
02-02-2006, 05:49 PM
Either one is an ad-hominem attack that does nothing to correct, challenge, or deconstruct any of my statements. It's a primary logical error: in an ad hominem attack, you are saying 'this person is a ______, therefore we don't have to listen to her,' regardless of the quality of her statements. It's a way of avoiding the actual debate.

-LK

Lorien Lowe
02-02-2006, 06:11 PM
and I'm sooo sure you already know that, so why the quibbling defense?

-LK

Hogan
02-03-2006, 04:05 PM
Either one is an ad-hominem attack that does nothing to correct, challenge, or deconstruct any of my statements. It's a primary logical error: in an ad hominem attack, you are saying 'this person is a ______, therefore we don't have to listen to her,' regardless of the quality of her statements. It's a way of avoiding the actual debate.

-LK

NOOOOO; I am calling a belief niave, not YOU - there is a difference. I am not saying, 'this person is a ____'. Nor did I say we don't have to listen to her.

Neil Mick
02-04-2006, 11:52 AM
OK....both of you: step awaay from the monitor. :eek:

Go train, instead! Gambatte! ;)