Israel: Murdering scientists? [Archive]

rotorgun

02-18-2009, 05:41

Let's see.

The President of Iran, backed by some pragmatical bast---ds known as the Mullahs, swears on a stack of Korans, may the blessing be upon the prophet, that he would wipe Isreal off the map. No matter that he also has publically stated that the holocaust never happened, he also just happens to preside over the very scientists he claims are just working on Nuclear power for peacful means. It may be true, but then pigs do fly in the land of OZ too.

Can anyone blame Isreal, a country that has been fighting for its existence almost from the day of its founding from a horde of various Muslim countries, for being equally pragmatical bast---ds? Believe me that they will certainly be more so if and when the Iranians have the actual weapons. If that does happen, they will strike with more than a few operatives taking the lives of a scientist or two.

Scurvy

02-18-2009, 06:01

But they condemn the actions of terrorists murdering innocent Israeli's in attempt to stop the Israeli state from progressing - I fail to see the difference

Fragony

02-18-2009, 08:14

gut says no not good at all

Idaho

02-18-2009, 11:09

gut says no not good at all

I'm suprised by that Fragony.

Fragony

02-18-2009, 11:33

edit awwwwwwwwwwww I can take a joke

Hax

02-18-2009, 11:37

The President of Iran, backed by some pragmatical bast---ds known as the Mullahs, swears on a stack of Korans, may the blessing be upon the prophet, that he would wipe Isreal off the map.

This has been mistranslated, Ahmadinejad has said it himself. Also, I fail to see why Iran cannot develop its own nuclear program for peaceful reasons while other countries do have that right.

Fragony

02-18-2009, 11:42

This has been mistranslated, Ahmadinejad has said it himself.

:laugh4:

CountArach

02-18-2009, 11:48

I'm suprised by that Fragony.
Yeah I was fairly sure that I was going to roll my eyes at whatever Frag wrote, but I was presently surprised.

Furunculus

02-18-2009, 12:01

I'm all for it.

I am convinced that iran pursues a nuclear weapons program & I do not trust them to possess it.

rory_20_uk

02-18-2009, 12:22

lenin96

02-18-2009, 12:28

I'm all for it.

I am convinced that iran pursues a nuclear weapons program & I do not trust them to possess it.

You know? How? Or do you not care about the killing of scientists who are suspected of making nuclear weopns, and I don't trust America with their nuclear weopons.

Romanus

02-18-2009, 12:35

I also heard Israelies eat palestinian babies for breakfast.

CountArach

02-18-2009, 12:43

I also heard Israelies eat palestinian babies for breakfast.
Yep, I've heard the same thing.

tibilicus

02-18-2009, 13:16

so?
we did it with iraq too.
i see nothing wrong with this. israel is scared, since one nuke can literally wipe out about 1/4 of the country.
and with that looney as prez of iran, i wouldnt blame israel for being scared.

You don't really need to be killing of their scientists though.

For a start Iran would never attack Israel with nukes unless their stupid due to the fact the moment a nuclear weapon heading towards Israel was detected Israel and America would throw so many back Iran would literally be wiped of the map, there would just be a glass crater.

besides Iran is years away from any form of nuclear power yet, and even then you should just do what you did with both Iraq and Syria if memory serves me correct, bomb their facilities. It would be a lot less costly and save innocent lives. I hardly doubt all these scientists are evil, more likely they're trying to get by in a country where there is little work for people of their profession.

Furunculus

02-18-2009, 13:24

You know? How? Or do you not care about the killing of scientists who are suspected of making nuclear weopns, and I don't trust America with their nuclear weopons.

I did not say i know, i said i am convinced.

If they won't stop by asking.

And we arn't prepared to start a military strike.

Then knocking off the eggheads in the hope of slowing down the program is the least bad option.

[options listed in order of preference]

Hax

02-18-2009, 13:26

:laugh4:

According to Juan Cole (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Juan_Cole), a University of Michigan Professor of Modern Middle East and South Asian History, Ahmadinejad's statement should be translated as:

The Imam said that this regime occupying Jerusalem (een rezhim-e eshghalgar-e qods) must [vanish from] the page of time (bayad az safheh-ye ruzgar mahv shavad).[11] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mahmoud_Ahmadinejad_and_Israel#cite_note-10)
According to Cole, "Ahmadinejad did not say he was going to 'wipe Israel off the map' because no such idiom exists in Persian". Instead, "He did say he hoped its regime, i.e., a Jewish-Zionist state occupying Jerusalem, would collapse."

...there you go.

I did not say i know, i said i am convinced.

If they won't stop by asking.

And we arn't prepared to start a military strike.

Then knocking off the eggheads in the hope of slowing down the program is the least bad option.

So what gives you the right to decide who can have nuclear weapons and who cannot? I think the United States - Israel combination is so much more dangerous than an Iranian nuclear weapon. Iran is not close to producing a single nuclear weapon. Israel has 150.

LittleGrizzly

02-18-2009, 13:30

Its been said countless times that the quote was mistranslated, noone is intrested in the truth, what we have constructed is a much more effective image for painting Iran in a bad light and a great excuse to continue aggressive action against Iran and an extra excuse for Israel to be so militarily inclined...

Personally i can't wait until Iran gets nuclear weapons!

When they do we may actually tone down our rhetoric against them, and that will give a chance for the pro western youth to elect a more liberal candidate, unfortunately all this threatening and axis of evil crap pushed them into the hands of more extreme elements...

Hax

02-18-2009, 13:34

When they do we may actually tone down our rhetoric against them, and that will give a chance for the pro western youth to elect a more liberal candidate, unfortunately all this threatening and axis of evil crap pushed them into the hands of more extreme elements...

I think LittleGrizzly has hit the nail on the head. Iran's citizens feel threatened (and rightly so) by the western threats against Iran. Luckily, there are elections again in 2009, and Ahmadinejad hasn't really made himself popular amongst the people. I personally hope that Khatami will become president again.

Husar

02-18-2009, 13:42

Obviously it all comes doen to the right of the stronger, one could say national darwinism, as long as Israel cannot be stopped, they do it, and some people think that is fine.
Personally i hope those people will end up being substantially weaker in something sometime soon and I can hope that because they cannot beat me up over the internet, nananana! ~;p

Dutch_guy

02-18-2009, 14:09

It's morally wrong to target scientists in my opinion, but as it's obvious Israel doesn't seek an all out war (it doesn't want to, and hasn't yet targeted military targets in Iran) it's their only shot at stalling the program other than diplomatic rhetoric.

And for what it's worth, I don't think America would throw nukes at Iran would the latter nuke Israel. Perhaps under the previous Administration, but under any other, including the present one, it would simply not do it.

:balloon2:

Furunculus

02-18-2009, 14:14

So what gives you the right to decide who can have nuclear weapons and who cannot? I think the United States - Israel combination is so much more dangerous than an Iranian nuclear weapon. Iran is not close to producing a single nuclear weapon. Israel has 150.

i do.

rasoforos

02-18-2009, 14:57

I also heard Israelies eat palestinian babies for breakfast.

<--- I wonder who's second account this one is :rolleyes:

I think all countries employ 'tactical psychopaths' in their secret services and consequently most countries end up assassinating innocents. I bet Israel does it, the UK does it, France does it, hell for all that we know maybe even Liechtenstein does it!

To me the article is pure fiction of course. It makes sense for Israel to do it, it matches their rather remorseless agenda so someone just wrote an article pretending that have real information.

I believe that since some 'geniouses' gave Israel nuclear capabilities in the past, the nuclear arming of its neighbors is inevitable and probably for the best since a 'balance of terror' will be established that will make all involved parties less trigger-happy.

...of maybe Iran and Israel will be turned to glass which sometimes, late at nights, sounds like an improvement.

Hooahguy

02-18-2009, 16:50

You don't really need to be killing of their scientists though.

For a start Iran would never attack Israel with nukes unless their stupid due to the fact the moment a nuclear weapon heading towards Israel was detected Israel and America would throw so many back Iran would literally be wiped of the map, there would just be a glass crater.

besides Iran is years away from any form of nuclear power yet, and even then you should just do what you did with both Iraq and Syria if memory serves me correct, bomb their facilities. It would be a lot less costly and save innocent lives. I hardly doubt all these scientists are evil, more likely they're trying to get by in a country where there is little work for people of their profession.
you want to leave thousands of lives to chance?

o ya....
article (http://www.nytimes.com/2005/10/30/weekinreview/30iran.html?_r=1&ex=1161230400&en=26f07fc5b7543417&ei=5070)

Our dear Imam said that the occupying regime must be wiped off the map and this was a very wise statement. We cannot compromise over the issue of Palestine. Is it possible to create a new front in the heart of an old front. This would be a defeat and whoever accepts the legitimacy of this regime [Israel] has in fact, signed the defeat of the Islamic world. Our dear Imam targeted the heart of the world oppressor in his struggle, meaning the occupying regime. I have no doubt that the new wave that has started in Palestine, and we witness it in the Islamic world too, will eliminate this disgraceful stain from the Islamic world. But we must be aware of tricks.

Hooahguy

02-18-2009, 16:55

I think all countries employ 'tactical psychopaths' in their secret services and consequently most countries end up assassinating innocents. I bet Israel does it, the UK does it, France does it, hell for all that we know maybe even Liechtenstein does it!

actually if you knew anything about the IDF special forces, "tactical psychopaths" are not allowed in. no criminals are allowed into the IDF.

Hooahguy

02-18-2009, 17:11

Israel is based on Jews first (the chosen people, after all) and everything else second. No other life is worth anything if it helps protect a Jew.

SO, they assassinate Scientists. Is that really so surprising or such a big deal? Thousands are locked in an open prison to punish the fanatical terrorists that live amongst them. At least picking off some top egg heads might actually work.

this entire conversation is ironic, since i just finished reading the book "Raid on the Sun" which was the story of how israel denied Saddam the bomb through assassinations and finally the famous raid.
fascinating story.
before we bombed the reactor, we took out key iraqi scientists, which delayed the iraqi project so we had time to get ready for the attack.
but hey, it worked, and saddam never got the bomb! plus after that foreign scientists were scared to work for iraq.

im going to put outs israels view very plainly:
israel cannot afford to take chances on this issue, just like they didnt take chances with saddam.
whether that looney in teharan actually means to destroy israel, we cant take that chance. its almost suicide if we do.

Idaho

02-18-2009, 17:15

I'm all for it.

I am convinced that iran pursues a nuclear weapons program & I do not trust them to possess it.

I don't trust your country with the power it has, especially as it has the track record of being the most violent nation on the planet.

Idaho

02-18-2009, 17:16

im going to put outs israels view very plainly:
israel cannot afford to take chances on this issue, just like they didnt take chances with saddam.
whether that looney in teharan actually means to destroy israel, we cant take that chance. its almost suicide if we do.

This is a fiction perpetuated to justify internal repression and external aggression.

Hooahguy

02-18-2009, 17:18

i love it how you like to claim fact as fiction.

answer me this:
if you had a steak, and there was a 50% chance that it was poisoned, would you eat it?

Romanus

02-18-2009, 17:41

<--- I wonder who's second account this one is :rolleyes:

I'm not sure, who's should it be?

Rhyfelwyr

02-18-2009, 17:50

I just presumed both sides would be doing this sort of thing, not surprising at all. As much as I believe rules are necessary in war, I hardly think a few assassinations are so horrific they should be condemned completely.

rory_20_uk

02-18-2009, 17:57

i love it how you like to claim fact as fiction.

answer me this:
if you had a steak, and there was a 50% chance that it was poisoned, would you eat it?

No - but then i wouldn't shoot the butcher, the milkmaid, the chef, the waiter and half the diners just to be on the safe side...

After WW2 whilst we are pretending to capture Nazi war criminals the majority were being spirited away by the Allies' secret services. To some, the ends always will justify the means.

~:smoking:

Furunculus

02-18-2009, 18:04

I don't trust your country with the power it has, especially as it has the track record of being the most violent nation on the planet.

which is my country?

Furunculus

02-18-2009, 18:06

This is a fiction perpetuated to justify internal repression and external aggression.

that 'fiction' is perpetuated in no small part by public military parades where ballistic missiles are daubed with slogans such as "death to israel".

that is good enough for me, and it appears to be justification enough for israel too.

Hooahguy

02-18-2009, 18:12

No - but then i wouldn't shoot the butcher, the milkmaid, the chef, the waiter and half the diners just to be on the safe side...

After WW2 whilst we are pretending to capture Nazi war criminals the majority were being spirited away by the Allies' secret services. To some, the ends always will justify the means.

~:smoking:
but i would shoot the person who tried to poison me....

Fragony

02-18-2009, 18:27

No - but then i wouldn't shoot the butcher, the milkmaid, the chef, the waiter and half the diners just to be on the safe side...

If you look at the most recent numbers 1/3 of the casualties was collatoral damage (what a horrible word) but let's not forget that it's one of the most densely populated regions in the world, where over 50% of the population is under 18. Israel obviously goes to great lenghts to prevent them, and let's not even get started about Hamas using civilians as human shields while hiding with a handycam.

rory_20_uk

02-18-2009, 19:01

but i would shoot the person who tried to poison me....

If you know who they are.

Wouldn't life be simple if they had neon signs pointing at them, their motives were utterly selfish and they lived far from anyone else.

Letting a gun off in a crowd and blaming teh crowd for getting shot is a poor excuse.

~:smoking:

tibilicus

02-18-2009, 19:08

you want to leave thousands of lives to chance?

o ya....

You seriously believe Iran will get even remotely close to developing a nuclear weapon? Phuuleeezeeee..
The fact is they are years away from even having the remote capability of nuclear weapons and even then a nice bombing run over their facilities should sort it.

Israel's wasting money paying people to knock other people of, they could be in and out of Iran in minutes with Iran facilities in tatters, because lets be honest Irans air force quite frankly sucks compared to the IAF.

Hooahguy

02-18-2009, 19:11

You seriously believe Iran will get even remotely close to developing a nuclear weapon? Phuuleeezeeee..
The fact is they are years away from even having the remote capability of nuclear weapons and even then a nice bombing run over their facilities should sort it.

Israel's wasting money paying people to knock other people of, they could be in and out of Iran in minutes with Iran facilities in tatters, because lets be honest Irans air force quite frankly sucks compared to the IAF.
the most dangerous thing in the world is to underestimate the capability of your enemies.

Seamus Fermanagh

02-18-2009, 20:01

What Israel is doing is terrorism.

Probably not, Strike, as there is no "terror" component. Now, if assassinations were done in some "splashy" manner, or relatives were being killed to force compliance/leaving the program, then you would clearly have a terrorism scenario. So far, Israel (assuming this article is accurate) is not targeting the innocent, only those actively involved in a program that threaten's Israel's existence. Now, you can attack the morality of such actions on a number of levels without using the T word -- and many here will.

Note: I am well aware that absent, or even in the event of, a declared war between Iran and Israel, the targeting of these scientists would be viewed by many as criminal.

Strike For The South

02-18-2009, 20:16

The scientests are still civilians. Therefore it's still terrorism. Validated terrorism but terrorism none the less.

Seamus Fermanagh

02-18-2009, 20:23

This is a fiction perpetuated to justify internal repression and external aggression.

Fiction? Perhaps so, at least since the 1960s, but not at the outset. Israeli paranoia may no longer be justified, save as the kind of political tool you suggest, but at the outset of the state, pretty much everybody around them WAS out to get them.

Once part of the cultural mind-set, paranoia is also notoriously persistent. So the "fiction" you are suggesting may be more of a self-fulfilling prophecy than a calculated political tool.

Geezer57

02-18-2009, 20:28

Seamus Fermanagh

02-18-2009, 20:28

The scientests are still civilians. Therefore it's still terrorism. Validated terrorism but terrorism none the less.

"Terrorism" has as its goal the specific targeting of innocents as a means of creating fear and repugnance in order to effect a political agenda.

Israel takes the stance that these individuals are NOT innocents, but actively engaged in a war against Israel and therefore legitimate military targets. Israel is not seeking to inculcate fear or generate repugnance on the part of Iran. It is trying to kill key personnel. In their eyes, it is little different from a sniper singling out an officer on the battlefield.

Please note, I am ONLY disputing your use of the term terrorism, which I believe gets too watered down. I am setting aside the morality or immorality of Israel's alleged actions in this as a separate question.

Strike For The South

02-18-2009, 20:33

"Terrorism" has as its goal the specific targeting of innocents as a means of creating fear and repugnance in order to effect a political agenda.

Israel takes the stance that these individuals are NOT innocents, but actively engaged in a war against Israel and therefore legitimate military targets. Israel is not seeking to inculcate fear or generate repugnance on the part of Iran. It is trying to kill key personnel. In their eyes, it is little different from a sniper singling out an officer on the battlefield.

Please note, I am ONLY disputing your use of the term terrorism, which I believe gets too watered down. I am setting aside the morality or immorality of Israel's alleged actions in this as a separate question.

Was the bombing on the USS Cole terrorism? I was only 9 but remember those big red letters on CNN. Hell what about 9/11? I mean those people were feeding and economic machine which kept the arab man down.

There is now declared state of war b'twn either country and Israel is killing Iranai citizens in Iran. These men are not armed nor are they doing anything illegal. Thats terrorism.

tibilicus

02-18-2009, 20:51

the most dangerous thing in the world is to underestimate the capability of your enemies.

They simply are years behind in nuclear capability though.

And as for the capability of their army, sure they have numbers but the IAF would still whoop them with their fancy modern day fighters.

What jet does the Iranian military even have, some cold were derelict from the Russians or the US?

Strike For The South

02-18-2009, 20:56

IRIAF Fighter aircraft (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fighter_aircraft)
20 F-14A Tomcat (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F-14_Tomcat) [11] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_Republic_of_Iran_Air_Force#cite_note-aviationweek.com-10) 40 Mig29A/UB (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mikoyan_MiG-29) (35+5)[11] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_Republic_of_Iran_Air_Force#cite_note-aviationweek.com-10) 47 F-4D/E Phantom II (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F-4_Phantom_II) [11] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_Republic_of_Iran_Air_Force#cite_note-aviationweek.com-10) 11 Dassault Mirage F1 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dassault_Mirage_F1) [11] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_Republic_of_Iran_Air_Force#cite_note-aviationweek.com-10) 50 F-5A/B/E/F (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northrop_F-5) [11] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_Republic_of_Iran_Air_Force#cite_note-aviationweek.com-10) 24 Sukhoi Su-24 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sukhoi_Su-24) [11] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_Republic_of_Iran_Air_Force#cite_note-aviationweek.com-10) 13 Sukhoi Su-25 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sukhoi_Su-25)[11] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_Republic_of_Iran_Air_Force#cite_note-aviationweek.com-10) 24 F-7M Airguard (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chengdu_J-7)
From Wiki by way of aviation weekly.

Hooahguy

02-18-2009, 21:07

They simply are years behind in nuclear capability though.

And as for the capability of their army, sure they have numbers but the IAF would still whoop them with their fancy modern day fighters.

What jet does the Iranian military even have, some cold were derelict from the Russians or the US?
its easier to chop the head off the snake while its young then to wait before its grown.

Seamus Fermanagh

02-18-2009, 21:29

Was the bombing on the USS Cole terrorism? I was only 9 but remember those big red letters on CNN.

No. It was a covert military operation conducted against a declared enemy. The organization responsible AQ is also a terrorist organization.

Hell what about 9/11? I mean those people were feeding and economic machine which kept the arab man down.

I suspect many at AQ share that sentiment. However, unlike the Cole, the NYC buildings targeted were not part of the government apparatus nor did they have any great number of persons working on projects/areas of interest that were any conceivable threat to AQ. The weapons used were, themselves, full of comparative innocents. The Pentagon would obviously constitute a legitimate military target by almost any definition.

There is now declared state of war b'twn either country and Israel is killing Iranai citizens in Iran. These men are not armed nor are they doing anything illegal. Thats terrorism.

Correct on all points, save the label terrorism. Israeli actions, if they are as described, would only be viewed as criminal by almost any court. Most would find such actions immoral. They are certainly casus bellum, and according to accepted standards of international law, Iran would be fully justified in attacking Israel in response.

If, however, you persist in labeling any killing of civilians save during a declared conflict as terrorism, then virtually all states save, perhaps, Costa Rica are ALL terrorists. Terrorism therefore loses and special meaning and, by implication, you accept the basic tenet of the terrorists that there are no innocents and that any and all who do not share you views are legitimate targets. That's Hobbesianism at its worst.

tibilicus

02-18-2009, 21:36

its easier to chop the head off the snake while its young then to wait before its grown.

True, just remember it has to be the right snake though..

Hooahguy

02-18-2009, 21:39

True, just remember it has to be the right snake though..
and the people who are researching for iran the nuclear info arent the snake? i mean, killing the wacko in teharan would cause a war, so.....

Strike For The South

02-18-2009, 21:46

No. It was a covert military operation conducted against a declared enemy. The organization responsible AQ is also a terrorist organization.

Then you disagree with slick willie? I agree with you, I'm just saying.

"If, as it now appears, this was an act of terrorism, it was a despicable and cowardly act. We will find out who was responsible and hold them accountable".

I suspect many at AQ share that sentiment. However, unlike the Cole, the NYC buildings targeted were not part of the government apparatus nor did they have any great number of persons working on projects/areas of interest that were any conceivable threat to AQ. The weapons used were, themselves, full of comparative innocents. The Pentagon would obviously constitute a legitimate military target by almost any definition.

Fair enough.

Correct on all points, save the label terrorism. Israeli actions, if they are as described, would only be viewed as criminal by almost any court. Most would find such actions immoral. They are certainly casus bellum, and according to accepted standards of international law, Iran would be fully justified in attacking Israel in response.

Which was why I first posted here. So if Iran killed Israeli scientist who were working on say tanks you would have no problem with it? What if Iran gave a DOW?

If, however, you persist in labeling any killing of civilians save during a declared conflict as terrorism, then virtually all states save, perhaps, Costa Rica are ALL terrorists. Terrorism therefore loses and special meaning and, by implication, you accept the basic tenet of the terrorists that there are no innocents and that any and all who do not share you views are legitimate targets. That's Hobbesianism at its worst.

Innocence is really in the eye of the beholder isn't it? Some people see American civilians as collateral damages just like we talk of the Palestinian or Iraqi children here.

There are innocents but there is no universal innocent.

I do find Hobbes interesting, "Might makes right" is the historical truth isn't it?

CrossLOPER

02-18-2009, 22:59

and the people who are researching for iran the nuclear info arent the snake? i mean, killing the wacko in teharan would cause a war, so.....
Kill them all just to be sure?

Furunculus

02-18-2009, 23:08

You seriously believe Iran will get even remotely close to developing a nuclear weapon? Phuuleeezeeee..
The fact is they are years away from even having the remote capability of nuclear weapons and even then a nice bombing run over their facilities should sort it.

Israel's wasting money paying people to knock other people of, they could be in and out of Iran in minutes with Iran facilities in tatters, because lets be honest Irans air force quite frankly sucks compared to the IAF.

the north koreans managed it with their peasant kingdom, so why not iran?

if it were that easy i would be the first to cheer them on.

Furunculus

02-18-2009, 23:12

Kill them all just to be sure?

if they're working on a nuclear program that you nation fears will be fired at it then yes. kill all the scientists and technicians necessary to halt the program.

we bombed ball-bearing factories in WW2 to stop german tank production.

Furunculus

02-18-2009, 23:19

If whacking some top Iranian nuclear scientists delays Tel Aviv from turning into a radioactive glass-lined crater by a few years, it's well worth it. Iran has no need for "peaceful" nuclear energy, its energy needs are covered by other means. So any nuclear scientist working for Ahmajenidad or the mullahs is knowingly accepting the risk of being associated with production of weapons of mass destruction.

They're just getting what they deserve, only it's too quick for my tastes. Slow and painful would be more appropriate, IMHO. :skull:

iran has every peaceful 'need' for nuclear energy.

gas/oil will run out.
and it is far better to sell it on the international market at market prices than it is to burn it in your own state subsidised power stations. the revenue potential is enormous.

however, we arn't worried about irans 'peaceful' nuclear potential.

CrossLOPER

02-19-2009, 00:57

we bombed ball-bearing factories in WW2 to stop german tank production.So Israel and Iran are in an official state of war?

Hooahguy

02-19-2009, 01:03

techincally. its well known that iran funds hezbollah and such, so i guess they are... in a way....

Hax

02-19-2009, 01:28

techincally. its well known that iran funds hezbollah and such, so i guess they are... in a way....

Interesting that you should bring this up. Even though Iran did fund Hizbollah, when Iran sent a delegation to Lebanon to ask that the party hand over some western hostages, Hezbollah responded by throwing a handgrenade into the room of the Iranian diplomat.

Also, what the hell makes you think Iran is so stupid that they would risk to send a nuke towards Israel. It's really nonsensical. I remember president Chirac saying; "where would this missile go to? Before it'd reached 100 metres into the sky Tehran would be a big pile of rubble". What's this fear coming from? Does the US have a right to control everything every nation is doing?

It's pretty much sickening how the foreign policy of the United States works. Back in 2001 Iran, under the leadership of Mohammad Khatami, supplied the United States with information on the Taliban. In 2003 Khatami actually sent a letter to president Bush with a list of unresolved problems between Iran and the United States? And what happened?

The US didn't respond. They had bombed Afghanistan and Iraq to hell and they probably expected Iran would be next.

Hooahguy

02-19-2009, 01:37

i repeat:
you cannot leave something like this up to chance. fanaticism can make you do nonsensical things.

Evil_Maniac From Mars

02-19-2009, 01:42

Interesting that you should bring this up. Even though Iran did fund Hizbollah, when Iran sent a delegation to Lebanon to ask that the party hand over some western hostages, Hezbollah responded by throwing a handgrenade into the room of the Iranian diplomat.

According to the CFR, Hamas and Hezbollah both receive extensive support from Iran. It isn't any kind of a secret.

Also, what the hell makes you think Iran is so stupid that they would risk to send a nuke towards Israel. It's really nonsensical. I remember president Chirac saying; "where would this missile go to? Before it'd reached 100 metres into the sky Tehran would be a big pile of rubble". What's this fear coming from?

Who says that it would go in missile form? Perhaps it would be smuggled in with a terrorist organization to be detonated in Israel. Who knows?

Does the US have a right to control everything every nation is doing?

I'll let someone else respond rather than evoking the standard anti-American chorus from the left. But in short form, the standard "they have the right to have nukes, leave them alone" argument is absurd. Firstly, why would be allow another nation to have nuclear bombs? Secondly, why would we allow an unfriendly nation to have nuclear bombs? We shouldn't, and it is laughable to suggest otherwise.

It's pretty much sickening how the foreign policy of the United States works.

:laugh4:

Hax

02-19-2009, 01:51

Firstly, why would be allow another nation to have nuclear bombs? Secondly, why would we allow an unfriendly nation to have nuclear bombs? We shouldn't, and it is laughable to suggest otherwise.

What gives us the right to decided who can have nuclear technology?

An unfriendly nation? As I stated, Iran has supplied the United States from 2001 up to 2003 with information about the Taliban.

Scurvy

02-19-2009, 01:59

What gives us the right to decided who can have nuclear technology?

An unfriendly nation? As I stated, Iran has supplied the United States from 2001 up to 2003 with information about the Taliban.

I'm not sure the US is partiularly fussed about other countries rights, and so they should'nt be, the safety of their own country surely takes priority

Having said that, it would be interesting to see how Israel would react if Palestinians or Iranians started killing off their scientists...

The only way to stop Iran getting nuclear weapons is for Israel the US etc. to all relinquish them, but clearly the risk is too great for that to ever happen

tibilicus

02-19-2009, 02:00

i repeat:
you cannot leave something like this up to chance. fanaticism can make you do nonsensical things.

I would put just as much a bet on Israel launching a nuke at some one. Lets make a scenario here. Are you telling me that some how if Israelis neighbours managed to muster up a military force to enter Israels borders that Israel wouldn't use nukes and thus start a world wide nuclear war?

lets look at the two countries here, Israel, a country founded on religion heavily influenced by Religion, home to some religious fanatics although not be it like their suicide bombing neighbours but on top of this a country with a stockpile of 150 nuclear weapons.

Now, lets look at Iran. A country deeply dominated by religion after the Islamic revolution, a country heavily influenced by religion and a country full of religious fanatics but, unlike Israel, it isn't capable of nuclear warfare.

You see some similarities? Now, I'm not saying Iran should have nukes but what I'm saying is killing scientists isn't the right way to stop a nuclear Iran. As mentioned Iran will never get the chance to have nuclear weapons as their facilities will most likely be bombed by then. Killing people trying to make a living although be it a dubious one in their country isn't it.

What I am saying however is how can you be comfortable with a nuclear Israel? I know I'm not. For a country that believes it has the right to a land area because their people are "chosen by God" I find it worrying that so many people support them and their stockpiles.

Now tell me, if I walked up to you and said my country had a stockpile of nukes and that I'm prepared to use them to defend the land God gave me what would you say? Loonie? Fanatic?

Double standards isn't it.

Hooahguy

02-19-2009, 02:12

theres a critical difference between iran and israel:
first of all the fanaticsm in israel is nowhere NEAR the amount in iran. while it can be said that israel was founded on religion, most of the founding members werent very religious. the courts in israel are secular, and few of the laws are based on the bible. i mean, you cans still drive and work on the sabbath (though many buisnesses are closed on that day anyhow). its a pretty secular country.
but the most important thing is that israel isnt preaching to wipe iran off the map. iran is.

about your statement

if I walked up to you and said my country had a stockpile of nukes and that I'm prepared to use them to defend the land God gave me what would you say? Loonie? Fanatic?
theres a critical difference in the underlined word. if iran have been saying all they want to do is use them for defense and never mentioned wiping israel off the map, i would be ok with iran having nukes.

i feel very comfortable with israel having nukes, because as of yet israel hasent used them.
now iran, i cant feel comfortable, because they have preached to destroy israel and im not so sure if they will live up to your claims that they wont.

also,

Now, lets look at Iran. A country deeply dominated by religion of the Islamic revolution
AFAIK, the Islamic revolution was a big fanatiscm movement.

also, while they may not have nukes, they do have (http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=44017) a capability of an EMP (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromagnetic_pulse) strike.

Alexander the Pretty Good

02-19-2009, 02:13

I wonder if murdering their scientists will fuel a siege mentality, especially among the Iranian middle class that is probably the most likely to be supportive of the US?

/leave them alone and let them coup their insane leaders in a few years.

Evil_Maniac From Mars

02-19-2009, 02:18

What gives us the right to decided who can have nuclear technology?

In foreign policy, Realism and Pragmatism > Idealism.

America has the right because of precisely what Scurvy said.

Alexander the Pretty Good

02-19-2009, 02:25

EMFM, isn't that the attitude that's got us into nasty situations like Vietnam and Iraq in the first place?

tibilicus

02-19-2009, 02:32

theres a critical difference between iran and israel:
first of all the fanaticsm in israel is nowhere NEAR the amount in iran. while it can be said that israel was founded on religion, most of the founding members werent very religious. the courts in israel are secular, and few of the laws are based on the bible. i mean, you cans still drive and work on the sabbath (though many buisnesses are closed on that day anyhow). its a pretty secular country.
but the most important thing is that israel isnt preaching to wipe iran off the map. iran is.

about your statement

theres a critical difference in the underlined word. if iran have been saying all they want to do is use them for defense and never mentioned wiping israel off the map, i would be ok with iran having nukes.

i feel very comfortable with israel having nukes, because as of yet israel hasent used them.
now iran, i cant feel comfortable, because they have preached to destroy israel and im not so sure if they will live up to your claims that they wont.

also,

AFAIK, the Islamic revolution was a big fanatiscm movement.

also, while they may not have nukes, they do have (http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=44017) a capability of an EMP (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromagnetic_pulse) strike.

Fair points, and I understand that Iran have said they want to wipe Israel of the map. The point is though that even if they did have the capability to do that by launching nukes at Israel they would ultimately secure their own downfall.

That's not the case at the minute though, the case at the minute is Israel is heavily armed with nukes and it would take just one nation strong enough to challenge it and try and enter its borders before it kicked of.

I'm just personally troubled by a country which is so small yet sits in a hotbed of religious and regional tension but has the nuclear capacity to destroy the world over probably.

Evil_Maniac From Mars

02-19-2009, 02:33

EMFM, isn't that the attitude that's got us into nasty situations like Vietnam and Iraq in the first place?

In my opinion, pragmatism involves proper planning. Realistic and practical goals work.

That's not the case at the minute though, the case at the minute is Israel is heavily armed with nukes and it would take just one nation strong enough to challenge it and try and enter its borders before it kicked of.

I'm just personally troubled by a country which is so small yet sits in a hotbed of religious and regional tension but has the nuclear capacity to destroy the world over probably.

So you are troubled by a country possessing nuclear bombs in a defensive manner, a country that has been repeatedly attacked by surrounding nations which happen to hate it, and yet you are either not troubled by Iran and/or don't mind if they expand their arsenal?

Hooahguy

02-19-2009, 02:34

well, i think its good that israel has the nukes b/c its a deterrent, obviously.
id imagine that thered me a lot more wars if israel didnt have them.

Strike For The South

02-19-2009, 02:37

Fair points, and I understand that Iran have said they want to wipe Israel of the map. The point is though that even if they did have the capability to do that by launching nukes at Israel they would ultimately secure their own downfall.

That's not the case at the minute though, the case at the minute is Israel is heavily armed with nukes and it would take just one nation strong enough to challenge it and try and enter its borders before it kicked of.

I'm just personally troubled by a country which is so small yet sits in a hotbed of religious and regional tension but has the nuclear capacity to destroy the world over probably.

Israel doesn't have enough nor powerful enough nukes to destroy the world.

Scurvy

02-19-2009, 02:40

well, i think its good that israel has the nukes b/c its a deterrent, obviously.
id imagine that thered me a lot more wars if israel didnt have them.

Its not Israel's nukes Iran and co are worried about, its the US's

Strike For The South

02-19-2009, 02:42

Its not Israel's nukes Iran and co are worried about, its the US's

The USA will not go nuclear over Israel.

Evil_Maniac From Mars

02-19-2009, 02:43

Its not Israel's nukes Iran and co are worried about, its the US's

The USA has used nuclear bombs in anger what, twice? When they were first developed, and arguably out of complete necessity. It sat through one of the most delicate situations in history without ever firing. It is a functioning democracy, not a fundamentalist regime. I would trust the USA with nuclear bombs more than any other country in the world - it is unfeasible that America would fire at anyone, whereas I can understand Israel being very scared of Iran.

Scurvy

02-19-2009, 02:50

I realise its hypothetical, but if Israel was to be wiped out, the US would surely retaliate.

I actually meant it is the US Iran fears far more than Israel, and as such, its nuclear efforts and foreign policy are far more aimed towards the US. Israel would have very little influence in the area without US support (and weapons + funding), furthermore many of Iran's natural allies are completely reliant on US aid, and Iranain influence suffers as a result - its therefore the US that holds all the strings in any conflict in the area, and the fact it has nukes, and could use them (not that they would) is enough. If Iran was really bent of wiping Israel off the map, im not sure Israeli nukes would stop them, especially if they are fanatical as they are portrayed - its the impact to the area that the US would have afterwards that stops them.

CrossLOPER

02-19-2009, 03:22

In foreign policy, Realism and Pragmatism > Idealism.

America has the right because of precisely what Scurvy said.
Don't confuse realism and pragmatism with convenience. Also, Scurvy's post does not really apply to our two friends.

Seamus Fermanagh

02-19-2009, 04:54

Then you disagree with slick willie? I agree with you, I'm just saying.

Completely. It was vital to Pres. Clinton to characterize the action as "terrorism" so that it could be pursued/addressed as a criminal action by individuals and not as an act of war. I disagree completely with that attitude. Regrettably, it only takes one side to "declare" a war. Refusing to deal with military aggression as such is inaccurate at best.

Which was why I first posted here. So if Iran killed Israeli scientist who were working on say tanks you would have no problem with it? What if Iran gave a DOW?

I never said I wouldn't have a problem with it. I said it wasn't terrorism. I actually dislike a lot of the stuff that gets done. I'm an old-fashioned enough type to wish they'd declare war and deal with it on the up-and-up, though I am well aware that it won't happen. Nobody declares war anymore, they just shoot and spin it in the media after shooting.

I do find Hobbes interesting, "Might makes right" is the historical truth isn't it?

All too often. I prefer Locke's approach to the Social Contract, though anyone who dismisses Hobbes outright is missing the boat.

Hax:

Who in this thread has been arguing about the USA having the right to dictate policy to other nations? I thought this was about Israel?

lenin96

02-19-2009, 09:50

I did not say i know, i said i am convinced.

So people are being killed because they are suspected but not proven of doing something "wrong".

i repeat:
you cannot leave something like this up to chance. fanaticism can make you do nonsensical things.

By that logic I can't leave America's foreign policy to chance.

The USA has used nuclear bombs in anger what, twice? When they were first developed, and arguably out of complete necessity. It sat through one of the most delicate situations in history without ever firing.

So it was necessary for all of those thousands of inoccent people had to die (:skull:) for America?

It is a functioning democracy, not a fundamentalist regime. I would trust the USA with nuclear bombs more than any other country in the world - it is unfeasible that America would fire at anyone, whereas I can understand Israel being very scared of Iran.

Under Bush America seemed like a fudamentalist regime, and I would certainly not trust the one of the biggest inoccent killers in the world to have nuclear weopns.:skull::skull:

It is a functioning democracy

And I assume America doesn't have a big difference between the upper and lower class.

Furunculus

02-19-2009, 09:58

Also, what the hell makes you think Iran is so stupid that they would risk to send a nuke towards Israel. It's really nonsensical. I remember president Chirac saying; "where would this missile go to? Before it'd reached 100 metres into the sky Tehran would be a big pile of rubble". What's this fear coming from? Does the US have a right to control everything every nation is doing?

As stated previously, they hold public military parades where ballistic missiles are daubed with phrases like "death to israel", at a time when they are pursuing a nuclear weapons program. That alone is all i need to know that iran cannot be trusted with nukes and to cheer on anyone who goes about halting that ambition.

Furunculus

02-19-2009, 10:08

lets look at the two countries here, Israel, a country founded on religion heavily influenced by Religion, home to some religious fanatics although not be it like their suicide bombing neighbours but on top of this a country with a stockpile of 150 nuclear weapons.

Now, lets look at Iran. A country deeply dominated by religion after the Islamic revolution, a country heavily influenced by religion and a country full of religious fanatics but, unlike Israel, it isn't capable of nuclear warfare.

What I am saying however is how can you be comfortable with a nuclear Israel? I know I'm not. For a country that believes it has the right to a land area because their people are "chosen by God" I find it worrying that so many people support them and their stockpiles.

Double standards isn't it.

odd, i see a country that has had to defend itself repeatedly from neighbours that have repeatedly attacked it. a defensive attitude is acceptable to me with nukes.

and that same country is essentially a representative parliamentary democracy, stable and non-repressive to its citizens. again, not an unacceptable state of affairs in a nuke weilding country.

i find it entirely understandable that a fly-speck country surrounded by massive neighbours, with greatly larger populations, with a history of conflict with said fly-speck nation should want an ultimate deterrent.

so no, i see no double standards.

Furunculus

02-19-2009, 10:11

Fair points, and I understand that Iran have said they want to wipe Israel of the map. The point is though that even if they did have the capability to do that by launching nukes at Israel they would ultimately secure their own downfall.

the problem with iran holding nukes is that it is grossly repressive and unrepresentative with an unstable history, which means it is both prone to revolutionary change, and prone to extreme political ideology from its uprising masses.

not the kind of people i want holding nukes.

for much the same reason i am happy about india's nukes but worried by those held by pakistan.

Furunculus

02-19-2009, 10:14

So people are being killed because they are suspected but not proven of doing something "wrong".

yup, its a tough world, not every one gets their day in court before judgment is passed. sad.

Scurvy

02-19-2009, 10:17

i find it entirely understandable that a fly-speck country surrounded by massive neighbours, with greatly larger populations, with a history of conflict with said fly-speck nation should want an ultimate deterrent.

I agree with most of it, but you don't think having nukes for 'defensive purposes' is actually an aggressive act?

lenin96

02-19-2009, 10:36

yup, its a tough world, not every one gets their day in court before judgment is passed. sad.

What a great reason for killing someone.

LittleGrizzly

02-19-2009, 10:45

the problem with iran holding nukes is that it is grossly repressive and unrepresentative with an unstable history, which means it is both prone to revolutionary change, and prone to extreme political ideology from its uprising masses.

Maybe they have had a bit of a problem with revolution and uprisings because we couldn't keep our noses out!

The moment Iran is left in peace it will be alot less extreme, part of me just thinks we keep the pressure on them as a few country's find it useful to have Iran as some scary enemy to scare domestic population with and excuse our constant twisted foriegn policy..

Don't see why Israel should be considered a safer bet to own nukes than Iran, Israel is an aggressive country surronded by enemies, Iran is relatively calm despite the best attempts of Israel and the west to rile them up, the furthest they have gone is some mistranslated quote (which is somehow proof israel shouldn't have to give away any palestinian land) and some slogans on missles. Grow up, it is fairly obvious to anyone with a basic grasp of politics that Iran is not about to start a missle war and definetly not a nuclear one. Even though people like to talk of the 'fanaticism' of Iran is not that extreme, and TBH the only thing keeping its current level of extremity is us!

Remove our constant goading of Iran and there is no reason to fear Iranian nuclear weapons, I for one cheer the concept of Iranian nuclear weapons! It should provide an effective deterrent against Israel and the west...

yup, its a tough world, not every one gets their day in court before judgment is passed. sad.

The nazis were also very upset, they claimed to not have the facilities to process so many terrorists... but its ok i guess... right ?

Furunculus

02-19-2009, 12:21

I agree with most of it, but you don't think having nukes for 'defensive purposes' is actually an aggressive act?

MAD is a defensive strategy.

Furunculus

02-19-2009, 12:22

"yup, its a tough world, not every one gets their day in court before judgment is passed. sad."

What a great reason for killing someone.

ok, airstrikes it is then................... :juggle2:

Furunculus

02-19-2009, 12:31

Maybe they have had a bit of a problem with revolution and uprisings because we couldn't keep our noses out!

The moment Iran is left in peace it will be alot less extreme, part of me just thinks we keep the pressure on them as a few country's find it useful to have Iran as some scary enemy to scare domestic population with and excuse our constant twisted foriegn policy..

Don't see why Israel should be considered a safer bet to own nukes than Iran, Israel is an aggressive country surronded by enemies, Iran is relatively calm despite the best attempts of Israel and the west to rile them up, the furthest they have gone is some mistranslated quote (which is somehow proof israel shouldn't have to give away any palestinian land) and some slogans on missles. Grow up, it is fairly obvious to anyone with a basic grasp of politics that Iran is not about to start a missle war and definetly not a nuclear one. Even though people like to talk of the 'fanaticism' of Iran is not that extreme, and TBH the only thing keeping its current level of extremity is us!

Remove our constant goading of Iran and there is no reason to fear Iranian nuclear weapons, I for one cheer the concept of Iranian nuclear weapons! It should provide an effective deterrent against Israel and the west...

The nazis were also very upset, they claimed to not have the facilities to process so many terrorists... but its ok i guess... right ?

irrelevant, nobody should want excitable revolutionaries anywhere near big red buttons.

the moment iran stops funding hamas/hezbollah/others we are very likely to take the pressure off.

because it is a representative parliamentary democracy. grow up? grow up! you say this to me in response to the iranian military conducting public parades of ballistic missiles daubed with slogans such as "death to israel" at a time when they pursue nuclear weapons!?!?!?!?! WTF?

that is a very misguided view.

as said above, ok lets launch a military strike against irans nuclear facilities in the absence of their willingness to close them down voluntarily. rather pointless nazi analogy don't you think?

tibilicus

02-19-2009, 13:29

In my opinion, pragmatism involves proper planning. Realistic and practical goals work.

So you are troubled by a country possessing nuclear bombs in a defensive manner, a country that has been repeatedly attacked by surrounding nations which happen to hate it, and yet you are either not troubled by Iran and/or don't mind if they expand their arsenal?

No, I'm not troubled by Iran yet hence I see the killing of scientists pointless. Your simply wrong if you buy in to the belief that Iran posses some kind of major military threat. Just like everyone else in the region its military is pretty much a joke when compared to Israel or any other western country.

I mean seriously its air force consists of old 50's and 70's knock off's, the same can probably said for their armour and their foot soldiers consist of millions of loonies armed with AK's.

I know I wouldn't be scared if I had my modern multi role fighters and mechanized military. :2thumbsup:

Furunculus

02-19-2009, 15:13

LittleGrizzly

02-19-2009, 15:28

irrelevant, nobody should want excitable revolutionaries anywhere near big red buttons.

Thier recent revolution was getting rid of the puppet we installed, no more excitable revolutionaries than the founding fathers...

What I am basically saying is they were well within thier right to get rid of our puppet and decide thier own direction, which isn't really an arguable point...

the moment iran stops funding hamas/hezbollah/others we are very likely to take the pressure off.

Why should they whilst we still fund Israel, or is it only ok for us to fund proxys ?

because it is a representative parliamentary democracy.

errm, i never said that.. ohh you mean Israel, I don't see why representative parlimentary democracy should affect it, considering some of the democracys (israel palestine) there are probably less aggressive warlike dictatorships about that i would trust more with nukes, besides Iran has a kind of democracy going, the mullahs have to approve the candidates but they are not exactly extremists, they have fairly liberal candidates able to compete, the only real difference from somewhere like US or UK would seem to be the mullahs have to vet the candidate as well as the political party, whereas over here its just the political party...

Damn got to go... ill finish the rest of the points later...

Yoyoma1910

02-19-2009, 15:55

Dans la nuit, tous les chats sont gris.

Does anyone here live in a nation without a military or intelligence agency? Congratulations.

Hooahguy

02-19-2009, 17:03

No, I'm not troubled by Iran yet hence I see the killing of scientists pointless. Your simply wrong if you buy in to the belief that Iran posses some kind of major military threat. Just like everyone else in the region its military is pretty much a joke when compared to Israel or any other western country.

I mean seriously its air force consists of old 50's and 70's knock off's, the same can probably said for their armour and their foot soldiers consist of millions of loonies armed with AK's.

I know I wouldn't be scared if I had my modern multi role fighters and mechanized military. :2thumbsup:
i repeat: the most dangerous thing in the world to do is to underestimate your enemies.

btw, AFAIK russia sold iran some very advanced AA technology, among other things, a few years ago.

btw, what about the fact that iran has EMP capability?
EMPs are much worse...

Alexander the Pretty Good

02-19-2009, 17:05

How dare they arm themselves after being demonized for 20 years!

tibilicus

02-19-2009, 17:09

i repeat: the most dangerous thing in the world to do is to underestimate your enemies.

btw, AFAIK russia sold iran some very advanced AA technology, among other things, a few years ago.

btw, what about the fact that iran has EMP capability?
EMPs are much worse...

Well if I'm reading what I am about EMP's they seem very advanced and other than a few sources there is no major evidence to suggest Iran has them.

Also if I'm understanding what an EMP does on a bit of a side not couldn't some one like Russia use an EMP to disable the US anti nuke shield? Does it work in a sense like that?

Hax

02-19-2009, 17:10

what i do take very seriously is an unstable and despotic regime against israel holding nuclear weapons.

Iran has democratically elected presidents. Or was Khatami a joke?

Hooahguy

02-19-2009, 17:16

How dare they arm themselves after being demonized for 20 years!
people said that about Nazi Germany too....

Hooahguy

02-19-2009, 17:22

Well if I'm reading what I am about EMP's they seem very advanced and other than a few sources there is no major evidence to suggest Iran has them.

Also if I'm understanding what an EMP does on a bit of a side not couldn't some one like Russia use an EMP to disable the US anti nuke shield? Does it work in a sense like that?
EMPs shuts down communications and other such things, AFAIK.
with that, they could shit down israels nuclear capability, then launch a nuke.
and IIRC, http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=44017

Furunculus

02-19-2009, 17:24

Iran has democratically elected presidents. Or was Khatami a joke?

what a nice soundbite............... but does it have any substance. lets see:

http://www.economist.com/media/pdf/Democracy_Index_2007_v3.pdf

Iran = 139th out of 167 and filed under authoritarian regimes.

Israel = 47th and filed under flawed democracy just underneath Poland.

no, your statement has zero worthwhile content.

Furunculus

02-19-2009, 17:25

errm, i never said that.. ohh you mean Israel, I don't see why representative parlimentary democracy should affect it, considering some of the democracys (israel palestine) there are probably less aggressive warlike dictatorships about that i would trust more with nukes, besides Iran has a kind of democracy going, the mullahs have to approve the candidates but they are not exactly extremists, they have fairly liberal candidates able to compete, the only real difference from somewhere like US or UK would seem to be the mullahs have to vet the candidate as well as the political party, whereas over here its just the political party...

see above.

Ser Clegane

02-19-2009, 17:37

http://www.economist.com/media/pdf/Democracy_Index_2007_v3.pdf

Very interesting - something worth to take a closer look at

:bow:

Hooahguy

02-19-2009, 18:02

ignore- dang this lousy internet connection...

CrossLOPER

02-19-2009, 18:07

http://www.economist.com/media/pdf/Democracy_Index_2007_v3.pdf
That looks somewhat flawed. Looking at one of the category scores, II Functioning of government, a country becomes more democratic if people "feel like" they're a democracy. The questions also appear to be either somewhat subjective or really technical. I think it could be much better if factors such as stability and well defined social conditions were added in.

Furunculus

02-19-2009, 18:28

That looks somewhat flawed. Looking at one of the category scores, II Functioning of government, a country becomes more democratic if people "feel like" they're a democracy. The questions also appear to be either somewhat subjective or really technical. I think it could be much better if factors such as stability and well defined social conditions were added in.

a bit like a political stability index:
http://www.pwc.com/extweb/service.nsf/docid/fe926b4a5ce358a5852571d8005f0b12#
medium = israel
medium/low =
low = iran

or Eurasia Groups political risk index:
http://www.eurasiagroup.net/download/press-kit/About%20the%20Global%20Political%20Risk%20Index%20(GPRI)

or a bit like the human development index?

http://hdr.undp.org/en/statistics/

israel = 24
iran = 84

regardless, anyone got a better democratic index..............................................................?

Kralizec

02-19-2009, 18:31

CrossLOPER

02-19-2009, 18:39

a bit like a political stability index:
http://www.pwc.com/extweb/service.nsf/docid/fe926b4a5ce358a5852571d8005f0b12#
Something like that, but that has far more to do with economic status.

Furunculus

02-19-2009, 18:40

While Ahmedinejad hates Israel I think it's very implausible that he'd ever make the trade of destroying Israel for having Teheran reduced to ash in a heartbeat, and with the USA bombing the rest of Iran in oblivion afterwards. Being reactionary is not the same thing as being a suicidal fanatic. If Israel is unsure they can still enlarge their arsenal to the point where they can saturate Iran, that ought to do it.

Killing civilians is just a vile act befitting a rogue state, not a country claiming to be a modern democracy.israel has a duty to its citizens to protect them from existential threats.

a tin-pot nut-case sat atop an unstable repressive regime with ballistic missiles and a nuclear weapons program is an existential threat.

Hooahguy

02-19-2009, 18:43

While Ahmedinejad hates Israel I think it's very implausible that he'd ever make the trade of destroying Israel for having Teheran reduced to ash in a heartbeat, and with the USA bombing the rest of Iran in oblivion afterwards. Being reactionary is not the same thing as being a suicidal fanatic. If Israel is unsure they can still enlarge their arsenal to the point where they can saturate Iran, that ought to do it.

Killing civilians is just a vile act befitting a rogue state, not a country claiming to be a modern democracy.
idk if id classify them as civilians. i wouldnt classify the people working on the manhattan project as civilians. while they actually are by definition, they are working for the governemnt to acheive a military purpose.
we bombed the ball-bearing facilities where "civilians" were working on ball-bearings for panzers.

Strike For The South

02-19-2009, 19:52

Completely. It was vital to Pres. Clinton to characterize the action as "terrorism" so that it could be pursued/addressed as a criminal action by individuals and not as an act of war. I disagree completely with that attitude. Regrettably, it only takes one side to "declare" a war. Refusing to deal with military aggression as such is inaccurate at best.
Agreed

I never said I wouldn't have a problem with it. I said it wasn't terrorism. I actually dislike a lot of the stuff that gets done. I'm an old-fashioned enough type to wish they'd declare war and deal with it on the up-and-up, though I am well aware that it won't happen. Nobody declares war anymore, they just shoot and spin it in the media after shooting.
These kind of things have been going on forever though. All out war isn't always your best option. I would argue that killing scientists is an act of terrorism. I would be scared if tommorow I found my chem professor killed by Costa Ricans

All too often. I prefer Locke's approach to the Social Contract, though anyone who dismisses Hobbes outright is missing the boat.

The one who sees thing from afar can always afford to be an idealist.

Evil_Maniac From Mars

02-19-2009, 22:15

So it was necessary for all of those thousands of inoccent people had to die (:skull:) for America?

The necessity of Hiroshima has been debated in the Monastery.

Under Bush America seemed like a fudamentalist regime, and I would certainly not trust the one of the biggest inoccent killers in the world to have nuclear weopns.

I think Lenin has killed more than Bush. And a fundamentalist regime?

:laugh4:

And I assume America doesn't have a big difference between the upper and lower class.

Which is an irrelevant statement whether it is true or not.

EDIT:

There are are two beautiful equations we must consider:

Iran = Not A Democracy
America = A Democracy

LittleGrizzly

02-19-2009, 22:32

There are are two beautiful equations we must consider:

Iran = Not A Democracy
America = A Democracy

If only it were so simple, its not an on off switch. Iran has a partail democracy and whilst not great its a damn sight better than anything we installed in the region

Evil_Maniac From Mars

02-19-2009, 22:38

If only it were so simple, its not an on off switch. Iran has a partail democracy and whilst not great its a damn sight better than anything we installed in the region

Refer to Furunculus' post. :bow:

CrossLOPER

02-19-2009, 22:44

Refer to Furunculus' post. :bow:
Circular arguments leading back to the causes do not provide any new type of insight.

Evil_Maniac From Mars

02-19-2009, 22:46

Circular arguments leading back to the causes do not provide any new type of insight.

It isn't a circular argument. I'm referring to his post containing the comparison of democracies - America is one, Iran is not. End.

LittleGrizzly

02-19-2009, 23:04

Refer to Furunculus' post. :bow:

Refer to Crossloper's post. :bow:

Furunculus

02-20-2009, 10:05

Circular arguments leading back to the causes do not provide any new type of insight.

Refer to Crossloper's post. :bow:
individuals that blindly ignore evidence that does not suit their argument rarely add anything of worth to a debate.

Furunculus

02-20-2009, 10:09

Originally Posted by Idaho View Post
"I don't trust your country with the power it has, especially as it has the track record of being the most violent nation on the planet."

which is my country?
i repeat; which is my country?

lenin96

02-20-2009, 10:49

The necessity of Hiroshima has been debated in the Monastery.

In this thread someone mentioned the killing of thousands, do I say nothing for over 170 000 people dead?

I think Lenin has killed more than Bush. And a fundamentalist regime?

America has mudered hundreds and thousands of inoccent people, I have a better reason for dropping bombs on America than America had for Japan. Although I wouldn't drop nuclear weopons on America because I wouldn't kill so many millions of inoccent people, although I wouldn't be suprised if america would do that to other people.

Which is an irrelevant statement whether it is true or not.

So all of those poor people are irrelavent? They're nothing? They deserve nothing?

There are are two beautiful equations we must consider:

Iran = Not A Democracy
America = A Democracy

As a person who supports the U.S.S.R and Authoritarian-Socialism do you think I care about Democracy?

Hooahguy

02-20-2009, 14:39

you really think that bush was worse than lenin or stalin?
:laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:

wow

LittleGrizzly

02-20-2009, 14:43

you really think that bush was worse than lenin or stalin?

In terms of political ability or intelligence ... ~;)

Though of course in terms of badness Stalin was far worse... i now less of Lenin...

Hooahguy

02-20-2009, 14:46

well, Lenin96 was saying that bush was badder than lenin or stalin.
from what i know of lenin he purged russia of royalists, and stalin, everyone knows he murdered millions...

LittleGrizzly

02-20-2009, 14:50

Yeah i now, was just the perfect oppurtunity for a cheap shot at Bush, don't get many now he's out of office....

Hooahguy

02-20-2009, 14:53

ignore

Fragony

02-20-2009, 15:13

Though of course in terms of badness Stalin was far worse... i now less of Lenin...

Very smart, very cynical

LittleGrizzly

02-20-2009, 15:46

Errm, TBH i just thought i was being honest, Stalin is far worse than Bush and IDK much about Lenin, though i imagine bush would come off nicely compared to most leaders from around that time... no real hidden point i was trying to score... though i would never object to very smart as a description of myself...

Strike For The South

02-20-2009, 20:23

In this thread someone mentioned the killing of thousands, do I say nothing for over 170 000 people dead?

America has mudered hundreds and thousands of inoccent people, I have a better reason for dropping bombs on America than America had for Japan. Although I wouldn't drop nuclear weopons on America because I wouldn't kill so many millions of inoccent people, although I wouldn't be suprised if america would do that to other people.

So all of those poor people are irrelavent? They're nothing? They deserve nothing?

As a person who supports the U.S.S.R and Authoritarian-Socialism do you think I care about Democracy?

God you're cute.

CrossLOPER

02-20-2009, 20:32

individuals that blindly ignore evidence that does not suit their argument rarely add anything of worth to a debate.
The argument was not whether or not Iran is a democracy. Others here tried to make it so.

lenin96

02-21-2009, 00:27

you really think that bush was worse than lenin or stalin?

If you read my post you would see that I meant Lenin not Stalin.

Evil_Maniac From Mars

02-21-2009, 00:31

In this thread someone mentioned the killing of thousands, do I say nothing for over 170 000 people dead?

America has mudered hundreds and thousands of inoccent people, I have a better reason for dropping bombs on America than America had for Japan. Although I wouldn't drop nuclear weopons on America because I wouldn't kill so many millions of inoccent people, although I wouldn't be suprised if america would do that to other people.

See SFTS's post... :dizzy2:

So all of those poor people are irrelavent? They're nothing? They deserve nothing?

It is completely irrelevant to the argument, and would require a new thread.

As a person who supports the U.S.S.R and Authoritarian-Socialism do you think I care about Democracy?

From this post I can see you have no idea what living under that sort of regime is like. In a few years and with a bit of research, I hope that you will figure it out. :bow:

lenin96

02-21-2009, 00:58

From this post I can see you have no idea what living under that sort of regime is like. In a few years and with a bit of research, I hope that you will figure it out.

I would live under an authoritarian government (one that supports my ideology) because I should, not because I would like it or it would be nice.

Mooks

02-21-2009, 02:22

I would live under an authoritarian government (one that supports my ideology) because I should, not because I would like it or it would be nice.

errr what? I cant be the only one that doesnt understand the reasoning behind this.

Evil_Maniac From Mars

02-21-2009, 02:23

I would live under an authoritarian government (one that supports my ideology) because I should, not because I would like it or it would be nice.

:dizzy2:

Furunculus

02-21-2009, 02:37

I would live under an authoritarian government (one that supports my ideology) because I should, not because I would like it or it would be nice.

when you try it, and a friend of the family is dumped on their family doorstep in a tabacco sack you may think differently.

what would really get you is the callous statement from the delivery 'agent' that if your children want an education you won't make a fuss about the event.

Marshal Murat

02-21-2009, 02:54

I would live under an authoritarian government (one that supports my ideology) because I should, not because I would like it or it would be nice.

SFTS we need to form a fan club for this man! Absolutely adorable.

Seamus Fermanagh

02-21-2009, 04:11

SFTS we need to form a fan club for this man! Absolutely adorable.

But adorable for the faith of his beliefs or his penchant for illustrating through absurdity? :inquisitive:

lenin96

02-21-2009, 04:55

I think I've made this thread go off topic.

Banquo's Ghost

02-21-2009, 13:12

I think I've made this thread go off topic.

And for that, you will have to be re-educated.

No one escapes, lenin96. There are no martyrs here. All the confessions made here are true. We do not destroy the heretic because he resists us. As long as he resists us, we never destroy him. We make him one of ourselves before we kill him. We make his brain perfect before we blow it out.

And then... when there is nothing left but sorrow and love of the Moderators... we shall lift you clean out of history. We shall turn you into gas and pour you into the stratosphere. Nothing will remain of you. Not a name in a register. Not a memory in a living brain. You will be annihilated in the past, as well as in the future.

Seamus - Room 101, please.

:wink: Yes, keen observers will note that O'Brien was an Irishman too...

CrossLOPER

02-21-2009, 18:24

And for that, you will have to be re-educated...
Right, while you're doing that, could you "modify" the colors on some people's profiles so they stop misusing my colors? There are just so many shades of red and goldenrod. You understand, don't you?

Ah, green and red it is.

Meneldil

02-21-2009, 20:23

i repeat:
you cannot leave something like this up to chance. fanaticism can make you do nonsensical things.

Like killing scientists?

Furunculus

02-21-2009, 22:35

well if you believe the following:

a) the iranian regime has a deep seated hatred of a israel
b) the repressive nature of that regime breeds extremism and instability
c) they cannot be trusted with nuclear weapons
d) you cannot persuade them to renounce a nuclear weapons program
e) you cannot muster the political will for a military strike against the nuclear program

then yes, sadly, israel is left with the one option of killing key figures in irans nuclear program.

seems pretty simple really.