Shalom, Mr Ahmadinejad [Archive]

Aemilius Paulus

10-07-2009, 01:47

Are you trolling or is this truly your belief?
Of course it is my belief. By now, I know better than to troll in the Backroom. By now, I have received a warning or sometimes even an infraction for every little thing I can think of. I would be out of my mind to attempt trolling. Not to mention, the only place I troll is in the EB Tavern, where nearly everything is permitted. Backroom is the last place I can think of to troll…

It's called elitism. Jusitified, perhaps.
Two questions. Why would you call it elitism? I see little connection. Two: why justified? I am lost…

In general, I have noticed most teenagers and young adults have severely skewed sense of politics, or more often, do not take enough interest in politics to vote, let alone riot. If that is not enough, most adolescents do not participate in politics at all. I’ll be sodomised in the rump if more than 5% of the youthful rioters actually deliberated for an hour, at the minimum, on the political/social/economic/or at least personal aspects of Mousavi and/or demonstrating before going out to “peacefully protest & demonstrate”. Instead, all throughout history and our planet, youth tends to be easily inflamed, easily drawn into rebellion, and to be easily consumed by it.

It is no peculiar concurrence that so many social and political upheavals feature the youth as the driving element. And if you are to suggest that this is a positive fact, that the youth is energetic and dauntless, then I will disagree, and point out that you, as a middle-aged adult, Lemur, or any elderly citizen are both quite often fond of reminding us, the young, that you, the older segment of the populace know more than us, that you are wiser than us, the young. This is a fact I do not dispute. I would rather entrust critical governmental reforms to the middle aged than the young. Maybe not the old, though, as for all their wisdom, their reason may be clouded by various impediments, such as nostalgia, stubbornness, complacency, and such.

By now you are likely to have an image of me in the form of a sour-faced, die-hard Republican gramps in your mind, but I merely call it realism, or pessimism - whichever you prefer. I am no Republican, nor a social conservative. I do not wish to regulate behaviours, religions, or lifestyles. That does not stop me from criticising perceived (IMHO) foolhardiness as I see fit, however.

Lastly, I have witnessed the Ukrainian Orange Revolution from its beginning moment of insurrection to what the effects are today. I am Ukrainian on my father’s side. My family was closely monitoring the progression of events, and so was I. I remember those days with a hearty laugh.

I was twelve years old at the time, and already well into politics and history, and often debated politics with other adults. I remember my parents at that time, full of hope for Ukraine, supporting Yushchenko wholeheartedly. Especially my mother, who always relied more on feelings than logic, despite very educated, with two Uni degrees. She was always, IMHO, the more naïve one. Then there was my more pragmatic father, though he still supported the change. I, on the other hand, was the skeptic, skeptical of Yushchenko’s talent overall, and sceptical that he would pass any legislation in such a brutally, bitterly divided nation. Sometimes, it is my weakness. I admit I am overtly pessimistic. However, with the nature of this world, the more common outcome in such large scale enterprises is the opposite of meaningful success.

Right I was. Yushchenko is now called a weak leader, even when the most uncooperative climate surrounding him. His supporters see him as a well-intentioned, but an ineffective politician. His opponents… well, let us not go there. The end result is that there was no change. Russia is provoked enough by Ukraine to the point where it would love nothing more than to intervene, if not for the long-term effects of such folly. Yanukovich, the opponent of Yushchenko is an imbecile, suspected to have almost raped a woman (the degree of consent is debated). He was but a puppet.

Yet for all this, he would have difficulty doing any worse. Especially with Russia. Why should Ukraine look to West? They have nothing certain to offer. Siding with Russia is not exactly progressive, but at the very least you have an assurance of a solid, and proximate trading partner. Who cares if Russia wants to influence Ukraine? Ukraine is in deep, deep manure, controlled by oligarchs. Putin would be an improvement, as would nearly anything.

I hope you read it, Lemur, because I doubt anyone else will :grin: - too tl;dr for a casual passerby.

Lemur

10-07-2009, 01:57

I’ll be [surprised] if more than 5% of the youthful rioters actually deliberated for an hour, at the minimum, on the political/social/economic/or at least personal aspects of Mousavi and/or demonstrating before going out to “peacefully protest & demonstrate”. Instead, all throughout history and our planet, youth tends to be easily inflamed, easily drawn into rebellion, and to be easily consumed by it.
Your generalizations are what they are, generalizations. Different groups of people at different points in history have different reactions, actions, and motivations.

Iran is not the Ukraine. For one thing, it does not have a grumpy superpower on its immediate border, holding the reins of the military, gas and oil, etc. Also, unlike Ukraine or Russia, Iran has a long history of a middle class, a reverence for education and a distinct religious tradition that sets it apart from its neighbors.

Also, the primary force in the demonstrations, if you believe the blogs, tweets and reports coming out of Iran, was not young students, but rather women. That has huge meaning, none of it easily condensed into generalizations.

Honestly, I think you're applying your very real and sobering experience with the Orange Revolution and assuming that most of the lessons learned apply to the Green. By that same logic, if you lived through the French Revolution, you'd be utterly convinced that the American Revolution would eventually lead to auto-genocide.

Lastly, a sizable chunk of the Iranian population has been marching, fighting and dying for greater freedom. Maybe I'm just being a typical American, but I think that deserves some respect.

I hope you read it, Lemur, because I doubt anyone else will :grin: - too tl;dr for a casual passerby.
Nonsense, it's a good read, and I hope many Orgahs do take the time.

LittleGrizzly

10-07-2009, 02:33

TBH I usually find your (AP) posts a fascinating read and recently have been agreeing with alot of what you say despite a difference in our political views...

At the very least when I disagree I can usually see the logic behind your views...

Aemilius Paulus

10-07-2009, 03:17

Your generalizations are what they are, generalizations. Different groups of people at different points in history have different reactions, actions, and motivations.
True, and I cannot argue against that. Although I am utterly stunned time after time at the seeming hostility and negative sentiments towards generalisations. I swear, I have yet to meet anyone with a penchant or even an acceptance of generalisations... As a historian or any sort of analyst, you have to generalise. One cannot examine every single fact. One has to compare one event to another in hopes of drawing parallels.

That is the only logical solution I can discern, aside from pure speculation. No matter what the multitude of the facts one possesses, past history should be the defining argument in a projection. I believe that only history can answer the Iranian issue, for in history, Iran is as common as snow in the Himalayas.

However, to be more fair, one should exhibit bias towards more recent events, as times do change, although not as radically as some may perceive. Another such modern revolution is the Rose one, in Georgia. Result -Saakashvili. You decide. Needless to say, both him and Yushchenko, especially the latter, have approval ratings approaching zero Kelvin (16% and 7% respectively).

Iran, not unlike the other two, has a sizeable, almost or more than equal opposition, in size. In voice, in influence, the opposition is yet more omnipotent, as the opposition is firmly entrenched, corporate, and generally composed of high-ranking individuals who have prospered in the preceding system. The two “Colour” Revolutions were popular ones, and regrettably, the public has low tolerance for undercoming matching by a yet lower patience. Few if any can distinguish long-term benefits. I cannot. I am no politologist or economist. I may speculate, but I am merely another citizen.

Iran is not the Ukraine. .
Well, now, I would like to see you say the same for Georgia and Ukraine :devilish: Eh? :grin:

For one thing, it does not have a grumpy superpower on its immediate border, holding the reins of the military, gas and oil, etc. Also, unlike Ukraine or Russia, Iran has a long history of a middle class, a reverence for education and a distinct religious tradition that sets it apart from its neighbors.
I can buy all of that except reverence for education. Russians and Ukrainians, regardless of the attitudes towards intellectualism, heavily favour education in the most direct sense - post-secondary erudition. In Russia and Ukraine, as well as in all of USSR education is the key to adult life. Nearly every non-manual/blue collar worker has at least one post-secondary degree. You must have it if you wish to be something other than a common labourer. Finally, the literacy rates in former USSR nations are the highest in the world (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_literacy_rate) - Russia is on the 5th place, tied with four other nations. Iran has 82.4% literacy rate. Russia has 99.4%.

Also, the primary force in the demonstrations, if you believe the blogs, tweets and reports coming out of Iran, was not young students, but rather women. That has huge meaning, none of it easily condensed into generalizations.
I most certainly do not trust someone in the middle of the event, a heavily biased and fallible propagandist to know what the composition of the event was, and then use hodgepodge self-reported accounts of varying validity, accuracy, and precision from some regions but not the others, to assess the country-wide data. That is unless by “reports” you mean respected news organisations who (hopefully) relied on something more plausible to determine the ethnic and gender makeup.

Try to find (if you can and wish) statistics on the makeup of the protesters, and then I will further deliberate on this. For now, I cannot accept your assertion. Without a doubt, the role of women was emphasised, not merely recorded from an objective point of view. But you may still be correct. I cannot say anything right now, because I do not have the statistic.

Honestly, I think you're applying your very real and sobering experience with the Orange Revolution and assuming that most of the lessons learned apply to the Green. By that same logic, if you lived through the French Revolution, you'd be utterly convinced that the American Revolution would eventually lead to auto-genocide.
You certainly have a point. I am overusing the Orange and Rose Revolutions. But that is all I have, and you are not presenting much current hard evidence… Nevertheless, you do have a point, despite your lack of relevant data. That said, I will debate your French Revolution assertion.

The key factor here that you did not take into judgement that you should have was the fact that American Revolution was a fight for independence from another entity, a separate political organisation in a different place. American revolution was a war of secession. That is one, very distinct category.

The other is the change of government, which was the French Revolution. Those types of revolts are almost always doomed to some manner of a failure, historically and logically - since in a change of gov’t uprising you normally have stronger opposition which can always strike back and return to the past structure with greater ease than say, Loyalists/Tories could gain America back for Britain.

Lastly, a sizable chunk of the Iranian population has been marching, fighting and dying for greater freedom. Maybe I'm just being a typical American, but I think that deserves some respect.
You Americans and freedom :grin:. So noble, idealistic and yet so naïve at times… There is freedom and then there is American version of freedom. For one, there is always a “sizable chunk” “marching” or “dying” for something. Al Qaeda is marching and (you can bet a dollar to doughnut!) dying for what, in their view is a holy vision of world according to what Allah, the Creator of all humans and Universe mandated. That does not make it right nevertheless. Nor is truth defined by the number of people who believe it is true (although I am apt to pessimistically concur with that sobering statement).

Many a crusade exist in this world - we are in no manner obligated to respect them. Why should we? Politics is dirty business. No matter what you replace with what, the end result is not normally much better than the beginning - at the best. I am not insisting we should stop all change and progress, but I am chastising those who are overeager, overzealous, and overoptimistic.

Why not respect the other side of Iranian politics, the ones supporting status quo? And what is freedom? Really. Because there is not much of it outside the First World. Coups in the Third and Second Worlds do not lead to more freedom, but to more instability and a whole host of other effects, some positive, most not.

Nonsense, it's a good read, and I hope many Orgahs do take the time.
Thank you :bow:. To be complimented by a moderator is an honour I receive for the first time.

God, another tl;dr post. While it may not be utter rubbish, I do feel as if I am impeding the thread development. Although in theory, everyone should not complain because someone actually takes time to formulate their posts...

Lemur

10-07-2009, 03:35

One cannot examine every single fact. One has to compare one event to another in hopes of drawing parallels.
No argument here. However, what I was responding to was your broad-brush approach to all young people everywhere, not your historical comparison.

The two “Colour” Revolutions were popular ones, and regrettably, the public has low tolerance for undercoming matching by a yet lower patience.
I don't understand this sentence, and it seems to be important. Could you elaborate or re-phrase it for a grumpy old lemur?

Russians and Ukrainians, regardless of the attitudes towards intellectualism, heavily favour education in the most direct sense - post-secondary erudition.
A fair point, and I accept it completely. However, Iran has a (relatively) long tradition of a middle class. That's an important distinction when it comes to political stability and change.

Try to find (if you can and wish) statistics on the makeup of the protesters, and then I will further deliberate on this. For now, I cannot accept your assertion.
Impossible. Straight-up impossible. You did follow the events, right? The press expulsion? The information blackout? The ham-handed attempts to shut down the internet? The only source of information was YouTube videos and firsthand accounts. If the mass of these firsthand reports don't satisfy you, then you're just going to have to be content not knowing. And your assertion that young people were the cause of the ruckus will also have to go by the wayside, friend.

A few respectable news organizations did have people on the ground, and all of them reported on the prominent role women were playing in the protests. But nobody has statistical data, so asking for it is a very polite way of saying "Shut up."

[y]ou are not presenting much current hard evidence… Nevertheless, you do have a point, despite your lack of relevant data.
If hard data existed, I would be happy to share it. Again, you're demanding a meal the restaurant doesn't serve.

The key factor here that you did not take into judgement that you should have was the fact that American Revolution was a fight for independence from another entity, a separate political organisation in a different place. American revolution was a war of secession. That is one, very distinct category.
An excellent point, and I have no ready response. Is there an example of an internal revolution that produced good, even great results? There must be.

Let's try this one on for size: Country exists in monarchy for centuries, then goes through a revolution that starts out as a noble effort to spread power among the people and results in a religious dictatorship. That would be England and Cromwell, maybe? And after a while, the people get sick of the tyranny and re-instate a parliamentary monarchy. There you go. Positive example, and a seemingly apt one for Iran.

For one, there is always a “sizable chunk” “marching” or “dying” for something. Al Qaeda is marching and (you can bet a dollar to doughnut!) dying for what, in their view is a holy vision of world according to what Allah, the Creator of all humans and Universe mandated.
Why are you "abusing" quotation "marks"? And how does the religious totalitarian fantasy of AQ play into this? Have you pulled an updated Godwin?

To be complimented by a moderator is an honour I receive for the first time.
If you're going to run around posting long, thoughtful comments that argue your position well, you'd better get used to it.

Aemilius Paulus

10-07-2009, 04:16

No argument here. However, what I was responding to was your broad-brush approach to all young people everywhere, not your historical comparison.
Yeah, I could have done better, generalisations of people do not do as well, but I was outlining a trend. I hope you can understand that and agree that young people fall into that trend.

I don't understand this sentence, and it seems to be important. Could you elaborate or re-phrase it for a grumpy old lemur?
Sorry, I just noticed myself that it did not make sense the first time I read it. Meaning it would be exponentially more difficult for someone other than the author to comprehend it. What I meant to say is that the Revolutions were Popular Revolutions, made by mostly, somewhat exclusively the people, and not other isntitutions, parties, narrow special interests, or corporations. Then I said that people have low tolerance for seeming ineptitude and inability to produce expedient results. On top of that, I stated the people have yet less patience. That is it.

A fair point, and I accept it completely. However, Iran has a (relatively) long tradition of a middle class. That's an important distinction when it comes to political stability and change.
Yes, and I accepted your post, save for the education. Now we have completely common ground. I have strong doubts about the "middle class" but I am in no position to debate this, as I am poorly informed. I need hard data. However, given the British oil boom in Iran, I would lean towards accepting your statesman. Oil does have a tendency to create wealth...

Impossible. Straight-up impossible. You did follow the events, right? The press expulsion? The information blackout? The ham-handed attempts to shut down the internet? The only source of information was YouTube videos and firsthand accounts. If the mass of these firsthand reports don't satisfy you, then you're just going to have to be content not knowing. And your assertion that young people were the cause of the ruckus will also have to go by the wayside, friend.
I did not doubt it would be difficult. Firsthand, unrevised information on such as statistic-reliant topic is my nightmare. I rely on statistics more than any other casual debater I know. Without statistics, I feel naked and exposed. Thus, I will not continue this part of the debate and concede it to you. I see no point in continuing this - as no reliable information can be given.

A few respectable news organizations did have people on the ground, and all of them reported on the prominent role women were playing in the protests.
I care not for the role, but for the statistical make-up. The make-up determines how many women were motivated to go out for the cause. Their prominence has little to do with this. Not to mention the prominence comes out of the reporter and not the situation itself. Given the lack of foreign, objective reports this is yet another reason to end the “role of women” debate.

I would settle for a couple of newspaper articles from respected, somewhat objective (on this specific issue) organisations indicating that the statistical proportion of women was larger than men. But I realise this is unlikely to happen, as it will take too long to find.

But nobody has statistical data, so asking for it is a very polite way of saying "Shut up."
I am apologise, but I can assure you, I did not mean it this way. It is simply not my nature to discuss matters in the Backroom, in which I am not knowledgeable in. This is too dangerous of an environment to make mistakes :grin:. I have a reputation to work for, and I would not like to think that all hope is already lost.

If hard data existed, I would be happy to share it. Again, you're demanding a meal the restaurant doesn't serve.
Then so be it :shrug::beam:

An excellent point, and I have no ready response. Is there an example of an internal revolution that produced good, even great results? There must be. There most certainly is, but it will be an exception. If you with your knowledge and I with mine both cannot readily think of it, this means that it is already uncommon.

Let's try this one on for size: Country exists in monarchy for centuries, then goes through a revolution that starts out as a noble effort to spread power among the people and results in a religious dictatorship. That would be England and Cromwell, maybe? And after a while, the people get sick of the tyranny and re-instate a parliamentary monarchy. There you go. Positive example, and a seemingly apt one for Iran.
Hmmm, sorry, I disagree. For one, the English monarchy was one, millennia-long road to liberalisation. It was slow, gradual, and in no way inevitable, but it did nevertheless happen. King John, King Charles, King Charles II, King William of Orange were all very prominent examples of slow, irregular, but ultimately beneficial trend towards constitutional monarchy.

While at the same time all the other major European powers went the other way, in line with Louis XIV and his absolutism&centralisation. England too centralised, but became more democratic. Poland did neither, kept its loose, noble-centred elective monarchy with a nearly powerless king - typical for Mediaeval times (to the contrary of the all-powerful king stereotype) and it fell from its previous status as the most powerful Kingdom of Europe to the ever-partitioned client state it was until after WWII.

The lesson is that rapid change towards liberalisation almost never works. The process is usually slow and natural, or at least accommodative to the specific culture and politics of the indigenous country. As miracle of a nation America is, emulating it rigidly or even semi-rigidly produces little positive results. All the emergent but successful democracies did it their won way - usually.

Why are you "abusing" quotation "marks"?
To indicate yours words, why else?

And how does the religious totalitarian fantasy of AQ play into this? Have you pulled an updated Godwin?
Unquestionably, I was using dramatisation for illustrative-persuasive effect. But the point remains the same. We are should not respect foreign political movements/established regimes, but rather stay neutral, criticising their shortcomings indiscriminately. Who are we to decide if they are right? Nothing is right in politics. Perhaps better, but not right.

If you're going to run around posting long, thoughtful comments that argue your position well, you'd better get used to it.
To the contrary, that is what I always do - look at my posts here. I have a tendency of inconciseness and verbosity that especially grotesquely oversteps all bounds in my school and university essays. I have written thirty-page essays when the instructor requested only six. I endeavour to reduce my output, especially here on .Org, but in relative vain. I know that most people will not read such long posts, so I attempt to accommodate.

Just as there is no point in using elevated diction to convince regular voters, there is no point to post long posts here. That is not so say either is intellectually lacking, for the voters will generally understand the speech and the Orghas will generally read at least some of the post, but merely that you facilitate the understanding, and thus the effectiveness of the message by employing appropriate tone, word choice, length, types of argumentation, etc that would prove to be optimally efficient for the given audience.

EDIT: wait, nvm, for some reason I thought you meant that "I better get used to writing long posts if I am to be thoughtful", as opposed to writing long posts and receiving compliments, which is what your really mean. Thanks! But, that is what I usually did... All I got was infractions/warnings :sad:, although usually quite fairly. :shrug:

Fragony

10-07-2009, 08:12

this is taking the self-loathing thingie rather far lol

Cute Wolf

10-07-2009, 08:23

Hmmm. interesting topic... I should read about this more.... nice Info

Strike For The South

10-07-2009, 15:38

Considering Ahmadinejad is just a populace mouthpiece for the Ayahtollah it doesn't really matter what he says.

He panders to the LCD, which in Iran is hating the Joo. It's really nothing more than sabre rattling and deflecting Irans nemerous problems on Isreal.

It's laughable to think any middle eastern country would even think about launching a full scale attack on Isreal considering its nuclear subs are the worst kept secret this side of Galilee.

Meneldil

10-07-2009, 18:06

An excellent point, and I have no ready response. Is there an example of an internal revolution that produced good, even great results? There must be.

Though it's obvious the french revolution has its dark episodes (the civil war in Vendée and the Terror being the main ones, though the killing of the Royal family wasn't a top notch idea either), it did produce great results.
France became - and stayed - the world 1st superpower for nearly 2 decades. Science and arts made a huge jump forward (mostly for military and propaganda-related reasons).
The french revolution brought the idea of freedom pretty much everywhere in Europe, much more than the American revolution ever did (though the french revolution would probably never have happened without the american one).
Obviously, this freedom was swiftly trampled by the very people who brought it (ie. the revolutionnary armies), but it was too late, the idea was here: people could take up the arms and overthrow their rulers.
Then, there's equality (which wasn't really a concern of most previous revolutions). The idea that all men should have a decent life, despite their cultural, economical and social background. The idea that one man couldn't enslave another one. It shattered the rule of tyrants all over Europe (and it later shattered the rule of Napoléon). It tried to introduce reason and logics as the basis of all form of governement, and to get rid of all the religious dogma and millenia-old tradition that have been used as reasons to enslave 80% of the European population.

Short story long story, the french revolution might have been a disaster for France (though that's highly debatable: the Sun King's rule caused probably as much harm), the (first) Republic might not have lasted long, but it is the single most important event that gave birth to modernity (with all of its flaws). If this isn't a great result, then I don't know what is.

Sorry for highjacking the topic.

Louis VI the Fat

10-07-2009, 18:11

In general, I have noticed most teenagers and young adults have severely skewed sense of politics, or more often, do not take enough interest in politics to voteSee my sig. You can click on Neda. All she wanted, was for her vote to count. This was why she protested. She was a 26 year old with an education and a future. Then Ahmadinejad murdered her.

gaelic cowboy

10-07-2009, 19:01

The big laugh is the status quo would have been returned anyway according to several commentators in america at least names escape me now.

However the fear of a close result mad them over reach they stuffed enough boxes to make sure and declared the winner.

Then people who voted felt cheated even though its likely to have been the same result so obviously they went out protesting.

My own experience of Iranian people is of a largely young middle class well eduacated especially women but this demographic has little outlet for venting steam.

In Europe we can go out do what we like stay in if we like its our choice. They on the other hand may do same but they must be very careful of consequences. My own friend was not some hook handed eye patch zealot he liked hip hop and was a DJ he left to come to Ireland and flourished his stories of Iran were not of overt oppression but a feeling of self censorship in order to get along.

As regards the actual thread the history of revolutions past shows us that many times the people who carry the banner into the future were still the people who had it before. By this I mean George Washington if you want to be mealy mouthed about was nothing more than an anglo-american aristocrat In Ireland we had Sir Roger Casement TBH it does not surprise me had had Jewish ancestry

Aemilius Paulus

10-07-2009, 19:33

See my sig. You can click on Neda. All she wanted, was for her vote to count. This was why she protested. She was a 26 year old with an education and a future. Then Ahmadinejad murdered her.
And? Undeniably regrettable, but so what? How many martyrs exist in this world? Does a death of a largely innocent person make a movement legitimate? Really? Then I will go die for Russian Nationalism and see what you say :P. Alright, look, I know her death was very different and that my comparison was quite lousy, but the point remains. People here have the most peculiar ideas about the treatment of political movements. ..

Neda was used by a shameless Mousavi who thrust the deluded youth into the demonstrations by his calling. Not that the youth needed much prodding - they would have done it themselves. Still, they were dying for an unworthy cause. Mousavi is another demagogue, a wannabe reformer, whose ideas are quite attractive, but by now my political heart and mind has been hardened far too much to respond to such stimuli. He was not realistic. He was far too confrontational. He should have self-styled himself as centre-left and advocate moderate reforms. Perhaps in this manner, he could have won the election without Ahmedenizhad resorting to the risky practise of ballot-stuffing.

Even if he did lose the election, what is the chance a youth, and as Lemur said, predominantly women’s demonstration could succeed in? This is pure farce – what are the women going to do that would unseat the ruthless, and seemingly well-backed incumbent such as Ahmadinezhad (supported by both the clergy along with the Supreme Leader and the Republican Guards – a military force that is perceived by many as more powerful than even the religious movement in Iran)? What could they do besides what the Greek women fictitiously pulled-off in Lysistrata by Aristophanes, or the denial of sex to their men??

Sometimes, the probability of success is far too low to justify the involvement. Just the youth, especially composed primarily of women, without corporate, political, military, or even foreign support (the world did not provide any significant tangible support to Iranian demonstrations) has no cards in its hands. They can be suppressed with ludicrous ease. The demonstrations were an act of helpless defiance.

Seamus Fermanagh

10-07-2009, 19:57

....The key factor here that you did not take into judgement that you should have was the fact that American Revolution was a fight for independence from another entity, a separate political organisation in a different place. American revolution was a war of secession. That is one, very distinct category.

The other is the change of government, which was the French Revolution. Those types of revolts are almost always doomed to some manner of a failure, historically and logically - since in a change of gov’t uprising you normally have stronger opposition which can always strike back and return to the past structure with greater ease than say, Loyalists/Tories could gain America back for Britain....

This is an excellent point, and one which I all too often fail to consider.

You could argue that the French Revolution did eventually create a demmocratic republic from what had been an absolute monarchy, but the key word would be eventually. They're on republic number five now, I believe [cher Louis will correct me at need], and that's the only one that's really lasted. By contrast, South America very much corroborates your assertion. Bolivar and the others seceded from foreign control successfully, but all the regime changes, juntas, etc. subsequent to this seem to only exchange one set of people for another, all of whome end up in the same rut.

I like the secessionist v regimist distinction you are drawing.

gaelic cowboy

10-07-2009, 20:14

Sometimes, the probability of success is far too low to justify the involvement. Just the youth, especially composed primarily of women, without corporate, political, military, or even foreign support (the world did not provide any significant tangible support to Iranian demonstrations) has no cards in its hands. They can be suppressed with ludicrous ease. The demonstrations were an act of helpless defiance.

History is full of examples of this actually happening against the grain suppression works only if the middle class agree the suppression is in there interest.

The real problem with those two politicians is they are actually the same side of the same coin as opposed to two opposite side's of the same coin.

The entire row is really an internal row over the direction of Iranian governance many conservatives in the government seem to have a dislike or have an outright hatred of Amhadinejad. Amhadineajad has the same for them really I cannot support either they would still be autocratic implementing policy that has been judged as not contradicting the theocratic foundations of Iran.

However the Green side should be careful because people who are shown how to organise will eventually do it on there own and then completely unknown consequences ensue the same goes for the current leadership too the fundamentalist side if you want to call it is called to use same ideas against reform but the genie is very hard put back in the bottle.

Kralizec

10-07-2009, 21:34

Hax, the Iranian constitution:
1) contradicts itself
2) is about as effective at protecting people as the toilet paper I wiped my backside with this morning

Got any better choices? Same reason why I support Putin. He is not perfect, but in comparison to others - he is a genius.

I see...you dismiss the Iranian protestors because they've got skewed views of political reality, yet support Putin because he cultivates an image of a strong leader.

That makes sense.

gaelic cowboy

10-07-2009, 21:38

The way I see it the best vote a person can give in Iran at the moment is an application for a visa to Europe or America

Subotan

10-08-2009, 22:16

https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/picture.php?albumid=150&pictureid=1773

CountArach

10-09-2009, 10:06

Got any better choices? Same reason why I support Putin. He is not perfect, but in comparison to others - he is a genius.

Ahmadinezhad is the right person for Iran. Well, almost. He really should tone down his war-hawk image, and his Israel-hating, but otherwise, he keeps Iran stable without turning it into a hellhole. There is some semblance of freedom in Iran, and at least it is not as strict as, for example, Saudi Arabia - whom we (as the US and the West) support.

Put Mousavi, and you will have chaos. For one, :daisy: the youth. Half of them, if not more, were just looking for an excuse to riot. This happens all the time. Nor does the youth have any understanding of real politics, or of what is possible in Iran, and what is not. Iran is a theocracy. You can slowly decrease the clerical influence, but this process is best executed slowly (unless for some reason you gain overwhelming popular support). My bet was that with Mousavi, little would change. If he tried to do any real reforms, that would be his end.

Too much instability. Iran is not ready for Mousavi. Try something centre-right - that by itself will be a miracle.
Any words I could say to you would get me banned.

Aemilius Paulus

10-09-2009, 14:31

Any words I could say to you would get me banned.
Hehe, I do not like these strict rules either. Nor am I easy to offend. Just VM me :wink:. Or PM if it really nasty :grin:.

Strike For The South

10-09-2009, 15:09

https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/picture.php?albumid=150&pictureid=1773

To bad he's no longer in power. Then I would have no problem with Iran holding a nook.

Subotan

10-09-2009, 15:22

To bad he's no longer in power. Then I would have no problem with Iran holding a nook.

Apart from the fact that he was a brutal tyrant, who lavished millions of pounds on pathetic parties and dresses, whilst Iranians wallowed in poverty, under constant threat of kidnap by the secret police.

Don't get me wrong, I'm hardly an "Islamic Republic" sympathiser. I'm just saying that just because the current regime is bad, it doesn't mean the old was good.

Strike For The South

10-09-2009, 15:33

Apart from the fact that he was a brutal tyrant, who lavished millions of pounds on pathetic parties and dresses, whilst Iranians wallowed in poverty, under constant threat of kidnap by the secret police.

Don't get me wrong, I'm hardly an "Islamic Republic" sympathiser. I'm just saying that just because the current regime is bad, it doesn't mean the old was good.

I know exactly what the shah was and that was a friend to America in a place where friends are hard to come by.

Subotan

10-09-2009, 15:36

I know exactly what the shah was and that was a friend to America in a place where friends are hard to come by.

So being a friend to America makes domestic human rights abuses acceptable? Well that's just fine and dandy! Batista, Pinochet, Karzai, come in from the cold! All is forgiven!

Strike For The South

10-09-2009, 15:45

So being a friend to America makes domestic human rights abuses acceptable? Well that's just fine and dandy! Batista, Pinochet, Karzai, come in from the cold! All is forgiven!

Not acceptable, it's just how the world works. Being a starry eyed idealist has never gotten anything done. It's a comfort the west can afford when they are sitting on there couches yelling at the TV becuase something bad is happening.

I would love to play fair, but no one else does.

Aemilius Paulus

10-09-2009, 15:49

So being a friend to America makes domestic human rights abuses acceptable? Well that's just fine and dandy! Batista, Pinochet, Karzai, come in from the cold! All is forgiven!
Of course it is fine, even with the notorious SAVAK that the Shah instituted. America supported all three that you mentioned, and the Shah. Do not be naive, Subotan, and I know you are not, but do not even joke about it. I see nothing wrong, from a political perspective, of America preferring an oppressive, but friendly regime to a more liberal, but hostile regime.

I myself, actually, to some degree, support the old Shah. I read a great deal about him and his policies. He aspired to do to Iran what Ataturk did to Turkey, although his methods were not always so idealistic. He was a great seculariser, and he steered his nation on a course of Western culture, free of the oppressive burden of modern-day Islam. You, as a fellow atheist, should at least give him a bit of credit for that.

Plus, it is not as if the current Iranian regime is noticeably freer than the past. Sure, no SAVAK, but still, as witnessed by this year's demonstrations and voting frauds, this theocracy is not much better. Although the people are happier, given their religion...

I would love to play fair, but no one else does.
Right. USSR did not even pretend to be fair - why should US?

Strike For The South

10-09-2009, 15:51

Of course it is fine, even with the notorious SAVAK that the Shah instituted. America supported all three that you mentioned, and the Shah. Do not be naive, Subotan, and I know you are not, but do not even joke about it. I see nothing wrong, from a political perspective, of America preferring an oppressive, but friendly regime to a more liberal, but hostile regime.

I myself, actually, to some degree, support the old Shah. I read a great deal about him and his policies. He aspired to do to Iran what Ataturk did to Turkey, although his methods were not always so idealistic. He was a great seculariser, and he steered his nation on a course of Western culture, free of the oppressive burden of modern-day Islam. You, as a fellow atheist, should at least give him a bit of credit for that.

See the Russian gets it.

I always liked that about Russia, they know what they needed to do and they got it done. No frills no sugar coating. It just happend.

Granted we still beat you in WWII but kudos

Aemilius Paulus

10-09-2009, 16:15

Granted we still beat you in WWII but kudos
You better be quipping, you slippery Texan, you better... :laugh4:

Vladimir

10-09-2009, 16:43

Granted we still beat you in WWII but kudos

That was the English.

Aemilius Paulus

10-09-2009, 16:52

That was the English.
A.K.A. the ones who have America to thank for their survival? USSR primarily won the war, and I doubt anyone in the Backroom will seriously debate that. Even Churchill conceded to that - I forgot the exact quote, but the was saying how Russia was bled white by the Allies, who let the Soviets do the vast majority of the work.

Do I even have to mention the mostly fourth rate troops that the Germans stuck in the Atlantic Wall? The former Polish and Russian POWs? The crippled former front-line troops? The older-aged recruits in their forties and fifties? That was what the Normandy invasion forces initially fought against. Especially the first category surrendered in droves. Those Russians and Poles may have hated Stalin, but they had little or no quarrel with the Western Allies. They would have been more useful fighting the Soviets...

Vladimir

10-09-2009, 18:14

A.K.A. the ones who have America to thank for their survival? USSR primarily won the war, and I doubt anyone in the Backroom will seriously debate that. Even Churchill conceded to that - I forgot the exact quote, but the was saying how Russia was bled white by the Allies, who let the Soviets do the vast majority of the work.

Do I even have to mention the mostly fourth rate troops that the Germans stuck in the Atlantic Wall? The former Polish and Russian POWs? The crippled former front-lien troops? The older-aged recruits in their forties and fifties? That was what the Normandy invasion forces initially fought against. Especially the first category surrendered in droves. Those Russians and Poles may have hated Stalin, but they had little or no quarrel with the Western Allies. They would have been more useful fighting the Soviets...

Oh please. You guys were too busy fighting off the Mongols to be of any real help.

Aemilius Paulus

10-09-2009, 18:25

Oh please. You guys were too busy fighting off the Mongols to be of any real help.
Gah, do you not think this thread already has enough trolling to try to pull one off yourself?

Seamus Fermanagh

10-09-2009, 19:04

Back to Ahmadinejad et al. please.

If you simply must bait A.P. this way regarding WW2, please do so in the Monastery, where he can: a) defend the honor of the Rodina using all the historical evidence he wishes, and
b) some other moderator has to deal with it.

Thanks!

LittleGrizzly

10-10-2009, 16:40

This is possibly a little tangent off the direct topic of conversation but I believe its related to the conversation at large...

I know exactly what the shah was and that was a friend to America in a place where friends are hard to come by.

Aside from Israel (we'll put that to the side for the moment) why do you think America is so hated in the ME, because of support for tyrants like the Shah (which incidently you/we otherthrew a democratic goverment to install)

If your going to constantly think like that, us vs them, then you are constantly going to make policy which makes them even bigger enemies, rather than trying to work past your differences your continuing the conflict with your attitude.

The reason you have hardly any friends in the middle east is because you go around pissing people off, the peoples off the middle east didn't declare you an enemy when your country formed, its your actions over the years that caused you to become the enemy. Continuning such actions now, because they are now your enemies is going to do nothing to reverse the course you set yourself

Russia did most of the work in WW2 (against the nazis at least) anyone who says differently is a troll or doesn't know WW2...

Strike For The South

10-10-2009, 17:08

This is possibly a little tangent off the direct topic of conversation but I believe its related to the conversation at large...

Aside from Israel (we'll put that to the side for the moment) why do you think America is so hated in the ME, because of support for tyrants

When that's all you have to choose form in the region it's slim pickings cowboy.

like the Shah (which incidently you/we otherthrew a democratic goverment to install)

I'm fully aware we overthrew a government but we can't go back and change that.

If your going to constantly think like that, us vs them, then you are constantly going to make policy which makes them even bigger enemies, rather than trying to work past your differences your continuing the conflict with your attitude.

The reason you have hardly any friends in the middle east is because you go around pissing people off, the peoples off the middle east didn't declare you an enemy when your country formed, its your actions over the years that caused you to become the enemy. Continuning such actions now, because they are now your enemies is going to do nothing to reverse the course you set yourself

I support the libreals in Iran and until they get into power I would like to make dinnerjackets life as hard as possble. But make no mistake we pull out of the ME tmrw and people will still hate us. We are past the point of no return with a majority of these people. I'm fully aware that we did some BS to start but it's useless to go back and say "THIS IS WHYYYYY" without offering anything else.

Russia did most of the work in WW2 (against the nazis at least) anyone who says differently is a troll or doesn't know WW2...

Pappy fought in the pacific.

Louis VI the Fat

10-11-2009, 01:59

See the Russian gets it.

I always liked that about Russia, they know what they needed to do and they got it done. No frills no sugar coating. And hence Russia has always been what it is - backward, despotic, and insane.

So no. I'll take the starry-eyed idealists. They build America. And France. And the Netherlands. And Switzerland. This last one back in 1291, when some starry eyed idealists got together and said 'you know what..stuff this. I'm not going to be a slave all my life. Let's build ourselves a state of free men'

Don't fall for the authoritarian trap. The despot you know isn't better than the progress you fear.

Aemilius Paulus

10-11-2009, 02:20

And hence Russia has always been what it is - backward, despotic, and insane.
Bah, I got an infraction (and my post was deleted) for saying matter-of-factly that America was the most hated country in the world (true fact) - and I do not even dislike America, as I live in it, and you get away with this...

Why does Backroom even pretend to have justice?? :wall: Having at least a single non-American moderator would help (no, Tosa is not a Backroom mod).

Not that you should get an infraction, Louis, as I would much rather both of us be allowed to say what we feel in this case - you cannot offend a nation, a state has no feelings.

Louis VI the Fat

10-11-2009, 03:08

Bah, I got an infraction (and my post was deleted) for saying matter-of-factly that America was the most hated country in the world (true fact) - and I do not even dislike America, as I live in it, and you get away with this... It is a nineteenth century quote. Oh, the foresight! To think Russia's twentienth century had still to come!

Here's another one, especially for those Russians who espouse the merits of Russian despotism: Russia, Russia - unwashed, backward, appealing Russia, so ashamed of your own backwardness, so orientally determined to conceal it from us by clever deceit.

Aemilius Paulus

10-11-2009, 03:32

Clever, humorous, yet curiously empty and unproductive talk you excel at, Louis. Russia will not get forward under another Yeltsin. Look what the original Yeltsin has done - you better look well, for it is difficult to find positive effects of his presidency.

Granted, Putin has not advanced as far as many, including me, expected him to advance, but at least he is doing something beside sitting with thumbs up his :daisy:. For a Russian leader, he is doing well enough to be qualified for a dictatorship for life, such is the pervasiveness of incompetency in our political machine.

So Louis the Fat, tell me, in the gaze of your piercing intelligence, who is to replace Putin? Give me someone who can direct Russia in the path you approve of. I challenge you. Give me a Party that will do the job of nominating that candidate. Give me someone who can keep a rein on the Russian oligarchs, on the Mafia, on the unruly Duma, on the perfidious voters, on the Soviet-era tangle of bureaucracy - someone who can keep a rein on the aforementioned, instead of the other way around.

Perhaps you can finally make yourself useful, instead of sitting from your comfortable computer chair, pointing out the flaws of a vast, colossal governmental system. Easy to say what is wrong, much more difficult to fix it. Yet, I have faith in your political prowess, for you are no ordinary fellow. Thus, show me the way, Louis, tell me what you see as best fit.

Yours Truly,

SS

Louis VI the Fat

10-11-2009, 04:02

Look what the original Yeltsin has done

Putin is doing well enough to be qualified for a dictatorship for lifeThe great sorrow of Russia is that just when it finally threw off its shackles, a few drunks squandered the country to crooks while the West applauded this neo-liberalism.

Putin may have had a historical role to fulfill. To restore a semblance of order and discipline on Russia.

Now it is time to move on again. Russia can not only be governed by the *whatsthewordabigstickyouhitpeoplewith*. Russia is not destined to be despotic for all eternity. Ever since Peter the Great, there have been forces in Russia that look to the outside world, that want to liberalise Russia.

Whereas Putin says that liberalism is not entrenched in Russian culture, as it is in the US or the UK, and hence means nothing to Russia. My solution would be to stubbornly work towards an open and pluralistic democracy, drawing from ancient liberal currents in Russia.

Who the people are that could do this for Russia - I do not know. Putin does, therefore he had them killed or silenced.*
Alas! Except to a mere handful of scared and silent intellectuals** in Moscow, democracy is a dirty word in Russia.

*Just as Ahmedinijad has done just now in Iran. Kill and silence the forces that want a transparant, accountable democracy.
**Even so, Russia is rather unique in Eastern Europe, in that dempcracy is mistrusted even by its intelligentsia

Banquo's Ghost

10-11-2009, 10:11

Why does Backroom even pretend to have justice?? :wall: Having at least a single non-American moderator would help (no, Tosa is not a Backroom mod).

Justice is over-rated, as you are so keen to point out with regard to Russia. What the Backroom has is moderation, in relation to a set of arbitrary rules, where disruptive individualism is ruthlessly stamped on depending on who happens to be a favourite at the time so that society as a whole is made safer and happily constructive.

I would have thought you would be entirely happy with this state of affairs. :wink:

More seriously, Ser Clegane is German, Papewaio is Australian and I am Irish. Only Seamus is American, so I hope you feel helped.

Anyway, back to topic. Is there anything more to say about President Ahmedinejad's ancestry?

Strike For The South

10-11-2009, 20:17

Ideals are fine and dandy but sometimes a spade is simply a spade. You can't sit here and tell me that Ahmadinejad won't use "nuclear power" for the wrong reasons.

Therefore we should try and stop him.

That's what it boils down to. KISS

Hax

10-11-2009, 20:24

You can't sit here and tell me that Ahmadinejad won't use "nuclear power" for the wrong reasons.

Sure we can. It's hypocritical, why should one nation be allowed to use nuclear power and others would not?

I'm sorry, but I'd rather see Ahmadinejad with nuclear power than Sarah Palin, for example.

Strike For The South

10-11-2009, 20:49

Sure we can. It's hypocritical, why should one nation be allowed to use nuclear power and others would not?

I'm sorry, but I'd rather see Ahmadinejad with nuclear power than Sarah Palin, for example.

Becuase as of right now it hurts US interests . If the libs were in power, maybe but Ahmadinejad is an enemy and giving Iran Nukes will only hurt our position in the region ergo no nukes for you.

The second part of the post is just stupid. Sarah Palin maybe legally retarded but would never nook teh muzlimz to score political points. You can't convince me Ahmadinejad won't do that to the Isrealis.

Viking

10-11-2009, 21:32

You can't convince me Ahmadinejad won't do that to the Isrealis.

I doubt he is that much into MADness.

LittleGrizzly

10-12-2009, 01:47

When that's all you have to choose form in the region it's slim pickings cowboy..

Well Im sure theres loads more reasons than that some of which I can't think off but thier support for unpopular tyrants has certainly been one of them

I'm fully aware we overthrew a government but we can't go back and change that.

I support the libreals in Iran and until they get into power I would like to make dinnerjackets life as hard as possble. But make no mistake we pull out of the ME tmrw and people will still hate us. We are past the point of no return with a majority of these people. I'm fully aware that we did some BS to start but it's useless to go back and say "THIS IS WHYYYYY" without offering anything else.

I really doubt there is such a thing as being beyond the point of no return. Germans and Jews can talk to each other today, Russians and Germans also... sure that may have took some time, but apologys and stopping off the negative treatment will start to make the hate go away eventually. You need to somewhat work with popular opinion in the ME and ride the crap storm you created, once you are truely not working as thier enemy you will soon enough convince enough people and outlive those that cannot be saved...

Pappy fought in the pacific.

Which is why I put my disclaimer in there....

Americans should more accurately have claimed to save Asia from Japan or Europe from a future Russian dominance than that speaking German crap I hear...

Aemilius Paulus

10-12-2009, 02:09

Russians and Germans also...
Yes, and plenty a Russian still despise or mildly dislike the what we still call "The Fritz". Those may not be the brightest individauls, but the bitterness remains, especially among those who have experienced the horrors.

Now, with Jews I have no experience on that matter, but I am certain there are at least "some" of them who share the same sentiment. I do not think it was a coincidence that the Ehud Barak-Angela Merkel meeting was the first of its kind...

LittleGrizzly

10-12-2009, 02:41

Yes, and plenty a Russian still despise or mildly dislike the what we still call "The Fritz". Those may not be the brightest individauls, but the bitterness remains, especially among those who have experienced the horrors.

Now, with Jews I have no experience on that matter, but I am certain there are at least "some" of them who share the same sentiment. I do not think it was a coincidence that the Ehud Barak-Angela Merkel meeting was the first of its kind...

Do not get me wrong the hatred is not completely eradicated, I do remember some Israeli youths burning German flags when Mr Scroehder (sp?!) visited a while back... though im fairly sure there was an element of youth's just like rioting you mentioned in another topic...

But the hatred is dieing off, most of the Russians, Jews and Germans alive back then are dead, very few remain and not all of them have the hatred. Those from generations on can learn the hatred somewhat but it never passes down as fully and the hatred never has any personal events fueling it, only stories to motivate the hatred. Basically my point is without continuing negative actions hatred will eventually go away... it may take a few generations for it to literally die out but you can help make it happen...

Evil_Maniac From Mars

10-12-2009, 02:45

It's hypocritical, why should one nation be allowed to use nuclear power and others would not?

Who cares? I want as many advantages on the international stage as I can get. America is a fellow member of my military alliance and a friend, Iran is hostile to my interests in the region including, but not limited to, Israel. Ergo, I desire as little power for them as possible. The world isn't fair, and the Chamberlains of the world who think it ought to be will be trampled into the dirt by the much smarter Machiavellians.

Aemilius Paulus

10-12-2009, 03:27

But the hatred is dieing off, most of the Russians, Jews and Germans alive back then are dead, very few remain and not all of them have the hatred. Those from generations on can learn the hatred somewhat but it never passes down as fully and the hatred never has any personal events fueling it, only stories to motivate the hatred. Basically my point is without continuing negative actions hatred will eventually go away... it may take a few generations for it to literally die out but you can help make it happen...
See, I am debating that point within myself. I know that most kids in their early teens in Russia passionately hate Germans. But those persons happen to not be very bright either... Since I do not live in Russia year-round, I am not certain how that individuals at late adolescence feel about it. In any case, I know that almost all grown adults today do not dislike Germany at all, not blaming the mistakes of the past on the general populace of Germany today (although we do view Germans as rather "cold" in temperament).

So I am still wondering if that German-loathing is a sign of teenage foolishness or if it is a new trend... I am guessing it is more likely to be the first, as most of today's adults certainly did not have a favourable opinion of Germany in the 50s though 70s, when most of them were born, under USSR.

Sorry for taking this off track :sweatdrop:

LittleGrizzly

10-12-2009, 04:10

I can just about remember being 6,7 or 8 and having a very very mild dislike of Germans simply because of the world wars (I was too stupid at this point to realise WW1 was not thier fault) I think this is probably similar to what these rather stupid Russian adolescents you refer to think like (although I was always fairly peaceful so thiers isn't as mild) thier probably at a similar intellectual level to the 8 year old Grizz. If im right and its along a similar level it is probably something these teens will grow out of and assuming no new German Russian tensions arise the thing will slowly die off even in the minds of angry teens as it will just be too long ago...

As an example of it dieing off the younger stupid Grizz never really had a problem with the French despite our huge history of wars.... theres some jokey rivalry between the French and the English but i think you would struggle to find a Frenchman and an Englsihman who would hate each other for thier nationality... because the history simply isn't recent enough...

Ohh and don't worry about the topic diversion... I think we stopped talking about Ahmadinejad possible Jewish ancestory a page or two ago...

Furunculus

10-12-2009, 15:08

But the hatred is dieing off, most of the Russians, Jews and Germans alive back then are dead, very few remain and not all of them have the hatred. Those from generations on can learn the hatred somewhat but it never passes down as fully and the hatred never has any personal events fueling it, only stories to motivate the hatred. Basically my point is without continuing negative actions hatred will eventually go away... it may take a few generations for it to literally die out but you can help make it happen...
certainly true in poland.

older poles have a casual racism towards jews, and a very particular xenophobia towards russia and germany.

younger poles are globe-trotting pragmatists with limited ties to rural catholicism, so they just smile tolerantly at the jewish remarks of their seniors, and while a definite distrust of russia and germany persists, the tales of starvation, executions and ghettos are second hand and thus the 'memory' less embittering.

rvg

10-12-2009, 15:18

I doubt he is that much into MADness.

The problem with Ahmadinejad getting nukes is that if he does indeed get them, the Saudis will also begin a nuclear weapons program. After them, Egypt will most likely follow. Nukes will spread like plague in the most volatile region of the planet, and that is not good news. It's not about the U.S. or Israel, it's about that whole region getting armed to the teeth with nukes, ready to slug it out at a moment's notice.

Aemilius Paulus

10-12-2009, 18:21

The problem with Ahmadinejad getting nukes is that if he does indeed get them, the Saudis will also begin a nuclear weapons program. After them, Egypt will most likely follow. Nukes will spread like plague in the most volatile region of the planet, and that is not good news. It's not about the U.S. or Israel, it's about that whole region getting armed to the teeth with nukes, ready to slug it out at a moment's notice.

This is all fine and dandy - you are correct if we restrict our scope just to these recent years. However, with history in mind, it is Israel and United States who are responsible for the current situation. Unfortunately, Israel sometime ago decided it would be splendid if they had their own atomics. US found out about it, but kept quiet. Nuclear Iran will not provoke as many in the Middle East today than Nuclear Israel provoked when it started its own program. The (perhaps) unintentional hypocrisy of your post is simply comical, rvg. Change “Ahmadinejad” to “Israel”, remove the later reference to Israel, and voila!

US was shockingly hypocritical yet unsurprisingly predictable in its response to the Israeli nuclear program. Now the time of payback began, and to deny Iran their right to atomics is merely piling up on America’s burden of hypocrisy. Sure, I hate to see them get their paws on atomics. But this is the cruel justice, the anticipated retribution for the past actions. Once Israel, the sole adversary of the Muslim Middle East obtain something, someone is sure to want that “something” for themselves as well.

I am not personally condemning Iran, Israel or America. I could care less. They all have their own interests, and international politics is a cruel, hypocritical and unjust place. What I am however doing, is pointing out that US and Israel should not be feign astonishment, for they brought this on themselves. The weak response to DPRK fission programme was hardly helpful either.

Evil_Maniac From Mars

10-12-2009, 18:27

This is all fine and dandy - you are correct if we restrict our scope just to these recent years. However, with history in mind, it is Israel and United States who are responsible for the current situation. Unfortunately, Israel sometime ago decided it would be splendid if they had their own atomics. US found out about it, but kept quiet. Nuclear Iran will not provoke as many in the Middle East today than Nuclear Israel provoked when it started its own program. The (perhaps) unintentional hypocrisy of your post is simply comical, rvg. Change “Ahmadinejad” to “Israel”, remove the later reference to Israel, and voila!

Let's think why though. Israel - alone in a region full of nations trying to destroy it. Iran - one of those nations. A simplistic, but truthful, analysis of the situation.

rvg

10-12-2009, 18:28

I am not personally condemning Iran, Israel or America. I could care less.

Perhaps you should care more. Nuclear armed Iran is just as dangerous to Russia as it is to Israel. Today, they are on good terms with Russia, but who knows what happens tomorrow. Maybe Ahmadinejad backed by nukes will decide to resurrect Greater Persia and make a move against Azerbaijan or Turkmenistan. Russia stands as much to lose from nuclear armed Iran as Israel does.

LittleGrizzly

10-12-2009, 18:49

Let's think why though. Israel - alone in a region full of nations trying to destroy it. Iran - one of those nations. A simplistic, but truthful, analysis of the situation.

One wonders the relative military strength between the nations and one also wonders how many nations in the middle east threaten Israel militarily.

Hooahguy

10-12-2009, 18:58

well, maybe at the time the other nations were a threat.

Evil_Maniac From Mars

10-12-2009, 19:06

One wonders the relative military strength between the nations and one also wonders how many nations in the middle east threaten Israel militarily.

That's kind of the point. If Israel doesn't have the ability to :daisy: them all up at once, then it itself is :daisy:.

Azathoth

10-12-2009, 23:08

Let's think why though. Israel - alone in a region full of nations trying to destroy it. Iran - one of those nations. A simplistic, but truthful, analysis of the situation.

But Israel had nukes since the mid-60s, and Iran under the Shah was an ally of Israel.

Evil_Maniac From Mars

10-12-2009, 23:11

But Israel had nukes since the mid-60s, and Iran under the Shah was an ally of Israel.

That doesn't change the fact that every other Arab nation was quite willing to drive Israel into the sea.

LittleGrizzly

10-13-2009, 04:17

That's kind of the point. If Israel doesn't have the ability to :daisy: them all up at once, then it itself is :daisy:.

Hell If Israel needs nukes to combat its enemies than what about the Iranians ?!

On the one side you have a bunch of fairly poorly equipped forces divided in opinion, on the other side you have two of the most powerful military's in the world...

If anyone was asked (from a purely mathmatical POV) which side needed defensive nukes more in that equation the overwhelming answer would be Iran...

well, maybe at the time the other nations were a threat.

My point is more along the lines of...

If you consider Israel's position in the 60's bad enough to need defensive nukes (by looking at the military strength of her enemies) then surely you can see the definite need for Iran to have defensive nukes (America + Israel = outside of Russia and China no one could put up much resistance AFAIK)

The only thing those other countries could possibly do is threaten them back with Nukes... which is porbably what the Iranians are thinking...

Aemilius Paulus

10-13-2009, 04:33

Let's think why though. Israel - alone in a region full of nations trying to destroy it. Iran - one of those nations. A simplistic, but truthful, analysis of the situation.
Good thing you put "simplistic", because if you did not... :laugh4:

For one, Iran is not merely a hound going after a hare. Israel is by no means a weak power, and it is not exactly a peaceful country that minds its own business while the bad guys keep attacking it. There should be no justification for further nuclear proliferation. None. Because when you begin acknowledging "exceptions", things happen. Not positive "things" either. The more nations have atomics, the more factors are created. The more factors, the higher probability of a nuclear combat.

First Israel obtained a fission device. Then goes Iran, not to be overpowered by its mortal enemy. Then goes Saudi Arabia, because it is wary of both and has the funds. Then goes Syria, because they too hate Israel, because they have long yearned for nuclear capabilities, because DPRK is aiding them. Then goes Egypt because they simply cannot stand the thought of being the only strong power without atomics, driven by their nationalism. And if Saddam was still in power, Iraq would already have an arsenal of atomics. There goes rvg's logic, which is very much correct and probable.

Now what?

Perhaps you should care more. Nuclear armed Iran is just as dangerous to Russia as it is to Israel. Today, they are on good terms with Russia, but who knows what happens tomorrow. Maybe Ahmadinejad backed by nukes will decide to resurrect Greater Persia and make a move against Azerbaijan or Turkmenistan. Russia stands as much to lose from nuclear armed Iran as Israel does.
I did not mean that I do not care in absolute terms. No, I simply do not care who is right or wrong, and who wins or loses. I have no passionate stance on this. As Regan remarked on Iran-Iraq War - “Can’t they all just lose?!?”. True, Iran is certainly more unstable, but they also are slower to Russia than US or Israel. I do not see much in it for my nation if US gains yet more influence in the Middle East.

That's kind of the point. If Israel doesn't have the ability to :daisy:them all up at once, then it itself is :daisy:ed.
Uh-huh. So the only justification needed to obtain some fission munitions is to be an underdog? For one, Israel is not an underdog and it does not live under a probable threat of a united Arab attack. Otherwise, it can take any of the nations one-by-one, albeit at a heavy economic cost.
But if Israel was to publicly surrender its atomics, it may have well defused some tensions, and once possessing the infrastructure to produce fission or even fusion weapons, Israel could restart the production should tension escalate or an Arab nation decides to grab hold of nuclear weapons anyways. Creating the Piles and waiting for the enriched product may take some time, but it is highly unlikely an Arab nation with no or little previous experience could outpace Israel, which is already adept at atomics production.

Hax

10-13-2009, 09:52

Becuase as of right now it hurts US interests .

Yeah, well..what made the US the lawful and eternal masters of the known universe?

rvg

10-13-2009, 13:12

Yeah, well..what made the US the lawful and eternal masters of the known universe?

Nothing. Still, Americans will support American interests above all other interests, and I'm sure that the Dutch will do the same with regards to the interests of their country. That's just common sense. In case of Iran the US interests happen to match the interests of most of the civilized world, which is why most of the civilized world is hostile towards the Iranian nuclear aspirations.

Hax

10-13-2009, 13:29

Actually, I try to think of the interests of the world. I'm not limiting my view to my own country.

Beskar

10-13-2009, 13:33

That doesn't change the fact that every other Arab nation was quite willing to drive Israel into the sea.

All the communists are going to invade Germany and found the nation of "Marxland" due to the historical roots, displace all your native people by bringing in all the communists in the world to live in our new homeland. If you don't like it, Peoples Republic of China will nuke you, and provide us with constant support. :book2:

Then all the Capitalist nations of Europe are quite willing to drive Marxland into the sea.

rvg

10-13-2009, 13:33

Oh, alright. Well, good luck with that.

Hooahguy

10-13-2009, 15:11

For one, Israel is not an underdog and it does not live under a probable threat of a united Arab attack.
it was at the time.

Aemilius Paulus

10-13-2009, 15:16

it was at the time.
Yeah, I said that too. I noted in my previous post that it used to be under the danger of massed Arab-orchestrated offensives, but no longer. In any case, I thought the Israelis were smarter than to lust after fission. Once you get them, you start an arms race, which will inevitably lead to he enemy obtaining them. What is better - two nations with atomics or two nations without?

And you are awfully calm in this thread, despite my posts which surely would have baited any pro-Israeli individuals... Either you have matured or realised the futility of debating or simply became apathetic, if only for a certain period of time...

Hooahguy

10-13-2009, 15:22

well im very tired right now and the high holidays are over, and im really depressed because of that. not in the mood to debate, only want to play guitar.

on topic: now that israel is no longer under mass attack, why should they put themselves in a position that they used to be in by removing the nukes?

Aemilius Paulus

10-13-2009, 15:40

on topic: now that israel is no longer under mass attack, why should they put themselves in a position that they used to be in by removing the nukes?
How about attempting to discard strongman tactics of intimidation and such with a more reliable tactic of friendship? It worked with Egypt :wink:. Except that Israel was not the one to initiate it of course - the uncivilised, barbarian, militant Arabs did it, eh?

To be fair, though, the Egyptian semi-authoritarian rule has always been hostile to radical Islamism and religion in general, no matter how much they try to court favour of the masses by appearing to be religious.

Strike For The South

10-13-2009, 19:03

Yeah, well..what made the US the lawful and eternal masters of the known universe?

Our nukes mostly. I'm prefectly aware I'm being hypocrictical. I'm also perfectly aware and Iran sans nukes will save allot of lives somewhere down the road.

Aemilius Paulus

10-13-2009, 19:29

Our nukes mostly.
Of course not. Russia has not only more atomics, in quantity, but also more in the yield. Take the Tsar Bomba, which had a maximum yield of over 100 megatons, but had its uranium tamper replaced with a lead one to reduce its explosive power by half, downgrading it to 50 megatons, but at the same time made Tsar Bomba the cleanest and most efficient fusion or fission armament ever designed and/or tested.

This was done after the scientists said a 100 megaton bomb would cripple all of Russia with the fallout (which would be equivalent to 25% of all tested nuclear devices in the history of mankind) and the shockwave, which would generate a Richter 10 or worse earthquake if detonated on the ground – the 50 megaton test could have released 7.2 Richter if it was not an airburst…

What would be called a “strategic” fission device in US is “tactical” in USSR/Russia. The largest operational atomic in US is the Titan II at ~2 megatons, which has been recently decommissioned, leaving US with only tactical-grade fusion devices.

But all this is crap, because it does not matter how much of them you have or how high-quality they are. All you need is a sufficient amount to make the enemy think before attacking . That is all. Russia is no more powerful than Israel, UK, or France in terms of its nuclear capabilities. Nor is US.

What really matters, what made US great, is of course the economy. That is all that matters really. With an economy the size of US, you can go from the 1939 100,000 man militia with severely insufficient rifles and no weapons of higher grade than small arms – US did not even possess machineguns, artillery, or tanks in the beginning of WWII. But all it took was some factories to elevate US war machine roughly on par with that of the Greater German Reich or USSR.

War can only be continued with money, and in modern world, the “money” is replaced with the more general word, the “economy”, as money can be inflated or deflated with little obstructions, unlike in the past, where the decreasing of bullion content in coins was a serious offence indicating severe weakness.

However, knowing you, SFTS, you are probably trolling as usual… Although it seems you were serious this time :dizzy2:

Evil_Maniac From Mars

10-13-2009, 19:36

Amelius, I can't quote your post because of the font tags that show up in it, so it's easier to respond this way.

Israel acts overwhelmingly in a defensive manner, and at the time it acquired nuclear bombs it was in real danger of being totally destroyed. Now, this doesn't mean that acquiring the nuclear weaponry was a good thing, but from the Israeli point of view it was necessary. I don't disagree with you that further nuclear proliferation is a bad thing. In fact, this is exactly why I don't want Iran to acquire them. Israel has had them for decades, Iran is acquiring them now. We don't want more potential nuclear powers, but Israel already is one. It is not good to allow yet another nuclear power to emerge in that region merely in the interests of fairness.

For most of Israel's history it has been the underdog. It could easily take out every Arab state by itself one by one, but if they are allied together the situation becomes much more desperate, as shown at least twice since the end of the Second World War. While you are correct in saying that this is probably not realistic today, in the fifties and sixties it was a very probable possibility. It would be difficult to convince Israel to disarm at the same time that Iran is now arming - the rough equivalent of America giving up all of her nuclear bombs while allowing Russia and China to keep theirs.

Hell If Israel needs nukes to combat its enemies than what about the Iranians ?!

On the one side you have a bunch of fairly poorly equipped forces divided in opinion, on the other side you have two of the most powerful military's in the world...

Only Iran is in relatively little danger of actually being attacked. Russia and China would not like it either. There is no way America would attack Iran without bringing them on board, in which case Iran is screwed anyway, nukes or no nukes.

If anyone was asked (from a purely mathmatical POV) which side needed defensive nukes more in that equation the overwhelming answer would be Iran...

Only if your equation is wrong to start with.

My point is more along the lines of...

If you consider Israel's position in the 60's bad enough to need defensive nukes (by looking at the military strength of her enemies) then surely you can see the definite need for Iran to have defensive nukes (America + Israel = outside of Russia and China no one could put up much resistance AFAIK)

The only thing those other countries could possibly do is threaten them back with Nukes... which is porbably what the Iranians are thinking...

Iran is not under any threat from Israel whatsoever, and is under relatively little threat from America.

Aemilius Paulus

10-13-2009, 19:50

It is not good to allow yet another nuclear power to emerge in that region merely in the interests of fairness.
Hehe, well, I am not advocating that either. The last thing I care about in politics is fairness.
What I am merely pointing out is that the West has no one to blame for Iran's atomics other than themselves. You are inevitably putting yourselves in the position of blatant hypocrisy. Just how much you care about that is your choice...

It would be difficult to convince Israel to disarm at the same time that Iran is now arming - the rough equivalent of America giving up all of her nuclear bombs while allowing Russia and China to keep theirs.

Which is why Israel should not have waited by now. Iranian patience is not limitless. Israel continued their nuclear programme and no one did anything to stop them. They did not scrap their program like South African Republic or Libya did. Even after the danger clearly went away, it did not offer to destroy its atomics. Now they pay the price. Seriously, were the Jews honestly so foolish as to not realise that a powerful, militant, and uranium rich nation such as Iran would not attempt to catch up by producing its own fission armaments by the 1990s? I doubt it.

They knew it was coming, just not when. They could have extended the olive branch, but they did not. Of course, that is always hard to do. But even harder to now face nuclear Iran, which will stay nuclear even if it agrees to surrender its WMDs. After all, they have the technology, just like Ukraine, which produced atomics under the Soviet supervision and gave up its arsenal to Russia (and US I believe as well). If things heat up there, who knows...

rvg

10-13-2009, 19:56

Israel continued their nuclear programme and no one did anything to stop them. They did not scrap their program like South African Republic or Libya did. Even after the danger clearly went away, it did not offer to destroy its atomics.

The difference is that Israel never signed the non-proliferation treaty. Iran did. The reason the UN is going after Iran is because Iran is violating the terms of that treaty. Nobody forced them to sign it, but since they did, they are obligated to abide by its principles.

drone

10-13-2009, 20:18

Aemilius Paulus

10-13-2009, 20:18

The difference is that Israel never signed the non-proliferation treaty. Iran did. The reason the UN is going after Iran is because Iran is violating the terms of that treaty. Nobody forced them to sign it, but since they did, they are obligated to abide by its principles.
ZOMFG!!!11! Breaking news - a nation dared to break a treaty not worth the paper it was printed on!!11!!!

Honestly, this is farce. Everyone could care less if Israel signed it and Iran did not. Or if it was the other way around. The levels of condemnation would remain the same. No one cares that Iran is breaking some toilet-paper treaty - they simply do not wish for another power to contend with.

Should I begin mentioning all the treaties Israel and US do not abide by? Nuclear non-proliferation treaty is bollox as are generally all international treaties banning a specific weapon. No one pays attention to them even if they signed it, and the only reason so few break it is because nations do not generally sign it if they plan a nuclear program in the future. And you do not even have to sign.

So how can you even condemn Iran for this when US broke essentially the oldest and the most respected one of them all - the Geneva Convention. How much did US torture suspected terrorists, circumventing laws, squeezing through loopholes, finding technicalities or even going over and into the territory of the absurd, such as redefining the very word "torture"? Even UK engaged in "enhanced interrogation".

How many times have the Israelis employed forbidden weapons, whether they signed the treaties prohibiting the use of those armaments or not? And the main point with Israelis is that they did not even have to use all the manure they did. It is not like Lebanon or Palestine are serious opponents engaged in a life or death war with Israel.

Please, cut the jokes...

rvg

10-13-2009, 20:27

Should I begin mentioning all the treaties Israel and US do not abide by?

Please do. Let's see how many treaties the U.S. has signed, ratified and subsequently dishonored in the past, say, 50 years.

Beskar

10-13-2009, 20:48

Trident actually breaks the Nuclear Disarmament treaty. Also, the Kyoto Protocol is a contending too. (Those just from the top of my head and big ones too)

Aemilius Paulus

10-13-2009, 20:50

Please do. Let's see how many treaties the U.S. has signed, ratified and subsequently dishonored in the past, say, 50 years.
Bah, you can do the research if you are so interested - I have a a class in thirty minutes, but to be on equal ground, Iran may have broken one treaty. And US, without a doubt, also broke one treaty. Iran is most likely going to aim for the nuclear bomb. That broke the non-proliferation treaty. US abused prisoners of war, and tortured them, so there goes the Geneva Treaty. There goes a definite violation (since Iran does not yet posses the bomb, nor is clearly attempting to produce it - for all we know it is merely developing nuclear power).

Oh, and just because I feel so amicable today, I will throw in another treaty US broke - the ones dealing with chemical weapons, which it stockpiled (as did everyone else, but still, a rule broken is a rule broken). Not to mention, do you believe US is complying or is going to comply with the Chemical Weapons Convention it signed? Not a chance.

drone

10-13-2009, 21:02

rvg

10-13-2009, 21:21

I see a lot of claims regarding Uncle Sam's frivolities with international treaties, but no sources to back up those claims.

LittleGrizzly

10-13-2009, 21:46

Only Iran is in relatively little danger of actually being attacked. Russia and China would not like it either. There is no way America would attack Iran without bringing them on board, in which case Iran is screwed anyway, nukes or no nukes.

Not so long ago Iran was thought to be a possible target by alot of people, it had the rhetoric to go with it from the president as well.... Israel was also recently considering strikes... thats just recent history... the further you go back the more you see Iran being the much more threatened...

Honestly on a playground level Iran is a small six year old with a stocky 12 year old and his 16 year old brother picking on him... to call Iran the threatening one is quite frankly laughable....

Only if your equation is wrong to start with.

So taking your own national interests out of the equasion you still think two of the worlds most powerful militarys (even without thier nukes) need defensive nukes more than the relatively weak Iranian military ?!

RVG im not sure but you may have heard of Gauntanamo bay...

rvg

10-13-2009, 21:58

RVG im not sure but you may have heard of Gauntanamo bay...

Indeed. I haven't heard of any actual laws being broken there. U.S. or International.

Guantanamera, guajira guantanamera....

Evil_Maniac From Mars

10-13-2009, 22:19

Not so long ago Iran was thought to be a possible target by alot of people, it had the rhetoric to go with it from the president as well.... Israel was also recently considering strikes... thats just recent history... the further you go back the more you see Iran being the much more threatened...

Why was Israel considering strikes? Because Iran was and is thought to be going for nuclear bombs, as well as helping out the terrorist groups fighting Israel.
Why did America consider Iran to be a possible target? Because it is actively working against them in Iraq and going for nuclear bombs, in addition to funding terrorist activity against Israel.

Iran isn't threatened. It's doing the threatening.

Honestly on a playground level Iran is a small six year old with a stocky 12 year old and his 16 year old brother picking on him... to call Iran the threatening one is quite frankly laughable....

Iran being picked on? :laugh4: No, Iran is the six year old who keeps making fun of the other six year old, because he knows that the twelve year old brother won't do anything about it. If Iran wasn't posturing like this and actively trying to work against us, we wouldn't even care it existed.

So taking your own national interests out of the equasion you still think two of the worlds most powerful militarys (even without thier nukes) need defensive nukes more than the relatively weak Iranian military ?!

Yes, since Iran going for nuclear weapons only raises the chance that we will strike them. In HOI2 speak, it adds significantly to their belligerence level.

Azathoth

10-14-2009, 00:25

ZOMFG!!!11! Breaking news - a nation dared to break a treaty not worth the paper it was printed on!!11!!!

Honestly, this is farce. Everyone could care less if Israel signed it and Iran did not. Or if it was the other way around. The levels of condemnation would remain the same. No one cares that Iran is breaking some toilet-paper treaty - they simply do not wish for another power to contend with.

Should I begin mentioning all the treaties Israel and US do not abide by? Nuclear non-proliferation treaty is bollox as are generally all international treaties banning a specific weapon. No one pays attention to them even if they signed it, and the only reason so few break it is because nations do not generally sign it if they plan a nuclear program in the future. And you do not even have to sign.

So how can you even condemn Iran for this when US broke essentially the oldest and the most respected one of them all - the Geneva Convention. How much did US torture suspected terrorists, circumventing laws, squeezing through loopholes, finding technicalities or even going over and into the territory of the absurd, such as redefining the very word "torture"? Even UK engaged in "enhanced interrogation".

How many times have the Israelis employed forbidden weapons, whether they signed the treaties prohibiting the use of those armaments or not? And the main point with Israelis is that they did not even have to use all the manure they did. It is not like Lebanon or Palestine are serious opponents engaged in a life or death war with Israel.

Please, cut the jokes...

Just like how the UN didn't care when Sadaam won the war with chemical weapons, right?

Aemilius Paulus

10-14-2009, 01:22

Just like how the UN didn't care when Sadaam won the war with chemical weapons, right?
Well they did not, if you are being sarcastic. UN never does anything by itself. When was the last time they stopped a genocide? Oh, that is right - never. Sudan, Rwanda, Burundi, Congo, Former Yugoslavia... All happened and still happens right under the eyes of UN, as it does nothing but wastes millions of dollars in maintenance costs for the army... Sure, UN helps out, and they were known to facilitate the evacuation of refugees during the Yugoslav and Kosovo Wars, but when actual acts of mass-murder happen, UN is either powerless to stop them, or merely chooses to stay at the sidelines - I understand they are avoiding direct confrontation and war, but really,... Gah, why shovel manure any further?

The bottom line is that if not for US, Hussein could have gotten away with all his chemical mischief against Iran as well as the Kurds and much, much more. But Bush already selected him as a target, fabricated a plethora of outright lies in addition to the true allegation that Iraq had chemical weapons and invaded the country.

Just take one of them - that Iran supposedly obtained 500 tons of yellowcake uranium from Niger. Five hundred? Was he serious? With the sorry state of roads and transportation in Niger that would have taken weeks to transport that from the mines to the coast, utilizing a great deal of trucks, and human resources. And there are no railroads there, as far as I read. This could not have been kept secret from even the common people, let alone the ever-prying eyes of CIA. Or the other watchdog organisations. Now, this data actually came from the British intelligence report, but it never said that it actually happened - it merely speculated, devoting literally one sentence to this alleged incident.

We all know Bush did not invade Iraq because of chemical weapons. He certainly had other reasons. Can we at least agree to that?

Beskar

10-14-2009, 12:56

UN never does anything by itself. When was the last time they stopped a genocide? Oh, that is right - never. Sudan, Rwanda, Burundi, Congo, Former Yugoslavia... All happened and still happens right under the eyes of UN, as it does nothing but wastes millions of dollars in maintenance costs for the army... Sure, UN helps out, and they were known to facilitate the evacuation of refugees during the Yugoslav and Kosovo Wars, but when actual acts of mass-murder happen, UN is either powerless to stop them, or merely chooses to stay at the sidelines - I understand they are avoiding direct confrontation and war, but really,... Gah, why shovel manure any further?

The simple fact is this, if you give the UN that power, all the nationalists will baww like babies.

Also, it gives UN a godly amount of power in the world, and if that something we actually want? An elected world government/organisation with the power to exert its authority over others? Cue: Why a liberatarian socialist would dislike it.

LittleGrizzly

10-14-2009, 15:06

Why was Israel considering strikes? Because Iran was and is thought to be going for nuclear bombs, as well as helping out the terrorist groups fighting Israel.
Why did America consider Iran to be a possible target? Because it is actively working against them in Iraq and going for nuclear bombs, in addition to funding terrorist activity against Israel.

Iran isn't threatened. It's doing the threatening.

If building powerful destructive weapons is threatening then I do not even need to tell you why Israel and America are more threatening than Iran... it should be fairly obvious...

Yes, since Iran going for nuclear weapons only raises the chance that we will strike them.

So we (israel + US) need defensive nukes more because we will strike Iran if they try to get nukes.... ?!

So a country should not be allowed nuclear weapons if a bigger able power could attack them over it ?

That sounds like your basing your equasion on the wrong factors, what I asked was who needs defensive nukes more the fact another country may or may not strike them over them trying to get these nukes is not really a factor (or it would indicate if anything that the country that may get attacked needs them more if anything)

Ironside

10-14-2009, 15:55

This was done after the scientists said a 100 megaton bomb would cripple all of Russia with the fallout (which would be equivalent to 25% of all tested nuclear devices in the history of mankind) and the shockwave, which would generate a Richter 10 or worse earthquake if detonated on the ground – the 50 megaton test could have released 7.2 Richter if it was not an airburst…

:inquisitive: Posting only because you have mentioned a preference of statistics.

100/2=50 megaton = half of Russia crippled with the fallout. (The reduced radiation comes from scrapping the uranium to lead in the final blasting cap. A pure fusion bomb is fairly clean, only neutron decay from the blast)

50*2 = triggering a 16.000 times stronger earthquake.

100 megaton triggering a seismic energy yield of 1.000.000 megaton (10 Richter).

Fair enough, the 50 megaton one is equal to about 7,1 Richter, but I would say that getting hit by the nuke is a bit worse than the following ground shockwave. ¨
The point of blowing it in the air is exactly that, because hitting the ground is severly weaking the blast, thus effiency.

Aemilius Paulus

10-14-2009, 18:04

Posting only because you have mentioned a preference of statistics.

100/2=50 megaton = half of Russia crippled with the fallout. (The reduced radiation comes from scrapping the uranium to lead in the final blasting cap. A pure fusion bomb is fairly clean, only neutron decay from the blast)
Sorry, but I do not understand you point well... what are you saying? You seem to be repeating my post:
Take the Tsar Bomba, which had a maximum yield of over 100 megatons, but had its uranium tamper replaced with a lead one to reduce its explosive power by half, downgrading it to 50 megatons, but at the same time made Tsar Bomba the cleanest and most efficient fusion or fission armament ever designed and/or tested.

Even as clean as most fusion designs are, the Tsar Bomba was expected to release momentous amounts of radiation, like I said, 25% of all the atomic tests ever conducted (roughly reported and estimated ~2600 nuclear devices – 2430 fully confirmed). Now, I am no physicist. Neither are you, or at least not a nuclear physicist. I see no reason why an official statement by the Soviet scientists, backed up by the American counterparts is not valid. If they say the radiation would have laid waste to much of Russia, then it must have had substantial amount of truth in it.

Like I said, please elaborate your post...

50*2 = triggering a 16.000 times stronger earthquake.

100 megaton triggering a seismic energy yield of 1.000.000 megaton (10 Richter).
Once again, what is your point? My apologies, but I do not see it (no, I am not sarcastic, I honestly did not understand your post).

Fair enough, the 50 megaton one is equal to about 7,1 Richter, but I would say that getting hit by the nuke is a bit worse than the following ground shockwave. ¨
[QUOTE=Ironside;2354108]The point of blowing it in the air is exactly that, because hitting the ground is severly weaking the blast, thus effiency.
Of course, I know that. An air burst utilises the ordnance’s blast most efficiently, but that is not always the goal. The 50 megaton did equal 7.1 Richter. I am citing the official reports, not my own reckoning. A 100 megaton bomb would have created a catastrophic earthquake, although due to the logarithmic scale of Richter I am cannot say what would be the power of a 100-megaton bomb – I have no desire to perform calculations now.

Ironside

10-14-2009, 19:53

Sorry, but I do not understand you point well... what are you saying? You seem to be repeating my post:
Take the Tsar Bomba, which had a maximum yield of over 100 megatons, but had its uranium tamper replaced with a lead one to reduce its explosive power by half, downgrading it to 50 megatons, but at the same time made Tsar Bomba the cleanest and most efficient fusion or fission armament ever designed and/or tested.

Even as clean as most fusion designs are, the Tsar Bomba was expected to release momentous amounts of radiation, like I said, 25% of all the atomic tests ever conducted (roughly reported and estimated ~2600 nuclear devices – 2430 fully confirmed). Now, I am no physicist. Neither are you, or at least not a nuclear physicist. I see no reason why an official statement by the Soviet scientists, backed up by the American counterparts is not valid. If they say the radiation would have laid waste to much of Russia, then it must have had substantial amount of truth in it.

Neutron radiation reduces with a 1000 every 2,5 hours (half-life of about 15 min), so basically any dangerous radiation that spreads (the neutrons are very dangerous in close proximity though, the principle used in neutron bombs) is from the blasting cap, that's a fission nuke for fusion bombs. So the radiation has more to do with the method of blowing the bomb than with the size of the bomb. Should that be 25% of the total radiation, then the 100 megoton nuke would be very dirty.

Like I said, please elaborate your post...

Once again, what is your point? My apologies, but I do not see it (no, I am not sarcastic, I honestly did not understand your post).

A 100megaton bomb is about 7.3 richter. Basically it's either hitting a critical point on the crust that have a meassurable treshold, is complete bull or the earth crust have been completly raptured, possibly with the whole planet cracking open by every larger meteor strike during earths history. A 400 megaton nuke would wipe out humanity with a vide margin (triggering a earthquake with about 16 on the richter scale).

Simply put, the differances between the 100 one and 50 one are wildly exaggerated. If that's in the offical report, it's plain propaganda.

Aemilius Paulus

10-14-2009, 20:08

Simply put, the differances between the 100 one and 50 one are wildly exaggerated. If that's in the offical report, it's plain propaganda.
The Americans never seemed to contradict anything said by the Soviets, the data is still widely cited in treatises on this subject. Actually, the Americans claimed the Russians understated the strength of the reaction, which the Americans measured at 57 megatons. Quite the opposite of dismissing the incident as padded and glorified/overstated with propaganda.

Evil_Maniac From Mars

10-14-2009, 21:01

If building powerful destructive weapons is threatening then I do not even need to tell you why Israel and America are more threatening than Iran... it should be fairly obvious...

Building the weapons in itself isn't threatening. Being threatening with them and threatening with the potential of making them is what Iran is trying to do.

So we (israel + US) need defensive nukes more because we will strike Iran if they try to get nukes.... ?!

So a country should not be allowed nuclear weapons if a bigger able power could attack them over it ?

That sounds like your basing your equasion on the wrong factors, what I asked was who needs defensive nukes more the fact another country may or may not strike them over them trying to get these nukes is not really a factor (or it would indicate if anything that the country that may get attacked needs them more if anything)

You seem to have a knack for missing the point of my posts on purpose.

LittleGrizzly

10-14-2009, 21:25

Being threatening with them and threatening with the potential of making them is what Iran is trying to do.

I haven't noticed Iran threatening Israel with Nuclear weapons they are going to acquire in the future...

And what do you mean threatening with the potential making of them... If iran is making nukes they are trying to cover it up... that doesn't seem like threatening with them to me....

You seem to have a knack for missing the point of my posts on purpose.

Its non sensical, our threatening or actually carrying out an attack is a reason we need nukes more than the country were threatening or attacking ?!

Evil_Maniac From Mars

10-14-2009, 21:36

I haven't noticed Iran threatening Israel with Nuclear weapons they are going to acquire in the future...

And what do you mean threatening with the potential making of them... If iran is making nukes they are trying to cover it up... that doesn't seem like threatening with them to me....

You're treading the very thin line between reasonable assumption of innocence and naïveté.

Its non sensical, our threatening or actually carrying out an attack is a reason we need nukes more than the country were threatening or attacking ?!

Which is not at all what I said.

LittleGrizzly

10-14-2009, 21:42

You're treading the very thin line between reasonable assumption of innocence and naïveté.

They are not threatening with nukes they don't have...

The threat is from your assumption of them wanting to get nukes (which isn't too much of an assumption) and your assumption they will use them (which is a HUGE leap) they are not suicidal nutters (despite what the propaganda might say) they would not be willing to use thier nukes and promptly be destoryed...

What is is that makes you think Iran would use thier nukes (presumably the reason you don't want Iran to have them)

Evil_Maniac From Mars

10-14-2009, 21:50

They are not threatening with nukes they don't have...

The threat is from your assumption of them wanting to get nukes (which isn't too much of an assumption) and your assumption they will use them (which is a HUGE leap) they are not suicidal nutters (despite what the propaganda might say) they would not be willing to use thier nukes and promptly be destoryed...

What is is that makes you think Iran would use thier nukes (presumably the reason you don't want Iran to have them)

Iran itself wouldn't use the bomb, they'd pass it or the technology to someone who could. Also, another nuclear power in the region would be a major destabilizer, especially in the hands of a country which has not only used such aggressive rhetoric but is actively working against Western interests in the region.

I don't see why anyone in a NATO member country bothers to defend them. They are already helping cause the deaths of our soldiers and the soldiers of our allies in regional wars.

LittleGrizzly

10-15-2009, 21:17

Iran itself wouldn't use the bomb, they'd pass it or the technology to someone who could. Also, another nuclear power in the region would be a major destabilizer, especially in the hands of a country which has not only used such aggressive rhetoric but is actively working against Western interests in the region.

I don't see Iran passing on a nuke too terrorists... no way they would get away with it.... I don't see terrorists being able to make one even if given the technology... so that leaves countrys they could pass it on to...

I can't really think of anyone that couldn't just get the technology off North Korea or somebody else... to the best of my knowledge Iran aren't the most popular country even with our enemies... Syria maybe ?

Western interests is not a fair way for the world to work so that argument is null to me...

I don't see why anyone in a NATO member country bothers to defend them. They are already helping cause the deaths of our soldiers and the soldiers of our allies in regional wars.

So I must support my country against the enemy because we are at war (at least by proxy) no matter what I think of the situation ?

That would be a dangerous attitude to have...

Evil_Maniac From Mars

10-15-2009, 23:05

Western interests is not a fair way for the world to work so that argument is null to me...

Who cares? The world isn't fair. If you want to live, you have to be ready to get ahead and stay ahead.

So I must support my country against the enemy because we are at war (at least by proxy) no matter what I think of the situation ?

No, I simply find it absurd that your immediate reaction is to defend the enemy when your own soldiers are dying because of their actions.

The basic point it comes down to isn't fairness. It is if you personally would feel less secure if Iran had the bomb. If you would feel less secure, you should oppose it. If you would feel more secure, you probably should be locked up for question of your sanity. And that's phrasing it as nicely as I can.

LittleGrizzly

10-16-2009, 15:32

Who cares? The world isn't fair. If you want to live, you have to be ready to get ahead and stay ahead.

The world isn't fair but I would say would say with the advent of things like international law and such... I believe this is progress and a fairer world is what I strive for. That means western interests is meaningless to me (unless they are coinciding with other interests which are for the common good)

No, I simply find it absurd that your immediate reaction is to defend the enemy when your own soldiers are dying because of their actions.

Im not defending the enemy because our soldiers are dieing, that would only be out of some kind of hate, which I don't have for the military. I am defending (in your words) them because I believe it is right...

I suppose if it came down to some life or death choice either my country is destroyed or someone else's (with similar population) I would probably opt to save mine out for selfish reasons but I would like to think if it was Britian or somewhere like India or China I would opt for Britian's destruction for purely numerical reasons....

The basic point it comes down to isn't fairness. It is if you personally would feel less secure if Iran had the bomb. If you would feel less secure, you should oppose it. If you would feel more secure, you probably should be locked up for question of your sanity. And that's phrasing it as nicely as I can.

I wouldn't be worried either way... but then im really not the worrying type. I really don't see Iran using or supplying the nukes to someone else who would use them or using them themselves, so I don't really see any problems with it, if anything it may help thier domestic politics somewhat. If they feel more secure after they get the bomb then maybe the politicians won't be able to scare the population with outside threats as much and more concentration can be put on reform....

Don't get me wrong if anything I would rather Iran didn't have the bomb... I would rather nobody had the bomb but thats too idealistic...

Edit: Give it a few hundred years and we'll be back to sticks and stones ~;)

Evil_Maniac From Mars

10-16-2009, 19:27

Hope for the best, prepare for the worst. You're hoping for the best and preparing for the best. The second we try to do that in our international politics, we lose.

Beskar

10-16-2009, 19:59

EMFM won't be happy unless everyone but him has weaspons so he can appoint himself as Lord Kaiser of Terran.

Evil_Maniac From Mars

10-16-2009, 20:16

EMFM won't be happy unless everyone but him has weaspons so he can appoint himself as Lord Kaiser of Terran.

Yes, because my definition of national interest has my nation disarmed and defenceless with Iran having nuclear weapons. :laugh4:

Subotan

10-16-2009, 22:12

Hope for the best, prepare for the worst. You're hoping for the best and preparing for the best. The second we try to do that in our international politics, we lose.

Yeah just like Costa Rica, considering all the wars it befell when it abolished it's millitary in 1948.

Oh wait, it appears I was wrong. It was every other Spanish speaking country in Central America which suffered invasions or foreign interference since 1948. Silly me.

Evil_Maniac From Mars

10-16-2009, 22:15

Yeah just like Costa Rica, considering all the wars it befell when it abolished it's millitary in 1948.

Oh wait, it appears I was wrong. It was every other Spanish speaking country in Central America which suffered invasions or foreign interference since 1948. Silly me.

There are a few reasons that Costa Rica hasn't been invaded since then which anti-military advocates conveniently ignore, but for most nations, disbanding the army won't work. The fact that you are here today, with free speech, is because of the militaries of democratic Western nations.

Subotan

10-16-2009, 22:25

Such as? I'm not trying to be difficult, I'm genuinely curious.

Prince Cobra

10-16-2009, 22:36

Don't know how credible this is tho.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/iran/6256173/Mahmoud-Ahmadinejad-revealed-to-have-Jewish-past.html

Ironic to say the least.

This only makes my skin crawl. The most dangerous are people who have inferiority complex and feeling shame from their roots. The greatest prosecutors of the Jews were of Jewish origins. People like Tomas de Torquemada, probably Hitler, some other Nazis; in a different aspect (not to the Jews but to the Christianity), this was valid the Janissaries (devshirme recruits) in the Ottoman Empire, the Ghulams in the Arabian countries: these all were people who were transferred to another religion/ideology and they became its strictest, even fanatical followers, far stricter than those, whose families have been devoted to it for centuries.

Evil_Maniac From Mars

10-16-2009, 23:12

Such as? I'm not trying to be difficult, I'm genuinely curious.

Costa Rica has a heavily armed police force that could provide a fair amount of resistance. It isn't surrounded by enemies that it can't take on using this force. Any enemies from abroad with the strength to attack it will be met by a very angry America. Internal political factors reduce the chance of rebellion, as well as this wonderful quasi-army they have. They are a country with no ability to project power beyond their region, so a larger army isn't necessary to carry out international duties.

In short, they haven't been invaded because it would be a fundamentally stupid decision by the invader, and they haven't suffered civil war because of various internal factors (though I wouldn't claim that an army prevents civil war). For us, in powerful Western countries much different from Costa Rica, a military is necessary.

Hooahguy

10-18-2009, 02:49

probably Hitler, some other Nazis;
has been proved false, at least according to Professor D. Lipstadt.
(since her and my father are close friends, we have her over for lunch every now and then, a real treat)

Strike For The South

10-18-2009, 03:05

Such as? I'm not trying to be difficult, I'm genuinely curious.

Because it's costa rica.

If you can't understand why it can abolish its military than you should just leave the backroom.

I mean really? Is this what it has come to?

Subotan

10-18-2009, 12:49

Because it's costa rica.

If you can't understand why it can abolish its military than you should just leave the backroom.

I mean really? Is this what it has come to?

Well, what about the other Central American countries? All of the other Spanish speaking ones have experienced conflict at some point since Costa-Rica's millitary was abolished, usually because Uncle Sam pokes his long, pointy nose into places where it is not wanted (United Fruit Company anyone?). What is so special about Costa Rica which meant that, apart from not having a millitary, it was spared from the horrors the rest of Central America went through in the late 20th Century?

ICantSpellDawg

10-18-2009, 15:43

I wonder if the Iranians like the taste of their own medicine? Suck on this (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/8312964.stm) and swallow it, you scum.

Dâriûsh

10-18-2009, 17:23

I wonder if the Iranians like the taste of their own medicine? Suck on this (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/8312964.stm) and swallow it, you scum.

Indeed. Especially those scumbag Baluch bystanders. They'll be rotting in their scumbag graves, serves them right for being at the wrong place, eh?

Anyway, it is easy to suspect a conspiracy in an area crawling with SEVAK and Pakistani ISI agents. I wonder who in the Revolutionary Guard the general fell out with.

ICantSpellDawg

10-18-2009, 20:18

Indeed. Especially those scumbag Baluch bystanders. They'll be rotting in their scumbag graves, serves them right for being at the wrong place, eh?

Anyway, it is easy to suspect a conspiracy in an area crawling with SEVAK and Pakistani ISI agents. I wonder who in the Revolutionary Guard the general fell out with.

Since when are we not allowed to be happy when Iranian religious militants get blown up by suicide bombers? I can litterally hear kazoos and pin the tail on the donkey being played at the Pentagon.

Banquo's Ghost

10-19-2009, 07:36

Since when are we not allowed to be happy when Iranian religious militants get blown up by suicide bombers? I can litterally hear kazoos and pin the tail on the donkey being played at the Pentagon.

:inquisitive:

Yes, I expect they will be dancing in the street and praising their God. They cannot be innocent, who consort/talk/walk near with the enemy.

Seamus Fermanagh

10-19-2009, 22:01

Since when are we not allowed to be happy when Iranian religious militants get blown up by suicide bombers? I can litterally hear kazoos and pin the tail on the donkey being played at the Pentagon.

My former pastor (since transferred to another parish) warned all of our congregation (quite a lot of military being present) that REJOICING at the harm done to others is itself an evil. We should perhaps be quietly thankful that a threat has been removed, but to be joyful therein is a sickening of one's own soul. You shoot the rabid dog that threatens your toddler, you don't do the "happy dance" because you yourself got to kill.

You should be happy I did not view this thread first. Banquo responded, I would have issued points for your "scum" post and probably a warning to Dariush for feeding the troll. Blanket attacks are not acceptable.

Aemilius Paulus

10-19-2009, 22:43

drone

10-19-2009, 23:38

Wow, and just when I thought the Backroom mods were unfairly slanted towards US... Now I can see how wrong I was. To defend Iran, to give an infraction out for such a seemingly negligible offence that bothers no-one here, despite being the nationalities SM and BG are (American and Irish, right?), is a sign of immense neutrality and moderator merit. I am both proud and humbled to be a part of such community :bow::cry:

The mods aren't slanted towards the US, they just have to put up with us as we are the loudest, fattest members. :smug:

Dâriûsh is Iranian, so I think someone might have been bothered by TSM's comments. He also used to be a Backroom mod. :yes:

Aemilius Paulus

10-20-2009, 00:20

The mods aren't slanted towards the US, they just have to put up with us as we are the loudest, fattest members. :smug:

Well, I had a few experiences that suggested that... When I generalise about US, I get an infraction. When someone else does the same to Russia, they do not. How do I know those individuals did not get an infraction? My posts were deleted/edited. Those other posts were not.

For example, one time I posted matter-of-factly that US and Israel were two of the most hated nations in the world. Probably true, especially the first one. Yet I got an infraction... And the post was indeed deleted.

Then I had the time when I said that Americans in general recklessly spend money. How is that not true?? Infraction I got, nonetheless. But when Russia is called a nation of drunks and idiots that is a different matter obviously... Not that I dislike those comments about Russia - no, I think we should all be allowed to say such things. Or if not, then at least both cases should be punished..

ICantSpellDawg

10-20-2009, 01:58

Banquo's Ghost

10-20-2009, 07:47

I didn't realize that we were siting in a kumbaya circle. Revolutionary guards are enemy. Scum was probably unnecessary, but who here doesn't feel bubbling chuckles when terrorists are blown up by other terrorists? TotalWar.org is consistently TotalNancy.org. Everybody dies, some more ironically than others.

The point being made to you was that like most terrorist attacks, a lot of innocent people died as well as the "target".

Terrorism is wrong regardless of who it is targetting. Once you argue that it is right when applied to your enemies, you are little different to those people dancing in the street when they hear of atrocities against their enemies.

ICantSpellDawg

10-20-2009, 14:32

The point being made to you was that like most terrorist attacks, a lot of innocent people died as well as the "target".

Terrorism is wrong regardless of who it is targetting. Once you argue that it is right when applied to your enemies, you are little different to those people dancing in the street when they hear of atrocities against their enemies.

I think terrorism is stupid and dangerous in most circumstances, not wrong. Civilian life loss sucks, but the act of terrorism is out of desperation and an inability to resist or assault with conventional warfare. I wish it didn't exist most of the time, but I understand it.

Few people are innocent. We all support militaries, who without our financial and moral aid would be weaker. Civilian population is the backbone of the State. Next time you re fighting a bear, avoid hurting anything other than the claws and teeth. We used to fire-bomb cities with no notice while everyone was sleeping. Was it right then and wrong now?

Protect your own and destroy all enemies. When we are no longer enemies and become one people, then we can talk about the ills of terrorism.

Banquo's Ghost

10-20-2009, 14:38

In that case Tuff, we differ so much, a dialogue would be pointless.

:bow:

ICantSpellDawg

10-20-2009, 14:51

In that case Tuff, we differ so much, a dialogue would be pointless.

:bow:
Oh stop being so dramatic :beam: . I'm just arguing with you for arguements sake.

Vladimir

10-20-2009, 17:23

Wow, and just when I thought the Backroom mods were unfairly slanted towards US... Now I can see how wrong I was. To defend Iran, to give an infraction out for such a seemingly negligible offence that bothers no-one here, despite being the nationalities SM and BG are (American and Irish, right?), is a sign of immense neutrality and moderator merit. I am both proud and humbled to be a part of such community :bow::cry:

I like you. Don't leave...ever. :stare:

Thanks for not giving me a point for using the word scum.

The Backroom is a hive of wretched scum and villainy.

Banquo's Ghost

10-20-2009, 21:16

Oh stop being so dramatic :beam: . I'm just arguing with you for arguements sake.

I know. But having lost someone to terrorism, it's not a subject I can easily treat with levity. Sorry. :bow:

Seamus Fermanagh

10-20-2009, 21:43

TSM:

Targeting the uniformed military personnel of the political actor with whom you are in conflict =
legitimate act of war.

Targeting the uniformed military personnel of the political actor with whom you are in conflict, but despite using all reasonable precautions to avoid harm to bystanders and civilians =
legitimate act of war with a regrettable loss of innocent life.

Targeting the uniformed military personnel of the political actor with whom you are in conflict, but failing to take reasonable precautions to minimize or avoid harm to bystanders and civilians =
wrongful action. Should be punishable/viewed as criminal to the extent that the perpetrators are culpable through their negligence.

Targeting the uniformed military personnel of the political actor with whom you are in conflict, knowing that their will be significant civilian/bystander casualties and making no effort to minimize or prevent such casualties =
Wrongful act. Only possible justification for such action is as a quid-pro-quo for previous action of like kind by opponent and even then ONLY when the quid-pro-quo is done as a means of curtailing like actions in future. NOTE: many, perphaps most, people around the world would actually view actions of this kind as having no difference from the category below.

Targeting civilians or bystanders in order to create the greatest possible harm on the softest target (terrorism) =
Criminal Act

There is a HUGE moral difference between guerilla war and terrorism. If you conflate the two completely, you are starting down a path towards what I would define as evil.

ICantSpellDawg

10-21-2009, 01:17

:no:
TSM:

Targeting the uniformed military personnel of the political actor with whom you are in conflict =
legitimate act of war.

Targeting the uniformed military personnel of the political actor with whom you are in conflict, but despite using all reasonable precautions to avoid harm to bystanders and civilians =
legitimate act of war with a regrettable loss of innocent life.

Targeting the uniformed military personnel of the political actor with whom you are in conflict, but failing to take reasonable precautions to minimize or avoid harm to bystanders and civilians =
wrongful action. Should be punishable/viewed as criminal to the extent that the perpetrators are culpable through their negligence.

Targeting the uniformed military personnel of the political actor with whom you are in conflict, knowing that their will be significant civilian/bystander casualties and making no effort to minimize or prevent such casualties =
Wrongful act. Only possible justification for such action is as a quid-pro-quo for previous action of like kind by opponent and even then ONLY when the quid-pro-quo is done as a means of curtailing like actions in future. NOTE: many, perphaps most, people around the world would actually view actions of this kind as having no difference from the category below.

Targeting civilians or bystanders in order to create the greatest possible harm on the softest target (terrorism) =
Criminal Act

There is a HUGE moral difference between guerilla war and terrorism. If you conflate the two completely, you are starting down a path towards what I would define as evil.

I understand the moral arguement and agree, but who cares about all of that in war. People die and you kill them - so what?

I understand why someone wouldn't want their loved ones to be killed because it would hurt them and disrupt their lives - but you have to see the practical sense in destroying the economic and social stability of your enemy. As awful as civilian loss during a conflict is, we all die - some will die more slowly and painfully without being nailed by a ricochet/hit with an IED. Who knows who will die in war before they lose a child in peace or come down with a painful or debilitating ailment.

The blanket of morality and ethics are great and I use them and get why the US military uses them, but for arguements sake lets discuss why, practically we shouldn't kill civilians for its own sake.

I get the moral arguement, but that is a philosophical arguement, not a military one. Whether you send people to heaven/hell or nothingness i'm not sure it matters to them after the fact. Step outside of yourself and your fears.

I'm just making arguement- stop being so sensitive. I lose people, but that's part of life. I guess I have never lost someone important enough to me - mother/father/wife/children. I don't really see why it matters whether a loved one is killed by disease, wild animals or another human. The death is the same and the life was the same.

I have completely hijacked this thread. I digress. Why would you two mods let me do that! :no: