Printable View
The USA has used nuclear bombs in anger what, twice? When they were first developed, and arguably out of complete necessity. It sat through one of the most delicate situations in history without ever firing. It is a functioning democracy, not a fundamentalist regime. I would trust the USA with nuclear bombs more than any other country in the world - it is unfeasible that America would fire at anyone, whereas I can understand Israel being very scared of Iran.Quote:
Originally Posted by Scurvy
I realise its hypothetical, but if Israel was to be wiped out, the US would surely retaliate.
I actually meant it is the US Iran fears far more than Israel, and as such, its nuclear efforts and foreign policy are far more aimed towards the US. Israel would have very little influence in the area without US support (and weapons + funding), furthermore many of Iran's natural allies are completely reliant on US aid, and Iranain influence suffers as a result - its therefore the US that holds all the strings in any conflict in the area, and the fact it has nukes, and could use them (not that they would) is enough. If Iran was really bent of wiping Israel off the map, im not sure Israeli nukes would stop them, especially if they are fanatical as they are portrayed - its the impact to the area that the US would have afterwards that stops them.
Don't confuse realism and pragmatism with convenience. Also, Scurvy's post does not really apply to our two friends.Quote:
Originally Posted by Evil_Maniac From Mars
Completely. It was vital to Pres. Clinton to characterize the action as "terrorism" so that it could be pursued/addressed as a criminal action by individuals and not as an act of war. I disagree completely with that attitude. Regrettably, it only takes one side to "declare" a war. Refusing to deal with military aggression as such is inaccurate at best.Quote:
Originally Posted by Strike For The South
I never said I wouldn't have a problem with it. I said it wasn't terrorism. I actually dislike a lot of the stuff that gets done. I'm an old-fashioned enough type to wish they'd declare war and deal with it on the up-and-up, though I am well aware that it won't happen. Nobody declares war anymore, they just shoot and spin it in the media after shooting.Quote:
Originally Posted by Strike For The South
All too often. I prefer Locke's approach to the Social Contract, though anyone who dismisses Hobbes outright is missing the boat.Quote:
Originally Posted by Strike For The South
Hax:
Who in this thread has been arguing about the USA having the right to dictate policy to other nations? I thought this was about Israel?
So people are being killed because they are suspected but not proven of doing something "wrong".Quote:
Originally Posted by Furunculus
By that logic I can't leave America's foreign policy to chance.Quote:
Originally Posted by hooahguy
So it was necessary for all of those thousands of inoccent people had to die (:skull:) for America?Quote:
Originally Posted by Evil_Maniac From Mars
Under Bush America seemed like a fudamentalist regime, and I would certainly not trust the one of the biggest inoccent killers in the world to have nuclear weopns.:skull::skull:Quote:
Originally Posted by Evil_Maniac From Mars
And I assume America doesn't have a big difference between the upper and lower class.Quote:
Originally Posted by Evil_Maniac From Mars
As stated previously, they hold public military parades where ballistic missiles are daubed with phrases like "death to israel", at a time when they are pursuing a nuclear weapons program. That alone is all i need to know that iran cannot be trusted with nukes and to cheer on anyone who goes about halting that ambition.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hax
odd, i see a country that has had to defend itself repeatedly from neighbours that have repeatedly attacked it. a defensive attitude is acceptable to me with nukes.Quote:
Originally Posted by tibilicus
and that same country is essentially a representative parliamentary democracy, stable and non-repressive to its citizens. again, not an unacceptable state of affairs in a nuke weilding country.
i find it entirely understandable that a fly-speck country surrounded by massive neighbours, with greatly larger populations, with a history of conflict with said fly-speck nation should want an ultimate deterrent.
so no, i see no double standards.
the problem with iran holding nukes is that it is grossly repressive and unrepresentative with an unstable history, which means it is both prone to revolutionary change, and prone to extreme political ideology from its uprising masses.Quote:
Originally Posted by tibilicus
not the kind of people i want holding nukes.
for much the same reason i am happy about india's nukes but worried by those held by pakistan.
yup, its a tough world, not every one gets their day in court before judgment is passed. sad.Quote:
Originally Posted by lenin96
I agree with most of it, but you don't think having nukes for 'defensive purposes' is actually an aggressive act?Quote:
Originally Posted by Furunculus
What a great reason for killing someone.Quote:
Originally Posted by Furunculus
the problem with iran holding nukes is that it is grossly repressive and unrepresentative with an unstable history, which means it is both prone to revolutionary change, and prone to extreme political ideology from its uprising masses.
Maybe they have had a bit of a problem with revolution and uprisings because we couldn't keep our noses out!
The moment Iran is left in peace it will be alot less extreme, part of me just thinks we keep the pressure on them as a few country's find it useful to have Iran as some scary enemy to scare domestic population with and excuse our constant twisted foriegn policy..
Don't see why Israel should be considered a safer bet to own nukes than Iran, Israel is an aggressive country surronded by enemies, Iran is relatively calm despite the best attempts of Israel and the west to rile them up, the furthest they have gone is some mistranslated quote (which is somehow proof israel shouldn't have to give away any palestinian land) and some slogans on missles. Grow up, it is fairly obvious to anyone with a basic grasp of politics that Iran is not about to start a missle war and definetly not a nuclear one. Even though people like to talk of the 'fanaticism' of Iran is not that extreme, and TBH the only thing keeping its current level of extremity is us!
Remove our constant goading of Iran and there is no reason to fear Iranian nuclear weapons, I for one cheer the concept of Iranian nuclear weapons! It should provide an effective deterrent against Israel and the west...
yup, its a tough world, not every one gets their day in court before judgment is passed. sad.
The nazis were also very upset, they claimed to not have the facilities to process so many terrorists... but its ok i guess... right ?
MAD is a defensive strategy.Quote:
Originally Posted by Scurvy
"yup, its a tough world, not every one gets their day in court before judgment is passed. sad."
ok, airstrikes it is then................... :juggle2:Quote:
Originally Posted by lenin96
irrelevant, nobody should want excitable revolutionaries anywhere near big red buttons.Quote:
Originally Posted by LittleGrizzly
the moment iran stops funding hamas/hezbollah/others we are very likely to take the pressure off.
because it is a representative parliamentary democracy. grow up? grow up! you say this to me in response to the iranian military conducting public parades of ballistic missiles daubed with slogans such as "death to israel" at a time when they pursue nuclear weapons!?!?!?!?! WTF?
that is a very misguided view.
as said above, ok lets launch a military strike against irans nuclear facilities in the absence of their willingness to close them down voluntarily. rather pointless nazi analogy don't you think?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Evil_Maniac From Mars
No, I'm not troubled by Iran yet hence I see the killing of scientists pointless. Your simply wrong if you buy in to the belief that Iran posses some kind of major military threat. Just like everyone else in the region its military is pretty much a joke when compared to Israel or any other western country.
I mean seriously its air force consists of old 50's and 70's knock off's, the same can probably said for their armour and their foot soldiers consist of millions of loonies armed with AK's.
I know I wouldn't be scared if I had my modern multi role fighters and mechanized military. :2thumbsup:
you don't live in israel, so no, i imagine you don't feel terribly threatened by iran. quelle surprise!Quote:
Originally Posted by tibilicus
i don't take seriously the possibility of a conventional war between iran and israel, what i do take very seriously is an unstable and despotic regime against israel holding nuclear weapons.
irrelevant, nobody should want excitable revolutionaries anywhere near big red buttons.
Thier recent revolution was getting rid of the puppet we installed, no more excitable revolutionaries than the founding fathers...
What I am basically saying is they were well within thier right to get rid of our puppet and decide thier own direction, which isn't really an arguable point...
the moment iran stops funding hamas/hezbollah/others we are very likely to take the pressure off.
Why should they whilst we still fund Israel, or is it only ok for us to fund proxys ?
because it is a representative parliamentary democracy.
errm, i never said that.. ohh you mean Israel, I don't see why representative parlimentary democracy should affect it, considering some of the democracys (israel palestine) there are probably less aggressive warlike dictatorships about that i would trust more with nukes, besides Iran has a kind of democracy going, the mullahs have to approve the candidates but they are not exactly extremists, they have fairly liberal candidates able to compete, the only real difference from somewhere like US or UK would seem to be the mullahs have to vet the candidate as well as the political party, whereas over here its just the political party...
Damn got to go... ill finish the rest of the points later...
Dans la nuit, tous les chats sont gris.
Does anyone here live in a nation without a military or intelligence agency? Congratulations.
i repeat: the most dangerous thing in the world to do is to underestimate your enemies.Quote:
Originally Posted by tibilicus
btw, AFAIK russia sold iran some very advanced AA technology, among other things, a few years ago.
btw, what about the fact that iran has EMP capability?
EMPs are much worse...
How dare they arm themselves after being demonized for 20 years!
Quote:
Originally Posted by hooahguy
Well if I'm reading what I am about EMP's they seem very advanced and other than a few sources there is no major evidence to suggest Iran has them.
Also if I'm understanding what an EMP does on a bit of a side not couldn't some one like Russia use an EMP to disable the US anti nuke shield? Does it work in a sense like that?
Iran has democratically elected presidents. Or was Khatami a joke?Quote:
what i do take very seriously is an unstable and despotic regime against israel holding nuclear weapons.
people said that about Nazi Germany too....Quote:
Originally Posted by Alexander the Pretty Good
EMPs shuts down communications and other such things, AFAIK.Quote:
Originally Posted by tibilicus
with that, they could shit down israels nuclear capability, then launch a nuke.
and IIRC, http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/ar...TICLE_ID=44017
what a nice soundbite............... but does it have any substance. lets see:Quote:
Originally Posted by Hax
http://www.economist.com/media/pdf/D...ex_2007_v3.pdf
Iran = 139th out of 167 and filed under authoritarian regimes.
Israel = 47th and filed under flawed democracy just underneath Poland.
no, your statement has zero worthwhile content.
see above.Quote:
Originally Posted by LittleGrizzly
Very interesting - something worth to take a closer look atQuote:
Originally Posted by Furunculus
:bow:
ignore- dang this lousy internet connection...
That looks somewhat flawed. Looking at one of the category scores, II Functioning of government, a country becomes more democratic if people "feel like" they're a democracy. The questions also appear to be either somewhat subjective or really technical. I think it could be much better if factors such as stability and well defined social conditions were added in.Quote:
Originally Posted by Furunculus