58 replies to this topic

[The New Richard Nixon]

So Iran is not a threat? Would that mean North Korea isn't a threat as well? Both countries don't like the west or neighbours. Iran and North Korea deny free speech

[Yamato]

So Iran is not a threat?
Not to me.


Would that mean North Korea isn't a threat as well?
No.

Both countries don't like the west or neighbours. Iran and North Korea deny free speech
If that's what our priority is, then amend the Constitution to say its authority applies to the rest of the world too then.

If (the government of) Iran denies free speech I think that's the perfect job for an Iranian to work on.  And they're working on it.  When the children of Iran today become young adults, Iran will see political reform.  We will ALL see political reform.  Unless we're held in chains by walls, world police, secretive regimes, military checkpoints and other such rot.  Supporting our favorite flavor thereof isn't doing freewill any favors.

[and then]

ninjadude, on 19 February 2012 - 09:09 PM, said:

As with the other posters in the other thread, it's probably inevitable. I would NOT approve of military action to stop it. Negotiation and sanctions are doing some work. They are a signatory to the NPT. I would also attempt to get Israel to sign the NPT with negotiation and withholding aid. Would Iran be more a threat? maybe, maybe not. Iran has not attacked anyone. It's said they support terrorist organizations. Gee, so does the US to aid our interests. Israel even assassinates Iranian scientists.

You  seem to see all of Islam as a threat to your existence and by extension, Iran being somehow the leader of that threat. I get you. And maybe if you live in NYC or something I can see where that comes from. But to me, that's irrational. I don't have that irrational fear driving my analysis of the situation. I can see the history of the same sort of rhetoric that was used about Iraq having WMD's and being the same kind of visceral threat. Now, maybe you think the Iraq war was a good thing. I know some neocons do. But America was misled into that war and I personally do not want it done again. If we're going to bomb Iran to test out our new BL-92 bunker buster bombs, then be honest and say that. The American people will rightly tell the government were to get off.

Actually I don't feel personally threatened at all.  At least not for my physical safety.  I look at the world as most people do - through various forms of media and personal interactions among friends and relatives.  After 911 I woke up to the concept that America is probably more vulnerable than most countries on earth because we live free and have (had) very few restrictions on people who could board an aircraft or rent a truck or walk into a mall...
Personally I'd rather take the risk of death from an enemy rather than hiding in a nanny State.  Eventually the war will come here no matter what we try to do to stop it.  For me Iran is a different issue.  They represent an ideology which isn't just a religion but a political system designed to subjugate everyone globally.  If you read the Qur'an and the Hadiths (traditions) it is easy to understand what Islam is about.  People who assume Islam is a "religion of peace" do so at their own peril.  Having said that, I do not fear or hate individual Muslims.  My guess is that most want to live just as the rest of us do and could care less about the tenets of their religion.  At least those living in the West.  But with over a billion adherents world wide it takes only a very small percentage of "true believers" to cause war and suffering.  It appears you have resigned yourself to waiting until it affects you personally before you attempt to stand against it.  Fair enough.  I've been soundly criticized here at UM for my opinions about this issue and even had my manhood questioned because I have not fought in the war.  Most Americans have not fought in any war and I am still entitled to my freedom to speak.
I don't mind the difference in opinions on Iran.  What piss** me off is that I believe many who argue for their right to have nukes would still excuse them even after they used them.  It's just a mindset of blame America first that annoys me.  Especially from citizens here.  It is their right to hold such an opinion but it's my right to be annoyed by it.

[shaddow134]

Erix, on 19 February 2012 - 09:37 PM, said:

So Iran is not a threat? Would that mean North Korea isn't a threat as well? Both countries don't like the west or neighbours. Iran and North Korea deny free speech

A Bee's nest only becomes a threat when you poke a stick in it...

[ninjadude]

and then, on 19 February 2012 - 10:12 PM, said:

  What piss** me off is that I believe many who argue for their right to have nukes would still excuse them even after they used them.  It's just a mindset of blame America first that annoys me.  Especially from citizens here.  It is their right to hold such an opinion but it's my right to be annoyed by it.

Thanks for the reasoned response. However, unless I'm mistaken, I haven't heard anyone (including me) want to excuse Iran in the fleetingly unlikely event AFTER they had used a nuclear weapon. Certainly I'm sure that most of the world would be against them in every way possible. Which is why they won't.

"blame America first" is a dog whistle. You cannot deny the tremendous pain and suffering that we have caused in the world all the while causing good things as well.

I disagree with your depiction of Islam but it's useless to argue about religion. Even when it's not one's own.

[DieChecker]

ninjadude, on 18 February 2012 - 01:57 AM, said:

This intense Islamaphobia and Iran hatred is exactly 100 percent identical to what the war hawks did with Iraq. And gee let's see how well that turned out?

If the suspect fits the profile it is not Islamaphobia. If someone threatens you with violence, it is not racist to deal with them, regardless of if they are black, white, asian or latin.

Why don't you take Islam out of the picture and put the same words into the mouth of say... Denmark, or Venezuela, or Taiwan? The same actions/ sanctions would be in place, and the same warnings given. Iran is a danger as long as it pursues nuclear weapons. It is treaty to the NPT. What is the penalty for breaking the NPT? A lot of evidence has been dredged up that says Iran has broken the NPT.

ninjadude, on 18 February 2012 - 09:58 PM, said:

Even as a first strike due to their insane paranoia. It's their nail waiting for a hammer.

Why is it you are so quick to say Israel would strike first, but Iran striking first is almost unimaginable?

Yamato, on 19 February 2012 - 09:54 PM, said:

So Iran is not a threat?
Not to me.

That is pretty short sighted. The Soviets put nukes into Cuba, was that not a threat? How is every nation on Earth having nukes going to improve anything?

I'd say that anyone having nukes is a personnal threat. That they are also a deterent is due to our OPENLY ADMITTING that we have them. If Finland, or Tanzania, or Argentina, was building secreat nukes, I'd be just as scared of them.

[shaddow134]

[quote name='DieChecker' timestamp='1329788624' post='4210062']
If the suspect fits the profile it is not Islamaphobia. If someone threatens you with violence, it is not racist to deal with them, regardless of if they are black, white, asian or latin.

Why don't you take Islam out of the picture and put the same words into the mouth of say... Denmark, or Venezuela, or Taiwan? The same actions/ sanctions would be in place, and the same warnings given. Iran is a danger as long as it pursues nuclear weapons. It is treaty to the NPT. What is the penalty for breaking the NPT? A lot of evidence has been dredged up that says Iran has broken the NPT.



But still no evidence that Iran is or is anywhere near building a working Nuclear Weapon.How many Middle Eastern countries do we bomb before the West's paranoia is removed.

[ExpandMyMind]

Diechecker, read my thread in this forum on the defence secretary's comments. Iran is not building nukes. Our governments know this. Attacking Iran for nukes, given the evidence we have (and the fact that this has happened before) is about as laughable as stating that we attacked Iraq because they had WMDs.

[The New Richard Nixon]

ExpandMyMind, on 21 February 2012 - 09:06 AM, said:

Diechecker, read my thread in this forum on the defence secretary's comments. Iran is not building nukes. Our governments know this. Attacking Iran for nukes, given the evidence we have (and the fact that this has happened before) is about as laughable as stating that we attacked Iraq because they had WMDs.

....Iran does not have Nukes, it is capable of making some, that's what everyone is afraid of.

[ExpandMyMind]

70% of the American public believe they have them (we have the corporate controlled mass media and idiotic politicians who are endlessly streamed over the airways by said media to thank for that), so the fear you mention of 'everyone' is not quite correct. Any nuclear powered country has the capability to create nukes (almost at least). This fear in itself is irrational anyway, because as soon as a country did go down that road, the world would be aware of it and have plenty of time to react (years).

Edited by ExpandMyMind, 21 February 2012 - 10:36 AM.

[ninjadude]

DieChecker, on 21 February 2012 - 01:43 AM, said:

Iran is a danger as long as it pursues nuclear weapons. It is treaty to the NPT. What is the penalty for breaking the NPT? A lot of evidence has been dredged up that says Iran has broken the NPT.

So Israel is a danger as well since they already have nuclear weapons and are NOT part of the NPT. And threaten a first strike.

Quote

Why is it you are so quick to say Israel would strike first, but Iran striking first is almost unimaginable?

because Israel and the US governments threaten a first strike. Iran isn't.

[ExpandMyMind]

Die checker there is not a single part of the NPT that Iran has broken. Whatthe problem is, is that they are being asked to go above and beyond what they are required. It is a Testament to the U.S. Media that you are not aware of this. You and most Of the people of our countries.

[Yamato]

DieChecker, on 21 February 2012 - 01:43 AM, said:

That is pretty short sighted. The Soviets put nukes into Cuba, was that not a threat? How is every nation on Earth having nukes going to improve anything?

I'd say that anyone having nukes is a personnal threat. That they are also a deterent is due to our OPENLY ADMITTING that we have them. If Finland, or Tanzania, or Argentina, was building secreat nukes, I'd be just as scared of them.

Short sighted?  How about capable of making the most glaringly obvious comparison ever?

The Soviets could hit us from the Soviet Union with large ICBMs and that were more of a threat than the smaller weapons in Cuba.  The reason WWIII almost broke out over the Cuban Missile Crisis was because of governments trying to save face and keep up appearances.  It would have made us look bad if the Soviet Union was able to arm Cuba.  We had nukes in Turkey pointed at the Soviet Union and they survived that reality.  Was arming Cuba worth starting WWIII over?  The historical lesson we should have taken home is no, it was not.  Kennedy was correct to choose a blockade over a war and make concessions to the Soviet Union in Turkey to allay the crisis.  

Starting wars to prevent nuclear armament is yet another unprecedented new turd of a policy I haven't heard of until now.  If you can't handle not going to war to stop the spread of nuclear weapons, you wouldn't get along with any of the precedents your ancestors employed to get you where you are today.  

India, Pakistan, North Korea and Israel already have nukes.  What are you going to do about those threats?  How about insisting on them signing the NNPT like the rest of us have and providing some stick in their eyes for once if they don't?  How are these threats we already have before us getting so ignored by the threat mongers to single out Iran who never attacked anybody?  Because of the deleterious "support" for Israel that's already gotten us into enough nonsense in that region to cover another 230 years of US history, thank you.

[and then]

Yamato, on 21 February 2012 - 07:21 PM, said:

Short sighted?  How about capable of making the most glaringly obvious comparison ever?

The Soviets could hit us from the Soviet Union with large ICBMs and that were more of a threat than the smaller weapons in Cuba.  The reason WWIII almost broke out over the Cuban Missile Crisis was because of governments trying to save face and keep up appearances.  It would have made us look bad if the Soviet Union was able to arm Cuba.  We had nukes in Turkey pointed at the Soviet Union and they survived that reality.  Was arming Cuba worth starting WWIII over?  The historical lesson we should have taken home is no, it was not.  Kennedy was correct to choose a blockade over a war and make concessions to the Soviet Union in Turkey to allay the crisis.  

Starting wars to prevent nuclear armament is yet another unprecedented new turd of a policy I haven't heard of until now.  If you can't handle not going to war to stop the spread of nuclear weapons, you wouldn't get along with any of the precedents your ancestors employed to get you where you are today.  

India, Pakistan, North Korea and Israel already have nukes.  What are you going to do about those threats?  How about insisting on them signing the NNPT like the rest of us have and providing some stick in their eyes for once if they don't?  How are these threats we already have before us getting so ignored by the threat mongers to single out Iran who never attacked anybody? Because of the deleterious "support" for Israel that's already gotten us into enough nonsense in that region to cover another 230 years of US history, thank you.

Because with the exception of a schizophrenic Pakistani situation the Western world has, with the help of their intelligence professionals,  decided that these others aren't active threats.  The fact that you and a minority like you are willing to overlook that and scream all the louder in support of the right of a proven terror supporting nation to have nuclear weapons makes you seem more than a little irrational.  Or if not irrational then obviously in the bag openly supporting a terror regime that casually suppresses and kills it's own citizens.  Pour all the perfume on a pig that you want to...it'll still stink.