Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest
Israel Considers Pre-Emptive Attack On Iran
Comments
-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hijackers_in_the_September_11_attacksGeekness1234 wrote: »http://www.debunking911.com/
Thanks:rolleyes::rolleyes:
No worries, any time you need me to correct you, just ask!!!0 -
i know what you are trying to say. what i am saying is that you are wrong. i'll criticise those who need criticising, not make weak excuses for them like you do with america/israel ...Geekness1234 wrote: »What I'm trying to say is don't be so quick to critise them,as you do with America.
i'd hope so, but i have no idea what you mean.Geekness1234 wrote: »I'm pretty sure I know what I meant,Davoxx.
if you think so, i disagree.Geekness1234 wrote: »Simplistic but correct none the less.
really, so they'd sit it out because of that ... if you say so.Geekness1234 wrote: »The Probability is very high as India has two substantial countries and no strategic links to Israel.
forceful resistance? on international waters? are you serious?Geekness1234 wrote: »Second time:they knew that forceful resistance would result in armed response.
did you actually read it?Geekness1234 wrote: »Oil isn't strictly an middle eastern thing heres a good pic-http://wartard.blogspot.com/search?q=Libya scroll down a bit and you'll see.Libya, under Gaddafi, supplied 10% of the Euros oil (the reason why the French and British got concerned for [sic] humanitarian reasons) and one thing about Libyan oil is that it is especially 'sweet'. That means it only costs a dollar to refine a barrel as opposed to most other oils out there (barring Brent North Sea crude) with high sulphur content. Those Canadian tar sands the US is in love with right now are dirty and the pipeline they want to run to Texas means the US is really starting to get jittery about the future of suburban voters. If **** gets too expensive that voting block might finally go 'off reservation' and elect a guy the corporate ****s have not already bought.0 -
i agree, but the only way to win over fundamentalists would be to give them their share of the wealth that was robbed from them, and then to stop messing in their affairs ...since this would mean the loss of trillions, war is a cheaper easier solution as the cost of war is borne by the public, while the profit is kept by the few ...FreudianSlippers wrote: »In fairness 9/11 is a pretty piss poor justification for war in all circumstances. I think the world was slightly simpler then or maybe the patriotism blinded everyone.
You cannot fight terrorism conventionally, and war is the opposite of what they should actually do. A campaign to win over fundamentalists would have been more effective0 -
shadowninty wrote: »I never said I would support Iran getting nuclear weapons, based on the fact Israel has them. I merely understand why Iran desires them. Likewise, I would not support Saudi Arabia getting nukes, it is a medieval absolute monarchy.
If I was to pick one of the three to have nukes, it would be Israel every time. Its a modern developed democracy. However that doesn't mean I think they should have them.
Always worth remembering who Israel helped get nukes in the seventies and eighties.
Fair enough. Its worth noting that Israel maintains "nuclear ambiguity" as regards its own nuclear program, borne out of aggression, threats and several wars in the 60's and 70's. Also a by-product of the Cold War.0 -
to be fair israel is notorious for "ambiguity"Fair enough. Its worth noting that Israel maintains "nuclear ambiguity" as regards its own nuclear program,
aren't all nuclear programs developed for the same reason?borne out of aggression, threats and several wars in the 60's and 70's. Also a by-product of the Cold War.
well except for america since they were the first to have it and use it and wanted to keep it for themselves ...0 -
Advertisement
-
FreudianSlippers wrote: »In fairness 9/11 is a pretty piss poor justification for war in all circumstances. I think the world was slightly simpler then or maybe the patriotism blinded everyone.
You cannot fight terrorism conventionally, and war is the opposite of what they should actually do. A campaign to win over fundamentalists would have been more effective
3000 civilians of your country speceifically targeted and killed by an organisation acting with the consent and support of a foreign government is a :rolleyes: "piss poor justification"? Has there ever been a better one?0 -
i agree, but the only way to win over fundamentalists would be to give them their share of the wealth that was robbed from them, and then to stop messing in their affairs ...since this would mean the loss of trillions, war is a cheaper easier solution as the cost of war is borne by the public, while the profit is kept by the few ...
Robbed from them? Afghanistan has been one of the poorest nations on earth for all of recorded history. If you are refering to oil in the rest of the middle east I can assure you people sell it. The masochism exhibited by some here really strikes me - they are vehement that it must be something that WE did wrong, that no one else acts irrationally or violently unless the West in some way provokes them to do it, and that they will not return to acting like a respectable member of humanity untill these "wrongs" are righted. They cannot be whole heartedly condemned or attacked for this either, for whatever reason.
Its nice of you to try and guess at the motivations of al Qaeda and others, but for the rest of us its enough that they actually SAY why they do particular things.
Its interesting how people think the Afghanistan strategy was such a failure. However the fact is from a US attacks on US citizens aroudn the world are a fraction of what they were, particularly by groups in and around that area.
The goal to create a stable, modern democracy in Afghanistan was a pipedream from the start. It never existed there (except for MAYBE a year or two when they had the "right" government for the Soviets) and given the artifical nature of the state it never even should have even been attempted, it was and is a waste of money and lives. The goal should be for the Middle East and south east Asia to keep their extremism to themselves, and not export it. Anything else is an imposition, proven by how the democratic elections in Egypt are turning out. A liberal, equal humanist society is neither wanted nor needed there. If the Taliban were to have cracked down on Al Qaeda the world would be exactly as safe as it is today, and Afghanistan would be a miserable but stable place.
the Drone campaign has been incredibly succesful, even those opposed to it recognise the enormous difficulties that al Qaeda and the Taliban even ADMIT they are having because of it. And with little or no risk to Western troops.
The idea that it "radicalises" more Muslims is superflous - the threshold for radicalising people and causing violent protests around the world has been set remarkably low - drawing pictures is more than enough now a days.
People here continually claim "deradicalising" should have been the strategy following 9 11. How? Throw Israel to them, Im sure many wouldnt have a problem with that. Perhaps when they threaten over cartoons, something should be done to assuage them? Even if these things DID bring down the level of radicalism in the Muslim world, the enormous levels of cowardice and stupidity to even suggest it as an idea is staggering.
Regardless, those were and are NOT all the demands, Al qaeda have repeatedly stated their goal is a global islamic caliphate, and the very act of not being a specific type of Muslim is to punishable by death. Killing an American man, woman or child is to be lauded as a relgious imperative, according to the hardcore. "De radicalising" those with these ideas, when they were a protected organisation in an enemy nation - (Afhanistan pre invasion) who do not view it as something that needs to be changed -is not a possibility. Lovely word and idea though.0 -
Why not look from the point of view from other countries? Instead of the imperialists harking on about forbidding other countries getting nukes - they should instead get rid of theirs and all other nukes in the world.
So you disagree with the nuclear non proliferation treaty? Boy am I glad some of the people here are not in positions of any real power...0 -
it is a fact. and it is central to the argument.
yes
So the argument in favour of Iran having nuclear weapons, and you freely admit this, is that it annoys you that some of the people that try and stop them/fear them having them has them themselves?
That argument does not strike you as extremly childish, schoolyard type stuff given the massive stakes, the enormous potential for disaster, the icnredible complexity of the geo poltiics of the region and the history of nuclear weapons and the battle to stop them spreading?
There really should be a minimum standard for arguments on this thread. Could you imagine a debate in the CFR and some proffesors retort to nucelar porliferation is a footstomping "Its so UNFAIR!" :rolleyes:0 -
To go to war with two countries? To fight... terrorism?3000 civilians of your country speceifically targeted and killed by an organisation acting with the consent and support of a foreign government is a :rolleyes: "piss poor justification"? Has there ever been a better one?
Yep, piss poor.0 -
Advertisement
-
FreudianSlippers wrote: »To go to war with two countries? To fight... terrorism?
Yep, piss poor.
Didnt say anything about Iraq.
Gross simplification - to prevent a foreign government training, funding and abetting an organisation who's declared goal it is to kill Americans where ever they find them, had done so a few times in the past and had just done so to 1000's more. They still refused to crack down on operations. So defending your own citizens is now a piss poor reason for war? Not by the vast majority of peoples standards, thankfully.0 -
Good for you.Now stop with the "evil American capitalist pigs" Line.It's getting old.i know what you are trying to say. what i am saying is that you are wrong. i'll criticise those who need criticising, not make weak excuses for them like you do with america/israel ...
i'd hope so, but i have no idea what you mean.
if you think so, i disagree.
really, so they'd sit it out because of that ... if you say so.
forceful resistance? on international waters? are you serious?
did you actually read it?
If you have no idea what I mean that's your problem.
Why do you disagree with that,Davoxx?
Well they would try for as long as possible,assuming they weren't directly involved.
They knew the Israeli Navy would intercept them,so I believe they shouldn't have resisted.0 -
Geekness1234 wrote: »Good for you.Now stop with the "evil American capitalist pigs" Line.It's getting old.
Anyone that doesnt see them as the heart of evil are "apologists" or "making excuses" - I getting this all the time now. The fact that by any balanced view there are many worse abusers of human rights, and Iran is one of them, proves that peoples views are not motivated by some spectacular sense of moral justice for all, but by the base politics, pure and simple. Trying to find out what they are ACTUALLY railing against is harder to ascertain...
On the CT forums you will notice it becomes so irrational that even attacks on American citizens are their fault, either through direct government action or because it is the only reasonable reaction by another group. that people cant even see their own zeolotry in this regard is laughable.0 -
Didnt say anything about Iraq.
Gross simplification - to prevent a foreign government training, funding and abetting an organisation who's declared goal it is to kill Americans where ever they find them, had done so a few times in the past and had just done so to 1000's more. They still refused to crack down on operations. So defending your own citizens is now a piss poor reason for war? Not by the vast majority of peoples standards, thankfully.
They had other options. Had they provided even a shred of evidence to the Taliban that Bin Laden was behind the attacks, like they requested, they would have tried and probably imprisoned or executed Bin laden. (or at least brought him into the public sphere again open to assassination) But guess what? They didn't. And don't say they wouldn't have done it even with evidence. The Taliban knew America was on the warpath after 9/11 and would held no great love for Bin Laden had they been shown he was behind it.
And so they fell into Bin ladens trap, stuck in a never-ending war which has cost them far far more than they have gained.
EDIT: The offer was actually to hand him over to a third neutral country not to try him in Afganistan, but the point remains.
In fact a few days after the bombing started the Taliban offered to hand over Bin Laden without ANY EVIDENCE. http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2001/oct/17/afghanistan.terrorism11
Still America refused.0 -
Well said SamHarris,well said.Anyone that doesnt see them as the heart of evil are "apologists" or "making excuses" - I getting this all the time now. The fact that by any balanced view there are many worse abusers of human rights, and Iran is one of them, proves that peoples views are not motivated by some spectacular sense of moral justice for all, but by the base politics, pure and simple. Trying to find out what they are ACTUALLY railing against is harder to ascertain...
On the CT forums you will notice it becomes so irrational that even attacks on American citizens are their fault, either through direct government action or because it is the only reasonable reaction by another group. that people cant even see their own zeolotry in this regard is laughable.0 -
They had other options. Had they provided even a shred of evidence to the Taliban that Bin Laden was behind the attacks, like they requested, they would have tried and probably imprisoned or executed Bin laden. (or at least brought him into the public sphere again open to assassination) But guess what? They didn't. And don't say they wouldn't have done it even with evidence. The Taliban knew America was on the warpath after 9/11 and would held no great love for Bin Laden had they been shown he was behind it.
And so they fell into Bin ladens trap, stuck in a never-ending war which has cost them far far more than they have gained.
EDIT: The offer was actually to hand him over to a third neutral country not to try him in Afganistan, but the point remains.
In fact a few days after the bombing started the Taliban offered to hand over Bin Laden without ANY EVIDENCE. http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2001/oct/17/afghanistan.terrorism11
Still America refused.
Yes the Taliban were looking out for international justice :rolleyes: , terrified that the man who had, regardless of the evidence you feel was lacking, taken responsibility for many attacks on US civilians and military in the past.
Perhaps you would have a sliver of ground to stand on if it were the first attack or al Qaeda were coy about their goals or the Taliban denied their support. They were not, it was not and they do not.
The idea that the continued ignoring of Afghanistans sheltering of al qaeda was even an option in any reasonable sense following mutliple attacks and the ultimate wakeup call of 9 11 is insulting to anyone with an eye to being fairness. There was more than enough evidence for questioning and extradition (if you want to try and treat it like an ordinary "crime"), for past actions alone. The immediate evidence after it became clear who the hijackers were was, again, more than enough to point to the organisation and the region. The larger investigation proved it without a doubt, so if a new suspect had come to light, again the US might look impetous and unthinking. It did not and they do not.
I point blank refuse to get into a debate about who really did 9 11. I dont care if you think unicorns did it, just dont bring it into a poltical debate. PArticularly one about Irans nuclear program.
The demands were to stamp down on al Qaeda too. They are YET to say they will do that. If you cant see why after the attack it was time for the US to put a stop to organisations directly targeting them then you are very clearly unreasonably biased. I cant think of any nation I would put that stricture on.
If you still beleive Afghanistan was somehow a "made up" war for their enormos oil reserves :rolleyes: there is nothing that will ever convince you otherwise.
If they had "gained" anything tangible besides their own safety and the destruction of an enemy that struck again and again, for you and many like you that "gain" would become the reason for the war, regardless of what it was. Of this I have no doubt. Because there are none, the reasons for the war must be american imertousness or warmongering. You are so clearly casting about for negative motivations to support you view of the "zionist supporting US" as the bad guys and those poor Taliban as a people defending their rights its a joke.
That your world view is so squewed that you think the Taliban were merely looking out for the human rights of the head of a friendly organistation in a time of great turmoil, then Im not going to debate with you. Your reality and mine will have so little congruence that it would be pointless.
I do thank you for one thing though - you demonstrate wonderfully the mindset of those who believe Iran should have nuclear weapons. No one defends that right who merely look at the downs and upsides for the region and the world - the only people who hold this view are those that are so massively dogmatic about the region and world poltics as a whole that even something like the Afghan war is seen as some evil american initiative. Other halmarks of this ideology are doubts over 9 11 (again, very clearly motivated by politics, not facts) and an almost scary obsession with Israel, to the point of endorsing anything, no matter how damaging, if it so much as makes the uncomfortable.
Again, Im just glad these views are recognised for what they are by the vast majority and are therefore sidelined to the lunatic fringe in any more formal debate on policy.0 -
So you disagree with the nuclear non proliferation treaty? Boy am I glad some of the people here are not in positions of any real power...
No I don't. I also said "they should instead get rid of theirs and all other nukes in the world."Mitch Hedberg: "Rice is great if you're really hungry and want to eat two thousand of something."
0 -
-
I didnt quote you.
Regardless, you dont hold that position if you beleive Iran has a right to nuclear weapons.
Stop twisting my words. I stated that they (USA, etc.) should look at the point of view of other countries. I never said Iran should have nukes.
Get your facts right!Mitch Hedberg: "Rice is great if you're really hungry and want to eat two thousand of something."
0 -
Yes the Taliban were looking out for international justice :rolleyes: , terrified that the man who had, regardless of the evidence you feel was lacking, taken responsibility for many attacks on US civilians and military in the past.
Perhaps you would have a sliver of ground to stand on if it were the first attack or al Qaeda were coy about their goals or the Taliban denied their support. They were not, it was not and they do not.
The idea that the continued ignoring of Afghanistans sheltering of al qaeda was even an option in any reasonable sense following mutliple attacks and the ultimate wakeup call of 9 11 is insulting to anyone with an eye to being fairness. There was more than enough evidence for questioning and extradition (if you want to try and treat it like an ordinary "crime"), for past actions alone. The immediate evidence after it became clear who the hijackers were was, again, more than enough to point to the organisation and the region. The larger investigation proved it without a doubt, so if a new suspect had come to light, again the US might look impetous and unthinking. It did not and they do not.
I point blank refuse to get into a debate about who really did 9 11. I dont care if you think unicorns did it, just dont bring it into a poltical debate. PArticularly one about Irans nuclear program.
The demands were to stamp down on al Qaeda too. They are YET to say they will do that. If you cant see why after the attack it was time for the US to put a stop to organisations directly targeting them then you are very clearly unreasonably biased. I cant think of any nation I would put that stricture on.
If you still beleive Afghanistan was somehow a "made up" war for their enormos oil reserves :rolleyes: there is nothing that will ever convince you otherwise.
If they had "gained" anything tangible besides their own safety and the destruction of an enemy that struck again and again, for you and many like you that "gain" would become the reason for the war, regardless of what it was. Of this I have no doubt. Because there are none, the reasons for the war must be american imertousness or warmongering. You are so clearly casting about for negative motivations to support you view of the "zionist supporting US" as the bad guys and those poor Taliban as a people defending their rights its a joke.
That your world view is so squewed that you think the Taliban were merely looking out for the human rights of the head of a friendly organistation in a time of great turmoil, then Im not going to debate with you. Your reality and mine will have so little congruence that it would be pointless.
I do thank you for one thing though - you demonstrate wonderfully the mindset of those who believe Iran should have nuclear weapons. No one defends that right who merely look at the downs and upsides for the region and the world - the only people who hold this view are those that are so massively dogmatic about the region and world poltics as a whole that even something like the Afghan war is seen as some evil american initiative. Other halmarks of this ideology are doubts over 9 11 (again, very clearly motivated by politics, not facts) and an almost scary obsession with Israel, to the point of endorsing anything, no matter how damaging, if it so much as makes the uncomfortable.
Again, Im just glad these views are recognised for what they are by the vast majority and are therefore sidelined to the lunatic fringe in any more formal debate on policy.
Un-huh. Talk about going off on a tangent. I had only one point to make,like you I don't want to discuss who was behind 9/11 etc.
The Taliban were prepared to hand Bin Laden over, no conditions, no questions asked. Why didn't the US accept? What was the worst case scenario had the US accepted? Bombing stops for a week maybe? The Taliban change their mind? And then the bombing starts again.
Or maybe your worried about the training camps that would still be left behind? Well the US has shown it's self fairly effective at taking these out with drones and raids. Whatever way you look at there was no need to spend 10 years, another 2000 dead Americans, 20-50,000 dead civilians and almost 500 billion dollars.
I'm not arguing the US should have done nothing after 9/11, I'm just saying full scale invasion was not the best choice.0 -
Advertisement
-
Stop twisting my words. I stated that they (USA, etc.) should look at the point of view of other countries. I never said Iran should have nukes.
Get your facts right!
What are you talking about? I dont know how to make this clearere - I didnt quote you when you claimed I did. (boy thats embarrassing, read the last line :P )
Im sure the US does see it from Irans side, they also see if from THEIR side - a fanatical theocracy that routinely chants "death to America" and threatens constantly is seeking a doomsday weapon, according to most evidence, and the evidence they are following.
They also happen to have international law and (for the most part) "point of view" on their side.
Wait, my bad I see where yo uare refering to now, my apologies
0 -
Un-huh. Talk about going off on a tangent. I had only one point to make,like you I don't want to discuss who was behind 9/11 etc.
The Taliban were prepared to hand Bin Laden over, no conditions, no questions asked. Why didn't the US accept? What was the worst case scenario had the US accepted? Bombing stops for a week maybe? The Taliban change their mind? And then the bombing starts again.
Or maybe your worried about the training camps that would still be left behind? Well the US has shown it's self fairly effective at taking these out with drones and raids. Whatever way you look at there was no need to spend 10 years, another 2000 dead Americans, 20-50,000 dead civilians and almost 500 billion dollars.
I'm not arguing the US should have done nothing after 9/11, I'm just saying full scale invasion was not the best choice.
Well I was just addressing that one point you made. And yes, the training camps were what they were worried about.
At the time there was also the goal of not jsut destroying them but of building a vibrant democracy that respects international law. The facts and goals have changed since the invasion.
I dont doubt more owuld support your approach had the near impossibility of that outcome been seen.
However a VERY similiar approach was taken after the mbassy bombings, you can check this up yourself. OBL barely escaped, their operations were disrupted but quickly rebuilt with Taliban help.0 -
Well I was just addressing that one point you made. And yes, the training camps were what they were worried about.
At the time there was also the goal of not jsut destroying them but of building a vibrant democracy that respects international law. The facts and goals have changed since the invasion.
I dont doubt more owuld support your approach had the near impossibility of that outcome been seen.
However a VERY similiar approach was taken after the mbassy bombings, you can check this up yourself. OBL barely escaped, their operations were disrupted but quickly rebuilt with Taliban help.
A basic understanding of Afghan history would have shown them the impossibility of achieving their outcomes.0 -
A basic understanding of Afghan history would have shown them the impossibility of achieving their outcomes.
The belief that democracy can take root everywhere is still widely held. Afghan history is full of military defeats of ther nations, the US will not be militarily defeated it may not succeed in building a new soceity, however. The lessons are not the same.0 -
I'm not arguing the US should have done nothing after 9/11, I'm just saying full scale invasion was not the best choice.
Well it has officially left Iraq now. An Iraq that is democratic, poor infrastructure, poor electricity supply and rampant corruption and still violence. What was the achievement there apart from taking out Saddam? Libya did not need an invasion to take out Gadaffi. I suspect the reason was revenge for 9/11 and little else. Is the world safer from al-Queda? What do the Yanks really get from all this? Spending $500 billion on wars for what and it in massive debt to China and its own economy in a bad way.0 -
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hijackers_in_the_September_11_attacks
No worries, any time you need me to correct you, just ask!!!
CT Forum that way>>>>>>0 -
BlaasForRafa wrote: »And why would the US use a SLOWWWWW drone to overfly a sensitive area at low altitude when they know that Iran has pretty decent air defences? Why wouldn't the US use U-2 spy planes to overfly it at 70000 feet? The Iranian story dosen't add up if you use some critical questioning rather than just believe what they say as gospel.
The U2 spy plane is primarily used to supplement satellites and electronic listening tasks and both systems have their disadvantages for "spying". The U2 would be useful for one time flyoversbut thats about it. Just like satellites and because of the height they opearte at weather conditions have to be taken into account. Neither the U2 nor satellites would be optimum for lenghty covert operations and observation lenghty enough to monitor on the ground in real time as they are both constantly moving in one directions ( plane flying over once and satellites in orbit ) Satellites can be adjusted but there are only two types of orbit for such spying satellites and its difficult to do it. Both take pictures which are pretty much in flat two dimensional top view. They cant penetrate cloud cover and they cant "hover" over the target for any length of time. The U2 will eventually be replaced by the Global hawk system (drone) and each U2 flight the pilot runs the risk of disorientating decompression illnesses. Its a fairly limited "spying" unit. Only modern day drones have the ability to take detailed multi angled 3D views of ground targets/structures or people in realtion to those structures. They can also penetrate "buried" or camuflaged places of interest. So imo if the US wanted to take a close look at something inside in Iran it stands to reason for me anyway that they would attempt to use their most hi-tech system available (RQ170) I stand to be corrected on the above but that to me is why they use/used a high-tech drone and continue to use drones and not the U2-spy plan.0 -
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/07/world/middleeast/saudi-arabia-may-seek-nuclear-weapons-prince-says.html?_r=1
Just in case its not obvious enough to everyone that the argument that Iran should have nuclear weapons because Israel does is nothing but shortsighted childishness' that addresses little but their own political axe grinding.
I think we are all still waiting for an argument beyond that, and no, to the vast majority that is not the or even a major issue.0 -
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/07/world/middleeast/saudi-arabia-may-seek-nuclear-weapons-prince-says.html?_r=1
Just in case its not obvious enough to everyone that the argument that Iran should have nuclear weapons because Israel does is nothing but shortsighted childishness' that addresses little but their own political axe grinding.
I think we are all still waiting for an argument beyond that, and no, to the vast majority that is not the or even a major issue.
Simple question. Why does any country need nuclear weapons? If it can be justified for one country to have them, then others can justify for the same reasons.....which would be, I will hazard a guess, simply, protection. Its as simple as that.0 -
Advertisement
-
Simple question. Why does any country need nuclear weapons? If it can be justified for one country to have them, then others can justify for the same reasons.....which would be, I will hazard a guess, simply, protection. Its as simple as that.
There are a few external and internal forces pushing a nation towards and away from nuclear weapons, in some places stronger than others.
Some have them for historical reasons, the obvious example here being the US that had them before non proliferation was an idea. Alot of these nations - the legitamit owners according to international treaties - are slowly addressing these through dismantling treaties. The main factor in its slow speed is mistrust.
Factors like international prestige,for example Pakistan refers to theirs as the "crown Jewels".
They give an international clout in every way few other objects can - bar maybe massive oil reserves. It is not lost on the Iranians, who have delusions of being a superpower and the "rival/ alternative" to the US ,that every member of the UN SC are the legitimate owners of nuclear weapons.
It allows a flouting of other international rules, it is not merely "defence" it is near impregnability.
In Iran there is certainly a massive internal preassure from those who see Iran as, variously, the only defender of Islam and heir to an ancient power that deserves nuclear weapons to an extent that, say, Bulgaria does not.
They have made it very much a nationalist issue, both at home and abroad. Some other places have done the same. Pakistan again springs to mind. The one thing that makes it a "nation" in some peopels opinion is their citizens near universal support and pride for the nuclear weapons program.
Other obvious internal preasures include the cementing of power of an authotarian regime. The threat of its use or of them falling into the "wrong" hands means massive internal dissent becomes much easier to justify stamping down very hard, then their is the obvious threat of their use on the rebel forces themselves should a regime feel like it has nothing to lose. Another historical example would be aparthied South Africa that had a similiar plan.
Im sure I could think of more could I be bothered, but my point is made that this is yet another gross oversimplification - "Defence". Simplification is all I ever get, however, when debatign certain foregin policies on this forum. Yet to have a reasonable discussion that involved Israel, nearly the same with the US :rolleyes:
The idea that every nation has a "right" to nuclear weapons because the reasons they give for wanting them are the same as others gave/give(who did not have the right to the weapons themselves regardless) is a justification that only exists in the minds of the politically and legally illiterate.
It is no coincidence that most that support this view on this forum and elsewhere are nearly to a man CTers, convinced of Western/American/zionist evil and/or rabid leftists. Like it or not there is clearly very good reasons why it is only supported by this small, almost universally mis informed or self deceptive, political fringe - because the argument is so incredibly weak, unless you already had your mind made up upon hearing who opposes Iran. For some that is enough for them to aquire a doomsday weapon.0 -
People should watch the republican debates. Its a bunch of extremist nutters wanting to control the largest military on earth... Yet we worry about the iranian backwater who dont even have icbm's..0
-
-
can you link me to the quote on this, i think you misinterpreted what i said.So the argument in favour of Iran having nuclear weapons, and you freely admit this, is that it annoys you that some of the people that try and stop them/fear them having them has them themselves?
well if it a childish argument you should be able to counter it easily?That argument does not strike you as extremly childish, schoolyard type stuff given the massive stakes, the enormous potential for disaster, the icnredible complexity of the geo poltiics of the region and the history of nuclear weapons and the battle to stop them spreading?
UNFAIR!"
it's a bit to convenient to be calling it a childish argument when all you present it are weaker arguments of the same vein.
the size if the stakes does not influence the argument. it is extremely naive to think that higher 'stakes' some how change logic and factually incorrect ... arguments here have fallen ...
yeah you are right, could you imagine in court contesting a law that allowed only males and females not to, how childish you'd look with an argument of fairness ...There really should be a minimum standard for arguments on this thread. Could you imagine a debate in the CFR and some proffesors retort to nucelar porliferation is a footstomping "Its so UNFAIR!"
but i agree with you the quality of counter arguments is pathetic, i mean "it's childish, so there" is not a well thought out and constructed counter argument ... jeez0 -
i wonder why? i guess people who are robbed from are only rich ... or are you saying that after being robbed you have to be rich?Robbed from them? Afghanistan has been one of the poorest nations on earth for all of recorded history.
what sort of stupid argument is that?
yeah having the same law for all and saying it should be fair is a weak and childish argument ...
huh? what is your point? WE? who is we? are you an american?If you are refering to oil in the rest of the middle east I can assure you people sell it. The masochism exhibited by some here really strikes me - they are vehement that it must be something that WE did wrong, that no one else acts irrationally or violently unless the West in some way provokes them to do it, and that they will not return to acting like a respectable member of humanity untill these "wrongs" are righted. They cannot be whole heartedly condemned or attacked for this either, for whatever reason.
it's nice if you to think that your guess is any better than mine.Its nice of you to try and guess at the motivations of al Qaeda and others, but for the rest of us its enough that they actually SAY why they do particular things.
what did al qaeda actually say?
what did they say about 911 in the first place?
what did saddam say about wmd?
what did bush say?
good thing you take words at face value ... maybe it you were not biased and took all words at face value rather than selective ones to back up you incorrect and misguided sense of 'justice' ...Its interesting how people think the Afghanistan strategy was such a failure. However the fact is from a US attacks on US citizens aroudn the world are a fraction of what they were, particularly by groups in and around that area.
The goal to create a stable, modern democracy in Afghanistan was a pipedream from the start. It never existed there (except for MAYBE a year or two when they had the "right" government for the Soviets) and given the artifical nature of the state it never even should have even been attempted, it was and is a waste of money and lives. The goal should be for the Middle East and south east Asia to keep their extremism to themselves, and not export it. Anything else is an imposition, proven by how the democratic elections in Egypt are turning out. A liberal, equal humanist society is neither wanted nor needed there. If the Taliban were to have cracked down on Al Qaeda the world would be exactly as safe as it is today, and Afghanistan would be a miserable but stable place.
the Drone campaign has been incredibly succesful, even those opposed to it recognise the enormous difficulties that al Qaeda and the Taliban even ADMIT they are having because of it. And with little or no risk to Western troops.
The idea that it "radicalises" more Muslims is superflous - the threshold for radicalising people and causing violent protests around the world has been set remarkably low - drawing pictures is more than enough now a days.
People here continually claim "deradicalising" should have been the strategy following 9 11. How? Throw Israel to them, Im sure many wouldnt have a problem with that. Perhaps when they threaten over cartoons, something should be done to assuage them? Even if these things DID bring down the level of radicalism in the Muslim world, the enormous levels of cowardice and stupidity to even suggest it as an idea is staggering.
Regardless, those were and are NOT all the demands, Al qaeda have repeatedly stated their goal is a global islamic caliphate, and the very act of not being a specific type of Muslim is to punishable by death. Killing an American man, woman or child is to be lauded as a relgious imperative, according to the hardcore. "De radicalising" those with these ideas, when they were a protected organisation in an enemy nation - (Afhanistan pre invasion) who do not view it as something that needs to be changed -is not a possibility. Lovely word and idea though.
wow ... just wow ...
so you just hate muslims and then claim that my 'fairness' is childish in the real world? what do you call a person who discriminates based on religion, race or creed?
you just want the american or 'your' (based on 'we' above) goal of a global capitalistic american caliphate, and the very act of not being a specific type of american to punishable by death. Killing an non american man, woman or child is to be lauded as a patriotic imperative, according to the hardcore.0 -
yay me!!Geekness1234 wrote: »Good for you.
no, you stop with bad arguments ..Geekness1234 wrote: »Now stop with the "evil American capitalist pigs" Line.
it's still correct though.Geekness1234 wrote: »It's getting old.
my problem is that you are implying that i am incorrect, even though you don't comprehend my argument ..Geekness1234 wrote: »If you have no idea what I mean that's your problem.
with what that you are incorrectly attacking my point while not presenting a valid argument against mine?Geekness1234 wrote: »Why do you disagree with that,Davoxx?
that should be obvious ...
assume what you want ..Geekness1234 wrote: »Well they would try for as long as possible,assuming they weren't directly involved.
huh? next you'll say to the girl who was raped, that she knew she would get raped ...Geekness1234 wrote: »They knew the Israeli Navy would intercept them,so I believe they shouldn't have resisted.
are you honestly defending ILLEGAL actions by saying "they knew the other side was criminal"...
are you honestly defending ILLEGAL actions by saying "they knew the other side was criminal"...Geekness1234 wrote: »If you have no idea what I mean that's your problem.0 -
Advertisement
-
ditto ... if they were the people you like, we'd all be speaking american ...So you disagree with the nuclear non proliferation treaty? Boy am I glad some of the people here are not in positions of any real power...So the argument in favour of Iran having nuclear weapons, and you freely admit this, is that it annoys you that some of the people that try and stop them/fear them having them has them themselves?
That argument does not strike you as extremly childish, schoolyard type stuff given the massive stakes, the enormous potential for disaster, the icnredible complexity of the geo poltiics of the region and the history of nuclear weapons and the battle to stop them spreading?
There really should be a minimum standard for arguments on this thread. Could you imagine a debate in the CFR and some proffesors retort to nucelar porliferation is a footstomping "Its so UNFAIR!" :rolleyes:
:rolleyes:
so why america and israel are allowed to have them?0 -
-
it's a shame it is wrong, not that any of you guys understand thatGeekness1234 wrote: »Well said SamHarris,well said.
your tears say more than any real evidence could ...0 -
-
can you link me to the quote on this, i think you misinterpreted what i said.
Its called paraphrasing. If you have another argument, knock yourself out and present it. You are yet to address the reasons you are right in any real way beyond this.well if it a childish argument you should be able to counter it easily?
it's a bit to convenient to be calling it a childish argument when all you present it are weaker arguments of the same vein.
Really? I dont think you read my posts then.the size if the stakes does not influence the argument. it is extremely naive to think that higher 'stakes' some how change logic and factually incorrect ... arguments here have fallen ...
No, higher stakes make arguments based purely on you thinking it would be more "fair" have far less traction. Simple.yeah you are right, could you imagine in court contesting a law that allowed only males and females not to, how childish you'd look with an argument of fairness ...
Its not local law its international law. Secondly, a crap analogy, it is much more like could you imagine a law that gave a small number of people powers that everyone did not have the right to. Well. Could you? Think real hard.but i agree with you the quality of counter arguments is pathetic, i mean "it's childish, so there" is not a well thought out and constructed counter argument ... jeez
No I pointed out why it was childish, its gross over simplification and total lack of any engagment with any of the reasons why it is a bad idea. I also that international law does not agree with your idea that Iran should be allowed nuclear weapons because Israel has them.0 -
Advertisement
-
-
not that is america .. and the cia ...Yes the Taliban were looking out for international justice ,
tears are all the evidence you need ... awhhhterrified that the man who had, regardless of the evidence you feel was lacking, taken responsibility for many attacks on US civilians and military in the past.
so justice only needs evidence when you've committed the crime ... nice argument ... not childish in the least ...
perhaps you could throw stones if america was innocent before this, ask the cia ...Perhaps you would have a sliver of ground to stand on if it were the first attack or al Qaeda were coy about their goals or the Taliban denied their support. They were not, it was not and they do not.
but it's okay for america to kill people on other countries ...
al qaeda consider the cia a terrorist organization (and there's plenty of evidence to support that view). and america is harbouring them, so you know ... fairness and all thatThe idea that the continued ignoring of Afghanistans sheltering of al qaeda was even an option in any reasonable sense following mutliple attacks and the ultimate wakeup call of 9 11 is insulting to anyone with an eye to being fairness. There was more than enough evidence for questioning and extradition (if you want to try and treat it like an ordinary "crime"), for past actions alone. The immediate evidence after it became clear who the hijackers were was, again, more than enough to point to the organisation and the region. The larger investigation proved it without a doubt, so if a new suspect had come to light, again the US might look impetous and unthinking. It did not and they do not.I point blank refuse to get into a debate about who really did 9 11. I dont care if you think unicorns did it, just dont bring it into a poltical debate. PArticularly one about Irans nuclear program.
you give an argument based on those allegedly responsible for 9 11 and then refuse to get into a debate about it? imagine that in a debate, putting your hands on your ears and shouting "i'm not listening, i'm not listening!". i don't care if you think that the lives of afghans or iraqis are less important that those of americans or that the only way for world peace is killing non-americans, just don't bring it into a political debate
i don't think i need to bother replying to the rest of your post ...0 -
What are you talking about? I dont know how to make this clearere - I didnt quote you when you claimed I did. (boy thats embarrassing, read the last line :P )
Im sure the US does see it from Irans side, they also see if from THEIR side - a fanatical theocracy that routinely chants "death to America" and threatens constantly is seeking a doomsday weapon, according to most evidence, and the evidence they are following.
They also happen to have international law and (for the most part) "point of view" on their side.
Wait, my bad I see where yo uare refering to now, my apologies
ahh now american has international law on their side, just like with iraq? oh wait they didn't back then ... funny how they care now ...
(boy that's embarrassing, read the last line
) 0 -
except when the cia are involvedThe belief that democracy can take root everywhere is still widely held. Afghan history is full of military defeats of ther nations, the US will not be militarily defeated it may not succeed in building a new soceity, however. The lessons are not the same. hint hint iran 0 -
-
what has that short-sighted childishness point got to do with anything?http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/07/world/middleeast/saudi-arabia-may-seek-nuclear-weapons-prince-says.html?_r=1
Just in case its not obvious enough to everyone that the argument that Iran should have nuclear weapons because Israel does is nothing but shortsighted childishness' that addresses little but their own political axe grinding.
I think we are all still waiting for an argument beyond that, and no, to the vast majority that is not the or even a major issue.
i know we are still waiting for a valid argument beyond "lets ignore israel" ...0 -
depends if you are israel or not right?There are a few external and internal forces pushing a nation towards and away from nuclear weapons, in some places stronger than others.
and selective adherence to laws and treaties ...Some have them for historical reasons, the obvious example here being the US that had them before non proliferation was an idea. Alot of these nations - the legitamit owners according to international treaties - are slowly addressing these through dismantling treaties. The main factor in its slow speed is mistrust.
and american refers to them as justice?Factors like international prestige,for example Pakistan refers to theirs as the "crown Jewels".
and it will lose clout if everyone has them, is that what scares you?They give an international clout in every way few other objects can - bar maybe massive oil reserves.
why delusions? because they are not and american ally?It is not lost on the Iranians, who have delusions of being a superpower and the "rival/ alternative" to the US ,that every member of the UN SC are the legitimate owners of nuclear weapons.
finally you admit that usa and israel cherry pick international rules/laws, but i'm sure you'll have an excuse ...It allows a flouting of other international rules, it is not merely "defence" it is near impregnability.
what none-sense are you spewing? link to where iran says they want nukes ... getting sick of you propaganda nonsense ...In Iran there is certainly a massive internal preassure from those who see Iran as, variously, the only defender of Islam and heir to an ancient power that deserves nuclear weapons to an extent that, say, Bulgaria does not.
They have made it very much a nationalist issue, both at home and abroad. Some other places have done the same. Pakistan again springs to mind. The one thing that makes it a "nation" in some peopels opinion is their citizens near universal support and pride for the nuclear weapons program.
smiley face.
huh?Other obvious internal preasures include the cementing of power of an authotarian regime. The threat of its use or of them falling into the "wrong" hands means massive internal dissent becomes much easier to justify stamping down very hard, then their is the obvious threat of their use on the rebel forces themselves should a regime feel like it has nothing to lose. Another historical example would be aparthied South Africa that had a similiar plan.
incorrect simplifications is all you've offered, as you can't be bothered to argue facts .. but your tears say more than any facts every could ...Im sure I could think of more could I be bothered, but my point is made that this is yet another gross oversimplification - "Defence". Simplification is all I ever get, however, when debatign certain foregin policies on this forum. Yet to have a reasonable discussion that involved Israel, nearly the same with the US
all animals are equal but some are more equal that others ... yeah legally illiterate ...The idea that every nation has a "right" to nuclear weapons because the reasons they give for wanting them are the same as others gave/give(who did not have the right to the weapons themselves regardless) is a justification that only exists in the minds of the politically and legally illiterate.
smiley face.
those who are right and well, you can figure out your resultIt is no coincidence that most that support this view
gross generalization no? stick to arguing with facts, well, tears ...on this forum and elsewhere are nearly to a man CTers
gross generalization no? stick to arguing with facts ..., convinced of Western/American/zionist evil and/or rabid leftists.
gross generalization no? stick to arguing ..Like it or not there is clearly very good reasons why it is only supported by this small
gross generalization, almost universally mis informed or self deceptive, political fringe -
dittobecause the argument is so incredibly weak,
facts?unless you already had your mind made up upon hearing who opposes Iran.
for others it enough for them not realise the difference in doomsday devices and nuclear device ... like america used and israel have ... smiley face.For some that is enough for them to aquire a doomsday weapon.0 -
-
i wonder why? i guess people who are robbed from are only rich ... or are you saying that after being robbed you have to be rich?
what sort of stupid argument is that?
What? So you dont feel like answering the question? Yes thats exactly what I said, your powers of comprehension are staggering.yeah having the same law for all and saying it should be fair is a weak and childish argument ...
It is fair, Iran is in the same boat as nearly every other nation on earth.
Im sure you would defend Israels right to nuclear weapons vociferously if their positions were reversed now? :rolleyes:
The same law irrespective of population, history, policability and practicality? Nope, not on the international stage. Your understanding of how the UN functions and why and how the NPT was brought in is very clearly lacking. Do a little more research beyond "Everyone should have nucelar weapons if anyone has them!".huh? what is your point? WE? who is we? are you an american?
Nope, it was a slip and more in reference to the West. You do realise Ireland was in the UK when it created an empire, UNDER the UK, and therefore would bear some responsibility if one were to consider Western imperialism as the cause for alot of the problems? Thats a rehtorical question, just so you can go read up before you keep thinnking about everything having everything to do with someone else.
Ha! this question is funny though, I can almost see you brushing off your copy of "the protocols of the elders of Zion" and checking if I was also Jewish.it's nice if you to think that your guess is any better than mine.
what did al qaeda actually say?
Yes. Therefore it was not a guess. Though I have absolutly no doubt my guess would be far better than yours given that you do not even know that by its political nature OF COURSE they want people to know why they do what they do.what did they say about 911 in the first place?
what did saddam say about wmd?
what did bush say?
Conspiracy theory forum is that way => I point blank refuse to discuss who you think did 9 11. I dont care.
Saddam remained ambiguos and would not allow weapons inspectors full access, because as he later said at his trial he believed that if Iran knew he had fully dismantled he owuld be very vulnerable, he also thought he was calling an American bluff on the threat of attack.
I doubt you knew that, but then you are learning alot here I feel. Unfortunatly I am getting nothing out of this as you are not even debating a point, or the point of the thread. Can you see that?good thing you take words at face value ... maybe it you were not biased and took all words at face value rather than selective ones to back up you incorrect and misguided sense of 'justice' ...
Yes Im sure al Qaeda are just joking when they release their reasons for various attacks or beheadings. Oh those guys! Luckily we have peopel like you to read between the lines enough to see that they are infact CIA agents!/ Mossad!/ Jews!
Selective? What are you even saying? Are you implying that, to you, they are not really that bad of a bunch of guys? I dont care if you do and have no idea what this has to do with Irans nuclear weapons.wow ... just wow ...
so you just hate muslims and then claim that my 'fairness' is childish in the real world? what do you call a person who discriminates based on religion, race or creed?
Religion and Race are two very very different things. Discriminating on each ground has different terms (Soemthing else you learned! Yay!) Judging a religioun to a secular humanist is entirelly acceptable. If you wish to discuss it again and the effects it has on its adherents, you can start a new thread in the Atheism forum. No one but the CTers were convinced ofIslams purely peaceful nature last time, which is very very telling but you can knock yoursefl out and give it another shot if you want.
I do not hate Muslims, I do recongise that many many groups use Islam as justification for massive violence and repression every day, that is a fact. Again, you can start your own thread if you wish.you just want the american or 'your' (based on 'we' above) goal of a global capitalistic american caliphate, and the very act of not being a specific type of american to punishable by death. Killing an non american man, woman or child is to be lauded as a patriotic imperative, according to the hardcore.
Wow. Now Im trying to kill "specific types" of Americans :rolleyes:.
You know I really dont think you are here to have a reasonabe discussion about global poltics? Maybe you should bring these views to the CT forum, it will go down a bomb there (HA!).
Or you can bring it up at your next rally :rolleyes:0 -
what has that short-sighted childishness point got to do with anything?
i know we are still waiting for a valid argument beyond "lets ignore israel" ...
You honestly cant remember my post in which I pointed out many more reasons? Short memory. Not suprised. Look back in your own time, no rush.0 -
Advertisement
Advertisement