North Korea & Iran, two states in need of "regime change"
- Thread starter fuji
- Start date
Iran has a democratically elected government, though they cheated on the last elections. It still has better democratic representation then most countries in the area. That's a fact.You're bored with getting your ass kicked by facts and logic. You're bored with having to defend inane and stupid positions like "Iran is a democracy".
Now if you want to discuss the real reasons you would like to invade Iran, maybe we can get somewhere, but this back and forth biz is really boring.
Here you, I fully believe that the real reason you are backing killing thousands and thousands in a democratic country is that you covet (on behalf of your neo-con buddies) resources. Iran has one of the largest natural gas deposits, large uranium sources and by 2025 it is estimated that Iran and Russia will hold about 50% of the remaining oil resources left in the world.
Discuss that, instead.
Or how about this one.
Iraq has been revealed (wikileaks) to be more afraid of Saudi Arabia then Iran. Saudi Arabia has also been revealed to be the largest funder of Al Qaeda. Shouldn't Saudi therefore be the target? Instead the US keeps giving them more and more weapons? Should we mention that three letter word again, oil?
Or finally.
Is AIPAC worse then Assange? Wikileaks have made public secret documents, but at the expense of no one country and not for monetary gain. AIPAC was caught and is still fighting a 2003 espianage charge, for stealing secret US info about the Iran nuclear industry. AIPAC is a spying organization, whereas wikileaks are functioning like the media should be.
I would rather invade a country for this reason than for any other. At least resource war for resource war's sake is honest and natural. Human (or any evolutionary creature) nature is to compete for resources. If resource war could be waged EFFECTIVELY with reasonable cost efficiency I see no reason why it is not a viable option. No great nation or empire has ever risen, existed or lasted without securing external resources. All great human accomplishments of arts, technology, culture, science etc etc have come out of great nations, great empires.Now if you want to discuss the real reasons you would like to invade Iran, maybe we can get somewhere, but this back and forth biz is really boring.
Here you, I fully believe that the real reason you are backing killing thousands and thousands in a democratic country is that you covet (on behalf of your neo-con buddies) resources. Iran has one of the largest natural gas deposits, large uranium sources and by 2025 it is estimated that Iran and Russia will hold about 50% of the remaining oil resources left in the world.
Discuss that, instead.
Had the British empire never risen I doubt very much the world would be a better place today. And they were unashamed resource rapists if ever there were.
That said, I support economic conquest of resource-rich areas as a much cleaner and politically viable strategy. If only we had made the effort to make and keep our economy as much of a sledgehammer world-killer as our military...
China seems to have the idea. Army of sufficient size to deter Hitler-style psycho land-grabbing and ECONOMY to do the real fighting and conquering. Strategically undervalued Yuan is a vastly superior weapon than 2-3 dirty little WWII vintage N. Korean nukes that may or may not exist/function. Holding enough debt of your strategic enemy to grind his economy to an instant halt at whim is a far more dangerous weapon of mass destruction then a little 10kt tactical nuke on a scud from Iran.
No it doesn't. It has fake elections in which all the candidates are pre-approved by the Supreme Tyrant. You can't run for election in Iran without the express consent of the Supreme Tyrant via his little Guardian Council clique of dictator loving, democracy hating clerics.Iran has a democratically elected government
Turkey and Israel have democratic elections. Iran has fake elections. Ok, it actually bothers to run fake elections, which makes it better than countries that don't even bother to fake it--if that's what you mean.It still has better democratic representation then most countries in the area. That's a fact.
My reason is plain: Iran cannot have nuclear weapons, and safeguards need to be in place to ensure that it does not. If Iran agrees to implement the Additional Protocol I see no reason why it should be invaded. If it refuses to do so, it needs to be bombed into the stone age. It's a pretty stark choice.Now if you want to discuss the real reasons you would like to invade Iran
Yes there a variety of other reprehensible things that Iran is doing, but nothing else that challenges world security on such a massive scale. Iran's sponsorship of terrorism can be met with blockades, sanctions, inspections, and good old fashion police work--no need for a war on that front.
But nuclear weapons are game changing--they would enable Hezbollah or Islamic Jihad or any other terror group supported by Iran to blow away a major world city, or maybe a few major world cities. Not acceptable.
Let me put your mind at ease.My reason is plain: Iran cannot have nuclear weapons, and safeguards need to be in place to ensure that it does not. If Iran agrees to implement the Additional Protocol I see no reason why it should be invaded. If it refuses to do so, it needs to be bombed into the stone age. It's a pretty stark choice.
Under the current inspection plan, even without the additional protocols, Iran's uranium supplies are being fully inspected and no material has been found to be diverted to bomb building. There, no present worries even without the additional protocols. Now you can go back to yelling about Rob Ford some more.
Nope. Under the current regime inspectors visit Iranian sites sometimes not more than once a year, and the Iranians have often got months of lead time. More than enough time to play a little shell game.Under the current inspection plan, even without the additional protocols, Iran's uranium supplies are being fully inspected and no material has been found to be diverted to bomb building
The ONLY way to be sure is to have short-notice inspections on any site.
You plainly don't understand what the Additional Protocol represents, there is a reason why the UN SC has required that Iran implement it.
Sure I do.You plainly don't understand what the Additional Protocol represents, there is a reason why the UN SC has required that Iran implement it.
The additional protocol was a voluntary addition, which Iran agreed to until the US started dicking them around. Iran pulled out, and then the US had the IAEA write up a report which went to the UN SC where they decided then that the additional protocol should be required. After Iran pulled out.
So, you still want to bomb them into the stone age because they are non-compliant with an agreement they didn't ratify?
Does that mean that Israel should be bombed into the stone age because they haven't ever signed on to the NPT and have never had any inspecitons? That sounds fairly even.
Yup. Because if they don't ratify that agreement, there will be no way to be sure they aren't building bombs for terrorists. The AP mandates short-notice inspections which are the ONLY thing that will guarantee Iran's nuclear program remains peaceful.So, you still want to bomb them into the stone age because they are non-compliant with an agreement they didn't ratify?
Israel's not likely to give nuclear weapons to terrorists, unlike Iran.Does that mean that Israel should be bombed into the stone age because they haven't ever signed on to the NPT and have never had any inspecitons? That sounds fairly even.
Isn't forcing someone to ratify an agreement that they don't want to a lot like torturing someone for a confession?Yup. Because if they don't ratify that agreement, there will be no way to be sure they aren't building bombs for terrorists. The AP mandates short-notice inspections which are the ONLY thing that will guarantee Iran's nuclear program remains peaceful.
Israel's not likely to give nuclear weapons to terrorists, unlike Iran.
Where is your respect for the rule of law now?
No, forcing a nation to sign a treaty that includes security guarantees for its neighbours is nothing like torturing a confession out of a person. Your idea that there is an analogy between acts between the officials of entire nations, and individual persons, is just completely stupid.Isn't forcing someone to ratify an agreement that they don't want to a lot like torturing someone for a confession?
Where is your respect for the rule of law now?
In any case Iran has been ordered to comply by the UN SC in multiple resolutions, resolutions which made reference to the use of force.
So the concept of sovereign nations is foreign to you?No, forcing a nation to sign a treaty that includes security guarantees for its neighbours is nothing like torturing a confession out of a person. Your idea that there is an analogy between acts between the officials of entire nations, and individual persons, is just completely stupid.
In any case Iran has been ordered to comply by the UN SC in multiple resolutions, resolutions which made reference to the use of force.
Wrong.Israel's not likely to give nuclear weapons to terrorists, unlike Iran.
Israel has been caught out that it was trying to sell nuclear weapons to South Africa while it was running Apartheid. Probably wanted to keep them around to learn some tricks. Speaking of which, how do you feel about the new migrant worker camps being put up in the desert in Israel? Remind you of any ghetto's?
http://www.presstv.ir/detail/153082.html
So Israel has been proven to be worse then Iran as far as responsible actions with nuclear weapons so far. Should we bomb them into the stone age?
The notion that Israel ever tried to sell nuclear weapons to anybody is disputed. The Guardian wrote that, based on a very selective interpretation of one letter the nature of which is also disputed. so a lot of people disagree with your claim. More importantly though South Africa is not now nor ever has been a terrorist state, however repressive it may have been in the past, it never engaged in state sponsored terrorism.Wrong.
Israel has been caught out that it was trying to sell nuclear weapons to South Africa while it was running Apartheid.
Iran is a state sponsor of terrorism. It has in the past sponsored the hijaacking of airplanes, bombing of civilian facilities, assassinations of civilians, attacks on civilian populations, and so on. It's a different ballgame than a rational acting nation like Israel or South Africa or South Korea, which view nuclear weapons as a deterrent against an armed invasion.
Now I'm really laughing.The notion that Israel ever tried to sell nuclear weapons to anybody is disputed. The Guardian wrote that, based on a very selective interpretation of one letter the nature of which is also disputed. so a lot of people disagree with your claim. More importantly though South Africa is not now nor ever has been a terrorist state, however repressive it may have been in the past, it never engaged in state sponsored terrorism.
Iran is a state sponsor of terrorism. It has in the past sponsored the hijaacking of airplanes, bombing of civilian facilities, assassinations of civilians, attacks on civilian populations, and so on. It's a different ballgame than a rational acting nation like Israel or South Africa or South Korea, which view nuclear weapons as a deterrent against an armed invasion.
You actually are trying to say that apartheid South Africa is morally superior to Iran?
(well, maybe I'm not so surprised, since you support apartheid Israel)
And here you, just to refresh your memory.
Israel very much tried to sell South Africa the bomb.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/may/23/israel-south-africa-nuclear-weaponsSecret South African documents reveal that Israel offered to sell nuclear warheads to the apartheid regime, providing the first official documentary evidence of the state's possession of nuclear weapons.
The "top secret" minutes of meetings between senior officials from the two countries in 1975 show that South Africa's defence minister, PW Botha, asked for the warheads and Shimon Peres, then Israel's defence minister and now its president, responded by offering them "in three sizes". The two men also signed a broad-ranging agreement governing military ties between the two countries that included a clause declaring that "the very existence of this agreement" was to remain secret.
The documents, uncovered by an American academic, Sasha Polakow-Suransky, in research for a book on the close relationship between the two countries, provide evidence that Israel has nuclear weapons despite its policy of "ambiguity" in neither confirming nor denying their existence.
No I didn't say anything like that at all.You actually are trying to say that apartheid South Africa is morally superior to Iran?
The Guardian's interpretation is selective and disputed. In any case, South Africa was never a state sponsor of terrorism. It was a very repressive and brutal regime, but it did not threaten other countries.Israel very much tried to sell South Africa the bomb.
Please show me where Iran has threatened any country.The Guardian's interpretation is selective and disputed. In any case, South Africa was never a state sponsor of terrorism. It was a very repressive and brutal regime, but it did not threaten other countries.
And I want specific threats, not the oft repeated, oft mis-quoted "Israel will disappear from the map" quote from that ass Ahmajinidaddy.
The quote is neither misquoted nor taken out of context, however, haveing the potential to produce nuclear weapons pits Iran in the context of being a threat. And yes I am aware tht they don't actually have the weapons yet.. please note the yet part. That is what the international comunity is trying to prevent.Please show me where Iran has threatened any country.
And I want specific threats, not the oft repeated, oft mis-quoted "Israel will disappear from the map" quote from that ass Ahmajinidaddy.
You mean like kidnapping people, blowing up tourists, blowing up army bases, hijaacking airplanes, things like that? You're seriously not aware of the list of terrorist attacks carried out by Hezbollah and Islamic Jihad?Please show me where Iran has threatened any country.
That's just routine stock and trade for Iran's proxies.
Wait until they have a nuclear bomb.
The quote is neither misquoted nor taken out of context, however, haveing the potential to produce nuclear weapons pits Iran in the context of being a threat. And yes I am aware tht they don't actually have the weapons yet.. please note the yet part. That is what the international comunity is trying to prevent.
There you have it.You mean like blah, blah, blah.
They have no weapons.
Are under inspections to confirm they aren't using uranium for weapons.
The UN SC is holding them to an agreement they didn't ratify.
And they didn't threaten anyone, other then one oft used misquote.
