News Stories

[Xellos-_^]

porn, less offensive then pork in that neck of the woods.

[SaintessHeart]

Reminds of how a moderate once ranted on his FB about an extremist telling him he would go to hell, while the latter is advertising "hot sexy Lebanese/Persian women" on his page.

Porn will fix them alright.

[Vallen Chaos Valiant]

Originally Posted by Xellos-_^

the whole deal is suppose to slow Iran acquiring nukes.

Althought i don't get why iran having nukes would be bad. No country since ww2 has use nukes and with good reason since the first country to use them after the US would get bomb to oblivion by everyone else. Iranian or Persians i like to call them are NOT suicidal. The nuke is for the prestige of being a nuclear power and as a deterrent against the US (with good reason).

Get Iran to open its market and flood it with porn.

There is one line of thought that doesn't make the US look good. A very convincing theory is that the US of A want as few nations to go nuclear as possible because they want to reserve the option of military invasions.

i.e. the reason nuclear weapons was justified to begin with; as a deterrent. The US of A need to make sure Iran could be invaded.

Now, so far no full military invasion of a Nuclear Power had happened. But that could just be because nuclear power is so new historically. Pakistan and India argue and kill each other once in a while, but no true invasions. North Korea just might collapse one day and that might be the exception when someone go in to clean up the mess.

At the moment, if one genuinely fear an unstable nuclear-armed nation with a large Muslim population, the focus should be on Pakistan. But obviously the US doesn't seem to be afraid. So to fear Iran but not Pakistan, just seem irrational.

[Ithekro]

Pakistan has a premade target (India) and did not sign the NPT. Iran did sign the treaty and has multiple targets that are friendly with the US (or the US itself if they could manage it). Plus can use said weaponry as a lever on trade in the region. Pakistan does not have the leverage to all out block trade routes to a region.

[Mentar]

This is all about Israel wanting to remain the only country in the middle east with nuclear arms. It's _this_ paired with American protection which allows Israel to pursue whatever they want with total impunity. Like their attempt to annex more land via illegal settlements.

Which is why it's my personal opinion that the middle east would be less festering if Iran _was_ in possession of nukes. Because then, Israel would be FORCED to actively pursue peace solutions instead of forcefully blocking them while pretending to do something different (see Netanyahu's famous post-election make-believe flip-flop on the palestinians).

[Ithekro]

One thing in Israel's favor is that they too did not sign the NPT (along with India and Pakistan).

[JokerD]

Originally Posted by Vallen Chaos Valiant

There is one line of thought that doesn't make the US look good. A very convincing theory is that the US of A want as few nations to go nuclear as possible because they want to reserve the option of military invasions.

i.e. the reason nuclear weapons was justified to begin with; as a deterrent. The US of A need to make sure Iran could be invaded.

Now, so far no full military invasion of a Nuclear Power had happened. But that could just be because nuclear power is so new historically. Pakistan and India argue and kill each other once in a while, but no true invasions. North Korea just might collapse one day and that might be the exception when someone go in to clean up the mess.

At the moment, if one genuinely fear an unstable nuclear-armed nation with a large Muslim population, the focus should be on Pakistan. But obviously the US doesn't seem to be afraid. So to fear Iran but not Pakistan, just seem irrational.

Just to note that the only country that gave up nuclear arms(Ukraine) voluntarily ... got invaded

[ganbaru]

Clinton campaign signed lease for Brooklyn HQ: source
http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/...0MU0YQ20150404

Special Report: After Iraqi forces take Tikrit, a wave of looting and lynching
http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/...0MU1DP20150403

Exclusive: California used 70 million gallons of water in fracking in 2014
http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/...0MU01M20150403

[OH&S]

Originally Posted by Vallen Chaos Valiant

There is one line of thought that doesn't make the US look good. A very convincing theory is that the US of A want as few nations to go nuclear as possible because they want to reserve the option of military invasions.

i.e. the reason nuclear weapons was justified to begin with; as a deterrent. The US of A need to make sure Iran could be invaded.

Now, so far no full military invasion of a Nuclear Power had happened. But that could just be because nuclear power is so new historically. Pakistan and India argue and kill each other once in a while, but no true invasions. North Korea just might collapse one day and that might be the exception when someone go in to clean up the mess.

At the moment, if one genuinely fear an unstable nuclear-armed nation with a large Muslim population, the focus should be on Pakistan. But obviously the US doesn't seem to be afraid. So to fear Iran but not Pakistan, just seem irrational.

Pakistan is not an unstable nation. The government is potentially (most likely) corrupt but that has no bearing on the use of its nuclear arms because the Pakistani Army does not take orders from the government like the US Army does. If the Army doesn't like what the government asks them to do, they can give them the middle finger and the government can't do shit.

In this day and age, there is no country on Earth that actually has the balls to set off a nuclear weapon because doing so would isolate the country from the rest of the world; it would basically mean the end of that country, kinda like a murder-suicide. That's why today nuclear weapons are merely a show of power and nothing else.

And that's why Israel (especially Netanyahu) is so against Iran having a nuclear weapon, it would undermine the show of strength that the country has in the region.

[Xellos-_^]

Originally Posted by JokerD

Just to note that the only country that gave up nuclear arms(Ukraine) voluntarily ... got invaded

And you can bet Iran notice that.

[Vallen Chaos Valiant]

Originally Posted by OH&S

Pakistan is not an unstable nation. The government is potentially (most likely) corrupt but that has no bearing on the use of its nuclear arms because the Pakistani Army does not take orders from the government like the US Army does. If the Army doesn't like what the government asks them to do, they can give them the middle finger and the government can't do shit.

Somehow, when I think of a stable nation, the vision of a civilian government being entirely powerless against the might of the military doesn't come to mind. You think it is a GOOD thing that the military doesn't answer to the government?

[Dextro]

Originally Posted by Vallen Chaos Valiant

Somehow, when I think of a stable nation, the vision of a civilian government being entirely powerless against the might of the military doesn't come to mind. You think it is a GOOD thing that the military doesn't answer to the government?

"Who watches the Watchmen?" right?

[AnimeFan188]

Joe Biden to Authoritarian Chinese President: U.S. Only Supports Human
Rights As ‘Political Imperative’:

"Vice President Joe Biden once told Chinese President Xi Jinping that U.S. leaders
only support human rights as a matter of political optics, and that this makes the
United States no better than China, according to a new New Yorker profile of
Jinping."

See:

http://freebeacon.com/national-secur...al-imperative/

[OH&S]

Originally Posted by Vallen Chaos Valiant

Somehow, when I think of a stable nation, the vision of a civilian government being entirely powerless against the might of the military doesn't come to mind. You think it is a GOOD thing that the military doesn't answer to the government?

It all depends, of course, on the credibility of the government and what it stands for as well as the objectives of the military.

Just applying it to the USA already tells me that something like the whole Iraq disaster could have been avoided. But at the same time, the president IS the commander in chief by definition so they are tied together from the onset.

Of course if the military has some agenda along the lines of a terrorist organization then that's a big problem. But the military's purpose IS to protect the country and its interests. If they don't listen to the government then either the army is corrupt or the government is. At the moment, the Pakistani government is pretty questionable.

[JokerD]

Originally Posted by OH&S

It all depends, of course, on the credibility of the government and what it stands for as well as the objectives of the military.

Just applying it to the USA already tells me that something like the whole Iraq disaster could have been avoided. But at the same time, the president IS the commander in chief by definition so they are tied together from the onset.

Of course if the military has some agenda along the lines of a terrorist organization then that's a big problem. But the military's purpose IS to protect the country and its interests. If they don't listen to the government then either the army is corrupt or the government is. At the moment, the Pakistani government is pretty questionable.

On one hand you have Thailand where coups happen every few years and the constitution changes because the civilian government is not to the liking of the military.
On the other hand, you have other countries which the military is so integrated or subservient to the political party in power that it is used to suppress the people.
Either way is bad I guess

[Vallen Chaos Valiant]

Originally Posted by JokerD

On one hand you have Thailand where coups happen every few years and the constitution changes because the civilian government is not to the liking of the military.
On the other hand, you have other countries which the military is so integrated or subservient to the political party in power that it is used to suppress the people.
Either way is bad I guess

Basically, the military is made up of humans just like the civilian government. I guess my point is there is no reason to place more trust in the military than you do on the Civilian government, because in the end they are both ran by humanbeings. There is no reason why the military would have any clear justification to be more virtuous, or trustworthy, than the government.

If anything, at least civilian governments can be replaced peacefully sometimes. Military leaders tend to not step down without the use of violence.

[OH&S]

^
No arguments there.

[ganbaru]

India's IT plans suffer from power cuts, congestion - and monkeys
http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/...0MS5DT20150402

Kenya says son of a government official was among gunmen in Garissa attack
http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/...0MW03H20150405

[maplehurry]

Originally Posted by Vallen Chaos Valiant

Basically, the military is made up of humans just like the civilian government. I guess my point is there is no reason to place more trust in the military than you do on the Civilian government, because in the end they are both ran by humanbeings. There is no reason why the military would have any clear justification to be more virtuous, or trustworthy, than the government.

If anything, at least civilian governments can be replaced peacefully sometimes. Military leaders tend to not step down without the use of violence.

It depends on the places (or the standard for recruitment). In Canada, I would trust an average soldier more than an average politician atm. Whether they will actually be better at the job of governing is a different matter. In long term, I would agree that even the military would be open to being bribed just like the politicians.

And a military rule will indeed be more risky as you mentioned.

[Nicaea]

Originally Posted by Xellos-_^

the whole deal is suppose to slow Iran acquiring nukes.

Althought i don't get why iran having nukes would be bad. No country since ww2 has use nukes and with good reason since the first country to use them after the US would get bomb to oblivion by everyone else. Iranian or Persians i like to call them are NOT suicidal. The nuke is for the prestige of being a nuclear power and as a deterrent against the US (with good reason).

Get Iran to open its market and flood it with porn.

Israel, foremost. Also, letting countries have nuclear programs means that the US can't go around kicking hornets' nests. Look at how Japan apparently has a constitution that restricts their army.

Originally Posted by Mentar

This is all about Israel wanting to remain the only country in the middle east with nuclear arms. It's _this_ paired with American protection which allows Israel to pursue whatever they want with total impunity. Like their attempt to annex more land via illegal settlements.

Which is why it's my personal opinion that the middle east would be less festering if Iran _was_ in possession of nukes. Because then, Israel would be FORCED to actively pursue peace solutions instead of forcefully blocking them while pretending to do something different (see Netanyahu's famous post-election make-believe flip-flop on the palestinians).

Pretty much this, although it could end with an odd alliance between Saudi-Arabia and Israel.

Originally Posted by JokerD

Just to note that the only country that gave up nuclear arms(Ukraine) voluntarily ... got invaded

Unrelated. Ukraine got invaded because the Europe didn't respect the treaty that was made after the fall of the USSR. They kind of did to Russia what the US experienced (and Cuba pays the price for that up to today).