US Elections 2012 Part I: The Primaries/Caucus

[Vallen Chaos Valiant]

Originally Posted by Vexx

What I'll concede to Vallen's theocracy fears is that we've seen a steady erosion of rule-of-law and steady increase in the attempts to force religious-based laws onto the US - at the state level and the federal level. We are seeing more virulent attacks and attempts to defund anything that appears to threaten a particular form of evangelical assertions. If the trend continues - it might not be an explicit theocracy, but an Orwellian/McCarthyist effective theocracy with tests for purity, blacklisting, individual civil liberties vanishing, etc.

I *think* these are the last violent death rattles of this nonsense but that doesn't mean it couldn't do a lot of damage before expiring.

I am well aware that it is unlikely that Santorum would ever be President. In the end I am pointing out that a detectable percentage of American voters do think a Theocracy is a good idea, even if they aren't the majority. And that for as long as this is true, to attack theocracies for existing would be hypocritical.

Yes, Iran is a Theocracy. But that in itself can't be justification for military action. Neither is the desire for nuclear weapons, as Iran is no less trustworthy than Pakistan. The fact that Pakistan is pulling stunts that freak out everyone, but no one ever mentions a word about bombing it, is proof that nuclear weapons is an effective deterrent.

[Ithekro]

Considering how our elections have been of late, more like the population as a half.

But even looking at this thread, you can see that a number of the votes that will be against Obama will be specifically against him....not for the other guy. There is a part of the population that just wants Obama out...they don't care who gets in to replace him. And there are those that vote party line....no matter what.

There are those who are more rational that will not vote for someone they don't believe in, or someone who has policies they cannot agree with. The trouble comes when the other side doesn't present anything better...or even something worse. At that point either resort to party lines, or don't vote. Few vote third party because most of the third parties are extremes (or just too single issue related), or they just don't believe it will do anything "so why vote if it does nothing?" being the typical responce.

But electing to become a Theocracy? Not likely. Not only would it not stand very well on Constitutional grounds (direct violation of the First Amendent for the Goverment to enact laws favoring any religion over another, and against the law to enact law to establish an official religion on the Federal or State level), it won't go anywhere in Congress...no matter who holds it.

[Vexx]

Originally Posted by Xellos-_^

If DC gets Nuke and there is a break in the chain of command even for just a short period. I am willing to bet a few Nuke Sub Captains would press the Big Red Button and the rest would quite tempted to follow.

Just another reason to stop this at the starting gate. :P

Very good reason why Liberals should arm themselves.

And moderates and fiscal conservatives. That's the thing about "purity", there's always a witch to be found and burned.

[Vallen Chaos Valiant]

Originally Posted by Vexx

Just another reason to stop this at the starting gate. :P

You do that by making sovereign nations feel they are safer without nukes than with nukes. Like it is the case with Japan. You don't stop this at the starting gate by threatening to bomb anyone who feel like they are vulnerable and needed the protection of nuclear deterrent.

Iran needs assurances that they are safe. And the GOP primaries is not helping.

[monsta666]

Yes and if one looks at this picture you can see why Iran is twitchy. All the stars are American military bases. Iran is literally surrounded from all directions.



Just imagine if your country was surrounded with foreign military bases, your neighbours have been invaded and occupied with this foreign army. Their allies have nuclear weapons and appear intent on attacking you and the country with the military bases is beating their war drums ever louder. Would such a country be acting unreasonable by thinking that procuring a nuclear weapon could increase their national security? We can debate the rights and wrongs of such actions off course, but the actions themselves are not irrational. If any western nation was in Iran's position no one would be having this debate. It would be seen as a perfectly reasonable course of action.

[Xagzan]

Originally Posted by Vexx

What I'll concede to Vallen's theocracy fears is that we've seen a steady erosion of rule-of-law and steady increase in the attempts to force religious-based laws onto the US - at the state level and the federal level. We are seeing more virulent attacks and attempts to defund anything that appears to threaten a particular form of evangelical assertions. If the trend continues - it might not be an explicit theocracy, but an Orwellian/McCarthyist effective theocracy with tests for purity, blacklisting, individual civil liberties vanishing, etc.

I *think* these are the last violent death rattles of this nonsense but that doesn't mean it couldn't do a lot of damage before expiring.

Example: Oklahoma appears to be about to pass a "personhood" law that defines a person as such from conception rather than birth. The last version I read is worded so that any woman who miscarries would be charged with murder. I won't bother telling you that almost every woman miscarries at some point in their lives (since a fertilized egg giving up the ghost is technically a miscarriage even if its only a few dozen cells). The zealots are throwing anything and everything against the wall figuring something will stick.

A similar personhood amendment was recently tried in Mississippi, remember? Of all places.

And it tanked spectacularly.

[Ithekro]

Well...with that many bases, would shouldn't have issues with finding bases to close for budget reasons....right.

Ha..ha...ahh...sigh.

Why is Jordan blue? I remember being rather friendly with them. Or maybe it is just that their king is a gaint Star Trek fan.

[Zetsubo]

You know... if Iran was a christian nation, no one would care.

The reason is fear of ISLAM... I suspect the crude train of thought is

Christians go to hell if they kill themselves and others also even for a good cause.

Muslims go to heaven if they kill themselves and others for a good cause.

We have experienced the Kamikaze and 9/11 ... as long as their religion says its OK to die a martyr and take as manywith you and you will have a reward (there is no such thing in Christianity... your sent to hell) then the religious fear will breed.

"It is unfair they are given a reward in heaven for killing us, while we get no heavenly reward for doing the same to them"

So it is best to take weapons of such magnitude away from people who "have nothing to loose and paradise to gain"

At least I figure thats how people who support zelot presidential hopefuls think...

[Xellos-_^]

Originally Posted by Zetsubo

You know... if Iran was a christian nation, no one would care.

I would, a Theocracy is bad no matter what the religion.

The reason is fear of ISLAM... I suspect the crude train of thought is

Christians go to hell if they kill themselves and others also even for a good cause.

Muslims go to heaven if they kill themselves and others for a good cause.

May i remind you how many abortion doctors were murder in the last decade?

[Ithekro]

I recall a song that came out after the First Gulf War during the time we were having issues with Saddam. It called for use of psycological (biological) warfare.


Bacon Bombs!
Lard Rockets!
And SPAM....everywhere.

Basically proposing to carpet bomb an entire Islamic Republic...with pork based products. (Found it: Bacon Bombs - Johnny "Snot" Roquemore, 1998)

[Zetsubo]

Originally Posted by Xellos-_^

I would, a Theocracy is bad no matter what the religion.


May i remind you how many abortion doctors were murder in the last decade?

The murderes are alive, so they get to repent.

There is no repentance in the grave... so if they died while killing the doctor... then they would go to hell... 'along with the doctor"

In order to be forgiven and get into heaven... after killing an enemy of "life and the faith" a christian MUST not take his own life at all.

[Vallen Chaos Valiant]

Originally Posted by Zetsubo

You know... if Iran was a christian nation, no one would care.

The reason is fear of ISLAM... I suspect the crude train of thought is

Christians go to hell if they kill themselves and others also even for a good cause.

Muslims go to heaven if they kill themselves and others for a good cause.

We have experienced the Kamikaze and 9/11 ... as long as their religion says its OK to die a martyr and take as manywith you and you will have a reward (there is no such thing in Christianity... your sent to hell) then the religious fear will breed.

"It is unfair they are given a reward in heaven for killing us, while we get no heavenly reward for doing the same to them"

So it is best to take weapons of such magnitude away from people who "have nothing to loose and paradise to gain"

At least I figure thats how people who support zelot presidential hopefuls think...

Catholics disagree with you. Of course, modern Catholics claim they don't do this anymore, but we only have their word for it. Oh, and the word "Zealot" is Jewish.
You can either have the moral highground, or don't. The choice is yours.

I consider it silly to argue that Christianity is somehow a religion of peace, when reality said otherwise. Everyone is only judged by their actions, not words. Iran wants nuclear deterrence, the same privilege possessed by many other nations. They want it because they feel they cannot survive without it. And all signs point out that their assessment is correct.

Iran is being realistic, America is being unreasonable. This is my current assessment. Feel free to argue and convince me otherwise, love to hear it.

[Irenicus]

On the topic of Iran, I'm really sad by the current state of affairs. The whole "nuke 'em Muslims" notion ignores the fact that in the last decade Iran has experienced more than one major popular movements protesting against the very legitimacy of the existing Islamic Republic regime, none of which have been started by the Western powers, and all of which the regime eagerly blamed on the same Western powers.

Iran is a modern nation, one of the most modern in the Middle East. There is an undercurrent of liberalism that lasted back for more than a century, though it is a very embattled one constantly having to fight in its own defense against the dominance of the Shiite ulama and the suppression of Western-backed militarist monarchs. The coalition of Mohammad Mosaddegh, the pre-coup d'etat Prime Minister, was led by a (relatively authoritarian) liberal intellectual core and participated by Tudeh communists (just another reason to hate 'em back in those days, oh America ), though the coalition reliance on the ulama for mass support proved fatal when the latter withdrew its support during the Western blockade. Mehdi Bazargan, the first post-Revolution Prime Minister, was a major liberal intellectual; his ouster by Khomeini was part of a major struggle to define the Revolution and the State that was to come after it. There are many such examples throughout 20th century Iran's history, though almost all seemed to have ended in tragedy (ouster from power, murder by Islamists...).

Even the Shiite clerics themselves can be moderately reformist from time to time. It was only since 2005 that the moderate Khatami, a theologian, was replaced with the populist Ahmadinejad; before that one might remember that Iran once offered the US an unbelievable olive branch deal in the aftermath of 9/11, which in their palpable arrogance -- their defining trait on the world stage -- the Bush administration rejected.

Of course, when I speak of a "liberal" Iran I do not mean an equivalent of France or something; many of these more open Iranians remain firmly Muslim, if not fond of all-covering burqa and moralistic sermons, and firmly nationalist, hence one of the reasons why all this warmongering is doing damage to the liberal cause.

If America really wants to win something with Iran, it could do well to back off a bit and discreetly assist the democratic impulses of the Iranian people. Instead, it considers Iran a geopolitical enemy, and Iran answers with the same.

But, who am I kidding? The U.S. Foreign Policy establishment is self-assured, incestuous even, in its supposed superiority in knowledge, resources, and intellect, regardless of how many failures and missteps have been caused. The good President Obama have not utilized his early international popularity to challenge this norm (though, as they used to say in collective relief, he is not Bush), and if anyone expects anything but cheap, ruinous Fox News populism out of the Republican candidates, I have a bridge in Alaska needing some pork barrel funding.

[DonQuigleone]

@Irenicus: Absolutely right. The ironic thing is, that with all this talk of Iran being a "theocratic state", Iran is actually one of the more liberal countries in the middle east! If you want to see the most conservative religious and theocratic country in the Middle East, look no further then Saudi Arabia, where there was barely a whimper of protest during the Arab Spring.

Right now all the dialogue with Iran is just escalating the problem, and there's no genuine efforts being made to understand their point of view. We can't have the attitude that these are unstable religious nutcases, because while there is certainly an element there (and likewise the US too ), it's still perfectly possible to negotiate with Iran. The Islamic Republic has shown itself to be capable of reasonable dialogue in the past (bearing in mind that Ali Khameini has been supreme leader since 1989). I don't think the US has any hope of directly transforming Iran into a liberal democracy, but I'd say that if they left Iran alone long enough, and maintained reasonable friendly relations, the country would eventually implode all on it's own. If America had been playing it's cards right, they could have funneled resources into Iran during the Green Revolution, instead their actions over the previous decade had only strengthed support for conservatives as "defenders of the nation" and left them unable to do anything meaningful for the liberals. America may have gotten Iraq, but as Prizes go, Iraq is nothing compared to Iran, a new liberal regime in Iran open to working with the US would have been a tremendous achievement. Can't help but think there was a wasted opportunity there.

[Vexx]

Originally Posted by Vallen Chaos Valiant

You do that by making sovereign nations feel they are safer without nukes than with nukes. Like it is the case with Japan. You don't stop this at the starting gate by threatening to bomb anyone who feel like they are vulnerable and needed the protection of nuclear deterrent.

Iran needs assurances that they are safe. And the GOP primaries is not helping.

The US has historically screwed up with Iran since the early part of the 20th century, starting with the CIA installation of the Shah of Iran. It doesn't seem to matter which party we have in charge, the foreign policy of the US is largely a bunch of idiot shit in terms of threat mitigation.

Its a small part of why its hard to take "tin foil hat conspiracy nuts" seriously - they don't seem to notice how incompetent the US is in strategic analysis and policy. Tactical operations? Yeah we do that well.... but strategic planning is what saves you pain and money up front.

[Ithekro]

Well who needs to manufacture an enemy...we can just piss someone off and get one ready made.

[Vallen Chaos Valiant]

Originally Posted by Vexx

The US has historically screwed up with Iran since the early part of the 20th century, starting with the CIA installation of the Shah of Iran. It doesn't seem to matter which party we have in charge, the foreign policy of the US is largely a bunch of idiot shit in terms of threat mitigation.

Its a small part of why its hard to take "tin foil hat conspiracy nuts" seriously - they don't seem to notice how incompetent the US is in strategic analysis and policy. Tactical operations? Yeah we do that well.... but strategic planning is what saves you pain and money up front.

Yeah, I am not saying Obama did much to make things better. I am just pointing out that with Iran looking at the GOP presidential replacements being more frightening that what they have right now, it is no surprise that they no longer hold any hope of being treated seriously without nuclear deterrent. Iran can no longer expect the US to make any changes on their end; Iran had to do things on their own to protect their own futures.

I just want to say out front, that I am no friend of the Iranian government or their policies. However, that doesn't mean I couldn't see how they are being persecuted for the wrong reasons. Nor could I accept any talk of war that's based on fear and prejudice. Iran is a sovereign nation with the government being stable and relatively supported by the population. They shouldn't be treated like they are lawless Somalia.

[Ledgem]

Originally Posted by Vallen Chaos Valiant

Yeah, I am not saying Obama did much to make things better. I am just pointing out that with Iran looking at the GOP presidential replacements being more frightening that what they have right now, it is no surprise that they no longer hold any hope of being treated seriously without nuclear deterrent. Iran can no longer expect the US to make any changes on their end; Iran had to do things on their own to protect their own futures.

I just want to say out front, that I am no friend of the Iranian government or their policies. However, that doesn't mean I couldn't see how they are being persecuted for the wrong reasons. Nor could I accept any talk of war that's based on fear and prejudice. Iran is a sovereign nation with the government being stable and relatively supported by the population. They shouldn't be treated like they are lawless Somalia.

I think you're absolutely right. The United States and much of the Western countries have been very hostile towards Iran, and now they have a "next door neighbor" (Israel) threatening strikes on them. They're not helping their case by making threats, themselves, but then one needs to remember that the Middle Eastern culture is a bit different from others.

While I can't say exactly how true it is today, the Middle Eastern cultures see it as something of a weakness if one is subtle or subdued in their approach. An example of this supposedly occurred with the Gulf War. As I heard it, some relative of Saddam Hussein was making a diplomatic visit to the United States, where he was told that if Iraq invaded Kuwait, the United States would get involved militarily. Supposedly, because the American diplomats spoke in what we would consider to be a professional and business-like manner, instead of angrily shouting and pounding their fists on the table, the report back to Saddam stated that the Americans weren't serious about fighting.

If true, and considering that Iran is surrounded by states that aren't overly friendly to it, then their actions are understandable. I would imagine that their local unrest furthers it along, since it's easier to unite people and overlook a government's misdeeds when there's a foreign enemy to face.

[Ithekro]

United States still likes to think we operate on the TR level on international relations: "Speak softly, and carry a big stick". It clashes beautifully with the "speak loudly and bang your shoe on the table" crowd.

[Kokukirin]

Originally Posted by Vallen Chaos Valiant

Yeah, I am not saying Obama did much to make things better. I am just pointing out that with Iran looking at the GOP presidential replacements being more frightening that what they have right now, it is no surprise that they no longer hold any hope of being treated seriously without nuclear deterrent. Iran can no longer expect the US to make any changes on their end; Iran had to do things on their own to protect their own futures.

I just want to say out front, that I am no friend of the Iranian government or their policies. However, that doesn't mean I couldn't see how they are being persecuted for the wrong reasons. Nor could I accept any talk of war that's based on fear and prejudice. Iran is a sovereign nation with the government being stable and relatively supported by the population. They shouldn't be treated like they are lawless Somalia.

That's why US have been trying to talk Iran out of the nuclear weapon program for several years. There were proposals to allow Iran to carry on with their nuclear program, with assurances that uranium would not be enriched high enough for weapon use. But Iran rejected them. US tried sanctions. Israel tried assassinating Iranian nuclear scientists. There was also stuxnet that we suspect were US and Israel cyber attacks targetting Iranian nuclear facilities.

I think it's fair to say that US has tried everything short of military action to prevent a nuclear-armed Iran. Even at this point Obama's position is still "all options are on the table", ie not ruling out military actions, which is not quite the same as suggesting a war. If the new round of sanctions and economic difficulties cannot force Iran back to the table, then it is either airstrikes (and further military actions) or letting Iran develop nukes.

And don't forget that although US has influence over Israel, Israel is not really under US control. Because Israel is within striking distance of Iran and much more prone to nuclear attacks, Israel is much more willing than US to risk a war, with or without US approval.

I can totally understand why Iran wants to develop nuke. But it is a lose-lose situation for all. Even for Iran, whatever they gain from this will be offset by the economic price and increasing international isolation.