2012-02-17, 17:39 | Link #2761 | |
著述遮断
Join Date: Jul 2009
|
Quote:
This is the historical context that I do not see promoted on FOX or any other news sources Why not remind the American people of the story of IRAN around the time of the SHA I mean... what was the reason for the revolt ? Why did the US get involved. It is time American media/news/infotainment show context and dismantle the beliefe that it is squeaky clean. Accept your mistakes and then try to fix them. |
|
2012-02-17, 17:41 | Link #2762 | |
Logician and Romantic
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Within my mind
Age: 43
|
Quote:
You don't "let them have nukes". You don't have the moral authority to decide who gets nukes or not. No one does. You have the right to not LIKE them to have nukes, but that's it. The only way to stop them is by military intervention. America has never invaded a country that possessed nuclear weapons. This is a fact. And for as long as that remains true, Iran would want nukes.
__________________
|
|
2012-02-17, 17:50 | Link #2763 |
Gamilas Falls
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Republic of California
Age: 46
|
One has a diplomatic authority to not allow them to have nuclear weapons by treaty. The Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.
By treaty, Iran is not allow to have nuclear weapons. They are not allowed to attempt to create nuclear weapons, nor are treaty signing nuclear armed nations allowed to sell them nuclear weapons. They can legally back out of said treaty, but until they do so, they are in violation of said treaty if they create or own nuclear weapons. Backing out of said treaty is a clear sign they have nuclear weapons...as it did with North Korea. Thus I also question Saudi Arabia's stance on buying nuclear weapons if Iran makes their own. Because, by treaty, Saudi Arabia cannot own nuclear weapons, nor are treaty signing countries allowed to sell them any, nor help them make any. This of course means that Saudi Arabia would have to legally back out of the treaty and purchase nuclear arms from Pakastan, North Korea, India, or Israel (as Iran won't sell them any).
__________________
|
2012-02-17, 17:55 | Link #2764 | |
Logician and Romantic
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Within my mind
Age: 43
|
Quote:
__________________
|
|
2012-02-17, 17:58 | Link #2766 | ||
Shadow of Effilisi
Join Date: Oct 2011
|
Quote:
Quote:
They get the attention because of the nuclear program. You are reversing the cause and effect. |
||
2012-02-17, 18:10 | Link #2767 | |
I disagree with you all.
Join Date: Dec 2005
|
Quote:
|
|
2012-02-17, 18:10 | Link #2768 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: London, England
Age: 37
|
Quote:
|
|
2012-02-17, 18:18 | Link #2770 | |
Logician and Romantic
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Within my mind
Age: 43
|
Quote:
To be fair, the modern American citizens are mostly ignorant of history and is entirely mystified at why Iran is so mad at them. Which of course, only makes Iran madder. In short, Iranians think America hate their freedoms, if I may paraphrase G W Bush.
__________________
|
|
2012-02-17, 18:58 | Link #2771 |
Gundam Boobs and Boom FTW
Join Date: Dec 2005
|
Okay, we instated the Shah. They can get over it now. Yes, we support Israel. Yes, there are some unsavory characters in Israel whose treatment is a bit controversial depending on your stance. That's still not a reason to attempt to build nuclear weapons.
What's different about Iran is that it is a theocracy. As scary as reds with rockets were, we rightly assumed they were rational, and in doing so, averted the end of the world. We cannot make the same assumption for a theocracy that believes there's a higher reward for going up in a blaze of nuclear glory. If Iran were to show it has even the slightest nuclear weapons capability, I'd say to move heaven and earth to make sure there's nobody left alive there that can put a warhead on a missile and lob it at Saudi Arabia or Israel. And if that means turning one nation into a glow-in-the-dark glass parking lot for the next five decades, well... They did ask for it.
__________________
|
2012-02-17, 19:07 | Link #2772 | |
Logician and Romantic
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Within my mind
Age: 43
|
Quote:
I used to assume America was rational too. Then all the dirty laundry got exposed. And if that's the way you like to play, Iran is game. If you are willing to blow them up, then it is certain the only way to protect themselves is nuclear weapons. You don't give them any other choice, they would take the only path left to take. Serious... "Get over it"? That's the words used by bullies. Especially when they pretend nothing ever happened.
__________________
|
|
2012-02-17, 19:17 | Link #2773 |
Gamilas Falls
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Republic of California
Age: 46
|
Santorum winning seems iffy still....and even if he does he will be in office for four to eight years tops. Mahmoud Ahmadinejad also has the same stipulation...he is due to be out of office in 2013.
The probem is, that not all foreign policy in Iran is handled by the President. Control of the Armed Forces, nuclear policy and other such things are handled by the Supreme Leader, Ali Khamenei. His position it seems is for life (well until the return of the Twelvth Imam, the Mahdi).
__________________
|
2012-02-17, 19:23 | Link #2774 | |
Logician and Romantic
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Within my mind
Age: 43
|
Quote:
As I keep saying in the past, I was raised to believe America to be what it sold itself to be. I was as pro-America as anyone could. But then reality hits. Now, whenever I see people say things and believe in things I used to believe in, I feel a little sad.
__________________
|
|
2012-02-17, 19:29 | Link #2775 |
Gamilas Falls
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Republic of California
Age: 46
|
The question would be, how would Santorum getting elected change the secular nation into a theocracy? Even as President, he cannot change the laws of the land in a timely manner, as that requires a long process to change the Constitution. Especially to the level required to make the United States fuctionally a Theocracy run by the Church
And what Church? We got hundreds of them....all seperate from each other and not all giving the same messages. If you mean the Catholic Church...well I will have to laugh at you, since the country is still largely Protestant in character, and the distrust of "being run by the Pope" still echos in places from the 1960 election.
__________________
|
2012-02-17, 19:31 | Link #2776 | ||
Obey the Darkly Cute ...
Author
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: On the whole, I'd rather be in Kyoto ...
Age: 66
|
Quote:
So... you try to stall it at the starting gate: minimize the number of bomb makers and make sure those that can make them are on the same page. Quote:
__________________
|
||
2012-02-17, 19:32 | Link #2777 | |
Shadow of Effilisi
Join Date: Oct 2011
|
Quote:
|
|
2012-02-17, 19:34 | Link #2778 | |
Logician and Romantic
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Within my mind
Age: 43
|
Quote:
What kind of person being elected President reflects the American population as a whole. No one cares that you have songs about "the land of the free". What's important is what you actually do, not what you say. And as far as Iranians are concerned, America has a history of being evil. And I can't fault them for that belief.
__________________
|
|
2012-02-17, 19:42 | Link #2779 |
Obey the Darkly Cute ...
Author
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: On the whole, I'd rather be in Kyoto ...
Age: 66
|
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.
__________________
|
2012-02-17, 19:47 | Link #2780 | ||
Not Enough Sleep
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: R'lyeh
Age: 48
|
Quote:
Quote:
__________________
|
||
Tags |
2012 elections, us elections |
|
|