US Elections 2012 Part I: The Primaries/Caucus

[Zetsubo]

Originally Posted by Vallen Chaos Valiant

America has no right to call Iranians untrustworthy. America and Britain wrecked their country, their animosity is in every way justified. There is no need to pretend there is any moral high ground here. Iran has every right to believe America wants to wipe them out from the face of the Earth, and take measures accordingly to protect themselves. Hey, don't forget America also justified pre-emptive strikes.

This is the gospel.

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.

[Vallen Chaos Valiant]

Originally Posted by Kokukirin

Foreign policy has never been about fairness and rights. And well, Iran doesn't actually have rights to make nukes - they signed the NPT.

Interfering with Iran was a monumental mistake. But you don't right the past wrong by letting them get nukes.

And I suppose you are going to right the past wrong by bombing them then? Because that's what one of the major political parties of America wants.

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.

[Ithekro]

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).

[Vallen Chaos Valiant]

Originally Posted by Ithekro

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).

It is obvious, IMO, that Iran doesn't want to officially back out of the non-proliferation treaty until they have a functioning bomb. Because to back out of the treaty without one is an invitation to be nuked by Israel. This is all about self-preservation, and this is what people have to do to ensure their very survival.

[Ithekro]

It is obvious, but still in violation of said treaty until they do so.

[Kokukirin]

Originally Posted by Vallen Chaos Valiant

And I suppose you are going to right the past wrong by bombing them then? Because that's what one of the major political parties of America wants.

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.

Do you come from a world with fairies and unicorns?

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.

US is not about to invade Iran. In fact, Iran hadn't become focus of international affairs since Iraq-Iran War, until they decided to start a nuclear weapon program in secret, a move that clearly violates the NPT and unsettles everyone in the region.

They get the attention because of the nuclear program. You are reversing the cause and effect.

[Anh_Minh]

Originally Posted by Vallen Chaos Valiant

And you think Israel can be trusted with nuke tech? Or Pakistan?

Who cares if you don't trust them with nuke tech? America and Britain overthrew a democratic elected government there and replaced it with a corrupt dictator, what made you think they care if the Western powers trust them or not?

America has no right to call Iranians untrustworthy. America and Britain wrecked their country, their animosity is in every way justified. There is no need to pretend there is any moral high ground here. Iran has every right to believe America wants to wipe them out from the face of the Earth, and take measures accordingly to protect themselves. Hey, don't forget America also justified pre-emptive strikes. Iran is a nation with a popular government, it isn't going to accept being treated like anything less than a sovereign state. Just ignore its nuclear weapons program the same way America ignores Israel's. I believe in fair treatment of everyone.

Look, there is a lot of bad blood going on, it just isn't going to solve itself by the United States acting like it is some hero of justice. Iran wants nukes because, rightly, it believe its survival depends on it. Tell me a possible scenario where Iran can survive without nukes, and I would love to hear it.

Well, in fairness to the US, if I was a schoolyard bully who shoved a funny looking guy into a locker, I'd be nervous about that guy reaching for a knife...

[monsta666]

Originally Posted by Kokukirin

Do you come from a world with fairies and unicorns?


US is not about to invade Iran. In fact, Iran hadn't become focus of international affairs since Iraq-Iran War, until they decided to start a nuclear weapon program in secret, a move that clearly violates the NPT and unsettles everyone in the region.

They get the attention because of the nuclear program. You are reversing the cause and effect.

Iran have had international economic sanctions imposed on them for decades and these sanctions began in 1979 after the Iraq-Iran war broke out. And even that incident was considered by the CIA as blowback for the military coup in 1953 they help organise. And even before that there was further international attention on Iran as in the 1920's the British empire also interfered with the election process, I believe they helped stage another military coup. In short Iran have received unwanted attention well before they started developing any nuclear program.

[Zetsubo]

Originally Posted by Anh_Minh

Well, in fairness to the US, if I was a schoolyard bully who shoved a funny looking guy into a locker, I'd be nervous about that guy reaching for a knife...

LOL !

Love it !!

LOL !

[Vallen Chaos Valiant]

Originally Posted by Anh_Minh

Well, in fairness to the US, if I was a schoolyard bully who shoved a funny looking guy into a locker, I'd be nervous about that guy reaching for a knife...

That's pretty much what it boils down to.

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.

[Demongod86]

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.

[Vallen Chaos Valiant]

Originally Posted by Demongod86

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.

Talk about Theocracy, How's Santorum hanging in the polls lately?

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.

[Ithekro]

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).

[Vallen Chaos Valiant]

Originally Posted by Ithekro

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 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.

And? That still doesn't change the fact that if Santorum gets elected, it would prove America is actually a Theocracy. At least for 4 years.

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.

[Ithekro]

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.

[Vexx]

Originally Posted by Xellos-_^

only if Iran or NK really wants to die. if a nuke explodes in the US and was determined to be of foreign origin both NK and Iran would instantly be vaporize. US wouldn't even bother to bring it up with the UN and both county knows it. And if DC was taken out some Nuke Sub commander would probably just add Pakistan and Afghanistan to the list and nuke them all.

That's the problem with a shipping container bomb... you don't know who sent it (unless they credit themselves and even then you can't trust that). And you can't just bomb everyone you *think* had a part in it. That'd make you the bigger monster in the world than terrorists.

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.

And what Church? We got hundreds of them....all seperate from each other and not all giving the same messages.

There's already a growing noise of many Christians both individually and in organizations saying, "Wait just a minute, these fundamentalist zealots do not speak for nor define Christianity as a whole. Stop it." Problem of course is typical --- aligning the moderate majority to put a stopper on the outliers.

[Kokukirin]

Originally Posted by Vallen Chaos Valiant

And? That still doesn't change the fact that if Santorum gets elected, it would prove America is actually a Theocracy. At least for 4 years.

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.

Theocracy does not mean a religious person heading the country. A theocracy is a state that has laws dictating that the head of state is the religious leader, like the Pope in Vatican and the Supreme Leader in Iran.

[Vallen Chaos Valiant]

Originally Posted by Ithekro

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.

Ah, but the very fact that he gets elected would prove the population wants a theocracy. And as such, there is no reason why he wouldn't get another 4 years, plus a different president with similar policies after that replacing him.

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.

[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.

[Xellos-_^]

Originally Posted by Vexx

That's the problem with a shipping container bomb... you don't know who sent it (unless they credit themselves and even then you can't trust that). And you can't just bomb everyone you *think* had a part in it. That'd make you the bigger monster in the world than terrorists.

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.

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.

Very good reason why Liberals should arm themselves.