U.S. Politics Thread

[Vallen Chaos Valiant]

Originally Posted by Ithekro

Technically we already invaded Pakistan and got away with it. We just didn't have a need to topple its government.

You still have the government being unstable and nuclear weapons that can be given to terrorists all the same. Given the chance, any terrorist would realise Iran is not the place to get a nuke over Pakistan.

Pakistan is effectively being paid by the US government. A better deal, and a deal that Iran would want too.

[Ithekro]

Pakistan's government is more or less friendly with the United States. India I suppose is less friendly, but honestly I can't tell who is friendly with the US between those two since the Indians get supplied by the Russians and the Pakistani by the Americans and Russians.

Iran has been hostile since 1979....aside from the aborted attempt by the Carter Administration to free the hostages, the US has not invaded there territory in all that time dispite them not having nuclear weapons that whole time. North Korea and the United States have been enemies since 1950, and US troop have been on their border the whole time, and yet since 1953 we've not invaded them even when they didn't have nuclear weapon, nor when they threated to make nuclear weapons in the 1990s.

Libya was an enemy for decades and we didn't go in there until we were asked to go in their by our European allies during a civil war.

Iraq crossed the line several times and got invaded twice for their trouble. First Kuwait, and afterwards 12 years of thumbing their noses at the UN. It eventually got them in trouble.

Afghanistan was a direct response to an attack on US soil.

[Vallen Chaos Valiant]

If you want to measure hostile intent, Iran hasn't invaded anyone for hundreds of years. America invades anyone who isn't nuclear armed.

Yes, Iran is hostile. So? They have the RIGHT to be hostile. They don't "hate your freedoms", they hate you for destroying their country via the CIA.

Please explain what America has ever done that deserve Iran's forgiveness.

[Kaijo]

Originally Posted by Vallen Chaos Valiant

And? A bigger concern is Pakistan where they are far more militant, far more unstable, and has nuclear weapons.

You know what's the difference between Iran and Pakistan? America can't invade Pakistan. Because Pakistan has nuclear weapons. Enough with the excuses, nobody is buying it.

Unless you advocate turning Pakistan into a crater, no point wasting words on why you think Iran should be put down.

You know what the difference is between Iran and Pakistan? The government is still in control of the nukes and hasn't passed them on to any militants, nor does it plan to. They have militant people, but are not subject to it.

Unstable? I'll give you that, but don't pretend there are no differences between the two. There are. Iran has a very visible history of supplying militant groups with arms. And note that I do not advocate invading or attacking Iran. I am, however, acknowledging the reality.

[Ithekro]

It is harder to invade someone over a period of years when you are being invaded or suffering from interal problems, which seems to be the case for much of Persia's history since the 16th century.

I am under the impression there was never an openning give for America to even consider attempting to get forgiveness from Iran. The absolute hatred that seemed to radiate out of Tehran in the 1980s was scolding. The Iran-Iraqi War did not help, neither did the large number of hostage crisis from Iran. There might have been a chance in the 1990s when the United States mostly didn't pay them much attention, as our focus was on Iraq, yet somehow in 1995 the US started an economic embargo in Iran under the Clinton Administration. I honestly don't remember what this one was for as I was still in high school. This lead to other problems with the Arabs we felt in 2001. (seems the embargo had to do with Iran's nuclear program and their supplying terrorist groups...funny that seems to have not changed all that much in the last decade and a half.)

Iran has no diplomatic relations with the US or Israel after 1979. (before Iran was friendly with Israel and the US).

[monsta666]

Originally Posted by Vallen Chaos Valiant

Yes, Iran is hostile. So? They have the RIGHT to be hostile. They don't "hate your freedoms", they hate you for destroying their country via the CIA.

And let's not forget before the CIA it was the British that overthrew the Iranian government in 1921 in another state sponsored military coup. There is a reason why Iran is suspicious of foreign activities particularly western ones.

These issues do not get better if you consider that Iraq got invaded for not walking the politic rope while a nation much more rogue such as Pakistan and North Korea can operate with seeming immunity and not get invaded. Then there is the classic map of the US's presence around Iran:

Spoiler:

Nuclear weapons are not used as an offensive weapon but they are used as a defensive strategy to reduce the risk of foreign occupation. Perhaps I am wrong here but I think the risks of terrorists acquiring WMDs is overstated to push a politic agenda. In any case though the consequences of a war on Iran are too great to undertake with just a suspicion of WMDs. I think the US and even Israel know this and all that this rhetoric we do hear is a mix of bravado and chest thumping. A war in this region is likely to result in a WMD of an economic nature being inflicted on the world.

[Lost Cause]

With Israel staring at Iran and India not so friendly with Pakistan, I doubt the U.S. need worry about either country. No, we need to watch N. Korea and its middle building capability.
Obama successfully talked Israel out of striking Iran twice, And after SEAL Team 6 little walk in Pakistan showed we aren't terribly worried about them either.
And I doubt Pakistan will be getting their "check" I'm the mail any time soon after hiding Bin Laden.

[Ledgem]

Originally Posted by SaintessHeart

You know who we can convince?

The military industrial complex. As long as there is war in space, there is profit for it. And there will be technological advancement and fantastic amount of power around the world.

The Soviet Union kept building tanks while the Americans kept building satellites during the Cold War - look who had the edge in the end?

Think of the endless strategic possibilities of a colony drop as compared to an ICBM! And the Psycommu system! And NEWTYPES!

The military occasionally funds things unrelated to weapons and war. Department of Defense grants for cancer research were quite big in my field. The joke explaining why the Department of Defense would offer money for cancer research (specifically breast cancer) was that the generals' wives were getting old, and so they were worried about breast cancer...

Originally Posted by Kaijo

I'm more gung-ho for nuclear power than most, but... this is still a concern. Iran has a history of supplying militants. It wouldn't take much to supply a group with a weapon and detonate it in Israel or the US. MAD only works if both sides are vulnerable. Al Qaeda and other groups have no centralized country to hit.

Al Qaeda's lack of centralization isn't the only concern. One of their most effective weapons has been the use of suicide bombers. If people are willing to die in achieving their goal - or if it's part of the goal - then what do they care if they know a nuclear warhead will be headed their way once they set off one of their own? Those extremists could envelope the world in a nuclear winter, kill off all life, and probably die with a smile on their faces.

[Vallen Chaos Valiant]

Originally Posted by Kaijo

Iran has a very visible history of supplying militant groups with arms. And note that I do not advocate invading or attacking Iran. I am, however, acknowledging the reality.

America has an even more public history of supplying militant groups with arms. Everything you can accuse Iran of, I can accuse America of the same.

I acknowledge the reality that America is currently the greatest threat to world peace. Much greater than Iran.

Al Qaeda's lack of centralization isn't the only concern. One of their most effective weapons has been the use of suicide bombers. If people are willing to die in achieving their goal - or if it's part of the goal - then what do they care if they know a nuclear warhead will be headed their way once they set off one of their own? Those extremists could envelope the world in a nuclear winter, kill off all life, and probably die with a smile on their faces.

And? That has nothing to do with threatening Iran. America has came much closer to causing the apocalypse than Iran ever had, and there is no reason to believe it can't happen in the future. Are you going to invade another country to look for WMDs again? Like LAST time?

[Ledgem]

Originally Posted by Vallen Chaos Valiant

Everything you can accuse Iran of, I can accuse America of the same.

Repression of women? Rule by religious fundamentalists?

[Vallen Chaos Valiant]

Originally Posted by Ledgem

Repression of women? Rule by religious fundamentalists?

Depends on which part of America when it comes to women. You DO have plenty of religious fundamentalists who loves violence and encouraged the recent wars.

[Lost Cause]

If America is the worst, then why are we fighting Al Queida? Why don't we just join them and finish the job?
At least we don't stone or shoot women for wanting an education, or force young girls to marry 90 year olds!
I wonder what the Aborigines would say about you?
And anytime Australia wants to jump into the drivers seat...

[Demi.]

Your radical views on America is warped to say the least, Vallen.

[Kaijo]

Originally Posted by Vallen Chaos Valiant

America has an even more public history of supplying militant groups with arms. Everything you can accuse Iran of, I can accuse America of the same.

I acknowledge the reality that America is currently the greatest threat to world peace. Much greater than Iran.

Okay, now you've ruined whatever points you might have had.

There are problems with America. But they are nowhere near the issues a country like Iran has. There is no freedom of speech. There is no rule of law. The women are repressed to the point where a girl can be raped and then be found guilty in a court of law for inviting the rape since she wasn't out with a man and had her ankles uncovered.

Try all you like, but you won't find anything like that in the US.

And trust me, I can go on about drone strikes and warrantless wiretapping. I'll complain about free speech zones and abortion and guns. But to try and equate the US with a country like Iran shows such a profound lack of evenhandedness, that it does a great disservice to any points you might make. Please, don't go there.

If you really think there are no profound differences between the two countries, that they are on the same level of "evil," then by all means, tell me that you'd feel just as safe in Iran as you would in the US. At least in the US, I can call Obama a fuckin' cocksucker who should be run out of office, and no secret police will show up at my door. I can become a scientologist or a rastafarian and preach on the corner, and no armed, religious groups will beat me to a pulp with the full approval of the state. No court will find me guilty of blasphemy.

[monsta666]

Originally Posted by Vallen Chaos Valiant

Depends on which part of America when it comes to women. You DO have plenty of religious fundamentalists who loves violence and encouraged the recent wars.

I think while the religious fundamentalists can be quite bad in the US it is not as bad as some places in Iran.

However I do think it is accurate to say there are no absolute "good guys" when it comes to geopolitics. We can only make an an argument in degree i.e. this side is relatively better than the other one. Everyone has a skeleton in the closet and so for every crime we name on an enemy state the enemy state can easily lay the finger on its opposing nations. Doesn't matter what side of the fence you sit on. No good guys be it Iran, US on the geopolitical front. Also we should note that history is written by the winners of war. The winners will always be seen in a more favourable light be it through the history books or media.

Originally Posted by Kaijo

Okay, now you've ruined whatever points you might have had.

I think you are being a little bit harsh. His point about the US being as bad on a Iran in terms of repression was indeed a poor point. But I think as with most things there is an element of truth. Sure America is better than Iran in terms of rights to its citizens I do think the merit in his statement comes in the fact that in terms of free speech and other rights the US seems to be following the path of the Roman empire when it was going through decline. The free speech that still exists is being systematically undermined and reduced and the political parties are becoming more detached and seem more interest ideologically purity than in actually achieving results. The elected parties are also less interested in popular opinion and it is become more apparent their chief concern is with monied interest and not the will of the people which is undermining the whole concept of democracy.

[ChainLegacy]

Originally Posted by Vallen Chaos Valiant

Why should it matter if plutonium gets made?

I mention it previously, that since I no longer trust America with nuclear weapons, I don't see the point of restricting nuclear proliferation anymore. Right now all the restrictions are not designed to make the world safer, but to make sure America can invade other people easier.

Nuclear power exists. Deal with it.

I have the opposite view from you. I don't trust America or any country with nuclear weapons. I think it's very unlikely they'll be used, true, but even that tiny fraction of a chance is too frightening to imagine. EVERY country, including the US, should be stripped of nuclear weaponry by UN order. Of course, not like that's gonna happen, or that the UN is capable of enforcing it, but that's my ideal scenario.

[Ithekro]

Interestingly enough, to date, there has still been only 2 atomic weapons used in war. Just two. While there has been many threats and posturing over the last half century and more....it has remained only two used in combat since the atomic bomb was invented.

Part of the reason for the Non-Proliferation Treaty is to make sure it stays that way.

[ChainLegacy]

Originally Posted by Ithekro

Interestingly enough, to date, there has still been only 2 atomic weapons used in war. Just two. While there has been many threats and posturing over the last half century and more....it has remained only two used in combat since the atomic bomb was invented.

Part of the reason for the Non-Proliferation Treaty is to make sure it stays that way.

And I do think the threat of mutual destruction is an unimaginably powerful incentive for countries to never, ever engage in nuclear warfare. It'd be good for no parties involved. Nonetheless, that minute, seemingly impossible chance of a nuclear war... is still too much of a risk, in my eyes.

[mangamuscle]

Originally Posted by Ithekro

Part of the reason for the Non-Proliferation Treaty is to make sure it stays that way.

The temptation to use the so called tactical warheads ("small" nuclear weapons) is going to be too big in any major conflict. With just one bomb you can obliterate the enemy naval fleet before they even reach your fleet. Even better, use a neutron bomb and the fleet might even by recovered as a war bounty (and the damage to the ecosystem is not long term). So the reason no nuke have been used is because there has been no need, I bet that if the first Iraq War had the amount of causalities feared at first, a nuke would probably had been used.

[Ithekro]

Convential weapons seem to be more practical at this time. If the world ever gets to the point were a actually have two or more large military powers going at it again with large fleets, air armadas, and massed armies the likes of which haven't really been seen since the 1940s, than maybe nuclear weapons may be given a shot again. But until then, the new conventional weapons work much better without the heavy nuclear or political fallout.