Go Back   I-Mockery Forum > I-Mockery Discussion Forums > Philosophy, Politics, and News
FAQ Members List Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #26  
Abcdxxxx Abcdxxxx is offline
Mocker
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Abcdxxxx is probably a spambot
Old Mar 3rd, 2007, 10:47 PM       
The origins of terrorism aren't a lack of opportunity via poverty...contrary to that, history tells us that terrorism actually grew out of the opprtunities and economic growth in the region.

Poverty is merely the device that the Muslim ruling class use to exploit their people into aspiring towards scary seperatist doctrines. So stop believing the hype, little man....and while we're at it, stop presuming what I think, because by assigning such lazy ass stereotypes, it just makes you look like a bigot....and baiting me to call you one is so 2002. Oh, and when you can't debate me, stop asking me what my peace plan is. I've outlined my thoughts for co-existance about a billion times over, and if it doesn't fit the image you've built up in your head for me, then that's really your own problem to lose sleep over.

Okay though....let's talk about Pakistan, and how well those Nukes have worked out for them. Remember, they disbanded the parliament, and junked their constitution.... their government is less then stable, they have a population boom they can't handle, the number of citizens living in poverty is greater then their unemployment rate, half the adult male population can't read and their greatest expenditure continues to be DEFENSE and DEBT. Sounds like these Nukes take you straight to prosperity. Globalization is happiness!

Now you can dispute any of the problems mentioned above, and the question still remains, how has a nuclear capable Pakistan brought peace to the region ? That is what your advertising Iranian Nukes will do for the Mid-East remember? I mean, who are you kidding. Can you argue that the infleunce/threat of radical Islam has diminished in Pakistan since 1998? Check your timeline, and ask yourself if it's just a coincidence that the Taliban, and Al Qaeda upped the level of their attacks shortly after an Islamic dominant nation became nuclear, and then remind yourself why it is they have all found refuge in Islam's one Nuclear capable state. There must be some reason that almost a decade after announcing they got the bomb, Pakistan's government seeks to suppress the education of extremist Islam, right?

Anyway, the whole idea that you're arguing this as an economy generated issue rather then an intolerance and oppression one, is assinine. Is there a fiscal element to these conflicts? Of course. Do they dictate policy? Sometimes. Does that make your Socialist meets pro-Nuke Globalism song and dance any more applicable? Not on this planet, sorry.
Reply With Quote
  #27  
Preechr Preechr is offline
=======
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: NA
Preechr is probably a spambot
Old Mar 3rd, 2007, 11:01 PM       
Quote:
Originally Posted by Abcdxxxx View Post
The origins of terrorism aren't a lack of opportunity via poverty...contrary to that, history tells us that terrorism actually grew out of the opprtunities and economic growth in the region.
Ok... Just explain that part. Give me your history lesson.

*sigh*
__________________
mburbank~ Yes, okay, fine, I do know what you meant, but why is it not possible for you to get through a paragraph without making all the words cry?

How can someone who obviously thinks so much of their ideas have so little respect for expressing them? How can someone who so yearns to be taken seriously make so little effort?!
Reply With Quote
  #28  
Abcdxxxx Abcdxxxx is offline
Mocker
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Abcdxxxx is probably a spambot
Old Mar 4th, 2007, 12:31 AM       
No thanks, I don't see that being worthy of my time until you can qualify some of your statements first and give them legitemacy. Otherwise, it would be a bit too much like attempting to convince you that the Moon isn't safety orange. If you want to work under the premise that the sole motivation for terrorism is rooted in poverty, you're going to have to prove it first.
Reply With Quote
  #29  
Preechr Preechr is offline
=======
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: NA
Preechr is probably a spambot
Old Mar 4th, 2007, 12:48 AM       
Ok, then... Thanks for backing out.
__________________
mburbank~ Yes, okay, fine, I do know what you meant, but why is it not possible for you to get through a paragraph without making all the words cry?

How can someone who obviously thinks so much of their ideas have so little respect for expressing them? How can someone who so yearns to be taken seriously make so little effort?!
Reply With Quote
  #30  
Abcdxxxx Abcdxxxx is offline
Mocker
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Abcdxxxx is probably a spambot
Old Mar 4th, 2007, 01:17 AM       
I don't think you're in any position to say that considering that whenever I have bothered, you didn't even respond or acknowledge you were wrong.
Reply With Quote
  #31  
Preechr Preechr is offline
=======
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: NA
Preechr is probably a spambot
Old Mar 4th, 2007, 01:32 AM       
You're 100% right.

Thanks for setting me straight on that.

Night night.
__________________
mburbank~ Yes, okay, fine, I do know what you meant, but why is it not possible for you to get through a paragraph without making all the words cry?

How can someone who obviously thinks so much of their ideas have so little respect for expressing them? How can someone who so yearns to be taken seriously make so little effort?!
Reply With Quote
  #32  
Johnnie Johnnie is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: guayaquil
Johnnie is probably a spambot
Old Mar 4th, 2007, 02:02 AM       
I'm currently studying in Israel.. as of what I can feel around this volatile situation right now is that people here are very concerned with Iran, not necessarily (although related) with the whole threat declaration deal, but rather with the indirect war waging (Hizballah) Iran launched towards Israel and how much more would the current government be capable of.
Israel is not taking this lightly at all. Many Israelis feel that the war against Hizballah was a fiasco in terms of mission accomplishments. The government has responded with the replacement of Dan Halutz with Gabi Ashkenazi in the position of ramat-kal (head of the Israeli military). Since then, there has been many changes in the military's policies. Many being more strictly inclined; such as more people having to serve in combat, longer serving time for reserves, and tougher soldier training, among other policies.

To answer the original question. I really doubt the U.S is going to jump on Iran. It seems to me America is just waiting for Israel to do the tougher work (maybe by attacking Syria).

Quote:
Iran, on the other hand, is feeling very intimidated by now. It knows whatever defense to an American attack it might mount won't matter in the end, which threatens its already tenuous totalitarian hold on it's citizens. Iranian citizens know for a fact how quickly Iraq's regime fell, and their experience with the Iran/Iraq stalemate proves logically that their own government would surely meet the same fate within a few days of our Bradleys crossing the border. No matter how their government might try to lie about this possible future, the people of Iran aren't going to buy it. They know.
1) Where did you get this from? If Iran would had felt intimidated in the slightest, wouldn't you think they would go easier on their nuclear program?

2) I also thought Iran held a totalitarian grasp on its population until I talked to some iranian jewish girls that made Aliyah not long ago. From what they told me, I had it quite understood that their foreign policy does not necessarily reflect how the government runs the country. It's pretty amazing what you can learn from people first hand instead of assuming.
Reply With Quote
  #33  
Preechr Preechr is offline
=======
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: NA
Preechr is probably a spambot
Old Mar 4th, 2007, 02:33 AM       
Well, Johnnie, we get a lot of that here, too. As a matter of fact, if I've got this understood correctly, what's really on the line here is whether or not my wife and daughter are going to be allowed to vote without wearing a burka. Needless to say, I am totally on the side of of the non-Moon-People when it comes to what we should do in this particular situation, and I agree with you fully that if I am not a Jewish person, currently living in the middle east, I have no business having any sort of opinion other than what you tell me to think of my own.

Thanks, back-up dude.
__________________
mburbank~ Yes, okay, fine, I do know what you meant, but why is it not possible for you to get through a paragraph without making all the words cry?

How can someone who obviously thinks so much of their ideas have so little respect for expressing them? How can someone who so yearns to be taken seriously make so little effort?!
Reply With Quote
  #34  
Abcdxxxx Abcdxxxx is offline
Mocker
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Abcdxxxx is probably a spambot
Old Mar 4th, 2007, 03:19 AM       
Holy shit...is it Preechr's turn to crack up?

Maybe what's really on the line for your wife and daughter is your sanity. You realize Thomas didn't even identify himself as Jewish.
Reply With Quote
  #35  
Preechr Preechr is offline
=======
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: NA
Preechr is probably a spambot
Old Mar 4th, 2007, 03:28 AM       
You're talking about Johnnie, right?
__________________
mburbank~ Yes, okay, fine, I do know what you meant, but why is it not possible for you to get through a paragraph without making all the words cry?

How can someone who obviously thinks so much of their ideas have so little respect for expressing them? How can someone who so yearns to be taken seriously make so little effort?!
Reply With Quote
  #36  
Abcdxxxx Abcdxxxx is offline
Mocker
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Abcdxxxx is probably a spambot
Old Mar 4th, 2007, 03:43 AM       
Johnnie... Thomas....THEY ALL LOOK THE SAME.
Reply With Quote
  #37  
Preechr Preechr is offline
=======
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: NA
Preechr is probably a spambot
Old Mar 4th, 2007, 04:13 AM       
Allright. Good job.
__________________
mburbank~ Yes, okay, fine, I do know what you meant, but why is it not possible for you to get through a paragraph without making all the words cry?

How can someone who obviously thinks so much of their ideas have so little respect for expressing them? How can someone who so yearns to be taken seriously make so little effort?!
Reply With Quote
  #38  
Johnnie Johnnie is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: guayaquil
Johnnie is probably a spambot
Old Mar 4th, 2007, 03:40 PM       
Dude, I don't see why this was blown out of proportion. All I did was give a viewpoint. I don't agree with a lot of the things the Israeli government does. I just expressed what people around feel is going on.

I don't think you can't have an opinion unless you are a ''jew living in the middle east''. I questioned you because I wanted to hear your opinion.
Reply With Quote
  #39  
KevinTheOmnivore KevinTheOmnivore is offline
Mocker
KevinTheOmnivore's Avatar
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Brooklyn, NY
KevinTheOmnivore is probably a spambot
Old Mar 10th, 2007, 10:26 AM       
Quote:
Originally Posted by Johnnie View Post
To answer the original question. I really doubt the U.S is going to jump on Iran. It seems to me America is just waiting for Israel to do the tougher work (maybe by attacking Syria).
I disagree. I think the Israeli factor in all of this has actually put us in a pretty tough spot. I think some of the scenarios have Israel taking out supposed nuclear sites, with limited capacity to simultaneously knock out Iranian anti-aircraft and response systems successfully. This is what I've heard from war game scenarios out of the Army War College anyway, and it matches an older report from the same body. LINK

The IAF could hit spots, but not disable Iran's ability to respond. Then you have war, and the U.S. must get in. If Israel were to act alone and attack a muslim nation, I think you would see a massive build up against them from Iran, Syria, and who knows, maybe even a Russia. I think it would be quite different than when they took out the nukes in Iraq. Saddam was a thug that made most in the Arab world uncomfortable. I think this would be different, and it would pull us in.

So then I think the question becomes, if it becomes inevitable that Israel will strike, do we attack first so it gets done right?
Reply With Quote
  #40  
Johnnie Johnnie is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: guayaquil
Johnnie is probably a spambot
Old Mar 12th, 2007, 06:47 PM       
I'm gonna have to agree with you. Israel does not have the capability to make a long term air assault on Iran. I mean, it has never directly fought with a distant country before. There's just no means. I think Syria is another story...being an ally and supplier of Iran.
I hope nothing will happen, things seems pretty gloomy the way they are right now. I think if something happens, the US will have to get involved. I can't answer if the States will attack first or not.
Reply With Quote
  #41  
Abcdxxxx Abcdxxxx is offline
Mocker
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Abcdxxxx is probably a spambot
Old Mar 12th, 2007, 07:26 PM       
I think that's a pretty typical viewpoint in Israel - they don't really want any military strikes, but they want a resolution in their favor, and feel like Syria has it coming.

I don't think Bush will order an attack, unless it's in the Saudi's interest. I don't think there's a chance in hell this administration will give Israel the type of backup it would need even for a strike against Syria. That's a painfull reality Israel will have to come to terms with. So Israel's hands are tied. Who knows though. The strike against Saddam's nukes were chastised all around, at first.
Reply With Quote
  #42  
ranxer ranxer is offline
Member
ranxer's Avatar
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: U$
ranxer is probably a spambot
Old Mar 12th, 2007, 10:38 PM       
Quote:
Originally Posted by sspadowsky View Post
I would like to think that we're not going to hit Iran. I'd really, really like to think that...
In short, yes. I think we will. I hope that I am wrong.
i don't think we will.. too stupid a move and too big a risk,
but i thought the same thing about Iraq.
can't see anything but catastrophe if we do attack though.

my question is so if we do go to war with Iran what will it mean?

i think two basic possibilities.. either they are that stupid or their goals are
not what they say. as many would agree with the latter we have
the 'how far do you mean that' thread but i just want to say it's bad.
not totally convinced but if we bomb Iran the control(or stupidity) by the powers that be must be worse than i want to believe.

we may do 'targetted strikes' on Iran with no invasion at all and downplay the hell out of it, a ground war isn't likely.
__________________
the neo-capitalists believe in privatizing profits and socializing losses
Reply With Quote
  #43  
KevinTheOmnivore KevinTheOmnivore is offline
Mocker
KevinTheOmnivore's Avatar
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Brooklyn, NY
KevinTheOmnivore is probably a spambot
Old Mar 13th, 2007, 11:33 AM       
Is everyone writing in proses lately?

ranxer, I'll ask that you explain this comment:

Quote:
either they are that stupid or their goals are
not what they say. as many would agree with the latter we have
the 'how far do you mean that' thread but i just want to say it's bad.
not totally convinced but if we bomb Iran the control(or stupidity) by the powers that be must be worse than i want to believe.
So could you A. quantify and cite just how many people think we have some nefarious motive behind an attack that hasn't even happened yet, and B. Explain to me what the true goal of an Iran attack would be?

Does the UN have a shady motive for denouncing Iran's nuclear ambitions? What about Russia, who attempted to exchange energy with them as an alternative? How about Israel-- who went to war last summer with one of Iran's surrogate armies-- do they have another reason other than defense? Enlighten me.
Reply With Quote
  #44  
Preechr Preechr is offline
=======
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: NA
Preechr is probably a spambot
Old Mar 13th, 2007, 12:04 PM       
Cash dispute delays opening of Iranian reactor
Mark Tran and agencies
Monday March 12, 2007
Guardian Unlimited


A construction worker assembles part of Iran's nuclear power plant in the southern port of Bushehr. Photograph: Mehr News Agency/EPA


A dispute over funding has delayed the start of Iran's first nuclear power plant, the state-run Russian company building the facility said today.

"It will be impossible to launch the reactor in September, and there can be no talk about supplying fuel this month," the Russian group Atomstroyexport said in a statement after the collapse of bilateral talks last week over late Iranian payments.


The nuclear facility at Bushehr, under construction in an $800m (414m) agreement between the Russian and Iranian governments, has been shrouded in controversy.

Of the two reactors at Bushehr, one is in an advanced stage of completion, while the other has not been worked on for some time and is not currently scheduled to be finished. Completion of the facility has been much-delayed over the years and it was supposed to have been ready in 2005.

The US has long opposed the project on the grounds that Iran has sufficient oil and gas reserves for power generation, and that nuclear reactors are expensive, unnecessary and could be used for military purposes.

Although the project is allowed under the nuclear non-proliferation treaty, the US has provided Russia with intelligence information pointing to the existence of an Iranian nuclear weapons programme. Despite this, the Russians pushed ahead with the project.
The delay in the Bushehr project comes amid reports of tension between Moscow and Tehran on Iran's nuclear programme.

Russian news agencies today reported a source in Moscow as saying that Iran was abusing Russia's stance on its nuclear programme.

"Unfortunately, the Iranians are abusing our constructive relations," news agencies quoted the source as saying. The source added Iran "cannot play forever" on its good relations with Russia and "it is unacceptable for us to have an Iran with a nuclear bomb or the potential to create one".

Iran today issued a bank note with a nuclear symbol in a move seen as an example of its determination to press ahead with uranium enrichment in the face of international sanctions.

The new note for 50,000 rials (2.80) also reflected rising inflation, a fact that has led to growing criticism of the president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. It is worth more than twice the previous highest-denomination note.

The UN security council imposed sanctions on Iran in December after it ignored a resolution demanding that it halt enrichment. The five permanent members of the council plus Germany are now considering further sanctions against Iran.

The US and some of its European allies have accused Iran of seeking uranium enrichment as a part of a secret programme to build nuclear weapons.
Enriched uranium is used as fuel in nuclear reactors but, enriched to a higher level, can be used in atomic bombs. Iran denies that it trying to build nuclear bombs, saying its program is strictly limited to generating electricity.
__________________
mburbank~ Yes, okay, fine, I do know what you meant, but why is it not possible for you to get through a paragraph without making all the words cry?

How can someone who obviously thinks so much of their ideas have so little respect for expressing them? How can someone who so yearns to be taken seriously make so little effort?!
Reply With Quote
  #45  
GAsux GAsux is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Las Vegas
GAsux is probably a spambot
Old Mar 15th, 2007, 03:40 PM       
I haven't seen a single nuclear energy/weapons expert advocate an form of military action against Iran. I'm not remotely close to familiar with all the workings of nuclear technology, but I understand that unlike the Iraq model, Iran has a much broader nextwork or nuclear facilities which are spread out, some in well populated areas. Further, most agree that there are likely underground facilities that remain unidentified.

From what I've read, no one in the nuclear non-proliferation field believes that any form of military strike will prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons. They agree that it may delay the process a few years, but that ultimately at this point it is virtually impossible to stop the process.

Iranian strikes, whether from Israel or the US help the Iranians play the victim card and would probably go a long way towards national unity.

The Iraq war taught the Iranians some valuable lessons. If you have nukes (China, N. Korea) you have bargaining leverage with the U.S. No degree of airstrikes is going to lessen their resolve to get nukes, and as long as they have the technical know how, they'll find a way to make it happen.

For a change, I actually believe in this case diplomacy is the lesser of two evils. Accepting the inevitable and planning on how to deal with it effetively seems to me a better choice then isolation and force.
Reply With Quote
  #46  
Preechr Preechr is offline
=======
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: NA
Preechr is probably a spambot
Old Mar 15th, 2007, 09:37 PM       
Welcome to Team Anti-Semite.

You just wait till Abcdxxx gets here... You're in for it now, buddy.
__________________
mburbank~ Yes, okay, fine, I do know what you meant, but why is it not possible for you to get through a paragraph without making all the words cry?

How can someone who obviously thinks so much of their ideas have so little respect for expressing them? How can someone who so yearns to be taken seriously make so little effort?!
Reply With Quote
  #47  
Abcdxxxx Abcdxxxx is offline
Mocker
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Abcdxxxx is probably a spambot
Old Mar 16th, 2007, 02:49 AM       
Why? All he said is he thinks Iran's bomb is inevitable, and that we should take diplomatic measures. That's not even close to saying Iran's bomb is a necessary great step towards world peace.

I read GA's post, and didn't have much to add. It's all just a guess. One thing though.... Iran's labs haven't been secret for a few years now.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4617398.stm
http://www.atomicarchive.com/Almanac...cilities.shtml
Reply With Quote
  #48  
GAsux GAsux is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Las Vegas
GAsux is probably a spambot
Old Mar 16th, 2007, 06:03 PM       
Again I don't claim to be a proliferation expert, nor do I claim to fully understand the science of bomb making to include materials, triggers, etc. I would agree that Iran's main labs have probably all been discovered, but I'm willing to bet that they've been at least moderately successful in maintaining secret nuclear related facilities as well.

In virtually every single case regarding intelligence estimates of countries nuclear capabilities, they were vastly underestimated. But even so, assuming we could or have located every single nuclear weapons related facility in Iran, it would be a near impossible task to destroy every single one. And even if you could, you're still talking about a temporary solution. As long as they still have the brain power, they'll always be able to rebuild, unless we're talking about some kind of annual strike package.

Again, for me personally you're looking at either regime change or some kind of diplomacy/disincentive arrangement to maintain stability in the region because I don't see air strikes being an effective long term solution.
Reply With Quote
  #49  
Abcdxxxx Abcdxxxx is offline
Mocker
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Abcdxxxx is probably a spambot
Old Mar 17th, 2007, 07:21 AM       
"Again, for me personally you're looking at either regime change or some kind of diplomacy/disincentive arrangement"

I would agree those are probably the most likely methods for the problem, but I wouldn't rule out the possibility of an attack just based on the task itself. The point would be to make a dent, and destroy the key elements with a goal of setting their program back to around 1995. That would only require 3-4 key strike points, and as they get further along, the target becomes even more central.

I also think people are a bit caught up in this idea of the US and Israel making this strike, as if they're the only ones with any contention for these developments. If Iran gets their bomb, you will see Afghanistan, and Iraq turn into a ball of insanity.
Reply With Quote
  #50  
GAsux GAsux is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Las Vegas
GAsux is probably a spambot
Old Mar 17th, 2007, 06:58 PM       
What political impact do military strikes have though, and are they worth it? Even if you can set the program back, even a decade, what does what would presumably be a unilateral strike from either the U.S. or Israel do to it's credibility, not to mention the impact it would have on the Iranian regime? Doesn't pre-emptive air strikes afford Iran the opportunity to strengthen its position internally by rallying the people against what would then be an enemy no only in words but in deeds?

A pre-emptive air strike based on information from the intelligence community that is already facing serious credibility issues based on what transpired in Iraq seems like a ridiculously risky move. In my opinion, you would not only strengthen the Iranian regimes internal position, but allow for them to build a reasonable international case against the "unprovoked" aggressive U.S./Israeli tactics.

Seems like it might provide a stop gap and buy more time, but I can't see air strikes solving the problem unless we intend to carry them out every 5-10 years.
Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

   


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 06:04 AM.


© 2008 I-Mockery.com
Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.