[QUOTE=Der Trihs]
Of course by that standard America should be stripped of our nukes . . . except no one has the power. If America has the right to nukes, then so does Iran. As well, I consider Iran less likely to use them. They don’t have our conviction of invincibility.
[/QUOTE]
I deduce from this that if only one of the two nations could have nukes, and you had to pick one, that you would pick Iran. Please tell me my conclusion is in error. And how.
[QUOTE=magellan01]
I deduce from this that if only one of the two nations could have nukes, and you had to pick one, that you would pick Iran. Please tell me my conclusion is in error. And how.
[/QUOTE]
No, I think that either neither should have them or both. If Iran has nukes we won’t invade or bomb them. OTOH if neither of us had nukes, that makes it impossible for Bush to nuke Iran or Syria or some other country, not to mention preventing some future Rapture-believing President from igniting the Apocalypse because Christ wants him to.
[QUOTE=Der Trihs]
The argument was that Iran should not be allowed to have nukes because they have crazy leaders. America has crazy leaders. Therefore, if Iran should not have nukes, then America should lose it’s nukes. Simple.
[/QUOTE]
That wasn’t MY arguement. Besides which, I don’t think the Bush et al is in the same league, crazy wise, as those bozo’s in Iran. Bush is a wanabee fundamentalist and crazy compared to those fine folks.
-XT
[QUOTE=Der Trihs]
The argument was that Iran should not be allowed to have nukes because they have crazy leaders. America has crazy leaders.
[/QUOTE]
Well, actually, America has leaders that some call crazy because they hate even a miniscule portion of the beleifs espoused by said leaders. Doesn’t make the leader crazy. And if we can buy into your rabid hatred for just a moment and think the top leaders are in fact insane, I can’t imagine why they’re still in power.
Aren’t there a few hundred in the opposing party, and dozens in the majority party, that would outright seek any and all avenues of impeachment and/or death? Hell, the CIA, NSA, FBI and whatever ofhter agency you can think of surely would see psychosis at some point and concoct a convenient “horse riding accident” to save the country.
Granted, it’s stated policy to do everything we can to topple destructive and oppressive regimes for the benefit of giving the oppressed a chance at self-governance. But it’s also lacking in any rhetoric of universally eradicating a specific race of people.
A nuclear Iran and a nuclear US are on par with each other? You’re allowing your hatred of an administration to cloud your Big Picture focus. If we allow Iran to build nuclear weapons, do you think they’ll dismantle them and walk away if a Dem is elected in '08? I really need an answer for this as I’m honestly not sure what your answer will be.
[QUOTE=Magiver]
A nation whose politicians shout “death to America” during parliamentary session is not stable.
[/QUOTE]
Hell, we did everything but shout “Death to the USSR” in the halls of Congress for decades, but we never nuked them, or even went to war with them.
[QUOTE=spoke-]
Hell, we did everything but shout “Death to the USSR” in the halls of Congress for decades, but we never nuked them, or even went to war with them.
[/QUOTE]
Well, Kruschev (sp?) was pretty adamant about burying the US. Hell he even used his shoe and the podium to punctuate. That’s a statement! So some rhetoric in Congress seems a bit expected.
All the Cold War proved was that the US will do anything and everything to avoid using nuclear weapons. Or did I miss the report of a secret Moscow bombing at some point?
[QUOTE=duffer]
And if we can buy into your rabid hatred for just a moment and think the top leaders are in fact insane, I can’t imagine why they’re still in power.
[/quote]
Because the majority of Americans are either right wing fools and thugs, or spineless.
[QUOTE=duffer]
Aren’t there a few hundred in the opposing party, and dozens in the majority party, that would outright seek any and all avenues of impeachment and/or death?
[/quote]
Nope.
[QUOTE=duffer]
Hell, the CIA, NSA, FBI and whatever ofhter agency you can think of surely would see psychosis at some point and concoct a convenient “horse riding accident” to save the country.
[/quote]
You mean the ones controlled by his cronies ?
[QUOTE=duffer]
If we allow Iran to build nuclear weapons, do you think they’ll dismantle them and walk away if a Dem is elected in '08?
[/QUOTE]
No. So what ?
[QUOTE=duffer]
All the Cold War proved was that the US will do anything and everything to avoid using nuclear weapons.
[/QUOTE]
Against an enemy who has them, which is another arguement for why Iran should get them.
[QUOTE=duffer]
Well, Kruschev (sp?) was pretty adamant about burying the US. Hell he even used his shoe and the podium to punctuate. That’s a statement! So some rhetoric in Congress seems a bit expected.
[/QUOTE]
But the Soviet Union didn’t start a war either, did they? Despite all the “We will bury you” rhetoric?
Sorry, but “Death to America” chants don’t frighten me. It’s just more of the same sort of heated rhetoric.
How many proxy wars did we fight with the Soviets? The fact that we couldn’t attack each other directly didn’t mean that war was avoided.
And I don’t doubt that we will struggle by proxy with Iran (as we have already done, you may recall). What’s your point?
[QUOTE=spoke-]
And I don’t doubt that we will struggle by proxy with Iran (as we have already done, you may recall).
[/quote]
You might also recall that, oh… about a half a dozen posts ago you claimed that we never went to war with the Soviets. While technically true, the fact that there were numerous proxy wars puts paid to your response to Duffer’s point about the stability of a nation. It’s a good bet in fact that war will be caused, one way or another, by a nation that can’t be attacked directly but still wants to fight.
[QUOTE=spoke-]
What’s your point?
[/QUOTE]
It could be that Iran is more likely to continue and/or increase its terrorist activities, to attack countries via proxy forces, to threaten the lives, security, and geopolitical interests of dozens of other nations, and to remain free from retribution due to MAD.
My central point, since it seems to have eluded you, is that in spite of all the heated rhetoric on both sides, nobody used nukes. The Russians love their children, too, as Sting put it once. Nobody wanted a nuclear exchange.
Similarly, Pakistan and India have exchanged heated rhetoric for years, and even engaged in conventional warfare. But nobody used nukes.
I see no reason to suspect that Iran would like to be nuked. So why would they use a nuke on us if that would be the inevitable result?
The idea of a nuclear Iran does not terrify me. It may terrify Israel. So let Israel fight Iran, if they feel that strongly about it. Leave the US out of it.
[QUOTE=spoke-]
My central point, since it seems to have eluded you,
[/quote]
No, it seems that you just didn’t grok what I said. I directly answered your point.
[QUOTE=spoke-]
is that in spite of all the heated rhetoric on both sides, nobody used nukes.
[/quote]
And yet… there were numerous proxy wars. The simple fact that there weren’t nuclear wars doesn’t mean that the results weren’t absolutely horrible.
[QUOTE=spoke-]
Similarly, Pakistan and India have exchanged heated rhetoric for years, and even engaged in conventional warfare. But nobody used nukes.
[/quote]
Yay!
[QUOTE=spoke-]
I see no reason to suspect that Iran would like to be nuked. So why would they use a nuke on us if that would be the inevitable result?
[/quote]
There doesn’t have to be a direct nuclear attack for Iran to use nukes to cover their activities. Maybe they’ll just unleash Hezbollah on other targets. Maybe various terrorist organizations will have enough plausible deniability to use dirty bombs that can’t be tied directly to Iran.
And, of course, that while “Iran” might not want to be nuked in response, there are those who might have their finger on the button who wouldn’t mind all that much. Iran’s proxy force, Hezbollah, was the organization that made suicide bombings into a truly recognizable tactic.
[QUOTE=spoke-]
The idea of a nuclear Iran does not terrify me.
[/quote]
Well then we can let them have nukes.
[QUOTE=spoke-]
It may terrify Israel. So let Israel fight Iran, if they feel that strongly about it.
[/quote]
Let’s have Iran plunge the ME into even greater chaos and war and the possibility of someone trying for a first strike.
[QUOTE=spoke-]
Leave the US out of it.
[/QUOTE]
Again, tell that to all the Americans who Hezbollah has murdered over the years.
Tell that to Hezbollah cells working in America right now.
You’ll pardon me if I’d rather not have a nuclear armed Iran, even though you’re not “terrified.”
[QUOTE=FinnAgain]
There doesn’t have to be a direct nuclear attack for Iran to use nukes to cover their activities. Maybe they’ll just unleash Hezbollah on other targets. Maybe various terrorist organizations will have enough plausible deniability to use dirty bombs that can’t be tied directly to Iran.
[/quote]
Well that’s quite a parade of horribles all right. Remind me why Iran would want to do these things to the US as opposed to Israel (knowing that the US is capable of covert and equally horrible retaliation)?
Or is it that you fear Iran would do those things to Israel? I don’t think they would, for the just the same reason. But if Israel fears Iran, let Israel fight Iran. I don’t want the US fighting a proxy war for Israel. (Since you raise the topic of proxy wars.)
Spare me. Hezbollah uses ignorant, disturbed kids to commit suicide bombings. You didn’t see the leaders of Hezbollah strapping on the TNT. Nor do I think the leaders of Iran are suicidal. The Iranians love their children, too.
Yes, the prospect of war is horrible, isn’t it? So horrible you might find people on both sides who would seek ways to avoid it.
I am getting very tired of sacrificing America’s sons and daughters in the Middle East, particularly when I don’t see the US getting any benefit from it – only new generations of angry terrorists.
In my more cynical moments, I am almost tempted to say we should pull out completely and let everyone there duke it out till they’re tired of fighting. Whoever’s left will still have oil they need to sell us.
You’re entitled to your opinion, of course, but given your vocal support for Israel on this board, I am entitled to wonder whether Israel’s safety might be your primary consideration. Not that there’s anything wrong with that. You are entitled to be concerned about Israel. I just don’t want the US fighting Israel’s battles for her.
[QUOTE=Der Trihs]
Because the majority of Americans are either right wing fools and thugs, or spineless.
[/quote]
Or they just don’t agree with your infinite wisdom. Please run for office. You may just be the one to save us from ourselves.
Well then this is all verbal, or textual, masturbation. If there is no hope, there’s really no debate is there?
So everyone with a contact in the media is a member of BushCo? Every person with any clout was appointed after Jan 2001? Every single one of them that is covering up slipped by the Dems in Congress? With all the procedures in place such a nefarious bunch has been able to take the US hostage? If that’s true, I have to question the effectiveness of the opposition. But good form in turning the debate from Iran to US politics. Though i’m surprised you put so much stock in the importance of the US in international politics.
Aw, shit. I forgot about all those other countries that don’t want Iran to have nukes. Those cronies are frigging prolific!
So you’re saying Iran should have nukes (I mistyped and said “nikes” the first time, heh) no matter who’s the current president? I can respect that, though I think it’s wrong. I understand your basic argument on the issue, but I’m looking past the next election cycle. Again, the US had the benefit of the A-bomb in WWII. As horrid as the results were, it ended a war that was just decimating countries.
How many nukes have we dropped on people since then? crickets That’s right. Because we don’t just launch them when we’re feeling grumpy.
And we certainly didn’t publicly seek to develop them while saying we wanted to kill an entire race and wipe an entire country “off the map”.
That’s the exact reason they shouldn’t have them. Iran is not an enemy of the US. Never has been. At least not in the sense that a war would be imminent. If there was ever a time we would go to war with Iran (save the prospect of an attack on Israel) it would have been the hostage situation. A “proxy” war could be argued with the Iran/Iraq war, but that proves we would get to extreme situations where nukes would be used.
We’ve sat back and kept a relatively low profile in Iranian affairs. Low-profile meaning we haven’t created mushroom clouds over Tehran. Part of that could be because we were fighting proxy against the Soviets in Afghanistan. (Yes, I know who we were funding.) Enemy of my enemy, and all that.
20, 30, even 40 years ago the US was fighting a different threat. It was one thing for a Soviet Premeir to say he’d bury the US, it’s another for a country to actively fund a foreign group to destroy a country that the leader says should be wiped from the face of the Earth.
And he wants nuclear weapons. And he doesn’t seem very stable. Nor does he have the controls a US president is subjected to by Congress. A few Imams get involved, it doesn’t even really matter what the Iranian President wants.
If you think Iran is in a state that they should have nukes, keep preaching. Maybe we can provide the boats to ship some of those warheads to North Korea. Nothing to worry about, move along.
[QUOTE=spoke-]
Hell, we did everything but shout “Death to the USSR” in the halls of Congress for decades, but we never nuked them, or even went to war with them.
[/QUOTE]
Nonsense. The cold war was based on MAD.
[QUOTE=spoke-]
But the Soviet Union didn’t start a war either, did they? Despite all the “We will bury you” rhetoric?
Sorry, but “Death to America” chants don’t frighten me. It’s just more of the same sort of heated rhetoric.
[/QUOTE]
Again, that’s my point. Neither the Soviets nor the US started nuclear war. Death to America doesn’t exactly frighten me either.
At the same time, neither the Soviets nor the US called for the outright destruction of an entire class of people and their nation. There was a bit of drama in the '60’s over the Soviets planting warheads they had on an island 90 miles from our back porch, and I don’t remember any radiation threats in Miami or Havana. It was known they had The Bomb, yet our silos stayed silent. What renegades we are.
The whole “We will bury you” must have seemed intimidating at the time. Looking back at that time, I’m almost willing to think he meant he’d prove Communism was the way to go, not that they wanted to destroy the nation of America. That’s speculation.
But no matter what he meant, or what he really wanted to do, the fact remains not a single warhead was launched. if we’re going to debate Iran/US nuclear weapons, I think the US has the proven track record.
I haven’t seen anything indicating Iran, at this point, can be trusted with the weapons.
[QUOTE=FinnAgain]
Again, tell that to all the Americans who Hezbollah has murdered over the years.
Tell that to Hezbollah cells working in America right now.
[/QUOTE]
:rolleyes: I’m supposed to believe the “Moonie Times” ?
[QUOTE=duffer]
Please run for office. You may just be the one to save us from ourselves.
[/QUOTE]
I have no desire to save America, even if I could. It doesn’t deserve to be saved. If I knew for a fact that I and I alone could save Ameica, I’d leave, then sit back in some other country and watch America collapse with a smile.
[QUOTE=duffer]
.Iran is not an enemy of the US. Never has been.
[/QUOTE]
America has been an enemy of Iran for decades. Right now, with Bush and the Republicans in power, America is the enemy of everybody.
[QUOTE=Magiver]
Nonsense. The cold war was based on MAD.
[/QUOTE]
Exactly. Neither side used the nukes, no matter how “crazy” the rhetoric became.
Duffer, I don’t think you’re getting me. I’m saying we shouldn’t buy into Iran’s “crazy” rhetoric. We’ve heard it before. Just because they shout slogans, it doesn’t mean they would launch nukes.
I see no reason to believe they want nukes for any other purpose than to deter invasion by the US or attack by Israel.