Iran enriches uranium to 20%

145679

Comments

  • brbr Posts: 8,253member
    Not believing and not understanding are two separate issues. I am pretty sure I understand a lot more about the Bible than you do, coming from a perspective of not assuming it's the literal word of an unsubstantiated deity. I don't have that sort of bias working against me to look at it with a critical, evenhanded eye.
  • trumptmantrumptman Posts: 16,254member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by BR View Post


    Not believing and not understanding are two separate issues. I am pretty sure I understand a lot more about the Bible than you do, coming from a perspective of not assuming it's the literal word of an unsubstantiated deity. I don't have that sort of bias working against me to look at it with a critical, evenhanded eye.



    /Reality Holy shit, Iran is about to go nuclear and destablize entire regions of the world.



    /BRReasoning Yes, but the person stating that reality might believe in some myths so that part about Iran and bombs can't be true. Gwaaaaarrrr!!!!!
  • asciiascii Posts: 5,363member
    Hmmm... a culture who has not got past the ancient concept of holy war, getting the most fearsome weapon known to mankind. Not a very nice proposition.



    I don't think Obama should stay neutral in this and leave it up to Israel, actually a very small country, to do something about it. He should do something himself.



    He has made a deal with the Russians to reduce nukes, and that's good, but doing that while letting Iran get them, and North Korea keep producing them, is overall a negative on balance.
  • sdw2001sdw2001 Posts: 16,184member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by BR View Post


    Not believing and not understanding are two separate issues.



    Sometimes, sometimes not.



    Quote:

    I am pretty sure I understand a lot more about the Bible than you do,



    It's not a pissing contest, BR. In fact, you'll notice that I rarely if ever support my arguments with scripture, so that point is irrelevant.



    Quote:





    coming from a perspective of not assuming it's the literal word of an unsubstantiated deity. I don't have that sort of bias working against me to look at it with a critical, evenhanded eye.



    Your bias is that you think Christians cannot be critical and evenhanded. I don't think all of the the bible is literal either. I don't even believe all of it is the word of God. History tells us that it has been altered by man (sections deleted, mostly). Either way, unless we're discussing scripture/faith itself, I don't use it to make my political or other arguments often if ever.





    Quote:
    Originally Posted by ascii View Post


    Hmmm... a culture who has not got past the ancient concept of holy war, getting the most fearsome weapon known to mankind. Not a very nice proposition.



    Agreed. It's more than that, too. As I've stated, there is powerful and somewhat hidden element in the Iranian leadership that believes the 12th Imam can only be revealed through Armageddon. And this is the regime that is likely pursuing nuclear weapons. People claim that Iran is a "rational actor" and would not attack Israel or the U.S. as a result for fear of being obliterated. It apparently hasn't occurred to them that Iran's real leadership may want exactly that.



    Quote:



    I don't think Obama should stay neutral in this and leave it up to Israel, actually a very small country, to do something about it. He should do something himself.



    I agree in principle. To be fair, we are turning up the heat in sanctions, which is good. He's not out in public talking about it much though, which is a major flaw. That said, we need a credible military threat if Iran does not respond to sanctions (which obviously they have not).



    Quote:



    He has made a deal with the Russians to reduce nukes, and that's good,



    I'm not sure it is. Any progress has been negotiated out of weakness and apparently, in secrecy.



    Quote:

    but doing that while letting Iran get them, and North Korea keep producing them, is overall a negative on balance.



    Probably true.
  • asciiascii Posts: 5,363member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post


    I'm not sure it is. Any progress has been negotiated out of weakness and apparently, in secrecy.



    I don't know any details of the negotiations, I just remember the newspaper headlines about the reductions.



    The reason I think nuke reduction is good, is not because I'm against nukes, It's because I believe US conventional forces are so superior to anything else out there, that in a world with no nukes the US would be even more top-dog than it is today. But of course it's impossible to put the genie back in the bottle, so in reality you probably want to get a good modern stock of nukes.
  • mj1970mj1970 Posts: 9,002member


    Obama does to Iran what, if anyone did to the US would surely be called an act of war worthy of a military response.


     


     


    And the US government continues to show its hypocrisy has no limits.

  • sdw2001sdw2001 Posts: 16,184member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by ascii View Post





    I don't know any details of the negotiations, I just remember the newspaper headlines about the reductions.



    The reason I think nuke reduction is good, is not because I'm against nukes, It's because I believe US conventional forces are so superior to anything else out there, that in a world with no nukes the US would be even more top-dog than it is today. But of course it's impossible to put the genie back in the bottle, so in reality you probably want to get a good modern stock of nukes.


     


    Wishful thinking on the world not having nukes.  We need a nuclear deterrent.  And remember, US conventional forces are superior technologically and technically (training, combat, etc), but not numerically.  Not by far.  


     


     


    Quote:

    Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post


    Obama does to Iran what, if anyone did to the US would surely be called an act of war worthy of a military response.


     


     


    And the US government continues to show its hypocrisy has no limits.



     


    I don't know how I feel about it.  On one hand, I agree that if the tables were turned, we'd flip out.  On the other, Iran is not the United States.  It is a rogue, radical theocracy that poses a direct threat to the US and its allies.  Diplomacy is clearly not working.  Cyber attacks can slow and possibly even halt their progress with little to no risk of life.  It would be great if we could just leave them alone and hope they do the same, but this isn't how the world works.  I'd rather see cyber attacks than an actual war.  

  • mj1970mj1970 Posts: 9,002member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post


    On the other, Iran is not the United States.  It is a rogue, radical theocracy that poses a direct threat to the US and its allies.



     


    It's interesting to me that you (and others) make this claim of Iran not being on the same moral playing field as the US and yet the moral foundation or a person, family, business or nation lies in its actions. On this count it seems that US is taking actual actions against presumed actions or presumed threats of actions. It has propagandized Iran and convinced many people of their alleged direct threat to the US and their instability and continues to demand they end any attempt to have the same weapons of deterrent and defense as those surrounding them (including the US, Israel, Pakistan and India) have.


     


     


    Quote:

    Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post


    It would be great if we could just leave them alone and hope they do the same, but this isn't how the world works.



     


    You say that like the US (and Israel) aren't doing everything possible to avoid even trying that approach.


     


    You say that like almost everything the US is doing in relation to Iran wouldn't be considered an aggressive act of war if someone was doing it to us.


     


    You say that like if someone made the same demands of the US as we make of Iran it wouldn't be greeted with endless howls of outrage among politicians both left and right, the talk show pundits and on barstools across the country.


     


    You claim moral superiority, but as I said moral character (good or bad) is judged by our actual actions. And by the actions of the US government, it is starting to look like a hypocritical, smug, arrogant, self-righteous bully (both domestically and internationally mind you.)


     


    It should be noted that leaving someone alone and being vigilant and watchful in defense are not mutually exclusive stances.


     


     


    Quote:

    Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post


    I'd rather see cyber attacks than an actual war.  



     


    I'd rather see the US government not use money it has stolen from me to launch unprovoked attacks on other people and nations. But that train has already left the station...multiple times now. Preemptive attack is the new doctrine of the US government.

  • jazzgurujazzguru Posts: 6,435member


    Iranians Protest Sanctions’ Impoverishing Effects


    Quote:


    The sanctions placed on the Iranian economy have ushered in runaway inflation, cuts in government subsidies, and high unemployment. The supposed purpose behind the economic warfare is to pressure Iran away from developing nuclear weapons, even though Washington admits Iran has no weapons program and has not made the decision to start one.


  • sammi josammi jo Posts: 4,634member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by jazzguru View Post


    Iranians Protest Sanctions’ Impoverishing Effects



    Everyone knows the effects of sanctions. Some examples:


     


    The US has held sanctions against Cuba for over half a century. The "targeted" government is still much in place, and the Cuban people suffer.


    The US (and allied nations) had sanctions against Iraq for 12 years after the Gulf War. Saddam Hussein's government remained in power, while the Iraqi people suffered (hundreds of thousands of kids died)


    The US (and allied nations) have sanctions against Iran. The government remains in place, its senior officials unaffected, while the people of Iran suffer.


    The UN have sanctions in place against North Korea. Their government remains in place, and the people of North Korea live in abject poverty.


     


    Do sanctions work? If the object is to maintain the status of "rogue" governments, while sticking it to the ordinary people of those nations, then sanctions work a treat. Does Obama and company know this? Course they do.

  • mj1970mj1970 Posts: 9,002member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by sammi jo View Post


    Everyone knows the effects of sanctions. Some examples:


     


    The US has held sanctions against Cuba for over half a century. The "targeted" government is still much in place, and the Cuban people suffer.


    The US (and allied nations) had sanctions against Iraq for 12 years after the Gulf War. Saddam Hussein's government remained in power, while the Iraqi people suffered (hundreds of thousands of kids died)


    The US (and allied nations) have sanctions against Iran. The government remains in place, its senior officials unaffected, while the people of Iran suffer.


    The UN have sanctions in place against North Korea. Their government remains in place, and the people of North Korea live in abject poverty.


     


    Do sanctions work? If the object is to maintain the status of "rogue" governments, while sticking it to the ordinary people of those nations, then sanctions work a treat. Does Obama and company know this? Course they do.



     


    And yet, interestingly, there are always constant calls for reducing trade with foreign countries (e.g., with the middle east for oil, with China for anything, etc.) apparently unaware that this has the effect of imposing economic sanctions on ourselves.

  • sammi josammi jo Posts: 4,634member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post


     


    And yet, interestingly, there are always constant calls for reducing trade with foreign countries (e.g., with the middle east for oil, with China for anything, etc.) apparently unaware that this has the effect of imposing economic sanctions on ourselves.



     


    Reducing the need for oil (and coal, natural gas etc) would be a good thing for everyone, everywhere. Burning stuff to make electricity seems very "stone age", but when there'e no will on the part of the powers-that-be to develop something sensible, renewable and non-polluting, then nothing's going to change until the issue is forced, and by then it will possibly be too late. Maybe it's already too late.


     


    Re. China etc... we do tend to cherrypick the totalitarian regimes to either support, turn a blind eye, or stomp on. The biggest act of "shooting ourselves in the foot economically", or effectively imposing sanctions against ourselves, was the transformation of the US from a manufacturing powerhouse, to a service economy, and both major political parties are equally guilty - which figures, since both major political parties are the two sides of the same coin.

  • mj1970mj1970 Posts: 9,002member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by sammi jo View Post


    Reducing the need for oil (and coal, natural gas etc) would be a good thing for everyone, everywhere. Burning stuff to make electricity seems very "stone age", but when there'e no will on the part of the powers-that-be to develop something sensible, renewable and non-polluting, then nothing's going to change until the issue is forced, and by then it will possibly be too late. Maybe it's already too late.



     


    And yet...while it seems stone age, it really isn't. It never seems to occur to folks that the alternative energy sources it not as much a matter of "will" but of both economics and physics.


     


     


    Quote:

    Originally Posted by sammi jo View Post


    Re. China etc... we do tend to cherrypick the totalitarian regimes to either support, turn a blind eye, or stomp on. The biggest act of "shooting ourselves in the foot economically", or effectively imposing sanctions against ourselves, was the transformation of the US from a manufacturing powerhouse, to a service economy, and both major political parties are equally guilty - which figures, since both major political parties are the two sides of the same coin.



     


    Agreed.

  • frank777frank777 Posts: 5,701member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by sammi jo View Post


    Everyone knows the effects of sanctions...



     


    Sammi, you should really know better than this.


     


    The public rationale for sanctions is usually to punish a rogue regime. In truth, sanctions are expected to turn segments of a populace against a regime in power, which makes it easier to make allies among opposition groups vying for power.

  • mj1970mj1970 Posts: 9,002member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Frank777 View Post


     


    Sammi, you should really know better than this.


     


    The public rationale for sanctions is usually to punish a rogue regime. In truth, sanctions are expected to turn segments of a populace against a regime in power, which makes it easier to make allies among opposition groups vying for power.



     


    It's true that's the theory but, in practice, it rarely seems to work out this way.

  • mj1970mj1970 Posts: 9,002member


    Hey look! The sanctions are working. Just like in Cuba. And Iraq. And... And... And...


     


    Fucking morons.

  • jimmacjimmac Posts: 11,898member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post


    Hey look! The sanctions are working. Just like in Cuba. And Iraq. And... And... And...


     


    Fucking morons.



    What would you do?

  • mj1970mj1970 Posts: 9,002member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by jimmac View Post


    What would you do?



     


    Open free trade relations with Iran.

  • jimmacjimmac Posts: 11,898member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post




    Quote:

    Originally Posted by jimmac View Post


    What would you do?



     


    Open free trade relations with Iran.



    And this would effect their nuclear program how?


     


    Do you think we really need another country with this type of weaponry?

  • mj1970mj1970 Posts: 9,002member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by jimmac View Post


    And this would effect their nuclear program how?



     


    I have no idea.


     


     


    Quote:

    Originally Posted by jimmac View Post


    Do you think we really need another country with this type of weaponry?



     


    Are you implying that Iran has nuclear weapons?

Sign In or Register to comment.