AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › Iran enriches uranium to 20%
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Iran enriches uranium to 20% - Page 3

post #81 of 189
2/7/12 at 7:13am
Quote:
Originally Posted by jazzguru View Post



"Iran wants to bring on Armageddon, and we'll go to war with them before we let that happen."

Yes, exactly. We will take military action before they acquire the tools bring about Armageddon. A war with Iran now will not be like one 2 years from now. Not that I'm arguing for that, but it may come to it at some point before their missile and nuclear technology make a war with them unthinkable.
To save time, assume I know everything.
Reply
To save time, assume I know everything.
Reply
post #82 of 189
2/7/12 at 7:26am
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

Yes, exactly. We will take military action before they acquire the tools bring about Armageddon. A war with Iran now will not be like one 2 years from now. Not that I'm arguing for that, but it may come to it at some point before their missile and nuclear technology make a war with them unthinkable.

What would make war with them unthinkable?

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #83 of 189
2/7/12 at 7:34am
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

What would make war with them unthinkable?

That they have the ability to defend themselves against aggression.

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #84 of 189
2/7/12 at 7:45am
  • BR
  • Justified Arrogance
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

Poor sammi, you just don't understand. There are powerful forces in Iran who WANT to bring on Armageddon. This is why Iran cannot be allowed to have a nuclear weapon. This is why Iran's threats cannot be ignored. However, it is also why military action is risky and should be a last resort. It's dangerous, but it might be the only way to keep Iran from getting the tools its extremist government needs to reach their goal.

There are powerful forces HERE, in AMERICA, who want to bring on Armageddon. Should we be preemptively attacked?

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply
post #85 of 189
2/7/12 at 8:32am
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

What would make war with them unthinkable?

Nuclear weapons. That's what.

Quote:
Originally Posted by jazzguru View Post

That they have the ability to defend themselves against aggression.

"Defend themselves against aggression??? Oh my God. You cannot be serious with this view. Can you?


Quote:
Originally Posted by BR View Post

There are powerful forces HERE, in AMERICA, who want to bring on Armageddon. Should we be preemptively attacked?

No, there are not "powerful forces" that want to bring about Armageddon. In fact, there is no sizable group that wishes that, nor are they powerful.
To save time, assume I know everything.
Reply
To save time, assume I know everything.
Reply
post #86 of 189
2/7/12 at 8:37am
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

"Defend themselves against aggression??? Oh my God. You cannot be serious with this view. Can you?

Hang on here. Both the Israel and the US (though the US has been a bit more careful about it) have hinted that a preemptive strike against Iran is an option.


Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

Nuclear weapons. That's what.

So, if Iran obtains nuclear weapons, it will be much less palatable for the US or Israel to attack them because their retaliatory capability would be quite devastating. Is that right?

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #87 of 189
2/7/12 at 9:13am
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

"Defend themselves against aggression??? Oh my God. You cannot be serious with this view. Can you?

What view? That sovereign nations have the right to defend themselves against aggression?

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #88 of 189
2/7/12 at 9:21am
Quote:
Originally Posted by jazzguru View Post

What view? That sovereign nations have the right to defend themselves against aggression?

In fairness to SDW2001, he does not view Israel and the US who have ample advanced weaponry including nuclear weapons and have demonstrated the willingness to actually attack other countries (multiple times...preemptively) as aggressors, while Iran who has far less (and less sophisticated) weaponry and no nuclear weapons and have not actually attacked other countries are the aggressors.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #89 of 189
2/7/12 at 9:55am
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

Hang on here. Both the Israel and the US (though the US has been a bit more careful about it) have hinted that a preemptive strike against Iran is an option.

So?

Quote:
So, if Iran obtains nuclear weapons, it will be much less palatable for the US or Israel to attack them because their retaliatory capability would be quite devastating. Is that right?

Yes. And and Iranian attack would be much more devastating.
To save time, assume I know everything.
Reply
To save time, assume I know everything.
Reply
post #90 of 189
2/7/12 at 9:57am
Quote:
Originally Posted by jazzguru View Post

What view? That sovereign nations have the right to defend themselves against aggression?

WHAT aggression? And please, all nations are "sovereign," so drop your sanctimonious use of that term.

Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

In fairness to SDW2001, he does not view Israel and the US who have ample advanced weaponry including nuclear weapons and have demonstrated the willingness to actually attack other countries (multiple times...preemptively) as aggressors, while Iran who has far less (and less sophisticated) weaponry and no nuclear weapons and have not actually attacked other countries are the aggressors.

It has nothing to do with weaponry. It has to do with "acting as aggressors," which we really don't do.
To save time, assume I know everything.
Reply
To save time, assume I know everything.
Reply
post #91 of 189
2/7/12 at 9:59am
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

It has to do with "acting as aggressors," which we really don't do.

So you claim.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #92 of 189
2/7/12 at 10:02am
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

So?

You don't see any hypocrisy here?


Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

Yes. And and Iranian attack would be much more devastating.

Don't think that maybe that's the point of Iran's pursuit of nuclear weapons? To create a state of stalemate. Sorta like the whole "mutually assured destruction" doctrine the USSR and US engaged in for many years?

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #93 of 189
2/7/12 at 10:32am
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

WHAT aggression? And please, all nations are "sovereign," so drop your sanctimonious use of that term.

If China invaded and occupied Canada and Mexico, killed civilians in those countries, and tried to remake the governments there in its own image, would you see those as aggressive acts on the part of China? Would you see that as a threat to the safety and security of the United States?

Of course you would.

In fact, you would support retaliation and defensive actions long before China was able to gain a foothold in those countries, am I right?

Iran's neighbors have been invaded and occupied. They are surrounded by U.S. military bases. Why is it unreasonable for them to want to defend themselves and try to prevent the same thing from happening to them?

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #94 of 189
2/7/12 at 10:46am
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

You don't see any hypocrisy here?

No. Do you know why? Because Iran is not the moral equivalent of the United States. Pre-emption does not automatically make one an "aggressor."

Quote:

Don't think that maybe that's the point of Iran's pursuit of nuclear weapons?

It's not the main reason, no. It might be one reason, but the main one is have a real option to annihilate Israel and bring about Armageddon.

Quote:

To create a state of stalemate. Sorta like the whole "mutually assured destruction" doctrine the USSR and US engaged in for many years?

No, it's not like that at all. That is what you and the rest of the Paul crowd don't get. The Soviet Union wanted to avoid a nuclear war with the U.S. as much as we wanted to avoid it. We had people that had similar values on each side, but with different systems of government. In Iran, we have a totally different mindset. We have leadership with a deep hatred of Israel and even the Jewish people themselves. We have people that think is their DUTY to destroy Israel and the United States. We have people that think a nuclear holocaust is inevitable, and, for their extreme religious purposes, a good thing. Most importantly, you are advocating a policy that is exactly the opposite of what we did with the Soviets. You are advocating Détente. That worked GREAT.
To save time, assume I know everything.
Reply
To save time, assume I know everything.
Reply
post #95 of 189
2/7/12 at 10:49am
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

No. Do you know why? Because Iran is not the moral equivalent of the United States. Pre-emption does not automatically make one an "aggressor."

I beg to differ. I would say that preemption without a real, credible and imminent threat would be considered aggression.


Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

It's not the main reason, no. It might be one reason, but the main one is have a real option to annihilate Israel and bring about Armageddon.

No, it's not like that at all. That is what you and the rest of the Paul crowd don't get. The Soviet Union wanted to avoid a nuclear war with the U.S. as much as we wanted to avoid it. We had people that had similar values on each side, but with different systems of government. In Iran, we have a totally different mindset. We have leadership with a deep hatred of Israel and even the Jewish people themselves. We have people that think is their DUTY to destroy Israel and the United States. We have people that think a nuclear holocaust is inevitable, and, for their extreme religious purposes, a good thing. Most importantly, you are advocating a policy that is exactly the opposite of what we did with the Soviets. You are advocating Détente. That worked GREAT.

So you say.


And Iraq had WMDs.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #96 of 189
2/7/12 at 11:40am
Quote:
Originally Posted by jazzguru View Post

If China invaded and occupied Canada and Mexico, killed civilians in those countries, and tried to remake the governments there in its own image, would you see those as aggressive acts on the part of China? Would you see that as a threat to the safety and security of the United States?

Of course you would.

In fact, you would support retaliation and defensive actions long before China was able to gain a foothold in those countries, am I right?

Iran's neighbors have been invaded and occupied. They are surrounded by U.S. military bases. Why is it unreasonable for them to want to defend themselves and try to prevent the same thing from happening to them?

So you are equating A Chinese invasion of Canada with the U.S. invading Iraq? WTF?
To save time, assume I know everything.
Reply
To save time, assume I know everything.
Reply
post #97 of 189
2/7/12 at 11:42am
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

So you are equating A Chinese invasion of Canada with the U.S. invading Iraq? WTF?

Looks like you're side-stepping the question.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #98 of 189
2/7/12 at 11:44am
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

I beg to differ. I would say that preemption without a real, credible and imminent threat would be considered aggression.

Right, so we should wait until Iran masses troops and fuels their missiles. We should wait until they have nuclear and ICBM capability too. Until then, we shouldn't have the resources in the Gulf to deal with them, nor should try to prevent them from going nuclear. Good idea.

Quote:

So you say.


And Iraq had WMDs.

Please, don't become jimmacian in your responses. If you disagree that Iran's leaders are radical extremists who want to destroy Israel and bring on Armageddon, say so. Then show me why. Because otherwise, you're just sticking your head in the sand.
To save time, assume I know everything.
Reply
To save time, assume I know everything.
Reply
post #99 of 189
2/7/12 at 11:45am
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

Looks like you're side-stepping the question.

I'm saying it's a completely inappropriate analogy. He might has well have asked if I'd have a problem with hurting puppies.
To save time, assume I know everything.
Reply
To save time, assume I know everything.
Reply
post #100 of 189
2/7/12 at 11:47am
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

Please, don't become jimmacian in your responses.

Pointing out that we were all told there was a real, credible threat from Iraqi WMDs in order to bring into question your claims of the newest bogeyman is "jimmacian"?

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #101 of 189
2/7/12 at 11:47am
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

I'm saying it's a completely inappropriate analogy. He might has well have asked if I'd have a problem with hurting puppies.

I think the analogy was pretty darn good actually. I suspect most reasonable people would agree.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #102 of 189
2/7/12 at 11:49am
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

Pointing out that we were all told there was a real, credible threat from Iraqi WMDs in order to bring into question your claims of the newest bogeyman is "jimmacian"?

No, telling me "you say so" and leaving it at that is jimmacian.
To save time, assume I know everything.
Reply
To save time, assume I know everything.
Reply
post #103 of 189
2/7/12 at 11:52am
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

No, telling me "you say so" and leaving it at that is jimmacian.

OK. Fair enough. Back to the topic.

Iran is being portrayed as a real, credible and even imminent threat to the US and Israel.

Iraq was portrayed as a real, credible and even imminent threat to the US and Israel.

We were specifically told Iraq had WMDs.

Iraq didn't.

Does any of this give you reason to pause and reconsider what we're being told now?


Also...back to jazz's perfectly appropriate analogy: A large, powerful nation invades a neighboring country (or countries) to the US. Would you consider that a potential threat to US security and even, potentially, an aggression against the US?

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #104 of 189
2/7/12 at 11:55am
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

So you are equating A Chinese invasion of Canada with the U.S. invading Iraq? WTF?

You're making it more complicated than it is. You have to in order to justify your position.

Don't think about the motivations or the reasoning, think about the actions.

Iran has not attacked the United States.

Canada has not attacked China.

Therefore, a Chinese invasion of Canada would be just as immoral and illegitimate as a U.S. invasion of Iran.

Of course, you have to accept the basic philosophical and moral position that the initiation of force against the persons and property of others is immoral and illegitimate.

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #105 of 189
2/7/12 at 12:54pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

OK. Fair enough. Back to the topic.

Iran is being portrayed as a real, credible and even imminent threat to the US and Israel.

Yes.

Quote:

Iraq was portrayed as a real, credible and even imminent threat to the US and Israel.

OK.

Quote:

We were specifically told Iraq had WMDs.

Iraq didn't.

Does any of this give you reason to pause and reconsider what we're being told now?

Honestly, no. It really doesn't. Unlike you, I don't believe the administration lied to the public to start a war. My view is that WMD was primary reason, and that they believed Saddam had them. In fact, I've not seen a single shred of evidence showing the administration lied about WMD.

Quote:


Also...back to jazz's perfectly appropriate analogy: A large, powerful nation invades a neighboring country (or countries) to the US. Would you consider that a potential threat to US security and even, potentially, an aggression against the US?

Hypothetically and without regard to the absurd analogy, yes. But that doesn't change the fact that the analogy is, in fact, absurd. The U.S. didn't invade a peaceful nation in the most stable region in the world. We invaded Iraq. In the Middle East, the most UNSTABLE region in the world. We invaded a nation whose dictator had gassed his own people and launched an attack on Kuwait. We invaded a nation that blatantly defined UN weapons inspections and resolutions, and shared a mutual hatred of the United States with terrorist networks.
To save time, assume I know everything.
Reply
To save time, assume I know everything.
Reply
post #106 of 189
2/7/12 at 12:56pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by jazzguru View Post

You're making it more complicated than it is. You have to in order to justify your position.

Don't think about the motivations or the reasoning, think about the actions.

Iran has not attacked the United States.

Canada has not attacked China.

Therefore, a Chinese invasion of Canada would be just as immoral and illegitimate as a U.S. invasion of Iran.

Of course, you have to accept the basic philosophical and moral position that the initiation of force against the persons and property of others is immoral and illegitimate.



Quote:
a Chinese invasion of Canada would be just as immoral and illegitimate as a U.S. invasion of Iran.

You're kidding me, right?
To save time, assume I know everything.
Reply
To save time, assume I know everything.
Reply
post #107 of 189
2/7/12 at 12:57pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

Unlike you, I don't believe the administration lied to the public to start a war. My view is that WMD was primary reason, and that they believed Saddam had them. In fact, I've not seen a single shred of evidence showing the administration lied about WMD.

Actually, I didn't say anything about them lying.


Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

Hypothetically and without regard to the absurd analogy, yes. But that doesn't change the fact that the analogy is, in fact, absurd.

It isn't absurd just because you say it is.


Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

The U.S. didn't invade a peaceful nation in the most stable region in the world. We invaded Iraq. In the Middle East, the most UNSTABLE region in the world. We invaded a nation whose dictator had gassed his own people and launched an attack on Kuwait. We invaded a nation that blatantly defined UN weapons inspections and resolutions, and shared a mutual hatred of the United States with terrorist networks.

You seem to be missing (or possibly ignoring) the point.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #108 of 189
2/7/12 at 1:00pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

You're kidding me, right?

I'm quite serious.

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #109 of 189
2/8/12 at 3:18pm

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #110 of 189
2/9/12 at 9:05am
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post










Correct. Iran is threatening the U.S.
To save time, assume I know everything.
Reply
To save time, assume I know everything.
Reply
post #111 of 189
2/9/12 at 9:09am
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

Correct. Iran is threatening the U.S.

Yes, the picture clearly illustrates your point.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #112 of 189
2/9/12 at 9:25am
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

Correct. Iran is threatening the U.S.

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #113 of 189
2/9/12 at 1:05pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

Yes, the picture clearly illustrates your point.

Of course it doesn't. It also doesn't prove Santa Clause exists. That's because neither topic is addressed in the map. The existence of U.S. military bases in the region doesn't mean we're "threatening Iran." And even if Iran did believe it was threatened by those bases, what would you have us do...withdraw? Seems like someone needs to do a little historical research on the appeasement of leaders like Iran's.
To save time, assume I know everything.
Reply
To save time, assume I know everything.
Reply
post #114 of 189
2/9/12 at 1:10pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

Of course it doesn't. It also doesn't prove Santa Clause exists. That's because neither topic is addressed in the map. The existence of U.S. military bases in the region doesn't mean we're "threatening Iran." And even if Iran did believe it was threatened by those bases, what would you have us do...withdraw? Seems like someone needs to do a little historical research on the appeasement of leaders like Iran's.

Would you consider Chinese military bases in Canada a threat to the U.S.?

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #115 of 189
2/9/12 at 1:18pm
  • BR
  • Justified Arrogance
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001

Are you going to cry?

Are you claiming that bullying works?

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply
post #116 of 189
2/11/12 at 8:32am
Quote:
Originally Posted by jazzguru View Post

Would you consider Chinese military bases in Canada a threat to the U.S.?

Obviously. I just don't think that's comparable. There are so many differences, from stability of the region, to economics, to geography, to natural resources.
To save time, assume I know everything.
Reply
To save time, assume I know everything.
Reply
post #117 of 189
2/29/12 at 7:24am
Dont Believe All the Baloney About Irans Threat

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #118 of 189
3/11/12 at 6:19pm

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #119 of 189
3/12/12 at 10:54am
Quote:
Originally Posted by jazzguru View Post


The humor of that image is appreciated, but do you really need to keep posting the same one over and over again?
To save time, assume I know everything.
Reply
To save time, assume I know everything.
Reply
post #120 of 189
3/12/12 at 12:12pm
Why not? The war propagandists are repeating the same lies over and over. What's wrong with repeating truth over and over?

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: PoliticalOutsider
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › Iran enriches uranium to 20%