or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › War with Iran inevitable: do you support Iran's right to self-defence?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

War with Iran inevitable: do you support Iran's right to self-defence? - Page 6

post #201 of 309
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

What you fail to understand is that Artman, Sego and I firmly believe that a check in the left cheek is in the best interest of the United States of America and her people.

Now Sego is British, but as US citizens, Artman and I are definitely patriots if this is how we honestly feel about the situation. We want what's best for America. What's best for America at this point is to be humbled, so that we can stop swaggering aroud the world like John Wayne without a conscience and actually do something that starts to resemble promoting peace among a plethora of systems and beliefs, rather than obsequience to the "American Way".

Oh, I understand, don't get me wrong. But wishing for your nation to be "humbled" (i.e. "defeated") is over the top in my opinion, and yes, I think it's unpatriotic. I don't doubt what you say...that you wish this for good reasons. But one can't route against his own country in a war. He just can't. Again,I understand lobbying against a war, trying to end it, believing it's not in our interests, not being conducted properly, etc. That's different in my view. But hoping we lose in some way? Hoping the other side does a good job defending itself? That's routing for the death of American soldiers, then only blaming the person that sent them there.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #202 of 309
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

Oh, I understand, don't get me wrong. But wishing for your nation to be "humbled" (i.e. "defeated") is over the top in my opinion, and yes, I think it's unpatriotic. I don't doubt what you say...that you wish this for good reasons. But one can't route against his own country in a war. He just can't. Again,I understand lobbying against a war, trying to end it, believing it's not in our interests, not being conducted properly, etc. That's different in my view. But hoping we lose in some way? Hoping the other side does a good job defending itself? That's routing for the death of American soldiers, then only blaming the person that sent them there.

Never in my statements did I seriously wish America defeat nor Iran to win. Only that Iran (or any nation for that matter) to defend themselves. Iran would have the right to do so merely for the fact if the US attacked preemptively or invaded illegally. If Iran starts something first, that's another story. But since they haven't invaded anyone since the 18th century...
post #203 of 309
Quote:
Originally Posted by @_@ Artman View Post

Never in my statements did I seriously wish America defeat nor Iran to win. Only that Iran (or any nation for that matter) to defend themselves. Iran would have the right to do so merely for the fact if the US attacked preemptively or invaded illegally. If Iran starts something first, that's another story. But since they haven't invaded anyone since the 18th century...

Yes, it would help the Neocons in their thirst for war if the Iranians started something first. I do not doubt "something could easily be arranged" that on the surface appeared to be "Iranian aggression" for the mainstream media to once again cheerlead for war. You don't think the Bush Administration/NeoCons have too much integrity to pull something like that, surely?
"We've never made the case, or argued the case that somehow Osama bin Laden was directly involved in 9/11. That evidence has never been forthcoming". VP Cheney, 3/29/2006. Interview by Tony Snow
Reply
"We've never made the case, or argued the case that somehow Osama bin Laden was directly involved in 9/11. That evidence has never been forthcoming". VP Cheney, 3/29/2006. Interview by Tony Snow
Reply
post #204 of 309
Quote:
Originally Posted by sammi jo View Post

Yes, it would help the Neocons in their thirst for war if the Iranians started something first. I do not doubt "something could easily be arranged" that on the surface appeared to be "Iranian aggression" for the mainstream media to once again cheerlead for war. You don't think the Bush Administration/NeoCons have too much integrity to pull something like that, surely?

Lusitania-like event? I wouldn't be surprised.
post #205 of 309
Quote:
Originally Posted by sammi jo View Post

Yes, it would help the Neocons in their thirst for war if the Iranians started something first. I do not doubt "something could easily be arranged" that on the surface appeared to be "Iranian aggression" for the mainstream media to once again cheerlead for war. You don't think the Bush Administration/NeoCons have too much integrity to pull something like that, surely?

SAS raiders enter Iran to kill gunrunners

Quote:
BRITISH special forces have crossed into Iran several times in recent months as part of a secret border war against the Iranian Revolutionary Guards Al-Quds special forces, defence sources have disclosed.

There have been at least half a dozen intense firefights between the SAS and arms smugglers, a mixture of Iranians and Shiite militiamen.

The unreported fighting straddles the border between Iran and Iraq and has also involved the Iranian military firing mortars into Iraq. UK commanders are concerned that Iran is using a militia ceasefire to step up arms supplies in preparation for an offensive against their base at Basra airport.

An SAS squadron is carrying out operations along the Iranian border in Maysan and Basra provinces with other special forces, the Australian SAS and American special-operations troops.
post #206 of 309
Quote:
Originally Posted by @_@ Artman View Post

Never in my statements did I seriously wish America defeat nor Iran to win. Only that Iran (or any nation for that matter) to defend themselves. Iran would have the right to do so merely for the fact if the US attacked preemptively or invaded illegally. If Iran starts something first, that's another story. But since they haven't invaded anyone since the 18th century...

Oh come on. It's same the goddamned thing, Art. Wishing for them to defend themselves is the same thing as wishing they'd win. Why else would you do that? Are you just hoping to see more casualties and draw out the hypothetical conflict we're referencing?

That is unless you're making some sort of legal argument, but I really don't think you'll claim you are. Do they legally have the right to defend themselves? Of course. As for the moral argument, that of course depends on your point of view. From their point of view, of course they do. They won't just sit and not fight back.

But thats not the real question. The real question is "is it appropriate for an American citizen to hope the other side does a good job defending itself, even if he disagrees with the war itself?" My answer is no, it's not. Right or wrong, you support your country in a war. You at least don't hope the other guy does well.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #207 of 309
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

But thats not the real question. The real question is "is it appropriate for an American citizen to hope the other side does a good job defending itself, even if he disagrees with the war itself?" My answer is no, it's not. Right or wrong, you support your country in a war. You at least don't hope the other guy does well.

Did I say that? All I said is that they have the right to defend their country. You sound like you have the rendition plane all fueled up ready to fly me to Gitmo or something.

Believe me, I won't go without a fight.

Heh, I did say I hoped they would succeed.* But that's only if we invade. INVADE Iran.

* Don't think they will though...
post #208 of 309
Bomb Iran? U.S. Requests Bunker-Buster Bombs

Quote:
Tucked inside the White House's $196 billion emergency funding request for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan is an item that has some people wondering whether the administration is preparing for military action against Iran.

The item: $88 million to modify B-2 stealth bombers so they can carry a newly developed 30,000-pound bomb called the massive ordnance penetrator, or, in military-speak, the MOP.

The MOP is the the military's largest conventional bomb, a super "bunker-buster" capable of destroying hardened targets deep underground. The one-line explanation for the request said it is in response to "an urgent operational need from theater commanders."

What urgent need? The Pentagon referred questions on this to Central Command.

ABC News called CENTCOM to ask what the "urgent operational need" is. CENTCOM spokesman Maj. Todd White said he would look into it, but, so far, no answer.

There doesn't appear to be any potential targets for a bomb like that in Iraq. It could potentially be used on Taliban or al Qaeda hideouts in the caves along the border between Afghanistan and Pakistan, but there would be no need to use a stealth bomber there.

So where would the military use a stealth bomber armed with a 30,000-pound bomb like this? Defense analysts say the most likely target for this bomb would be Iran's flagship nuclear facility in Natanz, which is both heavily fortified and deeply buried.

"You'd use it on Natanz," said John Pike of GlobalSecurity.org. "And you'd use it on a stealth bomber because you want it to be a surprise. And you put in an emergency funding request because you want to bomb quickly."

"It's kind of strange," Pike said. "It sends a signal that you are preparing to bomb Iran, and if you were actually going to bomb Iran I wouldn't think you would want to announce it like that."

post #209 of 309
Quote:
Originally Posted by @_@ Artman View Post

Bomb Iran? U.S. Requests Bunker-Buster Bombs




Massive Ordnance Penetrator

Quote:
The initial explosive test of MOP took place on March 14, 2007 in a tunnel belonging to the Defense Threat Reduction Agency (DTRA) at the White Sands Missile Range, New Mexico.

Quote:
Update: 20/07/07 American stealth bombers will soon be equipped to drop the Massive Ordnance Penetrator (MOP)

I fully expected MOP's to be funded in FY08, given the current political climate, it's all but certain that the B2 modifications will be completed in time for Cheney's Gone Wild. \
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
post #210 of 309
Quote:
Originally Posted by Outsider View Post

Lusitania-like event? I wouldn't be surprised.


Or bigger/worse/more shocking. If they've done such in the past and gotten away with it (so far), then they are likely to pull it again.
"We've never made the case, or argued the case that somehow Osama bin Laden was directly involved in 9/11. That evidence has never been forthcoming". VP Cheney, 3/29/2006. Interview by Tony Snow
Reply
"We've never made the case, or argued the case that somehow Osama bin Laden was directly involved in 9/11. That evidence has never been forthcoming". VP Cheney, 3/29/2006. Interview by Tony Snow
Reply
post #211 of 309
War with Iran inevitable: do you support Iran's right to self-defence?

I support the United States right to self-defence First.
post #212 of 309
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by sammi jo View Post

Or bigger/worse/more shocking. If they've done such in the past and gotten away with it (so far), then they are likely to pull it again.

I think they will back off a bit now - today's announcement of sanctions is a signal for that.

Remember - Iran is a threat to no-one and the threats from the US are nothing to do with that. Any threat Iran ever did pose in the future could be easily dealt with by Israel alone never mind the US. Sure, there would be some damage to both sides but when did the power-possessors ever care about that?

No, the real reason is: money.

Rice admitted as much yesterday in a very interesting 'slip':

Quote:
Iran is a major obstacle to the U.S. vision of a Middle East in which nations will "trade more, invest more, talk more and work more constructively to solve problems," Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice says.

"The Iranian government is pursuing policies which are detrimental to the long-term interests of its neighbors, of the region, and of the Iranian people themselves. It need not be this way," Rice said in remarks prepared for delivery Wednesday to a House panel.

Link

Basically this is all about opening up a new market - and Iran is the only Middle Eastern State with principles and balls enough to oppose US/Israel economic hegemony.

Hence the sanctions. Hence the lies. Hence the mindless drones lapping it all up and screaming for blood.
What is Faith? When your good deed pleases you and your evil deed grieves you, you are a believer. What is Sin? When a thing disturbs the peace of your heart, give it up - Prophet Muhammad
Reply
What is Faith? When your good deed pleases you and your evil deed grieves you, you are a believer. What is Sin? When a thing disturbs the peace of your heart, give it up - Prophet Muhammad
Reply
post #213 of 309
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mystic View Post

War with Iran inevitable: do you support Iran's right to self-defence?

I support the United States right to self-defence First.

Do you know what self-defense means?
post #214 of 309
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Outsider View Post

Do you know what self-defense means?

He certainly doesn't know what torture means so it's a safe bet not....
What is Faith? When your good deed pleases you and your evil deed grieves you, you are a believer. What is Sin? When a thing disturbs the peace of your heart, give it up - Prophet Muhammad
Reply
What is Faith? When your good deed pleases you and your evil deed grieves you, you are a believer. What is Sin? When a thing disturbs the peace of your heart, give it up - Prophet Muhammad
Reply
post #215 of 309
Quote:
Originally Posted by Outsider View Post

Do you know what self-defense means?

If I point a gun at you, You do not have to wait for me to fire it before you shoot me. The same applies here.
Your theoretical world ends at our borders. The rest of the world does not follow your rules.
post #216 of 309
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mystic View Post

War with Iran inevitable: do you support Iran's right to self-defence?

I support the United States right to self-defence First.

Oh my goodness me, so do I.

From enemies both foreign...

AND DOMESTIC.

I think you know what I mean. This nation has a self-serving and powerful enemy, and this enemy is planted in right in the middle of Washington DC. Any patriotic American, if the words of Lincoln, Jefferson et al mean anything, would recommend its overthrow by whatever means is appropriate. The use of the ballot box is the appropriate (and traditional and democratic method) by which to accomplish those ends.

However things have gotten so corupt that firstly, we cannot be sure, in these days of two successive fraudulent presidential elections, that the ballot box is reliable anymore, and secondly, even if the ballot box was fair and representative of the voters' intents, the replacement would be just be another version of the previous, except in blue, rather than red clothing.

So, what is the solution?
"We've never made the case, or argued the case that somehow Osama bin Laden was directly involved in 9/11. That evidence has never been forthcoming". VP Cheney, 3/29/2006. Interview by Tony Snow
Reply
"We've never made the case, or argued the case that somehow Osama bin Laden was directly involved in 9/11. That evidence has never been forthcoming". VP Cheney, 3/29/2006. Interview by Tony Snow
Reply
post #217 of 309
Quote:
Originally Posted by @_@ Artman View Post

Did I say that? All I said is that they have the right to defend their country. You sound like you have the rendition plane all fueled up ready to fly me to Gitmo or something.

Believe me, I won't go without a fight.

Heh, I did say I hoped they would succeed.* But that's only if we invade. INVADE Iran.

* Don't think they will though...

First, I'm not calling you a traitor. I'm saying you're unpatriotic. Also, your statement was tantamount to routing for them. What else does "they have the right" mean? What could it mean? If you say someone has a right to fight back and you support that right, doesn't that carry with it the notion that you support the person in the conflict as well? Think about it. You have two people you know that get into a fight. Person A attacks Person B, and you say that Person B "had the right to defend himself." do you mean to tell me you wouldn't care who won?


Quote:
Originally Posted by Mystic View Post

If I point a gun at you, You do not have to wait for me to fire it before you shoot me. The same applies here.
Your theoretical world ends at our borders. The rest of the world does not follow your rules.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Outsider View Post

Do you know what self-defense means?

Well to be fair Iran is not pointing a gun at us. They're not, from what we know, about to attack. However, they are exceptionally hostile towards us and Israel. They do support terrorism and are probably building a nuclear weapon (though we don't know that either). They are also governed by a good number of fundie nutjobs who want a world-ending war. And they're killing our soldiers in Iraq by proxy...perhaps directly.

Your metaphor doesn't really hold, unless Iran got more specific with its threats. The metaphor that I think we can use here is not Iran pointing a gun at us. Instead, it's waving a gun around, looking kinda nuts, and yelling out vague threats like "we don't like you...we REALLY don't like you...and we have a right to shoot people. Also, we're thinking about killing your friend Israel, but we won't shoot first. It's just that we think he doesn't have a right to exist. You understand. Oh, and death to you because we hate you."
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #218 of 309
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mystic View Post

If I point a gun at you, You do not have to wait for me to fire it before you shoot me. The same applies here.
Your theoretical world ends at our borders. The rest of the world does not follow your rules.

But if one is dealing with madmen - and we are, both in power and in the sheep-pen - then one should realize that a madman pointing at an innocent guy fishing by the side of a stream and screaming that he needs to be blown away because he is building a bomb s just that; a madman.

Nothing more.

Just because Napoleon once existed doesn't mean everyone who claims to be him actually is.
What is Faith? When your good deed pleases you and your evil deed grieves you, you are a believer. What is Sin? When a thing disturbs the peace of your heart, give it up - Prophet Muhammad
Reply
What is Faith? When your good deed pleases you and your evil deed grieves you, you are a believer. What is Sin? When a thing disturbs the peace of your heart, give it up - Prophet Muhammad
Reply
post #219 of 309
Quote:
Originally Posted by segovius View Post

But if one is dealing with madmen - and we are, both in power and in the sheep-pen - then one should realize that a madman pointing at an innocent guy fishing by the side of a stream and screaming that he needs to be blown away because he is building a bomb s just that; a madman.

Nothing more.

Just because Napoleon once existed doesn't mean everyone who claims to be him actually is.

Dude...so WE'RE the madmen? Not the guy who denies homosexuals exist in his country? And Iran is "innocent?" Really Seg...INNOCENT? Not just "they're not building a bomb" and "there isn't evidence" and/or "we shouldn't go to war," but innocent. O.J., is that you?

Iran: 100%, Absolutely Not Guilty
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #220 of 309
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

Dude...so WE'RE the madmen? Not the guy who denies homosexuals exist in his country? And Iran is "innocent?" Really Seg...INNOCENT? Not just "they're not building a bomb" and "there isn't evidence" and/or "we shouldn't go to war," but innocent. O.J., is that you?

Iran: 100%, Absolutely Not Guilty

Well, what crime are they guilty of?

And where is the proof?

You do still require proof and have innocent till proven guilty in America? Or have they removed that now?
What is Faith? When your good deed pleases you and your evil deed grieves you, you are a believer. What is Sin? When a thing disturbs the peace of your heart, give it up - Prophet Muhammad
Reply
What is Faith? When your good deed pleases you and your evil deed grieves you, you are a believer. What is Sin? When a thing disturbs the peace of your heart, give it up - Prophet Muhammad
Reply
post #221 of 309
SDW, we need a formal name for reflexive Iran defenders. I mean, if some here can be labeled as "winger jingoist fascist nutjobs" then we need a corresponding term for those that will defend Iran to the bitter end, like we have for those that defend the US (in theory) to the bitter end. Maybe "Islamopologist?"

The US is no angel. Neither is Iran. Both of those are facts.*

*Immediately someone reading what I just typed above is building their argument for why one statement is more true than the other. Little spinmeisters, all.
"Stand Up for Chuck"
Reply
"Stand Up for Chuck"
Reply
post #222 of 309
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jubelum View Post

SDW, we need a formal name for reflexive Iran defenders. I mean, if some here can be labeled as "winger jingoist fascist nutjobs" then we need a corresponding term for those that will defend Iran to the bitter end, like we have for those that defend the US (in theory) to the bitter end.

The US is no angel. Neither is Iran. Both of those are facts.*

*Immediately someone reading what I just typed above is building their argument for why one statement is more true than the other. Little spinmeisters, all.

Allow me to suggest a formal name: "sane human beings"

You probably don't understand the whole label but don't worry about it.

What is the 'bitter end' btw? A couple of nukes on a civilian population (again)?

I guess some would defend a country to that end. I am as proud of doing that as some here are gagging for it to happen.
What is Faith? When your good deed pleases you and your evil deed grieves you, you are a believer. What is Sin? When a thing disturbs the peace of your heart, give it up - Prophet Muhammad
Reply
What is Faith? When your good deed pleases you and your evil deed grieves you, you are a believer. What is Sin? When a thing disturbs the peace of your heart, give it up - Prophet Muhammad
Reply
post #223 of 309
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jubelum View Post


The US is no angel. Neither is Iran. Both of those are facts.*

*Immediately someone reading what I just typed above is building their argument for why one statement is more true than the other. Little spinmeisters, all.

Let me take it on a spin...

SDW2001:
Quote:
What else does "they have the right" mean? What could it mean? If you say someone has a right to fight back and you support that right, doesn't that carry with it the notion that you support the person in the conflict as well? Think about it. You have two people you know that get into a fight. Person A attacks Person B, and you say that Person B "had the right to defend himself." do you mean to tell me you wouldn't care who won?

When two people I know get into a fight, I try to break it up. If that doesn't work, it's futile to stop them and either one will pay for the consequences for their actions.

Again and again I state this, but it doesn't seem to set in...Iran hasn't invaded anyone since the 18th century much less now. If we go on and bomb or invade them, they have every right any country has to protect themselves and their country. I support their right to self-defense. That is all.

EDIT: OH, THIS IS GETTING GOOD...

Attack Iran and you attack Russia

Quote:
The barely reported highlight of Russian President Vladimir Putin's visit to Tehran for the Caspian Sea summit last week was a key face-to-face meeting with Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei.

A high-level diplomatic source in Tehran tells Asia Times Online that essentially Putin and the Supreme Leader have agreed on a plan to nullify the George W Bush administration's relentless drive towards launching a preemptive attack, perhaps a tactical nuclear strike, against Iran. An American attack on Iran will be viewed by Moscow as an attack on Russia.

Well, I tried to break the two of them up, but now there's a third party involved. Where's the popcorn...They have the "dad of all bombs" that is four times more powerful than the U.S. "mother of all bombs." Either way no one is attacking Iran.
post #224 of 309
Quote:
Originally Posted by @_@ Artman View Post

.Iran hasn't invaded anyone since the 18th century much less now.

Invasion is not the only way to wage war, Artman.
"Stand Up for Chuck"
Reply
"Stand Up for Chuck"
Reply
post #225 of 309
Quote:
Originally Posted by segovius View Post

Allow me to suggest a formal name: "sane human beings"

You probably don't understand the whole label but don't worry about it.

So, your expected condescension aside, anyone who sees Iran as a threat is not sane?
"Stand Up for Chuck"
Reply
"Stand Up for Chuck"
Reply
post #226 of 309
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jubelum View Post

Invasion is not the only way to wage war, Artman.

You just saw my update, didn't you? Russia's involved now. All bets are off.
post #227 of 309
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jubelum View Post

So, your expected condescension aside, anyone who sees Iran as a threat is not sane?

It's how you define threat. The US has been regarded as a threat by other countries after the Iraqi Invasion. Russia for example...

Quote:
Iranian hawks close to Ahmadinejad are spinning that Putin's proposal involves Iran temporarily suspending uranium enrichment in exchange for no more United Nations sanctions. That's essentially what International Atomic Energy Agency chief Mohammad ElBaradei has been working on all along. The key issue is what - in practical terms - will Iran get in return. Obviously it's not the EU's Solana who will have the answer. But as far as Russia is concerned, strategically nothing will appease it except a political/diplomatic solution for the Iranian nuclear dossier.

US Vice President Dick Cheney - who even Senator Hillary Clinton now refers to as Darth Vader - must be foaming at the mouth; but the fact is that after the Caspian summit, Iran and Russia are officially entangled in a strategic partnership. World War III, for them, is definitely not on the cards.
post #228 of 309
Quote:
Originally Posted by segovius View Post

You do still require proof and have innocent till proven guilty in America? Or have they removed that now?

Wow. Confusing domestic judicial system tradition with national security. Bill Clinton made the same mistake, IIRC.
"Stand Up for Chuck"
Reply
"Stand Up for Chuck"
Reply
post #229 of 309
Yer movin' to fast for me Jub...I'm off to catch the bus home. Read that article if you get the chance.
post #230 of 309
Quote:
Originally Posted by @_@ Artman View Post

.I'm off to catch the bus home. Read that article if you get the chance.

Its a shit-scary article, I completely agree with you. And you know us Ronaldus Magnus types- when we get scared we go sleep in a nuclear weapons depot. (Just watched War Games the other night... followed by The Day After. What a mental dry-cleaning that was... I hate John Lithgow)



Kudos for taking the bus. More people should exercise the choice.
"Stand Up for Chuck"
Reply
"Stand Up for Chuck"
Reply
post #231 of 309
Quote:
Originally Posted by @_@ Artman View Post

It's how you define threat. The US has been regarded as a threat by other countries after the Iraqi Invasion. Russia for example...

I guess we can go back to the days to MAD, this time with the whole world, not just the Rooskies. You can be sure that if an Iranian nuke goes off anywhere in the Western world, that Iran will be a giant glass parking lot, CodePink or not. Hmmmm... PootiePoo's aspirations and PrezTom's 12th Imam fantasies intersect to have Iran pick the fight?
"Stand Up for Chuck"
Reply
"Stand Up for Chuck"
Reply
post #232 of 309
Quote:
Originally Posted by segovius View Post

Well, what crime are they guilty of?

And where is the proof?

You do still require proof and have innocent till proven guilty in America? Or have they removed that now?

This is ridiculous on two levels. First, you know exactly what provocative actions they've taken. You really do. Secondly, this is not a court of law we're talking about. It's war and peace. So don't be silly. Iran is a terror sponsoring, rogue nation run by Islamic Fundies. But that's fine with you. Just admit it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jubelum View Post

SDW, we need a formal name for reflexive Iran defenders. I mean, if some here can be labeled as "winger jingoist fascist nutjobs" then we need a corresponding term for those that will defend Iran to the bitter end, like we have for those that defend the US (in theory) to the bitter end. Maybe "Islamopologist?"

The US is no angel. Neither is Iran. Both of those are facts.*

*Immediately someone reading what I just typed above is building their argument for why one statement is more true than the other. Little spinmeisters, all.

I like it. Approved!

Quote:
Originally Posted by @_@ Artman View Post

Let me take it on a spin...

SDW2001:

When two people I know get into a fight, I try to break it up. If that doesn't work, it's futile to stop them and either one will pay for the consequences for their actions.

We're getting a little far with the analogy now. The point is if we invade/bomb Iran, you want us to lose. Just say so. You know it's true.

Quote:

Again and again I state this, but it doesn't seem to set in...Iran hasn't invaded anyone since the 18th century much less now. If we go on and bomb or invade them, they have every right any country has to protect themselves and their country. I support their right to self-defense. That is all.

What, pray tell, does that have to do with anything? Does that mean they won't? Does that mean they should be trusted with a nuclear weapon, or that they don't sponsor terrorism, or that they're not killing US troops and funding/sponsoring the insurgency in Iraq?

Quote:

EDIT: OH, THIS IS GETTING GOOD...

Attack Iran and you attack Russia



Well, I tried to break the two of them up, but now there's a third party involved. Where's the popcorn...They have the "dad of all bombs" that is four times more powerful than the U.S. "mother of all bombs." Either way no one is attacking Iran.

Do you really believe that Russia with intervene militarily? And what does their daddy bomb have to do with that intervention?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jubelum View Post

I guess we can go back to the days to MAD, this time with the whole world, not just the Rooskies. You can be sure that if an Iranian nuke goes off anywhere in the Western world, that Iran will be a giant glass parking lot, CodePink or not. Hmmmm... PootiePoo's aspirations and PrezTom's 12th Imam fantasies intersect to have Iran pick the fight?

Problem is, it won't be MAD, because the Iranian side is not rational due to their fanatical beliefs. The Russians wanted to avoid war as much as we did during the Cold War. The Iranians might just pull the trigger to satisfy the aforementioned desires of Mr. Tom & Co. Or, they may have no trouble passing off such a nuke to Al-Queda or another terrorist group.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #233 of 309
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jubelum View Post

*Immediately someone reading what I just typed above is building their argument for why one statement is more true than the other. Little spinmeisters, all.

*That's rich.
"The selfishness of Ayn Rand capitalism is the equivalent of intellectual masturbation -- satisfying in an ego-stroking way, but an ethical void when it comes to our commonly shared humanity."
Reply
"The selfishness of Ayn Rand capitalism is the equivalent of intellectual masturbation -- satisfying in an ego-stroking way, but an ethical void when it comes to our commonly shared humanity."
Reply
post #234 of 309
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jubelum View Post

So, your expected condescension aside...

Oh, that's good.
"The selfishness of Ayn Rand capitalism is the equivalent of intellectual masturbation -- satisfying in an ego-stroking way, but an ethical void when it comes to our commonly shared humanity."
Reply
"The selfishness of Ayn Rand capitalism is the equivalent of intellectual masturbation -- satisfying in an ego-stroking way, but an ethical void when it comes to our commonly shared humanity."
Reply
post #235 of 309
Quote:
Originally Posted by @_@ Artman View Post

You just saw my update, didn't you? Russia's involved now. All bets are off.

Well, there is a reason why Bush used the term "World War III". I doubt all bets are off.
"The selfishness of Ayn Rand capitalism is the equivalent of intellectual masturbation -- satisfying in an ego-stroking way, but an ethical void when it comes to our commonly shared humanity."
Reply
"The selfishness of Ayn Rand capitalism is the equivalent of intellectual masturbation -- satisfying in an ego-stroking way, but an ethical void when it comes to our commonly shared humanity."
Reply
post #236 of 309
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jubelum View Post

Wow. Confusing domestic judicial system tradition with national security. Bill Clinton made the same mistake, IIRC.

What mistake was that? That he rounded everyone up and put their asses in jail? Or would that mistake be telling Bush and Cheney that their number one threat when taking office would be Bin Laden (to which they simply patted him on the head and said, "the grown ups are in charge now".)?

If only Bush understood how to properly conduct regime change. He could've learned a lesson or two from Clinton in that regard.
"The selfishness of Ayn Rand capitalism is the equivalent of intellectual masturbation -- satisfying in an ego-stroking way, but an ethical void when it comes to our commonly shared humanity."
Reply
"The selfishness of Ayn Rand capitalism is the equivalent of intellectual masturbation -- satisfying in an ego-stroking way, but an ethical void when it comes to our commonly shared humanity."
Reply
post #237 of 309
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

We're getting a little far with the analogy now. The point is if we invade/bomb Iran, you want us to lose. Just say so. You know it's true.

I did say:

Quote:
Heh, I did say I hoped they would succeed.* But that's only if we invade. INVADE Iran.

* Don't think they will though...

There's not going to be any invasion or attack. Now that Russia is backing Iran. It's over. There will be a reduction of Iran's enrichment program, then a lowering of sanctions, then another round of negotiations.

Of course it all depends on this administration's behavior, the mainstream media's and the clown car of politicians running for president.

But watch Putin. Carefully. Because the stakes have just gotten way higher.

Caspian Sea too...forget nuclear, it has always been about oil. This has happened before...and the US blinked...

Bangladesh Liberation War

Quote:
The United States supported Pakistan both politically and materially. U.S. President Richard Nixon denied getting involved in the situation, saying that it was an internal matter of Pakistan. But when Pakistan's defeat seemed certain, Nixon sent the USS Enterprise to the Bay of Bengal, a move deemed by the Indians as a nuclear threat. Enterprise arrived on station on December 11, 1971. On 6 December and 13 December, the Soviet Navy dispatched two groups of ships, armed with nuclear missiles, from Vladivostok; they trailed U.S. Task Force 74 in the Indian Ocean from 18 December until 7 January 1972. The Nixon administration provided support to Pakistan President Yahya Khan during the turmoil. The Nixon administration provided support to Pakistan President Yahya Khan during the turmoil.

Nixon and Henry Kissinger feared Soviet expansion into South and Southeast Asia. Pakistan was a close ally of the People's Republic of China, with whom Nixon had been negotiating a rapprochement and where he intended to visit in February 1972. Nixon feared that an Indian invasion of West Pakistan would mean total Soviet domination of the region, and that it would seriously undermine the global position of the United States and the regional position of America's new tacit ally, China. In order to demonstrate to China the bona fides of the United States as an ally, and in direct violation of the US Congress-imposed sanctions on Pakistan, Nixon sent military supplies to Pakistan and routed them through Jordan and Iran,[48] while also encouraging China to increase its arms supplies to Pakistan.

The Nixon administration also ignored reports it received of the genocidal activities of the Pakistani Army in East Pakistan, most notably the Blood telegram.

The Soviet Union had sympathized with the Bangladeshis, and supported the Indian Army and Mukti Bahini during the war, recognizing that the independence of Bangladesh would weaken the position of its rivals - the United States and China. It gave assurances to India that if a confrontation with the United States or China developed, the USSR would take counter-measures. This was enshrined in the Indo-Soviet friendship treaty signed in August 1971. The Soviets also sent a nuclear submarine to ward off the threat posed by USS Enterprise in the Indian Ocean.
post #238 of 309
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

Do you really believe that Russia with intervene militarily? And what does their daddy bomb have to do with that intervention?

Of course they will. They have too much invested in Iran.

Quote:
Problem is, it won't be MAD, because the Iranian side is not rational due to their fanatical beliefs.

Oh, don't be silly. We didn't think they were too fanatical when we accepted their help to destroy the Taliban in Afghanistan, did we?

Funny how selective we are with these nations when it comes to "friend" or "foe", isn't it. Iraq friend. Iraq enemy. Iran friend. Iran enemy.

They only seem to become "enemies" when they don't capitulate 100% to our demands.
"The selfishness of Ayn Rand capitalism is the equivalent of intellectual masturbation -- satisfying in an ego-stroking way, but an ethical void when it comes to our commonly shared humanity."
Reply
"The selfishness of Ayn Rand capitalism is the equivalent of intellectual masturbation -- satisfying in an ego-stroking way, but an ethical void when it comes to our commonly shared humanity."
Reply
post #239 of 309
Quote:
Originally Posted by Northgate View Post

*That's rich.


All means all. All.
"Stand Up for Chuck"
Reply
"Stand Up for Chuck"
Reply
post #240 of 309
Quote:
Originally Posted by Northgate View Post

What mistake was that?

That whole "legal grounds" to take out/hold people committed to killing Americans. It's a domestic law enforcement issue, right, not an issue of military defense?

Oh, yea, and Bush Sucks.
"Stand Up for Chuck"
Reply
"Stand Up for Chuck"
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: PoliticalOutsider
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › War with Iran inevitable: do you support Iran's right to self-defence?