Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

This is getting hilarious.

At 12/4/07 08:39 PM, cellardoor6 wrote: You seem so caught up in a delusional Bush-bashing spree..

Bush is delusional, and bashing his or the US intelligence performance isn't just an American past-time. You're the one with his head up the gaping "we can do no wrong" asshole of lies. Hey, be the World Bully. Steal everyone's money and resourses. Call everyone Terrorists. Talk up WW3 all you want, and wave the American flag over all your conquored and divided lands. But at some point it will bite you in that lying ass, when everywhere you look there are enemy nations, and travelling anywhere in the world will be dangerous pastime.

Your only way to stop this kinda scenario is take over the entire world, run it as a brutal dictatorship, kill everyone who looks at you funny, or doesn't pray to the same God, then laugh at how powerful you think you are. The whole world might just end up being terrorists, but goddam open your eyes and realize they're all gonna be terrorists of America's making.

This isn't some fucking blind poker game your country is playing. Or maybe it is, and the whole WOT just an new adventure into global psycological mind-fucks, before we're all wired into a computer and tortured into confessing our hate of the overlords.

I'm only speaking my...

***yoinks.. hears a knock at the door***

At 12/5/07 12:41 AM, JudgeDredd wrote: Your only way to stop this kinda scenario is take over the entire world, run it as a brutal dictatorship, kill everyone who looks at you funny, or doesn't pray to the same God, then laugh at how powerful you think you are. ...

So kindof like the centuries of European colonialism that really created the mess in Middle East with the British and French intrigue to bring down the Ottoman Empire...by promising the same land to differing groups that are fundamentally at odds.

Don't forget the nation-building that lead to Iraq's boarders drawn so as to serve British Petroleum's interests...

Forgive me if I don't really care what Europeans think when you've got a much worse history of arrogant imperialism...

At 12/5/07 12:48 AM, TheMason wrote:
Forgive me if I don't really care what Europeans think when you've got a much worse history of arrogant imperialism...

That doesn't justify or legitimate our own arrogant imperialism however.

At 12/5/07 12:41 AM, JudgeDredd wrote:

At 12/4/07 08:39 PM, cellardoor6 wrote: You seem so caught up in a delusional Bush-bashing spree..

Bush is delusional, and bashing his or the US intelligence performance isn't just an American past-time.

Wait so you're talking about bashing the intelligence report... the very one you're using as a foundation of your criticism of Bush?

Which is it? Is the intelligence report right, thus repudiating Bush as you claim, or are both wrong?

Your argument has the consistency of a bowl of jello.

You're the one with his head up the gaping "we can do no wrong" asshole of lies.

I've never said that. And my argument was based on logic.

Iran is a threat, and if you even cared to read the intelligence report that you're touting as blow to Bush, you'd realize that Iran is not squeaky clean and their nuclear program is far from transparent.

You're talking about an Islamic Theocracy that had nuclear weapons programs, that may or may not have halted all of them, and yet continues to pretend its ambitions are purely peaceful.

You're talking about the Islam Theocracy that supports terrorist groups who have attacked and killed hundreds of Americans. And you expect that in lieu of Islam extremists having a friend in Iran, that America won't be concerned, and won't use its muscle to make sure Iran doesn't develop a nuclear weapon?

Hey, be the World Bully.

The US has the defense of several countries as a responsibility. This "bullying" you accuse of us of doing is usually done on behalf of other people. Several other countries are bullies, they just rely on the US as weight behind them.

Preventing Iran, a state sponsor of terror who has been responsible for attacks that have killed Americans, whose official slogan is "Death to America" and who is sworn to the destruction of our ally Israel... that's hardly bullying.

Steal everyone's money and resourses.

Prove it.

Call everyone Terrorists.

You mean... call terrorists terrorists?

Talk up WW3 all you want, and wave the American flag over all your conquored and divided lands.

Wow, nice little rant you have going here. Funny how what you're saying sounds quite a lot like what the terrorists say about the US.

But then again, you apparently have no qualms about them so I'm not surprised.

But at some point it will bite you in that lying ass, when everywhere you look there are enemy nations, and travelling anywhere in the world will be dangerous pastime.

This will happen REGARDLESS of what Bush has done. That's a major area where your hilariously delusional liberal logic breaks down. The US will be hated, and Americans will be hated regardless of what the US does because every action will be interpreted negatively by some and positively by others. Since the US is the world's superpower, the negative will always be emphasized and the US will always have enemies.

Your only way to stop this kinda scenario is take over the entire world, run it as a brutal dictatorship

What the fuck are you talking about? Whose trying to take over the entire world and run it as a brutal dictatorship?

Maybe you need to read about the country you're defending, Iran, who ACTUALLY has amibtions of ruling the world and ACTUALLY has a brutal dictarship.

kill everyone who looks at you funny, or doesn't pray to the same God

Interesting how countries the US is allied with belong to several religions and races, but keep going. It's funny how batshit insane you liberals are, you have quite the vivid imagination.

This isn't some fucking blind poker game your country is playing. Or maybe it is, and the whole WOT just an new adventure into global psycological mind-fucks, before we're all wired into a computer and tortured into confessing our hate of the overlords.

Holy hell, take your pills.

Quite a conspiracy theory you're on. Of course you have no real support for these hilariously wacky claims you're making. It's all based on your imagination.

At 12/5/07 12:54 AM, Imperator wrote:

At 12/5/07 12:48 AM, TheMason wrote:
Forgive me if I don't really care what Europeans think when you've got a much worse history of arrogant imperialism...

That doesn't justify or legitimate our own arrogant imperialism however.

1) My point is more: not really interested in being lectured by a continent that is guilty of the same stuff they're lecturing me on. I mean the French are still exploiting their N. African colonies by keeping their N. African nannies, maids and stoop laborers as second class citizens.

2) 'Cmon! You're a classicist! You know this kindof arrogant imperialism is part of the "circle of history"...it is our time!

At 12/4/07 09:25 PM, cellardoor6 wrote: This is getting hilarious.

Not that funny after all.

At 12/5/07 01:13 AM, TheMason wrote: 1) My point is more: not really interested in being lectured by a continent that is guilty of the same stuff they're lecturing me on. I mean the French are still exploiting their N. African colonies by keeping their N. African nannies, maids and stoop laborers as second class citizens.

I know. I just didn't want you to lose sight of the fact. Considering it's you, I probably should have given the benefit of the doubt, but hey.....whatever, it's all gravy in the end.

2) 'Cmon! You're a classicist! You know this kindof arrogant imperialism is part of the "circle of history"...it is our time!

I definitely know. I used to be big on the American Empire....I just didn't realize at the time how many toes you had to step on to actually achieve the process.

My biggest fear is having a future President reiterate Pericles' warning about empire and how "it's dangerous to keep it, but far more so to let it go".

If we're gonna be an empire, I'd rather we be more like Rome and operate through client kings and Socii (allies). But this whole WOT has taken more of a cleruchy, Athenian feel. And their own arrogance was their downfall.

Being a classicist that means I'm in a unique position to try to delay or break the cycle, maybe extend our hegemony a few decades longer than it should have. But you gotta stay humble occasionally to do that.

I'm actually rather surprised I can even talk about the American Empire and not get harassed. I was making threads about it when I first came on NG and getting a whole lot of negative responses. Maybe we as a nation are just finally realizing our own status and the "E" word is no longer a no-no.

The irony of the topic starter being own'd by the very report he's clammoring onto is quite hallarious.

At 12/5/07 02:43 AM, Memorize wrote: The irony of the topic starter being own'd by the very report he's clammoring onto is quite hallarious.

You lost me. What's so funney ironic about threatening WW3 on Iran? Oh, that's right, it's the very same threat of oblivian that Iran threatens Israel with, except that Israel and America actually have nukes.

So bluff is a game only played nations with nukes, otherwise it's empty terrorist rhetoric. Isn't that what Cellar saying? Or is this Islamist dictatorship bashing Wednesday? My bad.

At 12/5/07 06:58 AM, JudgeDredd wrote:

At 12/5/07 02:43 AM, Memorize wrote: The irony of the topic starter being own'd by the very report he's clammoring onto is quite hallarious.

You lost me. What's so funney ironic about threatening WW3 on Iran?

Maybe because Iran is a Islamic Theocracy with an apocalyptic interpretation of Islam where they emphasize martyrdom, even at the national level?

I think you're so determined to find something to bash the US with that you intentionally disregard who and what rules Iran right now. You're talking about a Shi'a theocracy who believe that it is their duty as Muslims to bring about the end of the world.

Unlike Christians and Jews who believe the day of reckoning is set in stone and nothing can be done to prevent it or cause it, Iran's version of Islam believes that the end of the world can be facilitated by the deeds of the faithful.

You're talking about people who believe a precursor to the end of the world and the return of their 12th Imam (their version of the Messiah) is global chaos in which infidel nations are consumed with fire.

What possible method or weapon could bring about this prerequisite? Oh... that would be a NUCLEAR BOMB. The weapon which we know they had previously been trying to build... and which they still have NOT admitted trying to build, and which they have researched technology which would help them use it.

Oh, that's right, it's the very same threat of oblivian that Iran threatens Israel with, except that Israel and America actually have nukes.

Yeah, but Israel and America have self-preservation as a goal. Israel and America can be deterred by the prospect of their own destruction. That kind of ideology is the foundation of the doctrine of mutual assured destruction, which does NOT hold sway in a country like Iran where they encourage people to blow themselves up to kill infidels in the name of Allah. Iran would have no problem martyring their entire country to kill infidels in Israel and America and thus facilitate the subsequent scenario of the world being cast into a period of immense chaos and fire... what they believe is needed to bring about the end of the world and the judgment of Allah.

Iran isn't some secular nation. They are an Islamic Theocracy that supports terrorists that have attacked us before, and that is of the same fold of the terrorists that attacked us on 9/11, Their Supreme Leader's political power is paralleled by his perceived religious authority... which is what is motivating Iran in its ambitions.

So bluff is a game only played nations with nukes, otherwise it's empty terrorist rhetoric. Isn't that what Cellar saying? Or is this Islamist dictatorship bashing Wednesday? My bad.

You need to take your head out of the sand. You like to criticize the US so much, that you willingly ignore that the country you're defending by default is guilty of those very things x10.

At 12/5/07 01:01 AM, cellardoor6 wrote: Maybe you need to read about the country you're defending, Iran, who ACTUALLY has amibtions of ruling the world and ACTUALLY has a brutal dictarship.

Here's the problem. You've obviously read pure propaganda. I don't have to read a book on Iran to know it has strict religious laws. It's hellish part of the world where if you don't crack a whip then terrorism flourishes. WHAT EXACTLY is America doing in IRAQ? Oh that's right, FIGHTING TERRORISTS because they removed a BRUTAL DICTATOR. There you go. Didn't need to read any book. Common sense. Don't invade brutal dictatorships unless you've got a sure-fire way to stop urban sectarian terror. What didn't America learn from it's Iraq mistakes??

At 12/5/07 07:46 AM, JudgeDredd wrote:

At 12/5/07 01:01 AM, cellardoor6 wrote: Maybe you need to read about the country you're defending, Iran, who ACTUALLY has amibtions of ruling the world and ACTUALLY has a brutal dictarship.

Here's the problem. You've obviously read pure propaganda.

Um actually YOU read pure propaganda and that is your only source for your argument now. Let's recap what you said:

At 12/5/07 12:41 AM, JudgeDredd wrote: Bush is delusional, and bashing his or the US intelligence performance isn't just an American past-time. You're the one with his head up the gaping "we can do no wrong" asshole of lies. Hey, be the World Bully. Steal everyone's money and resourses. Call everyone Terrorists. Talk up WW3 all you want, and wave the American flag over all your conquored and divided lands. But at some point it will bite you in that lying ass, when everywhere you look there are enemy nations, and travelling anywhere in the world will be dangerous pastime.

Your only way to stop this kinda scenario is take over the entire world, run it as a brutal dictatorship, kill everyone who looks at you funny, or doesn't pray to the same God, then laugh at how powerful you think you are. The whole world might just end up being terrorists, but goddam open your eyes and realize they're all gonna be terrorists of America's making.

This isn't some fucking blind poker game your country is playing. Or maybe it is, and the whole WOT just an new adventure into global psycological mind-fucks, before we're all wired into a computer and tortured into confessing our hate of the overlords.

------------

Hmm, sounds like you're just parroting propaganda. In fact I've heard exerpts of speeches from Osama Bin Laden that were similar. Not calling you a terrorist, but I certainly am insinuating that propaganda seems to be the foundation of your argument in this issue. You're so focused and determined to bash the US that you take irrational stances, filled with double standards and deception, for the purpose of bashing the US first and foremost.

In the process you ignore the facts about Iran. In fact, you actually ignore the details in the very intelligence report you used as the basis of this topic!

That's wacky.

I don't have to read a book on Iran to know it has strict religious laws. It's hellish part of the world where if you don't crack a whip then terrorism flourishes. WHAT EXACTLY is America doing in IRAQ? Oh that's right, FIGHTING TERRORISTS because they removed a BRUTAL DICTATOR.

It's more complicated than that and you know it. If you look to the future and try to be reasonable, you know the US can't leave Iraq right now in its current condition, terrorists will thrive on their victory, as will Iran.

There you go. Didn't need to read any book. Common sense. Don't invade brutal dictatorships unless you've got a sure-fire way to stop urban sectarian terror. What didn't America learn from it's Iraq mistakes??

See, even though your argument is a bit more rational now, you're just changing the tint of the debate.

Nobody is talking about invading Iran. We're talking about preventing Iran from attaining a nuclear weapon, be that through sanctions or a potential surgical airstrike.

Iran CANNOT have nuclear weapons because they are a state sponsor of Islamic terrorism, they are irrational, driven by fundamentalist Islamic teachings, and they have "Death to America" as their official national slogan for fuck sake. Iran had a nuclear weapons program, they may or may not have completely stopped it, and they continue to hide their previous program, as well as develop exterior technology for nukes.

Suggesting that the US doesn't have just cause to be concerned about Iran is absurd.

Suggesting that it's wrong for the US to be strident in preventing Iran from attaining nukes is absurd.

I just had to highlight these sections because they are so entrenched in an American preventative war frame that it is like another language.

It is basically irrelevant. Iran is still a threat, and enriching uranium after having had a covert weapons program - that they still haven't even disclosed - fortifies it.

How is Iran a threat?

I imagine the answer would be on some lines like "They could give nukes to terrorists" or "They could nuke Israel". However, this would clearly be stretching the idea of "threat" too far because it is looking at the possibilities of future action, not current action. Should Britain feel threatened by the US because the US could possibly nuke the UK? Should I feel threatened by a tall muscly stranger who walks past me in the street?

If Iran had no ill intentions, firstly they never would have had a nuclear program, secondly they would have disclosed their former weapons program by now and admit to it, which they haven't.

Nuclear weapons have traditionally been, and remain, desirable for security reasons. Iran is motivated by the same things as other states - it wishes to continue its existence and it wishes to secure its existence. The actual use of nuclear weapons would endanger the continuation of the state, whereas the possesion of nuclear weapons would secure it against attacks from an aggressive world hegemon.

At 12/5/07 08:34 AM, Slizor wrote: I just had to highlight these sections because they are so entrenched in an American preventative war frame that it is like another language.

It is basically irrelevant. Iran is still a threat, and enriching uranium after having had a covert weapons program - that they still haven't even disclosed - fortifies it.

How is Iran a threat?

I've already clearly stated why. Learn to read the discussion before you post.

I imagine the answer would be on some lines like "They could give nukes to terrorists"

Or they could use their own terrorist organizations to deploy a nuke, yeah.

"They could nuke Israel".

Yep.

However, this would clearly be stretching the idea of "threat" too far because it is looking at the possibilities of future action, not current action.

Um no. Iran is hostile to the US not just in the current political situation, but due to fundamental differences in how Iran sees the world, and sees its place in the world.

Iran is a threat, they are a theocratic state with a religious leadership that adhere to an interpretation of Islam whose apocalyptic goals and perceptions make then a threat.

Should Britain feel threatened by the US because the US could possibly nuke the UK?

First of all, you can rest assured the US won't nuke the UK considering the US gave the UK its nukes. The US apparently trusts Brits enough to give them access to our own nuclear technology.

Secondly, no. It's pretty simple. The UK and the US are two democracies that can and do coexist. There is no fundamental belief in either country that they other country needs to be destroyed for one.

Should I feel threatened by a tall muscly stranger who walks past me in the street?

If that man was sworn to your destruction, assaulted you before, and had been shown to have tried to acquire a weapon with which to kill you... yeah. You should feel threatened. If that man believed that it was his religious duty to kill you, and had no qualms whatsoever about going to prison or being executed, absolutely you should be frightened and you should probably do whatever you can to prevent that guy from getting the chance to do that.

If Iran had no ill intentions, firstly they never would have had a nuclear program, secondly they would have disclosed their former weapons program by now and admit to it, which they haven't.

Nuclear weapons have traditionally been, and remain, desirable for security reasons.

Mhmm.. that's not a very good argument to make. Iran is not supposed to develop a nuclear weapon for any purpose, so emphasizing the fact that they may want it for defense, even though the goal is to prevent them from attaining a nuke first and foremost... that's not a very wise argument.

That wouldn't go over very well.

Here is a question cellardoor.

Before the Iraq war, did you or did you not believe that there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq? If so, why the fuck should we believe a word you say about Iran when we know for a fact that you have been wrong about it before.

Even Bush acknowledges they stopped, he said the danger is that they could restart it.

Its funny how all you guys suddenly turn into massive conspiracy theorists when your beliefs are PROVEN wrong by your own government.

To answer the op's question, some are pissed off, some are just plain in denial.

However, this would clearly be stretching the idea of "threat" too far because it is looking at the possibilities of future action, not current action.

Um no. Iran is hostile to the US not just in the current political situation, but due to fundamental differences in how Iran sees the world, and sees its place in the world.

Iran is a threat, they are a theocratic state with a religious leadership that adhere to an interpretation of Islam whose apocalyptic goals and perceptions make then a threat.

Yeah, about this line of reasoning - that Iran follows a different worldview that would make them launch a nuke - is bull. Truly and fundamentally...bullshit. There are grounds for this view - such as your sources of information being Western-centric, your view attributing a high level of stupidity to all levels of the Iranian government and requiring Iranian opinion to be a unified whole - but I prefer to reject it purely on the grounds that it is a completely and utterly made-up fairytale that seeks to portray the "enemy" as unreasonable.

It was the same with North Korea when they were developing nuclear technology. Everyone went on and on about how Kim Jong was mad and how as soon as North Korea gets nukes they'll attack South Korea, regardless of how stupid a move it is. What happened? Fucking well nothing because every state sees the logic in survival.

Secondly, no. It's pretty simple. The UK and the US are two democracies that can and do coexist. There is no fundamental belief in either country that they other country needs to be destroyed for one.

The question was about capability being a threat. Clearly, you agree that capability, on its own, does not constitute a threat.

Should I feel threatened by a tall muscly stranger who walks past me in the street?

If that man was sworn to your destruction, assaulted you before, and had been shown to have tried to acquire a weapon with which to kill you... yeah.

For a country sworn to the destruction of America (or Israel), Iran is being very fucking lax about actually doing the destroying. The "assaulted you before" is also quite contentious - I mean, what war was that? Or is it that you're talking about a far more low-scale affair than "assault"? And lastly, if Iran got nukes and attacked the US or Israel, what would happen? Could they, in fact, kill either state?

I find it interesting that you were willing to cast Iran as a tall muscly stranger. It would appear to be considerably over-estimating the relevative strengths of America and Iran.

If that man believed that it was his religious duty to kill you, and had no qualms whatsoever about going to prison or being executed, absolutely you should be frightened and you should probably do whatever you can to prevent that guy from getting the chance to do that.

Again with the portraying of Iranians as unreasonable.

If Iran had no ill intentions, firstly they never would have had a nuclear program, secondly they would have disclosed their former weapons program by now and admit to it, which they haven't.

Nuclear weapons have traditionally been, and remain, desirable for security reasons.

Mhmm.. that's not a very good argument to make. Iran is not supposed to develop a nuclear weapon for any purpose

On the basis of a treaty that they signed up to and could leave if they so desired. International Law is not something that is set in stone. It is still subject to the issue of state sovereignty - states decisions remain above international law in most areas, including this.

so emphasizing the fact that they may want it for defense, even though the goal is to prevent them from attaining a nuke first and foremost... that's not a very wise argument.

That wouldn't go over very well.

It's an argument based on premises that pretty much any policy-maker could agree with and any state, regardless of their propaganda attempts, would see the logic in. Its also the reasoning that states that do have nuclear weapons (but don't use them) have advanced when creating nuclear weapons.

I think, at this point, we can get down to the rub. What opinion seems more likely and is more persuasive? Is it that Iran is an unreasonable state that desires nuclear weapons and will use nuclear weapons as soon as they acquire them, regardless of MAD. Or is it that Iran, if they were to develop nuclear weapons, would do so to ensure the security of their state and increase the prestige and power of the state.

One last point, I find it interesting that no-one is arguing the US policy-maker view. Anyone here capable of developing a position based on US desires other than a crude analysis of threats to national security?

At 12/5/07 07:46 AM, JudgeDredd wrote: Didn't need to read any book. Common sense. Don't invade brutal dictatorships unless you've got a sure-fire way to stop urban sectarian terror. What didn't America learn from it's Iraq mistakes??

Yah. Or Lebanon for that matter. All of em want to be like Reagan, but they don't realize he got the FUCK out of the mid east after the Marine Barrack bombing. Something about the irrationality of Mid East politics......

And now we have Iraq.....

And there you go.......

One last point, I find it interesting that no-one is arguing the US policy-maker view. Anyone here capable of developing a position based on US desires other than a crude analysis of threats to national security?

That's an imperial position. Nation-building and all that. Rudy argued it sometime at one of those debates, which is why he earned the title Imperator from me.....(imperial bastard).

Most people don't make that argument unless they can legitimate it as Defensive Imperialism, like how Rome expanded under the Republic. You find a threat, solve it before bad things happen, and as a result annex the territory.

It's actually a lot easier position to make if you're going to take over somewhere. People are a lot more willing to fight against a threat than to fight for the nation's gain.

For a country sworn to the destruction of America (or Israel), Iran is being very fucking lax about actually doing the destroying.

Indeed. We named 3 countries on the axis of evil and have attacked one of them. What we're doing is actually showing the world we carry through on our threats, regardless of reasoning or UN approval. Frankly our cowboy stance has done more to make Iran resist MORE than it has for them to comply with us.....

At 12/5/07 09:10 AM, emmytee wrote: Here is a question cellardoor.

Before the Iraq war, did you or did you not believe that there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq?

I believed there was, and I was right.

500 WMD have been found in Iraq since the invasion. There was weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.

If you want to then elaborate a bit and say that the degree of weapons of mass destruction we believed existed didn't, then you're going to have to point your finger at a whole lot more people than just the US, considering basically every intelligence service on earth believed the same.

If so, why the fuck should we believe a word you say about Iran

Lol, so after touting an intelligence report about Iran, you're now suggesting the US can't be believed. Which is it? Is this intelligence report right or is it wrong due to this notion of US intelligence inherently being wrong?

when we know for a fact that you have been wrong about it before.

Apparently you know precisely dick.

Even Bush acknowledges they stopped, he said the danger is that they could restart it.

Yeah, and funny how US intelligence is what revealed Iran's nuclear program in the first place, and pressure created by the US, the BUsh administration specifically, is apparently what caused the Iranians to stop.

Funny how you ignore that.

Yeah, and Iran still hasn't even admitted to their previous program. If they had no ill intentions, even if they did before but had a change of heart, would

Its funny how all you guys suddenly turn into massive conspiracy theorists when your beliefs are PROVEN wrong by your own government.

Funny how you entirely contradict and defeat the logic behind your entire argument by saying something like that. If our government was wrong, but proved wrong by our government that would mean the intelligence was wrong but is now correct. Which is it? Is our intelligence wrong or is it right to you?

Besides, you obviously didn't care to read where I already showed that the very intelligence report people are using to supposedly repudiate Bush, in fact still makes a pretty good case against Iran. It is not certain whether Iran stopped all nuclear weapons programs, and Iran still researches technology that can be used with nuclear bombs.

At 12/5/07 02:27 AM, Imperator wrote: I'm actually rather surprised I can even talk about the American Empire and not get harassed.

From my perspective (our country still being a member of the Commonwealth) is that today's empire building needs to be tied to free population flow, and i don't mean troops poised in barracks, or delegations visiting heavily cordoned green-zones, but rather civilian representatives able to walk the streets, or US businesses able to trade with confidence. American sanctions / invasions have had the exact opposite effect of dis-engaging American companies and civilians from the everyday life of those they are supposed to be freeing from tyranny, thus creating the conditions necessary for a equivalent form of "occupier tyranny".

Basically, how exactly are American companies meant to show Iran the democratizing effect of free and open trade, including "open technology" such as cellphones, internet, and the like, bypassing government intervention on everyday life, when they are instructed by US government not to deal with that or other nation.

Infact sanctions pretty much have the opposite effect; "[Iran's] oil infrastructure resembles security and military areas these days, as the government has reverted to using subsidiaries associated with the Revolutionary Guards to keep up some of the projects." ...because sanctions have forced out any hope for legitimate commerce.

So yeah, the other main example of American Empire-building was certainly economic expansion thru free trade, but the modern reality (including the widely-held perception) is that America is more into economic dis-engagement, where sanctions are just another tool that your government can leverage over the positive force of private commerce exported by it's own citizens.

.

At 12/5/07 10:06 AM, Slizor wrote:

Iran is a threat, they are a theocratic state with a religious leadership that adhere to an interpretation of Islam whose apocalyptic goals and perceptions make then a threat.

Yeah, about this line of reasoning - that Iran follows a different worldview that would make them launch a nuke - is bull.

Actually it's true, you just don't want to accept it.

You know, it's not like the words of the Iranians themselves lend to the belief.

You know, never mind their bit about the return of the 12 Imam as their goal, the conquering of Jerusalem, or their desire for Islam to rule the world.

Truly and fundamentally...bullshit.

Lol, you mean truly fundamentally correct and true, k.

There are grounds for this view - such as your sources of information being Western-centric, your view attributing a high level of stupidity to all levels of the Iranian government and requiring Iranian opinion to be a unified whole

Stupidity? No.

Irrational religious fundamentalism and ambition? Absolutely.

And Iranian opinion as a unified whole is irrelevant because their country is controlled by a religious theocracy that doesn't exactly care about the sentiment of younger, more moderate Iranians inasmuch as they try to prevent them from expressing it. Iranians elect some of their members of civil government, but they can't elect or replace their Supreme Religious Counsel, or their Grand Ayatollah... the people who are pulling the strings in Iran and whose authority overrides that of the President.

- but I prefer to reject it purely on the grounds that it is a completely and utterly made-up fairytale that seeks to portray the "enemy" as unreasonable.

You're that uninformed? Interesting.

It was the same with North Korea when they were developing nuclear technology. Everyone went on and on about how Kim Jong was mad and how as soon as North Korea gets nukes they'll attack South Korea, regardless of how stupid a move it is. What happened?

Um the Bush administration that you are attacking for criticizing rogue states went through lengthy carrot and stick diplomacy with North Korea to get them to capitulate. That's what happened.

Yep.

There's where your logic breaks down even further. On one hand you say the US makes up fairy tales, and that apparently the US is not being responsible with its criticisms of countries... and yet you fail to realize that North Korea is disarming based on US pressure, Iran apparently halted its nuclear program in 2003 due to US pressure as well. You ignore that the knowledge of their nuclear programs in the first place was due to US intelligence. Then there's the matter where at one point you'll use US intelligence for your argument, and then you'll use the fact that it has been inaccurate before at the same time.

Your argument is like a fucking slinky, you have no consistent, coherent, applicable argument. You just resort to a whimsical rant which consists of nothing but your imagination.

Fucking well nothing because every state sees the logic in survival.

Some people would say that every man sees the logic in survival. But that would be incorrect and you know it, just at is incorrect when trying to rationalize the actions of Iran. Suicide bombers don't see the logic in survival now do they? They believe that they should blow themselves up as long as it kills some infidels and secures their place in heaven and their 72 virgins.

Iran is a country RULED by that very kind of ideology. They emphasize martyrdom as a foundation of their existence, religion pervades their government, a religion which teaches that people should blow themselves up just to kill infidels in the process. Now figure that the people who teach this are ruling the country, and had been developing nuclear bombs as recently as 4 years ago (possibly still according to the intelligence report), and still hasn't admitted to it.

Yeah... self preservation? Not exactly something Iran emphasizes. If they can martyr their entire country by doing something they think is their duty as Muslims to do... cast the world into chaos in which most of the world is consumed by fire... they'll do it. They aren't a secular nation, they are a religions entity that sees no distinction between religion and politics... their religious views dominate their ambitions as a nation.

Secondly, no. It's pretty simple. The UK and the US are two democracies that can and do coexist. There is no fundamental belief in either country that they other country needs to be destroyed for one.

The question was about capability being a threat.

And the capability is not a threat in the hands of a rational, allied, friendly country. Or for that matter an unfriendly country that happens to not seek for the end of the world.

Clearly, you agree that capability, on its own, does not constitute a threat.

Yeah, and that's why I showed how Iran is a threat outside of them having a nuke in the first place, because the capability of using nukes would allow them to fulfill their intentions.

Should I feel threatened by a tall muscly stranger who walks past me in the street?

If that man was sworn to your destruction, assaulted you before, and had been shown to have tried to acquire a weapon with which to kill you... yeah.

For a country sworn to the destruction of America (or Israel), Iran is being very fucking lax about actually doing the destroying.

Yeah, that's why they want a nuke.

They can't destroy the US or Israel, or cast the world into chaos, without a nuke because the Iranian military is not powerful enough. That's why they are biding their time. They may be religiously motivated fundamentalists, but they aren't stupid. They know that they won't be able to achieve their goals right now, given the military superiority of the US and Israel.

The nuke is the equalizer, because you only need a few to cause a nuclear holocaust.

The "assaulted you before" is also quite contentious - I mean, what war was that?

Nice deceptive emphasis of the word "war". Iran is not stupid, a war with the US would not go well in their favor in their current state, or the state they were in decades ago. They would lose, period. That's why they use terrorists, and that's why they want a force multiplier like a nuclear bomb.

Iran supports proxy terrorist groups such as Hezbollah (who has terrorist cells in the US btw, and Islamic Jihad who have attacked us. Iran was responsible for the 1983 Beirut Barracks bombing that killed 241 Americans, which was conducted by these terrorist groups Iran supports.

Or is it that you're talking about a far more low-scale affair than "assault"?

Um... attack, through terrorist organizations that Iran funds, supplies, and directs.

And lastly, if Iran got nukes and attacked the US or Israel, what would happen? Could they, in fact, kill either state?

Whether or not they could is irrelevant, whether they would nuke those countries anyway even if it was unlikely, but they still thought it was possible.

Your logic is so fucking hilarious.

- First you justify Iran getting nukes because they may want them for defense
- Then you emphasize the intelligence report to suggest Iran isn't trying to get them.
- And now you're suggesting it wouldn't be a big deal if they had them and used them because they might not be able to completely destroy the countries they wish to attack.

I find it interesting that you were willing to cast Iran as a tall muscly stranger.

Irrelevant. You used the muscularity of the stranger to suggest that their size and strength didn't automatically make them a thread in the first place.

I expounded on your argument to make it more applicable... a man with a weapon who is sworn to kill you and thinks its his duty to do so.

It would appear to be considerably over-estimating the relevative strengths of America and Iran.

And YOU were the one who created that simile now weren't you? Lol are you so disingenous in your argument that you criticize me for faulty logic that was actually exuded by YOU, and that I was just addressing?

Again with the portraying of Iranians as unreasonable.

Lol

On the basis of a treaty that they signed up to

Yet still haven't implemented, and haven't fulfilled their end of the bargain by disclosing their former nuclear program?

If they were trying to hide their program and bide their time to build a bomb, do you think they'd have any problem signing a piece of paper in which they promise to do things they don't really have the intention of doing?

International Law is not something that is set in stone.

Yup, and Iran knows that. And that is why they have no problem resorting to ploys to make idiots like you in the west think they are complying with those laws.

It's an argument based on premises that pretty much any policy-maker could agree with and any state

Lol no it's not. If you actually believe that then you're more hopeless than I thought.

Let's see you defend Iran's actions by them wanting a nuclear bomb, and that this is ok just because they want it for defense according to you.

Yeah, let's see someone say that in the security counsel without getting laughed at. Nevermind, you know, the purpose of the Non-proliferation Treaty that Iran signed is to prevent them from developing nukes PERIOD.

Funny how your argument contradicts itself over and over again. You herald Iran for signing the treaty, yet you now defend them because they want nukes for defense, never mind the treaty is for countries who want nuclear power, and who promise not to develop nukes.

At 12/5/07 10:06 AM, Slizor wrote:

Iran is not unreasonable or dangerous.

ummm.....yeah

At 12/5/07 10:37 PM, therealsylvos wrote: ummm.....yeah

Irrational bastards

Oh and Slizor... one other thing about Iran.

Do you actually think Americans are overreacting about Iran's nuclear ambitions, when their national slogan, as articulated by their Supreme leader, is "Death to America"?

Don't you find it odd that their government leader changed "Death to America" when they decided to defy the UN security counsel and enrich uranium?

Now factor that into all the other things Iran does. Support terrorists, they had a nuclear weapons program, believe their national goal is to bring about the return of the 12 Imam and cause the apocalypse, continue to hide their former (possibly current) nuclear program and threaten to wipe countries off the map.

You people need to use your brains for once. Your desire to bash the US causes you to defend countries that are indefensible. Your desire to bash the US causes you to cease thinking objectively and turn into complete ignoramus with no sense of reality.

At 12/5/07 10:40 PM, Imperator wrote:

At 12/5/07 10:37 PM, therealsylvos wrote: ummm.....yeah

Irrational bastards

WOW Imperator.

Not only have you perpetually ignored where your argument got proved wrong and ripped apart, but you say something like that which is irrelevant and meaningless, just so you can keep defending Iran and keep your flawed argument going.

It's hilarious how delusional you people are.

Did the US call Iran part of the axis of evil, or had the US invaded Iraq, in 1983 when terrorists under Iranian direction and tutelage attacked US barracks, killing hundreds of Americans?

But I guess we know where your allegiances lay.

At 12/5/07 10:40 PM, Imperator wrote:

At 12/5/07 10:37 PM, therealsylvos wrote: ummm.....yeah

Irrational bastards

Of course thats the reason since Iranians haven't been chanting "Death to America" for about 20 years now.

At 12/5/07 10:52 PM, therealsylvos wrote:

Of course thats the reason since Iranians haven't been chanting "Death to America" for about 20 years now.

Well historically then Iranians would be hating on us because of our good ole buddy here.

But more recent distrust of the US is probably due to the fact that we seem to be taking out nations on the AoE.....

I mean, when people on a hit list start dropping it's kinda common sense to search for ways to protect yourself, right?

At 12/5/07 11:20 PM, Imperator wrote: Well historically then Iranians would be hating on us because of our good ole buddy here.

I'm so glad that wasn't Carter...