Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

---

At 12/5/07 11:24 PM, TheMason wrote: I'm so glad that wasn't Carter...

lol. I'm smarter than your average bear......even if only ever so slightly.....

(where this gets me in trouble of course is in comparing the avg intelligence of bears to dolphins, sparrows and homo sapiens)

---

At 12/5/07 08:09 PM, JudgeDredd wrote: 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".

Ladies and gentleman we have a winner.
Here's one (1) free interwebz for you sir.

One of the reasons Rome did such a fabulous job at creating and maintaining an empire was the relative freedom it allowed conquered peoples. They went through several stages, but between the Secessions of the Plebs, Social Wars, and so on Roman citizenship became universal for all people under the Empire. This is why when we talk about what is "Roman" or the "Roman Empire" constraints must be given, since the words themselves can constitute a great deal (including the Roman Empires reign till 1453 under the Byzantines).

We don't seem to do that, and our policies in Iran, Iraq, and throughout the South Americas shows that forced democracy just doesn't work.

Go back 2000 years and you find the same policies costing Athens her empire and sovereignty.

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.

Bingo. We developed this empire through our economic agendas. And the reason it worked is because on the business field we could talk to nations as EQUAL partners. Now that it's become quite clear America does not want to be an equal partner, but rather the superior partner, you have nations becoming disgruntled and pulling away.

This is why Iran's intent to build a bomb has never worried me, and why I view the move as purely defensive in purpose. Israel has a ton, and America has a ton. If Iran tried anything, they'd be dead, plain and simple.

What OUR worries SHOULD be are their thoughts on selling oil in Euros instead of USD and the rise of China and India to cut down our economic stranglehold on the world.

Don't tell that to the neo-cons though, cause it goes against the whole "hate us for our freedom" bull......

---

Funny how people just keep talking after they already get proved wrong, and can't validate their claims.

This thread is hilarious.

Just keep dodging the facts Imperator/Judgedredd. Keep ranting after your previous notions were discredited.

---

Here's a thought on trust:

When do you start trusting the words of another nation or group? Or enemy for that matter?

I mean, Iran had said they weren't working on a bomb, and this report shows that they haven't been since 2003. We didn't believe them, almost went to war. We were wrong.

We claimed Iraq had nukes, posed a real threat to the US. The UN said they didn't, we didn't believe them, went in anyways. Intelligence turned out to be mostly false in both cases. We were wrong.

Where does US credibility stand? Where do we start listening to our enemies (as Ron Paul has repeatedly urged) and find out what it is that makes them tick? When do we start trusting them and their words? What do we do when other nations don't trust what WE say?

Bin Laden has said that his reasons for hitting us is due to our meddling over there. Ron Paul says it and is dismissed (despite being correct as seen by Mike Sheuer and the 9/11 commission).

And now the US government believes that nation-building in Iraq and throughout the Mid East is a good idea.

Who's to believe here? How and why should we trust this administration? SHOULD we trust this administration? Should the world?

---

At 12/6/07 12:33 AM, Imperator wrote: Here's a thought on trust:

When do you start trusting the words of another nation or group? Or enemy for that matter?

I mean, Iran had said they weren't working on a bomb, and this report shows that they haven't been since 2003.

Um it shows they stopped their program due to pressure that came from the Bush administration.

But it also shows that it's not certain whether they stopped all their weapons programs. It states that they continue to research technology which is used in nuclear weapons applications also.

Funny how you ENTIRELY IGNORE where I actually quoted the report, and you just keep it rolling with your ignorant banter after having the foundation of your argument compromised.

We didn't believe them

AHAHAHAHA

The Iranians still haven't even admitted they had a nuclear weapons program in the first place! Of course we don't believe them.

Obviously they have nuclear ambitions but it was just halted because pressure from the international community, created by the US and US intelligence reports about Iran, which the new report states. Iran continues to conceal their previous program, instead of coming clean... and you say that we need to believe them?

Get a grip on reality.

Bin Laden has said that his reasons for hitting us is due to our meddling over there.

Thanks for proving my case. You're a brainwashed liberal, you're now validating the words of Osama Bin laden as part of your argument!

You actually think a terrorist leader who intentionally killed 3000 innocent Americans is an objective source of critical analysis of the US? Thanks for just further nullifying what you say.

Your entire argument is moot because you've proven your inability to accept the facts after they are provided... You instead just repeat mindless propaganda based on your intangible liberal philosophy which has absolutely zero foundation in reality. You can't really prove anything you say, so you rely on vague, grandiose moral referendums which are tantamount to the kind of criticism Osama Bin Laden uses to justify terrorist attacks.

You question US credibility based on previous intelligence reports that were wrong, but then you herald [one part of] a new intelligence report and suggest it is accurate... thus contradicting yourself when you question US credibility based on previous intelligence reports.

You absolutely butcher the full context of the report based on your narrow emphasis of one single thing it says. THEN you ignore the full context of the VERY INTELLIGENCE REPORT YOU ARE using, so you can ignore things within it that compromise your argument at the same time!

You just keep ignoring that your argument has been pretty much conclusively destroyed. And yet you keep latching on to things that any reasonable person would realize do not contribute to your argument at all anymore once the facts came out. You think that ignoring that your argument got discredited somehow means it didn't happen... so you just keep making an argument that you know has no more credibility... just for your personal interests in the issue.

~~~Let's recap: (since you seem to have amnesia)~~~

National Intelligence Estimate (pg 6)

We judge with high confidence that in fall 2003, Tehran halted its nuclear weapons
program; we also assess with moderate-to-high confidence that Tehran at a minimum is
keeping open the option to develop nuclear weapons. We judge with high confidence
that the halt, and Tehran's announcement of its decision to suspend its declared uranium
enrichment program and sign an Additional Protocol to its Nuclear Non-Proliferation
Treaty Safeguards Agreement, was directed primarily in response to increasing
international scrutiny and pressure resulting from exposure of Iran's previously
undeclared nuclear work .
-----------

Who do you think caused that international scrutiny and pressure? Oh that's right, the President you're trying to pretend has no business accusing Iran of anything.

Furthermore:

- We assess with high confidence that until fall 2003, Iranian military entities were
working under government direction to develop nuclear weapons.

- We judge with high confidence that the halt lasted at least several years. (Because of
intelligence gaps discussed elsewhere in this Estimate, however, DOE and the NIC
assess with only moderate confidence that the halt to those activities represents a halt
to Iran's entire nuclear weapons program.)

Then:

Iranian entities are continuing to develop a range of technical capabilities that could
be applied to producing nuclear weapons, if a decision is made to do so. For example,
Iran's civilian uranium enrichment program is continuing. We also assess with high
confidence that since fall 2003, Iran has been conducting research and development
projects with commercial and conventional military applications-some of which would
also be of limited use for nuclear weapons.

And:

We assess with moderate confidence that Iran probably would use covert facilities-rather than its declared nuclear sites-for the production of highly enriched uranium for a
weapon.

We were wrong

So in that case how do you know we aren't wrong now? How do we know that even though Iran suspended it's weapons program in 2003, it hasn't restarted it covertly again, and is just using the civilian program as a cover? Hell, how do we know that Iran has stopped all of its nuclear weapons programs when the report is only somewhat confident it has?

Since Iran has already shown its desire to build nuclear weapons, as well as its desire to continue to hide its program, it is reasonable to conclude they will do it again, if they aren't currently doing it again under a program our intelligence hasn't found out about.

Iran could use the knowledge it gains in its civilian nuclear program, and hand it over to a clandestine operation in the future. They've already shown their intentions, just because they have temporarily stopped their main weapons program doesn't mean they have had a change of heart, it just means that pressure coming, predominately form the US, has scared them into being more smart about it.

They intended to have a nuclear bomb before and had a weapons program, which they have yet to disclose. And you're trying to pretend Iran is just some innocent victim? Wouldn't they be open and try as hard as they can to transparently verify their program is purely peaceful if that was the case?

----------

But of course you ignore this, because it completely shatters your argument.

---

Wtf.

This was a really good read until mid-way down the page, Imperator stopped responding.

Um... let's see...

I still find it absolutely Ironic that the very people who stride for complete seperation of church and state (to the point where it has to be a requirement NOT to be religous) are saying that a religous theocracy who supports terrorist groups should be allowed nuclear capabilities.

Fascinating stuff.

---

At 12/6/07 01:12 AM, Memorize wrote: Um... let's see...

I still find it absolutely Ironic that the very people who stride for complete seperation of church and state (to the point where it has to be a requirement NOT to be religous) are saying that a religous theocracy who supports terrorist groups should be allowed nuclear capabilities.

I'd care if it was OUR country, but it's not. Our nation was built under that premise, and we fight to make sure it stays that way, IN AMERICA.
It's not our job to push the Bill of Rights onto every other nation. Let em fight their own democratic revolutions.

Democracy doesn't need to be installed at the tip of an M-16. Venezuela just showed that.

This 21st century World Manifest Destiny garbage needs to go.

---

Meh....
Just realized what you had written.
I don't think they should be allowed nukes, but I don't think we should be a hair-pin away from war when our intelligence on their intentions SUCK so badly.

And besides, them getting a nuke will not end the world. Even IF they have the intent to use it, Israel would incinerate them before they got the chance. It's not our job to fight THEIR battles.

---

At 12/6/07 01:34 AM, Imperator wrote: It's not our job to push the Bill of Rights onto every other nation. Let em fight their own democratic revolutions.

In the meantime, let's make sure that Islamic Theocracies like Iran that are sworn to our destruction don't get a nuclear bomb.

Democracy doesn't need to be installed at the tip of an M-16. Venezuela just showed that.

Never mind that Venezuela was a democracy during a period of close relations with the US, before Chavez was even in the picture.

Never mind that the opposition that recently defeated Chavez in the referendum has been supported by the US. Nevermind that countries who are oppressed by a government with absolute control, probably aren't going to be able to have a revolution without outside help given the fact that any means to do it will be slowly but surely removed by their government.

Nevermind that it is well within our right to support democratic movements in other countries, as well as distinguish between responsible democracies and theocracies or dictatorships in regards to who gets nuclear energy (i.e. the ability to transfer that technology and knowledge into a weapons program).

This 21st century World Manifest Destiny garbage needs to go.

21st century delusional, self-contradicting, brainwashed liberalism needs to go.

---

At 12/6/07 01:07 AM, cellardoor6 wrote:

At 12/6/07 12:33 AM, Imperator wrote: Here's a thought on trust: When do you start trusting the words of another nation or group? Or enemy for that matter?

Cellar: how do you know we aren't wrong now? How do we know that even though Iran suspended it's weapons program in 2003, it hasn't restarted it covertly again, and is just using the civilian program as a cover? Hell, how do we know that Iran has stopped all of its nuclear weapons programs when the report is only somewhat confident it has?

^^There's your answer Imperator. You don't trust them. EVER! You keep you foot on the throat of the enemy choking for air. Even when your own spy agencies (supposedly the best spy agencies in the world) turn 180 degrees on previous assessments, and finally concur with international weapons inspectors. This wasn't about stopping Iran's nuclear weapons program. It's about the axis-of-evil. Iran is the enemy. Nukes or no nukes. No let-up for good behavior.

So, how do you know that Iran has stopped all of its nuclear weapons programs? Only 1 way! Repeat what you did to Iraq; years of punative killing sanctions, followed by wholesale illegal invasion.

---

At 12/6/07 03:19 AM, JudgeDredd wrote: Even when your own spy agencies (supposedly the best spy agencies in the world) ...

Actually, the Mossad, MI6 and whatever replaced the KGB are better agencies than the CIA. We have the best intelligence when it comes to things like spy satellites and anything that allows for the use of technology rather than human gathering...but for the latter you have to look at the agencies I just described...

---

At 12/6/07 03:19 AM, JudgeDredd wrote:

At 12/6/07 01:07 AM, cellardoor6 wrote:

At 12/6/07 12:33 AM, Imperator wrote: Here's a thought on trust: When do you start trusting the words of another nation or group? Or enemy for that matter?

Cellar: how do you know we aren't wrong now? How do we know that even though Iran suspended it's weapons program in 2003, it hasn't restarted it covertly again, and is just using the civilian program as a cover? Hell, how do we know that Iran has stopped all of its nuclear weapons programs when the report is only somewhat confident it has?

^^There's your answer Imperator. You don't trust them. EVER! You keep you foot on the throat of the enemy choking for air. Even when your own spy agencies (supposedly the best spy agencies in the world) turn 180 degrees on previous assessments

And you completely contradict the basis of other parts of your argument, yet again.

If they turned 180... how do YOU know they are correct if YOU are the one who has been so adamant about the US having been wrong in the past? Oh that's right, you have no integrity, you just latch on to anything that could possibly resemble support for your argument and ignore what it actually means.

Nevermind it actually hasn't turned 180 degrees, in fact it still provides a compelling case against Iran, which I quote and which you and Imperator CONTINUALLY IGNORE because it completely shatters your dimwitted, liberal rants.

This wasn't about stopping Iran's nuclear weapons program. It's about the axis-of-evil. Iran is the enemy. Nukes or no nukes. No let-up for good behavior.

What good behavior? Last time I checked, they still haven't admitted that they had any bad behavior at all. The intelligence report states that they only halted their nuclear weapons program due to international pressure, which was, of course, predominantly due to the US and its findings about Iran's weapons program.

Nevermind President Bush has said that there would be direct dialogue if Iran suspended uranium enrichment.

Seriously. You people are only doing your own argument a disservice by parading your ignorance and your inability to address the whole context of the issue. You ignore the facts that completely obliterate your argument, and you just keep ranting like stoned hippies with vivid imaginations.

---

At 12/6/07 03:25 AM, TheMason wrote:
Actually, the Mossad, MI6 and whatever replaced the KGB are better agencies than the CIA. We have the best intelligence when it comes to things like spy satellites and anything that allows for the use of technology rather than human gathering...but for the latter you have to look at the agencies I just described...

I'm assuming the Mossad is the Israeli one? I've heard they were REAL good......

What happened to us? I thought OSS did a nice job, and with all the tech, a Cold War, and resources we have you'd think we'd be pretty good at this business by now. Is the CIA just more bureacratic and less effective or is it because the CIA focuses on a lot of different things, like our tech, whereas SIS et al. train their guys on how to charm ladies with witty statements and Q branch gadgets?

---

At 12/6/07 03:19 AM, JudgeDredd wrote: ^^There's your answer Imperator. You don't trust them. EVER! You keep you foot on the throat of the enemy choking for air. Even when your own spy agencies (supposedly the best spy agencies in the world) turn 180 degrees on previous assessments, and finally concur with international weapons inspectors. This wasn't about stopping Iran's nuclear weapons program. It's about the axis-of-evil. Iran is the enemy. Nukes or no nukes. No let-up for good behavior.

Seems where it's going......doesn't it? Hopefully it leads to some talks, shit gets sorted and both sides cool down. I just fear constant punishment will back Iran into a corner and that can only lead to very, very, VERY bad things.

I mean, there's a point where it just seems like the Land of the Free has no problems in kicking nations when they're down.....

There's gonna be a point where even our allies and the UN will think we're being overly aggressive and stop supporting us. I have a feeling once China and India arrive on the scene with substantial econ power we'll start seeing where nations' opinions of the US really lie. And they're not far enough behind for events like these to be out of immediate memory......I think we're burning some future bridges we're gonna wish we didn't when our own butts are on the line.

So, how do you know that Iran has stopped all of its nuclear weapons programs? Only 1 way! Repeat what you did to Iraq; years of punative killing sanctions, followed by wholesale illegal invasion.

Yes, let's isolate and then invade another oil rich Muslim country and give Bin Laden even more recruits. Splendid idea.

---

At 12/6/07 12:33 AM, Imperator wrote: this report shows that they haven't been since 2003

Where does it say they haven't resumed since 2003?

---

At 12/6/07 04:48 AM, Thread-Killer wrote:

At 12/6/07 12:33 AM, Imperator wrote: this report shows that they haven't been since 2003

Where does it say they haven't resumed since 2003?

"Iran halted its nuclear weapons program in 2003 and that the program remains frozen"

Right there. Present tense, "remains". As in, continues the current state of being; frozenness. As in, no change to report since the previous change in state; halted.

---

At 12/6/07 05:09 AM, Imperator wrote:

At 12/6/07 04:48 AM, Thread-Killer wrote:

At 12/6/07 12:33 AM, Imperator wrote: this report shows that they haven't been since 2003

Where does it say they haven't resumed since 2003?

"Iran halted its nuclear weapons program in 2003 and that the program remains frozen"

Yeah, and ignore the rest of it that you don't want to acknowledge, like:

"we also assess with moderate-to-high confidence that Tehran at a minimum is
keeping open the option to develop nuclear weapons"

Right there. Present tense, "remains". As in, continues the current state of being; frozenness. As in, no change to report since the previous change in state; halted.

Hah!

We judge with high confidence that the halt lasted at least several years. (Because of
intelligence gaps discussed elsewhere in this Estimate, however, DOE and the NIC
assess with only moderate confidence that the halt to those activities represents a halt
to Iran's entire nuclear weapons program.

AND:

Iranian entities are continuing to develop a range of technical capabilities that could
be applied to producing nuclear weapons, if a decision is made to do so. For example,
Iran's civilian uranium enrichment program is continuing. We also assess with high
confidence that since fall 2003, Iran has been conducting research and development
projects with commercial and conventional military applications-some of which would
also be of limited use for nuclear weapons.

And:

We assess with moderate confidence that convincing the Iranian leadership to forgo
the eventual development of nuclear weapons will be difficult given the linkage many
within the leadership probably see between nuclear weapons development and Iran's
key national security and foreign policy objectives, and given Iran's considerable
effort from at least the late 1980s to 2003 to develop such weapons.

And:

We assess with moderate confidence that Iran probably would use covert facilities-
rather than its declared nuclear sites-for the production of highly enriched uranium for a
weapon.

---

Here is my limited opinion on US relations with Iran as a US Marine.
-We don't go to war with Iran, ok.
-We go to war with Iran, I am going to shoot Iranians.
-We go to war with Iran, but I'm not in the Corps, I can voice my opinion.

Actually, I could still say we did not have just cause to go to war with Iran while still in the Corps, but I would probably be saying it either before, during, or after I shoot an Iranian,

---

At 12/6/07 01:50 AM, cellardoor6 wrote: Never mind that Venezuela was a democracy during a period of close relations with the US, before Chavez was even in the picture.

Well, there hasn't always been democracy in Venezuela, CAP killed hundreds for protesting against the rising food prices.
Now there is democracy there.
It wasn't through a bloody revolution.

And that's the only thing Imperator stated. That Venezuela became a democracy without (very much) bloodshed.

---

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.

That's your proof? HAHAHAHA. Bloody hell. I knew it would be crap, but that crap? I mean, 5-6 stories from Western news agencies about such things as a radio series or political rhetoric. Wow.

Shall we also ignore the fact that you tried to portray them as primary sources?

And Iranian opinion as a unified whole is irrelevant because their country is controlled by a religious theocracy

Which will have disagreements within itself. Which was my point.

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

This is a complete and utter red herring. I am not attacking the Bush administration or even US policy. I am "attacking" your "argument" that Iran is a threat.

There's where your logic breaks down even further. On one hand you say the US makes up fairy tales, and yet you fail to realize that North Korea is disarming based on US pressure

Actually, that is proof of my logic. North Korea is acting rationally in responding to US pressure and is not acting as how the fairy tales would expect.

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.

I haven't used any US intelligence for my argument or even mentioned the report.

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.

Sadly your idea of Iran being similar to a suicide bomber doesn't work. Every state has got many different organs, interests and centres of power and, as such, rarely has a unified policy or ideology.

This is a slightly lazy use of a source by me but read this page.

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.

This view doesn't appear to be consistant with your earlier claim of Iran waiting to get the bomb. In fact, it makes the issue of nukes fairly irrelevant. If Iran follows this idea of martyrdom and are stopped from getting nukes then they will just attack with conventional forces anyway. Why haven't they done so already? The crazy religious theocracy that rules Iran has had 28 years in which to carry out its policy of death to America....yet has devoted very little time to this policy.

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.

So the very crux of the matter is if Iran is rational or not.

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.

So they're acting rationally?

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.

It's not really similar to a man assaulting another, now is it?

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

Directs? Bloody hell that would be hard to prove. Funds and supplies, yeah I can see that (although your proof - a US district court judge - is laughable) but directs? To what extent are we talking here?

Your logic is so fucking hilarious.

- First you justify Iran getting nukes because they may want them for defense

I never tried to justify Iran's actions. I was putting forward a different view to yours about Iran's intentions.

- Then you emphasize the intelligence report to suggest Iran isn't trying to get them.

Where have I done that?

- 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.

No, I said that they would not be able to achieve their goals through the use of them. If their aim is death to America and they could only hit the US with one nuke....then I think most people would consider that a fail.

Can we please get something straight. Is Iranian policy "death to America" or is it to bring this apocolypse? Which of their aims is their primary one? Are they a threat to the entire world, or are they only a direct threat to the US and Israel?

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?

I was using an example to illustrate my point about capability not being a threat. It was you who decided to apply it to Iran and the US. Please don't fuck about and then blame me when I question that.

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.

Pay attention. I have not actually said anything about the intelligence report or about Iran's compliance with the NPT. My point, which you missed, is that it is not correct to say that "Iran is not supposed to develop a nuclear weapon for any purpose" on the basis of their international law commitments.

I could put this in a more complex way, but you would miss the point again.

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.

I tire of your ceaselss strawmanning. I didn't herald Iran for signing the treaty nor did I defend their actions.

---

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"?

As articulated by a guy on the street?
""Death to America is still our slogan, and we consider any thoughts of a dialogue with The Great Satan as futile," one unidentified speaker said, as the crowd chimed in with the revolutionary war cry, "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?

Urm....no. The article you linked to said nothing of the sort. It didn't say anything about "Death to America" being changed or that the enrichment of uranium was in defiance of the security council.

believe their national goal is to bring about the return of the 12 Imam and cause the apocalypse and threaten to wipe countries off the map.

The national goal as proven by links to news agencies reports about a radio programme?

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.

Says the person who thinks that one country is intent on destroying America and devotes all its time towards that goal. Why do they even bother with an economic policy, why do they co-operate on such things like the Iran-US Claims Tribunal?

Oh, and one more thing cellardoor6. Don't even bother responding if all you can come up with to support your argument is random news articles. If that's the best sources that you can muster you should wonder about the foundations of your argument.

---

At 12/6/07 08:07 AM, Slizor wrote:

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.

That's your proof?

Yeah, and it basically shattered your argument into pieces.

HAHAHAHA.

What a pathetic way for you to try and discount facts that make your argument hilariously flawed.

Bloody hell. I knew it would be crap, but that crap? I mean, 5-6 stories from Western news agencies about such things as a radio series or political rhetoric. Wow.

Yeah, political rhetoric and terminology that the leaders of Iran themselves say, and has as official policies.

Iran's leaders specifically state their goal is to bring the return of the 12 Imam. And you just ignore it because its inconvenient to your shallow little views.

You're defending a country with nuclear weapons ambitions, suggesting they don't pose a threat even if they had weapons, all while you ignore the facts I provided that make it pretty fucking obvious that Iran is a threat. You're talking about a country who is driven by a religious theocracy who believe the apocalypse will be their doing, a country that emphasizes martyrdom, and has the goal of destroying Israel and America, as reflected by their official national slogan as specifically referred to by their Supreme Leader:

Death to America is still our slogan, and we consider any thoughts of a dialogue with The Great Satan as futile

Shall we also ignore the fact that you tried to portray them as primary sources?

Shall we ignore that we don't speak Farsi and probably won't be able to get a primary source from Iran?

Never mind the articles state what Iranians actually say. Never mind they actually have quotes and aren't just paraphrasing what may or may not have been said as you're going to try and pretend.

Never mind, you know, that Iran has a HOLIDAY called "Death to America" day. (btw that source is Al-Jazeera, hardly a western media source.

Never mind that the sources you want to devolve into an denial mode over completely obliterate your argument.

And Iranian opinion as a unified whole is irrelevant because their country is controlled by a religious theocracy

Which will have disagreements within itself. Which was my point.

Um and your point is inapplicable and false. Iran is lead by Islamic fundamentalists, they override politics. Their authority is religious and political both, their religious beliefs are the driving force behind Iran's ambitions as a national, and therefore the fact that they tried to get a nuclear bomb, and may or may not still be trying to get one, is pretty compelling evidence that they are a threat.

This is a complete and utter red herring. I am not attacking the Bush administration or even US policy. I am "attacking" your "argument" that Iran is a threat.

And I basically proved Iran is a threat.

If anyone thinks that a country who emphasizes martyrdom and the facilitation of the apocalypse, and was attempting to develop a nuclear bomb under direction of their government as recently as 4 years ago, isn't a threat... then wow.

There's where your logic breaks down even further. On one hand you say the US makes up fairy tales, and yet you fail to realize that North Korea is disarming based on US pressure

Actually, that is proof of my logic. North Korea is acting rationally in responding to US pressure and is not acting as how the fairy tales would expect.

North Korea also values its existence! North Korea doesn't have the goal of bringing about the apocalypse. As irrational as they have appeared before, they still have the goal of self-preservation at the forefront of their ideology.

North Korea is still a threat actually given their ambitions, however they can be reasoned with if the prospect of their own destruction is real. North Korea developed a nuke mostly to scare the world into giving them aid in return for them giving their nukes up.

Sadly your idea of Iran being similar to a suicide bomber doesn't work.

Actually it does and you know it. Iran emphasizes martyrdom, they believe it is someone's highest calling. Their leaders also believe, as I showed, that it is their duty to bring about the return of the 12 Imam, who will appear in a time of great chaos and destruction. Then he'll lead the fight against "evildoers", and infidels will be purged from the earth with fire.

I wonder what would help them facilitate this, in their belief? Probably a nuclear bomb, which we know they tried to develop as recently as 4 years ago, which we knew they are still developing technology for.

This is a slightly lazy use of a source by me but read this page.

Lol... all that is stating is that Iran has both civil and religious leaders. What you ignore about your own fucking source is that it states the conservative clergy that rule Iran are above it all.

Someone who criticizes the proof of someone else... you provide an op editorial that doesn't even prove your stance but supports mine?

Interesting.

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.

This view doesn't appear to be consistant with your earlier claim of Iran waiting to get the bomb.

Um yeah it does you fool. Iran wants a nuke because it is a powerful weapon that will help them achieve their goals that lesser weapons wouldn't be able to do.

In fact, it makes the issue of nukes fairly irrelevant. If Iran follows this idea of martyrdom and are stopped from getting nukes then they will just attack with conventional forces anyway.

Which they knew, and we know, are weak and feckless compared to conventional forces that would be needed to achieve their goals.

That is where the nuke comes in. It makes Iran's weak forces irrelevant because having a nuke is an equalizer, a small country with a relatively weak military can still inflict enormous blows on any country no matter how powerful its military is.

Using a nuke would help Iran achieve its goals. Seriously, use your brain.

Why haven't they done so already?

Because they know that in their current state they don't have the capability or capacity to achieve their goals. They know that if they were to attack the US, triggering a full-scale war, they would lose. That is why they want a nuke.

---

The crazy religious theocracy that rules Iran has had 28 years in which to carry out its policy of death to America....yet has devoted very little time to this policy.

They have a religiously motivated theocracy, but that doesn't mean they are completely stupid. They know that they don't have the ability to achieve their fundamental religious ambitions as they are now. They know the US military is vastly superior... and that is why they want a nuke, and that is why the had developed a nuke for a long period of time, and were doing so as recently as 4 years ago, which they still don't admit.

They are biding their time until they meet prophetic prerequisites, as well as actual prerequisites they believe they need to facilitate the return and victory of their 12th Imam, their Mahdi.

Once again, unlike Christians and Jews who believe the day of judgment and the return of their respective Messiahs are set in stone and can't be postponed or rushed by human action; Muslims believe that they themselves play a central roll, and that they can cause it, and participate in the victory of Islam over the world.

So the very crux of the matter is if Iran is rational or not.

The crux of the matter is the fact that Iran wants nukes for purposes we know to be malevolent. We know they were developing them, and we know they refuse to disclose the details of that development, and continue to keep options open to develop nukes, as well as continuing to develop technology needed for the military use of nukes.

Iran is a threat. Anyone who actually can't see it is either braindead, or is motivated by political bias, causing them to cease thinking objectively and defend Iran blindly for the purpose of making a stance against the US.

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.

So they're acting rationally?

They are still irrational, but they aren't stupid.

Being able to lie and deceive to achieve your goals doesn't mean that they are rational in the areas I already discussed, and which you intentionally disregard the nuance of to perpetuate your dimwitted argument.

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.

It's not really similar to a man assaulting another, now is it?

Holy hell, take an honest stance for once in your life.

Iran supports terrorists, proved. Iran provides weapons and training for terrorists who have attacked and killed Americans, proved.

Therefore it is reasonable to conclude, given their goal of the destruction of America for religious purposes, that they would use nukes or provide nukes for terrorists in order to attack America. Hell, they chanted "Death to America" in their government meeting when they claimed they would continue enriching uranium.

Give the FACT that Iranian leaders believe Islam should rule the world, they see the US as one of the major obstacles to this happening considering the US is the world's superpower; the US represents a system and influence that is the antithesis to the clerical rule that Iran has, that they believe should be a blueprint for the world.

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

Directs? Bloody hell that would be hard to prove.

Um actually it's not considering it is widely know Iran was responsible for the Beirut Barracks Bombing, which was conducted by terrorist groups whom they give their implicit support to.

Your logic is so fucking hilarious.

- First you justify Iran getting nukes because they may want them for defense

I never tried to justify Iran's actions.

Um actually you did, and have. LOL that is the foundation of your entire argument.

If their aim is death to America and they could only hit the US with one nuke....then I think most people would consider that a fail.

One nuke is all it takes to set off a nuclear war.

Can we please get something straight. Is Iranian policy "death to America" or is it to bring this apocolypse?

In order to bring about the apocalypse, the US would either have to be converted to Islam or destroyed.

Pretty simple, those two objectives go hand in hand in the eyes of the Iranians.

Which of their aims is their primary one?

Their primary goal is to usher in the end of the world, which they see will cause Muslims to reign in power for ever under Allah.

Destroying America is part of it, because Islam can't rule the world when the world's superpower is the United States, a pluralist society, a democracy with a separation of church and state, yet a population that is predominantly Christian, and is protected from the forced rule of Islam due to the rights they have.

Are they a threat to the entire world, or are they only a direct threat to the US and Israel?

They are a threat to the world because they see the US as a threat to their goal of subjugating the world under Islam.

I was using an example to illustrate my point about capability not being a threat.

And then you criticized the logic behind your own little analogy, when I was doing nothing but addressing it.

Hilarious.

At 12/6/07 08:18 AM, Slizor wrote:

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?

Urm....no. The article you linked to said nothing of the sort. It didn't say anything about "Death to America" being changed or that the enrichment of uranium was in defiance of the security council.

Wow!

LINK

Iran's parliament unanimously approved the outline of a bill Sunday that would require the government to resume uranium enrichment, legislation likely to deepen an international dispute over Iran's nuclear activities.

Separately, Iran's top nuclear negotiator said there was a 50% chance of a nuclear compromise with European nations, though he ruled out an indefinite suspension of key enrichment activities.

Shouts of "Death to America!" rang out in the conservative-dominated parliament after lawmakers voted to advance the nation's nuclear program, an issue of national pride that provides a rare point of agreement between conservatives and reformers.

Washington has pushed hard for Iran to drop its nuclear program, which Tehran maintains is for peaceful energy purposes. The U.N. nuclear watchdog is also pushing for Iran to halt its activities.

--------

Um... they continued enriching uranium, in defiance of the international community (i.e the UN). In this meeting that this took place in Iran's parliament, they chanted "Death to America".

And you can't even acknowledge it.

Oh, and one more thing cellardoor6. Don't even bother responding if all you can come up with to support your argument is random news articles.

Meanwhile you can't and haven't come up with any proof for anything you say, funny.

Meanwhile the news articles I linked to were from credible sources and actually validated my argument.

---

Oh, everyone... btw...

Maybe you should read this. Apparently we have people on our side still, apparently they still see Iran as a threat and still believe Iran is seeking nuclear weapons.

But hey, let's just pretend France and Germany (and probably the UK) don't exist and the only people we need to impress and get on our side are Iran and liberal hippies on the internet with vivid imaginations from Europe and Canada.

Let's just pretend that the the US is the only country eligible to be criticized according to your hilarious conspiracy theories and your "OMG liek we should leave Iran alone omg imperalismBushnaziromeosamabinladeniraq" logic.

---

Question;

What Benefit does it bring the Iranian government to publicly announce that they want to destroy the united states and israel; but not have any of the means nor the pursuit of the means to do so.

GWB doesn't really have enough time to engage in an invasion of iran if he wanted to do a repeat of Iraq. And if he wanted to invade iran, why didn't he choose to suppress the information reguarding the nuclear weapons? i had been told that he did this before with iraq.

---

Iran's leaders specifically state their goal is to bring the return of the 12 Imam. And you just ignore it because its inconvenient to your shallow little views.

I'm interested about this. Do you actually have a source where a leader of Iran states that their goal is to bring the return of the 12 Imam and to achieve this goal they will gain nuclear weapons and begin a nuclear war?

Is there a source that actually says what you are saying?

Death to America is still our slogan, and we consider any thoughts of a dialogue with The Great Satan as futile

Said one unidentified speaker.

Shall we also ignore the fact that you tried to portray them as primary sources?

Shall we ignore that we don't speak Farsi and probably won't be able to get a primary source from Iran?

So, in lieu, we should up the supposed validity of secondary sources? I think not. A lack of actual primary evidence

Never mind, you know, that Iran has a HOLIDAY called "Death to America" day. (btw that source is Al-Jazeera, hardly a western media source.

The day is actually called Student Day....and you really should actually pay attention to the sources that you post.

Never mind that the sources you want to devolve into an denial mode over completely obliterate your argument.

How to say this.....your sources aren't worth the internet space that they take up. I can give a short, but by no means exhaustive list of why. Firstly, they are not sources that are reviewed by any body nor point to where their information is from. Secondly, they are the product of private companies and are open to the biases that those companies have. Thirdly, they do not directly support what you are saying. Fourthly, they do appear to have just been googled and not actually read.

Are you really going to insist that it was their supreme leader who said that "Death to America is still our slogan..."?

Um and your point is inapplicable and false. Iran is lead by Islamic fundamentalists, they override politics.

Ah, so Islamic Fundamentalism is the only concept in the world that is not disputed by its proponents? You honestly think there is no level of disagreement between them? You are really fucking naive.

Actually, that is proof of my logic. North Korea is acting rationally in responding to US pressure and is not acting as how the fairy tales would expect.

North Korea also values its existence! North Korea doesn't have the goal of bringing about the apocalypse. As irrational as they have appeared before, they still have the goal of self-preservation at the forefront of their ideology.

"As irrational as they appeared before" - great line. As irrational as they were portrayed before.

Sadly your idea of Iran being similar to a suicide bomber doesn't work.

Actually it does and you know it. Iran emphasizes martyrdom, they believe it is someone's highest calling. Their leaders also believe, as I showed

I wonder what would help them facilitate this, in their belief? Probably a nuclear bomb, which we know they tried to develop as recently as 4 years ago, which we knew they are still developing technology for.

And here we go, a supposition. You don't actually have any proof of this, you assume it even though its vital to the cohesion of your argument. It also indicates that you are, in fact, lacking a source which directly supports your position.

This is a slightly lazy use of a source by me but read this page.

Lol... all that is stating is that Iran has both civil and religious leaders. What you ignore about your own fucking source is that it states the conservative clergy that rule Iran are above it all.

You have no subtlety. "The tension between these two unevenly balances centres of power affects Iranian policy at all levels so that, at times, Iran appears to be following different or contradictory policies." Doesn't really support your view that there is one power centre that is completely dominated by one ideology?

That is where the nuke comes in. It makes Iran's weak forces irrelevant because having a nuke is an equalizer, a small country with a relatively weak military can still inflict enormous blows on any country no matter how powerful its military is.

Using a nuke would help Iran achieve its goals. Seriously, use your brain.

Use your brain....hahaha. Making a jump, are we?

Because they know that in their current state they don't have the capability or capacity to achieve their goals. They know that if they were to attack the US, triggering a full-scale war, they would lose. That is why they want a nuke.

Who cares? There would be a time of death and destruction in the world when the 12th Imam will return and bring justice to the world - it is you who interprets (and makes logical jumps from) your crappy sources as to support the view that they want to start a nuclear war.

---

So they're acting rationally?

They are still irrational, but they aren't stupid.

Being able to lie and deceive to achieve your goals doesn't mean that they are rational in the areas I already discussed, and which you intentionally disregard the nuance of to perpetuate your dimwitted argument.

Man, you can't even recognise the obvious argument there. How thick are you? Instead of just talking bullshit about the "nuance" of the word "rational", you clearly could have made a distinction between acting rationally and having irrational goals. But no, you're too bloody thick to even attempt an intelligent argument.

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.

It's not really similar to a man assaulting another, now is it?

Holy hell, take an honest stance for once in your life.

I could say exactly the same thing back to you.

Iran supports terrorists, proved. Iran provides weapons and training for terrorists who have attacked and killed Americans, proved.

Therefore it is reasonable to conclude, given their goal of the destruction of America for religious purposes,

Which is the point we keep on returning to and which you are yet to make a valid, supported case for.

Give the FACT that Iranian leaders believe Islam should rule the world

READ YOUR FUCKING SOURCES. The quote there is that "Islam is ready to rule the world" through the arrival of the 12th Imam. Your source does not state that they believe Islam should rule the world, but that it is ready to and will rule the world at some approaching time.

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

Directs? Bloody hell that would be hard to prove.

Um actually it's not considering it is widely know Iran was responsible for the Beirut Barracks Bombing, which was conducted by terrorist groups whom they give their implicit support to.

I am left speechless by your stupidity. I'm not even sure if your argument is that because it is "widely known" that Iran was responsible for the Beirut Barracks Bombing that their direction can be proven, or that they give "implicit support" to these groups and thus direct them. Neither argument makes sense.

I never tried to justify Iran's actions.

Um actually you did, and have. LOL that is the foundation of your entire argument.

Jesus man, can you miss the point of an argument by any greater distance? Are you really this bad at thinking?

If their aim is death to America and they could only hit the US with one nuke....then I think most people would consider that a fail.

One nuke is all it takes to set off a nuclear war.

In this day and age? With the support that Iran has? With Iran being the first to strike?

You're having a fucking laugh.

Can we please get something straight. Is Iranian policy "death to America" or is it to bring this apocolypse?

In order to bring about the apocalypse, the US would either have to be converted to Islam or destroyed.

As would everywhere else. So their policy is actually to bring the apocalypse, not "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?

Urm....no. The article you linked to said nothing of the sort. It didn't say anything about "Death to America" being changed or that the enrichment of uranium was in defiance of the security council.

Um... they continued enriching uranium, in defiance of the international community (i.e the UN). In this meeting that this took place in Iran's parliament, they chanted "Death to America".

Okay. On one point I apologise. I didn't understand your typo - "changed" instead of "chanted". However, the article still didn't say what your originally said. There were shouts of "Death to America" when they passed the law, but it was not done by the leader of the government. It was also not in defiance of the UN Security Council when it passed this law.

Back to the original point, do I find it odd that there were (unsourced) shouts of "Death to America" when this bill was passed? Nope, not really. Nuclear power is a matter of Iranian national pride, as is their continued defiance of the US on this matter. It could be interpreted in your way, but it is by no means THE way to interpret it.

Oh, and one more thing cellardoor6. Don't even bother responding if all you can come up with to support your argument is random news articles.

Meanwhile you can't and haven't come up with any proof for anything you say, funny.

My proof that Iran, as a state, will act to ensure its survival? Hmm..... How about you start at the works of Hans Morgenthau? You'll probably actually agree with his position more than I do, but he's fundamental to understanding IR theory. You could then maybe try Robert Keohane or John Mearsheimer.

It would be easier if you just went away and actually read some books on International Relations before responding. I say 2-3 years of reading and you'll be about able to begin to argue on the matter. I'll see you then.

---

If it's true, that's good to hear. There's been enough life lost as of late.

---

At 12/6/07 03:41 AM, cellardoor6 wrote: how do YOU know they are correct if YOU are the one who has been so adamant about the US having been wrong in the past? Oh that's right..

IRAQ.

ranting like stoned hippies..

wha'-evaar!

---

At 12/7/07 03:55 PM, chocolate-penguin wrote:

At 12/5/07 12:41 AM, JudgeDredd wrote: Hey, be the World Bully. Steal everyone's money and resourses.

Everyone as in:

Having a few American oil companies move into Iraq after 2003.

^See. This is how shallow one can be when one is immersed so deeply within the lie. They (can i call them "They" without being misunderstood, i dunno?) are stealing YOUR MONEY and YOUR RESOURCES.

(wiki)

"For 2007, the [military] budget was raised to a total of US$532.8 Billion. This DOES NOT include... other items such as; nuclear weapons research, maintenance and production OR the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan"...which are funded largely through extra-budgetary supplements... (cost of war)

Include practically everything US military related (intelligence/diplimatic envoys/Bush's private jaunts to the middle east, etc, etc) and you're well on you way to about 1 Trillion dollars in 1 year (that's about 1 Million.. Millionaires for anyone who is a bit numbershy).. and for that sort of money you need wars and constant global tensions to justify the budgets. Think of all those scientists and technicians and stratigic planners and so on and so forth.. well the mind boggles.

Sure, an argument can be made (and proly will be made) that America NEEDS all this weaponization and spending to counter Russia's resurgant military, or the something like a 50% increase that China is pumping into it's own military suddenly. But hey, remember that this is claimed to be the exact way America bankrupted Russia following the Cold War. Isn't China now playing the same "if they do it, we should do it" game. So yeah, that wiki page shows a world map, and contrasts spending by GDP (and i'm sure Cellar will be the first to point to some "minor" statistical number like GDP to confuzzle everyone), but when you account for every country chasing after America's spending, or spending ever more to defend against America (who invaded a couple of countries of late i might add) then that puts this whole spendup into perspective.

Call everyone Terrorists.

America is at war. "They" (there's that word again) are your unseen enemy, am i right?

You don't think anyone is a terrorist. You live in denial.

My "Terrorist" is anyone who talks up World War 3, without a valid enough reason.

You don't even understand the terrorists motivation or goals.

It was either to STOP America acting like an ASSHOLE... OR... to get America to continue acting like an ASSHOLE. I forget which one it was, but the latter looks way more likely with the benefit of hindsight, and considering who was the President was when 911 happened.

Wahhh, waaah. It's our fault, waaah.

Rofl. This isn't JudgeDredd, is it? Oh well, if it is, you're a radical now.