12 May 07
1 edit
Originally posted by ElleEffSeeeNo. Go ahead and have laws. They define the "criminals". And as long as criminals are "honorable" all will go rather well.
That's kinda strange logic - don't have laws because criminals will only break them?
I think Libya is a good example where a regime supporting terrorism and seeking weapons of mass destruction can be persuaded to give up such ways, though there is a possibility this is because they saw the allies raping Afghanistan and Iraq and thought, 'hmm, no thank ther than simply having an epiphany and wishing to atone for their previous illegal stance.
So you say do what to Iran? And when do we do it? And in case you missed it, they are not too interested in anything but Gods Government on Earth, so talking will not be too effective. Maybe if they get a sense of humor we can threaten to send Bono to negotiate a settlement. That might work.
12 May 07
Originally posted by MerkI am more diabolical than you. I think we should sneak the Saudies and the Iranians ten nukes each. Lol
Other than it tips the balance of power in the region by creating a second superpower (by mid east standards) and then we have additional problem of allowing a terror backing nation to have nukes which leads to how do we stop them from building a suitcase nuke? The answer is that we can't. Not if they have the ability to process their own nuclear material.
...[text shortened]... ssue. The only way to be sure they don't develope one is to stop the nuke program altogether.
Seriously. I don't think it is good that every crazy religioso in the world have nukes. But I am pessimistic on HOW to prevent it. I'm sure I don't know how to do it. That is about ten times more painful than the Iraq war, and you see how well the american people have stood up for that. We just elected a government with the mandate to surrender for gods sake!
12 May 07
Originally posted by ElleEffSeeeI thought you said that Libya fell in line when Afghanistan and Iraq were attacked? So if we dont attack Iran... do we attack some other country and say "Hey... Iran your next."... they dont seem to upset about Iraq right now.
Obviously not 😉
Carrot and stick approach - Libya gained from renouncing terrorist ways, Iran obviously needs incentives too.
12 May 07
Originally posted by ElleEffSeeeKadaffi Duck is a rational (sort of) old time commie dictator. He has no interest in dying for Allah. Too bad about the whack jobs in Iran. I don't think we can assume that they are as "self-centered" as Kadaffi duck.
Obviously not 😉
Carrot and stick approach - Libya gained from renouncing terrorist ways, Iran obviously needs incentives too.
12 May 07
Originally posted by StarValleyWyLike you say it's hard to be reasonable with hardliners, but backing them into a corner and threatening them constantly doesn't work without providing incentives too. You've got to ask why did they vote in this ultra-conservative guy. Personally I think the people seeing their neighbour Iraq getting invaded by foreign hordes had a lot to do with it - neighbouring instability fuels nationalism. Invading Iran would be competing with Caligula invading the English Channel for the dumbest invasion ever award.
No. Go ahead and have laws. They define the "criminals". And as long as criminals are "honorable" all will go rather well.
So you say do what to Iran? And when do we do it?
12 May 07
Originally posted by ElleEffSeeeI agree... a country should not be invaded just because they are doing something that the rest of the world doesn't like.
Like you say it's hard to be reasonable with hardliners, but backing them into a corner and threatening them constantly doesn't work without providing incentives too. You've got to ask why did they vote in this ultra-conservative guy. Personally I think the people seeing their neighbour Iraq getting invaded by foreign hordes had a lot to do with it - nei ...[text shortened]... be competing with Caligula invading the English Channel for the dumbest invasion ever award.
12 May 07
Originally posted by lepomisNo single entity decides who should and who should not be allowed to have nukes. Its for individual nations to decide if they are willing to live with a hostile nation having them.
So who decides what countries can have nuclear weapons? What if they decided that the US should not have them?
As for the second part of the question, its a bit simplistic. What we would really be talking about would be diplomacy by other means. Nothing simple about that.
In all honesty, I don't like anyone having nukes, but they're like lawyers. Everybody has to have them because the other guy does.
Also, I don't think Iran would use a nuke as an official act. After the world saw them in action, I doubt any nation wants to use them. Especially Iran. They know that if they nuked Israel it would lead to an immediate glass and go policy.
As for striking America. Let's say they had a successful decapitation strike on D.C that cleaned out the politicians. Even with the Pentagon gone, the military has plans to keep itself intact. Now we have a fully functioning U.S. Military without civilian leadership (read: restraint) and a public screaming for revenge writ large. This is an absolute nightmare scenario for the Middle East and anyone else in our crosshairs. No government wants to take that chance.
Its the individuals that don't care (dedicated terrorists) that are a concern, not any government.
12 May 07
Originally posted by StarValleyWyI have left you with the wrong impression. Nothing would make me happier in regards to the WoT than an Iran/Saudi war. I would get in some serious TV time watching the coverage. Probably get sick of popcorn within a week of the commencement of festivities.
I am more diabolical than you. I think we should sneak the Saudies and the Iranians ten nukes each. Lol
Seriously. I don't think it is good that every crazy religioso in the world have nukes. But I am pessimistic on HOW to prevent it. I'm sure I don't know how to do it. That is about ten times more painful than the Iraq war, and you see how well the ...[text shortened]... stood up for that. We just elected a government with the mandate to surrender for gods sake!
12 May 07
Originally posted by ElleEffSeeeYou agree with me then. We can't threaten them, they are dedicated fantics so why worry? It's just a matter of time.
Like you say it's hard to be reasonable with hardliners, but backing them into a corner and threatening them constantly doesn't work without providing incentives too. You've got to ask why did they vote in this ultra-conservative guy. Personally I think the people seeing their neighbour Iraq getting invaded by foreign hordes had a lot to do with it - nei ...[text shortened]... be competing with Caligula invading the English Channel for the dumbest invasion ever award.
snicker. Did you use the word "Vote"? lol
So as I said at the start of the thread... let's just let it go it's course. What's the worst that can happen?
13 May 07
i think even the most fanatical religios freak realizes that as a country you can only use nuclear weapons as a deterrent. any other usage would cause the rest of the nuclear powers to obliterate you(literally) with 10 times more nukes than necessary.
the problem is whether iran would supply terrorists with them (must we even ask?)
13 May 07
Originally posted by ZahlanziI've always bee against them having nuc weapons but the more I look at it the more I think it's probably time to get this over with. The best case scenario is for them to go ahead and get the weapons and use them. At that point several cities in the middle east including Meca would be destroyed which is sad but probably necessary. It's come to a point that people will back anyone as long as they are against the West. There's no convincing them that there is any danger until something bad happens. Then the same people will blame The US and the UN for not doing anything to prevent it.
i think even the most fanatical religios freak realizes that as a country you can only use nuclear weapons as a deterrent. any other usage would cause the rest of the nuclear powers to obliterate you(literally) with 10 times more nukes than necessary.
the problem is whether iran would supply terrorists with them (must we even ask?)
13 May 07
Originally posted by ZahlanziWhy would Iran do that? Whatever the biased American media may portray Iran as, they deal with much of the same problems as the U.S., terrorists included. Don't forget that in the war against the Taliban, Iran was one of the U.S's ally's and helped fight the Taliban.
i think even the most fanatical religios freak realizes that as a country you can only use nuclear weapons as a deterrent. any other usage would cause the rest of the nuclear powers to obliterate you(literally) with 10 times more nukes than necessary.
the problem is whether iran would supply terrorists with them (must we even ask?)
13 May 07
Originally posted by SushillUmmm.. home invasions to shoot babys?
[b]"I have to use the same logic as anyone who owns and knows the purpose of guns in self-defense."
There are sure more then one person who own and know the purpose of guns?[/b]
Could this be self-defence!?
13 May 07
Originally posted by abejnoodWhere in the world do you get your information from?
Why would Iran do that? Whatever the biased American media may portray Iran as, they deal with much of the same problems as the U.S., terrorists included. Don't forget that in the war against the Taliban, Iran was one of the U.S's ally's and helped fight the Taliban.
Sure they deal with some guerillas, but they fund terrorism. Terrorists that have killed Americans. Its not American media bias, its fact.
Helped fight the Taliban????? When did Iran join NATO?