RE: Iran evidently aspires to becoming the hegemon of the Middle East

RE: Iran evidently aspires to becoming the hegemon of the Middle East (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid

Message

mnottertail -> RE: Iran evidently aspires to becoming the hegemon of the Middle East (1/23/2008 1:14:23 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: brainiacsub quote: ORIGINAL: mnottertail I don't know that it is appalling ignorance on anyone elses part. Ron Please, tell me what it is then. I really want to understand and be tolerant. And don't say differences of opinion. It's not like we are discussing the merits of more vs. less lube. You are accusing me of something, then asking me to define what you accuse me of, and go on to forbid explanation by a method I will certainly choose. I don't see how this is going to be attributed as recalcitrance and impudence on my part and understanding and tolerance on yours. For whatever that might be worth to you. Cordially, Ron

brainiacsub -> RE: Iran evidently aspires to becoming the hegemon of the Middle East (1/23/2008 1:18:53 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: kittinSol Read up on the subject, and avoid knee-jerk reactions? I am very well read on both the politics and religion of the area. I could write a book or two. If you disagreed with something I said, please feel free to offer your own opinion. I am known to change mine when confronted with opposing facts and views that are thoughtful and grounded in reason and logic.

mnottertail -> RE: Iran evidently aspires to becoming the hegemon of the Middle East (1/23/2008 1:22:44 PM)
This thread I know is going to test the very limits of my ability to remain polite and considerate in the face of such appalling ignorance. Am I the only one who sees the inherent dangers in allowing a country ruled by a theocracy whose only ideolgy is death to the infidels to have nuclear weapons? How many authors plagerized this amongst themselves in your vast and insightful readings? Seems to be a scootch and a half or so short of depth and breadth, in my view. Seems to me we should be seeing some sort of imbriglio down at the patent office vis a vis this rampant disregard for footnoting amongst the illiterati. Ron

kittinSol -> RE: Iran evidently aspires to becoming the hegemon of the Middle East (1/23/2008 1:31:17 PM)
quote: Yet, if an attack on Iran is among "options ... on the table," who put it there? Who gave President Bush the authority to attack Iran? And when was it granted? And are all options also "on the table" if North Korea continues to test nuclear weapons? What makes these questions other than academic is that Bush is putting in place military assets that will enable him to order and effect the rapid nuclear castration of Iran. But scarcely a peep of protest has been heard from our congressional leadership. This, by Pat Buchanan himself! And there's more. quote: But whatever motive he has, Bush is putting in place forces to enable him to order an all-out attack on Iran's navy, air force, and anti-aircraft, anti-ship and land-based missiles – and all its known nuclear facilities. Now, as there is no indication Iran is preparing any attack on U.S. forces or facilities, or the homeland, such a U.S. attack would be the first strike in a preventive war – like the ones Japan executed at Port Arthur in 1904 and Pearl Harbor in 1941. Only Bush could claim Iran had been repeatedly warned of what he would do. http://www.antiwar.com/pat/?articleid=10493 This article is barely one year old.

FirmhandKY -> RE: Iran evidently aspires to becoming the hegemon of the Middle East (1/23/2008 1:38:25 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: kittinSol He lied about weapons of mass destruction in order to invade Iraq in 2003; he's trying to pull the same trick over Iran today. You know the difference between "intentional misleading" versus "mistaken belief"? quote: ORIGINAL: kittinSol ... Uncle Sam's record of invading under false pretenses in order to steal another country's natural resource. Used much Iraq oil lately? I guess that's why the cost of gas is so low nowadays? [:D] Firm

brainiacsub -> RE: Iran evidently aspires to becoming the hegemon of the Middle East (1/23/2008 1:48:00 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: mnottertail This thread I know is going to test the very limits of my ability to remain polite and considerate in the face of such appalling ignorance. Am I the only one who sees the inherent dangers in allowing a country ruled by a theocracy whose only ideolgy is death to the infidels to have nuclear weapons? How many authors plagerized this amongst themselves in your vast and insightful readings? Seems to be a scootch and a half or so short of depth and breadth, in my view. Seems to me we should be seeing some sort of imbriglio down at the patent office vis a vis this rampant disregard for footnoting amongst the illiterati. Ron Ron, let's take a step back here before this gets ugly. It's not my intent. The tone of my message was more tongue-in-cheek than one of real anger. I was not disagreeing with you, challenging you, or accusing you of anything. I was only asking for another plausible explanation, if not ignorance, for taking the position that Iran should be allowed nuclear weapons to 'protect itself.' My position does not come from one of plagarism. There are valid points on both sides of this debate as to whether or not Iran should be allowed to become the defacto super power of the Middle East and/or pursue nuclear weapons. But, some points are more valid than others. Since you disagreed with me, I was only asking for an alternative viewpoint.

kittinSol -> RE: Iran evidently aspires to becoming the hegemon of the Middle East (1/23/2008 1:51:48 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY Used much Iraq oil lately? I guess that's why the cost of gas is so low nowadays? [:D] I don't even own a car.

FirmhandKY -> RE: Iran evidently aspires to becoming the hegemon of the Middle East (1/23/2008 1:52:08 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: kittinSol quote: Yet, if an attack on Iran is among "options ... on the table," who put it there? Who gave President Bush the authority to attack Iran? And when was it granted? And are all options also "on the table" if North Korea continues to test nuclear weapons? What makes these questions other than academic is that Bush is putting in place military assets that will enable him to order and effect the rapid nuclear castration of Iran. But scarcely a peep of protest has been heard from our congressional leadership. This, by Pat Buchanan himself! And there's more. quote: But whatever motive he has, Bush is putting in place forces to enable him to order an all-out attack on Iran's navy, air force, and anti-aircraft, anti-ship and land-based missiles – and all its known nuclear facilities. Now, as there is no indication Iran is preparing any attack on U.S. forces or facilities, or the homeland, such a U.S. attack would be the first strike in a preventive war – like the ones Japan executed at Port Arthur in 1904 and Pearl Harbor in 1941. Only Bush could claim Iran had been repeatedly warned of what he would do. This article is barely one year old. uhh ... and you quote Pat Buchanan because .... ? As far as "all options being on the table" ... the President has the responsibility to ensure that the US is prepared for contingencies, doesn't he? I can also guess that Pat isn't very good at negotiations. You don't want to negotiate from a position of weakness - you want to negotiate from a position of strength. Who gave President Bush the authority to attack Iran? US Consitution, Article II, Section 2: Section 2. The President shall be commander in chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, ... and .. Public Law 93-148: SEC. 2. (c) The constitutional powers of the President as Commander-in-Chief to introduce United States Armed Forces into hostilities, or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances, are exercised ... (3) a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces. Firm

mnottertail -> RE: Iran evidently aspires to becoming the hegemon of the Middle East (1/23/2008 1:52:57 PM)
My alternative viewpoint is simple. They are not seeking nuclear weapons, there is no evidence of this. We cannot arrest anyone today for speeding because we think that at some unspecified time and place in the future they may speed. The argument is a thinly veiled slippery slope. I am fairly widely read myself, and I do not see evidence of Iran attempting to procure nuclear weapons. So the disagreement is fundamental in our stances out of the gate, but nothing more, and certainly not acrimonious at this point. Still Cordially, Ron

kittinSol -> RE: Iran evidently aspires to becoming the hegemon of the Middle East (1/23/2008 2:06:31 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY uhh ... and you quote Pat Buchanan because .... ? Why not? He's a Republican, like Bush. I think it's interesting that Buchanan disagrees with Bush so radically. Additionally, his political credentials are more credible than Bush, in my opinion. (Note that in no way do I usually agree with Buchanan.) It's interesting you take refuge behind the Constitution of the United States as if it was the be all and end all of the president's foreign policy. As for the rest, I don't see where Bush has shown that he has ever had a penchant for negotiations

NorthernGent -> RE: Iran evidently aspires to becoming the hegemon of the Middle East (1/23/2008 2:08:46 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: OrionTheWolf "If Iran shows up with a nuclear weapon at some point in time, the world is going to say, what happened to them in 2007? How come they couldn't see the impending danger? What caused them not to understand that a country that once had a weapons program could reconstitute the weapons program? How come they couldn't see that the important first step in developing a weapon is the capacity to be able to enrich uranium? How come they didn't know that with that capacity, that knowledge could be passed on to a covert program? What blinded them to the realities of the world? " http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120103739264407641.html?mod=googlenews_wsj Orion, In the event they do turn up armed to the bollocks with nuclear weapons, I'm not convinced the world would say, "how come we couldn't see the impending danger?" Some of us in the world (I'd estimate the majority, but have no figures to support) have a different view to some on this board. Some of us would say, "well, we've got them, so fair's fair". On a related note, the only country in the world that has used them is the United States. For many of us outside of the United States, this tells a story. Now, I appreciate people will be saying "us?, the United States?, leaders of the free world!? (as I've seen on here), but many of us believe the United States is the most dangerous country on the planet, by virtue of size, economic strength (the aforementioned are not a problem in their own right), and the last vital ingredient - the lack of informed opinion.

FirmhandKY -> RE: Iran evidently aspires to becoming the hegemon of the Middle East (1/23/2008 2:32:04 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: kittinSol Why not? He's a Republican, like Bush. I think it's interesting that Buchanan disagrees with Bush so radically. Additionally, his political credentials are more credible than Bush, in my opinion. (Note that in no way do I usually agree with Buchanan.) Hmmm, Buchanan is a major political figure in Bush's party, who disagrees with him, therefore his "political credentials" are more credible? Let's see, the last time Pat ran for President, he won ... how many states? [:D] quote: ORIGINAL: kittinSol It's interesting you take refuge behind the Constitution of the United States as if it was the be all and end all of the president's foreign policy. "Take refuge?" [:)] The question you posed, through Buchanan's words was "what gives him the right?" I simply answered the question. Not sure how that's "taking refuge". quote: ORIGINAL: kittinSol As for the rest, I don't see where Bush has shown that he has ever had a penchant for negotiations He's been "in negotiations" with both North Korean and Iran for years. You need some sources? Firm

kittinSol -> RE: Iran evidently aspires to becoming the hegemon of the Middle East (1/23/2008 2:48:49 PM)
I'm interested in your view over the nuclear conundrum in Iran, not over whether you were in the school debating society.

Stephann -> RE: Iran evidently aspires to becoming the hegemon of the Middle East (1/23/2008 3:41:02 PM)
Briefly, I think there's an erroneous concept being debated here. The question isn't if Iran has the 'right' to build nuclear arms, nor is it a question of if the US has the 'right' to prevent it. Countries aren't people, and don't have rights: they have power. If I were the leader of any nation that had the threat of attack from a foreign invader, I would build nuclear weapons to ensure that my attacker thinks twice about attacking me. Iran has been in the crosshairs of the US for decades; who do you think set Saddam up in the first place? Frankly, if the US could ween itself off of foreign oil, would we give two shits if Iran has nukes or not? Stephan

kittinSol -> RE: Iran evidently aspires to becoming the hegemon of the Middle East (1/23/2008 4:19:56 PM)
That's something I addressed on post 18, albeit far less eloquently than you. As for Saddam Hussein... hmmm... wasn't Iraq an ally of the United States during the Iran-Iraq war?

FirmhandKY -> RE: Iran evidently aspires to becoming the hegemon of the Middle East (1/23/2008 4:25:00 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: kittinSol I'm interested in your view over the nuclear conundrum in Iran, not over whether you were in the school debating society. Then ... why did you write all those other, off topic posts to me? [:D] Here: quote: ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY I think the most likely result of Iran's continued attempts to gain hegemony in the area is a glass parking lot. Firm

OrionTheWolf -> RE: Iran evidently aspires to becoming the hegemon of the Middle East (1/23/2008 4:40:22 PM)
Ignore what Bush says and look at some of the international intelligence data. The latest report is much different than the one in 2003, but the latest report does not seem to have as solid intelligence as the one provided in 2003. Bush would actually rather push dealing with Iran off on the next President. The international community, including some Arab and ME countries, seem to be in agreement that Iran should not have nuclear weapons. Nuclear weapons will not defend against US foreign policy, in fact if they were acquired it would cause even more pressure and action from the West. Iran is more of a front man for Russia and China, as a stumbling block for the US and EU. quote: ORIGINAL: kittinSol Only a few weeks ago, Bush came just short of declaring war on Iran. Let's not forget his rhetoric about Iran being a 'rogue state'. He lied about weapons of mass destruction in order to invade Iraq in 2003; he's trying to pull the same trick over Iran today. http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/12/04/bush.iran/index.html According to recent figures, Iran is the fourth producer and exporter of crude oil. http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/cabs/topworldtables1_2.htm Understandably, Iran is feeling rather threatened by Uncle Sam's record of invading under false pretenses in order to steal another country's natural resource. Don't you think it's rather normal Iran should wish to protect itself against America's aggressive foreign policy???

OrionTheWolf -> RE: Iran evidently aspires to becoming the hegemon of the Middle East (1/23/2008 4:47:32 PM)
Greetings NG, I knew the "but the US is the only country to have ever used them" would come up. Would you say the situation that the US used them was much different than any situation that appears today? On a seperate note, as I asked before, should everyone be allowed to walk around with fully automatic weapons, just because some do? There is a reason weaponry is limited. Do you feel comfortable with the current Iranian regime having those weapons, given their current stance towards Israel, and The West (which includes the EU) ? Live well, Orion quote: ORIGINAL: NorthernGent quote: ORIGINAL: OrionTheWolf "If Iran shows up with a nuclear weapon at some point in time, the world is going to say, what happened to them in 2007? How come they couldn't see the impending danger? What caused them not to understand that a country that once had a weapons program could reconstitute the weapons program? How come they couldn't see that the important first step in developing a weapon is the capacity to be able to enrich uranium? How come they didn't know that with that capacity, that knowledge could be passed on to a covert program? What blinded them to the realities of the world? " http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120103739264407641.html?mod=googlenews_wsj Orion, In the event they do turn up armed to the bollocks with nuclear weapons, I'm not convinced the world would say, "how come we couldn't see the impending danger?" Some of us in the world (I'd estimate the majority, but have no figures to support) have a different view to some on this board. Some of us would say, "well, we've got them, so fair's fair". On a related note, the only country in the world that has used them is the United States. For many of us outside of the United States, this tells a story. Now, I appreciate people will be saying "us?, the United States?, leaders of the free world!? (as I've seen on here), but many of us believe the United States is the most dangerous country on the planet, by virtue of size, economic strength (the aforementioned are not a problem in their own right), and the last vital ingredient - the lack of informed opinion.

Owner59 -> RE: Iran evidently aspires to becoming the hegemon of the Middle East (1/23/2008 8:50:00 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY quote: ORIGINAL: kittinSol He lied about weapons of mass destruction in order to invade Iraq in 2003; he's trying to pull the same trick over Iran today. You know the difference between "intentional misleading" versus "mistaken belief"? quote: ORIGINAL: kittinSol ... Uncle Sam's record of invading under false pretenses in order to steal another country's natural resource. Used much Iraq oil lately? I guess that's why the cost of gas is so low nowadays? [:D] Firm Nope,we get most of our energy from Canada,Mexico and Venezuela.ME oil, is a small part. The Iraqi oil is being sold on the world spot market,at over a hundred a barrel( good thing for oil companies).All the money is going into Halliburton`s,KBR`s and other no-bid,no spending limit,no oversight ,private contractor`s bank accounts.Of course,those bank accounts are off shore,and un-taxed. Our soldiers are dying,(almost 4000 now) to secure oil fields,which only profit private,multi-national companies. Our GI`s are stuck in the middle of Arabia,getting shot up bad,and taking casualties,for oil profits.Thanks firmhanky[image]http://www.collarchat.com/micons/m6.gif[/image] Hey firmhanky,are you going to move to Dubai,along with Dick Chaney and the Haliburton Headquarters,after '09'? We need American loving patriots to stay here, and to the neo-cons and the rest,good luck in Dubai.I hear that Sharia law, is a blast.

Owner59 -> RE: Iran evidently aspires to becoming the hegemon of the Middle East (1/23/2008 9:09:47 PM)
When a con-man(confidence man) takes his victims,some will cry,some stand up and go to the police,and others strangely,don`t tell anyone and would never ever ,..admit that they were taken.This is out of the embarrassment and shame they`ll feel,for being seen as a "mark" or "pigeon". Con-men love this kind of "mark",and seek them out,b/c they can dry fuck them in the ass,without even a hug or kiss,and get away with it cleanly. The republican party is full of them,both con-men and their favorite type of mark.

Page: << < prev 1 [2] 3 4 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875