RE: 6th April - Iran? (Full Version)

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



Message

Sinergy -> RE: 6th April - Iran? (3/30/2007 9:13:53 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: luckydog1

"I don't know about you, but I don't want to be the first country that poisons a few million people with plutonium from a blown up reactor. "
That would be the USSR, like 20 years ago.


How many Iraqi nuclear power plants got blown up by the US when we invaded Iraq?

Take your time counting.

Sinergy



SimplyMichael -> RE: 6th April - Iran? (3/30/2007 9:26:53 PM)

Since the thread was about attacking Iran's nuclear efforts, I would have thought "blown up reactor" would have clearly indicated being blown up by bombing but obviously context doesn't mean much here and I will have to dumb it down.

So, in talking about an attack on Iran by an overly gung ho and highly ignorant and short sighted administration, when I say "blown up reactor," I mean some jet jockey blowing up said reactor with a bomb.



Sinergy -> RE: 6th April - Iran? (3/30/2007 9:37:16 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: SimplyMichael

Since the thread was about attacking Iran's nuclear efforts, I would have thought "blown up reactor" would have clearly indicated being blown up by bombing but obviously context doesn't mean much here and I will have to dumb it down.

So, in talking about an attack on Iran by an overly gung ho and highly ignorant and short sighted administration, when I say "blown up reactor," I mean some jet jockey blowing up said reactor with a bomb.


I apologize if I made it sound like the united states sending in bombers to blow up reactors was relevant to the conversation at hand.

Peace out.

Sinergy



SimplyMichael -> RE: 6th April - Iran? (3/30/2007 10:10:07 PM)

Sinergy,

That wasn't directed at you, I just hit fast reply.  I completely get where you were comming from.  I was just surprised at someone bringing up Chernoble in response to my post.



luckydog1 -> RE: 6th April - Iran? (3/30/2007 11:21:15 PM)

How many Iraqi nuclear power plants got blown up by the US when we invaded Iraq?    Zero.

Well the USSR forced the conquered people of the Ukreaine to host the damn thing and it exploded, exposed millions to the effects.  Seemed sort of relevant to me.  I have never heard of any plan to bomb the reactors.  Seruious People have talked about action against the regiem, that doesnt mean a 2000lb bomb on a working reactor.   We can target what we hit fairly well these days.  And I was led to believe the actuall reactors have been in underground hardened bunkers all along.



NorthernGent -> RE: 6th April - Iran? (3/31/2007 4:14:14 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: LadyEllen

In the end, all that any of us have is what we are told and what is reported. Few believed the rot told us about Saddam because it was literally incredible. It is far more credible though, given the way that Iran presents itself, that they do have an agenda and support anti-Israel and anti-western organisations with more than words.



Iran presenting itself in what way?

Because they want nukes? No news to see here - they clearly wouldn't be the first.

Because they're not the best of pals with the Israeli government? They're not the only ones and what should Israel have to do with the US anyway (if you take away the mutual aggression). There is this proclomation of personal responsibility on these boards - then let Israel and Iran take care of their own responsibilities.

Because they take 15 soldiers? Hang on a minute, why are those soldiers anywhere near Iraq or Iran?

Iran is the same horeshit as Iraq:

1) Presenting them as a threat to Western freedom (when in fact they're a threat to Western market interests).
2) Ramping up the climate of fear and propaganda.
3) Aiming to restrict sovereignty.






Marc2b -> RE: 6th April - Iran? (4/1/2007 5:28:11 PM)

DCWoody (AKA Profile Not Found) said:
quote:

I take issue with people saying Iran is the biggest player in Islamic terrorism......this is an opinion that has only come about over the last year or two......and seemingly without much evidence to support it........before that it was supposedly Pakistan and Saudi Arabia who were the main funders.

I have no idea how old you are but since you see Iran as the biggest player in Islamic terrorism as a recent opinion I’m guessing that you’re a generation down from me. I’ve been watching Iran fuck with the west since I was thirteen. Even if I’m wrong the fact is that ever since the hostage crisis of 1979 the Iranian Government has been dedicated to exporting Islamic Fundamentalism. They practically run Hizballah and also supply money, weapons and training to several other terrorist organizations including Hamas. Iran was behind the kidnapings in Beirut (that’s why the weapons in the Iran-Contra scandal were given to Iran and not Lebanon). Iran has carried out assassinations of opposition leaders on foreign soil. Nor is everything they do in support of terrorism directly related to attacks. They fund many of the radical "death to the West" (the name slips me right now) schools. Syria, Saudi Arabia, and others are all involved but Teheran is, in a sense, the capitol of Islamic terrorism.
Thompsonx said:
quote:

Are you sugesting that it is ok for the U.S. to invade Iran if they refuse to sell us oil?

Oh, Jeeze, here we go again. Let me see if I can differentiate between the philosophical and the personal. As for the big picture, the philosophical, all I see are human beings behaving like human beings. Good old fashioned primate politics driven by our evolutionary "upbringing." My point is that if one group (in this case nations) is cut off from a vital resource (food, water, or now-days, oil) you can expect a violent reaction to secure the resource. "Okay," in the philosophical sense, has nothing to do with it. I say "guarantees an invasion" in the same sense I would say that a wounded gazelle chanced upon by a hungry lion is guaranteed to be eaten. I do not believe that Iran has the power to cut us off from all sources from oil but they could (through both terrorist activity and market manipulation) drive the price of oil up to where our economy is crippled (taking the world economy with it, if they’re smart, they’ll consider that but with fanatics, you never can tell). In such circumstances, not just the United States but the entire western world will look for a quick and easy source of oil and conquest is one of the human races favorite methods (tried and true, you might say) for getting what it wants. If that lion is hungry enough, that gazelle is going to get eaten.

Personally, I don’t want to get into a war with Iran. I hope we don’t get into a war with Iran. I would like to see us – and the Iranians – adopt a saner foreign policy that would prevent war. If, however, things come to a head and we do go to war, if I have to choose between us and them – then I choose us. I’m going to root for the home team. Some people apparently consider that ignoble. I don’t give a shit. I’ve never exempted myself from being human and I am incredulous about others who claim to.

SimplyMichael said:

quote:

Iran doesn't want to take us head on not because they can't but they have no interest in doing so. Why would they? There isn't anything in it for them.

The same thing that’s in it for everybody – power (AKA: good old fashioned primate politics).
quote:

As for terrorism, they fuck with Israel but name a major Iranian effort against the West, name ONE? Saying "they support terrorism" has as much meaning as "they like little dogs". Everyone does, we sure as hell do, why shouldn't they? The only question that matters is "are they supporting terror against the US" and the answer is a resounding NO. I realize it is an inconvenient fact, but they HELPED us invade Afghanistan, it killed two birds and they didn't have to risk anything. We got rid of a thorn in their side, Al Queda, a Sunni threat, and won, or at least they thought it would, brownie points from America. They just forgot that the Bushies word doesn't mean shit, just ask Turkey.

You qualify your statement with the word "major." What is the definition of "major" in this context? The fact remains that Iran is a driving force, if not the driving force, behind Islamic terrorism.
quote:

Oh, thats right, I forgot, oil is so plentiful you can get it everywhere, we will just go shopping at the big oil wholesaler in the sky.

Oil is plentiful. The supply of oil distillates readily available for distribution , however, is a completely different matter.
quote:

Oh, and how the fuck are we going to invade and hold Iran?

Of course the Devil is in the details but I was never commenting on whether or not we could (short of all out war – i.e. on the scale of World War Two). We certainly won’t be able to if we continue to adhere to a politically correct doctrine of fighting wars.
quote:

We going to force the troops to send their wives over to fight with them?

What? Are you talking about the numbers necessary? If so, there is the draft.
quote:

I mean somebody has to do it and we all know how much Republicans hate wearing uniforms.

If you look at the big picture (i.e. good old fashioned primate politics) I think you’ll find that Democrats don’t like wearing uniforms either. Those in power are rarely those who do the actual dying. Sure, you can find exceptions (on both sides) but the overall point remains.
quote:

Easy, you reason with them by appologizing to them for blowing up their children in the first place and for supporting brutal dictators who enjoyed blowing them up as well. You appologize to them for overthrowing every attempt at Democracy they have tried over the last fifty years. I don't know for sure but that just might be a start. I mean, if some superpower had overthrown my government and installed a brutal dictator who gassed my villiage, and I knew I was never likely to be free and that by blowing up my son I might at least ensure a better life for my other children that it would seem more like an honor to have the chance to strike a blow for freedom in any way I could.

You are looking for a first cause and have placed it upon the West. The truth is that the Islamic World and the Christian world have been perpetuating atrocities upon each other since they came into contact with each other. The back and forth of blame continues even further back, all the way back to the dawn of the human race. The first cause is – you’ve guessed it – good, old fashioned, primate politics. You’ve chosen sides and so cast blame upon the other. On a personal level I’ve chosen sides too with self interest (AKA good old fashioned primate politics) being the motivator but on the philosophical sense, I will not give a pass to either side. Ultimately, there are no good guys here. There are no bad guys. There is only a species of primate engaging in good old fashioned primate politics.

and

quote:

Oh, and for those who advocate invading Iran over cutting off oil...that was Japan's motive for Pearl Harbor. Doesn't history just suck sometimes?

History. Just another name for... do I really have to say it?



Rule -> RE: 6th April - Iran? (4/1/2007 5:47:53 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: LadyEllen
There is a different scenario here though compared to Iraq in that Iran's friends include Russia and China, in that trading partners are friends and in that the enemy of my enemy is my friend.

Russia and China are in league with the USA, even though they pretend otherwise.



juliaoceania -> RE: 6th April - Iran? (4/1/2007 6:22:45 PM)

The republican talking point I have heard on a couple of occasions (the latest was Bolton) was that Iran needed "regime change". Everytime I hear that phrase I get slightly nauseous... it feels like ww3.



Sinergy -> RE: 6th April - Iran? (4/1/2007 6:58:40 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: juliaoceania

The republican talking point I have heard on a couple of occasions (the latest was Bolton) was that Iran needed "regime change". Everytime I hear that phrase I get slightly nauseous... it feels like ww3.


What I always think when I hear that is "Why the fuck do these people think I personally feel the need for a regime change in whateveristan?"

They seem perfectly happy (or not) with the government they have, and there are plenty of things that need dealing with where I live, so...

Sinergy



SimplyMichael -> RE: 6th April - Iran? (4/1/2007 9:22:21 PM)

Marc,

I am going to regret bothering with this but who the fuck do you think funded 9/11?  Who do you think funds Al Queda?  Who staffed 9/11?  Where does Wahhabism come from?  Who supports the Madrasses dedicated to teaching it?

Name the largest attack AGAINST the West supported by Iran?  Name one since? 

Sorry but saying Iran is the major sponser of anti-Western terrorism isn't even something Fox news would try and sell.  Anti-Israeli, yes but not anti-western.



popeye1250 -> RE: 6th April - Iran? (4/1/2007 9:45:45 PM)

Iran? Hmm,...that might be a good place to test out some nuclear weapons. You know, to see if they still work.



juliaoceania -> RE: 6th April - Iran? (4/1/2007 10:01:56 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: popeye1250

Iran? Hmm,...that might be a good place to test out some nuclear weapons. You know, to see if they still work.


Is that supposed to be funny? If I said that they should test nukes in Myrtle Beach, would that still make you chuckle?



Marc2b -> RE: 6th April - Iran? (4/1/2007 10:06:34 PM)

quote:

I am going to regret bothering with this but who the fuck do you think funded 9/11? Who do you think funds Al Queda? Who staffed 9/11? Where does Wahhabism come from? Who supports the Madrasses dedicated to teaching it?

Name the largest attack AGAINST the West supported by Iran? Name one since?

Sorry but saying Iran is the major sponser of anti-Western terrorism isn't even something Fox news would try and sell. Anti-Israeli, yes but not anti-western.

Regret what? I’ve already stated that Saudia Arabia is a major player. I’m not denying that. But don’t be deceived by the fact that the Iranians don’t like to get their hands dirty. They’re not the ones you find in the trenches (so to speak) because that is not the role they have cast themselves in. They are the support team. They supply money (including counterfeit American money which by itself constitutes an attack upon America), training, weapons, and intelligence. They are the CIA of Islamic terrorism. They are far from innocents in this. Any notion that all they are trying to do is defend poor little innocent them against big bad evil us is either foolishness or willful blindness.

Israel is a Western style free market republic so anti-Israel is anti-Western.

I’ve asked this before but it bears repeating. Do you really think that if we gave Iran, and the entire Islamic world, everything they asked for, if we apologized for everything that you and they think we should, met every one of their demands, that they would suddenly become nice guys? That the terrorism would stop. They are on a holy mission from God to destroy the infidel (us). They know this because God tells them so. That, of course, is just another manifestation of good, old fashioned, primate politics. You need a reason to hate and destroy the other and being on a mission from God is as good as any.

MADRASSES! That’s what those damn schools are called! Thanks. I just hate that "tip of the tongue" thing.



thompsonx -> RE: 6th April - Iran? (4/1/2007 10:07:21 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: popeye1250

Iran? Hmm,...that might be a good place to test out some nuclear weapons. You know, to see if they still work.

popeye1250:
Why does this mindset not surprise me?
thompson



thompsonx -> RE: 6th April - Iran? (4/1/2007 10:53:39 PM)

Oh, Jeeze, here we go again. Let me see if I can differentiate between the philosophical and the personal. As for the big picture, the philosophical, all I see are human beings behaving like human beings. Good old fashioned primate politics driven by our evolutionary "upbringing." My point is that if one group (in this case nations) is cut off from a vital resource (food, water, or now-days, oil) you can expect a violent reaction to secure the resource.
So it would appear that if the cornor grocery store refused to sell you food because they did not like your attitude you think that it would be ok to rob them of the food you feel you need instead of seeking a more frendly grocer or reducing your intake.


"Okay," in the philosophical sense, has nothing to do with it. I say "guarantees an invasion" in the same sense I would say that a wounded gazelle chanced upon by a hungry lion is guaranteed to be eaten. 
This line of reasoning seems to say that you view the U.S. as a predator who has a genetic imperitive to kill and eat whom it chooses.


I do not believe that Iran has the power to cut us off from all sources from oil but they could (through both terrorist activity and market manipulation) drive the price of oil up to where our economy is crippled (taking the world economy with it,
Since the U.S. is 70% self sufficient in oil we could  sell ourselves oil at any price we choose and only purchase the remaining 30% from sources besides Iran. Of course that might cut into the profits of the oil cartel.   Or we could choose to conserve by cutting back on oil usage (how much oil does it take to run a war in Afghanistan and Iraq)...It may seem like a silly thought for a country to live within its means but we as citizens are expected to live within our means.  Am I missing something here?


if they’re smart, they’ll consider that but with fanatics, you never can tell).
I am a little confused as to just who is the fanatic...the hungry lion or the wounded gazelle? ( the predatory oil consumer or the oil producer who is about to be thugged out of his oil)

In such circumstances, not just the United States but the entire western world will look for a quick and easy source of oil and conquest is one of the human races favorite methods (tried and true, you might say) for getting what it wants. If that lion is hungry enough, that gazelle is going to get eaten.
So it would appear that all the talk about soverignty, freedom, national self determination, democracy,etc are just so much rhetoric.  This is international thugery at its bassest and to justify it with such rehtoric is fatuous.

Personally, I don’t want to get into a war with Iran. I hope we don’t get into a war with Iran. I would like to see us – and the Iranians – adopt a saner foreign policy that would prevent war. If, however, things come to a head and we do go to war, if I have to choose between us and them – then I choose us. I’m going to root for the home team. Some people apparently consider that ignoble. I don’t give a shit. I’ve never exempted myself from being human and I am incredulous about others who claim to.
So if bush & co. decide to go and thug Iran out of their oil you would not object and raise your voice and say No !!! Mr. president it is wrong to go and steal that which is not for sale?
In one of your previous posts you suggest that you would feel justified in attacking first if you felt that you were in imminent danger of being attacked.  From what you have posted here it seems to me that Iran would be the one in imminent danger of being attacked.
I am surprised that you do not feel some ethical revulsion at stealing: because that is just exactly what you seem to be advocating.  "If you wont sell me your oil I will come and take it"  I can fully understand why Iran might want some sort of deterent to that sort of mind set.  We are not god....We do not own the world...We do not have any right to pillage what some may refuse to sell us.
thompson



SimplyMichael -> RE: 6th April - Iran? (4/1/2007 10:57:26 PM)

quote:

They are the CIA of Islamic terrorism.


Thanks for summing up your hypocrisy and ignorance so well in a single sentence...



Marc2b -> RE: 6th April - Iran? (4/2/2007 7:46:18 AM)

quote:

So it would appear that if the cornor grocery store refused to sell you food because they did not like your attitude you think that it would be ok to rob them of the food you feel you need instead of seeking a more frendly grocer or reducing your intake.

I said "cut off." If the asshole as 7-11 doesn’t want to sell me food I’ll take my business across the street to Wilson Farms. If, on the other hand I am unable (for whatever reasons) to secure any food then, yes, I might resort to robbery. Basic survival instincts will trump any notions of right and wrong.
quote:

Since the U.S. is 70% self sufficient in oil we could sell ourselves oil at any price we choose and only purchase the remaining 30% from sources besides Iran. Of course that might cut into the profits of the oil cartel. Or we could choose to conserve by cutting back on oil usage (how much oil does it take to run a war in Afghanistan and Iraq)...It may seem like a silly thought for a country to live within its means but we as citizens are expected to live within our means. Am I missing something here?

You’re missing quite a lot actually. I am talking about actions and reactions, causes and effects. You’re talking about reasoned responses (which is asking a lot from the human race) to non-critical situations, I’m talking about instinctive responses to critical situations. If there were a sudden drop in oil supply, a sudden increase in price so that our economy ground to a halt (no food shipments, no heating fuel, sudden massive unemployment, etc), how do you think we would react?

Your statement about self sufficiency seems to indicate that you believe that the oil companies have control over the world wide market of oil. This is the fallacy of control. The false belief that change can be arrested. There is no control. We live in a constantly changing universe and history is littered with the corpses of those who thought they had control.

There is also the question of who decides (i.e. who gets to have the false belief that they have control while fucking over people in the process). Who decides what constitutes living within our means? Who decides what is the proper amount of energy usage for each of us? Who amongst us know exactly how much gasoline I need each week? If that person is someone other than me, I’d like to know where they got this knowledge and more importantly, where they get the arrogance to think they could know.

quote:

I am a little confused as to just who is the fanatic...the hungry lion or the wounded gazelle? ( the predatory oil consumer or the oil producer who is about to be thugged out of his oil)

I would think that would be obvious.
quote:

So it would appear that all the talk about soverignty, freedom, national self determination, democracy,etc are just so much rhetoric.

You’re beginning to catch on. But you have to add to that all the talk about God, white supremacy, black power, liberalism, conservatism, etc., etc., etc.

quote:

This is international thugery at its bassest and to justify it with such rehtoric is fatuous.

No, this is good, old fashioned, primate politics at work. I agree that rhetoric is fatuous (it is, in fact, one of the base principles of my philosophy), the difference between you and me as that you simply respond with another form of rhetoric. Another form of ideology covering up the true cause of humanity’s problems which is – drum role please – good, old fashioned, primate politics. In other words, our animal instincts. What we need to do is to stop attacking one ideology with another (that is pretty much all we have been doing down through history) and see ourselves as we truly are – an overly cleaver species of primate. That is the necessary first step in achieving balance between our fundamental human nature and our ability to reason. I’m not overly hopeful but I try to remain optimistic.

quote:

So if bush & co. decide to go and thug Iran out of their oil you would not object and raise your voice and say No !!! Mr. president it is wrong to go and steal that which is not for sale?

If that is the case, I would object. Unlike you, however, I am not locked into a single mindset of good guys and bad guys that tells me that any conflict with Iran is the result of Bush and Co. wanting to thug Iran out of their oil. There are numerous (surface) possibilities that could lead to conflict. Bush will be gone in two years. Will the hostility between the Islamic world and the Western world vanish with him? Will Iran suddenly say, "oh, that big meanie, Bush, is gone, let’s stop supporting terrorists and give everybody hugs instead."?
quote:

In one of your previous posts you suggest that you would feel justified in attacking first if you felt that you were in imminent danger of being attacked. From what you have posted here it seems to me that Iran would be the one in imminent danger of being attacked.

I didn’t suggest it, I stated it as a fact. I stand by it. I see self defense not just as a human instinct, but as a human right. But self-defense can also be used as rhetoric and as I see it, both sides are already attacking each other. What happens next is merely a matter of scale.
quote:

I am surprised that you do not feel some ethical revulsion at stealing: because that is just exactly what you seem to be advocating. "If you wont sell me your oil I will come and take it" I can fully understand why Iran might want some sort of deterent to that sort of mind set. We are not god....We do not own the world...We do not have any right to pillage what some may refuse to sell us.

I feel ethical revulsion at a lot of things, including stealing. If I seem to be advocating it, it is only because you take what I say, run it through your ideological filter, and arrive at something different. I wouldn’t blame Iran one bit for trying to fend off a U.S. invasion. I don’t blame us, either, for trying to fend off their terrorist activities. So where does that leave us?



Marc2b -> RE: 6th April - Iran? (4/2/2007 7:53:30 AM)

quote:

Thanks for summing up your hypocrisy and ignorance so well in a single sentence...


Yup. The other doesn’t agree with me. He refuses to cast people into the same role of good guys and bad guys that I do. Obviously he is mentally and morally inferior to me. It feels so good to be superior.

Good, old, fashioned, primate politics.


You can do better than that.



SimplyMichael -> RE: 6th April - Iran? (4/2/2007 12:05:06 PM)

It sucks to be superior and I do my best to help you climb to my level but I can only help those who really want to learn.

As an example, you want to cling to your little fetish about "primate politics", something I am sure impresses the guys down at the local bar.  However, your friends are either not sharp enough or too polite to point out that if you want to boil things down to "primate politics" then you don't get to also use morality as a guage of behavior as one excluded the other.  You may want to be the "lord of the flies" but I prefer to operate on a higher level and I think the history of America has clearly shown that operating on a higher moral plane can be effective and profitable as well as provide great security.



Page: <<   < prev  1 2 [3] 4 5   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.046875