lostfan Posted April 23, 2009 Share Posted April 23, 2009 QUOTE (kapkomet @ Apr 23, 2009 -> 03:21 PM) MMMMMMMMkay. The world is just soooooo Cheeeeer-i-o! The laughable part of this is you are arguing with a guy who knows more on his pinky finger about this then you do (no, not me, I'm just an ignorant average "thick skull", but I guess that doesn't matter). And I know you know lf knows what he's talking about. Heh, he wasn't really disagreeing w/me on that point, but I know he disagrees on the "Iran is a democracy" point. Him and me have gone back and forth on that a few times. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NorthSideSox72 Posted April 23, 2009 Share Posted April 23, 2009 QUOTE (DukeNukeEm @ Apr 23, 2009 -> 02:18 PM) Only once has the been a war between major powers since 1945 (US and China, and it barely counts), that's the longest streak in modern human history. That is actually more a measure of instability, than stability. War has changed because the balance of power has changed, as is the very concept of nation-state diplomacy, and how nations and cultures under- and overlap. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsider2k5 Posted April 23, 2009 Share Posted April 23, 2009 QUOTE (DukeNukeEm @ Apr 23, 2009 -> 02:17 PM) One of the biggest reasons why it wouldn't be necessarily bad if Iran got nuclear weapons. Iran is fairly ethnically diverse, but their constitution is fairly clear about equality between those groups. The CIA has actually tried to destabilize Iran by inciting ethnic tension, and it didn't work. Iran is a strong, democratic and stable country with a loudmouth president who knows better than to match his words with actions, there's not much to be worried about giving them nuclear weapons. Israel being the sole nuclear power in the region is pretty dangerous. The one deterrent they have against using them is losing the support of the United States. If Iran got nukes it would force peace talks on Israel across the board, a lot of concessions by both sides and a huge decrease in violence matched with an increase in diplomacy. The region is a mess, and giving the most established powers on both sides nukes will put everyone on their toes. Most of you are so programmed with the "axis of evil" drilled through your thick skulls that you can under no circumstances view the international system from the lens other than that of an American. It's really a waste of my time to even argue this point. So having a guy as a leader who believes he has to destroy the Jewish state in order to bring about the return of the last prophet doesn't factor in at all for you? Talk about a waste of time. If Iran got nukes, it would turn Israel into a glass parking lot and go celebrate. Of all of the nutjobs in the world, Iran's leader is the one I would say that would be willing to use nuclear weapons without a second thought. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsider2k5 Posted April 23, 2009 Share Posted April 23, 2009 QUOTE (lostfan @ Apr 23, 2009 -> 02:20 PM) Yeah Duke, Iran barely qualifies as a democracy, you should stop citing that as if they were equivalent to Western democracies. When one person decides who is allowed to run for the Presidency, it really isn't a democracy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lostfan Posted April 23, 2009 Share Posted April 23, 2009 QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Apr 23, 2009 -> 03:24 PM) So having a guy as a leader who believes he has to destroy the Jewish state in order to bring about the return of the last prophet doesn't factor in at all for you? Talk about a waste of time. If Iran got nukes, it would turn Israel into a glass parking lot and go celebrate. Of all of the nutjobs in the world, Iran's leader is the one I would say that would be willing to use nuclear weapons without a second thought. I don't really think so though. It's capabilities vs. intent. Do you assume that Iran wouldn't be deathly afraid of retaliation from Israel (or the US, or the UK, or France, or whomever)? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kapkomet Posted April 23, 2009 Share Posted April 23, 2009 QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Apr 23, 2009 -> 02:24 PM) So having a guy as a leader who believes he has to destroy the Jewish state in order to bring about the return of the last prophet doesn't factor in at all for you? Talk about a waste of time. If Iran got nukes, it would turn Israel into a glass parking lot and go celebrate. Of all of the nutjobs in the world, Iran's leader is the one I would say that would be willing to use nuclear weapons without a second thought. You're just being spewed propoganda. You must conform to the Barack H. Obama school of thinking. Now. Before it's too late. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DukeNukeEm Posted April 23, 2009 Share Posted April 23, 2009 Yeah Duke, Iran barely qualifies as a democracy, you should stop citing that as if they were equivalent to Western democracies. Yeah but Khamenei is pretty forward-thinking, didn't he push for Iran to legalize stem-cell research before the United States? There are quite a few checks on him, he can't just do whatever the f*** he wants. Plus there's a Parliament which still handles almost all of the legislature. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsider2k5 Posted April 23, 2009 Share Posted April 23, 2009 QUOTE (lostfan @ Apr 23, 2009 -> 02:25 PM) I don't really think so though. It's capabilities vs. intent. Do you assume that Iran wouldn't be deathly afraid of retaliation from Israel (or the US, or the UK, or France, or whomever)? If they nuked them, what retaliation would there be from Israel? There would be nothing left. I am also not really convinced that the rest of the world would even use nuclear weapons in response. Tell me honestly, do you really think Barack Obama would answer an nuclear attack on someone else with our nuclear weapons? I just don't see it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kapkomet Posted April 23, 2009 Share Posted April 23, 2009 QUOTE (lostfan @ Apr 23, 2009 -> 02:25 PM) I don't really think so though. It's capabilities vs. intent. Do you assume that Iran wouldn't be deathly afraid of retaliation from Israel (or the US, or the UK, or France, or whomever)? lf, from what I understand, Make-Me-Ameany-Jad doesn't care because he thinks Israel's death will secure his place in heaven the moment he gets retaliated upon, at least that's how the "propoganda" material I remember goes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted April 23, 2009 Share Posted April 23, 2009 QUOTE (lostfan @ Apr 23, 2009 -> 12:25 PM) I don't really think so though. It's capabilities vs. intent. Do you assume that Iran wouldn't be deathly afraid of retaliation from Israel (or the US, or the UK, or France, or whomever)? More than that, it depends on who you think is in charge of Iran's military. Iran's military is under the control of the Supreme Leader, not Ahmadinejad. QUOTE (kapkomet @ Apr 23, 2009 -> 12:27 PM) lf, from what I understand, Make-Me-Ameany-Jad doesn't care because he thinks Israel's death will secure his place in heaven the moment he gets retaliated upon, at least that's how the "propoganda" material I remember goes. Ahmadinejad does not control Iran's military. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kapkomet Posted April 23, 2009 Share Posted April 23, 2009 QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Apr 23, 2009 -> 02:28 PM) More than that, it depends on who you think is in charge of Iran's military. Iran's military is under the control of the Supreme Leader, not Ahmadinejad. Ahmadinejad does not control Iran's military. I don't think Make-Me-Ameany-jad says anything without the Supreme Leader knowing about it. Kind of like Robert Gibbs, eh, eh!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsider2k5 Posted April 23, 2009 Share Posted April 23, 2009 QUOTE (DukeNukeEm @ Apr 23, 2009 -> 02:27 PM) Yeah but Khamenei is pretty forward-thinking, didn't he push for Iran to legalize stem-cell research before the United States? There are quite a few checks on him, he can't just do whatever the f*** he wants. Plus there's a Parliament which still handles almost all of the legislature. Forward thinking has nothing to do with a relative level of control. They are two completely different things. And yes, he can do pretty much whatever he wants, because he controls who is allowed to end up in office. Its almost like calling the Chicago City Council an effective check on executive power, when Rich Daley hand-picked 90% of them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsider2k5 Posted April 23, 2009 Share Posted April 23, 2009 QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Apr 23, 2009 -> 02:28 PM) More than that, it depends on who you think is in charge of Iran's military. Iran's military is under the control of the Supreme Leader, not Ahmadinejad. Ahmadinejad does not control Iran's military. If the clerics didn't buy the line of thinking, they would have banned Ahcy from running. They do it all of the time, why would he be different? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChiSox_Sonix Posted April 23, 2009 Share Posted April 23, 2009 QUOTE (DukeNukeEm @ Apr 23, 2009 -> 03:17 PM) Most of you are so programmed with the "axis of evil" drilled through your thick skulls that you can under no circumstances view the international system from the lens other than that of an American. It's really a waste of my time to even argue this point. Oh no but then what would all of us do without your superior wisdom? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DukeNukeEm Posted April 23, 2009 Share Posted April 23, 2009 So having a guy as a leader who believes he has to destroy the Jewish state in order to bring about the return of the last prophet doesn't factor in at all for you? Talk about a waste of time. If Iran got nukes, it would turn Israel into a glass parking lot and go celebrate. Of all of the nutjobs in the world, Iran's leader is the one I would say that would be willing to use nuclear weapons without a second thought. 1) Khomenei has been hugely against the development of nukes, much less using them. 2) Mahmoud is smart enough to know how far you can go before America gets angry enough to attack When one person decides who is allowed to run for the Presidency, it really isn't a democracy. Candidates must be approved by a council of 12, the Ayatollah has no direct say in the Presidency. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kapkomet Posted April 23, 2009 Share Posted April 23, 2009 QUOTE (DukeNukeEm @ Apr 23, 2009 -> 02:31 PM) 1) Khomenei has been hugely against the development of nukes, much less using them. 2) Mahmoud is smart enough to know how far you can go before America gets angry enough to attack Candidates must be approved by a council of 12, the Ayatollah has no direct say in the Presidency. Holy f***, they have a better democracy then we do! Cheeeeeeeer-i-o! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsider2k5 Posted April 23, 2009 Share Posted April 23, 2009 QUOTE (DukeNukeEm @ Apr 23, 2009 -> 02:31 PM) 1) Khomenei has been hugely against the development of nukes, much less using them. 2) Mahmoud is smart enough to know how far you can go before America gets angry enough to attack Candidates must be approved by a council of 12, the Ayatollah has no direct say in the Presidency. Talk about propaganda... Geesh. Do you also believe that Rich Daley has no direct say in the City Council? They might not "technically" be picking people, but the entire world knows whose ring you have to kiss to be able to serve in either locale. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lostfan Posted April 23, 2009 Share Posted April 23, 2009 I don't know about point #1, but point #2 is pretty accurate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted April 23, 2009 Share Posted April 23, 2009 QUOTE (DukeNukeEm @ Apr 23, 2009 -> 12:31 PM) 1) Khomenei has been hugely against the development of nukes, much less using them. 2) Mahmoud is smart enough to know how far you can go before America gets angry enough to attack I disagree with you on both of these. If Khamenei (Spell it right, there's 2 of them) didn't want Iran to be a nuclear power, then he'd have shut that program down. And I don't believe Ahmadinejad actually understands that part. I do think Khamenei does. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChiSox_Sonix Posted April 23, 2009 Share Posted April 23, 2009 QUOTE (lostfan @ Apr 23, 2009 -> 03:25 PM) I don't really think so though. It's capabilities vs. intent. Do you assume that Iran wouldn't be deathly afraid of retaliation from Israel (or the US, or the UK, or France, or whomever)? Well I'm pretty confident it wouldn't be France, haha. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DukeNukeEm Posted April 23, 2009 Share Posted April 23, 2009 That is actually more a measure of instability, than stability. War has changed because the balance of power has changed, as is the very concept of nation-state diplomacy, and how nations and cultures under- and overlap. We've seen hegemonic instability since 1945 on a pretty huge level. In the past that would be enough for war, but a certain something has altered the playing field so durastically that major powers just will not fight each other. The one time they did America fired a war hero because it was so afraid of the conflict escalating. The system has gotten much more stable, especially since 1991. Wars have become less frequent and less deadly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChiSox_Sonix Posted April 23, 2009 Share Posted April 23, 2009 QUOTE (DukeNukeEm @ Apr 23, 2009 -> 03:27 PM) Yeah but Khamenei is pretty forward-thinking, didn't he push for Iran to legalize stem-cell research before the United States? There are quite a few checks on him, he can't just do whatever the f*** he wants. Plus there's a Parliament which still handles almost all of the legislature. So Iran is forward thinking, yet they publicly executed two teenage boys for being gay last year? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lostfan Posted April 23, 2009 Share Posted April 23, 2009 QUOTE (ChiSox_Sonix @ Apr 23, 2009 -> 03:34 PM) Well I'm pretty confident it wouldn't be France, haha. Just throwing in a Western country who I know has nukes off the top of my head. But pretty much every Western country supports Israel (although the US kind of goes overboard w/it sometimes). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kapkomet Posted April 23, 2009 Share Posted April 23, 2009 QUOTE (DukeNukeEm @ Apr 23, 2009 -> 02:35 PM) We've seen hegemonic instability since 1945 on a pretty huge level. In the past that would be enough for war, but a certain something has altered the playing field so durastically that major powers just will not fight each other. The one time they did America fired a war hero because it was so afraid of the conflict escalating. The system has gotten much more stable, especially since 1991. Wars have become less frequent and less deadly. That has nothing to do with nuclear deterrence. It has totally to do with technology. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DukeNukeEm Posted April 23, 2009 Share Posted April 23, 2009 Talk about propaganda... So having a guy as a leader who believes he has to destroy the Jewish state in order to bring about the return of the last prophet doesn't factor in at all for you? Talk about a waste of time. If Iran got nukes, it would turn Israel into a glass parking lot and go celebrate. Of all of the nutjobs in the world, Iran's leader is the one I would say that would be willing to use nuclear weapons without a second thought. You get that from Sean Hannity or Bill O'Rielly? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts