Another good reason to invade Iran?

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by diamond geezer, Feb 9, 2005.

  1. diamond geezer macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2004
    #1
    link

     
  2. Dont Hurt Me macrumors 603

    Dont Hurt Me

    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2002
    Location:
    Yahooville S.C.
    #2
    A better reason is the Bomb. The free west can not let them get this weapon but Europe may be to blind ,dumb and greedy to bother doing anything. The proliferation of nukes has to be halted and its in everyones best interest. Wake up Europe.
     
  3. blackfox macrumors 65816

    blackfox

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2003
    Location:
    PDX
    #3
    Although I see your point, a couple points:
    1. While nonproliferation is indeed a goal worth working towards, it does not help when several key "leaders" of the group continue to design new weapons (eg: the US and Russia). Under such a scenario, cooperation, incentive and consensus are lost with the resultant political wrangling and greivances that are an inevitable result of hypocrisy. There is also, to an extent, an lack of viable leadership on this issue, either because those with power to lead do not have credibility (see: hypocrisy), or because those with credibility do not have sufficient influence/power. You see similar problems with Global Environmental issues and Trade issues.

    2. As far as Iran is concerned, while I feel that whenever possible, no more countries should possess nuclear weaponry, it is in some cases inevitable. I feel it is somewhat overblown to think that a Nuclear Iran will give terrorists access to nuclear material, as Pakistan is more of a hotbed of Islamic Fundamentalism, more unstable, and have yet to put Nuclear material into the "wrong hands".

    I feel Iran, as a regional leader in the ME, has every right to pursue self-determination on this issue, and that while they should be strenously asked to halt weapons manufacture, it is their perogative. It must smart to some degree to have countries sanctioning, decrying and possibly taking military action against you, when those same countries armed or aided Israel to the same ends only a generation ago.
     
  4. mactastic macrumors 68040

    mactastic

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2003
    Location:
    Colly-fornia
    #4
    If there is one lesson Bush has taught world leaders, it's that having a nuke is the best protection there is.

    And as has been pointed out, there is little incentive for any nation to abandon nuclear arms research unless and until the US does. And of course, we reserve the perogative to defend ourselves in any way we feel is necessary. Looking like a hypocrite to the rest of the world on the nuclear issue doesn't give us much of a moral high ground.

    Seriously, put yourself in the Iranian leadership's position. Would you give up working towards a nuke? Or would you be thinking, 'We have the right to defend ourselves any way we see fit.'?
     
  5. Dont Hurt Me macrumors 603

    Dont Hurt Me

    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2002
    Location:
    Yahooville S.C.
    #5
    Id rather look at it from our point of view. Iran needs nuke's for no reason when on top all that oil and short sighted europe has never gotton it. This has to be stopped and if not it will lead towards sanctions and war. The world should be smarter then allowing the spread of nukes but if not then there isnt any hope for mankind. Thats the way i see it.
     
  6. Blue Velvet Moderator emeritus

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2004
    #6
    There isn't any hope for humanity if the military invasion of a sovereign country is mooted as the only solution to something that doesn't further US strategic geo-political goals.
     
  7. Dont Hurt Me macrumors 603

    Dont Hurt Me

    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2002
    Location:
    Yahooville S.C.
    #7
    Not true, we all know Saddam wanted all kinds of bad weapons including his destroyed nuke program . You guys just dont get it. you didnt before WW1. you didnt before WW2 and you wont in WW3 but it will be our butts over there saving your behinds once more....just as we did in WW1,WW2 and cold war until today.

    ignoring Tyranny doesnt work
     
  8. Peterkro macrumors 68020

    Peterkro

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2004
    Location:
    Communard de Londres
    #8
    [
    Hurt Me]A better reason is the Bomb. The free west can not let them get this weapon but Europe may be to blind ,dumb and greedy to bother doing anything. The proliferation of nukes has to be halted and its in everyones best interest. Wake up Europe.[/QUOTE]
    The free west now that is a joke.Presumably you are aware the only ones to have used nuclear weapons are the US.If your'e going to discourage countries from developing nukes you've got to start decommisioning yours US and Russia(brits + France).Threatening to bomb the **** out of countries only teaches them,best we get them as soon as possible.
    I missed out several other nuclear powers Israel being the most dangerous of these.Ukraine voluntarily gave up its weapons with no noticeable effect on its world position.
     
  9. mactastic macrumors 68040

    mactastic

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2003
    Location:
    Colly-fornia
    #9
    Understanding you opponent is essential if you want to defeat them. Or tie with them. I'm not suggesting we act on their point of view, but if you can't see things their way you will mess things up. That is the reason Bush is in so much trouble in Mess-o-potamia, he completely misread the reaction of the Iraqi people to a unilateral US invasion.

    If you know the enemy and know yourself you need not fear the results of a hundred battles.
    Sun Tzu
     
  10. miloblithe macrumors 68020

    miloblithe

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2003
    Location:
    Washington, DC
    #10
    I for one certainly did not get it before WWI.
     
  11. mactastic macrumors 68040

    mactastic

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2003
    Location:
    Colly-fornia
    #11
    Thing we could do them the honor of arriving on time this time eh?
     
  12. Blue Velvet Moderator emeritus

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2004
    #12
    First of all, you guys means nothing to me. I'm from New Zealand – a country which has successfully kept your nuclear warships from our waters for the last 15 years or so...

    And where's the evidence for Saddams WMDs? Didn't the CIA say they the programmes never existed after being destroyed? You are a fool if you believe the real reason for the invasion of Iraq was to find & destroy WMDs...

    What has WW1 & WW2 to do with this argument anyway? The situation is completely different. In WW2, the US didn't enter the war until Pearl Harbour...

    The US's fruitless invasion of Vietnam is a perfect example of this trigger-happy idiocy.

    Your attitude is a perfect example of why America is loathed in many parts of the world today... you guys just don't get it.
     
  13. Dont Hurt Me macrumors 603

    Dont Hurt Me

    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2002
    Location:
    Yahooville S.C.
    #13
    The free west now that is a joke.Presumably you are aware the only ones to have used nuclear weapons are the US.If your'e going to discourage countries from developing nukes you've got to start decommisioning yours US and Russia(brits + France).Threatening to bomb the **** out of countries only teaches them,best we get them as soon as possible.
    I missed out several other nuclear powers Israel being the most dangerous of these.Ukraine voluntarily gave up its weapons with no noticeable effect on its world position.[/QUOTE]
    First of all we used it to end WW2 thank you and have not used it since showing amazing restraint i might add.
     
  14. Dont Hurt Me macrumors 603

    Dont Hurt Me

    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2002
    Location:
    Yahooville S.C.
    #14
    go back to the first gulf war to look for Saddams Nuke program.
     
  15. mactastic macrumors 68040

    mactastic

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2003
    Location:
    Colly-fornia
    #15
    Now, now...

    Unfortunately only about 48% of us get it.
     
  16. Peterkro macrumors 68020

    Peterkro

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2004
    Location:
    Communard de Londres
    #16
    First of all we used it to end WW2 thank you and have not used it since showing amazing restraint i might add.[/QUOTE] WW2 was from any point of view finished before the US nuked Japan the main reason was to stop the USSR invading Japan first.(sorry about the quote mistake)
     
  17. Dont Hurt Me macrumors 603

    Dont Hurt Me

    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2002
    Location:
    Yahooville S.C.
    #17
    USSR another beacon of democracy and human rights??? If not for the U.S there would be only chaos with dictators,tyranny & communism.
     
  18. Blue Velvet Moderator emeritus

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2004
    #18
    So where's the justification for the second gulf war then?
    Regime change... because it didn't suit US or UK policy.

    There's plenty of oppressive regimes around the world but some you guys just love to support instead... whose assistance to Indonesia helped the massacres in East Timor? Whose support of the Pinochet government put thousands to their deaths in Chile?

    You guys are unfortunately turning into the armed fascist thugs that you hold to despise... and your incessant bloated bragging about freedom is the biggest load of BS, constantly churned out to calm the folks back home...
     
  19. Dont Hurt Me macrumors 603

    Dont Hurt Me

    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2002
    Location:
    Yahooville S.C.
    #19
    Saddam ignored 14 UN resolutions didnt he???Bush smoked us on this but im glad a dictator killer is gone. Ignoring these guys empowers them.
     
  20. Blue Velvet Moderator emeritus

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2004
    #20
    Let some others show you a list of dictators and tyrants that the US has supported throughout the years... it's quite a long one. It may come as a surprise to you...

    I can't believe how ignorant you are of what your country is responsible for in the world...
     
  21. blackfox macrumors 65816

    blackfox

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2003
    Location:
    PDX
    #21
    simplistic, jingoistic and uncalled for.

    WWI was a particularily complex web of causes, including:

    Nationalism - inevitable fallout of Congress of Vienna a century earlier, which favored unity over nationalism. Germany and Italy were divided states, until unification in the late 19th Century, with rises in popular Nationalistic tendencies in those countries. France's loss of Alsace-Lorraine in the Franco-Prussian war incited French Nationalism.

    Imperialism - The need for new markets by Britain, France and Germany led to conflict in Africa. The collapse off the Ottoman Empire proved tempting to the Austria-hungarian Empire, which wished to capitalize on the power vaccuum in the Balkans and the ME. The annexation of Bosnia by the AH empire precipitated the assination of the archduke by a Serb national, which in turn made AH (allied with Germany) declare war on Serbia, which was unacceptable to the Russians, who had their own ambitions in the Balkans, and subsequently allied with the British (the french had a previous alliance with the Russians). French policy was independent and they chose to mobilize forces in reaction to the russian-prussian war. Britain only entered the war after Germany invaded Belgium, violating it's neutrality.

    In any case, this had very little to do with tyranny, it had to do with power, relationships, nationalism, and historical grievances. Transposed to the modern ME, it is perhaps the US that has not learned it's lesson(s).

    WWII was less about Fascism per se, than about the same issues as the above paragraph, being merely a means to an end. (oh, what about Franco?)

    The US separated by a great ocean, and only peripherarily involved in WWI, had had the luxury and the naivety to look at things from a idealistic, moralistic standpoint, which directly contributed to the problems in the Current ME, the Balkans and WWII Germany. European nations never had that luxury. So get off your high-horse, would you? You might learn something.

    It is often the "good guys" that are the root causes for many (if not all) of the great conflicts, and the tyrants you so despise being merely a necessary symptom of said problem created. If you are looking for an answer, you might have better luck looking at causes rather than effects.
     
  22. Peterkro macrumors 68020

    Peterkro

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2004
    Location:
    Communard de Londres
    #22
    If you think the US is a beacon of human rights your sadly deluded(I'm not talking about US citizens but US government/big business).There is more in common between the USSR and the US than of any two powers of the twentieth century.
     
  23. Dont Hurt Me macrumors 603

    Dont Hurt Me

    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2002
    Location:
    Yahooville S.C.
    #23
    Ask yourself this is it better or worse for Iran to have the Bomb.? go ahead be honest.
     
  24. Peterkro macrumors 68020

    Peterkro

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2004
    Location:
    Communard de Londres
    #24
    It would be better if nobody had nuclear weapons the point is who has them.
     
  25. blackfox macrumors 65816

    blackfox

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2003
    Location:
    PDX
    #25
    For who? Whose gets to make that choice? Iran? US? Why?

    Is it better or worse that the US has a policy of "pre-emption"? go ahead, be honest.
     

Share This Page