Breaking News: "Kettle Black" says Pot

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by idea_hamster, Aug 10, 2005.

  1. idea_hamster macrumors 65816

    idea_hamster

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2003
    Location:
    NYC, or thereabouts
    #1
    Whether or not we agree with the concern over Iran's resumption of uranium enrichment operations, I'm not so sure that the US response is really convincing.

    Specifically:

    <snip>
    "'Today's breaking of seals is yet another sign of Iran's disregard for international concerns,' Matt Boland, spokesman for the US mission to international organizations in Vienna, told AFP."
    ...
    "We urge Iran to give serious consideration to the EU's proposals," for the Islamic Republic to suspend all nuclear fuel cycle work in order to guarantee it will not make atomic weapons, Boland said.
    </snip>

    Yes, Mr. Boland. Giving serious consideration to the concerns of other nations is a good idea. It really is.
     
  2. zimv20 macrumors 601

    zimv20

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2002
    Location:
    toronto
    #2
    i'm certain that iran's nuclear amibitions have nothing to do with the fact that two of their neighbors are occupied by the US. :rolleyes:
     
  3. srobert macrumors 68020

    srobert

    Joined:
    Jan 7, 2002
    #3
    That whole US/EU/IRAN nuke issue…

    It's like smoking parents telling their kids that they can't smoke. :D

    P.S.: All Glory to the Hypnotoad!
     
  4. alex_ant macrumors 68020

    alex_ant

    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2002
    Location:
    All up in your bidness
    #4
    I am generally very liberal. I'm happy to do what I can to support the underprivileged, and people in need. I even go so far as to believe that all people should be entitled to a basic, dignified level of existence, regardless of their contribution to society, and that the rich should support the poor. I believe that the rich, the poor, and everyone in between have basic human rights, and I believe that among these rights is the inalienable right to not get vaporized along with 250,000 other people in the span of 5 seconds by a 1 megaton fission bomb.

    I find it hard to believe that the reason Iran wants nukes is because the US/UK/Israel have them. Come on. Peaceful power generation... yeah right. I'm sure if all countries with nukes destroyed theirs tomorrow, Iran would put a halt to its uranium operations. Rrrrrright. The bottom line is that right now, at this moment, the US and other civilized nations like the UK, Canada, and France have nukes, and the crazy ultraconservative religious idiot jihad leaders in Iran don't, and this is how I, personally, would like it to stay. I don't really mind if it's not fair that we are allowed to have nukes and they aren't. Hell, if Iran wants nuclear power, I would be happy to pay for free US-run nuclear power plants to be built for them out of my taxes. Once again, I'm happy to do what I can to support the underprivileged. One could also argue that nuclear power plants are relatively environmentally-friendly, which I, as a tree-hugging liberal, would find a good thing.

    I'm really sick of the fatalistic notion amongst my fellow liberals that goes like, "Well, this is what we deserve." No it isn't. Nobody deserves to die in a nuclear suicide bombing. "Well, we a-bombed Japan, obviously we're already nuclear terrorists so what right do we have to criticize Iran who wants to do the same thing?" Gee I don't know, maybe we have a right to criticize them because we don't want to see half of London, New York, or Paris made into a giant radioactive crater, lined with the smouldering flesh of a hundred thousand people who had their skin boiled off?

    Basically I'm saying that it is perfectly OK to be a proud liberal, like me, and still vehemently oppose oppressive dictatorships with terrorist tendencies getting nukes. I think it's a shame that the rest of the world (including us) is not being more proactive about this situation, and seems resigned to just watch and wait. Expect the stalling process to play out North Korea-style: "Sure we'll agree to talk, OK the talks are off, we won't talk with you anymore unless you do X, OK we'll talk to you again, OK nevermind the talks are off, OK the talks are on again, nevermind, the talks are off and by the way - we've got 3 warheads now, with more ready soon, and we've also got plenty of ICBMs to deliver them to you, do you wanna ****in' tangle you ****ing western pricks?"

    Iran will have nukes within the next 10 years, and after it gets them, those insurgent attacks we're reading about in the news every day (and that Londoners saw a few weeks ago) are going to get a whole lot bigger and hotter. The West has the power but not the will to stop this from happening.
     
  5. alex_ant macrumors 68020

    alex_ant

    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2002
    Location:
    All up in your bidness
    #5
    Being a NYC resident, you have approximately 10-12 years to live before all the matter in your body is turned into a gas by a nuclear weapon that was developed in Iran and sold to some guy whose last name starts with al- and really, really ****ing hates yankee imperialists. How does that make you feel?
     
  6. CanadaRAM macrumors G5

    CanadaRAM

    Joined:
    Oct 11, 2004
    Location:
    On the Left Coast - Victoria BC Canada
    #6
    Nope, not us. No nuclear weapons on Canadian soil.

    And just to add spice, there's always a little protest group throws a hissyfit whenever a US Navy ship visits and won't confirm nor deny whether n-weapons are on board.

    Now you may fairly accuse us of being uncivilized...
     
  7. alex_ant macrumors 68020

    alex_ant

    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2002
    Location:
    All up in your bidness
    #7
    You don't have nuclear weapons???? I thought you did. Wow, no kidding, I have a totally different impression of Canada now. I used to think of it as that place full of polar bears and snow and Strange Brew, but it was still cool because it had nukes. Now it's just... pure nothingness. :eek:
     
  8. takao macrumors 68040

    takao

    Joined:
    Dec 25, 2003
    Location:
    Dornbirn (Austria)
    #8
    funny how nobody complains about pakistan who named their bomb "the muslim bomb" ;)
     
  9. Rod Rod macrumors 68020

    Rod Rod

    Joined:
    Sep 21, 2003
    Location:
    Las Vegas, NV
    #9
    No Pakistani government official called it any such thing. Some punks in the street called it the "Islamic Bomb," thinking they were clever when in fact they were ignorant fools.

    According to the Islamic rules of war, it is forbidden to use fire as a weapon. Burning an enemy is not permitted. Nuclear weapons (and many sorts of "conventional" weapons) kill by burning, and are therefore forbidden in Islam. Beyond that, the Islamic rules of engagement clearly state that non-combatants are off limits, and nuclear weapons make no distinction between civilian and soldier.

    However, no matter what a country calls itself and no matter what proportion of Muslim population it contains, no government acts in accordance with Islam. Some of the worst examples of hypocrisy are the countries which make the strongest claims of following Islam (Saudi Arabia and Iran, and of course the all-time top hypocritical regime, the Taliban in Afghanistan).

    Pakistan is in a tough spot though. Its neighbor India has 8x the population and a 15x bigger army, and has demonstrated its nuclear ambitions with a bona fide nuclear test way back in the 1970s. India's testing in early 1998 came first, and provoked Pakistan to test its devices three weeks later as a defensive measure. This doesn't morally justify its posession of nuclear weapons but it does put it into context.

    Back to the "muslim bomb" thing - the man who lead India into its 1998 nuclear tests (and the current President of India) is a Muslim. Anyway, it's unwise to call a bomb Muslim, Hindu, Christian, Jew or anything else, as bombs are horrible instruments of death and destruction that are anathema to all religions.
     
  10. idea_hamster thread starter macrumors 65816

    idea_hamster

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2003
    Location:
    NYC, or thereabouts
    #10
    I'll assume you were just sleepy...

    I see your posts were made in the wee hours. However, if you read my post, I specifically say that this is not about how we feel about Iran and their nuclear ambitions.

    The point of the thread is that the current US administration has made no effort to take into account the sentiments of other nations. In fact, they have done the political equivalent of putting their fingers in their ears and singing.

    Consequently, when they urge other nations to "give serious consideration" to international concerns rather than disregarding them, that's hypocritical. Hence the title of the thread.

    As far as your post above, my initial reaction is that your thought was simply beneath contempt and therefore response. However, I think you should be aware of a few things:

    1. Your attempt to use fear to get me to change my (incorrectly perceived) point of view is destructive. If you, yourself, are afraid of dying I suggest some relaxation and deep breathing. Pointing out that I am mortal won't help.

    2. Your use of "name begins with al-" to refer to an Islamic extremist is boring and incorrect. Lots don't and some of the most militant and dangerous Islamic extremists are not Arabs (consider Jemaah Islamia from Indonesia). The mundane response of "You know what I meant" holds no water, since your message is what you say -- and what you're saying is that you lump all Arabs together. I would be interested to know whether you know anyone personally who has "al-" in his or her name. (You may and not know it -- many Arabs drop the al- when writing their names in English.)

    3. New Yorkers are not "yankee imperialists." We've never been. The business of New York is business. The WTC was struck because it was well known and was seen as a symbol of US self-importance. The truth is that the WTC was a government plan, never made money, and was an "if you build it, they will come" fantasy that never panned out. It was the least New York-ish part of the skyline. The "yankee imperialists" invariably come from Texas (e.g., LBJ -- see? I even picked a Dem.!).

    4. How does that make me feel? Even more confident that the US should take other nations' concerns into account when forming its policies. Acts of terrorism are acts of desperation done by people who feel that they have no hope and no voice. We should practice what we preach rather than call the kettle black.
     
  11. alex_ant macrumors 68020

    alex_ant

    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2002
    Location:
    All up in your bidness
    #11
    We can practice what we preach all day long, and the only thing it will do for us is make us look good and allow countries like Iran to nuke us. I can't seriously believe you think the way to stop Iran from going nuclear is to give Iran "hope" and a "voice" - what total politically correct BS. My whole point was that I am not particularly interested in the "sentiments" of Iran. I wouldn't have particularly strong feelings against them, except they seem to be interested in developing the capability to nuke me. That kind of offends me. I understand that the typical "liberal" response to this (which I put in quotes because I am a liberal and this is not MY response) is to see the whole Iran-nukes thing as the result of what WE'VE done wrong somehow - we haven't considered Iran's feelings, we haven't given them enough support, it's all the fault of Bush and the Republicans for not doing whatever, etc. I don't care whose fault it is, or why Iran is at this point now. I am simply interested in seeing Iran not get nukes, beginning immediately. It is the only thing that matters to me. If I have to be "unfair" or "racist" or "anti-Arab" or whatever to hope that this doesn't hapen, then I'm sorry, but I will.

    Good grief. I can't even go on a rant without obeying all the little rules of how every ethnic group everywhere spells their name? I MEANT to be offensive and I'm glad to see that it worked, but sad to see that my point escaped you.

    The Bush administration has been inept, as usual. I wonder what a "liberal" administration would really be doing differently. Probably telling Iran to "stop it" in slightly harsher language. No "liberals" would even consider using military force against Iran, and Iran knows it. Instead they would try every single non-military tactic under the sun, like Europe is doing right now, of which nothing would change the fact that Iran will have nukes in a few years. That, to me, is not a solution to this problem.

    You're absolutely right. We should have never invaded Iraq. It is/was a pointless war and now we have no more resources left to fight Iran. Nothing short of war will stop them at this point.

    How does this have ANYTHING to do with what I said? My whole point was that the suicide bomber doesn't HAVE an accurate impression of what New Yorkers are, and kills indiscriminately.
     
  12. alex_ant macrumors 68020

    alex_ant

    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2002
    Location:
    All up in your bidness
    #12
    "Liberal" mathematics

    (I put "liberal" in quotes because I am a liberal, yet it's not MY position.)

    First, the "liberal" attempts to place every player and every action on the same moral plane. All lives are equal, all deaths are equal, and all political systems are equally legitimate, or at least they all have equal license to do what they want to their own citizenry. All actions on this moral plane achieve equilibrium. In other words, for every good, there is an equal or opposite bad. If the bad isn't obvious, or if the good isn't obvious, trust us - it's there. Or if the good and bad are both obvious, but one appears more significant than the other, trust us - they're both still equal, and we'd be happy to explain how.

    There is a mathematics to it. For example:

    1) A civilian killed as "collateral damage" from a US air strike = 1 death.
    2) A civilian killed as "collateral damage" from an Iraqi suicide bomber = -1 death.
    ________
    Therefore, the 2 deaths are equal, which means that their CAUSES are equally deplorable in EVERY WAY (this is important). While they are both tragedies, they cancel out. the 1 hits the -1 and creates 0.

    Another example:

    1) Roughly 100,000 civilians killed on purpose from the bombing of Hiroshima = 100,000 deaths.
    2) Roughly 100,000 civilians killed on purpose from the first a-bombing of Paris = -100,000 deaths.
    ________
    Therefore, the deaths balance out. 100,000 + -100,000 = 0. While both are equally deplorable, nature tends toward equilibrium, so at least we can understand why it happened a second time.


    NOW: What do we do when we know only (1) or (2) but not both? We find the one we don't know by deduction. Here is how it works:

    1) ????
    2) Planes crash into the World Trade Center and kill roughly 3,000 people.
    ________
    0

    In this example, we have to find the value of (1). When did we, the Americans, kill 3,000 of "Osama bin Laden's people"? Or at least moderately close approximations of them? Well, we've supported Israel, which has probably killed 3,000 of them. We've attacked Iraq throughout the '90s which has killed quite a few. We've done this and that and so on and so forth and through it all, we killed LOTS of people, definitely more than 3,000. We can use whichever example we like, although we should go for one that is somewhat plausible so that the conservatives won't complain. So this equation is satisfied. -3000 + 3000 = 0.

    AH HA. HERE is the kicker. In the last paragraph, we found that we've caused MANY more than 3,000 deaths. Time to achieve that equilibrium!

    50,000 deaths caused by the US in the Middle East (arbitrary imaginary number pulled out of my arse for example purposes)
    - 3,000 deaths caused by 9/11
    ________
    47,000 deaths of US citizens or citizens of US-sympathizing countries still waiting to happen.


    We can pile more numbers in as well.

    50,000 deaths caused by the US in the Middle East (imaginary number again)
    100,000 deaths from Hiroshima
    100,000 deaths from Nagasaki
    10,000 Arab deaths caused by Israel in the last X years
    25,000 Iraqi civilians killed in the war in Iraq so far
    500,000 more from misc. other wars, conflicts, etc. by the US or US allies
    -3,000 WTC deaths
    ________
    782,000 deaths due us in an upcoming series of nuclear strikes. It's only fair.


    So Iran getting the bomb is really only a result of nature's inevitable tendency toward equilibrium. We can fight it all we want, but it's destined to happen. Maybe we should have paid more attention to Iran's feelings all these years, or given them some sort of hope. Or a voice. As it is, we're screwed, and there's nothing we can do about it. In fact, we deserve it... it's our fault. We caused it to happen. I feel so ashamed.
     
  13. srobert macrumors 68020

    srobert

    Joined:
    Jan 7, 2002
    #13
    hmm… Do you call that magic or religion? MAybe Karma?

    Interesting theory. I'm not comfortable with the theory/idea that "nature" devides mankinds into good guys and bad guys and then makes sure that an equal number of people get killed on each side.

    Then again, my english is not that good and it's possible I've misinterpreted your explanation, if it's that case, please excuse me.
     
  14. Rod Rod macrumors 68020

    Rod Rod

    Joined:
    Sep 21, 2003
    Location:
    Las Vegas, NV
    #14
    alex_ant, Iranians are not Arabs. As a self-identified liberal you should at least know that much. That mixup doesn't help credibility.

    10% of Arabs worldwide are Christians. The Arabs who are Muslim only constitute 20% of the world Muslim population. Using "Muslim" and "Arab" interchangeably is factually wrong 80% of the time.
     
  15. alex_ant macrumors 68020

    alex_ant

    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2002
    Location:
    All up in your bidness
    #15
    I know, I've revealed my lack of cultural awareness and non-commitment to multiculturalism and diversity and celebrating all cultures and all ethnicities, and under "liberalism" there can be no worse crime. Wait... where did I say that Iranians were Arabs?

    Good thing I didn't then.
     
  16. Rod Rod macrumors 68020

    Rod Rod

    Joined:
    Sep 21, 2003
    Location:
    Las Vegas, NV
    #16
    Here:
    So, other than opposing the current war in Iraq before it happened, which many conservatives also opposed (for example, Pat Buchanan), what qualifies you as a liberal other than you calling yourself one?
     
  17. alex_ant macrumors 68020

    alex_ant

    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2002
    Location:
    All up in your bidness
    #17
    Nuclear weapons are no joke, kids

    If Iran were breaking the seals on canisters of TNT, that would be bad too, but uranium is an entirely different level of "bad." When we think of nuclear weapons we think of the ones that went off over Japan (OK, that the Americans set off, to appease the self-flagellating "liberals") and we think, "fair enough, those were horrible and all, but look at Japan today, it's thriving and prosperous." The fact is, the Nagasaki bomb was only 22 kilotons, and that is about as big as fission bombs get. It killed "only" around 100k people. It was devastating, but Japan recovered, and maybe the feeling among "liberals" is that we would too.

    The really scary scenario is if Iran had the intention of continuing its atomic development past the fission stage, and started getting interested in hydrogen. I don't see anything really holding them back from this this except time. We'll hem and haw, please Iran, don't do it. Let's open up talks. Let's solve this diplomatically. And Iran would say, OK, we're reasonable, of course we'll sit down and talk... next month. Wait, that's not a good month for us - how about November? And so on and so on until 2025 when they announce that they've broken the 1-megaton barrier with their own H-bomb, and by the way, it can fit in the back of a van. Any reasonable person would be insane NOT to be afraid of this happening, because what it would mean is potentially 7 digits worth of people, which potentially includes YOU, dead in one fell swoop. Nuclear weapons make chemical and biological weapons look like kid stuff. They must never be used again, whether by Iran or by anyone else.

    "Liberals" are afraid of any sort of war, but I don't think targeted airstrikes on Iran's uranium facilities would be uncalled for. The problem is that we don't know where a lot of them are, and that's a big problem. Europe would never even think of attacking Iran. Israel might. Bush might, except he's boxed in by overcommitment in Iraq on one side and liberal opposition on the other. So I think that it might be a good idea to start practicing duck-and-cover again.
     
  18. alex_ant macrumors 68020

    alex_ant

    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2002
    Location:
    All up in your bidness
    #18
    I didn't say Iranians were Arabs in that quote, I said "or whatever" to indicate that I was exasperatedly counting off the things "liberals" might label me. Anyway:
    That's offtopic and irrelevant to this discssion. You can read some of my post history if you like (it's mostly way back). I am for widespread wealth redistribution to the less fortunate including a sharply progressive income tax, I am strongly pro-environment, anti-death penalty, to name just a few examples. I don't feel like I have to idolize Che Guevara and tow the Indymedia line to be a liberal.
     
  19. Rod Rod macrumors 68020

    Rod Rod

    Joined:
    Sep 21, 2003
    Location:
    Las Vegas, NV
    #19
    Thanks for the clarification. I appreciate it. The reference to "al-" names while talking about Iran didn't help (although of course you were talking about a scenario in which the Iranians would sell a device to non-Iranian terrorists).
    It's on topic because you've called yourself a liberal repeatedly here while at the same time expressing what appears to me as very reactionary/conservative views. Thank you for giving me examples of the issues about which you're liberal. Since you're strongly anti-death penalty, what would you do (if it were up to you) with a captured Osama bin Laden? I'd kill him.
     
  20. alex_ant macrumors 68020

    alex_ant

    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2002
    Location:
    All up in your bidness
    #20
    I don't understand how the view that Iran should not get nukes is reactionary/conservative. It seems to me like a view that virtually everyone in the US should support, including liberals. I think a lot of liberals oppose it simply because conservatives support it, which is a shame.

    Thank you for volunteering. I wouldn't kill him. As a bleeding-heart liberal, I have the belief that every person has a basic dignity and should be entitled to live if they want to. I would, however, force him to wear little pink bowties in his beard.
     
  21. idea_hamster thread starter macrumors 65816

    idea_hamster

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2003
    Location:
    NYC, or thereabouts
    #21
    Well, I was hoping that my thread title could serve as a bit of dark humor about what I observed to be a disconnect between what the current adminsitration says and does.

    However*, it has taken a turn to a kind of confrontational argument that, while wholly appropriate for the Politics forum, is not something that I relish. So while I tend to try to do my best to monitor the threads that I start, I'm going to bow out from this one. Not saying I'm right, wrong or "taking my ball and going home"; just not going to take part in the vein this thread has gone.

    All the best.


    *I had originally written "Unfortunately" but realized that this is not my thread. I may be disappointed that other people want to talk about nukes and Islam rather than government hypocracy, but a discussion forum is just that -- a discussion and not mine to control.
     

Share This Page