What if Iran gets nuclear weapons?

[Thundercrack85]

I'm sorry but this is too much for me. Jihadi John was detained and deported in Tanzania. Supposedly because he had a Somalian friend British intelligence was worried about, and that he might go to Somalia. Tanzania insists that he was detained and deported for being drunk and abusive. Either way, he then went on to become an unrepentant murderer of aid workers. Even in Gaza that would raise eyebrows.

And for the record, I don't think the Brits were necessarily wrong for stopping and detaining him in light of recent revelations that he's obsessed with Somalia.

 

[Asteroid-Man]

I'd respond to this, but what's the point. I mean you think a Dumbledore gif is an appropriate arguing tool

Clearly someone who goes to a Superhero forum to debate politics can see that the gif wasn't meant to be an arguing tool.

Take Thundercrack's advice and learn to debate without bringing your emotions into it, it makes you seem like a child.

Human beings have emotions. What he essentially accused me of doing was the equivalent of telling a Jew he was a supporter of Hitler.

It would be nice if you could formulate a proper rebuttal without succumbing to Ad Hominem. That's now two debate fallacies vs an onslaught of legitimate points by myself and hippie.

I'm assuming if we say Israel's government = bad, Israeli people = good we'll run into a bit of a double standard

No, because for some odd reason, people don't assume Israel is bad, even in the wake of oppression - it's always Netanyahu and his party. Also Israel commands international power and has the backing of the United States, and has also not been under fire officially, while Iran has been. Israel also hasn't had three aided coups by western influence. Not to mention the fact that anti-semitism in mass-scale western societies has not been a relevant issue since the 70s, whereas Islamophobia and racism/fear mongering towards people of the Middle East (specifically Iran) has been on the rise since the 1970s.

Social context is very important to keep in mind, especially when the problem you're dealing with has an extremely simple, internal and almost no-cost solution. Alliance with the people of Iran can give them the "oomph" they need to orchestrate their own coup.

What Thundercrack85 said may be slightly flippant but it's on point. Israel's second-strike capability is a firmer deterrent against any Iranian nuclear offensive.

Clearly, and their first-strike threats have been even more frightening. What disgusted me was his nonchalant way of passing off a nuclear strike against innocent civilians. Comments like that desensitise us to nuclear reality, and in line with the horrific social trends of the Cold War.

I find Prime Minister Netanyahu speaking in front of US Congress really disturbing. Would anyone defend it if it was Saudi Arabian king?

Seeing articles written stating that Senator Rand Paul wasn't clapping passionately enough really frightens me.

According to this article, the deal which involves France and Britain and China consist of lifting sanctions in favor of Iran showing that nuclear program is for economic purposes.

I understand Iran has incentive to want to create nuclear weapon and it is a risk..but trying to consistently cripple the country economically and isolate Iran from the world seems more dangerous and likely to lead to more fringe marginalization seen in pre-Nazi Germany after World War I.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/03/07/us-iran-nuclear-france-usa-idUSKBN0M30IP20150307

Exactly on point.

Also with the GOP's breach of the Logan Act, it paints a clear face of their intentions. It heightens tension and it should NOT be treated lightly. How are there not riots in the street!?

I mean at least when Nixon (sabotaging Johnson's negotiations with Korea) and Reagan (sabotaging Carter's negotiations with Iran) breached the Logan Act, it wasn't discovered until waaaaay after (Nixon after receiving his pardon, and Reagan after his death). Here we have a situation that was made public as it happened. It's ****ing treason.

 

[Taarna]

hippie_hunter bin Laden wasn't hopeless but he took advantage of those who felt hopeless.

Wrong. He used radical islam ideology to attract his followers and not all of them were hopeless.

You're twisting words. Somehow, this idea of how Israel has no right to be an oppressor on the Palestinian people is twisted into Israel has no right to defend itself by the people who drink the Israel Kool-Aid. Even though I will criticize the way Israel was created, Israel had the right to defend itself when its Arab neighbors invaded it the moment they declared independence. Israel had the right to defend itself during the various other wars that the Arab powers instigated. And I am not calling for Israel to disarm because only a naive idiot would think that Israel would be safe if it didn't have it's powerful military and nuclear deterrent.

There is a difference between defending yourself from attack, and being an oppressor. Israel has over one million of Arab citizens and treats then very well. I think you're confused with how an attacking group is treated while they are at war with another nation. Stop the attacks. Get new leadership, then things can change for the better.

But when Israel does things like their actions in Gaza last year, that is not Israel defending itself, that's Israel making sure that there can be no viable Palestinian Arab state. When Israel is doing things like annexing Palestinian lands, building settlements, and instituting a de-facto Apartheid state, somehow Israel has the "right to defend itself" but the Palestinian Arabs are expected to just take it up the ass.

Complete BS. If Gaza fires 1,000's of rockets at citizens, it's war. Do you understand war? Israel defanged Hamas for now and played by the rules of War. Hamas used hospitals, human shields and temples for bases did not.

And considering how completely ineffective Hamas attacks have been, I'd hardly call it a problem for Israel. Hamas' attacks are nothing but a slightly annoying mosquito to Israel.

Israel had hundreds killed and wounded. The point of the thread is what if Iran gets nuclear weapons. Iran funds terrorism. Connect the dots, and you'll see Hamas will likely use whatever Iran gives them. Until then it seems odd that you are defending an attacking group that does not play by the rules of war. The group you pity burns our flag, wants us dead, and hates the USA...

 

[kissmecomix]

there has been killing in the name of God, whether Christian, Jewish, all you have to do is read the Bible. The reasoning is nothing new either. What is new is that you now have zealots, (regardless of religious affiliation) saying and wanting to kill for what they believe is morally and religiously right. Neither side wants peace, (if they did they would've achieved it by now). If you really want peace it is very simple.

1) Withdraw monetary and political support from Israel, but give them all the weapons they need to wage war

2) let Iran and Israel go at it (allowing those from both sides who want no part to leave)

3) US ignores OPEC resumes high fracking output reduce the price of oil below 30.00 this'll put pressure on OPEC deal with Iran's ambitions (as long as it doesn't affect their pockets, most of the Arab group don't care to get involved.)

by the end of 2020 each side should be too battered and broke to wage war and then the world will force both sides to hammer out something because too many people will lose out on money, notice I didn't say lives. It all about the money.

 

[DeadPresident]

Clearly someone who goes to a Superhero forum to debate politics can see that the gif wasn't meant to be an arguing tool.

Sure. Good backpedalling.

Human beings have emotions. What he essentially accused me of doing was the equivalent of telling a Jew he was a supporter of Hitler.

That's how you choose to read it.

It would be nice if you could formulate a proper rebuttal without succumbing to Ad Hominem. That's now two debate fallacies vs an onslaught of legitimate points by myself and hippie.

Legitimate points? Don't try and lump yourself in with hippie so you can try and associate your arguments with ones that are legitimate and not emotionally charged and knee jerk comments.

No, because for some odd reason, people don't assume Israel is bad, even in the wake of oppression - it's always Netanyahu and his party. Also Israel commands international power and has the backing of the United States, and has also not been under fire officially, while Iran has been. Israel also hasn't had three aided coups by western influence. Not to mention the fact that anti-semitism in mass-scale western societies has not been a relevant issue since the 70s, whereas Islamophobia and racism/fear mongering towards people of the Middle East (specifically Iran) has been on the rise since the 1970s.

I absolutely love this post, because I can show you why you're doing precisely what you're accusing other people of.

"People don't assume Israel is bad" - you're implying that they actually are but nobody can see this "truth" you're revealing. Also, another incidence of this all-encompassing "Israel", like it's the entire country's vested interest to subjugate the inhabitants of the Gaza Strip, not a selected governing contingent. I'm assuming all of America is responsible for the military engagements in the Middle East after 9/11, right? Not the Republicans or George Bush, no, America did it.

You just said "Anti-semitism hasn't been a relevant issue since the 70's". We can stop right there, because you're actively undermining the relevance of somebody else's plight while trying to elevate the one you're championing and you don't see anything wrong with it. This discussion is pointless, you can't remove yourself from the situation. Continue to disregard somebody else's wellbeing while asking people to care about yours, let me know how it works out. Until then I see no reason to continue, you want absolution for Iran and condemnation for Israel without deconstructing the situation.

 

[herakles]

Muslims in Europe are treated far, far worse than blacks in America. While there are a lot of problems for blacks in America, many issues that whites are blind to, at least they still feel like Americans. Many nations in Europe work to make their minorities feel like outsiders who don't even belong.

Are you talking about now or in history.

Blacks in American as recently as 1965 could NOT vote, marry a white Asian or Hispanic person. They also could not eat in the same resturants as a white person could.

 

[Asteroid-Man]

Sure. Good backpedalling.

Fault in inference, not implication.

That's how you choose to read it.

Sure but Khomeini's hatred and witchhunt for the Baha'is (as well as the continuation of this by the Islamic Republic's continued persecution against the Baha'os) has been likened to that of Nazi Germany against the Jews. I'm sure you can understand why this is touchy.

Legitimate points? Don't try and lump yourself in with hippie so you can try and associate your arguments with ones that are legitimate and not emotionally charged and knee jerk comments.

I gave you a list of hard facts which you refused to acknowledge and then went "pfft... stop being so emotional". FACT: You using debate fallacy here (Ad Hominem). Here it is again for your convenience:

1 - Iran does not have the bomb, nor is it developing an a-bomb. Speculation beyond this is Slippery Slope fallacy. You're saying "Because they have a nuclear program, they'll have a bomb" <- first example of fallacy

Then you assume "They have the bomb, they'll use the bomb" <- second example of fallacy. FACT: You're using debate fallacies (slippery slope) - twice over, at that.

Source


2. Local tensions in Iran are too high for this (atomic strike on Israel or any nation) to become a reality. BUT if Iran is attacked FIRST (FACT: pre-emptive measures suggested by Netanyahu.) the Iranian peoples' drive for preservation of culture and heritage against outside tampering outweighs their hatred for their Government. FACT: Proven time and time again, from the initial ruling over Parsa by the Medes, to the conquering of Persia by Alexandre, to the Arab invasion and Caliphate colonial control over Persia/Iran, to the Coup orchestrated by the UK, to USA support of the Shah and France support of the Ayatollah in 78/79, to the Iran/Iraq war that prevented Iran from overthrowing their dictator.
Here's just one in a list of hundreds of accounts of how internal conflict in Iran/Persia was put aside due to their innate obligation to defend their motherland.

3. Netanyahu's words are often falling on deaf ears because people know that FACT: a) the manifesto of his politcal party wants an end to Palestine b) he has a "preemptive strike" mentality and uses fear to back it up (see second point for outcome of this)

Source for it's disdain for Palestine


4. FACT: The Islamic Regime's hatred of Israel is purely political, as a result of Israel's position during the October Surprise and the Iran/Contra Affair. (Compliments of Reagan/Bush).

There is an onslaught of books you can read about the October Surprise and the Iran/Contra Affair (first of which being an example of Reagan's breach of the Logan Act).

I absolutely love this post, because I can show you why you're doing precisely what you're accusing other people of.

"People don't assume Israel is bad" - you're implying that they actually are but nobody can see this "truth" you're revealing.

You're selectively reading what I wrote and ignoring the context so that you can infer whatever the **** you want. No, I'm not implying that Israel is bad. I don't align myself for or against any political groups. I'm saying that people don't assume Israel is bad in contrast to how that is the prevailing opinion of Iran.

This is all shluck based on your inference and attempt at Ad Hominem, ONCE AGAIN

Also, another incidence of this all-encompassing "Israel", like it's the entire country's vested interest to subjugate the inhabitants of the Gaza Strip, not a selected governing contingent. I'm assuming all of America is responsible for the military engagements in the Middle East after 9/11, right? Not the Republicans or George Bush, no, America did it.

No, what I'm saying has nothing to do with any of this.

You just said "Anti-semitism hasn't been a relevant issue since the 70's". We can stop right there,

Let's stop right there indeed, because you just took out a chunk of what I said: "in mass-scale [in] western societies". I'm talking about the prevalent societal impression of Jews/Israelis vs those of Muslims/Iranians. Western countries being USA, Canada, England, France, Germany...

because you're actively undermining the relevance of somebody else's plight while trying to elevate the one you're championing and you don't see anything wrong with it.

No I'm not, again fault in your inference and yet ANOTHER example of Ad Hominem. I'm providing the context here of why it's not a double standard. I'm not just willy-nilly saying this to say "we need to condemn Israel!!!". I said, we need to remember that Iranian people are not the bad guys here, thus do not deserve punishment. Out of no where, you said that people wouldn't say that about Israel. Why? It seems as an attempt to bait me.

You can attempt to twist my words all you want but I'm not saying that the plight of any one group of people is above that of another. Justice and Universal Truths are true for people of all ethnicities. If I say the people of Iran are innocent vs the actions of their Government OBVIOUSLY that holds just as true for people of any country.

This discussion is pointless, you can't remove yourself from the situation. Continue to disregard somebody else's wellbeing while asking people to care about yours, let me know how it works out.

I didn't do that at all. I was talking about the topic at hand, you said
"what about Israel!?!?!?!" and I said,
"well, the situation is a bit different because people wouldn't necessarily have the same reaction to begin with" to which you said
"Pffft... you're elevating this plight over Israel's"

I'm just keeping on topic.

Until then I see no reason to continue, you want absolution for Iran and condemnation for Israel without deconstructing the situation.

Not at all. I said I want a Iran to undergo a Revolution brought on by its own people. I didn't say anything about what I wanted for Isreal. I'm condemning the call for more bloodshed regardless of who makes it, and if that includes Netanyahu, then yeah he needs to ****. It's not a commentary on Israel, it's a commentary on ONE member of the Israeli Government.



PS - You called it a double standard, only take a look how I just made the clear distinction between Israel and Netanyahu.

 

[Asteroid-Man]

there has been killing in the name of God, whether Christian, Jewish, all you have to do is read the Bible. The reasoning is nothing new either. What is new is that you now have zealots, (regardless of religious affiliation) saying and wanting to kill for what they believe is morally and religiously right. Neither side wants peace, (if they did they would've achieved it by now). If you really want peace it is very simple.

1) Withdraw monetary and political support from Israel, but give them all the weapons they need to wage war

2) let Iran and Israel go at it (allowing those from both sides who want no part to leave)

3) US ignores OPEC resumes high fracking output reduce the price of oil below 30.00 this'll put pressure on OPEC deal with Iran's ambitions (as long as it doesn't affect their pockets, most of the Arab group don't care to get involved.)

by the end of 2020 each side should be too battered and broke to wage war and then the world will force both sides to hammer out something because too many people will lose out on money, notice I didn't say lives. It all about the money.

Money and law are man-made. The lives of innocent people (Iranian and Israeli alike) are universal rights.

 

[Asteroid-Man]

Are you talking about now or in history.

Blacks in American as recently as 1965 could NOT vote, marry a white Asian or Hispanic person. They also could not eat in the same resturants as a white person could.

"are treated" makes me think hippie meant currently.

 

[Thundercrack85]

I don't like the way "Europe" is spoken of like a monolithic entity. I mean, each country is quite different in this regard. Take for instance Germany, France, and Greece.

Muslims in Germany for example, have never been treated the way blacks have in America. Even in Nazi times, there was no notable discrimination against Muslims, who were a tiny minority in Germany.

Hitler and Himmler were admirers of Islam. Muslims were encouraged to join the Waffen-SS, and the Third Reich enjoyed good relations with the Muslim world. Muslim leaders regularly visited Nazi Germany until the very end of the war. Much has been said about Palestine's leader and his support for the Holocaust.

 

[Thundercrack85]

Making your font red doesn't make you any more convincing.

 

[kissmecomix]

Money and law are man-made. The lives of innocent people (Iranian and Israeli alike) are universal rights.

Law is not man made but of God, The 10 commandments and following statutes thereof, those are the basis for the conservative morality and the basis for all the current disputes about homosexuality, abortion, etc. and of course the laws that govern us every day. I agree you with that man's inability to form any kind of consensus is what has led to all the misery and perversion we see now.

Yet is one really reads, without any assumption or interpretation and took the words a face value, it sums up that there will be people who do for and against said law.

 

[SV Fan]

Law is not man made but of God, The 10 commandments.....

It's sort of ridiculous to make the 10 commandments the law of the land, sure there is some easy to get ideas but do we really need rules about not working on Saturdays because in that case we have a country full of sinners. I also think it's rather egotistical that god gives us 10 rules and the first 4 are all about himself, like couldn't he come up with seperate rules about god worship and then come up with 4 better commandments to live life by?

In all reality though you look at the other 6 actual rules(and not the kiss my butt ones) only 2 of them are actual crimes(murder and stealing) so it's a basic case we go through 10 rules and only 2 have any meaning, that's a pretty bad rate of usefulness.

Then there is the 10th commandment not to covet other people's things. Basically you now want to create though crimes? What type of guy creates people who have these kind of feelings(yet don't act on them) but wants to punish them for it, seems like a real sadist. In all reality I have no problem people coveting things of mine, as long as they don't act on it all is good, in which case stealing and adultery covers that rule.

I guess at the end of the day rules of what is and isn't good in how we act in our daily lives should not be written in point form on a tablet and probably should be given more thought and explanation.

those are the basis for the conservative morality and the basis for all the current disputes about homosexuality, abortion, etc.

Ummmm I don't see anything in the 10 commandments that says abortion or gay marriage is bad.

 

[Asteroid-Man]

Law is not man made but of God, The 10 commandments and following statutes thereof, those are the basis for the conservative morality and the basis for all the current disputes about homosexuality, abortion, etc. and of course the laws that govern us every day. I agree you with that man's inability to form any kind of consensus is what has led to all the misery and perversion we see now.

Yet is one really reads, without any assumption or interpretation and took the words a face value, it sums up that there will be people who do for and against said law.

Let's assume what your saying is true, the Ten Commandments say NOTHING about money. In fact "Thou Shall Not Kill" alone contradicts everything in your previous post as does "Thou Shall Not Lie"

 

[Victarion]

So that letter situation with the Republicans. Hilarious, right?

 

[Thundercrack85]

Law is not man made but of God, The 10 commandments and following statutes thereof, those are the basis for the conservative morality and the basis for all the current disputes about homosexuality, abortion, etc. and of course the laws that govern us every day. I agree you with that man's inability to form any kind of consensus is what has led to all the misery and perversion we see now.

Yet is one really reads, without any assumption or interpretation and took the words a face value, it sums up that there will be people who do for and against said law.

If laws were made by God, all peoples would have the same laws.

Hell, most laws aren't even based off of religious ones, they're just common sense. Do you really think the Israelis thought murder, theft, and coveting things were a-okay until Moses came down with the tablets?

 

[Thundercrack85]

So that letter situation with the Republicans. Hilarious, right?

I think it just shows how extreme the Republican party has gotten. It's subversion at best, outright treason at worst.

 

[The Question]

1: Iran is not going to get nuclear weapons, at least not any time soon. The Ayatollah, AKA the supreme commander of the Iranian military and the guy who gets to make that decision, is one of the biggest proponents of nuclear disarmament in the world, as was his predecessor and as will his successor likely be.

2: If Iran gets nukes, probably nothing will happen. Iran has no incentive to launch a nuclear strike against Israel or anyone else. Regardless of how awful their regime is, they are well aware that a nuclear strike against Israel would result in a nuclear counter strike from Israel, and you can't oppress your populace and take all of their money if you and most of them are dead.

I mean, there's a reason that, despite all of their rhetoric, the Iranian government has never actually launched a military attack against Israel. They know that such a war would be extremely costly and would gain them very little, and would ultimately prove unpopular with their constituency.

Remember, that Iran is a democracy of sorts, with an electoral system and governmental structure similar in many ways to the United States. The Iranian government knows that war of any kind with Israel is not a popular notion with the Iranian citizenry, which makes the government gun shy about it for the very simple issue of possibly losing elections.

 

[Thundercrack85]

That first one made me laugh.

 

[The Question]

That first one made me laugh.

Facts are hilarious, I guess.

 

[Thundercrack85]

If you think what the Ayatollah says are facts.

It's not like he's a certified pathological liar or anything.

 

[The Question]

If you think what the Ayatollah says are facts.

When what he says is backed up by his actions, then yeah. He has blocked attempts within his government to weaponize nuclear power. Iran would have had nuclear weapons decades ago otherwise.

It's not like he's a certified pathological liar or anything.

Well, he's not. He has never been certified by a psychiatrist as a pathological liar.

 

[hippie_hunter]

Yeah, I really wouldn't take what the Ayatollah of Iran says as pure truth.

 

[The Question]

Yeah, I really wouldn't take what the Ayatollah of Iran says as pure truth.

Except, in this case, he has said something and then lived up to what he has said through his actions.

 

[Thundercrack85]

It's a farce. They're enriching uranium to have nuclear breakout capabilities.