Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Loud Whispers]

"Only the west can have nukes." "What about Russia, China and all that?" "Uhh... we couldn't stop them so we've got to live with it."

"Only Russia, France, the UK, China and the USA are allowed nukes."
"What about India, Pakistan and North Korea?"
"Uhh... Well we can't stop them so we've got to live with it. That's kinda the problem with trying to disarm them when the country in question holds the trigger."

as my parents said: they can't really say 'you can't have nukes!' because the countries saying that have nukes.

Oh sure, everyone should get WMD's then!

Seriously.

Wot.

[kaijyuu]

We could try a global disarmamenBWAHAHAHAHA

[Gantolandon]

Revolutions need a spark. As long as people don't feel that the situation is desperate enough most of them will not try to change it. Societal-wide procrastination, if you will. Political reform is not an option in a theocratic system like Iran's. Revolution, or at least the threat of it, is the most effective path to change.

So yes, us putting them in a bad place is for their own good. This way they'll have the motivation to reach out and actually take what they want and need. And at the end of the day it'll be the Iranians controlling their own future. Not the Iranian clergy and not the US government, but the people of Iran.

Perhaps you are familiar with the concept of barrier troops. During the WW2, Soviets had serious problems with desertion. Their response was to place soldiers behind regular troops, who would just shoot the ones who would not suicide-rush the Nazis. For their own good, of course. Sanctions work in a similar way, but instead of shooting, the deserters would just be starved out. I guess we really live in more civilized times.

I suppose this would also be a great way to deal with abusive spouses - just forbid anyone to employ their family or sell them anything, until they club him to death.

We aren't overthrowing anyone this time. The Iranians will be, as the Libyans and Tunisians have done just recently. That's why this is a good thing. The Iranians will have the chance to self-determinate again, instead of being oppressed by a CIA-installed dictator or a religious-fanatic mob installed dictator.

It's not self-determination. They have a simple choice - overthrow their government and choose the one that US will accept, or live in poverty and possibly starve.

[Reelya]

Well, as for the idea that if Iran had nukes they suddenly let them fly in every direction, i'm calling BS on that idea.

Iran's revolution was in 1979. They have a metric f-ton of conventional arms. So if they're trigger-happy they've had plenty of time to invade their neighboring countries.

Let's count the number of invasions Iran has already launched ...

...

...

...

Ok, they haven't done one SINGLE invasion. Why is that? Probably because they know they'll get beaten. e,g, they're NOT suicidal. So, what does that say about them hypothetically gaining nukes? I can't see them suddenly switching on the "suicidal" gene because they got a nuke.

It's not self-determination. They have a simple choice - overthrow their government and choose the one that US will accept, or live in poverty and possibly starve.

Have you got any case-studies of sanctions working?

Perhaps they do need a government America will accept, like one that does torture as a sort of pizza-delivery service. Maybe Iran should've offered to torture people America doesn't like years ago, all this trouble could have been avoided.

[Loud Whispers]

I think they were making the point it's hypocritical. I mean, if they had no nukes, then yes, it'd be fine to go and tell them not to have nukes, but they do have them, sooooo...

Being hypocritical is a moot point when the country in question is begging to have a WEAPON OF MASS DESTRUCTION.

The "reason" we still have nukes, is because WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION have serious persuasion power. As well as genocidal power.
MAD and all that. Because obviously giving nukes to people who clearly identify themselves not as one humanity - but one person from one nationality, isn't asking for trouble.

Yeaaaaah, no. Any country that carries nukes has the responsibility to never use them AND make sure no one else freaking makes more. Because they are weapons meant to cause mass destruction. This planet doesn't like destruction.

:<

We could try a global disarmamenBWAHAHAHAHA

Give it a few ten thousand years or so, it might be possible.

[Reelya]

Who's "begging"? Everything Iran has done so far is LEGAL within the Nonproliferation treaty. And they outright deny they want a nuke.

Even the Pentagon reports don't claim they have a weapons program.

Basically, America is just making up laws as they go along, and then only applying them to one country.

[Loud Whispers]

Who's "begging"?

Just personal word choice. Used for stylistic, not literal purposes. Woo.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

Perhaps you are familiar with the concept of barrier troops. During the WW2, Soviets had serious problems with desertion. Their response was to place soldiers behind regular troops, who would just shoot the ones who would not suicide-rush the Nazis. For their own good, of course. Sanctions work in a similar way, but instead of shooting, the deserters would just be starved out. I guess we really live in more civilized times.

I suppose this would also be a great way to deal with abusive spouses - just forbid anyone to employ their family or sell them anything, until they club him to death.

Your analogies are not valid.

Sanctions are how countries express substantial disapproval with one another, barrier troops just shot deserters. The only thing these two concepts have in common is that they involve persuasion, which can apply to almost any interaction between people.

It's not self-determination. They have a simple choice - overthrow their government and choose the one that US will accept, or live in poverty and possibly starve.

That's just ridiculous. What, do you think what's going on now is any kind of self-determination, with the electoral fraud and the theocracy above it? The public executions? The mandatory veiling laws?

You seem to be advocating that we just let that keep happening without objection. Well, I can't abide by that. And if the Iranians need to be pushed, then they need to be pushed, but in the end the choice of the new government is their own. The fact that the best government for the people is also one that the US would probably approve of does not invalidate that.

We could try a global disarmamenBWAHAHAHAHA

It's not as crazy as you think. There are less nukes ready to launch right now than at any point since the mid-50's or so. South Africa and the post-Soviet states (sans Russia) gave up their nukes. Most of China's aren't even assembled. There are still enough left to destroy the world, but we're making progress.

Israel, North Korea, Pakistan, India, and potentially Iran are the hotspots of the Nuclear Club right now. Everyone else is very unlikely to deploy at this point even if they retain their nukes.

Who's "begging"? Everything Iran has done so far is LEGAL within the Nonproliferation treaty. And they outright deny they want a nuke.

Israel also denies they have nukes, but we all know how true that is.

Even the Pentagon reports don't claim they have a weapons program.

I hope they're right, then, because Iran definitely has motive for getting nukes.

[Levi]

You seem to be advocating that we just let that keep happening without objection. Well, I can't abide by that. And if the Iranians need to be pushed, then they need to be pushed, but in the end the choice of the new government is their own. The fact that the best government for the people is also one that the US would probably approve of does not invalidate that.

I honestly don't see how starving a people and decreasing stability is going to lead to a better government.  Its just going to make them desperate. 

And then when they DO attack someone, people will use it for justification of starving them in the first place.  "Look at those bad bad Iranians, attacking their neighbors."

I really do wish US would just mind its own business.  If they want to do something about making countries better, they'd be better off working with the UN (or something new) or something.

[Neonivek]

I honestly don't see how starving a people and decreasing stability is going to lead to a better government

It is what I call the "We are doing something" ploy.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

I honestly don't see how starving a people and decreasing stability is going to lead to a better government.  Its just going to make them desperate.

By demonstrating the failures of the current government. And it isn't starving them so much as it is pressuring them, Iran's economy is bad because of the sanctions, not collapsed entirely.

It isn't like there isn't an existent reform movement in Iran, but it doesn't have enough power to deal with the theocracy because the theocracy holds all the power. By convincing people to join the reformists indirectly we will empower change.

It also isn't like there has to be a civil war for this to go down. Tunisia changed peacefully.

[Levi]

I honestly don't see how starving a people and decreasing stability is going to lead to a better government.  Its just going to make them desperate.

By demonstrating the failures of the current government. And it isn't starving them so much as it is pressuring them, Iran's economy is bad because of the sanctions, not collapsed entirely.

It isn't like there isn't an existent reform movement in Iran, but it doesn't have enough power to deal with the theocracy because the theocracy holds all the power. By convincing people to join the reformists indirectly we will empower change.

It also isn't like there has to be a civil war for this to go down. Tunisia changed peacefully.

No, I can't believe that.  All you are doing is punishing the Iranian people for their dumb-ass government.  If you punish the people, they are going to just hate you more and become more extremist.

[mainiac]

It's not even convincing people to join the reform.  The reform movement already has support of a majority of the population and won the elections.  It's just weakening government control by drying up their money.

No, I can't believe that.  All you are doing is punishing the Iranian people for their dumb-ass government.  If you punish the people, they are going to just hate you more and become more extremist.

You may think this but the evidence points towards the sanctions are working.

[Levi]

You may think this but the evidence points towards the sanctions are working.

I'd love to see this evidence.  Show me how the Iran is becoming a better place because of sanctions.  And even if it is what right does the US specifically have to meddle in everyone's affairs with no consequences?

[Neonivek]

You may think this but the evidence points towards the sanctions are working.

I'd love to see this evidence.  Show me how the Iran is becoming a better place because of sanctions.

Well didn't you walk outside today and see the birds singing and a rainbow overhead?