TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Political Discussion / Debate
-- The New Yorker cover of Obama
Pages (6): « 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 »

quote:

Originally posted by Krypton The Iranians still considered the Taliban an enemy, and were actively supporting the Northern Alliance. Iran also considered Saddam Hussein's Iraq also to be an enemy. Now that their enemy is no longer Sunni Muslim regimes, but Zionist-American interests, it is obvious Iran is stronger than it was in 2000. Not only stronger, but more defiant.

you are wrongly, and again, myopicly, under the impression that some sort of multi-polarity existed between the then very weak powers of the fledgling government of the Taliban and the completely contained and demoralized government of Saddam Hussein. under those circumstances there is absolutely no reason to believe, that with the International focus on Saddam during that time, that Iran couldn't have and indeed became "stronger" and more organized in their efforts of hegemony throughout the region and nuclear ambition.

what i'm saying is that you are missing the other powers in your balance of powers equation. the real powers with regard to opposing Iran. Israel and the United States and now, the Secuirty Council. forget who is on their "borders"

quote:

Iran supports by far the largest population of Jews of any Muslim country. Iran clearly is not against Jews, but against Zionism.

you're being very generous with the word "support" here. but i agree that Zionism is more of a grief to Iran than it is just being Jewish. remebmer, Iran has been complicit in the murder of Jews all over the world not just in the Holy Land

quote:

Originally posted by Krypton Iran is open to negotiation and cooperation. But on a level playing field. They will not bow down to US pressure for what they perceive as their right under the NPT to develop peaceful nuclear programs. And there is not, as of yet, any evidence whatsoever for the existance of a nuclear weapons program. Here are but a few attempts by Iran to negotiate...

you fail to get it. the only "playing field" Iran is allowed to play on is within the constraints of the NPT, just like everybody else who are signitories of it.

instead of placing yourself in the position of Iran's advocate for illegally enriching Uranium, how about you adhere to your own sentiment for International Law? sorry but the world does not revolve around your irrational hatred for Chimpy McBushitler.

quote:

1. The IAEA reported that Iran had undertaken to submit the required information for agency verification and "to implement a policy of co-operation and full transparency" as corrective actions. CLICK

sorry thats 2003. Iran has been reported twice to the Security Council by the IAEA since then. once in 2005 when they breached their own agreement on enriching uranuim and again in 2006 when they themselves announced they had mastered the technique.

quote:

2. The Iranian government has repeatedly made compromise offers to place strict limits on its nuclear program beyond what the Non-Proliferation Treaty and the Additional Protocol legally require of Iran, in order to ensure that the program cannot be secretly diverted to the manufacture of weapons.

youre talking about the Paris Agreement to which they've already violated.

quote:

Originally posted by Q5echo you are wrongly, and again, myopicly, under the impression that some sort of multi-polarity existed between the then very weak powers of the fledgling government of the Taliban and the completely contained and demoralized government of Saddam Hussein. under those circumstances there is absolutely no reason to believe, that with the International focus on Saddam during that time, that Iran couldn't have and indeed became "stronger" and more organized in their efforts of hegemony throughout the region and nuclear ambition. what i'm saying is that you are missing the other powers in your balance of powers equation. the real powers with regard to opposing Iran. Israel and the United States and now, the Secuirty Council. forget who is on their "borders"

Well, I disagree. And I'll leave it at that.

quote:

you're being very generous with the word "support" here. but i agree that Zionism is more of a grief to Iran than it is just being Jewish. remebmer, Iran has been complicit in the murder of Jews all over the world not just in the Holy Land

The point is, Iran is not hell bent on carrying out the next halocaust, as McCain likes to put it.

quote:

you fail to get it. the only "playing field" Iran is allowed to play on is within the constraints of the NPT, just like everybody else who are signitories of it.

Rather I fail to agree with you. I very much get it. I agree Iran should abide by its international obligations.

quote:

instead of placing yourself in the position of Iran's advocate for illegally enriching Uranium, how about you adhere to your own sentiment for International Law? sorry but the world does not revolve around your irrational hatred for Chimpy McBushitler.

Now I'm Iran's advocate? I want to prevent another Iraq War! Which would mean I have an obligation to dispell what I view to be false or misleading information and points of view. It is not illegal to enrich uranium. What is illegal is diverting enriched uranium for military uses. I completely adhere to my "sentiment", or rather, respect for international law. I would like you provide any "evidence" of Iran's secret nuclear weapons program, of which the NIE declared halted in 2003. The IAEA has also catagorically stated there is no evidence whatsoever of Iran diverting uranium for military purposes. Brazil and Argentina have also began enriching uranium. Where are the Bush Administration's onjections there? Oh thats right, they are not our "enemies".

And my irrational "hatred" of Mr. Bush? The president violated international law. He's no better than any other war criminal. Because of his actions, hundreds of thousands are dead, hundreds of thousands more wounded, and millions of people displaced, in a war that is unjustifiable under any commonly accept theories of Just War or international law. So I would hardly call my extreme dislike of him irrational, but rather your own irrational submission to authority, even when they clearly hold a disregard for the constitution and international law, are more dangerous than anything Iran is capable of.

quote:

sorry thats 2003. Iran has been reported twice to the Security Council by the IAEA since then. once in 2005 when they breached their own agreement on enriching uranuim and again in 2006 when they themselves announced they had mastered the technique.

Iran has a right to enrich uranium, even under the NPT. The Security Council, under heavy American influence, can try all it wants to force Iran to give up its right. It catagorically will not. What both sides should be doing is negotiating. If Kim Jong (mentally) Il can be brought to the table, the Iranians sure are a better candidate. But I really don't expect that to happen with a hardline authoritarian executive administration at the helm.

quote:

youre talking about the Paris Agreement to which they've already violated.

The Paris Agreement? Can we be more specific?

quote:

Originally posted by Krypton Which would mean I have an obligation to dispell what I view to be false or misleading information and points of view. It is not illegal to enrich uranium. What is illegal is diverting enriched uranium for military uses.

two things. first, while you may feel obligated to show us the way through misleading information and points of view you must first be able to distinguish what is misleading and what is fact. incidentally, this is where i feel obligated.

what is illegal is about what Iran is doing is their bypassing the safeguards of imposed by the IAEA to make it difficult to develop the dual use technology they have legally in order to make weapons. IOW yes, Iran is free to enrich Uranium but ONLY under these safeguards to which they've agreed numerous times to do for the last two decades.

failing to do so under these safeguards constitutes a violation of the NPT. their incessant determination to violate subsequent agreements and those safeguards in particular only exacerbate the perception you so easily mock and dismiss out of nothing but your hatred for the Administration's foriegn policy. hence, irrational.

quote:

I would like you provide any "evidence" of Iran's secret nuclear weapons program, of which the NIE declared halted in 2003. The IAEA has also catagorically stated there is no evidence whatsoever of Iran diverting uranium for military purposes.

you are wrong, again. here is the IAEA's report to the Security Council in February THIS FRIKKEN YEAR!!! >LINK< and not 2003

read page 9 para. 54.

"whatsoever" my dying ass.

quote:

And my irrational "hatred" of Mr. Bush? The president violated international law. He's no better than Saddam Hussein. So I would hardly call my extreme dislike of him irrational, but rather your own irrational submission to authority, even when they clearly hold a disregard for the constitution and international law, are more dangerous than anything Iran is capable of.

wow this is a truly mind-boggling statement right here. words escape me other than to say dude, you've lost it.


anywho...>LINK< here's what happened the day before yesterday.

quote:

U.S. nuke summit with Iran accomplishes jack; Actually, that�s not true. It achieved the very important breakthrough of them telling us to our face that they�re not going to suspend enrichment. Just in case the point about suspension being off the table was unclear, another Iranian official reiterated it to Reuters>LINK<, as did lead Iranian nuclear negotiator Saeed Jalili>LINK<, as have various other Iranian officials recently>LINK<. The west�s reply, per EU negotiator Javier Solana: Let�s give them more time. Another two weeks, specifically, in the idle hope that they�ll respond to the incentives offer they conspicuously avoided responding to earlier this month because � it called for them to suspend enrichment. Does everyone grasp the absurdity here? Iran�s behaving as though enrichment is merely one of several issues the west is interested in as part of some comprehensive detente between the two sides, in which case the impasse on this point shouldn�t prevent the negotiations from going forward. But that�s idiotic; enrichment is all we�re interested in. Any �grand bargain� that�s in the offing is wholly contingent (let�s hope) on suspension of their nuclear program. Until they decide there�s some carrot we can offer them to get them to do that, there�s literally nothing to talk about. Yet here we go again with another meeting in two weeks, which gives Iran another little breather in building a weapon and gives us � what, exactly? By way of companion reading, the left has been touting polls lately noting that Jews vastly prefer Obama to the GOP, especially on foreign policy. To which Politico replies: Not all do. Israel is quite possibly the only nation on earth right now where Maverick leads in the polls, and almost certainly the only one where he leads by anything like a 20-point margin. I wonder why. To be clear, the point here isn�t that the meeting is a failure because it failed to singlehandedly resolve the Iranian nuclear crisis. The point is that it accomplished absolutely nothing, not even a conciliatory rhetorical gesture by Iran. In the spirit of compromise, they could have simply declined comment when reporters asked them about suspending enrichment; instead they went out of their way, via three different officials, to reject the only U.S. demand, and per the blockquote they didn�t even wait until the meeting was over to do it. It�s a rhetorical middle finger.

quote:

Originally posted by Q5echo two things. first, while you may feel obligated to show us the way through misleading information and points of view you must first be able to distinguish what is misleading and what is fact. incidentally, this is where i feel obligated.

Hence the purpose of our debate now isn't it?

quote:

what is illegal is about what Iran is doing is their bypassing the safeguards of imposed by the IAEA to make it difficult to develop the dual use technology they have legally in order to make weapons. IOW yes, Iran is free to enrich Uranium but ONLY under these safeguards to which they've agreed numerous times to do for the last two decades. failing to do so under these safeguards constitutes a violation of the NPT. their incessant determination to violate subsequent agreements and those safeguards in particular only exacerbate the perception you so easily mock and dismiss out of nothing but your hatred for the Administration's foriegn policy. hence, irrational.

Iran was non-compliant with the safeguards of the NPT. How many other countries were also not compliant with the NPT? North Korea? Pakistan? India? I also believe that if you want Iran to cooperate fully, which they have offered on numerous occasions to do, the proper path is negotiation on equal terms. Nothing more (military threats) and nothing less (willful ignorance).

The perception I "easily" mock is one in which preemptive warfare is used as foreign policy. Threatening Iran hasn't worked, will not work, and only enhances the power of the regime you so dearly want deposed. You do realize that America/Israeli sabre-rattling only hardens Iranian resolve to resist?

quote:

you are wrong, again. here is the IAEA's report to the Security Council in February THIS FRIKKEN YEAR!!! >LINK< and not 2003 read page 9 para. 54. "whatsoever" my dying ass.

The NIE report did not come out in 2003. It came out less than a year ago, and said the program was HALTED IN 2003. Page 9, paragraph 54 states that the IAEA has questions about Iran's development of weapons capable of delivering a nuclear warhead. Notice how it also says, "However, it should be noted that the Agency has not detected the use of nuclear material in connection with the alleged studies, nor does it have credible information in this regard." Hardliners seem to be adept at jumping to conclusions before any concrete evidence is presented. Sorry, but Page 9, paragraph 54 is not evidence of a clandestine nuclear weapons program.

quote:

wow this is a truly mind-boggling statement right here. words escape me other than to say dude, you've lost it.

You quoted me before my edit. I wouldn't say he is no better than Saddam Hussein, but I would say he no better than any other war criminal. I would hardly call this assessment irrational or that I've "lost it". The consensus is clearly against you and the other <30%'ers. My editted statement, with very valid reasons....

"And my irrational "hatred" of Mr. Bush? The president violated international law. He's no better than any other war criminal. Because of his actions, hundreds of thousands are dead, hundreds of thousands more wounded, and millions of people displaced, in a war that is unjustifiable under any commonly accept theories of Just War or international law. So I would hardly call my extreme dislike of him irrational, but rather your own irrational submission to authority, even when they clearly hold a disregard for the constitution and international law, are more dangerous than anything Iran is capable of."

quote:

anywho...>LINK< here's what happened the day before yesterday.

"Recent Iranian statements suggest Tehran is looking to improve ties with the United States, with officials speaking positively of deliberations by the U.S. administration to open an interests section � an informal diplomatic presence � in Tehran after closing its embassy decades ago."

I think it's better to sensibly dialogue with Iran, instead of waving the fists in their faces.

quote:

Originally posted by The17sss whoever made that quote you posted is projecting his feelings onto the soldiers who die. If he was on the battlefield, that's how he would handle it... like a sniveling litte bitch, crying for mommy. But he wouldn't be on the battlefield. I'm sure death comes pretty instantaneous for most, without time for them to regress to the infantile state this hack suggests they do. When it isn't instantaneous, I would bet more of them die like a man.

You bet ey? So you're willing to speak for those dead and say they died for a just cause but then not willing to die for it yourself?

quote:

Originally posted by Q5echo what's democracy worth? are you really asking that question? what's it worth is just like most things, whatever you're willing to pay for it. no greater Democracies have ever been born than from a barrel of a gun. remember, this isn't the first time we've done this. touching appeal to sympathy, and is probably absolutely true of any soldier who has fought and died at any time for anything for any country or ideal, but ask yourself this. if the way of your life, or more importantly, the way of your children's life isn't worth dying for then what the hell is?

My way of life is the same now as it was before we decided to invade Iraq. Iraqis are living noticeably worse off than before. And why is Iraq more worthy of forced regime change than other tyrannic governments? What about the North Koreans?

quote:

Originally posted by Clovis You bet ey? So you're willing to speak for those dead and say they died for a just cause but then not willing to die for it yourself?

If I'm not willing to die for that specific cause, that doesn't make it unjust. And exercising my right to not join the military and go to Iraq doesn't make me a hypocrite. I can't represent every cause I believe in... where would I find the time?

So if my speaking for those who died carries no weight, then why should that other person's quote from your post carry any either? He can speak for them in a way that you like to agree with, but I can't... because it doesn't fit your narrative.

quote:

Originally posted by The17sss If I'm not willing to die for that specific cause, that doesn't make it unjust. And exercising my right to not join the military and go to Iraq doesn't make me a hypocrite. I can't represent every cause I believe in... where would I find the time?

So basically, you won't put YOUR life on the line for it, but you think sending other people to do it is ok. The folks who died over there found the time for it. Many of them signed up to pay for college...I'll bet they were more than happy to go to Iraq and die in the name of spreading democracy. If you wouldn't seriously consider trading your life for it then you are a hypocrite, plain and simple.

Think about it. What would be going through your mind the moment before life escapes you somewhere in Iraq after your hummer got hit by an IED.

quote:

Originally posted by Clovis So basically, you won't put YOUR life on the line for it, but you think sending other people to do it is ok. The folks who died over there found the time for it. Many of them signed up to pay for college...I'll bet they were more than happy to go to Iraq and die in the name of spreading democracy. If you wouldn't seriously consider trading your life for it then you are a hypocrite, plain and simple. Think about it. What would be going through your mind the moment before life escapes you somewhere in Iraq after your hummer got hit by an IED.

All hail to Clovis, the judge, jury, and executioner of who is a hypocrite and why. Enough already with your moral high ground bullshit. One can only be right to say the Iraq war was justified if he or she would die for that cause themselves? You can shove that sanctimonious garbage up your ass. First of all, I said I won't know until some time passes if going into Iraq was justified... not until hindsight, however short or long, plays its part. If it does become a sustainable democracy on its own and are our allies in that region, then yes I'll agree it was justified. Secondly, they know what they are signing up for as part of the whole package. Nobody at the recruitment office says, "You know, it's peace time... if war rolls around, don't sweat it." It's a risk they consciously sign up for. I also believe in freedom of choice for abortion (yes, even as a republican)... does that mean I should be willing to have a wife or a daughter have an abortion to justify my belief?

quote:

Originally posted by The17sss One can only be right to say the Iraq war was justified if he or she would die for that cause themselves?

I'd say that actually sounds like a pretty good benchmark when it's a war we're talking about. Think about it... WWII, justified. Vietnam? Eh... Iraq? Would you really put your life on the line for that cause, whatever it might actually be?

quote:

not until hindsight, however short or long, plays its part.

So no action can be considered wrong until history judges it as such? Well hell, that sounds like a presidential carte blanche if I've ever heard one.

quote:

If it does become a sustainable democracy on its own and are our allies in that region, then yes I'll agree it was justified.

I'll only point out two things here, though an entire essay could be written on the absurdity of that comment. First, there is absolutely no evidence to suggest that Iraq is on a path to either one of those goals. And second, shouldn't we ask ourselves whether a conflict is justified before we undertake it rather than merely when reflecting about its outcome? Hindsight is always 20-20 -- what makes a great man or woman is the ability to make moral judgments and decisions in the present. Wishy-washiness does not a good foreign policy make.

quote:

Secondly, they know what they are signing up for as part of the whole package. Nobody at the recruitment office says, "You know, it's peace time... if war rolls around, don't sweat it." It's a risk they consciously sign up for. I also believe in freedom of choice for abortion (yes, even as a republican)... does that mean I should be willing to have a wife or a daughter have an abortion to justify my belief?

No, but you should be willing to have a wife or daughter capable of making that choice as your belief allows. Clovis didn't say you have to do it, he said you have to be willing to.

quote:

Originally posted by The17sss All hail to Clovis, the judge, jury, and executioner of who is a hypocrite and why. Enough already with your moral high ground bullshit. One can only be right to say the Iraq war was justified if he or she would die for that cause themselves? You can shove that sanctimonious garbage up your ass. First of all, I said I won't know until some time passes if going into Iraq was justified... not until hindsight, however short or long, plays its part. If it does become a sustainable democracy on its own and are our allies in that region, then yes I'll agree it was justified. Secondly, they know what they are signing up for as part of the whole package. Nobody at the recruitment office says, "You know, it's peace time... if war rolls around, don't sweat it." It's a risk they consciously sign up for. I also believe in freedom of choice for abortion (yes, even as a republican)... does that mean I should be willing to have a wife or a daughter have an abortion to justify my belief?

Invading a country so as to force them to adopt your method of government is not justifiable war under any commonly accept Just War theories, or under international. Finally, I you with this...

"I have indicated it [Operation Iraqi Freedom] was not in conformity with the UN charter from our point of view, from the charter point of view, it [Operation Iraqi Freedom] was illegal." -UN Secretary General Kofi Annan (2004)

You already have hindsight my friend... Shoot now, ask questions later is really what you're telling us..

quote:

Originally posted by Lebezniatnikov I'd say that actually sounds like a pretty good benchmark when it's a war we're talking about. Think about it... WWII, justified. Vietnam? Eh... Iraq? Would you really put your life on the line for that cause, whatever it might actually be? So no action can be considered wrong until history judges it as such? Well hell, that sounds like a presidential carte blanche if I've ever heard one. I'll only point out two things here, though an entire essay could be written on the absurdity of that comment. First, there is absolutely no evidence to suggest that Iraq is on a path to either one of those goals. And second, shouldn't we ask ourselves whether a conflict is justified before we undertake it rather than merely when reflecting about its outcome? Hindsight is always 20-20 -- what makes a great man or woman is the ability to make moral judgments and decisions in the present. Wishy-washiness does not a good foreign policy make. No, but you should be willing to have a wife or daughter capable of making that choice as your belief allows. Clovis didn't say you have to do it, he said you have to be willing to.

I didn't say "no action can be considered wrong unless history judges it so." I'm talking about this one issue, and I'm saying I can't personally say at this point in time it was worth it. ANd, unless you've been living under a rock, there's plenty of evidence to suggest Iraq is well on its way to becoming a sustainable deomcracy. Just ask the Messiah, Barry O:

quote:

After meeting with Mr. Maliki, Mr. Obama met with Mr. Hashimi in his spacious, ornate house in the Green Zone for about 45 minutes. Beforehand, Mr. Obama said he was �pleased with the progress taking place� in Iraq and said that it was his impression that among Iraqis there was �more optimism about what is happening. You see the activity taking place, the people in the shops, the traffic on the streets, clearly there�s been an enormous improvement,� he said.

I respect what you say about the ability to make moral decisions in the present being a mark of a moral person. I, however, did not make any decisions about going into Iraq... I'm just critiquing them

quote:

Originally posted by Krypton You already have hindsight my friend... Shoot now, ask questions later is really what you're telling us..

Definitely not saying that. I had nothing to do with the decision making process. I'm being asked if I think what happened was justified, and I'm saying I don't know.

quote:

Originally posted by The17sss ANd, unless you've been living under a rock, there's plenty of evidence to suggest Iraq is well on its way to becoming a sustainable deomcracy. Just ask the Messiah, Barry O:

And that's something I disagree with Obama on. There's very little evidence to suggest that Iraq is making any real progress at all.

does it count if my brother just got back from there after 15 months, as the head of Military Police in Baghdad working directly with the Iraqi generals in training their police force, and says there's a lot more improvement than when he arrived?

quote:

Originally posted by The17sss Definitely not saying that. I had nothing to do with the decision making process. I'm being asked if I think what happened was justified, and I'm saying I don't know.

And you think its ok to send people to die for a cause you don't know is justified? Thats terrible imo.

No, I'm saying I don't know yet if I can say it was justified... there's a difference. I guess I'm just a depraved person with a black heart and no soul.

Edit: In the beginning I wasn't thinking "fuck yeah! Get that Iraqi ass! I don't know if this is a good idea, but I sure hope it works out." I've gone through this whole process with nervous feelings because of family and friends going over there. I want to be able to say one day, "yes, it was worth it."

quote:

Originally posted by The17sss does it count if my brother just got back from there after 15 months, as the head of Military Police in Baghdad working directly with the Iraqi generals in training their police force, and says there's a lot more improvement than when he arrived?

I'm just looking for concrete examples, cause I haven't heard any. Violence against Americans is down, but there's conflicting evidence about whether the Surge (which is really an escalation since troop levels are still at an elevated level) really had anything more than a secondary impact.

Progress in this is almost like the progress of someone who was beaten within an inch of their life and is now learning how to walk again.

quote:

Originally posted by The17sss No, I'm saying I don't know yet if I can say it was justified... there's a difference. I guess I'm just a depraved person with a black heart and no soul. Edit: In the beginning I wasn't thinking "fuck yeah! Get that Iraqi ass! I don't know if this is a good idea, but I sure hope it works out."

So you admit we went to war and you don't know yet if it was a good idea.

Does that sound like war as a last resort?

Uh, yes, I admit we went to war. Yes I admit that I still don't know if it was a good idea. And?

My thing is that we are there now, and of course I'd like is to be out of there, but I'd like to leave victorious and take the responsibility NOT to leave thigs in shambles and walk out the door like we did in vietnam. I don't recall bring up the "war as a last resort" thing.. that was you or someone else.

Let me ask you, in all honesty... do you believe in the notion of personal responsibility and the value of being an independant person without being dependant on others?

quote:

Originally posted by The17sss Uh, yes, I admit we went to war. Yes I admit that I still don't know if it was a good idea. And?

Going to war is not something to be taken so lightly. The 4,000+ dead should know they died for an absolutely sound cause.

What should I do... pound my fists on the table? Scream from the mountain top? I'm not taking anything lightly. And you still didn't answer my question: in all honesty... do you believe in the notion of personal responsibility and the value of being an independant person without being dependant on others?

quote:

Originally posted by The17sss What should I do... pound my fists on the table? Scream from the mountain top? I'm not taking anything lightly. And you still didn't answer my question: in all honesty... do you believe in the notion of personal responsibility and the value of being an independant person without being dependant on others?

I do but I believe we have a responsibility to help others who are less fortunate as well.

My point about the war is that you can't possibly say a solider has died for a just cause if you don't even know whether or not it was justified in the first place. And as an extension of that, War should NEVER, EVER, EVER be waged unless it is absolutely the last resort and absolutely necessary.

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.