[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]Varqanir wrote:
One group wants the bomb, the other group has it.
[/quote]
Huh?[/quote]
I said, “one group wants the bomb, the other group has it.”
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]Varqanir wrote:
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]Varqanir wrote:
One group wants the bomb, the other group has it.
[/quote]
Huh?[/quote]
I said, “one group wants the bomb, the other group has it.”
[/quote]
I know you did but no comprende. Christian fundamentalists have the bomb?
Back away from the bottle. Please.
[/quote]
Don’t play dumb. Benny Hinn has the bomb and he’s not afraid to use it.
By the way for the people who lack critical thinking.
Please know that Ahmadinejad said:
Wipe zionism from the page of history.
Not wipe Israel from the the map.
Again, when so many people are spouting such an easily dispelled lie, it makes you wonder if they are uninformed are have a very strong unbending agenda when they talk about Iran.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
V, are you taking online courses at the University of Pittttbulllll?[/quote]
it will do him good , we call it a course in reality
[quote]Varqanir wrote:
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]Varqanir wrote:
One group wants the bomb, the other group has it.
[/quote]
Huh?[/quote]
I said, “one group wants the bomb, the other group has it.”[/quote]
And has used it…twice.
[quote]Varqanir wrote:
[quote]Aragorn wrote:
[quote]Kareem Said wrote:
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]Kareem Said wrote:
…Iraq had WMD’s…
[/quote]
They did. Absolutely had them. We know so because they absolutely used them.[/quote]
I am not referring to the biological weapons that America sold to them, including anthrax etc. I am talking about the lie told to get the invasion going, that they had a nuclear weapons program on the verge of creating a bomb.
[/quote]
Lol, wut??
The line going in was not a nuclear bomb. I have never heard that until just now. Not on Fox, or CNN, or Mother Jones, or anywhere and I was pretty hooked into the news cycle around then. Chemical and biological weapons are WMDs. And, as far as I ever saw in news, interviews, speeches, or intelligence reports (second hand, of course, in news outlets), it was always chemical and biological weapons.
I am not commenting on the desirability or justifiability of the war there, but the fact you seem completely confused.[/quote]
You don’t remember the yellow cake uranium and aluminum tubes?[/quote]
Apparently not. I suppose I have killed too many brain cells to remember…sad. 
[quote]Bismark wrote:
[quote]Aragorn wrote:
[quote]Bismark wrote:
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]Bismark wrote:
The products of intelligence analysis are not certainties, but rather varying degrees of probability. If the United States followed your ridiculously stringent standards of evidence before undertaking its foreign policy, the smoking gun would indeed be a mushroom cloud (or more literally, seismic activity as a result of an underground nuclear test.) Iran is pursuing a nuclear program. That is indisputable fact that the Iranian regime itself had confirmed. You assert that it is not an attempt to bring Iran into the fold of nuclear weapons states, but rather that it is a peaceful endeavor to develop nuclear energy and facilitate economic development. There are many problems with this idealistic position.
You hold that Iran seeks nuclear energy. As you can hopefully see from the data provided in the link, Iran is an energy rich state. One would be inclined to ask why it pursues the development of nuclear infrastructure, which is extremely capital intensive, especially when the per capita income of its citizens is taken into account.
https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/ir.html
As far as economic development is concerned, Iran’s nuclear program has indisputably hamstrung it’s economy. The sanctions levied against Iran by the United States and its allies have had a devastating effect on not only the wherewithal of the Iranian regime, but upon the well being of its populace.
If Iran’s energy security is marginally impacted by the addition of nuclear energy infrastructure, and its economy has suffered greatly as a result of its nuclear program, why does it continue to pursue its nuclear ambitions? Iran seeks neither energy nor economic gain, but rather the preeminent goal of all states - security.
The Iranian regime believes that the Western world and its lackeys in the region seek nothing short of the overthrow of the Islamic Revolution. Nuclear capability would provide a formidable deterrent to the United States and its allies, and to the numerous Sunni states in southwest Asia.[/quote]
You are correct.
Of course the Western world and its lackeys (a pejorative term for allies, why did you use it?) would like to see the overthrow of the Islamic Revolution. The Islamic Revolution is led by thugs and whackos. They’ve been responsible for a significant amount of terrorism against both Muslims and infidels since 1979. They’ve repeatedly threatened Israel with annihilation.
If North Korea is the north pole of nutjob states then Iran is the south pole. Thing is, Iran is in the geographical and political position to be far more dangerous than North Korea. There is no such thing as a China to restrain them.
[/quote]
Apologies. I meant to put quotations around lackeys. I’m a terrible writer when I’m limited to my phone. Hopefully we can find common ground when it comes to the misinformed idealism of our new friend Kareem.[/quote]
Just because I disagree with you that Iran “should” get the Bomb or that you can apply a “Cold War theory” to the post Cold War asymmetric world doesn’t mean you’re not a very smart guy. I simply hold a different position (even though Iran holds the same goals as a rational actor–and you already know I think they are sub-rational which is another reason they should not be allowed to get the Bomb–it should not be allowed to attain its goals because they conflict with both ours and Israel’s goals, and I’m batting for the home teams.)[/quote]
To be perfectly honest, I started this thread to argue from the position of a devil’s advocate. My intent in defending the premises of the article was to better understand the argument of the author, and to gain a greater understanding if my own positions. I believe that it is in the interest of the United States to maintain Israel’s nuclear monopoly in southwest Asia. American preeminence is undoubtably a positive influence in the international system. A nuclear armed Iran is more likely to act like Pakistan than the USSR or China during the Cold War, which is troubling to say the least. While I believe that the Iranian regime is far more rational than most posters here would maintain, my largest concern lies with the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps units that provide security at Iran’s nuclear sites, and is known to have direct ties to terrorist organizations. Initially, Ayatollah Khomeini didn’t hold ambitions to possess CBRNs. When Iraq deployed chemical weapons against Iranian forces during their war, the mullahs came to the reluctant conclusive that it was in their interests to have defensive and offensive CBRNs capabilities themselves. Tehran sought security from Iraq, and now seeks it from the West. Deterrence against regime change is the single greatest incentive for Iran’s nuclear weapons program. As Pakistan has contributed to proliferation through poor command and control of its military, intelligence services, and nuclear scientists, so too do I fear the effects of a nuclear armed Iran.[/quote]
I agree. One part about the author’s article I disliked more than the rest was that since he essentially posits (as you did) that multipolarity is a destabilizing force, he ignores what will happen with “nuclear multipolarity” which, IMHO, is essentially like pushing a destabilizing force into Ludicrous speed…particularly when the countries and regions involved are so incredibly incredibly precarious and fractious. You can’t assume that nuclear proliferation will stop at bipolarity, and if you make an explicit or implicit case that multipolar power distribution is destabilizing you have to really make a damned airtight case that nuclear mulipolarity is not.
Your point here about the Revolutionary Guard and poor command and control is precisely what I was trying to point out earlier when I talked about how even if the current president is more rational that his successors or rivals in power will not be.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
V, are you taking online courses at the University of Pittttbulllll?[/quote]
I looked into it, but it only listed two books on the reading list: The Communist Manifesto and Webster’s Dictionary, so I thought better of it.
Sorry, Pitt. Cheap shot, but I couldn’t resist. 
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]Varqanir wrote:
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]Varqanir wrote:
One group wants the bomb, the other group has it.
[/quote]
Huh?[/quote]
I said, “one group wants the bomb, the other group has it.”
[/quote]
I know you did but no comprende. Christian fundamentalists have the bomb?
Back away from the bottle. Please.
[/quote]
Haven’t been near the bottle in weeks, more’s the pity.
But yes, given the prevalence of Christian Fundamentalists in the American government and military, I believe it is entirely accurate to say that Christian Fundamentalists do have the bomb.
I am referring specifically to the fundamentalist dispensationalists who fervently believe that the book of Revelation is an accurate predictor of the future, that we are living in the end times, and that US foreign policy should be structured in such a way to bring about the final battle against Gog and Magog.
These people are typically fervent supporters of Israel, not because they think the Jews are pretty nice guys, or they feel sorry for what happened to them during the thirties and forties, or even that Israel is a useful strategic wedge of influence in the Middle East. No, they support Israel because of Israel’s role in bringing about the second coming of Christ. The prediction that two-thirds of the world Jewish population will perish in the final battle is shrugged off as acceptable losses.
George W. Bush was a dispensationalist who literally believed that he was acting as the hand of God, arraying the forces of good against the armies of Gog and Magog. He said as much to (an understandably flabbergasted) Charles Chirac in 2003. George may no longer have his finger on the “nookyular” button, but there are plenty of generals and admirals and senators who believe as he does.
Those of you who think the Iranian government aren’t rational actors have completely underestimated them. These guys are some of the smartest political motherfuckers around. They didn’t come into power by accident, they played the Iranian population and will play with you as well.
The U.S.government along with its intelligence services know how smart these people are even if you don’t. They won’t make the same stupid mistakes Saddam or Gadaffi or any of the other despotic tyrants made.
@sexmachine that stuff you copy paste from the writings of Khomeini is ridiculed by the majority of the Iranian population, most of his books have been pulled off the shelves because they’re so full of shit.
When I tell you they are rational players, I don’t mean they are nice people and they want to lick your butt, I mean that they will not let you find a reason to stop them from doing what they want to achieve.
And while I’m at it, do you honestly believe they actually mean half of this shit they spew out? They created an Islamic Republic in order to spew as much religious rhetoric as they can in order to force control.
Khomeini banned music, he banned chess and one by one they gave all these little things back to the populace like a drip feed over the past thirty years, every few years Iranian people have had more and more freedoms drip fed to them to keep them happy.
Like I said they are clever fuckers even if you don’t think so.
[quote]shorty_blitz wrote:
he banned chess [/quote]
Considering that the Iranians invented the game of chess (the word “checkmate” comes from the Farsi name of the game, Shah Mat, “the king is defeated”) this is particularly ridiculous.
Would be like an ultraconservative fundamentalist Christian American president banning baseball.