Why Iran Should Get the Bomb

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
121

[quote]Bismark wrote:

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]Bismark wrote:

Nuclear weapons, ironically enough, have proved to be a stabilizing force in the world. States are much less inclined to go to war with one another if their adversaries possess a nuclear umbrella. Historically, systems with unbalanced multi-polarities are the most likely to result in war, while bi-polar systems are inherently the most stable. Southwest Asia is an unbalanced multi-polarity, because Israel is the only state that possesses nuclear capabilities. If Iran joins the ranks of the nuclear weapons states, nuclear monopoly will no longer tilt the balance of power so overwhelmingly in Israel’s favor. Will it limit the freedom of action of Israel and the U.S. in the region? Undoubtedly. Will it help stabilize a historically volatile region? If history is our guide, that is very likely. [/quote]

Ah…no. That’s the thoroughly discredited opinion of a batshit leftist Berkeley professor. Here’s an historical precedent for you: in the final days of WWII as Soviet armies crushed the Nazis in the East and the Battle of the Bulge was raging in the West the Nazis began to pin their hopes on ‘super weapons’ like the V2 rocket. Fortunately SOE trained saboteurs had destroyed the Nazis nuclear program in Norway in 1943 however undoubtably the Nazis would have used the bomb had they developed it.[/quote]

I’d LOVE to see the scholarship that “thoroughly discredits” Nuclear Peace theory.
Ok? Your historical anecdote has zero relevance to the argument I’m making. If Nazi Germany had developed a nuclear weapons capability before the United States had done so, it would have had a nuclear monopoly. It didn’t. Even if it had done so, the theory requires the inclusion of MAD. Regardless, you can’t test the merit of Nuclear Peace theory before there was such a thing as nuclear weapons. [/quote]

Again, wikipedia…

'Criticisms of the nuclear peace argument…

122

[quote]Bismark wrote:

I disagree. I am making an argument from the systemic level of analysis. You, on the other hand, fixated on the domestic and individual level, cannot see the forest for the trees. The calculus of power between Nazi Germany in 1939 and Iran in 2013 is night and day. Anyone who attempts to deny that is a fool. [/quote]

Not really. The entire region has been devastated by Iranian backed terrorism. Iranian terrorism has a real and measurable influence on the foreign policy of every country in the region. With a single truck bomb the Iranians can make a super power leave a country. They have the entire world held hostage over the nuclear program and will in the coming years exact huge concessions from the rest of the world.

123

[quote]Bismark wrote:

[quote]UtahLama wrote:

[quote]Varqanir wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]Varqanir wrote:

If you lived in Tehran, would yours?

[/quote]

Even more so, yes.

I would not want the birdbrain mullahs and their puppets in the military painting a giant virtual bullseye on my city and country.[/quote]

Well, then, I guess we can thank God that we don’t live in a country where irresponsible decisions by birdbrained demagogues and their puppets can have catastrophic geopolitical ramifications. [/quote]

Yet those people wish to do us and our friends the greatest of harm…so it does affect us.[/quote]

If you reread what Varq wrote, you’ll see that he was referring to the United States.[/quote]

Im Grunde genommen, nicht so daemlich. :wink:

124

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]Varqanir wrote:
It is an arm, and you are bearing it, as part of a well-regulated militia comprising yourself, defending your particular corner of a free state. Should the fact that you MIGHT strafe your neighbor’s house, or the IRS office in Kalispell, or the Federal Building in Helena, or even (if you could arrange the ridiculous logistical feat of transport), the White House in Washington, be just cause for ATF agents to raid your property, destroy your helicopter and burn down your house?

After all, you’ve gone on record criticizing the actions of the Federal Government. You are clearly a Rogue Citizen.

[/quote]

What does this have to do with Iran and/or El Beesmark de Pettifoggery?
[/quote]

I was using you and your helicopter as a metaphor for Iran and its nuclear program. The Federal Government is the US, or the UN, or the “international community” or whoever, your neighbor is Israel.

Now, you as a citizen have certain rights: you may protect your property however you like, and acquire whatever arms you deem necessary to do so, limited only by your actual ability to acquire them. You may not initiate force against your neighbors, and you may not attack IRS offices and Federal Buildings, but who has the right to dictate to you what weapons are appropriate for you to defend your property?

As a sovereign nation, Iran has certain rights. It may protect its borders, however it sees fit, and acquire whatever weapons it deems necessary to do so, again limited by its technical and financial abilities. It may not initiate force on its neighbors, and if it does so, will suffer greatly for it, and rightly so. But who has the right to dictate to a sovereign state what weapons are “appropriate” for its defense?

Now, nukes are a bit of a sticky issue, because on paper anyway, Iran is a signatory to the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty. This is the big-boy version of the National Firearms Act, though as we’ve seen, the NFA is not so much an outright ban as it is a mere hurdle: pay yer dues, and buy whatever you can afford, up to and including chain guns, missile launchers and antiaircraft cannons.

And just as there will always be criminals who ignore the NFA altogether, some sovereign states are non-signatories to the NNT, and have developed their nuclear programs as they like. Nothing has happened to them, one notes.

So maybe we don’t like Iran because it has a bunch of spooky-looking dudes with beards sitting around in turbans saying impolite things about poor little America, while developing a nuclear bomb. Just as I’m sure there are ATF agents who don’t like the Sovereign Territory of Pushhardonia because it has a big spooky-looking dude in a beard and cowboy boots saying impolite things about poor little Barack Obama, while flying around in his attack helicopter. But each of these has a right to do what they do. They will reap the consequences of what they do with their weapons, but owning a weapon and having malevolent thoughts does not constitute a crime in and of itself.

126

Is using poison gas in war a crime? Is it the act of dirty, rotten, guilty thugs?

127

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]Bismark wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:
I would tend to lean toward the professional opinions of individuals who have unparalleled knowledge of the subject in question who tote the Trust But Verify ethos around in their professional briefcases which are chock full of unparalleled knowledge.

By the way, I seem to recall from my studies in history that Herr Chamberlain had unparalleled knowledge of the subject in question at that time. Or he thought he did.[/quote]
As do I.

I was referring to the analysts who produce intelligence products for their clients, exempli gratia, policymakers. If Herr Chamberlain (Sprechen Sie Deutsch?) had studied history more astutely, he would have seen no less than two examples of unbalanced multi-polarity (and consequently, potential hegemons) in the modern era alone. Revolutionary and Napoleonic France (1780-1815), and Wilhelmine Germany. (1890-1914) Regardless, Chamberlain’s strategy of appeasement, or one sided concessions to a potential opponent, has little if any relevance to Iran, a present day middle power in south west Asia.[/quote]

A more potent similitude is difficult to imagine. Iran is often referred to as the literal heir to Nazi Germany. Arab nationalists employed Nazi war criminals and adopted their ideology. Like the Nazis they are pathologically anti-Semitic and see the annihilation of Jews as their main goal. They are authoritarian, dictatorial and militaristic and their religious ideology shares much in common with Nazi ideology. Furthermore, they use the same propaganda techniques developed by Goebbels and Alfred Rosenberg and act with extreme belligerence on the world stage. Confronted with this belligerence the rest of the world engage in the same sort of appeasement that preceded the Munich crisis.[/quote]
Most of that could be said of the US, if one were so inclined

128

[quote]squating_bear wrote:

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]Bismark wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:
I would tend to lean toward the professional opinions of individuals who have unparalleled knowledge of the subject in question who tote the Trust But Verify ethos around in their professional briefcases which are chock full of unparalleled knowledge.

By the way, I seem to recall from my studies in history that Herr Chamberlain had unparalleled knowledge of the subject in question at that time. Or he thought he did.[/quote]
As do I.

I was referring to the analysts who produce intelligence products for their clients, exempli gratia, policymakers. If Herr Chamberlain (Sprechen Sie Deutsch?) had studied history more astutely, he would have seen no less than two examples of unbalanced multi-polarity (and consequently, potential hegemons) in the modern era alone. Revolutionary and Napoleonic France (1780-1815), and Wilhelmine Germany. (1890-1914) Regardless, Chamberlain’s strategy of appeasement, or one sided concessions to a potential opponent, has little if any relevance to Iran, a present day middle power in south west Asia.[/quote]

A more potent similitude is difficult to imagine. Iran is often referred to as the literal heir to Nazi Germany. Arab nationalists employed Nazi war criminals and adopted their ideology. Like the Nazis they are pathologically anti-Semitic and see the annihilation of Jews as their main goal. They are authoritarian, dictatorial and militaristic and their religious ideology shares much in common with Nazi ideology. Furthermore, they use the same propaganda techniques developed by Goebbels and Alfred Rosenberg and act with extreme belligerence on the world stage. Confronted with this belligerence the rest of the world engage in the same sort of appeasement that preceded the Munich crisis.[/quote]
Most of that could be said of the US, if one were so inclined[/quote]

And I doubt if the Iranians ever imported actual Nazis to help them with their propaganda or weapons programs.

130

What in the love of god are you on about?!

[quote]pushharder wrote:
Then you have some things to learn about the history of Nazis and Persians.
[/quote]

131

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]Varqanir wrote:

And I doubt if the Iranians ever imported actual Nazis to help them with their propaganda or weapons programs.
[/quote]

Then you have some things to learn about the history of Nazis and Persians.[/quote]

Understanding of course that by “Iranians” we are talking about the current incarnation of the Republic, post-1979 revolution. Perhaps you have some evidence of collusion between aging Nazis and the Ayatollah Khomeini that I am unaware of. If so please share.

Whether the Shah was in bed with the Nazis during the second world war is beside the point. His administration is as irrelevant to this discussion as is Cyrus the Great’s.

132

[quote]squattingbear wrote:
One could say that of the US if one were so inclined [/quote]

One could say the moon is made of green cheese, the earth is flat and Obama is a fiscal conservative if one were so inclined. By why would one by so inclined? Mental illness? Utter stupidity? A strange sense of humour?

133

[quote]shorty_blitz wrote:
What in the love of god are you on about?!

[quote]pushharder wrote:
Then you have some things to learn about the history of Nazis and Persians.
[/quote]
[/quote]

Why not do some research yourself?

http://tavernkeepers.com/history-of-iran-and-the-nazis/

The overwhelming proportion of the Iranian population sided with the Nazis during WWII. Same in Iraq where there was a pro-Nazi coup that had to be put down. In Churchill’s bodyguard’s biography he describes how the Germans incited huge crowds of people to attack Churchill’s motorcade and block its exit from the airport. They also used a special forces team, hidden by local Iranians whose task was to assassinate the big three(Churchill, FDR and Stalin) at the Tehran conference. They even wore suicide vests and when they were confronted one of them blew himself up.

134

[quote]Varqanir wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]Varqanir wrote:

And I doubt if the Iranians ever imported actual Nazis to help them with their propaganda or weapons programs.
[/quote]

Then you have some things to learn about the history of Nazis and Persians.[/quote]

Understanding of course that by “Iranians” we are talking about the current incarnation of the Republic, post-1979 revolution. Perhaps you have some evidence of collusion between aging Nazis and the Ayatollah Khomeini that I am unaware of. If so please share.

Whether the Shah was in bed with the Nazis during the second world war is beside the point. His administration is as irrelevant to this discussion as is Cyrus the Great’s. [/quote]

THe Islamo-fundies sided with the Nazis as they did elsewhere in the ME. The same Islamo-fundies that run the country today. Same pathological anti-Semitism, same propaganda - Jooos ruling the world and using Arab babies’ blood in their passover bread and so on.

135

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]Varqanir wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]Varqanir wrote:

And I doubt if the Iranians ever imported actual Nazis to help them with their propaganda or weapons programs.
[/quote]

Then you have some things to learn about the history of Nazis and Persians.[/quote]

Understanding of course that by “Iranians” we are talking about the current incarnation of the Republic, post-1979 revolution. Perhaps you have some evidence of collusion between aging Nazis and the Ayatollah Khomeini that I am unaware of. If so please share.

Whether the Shah was in bed with the Nazis during the second world war is beside the point. His administration is as irrelevant to this discussion as is Cyrus the Great’s. [/quote]

THe Islamo-fundies sided with the Nazis as they did elsewhere in the ME. The same Islamo-fundies that run the country today. Same pathological anti-Semitism, same propaganda - Jooos ruling the world and using Arab babies’ blood in their passover bread and so on.[/quote]

Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, the Shah of Iran, was many things, but an “Islamo-fundie” was not one of them. He was a secular moderate.

And as I mentioned, the government in Iran that sided with the Nazis (Pahlavi’s government, which also sided with the United States, and was propped up after the coup that ousted Mossadeq, and whose leader was given sanctuary in the United States after the revolution) is not the same government that is running the country today.

AND…that’s beside the point, because my post was a sarcastic stab at the fact that even if the government of Iran didn’t import Nazis after the war to work on their aerospace and missile systems, chemical and biological weapons programs, and intelligence, surveillance, and propaganda programs, I can think of at least two countries that did.

136

[quote]Varqanir wrote:

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]Varqanir wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]Varqanir wrote:

And I doubt if the Iranians ever imported actual Nazis to help them with their propaganda or weapons programs.
[/quote]

Then you have some things to learn about the history of Nazis and Persians.[/quote]

Understanding of course that by “Iranians” we are talking about the current incarnation of the Republic, post-1979 revolution. Perhaps you have some evidence of collusion between aging Nazis and the Ayatollah Khomeini that I am unaware of. If so please share.

Whether the Shah was in bed with the Nazis during the second world war is beside the point. His administration is as irrelevant to this discussion as is Cyrus the Great’s. [/quote]

THe Islamo-fundies sided with the Nazis as they did elsewhere in the ME. The same Islamo-fundies that run the country today. Same pathological anti-Semitism, same propaganda - Jooos ruling the world and using Arab babies’ blood in their passover bread and so on.[/quote]

Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, the Shah of Iran, was many things, but an “Islamo-fundie” was not one of them. He was a secular moderate.

And as I mentioned, the government in Iran that sided with the Nazis (Pahlavi’s government, which also sided with the United States, and was propped up after the coup that ousted Mossadeq, and whose leader was given sanctuary in the United States after the revolution) is not the same government that is running the country today.

AND…that’s beside the point, because my post was a sarcastic stab at the fact that even if the government of Iran didn’t import Nazis after the war to work on their aerospace and missile systems, chemical and biological weapons programs, and intelligence, surveillance, and propaganda programs, I can think of at least two countries that did. [/quote]

I wasn’t talking about the Shah. I was talking about the rural, tribal fundies who wanted to overthrow him. The same ones who led the 79 revolution and now complain about us overthrowing the Shah because they need a pretence to hate us.

139

A more potent similitude is difficult to imagine. The US is often referred to as…

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]squattingbear wrote:
One could say that of the US if one were so inclined [/quote]

One could say the moon is made of green cheese, the earth is flat and Obama is a fiscal conservative if one were so inclined. By why would one by so inclined? Mental illness? Utter stupidity? A strange sense of humour?[/quote]
Heh, as I expected - still the same shit with you

From where does arise this inclination of yours to change my name and quote - when you clearly know how to use the quote function? Seems you still think you can overwrite what I write by the same weak tactics

Ok, ok, ok - haha. One could ACCURATELY say most of that of the US, if one were so inclined. There. Happy now?

If green cheese and Bigfoot are all you’ve got for me then you really should have just put me on ignore like you said you would. No response is more effective than your nonresponsive …“responses”, for lack of a better term

140

The rural fundies you speak of didn’t have a voice during that period.

And anyways this is all besides the point, it’s like bringing up Italy during WW2 and somehow equating it to meaning they are some kind of twisted Joo hating people.

And many people could agree that the US helped overthrow the Shah, not just Joo hatin turban headed people. You are completely aware of the British and US involvement in Iran and that whole region so please don’t try to play dumb.

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

I wasn’t talking about the Shah. I was talking about the rural, tribal fundies who wanted to overthrow him. The same ones who led the 79 revolution and now complain about us overthrowing the Shah because they need a pretence to hate us.[/quote]