Nationalism Vs. Rationalism

[Mariner]

want Iran to have nuclear weapons. I'm not sure how it's defeatist thinking, though, to think it likely that they're well on their way, and that it will be hard to stop them.

To me, though, if Pakistan could make a nuclear bomb, it's realistic--not defeatist--to think Iran can. They faced identical obstacles, and had access to similar resources.

I wouldn't mind being proved wrong.

Mariner.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

want Iran to have nuclear weapons. I'm not sure how it's defeatist thinking, though, to think it likely that they're well on their way, and that it will be hard to stop them.

To me, though, if Pakistan could make a nuclear bomb, it's realistic--not defeatist--to think Iran can. They faced identical obstacles, and had access to similar resources.

I wouldn't mind being proved wrong.

Mariner.

But it IS defeatist thinking. Saying "it will be hard to stop them" is realistic. Saying "they will get them anyway, so why bother" is defeatist.

 

[Mariner]

"Why bother?" I said I'm against them having nuclear weapons, and I will support any appropriate, effective action to stop them.

Mariner.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

"Why bother?" I said I'm against them having nuclear weapons, and I will support any appropriate, effective action to stop them.

Mariner.

Oh, effective action. There's your OUT right there. Anything having to do with TAKING ACTION will be preemptively declared ineffective, according to your SIF modelling software. Sky Is Falling.

 

[NATO AIR]

I never said 'sanctions' would work. And wasn't this new Prez of theres 'democratically' elected? Let the people fall with their leader...I have zero sympathy for any of them...

Contrary to myth, Iran's democracy is more like an authoritarian system, albeith with democratic tendencies and handpicked candidates. The fundamentals are there (unlike say, Iraq or Saudi Arabia) for a democracy, but as it stands now, there is only a pretense of democracy. The mullahs and intelligence appartus handpicks candidates and disqualifies most reformists and "liberals", as well as outspoken dissidents.

The current leader was pushed through by the mullahs in an orgy of ballot-stuffing, anti-opposition violence and the out and out disqualification of any and all serious reformists and liberals.

The majority of the people did not vote for this guy.

Besides being ignorant and callous, it would do well to learn about the political system and realities of a country before you make harsh judgements on its citizens.

 

[NATO AIR]

The conflict mentioned in the title of this thread is, in fact, as presented a false dichotomy. READ MY SIG.

Nato, you know how sometimes you start tripping out, when some libs under the influence of the dark side gets in your ear with some shit? THis is one of those times.

We've already missed one golden chance to make a connection with the Iranian people that mattered, i.e. through economics, cultural exchange and defending their human rights by pushing for an agreement with Iran's relatively reformist minded president of the time, modeled on say, the Helinksi accords which we sucessfully utilized to hold the Soviet's feet to the fire for years on human rights and abuses.

Let us not miss another one. We have nothing to lose. Outside of an outright invasion, we have no guarantee we'll stop the nuclear program. We're not going to invade any time soon, so let's try another route.

Let's try connectivity.

Its worth a shot, and our relations with the Iranian people (visa the mullahs) will greatly improve, because connectivity with us and the rest of the outside world breeds free markets and freedoms.

 

[Mariner]

of ineffective action, RightWing?

Mariner.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

We've already missed one golden chance to make a connection with the Iranian people that mattered, i.e. through economics, cultural exchange and defending their human rights by pushing for an agreement with Iran's relatively reformist minded president of the time, modeled on say, the Helinksi accords which we sucessfully utilized to hold the Soviet's feet to the fire for years on human rights and abuses.

Let us not miss another one. We have nothing to lose. Outside of an outright invasion, we have no guarantee we'll stop the nuclear program. We're not going to invade any time soon, so let's try another route.

Let's try connectivity.

Its worth a shot, and our relations with the Iranian people (visa the mullahs) will greatly improve, because connectivity with us and the rest of the outside world breeds free markets and freedoms.

Serenity Now!

 

[Annie]

Contrary to myth, Iran's democracy is more like an authoritarian system, albeith with democratic tendencies and handpicked candidates. The fundamentals are there (unlike say, Iraq or Saudi Arabia) for a democracy, but as it stands now, there is only a pretense of democracy. The mullahs and intelligence appartus handpicks candidates and disqualifies most reformists and "liberals", as well as outspoken dissidents.

The current leader was pushed through by the mullahs in an orgy of ballot-stuffing, anti-opposition violence and the out and out disqualification of any and all serious reformists and liberals.

The majority of the people did not vote for this guy.

Besides being ignorant and callous, it would do well to learn about the political system and realities of a country before you make harsh judgements on its citizens.

Nato, it may well be that the most disasterous mistake we made was letting the Shah be overthrown. I didn't feel that way at the time, mind you. A bit younger and way more idealistic that you today.

I really don't think that 'diplomacy' is going to work with current Iranian leadership, though we should attempt to build a coalition, I doubt very much that Russia or China will go along with sanctions, but we need to speed up that resolution.

 

[NATO AIR]

Nato, it may well be that the most disasterous mistake we made was letting the Shah be overthrown. I didn't feel that way at the time, mind you. A bit younger and way more idealistic that you today.

I really don't think that 'diplomacy' is going to work with current Iranian leadership, though we should attempt to build a coalition, I doubt very much that Russia or China will go along with sanctions, but we need to speed up that resolution.

I agree that it was a serious mistake to let him be overthrown. We blew it on Iran... badly.

That's the past though, now we need to make a new push to get something going. You see the Bush Administration's long term strategy for Iran as described by David Ignatus in the WAPO? I think that's the right strategy, though I would push for an opening of economic and culture exchanges as well.

 

[Annie]

I agree that it was a serious mistake to let him be overthrown. We blew it on Iran... badly.

That's the past though, now we need to make a new push to get something going. You see the Bush Administration's long term strategy for Iran as described by David Ignatus in the WAPO? I think that's the right strategy, though I would push for an opening of economic and culture exchanges as well.

I read it. My take, unless something serious happens internally within Iran in the next few weeks, plans will begin to change to objectives.

 

[NATO AIR]

I read it. My take, unless something serious happens internally within Iran in the next few weeks, plans will begin to change to objectives.

I'm still not convinced military action is the answer. Its inevitable they get the bomb, even a peaceful Iran with a good, open leader of vision will want and get nukes one day. The nuclear genie is out of the bottle. Now we must use our "soft" power to change the regime from within, as well as support the Iranian people by opening them up to the world.

And if we must, we must use our "hard power" to destabilize Iran's borders and interior with their unhappy minorities.

 

[Hobbit]

I'm still not convinced military action is the answer. Its inevitable they get the bomb, even a peaceful Iran with a good, open leader of vision will want and get nukes one day. The nuclear genie is out of the bottle. Now we must use our "soft" power to change the regime from within, as well as support the Iranian people by opening them up to the world.

And if we must, we must use our "hard power" to destabilize Iran's borders and interior with their unhappy minorities.

The guy in charge now rings of Adolf Hitler. He's very charismatic and good at deflecting blame. I have a feeling we'll need hard power to keep Iranian nukes from leveling Israel.

 

[Annie]

I'm still not convinced military action is the answer. Its inevitable they get the bomb, even a peaceful Iran with a good, open leader of vision will want and get nukes one day. The nuclear genie is out of the bottle. Now we must use our "soft" power to change the regime from within, as well as support the Iranian people by opening them up to the world.

And if we must, we must use our "hard power" to destabilize Iran's borders and interior with their unhappy minorities.

If memory serves, the genie out of the bottle was in one of my first posts. I agree that they are going to get the bomb, question really is, are they going to get to use it in the forseeable future? If yes, it is going to cause untold damage, to Israel and the region. If no, we, meaning the US and probably Israel, are going to be in for a very rough road, with no end in sight. At this time this seems to be a lose/lose scenario for US.