Woah, slow down. This is a forum for opinion, we aren't asking you to set world policy. ;)

Wow.

Just ... wow.

So, if I suddenly stated:

How would you feel? Would you take the same stance, because, much like the KKK, the extremist Arabs want nothing less than a complete eradication of a race.

Huh? Solecismic, Glengoyne, Dutch, BishopMVP, probably more that I am not thinking of, all think that we have to attack Iran if they won't give up their nukes diplomatically.

dola -- (first time I've used that word)

I'm not accusing you of being a racist, so don't misunderstand me. I'm simply saying that taking that stance gives one the impression you're agreeing with the one from the radicals that a country and it's people have no right to exist.

I probably missed that somewhere, but do you think Iran has a right to develop nuclear weapons, Mr. Bigglesworth? What should the US do, if diplomatic measures fail, about this situation, if you had the decision-making power?

If you already stated your opinion, my apologies, I missed it.

Apples. Oranges.

Well, I'm not sure about Solecismic, but as far as I can tell Glen, Dutch and Bishop have simply argued that Iran shouldn't have America's permission to have nukes. They have not advocated any sort of immediate action, other than diplomacy ... and considering that nobody believes that Iran is suddenly about to acquire nuclear technology (most estimates put them at 10-15 years away) ...

They can speak for themselves, and will correct me if I'm wrong, but that's my take on the various arguments.

This isn't at all like Iraq. With Iraq the estimates given to the public were that they were DAYS away from having WMD capability. The political situation here is entirely different.

I don't agree that the people themselves have no right to exist.

Let me know this, though: Why do you think Israel has, without question, the "right to exist"?

The same way I feel any country, the United States included, has a right to exist.

I can't justify why the US should exist either, but they do. Same with Israel. If you want to be technical, we "stole" this land from it's former owners too -- so did virtually every other country in existance today. Israel is no different.

Why should Egypt exist? Or Jordan? Or Iran? Israel has as much right to exist IN PEACE that those other countries do, but no one is out there saying those other countries shouldn't.

I'm not sure what you mean by 'right to develop nuclear weapons'. Countries have a right to defend themselves, and if they deem that they need nukes to do it I can't fault them for going after it. And when your biggest rival (Isreal) and the foriegn beliggerant power that invaded your neighbor has them, it's a good idea to get them yourself. I also believe that all things being equal, it's better that they not have them. So I think the US should work out a carrot/stick diplomacy with some combination of sanctions/nuclear power/trade barrier reductions in there.

If diplomacy fails? Then the US is going to have to accept a nuclear Iran, like they have a nuclear Soviet Union, a nuclear China, a nuclear Pakistan and a nuclear North Korea. The costs of war against Iran far outweigh any benefits likely to result from it. Air attacks will only delay Iran's attainment of them. Full scale invasion is impossible right now and likely will cost far more than Iraq, both in terms of lives and resources.

I'm probably wrong about Glen. But just on the first page you have FN:

...and BishopMVP:
Solecismic said something along the lines of 'doing anything possible, hopefully diplomatically' to keep Iran from getting nukes, which sounds to me like he is in favor of doing more that talking, but he hasn't explained it.

That's the thing. We're in such a spot now that our diplomacy carries much less weight than it might otherwise.

But hey, at least we got OBL, the WMD's, and secured the borders!

So it's your position that once some world power unilaterally decides the political borders and declares a geographical area a 'country', that that country's right to exist must be defended no matter what? I'm not saying that I disgaree with your conclusion, but I think I disagree with how you got there.

Fair enough. It's really not an easy question to answer. On one side, more aggessive actions on the part of the US, when we're spread thin already isn't a solution, but I think the US and the Government is trying to stop anothe North Korea from happening, but I can guarantee you if they could turn back the clock, we would have done anything we could to have prevented that.

Iran has been proven to have a connection with Al-Queda, so with them developing a nuclear weapon, how long under one falls in the hands of a Al-Queda operative? War isn't the solution, but when their actions may have a direct effect on our ability to defend our nation, we have a right and a responsibility to take action. Plus, I too have a fear they will use them on Israel, then we'll have no choice but to act.

Arguing that force should follow failed diplomacy is not at all the same thing as saying we should use force instead of diplomacy.

Y'know, that's not what I'm saying, but I can see how you would see that. What I am saying is the Israel has the same right to live and exist as any established, recognized country in existance today. The same reason no one discounts, say as an example, Germany's right to exist as a country, is the same reason no one should discount's Israel's same right.

One of the big problems here is Bush. Nothing can happen until he's out of office because he and his administration have proven that they can not handle a delicate diplomatic situation.

Personally, I think he should resign. I'd advocate it if I thought Cheney would improve the situation considerably. I don't have a lot of confidence in Cheney, either.

However, this is a serious problem. You have a country that has helped attack Israel in the past and in the present. Its leader is a radical fundamentalist who believes Israel should not only disappear, but every man, woman and child should be slaughtered.

I'm not sure diplomacy can work, but if it is to work, the entire civilized world must work together to isolate Iran and supervise the dismantling of its weapons facilities.

Once these options are exhausted, and only then, force must be used. That's at least several years down the line. You can't exercise diplomacy against a nutcase if force isn't an option down the line. That's what makes the UN so pitiful on a larger scale.

The Iraq invasion was a huge mistake. We are only in the beginning stages of learning just how much of a mistake Bush made.

As for MrBig, Rex and Mojo, there's really nothing I can say to a person who justifies the statements from the Iranian president and justifies the language of the charters of groups like Hamas, now the elected leaders of the Palestinians.

These leaders seek the eradication of an entire country. Their predecessors have made many attempts to do so in the past.

If we don't intervene, there will be a nuclear war in our not-too-distant future. That may be entertaining if you're an anti-semite or an anti-islamic to the extent where you find their deaths exciting. To me, the certain death of hundreds of millions, not to mention a world-wide economic disaster, sounds a lot worse than using force against Iran if it comes to that.

In this instance, it is ABSOLUTELY the same thing. Hamas doesn't JUST want the land, they want EVERY Jewish man, woman and child to die. The KKK didn't JUST want the blacks out, they wanted them to not exist. Exact same thing, from two radicals groups with similar agendas.

It's actually a fairly decent analogy in that the reason there were blacks in the first place was because of the Imperial powers' actions. Although, actually, you can assign some blame to the Muslim powers, since they were the ones typically selling the slaves.

well, if you want to boil it down simply:
"because it does."

not only does it, but they have defended themselves, in a darwinst type of way resulting in their "existence" so simply by the fact that they do, it should be. Now if you want to continue your train of thought, that perhaps they dont, then by naturality it would seem you would support an attack on israel, or thereby any country attacking any country and the lines are drawn aftwerwards. Ok, then the lines are drawn and Israel is on one side and many countries on the other. Should Hamas, not change their charter and then support an attack on Israel you are implicitly giving israel the right to destroy the attacking country (in this case Palestinian territories). So be it...I disagree that one group does not have the right to attack another unless provoked or to stop genocide or to stop an impending attack. It doesnt matter at this point which came first the chicken or the egg, as a civilized group of humanity one group (in this case Hamas/Iran, since they hold the cards simply in verbage alone) can change the world, for what would be, IMO, the better.

thank you

I love you :kiss:

It seems to me that there's only a couple of ways of looking at it. Either the bar for a state's "right to exist" is set in such a way that many, if not MOST states have no right to exist; or else there is something special about Israel, which if you start thinking and talking that way, you are in fact aligning yourself with al-Qaeda and the Taliban.

I am also puzzled why the western Imperialist powers are assumed to be agents of injustice, when that region bears more of the fingerprints of the various Muslim empires than anything else.

Im a fan of all countries, including a palestinian have the right to exist...so I lean that way.

As does Israel.

I haven't been arguing against attacking Iran, tomorrow, I've been arguing against attacking Iran EVER, under the current set of circumstances (obviously if they attack Isreal or invade Iraq it's another story). I figured that is what they were talking about.

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?p...top_world_news

Yes, nothing at all like Iraq.

(Granted, the article talks about it being 16 days after installing the centrifuges. But the remarks of the State Department official are meant to project impending doom, much like the remarks about Iraq's WMD's before we invaded there)

i agree, we agree on something!!

is that sentence wrong? we can NEVER attack some country?

I think Mr Bigglesworth would prefer there be a smoking gun next time. I think that is wrong, but I understand where it comes from, assuming it's not part of Mr Biggleworths grander view of anti-Americanism.

That's the big dispute I have with the Bush administration is that they promised us intel reform, and apparently there have been some shakeups in the fundamentalist approach to intel gathering and collection, but the end result, especially with regards to Iran, seems like the same approach we took with Iraq. I don't know how you handle it better, but that's where I expect the US intelligence (and European Intelligence agencies for that matter,) to do their job a whole lot better.

Even it that means go back to the old system where HUMINT was a questionable practice of paying the actual bad guys to find out what's going on (rather than paying the bad guys enemies--who tell us what we want to hear). No matter how much people hated the old way, you have to admit, we knew what was going on in the world a lot better than we do today trying to rely on Predator drones.

It's sad to see how powerless the UN is in all of this.

Iran wants to be the new superpower in the Middle East. That cannot, in any way, be a good thing.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060416/...n_palestinians


Honestly, the west cutting off funds to the Palestinian Authority cuts much deeper than Iran is willing to admit. Iran was always funding Hamas, the west was funding the PA. Now that the charade is over and Hamas is the public spokeman for Palestine, the west funds dry up and all they are left with is Iraq and Iran funds and Al Qaeda funds. Errrr, scratch the Iraq funds, Saddam Hussein isn't paying Hamas anymore and not sure how much money Al Qaeda has left these days.

It brings to mind H.L. Mencken: "Democracy is the theory that the common people know what they want and deserve to get it good and hard."

Well let's all welcome Hamas to the real world. After they pay for their terrorist efforts, I wonder how much left of that they will have for their the people under their authority.

I'm sure not much, and when they continue to suffer, it will be because of the United States. Right, Mr. Bigglesworth?

Did you stop reading after the part you quoted?

It's sad and pathetic watching someone's worldview crumble before the facts, to the extent that his only rejoined is to call someone a traitor.

Hamas has been one of the most humanitarian organizations towards the Palestinian people. It's why they were elected. Democratically.

Boy, it's not like Dutch to have his facts wrong...

Surely you wouldn't suggest that's the ONLY reason they were elected.

I didn't call you a traitor, I see no reason to believe you've taken any action against our nation. It's America, it's your right to hate it...if that's your thing. It's also my right to disagree with it.

Where have a said that? All I've said is that You and Rex got your panties in a bunch believing that the President is hell bent on making war with Iran in the immediate future.

I've been pretty clear in this thread that I think a US attack on Iran in the near future is a bad bad, very bad idea.

I agree as well for that matter.

Yes I know, I corrected myself in a previous post, sorry about that.

Oh I'm not a traitor, I just hate America. Interesting, what brings you to that conclusion? I guess if I act on my hate of America, that would make me a traitor. I voted for Kerry, is that enough to make me a traitor, Dutch?

Colonel Sam Gardiner was on CNN on Friday, and says that evidence is mounting that the US has troops on the ground in Iran already:
No idea if it is true, but it wouldn't surprise me. Sy Hersh reported it right after the 2004 election. Some Democratic congressmen have written the President and asked if this is true, that the US has either special forces or are working with groups that are attacking targets in Iran. I'm sure Bush will set everyone straight.

Honestly Dutch, we're not in grade school anymore.

Now look what you've gone and made me do:

So, likewise, would you say that whenever there's evidence (no matter how small) that a nation has developed nuclear weapons without international consent, we should invade them? If so, when's the invasion of North Korea? Should we invade India and Pakistan after the fact (or just continue to reward them)? Israel's nuclear program is a poorly-kept secret, should we invade them?

Or perhaps we should invade a nation whenever they're ruled by a brutal dictator with anti-American views, eh? I guess we'll be going into North Korea soon, then, as in right away, right? And we'll be popping into Zimbabwe really soon now, right?

:)

Northern Ireland.

Grade school questions are easy then, right?

What's your favorite color? Blue
What's your favorite food? Pizza
What's your favorite country? Oh fuck you and grow up!

Yeah, I got it already. ;)

Er, Saudi Arabia? Not the state, officially, but certainly many of the exceptionally wealthy fundamentalist-leaning citizens. Why is money from Saudi Arabia such a blind spot for you?

Grade school questions are asked in a way to acquire a particular, unrelated, response, so that the questioner can immediately say "See! You're Wrong! Neener neener!" See also - Fox News.