explain to me Iran

[Skel]

I dont know much about politics and dont follow them so answer me this..

How can the United States tell Iran not to make nukes when we have them ourselves? This to me seems hypocritcal. What are the politics behind this?

 

[spider_007]

-there is a pact between Russia and US to get rid of nukes (i'm not sure if it's all of them)
-and second, middle east is an unstable region at this time, would you want a nuke in the arms reach of bunch of triger happy extreemists?????? That's just begging for another "missle crises"

Look what's going on with North Korea, if it wasn't for the nukes, US would have whiped them out buy now and imposed thir "culture" on the desperate people (like they are doing in other countries- it's one of the things i hate about US)

 

[Friendly Otter]

Impose their culture? Nah. Impose a liberal Feel-Good globalist culture, not the traditional conservative culture. (E g, where is the Right to Bear Arms for Iraqis? On the other hand, feminism is an integral part of the Reconstruction ambitions.) You think because the current president got on the Republican ticket he's a conservative - but he got on that ticket in the first place by being against Clinton's globalist nation-building à la what was done in Kosovo. (Anyone still remember?) In office, he showed that he was just like Clinton in that regard. This should not be spun against real American conservatism, which has always been isolationist, i e let other countries shape their own destinies in accordance with the nature of their people. This has its proponents, like Pat Buchanan who was Ronald Reagan's vice president, but they are not in power today.

Today's so-called conservatives in the Republican Party have all bent down to the cabal called "neoconservatives," who came over from the Democrats - their agenda being, back in the days, anti-Soviet and pro-Israel, nowadays basically pro-Israel only, which means bomb any Middle Eastern country that lends financial and diplomatic aid to Palestinian militants. Eventually, many Dems grew increasingly wary of supporting the Israelis in that conflict. (Not guys like Clinton though.)

So this crowd jumped ship and restyled themselves as neocons. Among today's neocons: Paul Wolfowitz, Deputy Defense Secretary under Rumsfeld, who was the most vociferous proponent of invading Iraq, long before September 11. He was the one who drummed up support in Congress and the White House for an invasion of Afghanistan - this is widely admitted. Another: Douglas Feith, Under-Secretary of Defense and Policy Advisor at the Pentagon, Wolfowitz' right hand. Both come from the Israeli lobby. (Feith's small law firm Feith and Zell stated on its website, prior to his appointment, that he represents Israeli arms manufacturers. They have only one international office, in Israel. This is not his only Israeli tie, I just mention it as an example.)

Then there is Richard Perle, who used to be chairman of the Pentagon's Defence Policy Board. He was expelled from Senator Henry Jackson's office in the 1970s after the National Security Agency (NSA) caught him passing highly-classified National Security documents to the Israeli Embassy.

I could go on. No doubt none of you have heard of this. However, you may be aware that the Likud Party in Israel was always advocating a U.S. strike against Iraq, Iran and Syria, a demand that the neocons have echoed.

Saddam Hussein was a U.S. ally until the U.S. attacked Iraq. He got heavy U.S. support when he invaded Iran. He ran one of the most secular Gulf nations, where Christians opeated liquor stores in Baghdad and youths went to Western-like rock concerts. His minister of foreign policy, Tariq Aziz, was a Catholic. Even after the Gulf War, he always hoped that the U.S. would come to its senses and reestablish the close ties they used to have - much to the annoyance of his generals, who realized this would never happen. What did the U.S. gain from attacking him again? Nothing. But Israel gained a lot. Their enemy Saddam is gone, and Syria, with its large Palestinian population, has U.S. military bases in Iraq for a neighbor. The Israeli lobby from AIPAC to Wolfowitz are happy. American soldiers and Iraqi civilians are not.

 

[Shiftkey]

We can tell Iran not to make nukes because the US is the most powerful country. It doesn't have to be fair.

 

[chickenlegs03]

it's funny how we're so worried that Iran may pull out of the Nuclear Proliferation Treaty, when Israel, India, and Pakistan never even signed the treaty

 

[chickenlegs03]

-and second, middle east is an unstable region at this time, would you want a nuke in the arms reach of bunch of triger happy extreemists?????? That's just begging for another "missle crises"

israel and pakistan are also in the middle east. they both have nukes already.

remember the india v. pakistan thing a while ago? you're right things could get edgy.

honestly, the president of iran has no real power. he is as much of a puppet as bush. however, the mullahs who have real power are even worse than ahmadinejad.

i have no doubt iran wants nuclear weapons. how could you want nuclear energy when you are sitting on the world's 4th largest supply of oil?

the calls to "wipe israel off the map" and to hype the nuclear program and military up by the president of iran are just propaganda. the people of iran hate him and his policies. he says these things to take their attention off the crappy domestic circumstances...such as how their water sucks, their buildings suck. the government steals their money. ever notice how every time there's even a minor earthquake there, hundreds die, at least? if they really cared for the people that wouldn't happen. the whole nuclear buzz is a way to create some nationalism..."rally 'round the flag" strategy as they call it in international politics. same method bush used when he repeatedly tried to inflict emotions of pain by mentioning 9/11 when going to invade iraq. the two have no relation, yet we are there now.

i think bush and ahmedinejad are very similar.

i'm not a liberal or democrat either. probably an independent. most people who know me don't know what 'label' i am because i have different stances on different issues. i actually don't have much faith in politics on the national level...i do follow it though, and those are my 2 cents.

and i honestly don't think there will ever be an "attack" on iran by any country. that would spark wwIII.

 

[Bible_Belt]

You know who wants us to invade Iran really, really, badly? The Baathists in Iraq who are Saddam's old buddies and who organize the resistance to kill American soldiers. The Baathists fought Iran in the Iran-Iraq war, and those wounds never healed. The Iraqi resistance would like to shame the US so badly that Bush feels a need to invade another country to cover up his giant failure in Iraq. If we bomb Iran, we are doing the will of our enemy.

 

[wunnaBsmooth]

Just remember

Bush is a fatalist by religion

 

[Chillisauce]

We can tell Iran not to make nukes because the US is the most powerful country. It doesn't have to be fair.

Exactly, a country will do what is in it's best interests. Right and wrong are subjective views, which makes discussing morality in relation to world politics illogical.

I'm Australian by the way and we're not exactly the 'good guys'.

Considering that the Solomon Islands are a crucial location in the defence of Australia, it is some co-incidence that we now have over 2000 'police' there helping to 'to “rehabilitate” the country's governmental institution'.

While everyone is concerned with what the US are doing in Iraq its time for the world to see our Imperialistic side! First the Solomon Islands, next the whole of Asia! muahahaa!

 

[drixsa]

Impose their culture? Nah. Impose a liberal Feel-Good globalist culture, not the traditional conservative culture. (E g, where is the Right to Bear Arms for Iraqis? On the other hand, feminism is an integral part of the Reconstruction ambitions.) You think because the current president got on the Republican ticket he's a conservative - but he got on that ticket in the first place by being against Clinton's globalist nation-building à la what was done in Kosovo. (Anyone still remember?) In office, he showed that he was just like Clinton in that regard. This should not be spun against real American conservatism, which has always been isolationist, i e let other countries shape their own destinies in accordance with the nature of their people. This has its proponents, like Pat Buchanan who was Ronald Reagan's vice president, but they are not in power today.

Today's so-called conservatives in the Republican Party have all bent down to the cabal called "neoconservatives," who came over from the Democrats - their agenda being, back in the days, anti-Soviet and pro-Israel, nowadays basically pro-Israel only, which means bomb any Middle Eastern country that lends financial and diplomatic aid to Palestinian militants. Eventually, many Dems grew increasingly wary of supporting the Israelis in that conflict. (Not guys like Clinton though.)

So this crowd jumped ship and restyled themselves as neocons. Among today's neocons: Paul Wolfowitz, Deputy Defense Secretary under Rumsfeld, who was the most vociferous proponent of invading Iraq, long before September 11. He was the one who drummed up support in Congress and the White House for an invasion of Afghanistan - this is widely admitted. Another: Douglas Feith, Under-Secretary of Defense and Policy Advisor at the Pentagon, Wolfowitz' right hand. Both come from the Israeli lobby. (Feith's small law firm Feith and Zell stated on its website, prior to his appointment, that he represents Israeli arms manufacturers. They have only one international office, in Israel. This is not his only Israeli tie, I just mention it as an example.)

Then there is Richard Perle, who used to be chairman of the Pentagon's Defence Policy Board. He was expelled from Senator Henry Jackson's office in the 1970s after the National Security Agency (NSA) caught him passing highly-classified National Security documents to the Israeli Embassy.

I could go on. No doubt none of you have heard of this. However, you may be aware that the Likud Party in Israel was always advocating a U.S. strike against Iraq, Iran and Syria, a demand that the neocons have echoed.

Saddam Hussein was a U.S. ally until the U.S. attacked Iraq. He got heavy U.S. support when he invaded Iran. He ran one of the most secular Gulf nations, where Christians opeated liquor stores in Baghdad and youths went to Western-like rock concerts. His minister of foreign policy, Tariq Aziz, was a Catholic. Even after the Gulf War, he always hoped that the U.S. would come to its senses and reestablish the close ties they used to have - much to the annoyance of his generals, who realized this would never happen. What did the U.S. gain from attacking him again? Nothing. But Israel gained a lot. Their enemy Saddam is gone, and Syria, with its large Palestinian population, has U.S. military bases in Iraq for a neighbor. The Israeli lobby from AIPAC to Wolfowitz are happy. American soldiers and Iraqi civilians are not.

Who let Ahmadinejad onto sosuave.com???

 

[chickenlegs03]

Who let Ahmadinejad onto sosuave.com???

:crackup:

 

[Le Parisien]

How can the United States tell Iran not to make nukes when we have them ourselves? This to me seems hypocritcal. What are the politics behind this?

You are absolutely right, it's a blatant show of hypocrisy.

Sure it's a very vast topic, we can write thousands of pages about it. But the bottom line is, the world at the countries to countries level is just like the old pre-historic jungle, the man (country) with the biggest brutal force wins and rules.

The only difference is that the modern day bully will brandish things such as "freedom", "democracy" and yada yada to pass himself as the good guy who's trying to save the world when he's actually just scr**ing all the others over.

In a situation like this, what can you do?

- First choice: become a bully yourself so the big big bully of all will be forced to go easy on you. That's basically what China has been trying to do in the past 50 years.

- Second choice: become a "friend" with the bully. You will get some good benefits, but from time to time you will still get azz-fvcked. When that happens, what you do? You STFU...Japan is a very good example.

- Third choice, you can't be choice number one, and the big bully doesn't give you the chance to be choice number two. What can you do? You get azz-fvcked all the time with little to no benefits and you still need to STFU... That's the case for most countries in the world. :moon:

- Fourth choice, you can't be choice one, and you used to be choice number two but you lost the big bully's favor. But still you REALLY don't wanna become choice three, then you start looking for shortcuts to improve your fate. You start to look for the HolyGrail: nukes. One of these guys is named Iran.:woo:


Sorry for the oversimplification and obscenities.

 

[Shiftkey]

The only difference is that the modern day bully will brandish things such as "freedom", "democracy" and yada yada to pass himself as the good guy who's trying to save the world when he's actually just scr**ing all the others over.

This might be true in some cases, but we are not "screwing the world over" by trying to stop Iran having nukes. Quite the opposite - do you really want Iran to have nukes? I sure as hell don't. When you're taking WORLD peace into account, the less countries with nukes, the better.

 

[aftershock]

Basically Iran is trying to AMOG the US.

The US AMOGed Iraq and Iran is keen for the same not to happen. So Iran is trying to neg hit the US by that letter. Bush however is obviously not answering Irans calls, although Iran did number close many years ago.

Also the President of Iran is Keyboard Jockey, it's the Supreme Leader of Iran who has the power. He's the Alpha Male around those parts. President claims to have the power but he can't post a FR to save his life.

So Iran is becoming the Jerk by building a nuclear arsenal. They have seen that France, Germany and much of "Old Europe" have become outcasts by being "nice guys", although Germany's now a RAFC since they changed their Chancellor. Hence the alternative tactics.

What the f**k am I saying...?

 

[Le Parisien]

This might be true in some cases, but we are not "screwing the world over" by trying to stop Iran having nukes. Quite the opposite - do you really want Iran to have nukes? I sure as hell don't. When you're taking WORLD peace into account, the less countries with nukes, the better.

Personaly, I have all the reasons in the world to NOT want Iran to have nukes.
I live in a rich, developed, "free" western country, basically I am enjoying almost all the benefits of the current "world order", why would I want to change the status quo?

But my intellectual honesty leads me to point out the obvious.

Think about it, in a way, not wanting Iran to have nukes has the same thing to do with not wanting China to become a rich and developed country, with not wanting Europe to become more and more integrated and independant from the USA, with wanting Russia to stay a backward soviet vestige whose economy will only rely on its natural ressources, etc...

 

[Le Parisien]

Basically Iran is trying to AMOG the US.

The US AMOGed Iraq and Iran is keen for the same not to happen. So Iran is trying to neg hit the US by that letter. Bush however is obviously not answering Irans calls, although Iran did number close many years ago.

Also the President of Iran is Keyboard Jockey, it's the Supreme Leader of Iran who has the power. He's the Alpha Male around those parts. President claims to have the power but he can't post a FR to save his life.

So Iran is becoming the Jerk by building a nuclear arsenal. They have seen that France, Germany and much of "Old Europe" have become outcasts by being "nice guys", although Germany's now a RAFC since they changed their Chancellor. Hence the alternative tactics.

What the f**k am I saying...?

Brilliant!!!
:crackup:

 

[chickenlegs03]

Basically Iran is trying to AMOG the US.

The US AMOGed Iraq and Iran is keen for the same not to happen. So Iran is trying to neg hit the US by that letter. Bush however is obviously not answering Irans calls, although Iran did number close many years ago.

Also the President of Iran is Keyboard Jockey, it's the Supreme Leader of Iran who has the power. He's the Alpha Male around those parts. President claims to have the power but he can't post a FR to save his life.

So Iran is becoming the Jerk by building a nuclear arsenal. They have seen that France, Germany and much of "Old Europe" have become outcasts by being "nice guys", although Germany's now a RAFC since they changed their Chancellor. Hence the alternative tactics.

What the f**k am I saying...?

wow, :crackup: i can't breathe

 

[daSoCalpimp]

To keep it simple

For some reason the US is allies with Israel, I won't discuss those reasons

Now the Israelis are disliked by Muslims/Arabs cause of the Palestinian conflict.

If I ran gets nuclear weapons they can fire them on Israel, or more importantly they can have political power when it comes to negotiations.

Who you gonna take more seriously, Iran in Nukes? or Iran without Nukes?

This could shift the power in the middle east, it could make Israel have to give up its power in the middle east.

And I truly don't care. But that sums it up.

 

[PeterNorthisawesome]

1. The main reason Iran is building nukes is because THEY HATE US and they don't want US to invade their country. U.S. won't invade North Korea because we know they got couple nukes, they freaking launched a MISSILE over Japan (U.S. Ally with around 20 U.S. bases stationed near Tokyo) so Iran is making nukes as fast is possible so they don't end up like Iraq.

2. The second reason is to provide terrorist or enemies of the U.S. with nukes. They could prob smuggle it in U.S. or sell those to other nations who will actually be able to attack U.S. and they won't be held responsible.

Or they might be just building nuclear plants for energy and help them get out of the stone age.

 

[Docs]

The main reason Iran is building nukes is because THEY HATE US and they don't want US to invade their country. U.S. won't invade North Korea because we know they got couple nukes, they freaking launched a MISSILE over Japan (U.S. Ally with around 20 U.S. bases stationed near Tokyo) so Iran is making nukes as fast is possible so they don't end up like Iraq.

You probably floored it right here.