• Moderators, please send me a PM if you are unable to access mod permissions. Thanks, Habsy.

OT: American Politics

theREALkoreaboy said:
because some of us recognized very early on that this wasn't really a "democratic uprising", and that it almost certainly would strengthen the hand of the islamists and bring them closer to power in a nation that was one of our most dependable, stable allies in the region.

hosni mubarak in charge was infinitely preferable for us (and probably large segments of egypt's people too, truth be told) than having islamists in charge. do you think what's going on in egypt right now looks like "democracy"?
Click to expand...

Banning parties is the number one means of granting them legitimate governing power in the eyes of their followers. Just look at the example of the ANC in South Africa.

It's better to let their incompetence and inability to provide for the people to be put out in the open for all of their previous supporters to see rather than grant them the credibility that censorship provides.
 
theREALkoreaboy said:
2) keep the military option on the table, but use it truly as a very last resort. attacking iran has tons of potential problems attached to it, so it should only be attempted if we can be reasonably sure of a successful mission and if we can with confidence establish that they have or almost have WMDs and the desire to use them or transfer them to someone who wants to use them
Click to expand...

As for this one, the most powerful military apparatus in the history of human civilization had problems with local insurgencies in one of the most well-educated, secular states in the Middle East.

What makes you think that hanging on to any gains post-invasion in Iran would be feasible given you're facing a significantly more religious state-sanctioned Islamic fundamentalist regime, in an area that is around 4.5 times larger geographically-speaking, significantly more mountainous, with a population total that is almost 50 million souls greater (almost 3 times larger), with one of the largest present-day standing military and paramilitary forces in the world? Iran would be absolutely nightmarish. You're probably looking at 30,000-50,000 occupation deaths.
 
i don't think anyone is talking about a fullscale invasion and occupation of iran. i agree with you that with the west's military and financial situation right now, that would be a very, very bad idea.

but, standing by and accepting a nuclear iran as a fait accompli is also not an option. not with this regime. not with these people in charge. the chances of them using nukes to attack israel or us are far too high.
 
They have no ability to project nuclear weapons the distance required to hit North America or even the significantly closer Western European region. The danger would be fully confined to Israel.

And rest assured the big whigs in Tel Aviv would never let the situation approach anything close to that.
 
theREALkoreaboy said:
oh, ok then. as long as its "fully confined to israel", we shouldnt worry about it at all.
Click to expand...

We don't have nuclear weapons. They do. They could turn Persia into a sea of glass in several minutes if they chose to. Make no mistake: the Israelis hold the balance of power in the region.
 
Israel: 70+ Nuclear weapons and modern rocketry to deliver it
Iran: Technologically incapable of producing uranium enriched beyond 20% (therefor useless in anything aside from a "dirty bomb") or rocketry able to deliver a nuclear payload.

somehow = ZOMG, Iran is a nuclear threat to Israel
 
theREALkoreaboy said:
if ONE nuke makes it into israel they are done. finished. they'd hold nothing.
Click to expand...

and Iran is obliterated by a massive nuclear counter attack.


More importantly though, even the Mossad doesn't think that such a thing is likely:

http://www.haaretz.com/print-editio...ssarily-existential-threat-to-israel-1.404227

On Tuesday evening, Pardo addressed an audience of about 100 Israeli ambassadors. According to three ambassadors present at the briefing, the intelligence chief said that Israel was using various means to foil Iran's nuclear program and would continue to do so, but if Iran actually obtained nuclear weapons, it would not mean the destruction of the State of Israel.

"What is the significance of the term existential threat?" the ambassadors quoted Pardo as asking. "Does Iran pose a threat to Israel? Absolutely. But if one said a nuclear bomb in Iranian hands was an existential threat, that would mean that we would have to close up shop and go home. That's not the situation. The term existential threat is used too freely."

The ambassadors said Pardo did not comment on the possibility of an Israeli military assault on Iran.

"But what was clearly implied by his remarks is that he doesn't think a nuclear Iran is an existential threat to Israel," one of the envoys said.
Click to expand...
 
aaaand before you go making my opinions up out of thin air to suit your argument, here they are, as clear as I can make them.

20% uranium is unusable for military applications. Full stop. But, that is also the upper threshold for use in research reactors (like the Natanz reactor is) and anything beyond 20% enrichment is only useful for military purposes.

I don't trust that regime for a second, but, as signers of the NPT, they're allowed by international law to develop nuclear technology for civilian purposes. We have no proof at all that they're aiming towards military applications. Until we have that proof, we honour our international agreements.
 
nukem all

Duke_Nukem_Forever.jpg
 
JaysCyYoung said:
The fact that it inconveniences us should not even be taken into account. From a moral perspective it's the best thing to let them make their own mistakes and learn from them. Foreign powers getting too involved in their domestic political affairs since the time of Herbert Kitchener was the problem in the first place.
Click to expand...

What inconvenience? What they do with their country is their problem. It will openly become our problem when they start playing games with the Suez and Israel.

They are heading backwards as far as social freedoms and tolerance are concerned. It's highly presumptuous to believe that they will progress to a more open society. Turkey had adamant democracy for several decades backed with occasional junta and yet, once Erdogen took power, he started to move Turkey to a mildly Islamist state. Edrogan himself has said that democracy is a train you take until it's time to get off.

Islam is more then a religion, it's also a political body....and there is no open democracy in Islam. To assume or hope for anything else is folly.
 
To assume that we can declare to be in support of democracy and then dismiss or cast those aside those freely elected regimes that we do not seem compatible to our interests is folly.

Let them have their growing pains.
 
Re: OT: Canadian Politics

The Institute for Research on Public Policy Policy (IRPP) says that Canada's best premier - in the last 40 years - was Alberta's Peter Lougheed.

For a report released Thursday, the national think tank asked 30 historians, political scientists, economists, journalists and policy advisers from across Canada to pick their top five choices for best provincial premier since 1972.

Ontario's William Davis finished second on the list, followed by Saskatchewan's Allan Blakeney, New Brunswick's Frank McKenna and Robert Bourassa of Quebec.

Former PQ premier René Lévesque finished a close sixth.

If those are the best, who are the worst?

If current headlines are any indication, a few current premiers could find their way on to a future "worst ever" list, including B.C.'s Christy Clark and Ontario's Dalton McGuinty.
Click to expand...

http://ca.news.yahoo.com/blogs/canada-politics/canada-worst-premier-time-192843310.html
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top