Well, don’t exclude violence. Just use it wisely, I guess. Lately my opinion is that you haven’t. But I guess some disagree… :)
We’re on the same page. Violence has it’s place, but pretty much restricted to defense. Just like in our personal lives.
When you go to a club, do you see big muscle bound ass kickers, or Hari Crishna (sp?) holding flowers, waiting for trouble. AND, do these guys wait until someone shoots a gun, or as soon as they hear raised voices/possible loud argument? It would be neato if we could believe a military that is “restricted to defense”, but unfortunately you have thousand year old cultures out there (older than our poetry enlightened blip of time) that just see life/death differently.
Do you think that Israel is still around because they give out Olive Branches, or that they have some mighty big bouncers?
Why does everything have to come down to one extreme or the other?
If these bouncers of yours see potential trouble, do they pick out who they think might be the cause (even before voices are raised) and then break their legs?
If they do, do you think they’d be in some kind of legal trouble?
Yeah that about sums it up - you believe Iraq is some sort of underling that needs to be disciplined.
What a load of arse.
Yeah, we do, and so do you. Are you, CM, all for allowing Iran, Iraq, Syria, and perhaps Hezbollah or Al Queda to develop/acquire nuclear weapons? Of course you aren’t, ‘cuz you see them as underlings that need disciplined by you through the U.N. The difference between you and us is only a matter of degree, both on when and how to go about that discipline.
No I don’t see them as ‘underlings’ at all. I’m not sure where I gave you that impression.
Just because I don’t think it would be a postive thing for various countries/groups to develop/acquire nuclear weapons, it doesn’t mean I adopt an attitude of ‘disciplining’ like a parent.
Just because I don’t think it would be a postive thing for various countries/groups to develop/acquire nuclear weapons, it doesn’t mean I adopt an attitude of ‘disciplining’ like a parent.
“Dear Commander Pinpong, I don’t want to appear rude or disciplinary, but I don’t feel its positive that you develop/acquire nuclear weapons. Regards, CM”
Fixed.
Oh wait. Pingpong already has nukes. Come to think of it, “Pingpong” is really a rude, degoratory term. Effing Americans probably came up with that, I’ll bet. No wonder they get no respect. They need to learn better manners. Their manners probably scared Pingpong into building nukes to begin with.
No I don’t see them as ‘underlings’ at all. I’m not sure where I gave you that impression.
Just because I don’t think it would be a postive thing for various countries/groups to develop/acquire nuclear weapons, it doesn’t mean I adopt an attitude of ‘disciplining’ like a parent.
This is a question for you, CM. It has a ‘yes’ or ‘no’ answer. Iran has an opportunity to acquire a nuclear arsenal. It is entirely up to you whether or not they will be allowed to do so. If you say ‘yes’, they get it. If you say ‘no’, they don’t. What do you say?
If it came right down to the crunch of things I guess I would allow Iran to get nukes. If Iran however would openly state that the nukes will be sold to terrorists, and/or they will be used to annihilate Israel, I would say no. I would also accept military force to stop them. I guess a more likely scenario would be that Iran would tell everyone that the nukes was for defence only. If so, I would accept it.
If UN tomorrow would outlaw the existance of nukes, would you favor that US would remove all nukes, or would you suggest keeping them because you don’t trust the rest of the world? How do you justify having nukes, while telling others not to have them?
Just because I don’t think it would be a postive thing for various countries/groups to develop/acquire nuclear weapons, it doesn’t mean I adopt an attitude of ‘disciplining’ like a parent.
“Dear Commander Pinpong, I don’t want to appear rude or disciplinary, but I don’t feel its positive that you develop/acquire nuclear weapons. Regards, CM”
Fixed.
Oh wait. Pingpong already has nukes. Come to think of it, “Pingpong” is really a rude, degoratory term. Effing Americans probably came up with that, I’ll bet. No wonder they get no respect. They need to learn better manners. Their manners probably scared Pingpong into building nukes to begin with.
Talks, like those you continually mock, currently appear to be making progress.
But I’m sure if they had been bombed a couple of years ago it would have all worked out much better by now.....
If it came right down to the crunch of things I guess I would allow Iran to get nukes. If Iran however would openly state that the nukes will be sold to terrorists, and/or they will be used to annihilate Israel, I would say no. I would also accept military force to stop them. I guess a more likely scenario would be that Iran would tell everyone that the nukes was for defence only. If so, I would accept it.
If UN tomorrow would outlaw the existance of nukes, would you favor that US would remove all nukes, or would you suggest keeping them because you don’t trust the rest of the world? How do you justify having nukes, while telling others not to have them?
The jusitification is that they are always going to be ‘right’ and ‘good’ and are the ulimate decision makers on whether others are good or bad. Most of the rest of us only see legitimitacy through some sort of collective approach.
I think I’d agree with your approach.
It simply isn’t a yes or no question though. Making it so doesn’t really provide anything useful.
Well, don’t exclude violence. Just use it wisely, I guess. Lately my opinion is that you haven’t. But I guess some disagree… :)
We’re on the same page. Violence has it’s place, but pretty much restricted to defense. Just like in our personal lives.
When you go to a club, do you see big muscle bound ass kickers, or Hari Crishna (sp?) holding flowers, waiting for trouble. AND, do these guys wait until someone shoots a gun, or as soon as they hear raised voices/possible loud argument? It would be neato if we could believe a military that is “restricted to defense”, but unfortunately you have thousand year old cultures out there (older than our poetry enlightened blip of time) that just see life/death differently.
Do you think that Israel is still around because they give out Olive Branches, or that they have some mighty big bouncers?
Why does everything have to come down to one extreme or the other?
If these bouncers of yours see potential trouble, do they pick out who they think might be the cause (even before voices are raised) and then break their legs?
If they do, do you think they’d be in some kind of legal trouble?
Okay, now you’re being disingenuous (sp?). You know damn well that is not how it operates. If voices are raised, then they keep an eye out for potential situations occurring. They only use the amount of force that is slightly above the person causing the problem. The more they struggle, the tighter the noose per se.
Since we’re talking about Iraq, you know god damn well that Saddism Hussein had PLENTY of opportunity to leave the “club” quietly. More than any other person would normally get. You libbys say that the GOP uses fear tactics, but what would you call this <quote>"do they pick out who they think might be the cause (even before voices are raised) and then break their legs?"</quote>
Iran has plenty of opportunity to quit this shit. Kimpost can’t deny that Ahmedinajihad hasn’t already called for the anhilation of Israel, so we’re supposed to take his word that he won’t use the weapons?
I think you’re both nice guys/gals, but you have no clue about the ME. Being the ex-stepson of one of the fuckers, I think I have some insight.
It simply isn’t a yes or no question though. Making it so doesn’t really provide anything useful.
Yeah, actually, it is a ‘yes’ or ‘no’ question. Either we do have the ability to stop them from acquiring them or we don’t. There is no ‘in between’. If we do, then either we stop them or we don’t. Again, there is no ‘in between’.
In the case of Iran, their President welcomes the prospect of a nuclear Armegeddon. Refusing to acknowledge that and factor it into a decision and take a stand on whether they should be allowed to have nukes is simply to be willingly out of touch with reality.
Well, don’t exclude violence. Just use it wisely, I guess. Lately my opinion is that you haven’t. But I guess some disagree… :)
We’re on the same page. Violence has it’s place, but pretty much restricted to defense. Just like in our personal lives.
When you go to a club, do you see big muscle bound ass kickers, or Hari Crishna (sp?) holding flowers, waiting for trouble. AND, do these guys wait until someone shoots a gun, or as soon as they hear raised voices/possible loud argument? It would be neato if we could believe a military that is “restricted to defense”, but unfortunately you have thousand year old cultures out there (older than our poetry enlightened blip of time) that just see life/death differently.
Do you think that Israel is still around because they give out Olive Branches, or that they have some mighty big bouncers?
Why does everything have to come down to one extreme or the other?
If these bouncers of yours see potential trouble, do they pick out who they think might be the cause (even before voices are raised) and then break their legs?
If they do, do you think they’d be in some kind of legal trouble?
Okay, now you’re being disingenuous (sp?). You know damn well that is not how it operates. If voices are raised, then they keep an eye out for potential situations occurring. They only use the amount of force that is slightly above the person causing the problem. The more they struggle, the tighter the noose per se.
Since we’re talking about Iraq, you know god damn well that Saddism Hussein had PLENTY of opportunity to leave the “club” quietly. More than any other person would normally get. You libbys say that the GOP uses fear tactics, but what would you call this <quote>"do they pick out who they think might be the cause (even before voices are raised) and then break their legs?"</quote>
Iran has plenty of opportunity to quit this shit. Kimpost can’t deny that Ahmedinajihad hasn’t already called for the anhilation of Israel, so we’re supposed to take his word that he won’t use the weapons?
I think you’re both nice guys/gals, but you have no clue about the ME. Being the ex-stepson of one of the fuckers, I think I have some insight.
Who owns this ‘club’? Nighclubs are presumably owned and run by the people who hire and given instructions to bouncers. Is the world the nightclub? How did the US get to own the nightclub (which it presumably does if it sends the bouncers to break legs)?
Invading is akin to breaking someone’s legs, which is exactly why I used it. Extreme violence in order to try and solve a problem Unless they are breaking someone else’s legs (or similar), it’s an over-reaction.
Invading Iraq was using force that ‘was slightly above’ the violence caused by Iraq? Really? How’s that?
Thanks for the ‘no clue’ comment though. I certainly wouldn’t say that about anyone here myself.
What have you learnt from your ex-relation that is specific to the night-club/appropriate use of force discussion?
It simply isn’t a yes or no question though. Making it so doesn’t really provide anything useful.
Yeah, actually, it is a ‘yes’ or ‘no’ question. Either we do have the ability to stop them from acquiring them or we don’t. There is no ‘in between’. If we do, then either we stop them or we don’t. Again, there is no ‘in between’.
In the case of Iran, their President welcomes the prospect of a nuclear Armegeddon. Refusing to acknowledge that and factor it into a decision and take a stand on whether they should be allowed to have nukes is simply to be willingly out of touch with reality.
Oh ok, well if we do have the ability I guess we’ll only find out by going down a path of determining it. One way would be to talk nasty and threaten with might and then bomb. Another would be discuss (like the West has done with North Korea) and use a carrot as well as a stick (sanctions etc, not bombing).
I favour the latter, many people favour the former.
I don’t understand how rhetoric from Western politicians that is clearly bullshit is ignored all the time, and yet when anything useful for propaganda comes out of the mouths of idiots like the Iranian President, it’s put up as a justification for war. Seems to be a slight (read: extreme) imbalance applied there.
Oh ok, well if we do have the ability I guess we’ll only find out by going down a path of determining it. One way would be to talk nasty and threaten with might and then bomb. Another would be discuss (like the West has done with North Korea) and use a carrot as well as a stick (sanctions etc, not bombing).
I favour the latter, many people favour the former.
So, back to the original question:
Diogenes - 25 November 2007 05:24 PM
This is a question for you, CM. It has a ‘yes’ or ‘no’ answer. Iran has an opportunity to acquire a nuclear arsenal. It is entirely up to you whether or not they will be allowed to do so. If you say ‘yes’, they get it. If you say ‘no’, they don’t. What do you say?
Well, CM, you get to make the decision. You can either let Iran have nukes or not. Which is it?
If it came right down to the crunch of things I guess I would allow Iran to get nukes. If Iran however would openly state that the nukes will be sold to terrorists, and/or they will be used to annihilate Israel, I would say no.I would also accept military force to stop them. I guess a more likely scenario would be that Iran would tell everyone that the nukes was for defence only. If so, I would accept it.
What if Iran said they were only for defense then blew Israel off the map?
Do we then tell the smoking crater that was Israel “Apologies, but they said they wouldn’t use them in offense?”
That certainly curtails one countries rights to exist , doesn’t, it?
You picked a dumb example. Talks, like those you continually mock, currently appear to be making progress.
But I’m sure if they had been bombed a couple of years ago it would have all worked out much better by now.....
No, you picked a dumb example:
In particular, North Korea has taken strong and positive steps. It seems serious about ending attempts to terrorise the region through nuclear and missile blackmail. North Korea has taken one major decision in its trip from being a dangerous, hermit terrorist into a somewhat civil nation
It never did anything of the sort: Its nukes were solely developed in self-defence against the dire threat of US nuke-imposed imperialism (you know, “just look at Iraq” and stuff). Now you’re saying peacemongers talked him down, saying what, that the US isn’t that big a threat to everyone, after all?
I vaguely recall an anguished yet firm outcry from the left over Bushitler’s snide and ugly “Axis of Evil” remark, saying pretty much the same thing, which ultmately forced Pingpong to test that nuke. He had no other recourse, I was told.
He can pose as morose and chagrined for the cameras of the critical masses all he wants: Pingpong’s setting off his nuke was and remains blackmail.
If it came right down to the crunch of things I guess I would allow Iran to get nukes. If Iran however would openly state that the nukes will be sold to terrorists, and/or they will be used to annihilate Israel, I would say no.
CM had already pointed out that remark was taken out of context.
However, that doesn’t mean that is not what he meant.
It’s hard to take even a quote of a quote about wiping israel off the map out of ‘context’. But fine, let’s quote the entire statement from the NY Times.
They say it is not possible to have a world without the United States and Zionism. But you know that this is a possible goal and slogan. Let’s take a step back. [[[We had a hostile regime in this country which was undemocratic, armed to the teeth and, with SAVAK, its security apparatus of SAVAK [the intelligence bureau of the Shah of Iran’s government] watched everyone. An environment of terror existed.]]] When our dear Imam [Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, the founder of the Iranian revolution] said that the regime must be removed, many of those who claimed to be politically well-informed said it was not possible. All the corrupt governments were in support of the regime when Imam Khomeini started his movement. [[[All the Western and Eastern countries supported the regime even after the massacre of September 7 [1978] ]]] and said the removal of the regime was not possible. But our people resisted and it is 27 years now that we have survived without a regime dependent on the United States. The tyranny of the East and the West over the world should have to end, but weak people who can see only what lies in front of them cannot believe this. Who would believe that one day we could witness the collapse of the Eastern Empire? But we could watch its fall in our lifetime. And it collapsed in a way that we have to refer to libraries because no trace of it is left. Imam [Khomeini] said Saddam must go and he said he would grow weaker than anyone could imagine. Now you see the man who spoke with such arrogance ten years ago that one would have thought he was immortal, is being tried in his own country in handcuffs and shackles [[[by those who he believed supported him and with whose backing he committed his crimes]]]. Our dear Imam said that the occupying regime must be wiped off the map and this was a very wise statement. We cannot compromise over the issue of Palestine. Is it possible to create a new front in the heart of an old front. This would be a defeat and whoever accepts the legitimacy of this regime [Israel] has in fact, signed the defeat of the Islamic world. Our dear Imam targeted the heart of the world oppressor in his struggle, meaning the occupying regime. I have no doubt that the new wave that has started in Palestine, and we witness it in the Islamic world too, will eliminate this disgraceful stain from the Islamic world
So it’s not just Israel’s existence he is spouting off about, but the US as well. Yay for context.
There is really a lot of propaganda and bullsh*t in that speech, isn’t there?
I am glad I have seen it in context now. I feel it is fairly clear what he means.
What I find amazing is that many people have stated they do not want a religious nut with his finger on a Nuclear trigger about Bush.
I am hoping they would have the same problem with Iran, but I am not so sure.
I don’t understand how rhetoric from Western politicians that is clearly bullshit is ignored all the time, and yet when anything useful for propaganda comes out of the mouths of idiots like the Iranian President, it’s put up as a justification for war.
When and where did Bushitler (=the warmongering West) and/or his lapdogs Howard and Blair even hipothesize over a retaliatory Iranian Armageddon to the cheers of their blindly supportive Masses?
You’ve placated us repeatedly with the assurance that the noble masses would most certianly never allow Ahmenijhad to push any such button while complaining that many of us Americans sit idly by whilst Bushitler rapes Iraq for oil. How can you be so sure the noble masses will not “allow” Ahmenijhad to do likewise?
