Realistic solutions for dealing with the Iran problem

[ARealConservative]

Well...(nodnod, winkwink)...if the u.s. needs to convince the world that it's foreign policy does not equal Israel's policy,then there must be something to the notion that they are the same (nod nod wink wink), and since they are the same, we must guard against this dual loyalty thing where the Jews ....OOPS, I MEANT ZIONISTS, REALLY I DID I MEANT TO SAY **ZIONISTS** SORRY ABOUT THE CONFUSION, IT'S ZIONISTS -- where the zionists because of their duel loyalties are plotting and scheming behind the scenes in that way they always do and have done since time immemorial.

Now, once having dispatched this need to form our foreign policy according to the dictates of the J.....the Zionists with their duel loyalties, we can plainly see that Iran has some legitimate gripes. How dare Israel elevate the status of women to full equality with men. Don't they know that men own women just as they own any other possession? And what's this with the science and technology stuff? Give me a break. There has to be something wrong with Israel when it garners more Nobel awards in an average year than the entire Islamic world in the whole history of the awards. It's only right and fair that Iran has outlined it's plans to nuke Israel while offering the rationalization that it can destroy this cancer completely while the perfect Ummah is so vast that it will only receive only an inconveniencing setback with any retaliation.

How dare anybody challenge the perfect logic of that one? Obviously, if the U.S. fails to see Iran's plans as anything other than a generous offer to rid the world of such a scourge as the J....oops again, as the ZIONISTS, then it must be that those Zionists have us by the short hairs due to all their conniving and duel loyalties and stuff.

What are you, the jewish version of Al Sharpton?

 

[Vader]

1) Who is "You people"?

2) The entire fooking region doesn't want Israel to have nukes either - yet they do.

What that region wants regarding Israel's nuclear arsenal is irrelevant. They don't want Israel to have nukes because they don't like being deterred from their racist "kill all jews" routine.

They want Israel disarmed so they can invade. Plain and simple.

:shock:

 

[Vader]

What are you, the jewish version of Al Sharpton?

"Zionists" is a racist term used by radical muslim scumbags to describe Israel.

Lets not use this term.

Thank you.

 

[ARealConservative]

"Zionists" is a racist term used by radical muslim scumbags to describe Israel.

Lets not use this term.

Thank you.

1) Zionism is a political movement

2) My post didn't use the term zionist or zionism.

 

[rivrrat]

That person said that everyone has the right to nuclear weapons. So if everyone has a right to them then what is wrong with selling them to them? Right? I mean if they have a RIGHT to it then why is it wrong to sell it to them?

I don't personally agree with selling any weapons to any country anywhere. Or giving them to them. I personally believe that each country should be left to their own self-determination, technological development and industry. And if they WANT weapons to use, then they can bloody well make them themselves. Additionally, they should not be stopped from doing so by countries who already have weapons just because those countries want to keep their nuclear dominance and control over the region. They should only encounter opposition if and when they aggressively attack, or "pre-emptively strike" another country. Then, that country of course has the legitimate right to defend itself.

 

[Slainte]

"Zionists" is a racist term used by radical muslim scumbags to describe Israel.

Lets not use this term.

Thank you.

:rofl

Really, I thought Zionism was the name of the nationalist movement of the Jewish People.

I'd expect the vast majority of Jews are quite proud to be known as Zionists

 

[Tashah]

Convenient. :roll:

I suppose that in your case, the truth is inconvenient.

foreign-aid is pretty far encompassing- Taking into account all grants, loans, and government contracts -Israel gets more U.S. money then any other country.

Technically that is probably true, but very misleading. Whatever non-foreign aid sums Israel recieves from the US is not free lunch money. These sums are all paid back with interest. Israel has never defaulted on such a loan. Do your homework.

It's symbolic - allegiance to only 1 country. Having citizens that are also citizens of Israel plays right into the hands of the mentality that one of us is the puppet of the other.

That is YOUR mentality sir, not the mentality of governments.

 

[ARealConservative]

I suppose that in your case, the truth is inconvenient.

It is also inconvenient when trying to get other nations to give up weapons. And since we are in a thread discussing how to solve the problems in Iran- a big step will be to make Israel live up to the same expectations we have for those other nations.

We put the clamps on those other nations - their foreign aid is very much tied into agreeing to pacts such as the NPT. The same should be done with Israel.

Technically that is probably true, but very misleading. Whatever non-foreign aid sums Israel recieves from the US is not free lunch money. These sums are all paid back with interest. Israel has never defaulted on such a loan. Do your homework.

I've done plenty of homework on this subject. No - Israel hasn't defaulted on any loans. Most loans are loans in name only - and we both know it.

And - as long as our country operates a huge debt - those loans cost us additional money.

That is YOUR mentality sir, not the mentality of governments.

I'm not following you now.

 

[Tashah]

Additionally, they should not be stopped from doing so by countries who already have weapons just because those countries want to keep their nuclear dominance and control over the region.

First of all, individual countries do not regulate or enforce nuclear non-proliferation. The UN/IAEA is tasked with this responsibility.

They should only encounter opposition if and when they aggressively attack, or "pre-emptively strike" another country. Then, that country of course has the legitimate right to defend itself.

Let me see if I understand this correctly. According to your doctrine, opposition to nuclear proliferation/weapons acquisition is reasonable and valid only after the fact? Or to put it another way, validity is only garnered after a nuclear device has detonated over a city? :shock:

I would speculate that the victims of such a tragic event would not be comforted with the proposition that the total destruction of their city has satisified a higher evidenciary purpose.

 

[rivrrat]

First of all, individual countries do not regulate or enforce nuclear non-proliferation. The UN/IAEA is tasked with this responsibility.

Who makes up the UN? Who are the participants/members?

Let me see if I understand this correctly. According to your doctrine, opposition to nuclear proliferation/weapons acquisition is reasonable and valid only after the fact? Or to put it another way, validity is only garnered after a nuclear device has detonated over a city? :shock:

I see no other reason to be aggressive with a country. If no one is being aggressive, then no one has reason to be aggressive. (Idealy) Obviously the rulers of some countries sometimes like to drop bombs on other countries as a show of force, or to take something from them, or to take back "their" land. Until a country DOES something aggressive, another country has no legitimate right to attack them. What right could they *possibly* have?

I would speculate that the victims of such a tragic event would not be comforted with the proposition that the total destruction of their city has satisified a higher evidenciary purpose.

I'm quite the victims of the nuclear attacks the US initiated weren't happy about us dropping a bomb on their asses. I don't see your point.

 

[Tashah]

It is also inconvenient when trying to get other nations to give up weapons. And since we are in a thread discussing how to solve the problems in Iran - a big step will be to make Israel live up to the same expectations we have for those other nations.

Note the snippet I have bolded. This thread is indeed about Iran. Why do you avoid that issue and attempt to derail this thread? Your posts here are Israeli-centric in a thread about Iran. Why single out Israel at all? You have made no mention of the established nuclear powers who have indeed signed a treaty (NPT) which calls for total nuclear disarmament. Are you disingenuous or merely agenda driven?

We put the clamps on those other nations - their foreign aid is very much tied into agreeing to pacts such as the NPT. The same should be done with Israel.

Show me citations which document this accusation about the United States. Lol. The US blackmailed nations into signing the NPT? For what purpose? At the time of the NPT inauguration in 1970, the US was providing nuclear technology to any country that asked for it... the Atoms for Peace program which began under president Eisenhower. You really should brush up on things before making such ridiculous accusations.

I've done plenty of homework on this subject. No - Israel hasn't defaulted on any loans.

Voila! Then why imply that loans are funny money?

Most loans are loans in name only - and we both know it.

Lol. You would be hard pressed to convince the Israeli taxpayer that foreign loans are not paid back.

And - as long as our country operates a huge debt - those loans cost us additional money.

Those loans are repaid with accrued interest. Capeché?

I'm not following you now.

If governments do not object to dual-citizenship, perhaps it is because it is in their best interests to provide this status. Think about it.

 

[Tashah]

Who makes up the UN? Who are the participants/members?

The UN membership. You seemed to imply that individual nations are ganging up on poor Iran. Apologies if I misunderstood you.

I see no other reason to be aggressive with a country.

Requiring that a nation honor its treaty commitments is being aggressive?

If no one is being aggressive, then no one has reason to be aggressive. (Idealy) Obviously the rulers of some countries sometimes like to drop bombs on other countries as a show of force, or to take something from them, or to take back "their" land. Until a country DOES something aggressive, another country has no legitimate right to attack them. What right could they *possibly* have?

We are not discussing run of the mill conventional bombs here. We are discussing nuclear weapons... weapons of mass destruction. The distinction should be self-evident.

You are missing the gist of this discussion, which is that Iran signed a treaty to NOT acquire nuclear-weapon technology and it is in violation of that treaty. Why insert a scenario of retaliation into this discussion at all? We are supposedly looking for amenable solutions.

I'm quite the victims of the nuclear attacks the US initiated weren't happy about us dropping a bomb on their asses. I don't see your point.

Then you don't quite grasp the difference between unalterable history and possible futures.

 

[ARealConservative]

Note the snippet I have bolded. This thread is indeed about Iran. Why do you avoid that issue and attempt to derail this thread? Your posts here are Israeli-centric in a thread about Iran. Why single out Israel at all? You have made no mention of the established nuclear powers who have indeed signed a treaty (NPT) which calls for total nuclear disarmament. Are you disingenuous or merely agenda driven?

C - neither

I'm merely pointing out the position we are in. We can't discuss issues with Iran as a neutral player. So step one is to become neutral.

Judging by the rest of your rant - I'll choose to discuss these issues elsewhere. The discourse is already appearing to be far too emotional for my liking.

 

[EAGLE1]

Well...(nodnod, winkwink)...if the u.s. needs to convince the world that it's foreign policy does not equal Israel's policy,then there must be something to the notion that they are the same (nod nod wink wink), and since they are the same, we must guard against this dual loyalty thing where the Jews ....OOPS, I MEANT ZIONISTS, REALLY I DID I MEANT TO SAY **ZIONISTS** SORRY ABOUT THE CONFUSION, IT'S ZIONISTS -- where the zionists because of their duel loyalties are plotting and scheming behind the scenes in that way they always do and have done since time immemorial.

Now, once having dispatched this need to form our foreign policy according to the dictates of the J.....the Zionists with their duel loyalties, we can plainly see that Iran has some legitimate gripes. How dare Israel elevate the status of women to full equality with men. Don't they know that men own women just as they own any other possession? And what's this with the science and technology stuff? Give me a break. There has to be something wrong with Israel when it garners more Nobel awards in an average year than the entire Islamic world in the whole history of the awards. It's only right and fair that Iran has outlined it's plans to nuke Israel while offering the rationalization that it can destroy this cancer completely while the perfect Ummah is so vast that it will only receive only an inconveniencing setback with any retaliation.

How dare anybody challenge the perfect logic of that one? Obviously, if the U.S. fails to see Iran's plans as anything other than a generous offer to rid the world of such a scourge as the J....oops again, as the ZIONISTS, then it must be that those Zionists have us by the short hairs due to all their conniving and duel loyalties and stuff.

Good post Gardener...however how can you now accuse anyone else of showing bias like you have before? I thought you didnt really have any agenda?

 

[ARealConservative]

Good post Gardener...however how can you now accuse anyone else of showing bias like you have before? I thought you didnt really have any agenda?

This is partly why I normally steer completely clear of these discussions.

Nobody was discussing zionism as far as I know, but when the question of Iran and solutions come up - you can't cast Israel aside and pretend it not to be a major part of why we are asking about solutions in the first place.

The insinuations of anti-semitism, the direct charges of agenda's and disengenous truths is too much. It's a barbaric debate style but it works wonders at silencing the opponent.

But the biggest reason why I avoid it ? Because it is too frustrating to get useful information to debate with and a reminder of the reality of the situation removes all incentive to make the original point. All those insinuations of racism didn't come without merit. Searching for real info leads you to a sea of actual anti-semitism - and I don't enjoy wading through all the hate to find what I'm looking for. It's a strong reminder of why fellow citizen ignore the violations of the constitution in order to send the enormous amount of aid that is being sent.

So whatever - Egypt gets a ton of aid as well - maybe even equal aid as has been claimed. Don't ask me why they need so much aid - because I would have to bring up Israel to explain it - and that shows an agenda. :doh

 

[bandaidwoman]

This is how I see it.

Israel is too small to survive even one nuclear attack

Iran can survive more than one nuclear strike

Obliterating all the Israeli Jews in one singular strike will be a victory for fundamental Islam, because the cost will only be losing a little over half of its population ( who will be summarily sent to heaven I guess:roll: .)

THe president of Iran belongs to a sect of Shiasm that embraces the fact that the twelfth Iman or Hidden Iman or whatever will come when armageddon of some sort is instigated. Hasn't he given millions to some mosk that is supposed to house this hidden iman? My sifu muslim relatives in Malaysia remind me of this constantly. This does not escape my consciencness for a second, although I hope he is just playing the religious card only for his political sake, but if he does belong to this sect, I can't help but think he has every intention of using a nuclear strike.

The only solution I see is that Israel lauches a preemptive strike against the nuclear arsenols ( or god forbid an actual preemptive nuclear strike itself).

Either way Israel comes out looking like the bad guy.


My solution is to enact a law that only a woman can be president of Iran.No muslim woman can hold such a political power and be a fundamentalist in any sort of way:mrgreen:

I know, too simplistic. Drat.

 

[Karmashock]

None of you are abiding by the rules I set down for this thread.


First state your over all purpose
Second state your preferred method of attaining that purpose.


Then let go through a process with other people of examining your purpose and methods.


The intent was to keep things logical. Please, just make a post to this effect. IF you want to make some petty snipe at someone else too... I guess that's fine. But please do this as well.
=====================================================

The only solution I see is that Israel lauches a preemptive strike against the nuclear arsenols ( or god forbid an actual preemptive nuclear strike itself).

Either way Israel comes out looking like the bad guy.


My solution is to enact a law that only a woman can be president of Iran.No muslim woman can hold such a political power and be a fundamentalist in any sort of way:mrgreen:

I know, too simplistic. Drat.

This is why we can't allow Iran to have nuclear weapons. Israel is like a trapped animal at this point getting pushed farther and farther back against a wall... IT DOES NOT HAVE A CHOICE at a certain point. It MUST do something. And that something is going to be "biting" iran.

 

[Voidwar]

you can't cast Israel aside and pretend it not to be a major part of why we are asking about solutions in the first place.

Yes you can.
Iran is a terrorist rogue nation.
We can bring them to heel or crush them underneath, without EVER giving two figs for ANY of their justifications.

We can, from a position of overwhelming military superiority, quite simply tell them, "I don't care who started it, I see you misbehave again I break your arm."

Your reasoning does not hold, because we simply DO have the power over them. We don't have to be "fair" or "reasonable".

Don't ask me why they need so much aid - because I would have to bring up Israel to explain it - and that shows an agenda. :doh

U.S. Foreign Aid to Egypt keeps the Moslem Brotherhood under control, and keeps a tractable and influencable government in control of the Suez.

 

[Gardener]

This is partly why I normally steer completely clear of these discussions.

Nobody was discussing zionism as far as I know, but when the question of Iran and solutions come up - you can't cast Israel aside and pretend it not to be a major part of why we are asking about solutions in the first place.

The insinuations of anti-semitism, the direct charges of agenda's and disengenous truths is too much. It's a barbaric debate style but it works wonders at silencing the opponent.

What a bunch of complete cr@p.

Here, the topic is Iran, yet you toss out the time-honored canard about Jewish dual loyalty. :roll:


You things are like Pavlov's dog, salivating on command. No matter the discussion, no matter the context, if it offers you things an opportunity to trot out the old canards, out they come.

Bah.

 

[Karmashock]

I have a question here... what does "a real conservative" mean? Does it mean someone from such a bygone era that it really means "an isolationist anti semite".


I'm not saying you are or anything of that nature... I'm trying to reconcile your posts with your declared title.

 

[Gardener]

Does it mean someone from such a bygone era that it really means "an isolationist anti semite".


.

Bingo

PatBuchanan, Justin Raimondo and their ilk.

 

[rivrrat]

Requiring that a nation honor its treaty commitments is being aggressive?

I think a nation should have the perogative to remove themselves from a treaty after the fact.

We are not discussing run of the mill conventional bombs here. We are discussing nuclear weapons... weapons of mass destruction. The distinction should be self-evident.

You are missing the gist of this discussion, which is that Iran signed a treaty to NOT acquire nuclear-weapon technology and it is in violation of that treaty. Why insert a scenario of retaliation into this discussion at all? We are supposedly looking for amenable solutions.

So they should remove themselves from the treaty. I don't see the big deal.

Other countries signed the same treaty to disarm, but they haven't disarmed. In fact, they continue to make more weapons. How can countries who are in violation of the NPT seriously condemn other countries in violation of it?

Why isn't the UN sitting around and talking about what to do about the US and their violation of the NPT?

The NPT’s preamble:

“to facilitate the cessation of the manufacture of nuclear weapons, the liquidation of all their existing stockpiles, and the elimination from national arsenals of nuclear weapons and the means of their delivery.”

Article VI of the NPT explicitly obliges signatories “to pursue negotiations in good faith on effective measures relating to cessation of the nuclear arms race at an early date and to nuclear disarmament, and on a treaty on general and complete disarmament under strict and effective international control.”

And yet the US spends billions a year to maintain and modernize nuclear forces. We have not decreased our nuclear arsenal, we're making it better.

Where's the outrage? Where's the righteous indignation? Where's the thread discusing what "to do" about the USA and their NPT violations?

 

[G-Man]

I think a nation should have the perogative to remove themselves from a treaty after the fact.


So they should remove themselves from the treaty. I don't see the big deal.

Other countries signed the same treaty to disarm, but they haven't disarmed. In fact, they continue to make more weapons. How can countries who are in violation of the NPT seriously condemn other countries in violation of it?

Why isn't the UN sitting around and talking about what to do about the US and their violation of the NPT?

The NPT’s preamble:

“to facilitate the cessation of the manufacture of nuclear weapons, the liquidation of all their existing stockpiles, and the elimination from national arsenals of nuclear weapons and the means of their delivery.”

Article VI of the NPT explicitly obliges signatories “to pursue negotiations in good faith on effective measures relating to cessation of the nuclear arms race at an early date and to nuclear disarmament, and on a treaty on general and complete disarmament under strict and effective international control.”

And yet the US spends billions a year to maintain and modernize nuclear forces. We have not decreased our nuclear arsenal, we're making it better.

Where's the outrage? Where's the righteous indignation? Where's the thread discusing what "to do" about the USA and their NPT violations?

To be fair its not just the US who ignore the NPT.

I read that the UK's nuclear weapons are due to become obsolete in a few years time - their answer - pump billions into a new nuclear weapons programme. This is also a long term project ensuring they remain a nuclear power for several decades to come - clearly in violation of their NPT duties.

The NPT is a complete waste of time. Pakistan, India, Israel, North Korea etc have all become members of the nuclear club due to the fact that if 1 country has them then others feel threatened or compelled to also have them.

As far as I can tell the NPT is designed solely for the purpose of allowing those who have nuclear weapons to keep them whilst forbidding any other nation (except those who are 'friends' of nuclear states) from acquiring them.

 

[ARealConservative]

Bingo

PatBuchanan, Justin Raimondo and their ilk.

Dear Mr. Sharpton,

Racism does not exist in the hearts of every man.

A Real Conservative is one that centers his position around the concept that all government has a chance to be bad. The best form of government is a limited one designed to mitigate the evil and maximize individual liberty.

But you keep throwing the racism card to stiffle debate. That seems to be your thing around here.

You mentioned previously (and idiotically), that using the word zionism is racism. We agree - the difference is that the racists are zionists, not me.

the entire idea of creating a jewish state for the purpose of safety for the jewish people, and forming it in the middle east is the most idiotic idea that mankind has ever come up with. The actual conspiracy is that the christian sect in this country believes in a stupid prophecy that can only be fullfilled by re-forming this nation to spur on the second coming of christ. This horrible policy is mkaing everybody less safe.

A real solution would be to end the expiriment and open up our immigration to jewish people for safe harbor. Then, outside of oil trade, islolate the middle east and allow them to evolve at their own rate into the type of people that can join the global community.

 

[rivrrat]

As far as I can tell the NPT is designed solely for the purpose of allowing those who have nuclear weapons to keep them whilst forbidding any other nation (except those who are 'friends' of nuclear states) from acquiring them.

Precisely. And it is that stance that I take issue with.