VP Cheney wants plans to nuke Iran

Remove all ads!

DR -- Even though we've gone off topic -- FINALLY -- someone has voiced this issue. Very well said.

[ August 18, 2005, 03:48: Message edited by: Spellbound ]

 

I almost fainted when I got to DR's post and beyond

 

The only way to understand the motivations of an opponent is by having a real understanding of the historical and religious framework that has molded his culture. It is clear that Americans who waged the war and who have attempted to mold the aftermath have had no clear idea of the framework that has molded the personalities and attitudes of Iraqis. Finally, it might help if Americans and their leaders were to show less arrogance and more understanding of themselves and their place in history. Perhaps more than any other people, Americans display a consistent amnesia concerning their own past, as well as the history of those around them.

I whole-heartedly agree! With barely an understanding of the own foreign policy history towards Iran, and the histrory of that country, discussions on that issue are beyond pointless, just like assessments of their nuclear program are questionable at best.

As I said before, Iraq didn't happen to the U.S., just as Iran's possible nuke program didn't happen to the U.S. It's a consequence of U.S. actions and the reactions on them.

Inconvenient facts and realities are not an insult, and people pointing them out are not evil. They could be friends and allies.

And so this particular critique was brought to you by your America-hating Department of Defense (page 74 of that .pdf).

 

Thanks, Ragusa, for proving my theory absolutely correct. You don't give a damn about anyone elses opinion or insight here except your own. On this or any other subject. You haven't bothered to address a single friggin' post directed you this entire time. I mean really, it's as if we aren't even here.

And I can't believe it's taken me over 2 years to notice it. Stupid me. Why don't you just go start your own blog and stop wasting our time. Is it any wonder why so many of your threads linger with a post count of "0"?

No need for a warning for me, mods - this is the last thread of his I'll ever post in. What a waste.



edit: @ Shaman

Sorry - not ignoring you, dude - your (very nice) post just requires more research and thought than I have time for at the moment to address, I'll get back to you on it soon, hopefully this weekend. Unless Chandos or someone else would like to address your concerns for me (that'd be super! )

[ August 19, 2005, 11:06: Message edited by: Death Rabbit ]

 

I will get in trouble for this, but as DR and I cannot converse via PM:

 

The fear that the US will 'nuke 'em till they glow and shoot 'em in the dark' is very real for a significant portion of the world. Many view the US as some nameless, faceless entity -- a robot with automatic functions, just waiting to use it's weaponry. I believe this is wrong. I do trust the leaders to NOT use nuclear weapons. I believe that no leader (since Reagan) has wanted to push the button. As a country, we have developed our conventional weapon arsenal to have pinpoint accuracy (when targeted correctly and no glitches occur during launch) and the ability to be delivered without detection. As such, the need for weapons of mass destruction is diminishing rapidly -- only a few countries seem to need the 'mutual destruction' threat exist (many would say that the US is one of those).

Ragusa is of the opposite opinion (except the part where such weapons are not needed). We will never bring the other to see our way of viewing this issue -- and that's okay. The boards are to vent our individual beliefs and frustrations, not to convince everyone that 'I'M RIGHT, EVERYONE ELSE IS WRONG.' It just doesn't work that way. DR, your points are valid and other people read them, you shouldn't invalidate them with a rant like that.

 

@ T2,

I wasn't invalidating his arguements - not at all - just his presentation of them, and his (quite clear) ignoring of the other members of this thread, who are indeed trying to have a discussion, not just read one guy's point of view. Ragusa does the invalidating on his own when he completely ignores people who address him and his arguements directly. It's really his MO, in case you haven't noticed. And I disagree about the forums, as well - these forums are an excellent place to change people's opinions on issues by way of rational discussion. That's been the case with me on several occasions. My point was that if all I wanted was to say "I'M RIGHT, AND EVERYONE ELSE IS WRONG," I wouldn't be posting here, I would start my own blog and not allow comments. That's what they're for.

Sorry folks - I'm really trying not to go off topic here again, but I needed to defend myself publicly on that point. I felt it was unfair. PM me T2 if you'd like to continue it.

@ Shaman

There are a lot more to aggressive intentions that just just direct action. Their rhetoric has not only created an environment where anti-western sentiment is encouraged, but zealots are allowed to flourish and organize without any intervention from the governement. When this happens, the government may as well be doing it themselves, because they obviously don't find it to be enough of a problem to put a stop to it.

I could quote more from your post (and I'll be happy to address more, if you like), but I think most of my responses to your points could be stated by saying that the environment that Iran has created within its own borders are far more of a danger than the reckless actions of their government. I'm less concerned about the Iranian government one day deciding to nuke us (because, let's be honest - they aren't all that slick and I think we'd see it coming a mile away), but rather a radical faction overthrowing the government (aka staging a coup) and becoming the real threat. In most countries that would be pretty unlikely, especially the ones who have nuclear capabilities. But with Iran in the state that it's in - and especially considering the fact that Al Qaeda is still alive and well - it's more a likelyhood than ever, IMO.

Thus, an nuclear contingency plan in effect for Iran is prudent for a multitude of reasons. Top of which, in my opinion, being that it isn't just the government who'd love a chance to do away with the United States in a swirling mushroom cloud of Allah's glory, but also that there are organized groups within the region who are even more fanatical than those who are currently running Iran just itching for the chance to push that button.

 

Ragusa --

I take great offense to this. You are no longer criticizing Bush politics or any American POLITICS, but are attacking the American people -- which is a bit different. What gives you the right? You've stepped way over the line, imo.

 

I'm going to back-up my colleague, BTA, here and request politely that some of you return to the topic at hand.

Thank you

 

That IS on topic, Chandros....and a perfectly valid post. I'm responding to a quote that Ragusa made regarding Americans who wage war. And I think the Americans on this board deserve an apology.