Nuclear Iran is now the world's #1 problem

[tw]

Originally Posted by Amnesiac42

so, exponential arms race + unilateral hegemonous nuclear power + weak diplomatic communications between nations + new pre-emptive strike policy = ?

Don't stop there. You are introducing reasons for a potentially unstable world. Two more reasons. The first is universal unpopularity of the world's leading nations. These nations whose leaders wanted to permit torture by selected parts of the government. This anti-humanity attitude being another legacy of a mental midget president who created a 64% unapproved rating even in Argentina. When you promise to improve relations with S American nations and then do completely the opposite, then what does one expect? Demonstrations? Insurgencies? Breeding grounds for international terrorism? Concepts that 'we will bomb them into submission' extremists selectively void discussing to promote their own 'self serving' political agenda.

Another is the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty that George Jr, with his infinite wisdom, has decided to undermine. The concepts of the NPT are really quite simple, have been mostly effective, and are the only thing we have to stop a nuclear war. It was used successfully to stop nuclear bomb construction in Argentina, South Africa, Brazil, and even (in conjunction with other factors) in Libya. Furthermore, because of NPT, the sources of nuclear proliferation were exposed. A major source being Pakistan.

A major point of NPT is that a nation who violates or refuses to participate in NPT is denied access to materials even for medical purposes and power plants. Previous NPT actions are why Argentina, South Africa, and Brazil opted out of their nuclear bomb programs. But George Jr has instead decided to reward India with nuclear material cooperation even though India does not participate and refuses to permit NPT inspections.

So many reasons demonstrate that this president has the mental capacity of Dan Quayle. World wide instability is what happens when mental midgets even violate (are totally ignorant of) even basic world concepts and essential principles as taught in 500 B.C - Sze Tzu's Art of War.

He destroyed the anti-ballistic missile treaty, has destroyed treaties to stop military weapons in space, attacked a sovereign nation with a 'smoking gun', conducted war without even a legal justification such as a Declaration of War, has declared himself a tool of god's will (always a reason for the worst of and most unstable times), is spending massive money on things that don't even work such as the anti-ballistic missile system, is building military bases throughout the world as if he wants another world war, lies - openly lies, and rewards others who would also contribute to world instability such as Pakistan. This is obviously a very abridged list of how George Jr wants Revelations to occur.

George Jr’s undermining of the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty demonstrates why extremist, mental midget, and self serving leaders only make for a bad and unstable world. Don't stop there. You are introducing the reasons for a potentially unstable world. Two more reasons. The first is universal unpopularity with the world's leading nations. This being another legacy of a mental midget president who created a 64% unapproved rating even in Argentina. When you promise to improve relations with S American nations and then do completely the opposite, then what does one expect? Demonstrations? Insurgencies? Breeding grounds for international terrorism? Concepts that 'we will bomb them into submission' extremists selectively avoid discussing to promote their own 'self serving' political agendas - the world be damned.

Another is the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty that George Jr, with his infinite wisdom, has decided to undermine. The concepts of the NPT are really quite simple, have been mostly effective, and are the only thing we have to stop a nuclear war. It was used successfully to stop nuclear bomb construction in Argentina, South Africa, Brazil, and even (in conjunction with other factors) in Libya. Furthermore, because of NPT, the sources of nuclear proliferation were exposed. A major source being Pakistan.

A major point of NPT is that a nation who violates or refuses to participate in NPT is denied access to materials even for medical purposes and power plants. Previous NPT actions are why Argentina, South Africa, and Brazil opted out of their nuclear bomb programs. But George Jr has instead decided to reward India with nuclear material cooperation even though India does not participate and refuses to permit NPT inspections.

So many reasons demonstrate that this president has the mental capacity of Dan Quayle. World wide instability is what happens when mental midgets even violate (are totally ignorant of) even basic world concepts and essential principles as taught in 500 B.C - Sze Tzu's Art of War.

He destroyed the anti-ballistic missile treaty, has destroyed treaties to stop military weapons in space, attacked a sovereign nation with a 'smoking gun', conducted war without even a legal justification such as a Declaration of War, has declared himself a tool of god's will (always a reason for the worst of and most unstable times), is spending massive money on things that don't even work such as the anti-ballistic missile system, is building military bases throughout the world as if he wants another world war, lies - openly lies, and rewards others who would also contribute to world instability such as Pakistan. This is obviously a very abridged list of how George Jr wants Revelations to occur.

George Jr’s undermining of the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty demonstrates why extremist, mental midget, and self serving leaders only make for a bad and unstable world. Make globalization into something evil AND destroy treaties that took generations to create and establish world stability. Containment being a well proven example of why the world did not self destruct. Pre-emption being the classic and 'well proven in history' reason for death, poverty, disease, recessions, and mas destruction. If there ever were an anti-Christ, it would be leaders who just know only because of their religion - who didn't even know what countries border Israel.

[Amnesiac42]

you said "He destroyed the anti-ballistic missile treaty, has destroyed treaties to stop military weapons in space".

you know, most people thought I was nuts when i was telling them about how the us was trying to implement a ballistic missle program for space that would allow them to stike any target the size of a mack truck (+) on any given point on the globe. then i read an article about it in an aerospace magazine in the waiting room of my doctor's office. now, i'm definitely no conspiracy nut. but that scared even me.

and this all brings me to a sudden thought now, why all the war mongering? i mean, i know about wilsonian idealsim, and how the war in the middle east is only about oil superfically; that the war is really about trying to set up a democracy in that region so that we can get them to play ball with everyone like south america. which is why we backed saddam in the first place until he decided to invade kuwait and everyone looked at the us like "uh, america, you're boy over there is acting up you know..." and we reacted like "ah shit...well...i guess we have to clean this up now" because after all, america isn't entirely evil. but i find it disturbing that we tend to cater towards things that fancy our own ends and interests while exuding this nationalist aura of a compassionate nation trying to save the world from evil doers. if that were entirely true, we would be more diplomatic, and the peace corpe would be worth a shit. anyway, i got off track...

why all the war mongering? ok, this war mongering, i think, stems from one of the greatest social delimas of modern times, one that is widely and tacitly recognized but greatly neglected: the problem of security. if anyone is curious about this, check out Foucault. i just recently picked up a book of his i had shelved. The problem of security, for us (citizens of the world population), is that the degree of security that is demanded (either by citizens or leaders, depending on the situation) is proportional to the degree of liberty that is granted. so if we want to be free from airplane bound terrorists, our airports have to be heavily policed and we have to wait in long lines and have personal searches. which isn't a big deal to me at all. but you can see where it goes from there.

recently at the mall i work at, someone was shot. security is slack, for sure, as my car has been broken into, an old lady killed, a rape, and now 3 gunshots since the 4 years i've been there. now, to secure the mall and it's customers from this, they could place metal detectors at all of the doors (which by the way can be unlocked with ANY key), cameras (which really only serve to give the criminal something to think twice about), city police forces who could implement profiling to pick the potential criminals out of the mass, and allowing the security gaurds to carry guns and legal use of them, not to mention the searches that would take place of suspects. Now all of this compromises everyone's liberty to some degree. it makes sense to implement all of this, sure, but hopefully you see my point. Foucault is better at it than i am.

so i guess all of this is to be defensive enough for a nation to ensure security, which only seems possible in a totalitarian police state, which is hardly what one would call a free nation, as liberty is decreased as security is increased. i feel it is by education alone that the world could be "saved". you may call me a dreamer, but i'm not the only one...

[xoxoxoBruce]

to secure the mall and it's customers from this, they could place metal detectors at all of the doors (which by the way can be unlocked with ANY key), cameras (which really only serve to give the criminal something to think twice about), city police forces who could implement profiling to pick the potential criminals out of the mass, and allowing the security gaurds to carry guns and legal use of them, not to mention the searches that would take place of suspects.

Or hand each person a loaded gun as they enter the mall.

[Amnesiac42]

yeah, that would cut down on gun shots...

[Urbane Guerrilla]

Keep in mind, Amnesiac, that Iraq had every intelligence service in the world fooled, and likely Saddam fooled as well. You don't tell a guy like Saddam that his greatly-desired nuclear program is an expensive failure if you enjoy a good paycheck and continued respiration. Saddam's Iraq did such a good job of controlling the available information about their nuke and gas programs that the entire UN figured they had them. That they didn't have much of anything left of either program was NOT for want of trying.

Barga, to polish your English a little: exhibit or expo in that context. An Expo is much larger, like a World's Fair. "Exposure" sounds more like geology, finding where the rock layers stick out.

[Amnesiac42]

yeah, that is true now that you mention it...

i guess it's sort of like how (i think this was mentioned in this thread, maybe right off the bat) about how the UN told Iran that if it wanted enriched uranium for nuclear power that they would provide it to them, but Iran declined the offer. which of course leads to: so is Iran using the uranium for something shifty like weapons or is there some catch in the deal with the UN's uranium (like crazy import taxes or some red tape like that which would be easier for Iran not to mess with), probably the first is everyone's guess i suppose.

of course, i still think it's every nation's right to arm themselves defensively. obviously the problem is that the bigger the stick we carry, the bigger the sticks get everywhere else, so our sticks get bigger and so on... a race to keep the advantage every time someone catches up. so instead of going totally insane, we just try to keep other countries from getting their sticks. well...it's tricky. nations should be able to arm themselves, but no one can promise they won't use their defensive weapons for offensive actions. all of this said, i'm really pretty ignorant about Iran and what their deal is.

[tw]

Originally Posted by Amnesiac42

it's tricky. nations should be able to arm themselves, but no one can promise they won't use their defensive weapons for offensive actions. all of this said, i'm really pretty ignorant about Iran and what their deal is.

It was never complex. What you call tricky is simply instability created by militaristic political (extremist) agendas that foolishly advocate preemption.

So much of what made the world stable - ie the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty - was predicated on principles that the world's leading nations would operate in the interest of and using well founded international principles that create peaceful solutions. Included in that list of principles was containment (instead of pre-emption) and a smoking gun requirement to justify war.

Lets see. Since the Cold War has ended: China has followed those principles. France has conformed to those principles. Russia has maintained those principles. Japan, Germany, Italy, Canada, Netherlands ... Let's see ... even Algeria, Chile, Argentina, Benin, Mexico, Brazil, Denmark, Greece, Japan, Philippines, Guinea, Romania, Tanzania, Bulgaria, and Cameroon - nations on or recently members of the Security Council have endorsed and practiced such principles. So where is instability created? Which Security Council member has violated those principles that create world peace?

The US has even condoned - by inaction - the proliferation of nuclear arms by an ally (Pakistan). The US even proposes to reward India for violating the NPT. So you tell me which nation(s) has created instability? Which nation has made it necessary for Iran to build weaspons of mass destruction - especially nuclear arms? Which nation has only in the last five years done things to create world instability - to violate the principles on which world peace and stability were maintained? Which nation has all but declared it will invade Iran without justificiation and probably without even a declaration of war?

Once upon a time, the US was a benchmark for the principles of world stability. Now even the US Vice President wants parts of the US government exempt from restrictions on torture. Name a member of the UN Security Council who imprisions and tortures prisoners for years without even due process? Name a nation who creates a new category of human just so that fundamental human rights can be intentionally violated? Name a nation who does this openly and with contempt for the world?

Careful where you throw stones these days. That evil empire that one throws stones at may simply be the mirror image of US. Only the naive would think American unpopularity in Argentina is an isolated case. The United States people - which would be a majority of those in the Cellar - have even advocated the use of torture. When was the last time you heard Americans demand that Gen Miller submit to court martial?

After three years, only some are finally admitting a lesson from 30 years ago in Vietnam - "we have met the enemy and he is US". Most Americans still will not demand prosecution of top administration officials who advocated and condoned torture - often of people who we now know were not guilty. My god. The president even lies about the levees in New Orleans. Hundreds die as a result. Americans don't even demand impeachment? Americans can die. Yet that is not as evil as putting a penis in the wrong mouth? Please let me know when American principles become perverted?

What was Dr Zimbarto's famous psychology experiment in Stanford U suppose to demonstrate? Did we not learn? Apparently not. Americans have endorsed even torture as acceptable. The American president has declared an intent to 'fix' Iran. Why then should Americans expect to the world to act according to American decrees? An Iran that was not building nuclear weaspons would only be an enemy of Iran.

What is happening in Iran is quite simple as demonstrated by millenia of human history. It only gets tricky when one uses extreme right wing political perspectives which means ignore lessons of history to promote "god's" agenda. Eliminate the extremist perspective and suddenly the whole thing becomes simple. This is why Kennedy kept asking his advisors, "But what is he thinking? What does he see? What is he being told?" You exist only because Kennedy insisted on seeing another's perspectives - what right wing extremists such as Gen Curtis LeMay refused to do. Do as Kennedy did to appreciate why it is not tricky. It's all quite predictable because of an agenda originally defined by the Project for a New American Century.

[Urbane Guerrilla]

TW, I'm going to undermine your grousing about US warfighting policy: just how would you go about winning the war against bigoted fanatics who would as soon kill you as kill me? You know we all look alike to them.

When your foe is a fanatic and wants your own personal heart's blood, you've got to be pretty determined if you're going to stop him. I don't see that kind of determination, at least not intelligently directed, from you.

[bargalunan]

Originally Posted by Urbane Guerrilla

... bigoted fanatics ...

For example GW Bush

[tw]

Originally Posted by Urbane Guerrilla

TW, I'm going to undermine your grousing about US warfighting policy: just how would you go about winning the war against bigoted fanatics who would as soon kill you as kill me? You know we all look alike to them.

I starts by first learning the basic facts. The expression goes something like "Know thy enemy as thy know yourself". And so we start with the enemy. You. You have extremist viewpoints based in a political agenda; not based in reality, history, or knowledge. Your viewpoints are exactly what got us into Vietnam and into Iraq. Your viewpoints blindly assume "they are bigoted fanatics" - and without one shred of evidence.

Therein lies the problem. We had to sacrifice 50,000 Americans to learn those lessons. And then you would dishonor them by not even learning those painful lessons? Instead you would hype militaristic rhetoric like a mental midget president? Did you not learn anything in the military. Oh. I forgot. You did not even attend the war college. Somehow you just know, anyway, that they are bigoted fanatics. Why? Rush Limbaugh told you.

Please learn something here. Learn the real meaning of "We have met the enemy and he is us." Somehow these lessons of history repeatedly escape Urbane Guerrilla.

[Amnesiac42]

yeah, what makes me mad about the UN is that no one ever stands up to the united states. it's like this new form of imperialism that's more about absorbing other economies into our own, consequently making them dependant on ours, than say, just walking in and saying "guess what we're taking it."

i saw this guy on cspan at like three in the morning when i was throwing up from really bad food poisoning, and he was talking about how you can literally draw a circle on a 2 demensional map of the globe connected by all of the major players in the world economy and all of the countries in the middle are the ones that they crap on, basically, and oddly enough contain most of the resources. and the problem in the middle east is that their econominc output is equal to the input, so they're perfectly self sustaining. of course the problem is that we want them to play ball with us, and they pretty much hate us for it, among other things. so setting up a democracy there, and hoping it will spread, is our foot in the door to finally getting some of that.

so all of this said, i wonder... we go into iraq, claiming that they have WMD and plan on attacking us. this turns out to be wrong. so then we claim our actions are justified because we're liberating the citizens, which i would agree we are but think that's a pretty sneaky and shitty excuse. now, we set up a democracy over there, and we're hoping this will spread?

my question, is it right to force another nation to change it's government & relations specifically in order to serve the interests of another?

the "other interests" being that america's goal (i'm assuming) is to consolidate world powers under one roof (obviously america's). which begs the question, what then? would the world really be a more peaceful, happier, free place? or quite the opposite?

[wolf]

I think that keeping everything as separate sovereign nations, each with their own unique identity, i.e., directly in opposition to the UN's goal, is what we're going for.

[Urbane Guerrilla]

I starts by first learning the basic facts. The expression goes something like "Know thy enemy as thy know yourself". And so we start with the enemy. You.

You who cannot write a grammatical English sentence presume to lecture ME??? You who never copyedit a word you write presume to believe your writings are to be taken seriously? By a smart fellow like me?? You're a bigger fool than I thought. You are a dildo, a dodo, and a blowhard, as every clause you write demonstrates in abundance, even redundancy. You're just inferior. No wonder you take the leftist view in every identifiable case. You are subject to delusive thinking also. Avoid any delusions of adequacy, tw -- they won't reflect the reality of your miserable, misguided, cranky life.

"Not a shred of evidence," he says. Oh, is this going to be fun. Thirty years of calls for genocide against Israel in the Arab yellow press is not a shred of evidence, I suppose. "Israel must be wiped off the map" from the President of Iran two weeks ago isn't a shred of evidence, I suppose. My dear Large Stationary Target tw, these are utterances of the most bigoted sort.

I suppose I might make a hobby of beating you over the head with thousands of direct quotes in this vein, and not just about Israel. Phrases like "the Great Satan" are out of love-letters, no doubt, tw? Of course, you will ignore all the quotes I can dredge up, because to you your ego is more important than any truth -- this is the result of having a poor mind and a neurotic personality. Our foes are not emotionally sustained by hope of political gain -- all that drives these suckers is anti-Americanism and anti-Christian bigotry. You have no business objecting to my resisting people driven by these impulses.

[tw]

Originally Posted by Urbane Guerrilla

You are a dildo, a dodo, and a blowhard, as every clause you write demonstrates in abundance, even redundancy. You're just inferior. No wonder you take the leftist view in every identifiable case. You are subject to delusive thinking also. Avoid any delusions of adequacy, tw -- they won't reflect the reality of your miserable, misguided, cranky life.

I do believe we are discovering how Urbane Guerrilla thinks. The basic logic on which he perceives the world.

Urbane Guerrilla for Director of FEMA? Sounds like he would be a good, loyal George Jr man. Just the kind of man this adminstration needs.

[tw]

Originally Posted by Amnesiac42

my question, is it right to force another nation to change it's government & relations specifically in order to serve the interests of another?

One nation cannot force democracy on another. The second nation must literally 'earn' democracy to appreciate its value. IOW, Iraq may need a civil war before it will appreciate a viable government. Currently, we are trying to force democracy upon them. Therefore the people will never have a respect for and therefore fight to preserve such a government.

Either we pull out leaving a threat of civil war is so scary that the Iraqi people get serious about government. Or the Iraqi people fight that civil war, like Lebanon, like Somalia, like Rwanda, like Cambodia, etc until they come to a more logical conclusion. That mindset - the purpose of war - is why wars are fought only to end the conflict with a political settlement.

Wars are fought to change a political mindset between warring parties. If Iraqis really want a democracy, then we could pull out and they would rise up to support a democratic government. Why do we not pull out? Because the people still don't have a respect for that type of government. People have so little respect that even the number of functional Iraqi battalions decreases. Then when in combat, whole Iraqi battalions disintegrate. Many troops just go home. If we pull out, the people may resort to the kind of government they really want - government by chaos.

Eventually government by chaos breaks down into a demand for a stable government - one the people admit they finally want. That may be a democracy. It may even be a dictatorial or communist type government. But they must first suffer enough before they will finally agree. And unfortunately, that is the purpose of war.

To create a government by military occupation, well, how many decades have we been in Haiti? How many decades was Syria in Lebanon? Are you prepared for a thousand American deaths every year for over ten years in Iraq with no promise that the people will even want a democracy ten years later? This is America's current mindset. Like it or not, we intend to militarily occupy Iraq for about ten years. Our leaders don't have the balls to admit this. And yet that is a well proven lesson of history. Try to impose a democracy? It did not work in Vietnam because the people did not want the corrupt government we were trying to impose.

What is worse, George Jr also intends to fix Iran. The ongoing plan to invade Iran in 2006 may be delayed - because finally a very slim majority of Americans are learning the folly of the Rumsfeld, Cheney, Urbane Guerilla mindset. Solutions by blind force do not work - as even France is currently learning with their civil unrest. Blind force only makes enemies. One cannot force a government upon a people - especially when one does not believe in nation building.

Only a fool believes 'might makes right'. And yet that is really the reason why we are imposing a govenment in Iraq. We are so blind as to even believe the majority of Iraqi welcomed us.