honest debate

NCfan

jlew24asu wrote:

you really believe he will? even the most powerful country in the world, (the USA ) cant afford to invade and occupy a country as big as Iran right now. I'm sure Iran knows this but that also means bush has to talk tough. he cant make it obvious that we do not have the resources to invade.

Iran hates the US. the people there have daily and even semi hourly chants of "death to america". maybe one day, we can extent an olive branch and talk it out. I dont ever see war fixing that problem. well unless Iran shoots off a nuke. but I dont think, even the whacko resident, is that stupid.

I believe the US will attack Iran and Israel may help too if they come close to finishing an atomic weapon.

I've read some pretty convincing papers that talk about how we could topple the government in Tehran without invading the country with a lot of ground troops. Basically, we would fight an air and naval war against Iran. We would use a small number of naval assests and special forces to blockade the country and take over their oil rigs and terminals along the coast.

Although Iran has lots of oil, they don't have much refinery capacity and their stragetic reserve of refined gasonline would only last them a few weeks. So basically if we cut off their supply of gas, the army will become imobile and will be sitting ducks for our airforce.

We would basically strangle the government without destroying the county's infastructure.

This sounds very messy and people wouldn't like it of course. But it is much better than letting the Iranians have a bomb. Think about it. There is a good probability that the government in Iran could be overthrown in the next deacade or two. Do we really want a country as unstable as Iran to have a nuke? That is just too risky I believe....

angelica

NCfan wrote:

I believe the US will attack Iran and Israel may help too if they come close to finishing an atomic weapon.

I've read some pretty convincing papers that talk about how we could topple the government in Tehran without invading the country with a lot of ground troops. Basically, we would fight an air and naval war against Iran. We would use a small number of naval assests and special forces to blockade the country and take over their oil rigs and terminals along the coast.

Although Iran has lots of oil, they don't have much refinery capacity and their stragetic reserve of refined gasonline would only last them a few weeks. So basically if we cut off their supply of gas, the army will become imobile and will be sitting ducks for our airforce.

We would basically strangle the government without destroying the county's infastructure.

This sounds very messy and people wouldn't like it of course. But it is much better than letting the Iranians have a bomb. Think about it. There is a good probability that the government in Iran could be overthrown in the next deacade or two. Do we really want a country as unstable as Iran to have a nuke? That is just too risky I believe....

I'm wondering about the stability of the US, given posts like this one, and given a track record of power imbalances outletted worldwide.

jlew24asu

NCfan wrote:

I believe the US will attack Iran and Israel may help too if they come close to finishing an atomic weapon.

I've read some pretty convincing papers that talk about how we could topple the government in Tehran without invading the country with a lot of ground troops. Basically, we would fight an air and naval war against Iran. We would use a small number of naval assests and special forces to blockade the country and take over their oil rigs and terminals along the coast.

I want to believe this is true. Iraq was supposed to be a piece of cake too. if we topple the Iranian government with air and sea forces, who will take over? in Iraq, we did, still are, until the country gets back on its feet. I'm afraid if we did topple the government in Iran, we would get some other relgious nut with a microphone. and the will to build a bomb.

NCfan wrote:

Although Iran has lots of oil, they don't have much refinery capacity and their stragetic reserve of refined gasonline would only last them a few weeks. So basically if we cut off their supply of gas, the army will become imobile and will be sitting ducks for our airforce.

I read this too. what dumbasses

NCfan wrote:

This sounds very messy and people wouldn't like it of course. But it is much better than letting the Iranians have a bomb. Think about it. There is a good probability that the government in Iran could be overthrown in the next deacade or two. Do we really want a country as unstable as Iran to have a nuke? That is just too risky I believe....

I agree. Iran with a nuke is not good and needs to be stopped.

I also fear that this back and forth jawwing match will go on for awhile, probably into 2008. and I think the democrats have a good chance of taking the white house in 08 which makes me wonder how they will handle Iran??

evenkat

NCfan wrote:

I believe the US will attack Iran and Israel may help too if they come close to finishing an atomic weapon.

I've read some pretty convincing papers that talk about how we could topple the government in Tehran without invading the country with a lot of ground troops. Basically, we would fight an air and naval war against Iran. We would use a small number of naval assests and special forces to blockade the country and take over their oil rigs and terminals along the coast.

Although Iran has lots of oil, they don't have much refinery capacity and their stragetic reserve of refined gasonline would only last them a few weeks. So basically if we cut off their supply of gas, the army will become imobile and will be sitting ducks for our airforce.

We would basically strangle the government without destroying the county's infastructure.

This sounds very messy and people wouldn't like it of course. But it is much better than letting the Iranians have a bomb. Think about it. There is a good probability that the government in Iran could be overthrown in the next deacade or two. Do we really want a country as unstable as Iran to have a nuke? That is just too risky I believe....

Iraq was supposed to be easy too.

jlew24asu

angelica wrote:

I'm wondering about the stability of the US, given posts like this one, and given a track record of power imbalances outletted worldwide.

your wondering about the stability of the US? what are you talking about

NCfan

evenkat wrote:

Iraq was supposed to be easy too.

I'm not saying it would be easy. It would probably be pretty difficult actually. I just think there is a good possibility it may happen.

angelica

jlew24asu wrote:

your wondering about the stability of the US? what are you talking about

I'm talking about people/governments and policies that are about judging other people for the speck in their eyes when you have a very large plank in your own eye causing your vision to be greatly skewed. Actions which stem from such a distorted perception guarantee power imbalances to echo forth for many years to come, including the ones that are boomeranging back to you, now and will continue to escalate. This of course just perpetuates the cycles because you will escalate back.

When the US begins to focus on problem solving, understanding and awareness, we will see much different actions, and therefore outcomes. I'm referring to problem solving with those who live dramatically differently and whom with it is very difficult to solve problems. I'm not talking about the illusion of problem solving where you can get along with allies, but when the real challenges arise, you resort to domination. Ongoing cycles.

jlew24asu

angelica wrote:

I'm talking about people/governments and policies that are about judging other people for the speck in their eyes when you have a very large plank in your own eye causing your vision to be greatly skewed. Actions which stem from such a distorted perception guarantee power imbalances to echo forth for many years to come, including the ones that are boomeranging back to you, now and will continue to escalate. This of course just perpetuates the cycles because you will escalate back.

When the US begins to focus on problem solving, understanding and awareness, we will see much different actions, and therefore outcomes. I'm referring to problem solving with those who live dramatically differently and whom with it is very difficult to solve problems. I'm not talking about the illusion of problem solving where you can get along with allies, but when the real challenges arise, you resort to domination. Ongoing cycles.

wel NCFan and I were talking about Iran having nukes. thats a problem that needs to be solved.

angelica

jlew24asu wrote:

wel NCFan and I were talking about Iran having nukes. thats a problem that needs to be solved.

And I'm saying that similarly your country having nukes scares the heck out of me. And that I greatly question the choices your country makes due to the unstable stance such choices are coming from. There is a HUGE potential for your country to ongoingly make huge mistakes to the detriment of the rest of the world. And hopefully someday there will be resolution to the massive instability coming from your country.

NCfan

angelica wrote:

And I'm saying that similarly your country having nukes scares the heck out of me. And that I greatly question the choices your country makes due to the unstable stance such choices are coming from. There is a HUGE potential for your country to ongoingly make huge mistakes to the detriment of the rest of the world. And hopefully someday there will be resolution to the massive instability coming from your country.

Well you shouldn't let your emotions could your judgemt, as feelings can be decieving. Can you imagine what the world might look like if nobody had nuclear weapons? There would probably be more death and destruction. Nuclear weapons provide deterance from war.

jlew24asu

angelica wrote:

And I'm saying that similarly your country having nukes scares the heck out of me.

US will not use a nuke unless another governement uses one first. please no WWII reference.

angelica wrote:

And that I greatly question the choices your country makes due to the unstable stance such choices are coming from.

yea we know, Iraq is a mess.

angelica wrote:

There is a HUGE potential for your country to ongoingly make huge mistakes to the detriment of the rest of the world.

like what? I disagree.

angelica wrote:

And hopefully someday there will be resolution to the massive instability coming from your country.

we arent unstable at all. many mistakes were made in Iraq, we are attempting to fix those mistakes.

wouldnt you say Iran is much more "unstable" ? is it ok for a mad man to go around saying Israel should be wiped off the map? why doesnt that concern you more then the big bad USA?

jeffbr

Stereotype wrote:

And also if you are thinking of what you should do...how about signing the Kyoto protocol? I hate the fact that you can do whatever you want..The US, the world's largest emitter of gases, is refusing to ratify the agreement, saying it would harm the economy ... Such grace.

Kyoto has nothing to do with this discussion. Nice try on the hijack.

polaris

NCfan wrote:

Well you shouldn't let your emotions could your judgemt, as feelings can be decieving. Can you imagine what the world might look like if nobody had nuclear weapons? There would probably be more death and destruction. Nuclear weapons provide deterance from war.

emotions? ... i think history is more her basis ...

nuclear weapons prevent war and destruction ... that's one that i will never buy ... no matter how slick the campaign ...

let's look at the countries that have most been in conflict over the years, US, Israel, Soviet Union ... all seem to be nuclear powers to me ...

look at all the countries in the world without nukes ... they seem to be able to live in peace ... why is that?

jlew24asu

polaris wrote:

look at all the countries in the world without nukes ... they seem to be able to live in peace ... why is that?

wow are you serious? I can name 8 african countries that have been to war recently. none of them have nukes.

way too general of a statement here.

angelica

jlew24asu wrote:

US will not use a nuke unless another governement uses one first. please no WWII reference.

yea we know, Iraq is a mess.

like what? I disagree.

we arent unstable at all. many mistakes were made in Iraq, we are attempting to fix those mistakes.

wouldnt you say Iran is much more "unstable" ? is it ok for a mad man to go around saying Israel should be wiped off the map? why doesnt that concern you more then the big bad USA?

Like I say, until you realize that the plank your are seeing in these other country's eyes is actually the plank in your own eyes, this continued view of seeing "bad guys to be conquered" will continue to be perpetuated. Apparently by well-intended individuals. And even though this view is completely unrealistic, and is actually greatly (and blindly) contributing to actual world "evil".

angelica

NCfan wrote:

Well you shouldn't let your emotions could your judgemt, as feelings can be decieving. Can you imagine what the world might look like if nobody had nuclear weapons? There would probably be more death and destruction. Nuclear weapons provide deterance from war.

What I am telling you is that many in your country are blind to the serious, widely-encompassing danger your own seeming-trigger-happy fellow Americans pose in the actual existence to the rest of us. There is distinct and actual reason to fear a country operating blindly and coming from an greatly imbalanced stance. Your country is THE scary one on the world stage. I honour that awareness, because the more people who do, the more we will actually learn to strategise and find ways to make productive change.

NCfan

angelica wrote:

What I am telling you is that many in your country are blind to the serious, widely-encompassing danger your own seeming-trigger-happy fellow Americans pose in the actual existence to the rest of us. There is distinct and actual reason to fear a country operating blindly and coming from an greatly imbalanced stance. Your country is THE scary one on the world stage. I honour that awareness, because the more people who do, the more we will actually learn to strategise and find ways to make productive change.

I'm curious what you would imagine the world to be like today without the United States. I'm not talking about past history. Just imagine the world today, as is, and then subtract the United States and tell me what you see.

polaris

jlew24asu wrote:

wow are you serious? I can name 8 african countries that have been to war recently. none of them have nukes.

way too general of a statement here.

africa!?? ... frig - don't get me started on africa ... why empires are evil - the world fucked up africa ... and now exploit and use it as its playground and second hand market for weapons ...

angelica

NCfan wrote:

I'm curious what you would imagine the world to be like today without the United States. I'm not talking about past history. Just imagine the world today, as is, and then subtract the United States and tell me what you see.

I'm not interested in supporting justification for the blindness.

NCfan

angelica wrote:

What I am telling you is that many in your country are blind to the serious, widely-encompassing danger your own seeming-trigger-happy fellow Americans pose in the actual existence to the rest of us. There is distinct and actual reason to fear a country operating blindly and coming from an greatly imbalanced stance. Your country is THE scary one on the world stage. I honour that awareness, because the more people who do, the more we will actually learn to strategise and find ways to make productive change.

I think there is an arguement to be made that a lower percentage of Americans are "blind" than any other country. That is your assumption, and its the view from your shoes. Doesn't necessarily make it so.

I would also say that a strong argument could be made that United States has more balance than any other country on the globe.