Humorless Politics Thread

[Sarah]

Yeah, I can't be bothered, either.

Why can't you be bothered when I can be bothered whenever stuff that bothers me starts happening? 

It's not fair.

It'll come, don't worry.  Give it a couple or three decades.

[Andy]

Yeah, I can't be bothered, either.

Why can't you be bothered when I can be bothered whenever stuff that bothers me starts happening? 

It's not fair.

It'll come, don't worry.  Give it a couple or three decades.

boom. in your face, sonny.

[Sarah]

I meant no slight.  'Twas merely a reference to the numbing effects of age and infirmity.

[cutout]

Whoa, lotta obamabots in here.

So the number of countries with nuclear power should increase, even though you don't approve of it?

Ok ok ok, I apologize for whatever.

I still stand by what I said, but I really am not that educated on the matter.

Are you training for the Moron Olympics or something?

[Pidgeon]

Whoa, lotta obamabots in here.

So the number of countries with nuclear power should increase, even though you don't approve of it?

Ok ok ok, I apologize for whatever.

I still stand by what I said, but I really am not that educated on the matter.

Are you training for the Moron Olympics or something?

Explain to me exactly how I'm wrong.

[Steve of Bloomington]

We're missing the real story here.

Poor John Junk 2.0 offed his online self!

[wwwes]

The question of whether Iran should or should not be allowed to have nuclear weapons is not up for debate. Iran is not our 5 year old son, and we can't take away their XBOX and make it better. Ain't one thing we can do that will change the fact that Iran is getting nuclear weapons. Likewise, the question of what they would do with nuclear weapons is also not a point of logical debate. Nobody knows that, perhaps not even the Iranian leaders.

The question up for discussion is what we can actually do. Whether we should start or participate in a preemptive war with Iran in the hopes that we might possibly be able to destroy their ability to get weapons. Whether you think we can make it to that point and still keep the world from collapsing. I doubt that.

[buffcoat]

The question of whether Iran should or should not be allowed to have nuclear weapons is not up for debate. Iran is not our 5 year old son, and we can't take away their XBOX and make it better. Ain't one thing we can do that will change the fact that Iran is getting nuclear weapons. Likewise, the question of what they would do with nuclear weapons is also not a point of logical debate. Nobody knows that, perhaps not even the Iranian leaders.

The question up for discussion is what we can actually do. Whether we should start or participate in a preemptive war with Iran in the hopes that we might possibly be able to destroy their ability to get weapons. Whether you think we can make it to that point and still keep the world from collapsing. I doubt that.

You're wrong about this.  In Iran, and especially North Korea, the United States' technological advantage (and, honestly, Russia's and China's and, wrt Iran, Israel's) is large enough that air strikes would be more than sufficient.  You may call this a "preemptive war," but this type of thing has been done a lot without open or extended wars breaking out.

What's missing is the will to do it, and the international cooperation needed to prevent rogue states (and, if you find Iran and NK's governments and policies are the moral equivalent of other countries, I believe you are misguided) from successfully acquiring nuclear weapons.

I read a fascinating Gwynn Dyer column the other day that suggested that the reason Russia and the United States don't destroy NK's nuclear capability is that China cannot afford to let its people see a totalitarian government fall.

[wwwes]

You can say we would be able to precisely pinpoint these sites, but I remain extremely doubtful. For one, military strikes are by no means foolproof. And it would be REALLY bad to miss. Secondly, Iran has had a very long time to prepare for these targets to be struck. Unless they're complete and total morons, they've taken action to ensure their work won't be destroyed by strikes on these facilities. This isn't like the Syrian strike that caught everyone off guard. Third, there's no coming back from that kind of thing. It's an act of war. What, they're going to just shake their fists like Dr. Claw and vow that they'll get us back someday? Pakistan is so close to the brink of chaos, is it any better to see an attack on Iran's nuclear facilities lead to instantly seeing an actual weapon fall into the hands of extremists somewhere else?

I don't like or respect the Iranian government. I would be absolutely thrilled to see it overthrown to create an actual Dem. I don't have any illusions about their intentions either. But a military strike without any actual provocation is irresponsible and short-sighted (much like just about all of Israel's foreign policy). If there's no international political will for a strike beforehand, it definitely won't be there afterwards. Even if all parties involved ARE secretly hoping for it, it still won't prevent them from reacting in an extremely hostile manner. From a pragmatic perspective, our best option is to wait for Israel to do this and then immediately join the rest of the world in condemning it.

If you think I'm wrong, what do you think the consequences of a strike would actually be?

[buffcoat]

Honestly?  I think the effect would be similar to the Libyan airstrikes in the 1980s.  That is, people who only understand the language of the playground will respond to playground behavior by acting like prototypical bullies who get their faces smashed in by even bigger kids.   They only behave outside the acceptable behavior of nations because the rest of the world lets them.

Again, I'm not a neocon.  I don't see every issue in the world as a nail waiting for the American hammer.  Preventing nightmare states from achieving nuclear capability is issue #1 on the things that I think should be addressed.



I respect beliefs to the opposite.  What I find a hard time accepting is the concept that somehow Iran has the same "right" to nuclear capability that "the rest of us" do, as though the nations of the world are somehow analagous to the members of a neighborhood association.







* This thread is becoming even more humorless than its moniker implies.  I'm sorry!

[fonpr]

I respect beliefs to the opposite.  What I find a hard time accepting is the concept that somehow Iran has the same "right" to nuclear capability that "the rest of us" do, as though the nations of the world are somehow analagous to the members of a neighborhood association.
* This thread is becoming even more humorless than its moniker implies.  I'm sorry!

Buff,

There is only one country that has used nukes on another country.

Hint: It's not located in the Middle East.

FoNPR

[buffcoat]

I respect beliefs to the opposite.  What I find a hard time accepting is the concept that somehow Iran has the same "right" to nuclear capability that "the rest of us" do, as though the nations of the world are somehow analagous to the members of a neighborhood association.
* This thread is becoming even more humorless than its moniker implies.  I'm sorry!

Buff,

There is one one country that has used nukes on another country.

Hint: It's not located in the Middle East.

FoNPR

"Blame America First" much?  I think you do!

[fonpr]

If the Bomb fits.....

[wwwes]

Would you rather the first country to have used nuclear weapons be Germany or Russia? It was a decision that showed everyone the consequences of nuclear weapons and ensured that it would be an eternal threat. Someone was going to use them.

But in response to buffcoat, there's a big big distance between where we stood with the world in the 1980s and where we are now. I'm not worried about how Iran will react, I'm worried about how Russia or China will react. If China is looking for an opportunity to assert themselves as a force to be reckoned with (and they are), they'll have it. That being said, we're clearly more on the same page than I had originally thought. I just think Iraq and Bush not only CAUSED the situation with Iran by empowering the extremists, they made it almost impossible for us to get the support we need to militarily take on a third country in the region (fourth if you count Pakistan).

[fonpr]

Would you rather the first country to have used nuclear weapons be Germany or Russia?

Morally and Karmic-wise I would have to say yes.

Same with torture.

Genocide.

It would make feel more comfortable about us being the country deciding which others can have nukes.

Speaking of which Pakistan has got a few of their own.