US rattling the saber

[Shroom Man 777]

Finally, someone who gets it!

Oh, believe me, Iran's full of motherfuckers and I have no love for them. But I doubt American intervention would be any better over there. After all, they had no problems with backing Saddam, and while Saddam was oh-so-secular and didn't make women wear scarves, he did friggin' gas his own people and the USA totally had no problems with this. I also don't think Iraq allowed such expressions of freedom and democracy as recently seen in Iran... in those terrible riots that plagued the country.

But yeah. Iran can go get fucked. The region's still going to be a craphole, and any American intervention's still going to be an amoral bankrupt affair that'll STILL fuck up the region. So why not just leave the region be, and let Iran and Uzbekistan and Saudi Shroomania and whoever the hell's in the Middle East continue fucking each other like the stone age shit-eaters they are? At least they can wage war and kill each other in peace, without American hypocrisy making all the killing look better on CNN thanks to a bunch of shitty miniature American flaglets making people feel better.

[Ryan Thunder]

Oh, wait a minute, so you agree that the place is a shithole run by a bunch of twats, and yet you still want them to have immunity from foreign intervention until somebody designs a theatre SCUD killer that works well enough that their nukes aren't considered a risk?

Also, who do you think would have that first?

[Shroom Man 777]

I agree that Iran is a shithole run by twats. I also think that American foreign intervention won't make Iran less of a shithole, and might make Iran even more of a shithole, because America is full of twats too. Since when did America automatically equate to "good"? We've repeatedly discussed this, I've repeatedly mentioned how America's supported brutal shitpiece regimes in Latin America and Asia, and how one of America's Vice Presidents kept a torture manual for him to whack off to.

Do you think American intervention will make it better? American intervention was the whole reason WHY Iran today is run by a bunch of Ayatollahs, and why Iraq had a nerve gas-happy Saddam Insane in the first place (remember, America supported Saddam and used him AGAINST Iran). American foreign intervention =/= good. Often, American foreign intervention = bad. Lots of times, American foreign intervention = worse. Also, fairly recently, American foreign intervention = lots of dead people, brown and Spartafreedomerican.

Honestly, haven't you ever considered that American intervention might piss off a whole bunch of extremists EVEN MORE? American interventionism gave the Iranians justification for their weapons program. American interventionism pissed off a whole bunch of people, thus contributing to regional instability.

Will America coming in to kill more brown people suddenly magically make Iran a super-awesome better place? Puh-lease, those dumb fuckers can't even do it right in Iraq and Afghanistan and now you want them to have a go at Iran? Hah.

Go ahead, intervene in Iran. Go and support an awesome secular dictatorship in Iraq that uses nerve gas on Kurds and Iranian brown people. Hey, at least it's secular! That makes it BETTER! Oh no, theocracies! Secular sarin is the moral solution! Duh!

[K. A. Pital]

I'm not sure American intervention will make Iran better. Like I said, Iran is a nation of paradoxes. It's economic development and internet usage statistics point out to a modestly second world level. Other nations in the Middle East, which America deals with, are no less insane.

I mean, fucking Saudi Arabia? It's no better than Iran culturally and quite probably fucking worse. Just another brand of Islam. That's all.

[Shroom Man 777]

Oh no, Stas. Iran is much worse because... *mumble mumble*.

Oh, right. Iran is much worse because unlike Saudi Arabia, it doesn't kowtow to America and kiss America's ass. It's not complicit to American foreign interests and doesn't suck America's cock. That makes it a theocratic shithole, and we'll all just ignore all the other Middle Eastern powers!

Oh but Shroomy, none of those Middle Eastern powers are developing nukes!

Yes, you know why? Because they're sucking American cock, which is why America supports them and acts AGAINST non-cocksucker nations like Iran. Nations that want to be free of American cocksuckery.

These actions of America, against independent non-cocksucker nations, and how American cocksucker nations wield the support of America, is exactly the reason why nations like Iran are seeking to develop nuclear weapons. Oh no, we don't want Iran to assert regional influence. Why? Because American influence, and the influence of that of nations that suck American cock, is suddenly better? Why? Because of Exxon Mobil? Haliburton? Shell? Aramco? We can bitch about how Iran makes women wear towels on their heads, but we don't mind it when Saudi Arabians whip whores fifty times a day for getting raped while the rapists go free because... Saudi Arabia sucks American cock. Gotcha. Awesome. Cool. Radical!

Mang.

[Ryan Thunder]

<snip>

So obviously the solution is to allow the regime to entrench itself, leaving it to the Iranians to deal with it. Wonderful. God knows what'll happen when it dissolves. If it ever does, that is.

Clearly the way to global unity is to give all the regimes that would never willingly submit to such a thing nukes, so they can't be made to without hideous casualties ensuing.

[K. A. Pital]

So when Saudi Arabia kills for sodomy, it's okay. But not Iran, no!!!

Only American client states are allowed to be fucking murderous theocracies. Heh. Like I said before, the question is not one of opposing theocracy; the question boils down to American interests.

[Ryan Thunder]

So when Saudi Arabia kills for sodomy, it's okay.

You'll note that Saudi Arabia doesn't have nukes and can thus be knocked over on a whim.

[Shroom Man 777]

"Knocking over at whim"? Is that a viable solution now, Ryan? Because that's a fucking stupid solution, and you should know better, unless you're one of those shithead types who wank to American military might without considering the human consequences of those actions - and how the result of those actions are often American-supported regimes no better than the previous ones, and often worse.

Unless, like, you're totally okay with those American-supported shithole regimes in Latin America, Asia, and the Middle East. Because America totally knocked over on a whim the previous regimes and replaced them with pro-American assholes.

You'd like that, wouldn't you?

EDIT:

You know what, fuck it. America knocked the past Iranian government on a whim - or at least, they installed an American-supported Shah on a whim to serve American foreign interests. We know how well that went through, right?

Yeah, the Iranian people kicked the American-supported Shah cocksucker out and the Ayatollahs came into power. Hah. Turns out, people won't like American foreign interventions or "knocking over at a whim"s and will end up moving against American foreign interests?

Looking at the human suffering caused by American foreign interventions and acts of "knocking over at a whim", then I say it's GOOD that a nuclear-armed Iran can't be knocked over at a whim.

[Simon_Jester]

So when Saudi Arabia kills for sodomy, it's okay. But not Iran, no!!!

Only American client states are allowed to be fucking murderous theocracies. Heh. Like I said before, the question is not one of opposing theocracy; the question boils down to American interests.

Excuse me, but I have to take exception to this.

The idea of "should we tolerate fucking murderous theocracies?" can reasonably exist on its own, regardless of whatever the US does or does not do. There's a viable position that says "no" to that, one under which Iran getting nukes is a bad idea in the abstract, simply because religious fanatics and nuclear bombs aren't really a good combination.

None of this has all that much to do with the cause of American opposition to the Iranian nuclear program, though. As you say, we are MUCH more tolerant of our client states than of our enemies in that respect.

But I can certainly imagine a person from a basically civilized country that does not have any real interests at stake (like, say, New Zealand or Chile) saying "Yes, it would be a bad thing for the Iranians to have nuclear weapons" and even "Yes, that would be such a bad thing that it's worth bombing them to prevent it." Even though they don't care at all about American interests.

Though the first is much more likely than the second; I doubt you'd find much support for the second.

[Shroom Man 777]

Then again, with people like Ryan espousing having America "knocking over at a whim" certain disagreeable nations - and knowing the human consequences of these whim-knockings - I think it would be desirable if some nations gain the ability to resist American interventionism AND become resistant to getting knocked over.

Certainly to people in the Middle East, being able to resist American deprivations is a good thing.

"Yes, it would be a bad thing for the Americans to invade Iran." and even "Yes, that would be such a bad thing that it's worth developing nuclear weapons to prevent it."

Though the first is much more likely than the second; I doubt you'd find much support for the second.

[K. A. Pital]

So when Saudi Arabia kills for sodomy, it's okay.

You'll note that Saudi Arabia doesn't have nukes and can thus be knocked over on a whim.

America will never do it. Saudi Arabia is a murderous American client state. And no, it can't be "knocked down" in a whim, precisely for that reason.

So why did you even say it? That's like saying theoretically America can attack Israel and destroy it's nuclear arsenal. About as feasible as America removing Saudi Arabia's theocracy, instead of bolstering it with petrodollars.

[Ryan Thunder]

Then again, with people like Ryan espousing having America "knocking over at a whim" certain disagreeable nations - and knowing the human consequences of these whim-knockings - I think it would be desirable if some nations gain the ability to resist American interventionism AND become resistant to getting knocked over.

By anybody. For an awfully long time. Sounds like Shroomy here wants those theocracies to last.

[Knife]

However Shroom, when you go off on your very tiresome anti 'America Fuck-yeah' rants, you set up a bullshit black and white fallacy with people like Ryan. While he seems to subscribe to the notion that America should be able to 'knock people over at whim', you come in and imply the opposite that it is better to have dangerous [insert country] than have America intervene.

You are as guilty of over reaction as the knee jerks on the other side. There are many shades of gray, and while the USA has fucked up many a times, just by virtue of doing something doesn't make their actions wrong either.

[Shroom Man 777]

@ RYAN:

Do you think just because Iran has nuclear weapons, that it's theocratic form of government "will last" and that it will never ever change at all? Just because I'm proposing allowing Iran the military means to defend itself from Western depravities doesn't mean that I'm against any societal change at all in Iran.

Is your brain so addled that you think the only way for Iran to change from a theocracy is for America to bomb the fuck out of it and kill shit-tons of brown people? What kind of shit brain is that?

By that logic, because the Soviet Union had nuclear weapons and could not be "knocked over on a whim" by the USA, then it sounds like Shroomy here wants those communisms to last!

BZZZT! That's a WRONGO! Society can change by itself, for the better, without having American shitpieces intervene at all. Is your world view so skewered that you think brown people can only better themselves when the white Western whores come bombing the shit out of them? Hah.

[Shroom Man 777]

However Shroom, when you go off on your very tiresome anti 'America Fuck-yeah' rants, you set up a bullshit black and white fallacy with people like Ryan. While he seems to subscribe to the notion that America should be able to 'knock people over at whim', you come in and imply the opposite that it is better to have dangerous [insert country] than have America intervene.

How would a nuclear-armed Iran be dangerous to America? Certainly it can't be to America, unless Iran develops ICBMs, and even then a nuclear-armed Iran will certainly never use its nuclear weapons because nuclear retaliation will certainly doom it - and the destruction it will incur by using nuclear arms will be far greater than any damage it can do to anyone else (unless somehow Iran gets the billion megaton nuke mentioned earlier).

Also, America has done more to threaten Iran than Iran actually has done to America itself. Nuclear arms won't change the fact that Iran will still be terribly limited, and can't touch America at all.

You are as guilty of over reaction as the knee jerks on the other side. There are many shades of gray, and while the USA has fucked up many a times, just by virtue of doing something doesn't make their actions wrong either.

And while Iran has fucked up many a time, just by virtue of doing something doesn't make their actions wrong either. What's wrong with Iran's possession of nuclear arms, to defend against American interventionism?

[Simon_Jester]

Certainly to people in the Middle East, being able to resist American deprivations is a good thing.

"Yes, it would be a bad thing for the Americans to invade Iran." and even "Yes, that would be such a bad thing that it's worth developing nuclear weapons to prevent it."

Though the first is much more likely than the second; I doubt you'd find much support for the second.

Except in Iran. I mean, most people around Iran would probably say "Well, fuck Iran, I never said I liked Iran." Or some such.

I just think it's worth pointing out that there is an international frame of reference that doesn't care what country you're from in which nuclear proliferation is a really bad idea. Maybe even worse than having loose-cannon superpowers barging around and smashing things. Or maybe not. I haven't done the math. Have you?

[Shroom Man 777]

Except in Iran. I mean, most people around Iran would probably say "Well, fuck Iran, I never said I liked Iran." Or some such.

Like the guys in Iraq?

Doesn't affect the rightness or wrongness of the act, though.

I just think it's worth pointing out that there is an international frame of reference that doesn't care what country you're from in which nuclear proliferation is a really bad idea. Maybe even worse than having loose-cannon superpowers barging around and smashing things. Or maybe not. I haven't done the math. Have you?

Even if the proliferated weapons don't do any barging around and smashing things, while those superpowers continue to barge around and smash things? Certainly Pakistani, etc., nukes have killed less people than loose-cannon superpowers' barging and smashing. You can easily do the math by counting corpses.

[Kane Starkiller]

So when Saudi Arabia kills for sodomy, it's okay. But not Iran, no!!!

Only American client states are allowed to be fucking murderous theocracies. Heh. Like I said before, the question is not one of opposing theocracy; the question boils down to American interests.

We're loosing sight of the issue again. The issue is should a theocratic regime be allowed to have nukes. It's not an issue of opposing a theocracy but stopping a theocracy from acquiring nuclear weapons. There is a big difference.

How would a nuclear-armed Iran be dangerous to America? Certainly it can't be to America, unless Iran develops ICBMs, and even then a nuclear-armed Iran will certainly never use its nuclear weapons because nuclear retaliation will certainly doom it - and the destruction it will incur by using nuclear arms will be far greater than any damage it can do to anyone else (unless somehow Iran gets the billion megaton nuke mentioned earlier).
Also, America has done more to threaten Iran than Iran actually has done to America itself. Nuclear arms won't change the fact that Iran will still be terribly limited, and can't touch America at all.

US is not the only country in the world. Nuclear armed Iran would be a threat to every country in the Middle East. The first being Israel which can basically be destroyed with two or three nukes.
Iran is the largest and most populous country in the Middle East (not counting Turkey) and has issued statements threatening Israel and statements about pushing to Jerusalem (which would take them through Iraq and Jordan).

And while Iran has fucked up many a time, just by virtue of doing something doesn't make their actions wrong either. What's wrong with Iran's possession of nuclear arms, to defend against American interventionism?

Sure it does: theocracy getting nukes is wrong. Thus stopping them, provided it can be done reliably and with minimal casualties, is good. Iran's past deeds and internal workings are relevant since they demonstrate they can't be trusted with nukes.
US past deeds might be a part of the reason why Iran wants to have nukes but they don't change the fact it can't be trusted with those nukes. Your name switching doesn't change that.

[Shroom Man 777]

US is not the only country in the world. Nuclear armed Iran would be a threat to every country in the Middle East. The first being Israel which can basically be destroyed with two or three nukes.
Iran is the largest and most populous country in the Middle East (not counting Turkey) and has issued statements threatening Israel and statements about pushing to Jerusalem (which would take them through Iraq and Jordan).

Nuking Israel would get Iran nuked back by not only Israel, but also America as well - thus it's as likely as Pakistan nuking New Delhi, which is not very. And it's not like other powers have not issued statements threatening Iran as well.

Sure it does: theocracy getting nukes is wrong. Thus stopping them, provided it can be done reliably and with minimal casualties, is good. Iran's past deeds and internal workings are relevant since they demonstrate they can't be trusted with nukes.

Iran's past deeds? Specifically, which ones? And how are these past deeds any worse than the acts of other accepted nuclear powers? How do these show that it can't be trusted with nukes? Other nuclear powers (including those that no longer exist, like the Soviet Union) seem trustworthy enough, despite/inspite of their own past deeds.

US past deeds might be a part of the reason why Iran wants to have nukes but they don't change the fact it can't be trusted with those nukes. Your name switching doesn't change that.

Just how different or worse is Iran compared to a whole bunch of other nuclear powers who are "trusted" with nukes?

[Knife]

Nuking Israel would get Iran nuked back by not only Israel, but also America as well -

I don't see that as any sort of certainty, nor do I think the Israels. I also don't think the Israel's would consider that a good account of things, don't worry if you're wiped out we might wipe them out too. Which leads to Israel having a greater need to defend against such things.

thus it's as likely as Pakistan nuking New Delhi, which is not very. And it's not like other powers have not issued statements threatening Iran as well.

Pakistan and India actually are more equal in power and man power, where Israel and Iran are unequal. Israel having more power (at the moment) and Iran having far superior numbers.

Iran's past deeds? Specifically, which ones? And how are these past deeds any worse than the acts of other accepted nuclear powers?

So we have to wait to see Iran do something bad with nukes before we can get worried?

How do these show that it can't be trusted with nukes? Other nuclear powers (including those that no longer exist, like the Soviet Union) seem trustworthy enough, despite/inspite of their own past deeds.

Nobody should but just because the genie is let out of the bottle, doesn't mean we should pass the bottle around so everyone can take a swig. That's pretty much the meat and potatoes of the argument. Pro Fuck-Yeah America wants only US allies to have nukes, Anti Fuck-Yeah Shroom-types think anything that is against Fuck-Yeah America is good so nukes for all, and the rest of us who think we should try our best to limit anyone from getting the fucking things.

Just how different or worse is Iran compared to a whole bunch of other nuclear powers who are "trusted" with nukes?

They don't have them yet and someone and everyone, either by diplomacy, sanctions, or the stick can stop them.

[Sarevok]

So if Iranians are so bad at personal communications use, how come they have the highest percentage of internet users in their population, after Israel, among all nations of the Middle East?

Let's bomb Pakistan, Saudi Arabia and all other Middle East nations for not giving their people internet access, shall we.

Way to miss the point there stas boy.

I dont see how Iranian dominance of their region is any better than American dominance. If america is bad then Iranians are worse. I have no idea about whether bombing Iran would work or not because thats an air force persons job. In my opinion given US militarys recent failures its just going to be a sorry clusterfuck that creates nothing other than international drama. Anyway I just think Iran is a tyrannical country with no freedom.

[K. A. Pital]

Nukes for all just creates a massive deterrent-filled world. It decreases the chances of large conventional war massively.

Quite certainly a case can be made that nukes can deter even a theocracy or a heavily religious government. In fact, aren't Israel's nukes meant to deter Islamist nations? And if so, if we consider that this deterrence in principle exists, then why would we not assume the same for other nations?

So far I have not seen any conclusive evidence that a nuclear Iran is more dangerous than the alternatives.

And while I can understand the safety of nuclear weapons as massive deterrent WMDs, I cannot say the same for other types of weapons one can make when forced to. Can you?

Do you really want to bolster Iran's theocracy by constantly posturing against it?

[Siege]

I'd like those in support of American military intervention in Iran to explain to me what form this intervention is supposed to take, and what they think it'll accomplish in the long term. Because if you ask me, even if we optimistically assume that the US Air Force will be able to wipe out the entirety of the Iranian nuclear infrastructure, I strongly doubt such a course of action will endear the USA to the average Iranian. In fact, it would seem the sort of thing that could potentially severely set back the efforts of the Iranian opposition to effect democratic reforms by virtue of proving right pretty much every anti-American propaganda piece the Iranian government has put out in recent years and giving those currently in power an excuse to clamp down on the opposition in the face of foreign aggression.

So now your strikes have entrenched the regime in charge of Iran and any chance of US-Iranian rapprochement or positive internal Iranian reforms in the short to mid term is gone. To me, that doesn't really sound like a good outcome -- particularly since you haven't actually resolved the situation at all: the Iranian regime is still the same as before, and in all likelihood the guys in charge will try even harder to find a deterrent, any deterrent, to prevent future US attacks. WMD are still their best bet, so now you have a furious Iranian regime, in charge of a nation which conducts plenty advanced biological and genetic research, trying even harder to develop deterrent capabilities than before. And that's assuming a best-case outcome of US air strikes, i.e. all nuclear infrastructure is annihilated to the point where the whole nuclear program is a write-off.

Yeah, that'll end well.

[Shroom Man 777]

Nuking Israel would get Iran nuked back by not only Israel, but also America as well -

I don't see that as any sort of certainty, nor do I think the Israels. I also don't think the Israel's would consider that a good account of things, don't worry if you're wiped out we might wipe them out too. Which leads to Israel having a greater need to defend against such things.

thus it's as likely as Pakistan nuking New Delhi, which is not very. And it's not like other powers have not issued statements threatening Iran as well.

Pakistan and India actually are more equal in power and man power, where Israel and Iran are unequal. Israel having more power (at the moment) and Iran having far superior numbers.

Israel's also posturing launching pre-emptive strikes into Iran. This, and the fact that Israel's got American backing AND nuclear powers, is something that might necessitate Iran developing nuclear weapons to deter undue Israeli aggression. Israel's already launched unprovoked attacks on another ME nation's nuclear infrastructure recently, right? I mean, conventionally, Iran can't touch Israel - it certainly can't invade it without a massive conventional military force, neither can it counter-attack any Israeli pre-emptive strike. I don't think Iran can even defend itself conventionally from an Israeli attack.

This disparity, coupled with the heavy American military presence in the region, makes the Iranians not consider this a good account of things. Which leads to Iran's increasing need to defend against such things.

Iran's past deeds? Specifically, which ones? And how are these past deeds any worse than the acts of other accepted nuclear powers?

So we have to wait to see Iran do something bad with nukes before we can get worried?

I was asking for bad things without nukes.

Nobody should but just because the genie is let out of the bottle, doesn't mean we should pass the bottle around so everyone can take a swig. That's pretty much the meat and potatoes of the argument. Pro Fuck-Yeah America wants only US allies to have nukes, Anti Fuck-Yeah Shroom-types think anything that is against Fuck-Yeah America is good so nukes for all, and the rest of us who think we should try our best to limit anyone from getting the fucking things.

You do realize that Fuck Yeah American actions have caused great harm to Iran (and many other nations), and pose a grave military threat to that nation as well? Are you incapable of seeing just how threatening and scary and dangerous America looks like to a lot of people, and because they can't hope to match American military might conventionally, it forces them to go to the nuclear option for self-defense?

The "Shroom-types" are thinking that anything that constitutes as SELF-DEFENSE against Fuck Yeah America is okay, so nukes for self defense is good.

Just how different or worse is Iran compared to a whole bunch of other nuclear powers who are "trusted" with nukes?

They don't have them yet and someone and everyone, either by diplomacy, sanctions, or the stick can stop them.

Then hopefully in the name of all that's fair and balanced, Iran can get its nukes. All nations have the right to defend themselves against "the stick", after all.