Worldly Talk

Civil discussion and debate on real world events and issues.


United States Third Presidential Debate

 
So, your reasons for denying Iran access to nuclear weapons prominently includes the possible repurcussions of actions you have taken in an effort to deny Iran access to nuclear weapons?

Oh, yeah, that seems logical...

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tedronai View Post
So, your reasons for denying Iran access to nuclear weapons prominently includes the possible repurcussions of actions you have taken in an effort to deny Iran access to nuclear weapons?

Oh, yeah, that seems logical...
If a nation state is going to collapse, it's best it does it without nuclear weapons. Imagine what Libya would have been like it had gotten nukes and the Arab Spring went down in 2011.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Silent Hunter UK View Post
If a nation state is going to collapse, it's best it does it without nuclear weapons. Imagine what Libya would have been like it had gotten nukes and the Arab Spring went down in 2011.
The cited reason for this possible collapse being actions you've taken to deny them access to nuclear weapons.

How can you not see this fallacy?

It's not that at all - a US attack could cause Iran to collapse, but it is also possible that internal dissent (and it does exist, particularly with sanctions turning Iran's currency into a joke) could bring down the regime of their own accord. Stranger things have happened - only last year in fact

None of us here want this regime to continue. I don't want an attack on Iran, but neither do I want a regime with that sort of rhetoric getting a nuke. In fact, I don't anyone to have any nukes whatsoever.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Silent Hunter UK View Post
particularly with sanctions turning Iran's currency into a joke
Sanctions that have been levied with the explicit intent to hinder Iran's attempts to develop nuclear weapons.

I don't mind Iranians getting nukes. If a hostile, brutal, demotheocracy on its doorstep can have them (Israel lest there be any confusion), why not the Iranians? Not even Iran is crazy enough to commit suicide via nuclear aggression; the point is obviously to give them leverage, insurance and recourse against bullying powers, regional and otherwise.

Yes. I visited for a few days after a field study in Jordan back in 2007. I remember a lot of extremely paranoid border guards and a mixture of earnest concern and blatant racism on the part of the people I spoke with, in greater and lesser proportions depending on who I was talking to. And everything I've heard about their policy decisions since then paint a nation, or at least leadership, leaning more and more toward the far right. Including policies taken almost verbatim from South Africa's Apartheid policies.

I'll admit Israel's past actions have been, shall we say, somewhat suspect. Okay, more than somewhat. The political system is at least partially the captive of the loony religious nuts, so it does little to stop the illegal seizure of Palestinian property. (and in some cases some of the hardcore settlers have been implicated in the disappearances of those who complained)
The number of illegal actions against the Palestinians is staggering, their discrimination against them equally so.

On the other paw, they have been bombed, shot at, and been the subject of missile attacks by these same people and their allies, so there is some reason for their actions. If it were not for the Israeli loony right, I think there would actually be a chance of peace - if the Palestinian loonies would shut up and try as well. They had their best chance shot down by their *own* refusal to enter into meaningful dialogue with an Israeli PM who could have actually accomplished it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Muggie2 View Post
I'll admit Israel's past actions have been, shall we say, somewhat suspect. Okay, more than somewhat. The political system is at least partially the captive of the loony religious nuts, so it does little to stop the illegal seizure of Palestinian property. (and in some cases some of the hardcore settlers have been implicated in the disappearances of those who complained)
The number of illegal actions against the Palestinians is staggering, their discrimination against them equally so.

On the other paw, they have been bombed, shot at, and been the subject of missile attacks by these same people and their allies, so there is some reason for their actions. If it were not for the Israeli loony right, I think there would actually be a chance of peace - if the Palestinian loonies would shut up and try as well. They had their best chance shot down by their *own* refusal to enter into meaningful dialogue with an Israeli PM who could have actually accomplished it.
If you're referring to the 2000 Camp David Summit, it was a raw deal, falling notably short of 'generous' as it was described by (obviously pro-Israel) US media. Some blame absolutely falls upon Arafat for not making a counteroffer and simply walking out of negotiations, but the Israeli offer was not a fair or plausibly acceptable one.





Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Myth-Weavers Status