1876 replies to this topic

[Strangelove]

well if we must go and fight Iran, we can just print out the money from thin air, and spend it all on building weapons to invade a nation that has no nuclear weapons whatsoever, in the fear that in the future they could develop nuclear weapons. You know a 50/50 thing.

[Insurrection]

well if we must go and fight Iran, we can just print out the money from thin air, and spend it all on building weapons to invade a nation that has no nuclear weapons whatsoever, in the fear that in the future they could develop nuclear weapons. You know a 50/50 thing.

Before or after they've been collapsed by an army of hackers? Seriously there's a computer virus screwing with the government systems there. Also North Korea is bigger threat than them but they're like a brat.

Also did you know that Jon Kyl is pro-Nuclear Proliferation? Because when you say no that also means no to trying to do things you accuse others of trying to stop. Which liberal tyrant made that damn START treaty. What, Bush I? Oh.... I understand the worries of modernizing the nuclear arsenal but don't block the treaty that stops loose nukes in order to do so.

Pretty much a predictable election cycle if Congress stays Congress.

Edited by Insurrection, 23 November 2010 - 04:09 AM.

[catsi563]

Libera Tyrant? Why thatd be good ole Ronny Raygun. You remember dont you? Trust but verify said while standing next to Mickhael Gorbachev.

This pretty much just goes to prove what the republicans are all about. Getting rid of Obama to the point where they are willing to sacrafice American security to do it. This treaties been ratified since its inception almost without fail with full Bi-Partisan support. Even under Clinton, and Both Bushes, and what do we have here? President Obama pushes the treaty forward as his predecesors have done before him, and OOOOOOOOOH now theres a problem.

As to modernizing the arsenal, the interesting fact to learn is that President Obama has actually spent more then President Bush did in order to modernize the arsenal.

I mean seriously this has gone beyond the absurd. Members of their own party are calling them out on this.

[Strangelove]

Before or after they've been collapsed by an army of hackers? Seriously there's a computer virus screwing with the government systems there. Also North Korea is bigger threat than them but they're like a brat.

Also did you know that Jon Kyl is pro-Nuclear Proliferation? Because when you say no that also means no to trying to do things you accuse others of trying to stop. Which liberal tyrant made that damn START treaty. What, Bush I? Oh.... I understand the worries of modernizing the nuclear arsenal but don't block the treaty that stops loose nukes in order to do so.

Pretty much a predictable election cycle if Congress stays Congress.

In order to understand Iran you must understand its history with the United States, Mosadef, tried to nationalize its oil, from the Anglo-Iranian oil industry, or as it is known now. British Petroleum. England took it to the world courts, tried to hit its economy, blockaded the gulf and tried to convince the US with a regime change. Then President Truman was not interested, Eisenhower taking office in 1953, Britain was able to convince him that under the Cold War pretext that Musadef relied on Iran communist party for power. With the newly formed CIA, was sent to engineer a coup, that put the Shah into power. Soon after the oil was back into the power of the UK, US, France and the Netherlands.

Over his 25 year rule, he became increasingly arrogant, and autocratic in his rule. He used a secret police called the Sabak, created by the American CIA and the Israelis. Pushing a white revolution, to modernize and westernize the country. This created a huge economic gap in the people, and they saw that he was trying to rid Iran of Islam, in a nation whose majority of his population was Muslim.

The Islamic Revolution, installed Khomeini, and removed the Shah. Right after his overthrow, the students were convinced that the US was trying to overthrow their new govt. For 444 days they held the Iranian hostage crisis.

1. Return the Shah for trial
2. Return the Shah's wealth to the Iranians
3. Apology from the US for past actions
4. Promise not to intervene again

Within a year, Saddam Hussein invaded Iran without provocation, seeking control of its oil rich regions, the result Iran/Iraq war, at least 500,000 Iranians were killed, and this further cemented they're dissent to the US, as they were aiding both sides.

On one side the US supported Iraq, providing money, tech and intel, as well as satellite photography to help Iraq on its bombing ranges. Giving it billions of loans, so he could buy weapons from Russia, China, and Europe, it also help start its WMD program, and continued its support even though it used chemical weapons on Iran, and against its own citizens to stop the uprising of Kurdish separatist.

On the other, to maintain regional balance of power, so the US also armed Iran to prevent one single country from dominating, or allying with its neighbors and challenge US hegemony. In this case, it came in the form of the Iran-Contra scandal. President Reagan needed money to fund an unjustified war in Nicaragua but was forbidden by Congress, so US arms were illegally sold to Iran through Israel and South Africa, and the money went to the Contras.

This allowed Reagan to get around Congress, to support a campaign in which the US is accused of in the international courts, for state sponsored International Terrorism.

Khomeini died after the war, he promised democracy, but he became the next dictator. Instead of the Sabak they now had the Revolutionary Guard to fear. Since then they have become an oppressive theocracy.


Imagine if another country did the same to us. In order for us to have peace in the Middle East we need to change the entire policy. Before talking to Iran, we need to remove the sanctions and use diplomacy. Sanctioning a country is an act of war, having military bases on they're borders, calling them the Axis of Evil, and tying them to Iraq, did we forgot the Iran/Iraq war?

Trade sanctions don't work, we don't trade with Cuba in hopes that the Castro brothers loose power in the Island. Its been more than 50 years, and they are still there. We don't trade with North Korea in hopes that a hungry populace will overthrow they're dear leader, but that's just it. They're hungry, not angry. The hunger is so much, that they can't gather up the energy to become angry. We impose trade sanctions on Iraq during Clinton, which was given as a reason that gave Osama Bin Laden to attack the United States. That and a military base in Saudi Arabia which is considered Holy Land for this people. All of the 15 hijackers were from Saudi Arabia.

Edited by Strangelove, 23 November 2010 - 05:13 AM.

[Insurrection]

I knew that I was just making it known that there are reports that there's a computer virus running through government systems there because of the hackers helping the opposition during the Green Revolution. I think Iran is a lesser threat than North Korea because one of them acutally has nukes.

If one country doesn't trade with another it doesn't really change anything if everyone else trades with them. That's the Cuban problem.

In North Korea the key is and has always been China. The only reason North Korea is still in existence is because China views it as a buffer zone. They worry more about the refugee crisis that would emerge if it were to get worse. There is no peace with North Korea therefore we are still on the border because it is a Ceasefire, North Korea has fired on the South therefore the Armistice is broken but do we attack them? No. Because going to war would be opening another Box on the world.

So Strange don't give me a history lesson if you're just trying to explain the thesis that Trade Sanctions don't work. The Iraq justification is that I don't know how you're trying to tie in sanctions with Osama bin Laden. Because then you're saying there is a connection between Iraq and Osama bin Laden. Besides wasn't there an Oil for Food scandal because someone went under the table.

It's more complex then just the past 30 years.

So I don't know where the History lesson came from, I understand North Korea is hungry, but I'm personally tired of them pulling a nuclear production facility out of their butts to get what they want.

I'm kind of offended that you didn't think I knew that.

Edited by Insurrection, 23 November 2010 - 05:49 AM.

[catsi563]

China is absolutely the key to North Korea. Simply put North Korea is a petty little dictator who will collapse under his own age and eccentricities before too long. All we need to do is just wait on them, and theyll economically go the way of the dodo and the soviet union. Eventaully more moderate officals will get in charge and when that happens Reunification will be a fact of life, as the people will simply demand it, and financial reality will demand it as well.

Iran is a whole other beast. While Inssurections right about the way to deal with them were they a normal government those rules only apply to a government that is willing to listen in the first place. We might be able to apply those rules to Chavez in venezuela.

But Not Iran. The only way for Iran to stop being a threat is to remove the current government from power via a peoples revolution. A foreign invasion wont work at all at this point thanks to Bush and Cheneys foul up in raq. Weve lost any potential credibility we might have used in that regard.

The only way Ironiclaly wed get it back is if Iran gains Nuclear arms and uses them on Israel or Iraq, or Europe.

Otherwise were dealing with a Tyrannical Theocracy which has a single crystal clear goal in mind. Destroy Israel and America. Period end of statement. IF we can forment a rebellion and support it successfuly and then aid them in rebuilding and with elections, we might be able to avoid war. IF not War with Iran will be inevitable, its just a matter of time.

[Insurrection]

Well that was fast. BREAKING NEWS: NORTH KOREA OPENS FIRE ON SOUTH KOREAN ISLAND, SOUTH FIRES BACK. EMERGENCY MEETING TAKING PLACE IN SEOUL

DEATHS REPORTED. FIGHTERS SCRAMBLED

As expected China has spoken out to urge calm and not to excalate. Man, this is not good.

Edited by Insurrection, 23 November 2010 - 08:03 AM.

[catsi563]

well this was the other possible scenario with North Korea. With Kim Jong IL getting old and sick, he might escalate just to assure his own power and look strong. The military higher ups in a dictatorship are usualy somewhat beholden to the spending on the Military, and thus may attack in order to jsutify their existence.

Just have to hope cooler heads prevail.

[Nate River]

China is absolutely the key to North Korea. Simply put North Korea is a petty little dictator who will collapse under his own age and eccentricities before too long. All we need to do is just wait on them, and theyll economically go the way of the dodo and the soviet union. Eventaully more moderate officals will get in charge and when that happens Reunification will be a fact of life, as the people will simply demand it, and financial reality will demand it as well.

Not as long as the Chinese are happy to keep the afloat. I don't expect that to change anytime soon.

But Not Iran. The only way for Iran to stop being a threat is to remove the current government from power via a peoples revolution. A foreign invasion wont work at all at this point thanks to Bush and Cheneys foul up in raq. Weve lost any potential credibility we might have used in that regard.

The only way Ironiclaly wed get it back is if Iran gains Nuclear arms and uses them on Israel or Iraq, or Europe.

Oh come, on. Seriously? Iran's pursuit of nuclear weapons has been one of the worst kept secrets of the last decade, but people kept telling themselves it was for peaceful purposes and that it was okay. I dont't see how Iraq changes that basic belief. It wasn't and hasn't been "Do they have them?" As of right now, they don't, but they are trying and everyone knows it. So the basic question is do you act BEFORE they get the bomb.

Second, I'm at loss as to how an act of war like encourage a people's revolution that will likely need more than moral support is significantly more credible when people will just claim the rebellion is just an arm of the U.S or whoever supports it. You know that is what detractors will say and it will get compared to what happened in the past with the Shah. The last time the tried to rise up in rebellion they got crushed.

Not that I necessarily strongly oppose that particular method, but hiding behind Bush as the justification for it method isn't a good reason to do it.

People will use Iraq as an excuse because it's there, but that's all it is.

Imagine if another country did the same to us. In order for us to have peace in the Middle East we need to change the entire policy. Before talking to Iran, we need to remove the sanctions and use diplomacy. Sanctioning a country is an act of war, having military bases on they're borders, calling them the Axis of Evil, and tying them to Iraq, did we forgot the Iran/Iraq war?

Okay. Now I feel bad and hate my country for it's nerfarious misdeed. Especially those previous generations who did all those things and those awful Republicans.

Okay, now I'm past that. So now that you've explained it to me, I want to know what part of that justifies brutally oppressing it's own people and vowing to iradicate Israel or how any of it makes them less of a problem and why it justifies doing nothing no matter the malfesance on their part.

Dood...the reason they are tied to Iraq is becuse that have, in fact, been aiding he insurgency. They would love nothing more than to make Iraq their personal proxy. They also get tied to Hamas and Hezbollah because they, do in fact, fund both of them.

The EU used diplomacy too. They even negotiated treaties with Iran on this issue. Someday, Iran might comply with them, but not today.

Besides wasn't there an Oil for Food scandal because someone went under the table.

Yes, there was, althought the scandal was as much about the UN as it was Iraq. However, the end result was the people of Iraq did not get the food. People of dictatorships generally don't get the aid. The governments tend to seize and pocket it with the unfortunate effect of funding their regime.

[catsi563]

Not as long as the Chinese are happy to keep the afloat. I don't expect that to change anytime soon.

Neither do I frankly. BUt the fact remains that they are still the key inless the people of North Korea take matters into their own hands.

Oh come, on. Seriously? Iran's pursuit of nuclear weapons has been one of the worst kept secrets of the last decade, but people kept telling themselves it was for peaceful purposes and that it was okay. I dont't see how Iraq changes that basic belief. It wasn't and hasn't been "Do they have them?" As of right now, they don't, but they are trying and everyone knows it. So the basic question is do you act BEFORE they get the bomb.

Second, I'm at loss as to how an act of war like encourage a people's revolution that will likely need more than moral support is significantly more credible when people will just claim the rebellion is just an arm of the U.S or whoever supports it. You know that is what detractors will say and it will get compared to what happened in the past with the Shah. The last time the tried to rise up in rebellion they got crushed.

Not that I necessarily strongly oppose that particular method, but hiding behind Bush as the justification for it method isn't a good reason to do it.

People will use Iraq as an excuse because it's there, but that's all it is.

No Iraq is not an excuse. To engage in war you must have the will of the people behind you, Without it you cannot win. Simply put my point was that yes Irans Nuclear ambitions are exactly as you say the worst kept secret ever.

But my point is that unless Iran uses them, any action we take will be perceived by the world community, and by our own people as more Bush Era warmongering, more imperialism, and of course the popular more war agaisnt Islam.

Thanks to Bushes illegal war in iraq we have lost any credibility in the region, and that creidbility is what would be needed to affect real change in Iran and move it towards a peaceful regime that we could engage in true diplomacy with. Right now unless Iran uses a WMD against Israel or us or Iraq. We have no legitimate reason to engage in hostilities with them.

Yes, there was, althought the scandal was as much about the UN as it was Iraq. However, the end result was the people of Iraq did not get the food. People of dictatorships generally don't get the aid. The governments tend to seize and pocket it with the unfortunate effect of funding their regime.

Exactly. What do you thinkj this North Korea thing is all about. The spoiled Brats throwing a temper tantrum to get attention. thats all it is.

[Insurrection]

Well looks like China has to think about something.

The article is originally AP. But the gist of it is the Chinese have a decision to make. The last time when the ship was sunk they could turn away the carrier battle group with an excuse, but since North Korea is at it again in a different way, they've been mum on the subject.

60 years since the War started and over 30 years since Nixon opened China.

It seems since then China has made strides in trade relations with South Korea since then. North Korea is a military ally but I just don't know how much the trade with the South is.

There have already been protests in the streets of Seoul, Koreans are getting sick of the North.

So one of the questions is to China, how much is supporting the regime of North Korea worth now?

Edited by Insurrection, 27 November 2010 - 12:31 AM.

[Sakura Blossoms]

Oh come on, gimme a break. A new law against tv commercials

http://news.yahoo.co...ud-ads-23317805

[ciardha]

News blog posts from actual liberals (rather than the corporate owned elitist fauxgressives on CNN, MSNBC, Kos, Huffington, NYT, etc...):

http://guerillawomen...alue-women.html

http://anglachelg.bl...-greetings.html

http://www.reclusive...notes/#comments

http://www.ianwelsh....c...(Ian Welsh)

http://riverdaughter...nd-for-nothing/

http://www.correntew..._want_hear#more

Edited by ciardha, 04 December 2010 - 05:12 AM.

[Dreamer]

[Strangelove]

Ive seen the piggy one...but the other ones are different to me.

[Cloud]

Why are Geico videos in a politics thread....?

[ciardha]

Oh come on, gimme a break. A new law against tv commercials

http://news.yahoo.co...ud-ads-23317805

No, just against the screamingly loud volume of them compared to the shows they are being shown during- as the Congress member said this has been the No. 1 complaint to the FCC for the last 50 years! It's jarring and incredibly unpleasant, so I say thank goodness someone finally did something about it. It's kind of stunning that no one bothered to do something before now considering all the years of complaints. I remember it being brought up on a TV show some years ago and the industry denied it raised the volume on commercials, now they admit it. (raising the volume by around 10 decibels during commercials, which is the difference between a normal speaking tone and shouting.)

[Sakura Blossoms]

No, just against the screamingly loud volume of them compared to the shows they are being shown during- as the Congress member said this has been the No. 1 complaint to the FCC for the last 50 years! It's jarring and incredibly unpleasant, so I say thank goodness someone finally did something about it. It's kind of stunning that no one bothered to do something before now considering all the years of complaints. I remember it being brought up on a TV show some years ago and the industry denied it raised the volume on commercials, now they admit it. (raising the volume by around 10 decibels during commercials, which is the difference between a normal speaking tone and shouting.)

It's called turning down the volume on your TV.

This new law is like saying "I'm sorry you simple-minded/and or lazy people obviously can't turn down the volume for yourself, so let us the US government do it for you."

Honetly, don't they have more important laws to be paying attention to and passing.

[ciardha]

Hillary Clinton deals with the stupid inanity of everyday sexism

http://guerillawomen...on-battles.html

[Strangelove]

It's called turning down the volume on your TV.

This new law is like saying "I'm sorry you simple-minded/and or lazy people obviously can't turn down the volume for yourself, so let us the US government do it for you."

Honetly, don't they have more important laws to be paying attention to and passing.

This is why we have big government, cause they all want to look like they're actually doing something. Even if its useless, and carries with it no benefit whatsoever, except the benefit of getting noticed, and that touch of self fulfillment.