News: Mid-East Events watch

Even Persians.

 

yes, even the rugs. they generally live in the society of each other (while in a warehouse), or in a society with homo sapiens, after purchase.

 

whatever i say you just make a lame question in a very strawman manner so there is no point.

 

a straw-man would involve establishing a position that I could easily defeat.
that isn't what I'm doing. I'm just asking questions in the form of a dialectic, forcing you to re-examine your own positions - which you seem to hold with so much self-righteous confidence. I can see my questioning is making you uncomfortable, which means it's working.

 

have you ever read Plato's Dialogues? Socrates used to drive his contemporaries batshit crazy with his incessant questionings. most people don't want their positions questioned. they want their views reinforced. so they read newspapers, listen-to radio shows, and watch shows that reinforce their views, while belittling other views, rather than subjecting their own views to an intellectually honest examination.

 

lol at you telling me that. how do you think i ARRIVED at my 'conclusions?'

but you are just asking meaningless and endless questions.

 

Which is why we need to be verhy careful what we sell to Israel

 

Peyote?

 

how did you arrive at your conclusions?

 

if that was it, I think his "conclusions" would be more "logical and factual."

 

Unequivocally.

Ok, this is just too easy. I'm done. I promise.

 

Iran's parliament grills embattled president

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4RnG2Rg5N8E"]Iran parliament questions President Ahmadinejad - YouTube[/ame]

 

interesting...
I wonder who has morality on their side in this case.
maybe pf will enlighten us on it.

 

http://www.haaretz.com/print-editio...hange-could-resolve-nuclear-standoff-1.418735

Interesting option. I just don't see how the opposition in Iran can defeat the regime.

 

even if there is a regime change

the enrichment program wont stop

 

this

Do Iranians agree on anything but the nuclear issue? lol
We can't agree on shit, but when it comes to the nuclear issue, we're all united. oh and we can't stand arabs

And how is there going to be regime change? Sure, there are a ton of people who don't like the regime, but the irony in Iran is that the people who are against the regime are the ones that are better off, educated... These types never like to sacrifice their own lives. On top of that, Iran isn't like the surrounding countries or even Israel. There are no weapons to start a revolution with, there are no tribes to unite groups of people and after the 1979 fiasco, there is not even any will for a revolution. The maximum that can happen is another 2009 episode where hundreds of thousands just walk in the street and shout slogans. The same thing pretty much ended the Cold War in the Soviet satellite states, but the mullahs and their supporters showed that they are more than capable of standing their ground.

That leaves forced regime change by the US. That's even more unlikely. Without a full on invasion and troops on the ground, you won't force this regime out.

 

Presumably, a new regime would be viewed more favorably and thus enrichment activities won't be a major concern. For example, Japan (was) a virtual nuclear power and could become a nuclear weapons power pretty quickly if it chose to.

But I agree with you and nimaa although I disagree with him on how united we are on the nuclear issue. Some Iranians want Iran to withdraw from the NPT and become a nuclear power and others want Iran to be a virtual nuclear power which means Iran can still stay within the confines of the NPT.

My own preference is for Iran to become a nuclear weapons power for deterrent purposes so that Iran can't be manipulated externally. BUT, at the same time, the government would have to radically alter its policies or else the possibilities of a nuclear exchange will be higher than I would like. At the minimum, there must be a "hot line" between Tehran and Washington and between Tehran and Tel Aviv.

I seriously don't consider the US is even thinking of invading Iran like Iraq. More than likely, a possible aerial and naval conflict is all that will happen. There will be no militarily induced regime change.

 

^^
I've been wondering for the better part of the past 5 years why we're not going for nukes. It just doesn't make ANY sense. USrael has basically convinced the rest of the west that we're after nukes and no matter what we do, say or promise, they won't change their views. The IAEA is no longer even remotely an independent organization so things will also get worse in that front. So what do we have to lose? Nukes are perfect for us as well. They will keep the country secure and by 2020 we will have ballistic missiles that can target all of Europe. It's about time we stop this madness and start standing for our ********ing rights.

We already have enough enriched material for 3 nukes, we have the know how and the ability to expand our program greatly if we pull out of the NPT.

The Americans built us a reactor that could only use highly enriched uranium. Once the revolution happened, the Iranian regime voluntarily allowed the reactor to be modified so only low enriched uranium could be fed into it. We stopped our enrichment activity for years in the Khatami era as a sign of good will. The CIA has said many times that Iran is not after nukes. We have never broken any rules and every time we have blocked IAEA inspectors it's been because they have asked for rights that have been outside the framework of the NPT. They want us to destroy our program and whether or not we're actually making weapons is irrelevent to them. I say we make the nukes and see if they will bark louder or shut up. History has shown that they will shut up.

 

I fully agree with nima. At this point it is in Iran's national interests to withdraw from the npt and become a nuclear state.

 

Both Israel and the US have openly stated that this is a non-option. If Iran exhausts diplomacy and continues to insist on pursuing the bomb, they are ensuring a military conflict that will first destroy their ability to wage war, then destroy all of the infrastructure involved in producing a nuclear weapon.

 

meanwhile, in Syria, the uprising turns 1; and perhaps it's time to give up and look for a pragmatic solution to the situation. it isn't really a standoff or a stalemate at this point, the way Libya was, as Assad's regime seems to be in no danger of being toppled, as long as they have Russian support - which doesn't seem to be waning or weakening, despite Western pressure. without Western military involvement (something that isn't going to happen without Russian acquiescence), the revolt cannot succeed. perhaps it's time to stop the bloodshed, and it's time for the rebels to think pragmatically. try to get the best deal they can from Assad and hope for some liberalization and political involvement. it often happens with regimes that though the people lose the battle, they win the war by gaining some concessions long term (see Hungary 1956, Czechoslovakia 1968).

 

I do buy the deterrent argument.
"when has iran had to really worry about an invasion since 79?" -- maybe not a land invasion, but pretty much ever since 79 (on and off), Iran has been under the threat of air strikes from the US and/or Israel.
Iran wants nukes for 3 primary reasons (not in order of importance):
1. deterrence
2. prestige
3. greater latitude to assert itself regionally, without fearing foreign interference

 

Taking obvious steps to nukes----ie. enriching to HEU levels would likely result in a military response by the United States. That seems to be the redline for the United States. The redline for Israelis is a little murkier. I'm not a big fan of aggressive warfare. Warfare should be to defend the country from external threats. It shouldn't be to randomly target Europe or whatever.

Pulling out of the NPT is high risk-high reward. Pulling out could trigger a military response and those that are advocating a pull out from the NPT, are taking the risk of significant military reprisal but can also result in great reward- joining the "nuclear club" which will essentially mean immunity from a foreign invasion.

Being outside the framework of the NPT (which Iran currently is NOT) is entirely different from UN Chapter VII resolutions. The IRI HAS commited infarctions relating to its nuclear program.