Ornery.org
  Front Page   |   About Ornery.org   |   World Watch   |   Guest Essays   |   Contact Us

The Ornery American Forum Post New Topic  Post A Reply
my profile login | register | search | faq | forum home

  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» The Ornery American Forum » General Comments » "Republicans Warn Iran -- and Obama -- That Deal Won't Last" (Page 12)

 - UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!   This topic comprises 13 pages: 1  2  3  ...  9  10  11  12  13   
Author Topic: "Republicans Warn Iran -- and Obama -- That Deal Won't Last"
kmbboots
Member
Member # 6161

 - posted      Profile for kmbboots   Email kmbboots   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Seneca, given your position on gun control, you consider acceptable some non-zero number of accidentally killed toddlers. So can we assume that you have volunteered your own child to be shot? No? Then please stop making that stupid and illogical question.
Posts: 2635 | Registered: Jul 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Seneca
Member
Member # 6790

 - posted      Profile for Seneca   Email Seneca       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Wrong. I don't consider any number of children shot acceptable. I just don't think gun control legislation will prevent it.

So,will you be volunteering to be one of the "free pass" deaths that Iran gets to make?

Posts: 6017 | Registered: Jan 2013  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kmbboots
Member
Member # 6161

 - posted      Profile for kmbboots   Email kmbboots   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Getting rid of guns entirely would. I don't think that bombing Iran would prevent deaths either.
Regardless. It is a nonsense question.

[ April 29, 2015, 08:58 PM: Message edited by: kmbboots ]

Posts: 2635 | Registered: Jul 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Seneca
Member
Member # 6790

 - posted      Profile for Seneca   Email Seneca       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by kmbboots:
Getting rid of guns entirely would. I don't think that bombing Iran would prevent deaths either.
Regardless. It is a nonsense question.

You cannot get rid of guns entirely through legislation. Only a magic gun-removal ray could do that.

Bombing Iran may be necessary to prevent them from acting on their sworn religious oaths to destroy us.

Posts: 6017 | Registered: Jan 2013  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Why do we want the middle number to become higher?
We don't, particularly. But that's tantamount to asking "why do we want other nations to not always do what we want," isn't it?
Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Seneca
Member
Member # 6790

 - posted      Profile for Seneca   Email Seneca       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
It seems fairly absurd to equate doing what we want to not slaughtering us...
Posts: 6017 | Registered: Jan 2013  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
So, to clarify, you believe that Iran will, left to its own devices, somehow be able to "slaughter" a significant portion of the American population?
Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Seneca
Member
Member # 6790

 - posted      Profile for Seneca   Email Seneca       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I guess it depends on what one considers significant. I am still hoping to hear more about what exactly constitutes an insignificant number of American deaths.
Posts: 6017 | Registered: Jan 2013  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Do you believe that the police kill a significant number of innocent people each year?

Surely you also have some threshold, where you go from "okay, sure, the police have killed a few innocent people this year, but not enough for me to panic about" to "we need to kill the police before they kill any more innocents!" Where do you draw that line, personally?

Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Seneca
Member
Member # 6790

 - posted      Profile for Seneca   Email Seneca       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
The police are separate jurisdictions. No department anywhere orders all the rest around, nor are all responsible for the actions of a few.

On the other hand, the Ayatollah is the Supreme Leader of Iran and orders everyone around. The whole country obeys him.

Posts: 6017 | Registered: Jan 2013  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
The whole country obeys him.
Heh. You really do believe this. It's kind of hysterical.
Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kmbboots
Member
Member # 6161

 - posted      Profile for kmbboots   Email kmbboots   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Seneca:
I guess it depends on what one considers significant. I am still hoping to hear more about what exactly constitutes an insignificant number of American deaths.

What do you consider an acceptable number of Iranian deaths?
Posts: 2635 | Registered: Jul 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Seneca
Member
Member # 6790

 - posted      Profile for Seneca   Email Seneca       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
As long as their Supreme Leader keeps threatening us with nuclear annihilation and is pushing for the tools to accomplish it, I'd say that comes down to us or them. In the face of us losing tens of millions of American lives due to a Iranian nuclear attack, I'd say at least an equal number of Iranian lives or even one would be justified if it comes to nuclear war.

So now that I answered your question, how about you answer mine? How many Americans would have to be murdered by Iran before you would allow us to respond and what would that response be?

Posts: 6017 | Registered: Jan 2013  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
D.W.
Member
Member # 4370

 - posted      Profile for D.W.   Email D.W.   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Let’s go with a worst case scenario. Iran manages to detonate a bomb on American soil. (A missile attack is not plausible I assume.)

We are sure it was them or their proxy. We MUST retaliate. Do any of you think we would do so with one or more nuclear weapons? In my reasoning a nuclear strike by us, against them would only occur if we not only were sure the rest of the world would support or acknowledge our attack was rational and (a harder sell) reasonable. This would mean that a nuclear response was required over a conventional one (given our miltary superiority) because the response demanded overwhelming force and swiftness. Most likely, to avert subsequent strikes.

So they get a bomb onto U.S. soil, detonate it, AND have more ready to go and have a chance to duplicate the results. All within a window of opportunity which makes a conventional retaliation a strategic mistake? I don't see that.

Maybe that's not what you mean by "nuclear war" Seneca. Maybe a single nuke triggering the war qualifies it for the title?

Posts: 4308 | Registered: Apr 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pyrtolin
Member
Member # 2638

 - posted      Profile for Pyrtolin   Email Pyrtolin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Seneca:
Wrong. I don't consider any number of children shot acceptable. I just don't think gun control legislation will prevent it.

Similar to how you policies will not prevent any danger from Iran or domestic rioting? (In fact, the things you say and propose are what actively rachet up the danger from both and make it more likely that they will actually make an effort to attack us or increase the likelihood and damage from rioting)

quote:
As long as their Supreme Leader keeps threatening us with nuclear annihilation
Do you have a quote or any documentation to that effect? Anywhere where he has stated that he wants to develop nuclear weapons to attack us? Or is that completely begging the question bot h of your unproven assertions both that Iran actually is trying to develop nuclear weapons and that it has any actual intent of attacking us directly?
Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
NobleHunter
Member
Member # 2450

 - posted      Profile for NobleHunter   Email NobleHunter   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
DW, there's something to be said for an equivalent strike being carried out reflexively for sheer deterrance. That regardless of our ability to prevent a second strike with conventional forces, we should nuke an equivalent target to the one they destroyed. Depending on the location of nuclear facilities and potential fallout, it may also be permissible for those to be nuked as well, regardless of necessity. Do it all fast enough and the international community will be as irrelevant as it was during the invasion and occupation of Iraq.
Posts: 2581 | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
D.W.
Member
Member # 4370

 - posted      Profile for D.W.   Email D.W.   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Equivalent I get. I'm just wondering if anyone else sees nuclear retaliation as a taboo when the same ends could be reached with conventional bombing. Speed is a factor as an extended bombing campaign would give the international community longer to react and potentially oppose.

What of neighboring countries concern about fallout? I admit I don't know a lot about our modern's arsenal and how contained we can keep fallout. The... unique, properties of a nuke make its use problematic when other options are available.

I'm not saying all nuclear retaliation or use must address those problems, but in this case, I don't see Iran as being able to oppose us should we decide to cripple or annihilate them no matter how we chose to do it. Are we morally or politically required to NOT expose the region to the after effects of a nuclear strike?

Posts: 4308 | Registered: Apr 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Seneca
Member
Member # 6790

 - posted      Profile for Seneca   Email Seneca       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Not only would Iran's sympathizers use that logic to try and stave off an immediate strike, they'd then use the time bought with that tactic to try and cast doubt on whether it truly was Iran or not, and failing that claim that with the passage of time and no subsequent strikes that retaliation was no longer necessary and the USA should just "suck it up."
Posts: 6017 | Registered: Jan 2013  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
NobleHunter
Member
Member # 2450

 - posted      Profile for NobleHunter   Email NobleHunter   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
DW, broadly speaking, we shouldn't use nukes when we don't have to. I don't think it's possible to use nuclear weapons with acceptable levels of collateral damage. Their use can only justified by objections beyond the simple destruction of their target.

It is likely that the only reason that would be sufficient justification would be to prevent the further use of use of nuclear weapons.

Posts: 2581 | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Seneca
Member
Member # 6790

 - posted      Profile for Seneca   Email Seneca       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
It is likely that the only reason that would be sufficient justification would be to prevent the further use of use of nuclear weapons.
See what I mean? We haven't even been hit yet and people are already saying this.

The only way to prevent rational nations from using nukes is the assurance of mutual hits. Of course there is no way to stop insane rogue States like Iran but we still have to respond to Iran nuking us by nuking them to prevent our other more rational adversaries from thinking they can hit us without response.

[ April 30, 2015, 01:23 PM: Message edited by: Seneca ]

Posts: 6017 | Registered: Jan 2013  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
scifibum
Member
Member # 945

 - posted      Profile for scifibum   Email scifibum   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
You should read NH more closely.
Posts: 6847 | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
In the face of us losing tens of millions of American lives due to a Iranian nuclear attack...
It is difficult to imagine what sort of Iranian nuclear attack might actually result in the loss of tens of millions of American lives.
Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Seneca
Member
Member # 6790

 - posted      Profile for Seneca   Email Seneca       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Somehow I doubt he'd agree with my logic so I think I'm reading him just fine...
Posts: 6017 | Registered: Jan 2013  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
NobleHunter
Member
Member # 2450

 - posted      Profile for NobleHunter   Email NobleHunter   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Of course there is no way to stop insane rogue States like Iran but we still have to respond to Iran nuking us by nuking them to prevent our other more rational adversaries from thinking they can hit us without response.
Which would be prevent the further use, would it not?

Did you miss this part:
quote:
there's something to be said for an equivalent strike being carried out reflexively for sheer deterrance. That regardless of our ability to prevent a second strike with conventional forces, we should nuke an equivalent target to the one they destroyed.
I don't bloody like the idea of tit-for-tat retaliation. But it's quite easily the best way of preventing nukes being used as a normal weapon of war.
Posts: 2581 | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kmbboots
Member
Member # 6161

 - posted      Profile for kmbboots   Email kmbboots   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Just as a reminder, of all the countries - evil or not - that have nukes,the only one to actually use a nuclear weapon against another country is us.
Posts: 2635 | Registered: Jul 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pyrtolin
Member
Member # 2638

 - posted      Profile for Pyrtolin   Email Pyrtolin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Of course there is no way to stop insane rogue States like Iran
Or biomorphic aliens, or giant flying saucers, but since those are all elements of fantasy and not tings that actually exist at the moment, it's not really relevant.

Iran is an oppressive theocratic dictatorship. IT has not actually evidenced any insanity- just the opposite; it's been pretty rational and calculating in supporting its team for control of the region around it.

It definitely seems to have getting your goat down to a science, so you willingly play the part of an evil bogeyman out to destroy it that it needs to defend its people from to justify its oppressive actions.

[ April 30, 2015, 01:43 PM: Message edited by: Pyrtolin ]

Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
D.W.
Member
Member # 4370

 - posted      Profile for D.W.   Email D.W.   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
While that is mostly the case Pyrtolin, for it to work, some there must believe it. The threat is not from some insane puppet master(s). It's when one of the puppets cuts their own strings and does what they are taught.

The regime is almost certainly not suicidal. It does promote suicidal hatred of the U.S. and Israel as a lever of control however. We shouldn't be too dismissive of that.

They would be smart to pursue a bomb. Achieving it means we are placed in the twisted position of cheering for their continued iron control. If they lose a grip on the leash we are more likely to deal with the attack dogs.

As an aside, I suggest saving the nukes for the saucers and aliens. It's the only way to be sure.

Posts: 4308 | Registered: Apr 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Seneca
Member
Member # 6790

 - posted      Profile for Seneca   Email Seneca       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
See? Even the best case scenario that many here are trying to paint is that the Ayatollah and his lackeys at the top don't actually believe the "kill America" hatred they are preaching, but eventually a significant amount of their underlings will believe it so strongly they go rogue and act on it. And that is the BEST case scenario. I still think it is more likely there is some truth to the Ayatollah 's threats and we should take them at face value rather than conduct extensive theoretical back-flips to try and fool ourselves into thinking he doesn't really mean it.
Posts: 6017 | Registered: Jan 2013  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
yossarian22c
Member
Member # 1779

 - posted      Profile for yossarian22c   Email yossarian22c       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Seneca, In what way does the deal on the table get Iran closer to a nuclear weapon? That is the part you keep leaving out. This is an inspectors for sanctions relief deal.
Posts: 1121 | Registered: May 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Seneca
Member
Member # 6790

 - posted      Profile for Seneca   Email Seneca       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
They are insisting that the deal will include an exemption of all military facilities from inspection.

That pretty much seals it right there.

Posts: 6017 | Registered: Jan 2013  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Seneca
Member
Member # 6790

 - posted      Profile for Seneca   Email Seneca       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Britain has now informed a UN panel that Iran has been caught violating existing regulations surrounding nuclear materials.

http://mobile.reuters.com/article/idUSKBN0NL09220150430

Why should we make a deal with someone who is already cheating the current rules?

Posts: 6017 | Registered: Jan 2013  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
yossarian22c
Member
Member # 1779

 - posted      Profile for yossarian22c   Email yossarian22c       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Do we have inspectors at those facilities now? What about the deal makes it more likely?
Posts: 1121 | Registered: May 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Seneca
Member
Member # 6790

 - posted      Profile for Seneca   Email Seneca       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
The point is there shouldn't be any deal at all if there are huge, secure facilities that are capable of easily hosting these nuclear programs that we aren't allowed to. We will be trading away the current sanctions for nothing because they will simply move nuclear weapons programs to these areas that are "exempt" from inspections.

At that point any deal becomes worse than pointless, because it will allow the Iranians to continue their nuclear program without the sanctions, they will get the best of all worlds. Maybe the sanctions will work, maybe they won't, but they are better than nothing because either way the Iranians will continue their nuclear program if they can. And maybe there is a more of a chance they won't by leaving the sanctions in place until a better deal is forthcoming. One that won't allow them huge zones where inspectors aren't allowed to go.

[ May 01, 2015, 12:22 AM: Message edited by: Seneca ]

Posts: 6017 | Registered: Jan 2013  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Maybe the sanctions will work, maybe they won't, but they are better than nothing...
What is the point of sanctions if they do not work? In what way are non-functional sanctions better than nothing?
Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Seneca
Member
Member # 6790

 - posted      Profile for Seneca   Email Seneca       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
We cannot reward terrorism combined with nuclear bomb aspirations with sanctions relief.
Posts: 6017 | Registered: Jan 2013  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I'm not sure how that answers the question. Are you saying that suffering people must continue to suffer lest we appear to show mercy?

Seneca, I have come to understand you a bit better over the years. You are driven by a deep-seated desire to see that wrongdoers suffer. But doesn't that apply only awkwardly to national policies? Who is being "relieved" and who is being "punished" by sanctions or the suspension thereof? What justice is being done by sustaining them?

Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
D.W.
Member
Member # 4370

 - posted      Profile for D.W.   Email D.W.   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
That depends entirely on what a "working" sanction does Tom. If you are suggesting that if sanctions can't cut off the potential of a nuclear program they are useless, many would disagree.

It seems to me that a better economy would accelerate things even if sanctions can't "stop" the program.

Posts: 4308 | Registered: Apr 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pyrtolin
Member
Member # 2638

 - posted      Profile for Pyrtolin   Email Pyrtolin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Seneca:
We cannot reward terrorism combined with nuclear bomb aspirations with sanctions relief.

Rewarding them would be giving them something they don't have. Ceasing senseless punishment that only makes them angry and resentful of us is not a reward. It's just a lessening of abuse.
Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pyrtolin
Member
Member # 2638

 - posted      Profile for Pyrtolin   Email Pyrtolin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
We will be trading away the current sanctions for nothing because they will simply move nuclear weapons programs to these areas that are "exempt" from inspections.
How to you propose that they will accomplish that without violating the agreement and tipping off the inspectors. Do they have a secret cloning and matter replication program that they are going to use to magically create copies of the scientists, materials, and equipment necessary to run the program in those facilities without the inspectors noticing that they've picked them up and moving them?
Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Seneca
Member
Member # 6790

 - posted      Profile for Seneca   Email Seneca       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
You think we have a magic, omniscient list of all scientists or people who will become scientists? And with the sanctions lifted they will be importing lots of "multi-purpose" equipment.
Posts: 6017 | Registered: Jan 2013  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
  This topic comprises 13 pages: 1  2  3  ...  9  10  11  12  13   

Quick Reply
Message:

HTML is not enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.
UBB Code™ Images not permitted.
Instant Graemlins
   


Post New Topic  Post A Reply Close Topic   Feature Topic   Move Topic   Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:


Contact Us | Ornery.org Front Page

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classic™ 6.7.1