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 8)

 - UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!   This topic comprises 13 pages: 1  2  3  ...  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13   
Author Topic: "Republicans Warn Iran -- and Obama -- That Deal Won't Last"
D.W.
Member
Member # 4370

 - posted      Profile for D.W.   Email D.W.   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Ya, one difference could be capability. [Razz]

Listen, everyone in an angry mob shouting that likely doesn't want to see our entire nation in flames. A lot of them shouting it probably don't even give a poop what we do abroad. However, SOME do. Preventing that group from getting the capability to see it done matters.

What someone believes about the afterlife IS relevant when discussing "insane" or "suicidal" goals. I'm all for injecting realism but many people are far too dismissive of this threat.

When a country is a competitor and they are rallying / manipulating their population you can ignore a lot. If people "believe" you are a threat to their soul or are an enemy of God, that's a whole nother ball game.

Is it likely a large group? No I don't think so. Is it a large enough group? I am not sure. And that does worry me some. If I were in Israel, it would worry me a lot more.

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 
quote:
Originally posted by Aris Katsaris:
quote:
Which country does America constantly say should "die?"
You don't tend to need to *say* that a country should die, because you just go and kill it. All while trying to save it, of course.

The countries actually threatened by Iran aren't the ones that Iran shouts "Death to X" at, which is just a form of *election slogan*. They're countries where Iran fosters unrest and supports oppression in, countries like Iraq and Yemen.

quote:
there's a difference between wishing for an election outcome or government change and wishing for a whole country to perish.
Yes. There's also a difference between shouting for a whole country to perish, and actually choosing to go to war against it.

Tell that first bit to the families of Israelis slaughtered by Iran's pet terrorists Hezbollah.


Iran's actions qualify as making war against many countries.

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 
quote:
Originally posted by D.W.:
Ya, one difference could be capability. [Razz]

Listen, everyone in an angry mob shouting that likely doesn't want to see our entire nation in flames. A lot of them shouting it probably don't even give a poop what we do abroad. However, SOME do. Preventing that group from getting the capability to see it done matters.

What someone believes about the afterlife IS relevant when discussing "insane" or "suicidal" goals. I'm all for injecting realism but many people are far too dismissive of this threat.

When a country is a competitor and they are rallying / manipulating their population you can ignore a lot. If people "believe" you are a threat to their soul or are an enemy of God, that's a whole nother ball game.

Is it likely a large group? No I don't think so. Is it a large enough group? I am not sure. And that does worry me some. If I were in Israel, it would worry me a lot more.

It doesn't matter what % of Iran wants us dead, the Ayatollah does, as do many of his puppet leaders, and they are in charge.
Posts: 6017 | Registered: Jan 2013  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Fenring
Member
Member # 6953

 - posted      Profile for Fenring   Email Fenring       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Seneca:
It doesn't matter what % of Iran wants us dead, the Ayatollah does, as do many of his puppet leaders, and they are in charge.

Maybe all they want is U.S. regime change [Razz]
Posts: 1636 | Registered: Oct 2014  |  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:
Which country does America constantly say should "die?" By the way that's not even analogous to regime change, there's a difference between wishing for an election outcome or government change and wishing for a whole country to perish.
Of course, that's a false assertion since it's already been pointed down that the Iranian phrase being used is not a literal wish for death, but just a commonly used phrase to express anger or frustration. Casting it as a literal wish for death is exceptionally disingenuous.
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 
Even if culturally true for them Pyr, that will never be persuasive to the overwhelming majority of Americans. I certainly don't buy it.
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 D.W.:
Even if culturally true for them Pyr, that will never be persuasive to the overwhelming majority of Americans. I certainly don't buy it.

So you think when they shout "Death to traffic" at traffic jams, they actually mean they want all other drivers on the road killed?
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 
You think road rage is a uniquely American phenomonon? [Razz]

But lets take it as a short hand.

"Death to traffic" means I am displeased with the state of trafic and the way it impacts my life, I want it addressed by someone in power to make that so and I feel very passionatly about it.

Now apply this to "Death to America". How do you parse it? Or what is wrong with my interpretation?

Posts: 4308 | Registered: Apr 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Aris Katsaris
Member
Member # 888

 - posted      Profile for Aris Katsaris   Email Aris Katsaris   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Now apply this to "Death to America". How do you parse it? Or what is wrong with my interpretation?
I can easily believe that a more accurate translation would be "Down with America" rather than "Death to America".

It's like Nikita Khrushchev's "We will bury you" against the West might be more accurately translated "We will outlast you". (or might not, it's all very confusing)

[ April 16, 2015, 02:17 PM: Message edited by: Aris Katsaris ]

Posts: 3318 | Registered: Feb 2003  |  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 Pyrtolin:
quote:
Which country does America constantly say should "die?" By the way that's not even analogous to regime change, there's a difference between wishing for an election outcome or government change and wishing for a whole country to perish.
Of course, that's a false assertion since it's already been pointed down that the Iranian phrase being used is not a literal wish for death, but just a commonly used phrase to express anger or frustration. Casting it as a literal wish for death is exceptionally disingenuous.
False.
They have said it in many different ways. It is not merely something that was incorrectly translated.

They have said:
Death
Destruction
Annihilation
Purge
etc.

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 
So what they REALY mean is, "We patiently await the day when America has gone into decline such that our horrible oppressive leadership can no longer blame their crushing policies, which we all hate but fear, on America. On that day our government must face us honestly and begin to govern fairly and effectively. No offense America but your existence as a propaganda symbol is hurting our people."

That's what they really mean when they shout that. Because while there is an off chance we may kill a few of them with bombs, it beats the heck out of being dragged into the square and beheaded or hung with a high degree of certainty by their own government for shouting "Death to the Ayatollah".

Suddenly I'm filled with comfort. [Roll Eyes]

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 D.W.:
You think road rage is a uniquely American phenomonon? [Razz]

But lets take it as a short hand.

"Death to traffic" means I am displeased with the state of trafic and the way it impacts my life, I want it addressed by someone in power to make that so and I feel very passionatly about it.


I'm not so sure about the "I want someone in power to address" it part, and more than it would actually be implied if someone in the US yelled "F*ck traffic" or any other common expletive.

quote:
Now apply this to "Death to America". How do you parse it? Or what is wrong with my interpretation?
It means they don't like the way the US is behaving and would like it to change, expressed in a strong way. AT the very worst, there's no evidence to support the notion that it's more than strong political rhetoric- just the assertions of people trying to gin up the case for war and arguing that we should wipe them out first.
Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 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 
Oooo...maybe they should make a little song of it like Sen. McCain does when he talks about killing Iranians!

Their oppressive leadership can make a good case for blaming at least some of Iran's problems on America.

Posts: 2635 | Registered: Jul 2008  |  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 
They can indeed kmbboots. Part of why I take it at face value. We have earned some of that hate and that we didn't earn has been laid at our feet by those they do not believe they can contradict, let alone oppose.
Posts: 4308 | Registered: Apr 2007  |  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 
quote:
Originally posted by Pyrtolin:
quote:
Originally posted by D.W.:
Even if culturally true for them Pyr, that will never be persuasive to the overwhelming majority of Americans. I certainly don't buy it.

So you think when they shout "Death to traffic" at traffic jams, they actually mean they want all other drivers on the road killed?
While I'm pretty sure that we don't have to worry too much about Iran actually trying to wipe us out - I don't think the leaders are actually suicidal - I think this is a bit of a misguided argument. Even if it means something closer to "Down with America", it's still anti-American, it's still hateful.

I think it's likely that a lot of the people who join in this chant do so because they are afraid to dissent, but I also think it's likely that a lot of them really do hate America (or at least the past decades of American foreign policy in the region and the incompatibility of American culture with their interpretation of Islam).

I don't think the distinction you are drawing really matters, in other words. If they don't mean what they say, that's important. If they are literally calling for our deaths or simply our downfall as a superpower, that doesn't really matter. Their leaders are rational enough not to commit to total war against us, and their actions short of that are probably going to be identical under either interpretation of the slogan.

I don't think it means we can't treat with them. That position is either defeatist or abhorrent, depending on whether it resolves to "there's nothing we can do" or "we're just going to have to kill them".

Posts: 6847 | Registered: Mar 2003  |  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:
I don't think the distinction you are drawing really matters, in other words.
I think it does matter, because it directly leads to your later position. The only reason to advance it as literal is, as we've seen being done here, as part of the case for going to war with them and wiping them out first.
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 
"wiping them out first" is almost never brought up. Crippling their ability to build a weapon with military strikes is not uncommon. Waging further damaging economic warfare against them is even more common.

No matter how hard the fear mongers work here, we will never reach a "wipe them out first" point. I would even question our willingness to "wipe them out" AFTER a nuke is used.

I think the distinction matters as well Pyrtolin but there is a lot of gray area before you reach erasing an entire people off the map. Preemptive or otherwise.

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 
So when they say "the destruction of Israel is not negotiable" that's really them saying they want Netanyahu voted out right?

[Roll Eyes]

Posts: 6017 | Registered: Jan 2013  |  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:
"wiping them out first" is almost never brought up. Crippling their ability to build a weapon with military strikes is not uncommon.
Which, on follow up for what that means, effectively amounts to wiping them out, because that's about the only degree of strikes that could actually accomplish that goal.

quote:
Waging further damaging economic warfare against them is even more common.

To what point? If they are trying to develop nuclear weapons technology, sanctions are not having any direct impact on their efforts. The only point would be to get them to the negotiating table to work out a deal; which we have already, but now we're being told that we can't make a deal with them, rendering the sanctions moot at best, if not actively counterproductive, since their only other effect is to stir up anti-American sentiment and increase the power of the current regime to dictate policy.
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:
Originally posted by Seneca:
So when they say "the destruction of Israel is not negotiable" that's really them saying they want Netanyahu voted out right?

"They" says many things, not all of them consistent. "They" say that only fools fall in love. "They" say never fight a land war in Asia.

Unless you're actually literaelly citing every Iranian, it's absurdly vague to say "they" say something.

That's not even getting into the fact that most politicians will claim that something is "not negotiable" as a way of saying "I will negotiate about this out of the public eye, but want to put on a good show for my constituents and then spin the solution later to claim that I got what we really wanted"

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 
quote:
because that's about the only degree of strikes that could actually accomplish that goal.
While “It’s the only way to be sure” made for a good line in Aliens, I think we would be willing to authorize strikes far short of that and feel confident we “sufficiently degraded their capabilities” and call it a day.

quote:
The only point would be to get them to the negotiating table to work out a deal;
Or… the quite possibly futile belief that the people of Iran will get so disgusted with their regime’s refusal to give up their nuclear program that they revolt. I don’t buy that, but a lot of people in the states still do.
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 
quote:
Originally posted by Pyrtolin:
quote:
Originally posted by Seneca:
So when they say "the destruction of Israel is not negotiable" that's really them saying they want Netanyahu voted out right?

"They" says many things, not all of them consistent. "They" say that only fools fall in love. "They" say never fight a land war in Asia.

Unless you're actually literaelly citing every Iranian, it's absurdly vague to say "they" say something.

That's not even getting into the fact that most politicians will claim that something is "not negotiable" as a way of saying "I will negotiate about this out of the public eye, but want to put on a good show for my constituents and then spin the solution later to claim that I got what we really wanted"

Except in this case "they" refers to the Ayatollah and his generals running his military.
Posts: 6017 | Registered: Jan 2013  |  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 D.W.:
While “It’s the only way to be sure” made for a good line in Aliens, I think we would be willing to authorize strikes far short of that and feel confident we “sufficiently degraded their capabilities” and call it a day.

The metrics that have been put forth here for “sufficiently degraded their capabilities” are pretty well indistinguishable from wiping out most of the population; in any case we'd hit the point where we do enough damage to further turn population against us long before we even put a scratch in their capabilities.

quote:
Or… the quite possibly futile belief that the people of Iran will get so disgusted with their regime’s refusal to give up their nuclear program that they revolt. I don’t buy that, but a lot of people in the states still do.
they could believe that aliens will land and sort the matter out too, doesn't mean that it's actually going to happen, but at least that's something that w sanctions demonstrably make less likely to happen.
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:
Except in this case "they" refers to the Ayatollah and his generals running his military.
So, politicians pretty much. And that's a direct quote about what one of the terms of the nuclear agreement will be then, such that it's even relevant here? And for all of his other flaws, you're suggesting that the Ayatollah is the world's most honest politician?
Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Aris Katsaris
Member
Member # 888

 - posted      Profile for Aris Katsaris   Email Aris Katsaris   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
the quite possibly futile belief that the people of Iran will get so disgusted with their regime’s refusal to give up their nuclear program that they revolt
Do you have any reason to believe that the people of Iran disagree with their government's nuclear program? (Let alone disagree so strongly that they'd be "disgusted enough" to revolt about it?)

Or do most Iranians consider it their country's sovereign right to have a nuclear programme if it so wants?

Posts: 3318 | Registered: Feb 2003  |  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 
I do not Aris. I find that wishful thinking but expect that many do not and "bringing them to the table" is not the only possible goal of sanctions for some.
Posts: 4308 | Registered: Apr 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Greg Davidson
Member
Member # 3377

 - posted      Profile for Greg Davidson   Email Greg Davidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Why did the majority of Iranian voters (with a 73% turnout) vote for the candidate who campaigned on "an end to extremism" and in favor of "flexibility" in reaching a nuclear deal. They could have voted for hardliners- all the alternatives were more hostile to the United States. Why didn't they?
Posts: 4178 | Registered: Dec 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Seneca
Member
Member # 6790

 - posted      Profile for Seneca   Email Seneca       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Have they overthrown the religious fanatic ruling the country and his minions who are all proclaiming death and destruction to America and Israel in many different ways that can't all be mis-translations?

No.


The Islamic Iranian revolution was a popular revolution. That coupled with their failure to remove the Ayatollah makes them complicit and responsible for that governments nuclear aspirations and threats to destroy others.

[ April 18, 2015, 06:50 PM: 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:
The Islamic Iranian revolution was a popular revolution.
Well, it depends how you define "popular." A small majority wanted the Shah gone; around 15% wanted a religious leader installed.
Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Greg Davidson
Member
Member # 3377

 - posted      Profile for Greg Davidson   Email Greg Davidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Seneca, answer the question. Why did most Iranian voters choose the moderate candidate? That directly refutes your assertion.
Posts: 4178 | Registered: Dec 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Seneca
Member
Member # 6790

 - posted      Profile for Seneca   Email Seneca       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
How is the current President moderate? What us he doing to stop the Ayatollah and establish goodwill with the US as opposed to threatening to destroy us and Israel?

And what does it matter what he is or does anyway? The Ayatollah still has supreme power and can override the president whenever he wants. Even Obama calls him the "supreme leader." Are you saying Obama is wrong about that?

Posts: 6017 | Registered: Jan 2013  |  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:
Even Obama calls him the "supreme leader."
Why do you keep repeating the fact that Obama uses his formal title as if it were evidence of something? The way you don't seem to be capitalizing Supreme Leader as you would "President", "Chancellor", "Prime Minister", etc... suggests that you might not actually understand why people choose to to refer to him by his title.

[ April 18, 2015, 09:30 PM: Message edited by: Pyrtolin ]

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 
Also, here is your "moderate" President of Iran...

quote:
Saying 'Death to America' is easy. We need to express 'Death to America' with action. Saying it is easy
http://www.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424127887324635904578644333931206380
quote:
The beautiful cry of 'Death to America' unites our nation.
http://abcnews.go.com/Primetime/story?id=132082&page=1&singlePage=true
quote:
[Israel is] the great Zionist Satan
http://www.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424127887324635904578644333931206380

[ April 18, 2015, 09:37 PM: Message edited by: Seneca ]

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 
quote:
Originally posted by Pyrtolin:
quote:
Even Obama calls him the "supreme leader."
Why do you keep repeating the fact that Obama uses his formal title as if it were evidence of something?
Why didn't Obama use bin Laden's official title? Both OBL and the Ayatollah have murdered Americans.
Posts: 6017 | Registered: Jan 2013  |  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:
Why didn't Obama use bin Laden's official title? Both OBL and the Ayatollah have murdered Americans.

What state political office did bin Laden hold again?
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 
quote:
Originally posted by Pyrtolin:
quote:
Originally posted by Seneca:
Why didn't Obama use bin Laden's official title? Both OBL and the Ayatollah have murdered Americans.

What state political office did bin Laden hold again?
Does it matter? Both he and the Ayatollah support and give orders to terrorist groups that slaughter Americans.
Posts: 6017 | Registered: Jan 2013  |  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:
The Islamic Iranian revolution was a popular revolution.
Sure, and like most popular revolutions, it led to a less than popular shift in power as the faction that was most able to grab control and impose its will took charge in the resulting disorder.

quote:
That coupled with their failure to remove the Ayatollah makes them complicit and responsible for that governments nuclear aspirations and threats to destroy others.
Being oppressed and then further undercut by sanctions such that revolt is impossible is somehow equivalent to complicity? That's completely nonsensical.
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 
quote:
Sure, and like most popular revolutions, it led to a less than popular shift in power as the faction that was most able to grab control and impose its will took charge in the resulting disorder.

So explain how the revolution occurred in the first place and then explain why it is utterly impossible for the Iranians to do one now.
quote:
Being oppressed and then further undercut by sanctions such that revolt is impossible is somehow equivalent to complicity? That's completely nonsensical.
Nonsense, part of what the sanctions accomplished was cutting the Iranian government off from getting lots of weapons, money and infrastructure to solidify their power even more and secure themselves against the people of Iran even more. Also, it helped hold the Iranian people responsible for the actions of their government to encourage them to overthrow it. Both aspects of this are slowly working, and to remove the sanctions now would be insane and set us back and ensure the regime's security for a 100 years at least.
Posts: 6017 | Registered: Jan 2013  |  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:
Does it matter? Both he and the Ayatollah support and give orders to terrorist groups that slaughter Americans.

What relevance is that to whether one is formally referring to a Head of State vs. talking about a notable citizen with not formal political position? ARe you seriously trying to criticize Obama for demonstrating basic diplomatic competence?
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:
Nonsense, part of what the sanctions accomplished was cutting the Iranian government off from getting lots of weapons, money and infrastructure to solidify their power even more and secure themselves against the people of Iran even more.
Because, of course Iran is some underdeveloped backwater that can't produce all of those things to a sufficient degree on its own? What the sanctions do accomplish is a reduction of total available supplies, such that the government gets the first cut of what they do have, while the rest of the population is forced to do without, while the government constantly reminds them of how their common external enemy to to blame for the shortages.

quote:
Also, it helped hold the Iranian people responsible for the actions of their government to encourage them to overthrow it.
That's pure nonsense that has no bearing in reality. Sanctions imposed by the US incense the people they're imposed on against the US- the prop up popular support of the government by providing a common foe. At he same time they undermine the access of the people of the country to external resources that the government doesn't have as much of a first shot at monopolizing or otherwise controlling the distribution of.

quote:
Both aspects of this are slowly working, and to remove the sanctions now would be insane and set us back and ensure the regime's security for a 100 years at least.
The only aspect of sanctions that has any relevance is the part that brings the country to the negotiating table to work out an agreement to end them. Everything else you put forth are imaginary assertions that have no basis in reality. It's a cure theory, but it completely collapses in real world application, because at the bare minimum, the people of the country being sanctions aren't so stupid as to blame anyone but the countries imposing sanctions for imposing them.
Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
  This topic comprises 13 pages: 1  2  3  ...  5  6  7  8  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