1. We have added a Gift Upgrades feature that allows you to gift an account upgrade to another member, just in time for the holiday season. You can see the gift option when going to the Account Upgrades screen, or on any user profile screen.
    Dismiss Notice

Saudi Arabia gives Israel clear skies to attack Iranian nuclear sites

Discussion in 'Off-Topic' started by JohnRM, Jun 12, 2010.

  1. Formaldehyde

    Formaldehyde Both Fair And Balanced

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 2003
    Messages:
    33,999
    Location:
    USA #1
    You seem to hear that a lot from people when history doesn't agree with their personal opinions.

    What right do you have to tell other how they must live? Do you appreciate Muslim fanatics trying to force everybody to live by Sharia law? Or the Soviets or Nazis forcing entire counties to live as they wished? What's the difference?

    Countries which were invaded and occupied by the US and puppet democracies established in the place of the legitimate governments? Both of which disenfranchised a large portion of the population so the previous poltiical parties could no longer have a place in the the new "democratic" governments? Hmm.

    You don't think they have what they would also call strong principles?

    And if it looks like a duck, and it talks like a duck. You do seem to have a lot of opinions which I would classify as being quite conservative. But so do I.

    Do you really think that Israel would try to stand up and defend itself against a UN coalition of nations, led by the US, which was there to disarm it of these weapons? That's probably what would have happened by now if the US had not vetoed all the UN Security Council resolutions condemning their frequent crimes against humanity.
     
  2. Tani Coyote

    Tani Coyote Son of Huehuecoyotl

    Joined:
    May 28, 2007
    Messages:
    15,165
    Gender:
    Male
    History agrees with me on many things too: totalitarianism doesn't work for one. Using that as hindsight, we should avoid establishing such states at all costs.

    What right do they have to tell their citizens they can't vote for candidate x because he hasn't been government approved? The difference is I'm telling them to not tell their own people how to live.

    The freedom to vote for whomever you wish is a sacred part of democracy, and any state that tramples on that - as Iran does - cannot honestly consider itself a true democracy.

    They compromise on the principles of democracy, liberty, and all that other good stuff when their agenda finds it necessary. That's the difference between them and me; democracy and all the assortment of liberties has always been and always will be my goal, and I feel you should never lose sight of your goals.

    That's one basic idea behind a nuclear deterrent; if you're close to defeat, you bring everyone down with you. Therefore, nobody will dare try to defeat you in full, only in part.

    Therefore, again, it's best to try and make nuclear weapons a null issue. Unless of course you want to give the fundies what they want by allowing Israel's existence to cause the end of the world.
     
  3. Oishi

    Oishi Warlord

    Joined:
    May 27, 2010
    Messages:
    201
    Location:
    M.M., PH
    It's true that they have factions within their religion, but in general, they believe that Allah is the supreme and omnipotent being that created this lush and highly overrated planet many years ago, and that the Quoran is their holy book in which Allah's messages are convened.

    That's the problem. Look at what happened to those educados that protested against Ahmadinejad's victory last year / 366 days ago? It's very unlikely that a peaceful revolution will overthrow their government anytime soon.
     
  4. Tani Coyote

    Tani Coyote Son of Huehuecoyotl

    Joined:
    May 28, 2007
    Messages:
    15,165
    Gender:
    Male
    For what it's worth, I support us giving moral or material - read, weapons - support to those same opposition movements. They're the means to give Iran and America a fresh start; many of them seem to have forgiven us for our support of the Shah and are ready to put the past behind them.

    This is the reason why I ":rolleyes:" when all Obama's incompetent ass could say in the wake of the protests was "The violence in Iran is... troubling." What the hell, really. He's the "leader of the Free World", yet can't even support a movement that'd push Iran closer to true freedom(who's going to argue against the privatisation of the media and about slow and steady reforms that make Iran more like a modern, liberal state?). He's just as bad as Bush in principle apparently.

    He's also permanently damaged our relations with those same young people, who said we were with the government or with them. So he appeased the government... which promptly walks all over him.
     
  5. Formaldehyde

    Formaldehyde Both Fair And Balanced

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 2003
    Messages:
    33,999
    Location:
    USA #1
    You mean like all those fascist governments the US does support and has quite freqeuntly supported in the past? That sort of history agreeing with you?

    And totaliarianism has worked quite well in the past, especially in countries which do not have the economies and the culture to make a democratic form of government even viable. You can certainly criticise Saddam Hussein for a multitude of reasons, but he was the leader of a secular government which was a lot more successful at keeping the people happy and affluent than the current one is. And what did putting Karzai and his warlords into power do? It brought back opium production which the Taliban had banned. And most Afghans and Iraqis think they were better off before.

    Most governments have criteria about who can run for elected office and who cannot, including the US. What right does the US have to keep Arnold Schwartzenegger, or any other person not born in this country, from becoming a US president?

    And you are indeed trying to tell them how to live by claiming that countries should not be allowed to have certain forms of government.

    Which is why the US deliberately stopped that from being so in its two most recent inflictions of "democracy" upon the inhabitants whether they actually wanted it or not? What sort of "democracy" is that?

    You do realize that the vast majority of Iranians like things as they currently are? And that any attempt to force them to change is actually going against the will of their people?

    Israel is far from being capable of MAD. And they would be total fools to try to nuke a UN coaliiton which was there to disarm them. That would spell the permanent end of their country.

    The only chance of that likely happening is to continue to allow Israel to defy international law as we have in the past.
     
  6. Oishi

    Oishi Warlord

    Joined:
    May 27, 2010
    Messages:
    201
    Location:
    M.M., PH
    I don't think that the pen is mightier than the sword (or a firearm in this era) this time, especially when the military is paid excessively by the government to ensure its unwavering loyalty.
     
  7. Tani Coyote

    Tani Coyote Son of Huehuecoyotl

    Joined:
    May 28, 2007
    Messages:
    15,165
    Gender:
    Male
    Form, I hate to sound rude, but do you read a bit too much into what people say?

    And yes, that history does agree with me. Each dictatorship we have installed that collapsed turned that nation against us. We have made the mistake so many times it's sad we haven't learned from it.

    You should know this, since you refer to the Shah's regime like... in every post regarding Iran in the slightest.

    So installing dictatorships is good then? You can't have it both ways; either dictatorship is better or democracy is better. Any dictatorship should be in power solely to ensure the transition to a stronger economy capable of supporting democracy; it's a bit akin to socialism paving the way for communism, but, hopefully with a democratic regime with its leash around the dictator's throat to keep him from misbehaving.

    Then again, you could just be against intervention that installs any type of regime regardless of its substance, though I feel ignoring suffering is just as much a sin as directly inflicting it.

    Considering I'm very socially liberal, I'm not going to say that's a bad thing. If it makes the people of Afghanistan money, good; the richer each individual is relative to the pie, the more likely democracy will be more than a farce.

    You're trying to argue when there's no need to... if the people wanted to elect a foreigner, that's their damned choice.

    Our society is a representative democracy - the people do not make decisions themselves, but they have the full right to elect whomever they so wish to make the decisions. Contrary to the negative views of the American voter, I think most would be smart enough to know better than to elect someone too young for the job. Therefore, the restrictions on candidates are bit too paternalistic; to be fair, though, our government is structured to make candidates experienced, hence the five year gap between Representatives and Senators, and Senators and the President.

    Even so, our Constitution's specific rights should always remain the law of the land to protect against mob rule; the people's opinions are overruled when equal rights are on the table.

    Any government that oppresses its citizens deserves to be brought down, yes. I'm not going to compromise on that. We need freedom from government and freedom from eachother.

    It may sound paternalistic, but the people don't always know what's best for them; this is why representative democracy is better than direct democracy. Nearly every President - horrible or grand - was elected by popular vote with three exceptions.

    Furthermore, if Iranians support a government that actively tramples on the rights of some of its own people, I'm afraid principles overrule their "democracy." The right to be free from others is more important than the right to get together with 50%+1 of the population and make policy.

    The Supreme Court ruling on flag burning says that rights should not be decided based on their popularity with an audience. In the same vein, I don't care if 51% of Iran's government votes that group x should be exterminated or have any of their rights taken away. It's wrong, and any democracy that continues such behavior is illegitimate. Only democracies that give all citizens equal rights and responsibilities deserve respect.

    Furthermore, how do you prove most Iranians like things the way they are? Have you ever considered that a) they can't really elect a new government, and b) maybe they're too scared to speak out, and finally, c) that perhaps the government fudges the numbers? Until Iran is fully free of coercion and government intrusion, any "polls" or data should be taken with a grain of salt.

    And a UN coalition occupying them would not...? Without self-determination, a nation is nothing and might as well not exist. As an anti-interventionist, you should understand that.

    Then the ends justify the means. Israel being able to continue its actions is for the betterment of mankind if it allows nuclear weapons to be made obsolete. At least in my view, anyway.

    So like the USSR, their military expenditures will bankrupt them most likely. Weren't the Baseej and Revolutionary Guard having some infighting during the protests, though?
     
  8. plarq

    plarq Crazy forever

    Joined:
    May 16, 2004
    Messages:
    6,159
    Location:
    None of the above
    The greatest threat is US, not Israel! And by comparing Iran to US, you forgot they lynch gays and non-Muslims?
     
  9. Tee Kay

    Tee Kay Silly furry

    Joined:
    Aug 21, 2005
    Messages:
    21,969
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Melbourne
    Ah, not all of them. Only the occasional Bahais.
     
  10. amadeus

    amadeus Civ2 / Law and Order!

    Joined:
    Aug 30, 2001
    Messages:
    35,400
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Osaka (大阪)
    Yeah! You can only do that when the countries are Rhodesia or South Africa.

    Everyone else you have to leave alone.
     
  11. Formaldehyde

    Formaldehyde Both Fair And Balanced

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 2003
    Messages:
    33,999
    Location:
    USA #1
    Perhaps I do on occasion. Have I been inaccurate about what you have posted thus far?

    That is definitely not true. Chile isn't openly against us. Neither is Honduras, Nicaragua, Panama, the Phillipines, or many others. Even Vietnam doesn't appear to hate us anymore, although they certainly have enough reason to do so given our past behavior saving them from a supposedly evil form of government.

    Not to mention we aren't talking about installing dictators in the case of Iraq and Afghanistan. They were our puppet "democratically elected" leaders, although there really isn't any difference. Lack of free choice is lack of free choice.

    That is certainly one example which has. There are obviously a few others, such as Cuba.

    And what were you just apparently saying about creating absurd strawmen?

    And speaking of evil totalitarian governments which we do nothing about, take a look at the subject bar for an excellent example. We don't seem to mind them at all as long as they aren't opposed to our own preconceived notions of what must be "right" and what must be "wrong" e.g. being pro American corporations and interests while being opposed to governments which may try to seize those offshore holdings.

    I personally think that a "democracy" such as our own is far better than dictatorships in countries which can actually viably support it. That seems rather obvious to me. But I wouldn't ever think about forcing that view on another country where the people have decided they prefer another form of government. And I think doing so is just as "evil" as the Soviet Union or Nazi Germany doing so. It is just that you apparently think your excuse for doing so is righteous enough to warrant it while theirs wasn't.

    Thanks, but not in my country. Fortunately, we have a constitutional provision protecting us from foreign-born actors becoming the president.

    It may "deserve it" in your own personal opinion, but that certainly doesn't give you or anybody else the right to do so in s sovereign foreign country. Fortunately, we have international laws to protect us from people who think they know best.

    Well, possibly so. But at this particular moment I really think it is the much smaller rogue state which is now threatening Iran with the use of nuclear weapons, and which is currently being ruled by a rabid fundamentalist member of the far-right. If we elect another Reagan or GWB, I will obviously have to reassess the relative risks.

    Did you forgot we lynched blacks and homosexuals ourselves in the past 50 years? We aren't that much more civilzed than some of them are. And I don't think the average Iranian supports that sort of behavior any more than the average American did 50 years ago.
     
  12. JohnRM

    JohnRM Don't make me destroy you

    Joined:
    Apr 18, 2004
    Messages:
    11,582
    Location:
    Death Star
    Saddam Hussein is coming back from Hell with Satan to rule the world. :mischief:
     
  13. Ahovking

    Ahovking Cyber Nations

    Joined:
    Jan 12, 2010
    Messages:
    807
    Location:
    In Your Phone
    Saudi Arabia has the worlds largest Oil ......things (cant think of the name)and if Iran get's that oil they can black mail other nation( stop the attack and give us this or no more oil)
     
  14. Silurian

    Silurian Deity

    Joined:
    Jan 5, 2010
    Messages:
    7,567
    A lot of the oil producing areas of Saudi Arabia are Shiite.
    The Iranians could well foment unrest to disrupt the Saudi oilfields which would also boost their own income.
     
  15. lovett

    lovett Deity

    Joined:
    Sep 21, 2007
    Messages:
    2,570
    What do you think happens when a belligerent foreign power (and that is certainly how the US is perceived) starts bankrolling a political group within a country like Iran? It completely discredits the groups, which is precisely why Obama and the west in general have not supplied weapons to any of the political movements withing Iran. Not that these movements want weapons; they don't want civil war or armed insurrection. It's this funny notion of peaceful protest.

    As it happens, Iran is liberalising. And its authoritarian governmental structure is getting less and less unsustainable. As you identify, that's because of the urbanized educated and unhappy Iranian youth. You know another great way to stop this process? War. Iranians, like an awful lots of peoples, are rather patriotic. Their natural response to belligerence and attack is to side with their own nation and disregard internal differences (think of the American response to 9/11). That is to say, by initiating military action against Iran you completely unite the country under its current governance and thoroughly discredit any voices suggesting 'liberalisation' and 'openness' with the rest of the world. This should not be surprising; Iran would look far more like a liberal democracy now where it not for western support of dictatorship.

    So if you must advocate military attacks on Iran, or interfering in Iranian politics, don't pretend this is going to help them. Don't think this is going to speed along the process of liberalization and democratization; it's going to do quite the opposite. If you really think their nuclear programs pose an existential threat to Israel or western interests that's a reason for military action; but it's not going to make Iran more liberal.
     
  16. Oishi

    Oishi Warlord

    Joined:
    May 27, 2010
    Messages:
    201
    Location:
    M.M., PH
    I agree here. Only the Central Region has more Sunnis than Shiites. Sometimes riots spring up, but the police are quick in cracking them down. I've heard rumors that the Shiites are given less pay at jobs there than Sunnis.
     
  17. EnglishEdward

    EnglishEdward Deity

    Joined:
    Jul 19, 2008
    Messages:
    4,895
    Location:
    England
    It is not a question about the Saudis allying with Israel.

    It is simply that the Saudi government sees no point in having
    all of its aircraft based in the north destroyed by Israel/USA
    while attempting to defend the Iranian nuclear bomb program.
     
  18. Oishi

    Oishi Warlord

    Joined:
    May 27, 2010
    Messages:
    201
    Location:
    M.M., PH
    Or it might be a feint. Someone's reading the art of war.
     
  19. Silurian

    Silurian Deity

    Joined:
    Jan 5, 2010
    Messages:
    7,567
    Who would gain by uniting the Iranians behind the current regime.
     
  20. civ_king

    civ_king Deus Caritas Est

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2006
    Messages:
    16,368
    This is politically, religiously and economically to Saudi Arabia's advantage
    Politically: Iran keeps is a danger to safety
    Religiously: Iran is heretical Shiites
    Economically: If Iran is a smoldering crater oil prices will go up
     

Share This Page