Your Drones are belong to us!

[aelf]

[all posts]

You're certainly entitled to your opinions and I wouldn't say you're 100% wrong, but the pomposity of your tone never ceases to amuse me. You aren't going to win many people over like that. There's something called diplomacy, and it's certainly something that the world police hasn't really done well at.

What I'm worried about is that Iran may be willing to risk annihilation for the chance to strike at the Israelis, as has been the notion that's been spread throughout such leaders in that area. Maybe they're just showboating to display to their citizens that they are strong and that they mean business. But can we take the risk?

You took the risk with the USSR. Or are you saying that the USA should have gone to war to disarm it?

 

[Defiant47]

You're certainly entitled to your opinions and I wouldn't say you're 100% wrong, but the pomposity of your tone never ceases to amuse me. You aren't going to win many people over like that.

Ah, but when championing righteous crusades, pomposity is demanded! When one speaks the cause of good against evil, one should not pull any punches.

There's something called diplomacy, and it's certainly something that the world police hasn't really done well at.

I do believe the U.S. has gotten better at it recently, like in the past several years. Probably to lick the wounds of its shattered global PR image.

 

[Defiant47]

You took the risk with the USSR. Or are you saying that the USA should have gone to war to disarm it?

The USSR and Russia have some concept of self-preservation, and don't hate any ideology with such a passion that they're be willing to risk annihilation.

Better example is we took the risk with Pakistan. But I'm not a history major, so I'm sure there's explanations for that as well.

 

[aelf]

Ah, but when championing righteous crusades, pomposity is demanded! When one speaks the cause of good against evil, one should not pull any punches.

Yeah, and that sure worked wonders for the Bush administration.

Real life is complicated. People who refuse to accept that usually do more damage than help.

I do believe the U.S. has gotten better at it recently, like in the past several years. Probably to lick the wounds of its shattered global PR image.

That wouldn't continue if it goes about doing things the way you prefer (i.e. drawing a line in the sand about who's evil and who isn't, as though they have some God-given right to make that call).

 

[Defiant47]

Real life is complicated. People who refuse to accept that usually do more damage than help.

I accept it. When it comes down to it, there are way more variables at hand.

But I am attempting to spread support for military interventionism when it's done for good causes. Too many have a warped view of the military wherein everything they do is considered "bad".

That wouldn't continue if it goes about doing things the way you prefer (i.e. drawing a line in the sand about who's evil and who isn't, as though they have some God-given right to make that call).

Of course they don't. Who are they and who are we to decide that slaughtering innocents by the thousands is "wrong"? We are not God. Perhaps killing your own people in order to stay in power is correct, and we should be doing it too.

 

[aelf]

The USSR and Russia have some concept of self-preservation, and don't hate any ideology with such a passion that they're be willing to risk annihilation.

That's a silly way to look at Iran. Of course the Iranian regime is a political one. If you knew anything about how it got into power, you'd know that the ayatollahs are shrewd political players. They want to be in power, and it stretches the bounds of credulity to to be told that they'd choose annihilation for the sake of pursuing grand delusions. It's much easier to believe that the DPRK might do something like that, so you're not giving the right kind of attention to the right country.

What can happen, though, is the regime being pushed into war, which wouldn't be good for anyone. I think the policy of containment has legs, but it looks like that may be something that belongs in the past.

Besides, the Iranian regime is divided by its own internal politics, so it's always amusing to see people talk about it as though it's a monolithic super-villainous entity.

 

[aelf]

Of course they don't. Who are they and who are we to decide that slaughtering innocents by the thousands is "wrong"? We are not God. Perhaps killing your own people in order to stay in power is correct, and we should be doing it too.

If you think your neighbour is beating his wife and his front door is locked, would it be the correct course of action to burst into his house with guns blazing or even to burn the house down?

 

[Defiant47]

That's a silly way to look at Iran. Of course the Iranian regime is a political one. If you knew anything about how it got into power, you'd know that the ayatollahs are shrewd political players. They want to be in power, and it stretches the bounds of credulity to to be told that they'd choose annihilation for the sake of pursuing grand delusions. It's much easier to believe that the DPRK might do something like that, so you're not giving the right kind of attention to the right country.

Will people stop pointing at North Korea, or any other country that already has nuclear weapons?

"Hey everyone! We need to stop these people from getting nuclear weapons at all costs, in case of the risk that they may want to use them preemptively! We need to invade before they get nuclear weapons, to eliminate their capacity to do so, because once they do, invasion is out of the question due to the high risk of nuclear assault."

"Yeah? So why aren't you invading this super-dangerous country that already has nuclear weapons, wise guy?"

What can happen, though, is the regime being pushed into war, which wouldn't be good for anyone. I think the policy of containment has legs, but it looks like that may be something that belongs in the past.

The policy of containment and sanctions has almost no effect, especially when support is extended from other countries. A country like North Korea is almost entirely protectionist anyways, so you'd be wasting your breath. Iran should also have no problems.

Besides, the Iranian regime is divided by its own internal politics, so it's always amusing to see people talk about it as though it's a monolithic super-villainous entity.

We're not talking about a "monolithic super-villainous entity". We're talking about "whoever the leaders are that they could come into power and whoever has the influences... they ALL would prefer risking thermonuclear annihilation of themselves and their own people for the CHANCE to nuke Israel and spark a global thermonuclear war."

 

[Defiant47]

If you think your neighbour is beating his wife and his front door is locked, would it be the correct course of action to burst into his house with guns blazing or even to burn the house down?

Not guns blazing, but with guns certainly. And if he (the government) resists arrest, to use those guns.

 

[aelf]

Will people stop pointing at North Korea, or any other country that already has nuclear weapons?

"Hey everyone! We need to stop these people from getting nuclear weapons at all costs, in case of the risk that they may want to use them preemptively! We need to invade before they get nuclear weapons, to eliminate their capacity to do so, because once they do, invasion is out of the question due to the high risk of nuclear assault."

"Yeah? So why aren't you invading this super-dangerous country that already has nuclear weapons, wise guy?"

No, you're not listening. Not that that's surprising.

I'm pointing to the DPRK as the more likely case of a nutty regime doing nutty things (whether or not it has nuclear weapons is is irrelevant; bombarding Seoul with conventional artillery, for example, would be damaging and nutty enough an act). Just because Ahmadinejad appears nutty doesn't mean that Iran will literally try to wipe Israel off the map or whatever.

Does nuance exist to you?

The policy of containment and sanctions has almost no effect, especially when support is extended from other countries. A country like North Korea is almost entirely protectionist anyways, so you'd be wasting your breath. Iran should also have no problems.

I'm not sure about sanctions, but what I'm saying is there are a lot of other ways besides war and the threat of war to try and limit the harm that Iran can do outside its borders. With enough political shrewdness, you might even induce an improvement within its borders.

We're not talking about a "monolithic super-villainous entity". We're talking about "whoever the leaders are that they could come into power and whoever has the influences... they ALL would prefer risking thermonuclear annihilation of themselves and their own people for the CHANCE to nuke Israel and spark a global thermonuclear war."

Uh, yeah, that's kinda what I mean. It's quite a comical view.

Not guns blazing, but with guns certainly. And if he (the government) resists arrest, to use those guns.

The problem is there is no world police or world government. So who can you trust to go into the house and make the arrest without making off with some of his things or raping his wife?

It seems extremely silly to try and stop the slaughter of thousands of innocents by choosing a course of action that would result in the destruction of thousands of innocents. But you talk as if that's obviously the right to do. It's amazing.

 

[HannibalBarka]

I accept it. When it comes down to it, there are way more variables at hand.
But I am attempting to spread support for military interventionism when it's done for good causes. Too many have a warped view of the military wherein everything they do is considered "bad".

hum, and who is going to decide which cause is good and which one is bad?

 

[Defiant47]

No, you're not listening. Not that that's surprising.

Please don't patronize me. I make it a point to always listen to whatever the other person is trying to say.

I'm pointing to the DPRK as the more likely case of a nutty regime doing nutty things (whether or not it has nuclear weapons is is irrelevant; bombarding Seoul with conventional artillery, for example, would be damaging and nutty enough an act). Just because Ahmadinejad appears nutty doesn't mean that Iran will literally try to wipe Israel off the map or whatever.

Ahhh, OK. I get it.

Well there are a few ways I could respond to that. North Korea is probably subservient to and listens to China, and I doubt China would allow them to launch nukes. North Korea's "Israel" is the United States, and their ICBMs can't reach us, being on the other side of the globe. They wouldn't be able to hit enough cities from their position, as it is... whereas Iran only needs like one nuke to exterminate the Israelis.

I'm not sure about sanctions, but what I'm saying is there are a lot of other ways besides war and the threat of war to try and limit the harm that Iran can do outside its borders. With enough political shrewdness, you might even induce an improvement within its borders.

Once they get their hands on nukes, I'm not sure just how much we can limit.

Uh, yeah, that's kinda what I mean. It's quite a comical view.

Too many Iranian leaders and people in influence have called out for the extermination of Israel. At this point, it's an educated estimate that the risk they'd actually nuke Israel is too high.

The problem is there is no world police or world government. So who can you trust to go into the house and make the arrest without making off with some of his things or raping his wife?

It seems extremely silly to try and stop the slaughter of thousands of innocents by choosing a course of action that would result in the destruction of thousands of innocents. But you talk as if that's obviously the right to do. It's amazing.

And you talk as if I believe the destruction of innocents is good and fine. That's obviously something to be avoided, and something that we need to get better at before engaging in any further "humanitarian" pursuits.

Obviously it's a calculated risk. If Saddam was going to eradicate 10,000 of his own people per year in order to stay in power, and an invasion of Iraq was going to do collateral damage of 50,000 innocent people, then if we don't believe Saddam to be overthrown within 5 years, we should do it ourselves.

It's like preferring to leave a mass-murderer to kill 10 hostages, rather than taking the shot at the high risk of killing 1 yourself.

Another complexity is whether the people actually want you to intervene. You should only step in if you have the support of the populace, which shouldn't be a problem if their regime is tyrannical and brutal.

I'm not saying it's easy or it's SIMPLE* (edit-corrected). I'm saying that under the right circumstances, it's the right thing to do.

 

[strijder20]

Israel is not a threat to the peace and stability of the immediate region. Well, insofar as it is not threatened itself.

Don't forget that Israel is the black sheep in the region, being jewish, and thus is indirectly a threat to the stability in the region, as it is more likely to wage wars or get attacked.

 

[Defiant47]

hum, and who is going to decide which cause is good and which one is bad?

Our representatives as elected by the populace who should support humanitarian interventionism.

In reality, we should only intervene when lives are at stake. Al-Asaad makes slaves of all women? They can figure it out. Women have to be stoned to death if they get raped? Pretty bad, but not enough of an impact. Al-Asaad orders the execution of thousands of civilians? Yeah, I think it's time to put a stop to that.

 

[aelf]

Please don't patronize me. I make it a point to always listen to whatever the other person is trying to say.

You seem to hold a lot of assumptions about a lot of things, and so it might be easy to lose sight of what's really being said.

Well there are a few ways I could respond to that. North Korea is probably subservient to and listens to China, and I doubt China would allow them to launch nukes. North Korea's "Israel" is the United States, and their ICBMs can't reach us, being on the other side of the globe. They wouldn't be able to hit enough cities from their position, as it is... whereas Iran only needs like one nuke to exterminate the Israelis.

And what if China decides that propping up the regime may not be in their interest anymore? The regime would then be faced with the choice of simply collapsing or going out with a bang and maybe having a shot at dominating the peninsula, no matter how slim the chance.

I'm not saying that this is likely to happen. It's just way more likely than Iran flipping out and nuking Israel without an ongoing war.

Too many Iranian leaders and people in influence have called out for the extermination of Israel.

And you believe them?

The Iranian regime sustains itself partly through such rhetoric. The trick is to sift out their real intentions from the propaganda. Otherwise, either you'd simply play into their hand by reacting in a hostile manner all the time or you'd actually make things even worse by escalating.

At this point, it's an educated estimate that the risk they'd actually nuke Israel is too high.

When you say stuff like that you should be able to back it up. What is too high? How are you measuring the risk?

And you talk as if I believe the destruction of innocents is good and fine. That's obviously something to be avoided, and something that we need to get better at before engaging in any further "humanitarian" pursuits.

Obviously it's a calculated risk. If Saddam was going to eradicate 10,000 of his own people per year in order to stay in power, and an invasion of Iraq was going to do collateral damage of 50,000 innocent people, then if we don't believe Saddam to be overthrown within 5 years, we should do it ourselves.

It's like preferring to leave a mass-murderer to kill 10 hostages, rather than taking the shot at the high risk of killing 1 yourself.

Again, how are you making your calculations for Iran?

Besides, the Iranian regime is not quite like Saddam. I understand that tin pot dictators seem volatile and hard to predict, but a regime like Iran has certain political interests and is not simply dominated by a personality. It's stupid to treat them as though they're the same.

Another complexity is whether the people actually want you to intervene. You should only step in if you have the support of the populace, which shouldn't be a problem if their regime is tyrannical and brutal.

I'm not saying it's easy or it's bad. I'm saying that under the right circumstances, it's the right thing to do.

Did you have the support of the populace in Iraq? Yes, the people were happy that Saddam was deposed (why wouldn't they be?), but can you honestly say that they are happy about the invasion?

 

[Defiant47]

See, this is what I come here for. At heart, I am a moderate, but enjoy espousing extremist views to see what comes of them, and identify their weaknesses.

Thank you good sir, you have placated me.

 

[Narz]

Comments?

Iran #1?

Was it even legal for us to be all spying on Iran n' stuff? If they were doing it to us wouldn't we use it as an excuse to bomb them or something?

Anyway, good for Iran!

 

[Skwink]

-Can we please have it back?

Really?

Obama's a nice guy.

 

[Lord of Elves]

Anyway, good for Iran!

I agree, we need more theocratic states in the world that lock up/kill homosexuals and institutionalize their citizens when they stray from the state religion.

 

[Shaihulud]

Iran deserved the drone, they can do what they want with it. I find it hypocritical for any Usian to accuse Iran when the questionable act were first commited by USA.