Clubfoothead Posted February 22, 2012 Share Posted February 22, 2012 I don't think you could possibly make the case that Iran having a nuke is a threat to the global economy. I think you probably could. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yukon Cornelius Posted February 22, 2012 Share Posted February 22, 2012 I think you probably could. +1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
delusions of grandeur Posted February 22, 2012 Author Share Posted February 22, 2012 I think you probably could. Care to elaborate? Because an escalation with Iran that tanks our economy and bankrupts us by continuing with trillions in intervention, seems much mroe scary to me. As goes the US economy, so goes the world economy currently. We're about to not have a choice anymore about not being the world's policemen if we continue to bankrupt ourselves overseas by making everything our business. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
delusions of grandeur Posted February 22, 2012 Author Share Posted February 22, 2012 Why yes, yes I do. If you're referring to the Iron Dome possessed by Israel I'll simply point out it's a derivative of the Patriot system that NEVER worked as advertised, and in fact was fairly discredited at having even shot down more than one or two scuds during Gulf War 1. http://www.iranwatch.org/wmd/wponac-missilemilestones.htm Lots have happened since 2006. Chinese missile purchases for one thing. Times do change. And you're barely reading what I'm saying: with Europe involved now that's not benevolent, it's a clear ratchet up they haven't pursued before. Why do you think that is? Also, the Arab Spring is just that, something largely driven by the populations of countries. When stuff like that happens it's foolish not to get involved to steer things your/our way. Those revolution trains left, we either watch or hop on board. Obviously, each situation has its own set of issues, whether Egypt, Libya or Syria but simply shrugging our shoulders and not engaging is silly. Not engaging and inciting conflicts that have nothing to with us is silly? I feel like I'm in bizarro world when iberals are preaching for us to continue to be the world's policemen, to our detriment domestically. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clubfoothead Posted February 22, 2012 Share Posted February 22, 2012 Care to elaborate? The global economy takes place upon the globe. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
delusions of grandeur Posted February 22, 2012 Author Share Posted February 22, 2012 The global economy takes place upon the globe. Insightful as that may be, that doesn't explain how an Iranian nuke threatens the world economy, not even close to how US/Israel escalation could. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clubfoothead Posted February 22, 2012 Share Posted February 22, 2012 Insightful as that may be, that doesn't explain how an Iranian nuke threatens the world economy, not even close to how US/Israel escalation could. I've read your posts. You are ignoring everyone else's. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
delusions of grandeur Posted February 22, 2012 Author Share Posted February 22, 2012 (edited) I've read your posts. You are ignoring everyone else's. I've read your posts. You've offered no supporting evidence or even opinion for your view. I'm not sure there's one post in this thread I haven't directly responded to. You are free to disagree, but it's pretty evident that I'm not ignoring anyone (except Bushy, for obvious reasons). Edited February 22, 2012 by delusions of granduer Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bushwacked Posted February 22, 2012 Share Posted February 22, 2012 Sorry for not taking you seriously, but when the initial basis of your screeching is that sanctions are the equivalent to declaring war, not many people here will. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
delusions of grandeur Posted February 22, 2012 Author Share Posted February 22, 2012 (edited) Sorry for not taking you seriously, but when the initial basis of your screeching is that sanctions are the equivalent to declaring war, not many people here will. Sorry for not taking you seriously, but you rarely ever do anything but nitpick less important parts of what I'm saying. Sure it's debatable if sanctions can be considered an act of war, that is really up to the sanctionee to determine that. Take that part out and it changes very little about my argument that we're needlessly intervening when Israel is armed with 250+ by us already, and potentially escalating this into a far worse situation with things like sanctions and threats to strike. ETA: and you can bet the US would be taking it very seriously, with more than just rhetoric if someone was doing the same kind of "tough" sancitons here. But anyways, not like I'm surprised that you detract to that. It'd be nice if trolling was just confined to the internet, but it seems this technique of "gotcha journalism" has become a mainstay in the media, and just increases the partisan bickering, rather than real discussion about the issues. Congrats on being a part of counterproductive partisanship ETA2: and no, if you're talking about an official act of war, that's not at all what 'm saying. What I'm saying is that you don't put sanctions on countries you're friendly with, so perhaps a potential escalation of war is a better way to put it? Edited February 22, 2012 by delusions of granduer Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pope Flick Posted February 22, 2012 Share Posted February 22, 2012 Not engaging and inciting conflicts that have nothing to with us is silly? I feel like I'm in bizarro world when iberals are preaching for us to continue to be the world's policemen, to our detriment domestically. You are in bizarro world: you're a self described republican who wants to parachute into Tehran hold hands with the mullahs and sing koom-by-ya. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
delusions of grandeur Posted February 22, 2012 Author Share Posted February 22, 2012 (edited) You are in bizarro world: you're a self described republican who wants to parachute into Tehran hold hands with the mullahs and sing koom-by-ya. Post #25. I do not profess to be a republican, and certainly do not support the corrupt ones who represent that party. That doesn't preclude me from agreeing with them on alot of domestic issues (in theory anyway; the left and right are also really no different in the size of government, just how quickly they want to expand it and on what). Try again on trying to paint me as a hypocrite. And as for the kumbaya part, I thought a liberal-minded person such as yourself would see that there's a gigantic middle ground in simple defense and what we're doing now. There is a reason they don't want to attack Sweden (and no, I'm not advocating a world power having a level of defense of Sweden, just in their decision to not kick the hornet's nest and meddle in other country's affairs at their own enormously unsustainable cost domestically to be the world's police). Anyways, if this is just going to devolve into partisan personal attacks, I'm not gonna waste my time. Call me when you have something real to debate here. Edited February 22, 2012 by delusions of granduer Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ice1 Posted February 23, 2012 Share Posted February 23, 2012 (edited) 1) Iran will not nuke their holy land in Isreal, while simultaneously guaranteeing their own destruction. Even if they gave it to a terrorist to detonate, it would undoubtedly be traced back to them (really regardless of who actually does it). 2) That is a misquote that has taken a life of it's own about "wiping Isreal off the map". Huge difference between opposing a regime, and taking a quote to mean they'll annihilate their holy land. 3)The world economy is at stake if we intervene. I don't think you could possibly make the case that Iran having a nuke is a threat to the global economy. As BP said earlier, Pakistan and India HATE eachother, but both know that you can't go shooting when the other guy is armed. Again, nukes are about leverage. No country with nukes has ever attacked another country with nukes. Point 1: Iran will not nuke their Holy Land in Israel> This statement speaks volumes. Israel is a country, it is not Iran's holy land. The even if they gave it to a terrorist argument is a reason alone as one detonation would basically destroy Israel which is why they won't let this go on much longer. Point 2: The misquote as you put it is not shared by Israel. Show me anywhere that Iran has ever spoken of Israel's right to exist. No doubt he talks about Palestinian's rights often. The leader does not even recognize the Holocaust actually happened. Point 3: Trying to equate India/Pakistan and the actual land swap formation as English rule ended is not remotely the same so not germane to the discussion. As it relates to the world economy, Israel has been clear that they will not tolerate Iran with Nukes and the USA while less clear has been using means available today to ensure this does not happen. The "Just because no one has ever", argument does not matter to Israel in the least. The world economy if a war breaks out is at serious risk given the oil flow through the strait and a real possibility of a wider conflict. The reality is the USA is not in control of this situation but at a point a risk assessment will be done and preemption is a very real possibility over appeasement/hope strategies regardless of President. My take is if/when Israel acts we will support to hopefully keep a relative lid on the situation. Just the rhetoric alone in the past few days have driven up the cost of oil. Putting our leverage viewpoint on Nukes is dangerous. Israel and Iran do not think like we do. Allowing a regime like Iran to obtain the capability when it can be stopped ultimately makes more sense in my opinion but regardless, I think we will be in a reactionary position. BTW, I am far more concerned with Israel launching a nuke in the short term if they fail to take out their nuke facilities. Just my opinion but here is an opening to a speech that may provide serious insight on the mindset of Israel. Edited February 23, 2012 by Ice1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
delusions of grandeur Posted February 25, 2012 Author Share Posted February 25, 2012 (edited) Well, whatdya know. I guess all 16 of the intelligence agencies are all full of conspiracy theorists, because they also claim to have no hard evidence that Iran is pursuing a nuclear weapons program, let alone close to building one. And yet we're working on escalating a potential world-wide conflict with sanctions and these tap dances in Syria and the Straight of Hormuz, along with Israel not letting their finger off the trigger, all over a whim? WASHINGTON — Even as the United Nations’ nuclear watchdog said in a new report Friday that Iran had accelerated its uranium enrichment program, American intelligence analysts continue to believe that there is no hard evidence that Iran has decided to build a nuclear bomb. Recent assessments by American spy agencies are broadly consistent with a 2007 intelligence finding that concluded that Iran had abandoned its nuclear weapons program years earlier, according to current and former American officials. The officials said that assessment was largely reaffirmed in a 2010 National Intelligence Estimate, and that it remains the consensus view of America’s 16 intelligence agencies. Full story here Edited February 25, 2012 by delusions of granduer Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bushwacked Posted February 25, 2012 Share Posted February 25, 2012 Well, whatdya know. I guess all 16 of the intelligence agencies are all full of conspiracy theorists, because they also claim to have no hard evidence that Iran is pursuing a nuclear weapons program, let alone close to building one. From your link: At the center of the debate is the murky question of the ultimate ambitions of the leaders in Tehran. There is no dispute among American, Israeli and European intelligence officials that Iran has been enriching nuclear fuel and developing some necessary infrastructure to become a nuclear power. But the Central Intelligence Agency and other intelligence agencies believe that Iran has yet to decide whether to resume a parallel program to design a nuclear warhead — a program they believe was essentially halted in 2003 and which would be necessary for Iran to build a nuclear bomb. Iranian officials maintain that their nuclear program is for civilian purposes. The quote from Panetta that got you worked up in your OP: “I think the pressure of the sanctions, the diplomatic pressures from everywhere, Europe, the United States, elsewhere, it’s working to put pressure on them,” Panetta explained on Sunday. “To make them understand that they cannot continue to do what they’re doing. Are they trying to develop a nuclear weapon? No. But we know that they’re trying to develop a nuclear capability, and that’s what concerns us. And our red line to Iran is, do not develop a nuclear weapon. That’s a red line for us.” I fail to see your point. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
delusions of grandeur Posted February 25, 2012 Author Share Posted February 25, 2012 (edited) From your link: The quote from Panetta that got you worked up in your OP: I fail to see your point. Everything you posted has absolutely no evidence to back it up, and could be pure spin for all you and I know. So I'm just supposed to blindly assume that "sanctions are working" and things like that aren't just a spin to justify actions? Panetta certainly isn't about to admit that sanctions weren't needed even if they weren't, unless it was such a failure he had to. Of course they work if you ask him.. But notice the other quote where the article uses words like "there's no dispute" and "believe" repeatedly. That sort of language is used because it's highly speculatory and not based on fact. But as for the fact that none of the 16 Intelligence agencies see hard evidence Iran is even pursuing, let alone developing a nuclear weapon, and that's my point... Feel free to figure out our own conspiracy theory for why they'd all find the same contradictory thing if you don't believe that, but I tend to believe the people who do this more than the people who sell it to the media like Panetta, many of whom claim the exact opposite with regard to Iran. I only brought him up because it was an interesting slip-up, but I trust the people who look into it far more than the mouthpiece. Edited February 25, 2012 by delusions of granduer Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bushwacked Posted February 25, 2012 Share Posted February 25, 2012 Everything you posted has absolutely no evidence to back it up, I'll I did was post a bit of commentary on your "sanctions = war" blathering. You're the one trying to make some kind of a desperately backhanded point that ultimately gets directly contradicted by your own links in some kind of bizzaro gotcha attempt. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
delusions of grandeur Posted February 25, 2012 Author Share Posted February 25, 2012 I'll I did was post a bit of commentary on your "sanctions = war" blathering. You're the one trying to make some kind of a desperately backhanded point that ultimately gets directly contradicted by your own links in some kind of bizzaro gotcha attempt. Gotcha attempt? Because I disregard the rhetoiric that may or may not be true, and go with the one thing backed up by all of the intelligence agencies? I think you're the one that's detracting by quoting the "official" story that doesn't necessarily line up with the lack of evidence that's been corroborated by all 16 agencies. I thought it was quite interesting that they found nothing, as the rhetoric continues to suggest the opposite. Anything beyond that is a desperate attempt to inject your own politics. I conceded earlier when it looked like they might be making one after the IAEA reports, so I'm obviously going to take credit when the evidence backs my initial claims. Doesn't make it any less true. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bushwacked Posted February 25, 2012 Share Posted February 25, 2012 (edited) I think you're the one that's detracting by quoting the "official" story that doesn't necessarily line up with the lack of evidence that's been corroborated by all 16 agencies. I got the official story, or more distinctly, the story you provided from your own links and the only thing I'm commenting on, from you. Edited February 25, 2012 by bushwacked Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ursa Majoris Posted February 25, 2012 Share Posted February 25, 2012 all 16 of the intelligence agencies On a side note, right here is a great example of what we need to do to fix spending. Sixteen? I can certainly understand spheres of interest such as internal and foreign but sixteen? Sixteen bureaucracies, sixteen pension schemes, sixteen communication systems, never mind the sheer number of cracks stuff can fall through. I support increased intelligence (and increased use of surgical strikes in anti-terrorism) but this has got to be way too fragmented. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clubfoothead Posted February 25, 2012 Share Posted February 25, 2012 UN says uranium missing Still cannot come up with a good reason to not sanction Iran. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gbpfan1231 Posted February 25, 2012 Share Posted February 25, 2012 On a side note, right here is a great example of what we need to do to fix spending. Sixteen? I can certainly understand spheres of interest such as internal and foreign but sixteen? Sixteen bureaucracies, sixteen pension schemes, sixteen communication systems, never mind the sheer number of cracks stuff can fall through. I support increased intelligence (and increased use of surgical strikes in anti-terrorism) but this has got to be way too fragmented. About time we agree on something. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
delusions of grandeur Posted February 25, 2012 Author Share Posted February 25, 2012 I got the official story, or more distinctly, the story you provided from your own links and the only thing I'm commenting on, from you. So because I found the links, I have to support the "think" and "believe" statements that could be pure rhetoric for all I know? Quite the opposite, the official story reiterated in those articles appears contradictory to the lack of evidence, and certainly not contradictory for me to point to the evidence and look past the possibly-rhetorical "think" and "believe" statements (which were the exact reason I asked anyone to provide proof earlier, since everyone was so sure they were. They've "believed" these things for quite a while, so it looks like the Bomb-Iran folks may be the real conspiracy theorists, not basing it on hard evidence). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
delusions of grandeur Posted February 25, 2012 Author Share Posted February 25, 2012 (edited) On a side note, right here is a great example of what we need to do to fix spending. Sixteen? I can certainly understand spheres of interest such as internal and foreign but sixteen? Sixteen bureaucracies, sixteen pension schemes, sixteen communication systems, never mind the sheer number of cracks stuff can fall through. I support increased intelligence (and increased use of surgical strikes in anti-terrorism) but this has got to be way too fragmented. And this all is supposed to help them share intelligence? Perhaps one could argue that this has contributed to an inability to gain evidence of their supposed nuclear ambitions (though I somewhat doubt that, with the capabilities they undoubtedly have to know what's going on), but nonetheless, this is why you're supposed to go to Congress to declare war based on hard evidence of a threat, before you go poking at the hornet's nest. Edited February 25, 2012 by delusions of granduer Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bpwallace49 Posted February 25, 2012 Share Posted February 25, 2012 Who's on first ? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.