| Welcome to The New Coffee Room. We hope you enjoy your visit. You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free. Join our community! If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features: |
- Pages:
- 1
- 2
| Should Iran Get Nukes? | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: Sep 6 2006, 02:38 PM (619 Views) | |
| Dewey | Sep 7 2006, 03:19 AM Post #26 |
![]()
HOLY CARP!!!
|
(oops) |
|
"By nature, i prefer brevity." - John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, p. 685. "Never waste your time trying to explain yourself to people who are committed to misunderstanding you." - Anonymous "Oh sure, every once in a while a turd floated by, but other than that it was just fine." - Joe A., 2011 I'll answer your other comments later, but my primary priority for the rest of the evening is to get drunk." - Klaus, 12/31/14 | |
![]() |
|
| Dewey | Sep 7 2006, 03:23 AM Post #27 |
![]()
HOLY CARP!!!
|
That question isn't relevant until the one I've identified is answered. |
|
"By nature, i prefer brevity." - John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, p. 685. "Never waste your time trying to explain yourself to people who are committed to misunderstanding you." - Anonymous "Oh sure, every once in a while a turd floated by, but other than that it was just fine." - Joe A., 2011 I'll answer your other comments later, but my primary priority for the rest of the evening is to get drunk." - Klaus, 12/31/14 | |
![]() |
|
| Axtremus | Sep 7 2006, 05:07 AM Post #28 |
|
HOLY CARP!!!
|
I'll play along: Let us say that we just know that diplomacy has failed right this moment. Heck, let's just say that God just revealed this knowledge and miraculously put it in every American's head so there is no disagreement and no confusion whatsoever among Americans that diplomacy has decidedly failed, and every American agree that there is to be no more negotiation from now on. Now what sort of military action do you think should be undertaken and what do you think it will accomplish? |
![]() |
|
| JBryan | Sep 7 2006, 05:15 AM Post #29 |
![]()
I am the grey one
|
I see two problems with this analysis: 1. "Lewis states that just as Muslim terrorists were willing to strike Western targets even though they knew many Muslims would be killed, the Iranian leaders would not hesitate to strike at Israel and kill millions of Muslims. That is a projection from the individual to the national level, and is not necessarily valid. What a single suicide bomber is willing to do does not prove anything about the decisions of a national leadership." The national leaderships of several Arab countries including Iran have had no problem in the past with using Palestinians as pawns in their struggle against Israel. The privation and even death of Palestinians, even in great numbers, has long been to the their advantage. I see no problem at all with Iran sacrificing Palestinians by the thousands in striking a nuclear blow against Iran. 2. "Past experience shows that the radical Iranian regime, headed by the most extreme of them all, Ayatollah Khomeini, behaved with absolute rationality at the moment of truth. That was the case during the Iran-Iraq war. Khomeini declared he would never sign a cease-fire agreement with Iraq until it surrendered. However, after dozens of Iraqi missiles began striking Tehran and thousands of residents were harmed, Khomeini changed his position and signed a cease-fire agreement with Saddam Hussein." And yet, at the height of the war, they had no problem sending waves of unarmed civilians against the Iraqi lines to certain death. many hundreds of thousands were "martyred" in this way so there is an inconsistency with the belief that Iran would never sacrifice its civilian population. Especially, when a lethal blow against a mortal enemy (Israel) could be delivered. |
|
"Any man who would make an X rated movie should be forced to take his daughter to see it". - John Wayne There is a line we cross when we go from "I will believe it when I see it" to "I will see it when I believe it". Henry II: I marvel at you after all these years. Still like a democratic drawbridge: going down for everybody. Eleanor: At my age there's not much traffic anymore. From The Lion in Winter. | |
![]() |
|
| Mikhailoh | Sep 7 2006, 05:24 AM Post #30 |
|
If you want trouble, find yourself a redhead
|
There is no certainty one way or the other. The problem we face with Iran becomes broader... it goes beyond can they have nukes or not, to can we afford for there to be a regime such as Iran's dominating a region crucial to national and international interests? |
|
Once in his life, every man is entitled to fall madly in love with a gorgeous redhead - Lucille Ball | |
![]() |
|
| Rick Zimmer | Sep 7 2006, 06:43 AM Post #31 |
|
Fulla-Carp
|
It seems to me that Bush has paved the way for this, it has now become reality and there is little we can do about it. Maybe it is time to accept the new reality and deal with it. Explain to me why the US and Iran cannot work towards becoming allies -- or at least cooperators in the Middle East. Not easy, of course. Lots of distrust and anger to get over. But why can't it be done? |
| [size=4]Violence is incompatible with the nature of God and the nature of the soul -- Benedict XVI[/size] | |
![]() |
|
| JBryan | Sep 7 2006, 06:45 AM Post #32 |
![]()
I am the grey one
|
I suppose that ending the practice of saying, "Death to America" five times a day at the end of prayers as they have for the last 25 years might be a start. |
|
"Any man who would make an X rated movie should be forced to take his daughter to see it". - John Wayne There is a line we cross when we go from "I will believe it when I see it" to "I will see it when I believe it". Henry II: I marvel at you after all these years. Still like a democratic drawbridge: going down for everybody. Eleanor: At my age there's not much traffic anymore. From The Lion in Winter. | |
![]() |
|
| Dewey | Sep 7 2006, 11:15 AM Post #33 |
![]()
HOLY CARP!!!
|
No need to be "playing along," I'm entirely serious. The question, as I stated it, includes the assumption that a. Negotiation and diplomacy should be the first method of attempting dispute resolution; and b. That, at least under some conditions, negotiation may succeed. However, in order to discuss the issue intelligently at all, it must also be conceded that: a. Negotiation does not always succeed; and that b. If negotiation does not always succeed, there must be some reasonable manner of stipulating when it has run its course - a "timetable," if you will, for when further negotiation is either an exercise in futility, or worse, having been outsmarted by one's opponent to play for time needed to give the opponent the upper hand. It's that "timetable," or series of types of negotiations, and how long each of those avenues of diplomacy should be enjoined, before it could be considered either pointless or a strategic defeat, that I'm seeking. If a person can't or won't at least offer a rough outline of what is considered reasonable avenues and timeframes, then the debate is pointless, because if a military option is ever subsequently undertaken, the argument will be that those stupid, or evil (or both) people just didn't give diplomacy "enough time" before charging ahead with the military option. In other words, I'm calling for intellectual honesty in the debate. There is another aspect of such intellectual honesty. Similar to the concession, indicated above, that diplomacy is a possible solution, and is to be the first option attempted; there is another concession - or admission - that needs to be made if it exists. If a person feels that by definition a military option will never succeed, this must be admitted upfront in any discssion of the issue - in fact, it makes discussion of the issue a pretty silly waste of time. So before Rick's question should even be considered, the question I originally stated needs to be answered: What would be considered a reasonable course of actions and venues, including a rough timeframe, for seeking a diplomatic solution before any military option might be reasonably considered; as well as honestly acknowledging if there is any preconceived position that the military option must never be played, since it is not considered a viable option from the outset. If people can't discuss and answer those questions, any further discussion, sidetracking, or leapfrogging to questions further down the path is really pretty nonsensical. |
|
"By nature, i prefer brevity." - John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, p. 685. "Never waste your time trying to explain yourself to people who are committed to misunderstanding you." - Anonymous "Oh sure, every once in a while a turd floated by, but other than that it was just fine." - Joe A., 2011 I'll answer your other comments later, but my primary priority for the rest of the evening is to get drunk." - Klaus, 12/31/14 | |
![]() |
|
| Axtremus | Sep 7 2006, 02:15 PM Post #34 |
|
HOLY CARP!!!
|
Nope, it's perfectly OK to "leapfrog" (I think that term best fit my response to your question). It's really very simple: Suppose say we colletively decide that diplomatic negotiation is over right now -- what sort of military action do you think should be undertaken and what do you think it will accomplish? If you cannot answer that with that simple and that straight forward an assumption, how can you answer with conditionals? If you really must have a conditional to predicate your answer, I'll try again: I say we marshall the UN to go for another Security Council resolution, one that is uninanimously backed by all members of the council, that requires the Iranian to give up all nuclear activities, and we set another deadline for October 31, 2006. We have bi-lateral and multi-lateral talks with Iran all the way through October 31, 2006, then we go for economic sanction through end of 2006. We go for more bi-lateral and multi-lateral talks all the way through end of 2006 as the sanction is in effect. Now comes 1/1/2007 and Iran is still not budging. We decide that enough is enough. Now what sort of military action do you think should be undertaken and what do you think it will accomplish? I am quite open to the possibility that might be one or more military solutions to this problem. Please show me one such solution that you might have in mind. If you do not like any of the assumption or hypothetical I provided above, please feel free to provide your own assumption/hypothetical and answer accordingly. Fair? |
![]() |
|
| « Previous Topic · The New Coffee Room · Next Topic » |
- Pages:
- 1
- 2









12:56 AM Jul 11