Bitcoin Forum
December 10, 2016, 05:14:27 AM *
News: Latest stable version of Bitcoin Core: 0.13.1  [Torrent].
 
   Home   Help Search Donate Login Register  
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 [7] 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 »  All
  Print  
Author Topic: Count down to Iran invasion  (Read 26155 times)
Hawker
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 700



View Profile
January 25, 2012, 10:38:59 AM
 #121

If by "unstable" I meant US controlled, I would have said US controlled.  I said unstable region as in one that is constantly having wars and revolutions and where the governments have a total disregard for the human rights of their subjects. 

1481346867
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1481346867

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1481346867
Reply with quote  #2

1481346867
Report to moderator
1481346867
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1481346867

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1481346867
Reply with quote  #2

1481346867
Report to moderator
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
1481346867
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1481346867

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1481346867
Reply with quote  #2

1481346867
Report to moderator
1481346867
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1481346867

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1481346867
Reply with quote  #2

1481346867
Report to moderator
P4man
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 504



View Profile
January 25, 2012, 10:47:40 AM
 #122

The US and most of the rest of the world think that Iran is an unstable country in an unstable region and that it would be a bad idea for all the countries in that region to have nuclear weapons to threaten each other with.  Its a fair point. 

So you think its a better idea to allow only one nation to ignore non proliferation treaties, have nukes and threaten its neighbors with it? Not just any nation, one of the only remaining apartheid regimes, a terrorist sponsoring state ran by warmongering crackpots that actually are crazy enough to use it offensively.

I saw a poll a while ago held in the middle east region about the issue. Almost no one there considers Iran a threat to stability or peace, quite on the contrary. Overwhelmingly they see Israel and the US as a threat to peace and stability. When asked if they would consider the region more or less dangerous if Iran acquired nukes, the majority now say it would be positive, even in Sunni states, go figure. Here, I only found these key findings:

http://www.brookings.edu/reports/2010/0805_arab_opinion_poll_telhami.aspx

Quote
I don't think Iran can be stopped

They have been stopped from developing nukes, if ever they did, nearly a decade ago.  Why doesnt anyone listen to US intelligence agencies when they say something diametrically opposite of warmongering and lying politicians and media? Go read the national intelligence estimate.

P4man
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 504



View Profile
January 25, 2012, 12:31:34 PM
 #123

Oh it seems the entire poll is actually linked at the bottom of the website I linked. I highly recommend everyone to look at it, it may help many of you to better understand Arab sentiment.

Anyway, here is one I was referring to, and that should catch your eye when you call Iran an international pariah; while their puppet regimes may tell you differently, arabs themselves disagree:




Hawker
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 700



View Profile
January 25, 2012, 01:07:48 PM
 #124

P4man - when I said the world would be better off if the crackpot countries in the Middle East didn't have nukes, how come you are so sure that Israel is an exception? 

P4man
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 504



View Profile
January 25, 2012, 03:09:08 PM
 #125

P4man - when I said the world would be better off if the crackpot countries in the Middle East didn't have nukes, how come you are so sure that Israel is an exception? 

You said "the US thinks..". Have any evidence that US wants Israel to dismantle its nuclear arsenal?

memvola
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 896


View Profile
January 25, 2012, 03:36:57 PM
 #126

P4man - when I said the world would be better off if the crackpot countries in the Middle East didn't have nukes, how come you are so sure that Israel is an exception?  

You said "the US thinks..". Have any evidence that US wants Israel to dismantle its nuclear arsenal?

LOL. molecular also has a fair point.

Everyone is fed up with the US and Israel and the bullshit arena they engineered. I don't have an opinion either way, but it's just as possible that nukes might bring peace and prosperity to the region if the western world feels threatened enough to stop fucking with them. Though there are many levels of fucking with, so it is also possible that they successfully ignite nuclear war in the region by giving nukes to their preferred regimes, like when they sold WMD's to Saddam back in the day (which is I guess is Hawker's position?).
Hawker
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 700



View Profile
January 25, 2012, 04:38:50 PM
 #127

P4man - when I said the world would be better off if the crackpot countries in the Middle East didn't have nukes, how come you are so sure that Israel is an exception? 

You said "the US thinks..". Have any evidence that US wants Israel to dismantle its nuclear arsenal?

What I said was "The US and most of the rest of the world think that Iran is an unstable country in an unstable region ... "

Be fair - thats absolutely true. 

P4man
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 504



View Profile
January 25, 2012, 04:45:26 PM
 #128

What I said was "The US and most of the rest of the world think that Iran is an unstable country in an unstable region ... "

Be fair - thats absolutely true.  

What is unstable about Iran? Its been the same regime for 30+ years. The only war it has been involved in, has been a defensive one against a US sponsored invasion by Iraq. There are some protest, but quite frankly, possibly less so then there are in the US. Whats unstable about Iran? Its not because the US tries everything it can to destabilize the regime that its working. It isnt.

Hawker
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 700



View Profile
January 25, 2012, 04:55:18 PM
 #129

What I said was "The US and most of the rest of the world think that Iran is an unstable country in an unstable region ... "

Be fair - thats absolutely true.  

What is unstable about Iran? Its been the same regime for 30+ years. The only war it has been involved in, has been a defensive one against a US sponsored invasion by Iraq. There are some protest, but quite frankly, possibly less so then there are in the US. Whats unstable about Iran? Its not because the US tries everything it can to destabilize the regime that its working. It isnt.

Whats unstable about Iran is that it's regime relies on killing its opposition leaders and on vast numbers of its own people, sometimes over 100 per day, in order to retain power.

If you are really interested in this, look at the leader of the so called moderates in Iran who led the attempted "green revolution." 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mir-Hossein_Mousavi#Prime_ministership

In 1987, he was in power and his security forces executed over 20,000 people in a 5 month period.  I wrote to him at the time pleading for someone's release (I'm in Amnesty International) but the guy was dead before my letter was even posted. 

That's the idea of a "moderate" in an unstable country. 

P4man
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 504



View Profile
January 25, 2012, 05:05:45 PM
 #130


Whats unstable about Iran is that it's regime relies on killing its opposition leaders and on vast numbers of its own people, sometimes over 100 per day, in order to retain power

Oh. So that makes Saudi Arabia, Bahrein,  Russia, China and a gazillion other countries also "unstable" then?
I never said Iran was a model democracy. Even though it actually is compared to most US allies in the region, but it isnt by any sensible definition. What does that have to do with stability, or for that matter, this topic?

Hawker
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 700



View Profile
January 25, 2012, 07:28:55 PM
 #131


Whats unstable about Iran is that it's regime relies on killing its opposition leaders and on vast numbers of its own people, sometimes over 100 per day, in order to retain power

Oh. So that makes Saudi Arabia, Bahrein,  Russia, China and a gazillion other countries also "unstable" then?
I never said Iran was a model democracy. Even though it actually is compared to most US allies in the region, but it isnt by any sensible definition. What does that have to do with stability, or for that matter, this topic?

You seem to be all over the place here.  The Iranian regime depends on massive coercion to remain in power.  It lives in fear of Iranians and all of its actions should be seen thorugh the prisim of a group of people who know they would be lynched if the general public had its way.

That is an unstable regime.  And thanks for reinforcing my point earlier - its neighbours are unstable as well.  Its an unstable region. 

The bigger question is why you care?  What makes it so important for you to believe that the Iranian regime is a stable popular government?  Whether or not it gets nukes it nothing to do with the stability of the regime so why are you banging on about it being so stable?

P4man
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 504



View Profile
January 25, 2012, 07:54:33 PM
 #132

You seem to be all over the place here.  The Iranian regime depends on massive coercion to remain in power.  It lives in fear of Iranians and all of its actions should be seen thorugh the prisim of a group of people who know they would be lynched if the general public had its way.

That is an unstable regime. 

Thats the most ridiculous definition of unstable I ever heard. By your logic, China is extremely unstable, Saudi Arabia is one of the least stable countries in the world, while Pakistan would be fairly stable.
really  Huh

BTW,  I think you are wrong about the level of resistance against the Iranian regime. Its not the most popular government in the world, but certainly not the most hated either. Its far more popular than the Saudi or Bahreini dictatorships for sure.

Quote
And thanks for reinforcing my point earlier - its neighbours are unstable as well.  Its an unstable region. 

Unstable to me, means risk of violent conflict. Absent a military action by the US or Israel, I see no such threat whatsoever. Iran is at peace with its neighbors and has been for decades (aside from Iraq, thats fairly recent). The only thing that really makes the region so unstable is US and Israel.

Quote
why are you banging on about it being so stable?

You tell me, you brought up stability up as a reason somehow for denying Iran their sovereign rights?

Hawker
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 700



View Profile
January 25, 2012, 08:47:35 PM
 #133

...snip...

You tell me, you brought up stability up as a reason somehow for denying Iran their sovereign rights?

Read my posts.  I said its a bad thing that they will have the bomb but that there is no way to stop them. 

molecular
Donator
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2142



View Profile
January 25, 2012, 10:23:47 PM
 #134

slightly ot, but: yesssss!

http://rt.com/news/iran-india-gold-oil-543/

Quote from: russiatoday
Sanctions dodge: India to pay gold for Iran oil, China may follow


PGP key molecular F9B70769 fingerprint 9CDD C0D3 20F8 279F 6BE0  3F39 FC49 2362 F9B7 0769
P4man
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 504



View Profile
January 25, 2012, 11:58:10 PM
 #135

Read my posts.  I said its a bad thing that they will have the bomb but that there is no way to stop them.  

And I disagree on all accounts. I disagree "instability" plays a role (*). I disagree that they will have a bomb; even US intelligence agencies say they are not working on one. I disagree they could not be stopped if ever they changed their mind, which they can not do in secret.  And Im not even sure if somehow they got nukes, it would be so terrible. Not when North Korea, Israel and particularly Pakistan and India have them. Iranian Mullahs may be religious nuts, they are neither suicidal nor genocidal. They would have absolutely no reason to use them first. None. I would worry more about the Israeli arsenal.

(*) if anything all the warmongering, sanctions and threats -not too mention, terrorist attacks inside Iran-  to counter a non-existent nuclear weapon program are causing instability and inciting Iran to develop nukes if for no other reason as M.A.D. self defense. If you really dont want Iran to have nukes, then keep them in the NPT, rather than deny them what they are explicitly entitled to within the NPT and at the same time give them every reason to leave the NPT. A 6 year old could understand that, clearly the issue isnt iranian nukes.

Hawker
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 700



View Profile
January 26, 2012, 10:51:11 AM
 #136

Read my posts.  I said its a bad thing that they will have the bomb but that there is no way to stop them.  

And I disagree on all accounts. I disagree "instability" plays a role (*). I disagree that they will have a bomb; even US intelligence agencies say they are not working on one. I disagree they could not be stopped if ever they changed their mind, which they can not do in secret.  And Im not even sure if somehow they got nukes, it would be so terrible. Not when North Korea, Israel and particularly Pakistan and India have them. Iranian Mullahs may be religious nuts, they are neither suicidal nor genocidal. They would have absolutely no reason to use them first. None. I would worry more about the Israeli arsenal.

(*) if anything all the warmongering, sanctions and threats -not too mention, terrorist attacks inside Iran-  to counter a non-existent nuclear weapon program are causing instability and inciting Iran to develop nukes if for no other reason as M.A.D. self defense. If you really dont want Iran to have nukes, then keep them in the NPT, rather than deny them what they are explicitly entitled to within the NPT and at the same time give them every reason to leave the NPT. A 6 year old could understand that, clearly the issue isnt iranian nukes.

You are entitled to disagree.  I regard a regime that relies on mass murder to remain in power as unstable - you regard it as stable. 

I believe Iran is creating the capacity to make nukes. Given their history of Western powers overthrowing democratic governments in pursuit of oil concessions, the Irans would be daft not to.

You seem to think that it is easy to stop them - Iran is not a pushover.  Air strikes can only slow things down and rally support for the regime.  An invasion would cost too much in blood and treasure.  Iran won't be stopped easily if at all.

You don't think its a bad idea if every country has its own nuclear arsenal.  My view is that the more countries have nukes, the greater the probability they will be used.  Every addition to the nuclear club is a ratcheting up of the risk.


P4man
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 504



View Profile
January 26, 2012, 11:20:30 AM
 #137

You are entitled to disagree.  I regard a regime that relies on mass murder to remain in power as unstable - you regard it as stable.  

First, please dont twist my words.
Secondly, dont exaggerate  Depending on source Iran does 180 to 250 executions per year, most of them for actual criminal offenses. The US isnt that far behind in its number of executions. Compared to European countries you could regard the US regime as mass murders. Im against capital punishment, but the Iranian regime is not nearly as diabolical as what the western media try to make them. Even Colombia kills more political opponents than Iran, but that doesnt often make the press in the US Im sure.

Quote
I believe Iran is creating the capacity to make nukes.


To some extend, yes they are. Precisely what they are allowed under the NPT treaty which sole purpose is avoiding proliferation of nuclear weapons, a treaty Iran signed and adheres to, while the existing nuclear powers blatantly violate that same treaty. You have to draw the line somewhere; if you want to prevent countries from obtaining nukes you could keep their population illiterate and claim literacy is a first step to developing nukes. Thats of course ridiculous. The NPT is completely sane and logical line in the sand and a pretty good guarantee. Either stick to it, or encourage proliferation. You cant have it both ways. Iran is entitled to uranium enrichment for civilian use.

Quote
Given their history of Western powers overthrowing democratic governments in pursuit of oil concessions, the Irans would be daft not to.

Hey, for once,  I agree. We are giving them every possible reason to pull out of the NPT and actually develop nukes. And yet they dont. I give credit to the Iranians for not doing that. Their religious nutheads even pronounced a fatwa on nuclear weapons. Id like Christian nutheads to do the same.

Quote
You seem to think that it is easy to stop them - Iran is not a pushover.
 

I never said that. All I said is that under the NPT safeguards, Iran can not build a nuclear weapon without us knowing. So if ever they pull out, THEN you could consider whatever it takes, even a full blown war. Youd still have years to plan for that.

Quote
You don't think its a bad idea if every country has its own nuclear arsenal.  

Again you twist my words. If you are worried about a nuclear war in the middle east, my top priority would be getting all countries to enter the NPT and stick with the NPT. ITs not perfect, but its the best we have to prevent proliferation. Bombing and sanctioning  Iran while it adheres to the NPT achieves  the exact opposite. So why dont we focus on sanctioning Israel?

TECSHARE
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2002


Welcome to Bitcoin Stalk


View Profile
January 26, 2012, 11:26:58 AM
 #138

Russian expert: Iran will be apparently attacked from Georgia’s territory http://www.panarmenian.net/eng/news/86722/

BITCOINTALK STAFF SELECTIVELY ENFORCE THE RULES IN AN ATTEMPT TO CREATE A CHILL EFFECT AND PERMANENTLY REMOVE ME AND OTHERS FROM THIS FORUM AS RETALIATION FOR SPEAKING OUT ABOUT THEIR ABUSIVE BEHAVIOR, AND THAT OF THEIR PERSONAL CLIQUES.
Hawker
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 700



View Profile
January 26, 2012, 01:43:26 PM
 #139

Russian expert: Iran will be apparently attacked from Georgia’s territory http://www.panarmenian.net/eng/news/86722/

Any minute now...

Hawker
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 700



View Profile
January 26, 2012, 01:48:12 PM
 #140

...snip...

Again you twist my words. If you are worried about a nuclear war in the middle east, my top priority would be getting all countries to enter the NPT and stick with the NPT. ITs not perfect, but its the best we have to prevent proliferation. Bombing and sanctioning  Iran while it adheres to the NPT achieves  the exact opposite. So why dont we focus on sanctioning Israel?

I don't believe Iran will give up on the bomb.  Its got proven oil and gas resources that mean it will always be a target for foreign takeovers and the lesson of Iraq and North Korea is that having a nuke means no risk of invasion.  The NPT is not going to stop it.

The US will never sanction Israel so why waste time arguing for it?


Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 [7] 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 »  All
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Sponsored by , a Bitcoin-accepting VPN.
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!