Gas Bandit's Political Thread V: The Vampire Likes Bats
- Thread starter GasBandit
- Start date
Well they undergo inspections which is exactly the regime that kept nuclear weapons out of the hands of Iraq.
How anybody can take any member of the Bush administration seriously is beyond me. I mean they pushed for a disastrous war in Iraq and then they bungled it at every turn.
Yeah that's the one thing about the Iranian deal that scares me. How it can be overturned in an evening of Isreal being a country of war-mongering Douchebags.
GasBandit
Staff member
More like North Korea.
And the Obama administration is just as awful and even less competent at it. Fun times.
Or, you know, a country beset by enemies bent on their destruction for the last half century, taking necessary steps to keep a world ending superweapon out of the hands of a malevolent theocracy who is one of the biggest sponsors of state terrorism, especially against Israel, and who openly calls for Israelite (and American for that matter) blood as the ceremonial start to governmental proceedings.
Which happened under the Bush administration.
Yeah cause Obama invaded a country who never attacked us to destroy a nuclear weapons program that they didn't have while ignoring as North Korea broke out and became a nuclear state.
War Mongering douchebags better fits the current situation.
GasBandit
Staff member
And the parts were practically hand delivered by Clinton, but the real point here is inspections mean dick, especially when your facilities are hidden underground, as they are in Iran. We only know the ones they've copped to, how many have they not?
You're not REALLY going to sit there and tell me Obama hasn't de facto gone to war in countries that haven't attacked us? The main difference is, Obama didn't feel like he needed congressional approval first.
That description pretty much fits Iran in all situations.
Except inspectors were sounding the alarm as North Korea was breaking out. Bush just didn't care. The real point seems to be not to elect Republicans.
Name one country that we have gone to war with. One example of us hitting government forces or overthrowing a government with no idea how to clean up the fallout.
It fits allot of countries USA included. However in this case it's Isreal that can overturn the apple cart by being warmongering douchebags.
That's awfully nit-picky. I'm sure Pakistan, Libya, Somalia, Afghanistan and so on might have a word with you with all the drone strikes authorized by the Obama administration. Oh and this.
Dave
Staff member
Everyone keeps talking about the Iran deal like it's just Obama versus Iran. That's patently false. The US is only one of the countries involved. This was all done through the UN P5 + 1, not the US.
So even if the republicans get into office and invalidate our part of the agreement, it doesn't mean shit. It'll do nothing more than make the US look weak and divided.
So even if the republicans get into office and invalidate our part of the agreement, it doesn't mean shit. It'll do nothing more than make the US look weak and divided.
Our country already looks like a fuel tanker being driven by two people fighting over the steering wheel. Ugh.
--Patrick
Actually pretty sure none of them would have anything to say on the matter since the US clearly has authority/permission to operate on their soil. Aside from the Bin Laden raid.
And if you all want to debate the drone program you'll find we have very little disagreement in how it has been undertaken. However when I say that something is nit-picky it means that it is a distinction without a difference. For example one can say that the use of drones in Yemen and Pakistan today is completely different because Obama has to personally okay every one of those strikes but since Obama okays every strike the CIA wants to do there isn't really a difference. Somebody saying that would be nit-picking. However between Operation Iraqi freedom and the shadow war the Obama administration has taken there is a world of difference in more than just costs.
Last edited:
Necronic
Staff member
Hahah
Oh wow. Gonna have to talk to my NRA friends about this one.
http://www.addictinginfo.org/2015/0...-guns-at-nra-convention-for-security-reasons/
Oh wow. Gonna have to talk to my NRA friends about this one.
http://www.addictinginfo.org/2015/0...-guns-at-nra-convention-for-security-reasons/
Well it's a convention full of lobbyists, gun manufacturers' representatives, politicians, and lawyers. They obviously are concerned that some nutjob might shoot up the place, and are taking precautions against that. I mean, seriously, it's not like it's a school full of children or something.
I of course mean the following in a completely humoristic way and in no way condone, approve of, wish to incite, support, or otherwise wish to be associated with any deaths, but:
Man, if ever there was a group where shooting the lot would be a net benefit for mankind....
Isn't that descrimination against ammosexuals? Or maybe the venue owner has a religious objection to potential mass shootings...
GasBandit
Staff member
May also be that alcohol will be served at one venue and not the other.
I hope no one is accidentally or purposefully shot when the NRA convention is in my city this weekend 
GasBandit
Staff member
Dzhokar Tsarnaev found guilty of all charges.
http://www.myfoxboston.com/story/28...jury-returning-verdicts-in-the-tsarnaev-trial
Obama admits to NPR that his deal basically lets Iran develop nuclear weapons immediately after the 10 years are up, with no recourse other than to ask them pretty please not to use them.
http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/04/07/obama-nukes-own-iran-deal-in-npr-interview/
http://www.myfoxboston.com/story/28...jury-returning-verdicts-in-the-tsarnaev-trial
Obama admits to NPR that his deal basically lets Iran develop nuclear weapons immediately after the 10 years are up, with no recourse other than to ask them pretty please not to use them.
http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/04/07/obama-nukes-own-iran-deal-in-npr-interview/
Ah, Breitbart. There's a reliable, unbiased source for you. 
So, okay, the alternative is to not make any kind of agreement, and just hope they don't do it anyway, like India, Pakistan, South Africa, North Korea, and Israel have?
(South Africa reportedly dismantled its nuclear weapons program before manufacturing warheads; Israel has only made ambiguous statements about having them but it is extremely unlikely that they do not).
So, okay, the alternative is to not make any kind of agreement, and just hope they don't do it anyway, like India, Pakistan, South Africa, North Korea, and Israel have?
(South Africa reportedly dismantled its nuclear weapons program before manufacturing warheads; Israel has only made ambiguous statements about having them but it is extremely unlikely that they do not).
GasBandit
Staff member
Well, you could always go by the video, unless you think they doctored it.Ah, Breitbart. There's a reliable, unbiased source for you.
Or maybe an agreement that doesn't grant carte blanche after 10 years. Or maybe continue with the sanctions. It won't stop them getting a nuclear weapon, because as was said before, there is really no non-military solution that will stop that, but at least we wouldn't be rewarding/endorsing it.
And what's the military solution? Pre-emptive strikes because maybe someday they'll have something that maybe some faction there could use to potentially strike at the US or one of it's allies? Yes, that certainly won't have any repercussions, embittering the region and driving groups across many nations to hate us more for our "aggression towards fellow Muslims" (nevermind that it's a faction they fight with themselves).
Wouldn't a better solution be to mend fences with the country so that it's no longer in their interests to want to attack us? That policy has worked excellently with China - more trade and more intertwined interests means that an antagonistic relationship hurts both parties. Don't forget, Iran had a list of fairly justified grudges against the West - mostly, that we were using the Shah as a puppet regime to profit from while helping him oppress his own people... which Western powers have done across the world and has never ended well. And then we helped the warlord next door in his war against them, where he deployed chemical weapons against civilians, and was our good buddy until he invaded Kuwait in 1990. I'm not saying that Iranian state terrorism was justified. I'm just saying that no one in the situation is innocent and that holding onto the grudges only makes them worse.
Warfare is sometimes necessary, but it should always be a last resort. The human cost is just too high.
Wouldn't a better solution be to mend fences with the country so that it's no longer in their interests to want to attack us? That policy has worked excellently with China - more trade and more intertwined interests means that an antagonistic relationship hurts both parties. Don't forget, Iran had a list of fairly justified grudges against the West - mostly, that we were using the Shah as a puppet regime to profit from while helping him oppress his own people... which Western powers have done across the world and has never ended well. And then we helped the warlord next door in his war against them, where he deployed chemical weapons against civilians, and was our good buddy until he invaded Kuwait in 1990. I'm not saying that Iranian state terrorism was justified. I'm just saying that no one in the situation is innocent and that holding onto the grudges only makes them worse.
Warfare is sometimes necessary, but it should always be a last resort. The human cost is just too high.
Last edited:
GasBandit
Staff member
You can't get logical reactions out of apocalypse cults. The only concept they respect is power and force - the capacity to apply it, and the willingness to use it.
No amount of fence mending will reconcile Iran with Israel, and those in charge in Iran don't really care about anything you just listed - they only care that we prop up Israel, the rest is just posturing, trying to use western logic against itself. There is a basic, fundamental incompatibility of thought between the Ayatollahs and western civilization. After all, everybody's shrieking right now about Indiana law making it so a baker doesn't have to bake a cake for a homosexual if he doesn't want to, but the same exact people think WE'RE the bad guys when it comes to Iran - where they execute homosexuals for existing, among myriad other practices we consider crimes against humanity. But that's quietly brushed under the rug because we don't have the political will to actually back up our vaunted convictions.
The truth of the matter is that the current leadership of Iran is as close to comic book evil as it is possible to become in reality. They're an oppressive, tyrannical, theocratic apocalypse cult who bankrolls a huge amount of the world's state sponsored terrorism and only engages in diplomacy so far as it serves to stall its enemies while it gathers itself for its next operation. Under the so-called "puppet" Shah, Iran was a flourishing oasis - pictures taken in 1960s and 70s Iran could hardly be distinguished from America in the same time period. Decades of iron-fisted theocratic islamism has sent it back hundreds of years, similarly to Afghanistan.
Yes, Neville Chamberlain thought the same thing, too. The question is, what will the human cost be once Iran has nuclear weapons?
Peace never comes through negotiations. The only lasting times of peace that western civilization has ever experienced all came as a result of victory. And the truth is Iran is as much opposed by its neighbors (especially Iraq and Saudi Arabia) as anything, apart from how they feel about Israel. The idea of Iranian nukes probably makes them just as uneasy, as they're both a great deal closer to Israeli ground zero than Iran is.
both courtesy of the red, white, and blue
Dave
Staff member
IF the Iranians were already close to nukes AND we did not broker a deal at all THEN Iran would have the nuke before the 10 year window spoken of.
IF the Iranians were already close to nukes AND we broker a deal THEN we have a chance to work something out peacefully.
IF the Iranians weren't close to building nukes THEN nothing we do makes any difference.
IF the Iranians were already close to nukes AND we broker a deal THEN we have a chance to work something out peacefully.
IF the Iranians weren't close to building nukes THEN nothing we do makes any difference.
GasBandit
Staff member
Actually, no.
Iran's done nothing but play us for chumps all along. They've got tens of thousands of centrifuges (19k we know about, who knows how many we don't) deep in underground bunkers enriching uranium. Not only is the idea that they'll stick to the deal patently farcical, they still don't even agree as to what the deal IS, and are contradicting Obama constantly in the international press. The entire thing is a debacle from start to finish.
Dave
Staff member
And yet it's STILL preferable than the war the right wants. And why wouldn't they? They profit insanely from war and none of them have to worry about dying, then they can lament the loss of "American heroes" in the papers while doing nothing tangible to help those same vets when they are injured or come home damaged.
Cry foul all you want, but diplomacy >>>>>>>>>> war.
Cry foul all you want, but diplomacy >>>>>>>>>> war.
GasBandit
Staff member
Nobody *wants* a war, least of all me. I just acknowledge that no measure short of military action (which our weasel in chief could probably even pull off as "not really a war") will stop Iran from getting nuclear weapons. We, as a nation, have decided it's acceptable for 8 million Israelis (and who knows how many neighboring Arabs) to die in nuclear flame or fallout, and at the same time also believe our nonexistant border security will be sufficient to prevent a nuclear terror attack on the US, should Iran decide to attempt one.
It's worth mentioning that the Shah accomplished this by engaging in a campaign of torture, surveillance, and the assassination of his enemies, all enforced with a secret police that -we- helped train and backed when things got hairy. Unfortunately, the Shah's enemies tended to be ayatollahs and clerics which gave his house cleaning the appearance of being anti-Muslim, which is why the religious fanatics arose in the first place. So really, it's not surprising that Iran doesn't want to listen to a word we say after we spent decades helping to prop up the guy who was killing them slowly in order to stay in power.
It's also worth mention that Iran's being meeting with other nations over this nuclear weapons issue and one of the few nations it trusts the intentions of is the friendly, pro-western Japan, which Iran takes at face value (as Japan is the only victim of a nuclear weapon in the world). They've actually been pretty critical in getting some of the concessions we've gotten in the past and it's likely they can help temper Iran's desire to actually USE a nuclear weapon, if not their desire to possess one.
Then again, while I doubt Iran would use a nuke in it's official capacity, I'm more than willing to believe they could lose possession of one to a third party that would be more than willing to use one on a civilian target in a terrorist act. Not even as some false flag operation but legitimately losing one because they don't have the means to protect it.
And once they do, I suppose we will announce our ostensibly justified intention to take control of their entire country and not coincidentally annex it as a strategic territory, or at least share it with our friends.
--Patrick
Dave
Staff member
I seriously don't think Iran would use the bomb. In fact, I'm MORE afraid Israel will use it than Iran would. People said the same thing about India and Pakistan. "Oh noes! They hate each other and will use nukes!!" Hasn't happened. I think there is a country that HAS used a nuke, though. Let me see...who could it be? And yes I understand why we did, but that doesn't excuse the fact that we are the only ones who have.
Everyone wants to fear-monger when it comes to Iran. But if they used nukes they know that they would lose everything. They are not a stupid people. They are not an evil people. They were our friends until we fucked them over. We could be friends again. But of course, that's not profitable.
Everyone wants to fear-monger when it comes to Iran. But if they used nukes they know that they would lose everything. They are not a stupid people. They are not an evil people. They were our friends until we fucked them over. We could be friends again. But of course, that's not profitable.