BF2S Forums Media Conspiracy against Ron Paul.

You see the double standard surely? Iran is a sovereign state. How can they feel secure with a neighbour who has nuclear weapons and has never signed the NPT and doesn't allow weapon inspections?

But Iran has scientists assassinated and threated bombings.

What double standard?

Yes, Iran is a sovereign state--that signed the NPT. They have been found to be in violation of some of their requirements under the NPT by the IAEA. Their "feelings" have fuckall to do with it.

AussieReaper wrote:

You see the double standard surely? Iran is a sovereign state. How can they feel secure with a neighbour who has nuclear weapons and has never signed the NPT and doesn't allow weapon inspections?

But Iran has scientists assassinated and threated bombings.

And Israel has scores of people killed every year and is threatened by more than just Iran regularly.

Surely you can see the double standard?

i mean n korea dropped out of the npt and their aint fuck all we could do about it except give them lots of carrots or a big ass stick and the stick isnt worth it for the time being when there is a chance (slim) that the carrot will accomplish just as much if not more given time

Why should there be? Oh, wait...

Oh, and http://forums.bf2s.com/viewtopic.php?id=142085

Dilbert_X wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Your linked article's FIRST PARAGRAPH wrote:

GOP presidential candidate Rick Santorum, said in an interview on NBC's "Meet the Press" on Sunday that if the Iranians refuse to open up their nuclear facilities for inspection he would bomb them.

Note the bolded part. That means, "if all other efforts, such as diplomacy and economic sanctions, have failed". Leaving military strikes as a last option. As stated previously.

The Iranians have refused to open their facilities, derp.

And diplomatic efforts are still ongoing, derp. Somehow Iran's failure to abide by their international requirements =/= Santorum is a warmonger?

Nice math you're doing there. I suppose all those European and GCC nations that are taking exactly the same position are just a bunch of crazy ass Republicans, too.

Maybe you should try learning how Iran's government actually works. Khatami holding the Presidency =/= "the moderates being in power"

Generally speaking, moderates were in positions of power, were reaching out to make peace with the West and Bush threw it all away.

Again. Learn how Iran's government actually works. Moderates were not in "positions of power."

And we get it. Bush is evil incarnate. He and Laura eat babies at their home in Dallas. Move on.

Look where you are now, on the point of nuclear war over the oilfields of the ME, derp.

Hyperbole FTL.

And I don't watch Fox. Or CNN. Or MSNBC. Unless I feel like a laugh.

You sure? You repeat the same falsehoods and half-truths from Fox. Its like an echo in fact.

So, by that logic, it must mean you, Rachel Maddow, and Keith Olbermann share a bungalow.

Of course you would. I would expect nothing less from a blinkered idealogue such as yourself.

The point is, I haven't seen or heard any, so it doesn't matter.

Ah. Because Dilbert hasn't bothered to pay attention and missed the primary talking point of the Obama Administration and DNC for the past 3.5 years, "it doesn't matter." Good to know that whether you're paying attention is the prime driver as to whether something is real/important.

Welcome to American politics, regardless of party affiliation.

Your two party system does suck ass.

It's not a two party system. We've been over this dozens of times. It's an "n" party system, dominated by two parties, much like every other major democracy in the world.

FEOS wrote:

Somehow Iran's failure to abide by their international requirements =/= Santorum is a warmonger?

Failing to abide by IAEA requirements - which the Iranians were doing until the US decided they weren't allowed a peaceful program monitored by the IAEA - is not a bombing offence. Santorum, and the other Republican candidates who are trying oh so hard to be Israel's bitch are warmongers.

Hyperbole FTL.

Barely.

Ah. Because Dilbert hasn't bothered to pay attention and missed the primary talking point of the Obama Administration and DNC for the past 3.5 years, "it doesn't matter." Good to know that whether you're paying attention is the prime driver as to whether something is real/important.

You'll be able to provide a ton of examples of Obama whinging, because I haven't seen any and I read fairly widely.

Given that Bush failed to defend the country, invaded two countries unecessarily, bombed various other countries and collapsed the economy I'd say any gripes are fair comment.

It's not a two party system. We've been over this dozens of times. It's an "n" party system, dominated by two parties, much like every other major democracy in the world.

Not really

FEOS wrote:

It's clear that you don't bother to form your opinions with bothersome things like facts. How will me providing any more alter that?

Oh, right. It won't.

You're a brick wall of willful ignorance driven by blind hate for all things US, Israel, and Bush, and I'm tired of banging my head against it. You have zero ability to recognize and remove your biases from your analysis of any situation. Everything is tinted with "the US is doing something inherently bad, and it's 100% Bush's fault." Your willful intellectual dishonesty is getting boring.

The truth is, the world is far more complicated than your simplistic view. People like you, with their narrow world-view, can't be bothered with facts. They are inconvenient.

You can search for those things yourself. I'm tired of feeding the troll.

So, in summary, you don't have a counter-argument to my - referenced - argument or anything to back up what you've said so far.

Again.

GG

Last edited by Dilbert_X (2012-01-26 04:28:08)

eleven bravo wrote:

its the nature of international law.  iran signed the npt, israel did not.  following the rules of international law is more good than not good.  you become a pariah.  you get sanctioned.  if iran continues on its path of ignoring laws that it was a willing participant in the creation of, you cant be surprised when they see consequences.

Why doesn't Iran just drop out of the NPT?

I mean, I doubt it would change much, but if they just said, "We're no longer participating in this", I don't see how we could do much about it.

Spearhead wrote:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atoms_for_peace

The first nuclear reactors in Iran and Pakistan were built under the program by American Machine and Foundry.

!

Iran had a very different government at the time.

Spearhead wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

Spearhead wrote:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atoms_for_peace


!

Iran had a very different government at the time.

Well no shit.  Didn't help much in the long term though, did it?

It didn't help for us to give Pakistan nuclear technology, for sure.

When it comes to Iran though...  we pretty much helped turn them into a fanatical state.  As soon as we and the British decided to undermine Mossadegh, we put all the wrong things in motion.

Hindsight is 20/20, but our experiences with Iran and Iraq should make it clear that it's easy for interventionism to make a bad situation worse.

Still, it's more or less inevitable that nuclear technology will spread.  I think we should stop bothering Iran and just keep an eye on them.  Pakistan is more of a threat.

Spearhead wrote:

It could be argued that Pakistan is only a threat because we have been constantly violating their sovereignty by going after the Islamic militants -- thereby worsening the already thorny relationship between the nuclear-armed military + religious wackos, which seem to be the only two powerful groups in the country.

Why should we keep an eye on anyone?  Let Israel do it FFS.

Pakistan is a very different situation from Iran.  We've spent the last few decades funding them billions upon billions with the intent of helping them advance towards being a functional and highly developed country.

Most of that seems to have been in vain.  India might be making strides towards advancement, but Pakistan is still largely poor as dirt with a weak central government and a lot of fanatics.

They honestly would have been better off with the British still ruling them today.

So, while I lean against most interventionism, I think we have little choice but to continue watching them.