Missiles of October

[Chuckiechan]

Quote:

All-in-all, the world needs to convince Iran that it's in their best interests not to be nuclear. Let's also remember that former naive president wouldn't even sit down and talk to Iran.

We either stop Iran from getting nukes or they get them. It's that simple.

The hegmony of a nuclear Iran will lead to a nuclear middle east, and this is very bad. The spread of Islam in the west (Europe) and be enforced using nuclear terror and threats, to say nothing of economic blackmail with the help of Russia.

This is not a problem to be solved by acedemia.

We should be actively engaged in overthrowing their government. Don't look for a student uprising. They are probably all dead or in jail.

[MTAtech]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chuckiechan

We either stop Iran from getting nukes or they get them. It's that simple.

Yes, that's where dialog comes in. If you don't want encourage other countries from acquiring nuclear weapons you need to stop using military force as the first resort to solving problems.

The Bush Admin wouldn't even sit down with Iran. Obama was criticized by McCain as being naive when he suggested that we do just that. But guess who is talking to Iran? Israel.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chuckiechan

We should be actively engaged in overthrowing their government. Don't look for a student uprising. They are probably all dead or in jail.

[tony_j15]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chuckiechan

We should be actively engaged in overthrowing their government. Don't look for a student uprising.

Behold, the New Roman Empire! We know exactly what every country needs and they'll get it, whether they like it or not.

This is why I somewhat support countries having nuclear weapons. It enables them to tell mal-adjusted super-powers to fuck off.

[pickel]

Quote:

Originally Posted by MTAtech

Thus, a naivé American president (and arguably one with limited sense)

Ditto on our present leader of the laundromat.

[Chuckiechan]

Quote:

This is why I somewhat support countries having nuclear weapons. It enables them to tell mal-adjusted super-powers to fuck off.

Meaning the USA, of course.

At least the Soviets and the Chinese aren't suicidal.

Just what part of "somewhat" are you waffling towards? I guess you feel having a nuclear armed middle east is a good thing so they can tell the USA to F-off? And then what happens? We just F-off 40% of our energy supplies? Or are covered with fall-out from a holocaust between Iran and Israel?

What are you, an organic farmer plowing with mules?

Un frikking believeable.

[tony_j15]

Speaking of "unbelievable", lets look at what you wrote:

Quote:

a nuclear armed middle east

The mid-east already is nuclear. Turkey and Israel have programs, Iran and Syria are working on it, and half a block over is Pakistan and India. It seems you are hinting at the middle-east being one giant country because of religious similarity. That is untrue.

Quote:

At least the Soviets and the Chinese aren't suicidal.

[Chuckiechan]

I guess I'm worried about Iran and Syria. Syria can't really do it without help and are a soft target.

Quote:

Russia practiced military suicide on the eastern front during the second world war, so I'd say they've been suicidal in the past.

True, but the leaders weren't out there facing the bullets.

Plus during the Iran - Iraq war, Iran was sending children in human wave attacks. I guess to gross out the Iraqi's.

Quote:

The status-quo is unsustainable in the long term. the sooner we transition to a new, renewable fuel source the better we'll be. Or, we can keep things the way they are and continue to see the money you pay at the pump getting siphoned off to multi-national cartels, corporations, and the occasional mujaheddin.