Iran Nukes

User avatar
Smithhammer
Posts: 4235
Joined: Sun Jul 17, 2005 1:01 am
Location: Idaho

Re: Iran Nukes

Post by Smithhammer » Sat Oct 10, 2009 10:48 pm

So then what exactly are you guys suggesting?
"I expect more from the man who gave us all boobies and pie..." - epon

Buster Wants to Fish

Mouthful of Feathers

User avatar
highstream
Posts: 805
Joined: Wed Dec 13, 2006 1:01 am
Location: Georgia

Re: Iran Nukes

Post by highstream » Sat Oct 10, 2009 11:31 pm

Smithhammer wrote:So then what exactly are you guys suggesting?


Ahmadinejad should be controlled. Do you feel different? He is suppressing the people of Iran. Not only that but he has threatened us and other countries that believe in freedom. Do you agree?
"I suppose you're swilling 400 proof White lightning and smoking hand rolled poison ivy leaves while you fish? tough guy. I was smoking Marlboro Reds back when you were still shitting in your carseat."--Lenny

User avatar
Smithhammer
Posts: 4235
Joined: Sun Jul 17, 2005 1:01 am
Location: Idaho

Re: Iran Nukes

Post by Smithhammer » Sat Oct 10, 2009 11:57 pm

highstream wrote:
Smithhammer wrote:So then what exactly are you guys suggesting?
Ahmadinejad should be controlled. Do you feel different? He is suppressing the people of Iran. Not only that but he has threatened us and other countries that believe in freedom. Do you agree?
Do I think that Ahmadinejad should be controlled, or do I think that the Iranian government should be controlled?
Ahmadinejad is the President of Iran, and obviously the one who gets all the airtime, but if you think that by controlling him you are controlling Iran, I think you're mistaken. The President of Iran does not have near the degree of power that our President does. It is actually the Supreme Leader of Iran (Grand Ayatollah Seyyed Ali Khamenei) who is Commander-in-Chief of the armed forces, who controls the military intelligence and security operations; and who has sole power to declare war or peace, not Ahmadinejad. On top of that, the Supreme Leader is supervised by a council called the "Assembly of Experts" who have the power to appoint and dismiss the Supreme Leader if they see fit, so he is accountable to them. So is it still Ahmadinejad you want controlled, or is it the real leadership of Iran? Just a point of clarification, but an important one.

Now, as I already said, I think that this is a tough situation, both diplomatically and militarily. There are no clear paths of action here as far I'm concerned, and I think that any one we choose is inherently risky - very risky. That's all I'm saying. It's easy to say we should "control" them (whatever that means) or we should go in there and kick their asses because "we're America" etc. etc, but I'll restate the question I asked above - what exactly do you propose?
"I expect more from the man who gave us all boobies and pie..." - epon

Buster Wants to Fish

Mouthful of Feathers

User avatar
highstream
Posts: 805
Joined: Wed Dec 13, 2006 1:01 am
Location: Georgia

Re: Iran Nukes

Post by highstream » Sun Oct 11, 2009 12:33 am

Smithhammer wrote:
highstream wrote:
Smithhammer wrote:So then what exactly are you guys suggesting?
Ahmadinejad should be controlled. Do you feel different? He is suppressing the people of Iran. Not only that but he has threatened us and other countries that believe in freedom. Do you agree?
Do I think that Ahmadinejad should be controlled, or do I think that the Iranian government should be controlled?
Ahmadinejad is the President of Iran, and obviously the one who gets all the airtime, but if you think that by controlling him you are controlling Iran, I think you're mistaken. The President of Iran does not have the degree of power that our President does. It is actually the Supreme Leader of Iran (Grand Ayatollah Seyyed Ali Khamenei) who is Commander-in-Chief of the armed forces, who controls the military intelligence and security operations; and who has sole power to declare war or peace, not Ahmadinejad. On top of that, the Supreme Leader is supervised by a council called the "Assembly of Experts" who have the power to appoint and dismiss the Supreme Leader if they see fit, so he is accountable to them. So is it still Ahmadinejad you want controlled, or is it the real leadership of Iran? Just a point of clarification, but an important one.

Now, as I already said, I think that this is a tough situation, both diplomatically and militarily. There are no clear paths of action here as far I'm concerned, and I think that any one we choose is inherently risky - very risky. That's all I'm saying. It's easy to say we should "control" them (whatever that means) or we should go in there and kick their asses because "we're America" etc. etc, but I'll restate the question I asked above - what exactly do you propose?

Seriously, If you think Ali Khamenei is controlling things you need to read something more than the Liberal media that you are reading. I know I'm going to sound like a conspiracy freak but Ahmadinejad is calling the shots. Real leadership of Iran? I think I just commented on that. No clear paths? Everything we do is risky. Iraq, Afghanistan, were both risky but it was something that had to be done.( Leave G.W. out of it, we won't ever agree on that) Damn man, WE ARE AMERICA. How do ya think you live the life you live. Geez. I propose we take out the leadership of Iran and let the true winners of the election decide on which direction the country is going.
"I suppose you're swilling 400 proof White lightning and smoking hand rolled poison ivy leaves while you fish? tough guy. I was smoking Marlboro Reds back when you were still shitting in your carseat."--Lenny

User avatar
Smithhammer
Posts: 4235
Joined: Sun Jul 17, 2005 1:01 am
Location: Idaho

Re: Iran Nukes

Post by Smithhammer » Sun Oct 11, 2009 12:37 am

Christ, are you capable of responding to anything in a non-hostile, worked-up way? How about we just discuss like rational people? Think you can do it? If you feel like giving it a try, I'm happy to continue this, otherwise find someone else to sling mud at.

And by the way, you have no fucking idea what I read.
"I expect more from the man who gave us all boobies and pie..." - epon

Buster Wants to Fish

Mouthful of Feathers

User avatar
highstream
Posts: 805
Joined: Wed Dec 13, 2006 1:01 am
Location: Georgia

Re: Iran Nukes

Post by highstream » Sun Oct 11, 2009 12:49 am

Smithhammer wrote:Christ, man, are you capable of responding to anything in a non-hostile, worked-up way? How about we just discuss like rational people? Think you can do it? If you feel like giving it a try, I'm happy to continue this, otherwise find someone else to sling mud at.

And by the way, you have no fucking idea what I read.

Wow, No matter how good you can write you sure can't read. In no way was I being hostile.[Confused] Sounds like I hit a nerve. Please, don't try to talk down to me because you will lose. I'm done.

Take Care


Oh ya, I thought you made some good points and it made me think(which is a good thing) but the throw down your toys and call foul, well...........
"I suppose you're swilling 400 proof White lightning and smoking hand rolled poison ivy leaves while you fish? tough guy. I was smoking Marlboro Reds back when you were still shitting in your carseat."--Lenny

User avatar
Smithhammer
Posts: 4235
Joined: Sun Jul 17, 2005 1:01 am
Location: Idaho

Re: Iran Nukes

Post by Smithhammer » Sun Oct 11, 2009 1:00 am

Dude, please. You make a completely off-base assumption that my information must come exclusively from "liberal media." Clearly, in the way that you use the term, it is meant as a put down. Why? Especially when you really have no idea where I get my info from? And the "How do I think I live the life I live" statement, as though I'm really that clueless?

Like I said, if you want to have substantial discussion, I'm all for it, but if all you want to do is try to paint me as a clueless left-wing idiot because I'm not just simply jumping on the "let's bomb the shit out of Iran" bandwagon, and trying to make the case that we better think long and hard about our actions, then this is pointless. Let's start here, if you're willing - what points made you think?
"I expect more from the man who gave us all boobies and pie..." - epon

Buster Wants to Fish

Mouthful of Feathers

User avatar
Rusty Hook
Posts: 3678
Joined: Tue Nov 15, 2005 1:01 am
Location: somewhere north of Boulder
Contact:

Re: Iran Nukes

Post by Rusty Hook » Sun Oct 11, 2009 12:29 pm

highstream wrote: Ahmadinejad should be controlled. Do you feel different? He is suppressing the people of Iran. Not only that but he has threatened us and other countries that believe in freedom. Do you agree?
As has already been pointed out, Ahmadinejad may be in a position of power, but that power is quite limited. He sure as hell isn't "calling the shots" in Iran. If anyone calls the shots, it would be the Supreme Leader, Ali Khamenei, who is commander in chief of the military and has sole authority to declare war or peace. The Supreme Leader is appointed by the Assembly of Experts, an elected body of 86 Islamic scholars whose main duty is to elect and remove the Supreme Leader and to supervise his activities. As they have the power to remove Khamenei from office, you could just as easily say that Hashemi Rafsanjani, as leader of the Assembly of Experts, calls the shots.

The President of Iran is responsible for the implementation of the constitution and for the exercise of executive powers, except for matters directly related to the Supreme Leader, and is the highest state authority after the Supreme Leader. The President appoints and supervises the Council of Ministers, coordinates government decisions, and selects government policies to be placed before the legislature. Candidates for President, like all other candidates for political office, must be approved by the Council of Guardians, and appointed 12 member body that is charged with confirming the compatibility of candidates and legislation with Islamic and constitutional law. Six of its members are appointed by the legislature. The other six are appointed by the Supreme Leader.

If you want to believe that Ahmadinejad is "calling the shots" in Iran, go ahead and believe anything you want, but if you really believe in freedom, that would include allowing the citizens of other countries to choose their own path. Insisting that they choose ours isn't freedom, it's tyranny. If Iran ever attacked the United States, I would be the first to say we should strike back, but anti-American demonstrations, flag and effigy burnings, and angry speeches in Tehran and elsewhere fall pretty short of the mark. Beyond that, if we intend to invade every nation that doesn't like us, we will need a much bigger army than the one we have. Just sayin.
The virtues are lost in self-interest as rivers are lost in the sea.
-- Franklin D. Roosevelt

Image

User avatar
ditchdoc
Posts: 3075
Joined: Tue Dec 26, 2006 1:01 am
Location: Flatlands of Kansas

Re: Iran Nukes

Post by ditchdoc » Sun Oct 11, 2009 4:53 pm

The question was posed as to what was being suggested. My suggestion is that our President make the promise to the world, that any nation which, without provocation, attacks another sovereign nation, using weapons of mass destruction, that the US will retaliate with whatever means we deem necessary to prevent said nation from continuing their aggression. With all the posturing of various dictators and, allegedly, elected leaders of third-world countries, someone has to make them realize that there WILL be consequences to their threatened actions. Someone has to take a stand, and then deliver on the promise if provoked. There are some crazy mother fuckers out there, with absolutely no regard for human life or freedom. If we have to take them out-so be it.
Ignorance is curable. Stupidity is forever.

User avatar
Rusty Hook
Posts: 3678
Joined: Tue Nov 15, 2005 1:01 am
Location: somewhere north of Boulder
Contact:

Re: Iran Nukes

Post by Rusty Hook » Sun Oct 11, 2009 5:29 pm

ditchdoc wrote:The question was posed as to what was being suggested. My suggestion is that our President make the promise to the world, that any nation which, without provocation, attacks another sovereign nation, using weapons of mass destruction, that the US will retaliate with whatever means we deem necessary to prevent said nation from continuing their aggression. With all the posturing of various dictators and, allegedly, elected leaders of third-world countries, someone has to make them realize that there WILL be consequences to their threatened actions. Someone has to take a stand, and then deliver on the promise if provoked. There are some crazy mother fuckers out there, with absolutely no regard for human life or freedom. If we have to take them out-so be it.
Very few would argue with that. The problem has been that the past administration lowered the standard to the belief that a nation is developing the potential to possess weapons of mass destruction and the potential that they would use those weapons to attack another nation.Actions should have consequences, not beliefs and potentials.

As far as the rest of it, I don't think there is a head of state anywhere that does not understand there would be serious consequences for the use of atomic, biological, or chemical weapons, or even the unrestrained use of conventional weapons.

An example of an unrestrained use of conventional weapons would be the 1945 firebombing of Tokyo, which killed 100,000 civilians and was done entirely with conventional weapons. If something like that happened today, it would be universally condemned as a war crime. Even back then, Curtis LeMay said that if we had lost the war, he would have been prosecuted for ordering it.
The virtues are lost in self-interest as rivers are lost in the sea.
-- Franklin D. Roosevelt

Image

User avatar
Smithhammer
Posts: 4235
Joined: Sun Jul 17, 2005 1:01 am
Location: Idaho

Re: Iran Nukes

Post by Smithhammer » Sun Oct 11, 2009 8:35 pm

ditchdoc wrote:The question was posed as to what was being suggested. My suggestion is that our President make the promise to the world, that any nation which, without provocation, attacks another sovereign nation, using weapons of mass destruction, that the US will retaliate with whatever means we deem necessary to prevent said nation from continuing their aggression. With all the posturing of various dictators and, allegedly, elected leaders of third-world countries, someone has to make them realize that there WILL be consequences to their threatened actions.
With that I agree completely, and I think most world leaders already know that that is an implicit assumption if they are going to attack another country. Where I think it starts to get a lot trickier is when we deem it necessary to do something "pre-emptively."
"I expect more from the man who gave us all boobies and pie..." - epon

Buster Wants to Fish

Mouthful of Feathers

upstanding
Posts: 143
Joined: Thu Dec 04, 2008 8:50 pm

Re: Iran Nukes

Post by upstanding » Sun Oct 11, 2009 9:21 pm

I cannot imagine the we would pre-emptively use nucs tactical or strategic unless an actual ICBM or eqiv was directed at our soil and intercept failed but then that's not definitional pre-emptive IMHO.

Could the reason the President pre-emptively was awarded the Nobel by the European political intelligentsia be to keep him/usa focused on non-proliferation and serious peace attempts to avoid a huge glass finger bowl from the Sahara to Kathmandu.

Iran is Persia...Darius the Great...too much to lose if they should pull the trigger and should they "sell" to a surrogate without a country with much to lose perhaps for a brief period they would avoid the nemesis but eventually its origin would be determined and Persia would be no more.

IMHO the worry is the tactical nucs rusting in Russia ...the kind that weigh about a ton...how much of the revenue from the Afghan poppy fields would it take to buy one.

BTW I find the Iranian President's sartorial facade decidedly Western European and when he chooses a western language to speak say English his word choice is significantly less confrontational than when he speaks farsi and his words are translated. Is he a stalking horse for the rusting russians? He is the essence of the Prince.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 33 guests