Obama: Spy for Iran or Brilliant Peace Initiative?

[monty1]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/01/12/obama-iran-sanctions-veto_n_4585416.html

Why is Obama digging in his heels over preventing more sanctions against Iran? Is he truly concerned about destroying the progress that's been made or is he more interested in seeing Iran get it's nuclear weapon?

[nathanbforrest45]

yes

[Cigar]

Because the polls say Americans are Fucking tired of sending their kids to die for someone else's Sand.

If you want to start wars, go on your own or send your own family.

Enough of this shit, if you want to stop something in Iran; go to Iran yourself and stop it.

Americans need America more than War Hawks need War.

Way past time for Nation Building here.

Spend War money on American Jobs, Health Care, Infrastructure.

Fuck everything else and everyone else!

[Codename Section]

Philosophically speaking, why should any nation be prevented from forming a defense?

[GrassrootsConservative]

Philosophically speaking, why should any nation be prevented from forming a defense?

They don't need nuclear energy for defense. :laugh:

[Cigar]

They don't need nuclear energy for defense. :laugh:

They don't need permission from America to do jack shit, just like we don't need the UN to declare War.

If Iran does anything aggressive against the US or it allies, it's Glass for their Ass, and they know it.

[Green Arrow]

They don't need nuclear energy for defense. :laugh:

Why not? We and the rest of the world's superpowers apparently do.

[GrassrootsConservative]

Why not? We and the rest of the world's superpowers apparently do.

Now why would you go and say something like that? You KNOW it's not true.

[monty1]

Philosophically speaking, why should any nation be prevented from forming a defense?

I would tend to agree with that but I also have a really big problem with hearing it. It's assuming that Iran is truly involved in attempting to procure the nuclear deterrent to aggression and that doesn't appear to be the case right now. But assuming that it is the case then that would be suggesting that the US/Obama is wrong in assuming they aren't.

Or, more directly to the question I asked, Obama knows that Iran is seeking nuclear weapon capability. If he did would that make his actions treasonous or would it be with good intentions?

In my opinion, nuclear weapons have been our blessing ever since 1945 or shortly after when Russia became nuclear armed. MAD has saved the more powerful countries of the world from conventional war because of fear of escalating it to nuclear. Could that be the way Obama sees it too? Does he know that Israeli aggression in the ME is inevitable on a larger scale if there is not other ME countries that can deter Israel?

Or does Obama/the US sincerely believe that Iran is being completely honest about peaceful use of nuclear energy?

We also have to ask the question, is an attack on Iran even possible now? Are Russia's interests and China's interests too big a consideration now, and does the US understand that it can't interfere with their sphere of influence? As was certainly the case during the cold war.

[Green Arrow]

Now why would you go and say something like that? You KNOW it's not true.

Hence "apparently." If America and the rest of the world's superpowers can freely own nuclear weapons, what authority do we have to tell Iran they can't?

[nathanbforrest45]

Iran is actually negotiating with Disney to build a Shite Based Theme Park somewhere in the country. Its not trying to build nuclear weapons, it just wants to insure it has enough power to run the park

My theory makes as much sense as anyone claiming Iran isn't trying to make a nuclear weapons system.

[Green Arrow]

Iran is actually negotiating with Disney to build a Shite Based Theme Park somewhere in the country. Its not trying to build nuclear weapons, it just wants to insure it has enough power to run the park

My theory makes as much sense as anyone claiming Iran isn't trying to make a nuclear weapons system.

It's pretty widely agreed on that they are trying. What isn't clear is how close they are.

Regardless, nobody is arguing whether or not they are trying to develop nuclear weaponry. What this thread is about is why they can't, philosophically.

[monty1]

Hence "apparently." If America and the rest of the world's superpowers can freely own nuclear weapons, what authority do we have to tell Iran they can't?

Good question! Are you interested in hearing the answer?

The authority the US has is the authority the rest of the world gives it. That is, primarily UN backing. If UN backing is granted it will need to be granted through the Security Council and that means that Russia and China has to be onside. If not given that authority then the US becomes the rogue nation that goes to war against Iran, with perhaps the backing of Nato, or without.

If the US doesnt' have the backing of China and Russia then it would need to understand that those two would become involved militarily. Then the question would become whether or not the US could win such a war. Keeping in mind that an attack by the US on either of those countries would lead to nuclear war.

With that in mind, would the US start a war in Iran and risk the implications for Israel? Would Israel use it's nuclear weapons? Would there be immediate retaliation against Israel?

[monty1]

It's pretty widely agreed on that they are trying. What isn't clear is how close they are.

Regardless, nobody is arguing whether or not they are trying to develop nuclear weaponry. What this thread is about is why they can't, philosophically.

No! It's not my intent to limit the discussion on any of the possibilities. And I certainly don't view this forum as being strict about staying on topic. So far it's a fucking mess of cheap shots back and forth. Maybe a good discussion would elevate it a bit.

[Green Arrow]

Good question! Are you interested in hearing the answer?

The authority the US has is the authority the rest of the world gives it. That is, primarily UN backing. If UN backing is granted it will need to be granted through the Security Council and that means that Russia and China has to be onside. If not given that authority then the US becomes the rogue nation that goes to war against Iran, with perhaps the backing of Nato, or without.

If the US doesnt' have the backing of China and Russia then it would need to understand that those two would become involved militarily. Then the question would become whether or not the US could win such a war. Keeping in mind that an attack by the US on either of those countries would lead to nuclear war.

With that in mind, would the US start a war in Iran and risk the implications for Israel? Would Israel use it's nuclear weapons? Would there be immediate retaliation against Israel?

Okay. What authority does the UN have? Why does any nation have the authority to force any other nation to do something against their interests, no matter how many other nations they get on their side to help them?

[monty1]

Okay. What authority does the UN have? Why does any nation have the authority to force any other nation to do something against their interests, no matter how many other nations they get on their side to help them?

I would have expected that you would understand the kind of 'authority' the UN grants to nations. And in fact I've explained that in my post that you quoted. It is 'moral' authority for lack of a better word. It is the authority that many countries have relied upon ever since the UN's inception. It is the authority the US has respected with very few exceptions. Kosovo being one.

[Green Arrow]

I would have expected that you would understand the kind of 'authority' the UN grants to nations. And in fact I've explained that in my post that you quoted. It is 'moral' authority for lack of a better word. It is the authority that many countries have relied upon ever since the UN's inception. It is the authority the US has respected with very few exceptions. Kosovo being one.

I do understand the authority people place on them and the authority they wield. My question is, why should have it? What "moral" basis do they have to wield that authority?

[monty1]

I do understand the authority people place on them and the authority they wield. My question is, why should have it? What "moral" basis do they have to wield that authority?

I know when it's not worth hooking into that sort of contrariness.

Try again: Who should have it? Why should the UN have it? Which? At least give me your side of the debate to show that you are interested.

[Green Arrow]

I know when it's not worth hooking into that sort of contrariness.

Try again: Who should have it? Why should the UN have it? Which? At least give me your side of the debate to show that you are interested.

I don't think anybody has that authority. Nations should just worry about their own interests. If Iran isn't trying to attack us, we have no business interfering with their business.

Why can't you answer my question?

[monty1]

I don't think anybody has that authority. Nations should just worry about their own interests. If Iran isn't trying to attack us, we have no business interfering with their business.

Why can't you answer my question?

Why can't you understand what I'm trying to tell you? You're simply wrong if you think the UN doesn't have that kind of authority. And it doesn't matter if you think the UN doesn't or not. It does!

And the reason why I can't answer your question is because you didn't clarify which question you were asking. Try again!!

And then when you get your question right, give me your reasons for your assumptions because I'm not going to entertain mere contrariness.

[GrassrootsConservative]

Hence "apparently." If America and the rest of the world's superpowers can freely own nuclear weapons, what authority do we have to tell Iran they can't?

We don't. Only big government Liberals think otherwise.

[The Xl]

If I was Iran, I'd want nukes too, with all the threats and whatnot from America and Israel.

[Green Arrow]

We don't. Only big government Liberals think otherwise.

So you'd agree, then, that we should lift all sanctions and embargoes on nations like Iran and Cuba and stop trying to push them into acting against their own best interests in the name of our own?

[The Xl]

If anything, we're in the wrong here. Sanctions are an act of war, and we're dictating policy to a sovereign nation, which is even worse when you consider the fact that we have the most nukes in the world, by far.

We're overstepping our boundaries, as we always do. No wonder why so many people hate us. It isn't because of our freedom, I can assure you of that.

[monty1]

We don't. Only big government Liberals think otherwise.

I would take that as something very positive to hear from a conservative. It infers that conservative have no interest in forcing other countries to abide by America's dictatorial interests and if they don't then they won't have to face a war.

If only it wasn't just kneejerk, teagagger bullshit they have temporarily signed on to in order to oppose that uppity black guy.

One other possibility to explore though, the baggers are liberals who truly believe in 'no more wars' and have tried to pretend they are conservatives. History of conservatism in the US should tell us all that it doesn't work very well at all. Antiwar conservatism is an oxymoron.

[GrassrootsConservative]

I would take that as something very positive to hear from a conservative. It infers that conservative have no interest in forcing other countries to abide by America's dictatorial interests and if they don't then they won't have to face a war.

If only it wasn't just kneejerk, teagagger bullshit they have temporarily signed on to in order to oppose that uppity black guy.

Nice strawman. Really good racebaiting strawman. No basis in reality or anything, I'm not even with the "tea party" people, and neither is Obama black, but other than that it was really good.

[GrassrootsConservative]

So you'd agree, then, that we should lift all sanctions and embargoes on nations like Iran and Cuba and stop trying to push them into acting against their own best interests in the name of our own?

Not at all. Where on earth did you see me say anything that gives you that idea? Like the law, those are deterrents. We're NOT stopping them from harnessing nuclear power and building nuclear weapons, we're merely deterring them. Just like speeding laws don't stop speeding and gun laws don't stop gun crimes. Our big government obsession with control doesn't ever acknowledge this, but it should have been obvious.

When's the last time you heard any of the following?:
"I was late because of speeding laws."
"I was going to shoot up a school, but the sign saying "No Guns Allowed On The Premises" stopped me."
"I was going to hop across the border from Mexico, but American immigration standards stopped me."
"I was going to rape that woman, but couldn't because of the law."
"I was going to buy a bunch of cocaine and 20 hookers, but drug laws and prostitution laws stopped me."

Should I continue, or do you get the point?

[monty1]

If anything, we're in the wrong here. Sanctions are an act of war, and we're dictating policy to a sovereign nation, which is even worse when you consider the fact that we have the most nukes in the world, by far.

We're overstepping our boundaries, as we always do. No wonder why so many people hate us. It isn't because of our freedom, I can assure you of that.

It's o.k., you're in the right as long as you have the blessing of the UN. And if you can get the blessing of the Security Council to go to war with Iran then you will be in the right on that too.

You may not like that anymore than I do and you may understand that it's phony bullshit too, but you have to accept that it's true. Vice versa, if the US can't get the SC onside with it's plans then it's not on the right side.

And that's the reason why Obama is serving the US's interests in the best possible way. His initiative will either result in peace with Iran because Iran is being truthful or it will result in war with Iran with the UN onside because Iran does not have honest intentions.

At the moment, no other course of action is appropriate. Sanctions would have failed if Iran truly did intent to procure nuclear weapons.

[The Xl]

It's o.k., you're in the right as long as you have the blessing of the UN. And if you can get the blessing of the Security Council to go to war with Iran then you will be in the right on that too.

You may not like that anymore than I do and you may understand that it's phony bullshit too, but you have to accept that it's true. Vice versa, if the US can't get the SC onside with it's plans then it's not on the right side.

And that's the reason why Obama is serving the US's interests in the best possible way. His initiative will either result in peace with Iran because Iran is being truthful or it will result in war with Iran with the UN onside because Iran does not have honest intentions.

At the moment, no other course of action is appropriate. Sanctions would have failed if Iran truly did intent to procure nuclear weapons.

The UN doesn't and shouldn't ever set policy for sovereign nations, we don't live in a New World Order with global government. Not yet, anyway.

[Chris]

I know when it's not worth hooking into that sort of contrariness.

Try again: Who should have it? Why should the UN have it? Which? At least give me your side of the debate to show that you are interested.



No one should have that authority. Hell, the US government doesn't speak for the people why would the UN?

[The Xl]

The UN should be dissolved immediately, at the very least, the US needs to leave it.

[Chris]

Answer to "Obama: Spy for Iran or Brilliant Peace Initiative?" Neither. He's too incompetent to be either.

[Contrails]

Hence "apparently." If America and the rest of the world's superpowers can freely own nuclear weapons, what authority do we have to tell Iran they can't?
We don't. Only big government Liberals think otherwise.
Can someone loan me a new irony meter? Mine just exploded.

[monty1]

No one should have that authority. Hell, the US government doesn't speak for the people why would the UN?

What you think is and what is, is two different things. The UN grants moral authority to go to war and many other actions against some countries. Difference is of course, the UN is respected in the eyes of many countries and can speak for the world . The US isn't to that degree. There's not much any American can do about that except whine about it.

I predict that the US or Israel won't try to push their weight around on Iran's nuclear program without first getting the go ahead from the Security Council. Much too risky, both for it's reputation in the world and for the kickback implications. Agreed?

[monty1]

The UN should be dissolved immediately, at the very least, the US needs to leave it.

Should be but won't be, and the US isn't leaving. The UN serves US interests more than it hampers it's rush to war. And in fact in this instance it's not the UN that is causing the temporary setback to the rabid right's war ambitions. It's Obama and everybody knows that by now.

[Chris]

What you think is and what is, is two different things. The UN grants moral authority to go to war and many other actions against some countries. Difference is of course, the UN is respected in the eyes of many countries and can speak for the world . The US isn't to that degree. There's not much any American can do about that except whine about it.

I predict that the US or Israel won't try to push their weight around on Iran's nuclear program without first getting the go ahead from the Security Council. Much too risky, both for it's reputation in the world and for the kickback implications. Agreed?



And what you think is and what is, is, sic, are two different things.

Wow, your style of argumentation is so easy.



The UN grants moral authority...

You're failing to justify where it got its moral authority to grant anything.

[monty1]

And what you think is and what is, is, sic, are two different things.

Wow, your style of argumentation is so easy.






You're failing to justify where it got its moral authority to grant anything.

What are you trying to say Chris, in your clumsy way? Are you asking me to justify the UN's moral authority? If so then I can't justify anything like that. Can you imagine anyone who could? Or do you want me to prove that the UN provides moral authority? If so then that's a little easier. Nearly all the world's countries are signatory to the UN and if you don't think that provides clout (moral authority) then you need to go and talk to your dad about grown up stuff again.

Let me know after your 'father and son' if you want to continue to argue the completely inane. I was sort of expecting a little higher level of debate on this forum Chris.