Iran's Nuclear Plans

[henry quirk]

"who WOULD be a good leader"

Don't really know or care (I do know, however, the current crop is deficient).

'You' may need leading...I don't.

#

"I get so freaking tired of people who rant and rail about how much everyone sucks and no one should ever lead or follow."

And I get tired of every one being so willing to 'follow' any pissant who sports big brassy ones and declares him- or her-self 'leader'.

Not every one is 'wolf' (looking to find his or her place in the pack); some are 'bear' and just want to be left the fuck alone (by 'leaders and their 'followers').

*shrug*

[infinite monkey]

So, I and everyone else who support....well...anyone, are just ignorant following dumbfucks. All however many billion of us should all be completely independent of everyone else.

Seems reasonable and doable.

[henry quirk]

Where did I say (or imply), "All however many billion of us should all be completely independent of everyone else."?

Very clearly, I said, 'You' may need leading...I don't.

I wasn't being facetious...if you need leading, then go find yourself a leader or leaders, based on whatever criteria you set.

I don't want or need to be led.

I also never called anyone "ignorant following dumbfucks".

[Ibby]

Adak:

[infinite monkey]

Originally Posted by henry quirk

Where did I say (or imply), "All however many billion of us should all be completely independent of everyone else."?

Very clearly, I said, 'You' may need leading...I don't.

I wasn't being facetious...if you need leading, then go find yourself a leader or leaders, based on whatever criteria you set.

I don't want or need to be led.

I also never called anyone "ignorant following dumbfucks".

They seemed fair inferences, based on the find an intelligent leader comment and the 'everyone willing to follow' comment.

[infinite monkey]

Good god, let me off this planet.

[henry quirk]

...I always say EXACTLY what I mean to.

If I was gonna call a body an "ignorant following dumbfuck" then that's EXACTLY what I'd do...I wouldn't dance 'round it, or imply it.

You do me a dis-service.

[infinite monkey]

Yes, that's true.

I'm really just so very tired of...well, everything. I have to live in this fucking world. And all it is is negative negative negative. Would I like to be autonomous...maybe avoid this ulcer I'm developing...sure. But I can't. I live in this world, and I haven't won the lottery.

I'm sorry for inferring. You do say what you mean.

But, as a person of 'feeling' I'm not sorry I am so fucking tired of all the crap, and to add to the "I live on this planet" I'll say that I'm human, too...and I think it is quite reasonable for a human to infer that TYPICALLY when someone says things like 'needs leading' and 'follow any pissant' it isn't exactly a compliment or a toast to their individuality.

[Lamplighter]

Originally Posted by Adak

The Israeli PM challenged us (in his most recent UN address), to "draw a red line" where Iran must stop their effort to create more enriched Uranium, or face military attacks to force them to stop.

We've had several years of economic sanctions designed to stop this, but that clearly hasn't done the job. According to some, they'll have enough material for a nuclear bomb, by some time next year.

The Iranians say they will NOT be stopping their enrichment, and I believe them. Will they go on to make nuclear weapons? No one knows.

Despite smart bombs, there would be thousands killed if an attack was made. Mostly Iranians at or near the nuclear processing sites, but some civilians and military personnel on both sides, also.

Wouldn't that move both sides towards more war? Historically, it has had just that effect, on bombed countries.

Do you believe we should "draw a red line" as described in the UN speech by the Israeli PM, and if we do draw such a line, and it is crossed, what should we do then?

I realize "bomb them into the stone age", is one approach, but I'm looking for more sensible suggestions.

What do you think?

I think Obama selected the best approach - diplomacy and economic sanctions...

To Wit:


NY Times
HOMAS ERDBRINK and RICK GLADSTONE
10/3/12

Violence and Protest in Iran as Currency Drops in Value

TEHRAN — The first outbreak of public anger over Iran’s collapsing currency
and other economic maladies jolted the heart of the capital on Wednesday,
with riot police violently clamping down on black-market money changers,
hundreds of citizens marching to demand relief and merchants
in the sprawling bazaar closing their shops in protest.

It came a day after Iran’s president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad,
told a televised news conference that the plunge in the value of the currency, the rial
— it has fallen by 40 percent against the dollar this past week
— was orchestrated by ruthless currency speculators
the United States and other unspecified internal enemies of Iran.

He pleaded with fellow citizens to stop selling their rials for dollars,
a currency he once characterized as “a worthless piece of paper,”
and warned that speculators face arrest and punishment.

But Mr. Ahmadinejad, whose stewardship of the economy has been increasingly challenged
by other Iranian politicians in the last year of his term, offered no new solutions
to arrest the slide in the rial, which is a major inflationary threat and
has become the most visible barometer of Iran’s economic travails.

Because of the sanctions, Iran is facing extreme difficulties in selling oil,
its main export, and in repatriating dollars and other foreign currencies,
because Iran has been largely cut off from the global banking system.

<snip>

[Griff]

I guess if I was really worried about Iran getting the bomb, I might agree. Economic sanctions do a great job of punishing the greatest victims of oppressive states, the folks who happen to live in them. Having a bomb might just sober up the nutters.

[tw]

Originally Posted by henry quirk

...I always say EXACTLY what I mean to.

In a Bruce Willis movie, everyone else is incompetant and dumb. Only Bruce Willis can do anything right. Bruce Willis portrays mythical characters. Reading these 'Bruce Willis' claims are just as absurd, contradictory, and fictional. Complete without even one reason to believe any of them.

[Adak]

@Lamplighter:

I agree that diplomacy (step one) and economic sanctions (step two), are the right first responses. That's been our standard response to countries who "take a serious wrong turn". Has mixed results, but absolutely, the best first steps.

With Iran, it's been a few years now. Are we coming to some points of agreement with them? Something that keeps the option for the Iranians to work with the peaceful end of nuclear power, but keeps the region safe from the military weapons side of nuclear power.

That's the part that is not settled, in my mind. First, will they move from peaceful nuclear work, into the military use? Second, if they do move into the military side of nuclear power, will they use it?

My opinion is:

1) They haven't decided if they'll develop the nuclear military weapons yet.

2) Yes, if they had them, eventually a leader would emerge who would use them.

Right now, I'm comfortable with #1. The second one, I'm WAY concerned over.

That's where a red line starts making sense. The Iranians have just convinced me that they mean business with their saber-rattling speeches. I believe they mean every word of it.

I thought Obama erred with the weak economic sanctions when they were first begun. They just didn't have much "bite", and everyone knew it. True, you don't want to start out with the strongest sanctions first, but these were nonsense.
With the newer and stronger sanctions now in place, Obama has got it right - finally.

Well done Obama, on the sanctions issue.

[Adak]

@Ibby:

I took that exact class, and have read the Koran.

If you want to say, in your mosques, that the followers of the Prophet are the favored people - OK. But when you ACT that way, with that value system, with non-muslims, it's dangerous. Nobody likes to be treated unfairly, to be de-valued as a person, because of their religion or race/ethnicity. Unfortunately, this is part of Islam.

This kind of belief is called fascism, and leads to subjugation or the slaughter of those who are deemed inferior. WWII was caused by fascists.

Slavery is a kind of fascism. Segregation is an attempt to avoid fascism, that simply can't work, and winds up being fascism.

This is a topic that all nations with multiple races, religions, or ethnicities have had to struggle with - and usually have a war over, before finding a way to move away from it.

If there isn't *EQUALITY* between groups, then it will lead to fighting, sooner or later. Islamic laws and traditions, do not allow for equality. jews, infidels and christians are all given a different status than muslims.

Naturally, the muslims think of this as "separate but fair or equal". But I'm from the USA, and we know ALL about the lie that is inherent in "separate but fair or equal"! Been there, have the T shirt, and 100 years of segregation experience behind us. Not something I would ever want to see repeated.

Whether it's military service, taxation, choice of leaders, choice of a spouse, or any other important matter, non-muslims are not treated the same as muslims are, in Islamic law and traditions. Neither are women, btw.

Until Islam is reformed, it's going to always have friction with ANY other religion. A little "varnish" to cover up these basic parts of their religion and tradition, is not going to do the trick.

Neither will some cute people holding up funny signs. It's very cute, but lack of cuteness is not the problem with Islam.

< LACK OF EQUALITY BETWEEN RELIGIOUS/ETHNIC GROUPS, IS >

[henry quirk]

I prefer to get up early.

You (and everyone else) go do as you like (sleep as late as you can).

[piercehawkeye45]

Are you taking time zones into account? Getting up early on the west coast may be sleeping in on the east coast?