Iran - Discussion Forum - The Massassi Temple Forums Archive

This is the static archive of the Massassi Forums. The forums are closed indefinitely. Thanks for all the memories!

You can also download Super Old Archived Message Boards from when Massassi first started.

"View" counts are as of the day the forums were archived, and will no longer increase.

Iran

2006-01-17, 12:06 AM #41

Freelancer

Peelancer

Posts: 15,012

I already said the only circumstance under which I would condone war is being attacked, and I stand by that. That doesn't mean that I automatically trust everyone, but it does mean that I'll give them the benefit of the doubt. Having it any other way is worse than giving sovereign nations the benefit of the doubt.

To me, it's like fighting fire with fire. To prevent war, the United States mongers war. Except in my eyes, the firebreaks the US used grew out of control and became more of a problem than the original fire.

"it is time to get a credit card to complete my financial independance" — Tibby, Aug. 2009

2006-01-17, 12:06 AM #42

ORJ_JoS

Custom Title DENIED

Posts: 3,265

Originally posted by Freelancer:

Here's the golden question: how IS IT NOT hypocrisy that the United States is allowed to research all the weapons it very well pleases, but not other sovereign nations? Here's the second golden question: how IS IT NOT hypocrisy that the United States could theoretically throw its own citizens in jail for refusing to fight a war they think is lunacy, then claim that they are 'spreading democracy' to the world? If THAT'S the sort of 'democracy' they're talking about, I can see why the Middle East doesn't WANT it.

And the truth shall set you free!

What you say here, more or less sums up the European vision of things.

ORJ / My Level: ORJ Temple Tournament I

2006-01-17, 12:08 AM #43

Roach

Registered User

Posts: 5,275

[QUOTE=Lord Kuat]Citation.[/QUOTE]
Excuse me while I laugh...
http://www.guardian.co.uk/iran/story/0,12858,1601413,00.html
http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/15E6BF77-6F91-46EE-A4B5-A3CE0E9957EA.htm
http://www.payvand.com/news/05/dec/1130.html
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,251-1845402,00.html
http://www.breitbart.com/news/2005/10/26/051026100315.ucvp4gh3.html
http://www.rferl.org/featuresarticle/2005/10/E15E03D6-1013-440F-BDCF-E61D727624ED.html
http://iraqwar.mirror-world.ru/article/73877
Why don't I just direct you to the simple http://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla%3Aen-US%3Aofficial_s&hl=en&q=iran+israel+wiped+off+the+face+of+the+map&btnG=Google+Search and let you do your own research since you obviously dont know what the heck is going on.

omnia mea mecum porto

2006-01-17, 12:10 AM #44

Roach

Registered User

Posts: 5,275

Originally posted by Freelancer:

I already said the only circumstance under which I would condone war is being attacked, and I stand by that.

Yeah, in the world of fairies and princesses, I can see that as withstanding, but in the real world, when a madman is trying to accomplish the feat of being able to destabilize any region of the world, I think it's time that blood be shed for the greater good of humanity.

omnia mea mecum porto

2006-01-17, 12:13 AM #45

ORJ_JoS

Custom Title DENIED

Posts: 3,265

Originally posted by Roach:

And don't drag this into a "whine whine whine, the U.S. shouldn't be allowed to tell the world who can own nukes." Do you personally trust a man who says that Israel needs to be wiped off the face of the world with nukes?

*whine whine whine* "the U.S. shouldn't be allowed to tell the world who can own nukes!"

Do you honestly trust the person currently in the White House? I don't. He will lie to start a war (he already did). So go ahead and think that 'the US can have nuclear arms because we're better' or something along those lines. I think the US is a rogue country. And if noone can have nuclear warheads, then certainly the US shouldn't be able to have them either.

ORJ / My Level: ORJ Temple Tournament I

2006-01-17, 12:15 AM #46

Freelancer

Peelancer

Posts: 15,012

Originally posted by Roach:

Well, then you can live with the what-ifs.

What if we hadn't invaded Iraq? I mean, after all, they didn't actually ATTACK us or anything...

What if we hadn't invaded Iran? Sure, there were thousands of casualties on both sides, but maybe they died in vain...

I prefer to be able to justify my wars, thanks...

"it is time to get a credit card to complete my financial independance" — Tibby, Aug. 2009

2006-01-17, 12:18 AM #47

ORJ_JoS

Custom Title DENIED

Posts: 3,265

Originally posted by Roach:

Under those conditions the world would be authorized to attack the US, a country that, in addition to invading other countries under false pretenses and throwing an entire region into civil war, is responsible for large-scale human rights violations. (Guantanamo Bay, Secret CIA prison facilities in the EU, numerous reports of torture practises from various parts of the world)

ORJ / My Level: ORJ Temple Tournament I

2006-01-17, 12:19 AM #48

Roach

Registered User

Posts: 5,275

Originally posted by ORJ_JoS:

HAHAHAHAHAHA, see the thing is, in the real world, unlike just about anywhere else in the world, the U.S. government actually has to answer to the people. The Chinese and Russian government can do just a conducted bout whatever the hell they want to do without having to worry about what theU.S. already has nukes. We're fully aware of what kind of damage they can do. We've already commited ourselves to seven conflicts since WWII without reverting to the use of nuclear weapons which as far as I'm concerned is more than just about any other nation is willing to commit themselves without nuclear intervention. So, really, the U.S. has nukes, we practically perfected the tech, and now we say that others shouldn't have it, so what?

omnia mea mecum porto

2006-01-17, 12:22 AM #49

Freelancer

Peelancer

Posts: 15,012

Hey Roach, I'm interested, since you seem to be so keen on this 'preemptive war in order to save the world' thing.

If I gave you a percent chance that Iran would start a nuclear attack, at what point would you decide to invade, causing the deaths of 100,000 innocent civilians?

75%? 50%? 30? 25? 10? 5? 1?

And would you be able to sleep at night afterwards?

"it is time to get a credit card to complete my financial independance" — Tibby, Aug. 2009

2006-01-17, 12:23 AM #50

Roach

Registered User

Posts: 5,275

Originally posted by Freelancer:

Oh damn, both of you are trying to say I was in support of the Iraq invasion. I don't recall ever saying that. Iran, unlike Iraq, poses a direct threat to the balance of the middle east. An arabian power with nuclear capabilities is a direct threat at Israel. And JoS you're going to have to convince me that no other nation in the world would do anything similar in order to preserve it's own well being. The day you can do that, is the day I kiss Freelancer on the lips and post a video on Massassi.

omnia mea mecum porto

2006-01-17, 12:26 AM #51

ORJ_JoS

Custom Title DENIED

Posts: 3,265

Originally posted by Roach:

HAHAHAHAHAHA, see the thing is, in the real world, unlike just about anywhere else in the world, the U.S. government actually has to answer to the people.

And that system works so perfectly.... When the people found out their precious president had lied to them to start a war, they simply decided to re-elect him.

ORJ / My Level: ORJ Temple Tournament I

2006-01-17, 12:28 AM #52

Roach

Registered User

Posts: 5,275

Originally posted by Freelancer:

You're going about this in a vacuum state of thinking. Israel is who really needs to worry about this. You're thinking along the lines of "Since it doesn't involve the U.S. directly, we should not become involved." Israel sees Iran owning nukes as a direct threat, especially after that whole "Israel needs to be wiped off the face of the Earth" deal. If Israel decides to go to full scale war with Iran, we're going to get dragged into it. And frankly, if you can show me that anywhere near 5% of innocent civilians would be killed in detering Iran's nuclear program, I would be more than happy to back down.

omnia mea mecum porto

2006-01-17, 12:29 AM #53

Roach

Registered User

Posts: 5,275

Originally posted by ORJ_JoS:

And that system works so perfectly.... When the people found out their precious president had lied to them to start a war, they simply decided to re-elect him.

Especially when that president had to cover his *** with "the CIA gave me bad info." Do not think for a second that I support Bush.

omnia mea mecum porto

2006-01-17, 12:30 AM #54

Freelancer

Peelancer

Posts: 15,012

Originally posted by Roach:

You're thinking along the lines of "Since it doesn't involve the U.S. directly, we should not become involved."

You're damn right that's what I'm thinking along the lines of. None of our ****ing business.

And if it did come down to full-scale war between Israel and Iran, so be it. It's their problem.

"it is time to get a credit card to complete my financial independance" — Tibby, Aug. 2009

2006-01-17, 12:31 AM #55

ORJ_JoS

Custom Title DENIED

Posts: 3,265

Originally posted by Roach:

Especially when that president had to cover his *** with "the CIA gave me bad info." Do not think for a second that I support Bush.

So you agree with me that the 'system to answer to the people' doesn't work? That it's a farce, because the government will do what it wants anyway? In that case you will have to reconsider your point about entrusting the US government with WOMD.

ORJ / My Level: ORJ Temple Tournament I

2006-01-17, 12:32 AM #56

Roach

Registered User

Posts: 5,275

Originally posted by Freelancer:

You're damn right that's what I'm thinking along the lines of. None of our ****ing business.

Fine, then let's pull out all foreign aid, become isolationalist like before WWII and let the world do its own thing. In the real world, this can't happen.

omnia mea mecum porto

2006-01-17, 12:33 AM #57

Roach

Registered User

Posts: 5,275

Originally posted by ORJ_JoS:

No, the Bush administration has not yet used a WMD. It would have to answer to congress in order to do so. Congress would have to answer to the people. Until Bush lobs a nuke somewhere, your argument does not hold any water to me.

omnia mea mecum porto

2006-01-17, 12:35 AM #58

ORJ_JoS

Custom Title DENIED

Posts: 3,265

There's no point in telling other countries they can't have those weapons, when other countries have them too.

It's like showing people that 'killing is wrong' by giving them the death penalty.

ORJ / My Level: ORJ Temple Tournament I

2006-01-17, 12:35 AM #59

Freelancer

Peelancer

Posts: 15,012

Originally posted by Roach:

Until Bush lobs a nuke somewhere, your argument does not hold any water to me.

AHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAhahahahaha

Until Tehran lobs a nuke somewhere, YOUR argument does not hold any water to ME.

"it is time to get a credit card to complete my financial independance" — Tibby, Aug. 2009

2006-01-17, 12:38 AM #60

Roach

Registered User

Posts: 5,275

Originally posted by ORJ_JoS:

There's no point in telling other countries they can't have those weapons, when other countries have them too.

It's like showing people that 'killing is wrong' by giving them the death penalty.

That makes no sense. We're trying to prevent other nations from having the ability to whipe entire cities, nay, countries off that map by forcing them into a conflict that does not involve that technology at all. We have that technology, yes, but we're also of the mindset that using such technology is extremely taboo, hense us not using it in the seven conflicts since WWII. Do you honestly trust Iran to never use this technology against....****, anyone really?

omnia mea mecum porto

2006-01-17, 12:39 AM #61

Roach

Registered User

Posts: 5,275

Originally posted by Freelancer:

AHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAhahahahaha

Until Tehran lobs a nuke somewhere, YOUR argument does not hold any water to ME.

Oh no, Freelancer decides to ignore jsut about everything else I say to continue on his "We should mind our own business and the world is a clean straight-forward domain" mindset. Goodwork Free, I would have never guessed you were so closed minded in Highschool.

omnia mea mecum porto

2006-01-17, 12:40 AM #62

ORJ_JoS

Custom Title DENIED

Posts: 3,265

Say all you want, he's got a point. :p

ORJ / My Level: ORJ Temple Tournament I

2006-01-17, 12:40 AM #63

Freelancer

Peelancer

Posts: 15,012

You have yet to explain how any kind of premptive war-mongering is ethically justifiable.

"it is time to get a credit card to complete my financial independance" — Tibby, Aug. 2009

2006-01-17, 12:42 AM #64

Roach

Registered User

Posts: 5,275

Originally posted by Freelancer:

You have yet to explain how any kind of premptive war-mongering is ethically justifiable.

Iran is the second largest producer of natural gas, second only to Russia. Please, all-wise-and-mighty JoS and Free, tell me why they would need any form of nuclear energy other than to "wipe Israel off the map" as their own leader has already promised?

omnia mea mecum porto

2006-01-17, 12:44 AM #65

ORJ_JoS

Custom Title DENIED

Posts: 3,265

Mere suspicions. Suspicions are no arguments, let alone proof. If we're going to attack countries based on suspicion alone, we're in a world of trouble. (Aren't we already?)

ORJ / My Level: ORJ Temple Tournament I

2006-01-17, 12:48 AM #66

Roach

Registered User

Posts: 5,275

Originally posted by ORJ_JoS:

Mere suspicions. Suspicions are no arguments, let alone proof. If we're going to attack countries on suspicion alone, we're in a world of trouble. (Aren't we already?)

So, you can't come up with a reason? So Iran stating that not only should Israel be wiped off the map (Which seems like a prelude to war if I've ever seen one) but that the Jews made up the Holocaust, and suddenly they ignore U.N. sanctions to begin their own nuclear program, after the U.S. (which I'm sure you don't care about, so let me provide other nations...), the U.K., France, Russia, China, and Israel itself tell Iran to halt all nuclear activity until inspectors can decide what the aim of the Iranian nuclear program is not a threat to anyone? HAHA.

omnia mea mecum porto

2006-01-17, 12:50 AM #67

lassev

Tells It Like It Is

Posts: 2,827

Originally posted by Freelancer:

Originally posted by ORJ_JoS:

What you say here, more or less sums up the European vision of things.

I don't think so. Apart from actual new nuclear weapon tests, I don't think Europeans much care what kind of weapons the Americans develop. Unless it's a tough economic question of whether to invest money in the missile shield project. And a theoretical situation of throwing people into jail in the US isn't discussed anywhere (outside of the US)

The European vision of things might be to avoid a full-scale wars as a means to spread democracy. But few people in Europe want Iran to have nuclear weapons. Democratic countries are far less likely to actually use or misplace (to miscreants) nuclear weapons than dictatorships and theocracies. And, well, of course there is no single European vision...

Everybody can predict what happens when a country like Iran starts to develop nukes... But I wonder what would happen if a country like Finland or Sweden would do the same. :p

Frozen in the past by ICARUS

2006-01-17, 12:51 AM #68

Freelancer

Peelancer

Posts: 15,012

That's.. kind of a weak argument.

The United states doesn't need nuclear energy to provide energy for it's people, yet it has gone forward with nuclear research. And the United States USED those weapons on PEOPLE.

You're saying just because Iran has a lot of natural gas, that we can NEVER allow them to research nuclear technology? Should we keep pencils from kids because they have multiple applications? On the one hand, they can be used to write mathematical equations, and on the other, they can be used to poke someone's eye out. If Johnny says he's going to beat up Carl, should the teacher then take that pencil from Johnny, refusing him his chance to learn math?

"it is time to get a credit card to complete my financial independance" — Tibby, Aug. 2009

2006-01-17, 12:56 AM #69

Roach

Registered User

Posts: 5,275

Originally posted by Freelancer:

Pot. Kettle. Black.

Pencils != nukes. Pencils can create...well, ****, you name it, pencils can design it. Nuclear technology only lead to energy, or weapons. Iran already has not only naturaly gas, but one of the larget oil reserves in the world. Their excuse of trying to achieve a new form of energy doesn't make sense.

omnia mea mecum porto

2006-01-17, 12:56 AM #70

Freelancer

Peelancer

Posts: 15,012

How about not being left in the ****ing stone age? Makes damn good sense to me.

Then there's the whole "knowledge for knowledge's sake" philosophy.

Then there's environmental concerns. *gasp* Maybe Iran would rather have some air that's *not* polluted.

"it is time to get a credit card to complete my financial independance" — Tibby, Aug. 2009

2006-01-17, 1:00 AM #71

Roach

Registered User

Posts: 5,275

Originally posted by Freelancer:

How about not being left in the ****ing stone age? Makes damn good sense to me.

Yeah, I guess nuclear technology means you've made something of your nation....oh wait, when you're sitting on a goldmine of fossil fuels it doesn't. You don't need it. You won't need it for quite some time. When your leader is a world-wide-known anti-semetic and suddenly goes against U.N. sanctions to begin it's nuclear program after declaring to the world that Israel needs to be wiped off the map, it doesn't seem like "advancing the society of your nation" is a big of a goal as...well...as he stated "wiping Israel off the face of the world."

omnia mea mecum porto

2006-01-17, 1:05 AM #72

Freelancer

Peelancer

Posts: 15,012

Originally posted by Roach:

You don't need it. You won't need it for quite some time.

Heh... it will be needed, and probably in our lifetimes. Probably even for Iran.

Why should they put off concerns about the impending energy crisis? That's simply not responsible. Researching nuclear technology is currently one of the best ways to prepare your nation for when the fossil fuel deposits start to decline. You can crawl into a hidey hole somewhere and pretend it's not a problem, but it is.

"it is time to get a credit card to complete my financial independance" — Tibby, Aug. 2009

2006-01-17, 1:07 AM #73

ORJ_JoS

Custom Title DENIED

Posts: 3,265

Dude, if we're going to attack countries that pose a threat to other countries, then Iran isn't the only one we should consider.

If the US wants to 'spread democracy' and 'ensure peace in the region', there are some African and Asian countries who could use some 'help' too.

All I'm trying to say is 'preventive wars' are nonsense. I think we've seen enough of that, now. All other means should be tried before resorting to bloodshed. Simple.

ORJ / My Level: ORJ Temple Tournament I

2006-01-17, 1:13 AM #74

Roach

Registered User

Posts: 5,275

Free, prove to me that within the next 20 years the decline of fossil fuels will lead to the decline of living in Iran. Also explain to me how something that the nations that make up the U.N. security council have declared to be potentially dangerous is alright in your mind. Really what I'm asking, is how the hell does your mind create such a fairy tale as you obviously see it in....

JoS, you're missing the point. I have yet to said the U.S. should march in and force Iran to listen to us. All I've said is that if we don't do something by March, Israel will do exactly that. And if you don't think they're capable of such a feat...well then ****, you have nothing to worry about, sit back, watch T.V. and enjoy this conflict unfold.

omnia mea mecum porto

2006-01-17, 1:17 AM #75

Freelancer

Peelancer

Posts: 15,012

20 years? No. 50 or 60 years? Yes. That's fairly evident from looking at just about any source on the subject. Starting any later than now to address the problem is starting too late. And there's no real reason why a sovereign nation should be required to POSTPONE such a necessary step in their advancement.

As for the U.N., they can postulate all they want, but it doesn't mean they can predict the future. To me, the only way preemptive war-mongering is ethically justifiable is if you have a time machine and can view the results of your actions ahead of time. If you decide to attack Iran, you'll NEVER KNOW if you killed innocent people or ended up saving millions of lives.

"it is time to get a credit card to complete my financial independance" — Tibby, Aug. 2009

2006-01-17, 1:19 AM #76

Roach

Registered User

Posts: 5,275

Originally posted by Freelancer:

So what I'm hearing is you can't find sources stating that Iran is on the brink of running out of its fossil fuels...

omnia mea mecum porto

2006-01-17, 1:21 AM #77

Freelancer

Peelancer

Posts: 15,012

I don't give a **** if it's 20 years away, 50 years away, or 200 years away. It's going to happen, and there's no reason why they shouldn't retrofit themselves ahead of time.

"it is time to get a credit card to complete my financial independance" — Tibby, Aug. 2009

2006-01-17, 1:24 AM #78

Roach

Registered User

Posts: 5,275

And I'll keep that in mind the next time you say anything in referense to any nation listening to the U.N. When the world powers want you to hold off on something, and you have no real reason to continue on your course of breaking international sanctions, then I am lead to believe that blood will be shed. And youve yet to provide any source stating Iran needs nuclear power.

omnia mea mecum porto

2006-01-17, 1:28 AM #79

Freelancer

Peelancer

Posts: 15,012

Originally posted by Roach:

And I'll keep that in mind the next time you say anything in referense to any nation listening to the U.N. When the world powers want you to hold off on something, and you have no real reason to continue on your course of breaking international sanctions, then I am lead to believe that blood will be shed. And youve yet to provide any source stating Iran needs nuclear power.

I already addressed that. It is a "real" reason.

And **** dude, anyone with half a brain would know that if your country depends solely on fossil fuel for power, and then that fossil fuel becomes too expensive to find and extract to be feasible, that nuclear energy is the next most feasible source of energy.

"it is time to get a credit card to complete my financial independance" — Tibby, Aug. 2009

2006-01-17, 1:31 AM #80

Roach

Registered User

Posts: 5,275

Originally posted by Freelancer:

Let me just put this in bold letters. IRAN HAS THE SECOND LARGEST DEPOSITS OF NATURAL FUEL, SECOND ONLY TO RUSSIA. Until you can provide me with a source that states that said natural fuel is running short, any attempt that Iran makes, deliberately against U.N. sanctions (even cutting through preventive devices) is seen as anything but good natured to myself, and apparently the major players of the world agree.

omnia mea mecum porto