The whole thing with Iran
is bad right?
There was a two part Noam Chomsky article in the guardian that gave a pretty good argument about how it's all just another play by the US for regional dominance. It was kinda obvious anyway given the fact Iran's done pretty much fuck all except talk big, but yeah.
It's kind of scary, the way politics is going at the moment. Everything's becoming a bit worse. Is that just me? It isn't is it.
Makes you feel pretty sick when you think of the Iranian civilians that are going to be killed for doing nothing more than live in Iran. :(((
Thread not appearing correctly? Click here to rebuild | Report this
Twitter
Facebook
Last.fm
SoundCloud
MySpace
Friendster
RSS
Er, they didn't just talk big, they created the basic ingredients for a nuclear warhead.
i'm no nuclear scientist
but they have a long way to go in terms of uranium enrichment to get anywhere near to weapons grade
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/nov/17/iran-want-nuclear-bomb
Chomsky made the point
that every nuclear-armed country not to sign the non-proliferation treaty is aided in its nuclear program by the US.
I think there's some underlying racism that goes on with a lot of the discourse about Iran and its nuclear program. Anyone would have to be fucking mental to use nuclear weapons in Iran's situation, yet people genuinely make out that it's a possibility that they'd do it. Why? Iran has an actual proper state, not a great one but not one that lacks the critical ability to realise that nuclear war would be a fucking stupid idea. The Iranian state isn't Al-Qaeda.
Besides which, pretty much every analyst that isn't working in the pentagon says that Iran's military program is set up defensively, and its offensive capabilities are virtually non-existent.
Basically- even if they do develop nuclear weapons, it's so obviously as a defensive measure, which isn't surprising when you have the US and UK governments basically telling you they're going to invade you pretty soon via the media.
Just read those Chomsky pieces yeah? can't be bothered to find them.
You know what i found it for you
that's just the sort of guy i am
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2012/feb/14/losing-the-world-american-decline-noam-chomsky
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2012/feb/15/imperial-way-american-decline-noam-chomsky
US defence sec Leon Panetta admitted through the week
that Washington still has no evidence proving Iran is working towards developing the bomb. Thankfully, it's not as if the West has a history of wading into disastrous Middle Eastern conflicts on spurious grounds.
'Panetta, the former director of the Central Intelligence Agency, said that US intelligence showed that Iran was continuing its uranium enrichment programme.
"But the intelligence does not show that they've made the decision to proceed with developing a nuclear weapon. That is the red line that would concern us and that would ensure that the international community, hopefully together, would respond," he said.'
http://www.aljazeera.com/video/americas/2012/02/20122170514625396.html
I think there is a very logical reason
to take the development of the nuclear programme in Iran seriously.
...go on?
I don't think that it's an unreasonable aim to seek to ensure that
nuclear weapons are only held by democratically accountable, stable and non-mental regimes, but a lot of this, especially in Britain, seems to be about controlling the news agenda.
It's in the Isreali government's interests to maintain the continuous state of war with its neighbours, as it is in Iran's government's interests ratcheting up the stakes with Isreal.
I can see a few years' continuation of the tit-for-tat state-sponsored terrorism carried out by Isreal and Iran until either the west pokes Iran towards another revolution, or a Republican gets into the White House and the world is annihilated in a nuclear war.
And Iran hasnt just talk big. They're actively seeking to develop nuclear weapons and, with Syria, are the biggest state-funders of islamic fundamentalist terrorists.
Alright the talk big thing was kinda glib
but you're still approaching it from a western-centric viewpoint imo. Islamic fundamentalists were a force for good during the cold war, apparently. Would Iran and Syria have been the good guys then?
I'm not condoning their actions, obviously, but I hardly think we've earned the right to deplore them given our actions in the middle east recently.
Also you place far too much faith in Obama's foreign policy. I don't think there's been any noticeable change in the US' aggressive global tactics since he's come to power, bar removing troops from Iraq.
I'm not defending Iran in any way.
But when you look at this map of US military bases in the region, you can see why they might be a bit...defensive:
http://forusa.org/blogs/judy-bello/us-military-encirclement-iran/9909
only internationally responsible nations without a recent history of unethical and illegal wars
like USA and Britain should have nuclear weapons
:D
i await the replies to this.
IT WAS A HUMANITARIAN MISSION
*ANYONE should have nuclear weapons tbh
Ridiculous, old-fashioned weapons that have no continued relevance on account of their assurance of total annihilation or at the very least enormous widespread global damage. The USA and Britain should take the lead and scrap the lot, they wouldn't concede any kind of tactical advantage.
not sure is that's simple.
although the idea of nuclear weapons as a defensive deterrent is sort of inherently ridiculous (once one goes off, we're all screwed anyway), it probably wouldn't give out a good message to hostile countries if the US scrapped their capabilities
The US is able to (and does) wage financial and internet warfare on an unimaginable and crippling scale
Nukes are 20th century dinosaurs, irrelevant and moronic. If one is exploded on Earth from now on then frankly, to borrow Bill Hicks' words, the experiment has failed
is that's simple??
I have complete faith in the deterrent that is mutually assured destruction.
Complete faith....complete faith.....complete.... *begins to stash just a little nuclear weapon under his pillow, just a little one, just in case*
"Look lads
if we just had one which could destroy, say, Portsmouth. That would be enough, don't you think?"
genius!
Iran's so far away.
I couldn't get away.
Noam Chomsky thinks literally everything comes back to American Imperialism.
Sometimes he's right, sometimes he's wrong but I certainly wouldn't treat his articles as an unbiased description of what's going on.
He should stick to Linguistics
I actually don't really agree with his theories on that either.
Vygotsky makes way more sense...
There's no such thing as an unbiased description of what's going on
I'm fully aware of Chomsky's tendencies but he's hardly alone in his opinion and he's put forward a very strong case so I don't think people can get away with the traditional sneering-at-the-radical-academic thing this time sorry no offence.
eh? whats going to happen to iranians who live in Iran?
who is going to kill them?
Erm... war?
it tends to kill people
who are they going to have a war with?
I think the best way forward would be to improve anglo/us relations
with islamic states