Political Theory

Re: US Government Interference with Iranian Government's Nuclear Desires

Marko — Tue, 18 Jan 2011 00:55:41 GMT

What would you say about a private German citizen who in 1940 wrote and distributed virulent anti-Jewish propaganda? He would be in the subjective sense partly responsible for the government crimes against Jews, even though he may not have lifted a finger against them himself or argued for government action.

That's not true at all. That's like saying the guy who wrote the pedophile how-to guide is responsible for the existence of pedophiles.

A worthless comparison. There isn't a parallel pro-pedophilia campaign, in preparation for legalisation of pedophilia for government employees, being conducted by the government propaganda mills.

Re: US Government Interference with Iranian Government's Nuclear Desires

Kaz — Tue, 18 Jan 2011 00:18:39 GMT

-I don't understand how this is true at all. How many wars (declared and undeclared) have been fought by nuke holding governments since the end of WWII?

Only little, pissant proxy wars...because of nuclear weapons.

Note that Bush was treating North Korea as an enemy we were likely to attack, until the very day they announced they had a nuclear weapon, then suddenly we started treating them like a dear friend, giving them money and technology. If only Iran were to have nuclear weapons tomorrow, the whole neocon push to war with them would end.

-Why would you possibly value weaponry that make it easier for states to thrive?

Because better smaller states than larger ones. Nuclear weapons allow individual states to protect themselves from international law, world government, and empires like the US.

I reiterate: Nukes are the Right to Keep and Bear Arms debate on a macro scale. They are the Great Equalizer between countries the way a concealed handgun is between individuals in a society.

Re: US Government Interference with Iranian Government's Nuclear Desires

Kaz — Tue, 18 Jan 2011 00:09:13 GMT

Since the government in Iran is just as uncontrollable to the Iranian people as the US government is to people here, if you could, would you use the US military in order to stop the Iranian government from building nuclear weapons?

You seem to be functioning on the theory that libertarians want to force other people to have the limited government we desire for ourselves.

It's bad enough that we have to resort to majority rule to fight for this, domestically...it would be an anti-liberty obscenity for us to resort to use the military to impose our ideals elsewhere in the world. No real libertarian supported the aggressions against Iraq and Afghanistan, and none would support war, or even economic sanctions, against Iran.

What's more, the government of Iran has as much right to nuclear weapons as our own. In a sense, this is the Right to Keep and Bear Arms on a grand scale.

Re: US Government Interference with Iranian Government's Nuclear Desires

BrianAnderson — Mon, 17 Jan 2011 23:41:49 GMT

In the light of these facts you may want to think a little bit more about Iranians and little bit less about yourself (threatened by a forum asshole and the non-existant nukes of a government of a third world country) and verify things before you assert them.

I learn what I can by myself, and then I come on here for help from others. There's no problem with that. Truth is, a lot of people on here have information that is virtually hidden in search engines. I come here with questions and people can answer them easily a lot of times, so don't try to accuse me of not verifying things when I'm trying to do precisely that same thing.

What would you say about a private German citizen who in 1940 wrote and distributed virulent anti-Jewish propaganda? He would be in the subjective sense partly responsible for the government crimes against Jews, even though he may not have lifted a finger against them himself or argued for government action.

That's not true at all. That's like saying the guy who wrote the pedophile how-to guide is responsible for the existence of pedophiles.

Not the severity, but the principle of you chanelling Bill O'Reilly on us is the same, so don't be surprised that it upsets me.

AGAIN, point out where I supposedly posted propaganda or chanelled Bill O'Reilly. I don't watch that guy's show, so I figure it's quite impossible for me to channel him. You keep trying to make a big deal about learning on here. If you have something to teach me, then do it. Don't spend your time calling me names. It makes no productive sense whatsoever.

Iran is not intent on producing atomic weapons, could not produce them without withdrawing from the NPT and could be easily contained even if it did come to posses them. Stop doing the neocon's work for them and asserting the contrary when it is not true. Also Iranian government is not crazy. That is more war propaganda.

From the speeches I've seen, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad seems pretty crazy. I'd like for you explain to me if many of the things he says are incorrectly translated or if he's misquoted frequently; things like that will help me learn more. When I put myself in Iran's place with the US constantly threatening them and add that fact to their nuclear facilities, I have a good reason to believe they'd want to acquire nuclear weapons

Re: US Government Interference with Iranian Government's Nuclear Desires

Marko — Mon, 17 Jan 2011 23:08:43 GMT

This is a debate which is neither abstract, nor it deals with a past historical event. The US is presently helping kill Iranians by funding terrorists in Iran and may jet come to bomb Iran. In the light of these facts you may want to think a little bit more about Iranians and little bit less about yourself (threatened by a forum asshole and the non-existant nukes of a government of a third world country) and verify things before you assert them. There is an objective right to free speech, but you also have a subjective responsibility as a moral human being to not make it easier and more likely for government agression to take place. What would you say about a private German citizen who in 1940 wrote and distributed virulent anti-Jewish propaganda? He would be in the subjective sense partly responsible for the government crimes against Jews, even though he may not have lifted a finger against them himself or argued for government action. Not the severity, but the principle of you chanelling Bill O'Reilly on us is the same, so don't be surprised that it upsets me.

Iran is not intent on producing atomic weapons, could not produce them without withdrawing from the NPT and could be easily contained even if it did come to posses them. Stop doing the neocon's work for them and asserting the contrary when it is not true. Also Iranian government is not crazy. That is more war propaganda.

Re: US Government Interference with Iranian Government's Nuclear Desires

BrianAnderson — Mon, 17 Jan 2011 22:56:10 GMT

Because you think the government of Iran is a threat to you. That this is something which is a concern of yours is pathetic.

And you are a fearmonger, you would rather echo propaganda than learn about the subject.

When did I echo propaganda? If I didn't want to learn these things, I wouldn't be posting on the forums. I've been openly glad when people educate me on these subjects. Calling people fearmongers for no reason does nothing.

An act of vandalism targeting Iran's power plants. Not only does no one have the right to target the property of Iranian taxpayers, there are all sorts of risks involved in sabotaging a freaking atomic plant. It takes a neocon to become excited about an attack like this.

You keep throwing around "neocon" as if it's an empty word. Normally I would thank someone for posting a link like you just did. You don't need to act all aggressive and try to be demeaning because I don't know something that you do. All you need to do is post links like that and ask if my opinion changes after learning. It's not that hard. Comments like the ones you post only drive people away from liberty.

It is you who is acting like an asshole. Albeit you have gotten better the propaganda you repeat is still offensive.

I'm not repeating propaganda. Nothing I've said has been offensive. When you say, "Albeit you have gotten better," if you're referring to the change in my mindset since I started posting on this site, then you're correct. My mindset has changed because I - just like many, many, many others - hadn't been shown the knowledge presented on here by others. Talking to people on the forums has helped me a lot, but people like you yelling at me for nothing made me want to quit posting on here when I first started.

Re: US Government Interference with Iranian Government's Nuclear Desires

Marko — Mon, 17 Jan 2011 22:44:26 GMT

Oh yeah, I'm such a baby because I don't like the idea of crazy governments having nuclear weapons.

Because you think the government of Iran is a threat to you. That this is something which is a concern of yours is pathetic.

And you are a fearmonger, you would rather echo propaganda than learn about the subject.

If you were to read a little further, the "pretending" is the Stuxnet virus, which may be a possible way of stopping the process of Iran's nuclear weapons production.

An act of vandalism targeting Iran's power plants. Not only does the US not have the right to target the property of Iranian taxpayers, there are all sorts of risks involved in sabotaging a freaking atomic plant. It takes a neocon to become excited about an attack like this.

There's no need to be an asshole and call me "Mr. Fearmongering Neocon".

It is you who is acting like an asshole. Albeit you have gotten better the neocon lies and mischaracertisations you repeat are still offensive. Also, in the sense that they contribute to the anti-Iranian psychosis in the US, which makes it easier for the government to target that country, that isn't necessarily without consequence either.

Re: US Government Interference with Iranian Government's Nuclear Desires

Merlin — Mon, 17 Jan 2011 22:34:58 GMT

Brian Anderson:

Oh, okay. I understand it a little more. I guess, in a way, you can see nuclear weapons like gun rights. The more people around you who have guns, the less likely you'll be to shoot someone.

Precisely!

Re: US Government Interference with Iranian Government's Nuclear Desires

BrianAnderson — Mon, 17 Jan 2011 22:11:56 GMT

Oh, okay. I understand it a little more. I guess, in a way, you can see nuclear weapons like gun rights. The more people around you who have guns, the less likely you'll be to shoot someone.

Re: US Government Interference with Iranian Government's Nuclear Desires

Merlin — Mon, 17 Jan 2011 20:38:09 GMT

That's only true assuming: (1) that the weak countries actually obtain nuclear weapons,

Advocating war against Iran for trying to arm itself will certainly not help. That's why we must favor nuclear proliferation as a good in itself.

(2) that we don't find a way to stop the explosion nuclear weapons or at least minimize the explosion, which I believe we will have at some point.

Alas, nothing lasts forever and even nukes could come to be 'tamed'. But I do not see it happening in the foreseeable future. Note that the trick isn’t to intercept the vector, be it a plane, ICBM or cruise missile.

No matter how good you become at anti-ballistic missile defense, there are some vectors which you just can’t control.

A nuke sent through a commercial container cannot be intercepted. Suitcase bobs neither. Israel, to push my point, is not afraid of Iran’s missiles. its Arrow 3 system can shoot down anything from the sky. The problem is that Iran can just ship its nukes disguised as anything, and there would be no way to stop it.

So, when you think of it, you see that the only nuclear defense is actually minimizing the effect of the bomb itself, and I cannot imagine how that could possibly be done.

Re: US Government Interference with Iranian Government's Nuclear Desires

BrianAnderson — Mon, 17 Jan 2011 20:20:17 GMT

Otherwise, one could see that nukes are the greatest revolution in military technology since gunpowder, in that they allow small nations to protect themselves cheaply against superpowers: nukes further decentralization!

That's only true assuming: (1) that the weak countries actually obtain nuclear weapons, and (2) that we don't find a way to stop the explosion nuclear weapons or at least minimize the explosion, which I believe we will have at some point. I mean, the only bigger weapon I can think of is an anti-matter bomb, and those will just blow up the universe. There's no point to them.

I'm sorry but you being a chicken is not an argument.

Oh yeah, I'm such a baby because I don't like the idea of crazy governments having nuclear weapons.

Since we are doing all this "pretending", why don't we also pretend we are talking about US nuclear weapons? You know, the weapons that actually exist? Would it be OK for Russia to create and unleash a super-duper weapon that would make all US atomic weapons disappear? That is all you need to answer for yourself. No double standards Mr. Fearmongering Neocon. What is good for the goose is good for the gander.

There's no need to be an asshole and call me "Mr. Fearmongering Neocon". It's a simple discussion. If you were to read a little further, the "pretending" is the Stuxnet virus, which may be a possible way of stopping the process of Iran's nuclear weapons production. As for your question about Russia, I wouldn't feel as safe if Russia were to do that, but, then again, if my government were threatening Russia day in and day out (like the US government does to Iran), it would definitely be okay from their point of view.

Re: US Government Interference with Iranian Government's Nuclear Desires

Merlin — Mon, 17 Jan 2011 19:49:38 GMT

"If most of us would like perpetual war, than yes, they should be against nukes."

-I don't understand how this is true at all. How many wars (declared and undeclared) have been fought by nuke holding governments since the end of WWII?

That’s not the right question. Rather we must ask, how many wars have nuclear-armed states declared towards each-other? Well, how many?

You can't just say things like this. There is no way to determine if this is the case or not.

That’s true, but I holds the other way around too. Here I’m simply using logic and extrapolating from 50 years of history to guess that nuclear power are extremely reluctant to declare war on each other. Hence, if all states are nuclear power, there will be no wars.

-Why would you possibly value weaponry that make it easier for states to thrive?

I, as almost everybody here, am against state power. So, we all agree eon the end state we’d like to see: no state. What we might disagree on is on how to get there: by having states wither away through conquest, or by increasing the number of states into insignificance?

See, if Israel (top take one well-known example, Israel is not special in any sense) had been overrun by the Egyptians in the ’70, its territory would not have revered to anarchy but would have been incorporated into an other state. Is this what we want, people changing hand form one government to the other?

How about having as many states as possible, to the point where every village can defend its own ‘state’. Do you think a village-sized state would be a state at all? But if a world of a million states is good, than every state that we ad (or manage to save from conquest) must be a step in that direction.

So, everything that allows states to defend themselves in combat against powerful armies is good in itself.

Note that having nukes does not insure some government against failure, merely against military takeover. Israel is still going bust, but due to its own stupid policies, not due to attack, and this makes all the difference.

Re: US Government Interference with Iranian Government's Nuclear Desires

Marko — Mon, 17 Jan 2011 16:26:42 GMT

I usually just feel like, "The wars in Afghanistan/Iraq happened so long ago. I'm just bored of it now." But to the people in Afghanistan/Iraq, the war happened yesterday and today because they're constantly involved with the US military plus all of their separate conflicts.

Then maybe you should worry a little bit more about your government and little bit less about Iran's. Sweep before your own doorstep first.

Re: US Government Interference with Iranian Government's Nuclear Desires

Marko — Mon, 17 Jan 2011 16:24:08 GMT

In another way, I feel like it shouldn't be able to have nuclear weapons because I don't feel personally safe with that fact.

I'm sorry but you being a chicken is not an argument.

I'm sure they want nuclear energy, but it will give them the capable to create nuclear weapons at the same time. Not to mention they have quite an appropriate reason to desire nuclear weapons since the US military has bases surrounding their country. If you don't accept that, then just pretend I wrote "if the Iranian government were to desire nuclear weapons".

That's what I'm asking. If they could do it without hurting innocents, should we use the military to stop the production? I understand it's nearly impossible to destroy a nuclear facility without leakage of some sort, but we're pretending we can.

Since we are doing all this "pretending", why don't we also pretend we are talking about US nuclear weapons? You know, the weapons that actually exist? Would it be OK for Russia to create and unleash a super-duper weapon that would make all US atomic weapons disappear? That is all you need to answer for yourself. No double standards Mr. Fearmongering Neocon. What is good for the goose is good for the gander.

Re: US Government Interference with Iranian Government's Nuclear Desires

mikachusetts — Mon, 17 Jan 2011 16:07:22 GMT

"If most of us would like perpetual war, than yes, they should be against nukes."

-I don't understand how this is true at all. How many wars (declared and undeclared) have been fought by nuke holding governments since the end of WWII?

"If the European powers had had nukes prior to WW1, that civilization-shattering event would not have happened. WW3 has been avoided and the attack of North Korea too."

-You can't just say things like this. There is no way to determine if this is the case or not.

"Israel survives only due to nukes."

-Why would you possibly value weaponry that make it easier for states to thrive?