War with Syria

Burnem Wizfyre · Sep 6, 2013

Erronius_sl said:
Purposely being stubborn and refusing to budge on any issue doesn't make you right, it just makes you a Republican.

Fanaskin argument methodology.

Arbitrary · Sep 6, 2013

Piggy should have capitulated and then waited for the chance to cut the throats of his enemies as they slept.

fanaskin · Sep 6, 2013

BurnemWizfyre_sl said:
Fanaskin argument methodology.

uh huh, it had nothing to do with trying to avoid this.

fanaskin · Sep 6, 2013

Iraq War groups MIA on Syria

As lawmakers weigh the prospect of potential strikes to punish Syria's regime for the alleged use of chemical weapons, both Republicans and Democrats are shadowed by a daunting political reality: not only is the public dead-set against military action, but there's also no apparent infrastructure in place to help change the voters' minds.

Only a few years ago, at the height of the national debate over the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, there was a robust network of groups on both the left and right organized specifically to advocate on issues of war and peace.

But since President Barack Obama's election and the 2008 financial meltdown, many of the most assertive advocacy organizations have withered away or shifted their focus to topics other than national security.

That atrophy is particularly stark on the right, where the once-prominent groups set up to give air cover to interventionist politicians have all but disappeared - a symptom both of the political aftershocks of the Iraq war, and the rise of a libertarian-leaning brand of conservatism focused more on slashing government at home than spreading democracy abroad.

Freedom's Watch, the Republican group that spent tens of millions of dollars in the 2008 campaign marshaling support for the Iraq war, disbanded after Obama's election. The conservative veterans' advocacy organization Vets for Freedom has gone dormant (the last video posted on its website is a 2010 clip from MSNBC's "Hardball.") Keep America Safe, a hawkish group founded in 2009 by Liz Cheney and others, closed up shop ahead of Cheney's decision to run for Senate in Wyoming.

Former Bush White House press secretary Ari Fleischer, one of the founders of Freedom's Watch, said there simply isn't a standing entity dedicated to supporting aggressive foreign and military policy.
"I don't know that there's ever been such a group, really, especially since the collapse of the Soviet Union," said Fleischer, who supports military action in Syria. Freedom's Watch "was supposed to go on and do other things," he recalled, but ultimately became an organization with a "one-time mission" focused on Iraq.

Erronius · Sep 6, 2013

fanaskin_sl said:
This is why it's important not to be a weak blubbering vagina and have power erronious, if you don't have force the strong (America) will bully the weak (Syria,Iraq,Afghanistan,Libya)

...

If you want peace, prepare for war

So do you think that Iran and NK should have nuclear weapons then, so as to prevent any aggressive action against them by the US? What about chemical weapons? Should the nations you list have stockpiles of Sarin so that they cannot be bullied my America?

Chukzombi · Sep 6, 2013

I guess barry tried to make friends with conservatives by giving us dumb hillbillies something to blow up and go yeeehaw! Over dead brown people. He must be scratching his head right now over what went wrong.

fanaskin · Sep 6, 2013

Erronius_sl said:
So do you think that Iran and NK should have nuclear weapons then, so as to prevent any aggressive action against them by the US? What about chemical weapons? Should the nations you list have stockpiles of Sarin so that they cannot be bullied my America?

Like everything in life erronious it depends on your perspective, If I was Iran yes, getting a nuclear weapon is exactly what I would do.

From their point of view America/israel/saudi arabia has a hard on for them and wants to exploit their resources and keep them dominated and the only rational deterrent for them would be a threat of force the other countries couldn't ignore.

You never heard of the concept of "the balance of power"?

Erronius · Sep 6, 2013

fanaskin_sl said:
Like everything in life erronious it depends on your perspective, If I was Iran yes, getting a nuclear weapon is exactly what I would do.

I didn't ask you what Iran would think, I asked whatYOUthink.

fanaskin · Sep 6, 2013

That is what I would think if I was Iranian. I'm only one perspective, of ~7 billion.

America is not some altruistic state where Americans are inherently better people than Iranians are. We are brutal people that have killed far more people than the Iranians have and invaded many more countries than the Iranians have.

What you are really asking is "if I was world dictator would you want somebody that could challenge you" and the answer would be then "of course not" i'd rather everyone around me be disarmed and weak so I could benefit from my strong position over them.

TrollfaceDeux · Sep 6, 2013

if i was Kim Jong Il, who i am definitely related to, i would make nukes. Omph...I mean..Kim Jong Un....

Tuco · Sep 6, 2013

Looking less and less likely that we'll go to war. Eyashusa let me know whe nyou want your new avatar.

TrollfaceDeux · Sep 6, 2013

tuco cleans house.

Erronius · Sep 6, 2013

fanaskin_sl said:
That is what I would think if I was Iran. I'm only one perspective, of ~7 billion.

what you are really asking is "if I was world dictator would you want somebody that could challenge you" and the answer would be then "of course not" i'd rather everyone around me be disarmed and weak so I could benefit from my strong position over them.

I am not asking what you would think if you were a 'world dictator', nor am I asking what you would think if you were Iran. I am asking what you, fanaskin, think. Stop dodging the question.

Here it is again:

Erronius_sl said:
So do you think that Iran and NK should have nuclear weapons then, so as to prevent any aggressive action against them by the US? What about chemical weapons? Should the nations you list have stockpiles of Sarin so that they cannot be bullied by America?

fanaskin · Sep 6, 2013

Erronius_sl said:
I am not asking what you would think if you were a 'world dictator', nor am I asking what you would think if you were Iran. I am asking what you, fanaskin, think. Stop dodging the question.

Here it is again:

I would feel fine if Iran got a nuclear weapon, they aren't insane people, they are acting rationally.

First off Iran was taken over when america orchestrated a coup of their leadership in 1953. When they got rid of that installed leader we've then sided against Iran at every opportunity including backing SADDAM HUSSEIN to attack Iran and helped him to use CHEMICAL WEAPONS vs Iran. So it's not like Iran has NO reason to fear america or it's allies.

If you look at the timelines when Iran pursued a nuclear weapon you can plainly see they put some effort into it only when directly threatened by the increasing nuclear power of states that are direct threats and hostile to them. First by Israel secretly becoming a nuclear power is when they started some research into it, and secondly when Pakistan started testing nuclear weapons (a sunni state and Sunni's are direct enemies to shiites) they put some effort into it. Iran has a pattern of persueing nuclear weapon capability only because their highly aggressive and antagonistic neighbors pursued nuclear weapons.

So no I think Iran would be perfectly responsible with them and it would actually bring peace to the area. The only reason America/israel/saudi/qatar/france/uk hate it is because it would prevent them from acting like imperialists.

It would probably bring more balance to the region and prevent Israel/Saudi Arabia from trying to dominate it militarily and force them to actually negotiate instead of war for what they want.
-----

The real question is why do you hate Iranians erronious

Erronius · Sep 6, 2013

Damnit it's pursue not peruse you imbecile, you used peruse 3 times at least. Iran isn't trying to read nuclear weapons.

So anyways, then by extension would you be ok with any nation pursuing nuclear weapons for defense then if you're ok with Iran? Syria? Afghanistan? Libya? Iraq? What about NK or Uganda?

Edit: I have never in my life seen someone edit so many of their posts, holy fucking shit. Responding to your posts is like trying to hit a hummingbird with a fucking dart.

fanaskin_sl said:
The real question is why do you hate Iranians erronious

What makes you think I hate Iranians?

fanaskin · Sep 6, 2013

If you haven't learned by now if my post is a mess gimme a few minutes to clean my shit up.
---
It depends, should everyone have a gun? no

Can responsible people have guns? yes.
----
Specifically with Iran I think the region is currently power imbalanced(between keeping similar groups of people divided by arbitrary boundaries, and the lone world superpower backing one country over the other), and that power imbalance is what allows the area to be in a constant state of warfare, If Iran got a Nuclear weapon a very likely outcome would actually be the area becoming a lot more stable.

Those other countries you would have to look if their pursuit of a weapon (lol Afghanistan and Uganda could never do it, what a stupid question) would make the region around them more balanced or less balanced to being to answer that question.

You "hate Iranians"(deliberately exaggerated) because they are clearly more passive people than Americans yet you want to keep them disarmed so Israel/Saudi/US/France/UK can exploit them and further humiliate them.

they are human beings too erronious, if you can trust American human beings with nuclear weapons you can trust responsible Iranian Human beings as well, Being American doesn't suddenly make you a better person.

Erronius · Sep 6, 2013

fanaskin_sl said:
If you haven't learned by now if my post is a mess gimme a few minutes to clean my shit up.

Dude, 20 minutes.

fanaskin_sl said:
It depends, should everyone have a gun? no

But wait a minute, doesn't that mean that the people that don't have guns will be powerless victims?!? I mean, you even made us a handy pic:

I mean, according to your own pic, "weak with no gun" isALWAYS THE LOSER.

fanaskin_sl said:
Can responsible people have guns? yes.

So only the responsible people can have guns? Who decides who is responsible? How do you determine that? And if we create an agency to oversee that, will Ron Paul want to abolish that agency too? Oh I know, we can let private enterprise handle it. Where's ScreamCo to save us?

Man, if you're a 'weak' individual and the deemed irresponsible by ScreamCo, then you're simply fucked, aren't you?

fanaskin_sl said:
You "hate Iranians"(deliberately exaggerated) because they are clearly more passive people than Americans yet you want to keep them disarmed so Israel/Saudi/US/France/UK can exploit them and further humiliate them.

Passive I don't know about; America is more overt, but that's because they can be. If Iran were in our shoes, or a superpower, what then? Not to mention Iran meddling in some affairs while me meddle in others (cooperating in secret with NK, organizing terrorists in Iraq and providing training and arms such as EFPs for example).

As far as my"wanting them disarmed"(though I've never said that to my knowledge), I actually am a proponent of Westphalian sovereignty and I feel they have clearly defined rights. My only issue with Iran though is the ruling regime - you can't claim that you want to, and intend (IIRC) to wipe Israel off the map then expect no resistance when you want to pursue nuclear technology (civilian or military). I lean more towards supporting the Greens than the hardliners though, but /shrug. Now if Iran were ruled by people that didn't rattle their saber left and right and surreptitiously support terrorists then I wouldn't give a fuck, and I still think that America should have caved on the nuclear fuel recycling deal Russia offered Iran that could have allowed them to move forward on nuclear power. Now this week when they were tweeting the "HAPPY JEWISH NEW YEAR" or whatever that gave me some hope that the new administration is a sign of coming change, but we'll see.

fanaskin_sl said:
they are human beings too erronious, if you can trust american human beings with nuclear weapons you can trust responsible Iranians as well.

And who decides who the responsible Iranians are?

Tuco · Sep 6, 2013

You're going to need a lot more dimensions for that graph.

fanaskin · Sep 6, 2013

Erronius_sl said:
But wait a minute, doesn't that mean that the people that don't have guns will be powerless victims?!? I mean, you even made us a handy pic:

I mean, according to your own pic, "weak with no gun" isALWAYS THE LOSER.

It's just something that will always be true, it always existed (and not just humans, but between all living organisms as well, that the strong tend to dominate the weak) and it will never go away, Which is why I wouldn't advocate disarming most people. However some people are literally brain damaged and deranged though, and some people are willing to die to accomplish their goals, especially when they have nothing to lose like a country full of people that they feel they must protect. that changes the equations of game-theory and balance-of-power somewhat, would I be comfortable with Osama bin laden with a suitcase nuke? no. Am I comfortable with a rational state with a nuclear weapon sure.

The countries I might be uncomfortable with nukes are ones that acquiring a weapon would imbalance the region instead of balancing it, like I said before.

Erronius_sl said:
So only the responsible people can have guns? Who decides who is responsible? How do you determine that? And if we create an agency to oversee that, will Ron Paul want to abolish that agency too? Oh I know, we can let private enterprise handle it. Where's ScreamCo to save us?

Man, if you're a 'weak' individual and the deemed irresponsible by ScreamCo, then you're simply fucked, aren't you?

It's funny how you can't help but think that groups can't govern themselves that they always have to be coerced and ruled by some Authoritarian fist of one sort or another. Nowhere was the option of self governance given in your example.

Nobody has the Fundamental right to tell other people what to do, that's why a BALANCE of power has so far worked the best. isn't that funny how that works? there are no perfect solutions in life erronious.

Can you claim America has acted responsibly with their power? After the soviet union collapsed and their global power went relatively unchallenged for a while we've engaged in more wars, applied more pressure and acting more antagonistically than since before the soviet union collapsed. Without somebody to keep America in check we became drunk on power.

Erronius_sl said:
Passive I don't know about; America is more overt, but that's because they can be. If Iran were in our shoes, or a superpower, what then? Not to mention Iran meddling in some affairs while me meddle in others (cooperating in secret with NK, organizing terrorists in Iraq and providing training and arms such as EFPs for example).

First of all if "Iran was a superpower" we wouldn't be trying to invade Iran and they would have nuclear weapons already, so it's a really silly thing to ask. Let's deal with reality instead of some fantasy scenarios like Iran being a superpower which could never happen, they just don't have the resources and manpower to make it happen.

Here is a simple litmus test, how many countries has America invaded in the last 200 years, how many countries has Iran invaded in the last 200 years? it's not even close, the Iranians trained some militia men and you act like that's the equivalent of killing millions of people and not to mention dropping nuclear bombs on cities. Iran never dropped nuclear bombs on cities but America sure has.

Erronius_sl said:
As far as my"wanting them disarmed"(though I've never said that to my knowledge), I actually am a proponent of Westphalian sovereignty and I feel they have clearly defined rights. My only issue with Iran though is the ruling regime - you can't claim that you want to, and intend (IIRC) to wipe Israel off the map then expect no resistance when you want to pursue nuclear technology (civilian or military).

This incident was twisted into Western propaganda designed to make you be complicit with attacking Iran and you bought it hook line and sinker

Then,specialists such as Juan Cole of the University of Michigan and Arash Norouzi of the Mossadegh Project pointed out that the original statement in Persian did not say that Israel should be wiped from the map, but instead that it would collapse.

Erronius_sl said:
I lean more towards supporting the Greens than the hardliners though, but /shrug. Now if Iran were ruled by people that didn't rattle their saber left and right and surreptitiously support terrorists then I wouldn't give a fuck, and I still think that America should have caved on the nuclear fuel recycling deal Russia offered Iran that could have allowed them to move forward on nuclear power. Now this week when they were tweeting the "HAPPY JEWISH NEW YEAR" or whatever that gave me some hope that the new administration is a sign of coming change, but we'll see.

I saw that tweet too I have the same reserved hope.

Erronius_sl said:
And who decides who the responsible Iranians are?

who decides who the responsible Americans are? there's no good answer to that question for obvious reasons. That's why I usually advocate to balance power and not concentrate it, it prevents one group from bullying the other, because in the end nobody is fundamentally better than anyone else.

hence

"who watches the watchmen"

Erronius · Sep 7, 2013

fanaskin_sl said:
Specifically with Iran I think the region is currently power imbalanced(between keeping similar groups of people divided by arbitrary boundaries, and the lone world superpower backing one country over the other), and that power imbalance is what allows the area to be in a constant state of warfare, If Iran got a Nuclear weapon a very likely outcome would actually be the area becoming a lot more stable.

So you say the region is imbalanced by arbitrary boundaries and superpower backing, and your answer to that is a nuclear armed Iran?

Well hell, while we're at it let's just give every questionable regime in unstable areas nukes right? I guess that guns aren't the only GREAT EQUALIZER in your world then are they?

fanaskin_sl said:
Those other countries you would have to look if their pursuit of a weapon (lol Afghanistan and Uganda could never do it, what a stupid question) would make the region around them more balanced or less balanced to being to answer that question.

Afghanistan was on your list of bullied nations, and I threw Uganda in for the lols. That said, what nations would you give nukes to then? What nations do you think would benefit from having nuclear weapons and what regions would this help stabilize?

fanaskin_sl said:
The countries I might be uncomfortable with nukes are ones that acquiring a weapon would imbalance the region instead of balancing it, like I said before.

That's pretty damn subjective and subject to abuse. Just using Iran, tons of people would consider Iran acquiring nukes to herald WWIII itself, and I think that it's safe to say that the majority in the West would consider Iranian nukes to be something that would destabilize the region.

fanaskin_sl said:
Nobody has the Fundamental right to tell other people what to do, that's why a BALANCE of power has so far worked the best. isn't that funny how that works? there are no perfect solutions in life erronious.

Yet people and nations tell others what to do on a daily basis, and that balance of power isn't really a balance at all. You yourself started this entire derail by mentioning America as a sole superpower that bullied other nations. You are contradicting yourself.

fanaskin_sl said:
Can you claim America has acted responsibly with their power? After the soviet union collapsed and their global power went relatively unchallenged for a while we've engaged in more wars, applied more pressure and acting more antagonistically than since before the soviet union collapsed. Without somebody to keep America in check we became drunk on power.

I wouldn't claim that America has acted responsibly, I'm somewhat mixed on that. That said, I don't think the answer is to let questionable regimes arm themselves with WMD as a way to counter America.

If you really want peace and an end to America acting unilaterally, then hope and pray for the UN and UNSC to either be fixed or ended, and the International community to step up. The reason that America tends to go all "cowboy" is that the UN is a worthless body of drooling idiots that sits back and whines and waits FOR America to act unilaterally first. America is put into situations repeatedly where their choices are to A) let things go and become isolationist again like we were in the past, which contributed to some of the more notable wars according to some (because you know the fucking UN is going to do fuck all, especially with UNSC vetos) or B) act unilaterally. I'd argue that the UN and the entire concept of international law has led to the US looking at the world and thinking"Fuck, if we don't do something, no one else will". Of course that doesn't mean that the USSHOULDact unilaterally, but imagine for a minute that America were to step back for the next 20 years and initiate nothing and insist that the international community wait around for UN mandates. Shit would go south with a fucking quickness and we'd have power blocs spring up far worse than we have now, all emboldened by the idea that the UN is worthless and that the US will do nothing alone.

fanaskin_sl said:
Here is a simple litness test, how many countries has America invaded in the last 200 years, how many countries has Iran invaded in the last 200 years? it's not even close, the Iranians trained a couple militia men and you act like that's the equivalent of killing millions of people and not to mention dropping nuclear bombs on cities. Iran never dropped nuclear bombs on cities but America sure has.

That's a terrible litmus test, especially since you're aware, I'm sure, that for most of that 200 year period they were resisting colonization.

fanaskin_sl said:
This is Western propaganda designed to make you be complicit with attacking Iran and you bought it hook line and sinker

It wasn't propaganda, the very article YOU LINKED went into enough depth that you should have been able to see that it wasn't propaganda at all. There's a difference between translations that are in fact literal, and those that are not literal but seek to convey more of the original meaning. This is part of the reason why using Google Translate can be a PITA, andhttp://translationparty.comis able to exist in the first place. Add in the annoying habit in the Muslim world of people using indirect and misleading language and outright attempting not to even mention Israel by name, and it's no wonder that you end up with shit like this.

If you go back and read Joshua Teitelbaum's PDF listed in that article (http://www.jcpa.org/text/ahmadinejad2-words.pdf) you can see how Iranians took the actual meaning to be and transferred that to English themselves. And that is most likely why it was originally translated the way that it was, that wasn't an actual literal translation and rather was one that strayed from the literal and into the contextual. Sure, you can simply replace one word of Arabic (or Persian) with an English word but that really isn't translating, is it? A translator needs to communicate ideas and concepts, and sometimes rewording doesn't accomplish that.

And I'm not even getting into all the OTHER comments and quotes that I could easily bury you in that your article doesn't even try to explain. And don't EVEN try drop a"but he's a Jew, he's biased against Iran"on me LOL.

War with Syria

Log Wizard

Tranny Chaser

Well known agitator

Well known agitator

<WoW Guild Officer>

Millie's Staff Member

Well known agitator

<WoW Guild Officer>

Well known agitator

Pronouns: zie/zhem/zer

I got Tuco'd!

Pronouns: zie/zhem/zer

<WoW Guild Officer>

Well known agitator

<WoW Guild Officer>

Well known agitator

<WoW Guild Officer>

I got Tuco'd!

Well known agitator

<WoW Guild Officer>