Iranians in Space

[snoopy369]

Yes.

Firing a rocket into space is the same thing as firing an ICBM at a country. Really.

What?

US, China, France, etc. have fired rockets into space. (Fact.)
Firing a rocket into space is the same thing as firing an ICBM at a country (According to Kuci.)

Therefore, according to Kuci, all of the above named countries should be tried for war crimes, for the equivalent of firing rockets at countries without provocation.

My point is that it does not matter if firing a rocket is the technical equivalent of firing an ICBM. It matters simply that it is not an aggressive act; it is a quite reasonable act for a first world country to undertake. We cannot simply say "Iran is going to develop ICBMs and fire them at people" without some proof that they actually are going to do that. Didn't we learn anything from the Iraq/WMD disaster? Anything?

[snoopy369]

Of course we do; we have the power and desire to do so. There's no logical reason to assign moral rights to states.

That is true for other states. For your own state [where you have control over its actions to some degree], that is NOT true. Your state must act morally, by your own standards at least. If not, we might as well go back to the medieval ages; at least there, the kings were expected to behave morally (even if they failed to do so sometimes).

Regardless, I put forth the argument that it is in our own best interest to treat Iran like a first world nation. The only reason they are belligerent is that we push them in ways that encourage the belligerent, immature element in their state to have greater power. Many - perhaps even most - in Iran are perfectly normal, reasonable people; if we give them a reason to believe in the world as WE envision it (peacefully), they will gravitate towards that idea. At present, our policy is basically to alienate the people of Iran at every juncture, further entrenching in power the negative elements of their society, and proving their arguments right [that the West will never allow Iran to be a successful nation]. In order to overcome that, and build a peaceful democracy in Iran, we must allow Iran to be a successful nation.

This is your problem. The rest of us actually care whether Iran can bombard us with missiles, esp. ones that could carry the nuclear weapons they want.

As could Russia since the 1950s, as could China, as could France, as could Pakistan. Yet... they don't. Funny, that... nuclear weapons seem to actually make people act MORE reasonable.

We're just afraid that if they get said weapons, they might be able to make US act reasonable... isn't that terrible...

[Kuciwalker]

US, China, France, etc. have fired rockets into space. (Fact.)
Firing a rocket into space is the same thing as firing an ICBM at a country (According to Kuci.)

Therefore, according to Kuci, all of the above named countries should be tried for war crimes, for the equivalent of firing rockets at countries without provocation.

Oh my god, you can't really be this stupid. Your original complaint was that we should wait until they actually build and fire ballistic missiles to start thinking about countering them; I pointed out that THEY JUST BUILT AND FIRED A BALLISTIC MISSILE.

My point is that it does not matter if firing a rocket is the technical equivalent of firing an ICBM. It matters simply that it is not an aggressive act; it is a quite reasonable act for a first world country to undertake. We cannot simply say "Iran is going to develop ICBMs and fire them at people" without some proof that they actually are going to do that. Didn't we learn anything from the Iraq/WMD disaster? Anything?

What we learned from the Iraq/WMD disaster was to be a lot more careful when determining whether a country actually has weapons we don't want them to have. Given that Iran just demonstrated that irrefutably to the ENTIRE WORLD, your argument would imply that we should invade them now.

[Naked Gents Rut]

I don't give a rat's *** as to whether Iran has the capability to send an ICBM into space.

I declare thee to be a ******, then.

The best way to get Iran to behave like a mature state is to treat them that way - just like the best way to get a 16 year old to act like an adult is to treat them that way.

Wow. Double ****.

[snoopy369]

Oh my god, you can't really be this stupid. Your original complaint was that we should wait until they actually build and fire ballistic missiles to start thinking about countering them; I pointed out that THEY JUST BUILT AND FIRED A BALLISTIC MISSILE.

AT someone. I said until they fired a missile AT someone. They did not do that.

What we learned from the Iraq/WMD disaster was to be a lot more careful when determining whether a country actually has weapons we don't want them to have. Given that Iran just demonstrated that irrefutably to the ENTIRE WORLD, your argument would imply that we should invade them now.

What we SHOULD have learned, is not to push our weight around just because we can; but rather to save it for when we actually need to. Why does 'we don't want them to have [weapons]' matter? We don't want ANYONE to have weapons; that way we could boss everyone else around. That's morally absurd. If they behave as a reasonable state, we should do ... nothing. And so far, they haven't done anything tangible that suggests they are not going to behave reasonably. I don't think anyone in Washington seriously believes they are going to start launching missiles at Israel any time soon; and I certainly don't believe that. Iran developing missiles does little more than evening the balance of power in the middle east, which has been in the direction of Israel far too long. The other countries in the area can't feel comfortable until they're on par militarily with Israel (and therefore don't have to worry about Israel's aggression).

I'm just tired of being in a country full of hypocritical actors, and further, hypocrites calling OTHER people hypocrites for doing precisely the same thing (so, hypocritical hypocrites?). National self-determination is either valuable, or not; if it's valuable, then Iran has that same right, so long as they don't act to deny another nation its self determination. Any limitation to them [until they have proven otherwise] is simply hypocritical.

[Imran Siddiqui]

South Africa had three nukes but gave them up right before the white only government feel. The white power guys apparently didn't like the idea of blacks with nukes.

Considering that it was de Klerk who also ended the nuclear program, I'm betting it wasn't because he was scared of blacks with nukes.

[Kuciwalker]

AT someone. I said until they fired a missile AT someone. They did not do that.

... we should wait for them to actually shoot at someone before we try to stop it from happening?

Yeah, double ****.

[Zkribbler]

... we should wait for them to actually shoot at someone before we try to stop it from happening?

Yeah, double ****.

I agree with Kuci. We should launch massive pre-emptive nuclear strikes against any country we think might launch an attack sometime in the future and reduce it to a radioactive wasteland.

[Naked Gents Rut]

This thread makes me glad that California is the American state with the highest probability of getting nuked by a rogue state in the next decade. At least the dumbasses will bear the brunt of the reckoning for their dumabassness.

[snoopy369]

... we should wait for them to actually shoot at someone before we try to stop it from happening?

We should wait until we have some concrete evidence they are going to shoot at someone, at the very least. Not doing that is what got us into Iraq, after all.

[Patroklos]

2. Hold them to the same standards as everyone else

I am pretty sure the standard for actively and openly supplying arms and financial support to people like Hezbollah and Hams = economic sanctions, arms embargos and consternation about what a state sponsor of terror will do with nukes.

Somehow I think categorizing Iran as a theocracy centered around a doomsday cult misses certain important details, like 'truth' and 'accuracy'.

Are you denying that Iran is a theocracy and its leaders are members of a religious group actively trying to bring about the end of the world?

I've no problem with minimum standards such as "don't kill people arbitrarily", but even that has to be defined carefully

Well then again as Iran is an admitted sponsor of Hezbollah and Hamas, you should be all about the restictions currently enforced on Iran.

at what point will the EU start considering the US a rogue state because of the death penalty, after all.

How could the US application of the death penalty in any way be categorized as arbitrary?

The best way to get Iran to behave like a mature state is to treat them that way

The best way to be treated like a mature state is to act that way.

just like the best way to get a 16 year old to act like an adult is to treat them that way

Actually, thats how you get spoiled brats who take things for granted.

[DaShi]

This thread makes me glad that California is the American state with the highest probability of getting nuked by a rogue state in the next decade. At least the dumbasses will bear the brunt of the reckoning for their dumabassness.

And NYC

[Unimatrix11]

I agree with you snoopy. Just one objection: I doubt, that Iran´s vision is to be like the west. I actually think that´s the base of the problem. It does not, for example, want to open it´s trade for western corps completely. Big issue for the west. And even when western corps are allowed to invest there, their investment is not regarded as being save, since in Iran it is actually imaginable, that they confiscate it all, when they think it´s best for their people.

I also think the ´theocracity´ of Iran is somewhat overestimated. AFAIK, they have pretty much a democratic constitution (and not only on paper) with the addition of a religiuos council that can veto every law. In that sense, this religious council pretty much resembles the position of the president in the federal republic of germany. It´s a final hurdle, a last safeguard, to ensure, that immoral laws can not be passed. Actually it happened just a year or two ago in germany, where the president vetoed a law that had passed all parliamentary hurdles before - and about everyone repected him for that.

He may do that, when he thinks the law is uncostitutional. In Iran, they do it, when they think the law is ´un-muslim´. Both are, in a sense, moral codeci. I dont have an issue with them having a different morale base to check against, esp. since islam is not all about djihad and suicide bombing as we are sometimes made to believe... It´s on par with christianity and far less corrupted. If some people actually read the bible, a few might realize, just how unchristian the very fundaments of our societies are and see at least some of the morale hazards each of us unintentionally fall pray to each and every day. I dare to suggest, that had we had a final check instituion on the morality of changes to society, a lot of things might look quite different today, and not all for the worst.

[Saras]

--"they have pretty much a democratic constitution (and not only on paper) with the addition of a religiuos council that can veto every law"




That's like saying France of Louis XV was democratic.

[Patroklos]

In that sense, this religious council pretty much resembles the position of the president in the federal republic of germany.

Except that council is not democratically elected. You are admitting a non democratic entity has supreme power to veto anything it wants. Even in its farse of a democratic process all candidates require approval to run in the first place. How does that pass as democracy?