World War 3, the way of downfall?

Publicado por Adamsm

I find it a little amusing that Syria seems to be the current boiling point over there....yet, the focus is on Iran? How does that work?

Publicado por 557473

This post was from a user who has deleted their account.

Publicado por MyTie

Denial of the Holocaust.
Stated desire to obliterate other countries.
Brutal dictatorship over their own citizens
Religious law over human rights

Need I go on? The insanity of the Iranian regime is not a subjective analysis, but a historical fact.

Just... leave them alone and it'll all work out? What have you been smoking?

Let's get through those one by one:

Denial of the Holocaust - everyone is entitled to their own opinion. While it is a weird thing to deny, nowhere it says that you have to accept Holocaust. You refuse to give gay people right to marry, does that make you insane?Ok, first of all: Do not put words in my mouth. You don't know what you are talking about. I think gay people have the right to marry, and would do everything I can to stop the regulation thereof, as long as I don't have to approve of homosexuality itself, even to the point to have a law that says "any consenting adult can marry any other consenting adult". Don't even try to bring this up because you don't know what you are talking about. I don't approve of homosexuality, however I don't approve of those that stand in their way. Stop trying to put words in my mouth. Secondly, there is an abundance of evidence supporting an EVENT that happened, the holocaust. How is it a matter of opinion that the holocaust didn't happen? How is it a matter of belief? This isn't some ethereal thing for which empirical evidence doesn't exist. There is a well documented event with a plethora of eye witnesses, video footage, photographs, bones, etc etc etc. Being "entitled to your opinion" is fine, but if my opinion is that 1 + 1 = 3, I am wrong. If I am willing to deny something as horrendous as the systematic murder of 6 million Jews, just because I don't like Jews, then that qualifies me as insane.Stated desire to obliterate other countries - Two things: First, I can say whatever I want, not the fact I will do it. Second, aside from potential WMD development, no steps are taken in direction of obliterating countries.Yes, aside from nuclear weapons, they haven't wiped Isreal off the map. Elephant in the room? Man behind the curtain? If we can just ignore how Iran is taking steps toward the ability to wipe Israel off the map, then yes, we see no steps that Iran is taking toward the ability to wipe Israel off the map. Good job on that debate point. Flawless.
Brutal dictatorship - well, hard to say anything against that one, but most countries went through that at some stage in their history. No matter, how lame it sounds, it is just a phase.Shruggary. It is not acceptable. It will likely change in the future, as most governments do, so how does that make the current state acceptable?Religious law - Again, your religious views are against gay marriage. Does that make you insane? Religion is established law that existed for centuries, when human rights are relatively new concepts, so not everyone is so open-minded to embrace concept straight away.My religious view is that homosexual marriage is wrong. My legal view is that homosexual marriage should not be illegal. You don't know anything about my beliefs. Having Sharia law, in which it is legal to beat you wives, and murder people for infactions against religion, has NOTHING.... NOTHING! to do with my beliefs about homosexuality. NOR IS THERE ANY RELATION BETWEEN THE TWO. I am here arguing against a brutal and horrible regime, and you are trying to draw parallels between me and THAT. How well do you think that sets with me? You better do a better job than this.

Edit:I find it a little amusing that Syria seems to be the current boiling point over there....yet, the focus is on Iran? How does that work?

You wrote it while I was typing. Oil is the word you are looking for. Same for Libya, other nations rushed in to resolve conflict, while no one real cares about Syria, because conflict in Libya (or Iran) will cause worldwide inflation that will cause supply shock in most economies spiraling them to death....

I care about Syria. People are dieing there. It needs to be stopped just as much as Iran. The amount I pay at the gas station is such a trivial thing when compared to human life. Don't you watch the news? Don't you see the actions at the UN? Don't you see the statements and efforts of the US government? How can you say that no one cares? Speak for yourself. Stop jumping on the "Hate America cause it wants oil" bandwagon, and think for yourself.

You are the only one I see who is shrugging off people dieing:Brutal dictatorship - well, hard to say anything against that one, but most countries went through that at some stage in their history. No matter, how lame it sounds, it is just a phase.Yeah. Very cute. Care to try again with these points? Maybe you should just call it a night.

Publicado por Adamsm

Publicado por MyTie

You may care about them MyTie, but America doesn't as their embassy closed yesterday as has multiple other countries. And now apparently, it's the Polish embassy who's going to assist any American citizens still in that hot bed.

How does this mean that the US doesn't care? So they, very wisely, closed their embassy, to avoid the hostage taking that often happens with embassies in war zones, especially US embassies and their high value diplomats.

Publicado por Adamsm

Not all of the countries believe in that line of thinking; there are still many who have the embassies open to assist any citizen stuck in the country and get them out.

Publicado por MyTie

Not all of the countries believe in that line of thinking; there are still many who have the embassies open to assist any citizen stuck in the country and get them out.

That's fantastic. I'm sure there is more to this than the US is abandoning its citizens because it doesn't care. Even ABC printed an angle of this news (took me 8 seconds to find, with 2 second internet latency) that shows that the US may be using its embassy closing as an attempt to put more pressure on the Syrian government to change course (source). Perhaps not as cut and dry as you thought? Perhaps they were like "lol no oil here, let them all die", and flew off to their golf courses and martinis?

Publicado por Adamsm

Hey, I never said it was about oil, just saying it's strange that they focus on Iran as a hot spot in the next couple of months, yet Syria is bubbling over right now.

Publicado por 557473

This post was from a user who has deleted their account.

Publicado por MyTie

@MyTie

When accusing you of that I was referring to this thread: http://www.wowhead.com/forums&topic=190191, maybe I misunderstood you, but to be fair, everyone in that thread did. But, I am willing to forget keep on-topic and non-persona, if you are willing to do so (my attack was caused by the fact that you accused my point as intoxicated nonsense).

On-Topic: Returning back to the Cold War point, USSR also stated that they want to obliterate capitalism as it exploits labor class and is inhumane. Capitalists are still around, while Soviet Empire is gone. There are surprisingly many similarities between opinion on USSR and opinion on Iran, although if much stronger USSR did not do that, then why Iran will do it? Why do people keep drawing paralels between Iran and other governments? This is unlike any other situation in history. The USSR was much more stable than Iran is.As for Syria, why did NATO jumped in as soon as UN and Arab League approved, while nothing like that happens in Syria, even though situations are so similar, that it seems like we just changed the names, but kept plot the same? I came to logical conclusion. And I never mentioned U.S. in that passage, I said many economies implying Europe, China, Japan and other oil-importers. Only ones benefiting from conflict in Libya or Iran are oil exporters (supply fall, prices rise) like Russia (no one likes them powerful), Iran (no one wants them to get the money for reasons discussed in this thread) and Arabian countries (which in one way or another support different Islamist terrorist groups). Therefore, resolving conflict in oil rich regions is crucial to maintain stability in the world, other places might just burn. It is cold, but fairly logical conclusion.
Fair enough. One big factor, that is related, is the Russia and America have the same goals in that. Russia and America do not have the same goals in Syria.

Publicado por 557473

This post was from a user who has deleted their account.

Publicado por MyTie

Why do people keep drawing paralels between Iran and other governments? This is unlike any other situation in history. The USSR was much more stable than Iran is.As for Syria, why did NATO jumped in as soon as UN and Arab League approved, while nothing like that happens in Syria, even though situations are so similar, that it seems like we just changed the names, but kept plot the same? I came to logical conclusion. And I never mentioned U.S. in that passage, I said many economies implying Europe, China, Japan and other oil-importers. Only ones benefiting from conflict in Libya or Iran are oil exporters (supply fall, prices rise) like Russia (no one likes them powerful), Iran (no one wants them to get the money for reasons discussed in this thread) and Arabian countries (which in one way or another support different Islamist terrorist groups). Therefore, resolving conflict in oil rich regions is crucial to maintain stability in the world, other places might just burn. It is cold, but fairly logical conclusion.
Fair enough. One big factor, that is related, is the Russia and America have the same goals in that. Russia and America do not have the same goals in Syria.

My last post for tonight, will be back tomorrow. But on-topic, imo, Iran is pretty close to Stalin's USSR. All the symptoms of Iran's insanity apply in some way (Dictatorship, Ignoring Human Rights, Fanaticism) and things did go out of hands back then, think about it.

As for Syria, I digged around for aftermath of Arab Spring and found this:
Libya (intervention) : http://www.cnn.com/2011/10/26/world/africa/libya-sharia/index.html, http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Latest-News-Wires/2011/1025/Sharia-law-to-be-main-source-of-legislation-in-Libya
Egypt (not intervention); http://egyptelections.carnegieendowment.org/2012/01/26/who-are-the-non-islamists-in-egypts-new-parliament

That is right. Instead of insane, but secular dictator's, we got Islamists running both places. While, we still have to see what is going to happen, my guess is that West realized that they have to pick between Islamists and Dictators, none are favorable on a first glance. Therefore, picking on Iran (both Islamist and Dictator) is much easier than making a choice in Syria. But, then again, this is just a theory, feel free to dispute it.

I don't think so. We have allies who are Islamic nations. I think it goes beyond that.

Publicado por gamerunknown

Well, I think the best strategy in the Middle East is complete nuclear disarmament. Which Hillary Clinton was meant to have supported, but she added a clause excluding Israel from the list. So it's not surprising that when two countries that have threatened first strikes have them more or less surrounded that they seek methods of defending themselves.

Publicado por ChairmanKaga

1. Most likely all, again my professor indicated that U.S had capability to shoot down most of USSR missiles, I doubt that Iran will be able at least match, so most likely all missiles will be shot down.

This assumes that Iran's final nuclear product will be deployed via missile.

The bigger fear with a non-trivial percentage of strategists was the Iran nutjobs handing off the bomb to even nuttier terrorists, to smuggle and deploy as they see fit. That fear is probably greatly reduced today, given the near-dismantling of the major terrorist networks, and the difficulty of transporting such a weapon covertly. But eventually someone will come along that's creative enough to try it, and our border and port security is dumb as bricks.

Another more tinfoil-hat scenario is using it as an EMP weapon. Why flatten a city when you can fire it straight up, airburst it, and send half the country back to the Stone Age? You'd collapse the US economy in one shot.

Publicado por 557473

This post was from a user who has deleted their account.

Publicado por Adamsm

and it is quite fixableOf course, to be completely fair, it costs massive amounts of money to fix it; let an EMP weapon explode over New York and you've just rendered anything with microchips in it completely unrepairable: that includes any of the new cars, subway trains, the new boats, the newer elevators(in other words, anything from 1950 on). There is a really good book called One Second After you should read; it's a pretty chilling depiction of what would happen in America if the enemy detonated EMP bombs over the country.

Publicado por 557473

This post was from a user who has deleted their account.

Publicado por ChairmanKaga

@Chairman Both are possibility but highly unlikely. With bomb scenario, it is pretty hard to execute, I would believe in this plan before 9/11, but after it, I don't think it is possible without investing outrageous amount of money in bribes, and I doubt that someone will take money and see his country burn in flames.

Oh, I don't disagree with that. I think the whole "terrorist nuke" thing is a line they fed us to instill fear of the terrorist bogeyman in America and make it easier to shove through crap like the Patriot Act. These guys watched too many bad sci-fi shows where any kid that took first-year college physics can build a nuclear bomb out of used car parts in his garage. Ridiculous.

But that doesn't mean a certifiably insane government like Iran or North Korea (the whole "axis of evil" thing was the one thing Bush got correct) wouldn't pass off nuclear material to terrorists for other uses. The whole "dirty bomb" scare is a far more plausible scenario. It wouldn't do much direct damage, but it would create panic and incur billions in cleanup costs. Fukushima Daiichi in Japan is an almost-equivalent event in terms of impact.

As for EMP, I doubt that this works well with ideology (which is more burn it down, not make them poor) and it is quite fixable, so but again it requires smuggling inside the country, which is a big problem.

There was a report I read -- and I don't remember where, it may have been one of those tinfoil hat sites like WorldNetDaily that got everything since 9/11 wrong but continue with endless fearmongering, so feel free to dismiss this -- that Iran was actually testing the feasibility of launching such a missile-based weapon from a small boat 25 to 40 miles off the coast that would evade detection. So smuggling across the border wouldn't necessarily be required.

True, it would be far more effective if they could detonate it 100 miles over North Dakota (the EMP radius would encompass the entire continental US at that point), but even partial coverage (especially on the East Coast) would be plenty to bring this country to its knees. Our country is practically there already with its own self-inflicted economic wounds. It just needs a nudge over the cliff.

Publicado por 557473

This post was from a user who has deleted their account.

Publicado por MyTie

a line they fed us to instill fear of the terrorist bogeyman in America

I think that terrorism has been used by politicians for political gain, and unnecessarily invasive legislation. However, your insinuation is that the terrorism isn't real, as if it is just a bogeyman. That's the other end of the spectrum from the politician who uses the fear to his advantage. There isn't NOTHING to fear, but there isn't EVERYTHING to fear.

World War 3, the way of downfall?

Escribir respuesta