Count down to Iran invasion - page 13.

P4man

hero member

Activity: 518

Merit: 500

Quote from: Hawker on January 25, 2012, 02:28:55 PM

You seem to be all over the place here. The Iranian regime depends on massive coercion to remain in power. It lives in fear of Iranians and all of its actions should be seen thorugh the prisim of a group of people who know they would be lynched if the general public had its way.

That is an unstable regime.

Thats the most ridiculous definition of unstable I ever heard. By your logic, China is extremely unstable, Saudi Arabia is one of the least stable countries in the world, while Pakistan would be fairly stable.
really Huh

BTW, I think you are wrong about the level of resistance against the Iranian regime. Its not the most popular government in the world, but certainly not the most hated either. Its far more popular than the Saudi or Bahreini dictatorships for sure.

Quote

And thanks for reinforcing my point earlier - its neighbours are unstable as well. Its an unstable region.

Unstable to me, means risk of violent conflict. Absent a military action by the US or Israel, I see no such threat whatsoever. Iran is at peace with its neighbors and has been for decades (aside from Iraq, thats fairly recent). The only thing that really makes the region so unstable is US and Israel.

Quote

why are you banging on about it being so stable?

You tell me, you brought up stability up as a reason somehow for denying Iran their sovereign rights?

Hawker

legendary

Activity: 1218

Merit: 1001

Quote from: P4man on January 25, 2012, 12:05:45 PM

Quote from: Hawker on January 25, 2012, 11:55:18 AM

Whats unstable about Iran is that it's regime relies on killing its opposition leaders and on vast numbers of its own people, sometimes over 100 per day, in order to retain power

Oh. So that makes Saudi Arabia, Bahrein, Russia, China and a gazillion other countries also "unstable" then?
I never said Iran was a model democracy. Even though it actually is compared to most US allies in the region, but it isnt by any sensible definition. What does that have to do with stability, or for that matter, this topic?

You seem to be all over the place here. The Iranian regime depends on massive coercion to remain in power. It lives in fear of Iranians and all of its actions should be seen thorugh the prisim of a group of people who know they would be lynched if the general public had its way.

That is an unstable regime. And thanks for reinforcing my point earlier - its neighbours are unstable as well. Its an unstable region.

The bigger question is why you care? What makes it so important for you to believe that the Iranian regime is a stable popular government? Whether or not it gets nukes it nothing to do with the stability of the regime so why are you banging on about it being so stable?

P4man

hero member

Activity: 518

Merit: 500

Quote from: Hawker on January 25, 2012, 11:55:18 AM

Whats unstable about Iran is that it's regime relies on killing its opposition leaders and on vast numbers of its own people, sometimes over 100 per day, in order to retain power

Oh. So that makes Saudi Arabia, Bahrein, Russia, China and a gazillion other countries also "unstable" then?
I never said Iran was a model democracy. Even though it actually is compared to most US allies in the region, but it isnt by any sensible definition. What does that have to do with stability, or for that matter, this topic?

Hawker

legendary

Activity: 1218

Merit: 1001

Quote from: P4man on January 25, 2012, 11:45:26 AM

Quote from: Hawker on January 25, 2012, 11:38:50 AM

What I said was "The US and most of the rest of the world think that Iran is an unstable country in an unstable region ... "

Be fair - thats absolutely true.

What is unstable about Iran? Its been the same regime for 30+ years. The only war it has been involved in, has been a defensive one against a US sponsored invasion by Iraq. There are some protest, but quite frankly, possibly less so then there are in the US. Whats unstable about Iran? Its not because the US tries everything it can to destabilize the regime that its working. It isnt.

Whats unstable about Iran is that it's regime relies on killing its opposition leaders and on vast numbers of its own people, sometimes over 100 per day, in order to retain power.

If you are really interested in this, look at the leader of the so called moderates in Iran who led the attempted "green revolution."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mir-Hossein_Mousavi#Prime_ministership

In 1987, he was in power and his security forces executed over 20,000 people in a 5 month period. I wrote to him at the time pleading for someone's release (I'm in Amnesty International) but the guy was dead before my letter was even posted.

That's the idea of a "moderate" in an unstable country.

P4man

hero member

Activity: 518

Merit: 500

Quote from: Hawker on January 25, 2012, 11:38:50 AM

What I said was "The US and most of the rest of the world think that Iran is an unstable country in an unstable region ... "

Be fair - thats absolutely true.

What is unstable about Iran? Its been the same regime for 30+ years. The only war it has been involved in, has been a defensive one against a US sponsored invasion by Iraq. There are some protest, but quite frankly, possibly less so then there are in the US. Whats unstable about Iran? Its not because the US tries everything it can to destabilize the regime that its working. It isnt.

Hawker

legendary

Activity: 1218

Merit: 1001

Quote from: P4man on January 25, 2012, 10:09:08 AM

Quote from: Hawker on January 25, 2012, 08:07:48 AM

P4man - when I said the world would be better off if the crackpot countries in the Middle East didn't have nukes, how come you are so sure that Israel is an exception?

You said "the US thinks..". Have any evidence that US wants Israel to dismantle its nuclear arsenal?

What I said was "The US and most of the rest of the world think that Iran is an unstable country in an unstable region ... "

Be fair - thats absolutely true.

memvola

hero member

Activity: 938

Merit: 1002

Quote from: P4man on January 25, 2012, 10:09:08 AM

Quote from: Hawker on January 25, 2012, 08:07:48 AM

P4man - when I said the world would be better off if the crackpot countries in the Middle East didn't have nukes, how come you are so sure that Israel is an exception?

You said "the US thinks..". Have any evidence that US wants Israel to dismantle its nuclear arsenal?

LOL. molecular also has a fair point.

Everyone is fed up with the US and Israel and the bullshit arena they engineered. I don't have an opinion either way, but it's just as possible that nukes might bring peace and prosperity to the region if the western world feels threatened enough to stop fucking with them. Though there are many levels of fucking with, so it is also possible that they successfully ignite nuclear war in the region by giving nukes to their preferred regimes, like when they sold WMD's to Saddam back in the day (which is I guess is Hawker's position?).

P4man

hero member

Activity: 518

Merit: 500

Quote from: Hawker on January 25, 2012, 08:07:48 AM

P4man - when I said the world would be better off if the crackpot countries in the Middle East didn't have nukes, how come you are so sure that Israel is an exception?

You said "the US thinks..". Have any evidence that US wants Israel to dismantle its nuclear arsenal?

Hawker

legendary

Activity: 1218

Merit: 1001

P4man - when I said the world would be better off if the crackpot countries in the Middle East didn't have nukes, how come you are so sure that Israel is an exception?

P4man

hero member

Activity: 518

Merit: 500

Oh it seems the entire poll is actually linked at the bottom of the website I linked. I highly recommend everyone to look at it, it may help many of you to better understand Arab sentiment.

Anyway, here is one I was referring to, and that should catch your eye when you call Iran an international pariah; while their puppet regimes may tell you differently, arabs themselves disagree:

P4man

hero member

Activity: 518

Merit: 500

Quote from: Hawker on January 25, 2012, 05:22:02 AM

The US and most of the rest of the world think that Iran is an unstable country in an unstable region and that it would be a bad idea for all the countries in that region to have nuclear weapons to threaten each other with. Its a fair point.

So you think its a better idea to allow only one nation to ignore non proliferation treaties, have nukes and threaten its neighbors with it? Not just any nation, one of the only remaining apartheid regimes, a terrorist sponsoring state ran by warmongering crackpots that actually are crazy enough to use it offensively.

I saw a poll a while ago held in the middle east region about the issue. Almost no one there considers Iran a threat to stability or peace, quite on the contrary. Overwhelmingly they see Israel and the US as a threat to peace and stability. When asked if they would consider the region more or less dangerous if Iran acquired nukes, the majority now say it would be positive, even in Sunni states, go figure. Here, I only found these key findings:

http://www.brookings.edu/reports/2010/0805_arab_opinion_poll_telhami.aspx

Quote

I don't think Iran can be stopped

They have been stopped from developing nukes, if ever they did, nearly a decade ago. Why doesnt anyone listen to US intelligence agencies when they say something diametrically opposite of warmongering and lying politicians and media? Go read the national intelligence estimate.

Hawker

legendary

Activity: 1218

Merit: 1001

If by "unstable" I meant US controlled, I would have said US controlled. I said unstable region as in one that is constantly having wars and revolutions and where the governments have a total disregard for the human rights of their subjects.

molecular

donator

Activity: 2772

Merit: 1019

Quote from: Hawker on January 25, 2012, 05:22:02 AM

Quote from: Hunterbunter on January 25, 2012, 01:17:23 AM

Quote from: kinghajj on January 23, 2012, 05:49:28 PM

Quote from: Hunterbunter on January 20, 2012, 03:46:45 AM

Hold on...is there even any oil in Iran?

Can't tell if serious or not, but Iran has an estimated fourth largest supply of oil, and second largest supply of natural gas. If you combine these, it's the most abundant source of hydrocarbons in the world. The US's issue with Iran is over theater dominance (the real reason we don't want them to have a nuke) and privileged access to energy resources (which we're competing with China for.)

Partly serious

What do you mean about the dominance? Does the US think it's actually got weapons? so it's honest to god and everything that ever was anything not just about control of the oil supply?

The US and most of the rest of the world think that Iran is an unstable country in an unstable region and that it would be a bad idea for all the countries in that region to have nuclear weapons to threaten each other with. Its a fair point. I don't think Iran can be stopped because it has a history of being pushed around by the US and the UK and it sees nukes as the only way to guarantee its sovereignty. But if and when they do get the nukes, a lot of other crackpot regimes will be after them too and that is a bad thing.

translation: "unstable region" == "region not under our control".

If the US/west hadn't been fucking about with the region for such a long time, this would probably be one of the most prosperous and stable regions of the world, maybe even a working example of democracy the western nations could use as a model to clean up their shit.

Hawker

legendary

Activity: 1218

Merit: 1001

Quote from: Hunterbunter on January 25, 2012, 01:17:23 AM

Quote from: kinghajj on January 23, 2012, 05:49:28 PM

Quote from: Hunterbunter on January 20, 2012, 03:46:45 AM

Hold on...is there even any oil in Iran?

Can't tell if serious or not, but Iran has an estimated fourth largest supply of oil, and second largest supply of natural gas. If you combine these, it's the most abundant source of hydrocarbons in the world. The US's issue with Iran is over theater dominance (the real reason we don't want them to have a nuke) and privileged access to energy resources (which we're competing with China for.)

Partly serious

What do you mean about the dominance? Does the US think it's actually got weapons? so it's honest to god and everything that ever was anything not just about control of the oil supply?

The US and most of the rest of the world think that Iran is an unstable country in an unstable region and that it would be a bad idea for all the countries in that region to have nuclear weapons to threaten each other with. Its a fair point. I don't think Iran can be stopped because it has a history of being pushed around by the US and the UK and it sees nukes as the only way to guarantee its sovereignty. But if and when they do get the nukes, a lot of other crackpot regimes will be after them too and that is a bad thing.

Hunterbunter

hero member

Activity: 994

Merit: 1000

Quote from: kinghajj on January 23, 2012, 05:49:28 PM

Quote from: Hunterbunter on January 20, 2012, 03:46:45 AM

Hold on...is there even any oil in Iran?

Can't tell if serious or not, but Iran has an estimated fourth largest supply of oil, and second largest supply of natural gas. If you combine these, it's the most abundant source of hydrocarbons in the world. The US's issue with Iran is over theater dominance (the real reason we don't want them to have a nuke) and privileged access to energy resources (which we're competing with China for.)

Partly serious

What do you mean about the dominance? Does the US think it's actually got weapons? so it's honest to god and everything that ever was anything not just about control of the oil supply?

TECSHARE

legendary

Activity: 3318

Merit: 2008

First Exclusion Ever

Holy crap! Some one actually got Hawker to STFU. I'm impressed.

kinghajj

member

Activity: 66

Merit: 10

Quote from: Hunterbunter on January 20, 2012, 03:46:45 AM

Hold on...is there even any oil in Iran?

Can't tell if serious or not, but Iran has an estimated fourth largest supply of oil, and second largest supply of natural gas. If you combine these, it's the most abundant source of hydrocarbons in the world. The US's issue with Iran is over theater dominance (the real reason we don't want them to have a nuke) and privileged access to energy resources (which we're competing with China for.)

Fakeman

full member

Activity: 154

Merit: 100

Unless I'm mistaken, asking whether "anyone (is) taking bets" on X is not the same as actually making a bet with someone. For example:

Person A: Is anyone taking bets that Michael Jackson will be dead by the end of 2012?
Person B: I accept your bet in the amount of one million dollars. Since he's already dead, you lose and you owe me one million dollars.

Since A never actually accepted B's wager of a million dollars, there was no actual bet made.

Hawker

legendary

Activity: 1218

Merit: 1001

Quote from: Eveofwar on January 20, 2012, 03:23:02 PM

Quote from: Hawker on January 20, 2012, 02:54:36 AM

Quote from: Eveofwar on January 19, 2012, 06:12:09 PM

...snip...

Maybe you should word your bets better before you place them, instead of backing out when you lose.

Maybe you should think more clearly? Why would anyone bet that troops suddenly stop being moved about?

3 months since the OP warned us and still the US hasn't even moved troops into staging areas let alone prepped an invasion of Iran.

Anyone taking bets on this still being the case in 3 more months ?

1. If you want to take this bet, the US will have "prepped" the invasion of Iran as it did Iraq and
2. the US will be moving several hundred thousand men into countries that share borders with Iran along with the kit needed for an invasion.

Clear enough?

In the example you gave, the US has not even suggested that an invasion is possible and the men in Kuwait would have to invade Iraq before they invade Iran. I don't believe that qualifies but if I am proven wrong, I'm more than happy to eat crow and pay you 10 BTC. If these men have not invaded Iran in 3 months, I have no doubt that you will be sending me 10 btc.

There you go, play the ambiguity in your favor now. Wink

Fair point. I think we are in broad agreement about the main subject so would like to stop bickering with you...peace out.

Eveofwar

sr. member

Activity: 406

Merit: 250

Quote from: Hawker on January 20, 2012, 02:54:36 AM

Quote from: Eveofwar on January 19, 2012, 06:12:09 PM

...snip...

Maybe you should word your bets better before you place them, instead of backing out when you lose.

Maybe you should think more clearly? Why would anyone bet that troops suddenly stop being moved about?

3 months since the OP warned us and still the US hasn't even moved troops into staging areas let alone prepped an invasion of Iran.

Anyone taking bets on this still being the case in 3 more months ?

1. If you want to take this bet, the US will have "prepped" the invasion of Iran as it did Iraq and
2. the US will be moving several hundred thousand men into countries that share borders with Iran along with the kit needed for an invasion.

Clear enough?

In the example you gave, the US has not even suggested that an invasion is possible and the men in Kuwait would have to invade Iraq before they invade Iran. I don't believe that qualifies but if I am proven wrong, I'm more than happy to eat crow and pay you 10 BTC. If these men have not invaded Iran in 3 months, I have no doubt that you will be sending me 10 btc.

There you go, play the ambiguity in your favor now. Wink

Topic: Count down to Iran invasion - page 13. (Read 41927 times)