Politics & Stuff

[Mundaka 243]

Your quote:

"It's funny how most people so quickly believe that those who oppose them politically are the root of all evil. If you really think there are people who sit around planning the destruction of the world and torture of innocent people just for the heck of it then you really need to cut down on watching cartoons!"

Mundaka, on 20 Mar 2013 - 20:13, said:

So you dont think there's something like terrorism, nuclear treats from iran/n korea,..?

CHOULO19, on 20 Mar 2013 - 20:26, said:

Funny how you mention Iran first when they don't even have a nuclear weapon yet while the countries with the most nuclear heads in the world, i.e Israel and the US don't make your list..

Anyway, my point is that no one starts a wars, kills people and creates nuclear weapons because he wants to be a super villain. Every country has been through its own circumstances in history that has created a certain mentality and belief that forces to act in they way it does atm. Ultimately everyone just wants power and what's in his best interest and each tries to get that in his own way.

CHOULO19, on 20 Mar 2013 - 23:20, said:

There's nothing wrong with not knowing, but just don't be so defensive about your opinions if they are not based on many facts. I'll gladly discuss anything with you if you are open minded even if you do not know much about the subject. But I have to ask, why do you want a discussion about something you don't know or care about?

I didn't start this discussion, i was just asking you a question why you thought , and quoting you again:

"If you really think there are people who sit around planning the destruction of the world and torture of innocent people just for the heck of it then you really need to cut down on watching cartoons!"

Which was more a general question instead of one about a specific war.

"but just don't be so defensive"

Ive not been defensive... or at least didn't intend to, you are being the defensive one

[CHOULO19 24,332]

  On 20/03/2013 at 22:44, Mundaka said:

you are being the defensive one

I was, and it's because I can't help but feel strongly about some of the stuff in there. I apologize.

[Mundaka 243]

And well i like to discuss about things, hear about different opinions, reflective reasoning about beliefs and actions with people from around the globe is why i dont mind discussing this.

[Mundaka 243]

  On 20/03/2013 at 22:21, CHOULO19 said:

It was not only the Soviet union threatening. It was the cold war. It was the US vs the Soviets and both were involved in the nuclear threatening. For about thirty years people all over the world lived with the possibility that a nuclear war could ignite any day. There were nuclear shelters all over America and Europe. I'm pretty sure you still have some in Belgium. It was not a distant possibility. Everyone back then was convinced that it was only a matter of time. In fact, most historians would tell you know that the world escaped a global nuclear war by luck more than anything.

For example, the 1963 Cuba crisis came about as a result of the soviets wanting to build nuclear missiles in Cuba because the US and allies had nuclear missiles in Europe near Russia. Everyone knew that that would ignite a nuclear war, except it miraculously did not.

In 1983, a soviet emergency detection station detected a US nuclear missile heading towards Russia. The soviet union almost launched a nuclear attack in return but the commander of the station decided that it was a false alarm even though that had never happened. That is how close we were to a nuclear world war 3. If that officer was in a different mood, history would have been drastically changed.

And there are many other close calls.

Like I said, I think it's actually good that you don't about all this, and if you want my advice, don't learn about them. You can afford to not know and fear politics, other people in other countries can't.

Yeh well the general stuff about the cold war i know more or less (it's pretty vague i learned about it in highschool , but well i didn't know it came that close to a nuclear war.

But i think the US wouldn't have attacked russia, it was more of a big boy's action to show their muscle i think... kinda like the "war" between the sovjet and US to be first on the moon. Also they would've lost Europe's support with such an action if they would initiate something like that, doubt they wouldve found that worth it.

Thanks for the intel by the way!

[TorontoChelsea 4,064]

The threat of nuclear was was very real. Sure, some of it was to stoke fear, but there were always hawks on both sides willing to risk everything. Here's the end to one of my favourite movies of all time...what very well might have been.

[Blue-in-me-Veins 4,067]

Iran will get a nuclear weapon, I just see it becoming a reality. We didn't want N.Korea, we didn't want Russia, we didn't want Pakistan, etc. etc. but they all got it in the end. Of course all of those countries have been smart enough not to use them but with Iran, i honestly just don't know.

Iran is just......iran. i would and i honestly mean it, would like to believe that they would not fire a nuclear weapon even if they got one, but with them, they have geography on their side.

If they attack America (well not America but Israel or Europe) everyone else besides Israel would be so reluctant to full on attack them, because Iran controls the Straight of Hormuz. All the oil that we need flows from there and i remember reading (will look it up later) how its position is so unique that it'd be hard to attack and not affect not only the oil reserves Iran has but the flow of the oil from that Straight (for Iran will just stop sending Oil either our way or all at once). And Lord knows what happens when the Supply of Oil goes whack as is evident with those OPEC nation a while back. Business stop investing, less production from companies, less production=fewer workers and the economy takes a major major hit. Next thing you know we're sliding down into another recession.

So for those reasons i can see why we're hell bent on them not getting a nuclear weapon. No other country has staged as much of a great economical threat as Iran.

Wonder how it will all play out.

[Guest FullEnglishBreakfast]

  On 20/03/2013 at 21:27, CHOULO19 said:

The Cuban missile crisis? The nuclear war that nearly happened in 1983?

You know what? I actually think the world is better off with people who believe as you do, so let's leave the subject here..

I don't think JFK was president during the 80s...or that Cuban Missile Crisis occurred then either.

[Flemishblue 61]

  On 21/03/2013 at 03:41, Blue-in-me-Veins said:

Iran will get a nuclear weapon, I just see it becoming a reality. We didn't want N.Korea, we didn't want Russia, we didn't want Pakistan, etc. etc. but they all got it in the end. Of course all of those countries have been smart enough not to use them but with Iran, i honestly just don't know.

Iran is just......iran. i would and i honestly mean it, would like to believe that they would not fire a nuclear weapon even if they got one, but with them, they have geography on their side.

What's so different about iran? They are religious fundamentalist but, and I'm not saying this to provoke you, so is Israel and so was your last president. I could have easily imagined him launching a pre-emptive nuclear strike and then justifying it by using the god word an awful lot..

[CHOULO19 24,332]

  On 21/03/2013 at 04:22, FullEnglishBreakfast said:

I don't think JFK was president during the 80s...or that Cuban Missile Crisis occurred then either.

I was referring to two different incidents:

  On 20/03/2013 at 22:21, CHOULO19 said:

For example, the 1963 Cuba crisis came about as a result of the soviets wanting to build nuclear missiles in Cuba because the US and allies had nuclear missiles in Europe near Russia. Everyone knew that that would ignite a nuclear war, except it miraculously did not.

In 1983, a soviet emergency detection station detected a US nuclear missile heading towards Russia. The soviet union almost launched a nuclear attack in return but the commander of the station decided that it was a false alarm even though that had never happened. That is how close we were to a nuclear world war 3. If that officer was in a different mood, history would have been drastically changed.

  On 21/03/2013 at 03:41, Blue-in-me-Veins said:

Iran will get a nuclear weapon, I just see it becoming a reality. We didn't want N.Korea, we didn't want Russia, we didn't want Pakistan, etc. etc. but they all got it in the end. Of course all of those countries have been smart enough not to use them but with Iran, i honestly just don't know.

Iran is just......iran. i would and i honestly mean it, would like to believe that they would not fire a nuclear weapon even if they got one, but with them, they have geography on their side.

If they attack America (well not America but Israel or Europe) everyone else besides Israel would be so reluctant to full on attack them, because Iran controls the Straight of Hormuz. All the oil that we need flows from there and i remember reading (will look it up later) how its position is so unique that it'd be hard to attack and not affect not only the oil reserves Iran has but the flow of the oil from that Straight (for Iran will just stop sending Oil either our way or all at once). And Lord knows what happens when the Supply of Oil goes whack as is evident with those OPEC nation a while back. Business stop investing, less production from companies, less production=fewer workers and the economy takes a major major hit. Next thing you know we're sliding down into another recession.

So for those reasons i can see why we're hell bent on them not getting a nuclear weapon. No other country has staged as much of a great economical threat as Iran.

Wonder how it will all play out.

Let me ask you this for the sake of the discussion: How much do you know about the Iranian ideology? What would make Iran so different than other nuclear countries? And finally, what do you think gives only some countries the right to have a nuclear weapon?

[Fulham Broadway 17,101]

I have written about Iran on here before, I graduated in international politics amongst other things.

The US created the unstable Iranian state as it is now.

In 1951 Iran nationalised its oil, and the democratically elected leader Mossadech? was respected and loved by the Iranian people, all was peaceful. This is important to remember.

The US and UK wanted the oil and organised a coup against Mossadeq with literally a few agents and the Eisenhower and Churchill govts instilled the Shah of Iran -a stooge who was given immense personal wealth in return for oil and minerals for the US and UK.-just as the Arab leaders in Kuwait Saudi, Jordan etc are now. Basic imperialism at work as usual.

The Shah not to mince words was a complete cunt and had secret police, torturers etc backed by the US and UK to supress any dissidents.

Its no surprise that there was a religous revolution then in 1979 and various nutcases have taken the mantle since of leadership in Iran, It is also no surprise that they are deeply suspicious of the US and UK and have a lot of resentment. As an example there was the Museum of Arrogance in Tehran, (I kid you not) which had all things US in it, bits of missiles, MacDonalds etc.

Lets not forget the Iranian people have suffered in all this and deserve better.

[The only place to be 11,313]

  On 21/03/2013 at 08:58, Flemishblue said:

What's so different about iran? They are religious fundamentalist but, and I'm not saying this to provoke you, so is Israel and so was your last president. I could have easily imagined him launching a pre-emptive nuclear strike and then justifying it by using the god word an awful lot..

Bush might be religious (fundamentalist even) but he's also a capitalist and capitalism is predictable. War may well be profitable, but nuclear war isn't ergo it's not a prudent course to take.

Is it fair to say that Iran has leaders who follow a different ideology? That's perhaps why we in the West are loathe to let them develop nuclear weapons. Their ideology is far less predictable.

[CHOULO19 24,332]

  On 21/03/2013 at 12:51, Fulham Broadway said:

Its no surprise that there was a religous revolution then in 1979

A minor note, the revolution was not religious until after it ended. The people that rebelled included communists, Christians, Jews...etc Iran is a country full of diverse religions, beliefs and ideologies.

  On 21/03/2013 at 12:58, The only place to be said:

Bush might be religious (fundamentalist even) but he's also a capitalist and capitalism is predictable. War may well be profitable, but nuclear war isn't ergo it's not a prudent course to take.

Is it fair to say that Iran has leaders who follow a different ideology? That's perhaps why we in the West are loathe to let them develop nuclear weapons. Their ideology is far less predictable.

By that same reasoning you should be more worried about the American nuclear weapons. The post-revolution Iran is a state that made big enemies by it's mere existence. Enemies like the US and Israel that have a lot of Nuclear weapons. And like you said, they will use them if it is profitable like it was in Japan. Now imagine for the sake of the discussion an Iran that had the current strong military but no nuclear plants or plans to make nuclear weapons. If that Iran does go to war with Israel, what is stopping Israel and the US from using nuclear weapons against Iran? They already have half the world convinced that Iran is the devil and they already commit or arm and finance equally horrendous crimes all over the world on a regular basis (surely you've heard about the Syrian "rebels" using chemical weapons on cities in Syria this week).

On the other hand, who will Iran use their nuclear weapons on? The US? First they don't have the missiles to reach the US and second they would have written their death verdict by themselves. Israel? The middle east is a very small region. Iran can't use a nuclear weapon on Israel just like the latter can't use one on Lebanon or Syria. A nuclear missile there would be devastating to everyone in the area.

That's why I'm convinced that Iran's nuclear weapon, would be for defense only or what's a called a "balance of terror". In an ideal world, I'm against anyone owning nuclear weapons; I hate all kinds of weapons, but if there were people with guns that called me an enemy, I'd want to keep a gun with me.

[Peace. 4,352]

  On 09/03/2013 at 08:43, CHOULO19 said:

Don't tell me you think the US is in Afghanistan to 'win' a war? First, they can never get rid of the armed groups, they've always known that, it was never their objective; their objective was to establish a foothold near Iran.

Bush government's major reason to enter in Afghanistan wasn't to establish a foothold near Iran. Of course it has also allowed them to do that — killing two birds with one stone. Though they had something else in mind : Irak. All along attacking Afghanistan was a mean to attack Irak. With the 09/11, they had an alibi to enter war against Afghanistan, or in other words against the "Axis of Evil".

And in this Axis of Evil there's Irak — notice how he puts the emphasis on that nation. And, what did they have done approximatively one year after going to Afghanistan ? Declare war to Irak, funnily enough. Both behind 09/11 and Afghanistan, there's Irak in the background.

[TorontoChelsea 4,064]

  On 21/03/2013 at 12:51, Fulham Broadway said:

I have written about Iran on here before, I graduated in international politics amongst other things.

The US created the unstable Iranian state as it is now.

In 1951 Iran nationalised its oil, and the democratically elected leader Mossadech? was respected and loved by the Iranian people, all was peaceful. This is important to remember.

The US and UK wanted the oil and organised a coup against Mossadeq with literally a few agents and the Eisenhower and Churchill govts instilled the Shah of Iran -a stooge who was given immense personal wealth in return for oil and minerals for the US and UK.-just as the Arab leaders in Kuwait Saudi, Jordan etc are now. Basic imperialism at work as usual.

The Shah not to mince words was a complete cunt and had secret police, torturers etc backed by the US and UK to supress any dissidents.

Its no surprise that there was a religous revolution then in 1979 and various nutcases have taken the mantle since of leadership in Iran, It is also no surprise that they are deeply suspicious of the US and UK and have a lot of resentment. As an example there was the Museum of Arrogance in Tehran, (I kid you not) which had all things US in it, bits of missiles, MacDonalds etc.

Lets not forget the Iranian people have suffered in all this and deserve better.

A couple of minor quibbles. The Iran coup was much more in the interest of the UK (and especially BP) than the US. The US was only helping out Britain and only once Eisenhower became President. Also, to categorize Mossadegh as a stable democrat is a bit much. He was in power for a year, quite popular, especially in the cities but not in rural areas and he did things that were pretty anti-democratic (such as suspending voting when it suited him). And as Choulo writes, the revolution itself was populist and the liberals and non-fundamentalist were betrayed as they had fought for democracy, not a different repressive regime. Your major point stands though The West, on behalf of an oil company, helped overthrow a flawed but elected government and that is indefensible.

Where I really part from you is that the 1953 coup is justification for current feelings. Chile had its government overthrown in 1973 with CIA help. Pinochet was a brutal leader who killed his own people, but...Chile moved on. It is now a thriving country. Why? Because instead of obsessing over past injustices, they tried to build a future. This is true most of Europe, much of Asia and Latin America. Every people and I mean every single people can rightly feel aggrieved. That must be acknowledged, but people also have to move on and deal with current issues. Otherwise, there will never be anything except permanent war.

[Fulham Broadway 17,101]

  On 21/03/2013 at 18:44, TorontoChelsea said:

Where I really part from you is that the 1953 coup is justification for current feelings. Chile had its government overthrown in 1973 with CIA help. Pinochet was a brutal leader who killed his own people, but...Chile moved on. It is now a thriving country. Why? Because instead of obsessing over past injustices, they tried to build a future. This is true most of Europe, much of Asia and Latin America. Every people and I mean every single people can rightly feel aggrieved. That must be acknowledged, but people also have to move on and deal with current issues. Otherwise, there will never be anything except permanent war.

Point taken. The danger when analysing politics is to see countries and states as single entities -eg 'Canada does this, and UK and Iran do that'. It is a sweeping generalisation that fails to take in, and greatly underestimates the general populace and their views. It also presumes that 'democracy' and the will of the people exists in those states, whereas the reality is something different.

Governments exist through at best the tacit agreement or apathy of the people, and at worst totalitarianism.

Mahmoud Ahmadinijhad although leader of the Peoples Republc of Iran, along with most 'leaders' of repressed nations tend to rule autocratically out of fear or fundamental beliefs that are not represenatative of the population when the surface is scratched.

The coup of 1953 has left lasting scars and propaganda continues against the West, quite rightly justified in many cases. The West likes cornered rats to pick on with mad leaders to demonise -be it Saddam, Noriega, Ahmadinijhad, Gaddaffi etc there are loads of them, and the media runs parallels with Hitler when theyre about to bomb the crap out of them. The West -US UK has always built up that leader before knocking them down though.

Iran cant 'move on' until there is real will of the people involved, and anyway we have no right in saying what Iran should or shouldnt do when our own countries democracy involves putting a cross on a bit of paper every four years or so for more of the same shit with different wrapping

[CHOULO19 24,332]

  On 21/03/2013 at 18:44, TorontoChelsea said:

Where I really part from you is that the 1953 coup is justification for current feelings. Chile had its government overthrown in 1973 with CIA help. Pinochet was a brutal leader who killed his own people, but...Chile moved on. It is now a thriving country. Why? Because instead of obsessing over past injustices, they tried to build a future. This is true most of Europe, much of Asia and Latin America. Every people and I mean every single people can rightly feel aggrieved. That must be acknowledged, but people also have to move on and deal with current issues. Otherwise, there will never be anything except permanent war.

You can't really compare Chile to Iran. First thing is, Iran was never given a chance to "move on". Straight after the revolution, Saddam was moved by the US to attack Iran. Iran has been considered an enemy by the US since.

Second, the location of Iran in the middle east means they are right in the middle of the action zone of everyone in the world. There are no neutrals here, every middle-eastern country is either in the American axis or against it.

Third and most importantly the presence of entity of Israel. The injustice in Palestine is the cause of most Muslims in the world.

[CHOULO19 24,332]

  On 21/03/2013 at 19:33, Fulham Broadway said:

Governments exist through at best the tacit agreement or apathy of the people, and at worst totalitarianism.

[Spike 12,049]

As personal probelms tend pile up general interest in the outside world goes down. Apathy closes in.