US Presidential & VP Debates

[sesamosinsal]

Not sticking my head in the sand -- just stating the facts. You can go on and on about whatifs, but the history is this: 1) The U.S. is the only country to have used nuclear weapons; 2) the U.S. still has nuclear weapons; 3) Iran hasn't started a war in some 200 years; 4) The U.S. can't go even go a decade without starting a war, much less a century; 5) and the U.S. has Iran surrounded by military bases, yet expects them to be docile and unresponsive. You think the record and the facts don't matter, and that's fine. You'd make a wonderful American voter.

Moving on: For anyone who didn't get a chance to watch the "Democracy Now: Expanding the Debate" special, here's a link: http://youtu.be/BmNR_mYwVbc They posed the same questions to third party candidates. Gary Johnson's campaign turned down the invitation, which I thought was a shame.

 

[camberiu]

This is whom I will vote for this election.

 

[camberiu]

Not sticking my head in the sand -- just stating the facts.

Dude please, spare us of your Iran apologist talk. It is obvious that are the ones looking for a fight. Just look here:

 

[camberiu]

Iran isn't lying to the international community? How do you know? Do you have any proof of it? I am not saying that they are lying, all I am saying is that you seem pretty confident that Iran is just an innocent bystander being dragged into all of this by the big bad meanie called the US.

How about the Mossad as a source?

Mossad chief: Nuclear Iran not necessarily existential threat to Israel
http://goo.gl/GRdMt

'Mossad, CIA agree Iran has yet to decide to build nuclear weapon'
http://goo.gl/WD37k

 

[nicoenarg]

How about the Mossad as a source?

Mossad chief: Nuclear Iran not necessarily existential threat to Israel
http://goo.gl/GRdMt

'Mossad, CIA agree Iran has yet to decide to build nuclear weapon'
http://goo.gl/WD37k

Lol. Camberiu, do you understand what "existential threat" means? Did you even read the articles that you linked to? And lastly, did you read my posts?

What in my posts suggested to you that I said anything about "existential threat" or Iran ALREADY having nuclear weapons? There is a reason I was talking about the regime in Iran and what they want to achieve.

Re read what I said and re read the articles you linked to.

How did the articles disprove anything I said?

Secondly, do you realize the articles are dated from last year (December) and March this year. If you do not realize how fast things change in the middle east, then this discussion is a moot point.

I repeat myself, the more you guys write the more you show that you don't know much about the midde east.

If you want to have a serious discussion about Iran and the middle east, I'd be happy to have one. But if its just about playing games back and forth then I am done with it.

EDIT: The article about "existential threat" is only discussing whether a nuclear weapon in the hands of Iran means the death of all Israelis or only part of the population of Israel...small enough that Israel can survive. Now of course, you can decide on your own what you think is the acceptable number of dead Israeli civilians before you and your government start writing a strongly worder warning letter to Iran.

 

[camberiu]

Lol. Camberiu, do you understand what "existential threat" means? Did you even read the articles that you linked to? And lastly, did you read my posts?

What in my posts suggested to you that I said anything about "existential threat" or Iran ALREADY having nuclear weapons? There is a reason I was talking about the regime in Iran and what they want to achieve.

Do you read what you write? This is what you wrote just a page ago:

All they need is a nuke and the will to use it. They are trying to acquire the former and they have the latter.

So YOU are saying that Iran has the will to use a nuclear weapon without provocation. Because if not, how can they be a threat? The Mossad believes that they are a rational player and WILL NOT launch an unprovoked nuclear attack on Israel or anyone else. But you go on and write the following:

The "Mahdi's arrival will happen once we create destruction" mantra by the Mullahs of Iran might sound like hocus pocus to you but to the Mullahs of Iran, it is as real as the fact that the earth revolves around the sun(...)Do you know anything about the Shiite sect of Islam? Do you know what the Mahdi represents? Do you know how some of the sects in the Shiite sect of Islam interpret the apocalypse has to come about?

Again, implying that Iranian leaders are a bunch of doomsday fanatics while the Israeli intelligence is public stating that they are not, and that the regime's first and main priority is to survive and remain in power.

Secondly, do you realize the articles are dated from last year (December) and March this year. If you do not realize how fast things change in the middle east, then this discussion is a moot point.

Indeed. back in March, both the CIA and the Mossad were in the agreement that the Iranian government had not even decided if they wanted to pursue nuclear weapons or not. How do you know that anything has changed since then to claim the following with such conviction:

Iran is by far the most dangerous regime at the moment.

Based on what you make such statements? has the Mossad provided you with new intelligence since they last came public in March? What do you know that we don't, besides the "Mahdi's arrival" to post such statements here and call everyone else ignorant?

 

[nicoenarg]

Do you read what you write? This is what you wrote just a page ago:



So YOU are saying that Iran has the will to use a nuclear weapon without provocation. Because if not, how can they be a threat? The Mossad believes that they are a rational player and WILL NOT launch an unprovoked nuclear attack on Israel or anyone else. But you go on and write the following:



Again, implying that Iranian leaders are a bunch of doomsday fanatics while the Israeli intelligence is public stating that they are not, and that the regime's first and main priority is to survive and remain in power.




Indeed. back in March, both the CIA and the Mossad were in the agreement that the Iranian government had not even decided if they wanted to pursue nuclear weapons or not. How do you know that anything has changed since then to claim the following with such conviction:



Based on what you make such statements? has the Mossad provided you with new intelligence since they last came public in March? What do you know that we don't, besides the "Mahdi's arrival" to post such statements here and call everyone else ignorant?

Like I said, go back and read the articles you linked to and also READ my posts, not assume they mean something you want them to mean.

This is what the article states, the one you linked to:

"What is the significance of the term existential threat?" the ambassadors quoted Pardo as asking. "Does Iran pose a threat to Israel? Absolutely. But if one said a nuclear bomb in Iranian hands was an existential threat, that would mean that we would have to close up shop and go home. That's not the situation. The term existential threat is used too freely."

I could be wrong on this, but I think you do not understand the meaning of the words "existential threat". You might want to look it up.

So I will repeat, you don't know what you're talking about.

I wonder why you like to repeat that the Iranians just want to survive. Whatever your fetish with those terms and Iran, where the hell did you get that idea from the articles that you linked to? Where did you see them saying that they are a rational player?

US politics is none of my concern, seeing that I am not an American and don't care much about what goes on in that country. The middle east is my concern and that is the only thing I am speaking on. And quite frankly, and I hate to repeat myself, you do not seem to know what you're talking about when it comes to the middle east, and if that offends you, even that does not concern me much.

 

[camberiu]

I could be wrong on this, but I think you do not understand the meaning of the words "existential threat". You might want to look it up.

Yep, are wrong on this and on many other things, I reckon. You have no idea what the terms "existential threat" is and how it is being used. The context of existential threat is that Netanyahu, the neocons and people like you are claiming that if Iran gets a nuclear weapon, they will use it. Israel, according to them, is too small to survive a single nuclear attack. That is the existential threat. Although I agree that Israel would not survive a nuclear attack, I and the Mossad believe that even if Iran had a nuclear weapon, it would not use it without provocation, because using it would also mean the annihilation of Iran itself. it is the concept of mutually assured destruction (MAD), that because famous during the cold war. The counter argument is the one that you use, that the mullahs are a bunch of doomsday crazies .

I wonder why you like to repeat that the Iranians just want to survive. Where did you see them saying that they are a rational player?

I give you Meir Dagan, former head of the the Mossad. You can hear it from his mouth.

http://youtu.be/8BUCTjZlp_I?t=1m

 

[nicoenarg]

Yep, are wrong on this and on many other things, I reckon. You have no idea what the terms "existential threat" is and how it is being used. The context of existential threat is that Netanyahu, the neocons and people like you are claiming that if Iran gets a nuclear weapon, they will use it. Israel, according to them, is too small to survive a single nuclear attack. That is the existential threat. Although I agree that Israel would not survive a nuclear attack, I and the Mossad believe that even if Iran had a nuclear weapon, it would not use it without provocation, because using it would also mean the annihilation of Iran itself. it is the concept of mutually assured destruction (MAD), that because famous during the cold war. The counter argument is the one that you use, that the mullahs are a bunch of doomsday crazies .




I give you Meir Dagan, former head of the the Mossad. You can hear it from his mouth.

http://youtu.be/8BUCTjZlp_I?t=1m

Haha. Yeah, way to combine everything together as if I said it all. Great job dude. Employ deception much!

I said that Iran will acquire nuclear weapons and will use it once they acquired it. Period. Never said anything about "existential threats" (until I used that phrase in reference to an article you linked to) nor about whether it would take one nuke to destroy Israel or not.

Try to keep your words to yourself and not pass them off as mine, please. We might have a much more civil discussion if you didn't do that.

As for Dagan, he recently said that attacking Iran would be the "stupidest idea". So I know where he stands. And again, I never advocated attack on Iran. You seem hell bent on concluding everything on your own. All I have said so far, and will repeat is, that the Iranian regime is the most dangerous regime in the world (this seems to get a lot of panties in a twist).

 

[nicoenarg]

Here's the video in more detail, with more context:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ULjDZGAmxIo&feature=relmfu

And here are some interesting bits from the video.

Dagan: "An attack on Iran before exploring all the other approaches, is not the right way to do it."

Interviewer: "The dispute seems to come down, though, to whether you are at the end of everything that you can try, or whether you have a lot of time left to try other things, which seems to be your position."

Dagan: "I never said there's a lot of time but I think...(interviewer: "Well more time..."), uh more time." (meaning, he thinks there is more time).

Dagan: "The regime in Iran is a very rational regime."

Interviewer: "Do you think Ahmedinejad is rational?"

Dagan: "The answer is yes. Not exactly our rational, but I think that he is rational."
Interviewer: "Do you think they are rational enough that they are capable of backing down from this."

Dagan: "No doubt that the Iranian regime is maybe not exactly rational based on what I call Western thinking but no doubt that they are considering all the implications of their action."

Interviewer: "If they are that rational, as you suggest, and that logical, then why can't you, Israel, and the world live with a nuclear Iran?"

Dagan: "In the Israeli case, they said that they want to destroy Israel."

Dagan: "The issue of Iran armed with the nuclear capability is not an Israeli problem, its an international problem."

Interviewer: "So wait and let us do it?" (Attack Iran)

Dagan: "If I prefer that someone will do it, I would prefer that Americans would do it."

Side Note: CBS said that it was Mossad agents that went to Dubai and carried out the operation to kill a terrorist Al Mabbouh. That is bad journalism since there is no proof for or against the claim that it was Mossad. (It most probably was, but without proof CBS should not have presented that as fact.)

Now, not that I agree with everything Dagan said. But it is a lot more complicated then you guys make it out to be. Even Dagan, who is against a preemptive strike against Iran right now, does not put it as simply as you did, that the Iranians are not a threat and they are rational people (He said they're rational but explained what he meant by it too). Its always good to see things in context.