-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Anaylsis: Attack on Iranian nuclear sites could kill tens of thousands of civilians
- Thread starter shinobi602
- Start date
- Status
Manos: The Hans of Fate
Banned
Maybe a certain country should not built sensitive military sites in high population areas?*
*In regards to convential attack, not strategic nuclear weapons, because yes if you do that areas in range (of a nuke) near US bases will be suffer lots of deaths.
Sirpopopop
Member
AIPAC certainly gets a large number of donations. However, I wonder what do you mean by large percentage of money.
Do you believe that we are being secretly ruled by evil Jewish bankers? That's certainly what Ahmadinejad's speech there is thinly stating. I'm certain you don't agree with his views.
http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way...ysterious-sept-11-incident-as-pretext-for-war
Another comment from last year's speech:
"who used "the mysterious Sept. 11 incident as a pretext to attack Afghanistan and Iraq?""
Onion_Relish
Member
I'm not going to blame the civilians for being afraid, clearly no one should have to live in fear of the kind of things that could be coming their way. But the Iranian populace has never shown itself to be willing to really commit to ending the corrupt actions of their disgusting government. They put a protest here or a protest there, get cracked down on and slink back to their homes. Their situation is not like Egypt's, where there was thankfully a limited amount of bloodshed. Their situation is like Syria, where if they protested and tried to make changes there would be retribution militarily. But what would you prefer: to try and fight to protect the country you love and better it for future generations? Or die at the hands of nuclear fallout from a powerplant that your government has built in order to further its nuclear ambitions... The article mentions the Iranian governments inability to respond to disasters, and this ineptitude is of course because resources are being placed where they don't belong (ie: into a military that fights no wars or a supposedly peaceful nuclear program that hasn't supplied a volt of power)
Don't get me wrong as I've said before, these people are Iran/syria/iraq/afghanistan SHOULD NOT have to make the choice between their lives and freedom, no human being should. But at this point in time, if they don't act, the choice could be forced on them.
Don't get me wrong as I've said before, these people are Iran/syria/iraq/afghanistan SHOULD NOT have to make the choice between their lives and freedom, no human being should. But at this point in time, if they don't act, the choice could be forced on them.
gentiles aren't civilians or people
We don't have a choice. Nobody wanted North Korea to have the bomb either.
Here's the stark reality on which we must base our diplomacy going forward -- within the century, everybody is going to have nuclear weapons. (Except for tiny countries that won't bother or will rely on a larger ally that does.) That's why it's an ethical and diplomatic urgency to moderate and engage with everybody, even the crazies, and to change whatever conditions we can to empower the liberals of dar al-Islam to take power before it's too late. Because we need to build a strong global community if we want to handle the inevitable proliferation.
Oh, and missile defense might be a good idea too, just in case.
Monocle
Member
Canis lupus
Member
Lets hope it never comes to that.
Onion_Relish
Member
Missile defense would only stop direct assaults like from a frigate or submarine. A stealth bomber or even just a guy with a briefcase dirty bomb is a whole different story. Clearly we need to just saw off every country from one another and make everything islands.
Sirpopopop
Member
Before the NPT was signed, there was a thought that 20-30 countries would have nukes within 20 years.
That was back in the '50s.
That clearly hasn't happened, even though many countries have the capability to develop them.
Neko Mimi Mode
Member
Analysis: Syria is currently killing tens of thousands of civilians; Nobody cares.
phosphor112
Banned
Many large corporations align with the republican party. The majority of the republican party are for the state of Israel and not a two state solution. That would be considered on a basic level, Zionism.
There is lots of funding from the west going into Israel's pockets. Do I believe the world is ruled by "evil Jewish bankers?" No, but there is certainly a lot of political and corporate power and money going into the state of Israel.
Abusive ad hominem. His speech this year is still very strong. I don't recall any sort of call for unity and effort to progress humanity like his speech.
shinobi602
Member
Lol, wow.
shinobi602
Member
They're military sites? I thought they're nuclear power plants...
I hardly ever agree with pigeon. But I do in this case. I must reevaluate my position.
I say we bomb the whole middle east.
I'm Iranian and I am offended by this post even if you're being a troll, I don't see how posts like this can be made and be shrugged off so easily...
So? Why do you think they aren't developing them? What makes you confident those trends will continue? There are four states that did develop them and one that is currently doing so, and every single one is a global policy hotspot of unnerving intensity, specifically because they have the bomb. This should be evidence enough that a nonproliferation strategy, while it may conceivably have worked in the mid-twentieth century, is simply unprepared for the consequences if and when it fails in the twenty-first.
shinobi602
Member
Unfortunately, some things are more tolerated than others here on GAF. :-/
Manos: The Hans of Fate
Banned
Being used for military research and purposes.
Evidently less tolerated than you might think. (see above)
I'm fairly certain that most people understand the civilian population aren't the problem in Iran. Most of the people under 30 disagree with the government's policies and like American music, movies, etc.
If we were to attack and cause all these casualties, combined with disconnecting the Iranian pop from the rest of the world (the planned cutting off of the internet), we could create a next generation of Iranians who hate America.
Many countries would feel uncomfortable if Iran has/will have nukes. I guess it is mostly due to the inflammatory comments from their government.
And you know this how? Not that it matters either way.
We provide aid and protection to many in the world though. Iran does what to bolster it's image?
Mark my words, if the US and sorts don't do a thing and Iran does something wrong from this, be it bomb another country on a whim, or "misplace" a nuke and it's used in terrorist activity, fingers will be pointed directly at the US.
But that's just typical dumb, aggressive, reckless, ironically terroristic logic being used there. And also reasons why Terrorism itself is on the rise.
I completely agree. Usually my sarcasm gets through without a hitch, just showing Shinobi what I was referencing.
It's a sarcastic joke to illustrate the absurdness of such viewpoints. But apparently a large part of NeoGAF cannot handle humor anymore (whether you thought it was funny or not), political correctness is really through the roof here. A ban for that joke? Really? Pathetic how easily some people here are offended, do you ever get out of your house? Cause you're bound to be constantly "offended" in the real world.
And yet I see people here get a free pass to advocate Sharia law (a law that states, among other hateful things, to execute homosexuals) in the Islamic thread. Now that is truly offensive.
There's a reason why Iran doesn't want anyone looking around their nuclear facilities.
Mister0079
Member
I'm fine with that sarcastic post because it's making fun of what people are really thinking when they post something along the lines of "It's acceptable to bomb the nuclear facility and cause thousands of civilian deaths if it means a non-nuclear Iran!". That is the truly offending viewpoint, and I say that as someone who's not offended by much except people willing to accept genocide as a pre-emptive measure "JUST IN CASE Y'KNOW NUCLEAR IRAN BLAH BLAH"
It's a sarcastic joke to illustrate the absurdness of such viewpoints. But apparently a large part of NeoGAF cannot handle humor anymore (whether you thought it was funny or not), political correctness is really through the roof here. A ban for that joke? Really? Pathetic how easily some people here are offended, do you ever get out of your house? Cause you're bound to be constantly "offended" in the real world.
And yet I see people here get a free pass to advocate Sharia law (a law that states, among other hateful things, to execute homosexuals) in the Islamic thread. Now that is truly offensive.
There's a reason why Iran doesn't want anyone looking around their nuclear facilities.
Oh god, one of these people
Next to you in a bus or a cafeteria. Just living their shitty lives, waiting for a national disaster so they can go berserk without fear.
shinobi602
Member
I completely agree. Usually my sarcasm gets through without a hitch, just showing Shinobi what I was referencing.
Oh oh, sarcasm.
Phew lol.
metalslimer
Member
And how do you suggest he should have done that? Any scenario you throw out gets thousands of people killed.
That's right, those Iranians deserve to die because we didn't kill them earlier.
I'd love to hear people opposed to attacking Iran speak to the issues outlined above, as opposed to simply mocking the US or Israel for possessing their own nukes and/or having killed civilians in the past.
walking fiend
Member
The problem with these plans is that unless the attack is so conclusive to change the regime, there's no way they would stop resuming the bomb making plan later; it's not like some buildings cannot be rebuilt or some equipment repurchased.
However, if the attack is conclusive to cause the current regime dissolve, I suspect even an 80,000 death toll is acceptable.
You should live in Iran to see how the current regime has fucked the country and people from the very foundations. It's basically a living hell for most of the population, even if we disregard all the social problems, the economy is totally fucked up.
So I guess it's OK if 80,000 die so there's at least 'hope' for the rest of the population; solely this regime existence for some more years will probably lead to much more than this dying yearly out of lack of money to purchase food, drugs, fuel to warm themselves during winter...
---
but of course no one gives a shit to what happens to the people after they attack another country
However, if the attack is conclusive to cause the current regime dissolve, I suspect even an 80,000 death toll is acceptable.
You should live in Iran to see how the current regime has fucked the country and people from the very foundations. It's basically a living hell for most of the population, even if we disregard all the social problems, the economy is totally fucked up.
So I guess it's OK if 80,000 die so there's at least 'hope' for the rest of the population; solely this regime existence for some more years will probably lead to much more than this dying yearly out of lack of money to purchase food, drugs, fuel to warm themselves during winter...
---
but of course no one gives a shit to what happens to the people after they attack another country
The alternative is exactly what we're doing now -- peaceful engagement coupled with a red line, aggressive sanctions, and buying time while we wait for Iran's leadership to moderate. And a two-state solution wouldn't hurt.
The point is that attacking Iran will not STOP proliferation, unless you want to occupy them permanently, so the attack plan doesn't address these questions either.
walking fiend
Member
I believe this is the ONLY solution; or to destroy every infrastructure such as power plants, bridges, refineries, etc. to practically prevent Iran from doing anything.
I suspect the latter is much more probable to happen as it is quite easier than a complete occupation.
You have got to be fucking kidding me.
In what shape or form was the post in question "funny" ?
Well you could also just nuke Iran if you care so little about its population.
I have to admit I thought it was a bit funny. You ever listen to David Cross stand up?
Sickboy007
Member
It's cool, it was a sarcastic ban.
It's about being pragmatic. If Iran keeps pushing forward with it's nuclear program, the shit is going to hit the fan. Either Israel strikes first or Iran. Some people will die. You have no solutions to fix this without violence and never have, so you should be the last to criticize these kinds of ideas.
Fewer would have died if more aggressive steps were taken earlier. I'm not sure how you think the world should deal with a radical Islamist government developing nuclear weapon capability.
Talking about David Cross... He also did a great piece about how awful sarcasm translates into the written form: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h6_JZec_MIU
fuck you and your family, you piece of shit.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked