Mother, mother, mother - there's too many of you crying.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

"Rights" have nothing to do with it. It's a question of understanding another country's perspective so that we understand what they want and are likely to do. (Frankly, some degree of racism enters into it, because we are too quick to decide that Iranians and North Koreans are simply crazy and irrational, something we would not do with Iceland or Switzerland, for example.)

Actually, Iceland has been embracing immigrants, so we're not likely to listen to them.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

I am as worried about fire arrows as the next caveman. Lothar and the Hill People aren't entitled to fire, and I don't think we should just throw up our hands and welcome it, but there should be limits on what we are willing to do to prevent them it that should stop far short of meeting between our caves to club each other.

What they need for a nuclear program is adequate fissile material, and its hard to imagine how they get that right now. I don't think they're a lot of evidence these particular hill people are trying to get fire right now.

Of course, the other tribe already has it, so it wouldn't be surprising.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

"Rights" have nothing to do with it. It's a question of understanding another country's perspective so that we understand what they want and are likely to do. (Frankly, some degree of racism enters into it, because we are too quick to decide that Iranians and North Koreans are simply crazy and irrational, something we would not do with Iceland or Switzerland, for example.)

Do you think the two aren't intertwined? If we understood Iran better, we'd grasp that they believe, correctly, that they have right to have nuclear reactors.

To understand someone includes the ability to grasp what he believes is the scope of his rights.

Agreed on a cultural/racism thing.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Having read two of his prior works, I don't really fathom what would make someone want to subject themselves to more.

He's flawed in some regards, but has the best bullshit detector out there.

Anyway, they aren't "entitled" to nuclear weapons, and I don't think we should just throw up our hands and welcome it, but should be limits on what we are willing to do to prevent it that should stop far short of war.

They're entitled to do what they feel is necessary to protect themselves. Every nation is entitled to do that. In the same regard, we are entitled to bomb them if we have a legitimate belief their acquisition of nukes threatens us or our allies.

Regarding understanding, we'd do well to grasp why they feel they need nukes. We'd do well to understand that a lot of it has to do with our foreign policy in the middle east instead of running with the narrative, "It's those crazy Islamists! They'll kill us all, and must be stopped!"

Iran is no more likely to use a nuke than is North Korea. Pakistan, on the other hand... Oh, what am I saying? Pakistan is our ally! Silly me. They've always been on our side, and have no serious crazies in their government.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

Do you think the two aren't intertwined? If we understood Iran better, we'd grasp that they believe, correctly, that they have right to have nuclear reactors.

To understand someone includes the ability to grasp what he believes is the scope of his rights.

Agreed on a cultural/racism thing.

I'm not steeped in international law, but I don't think it makes a lot of sense to talk about a nation's "rights". To me, rights are a product of a legal regime which usually is created by a nation, not the other way around.

[Adder]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

Iran is no more likely to use a nuke than is North Korea.

Probably less so. For whatever reason, though, righties see an existential threat to Israel in a nuclear armed Iran. Because, apparently, Iran will be willing to cease it's own existence as long as it can take out Israel in doing so? That does not sound right.

But having gone through this with Iraq, we know that they wills say "what if this regime falls and is replaced with ISIS, which really might do something crazy."

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by Adder

Probably less so. For whatever reason, though, righties see an existential threat to Israel in a nuclear armed Iran. Because, apparently, Iran will be willing to cease it's own existence as long as it can take out Israel in doing so? That does not sound right.

But having gone through this with Iraq, we know that they wills say "what if this regime falls and is replaced with ISIS, which really might do something crazy."

There are only two nuclear states in the world that could drop a bomb without immediate and existential retribution. And both currently have lunatics in charge.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

ZOMG, I love it.

[Replaced_Texan]

Hey Sebby, you're a criminal justice reform guy, right? Have you checked your local urban DA out?

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Replaced_Texan

Hey Sebby, you're a criminal justice reform guy, right? Have you checked your local urban DA out?

I know him. Great guy.

I love what he’s doing. Absolutely love it.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Even a stopped clock is right twice a day, and Ross Douthat is right here.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

Even a stopped clock is right twice a day, and Ross Douthat is right here.

2. But anything that harms Facebook is a benefit to humanity. So I'm cool with this witch hunt.

Snowden has my proxy on Facebook (most specifically, March 16 posts forward):
https://twitter.com/Snowden

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

I'm not steeped in international law, but I don't think it makes a lot of sense to talk about a nation's "rights". To me, rights are a product of a legal regime which usually is created by a nation, not the other way around.

I was quasi sober through two courses of it in college. "Rights" is the wrong word, but I recall there is a general body of law (not much of it enforceable, but nevertheless written) barring preemptive actions.

Might Makes Right is the only real rule, true. But if we're talking about who holds all the greater equitable argument in a situation where we or Israel bomb Iran to prevent it from getting a nuclear bomb, I'd have to save Iran. They're developing a deterrent technology. We're invading sovereign territory and bombing a nation that has taken no aggressive action.

[Adder]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

I was quasi sober through two courses of it in college. "Rights" is the wrong word, but I recall there is a general body of law (not much of it enforceable, but nevertheless written) barring preemptive actions.

Might Makes Right is the only real rule, true. But if we're talking about who holds all the greater equitable argument in a situation where we or Israel bomb Iran to prevent it from getting a nuclear bomb, I'd have to save Iran. They're developing a deterrent technology. We're invading sovereign territory and bombing a nation that has taken no aggressive action.

They're violating the proliferation treaty, arguable, while we're violating the UN Charter, not particularly arguably.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by Adder

They're violating the proliferation treaty, arguable, while we're violating the UN Charter, not particularly arguably.

I’d be in favor of voiolating the UN’s lease and kicking it’s ass out. If that space became a mall or a food court I’d be able to run along the East River w/O having to leave up to 1st for a few blocks, just so a bunch of otherwise unemployable fucks can make anti-Israeli resolutions every few weeks. Also, when was the last time a leader of Israel or the US threatened to wipe Iran off the map?