Russian vassalization of Ukraine

[The Comrade]

http://imgur.com/a/rI9uu

genius

[Kane]

[exploited]

The thing is, if I admit your point re: representation, than all the reasons you've given for intervention elsewhere would also apply to the US. You have directly justified atrocities such as 9/11 by arguing that because people aren't being adequately represented, their sovereignty isn't important. And if you argue that it isn't justified to punish non-responsible parties for the actions of an unrepresentative government, you have agreed that American and international action against Iran, Pakistan, Afghanistan, etc. were illegitimate. Which perspective you take is your choice. Either one is illogical. The only logical position to take is that sovereignty only matters when your interests aren't threatened, and anyone can see how Russia's interests were threatened by the new Ukrainian government.

Anti-semitism isn't much of a problem in Iran. Like every other government in the region, including all the countries we call allies, they do exploit such prejudice. All that said, Jews in Iran don't really face any more oppression that your average Iranian. I encourage you to actually read up on this topic, because it's clear you are basing the opinions of Iranians on the opinions of the government - a practice you condemn when applied to Americans, of course.

As Israel and the United States have not ruled out military force to prevent Iran from having what they have, I'd say that Iran is pretty justified in fearing intervention. After all, the US and Israel have a long history of attacking sovereign states in the region. Further, the Israeli military would devastate the Iranian military, especially since any chance of Israeli losing would be offset by support from the US. It's as if you were unaware that Israel has been threatening to attack Iran for years. And the idea that nukes are the only thing preventing the destruction of Israel is deeply, deeply delusional.

As for the stupid accusations of anti-Americanism, just do yourself a favor and shut up. You sound like a kitty.

I've already explained what Iran is afraid of. Of course you have dismissed it for reasons you won't even apply to yourself - Iran doesn't need nukes, and yet Israel does. Iran doesn't need nukes, and yet the US does. The overwhelming assessment of Iranian leadership is that they are rational actors, and are therefore not the crazy boogyman they are made out to be. Putting things into historical perspective is not pretending Iran isn't a threat... It is acknowledging why they behave the way they do foreign policy wise. And the simple reason is that the US has brutalized, betrayed and terrorized their country for half a century

[Kane]

My arguments justify atrocities against the US? I'm sorry what? In what retarded world do you live in? Because in my world, where people are literate and understand context, there's zero inference of anything of the sort being argued.

Look bud, I'm not excluding history to make my case. I admit as much in my post that you responded to. But you're hell bent on believing that Iran getting nukes is a good idea. From a strictly hypothetical standpoint in an Oxford Style debate where logic is being used to win the argument sure, you're reasons are sound. The West is hypocritical for denying other nations across the world access to nuclear weapons and technology. Some nations, Iran included, have a sound historical reason for doing so. The Shah, Carter, dumbassery by other entities. Yup, totally agree.

Here's where it goes wrong for me: The government in Iran in no way is comparable to the level of representation in any western industrialized nation. Your comparison of the two, or your equivocating of them is entirely out of line. I challenge you to find any poster on here that agrees with that position. Their people are oppressed, not just by improper governance but by FORCE. Every political system on the planet has dysfunction, it's a human f**k construct. But in the strictest of terms, we are BY FAR more fair, just, and Justice seeking than Iran is.

We wish to keep balance in the Middle East to maintain our interests in the region. Iran wishes to destabilize that balance I pursuit of a further escalation of tensions. The difference between us, at it's deepest core, is culpability. Who in the Iranian government is held responsible? Can he be impeached? Are their lawmakers routinely elected freely? Who rules over the ayatollah?

Do you believe then, that the DPRK is right to have nukes? Do we need to debate the finer points of oppression to determine what level goes beyond the acceptable in order to properly seek nuclear weapons?

[The Dharma Bum]

[exploited]

My retarded world is apparently one of logic, according to you, so I'd say I'm pretty happy with it. For you to pretend that the level of representation determines the validity of a countries sovereignty is just unsubstantiated garbage. It directly contradicts the very definition of sovereignty, and is just as easily used to justify shit like 9/11. You can't argue that the American public shouldn't be punished for the actions of it's government given high representation while simultaneously arguing that the people of Iran, given low representation, should be. Explain that.

I believe that all countries have the right to arm themselves, or that none do. Either of those positions is valid. Anything between them is nothing but fearmongering and hypocritical bullying (especially since Iran is viewed as a rational actor, and will therefore not use those weapons offensively).

[The Comrade]

exploited you've managed to take issue with every single point on the foreign policy spectrum.

remember when i called you a contrarion with no real position of your own?

[exploited]

[The Comrade]

actually it looks like you becoming unhinged at kane. so really it's no different than any other conversation with you.

but contrarion is contrarion does.

[exploited]