Support NeoGAF

[TheContact]

Probably so, one was developed with the intent to use it and kill civilians. The other to deter invasion.

you mean one was developed with the intention of saving lives by ending a war and the other as a catalyst for starting a war?

rofl dude, just go move to Iran if you love that place so much.

 

[empty vessel]

And this further proves that some people in Iran have completely bought into the regime's propaganda and such people desire to put the propaganda into action...

Indeed, reminds of somewhere else. Oh I remember, everywhere else. You and others are a walking example of this in all of the vitriol being targeted at Iran despite its totally pedestrian character as a nation.

you mean one was developed with the intention of saving lives by ending a war and the other as a catalyst for starting a war?

No, one was developed with the intention of dropping it on civilians and the other was developed to dissuade (not so ironically) the country that developed it with the intention of dropping it on civilians from invading and dropping other bombs on it.

 

[Timedog]

It's not happening.

Okay, but why not?

Didn't happen when I worked at a polling station.

What didn't happen exactly? Someone visibly tampering with the machines?

 

[Kapura]

Okay, but why not?

Why not? I don't usually ask people "HELLO WHY DID YOU NOT COMMIT VOTER FRAUD" but I'll take a stab at it. Probably because America is fucking big, so there isn't a lot you can do to shift an election with poll tampering so people find more effective means of influencing the result, like donations and volunteering.

 

[goodfella]

Why is it even news? It doesnt justify his killing.

I would argue it does.

 

[Timedog]

Probably because America is fucking big, so there isn't a lot you can do to shift an election with poll tampering so people find more effective means of influencing the result, like donations and volunteering.

1) Depends on how the electronic system works. The hack could require many agents or it could be relatively simple.

2) If you know it's going to come down to a few highly contested areas, you make sure you win those areas.

3) Not all elections are nationwide.

 

[Kapura]

1) Depends on how the electronic system works. The hack could require many agents or it could be relatively simple.

2) If you know it's going to come down to a few highly contested areas, you make sure you win those areas.

3) Not all elections are nationwide.

Dammit timedog you're sounding like ancient aliens guy now. It the risk of shifting the burden, where is there any evidence of any sort of organised voter fraud in America? We'll hear stories now and then about a window or widower filling out her or his spouse's ballot, but nothing like you see in other nations.

1) Alright, so you hack a single ballot box, or let's say a whole polling place. Is that going to cause a dramatic shift?

2) How is it simultaneously possible to win those areas that you would not have won and avoid suspicion of fraud?

3) Yes i agree.

 

[jimi_dini]

1. This isn't 2003.

Exactly.
In 2003, US wouldn't have been able to invade another country.
Nowadays there are serious economic issues. Perfect timing for another war.
And of course, US needs to protect their oil in Iran.

2. Complying with the IAEA and showing that you aren't developing nuclear weapons would shut everyone up.

No.
Iraq showed them that they got no WMD. It didn't shut everyone up. In fact Hans Blix argued against the invasion a few weeks before the invasion of iraq. It didn't matter one bit. You know who Hans Blix is/was, right?

Since, after all this isn't 2003, and no one wants to invade Iran (It's a much more difficult task than invading Iraq) in an incredibly costly ground war.

Yes. It's not 2003. In 2003 no one wanted to invade iraq instead. But then newspapers all around the world found out that Iraq definitely has weapons of mass destruction and we are gonna die within 45 minutes. Colin Paul had a nice powerpoint presentation of all the dangerous stuff in Iraq. So of course "no one wanted to invade Iraq", but they had to. To protect us from the deadly WMDs -

Spoiler

that were never there, but who cares <-- that's sarcasm

. Go figure.


And please tell me. If the US are acting according to law, why are Colin Paul, GW Bush and all the other liars not in jail? Why is Guantanamo Bay not closed down? Because it doesn't matter, who everyone votes for.

 

[Choke on the Magic]

If there was true evidence of voter fraud why didn't the democratic party didn't push to prosecute those involved.

 

[Choke on the Magic]

Exactly.
In 2003, US wouldn't have been able to invade another country.
Nowadays there are serious economic issues. Perfect timing for another war.
And of course, US needs to protect their oil in Iran.


No.
Iraq showed them that they got no WMD. It didn't shut everyone up. In fact Hans Blix argued against the invasion a few weeks before the invasion of iraq. It didn't matter one bit. You know who Hans Blix is/was, right?



Yes. It's not 2003. In 2003 no one wanted to invade iraq instead. But then newspapers all around the world found out that Iraq definitely has weapons of mass destruction and we are gonna die within 45 minutes. Colin Paul had a nice powerpoint presentation of all the dangerous stuff in Iraq. So of course "no one wanted to invade Iraq", but they had to. To protect us from the deadly WMDs -

Spoiler

that were never there, but who cares <-- that's sarcasm

. Go figure.

Pretty sure we don't have any stake in Iran's oil.

 

[eissan]

The wife of the assassinated nuclear scientist in Iran said that her husband's ultimate objective was the assassination if Israel. Peaceful nukes, right?

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4193784,00.html

seriously?! so a grieving wife of a DEAD scientist is pissed off at the country who ordered the hit on her husband(based on info in the iranian news) and says shit that is provocative and we are suppose to take this as the will of the iranian government?! GTFO!


come on stop grasping at straws to find ANYTHING AND EVERYTHING that could put Iran's nuclear program in a negative light and make it into something it's not(at least currently not proven)...you'd think americans/westerners would learn that after Iraq you need 100% proof before you start hitting dat war drum!

oh and to the retard who said that the iranian elections 3 years ago werent rigged, man shut up! I was there, I voted for the green party and everyone knew that even though we voted for the green party the AN regime wouldn't let it go!

The pre election debates were all won by the green party members and the polls pre election showed their popularity was higher than AN but when the election happened and it was a land slide AN win we all knew what had happened...

 

[jimi_dini]

Pretty sure we don't have any stake in Iran's oil.

US (and some other western countries like for example Germany) want to protect the oil and all the other resources, that they want to buy at some time in the future. Following all those other invasions, that's basically the logic behind it all.

Just read this here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horst_Köhler#Resignation
Told the truth in an interview and had to leave afterwards.

"In my estimation, though, we&#8212;including [German] society as a whole&#8212;are coming to the general understanding that, given this [strong] focus and corresponding dependency on exports, a country of our size needs to be aware that where called for or in an emergency, military deployment, too, is necessary if we are to protect our interests such as ensuring free trade routes or preventing regional instabilities which are also certain to negatively impact our ability to safeguard trade, jobs and income. All of this should be discussed and I think the path we are on is not so bad."

 

[Angry Fork]

Israel wants to bomb Iran, Iran wants to bomb Israel.

Force regime change in both. Win/win.

Spoiler

And tell them to stop being religious zealots.

 

[Victarion]

And to Manticore : I'm curious as to what your feelings are on the rivalry between the regular army and Revolutionary Guard?

Revolutionary Guard is not just a military force anymore, they control everything in Iran. They have 51% share of almost every key companies like telecommunications, banks, etc. And since the supreme leader favors them over the Army, the army can't do shit against RG.

 

[Sirpopopop]

Exactly.
In 2003, US wouldn't have been able to invade another country.
Nowadays there are serious economic issues. Perfect timing for another war.
And of course, US needs to protect their oil in Iran.

Huh?

Except in 2003, we didn't have to deal with the war weariness that comes after long extensive periods of occupation in hostile foreign territory across multiple fronts.

No.
Iraq showed them that they got no WMD. It didn't shut everyone up. In fact Hans Blix argued against the invasion a few weeks before the invasion of iraq. It didn't matter one bit. You know who Hans Blix is/was, right?

Once again, this isn't 2003. People are more war weary. Barack Obama is in office, not George W. Bush.

Quit trying to equivocate the two.

Yes. It's not 2003. In 2003 no one wanted to invade iraq instead. But then newspapers all around the world found out that Iraq definitely has weapons of mass destruction and we are gonna die within 45 minutes.

Yeah, let's forget about how the Iraq War started in 2003.

http://articles.cnn.com/2003-03-19/...-coalition-attack-military-action?_s=PM:WORLD

And please tell me. If the US are acting according to law, why are Colin Paul, GW Bush and all the other liars not in jail? Why is Guantanamo Bay not closed down? Because it doesn't matter, who everyone votes for.

They have immunity from any actions they take that's related to an action in their official capacity.

 

[Something Wicked]

Revolutionary Guard is not just a military force anymore, they control everything in Iran. They have 51% share of almost every key companies like telecommunications, banks, etc. And since the supreme leader favors them over the Army, the army can't do shit against RG.

Do you think that some Army generals would be willing to negotiate with American officials if it comes to the point which such officials deem that the Supreme Nacho and his military supporters "must go?" If backed by the US Airforce and special operations units, would the regular army be willing to eradicate RG forces if those forces retreat and take over certain cities and towns?

Though, I understand the RG goes simply beyond the military side. Some people are likely only apart of the RG for economic interests- whether it's having a willingness to be corrupt or more so having the "if ya can't beat 'em, might as well join 'em" mentality. If met with force- by the USAF and Iranian Army, it's likely such people would flee or renounce their allegiance to the RG.

 

[empty vessel]

Do you think that some Army generals would be willing to negotiate with American officials if it comes to the point which such officials deem that the Supreme Nacho and his military supporters "must go?" If backed by the US Airforce and special operations units, would the regular army be willing to eradicate RG forces if those forces retreat and take over certain cities and towns?

Though, I understand the RG goes simply beyond the military side. Some people are likely only apart of the RG for economic interests- whether it's having a willingness to be corrupt or more so having the "if ya can't beat 'em, might as well join 'em" mentality. If met with force- by the USAF and Iranian Army, it's likely such people would flee or renounce their allegiance to the RG.

You see where this is going, Manticore?

 

[Victarion]

Do you think that some Army generals would be willing to negotiate with American officials if it comes to the point which such officials deem that the Supreme Nacho and his military supporters "must go?" If backed by the US Airforce and special operations units, would the regular army be willing to eradicate RG forces if those forces retreat and take over certain cities and towns?

Though, I understand the RG goes simply beyond the military side. Some people are likely only apart of the RG for economic interests- whether it's having a willingness to be corrupt or more so having the "if ya can't beat 'em, might as well join 'em" mentality. If met with force- by the USAF and Iranian Army, it's likely such people would flee or renounce their allegiance to the RG.

Siding with people if a revolt take place, maybe. With America? nope.

 

[jimi_dini]

Once again, this isn't 2003. People are more war weary. Barack Obama is in office, not George W. Bush.

Quit trying to equivocate the two.

You think that without GW Bush Iraq and Afghanistan wouldn't have been invaded? You think GW Bush personally wanted to go to war and everyone else didn't? Really?

Why is Guantanamo Bay still not closed? Obama promised it in 2009 and I would say he had plenty of time to do it. Why are still all those anti-citizenterrorist laws in place? If Obama is really in total control (as you assume), there shouldn't be any problems doing it. So either he isn't in total control and is actually just another face or he isn't interested in doing so.

People will also only get really war weary, when lots of their own soldiers die - see Vietnam. If it's basically "only" the people in the invaded country, they won't really care at all.

Yeah, let's forget about how the Iraq War started in 2003.
http://articles.cnn.com/2003-03-19/...-coalition-attack-military-action?_s=PM:WORLD

So? GW Bush said Iraq would be disarmed (from WMDs). Fact is there were no WMDs at all. So GW Bush lied. the newspapers lied. Colin Paul lied.
This wouldn't really matter, but lots of people in Iraq died because of that and that's awful.

They have immunity from any actions they take that's related to an action in their official capacity.

Immunity can be canceled.

 

[Sirpopopop]

You think that without GW Bush Iraq and Afghanistan wouldn't have been invaded? You think GW Bush personally wanted to go to war and everyone else didn't? Really?

GWB is representative of his administration. Without GWB, the same players would not have been in the administration.

Since Barack Obama was always against the war in Iraq - yes, a Barack Obama administration would not have gone to war in Iraq.

http://lessig.org/blog/2008/01/barack_obamas_2002_speech.html

Why is Guantanamo Bay still not closed? Obama promised it in 2009 and I would say he had plenty of time to do it. Why are still all those anti-citizenterrorist laws in place? If Obama is really in total control (as you assume), there shouldn't be any problems doing it. So either he isn't in total control and is actually just another face or he isn't interested in doing so.

Let's omit the fact that Barack Obama ended the torture practices of the previous regime.

Let's omit the fact that Obama is having trouble closing down Guatanamo Bay precisely because Congress has done a good job of blocking reform in that area by rendering him unable to try cases in federal court, and making it harder to transfer prisoners to other countries.

Let's omit the fact that Obama can't just waive a magic pen and repeal laws.

People will also only get really war weary, when lots of their own soldiers die - see Vietnam. If it's basically "only" the people in the invaded country, they won't really care at all.

Yes, do you know what happened in Afghanistan and Iraq?

Lots of American soldiers died.

So? GW Bush said Iraq would be disarmed (from WMDs). Fact is there were no WMDs at all. So GW Bush lied. the newspapers lied. Colin Paul lied.
This wouldn't really matter, but lots of people in Iraq died because of that and that's awful.

It matters because it's an important basic fact that you failed to recall. It matters because it's a basic important fact that is incredibly pertinent to my argument, being that since it's no longer 2003, the paradigm has changed. The American people have been wounded in the Iraq/Afghanistan wars. The same standard of evidence that caused the Iraq War won't apply today.

As I pointed out, Barack Obama wouldn't go to war based on the case that George W. Bush went to war on. After all, he was always against the Iraq War, right from the start.

Immunity can be canceled.

For civil suits unrelated to the President's duty in office it is canceled. In other circumstances it needs to be waived. Why would GWB waive it?

 

[Dude Abides]

Dp

 

[Dude Abides]

Putting aside the facts that Barack Obama has shown a remarkable capacity to cave on virtually anything given sufficient Republican pressure, and that campaign speeches are cheap, if I were Iran I would not want to trust my security to the whims of American domestic politics. Even in this thread you have folks like Something Wicked (and members of the foreign policy establishment) pushing the same "regime change will be easy, quick, and cheap" line that intervention enthusiasts were pushing in 2003.

 

[state-of-the-art]

Putting aside the facts that Barack Obama has shown a remarkable capacity to cave on virtually anything given sufficient Republican pressure, and that campaign speeches are cheap, if I were Iran I would not want to trust my security to the whims of American domestic politics. Even in this thread you have folks like Something Wicked (and members of the foreign policy establishment) pushing the same "regime change will be easy, quick, and cheap" line that intervention enthusiasts were pushing in 2003.

I cannot fathom how anyone could be proposing a regime change or occupation after the catastrofuck that was OIF.

Or perhaps invading despotic countries is a macroeconomic stimulus policy now and nobody told me.

 

[MuzzledBasher]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=83LDtji3iEY

Could someone tell me if this video is old? Because wow, I was actually surprised that a very hateful statement like that was made on air in America. Is there some sort of 'dead pan' style of comedy they have going on, on that show?

 

[theignoramus]

Iran's regular army (not the RG) was upset about the elections crackdown and violence in 08. ideologically,it's not inherently loyal to the regime, which is why it's more poorly equipped than the RG.

 

[theignoramus]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=83LDtji3iEY

Could someone tell me if this video is old? Because wow, I was actually surprised that a very hateful statement like that was made on air in America. Is there some sort of 'dead pan' style of comedy they have going on, on that show?

If it wasnt for the Fox logos, i'd have thought this was an SNL skit.

 

[GTP_Daverytimes]

you mean one was developed with the intention of saving lives by ending a war and the other as a catalyst for starting a war?

rofl dude, just go move to Iran if you love that place so much.

Don't go there.

 

[Sirpopopop]

Putting aside the facts that Barack Obama has shown a remarkable capacity to cave on virtually anything given sufficient Republican pressure, and that campaign speeches are cheap, if I were Iran I would not want to trust my security to the whims of American domestic politics. Even in this thread you have folks like Something Wicked (and members of the foreign policy establishment) pushing the same "regime change will be easy, quick, and cheap" line that intervention enthusiasts were pushing in 2003.

Sort of like how he bowed down to the initial criticism that his action in Libya was misguided.

Obama on foreign policy is a different animal than Obama on domestic affairs.

 

[Timedog]

Dammit timedog you're sounding like ancient aliens guy now.

Fitting, since the ancient aliens guy has been stealing my look for awhile now. I'm not saying this it is in fact happening. I'm just wary of it, and feel there should be more precautions taken with electronic voting machines, especially given info coming out like republican committees sending electronic voting machine companies secret payments for undisclosed reasons.

 

[liger05]

Israeli agents collaborating with Kurdish operatives destroyed Iran’s nuclear infrastructure last year, according to an unnamed Israeli intelligence source cited in communiques between intelligence analysts uncovered by Wikileaks on Monday.

The leaked emails also contain assessments that Europeans want a military strike against Tehran to divert attention from the euro crisis and that Henry Kissinger believes a panicking Israel will indeed attack the Islamic regime.

Under the headline “The Global Intelligence Files,” the whistleblower website Wikileaks on Monday published more than five million emails by analysts belonging to the Texas-based intelligence company Stratfor between July 2004 and December 2011. Stratfor, which calls itself a “provider of geopolitical analysis,” is believed to provide intelligence to corporations and government agencies, such as the US Department of Homeland Security and the US Defense Intelligence Agency. Hours after the emails were leaked, Stratfor founder and CEO George Friedman resigned.

While many of the leaked emails, which are available on the Wikileaks site, deal with internal American affairs, a large number deal with Israel and tensions over Iran’s nuclear program.

http://www.timesofisrael.com/israel-...igence-claims/

 

[Onemic]

you mean one was developed with the intention of saving lives by ending a war and the other as a catalyst for starting a war?

rofl dude, just go move to Iran if you love that place so much.

LOL

 

[el retorno]

LOL

Um that's the ofical reason. I guess one could argue that is wasn't know if that was going to be the better outcome. But emptyvessel statement was ment to say the US didn't care about Japanese civilians and just wanted to kill thousands of them for the hell if it. Instead of a dificult decision that was taken in the middle of the worst war in human history which saw a bunch of unspeakable horrors.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Debate...Hiroshima_and_Nagasaki#Preferable_to_invasion

http://www.timesofisrael.com/israel-...igence-claims/

The leaked emails also contain assessments that Europeans want a military strike against Tehran to divert attention from the euro crisis and that Henry Kissinger believes a panicking Israel will indeed attack the Islamic regime.

What? How will possibly messing witht he oil supply of the countries in the worst shape (Spain, Italy and Greece) divert attention from the Euro Crisis. It seems to me that it would only highten tensions.

Then again these emails only seem to be what these people think and not always backed but actual offical documents like wikileaks other leaks.