The Religion of Peace Update

[Monahorns]

Do you really think that if they're building nuclear weapons that they'll let journalists or anybody else see it?

Not necessarily. But should we base our views on silence? Until someone shows evidence I'm not going to assume something.

 

[Horn6721]

Mona
Do you think Iran in the past was trying to build nukes. If not why were they denying UN Inspectors going back over 5 years

 

[ViperHorn]

Iran has been attempting to build nukes for decades. They have lied, cheated and stole their way to the bring. On at least two occasions they have been derailed by Isreali actions. That is fact.

 

[Monahorns]

Iran has been attempting to build nukes for decades. They have lied, cheated and stole their way to the bring. On at least two occasions they have been derailed by Isreali actions. That is fact.

Awesome. Show me your evidence.

 

[ViperHorn]

Google Isreali bombardment of Iran reactor and Iran Nuclear Scientist Killed.

 

[Monahorns]

Google Isreali bombardment of Iran reactor and Iran Nuclear Scientist Killed.

I did. It isn't conclusive that they were preventing a weapons program. I even read the Council on Foreign Relations article on the subject. Israel has dropped some bombs, uploaded some computer viruses, and assassinated some people. That's clear. What isn't clear is Iran's purposes.

I don't mind computer viruses and negotiations honestly. Bombing a mountain isn't so bad as long as people don't live on it.

But you admit that Israel killed a scientist. What was that scientist doing? Was he planning to build a weapon? Or was he building a nuclear power system? The answer to that question determines whether Israel is guilty of murder or not. What should be the threshhold declaring guilt? Reasonable doubt? There's reasonable doubt from what I read.

Should Israel and others kill Iranians who are building a nuclear power program? Due to fear about nuclear weapons, should the West require that Iran never have a nuclear reactor to produce electricity? I'm fine with that as long as Iran is free to burn fossil fuels indefinitely. But theoretically it is still a violation of national sovereignty. The US regime respects borders and national sovereignty up until the point they don't approve of a country creating electricity without CO2 emissions.

It's so fun to rule the world!

 

[Monahorns]

Some good guidelines on what self defense is and when it should be employed.

The Ethics Of Liberty - Self Defense

 

[Mr. Deez]

Not necessarily. But should we base our views on silence? Until someone shows evidence I'm not going to assume something.

Not necessarily? How about definitely friggin not. If they were doing it, they would tell nobody. They would be enriching Uranium very quickly, and they would be denying everything and denying inspectors access to nuclear facilities. In other words, they'd be doing exactly what they're doing.

And again, go to war over it? Not unless they use it or make a serious threat to. But avoiding helping them and being prepared in the event that they do? Only an idiot wouldn't do that.

 

[Mr. Deez]

Google Isreali bombardment of Iran reactor and Iran Nuclear Scientist Killed.

Don't argue with him. It's pointless. He will assume every Western authority to be in totally evil and assume every enemy of the West to basically be honest, decent folks who'd never hurt a fly or lie to anybody. He'll deny that, but it's the line of reasoning he consistently applies. I've been haggling with him about stuff like this for years.

On the flip side, he's very good on social issues and monetary policy.

 

[Garmel]

Don't argue with him. It's pointless. He will assume every Western authority to be in totally evil and assume every enemy of the West to basically be honest, decent folks who'd never hurt a fly or lie to anybody. He'll deny that, but it's the line of reasoning he consistently applies. I've been haggling with him about stuff like this for years.

On the flip side, he's very good on social issues and monetary policy.

Libertarians, like liberals, live in a world of narratives which makes it hard to change their minds on anything.

 

[Run Pincher]

Not necessarily. But should we base our views on silence? Until someone shows evidence I'm not going to assume something.

This is Iran. I we can assume they are until someone proves they're not.

 

[ViperHorn]

I did. It isn't conclusive that they were preventing a weapons program. I even read the Council on Foreign Relations article on the subject. Israel has dropped some bombs, uploaded some computer viruses, and assassinated some people. That's clear. What isn't clear is Iran's purposes.

I don't mind computer viruses and negotiations honestly. Bombing a mountain isn't so bad as long as people don't live on it.

But you admit that Israel killed a scientist. What was that scientist doing? Was he planning to build a weapon? Or was he building a nuclear power system? The answer to that question determines whether Israel is guilty of murder or not. What should be the threshhold declaring guilt? Reasonable doubt? There's reasonable doubt from what I read.

Should Israel and others kill Iranians who are building a nuclear power program? Due to fear about nuclear weapons, should the West require that Iran never have a nuclear reactor to produce electricity? I'm fine with that as long as Iran is free to burn fossil fuels indefinitely. But theoretically it is still a violation of national sovereignty. The US regime respects borders and national sovereignty up until the point they don't approve of a country creating electricity without CO2 emissions.

It's so fun to rule the world!

Nothing inconclusive, but you are entitled to your opinion even if you and the government of Iran are the only deniers.

 

[Mr. Deez]

Libertarians, like liberals, live in a world of narratives which makes it hard to change their minds on anything.

And they allow for little nuance. You either agree with them, or you're friggin Paul Wolfowitz.

 

[Monahorns]

Not necessarily? How about definitely friggin not. If they were doing it, they would tell nobody. They would be enriching Uranium very quickly, and they would be denying everything and denying inspectors access to nuclear facilities. In other words, they'd be doing exactly what they're doing.

Ok. For some strange reason you think I am reading Iranian news or something. I'm reading articles from the US, UK, and the CFR.

And again, go to war over it? Not unless they use it or make a serious threat to. But avoiding helping them and being prepared in the event that they do? Only an idiot wouldn't do that.

I think we are on the same page here. You brought up letting them get nukes. I brought up war to stop it. You said you didn't mean war. I gotcha.

 

[Monahorns]

Libertarians, like liberals, live in a world of narratives which makes it hard to change their minds on anything.

You mean like Iran= bad US government =good and interpreting all events through that lens? Pot meet kettle.

And I backed you up on several subjects before. Thought that would count for something.

 

[Monahorns]

Don't argue with him. It's pointless. He will assume every Western authority to be in totally evil and assume every enemy of the West to basically be honest, decent folks who'd never hurt a fly or lie to anybody. He'll deny that, but it's the line of reasoning he consistently applies. I've been haggling with him about stuff like this for years.

What a great strawman you have made. I am some character you have created in your mind regardless of what I say or claim to be. And of course don't pay attention to me disagreeing with such an insult that's just me being an Iranian or something.

What I actually think based on history and current events is that ALL these governments are evil.

I actually based my opinions about Iran's nuclear program on reports out of Israel. Should I not trust them?

 

[Garmel]

You mean like Iran= bad US government =good and interpreting all events through that lens? Pot meet kettle.

And I backed you up on several subjects before. Thought that would count for something.

I like you and we do agree on a lot of things. I back you up (and will continue to) when you're right but libertarians have a tendency to create moral equivalencies between us and our enemies and I'm not going to be nice about it when I hear it. Not to say we're angels but we are the good guys in most situations.

 

[Garmel]

Don't take it personally, Mona. Hell, I go after Deez a lot more than I do you. His establishment thought process grates me on occasion and I get on his nerves as well. However, Deez and I friends just as you and I are friends.

 

[Monahorns]

Nothing inconclusive, but you are entitled to your opinion even if you and the government of Iran are the only deniers.

Dude. I looked up the stuff you suggested. I read Western and Israeli mainstream reports not Iranian ones. They obviously have a uranium enrichment program. Despite years of development they haven't yet enriched uranium enough for a weapon. Part of that could be due to Israeli subterfuge and bombing. Or it could all be Iranian lies. But in that case the Western media is reporting Iranians lies. If there are more reliable sources please let me know.

Continuing what I learned. They have enriched it past what is needed for a power plant. That is the only actual evidence I found that they do want to build weapons. It is suggestive but it isn't conclusive. Japan did the same thing and didn't build weapons.

I recognize US relations with Japan and Iran are completely different. I personally don't want any more countries to have nuclear weapons. I support any and all peaceful means of convincing Iran to not build nukes. I agree the US should have contingency plans for if they do get them. I am for nuclear non-proliferation and reduction agreements around the world like Reagan supported.

Is this not what everybody thinks?

 

[Monahorns]

On the flip side, he's very good on social issues and monetary policy.

It's intertwined. The different areas feed each other.

 

[Monahorns]

but libertarians have a tendency to create moral equivalencies between us and our enemies and I'm not going to be nice about it when I hear it. Not to say we're angels but we are the good guys in most situations.

I recognize this is an issue for libertarians. I think it comes from two places. First, we live in America so we are the most concerned with what our government is doing. It affects us the most. They represent us on some level. And we have more of an ability to change our own country than any other.

It is like the sports team you follow. You know the strengths and weaknesses of your team best. You see your teams weaknesses but you wouldn't notice the same weaknesses in another team.

Second, the US government is the most powerful government in the world right now. Anything it does has the most potential for good or evil. I think we have the best form of government in the world. The principles of America's founding are tops. In those ways I agree. America is the good guy. Where libertarians get crazy is that when the US government does do something bad it has a huge effect on the world and there is not much anyone else can do about it. It is an internal voice for constraint. I think it is needed.

Sometimes there are equivalencies. If multiple states do the same thing, I will hold them all morally equivalent. Just look at the woke Marxist mess the Federal government has become. It still retains the foundation of the founding, but it has been corrupted. I think those of us on the Right should call out our own government's malfeasance. Some of that involves military too. See Rachel Levine for example.

 

[Horn6721]

Damn Mona
Just when I was ready to consider you " out there" for thinking
Iran is trying to build nukes you post ^.
Just a great post

 

[Mr. Deez]

It's intertwined. The different areas feed each other.

Your economic and social policies are virtually impossible unless you don't get your way on foreign policy.

 

[Monahorns]

Your economic and social policies are virtually impossible unless you don't get your way on foreign policy.

Not sure what you are talking about.

If "we" get our way on money it will be impossible for government to have any other foreign policy than the one "we" want.

Libertarians are very fractured on social policy. Most associate libertarians with libertine lifestyles but it isn't monolithic. Many of us believe/know that liberty is only possible within a Christian/moral/right wing society. In fact that is the milieu that libertarianism came out of, as it is based on classical liberalism/American conservatism (which is different than the European version).

Libertarian policies are more or less impossible right now because there aren't enough people who value them. If that ever changes it is all possible in any order.

 

[Mr. Deez]

Not sure what you are talking about.

If "we" get our way on money it will be impossible for government to have any other foreign policy than the one "we" want.

Libertarians are very fractured on social policy. Most associate libertarians with libertine lifestyles but it isn't monolithic. Many of us believe/know that liberty is only possible within a Christian/moral/right wing society. In fact that is the milieu that libertarianism came out of, as it is based on classical liberalism/American conservatism (which is different than the European version).

Libertarian policies are more or less impossible right now because there aren't enough people who value them. If that ever changes it is all possible in any order.

Focusing initially on the economy, you're a big free trade guy and think it has very positive effects on the economy. (I agree with this with narrow exceptions involving national security.) However, free trade is only possible with a powerful and sprawling military (especially Navy) protecting it.

 

[Monahorns]

Obviously there has to be security on sea lanes, but I think there are various frameworks that can provide it. Just because it works one way today doesn't mean that is the only way.

 

[Mr. Deez]

Obviously there has to be security on sea lanes, but I think there are various frameworks that can provide it. Just because it works one way today doesn't mean that is the only way.

Yes. We could come up with a totally different way from the only way that has ever worked in the history of international trade. Sounds very promising.

 

[Monahorns]

Yes. We could come up with a totally different way from the only way that has ever worked in the history of international trade. Sounds very promising.

So I understand you what are you saying is the "only way that has ever worked in history"?

 

[Mr. Deez]

So I understand you what are you saying is the "only way that has ever worked in history"?

Naval power. The US Navy does it now. The Royal Navy did it before. Prior to that, international trade was a fraction of what it became and was limited, again, by the naval power of the countries involved. Without naval power, any country that wants to screw with your trade can do so. And even if they don't, pirates will.

 

[Monahorns]

Naval power. The US Navy does it now. The Royal Navy did it before. Prior to that, international trade was a fraction of what it became and was limited, again, by the naval power of the countries involved. Without naval power, any country that wants to screw with your trade can do so. And even if they don't, pirates will.

I agree that naval power is required. Who supplies it and how it is applied are the things I think can change while still maintaining security. I wasn't thinking security would be provided outside of naval power.