By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Politics Discussion - Help me write my college paper. - Iran

 

Will you help me?

no, write your own damn paper 17 85.00%
 
yes, I like to help and cookies 3 15.00%
 
Total:20
the2real4mafol on 10 September 2013
PDF said:
the2real4mafol said:
PDF said:
2. - Myth that no Nuclear States have gone to war.   Indo-Pakastani war of 1999 was a year after Pakistan got the bomb.  China and the Soviets also had military conflicts on their border while both had nuclear weapons.

4. Worked in stopping Syria nuclear program and Iraq after first gulf war.

None of this will be relevant to you but i feel like adding a bit to some of what you said

2. What i meant by no nuclear states going to war is that they haven't used them on each other and war is more unlikely. Also when did China and Russia ever fight each other?

4. I had no idea that Syria was ever developing them but i hope you know Iraq was a lie. Someone who used to work in the CIA admitted it was all a lie but they all just went along with it at the time

~http://antiwar.com/blog/2013/03/19/the-lie-that-got-us-in-the-bush-administration-knew-there-were-no-wmds-in-iraq/

China - Soviet conflict over the border.  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sino-Soviet_border_conflict

I said Iraq did not pursue nuclear weapons after the first gulf war. When they invaded Kuwait.  Back then they were pursuing nuclear weapons.  We were lied to about them pursuing nuclear weapons again.  In reality after we stopped them once it was enough to discourage them from restarting the program.  Giving leverage to the argument that military action against Iran could deter them.

The only thing is that Iran is a regional power, Iraq wasn't. So it could be quite dangerous to destabilise that country again, as it would massively impact the whole region. 



Xbox One, PS4 and Switch (+ Many Retro Consoles)

'When the people are being beaten with a stick, they are not much happier if it is called the people's stick'- Mikhail Bakunin

Prediction: Switch will sell better than Wii U Lifetime Sales by Jan 1st 2018

Around the Network
Kasz216 on 10 September 2013
PDF said:

So I am writing my paper and I thought I would let the intelligent people of vgchartz to help me with it.

 - Please use sources when making arguments if possible.  I can only really use your points if you can give me credible sources to back it up

 

Topic:  Stopping/reversing all proliferation problems from Iran.

Some talking points you can think about.

- Is a nuclear Iran really a threat?

- Why does iran want nuclear weapons?

- Are economic sanctions effective?

- Would military actions be effective?

- What other options are there for stopping Iran nuclear ambitions?

 

Any good really good points backed up by sources will be given a cookie.  You will get 2 cookies if you can provide a pro stopping Iran argument.

 

 

- Is a nuclear Iran really a threat?

Not in the covnentional sense, hower Iran as it's run is bound to have a revolution one day, which makes such arms capable of falling into the wrong hands.

 

- Why does iran want nuclear weapons?

Why wouldn't they?  It essentially means the west has to leave you alone.

- Are economic sanctions effective?

No.  I imagine this would help.

http://nationalinterest.org/commentary/why-the-iran-sanctions-dont-work-8301

 

- Would military actions be effective?

I mean, it depends how much, but eventually it would.  It'd take way more action then people could stomach though... and Iran actually has big defenses and a huge part of the country just rife for hiding shit.

- What other options are there for stopping Iran nuclear ambitions?

Aren't any really, they tried the appeasment route but Iran pretty much steadfastly said they couldn't be bribed.



Kasz216 on 10 September 2013
the2real4mafol said:
PDF said:
2. - Myth that no Nuclear States have gone to war.   Indo-Pakastani war of 1999 was a year after Pakistan got the bomb.  China and the Soviets also had military conflicts on their border while both had nuclear weapons.

4. Worked in stopping Syria nuclear program and Iraq after first gulf war.

None of this will be relevant to you but i feel like adding a bit to some of what you said

2. What i meant by no nuclear states going to war is that they haven't used them on each other and war is more unlikely. Also when did China and Russia ever fight each other?

4. I had no idea that Syria was ever developing them but i hope you know Iraq was a lie. Someone who used to work in the CIA admitted it was all a lie but they all just went along with it at the time

~http://antiwar.com/blog/2013/03/19/the-lie-that-got-us-in-the-bush-administration-knew-there-were-no-wmds-in-iraq/


Did you actually read your own source?  Because the actual facts in your source contradict the conclusions drawn from it...

outside which said story is laughably out of date.

There was an actual intellegence source which intentionally lied about nuclear weapons.  They believed him because they wanted to.

The US government didn't make anything up.



the2real4mafol on 12 September 2013
Kasz216 said:
the2real4mafol said:
PDF said:
2. - Myth that no Nuclear States have gone to war.   Indo-Pakastani war of 1999 was a year after Pakistan got the bomb.  China and the Soviets also had military conflicts on their border while both had nuclear weapons.

4. Worked in stopping Syria nuclear program and Iraq after first gulf war.

None of this will be relevant to you but i feel like adding a bit to some of what you said

2. What i meant by no nuclear states going to war is that they haven't used them on each other and war is more unlikely. Also when did China and Russia ever fight each other?

4. I had no idea that Syria was ever developing them but i hope you know Iraq was a lie. Someone who used to work in the CIA admitted it was all a lie but they all just went along with it at the time

~http://antiwar.com/blog/2013/03/19/the-lie-that-got-us-in-the-bush-administration-knew-there-were-no-wmds-in-iraq/


Did you actually read your own source?  Because the actual facts in your source contradict the conclusions drawn from it...

outside which said story is laughably out of date.

There was an actual intellegence source which intentionally lied about nuclear weapons.  They believed him because they wanted to.

The US government didn't make anything up.

If they didn't lie, how come they couldn't find any WMD's in Iraq? They were there for long enough 



Xbox One, PS4 and Switch (+ Many Retro Consoles)

'When the people are being beaten with a stick, they are not much happier if it is called the people's stick'- Mikhail Bakunin

Prediction: Switch will sell better than Wii U Lifetime Sales by Jan 1st 2018

think-man on 12 September 2013

Damn never thought of turning to the charts for help with studies lol



 

How to Make friends In Dark Souls 3

Around the Network
Kasz216 on 12 September 2013
the2real4mafol said:
Kasz216 said:
the2real4mafol said:

If they didn't lie, how come they couldn't find any WMD's in Iraq? They were there for long enough 


I can't believe you are asking this question...

It's ridiculiously simple.   Whether you are lying or telling the truth is not at all related to whether or not what you say is correct.


Example "

Mike: I saw john at the market today".

Mark: "You couldn't have he was with me all day, it must of been his twin brother Don."

Mike: "I didn't know he had a twin.

 

Mike wasn't lying there.   He was wrong, but he specifically said what he thought he saw.  Which is the truth.

To lie requires the knowledge of the falsities and the intent to deceive.

 

The intellegence presented came from an Iraqi defector who was specifically lying in an attempt to get the US to overthrow Saddam Hussein.