Is It Nuts to Let Iran Go Nuclear?

[JuicyG]

Wasn't Orwell a socialist? lol

He was libertarian socialist.

 

[DerailingDaTrain]

Side with the guy who lives there? Did the live through the Spanish revolution? I don`t think so. This is a guy supporting Franco and fascists and he claims he`s libertarian. Give me a break.

I don`t believe Israel is right all the time. I believe though they have every right to defend themselves against Iran which is waging a proxy war against them using Hezbolah. Ron Paul supports Israel in acting as sovereign country, same as he supported Israel when they`ve attacked Iraqi atomic facilities(he was among very few to do it).
At the moment Obama administration is trying to stop Israel from attacking Iran because Obama fears Israel attacking Iran will skyrocket oil price to 200$/barrel and plunge world into a big economic correction and as result he`ll lose the elections.
Ron Paul would have no problem with letting them act as sovereign state and not as US puppet. It`s as simple as that.

Yeah, I'll be siding with the guy who lives there, because I know more about American history than someone in New Zealand and the same goes for me about the history of New Zealand. Also, I have no problem with Israel defending themselves against Iran, but you started an argument about something that has nothing to do with Israel because this guy is from Spain and doesn't share the same views as you do.

 

[chadpyle]

Of course, if a nuclear rogue regime was the government's true concern, we'd be balls-deep in North Korea right now. This is about resources and our entangling alliance with Israel.

 

[DerailingDaTrain]

He was libertarian socialist.

lol wut? I know at one point he described himself as a "tory-anarchist" but anyway this has nothing to do with Iran.

 

[JuicyG]

Yeah, I'll be siding with the guy who lives there, because I know more about American history than someone in New Zealand and the same goes for me about the history of New Zealand. Also, I have no problem with Israel defending themselves against Iran, but you started an argument about something that has nothing to do with Israel because this guy is from Spain and doesn't share the same views as you do.

Go back and see some of the claims he made, like Soviets supported anarchists in the Spanish revolution. His statement is clearly wrong and he knows it, which is why he didn`t argue with me about it.

It`s childish to believe just because you live in a country, you`re automatically an expert in the history of that country. By your logic a historian from US would know less about say Spanish history than some random dude born in Spain which now lives in Germany or Canada or someplace.
I`ve read this book called Homage to Catalonia written by Orwell who fought in the Spanish revolution and provided an eye account of the events. That book is basically a historical description of what went on at the time and book`s doing so in great detail.

 

[RM918]

We 'let' the Pakistanis and the North Koreans get nukes, and the world is not yet a glowing radiation pit.

 

[John F Kennedy III]

Answer to thread title: NO.

 

[JuicyG]

We 'let' the Pakistanis and the North Koreans get nukes, and the world is not yet a glowing radiation pit.

Yeah.

Pakistan however was a US controlled regime until Bhutto was assassinated, after which it became less friendly but still they have a military rule which is not nearly as retarded as the radical Islam of Iran. I believe US still gives financial aid to them or was giving them financial aid until recently.

North Korea is a rational regime though highly oppressive and dictatorial. They`ve used their nuclear power a couple of times as leverage to get food and supplies for the country which is under severe embargo for years.

 

[eduardo89]

Side with the guy who lives there? Did the live through the Spanish revolution? I don`t think so. This is a guy supporting Franco and fascists and he claims he`s libertarian. Give me a break.

Im not a Franco supporter, but I'd take Franco over communism, socialism or anarcho-syndicalism any day. And when have I ever claimed to be a libertarian? I'm not.

Go back and see some of the claims he made, like Soviets supported anarchists in the Spanish revolution. His statement is clearly wrong and he knows it, which is why he didn`t argue with me about it.

The Soviets did give a lot of material aid to anarchists in the Spanish civil war. Communist and anarchists fought together.

He was libertarian socialist.

Which is as far from anarcho-capitalism as a "libertarian" can get.

 

[seraphson]

Na. Besides. What's the worst that can happen?

 

[thoughtomator]

What the hell is a "libertarian socialist"? That's like mixing water and oil.

 

[flightlesskiwi]

Best of both worlds??? LOL! You are libertarian when it comes to your own profit/choices but socialist when it comes to your losses/other people's choices?? Sounds familiar, actually...

What the hell is a "libertarian socialist"? That's like mixing water and oil.

 

[DerailingDaTrain]

Apparently they are anti-capitalist

 

[eduardo89]

What the hell is a "libertarian socialist"? That's like mixing water and oil.

Libertarian socialism (sometimes called social anarchism, and sometimes left libertarianism) is a group of political philosophies that promote a non-hierarchical, non-bureaucratic, stateless society without private property in the means of production. Libertarian socialism is opposed to all coercive forms of social organization, and promotes free association in place of government and opposes what it sees as the coercive social relations of capitalism, such as wage labor.

So no state, but no private property either. An idiotic nonsensical ideology. According to JuicyG, it's part of the liberty movement.

 

[RM918]

What the hell is a "libertarian socialist"? That's like mixing water and oil.

I talked to one of those that was from either...Norway or the Netherlands, I can't keep them straight. It's something about 'democratizing' businesses so the workers all get a say about how the company works. I'm sure there's more to it, sounds ridiculous to me.

So no state, but no private property either. An idiotic nonsensical ideology. According to JuicyG, it's part of the liberty movement.

What I don't get is how they plan to keep that system in place. I'm betting it involves a certain organization with a monopoly on force.

 

[virgil47]

It's nuts to allow an apartheid, racist, aggressive regime occupying and oppressing the original population of the land to have a nuclear weapon (Israel)

The same can asked of the U.S. my friend.

 

[DerailingDaTrain]

So, let me get this straight, the anarchists fought with the nationalists, communists, etc during the beginning of the revolution but then there was a split in the ranks? If that is the truth then the anarchists were supported by the Soviets at first.

 

[JuicyG]

The Soviets did give a lot of material aid to anarchists in the Spanish civil war. Communist and anarchists fought together.

NOPE. They did join arms to fight a common enemy at first but were never financed nor supported by Soviets. By the contrary.

During the Civil War, Communist Party gained considerable influence due to the necessity of aid from the Soviet Union. Communists and "liberals" on the Republican side gave considerable effort to crush the anarchist revolution, ostensibly to bolster the anti-Fascist effort (the response was, "The revolution and the war are inseparable"). Pravda announced in December 1936 that "...the mopping up of Trotskyists and anarcho-syndicalists has already begun. It will be carried out with the same vigor as in the USSR." Another communist boldly proclaimed in an interview that they would "make short work of the anarchists after the defeat of Franco." Their efforts to weaken the revolution were ultimately successful: hierarchy was eventually restored in many of the collectivized areas, and power was taken away from workers and unions, to be monopolized by the Popular Front.

Which is as far from anarcho-capitalism as a "libertarian" can get.

NOPE. If you believe in freedom and you`re not a statist you`d rather side with libertarian socialist any given day versus royalists/fascists or communists. They believed in a gift and barter economy which I`m not a fan of but beats the hell of those other options.

It`s basically a system on the extreme right of social liberties but somewhat on left on economics. If I were to pick, I`d pick individual freedom even with an agrarian system than fascism or communism.

 

[eduardo89]

So, let me get this straight, the anarchists fought with the nationalists, communists, etc during the beginning of the revolution but then there was a split in the ranks? If that is the truth then the anarchists were supported by the Soviets at first.

The civil war was anarcho-syndicalists, communists and socialists on one side and nationalists, Catholics, and monarchists on the oth side.

The Soviets funded the "Republicans" (anarchists, socialists, communists). Those groups didn't really get along, but they fought against the "Nationalists" who also didn't always get along, but had a common goal of preventing Spain become a soviet puppet state.

 

[eduardo89]

The same can asked of the U.S. my friend.

I agree to some extent.

It's ironic how the US is (still) the most free country domestically, but the biggest tyranny on the world stage.