So I thought this would be a pretty interesting idea. Since the serious board isn't suited to hosting AMAs, I figure we should have a thread where we get to pose questions to any user we like about any appropriate topic, or alternatively you could simply pose a question to liberals, conservatives, libertarians etc. as a group and whoever is a part of said group can also answer that question.

Preferably quote the OP blank and change my username to whoever you're asking the question.

Spoken like a fucking politician.

Not really; it'd be like saying we can't do anything about ISIS because we're not really doing anything about Boko Haram.

How about because they purposefully don't stop these countries and purposefully go after Iran?

We can't stop countries that already have a weapon, nor can we meaningfully intervene in terms of Pakistan's nuclear weapons without appearing to favour India (which, personally, I do) and ramping up tensions.

We should do something about Pakistan and their support for the Taliban, of course, but in terms of their nuclear capabilities there is very little we can do. It's also worth noting that Pakistan is an ally of Iran; anything we do to hinder Iranian nuclear ambitions also weakens Pakistan's geopolitical position.

What country? A country the British gave them after colonizing the land themselves?

No, the country that they took when Palestinians and numerous Arab armies attacked them the day the British left. Israel now holds over sixty percent of what would've originally been Palestinian land had the AHC accepted the 1947 partition plan, never mind the fact that they would currently own eighty percent of the entire region had the Islamist AHC not rejected the original 1936 partition plan.

The Palestinians got fucked over by their government, got fucked over by the Egyptians and now are getting fucked over by Hamas.

But Pakistan is?

The kind of government you want having nukes?

No, of course not. But they already have them.

Why shouldn't Iran have nukes? How is Iran in any way worse than Pakistan?

It isn't, but fewer bad governments with nukes is better than more bad governments with nukes. The fact that we haven't done and aren't doing anything about the Pakistani government isn't any kind of excuse to do nothing about the Iranian government.

Does the Taliban have nukes because Pakistan has them? Nope.

The relationship between the Taliban and Pakistan is not the same as between Iran and, say, Hezbollah.

This is all Jewish lobbying because they're afraid Iran will give Hezbollah nuclear missiles to strike Israel with.

Israeli* lobbying. If Jews in general were so worried about Iran they wouldn't vote Democrat.

And, besides, it's not an unreasonable fear at all. Any expansion in Hezbollah's capacity to commit terrorist attacks is bad.

EDIT: Also worth noting, the U.S. already conducts drone strikes in Pakistan to kill militants. So it's not like we're doing absolutely nothing.

And who are America and Israel to say whether or not Iran can have nuclear weapons?

Don't give a fuck if they say it, I just happen to agree with them if they do.

Iran is essentially a theocracy; the Ayatollahs have been religious lunatics and Iran getting the bomb would spark a regional arms race as well as upgrade the capabilities of the insurgent groups they already support substantially.

I'd have thought you'd be opposed to them getting nukes. The Iranian government is dangerous, and if they ever did get the bomb the innocent Iranians themselves would be in significant danger due to the fact they live under a capricious government.

It's honestly hilarious watching you burgerclaps flip shit on this issue across the pond.

^ This.

and then just proceed to do absolutely nothing about the flawed status quo

So the solution is to waste political capital doing something useless?

Stagnation is superior to regression.

Not that I agree with him, but that's the point he's making.

Yes, they are. But before I go into that, I just want to address something important. Is Iran democratic? It's something of a talking point within both the anti-neocon Left and the isolationist Right that Iran is actually a democratic country, which has never been the aggressor against another State (despite the fact they are responsible for numerous insurgencies in the region) and is constantly subjected to humiliating or otherwise undesirable Western policies.

So allow me to just address the point of Iran's democratic virtues: the unelected Guardian Council vets all parliamentary candidates before allowing them to stand, and there has been a startling decrease in the number of moderate reformists in the past decade or so. 2,500 hundred reformists in 2004 to 1,700 in 2008 and again the Guardian Council stalled progress by refusing many moderates the chance to stand in the 2009 Presidential elections. But, of course, does any of that really matter even when the Supreme Leader gets his way against the successful, vetted candidates regardless? Iran is no true democracy.

Now, to move on to whether Iran is a threat in any significant capacity. The 2007 National Intelligence Estimate argued that Iran had shifted gear with regards to its nuclear weapons programme back in 2003, much the same way Libya had done, confirming MI6's expectations of a shift in attitude in the region towards nuclear weapons development. However, it didn't last. The 2011 NIE reached a different conclusion, finding that the Iranian approach to nuclear weapons had indeed changed since the 2007 report, and that Iran was pursuing "early-stage R&D work on aspects of the manufacturing process for a nuclear weapon."

The IAEA also stated such concerns back in 2011, which includes evidence of a potential military application, and stated that Iran was not cooperating with the UN watchdog. . . Of course, not for the first time. There was also a report that same year, by the UNSC, which confirmed that Iran had avoided international sanctions by using a network of smugglers to acquire the materials needed for ICBMs and nuclear weaponry.

German spies have also played a hand in refuting the 2007 NIE report and confirming that yes Iran does have ambitions for a nuclear weapon. The French, similarly, say they are certain this is what the Iranians desire and the British are also convinced.

And, perhaps most damingly:

The report, by the London-based International Institute for Strategic Studies (IISS), said that Iran’s ambition to produce a nuclear weapon is “beyond reasonable doubt” and that it has sufficient low-enriched uranium from its Natanz enrichment facility to produce one or two bombs.

It's important to note Iran does not currently have a nuclear weapons system, and it's probably the case that they aren't particularly close either. However, it's fairly clear at this point that nuclear armaments are a significant goal of the Iranian establishment and we ought to direct our intelligence services to disrupting them any way we can.

Services are not a right.

Sure they are, or at least can be.

If I walk into a clinic with a deadly, infectious disease you better believe I have the right--and so does everybody else in the clinic--to force somebody to call the CDC. If I'm in a wheelchair with a gun, and some guy is walking past a drowning baby you better believe I'd be morally correct to coerce him into saving it.

Quote from: M8A-ORD on January 04, 2016, 04:28:04 PM

Got me.

fucking YES

i designate thee "UltimateKidzBopFan08"

God damn it.

Jester, pick my avatar.

Wow, that didn't last as long as I thought it would.

YouTube

Got me.

You guys just aren't trying.

Use whatever you need: videos, memes, pictures, jokes whatever.

Salafist Sam.

Car-bomb Chris.

Taliban Terry.

I won't hear that it's most people, because it just isn't.

That's not the title. It can be read both ways; I read it broadly as "Why are atrocities committed by the West considered more reprehensible by the people who hold such an opinion". Not most people, which is why I went to great lengths to spell out the kind of political positions which led to the phenomenon listed in the OP.

It would be fucking stupid to claim most conservatives/right-wingers think the West is more reprehensible; we all know the U.S. has enough chest-thumping patriots to make this not the case.