Iran Test-Fires 9 Missiles to Show 'Might'

[idrankwhat 0]

Quote

Drug use isn't a small problem and the way to deal with it is prevention and treatment. Prevention meaning removing the social conditions from which it arises and treatment meaning treating it medically and not criminally. The Rand corporation found it to be about 23 times more effective than 'source country control'.

But that's not as profitable. There's a reason that 1% of our population is in jail. There's good money in it. And from the political standpoint, if you help someone get themselves out of a problem then it's called "socialism" and expending the resources is completely unacceptable. If you spend even more taxpayer money overburdening the law enforcement, legal and correction communities and fail to solve the underlying problem, then it's "justice".


And interestingly enough, the above does actually apply to the subject of the thread. One approach involves honestly addressing the problem using respectful diplomacy and dealing with the underlying issue. The other uses an expensive, heavy handed approach that is likely to create more problems than it solves.

[nerdgirl 0]

Guessing most folks have heard that when the semi-official Iranian News Agency FARS released a high quality image of missile launch there was some digital alteration.

[silly]
Apparently some other variants were rejected: see attachments.

[/silly]

/Marg

Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters.
Tibetan Buddhist saying

[warpedskydiver 0]

Wait, Godzilla is on their side?

We are screwed now!

[billvon 2,397]

Well, history shows again and again how nature points out the folly of man.

[warpedskydiver 0]

GODZILLA!!!

[warpedskydiver 0]

I once used the Godzilla sound to startle some people who were eating mushrooms.

I cranked the amps up to 200 watts and let it rip.

I think someone soiled themselves.

Between shit like that, gunfire, and some explosions, no wonder I have Tinnitus.

[Gawain 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

It gives you a pretext for stifling economic and social development in the countries you want to exploit.

Okay, please explain then, how Mexican drug lords contribute to economic and social development.

I don't even need to start the list of how they contribute to the disorder.

Mexican drug lords don't contribute much of anything which wasn't my point.

Drugs, communism, terrorism - Great pretexts.

Drug use isn't a small problem and the way to deal with it is prevention and treatment. Prevention meaning removing the social conditions from which it arises and treatment meaning treating it medically and not criminally. The Rand corporation found it to be about 23 times more effective than 'source country control'.

Prevention and treatment is useless if the individual is not willing to accept that help. In the US, rarely is a criminal offense not coupled with a social recovery option (meaning they are paired). Under that circumstance, removing the supply becomes part of the strategy.

Drug addiction transcends social class. High-end treatment centers like Hazelden (in Minnesota) and Silver Hill (in Connecticut - there are dozens) are at capacity just like city/county/state facilities.

The social element is not the only factor. Because of the effect that such conditions do to a family, and thus, society (clear ripple effect), those that produce and distribute these substances are exploiting those conditions.

It is not a one-way street.

So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh
Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright
'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life
Make light!

[jcd11235 0]

Quote

Under that circumstance, removing the supply becomes part of the strategy.

A better strategy would be to open the market to bring the prices down, leaving people free to choose to use drugs or not.

If coffee beans were $200 per pound, do you think the coffee industry would be free of violence? How about if cigarettes cost $150 a pack?

Limiting supply significantly increases the problem.

Quote

The social element is not the only factor. Because of the effect that such conditions do to a family, and thus, society (clear ripple effect), those that produce and distribute these substances are exploiting those conditions.

And those who artificially limit supply with the war on drugs are the one who create the exploitable conditions. Stop limiting the supply artificially, and those exploitable conditions disappear.

The war on drugs does more harm than the drugs do.

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[Gawain 0]

Quote

The war on drugs does more harm than the drugs do.

I can only glean from your statement that you have no understanding on the long term physical health problems that drugs cause, and have no idea of the intangibles - hard to measure damage to families, the societies they are a part of.

Having seen, lost many, I can tell you that your argument alone does not hold water.

While I understand the supply-demand point of view you're trying to take, it doesn't work. It's like saying the current fuel prices are purely supply-demand related.

The exploitable conditions are part of the disease of addiction.

So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh
Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright
'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life
Make light!

[jcd11235 0]

Quote

I can only glean from your statement that you have no understanding on the long term physical health problems that drugs cause, and have no idea of the intangibles - hard to measure damage to families, the societies they are a part of.

You would be incorrect in doing so.

Quote

Having seen, lost many, I can tell you that your argument alone does not hold water.

I've lost a lot of friends over the years to a lot of different causes, drugs, alcohol, automobile accidents, skydiving, … Perhaps we should make all of those illegal, also.

The two deadliest common recreational drugs are alcohol and tobacco. Your argument is the one that holds no water.

Quote

While I understand the supply-demand point of view you're trying to take, it doesn't work.

It does work. When was the last time you saw one convenience store owner shoot another convenience store owner over the exclusive right to sell cigarettes in the area? Tobacco is just as addictive and deadly as any common illegal drugs.

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[Gawain 0]

We'll simply have to remain in disagreement.

Drug and alcohol addiction often have little to do with the substances - themselves being symptoms of a much broader condition. Because of that, regulating distribution or relaxing laws does not help those that are addicted. The Needle Park experiment in Zurich is a prime example. The consequences were far more dire than anticipated. If it were such a success, it would still be open today.

While nicotine is probably the most addictive substance on earth, it does not manifest itself with the physical maladies of withdrawal that alcohol or heroin have. Quitting smoking has a physical discomfort of a few days, the rest is mental.

Alcohol, being the grand-daddy, is probably the most dangerous substance to detox from. However, it's addiction process takes longer unless the individual is predisposed to alcoholic behavior (which again drinking is only part of the problem to begin with).

Marijuana...while I'd like to group it with smoking cigarettes....and pretty much the most common tragedy with this drug is that one would drop the phone while mis-dialing the number to Pizza Hut. Unfortunately, its affects and potency make me place it in the area of alcohol especially when it comes to driving. The long term health issues are the big problem there. Medicinal matters could be argued, but there are far more effective pain management regimens out there.

Hard drugs (Cocaine/Crack, Heroine, Meth, etc) - there is no reason in my mind why any of these substances should be made legal or regulated. A crack or meth addict is a crack/meth addict regardless of whether the drug is legal or not. Productivity and contribution to society falls to near zero nearly immediately. Behaviors often turn violent heart failure or strokes are not uncommon. Same with Meth and its relatives. I've seen "functional" heroine addicts, but long term uses, tolerance, increased use have major physical long term affects.

I suppose in the grand scheme, arguments could be made to let Darwin-ism do its work, but these issues reach far beyond those famous last words, "Hey y'all, watch this..."

There simply is not a single factor to face the problem. And while the drug cartels are armed and willing to kill indiscriminately through direct action or through their product, we should be defending ourselves vigorously through any and all means possible.

So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh
Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright
'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life
Make light!

[ErricoMalatesta 0]

Quote

In the US, rarely is a criminal offense not coupled with a social recovery option (meaning they are paired).

Haha yeah sure it does.

Your prison population is well above everyone else and regular people can’t afford health insurance but you have a tip top medical/social accompaniment to jailing your ‘criminals’.

Quote

Under that circumstance, removing the supply becomes part of the strategy.

So when the US pour millions of dollars into places to ‘stop drugs’ and the drugs continue strong and the stated demands are never met that is part of the strategy.

Quote

Drug addiction transcends social class. High-end treatment centers like Hazelden (in Minnesota) and Silver Hill (in Connecticut - there are dozens) are at capacity just like city/county/state facilities.

Ok so that shows rich and powerful people are important and get the best of care. It doesn’t transcend social class? It is at its heart a war on the poor.

Quote

The social element is not the only factor. Because of the effect that such conditions do to a family, and thus, society (clear ripple effect), those that produce and distribute these substances are exploiting those conditions.

The social element is not the only factor and then you continue to list a… social… element.

Quote

We'll simply have to remain in disagreement.

Drug and alcohol addiction often have little to do with the substances - themselves being symptoms of a much broader condition. Because of that, regulating distribution or relaxing laws does not help those that are addicted. The Needle Park experiment in Zurich is a prime example. The consequences were far more dire than anticipated. If it were such a success, it would still be open today.

Yeah just ignore Holland (and all evidence pointing towards the ridiculousness of the US drug war and its domestic stance towards narcotics.)

Quote

While nicotine is probably the most addictive substance on earth, it does not manifest itself with the physical maladies of withdrawal that alcohol or heroin have. Quitting smoking has a physical discomfort of a few days, the rest is mental.

US cigarettes will kill about 50 million Chinese by 2020.

How does it go again? “Under that circumstance, removing the supply becomes part of the strategy” … I will let them know.

Quote

Alcohol, being the grand-daddy, is probably the most dangerous substance to detox from. However, it's addiction process takes longer unless the individual is predisposed to alcoholic behavior (which again drinking is only part of the problem to begin with).

How is Alcohol the grand-daddy? The next drug you mention dates back roughly twelve thousand years. I’m beginning to think I just read a poor excuse for an apology about legal drugs and now we are going to get a bunch of bs…

Quote

Marijuana...while I'd like to group it with smoking cigarettes....and pretty much the most common tragedy with this drug is that one would drop the phone while mis-dialing the number to Pizza Hut. Unfortunately, its affects and potency make me place it in the area of alcohol especially when it comes to driving.

You can place it in that category if you like but no one else on the entire planet will.

Quote

but there are far more effective pain management regimens out there.

I’m pretty sure a lot of people over the last 30 odd years have argued against this. Their the ones with MS and cancer so I dunno… should I believe you or them?

Quote

Hard drugs (Cocaine/Crack, Heroine, Meth, etc) - there is no reason in my mind why any of these substances should be made legal or regulated.

Good because the CIA need extra money.

Quote

A crack or meth addict is a crack/meth addict regardless of whether the drug is legal or not. Productivity and contribution to society falls to near zero nearly immediately.

You’ve never seen someone work on methamphetamine have you?

Quote

I suppose in the grand scheme, arguments could be made to let Darwin-ism do its work, but these issues reach far beyond those famous last words, "Hey y'all, watch this..."

Ha Ha that’s ‘Darwinism’ is it? The state outlawing specific chemicals is because they are trying to keep you safe? Yep you have a sound knowledge of narcotics trafficking a 4 trillion dollar a year industry.

Quote

There simply is not a single factor to face the problem. And while the drug cartels are armed and willing to kill indiscriminately through direct action or through their product, we should be defending ourselves vigorously through any and all means possible.

I have a funny feeling that Mexican drug cartels are probably only interested in making money and murdering rival gangs, smaller crooks or police.

[jcd11235 0]

Quote

Drug and alcohol addiction often have little to do with the substances - themselves being symptoms of a much broader condition. Because of that, regulating distribution or relaxing laws does not help those that are addicted. The Needle Park experiment in Zurich is a prime example. The consequences were far more dire than anticipated. If it were such a success, it would still be open today.

The American experiment has shown that the drug war is counter-productive. I was reading in the news recently how the US has a higher rate of drug abuse than countries with more lenient drug laws. Prohibition did not work the first time, either. Unfortunately, collectively, we Americans are too stupid to learn from our mistakes.

Quote

Marijuana...while I'd like to group it with smoking cigarettes....and pretty much the most common tragedy with this drug is that one would drop the phone while mis-dialing the number to Pizza Hut. Unfortunately, its affects and potency make me place it in the area of alcohol especially when it comes to driving. The long term health issues are the big problem there. Medicinal matters could be argued, but there are far more effective pain management regimens out there.

Many studies have shown that marijuana intoxication has only a minimal affect on driving ability, on par with cold medications taken as directed. It's been discussed extensively on here before.

Quote

Hard drugs (Cocaine/Crack, Heroine, Meth, etc) - there is no reason in my mind why any of these substances should be made legal or regulated. A crack or meth addict is a crack/meth addict regardless of whether the drug is legal or not. Productivity and contribution to society falls to near zero nearly immediately.

That productivity falls because so much time is consumed seeking out more of the drug. Legalization takes care of that by making the drug available and affordable to those who choose to use it.

Quote

I've seen "functional" heroine addicts, but long term uses, tolerance, increased use have major physical long term affects.

So have I. I've also seen functional alcoholics, functional nicotine addicts, functional caffeine addicts (a group to which I belong), functional food addicts, functional sex addicts, functional adrenaline addicts, etc. Most people have their vices, and those vices are often not conducive to healthiest conditions. However, it is as individuals that we should decide in which activities to participate.

Quote

There simply is not a single factor to face the problem. And while the drug cartels are armed and willing to kill indiscriminately through direct action or through their product, we should be defending ourselves vigorously through any and all means possible.

Again, we are not doing everything we can to stop the problem as long as we maintain the war on drugs. Until we end that, we are contributing to the problem, not working to stop it.

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[Gawain 0]

Quote

That productivity falls because so much time is consumed seeking out more of the drug. Legalization takes care of that by making the drug available and affordable to those who choose to use it.

So, when an addicted mother spends all disposable income on a legal substance to support a detrimental habit, when then happens to the children that starve to death? Welfare? More social programs?

No.

The children will be neglected. Child/Health/Protective Svc comes and takes the kids away. Mother is convicted goes to jail and rehab. Cleans up still loses custody of kids. Kids still in the system. Now, one more family is dependent on drugs, and the government for livelihood, health, food, shelter...ad infinitum.

It's the same story if that substance is illegal.

There isn't a treatment for addiction that doesn't include abstinence. Ask any addict what they might do if they were offered a cure for their condition. Chances are it would sound something like, "I'd go get high."

Making drugs available doesn't fix the problem alone.

So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh
Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright
'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life
Make light!

[Muenkel 0]

Wow. I stepped out for 4 days and I see this thread has morphed into a discussion on the war on drugs.

Someone let me know when it turns to boobies.

_________________________________________
Chris

[jcd11235 0]

Quote

So, when an addicted mother spends all disposable income on a legal substance to support a detrimental habit, when then happens to the children that starve to death? Welfare? More social programs?

No.

The children will be neglected. Child/Health/Protective Svc comes and takes the kids away. Mother is convicted goes to jail and rehab. Cleans up still loses custody of kids. Kids still in the system.

That applies to both legal and illegal drugs. However, we know that, since nations with less restrictive drug laws have lower rates of drug addictions, it is not unreasonable to hypothesize that the drug laws make your above scenario more likely.

Quote

Now, one more family is dependent on drugs, and the government for livelihood, health, food, shelter...ad infinitum.

I'm confused. This line is inconsistent with the rest of your scenario. It doesn't matter, though, since your scenario is not exclusive to illegal drugs.

Quote

It's the same story if that substance is illegal.

Only worse.

Quote

There isn't a treatment for addiction that doesn't include abstinence.

Largely, but not absolutely, true. However, drug use does not imply drug addiction. People can use drugs responsibly. Not everyone who drinks is an alcoholic. Not everyone who sniffs cocaine id a coke addict. Not everyone who uses heroin is a junkie. Some illegal drugs even have a very low likelihood of user addiction, such as Methylenedioxymethamphetamine (MDMA, aka ecstasy), Lysergic acid diethylamide (LSD, aka acid), and Tetrahydrocannabinol (THC, found naturally in Cannabis sativa andCannabis indica), to name just a few.

Quote

Ask any addict what they might do if they were offered a cure for their condition. Chances are it would sound something like, "I'd go get high."

And it doesn't matter whether their drug of choice was legal or illegal, meaning it isn't a relevant point.

Quote

Making drugs available doesn't fix the problem alone.

That's true, but it is an awfully big step in the right direction. There also needs to be education about drugs. I know a lot of people who, upon finding that some of the claims regarding the dangers of drugs were complete BS, abandoned all the claims regarding drugs made by the government. The source lacked credibility on the topic. Some other organizations, such as Partnership for a Drug Free America, also lost credibility when caught passing lies as facts.

Harm reduction, not abstinence, is the best way to approach recreational drugs. Some people are going to use them, regardless of their legality, so those people should have credible, accurate information readily available so they can make educated decisions.

Tell us, Max, what makes illegal drugs different from legal, regulated drugs, aside from Congress? What is the defining characteristics of a substance that indicate it should be made illegal?

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[Gawain 0]

Quote

Wow. I stepped out for 4 days and I see this thread has morphed into a discussion on the war on drugs.

Someone let me know when it turns to boobies.

Actually, I was thinking the same thing as I continued on...

By the way, some of the Iranian pics of missile launches were shopped.

Now I'm back on topic. jcd and I were simply trudging the happy path of tangents...

So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh
Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright
'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life
Make light!

[jcd11235 0]

Quote

Now I'm back on topic. jcd and I were simply trudging the happy path of tangents...

Ahh … tangents!

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[Muenkel 0]

I asked for boobies! Not links to frivolous things like AIDs and Heroin abuse.

_________________________________________
Chris

[jcd11235 0]

Quote

I asked for boobies! Not links to frivolous things like AIDs and Heroin abuse.

My bad. See attached (Extremely Not Safe For Work!).

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[Guest]

Here is what your homeland is really like (from the Strategy Page):

Behind The Headlines
July 12, 2008: Iran is a mess. The economy suffers from growing inflation (over 25 percent) and unemployment (ditto). Jobs are more available to those who behave and avoid outspoken opposition to the religious dictatorship that has ruined the economy and made Iran an outlaw state in the world community. The government uses police state tactics to harass or imprison trade unions and media that speak openly about the incompetence and cruelty of the government. Thousands of "Revolutionary Guards" and guys who can best be described as "street thugs", are on the government payroll to intimidate or assault anti-government people, wherever they can be found. This sort of thing even makes many government supporters (about 20 percent of the population, mostly Islamic conservatives) uneasy.

More and more Iranians are finding out the extent to which their oil revenue has gone to prop up Hizbollah (Shia Islamic radicals in Lebanon), Syria (run by a Shia religious minority as a hereditary dictatorship) and Hamas (Palestinian Islamic radicals dedicated to the destruction of Israel, which has impoverished and imprisoned 1.5 million Palestinians.) Iran has also been funding religious radicals in Somalia, Iraq and Afghanistan, and Iranians are not happy with all this expensive troublemaking. The Iranian government responds with more religious (lifestyle) police and increased political restrictions. This extensive troublemaking has brought about increased restrictions on Iranian access to the international banking system. This is part of a growing effort to shut down three decade old Iranian smuggling efforts (in response to embargos). That is working, and the Iranians are paying more for the smuggled goods, or not getting them at all. Iranian financial support for Islamic terrorists is getting more expensive as well, often requiring the use of couriers carrying large quantities of cash across many international borders. This results in lots of loss (to bribes, seizure and theft).

Decades of sanctions, with no dramatic result (like a new Iranian government, or a more cooperative one) has led to more nations joining in on the sanctions, and more personalized sanctions. This angle has been taken to the extent that individual Iranian officials now have all manner of travel and financial restrictions on them. This sort of thing has an effect, if only because of the personal nature of it.

Iran is also defenseless. The military has been without upgrades to its equipment since the 1980s. Even then, the last new military technology received has been second rate North Korean, Chinese or Russian stuff, and not much of it. A recent shouting contest between Iran and Israel (over a threatened Israeli air raid on Iranian nuclear weapons development facilities) made it clear that Israel had real capabilities, while Iran was mostly blowing smoke. For example, Iran was caught, once more, issuing doctored photographs of missile tests. It's also been pointed out that, Iranian attempts to halt Persian Gulf oil traffic two decades ago failed, and since then, Iran's relative military power has declined. U.S. naval commanders have flat out stated that Iran would not be able to halt oil traffic. No details were given, which reflects the need to keep combat plans as secret as possible (lest the enemy have an opportunity to develop countermeasures.) The one Iranian threat that has some relevance is terrorism. Iran has invested billions of dollars in developing a terrorist infrastructure throughout the region, and the world. Many major intelligence agencies have detected this network, which has rarely been put to work carrying out attacks. If the Iranian terror network were ordered to make an all-out effort, it's uncertain how dangerous they would be. This, of course, is another reason most of the World does not want Iran to develop nuclear power plants (a source of radioactive material for terrorists) or nuclear weapons.

Many Persian Gulf Arabs, with a sense of history and experience dealing with Iranians (there is still a large, if often illegal, trade across the Gulf), believe that the Iranians will not do anything dramatic. There are two reasons for this. First, the Iranians have a history, and it is one of pragmatism and reluctance to do crazy things. The Arabs have always considered this scary, although reassuring under the current circumstances. Secondly, the religious dictatorship in Iran has lots of economic and political problems at home. Yes, the Iranian dictators would love to have the Israelis or Americans attack Iran, as this would divert the Iranian public for a few months, or years, from the real enemy (themselves). Many Arab diplomats in the Gulf caution their Western counterparts to beware of Iranian attempts to goad the West into attacking Iran. Leave the Iranians alone, the Arab wise men say, and the Iranians will do one thing they constantly do, fall into disorder and civil war. That's how the Arabs won their single great victory over the mighty Iranians, 1400 years ago, and installed Islam as the new Iranian religion. But since then, the Iranians have gone back to being what they have always been; the neighborhood bully.

"The mouse does not know life until it is in the mouth of the cat."

[Butters 0]

Quote

The children will be neglected. Child/Health/Protective Svc comes and takes the kids away. Mother is convicted goes to jail and rehab. Cleans up still loses custody of kids. Kids still in the system. Now, one more family is dependent on drugs, and the government for livelihood, health, food, shelter...ad infinitum.

Honestly, did you just use the "think of the children" argument?

"That looks dangerous." Leopold Stotch

[fab777 0]

Quote

Yes, the Iranian dictators would love to have the Israelis or Americans attack Iran, as this would divert the Iranian public for a few months, or years, from the real enemy (themselves).

Well, it happened before, in 1983 if i'm correct, when Saddam Hussein ( being 1980's aggressor, with the benediction from the occidental world, at this era he was our good guy ) offered a ceasefire and a peace treaty. This was rejected, as the young iranian theocracy needed this war as a reason to crush down their political opponents.

So, political change in Iran is no relevant reason for an attack.

Fabien
BASE#944

[Darius11 12]

Quote

Here is what your homeland is really like

Wow I guess what I have seen, experienced, tasted, and felt with my own senses does not equal what the military press thinks.

Iran is acting a lot less warmonger like then us. They don’t invade countries on made up reasons that constantly change. The government has its issues but believe it or not you don’t have the right to decide how many Iranians die to bring “democracy” to Iran. I would love to know if all the Iraqis we killed appreciate not having a say in there own life. It is also no secret that most say life was better even under Sadams rule then it is now.
So before you get to decide how many people who you have no relation to die I believe we let the people speak for themselves.

The other point which you missed is the hypocrisy which is usually a characteristic of someone who does not use reason and is a bully.

There is nothing more hypocritical then us telling another country they should not have nuclear energy, or even nuclear weapons. It seems having them keeps the US from invading your homes and killing your people. It also takes you off the Axis of evil list (not that any one with a brain gives a shit what GWB thinks or says) and gives you economic prosperity.



Your all shit out of luck or reason I should say. There is way too much history of American aggression and the world is not buying it any more.
I just don’t get how people sitting on their ass at home can justify the deaths of people they don’t even know or know anything about just on the assumption not only that they want democracy and our way of life but they are willing to die for it.


Off course all that disagree are terrorist or insurgents even if they are citizens of the places we invade.

No wonder we are allies with Israel.

I'd rather be hated for who I am, than loved for who I am not." - Kurt Cobain

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

There is nothing more hypocritical then us telling another country they should not have nuclear energy, or even nuclear weapons.

How about signing a treaty promising not to develop them, and then proceed directly to doing so?

I guess that's not so much hypocrisy as outright lying.