Reply With Quote
Holy -- you don't even know this?
What planet are you from?
I don't want any other country to become a nuclear power. I think the likelihood they would use it unprovoked is lower than you think. Israel would probably attack them first, reassuring Iran that they were right to pursue the weapons in the first place.
Holy -- you don't even know this?
What planet are you from?
Fair enough. I'll just address the comment below then
Nobody in the international community wants more nuclear capable nations. The question is what is the best strategy to avoid proliferation. The decades-long US-led tactic of isolating Iran and fighting proxy wars has led to Iran becoming a nuclear threshold state. Continuing this trajectory will complete the process of Iran possessing nuclear warheads. The alternative is to try and regulate rather than eliminate Iranian nuclear capability. This is what the current JCPOA seeks to do with steep reductions in centrifuges and enriched Uranium, curbing Plutonium production and a reasonable (while not ideal) inspections framework.
There are legitimate reasons to find faults in this deal - it is not perfect. But making perfect the enemy of good is a shortsighted tactic. The agreement pushes Iran's military nuclear ambitions back and offers a way for Iran to develop closer economic ties with the West. Aside from military engagement, this is arguably the most realistic way of containing Iran. Netanyahu's way - a bloody war that will turn out worse than the Iraq misadventure - is breathtaking in its foolhardiness.
And the proof of the pragmatism of the deal is the response from the international community. The whole of Europe (including parties in power and credible opposition parties in various countries) supports this deal. The UN Security Council voted for it unanimously. The moderate Gulf nations (Qatar, UAE, Kuwait, Oman etc) cautiously support it. The only opposition is from Saudi Arabia (due to ideological Shia-Sunni doctrine and for oil trade reasons), Israel (the Likud party's ticket to remaining in power is to keep Israelis scared and voting for them repeatedly) and the Republican Party (because the other side did it, they have to oppose it).
Concrete examples? Or just your own logically induced conjectures..?
Got it. I do... really. It's like when Islamic terrorists blow themselves up along with their targets, self-interest is at the top of their mind (thinking of all of the virgins they will have in the afterlife). They honestly don't value civilization the way you or I do. That's the chaos I'm referencing. If you need concrete examples for that dynamic at play you can probably google a list of about 100 such incidents in our lifetimes alone.
OK, what is your logically induced conjecture concerning Iran's agreement to end its war with Iraq, especially after Iraq's ally, the US, shot down one of its airliners and killed 290 innocent people?
Let's hear your opinion about this.
Born in the late 70's... waaaaaay before my time.
According to this:
http://www.thisdayinquotes.com/2011/...like-that.html
The phrase wasn't uttered in the context you suggested. It's a case of mistranslation and flippancy.
That's why I would have been surprised if someone like N. Korea or Putin had uttered the phrase. Belligerent defiance carries far more weight than flippancy. Had they uttered it with the world to see, trust me that people would have grave cause to be concerned.
lol you didn't even bother reading your own link.You're a ridiculous person who has no idea what has happened in this world.I grew up in the 1950s, when we practiced “duck and cover” drills at school and families were building fallout shelters in their back yards.
I tend to think that the modern spin on Khrushchev’s most famous quote overlooks a few simple facts.
Back in 1956, The nuclear arms race and the threat of nuclear war were real and taken very seriously.
So, “We shall be present at your funeral” or “We shall outlive you” or any of the other “better” translations that are now suggested would likely have sounded just as hostile and threatening to most Americans.
Thus, the “issue” of whether “We will bury you” was a mistranslation or misquote seems kind of moot to me.
Of course, six years later, during the Cuban Missile Crisis, we found out that Khrushchev didn’t really have the sharries to start a nuclear war with the U.S.
I don't have time to address the relentlessness of any more of your red-herrings or strawmen.
You say, "I don't want any other country to become a nuclear power."
But really you mean, "I really don't care if any other country becomes a nuclear power or not."
The difference between you and me is the weight of your indifference on the matter. Everything else you or I have stated is immaterial.
I meant what I said.
I know you have to run away now that I have asked you a direct question and you have absolutely no idea how do deal with it.
No I didn't read it all... I just looked up the quote and skimmed it.
Just more red-herrings on your part. And your attempt to appeal to reductio ad ridiculum.
Regardless of the outcome, if you think this nation is really up for more Cuban Missile Crises YOU'RE the insane one. No one wants a redux of that.
No .
This is nothing like the Cuban missile crisis.Just more red-herrings on your part. And your attempt to appeal to reductio ad ridiculum.
Regardless of the outcome, if you think this nation is really up for more Cuban Missile Crises YOU'RE the insane one. No one wants a redux of that.
That's the whole point.
Are you googling the Iran-Iraq war right now?
A direct question? You just copy and pasted my words and returned the phrase back as a question (a vague one at that). Again, as I stated way back when... You don't understand the consequences of risk, if you find NO CONCERN whatsoever in allowing extremist factions in the Iranian government from becoming nuclear capable.
Here is the direct question.Quit whining and answer it.
Straw man.
I don't have all the time in the world like others to live in the forum all day.
There is no "this" idiot.
Have the U.S. try to tell Israel to give up their nuclear weapons and we would most definitely have something larger than the Cuban Missile Crisis on our hands. Technologies are more advanced, information is instant - but so is the speculation that comes from the silence - less time to think.
Last edited by Phenomanul; 10-21-2015 at 03:22 PM.
So are you going to try and get my take on every single U.S. / Iran conflict? Just wanna know before going down that endless rabbit hole. It's your defining characteristic. You keep going and going... and NEVER ONCE concede on anything.
In this particular case the U.S. took complete responsibility for the tragedy (even if it took several years to conduct the investigation) and attempted to make res utions to the families of those involved. You make it sound like sinister motives were at play. In fact, this plays into the chaos dynamic I was telling you about.
When the presiding U.S. administration at the time woke up that day, they didn't think, "yay! today we're gonna incite an international incident". It happened due to the brash, irresponsible actions of a lone Navy captain... Chaos. Not pre-meditated. Not pre-conceived. Not planned.
Last edited by Phenomanul; 10-21-2015 at 03:29 PM.
did you consult your "demons in a box by hasbro"
Of course there is a this. We've been talking about Iran this entire time.
No. That's ridiculous. You jumped straight to nuclear war between the Us and Israel. That's nuts.Have the U.S. try to tell Israel to give up their nuclear weapons and we would most definitely have something larger than the Cuban Missile Crisis on our hands. Technologies are more advanced, information is instant - but so is the speculation that comes from the silence - less time to think.
Way to miss the point.
Why did Iran agree to the cease fire in the war with Iraq? If anything the killing of hundreds of innocent Iranians should have made those crazed religious fanatics attack Iraq's ally in glorious jihad, right?
Why didn't they?
Why did Iran move to stop fighting at that time?
I didn't jump straight into it... that's ONE of the many POSSIBLE outcomes that can result from trying to tell Israel that they must relinquish their nuclear armaments. And it would be as bad or worse than the Cuban Missile Crisis.
The logic can be summarized.Who says we would have to threaten them with nukes?Again, another nuclear roulette scenario... one in which both parties can bluff with WMDs... No one wants another DEFCON 1 situation playing out.We could pretty easily if we had any political will.
I'd rather we deny Iran the 'priviledge' of joining the nuclear club (or any other country for that manner), than trying to tell an existing member of said club that they have to give up their arsenals (with an ultimatum).
If the excluded folks hate the deterrence, at least they can't retaliate with nukes to show their disapproval. ON THE OTHER hand, if an existing member of said club had to be forced into relinquishing their arsenals - they WOULD have the option of deployment in show of their disapproval.
Again, it's a matter of risk. You don't seem to get it. You seem to want to place more weight to the motives themselves - whereas I'm placing it on the elimination of the risk itself.
You may disagree with that line of thinking but when it comes down to it that's the difference between our respective trains of thought.
Why...?
Ant <<<< Shoe.
They would have brought the proverbial knife to a gun fight, had they engaged in direct conflict with the U.S.
Also, because the U.S. didn't declare it as an act of war, it wasn't a deliberate action by our government. If the U.S. on the other hand had bombed one of Iran's military bases off the map - it may have led to a different result.
The dynamic you wish to parallel simply wasn't there in this 1988 incident.
Last edited by Phenomanul; 10-21-2015 at 05:27 PM.
So they would rationally decide not to fight the US?
Thank you for proving my point for me.
So if Iran shot down an Israeli airliner and said it was an accident, you would understand.Also, because the U.S. didn't declare it as an act of war, it wasn't a deliberate action by our government. If the U.S. on the other hand had bombed one of Iran's military bases off the map - it may have been a different result.
Why did they stop fighting Iraq? Surely the Shi'ite fanatics would jihad to the last man, right?The dynamic you wish to parallel simply wasn't there in this 1988 incident.
So you want to go to war to keep Iran from getting a nuclear weapon?
I don't.
Do you?
Summarize.
Putting words in my mouth again. When did I state I want the U.S. to go to war with Iran....? [not like you'll answer the question... because I never stated as much].
All I said is that the U.S. shouldn't be facilitating Iran's progress towards nuclear capability.
TWO COMPLETELY DIFFERENT PREMISES. But go on.
I know you will.
It's not a fight against us that is as concerning, but the fact that they harbor a deeper resentment towards another member of that nuclear club. Israel. That resentment is fueled by a deeper religious fanaticism. Their political instability and this fanaticism is an unstable mix. But no amount of flagging this for you seems to elicit acknowledgement that it's not a good mix.So they would rationally decide not to fight the US?
Thank you for proving my point for me.
Since you like red-herrings:
It's like allowing the nuts from Woodsboro Baptist church to have a say in the matter when the president has to make a call on military action.
In no world would that be a sensible thing to do.
Depends on the context and the results of the investigation.
Because Hussein outclassed their military.
Because they were already taking big losses.
It's different against Israel.
Because their fraternal hatred for each others' doctrines is ONLY dwarfed by their shared hatred for Israel.
Here's another red-herring for you:
Brothers fight all the time correct? What happens if a mutual friend attacks your brother though? Do they not jump in and defend their kin? Despite whatever differences the brothers may have had in the past - that all goes out the window.
Hatred against Israel is the one unifying thing that all muslims have in common. It runs deep in their veins. It's fool-hardy to suggest that their hatred doesn't factor into their military decisions. Because they're completely rational.
Last edited by Phenomanul; 10-21-2015 at 06:11 PM.
I asked you a direct question.
Putting words in my mouth again. When did I state I want the U.S. to go to war with Iran....? [not like you'll answer the question... because I never stated as much].
All I said is that the U.S. shouldn't be facilitating Iran's progress towards nuclear capability.
TWO COMPLETELY DIFFERENT PREMISES. But go on.
I know you will.
Do you want to go to war to stop its getting a nuclear weapon if it comes to that?
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
