2013-02-28, 18:56 | Link #461 | |
Logician and Romantic
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Within my mind
Age: 43
|
Quote:
Pakistan is effectively being paid by the US government. A better deal, and a deal that Iran would want too.
__________________
|
|
2013-02-28, 19:20 | Link #462 |
Gamilas Falls
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Republic of California
Age: 47
|
Pakistan's government is more or less friendly with the United States. India I suppose is less friendly, but honestly I can't tell who is friendly with the US between those two since the Indians get supplied by the Russians and the Pakistani by the Americans and Russians.
Iran has been hostile since 1979....aside from the aborted attempt by the Carter Administration to free the hostages, the US has not invaded there territory in all that time dispite them not having nuclear weapons that whole time. North Korea and the United States have been enemies since 1950, and US troop have been on their border the whole time, and yet since 1953 we've not invaded them even when they didn't have nuclear weapon, nor when they threated to make nuclear weapons in the 1990s. Libya was an enemy for decades and we didn't go in there until we were asked to go in their by our European allies during a civil war. Iraq crossed the line several times and got invaded twice for their trouble. First Kuwait, and afterwards 12 years of thumbing their noses at the UN. It eventually got them in trouble. Afghanistan was a direct response to an attack on US soil.
__________________
|
2013-02-28, 19:24 | Link #463 |
Logician and Romantic
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Within my mind
Age: 43
|
If you want to measure hostile intent, Iran hasn't invaded anyone for hundreds of years. America invades anyone who isn't nuclear armed.
Yes, Iran is hostile. So? They have the RIGHT to be hostile. They don't "hate your freedoms", they hate you for destroying their country via the CIA. Please explain what America has ever done that deserve Iran's forgiveness.
__________________
|
2013-02-28, 19:45 | Link #464 | |
Banned
|
Quote:
Unstable? I'll give you that, but don't pretend there are no differences between the two. There are. Iran has a very visible history of supplying militant groups with arms. And note that I do not advocate invading or attacking Iran. I am, however, acknowledging the reality. |
|
2013-02-28, 19:56 | Link #465 |
Gamilas Falls
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Republic of California
Age: 47
|
It is harder to invade someone over a period of years when you are being invaded or suffering from interal problems, which seems to be the case for much of Persia's history since the 16th century.
I am under the impression there was never an openning give for America to even consider attempting to get forgiveness from Iran. The absolute hatred that seemed to radiate out of Tehran in the 1980s was scolding. The Iran-Iraqi War did not help, neither did the large number of hostage crisis from Iran. There might have been a chance in the 1990s when the United States mostly didn't pay them much attention, as our focus was on Iraq, yet somehow in 1995 the US started an economic embargo in Iran under the Clinton Administration. I honestly don't remember what this one was for as I was still in high school. This lead to other problems with the Arabs we felt in 2001. (seems the embargo had to do with Iran's nuclear program and their supplying terrorist groups...funny that seems to have not changed all that much in the last decade and a half.) Iran has no diplomatic relations with the US or Israel after 1979. (before Iran was friendly with Israel and the US).
__________________
|
2013-02-28, 20:09 | Link #466 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: London, England
Age: 37
|
Quote:
These issues do not get better if you consider that Iraq got invaded for not walking the politic rope while a nation much more rogue such as Pakistan and North Korea can operate with seeming immunity and not get invaded. Then there is the classic map of the US's presence around Iran: Spoiler:
Nuclear weapons are not used as an offensive weapon but they are used as a defensive strategy to reduce the risk of foreign occupation. Perhaps I am wrong here but I think the risks of terrorists acquiring WMDs is overstated to push a politic agenda. In any case though the consequences of a war on Iran are too great to undertake with just a suspicion of WMDs. I think the US and even Israel know this and all that this rhetoric we do hear is a mix of bravado and chest thumping. A war in this region is likely to result in a WMD of an economic nature being inflicted on the world. |
|
2013-02-28, 20:17 | Link #467 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Virginia
Age: 47
|
With Israel staring at Iran and India not so friendly with Pakistan, I doubt the U.S. need worry about either country. No, we need to watch N. Korea and its middle building capability.
Obama successfully talked Israel out of striking Iran twice, And after SEAL Team 6 little walk in Pakistan showed we aren't terribly worried about them either. And I doubt Pakistan will be getting their "check" I'm the mail any time soon after hiding Bin Laden.
__________________
|
2013-02-28, 20:18 | Link #468 | ||
Love Yourself
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Northeast USA
Age: 38
|
Quote:
Quote:
__________________
|
||
2013-02-28, 20:21 | Link #469 | ||
Logician and Romantic
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Within my mind
Age: 43
|
Quote:
I acknowledge the reality that America is currently the greatest threat to world peace. Much greater than Iran. Quote:
__________________
|
||
2013-02-28, 20:31 | Link #472 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Virginia
Age: 47
|
If America is the worst, then why are we fighting Al Queida? Why don't we just join them and finish the job?
At least we don't stone or shoot women for wanting an education, or force young girls to marry 90 year olds! I wonder what the Aborigines would say about you? And anytime Australia wants to jump into the drivers seat...
__________________
|
2013-02-28, 20:42 | Link #474 | |
Banned
|
Quote:
There are problems with America. But they are nowhere near the issues a country like Iran has. There is no freedom of speech. There is no rule of law. The women are repressed to the point where a girl can be raped and then be found guilty in a court of law for inviting the rape since she wasn't out with a man and had her ankles uncovered. Try all you like, but you won't find anything like that in the US. And trust me, I can go on about drone strikes and warrantless wiretapping. I'll complain about free speech zones and abortion and guns. But to try and equate the US with a country like Iran shows such a profound lack of evenhandedness, that it does a great disservice to any points you might make. Please, don't go there. If you really think there are no profound differences between the two countries, that they are on the same level of "evil," then by all means, tell me that you'd feel just as safe in Iran as you would in the US. At least in the US, I can call Obama a fuckin' cocksucker who should be run out of office, and no secret police will show up at my door. I can become a scientologist or a rastafarian and preach on the corner, and no armed, religious groups will beat me to a pulp with the full approval of the state. No court will find me guilty of blasphemy. |
|
2013-02-28, 21:01 | Link #475 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: London, England
Age: 37
|
Quote:
However I do think it is accurate to say there are no absolute "good guys" when it comes to geopolitics. We can only make an an argument in degree i.e. this side is relatively better than the other one. Everyone has a skeleton in the closet and so for every crime we name on an enemy state the enemy state can easily lay the finger on its opposing nations. Doesn't matter what side of the fence you sit on. No good guys be it Iran, US on the geopolitical front. Also we should note that history is written by the winners of war. The winners will always be seen in a more favourable light be it through the history books or media. I think you are being a little bit harsh. His point about the US being as bad on a Iran in terms of repression was indeed a poor point. But I think as with most things there is an element of truth. Sure America is better than Iran in terms of rights to its citizens I do think the merit in his statement comes in the fact that in terms of free speech and other rights the US seems to be following the path of the Roman empire when it was going through decline. The free speech that still exists is being systematically undermined and reduced and the political parties are becoming more detached and seem more interest ideologically purity than in actually achieving results. The elected parties are also less interested in popular opinion and it is become more apparent their chief concern is with monied interest and not the will of the people which is undermining the whole concept of democracy. |
|
2013-02-28, 21:13 | Link #476 | |
廉頗
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Massachusetts
Age: 35
|
Quote:
|
|
2013-02-28, 21:20 | Link #477 |
Gamilas Falls
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Republic of California
Age: 47
|
Interestingly enough, to date, there has still been only 2 atomic weapons used in war. Just two. While there has been many threats and posturing over the last half century and more....it has remained only two used in combat since the atomic bomb was invented.
Part of the reason for the Non-Proliferation Treaty is to make sure it stays that way.
__________________
|
2013-02-28, 21:27 | Link #478 | |
廉頗
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Massachusetts
Age: 35
|
Quote:
|
|
2013-02-28, 21:52 | Link #479 |
formerly ogon bat
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Mexico
Age: 53
|
The temptation to use the so called tactical warheads ("small" nuclear weapons) is going to be too big in any major conflict. With just one bomb you can obliterate the enemy naval fleet before they even reach your fleet. Even better, use a neutron bomb and the fleet might even by recovered as a war bounty (and the damage to the ecosystem is not long term). So the reason no nuke have been used is because there has been no need, I bet that if the first Iraq War had the amount of causalities feared at first, a nuke would probably had been used.
|
2013-02-28, 21:56 | Link #480 |
Gamilas Falls
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Republic of California
Age: 47
|
Convential weapons seem to be more practical at this time. If the world ever gets to the point were a actually have two or more large military powers going at it again with large fleets, air armadas, and massed armies the likes of which haven't really been seen since the 1940s, than maybe nuclear weapons may be given a shot again. But until then, the new conventional weapons work much better without the heavy nuclear or political fallout.
__________________
|
|
|