Iran general: No doubt Israel and America will be attacked

Who did this study? And how were they able to do this study without being killed themselves? I don't buy it. The motivation of suicide bombers is a propaganda campaign being conducted by AQ and their extremist affiliates.

 

Translation: "I can't counter your argument. Here's a non sequitur instead."

 

That is the counter to your argument. I say learn the lessons of the USSR break-up. That was a govt collapse that was peaceful, and maintained order, and we STILL had a hell of a time securing all of the nuclear material. We cannot allow more nations to obtain nukes. Not just Iran. It's too risky to civilization, and everyone knows it.

 

Maybe we should give up all of ours first then.

 

I don't know the solution. If I were pres, I would definitely work on a plan to do that. I am definitely for a unilateral 50% cut in US nukes, at least to get the ball rolling.

 

We'd be perfectly find with 350 warheads. Credible minimum deterrent.

 

Its nothing really to worry about... people should be worrying about nations with huge nuclear arsenals e.g. US, Russia, France etc. rather than a middle Eastern nation who's weapons will most likely go 10 feet in the air before falling back down.

 

I don't see how he can be blamed for this. He's a military commander, so war is in his nature. It was obviously made in frustration at the ostensible allied pretence that they are prepared to be reasonable, when the stark reality is they're flatly telling Iran not to build something which its enemies have. This is not reasonable. Destroy your own nukes, and then you might be credible.

 

I would place money on the contention that the Iranian government would agree to cease its nuclear weapons program (which nobody has yet proved even exists) if the United States and Israel were prepared to destroy their own nuclear arsenal.

 

God you are such a trust fund baby. you're so clueless.

There is a huge difference b/w Iran having nukes and the US, Russia, China having nukes. One group is rational, the other is not.

This is overused on the forum but you live in an alternative rally, Ms. Rockefeller

 

“America’s interests and all of Israel are within the range of the Islamic Republic and there is not the slightest doubt among Iran’s armed forces to confront the American government and the Zionists (Israel).”

Translation: Our enemies draw near. Surely they will attack. Our forces do not fear to confront them when they do.

 

That's absolutely hilarious. And which side is which depends entirely on who you ask!! China probably has the worst human rights record on Earth. It's so bad they won't even release figures to the UN. Russia killed 20 million under Stalin and were your sworn ideological enemies for 50 years, during which time the US certainly did not want them to own nuclear weapons.

And the US? Don't even get me started. No other country has committed more genocides, either directly or through proxy, in the recorded history of mankind. The US wiped out 250,000 civilians in one go at Hiroshima and Nagasaki with nuclear weapons. The only use to date of nuclear weapons against humans was an act of genocide committed by the US government. And let's not even mention the 5.4 million killed in the DRC by the US's favourite dictator of the moment, Paul Kagame.

 

I pity your balls, mine are quite lovely and smell like fresh springs.

The problem with these statements (like those of the Iranian, not yours) is that they are representative of sentiments that are not rare. It's reflective of commonly held opinions, and the hostilities are unlikely to just slowly rise up - you'll probably see it flare up seeming all in a moment.

Nice avatar. Welcome to the forum.

 

Okay all your crazy conspiracy/dramatic (*)(*)(*)(*) aside let's look at reality.

Nukes haven't gone off in over 70 years, even in the Cold War.

Tell me. If Iran, Iraq, KSA, Egypt and Afghanistan all had nukes do you think they would have used them in the last 70 years?

Can't wait to hear the bull(*)(*)(*)(*) lol....

Also note that! OMG! We're not in a World War! Because we don't want another World War! (*)(*)(*)(*)ing clueless lol....

 

yeah um that's not the point. The point is over the long run (30 yrs+ say) Iran having nukes is extremely dangerous

 

Brother, it is not a refutation of something to call it a conspiracy theory. History is littered with conspiracies. We have just celebrated one here in the UK, on the 5th November, in fact.

True enough. Couple of close calls though. Cuban Missile Crisis springs to mind.

Of course. Would they not have been justified, given that you have raped and pillaged your way through their land for the last decade? It seems apparent to me that you are not deliberately being illogical, but rather you do not realise your own bias. The result of all your aforementioned countries having nukes would be that the US could not bully them militarily. Perhaps still economically, but that wouldn't last long if they were outmatched militarily.

That you predefine it as bull simply further evidences my observation that you have innate and irrational bias. Your actual reasoning has been compromised by a lifetime of pro-nationalist, pro-patriot, jingoist, consumerist mind-bending purposefully manufactured to keep you compliant. I always go to that greatly underrated American social critic George Carlin in times like this, because he puts things more succinctly than I ever could. I believe he said, "Bull**** is the glue which holds America together."

 

1. The majority of conspiracies are false by default, that puts you way behind normal peoples' beliefs even if you say "I have no argument." Edit: It doesn't mean they're all false, but that the majority are false by default.

2. So yes, I'm glad you're honest enough to answer that yes, they absolutely would have used a nuke by now.

Which brings another question. Were Afghanistan, Iran, Iraq etc. the military superpowers that the US has been over the past 70 years, how often do you think they'd resort to nukes and/or do you really think they'd have behaved as well as the West has with that power? I think we both know the answer here, it seems you're honest enough to admit your opinion. Can't wait to hear it.

3. This isn't about patriotism etc. Yes I love America but notice I included Russia (!) and China (!) in the mix, nations that are much more rational than the Islamic nations. So you can take that bull(*)(*)(*)(*) you spout and throw it out the window about me just being patriotic.

We both know that these are more "responsible" nations and that we aren't (*)(*)(*)(*)ing crazy lol. Whereas picture Afghanistan being the superpower...yeah, we know how that ends up.

4. They wouldn't be justified in using a nuke against us, and we aren't justified in using a nuke against them. This isn't a moral question situation. It's practicality. If nukes go off, the world changes dramatically. Period.


5. So while I respect your opinion, I'm not being patriotic at all. This is just reality, I eagerly await your response. I like your response and have a lot of respect for your approach, even though we disagree



6. Edit: We're not talking about one culture being better or worse from another here. It's simply a matter of extremism. And Islamics are the most extreme people on the planet, and that makes them dangerous to the rest of us

 

That might well be true, but if you try to use the past as an argument against anything you arbitrarily label a "conspiracy theory" it automatically becomes a false association. Somebody explained this fallacy to me once (he was a mathematician) using a very simple analogy: the roulette ball does not have a memory. It doesn't matter if there are four million conspiracy theories which have been previously falsified. If, when the next one arrives, you judge it on anything other than its individual merits, then you are violating mathematical reason.

Now that's not necessarily what I said, or at least not what I meant to say, so I apologise if my language was wrong. If these places had nukes we would no doubt be looking at a different version of history (i.e. the US wouldn't have spent the last decade invading and occupying them). Nuclear weapons would have been a suitable deterrent. I think total geopolitical domination of the Middle East has been the endgame for the American-Israeli lobby ever since 1991, and the contemporary allegations being fired against Iran are just a final push into total United States military domination. The US already has four major military bases in Iraq and the ex-Iraqi governor is a prime suspect in the 9/11 attacks. They're going to attack Syria or Iran; or Israel is. It's only a matter of time before they create a false pretence for it. The allegations about nuclear weapons are laying the groundwork for that pretence.

I would argue that the US is predominantly a Christian nation; at least in the south. That makes its core voting base equally as illogical as an Islamic theocracy. I would also argue that atheism is a religion, and that Soviet Russia was theologically illogical because it polarised the same fallacy (i.e. belief is different to disbelief).

However, I think bringing theology into it is just a straw man anyway. You're dealing with human beings. Yes they have their irrationality and bias, but what Americans ceaselessly fail to appreciate is that so do they!!

Nobody is saying people don't do bad things that have nothing to do with America. At least that's not what I'm saying. My central issue is the absolutely inexcusable double standards used to measure American behaviour in comparison to the behaviour of those ideologically opposed to it. Imagine the same argument you're using right now against Iran being used on yourselves by the British or the French during the Manhattan Project. Would it have been right for us to invade you over that??

You see where I'm going with this?

 

What ever happened to States' rights?

- - - Updated - - -

What ever happened to States' rights?

 

I am claiming it is not as serous as a Cold War.

 

Lol if I had any sensibilities I'd bow out right now, not because you're entirely right but out of respect.

Anyways:

1. People need to make generalizations about pretty much every aspect of their life. For instance, conspiracy theories. I choose to question conspiracies by default, a a generality. I think this is effective provided I do give the other side thought. To which I have in this case in our discussion, as I'll write about later. But a point to note is that you're acting as if logic is going to lead to the right conclusions in every situation. Unless you're Aristotle, you won't succeed in that. Generalizations are needed to keep things grounded (think about all the justifications 9/11 conspiracists have it's hard to measure the value of each logical conclusion, you are better off tossing a coin lol)

2. I guess we have to disagree on the Afghanistan w/ nukes debate. It is personal opinion, my opinion being that they'd have been very liberal w/ nukes lol. And if not, they'd be invading everything they absolutely can

3. I don't agree w/ you on America's endgame. Our leaders are a smart bunch despite appearances (not Obama but like the corporatists etc.) and they know it's not economically viable to dominate the ME. Our populace may be patriotic and irrational but the "leaders" aren't. They are very practical (look up our military strategy regarding the Cold War etc. we played it very well and won). So we know that we can't ever really rule the ME. A side argument could be made that (*)(*)(*)(*), all that matters in the ME for us is oil pretty much. And we are slowly phasing ourselves off that, and anyways we don't need to own the ME to control the oil essentially.

Despite people talking about the decline of the US, we have a very good grasp on the world using indirect strategies to monopolize things (including the flow of oil lol) and I don't see that changing dramatically in the far future. Again, I hope you're seeing I'm not being patriotic but realistic.

4. Agreed on trying to find a reason to attack Syria or Iran. Absolutely i agree. But we'll do a proxy war, we won't use nukes (would Iran against us? I think very possibly so if they were in our situation). We'll succeed in our objective which is just to fragment the ME, not take it over.

5. I'll cede the Christian radical position you're taking on the US. It's true we actually have some similarities here to the Islamics (and I like that, I actually like a bit of radical religion in society I think it's very beneficial in terms of national ambition if that makes sense). However given how well off we are (unlike the ME) we are much less radical. Much less so. And that means we aren't as irrational and dangerous as the Islamos.

6. So to your last pargraph (*)(*)(*)(*) I agree to an extent. We lose 3k people in 9/11 and respond by knocking off 60k+ in Iraq??? Yeah...but imagine how the ME countries would respond to a similar attack in our position. I guess we'll just have to differ in opinion there, because I think they would have a much much more drastic response than we did.

 

You mean the right for power crazy crazy theocracies frequented by terrorists to be able to kill millions at the push of a button? When did that become a right?

I wouldn't suppose you support any sort of gun control, because that would be hypocritical to your position here.

 

The solution will be decided by what the top money gatherers decide is in THEIR best interest. That's what it always boils down to. If bombing them is profitable for the big boys, then, bombing it will be. It's really quite that simple, and there isn't anything more to it than that. No need to over think it.

- - - Updated - - -

Hey, I don't really know. The amount of money to be made by the richest of the rich, will determine Iran's outcome. Period.

 

I have never had a trust fund... and I am not going to get worked up over some puissant Iranian general.

 

Iran is in the catbird seat... they need to rejoin the international community.

Here's why.