Isreal v. Iran heating up?

Ill believe it when it happens. That said, considering how many countries have nuclear weapons today, the idea that Iran having them would be cataclysmic just doesnt make any sense.

Iran is NOT going to attack anybody. Them having nukes wouldnt make much of a difference. They have been dealing with crippling economic sanctions for decades. You really think that they want more problems?

Israel has nukes, refuses to sign the NPT and then complains that Iran doesnt follow UN resolutions, even when Israel and the US veto any resolution that they dont personally like. The whole idea that Iran is big and bad and doesnt follow world orders is laughable in light of US/Israeli hypocracy when it comes to the UN.

If Israel wants to attack Iran, that is their business, but leave the US out of this.
 
They have been dealing with crippling economic sanctions for decades. You really think that they want more problems?
__________________________________________________

you have no idea what you are talking about. the santions against iran only deal with weapons, nuclear material, etc. as well as business dealings related to the oil and gas industry....and that is just us. there are also some banking restrictions but it is made up for by other countries that help them...see russia...
 
Pure speculation. You talk about the end times. Its the whole reason many in the US support Israel. To bring about the end times. Give me a break.

Even if Iran had nuclear weapons, they would not use them. To say otherwise is complete speculation. Certainly it would be a deterrent. That goes without saying. Is it speculation to say that Iran wont use them? Sure, but it is a lot more likely that they wont than they will.

The US and Russia were faced with mutual destruction for how many years? And neither side did anything. Not even by "proxy."

To date, there is still no proof of an actual weapons program. That is speculative. Lets not forget that. People have been warmongering for years. Its getting really tired. The only country that is a threat to anyone is the US. We have attacked and invaded more countries than anyone. Iran hasnt attacked a soul.

This all comes down to Israel. Thats it. It has nothing to do with balance in the Arab world....

First you need to prove that Iran has nukes. Then you need to realize that a lot of countries have them and that they are strategic deterrents.

How can you shrug at Israel having nukes, refusing to sign the NPT, and then demanding that no one else in the Middle East can have them or can even develop nuclear technology?

We have stirred up the ire of Arabs and Muslims with our support for dictators, including in Iran, and then when they kick them out, we still try to control them. Its really pretty sick.
 
Enough giggles. What is your point? (I know what it is you're trying to do, but instead of standing on the sideline as usual and throwing stones, I'd like you to type out your views openly).
 
You like avoiding questions. Did we go to war in Libya with special ops but with few ground troops? Did we go to war in Afghanistan with special ops but with few ground troops? Did we go to war with Iraq with special ops and with a large ground force? Do different wars with different goals require different strategies? If Libya deteriorates into a civil war, what should Obama do at that point? Finally, what do all your bs talking points have to do with Iran and Israel?
 
The US and Russia were faced with mutual destruction for how many years? And neither side did anything. Not even by "proxy."
___________________________________________________

You are making the assumption that the religious nuts think like westerners. they don't. mutually assured destruction worked because we thought differently. the clerics in iran that rule the country think like the western evangelicals you so despise. the only difference is the iranians have backbone and dont give a crap and wont to bring about the 7th or 8th iman or whatever it is. they have said they would use nuclear weapons if they got them. that is the difference.
 
Roger,

I agree with pretty much everything you're saying in this discussion, including the rips on GWB. In fact, you're speaking the truth very well.

However, in most topics, you sound like a politically correct hippie - quick to find racism in various events, quick to rip kneejerk Republicans on economic issues, etc.

In this post, you make very clear and pretty harsh judgments and sound like you would likely favor a war with Iran if that's what it took to stop them from getting nuclear weapons. You even use some politically incorrect verbiage that would probably offend some Iranians.

Most religious conservatives would be standing up applauding you, while most left-leaning folks (at least the ones I know) would be horrified with you. They'd oppose the US or Israel doing anything to Iran without submitting to the UN's authority first and would likely give Iran the benefit of the doubt on its nuclear program. I would have expected you to take a similar view, and instead you sound like John Hagee.

Again, you're right on. Just seems out of character.
 
You bring Bush is bad Obama is good into every conversation. Usually, it doesn't relate to the topic and usually it is wrong. And then when you are questioned you fail to address the subject. We understand that you have "Obama feels good inside" bumper stickers covering your car. We don't care.
 
I do not believe that Israel would use Nuclear weapons as an offensive weapon, responsive weapon, yes I believe they would.

The problem with Iran having WMD, the same threat as Iraq or Libya having them, they have used them before and the regard for life, there own or others is minimal.

To compare the USSR and USA to Israel and Iran are way different versions of Mutually Assured Destruction(MAD).

You may say what you will about Communists but they did and do value life for the greater majority. They have and would sacrifice a few for the survival of the majority. The battle of Stalingrad is a prime example. I don't know if the USA would do that.......
 
My answer: It is an insult to those who fought apartheid to conflate the 2 situations. There is no arguing with those who insist on doing so.

No, it's not an insult, and yes, there is arguing with those who insist on doing so.

Link
 
I think Israel has no choice but to take Iran's threats on face value. Their country is the size of New Jersey so there is no strategic depth. It would only take 1 nuke to wipe them off the planet.
 
There is a video of a speaker (I think David Horowitz) asking an American-Muslim college student if she agrees with the Hezbullah leader's statement that it is convenient for the Jews to all gather in one place so he doesn't have to hunt them down to kill them all. She smiles smugly and says she agrees with him. It is a shocking video.

It is irresponsible to pretend the threat does not exist and is not a reality. Saying there is no difference between Israel having nukes and Iran having them is just plain ignorance and stupidity. It doesn't get more blatant than denying the Holocaust and calling for Israel's destruction.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

NEW: Pro Sports Forums

Cowboys, Texans, Rangers, Astros, Mavs, Rockets, etc. Pro Longhorns. The Chiefs and that Swift gal. This is the place.

Pro Sports Forums

Recent Threads

Back
Top