- Joined
- Nov 14, 2020
- Messages
- 1,522
- Reaction score
- 979
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Centrist
Give the bollllshit a rest.
I can speak my mind thanks, don't like it don't read it.
Give the bollllshit a rest.
Thank you for your contribution to the "I Love Genocide" club.
You have no idea. There are fundamentalist nutters in Iran but the vast majority are the most delightful, charming and welcoming folk you could hope to meet. I worked with many ex-pat Iranians in London during the 1970s. Most had left because of Iran's vicious authoritarian regime under the US-installed Shah. Given a choice of house guest between the variety of US conservative I see here and Iranians, the US wouldn't get a look-in.If Iran got nukes it would US THEM, they are not a civilized society.
But saying that the peoples and governments of the other Middle East countries that do not have nuclear weapons are NOT concerned about the possibility of Israel launching its nuclear weapons at some Middle Eastern country that does not have nuclear weapons, is just a bit of a stretch too far.
For some reason they simply cannot see the elementary justice of non-Middle Eastern countries giving away non-European land (to Europeans) in order to atone for the actions of a European government.
Would that be the democratically elected one that the UK and US engineered the toppling of in order to establish an absolute monarchy?
Or would that be the one that tossed out the foreign imposed absolute monarch and was then attacked by the US through its proxy Saddam Hussein?
Or would that be the one that has agreed NOT to develop nuclear weapons provided that the rest of the world treats it like a normal country but which the US government says simply has to go because it is developing nuclear weapons?
If you are aware of the realities, those "new deals" are actually nothing more than the open acknowledgment of situations that have existed for over a decade.
How about we try something new?:
Stop being the biggest dickhead in the world.
Which country wishes to destroy Israel? Name one. Oh, and Iran is NOT in the Middle East; it is in Western Asia.Well, I suppose countries that would otherwise wish to destroy Israel would be concerned that Israel would fire nukes after such efforts.
Its not clear why that deterrent is a <bad> thing.
Ahhh Arab nationalism...
Nah-- that story about Mossadegh is myth.
Saddam Hussein was an ally of the USSR. That was their proxy built up is response to the USA support of Iran.
Yep-- no nukes for the mullahs.
The recognition is that Iran is the problem in the mid-east-- not Israel.
If the existing official US policy is "A" under the administration of "B", and if the administration of "B" is about to end with the administration of "C" about to start, and if "C" has made it clear that the official US policy is going to be "D" as soon as their administration starts (in less than two months) REGARDLESS of what "A" does in the meantime, exactly how "undermined" is the US policy going to be?
If the Iranians were to announce that they had completed 10 nuclear weapons and that they had been mounted on missiles (located in 10 widely separated locations [quite distant from any population centers] and in hardened bunkers what would withstand anything short of a nuclear attack) that were capable of reaching Israel BUT that they would not be used unless the Israelis attacked Iran, the odds of Iran suffering 10 "nuclear accidents" within days are such that I'd bet the rent on it happening.
(At that point, the Iranians would reveal incontrovertible documentary/video evidence that proved that there had never been either missiles nor nuclear weapons at those locations.)
Source?Which country wishes to destroy Israel? Name one. Oh, and Iran is NOT in the Middle East; it is in Western Asia.
Which country wishes to destroy Israel? Name one. Oh, and Iran is NOT in the Middle East; it is in Western Asia.
Iran wasn't involved in any of them! What are you suggesting here?I guess the wars of 48 67 and 73 had limited objectives...
If they had done that, then it would have been a much harder sell to convince the Iranian people that the result was due to the Iranian govermnent's actions than to the "benefice of the President of the United States of America".
In short, "face" is involved.
You have no idea. There are fundamentalist nutters in Iran but the vast majority are the most delightful, charming and welcoming folk you could hope to meet. I worked with many ex-pat Iranians in London during the 1970s. Most had left because of Iran's vicious authoritarian regime under the US-installed Shah. Given a choice of house guest between the variety of US conservative I see here and Iranians, the US wouldn't get a look-in.
If Iran used nuclear weapons it would be a suicidal move. Nobody is that stupid-except those suggesting Iran would use them.
No, I called the Shah a vicious authoritarian (which he was), and that's why the Islamic revolution happened. The Shah with his dictatorial rule was installed by the CIA who, with British collusion, overthrew Iran's democratic and secular government in 1953. All the issues you have with Iran today were set in place by the west, 67 years ago.In one breath you call the leaders vicious authoritarians but then say they wouldn’t use nukes. Many specialists do not agree with you.
They are nutters and would consider using nukes a holy jihad.
Moderator's Warning: |
This thread is now in the Middle East forum. That means that all rules for the ME forum apply from this point on. Those rules can be found here: https://debatepolitics.com/threads/me-forum-martial-law-concordance.99774/ . |
No, I called the Shah a vicious authoritarian (which he was), and that's why the Islamic revolution happened. The Shah with his dictatorial rule was installed by the CIA who, with British collusion, overthrew Iran's democratic and secular government in 1953. All the issues you have with Iran today were set in place by the west, 67 years ago.
Or we could just do what we are doing, buy oil from Canada, keep pumping it here and ship enough gas to Mexico to keep their lights on. Been working great so far, no need to change the system dramatically.<SARC>One of the simplest policies that would ensure "energy independence" for the United States of America would be to invade and conquer both Canada and Mexico. The Canadian provinces and Mexican states could be treated as "dependencies" or be granted statehood.
There would be no need to grant the Canadians or Mexicans American citizenship since they had not been born in the United States of America and they would not be eligible to apply for American citizenship since they had not legally immigrated to the United States of America.
Since the Canadians and Mexicans would not be American citizens, then that means that they would not be able to vote in American national elections or in the state elections if the conquered territory was granted statehood. This would mean that the 660,935 (as of the 2016 census) American voters who live in Canada would be the ones who formed the governments of the states (if the provinces were granted statehood).
Of course, since they were neither citizens nor immigrants, that would mean that the Canadian and Mexicans would be "indigenous people" and the US government has a lengthy history of how to deal with "indigenous people". If the Canucks get uppity, then they can always be moved from their reservations to new ones in Mexico and if the Mexicans get uppity, then they can always be moved from their reservations to new ones in Northern Quebec. Not only that, but it wouldn't cost very much to move them because they would simply have to walk (if they wanted to bring anything with them, then they would simply have to carry it themselves). Feeding stations could be set up 100 miles apart (and only kept open for a limited number of days) as an inducement for the "indigenous people" who were being "relocated to new homes" to actually travel to the indicated destination in a reasonable period of time.
</SARC> - right?
Are you ****ing serious?!
Nuclear weapons are stupid (You know what I mean; don't try that cutesy shit with me). Anyone advocating for anything but complete nuclear disarmament is a dumbass. **** that "it's a deterrent to bigger wars" bullshit.
Please let me know if something I said is unclear.
Or we could just do what we are doing, buy oil from Canada, keep pumping it here and ship enough gas to Mexico to keep their lights on. Been working great so far, no need to change the system dramatically.
I can speak my mind thanks, don't like it don't read it.
If Iran got nukes it would US THEM, they are not a civilized society.
Do you understand that the US, the country that has the most nuclear weapons by far, is the main reason that nuclear disarmament is NOT GOING TO HAPPEN?Positively.
Based on its track record, the US government will NOT do anything that will seriously annoy the Israeli government.
You are completely clear and I completely agree that "nuclear weapons are stupid".
However I believe that "advocating" for something that simply WILL NOT HAPPEN is pointless at best and brain-dead at worst.
Face it, the simplest way of TOTALLY eliminating ALL "gun deaths" in the United States of America is to completely remove ALL guns from the hands of Americans.
The complete removal of all guns from the hands of Americans simply is NOT GOING TO HAPPEN, and therefore advocating for it is _[fill in the blank]_ at best and _[fill in the blank]_ at worst.
and the simplest way of eliminating abortions in the United States of America is to make either having, providing, assisting with, or paying for an abortion a capitol offence with no appeal and with the sentence to be carried out within 48 hours.
Making either having, providing, assisting with, or paying for an abortion a capitol offence simply is NOT GOING TO HAPPEN, and therefore advocating for it is _[fill in the blank]_ at best and _[fill in the blank]_ at worst.
Do you understand the parallels?
Do you understand that the US, the country that has the most nuclear weapons by far, is the main reason that nuclear disarmament is NOT GOING TO HAPPEN?
Well, I suppose countries that would otherwise wish to destroy Israel would be concerned that Israel would fire nukes after such efforts.
Its not clear why that deterrent is a <bad> thing.
Ahhh Arab nationalism...
Nah-- that story about Mossadegh is myth.
Saddam Hussein was an ally of the USSR. That was their proxy built up is response to the USA support of Iran.
Yep-- no nukes for the mullahs.
The recognition is that Iran is the problem in the mid-east-- not Israel.