Iran Threatens to Destroy Israel in 30 Minutes: Does this ...

[Brickjectivity]

I see more factors at work, eg, USA wanting a neutered Iran, & willing to kill
millions in order to serve Israel. Christians here go on & on about "God's
chosen people" (the Jews), & that we must destroy any threat to them.
Muslim lives around the world don't matter to most Ameristanians.

In my hearing Christians don't say we should destroy any threat to Israel. I've never heard us saying that. That is over the line. What evangelicals expect is that anyone who attacks Israel will be destroyed and that our country mustn't do it. Defending Israel is indeed politically popular among evangelicals but not destroying everyone who merely is a threat. Evangelicals also see US as an exceptional country rather than as just another country that comes and goes like grass. That's where the line really is.

 

[sooda]

In my hearing Christians don't say we should destroy any threat to Israel. I've never heard us saying that. That is over the line. What evangelicals expect is that anyone who attacks Israel will be destroyed and that our country mustn't do it. Defending Israel is indeed politically popular among evangelicals but not destroying everyone who merely is a threat. Evangelicals also see US as an exceptional country rather than as just another country that comes and goes like grass. That's where the line really is.

Have you ever heard that old joke that goes something like this: "I'll hold your coat while you and him fight".

 

[Darkforbid]

It's because the USA supports Israel. Iran cannot make a direct threat against the USA without the US propaganda machine milking the warmongering angle. It's also worth nothing history shows it's almost impossible to replace/elect a new leader in times of war

 

[Brickjectivity]

It's because the USA supports Israel. Iran cannot make a direct threat against the USA without the US propaganda machine milking the warmongering angle. It's also worth nothing history shows it's almost impossible to replace/elect a new leader in times of war

This president doesn't need a handicap. If the Democrats can't get their act together he's already won. Its like Tortoise and Hare. The Hare keeps taking naps.

 

[Revoltingest]

Do you even remember 1980?

This question suggests that you believe your
take on history is the only cromulent one.
(I hope it's rhetorical.)
But I notice that you ignore events I cite.

Now, were I to employ your approach, I might ask....
Do you even remember the last 10 minutes?
Fortunately, I wouldn't say such a thing.

 

[Darkforbid]

This president doesn't need a handicap. If the Democrats can't get their act together he's already won. Its like Tortoise and Hare. The Hare keeps taking naps.

Hey, I know that locally when I said Trump would win I was subjected to massive amounts of abuse. Exactly the same when I said Brexit would win.

How many apologies do you think I received after being proved right

 

[sooda]

This question suggest that you believe your
take on history is the only cromulent one.
(I hope it's rhetorical.)
But I notice that you ignore events I cite.

Now, were I to employ your approach, I might ask....
Do you even remember the last 10 minutes?
Fortunately, I wouldn't say such a thing.

I have known the Saudi leadership for well over 60 years so I am not easily influenced by instant experts in the media or political pundits.

The Saudis are not the bad guys.. EVERYTHING they do is about bringing Saudi Arabia and its people out of the first century in less than 80 years. They are NOT inclined to waste money or time on wars.

 

[Revoltingest]

In my hearing Christians don't say we should destroy any threat to Israel. I've never heard us saying that.

I know some rather loopy fundies IRL.
But bear in mind that Hillary (who won the most votes) threatened to
"obliterate" Iran if they attacked Israel. Not just defend Israel, but to
wipe out the Iranian people. Note also that she considers the people
themselves her enemies. This got little criticism from the left during
her campaign.
Hillary Clinton's Disturbing Comments Calling Iranians Her "Enemies" | HuffPost
Why? They agreed.

Btw, she's not only a Christian, but she's so Christian that she long
opposed gay marriage.

What evangelicals expect is that anyone who attacks Israel will be destroyed and that our country mustn't do it. Defending Israel is indeed politically popular among evangelicals but not destroying everyone who merely is a threat. Evangelicals also see US as an exceptional country rather than as just another country that comes and goes like grass. That's where the line really is.

Of course, not all Christians & Jews would want to wipe out the Iranians.
But this obscures the religious alliances & hostilities driving our foreign policy.
We helped Israel take land from Palestinians.
We defend Israel keeping land taken thus & in war.
And we attack & threaten any country opposing them.

Now, consider that we've actually attacked Iran, threatening
the existence of the country. This indicates that our values
are not about ensuring sovereignty of other countries.
We're OK with killing for regime change.
Where do we do this?
Not in Christian or Jewish countries....in Muslim countries.
Ameristan generally just doesn't value their lives or autonomy.

 

[Revoltingest]

I have known the Saudi leadership for well over 60 years so I am not easily influenced by instant experts in the media or political pundits.

Perhaps familiarity makes for too friendly a perspective?

Is this a contest to see which of us has greater authority?
I have a lengthy history watching our leadership, foreign affairs, & the consequences.

The Saudis are not the bad guys.. EVERYTHING they do is about bringing Saudi Arabia and its people out of the first century in less than 80 years. They are NOT inclined to waste money or time on wars.

But they are willing to urge us to war against their perceived enemies, eg, Iran.
They're not only not the good guys...they're machiavellian (in a bad way).
But criticism of them, their society, & their government, I wish peace for them.
The big problems here are USA & Israel.

 

[Brickjectivity]

We helped Israel take land from Palestinians.
We defend Israel keeping land take thus & in war.

As far as I know we avoid any direct intervention in any of the political snot and throw money at it, enough money to put every homeless person here in the US into a two story ranch with a cow out back. Oil is our weakness. We've got that oil pipeline (sooda made me aware of) in Afghanistan.

And we attack & threaten any country opposing them.

Not merely opposing and not merely Irael but for those publicly threatening military action against any ally, and we push for monetary constriction not destruction. We aren't threatening every country that opposes Izzy*. We support Kuwait and Saudi Arabia, yet they oppose Israel. One major difference is they aren't threatening it publicly and they never invaded the Ukraine. Russia is not opposed to Izzy. Its an ally of Izzy, yet the US put an embargo against Russia.

I know some rather loopy fundies IRL.

You, too? I thought it was just me.

Now, consider that we've actually attacked Iran, threatening
the existence of the country. This indicates that our values
are not about ensuring sovereignty of other countries.
We're OK with killing for regime change.

Consider that Iran is militarily weaker than most Christian countries. Its small. Its vulnerable. The highly centralized US government is too centralized and does too many things that don't get voted on.

Not in Christian or Jewish countries....in Muslim countries.
Ameristan generally just doesn't value their lives or autonomy.

Get back to me when you can make sand nutritious and 50C+ weather good for the skin. Muslim controlled countries generally are dependent upon oil exports and food imports. They also have tenuous alliances due to their lack of economic power. Its not all about religion. Its about too large of a central government. Bureaucracy is not strong enough to subdue it. These countries are too weak, and ours is too strong. Next thing you know we'll all be slaves building pyramids. Somebody do something that will redistribute this enormous attack button into maybe 12 'Ok we should attack if everyone else agrees' buttons.

*Ireal is a typo that means Israel
*Izzy refers to Israel but is not a typo

 

[Revoltingest]

As far as I know we avoid any direct intervention in any of the political snot and throw money at it, enough money to put every homeless person here in the US into a two story ranch with a cow out back. Oil is our weakness. We've got that oil pipeline (sooda made me aware of) in Afghanistan.

Let's look at a link from 2012 (more relevant to our foreign policy than something current)....
Where Does America Get Oil? You May Be Surprised
More recently...
Where America Gets Its Oil: The Top 10 Foreign Suppliers Of Crude To The U.S.
The Ongoing Costs of the Afghanistan War
Afghanistan is simply insignificant in terms of oil purchased.
It always has been,
But the cost of the continuing war there is heading towards a trillion dollars.
The True Cost of the Afghanistan War May Surprise You
The Iraq is far more expensive.
Are we getting oil which justifies such costs of wars?
No.
Is a steady supply of well priced oil a plausible explanation for our foreign adventurism?
No.
Would we kill hundreds of thousands of people for oil?
Sure, but that's a less credible explanation than killing them for the politics of religion.

Not merely opposing and not merely Irael but for those publicly threatening military action against any ally, and we push for monetary constriction not destruction. We aren't threatening every country that opposes Izzy*. We support Kuwait and Saudi Arabia, yet they oppose Israel. One major difference is they aren't threatening it publicly and they never invaded the Ukraine. Russia is not opposed to Izzy. Its an ally of Izzy, yet the US put an embargo against Russia.

Note that we do not go to war with every nation which threatens us or
an ally, eg, Russia, China, N Korea. We choose only Muslim nations.

Consider that Iran is militarily weaker than most Christian countries. Its small. Its vulnerable. The highly centralized US government is too centralized and does too many things that don't get voted on.

Voters still elect leaders who threaten & wage needless war.
And all fete Israel, placing its wants above all others.

Get back to me when you can make sand nutritious and 50C+ weather good for the skin. Muslim controlled countries generally are dependent upon oil exports and food imports. They also have tenuous alliances due to their lack of economic power. Its not all about religion. Its about too large of a central government. Bureaucracy is not strong enough to subdue it. These countries are too weak, and ours is too strong. Next thing you know we'll all be slaves building pyramids. Somebody do something that will redistribute this enormous attack button into maybe 12 'Ok we should attack if everyone else agrees' buttons.

*Ireal is a typo that means Israel
*Izzy refers to Israel but is not a typo

I don't understand the meaning behind this.

 

[Brickjectivity]

Let's look at a link from 2012 (more relevant to our foreign policy than something current)....
Where Does America Get Oil? You May Be Surprised
More recently...
Where America Gets Its Oil: The Top 10 Foreign Suppliers Of Crude To The U.S.
The Ongoing Costs of the Afghanistan War
Afghanistan is simply insignificant in terms of oil purchased.
It always has been,
But the cost of the continuing war there is heading towards a trillion dollars.
The True Cost of the Afghanistan War May Surprise You
The Iraq is far more expensive.
Are we getting oil which justifies such costs of wars?
No.
Is a steady supply of well priced oil a plausible explanation for our foreign adventurism?
No.
Would we kill hundreds of thousands of people for oil?
Sure, but that's a less credible explanation than killing them for the politics of religion.

Note that we do not go to war with every nation which threatens us or
an ally, eg, Russia, China, N Korea. We choose only Muslim nations.

Voters still elect leaders who threaten & wage needless war.
And all fete Israel, placing its wants above all others.

I don't understand the meaning behind this.

Those are interesting points about the oil and its insignificance next to the costs of our warring. Overall I just wanted to point to military power. You had an interesting idea that religion was the main cause of US involvement, but I wanted to point out that military strength and military power were much stronger influences on where the US invaded.

These countries have been militarily weak for a long time.
All the counter examples you provided (actually that I provided) were militarily stronger.
When the US helped to topple the Shah of Iran was it an attempt to end Islam? No. It was not. When the US invaded Iraq and then started supporting infrastructure and rebuilding programs, did it attempt to stamp out Islam? No. This suggests these countries were invaded not because of Islam but because they were easy to conquer. Certainly the US did not invade Russia over Ukraine, but this was not because of Russia's orthodox Christianity but because of its nukes and tanks, subs, ships and planes. If they had been feeble, the govco would have had us in there with boots. We've have been in Russia with rebuilding programs. We'd be in N Korea if China weren't backing it, etc etc. Its military strength that rules the invasion decisions.

 

[sooda]

Perhaps familiarity makes for too friendly a perspective?

Is this a contest to see which of us has greater authority?
I have a lengthy history watching our leadership, foreign affairs, & the consequences.

But they are willing to urge us to war against their perceived enemies, eg, Iran.
They're not only not the good guys...they're machiavellian (in a bad way).
But criticism of them, their society, & their government, I wish peace for them.
The big problems here are USA & Israel.

The Iranians are funding the Houthis who have been attacking Arabia for nearly a decade.

 

[Revoltingest]

Those are interesting points about the oil and its insignificance next to the costs of our warring. Overall I just wanted to point to military power. You had an interesting idea that religion was the main cause of US involvement, but I wanted to point out that military strength and military power were much stronger influences on where the US invaded.

All are factors which vary in importance from country to country.
But even with China & the former Soviets, religion in the form
of anti-atheism loomed large.

These countries have been militarily weak for a long time.
All the counter examples you provided (actually that I provided) were militarily stronger.
When the US helped to topple the Shah of Iran was it an attempt to end Islam? No. It was not.

Ending Islam never appeared to be a goal.
But placing a lower value on the rights & lives of Muslims looks evident.

When the US invaded Iraq and then started supporting infrastructure and rebuilding programs, did it attempt to stamp out Islam? No. This suggests these countries were invaded not because of Islam but because they were easy to conquer.

Again, I never thought ending Islam was a goal.
We just look down upon them & their s**thole countries.

Certainly the US did not invade Russia over Ukraine, but this was not because of Russia's orthodox Christianity but because of its nukes and tanks, subs, ships and planes. If they had been feeble, the govco would have had us in there with boots. We've have been in Russia with rebuilding programs. We'd be in N Korea if China weren't backing it, etc etc. Its military strength that rules the invasion decisions.

With Russia, as opposed to the Soviets, religion is no longer a factor IMO.
But China is rather anti-Christian, so I give that some weight with so many
Christians in US government leadership roles.

 

[Revoltingest]

The Iranians are funding the Houthis who have been attacking Arabia for nearly a decade.

This seems understandable, given Saudi hostility & actions against Iran.
One would expect Iran to retaliate in a manner which would gain power.

 

[sooda]

This seems understandable, given Saudi hostility & actions against Iran.
One would expect Iran to retaliate in a manner which would gain power.

Saudi has NEVER had any actions against Iran.

 

[Revoltingest]

Saudi has NEVER had any actions against Iran.

Except for support of US actions against Iran.
I linked something about that earlier.

 

[sooda]

Except for support of US actions against Iran.
I linked something about that earlier.

Thank Trump for that. The Saudi position for the past 20 years has been that HAMAS and Hezbollah should cool it and give peace a chance in Palestine.

The Saudis opposed Operation Ajax and Bush's invasion of Iraq.

The Iranian people are victims of their leadership's crackpot end times eschatology.

 

[Wasp]

Saudi has NEVER had any actions against Iran.

This seems understandable, given Saudi hostility & actions against Iran.
One would expect Iran to retaliate in a manner which would gain power.

You do both know there's an ongoing cold war between them?

 

[Revoltingest]

You do both know there's an ongoing cold war between them?

You don't say!