-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Iran's new missile defense system unveiled
- Thread starter Stevicus
- Start date
Are we sure about that? They could also get help from other nations.
But the USA has been saying (even before Trump, and both parties seem to agree on this) that Iran is the aggressor and that our only objective is to protect our allies in the region from Iran. This implies that Iran would have to make the first aggressive move before we would take any hostile action against them.
Nevertheless, it's not true.
We overthrew their government in the 50s.
When they took their country back in the late 70s we started attacking them, they had most of a million casualties during the 80s. Etc etc.
Pretending that Iran is the aggressor is as ridiculous as pretending that Poland was the aggressor against Germany.
Tom
Goodman John
Active Member
In 1939 the Germans were really on the ball to defend themselves when Poland attacked their radio station, too. In 1964, we were all in for national defense when North Vietnam attacked the USS Maddox with imaginary torpedo boats.
Iran isn't stupid- they're not going to do anything to give us an excuse to attack them, but historically nations are more than happy to provide a pretext for war when would-be opponent don't play the game.
The US, as the greater power, has the responsibility in all of this. We can light up the entire Middle East, or we can walk away. This is a situation we created, and we can un-create it just as quickly.
A lot of what the US did to Iran in the 50s was part and parcel of US Cold War policies. We overthrew governments and installed pro-US dictators as part of an overall global crusade to make the world safe for capitalism.
In retaliation, the Iranians occupied the US embassy and held US personnel hostage for 444 days. They burned our flag, shouted "death to America," led the hostages around in blindfolds in front of mobs of angry Iranians. Many Americans wanted to attack Iran back then, but we took no direct action against them, although the US did give support to Iraq against Iran in the war you mention. But we also traded arms for hostages with Iran during the 80s as well, so whoever was formulating US policy back then must have been terribly confused or mixed up.
But all of this is in the past. For whatever reason, the US government seems to think that Iran is some kind of threat or destabilizing influence in the region. They're especially worried about the possibility of Iran getting nuclear weapons. This is what they keep saying over and over, and it's why they originally wanted a treaty with Iran, which Trump backed out on. Now, he wants to negotiate a new treaty, and the Iranians don't appear interested in doing that.
Given Trump's behavior, nukes look more useful than negotiating with him.
Shad
Veteran Member
Obama failed to ratify the treaty. Obama's problem for telling Iran his EO has the power of law or for putting forward the GOP would support his deal once he was gone. Obama tried to do an end-run around Congress, he failed.
Shad
Veteran Member
You still think a war requires boots on the ground. It doesn't.
I wouldn't say that.
But I do say that it's a strong possibility if we do attack.
Shad
Veteran Member
It could be like the 80s Strait of Hormuz under Operation Praying Mantis
Notanumber
A Free Man
It might be unpalatable but it must be a major consideration of any nation thinking of attacking Iran.
The world has become much more globalised since this occurred.
BBC ON THIS DAY | 5 | 1980: SAS rescue ends Iran embassy siege
These days it is not as simple as attacking a country.
FooYang
Active Member
I didn't perceive it like that but GOOD if that's the case. I hope the rest of the world follows suit and stands up to the US too. UK, India, China, Japan, Russia, Germany, basically Europe, Arabia, Mexico, Switzerland, and the whole rest of them.
Goodman John
Active Member
The fun part is, the Embassy hostage situation didn't have to go down the way it did. Certainly our people were taken, with quite a few released in short order. Enter the 1980 Presidential Elections: Jimmy Carter versus the challenger Ronald Reagan. Reagan already had an uphill battle challenging a sitting President, but the Embassy incident was mana from heaven for his campaign. A few back line phone calls, a few back room deals, and Reagan and Co. colluded with the Iranians to hold the hostages far longer than intended. Why? So he could use the situation as a club against Carter- "Look, he can't get our people back!" And so the election went down with Reagan taking office- and then the clouds parted and the angels sang and our people were released- as the public was told, because Iran was afraid we were going to attack them, which was never in the playbook to begin with. Instead as payback for the Iranian part in Reagan's victory, they got arms under the table from the US and we used the payments to fund terrorist groups in Central America, primarily at the time in El Salvador. You might have heard of this as the 'Iran-Contra Scandal' that rocked Washington for years.
As for arms trading, all this was going on while we let Saddam Hussein of Iraq off the chain to attack Iran (of course we had to do something as payback for the Embassy!) and gave him all the support we could. (Curiously, though, while we back Iraq Israel was selling arms under the table to Iran at the same time- arms we had sold them!) So the whole Iraq-Iran War was a farce to begin with, but when Iran turned out to be far more tenacious than we expected and started kicking Iraq's butt we had to go to the UN to intervene and stop a war we set in motion in the first place.
Fast forward to today, and US-Iranian relations. You noted Iran doesn't appear to be interested in making a new deal with the US, and I can't blame them for it at all. They bent over backward to accommodate US demands in the JCPOA- demands no other nuclear nation has had to sign on for- and after all was signed sealed and delivered it was working as intended to the benefit of all the signatories. But then our new President just decides it's a bad deal and instead of taking diplomatic steps to amend the existing deal, or begin crafting a replacement when the current JCPOA expires, he just walks out leaving everyone hanging. And to make things worse, President Trump is insisting that Iran abide by the provisions of the JCPOA we're not even party to, and implementing sanctions over and above the original agreement. So in light of this- and constant threats of war and a massive build-up of hostile forces on their shores and border- why on earth would Iran be inclined to believe ANYTHING we say? From their perspective they can certainly make that New Deal with the US, but what's the point if we're going to just drop it like it's hot the minute we decide we don't like it after all? What sort of message does that send other nations who want to do business with us? What kind of diplomacy is that?
We made this mess, and it's up to us to clean it up before an awful lot of people get killed for no good reason.