Despite our nukes and everything, the Iranian government survived.
So naive.
You think that their new missiles are comparable to slingshots.
Basically, yes.
But somehow, your handwaving away the reality makes it irrelevant?
Aye
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:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Despite our nukes and everything, the Iranian government survived.
You think that their new missiles are comparable to slingshots.
But somehow, your handwaving away the reality makes it irrelevant?
And yet, internet based "experts" on warfare predict we'd defeat them
in a matter of days with our overwhelming superiority....no boots on
the ground. The war would proceed precisely according to plan...just
as all other wars have.
They want these weapons to protect themselves from the USA.
And Trump has made it clear that they need them.
Tom
Nevertheless, it's not true.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.
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
Given Trump's behavior, nukes look more useful than negotiating with him.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.
Who should have tried what?
Iran barely survived the USA/Iraqi invasion of the 80s.
That's just one episode of the US attacking Iran.
Obama's peace plan gave the USA 10 years to demonstrate that we aren't the bully and threat we used to be. Then Iran wouldn't have the need for heavy weapons. Trump trashed that, as we all know.
So now they both know that they need the weapons, and that the USA cannot be trusted when it tries to make peace.
Tom
And yet, internet based "experts" on warfare predict we'd defeat them
in a matter of days with our overwhelming superiority....no boots on
the ground. The war would proceed precisely according to plan...just
as all other wars have.
I wouldn't say that.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.
This is the sort of thinking that led to the internment camps for Japanese Americans during WW2, a national disgrace.
On another tack, though, so what if they protest an American war against Iran- aren't they allowed to do so? Unless they do anything illegal, they're perfectly within their rights to protest all they want. I know *I* am already protesting the war on Iran that I know is coming, because it's so stupid and so unnecessary and a lot of people are going to get killed over who is the biggest kid in the playground. I'm a 12-year veteran of both the Marines and Army, and I see this as nothing but wrong, wrong, and more wrong.
Iran has to remain a permanent enemy because they have done something far worse than attacking the US: they have dared to stand up to us with the whole world watching.
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.