• 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!

Not good.

Audie

Veteran Member
It would be if it were agreed to.
We had 4 years of masterful non-negotiation.
Let's hope the next 4 will be better.

They never did, never will allow inspection.

There is no gain in enrichment unless its
a bomb. A LOT of downside.

Any inspection allowed would be to deceive.

Its all such a shame, I really admire the
Iranian people.
 

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
They never did, never will allow inspection.
That's defeatist.
If we want something, we must begin negotiating
in good faith. Even Obama didn't really try that.
There is no gain in enrichment unless its
a bomb. A LOT of downside.

Any inspection allowed would be to deceive.

Its all such a shame, I really admire the
Iranian people.
The very first thing we need to do is convince Iran
that we pose no threat. That's not been tried.
Until then, Iran will perceive the need for nukes.
 

Audie

Veteran Member
That's defeatist.
If we want something, we must begin negotiating
in good faith. Even Obama didn't really try that.

The very first thing we need to do is convince Iran
that we pose no threat. That's not been tried.
Until then, Iran will perceive the need for nukes.

USA wasn't an enemy until the ayatollahs,
and the a bomb is for israel
 

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
USA wasn't an enemy until the ayatollahs,
and the a bomb is for israel
No, we became the enemy in 1953 when
the CIA overthrew their government to install
the Shah. That set the stage for the Islamic
revolution.
 

Audie

Veteran Member
No, we became the enemy in 1953 when
the CIA overthrew their government to install
the Shah. That set the stage for the Islamic
revolution.

I know that happened but there were no hostilities till aya. The revolution only had about 25% support.

Now, you can seize on a false comparison!

The brits burned your white house in
1812 and america has been worried
ever since. Thus like battleships and things.
 

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
I know that happened but there were no hostilities till aya. The revolution only had about 25% support.

Now, you can seize on a false comparison!
We became the enemy by deed. While the Shah's government
certainly liked us for installing him, our problem was with the
those who resented the coup, & with the situation we created.
The brits burned your white house in
1812 and america has been worried
ever since. Thus like battleships and things.
We eventually discovered that we could
talk to the Limeys, & forge a peace.
 

SigurdReginson

Grēne Mann
Premium Member
Meh... The kim jong dynasty has had nukes for a while. If even they wouldn't use them, I suspect Iran won't either. If I'm wrong, then I live close to a naval base, so I'd be blown to smithereens if a worldwide nuke fest took place. :D
 

Audie

Veteran Member
[QUOTE="Revoltingest, post: 7015556, member: 22490

We eventually discovered that we could
talk to the Limeys, & forge a peace.[/QUOTE]


Oh. Who knew?
 

Windwalker

Veteran Member
Premium Member
The very first thing we need to do is convince Iran
that we pose no threat. That's not been tried.
Until then, Iran will perceive the need for nukes.
Sending in drone strikes to kill their top officials, is generally not received well as a gesture of peace and trust.

But with Trump gone, a lot of that unpredictability and untrustworthiness, might be lessened some. One can never quite predict the insane. Just from our perspective alone here, we feel a little safer already, without that abusive unstable uncle in the house anymore.
 
Last edited:

Heyo

Veteran Member
Sending in drone strikes to kill their top officials, is generally not received well as a gesture of peace and trust.

But with Trump gone, a lot of that unpredictability and untrustworthiness, might be lessened some. One can never quite predict the insane. Just from our perspective alone here, we feel a little safer already, without that abusive unstable uncle in the house anymore.
Trump may be gone for now but who is to say he doesn't return in four years? Or someone equally crazy? I wouldn't agree to any treaty with the US that has a span of longer than 'till the next election.
The US is not a reliable partner. And that legacy will stick for some time.
 

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
[QUOTE="Revoltingest, post: 7015556, member: 22490

We eventually discovered that we could
talk to the Limeys, & forge a peace.


Oh. Who knew?
The peace has suffered a little since 2016,
but they didn't burn down the White House.
 
Last edited:

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
Sending in drone strikes to kill their top officials, is generally not received well as a gesture of peace and trust.

But with Trump gone, a lot of that unpredictability and untrustworthiness, might be lessened some. One can never quite predict the insane. Just from our perspective alone here, we feel a little safer already, without that abusive unstable uncle in the house anymore.
From Iran's perspective, about 70 years of our attacking
them in various manners resulting in hundreds of thousands
of their deaths, a momentary regime change here wouldn't
lessen their perceived need for a nuke....which history
shows tends to inoculate a country against direct attack.
Trump & Israel have been chomping at the bit to launce
one of those.
Peace would be a lengthy process....at least with the
kinds of boobs we elect as Prez. Were I in charge, I
could achieve a reliable peace in 3 years...+/- 2 months.
(If I could put @Quetzal, @Wirey, @Christinem, & others
of their ilk in powerful congressional positions.)
 
Last edited:
Top