Reagan was no friend of Iran. His administration provided
Iraq with massive assistance to attack Iran, including WMDs,
eg, chemical & biological weapons.
-
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!
Should We Defend Iran Against An Israeli Attack?
- Thread starter Revoltingest
- Start date
Iraq with massive assistance to attack Iran, including WMDs,
eg, chemical & biological weapons.
Iraq didn't turn out to be much of a friend either - but then suddenly they became the bigger threat in the region, while Iran was put on the back burner.
Nevertheless, Reagan did get us involved in some backroom dealings with Iran, such as the Iran-Contra affair. It also wasn't a good idea to give Iraq all that stuff either, unless we were planning on joining them in their war against Iran.
Speaking of the Contras, it's interesting to compare the two situations. About the same time, both Iran and Nicaragua had overthrown puppet dictators installed by the U.S., although our reaction and policies towards both were quite different. There was no equivalent to the Contras in Iran, but Iraq seemed to be a logical substitute under the circumstances. Just the same, neither the Iraqis nor the Contras were successful in their endeavors. Another difference is that Nicaragua was seen as pro-Soviet, while Iran was not. Reagan would have seen Iran as less of a threat on that basis alone, as he was willing to make deals with the Iranians to deal with the greater threat of the Sandinistas.
The word "logical" seems out of place
in a description of our foreign policy.
Spock would have been rather disquieted and displeased if he had to work in our State Department.
MCCOY: Well, Mister Spock, they didn't stay frightened very long, did they?
SPOCK: Most illogical reaction. We demonstrated our superior weapons. They should have fled.
MCCOY: You mean they should have respected us?
SPOCK: Of course.
MCCOY: Mister Spock, respect is a rational process. Did it ever occur to you they might react emotionally, with anger?
SPOCK: Doctor, I am not responsible for their unpredictability.
MCCOY: They were perfectly predictable to anyone with feeling. You might as well admit it, Mister Spock, your precious logic brought them down on us.
...
BOMA: I'm sick and tired of your logic!
MEARS: We could use a little inspiration.
SPOCK: Strange. Step by step, I have made the correct and logical decisions. And yet two men have died.
MCCOY: And you've brought our furry friends down on us.
SPOCK: I do seem to have miscalculated regarding them, and inculcated resentment on your parts. The sum of the parts cannot be greater than the whole.
MCCOY A little less analysis and more action. That's what we need, Mister Spock.
Too bad that the writers never addressed
logic requiring cromulent premises.
Easy. Look at what the Zionist (aka modern day Nazis) Israelis are doing to Palestinians today. No, sir I am not guilty of a massive oversimplification.I'd challenge you to connect the dots without being guilty of massive oversimplifications
Yazata
Active Member
Revoltingest said:
I'm assuming that your "we" means the United States.
If that's the case, then my reply is
Of course not! Why in the world should we?
Iran isn't a US ally. Iran isn't any sort of friend of the United States. Their government's stated goal is "Death to America!"
So why should we risk any American lives in their behalf?
Revoltingest said:
The drone strike on the ship looks like provocation. Intentionally so.
Probably not. An Israeli strike would almost certainly be measured and limited in scope, probably directed at destroying whatever Revolutionary Guards base is closest to where the attack on the ship took place.
I expect that they would try to defend themselves. I see no reason whatsoever that we should aid them.
I don't see an Israeli retaliatory strike as being evil. I'm not necessarily suggesting that the US join Israel in such a strike in this instance, but I would certainly be cheering for Israeli success.
This isn't the first time that this has happened. Iran has been launching sporadic attacks on shipping in the Straits of Hormuz for years. I'm not sure why they do it, probably so as to demonstrate some kind of control over transit in and out of the Persian Gulf and access to its huge petroleum reserves. The US and the Europeans have been operating freedom of navigation patrols for years, escorting tankers when necessary.
It's in the US interest (and in the interest of most of the world) to keep that strategic waterway open. Hence it's in the interest of the US and the rest of the world to demonstrate that Iranian military adventurism has a price.
If Israel can handle that instead of us having to do it, so much the better for us. But it's important for us to communicate that we stand behind Israel in this instance.
Last edited:
To misquote Darth Vader....
"I find your lack of uncertainty disturbing."
IOW, military adventurism seldom unfolds as planned.
A "measured" strike on Iran itself cannot be envisioned
as a joseki. It would escalate in unpredictable ways.
As for the "Death to America!" cry. I heard of an interesting
discussion with an Iranian cabbie. The passenger heard
him say "Death to traffic jams!". Turns out that this phrase
is more benign than western hawks want to believe.
It's similar to a common Russian phrase which sounds
like "Yop tvayu mat." It's literal meaning is about
procreating with one's own mother. Pretty offensive, eh?
But it translates as "Meh....".
Don't let mistaken literalism cause war.
Kelly of the Phoenix
Well-Known Member
The country is also a huge pain in the ***, at least the government in Israel. They are a toddler biting your kid because Uncle Sam will keep him from getting spanked.
Kelly of the Phoenix
Well-Known Member
Wants and had a chance in hell of accomplishing are too different things.
Yes you are.
And despite our overthrowing their government in 1953,
& killing millions of Iranians by supplying Iraq with WMDs,
they've not retaliated in kind against us.
They've shown far far more restraint than have we.
esmith
Veteran Member
Kelly of the Phoenix
Well-Known Member
Israel (I don’t equate government with people) loves to bait their neighbors into attacking. Been going on since Moses lol.
They exploit US fundamentalist Christian attitudes, though foolishly IMHO as the latter just wants Israel to be destroyed by Jesus. The reality is that if their neighbors really wanted them off the map, it wouldn’t take much if they all attacked at once. Muslim countries can’t be bothered, debunking Israel’s martyr complex.
Iran's government oppressing its own people
doesn't strike me as something justifying invasion.
It poses no existential threat to anyone.
Secret Chief
Stiff Member
I imagine any US intervention will go like this:
1. Bomb the **** out of the country, killing thousands of civilians.
2. With the ending of the successful military campaign bring in the post-war plan which will be:
3. Return to the US, leaving behind a happy and grateful population.
4. Reap the benefits.
Kelly of the Phoenix
Well-Known Member
The problem of all the countries in that area is that they are used to fighting poor villagers. That’s different from destroying a country with states larger than the entire region.
esmith
Veteran Member
The only problem is the common person has no say what their government does or doesn't do. Correct?
I'll wager that if Israel does plan on attacking Iran,
they'd have carefully planned for dealing with Iran's
technological preparations. Alas, I don't think they'll
consider how it would all play out.
We're all pawns.