1. 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!

What? No war !

Discussion in 'North American Politics' started by shmogie, Jan 9, 2020.

  1. shmogie

    shmogie Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 8, 2014
    Messages:
    9,033
    Ratings:
    +1,876
    Religion:
    Christian
    Talk about a diversion.
     
  2. Revoltingest

    Revoltingest I have the kavorka
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2010
    Messages:
    178,600
    Ratings:
    +58,745
    Religion:
    Bokononism & Atheism
    Stealth technology doesn't make planes invisible.
    It only makes them harder to detect by radar.
    There's still a risk of their being shot down.
    What potential for escalation do you think there is
    if Iran takes a $billion plane of ours?

    Wrong thinking abounds.
    It shouldn't be how to crush Iran militarily.
    (That has gone poorly for us in past wars.)
    Consider how Iran might want peace.
     
    #122 Revoltingest, Jan 11, 2020
    Last edited: Jan 11, 2020
    • Optimistic Optimistic x 1
  3. shmogie

    shmogie Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 8, 2014
    Messages:
    9,033
    Ratings:
    +1,876
    Religion:
    Christian
    I certainly challenge a number of your premises here. The first being that iranian warlike acts have been predicated upon acts by the US, that simply isn't true. Hijacking oil tankers in international waters was not predicated by any act of the US, the same for attaching mines to them, and detonating them. When they captured a US gunboat that was in international waters, under orders not to defend itself, there was no predication, no response.

    You are going to have to provide proof that the US provided assistance with poison gas to saddam in the Iran /Iraq war, I simply don't believe it.

    My callousness, to use your term, toward the lives of folk in the middle east is based upon their view of the value of there own lives. The killing of civilians in less than all out war is deplorable, yet it has been the signature act of conflict within the middle eastern cultures for over a thousand years. Apparently to them, human life is an easily expended commodity, and dealing death is an appreciated trait. In other words, wholesale slaughter is expected and accepted. In that thousand years, they have not changed this characteristic, if anything, they have made slaughtering a more refined process.

    As I stated, one cannot negotiate if there is no one with whom one can negotiate. Trump has said numerous times that he would sit down at the table to talk with the Iranians, with no preconditions. Preconditions is what they are all about, give them what they want at the beginning, and they will talk, with out guaranteeing any kind of an outcome. That will not happen. What they want, sanctions relief, is part of which is to be discussed, not given away beforehand. Obama tried bribing them regarding the nuclear agreement, which was a joke. He admitted that the money given to them would fund terrorism, yet he did it anyway. In return, he got an agreement that was worthless.

    You apparently believe that nuclear proliferation is a good thing, as long as the new nuclear power is peaceful. I am sorry, but that is ludicrous. Peaceful is a term relating to one period of time that could change in an instant. Further, there are such things as the security of of the installations, the security of the peaceful government, and the control of launch procedures. The US and the USSR, each almost accidentally launched nukes on the other. Each had the best trained people, failsafe systems in place, and the best communication systems related to nukes.

    Iran just accidentally shot down a jetliner, what if they had nukes ??? No, a peaceful Iran with nukes is insanity compared to a non nuclear terrorist Iran. The latter can be contained or destroyed if necessary, the former can destroy many, many millions within reach of it's missiles.

    Iran acts up with it's attacks because it wants us to believe that the only way to stop them is to give them what they want. The democrats are all in on appeasement. I guess you would call me a hawk because I think that approach is asinine, and certainly not in our national interest. Which, by the way, is the criteria for any involvement internationally. As a neo con, I was convinced that giving the people in the middle east the opportunity to be free and adopt democracy was a gallant role of the US. They do not want to be free, and overthrowing their oppressors just creates more of them. I now believe we should allow them to live a they choose, no matter their suffering, we can only make it worse. The only thing to consider in foreign policy is our national interest. I felt this way long before Trump. Our failures in Iraq and Libya showed the harm in playing this game to me.

    As long as they oppress and kill one another within their own countries, without threat to us, or our allies, they should be left to it. Iran is a threat to virtually everyone, their wings need to be clipped.

    When they ante was upped in the poker game between they and us, they essentially folded in response. We will see if they try to get back in the game. They are very jangled because they miscalculated.
     
  4. shmogie

    shmogie Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 8, 2014
    Messages:
    9,033
    Ratings:
    +1,876
    Religion:
    Christian
    With a lot of luck, they might be able to take down a B-2, but it is very, very unlikely. Even if they saw the aircraft on radar after all the jamming of their systems as well as stealth, and they launched missiles, the B-2 has highly classified evasion systems that it would employ.

    Escalation is stopped when when one side sees the danger in escalating further. Iran saw it's escalation result in it's #2 man being obliterated. What will happen if they seriously try to top that ? In response to this point, they were careful to ensure that no Americans were harmed (the red line) in their face saving attack.

    They do not want a cruise missile up the robe of their ayatollah, and they clearly, much more clearly than many of us, know that our overwhelming responses are not in their national interest. If you are in a fight, and you punch your opponent in the jaw, and he pulls a gun and shoots you in the knee, you are likely to think about punching him again very seriously. They are thinking very seriously now.

    The Iranian government has one primary goal, to survive. They know that if their actions cost a lot, the cost to be born by the people, the already angry at them people will turn on them when they realize their own government is responsible for the losses.

    The people have been protesting the various costs of Iran's military excursions, they will not appreciate higher costs.
     
  5. Revoltingest

    Revoltingest I have the kavorka
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2010
    Messages:
    178,600
    Ratings:
    +58,745
    Religion:
    Bokononism & Atheism
    "Untrue" doesn't apply when the parties attack tit for tat.
    One cannot pick an offense, & deny those which precede it.
    We've extensively covered the US vs Iran conflict history on RF.
    You & I both know that US, Israel & allies have waged overt &
    covert war against Iran. It's reasonable for me to see this as
    provocative, rising to the level of inspiring their want for nukes.

    Note: This does not mean that I want them to have nukes.
    But you must recognize this consequence of our actions.
    I've given evidence before....is it that you didn't see it, or that you reject it?
    Granted, I have no first hand involvement in verifying it, but we do have...
    Iraqi chemical attacks against Iran - Wikipedia
    Iraq chemical attacks against Iran refers to chemical attacks used by the Iraqi armed forces against Iranian combatants and non-combatants. The Iraqi armed forces employed chemical weapons against combatants and non-combatants in border cities and villages and more than 30 attacks against Iranian civilians were reported. There were chemical attacks against some medical centers and hospitals by the Iraqi army.[1] According to a 2002 article in the Star-Ledger, 20,000 Iranian combatants and combat medics were killed on the spot by nerve gas. As of 2002, 5,000 of the 80,000 survivors continue to seek regular medical treatment, while 1,000 are hospital inpatients.[2][3] According to the Geneva Protocol, chemical attacks were banned, but in practice, to prevent an Iranian victory, the United States supported the Iraqi army in their use of chemical weapons.[4][5]

    Rumsfeld 'helped Iraq get chemical weapons' | Daily Mail Online
    Rumsfeld 'helped Iraq get chemical weapons'
    By WILLIAM LOWTHER, Daily Mail
    US Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld helped Saddam Hussein build up his arsenal of deadly chemical and biological weapons, it was revealed last night.

    As an envoy from President Reagan 19 years ago, he had a secret meeting with the Iraqi dictator and arranged enormous military assistance for his war with Iran.

    The CIA had already warned that Iraq was using chemical weapons almost daily. But Mr Rumsfeld, at the time a successful executive in the pharmaceutical industry, still made it possible for Saddam to buy supplies from American firms.

    They included viruses such as anthrax and bubonic plague, according to the Washington Post.
    The extraordinary details have come to light because thousands of State Department documents dealing with the 1980-88 Iran-Iraq war have just been declassified and released under the Freedom of Information Act.

    At the very least, it is highly embarrassing for 70-year-old Mr Rumsfeld, who is the most powerful and vocal of all the hawks surrounding President Bush.

    He bitterly condemns Saddam as a ruthless and brutal monster and frequently backs up his words by citing the use of the very weapons which it now appears he helped to supply.
    There's a big problem with your approach to determining the value of human life.
    While there are terrible people there, the same could be said of Ameristanians.
    Yet we'd both agree that we shouldn't be preemptively attacked & defeated.
    And it's not just that indefensible double standard.....
    War would kill vast numbers of people who are not terrible. To be sanguine about
    killing them because they're included in the other group is immoral.
    And even killing the terrible people should be a last resort if negotiating a peaceful
    relationship fails, & they become an existential threat.
    Were I in their position, I wouldn't trust him. Moreover, even if I did, I'd have
    to sell it to the rest of the country. That would be politically very difficult.

    I have an observation...an uncomfortable one...
    When someone says "we can't negotiate with those people", it's said by
    people who won't negotiate because they're obsessed with their own
    moral superiority, refuse to understand the other side, & don't value
    the lives of others.
    Obama had his problems, but his approach was better than Trump's
    twice flirting with war against Iran. And even under Obama, threats
    were made towards Iran & it's people by both Ameristanian & Israeli
    politicians. It was still very much a cold war with hot spells.
    If you're not being histrionic, & really believe that, then you've
    not been reading carefully.
    What I have said is that peace with a nuclear power is better than
    war with a non-nuclear power. Do you disagree?
    I'm well aware of those accidents, & have posted about them before.
    This is why it's best to avoid hostilities.
    If we continue attacking Iran, & this inspires them to acquire nukes,
    there's a good chance that they'll be able to do so, no matter how
    many times we & Israel attack them overtly, covertly & by proxy.
    There are too many nuclear countries who could supply them,
    especially if we sour our relations with them.
    So this raises a question....
    What kind of nuclear power would you have them be....
    1) A dedicated enemy who see us & our allies as an existential threat, or.....
    2) A country with no need to use the nukes they have?
     
  6. Revoltingest

    Revoltingest I have the kavorka
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2010
    Messages:
    178,600
    Ratings:
    +58,745
    Religion:
    Bokononism & Atheism
    I'm aware that we have fell capabilities.
    But do we know what counter-measures the Iranians have acquired?
    Escalation can also happen due to error & inflamed passions. We've
    escalated wars without seeing the danger, & had to retreat after failing.
    Your premise is that there is punching & shooting.
    I don't buy that this is the necessary path to reconciling differences.
    Our hard line policies over the past decades haven't worked to
    stop perception of them as a terrible threat yet. You believe
    that doing the same thing will be different this time?
     
  7. shmogie

    shmogie Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 8, 2014
    Messages:
    9,033
    Ratings:
    +1,876
    Religion:
    Christian
    Our weakness in responding to them has empowered them in their minds. Making sure they are burned thoroughly when they put their hand on the stove burner, every time, will stop the behavior.

    Sometimes differences cannot be reconciled, but an action guranteed to be followed by a more serious action in return, eventually reaches a status quo, or very serious harm to the weaker. The Iranians aren't stupid, and know this.

    IF the Iranians actually wanted to resolve the differences, it could be done. They haven't reached that point, yet.
     
  8. Revoltingest

    Revoltingest I have the kavorka
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2010
    Messages:
    178,600
    Ratings:
    +58,745
    Religion:
    Bokononism & Atheism
    It's time we stopped discouraging them.
     
  9. Mr Spinkles

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2004
    Messages:
    12,683
    Ratings:
    +3,063
    I am not disappointed. I am greatly relieved, though I remain concerned. This is clearly a big optical win for Trump, however the facts turn out.

    We have a drunk pilot. But I absolutely do want him to land the plane successfully.

    I just hope we can replace him with someone sober, before he changes his mind and goes airborne again.

    They appear to have acted rationally and with restraint. I hope this convinces our implacable deal-maker-in-chief to, you know, make deals, rather than simply ripping them up.

    I hope that isn't true but would be glad to join you in condemning any Democrat who insinuated such a thing. Can you cite a specific example please?
     
Loading...