shmogie
Well-Known Member
Talk about a diversion.As a diversion, yes, Moscow Mitch is a classic example of someone who won't negotiate.
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!
Talk about a diversion.As a diversion, yes, Moscow Mitch is a classic example of someone who won't negotiate.
Stealth technology doesn't make planes invisible.There's another bomb in the U.S. military arsenal designed for the purpose of destroying underground bunkers, this being the GBU-57A/B Massive Ordnance Penetrator (MOP), which is a precision-guided, 30,000-pound (14,000 kg) "bunker buster" bomb used by the United States Air Force. These bombs can be effectively delivered on target by stealth bombers.
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.Never presume the other side won't negotiate.
And every Iranian attack has been preceded by one of ours.
If we're to justify everything in this manner, we're doomed to endless conflict.
The goal should not be automatic retaliation.
Sincere negotiation.
Religion is critical here.
I've had many discussions with hawks who base their position on religion.
We also have US predilection for preemptively attacking Muslim countries.
Religion is also a good explanation because of the irrationality of pursuing
a needless conflict. It also explains our callousness towards life of those
not like us. We agonize over a few hostages because they of our tribe,
but there's nary a peep about our aiding Iraq with biological & chemical
weapons to kill hundreds of thousands of Iranians from 1980-1988.
This kind of division between the righteous & the wicked is religious thinking.
Trump's invoking God rings true with millions.
Note that religion doesn't serve Iranians well either.
We need cooler heads, unencumbered by hatred or dysfunctional
beliefs about one people being better than another..
A peaceful country with a nuclear weapon is better than war with a non-nuclear country.
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.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 our 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.
"Untrue" doesn't apply when the parties attack tit for tat.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.
We've extensively covered the US vs Iran conflict history on RF.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.
I've given evidence before....is it that you didn't see it, or that you reject it?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.
There's a big problem with your approach to determining the value of human life.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.
Were I in their position, I wouldn't trust him. Moreover, even if I did, I'd haveAs 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.
Obama had his problems, but his approach was better than Trump'sPreconditions 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.
If you're not being histrionic, & really believe that, then you'veYou apparently believe that nuclear proliferation is a good thing....
What I have said is that peace with a nuclear power is better than....as long as the new nuclear power is peaceful.
I'm well aware of those accidents, & have posted about them before.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.
If we continue attacking Iran, & this inspires them to acquire 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.
I'm aware that we have fell capabilities.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 can also happen due to error & inflamed passions. We'veEscalation 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.
Your premise is that there is punching & shooting.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.
Our hard line policies over the past decades haven't worked toThe 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.
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.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?
It's time we stopped discouraging them.IF the Iranians actually wanted to resolve the differences, it could be done. They haven't reached that point, yet.
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.Many democrats are no doubt disappointed, the killing of Iran's terrorist general has not resulted in WW3.
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.Iran is confused, Americans have for years let them do as they chose, suddenly they got whacked for their killing, and they have absolutely no desire to be sliced 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?I have absolutely no doubt that there are some democrats who wanted Americans to be killed, to prove their narrative of fear of Iran, and a serious error on the part of Trump.