This is the point.
Years of threats and sanctions have not only failed, they are the problem.
Tom
-
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!
Iran publishes book on how to outwit US and destroy Israel
- Thread starter YmirGF
- Start date
This is the point.
Years of threats and sanctions have not only failed, they are the problem.
Tom
Indeed. How can we expect Iranians not to hope to destroy those who casually decide that they are fair game for military action just because?
I believe it is more than probable and even inevitable that Iran will eventually obtain a nuclear arsenal and will launch a first strike against Israel and the US. This will probably happen in the next 10-15 years. WWIII will begin in the Middle East, I don't want it to happen, but I expect it will.
Setting aside the moral problem of rushing into militarism, there's another big problem with it.
Those starting wars aren't the sanest or most emotionally stable folk around.
They're often power hungry & prone to simplistic thinking.
Remember when we were sold on how smoothly the Iraq war would go?
Victory would be swift, the populace would side with us, & we'd be welcomed as heroes.
This illusion of what reality would be was utterly destroyed by the reality which happened.
And then it gets worse....subsequent leaders (who opposed the war, & said they'd end it) continued it.
Why?
They bought into the illusion.
Twilight Hue
Twilight, not bright nor dark, good nor bad.
Patton read Rommels book.
Just sayin.
Just sayin.
Getting, using, and detonating nuclear weapons are three entirely different things.
Once Iran has them, they will use them. Iran wants to be a regional power and having the Bomb will make them that. But detonating one will be the end of those ambitions. So I am sure that their plans are to get nukes and use them to balance the power in the middle east. Not destroy the region.
Tom
Indeed. That is a recurrent problem. World War I was just a few months away from ending since it started. It is eerie to see how insistently successive British, German and French commanders clung to that belief.
Heck, John French seems to never have accepted that cavalry would not be decisive in trench warfare involving explosive shells and machine guns.
And since we are talking about atomic weapons, let us remember that Harry Truman was certain that the USSR would never manage to build atomic bombs of their own even after the Nagasaki bombing. Instead its first known nuclear "test" happened in August 29th, 1949.
It is quite unlikely Iran would be anywhere close to this current level of hostility against the USA were it not for 1953's Operation Ajax and the decades of support for Shah Reza Palahvi.
YmirGF
Bodhisattva in Recovery
Definitely disingenuous on the Iranian side but quite sincere on the P5+1 side, and to me it is the sincerity that is worrisome. It is idiocy similar to that of aspirations to bring democracy to the Iraqi people not so long ago. It is the idea of believing we can win their "hearts and minds". Fat chance.
1. Just because the sanctions will not "contain" Iran is no reason to remove them and also give them 100+ billion dollars to play with. It would seem to be akin to rewarding bad behavior.
2. I don't know that unilateral sanctions would be ineffective. Releasing Iranian oil onto the open market could cause considerable destabilization in oil prices all over the world.
3. I agree on this and am wary calling for such strikes. What disturbs me is that I have heard several high ranking Obama administration officials saying that the alternative to no deal with Iran is war. THAT was news, but that begs the question why would they put their hopes into an agreement that has little prospect of being upheld? To delay the "inevitable" war with Iran?
I would be inclined to bring the Iranian regime to its knees economically, not flood them in billions of dollars, rewarding their insane support for terrorism.
What possible reason could you have for believing that they have suddenly developed "sincerity"? Take a look at the history.
Of course Iran is lying to get what they want. Unfortunately, it is what government does.
Tom
How do you propose doing this?
And to what ultimate goal? Kicking the can down the road a few years?
Tom
That did not seem to work too well between 1953-1979, now did it?
YmirGF
Bodhisattva in Recovery
Read it again, Tom. I'm not saying the Iranians are being sincere. They are just smart enough to deal with a room full of fools.
I know. You described the P5+1 as sincere. I asked why.
I don't believe that any more than Iran does.
Tom
Shad
Veteran Member
That "extremist" is in charge of the very state US and co. are dealing with...
....or US assistance (including WMDs) to Iraq to use against Iran.
Looking at history, Americastan is more dangerous than Iran.
I love the irony that Iraq's WMDs which didn't exist were supplied by USA politicians.
Last edited:
Have you listened to some of the stuff coming from the USA leadership? Do you remember the President's "Axis of Evil" speech, followed shortly by war? Do you remember when Congress sent a letter to Teheran letting them know that the next President might ignore the treaty? Do you realise that Jeb Bush, a frontrunner in the presidential race, is from the same family that has had it in for Iran for many years?
Iran is not the only country run by extremists.
Tom
Does anyboby else remember when a faction of the USA leadership was advocating the arming of ISIS with antiaircraft missiles? That was back when they had the more palatable name "Free Syria". John McCain was a top advocate.
Tom
TurkeyOnRye
Well-Known Member
It doesn't really seem to change anything. I assume the book rehashes the same positions and sentiments we've heard before. Of course, without reading it, it's hard to say, but it's obvious the book was written before negotiations took place.
My chief concern is protecting the lives of Americans and keeping some measure of stability in the region. As far as I understand, the treaty calls for dismantling Iran's facilities to create a nuclear weapon. So the real question is whether or not lifting the sanctions will allow Iran to acquire weapons. If I were Iran, that would be 'my' angle.
Tumah
Veteran Member
Don't worry. My post was made with so much tongue-in-cheek, that there's going to be permanent scarring.
1. Why there is no direct link (official iraninan source) for what you call iranian leader work.
2. when are we going to reach a deal regarding the Israel Nukes.
3. Any logical person can see how weak is the argument that Iran is planning to destroy Israel.
Israel is living in its best time...
The west is bowing to it.
The Sunnis are don't care anymore about it.
The Shiites are minority among the Muslism and are ander attack from the Sunni extremists...
I said it before... it your time to joy oh daughter of zion
