civman110
Immortal
- Joined
- Jan 14, 2012
- Messages
- 2,111
Not impossible, but not realistic or practical either.
Really all that matters is that it is possible, but for argument sake.
How so is it not practical or realistic?
Iranian Regime and Palestinian Nationalist ties to Nazism
- Thread starter civman110
- Start date
Really all that matters is that it is possible, but for argument sake.
How so is it not practical or realistic?
Economic reasons, not a lot of public support, people prefer peaceful resolutions generally, inopportune moment.
civman110
Immortal
- Joined
- Jan 14, 2012
- Messages
- 2,111
Economic reasons, not a lot of public support, people prefer peaceful resolutions generally, inopportune moment.
How does that make attacking them unrealistic and impractical?
You never answered the question.
So you are leading a country. You are short of money and public support. Do you think you have some realistic and practical problems in taking on a war on the other side of the globe?
civman110
Immortal
- Joined
- Jan 14, 2012
- Messages
- 2,111
1) They have more than enough money to attack Iran. The US is already mobilized in the Middle East and spending billions surrounding them on all 3 sides so if money was that much of a problem they would be gone already.
2) They can send an order to attack and have it carried out in 24 hours. Distance isn't an issue.
3) They don't need public support to attack.
That speaks to possibility, not reality or practicality. If it were realistic and practical, we would have done it long ago.
civman110
Immortal
- Joined
- Jan 14, 2012
- Messages
- 2,111
Possible is broader that practical or realistic. Something can be possible with being practical or realistic.
civman110
Immortal
- Joined
- Jan 14, 2012
- Messages
- 2,111
No it is not.
pos·si·ble
ˈpäsəb(ə
l/adjective
1.
able to be done; within the power or capacity of someone or something.
"surely it's not possible for a man to live so long?"
synonyms: feasible, practicable, practical, viable, within the bounds/realms of possibility, attainable, achievable, workable; informaldoable
"it's not possible to check the figures"
able to happen although not certain to; denoting a fact, event, or situation that may or may not occur or be so.
"a new theory emerged about the possible cause of the plane crash"
synonyms: conceivable, plausible, imaginable, believable, likely, potential, probable, credible
"a possible reason for his disappearance"
able to be or become; potential.
"he was a possible future customer"
synonyms: potential, prospective, likely, probable
"a possible future leader"
having as much or as little of a specified quality as can be achieved.
"children need the best education possible"
(of a number or score) as high as is achievable in a test, competition, or game.
"he scored 723 points out of a possible 900"
noun
noun: possible; plural noun: possibles
1.
a person or thing that has the potential to become or do something, especially a potential candidate for a job or membership on a team.
"I have marked five possibles with an asterisk"
re·al·is·tic
ˌrēəˈlistik/Submit
adjective
1.
having or showing a sensible and practical idea of what can be achieved or expected.
"jobs are scarce at the moment, so you've got to be realistic"
synonyms: practical, pragmatic, matter-of-fact, down-to-earth, sensible, commonsensical, grounded; More
antonyms: idealistic, impracticable
It is possible that I could buy an expensive sports car right now, but not very practical. It is possible that I will take a hot 20 something home from a bar, but much to the surprise of my fan club, not always realistic. Sometimes I have to settle for a hot pair of 30 year olds.
civman110
Immortal
- Joined
- Jan 14, 2012
- Messages
- 2,111
You can't argue with the dictionary. You using the term "practical" incorrectly doesn't validate your argument. All it does is prove that you don't understand the meaning of the word "practical."
For example, "I have always held the belief that left winger's are not practical because they have no understanding of the word." Is the grammatically correct way to use the word.
For example, "I have always held the belief that left winger's are not practical because they have no understanding of the word." Is the grammatically correct way to use the word.
civman110
Immortal
- Joined
- Jan 14, 2012
- Messages
- 2,111
You're dead wrong about what we were specifically discussing, however I think I understand what you're trying to say. Perhaps you just didn't articulate it ideally...?
I can agree with you as much as - Attacking Iran would be a very unpleasant experience and many would not think it would be worth it/help/prevent any catastrophe.
I totally disagree with your opinion and most of what you say (I'm sure that sentiment is mutual), however I still respect your opinion. There is something noble about not wanting to go to war and not wanting to harm others.
Just as there is something noble about wanting to protect your country and create order and stability in the world so we never experience something like WWI, or WWII again. I don't want to harm others either, but I will if I have no other options. I believe that military intervention is necessary in instances like this when all other options fail. Global stability is really a very fragile thing. For example, an assassination started WWI during a time when there was a lot of tensions. A world war at this day in age would make WWII look like a bun fight.
Imo, Iran is a loose cannon in a very volatile region that the rest of the world is dependant on for energy. The risk of allowing Iran to have a nuclear bomb and what the consequences of that could be given the current global conditions is far greater the cost of going to war if a suitable deal is not reached. I realize that this is a calculated decision and there is no guarantee of what Iran may, or may not do if they had a bomb. To me it is not worth taking that risk and hoping it turns out OK. I would rather make sure it's going to be OK.
Anyway, the point of me making this post is that I sensed some hostilities and really don't see any point in being hostile to each other. I'm OK with disagreeing. I just hope in the future we can both disagree in a more friendly manner. I think morally we stand for many of the same things, but we each just perceive the world in a very different way. I also think when one of us says something the other often perceives a slightly different meaning than what was intended. We don't think or communicate the same way. I apologise if I made you feel slighted.
Timsup2nothin
Deity
- Joined
- Apr 2, 2013
- Messages
- 46,737
Man I would love to know what all those posts said before they were edited. Bet that was good stuff.
civman110
Immortal
- Joined
- Jan 14, 2012
- Messages
- 2,111
What posts are you taking about?
classical_hero
In whom I trust
Israel will do what it needs to do to protect itself, just like how they attacked the Iraqi nuclear factory in the 80's they will do it again if pushed.
civman110
Immortal
- Joined
- Jan 14, 2012
- Messages
- 2,111
Oddly, considering what's going on in Yemen; I believe you could very well see an Arab - Israeli Coalition against Iran if the US doesn't solve this conflict.
Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and Egypt (especially the Saudis) are all feeling very threatened by Iran and you could see Egypt be the liaison between the Arabs and the Israelis and bring this coalition together. That is traditionally the role Egypt has played during Arab - Israeli negotiations.
A few months ago after Netanyahu's speech at the US Congress a Saudi Official made a public statement saying that Obama was the worst US president and that Saudi policies are now more in line with Israel than the US, which I found astonishing considering how much they hate the Israelis. Also when Saudi Arabia went into Yemen they made a public statement that they did not inform the US of their intentions prior to going in because they feared Obama would tip off the Iranians.
I'll see if I can find those articles... I'll post them later if I do.
Oddly, there isn't as yet a 'conflict.' There is one in Yemen though. And Syria. And Iraq. All kinds of conflicts ecept in Iran.
Egypt is threatened by Iran?
Which is kind of ridiculous. Well, except if you're a conspiracy theorist. Then anything goes.
Pangaea
Rock N Roller
- Joined
- Sep 17, 2010
- Messages
- 6,390
You sure live in an interesting and very different world to the rest of us. Where does all the hatred come from?
Pangaea
Rock N Roller
- Joined
- Sep 17, 2010
- Messages
- 6,390
1) They have more than enough money to attack Iran. The US is already mobilized in the Middle East and spending billions surrounding them on all 3 sides so if money was that much of a problem they would be gone already.
2) They can send an order to attack and have it carried out in 24 hours. Distance isn't an issue.
3) They don't need public support to attack.
...and yet Iran is the aggressor. Makes perfect sense of course. I'm sure the view would be similar if the US was surrounded on all sides by Iranian military bases (lets say in Canada, Mexico and Hawaii for starters), and Iranian nuclear war ships were floating about in Gulf of Mexico and outside California.
