Iranian Regime and Palestinian Nationalist ties to Nazism

[JollyRoger]

So not being heavily armed is neither realistic nor practical?

 

[civman110]

No. It is clearly not. Unless you expect all countries to disarm simultaneously and if you think that is possible I can't help but laugh.

When you want to have an actual discussion I'll respond, but nothing you have said so far would indicate so.

 

[JollyRoger]

So you are asking Iran to be unrealistic and not practical?

 

[civman110]

So you are asking Iran to be unrealistic and not practical?

Last I checked they don't have a bomb, so if disarmament is your goal you should be happy and continue to insist they don't develop one.

 

[JollyRoger]

I am saying that it in unrealistic and not practical to sit back and do nothing when your enemies have proven aggressive and are heavily armed. Can you agree with that?

 

[Timsup2nothin]

 

[civman110]

I am saying that it in unrealistic and not practical to sit back and do nothing when your enemies have proven aggressive and are heavily armed. Can you agree with that?

If that is your position, then it is entirely realistic for your stronger "enemies" to attack you and prevent you from obtaining a bomb if necessary.

As I have mentioned earlier you are being totally unrealistic. Not only were you advocating for disarmament a second ago, but now you are suggesting proliferation. That's quite an irrational bi-polar argument.

 

[JollyRoger]

If that is your position (don't sign a deal and pursue a bomb), then it is entirely realistic for your stronger "enemies" to attack you and prevent you from obtaining a bomb if necessary.

As I have mentioned earlier you are being totally unrealistic.

If you were ruling Iran, what would you consider their realistic course of action in regards to military defense?

 

[civman110]

If you were ruling Iran, what would you consider their realistic course of action in regards to military defense?

They have 2 choices:

1) Make a deal not to pursue a bomb and try to avoid war.

2) Pursue a bomb and risk war.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

They have 2 choices:

1) Make a deal not to pursue a bomb and try and avoid war.

2) Pursue a bomb and risk war.

And you have said, emphatically, that they are doing both. Yet you do not list "all of the above" as a third choice.

Curious.

 

[JollyRoger]

Is there really that much of a war risk? The debacle in Iraq has made it less likely that the U.S. would get involved in such a misadventure and Israel can't really do much about it without risk of its own.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Is there really that much of a war risk? The debacle in Iraq has made it less likely that the U.S. would get involved in such a misadventure and Israel can't really do much about it without risk of its own.

The real question is whether Iran's actions have any measurable effect on the risk of war with the US. Iraq's actions had no particular impact on whether the US invaded them or not, so why would Iran's actions make any difference?

 

[civman110]

And you have said, emphatically, that they are doing both. Yet you do not list "all of the above" as a third choice.

Curious.

If they sign a deal that forbids them from having a bomb how do you think they are going to pursue a bomb and not pursue a bomb at the same time?

Be realistic.

 

[civman110]

Is there really that much of a war risk? The debacle in Iraq has made it less likely that the U.S. would get involved in such a misadventure and Israel can't really do much about it without risk of its own.

The US has Iran surrounded on 3 sides. Iraq, Afghanistan, the Gulf. They have enough fire-power over there to bomb them back into the stone age. Most likely they wouldn't even need a land invasion, or very little of one. Iraq was defeated initially with heavy air cover and a small ground force. Afghanistan the same. Saddam didn't even put his planes in the air because he knew it was a lost cause.

If you think Iraq and Afghanistan wasn't about Iran you are naive. Not only did Iraq give them a base of operations where that can reach anywhere in the Middle East in 24 hours, for terrorism, but it is a strategic position for dealing with Iran as well, plus Saddam was a constant nuisance.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

If they sign a deal that forbids them from having a bomb how do you think they are going to pursue a bomb and not pursue a bomb at the same time?

Be realistic.

I'm not the one that says they are pursuing a bomb at the same time they aren't. That was you. Keep up. You can be forgiven for not reading my posts, but should at least be familiar with your own.

 

[JollyRoger]

And why haven't we? Be realistic.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

The US has Iran surrounded on 3 sides. Iraq, Afghanistan, the Gulf. They have enough fire-power over there to bomb them back into the stone age.

Do they have maps in the stone age? If so the Iranians may point out that the gulf and Iraq are on the same side of Iran.

 

[civman110]

And why haven't we? Be realistic.

Economic reasons, not a lot of public support, people prefer peaceful resolutions generally, inopportune moment perhaps, however none of these reasons make it impossible to attack Iran.

 

[civman110]

Do they have maps in the stone age? If so the Iranians may point out that the gulf and Iraq are on the same side of Iran.

You need to look at a map. Iraq isn't floating in the Gulf last I checked it's 99% land locked.

I'm not the one that says they are pursuing a bomb at the same time they aren't. That was you. Keep up. You can be forgiven for not reading my posts, but should at least be familiar with your own.

I never said Iran wasn't pursuing a bomb. That was your claim which is easily disproven.

 

[JollyRoger]

Economic reasons, not a lot of public support, people prefer peaceful resolutions generally, inopportune moment perhaps, however none of these reasons make it impossible to attack Iran.

Not impossible, but not realistic or practical either.