• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Iran's Revolutionary Guards prepare for war

BmanMcfly said:
Let me get this straight... you are in favor of pre-emptive wars??
Click to expand...

You´ll never get it straight if you try to guess at what people are saying.
What have they done to deserve this?? Built a nuclear power plant?? (A plant which was built in such a way that Iran would NOT be able to get weapons grade uranium, Russia would get that material)
Click to expand...

Are you debating with yourself here after making a claim on my behalf that i did not make?


Military strategists have estimated that it would take MANY MONTHS JUST to clear that straight... meanwhile, all that oil is being held up... Since that also blocks trade coming out of the entire region, that would cause unrest in neighboring countries which would spill over.
Click to expand...

Which military strategists said that? And there is already "unrest" in neighboring countries.
So, you now have a world war on your hands... except this time the US/ Euro / NATO is the Axis and the Middle East is the "allies".
Click to expand...

A World War against whom? You feel the Middle East countries are all for Iran?

There's reasons why wars were DECLARED... and not simply waged. I guess we're going to, as a society, have to relearn those lessons.
Click to expand...

Yes, just as we learned about guerrilla warfare and terrorism as a tactic.

See but now the US is SO HEAVILY propagandized that they are just going to push Iran into a corner UNTIL they are FORCED to retaliate, THEN they are going to declare this retaliation an attack and then they go in full force.
Click to expand...

It seems that it is Iran who is doing the propagandizing, but if the US is propagandized perhaps you should take it up with Barrack Obama.
Let's be clear, EVERY analyst will tell you that the SECOND you get boots on the ground in Iran there is NO WAY to win short of this becoming a nuclear war.
Click to expand...

Why put boots on the ground at all if they are going to be nuked?

I do hope and pray that this buildup can be diverted from turning into a full blown conflict.
Click to expand...

Yes, hoping and praying is a good a strategy for some.
 
Kandahar said:
I agree. When the theocracy falls (which will happen sooner or later), it's far more likely that it will have been brought down by its own people, rather than outside powers.
Click to expand...

That could be wishful thinking.

In fact Islamism is growing and we´ll now see more of it, and further violence, in the Middle East especially.
 
Grant said:
That could be wishful thinking.

In fact Islamism is growing and we´ll now see more of it, and further violence, in the Middle East especially.
Click to expand...

"Islamism" does not equal love for Iran, nor does it necessarily equal extremism. Specifically, Islamism is politically ascendant in Sunni Arab regimes that have long been repressed by the United States and US-aligned dictators. That does not describe Iran. Iranians have no love for their theocracy, or their government in general. Remember that Islamist parties were the only opposition allowed to exist in places like Egypt, for example. They do well because they were well-organized, and because they express the citizens' legitimate anger at their previous government and at complicit Western powers.

I don't think that translates into more support for Iran in the Arab world (much less in Iran itself). Arabs once viewed Iran as the revolutionary power able to stand up to the hated West (and to their own hated governments). I think that Arabs are now more likely to view Iran as a country that is supporting repressive regimes and terrorist groups in the Arab world, and the Arab countries that have already overthrown their dictators are less likely to care about Iran's standing up to the United States.

Within Iran itself, Islamism has been declining for a long time in the court of public opinion.
 
Kandahar said:
"Islamism" does not equal love for Iran, nor does it necessarily equal extremism. Specifically, Islamism is politically ascendant in Sunni Arab regimes that have long been repressed by the United States and US-aligned dictators. That does not describe Iran. Iranians have no love for their theocracy, or their government in general. Remember that Islamist parties were the only opposition allowed to exist in places like Egypt, for example. They do well because they were well-organized, and because they express the citizens' legitimate anger at their previous government and at complicit Western powers.

I don't think that translates into more support for Iran in the Arab world (much less in Iran itself). Arabs once viewed Iran as the revolutionary power able to stand up to the hated West (and to their own hated governments). I think that Arabs are now more likely to view Iran as a country that is supporting repressive regimes and terrorist groups in the Arab world, and the Arab countries that have already overthrown their dictators are less likely to care about Iran's standing up to the United States.

Within Iran itself, Islamism has been declining for a long time in the court of public opinion.
Click to expand...

The problem is not just with Iran, it is with Islamism, and this problem is not confined to the Middle East. That might well have been the source at one time but it is now bigger internationally than just the Middle East.

And as we can see in Iran, as you say, it is the religious leaders who are in charge and they will decide which direction Islamism takes, not the general public,
 
DVSentinel said:
I think it is kind of funny. Iran challenging and preparing for war against the US and Britain is like a Junior High football team challenging and preparing to play the Green Bay Packers.
Click to expand...

All they have to do is sink a few ships in the Straits of Hormuz, where most of the world's oil passes through, and we will be hurt in a major way. Yes, we would kick Iran's ass in a war, but we would come out of it severely crippled. But that's our fault for not doing nearly enough to wean ourselves off of Mideast oil.
 
Last edited:
Grant said:
The problem is not just with Iran, it is with Islamism, and this problem is not confined to the Middle East. That might well have been the source at one time but it is now bigger internationally than just the Middle East.

And as we can see in Iran, as you say, it is the religious leaders who are in charge and they will decide which direction Islamism takes, not the general public,
Click to expand...

It is very unlikely that the theocratic style of governance in Iran could spread to the Sunni Arab world. The power structure in Sunni Islam is not one that easily lends itself to theocracy. I would compare Shia Islam to Catholicism (very hierarchical, with a clear and rigid chain of command), and Sunni Islam to Protestantism (power is widely dispersed with each local church answering to no one but itself). So it's unlikely that an Iranian-style theocracy could spread very many other places, since Shia Islam is only the majority religion in a couple other countries (and doesn't dominate anywhere other than Iran).

I think the kind of Islamism that is likely to arise in the Arab world is of a different variety. For the most part, it doesn't necessarily imply extremism at all. Primarily, it's just a socially conservative political movement. It's true that Islamist parties tend to be anti-US, but even this is frequently misconstrued in the United States. It has less to do with some fundamental hatred of American values, and more to do with the fact that they were the only opposition allowed for decades in stagnant autocracies. To oppose their own governments meant to oppose the United States. Had things played out a little differently, it might be the liberal parties incorporating anti-Western sentiments into their platform.

Ultimately there's no reason to fear Islamism in the Arab world, at least not yet. Even in Iran, it isn't so much Islamism that the people are so sick of (although being told how to dress by the ayatollahs certainly doesn't make them more likable.) People are sick of their government's corruption and abuses, much like they are in the Arab world. And even in the government itself, its opposition to the United States has less to do with Islamism and more to do with the fact that the US opposes Iran's strategic interests in the Middle East, and vice versa.
 
Grant said:
You´ll never get it straight if you try to guess at what people are saying.
Click to expand...

It's what you said : " You must act in such a manner that the enemy will never think going near a weapon of any sort ever again. I could name a couple of examples."

Given the tone of your point we're talking about those examples, like where we pre-emptively took out Saddam for his yellow cake.

Sorry, your lack of specifics allowed for interpretation.

Are you debating with yourself here after making a claim on my behalf that i did not make?
Click to expand...

You clearly made a position that was indicating your support for action against Iran... or you failed hard at defining your position clearly enough to derive your actual position.

And so, I was looking for how you would justify this implied position, and since the claim of "they are attempting to build a nuclear weapon" was a clear trend in the media for some time I figured that was the first best assumption to be made of the type of justification you would use.

Which military strategists said that? And there is already "unrest" in neighboring countries.
Click to expand...

Steve Pieczenik being one of them, though I can't find the older articles containing others, since there's several pages worth of NEW articles hyping war against Iran...

And yes, there IS already unrest in the middle east... and that makes the situation even more sensitive towards getting embroiled into a larger conflict then is intended.


A World War against whom? You feel the Middle East countries are all for Iran?
Click to expand...

Well, if it was against anyone it would be against western interests... but I don't think that this distinction would be made, at least not in the same way that it was in WW2 era.

Let's not forget about Russia and China... and the recent statements they have made about US military incursions throughout the regions in the middle east.

Yes, just as we learned about guerrilla warfare and terrorism as a tactic.
Click to expand...

Yes, I know... you get terrorists from Saudi Arabia and Egypt, and so we must go to war with Afghanistan and Iran... I know how the world works now.

And guerrilla warfare, well... when your a military force invading a sovereign nation, and only furthering oppression against their people, it's human nature to respond and attack in the best ways that you can find.

But, BTW, we've given up on declarations of war LONG before that was the real issue, you don't call it war though... you call it "bombing campaigns", "strategic strikes", or like in the case of Libya "humanitarian bombs" and "no fly zones".

It seems that it is Iran who is doing the propagandizing, but if the US is propagandized perhaps you should take it up with Barrack Obama.
Click to expand...

Not sure of the relevance... What is more relevant to illustrate my point is the number of people that are calling for turning countries into "glass parking lots" when they couldn't even point out that country on a map...

Or when people buy into asinine stories like that cover story for operation fast and furious / gun runner... where they claimed that an Iranian assassin was going to bring guns from Mexico in an assassination attempt against someone in DC.

Or when people will willingly succumb to naked body scanners as a result of a guy that tried to blow up plastic explosives with a match, who was put on the plane by an unnamed man from the DoD, MEANWHILE the orders for those machines had been made 6 months prior and were ready to be shipped just in the right time...

There's also those people that buy into the lie that you can print money to solve debt problems...

Why put boots on the ground at all if they are going to be nuked?
Click to expand...

Umm, No, Iran does not have nukes... it's if the US does put boots on the ground the ONLY way that they will have a chance to achieve victory is if the war goes nuclear.

BTW, the US has not won a war since before vietnam, so, in spite of the technologically advanced weaponry, the US has a pretty bad track record lately.

Yes, hoping and praying is a good a strategy for some.
Click to expand...

Well, if you got a recommendation that could avert another world war, I'd like to hear it... That said, the US has had discussions about wanting war with Iran for a long time.

It's the middle east erupting like dominoes... THE DAY AFTER Gaddafi had been killed there were already talks about "Syria next", and nobody seems to think twice that AL QUAIDA WAS OUR ALLIES IN LIBYA!!!!!!! So, we are allegedly fighting "Al-Quaida" in Iraq and Afghanistan BUT HELPING THEM OUT IN LIBYA SIMULTANEOUSLY!!!!

You couldn't write a better fiction if you tried... it's literally turning into a 1984 society where we're just ALWAYS AT WAR, always moving the chess pieces to the next location, till you're at war with your former allies but then go back to peace with people you were fighting yesterday, KNOWING it to be the case but ONLY BELIEVING the most recent incarnation. The only problem is that we are now getting to the point where there aren't any real small countries to take over, invade, or just keep down generally, and that means we're at the point where we will ultimately be stepping on the toes of the Chinese and the Russians.

The Chinese can obliterate the US without even firing a shot we are that deep in it with them...

And the Russians, well, the russians, there's a reason why Russia is symbolized as the bear. They DO NOT mess around.

I don't know of anything short of divine intervention that can change much of the course we're going on... but if you got any suggestions I'm all ears.
 
Kandahar said:
Sure it is. Just like it was an accurate comparison when applied to Nikita Kruschev, Saddam Hussein (after he was our friend), Slobadon Milosevic, Saddam Hussein (again), Moammar Gaddafi (before he was our friend), Kim Jong-il, Moammar Gaddafi (after he was our friend), and every US President in the last 70 years! And I'm sure it will be an accurate comparison next week too, when the label is applied to someone else who is undoubtedly plotting to unleash carnage on the world and must be dealt with immediately. :roll:

Comparing people to Hitler who AREN'T Hitler is retarded, and is a substitute for actually thinking about foreign policy.
Click to expand...


I'm comparing the USA to Hitler. We are the group unleashing carnage. It's good business. Our corporations and businesses profit handsomely from carnage. I'll quote Mussolini as close as memory allows, "why do they call it fascism, it is corporatism.' We invaded Iraq, lots of dead Iraqis, energy corporations made huge profits supplying the fuels for the war and now will profit again by distributing Iraq's OIL. We invaded Libya, corporations made huge profits supplying fuels for the war and now will profit again aby distributing Libya's OIL. Guess what! Iran has OIL. Corporations are ginning up myths, superstitions, outright lies and moral excesses of Iran to make a case for war. Demonizing Iran. SOP! Wake up, bubba, it's just wars for business. Very profitable business or "fascism," as Mussolini would say.
 
Hell, who didn't know this was coming. With Europe on the skids and the dollars soon to plummet, there's nothing like a war to rally nations and divert attention away from the continuing economic plunder of Europe and the US.
 
BmanMcfly said:
It's what you said : " You must act in such a manner that the enemy will never think going near a weapon of any sort ever again. I could name a couple of examples."Given the tone of your point we're talking about those examples, like where we pre-emptively took out Saddam for his yellow cake. Sorry, your lack of specifics allowed for interpretation.
Click to expand...

The key word here was "again" and the examples would be Germany and Japan. They completely lost interest in guns, much less the military, after WWII.

And so, I was looking for how you would justify this implied position, and since the claim of "they are attempting to build a nuclear weapon" was a clear trend in the media for some time I figured that was the first best assumption to be made of the type of justification you would use.
Click to expand...

I can´t speak for media trends, only for myself.

Steve Pieczenik being one of them, though I can't find the older articles containing others, since there's several pages worth of NEW articles hyping war against Iran...
Click to expand...

Steve can have his opinion and we can have ours.
And yes, there IS already unrest in the middle east... and that makes the situation even more sensitive towards getting embroiled into a larger conflict then is intended.
Click to expand...

Do you really believe the world can ignore the Middle East and not get involved? Do you think the Middle East, and the Islamists, will ignore the US, Europe and the other democracies? They are there, as well as here, and we have to deal with it, threats of "embroilment" or not.

Well, if it was against anyone it would be against western interests... but I don't think that this distinction would be made, at least not in the same way that it was in WW2 era.
Click to expand...

We can hear what their leaders are saying and ignore it at our own peril.
Let's not forget about Russia and China... and the recent statements they have made about US military incursions throughout the regions in the middle east.
Click to expand...

I don´t believe we should concern ourselves too much with what China and Russia say. It seems that the West is running scared from what the Middle East might say, what the Russians might say, what the Chinese might say, and so on. Have the democracies become such wimps that we are afraid to call these third world ninnies what they actually are, and that if they dare raise a hand against us we will annihilate them? The West is leaderless right now and that makes the world a far more dangerous place. By BHO attempting to make the third world like him, that he is a sensitive liberal guy who admits America´s faults and just wants to get along, makes America, and the West, look weak and foolish. Denigrating ourselves does not make us more secure.

Yes, I know... you get terrorists from Saudi Arabia and Egypt, and so we must go to war with Afghanistan and Iran... I know how the world works now.
Click to expand...

You obviously don't.
And guerrilla warfare, well... when your a military force invading a sovereign nation, and only furthering oppression against their people, it's human nature to respond and attack in the best ways that you can find.
Click to expand...

Yes, the idea is to win at whatever costs. The US cannot be defeated militarily but it can be defeated any number of other ways and is in that process now. The leaders are weak, the people are weak, the culture is weak, the borders are weak, and the foreign policy is either non existent or counter productive. Being afraid of what other leaders might say just brings this point home yet again. Americans can´t even defend their own borders, or carry an official I.D. card, without an internal fuss being made. They have indeed become a sanctuary nation.
But, BTW, we've given up on declarations of war LONG before that was the real issue, you don't call it war though... you call it "bombing campaigns", "strategic strikes", or like in the case of Libya "humanitarian bombs" and "no fly zones".
Click to expand...

It depends which area of the world you´re referring to.

Not sure of the relevance... What is more relevant to illustrate my point is the number of people that are calling for turning countries into "glass parking lots" when they couldn't even point out that country on a map...
Click to expand...

Do you have a link to that?

Or when people buy into asinine stories like that cover story for operation fast and furious / gun runner... where they claimed that an Iranian assassin was going to bring guns from Mexico in an assassination attempt against someone in DC.
Click to expand...

Let´s not stray too far from the discussion.

Or when people will willingly succumb to naked body scanners as a result of a guy that tried to blow up plastic explosives with a match, who was put on the plane by an unnamed man from the DoD, MEANWHILE the orders for those machines had been made 6 months prior and were ready to be shipped just in the right time...
Click to expand...

Yes, i agree that this whole body scan thing is a scam and an incredible over reaction against American civil liberties, But that´s the price we all pay for being politically correct rather than smart.

Umm, No, Iran does not have nukes... it's if the US does put boots on the ground the ONLY way that they will have a chance to achieve victory is if the war goes nuclear.
Click to expand...

It seems you arrived at the logical conclusion.
BTW, the US has not won a war since before vietnam, so, in spite of the technologically advanced weaponry, the US has a pretty bad track record lately.
Click to expand...

Which was my point, Everyone knows the US is weak and doesn't want any casualties in any confrontation. Any war involving the United States will eventually become political and the politicians, as well as too many of the people, will become frightened and weak and will soon just want to leave, Americans can´t even defend their own borders for crying out loud, for fear of offending someone. How pathetic is that? This does not go unnoticed in the international community, or by Allies or those who would want to do harm.

Well, if you got a recommendation that could avert another world war, I'd like to hear it... That said, the US has had discussions about wanting war with Iran for a long time.
Click to expand...

If there is talk of a serious threat to the US by a legitimate leader you mention the possibility of a cluster bomb in his immediate vicinity. If the talk continues, just do it, and mention to his successor that there are plenty more waiting to be used. Don't fool with these bastards and their sense of self preservation will soon overcome any aggressive tendencies they might harbor.
It's the middle east erupting like dominoes... THE DAY AFTER Gaddafi had been killed there were already talks about "Syria next", and nobody seems to think twice that AL QUAIDA WAS OUR ALLIES IN LIBYA!!!!!!! So, we are allegedly fighting "Al-Quaida" in Iraq and Afghanistan BUT HELPING THEM OUT IN LIBYA SIMULTANEOUSLY!!!!
Click to expand...

Barrack Hussein Obama is either working against America´s interests or is irredeemably stupid. There is the possibility of both being true.

You couldn't write a better fiction if you tried... it's literally turning into a 1984 society where we're just ALWAYS AT WAR, always moving the chess pieces to the next location, till you're at war with your former allies but then go back to peace with people you were fighting yesterday, KNOWING it to be the case but ONLY BELIEVING the most recent incarnation. The only problem is that we are now getting to the point where there aren't any real small countries to take over, invade, or just keep down generally, and that means we're at the point where we will ultimately be stepping on the toes of the Chinese and the Russians.
Click to expand...

The US will always be at war because they don't want to win a war. They would be prefer to be liked than respected. The enemy knows that and will continue with their war of attrition, which they are obviously winning. They don't mind casualties so much, and in fact glory in them.

The Chinese can obliterate the US without even firing a shot we are that deep in it with them...
Click to expand...

That may be overstating the case but under the present circumstances it´s the Chinese, the Islamists and the Latin Americans who are all interested in remaking the United States in their own light. They´ll probably fight it out eventually, though in ways that will again be quite different from previous wars.

And the Russians, well, the russians, there's a reason why Russia is symbolized as the bear. They DO NOT mess around.
Click to expand...

In fact all they do is mess around. Their future is grim as well.

I don't know of anything short of divine intervention that can change much of the course we're going on... but if you got any suggestions I'm all ears.
Click to expand...

I doubt there is much Americans can do now to save the America that was. Perhaps it has to get worse before it can possibly get better but the way Americans are turning on each other, their reckless disregard for spending limits, the corruption in the government, the breakdown in the education system, the disappearing lack of pride in the American individualism, etc. does not bode well.

And this is all very, very sad for the world. There is no place anyone can go to now to realize the dream that America once inspired.
 
map_of_iran.jpg


The US occupies Iraq and Afghanistan. They have close ties with Pakistan, Turkmenistan, Azerbaijan, Armenia, Turkey, Kuwait and Saudi Arabia. They have maneuvered diplomatically, politically and militarily to literally surround Iran with enemies.

Who is the aggressor here again?
 
Khayembii Communique said:
map_of_iran.jpg


The US occupies Iraq and Afghanistan. They have close ties with Pakistan, Turkmenistan, Azerbaijan, Armenia, Turkey, Kuwait and Saudi Arabia. They have maneuvered diplomatically, politically and militarily to literally surround Iran with enemies.

Who is the aggressor here again?
Click to expand...

America is the aggressor!

It must be destroyed!!
 
Grant said:
America is the aggressor!

It must be destroyed!!
Click to expand...

It is completely unquestionable that the US has maneuvered to isolate Iran and surround it with American allies. It is also completely unquestionable that American expansionism and intervention in the middle East far outweighs any outside influence Iran has attempted to exert in the region alone, much less the world.

Yet the war drums being beat are harping on about the "Iranian threat". It would be hilarious if it wasn't so terrifying.

Whine all you want.
 
Last edited:
Khayembii Communique said:
It is completely unquestionable that the US has maneuvered to isolate Iran and surround it with American allies. It is also completely unquestionable that American expansionism and intervention in the middle East far outweighs any outside influence Iran has attempted to exert in the region alone, much less the world.

Yet the war drums being beat are harping on about the "Iranian threat". It would be hilarious if it wasn't so terrifying.
Whine all you want.
Click to expand...

It´s not me who´s doing the whining.

I´m saying that if Iran makes any aggressive threats whatsoever that they should either be withdrawn immediately or a daisy cutter is released on those making the threats.

Would not the world be better off without these misogynists, these hateful religious fanatics who destroy human lives because of their insane seventh century mindsets?
 
Last edited:
Khayembii Communique said:
map_of_iran.jpg


The US occupies Iraq and Afghanistan. They have close ties with Pakistan, Turkmenistan, Azerbaijan, Armenia, Turkey, Kuwait and Saudi Arabia. They have maneuvered diplomatically, politically and militarily to literally surround Iran with enemies.

Who is the aggressor here again?
Click to expand...

Iran. /Thread
 
Grant said:
I´m saying that if Iran makes any aggressive threats
Click to expand...

Please let me know if you think any of these are aggressive threats to the US:

1. Iranian-caused explosions on American territory.
2. The murder of top American nuclear scientists.
3. Sophisticated cyberattacks affecting American infrastructure and top nuclear research facilities.
4. The funding and support of an American anti-government revolutionary cult.
5. The invasion and occupation of Mexico and Canada.

Would not the world be better off without these misogynists, these hateful religious fanatics who destroy human lives because of their insane seventh century mindsets?
Click to expand...

The Iranians for the most part have only been internally oppressive, but no more or less so than other US allies in the region.
 
The US occupies Iraq and Afghanistan. They have close ties with Pakistan, Turkmenistan, Azerbaijan, Armenia, Turkey, Kuwait and Saudi Arabia. They have maneuvered diplomatically, politically and militarily to literally surround Iran with enemies.

Who is the aggressor here again?
Click to expand...

Really? And North Korea?

If everyone around hates them, it must be because of outside trouble making. What?
 
Grant said:
It´s not me who´s doing the whining.

I´m saying that if Iran makes any aggressive threats whatsoever that they should either be withdrawn immediately or a daisy cutter is released on those making the threats.
Click to expand...

The US has been far more violent and destabilizing to the Middle East than Iran has. Whereas the US can't seem to go more than a few years without getting into a war in the Middle East, Iran hasn't fought a war against any other country in a very long time (except for the war against Saddam Hussein, which was fought primarily on Iranian soil and which Iran did not start.) That's not to say that they couldn't become a threat in the future, but most of the people who live in the Middle East perceive the US as a far greater threat to them than Iran is. I see no reason to substitute the judgment of Americans (or more accurately, the judgment of right-wing Americans) for theirs. It's patronizing and patriarchal to argue that we know what's best for them.

Would not the world be better off without these misogynists, these hateful religious fanatics who destroy human lives because of their insane seventh century mindsets?
Click to expand...

Sure. But the world would also be better off if the United States stopped starting wars in the Middle East.
 
Last edited:
Khayembii Communique said:
Please let me know if you think any of these are aggressive threats to the US:

1. Iranian-caused explosions on American territory.
2. The murder of top American nuclear scientists.
3. Sophisticated cyberattacks affecting American infrastructure and top nuclear research facilities.
4. The funding and support of an American anti-government revolutionary cult.
5. The invasion and occupation of Mexico and Canada.



The Iranians for the most part have only been internally oppressive, but no more or less so than other US allies in the region.
Click to expand...

Yes, they have been internally oppressive, which is evidence of pent up aggression and moral failings. They are therefore not to be trusted in any sense, but in particular with nuclear weapons.

There is evidence that they have gone international with their mischief. It seems the world would be a better and safer place without them.
 
You did not respond to the post that you quoted, Grant:

Me said:
View Post
Please let me know if you think any of these are aggressive threats to the US:

1. Iranian-caused explosions on American territory.
2. The murder of top American nuclear scientists.
3. Sophisticated cyberattacks affecting American infrastructure and top nuclear research facilities.
4. The funding and support of an American anti-government revolutionary cult.
5. The invasion and occupation of Mexico and Canada.
Click to expand...

Grant said:
Yes, they have been internally oppressive, which is evidence of pent up aggression and moral failings. They are therefore not to be trusted in any sense
Click to expand...

Again, from the post you quoted:

Me said:
The Iranians for the most part have only been internally oppressive, but no more or less so than other US allies in the region.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
if one fears Iran's current government, the most prudent policy would be to get our nation uncoupled from the oil model.

i'd choose defunding them in this way rather than another decades-long pre-emptive war.
 
Helix said:
if one fears Iran's current government, the most prudent policy would be to get our nation uncoupled from the oil model.

i'd choose defunding them in this way rather than another decades-long pre-emptive war.
Click to expand...

We get a negligable amount of oil from Iran. It could be gone and we would not notice, much like potential domestic drilling (jobs aside). No amount of funding for renewable energy is going to change Iran or our policy towards the country.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom