I was wondering about that too. It’s easy to talk, but what solutions are worth the price?
Huntsman said the other day something akin to “There is a day coming in the next 3-5 years where Israel will say, ‘Do you have our backs’ and the American President and people will have to be ready to answer” (not a perfect quotation). I think this is what is coming. I do, however, welcome anyone who has any serious alternatives in mind.
[/quote]
The ‘state’ of Iran will not launch a nuclear weapon. Why would they, when 200 Israeli and 13,000 American ones by proxy would launch in retaliation. We have seen however how North Korea has been left almost to its own devices with a nuclear weapon. The Iranian government (not the people who by large are very nice and far more tolerant than many other predominantly muslim states) are many things but not stupid.
[/quote]
This a prime example of a psychological defense mechanism know as “projection”. Instead of seeing the Iranian leadership for what they are, religious nutjobs who will be very dangerous with nuclear weapons because they lack the inhibitions that have kept everyone else from using such weapons. You are projecting on to them how you would think and act. Then you are proceeding to the conclusion that it’s not so bad because they think like I think.
When it comes to the Iranian leadership the threat of retaliation to a nuclear strike does not have the same deterrent effect that it does for anyone else in this world. To us retaliation equals horrible consequences. Consequences that are so horrible that many will use psychological defense mechanisms like projection in order to avoid having to think about the reality.
To the Iranian leadership retaliation equals wonderful rewards beyond imagination. Because to die in an Israeli or American retaliation would mean martyrdom. But before that happens something even more wonderful is going to happen because mahdi will come back and protect them.
The problem with Pakistan is that we don’t know what their diplomatic intentions are. They’re all over the place. One day they’re our allies and the next day they aren’t.
CS
[/quote]
Pakistan has never truly been our ally. They allow us to lay stacks of money in their right hand, and then use their left to shake hands with their terrorist brothers.
I hear what you are saying Push, both need to be dealt with. But, for me, the difference is having nukes (that may be at risk) versus about to have nukes. Both countries have elements within them that support terror, just one seems to be on the verge with nukes that could go up in the air (and land in AQ’s hands).
That said, in terms of proliferation, I think Iran is the greater threat. [/quote]
As far as nuclear proliferation goes, it does not get worse than the Pakistanis. They are the grandfathers of every nuclear weapon in the hands of an unstable nation.
The only thing that makes sure they will never launch a nuke, is that India is sitting across the border with their fingers on a lot of nuclear buttons. Were Pakistan to launch anywhere, India would assume they are the target and retaliate.
Why give Iran any motive? Simply leave the country alone and bring all of our troops home. From every single embassy. When attacked, America can then declare war. Only after that fact alone, never just because someone thinks one country MIGHT do something bad.
I never fought with the school yard bully. He was too busy fighting another kid who wanted to be top dog. Leave others alone. Big idea, I know.
Judging from that massive riots and demonstrations that almost toppled the Iranian government last election I think our best bet is just to back off and stop giving the Islamist/nationalists ammo.
[quote]kneedragger79 wrote:
Why give Iran any motive?
[/quote]
Who’s ‘giving them motives?’ What are these motives?
No troops in Iran nor any country that Iran considers a friend.
Yes, close every single embassy. Good idea. Who needs embassies?
Sounds good. How much longer do we wait?
EDIT: Sorry I forgot. We have to ‘bring all our troops home’ from everywhere first, putting US at an extreme disadvantage strategically, abandoning every single ally we have in the world, leaving vital shipping lanes unprotected and so forth; close down every US embassy cutting off all contact with the outside world(not isolationism though it’s “anti-interventionism”) - leaving US citizens throughout the world without consular assisstance - inviting terrorist massacres of US civilians all over the globe, destablising the world economy, leaving commercial airliners prone to terrorist attack etc and THEN…only THEN can US sit back and wait to get attacked again. Then there’s something about having to get a declaration of war through Congress before the president can engage in any kind of hostilities. Wow. That’s…that’s really something.
I believe the use of the military is to defend. Not police the world. They never found WMD’s in Iraq. Iraq never attacked US. In case you haven’t heard, Bin Laden was killed in PAKISTAN, right near a military base. Look at what that has cost US in terms of lives lost and money spent. Every time these unofficial wars are declared people get rich, a lot of our soldiers die for it, and WE pay for it. Keep drinking the kool aid.
[quote]StevenF wrote:
I believe the use of the military is to defend. Not police the world.
[/quote]
Well so do I…
Granted. But people don’t generally wage war for the WMD booty. We got rid of Sadam Hussein. That was the OBJECTIVE of the invasion.
Let’s not play games. Sadam went on a rampage through Kuwait in 1990 throwing the region into chaos and threatening our shipping lanes, oil supplies, allies, world economy and hence national security and interests.
Yes I heard. In Abbottabad in the Kyber Pakhtunkhwa named after British Army Officer James Abbott who freed the Russian slaves from the Khan of Khiva(Allah Quli Bahadur) and founded the town in 1853 after the Punjab was annexed. And yes, he was ‘right near’ a military base. Now he’s sleeping with the fishes.
“Unofficial wars?” Yes I guess that’s one way to describe the war al-Qaeda/sponsor states started. And I can see your point about people getting rich. We wouldn’t want that - they might spend some of their money on goods and services…maybe even employ someone or something.
[quote]
a lot of our soldiers die for it, and WE pay for it. Keep drinking the kool aid. [/quote]
Right…we’re at the end and I’m still confused. I can see what you are trying to say about Iraq 2003 - I don’t agree with you but I can see what you’re trying to say. But I’m still confused about the ‘lies’ in relation to bin Laden and Af-Pak. I don’t expect to get any sort of sensible response however so I’m going to drop out here.
Sexmachine, one question before you leave. Do you think these two wars (Iraq and Afghanistan) have positively contributed to our economy or negatively impacted it? Or were they irrelevant?
[quote]StevenF wrote:
Sexmachine, one question before you leave. Do you think these two wars (Iraq and Afghanistan) have positively contributed to our economy or negatively impacted it? Or were they irrelevant? [/quote]
Negatively of course. However the US would collapse overnight both economically and socially/politically, if it stopped confronting the threats to its existence/interests.
[quote]StevenF wrote:
Sexmachine, one question before you leave. Do you think these two wars (Iraq and Afghanistan) have positively contributed to our economy or negatively impacted it? Or were they irrelevant? [/quote]
Negatively of course. However the US would collapse overnight both economically and socially/politically, if it stopped confronting the threats to its existence/interests.[/quote]
Agreed. There was a negative impact. But I think a good part of that was HOW the wars were fought and (not) paid for. Now then, one has to ask what would have happened if the wars were not fought at all or if they were fought differently. Most (I think) would agree that they should have been fought differently. Few (I think) would say that we shouldn’t have gone to war at all after 9-11. A great many more had (or now have) qualms about Iraq.
Pakistan is a perfect example of what happens when Muslims get what they want. It is a country, that like Bangladesh, should never have been created. Problem is, you can’t change that now.
Iran is the more obvious threat but Pakistan is the more devious one. It would be a difficult decision to decide which one needs tidying up first.
[quote]Makavali wrote:
Pakistan is a perfect example of what happens when Muslims get what they want. It is a country, that like Bangladesh, should never have been created. Problem is, you can’t change that now.
Iran is the more obvious threat but Pakistan is the more devious one. It would be a difficult decision to decide which one needs tidying up first.[/quote]
Yeah, just like all the Muslims in Turkey! They’re so devious they even joined NATO and are in a military alliance with the US and have stepped in on our behalf multiple times to help get the pressure off Israel at their own expense, oh those war hungry Muslims and their democracy and possible EU membership (although they might be scared off now lol)!
Anyhow, in real talk, Iran always got a lot of support from Russia, as did Syria, as a counterbalance to US influence in the region. Now Russia just had a huge election scandal and there have been protests against Putin since and riots in the major cities so who knows what the fuck that’ll do to the whole southeast Asia situation.
