Why is the thought of Iran with nukes so threatening

[Antares]

Wow, the most unconvincing reply of all time. It's a little light on the details of how I'm wrong, or what the right policy would be instead. In fact, it's totally devoid of any logical argument at all. It even starts with "LOL" , which is truly embarrassing . How old are you? Ten?

Listen, your wish for a more aggressive foreign policy lost in the Presidential election last year, and you need to get past it, kay? I'm trying to help you. Accept it, move on.

(smile) You are simply wrong....you haven't the foggiest idea of what you speak.

Tell me what you know of the 12th Imam.

It's part of Shia Islam. Apparently some Iranians may have said he's coming any day now, so it's become the lastest lame-o excuse that American right wing chickenhawks use to try to gin up another ill-thought war in the Middle East.

Sorry, you gomers & goobers fooled America once with the Iraq War shambles. It ain't working now.

Look pops.....why do you insist on showing how stupid you are?

Everything over there is Religion driven...everything.

Who in Iran subscribes to this belief system?

 

[velvtacheeze]

Spare me if I find your insistence that you opposed the Iraq War dubious...

Suit yourself. It is a matter of complete indifference to me. I was on the MSNBC Politics message board in 2003 in the run-up to the invasion of Iraq, arguing against it. Once we went to war, however, I shut my mouth for some weeks, until the initial victory had been won, in order to avoid giving aid-and-comfort to the enemy in wartime.

"...If you say you changed your mind about it, say around 2006, then I'd actually believe you. But you didn't, so I don't..."

Again... doesn't faze me in the slightest.


Blow it out your ass, Junior.


They can speak for themselves. I am not one of them.


Correct. We and our friends will have to 'go in there' and sort it out. Boots on the ground. Lots of them.

"...It will be rightly pointed out that Israel started the war, or demanded the US start the war. And when the war is ended with a big old mushroom cloud over Tel Aviv, then Israel will only have itself to blame..."

What a complete crock of shit.

"...Face it, there's just not enough fervor for another war among Americans. The right's chance for more aggression in our foreign policy lost the election in 2012. The American voter learned their lesson, and you need to too."

Fortunately, a large percentage of the American Electorate still dwell within the domain of the Real World and understand what nuclear-armed Ayatollahs mean for The West and for the US. The support will be there when it's truly needed.

The support will be there?

For boots on the ground, lots of them, in Iran?

Honestly, I've not read such a fantastical claim in even the most pro-war conservative publications. Not on National Review, The Weekly Standard or the WSJ. Not one time, ever. Till now. You are clearly not dwelling in the real world.

The vast majority of the US will oppose war on iran, and will support measure to contain them if they do get a bomb. And containment will work too. It works with Pakistan, and their rulers are insane compared to Iran's.

 

[Kondor3]

"...The support will be there?..."

Yep... assuming that the leadership du jour has any balls worthy of the name...

Most of the populace understand the nature of the Undeclared War Against Militant Islam...

And are able to comprehend that appeasement and acceptance of a nuclear-armed Iran as fait accompli are dangerous to themselves and their families and their descendants...

In any event, we will know soon enough, I expect.

 

[velvtacheeze]

What kind of a dumb question is this?

At best Iran getting nukes would set off a nuclear arms race in the ME. At worst Iran is crazy enough to use their nukes. Anyone who doesn't understand that the world would be much more dangerous is a fool.

Great observation Rocko...now what do you do about it?

Military action if necessary.

To stop a war , we need to start a war?

Didn't the right wing of the US already screw up the world enough with the Iraq War debacle?

 

[deltex1]

While the reality of US nukes scares no one?

My answer is that most believe the Iranians when they say they plan to use their nukes to destroy Israel. On the other hand most believe the US will never use their nukes. We have sacrificed hundreds of thousands of out best citizens and trillions in treasure rather than use our full power. Under Obabble our ROE have reached the farce stage. If you can't convince an enemy that you mean business...and that business is that they meet with utter and awful military defeat...then your power means nothing and you are in for endless war.

 

[Kondor3]

"...To stop a war , we need to start a war?..."

Sometimes it just works out that way...

To stop a HUGE war, sometimes you have to start a SMALLER war...

To stop WWII from unfolding the way it did...

The Allies needed to 'intervene' against Germany in 1936 or 1937...

Culminating in Chamberlain's cowardly betrayal of Czechoslovakia at Munich in 1938...

And his idiotic flailing-about at the airfield with his worthless piece of paper and his naive and spineless 'peace in our time' speech...

The Allies of those times lacked the foresight, and the balls, and later paid a much higher and FAR more terrible price...

War is not always the answer...

War is OFTENTIMES not the answer...

But SOMETIMES it's the ONLY answer, to prevent something MUCH worse down the line...

The trick is, to know the difference...

Oh, and, having the backbone to act, when the time DOES come...

 

[velvtacheeze]

"...The support will be there?..."

Yep... assuming that the leadership du jour has any balls worthy of the name...

Most of the populace understand the nature of the Undeclared War Against Militant Islam...

And are able to comprehend that appeasement and acceptance of a nuclear-armed Iran as fait accompli are dangerous to themselves and their families and their descendants...

In any event, we will know soon enough, I expect.

The possibility of a nuclear deal with Iran has really brought out the warmonger right to the fore again. You guys are at mouth-frothing, fever pitch over this.

I see Iran as a country that hasn't started a war in centuries, and wants a weapon to protect themselves from hawkish Americans like you.

We attacked both of their neighbors (one rather justifiably, the other criminally unjustifiably ) we have sent our navy right up beside them, conservative politicians and writers demand even more sabre rattling against them....but Iran is the aggressive one? Wot?

 

[velvtacheeze]

"...To stop a war , we need to start a war?..."

Sometimes it just works out that way...

To stop a HUGE war, sometimes you have to start a SMALLER war...

To stop WWII from unfolding the way it did...

The Allies needed to 'intervene' against Germany in 1936 or 1937...

They lacked the foresight, and the balls, and later paid a much higher and FAR more terrible price...

War is not always the answer...

But sometimes it's the ONLY answer, to prevent something MUCH worse down the line...

The trick is, to know the difference...

Smaller war? In another post, you were admitting that lots of boots on the ground would be needed, and supported wholeheartedly by the US voters. You're all over the place. What a mess.

This isn't 2002. The rhetoric worked then. It's flopping badly today. You shouldn't have dusted it off. It's cringe-inducingly lame.

 

[Kondor3]

"...Smaller war? In another post, you were admitting that lots of boots on the ground would be needed, and supported wholeheartedly by the US voters. You're all over the place. What a mess..."

A war involving a quarter- or half-million Boots, localized on Iranian territory, is a far smaller war than one in which various Western (and Western-friendly) cities become radioactive slag-heaps - with millions of Friendly Civilian casualties done to a crisp - an ultimate and likely future state of affairs on a slightly larger scale than boots-on-the-ground in Iran. Large and Small are relative terms on such a scale. I thought that was obvious.

"...This isn't 2002. The rhetoric worked then. It's flopping badly today. You shouldn't have dusted it off. It's cringe-inducingly lame."

It's only 'lame' for the Low-Information types who cannot comprehend the vast differences between the phoney-baloney casis belli of 2003 and the very real threat posed by a nuclear-armed Iranian theocracy.

 

[velvtacheeze]

"...Smaller war? In another post, you were admitting that lots of boots on the ground would be needed, and supported wholeheartedly by the US voters. You're all over the place. What a mess..."

A war involving a quarter- or half-million Boots, localized on Iranian territory, is a far smaller war than one in which various Western (and Western-friendly) cities become radioactive slag-heaps - with millions of Friendly Civilian casualties done to a crisp - an ultimate and likely future state of affairs on a slightly larger scale than boots-on-the-ground in Iran. Large and Small are relative terms on such a scale.

"...This isn't 2002. The rhetoric worked then. It's flopping badly today. You shouldn't have dusted it off. It's cringe-inducingly lame."

It's only 'lame' for the Low-Information types who cannot comprehend the vast differences between the phoney-baloney casis belli of 2003 and the very real threat posed by a nuclear-armed Iranian theocracy.

You don't, like, wonder why Mitt lost, do you?

If Iran gets a nuke, they will not use them in a first strike nor give them or sell them to Hamas or Hezbollah.

If there is a war, it's because Israel stupidly started one, or the US stupidly started one.

And such a war will have even greater negative consequences than the failed and flopped Iraq War.

 

[Kondor3]

"...The possibility of a nuclear deal with Iran..."

What possibility?

France (of all countries!) just told the Iranians to go fuck themselves.

We jumped on that bandwagon alongside France to avoid the Administration looking too spineless.

The talks have collapsed, have they not?

 

[Kondor3]

"...such a war will have even greater negative consequences ..."

Maybe...

Maybe not...

Only one way to find out...

And, given the collapse of the talks...

The time draws near, to kill the viper while still in its nest...

Before it can grow, to strike-out at The West and its friends...

Most sane folk don't want to look back on the 2013-2016 timeframe, and find themselves saying that 'We should have stopped them while we had the chance.', like they did with Chamberlain and Hitler after 1938...

 

[Darkwind]

While the reality of US nukes scares no one?

Nothing to do with Iran.

Why am I not surprised you don't get it.

What was the question again? And then try to equate the mentality of people who would do this also having a nuke..........Jeez people. It isn't that fucking hard.

 

[Darkwind]

While the reality of US nukes scares no one?

How many Iranians were on those planes?

The United States Has Killed At Least 8 Million People
In The Last 50 Years For The Greedy Capitalistic
Corporate Profits Controlled By The 1% Oligarchy

PeaceOnEarth.net - The United States Has Killed At Least 8 Million People

Look! Another one that cannot connect an answer to the question.


The fucking question was NOT how many Iranians attacked the World Trade Center, but why would they be so scary if they had nukes in their possession.

The idiocy of this board is amazing sometimes.

 

[Darkwind]

Nothing to do with Iran.

Exactly.

Exhibit A, above, show avengers retaliating because of the US policy to meddle in the internal affairs of middle eastern nations. And its decision to finance the Holocaust of Palestinian Arabs.

.

No. This was the work of madmen who perceived wrongs done to them that were not. And people ask why is it dangerous for fanatics and madmen to have nukes?

Un-fucking-real.

 

[Katzndogz]

"...To stop a war , we need to start a war?..."

Sometimes it just works out that way...

To stop a HUGE war, sometimes you have to start a SMALLER war...

To stop WWII from unfolding the way it did...

The Allies needed to 'intervene' against Germany in 1936 or 1937...

Culminating in Chamberlain's cowardly betrayal of Czechoslovakia at Munich in 1938...

And his idiotic flailing-about at the airfield with his worthless piece of paper and his naive and spineless 'peace in our time' speech...

The Allies of those times lacked the foresight, and the balls, and later paid a much higher and FAR more terrible price...

War is not always the answer...

War is OFTENTIMES not the answer...

But SOMETIMES it's the ONLY answer, to prevent something MUCH worse down the line...

The trick is, to know the difference...

Oh, and, having the backbone to act, when the time DOES come...

Are you supposing that America still has a backbone?

No.

America will hand over the rest of the world, starting with Israel in the hope that by the time the muslim alligator gets here, they will be so full of Israel, the middle east, Africa and Europe they won't bother eating us.

That would be wrong.

 

[velvtacheeze]

"...The possibility of a nuclear deal with Iran..."

What possibility?

France (of all countries!) just told the Iranians to go fuck themselves.

We jumped on that bandwagon alongside France to avoid the Administration looking too spineless.

The talks have collapsed, have they not?

They have not. They will continue till we reach a deal. We will probably have to give them more than we have offered so far.

 

[Kondor3]

"...You don't, like, wonder why Mitt lost, do you?..."

Nope. I figured that out for myself. Didn't affect me anyway. I held my nose and voted for Obama, fool that I am.

 

[velvtacheeze]

"...To stop a war , we need to start a war?..."

Sometimes it just works out that way...

To stop a HUGE war, sometimes you have to start a SMALLER war...

To stop WWII from unfolding the way it did...

The Allies needed to 'intervene' against Germany in 1936 or 1937...

Culminating in Chamberlain's cowardly betrayal of Czechoslovakia at Munich in 1938...

And his idiotic flailing-about at the airfield with his worthless piece of paper and his naive and spineless 'peace in our time' speech...

The Allies of those times lacked the foresight, and the balls, and later paid a much higher and FAR more terrible price...

War is not always the answer...

War is OFTENTIMES not the answer...

But SOMETIMES it's the ONLY answer, to prevent something MUCH worse down the line...

The trick is, to know the difference...

Oh, and, having the backbone to act, when the time DOES come...

Are you supposing that America still has a backbone?

No.

America will hand over the rest of the world, starting with Israel in the hope that by the time the muslim alligator gets here, they will be so full of Israel, the middle east, Africa and Europe they won't bother eating us.

That would be wrong.

Wow. The right wing of America is INSANE.

 

[Kondor3]

"...Are you supposing that America still has a backbone? No. America will hand over the rest of the world, starting with Israel in the hope that by the time the muslim alligator gets here, they will be so full of Israel, the middle east, Africa and Europe they won't bother eating us. That would be wrong."

Only if we allow the fifth columnists and pussies amongst us to gain and keep the upper hand, and to weaken the morale and resolve and common sense of their countrymen. Not very likely.