Iran and Israel at War

**Tribesman** · 06-29-2008, 17:45

but I still think having nukes there is a bad idea.
Today 17:32

That may well be , but kim il elvis has just shown that having nukes means you can act the maggot and get away with it

I don't deny that we have funded and trained violent groups in our time. However, Iran's proxies have been exceptionally violent and unrestrained.

Bollox , have your ten

so now what part of exceptionally violent death squads is it that isn't as bad as them middle eastern feckwits . Do they slaughter with a smile or something , do they say have a nice day perhaps?

**Lemur** · 06-29-2008, 17:56

Originally Posted by Tribesman

[...] now what part of exceptionally violent death squads is it that isn't as bad as them middle eastern ********. Do they slaughter with a smile or something , do they say have a nice day perhaps?

Tribsey, I'm unclear here -- do you believe the U.S.A. to be the moral equivalent of the worst regimes in the world (and history) or to be worse than them all? Are we part of the continuum of evil, or are we an exemplar?

**Tribesman** · 06-29-2008, 18:17

Well Lemur , to answer your question with a question .
How many feckwit genocidal maniacs have they supported ? how many murdering terrorist gobshites have they helped?
If the answer is not quite as many as other places then perhaps the claim that they ain't as bad as the others may hold water ...but it looks like you is holding a sieve on this one

**Beirut** · 06-29-2008, 21:45

Originally Posted by Lemur

Tribsey, I'm unclear here -- do you believe the U.S.A. to be the moral equivalent of the worst regimes in the world (and history) or to be worse than them all? Are we part of the continuum of evil, or are we an exemplar?

History is clear - the US has

with Iran far more than Iran has

with the US.

Iran does not dislike and distrust the US for no reason, they have a history repleat with reasons. So when they hear the US espouse the virtues of democracy and civilized behaviour when condemning them, the speeches ring hollow indeed in Tehran.

**KukriKhan** · 06-29-2008, 22:45

Originally Posted by Beirut

History is clear - the US has

with Iran far more than Iran has

with the US.

Iran does not dislike and distrust the US for no reason, they have a history repleat with reasons. So when they hear the US espouse the virtues of democracy and civilized behaviour when condemning them, the speeches ring hollow indeed in Tehran.

No argument there, but I think you may be missing the point by trying to justify (or not justify) military action. As Frag points out: this is world politics, played with big bombs and mobilized militaries that Div Arma proposes as a hypothetical.

"Jutification" and talk of democracy or divine rights or insights at that level is mere sweet-talk to appease the folks at home (whether in Des Moines or Tehran or Tel Aviv) who are gonna pay - in money and blood - for any such action. Div A wants to know what we think the 'deciders' and generals might do, if it's thought that the Ayatollahs have, or are near to having, teh bomb. In that rarified atmosphere, morality and righteousness gets trumped by expediency and practical application. They'll sell (or try to) the war later - especially when nukes are involved.

IMHO, the answer is "e", none of the above.

Some day Tehran, by hook or crook, will achieve the bomb. And probably a couple of other "surprise" nations, too. And the rest of the world will get used to it. Then Israel will have to try to out-build Iran, ala the US v USSR cold war. Whomever's economy can continue to stand in the long run, wins - sort of. The bombs will still be there. And our grandkids will live in a yet more dangerous world.

**Geoffrey S** · 06-29-2008, 23:18

That's the thing, in my opinion. The Cold War was risky enough - I'd rather not think of lots of little Cold Wars.

**Beirut** · 06-30-2008, 02:42

Originally Posted by KukriKhan

No argument there, but I think you may be missing the point by trying to justify (or not justify) military action. As Frag points out: this is world politics, played with big bombs and mobilized militaries that Div Arma proposes as a hypothetical.

"Jutification" and talk of democracy or divine rights or insights at that level is mere sweet-talk to appease the folks at home (whether in Des Moines or Tehran or Tel Aviv) who are gonna pay - in money and blood - for any such action. Div A wants to know what we think the 'deciders' and generals might do, if it's thought that the Ayatollahs have, or are near to having, teh bomb. In that rarified atmosphere, morality and righteousness gets trumped by expediency and practical application. They'll sell (or try to) the war later - especially when nukes are involved.

IMHO, the answer is "e", none of the above.

Some day Tehran, by hook or crook, will achieve the bomb. And probably a couple of other "surprise" nations, too. And the rest of the world will get used to it. Then Israel will have to try to out-build Iran, ala the US v USSR cold war. Whomever's economy can continue to stand in the long run, wins - sort of. The bombs will still be there. And our grandkids will live in a yet more dangerous world.

Mmmmm... too much wine to post with the grace and thought your post is due.

Anything I write now will be a cheese omelett of Ghengis and Ghandi that would have me put away.

**Alexander the Pretty Good** · 06-30-2008, 03:13

@FactionHeir's article...

Links to Al Queda? Figures we learned absolutely nothing...

**FactionHeir** · 06-30-2008, 10:22

Originally Posted by Alexander the Pretty Good

@FactionHeir's article...

Links to Al Queda? Figures we learned absolutely nothing...

Looks quite like it. Sad really. Another disaster waiting to happen.... but that's what the war party is all about, eh?

**KukriKhan** · 06-30-2008, 04:38

Originally Posted by Beirut

Mmmmm... too much wine to post with the grace and thought your post is due.

Anything I write now will be a cheese omelett of Ghengis and Ghandi that would have me put away.

Heh. The Ghengis/Ghandi Omlette as a solution - exactly what is needed IMHO.

**Beirut** · 06-30-2008, 12:34

Originally Posted by KukriKhan

Heh. The Ghengis/Ghandi Omlette as a solution - exactly what is needed IMHO.

Sobriety has me by the throat once again but I still cling to the omellet.

I feel that any war with Iran will be a manaufactured war and the manufacturers should do something that makes them face the consequences of their actions and not dawdle in half-measures that will do nothing but leave the situation hanging about our necks for another twenty-years. They need to either make real peace or make real war and have the cohones to live with what they did.

If war - then war. Sherman's war. Real war. Get it done and get it over with in such a fashion that generations pass before the Iranian army so much as owns a slingshot. Wage war so that, as my friend says, " I never see the same face twice." If the hawks want war then they should have the courage of their convictions to say Dresden and Tokyo - not Shock & Awe.

If peace - then real peace. Peace that requires hard effort, communication, conciliation, and concessions. Both sides will have to lose something in order to win something. Let Obama sit with Ahmedinejad and have a cup of coffee. Let Jesse Jackson loose in Tehran. Hire Pink Floyd to redo the Pompeii concert in the middle of the desert. Have the powers that be do something, anything other than blustering and threatening and standing in the corner with their hands over their ears, yelling "La-la-la-la-la-la... I can't heeeeeear youuuuu." Communicate, communicate, communicate. The Persians are an ancient people, they know how to haggle, they know how to make a deal. So, make a deal.

Real war or real peace. Ghengis or Ghandi.