Post Reply
Page 4 of 4  •  Prev 1 2 3 4
3 years ago  ::  Mar 07, 2012 - 8:41PM #31
TemplarS
Posts: 6,880

Mar 7, 2012 -- 12:00PM, mountain_man wrote:


 Only because Israel has threatened, on a continuing basis, Iran. Gee.... maybe..... if Israel would stop their belligerency that others might not want to destroy them? Duh!





Clearly, if Israel wanted to do any amount of major damage to Iran, they would have done so already.   They have the military capability to do so, and for that matter, the nukes to do so.


That the have not done so, if such was their only objective, speaks to their good sense in recognizing that if they did do so, the retaliation by anyone and everyone who would choose to retaliate would probably finish Israel as well. 


So, number one, in that sense Iranian nukes are not even necessary.


But, number two, this also speaks to the fact that nations with nukes do not tend to use them, even against open and implacable enemies.  I see no reason why Iran would be any different.  I don't know much about this twelfth imam nonsense, but I don't know any imam who became a hero by leading his people to oblivion.  The gentlemen in Teheran are hardly good and benevolent individuals, but they are not fools either.

Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Mar 07, 2012 - 8:47PM #32
mountain_man
Posts: 39,795

Mar 7, 2012 -- 8:41PM, TemplarS wrote:

Clearly, if Israel wanted to do any amount of major damage to Iran, they would have done so already.   They have the military capability to do so, and for that matter, the nukes to do so.


They want to. They also know that such actions would bring the whole world down upon them. If they could get away with it, they would have done so already.


That the have not done so, if such was their only objective, speaks to their good sense in recognizing that if they did do so, the retaliation by anyone and everyone who would choose to retaliate would probably finish Israel as well.


They still want to invade, or attack, Iran.


So, number one, in that sense Iranian nukes are not even necessary.


They aren't building any. They've been "two years" away from building a bomb since the mid 1980's. It's all hype being drummed up by Israel and the Republicans. And, Iran would be stupid not to try and build some kind of defensive weapon. They have a very beligerant, and proven to be violent, neighbor in Israel.


But, number two, this also speaks to the fact that nations with nukes do not tend to use them, even against open and implacable enemies.  I see no reason why Iran would be any different.  I don't know much about this twelfth imam nonsense, but I don't know any imam who became a hero by leading his people to oblivion.  The gentlemen in Teheran are hardly good and benevolent individuals, but they are not fools either.


That's why they want Isreal to believe they have a bomb; so they'll think twice about attacking.


Iran is no nice guy, but then Israel isn't totally innocent either.

Dave - Just a Man in the Mountains.

I am a Humanist. I believe in a rational philosophy of life, informed by science, inspired by art, and motivated by a desire to do good for its own sake and not by an expectation of a reward or fear of punishment in an afterlife.
Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Mar 07, 2012 - 9:09PM #33
arielg
Posts: 9,116

Those who want  to get rid of Iran are in the US, since their revolution. They are just letting the little chiwawa, make the noise, but make no mistake about it, the US  would participate in any adventure.


Iran  is the only country in the region that the oil companies  cannot control and they are   beginning to dump the dollar for oil payments, like Saddam Hussein and Quaddafi did before. And  we all know what happened to them. Replacing the dollar for international transactions is not an incosequential matter.


  The problem is not Ahmadinejah  big mouth. He is just playing to a domestic audience.

Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Mar 07, 2012 - 9:11PM #34
teilhard
Posts: 51,560

"Oil" ... ???


It's a COMMODITY which its Producers WANT and NEED to SELL ... in order to get $$$ ...


Mar 7, 2012 -- 9:09PM, arielg wrote:


Those who want  to get rid of Iran are in the US, since their revolution. They are just letting the little chiwawa, make the noise, but make no mistake about it, the US  would participate in any adventure.


Iran  is the only country in the region that the oil companies  cannot control and they are   beginning to dump the dollar for oil payments, like Saddam Hussein and Quaddafi did before. And  we all know what happened to them. Replacing the dollar for international transactions is not an incosequential matter.


  The problem is not Ahmadinejah  big mouth. He is just playing to a domestic audience.





Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Mar 07, 2012 - 10:24PM #35
TemplarS
Posts: 6,880

Mar 7, 2012 -- 2:23PM, Erey wrote:


Mar 7, 2012 -- 1:13PM, vra wrote:


Erey, that's a very good point, and if somehow Iran can get by it's current leaders, the younger generation there is far less radical and actually quite pro-American.




In my estimation not just the young but also the old fit into this category.  I am not a historian of the region but my limited understanding of the events lead me to believe that the result of the Iranian revolution completely took the people of Iran by surprise.  They did not expect anything like this radical, repressive theocracy.  That was not why they joined the revolution.  But now those mullahs and Ayatollahs are in absolute power and it is very hard to win it back. 





There may be an instructive parallel here with the Soviet Union.  In both cases, a corrupt and repressive monarchy was replaced by an ideological revolution, whose leaders turned out to be as bad if not worse than their predecessors.  The Soviets were a much more serious deal, as they were a major world power instead of a minor regional one; they had a dozen proxies to fight their battles as opposed to Teheran's one and a half proxies. And, of course, they acquired nukes to a degree Iran could not in a hundred years. 


The Soviet regime lasted 75 years.  The Iranian regime is nearly halfway to that benchmark, in a world far more fast-paced and connected than it was then. 


Left on their own, the mullahs will collapse under their own weight as surely as did the Communists.  And likely quite a bit sooner.


 

Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Mar 07, 2012 - 10:36PM #36
jane2
Posts: 14,295

Mar 7, 2012 -- 10:24PM, TemplarS wrote:


Mar 7, 2012 -- 2:23PM, Erey wrote:


Mar 7, 2012 -- 1:13PM, vra wrote:


Erey, that's a very good point, and if somehow Iran can get by it's current leaders, the younger generation there is far less radical and actually quite pro-American.




In my estimation not just the young but also the old fit into this category.  I am not a historian of the region but my limited understanding of the events lead me to believe that the result of the Iranian revolution completely took the people of Iran by surprise.  They did not expect anything like this radical, repressive theocracy.  That was not why they joined the revolution.  But now those mullahs and Ayatollahs are in absolute power and it is very hard to win it back. 





There may be an instructive parallel here with the Soviet Union.  In both cases, a corrupt and repressive monarchy was replaced by an ideological revolution, whose leaders turned out to be as bad if not worse than their predecessors.  The Soviets were a much more serious deal, as they were a major world power instead of a minor regional one; they had a dozen proxies to fight their battles as opposed to Teheran's one and a half proxies. And, of course, they acquired nukes to a degree Iran could not in a hundred years. 


The Soviet regime lasted 75 years.  The Iranian regime is nearly halfway to that benchmark, in a world far more fast-paced and connected than it was then. 


Left on their own, the mullahs will collapse under their own weight as surely as did the Communists.  And likely quite a bit sooner.


 




Templar


Yes, yes and yes....................




 

discuss catholicism
Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Mar 07, 2012 - 10:48PM #37
mountain_man
Posts: 39,795

Mar 7, 2012 -- 9:09PM, arielg wrote:

Those who want  to get rid of Iran are in the US...


And Israel.


Iran  is the only country in the region that the oil companies  cannot control and they are   beginning to dump the dollar for oil payments....


The price of oil has gone up because of speculation, not because Iran is charging more.


The problem is not Ahmadinejah  big mouth. He is just playing to a domestic audience.


He has to in order to maintain power. The Regressives over here give his words more power than they should. Those Regressives all claim their god is a god of love, yet they are very eager to start wars to kill people. Which makes since once you realize their god, the christian god, is a war god, not a love god.

Dave - Just a Man in the Mountains.

I am a Humanist. I believe in a rational philosophy of life, informed by science, inspired by art, and motivated by a desire to do good for its own sake and not by an expectation of a reward or fear of punishment in an afterlife.
Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Mar 08, 2012 - 9:55AM #38
Marcion
Posts: 2,883

Mar 7, 2012 -- 3:23PM, vra wrote:


 


LOL!  And he probably has no clue why.


Mar 7, 2012 -- 2:57PM, teilhard wrote:


Oh, the Irony ...


Mar 7, 2012 -- 2:12PM, Marcion wrote:


Mar 7, 2012 -- 11:00AM, vra wrote:


Mar 7, 2012 -- 9:31AM, Marcion wrote:


I support self defense and justified pre-emptive action. I don't see an attack on Iran as either self defense or justified. Just Zionists trying to sucker the US into their ambitions.





Iran has essentially declared war on Israel since they have made it abundantly clear that they intend to destroy it.  That's as much of a declaration of war as it would be if the U.S. Congress passes a war resolution.  Secondly, there is less and less doubt that Iran intends to build a nuclear weapon if they can manage, and a great many M.E. experts do believe they would use it on Israel given the opportunity, even though they realize that Israel would respond back (the belief of the ruling imams dealing with the 12th Imam should not be ignored).  Thirdly, a nuclear Iran would create much instability in the M.E. and would encourage other countries there to develop a nuclear arsenal.  Imagine what a nuclear M.E. would be like.


To blame this on the "Zionists" simply is both insulting and simply wrong since America's and many other countries interests and security are also at stake.




Educate yourself on the difference between Jews and Zionists and then repost.












Who has no clue? There are three quotes, who are you referring to?


Now you need to educate yourself on basic english.

Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Mar 08, 2012 - 10:13AM #39
arielg
Posts: 9,116


Iran has essentially declared war on Israel since they have made it abundantly clear that they intend to destroy it.



 Destroy the regime, in the sense that the Soviet Union and South Africa aparhaid were destroyed. 


  They never talk about attacking  militarily.

Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Mar 08, 2012 - 10:28AM #40
vra
Posts: 6,403

Mar 8, 2012 -- 9:55AM, Marcion wrote:


Mar 7, 2012 -- 3:23PM, vra wrote:


 


LOL!  And he probably has no clue why.


Mar 7, 2012 -- 2:57PM, teilhard wrote:


Oh, the Irony ...


Mar 7, 2012 -- 2:12PM, Marcion wrote:


Mar 7, 2012 -- 11:00AM, vra wrote:


Mar 7, 2012 -- 9:31AM, Marcion wrote:


I support self defense and justified pre-emptive action. I don't see an attack on Iran as either self defense or justified. Just Zionists trying to sucker the US into their ambitions.





Iran has essentially declared war on Israel since they have made it abundantly clear that they intend to destroy it.  That's as much of a declaration of war as it would be if the U.S. Congress passes a war resolution.  Secondly, there is less and less doubt that Iran intends to build a nuclear weapon if they can manage, and a great many M.E. experts do believe they would use it on Israel given the opportunity, even though they realize that Israel would respond back (the belief of the ruling imams dealing with the 12th Imam should not be ignored).  Thirdly, a nuclear Iran would create much instability in the M.E. and would encourage other countries there to develop a nuclear arsenal.  Imagine what a nuclear M.E. would be like.


To blame this on the "Zionists" simply is both insulting and simply wrong since America's and many other countries interests and security are also at stake.




Educate yourself on the difference between Jews and Zionists and then repost.












Who has no clue? There are three quotes, who are you referring to?


Now you need to educate yourself on basic english.





LOL!  "Basic english" has it that you capitalize "English". 


It seems that Teilhard connected the dots quite easily in terms of the "irony", to use his word for it, but then he knows more about my background than you obviously do.  Anyhow, I would rather discuss matters with people that can do more than just insult others, so I guess we'll just part ways.


BTW, you might have enjoyed coming to the seminar I taught last month on the history of Zionism but, nah, maybe you wouldn't after all.


Goodbye.

Quick Reply
Cancel
Page 4 of 4  •  Prev 1 2 3 4
 
    Viewing this thread :: 0 registered and 1 guest
    No registered users viewing
    Advertisement

    Beliefnet On Facebook