Iran

[BTGBullseye]

Why not?

Why do you think the Cold War was started, and continued for decades? It wasn't over religious differences...

 

I also heard Jewish people were not on good terms with Romans either. And with Egypt... Oh, and with Germans not so long ago too.

What does that have to do with anything? Were any of those issues maintained for more than 2000 years while neighboring the country of Israel? (not just talking about Jewish people here, but the land too)

 

And Iranians are not the only Muslims around. Pakistan is also a Muslim country and they have nukes. They also have missiles to deliver them too. So, if existence of Israel depends on Muslims not having nukes, the horse has already bolted. Mind you, there are Muslims in the US too. Oh, dear!

I didn't say all Muslims, I said Muslim extremists, just like the ones that currently control the Iranian government.

[Vapymid]

Why do you think the Cold War was started, and continued for decades? It wasn't over religious differences...

 

Cold War was an imperial competition supported by ideological differences. Religion is an ideology, hence religious differences are also ideological ones, hence the same effect as in the Cold War.

 

Were any of those issues maintained for more than 2000 years while neighboring the country of Israel? (not just talking about Jewish people here, but the land too)

 

I don't know, there were no Muslims 2000 years ago. And if we are talking about Persians, they did not seem to be much concerned with Jews. If we are talking about Arabs, which Iranians are not, then they may actually have a claim to the land as Jews displaced them after the Exodus. What was before that I have no idea, neither do I care.

 

We live today and people who live now should not use old grudges dating back 100s or 1000s of years as justification for their actions today. That equally applies to Jews and to Arabs and to Persians, IMHO.

 

I said Muslim extremists, just like the ones that currently control the Iranian government.

 

One man's extremist is another man's moderate... I personally think that Saudis or, say, Kuwaitis are more extreme than the Iranians. Anyway, compare Iran with Pakistan - Iran is supporting Hisbollah, Hamas also Assad in Syria. Pakistan is supporting Taliban, who supported Osama, who supported Al Qaeda, who supported the infamous pilot training program where pilots were not taught how to land their planes... Again, who is more extremist or dangerous? I think the jury is split. Arguably, 9/11 was much more hurtful for the US and the world and now Taliban is kicking the NATO out of Afganistan, yet Iran is on the "Axis of Evil" while Pakistan is not... Not very consistent.

 

Regards

[Doom Shepherd]

"Taliban is kicking the NATO out of Afganistan"

 

I thought that was Obama. Same difference?

[Vapymid]

I don't think Obama has a choice... Afganistan is a bonfire of vanities for the Western powers (and Russia). We come, we see, we run...

 

Regards

[ThePest179]

Are we talking about the Taliban or Iran here? Stay on topic or this gets locked.

[ThePest179]

Alright, I saw an article in Time magazine that says Iran will have nuclear capacity by 2014, unless war occours. there are two choices for Obama to deal with Iran: containment or war. I am personally for containment.

[ThePest179]

Now that I think about it, if Saddam was not attacked by NATO, he would probably have pursued nuclear weapons and could have destroyed Iran, and what was left of it would retaliate, meaning both nations would have perised under radioactive ashes, leaving both problems gone and away from the US, and would not create a Isreal-Iran cold war that could develop into a hot war. Who eles thinks the same?

[BTGBullseye]

Nope... Saddam's first target would've been his own country.

[ThePest179]

Nope... Saddam's first target would've been his own country.

 

You realise that an Iran-Iraq nuclear war would have destroyed both countries, therefore solving both of Saddam's problems at once, right?

[BTGBullseye]

Yeah, but he didn't want to die himself, and Iran wouldn't have them before he did... He was more threatened by his own countrymen than he was by Iran, so he would've dealt with the bigger threat first. Net result, Iraq nuking Iraq before nuking Iran.

[ThePest179]

Yeah, but he didn't want to die himself, and Iran wouldn't have them before he did... He was more threatened by his own countrymen than he was by Iran, so he would've dealt with the bigger threat first. Net result, Iraq nuking Iraq before nuking Iran.

 

He could have initiated the nuclear holocaust by nuking two cities, then fleeing the country before the second strike. Anyway, I still think we should follow a containment policy with Iran and give Isreal all it needs to initiate a second strike should there be a nuclear Holocaust (like nuclear submarines).

[BTGBullseye]

There wouldn't be anyone left to make a second strike. They hit 2-3 of the main cities, and then Jordan or Lebanon or Syria or Saudi Arabia or Egypt invades

[ThePest179]

There wouldn't be anyone left to make a second strike. They hit 2-3 of the main cities, and then Jordan or Lebanon or Syria or Saudi Arabia or Egypt invades

 

Hence the deployment of nuclear submarines on a near daily basis. Maybe Isreal needs fleets of nuclear submarines. Wait, why are we discussing this? The US could provide for Isreal's second strike capability. Isreal wouldn't need nuclear weapons with a strong US backing (like as strong as SK relations).

[BTGBullseye]

True, but the current president has said that he understands the forces trying to take Israel away from the Israelites, and that he doesn't support Israel. He's the first president in the history of the US to not back Israel 100%.

[ThePest179]

Ah, thread necromancy (or not, depending on your viewpoint). Well, seems like a deal is finally taking shape, although they are particularly risky (lessening sanctions on Iran in return for a nuclear deal, about time something happened). Let's hope Iran isn't going behind our backs while sanctions are lessoned.