by Roy » Thu 04 Feb 2010, 11:32:04
Mos I appreciate your input.
I knew my post would draw you out. LOL
Now to address your comments:
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'R')oy wrote:
Iran doesn't have us surrounded. On the contrary, we have their country surrounded by powerful military forces in an offensive posture. Why wouldn't they be paranoid?
MOS wrote: B.S. Iran has been given every opportunity to ratchet down tensions. There is no excuse for their behavior.
What part of that particular statement is BS?
Have you looked at a map of the middle east lately and mentally noted where US forces are located in relation to Iran? Please do so before continuing this discussion with me because it seems you are not aware of the disposition and deployment of US military assets in that region.
Have you not heard the sabre rattling of America and Israel and the direct threats against Iranian sovereignty... IE calls in our media for regime change in Iran, and our active support of opposition groups in Iran?
If Iran were supporting the KKK, would you think that was ok? If they were calling for regime change in America, and putting their money where there mouths are, would that be ok too? After all what's good for the goose is good for the gander, right? Or does that rule only apply when Israel and the US are not involved?
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'S')o Iran with nukes is OK? I don't think you've thought this through at all. it's just "israel and the west = bad, anybody who opposes them = good".
Iran with a few nukes is a threat to anyone who would attack them. A first strike on Israel would be national suicide for them. Israel has between 200 and 300 nuclear weapons, submarines capable of launching nuclear tipped missiles, and a very capable and advanced air force. In other words, they have multiple and redundant methods to accurately deliver nuclear weapons to Iran.
An Iranian first strike would make them into an even bigger pariah than they already are and it is difficult to imagine any nation opposing a punitive retaliation to such an attack. Recall the world's support of the US invasion of Afghanistan after the 9/11 attacks. And that was small potatoes compared to the scenarios described in our media of a hypothetical Iranian nuclear first strike on Israel.
And finally, to analyze your comment... What I think is that you are dealing with some serious cognitive dissonance.
First of all, since you have been here a while, I can safely presume that you understand how the US economy functions and what the petro-dollar system is.
You must also understand that our current paradigm is unsustainable. You say as much in your more well thought out posts, of which there are many on this site. (that's a compliment to your eloquence and your intellect friend).
Yet you have this emotional attachment to Israel that seems to over ride your understanding of those issues. I have no emotional attachment to any foreign country or the current government of the US.
With emotional issues like this, it's easy to label someone who presents unpleasant facts as someone who 'hates that which you love'.
Maybe I can be more objective, and see this as a conflict between two sets of ideologies, and I can look at a map and determine which side is actively threatening the other without any bias or pre-conceived notions of who are the good guys and who are the bad guys. I don't see things in that melodramatic light.
Also, I think you may be projecting a bit. After all, according to our media, anyone who opposes American hegemony is the "Axis of Evil" and a threat to our non-negotiable way of life: Chavez, Iran, NK, and formerly Saddam Hussein.
I don't hate Israel or Jews, nor do I hate Iranians or Muslims. To me this is a struggle of resource importing countries against countries that posses those resources but are unwilling to 'play ball' with the west's ideas of how things should run-- ie letting multinational corporations harvest the resources of poor countries at maximum profit for said corporations and minimal profit for the regimes and people of those countries.
A nations military should only be used in a nations self defense, not to entertain liberal cravings for shaping poor nations into images of themselves by force. -- Eastbay
Shooting the messenger is typical when you are incapable of arguing against them. -- Airline Pilot