The Jews are trying to start WW III and guess who they'll want to fight it for them ?

  • Thread starter Thread starter shar-vell Dan
  • Start date Start date
The~Kid said:
The Iran we have now is a direct result of unilateral US involvement in the past due to failed US policy exactly as you describe......


So your saying, lets not learn from the past...... and do the exact same thing and hope for better results..... nvm Iraq or Afghanistan either right :dunno:
Click to expand...

No I'm saying we created this terrorist death cult leading Iran, we need to remove it or weaken it, then leave it up to the Iranian people. (basically not what we, the UK and especially France did in Libya).

If they choose poorly, we can use economic sanctions etc., if they choose to be part of civilization and help stabilize the region they can enjoy economic prosperity. The choice for their future should be left to the Iranians, not imposed on them.
 
rsm said:
No I'm saying we created this terrorist death cult leading Iran, we need to remove it or weaken it, then leave it up to the Iranian people. (basically not what we, the UK and especially France did in Libya).

If they choose poorly, we can use economic sanctions etc., if they choose to be part of civilization and help stabilize the region they can enjoy economic prosperity. The choice for their future should be left to the Iranians, not imposed on them.
Click to expand...
These are admirable goals but as you described the result of todays Iran is pretty much a direct result of US unilateral involvement such as with the installation of the Shah back in the day......

If unilateral US involvement got us in this mess in the first place back then and as in Iraq/Afghanistan and the Middle East in general, how is it going to help here and now?



And if the Iranians still have enriched uranium only to restart their program again at a later date....... when does this all end? We are just going to keep bombing Iran perpetually forever....... Iraq wasnt solved in a day, neither was Afghanistan...... hell nothing was really solved in the end either in The Middle East really...... so how can we expect the same thing done then to produce different results in Iran now :dunno:
 
The~Kid said:
These are admirable goals but as you described the result of todays Iran is pretty much a direct result of US unilateral involvement such as with the installation of the Shah back in the day......

If unilateral US involvement got us in this mess in the first place back then and as in Iraq/Afghanistan and the Middle East in general, how is it going to help here and now?



And if the Iranians still have enriched uranium only to restart their program again at a later date....... when does this all end? We are just going to keep bombing Iran perpetually forever....... Iraq wasnt solved in a day, neither was Afghanistan...... hell nothing was really solved in the end either in The Middle East really...... so how can we expect the same thing done then to produce different results in Iran now :dunno:
Click to expand...


There would need to be nuclear inspections as part of any future deal with any future regime. After decades of oppression under the current Iranian regime, I'd venture a guess that a solid majority of Iranians want a peaceful and prosperous future for themselves and their children.

The first step is removing or weakening the current government, followed by supporting uprisings of the Iranian people. Then working with allies in the region on a plan and path for peace and prosperity, and conditions, for a new Iran.

If this had been done during Reagan's presidency we'd have a very different world today, and ever since. By not cleaning up our mess, the current Iranian regime will get nuke weapons and they will use them.

This isn't the same as Iraq or Ukraine, this is a chance to stabilize the Middle East and eliminate one of the largest state sponsors of Islamic terrorism. I think many Iranians would welcome a regime change, but I'm sure they're also wary because the obamanation didn't help them when they rose up before.


edit: I think the US needs to make it clear that it supports the Iranian people if they decide to overthrow the current regime.
 
rsm said:
There would need to be nuclear inspections as part of any future deal with any future regime. After decades of oppression under the current Iranian regime, I'd venture a guess that a solid majority of Iranians want a peaceful and prosperous future for themselves and their children.

The first step is removing or weakening the current government, followed by supporting uprisings of the Iranian people. Then working with allies in the region on a plan and path for peace and prosperity, and conditions, for a new Iran.

If this had been done during Reagan's presidency we'd have a very different world today, and ever since. By not cleaning up our mess, the current Iranian regime will get nuke weapons and they will use them.

This isn't the same as Iraq or Ukraine, this is a chance to stabilize the Middle East and eliminate one of the largest state sponsors of Islamic terrorism. I think many Iranians would welcome a regime change, but I'm sure they're also wary because the obamanation didn't help them before.
Click to expand...
I hear you but its pretty much unilateral US intervention....... and we can see the track record of such policy in The Middle East from the Shah of Iran, to Iraq and Afghanistan. It didnt work then and IMO it wont work now and only make situations worse in the future IMO.


Logic, reason and discretion have always been the backbone of deterrence of the US and the West........ its worked in the past and always has.......


And there is no real reason to say it wouldnt be the same case with Iran even now but IMO such actions in these circumstances erode at such deterrence and just makes the probability and likelihood of less desirable outcomes to occur in the future to say the least.......


Maybe Im wrong and we can do all you say and we hope for the best really and we get a Disney ending to the whole thing in the Middle East weve never gotten or seen before with unilateral US involvement...... but IMO I just dont think its going to be that easy or as easy as some may think :dunno:
 
Last edited:
The~Kid said:
I hear you but its pretty much unilateral US intervention....... and we can see the track record of such policy in The Middle East from the Shah of Iran, to Iraq and Afghanistan. It didnt work then and IMO it wont work now and only make situations worse in the future IMO.


Logic, reason and discretion have always been the backbone of deterrence from the US and the West........ and there is no real reason to say it wouldnt be the same case with Iran but IMO such actions in these circumstances erode at that deterrence and just makes the probability and likelihood of less desirable outcomes to occur to say the least.
Click to expand...

Leaving Iran as-is only means our descendants will have to deal with the issue, just as we are today because the Reagan era failed to address it.

If Iran decides for a peaceful and prosperous future as an economic and stabilizing force in the region not hellbent on exporting terrorism and destruction to usher in their Mahdi, they won't have a need for, or interest, in nuclear weapons, if they are secure in their sovereignty.

It's not going to be easy, and it doesn't have to be unilateral; countries in the region also have a vested interest in a peaceful, prosperous Iran although that would mean increased economic competition. This could also serve as a buffer to the Taliban weakening their support in the region. It would also cripple Hamas, Hezbollah, etc.

The potential for the future far outweighs the risks of military strikes to weaken the regime sufficiently for the people of Iran to rise up.
 
rsm said:
Leaving Iran as-is only means our descendants will have to deal with the issue, just as we are today because the Reagan era failed to address it.

If Iran decides for a peaceful and prosperous future as an economic and stabilizing force in the region not hellbent on exporting terrorism and destruction to usher in their Mahdi, they won't have a need for, or interest, in nuclear weapons, if they are secure in their sovereignty.

It's not going to be easy, and it doesn't have to be unilateral; countries in the region also have a vested interest in a peaceful, prosperous Iran although that would mean increased economic competition. This could also serve as a buffer to the Taliban weakening their support in the region. It would also cripple Hamas, Hezbollah, etc.

The potential for the future far outweighs the risks of military strikes to weaken the regime sufficiently for the people of Iran to rise up.
Click to expand...
I mean I hear you and hopefully it can be done for the betterment of everyone...... but given the track record of unilateral US involvement in The Middle East in general and reality today...... Easier said than done and its hard to see anything good coming out of it.


As it stands deterrence has worked in the past for the US and the West, that should still hold true now towards Iran or any country and it shouldn't be used carelessly IMO as to erode its ability/utility.
 
  • Like
Reactions: rsm
The~Kid said:
I mean I hear you and hopefully it can be done for the betterment of everyone...... but given the track record of unilateral US involvement in The Middle East in general...... Easier said than done its hard to see anything good coming out of it.


As it stands deterrence has worked in the past for the US and the West, that should still hold true now towards Iran or any country and it shouldn't be used carelessly IMO as to erode its ability/utility.
Click to expand...

Leaving things they way they are will be worse, and if it's not us, it will be our children that will suffer and have to deal with it, e.g., a nuclear weapon capable Islamic Republic of Iran vs a peaceful, prosperous, stabilized Iran.

The potential end outweighs the means to that end. Worth the chance; I think the odds are in our favor if Trump is in the White House.

IMO.
 
rsm said:
Leaving things they way they are will be worse, and if it's not us, it will be our children that will suffer and have to deal with it, e.g., a nuclear weapon capable Islamic Republic of Iran vs a peaceful, prosperous, stabilized Iran.

The potential end outweighs the means to that end. Worth the chance; I think the odds are in our favor if Trump is in the White House.

IMO.
Click to expand...
I mean that is all well in good but we know for whatever excuses that were made in the past unilateral involvement by the US in Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan and the Middle East in general has led mainly to deeper and deeper nationalism/fundemetalism in the region......... thats almost always been the result and whats to say it will be any different in this case......


And if such actions erode the ability/utility of the US and the West effectiveness of deterrence in the future is it really worth the risk or worth gambling deterrence and whats worked in the past forever over something that hasnt :dunno:
 
Last edited:
The~Kid said:
I mean that is all well in good but we know for whatever excuses that made in the past unilateral involvement by the US in Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan and the Middle East in general has led mainly to deeper and deeper nationalism/fundemetalism in the region......... thats almost always been the result whats to say it will be any different in this case......


And if such actions erode the ability/utility of the US and the West effectiveness of deterrence in the future is it really worth the risk or worth gambling deterrence and whats worked in the past forever over something that hasnt :dunno:
Click to expand...


As I said, US and UK created this situation. The US is dealing with it. I think working with other powers in the region, the outcome is better than what we've had in Iran since the late '70s.

YMMV.

Speaking of mileage, going for Sunday morning bike ride after this cup of coffee.







IMG_0762.png
 
rsm said:
As I said, US and UK created this situation. The US is dealing with it. I think working with other powers in the region, the outcome is better than what we've had in Iran since the late '70s.

YMMV.

Speaking of mileage, going for Sunday morning bike ride after this cup of coffee.







View attachment 404665
Click to expand...
What are you doing ? It's like arguing string theory with a 3rd grader with access to Google. :ROFLMAO: :ROFLMAO: :ROFLMAO:
 
The~Kid said:
These are admirable goals but as you described the result of todays Iran is pretty much a direct result of US unilateral involvement such as with the installation of the Shah back in the day......

If unilateral US involvement got us in this mess in the first place back then and as in Iraq/Afghanistan and the Middle East in general, how is it going to help here and now?



And if the Iranians still have enriched uranium only to restart their program again at a later date....... when does this all end? We are just going to keep bombing Iran perpetually forever....... Iraq wasnt solved in a day, neither was Afghanistan...... hell nothing was really solved in the end either in The Middle East really...... so how can we expect the same thing done then to produce different results in Iran now :dunno:
Click to expand...
One more war will fix everything 😅
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top