Bloomj31:I’ll think about what you guys have said, but let’s say you’re wrong and Israel (or America) gets nuked. Then what?
Not to be condescending(although I guess it is condescending), but from your previous example, it would be just like when japan got nuked right? Peace and harmony?
Who knows? I would think that Iran would definitely be nuked right back if that were to happen- and if nukes are flying left and right, no one is safe. But lets say Iran gets nuked. Then what? None of us can predict the future- I just know that violence NOW is wrong. Trying to think in terms of “We’re doing this to ensure the safety of the future” is a GUARANTEE for more violence in the future, not any sort of peace for anyone. The violent enforcement of communism for the “greater good” was something very terrible- this is a definite path for humanity’s self-annihilation.
Assuming what is reported is true about Iran, I don’t think there is a way you can take that form of logic and not apply it to a bankrupting number of scenarios within the past 60 years.
I have a great deal of interest in Israel
I see no reason why anyone should give a flying fuck about some artificially created welfare state on an insignificant chunk of land. Really I don’t think you would have thought it to be a personally profitable idea to take the Gypses or Kurds and dump them somewhere kind of close sort of close but not really to (oil rich) Venezuala. They are allies to the US as welfare crackbabies are allies to the Democrats, and look how they both produce their share of violent thugs. Honestly, if they can’t defend where they shit, fuck 'em. If they can, good for them.
I don’t see how Israel should hold some intrinsic value to me (as an individual). I don’t even understand how anyone can sympathize with the government of Israel, unless you are some wack job Pat Robertson Fundamentalist buying Rapture Insurance.
1.) To punish the populace of a foreign country for not overthrowing their government or for not pressuring their government into a capitulation. The logic is similar to terrorism (including WWII terror bombing). Terrorists kill civilians in order to punish the populace for not pressuring their government and sometimes to try to get them too. This was the reason for sanctions on Cuba, Iraq and Yugoslavia.
2.) As a stepping stone towards war. If you can not launch an attack outright you can introduce “sanctions” then a few years down the road proclaim that “they have not worked” and that this means that you must escalate into a full war. (So actually they have worked perfectly since they have provided you with a sellable casus belli.) I suspect this is the reason for sanctions on Iran. In this case however I suspect that a few years down the line when it comes the time to move to the next stage and attack that the US is going to be in no shape to do so, and so the attack won’t actually happen.
I would go even further and say that just because they have the right to self defense doesn’t mean they have to exercise it. If tens of thousands of people have to die, it might be worth just packing up and leaving.
If you gave me a choice between leaving my home, and gunning down a gang of robbers, I’d probably just leave.
The United States has used 2 nuclear weapons. The rest of the world has used 0.
After analyzing these data I have managed to formulate a simple but effective model: RFW=(USN/USW)
Where RFW=Reasons for War (with Iran), USN= Nukes used by the US, and USW= Nukes used by the rest of the world. Through substitution we come up with RFW=(2/0). Thus we can conclude due to the the division by zero that our Reasons for War with Iran are, as of now, undefined. Q.E.D.
I’ll be sure to let you guys know when I get my Nobel Prize for successfully modeling political action.
If it weren’t for the Iranians who will get hurt in the process I would be, because of the detrimental effect the attack is going to have on the Empire, rooting for it to happen yesterday.