Attacking Iran: Realism and Details

[Hobbes]

I would submit Israel and the western nations are their worst enemy. While the sunnis may not be "muslim enough" for the shia im pretty sure they are still regarded above the infidel.

Saddam lobbed more than 100 scud missiles into Iran and also deployed mustard gas as well as sarin nerve gas against the Iranian troops.
Hundreds of thousands were killed in the years long Iraq/Iran war.

The only effective check on Iranian influence and power in the region was Saddam Hussein.
That's why the war was total lunacy from the perspective of what is in the best interests of the US.

But those neocons are pushing for a reprise.

Hey Rocky, watch me pull a rabbit out of a hat.

 

[Lurker66]

You may not be aware of it.. but China alone has a active & reserve army right now of 200+ Million men.. and that does not include the armies of Muslim countries in the 10-40 window... India and Asia or Europe & the United States. Were a massive army in the hundreds of millions to be involved in a all out battle in a restricted area [like the one predicted in the bible].. blood could run very deep.

35 yrs ago, I worked at IBP in Amarillo. At the time it was reported to be the largest slaughter house for cattle in the world. It is a huge facility with hundreds of drains in the floor to let the blood drain. We were killing a little over 2,800 head of cattle in a 8 hour shift. And even with all the floor drains and men constantly running high pressure hot water hoses to help flush the blood, I sometmes had blood up to my mid- calves in the massive pit where the throats were first cut. Multiply that amount of blood times 200+ million [instead of just 2,800 steers] in a narrow gourge or valley. It is indeed possible for blood to run very deep. The bible prediction wasn't that the world or a country would be covered... just that in certain places it would.

But bible prophesy is a matter of faith and interpretation. Things people have to decide on for themselves. A forum thread isn't gonna sway someone one way or the other.

im certain the passage your quoting is meant to be read as symbolism. There is no nation that im aware of that would consider using ancient text and prophesy's to mold a national defence or national policies. Remember, even Iran, Syria and N. Korea have allies and trade freely with those allies. Those same countries do the same thing we do, try to sway governments to trade something of value for oil.

Religious beliefs of the Iranians have nothing to do with tradeing with China, Russia or N. Korea, after all those countries are just as much infidels as we are. So there has to be another reasonwhy they look at us with unfavorable eyes.

 

[uncle money bags]

Saddam lobbed more than 100 scud missiles into Iran and also deployed mustard gas as well as sarin nerve gas against the Iranian troops.
Hundreds of thousands were killed in the years long Iraq/Iran war.

The only effective check on Iranian influence and power in the region was Saddam Hussein.
That's why the war was total lunacy from the perspective of what is in the best interests of the US.

But those neocons are pushing for a reprise.

I am very well aware of that, i was serving in the Army at the time. I also know that was 24 years ago and that Iraq in the 21st century was not the influence on iran that you believe they were. I understand your vehement disagreement on the basis for war in Iraq, and im sure I would find it hard to disagree some of your points but so far your "facts" and cartoons are not making your point. I turn the floor over to you, convince me.

 

[uncle money bags]

im certain the passage your quoting is meant to be read as symbolism. There is no nation that im aware of that would consider using ancient text and prophesy's to mold a national defence or national policies. Remember, even Iran, Syria and N. Korea have allies and trade freely with those allies. Those same countries do the same thing we do, try to sway governments to trade something of value for oil.

Religious beliefs of the Iranians have nothing to do with tradeing with China, Russia or N. Korea, after all those countries are just as much infidels as we are. So there has to be another reasonwhy they look at us with unfavorable eyes.

Im pretty sure the people in charge of Iran, Israel, and a host of other nations not applicable to the discussion base their national defense policies on their religious beliefs.

 

[Hobbes]

convince me.

You should convince me since you are one of the cheerleaders for yet another new war in the middle east.

How about a compromise?

We can fight this war if we fund it instead of borrowing another trillion dollars and blowing up the debt even more?

 

[Hobbes]

I have an idea.

Maybe you can pay for it since you are uncle money bags. LOL

 

[Lurker66]

I am very well aware of that, i was serving in the Army at the time. I also know that was 24 years ago and that Iraq in the 21st century was not the influence on iran that you believe they were. I understand your vehement disagreement on the basis for war in Iraq, and im sure I would find it hard to disagree some of your points but so far your "facts" and cartoons are not making your point. I turn the floor over to you, convince me.

i think his arguments and cartoons reflect the idea that Iran feels threatened and isolated because our policies toward them, justified or not.

 

[Lurker66]

Im pretty sure the people in charge of Iran, Israel, and a host of other nations not applicable to the discussion base their national defense policies on their religious beliefs.

maybe Tibet but they are occupied. Which countries then?

 

[uncle money bags]

You should convince me since you are one of the cheerleaders for yet another new war in the middle east.

How about a compromise?

We can fight this war if we fund it instead of borrowing another trillion dollars and blowing up the debt even more?

I think you have assumed a little much about my opinion based on posts. Understandable because I am sure they could be reasonably interpreted as pro war hooah if the reader is unfamiliar with or has not thoroughly understood me. This can be difficult at best when the discussion occurs in this format as opposed to face to face. Having said that...

I am not a cheerleader for war of any kind. I have found war to be the second ugliest manifestation of base human endeavors right behind abject servitude and slavery. War, or any armed conflict for that matter, should always will be a method of last resort in my opinion. The popular saying of " when diplomacy fails..." is apropos but is over simplified somewhat in this case because it fails to address the crucial question of ; when do we reasonably decide at what point diplomacy has failed? Does this failed diplomacy necessarily mean that armed conflict is imminent? I suggest that while each situation is fact dependent, most civilized countries would agree that the line falls somewhere around that point in which our "selves" are in danger of serious harm or death. Some see it as that and if our "allies,comrades,friends,families,etc." are in the same predicament. It is a very personal decision to make but is crucial;again my opinion, that the decision as to where that line is needs to be decided before the situation arises.

How close are we to agreeing at this point? take a moment.

Having said all of that, I dont believe there is an immediate threat to the U.S. from Iran right now. I do think that will change if they attack Israel with a nuclear capability, not necessarily with nukes, because it shows that the Iranian government is indeed serious about destroying the great satan and they will then have the means by which to do it.

 

[uncle money bags]

I have an idea.

Maybe you can pay for it since you are uncle money bags. LOL

That is funny, I still dont know how I got that name from my nieces and nephews. They say i used to give them money every time I saw them when they were younger, but I dont remember it. well, kind off dont.