Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New media
New media comments
Latest activity
Classifieds
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Log in
Register
What's New?
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Navigation
Install the app
Install
More Options
Advertise with us
Contact Us
Close Menu
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Forums
The Water Cooler
General Discussion
Attacking Iran: Realism and Details
Search titles only
By:
Reply to Thread
This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
Message
<blockquote data-quote="uncle money bags" data-source="post: 1893877" data-attributes="member: 8377"><p>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... </p><p></p><p>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. </p><p></p><p>How close are we to agreeing at this point? take a moment.</p><p></p><p>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.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="uncle money bags, post: 1893877, member: 8377"] 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. [/QUOTE]
Insert Quotes…
Verification
Post Reply
Forums
The Water Cooler
General Discussion
Attacking Iran: Realism and Details
Search titles only
By:
Top
Bottom
