[QUOTE=RedFury]
Lives lost – on either side – obviously not a deterrent for someone like you, safe at home, big-time blowback a bit later on same & oodles more, would be be no big deal either.
[/QUOTE]
‘Someone like’ me, ehe?
Glad we got that cleared up then, Red. Thanks for dropping in, man.
Well, my own coach always said ‘Defense!’ or ‘you can’t drink like that before a big game you idiot!’. He also used to tell us that sex before a game drained your energy and made you play worse, but I never found that to be singularly accurate advice (I do have to admit, in retrospect, that drinking heavily before a game was probably not optimal to performance)…
BTW, neither a criticism nor praise. The US fights within its capabilities; the world’s best and certainly the most expensive ever seen.
But the ‘bravest’? Far from, if we take a reality check against the “proud warrior culture” of the US of A. Give said title to quite a few that dare face them…and not just put up a fight, but most times, beat them. Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan. Iran? The hits keep on coming…
Then again, there’s always Panama & Grenada to hold up the flag.
My coach never said anything about changing the goal posts, however. I bet he wishes HE’D thought of that though, especially all the times we lost (I wasn’t the only one to drink heavily or have sex before big games)!
Appreciate your ‘response,’ tocayo. Keep on keepin’ on flying that flag that can never do wrong.
Caricature or real, you’re the stuff American Heroes are made of.
Ah, the thread is at the phase of personal attacks now. Well, that’s encouraging…I guess that indicates that all of the other positions have become untenable, no? Well, I’ll refrain, Red…thanks for the Happy Meal. Appreciate that buddy.
Well, I didn’t call it “trying to make peace”. All I’m saying is that if we find ourselves in a situation where we are cooperating with the Iranians, keeping the lines of communication open can gradually increase the comfort level and build trust. I’m not promising the moon, but slightly more comunication=slightly less hatred and mistrust=slightly less liklihood they’d accelerate their nuclear weapons program.
OTOH, there was no need for us to pursue a policy of confrontation with Iran, and of course it backfired.
No one is supressing the Iranian government’s First Amendment right to speak out about things, like calling for the destruction of Israel. And a man who doesn’t let his kids talk back–and forces them to go to church–still has the right to buy a gun.
But of course you can see the point of my analogy. The idea that in a violent and chaotic world everyone has the right to keep and bear arms is a very popular notion round these parts. That applies even to a conservatice nutcase who some people think might actually use them.
On personal level it’s a gun, on a national level it’s a nuke. The idea that certain politically favored parties are allowed to have weapons while everyone else is more or less at their mercy sit well with some folks.
The claim on the table (not by you) is that Iran “tried making peace with America.”
I’m not so sure about that. They might perceive making nice as a sign of weakness and a green light to be more aggressive. I would want to know exactly what help they supposedly offered.
I think most pro-gun people agree that known criminals and known crazy people should not have such a right. A man who continually assaults and threatens to kill his neighbor can and should be denied such a right.
[QUOTE=sqweels]
No one is supressing the Iranian government’s First Amendment right to speak out about things, like calling for the destruction of Israel. And a man who doesn’t let his kids talk back–and forces them to go to church–still has the right to buy a gun.
[/QUOTE]
Sure…no one is suppressing the Allah given right of the Iranian government to do as it pleases and put down it’s ‘children’ in the harshest possible way. And, certainly, if it’s good enough for the brow beaten Iranian people, it should be good enough for everyone, so, QED, the Iranians deserve nuclear anti-tiger repellent.
To take your ‘analogy’ to it’s ridiculous conclusion, if one neighbor might have a gun in their house (but no one knows if they do or not), this does not give the neighbor down the street who has sent some of his children to destroy parts of the neighbor who might have that guns house and beat the crap out of his children and beats his wife and children (in Allah’s name, peace be upon him) an equal right to get a gun…especially if this wife beating neighbor has signed a contract with the police to specifically NOT get a gun. And I can promise you that even a gun totin’ red neck is going to agree that not everyone should have a gun. LAW ABIDING CITIZENS, yeah…criminals or folks who exhibit criminal behavior wouldn’t be at the top of even the most staunch gun rights advocates list of folks who should possess one.
Sorry, but because Israel MIGHT have a nuke (seeing as how they didn’t sign the NNPT), this does not give Iran some sort of gods given right to one (seeing as how they DID sign the treaty). Why this seemingly simple point is hard to grasp is beyond me…truly.
Sorry, but as with many things, micro and macro realities diverge…even if someone buys into the ‘well, everyone, including the wife beating criminal should have a gun!’ theory.
Well, we can’t make rules for the international community like we can make rules for a national society. Because there’s no world state to make such rules or enforce them, and mere treaties can be repudiated.
[QUOTE=BrainGlutton]
Well, we can’t make rules for the international community like we can make rules for a national society. Because there’s no world state to make such rules or enforce them, and mere treaties can be repudiated.
[/QUOTE]
That’s all true. What are your logical conclusions from this, BG?
But we are…or, at least the Israelis are. That’s the point. They (the Israelis) DO consider this a direct and existential threat to their survival. You and others can blithely hand wave that threat away, but THEY DON’T AGREE WITH YOU.
So, that’s what it comes down to. Iran can honor their treaty obligations (it’s funny how folks in this thread are all for them just tossing them out in this instance…I wonder if they feel the same about any nation just tossing out their treaty obligations so casually) which will unburden them from the currently increasingly harsh sanctions (by countries that aren’t JUST the Evil USAUSAUSA) and avoid a potential conflict with Israel…or not. Ball is really in their court here, and if they keep pushing this thing then whatever falls out (no ‘heh’) will be on their heads. Literally.
Well, I don’t believe the Israelis have the military power to do anything to Iran that will make it significantly less of a threat to them, or do any damage that can’t be quickly repaired. It would only inflame the Iranians.
Again, that’s YOUR belief…and the Israelis might not agree with your assessment. I also don’t agree with either of your assessments, but that’s neither here nor there. The point is, if Israel believes it’s being threatened, and they believe that the threat justifies the use of military force, and they believe that they can achieve whatever military and political goals they are trying to achieve by the use of military force, then they are going to take that option if all else fails. And the ball is in Iran’s court…they can prevent this or risk it happening, as they please. I think the US and Europe have done just about everything they can, short of the use of military force themselves, to encourage Iran to stop doing this stupid shit. Thus far it doesn’t seem to be working.
Well, I’ll refrain, Red…thanks for the Happy Meal. Appreciate that buddy.
