I’ve met Iranians and Israelis.
What’s up with your tone? I would expect better from a moderator.
I am trying to tell you to stop discussing who can be trusted to comment on what country and you are not listening. If you want to comment on the reliability of an individual poster, start a Pit thread. While you’re in Great Debates, stick to discussing the arguments, not the person making them.
Considering how many ignorant statements you’ve made on this thread about the Middle East you do little to inspire confidence in your knowledge of or ability to analyze the region or the people there.
You can continue to post your bigoted arguments if you want but you’re not helping your case.
Stop. I’ve told al27052 to let this tangent go so the discussion can move on. It won’t work if people continue talking about that subject, so the instruction also applies to you and others.
On this thread you’ve admitted to never travelling there, making few contacts from the region and based most of your assumptions about the Sunni-Shia divide on a few news reports, so it’s not surprising you’d think that.
However during the war, Iran was stirring the boiling pot that was the Lebanese Civil War by supporting the Hezbollah.
Moreover most of the Gulf States, which controlled much of the world’s oil supply had sizeable Shia minorities and were near or bordered Iraq, so the Gulf Kingdoms were understandably terrified that if Saddam fell, they were next.
People need to remember that the toppling of the Shah, who had been in power for decades, sent shockwaves through the Arab world and the rulers were terrified of the Ayatollah and his revolution, particularly when he kept making fiery speeches proclaiming he was going to spread the revolution through the Islamic world.
It may seem obvious now that he couldn’t, but it wasn’t to the people then.
Ok.
He was continuing to make personal attacks on me and I felt the need to respond.
Apologies for the post above this one. I was typing it up as you were putting up this message.
I’m not sure where you’re going with this. Are you saying that the war could have spread through Iran or Iraq attacking some other country, or are you saying that some other country could have jumped into the fray?
My guess is that the Reagan administration assumed that both countries were far too occupied with fighting each other to consider attacking anyone else. Not only that, but the war was also draining their resources, making them less able to attack any other countries. The sapping of their resources is key. The longer the war went on, the more drained their resources were.
As far as other countries jumping in, why? Who in the region had the motive and means?
Not only is he going to have the last word with you, he’s also going to keep attacking me. Witness his last post. He’s clearly ignoring you.
I wasn’t attacking you nor was I ignoring Marley.
I was typing up the post your referring to as Marley was posting his instructions which is why I said in my post to Marley.
Anyway, Marley asked us to stop this discussion so if you want to continue I recommend opening a thread in the Pit.
As I said, I don’t know what those are, so I don’t know, nor am I inclined to speculate, on the causal factor(s) for your points of view. It is obvious that you’re coming from some rather unusual political perspective; I just don’t know what that is.
I see, you think I’m biased due to my “political affiliations” but you don’t know what those “affiliations” are.
Uh-huh.
Now, per Marley’s instruction I recommend if you want to continue this discussion that you open a thread in the pit.
Taunting? Really?
Everybody needs to let this go immediately or I will start handing out warnings. There are to be no further comments on the issue or my moderating in this thread.
It’s not as clear cut as that (I wish it was) within Iran really
My experience of the country is that it’s a mixed bag (as Egypt is) of attitudes amongst the population. Iran has some similarities to Egypt in that there is a percentage of young liberal minded trendy folks in the major cities who have major ideas, but they seemingly neglect to take into the account the vast backbone (in both nations) of conservatism which is adhered to outside of the cities, in most of the country. Egypt’s revolutionarys paved the way for the rest of the poulation who stood by and watched silently, to later vote in conservative Muslim canditates because in all honesty the nature of the culture outside of the cities is generally conservative, as has always been really.
I saw this as a glaring oversight by the modern liberals who persisted in Medan Tahrir, but even at the time when I was being nosy in and around Tahrir last year I remember a young Syrian there who was hearing the Conservative Muslim canditates yelling away on a day when all the Islamist groups held a rally in the square, turn to me and say - "I think we’re going to end up with f*s like that, running Egypt". Although he was a foreigner in the country, he was also seeking the liberal modern ideal for Egypt but could see increasingly that the masses sought something else and developments since then, have shown that.
The situation is Iran is similar when it comes to the masses. The Iranian Theocracy also isn’t as clear cut as being a terror looming over a terrified beaten down population, as we’re led to believe. It manages to gain much favour by doing things like providing free housing and other social assistance to young couples who consider marrying, to encourage the institution of marriage in the Islamic Republic. Plenty of carrots on a stick are handed out by the Mullahs, not just stick hits. All we get to hear about in the west are the occasional executions for this that or the other. I gives us the skewed impression that all Iranians consider themselves under great insufferable persecution on a daily basis.
Activists are quietly approached by secret services to cease and warned off activities that are trying to get more equality for women for example, but as long as a backbone of conservatism exists in Iran, that activist is fighting for an ideal in the midst of a conservative mass many of whom are women who do subscribe to the concept that women should be second to their husbands, and not equal.
Getting back to the OP, I think that we would launch 3 or 4 nuclear strikes against the most military-type cities that we could get away with calling military targets. A massive show of strength and tell them that we’ve got 5,000 more coming unless they surrender immediately, hand over everyone in the government, and let us occupy.
When they refuse, we’ve got no choice but to turn the place into glass. You can’t have a nuclear arsenal, and then blink when attacked by nuclear weapons. We would have shown that we were a paper tiger and that our nuclear arsenal is just for show. It would invite more nuclear attacks against us. That’s the deal we made with the devil when we built the stockpiles.
We’ve got nukes small enough that we can target military bases
I would hope that there would be an intermediate step of targeting one or two major population centres.