Only in right wing fantasy land. in the real world, no, they aren’t going to do anything like that.
After a long campaign of slaughtering Japanese whenever possible, even when ordered not to. That’s much of how the Japanese got their reputation for not surrendering; the ones that were taken alive were generally murdered by the American troops anyway. As for the occupation, I not that one consequence of the occupation of Japan was a rape epidemic by American soldiers.
First, my point was that they are equipped and organized to resist an occupation, not keep us out - they know they couldn’t. And a quick occupation wouldn’t work, they’d just rebuild. They’d have to; you can’t dismantle their military, leave and expect them not to rebuild it just to survive. And killing the leaders wouldn’t do anything; they’d be replaced by leaders that hated us just as much, and who would have much more public support for their hostility after we rampaged through the cities murdering, raping, torturing and destroying.
I respect your pacifism, I’m a liberal myself. However, nukes would fly toward Iran like flies on shit, were they to drop one on the US. The simple fact is that our government is obligated to ensure within hours that Iran has absolutely no chance of mounting another nuclear attack. We should kick them out of office if they weren’t willing to do it.
A nuclear response is quite simply required. It’s the only way to ensure that another attack cannot happen.
Again, you’re showing very dramatic ignorance over either the situation in Iraq, what Iran would have done had their war against Hussein been more successful, what genocide entails, or a combination of the three.
What makes you think they don’t comprehend that? In the middle east Iran has historically been one of the most liberal country, one of the most western-friendly, one of the most modernized and its population is amongst the most educated. If they could get rid of their mullahs, they’d probably become in quick order the most liberal, stable and economically dynamic country in the region.
Does not. The concept of deterrence is not “an eye for an eye,” it’s that you have the ability and willingness to impose consequences severe enough to deter a regime from performing whatever act. In the case of a major super-power with a similarly gigantic nuclear arsenal, yes only a full-fledged nuclear response before they are able to neutralize your capability will provide that deterrent. But for a country that we can easily subdue with conventional means and impose whatever penalties we deem appropriate, there is absolutely no need for us to respond in kind.
I mean, seriously, can anyone point to an example where “retaliation” would be a legitimate reason for committing a crime against humanity? Do we let populations that have been victims of genocide commit retaliatory genocides in the name of genocide deterrence? A retaliatory nuclear attack against a civilian population without at least a fig-leaf of military necessity would be just as much of a war crime as the initial unprovoked attack.
I would expect the leaders who led the country on the path to a criminally-insane war and committed the greatest atrocity in modern history would probably experience a decline in popular support. Unless the hypothetical also involves the transformation of the Iranian people from one of the more moderate middle-eastern populations into some sort of evil hive-people, that is.
And it’s not as if nuking them is going to make them especially friendly either. Unless you’re seriously talking about annihilating an entire nation of people in response to a single attack?
By current standards, that would be an isssue. Western countries in general (not only the USA) aren’t particularly interested in being involved in a long, bloody, old-style war. But after a nuclear attack, the paradigm would change completely. We would be in a WWII-like situation. Neither the people nor the government would have an issue with significant losses amonst servicemen after having seen several millions of other citizens (including relatives and friends of many of them) being vaporized or dying from burns and radiation poisoning.
Regardless how many boots on the ground would be required, they would be there. Police would have to beat up the the crowds of volunteers gathering around enlistement offices.
A relatively minor power could not plausibly nuke the USA with any possibility of victory, or even its régime’s survival–unless it smuggled very high-powered weapons into (at least) New York and D.C., and effectively blew up the whole power structure of the USA before the Yanks knew what was going on; and even then if the nukes were traceable the US Navy would probably try to avenge the USA.
Conquered? Then why aren’t we turning Baghdad into Disney World in the desert, confiscating all the oil, and carrying off all the women? Could it be that conquer them is not what we actually did?
Hundreds of massacres? Did this happen anywhere except inside your head?
Mass murder? What masses were murdered?
Forgive me for saying so, but you come off as some kind of nut.
Ooh, Wikipedia. If it’s in Wikipedia, it must be true:rolleyes:
You obviously have a real hard-on for America and Americans. I’m surprised you haven’t mentioned the Venusian War, where American troops invaded the planet and wiped out the inhabitants. Or the fact that we shot in cold blood 94 million of Japan’s 71 million people. Or that we raped and killed every man, woman, child, goat, and sheep in Afghanistan, and posted the videos on YouTube.
I’m unfamiliar with you and your ravings, but I am beginning to see a theme in your work. Your disconnect with reality, I must say, is rather intriguing in a disgusting sort of way.
Because during the aborted revolt wherein so many of them died, they planned to replace one gang of autocratic religious leaders with another. Which would have been a tragic waste of the lives that were lost.
Pluralistic democracy is simply not in the psyche of the vast majority of Middle Eastern countries–the Iranians, for example, have never known it, educated and sophisticated as they are. The most they can grasp in terms of governmental reform, then, is replacing the old boss and hoping the new boss isn’t the same as the old boss.
I also don’t think a heavily Muslim country could possibly become a democracy. Islam micromanages daily life and does not tolerate dissent. Its values are antithetical to democracy. Nevertheless, the Iranian people seem to want an Islamic theocracy–which would seem to indicate that they don’t want democracy.
greenslime1951, your caricature of Iran’s political culture is not terribly convincing. They do have elections there, really. In point of fact, they had a secular democracy for a few years mid-century, which was overthrown by the USA and UK for imperialist reasons.
No, you are responding to something I didn’t say. I said that it was a right wing fantasy that Iran would nuke America, not that America would retaliate with nukes for such an attack.
A decade or two of systematic brutalization, slaughter and destruction by American occupiers would do that quite effectively.
Because they declined to roll over and play dead like we expected. We tried to reshape Iraq into a libertarian fantasy land, and tried to steal the oil & oil money; it just didn’t work.
The people who were slaughtered in our war of conquest and our occupation.
So, to summarize, a lengthy occupation will be necessary because of the animosity the Iranian people will feel towards us as a result of our lengthy occupation?
There was also a previous attempt at installing a democratic system at the beginning of the 20th century but the Russians and British would have none of it (they had agreed on how power should be shared between them in Iran).
As for them supporting wanting one gang rather than another, it’s not like they had much choice in the matter. All candidates had been preselected by the mullahs. They protested in favor of the “less worst”.
And regarding Muslims not having any inclination towards democracy, quite a lot of them died during the two last years trying to oust tyrans (including in Iran). Which is much more than any citizen of a western country can boast about. And amongst them, regardless of your beliefs, were many people who had ideals as progressist as your own.
ETA : This is in response to greenslime1951, not foolsguinea
Well, since Jerusalem is the second or third most holy cities in Islam, I doubt the **Islamic **Republic of Iran would nuke it.
If they nuke Tel Aviv, Israel would ‘parking lot’ every city in Iran, probably even if the Americans told them not to. To do otherwise would render its nuclear deterent useless. I would not be surprised if they struck other middle-eastern cities as well, to make themselves relatively less vulnerable.
If they nuke New York, then I would expect global condemnation, even from other Shariah-law nations. I think counter-force nuclear strikes on military bases and nuclear facilities would be hard to avoid, as the American people would be baying for blood. A conventional invasion would be launched to oversee regime change and forced-total laicite.
If they nuked an uninhabited Canadian island… Well, I’d expect an American immediate and unrestrained invasion of Iran. No nuclear weapons but carpet bombing urban positions and shelling mosques insurgents shelter in wouldn’t seem too harsh.
If they nuked Washington? I don’t know… Celebrate?
***Now here’s a new scenario. ***
What would happen if the Iranians obliterated Riyadh?
Now,
