Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Htar

Now that Iran has enough enriched

88 posts in this topic

then what is the most powerful country in the world, since you seem determined to play semantics.

one could conceivably wipe out the entire world's economy and the entire ability of the united states to function VERY easily.

the other can send all of its troops anywhere in the world in 2 days, then accomplish nothing and get sucked into an unwinnable conflict against a bunch of poorly trained militia using decades old rifles and rocks to hide behind.

hasn't the past 7 years taught you that perhaps, just maybe, the american military isn't all it's cracked up to be? that it's designed for wars that will never happen again? that its nuclear arsenal means nothing because they can't be used?

are you just trying to rephrase this argument so that it sounds better in regards to the absurd omnipotent american hegemony that neoconservatives fap themselves over? Iran isn't powerful, it's dangerous. They're not smart, they're unpredictable. They don't hate us because we're a belligerent military presence within the reasons, it's because they hate our freedoms. Our religious leader is spiritual and principled, theirs are radical.

You like to throw around 50-cent words, but your argument doesn't add up to squat. America is the most powerful country in the world militarily and economically. Your argument is that Iran is because it could cripple our ability to import oil. Well has it occurred to you that we can cripple Iran's ability to do anything other than glow in the dark with a few well placed nukes?

The irony here is that obviously you are well educated. But you have turned on the very country that provided you the freedom to educate yourself and learn everything you have learned. What if Fiz grew up in Iran? Would he have access to anything that criticized his own government? Would he have the balls to seek it out, knowing what could happen to him if he got caught?

I don't understand you people who seem determined to play Devil's Advocate to the nth degree. What's in it for you?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well has it occurred to you that we can cripple Iran's ability to do anything other than glow in the dark with a few well placed nukes?

you really think america would use nukes ever again. really.

The irony here is that obviously you are well educated. But you have turned on the very country that provided you the freedom to educate yourself and learn everything you have learned.

um other countries have colleges you should look this up.

What if Fiz grew up in Iran? Would he have access to anything that criticized his own government?

considering there are students all over europe from iran i'd have to think....yes.

Would he have the balls to seek it out, knowing what could happen to him if he got caught?

what would happen to me if i got caught meat? find me all these articles you seemed to have read that iran is a 1984 style autocracy, that dissenters are taken off to reeducation camps, that no students are allowed out of the country.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

you really think america would use nukes ever again. really.

I hope not. Do you think Iran will choke off America's oil supply?

um other countries have colleges you should look this up.

considering there are students all over europe from iran i'd have to think....yes.

Clearly you are a master baiter.

what would happen to me if i got caught meat? find me all these articles you seemed to have read that iran is a 1984 style autocracy, that dissenters are taken off to reeducation camps, that no students are allowed out of the country.

See above.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I hope not. Do you think Iran will choke off America's oil supply?

nice dodge.

and if america or her middle eastern vassal state decide to attack or get too close to iranian interests, then yes i do think they would.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

nice dodge.

and if america or her middle eastern vassal state decide to attack or get too close to iranian interests, then yes i do think they would.

If a frog had wings it could fly. If the Panthers had stuck to the ground game vs. Arizona they'd be picking out Super Bowl rings. If is a pretty useful word if you like to argue, isn't it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is a huge difference between a standup conflict between two military forces, and a guerilla insurgency such as Iraq. In a standup conflict between the US Army and the Iraqi army, the US won, and won handily. It wasn't even close. Guerilla warfare works when a side tries to hold a particular piece of land. Thats not what we are talking about here. We are talking Naval and Air Warfare, which is what the US excels at.

Actually taking and holding Iran would be a very difficult and bloody operation. Well holding it would be anyway. But we wouldn't need to hold Iran to prevent them from eliminating traffic thru the straits of Hormuz.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

then here's your chance to prove me wrong. Show us all what you know.

See that's the whole issue with you Fiz... it's not that you come in the Tinderbox to argue your point, it's that you get personal with everything and pronounce in arrogance that you're right and that all the rest of us don't know as much as you about any of these issues. I'm not in here to prove you or anyone else wrong, and everything doesn't have to be an argument. All of your discussions seem intent on putting all the blame on the US for all the ills of the world. You throw around words like "facts" and then don't use them yourself such as when you said...

by any definition at all applied without any biases israel is a terrorist actor in the region. the people are trying right now to elect a party (likud) that likely committed war crimes.

Now I don't know about you, but "likely" doesn't tend to consitute a fact.

Then you said:

what he really was doing was quoting someone saying they would wipe out the israeli regime from the pages of history, which is quite f*cking different than "wipe israel off the map." Nagsheh, which means map, isn't even in what he said. you were lied to and it's your fault because you believed it.

which to me is pure semantics to argue that there is a difference between saying "wipe Israel off the map" and "wipe out Israel from the pages of history..." then accuse Meat of

playing semantics

This all started when I said:

:rofl: Do you really believe that Iran is pursuing nuclear technology only to "wean itself from a hyrdocarbon economy"?

I didn't mean that this may not be ONE of their reasons but rather that it wasn't the ONLY reason, but you said it like that was all they were doing and nothing else. Does Iran want to be a player in world politics and have their own nukes, absolutely if they can they would.

But the problem I have with you is more your attitude than anything. As Meat said, you're obviously an educated guy and believe strongly in what you're saying, and that's fine, but why have you got to be so arrogant about it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Iran wants to be respected, they are tired of being ignored. The best thing we can do is talk to them and convince them that the best way to become a global power is to lead by example. The Ayatollah is an intelligent man, he already understands this, he just wants to be treated with respect. They have absolutely nothing to gain by nuking anyone.

Ultimately, they want respect and regional power, neither of which can be gained by being the first example of the US policy of massive retaliation.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Iran wants to be respected, they are tired of being ignored. The best thing we can do is talk to them and convince them that the best way to become a global power is to lead by example. The Ayatollah is an intelligent man, he already understands this, he just wants to be treated with respect. They have absolutely nothing to gain by nuking anyone.

Ultimately, they want respect and regional power, neither of which can be gained by being the first example of the US policy of massive retaliation.

I agree with everything you said except for one thing. Replace "Iran" with "the majority of Iran, which unfortunately does not have control".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree with everything you said except for one thing. Replace "Iran" with "the majority of Iran, which unfortunately does not have control".

Neither does their president. He's a propaganda piece directed at the majority of the Muslim world. Keep that in mind.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites