Obama's Nuclear Iran

[hog88]

Don't you think we come at it from a rather hypocritical stance? Being the only nation to ever actually use them against another nation. Not once, but twice. To go along with our wars of aggression (Iraq) and other foreign policy blunders.

Be thankful we did use them and demonstrated their destructive power. It probably prevented their use since.

Russia, England, France, China, ext ext have all fought wars of aggression.

 

[DEFENDTHISHOUSE]

Just as a matter of asking for the sake of discussion, but what alternative did we have in WWII? The invasion of mainland Japan that would like have caused millions of casualties?

Of course, theres also the view that the Japanese was ready to surrender before hand. So no invasion would've been needed.

 

[hog88]

Just as a matter of asking for the sake of discussion, but what alternative did we have in WWII? The invasion of mainland Japan that would like have caused millions of casualties?

And the murder of most all of our POWs.

 

[volinbham]

Don't you think we come at it from a rather hypocritical stance? Being the only nation to ever actually use them against another nation. Not once, but twice. To go along with our wars of aggression (Iraq) and other foreign policy blunders.

Personally I think the hypocrisy card is over used across the board. All countries act (and should) in their current and future best interests; not their past histories.

Put another way, I think less nukes is a good thing; particularly when it's a country like Iran. If New Zealand was pursuing them I'd be less concerned.

I think there are limits to what we should do to stop it but I definitely think we should be trying to prevent it.

To the OP topic - we are doing a crap job of preventing it.

 

[hog88]

Of course, theres also the view that the Japanese was ready to surrender before hand. So no invasion would've been needed.

That view is incorrect.

 

[DEFENDTHISHOUSE]

That view is incorrect.

Or doesn't fit the narrative?

 

[Rasputin_Vol]

Travel more would be my suggestion. You'll find that you are mistaken.

My experiences outside the US have actually been quite pleasant and the majority of people around the world are polite and just want to make an honest days wage on an honest days work. But none of us are there to know about the conversations they have amongst themselves when we are not around. The only hint most of us get of these conversations is through social media and international news sites.

 

[lawgator1]

Any rational person cringes at the notion of Iran having a nuclear weapon.

The question is, how does one go about preventing that?

Putting aside whatever clandestine activities in which we are engaged to that end, we can either give Israel the green light to bomb them, which would temporarily slow them down, but basically guarantee an accelerated effort, not to mention risk WW III. Or, we can continue with sanctions and the diplomatic effort, in hopes that, if nothing else, it buys us time for either the clandestine effort to succeed or we can get to a point where the risk of military action does not so enormously outweigh the only temporary benefit it would achieve.

There is risk to both. But it seems to me to be pretty clear that the Israel bombing them option is guaranteed to fail in the long term, and quite likely generate a terrible regional if not broader war with horrific consequences for millions if not billions of people.

 

[VolsNSkinsFan]

Of course, theres also the view that the Japanese was ready to surrender before hand. So no invasion would've been needed.

So why did it take 2 bombs to be dropped for them to surrender?

 

[DEFENDTHISHOUSE]

So why did it take 2 bombs to be dropped for them to surrender?

You'll have to ask Truman about that. Some say it was a message to the Russians.

 

[Vol8188]

lol

IRIB PERSIAN NEWS PAGE



Ahmadinejad says Israel will disappear | Reuters



Care to revise your comments?

Odd, the Prime Minister of Israel agrees with me.

Israeli Minister Agrees Ahmadinejad Never Said Israel

 

[hog88]

Or doesn't fit the narrative?

It is the hard truth. Japan wasn't going to surrender. Yes, they made overtures to a conditional peace agreement but no surrender.

 

[VolsNSkinsFan]

You'll have to ask Truman about that. Some say it was a message to the Russians.

If you think they were about surrender, why didn't they after the 1st bomb?

 

[Grand Vol]

Of course, theres also the view that the Japanese was ready to surrender before hand. So no invasion would've been needed.

Actually, the Japanese, specifically Hirohito, stated they would not surrender. It was only after the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki that they decided it wasn't worth fighting any longer.

But the fire bombing of Tokyo was actually more destructive than both of the atomic bombings.

 

[DEFENDTHISHOUSE]

The Bomb Didn’t Beat Japan… Stalin Did | Foreign Policy

 

[Grand Vol]

Odd, the Prime Minister of Israel agrees with me.

Israeli Minister Agrees Ahmadinejad Never Said Israel

Actually, that's not the Prime Minister. From your link:

In response, Mr. Meridor said that Mr. Ahmadinejad and Iran’s ruling cleric, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, had said repeatedly “that Israel is an unnatural creature, it will not survive. They didn’t say, ‘We’ll wipe it out,’ you’re right, but, ‘It will not survive.’ ”

Which can be taken as threatening in context. Especially with a nation that abhors Israel like Iran does.

 

[Grand Vol]

The Bomb Didn’t Beat Japan… Stalin Did | Foreign Policy

Opinion piece with a very anti-nuclear slant. But I would agree the Soviet entry in the Asia-Pacific Theater certainly was a factor in the decision to surrender.

Japan was defeated. And the atomic bombings were what convinced them it was over.

 

[Grand Vol]

Any rational person cringes at the notion of Iran having a nuclear weapon.

The question is, how does one go about preventing that?

Putting aside whatever clandestine activities in which we are engaged to that end, we can either give Israel the green light to bomb them, which would temporarily slow them down, but basically guarantee an accelerated effort, not to mention risk WW III. Or, we can continue with sanctions and the diplomatic effort, in hopes that, if nothing else, it buys us time for either the clandestine effort to succeed or we can get to a point where the risk of military action does not so enormously outweigh the only temporary benefit it would achieve.

There is risk to both. But it seems to me to be pretty clear that the Israel bombing them option is guaranteed to fail in the long term, and quite likely generate a terrible regional if not broader war with horrific consequences for millions if not billions of people.

I...agree. (that doesn't sound right)

 

[Vol8188]

I don't think this is going to go over very well with the Russians. We're either engaged in warfare(Syria) or sanctioning(Iran) their allies in the Middle East.

The US has lost credibility throughout the world..

It's went over well with them multiple times in the past. We've both dramatically decreased our stockpiles.

 

[Vol8188]

Actually, that's not the Prime Minister. From your link:



Which can be taken as threatening in context. Especially with a nation that abhors Israel like Iran does.

He was specifically talking about economics and said they would go the way of the Soviet Union. Theres nothing hostile about that. Just people looking for a story where none exists.

 

[Grand Vol]

He was specifically talking about economics and said they would go the way of the Soviet Union. Theres nothing hostile about that. Just people looking for a story where none exists.

Have you ever seen the original speech given by Khomeni?

Before you get all huggy and kissy with the Iranians, you might want to see exactly what President A-Bad is quoting.

 

[FLVOL69]

Have you ever seen the original speech given by Khomeni?

Before you get all huggy and kissy with the Iranians, you might want to see exactly what President A-Bad is quoting.

This^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

 

[Carl Pickens]

What if Iran only wants nuclear weapons as a defensive measure? Kind of a mutually assured destruction thing. Is that not acceptable?

It's like giving a psychotic a pistol as long as they agree it's only for defensive purposes .......

 

[Carl Pickens]

Any rational person cringes at the notion of Iran having a nuclear weapon.

The question is, how does one go about preventing that?

Putting aside whatever clandestine activities in which we are engaged to that end, we can either give Israel the green light to bomb them, which would temporarily slow them down, but basically guarantee an accelerated effort, not to mention risk WW III. Or, we can continue with sanctions and the diplomatic effort, in hopes that, if nothing else, it buys us time for either the clandestine effort to succeed or we can get to a point where the risk of military action does not so enormously outweigh the only temporary benefit it would achieve.

There is risk to both. But it seems to me to be pretty clear that the Israel bombing them option is guaranteed to fail in the long term, and quite likely generate a terrible regional if not broader war with horrific consequences for millions if not billions of people.

LG all jabbing aside..... This may be your best post ever.

 

[Carl Pickens]

Of course, theres also the view that the Japanese was ready to surrender before hand. So no invasion would've been needed.

But they weren't ......so whatever