Cactusboy Posted February 16, 2012 Author Share Posted February 16, 2012 Good f'ing grief... why is everything in absolutes?Do you dislike the absolutes of everyone on the board or just those of certain people? Honest answer.... some people I have given up on, so I don't expect much. But I do from Carlfense, his posts are usually high quality and well thought out. And we are more often than not in agreement, which is why I questioned him on a potential double standard. That's it... the entire story. Just wondered, because you seem to ignore those of some people and not others. Thanks for the clarification. I encourage you to point out examples of everyone's hypocrisy and uses of absolutes....or if that's too much work, just mine. Link to comment
Cactusboy Posted February 16, 2012 Author Share Posted February 16, 2012 Ok, Iran strikes first, Israel retaliates, then, would you support it? How about FMK for those 2 plus the US?? Now that's interesting.... Link to comment
walksalone Posted February 16, 2012 Share Posted February 16, 2012 Ok, Iran strikes first, Israel retaliates, then, would you support it? How about FMK for those 2 plus the US?? Now that's interesting.... Not what I'm asking Link to comment
Excel Posted February 16, 2012 Share Posted February 16, 2012 Ok, Iran strikes first, Israel retaliates, then, would you support it? Why do we have to support anything? If anything it's been a long perverted chain of international support that's put these two nations in their current predicament. 1 Link to comment
walksalone Posted February 16, 2012 Share Posted February 16, 2012 Ok, Iran strikes first, Israel retaliates, then, would you support it? Why do we have to support anything? If anything it's been a long perverted chain of international support that's put these two nations in their current predicament. I support neither. As long as they stick to conventional weapons, knock yourselves out. Link to comment
Excel Posted February 16, 2012 Share Posted February 16, 2012 Ok, Iran strikes first, Israel retaliates, then, would you support it? Why do we have to support anything? If anything it's been a long perverted chain of international support that's put these two nations in their current predicament. I support neither. As long as they stick to conventional weapons, knock yourselves out. Well you seem to be walking a certain path with that question. Let's imagine a few scenarios and you tell me how you'd like our country to respond to each, just to give you, and others a chance to flesh out their opinions. 1. Iran continues along its current policy trajectory not yet having produced the weapons it is alleged to be pursuing A. Israel launches an overt conventional strike on Irans nuclear facilities 1. Iran does not openly retaliate 2. Iran engages Israel with conventional weapons (small scale) 3. Iran engages Israel with conventional weapons (large scale) 4. Iran engages Israel with whatever unconventional weapons (read as 'WMDs') that it might have B. Israel continues its shadow war of covert operations aimed at diverting said trajectory C. Israel adopts a 'wait and see' policy with zero confrontation 2. Iran continues along its current policy trajectory eventually obtaining the weapons and regional delivery systems that it is allegedly pursuing. This being known by the global community with or without Irans admission A. Iran postures as if it were considering using such weapons, unprovoked against Israel. B. Iran postures...and attacks Israel conventionally C. Iran postures...and attacks Israel unconventionally D. Iran ceases the saber rattling and does nothing. 3. Iran caves to pressure and diverts from its current trajectory by either mothballing it's projects completely or relegating research to civil uses only, assured by international inspectors. Granted, there are many variations on those but I feel that, in a nut shell, is the menu of possibilities we are looking at... Link to comment
Excel Posted February 16, 2012 Share Posted February 16, 2012 Damn, typed from my tablet....formatting got all efd up...oh well Link to comment
walksalone Posted February 16, 2012 Share Posted February 16, 2012 Ok, Iran strikes first, Israel retaliates, then, would you support it? Why do we have to support anything? If anything it's been a long perverted chain of international support that's put these two nations in their current predicament. I support neither. As long as they stick to conventional weapons, knock yourselves out. Well you seem to be walking a certain path with that question. Let's imagine a few scenarios and you tell me how you'd like our country to respond to each, just to give you, and others a chance to flesh out their opinions. 1. Iran continues along its current policy trajectory not yet having produced the weapons it is alleged to be pursuing A. Israel launches an overt conventional strike on Irans nuclear facilities 1. Iran does not openly retaliate 2. Iran engages Israel with conventional weapons (small scale) 3. Iran engages Israel with conventional weapons (large scale) 4. Iran engages Israel with whatever unconventional weapons (read as 'WMDs') that it might have B. Israel continues its shadow war of covert operations aimed at diverting said trajectory C. Israel adopts a 'wait and see' policy with zero confrontation 2. Iran continues along its current policy trajectory eventually obtaining the weapons and regional delivery systems that it is allegedly pursuing. This being known by the global community with or without Irans admission A. Iran postures as if it were considering using such weapons, unprovoked against Israel. B. Iran postures...and attacks Israel conventionally C. Iran postures...and attacks Israel unconventionally D. Iran ceases the saber rattling and does nothing. 3. Iran caves to pressure and diverts from its current trajectory by either mothballing it's projects completely or relegating research to civil uses only, assured by international inspectors. Granted, there are many variations on those but I feel that, in a nut shell, is the menu of possibilities we are looking at... Don't use nukes, and it's not going to make much difference to me. When people start showing their "nuclear science fair projects" then I'll start caring. Link to comment
Sub-Husker Posted February 16, 2012 Share Posted February 16, 2012 This is more worrisome to me than a nation that may possibly be able to produce a handful of nukes at some point in the future... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samson_Option Link to comment
knapplc Posted February 16, 2012 Share Posted February 16, 2012 I'm more worried about a state known for exporting terrorism acquiring nuclear capabilities and giving that technology to groups who will use it against us. Link to comment
carlfense Posted February 16, 2012 Share Posted February 16, 2012 How exactly was my answer evasive? I gave my opinion about when a strike against Iran would be justified. You then tried to turn it into a question about when a strike by Iran would be justified. If I were an Iranian my answer would remain the same. Who decides what is or isn't a real threat? You? And who are our peaceful allies? You seem oddly indignant. Forget I asked you a question... you won't bother to answer anyway. I did answer. I'll bold it for you if that will help you find it. You asked: "So if it was proven that "Israel, the US, or another country" was going to strike Iran, that their pre-emptive strike would be justified?" That looks like you are asking when an Iranian attack on Israel or the US would be justified. If that is not what you meant please rephrase it so that I can address the point that you want answered. Link to comment
carlfense Posted February 16, 2012 Share Posted February 16, 2012 What? I'm definitely not in the Israel/US/etc. can do no wrong crowd but I'm also not in the Iran is totally innocent crowd. Good f'ing grief... why is everything in absolutes? What are you reading? My answer specifically states that there are NOT absolutes. US = not perfect. Iran = not perfect. Somehow you manage to infer from those statements that I am thinking in absolutes. I think that you might want to slow down. Maybe cool off a bit. In short, your conclusions aren't matching the facts. Link to comment
Sub-Husker Posted February 16, 2012 Share Posted February 16, 2012 I'm more worried about a state known for exporting terrorism acquiring nuclear capabilities and giving that technology to groups who will use it against us. If you read the link I provided above, that happened during the 70s. The Saudis have also shown an interest in acquiring a nuclear capability. Link to comment
Sub-Husker Posted February 16, 2012 Share Posted February 16, 2012 Another war in the middle east is exactly what we DON'T need. Judging by Obama's words and actions, he does not agree with you. What, specifically, are you referring to? Increasing ground troop levels surrounding Iran, more naval forces in seas around it, economic sanctions, and all the rhetoric. Link to comment
Sub-Husker Posted February 16, 2012 Share Posted February 16, 2012 I would only support it can be proven that Iran is going to strike Israel, the US, or another country. A true pre-emptive strike. Not one based only on vague platitudes and a nuclear weapons program that may or may not exist. So if it was proven that "Israel, the US, or another country" was going to strike Iran, that their pre-emptive strike would be justified? What? Do you think armed conflict is ever justified? If so, when? It sounds like you're going round and round. This was the post that I found evasive. And I did answer your question in post #393 in this thread. Link to comment
Recommended Posts