Iranian President to US: Just apologize and we're cool.

[Jludo]

Seriously? Having one LESS enemy will make the world less peaceful. Once again you demonstrate your skill at using completely irrelevant arguments. That just doesn't even make sense.

As for the others, my guess is that at minimum, the threat of being eliminated from the face of the planet, just as they profess the intent and then engage in the actions to do to others, would lead them to stop and consider their actions. As another member is fond of point out, Mohammed was a pragmatic individual. I have noticed that this trait has been passed down pretty reliably, at least to the extent that they only engage in hostilities when they have a pretty solid chance of success. Demonstrate that this chance doesn't exist, and they will knock it off. As it is, they know that we won't do anything, and if we do, it will be more focused on the financial gain of the contractors and suppliers than on actually solving the problem (i.e., liquidating the problem hostile forces).



Let's see...

3. I suppose we could simply start accepting terror attacks as a way of life, let it go unfettered, and just accept the notion that so many people a year will die from it, just like disease, accidents, lightening strikes, and so forth. Of course, if we aren't going to use our military to provide safety from foreign threats, preferably before they strike on our soil, we might as well eliminate the military.

4. You are going to concede the economic damage done through counterfeiting but not the economic damage done through driving energy costs through the roof? Do you own a lot of green energy stock?

6. I will grant you that invading Iraq was not the best plan, but that doesn't excuse Iran for jumping in or for stealing our drone, covering point 5.

7. Seriously? The Kenyan just negotiated a deal essentially handing Iran nuclear weapons that they have made it abundantly clear that they intend to use on others which would include us, and you don't consider that worth worrying about? Do you have some type of magical defense over yourself and your home which makes you impervious to nuclear attack? Maybe a bunker somewhere in North Dakota, Wyoming, or Montana?

Last but not least, are you willing to simply absorb the damage from terrorism while we start waiting for the rest of the world to start sharing the wealth? I don't know about you, but deliberately choosing to be an undefended target just doesn't sound very appealing to me.

If you're scared of terrorism nuke Saudi Arabia. 911 wasn't funded by iran.

 

[IndyDave1776]

I thought this was a tongue in cheek thought experiment, but you're actually trying to make a case for a nuclear first strike on a country that poses no direct military threat?

Some of both. I am not really thinking that a nuclear first strike is such a great idea, but in this case some direct attention preferably resulting in the removal of the theocrats who are hell-bent on liquidating infidels is an excellent idea. As it is, we could likely do that with far less trouble than we had with Iraq assuming that we addressed it with getting the job done as the priority rather than making money for Halliburton being the priority.

Now, how the hell do you get the idea that Iran poses no direct military threat? Especially after they capitalize on their new freedom to pursue nuclear weapons without meaningful interference and a hell of a lot of money all of a sudden for the purpose? It leads me to suppose that you are in denial.

 

[IndyDave1776]

If you're scared of terrorism nuke Saudi Arabia. 911 wasn't funded by iran.

You are treating this as if we are limited to dealing with one problem or the other. Why?

 

[Jludo]

I'm betting there are plenty of soldiers missing limbs that might not agree with you .

Irans a threat to attack the United States?

 

[Jludo]

You are treating this as if we are limited to dealing with one problem or the other. Why?

I'm just pointing out the terrorists you're scared of aren't being funded by iran so nuking iran doesn't fix that boogie man.

 

[IndyDave1776]

I'm just pointing out the terrorists you're scared of aren't being funded by iran so nuking iran doesn't fix that boogie man.

Who said anything about being scared per se? Dealing with Iran won't eliminate terrorism, but it will eliminate some terrorists. Your argument is like saying, "I can't pay off all my debts this week, so I should just stop paying bills." The overall problem is solved by eliminating one part of it at a time. Iran represents a significant part of that problem, and a problem that we would NOT have had it not been for another president who was thoroughly incapable of maintaining a workable foreign policy in the same way that Obama is not.

Your 'boogie man' reference would appear to be an effort to dismiss an issue that your position cannot resolve. The fact that the 9/11 terrorists relied on Saudi-sourced support does not negate the fact that terrorists using Iranian-sourced support including but not limited to the Iranian government itself have declared the intent to engage in whatever hostilities it can manage and have left us with no reasonable justification for dismissing their declaration of such intent. I would consider this analogous with arguing that since your house was burglarized by a white burglar, black criminals are not dangerous to you--as opposed to the realization that all criminals are, by nature, dangerous, as are all sponsors of terrorism and all terrorists.

 

[2ADMNLOVER]

Irans a threat to attack the United States?

They are definitely a threat to our soldiers operating in the area .

 

[Lowe0]

Seriously? Having one LESS enemy will make the world less peaceful. Once again you demonstrate your skill at using completely irrelevant arguments. That just doesn't even make sense.

As for the others, my guess is that at minimum, the threat of being eliminated from the face of the planet, just as they profess the intent and then engage in the actions to do to others, would lead them to stop and consider their actions. As another member is fond of point out, Mohammed was a pragmatic individual. I have noticed that this trait has been passed down pretty reliably, at least to the extent that they only engage in hostilities when they have a pretty solid chance of success. Demonstrate that this chance doesn't exist, and they will knock it off. As it is, they know that we won't do anything, and if we do, it will be more focused on the financial gain of the contractors and suppliers than on actually solving the problem (i.e., liquidating the problem hostile forces).



Let's see...

3. I suppose we could simply start accepting terror attacks as a way of life, let it go unfettered, and just accept the notion that so many people a year will die from it, just like disease, accidents, lightening strikes, and so forth. Of course, if we aren't going to use our military to provide safety from foreign threats, preferably before they strike on our soil, we might as well eliminate the military.

4. You are going to concede the economic damage done through counterfeiting but not the economic damage done through driving energy costs through the roof? Do you own a lot of green energy stock?

6. I will grant you that invading Iraq was not the best plan, but that doesn't excuse Iran for jumping in or for stealing our drone, covering point 5.

7. Seriously? The Kenyan just negotiated a deal essentially handing Iran nuclear weapons that they have made it abundantly clear that they intend to use on others which would include us, and you don't consider that worth worrying about? Do you have some type of magical defense over yourself and your home which makes you impervious to nuclear attack? Maybe a bunker somewhere in North Dakota, Wyoming, or Montana?

Last but not least, are you willing to simply absorb the damage from terrorism while we start waiting for the rest of the world to start sharing the wealth? I don't know about you, but deliberately choosing to be an undefended target just doesn't sound very appealing to me.

3. We already accept plenty of things as inevitable. Traffic accidents, the occasional spree shooter, etc.. What's one more?

4. Wouldn't we be better off spending our money here, using tracking as a stepping stone to our own renewable energy, instead of pumping cash into an unstable region.

5. Who cares? The drone's gone. No further benefit to be had.

7. What Kenyan?

 

[Jludo]

They are definitely a threat to our soldiers operating in the area .

I can think of a solution for that.

 

[Jludo]

Who said anything about being scared per se? Dealing with Iran won't eliminate terrorism, but it will eliminate some terrorists. Your argument is like saying, "I can't pay off all my debts this week, so I should just stop paying bills." The overall problem is solved by eliminating one part of it at a time. Iran represents a significant part of that problem, and a problem that we would NOT have had it not been for another president who was thoroughly incapable of maintaining a workable foreign policy in the same way that Obama is not.

Your 'boogie man' reference would appear to be an effort to dismiss an issue that your position cannot resolve. The fact that the 9/11 terrorists relied on Saudi-sourced support does not negate the fact that terrorists using Iranian-sourced support including but not limited to the Iranian government itself have declared the intent to engage in whatever hostilities it can manage and have left us with no reasonable justification for dismissing their declaration of such intent. I would consider this analogous with arguing that since your house was burglarized by a white burglar, black criminals are not dangerous to you--as opposed to the realization that all criminals are, by nature, dangerous, as are all sponsors of terrorism and all terrorists.

Which Iranian backed terrorists pose a threat to you and I? Isil? Al Qaeda?

 

[2ADMNLOVER]

I can think of a solution for that.

Just shooting in the dark here but I'm guessing we'd probably agree on that solution .

I'm just sayin the megaton solution would be waay more fun .

 

[Jludo]

Just shooting in the dark here but I'm guessing we'd probably agree on that solution .

I'm just sayin the megaton solution would be waay more fun .

Once again I'm assuming tongue in cheek

 

[2ADMNLOVER]

Once again I'm assuming tongue in cheek

Yeah I don't use purple I figure everybody gets it .

 

[Jludo]

Yeah I don't use purple I figure everybody gets it .

I was getting it until I started to see some impassioned cases being made for it then I thought maybe I was giving my fellow INGO ers too much credit ha

 

[oldpink]

Do the right thing?

 

[Kutnupe14]

When they apologize for holding our folks hostage for years AND holding US flag burning rallies about it then we should think about it , until then I think a few megatons of "apology" should probably do it .

I'm not exactly sure why they should apologize for either.

 

[2ADMNLOVER]

I was getting it until I started to see some impassioned cases being made for it then I thought maybe I was giving my fellow INGO ers too much credit ha

I don't think a first strike would be the thing to do but something needs to be done about them .

Maybe we just pack up all of our toys and chalk it up to a "teachable moment" and let them sort it out .

 

[2ADMNLOVER]

I'm not exactly sure why they should apologize for either.

What ? If I held your loved ones hostage and held commemorative flag burnings to celebrate it , would you feel differently ?

 

[Kutnupe14]

Since we are taking this seriously, I would point out that, first, this does not actually cost us that by virtue of the fact that the money has long since been spend and we are not obligated to nor do we need to replace that bomb. After all, you only need enough of them to destroy the planet so many times over anyway.

Second, when you consider the damage to any system of currency that counterfeiting does, and that the Iranian national mint jockeys for position with the North Korean national mint with first and second places alternating for the world's leading counterfeiter of US currency, my guess is that Iran does more than $1.8M per year worth of damage to our economy with printing presses.

Third, I would venture to say that we spend more than $1.8M per year dealing with state-sponsored terrorism of which Iran is the sponsor.

Fourth, we have a constant threat of interference with the world oil market by way of shenanigans with the Strait of Hormuz. I would imagine that we spend more than $1.8M per year preventing this problem from manifesting.

Fifth, the drone that Iran hijacked cost a hell of a lot more than $1.8M.

Sixth, Iran caused more than $1.8M in additional damage and expense through its activities against our troops in Iraq, including but not limited to supplying munitions to people engaged in hostilities against our troops.

Seventh, and certainly not least, Iran has been very true to its word regarding the hostilities in which it would engage when afforded the opportunity, and has plainly declared its intention to eliminate Israel from the face of the planet, and has been very clear in holding us in the same regard. Apparently, Israel gets first priority by virtue of geographic proximity, but lighting up people who have made it clear that they intend to light us up the first chance they get would seem to come with its own reasonable argument.

Just so I'm clear, you think nuking Iran is a good idea, and would make the world safer? Might I ask what criteria you have in determining when it is acceptable to employ nuclear weapons on another nation?.......since we're taking this serious and all.

 

[KG1]

I think this apology proposal is something that the Obama administration might seriously consider.