- Joined
- Oct 22, 2010
- Messages
- 21,611
Had the audacity to overthrow the tyrannous monarchy, you know the ones the Yanks had forcefully propelled to power after they overthrew the democratically elected government of Iran in 1952.What did Iran ever do to them exactly? What's with the hate?
I don't think US had enough information to not think they would not surrender from the 6th to 9th of August. I would like to see facts, not from west sources about the no japanese surrender. Also, targeting civilians killing 150.000 and cursing the next 2 generations could be avoided targeting military or showing off in a none populated area. That if you ever caredNone of the historical documentation or direct accounts support your argument. I’m a big critic of US foreign policy over the last 50 years or so, but this narrative you’re espousing isn’t factual.
If I ever cared? Interesting that you want to make this personal all of a sudden. Should I ask if you care about the tens of thousands of prisoners who the Japanese were holding with orders to execute them if they had to retreat? Or the hundreds of thousands if not millions of lives an invasion would have cost?I don't think US had enough information to not think they would not surrender from the 6th to 9th of August. I would like to see facts, not from west sources about the no japanese surrender. Also, targeting civilians killing 150.000 and cursing the next 2 generations could be avoided targeting military or showing off in a none populated area. That if you ever cared
If the US ever cared, of course. I don't know why I typed you. Sorry about thatIf I ever cared? Interesting that you want to make this personal all of a sudden. Should I ask if you care about the tens of thousands of prisoners who the Japanese were holding with orders to execute them if they had to retreat? Or the hundreds of thousands if not millions of lives an invasion would have cost?
No problem.If the US ever cared, of course. I don't know why I typed you. Sorry about that
I am afraid you're totally wrong here. Even after Nagasaki a lot of Japanese leaders didn't want to surrender, in fact there was a coup d'etat attempt in the Emperor when he decided to surrender. A lot of people wanted to die be it on war or suicide more than to surrender.Japan was alone in the war near to surrender, After Hiroshima that killed +100.000 civilians, surrender was a fact and then decided to bomb nagasaki +50.000 more civilians. The only ones that find debatable is the ones that feel guilty/support that only US should have nukes.
Completely sure? I am about nothing. Nobody has direct line in the WH here. Just reading the people that are close to him and republicans opinions about Iran. US Experts on the JCPOA says that Iran is complying the most strict surveillance and dismantling program ever from the international community inside a sovereign country and Trump pulls out? I don't know if he/them has/have an agenda, but certainly there was no reason for the US to pull out, specially when his allies still in and they support the JCPOA. Us broke not only the US trust but the western international community. Iran will not trust the west again
Not just US, but honestly I'd be wary of certain countries even having nukes as 'deterrent' and Iran (and most ME countries, to day) is one of them. Cold War was a stalemate because of MAD (mutually assured destruction) which neither camp wanted. Not the case, if this falls into hands of hardcore Jihadis. They would be happy to trigger a MAD war as long as they get their place in heaven.And to stop the japanese derail, why I cared to bring it up, is the hypocrisy of the US of not allowing other nations to have them as a deterrent when they used it as a deterrent itself as you say., because of the POW, more deaths in an eventual invasion, etc... Why other nations can't think about this tool for the same outcome? Because they are the bad guys, right? but the only ones messing historically with Iran had been the US, the good guys. The good guys that wants to control an area at 10.000 km from home just because the Carter doctrine
The Islamic Republic of Pakistan has had nukes for 20 years.Not just US, but honestly I'd be wary of certain countries even having nukes as 'deterrent' and Iran (and most ME countries, to day) is one of them. Cold War was a stalemate because of MAD (mutually assured destruction) which neither camp wanted. Not the case, if this falls into hands of hardcore Jihadis. They would be happy to trigger a MAD war as long as they get their place in heaven.
So you think its a bad idea that messianic fanatics get their hands on nukes ?Not just US, but honestly I'd be wary of certain countries even having nukes as 'deterrent' and Iran (and most ME countries, to day) is one of them. Cold War was a stalemate because of MAD (mutually assured destruction) which neither camp wanted. Not the case, if this falls into hands of hardcore Jihadis. They would be happy to trigger a MAD war as long as they get their place in heaven.
To support a Saudi/Israel backed ethnic cleansing of the region? Can imagine some republicans salivating at the thought.What has the US done exactly in Syria? The missile strike was a miniscule affair in the grand scheme of things.
Also, why would the US invade Iran? What's the logic behind it?
You make it sound like get hands on a nuke and fire a missile is like throwing a grenade. Anyway, the only ones using them were the "good guys". All the new hatred towards the west is not because of a whim, is because the west had been poking and trying to control the area for their benefit. So if the west does not want that countries to have nukes is because they don't want to be attack as a retaliation of their wrong doing. Of course you will feel relieved to not being attack but the countries that your country is messing around with, but it doesn't sound fairNot just US, but honestly I'd be wary of certain countries even having nukes as 'deterrent' and Iran (and most ME countries, to day) is one of them. Cold War was a stalemate because of MAD (mutually assured destruction) which neither camp wanted. Not the case, if this falls into hands of hardcore Jihadis. They would be happy to trigger a MAD war as long as they get their place in heaven.
As I said even if the japanese didn't want to surrender, they didn't even try to make a warning in a none or less populated areaI am afraid you're totally wrong here. Even after Nagasaki a lot of Japanese leaders didn't want to surrender, in fact there was a coup d'etat attempt in the Emperor when he decided to surrender. A lot of people wanted to die be it on war or suicide more than to surrender.
As tragic as nuking Japan was, the entire evidence suggests that I'm both death tolls and economical/infrastructural damage it was by far the least of bad options.
Japanese people committing genocide on the region in addition to USSR preparing an invasion, obviously played a significant role in Truman's decision.
Trump must have reason....there’s something you don’t see every dayI'm saying it's debatable whether they should have used them not if they used them, seriously?
So like I'm saying, Trump must have reason to think Obamas deal isn't working. How do we know for sure these experts don't have an agenda? Not saying they do but how can you be completely sure?
Iran apparently just attacked Israel, so hold onto your hatJust waiting for a major terrorist attack to happen and conveniently get blamed on Iranians...#tinfoilhat
Japan were going to fight until the end from what I've read. The US and it's allies didn't want to invade Japan, it would have cost hundreds of thousands of allied deaths and God knows how many more years of war. And if they did invade, then you have to tell the families of these dead troops..."by the way we created this bomb that would have ended the war years ago but did not use it"...it's a massively debatable issue.Japan was alone in the war near to surrender, After Hiroshima that killed +100.000 civilians, surrender was a fact and then decided to bomb nagasaki +50.000 more civilians. The only ones that find debatable is the ones that feel guilty/support that only US should have nukes.
Completely sure? I am about nothing. Nobody has direct line in the WH here. Just reading the people that are close to him and republicans opinions about Iran. US Experts on the JCPOA says that Iran is complying the most strict surveillance and dismantling program ever from the international community inside a sovereign country and Trump pulls out? I don't know if he/them has/have an agenda, but certainly there was no reason for the US to pull out, specially when his allies still in and they support the JCPOA. Us broke not only the US trust but the western international community. Iran will not trust the west again
Which ones ?Japan were going to fight until the end from what I've read. The US and it's allies didn't want to invade Japan, it would have cost hundreds of thousands of allied deaths and God knows how many more years of war. And if they did invade, then you have to tell the families of these dead troops..."by the way we created this bomb that would have ended the war years ago but did not use it"...it's a massively debatable issue.
Iran won't trust the west?? Iran have allegedly violated dozens upon dozens of agreements, treaty and conventions so are hardly the most trusted themselves.
Iran is US and Israel's biggest pain in the arse in the Middle East. They will definitely be bombed, it is just a matter of time. This is exactly the reason why they need the nukes in the first place. Israel have nukes, they are not a member of IAEA, and quite honestly do not give a flying feck about what the rest of the world thinks of their actions. Iran can't afford the same, however, they are under a threat of next "democratization and liberation from the evil government". Extremely tense situation in the Middle East. We sometimes forget that we have only one planet to live and share.Mind blown re: North Korea, never considered that, at all.
I' not sure the same threat poses Iran as did Libya, do you think Trump would try to overthrow Irans government if they completely stopped producing the capability for nuclear weaponry?
Shut up with your reasonable argument, logic does not apply here! Didn't you get the memo? the Iranian don't care about mutual destruction, they're Muslims, they know they'll have their places in heaven, so they don't care about dying.The Islamic Republic of Pakistan has had nukes for 20 years.
It's not debatable at all, if it is, why don't we just nuke the part of Syria where ISIS is? We know that they aren't surrendering. Why not just exterminate them?Japan were going to fight until the end from what I've read. The US and it's allies didn't want to invade Japan, it would have cost hundreds of thousands of allied deaths and God knows how many more years of war. And if they did invade, then you have to tell the families of these dead troops..."by the way we created this bomb that would have ended the war years ago but did not use it"...it's a massively debatable issue.
Iran won't trust the west?? Iran have allegedly violated dozens upon dozens of agreements, treaty and conventions so are hardly the most trusted themselves.
From a source titled ‘united against nuclear Iran’, nice bit of objectivity that.
This is where the Iranians went wrong. Had they bought the bomb from us when we were selling, they'd be safe today. America doesn't bomb countries who can cause it an unacceptable amount of damage. Libya also ratted us out, look at the state of it today. N.Korea bought the bomb and developed long range missiles - for all the big talk, not a single bullet has been fired at them.The Islamic Republic of Pakistan has had nukes for 20 years.
Religiously yes, it's mostly Shi'i, but ethnically it's extremely diverse. Persians are only about 50% of the population, and there have historically been separatist impulses held within the Azeri, Kurdish, Arab and Baluchi populations.Firstly it's a country where most people have the same religion and ethnicity
That's one other country I'm wary about...considering their proven history of proliferation.The Islamic Republic of Pakistan has had nukes for 20 years.
Don't you?So you think its a bad idea that messianic fanatics get their hands on nukes ?
It's not some 'guys' doing this. If you have the entire government and vast amounts of funds being made available, it's not that difficult anyway. The proliferation from Pakistan to Iran is not really a secret anyway. I'd assume they are already more advanced in nuclear tech than any of us believe.You make it sound like get hands on a nuke and fire a missile is like throwing a grenade. Anyway, the only ones using them were the "good guys". All the new hatred towards the west is not because of a whim, is because the west had been poking and trying to control the area for their benefit. So if the west does not want that countries to have nukes is because they don't want to be attack as a retaliation of their wrong doing. Of course you will feel relieved to not being attack but the countries that your country is messing around with, but it doesn't sound fair
If your going to consider that, then Cornwall wants independence and so does that bloke who bought an old oil rig in the North sea. They have some baloch problems over the years and the Kurds want out everywhere, but overall I think the Iranians have kept a very tight lid on things. It's no Iraq/Libya etc. It's borders are quite natural.Religiously yes, it's mostly Shi'i, but ethnically it's extremely diverse. Persians are only about 50% of the population, and there have historically been separatist impulses held within the Azeri, Kurdish, Arab and Baluchi populations.
It is debatable, we are debating it right now. I' personally not for nuclear war but understand why the US did what it did in WW2.It's not debatable at all, if it is, why don't we just nuke the part of Syria where ISIS is? We know that they aren't surrendering. Why not just exterminate them?
And the whataboutism is hardly a counter argument to what he is saying, let alone a good one. The only sources that say Iran violated the deal are either Israeli sources, or US ones (based on Israeli reports). Those are hardly credible sources.
Now, why would you believe those sources, that have a conflict of interest in the situation, over other objective sources?
I think it's a terrible idea, but it's too late to worry about what if's. The US government is full of such fanatics and it has the most nukes in the world.So you think its a bad idea that messianic fanatics get their hands on nukes ?
Getting into a conflict with no proven sources will be a repeat of Iraq/WMDs. Will only lead to disaster.Who are the entirely impartial and unobjective sources?? Can you be completely sure they are as unobjective as you say?
There are no justifications for nukes. None.I' personally not for nuclear war but understand why the US did what it did in WW2.
Obviously it is not impartial but I didn't say it was. It seems well researched and sourced to me.From a source titled ‘united against nuclear Iran’, nice bit of objectivity that.
US, European and even Mossad intelligence have admitted that Iran is probably obliging with the deal. Trump only decided to rip the whole thing up because of a Netanyahu PowerPoint and his hard on for reversing Obamas legacy.
I agree in relation to the Azeris, who being not only Shi'i but also very much historically involved in the making of modern Iran, are much better integrated (I believe Khaminei himself is an Azeri). The other three groups, especially the Kurds, present much more tempting paths by which a foreign power may attempt to undermine the integrity of Iran.If your going to consider that, then Cornwall wants independence and so does that bloke who bought an old oil rig in the North sea
I agree with you.Getting into a conflict with no proven sources will be a repeat of Iraq/WMDs. Will only lead to disaster.
There are no justifications for nukes. None.
Unless there is an alien spaceship attacking Earth.
That was actually strongly debated at the time. The problem was that they didn’t have spare nukes, the couple they had had just been made and had to be transported out there. If they had tested in an empty area and it hadn’t had any positive response (which it wouldn’t have, given that the Japanese didn’t immediately surrender after Hiroshima) then they’d have been left with a single bomb left and no guarantee that it would even make it to its target. You have to remember that thousands of allied servicemen were dying each day, and vast numbers of POWs were at risk of imminent execution at any moment. This wasn’t a thoughtless act, it was something fiercely debated and only decided upon when they decided they had to better option.As I said even if the japanese didn't want to surrender, they didn't even try to make a warning in a none or less populated area