Thread: Ahmadinejawhackjob Wants To Share Nukes With Middle East

Originally Posted by stroller

No, waiting for a comment from you which recognises what I posted, did not say, and allows me to engage in a meaningful way.

What? You need to be spoon fed? Think for yourself and defend yourself or be called a coward.

You are an aggressive poster who doesn't like to read before responding.

I will "defend" myself when and if (and chances are getting slimmer) you come up with some reasoned argument based on my comments or presented facts, rather than ramblings and attacks on what you wish my position was.

^ Ok, let's take it slow and easy, and take deep breaths. I don't want to incite anybody here.

1. do you support Iranian appeasement?

2. If so, do you support that appeasement leading to Iranian domination of the middle east.

3. If Iran ends up dominating the middle east, do you think Iranian domination is a good thing, for whatever reason.

Fair enough?

No need to be condescending.

1. I believe the situation can be resolved without going to war and attacking Iran, though the possibility needs to be considered. No more unilateral invasions by the US or anyone else. No attacks if there is any doubt about the necessity or feasability.
2. and 3. No.

I also respect other opinions, i.e. Iran have a right to develop nuclear power for peaceful purposes, which personally I'd rather not see because of the possibility of misuse, and the opinion that Iran has a right to develop nukes to fend off the US and Israel, though again, I personally don't support this because of the possible consequences.

The one taking this off-topic is you, keda. See posts #226, #227, #243,#244 and last (I hope) #255

Continue in the critique thread.

Originally Posted by chinthee

Glad to see you back Stroller. Ok, how long do you give Iran on appeasement channel? How many excuses do you accept. How close to the edge do you take it?

As long as it takes. I am thinking of the precedence in Iraq, where the stakes were raised through propaganda and the co-alition invaded, against the disapproval of many, including UN weapons inspectors.
We must not let this scenario repeat itself.

Originally Posted by chinthee

How close to the edge do you take it?

That is a good question I cannot answer. As I said, all possibilities need to be explored, but I certainly don't jump in excitement about the remarks of the French guy, and it wasn't an announcement of readiness to go ahead at all.

^ "As long as it takes" usually means as long as it takes for Iran to become a nuclear threat. Appeasement by any other name is just appeasement. Again, Neville Chamberlain.

Sorry, history won't repeat itself this time.

Originally Posted by chinthee

Sorry, history won't repeat itself this time.

That's right, because it's not comparable - apples and oranges.

Originally Posted by stroller

Originally Posted by chinthee

Sorry, history won't repeat itself this time.

That's right, because it's not comparable - apples and oranges.

Nobody wants this war. Nobody in America. Nobody in Europe, Nobody worldwide.

Iran only has to make small concessions to avoid conflict, and they won't do it because they're stubborn.

They will fall under the sword if they so choose.

Originally Posted by chinthee

Originally Posted by stroller

Originally Posted by chinthee

Sorry, history won't repeat itself this time.

That's right, because it's not comparable - apples and oranges.

Nobody wants this war. Nobody in America. Nobody in Europe, Nobody worldwide.

Iran only has to make small concessions to avoid conflict, and they won't do it because they're stubborn.

They will fall under the sword if they so choose.

Not true. Many people want war. I guess you meant no civilised person wants war, but there are hundreds of millions that would just love to have the US embroiled on another front.

Iran might make small concessions, but these would be done for reasons of diplomacy and each will cost the US, yes the US not the wimps in Europe, the proverbial arm and a leg, and even so they would be neither binding nor irrevocable, since we know they are not to be trusted.

The important thing for Iran, is not to start a war but to prod others into doing so.

Originally Posted by keda

Not true. Many people want war.

That's right, just got to read some right-wing blogs hosted in the US to verify this.

Originally Posted by keda

The important thing for Iran, is not to start a war but to prod others into doing so.

Maybe, and the situation is a quagrime, I don't see any solution, what would the consequences of a war be?

Originally Posted by stroller

Originally Posted by keda

Not true. Many people want war.

That's right, just got to read some right-wing blogs hosted in the US to verify this.

Originally Posted by keda

The important thing for Iran, is not to start a war but to prod others into doing so.

Maybe, and the situation is a quagrime, I don't see any solution, what would the consequences of a war be?

Stroller, you don't understand. The consequences of a war is that the US consolidates even more power and more wealth. I'm sure you don't want that.

Therefore, we should all be wishing that Iran would back off its unreasonable position.

I would think there are more, and more important reasons than the US possibly gaining power and the usual crowd making more money to wish Iran would be more 'cooperative'.

But it's an interesting thought, do you think this is a motive for powers in the US to push for war?

Originally Posted by stroller

I would think there are more, and more important reasons than the US possibly gaining power and the usual crowd making more money to wish Iran would be more 'cooperative'.

But it's an interesting thought, do you think this is a motive for powers in the US to push for war?

Now that you've asked for my personal opinion, I'll gladly give it.

I think this is still a struggle to contain Russia. To the extent that the US can control and hold Iran, it holds the south ports of Russia's oil supply, and I do know a great deal about this.

This is really not about world oil prices, or US or Iran's hegonomy in the middle east. It is really still about containing the arch enemy, Russia, and believe me, everyone will get crushed in the middle. They are nothing.

America will win this battle and China will be challenged to find a way to oppose it.

Originally Posted by stroller

Maybe, and the situation is a quagrime, I don't see any solution, what would the consequences of a war be?

Pretty clear, more of the same with the peacelovers that are so eager to meet allah, but more intensified.

Oh, very funny, keda.

Anyone else apart from "peacelovers that are so eager to meet allah" involved, perhaps?

I see, so can I take it you're saying the consequences of a war between a Western country/ies and Iran would preclude the use of "peacelovers that are so eager to meet allah", or is the more intensified bit that you disagree with?

Try and make some sense, keda.

Sure, if you have no coherent answer it or one that'll have TD members the world over then of course it doesn't make sense.

Originally Posted by chinthee

I think this is still a struggle to contain Russia. To the extent that the US can control and hold Iran, it holds the south ports of Russia's oil supply, and I do know a great deal about this.

An interesting perspective, the plan for new US bases in Eastern Europe seem to support this view.
Any further insights, apart from control of the oil/gas, in what way is Russia still regarded a threat?

Originally Posted by stroller

Originally Posted by chinthee

I think this is still a struggle to contain Russia. To the extent that the US can control and hold Iran, it holds the south ports of Russia's oil supply, and I do know a great deal about this.

An interesting perspective, the plan for new US bases in Eastern Europe seem to support this view.
Any further insights, apart from control of the oil/gas, in what way is Russia still regarded a threat?

Yes, well this also has to do with oil fields and pipelines from central asia. It's really beyond the scope of a simple internet forum discussion.

There are many counterbalancing forces at play:

Kazakhstan to Turkey-Europe-Usa oil

Azerbaijan to the above

Russia to the above

all the above to China via the new pipeline

And, importantly, the southern port option to Iran of all these sources including Iran.

Too much to discuss. Much to consider.

Originally Posted by chinthee

...Yes, well this also has to do with oil fields and pipelines from central asia. It's really beyond the scope of a simple internet forum discussion.

There are many counterbalancing forces at play:

Kazakhstan to Turkey-Europe-Usa oil

Azerbaijan to the above

Russia to the above

all the above to China via the new pipeline

And, importantly, the southern port option to Iran of all these sources including Iran.

Too much to discuss. Much to consider.

Fully agree, all part of the same global jigsaw that works only when all pieces are seamlessly in place...panic strikes when somebody (or God) just looks at one piece the wrong way, and catastrophe reigns when they start to reach out for it.