"Allah is the Greatest, Death to America, Death to Israel, Curse on the Jews, Victory to Islam"

[laughing dog]

Iran still seeks conquest by force of arms and seeks nuclear weapons to prevent blowback from their actions--they don't want to get smashed when their pet terrorists pull off the next 9/11 or worse.

Can you provide some links to support your claims or is this all classified information you have access to?

Just look at your newspaper--see how much of the trouble in the Middle East is due to Iranian weapons.

Lots of weapons come from lots of countries. But how does that handwaved response support your claim about the motives for seeking nuclear weapons or conquest?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Just look at your newspaper--see how much of the trouble in the Middle East is due to Iranian weapons.

Lots of weapons come from lots of countries. But how does that handwaved response support your claim about the motives for seeking nuclear weapons or conquest?

Iran just admitted it: https://www.nytimes.com/2021/02/09/world/middleeast/Iran-nuclear-threat.html

 

[laughing dog]

Just look at your newspaper--see how much of the trouble in the Middle East is due to Iranian weapons.

Lots of weapons come from lots of countries. But how does that handwaved response support your claim about the motives for seeking nuclear weapons or conquest?

Iran just admitted it: https://www.nytimes.com/2021/02/09/world/middleeast/Iran-nuclear-threat.html

I cannot see the entire article, but the snippet does not say Iran is currently seeking nuclear weapons. Please provide the snippet that indicates that Iran is seeking nuclear weapons to prevent blowback from their actions (which is your claim of fact).

 

[bilby]

Just look at your newspaper--see how much of the trouble in the Middle East is due to Iranian weapons.

Lots of weapons come from lots of countries. But how does that handwaved response support your claim about the motives for seeking nuclear weapons or conquest?

Iran just admitted it: https://www.nytimes.com/2021/02/09/world/middleeast/Iran-nuclear-threat.html

Iran wants nuclear weapons for the same reason every other nation state does - they make invaders very reluctant to target your country. North Korea has clearly demonstrated that having nukes gets you a much more respectful diplomatic tone from the US than non-nuclear weapons states get.

Nuclear weapons are useless for expansionism. Everyone knows that using them aggressively would result in annihilation by the US, or Russia, or China (with the US being perhaps the only nation on Earth to which that might not apply). And Iran has shown no signs of wanting to invade anyone. Iraq, under Saddam, was an expansionist state, and invaded Iran, as well as Kuwait; Oddly the USA didn't give shit the first about Saddam invading that neighbour, but felt that invading Kuwait justified a full scale war.

The Iranians consider themselves culturally superior to the Arabs, and they are probably right - after all, it's a very low bar. Iran doesn't want to go to war with anyone - they would be happy to see Israel eliminated, but they haven't the capability or the desire to cross two or three hostile arab countries in order to attack Israel, so its all just bluster.

They arm people who attack Israel, sure; But Derec has already made clear that selling arms to arabs who are fighting proxy wars on your behalf is a perfectly acceptable bit of international relations, and doesn't constitute an act of war or aggression.

That Iran wants nuclear weapons is hardly surprising. Most nations do, because they get you the respect of the great powers, particularly the USA. To suggest that this desire is indicative of expansionism is ludicrous. The only non-Iranian territory that has seen uninvited Iranian troops since WWII is the strip of Iraqi land that they occupied after repulsing the Iraqi invaders.

What evidence do you have that Iran has any desire to invade anyone?

 

[TomC]

Iran still seeks conquest by force of arms and seeks nuclear weapons to prevent blowback from their actions--they don't want to get smashed when their pet terrorists pull off the next 9/11 or worse.

Can you provide some links to support your claims or is this all classified information you have access to?

Just look at your newspaper--see how much of the trouble in the Middle East is due to Iranian weapons.

If you get your information and historical context from western media, I understand your attitude. But it's so skewed you'll never understand the Iranian, much less Muslim, views on the subject.
Tom

 

[TomC]

Iran wants nuclear weapons for the same reason every other nation state does - they make invaders very reluctant to target your country. North Korea has clearly demonstrated that having nukes gets you a much more respectful diplomatic tone from the US than non-nuclear weapons states get.

Iran has far better reasons to want a nuclear deterrent than most.
Americans tend to have short attention spans, memories, and limited information. The fact is that we declared war on Iran, again, about 20 years ago. The war in the 80s, led by Bush, killed upwards of a million people. Then, in his first State of the Union address, Bush II singled out three countries to destroy. He named them "The Axis of Evil". They were Iraq, North Korea, and Iran.

North Korea immediately produced a nuclear weapons program. It was advanced enough to keep them safe, and their leader died in bed after passing the country on to his heir.

Iraq had no such defense. Bush II invaded. Their leader was publicly executed along with his heirs.

Iran learned from this. Get a nuke or the USA will destroy you. And so they are.
To protect themselves from us.
Tom

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Iran just admitted it: https://www.nytimes.com/2021/02/09/world/middleeast/Iran-nuclear-threat.html

I cannot see the entire article, but the snippet does not say Iran is currently seeking nuclear weapons. Please provide the snippet that indicates that Iran is seeking nuclear weapons to prevent blowback from their actions (which is your claim of fact).

And you're taking their words as the absolute truth?! They said they are considering it--read between the lines and that means they're trying to do it.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Iran just admitted it: https://www.nytimes.com/2021/02/09/world/middleeast/Iran-nuclear-threat.html

Iran wants nuclear weapons for the same reason every other nation state does - they make invaders very reluctant to target your country. North Korea has clearly demonstrated that having nukes gets you a much more respectful diplomatic tone from the US than non-nuclear weapons states get.

Nuclear weapons are useless for expansionism. Everyone knows that using them aggressively would result in annihilation by the US, or Russia, or China (with the US being perhaps the only nation on Earth to which that might not apply). And Iran has shown no signs of wanting to invade anyone. Iraq, under Saddam, was an expansionist state, and invaded Iran, as well as Kuwait; Oddly the USA didn't give shit the first about Saddam invading that neighbour, but felt that invading Kuwait justified a full scale war.

Simplistic thinking.

Yes, there's no way they can use them offensively. The reason nations like North Korea and Iran want nukes is to prevent retaliation for their non-nuclear actions. This permits them to go farther with unconventional warfare--for example, Iran's actions in Syria, Yemen and Iraq.

For an illustration of this at work is Vietnam. Because of the Russian nukes we couldn't actually win the war, thus turning into a war of attrition. Contrast that with Kuwait where Saddam didn't have a nuclear shield and when he stepped over the line he got stomped on.

The Iranians consider themselves culturally superior to the Arabs, and they are probably right - after all, it's a very low bar. Iran doesn't want to go to war with anyone - they would be happy to see Israel eliminated, but they haven't the capability or the desire to cross two or three hostile arab countries in order to attack Israel, so its all just bluster.

Again, simplistic thinking. Iran doesn't want a conventional battlefield war with anyone. What they want is to conquer with unconventional warfare, using their nukes to ensure it doesn't become a conventional war.

They arm people who attack Israel, sure; But Derec has already made clear that selling arms to arabs who are fighting proxy wars on your behalf is a perfectly acceptable bit of international relations, and doesn't constitute an act of war or aggression.

Selling is one thing--something all arms producers do. Iran gives weapons with the explicit intent for them to be used offensively. That's a very different thing.

What evidence do you have that Iran has any desire to invade anyone?

It would be strange to say they have no desire to do something they are currently doing in at least 4 places.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Iran wants nuclear weapons for the same reason every other nation state does - they make invaders very reluctant to target your country. North Korea has clearly demonstrated that having nukes gets you a much more respectful diplomatic tone from the US than non-nuclear weapons states get.

Iran has far better reasons to want a nuclear deterrent than most.
Americans tend to have short attention spans, memories, and limited information. The fact is that we declared war on Iran, again, about 20 years ago. The war in the 80s, led by Bush, killed upwards of a million people. Then, in his first State of the Union address, Bush II singled out three countries to destroy. He named them "The Axis of Evil". They were Iraq, North Korea, and Iran.

You're forgetting that modern Iran started it's existence by basically declaring war on the US.

 

[bilby]

Simplistic thinking.

Yes, there's no way they can use them offensively. The reason nations like North Korea and Iran want nukes is to prevent retaliation for their non-nuclear actions. This permits them to go farther with unconventional warfare--for example, Iran's actions in Syria, Yemen and Iraq.

For an illustration of this at work is Vietnam. Because of the Russian nukes we couldn't actually win the war, thus turning into a war of attrition. Contrast that with Kuwait where Saddam didn't have a nuclear shield and when he stepped over the line he got stomped on.

The Iranians consider themselves culturally superior to the Arabs, and they are probably right - after all, it's a very low bar. Iran doesn't want to go to war with anyone - they would be happy to see Israel eliminated, but they haven't the capability or the desire to cross two or three hostile arab countries in order to attack Israel, so its all just bluster.

Again, simplistic thinking. Iran doesn't want a conventional battlefield war with anyone. What they want is to conquer with unconventional warfare, using their nukes to ensure it doesn't become a conventional war.

That conjecture on your part appears to be purely a consequence of your personal opinion, unsupported by a shred of actual evidence.

It's one of those irregular verbs:

I read between the lines
You make unfounded assumptions
He is pulling that straight from his arse

They arm people who attack Israel, sure; But Derec has already made clear that selling arms to arabs who are fighting proxy wars on your behalf is a perfectly acceptable bit of international relations, and doesn't constitute an act of war or aggression.

Selling is one thing--something all arms producers do. Iran gives weapons with the explicit intent for them to be used offensively. That's a very different thing.

No, it's just a lower price.

What evidence do you have that Iran has any desire to invade anyone?

It would be strange to say they have no desire to do something they are currently doing in at least 4 places.

Could you please name those four places?

Asserting something like that, where the effort required to at least make it possible for others to test your claims would be zero, but not actually providing that information, is the hallmark of someone who is attempting to mislead.

You wouldn't want us to think you were making up nonsense in an attempt to mislead us into agreement with your unsupported claims, would you? So don't do that.

Naming just one place would be supportive of your argument. Claiming four, while naming none, just makes you look like Maxwell Smart.

"Iran is currently invading at least a dozen places!"

"I find that hard to believe."

"Would you believe four?"

 

[laughing dog]

Iran just admitted it: https://www.nytimes.com/2021/02/09/world/middleeast/Iran-nuclear-threat.html

I cannot see the entire article, but the snippet does not say Iran is currently seeking nuclear weapons. Please provide the snippet that indicates that Iran is seeking nuclear weapons to prevent blowback from their actions (which is your claim of fact).

And you're taking their words as the absolute truth?! They said they are considering it--read between the lines and that means they're trying to do it.

I am not taking their words or your words as the absolute truth. That would be silly.

I am trying to ascertain the source(s) of your claims of fact. "Read between the lines" indicates your source is yourself.

 

[laughing dog]

Iran wants nuclear weapons for the same reason every other nation state does - they make invaders very reluctant to target your country. North Korea has clearly demonstrated that having nukes gets you a much more respectful diplomatic tone from the US than non-nuclear weapons states get.

Iran has far better reasons to want a nuclear deterrent than most.
Americans tend to have short attention spans, memories, and limited information. The fact is that we declared war on Iran, again, about 20 years ago. The war in the 80s, led by Bush, killed upwards of a million people. Then, in his first State of the Union address, Bush II singled out three countries to destroy. He named them "The Axis of Evil". They were Iraq, North Korea, and Iran.

You're forgetting that modern Iran started it's existence by basically declaring war on the US.

Didn't the US basically declare war on Iran first when it helped overthrow its democratically elected leader and install the Shah?

 

[bilby]

Iran wants nuclear weapons for the same reason every other nation state does - they make invaders very reluctant to target your country. North Korea has clearly demonstrated that having nukes gets you a much more respectful diplomatic tone from the US than non-nuclear weapons states get.

Iran has far better reasons to want a nuclear deterrent than most.
Americans tend to have short attention spans, memories, and limited information. The fact is that we declared war on Iran, again, about 20 years ago. The war in the 80s, led by Bush, killed upwards of a million people. Then, in his first State of the Union address, Bush II singled out three countries to destroy. He named them "The Axis of Evil". They were Iraq, North Korea, and Iran.

You're forgetting that modern Iran started it's existence by basically declaring war on the US.

The completely blameless US, that up to that time had had no influence on Iranian affairs whatsoever, and had never even as much as contemplated allowing the concept of 'installing a US puppet as Iranian leader without the slightest consideration of the opinions of the Iranian people' to speculate about the merest possibility of thinking about crossing their minds.

It was entirely a unilateral attack by the Iranians, who crossed Arabia, North Africa, and the Atlantic Ocean, to reach US assets that they then attacked without any provocation at all.

Apparently.

(And this from the person who accuses others of "simplistic thinking").

 

[TomC]

Iran wants nuclear weapons for the same reason every other nation state does - they make invaders very reluctant to target your country. North Korea has clearly demonstrated that having nukes gets you a much more respectful diplomatic tone from the US than non-nuclear weapons states get.

Iran has far better reasons to want a nuclear deterrent than most.
Americans tend to have short attention spans, memories, and limited information. The fact is that we declared war on Iran, again, about 20 years ago. The war in the 80s, led by Bush, killed upwards of a million people. Then, in his first State of the Union address, Bush II singled out three countries to destroy. He named them "The Axis of Evil". They were Iraq, North Korea, and Iran.

You're forgetting that modern Iran started it's existence by basically declaring war on the US.

I'm not forgetting that. I'm calling it a lie. Iran did no such thing. But the USA has launched multiple attacks against Iran, over decades.

The aggressor has been the USA, over and over. For decades.
Tom

 

[marc]

Iran wants nuclear weapons for the same reason every other nation state does - they make invaders very reluctant to target your country. North Korea has clearly demonstrated that having nukes gets you a much more respectful diplomatic tone from the US than non-nuclear weapons states get.

Iran has far better reasons to want a nuclear deterrent than most.
Americans tend to have short attention spans, memories, and limited information. The fact is that we declared war on Iran, again, about 20 years ago. The war in the 80s, led by Bush, killed upwards of a million people. Then, in his first State of the Union address, Bush II singled out three countries to destroy. He named them "The Axis of Evil". They were Iraq, North Korea, and Iran.

North Korea immediately produced a nuclear weapons program. It was advanced enough to keep them safe, and their leader died in bed after passing the country on to his heir.

Iraq had no such defense. Bush II invaded. Their leader was publicly executed along with his heirs.

Iran learned from this. Get a nuke or the USA will destroy you. And so they are.
To protect themselves from us.
Tom

There was a political cartoon at the time. On one side it had a soldier pointing a rifle at Sadam, Sadam says “I have no weapons of mass destruction” and the soldier responds “Prove it”. On the other side Kim Jong Il says “I have weapons of mass destruction” and the same soldier responds “prove it”.

Yea, all the blustering and aggression with Iran is just encouraging them to develop nukes to protect themselves from the US. They didn’t have a nuke weapon program before, and that is according to Israeli intelligence.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

That conjecture on your part appears to be purely a consequence of your personal opinion, unsupported by a shred of actual evidence.

It's one of those irregular verbs:

I read between the lines
You make unfounded assumptions
He is pulling that straight from his arse

They arm people who attack Israel, sure; But Derec has already made clear that selling arms to arabs who are fighting proxy wars on your behalf is a perfectly acceptable bit of international relations, and doesn't constitute an act of war or aggression.

Selling is one thing--something all arms producers do. Iran gives weapons with the explicit intent for them to be used offensively. That's a very different thing.

No, it's just a lower price.

What evidence do you have that Iran has any desire to invade anyone?

It would be strange to say they have no desire to do something they are currently doing in at least 4 places.

Could you please name those four places?

Asserting something like that, where the effort required to at least make it possible for others to test your claims would be zero, but not actually providing that information, is the hallmark of someone who is attempting to mislead.

You wouldn't want us to think you were making up nonsense in an attempt to mislead us into agreement with your unsupported claims, would you? So don't do that.

Naming just one place would be supportive of your argument. Claiming four, while naming none, just makes you look like Maxwell Smart.

"Iran is currently invading at least a dozen places!"

"I find that hard to believe."

"Would you believe four?"

I note you utterly didn't address what happened in Vietnam.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

You're forgetting that modern Iran started it's existence by basically declaring war on the US.

I'm not forgetting that. I'm calling it a lie. Iran did no such thing. But the USA has launched multiple attacks against Iran, over decades.

The aggressor has been the USA, over and over. For decades.
Tom

The embassy takeover could be considered an act of criminals. However, when they came to power and kept the hostages that's an act of war. Hostage-taking is state policy in Iran.

 

[bilby]

That conjecture on your part appears to be purely a consequence of your personal opinion, unsupported by a shred of actual evidence.

It's one of those irregular verbs:

I read between the lines
You make unfounded assumptions
He is pulling that straight from his arse

No, it's just a lower price.

What evidence do you have that Iran has any desire to invade anyone?

It would be strange to say they have no desire to do something they are currently doing in at least 4 places.

Could you please name those four places?

Asserting something like that, where the effort required to at least make it possible for others to test your claims would be zero, but not actually providing that information, is the hallmark of someone who is attempting to mislead.

You wouldn't want us to think you were making up nonsense in an attempt to mislead us into agreement with your unsupported claims, would you? So don't do that.

Naming just one place would be supportive of your argument. Claiming four, while naming none, just makes you look like Maxwell Smart.

"Iran is currently invading at least a dozen places!"

"I find that hard to believe."

"Would you believe four?"

I note you utterly didn't address what happened in Vietnam.

I notice that you found one minor aspect of your post that I didn't address, and then failed to address ANY of my rebuttal.



If it helps, I have no objection to what you said about Vietnam; Indeed, it's much the same point I am making - nuclear weapons are defensive weapons. They prevent powerful nations from riding roughshod over less powerful ones.

That's a good thing.

Now, do you want to address any of my points? At all? Or are you accepting that you are wrong?

 

[Patooka]

I'd be more concerned if Iran only wanted just one nuke.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

That conjecture on your part appears to be purely a consequence of your personal opinion, unsupported by a shred of actual evidence.

It's one of those irregular verbs:

I read between the lines
You make unfounded assumptions
He is pulling that straight from his arse

No, it's just a lower price.

It would be strange to say they have no desire to do something they are currently doing in at least 4 places.

Could you please name those four places?

Asserting something like that, where the effort required to at least make it possible for others to test your claims would be zero, but not actually providing that information, is the hallmark of someone who is attempting to mislead.

You wouldn't want us to think you were making up nonsense in an attempt to mislead us into agreement with your unsupported claims, would you? So don't do that.

Naming just one place would be supportive of your argument. Claiming four, while naming none, just makes you look like Maxwell Smart.

"Iran is currently invading at least a dozen places!"

"I find that hard to believe."

"Would you believe four?"

I note you utterly didn't address what happened in Vietnam.

I notice that you found one minor aspect of your post that I didn't address, and then failed to address ANY of my rebuttal.



If it helps, I have no objection to what you said about Vietnam; Indeed, it's much the same point I am making - nuclear weapons are defensive weapons. They prevent powerful nations from riding roughshod over less powerful ones.

That's a good thing.

Now, do you want to address any of my points? At all? Or are you accepting that you are wrong?

But what you are missing is using them so they can engage in offensive actions without retaliation.