Iranian reports say supreme leader’s health worsening

[Harry Dresden]

The US are the aggressive ones, attacking Iran and Afghanistan for no reason. Iran hasn't attacked anyone in a really long time.

no reason to attack Afghanistan?.....ok if you say so...

and when did the US attack Iran?....

what Country are you from?.....that may clear up why you have the position you have....

I meant Iraq, sorry. Attacking Afghanistan to get Osama is like attacking Italy to get at the mafia, makes no sense.

so what were they supposed to do?.....they asked the Taliban to turn him over,you saw what happened.....so tell me, what would you have done?...

 

[Jughead]

What this person is asking is that the U.S. make a concession on their nuclear arsenal, and give up their obvious advantage they have as a nuclear state. Such could be said about any nuclear state, especially the U.N. security council, pretty much all of which possess nuclear weapons.

Tell me how it makes logical sense, diplomatically, to demand of someone what you are not willing to do yourself? Yes, it would make us weaker, but it would be a sign of good faith to accelerate our disarmament process in earnest, rather than just talk a big game.

Where does your term "logic" come into play and how do you define that?
Diplomatically, it would not be a sign of good faith at all. There is no advantage in making us weaker.

True, but why deny another state access to the same weapons?

Could it be the fact that Iran stated they want to destroy Israel? Could it also have something to do with Iran's support of Hezbollah, a terrorist organization?

 

[Harry Dresden]

What this person is asking is that the U.S. make a concession on their nuclear arsenal, and give up their obvious advantage they have as a nuclear state. Such could be said about any nuclear state, especially the U.N. security council, pretty much all of which possess nuclear weapons.

Tell me how it makes logical sense, diplomatically, to demand of someone what you are not willing to do yourself? Yes, it would make us weaker, but it would be a sign of good faith to accelerate our disarmament process in earnest, rather than just talk a big game.

Where does your term "logic" come into play and how do you define that?
Diplomatically, it would not be a sign of good faith at all. There is no advantage in making us weaker.

Giving up nukes can't make the US weaker since you don't even use them, in fact, nobody has used nukes since the US dropped 2 on japan.

are you asking everyone else to do likewise?....

 

[sambino510]

Where does your term "logic" come into play and how do you define that?
Diplomatically, it would not be a sign of good faith at all. There is no advantage in making us weaker.

Giving up nukes can't make the US weaker since you don't even use them, in fact, nobody has used nukes since the US dropped 2 on japan.

are you asking everyone else to do likewise?....

I can't speak for this person, but yes, I would ask everyone else to do likewise. Either everyone should have nukes or nobody should have nukes, if we are to say their primary use is as a deterrence. The former, everyone having them, is more practical than expecting every single country to trust each other enough to destroy their own arsenal. Of course, nuclear states would never agree to this, because they don't want to lose their edge over other countries. They like having an unfair advantage under international law and the IAEA.

 

[sambino510]

Where does your term "logic" come into play and how do you define that?
Diplomatically, it would not be a sign of good faith at all. There is no advantage in making us weaker.

True, but why deny another state access to the same weapons?

Could it be the fact that Iran stated they want to destroy Israel? Could it also have something to do with Iran's support of Hezbollah, a terrorist organization?

"Iran" didn't state anything. If anything, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad stated something along those lines, but many feel that he was misinterpreted, and instead it was something like "if Israel tried anything against Iran, they would be wiped off the map", which is completely different. Either way, the new president, Hassan Rouhani, has stated nothing of the sort. Even if he DID, let's apply our wonderful American value of freedom of speech on the international level. Just because someone makes some threatening remarks doesn't justify crippling economic sanctions, possible bombings, or otherwise.

"Terrorist organization" depends on one's perspective. A country is allowed to support various groups abroad if they feel it is in their interest to do so. For Iran, Hezbollah members are freedom fighters, not terrorists.

 

[TheBarber]

no reason to attack Afghanistan?.....ok if you say so...

and when did the US attack Iran?....

what Country are you from?.....that may clear up why you have the position you have....

I meant Iraq, sorry. Attacking Afghanistan to get Osama is like attacking Italy to get at the mafia, makes no sense.

so what were they supposed to do?.....they asked the Taliban to turn him over,you saw what happened.....so tell me, what would you have done?...

Send in some seals, air support... And go get him. You don't send in an army to catch maybe two dozen evil doers. Some were training in Africa, go get them...

 

[Harry Dresden]

I meant Iraq, sorry. Attacking Afghanistan to get Osama is like attacking Italy to get at the mafia, makes no sense.

so what were they supposed to do?.....they asked the Taliban to turn him over,you saw what happened.....so tell me, what would you have done?...

Send in some seals, air support... And go get him. You don't send in an army to catch maybe two dozen evil doers. Some were training in Africa, go get them...

and so you dont think that their response would be to use their military to stop the Seals?.....and if they captured the Seals.....then what?....

 

[TheBarber]

so what were they supposed to do?.....they asked the Taliban to turn him over,you saw what happened.....so tell me, what would you have done?...

Send in some seals, air support... And go get him. You don't send in an army to catch maybe two dozen evil doers. Some were training in Africa, go get them...

and so you dont think that their response would be to use their military to stop the Seals?.....and if they captured the Seals.....then what?....

What military? The Taliban? Geez, a bunch of guy in PJs and sandals riding around on old toyota pick-ups. Just throw some soap at them and they'd be thoroughly confused.

Anyways, as the story goes, it was Seals who went to rescue Osama in Pakistan. Not the army.

 

[Connery]

What this person is asking is that the U.S. make a concession on their nuclear arsenal, and give up their obvious advantage they have as a nuclear state. Such could be said about any nuclear state, especially the U.N. security council, pretty much all of which possess nuclear weapons.

Tell me how it makes logical sense, diplomatically, to demand of someone what you are not willing to do yourself? Yes, it would make us weaker, but it would be a sign of good faith to accelerate our disarmament process in earnest, rather than just talk a big game.

Where does your term "logic" come into play and how do you define that?
Diplomatically, it would not be a sign of good faith at all. There is no advantage in making us weaker.

Giving up nukes can't make the US weaker since you don't even use them, in fact, nobody has used nukes since the US dropped 2 on japan.

That does not insure the future. Having the nukes and not using them is a deterrent, rather then disarming and hoping no one develops such weapons.

 

[Connery]

Giving up nukes can't make the US weaker since you don't even use them, in fact, nobody has used nukes since the US dropped 2 on japan.

are you asking everyone else to do likewise?....

I can't speak for this person, but yes, I would ask everyone else to do likewise. Either everyone should have nukes or nobody should have nukes, if we are to say their primary use is as a deterrence. The former, everyone having them, is more practical than expecting every single country to trust each other enough to destroy their own arsenal. Of course, nuclear states would never agree to this, because they don't want to lose their edge over other countries. They like having an unfair advantage under international law and the IAEA.

You are speaking of ideals and wishful thinking.

 

[TheBarber]

Where does your term "logic" come into play and how do you define that?
Diplomatically, it would not be a sign of good faith at all. There is no advantage in making us weaker.

Giving up nukes can't make the US weaker since you don't even use them, in fact, nobody has used nukes since the US dropped 2 on japan.

That does not insure the future. Having the nukes and not using them is a deterrent, rather then disarming and hoping no one develops such weapons.

So by that same reasoning, we should let Iran develop nukes. I agree.

 

[Connery]

Giving up nukes can't make the US weaker since you don't even use them, in fact, nobody has used nukes since the US dropped 2 on japan.

That does not insure the future. Having the nukes and not using them is a deterrent, rather then disarming and hoping no one develops such weapons.

So by that same reasoning, we should let Iran develop nukes. I agree.

In as much as when someone wants to see us dead we support them to having a weapon to accomplish their goal....

"The emblematic “Death to U.S.A” chant resounded through the Iranian capital anew on Friday, one week after it appeared that the signature slogan could be sidelined as part of a possible thaw in long-acrimonious relations between Iran and the United States.

At the formal Friday prayers ceremony, hard-line Ayatollah Ahmad Khatami labeled President Obama a “liar” and revived the “Death to U.S.A” mantra, whipping up worshipers with a series of denunciations of the “Great Satan,” another term he repeated with considerable relish."

A mural shows a gun painted with an interpretation of the American flag
on the wall of the former U.S. Embassy in Tehran in September.​

One week later, 'Death to U.S.A.' chant back in vogue in Iran capital - latimes.com

 

[TheBarber]

That does not insure the future. Having the nukes and not using them is a deterrent, rather then disarming and hoping no one develops such weapons.

So by that same reasoning, we should let Iran develop nukes. I agree.

In as much as when someone wants to see us dead we support them to having a weapon to accomplish their goal....

"The emblematic “Death to U.S.A” chant resounded through the Iranian capital anew on Friday, one week after it appeared that the signature slogan could be sidelined as part of a possible thaw in long-acrimonious relations between Iran and the United States.

At the formal Friday prayers ceremony, hard-line Ayatollah Ahmad Khatami labeled President Obama a “liar” and revived the “Death to U.S.A” mantra, whipping up worshipers with a series of denunciations of the “Great Satan,” another term he repeated with considerable relish."

A mural shows a gun painted with an interpretation of the American flag
on the wall of the former U.S. Embassy in Tehran in September.​

One week later, 'Death to U.S.A.' chant back in vogue in Iran capital - latimes.com

Why would Iran attack the US? You're nuts.

YOU were the one who brought up nukes as a deterrent, so if that's the case, then Iran should be allowed to have some, to deter people who want to attack them, namely Israel and the US.

 

[Harry Dresden]

Send in some seals, air support... And go get him. You don't send in an army to catch maybe two dozen evil doers. Some were training in Africa, go get them...

and so you dont think that their response would be to use their military to stop the Seals?.....and if they captured the Seals.....then what?....

What military? The Taliban? Geez, a bunch of guy in PJs and sandals riding around on old toyota pick-ups. Just throw some soap at them and they'd be thoroughly confused.

Anyways, as the story goes, it was Seals who went to rescue Osama in Pakistan. Not the army.

yea those guys in Pajamas who have held us at bay for 10 years.....and if you dont think the Pakistan Govt did not turn their backs on the Bin Laden thing then you are pretty naive....

 

[sambino510]

are you asking everyone else to do likewise?....

I can't speak for this person, but yes, I would ask everyone else to do likewise. Either everyone should have nukes or nobody should have nukes, if we are to say their primary use is as a deterrence. The former, everyone having them, is more practical than expecting every single country to trust each other enough to destroy their own arsenal. Of course, nuclear states would never agree to this, because they don't want to lose their edge over other countries. They like having an unfair advantage under international law and the IAEA.

You are speaking of ideals and wishful thinking.

Right, which is why later in my statement I said that everybody should have nukes. This is not wishful thinking, this is logic. If one country uses deterrence as reasoning for having weapons, why can't countries like Iran use the same excuse? Not that they're even TRYING to get a weapon, or at least we can't prove it.

 

[Connery]

So by that same reasoning, we should let Iran develop nukes. I agree.

In as much as when someone wants to see us dead we support them to having a weapon to accomplish their goal....

"The emblematic “Death to U.S.A” chant resounded through the Iranian capital anew on Friday, one week after it appeared that the signature slogan could be sidelined as part of a possible thaw in long-acrimonious relations between Iran and the United States.

At the formal Friday prayers ceremony, hard-line Ayatollah Ahmad Khatami labeled President Obama a “liar” and revived the “Death to U.S.A” mantra, whipping up worshipers with a series of denunciations of the “Great Satan,” another term he repeated with considerable relish."

A mural shows a gun painted with an interpretation of the American flag
on the wall of the former U.S. Embassy in Tehran in September.​

One week later, 'Death to U.S.A.' chant back in vogue in Iran capital - latimes.com

Why would Iran attack the US? You're nuts.

YOU were the one who brought up nukes as a deterrent, so if that's the case, then Iran should be allowed to have some, to deter people who want to attack them, namely Israel and the US.

In your opinion they would not attack the US yet they wish death to U.S.A. They would not use a pea shooter, they would use nukes to effectuate that death given the opportunity..... You so funny....

 

[SherriMunnerlyn]

History shows us Iran is not interested in starting wars.

No wars started by Iran in hundreds of years.

Present government has never started a war with anyone.

Those with nuclear weapons, like the US and Israel, have started many wars.

The US has used nuclear weapons twice, and on civilian populations.

Facts in History speak for themselves about what nations threaten world peace.

And it is not Iran.

 

[MHunterB]

So Persia never invaded Greece........

 

[irosie91]

So Persia never invaded Greece........

Marge----I came into contact with muslims from southeast asia and iran and
----some ---but less from middle east and subsaharan africa-----starting more
than 50 years ago-------here in the US----they were generally educated people--
here for more educatiion or----to advance in their professions. The partyline
is MUSLIMS NEVER START A WAR and---here is a new word I learned
about 45 years ago "muslims have the most "toleration" " I have to
admit------before 1979 ---most of the Iranians were normal people----I
considered them ----the most sophisticated thinkers amongst muslims ---back then.
Iran ----during the time of its pre-islamic history----was an EMPIRE BY CONQUEST---
---its islamic history is bloodied by HUGE GENOCIDES ------it could be that some
people would not characterize the murder of millions of zoroastrians as "war"---but
I would-----well---actually the minions of Genghis khan AND arab invaders
probably murdered in the hundreds of millions----but lets say
"no war" Hezbollah is entirely armed and its leaders trained in Iran and
completely controlled by Iran------Saudi arabian leaders get nauseated
every time they look across the border between themselves and Yemen and
see those WARRIOR HEZBOLLAH THUGS--------in fact Yemeni sunnis are
not all that delighted with them either. It is getting to the point ----as some
have noted------that jews are not looking so bad to the sunnis of arabia and
yemen. Chances are that the sunnis of Iraq wish they could have
their jews back Of course lots of shiites might say "shiite and iran is
no related"--------they are lying-----shiites are so INTO iran-----that shiite
schools in India offer two "holy" languages .-------arabic and farsi. I do not
know why it happened-----ie historically why it happened----but somehow---
Iran really is the SHIITE center.

 

[skye]

History shows us Iran is not interested in starting wars.

No wars started by Iran in hundreds of years.

Present government has never started a war with anyone.

Those with nuclear weapons, like the US and Israel, have started many wars.

The US has used nuclear weapons twice, and on civilian populations.

Facts in History speak for themselves about what nations threaten world peace.

And it is not Iran.

The only reason Iran hasn't started a conventional style war against its sworn enemies, the Great and Little Satan (US and Israel) is that it knows it hasn't have the slightest chance, instead it is very successful and is the world's leader in asymmetrical and terrorist warfare.

To say that Iran is peace loving is just ludicrous in view of its ruthless deadly tactics and anyone who believes that Iran is a peaceful nation is just a naive fool who has been mislead by the efficient and powerful smiling Iranian propaganda machine.