Chris Matthews surprising honesty on US-Iran relations

[Mark1808]

[ QUOTE ]

True. And those that prefer to keep their sovereignty instead of taking demands from DC should develop nuclear weapons. This is an obvious consequence of the US engaging in wars of choice.

[/ QUOTE ]

But Iran has publically stated that they want to desroy our ally, Israel, and they are supplying armaments to kill our troops in Iraq. They are also of the facist Islamic mind set that they want to see death to the West. I can see their desire to arm themselves, but I can also see the US stance of being against it.

In nature you have survival of the fittest. Liberals don't believe this law of nature should apply to humans, we should all exist in peace and harmony. History has shown this has never happened and common sense dictates that it never will. If there is not going to be peace and harmony then I want our side to have the most muscle.

[John Kilduff]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Shouldn't the Iranians have that same feeling about their security? It seems like the only way that a country can ensure that the U.S. doesn't mess with them is to acquire nuclear weapons. It seems like pursuing a nuclear weapon is a wise option if you think that we're about to attack you.

It seems highly doubtful that Iran would actually use a nuclear weapon. There is some concern that they might "lose" one or have insecure facilities though.

[/ QUOTE ]

There are plenty of countries that don't have a nuclear weapon that the US does not "mess" with. These would be countries who are not hostile to the US, its interests or its allies.

[/ QUOTE ]

OK, so it's either do what we want you to do or develop a nuclear weapon. That would kind of suck if you don't agree with our interests/policies.

And aren't we hostile to Iran's interests and its allies? Does that give them the right to "mess" with us?

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, the USA is hostile in orientation to Iran's interests and allies, and Iran is hostile in orientation to the USA's interests and allies. About the only thing the Iranian regime has in common with the West is that they want to sell oil and the West wants to buy it.

While the USA is ideologically and tactically wrong in Iraq, Iran's regime is wrong in an even broader and more fundamental sense, in that they support and enforce Shari'a Law with a vengeance and that they wish to expand and export their "Islamic Revolution".

The Iranian regime and its mullahs are truly a retrograde force in the world, which is in direct opposition to nearly every Western ideal of freedom and human and civil rights.

The USA is indeed too imperialistic and meddlesome abroad. Iran, if it had the power of the USA, would be far, far worse.

I have before posted some shocking statements by Ahmadinejad, and his predecessor, Rafsanjani.

Statements made by their spiritual/political predecessors, and their current ideological sympaticos and allies (such as the leader of Hezbollah), are downright frightening. These guys are literally the modern day equivalents of Hitler in terms of what they want to do to the Jews.

Iran's regime is correct in feeling potentially threatened by the USA. So too was Hitler correct in feeling threatened by the USA. Ahmadinejad, Rafsanjani and Nasrallah are Hitler's modern-day standard-bearers, and the primary difference is only the religious component.

In a new thread I will be posting a link to a video quoting and describing the aims and ideology of Iran's regime and mullahs, and their spiritual predecessors and allies.

Thanks for reading.

[boracay]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Shouldn't the Iranians have that same feeling about their security? It seems like the only way that a country can ensure that the U.S. doesn't mess with them is to acquire nuclear weapons. It seems like pursuing a nuclear weapon is a wise option if you think that we're about to attack you.

It seems highly doubtful that Iran would actually use a nuclear weapon. There is some concern that they might "lose" one or have insecure facilities though.

[/ QUOTE ]

There are plenty of countries that don't have a nuclear weapon that the US does not "mess" with. These would be countries who are not hostile to the US, its interests or its allies.

[/ QUOTE ]

True. And those that prefer to keep their sovereignty instead of taking demands from DC should develop nuclear weapons. This is an obvious consequence of the US engaging in wars of choice.

[/ QUOTE ]

Right. I'm not trying to say Iran or other countries should have nukes. Probably most would disagree, but nukes aren't actually an offensive weapon (as noone is using them hopefully), but they are the best and maybe the only good defensive weapon.

In case they'd have any interest in attacking Israel or others, they would use biological/chemical weapon and not messing around and waiting to be attacked while developing extremely expensive nukes. Their (and Syrian) knowledge about those weapons is very developed BTW.

The reason they would be giving nukes to their proxies/terrorist organizations doesn't stand. It would be easy to find out about the source of used nuke and consequences would be the same as Iran would use it - nuclear attack. Who would believe they would be risking that?

The other thing is every single country would like to have brilliant relationship with the USA. Name just one country that wouldn't. Of course sometimes it's difficult to cooperate with another party when they always demand and want to control your sovereignty/economic/internal affairs/democracy/defense. Especially when you can check what happens in front of your door when you're not prepared.

Best thing IMO would be trying to slow down their program as much as possible and international approach. Leaving Iraq would be helpful too. If or when they finally make them, the world should just accept reality and live with it. Did North Koreans build them to be dropped the next day in the south? And all those people suggesting using nukes against them before they'd build them?

Unstable Pakistan has nukes too so what should be done then when/if radicals win once? Should it be nuked asap? Also there is a great danger any war with Iran would provoke extremism in other countries too. That might be extremely unfavorable for US interests in the wider region.

In case of attack, that wouldn't be about security or US interests in that region. Sounds familiar?

[GtrHtr]

[ QUOTE ]
This may seem like a small point to fight over.

but I must say sir "your full of [censored]"


[/ QUOTE ]

I'm an active duty Infantry Officer in the US Army. I've been in combat several times to include the current war.


[ QUOTE ]
if you actually believe you can possibly understand the "Reality of War"...you have any idea of how broad and impossible that is?

[/ QUOTE ]

I think I can, can you? Do you have any combat or war experiences?

[ QUOTE ]
Have you ever fought in a war?

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes.

[ QUOTE ]
Have you ever grown up in a war?

[/ QUOTE ]

I was first fired on by an automatic weapon when I was 13 years old, it wasn't deliberately fired at me, but it was close enough I had to crawl to cover.


[ QUOTE ]
Have you ever lived in a war torn country?

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes serveral, I've lived in 6 different countries and been in over 60, half of them third world. Have you ever been in a war torn country?

[ QUOTE ]
Ever been a farmer to afraid to harvest his fields because its been mined?

[/ QUOTE ]

No but I've been is a few minefields, none of which were laid by US forces. Have you ever been in a minefield or seen the effects of what a mine can do to the human body?

[ QUOTE ]
Have you had live ammunition fired through the walls of your house?

[/ QUOTE ]

Better yet, I've actually had live ammunition fired through my skin. You wanna compare scars?

[ QUOTE ]
Its actually impossible to understand the reality of war because you would have to have lived some many different lives, and died many times.

[/ QUOTE ]

I've probably lived a more diverse and different life than you have, so I'd have to disagree with your last point but if you say its impossible then I guess it is because you are the expert.

Also, your selective cut and paste job on the invention of chemical warfare is biased and incorrect. Based on your own link the French started modern chemical warfare off in WWI and it was devised and "invented" thousands of years before that.

[GtrHtr]

[ QUOTE ]
Given the Iranian regime's penchant for utilizing proxy warfare (Hezbollah, and IED attacks in Iraq), there is also the concern that Iran having a nuke would make the regime feel that they can pursue their goals via proxy more aggressively and with less fear of direct reprisal. Thus Hezbollah, Syria, and any proxies operating in Iraq would be strengthened and emboldened by the mere fact that Iran would have obtained nuclear weapons.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is an important point the hasn't been brought up yet in this thread.

It is important to note that Iran is both directly and indirectly killing US forces in Iraq. It could be argued by someone smarter than I am that Iranian actions have directly impacted the military situation and if they had not done so, the security situation would be much better in Iraq today and therefore the political situation may very well have improved as well.

Yes I know we are responsible for our being in Iraq in the first place.

I'm a little surprised that US citizens on any side of the political debate aren't a little more pissed off about Iranians killing our Soldiers as often as they'd like to without any backlash.

[Ineedaride2]

[ QUOTE ]
I dont agree with your second "war by proxy" point. While we certainly have funded and supported allies, it has never been hidden to the point where we would try and disclaim responsibility.

[/ QUOTE ]

Never?

[Ineedaride2]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

True. And those that prefer to keep their sovereignty instead of taking demands from DC should develop nuclear weapons. This is an obvious consequence of the US engaging in wars of choice.

[/ QUOTE ]

But Iran has publically stated that they want to desroy our ally, Israel, and they are supplying armaments to kill our troops in Iraq. They are also of the facist Islamic mind set that they want to see death to the West. I can see their desire to arm themselves, but I can also see the US stance of being against it.

In nature you have survival of the fittest. Liberals don't believe this law of nature should apply to humans, we should all exist in peace and harmony. History has shown this has never happened and common sense dictates that it never will. If there is not going to be peace and harmony then I want our side to have the most muscle.

[/ QUOTE ]

You go ahead and pray for muscle. Muscle only lasts for so long. There WILL come a point in time when the US is not the biggest kid on the block, and when that time comes, your children and/or grand children will most assuredly hope that the current superpower is more congenial than you are.

[Leaky Eye]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

True. And those that prefer to keep their sovereignty instead of taking demands from DC should develop nuclear weapons. This is an obvious consequence of the US engaging in wars of choice.

[/ QUOTE ]

But Iran has publically stated that they want to desroy our ally, Israel, and they are supplying armaments to kill our troops in Iraq. They are also of the facist Islamic mind set that they want to see death to the West. I can see their desire to arm themselves, but I can also see the US stance of being against it.

In nature you have survival of the fittest. Liberals don't believe this law of nature should apply to humans, we should all exist in peace and harmony. History has shown this has never happened and common sense dictates that it never will. If there is not going to be peace and harmony then I want our side to have the most muscle.

[/ QUOTE ]

You go ahead and pray for muscle. Muscle only lasts for so long. There WILL come a point in time when the US is not the biggest kid on the block, and when that time comes, your children and/or grand children will most assuredly hope that the current superpower is more congenial than you are.

[/ QUOTE ]

Superpowers aren't congenial.

[Mark1808]

[ QUOTE ]

You go ahead and pray for muscle. Muscle only lasts for so long. There WILL come a point in time when the US is not the biggest kid on the block, and when that time comes, your children and/or grand children will most assuredly hope that the current superpower is more congenial than you are.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'll bet they won't be! Might is right. All great civilizations in history have had a strong conquering military. Our prosperity has made liberals soft and emotional. Life ain't fair. You want everyone to sit around, hold hands and smoke pot in harmony. It isn't happening. The world is full of conflicting views and desires, eat or be eaten.

[Copernicus]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

You go ahead and pray for muscle. Muscle only lasts for so long. There WILL come a point in time when the US is not the biggest kid on the block, and when that time comes, your children and/or grand children will most assuredly hope that the current superpower is more congenial than you are.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'll bet they won't be! Might is right. All great civilizations in history have had a strong conquering military. Our prosperity has made liberals soft and emotional. Life ain't fair. You want everyone to sit around, hold hands smoke pot in harmony and take a little blue pill so they can still have mindblowing sex like in the 60s. It isn't happening. The world is full of conflicting views and desires, eat or be eaten.

[/ QUOTE ]

FYP