Iran lies, lies and more lies

True, but not by army in battle with one more than twice as large, not counting the reserves. If they were called up, Genghis Khan would have been outnumber 5 to 1. So he attacked small villages on the periphery. Quoting from your link:

" His strategy was to frighten townspeople into surrendering without battle, benefiting his own troops, whose lives he valued. Those frightened into surrender were spared violence. Those who resisted were slaughtered as an example for others, which sent many fleeing and spreading panic from the first towns to the city of Bukhara. People in Bukhara opened the city's gates to the Mongols and surrendered. Genghis Khan told them that they, the common people, were not at fault, that high-ranking people among them had committed great sins that inspired God to send him and his army as punishment."

I think there is a lesson here: With Iranian /Persians: Trade (Honey) works better than the sword to get what you want. The US could "conquer" Iran with trade or destroy it with bombs, but would be defeated if invading - I. e. not be able to sustain the cost.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

It's more of an object lesson.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

https://sites.google.com/site/afireinasia/home/introduction/conquest-of-persia-1

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

seriously post something other than links

 

sure

 

your initial claim was that Iran wouldn't have any checks on the use of nuclear weapons. you made a hardline absolute statement

operative language here is any which when modified a nagative like can't creates an absolute negative. this statement is unambigious that you meant there are no checks.

this is how you have been characterizing your claim since. you'll note the use of word some a non absolute term as opposed to the original negative any further weakened with the use of the qualifier may. this is a far weaker than your other comment. your implication that disagrement with your iintial more stringint comment is equal to your new much weaker position.

i did. I felt it was with out merit. i felt and still feel your making assumptions based out of prejudice and ignoring facts to suit your argument.

that is not an accurate representation of either state. even after the islamic revolution Iran has had a pragmatic streak. they are willing to stand up for them selves against the years of aggression against them and to risks to protect there interests. they have not taken steps that would result in serious harm to the Iranian nation and its people. while modern Israelis do have some in common the Sicarii were esentially a suicide cult. while netanyahu may be willing to play that game i doubt the Israeli public at large is willing to go down that path.

that is not the issue. the issue is your belief that they would do so in the face of a genocidial level nuclear retalitory strike. and there is zero evidence to suggest Iran would launch an offensive nuclear strike against Israel. what the Iranians mean is the installation of a new government.

your making an all together specious argument. you trying to say me and tiassa are claiming we should assume the best of everybody because there human and any less is bigotry ignoring your argument was predicated on the belief that Iranian leadership is some so consumed by blind religious fevor and hate that they are incapable of normal human thought about considering the consequences. your making a false equivelence.

 

Rather, that was a suspicion. You carefully avoided quoting the next two sentences:

This is not an effective defense of your claim that criticizing the possible nuclear policy of a theocracy constitutes "bigotry". Please demonstrate your evidence.

Your feelings do not constitute an argument as such.

This has nothing at all to do with critiques of totalitarian Iranian domestic policy on basis of religious principles. Unless you feel that such actions are 'pragmatic' and in some way 'standing up for themselves against years of aggression', it has nothing to do with this discussion.

You underscore my own point here: the Israeli people don't have their fingers on the nuke button either, except in a remote way at election time. So too the Iranian people.

That is not the issue. We may be in position to prevent another autocracy from gaining nuclear weapons. Few would hesitate to deny this power to, say, North Korea, if they had that choice. But in the case of Iran, it suddenly becomes a special issues of bigotry. Is your objection to my criticism that they are theists, or that they are a specific kind of theist?

Tiassa was trying to make out that objections to an Iranian nuclear weapons program was somehow a bigoted argument against the character of the average Iranian. (When an average Iranian makes it onto the Shura Council, or occupies the seat of the Ayatollah, please let me know.) That is a false equivocation. Tiassa's stance on human beings from Iran - his words, there - is taking up exactly that kind of argument: not that one should assume the best, but that one should assume the same. In fact, that is neither here nor there. Average Iranians do not control the nuclear weapons of Iran. I forget your line, exactly.

Ah, no. Firstly: the Iranian leadership is indeed, to all appearance, consumed by religious fervour. I garner this in the constant conformist religious pressure being exercised against the Iranian people. I presented no case that they were so blind that they were incapable of normal thought - that is your straw man, based in no argument of mine.

What you and Tiassa seem to fail to grasp is that MAD is a concept alone: there is no guarantee of its mutuality except by the parameters of each scenario involving nuclear weapons usage. A surprise strike might, for instance, both devastate Israel and cripple their defenses. I doubt that Iran would simply lash out, but they certainly appear to have some interest in the destruction of Israel and so their desire to do so must be acknowledged in context of ability at all times.

Presently, they have no such ability. Why do you react so strongly at the suggestion that it should stay that way?

 

Why cant people learn to invest in space for resources and for new homes...why fight for small pieces of land? When is humanity going to grow up...No wonder aliens are keeping aside from us, they are waiting to see what choice we will make for ourselves. Lies by Israel about peaceful co-existince while it destroys Palestinian people and talks about stopping Iran from creating a defense against Israel ( a nuclear nation ). Why is UN so unipolar and biased in its double standards views? When will people of Earth going to respect each others resources and rights? When will one nation like USA stop pushing its agendas under constant lies... Enough

 

I've noticed these things. The counter to that is the inevitable temptation that nukes aren't solely political weapons. No one, ever is going to use one? (I discount the American using them on the Japanese here as it was a first-time thing.) I'm sure Iran's theocrats surely are people of Iran, some of the time, but placing them within the vague boundaries of the human race isn't reason enough to disclude the possibility of a first strike. Would the American step in and strike back? I don't believe the US has a MAD pact with Israel. They're allies, but if Israel were essentially shattered... the solution then is to massacre large numbers of innocent Iranians? That fundamental disjunction between Iran and its leadership must play into such a decision. This too: with Israel destroyed... the raison d'etre of the Israeli lobby suddenly sort of disappears. Eighty years ago, the sudden destruction of Israel would have been seen as quite a good thing in some quarters. Eighty years from now, how will it be seen? A patient long-game might turn the tables on Israel quite easily.

The problem with religious fascists, too, is that unpredictability: you claim it would be an insane thing, and it might be. But so what? Those guided by higher interests such as the will of a god might not see it as quite so mad. I don't make the jump that they're necessarily cynical or non-delusional about their religious views. Simply put, I don't know. That unknown area is concerning.

And let's just stop and step back and think about what you're proposing here: your counter to this is "Iranian theocrats are people too, at least some of the time, so what's the problem with them having nuclear weapons?" Let that simmer a little. I'm very curious about the kind of argumentation going on about this now: would any of you have blandly accepted any Iranian project to develop nuclear weapons, say, six months ago? What has changed in that interim? Have we suddenly decided that nonproliferation was misguided? If not, why not now, in this place?

 

I'm not convinced that the United States would, especially if Iran possessed ICBMs and the price to the US for striking back would be loss of New York City, Washington DC, Chicago and LA, along with dozens of other metropolitan areas. Israel is already so unpopular on the left that I expect that the US might just decide that a military response isn't worth the risk.

Israel's small enough that it might be vulnerable to a first-strike. I believe that all of its missile silos are at Zachariah, west of Jerusalem. Israel only has half a dozen or so major airbases, and it isn't clear that nuclear weapons are stored at all of them.

The third leg of Israel's 'triad' are its three 'Dolphin' class submarines which reportedly are equipped with small numbers of nuclear armed cruise missiles (probably US made tomahawks, equipped with indigenous warheads.) But these boats aren't always at sea and could conceivably be caught with a nuclear strike on Haifa.

I guess that the Iranians would have to assess Israel's ballistic early warning capabilities and whether a few minutes of warning would allow them to launch their Jericho missiles from Zachariah before the base is destroyed.

They might not always be insane (I'm not convinced that ISIS' leadership isn't) but they will almost certainly weight courses of action and their possible outcomes differently than good progressive Western secularists would. The belief that one is performing the will of God can be a powerful intoxicant. The illusion that everyone on Earth shares the same values and the same worldview is a Western conceit.

Once Iran imagines itself untouchable, by raising the cost of opposing them higher than potential adversaries will be willing to bear, I expect that they will imagine that they have greatly expanded freedom of action. I wouldn't be surprised to see Hezbollah raining tens of thousands of rockets down on Israel, or Iran closing the Straits of Hormuz. They will imagine themselves as a regional superpower, or even a global one if they can dominate the world's oil supplies, and they can be expected to behave accordingly.

 

That certainly is possible. How ballsy is Iran likely to get? And who will try to tip their cart? (Well, the Israelis, of course. How far will they tip it?)

Or will Iran then go all introspective and just kind of feel smug? That's another possible outcome for the average garden autocrat.

 

The Yanks are not the only block at the UN.

 

actually Iran is far more vulnerable to a nuclear strike than Israel is. while it might be easier to take out Israel's nuclear capabilities than Iran's the way Iranian cities are built make them extremely vulnerable to a nuclear strike. there are numerous models about the effect of a nuclear exchange between Iran and Israel and they do not paint a pretty picture for Iran. a multi-warhead strike on an Iranian city would kill over 80% of the population according to the models as opposed to somewhere in the ball park of 17-25% for strikes against Israeli cities.

 

Maybe. But Iran's a lot bigger and its population is more spread out in provincial cities and rural areas than Israel's. More than half of Israel's population lives in Tel Aviv, Haifa and in their nearby suburbs.

But I wasn't thinking about a 'counter-value' attack designed to cause maximum civilian casualties. I was thinking of a 'counter-force' first-strike, designed to destroy a nuclear armed opponent's ability to launch an effective retaliatory nuclear strike. My worry is that Israel might be vulnerable to a counter-force first strike.

Israel wouldn't even have to really be vulnerable, if Tehran believes they are. If Iran ever became convinced it could pull off such an attack, the chances of them trying it would certainly rise.

That wouldn't be an instance of "theocrats are insane", but rather of them making a cold-blooded rational calculation.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Counterforce

 

Better put than I did. Stealing from your concept, I add: a calculation swayed by philosophical interests.

 

both you and Geoff are ignoring one thing in that prediction. that the worlds nuclear power would never allow a state that launched an offensive nuclear strike to survive. if any nuclear state did so the rest of the nuclear powers would obliterate them. there is no way in hell IRan is going to commit national suicide. your and geoffs argument that they will because well their fundementals everyone knows that means their nuts just doesn't fly. 2 things factor into the decision. can it succeed? which an Iranian first strike might. can we survive the counter attack? and the answer for. the idea that Iran is a very rural country just isn't the case. more spread out yes. but not by as much as you'd think. both you and geoff are making the assumption that the potentional consequences won't factor in to the decision. i don't think either of fully under stand what the toll would be in a nuclear attack against Iran would be like. if Iran were to nuke Israel to take out their nuclear capabilities( which I firmly believe has a zero percent chance of happening unless the geopolitics change drasticily) the resulting counter attack which would end up being focused on major cities. based on models harverd and the university of georgia did assuming strikes on the ten largest cities your looking at over 18 million dead and that's just from the initial blast and short term radiatian. just tehran alone over 7 million would be dead. again I still need something other than anti islamic and anti theist prejudice that would show Iran would risk the death of persian civilization to offensively nuke somebody. the number of people effected negatively long term from the chain of events you two are proposing is well over 100 million. what your saying is you firmly believe Iran would gladly spark of a nuclear holocaust that would ravage humanity on a scale not seen since world war 2. as far as i can tell you guys are basing your beliefs on essentially the idea that the world would ignore an offensive nuclear strike and that's is just not a realistic assumption.

 

Personally, I think there is a certain irony in numerous nations trying to prevent Iran from (supposedly) acquiring nuclear weapons, while they themselves sit on massive stockpiles of nukes. What ever happened to leading by example?