Tell Me How This Ends

[cupper]

It's not me that isn't getting the argument here.

I have been pointing out that your line of reasoning that Iran isn't stupid / irrational / irresponsible / deluded enough to attack Israel / The US / Europe therefore there cannot / will not be another major conflict in the Gulf between Iran and everyone else overlooks several possibilites that could lead to direct confrontation between Iran and the West.

I gave a specific example which you either ignored or failed to comprehend. The quite real possibility of a terrorist attack on either the US or it's Allies which is directly linked back to Iran. This would call for some form of retribution on the part of the West (read The US). As was shown in the wargaming sessions I referenced, even the most minimal of retaliation by the US was considered by the Iranian side to be sufficient enough provocation to launch attacks to shut down shipping in the Gulf, which spirals into a full blown conflict.

Stupid / irrational / irresponsible / deluded ? No. Failure to understand the actions of your opponent? Yes. Hence my discussion about cultural differences.

I never said the Iranian leadership was insane enough to make a direct attack on Israel, or any other country.

As for why Israel doesn't want Iran to have nuclear capabilities, stop over thinking it. Sometimes things really are what they seem. And sometimes paranoids are right that everyone is out to get them.

As for posting for the sake of being confrontational, I would suggest that you go back and reread your own replies to the various posts here with an open mind and consider if you may not have been just a tad bit aggressive yourself.

As for your  " :2c: " being specific, because others could "read between the lines", one should not have to read between the lines to understand what someone is trying to get across.

Several posts back, I asked you what you were basing your argument on? I will admit the sarcastic comment right after may have put you off, but my question still stands, as you failed to provide your basis. Instead you come back asking what my definition of human rights is. Had you given some basis for your line of reasoning, perhaps we wouldn't have had to "read between the lines" to figure out what your were trying to get across.

And for what it is worth, I've gone back and reread your post / replys, and still cannot figure out what you are trying to get across, who is attacking who, or isn't going to attack who and why.

I've seen my dog catch his tail, so there is hope yet.

 

[tomahawk6]

The problem Cupper is that the Iranian leadership are zealots. They dont care what they have to do to eradicate Israel. You cant reason with zealots. On the flip side the Israelis dont doubt at all that if Iran gets nuclear weapons they will be used. Its all about survival for Israel. They will do anything to preserve the State of Israel.

 

[Journeyman]

My  :2c:  on the matter was actually very specific and was reinforced four times.

"Simply repeated" is not the same as "reinforced," and if it had been "very specific" it would not have required clarification.

I accept that you are unable to clarify the point you raised, and as noted, I have no dog in this fight; I'm done.

 

[cupper]

The problem Cupper is that the Iranian leadership are zealots. They dont care what they have to do to eradicate Israel. You cant reason with zealots. On the flip side the Israelis dont doubt at all that if Iran gets nuclear weapons they will be used. Its all about survival for Israel. They will do anything to preserve the State of Israel.

T6, I understand that point all too well. Which makes the example I used (taken from the actual wargame run by the think tank) an all too real possibility.

I've never once doubted Iran's intent to obtain a nuke, their intent to use it, either as a threat to get what they want, or for an actual attack somewhere in the world. And I've never doubted Israel's intent to protect itself ay whatever cost.

 

[tomahawk6]

I have participated in a few scenario's in my day. I found this computer game limiting. Its almost as if the game is rigged to achieve a certain end state.

 

[skyhigh10]

:deadhorse:

I always enjoy reading a nice diatribe on Saturday morning. Never once did I insult any user by referring to them as a dog after posting my thoughts. Never once did I shout down someone I disagreed with.  You assume that my post was written in some sort of scathing dialect designed to get you when you sleep. Credible no doubt. I'm going to respond to your post one final time. I have no doubt you will comprehend where i'm coming from rather, attempt to be creative and spin it saying i'm a communist or something.

Several posts back, I asked you what you were basing your argument on? I will admit the sarcastic comment right after may have put you off, but my question still stands, as you failed to provide your basis. Instead you come back asking what my definition of human rights is. Had you given some basis for your line of reasoning, perhaps we wouldn't have had to "read between the lines" to figure out what your were trying to get across.

Yes, your comments did put me off because they were composed  to create ill will and were full of assumptions (even though they had been clarified). You decided to tweak them and make things personal even though SOME of our positions do not appear to be that different. There were other users which responded and understood. But hey, don't focus on that. Strike out words that you think we're used incorrectly instead of focusing on the topic. You brought up human rights. You brought up a bold defence saying "I should be worried". I'm not.

It's not me that isn't getting the argument here.

That's ironic. Ok, so you are getting the argument. It's others who are not getting it. Odd. You said you had returned to my original posts - and kind rebuttals, and still just can't seem to figure out what the "argument" is. So you get it but you don't get it. This reinforces what I said earlier. You are responding for the sake of stimulating your thyroid. You say one thing, and then another, and then another.

As for posting for the sake of being confrontational, I would suggest that you go back and reread your own replies to the various posts here with an open mind and consider if you may not have been just a tad bit aggressive yourself.

My original posts did not have any trace of aggression. You did not like what someone else had to say so instead of clearing up your misconception, you started being nasty.

I gave a specific example which you either ignored or failed to comprehend. The quite real possibility of a terrorist attack on either the US or it's Allies which is directly linked back to Iran. This would call for some form of retribution on the part of the West (read The US). As was shown in the wargaming sessions I referenced, even the most minimal of retaliation by the US was considered by the Iranian side to be sufficient enough provocation to launch attacks to shut down shipping in the Gulf, which spirals into a full blown conflict.

Contrary, I agreed to what you said about the culture, religion, etc, and nowhere did I really disagree with those points. We both appear to agree that if Iran was linked in some way to attacking the west, we would RESPOND thus leading to a full out war. Nowhere did I say the situation isn't delicate. My beef is with the reasoning behind WHY we should be making the first move. You then bring up a variety of points like human rights etc that have nothing to do with the topic and then submit that I am being distasteful in my responses.  Any attack by Iran on a US ally would call for retribution.  My only addition was that I personally do not think Iran is desperate for a war. I said earlier a nuclear weapon would help them rise as a major player in the region.  I mentioned the Israeli PM , how he keeps talking insisting that the west attacks Iran asap because of their "nuclear ambitions to destroy Israel". I say this is bs because  any nuclear attack against Israel would affect it's Islamic neighbours. You think this is flawed logic? Sure. Iran wants to nuke everyone then. I cannot disprove that they are blood sucking vampires who want to nuke anything and everything.

As for your  " :2c: " being specific, because others could "read between the lines", one should not have to read between the lines to understand what someone is trying to get across.

Wrong terminology! Got me! Null and void! I'm sorry, what I meant to say was, people read my post the first time and knew what I was saying. So instead of calling someone a dog or putting words in their mouth, why don't you inquire specifically into their train of thought instead of being a demoting prick? Just a suggestion. After all, you stated above you knew what I was saying.

I've seen my dog catch his tail, so there is hope yet.

Round of applause for this statement. I'm sure you're doing everything in your power to be a class act and have a productive conversation.


[quote author=Journeyman]
"Simply repeated" is not the same as "reinforced," and if it had been "very specific" it would not have required clarification.

I accept that you are unable to clarify the point you raised, and as noted, I have no dog in this fight; I'm done.
[/quote]

Well, I'm happy that I do not have to converse with you on a regular basis. It was reinforced with my own reason just like countless others in this thread who called for attacking absent any justification. Nothing to say there?  My points we're ultra specific when questioned. The minute people started seeing that, two of you decided to get rude. So when I address a point you bring up something totally different and then say I am unable to clarify the point I raised ; which is " Iran does not have a hard on for Jew hating or a war against the west".  Justify this? Jews living in Iran .... No war ....  It seems as though so many of you just can't wait to get your hands dirty over this rhetoric.  Listen to other points of view? Why do that on a public forum when you can shout them down and do your own thing. 

I accept that you are unable to say what you mean or mean what you say.  :irony:

Enjoy yourselves.

 

[cupper]

I'm going to suggest that the mods merge this into the Iran super thread.

Or better still, just lock it up since we just seem to be running in circles.

 

[Infanteer]

I should have known that a neat link would turn into a horse beating contest on Israel...locked.