While you're right on the details, my larger point was that political idealism probably didn't play a role in any decision before 1945; WWII was this large wake-up call that made modern mindsets happen.

So if US and Israel wanted to attack and invade Iran I'm guessing they can drop a nuke or two on us too.... because it will leave thousands dead if a ground invasion happens.

Mamad wrote:So if US and Israel wanted to attack and invade Iran I'm guessing they can drop a nuke or two on us too.... because it will leave thousands dead if a ground invasion happens.

the only time you would ever see the USA and Israel drop a nuke now would be as retaliation to a nuke dropped on them first. I mean no disrespect by saying this but if iran went to war with the usa it wouldent take them long to win the war and they wouldent need a nuke.

I'm talking about ground invasion here. US will face millions of people willing to die. Iran is no Iraq or Afghanistan. people there wanted US to come. this is not the case here.

If Invading Iran wasn't nearly impossible US would've done it a decade ago.

If the US wished to invade Iran it could decimate the nation's infrastructure and military through conventional air power alone prior to a ground invasion.  The issue is not a fear of Iran's military but a lack of legitimate reason or convincing enough excuse for both the US public and the international community.  

No modern, first world nuclear power is a real threat of using nuclear weapons (or other WMDs) in any situation bar direct retaliation for a WMD attack by a state actor at this point because international backlash would be so significant it would make their position untenable in any realistic scenario.  On top of that, despite the caricatures used by different media for propaganda throughout the world, both world leaders and national populaces the world over DO recognize just how horrid and destructive those devices are.  Those few PEOPLE that do talk about their potential use are either blowhards looking for attention or minorities who, bar extraordinarily few exceptions, hold no serious power and sway in their respective centers of power.

RedOranje wrote:If the US wished to invade Iran it could decimate the nation's infrastructure and military through conventional air power alone prior to a ground invasion.  The issue is not a fear of Iran's military but a lack of legitimate reason or convincing enough excuse for both the US public and the international community.  

No modern, first world nuclear power is a real threat of using nuclear weapons (or other WMDs) in any situation bar direct retaliation for a WMD attack by a state actor at this point because international backlash would be so significant it would make their position untenable in any realistic scenario.  On top of that, despite the caricatures used by different media for propaganda throughout the world, both world leaders and national populaces the world over DO recognize just how horrid and destructive those devices are.  Those few PEOPLE that do talk about their potential use are either blowhards looking for attention or minorities who, bar extraordinarily few exceptions, hold no serious power and sway in their respective centers of power.

Mamad wrote:I'm talking about ground invasion here. US will face millions of people willing to die. Iran is no Iraq or Afghanistan. people there wanted US to come. this is not the case here.

If Invading Iran wasn't nearly impossible US would've done it a decade ago.

again I mean no disrespect my friend but there is a difernece between millions of people willing to die and people being forced to fight to the death. the USA spends more money on its military than the rest of the world put together. a few weeks of heavy bombardment from the USA and iran would soon lose its will to fight. solders would soon give up the fight.

War is not that simple. yeah that country has more budget and bombs they will win the war in 5 minutes.

Unique wrote:

Mamad wrote:So if US and Israel wanted to attack and invade Iran I'm guessing they can drop a nuke or two on us too.... because it will leave thousands dead if a ground invasion happens.

the only time you would ever see the USA and Israel drop a nuke now would be as retaliation to a nuke dropped on them first. I mean no disrespect by saying this but if iran went to war with the usa it wouldent take them long to win the war and they wouldent need a nuke.

History disagrees.

Way to ignore the meaning of that sentence, mate.
Or at least, way to ignore the word "now".

Unique wrote:

Mamad wrote:I'm talking about ground invasion here. US will face millions of people willing to die. Iran is no Iraq or Afghanistan. people there wanted US to come. this is not the case here.

If Invading Iran wasn't nearly impossible US would've done it a decade ago.

again I mean no disrespect my friend but there is a difernece between millions of people willing to die and people being forced to fight to the death. the USA spends more money on its military than the rest of the world put together. a few weeks of heavy bombardment from the USA and iran would soon lose its will to fight. solders would soon give up the fight.

Not if Iran can some how form an alliance with Russia . Lets not forget the Vietnam War, having more Military funds always doesnt wins you wars even though it is a factor.

Iran will never start a war on anyone. Even with their strong disagreement with Israel, they know better to just bark and not bite.

Their country is developing nicely and their current president is miles more progressive than previous one. The influence of Ayatollas is getting weaker with each new generation.

Iran won't risk destroying all of that by even thinking of starting a war.

Let me preface this post by clarifying something that so far seems to have been either ignored or completely missed: Despite a vocal minority (and a relatively SMALL minority at that) there is no desire within the US for a war with Iran. The country, particularly at a national government level, is far more interested in working WITH Iran to try to restabilise the region after the US's previous/on-going attempts at nation building. A war with Iran is not likely, nevermind imminent, and this discussion is purely and totally hypothetical. At this point, the US would be far more likely to try to normalize relations with Iran and attempt to achieve change through economic trade and interaction than through direct force. The US rhetoric and position under the Bush administration is NOT reflective of the US position now, nor was it particularly accurate to the actual US public's position, especially in the later years of his tenure.

Mamad wrote:War is not that simple. yeah that country has more budget and bombs they will win the war in 5 minutes.

Adit wrote:

Unique wrote:

Mamad wrote:I'm talking about ground invasion here. US will face millions of people willing to die. Iran is no Iraq or Afghanistan. people there wanted US to come. this is not the case here.

If Invading Iran wasn't nearly impossible US would've done it a decade ago.

again I mean no disrespect my friend but there is a difernece between millions of people willing to die and people being forced to fight to the death. the USA spends more money on its military than the rest of the world put together. a few weeks of heavy bombardment from the USA and iran would soon lose its will to fight. solders would soon give up the fight.

Not if Iran can some how form an alliance with Russia . Lets not forget the Vietnam War, having more Military funds always doesnt wins you wars even though it is a factor.

A couple of things here:
First, I think you're underestimating just how MUCH more money the US spends per year on military and military technology. The US military has a capacity to deliver ordinance in such massive amounts and with such relative speed and accuracy today so as to be able to decimate most developing military powers several times over. Keep in mind that prior to the first Gulf War, Iraq was considered to be the 5th largest army in the world. Their military though was made up largely of older equipment and ordinance left/given/sold to them by the US and/or USSR in the decade(s) prior to that. The technological differences combined with the still massive size difference made for a quite telling impact regardless.

Second, these comparisons with the Vietnam Conflict are so far off base so as to be ridiculous. Technology, particularly imaging, communications, and tracking, have come so far since then that the ability to track enemy movement over vast areas is an entirely different prospect. Further, the terrain would also play a hugely different role. Add into that the ability to deliver ordinance accurately, quickly, and accurately through both stealth strike aircraft and drones and you have a completely different scenario on basically every level. Regardless, the US both at government and public level, bar vocal by extremely small minorities, has no compelling interest in going to war with Iran at this time. It simply would not make sense from any angle you approach it.

RedOranje wrote:Let me preface this post by clarifying something that so far seems to have been either ignored or completely missed: Despite a vocal minority (and a relatively SMALL minority at that) there is no desire within the US for a war with Iran. The country, particularly at a national government level, is far more interested in working WITH Iran to try to restabilise the region after the US's previous/on-going attempts at nation building. A war with Iran is not likely, nevermind imminent, and this discussion is purely and totally hypothetical. At this point, the US would be far more likely to try to normalize relations with Iran and attempt to achieve change through economic trade and interaction than through direct force. The US rhetoric and position under the Bush administration is NOT reflective of the US position now, nor was it particularly accurate to the actual US public's position, especially in the later years of his tenure.

Exactly this.

Obama has secured peace for generations with his revolutionary deal with Iran, despite how much people throw shit at him. Whatever the past, USA are not of any mind now to severe relations with a country which is vital to be an ally of with the increasing threat of ISIS in that region.

Obama to Be First Sitting President to Visit Hiroshima

Tacky visit.

It'll be more meat on the grille for the tour the right has labeled the "Apology Tour".

McLewis wrote:It'll be more meat on the grille for the tour the right has labeled the "Apology Tour".

what are your thoughts on that.

McLewis wrote:It'll be more meat on the grille for the tour the right has labeled the "Apology Tour".

To be fair though he doesnt have to apologize.

He'll show up, do that long somber face he always does when he wants to show respect, and the Japanese media will eat it up. And they are gonna lay it on heavy too. They have an entire "pity plaza" dedicated to it. It starts nice enough. You go around, they talk about peace, you know all the pleasantries. My tour guide was asking about my family, my schooling, my thoughts on the leadership of Einosuke Akiya..ect and it was all good. They get you to the dome though and they nail your ass. I saw the other groups with people who couldnt pass as natives getting it. My guide went straight:


and Obama being a good guy will probably apologize.

and it begins...

A-Bomb Survivors Want Obama to Meet, Apologize in Hiroshima

"A group representing Japanese survivors of U.S. atomic bombings urged President Barack Obama to hear their stories and apologize when he visits Hiroshima next week."

http://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory/bomb-survivors-obama-meet-apologize-hiroshima-39220694

I wonder would that group ever apologize to the Koreans or Chinese the boys brutalized in their name?

I mean, Of course the people who got bombed on would expect an apology. It wasn't like they had a say in what the government was doing.

However, Obama shouldn't apologize.

We shouldn't be going there if we aren't prepared to issue some sort of apology. We aren't so this visit shouldn't happen.

Unique wrote:

McLewis wrote:It'll be more meat on the grille for the tour the right has labeled the "Apology Tour".

what are your thoughts on that.

I think the exchanges he's had with the Saudi king are a microcosm of this tour. You could also look to how he handled Merkel and other leaders in the fallout after the wire-tapping incident happened. The Right don't see him bowing to the Saudi King and think "Oh he's just honoring tradition". They see it as him weakening American authority by bowing to another head of state. it's a perception. When perception is allowed to tell the entire story, irrespective of the facts and details, that bothers me.

I think it's a great thing that he's going to break the silence on what happened to these 2 cities. Politically, it is expedient for him to do so, just like everything else he's done in his last year in office so there's that to acknowledge. Moreover, while I think a public apology for those bombs will likely be a step too far, I think at least starting an earnest conversation is probably the best outcome here. There's clearly some unspoken resentment from the Japanese people about those bombings and rightly so. Rather than properly heal the wound we caused, we merely cauterized it. That stopped the majority of the pain in the immediate without a thought to what it would do long term. But that's one of our greatest weaknesses as a nation. We simply don't think far enough ahead in the future. We act far too much on the now.

VendettaRed07 wrote:I mean, Of course the people who got bombed on would expect an apology. It wasn't like they had a say in what the government was doing.

However, Obama shouldn't apologize.

We shouldn't be going there if we aren't prepared to issue some sort of apology. We aren't so this visit shouldn't happen.

They still have a say in electing a government which not only refuses to apologize crimes committed in the past, but in many cases outright deny they ever happened.

You compare modern Japan with Germany, their friend who also committed unspeakable acts, and the difference is night and day. Germany actually shows they feel remorse for what happened. Hiroshima elects LDP shills which are the party to some of the biggest racists/regressives around.

Obama shouldn't be visiting there simply. He shouldn't acknowledge it. Should just go to Okinawa or the greater Tokyo area.

Really great speech.

once again I am proud of our president. Best president of my lifetime.

Every time I see him speak I simply can't make it past his body language, intonation and stresses.
He comes across as having the most blatant 'as if personality' I've ever seen. He's just perfect for people with no discernment whatsoever.
Honestly I'd rather listen to Dan Quayle talk for 20 minutes, at least he was funny.

DuringTheWar wrote:Every time I see him speak I simply can't make it past his body language, intonation and stresses.
He comes across as having the most blatant 'as if personality' I've ever seen. He's just perfect for people with no discernment whatsoever.
Honestly I'd rather listen to Dan Quayle talk for 20 minutes, at least he was funny.

He comes across as worldly, which is exactly what i want in a president.

Does he have the boy next door charm of bush? No, but that isn't what you want in a leader. You want the best your nation can offer, and Obama fits that to a tee.