4 ms·

You just explained the Atlantic hatred for Iran. In case of rational adversaries, the "littering" would convert presence into "MAD" endgame. That's a swift reso

by coretx 7y ago

You just explained the Atlantic hatred for Iran. In case of rational adversaries, the "littering" would convert presence into "MAD" endgame. That's a swift resolution of conflict! Unlike adversaries in the past such as for example the Soviet Union, Iran is not a rational actor thus the MAD scenario will not lead to resolution/stalemate but to obliteration. Never the less, it is a humane solution at other theaters of war.

cultofmetatron 7y ago
America killed one of their national heroes. This put them in the position if retaliating and risking a war or appearing weak and open to another incursion. They proceeded with a symbolic attack that left no one dead and declared that thats the end of that as long as the US does not escalate. Sounds pretty damn rational to me...
- topkai22 7y ago
  The were shooting to kill but missed, and then accidentally shot down a 3rd party’s airliner killing 176 people, including 82 of their own citizens. In my opinion, that tragedy was what was responsible for the de-escalation.
gdy 7y ago
"Iran is not a rational actor" [Citation needed]
- coretx 7y ago
  Iran being a theocracy is being disputed by none. In the context above it means they can't be trusted to behave as a rational actor in case of a MAD scenario. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutual_assured_destruction https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutual_assured_destruction As they might just say inshallah!
  - gdy 7y ago
    I have serious doubts that religious leaders actually believe in their god or gods. And the US presidents, to that matter, are all claim to be religious. Not to mention Nixon's 'madman theory'. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Madman_theory https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Madman_theory
    - coretx 7y ago
      From my experience working with persian dissidents I can tell you that this is true for some but certainly not for all. This volatility is unworkable geopolitically as the stakes are too high. Furthermore, although being a pacifist i'd rather see Iran eradicated instead of having to take a gamble with their fait. So much for the madman theory. Let's hope diplomacy one day prevails.
      - gdy 7y ago
        "although being a pacifist i'd rather see Iran eradicated" This makes you a monster.
        coretx 7y ago
        To choose survival instead of death merely makes me human. And yes, humans are monsters. It's also why I concluded with hope for diplomacy to prevail instead. You are also right about the lies. All actors lie, a lot.
        gdy 7y ago
        Nobody threatens you and yet you are advocating genocide.
      - gdy 7y ago
        "working with persian dissidents" 'Dissidents' lie. See Curveball dossier. In a February 2011 interview with The Guardian he "admitted for the first time that he lied about his story, then watched in shock as it was used to justify the war." https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curveball_(informant) https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curveball_(informant) And I highly doubt that any of the Iranian 'dissidents' you've worked with have any idea of what happens in the minds of Iranian leadership.

by coretx 7y ago

cultofmetatron 7y ago

America killed one of their national heroes. This put them in the position if retaliating and risking a war or appearing weak and open to another incursion. They proceeded with a symbolic attack that left no one dead and declared that thats the end of that as long as the US does not escalate. Sounds pretty damn rational to me...

topkai22 7y ago
The were shooting to kill but missed, and then accidentally shot down a 3rd party’s airliner killing 176 people, including 82 of their own citizens. In my opinion, that tragedy was what was responsible for the de-escalation.

gdy 7y ago

"Iran is not a rational actor" [Citation needed]

coretx 7y ago
Iran being a theocracy is being disputed by none. In the context above it means they can't be trusted to behave as a rational actor in case of a MAD scenario. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutual_assured_destruction https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutual_assured_destruction As they might just say inshallah!
- gdy 7y ago
  I have serious doubts that religious leaders actually believe in their god or gods. And the US presidents, to that matter, are all claim to be religious. Not to mention Nixon's 'madman theory'. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Madman_theory https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Madman_theory
  - coretx 7y ago
    From my experience working with persian dissidents I can tell you that this is true for some but certainly not for all. This volatility is unworkable geopolitically as the stakes are too high. Furthermore, although being a pacifist i'd rather see Iran eradicated instead of having to take a gamble with their fait. So much for the madman theory. Let's hope diplomacy one day prevails.
    - gdy 7y ago
      "although being a pacifist i'd rather see Iran eradicated" This makes you a monster.
      - coretx 7y ago
        To choose survival instead of death merely makes me human. And yes, humans are monsters. It's also why I concluded with hope for diplomacy to prevail instead. You are also right about the lies. All actors lie, a lot.
        gdy 7y ago
        Nobody threatens you and yet you are advocating genocide.
    - gdy 7y ago
      "working with persian dissidents" 'Dissidents' lie. See Curveball dossier. In a February 2011 interview with The Guardian he "admitted for the first time that he lied about his story, then watched in shock as it was used to justify the war." https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curveball_(informant) https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curveball_(informant) And I highly doubt that any of the Iranian 'dissidents' you've worked with have any idea of what happens in the minds of Iranian leadership.