Iran and Russia

[Guest]

UPDATE 3-Russia opens way to missile deliveries to Iran, starts oil-for-goods swap | Reuters (http://in.reuters.com/article/2015/04/13/iran-nuclear-russia-idINL5N0XA1NH20150413)

Hope this link works. See if Russia and Iran doesn't walk all over us in the near future because of what obama has done with the nuclear dial in Iran.

[Guest]

The selling of weapons has been a part of normal trade for many many years. The United States is one of the worlds largest producer of weapons for sale to foreign governments. Please think before you become paranoid for no reason. The world is dangerous enough without using non issues like this one to promote fear in our friends and neighbors.

[Guest]

Here is Russia's take on the missile deal:

http://rt.com/news/249229-russia-s300-delivery-iran/

[Guest]

UPDATE 3-Russia opens way to missile deliveries to Iran, starts oil-for-goods swap | Reuters (http://in.reuters.com/article/2015/04/13/iran-nuclear-russia-idINL5N0XA1NH20150413)

Hope this link works. See if Russia and Iran doesn't walk all over us in the near future because of what obama has done with the nuclear dial in Iran.


Please expand on what Obama has done with the nuclear deal in Iran, especially compared to what France, China, Great Britain and Germany did with the same nuclear deal?

[Guest]

The selling of weapons has been a part of normal trade for many many years. The United States is one of the worlds largest producer of weapons for sale to foreign governments. Please think before you become paranoid for no reason. The world is dangerous enough without using non issues like this one to promote fear in our friends and neighbors.

And I would say perhaps more understanding of the potential issue(s) before counselling folks to not worry.

All during our global trade there have been limitations put on certain technologies to certain countries. Almost any new or advanced technology with a military application is almost always on the no-no list...like it or not. And we have been doing it for years.

To not be concerned about Russia making missles available to Iran is the epitomy of sticking one's head in the sand....totally and completely naieve....or just being dumb about the threats involved.

Iran is moving toward nuclear weapon capability in spite of what the world has been doing (?) and saying. For them to be getting missles from Russia should be of concern to every peace loving person in the world.
How convenient for Russia to sponsor missle capability to a country that would have no hesitation to use them.

For you to call it a "non-issue" must surely mean you do not understand the potential problem. To call others paranoid who understand the problem further makes one wonder why.

And oh by the way, yes the USA sells weapons to other countries. What you no doubt do not know is there is in fact a certain level of technology weapons that the USA will not sell. Older generation or non computer operated weapons are usually what is allowed to be sold.

I would also suggest an apology to your fellow posters for labelling them....incorrectly.

[Guest]

The selling of weapons has been a part of normal trade for many many years. The United States is one of the worlds largest producer of weapons for sale to foreign governments. Please think before you become paranoid for no reason. The world is dangerous enough without using non issues like this one to promote fear in our friends and neighbors.

I'm gonna take a wild guess .... if you were honest about your crippling liberal ideology, you would admit and even confess that America in your mind is just as guilty, if not more so, than any other country. In fact, you likely believe America is THE source of most problems in the world?

Who are we to judge, correct?

ps for you to label Russia's action a non-issue makes you non-serious about this topic

[Guest]

And I would say perhaps more understanding of the potential issue(s) before counselling folks to not worry.

All during our global trade there have been limitations put on certain technologies to certain countries. Almost any new or advanced technology with a military application is almost always on the no-no list...like it or not. And we have been doing it for years.

To not be concerned about Russia making missles available to Iran is the epitomy of sticking one's head in the sand....totally and completely naieve....or just being dumb about the threats involved.

Iran is moving toward nuclear weapon capability in spite of what the world has been doing (?) and saying. For them to be getting missles from Russia should be of concern to every peace loving person in the world.
How convenient for Russia to sponsor missle capability to a country that would have no hesitation to use them.

For you to call it a "non-issue" must surely mean you do not understand the potential problem. To call others paranoid who understand the problem further makes one wonder why.

And oh by the way, yes the USA sells weapons to other countries. What you no doubt do not know is there is in fact a certain level of technology weapons that the USA will not sell. Older generation or non computer operated weapons are usually what is allowed to be sold.

I would also suggest an apology to your fellow posters for labelling them....incorrectly.

Excellent analysis ... the only point I'd disagree on is where and how deep the poster (ie the one you responded to) is actually sticking his or her head

[Guest]

An arms trade show video that is amazing:

https://youtu.be/QL_3Qg-SADY

[Guest]

Here is the short version. Unfortunately liberal academia continues to be busy indoctrinating students at every age that America's past is one of treachery, slavery, warmongering , conquerors, bigots and they have been quite effective in re-writing American history . So between the diversity emphasis and the negative emphasis on our past students now believe that America's past heroes are not never have been and never will be heroes. They especially detest white men and its actually one of the reasons they refuse to engage in the classics too many hateful white men who just want to subjugate the masses

Its no wonder liberals are confused. Dam those founders for risking their life and fortunes to form this Republic


Personal Best Regards:

[Guest]

Thanks for the link to the trade show. Never saw that before.No wonder we cant stop anything

[Guest]

Has anyone considered that it is the worlds fault. The them/us has not worked. Let's try negotiations without the bleeding heart liberals, nor the I want to kill something hard right. When someone is too far off center, they will be harmful to the desires of the vast majority.

[Guest]

In our history of developing the atomic bomb, what do you think was our intent. Peaceful of course. What else could possibly be an acceptable answer.

And what was it that caused us to turn from peaceful use to making the decision to use it against our enemy, Japan?

Does anyone wonder what type of dialogue took place when discussing the expected collatoral damage?

The asnwer is they were looking to break the back and demoralize the enemy. It worked.

And we were the worlds fastest developing, most civilized population on the planet (of sorts).

So what makes ANYBODY think that a country like Iran whose leadership openly states their goal is to obliterate Israel from the map?
How about the continual reference to us infedels and the vow to rid the world of our kind? How about ISIS back by Iran calling for the death of and to " burn America" and stop it in it's tracks.

Will the naieve and those drinking the part kool aide please step to the left side of the room.

Iran is developing a nuclear capability for one purpose and one purpose only just like we did. And now to have any doubt about whether the Russians supplying missles is a good or bad thing is just plain outright being stupid about reality. Those missles are known meapons that work. All Iran has to do is get the war head which is obviously closer than many would like to hope. Just ask Obama and watch the dodge and weave answers (again).

Some need to care about the potential that there could be a Hiroshima or Nagasaki on our turf in our grand children's lifetime.

[Guest]

In our history of developing the atomic bomb, what do you think was our intent. Peaceful of course. What else could possibly be an acceptable answer.

And what was it that caused us to turn from peaceful use to making the decision to use it against our enemy, Japan?

Does anyone wonder what type of dialogue took place when discussing the expected collatoral damage?

The asnwer is they were looking to break the back and demoralize the enemy. It worked.

And we were the worlds fastest developing, most civilized population on the planet (of sorts).

So what makes ANYBODY think that a country like Iran whose leadership openly states their goal is to obliterate Israel from the map?
How about the continual reference to us infedels and the vow to rid the world of our kind? How about ISIS back by Iran calling for the death of and to " burn America" and stop it in it's tracks.

Will the naieve and those drinking the part kool aide please step to the left side of the room.

Iran is developing a nuclear capability for one purpose and one purpose only just like we did. And now to have any doubt about whether the Russians supplying missles is a good or bad thing is just plain outright being stupid about reality. Those missles are known meapons that work. All Iran has to do is get the war head which is obviously closer than many would like to hope. Just ask Obama and watch the dodge and weave answers (again).

Some need to care about the potential that there could be a Hiroshima or Nagasaki on our turf in our grand children's lifetime.

You've nailed. I get that some people want the world to be more peaceful, orderly and fair ... but it's not and never has been.

Putting our kids and grandkids on the sacrificial altar of hope with respect to Iran is the worst type of irresponsibility. It's criminal.

[Guest]

I am not sure I follow your argument about how/why we developed an atomic weapon. First off, the bomb was developed in secrecy so there wasn't any announcement of our intentions. Secondly, the actual motivation was the fear that Germany would develop an atomic weapon. The intention was to develop a weapon. Germany's development effort never yielded a weapon and the war ended before our weapons were completed. The decision to use the weapon against Japan has been a widely discussed topic. I believe the most likely reasons were revenge and making a political statement to Russia. From a pragmatic point of view, a demonstration of the weapon in a non populated area may have been sufficient to motivate Japan to surrender. Also, Japan's military had effectively been eliminated except for troops in Japan. They had no air force or navy of consequence and the country had effectively been bombed into oblivion. We could have simply stated "you lose" and gone home. As I understand it, the primary concern in Japan was that the Emperor could stay in power. If we had made that offer, the war may very well have ended without bombing Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Any arguments about how the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki saved countless US lives is based upon the assumption what we had to invade Japan. I have never seen the logic in that as we would not have needed to invade Japan.

In our history of developing the atomic bomb, what do you think was our intent. Peaceful of course. What else could possibly be an acceptable answer.

And what was it that caused us to turn from peaceful use to making the decision to use it against our enemy, Japan?

Does anyone wonder what type of dialogue took place when discussing the expected collatoral damage?

The asnwer is they were looking to break the back and demoralize the enemy. It worked.

And we were the worlds fastest developing, most civilized population on the planet (of sorts).

So what makes ANYBODY think that a country like Iran whose leadership openly states their goal is to obliterate Israel from the map?
How about the continual reference to us infedels and the vow to rid the world of our kind? How about ISIS back by Iran calling for the death of and to " burn America" and stop it in it's tracks.

Will the naieve and those drinking the part kool aide please step to the left side of the room.

Iran is developing a nuclear capability for one purpose and one purpose only just like we did. And now to have any doubt about whether the Russians supplying missles is a good or bad thing is just plain outright being stupid about reality. Those missles are known meapons that work. All Iran has to do is get the war head which is obviously closer than many would like to hope. Just ask Obama and watch the dodge and weave answers (again).

Some need to care about the potential that there could be a Hiroshima or Nagasaki on our turf in our grand children's lifetime.

[Guest]

I am not sure I follow your argument about how/why we developed an atomic weapon. First off, the bomb was developed in secrecy so there wasn't any announcement of our intentions. Secondly, the actual motivation was the fear that Germany would develop an atomic weapon. The intention was to develop a weapon. Germany's development effort never yielded a weapon and the war ended before our weapons were completed. The decision to use the weapon against Japan has been a widely discussed topic. I believe the most likely reasons were revenge and making a political statement to Russia. From a pragmatic point of view, a demonstration of the weapon in a non populated area may have been sufficient to motivate Japan to surrender. Also, Japan's military had effectively been eliminated except for troops in Japan. They had no air force or navy of consequence and the country had effectively been bombed into oblivion. We could have simply stated "you lose" and gone home. As I understand it, the primary concern in Japan was that the Emperor could stay in power. If we had made that offer, the war may very well have ended without bombing Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Any arguments about how the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki saved countless US lives is based upon the assumption what we had to invade Japan. I have never seen the logic in that as we would not have needed to invade Japan.

You're making a highly revisionist argument from the comfort of your office, safely ensconced, 70 years after the fact. The consensus at the time was Japan would not surrender and the risk of a demonstration shot was not worth it ... remember, we only had two bombs at the time.

Keep in mind also that the purpose of war is to kill the spirit, as well as the body, of the enemy so terribly as to make sure that the enenby will not rise again. That's the part your missing. Hiroshima and Nagasaki accomplished the final killing of the Japanese sprit to fight.

Operation Olympus was the planned invasion of Japan and the estimates for allied casualties ran into the millions. <--Read that last number again.

In addition, millions of Japanese would have died. They was also an attempted military coup (Kyujuo incident) after the two bombs had been dropped and it came very close to succeeding.

You don't know your history. Good thing for you, and all of us, that you never had to make a command decision like this as a senior political leader or general officer in the US Army.

[Guest]

I do know my history very well and you have clearly bought into the propaganda. Yes, we had two bombs but could have made more. Your argument is without merit. While there were plans to invade Japan there was no compelling reason to do so as there ability to wage war had been eliminated. The status of the Emperor was a major issue that could have easily been addressed earlier. Drawing up plans and implementing them are too different issues. The invasion plans became the excuse for dropping the bomb. Your attempted insults say a lot about your lack of character. It must really suck to be you.

You're making a highly revisionist argument from the comfort of your office, safely ensconced, 70 years after the fact. The consensus at the time was Japan would not surrender and the risk of a demonstration shot was not worth it ... remember, we only had two bombs at the time.

Keep in mind also that the purpose of war is to kill the spirit, as well as the body, of the enemy so terribly as to make sure that the enenby will not rise again. That's the part your missing. Hiroshima and Nagasaki accomplished the final killing of the Japanese sprit to fight.

Operation Olympus was the planned invasion of Japan and the estimates for allied casualties ran into the millions. <--Read that last number again.

In addition, millions of Japanese would have died. They was also an attempted military coup (Kyujuo incident) after the two bombs had been dropped and it came very close to succeeding.

You don't know your history. Good thing for you, and all of us, that you never had to make a command decision like this as a senior political leader or general officer in the US Army.

[Guest]

I do know my history very well and you have clearly bought into the propaganda. Yes, we had two bombs but could have made more. Your argument is without merit. While there were plans to invade Japan there was no compelling reason to do so as there ability to wage war had been eliminated. The status of the Emperor was a major issue that could have easily been addressed earlier. Drawing up plans and implementing them are too different issues. The invasion plans became the excuse for dropping the bomb. Your attempted insults say a lot about your lack of character. It must really suck to be you.

Sorry, but you really don't know your history, and you truly don't know what "making war" in its fullest sense is all about. I explained it earlier. Not trying to be insulting, but it's a simple statement of fact at least based on what you posted. You're indulging in easy revisionism ...

[Guest]

You clearly can't differentiate between facts and opinions. What I stated as facts are true. Some of what I stated was my opinion. Try rereading my post and perhaps you can start to understand the difference. Try concentrating on words such as "I believe", "may", "may very well". Please spare me your condescending, know-it-all attitude. Again, it reflects badly on you and your inability to converse in a respectful manner. You have established yourself as a light weight.

Sorry, but you really don't know your history, and you truly don't know what "making war" in its fullest sense is all about. I explained it earlier. Not trying to be insulting, but it's a simple statement of fact at least based on what you posted. You're indulging in easy revisionism ...

[Guest]

All criticisms intended to add accuracy are accepted.
The premise of my post remains the same.
Why did we develop the nuclear bomb? To maim and kill and destroy the enemy (plug in whichever one fits the decision tree at the time).

Also the intent was to contrast the USA's existence and culture and philosophy of life and what ever other parameters would help describe us. We chose to develop and use the bomb!

The contrast was to now look at Iran and ISIS et al, proven terrorists, proudly declaring they will not be denied nuclear capability. Proudly boasting and confirming time and again they will use their weaponry to remove Israel from the earth. That they will come to the USA and burn our cities to the ground.

6th grade level....we are the good guys and we secretly developed and used the bomb knowingly killing hundreds of thousands of people.
The bad guys are developing the same capability...100% bonafide killers and terrorists. Now just how much logic is required to conclude whether they will use the bomb or not.

The point of my post.

[Guest]

You clearly can't differentiate between facts and opinions. What I stated as facts are true. Some of what I stated was my opinion. Try rereading my post and perhaps you can start to understand the difference. Try concentrating on words such as "I believe", "may", "may very well". Please spare me your condescending, know-it-all attitude. Again, it reflects badly on you and your inability to converse in a respectful manner. You have established yourself as a light weight.

Yes it was clear you were opining. It was also clear you did not know all of your history (eg the attempted coup after two bombs dropped which invalidates your "peaceful" theory.

Likewise your ideological lens was clear when you referred to the " propoganda". It was also clear that your speculation was simply easy revisionism ... can't say it any plainer. Total victory was attained ovef Japan but, had your notion actually been followed in 1945 the Japanese military would have remained in power. How foolish would that have been?

What's clearest of all is you're offended when someone calls you on it. Try developing a thicker skin?

[Guest]

All criticisms intended to add accuracy are accepted.
The premise of my post remains the same.
Why did we develop the nuclear bomb? To maim and kill and destroy the enemy (plug in whichever one fits the decision tree at the time).

Also the intent was to contrast the USA's existence and culture and philosophy of life and what ever other parameters would help describe us. We chose to develop and use the bomb!

The contrast was to now look at Iran and ISIS et al, proven terrorists, proudly declaring they will not be denied nuclear capability. Proudly boasting and confirming time and again they will use their weaponry to remove Israel from the earth. That they will come to the USA and burn our cities to the ground.

6th grade level....we are the good guys and we secretly developed and used the bomb knowingly killing hundreds of thousands of people.
The bad guys are developing the same capability...100% bonafide killers and terrorists. Now just how much logic is required to conclude whether they will use the bomb or not.

The point of my post.

Yes getting back to the point of your post, and after the abortive attempt at revisionism over dropping the two bombs in 1945, one thing becomes apparent -- your point should be self evident yet it's not

That is, we are engaged in a war with evil and there is ZERO doubt the Islamics will use a nuke when and if they get the chance. What's incredible to me is that some lefties will actually debate this or at least want to be "reasonble" and give them the benefit of the doubt etc. Simply put, this mode of thinking is somewhere between suicidal and insane.

Some people will literally never learn no matter what, or how often, history teaches us.

[Guest]

So how is it that China (our BFF Communist Trading Partner) gets 50% of the oil out of Iraq? No arms or military intervention needed.

[Guest]

So how is it that China (our BFF Communist Trading Partner) gets 50% of the oil out of Iraq? No arms or military intervention needed.

That's because self-hating liberals rail against "blood for oil" and all that guilt inducing stuff. In addition, we as a country have become too terminally stupid to say hey, if our troops secured the oil fields, the drilling rights go only to American approved companies or consortiums so that the folks at home pay less for gas. Instead, as you say, Communist China achieves that.

Where is US imperialism when we need it?

[Guest]

That's because self-hating liberals rail against "blood for oil" and all that guilt inducing stuff. In addition, we as a country have become too terminally stupid to say hey, if our troops secured the oil fields, the drilling rights go only to American approved companies or consortiums so that the folks at home pay less for gas. Instead, as you say, Communist China achieves that.

Where is US imperialism when we need it?

This is the clearest post I may have ever seen expressing the real thinking of the neocons. We get your oil because we made up a war excuse to invade your country. I am so glad I have some guilt inducing stuff in my head so I don't think like that. I guess China's invasion in the middle east paid off better than ours.

Remember how if Russia got the bomb they would 100% use it, and if China got the bomb they would 100% use it, and if Pakistan a wildly Islamist state got the bomb they would use it or give it to the Taliban to use it, or for 100% sure North Korea would use it. And yet here we are, even after 6 years of Obama, we are still here.

Maybe your post is a joke written by a liberal to impersonate a RWNJ, sort of Colbert. If so well done.

[Guest]

In our history of developing the atomic bomb, what do you think was our intent. Peaceful of course. What else could possibly be an acceptable answer.


I'm not clear, to the historian who posted this line... Is this actually what you believe and all those letters just came out of your fingers wrong? Or do you really believe that it is unacceptable if the US developed the bomb for military use not for peaceful intent?
The second bomb was dropped on Japan on August 9th. By Aug 13 the next bomb was complete and ready to be shipped and the development line was producing a new one due about every 10 days. The concern of the military was whether to drop them one at a time or consider waiting for a larger supply and using them tactically rather than for psychological effects. So a demonstration bombing on non-populated target would have only delayed the war by about 10 days. It is simply not true that we had 2 bombs and that was the end of our supply.

[Guest]

I'm not clear, to the historian who posted this line... Is this actually what you believe and all those letters just came out of your fingers wrong? Or do you really believe that it is unacceptable if the US developed the bomb for military use not for peaceful intent?

The second bomb was dropped on Japan on August 9th. By Aug 13 the next bomb was complete and ready to be shipped and the development line was producing a new one due about every 10 days. The concern of the military was whether to drop them one at a time or consider waiting for a larger supply and using them tactically rather than for psychological effects. So a demonstration bombing on non-populated target would have only delayed the war by about 10 days. It is simply not true that we had 2 bombs and that was the end of our supply.

Was someone earlier in the thread actually arguing that developing the A-bomb for military purposes in WWII was somehow undesirable? If so, that's too ludicrous to even discuss so I'll leave it at that.

However, I'm not sure of your latter point. Let's agree that a production line was or would have been in place to produce additional bombs ... no surprise there.

Are you simply noting that fact? Or do you believe the US should have dropped a demonstration bomb ... ie on an uninhabited area instead of the two cities selected?

[Guest]

Check this out! China has a 3.3 Billion Dollar deal with Iran for LNG. Total trade deals in 2012 50 Billion Dollars. No bombs or "boots on the ground" needed. Of course we're still trading with China. No problem!