73 Reds

Sorry, meant disproportional loss of innocent human life. And of course no one can explain or justify Hezbollah presence in Southern Lebanon as just one example. Lebanon doesn't want them there and neither does Israel yet when Israel responds to their terrorist attacks, it gets blamed and used as a pawn and/or excuse for jeopardizing a peace deal with Iran. Informed people know better.

Cubs, the issue is always proportionality and whether it was necessary. Again, hindsight is much more clear than present day. We didn't start or provoke WWII but we ended it. The issue is how we ended it and whether we would do the same thing again. We did learn how destructive a nuclear bomb can be, which hopefully is the reason it will remain a useful deterrent for those who have it and who value human life.

Agreed. I think the important issue is that smart people learn from their mistakes. I would hope that we have. I'd also like to think that the Japanese have forgiven us and remain ashamed of being on the wrong side of morality during WWII even though there remain apologists in this Country who are unable to learn from history.

It also ended WWII. Not to suggest it was the right thing to do in hindsight but hindsight is often much clearer than silly comments.

See, this is where our thinking diverges just a bit. The difference between those who value human life and those who don't is the same difference between those who would use a nuclear weapon and those who wouldn't. How many countries or civilizations use human shields, stockpile military weapons in schools and hospitals and build tunnels through homes in residential neighborhoods to smuggle weapons and plot terrorist acts? How many suppress the lives of their population in the name of an ideology calling for death and destruction? The distinction reflects barbarianism and is the reason why anyone who morally equates the actions of Israel and Iran is either supremely ignorant or ideologically bankrupt. I don't think humanity is going away anytime soon and my hope is that it can overcome barbarianism for as long as possible, though it will require educating a lot of so-called educated folks about the true meaning of prejudice.

As usual, for the most part I agree and do tend to look at look at things from a Western-centric POV. But this is because I believe our POV is largely correct and the best model for a free, prosperous, peaceful World. There is no reason to eliminate, cultures, customs, histories, alliances, religious practices, and fundamental beliefs as long as they don't threaten and infringe on the rights of others. History teaches us that this can largely be accomplished through deterrence but the exceptions like Iran have to be dealt with more directly unless we want another 47 years of fundamental fanaticism. For me its about time. Because of its success, the US has a unique role in the World. Nothing says the role can't be shared and in time it will.

Regime survival and maximizing relative power are two entirely different concepts and if you remove any degree of selfish motive from the mix, neither is particularly important (if at all) to Iran's future. No one is threatening the existence of most countries and most countries are not a threat to anyone else. Ironically, those who make direct threats are the least successful in terms of quality of life of their people and pretty much every other way most would define success; coincidence? But that is looking at the issue rationally, the way most of the World would view it because most of the World simply wants to co-exist in peace. Those who don't for any reason are not acting rationally the way most of the World would define it.

Smoke won't come out of my head, LOL but we are discussing one country that values human life and one whose leadership does not. Therefore, any talk of whether the country that doesn't value human life is acting rationally is only as sensible as how you define "rational" - as per my earlier post. Do THEY believe they are acting rational within the perverse universe of their ideology? Of course they do - that I think was Trump's point. But that definition of "rational" is wholly inconsistent with participation in today's Free World. Looking at the issue any other way only lends itself to continued conflict and turmoil, which is precisely what we are trying to stop.

The same can be said of any country with nuclear capability. You are ignoring the third option (though I don't necessarily agree that Israel could not go it alone in Iran without using nuclear weapons). It could continue laying waste to anyone who threatens and attacks its borders as it has done throughout its entire existence. Not optimal, but it has worked thus far even though the costs have been substantial. Unless you don't believe that Iran today is essentially defenseless, I don't understand the point of your argument.

Yes, when I was younger. As I grew older periodic returns became less meaningful. Today, most of my assets are privately held so there would be little to no point in even trying.

Change, you may call Iran's behavior rational but when your ideology is death and destruction to those you don't agree with, your definition of rational needs some serious adjustment. We all have to share the same World. It is really no more complicated than that. Trying to "rationalize" any definition of "rational" beyond that is truly irrational.

Don't confuse them with history. Nor with sensible questions.

My cognitive dissonance, LOL? The thread that just keeps on giving.

Even simpler clarification: One was a deal, one is an MOU.

Who knows precisely what "people" he is talking about. Clearly there are different elements of fanatics in control of Iran. That is one of the main issues with any negotiations. Who is in charge today and who will be in charge tomorrow? You still gotta try but with realistic expectations. Anything better than a nuclear-armed Iran should be deemed a success. Anything better than that is gravy.