# Time to attack iran



## rhodescholar

Here is a great article on why iran needs to be attacked ASAP.  Rather than respond emotionally, as have so many here have done recently, I would like to see posters come up with point-by-point responses why Bolton's assessment is inaccurate.

washingtonpost.com

By John R. Bolton
Thursday, July 2, 2009
With Iran's hard-line mullahs and the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps unmistakably back in control, Israel's decision of whether to use military force against Tehran's nuclear weapons program is more urgent than ever.

Iran's nuclear threat was never in doubt during its presidential campaign, but the post-election resistance raised the possibility of some sort of regime change. That prospect seems lost for the near future or for at least as long as it will take Iran to finalize a deliverable nuclear weapons capability.

Accordingly, with no other timely option, the already compelling logic for an Israeli strike is nearly inexorable. Israel is undoubtedly ratcheting forward its decision-making process. President Obama is almost certainly not.

He still wants "engagement" (a particularly evocative term now) with Iran's current regime. Last Thursday, the State Department confirmed that Secretary Hillary Clinton spoke to her Russian and Chinese counterparts about "getting Iran back to negotiating on some of these concerns that the international community has." This is precisely the view of Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov, reflected in the Group of Eight communique the next day. Sen. John Kerry thinks the recent election unpleasantness in Tehran will delay negotiations for only a few weeks.

Obama administration sources have opined (anonymously) that Iran will be more eager to negotiate than it was before its election in order to find "acceptance" by the "international community." Some leaks indicated that negotiations had to produce results by the U.N. General Assembly's opening in late September, while others projected that they had until the end of 2009 to show progress. These gauzy scenarios assume that the Tehran regime cares about "acceptance" or is somehow embarrassed by eliminating its enemies. Both propositions are dubious.

Obama will nonetheless attempt to jump-start bilateral negotiations with Iran, though time is running out even under the timetables leaked to the media. There are two problems with this approach. First, Tehran isn't going to negotiate in good faith. It hasn't for the past six years with the European Union as our surrogates, and it won't start now. As Clinton said on Tuesday, Iran has "a huge credibility gap" because of its electoral fraud. Second, given Iran's nuclear progress, even if the stronger sanctions Obama has threatened could be agreed upon, they would not prevent Iran from fabricating weapons and delivery systems when it chooses, as it has been striving to do for the past 20 years. Time is too short, and sanctions failed long ago.

Only those most theologically committed to negotiation still believe Iran will fully renounce its nuclear program. Unfortunately, the Obama administration has a "Plan B," which would allow Iran to have a "peaceful" civil nuclear power program while publicly "renouncing" the objective of nuclear weapons. Obama would define such an outcome as "success," even though in reality it would hardly be different from what Iran is doing and saying now. A "peaceful" uranium enrichment program, "peaceful" reactors such as Bushehr and "peaceful" heavy-water projects like that under construction at Arak leave Iran with an enormous breakout capability to produce nuclear weapons in very short order. And anyone who believes the Revolutionary Guard Corps will abandon its weaponization and ballistic missile programs probably believes that there was no fraud in Iran's June 12 election. See "huge credibility gap," supra.

In short, the stolen election and its tumultuous aftermath have dramatically highlighted the strategic and tactical flaws in Obama's game plan. With regime change off the table for the coming critical period in Iran's nuclear program, Israel's decision on using force is both easier and more urgent. Since there is no likelihood that diplomacy will start or finish in time, or even progress far enough to make any real difference, there is no point waiting for negotiations to play out. In fact, given the near certainty of Obama changing his definition of "success," negotiations represent an even more dangerous trap for Israel.

Those who oppose Iran acquiring nuclear weapons are left in the near term with only the option of targeted military force against its weapons facilities. Significantly, the uprising in Iran also makes it more likely that an effective public diplomacy campaign could be waged in the country to explain to Iranians that such an attack is directed against the regime, not against the Iranian people. This was always true, but it has become even more important to make this case emphatically, when the gulf between the Islamic revolution of 1979 and the citizens of Iran has never been clearer or wider. Military action against Iran's nuclear program and the ultimate goal of regime change can be worked together consistently.

Otherwise, be prepared for an Iran with nuclear weapons, which some, including Obama advisers, believe could be contained and deterred. That is not a hypothesis we should seek to test in the real world. The cost of error could be fatal.

The writer, a senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, was U.S. ambassador to the United Nations from August 2005 to December 2006 and is the author of "Surrender Is Not an Option: Defending America at the United Nations and Abroad."


----------



## Midnight Marauder

How many threads are you going to start on this? Why do you need two (so far) for the same information and updates to the same topic?

Here's your other "attack Iran" thread:

http://www.usmessageboard.com/iran/80174-its-time-to-militarily-conduct-regime-change-in-iran.html


----------



## Big Black Dog

I think a good time to attack Iran is 20 minutes after we attack North Korea.  If we're going to mix it up, hey, let's get a bee in everybodys bonnet.


----------



## rhodescholar

Midnight Marauder said:


> How many threads are you going to start on this? Why do you need two (so far) for the same information and updates to the same topic?
> 
> Here's your other "attack Iran" thread:
> 
> http://www.usmessageboard.com/iran/80174-its-time-to-militarily-conduct-regime-change-in-iran.html



Because as I said in the first post, that thread turned into a flame throwing contest by various posters.

I would prefer that this one stay on topic.


----------



## xotoxi

Big Black Dog said:


> I think a good time to attack Iran is 20 minutes after we attack North Korea. If we're going to mix it up, hey, let's get a bee in everybodys bonnet.


 
Why don't we fake everyone out and attack Mozambique?


----------



## L.K.Eder

xotoxi said:


> Big Black Dog said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think a good time to attack Iran is 20 minutes after we attack North Korea. If we're going to mix it up, hey, let's get a bee in everybodys bonnet.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why don't we fake everyone out and attack Mozambique?
Click to expand...


no hard targets


----------



## Sunni Man

Bolton is a world class retard

No wonder RhodesStupid likes to quote him


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy

Well this article rests on the false assumption that Iran is developing nuclear weapons, which we have no evidence for.  So that is really the only refutation of the article that is necessary.  If we start attacking nations based on a whim then we'll simply end up with another Iraq, and we don't have the money for another Iraq.


----------



## PLYMCO_PILGRIM

I dont think we are in a position to attack anyone right now.   

Considering Obama's opinions and attitudes on the subject of Iran I dont even see how this idea is feasible.

The best chance of Iran getting attacked is by israel, or if they piss iraq off real bad...imagine the iraqi's using our training and equipment to attack Iran.

I mean Ahmedinijad already said we tried to do a soft overthrow of him in the last election, he will then claim we made the israelis or the iraqis do it becuase we are just that bad arsed of a country.

Since i'm new i have one disclaimer....i am full of sarcasm at times


----------



## Sunni Man

PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:


> The best chance of Iran getting attacked is by israel, or if they piss iraq off real bad...imagine the iraqi's using our training and equipment to attack Iran.


Iran with the backing of the U.S tried that in the 1980's

It turned into a huge disaster.

I think the outcome today would be just as bad or even worse


----------



## PLYMCO_PILGRIM

Sunni Man said:


> PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:
> 
> 
> 
> The best chance of Iran getting attacked is by israel, or if they piss iraq off real bad...imagine the iraqi's using our training and equipment to attack Iran.
> 
> 
> 
> Iran with the backing of the U.S tried that in the 1980's
> 
> It turned into a huge disaster.
> 
> I think the outcome today would be just as bad or even worse
Click to expand...


Ah i remember the Col Ollie North's trials.   

Weren't we selling weaponst to both sides.   The iran-contra scandal.


----------



## toomuchtime_

PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:


> Sunni Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:
> 
> 
> 
> The best chance of Iran getting attacked is by israel, or if they piss iraq off real bad...imagine the iraqi's using our training and equipment to attack Iran.
> 
> 
> 
> Iran with the backing of the U.S tried that in the 1980's
> 
> It turned into a huge disaster.
> 
> I think the outcome today would be just as bad or even worse
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ah i remember the Col Ollie North's trials.
> 
> Weren't we selling weaponst to both sides.   The iran-contra scandal.
Click to expand...


We didn't sell weapons to Iraq, but when Iraq was losing badly, we did give them intelligence from our satellites and advice from our generals.  When that turned the tide and Iraq was about to advance into Iran, we sold Iran weapons through Israel, of all places, in order to hold Saddam back.  The US strategy was to maintain the balance of power in the Gulf region, and not to allow either Iraq or Iran to become dominant.


----------



## Gunny

Sunni Man said:


> PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:
> 
> 
> 
> The best chance of Iran getting attacked is by israel, or if they piss iraq off real bad...imagine the iraqi's using our training and equipment to attack Iran.
> 
> 
> 
> Iran with the backing of the U.S tried that in the 1980's
> 
> It turned into a huge disaster.
> 
> I think the outcome today would be just as bad or even worse
Click to expand...


Hey idiot ... if you have nothing to add to the conversation besides your fetish with rhodesscholar's ass, shut up and spare us, huh?  

I'm not in the mood for your trolling ass, so fuck with me, huh?


----------



## adeel_sami

Is the war only an option to every concern ? 
From Japan to Vietnam to Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan, war has been too much costly for U.S. .. And the outcome is zero and in return the US nation is paying for it.

I hope ending war in troubled areas, get the army back home and invest money into America which is currently spending on reshaping infrastructure of doomed countries like Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan.
These three countries are like the worm who'll suck out all the money and outcome will be nothing but a head ache to US. ..


----------



## eots

wow we are like the new Romans or Nazis...lets just attack all the sons  oh bitches and get it over with
lets just  put the whole shit house up in flames....you know for peace and security and freedom and all that rot


----------



## Nik

rhodescholar said:


> Here is a great article on why iran needs to be attacked ASAP.  Rather than respond emotionally, as have so many here have done recently, I would like to see posters come up with point-by-point responses why Bolton's assessment is inaccurate.
> 
> washingtonpost.com
> 
> By John R. Bolton
> Thursday, July 2, 2009
> With Iran's hard-line mullahs and the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps unmistakably back in control, Israel's decision of whether to use military force against Tehran's nuclear weapons program is more urgent than ever.
> 
> Iran's nuclear threat was never in doubt during its presidential campaign, but the post-election resistance raised the possibility of some sort of regime change. That prospect seems lost for the near future or for at least as long as it will take Iran to finalize a deliverable nuclear weapons capability.
> 
> Accordingly, with no other timely option, the already compelling logic for an Israeli strike is nearly inexorable. Israel is undoubtedly ratcheting forward its decision-making process. President Obama is almost certainly not.
> 
> He still wants "engagement" (a particularly evocative term now) with Iran's current regime. Last Thursday, the State Department confirmed that Secretary Hillary Clinton spoke to her Russian and Chinese counterparts about "getting Iran back to negotiating on some of these concerns that the international community has." This is precisely the view of Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov, reflected in the Group of Eight communique the next day. Sen. John Kerry thinks the recent election unpleasantness in Tehran will delay negotiations for only a few weeks.
> 
> Obama administration sources have opined (anonymously) that Iran will be more eager to negotiate than it was before its election in order to find "acceptance" by the "international community." Some leaks indicated that negotiations had to produce results by the U.N. General Assembly's opening in late September, while others projected that they had until the end of 2009 to show progress. These gauzy scenarios assume that the Tehran regime cares about "acceptance" or is somehow embarrassed by eliminating its enemies. Both propositions are dubious.
> 
> Obama will nonetheless attempt to jump-start bilateral negotiations with Iran, though time is running out even under the timetables leaked to the media. There are two problems with this approach. First, Tehran isn't going to negotiate in good faith. It hasn't for the past six years with the European Union as our surrogates, and it won't start now. As Clinton said on Tuesday, Iran has "a huge credibility gap" because of its electoral fraud. Second, given Iran's nuclear progress, even if the stronger sanctions Obama has threatened could be agreed upon, they would not prevent Iran from fabricating weapons and delivery systems when it chooses, as it has been striving to do for the past 20 years. Time is too short, and sanctions failed long ago.
> 
> Only those most theologically committed to negotiation still believe Iran will fully renounce its nuclear program. Unfortunately, the Obama administration has a "Plan B," which would allow Iran to have a "peaceful" civil nuclear power program while publicly "renouncing" the objective of nuclear weapons. Obama would define such an outcome as "success," even though in reality it would hardly be different from what Iran is doing and saying now. A "peaceful" uranium enrichment program, "peaceful" reactors such as Bushehr and "peaceful" heavy-water projects like that under construction at Arak leave Iran with an enormous breakout capability to produce nuclear weapons in very short order. And anyone who believes the Revolutionary Guard Corps will abandon its weaponization and ballistic missile programs probably believes that there was no fraud in Iran's June 12 election. See "huge credibility gap," supra.
> 
> In short, the stolen election and its tumultuous aftermath have dramatically highlighted the strategic and tactical flaws in Obama's game plan. With regime change off the table for the coming critical period in Iran's nuclear program, Israel's decision on using force is both easier and more urgent. Since there is no likelihood that diplomacy will start or finish in time, or even progress far enough to make any real difference, there is no point waiting for negotiations to play out. In fact, given the near certainty of Obama changing his definition of "success," negotiations represent an even more dangerous trap for Israel.
> 
> Those who oppose Iran acquiring nuclear weapons are left in the near term with only the option of targeted military force against its weapons facilities. Significantly, the uprising in Iran also makes it more likely that an effective public diplomacy campaign could be waged in the country to explain to Iranians that such an attack is directed against the regime, not against the Iranian people. This was always true, but it has become even more important to make this case emphatically, when the gulf between the Islamic revolution of 1979 and the citizens of Iran has never been clearer or wider. Military action against Iran's nuclear program and the ultimate goal of regime change can be worked together consistently.
> 
> Otherwise, be prepared for an Iran with nuclear weapons, which some, including Obama advisers, believe could be contained and deterred. That is not a hypothesis we should seek to test in the real world. The cost of error could be fatal.
> 
> The writer, a senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, was U.S. ambassador to the United Nations from August 2005 to December 2006 and is the author of "Surrender Is Not an Option: Defending America at the United Nations and Abroad."



Theres nothing that unites a country like a foreign invsaion/bombing campaign.

Seriously...which politician do you hate the most.  If Iran decided to bomb the US to get rid of them, would you support them in that endeavor?  Or would you rally around the politician you hated?


----------



## Tech_Esq

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> Well this article rests on the false assumption that Iran is developing nuclear weapons, which we have no evidence for.  So that is really the only refutation of the article that is necessary.  If we start attacking nations based on a whim then we'll simply end up with another Iraq, and we don't have the money for another Iraq.



While I don't agree that we should attack Iran or conduct regime change by force, I see no advantage to keeping one's head firmly planted in the sand. Your comment just smacks of isolationism. Although the neo-con extreme is bad, the isolationist extreme is just as bad.


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy

Tech_Esq said:


> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well this article rests on the false assumption that Iran is developing nuclear weapons, which we have no evidence for.  So that is really the only refutation of the article that is necessary.  If we start attacking nations based on a whim then we'll simply end up with another Iraq, and we don't have the money for another Iraq.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> While I don't agree that we should attack Iran or conduct regime change by force, I see no advantage to keeping one's head firmly planted in the sand. Your comment just smacks of isolationism. Although the neo-con extreme is bad, the isolationist extreme is just as bad.
Click to expand...


I don't support isolationism, I support non-interventionism.  I support trading and being friendly with nations, but I do not support conducting regime changes, spreading Democracy at the point of a gun, policing the world, nation building, military aid, financial aid, or sending American troops where they have no business being.  I also don't support telling nations what they can or can't do regarding their own affairs, such as what we're trying to do with Iran.  We have no right to tell them they can't develop nuclear energy and no evidence they're building nuclear weapons.  All I'm seeing is the same propagandistic nonsense we saw before the Iraq war and we cannot afford to make the same mistake again.


----------



## elvis

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> Tech_Esq said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well this article rests on the false assumption that Iran is developing nuclear weapons, which we have no evidence for.  So that is really the only refutation of the article that is necessary.  If we start attacking nations based on a whim then we'll simply end up with another Iraq, and we don't have the money for another Iraq.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> While I don't agree that we should attack Iran or conduct regime change by force, I see no advantage to keeping one's head firmly planted in the sand. Your comment just smacks of isolationism. Although the neo-con extreme is bad, the isolationist extreme is just as bad.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't support isolationism, I support non-interventionism.  I support trading and being friendly with nations, but I do not support conducting regime changes, spreading Democracy at the point of a gun, policing the world, nation building, military aid, financial aid, or sending American troops where they have no business being.  I also don't support telling nations what they can or can't do regarding their own affairs, such as what we're trying to do with Iran.  We have no right to tell them they can't develop nuclear energy and no evidence they're building nuclear weapons.  All I'm seeing is the same propagandistic nonsense we saw before the Iraq war and we cannot afford to make the same mistake again.
Click to expand...


Basically you're anti-wilsonian.


----------



## Tech_Esq

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> Tech_Esq said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well this article rests on the false assumption that Iran is developing nuclear weapons, which we have no evidence for.  So that is really the only refutation of the article that is necessary.  If we start attacking nations based on a whim then we'll simply end up with another Iraq, and we don't have the money for another Iraq.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> While I don't agree that we should attack Iran or conduct regime change by force, I see no advantage to keeping one's head firmly planted in the sand. Your comment just smacks of isolationism. Although the neo-con extreme is bad, the isolationist extreme is just as bad.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't support isolationism, I support non-interventionism.  I support trading and being friendly with nations, but I do not support conducting regime changes, spreading Democracy at the point of a gun, policing the world, nation building, military aid, financial aid, or sending American troops where they have no business being.  I also don't support telling nations what they can or can't do regarding their own affairs, such as what we're trying to do with Iran.  We have no right to tell them they can't develop nuclear energy and no evidence they're building nuclear weapons.  All I'm seeing is the same propagandistic nonsense we saw before the Iraq war and we cannot afford to make the same mistake again.
Click to expand...


I don't see a ramp up toward war with Iran. I haven't had occasion in the last 7 years to even once think we would attack Iran. 

But, you do bring up the fundemental disagreement I have with the Libertarian folks. I think that it is naive to believe that in this day and age we can send our corporations out to trade on the world stage and expect they will succeed in the face of foreign government intervention to the contrary etc if the US government remains neutral in the world. Second, the US is under constant attack by all sorts of actors, "friends" and enemies attempting to penetrate our processes. You can look at the Israeli spies we've busted over the last 20 years. You can look at the various Chinese affairs. You can look at the Cuban spies. The list goes on. 

I'm not sure that in the face of all of these on-going attacks and trade manipulations that the appropriate move for the US government is withdrawal from competition. If we do, we will pay for it shortly.


----------



## Shogun

we are already paying for our quickness to "be competitive" with slave labor.  People find excuses when they need them.  The mythical free market is too theoretical to ever be reality.  There is no sin in self preservation.


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy

Tech_Esq said:


> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tech_Esq said:
> 
> 
> 
> While I don't agree that we should attack Iran or conduct regime change by force, I see no advantage to keeping one's head firmly planted in the sand. Your comment just smacks of isolationism. Although the neo-con extreme is bad, the isolationist extreme is just as bad.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't support isolationism, I support non-interventionism.  I support trading and being friendly with nations, but I do not support conducting regime changes, spreading Democracy at the point of a gun, policing the world, nation building, military aid, financial aid, or sending American troops where they have no business being.  I also don't support telling nations what they can or can't do regarding their own affairs, such as what we're trying to do with Iran.  We have no right to tell them they can't develop nuclear energy and no evidence they're building nuclear weapons.  All I'm seeing is the same propagandistic nonsense we saw before the Iraq war and we cannot afford to make the same mistake again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't see a ramp up toward war with Iran. I haven't had occasion in the last 7 years to even once think we would attack Iran.
> 
> But, you do bring up the fundemental disagreement I have with the Libertarian folks. I think that it is naive to believe that in this day and age we can send our corporations out to trade on the world stage and expect they will succeed in the face of foreign government intervention to the contrary etc if the US government remains neutral in the world. Second, the US is under constant attack by all sorts of actors, "friends" and enemies attempting to penetrate our processes. You can look at the Israeli spies we've busted over the last 20 years. You can look at the various Chinese affairs. You can look at the Cuban spies. The list goes on.
> 
> I'm not sure that in the face of all of these on-going attacks and trade manipulations that the appropriate move for the US government is withdrawal from competition. If we do, we will pay for it shortly.
Click to expand...




> President Barack Obama says he is "not reconciled" to the idea of Iran obtaining a nuclear weapon within a year.



Obama: Iran cannot be permitted to be nuke power | Antiwar Newswire

Sounds like the same nonsense we heard before Iraq to me.  For one he's ignoring the lack of evidence of a nuclear weapon, and two he doesn't have to be reconciled to Iran having nuclear energy because it's none of his business.

Withdrawal from what competition?  I see no reason why our trade would suffer if we end our military occupation around the world.


----------



## elvis

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> Tech_Esq said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't support isolationism, I support non-interventionism.  I support trading and being friendly with nations, but I do not support conducting regime changes, spreading Democracy at the point of a gun, policing the world, nation building, military aid, financial aid, or sending American troops where they have no business being.  I also don't support telling nations what they can or can't do regarding their own affairs, such as what we're trying to do with Iran.  We have no right to tell them they can't develop nuclear energy and no evidence they're building nuclear weapons.  All I'm seeing is the same propagandistic nonsense we saw before the Iraq war and we cannot afford to make the same mistake again.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't see a ramp up toward war with Iran. I haven't had occasion in the last 7 years to even once think we would attack Iran.
> 
> But, you do bring up the fundemental disagreement I have with the Libertarian folks. I think that it is naive to believe that in this day and age we can send our corporations out to trade on the world stage and expect they will succeed in the face of foreign government intervention to the contrary etc if the US government remains neutral in the world. Second, the US is under constant attack by all sorts of actors, "friends" and enemies attempting to penetrate our processes. You can look at the Israeli spies we've busted over the last 20 years. You can look at the various Chinese affairs. You can look at the Cuban spies. The list goes on.
> 
> I'm not sure that in the face of all of these on-going attacks and trade manipulations that the appropriate move for the US government is withdrawal from competition. If we do, we will pay for it shortly.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> President Barack Obama says he is "not reconciled" to the idea of Iran obtaining a nuclear weapon within a year.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Obama: Iran cannot be permitted to be nuke power | Antiwar Newswire
> 
> Sounds like the same nonsense we heard before Iraq to me.  For one he's ignoring the lack of evidence of a nuclear weapon, and two he doesn't have to be reconciled to Iran having nuclear energy because it's none of his business.
> 
> Withdrawal from what competition?  I see no reason why our trade would suffer if we end our military occupation around the world.
Click to expand...


When did Obama say that?  Could he be preparing for war?  If you read Wilson's speech that was in response to the Lusitania and FDR's speeches in the 1930's, they were clearly preparing for war.


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy

elvis3577 said:


> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tech_Esq said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't see a ramp up toward war with Iran. I haven't had occasion in the last 7 years to even once think we would attack Iran.
> 
> But, you do bring up the fundemental disagreement I have with the Libertarian folks. I think that it is naive to believe that in this day and age we can send our corporations out to trade on the world stage and expect they will succeed in the face of foreign government intervention to the contrary etc if the US government remains neutral in the world. Second, the US is under constant attack by all sorts of actors, "friends" and enemies attempting to penetrate our processes. You can look at the Israeli spies we've busted over the last 20 years. You can look at the various Chinese affairs. You can look at the Cuban spies. The list goes on.
> 
> I'm not sure that in the face of all of these on-going attacks and trade manipulations that the appropriate move for the US government is withdrawal from competition. If we do, we will pay for it shortly.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> President Barack Obama says he is "not reconciled" to the idea of Iran obtaining a nuclear weapon within a year.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Obama: Iran cannot be permitted to be nuke power | Antiwar Newswire
> 
> Sounds like the same nonsense we heard before Iraq to me.  For one he's ignoring the lack of evidence of a nuclear weapon, and two he doesn't have to be reconciled to Iran having nuclear energy because it's none of his business.
> 
> Withdrawal from what competition?  I see no reason why our trade would suffer if we end our military occupation around the world.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When did Obama say that?  Could he be preparing for war?  If you read Wilson's speech that was in response to the Lusitania and FDR's speeches in the 1930's, they were clearly preparing for war.
Click to expand...


He could be preparing for war or some other form of aggressive action.  If he's not "reconciled" to a nuclear Iran then what is he planning to do about it?  Certainly sounds like he plans on doing something.


----------



## elvis

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> elvis3577 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Obama: Iran cannot be permitted to be nuke power | Antiwar Newswire
> 
> Sounds like the same nonsense we heard before Iraq to me.  For one he's ignoring the lack of evidence of a nuclear weapon, and two he doesn't have to be reconciled to Iran having nuclear energy because it's none of his business.
> 
> Withdrawal from what competition?  I see no reason why our trade would suffer if we end our military occupation around the world.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When did Obama say that?  Could he be preparing for war?  If you read Wilson's speech that was in response to the Lusitania and FDR's speeches in the 1930's, they were clearly preparing for war.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He could be preparing for war or some other form of aggressive action.  If he's not "reconciled" to a nuclear Iran then what is he planning to do about it?  Certainly sounds like he plans on doing something.
Click to expand...


His stance seems very similar to Bush's.


----------



## Tech_Esq

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> Tech_Esq said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't support isolationism, I support non-interventionism.  I support trading and being friendly with nations, but I do not support conducting regime changes, spreading Democracy at the point of a gun, policing the world, nation building, military aid, financial aid, or sending American troops where they have no business being.  I also don't support telling nations what they can or can't do regarding their own affairs, such as what we're trying to do with Iran.  We have no right to tell them they can't develop nuclear energy and no evidence they're building nuclear weapons.  All I'm seeing is the same propagandistic nonsense we saw before the Iraq war and we cannot afford to make the same mistake again.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't see a ramp up toward war with Iran. I haven't had occasion in the last 7 years to even once think we would attack Iran.
> 
> But, you do bring up the fundemental disagreement I have with the Libertarian folks. I think that it is naive to believe that in this day and age we can send our corporations out to trade on the world stage and expect they will succeed in the face of foreign government intervention to the contrary etc if the US government remains neutral in the world. Second, the US is under constant attack by all sorts of actors, "friends" and enemies attempting to penetrate our processes. You can look at the Israeli spies we've busted over the last 20 years. You can look at the various Chinese affairs. You can look at the Cuban spies. The list goes on.
> 
> I'm not sure that in the face of all of these on-going attacks and trade manipulations that the appropriate move for the US government is withdrawal from competition. If we do, we will pay for it shortly.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> President Barack Obama says he is "not reconciled" to the idea of Iran obtaining a nuclear weapon within a year.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Obama: Iran cannot be permitted to be nuke power | Antiwar Newswire
> 
> Sounds like the same nonsense we heard before Iraq to me.  For one he's ignoring the lack of evidence of a nuclear weapon, and two he doesn't have to be reconciled to Iran having nuclear energy because it's none of his business.
> 
> Withdrawal from what competition?  I see no reason why our trade would suffer if we end our military occupation around the world.
Click to expand...


Actually Iran having anything to do with nuclear energy is the business of the signatories to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. Iran is allowed under the treaty to develop peaceful nuclear energy under the sponsorship of one of the permanent members of the security council(?) (Not sure about that one. It was either them or the nuclear powers identified in the treaty, but I think it was the former). Under that system the sponsor would guarantee the new nation develops only peaceful energy and not a dual use or weaponized nuclear capacity.

If you are against the non-proliferation treaty, I guess that's another discussion.

When I said withdrawal from competition, I meant the general aggressive foreign policy that all nations engage in. I don't mean the regime change, nation building etc that neo-cons think is good policy.

You might remember that some of those "occupied" countries would really, REALLY miss us if we left and kinda like that we are there. Familiarity does breed contempt on both sides of the equation, but you wanna take a poll in Seoul and see if they want the Americans to pull out now?

That said, I think there could be a substantial pull back from our deployments now without damaging the national interest. However, I think that maintaining forward deployed troops is the best way to keep an aggressive potential adversary at arms' length.


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy

elvis3577 said:


> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> elvis3577 said:
> 
> 
> 
> When did Obama say that?  Could he be preparing for war?  If you read Wilson's speech that was in response to the Lusitania and FDR's speeches in the 1930's, they were clearly preparing for war.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He could be preparing for war or some other form of aggressive action.  If he's not "reconciled" to a nuclear Iran then what is he planning to do about it?  Certainly sounds like he plans on doing something.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> His stance seems very similar to Bush's.
Click to expand...


Which is precisely the problem.


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy

Tech_Esq said:


> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tech_Esq said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't see a ramp up toward war with Iran. I haven't had occasion in the last 7 years to even once think we would attack Iran.
> 
> But, you do bring up the fundemental disagreement I have with the Libertarian folks. I think that it is naive to believe that in this day and age we can send our corporations out to trade on the world stage and expect they will succeed in the face of foreign government intervention to the contrary etc if the US government remains neutral in the world. Second, the US is under constant attack by all sorts of actors, "friends" and enemies attempting to penetrate our processes. You can look at the Israeli spies we've busted over the last 20 years. You can look at the various Chinese affairs. You can look at the Cuban spies. The list goes on.
> 
> I'm not sure that in the face of all of these on-going attacks and trade manipulations that the appropriate move for the US government is withdrawal from competition. If we do, we will pay for it shortly.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> President Barack Obama says he is "not reconciled" to the idea of Iran obtaining a nuclear weapon within a year.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Obama: Iran cannot be permitted to be nuke power | Antiwar Newswire
> 
> Sounds like the same nonsense we heard before Iraq to me.  For one he's ignoring the lack of evidence of a nuclear weapon, and two he doesn't have to be reconciled to Iran having nuclear energy because it's none of his business.
> 
> Withdrawal from what competition?  I see no reason why our trade would suffer if we end our military occupation around the world.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually Iran having anything to do with nuclear energy is the business of the signatories to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. Iran is allowed under the treaty to develop peaceful nuclear energy under the sponsorship of one of the permanent members of the security council(?) (Not sure about that one. It was either them or the nuclear powers identified in the treaty, but I think it was the former). Under that system the sponsor would guarantee the new nation develops only peaceful energy and not a dual use or weaponized nuclear capacity.
> 
> If you are against the non-proliferation treaty, I guess that's another discussion.
> 
> When I said withdrawal from competition, I meant the general aggressive foreign policy that all nations engage in. I don't mean the regime change, nation building etc that neo-cons think is good policy.
> 
> You might remember that some of those "occupied" countries would really, REALLY miss us if we left and kinda like that we are there. Familiarity does breed contempt on both sides of the equation, but you wanna take a poll in Seoul and see if they want the Americans to pull out now?
> 
> That said, I think there could be a substantial pull back from our deployments now without damaging the national interest. However, I think that maintaining forward deployed troops is the best way to keep an aggressive potential adversary at arms' length.
Click to expand...


Once again, we have no evidence that Iran has broken the Non-Proliferation Treaty.  The more we try to force the Iranians to prove a negative the less receptive they're going to be to us in the long run.

An aggressive foreign policy does not help our trade in the least, in fact I'd say it hurts our trade and foreign standing by making other nations resent us.

Some nations might miss our troops there but I'm not particularly concerned about that.  We had no business being in Korea in the first place let alone 50 years later.  The American taxpayers should not be paying for the defense of other nations, and American troops should not be putting their lives on the line to defend other nations.


----------



## Tech_Esq

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> Tech_Esq said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Obama: Iran cannot be permitted to be nuke power | Antiwar Newswire
> 
> Sounds like the same nonsense we heard before Iraq to me.  For one he's ignoring the lack of evidence of a nuclear weapon, and two he doesn't have to be reconciled to Iran having nuclear energy because it's none of his business.
> 
> Withdrawal from what competition?  I see no reason why our trade would suffer if we end our military occupation around the world.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually Iran having anything to do with nuclear energy is the business of the signatories to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. Iran is allowed under the treaty to develop peaceful nuclear energy under the sponsorship of one of the permanent members of the security council(?) (Not sure about that one. It was either them or the nuclear powers identified in the treaty, but I think it was the former). Under that system the sponsor would guarantee the new nation develops only peaceful energy and not a dual use or weaponized nuclear capacity.
> 
> If you are against the non-proliferation treaty, I guess that's another discussion.
> 
> When I said withdrawal from competition, I meant the general aggressive foreign policy that all nations engage in. I don't mean the regime change, nation building etc that neo-cons think is good policy.
> 
> You might remember that some of those "occupied" countries would really, REALLY miss us if we left and kinda like that we are there. Familiarity does breed contempt on both sides of the equation, but you wanna take a poll in Seoul and see if they want the Americans to pull out now?
> 
> That said, I think there could be a substantial pull back from our deployments now without damaging the national interest. However, I think that maintaining forward deployed troops is the best way to keep an aggressive potential adversary at arms' length.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Once again, we have no evidence that Iran has broken the Non-Proliferation Treaty.  The more we try to force the Iranians to prove a negative the less receptive they're going to be to us in the long run.
> 
> An aggressive foreign policy does not help our trade in the least, in fact I'd say it hurts our trade and foreign standing by making other nations resent us.
> 
> Some nations might miss our troops there but I'm not particularly concerned about that.  We had no business being in Korea in the first place let alone 50 years later.  The American taxpayers should not be paying for the defense of other nations, and American troops should not be putting their lives on the line to defend other nations.
Click to expand...


Do we get to be pissed off about other nation-states exercising aggressive foreign policy toward us? Assuming, en arguendo, that we do, if we have chosen to become passive, what would be our response to that?

Concerning Iran, I believe the last I heard out of Mohammed el Barridai, he was saying he was convinced they were pursuing nuclear weapons program. Are you saying you don't believe him or he didn't say that?

Regarding Korea, your position is that we should abandon South Korea and if the North Koreans feel like attacking and taking them over then that's just fine?


----------



## editec

rhodescholar said:


> Midnight Marauder said:
> 
> 
> 
> How many threads are you going to start on this? Why do you need two (so far) for the same information and updates to the same topic?
> 
> Here's your other "attack Iran" thread:
> 
> http://www.usmessageboard.com/iran/80174-its-time-to-militarily-conduct-regime-change-in-iran.html
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because as I said in the first post, that thread turned into a flame throwing contest by various posters.
> 
> I would prefer that this one stay on topic.
Click to expand...

 
Okay, I'll happily stay on topic.

Bad idea.

Next topic?


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy

Tech_Esq said:


> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tech_Esq said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually Iran having anything to do with nuclear energy is the business of the signatories to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. Iran is allowed under the treaty to develop peaceful nuclear energy under the sponsorship of one of the permanent members of the security council(?) (Not sure about that one. It was either them or the nuclear powers identified in the treaty, but I think it was the former). Under that system the sponsor would guarantee the new nation develops only peaceful energy and not a dual use or weaponized nuclear capacity.
> 
> If you are against the non-proliferation treaty, I guess that's another discussion.
> 
> When I said withdrawal from competition, I meant the general aggressive foreign policy that all nations engage in. I don't mean the regime change, nation building etc that neo-cons think is good policy.
> 
> You might remember that some of those "occupied" countries would really, REALLY miss us if we left and kinda like that we are there. Familiarity does breed contempt on both sides of the equation, but you wanna take a poll in Seoul and see if they want the Americans to pull out now?
> 
> That said, I think there could be a substantial pull back from our deployments now without damaging the national interest. However, I think that maintaining forward deployed troops is the best way to keep an aggressive potential adversary at arms' length.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Once again, we have no evidence that Iran has broken the Non-Proliferation Treaty.  The more we try to force the Iranians to prove a negative the less receptive they're going to be to us in the long run.
> 
> An aggressive foreign policy does not help our trade in the least, in fact I'd say it hurts our trade and foreign standing by making other nations resent us.
> 
> Some nations might miss our troops there but I'm not particularly concerned about that.  We had no business being in Korea in the first place let alone 50 years later.  The American taxpayers should not be paying for the defense of other nations, and American troops should not be putting their lives on the line to defend other nations.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do we get to be pissed off about other nation-states exercising aggressive foreign policy toward us? Assuming, en arguendo, that we do, if we have chosen to become passive, what would be our response to that?
> 
> Concerning Iran, I believe the last I heard out of Mohammed el Barridai, he was saying he was convinced they were pursuing nuclear weapons program. Are you saying you don't believe him or he didn't say that?
> 
> Regarding Korea, your position is that we should abandon South Korea and if the North Koreans feel like attacking and taking them over then that's just fine?
Click to expand...


I have no problem with us defending ourselves, what I don't like is our military aggressiveness abroad.

Someone being convinced Iran is developing nuclear weapons is not evidence.

I'm not advocating abandoning anybody.  We can trade with them and be diplomatic, but why is it our responsibility to defend them forever?  Not to mention that South Korea is far more developed than their northern neighbor and it's time they take over their own defense.


----------



## Shogun

someone was also convinced that Iraq was developing nuclear weapons too... had glossy sat images and everything.

how did that work out?


----------



## elvis

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> Tech_Esq said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Once again, we have no evidence that Iran has broken the Non-Proliferation Treaty.  The more we try to force the Iranians to prove a negative the less receptive they're going to be to us in the long run.
> 
> An aggressive foreign policy does not help our trade in the least, in fact I'd say it hurts our trade and foreign standing by making other nations resent us.
> 
> Some nations might miss our troops there but I'm not particularly concerned about that.  We had no business being in Korea in the first place let alone 50 years later.  The American taxpayers should not be paying for the defense of other nations, and American troops should not be putting their lives on the line to defend other nations.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do we get to be pissed off about other nation-states exercising aggressive foreign policy toward us? Assuming, en arguendo, that we do, if we have chosen to become passive, what would be our response to that?
> 
> Concerning Iran, I believe the last I heard out of Mohammed el Barridai, he was saying he was convinced they were pursuing nuclear weapons program. Are you saying you don't believe him or he didn't say that?
> 
> Regarding Korea, your position is that we should abandon South Korea and if the North Koreans feel like attacking and taking them over then that's just fine?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have no problem with us defending ourselves, what I don't like is our military aggressiveness abroad.
> 
> Someone being convinced Iran is developing nuclear weapons is not evidence.
> 
> I'm not advocating abandoning anybody.  We can trade with them and be diplomatic, but why is it our responsibility to defend them forever?  Not to mention that South Korea is far more developed than their northern neighbor and it's time they take over their own defense.
Click to expand...


with as much as North Korea concentrates on military, I can't imagine the South could defend itself without U.S. assistance.  

What kind of evidence does this "someone" have regarding the Iranian nuke question?


----------



## elvis

Shogun said:


> someone was also convinced that Iraq was developing nuclear weapons too... had glossy sat images and everything.
> 
> how did that work out?



what if the people who say Iran has no nukes are wrong?  boy who cried wolf.


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy

elvis3577 said:


> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tech_Esq said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do we get to be pissed off about other nation-states exercising aggressive foreign policy toward us? Assuming, en arguendo, that we do, if we have chosen to become passive, what would be our response to that?
> 
> Concerning Iran, I believe the last I heard out of Mohammed el Barridai, he was saying he was convinced they were pursuing nuclear weapons program. Are you saying you don't believe him or he didn't say that?
> 
> Regarding Korea, your position is that we should abandon South Korea and if the North Koreans feel like attacking and taking them over then that's just fine?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have no problem with us defending ourselves, what I don't like is our military aggressiveness abroad.
> 
> Someone being convinced Iran is developing nuclear weapons is not evidence.
> 
> I'm not advocating abandoning anybody.  We can trade with them and be diplomatic, but why is it our responsibility to defend them forever?  Not to mention that South Korea is far more developed than their northern neighbor and it's time they take over their own defense.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> with as much as North Korea concentrates on military, I can't imagine the South could defend itself without U.S. assistance.
> 
> What kind of evidence does this "someone" have regarding the Iranian nuke question?
Click to expand...


It's true that North Korea concentrates heavily on its military, but South Korea has much better technology and is far more developed than the North.  I think they'd be able to defend themselves just fine.

I don't know the answer to that question, you'll have to ask Tech_Esq.


----------



## Shogun

elvis3577 said:


> Shogun said:
> 
> 
> 
> someone was also convinced that Iraq was developing nuclear weapons too... had glossy sat images and everything.
> 
> how did that work out?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> what if the people who say Iran has no nukes are wrong?  boy who cried wolf.
Click to expand...


then we act on evidence the minute assumptions and belief becomes proof beyond the same type of crap we saw happen in Iraq.  Boy who cried wolf, indeed.  What if, again, they are right and it turns out that the powers that be just want any excuse to attack iran similar to what hindsight showed us in iraq?  This is the exact same excuse used during the run up to the invasion of iraq.  Besides, i'm not of the mind that it takes a muslim to use nukes like a club anyway.


----------



## scottpgreen

John Bolton may be many things, but a serious foreign policy analyst he is not.  I've written often and at length about why he is wrong on my blog.  

He pops up again this month in Standpoint Magazine, crticising Obama for rejecting American exceptionalism and "sounding like a European".  On one level, of course, this is barely-concealed code for weak, effeminate and 'ineffectual', intended to conjure up images of appeasement and indecision in the face of evil.  But at a deeper, philosophical level Bolton is objecting to the grand tradition of American realism, wrongly believing that this places him squarely within the mainstream and Obama somehow at odds with it.

Quite how someone with such a flimsy grasp on the history and philosophy of American foreign policy can have risen to such a position of influence is beyond me, although influence is perhaps the wrong word. He is certainly indulged by editors of magazines such as Standpoint and his arguments do resonate with large numbers of Americans, but as serious foreign policy analysis his argument is not worth a row of beans. 

The task for a mature American foreign policy is to purge the debate of this sort of moralism, eschew moral, philosophical and religious categories in favour of geopolitical ones and view America not as sui generis, but rather as a great power like any other. This means acknowledging limits. It means dropping our obsession with quick fixes and instant solutions, abandoning this conception of foreign policy as something for the Twitter generation - fully of nice, tidy, easily-digestible, bite-sized chunks - in favour of the hard slog of diplomacy, alliance building, deterrence and containment.

The problem with foreign policy as the neoconservatives conceive it is that there is no room for anything messy, no space for untidy, real-world narratives, nothing that can not be shoehorned into their simple formulas. It is time to get past this adolescent fixation with simple narratives, time to end foreign policy as Hollywood movie. It is time for foreign policy for grown ups. It is time for complicated, nuanced, uneven, and yes - sometimes unedifying - diplomacy. It is time for a dose of realism. That is what Obama was elected for, and it is what he is delivering.


----------



## eots

scottpgreen said:


> John Bolton may be many things, but a serious foreign policy analyst he is not.  I've written often and at length about why he is wrong on my blog.
> 
> He pops up again this month in Standpoint Magazine, crticising Obama for rejecting American exceptionalism and "sounding like a European".  On one level, of course, this is barely-concealed code for weak, effeminate and 'ineffectual', intended to conjure up images of appeasement and indecision in the face of evil.  But at a deeper, philosophical level Bolton is objecting to the grand tradition of American realism, wrongly believing that this places him squarely within the mainstream and Obama somehow at odds with it.
> 
> Quite how someone with such a flimsy grasp on the history and philosophy of American foreign policy can have risen to such a position of influence is beyond me, although influence is perhaps the wrong word. He is certainly indulged by editors of magazines such as Standpoint and his arguments do resonate with large numbers of Americans, but as serious foreign policy analysis his argument is not worth a row of beans.
> 
> The task for a mature American foreign policy is to purge the debate of this sort of moralism, eschew moral, philosophical and religious categories in favour of geopolitical ones and view America not as sui generis, but rather as a great power like any other. This means acknowledging limits. It means dropping our obsession with quick fixes and instant solutions, abandoning this conception of foreign policy as something for the Twitter generation - fully of nice, tidy, easily-digestible, bite-sized chunks - in favour of the hard slog of diplomacy, alliance building, deterrence and containment.
> 
> The problem with foreign policy as the neoconservatives conceive it is that there is no room for anything messy, no space for untidy, real-world narratives, nothing that can not be shoehorned into their simple formulas. It is time to get past this adolescent fixation with simple narratives, time to end foreign policy as Hollywood movie. It is time for foreign policy for grown ups. It is time for complicated, nuanced, uneven, and yes - sometimes unedifying - diplomacy. It is time for a dose of realism. That is what Obama was elected for, and it is what he is delivering.



and then I woke up and realized ..change and yes we can ..are just more empty hollow words scripted by hollywood writers ...that it was all a dream...and in reality it was the same old shit cake with different icing....



[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eAaQNACwaLw&feature=fvst]YouTube - The Obama Deception HQ Full length version[/ame]


----------



## rhodescholar

scottpgreen said:


> Quite how someone with such a flimsy grasp on the history and philosophy of American foreign policy can have risen to such a position of influence is beyond me, although influence is perhaps the wrong word. He is certainly indulged by editors of magazines such as Standpoint and his arguments do resonate with large numbers of Americans, but as serious foreign policy analysis his argument is not worth a row of beans.



Mr. Bolton knows more about history than you ever will.  And those of us who spent, uh, like the last 25 years living abroad know that he knows his shit and is in the right.  How about you kid, what were you doing for the last 20-30 years?



> This means acknowledging limits.



You mean accepting the garbage from ppl like Brent Scowcroft and other dimwit realists, who are willing to fudge the lines of tolerable behavior because the other party is "different," or was "colonized", or has some "cultural uniqueness," etc.  

Spare me, its the same BS I've heard for decades, arabs, africans SE asians, and s americans cannot live in democracies, and we need to accept that.  Bull-fucking-shit.  The same dipshits who screech at the US for racist policies cannot see the inherent racist policies they seek to implement.

Bottom line: no I am not going to smear the lines and boundaries of acceptable behavior because some Washington hack sitting in the Foggy Bottom hole thinks that they need to protect "their relationships" and want to retain the status quo.



> It means dropping our obsession with quick fixes and instant solutions, abandoning this conception of foreign policy as something for the Twitter generation - fully of nice, tidy, easily-digestible, bite-sized chunks - in favour of the hard slog of diplomacy, alliance building, deterrence and containment.



It was this same dementia which fought against Reagan's arms buildup in the 1980s, who wished for a quick US exit out of Viet Nam and got it, but thankfully, did not in Iraq.  If the TV show doesn't end in a quick, neat 60 minute tie-up, then its cut and run, isn't it sweetie?

Amazing the same "progressives" - a misnomer if there ever was one - accuse neo-conservatives of being hollywood-ized, while they themselves worship at its alter of simple solutions and fudged moralities.



> The problem with foreign policy as the neoconservatives conceive it is that there is no room for anything messy, no space for untidy, real-world narratives, nothing that can not be shoehorned into their simple formulas.



What formula is that?  Expectations that all men are equal, and have the same rights to liberty and freedom, that "realpolitik" trash wishes to throw by the wayside simply because it might upset their power structure?

How many State department assholes who worked in the middle east end up working for the saudis after their turgid careers end, after they've spent decades ensuring the current dictatorships there are never threatened, while doing NOTHING to assist these nations in the buildup of civil society?



> It is time to get past this adolescent fixation with simple narratives, time to end foreign policy as Hollywood movie. It is time for foreign policy for grown ups.



You are not fucking kidding.  After 30 years of State Department crap, Bush finally said the status quo of supporting dictatorships that fund terrorism away from their countries as a means of buying themselves some breathing room are OVER, so fucking over.

The best thing that could possibly occur is to fire the entire State Dept., and bring in people who are willing to press for change.



> It is time for complicated, nuanced, uneven, and yes - sometimes unedifying - diplomacy. It is time for a dose of realism. That is what Obama was elected for, and it is what he is delivering.



Delivering?  Are for fucking real?  Where is this happening, what has he accomplished "diplomatically""?

Iran and N Korea are taking even harder lines than before, his European trips have been disasters, his russian trip did nothing, NATO did not agree to commit more troops to Afghanistan -- the only thing he has accomplished so far was done MILITARILY - the shooting of the 3 somalian pirates.  So much for "diplomacy".

The only thing that is keeping people from beginning to question his persistent failings is the media, who is giving him a HUGE pass.


----------



## Gunny

toomuchtime_ said:


> PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sunni Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> Iran with the backing of the U.S tried that in the 1980's
> 
> It turned into a huge disaster.
> 
> I think the outcome today would be just as bad or even worse
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ah i remember the Col Ollie North's trials.
> 
> Weren't we selling weaponst to both sides.   The iran-contra scandal.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We didn't sell weapons to Iraq, but when Iraq was losing badly, we did give them intelligence from our satellites and advice from our generals.  When that turned the tide and Iraq was about to advance into Iran, we sold Iran weapons through Israel, of all places, in order to hold Saddam back.  The US strategy was to maintain the balance of power in the Gulf region, and not to allow either Iraq or Iran to become dominant.
Click to expand...


We gave the weapons to Iran through an intermediary for its influence in the release of some hostages.  Helping Iran and/or giving a shit whether or not Saddam was kicking Iran's ass had no part in the play.


----------



## Gunny

Shogun said:


> someone was also convinced that Iraq was developing nuclear weapons too... had glossy sat images and everything.
> 
> how did that work out?



You only get to be wrong on that one once.  Anyone that thinks Saddam would not have and was not pursuing some kind of nuclear weapons capability clearly lives in a cave.  He was a thug and way to obvious.


----------



## Gunny

scottpgreen said:


> John Bolton may be many things, but a serious foreign policy analyst he is not.  I've written often and at length about why he is wrong on my blog.
> 
> He pops up again this month in Standpoint Magazine, crticising Obama for rejecting American exceptionalism and "sounding like a European".  On one level, of course, this is barely-concealed code for weak, effeminate and 'ineffectual', intended to conjure up images of appeasement and indecision in the face of evil.  But at a deeper, philosophical level Bolton is objecting to the grand tradition of American realism, wrongly believing that this places him squarely within the mainstream and Obama somehow at odds with it.
> 
> Quite how someone with such a flimsy grasp on the history and philosophy of American foreign policy can have risen to such a position of influence is beyond me, although influence is perhaps the wrong word. He is certainly indulged by editors of magazines such as Standpoint and his arguments do resonate with large numbers of Americans, but as serious foreign policy analysis his argument is not worth a row of beans.
> 
> The task for a mature American foreign policy is to purge the debate of this sort of moralism, eschew moral, philosophical and religious categories in favour of geopolitical ones and view America not as sui generis, but rather as a great power like any other. This means acknowledging limits. It means dropping our obsession with quick fixes and instant solutions, abandoning this conception of foreign policy as something for the Twitter generation - fully of nice, tidy, easily-digestible, bite-sized chunks - in favour of the hard slog of diplomacy, alliance building, deterrence and containment.
> 
> The problem with foreign policy as the neoconservatives conceive it is that there is no room for anything messy, no space for untidy, real-world narratives, nothing that can not be shoehorned into their simple formulas. It is time to get past this adolescent fixation with simple narratives, time to end foreign policy as Hollywood movie. It is time for foreign policy for grown ups. It is time for complicated, nuanced, uneven, and yes - sometimes unedifying - diplomacy. It is time for a dose of realism. That is what Obama was elected for, and it is what he is delivering.



Images of appeasement don't have to be conjured up ... they're rather obvious; which, would be what is barely-concealed code for weak, effeminate and 'ineffectual'.

Diplomacy is only as good as your ability to back it up with force.  If people know you won't use that force, they scoff at diplomacy.  Probably too simple a formula for you, but what the Hell.


----------



## toomuchtime_

Gunny said:


> scottpgreen said:
> 
> 
> 
> John Bolton may be many things, but a serious foreign policy analyst he is not.  I've written often and at length about why he is wrong on my blog.
> 
> He pops up again this month in Standpoint Magazine, crticising Obama for rejecting American exceptionalism and "sounding like a European".  On one level, of course, this is barely-concealed code for weak, effeminate and 'ineffectual', intended to conjure up images of appeasement and indecision in the face of evil.  But at a deeper, philosophical level Bolton is objecting to the grand tradition of American realism, wrongly believing that this places him squarely within the mainstream and Obama somehow at odds with it.
> 
> Quite how someone with such a flimsy grasp on the history and philosophy of American foreign policy can have risen to such a position of influence is beyond me, although influence is perhaps the wrong word. He is certainly indulged by editors of magazines such as Standpoint and his arguments do resonate with large numbers of Americans, but as serious foreign policy analysis his argument is not worth a row of beans.
> 
> The task for a mature American foreign policy is to purge the debate of this sort of moralism, eschew moral, philosophical and religious categories in favour of geopolitical ones and view America not as sui generis, but rather as a great power like any other. This means acknowledging limits. It means dropping our obsession with quick fixes and instant solutions, abandoning this conception of foreign policy as something for the Twitter generation - fully of nice, tidy, easily-digestible, bite-sized chunks - in favour of the hard slog of diplomacy, alliance building, deterrence and containment.
> 
> The problem with foreign policy as the neoconservatives conceive it is that there is no room for anything messy, no space for untidy, real-world narratives, nothing that can not be shoehorned into their simple formulas. It is time to get past this adolescent fixation with simple narratives, time to end foreign policy as Hollywood movie. It is time for foreign policy for grown ups. It is time for complicated, nuanced, uneven, and yes - sometimes unedifying - diplomacy. It is time for a dose of realism. That is what Obama was elected for, and it is what he is delivering.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Images of appeasement don't have to be conjured up ... they're rather obvious; which, would be what is barely-concealed code for weak, effeminate and 'ineffectual'.
> 
> Diplomacy is only as good as your ability to back it up with force.  If people know you won't use that force, they scoff at diplomacy.  Probably too simple a formula for you, but what the Hell.
Click to expand...


It might not be necessary to use force to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons if the US, EU, Russia and China could agree to apply really strong economic sanctions, but even if Russia and China removed their objections, Germany and China, both of which do major business with Iran, are unlikely to, and of course, Obama is not about to take a position that will not get high popularity ratings in Europe.  That reduces the choices to either using force to prevent Iran from becoming a nuclear power or accepting the inevitability of a nuclear arms race in the ME and, most likely, nuclear war in the region.


----------



## Modbert

Gunny said:


> You only get to be wrong on that one once.  Anyone that thinks Saddam would not have and was not pursuing some kind of nuclear weapons capability clearly lives in a cave.  He was a thug and way to obvious.



The FBI's conversations with Saddam seem to disagree with you.

FBI says Saddam&#39;s weapons bluff aimed at Iran - Yahoo! News



> WASHINGTON (Reuters)  Saddam Hussein believed Iran was a significant threat to Iraq and left open the possibility that he had weapons of mass destruction rather than appear vulnerable, according to declassified FBI documents on interrogations of the former Iraqi leader.
> 
> "Hussein believed that Iraq could not appear weak to its enemies, especially Iran," FBI special agent George Piro wrote on notes of a conversation with Saddam in June 2004 about weapons of mass destruction.
> 
> He believed Iraq was being threatened by others in the region and must appear able to defend itself, the report said.
> 
> The FBI reports, released on Wednesday, said Saddam asserted that he was more concerned about Iran discovering Iraq's weaknesses and vulnerabilities than the repercussions of the United States for blocking the return of UN weapons inspectors who were searching for WMD.
> 
> "In his opinion, the UN inspectors would have directly identified to the Iranians where to inflict maximum damage to Iraq," according to the documents obtained and released by the National Security Archive, a nongovernmental research institute.


----------



## Gunny

Modbert said:


> Gunny said:
> 
> 
> 
> You only get to be wrong on that one once.  Anyone that thinks Saddam would not have and was not pursuing some kind of nuclear weapons capability clearly lives in a cave.  He was a thug and way to obvious.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The FBI's conversations with Saddam seem to disagree with you.
> 
> FBI says Saddam's weapons bluff aimed at Iran - Yahoo! News
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WASHINGTON (Reuters) &#8211; Saddam Hussein believed Iran was a significant threat to Iraq and left open the possibility that he had weapons of mass destruction rather than appear vulnerable, according to declassified FBI documents on interrogations of the former Iraqi leader.
> 
> "Hussein believed that Iraq could not appear weak to its enemies, especially Iran," FBI special agent George Piro wrote on notes of a conversation with Saddam in June 2004 about weapons of mass destruction.
> 
> He believed Iraq was being threatened by others in the region and must appear able to defend itself, the report said.
> 
> The FBI reports, released on Wednesday, said Saddam asserted that he was more concerned about Iran discovering Iraq's weaknesses and vulnerabilities than the repercussions of the United States for blocking the return of UN weapons inspectors who were searching for WMD.
> 
> "In his opinion, the UN inspectors would have directly identified to the Iranians where to inflict maximum damage to Iraq," according to the documents obtained and released by the National Security Archive, a nongovernmental research institute.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


Whatever dude.  Look at the asshole's history,  He attained power as a thug and was a thug as a leader.  Thugs always go for the best weapons and he had the oil to buy them.  He used possessed and used WMDs in the past, and would have done so again.  

Look at the religious thugs in Iran.  What are THEY doing?  The same thing.  Nuclear weapons is a means to make nations like the US, Russia and China think twice about screwing with them.  

Try the logic and common sense factors sometimes.  They actually work.


----------



## Gunny

toomuchtime_ said:


> Gunny said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> scottpgreen said:
> 
> 
> 
> John Bolton may be many things, but a serious foreign policy analyst he is not.  I've written often and at length about why he is wrong on my blog.
> 
> He pops up again this month in Standpoint Magazine, crticising Obama for rejecting American exceptionalism and "sounding like a European".  On one level, of course, this is barely-concealed code for weak, effeminate and 'ineffectual', intended to conjure up images of appeasement and indecision in the face of evil.  But at a deeper, philosophical level Bolton is objecting to the grand tradition of American realism, wrongly believing that this places him squarely within the mainstream and Obama somehow at odds with it.
> 
> Quite how someone with such a flimsy grasp on the history and philosophy of American foreign policy can have risen to such a position of influence is beyond me, although influence is perhaps the wrong word. He is certainly indulged by editors of magazines such as Standpoint and his arguments do resonate with large numbers of Americans, but as serious foreign policy analysis his argument is not worth a row of beans.
> 
> The task for a mature American foreign policy is to purge the debate of this sort of moralism, eschew moral, philosophical and religious categories in favour of geopolitical ones and view America not as sui generis, but rather as a great power like any other. This means acknowledging limits. It means dropping our obsession with quick fixes and instant solutions, abandoning this conception of foreign policy as something for the Twitter generation - fully of nice, tidy, easily-digestible, bite-sized chunks - in favour of the hard slog of diplomacy, alliance building, deterrence and containment.
> 
> The problem with foreign policy as the neoconservatives conceive it is that there is no room for anything messy, no space for untidy, real-world narratives, nothing that can not be shoehorned into their simple formulas. It is time to get past this adolescent fixation with simple narratives, time to end foreign policy as Hollywood movie. It is time for foreign policy for grown ups. It is time for complicated, nuanced, uneven, and yes - sometimes unedifying - diplomacy. It is time for a dose of realism. That is what Obama was elected for, and it is what he is delivering.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Images of appeasement don't have to be conjured up ... they're rather obvious; which, would be what is barely-concealed code for weak, effeminate and 'ineffectual'.
> 
> Diplomacy is only as good as your ability to back it up with force.  If people know you won't use that force, they scoff at diplomacy.  Probably too simple a formula for you, but what the Hell.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It might not be necessary to use force to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons if the US, EU, Russia and China could agree to apply really strong economic sanctions, but even if Russia and China removed their objections, Germany and China, both of which do major business with Iran, are unlikely to, and of course, Obama is not about to take a position that will not get high popularity ratings in Europe.  That reduces the choices to either using force to prevent Iran from becoming a nuclear power or accepting the inevitability of a nuclear arms race in the ME and, most likely, nuclear war in the region.
Click to expand...


I have not advocated war with Iran.  My main point is that turning a blind eye to Iran won't make Iran go away.  Everyone wants to play this "pretend it isn't happening" game or "it's none of our business" but I think it is.  I think a fundamental Islamic regime that backs terrorist organizations is every nation's business that wishes to exist.  

A ground war is out.  We just flat don't have the military assets, even if we weren't engaged on two other fronts, to invade and occupy a country the size of Iran.  We would have to mobilize on the scale of WWII to do so.

Sanctions won't work against Iran any better than they did Saddam.  The government didn't suffer -- the people did.

If a little pissant like Kim il Jung can raise the hell he has from his crappy little bankrupt nation, just imagine what a nation like Iran, that also is a major oil supplier, can do.  

The UN should tell Iran to cease and desist and if they still do not then we should bomb the shit out of anything that even has the potential to be a nuclear facility.


----------



## Modbert

Gunny said:


> Whatever dude.  Look at the asshole's history,  He attained power as a thug and was a thug as a leader.  Thugs always go for the best weapons and he had the oil to buy them.  He used possessed and used WMDs in the past, and would have done so again.
> 
> Look at the religious thugs in Iran.  What are THEY doing?  The same thing.  Nuclear weapons is a means to make nations like the US, Russia and China think twice about screwing with them.
> 
> Try the logic and common sense factors sometimes.  They actually work.



I'm not disagreeing he was a thug or attained power was a thug. However, he was disarmed since the early 90's when we first invaded, and Saddam was bluffing since. The problem is, instead of Iran, America did.


----------



## toomuchtime_

Gunny said:


> toomuchtime_ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gunny said:
> 
> 
> 
> Images of appeasement don't have to be conjured up ... they're rather obvious; which, would be what is barely-concealed code for weak, effeminate and 'ineffectual'.
> 
> Diplomacy is only as good as your ability to back it up with force.  If people know you won't use that force, they scoff at diplomacy.  Probably too simple a formula for you, but what the Hell.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It might not be necessary to use force to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons if the US, EU, Russia and China could agree to apply really strong economic sanctions, but even if Russia and China removed their objections, Germany and China, both of which do major business with Iran, are unlikely to, and of course, Obama is not about to take a position that will not get high popularity ratings in Europe.  That reduces the choices to either using force to prevent Iran from becoming a nuclear power or accepting the inevitability of a nuclear arms race in the ME and, most likely, nuclear war in the region.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have not advocated war with Iran.  My main point is that turning a blind eye to Iran won't make Iran go away.  Everyone wants to play this "pretend it isn't happening" game or "it's none of our business" but I think it is.  I think a fundamental Islamic regime that backs terrorist organizations is every nation's business that wishes to exist.
> 
> A ground war is out.  We just flat don't have the military assets, even if we weren't engaged on two other fronts, to invade and occupy a country the size of Iran.  We would have to mobilize on the scale of WWII to do so.
> 
> Sanctions won't work against Iran any better than they did Saddam.  The government didn't suffer -- the people did.
> 
> If a little pissant like Kim il Jung can raise the hell he has from his crappy little bankrupt nation, just imagine what a nation like Iran, that also is a major oil supplier, can do.
> 
> The UN should tell Iran to cease and desist and if they still do not then we should bomb the shit out of anything that even has the potential to be a nuclear facility.
Click to expand...


Well, we both arrive at the same conclusion that force will be necessary to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons, but I think severe sanctions could be more effective in Iran than they were in Iraq because the Iranian government doesn't have the tight police state control Saddam's government had.  Economists estimate Iran already has about 20% unemployment and an inflation rate of about 25%.  Sanctions that prevented Iran from importing gasoline or the machinery and parts it needs to keep its oil fields and other industries working might make the government have to choose between open rebellion and giving up their nuclear weapons programs.  However, Germany, Italy, Russia and China will never agree to such sanctions, so military force is the only real options available.


----------



## Luissa

maybe we should solve our own economic crisis before we go spending even more money fighting another war. Many other empires have tried to take over the world and most of them do not exsist today.
Attacking Iran would be pretty stupid right now.


----------



## editec

Nothing we can do is really going to prevent other nations from getting nuclear technology.

It won't matter which group runs Iran (the Mullahs or the progressives in that nation who were in the streets protesting) Iran is going to continue developing that technology precisely because it is surrounded by other nations that have it.


----------



## JW Frogen

editec said:


> Nothing we can do is really going to prevent other nations from getting nuclear technology.



Iraq, Syria, Lybia all say a collective DOUGH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## scottpgreen

rhodescholar said:


> You mean accepting the garbage from ppl like Brent Scowcroft and other dimwit realists, who are willing to fudge the lines of tolerable behavior because the other party is "different," or was "colonized", or has some "cultural uniqueness," etc.
> 
> Spare me, its the same BS I've heard for decades, arabs, africans SE asians, and s americans cannot live in democracies, and we need to accept that.  Bull-fucking-shit.  The same dipshits who screech at the US for racist policies cannot see the inherent racist policies they seek to implement.



No.  I certainly do not mean that.

I agree with you that we ought to be deeply suspicious of any community, group or cause that claims special status for itself and then seeks to exploit our guilt about colonialism, empire or any other historical trauma, injustice or sleight.

By a diplomacy that acknowledges limits I simply mean one that substitutes sound strategic judgement for the kind of simple moral absolutes favoured by the neoconservatives.  

Many of the calls for a more robust line reflect a heartfelt desire to do something, anything, in the face of vicious brutality and injustice. On that very human level, they are understandable &#8211; admirable, even - but they make for bad foreign policy. Contra the ideologues on the neoconservative fringe, it is the job of those tasked with steering America through this crisis to eschew universalising, moralising rhetoric in favour of the cold calculation of interests.

And that is just what Obama and his team are doing. Watching, waiting, viewing this through the prism of enduring American interests, not allowing policy to get caught up in the swirl of events. One thing the neoconservatives are determined to do is to make this about America, to place America at the centre of the narrative; their growing impatience with Western inaction a rage against the idea of American impotence. One thing they cannot abide is an America on the periphery. This is a familiar kind of solipsism, one to which a young republic is especially vulnerable, and it must be overcome. The desire to insert ourselves at the centre of every crisis must be resisted. In its place there needs to be a much more disciplined and focused response.  Thankfully, mercifully, after the excesses of the Bush years, that is exactly what we are getting.


----------



## rhodescholar

Luissa said:


> maybe we should solve our own economic crisis before we go spending even more money fighting another war. Many other empires have tried to take over the world and most of them do not exsist today.
> Attacking Iran would be pretty stupid right now.



Yes, FDR - bury our heads in the sand, and hope all of the world's conflicts just blow away in the wind...as if they wouldn't affect us


----------



## Shogun

Luissa said:


> maybe we should solve our own economic crisis before we go spending even more money fighting another war. Many other empires have tried to take over the world and most of them do not exsist today.
> Attacking Iran would be pretty stupid right now.



clearly, you hate jooos and want to see dead joooos floating in the water.



rhodes truly is one of the dumbest motherfuckers to his these boards in a LONG, long time.


----------



## rhodescholar

Shogun said:


> clearly, you hate jooos and want to see dead joooos floating in the water.



As if a worthless **** like you ever gave one shit about them u weak turd.



> rhodes truly is one of the dumbest motherfuckers to his these boards in a LONG, long time.



Compared to you moron, I'm Einstein...you just cannot handle me so you insult, weak minded tool sissy...


----------



## Shogun

YOU might think so, idiotmeister...  But.. that pretty much illustrates my point.


----------



## Luissa

rhodescholar said:


> Luissa said:
> 
> 
> 
> maybe we should solve our own economic crisis before we go spending even more money fighting another war. Many other empires have tried to take over the world and most of them do not exsist today.
> Attacking Iran would be pretty stupid right now.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, FDR - bury our heads in the sand, and hope all of the world's conflicts just blow away in the wind...as if they wouldn't affect us
Click to expand...

FDR did what he could during a depression, he sent aid to England and did not get too involved in a battle we had nothing to do with.
What about your own conflict? We do not have the money to get into a third war and we sure as hell don't need to spread ourselves out like that. One of the reasons China is THe Republica of China, is because the Empire of China tried to fight too many enemies at once and brushed off the enemies in their own country.
We can't solve everyone else problems while we neglect our own.


----------



## elvis

rhodescholar said:


> Luissa said:
> 
> 
> 
> maybe we should solve our own economic crisis before we go spending even more money fighting another war. Many other empires have tried to take over the world and most of them do not exsist today.
> Attacking Iran would be pretty stupid right now.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, FDR - bury our heads in the sand, and hope all of the world's conflicts just blow away in the wind...as if they wouldn't affect us
Click to expand...


FDR was NOT isolationist.  He wanted to get involved but didn't have the support.  80 percent of the country was against getting involved in World War II until December 7.


----------



## rhodescholar

elvis3577 said:


> rhodescholar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Luissa said:
> 
> 
> 
> maybe we should solve our own economic crisis before we go spending even more money fighting another war. Many other empires have tried to take over the world and most of them do not exsist today.
> Attacking Iran would be pretty stupid right now.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, FDR - bury our heads in the sand, and hope all of the world's conflicts just blow away in the wind...as if they wouldn't affect us
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> FDR was NOT isolationist.  He wanted to get involved but didn't have the support.  80 percent of the country was against getting involved in World War II until December 7.
Click to expand...


Hi Elvis. 

One can argue that you are correct, but I can also argue where was his leadership?  

There are conspiracy theories that he intentionally kept the fleet in Hawaii to be attacked.  It is well known that he was very much in favor of entering the war, but needed an event to use as a casus belli.

Sometimes being a leader means doing something that is unpopular (do I hear 2003 Iraq war - or even more to the point, how about 2009 Iran war?) but is better in the long run.

Unfortunately, shortsighted, self-serving leaders are more interested in scoring points than  pursuing better decisions - like the dimwitted senators and congressmen railing about the AIG bonuses recently.   It wasn't until the media-manufactured furor did they say anything and even then, their ideas sucked - they were only interested in placated an angry public - not providing intelligent, long-term solutions.

Sometimes a good leader isn't a Bill Clinton-wet my finger and see which way the polls are blowing - it means being definitive and having a press conference/national address, where a president can explain his reasoning - and if its sound, and he is of good character, can convince enough of the public his decision is just and justified.


----------



## Article 15

rhodescholar said:


> elvis3577 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rhodescholar said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, FDR - bury our heads in the sand, and hope all of the world's conflicts just blow away in the wind...as if they wouldn't affect us
> 
> 
> 
> 
> FDR was NOT isolationist.  He wanted to get involved but didn't have the support.  80 percent of the country was against getting involved in World War II until December 7.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hi Elvis.
> 
> One can argue that you are correct, but I can also argue where was his leadership?
> 
> There are conspiracy theories that he intentionally kept the fleet in Hawaii to be attacked.  It is well known that he was very much in favor of entering the war, but needed an event to use as a casus belli.
> 
> Sometimes being a leader means doing something that is unpopular (do I hear 2003 Iraq war - or even more to the point, how about 2009 Iran war?) but is better in the long run.
> 
> Unfortunately, shortsighted, self-serving leaders are more interested in scoring points than  pursuing better decisions - like the dimwitted senators and congressmen railing about the AIG bonuses recently.   It wasn't until the media-manufactured furor did they say anything and even then, their ideas sucked - they were only interested in placated an angry public - not providing intelligent, long-term solutions.
> 
> Sometimes a good leader isn't a Bill Clinton-wet my finger and see which way the polls are blowing - it means being definitive and having a press conference/national address, where a president can explain his reasoning - and if its sound, and he is of good character, can convince enough of the public his decision is just and justified.
Click to expand...



The Iraq War wasn't unpopular at it's conception.

You're all over the place.


----------



## elvis

Article 15 said:


> rhodescholar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> elvis3577 said:
> 
> 
> 
> FDR was NOT isolationist.  He wanted to get involved but didn't have the support.  80 percent of the country was against getting involved in World War II until December 7.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hi Elvis.
> 
> One can argue that you are correct, but I can also argue where was his leadership?
> 
> There are conspiracy theories that he intentionally kept the fleet in Hawaii to be attacked.  It is well known that he was very much in favor of entering the war, but needed an event to use as a casus belli.
> 
> Sometimes being a leader means doing something that is unpopular (do I hear 2003 Iraq war - or even more to the point, how about 2009 Iran war?) but is better in the long run.
> 
> Unfortunately, shortsighted, self-serving leaders are more interested in scoring points than  pursuing better decisions - like the dimwitted senators and congressmen railing about the AIG bonuses recently.   It wasn't until the media-manufactured furor did they say anything and even then, their ideas sucked - they were only interested in placated an angry public - not providing intelligent, long-term solutions.
> 
> Sometimes a good leader isn't a Bill Clinton-wet my finger and see which way the polls are blowing - it means being definitive and having a press conference/national address, where a president can explain his reasoning - and if its sound, and he is of good character, can convince enough of the public his decision is just and justified.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The Iraq War wasn't unpopular at it's conception.
> 
> You're all over the place.
Click to expand...


I believe the Iraq War had a 70 percent approval rating.


----------



## toomuchtime_

elvis3577 said:


> Article 15 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rhodescholar said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hi Elvis.
> 
> One can argue that you are correct, but I can also argue where was his leadership?
> 
> There are conspiracy theories that he intentionally kept the fleet in Hawaii to be attacked.  It is well known that he was very much in favor of entering the war, but needed an event to use as a casus belli.
> 
> Sometimes being a leader means doing something that is unpopular (do I hear 2003 Iraq war - or even more to the point, how about 2009 Iran war?) but is better in the long run.
> 
> Unfortunately, shortsighted, self-serving leaders are more interested in scoring points than  pursuing better decisions - like the dimwitted senators and congressmen railing about the AIG bonuses recently.   It wasn't until the media-manufactured furor did they say anything and even then, their ideas sucked - they were only interested in placated an angry public - not providing intelligent, long-term solutions.
> 
> Sometimes a good leader isn't a Bill Clinton-wet my finger and see which way the polls are blowing - it means being definitive and having a press conference/national address, where a president can explain his reasoning - and if its sound, and he is of good character, can convince enough of the public his decision is just and justified.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Iraq War wasn't unpopular at it's conception.
> 
> You're all over the place.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I believe the Iraq War had a 70 percent approval rating.
Click to expand...


Indeed, it was, and support stayed above 50%, despite much unhappiness about casualties, until belief in Bush's leadership faded after Katrina.


----------



## Dr Grump

elvis3577 said:


> I believe the Iraq War had a 70 percent approval rating.



Only because the US public was gullible..


----------



## elvis

Dr Grump said:


> elvis3577 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I believe the Iraq War had a 70 percent approval rating.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Only because the US public was gullible..
Click to expand...


We're just good little Germans; oh  I mean Americans, is that it?  

more susceptible to propaganda than you people down under?


----------



## Dr Grump

elvis3577 said:


> Dr Grump said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> elvis3577 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I believe the Iraq War had a 70 percent approval rating.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Only because the US public was gullible..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We're just good little Germans; oh  I mean Americans, is that it?
> 
> more susceptible to propaganda than you people down under?
Click to expand...


Find me another Western Country, or member of the Coalition of the Willing, whose govt had a 70 percent approval rating with regard to Iraq. You won't because we didn't fall for the lie....


----------



## elvis

Dr Grump said:


> elvis3577 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dr Grump said:
> 
> 
> 
> Only because the US public was gullible..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We're just good little Germans; oh  I mean Americans, is that it?
> 
> more susceptible to propaganda than you people down under?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Find me another Western Country, or member of the Coalition of the Willing, whose govt had a 70 percent approval rating with regard to Iraq. You won't because we didn't fall for the lie....
Click to expand...


how many of those western countries were terrorized by melting skyscrapers and people plunging to their deaths?


----------



## Dr Grump

elvis3577 said:


> Dr Grump said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> elvis3577 said:
> 
> 
> 
> We're just good little Germans; oh  I mean Americans, is that it?
> 
> more susceptible to propaganda than you people down under?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Find me another Western Country, or member of the Coalition of the Willing, whose govt had a 70 percent approval rating with regard to Iraq. You won't because we didn't fall for the lie....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> how many of those western countries were terrorized by melting skyscrapers and people plunging to their deaths?
Click to expand...


Which had what to do with Iraq?


----------



## rhodescholar

Article 15 said:


> The Iraq War wasn't unpopular at it's conception.  You're all over the place.



Damn, there are A LOT of people here with short memories...I guess you forgot about the 500,000 people who marched against it in NYC, and the same # who marched in DC a few weeks before the initial shock and awe campaign?

There was a huge of amount of opposition to it, from the UN, Arab League, NGOs, etc. etc., let alone here in the US.

Unless you are thinking about the 1991 Iraq war...


----------



## Mr.Fitnah

Unlikely the west will ever do boots on the ground warfare in an Islamic state.


----------



## Tech_Esq

Mr.Fitnah said:


> Unlikely the west will ever do boots on the ground warfare in an Islamic state.



Right because neither Iraq or Afghanistan are Islamic (or Somalia or Bosnia for that matter).

The US would never DARE go to any of those places.


----------



## Tech_Esq

rhodescholar said:


> Article 15 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Iraq War wasn't unpopular at it's conception.  You're all over the place.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Damn, there are A LOT of people here with short memories...I guess you forgot about the 500,000 people who marched against it in NYC, and the same # who marched in DC a few weeks before the initial shock and awe campaign?
> 
> There was a huge of amount of opposition to it, from the UN, Arab League, NGOs, etc. etc., let alone here in the US.
> 
> Unless you are thinking about the 1991 Iraq war...
Click to expand...


There was no 500,000 person march in DC. You're high. They got a mere trifle to come out. It was more than the Gulf war, but it was still pathetic. There was no real opposition in the streets before the war.


----------



## Tech_Esq

Dr Grump said:


> elvis3577 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dr Grump said:
> 
> 
> 
> Find me another Western Country, or member of the Coalition of the Willing, whose govt had a 70 percent approval rating with regard to Iraq. You won't because we didn't fall for the lie....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> how many of those western countries were terrorized by melting skyscrapers and people plunging to their deaths?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Which had what to do with Iraq?
Click to expand...


This is what I don't understand about the left's position on Iraq. I get that Iraq and Saddam had nothing to do with 9/11. Fine. But then, no COUNTRY did have anything to do with 9/11. Sure, AQ was using Afghanistan, but it didn't really matter what country it was. Any would have done just as well.

It just seems as if we are playing cat and mouse with the truth. AQ is a multi-national entity with no firm ties to any state. The operate where there is a vacuum of control in a nation-state. Like the tribal areas of Pakistan or in Somalia or anywhere else where people are not strong enough or willing enough to prevent them from operating.

I don't feel like defending Iraq like I could do because now I'm a little less certain that we went there for the US's purposes. After listening to Richard Haas and a couple of other people, it might just be that we invaded Iraq to pursue the foreign policy of Israel rather than the US. But, despite that possibility, a "hot" war between the terrorist factions and the US had to be joined somewhere. Iraq ended up being that place. Iraq allowed the US to engage mass numbers of terrorists and decisively engage and kill them. Those engagements had to happen somewhere.


----------



## Nik

Tech_Esq said:


> rhodescholar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Article 15 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Iraq War wasn't unpopular at it's conception.  You're all over the place.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Damn, there are A LOT of people here with short memories...I guess you forgot about the 500,000 people who marched against it in NYC, and the same # who marched in DC a few weeks before the initial shock and awe campaign?
> 
> There was a huge of amount of opposition to it, from the UN, Arab League, NGOs, etc. etc., let alone here in the US.
> 
> Unless you are thinking about the 1991 Iraq war...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There was no 500,000 person march in DC. You're high. They got a mere trifle to come out. It was more than the Gulf war, but it was still pathetic. There was no real opposition in the streets before the war.
Click to expand...


There weren't 500,000, but it wasn't exactly a trifle.  Protests around the US drew in the tens of thousands, and the hundreds of thousands.  

Protests against the Iraq War - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## rhodescholar

Tech_Esq said:


> There was no 500,000 person march in DC. You're high. They got a mere trifle to come out. It was more than the Gulf war, but it was still pathetic. There was no real opposition in the streets before the war.



Dude, you are out of your fucking mind.  I LIVE in NY, and the city was totally shut down:

February 15, 2003 anti-war protest - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"As people tried to reach the rally area they ended up constituting an unplanned march, stretching twenty blocks down First Avenue and overflowing onto Second and Third Avenue.[38] In total estimates range from been 300,000 to 400,000 protesters (WSWS estimate).[37] to over a million protesters (Berlin Heise estimate)[50]"

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2003/feb/17/politics.uk

"US
Last night's protest in San Francisco was the last in a weekend of American mass demonstrations.

In New York on Saturday organisers counted 400,000 demonstrators who, forbidden by a court order from marching, rallied within sight of the United Nations amid heavy security. They were joined by the South African archbishop Desmond Tutu, and actors Susan Sarandon and Danny Glover. In Chicago 3,000 gathered and in Philadelphia 5,000 more carried anti-Bush banners."

I got caught right in the middle of it, and I would guesstimate the number was close to one million.

I am wondering though, if you're either kidding or trolling


----------



## L.K.Eder

Tech_Esq said:


> Dr Grump said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> elvis3577 said:
> 
> 
> 
> how many of those western countries were terrorized by melting skyscrapers and people plunging to their deaths?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Which had what to do with Iraq?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This is what I don't understand about the left's position on Iraq. I get that Iraq and Saddam had nothing to do with 9/11. Fine. But then, no COUNTRY did have anything to do with 9/11. Sure, AQ was using Afghanistan, but it didn't really matter what country it was. Any would have done just as well.
> 
> It just seems as if we are playing cat and mouse with the truth. AQ is a multi-national entity with no firm ties to any state. The operate where there is a vacuum of control in a nation-state. Like the tribal areas of Pakistan or in Somalia or anywhere else where people are not strong enough or willing enough to prevent them from operating.
> 
> *I don't feel like defending Iraq like I could do because now I'm a little less certain that we went there for the US's purposes. After listening to Richard Haas and a couple of other people, it might just be that we invaded Iraq to pursue the foreign policy of Israel rather than the US. But, despite that possibility, a "hot" war between the terrorist factions and the US had to be joined somewhere. Iraq ended up being that place. Iraq allowed the US to engage mass numbers of terrorists and decisively engage and kill them. Those engagements had to happen somewhere.*
Click to expand...


i can respect this point of view, it is pragmatic, realpolitik. i don't like it, but it is a lot better than a lot of other "justifications" i read for the iraq war, namely that saddam was a bad man, remember the mass graves! and think of the children! fuck that!


----------



## Bfgrn

There's only ONE way to end all this war mongering from right wing pea brains...







AND, send Jennifer Sarah Bolton the first notice...


----------



## L.K.Eder

elvis3577 said:


> Dr Grump said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> elvis3577 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I believe the Iraq War had a 70 percent approval rating.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Only because the US public was gullible..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We're just good little Germans; oh  I mean Americans, is that it?
> 
> more susceptible to propaganda than you people down under?
Click to expand...


yes, you are good little 1930's germans.

then the germans experienced a reboot. it took a lot of time and destruction. but the germans of 2002 did not fall for the pathetic case for the iraq war. "excuse me i am not convinced!"  that was the answer of the foreign minister joschka fischer to rumsfeld.

BUT, if the conservatives had won the elections in fall of 2002, merkel and stoiber would have joined this shitty adventure.

so the lessons of the reboot are being forgotten as i write this post. makes me mad, mad as hell, i almost can't take it anymore.


----------



## L.K.Eder

Bfgrn said:


> There's only ONE way to end all this war mongering from right wing pea brains...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AND, send Jennifer Sarah Bolton the first notice...




very good. re-instating the draft would certainly quench the war-talk.


----------



## rhodescholar

L.K.Eder said:


> very good. re-instating the draft would certainly quench the war-talk.



Hardly.  I would _ GLADLY _ be re-instated, so long as it was to fly into Iran and bring justice to the fascist false scholarly murderous dogs running that nation...


----------



## L.K.Eder

rhodescholar said:


> L.K.Eder said:
> 
> 
> 
> very good. re-instating the draft would certainly quench the war-talk.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hardly.  I would _ GLADLY _ be re-instated, so long as it was to fly into Iran and bring justice to the fascist false scholarly murderous dogs running that nation...
Click to expand...


the world is a little bigger than your own delusional bubble.


----------



## elvis

Tech_Esq said:


> Dr Grump said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> elvis3577 said:
> 
> 
> 
> how many of those western countries were terrorized by melting skyscrapers and people plunging to their deaths?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Which had what to do with Iraq?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This is what I don't understand about the left's position on Iraq. I get that Iraq and Saddam had nothing to do with 9/11. Fine. But then, no COUNTRY did have anything to do with 9/11. Sure, AQ was using Afghanistan, but it didn't really matter what country it was. Any would have done just as well.
> 
> It just seems as if we are playing cat and mouse with the truth. AQ is a multi-national entity with no firm ties to any state. The operate where there is a vacuum of control in a nation-state. Like the tribal areas of Pakistan or in Somalia or anywhere else where people are not strong enough or willing enough to prevent them from operating.
> 
> I don't feel like defending Iraq like I could do because now I'm a little less certain that we went there for the US's purposes. After listening to Richard Haas and a couple of other people, it might just be that we invaded Iraq to pursue the foreign policy of Israel rather than the US. But, despite that possibility, a "hot" war between the terrorist factions and the US had to be joined somewhere. Iraq ended up being that place. Iraq allowed the US to engage mass numbers of terrorists and decisively engage and kill them. Those engagements had to happen somewhere.
Click to expand...


If we had been pursuing the foreign policy of Israel, we would have attacked Iran, not Iraq.


----------



## rhodescholar

L.K.Eder said:


> rhodescholar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> L.K.Eder said:
> 
> 
> 
> very good. re-instating the draft would certainly quench the war-talk.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hardly.  I would _ GLADLY _ be re-instated, so long as it was to fly into Iran and bring justice to the fascist false scholarly murderous dogs running that nation...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> the world is a little bigger than your own delusional bubble.
Click to expand...


When you stop collecting your welfare check, communist tool, let us know. 

Until then, us wealth creators paying to carry you on our backs are not at all interested in your  (worthless) opinions.


----------



## Nik

rhodescholar said:


> L.K.Eder said:
> 
> 
> 
> very good. re-instating the draft would certainly quench the war-talk.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hardly.  I would _ GLADLY _ be re-instated, so long as it was to fly into Iran and bring justice to the fascist false scholarly murderous dogs running that nation...
Click to expand...


Ah, yes.  Fly into Iran.  And we all know the bombs you drop will only hit Ahmadinejad supporters.


----------



## Nik

rhodescholar said:


> L.K.Eder said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rhodescholar said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hardly.  I would _ GLADLY _ be re-instated, so long as it was to fly into Iran and bring justice to the fascist false scholarly murderous dogs running that nation...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> the world is a little bigger than your own delusional bubble.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When you stop collecting your welfare check, communist tool, let us know.
> 
> Until then, us wealth creators paying to carry you on our backs are not at all interested in your  (worthless) opinions.
Click to expand...


You, a wealth creator?


----------



## rhodescholar

Nik said:


> Ah, yes. Fly into Iran. And we all know the bombs you drop will only hit Ahmadinejad supporters.



This coming from a pacifist fool who would have begged Hitler not to roll over him...weak-minded loser.



> You, a wealth creator?



That's right sweetie - I own and run my own business...and you collect welfare checks...


----------



## Nik

rhodescholar said:


> Nik said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ah, yes. Fly into Iran. And we all know the bombs you drop will only hit Ahmadinejad supporters.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This coming from a pacifist fool who would have begged Hitler not to roll over him...weak-minded loser.
Click to expand...


Yes I'm a pacifist fool cause I don't like killing civilians.  Why are you so bloodthirsty Rhodes?




> You, a wealth creator?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's right sweetie - I own and run my own business...and you collect welfare checks...
Click to expand...


Congratulations, I own and run my own business too, while being a full time law student.

Collect welfare checks?  Hardly.  My monthly rent is about 2x what welfare pays out each month.


----------



## PLYMCO_PILGRIM

rhodescholar said:


> elvis3577 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rhodescholar said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, FDR - bury our heads in the sand, and hope all of the world's conflicts just blow away in the wind...as if they wouldn't affect us
> 
> 
> 
> 
> FDR was NOT isolationist.  He wanted to get involved but didn't have the support.  80 percent of the country was against getting involved in World War II until December 7.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hi Elvis.
> 
> One can argue that you are correct, but I can also argue where was his leadership?
> 
> There are conspiracy theories that he intentionally kept the fleet in Hawaii to be attacked.  It is well known that he was very much in favor of entering the war, but needed an event to use as a casus belli.
> 
> Sometimes being a leader means doing something that is unpopular (do I hear 2003 Iraq war - or even more to the point, how about 2009 Iran war?) but is better in the long run.
> 
> Unfortunately, shortsighted, self-serving leaders are more interested in scoring points than  pursuing better decisions - like the dimwitted senators and congressmen railing about the AIG bonuses recently.   It wasn't until the media-manufactured furor did they say anything and even then, their ideas sucked - they were only interested in placated an angry public - not providing intelligent, long-term solutions.
> 
> Sometimes a good leader isn't a Bill Clinton-wet my finger and see which way the polls are blowing - it means being definitive and having a press conference/national address, where a president can explain his reasoning - and if its sound, and he is of good character, can convince enough of the public his decision is just and justified.
Click to expand...


And there are conspiracie theories that Bush let 9/11 happen so he could go to war in Iraq and going into Iraq was widely supported by both Democrats and Republicans in congress and the american people.

It wasn't until we accomplished the mission of removing Saddam from power, then realizing the leadership had no plan for AFTER his regime was removed, that public opinion soured and congresspeople went back on their original decisions.

But I digress...go on with the thread now people....


----------



## Gunny

Modbert said:


> Gunny said:
> 
> 
> 
> Whatever dude.  Look at the asshole's history,  He attained power as a thug and was a thug as a leader.  Thugs always go for the best weapons and he had the oil to buy them.  He used possessed and used WMDs in the past, and would have done so again.
> 
> Look at the religious thugs in Iran.  What are THEY doing?  The same thing.  Nuclear weapons is a means to make nations like the US, Russia and China think twice about screwing with them.
> 
> Try the logic and common sense factors sometimes.  They actually work.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not disagreeing he was a thug or attained power was a thug. However, he was disarmed since the early 90's when we first invaded, and Saddam was bluffing since. The problem is, instead of Iran, America did.
Click to expand...


We didn't know he was bluffing until after the fact.


----------



## PLYMCO_PILGRIM

Bfgrn said:


> There's only ONE way to end all this war mongering from right wing pea brains...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AND, send Jennifer Sarah Bolton the first notice...



Ummm dude that would ummm like umm totally give the ummmm warmongers like umm a huge pool of ummmm yeah young like americans to ummm send to fight and like die so like then maybe there wouldn't be unemployment like kinda um you know.


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy

PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> There's only ONE way to end all this war mongering from right wing pea brains...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AND, send Jennifer Sarah Bolton the first notice...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ummm dude that would ummm like umm totally give the ummmm warmongers like umm a huge pool of ummmm yeah young like americans to ummm send to fight and like die so like then maybe there wouldn't be unemployment like kinda um you know.
Click to expand...


Yes, drafting people would certainly lower the unemployment numbers, but sending people to go and fight in a war doesn't help the economy in any way.


----------



## rhodescholar

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> Yes, drafting people would certainly lower the unemployment numbers, but sending people to go and fight in a war doesn't help the economy in any way.



Wrong mongoloid, wars are VERY helpful to the economy, but then communists are not much interested in facts...

And have you addressed the question of why Iran is blocking inspections?


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy

rhodescholar said:


> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, drafting people would certainly lower the unemployment numbers, but sending people to go and fight in a war doesn't help the economy in any way.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong mongoloid, wars are VERY helpful to the economy, but then communists are not much interested in facts...
> 
> And have you addressed the question of why Iran is blocking inspections?
Click to expand...


I'm the opposite of a communist, as I am a free market capitalist.  At any rate, wars are not good for the economy in any way shape or form.

Bastiat: Selected Essays, Chapter 1, What Is Seen and What Is Not Seen | Library of Economics and Liberty

I'd explain it to you myself, but you're unlikely to listen to me.  Of course you're unlikely to read the above link but it's far easier than me explaining basic economics to you.


----------



## rhodescholar

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> I'm the opposite of a communist, as I am a free market capitalist.



You're an idiot and a lying piece of shit.  

Why can't you answer the question: why is iran blocking inspectors, and how can the IAEA gather evidence if they are being prevented from conducting them?

And as far as wars and the economy, it was WW2 that got the US out of the Great Depression fucktard...talk about a need for understanding basic economics...


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy

rhodescholar said:


> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm the opposite of a communist, as I am a free market capitalist.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're an idiot and a lying piece of shit.
> 
> Why can't you answer the question: why is iran blocking inspectors, and how can the IAEA gather evidence if they are being prevented from conducting them?
> 
> And as far as wars and the economy, it was WW2 that got the US out of the Great Depression fucktard...talk about a need for understanding basic economics...
Click to expand...


I've never understood how any conservative could fall for that fallacy, that WW2 somehow brought us out of the Great Depression.  If you can clearly see how the government made the Depression worse through its New Deal policies but somehow think that the government spending in WW2 had a different effect then you are sadly mistaken.

By taking money out of the private sector to fund the war the government hurt the economy because it's in the private sector where real wealth is created.  The fact that there was rationing, price controls, and severe shortages during WW2 because the manufacturing market was creating things for war rather than items that people needed at home certainly wasn't indicative of a healthy economy.

The truth is that the economy didn't recover until after WW2 when government spending was sharply reduced and government control over the economy was lessened.

"War prosperity is like the prosperity that an earthquake or a plague brings." - Ludwig von Mises


----------



## editec

They didn't take money out of the economy to fight WWII.

They _invented _money to fight that war.


It astounds me that you people think money is real sometimes, it really does.


----------



## JW Frogen

We should throw all the dice we have and try to help the Iranian democracy movement every way we can. (Hello, President Obama, you are the one they have been waiting for).

We need to do this before we strike at their nuclear program, which we will have to do if it comes close to weaponisation. We will have no other choice.

I do not think most Iranians want to go down the road of Iranian nuclear weapons and conflict, I think the last election fraud proves this.

Let us try to help most Iranians take control of their country before we strike at the Iranian regime.


----------



## rhodescholar

JW Frogen said:


> We should throw all the dice we have and try to help the Iranian democracy movement every way we can. (Hello, President Obama, you are the one they have been waiting for).
> 
> We need to do this before we strike at their nuclear program, which we will have to do if it comes close to weaponisation. We will have no other choice.
> 
> I do not think most Iranians want to go down the road of Iranian nuclear weapons and conflict, I think the last election fraud proves this.
> 
> Let us try to help most Iranians take control of their country before we strike at the Iranian regime.



Hi JW, do you have proposals on doing so?  What are your thoughts...


----------



## Tommy Lucchese

elvis3577 said:


> Tech_Esq said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dr Grump said:
> 
> 
> 
> Which had what to do with Iraq?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is what I don't understand about the left's position on Iraq. I get that Iraq and Saddam had nothing to do with 9/11. Fine. But then, no COUNTRY did have anything to do with 9/11. Sure, AQ was using Afghanistan, but it didn't really matter what country it was. Any would have done just as well.
> 
> It just seems as if we are playing cat and mouse with the truth. AQ is a multi-national entity with no firm ties to any state. The operate where there is a vacuum of control in a nation-state. Like the tribal areas of Pakistan or in Somalia or anywhere else where people are not strong enough or willing enough to prevent them from operating.
> 
> I don't feel like defending Iraq like I could do because now I'm a little less certain that we went there for the US's purposes. After listening to Richard Haas and a couple of other people, it might just be that we invaded Iraq to pursue the foreign policy of Israel rather than the US. But, despite that possibility, a "hot" war between the terrorist factions and the US had to be joined somewhere. Iraq ended up being that place. Iraq allowed the US to engage mass numbers of terrorists and decisively engage and kill them. Those engagements had to happen somewhere.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If we had been pursuing the foreign policy of Israel, we would have attacked Iran, not Iraq.
Click to expand...


Do you know who wrote the Likud Party's foreign policy platform when they took power back in the Nineties? Three guesses, and the first two don't count.


----------



## Tommy Lucchese

FYI: Britain will actively work against us on attacking Iran (they get eighty percent of their oil from there), Iraq has a mutual defense treaty with Iran and will support them over us, putting our troops there at risk too, and Iran has been burying Silkworm missiles up and down the Straits of Hormuz for the last ten years so they can block the Straits with sunken tankers and triple the price of oil in case of an attack.

Have a nice day.


----------



## rhodescholar

Tommy Lucchese said:


> FYI: Britain will actively work against us on attacking Iran (they get eighty percent of their oil from there), Iraq has a mutual defense treaty with Iran and will support them over us, putting our troops there at risk too, and Iran has been burying Silkworm missiles up and down the Straits of Hormuz for the last ten years so they can block the Straits with sunken tankers and triple the price of oil in case of an attack.
> 
> Have a nice day.



80%?  Where did you get that figure from?

And Iraq is as suspicious of iran's motives as the rest of the world.

As for the silkworms, don't think we haven't already addressed them


----------



## Tommy Lucchese

rhodescholar said:


> Tommy Lucchese said:
> 
> 
> 
> FYI: Britain will actively work against us on attacking Iran (they get eighty percent of their oil from there), Iraq has a mutual defense treaty with Iran and will support them over us, putting our troops there at risk too, and Iran has been burying Silkworm missiles up and down the Straits of Hormuz for the last ten years so they can block the Straits with sunken tankers and triple the price of oil in case of an attack.
> 
> Have a nice day.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80%?  Where did you get that figure from?
> 
> And Iraq is as suspicious of iran's motives as the rest of the world.
> 
> As for the silkworms, don't think we haven't already addressed them
Click to expand...


Look it up about the oil. Britain gets the overwhelming majority of its oil from Iran. You know that BP is simply the distributor for the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company, right?

Iraq is not suspicious. They rolled out the red carpet for Mahmoud. They signed a mutual defense treaty with Iran, which means if Iran goes to war they are obligated to go to war to assist them.

And there's nothing that could be done to stop Iran from sinking a few Kuwaiti tankers in the Straits. You could do it with MANPADS.


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy

editec said:


> They didn't take money out of the economy to fight WWII.
> 
> They _invented _money to fight that war.
> 
> 
> It astounds me that you people think money is real sometimes, it really does.



It amounts to the same thing.  Inflation devalues the currency and though you're not actually taking any physical money from them you're still stealing their wealth.  However, money was taken out of the economy through higher taxes as well.


----------



## rhodescholar

Tommy Lucchese said:


> Look it up about the oil. Britain gets the overwhelming majority of its oil from Iran. You know that BP is simply the distributor for the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company, right?



I'm sorry, but you are factually incorrect:

BBC NEWS | Business | Rush for oil reaches Britain's fields

"Onshore drilling in the East Midlands proved vital to the war effort during World War I and the discovery of oil and gas in the North Sea in the late 1960s allowed the UK to become largely self-sufficient in the two resources.  But this is changing. The UK became a net importer of gas in 2004 and is expected to become a net importer of oil by 2010 as production in the North Sea declines from its 1999 peak of about 2.9 million barrels a day."

-----------

Even if it is now a net importer, then the claim of "80% of UK oil is imported is absurd...



> Iraq is not suspicious. They rolled out the red carpet for Mahmoud. They signed a mutual defense treaty with Iran, which means if Iran goes to war they are obligated to go to war to assist them.



See these links for a rather different opinion:

Loading...
World Tribune &#8212; Iraqi parliament overwhelms pro-Iran bloc to forge 'strong' partnership with U.S.
Hill: Iran is "real problem" for Iraq_English_Xinhua

Things are a bit more complex than you are implying; they are friendly on the surface, but underneath the iraqis do not trust iran...



> And there's nothing that could be done to stop Iran from sinking a few Kuwaiti tankers in the Straits. You could do it with MANPADS.



There is a lot that can be done, trust me.  I cannot get into details of our military preparations, but you can be sure there is little the iranian fascists can implement that we have not prepared for.  But, as anyone who has been in combat before, things can become unpredicatable, and there is the possibility of unknown elements, such as Russian arms supplied to iran that we did not account/anticipate.

Bottom line, iran might get to create a handful of issue, but if there is one area of the impending conflict that i am most confident in, it is our naval capabilities at handling the fascists.  It is on land where i am much more concerned.


----------



## Tommy Lucchese

1. I'm talking about Britain's foreign oil. America is the world's third-largest oil producer and we're a net importer. Iran is Britain's Saudi Arabia, but more important.

2. Your links are lame. A right-wing blog pretending to be a newspaper? An American diplomat saying Iran is a problem (shocking!)? And I don't know what that last one is.

3. "You're not at liberty to discuss it." Suuuuuuuuuuure. 'Cause you're on the NSC or the JCS.


----------



## Sunni Man

rhodescholar said:


> Tommy Lucchese said:
> 
> 
> 
> Look it up about the oil. Britain gets the overwhelming majority of its oil from Iran. You know that BP is simply the distributor for the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company, right?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm sorry, but you are factually incorrect:
> 
> BBC NEWS | Business | Rush for oil reaches Britain's fields
> 
> "Onshore drilling in the East Midlands proved vital to the war effort during World War I and the discovery of oil and gas in the North Sea in the late 1960s allowed the UK to become largely self-sufficient in the two resources.  But this is changing. The UK became a net importer of gas in 2004 and is expected to become a net importer of oil by 2010 as production in the North Sea declines from its 1999 peak of about 2.9 million barrels a day."
> 
> -----------
> 
> Even if it is now a net importer, then the claim of "80% of UK oil is imported is absurd...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Iraq is not suspicious. They rolled out the red carpet for Mahmoud. They signed a mutual defense treaty with Iran, which means if Iran goes to war they are obligated to go to war to assist them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> See these links for a rather different opinion:
> 
> Loading...
> World Tribune  Iraqi parliament overwhelms pro-Iran bloc to forge 'strong' partnership with U.S.
> Hill: Iran is "real problem" for Iraq_English_Xinhua
> 
> Things are a bit more complex than you are implying; they are friendly on the surface, but underneath the iraqis do not trust iran...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And there's nothing that could be done to stop Iran from sinking a few Kuwaiti tankers in the Straits. You could do it with MANPADS.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is a lot that can be done, *trust me.  I cannot get into details of our military preparations,* but you can be sure there is little the iranian fascists can implement that we have not prepared for.
Click to expand...

 RhodesStupid,

We are so honored that you took time out of your busy schedule of briefing the Pentagon, NSA, CIA, and other agencies about Iran.

And decided to help us here a USMB understand the geopolitical situation concerning Iran and the ME.

You are definatly a world class


----------



## elvis

Sunni Man said:


> rhodescholar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tommy Lucchese said:
> 
> 
> 
> Look it up about the oil. Britain gets the overwhelming majority of its oil from Iran. You know that BP is simply the distributor for the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company, right?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm sorry, but you are factually incorrect:
> 
> BBC NEWS | Business | Rush for oil reaches Britain's fields
> 
> "Onshore drilling in the East Midlands proved vital to the war effort during World War I and the discovery of oil and gas in the North Sea in the late 1960s allowed the UK to become largely self-sufficient in the two resources.  But this is changing. The UK became a net importer of gas in 2004 and is expected to become a net importer of oil by 2010 as production in the North Sea declines from its 1999 peak of about 2.9 million barrels a day."
> 
> -----------
> 
> Even if it is now a net importer, then the claim of "80% of UK oil is imported is absurd...
> 
> 
> 
> See these links for a rather different opinion:
> 
> Loading...
> World Tribune  Iraqi parliament overwhelms pro-Iran bloc to forge 'strong' partnership with U.S.
> Hill: Iran is "real problem" for Iraq_English_Xinhua
> 
> Things are a bit more complex than you are implying; they are friendly on the surface, but underneath the iraqis do not trust iran...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And there's nothing that could be done to stop Iran from sinking a few Kuwaiti tankers in the Straits. You could do it with MANPADS.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is a lot that can be done, *trust me.  I cannot get into details of our military preparations,* but you can be sure there is little the iranian fascists can implement that we have not prepared for.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> RhodesStupid,
> 
> We are so honored that you took time out of your busy schedule of briefing the Pentagon, NSA, CIA, and other agencies about Iran.
> 
> And decided to help us here a USMB understand the geopolitical situation concerning Iran and the ME.
> 
> You are definatly a world class
Click to expand...


this coming from the jackass whose favorite word is "Holohoax".


----------



## rhodescholar

Tommy Lucchese said:


> 1. I'm talking about Britain's foreign oil. America is the world's third-largest oil producer and we're a net importer. Iran is Britain's Saudi Arabia, but more important.



Germany is iran's largest trading partner in the EU, not Britain.  Second, you claimed the Britain gets 80% of its oil from iran, this is clearly false.



> 2. Your links are lame. A right-wing blog pretending to be a newspaper? An American diplomat saying Iran is a problem (shocking!)? And I don't know what that last one is.



WTF are you talking about?  These are news outlets, and pretty well-known ones at that.... 

Just b/c you in the US haven't heard of them means nothing...typical arrogant american attitude...  



> 3. "You're not at liberty to discuss it." Suuuuuuuuuuure. 'Cause you're on the NSC or the JCS.



Look asswipe, I do not care what you believe.  I lived there for 20 years, and am still quite up-to-date in what our plans were in case hostilities broke out.  I am not at liberty to discuss them, nor do I care what you, a likely 16 year on a pc, thinks.  

Those with military service backgrounds know there is a line in which we can and cannot cross WRT our work inthe service, and my specialty was clandestine work, which is even more classified than typical recon work on the ground.  You want to know what I did, go join the spec forces, dipshit...if you have the guts and brains...


----------



## Shogun

Who are you criticizing, Elvis?  To you, the pentagon WASNT a military target on 9/11!  Unless, of course, ONLY JEWS can attack civilian locations that count as military targets...

say, guy.. why do you keep running away when I ask you if you'd live in the US under the same ethnic bootheel that zionist jews hold on the necks of dirty ass goyim in israel?


----------



## elvis

Shogun said:


> Who are you criticizing, Elvis?  To you, the pentagon WASNT a military target on 9/11!  Unless, of course, ONLY JEWS can attack civilian locations that count as military targets...
> 
> say, guy.. why do you keep running away when I ask you if you'd live in the US under the same ethnic bootheel that zionist jews hold on the necks of dirty ass goyim in israel?



didn't run away.  it's i the other thread.  the WTC was NOT a military target.


----------



## elvis

I guess Shogun is going to take Sunni's side and deny the Holocaust now.


----------



## Shogun

elvis3577 said:


> Shogun said:
> 
> 
> 
> Who are you criticizing, Elvis?  To you, the pentagon WASNT a military target on 9/11!  Unless, of course, ONLY JEWS can attack civilian locations that count as military targets...
> 
> say, guy.. why do you keep running away when I ask you if you'd live in the US under the same ethnic bootheel that zionist jews hold on the necks of dirty ass goyim in israel?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> didn't run away.  it's i the other thread.  the WTC was NOT a military target.
Click to expand...


you've been soundly thrashed on that silly assumption, dude.  I mean, what ELSE is the fucking PENTAGON if not a military target?

so, tell me how legitimate was the plane that hit the pentagon in relation to your silly opinon of the bombing of the King David Hotel.


----------



## rhodescholar

Shogun said:


> Who are you criticizing, Elvis?  To you, the pentagon WASNT a military target on 9/11!  Unless, of course, ONLY JEWS can attack civilian locations that count as military targets...
> 
> say, guy.. why do you keep running away when I ask you if you'd live in the US under the same ethnic bootheel that zionist jews hold on the necks of dirty ass goyim in israel?



Hey asshole, when are you going to answer the questions i posed in the other thread?

DO YOU HAVE THE BRAINS TO DO SO?


----------



## Shogun

elvis3577 said:


> I guess Shogun is going to take Sunni's side and deny the Holocaust now.



not at all.  How silly, but predictably, zionist of you to assume so.  I have no doubt that millions of jews were kileld by nazis.  But, don't let that keep you from crying antisemite OR keep you from telling me how you'd love living in a UNITED STATES that treated your jewish ass like zionists treat goyim in israel.


----------



## elvis

Shogun said:


> elvis3577 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shogun said:
> 
> 
> 
> Who are you criticizing, Elvis?  To you, the pentagon WASNT a military target on 9/11!  Unless, of course, ONLY JEWS can attack civilian locations that count as military targets...
> 
> say, guy.. why do you keep running away when I ask you if you'd live in the US under the same ethnic bootheel that zionist jews hold on the necks of dirty ass goyim in israel?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> didn't run away.  it's i the other thread.  the WTC was NOT a military target.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> you've been soundly thrashed on that silly assumption, dude.  I mean, what ELSE is the fucking PENTAGON if not a military target?
> 
> so, tell me how legitimate was the plane that hit the pentagon in relation to your silly opinon of the bombing of the King David Hotel.
Click to expand...


I never said it WASN'T. I said the World Trade Center was NOT a military target.  Try again.


----------



## rhodescholar

Shogun said:


> so, tell me how legitimate was the plane that hit the pentagon in relation to your silly opinon of the bombing of the King David Hotel.



Answer the questions, asshole.


----------



## elvis

Shogun said:


> elvis3577 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I guess Shogun is going to take Sunni's side and deny the Holocaust now.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> not at all.  How silly, but predictably, zionist of you to assume so.  I have no doubt that millions of jews were kileld by nazis.  But, don't let that keep you from crying antisemite OR keep you from telling me how you'd love living in a UNITED STATES that treated your jewish ass like zionists treat goyim in israel.
Click to expand...


You asked who I was criticizing, like I shouldnt have been criticizing Sunni.


----------



## Shogun

rhodescholar said:


> Shogun said:
> 
> 
> 
> Who are you criticizing, Elvis?  To you, the pentagon WASNT a military target on 9/11!  Unless, of course, ONLY JEWS can attack civilian locations that count as military targets...
> 
> say, guy.. why do you keep running away when I ask you if you'd live in the US under the same ethnic bootheel that zionist jews hold on the necks of dirty ass goyim in israel?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hey asshole, when are you going to answer the questions i posed in the other thread?
> 
> DO YOU HAVE THE BRAINS TO DO SO?
Click to expand...


What question is that, bitch?  All you are capable of is crying like a little girl and balking at supporting your accusations.  By all means.. Ask again and I'll show you what it looks like to have more neurons firing than your best fucking day while eating fish and doing brain teasers.


----------



## Tommy Lucchese

rhodescholar said:


> Tommy Lucchese said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1. I'm talking about Britain's foreign oil. America is the world's third-largest oil producer and we're a net importer. Iran is Britain's Saudi Arabia, but more important.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Germany is iran's largest trading partner in the EU, not Britain.  Second, you claimed the Britain gets 80% of its oil from iran, this is clearly false.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2. Your links are lame. A right-wing blog pretending to be a newspaper? An American diplomat saying Iran is a problem (shocking!)? And I don't know what that last one is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> WTF are you talking about?  These are news outlets, and pretty well-known ones at that....
> 
> Just b/c you in the US haven't heard of them means nothing...typical arrogant american attitude...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 3. "You're not at liberty to discuss it." Suuuuuuuuuuure. 'Cause you're on the NSC or the JCS.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Look asswipe, I do not care what you believe.  I lived there for 20 years, and am still quite up-to-date in what our plans were in case hostilities broke out.  I am not at liberty to discuss them, nor do I care what you, a likely 16 year on a pc, thinks.
> 
> Those with military service backgrounds know there is a line in which we can and cannot cross WRT our work inthe service, and my specialty was clandestine work, which is even more classified than typical recon work on the ground.  You want to know what I did, go join the spec forces, dipshit...if you have the guts and brains...
Click to expand...


Thanks for the compliments sweetie, but you're deflecting.

Never said anything about trading partners. Said Britain gets the great majority of its foreign oil from Iran. AIOC. AIOC. AIOC.

An article about an American diplomat bitching about Iran does not an argument make about Iraq doing the same. The "World Tribune" is a blog pretending to be a newspaper. The last one I don't know enough about, but all it said is, some people say Iran is working joint fields, some say they're not.

And I don't believe you were Special Forces. An operator would never refer to it as "spec forces," he would call it SF and he would _never_ leave it uncapitalized. And if you were Recon or a SEAL you would call it spec ops or SOF.


----------



## Shogun

elvis3577 said:


> Shogun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> elvis3577 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I guess Shogun is going to take Sunni's side and deny the Holocaust now.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> not at all.  How silly, but predictably, zionist of you to assume so.  I have no doubt that millions of jews were kileld by nazis.  But, don't let that keep you from crying antisemite OR keep you from telling me how you'd love living in a UNITED STATES that treated your jewish ass like zionists treat goyim in israel.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You asked who I was criticizing, like I shouldnt have been criticizing Sunni.
Click to expand...


Given the silliness of your King David Hotel excuse, no you should not be criticizing anyone.


You DO know what the pentagon DOES, right?


----------



## elvis

Shogun said:


> elvis3577 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I guess Shogun is going to take Sunni's side and deny the Holocaust now.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> not at all.  How silly, but predictably, zionist of you to assume so.  I have no doubt that millions of jews were kileld by nazis.  But, don't let that keep you from crying antisemite OR keep you from telling me how you'd love living in a UNITED STATES that treated your jewish ass like zionists treat goyim in israel.
Click to expand...


Again, I guess you'd like to live under constant threat of rocket fire and allow terrorists to shoot at you.  How dare anyone retaliate.


----------



## elvis

Shogun said:


> elvis3577 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shogun said:
> 
> 
> 
> not at all.  How silly, but predictably, zionist of you to assume so.  I have no doubt that millions of jews were kileld by nazis.  But, don't let that keep you from crying antisemite OR keep you from telling me how you'd love living in a UNITED STATES that treated your jewish ass like zionists treat goyim in israel.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You asked who I was criticizing, like I shouldnt have been criticizing Sunni.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Given the silliness of your King David Hotel excuse, no you should not be criticizing anyone.
> 
> 
> You DO know what the pentagon DOES, right?
Click to expand...


Again, I NEVER said the pentagon wasn't a military target.  I said the WTC wasn't.


----------



## editec

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> editec said:
> 
> 
> 
> They didn't take money out of the economy to fight WWII.
> 
> They _invented _money to fight that war.
> 
> 
> It astounds me that you people think money is real sometimes, it really does.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It amounts to the same thing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes and no. If you're just a _schmuck _like you and me, it is the same thing.
> 
> If you're one of the masterswho gets to issue the currency, that's a whole nothing smoke. Then money (debt) is merely an extention of your power to mobilize a nation onto war footing by giving them meaningless pieces of paper in exchange for their labors
> 
> 
> Inflation devalues the currency *(that is an abstract social contract to begin with, which only has value if the society says it does)* and though you're not actually taking any physical money from them you're still stealing their wealth.(*More like the masters are expending their power to tell people to work for their green pieces of paper, but it's hard to explain to people who think national debts have meaning) *However, money was taken out of the economy through higher taxes as well.
Click to expand...

 
No think of it more like resources are taken out of the economy, and that money is merely an accounting of it. 

The capacity to do work (which are where the real value lays) where always there...in the natural resources and labor it takes to use them.

So when the nation was threatened, the masters released some of those resources by creating this false god called money that put labor to work turning natural resources into war production.

But think about it...who the hell had enough money to fund the second world war?

The banks!? The same banks that _were broke_ in 1929? 

Where'd the masters get it? 

So...when you use a word like DEBT to describe what happened to get America working again...it actually makes no sense. 

Debt implies the money existed and is actually LENT by someone TO someone.

Issuing debt/money is merely an expression of the power of the society issuing it. 

It is only had value because of the willingness of the people who accept it. 

GOLD can not give money value, either contrary to the Gold Bugs..._POWER _certainly does, however have the ability to give those worthless pieces of paper (and accounting ledgers) power to move the earth.


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy

I'm not sure I understand what your point is for most of that post.  The fact is that inflating the money supply devalues the currency which is essentially an indirect tax.  You're not losing an actual amount of dollars, but you're still losing an actual amount of wealth.

As far as gold goes, it has a value because people value it.  If we were on a true gold standard then the only inflation we would have is when the money supply is increased due to an increase in gold reserves which would mean that the currency is not being devalued.


----------



## Gunny

Sunni Man said:


> rhodescholar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tommy Lucchese said:
> 
> 
> 
> Look it up about the oil. Britain gets the overwhelming majority of its oil from Iran. You know that BP is simply the distributor for the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company, right?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm sorry, but you are factually incorrect:
> 
> BBC NEWS | Business | Rush for oil reaches Britain's fields
> 
> "Onshore drilling in the East Midlands proved vital to the war effort during World War I and the discovery of oil and gas in the North Sea in the late 1960s allowed the UK to become largely self-sufficient in the two resources.  But this is changing. The UK became a net importer of gas in 2004 and is expected to become a net importer of oil by 2010 as production in the North Sea declines from its 1999 peak of about 2.9 million barrels a day."
> 
> -----------
> 
> Even if it is now a net importer, then the claim of "80% of UK oil is imported is absurd...
> 
> 
> 
> See these links for a rather different opinion:
> 
> Loading...
> World Tribune  Iraqi parliament overwhelms pro-Iran bloc to forge 'strong' partnership with U.S.
> Hill: Iran is "real problem" for Iraq_English_Xinhua
> 
> Things are a bit more complex than you are implying; they are friendly on the surface, but underneath the iraqis do not trust iran...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And there's nothing that could be done to stop Iran from sinking a few Kuwaiti tankers in the Straits. You could do it with MANPADS.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is a lot that can be done, *trust me.  I cannot get into details of our military preparations,* but you can be sure there is little the iranian fascists can implement that we have not prepared for.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> RhodesStupid,
> 
> We are so honored that you took time out of your busy schedule of briefing the Pentagon, NSA, CIA, and other agencies about Iran.
> 
> And decided to help us here a USMB understand the geopolitical situation concerning Iran and the ME.
> 
> You are definatly a world class
Click to expand...


And you have absolutely nothing worthwhile to say.  Address the topic, please.  This isn't the flame zone.


----------



## rhodescholar

Tommy Lucchese said:


> Thanks for the compliments sweetie, but you're deflecting./Never said anything about trading partners. Said Britain gets the great majority of its foreign oil from Iran. AIOC. AIOC. AIOC.



I will deal with this lie first...here are your first 2 posts that raised the issue in this thread, and let me know where in those first two that you mention the word FOREIGN:

http://www.usmessageboard.com/1375575-post99.html

FYI: Britain will actively work against us on attacking Iran (they get eighty percent of their oil from there), ....Have a nice day.

-----------------

http://www.usmessageboard.com/1375607-post101.html

Look it up about the oil. Britain gets the overwhelming majority of its oil from Iran. You know that BP is simply the distributor for the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company, right...MANPADS.

-----------------

As all can see, you lied, and were caught.  In NEITHER post did you claim that it got its FOREIGN oil from iran, only "its oil," so you are either of poor memory, or are now lying to cover your mistake.  It wasn't until your THIRD post here that you mentioned the word FOREIGN:

http://www.usmessageboard.com/1376141-post104.html

1. I'm talking about Britain's foreign oil. America is the world's third-largest oil producer and we're a net importer. Iran is Britain's Saudi Arabia, but more important.

---------------

Had you not questioned my military experience, I would have been a bit more gentle in correcting you, but since you asked it wasn't the SEALS or MF Recon either, honey.


----------



## Tommy Lucchese

rhodescholar said:


> Tommy Lucchese said:
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks for the compliments sweetie, but you're deflecting./Never said anything about trading partners. Said Britain gets the great majority of its foreign oil from Iran. AIOC. AIOC. AIOC.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I will deal with this lie first...here are your first 2 posts that raised the issue in this thread, and let me know where in those first two that you mention the word FOREIGN:
> 
> http://www.usmessageboard.com/1375575-post99.html
> 
> FYI: Britain will actively work against us on attacking Iran (they get eighty percent of their oil from there), ....Have a nice day.
> 
> -----------------
> 
> http://www.usmessageboard.com/1375607-post101.html
> 
> Look it up about the oil. Britain gets the overwhelming majority of its oil from Iran. You know that BP is simply the distributor for the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company, right...MANPADS.
> 
> -----------------
> 
> As all can see, you lied, and were caught.  In NEITHER post did you claim that it got its FOREIGN oil from iran, only "its oil," so you are either of poor memory, or are now lying to cover your mistake.  It wasn't until your THIRD post here that you mentioned the word FOREIGN:
> 
> http://www.usmessageboard.com/1376141-post104.html
> 
> 1. I'm talking about Britain's foreign oil. America is the world's third-largest oil producer and we're a net importer. Iran is Britain's Saudi Arabia, but more important.
> 
> ---------------
> 
> Had you not questioned my military experience, I would have been a bit more gentle in correcting you, but since you asked it wasn't the SEALS or MF Recon either, honey.
Click to expand...


I'm going to ignore most of this, but I gotta admit, you have me on one point: I _meant_ foreign oil, but I didn't write it like that. What can I say, you got me.


----------



## rhodescholar

Tommy Lucchese said:


> I'm going to ignore most of this, but I gotta admit, you have me on one point: I _meant_ foreign oil, but I didn't write it like that. What can I say, you got me.



I deeply apologize for calling you out in this manner, it is conduct unbecoming of me and it does not represent me well to be such an arrogant accuser - regardless of whether I am "right or "wrong."  

Class is being a good winner, as much as a good loser, and I was not the former... ;(

As the good book says "he may cast the first stone..." - there is no person who has not made an honest mistake - which is all that you did, nothing more - and I am guilty of far, far worse.

You and I might disagree on certain ideas, but you are one of the more decent posters here, and in no way, shape or form can you be lumped in together with the garbage of humanity like shogun.


----------



## Dr Grump

Keep your nose out of Iran...


----------



## elvis

Dr Grump said:


> Keep your nose out of Iran...



Last I heard, the United States does not answer to New Zealand.


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy

elvis3577 said:


> Dr Grump said:
> 
> 
> 
> Keep your nose out of Iran...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Last I heard, the United States does not answer to New Zealand.
Click to expand...


Why should Iran answer to the United States?


----------



## elvis

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> elvis3577 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dr Grump said:
> 
> 
> 
> Keep your nose out of Iran...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Last I heard, the United States does not answer to New Zealand.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why should Iran answer to the United States?
Click to expand...


my point is.... 

whether or not we attack Iran is not for New Zealand to decide.


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy

elvis3577 said:


> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> elvis3577 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Last I heard, the United States does not answer to New Zealand.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why should Iran answer to the United States?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> my point is....
> 
> whether or not we attack Iran is not for New Zealand to decide.
Click to expand...


Agreed.  That responsibility belongs with the Congress, but hopefully they choose not to do so.


----------



## editec

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> I'm not sure I understand what your point is for most of that post.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My point was to show you the relationship between power and money.
> 
> Money that is not backed by power has no value.
> 
> Money isn't a thing with real value unless a social contract gives it value.
> 
> And my other point was to show you that the so called DEBT that so many of you care about, is largely bullshit.
> 
> How can we be in debt when the people who supposedly LENT us the money, didn't have that money to begin with?
> 
> They had the power (by social contract) to INVENT the money based on our promise to pay it back.
> 
> This system is unsustainable and our so called debts are basically delusional.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The fact is that inflating the money supply devalues the currency which is essentially an indirect tax. You're not losing an actual amount of dollars, but you're still losing an actual amount of wealth.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah yeah, I understand all that.
> 
> You're missing mypoint...the money itself is a tool, one that only has value because of the POWER to give it value.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As far as gold goes, it has a value because people value it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> EXACTLY like money.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If we were on a true gold standard then the only inflation we would have is when the money supply is increased due to an increase in gold reserves which would mean that the currency is not being devalued.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> True.
> 
> Of course, then we'd have continuous deflation, assuming that the amount of good and services continued to increase compared to the amount of gold.
> 
> The gold standard will not solve the problems we're facing, Chum.
> 
> I wish it were that simple, but honestly, it's not.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


----------



## Tommy Lucchese

rhodescholar said:


> Tommy Lucchese said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm going to ignore most of this, but I gotta admit, you have me on one point: I _meant_ foreign oil, but I didn't write it like that. What can I say, you got me.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I deeply apologize for calling you out in this manner, it is conduct unbecoming of me and it does not represent me well to be such an arrogant accuser - regardless of whether I am "right or "wrong."
> 
> Class is being a good winner, as much as a good loser, and I was not the former... ;(
> 
> As the good book says "he may cast the first stone..." - there is no person who has not made an honest mistake - which is all that you did, nothing more - and I am guilty of far, far worse.
> 
> You and I might disagree on certain ideas, but you are one of the more decent posters here, and in no way, shape or form can you be lumped in together with the garbage of humanity like shogun.
Click to expand...


No apology necessary. I don't take anything personally, and talking about politics guarantees drama.


----------



## Old Rocks

Gunny said:


> Modbert said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gunny said:
> 
> 
> 
> You only get to be wrong on that one once.  Anyone that thinks Saddam would not have and was not pursuing some kind of nuclear weapons capability clearly lives in a cave.  He was a thug and way to obvious.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The FBI's conversations with Saddam seem to disagree with you.
> 
> FBI says Saddam's weapons bluff aimed at Iran - Yahoo! News
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WASHINGTON (Reuters) &#8211; Saddam Hussein believed Iran was a significant threat to Iraq and left open the possibility that he had weapons of mass destruction rather than appear vulnerable, according to declassified FBI documents on interrogations of the former Iraqi leader.
> 
> "Hussein believed that Iraq could not appear weak to its enemies, especially Iran," FBI special agent George Piro wrote on notes of a conversation with Saddam in June 2004 about weapons of mass destruction.
> 
> He believed Iraq was being threatened by others in the region and must appear able to defend itself, the report said.
> 
> The FBI reports, released on Wednesday, said Saddam asserted that he was more concerned about Iran discovering Iraq's weaknesses and vulnerabilities than the repercussions of the United States for blocking the return of UN weapons inspectors who were searching for WMD.
> 
> "In his opinion, the UN inspectors would have directly identified to the Iranians where to inflict maximum damage to Iraq," according to the documents obtained and released by the National Security Archive, a nongovernmental research institute.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Whatever dude.  Look at the asshole's history,  He attained power as a thug and was a thug as a leader.  Thugs always go for the best weapons and he had the oil to buy them.  He used possessed and used WMDs in the past, and would have done so again.
> 
> Look at the religious thugs in Iran.  What are THEY doing?  The same thing.  Nuclear weapons is a means to make nations like the US, Russia and China think twice about screwing with them.
> 
> Try the logic and common sense factors sometimes.  They actually work.
Click to expand...


And who set Saddam up in power? And where did he get the WMDs that he at one time had? 

Pushing Iran at this time would be the epitome of stupidity. MadHatter and his bunch have about alienated everybody in Iran. Even many conservative religious Iranians are speaking out about the treatment of the protestors. Interferance at this time would only unite them against a common enemy. As is, there is a another revolution brewing in Iran.


----------



## rhodescholar

Old Rocks said:


> And who set Saddam up in power? And where did he get the WMDs that he at one time had?



The US did not put saddam in power, and it was france who provided him with nuclear technology.



> Pushing Iran at this time would be the epitome of stupidity. MadHatter and his bunch have about alienated everybody in Iran. Even many conservative religious Iranians are speaking out about the treatment of the protestors. Interferance at this time would only unite them against a common enemy. As is, there is a another revolution brewing in Iran.



So AN would be replaced with another stooge.  What you and others do not realize is that the gov't there is a front, a religious facade for the IRGC who are the actual rulers of iran.
Think Myanmar/Burma - but the generals in iran hide behind a phony gov't.  

To destroy the regime, the IRGC and its offshoots like the Basij must be destroyed.  Even the writer Cohen in the NY Times, a leftist liberal, stated that the iranian regime has undergone a complete military coup.  He is correct on outcome but wrong on timing - this manifested itself in the last election, but took place years ago.

The public has no ability to change the regime, the military would just keep killing people while blaming the rulers and hiding behind them.  They would just toss AN and place some other fool in there, while they continue to pull the nation's strings.

Their aim towards nuclear weapons is to ensure that the status quo can never change.


----------



## Tommy Lucchese

rhodescholar said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> 
> And who set Saddam up in power? And where did he get the WMDs that he at one time had?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The US did not put saddam in power, and it was france who provided him with nuclear technology.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pushing Iran at this time would be the epitome of stupidity. MadHatter and his bunch have about alienated everybody in Iran. Even many conservative religious Iranians are speaking out about the treatment of the protestors. Interferance at this time would only unite them against a common enemy. As is, there is a another revolution brewing in Iran.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So AN would be replaced with another stooge.  What you and others do not realize is that the gov't there is a front, a religious facade for the IRGC who are the actual rulers of iran.
> Think Myanmar/Burma - but the generals in iran hide behind a phony gov't.
> 
> To destroy the regime, the IRGC and its offshoots like the Basij must be destroyed.  Even the writer Cohen in the NY Times, a leftist liberal, stated that the iranian regime has undergone a complete military coup.  He is correct on outcome but wrong on timing - this manifested itself in the last election, but took place years ago.
> 
> The public has no ability to change the regime, the military would just keep killing people while blaming the rulers and hiding behind them.  They would just toss AN and place some other fool in there, while they continue to pull the nation's strings.
> 
> Their aim towards nuclear weapons is to ensure that the status quo can never change.
Click to expand...


I would point out that when Saddam seized power from Kemal (?), the CIA was happy to provide him with a list of Communists and suspected Communists, who Saddam promptly liquidated.

Plus in the Eighties, the agricultural subsidies, the helos, the precursors for chemical weapons, ELINT on Iranian positions. . . .we do not have clean hands in this situation.


----------



## Tech_Esq

Old Rocks said:


> Gunny said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Modbert said:
> 
> 
> 
> The FBI's conversations with Saddam seem to disagree with you.
> 
> FBI says Saddam's weapons bluff aimed at Iran - Yahoo! News
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Whatever dude.  Look at the asshole's history,  He attained power as a thug and was a thug as a leader.  Thugs always go for the best weapons and he had the oil to buy them.  He used possessed and used WMDs in the past, and would have done so again.
> 
> Look at the religious thugs in Iran.  What are THEY doing?  The same thing.  Nuclear weapons is a means to make nations like the US, Russia and China think twice about screwing with them.
> 
> Try the logic and common sense factors sometimes.  They actually work.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And who set Saddam up in power? And where did he get the WMDs that he at one time had?
> 
> Pushing Iran at this time would be the epitome of stupidity. MadHatter and his bunch have about alienated everybody in Iran. Even many conservative religious Iranians are speaking out about the treatment of the protestors. Interferance at this time would only unite them against a common enemy. As is, there is a another revolution brewing in Iran.
Click to expand...


Who set Saddam up in power? That sounds like you are implying the Americans did it. Given the timing, you mean that Jimmy Carter and Admiral Stansfield Turner (DCI) created Saddam Hussein. As much as I would love to blame the hapless Carter for anything at all, I can't blame him for this. He had nothing to do with it. You are just another one of those "blame America first" kind of people who constantly talk out of their asses. Here, so you don't make the same mistake again.



> In 1966, he escaped from prison and continued his work with the party, culminating in a critical role in the July 1968 coup that brought the Ba'ath party to power for good. Following the coup, Saddam became vice chairman of the Revolutionary Command Council in 1969. Over the next few years, he rose through the party ranks, becoming vice president and deputy secretary-general of the Ba'ath Party's Regional Command.
> 
> As vice chairman, he oversaw the nationalization of the oil industry and advocated a national infrastructure campaign that built roads, schools and hospitals. The once illiterate Saddam, ordered a mandatory literacy program. Those who did not participate risked three years in jail, but hundreds of thousands learned to read. Iraq, at this time, created one of the best public-health systems in the Middle East -- a feat that earned Saddam an award from the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization.
> 
> But it was also during this time that Saddam reportedly helped form secret police units that cracked down on dissidents and those opposed to Ba'ath rule. He also served in the Iraqi armed forces as a lieutenant general from 1973 until 1976, when he was promoted to general.
> 
> On July 16, 1979, President al-Bakr resigned and Saddam rose to the presidency. Five of his fellow members of the Revolutionary Command Council were quickly accused of involvement in a coup attempt and executed, along with 17 other rivals.



Online Newshour report on Saddam's rise

And where did he get his chemical weapons? I assume, since you always "hate America first" you mean to imply that the US supplied chemical weapons to Iraq and they subsequently used them on the Iranians and the Kurds.

I can find nothing that supports this contention. Even the wacko left-wing commie propaganda doesn't say that (although it does sport headlines like "How Reagan Supplied Saddam with WMD" and other bombastic and misleading titles).

The US played a rough game of Real Politick with Iraq and Iran. If the fucking commie Dems hadn't intervened we might have succeeded in destroying both countries instead of having to fight in Iraq twice. But, Dem hand-wringing fucked everything up as usually. Fucking morons! And now comes Iran. We're in a double fucked situation now because of Dem whining. We have Hillary running around pronouncing, "We will not allow Iran to have atomic weapons," and we have no choice in the matter. Either Obama and Hillary are going to take us to war in Iran or Iran is going to get nukes. Having said that we will not allow it, Hillary is building a bonfire with American credibility that will burn for at least a decade.

Face it, Dems don't understand foreign policy. They are too stupid and have no stomach for it even on the off chance they understood what was happening.


----------



## Tech_Esq

Tommy Lucchese said:


> rhodescholar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> 
> And who set Saddam up in power? And where did he get the WMDs that he at one time had?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The US did not put saddam in power, and it was france who provided him with nuclear technology.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pushing Iran at this time would be the epitome of stupidity. MadHatter and his bunch have about alienated everybody in Iran. Even many conservative religious Iranians are speaking out about the treatment of the protestors. Interferance at this time would only unite them against a common enemy. As is, there is a another revolution brewing in Iran.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So AN would be replaced with another stooge.  What you and others do not realize is that the gov't there is a front, a religious facade for the IRGC who are the actual rulers of iran.
> Think Myanmar/Burma - but the generals in iran hide behind a phony gov't.
> 
> To destroy the regime, the IRGC and its offshoots like the Basij must be destroyed.  Even the writer Cohen in the NY Times, a leftist liberal, stated that the iranian regime has undergone a complete military coup.  He is correct on outcome but wrong on timing - this manifested itself in the last election, but took place years ago.
> 
> The public has no ability to change the regime, the military would just keep killing people while blaming the rulers and hiding behind them.  They would just toss AN and place some other fool in there, while they continue to pull the nation's strings.
> 
> Their aim towards nuclear weapons is to ensure that the status quo can never change.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I would point out that when Saddam seized power from Kemal (?), the CIA was happy to provide him with a list of Communists and suspected Communists, who Saddam promptly liquidated.
> 
> Plus in the Eighties, the agricultural subsidies, the helos, the precursors for chemical weapons, ELINT on Iranian positions. . . .we do not have clean hands in this situation.
Click to expand...


So the outcome you favored was a victory by the Islamic Revolution and a realization of their goal of ousting Saddam? Why did you want that?

We don't have clean hands? Don't be an idiot, this isn't a court of fucking equity. This is foreign policy between two asshole brutal regimes. Because the Dems decided to put an end to the US "assistance" to both sides in that war, we have had to fight Iraq twice and it sounds like the Bama and Hillster are going to make us fight Iran too. Thanks A LOT!! Fuckers.


----------



## Shogun

Why don't you put all that in your phantom WMD pipe and smoke it, dude.  For all your talk you forget who brought the term "mobile chem labs" to our national lexicon.


----------



## Tech_Esq

Shogun said:


> Why don't you put all that in your phantom WMD pipe and smoke it, dude.  For all your talk you forget who brought the term "mobile chem labs" to our national lexicon.



Got anything relevant to say or are you just trolling?


----------



## Shogun

I'm pointing out the hilarity of your "boohoo the dems boohoo" crap, dude.  Point fingers all you want but it's not the Dems who lead us into Iraq after 9/11.  On trumped up bullshit that would have landed a regular dude in prison for false testimony.   Your "oh you must be a blame america" silliness just doesn't cut it in an age of the internet where I can pepper you with Rummy handshakes.


----------



## Tech_Esq

Shogun said:


> I'm pointing out the hilarity of your "boohoo the dems boohoo" crap, dude.  Point fingers all you want but it's not the Dems who lead us into Iraq after 9/11.  On trumped up bullshit that would have landed a regular dude in prison for false testimony.   Your "oh you must be a blame america" silliness just doesn't cut it in an age of the internet where I can pepper you with Rummy handshakes.



Give over it. The Dems caused the situation going back 25 years. You might make an argument for more than that. I realize in the age of the Internet, it might well be impossible for you to take that long a view of world events, but regardless of your personal limitations, the facts remain.


----------



## Shogun

yea dude.. screaming DEMZZZZ  sure is convincing in this age of evidence.









I know I know... DEEEEMZZZZZZOCRAAATZ were the cause of the Iran Contra scandal too.  *yawn*


----------



## PLYMCO_PILGRIM

Tech_Esq said:


> Shogun said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm pointing out the hilarity of your "boohoo the dems boohoo" crap, dude.  Point fingers all you want but it's not the Dems who lead us into Iraq after 9/11.  On trumped up bullshit that would have landed a regular dude in prison for false testimony.   Your "oh you must be a blame america" silliness just doesn't cut it in an age of the internet where I can pepper you with Rummy handshakes.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Give over it. The Dems caused the situation going back 25 years. You might make an argument for more than that. I realize in the age of the Internet, it might well be impossible for you to take that long a view of world events, but regardless of your personal limitations, the facts remain.
Click to expand...


are you referring to how Jimmy Carter let our good relations with Iran go down the crapper when he didn't back up the pro-american govt there in the 70's, leading to the current govt that is not friendly with us today?


----------



## Shogun

yes.  CLEARLY, someone should ahve installed an american loving american into Iran's ruling echelon.  GOSH!


----------



## publicprotector

Lets be perfectly clear, the US and others are only interested in the ME for one reason and thats oil. If there was no oil there the US/UK etc. would not give a shite what went on.

The only reason why Israel wants to nuke Iran or rather get dumbass Americans to do it for them is because it conflicts with Israel's idea of a greater Israel and it knows full well that if it tried that on the Iranians would nuke that idea big time.

If you really want to stablise the ME stop backing and supporting Israel, make Israel accountable for its actions and respect the peoples and nations of the ME its that simple.


----------



## Tech_Esq

publicprotector said:


> Lets be perfectly clear, the US and others are only interested in the ME for one reason and thats oil. If there was no oil there the US/UK etc. would not give a shite what went on.
> 
> The only reason why Israel wants to nuke Iran or rather get dumbass Americans to do it for them is because it conflicts with Israel's idea of a greater Israel and it knows full well that if it tried that on the Iranians would nuke that idea big time.
> 
> If you really want to stablise the ME stop backing and supporting Israel, make Israel accountable for its actions and respect the peoples and nations of the ME its that simple.



Have you read the Carter Doctrine? Does it really need to be stated any more clearly than that?

The Carter Doctrine


----------



## Tech_Esq

Shogun said:


> yes.  CLEARLY, someone should ahve installed an american loving american into Iran's ruling echelon.  GOSH!



Silly ...


----------



## PLYMCO_PILGRIM

Shogun said:


> yes.  CLEARLY, someone should ahve installed an american loving american into Iran's ruling echelon.  GOSH!



There was already one there, we withdrew our financial and Pulpit support for him and let him get swept out.  

I see nothing wrong with supporting those who support you.


----------



## Tech_Esq

PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:


> Tech_Esq said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shogun said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm pointing out the hilarity of your "boohoo the dems boohoo" crap, dude.  Point fingers all you want but it's not the Dems who lead us into Iraq after 9/11.  On trumped up bullshit that would have landed a regular dude in prison for false testimony.   Your "oh you must be a blame america" silliness just doesn't cut it in an age of the internet where I can pepper you with Rummy handshakes.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Give over it. The Dems caused the situation going back 25 years. You might make an argument for more than that. I realize in the age of the Internet, it might well be impossible for you to take that long a view of world events, but regardless of your personal limitations, the facts remain.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> are you referring to how Jimmy Carter let our good relations with Iran go down the crapper when he didn't back up the pro-american govt there in the 70's, leading to the current govt that is not friendly with us today?
Click to expand...


That was certainly part of it. Once things get to be more than 10 years old, people on here like to get creative with the facts. They read a few wingnut (left or right) blogs and they think they are subject matter experts when in fact they are just misinformed.

There is no doubt the US played hardball with Iran and Iraq to achieve US interests in that region. Jimmy Carter explicitly stated what those interest were. Reagan decided how to give voice to those interests during his presidency. It should have surprised no one. I view it as not only completely legitimate, but admirably played.


----------



## Shogun

hypothetical conjecture.  BRAVO.


----------



## Tech_Esq

Shogun said:


> hypothetical conjecture.  BRAVO.



 Soggy....ur the trolliest!!!


----------



## Shogun

I'm part of a complete trollicious breakfast!


----------



## rhodescholar

Tech_Esq said:


> Shogun said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm pointing out the hilarity of your "boohoo the dems boohoo" crap, dude.  Point fingers all you want but it's not the Dems who lead us into Iraq after 9/11.  On trumped up bullshit that would have landed a regular dude in prison for false testimony.   Your "oh you must be a blame america" silliness just doesn't cut it in an age of the internet where I can pepper you with Rummy handshakes.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Give over it. The Dems caused the situation going back 25 years. You might make an argument for more than that. I realize in the age of the Internet, it might well be impossible for you to take that long a view of world events, but regardless of your personal limitations, the facts remain.
Click to expand...


Are you for real?  You should know by now that according to monkey shogun, the World did not exist before, like 1998, when she opened her AOL account.  Any facts or research that isn't available on stormfront.org or jewwatch.org does not count...


----------



## Shogun

rhodescholar said:


> Tech_Esq said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shogun said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm pointing out the hilarity of your "boohoo the dems boohoo" crap, dude.  Point fingers all you want but it's not the Dems who lead us into Iraq after 9/11.  On trumped up bullshit that would have landed a regular dude in prison for false testimony.   Your "oh you must be a blame america" silliness just doesn't cut it in an age of the internet where I can pepper you with Rummy handshakes.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Give over it. The Dems caused the situation going back 25 years. You might make an argument for more than that. I realize in the age of the Internet, it might well be impossible for you to take that long a view of world events, but regardless of your personal limitations, the facts remain.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you for real?  You should know by now that according to monkey shogun, the World did not exist before, like 1998, when she opened her AOL account.  Any facts or research that isn't available on stormfront.org or jewwatch.org does not count...
Click to expand...



meh.. post your evidence, bitch.  Microfiche and fabricated tales of library camping just doesn't impress me.


----------



## rhodescholar

publicprotector said:


> Lets be perfectly clear, the US and others are only interested in the ME for one reason and thats oil. If there was no oil there the US/UK etc. would not give a shite what went on.
> 
> The only reason why Israel wants to nuke Iran or rather get dumbass Americans to do it for them is because it conflicts with Israel's idea of a greater Israel and it knows full well that if it tried that on the Iranians would nuke that idea big time.
> 
> If you really want to stablise the ME stop backing and supporting Israel, make Israel accountable for its actions and respect the peoples and nations of the ME its that simple.



Ugh, another fuckbrain screeching "Israel wants more land"....

How much land has israel acquired in the last 70 years?

And to a thinking person, the fact that iran 1) has multiple proxy armies on its doorstep 2) has said numerous times it will destroy israel 3) attacks israel in every way possible might make israel want to my gosh, actually defend herself?  Or is that not allowed?


----------



## publicprotector

Rhode, why not just admit that 1, you know jack shit about anything, 2, that your nothing more than a hate filled racist biggot.

Your ignorance and stupidity knows no bounds, on the one hand you state that its OK for Israel to do what it likes but no other country can. Why don't you just try and grow a brain, you stated you have been in the forces and MI what as, a rifle fucker.  You should be locked up in a padded cell somewhere, you are clearly a danger to those all around you, or perhaps you are already there hence the constant ranting of a lunatic.


Iran has not invaded any country or posed a threat to any nation for a long time indeed. The continuous media lies and deciet spread by Israel is just that lies and deceit. Desperate Israel will do anything to attack the nations around it and will continue to expand into those lands.

There is no proof what so ever that Iran has nukes or even wants them, and if you want Iran to open up to inspectors then let that terrorist state Israel do the same, whats good for one is good for the other. Oh no Israel won't do that will she, because she buys off and murders anyone who dares to cross her dose she not.


----------



## rhodescholar

publicprotector said:


> Rhode, why not just admit that 1, you know jack shit about anything, 2, that your nothing more than a hate filled racist biggot.Your ignorance and stupidity knows no bounds, on the one hand you state that its OK for Israel to do what it likes but no other country can. Why don't you just try and grow a brain, you stated you have been in the forces and MI what as, a rifle fucker.  You should be locked up in a padded cell somewhere, you are clearly a danger to those all around you, or perhaps you are already there hence the constant ranting of a lunatic.



If this isn't another shog puppet account, I don't know what is... 



> Iran has not invaded any country or posed a threat to any nation for a long time indeed.



Congratulations for stupidest line of the year.  If a person is so fucking idiotic as to claim this, there is no reason to read any further...


----------



## Shogun

*If this isn't another shog puppet account, I don't know what is...*



You are just CHOCK FULL TO THE BRIM with FAIL, aren't you?  Go take your suspicion to a mod, you pansy bitch.  You are as wrong about this as you are every other time you sxee someone new tell you what kind of an ignorant fucktard you are.  here's a hint on life, motherfucker:  If you keep being told you are a fucking dingbat by numerous people then, chances are, they are not all sock puppet accounts and you might actually be a giant fucking batshit crazy fucking idiot.


----------



## rhodescholar

Shogun said:


> You are just CHOCK FULL TO THE BRIM with FAIL, aren't you?  Go take your suspicion to a mod, you pansy bitch.  You are as wrong about this as you are every other time you sxee someone new tell you what kind of an ignorant fucktard you are.  here's a hint on life, motherfucker:  If you keep being told you are a fucking dingbat by numerous people then, chances are, they are not all sock puppet accounts and you might actually be a giant fucking batshit crazy fucking idiot.



Given how angry I made the monkey by rattling its cage, I guess I was dead-on in my assessment...notice also how the chimp avoids all points made in the thread, and just trolls - what a sick person


----------



## Shogun

You don't make people angry, little clown, you make then laugh.  We are laughing AT you, not WITH you, dude.  big difference regardless of what those voices in your head tell you.

ps, I'm the one posting evidence, bitch.. Not some silly fucking "but-- but-- derr derrr I READ derrr and have MICROFICHE!"


----------



## elvis

how, exactly, would we conduct regime change in Iran?  reinstate the draft?


----------



## publicprotector

RHODENOBRAIN, perhaps you would like to tell us all which countries and when Iran has invaded them. And don't give me that crap that they support terrorists, plenty of nations do and that is not an invasion. I asssume you understand what the word invasion means.

You must be a very sad and lonely person to carry on as you do, what is it were you a bed wetter, picked on in school, did not get the girls, failed in the military. There must be a reason for being such an obnoxious person who constantly avoids facts, historical events and any other truths that you do with great efficiency.


----------



## Shogun

elvis3577 said:


> how, exactly, would we conduct regime change in Iran?  reinstate the draft?



Let's use the same method we use when removing the racist zionist regime change in israel...


----------



## publicprotector

Shogun, yes I agree its strange how many side with Israel and expect others to play ball but not Israel. Just a double standard really by stupid people who think its OK for Israel to murder maim and torture to expouse hatred and racism but then point the finger of accusation at others.


----------



## PLYMCO_PILGRIM

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nxRCEtOroR8]YouTube - Vintage Vince Vance & the Valiants (Bomb Iran)[/ame]


----------



## rhodescholar

publicprotector said:


> RHODENOBRAIN, perhaps you would like to tell us all which countries and when Iran has invaded them. And don't give me that crap that they support terrorists, plenty of nations do and that is not an invasion. I asssume you understand what the word invasion means.
> 
> You must be a very sad and lonely person to carry on as you do, what is it were you a bed wetter, picked on in school, did not get the girls, failed in the military. There must be a reason for being such an obnoxious person who constantly avoids facts, historical events and any other truths that you do with great efficiency.



Hezboolah, Hamas and the shiite militias in iraq are iranian trained, funded, directed, and basically iranian in operation.  During the 2006 israel/Lebanese war israel discovered iranian troops out of uniform operating some of the more sophisticated weapons.  I find it hilarious that turds like you screech at the US for "meddling," then excuse iran for much worse - and these terror groups are acts of war.


----------



## rhodescholar

publicprotector said:


> Shogun, yes I agree its strange how many side with Israel and expect others to play ball but not Israel. Just a double standard really by stupid people who think its OK for Israel to murder maim and torture to expouse hatred and racism but then point the finger of accusation at others.



STFU already puppet moron, you're boring the shit out of us with the incessant trolling garbage.


----------



## publicprotector

RHODE EMPTY HEAD, why don't you give it a rest you broken down old hag. You have nothing worth saying so do us all a favour and throw yourself under a train. To say you had the brain of a goldfish would be insulting to goldfish. Your just a wizened old crone full of hate and bitterness, no doubt because you have been an ass hole all your life.

And you continue to prove this every time you post on any given subject because you are so weak and a coward that all you can do is blow off at everyone. I hope you don't have any kids, one of you is bad enough and there is enough human trash in this world already without the likes of you contaminating the gene pool.

Its good that at least on this site turds like you are in the minority.


----------



## elvis

rhodescholar said:


> publicprotector said:
> 
> 
> 
> Shogun, yes I agree its strange how many side with Israel and expect others to play ball but not Israel. Just a double standard really by stupid people who think its OK for Israel to murder maim and torture to expouse hatred and racism but then point the finger of accusation at others.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> STFU already puppet moron, you're boring the shit out of us with the incessant trolling garbage.
Click to expand...


Where would we get the troops to conduct regime change in Iran?


----------



## rhodescholar

elvis3577 said:


> rhodescholar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> publicprotector said:
> 
> 
> 
> Shogun, yes I agree its strange how many side with Israel and expect others to play ball but not Israel. Just a double standard really by stupid people who think its OK for Israel to murder maim and torture to expouse hatred and racism but then point the finger of accusation at others.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> STFU already puppet moron, you're boring the shit out of us with the incessant trolling garbage.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Where would we get the troops to conduct regime change in Iran?
Click to expand...


Ooooh sorry Elvis, I go so excited by all of the puppet account expulsions, I neglected your query....anyhoo, I did deal with this question in another thread, but basically alot of troops can be pulled from iraq (which is rapidly being drawn-down anyway), there are still enormous numbers of troops stationed in Germany, US, Japan, along with some 4-5 Aircraft carrier groups in the Gulf with some 10,000 marines each...

The troops aren't the problem, its dealing with:

1-the inevitable terrorist cells the fascist filth will activate in the West
2-the terrorism the IRGC will conduct inside iran against not only Western troops, but also their own people - which they would then quickly blame on the US
3-maintaining clear shipping lines in the gulf
4-attacks against allies in the region until the iranian missile capabilities were completely netralized
5-the likely activation of hamas/hezbollah against israel

But even with all of these issues - it is STILL more than worth it to conduct a regime-changing assault, as the alternative - a nuclear capable iran - is far worse.


----------



## publicprotector

RHODESIMPERINGBAGGAGE, look stupid, I have already stated that Iran, the US/UK/Israel and all the others support some form of terrorism. Ovbiously your that stupid you don't know the difference between invasion, occupation and support for violent groups.


And just what troops are you going to call on to invade Iran, none because your troops cannot achieve jack shit period. Even in your delluded brain you cannot ignore the constant failure of US Foreign policy all the way from Vietnam to the present day ME.


And as your country is flat broke just how long do you think your so called mighty forces will last, not long. Your problem like many Americans is that you have not a clue of reality, you have been brainwashed for so long that you actually believe all this shit. Well guess what, you will be in the food lines come the end of the year, you and all the other dumb fucks who thought their nation was the best thing since sliced bread.

I really hope you do attack Iran, and when you get your asses wupped yet again maybe you will realise just how crap you really are. But you won't be figthing will you you broken down old harpie. No cowards like you sit there pushing the hate and lies and let others do the dirty work for you because you just A BIG FAT COWARD.

The sum total of your knowledge could be put on a postage stamp, do you have people to dress you and feed you because from the diatribe from your mouth you must be in some kind of institution.

A yellow bellied American who shouts and screams at everyone because thats all you can do, shout and scream.


----------



## rhodescholar

See this article:

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/02/world/middleeast/02iran.html?_r=1&hp

_ "The only media organization allowed to cover the trial was the semiofficial Fars news agency, which has links to the countrys Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps. That, in combination with recent revelations about the Guards central role in holding detained protesters, bolstered a widespread view that the Guards were aggressively leading the effort to put down the opposition movement. Some have taken Mr. Ahmadinejads dismissal last week of his intelligence minister, who had objected to the broadcasting of confessions by detainees, as yet another sign of the Guards control."_

Given that this election was a military coup of the country, which is now being run in its entirety by the military/IRGC, then it stands to reason that only a military strike to destroy iran's military would be able to overthrow the dictatorship.

At this point, diplomatic efforts with the clerics is a waste of time, they are mere figure heads providing cover for the real leadership - the fascist military leadership that is running the country and major business interests.

The clerics exist only to provide religious fervor as a cover for the military, as a means of keeping the masses focused on religion while their nation is stolen from them - and more importantly - to keep the West from gaining traction and reaching to the real core running the nation - the IRGC leadership.


----------



## Sunni Man

Many of the protesters broke the law and engaged in criminal behavior.

Protesters would go to jail here in the United States for throwing rocks at police and assulting them.

So why shouldn't they go to jail in Iran?


----------



## rhodescholar

Ugh, stupid post sunni idiot, putting you back on ignore.  

When you want to have a real conversation with adults, pm me, and maybe I'll take you off my I-list.  Right now, your no better considered than the JBeuk sock puppets...


----------



## Sunni Man

rhodescholar said:


> Ugh, stupid post sunni idiot, putting you back on ignore.
> 
> When you want to have a real conversation with adults, pm me, and maybe I'll take you off my I-list.  Right now, your no better considered than the JBeuk sock puppets...


I see you can't counter my statement RhodesStupid.

Protesters in any country, be it America or Iran, who break the law while protesting.

They have become criminals and deserve to be put in jail.


----------



## rhodescholar

Sunni Man said:


> Protesters in any country, be it America or Iran, who break the law while protesting.
> 
> They have become criminals and deserve to be put in jail.



The iranian constitution allows demonstrations, freedom of speech, and public protests, but then again, a fucking moron like you wouldn't know that...


----------



## Sunni Man

rhodescholar said:


> Sunni Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> Protesters in any country, be it America or Iran, who break the law while protesting.
> 
> They have become criminals and deserve to be put in jail.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The iranian constitution allows demonstrations, freedom of speech, and public protests, but then again, a fucking moron like you wouldn't know that...
Click to expand...

Both the American and Iranian constitutions allow protests and freedom of speech.

But in either country,

If you break the law while protesting. You will go to jail.

The Iranian protesters were committing criminal acts and deserve to go to jail.


----------



## rhodescholar

Sunni Man said:


> Both the American and Iranian constitutions allow protests and freedom of speech.
> 
> But in either country,
> 
> If you break the law while protesting. You will go to jail.
> 
> The Iranian protesters were committing criminal acts and deserve to go to jail.



What crimes were those, imbecile?  Refusing to get smashed in the face by a Basij thug?

Show evidence, if you can...oh but that's right, the false scholars/IRGC shut down all journalists and the web....


----------



## HUGGY

rhodescholar said:


> Here is a great article on why iran needs to be attacked ASAP.  Rather than respond emotionally, as have so many here have done recently, I would like to see posters come up with point-by-point responses why Bolton's assessment is inaccurate.
> 
> washingtonpost.com
> 
> By John R. Bolton
> Thursday, July 2, 2009
> With Iran's hard-line mullahs and the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps unmistakably back in control, Israel's decision of whether to use military force against Tehran's nuclear weapons program is more urgent than ever.
> 
> Iran's nuclear threat was never in doubt during its presidential campaign, but the post-election resistance raised the possibility of some sort of regime change. That prospect seems lost for the near future or for at least as long as it will take Iran to finalize a deliverable nuclear weapons capability.
> 
> Accordingly, with no other timely option, the already compelling logic for an Israeli strike is nearly inexorable. Israel is undoubtedly ratcheting forward its decision-making process. President Obama is almost certainly not.
> 
> He still wants "engagement" (a particularly evocative term now) with Iran's current regime. Last Thursday, the State Department confirmed that Secretary Hillary Clinton spoke to her Russian and Chinese counterparts about "getting Iran back to negotiating on some of these concerns that the international community has." This is precisely the view of Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov, reflected in the Group of Eight communique the next day. Sen. John Kerry thinks the recent election unpleasantness in Tehran will delay negotiations for only a few weeks.
> 
> Obama administration sources have opined (anonymously) that Iran will be more eager to negotiate than it was before its election in order to find "acceptance" by the "international community." Some leaks indicated that negotiations had to produce results by the U.N. General Assembly's opening in late September, while others projected that they had until the end of 2009 to show progress. These gauzy scenarios assume that the Tehran regime cares about "acceptance" or is somehow embarrassed by eliminating its enemies. Both propositions are dubious.
> 
> Obama will nonetheless attempt to jump-start bilateral negotiations with Iran, though time is running out even under the timetables leaked to the media. There are two problems with this approach. First, Tehran isn't going to negotiate in good faith. It hasn't for the past six years with the European Union as our surrogates, and it won't start now. As Clinton said on Tuesday, Iran has "a huge credibility gap" because of its electoral fraud. Second, given Iran's nuclear progress, even if the stronger sanctions Obama has threatened could be agreed upon, they would not prevent Iran from fabricating weapons and delivery systems when it chooses, as it has been striving to do for the past 20 years. Time is too short, and sanctions failed long ago.
> 
> Only those most theologically committed to negotiation still believe Iran will fully renounce its nuclear program. Unfortunately, the Obama administration has a "Plan B," which would allow Iran to have a "peaceful" civil nuclear power program while publicly "renouncing" the objective of nuclear weapons. Obama would define such an outcome as "success," even though in reality it would hardly be different from what Iran is doing and saying now. A "peaceful" uranium enrichment program, "peaceful" reactors such as Bushehr and "peaceful" heavy-water projects like that under construction at Arak leave Iran with an enormous breakout capability to produce nuclear weapons in very short order. And anyone who believes the Revolutionary Guard Corps will abandon its weaponization and ballistic missile programs probably believes that there was no fraud in Iran's June 12 election. See "huge credibility gap," supra.
> 
> In short, the stolen election and its tumultuous aftermath have dramatically highlighted the strategic and tactical flaws in Obama's game plan. With regime change off the table for the coming critical period in Iran's nuclear program, Israel's decision on using force is both easier and more urgent. Since there is no likelihood that diplomacy will start or finish in time, or even progress far enough to make any real difference, there is no point waiting for negotiations to play out. In fact, given the near certainty of Obama changing his definition of "success," negotiations represent an even more dangerous trap for Israel.
> 
> Those who oppose Iran acquiring nuclear weapons are left in the near term with only the option of targeted military force against its weapons facilities. Significantly, the uprising in Iran also makes it more likely that an effective public diplomacy campaign could be waged in the country to explain to Iranians that such an attack is directed against the regime, not against the Iranian people. This was always true, but it has become even more important to make this case emphatically, when the gulf between the Islamic revolution of 1979 and the citizens of Iran has never been clearer or wider. Military action against Iran's nuclear program and the ultimate goal of regime change can be worked together consistently.
> 
> Otherwise, be prepared for an Iran with nuclear weapons, which some, including Obama advisers, believe could be contained and deterred. That is not a hypothesis we should seek to test in the real world. The cost of error could be fatal.
> 
> The writer, a senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, was U.S. ambassador to the United Nations from August 2005 to December 2006 and is the author of "Surrender Is Not an Option: Defending America at the United Nations and Abroad."



*Here is a great article on why iran needs to be attacked ASAP. *

I'm sorry for your brain damage.  I have a friend that fell down and hurt her head.  She was confused for a couple of years.  She is fine now.  That should give you hope.


----------



## rhodescholar

HUGGY said:


> I'm sorry for your brain damage.  I have a friend that fell down and hurt her head.  She was confused for a couple of years.  She is fine now.  That should give you hope.



No surprise here, the far left dung makes a personal attack, rather than deal with facts or points contained in the posted article.

It must be very hard for you to cash that welfare check covered by my quarterly tax payments, isn't it simpleton?


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy

rhodescholar said:


> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm sorry for your brain damage.  I have a friend that fell down and hurt her head.  She was confused for a couple of years.  She is fine now.  That should give you hope.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No surprise here, the far left dung makes a personal attack, rather than deal with facts or points contained in the posted article.
Click to expand...


That's a joke right?


----------



## rhodescholar

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> rhodescholar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm sorry for your brain damage.  I have a friend that fell down and hurt her head.  She was confused for a couple of years.  She is fine now.  That should give you hope.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No surprise here, the far left dung makes a personal attack, rather than deal with facts or points contained in the posted article.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's a joke right?
Click to expand...


From the dimwit spammer who STILL cannot address the basic question raised like 4 threads ago - a question highlighted in my sig just in case you forgot about it - you're really are not in much of a position to be questioning or commenting on anyone, or anything...


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy

rhodescholar said:


> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rhodescholar said:
> 
> 
> 
> No surprise here, the far left dung makes a personal attack, rather than deal with facts or points contained in the posted article.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's a joke right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> From the dimwit spammer who STILL cannot address the basic question raised like 4 threads ago - a question highlighted in my sig just in case you forgot about it - you're really are not in much of a position to be questioning or commenting on anyone, or anything...
Click to expand...


You're in no position to scold anyone for personally attacking you, when all you've done since your arrival here is insult me and others as well.


----------



## rhodescholar

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> You're in no position to scold anyone for personally attacking you, when all you've done since your arrival here is insult me and others as well.



When are you going to answer the question?


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy

rhodescholar said:


> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're in no position to scold anyone for personally attacking you, when all you've done since your arrival here is insult me and others as well.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When are you going to answer the question?
Click to expand...


When are you going to stop insulting people for disagreeing with you?


----------



## HUGGY

rhodescholar said:


> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm sorry for your brain damage.  I have a friend that fell down and hurt her head.  She was confused for a couple of years.  She is fine now.  That should give you hope.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No surprise here, the far left dung makes a personal attack, rather than deal with facts or points contained in the posted article.
> 
> It must be very hard for you to cash that welfare check covered by my quarterly tax payments, isn't it simpleton?
Click to expand...


As dumb as you are I'm suprised the don't make you post a bond for tax payment.


----------



## rhodescholar

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> When are you going to stop insulting people for disagreeing with you?



Yet another attempt to sidestep the question.  Pathetic and weak...


----------



## rhodescholar

HUGGY said:


> As dumb as you are I'm suprised the don't make you post a bond for tax payment.



Asshole, either debate on the points or STFU already, another **** who cannot stay on topic.


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy

rhodescholar said:


> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> When are you going to stop insulting people for disagreeing with you?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yet another attempt to sidestep the question.  Pathetic and weak...
Click to expand...


Apparently not today.


----------



## rhodescholar

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> Apparently not today.



That's what trolls like you do, they derail and spam threads, good job fuck face...


----------



## HUGGY

rhodescholar said:


> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> As dumb as you are I'm suprised the don't make you post a bond for tax payment.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asshole, either debate on the points or STFU already, another **** who cannot stay on topic.
Click to expand...


*Asshole, either debate on the points or STFU already, another **** who cannot stay on topic.*

Attack Iran?  Here is your main point.  You are a fear mongering war mongering fucking moron.

Like it or not I will be here, Gunny willing, to push back against your kind of stupidity.


----------



## nia588

We don't need to be starting anymore wars in other people's countries until problems here at home is fixed. We have an economy in the pooper. Our education systems needs a makeover. We need better healthcare plans that people can actually afford.

I don't want my tax dollars going to anymore wars when we need that money for here at home. too much of our tax dollars have already gone to Iraq.


----------



## rhodescholar

HUGGY said:


> Attack Iran?  Here is your main point.  You are a fear mongering war mongering fucking moron.Like it or not I will be here, Gunny willing, to push back against your kind of stupidity.



Its too bad Gunny can't just remove people for their stupidity, you'd be the first one gone...

I am not the one illegally developing nuclear weapons, threatening other nations, supplying terrorists to conduct attacks against civilians in FOUR other countries, no that's iran.

You're the emotional-driven asshole who cannot provide an iota of substance to any posts, I feel bad for liberals to have mentally-limited garbage like you on their team that they have to contantly apologize for...


----------



## rhodescholar

nia588 said:


> We don't need to be starting anymore wars in other people's countries until problems here at home is fixed. We have an economy in the pooper. Our education systems needs a makeover. We need better healthcare plans that people can actually afford.
> 
> I don't want my tax dollars going to anymore wars when we need that money for here at home. too much of our tax dollars have already gone to Iraq.



That's a nice sentiment, but then you get iran to stop fomenting wars in other people's countries, like lebanon, israel, afghanistan and iraq.

I find it hilarious that the very same people screeching about the US' "dirty" wars and covert ops in places like south america are the ones apologising or simply outright ignoring what iran is doing.

The FACT that iran is trying to hegemonically control the middle east is of no concern to you?

That's funny, because the arab muslims in the Gulf are VERY concerned...


----------



## Sunni Man

rhodescholar said:


> That's a nice sentiment, but then how do you get iran to stop fomenting wars in other people's countries, like lebanon, israel, afghanistan and iraq.


How do we get America to stop formenting war in other people's countries, like Lebanon, Iraq, Iran, Afghanstain, and many others??


----------



## rhodescholar

Sunni Man said:


> How do we get America to stop formenting war in other people's countries, like Lebanon, Iraq, Iran, Afghanstain, and many others??



LOL, you walked right into this one, moron do the one thing you cannot do in iran, namely VOTE for the elected official you select, and actually have them enter the government.


----------



## Bootneck

rhodescholar said:


> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> Attack Iran?  Here is your main point.  You are a fear mongering war mongering fucking moron.Like it or not I will be here, Gunny willing, to push back against your kind of stupidity.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Its too bad Gunny can't just remove people for their stupidity, you'd be the first one gone...*
> 
> I am not the one illegally developing nuclear weapons, threatening other nations, supplying terrorists to conduct attacks against civilians in FOUR other countries, no that's iran.
> 
> You're the emotional-driven asshole who cannot provide an iota of substance to any posts, I feel bad for liberals to have mentally-limited garbage like you on their team that they have to contantly apologize for...
Click to expand...


Yes it is! You would have gone long ago. Seems that with you, stupidity knows no bounds.
Fucking sabre rattling armchair warrior!


----------



## Sunni Man

rhodescholar said:


> Sunni Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> How do we get America to stop formenting war in other people's countries, like Lebanon, Iraq, Iran, Afghanstain, and many others??
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOL, you walked right into this one, moron do the one thing you cannot do in iran, namely VOTE for the elected official you select, and actually have them enter the government.
Click to expand...

RhodesStupid, the Iranian election had an 85% voter turn out.

FACT; The highest voter turn out of any democratic country in any election.

The people voted in Ahmadinejah in a landslide election.

Just face it. He is wildly popular and the clear winner!!!


----------



## rhodescholar

Bootneck said:


> Yes it is! You would have gone long ago. Seems that with you, stupidity knows no bounds.Fucking sabre rattling armchair warrior!



Don't think so asshole.  I served over 20 years, and would gladly go back in on an iran mission.  Disappointed that a fellow vet would act like such a fucking waiver...then again, we saw lots of those in iraq '91, and even more in '03...


----------



## rhodescholar

sunni man said:


> the iranian election had an 85% voter turn out.
> 
> Fact; the highest voter turn out of any democratic country in any election.
> 
> The people voted in ahmadinejah in a landslide election.
> 
> Just face it. He is wildly popular and the clear winner!!!



prove it asshole.


----------



## Sunni Man

rhodescholar said:


> sunni man said:
> 
> 
> 
> the iranian election had an 85% voter turn out.
> 
> Fact; the highest voter turn out of any democratic country in any election.
> 
> The people voted in ahmadinejah in a landslide election.
> 
> Just face it. He is wildly popular and the clear winner!!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> prove it asshole.
Click to expand...

Disprove it dickweed.


----------



## rhodescholar

Idiot asshole YOU made a claim about iran's election, not me you fucking moron.

YOU are the one that needs to prove it its true...stupid fucking ****.


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy

rhodescholar said:


> Idiot asshole YOU made a claim about iran's election, not me you fucking moron.
> 
> YOU are the one that needs to prove it its true...stupid fucking ****.



Actually it was you that made the claim that Iranian citizens don't have the right to vote, so the burden of proof is on you.



rhodescholar said:


> LOL, you walked right into this one, moron do the one thing you cannot do in iran, namely VOTE for the elected official you select, and actually have them enter the government.


----------



## rhodescholar

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> Actually it was you that made the claim that Iranian citizens don't have the right to vote, so the burden of proof is on you.



Wrong, moron.  He has made that claim many times - perhaps you are its sock puppet?

And when are you going to answer the question in my sig, idiot?


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy

rhodescholar said:


> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually it was you that made the claim that Iranian citizens don't have the right to vote, so the burden of proof is on you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong, moron.  He has made that claim many times - perhaps you are its sock puppet?
> 
> And when are you going to answer the question in my sig, idiot?
Click to expand...


When are you going to stop insulting people?


----------



## rhodescholar

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> When are you going to stop insulting people?



Answer the question and stop polluting the threads, scumbag troll...


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy

rhodescholar said:


> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> When are you going to stop insulting people?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Answer the question and stop polluting the threads, scumbag troll...
Click to expand...


Why don't you answer my question?


----------



## elvis

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> rhodescholar said:
> 
> 
> 
> Idiot asshole YOU made a claim about iran's election, not me you fucking moron.
> 
> YOU are the one that needs to prove it its true...stupid fucking ****.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually it was you that made the claim that Iranian citizens don't have the right to vote, so the burden of proof is on you.
> 
> 
> 
> rhodescholar said:
> 
> 
> 
> LOL, you walked right into this one, moron do the one thing you cannot do in iran, namely VOTE for the elected official you select, and actually have them enter the government.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


Kev, I'm not saying one way or the other here.....

but couldn't we say the same thing about Stalin or Castro?


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy

elvis3577 said:


> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rhodescholar said:
> 
> 
> 
> Idiot asshole YOU made a claim about iran's election, not me you fucking moron.
> 
> YOU are the one that needs to prove it its true...stupid fucking ****.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually it was you that made the claim that Iranian citizens don't have the right to vote, so the burden of proof is on you.
> 
> 
> 
> rhodescholar said:
> 
> 
> 
> LOL, you walked right into this one, moron do the one thing you cannot do in iran, namely VOTE for the elected official you select, and actually have them enter the government.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Kev, I'm not saying one way or the other here.....
> 
> but couldn't we say the same thing about Stalin or Castro?
Click to expand...


I'm not sure I understand what you're asking.


----------



## elvis

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> elvis3577 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually it was you that made the claim that Iranian citizens don't have the right to vote, so the burden of proof is on you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kev, I'm not saying one way or the other here.....
> 
> but couldn't we say the same thing about Stalin or Castro?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm not sure I understand what you're asking.
Click to expand...


One could not prove those in Stailn's Russia had no right to vote.


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy

elvis3577 said:


> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> elvis3577 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Kev, I'm not saying one way or the other here.....
> 
> but couldn't we say the same thing about Stalin or Castro?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not sure I understand what you're asking.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> One could not prove those in Stailn's Russia had no right to vote.
Click to expand...


Maybe not, but I don't think there's any doubt that a vote was held in Iran.  Now whether or not those votes were fairly counted may be questionable.  However, rhodescholar claimed that the Iranian people have no right to vote for their elected officials, so I'd expect that he'd have some evidence to back that statement up.


----------



## HUGGY

rhodescholar said:


> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> Attack Iran?  Here is your main point.  You are a fear mongering war mongering fucking moron.Like it or not I will be here, Gunny willing, to push back against your kind of stupidity.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Its too bad Gunny can't just remove people for their stupidity, you'd be the first one gone...
> 
> I am not the one illegally developing nuclear weapons, threatening other nations, supplying terrorists to conduct attacks against civilians in FOUR other countries, no that's iran.
> 
> You're the emotional-driven asshole who cannot provide an iota of substance to any posts, I feel bad for liberals to have mentally-limited garbage like you on their team that they have to contantly apologize for...
Click to expand...


I'm sure you are legendary in your own mind.

The only serious I can take of you is how crazy the stands you advocate are.  I don't need to document the obvious.

Even with the pathetic neg rep you offered I gained over 150 points on this thread.  No one offered to appologize for me.


----------



## Paulie

I have a hard time understanding how Iran is any kind of threat to the world.

Even with a nuclear bomb, if they are somehow successful at building one to completion, they can only blow something up once.  

After that, they get annihilated.

What's the motivation for a country like Iran to only achieve the potential to cause a minute amount of damage, as opposed to capabilities of their would-be retaliators?

The very second that it becomes obvious that they have made a move toward gaining some kind of real and tangible stranglehold on Mid East stability, they are toast.

The debate is really just a question of what's more acceptable...pre-emptively attacking them with the possibility that they had NOTHING, thereby wasting thousands of lives and probably hundreds of billions of dollars if not more...or falling back, and they potentially DO have something and they blow something up somewhere, only to be subsequently annihilated.

What the advocates of a pre-emptive attack are going to have to forgive me for, is my hesitancy to get behind such a thing in the face of the massive failure the pre-Iraq war intelligence, and _assumptions_, turned out to be.

I'm just not sure I can stomach another one of those kinds of mistakes.  Refusing inspections does not make you guilty.  It didn't make Saddam guilty, and it doesn't make Ahmadinejad guilty.  

I don't agree with the UN's existence PERIOD, let alone our membership.  So if UN inspectors said they demanded to come into my country and inspect me, I'd tell them to suck a fat dick.  

Why should A-jad be different?  Because we don't trust him?  I don't trust Obama, either.  No one on the right does.  Should the right advocate that a foreign force perform a regime change in that case?


----------



## rhodescholar

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> Why don't you answer my question?



#1-this is an iran thread
#2-i asked first 
#3-if you have a question posed to me only use the PM
#4-see #1


----------



## rhodescholar

HUGGY said:


> The only serious I can take of you is how crazy the stands you advocate are.  I don't need to document the obvious.



"Document the obvious"?  There are alot of very powerful elected officials worldwide strongly advocating and considering a military strike on iran.  I guess to a pacifist, anyone who advocates such a notion is a lunatic....



> Even with the pathetic neg rep you offered I gained over 150 points on this thread.  No one offered to appologize for me.



Not only are you pure emotion like a child, but you cannot count either; you have 9 Rep points, not 150...


----------



## HUGGY

rhodescholar said:


> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> The only serious I can take of you is how crazy the stands you advocate are.  I don't need to document the obvious.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Document the obvious"?  There are alot of very powerful elected officials worldwide strongly advocating and considering a military strike on iran.  I guess to a pacifist, anyone who advocates such a notion is a lunatic....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Even with the pathetic neg rep you offered I gained over 150 points on this thread.  No one offered to appologize for me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not only are you pure emotion like a child, but you cannot count either; you have 9 Rep points, not 150...
Click to expand...


*I guess to a pacifist*

You don't know me in the slightest.  

*anyone who advocates such a notion is a lunatic*

That's a fair statement.

*you have 9 Rep points, not 150...*

Did I say "rep points"?

You are so incredibly retarded.

It really pisses you off that a black man has twice your IQ and is in control of your pathetic existance...doesn't it?

     forever a loser  ...I wouldn't trust you with a dull spoon.


----------



## rhodescholar

Paulie said:


> I have a hard time understanding how Iran is any kind of threat to the world.



This is due to your lack of knowledge of the current middle eastern situation.



> Even with a nuclear bomb, if they are somehow successful at building one to completion, they can only blow something up once.  After that, they get annihilated.



I have gone thru this so many times....sigh...

First off, since the iranian fascists refuse IAEA inspections of their facilities as required by the NPT(see my sig question to the moron KK), there is no way a nuke detonation in the middle east can be traced back to iran.

Second, the other major concern is not that iran will fire an ICBM with a nuclear payload, it is that they could hand a nuke to one of their numerous terrorist proxies working to de-stabilize the middle east, and then claim "it wasn't ours" - and again, without inspections there is no way to trace it back to them.  They could claim Hamas bought it on the black market....

Further, the protection of a nuclear umbrella would give hamas and hezbollah enormous cover and clout to strengthen the size and ferocity of their attacks against both israel - and the West in general.  They would no longer have to fear a strong military response with iran's nuclear-powered backing,

Lastly, the ability of iran to be able to launch ICBMs into europe carrying nuclear payloads is a terrible thought - just ask japan what it is like to live next to an insane asylum run by a nuclear-armed maniac.



> The debate is really just a question of what's more acceptable...pre-emptively attacking them with the possibility that they had NOTHING, thereby wasting thousands of lives and probably hundreds of billions of dollars if not more...or falling back, and they potentially DO have something and they blow something up somewhere, only to be subsequently annihilated.



They are ALREADY running thousands of centrifuges; it is no longer a question of if, but when - they will have enough enriched uranium - and plutonium from their Arak heavy water plant - to construct both bombs as well as nuclear-tipped warheads.



> What the advocates of a pre-emptive attack are going to have to forgive me for, is my hesitancy to get behind such a thing in the face of the massive failure the pre-Iraq war intelligence, and _assumptions_, turned out to be.



Having worked in a clandestine capacity for so long, perhaps I am more forgiving of intelligence estimates, as almost every major Western and arabic intelligence agency believed iraq had WMD.  This was not purely a CIA error.

Further, if you look at most of the major errors the CIA has made with respect to these scenarios over the past 10-15 years, it has been to mis-judge the other way, as in the cases of both india and pakistan, who the Agency thought would take FAR longer to develop nuke weapons.

Funny how I do not hear the pacifists mentioning _ those _ mistakes.



> I'm just not sure I can stomach another one of those kinds of mistakes.  Refusing inspections does not make you guilty.  It didn't make Saddam guilty, and it doesn't make Ahmadinejad guilty.



LOL, Saddam was guilty of much worse - he DID use WMD on the kurds, remember?  And I have news for you, the CIA makes a shitload of mistakes, and correct calls as well - they just don't make the headline of the NY Times.



> I don't agree with the UN's existence PERIOD, let alone our membership.  So if UN inspectors said they demanded to come into my country and inspect me, I'd tell them to suck a fat dick.



Except iran signed the NPT accord, which legally binds them to inspections...


----------



## rhodescholar

HUGGY said:


> You don't know me in the slightest.



You haven't shown any statements in this thread to be anything BUT a pacifist...



> Did I say "rep points"?  You are so incredibly retarded.



What "points" were you referring to?  And frankly, who really gives a flying fuck - what is it, your mommy gives you a cookie when you get alot of positive notes on USMB? 



> It really pisses you off that a black man has twice your IQ and is in control of your pathetic existance...doesn't it?



For one, I support Obama as my president, as I do like him though i disagree with some of his policies.  Nice thread derail try, though idiot.


----------



## Shogun

rhodescholar said:


> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why don't you answer my question?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> #1-this is an iran thread
> #2-i asked first
> #3-if you have a question posed to me only use the PM
> #4-see #1
Click to expand...




PUSSY!


----------



## Gurdari

rhodescholar said:


> Here is a great article on why iran needs to be attacked ASAP.  Rather than respond emotionally, as have so many here have done recently, I would like to see posters come up with point-by-point responses why Bolton's assessment is inaccurate.
> 
> washingtonpost.com
> 
> By John R. Bolton
> Thursday, July 2, 2009
> With Iran's hard-line mullahs and the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps unmistakably back in control, Israel's decision of whether to use military force against Tehran's nuclear weapons program is more urgent than ever.



Not really, they can just obey international law unlike us. Or be an aggressive nuclear armed power and attack another country (which John seems to imply Iran would do - which is bad - which is what he says Israel should do...)



rhodescholar said:


> Iran's nuclear threat was never in doubt during its presidential campaign, but the post-election resistance raised the possibility of some sort of regime change. That prospect seems lost for the near future or for at least as long as it will take Iran to finalize a deliverable nuclear weapons capability.



WHile it is true that most people feel the same way about the threat or non-threat Iran poses as they did before the election, there doesn't seem to be a real point here.




rhodescholar said:


> Accordingly, with no other timely option, the already compelling logic for an Israeli strike is nearly inexorable. Israel is undoubtedly ratcheting forward its decision-making process. President Obama is almost certainly not.


No other option? He really makes no case that this is the only option - though he has a record of not opposing violent intervention (when it is the good guys doing it anyway).




rhodescholar said:


> He still wants "engagement" (a particularly evocative term now) with Iran's current regime. Last Thursday, the State Department confirmed that Secretary Hillary Clinton spoke to her Russian and Chinese counterparts about "getting Iran back to negotiating on some of these concerns that the international community has." This is precisely the view of Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov, reflected in the Group of Eight communique the next day. Sen. John Kerry thinks the recent election unpleasantness in Tehran will delay negotiations for only a few weeks.
> 
> 
> Obama administration sources have opined (anonymously) that Iran will be more eager to negotiate than it was before its election in order to find "acceptance" by the "international community." Some leaks indicated that negotiations had to produce results by the U.N. General Assembly's opening in late September, while others projected that they had until the end of 2009 to show progress. These gauzy scenarios assume that the Tehran regime cares about "acceptance" or is somehow embarrassed by eliminating its enemies. Both propositions are dubious.


Dubious... fine word, that. Many claims and arguments are dubious. What is really being said here? That some think Iran wants to be more accepted - and others think it does not? Okay. I agree that there are two schools of thought about that. Maybe even more than two.



rhodescholar said:


> Obama will nonetheless attempt to jump-start bilateral negotiations with Iran, though time is running out even under the timetables leaked to the media. There are two problems with this approach. First, Tehran isn't going to negotiate in good faith. It hasn't for the past six years with the European Union as our surrogates, and it won't start now. As Clinton said on Tuesday, Iran has "a huge credibility gap" because of its electoral fraud. Second, given Iran's nuclear progress, even if the stronger sanctions Obama has threatened could be agreed upon, they would not prevent Iran from fabricating weapons and delivery systems when it chooses, as it has been striving to do for the past 20 years. Time is too short, and sanctions failed long ago.



Negotiating in good faith is rare - and it is a pity John chose not to fill in the full story regarding Europe and Iran, and any possible agreements that may have been made regarding security in exchange for non-nuclear activities. Though, I do appreciate his ability to predict the future. I agree that Iran has worked on developing weapons over the last 20 years. ANd I would even submit they did so before that. Like every other nation just about. Though why they would feel the need to ratchet up military development while surrounded by hostile forces is beyond me.



rhodescholar said:


> Only those most theologically committed to negotiation still believe Iran will fully renounce its nuclear program. Unfortunately, the Obama administration has a "Plan B," which would allow Iran to have a "peaceful" civil nuclear power program while publicly "renouncing" the objective of nuclear weapons. Obama would define such an outcome as "success," even though in reality it would hardly be different from what Iran is doing and saying now. A "peaceful" uranium enrichment program, "peaceful" reactors such as Bushehr and "peaceful" heavy-water projects like that under construction at Arak leave Iran with an enormous breakout capability to produce nuclear weapons in very short order. And anyone who believes the Revolutionary Guard Corps will abandon its weaponization and ballistic missile programs probably believes that there was no fraud in Iran's June 12 election. See "huge credibility gap," supra.




Well, many nations have nuclear power - though Iran has every right to do so, and since it is being threatened by Nuclear armed nations (Israel and the USA) it really should take steps to protect itself, as 'Only those most theologically committed' to the goodwill of foreign armies would trust they would be safe otherwise. 




rhodescholar said:


> In short, the stolen election and its tumultuous aftermath have dramatically highlighted the strategic and tactical flaws in Obama's game plan. With regime change off the table for the coming critical period in Iran's nuclear program, Israel's decision on using force is both easier and more urgent. Since there is no likelihood that diplomacy will start or finish in time, or even progress far enough to make any real difference, there is no point waiting for negotiations to play out. In fact, given the near certainty of Obama changing his definition of "success," negotiations represent an even more dangerous trap for Israel.



How so? Regime change is not a right of ours, no matter how easily we can kill people and overthrow another government. It is still blatant and illegal aggression. Diplomacy only runs out of time if we make it run out of time - which we did with Iraq, and now some people made a lot of money. I wonder if diplomacy will run out of time again? Not because it isn't fruitful - it just doesn't pay the bills as well as conflict.

Israel is trapped...? Trapped in a cycle of threatening (hypocritcally) the state of Iran for doing what Israel already did. 

"In short..." haha



rhodescholar said:


> Those who oppose Iran acquiring nuclear weapons are left in the near term with only the option of targeted military force against its weapons facilities. Significantly, the uprising in Iran also makes it more likely that an effective public diplomacy campaign could be waged in the country to explain to Iranians that such an attack is directed against the regime, not against the Iranian people. This was always true, but it has become even more important to make this case emphatically, when the gulf between the Islamic revolution of 1979 and the citizens of Iran has never been clearer or wider. Military action against Iran's nuclear program and the ultimate goal of regime change can be worked together consistently.
> 
> Otherwise, be prepared for an Iran with nuclear weapons, which some, including Obama advisers, believe could be contained and deterred. That is not a hypothesis we should seek to test in the real world. The cost of error could be fatal.




A very weak argument overall, it really depends strongly on an ideologically pre-disposed audience - shame on John Bolton for fomenting war yet again. I wonder if the Iraqis felt like their regime was the only thing targeted?


----------



## rhodescholar

Gurdari said:


> A very weak argument overall, it really depends strongly on an ideologically pre-disposed audience - shame on John Bolton for fomenting war yet again. I wonder if the Iraqis felt like their regime was the only thing targeted?



I'm not going to waste much time on you, another person with meager at best knowledge or facts. Simply put, you have the cart before the horse.  

Iran has been threatening israel - who is not even her fucking neighbor - for 30 years - and has engaged her in a proxy war using terrorist groups for much of that time.

Until you or anyone else is able to step up and discuss how iran is a state sponsor of terrorism, and uses hamas and hezbollah to attack 4 other nations, there is nothing really further worth conversing about.  When I see israel fomenting wars in FOUR other nations, THEN you might have an argument.

And a person without a bias or an agenda, after seeing how the IRI fascists have murdered their own people over the last 8 weeks since their fraudalent election, would recognize that a dictatorship that does that to its own people would - and has done - far worse to people of other nations.

Lastly, iran has been refusing IAEA inspections for years, and is widely considered to have forfeited its right to enrich uranium, even though it formerly could under the NPT.


----------



## HUGGY

rhodescholar said:


> Gurdari said:
> 
> 
> 
> A very weak argument overall, it really depends strongly on an ideologically pre-disposed audience - shame on John Bolton for fomenting war yet again. I wonder if the Iraqis felt like their regime was the only thing targeted?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not going to waste much time on you, another person with meager at best knowledge or facts. Simply put, you have the cart before the horse.
> 
> Iran has been threatening israel - who is not even her fucking neighbor - for 30 years - and has engaged her in a proxy war using terrorist groups for much of that time.
> 
> Until you or anyone else is able to step up and discuss how iran is a state sponsor of terrorism, and uses hamas and hezbollah to attack 4 other nations, there is nothing really further worth conversing about.  When I see israel fomenting wars in FOUR other nations, THEN you might have an argument.
> 
> And a person without a bias or an agenda, after seeing how the IRI fascists have murdered their own people over the last 8 weeks since their fraudalent election, would recognize that a dictatorship that does that to its own people would - and has done - far worse to people of other nations.
> 
> Lastly, iran has been refusing IAEA inspections for years, and is widely considered to have forfeited its right to enrich uranium, even though it formerly could under the NPT.
Click to expand...


Let Israel deal with the consequences of its own sorry foreign policy.  If they want to attack Iran and suffer with what happens next..fine.  I have no more sympathy for one or the other.  How's that for a "pacifist"?  We have no business being there.  We are not protecting any US interests there.  The multinationals can afford to pay thier own freight.


----------



## rhodescholar

HUGGY said:


> Let Israel deal with the consequences of its own sorry foreign policy.  If they want to attack Iran and suffer with what happens next..fine.  I have no more sympathy for one or the other.  How's that for a "pacifist"?  We have no business being there.  We are not protecting any US interests there.  The multinationals can afford to pay thier own freight.



It is so true the statement, how those who do not know their history are bound to repeat it over and over.

I distinctly remember my high school history class discussing how many isolationist americans were adament about entering WW2, where they claimed "oh, that's Europe's problem, let them sort it out."  Not the best idea, especially after Germany began turning the clock back past the worst of the Dark Ages...had the French, British and others acted before Germany had become a major power, WW2 could have possibly been avoided.

And that was 65 years ago, when the world was FAR less dependant on international trade.

You cede the gulf and surrounding regions - with iran taking control of the passageways for 75% of the world's oil - and they start the inevitable blackmail fee for access, you will see massive price shocks like you cannot imagine.  How will countries like china and japan function, as this is where they get most of their oil?

Sorry friend, but the Ron Paul Isolationist non-sense didn't work in WW2, and probably hasn't been applicable for about 500 years.  

But for those who don't know their history, why not try what has failed so badly in the past?


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy

rhodescholar said:


> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> Let Israel deal with the consequences of its own sorry foreign policy.  If they want to attack Iran and suffer with what happens next..fine.  I have no more sympathy for one or the other.  How's that for a "pacifist"?  We have no business being there.  We are not protecting any US interests there.  The multinationals can afford to pay thier own freight.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is so true the statement, how those who do not know their history are bound to repeat it over and over.
> 
> I distinctly remember my high school history class discussing how many isolationist americans were adament about entering WW2, where they claimed "oh, that's Europe's problem, let them sort it out."  Not the best idea, especially after Germany began turning the clock back past the worst of the Dark Ages...had the French, British and others acted before Germany had become a major power, WW2 could have possibly been avoided.
> 
> And that was 65 years ago, when the world was FAR less dependant on international trade.
> 
> You cede the gulf and surrounding regions - with iran taking control of the passageways for 75% of the world's oil - and they start the inevitable blackmail fee for access, you will see massive price shocks like you cannot imagine.  How will countries like china and japan function, as this is where they get most of their oil?
> 
> Sorry friend, but the Ron Paul Isolationist non-sense didn't work in WW2, and probably hasn't been applicable for about 500 years.
> 
> But for those who don't know their history, why not try what has failed so badly in the past?
Click to expand...


So-called "isolationism" didn't lead to WW2.  Had we not intervened in WW1 it's unlikely that the Allies would have been able to impose the oppressive Treaty of Versailles on Germany, and Hitler likely wouldn't have risen to power.  It was our interventionist foreign policy that led to WW2.


----------



## rhodescholar

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> So-called "isolationism" didn't lead to WW2.  Had we not intervened in WW1 it's unlikely that the Allies would have been able to impose the oppressive Treaty of Versailles on Germany, and Hitler likely wouldn't have risen to power.  It was our interventionist foreign policy that led to WW2.



Yet another subject you clearly know nothing about.  Go look up how Wilson fought ferociously to mitigate and soften the parameters of the Versailles treaty.

Facts, regarding any subject, are of little use to you...

And when are you going to answer the question?


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy

rhodescholar said:


> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> So-called "isolationism" didn't lead to WW2.  Had we not intervened in WW1 it's unlikely that the Allies would have been able to impose the oppressive Treaty of Versailles on Germany, and Hitler likely wouldn't have risen to power.  It was our interventionist foreign policy that led to WW2.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yet another subject you clearly know nothing about.  Go look up how Wilson fought ferociously to mitigate and soften the parameters of the Versailles treaty.
> 
> Facts, regarding any subject, are of little use to you...
> 
> And when are you going to answer the question?
Click to expand...


Regardless of what Wilson tried to do in regards to the Treaty of Versailles his putting us in WW1 set the stage for the Treaty of Versailles.  Had we maintained our neutrality they couldn't have forced the Treaty of Versailles on Germany.


----------



## rhodescholar

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> Regardless of what Wilson tried to do in regards to the Treaty of Versailles his putting us in WW1 set the stage for the Treaty of Versailles.  Had we maintained our neutrality they couldn't have forced the Treaty of Versailles on Germany.



Bottom line - isolationism does not work, and the US and West cannot allow iran to control the middle east.

WHEN ARE YOU GOING TO ANSWER THE QUESTION?


----------



## Sunni Man

rhodescholar said:


> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Regardless of what Wilson tried to do in regards to the Treaty of Versailles his putting us in WW1 set the stage for the Treaty of Versailles.  Had we maintained our neutrality they couldn't have forced the Treaty of Versailles on Germany.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> and the US and West cannot allow iran to control the middle east.
Click to expand...

Why not?

It is in Iran's back yard and not the West

We need to leave Iran alone


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy

rhodescholar said:


> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Regardless of what Wilson tried to do in regards to the Treaty of Versailles his putting us in WW1 set the stage for the Treaty of Versailles.  Had we maintained our neutrality they couldn't have forced the Treaty of Versailles on Germany.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bottom line - isolationism does not work, and the US and West cannot allow iran to control the middle east.
> 
> WHEN ARE YOU GOING TO ANSWER THE QUESTION?
Click to expand...


The bottom line is that interventionism doesn't work and we need to mind our own business.


----------



## BolshevikHunter

The focus should be on the growing threat of Red China and their puppet state North Korea. Both who actually Possess Nukes, and can hit The United States of America. Let Israel deal with Iran. ~BH


----------



## rhodescholar

BolshevikHunter said:


> The focus should be on the growing threat of Red China and their puppet state North Korea. Both who actually Possess Nukes, and can hit The United States of America. Let Israel deal with Iran. ~BH



I have no problem allowing israel to crush iran - the problem has been the US and Europe have been preventing israel from taking action for what, oh about 6 years now?


----------



## Gurdari

rhodescholar said:


> I'm not going to waste much time on you, another person with meager at best knowledge or facts. Simply put, you have the cart before the horse.
> 
> Iran has been threatening israel - who is not even her fucking neighbor - for 30 years - and has engaged her in a proxy war using terrorist groups for much of that time.



Please support your assertion regarding horse/cart and my knowledge of facts.
Please support Iran's threats (list any if you know of them) as a justification for launching attacks against Iran. If making threats of attacks is worth retaliatory airstrikes, you must believe Iran has a right to attack Israel for threatening it. 




rhodescholar said:


> Until you or anyone else is able to step up and discuss how iran is a state sponsor of terrorism, and uses hamas and hezbollah to attack 4 other nations, there is nothing really further worth conversing about.  When I see israel fomenting wars in FOUR other nations, THEN you might have an argument.



That makes no sense. What does my 'stepping up' to discuss Hamas and Hezbolla have to do with Iran's Nuclear ambitions and John Bolton's article? Regardless, Iran (I believe) assists both of those organizations, and likely sees each as legitamate resistance, political movements. Movements I might add who have support among oppressed people that they have helped.  You can say each is a terrorist organization, but you would have to apply your definition of terrorism evenly - TO ALL ACTORS WHO FIT THAT BILL. Until you are willing to do that, your argument has little power.




rhodescholar said:


> And a person without a bias or an agenda, after seeing how the IRI fascists have murdered their own people over the last 8 weeks since their fraudalent election, would recognize that a dictatorship that does that to its own people would - and has done - far worse to people of other nations.


Are you saying that Iran has done worse to other nations than it recently did to its own people? Can you explain? I think the ruling gov there is a bunch of idiots who should be removed from power... but only by the citizens of Iran, when they make it so. However, that also has nothing to do with attacking them because of the nuclear ambitions - unless you wish to make that case logically? John certainly did not.




rhodescholar said:


> Lastly, iran has been refusing IAEA inspections for years, and is widely considered to have forfeited its right to enrich uranium, even though it formerly could under the NPT.



You cannot "forfeited a right to enrich uranium" since that right is not given to a nation. There is no world police cracking down on NPT violators, clearly - since one of the BIGGEST violators (and one who never bothered with stupid things like that) are the ones threatening Iran at the moment.


----------



## rhodescholar

Gurdari said:


> Please support your assertion regarding horse/cart and my knowledge of facts.Please support Iran's threats (list any if you know of them) as a justification for launching attacks against Iran. If making threats of attacks is worth retaliatory airstrikes, you must believe Iran has a right to attack Israel for threatening it.



Blair rebukes Iran for threats against Israel | World news | The Guardian
RAFSANJANI SAYS MUSLIMS SHOULD USE NUCLEAR WEAPON AGAINST ISRAL

And here is a long, long list of them:

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Israel - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



> That makes no sense. What does my 'stepping up' to discuss Hamas and Hezbolla have to do with Iran's Nuclear ambitions and John Bolton's article?



How much do you need the basics spoon fed to you?  Hamas, Hez and the shia militias are extensions of the iranian military...



> Regardless, Iran (I believe) assists both of those organizations, and likely sees each as legitamate resistance, political movements.



Would you accept the CIA deposing mossadegh as "legitimate resistance"?  How about its actions in south america and against cuba?  Or do you only see meddling from one side as illegal?



> Movements I might add who have support among oppressed people that they have helped.



And you think the people of gaza are happy with hamas right now?



> You can say each is a terrorist organization, but you would have to apply your definition of terrorism evenly - TO ALL ACTORS WHO FIT THAT BILL. Until you are willing to do that, your argument has little power.



And why is that?



> Are you saying that Iran has done worse to other nations than it recently did to its own people? Can you explain? I think the ruling gov there is a bunch of idiots who should be removed from power... but only by the citizens of Iran, when they make it so. However, that also has nothing to do with attacking them because of the nuclear ambitions - unless you wish to make that case logically? John certainly did not.



Yes, as most nations don't murder hundreds of their own citizens for public, peaceful demonstrations.  Gov'ts that act like that, are not to be trusted with nuclear weapons.

Further, iran's own constitution, which I doubt you've ever read, allows for freedom of speech and free public demonstrations.  Iran is also a signatory to various human rights conventions, which it broke when it attacked their citizenry...

And something tells me that with your agenda, there is no line of reasoning you'd accept.  Were iran to nuke israel, and have a party about it, you'd find an excuse for them then, as well.



> You cannot "forfeited a right to enrich uranium" since that right is not given to a nation.



Uhhhh, yes it is, go read the NPT...

Publications: Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT)



> There is no world police cracking down on NPT violators, clearly - since one of the BIGGEST violators (and one who never bothered with stupid things like that) are the ones threatening Iran at the moment.



Dude, you really have no fucking clue.  Perfect example of someone who needs to listen, and learn, and post alot less.

The UNSC is tasked with EXACTLY that responsibility, and assigns the right for maintaining the status quo through interventionist inspections via the IAEA.

Further, if you are referring to israel, since it never signed the NPT, it is NOT obligated to allow any inspections of any kind.  ONLY signatories of the NPT can be legally compelled to do so.


----------



## L.K.Eder

rhodescholar said:


> RAFSANJANI SAYS MUSLIMS SHOULD USE NUCLEAR WEAPON AGAINST ISRAL



i will just pick this one.

your source is the iran press service. exile persians in paris editorializing the al qods day speech from 2001.

great headline:

*RAFSANJANI SAYS MUSLIMS SHOULD USE NUCLEAR WEAPON AGAINST ISRAEL*



no wonder freerepublic and daniel pipes show up when searching for this nifty headline.

another "quote" from iran press service:

*"Jews shall expect to be once again scattered and wandering around the globe the day when this appendix is extracted from the region and the Muslim world"




*now what reports MEMRI?

MEMRI: Special Dispatch - No. 325

headline:

*Former Iranian President Rafsanjani on Using a Nuclear Bomb Against Israel*

not so catchy, huh?

the above quote is not to be found. and nothing about "should use nuclear bomb blah blah"

but, MEMRI only used excerpts, so who can provide the whole speech translated to english?

globalsecurity.org can

Rafsanjani warns of high cost of US support for Israel


the second quote can not be found. sorry.

and here is the passage about nuclear weapons:



> *US-British support for Israel         *
> 
> It is also supported politically in the United Nations and many other places. They also contain Islamic and Arab governments. Israel needs all of those things and the Americans and Britain are meeting its needs. Therefore, we should consider it to be an outgrowth of colonialism and a multi-purpose colonial base. That is where we should start discussing the next point. So the survival of Israel depends on the interests of imperialists and colonialists. So they go together.
> The colonialists will keep this base as long as they need it. Now, whether they can do so or not is a separate issue and this is my next point. Any time they find a replacement for that particular instrument, they will take it up and this will come to an end. This will open a new chapter. Because colonialism and imperialism will not easily leave the people of the world alone. Therefore, you can see that they have arranged it in a way that the balance of power favours Israel. Well, from a numerical point of view, it cannot have as many troops as Muslims and Arabs do. So they have improved the quality of what they have. Classical weaponry has its own limitations. They have limited use. They have a limited range as well. They have supplied vast quantities of weapons of mass destruction and unconventional weapons to Israel. They have permitted it to have them and they have shut their eyes to what is going on. They have nuclear, chemical and biological weapons and long-range missiles and suchlike.
> 
> *If one day ... Of course, that is very important. If one day, the Islamic world is also equipped with weapons like those that Israel possesses now, then the imperialists' strategy will reach a standstill because the use of even one nuclear bomb inside Israel will destroy everything. However, it will only harm the Islamic world. It is not irrational to contemplate such an eventuality.*
> 
> Of course, you can see that the Americans have kept their eyes peeled and they are carefully looking for even the slightest hint that technological advances are being made by an independent Islamic country. If an independent Islamic country is thinking about acquiring other kinds of weaponry, then they will do their utmost to prevent it from acquiring them. Well, that is something that almost the entire world is discussing right now.


the bolded part DOES NOT say Iran SHOULD use a nuclear bomb. 

d e t e r r e n c e.

an overall failure of rhodescholar using this "source". he probably read it on freerepublic.


----------



## rhodescholar

L.K.Eder said:


> i will just pick this one.your source is the iran press service. exile persians in paris editorializing the al qods day speech from 2001.



So let's say he never said, who gives a shit.  Not surprised you ignored the far, far longer list at Wiki, with dozens and dozens of Ahdmadinejad quotes.  At this point, only those with an agenda or are fucking insane think that iran has not been both threatening AND terrorizing israel for a long time.  

Were the tables reversed, and israel was openly using terrorist proxies against and inside iran, you'd no doubt be the first to complain about it.

For everyone else, here's a great article on a potential attack, and a good explanation:

Chuck Wald: Of Course There&#8217;s a Military Option on Iran - WSJ.com

There Is a Military Option on Iran 
U.S. Air Force and Naval forces could do serious damage to Tehran&#8217;s nuclear facilities if diplomacy fails.

By CHUCK WALD 
In a policy address at the Council on Foreign Relations last month, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said of Iran, &#8220;We cannot be afraid or unwilling to engage.&#8221; But the Iranian government has yet to accept President Obama&#8217;s outstretched hand. Even if Tehran suddenly acceded to talks, U.S. policy makers must prepare for the eventuality that diplomacy fails. While there has been much discussion of economic sanctions, we cannot neglect the military&#8217;s role in a Plan B.


----------



## Gurdari

rhodescholar said:


> Blair rebukes Iran for threats against Israel | World news | The Guardian
> RAFSANJANI SAYS MUSLIMS SHOULD USE NUCLEAR WEAPON AGAINST ISRAL




"If a day comes when the world of Islam is duly equipped with the arms Israel has in possession, the strategy of colonialism would face a stalemate because application of an atomic bomb would not leave any thing in Israel but the same thing would just produce damages in the Muslim world".

Not exactly as you described... he is saying they would have a stalemate because the result of such a attack by each party would damage one less than the other.




rhodescholar said:


> And here is a long, long list of them:
> 
> Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Israel - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That makes no sense. What does my 'stepping up' to discuss Hamas and Hezbolla have to do with Iran's Nuclear ambitions and John Bolton's article?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How much do you need the basics spoon fed to you?  Hamas, Hez and the shia militias are extensions of the iranian military...
Click to expand...






rhodescholar said:


> Would you accept the CIA deposing mossadegh as "legitimate resistance"?  How about its actions in south america and against cuba?  Or do you only see meddling from one side as illegal?



Hahaha - so is the US a legit target for attack because of these activities? You must feel that they are, since Iran is.




rhodescholar said:


> And you think the people of gaza are happy with hamas right now?
> 
> And why is that?



Whether or not they are 'happy' right now doesn't change the history of what Hamas has done there, has it? Like it or not - the people there have benefited from some of Hamas' works, which allowed them to be a legit political force enough to win an election. Again, this is off topic regardless. 



rhodescholar said:


> Yes, as most nations don't murder hundreds of their own citizens for public, peaceful demonstrations.  Gov'ts that act like that, are not to be trusted with nuclear weapons.
> 
> Further, iran's own constitution, which I doubt you've ever read, allows for freedom of speech and free public demonstrations.  Iran is also a signatory to various human rights conventions, which it broke when it attacked their citizenry...


Not sure what this has to do with anything - Iran is run by dicks - agreed. Not a reason to attack them. And who is to be trusted with Nuke's - International law violators??? Like the nations that have nukes (ALL of them)?




rhodescholar said:


> And something tells me that with your agenda, there is no line of reasoning you'd accept.  Were iran to nuke israel, and have a party about it, you'd find an excuse for them then, as well.



That's in need of some support... otherwise you're just talking out of your ass. 'agenda' you mean 'cause I disagree with you and Johnny B.? Let's go for truth, facts and logic and universality. 
If the US fit the same criteria as Iran - would the US deserve the same treatment? And an attack?

There should only be one anser - YES. Unless you're not applying your logic evenly...



rhodescholar said:


> You cannot "forfeited a right to enrich uranium" since that right is not given to a nation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Uhhhh, yes it is, go read the NPT...
> 
> Publications: Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is no world police cracking down on NPT violators, clearly - since one of the BIGGEST violators (and one who never bothered with stupid things like that) are the ones threatening Iran at the moment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dude, you really have no fucking clue.  Perfect example of someone who needs to listen, and learn, and post alot less.
> 
> The UNSC is tasked with EXACTLY that responsibility, and assigns the right for maintaining the status quo through interventionist inspections via the IAEA.
> 
> Further, if you are referring to israel, since it never signed the NPT, it is NOT obligated to allow any inspections of any kind.  ONLY signatories of the NPT can be legally compelled to do so.
Click to expand...


 Hahaha - so they just have to 'pull out' of the NPT? Or why not violate at will like the US of A?


----------



## Gurdari

messed up my quoting - oops... hope it is still legible.


----------



## rhodescholar

Gurdari said:


> Not exactly as you described... he is saying they would have a stalemate because the result of such a attack by each party would damage one less than the other.



Funny how we do not hear israel threatening other nations 1,000 miles away...



> Hahaha - so is the US a legit target for attack because of these activities? You must feel that they are, since Iran is.



Absolutely, it is an act of war, and Nicaragua is welcome to try, just as israel, after suffering decades of bombings and missile strikes from iran's poodles, is welcome to destroy iran.



> Whether or not they are 'happy' right now doesn't change the history of what Hamas has done there, has it? Like it or not - the people there have benefited from some of Hamas' works, which allowed them to be a legit political force enough to win an election.



Is this a joke?  Please list for us the "good things" hamas has "done" for the people of Gaza?



> Not sure what this has to do with anything - Iran is run by dicks - agreed. Not a reason to attack them.



If they were "dicks" that did not want to control the middle east, i might agree - but they have hegemonic aspirations, and are applying them as i write this in four other countries.



> If the US fit the same criteria as Iran - would the US deserve the same treatment? And an attack?  There should only be one anser - YES. Unless you're not applying your logic evenly...



As I said above, if the US illegally meddles in another nation's affairs, it is welcome to attack it.



> ahaha - so they just have to 'pull out' of the NPT? Or why not violate at will like the US of A?



#1 that is what N Korea did
#2- how is the US "violating" the NPT?


----------



## L.K.Eder

rhodescholar said:


> Is this a joke?  Please list for us the "good things" hamas has "done" for the people of Gaza?



sorry for just picking this again, but i am too lazy for the rest and you were answering another poster anyway.

here is an article about hamas:

Radical Welfare in the Gaza Strip: Uncle Hamas Cares for Palestinians - SPIEGEL ONLINE - News - International



> ..
> At first the wheelchair-bound Yassin, who founded Hamas in 1987 and was killed in a targeted Israeli missile attack in 2004, managed the organization's funds from the living room of his modest house a few streets away. Today the center has evolved into a giant charitable institution in Gaza, operating 16 kindergartens, 30 Koran schools, and providing thousands of families with money, food and clothing. The center also pays child support for 5,000 orphans.
> ..


try to see it from the side of a poor Palestinian in Gaza.


----------



## rhodescholar

L.K.Eder said:


> At first the wheelchair-bound Yassin, who founded Hamas in 1987 and was killed in a targeted Israeli missile attack in 2004, managed the organization's funds from the living room of his modest house a few streets away. Today the center has evolved into a giant charitable institution in Gaza, operating 16 kindergartens, 30 Koran schools, and providing thousands of families with money, food and clothing. The center also pays child support for 5,000 orphans...


try to see it from the side of a poor Palestinian in Gaza.[/QUOTE]

I see alot of poor people around the world, who are actually trying to IMPROVE their society.  It is fucking hilarious to see the contortions a far left luntatic will do to try and apologise for the worst garbage of the earth.

Hamas: initiated Cast lead, fired another rocket into israel today, prevented the wounded in January from being evacuated to increase the casualty totals, builds religious schools extolling more hatred of jews, is a proxy army of iran whose sole existence is to perpetuate the conflict, regularly murders pals without trial whom it accuses of being israeli spies, regularly executes without trial fatah members, has taken power via elections almost 4 years ago - and plans to retain power indefinitely, has built little if any infrastructure like sewers of electrical systems in gaza, etc, etc.

This is not a functioning government, it is a terrorists group pretending to be one...


----------



## L.K.Eder

rhodescholar:   Please list for us the "good things" hamas has "done" for the people of Gaza?

l.k.eder: here is information about good things hamas has done for the people of gaza.

rhodescholar: It is fucking hilarious to see the contortions a far left luntatic will do to try and apologise for the worst garbage of the earth.


l.k.eder: you are welcome.


----------



## goldcatt

Sunni Man said:


> rhodescholar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Regardless of what Wilson tried to do in regards to the Treaty of Versailles his putting us in WW1 set the stage for the Treaty of Versailles.  Had we maintained our neutrality they couldn't have forced the Treaty of Versailles on Germany.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> and the US and West cannot allow iran to control the middle east.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why not?
> 
> It is in Iran's back yard and not the West
> 
> We need to leave Iran alone
Click to expand...


Leaving Iran alone is not necessarily an option, but neither is using military force at this time.
Those demanding we force immediate regime change in Iran forget their close ties to China and Russia, plus their stepchildren Hezbollah and Hamas. Any attack by Israel or the US must be a last resort, not a first or even third one. Otherwise we risk a wider conflict involving two powers with whom we have ambiguous relationships and are both nuclear and heavily invested in our national economy. 
If Israel acts alone, it must be prepared to not only piss off its Arab neighbors by invading their nations and airspace on the way to drop their bombs but also immediate retaliatory attacks from Lebanon and within its borders. They are not suicidal.
Talks with the curent regime are out of the question right now, of course, but the door must be left open for discussion at some future date should it become necessary. Remember, both the Saudis and the Egyptians are rumored to be considering their own nuclear weapons programs in response to a potential Iranian bomb. At some point, attempting to avert a general nuclear arms race in the greater ME may become more important than even AN's threats, thuggery and lack of legitimacy.
Ahmadinejad and his gang of merry thugs are a little busy at home right now. It's time to keep everything firmly on the table and leave it there in plain sight as long as possible until we see how the resistance unfolds.


----------



## rhodescholar

goldcatt said:


> Leaving Iran alone is not necessarily an option, but neither is using military force at this time.



Already, I can tell you are, like 4x smarter than most of the other posters in this thread...



> Those demanding we force immediate regime change in Iran forget their close ties to China and Russia,



China holds $2 TR US, and is not going to just walk away from that debt, which it in essence would be, as the US would just tear up the paper notes and say "fuck you" were china to ever conduct a military operation against us, and Russia is a paper tiger.  Russia's nukes are all its got at this time.



> plus their stepchildren Hezbollah and Hamas.



A wider conflict, with the US/UK/France crunching iran, and israel pulverizing hezboolah and hamas, is inevitable - its a matter of when, not if.



> Any attack by Israel or the US must be a last resort, not a first or even third one.



Diplomacy and carrots have been ongoing for almost 7 years - how much longer do you think they would make any sense to string out?  When iran tests its first bomb, which is expected to occur in 6 months to one year - do you think it would make sense then?



> If Israel acts alone, it must be prepared to not only piss off its Arab neighbors by invading their nations and airspace on the way to drop their bombs but also immediate retaliatory attacks from Lebanon and within its borders.



You must not be familiar with the intracacies of the middle east, the sunni arab states would _ pay _ for israel to attack iran, they would _ love _ it.  They would see their biggest hegemonic threat crushed - and could then turn around and point a nasty finger at israel, the regimes would be throwing private parties, believe me, just as they did in '81.



> They are not suicidal.



But they are also not going to sit around until iran's nukes become functional...



> Talks with the curent regime are out of the question right now, of course, but the door must be left open for discussion at some future date should it become necessary.



I'm sorry but time's up.  Any further delays only helps iran perfect their weapons, and that is not acceptable.



> Remember, both the Saudis and the Egyptians are rumored to be considering their own nuclear weapons programs in response to a potential Iranian bomb.



That is why it is so important iran's program be destroyed, Egypt/SA would not feel compelled to undertake one if they were not so directly threatened by their arch enemy, iran.


----------



## goldcatt

Thank you for the kind words, it's always nice to disagree without being disagreeable.
I've started a couple of replies but we're getting some nasty weather here and my connection is getting dicey. I'll be back with a full response when things quiet down.


----------



## goldcatt

I'm still new at this, so if I mess up the quotes I apologize in advance. 



rhodescholar said:


> goldcatt said:
> 
> 
> 
> Leaving Iran alone is not necessarily an option, but neither is using military force at this time.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Already, I can tell you are, like 4x smarter than most of the other posters in this thread...
Click to expand...


Thank you, I appreciate the compliment.



> Those demanding we force immediate regime change in Iran forget their close ties to China and Russia,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> China holds $2 TR US, and is not going to just walk away from that debt, which it in essence would be, as the US would just tear up the paper notes and say "fuck you" were china to ever conduct a military operation against us, and Russia is a paper tiger.  Russia's nukes are all its got at this time.
Click to expand...


Sounds like nukes are a pretty big trump card, if we're that concerned about Iran getting its hands on them. Honestly I'm far more concerned about Russian reaction to any attack than to Iran's response. While they may not attack the US or Israel directly, they have the ability to wreak havoc in many places - think Georgia, for starters. 
And while China needs us, we need them just as much. In the event of an attack on Iran by the US and/or its ally Israel, do you suppose $2 trillion in notes will keep China from sticking its nose in, or worse, loosening the leash on N Korea? Maybe or maybe not, it depends on how badly they need the Iranian oil at that given time and what other sources of revenue (markets) they have at hand.



> A wider conflict, with the US/UK/France crunching iran, and israel pulverizing hezboolah and hamas, is inevitable - its a matter of when, not if.



Hardly inevitable, especially now. And you're forgetting a few details. Like the two shooting wars already on our hands and the Iranian allies and neighbors who could (would) be drawn into the fight - most of them nuclear themselves. Why is now the best time to start WWIII?



> Diplomacy and carrots have been ongoing for almost 7 years - how much longer do you think they would make any sense to string out?  When iran tests its first bomb, which is expected to occur in 6 months to one year - do you think it would make sense then?



Two points here.  
First, there has been little to no diplomacy between the US and Iran for 30 years. There have been no diplomatic relations since the 1979 overthrow of the Shah.  On the occasions we need to speak with the Iranians, contacts must be handled through the Swiss. As for the diplomacy that has occurred, remember the offers by M. Khatami in 2001-2002 for comprehensive dialogue leading to normalization fo relations? Those offers were rejected in the runup to the Iraq war. That rebuff arguably led directly to the loss of influence among Khatami and the reformists, paving the way for the selection of Ahmadinejad.
Second, depending on the source estimates for an Iranian nuclear device range from the six to 12 months you quote to no program being in place. The fact is, we simply do not know. Scary in itself, but not justification for the type of urgency you are espousing.



> You must not be familiar with the intracacies of the middle east, the sunni arab states would _ pay _ for israel to attack iran, they would _ love _ it.  They would see their biggest hegemonic threat crushed - and could then turn around and point a nasty finger at israel, the regimes would be throwing private parties, believe me, just as they did in '81.



You make two big assumptions here. The first is that the Arab nations are all alike. Nothing could be further from the truth. The second is that Arab leaders could privately rejoice while publicly assuaging the street with a little finger-wagging at an ascendant, nuclear Israel bombing a neighbor. The enemy of their enemy is not necessarily their friend, especially where Israel is concerned.  And dictators have no goal more important than the security of their own positions - especially in the Arab nations, where many are battling religious extremist movements.



> But they are also not going to sit around until iran's nukes become functional...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Talks with the curent regime are out of the question right now, of course, but the door must be left open for discussion at some future date should it become necessary.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm sorry but time's up.  Any further delays only helps iran perfect their weapons, and that is not acceptable.
Click to expand...


We do not know how much time we have, nor do we know what effect the shakeup in their nuclear program has had. Reminds me of the leadup to Iraq, where for whatever reason (and that's a different thread) the intelligence we were given on WMDs turned out to be false. We would do well to verify, not to mention see who emerges victorious in the current effort to overthrow the regime, before making or backing yet another "preemptive" invasion. Those who do not learn from history...



> Remember, both the Saudis and the Egyptians are rumored to be considering their own nuclear weapons programs in response to a potential Iranian bomb.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is why it is so important iran's program be destroyed, Egypt/SA would not feel compelled to undertake one if they were not so directly threatened by their arch enemy, iran.
Click to expand...


Not all relationships are black and white, especially in the ME. Egypt and Saudi Arabia are hardly Iran's "arch-enemies", in Saudi's case they are partners within OPEC with a common interest economically and in Egypt's case they are frenemies within the Non-Aligned movement with common political interests. Do they trust each other? No, but then again neither do Iran and Russia.  Doesn't mean they won't stick together in pursuit of other national interests while arming themselves to the teeth in case of the worst.


----------



## L.K.Eder

goldcatt said:


> I'm still new at this, so if I mess up the quotes I apologize in advance.
> 
> 
> 
> rhodescholar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> goldcatt said:
> 
> 
> 
> Leaving Iran alone is not necessarily an option, but neither is using military force at this time.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Already, I can tell you are, like 4x smarter than most of the other posters in this thread...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Thank you, I appreciate the compliment.
Click to expand...



believe me, it is not a compliment.

rhodescholar simply cannot handle dissent. support his opinion, he will thank you and call you brilliant.
challenge his opinion, he will mount one of the sewer-rats near him and rain insults on you.


----------



## goldcatt

L.K.Eder said:


> goldcatt said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm still new at this, so if I mess up the quotes I apologize in advance.
> 
> 
> 
> rhodescholar said:
> 
> 
> 
> Already, I can tell you are, like 4x smarter than most of the other posters in this thread...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thank you, I appreciate the compliment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> believe me, it is not a compliment.
> 
> rhodescholar simply cannot handle dissent. support his opinion, he will thank you and call you brilliant.
> challenge his opinion, he will mount one of the sewer-rats near him and rain insults on you.
Click to expand...


I see. Well, I'd better get out the umbrella 'cuz he is definitely not seeing the full picture here.


----------



## rhodescholar

L.K.Eder said:


> believe me, it is not a compliment.
> 
> rhodescholar simply cannot handle dissent. support his opinion, he will thank you and call you brilliant.
> challenge his opinion, he will mount one of the sewer-rats near him and rain insults on you.



It is a compliment.  There are many posters here who i disagree with, but we have had VERY civil, reasonable conversations - on may topics, and in many threads.

The problem with the trash like shogun, KK, sunni man etc, is that they are NOT even remotely interested in an intelligent conversation - only to insult/bait/troll.


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy

You've never been insulted, baited, or trolled by me, despite committing all three offenses yourself.


----------



## goldcatt

Did I step into the middle of a family feud here?


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy

goldcatt said:


> Did I step into the middle of a family feud here?



No.  Rhode just likes to insult people then demand they answer his questions.


----------



## rdean

Imagine this:
A country where it's illegal to teach evolution.
A country where women have few rights.
A country where the clergy picks the political candidates.
A country where it's mandatory to pledge to God when you say the pledge.
A country where religion is taught in public schools.
A country where, by constitution, the majority religion IS the "national religion".
A country where gays are not tolerated.

This is what the right wing wants in this country.  This IS the GOP platform.  You would expect the GOP would support this country.  

There are those in this country that want God taken out of the government.  They want a secular government.  You would expect that the GOP would never support this.  The GOP in this country wants MORE God in government, not less.

So, which country am I talking about?  Iran of course.  The GOP is too blind to realize that Iran is their vision of America come to life.  What the Iranians have is what the GOP wants for this country.  Instead of Koran, put Bible.  Instead of Allah, put Jesus.  Other than that, it's a match.


----------



## Sunni Man

rdean said:


> Imagine this:
> A country where it's illegal to teach evolution.
> A country where women have few rights.
> A country where the clergy picks the political candidates.
> A country where it's mandatory to pledge to God when you say the pledge.
> A country where religion is taught in public schools.
> A country where, by constitution, the majority religion IS the "national religion".
> A country where gays are not tolerated.



Sounds like a GREAT country!!!

I wish America would become everything on you list


----------



## goldcatt

rdean said:


> Imagine this:
> A country where it's illegal to teach evolution.
> A country where women have few rights.
> A country where the clergy picks the political candidates.
> A country where it's mandatory to pledge to God when you say the pledge.
> A country where religion is taught in public schools.
> A country where, by constitution, the majority religion IS the "national religion".
> A country where gays are not tolerated.
> 
> ...(snip)...
> 
> So, which country am I talking about?  Iran of course.  The GOP is too blind to realize that Iran is their vision of America come to life.  What the Iranians have is what the GOP wants for this country.  Instead of Koran, put Bible.  Instead of Allah, put Jesus.  Other than that, it's a match.



The right-wing religous-nationalist extremists do not make up the entirety of the GOP. They just scream really  loud.

You also haven't been following events in Iran, have you? There's a revolution in progress there, in case you didn't notice. Things are gonna change (with any luck).


----------



## Sunni Man

goldcatt said:


> rdean said:
> 
> 
> 
> Imagine this:
> A country where it's illegal to teach evolution.
> A country where women have few rights.
> A country where the clergy picks the political candidates.
> A country where it's mandatory to pledge to God when you say the pledge.
> A country where religion is taught in public schools.
> A country where, by constitution, the majority religion IS the "national religion".
> A country where gays are not tolerated.
> 
> ...(snip)...
> 
> So, which country am I talking about?  Iran of course.  The GOP is too blind to realize that Iran is their vision of America come to life.  What the Iranians have is what the GOP wants for this country.  Instead of Koran, put Bible.  Instead of Allah, put Jesus.  Other than that, it's a match.
> 
> 
> 
> You also haven't been following events in Iran, have you? There's a revolution in progress there, in case you didn't notice. Things are gonna change (with any luck).
Click to expand...

There is NO revolution going on in Iran.

Just a bunch of criminals who are protesting.

Most are in jail or going to jail where they belong.


----------



## goldcatt

Sunni Man said:


> goldcatt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rdean said:
> 
> 
> 
> Imagine this:
> A country where it's illegal to teach evolution.
> A country where women have few rights.
> A country where the clergy picks the political candidates.
> A country where it's mandatory to pledge to God when you say the pledge.
> A country where religion is taught in public schools.
> A country where, by constitution, the majority religion IS the "national religion".
> A country where gays are not tolerated.
> 
> ...(snip)...
> 
> So, which country am I talking about?  Iran of course.  The GOP is too blind to realize that Iran is their vision of America come to life.  What the Iranians have is what the GOP wants for this country.  Instead of Koran, put Bible.  Instead of Allah, put Jesus.  Other than that, it's a match.
> 
> 
> 
> You also haven't been following events in Iran, have you? There's a revolution in progress there, in case you didn't notice. Things are gonna change (with any luck).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is NO revolution going on in Iran.
> 
> Just a bunch of criminals who are protesting.
> 
> Most are in jail or going to jail where they belong.
Click to expand...


I see. 

Never mind then, go ahead and bomb the shit out of them. We don't need those people with their fingers on the nuclear button.


----------



## rdean

Sunni Man said:


> rdean said:
> 
> 
> 
> Imagine this:
> A country where it's illegal to teach evolution.
> A country where women have few rights.
> A country where the clergy picks the political candidates.
> A country where it's mandatory to pledge to God when you say the pledge.
> A country where religion is taught in public schools.
> A country where, by constitution, the majority religion IS the "national religion".
> A country where gays are not tolerated.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sounds like a GREAT country!!!
> 
> I wish America would become everything on you list
Click to expand...


Well what are you doing here?  You belong over there where you can do some good. Maybe you could get a job with Ahmadinejad.


----------



## rhodescholar

goldcatt said:


> Thank you, I appreciate the compliment.



Welcome.  I just hope you are not a JBeuk puppet pretending to be someone else...



> Sounds like nukes are a pretty big trump card, if we're that concerned about Iran getting its hands on them.



No doubt, they make a country invulnerable to an attack, like NK.



> Honestly I'm far more concerned about Russian reaction to any attack than to Iran's response.



Why should you?  Russia and Iraq were FAR closer than they are to iran, and iraq owed russia a ton of money - and even forgave most of the debt after the US invasion...



> While they may not attack the US or Israel directly, they have the ability to wreak havoc in many places - think Georgia, for starters.



At a low level yes, just as they helped hezbollah in lebanon locate several israeli spy cells recently, so the russians can be a problem if you are not prepared for them, but they would not even consider something major...



> And while China needs us, we need them just as much.



After china has poisoned our food, dog food, murdered our children with defective toys, and provided tainted plasterboard for our homes, the US public can be easily swayed to stop buying chinese-made product.  The 2 countries have a close trading relationship, but there are other countries very eager to build factories to export their wares to us...



> In the event of an attack on Iran by the US and/or its ally Israel, do you suppose $2 trillion in notes will keep China from sticking its nose in, or worse, loosening the leash on N Korea?



LOL, not if they want to be paid back, they won't.



> Maybe or maybe not, it depends on how badly they need the Iranian oil at that given time and what other sources of revenue (markets) they have at hand.



You do not understand how treasurys work, China has ALREADY bought them, it isn't a question of whether they will buy them or not - they already have them in their central bank registry account.



> Like the two shooting wars already on our hands and the Iranian allies and neighbors who could (would) be drawn into the fight - most of them nuclear themselves. Why is now the best time to start WWIII?



You must not have read the General's article, re-read it again.  An iranian campaign would require the use of assets not currently deployed in quantity, namely the Navy and Air Force.



> Two points here.  First, there has been little to no diplomacy between the US and Iran for 30 years. There have been no diplomatic relations since the 1979 overthrow of the Shah.



There have been many, many attempts in prior administrations, particularly during Clinton's 2 terms, and he was humiliated by them more than once...



> On the occasions we need to speak with the Iranians, contacts must be handled through the Swiss.



Not always..... 



> As for the diplomacy that has occurred, remember the offers by M. Khatami in 2001-2002 for comprehensive dialogue leading to normalization fo relations? Those offers were rejected in the runup to the Iraq war. That rebuff arguably led directly to the loss of influence among Khatami and the reformists, paving the way for the selection of Ahmadinejad.



#1, they were not considered genuine at the time, and probably weren't, and cannot possibly be considered the reason why Khatami was no re-elected. #2, the iranians did not elect him again because he failed to accomplish the freedom-driven reforms they expected and desired.



> Second, depending on the source estimates for an Iranian nuclear device range from the six to 12 months you quote to no program being in place. The fact is, we simply do not know. Scary in itself, but not justification for the type of urgency you are espousing.



They are blocking the inspections required by the IAEA, and wouldn't be unless they had something to hide.



> You make two big assumptions here. The first is that the Arab nations are all alike. Nothing could be further from the truth.



I know that, having lived in a few for over 20 years...but all sunnis hate the shia, and that is a fact regardless of arab muslim nation.



> The second is that Arab leaders could privately rejoice while publicly assuaging the street with a little finger-wagging at an ascendant, nuclear Israel bombing a neighbor. The enemy of their enemy is not necessarily their friend, especially where Israel is concerned.  And dictators have no goal more important than the security of their own positions - especially in the Arab nations, where many are battling religious extremist movements.



If you remember in the 2006 israeli-hezbollah skirmish, SA and Egypt  issued strong statements AGAINST hezbollah, and recenltly, Egypt broke up a hezbollah cell inside the sinai.  These are the 2 most important arab nations, and both detest iran, and have poor relations with iran at best.  Even if both changed leadership tomorrow, Egypt and SA would be enemies of iran, that would not change.  Anyone claiming otherwise does not know the middle east.



> We do not know how much time we have, nor do we know what effect the shakeup in their nuclear program has had. Reminds me of the leadup to Iraq, where for whatever reason (and that's a different thread) the intelligence we were given on WMDs turned out to be false.



There were reports by some 20 intelligence services that saddam had them, shit he'd already used them on the kurds, so it wasn't exactly a stretch...



> We would do well to verify, not to mention see who emerges victorious in the current effort to overthrow the regime, before making or backing yet another "preemptive" invasion. Those who do not learn from history...



#1, since they are blocking inspections, and have spread their acknowledged program across the country, and deep underground in hardened facilities which leads one to believe that they are hiding aspects of the program that would not be wise.  Second, again, we do not have the luxury of time to "wait out" and see if the opposition can depose the current regime.



> Not all relationships are black and white, especially in the ME. Egypt and Saudi Arabia are hardly Iran's "arch-enemies",



LOL, uh yes they are, you need to learn more about the middle east my friend.  Statements like this are telling... 



> in Saudi's case they are partners within OPEC with a common interest economically and in Egypt's case they are frenemies within the Non-Aligned movement with common political interests. Do they trust each other? No, but then again neither do Iran and Russia.  Doesn't mean they won't stick together in pursuit of other national interests while arming themselves to the teeth in case of the worst.



SA' and Egypt's programs are directly in response to iran's, in fact, SA and iran have minimal diplomatic relations.  I think it was only a few months ago that when AN showed up there, that it was many years since ANY high-ranking iranian official has stepped foot on SA soil.  

POLITICS: A Thaw in Egypt-Iran Relations? - IPS ipsnews.net

"The recent visit to the Egyptian capital by a high-level Iranian official has reignited speculation about the state of Egyptian-Iranian diplomatic relations, officially frozen since 1979. Ali Larijani, head of Iran's Supreme National Security Council, is the highest ranking Iranian official to visit Egypt in the last 27 years."

Things were looking a tiny bit better until the hez' terrorists were caught in the sinai, plotting against the Mubarak gov't...

Saudi Arabia-Iran Relations | IranTracker

"As an ally of the United States, Saudi Arabia&#8217;s relations with the Islamic Republic of Iran have been relatively strained since the Islamic Revolution in 1979. Despite common membership to international organizations such as OPEC and NAM&#8212;Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries and the Non-Aligned Movement&#8212;and similar economies based on oil resources, Saudi Arabia and Iran have often found themselves in economic and political competition. During the Iran-Iraq War 1980-1988, Saudi Arabia supported Saddam Hussein against Iran.[8]  In recent years, relations have been particularly strained as Saudi Arabia has publicly questioned the peaceful nature of Iran&#8217;s nuclear enrichment program."


----------



## rhodescholar

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> You've never been insulted, baited, or trolled by me, despite committing all three offenses yourself.



You have been a troll in a shitload of my threads, and the fact that you are in my sig itself is telling of the fact that honest debate is of no interest to you whatsoever...


----------



## rhodescholar

goldcatt said:


> I see. Never mind then, go ahead and bomb the shit out of them. We don't need those people with their fingers on the nuclear button.



Assuming you are not a sock puppet, you will learn quickly that sunni man, shogun and a few others are mentally deranged and just troll in/out of threads, while a few others like KK couch their trolling marginally better, but do little more than troll.


----------



## goldcatt

Wow, nobody's ever accused me of being a sock puppet before. I believe I'll sit back and watch this one. No offense to anyone involved, but your feud is none of my business and I don't know y'all well enough to take a side.


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy

rhodescholar said:


> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> You've never been insulted, baited, or trolled by me, despite committing all three offenses yourself.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You have been a troll in a shitload of my threads, and the fact that you are in my sig itself is telling of the fact that honest debate is of no interest to you whatsoever...
Click to expand...


Actually it was in my thread about the head of the IAEA saying there was no evidence Iran was seeking nuclear weapons where you began your little campaign against me.

Yes, me being in your signature is evidence that honest debate is of no interest to me.


----------



## del

goldcatt said:


> Wow, nobody's ever accused me of being a sock puppet before. I believe I'll sit back and watch this one. No offense to anyone involved, but your feud is none of my business and I don't know y'all well enough to take a side.


----------



## L.K.Eder

Khatami was not re-elected because he had already served two consecutive terms.


----------



## goldcatt

L.K.Eder said:


> Khatami was not re-elected because he had already served two consecutive terms.



True. But it has been argued that the about-face from a clerical reformist to a non-clerical hardliner was due to Khatami's "failure". If another reformist had been installed, the domestic reforms begun under Khatami would have continued and we might well have seen a peaceful evolution of the IR similar to that slowly happening in China. We'll never know of course, but it's an interesting and IMO worthy argument.


----------



## L.K.Eder

goldcatt said:


> L.K.Eder said:
> 
> 
> 
> Khatami was not re-elected because he had already served two consecutive terms.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> True. But it has been argued that the about-face from a clerical reformist to a non-clerical hardliner was due to Khatami's "failure". If another reformist had been installed, the domestic reforms begun under Khatami would have continued and we might well have seen a peaceful evolution of the IR similar to that slowly happening in China. We'll never know of course, but it's an interesting and IMO worthy argument.
Click to expand...


yeah, i read your post, and it was very good. i agree very much.

rhodescholar mentioned the "not re-elected stuff". i could not help but try to correct him.


----------



## rhodescholar

goldcatt said:


> Wow, nobody's ever accused me of being a sock puppet before. I believe I'll sit back and watch this one. No offense to anyone involved, but your feud is none of my business and I don't know y'all well enough to take a side.



Can't get into it, but a douchebag was fucking with the forums last week using many puppet accounts, so I am now VERY cautious with new users... sorry about that, but that's what things have come to here...


----------



## goldcatt

L.K.Eder said:


> goldcatt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> L.K.Eder said:
> 
> 
> 
> Khatami was not re-elected because he had already served two consecutive terms.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> True. But it has been argued that the about-face from a clerical reformist to a non-clerical hardliner was due to Khatami's "failure". If another reformist had been installed, the domestic reforms begun under Khatami would have continued and we might well have seen a peaceful evolution of the IR similar to that slowly happening in China. We'll never know of course, but it's an interesting and IMO worthy argument.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> yeah, i read your post, and it was very good. i agree very much.
> 
> rhodescholar mentioned the "not re-elected stuff". i could not help but try to correct him.
Click to expand...


No comment at this time. I am Switzerland.


----------



## L.K.Eder

goldcatt said:


> L.K.Eder said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> goldcatt said:
> 
> 
> 
> True. But it has been argued that the about-face from a clerical reformist to a non-clerical hardliner was due to Khatami's "failure". If another reformist had been installed, the domestic reforms begun under Khatami would have continued and we might well have seen a peaceful evolution of the IR similar to that slowly happening in China. We'll never know of course, but it's an interesting and IMO worthy argument.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> yeah, i read your post, and it was very good. i agree very much.
> 
> rhodescholar mentioned the "not re-elected stuff". i could not help but try to correct him.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No comment at this time. I am Switzerland.
Click to expand...


cool, then we are neighbors.


----------



## rhodescholar

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> Actually it was in my thread about the head of the IAEA saying there was no evidence Iran was seeking nuclear weapons where you began your little campaign against me.Yes, me being in your signature is evidence that honest debate is of no interest to me.



Standing on a street corner screaming the same line over and over again, and refusing to discuss it is a sign of trolling...you repeated the same line in the thread - and others - over and over.  That is trolling/polluting threads.

The fact that you fucking openly admit you did it is a sign of either unbelievable stupidity, or total retardation...


----------



## rhodescholar

KK thinks that she can scream "there is no evidence iran has nuclear weapons" - and that just closes the case right there.

Noone is allowed to question it, nor mention that iran is blocking inspections.

As we all know, once KK says something is true, there is no need - or allowance - for anyone to debate it...


----------



## Dr Grump

Just keep your nose out of other peoples' business...if you can..


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy

rhodescholar said:


> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually it was in my thread about the head of the IAEA saying there was no evidence Iran was seeking nuclear weapons where you began your little campaign against me.Yes, me being in your signature is evidence that honest debate is of no interest to me.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Standing on a street corner screaming the same line over and over again, and refusing to discuss it is a sign of trolling...you repeated the same line in the thread - and others - over and over.  That is trolling/polluting threads.
> 
> The fact that you fucking openly admit you did it is a sign of either unbelievable stupidity, or total retardation...
Click to expand...


Well you've yet to refute the point that the head of the IAEA said there was no evidence, so the point still remains.


----------



## rhodescholar

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> Well you've yet to refute the point that the head of the IAEA said there was no evidence, so the point still remains.



I will admit the IAEA said he had no evidence when you admit iran is blocking IAEA inspections...


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy

rhodescholar said:


> KK thinks that she can scream "there is no evidence iran has nuclear weapons" - and that just closes the case right there.
> 
> Noone is allowed to question it, nor mention that iran is blocking inspections.
> 
> As we all know, once KK says something is true, there is no need - or allowance - for anyone to debate it...



Well I'm not screaming anything, and it's the head of the IAEA that said there's no evidence not me.

Also, I'm a "He" not a "She."  The name "Kevin" should have been a dead giveaway.


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy

rhodescholar said:


> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well you've yet to refute the point that the head of the IAEA said there was no evidence, so the point still remains.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I will admit the IAEA said he had no evidence when you admit iran is blocking IAEA inspections...
Click to expand...


Well you see, I don't care whether you admit it or not.  The fact remains either way.


----------



## rdean

Republicans are so funny.  They love bogeymen.  They still believe that Saddam was behind 9/11.  Here is Bush in his own words saying that Saddam wasn't behind 9/11 and he never said Saddam was.  Only, how did Americans get that idea if it wasn't from Bush?

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iTstzb7qSI4]YouTube - Bush protects Iraqi Christians[/ame]

Now, you have those on the "white" wing who want to "invade" Iran.  We can't even rebuild Iraq.  Iran is building "nuclear" bombs which I guess they are going to "truck" into this country.  You could say, "Give diplomacy a try", but look at the "white" wingnuts on this site.  They rant and scream.  Invade! Blow them up! Get 'em before it's 'too late'!"

Somehow, they believe that putting a nuclear bomb together takes a glow in the dark watch, a bit of string, a couple of coat hangers, some spit, and wallah!  A nuclear bomb a la "McGiver".

Well, all I can say is "praise the heavens" that we have someone with "reason" in the White House.

Yea, Iranians are "technological".  Nearly every month one of their planes crash.  

Look up "road safety":

Iran has highest rate of fatal road accidents in the world  
Tehran, April 6, IRNA -- Iran ranks first worldwide in terms of having highest number of road accidents leading to 38,000 deaths and injuries per year, said Deputy Health Minister Mohammed-Esmaeel Akbari here on Tuesday. 

Their school system is even worse.  When the clerics took over they rewrote the school books replace "mysticism" with science, exactly the same way the church wants to do here. As if "magical" design was something "real" that could explain how microbes develop resistance to penicillin.

This is the "dangerous technologically advanced country" that will be sending out nuclear weapons by the truck load?  Oh sorry, by camel cart?

I think the real danger is that they might blow themselves up.

Could you imagine if Americans were still listening to the "white" wingnuts?  This is why they are so afraid of science.  They think you could build nuclear reactors like gas stations.


----------



## rhodescholar

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> Well you see, I don't care whether you admit it or not.  The fact remains either way.



And the fact remains that iran is blocking inspections, TROLL ASSHOLE.

And you wonder why you're considered the House Idiot....keep screaming your one liner, see if that fires up the Rep points for ya, moron...


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy

rhodescholar said:


> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well you see, I don't care whether you admit it or not.  The fact remains either way.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And you wonder why you're considered the House Idiot....keep screaming your one liner, see if that fires up the Rep points for ya, moron...
Click to expand...


Well I'm fairly sure I'm not considered the "House Idiot" by anyone but you.  Of course, it's impossible for me to know what other people are thinking but so far you're the only one to come out and make any such claim.


----------



## rhodescholar

rdean said:


> Republicans are so funny.  They love bogeymen.  They still believe that Saddam was behind 9/11.  Here is Bush in his own words saying that Saddam wasn't behind 9/11 and he never said Saddam was.  Only, how did Americans get that idea if it wasn't from Bush?
> 
> Now, you have those on the "white" wing who want to "invade" Iran.  We can't even rebuild Iraq.  Iran is building "nuclear" bombs which I guess they are going to "truck" into this country.  You could say, "Give diplomacy a try", but look at the "white" wingnuts on this site.  They rant and scream.  Invade! Blow them up! Get 'em before it's 'too late'!"
> 
> Somehow, they believe that putting a nuclear bomb together takes a glow in the dark watch, a bit of string, a couple of coat hangers, some spit, and wallah!  A nuclear bomb a la "McGiver".
> 
> Well, all I can say is "praise the heavens" that we have someone with "reason" in the White House.
> 
> Yea, Iranians are "technological".  Nearly every month one of their planes crash.
> 
> Look up "road safety":
> 
> Iran has highest rate of fatal road accidents in the world
> Tehran, April 6, IRNA -- Iran ranks first worldwide in terms of having highest number of road accidents leading to 38,000 deaths and injuries per year, said Deputy Health Minister Mohammed-Esmaeel Akbari here on Tuesday.
> 
> Their school system is even worse.  When the clerics took over they rewrote the school books replace "mysticism" with science, exactly the same way the church wants to do here. As if "magical" design was something "real" that could explain how microbes develop resistance to penicillin.
> 
> This is the "dangerous technologically advanced country" that will be sending out nuclear weapons by the truck load?  Oh sorry, by camel cart?
> 
> I think the real danger is that they might blow themselves up.
> 
> Could you imagine if Americans were still listening to the "white" wingnuts?  This is why they are so afraid of science.  They think you could build nuclear reactors like gas stations.



They seem to have no problems buying Russian/Chinese weapons, and handing them off to terrorist/proxy armies...


----------



## rhodescholar

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> Well I'm fairly sure I'm not considered the "House Idiot" by anyone but you.  Of course, it's impossible for me to know what other people are thinking but so far you're the only one to come out and make any such claim.



Ignorance is bliss....


----------



## Dr Grump

rhodescholar said:


> Ignorance is bliss....



You'd know.

Joined up yet to go fight the good fight Cyber Warrior........?


----------



## rhodescholar

Dr Grump said:


> You'd know.
> 
> Joined up yet to go fight the good fight Cyber Warrior........?



All I know is what people have PM'd me... even in this thread K-**** is baiting... sick little turd that it is...


----------



## del

rhodescholar said:


> Dr Grump said:
> 
> 
> 
> You'd know.
> 
> Joined up yet to go fight the good fight Cyber Warrior........?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> All I know is what people have PM'd me... even in this thread K-**** is baiting... sick little turd that it is...
Click to expand...


i don't think the voices in your head actually PM you...


----------



## rdean

Yea, Iranians are giving weapons to the Taliban.  Right?  I would think a Shiite country surrounded by Sunnis would keep them for protection NOT GIVE THEM TO SUNNIS.  If not the Taliban, then who?


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy

rhodescholar said:


> Dr Grump said:
> 
> 
> 
> You'd know.
> 
> Joined up yet to go fight the good fight Cyber Warrior........?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> All I know is what people have PM'd me... even in this thread K-**** is baiting... sick little turd that it is...
Click to expand...


Well I suppose it's possible that people have PM'd you to tell me how much they dislike me, but I'm going to doubt it.  I don't know of anyone on this board that would be afraid to say what they think of anybody else in public.  Also, why in the world would they go to you?  A mod would be the obvious choice if people had that big of a problem with me.


----------



## rhodescholar

del said:


> i don't think the voices in your head actually PM you...



Oooh look, K-**** took a squat, and del joined the conversation...good to see ya...


----------



## rhodescholar

rdean said:


> Yea, Iranians are giving weapons to the Taliban.  Right?  I would think a Shiite country surrounded by Sunnis would keep them for protection NOT GIVE THEM TO SUNNIS.  If not the Taliban, then who?



Not sure if there is a question in there somewhere...is this what you are referring to:

Iran: Is Tehran Sending Weapons to Afghanistan's Taliban?

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/18/world/middleeast/18military.html

"U.S. Says Iranian Arms Seized in Afghanistan

By MICHAEL R. GORDON
Published: April 18, 2007
WASHINGTON, April 17  A shipment of Iranian-made weapons bound for the Taliban was recently captured by allied forces in Afghanistan, the Pentagons top officer said Tuesday.

It was the first time that a senior American official had asserted that Iranian-made weapons were being supplied to the Taliban. But Gen. Peter Pace, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said it was not clear if the Iranian government had authorized the shipment."


----------



## rhodescholar

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> Well I suppose it's possible that people have PM'd you to tell me how much they dislike me, but I'm going to doubt it.  I don't know of anyone on this board that would be afraid to say what they think of anybody else in public.  Also, why in the world would they go to you?  A mod would be the obvious choice if people had that big of a problem with me.



I promised to not mention names, but suffice to say, many people not only dislike you, they think you are of very low intelligence.

I'd rather be hated and respected than detested and thought of as an idiot.  

Your continued baiting and refusal to discuss iran's blocking of IAEA inspections doesn't help much.


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy

rhodescholar said:


> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well I suppose it's possible that people have PM'd you to tell me how much they dislike me, but I'm going to doubt it.  I don't know of anyone on this board that would be afraid to say what they think of anybody else in public.  Also, why in the world would they go to you?  A mod would be the obvious choice if people had that big of a problem with me.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I promised to not mention names, but suffice to say, many people not only dislike you, they think you are of very low intelligence.
> 
> I'd rather be hated and respected than detested and thought of as an idiot.
> 
> Your continued baiting and refusal to discuss iran's blocking of IAEA inspections doesn't help much.
Click to expand...


Well that's fine.


----------



## goldcatt

Doesn't take long to see the lay of the land here, does it?


----------



## del

rhodescholar said:


> del said:
> 
> 
> 
> i don't think the voices in your head actually PM you...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oooh look, K-**** took a squat, and del joined the conversation...good to see ya...
Click to expand...


stay classy, lil rhodie.


----------



## rhodescholar

goldcatt said:


> Doesn't take long to see the lay of the land here, does it?



Its real simple GC.  

A poster claims that "the IAEA head says there's no evidence of an iranian nuclear weapons program."  

Background: the new head says that on his first day on the job, so he's trying to make a political statement, meanwhile the outgoing head said he "believed in his gut that iran had a separate  and parallel nuclear weapons platform."

My response is that since iran is blocking most of the inspections, how can the IAEA have acquired evidence yet?

So how does the first poster respond?  He just keeps repeating the initial claim above, no matter who questions it, he just keeps repeating the same line over and over.

Is that a poster that is going to acquire board respect, someone you will think highly of, that is worth engaging in an intelligent discussion?  

I think we both know the answer.  Unfortunately, I cannot put blame where I think it really lies, so I will just allow the evidence for the poster's inadequacies to speak for themselves...


----------



## goldcatt

rhodescholar said:


> goldcatt said:
> 
> 
> 
> Doesn't take long to see the lay of the land here, does it?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Its real simple GC.
> 
> A poster claims that "the IAEA head says there's no evidence of an iranian nuclear weapons program."
> 
> Background: the new head says that on his first day on the job, so he's trying to make a political statement, meanwhile the outgoing head said he "believed in his gut that iran had a separate  and parallel nuclear weapons platform."
> 
> My response is that (as in my sig) "since iran is blocking most of the inspections, how can they have acquired evidence yet"?
> 
> So how does the first poster respond?  He just keeps repeating the initial claim above, no matter who questions it, he just keeps repeating the same line over and over.
> 
> Is that a poster that is going to acquire board respect, someone you will think highly of, that is worth engaging in an intelligent discussion?
> 
> I think we both know the answer.
Click to expand...


Actually, I repped him for his patience in not attacking you. I've seen a lot of vulgar trolls, but you're really something else.


----------



## goldcatt

And on that note, a good night to all.


----------



## rdean

rhodescholar said:


> rdean said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yea, Iranians are giving weapons to the Taliban.  Right?  I would think a Shiite country surrounded by Sunnis would keep them for protection NOT GIVE THEM TO SUNNIS.  If not the Taliban, then who?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not sure if there is a question in there somewhere...is this what you are referring to:
> 
> Iran: Is Tehran Sending Weapons to Afghanistan's Taliban?
> 
> http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/18/world/middleeast/18military.html
> 
> "U.S. Says Iranian Arms Seized in Afghanistan
> 
> By MICHAEL R. GORDON
> Published: April 18, 2007
> WASHINGTON, April 17  A shipment of Iranian-made weapons bound for the Taliban was recently captured by allied forces in Afghanistan, the Pentagons top officer said Tuesday.
> 
> It was the first time that a senior American official had asserted that Iranian-made weapons were being supplied to the Taliban. But Gen. Peter Pace, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said it was not clear if the Iranian government had authorized the shipment."
Click to expand...


Iran selling arms to the Taliban? Why do you quote stories from years ago?  

It's not that Iran is selling to the Taliban, it's that some Iranians are selling on the open market, the same market that the Russians, the Chinese and even us sell weapons to.  Taliban has been paying with drugs.  The government in Iran may not even know who is selling the weapons.

Republicans always think everything is simple, black and white.  Us or them.  It's why Bush didn't understand the problem with invading Iraq the way his father did.  Iraq had just invaded another country, yet, Bush Sr. stopped at the border.  He didn't want to "own" the problem.  The one that we "own" now.


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy

rhodescholar said:


> goldcatt said:
> 
> 
> 
> Doesn't take long to see the lay of the land here, does it?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Its real simple GC.
> 
> A poster claims that "the IAEA head says there's no evidence of an iranian nuclear weapons program."
> 
> Background: the new head says that on his first day on the job, so he's trying to make a political statement, meanwhile the outgoing head said he "believed in his gut that iran had a separate  and parallel nuclear weapons platform."
> 
> My response is that since iran is blocking most of the inspections, how can the IAEA have acquired evidence yet?
> 
> So how does the first poster respond?  He just keeps repeating the initial claim above, no matter who questions it, he just keeps repeating the same line over and over.
> 
> Is that a poster that is going to acquire board respect, someone you will think highly of, that is worth engaging in an intelligent discussion?
> 
> I think we both know the answer.  Unfortunately, I cannot put blame where I think it really lies, so I will just allow the evidence for the poster's inadequacies to speak for themselves...
Click to expand...


Yes, I claimed that the head of the IAEA said that there was no evidence of Iran seeking nuclear weapons, and then provided a source.  I've also pointed out that a gut feeling is not evidence.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/iran/81655-no-evidence-iran-seeking-nuclear-weapons.html

For those who think I'm attempting to sidestep an intelligent conversation I point you to that thread I made on the subject, where I was repeatedly insulted by rhodescholar for posting a fact.  Does anyone really think that that's an example of an intelligent conversation?


----------



## Cold Fusion38

Attacking Iran would be a REALLY stupid thing to do.


----------



## Cold Fusion38

Holy crap how long does it take for me to not be an "unknown" quantity?



I think I've made my views perfectly clear.


----------



## elvis

rhodescholar said:


> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well I'm fairly sure I'm not considered the "House Idiot" by anyone but you.  Of course, it's impossible for me to know what other people are thinking but so far you're the only one to come out and make any such claim.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ignorance is bliss....
Click to expand...


He's not the house idiot, rhodes.   That would be Chris, the mental midget.


----------



## rhodescholar

goldcatt said:


> Actually, I repped him for his patience in not attacking you. I've seen a lot of vulgar trolls, but you're really something else.



I'd bet $100 this is another sock puppet... ;(


----------



## Cold Fusion38

To the Idiot Kevin Kennedy: If iran blocks inspections, how can evidence be acquired? 



Well it worked in Iraq.


----------



## rhodescholar

elvis3577 said:


> He's not the house idiot, rhodes.   That would be Chris, the mental midget.



I am not as familiar with Chris, since he hasn't entered any of the threads I've posted in, but he would have to be quite obscenely stupid to even approach the depths of kk.


----------



## rhodescholar

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> Yes, I claimed that the head of the IAEA said that there was no evidence of Iran seeking nuclear weapons, and then provided a source.  I've also pointed out that a gut feeling is not evidence.
> 
> http://www.usmessageboard.com/iran/81655-no-evidence-iran-seeking-nuclear-weapons.html
> 
> For those who think I'm attempting to sidestep an intelligent conversation I point you to that thread I made on the subject, where I was repeatedly insulted by rhodescholar for posting a fact.  Does anyone really think that that's an example of an intelligent conversation?



It is not also a fact that iran has consistently blocked IAEA inspections?


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy

rhodescholar said:


> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, I claimed that the head of the IAEA said that there was no evidence of Iran seeking nuclear weapons, and then provided a source.  I've also pointed out that a gut feeling is not evidence.
> 
> http://www.usmessageboard.com/iran/81655-no-evidence-iran-seeking-nuclear-weapons.html
> 
> For those who think I'm attempting to sidestep an intelligent conversation I point you to that thread I made on the subject, where I was repeatedly insulted by rhodescholar for posting a fact.  Does anyone really think that that's an example of an intelligent conversation?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is not also a fact that iran has consistently blocked IAEA inspections?
Click to expand...


You attract more flies with honey, than with vinegar.


----------



## rhodescholar

Cold Fusion38 said:


> Well it worked in Iraq.



Not if you were saddam...long-term, blocking inspections is a losing game, eventually either you get the shit bombed out of you and invaded, or you publically test a weapon, at which point you become a worldwide pariah.

Ask NK and pakistan how their economies are doing today, and how obtaining nukes has helped them develop better societies...


----------



## elvis

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> rhodescholar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, I claimed that the head of the IAEA said that there was no evidence of Iran seeking nuclear weapons, and then provided a source.  I've also pointed out that a gut feeling is not evidence.
> 
> http://www.usmessageboard.com/iran/81655-no-evidence-iran-seeking-nuclear-weapons.html
> 
> For those who think I'm attempting to sidestep an intelligent conversation I point you to that thread I made on the subject, where I was repeatedly insulted by rhodescholar for posting a fact.  Does anyone really think that that's an example of an intelligent conversation?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is not also a fact that iran has consistently blocked IAEA inspections?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You attract more flies with honey, than with vinegar.
Click to expand...


soft power, heh?


----------



## rhodescholar

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> You attract more flies with honey, than with vinegar.



The expected non-answer from the resident fucking moron.

If you were a stock, you'd be enron right now...


----------



## rhodescholar

elvis3577 said:


> soft power, heh?



More like zero brain power...

Elvis, do you think this person has a clue what an asshole she comes across as?  Or that a person this big of a fucking turd could be so different in their real-world lives?


----------



## elvis

rhodescholar said:


> elvis3577 said:
> 
> 
> 
> soft power, heh?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> More like zero brain power...
> 
> Elvis, do you think this person has a clue what an asshole she comes across as?  Or that a person this big of a fucking turd could be so different in their real-world lives?
Click to expand...


you should look into some of Chris' threads.  he is the daftest **** on the board, followed closely by Old Rocks.


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy

rhodescholar said:


> elvis3577 said:
> 
> 
> 
> soft power, heh?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> More like zero brain power...
> 
> Elvis, do you think this person has a clue what an asshole she comes across as?  Or that a person this big of a fucking turd could be so different in their real-world lives?
Click to expand...


Yet it's you that resorts to name calling and slandering.


----------



## rhodescholar

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> Yet it's you that resorts to name calling and slandering.



I insult you because you are an asshole, I tried to be civil in the past with you, and you continued to troll.  

At this point, I just allow you to make an asshole of yourself as you twist and turn to avoid answering an obvious question that would make you look stupid...


----------



## rhodescholar

elvis3577 said:


> you should look into some of Chris' threads.  he is the daftest **** on the board, followed closely by Old Rocks.



The whole idea of engaging in web forums is to try and locate intelligent people, willing to enter good conversations, and to learn things.

Unfortunately, this forum has a number of pieces of shit that should, IMO, have been excised a while back, and the ones in my sig should have been the first to go.

There are enough assholes here that one does not need to go seek out the worst amongst them...


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy

rhodescholar said:


> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yet it's you that resorts to name calling and slandering.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I insult you because you are an asshole, I tried to be civil in the past with you, and you continued to troll.
> 
> At this point, I just allow you to make an asshole of yourself as you twist and turn to avoid answering an obvious question that would make you look stupid...
Click to expand...


Yeah, that's what happened.


----------



## goldcatt

Cold Fusion38 said:


> Attacking Iran would be a REALLY stupid thing to do.



Nice to see you again, and you of course know my views on the subject of Iran. DifftOp and I were pretty clear on the old board. 
For the natives, that means I am vehemently opposed to military action in Iran in favor of trying to keep a muzzle on Bibi long enough to let the resistance work regime change from within. Why squander even more of our time, blood and treasure on something somebody else (and somebody far more appropriate to the task) is doing anyway?
All of my other posted reasons stand and more, but that's the simplified version.


----------



## goldcatt

rhodescholar said:


> goldcatt said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, I repped him for his patience in not attacking you. I've seen a lot of vulgar trolls, but you're really something else.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'd bet $100 this is another sock puppet... ;(
Click to expand...


Good. I can always use a few bucks. Cash, certified check or money order only, please.

I came over from the now-defunct MSNBC board, which had a lot of inanity and vile filth trolling on it. Doesn't take much in the way of gray matter to get your number, sparky. You're not even very clever about it. At least some of them were funny, you're just revolting.


----------



## Dr Grump

rhodescholar said:


> I'd rather be hated and respected than detested and thought of as an idiot.



Who respects you? I know a lot of people dislike you. And most people I know don't think Kev is an ijit...you on the other hand.....


----------



## rhodescholar

Dr Grump said:


> rhodescholar said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'd rather be hated and respected than detested and thought of as an idiot.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Who respects you? I know a lot of people dislike you. And most people I know don't think Kev is an ijit...you on the other hand.....
Click to expand...


The people who can hold an adult conversation on topic for more than 2 sentences do.  

The people who disagree with me who are unable to debate on the facts, trash like KK, sunni, shogun, etc and conduct flyby trolling posts offer nothing of interest.

There are seemingly a shitload of puppets lately, as many who have attacked me lately are seemingly using very similar language.  But since you keep pretending to "defend" KK, I'll ask you the same question: 

If iran is blocking IAEA inspections, how can evidence be acquired?


----------



## Dr Grump

rhodescholar said:


> The people who can hold an adult conversation on topic for more than 2 sentences do.
> 
> The people who disagree with me who are unable to debate on the facts, trash like KK, sunni, shogun, etc and conduct flyby trolling posts offer nothing of interest.
> 
> There are seemingly a shitload of puppets lately, as many who have attacked me lately are seemingly using very similar language.  But since you keep pretending to "defend" KK, I'll ask you the same question:
> 
> If iran is blocking IAEA inspections, how can evidence be acquired?



Shoggie and Sunni I understand.But from where I'm sitting Kev is handing your arse to you on a plate.....

I don't give a shit if Iran are blocking IAEA inspections. How many inspections has the US had lately?


----------



## rhodescholar

Dr Grump said:


> Shoggie and Sunni I understand.But from where I'm sitting Kev is handing your arse to you on a plate.....



With lines that completely avoid the thread topic, like "you get better results with honey"?  Is that your source to pass a judgement?  Most bright people use facts to debate, not base decisions on personal opinions.  I've defended people here who are as far left and politically opposed to me as humanly possible, because they stuck to the thread topic and used facts.

Saying that he is "handing your ass to me" says #1-your a sock puppet #2-no interest in facts, only BS...



> I don't give a shit if Iran are blocking IAEA inspections. How many inspections has the US had lately?



What the US is doing or not doing is irrelevent to the iran question.  As so many far leftists on the other thread pointed out, Israel cannot claim its behavior is not bad because it is better than someone else's, an argument I will happily use here...

Iran cannot claim it is not going to allow inspections because another country does or does not allow them.

Since you asked about inspections in the US:

DEFENSE TREATY INSPECTION READINESS PROGRAM

http://www.earthtimes.org/articles/...aea-inspections-hopes-others-will-follow.html

My point was that evidence, as demanded by some poster, cannot be obtained if the IAEA inspections are illegally blocked.

That this fucking idiot moron continues to avoid this obvious fact - an act many liberals who are all emotion and no facts do - is hilarious.


----------



## Shogun

rhodescholar said:


> L.K.Eder said:
> 
> 
> 
> believe me, it is not a compliment.
> 
> rhodescholar simply cannot handle dissent. support his opinion, he will thank you and call you brilliant.
> challenge his opinion, he will mount one of the sewer-rats near him and rain insults on you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is a compliment.  There are many posters here who i disagree with, but we have had VERY civil, reasonable conversations - on may topics, and in many threads.
> 
> *The problem with the trash like shogun, KK, sunni man etc, is that they are NOT even remotely interested in an intelligent conversation - only to insult/bait/troll.*
Click to expand...


its a little early in the week to win the fucking irony award, eh?


----------



## L.K.Eder

i thought about it one more time.

it is NOT time to attack iran.


----------



## Shogun

rhodescholar said:


> goldcatt said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wow, nobody's ever accused me of being a sock puppet before. I believe I'll sit back and watch this one. No offense to anyone involved, but your feud is none of my business and I don't know y'all well enough to take a side.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Can't get into it, but a douchebag was fucking with the forums last week using many puppet accounts, so I am now VERY cautious with new users... sorry about that, but that's what things have come to here...
Click to expand...


HA!  you'd think anyone who disagrees with you is a sockpuppet, idiot!  Laughing at you makes Mondays a lot more fun.


----------



## Shogun

rhodescholar said:


> Dr Grump said:
> 
> 
> 
> You'd know.
> 
> Joined up yet to go fight the good fight Cyber Warrior........?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> All I know is what people have PM'd me... even in this thread K-**** is baiting... sick little turd that it is...
Click to expand...


Didn't you JUST cry like a little bitch about name calling?


----------



## Shogun

rhodescholar said:


> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well I suppose it's possible that people have PM'd you to tell me how much they dislike me, but I'm going to doubt it.  I don't know of anyone on this board that would be afraid to say what they think of anybody else in public.  Also, why in the world would they go to you?  A mod would be the obvious choice if people had that big of a problem with me.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I promised to not mention names, but suffice to say, many people not only dislike you, they think you are of very low intelligence.
> 
> I'd rather be hated and respected than detested and thought of as an idiot.
> 
> Your continued baiting and refusal to discuss iran's blocking of IAEA inspections doesn't help much.
Click to expand...


HAHAHA!

You are bluffing, you fucking LIAR! 

names.. lets see em.


----------



## Shogun

rhodescholar said:


> goldcatt said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, I repped him for his patience in not attacking you. I've seen a lot of vulgar trolls, but you're really something else.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'd bet $100 this is another sock puppet... ;(
Click to expand...


SOCK PUUUPPETS EEEVERYWHEREEEE!


----------



## Shogun

rhodescholar said:


> elvis3577 said:
> 
> 
> 
> you should look into some of Chris' threads.  he is the daftest **** on the board, followed closely by Old Rocks.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The whole idea of engaging in web forums is to try and locate intelligent people, willing to enter good conversations, and to learn things.
> 
> Unfortunately, this forum has a number of pieces of shit that should, IMO, have been excised a while back, and the ones in my sig should have been the first to go.
> 
> There are enough assholes here that one does not need to go seek out the worst amongst them...
Click to expand...


I guess that is too fucking bad for you, pussy.  Your opinion means two things: jack and shit.



I guess it is time for you to take your bitch ass back to www.deepthroatajoo.com, eh?


----------



## Shogun

*Saying that he is "handing your ass to me" says #1-your a sock puppet #2-no interest in facts, only BS...*


now GUMP is a sock puppet too!




Anyone else getting the voice of Cobra Commander when you Rhode's posts?  

"SSSsssssssooock  Puppppettttsssssssss!!"


----------



## Cold Fusion38

Attacking Iran would be a REALLY stupid thing to do.


----------



## rdean

*If iran blocks inspections, how can evidence be acquired? *

I'm trying to figure out why it's OK for us to bully other countries halfway around the world into letting "inspectors" in.  We don't let "inspectors" into our country.
That is why we practice "diplomacy", something Republicans aren't very good at.
Why?  Because God is on their side.


----------



## rhodescholar

rdean said:


> I'm trying to figure out why it's OK for us to bully other countries halfway around the world into letting "inspectors" in.  We don't let "inspectors" into our country.That is why we practice "diplomacy", something Republicans aren't very good at.
> Why?  Because God is on their side.



WTF?  I just posted how the US is EXPANDING their IAEA inspections throughout the US...did you even bother to read it?


----------



## Cold Fusion38

rdean.......I wonder how many more elections like 2000 we will have to have before the UN steps in to make sure our elections are not fixed.


----------



## L.K.Eder

IAEA - Safeguards Statement for 2008



> During 2008, the Director General submitted four reports to the Board of Governors on the implementation of Iran´s comprehensive safeguards agreement and relevant provisions of United Nations Security Council resolutions (GOV/2008/4, GOV/2008/15, GOV/2008/38 and GOV/2008/59). Iran provided the Agency with access to declared nuclear material and provided the required nuclear material accounting reports in connection with declared nuclear material and facilities. *The Agency was able to verify the non-diversion of the declared nuclear material in Iran in 2008.*
> Since March 2007, *Iran has not implemented* the modified text of its Subsidiary Arrangements General Part, Code 3.1, on the early provision of design information. Iran has continued to object to the Agency´s carrying out of design information verification (DIV) at the Iran Nuclear Research Reactor (IR-40) and d*id not permit the Agency to carry out the DIV* scheduled for October 2008 at that facility.
> In 2008, Iran and the Agency continued to address issues related to Iran´s past nuclear activities. At the end of 2008, there remained a number of *outstanding issues that need to be clarified* since they give rise to concern about possible military dimensions to Iran´s nuclear programme. These issues relate to the alleged studies on the green salt project, high explosives testing and the design of a missile re-entry vehicle; the circumstances of the acquisition of the uranium metal document; procurement and research and development (R&D) activities of military related institutes and companies that could be nuclear related; and the production of nuclear equipment and components by companies belonging to defence industries. I*ran has not provided substantive information or access to relevant documentation, locations or individuals that would have allowed the Agency to make progress on these issues.*
> *Unless Iran implements the above transparency measures and the Additional Protocol, as required by the Security Council, the Agency will not be in a position to provide credible assurance about the absence of undeclared nuclear material and activities in Iran.*
> Contrary to the decisions of the United Nations Security Council, Iran did not implement the additional protocol and *did not suspend its enrichment related activities in 2008*, having continued with the operation of the Pilot Fuel Enrichment Plant and the construction and operation of the Fuel Enrichment Plant at Natanz. Iran also continued its work on heavy water related projects, including the construction of a heavy water moderated research reactor at Arak. There was no indication of reprocessing related activities at any declared facilities in Iran in 2008.


It is my opinion that Iran is on the way to develop a nuclear weapon.

And why not, history has shown that you are on the safe side as soon as you forced your way into the nuclear club.  no matter how. so of course, they want to be a member of this club.

It is also my opinion that a nuclear Iran would not do anything with those weapons. They are NOT crazy. But they saw what happened to the neighbors.


----------



## Cold Fusion38

Iran will have their hands tied if they get a nuclear weapon. It is a weapon that does nothing but ensure your total destruction if it's used.


----------



## rhodescholar

LKE, good post above, it wasn't too hard for someone to find the answer to my question now, was it?



L.K.Eder said:


> It is my opinion that Iran is on the way to develop a nuclear weapon.



Manufacturing a nuclear weapon is a direct violation of the NPT treaty, and could be considered an act of war.  Since iran has already been sanctioned 3 times for NPT violations, iran could then potentially be referred as a violator of both article 6 and 7 of the UN charter, which would legally allow for a war to be initiated against them...



> and why not, history has shown that you are on the safe side as soon as you forced your way into the nuclear club.  no matter how. so of course, they want to be a member of this club.  It is also my opinion that a nuclear Iran would not do anything with those weapons. They are NOT crazy. But they saw what happened to the neighbors.



Are you certain they would not use one - or absolutely sure they would not hand one over to one of their terror proxies?

Since they do not allow inspections, there is no way to track the uranium back to them - they could even drop one themselves on Paris from an iranian plane, and you couldn't prove it was them, since noone has catalogued their uranium...


----------



## del

rhodescholar said:


> LKE, good post above, it wasn't too hard for someone to find the answer to my question now, was it?
> 
> 
> 
> L.K.Eder said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is my opinion that Iran is on the way to develop a nuclear weapon.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Manufacturing a nuclear weapon is a direct violation of the NPT treaty, and could be considered an act of war.  Since iran has already been sanctioned 3 times for NPT violations, iran could then potentially be referred as a violator of both article 6 and 7 of the UN charter, which would legally allow for a war to be initiated against them...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> and why not, history has shown that you are on the safe side as soon as you forced your way into the nuclear club.  no matter how. so of course, they want to be a member of this club.  It is also my opinion that a nuclear Iran would not do anything with those weapons. They are NOT crazy. But they saw what happened to the neighbors.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you certain they would not use one - or absolutely sure they would not hand one over to one of their terror proxies?
> 
> Since they do not allow inspections, there is no way to track the uranium back to them - they could even drop one themselves on Paris from an iranian plane, and *you couldn't prove it was them, since noone has catalogued their uranium...*
Click to expand...


kinda like israel, huh?


----------



## rhodescholar

For further reading, and from just this past month, from LKE's link:

http://www.iaea.org/Publications/Documents/Board/2009/gov2009-35.pdf

C. Heavy Water Reactor Related Projects
7. The Agency last visited the Iran Nuclear Research Reactor (IR-40) in August 2008
(GOV/2008/59, para. 9). On 22 April 2009, the Agency again requested access to carry out design information verification (DIV) at the IR-40. In a letter dated 3 May 2009 referring to previous communications concerning the submission of design information, * Iran informed the Agency that it would not permit the Agency to carry out the DIV.* 

* 8. Iran&#8217;s refusal to grant the Agency access to IR-40 could adversely impact the Agency&#8217;s ability to carry out effective safeguards at that facility, and has made it difficult for the Agency to report further on the construction of the reactor, as requested by the Security Council. The completion of the containment structure over the reactor building, and the roofing for the other buildings on the site, makes it impossible to assess further progress on construction inside the buildings without access to the facility. However, satellite imagery suggests that construction is continuing at the reactor site.*

---------------------

Further down:

E. Possible Military Dimensions
17. *  As detailed in the Director General&#8217;s previous reports to the Board (most recently in GOV/2009/8, para. 15), there remain a number of outstanding issues which give rise to concerns, and which need to be clarified to exclude the existence of possible military dimensions to Iran&#8217;s nuclear programme.  As indicated in those reports, for the Agency to be able to address these concerns and make progress in its efforts to provide assurance about the absence of undeclared nuclear material and activities in Iran, it is essential that Iran, inter alia, implement the Additional Protocol and provide the information and access requested by the Agency. The Agency has still not received a positive reply from Iran in connection with the Agency&#8217;s requests for access to relevant information, documentation, locations or individuals.*

F. Summary
19. As has been reported in previous reports, the Agency continues to verify the non-diversion of declared nuclear material in Iran. 20. Iran has not, however, implemented the modified text of its Subsidiary Arrangements General Part, Code 3.1, on the early provision of design information, and has continued to refuse to permit the Agency to carry out design information verification at IR-40.
21. Iran has not suspended its enrichment related activities or its work on heavy water related projects as required by the Security Council. 
22. Contrary to the request of the Board of Governors and the requirements of the Security Council, * Iran has neither implemented the Additional Protocol nor cooperated with the Agency in connection with the remaining issues which give rise to concerns and which need to be clarified to exclude the possibility of military dimensions to Iran&#8217;s nuclear programme. Unless Iran implements the Additional Protocol and clarifies the outstanding issues, the Agency will not be in a position to provide credible assurance about the absence of undeclared nuclear material and activities in Iran.*


----------



## rhodescholar

del said:


> kinda like israel, huh?



#1-please show me where israel signed the NPT 

#2-as you and the other posters screamed in the other thread - what another nation does or does not do has no bearing here...if you are going to use that argument to attack israel for human rights violations, i am going to bash people over the head with it when it suits me to do so.  Consistency counts, sweetie


----------



## del

"Unlike Iran and North Korea - two countries whose alleged nuclear ambitions have recently come to the fore - Israel has never signed the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, designed to prevent the global spread of nuclear weapons.

As a result, it is not subject to inspections and the threat of sanctions by the United Nations nuclear watchdog, the International Atomic Energy Agency." 

now why is this okay? take your time.


----------



## rhodescholar

del said:


> now why is this okay? take your time.



Excellent question.  The issue, sadly for you in this thread, is not whether it is fair or not for a nation to freely enter/not enter a treaty - it is whether iran, who has upon its own free will signed and is therefore, bound by said treaty, and needs to fulfill its obligations to it.

If you have a problem with the fact that israel, india, and pakistan, against their own free will, should be compelled to sign this treaty, by all means, start a new thread.

But since the NPT was never compulsory, it has no place here.  Sorry...

BTW, N korea unilaterally exited the NPT, which is also an act of war.  As I understand it, a nation can choose whether to sign the treaty or not; but once it is a signatory, it cannot just walk away from it.


----------



## del

rhodescholar said:


> del said:
> 
> 
> 
> now why is this okay? take your time.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Excellent question.  The issue, sadly for you in this thread, is not whether it is fair or not for a nation to freely enter/not enter a treaty - it is whether iran, who has upon its own free will signed and is therefore, bound by said treaty, and needs to fulfill its obligations to it.
> 
> If you have a problem with the fact that israel, india, and pakistan, against their own free will, should be compelled to sign this treaty, by all means, start a new thread.
> 
> But since the NPT was never compulsory, it has no place here.  Sorry...
Click to expand...


well if it's not compulsory, then iran has no need to comply.

sucks to be you, huh?
sorry...


----------



## rhodescholar

Cold Fusion38 said:


> Iran will have their hands tied if they get a nuclear weapon. It is a weapon that does nothing but ensure your total destruction if it's used.



It is really just the opposite.  It is just the threat of it, having one as an umbrella under which their terrorist proxies can operate under, is sufficient to panic.

If iran were to allow hezbollah to conduct greater operations in europe, what would be europe's recourse?  How would they or anyone else stop them, if iran were to declare a mutual defense pact openly with hezbollah, saying an attack against hez is an attack against iran?

This would give iran a huge amount of latitude to further de-stabilize nations and regions, and would inevitably lead to a major war.  Now is the time that that can be prevented; in a few years we might have immense regrets for not taking action to doing so.

The bottom line is that, if I'm wrong, iran's facilities are smashed, and the terror proxies weakened.  But if the pacifists are wrong, the world could be entering a Dark Age the ikes we have not seen for 800 years...


----------



## rhodescholar

del said:


> well if it's not compulsory, then iran has no need to comply.
> 
> sucks to be you, huh?
> sorry...



No, the choice of signing the treaty or not is optional - but once a nation signs it they ARE legally obligated to follow it to the letter.  The legal enforcement mechanism is the UNSC.


----------



## L.K.Eder

rhodescholar said:


> LKE, good post above, it wasn't too hard for someone to find the answer to my question now, was it?



no it wasn't. i guess that no one posted this before has more to do with the fact that you display such obnoxious behavior. i could have posted that days or weeks (?) ago, but felt not inspired.



rhodescholar said:


> L.K.Eder said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is my opinion that Iran is on the way to develop a nuclear weapon.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Manufacturing a nuclear weapon is a direct violation of the NPT treaty, and could be considered an act of war.  Since iran has already been sanctioned 3 times for NPT violations, iran could then potentially be referred as a violator of both article 6 and 7 of the UN charter, which would legally allow for a war to be initiated against them...
Click to expand...



well, there is an easy solution, iran just has to retreat from the stupid treaty like north korea did. then they can join the pro-proliferation treaty together with israel, india, pakistan, north korea and nukehavistan



rhodescholar said:


> L.K.Eder said:
> 
> 
> 
> and why not, history has shown that you are on the safe side as soon as you forced your way into the nuclear club.  no matter how. so of course, they want to be a member of this club.  It is also my opinion that a nuclear Iran would not do anything with those weapons. They are NOT crazy. But they saw what happened to the neighbors.
> 
> 
> 
> Are you certain they would not use one - or absolutely sure they would not hand one over to one of their terror proxies?
> 
> Since they do not allow inspections, there is no way to track the uranium back to them - they could even drop one themselves on Paris from an iranian plane, and you couldn't prove it was them, since noone has catalogued their uranium...
Click to expand...


i am quite certain, but of course not absolutely sure. i am also not absolutely sure that some rogue or moron from the US does not do  something stupid or heinous with the nuclear devices.


----------



## del

rhodescholar said:


> del said:
> 
> 
> 
> well if it's not compulsory, then iran has no need to comply.
> 
> sucks to be you, huh?
> sorry...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, the choice of signing the treaty or not is optional - but once a nation signs it they ARE legally obligated to follow it to the letter.  The legal enforcement mechanism is the UNSC.
Click to expand...


how's that working out?


----------



## rdean

rhodescholar  
But if the pacifists are wrong, the world could be entering a Dark Age the likes we have not seen for 800 years... 

there is no way to track the uranium back to them - they could even drop one themselves on Paris from an Iranian plane, and you couldn't prove it was them, since noone has catalogued their uranium... 


Ever hear the story of "Chicken Little"?  "THE SKY IS FALLING!":

That's what you sound like.  Do you seriously believe that Iran would be able to "secretly" fly a plane over Paris, or even outside its own borders?  A plane big enough to carry a primitive nuclear device?  And no one would know it?  It's almost funny.

They have to have "inspectors" because we have inspectors? 

How many times has Iran attacked its neighbors?  They fought with Iraq, but who started it?

THE SKY IS FALLING!  THE SKY IS FALLING!


----------



## Gurdari

rhodescholar said:


> Gurdari said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not exactly as you described... he is saying they would have a stalemate because the result of such a attack by each party would damage one less than the other.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Funny how we do not hear israel threatening other nations 1,000 miles away...
Click to expand...


Not sure what proximity has to do with it, but we hear Israel threatening Iran, so however many miles they are both apart it is still a credible threat, no?



rhodescholar said:


> Hahaha - so is the US a legit target for attack because of these activities? You must feel that they are, since Iran is.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Absolutely, it is an act of war, and Nicaragua is welcome to try, just as israel, after suffering decades of bombings and missile strikes from iran's poodles, is welcome to destroy iran.
Click to expand...

Wow, I am surprised you feel the US is a legit target for attack. Most people here tend to gloss over responsibility when it comes to the good guys. So, while I don ot see Iran's actions toward Israel as nearly as aggressive as US actions towards Nicaragua (I mean really, is there even a comparison?) it does seem like you are saying might makes right ("Nicaragua is welcome to try"). So, if Nicaragua is too weak to fight back, tough shit. Well, Nicaragua actually took the high road and went in search of help from international law - which the US thumbed its nose at. (two standards remember)

So, in the interest of both internal and external peace - one should hesitate to promote strength as a means of settling disputes. Unless you believe (nationally, for example) that police forces should be disbanded as well, and roving gangs of the most powerful be left to settle grievances. To me that would be a step back - upholding the law - one law for all - seems to send us in a more wise direction. 




rhodescholar said:


> Is this a joke?  Please list for us the "good things" hamas has "done" for the people of Gaza?


Without researching it this minute - I would say education, medical clinics, water, etc. but I really would need to research to give a good answer - however, this would be a new thread: "What has Hamas done (good or bad) for the people of Gaza"
Feel free to start it.



rhodescholar said:


> If they were "dicks" that did not want to control the middle east, i might agree - but they have hegemonic aspirations, and are applying them as i write this in four other countries.


So, having aspirations is a crime now... though you would need to be specific as to what laws they are breaking and how that is deserving of an attack... but what of the US's apirations (clearly applied) in the Middle east? Look at who has soldiers everywhere and who is dropping the bombs... unless you are against US involvment in the ME, you must agree Iran has just as much right (actually more right - they live there) to aspirations regarding that area of the world. Imagine Iran had troops all around these borders here, and had a history of meddling with the government - would you then see them more as international colleagues? Or peers?



rhodescholar said:


> If the US fit the same criteria as Iran - would the US deserve the same treatment? And an attack?  There should only be one anser - YES. Unless you're not applying your logic evenly...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As I said above, if the US illegally meddles in another nation's affairs, it is welcome to attack it.
Click to expand...

I agree - however I suspect you would change your tune if the US had a tiny army and eveyrone else had the power to f*ck it up. But, I really do not know how you would feel in that situation - other than to assume you would be protesting like crazy every time someone wanted to attack another nation.




rhodescholar said:


> ahaha - so they just have to 'pull out' of the NPT? Or why not violate at will like the US of A?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> #1 that is what N Korea did
> #2- how is the US "violating" the NPT?
Click to expand...


So, pulling out is fine - i.e. disregarding something is ok as long as you say 'I no longer wish to play by these rules'.

So, Iran should do that - then you and John Bolton can relax!
As for US violations - please do not take my word for it - fin dout for yourself, as you expressed earlier, the US could be inviting legitimate attacks.

Here are a few things I found that may relate:
Who is the Greatest Proliferator of Nuclear Weapons?
Ignoring the U.S.'s "Bad Atoms"

and:

Saturday, May 9, 2009
New York, United Nations headquarters, May 9, IRNA -- Iran on Friday called for instant and unconditional beginning of Non-Proliferation Treaty discussions.
Iranian delegation participating in the third meeting of the preliminary committee of the 2010 NPT Review Conference in a statement strongly criticized the failure of nuclear countries to fulfill their commitments envisaged by the NPT in past four decades.
The delegates also reviewed the international developments since the beginning of the third millennium and stressed that the repeated violation of NPT principles by certain nuclear states was a disappointing and backward trend which strongly damaged the spirit of the treaty.
The statement also cited such severe cases of NPT violations by certain world countries as development of new nuclear arms, threatening non-nuclear states by use of atomic arms, mass-production of tens of tons of plutonium and enriched uranium as well as the lack of transparency on the part of some nuclear countries over developing secret nuclear programs.
The Iranian delegation in the statement called on the meeting to focus on the concerns of world states about the expansion of nuclear programs of certain world states and urged it to adopt decisions to stop development and proliferation of new nuclear arms.


* Agian, read that with a "grain of salt", so to speak - we are in an argument here - and find out what the situation is on your own terms - Nuclear war is a threat to everything.


----------



## L.K.Eder

and because the US has the mighty military, no enemy would think of attacking with their puny military. they will use other methods; asymmetric warfare.  like the american revolutionaries, and the french resistance, and al qaeda.


----------



## rhodescholar

L.K.Eder said:


> no it wasn't. i guess that no one posted this before has more to do with the fact that you display such obnoxious behavior. i could have posted that days or weeks (?) ago, but felt not inspired.



If you haven't noticed, it is nearly impossible to get into a civilized discussion on this forum for more than 1 page, as there are many immature idiots who seek to derail any thread they dislike.



> well, there is an easy solution, iran just has to retreat from the stupid treaty like north korea did.



That is the point, they cannot legally do so - it is illegal to withdraw from the treaty.  A nation can decide whether they want to join or not, but once they do, they cannot legally exit it.  This is stated in the treaty itself.



> i am quite certain, but of course not absolutely sure. i am also not absolutely sure that some rogue or moron from the US does not do  something stupid or heinous with the nuclear devices.



I would have to believe that the US-designed safeguards are superior to the ones in place elsewhere.  They might be, as they are the model the IAEA uses to train other nations with respect to maintaining their nuclear materials, and weapons if they possess them.


----------



## rhodescholar

del said:


> how's that working out?



Clearly not well, which is why a war on the peninsula is all the more likely.


----------



## rhodescholar

rdean said:


> Ever hear the story of "Chicken Little"?  "THE SKY IS FALLING!": That's what you sound like.



Why is that?  Pakistan and india developed their nukes a full 10 years or so before the intelligence estimates timeline expected them to.  Now we have a potential nuclear war on the horizon, especially since paki is such an unstable, terror-driven shithole...

You cannot tell me that after the mumbai attack you were not concerned india was about to light pakistan up?  Then wait for another mumbai, or a coordinated series of them in multiple indian cities, and see how much your nerves hold out that india won't use a nuke after saying "enough is enough."



> Do you seriously believe that Iran would be able to "secretly" fly a plane over Paris, or even outside its own borders?  A plane big enough to carry a primitive nuclear device?  And no one would know it?  It's almost funny.



I was trying to be.  My point is that without inspections, noone outside of iran can determine where the detonated bomb material came from.

If you saw  "Sum of all fears," you might remember the scene were the protagonist traces the uranium back to its source.  That cannot be performed if the material is not first catalogued, and that is done through inspections and sample acquisition.



> They have to have "inspectors" because we have inspectors?



All signatories to the NPT are REQUIRED to allow unannounced inspections.



> How many times has Iran attacked its neighbors?  They fought with Iraq, but who started it?



How many times has israel attacked iran?  Yet iran has attacked israel multiple times...


----------



## L.K.Eder

rhodescholar said:


> L.K.Eder said:
> 
> 
> 
> no it wasn't. i guess that no one posted this before has more to do with the fact that you display such obnoxious behavior. i could have posted that days or weeks (?) ago, but felt not inspired.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you haven't noticed, it is nearly impossible to get into a civilized discussion on this forum for more than 1 page, as there are many immature idiots who seek to derail any thread they dislike.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> well, there is an easy solution, iran just has to retreat from the stupid treaty like north korea did.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That is the point, they cannot legally do so - it is illegal to withdraw from the treaty.  A nation can decide whether they want to join or not, but once they do, they cannot legally exit it.  This is stated in the treaty itself.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> i am quite certain, but of course not absolutely sure. i am also not absolutely sure that some rogue or moron from the US does not do  something stupid or heinous with the nuclear devices.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I would have to believe that the US-designed safeguards are superior to the ones in place elsewhere.  They might be, as they are the model the IAEA uses to train other nations with respect to maintaining their nuclear materials, and weapons if they possess them.
Click to expand...


as far as i know the Shah's Iran signed the treaty after some blackmailing. you don't get this stuff from us if you don't sign the treaty. 
i am not surprised that the mullahs don't feel like they have to honor that pact.

and north korea showed how to withdraw from that treaty. now they have nukes, and i doubt anything will be done about it.


----------



## rhodescholar

Gurdari said:


> Not sure what proximity has to do with it, but we hear Israel threatening Iran, so however many miles they are both apart it is still a credible threat, no?



Was that before or after iran threatened israel?

Was that before or after iran sent in hamas and hezbollah suicide bombers and rocket attacks?

Would you consider it an act of war if israel were to place non-uniformed proxy armies and mercs on iran's borders to fire mortars and rockets into iran, as well as send in suicide bombers into teheranian cafes?



> Wow, I am surprised you feel the US is a legit target for attack.



Consistency is important.



> So, while I don ot see Iran's actions toward Israel as nearly as aggressive as US actions towards Nicaragua (I mean really, is there even a comparison?)



I think you must be kidding - iran murdered via suicide bombins and rocket attacks thousands of israeli civilians.  The US provided money and weapons...



> So, if Nicaragua is too weak to fight back, tough shit. Well, Nicaragua actually took the high road and went in search of help from international law - which the US thumbed its nose at. (two standards remember)



Then a tiny nation should not fuck with a larger/more powerful one - like iran should not be attacking israel with proxies, and expecting to be able to claim they are not responsible.



> So, in the interest of both internal and external peace - one should hesitate to promote strength as a means of settling disputes. Unless you believe (nationally, for example) that police forces should be disbanded as well, and roving gangs of the most powerful be left to settle grievances. To me that would be a step back - upholding the law - one law for all - seems to send us in a more wise direction.



How would you propose to crush hamas and hezbollah, along with rogue nations like iran and their use of non-uniformed terror groups?



> So, having aspirations is a crime now...



Aspirations and influence throught trade, education, medical assistance, etc is fine - not through military might and the use of terrorism/proxy armies.



> but what of the US's apirations (clearly applied) in the Middle east? Look at who has soldiers everywhere and who is dropping the bombs... unless you are against US involvment in the ME, you must agree Iran has just as much right (actually more right - they live there) to aspirations regarding that area of the world.



The US removed a dictator, and is leaving the country - do you think the iraqis were better off under saddam?



> Imagine Iran had troops all around these borders here, and had a history of meddling with the government - would you then see them more as international colleagues? Or peers?



If their intentions were democratic and peaceful, as opposed to totalitarian...



> So, pulling out is fine - i.e. disregarding something is ok as long as you say 'I no longer wish to play by these rules'.



As i said, it is illegal to withdraw from the treaty.


----------



## rhodescholar

L.K.Eder said:


> and north korea showed how to withdraw from that treaty. now they have nukes, and i doubt anything will be done about it.



Is that something you advocate/wish for?  Why would any sane person want iran, who has just shown its true colors murdering thousands of its own people - to have nuclear weapons?

It has seemingly gotten to the point where to be reflexively anti-american, the Left will cheer for the world's worst rogue nations, no matter the larger issues or cost to those suffering under the regime's rule or reach.

Would you be as accepting of the US walking away from all of its own treaty obligations - including all of the arms control ones with russia, the UN, etc.?  Or are only anti-american rogue nations allowed to do that with impunity?


----------



## del

rhodescholar said:


> del said:
> 
> 
> 
> how's that working out?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Clearly not well, which is why a war on the peninsula is all the more likely.
Click to expand...


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy

I would personally advocate that the United States walk away from any "obligation" that threatens our sovereignty.  NATO, the UN, WTO, NAFTA, CAFTA, World Bank, IMF, etc...


----------



## L.K.Eder

rhodescholar said:


> L.K.Eder said:
> 
> 
> 
> and north korea showed how to withdraw from that treaty. now they have nukes, and i doubt anything will be done about it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Is that something you advocate/wish for?  Why would any sane person want iran, who has just shown its true colors murdering thousands of its own people - to have nuclear weapons?
> 
> It has seemingly gotten to the point where to be reflexively anti-american, the Left will cheer for the world's worst rogue nations, no matter the larger issues or cost to those suffering under the regime's rule or reach.
> 
> Would you be as accepting of the US walking away from all of its own treaty obligations - including all of the arms control ones with russia, the UN, etc.?  Or are only anti-american rogue nations allowed to do that with impunity?
Click to expand...


see, we almost had a decent conversation. then you go on a stupid rant again. you are the one advocating and wishing for war. 

link to the body count or retract your number.


----------



## rhodescholar

L.K.Eder said:


> see, we almost had a decent conversation. then you go on a stupid rant again. you are the one advocating and wishing for war.



I wasn't necessarily pointing at you exclusively.  My point was that many seemingly condone iran not having to act responsibly with respect to the NPT, or can use an d apply methods of violence - but these same people will scream to high heaven if/when the US does something similar.  I do not think that this statement is in question.



> link to the body count or retract your number.



The regime claims 20 have been killed, but there are widespread reports that there are thousands missing, with mass graves reported and bodies buried without the families being allowed to see them prior to burial.

See:

http://www.iranhumanrights.org/2009/06/list/


----------



## rhodescholar

del said:


> rhodescholar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> del said:
> 
> 
> 
> how's that working out?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Clearly not well, which is why a war on the peninsula is all the more likely.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


I know crazy notion, since there was already a war there, oh 50 years ago?  And its really far-fetched given that NK keeps firing missiles and stealing the citizens of japan, while illegally testing nuclear weapons and threatening s korea, yeah that is really far-fetched LOL.

Clueless...


----------



## Shogun

*No need to, the regime claims 20 have been killed, but there are widespread reports that there are thousands missing, with mass graves reported and bodies buried without the families being allowed to see them prior to burial.*



eh.. who needs evidence when some self righteous screaming dickhead can type his assumptions out in the quick reply field.


----------



## HUGGY

Shogun said:


> *No need to, the regime claims 20 have been killed, but there are widespread reports that there are thousands missing, with mass graves reported and bodies buried without the families being allowed to see them prior to burial.*
> 
> 
> 
> eh.. who needs evidence when some self righteous screaming dickhead can type his assumptions out in the quick reply field.



*who needs evidence when some self righteous screaming dickhead can type his assumptions out in the quick reply field*

No one that advocates a war of choice is self righteous...a screaming dickhead that can type... maybe.


----------



## L.K.Eder

rhodescholar said:


> L.K.Eder said:
> 
> 
> 
> see, we almost had a decent conversation. then you go on a stupid rant again. you are the one advocating and wishing for war.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I wasn't necessarily pointing at you exclusively.  My point was that many seemingly condone iran not having to act responsibly with respect to the NPT, or can use an d apply methods of violence - but these same people will scream to high heaven if/when the US does something similar.  I do not think that this statement is in question.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> link to the body count or retract your number.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The regime claims 20 have been killed, but there are widespread reports that there are thousands missing, with mass graves reported and bodies buried without the families being allowed to see them prior to burial.
> 
> See:
> 
> International Campaign for Human Rights in Iran  Killed and Detained Since 12 June
Click to expand...


yeah, that source does not support your "thousands slaughtered" talking point.

reminds of the crocodile tears for the iraqi kurds. tha mass graves, saddam is bad man! war! war! war!

yours are crocodile tears, too, and you try to use the victims in Iran to find an excuse to start a war. 

you are on record, and i write this the third or forth time now, for rooting for ahmadinejad and for advocating terrorist attacks on the iranian civilian population.
 
ETA links


----------



## rhodescholar

L.K.Eder said:


> yeah, that source does not support your "thousands slaughtered" talking point.



This one does, and I will acquire more:

International Left Should Stop Supporting Iran's Islamic Regime | Mostly Water

http://www.frontpagemag.com/readArticle.aspx?ARTID=30138

The regime has murdered tens of thousands of people, and only in the last few weeks, thousands more have disappeared...



> reminds of the crocodile tears for the iraqi kurds. tha mass graves, saddam is bad man! war! war! war!



#1-are you claiming that several thousand kurds were not gassed and murdered?
#2-are you also claiming that mass graves were not found by US troops after saddam's overthrow?



> yours are crocodile tears, too, and you try to use the victims in Iran to find an excuse to start a war.



I state that there are times when only a military solution will suffice, and after 6 years and 3 UNSC resolutions, with zero progress, it is time for a new approach.



> you are on record, and i write this the third or forth time now, for ...



I noticed that when the other poster claimed that attacks against the US would be justifiable by other nations, such as Nicaragua, you made no comment.

When I said I agreed with the other poster about that point, you again made no comment.

Who is being selectively critical here?


----------



## rhodescholar

L.K.Eder said:


> you are on record, and i write this the third or forth time now, for rooting for ahmadinejad and for advocating terrorist attacks on the iranian civilian population.
> ETA links



Any iranian citizens, or citizens of anywhere else, that support suicide bombings and rocket attacks against civilians deserve to receive the same.  I stand by my comment...


----------



## L.K.Eder

rhodescholar said:


> L.K.Eder said:
> 
> 
> 
> yeah, that source does not support your "thousands slaughtered" talking point.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This one does, and I will acquire more:
> 
> International Left Should Stop Supporting Iran's Islamic Regime | Mostly Water
> 
> FrontPage Magazine - Iranâs Killing Fields
> 
> The regime has murdered tens of thousands of people, and only in the last few weeks, thousands more have disappeared...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> reminds of the crocodile tears for the iraqi kurds. tha mass graves, saddam is bad man! war! war! war!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> #1-are you claiming that several thousand kurds were not gassed and murdered?
> #2-are you also claiming that mass graves were not found by US troops after saddam's overthrow?
Click to expand...


no i am not claiming this. i am claiming that when the actual gassing happened that no one in the USA was too much interested in all this. either too busy cheering on Saddam against the evil "Islamofascists" who were attacked by Saddam, or ignorant of it.

the gassed kurds became interesting when they could be pimped to excuse the war of choice in iraq, but you knew that.



rhodescholar said:


> L.K.Eder said:
> 
> 
> 
> yours are crocodile tears, too, and you try to use the victims in Iran to find an excuse to start a war.
> 
> 
> 
> I state that there are times when only a military solution will suffice, and after 6 years and 3 UNSC resolutions, with zero progress, it is time for a new approach.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> you are on record, and i write this the third or forth time now, for ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I noticed that when the other poster claimed that attacks against the US would be justifiable by other nations, such as Nicaragua, you made no comment.
> 
> When I said I agreed with the other poster about that point, you again made no comment.
> 
> Who is being selectively critical here?
Click to expand...


i am selectively critical of you, because i am having a conversation with you.

and i actually commented on that, as i recall you had the "bring it on" attitude knowing that the nicaraguan army would never try something as foolish as attacking the US. but if nicaraguan agents would use guerrilla warfare / terrorism to fight the US in the USA, you'd break down crying and screaming, this is no fair. nuke the bastard animals, right?


----------



## L.K.Eder

this is what you wrote:



> Is that something you advocate/wish for? Why would any sane person want iran, *who has just shown its true colors murdering thousands of its own people* - to have nuclear weapons?


clearly states that you are talking about the RECENT crackdown.

you confirmed that with your first try at sourcing.

now you try to run this bullshit by me. where it states among all the "leftist" screaching that their number is the number of all murdered since 1979 with the last major purge in 1988. 



> The last major wave of the purge of the revolutionaries was during July-September of 1988, when Khomeini, having signed the cease fire with Iraq (he called it "drinking of the poison goblet"), gave a religious edict (fatwa) to execute all political prisoners. Close to 5,000 persons, including revolutionary workers and communists, were hanged and executed in prisons all over Iran.


the site of the mass graves for this massacre btw, the khavaran cemetery was recently destroyed.

your second source has an interview which starts with this:



> *Nikbakht: *Thank you for your concern and for having me on the Frontpage. It is nice to see there are alternatives to the traditional left and "liberals" who have abandoned their pretense of defending freedom and equality worldwide and have allied themselves with Islamic fundamentalists and extremists.




you fucked up again.


----------



## rhodescholar

L.K.Eder said:


> you confirmed that with your first try at sourcing.



Ok, fine.  Lets stick to the RECENT crackdown.  So the iri fuckers murder a few hundred, and thousands are missing, but that's alright?  

Its like listening to the holocaust deniers- "there were _ only THREE _ million killed - definitely NOT _ SIX _ million... 

Who gives a fuck?

Further, what is your point?  That the animals running iran are not so monstrous?



> you fucked up again.



Uh, how's that?


----------



## Cold Fusion38

del said:


> "Unlike Iran and North Korea - two countries whose alleged nuclear ambitions have recently come to the fore - Israel has never signed the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, designed to prevent the global spread of nuclear weapons.
> 
> As a result, it is not subject to inspections and the threat of sanctions by the United Nations nuclear watchdog, the International Atomic Energy Agency."
> 
> now why is this okay? take your time.






Because it's ISREAL!!! How many UN mandates has Israel broken?


----------



## Cold Fusion38

Well since somebody brought up the Kurds I seem to remember us leaving them with their dicks out after GWI. Seems to me they were trying to overthrow Saddam with help from the CIA but we pulled our support and sat back while they were slaughtered.


----------



## Cold Fusion38

You see if you want to look at the larger world wide consequenses of our foreign policy then you will see that the US has supported nearly every dictator ay one time or another and you wonder why so many people HATE us.


----------



## rhodescholar

L.K.Eder said:


> no i am not claiming this. i am claiming that when the actual gassing happened that no one in the USA was too much interested in all this. either too busy cheering on Saddam against the evil "Islamofascists" who were attacked by Saddam, or ignorant of it.  the gassed kurds became interesting when they could be pimped to excuse the war of choice in iraq, but you knew that.



I do not totally agree, but understand your point.  Remember, back in 1988 there was no internet like today, so the media was alot smaller than it is today...



> and i actually commented on that, as i recall you had the "bring it on" attitude knowing that the nicaraguan army would never try something as foolish as attacking the US. but if nicaraguan agents would use guerrilla warfare / terrorism to fight the US in the USA, you'd break down crying and screaming, this is no fair. nuke the bastard animals, right?



Not at all.  Uniformed, direct frontal assaults are acceptable - non-uniformed attacks against civilians using asymmetrical attacks like suicide bombings are not.

If the Nicaraguans were in the right, World Opinion would have favored them...


----------



## Cold Fusion38

How the hell am I an "unknown" quantity? I think I have made my position pretty clear.


----------



## Cold Fusion38

Hey Rhoad so if we ILLEGALLY INVADE a country then are they required to all go out and buy uniforms? And make no mistake about it a PREVENTITIVE war is NOT the same as a PREEMTIVE war.


----------



## rhodescholar

Cold Fusion38 said:


> Because it's ISREAL!!! How many UN mandates has Israel broken?



LOL, this thread is like a leftist's wet dream, every cause of the moment for the leftist chic gets a push by someone...


----------



## rhodescholar

Here is a superb web site of persians, BY persians, of the people murdered by the regime, and those who have "disappeared"...

Faces of the Iranians killed and Arrested


----------



## Cold Fusion38

Ah Rhoad no answer huh?


----------



## Sunni Man

rhodescholar said:


> Here is a superb web site of persians, BY persians, of the people murdered by the regime, and those who have "disappeared"...
> 
> Faces of the Iranians killed and Arrested


Most likely a CIA or a Zionist backed and funded site.


----------



## goldcatt

Cold Fusion38 said:


> How the hell am I an "unknown" quantity? I think I have made my position pretty clear.



Might as well give up, Cold. You're trying to converse with a person who thinks people care enough about it to create hundreds of sock puppets just to harass it. 

Better to decide whether to ignore it or turn it into a pinata. Nothing else is a realistic option.


----------



## goldcatt

Sunni Man said:


> rhodescholar said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here is a superb web site of persians, BY persians, of the people murdered by the regime, and those who have "disappeared"...
> 
> Faces of the Iranians killed and Arrested
> 
> 
> 
> Most likely a CIA or a Zionist backed and funded site.
Click to expand...


Originally a UK publication, actually. 

Now back under the bridge with you.


----------



## Cold Fusion38

I like pinatas.


----------



## goldcatt

Cold Fusion38 said:


> I like pinatas.


----------



## rhodescholar

Cold Fusion38 said:


> Ah Rhoad no answer huh?



Answer to what?


----------



## rhodescholar

goldcatt said:


> Cold Fusion38 said:
> 
> 
> 
> How the hell am I an "unknown" quantity? I think I have made my position pretty clear.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Might as well give up, Cold. You're trying to converse with a person who thinks people care enough about it to create hundreds of sock puppets just to harass it.
> 
> Better to decide whether to ignore it or turn it into a pinata. Nothing else is a realistic option.
Click to expand...


Except last week i was correct, and the admins blasted about 5 -10 sock puppets....and the more post BS you spew, the more you sound like JBeuk's ass crack all the time...


----------



## goldcatt

Seriously, the "crackdown" in Iran has nothing to do with the IRI's foreign policy. And while the regime is undeniably brutal, using the "crackdown" on a popular uprising as an excuse for yet another war is disingenuous at its finest. 
The resistance is an internal matter, but one that puts _wise _policy on hold until we see what transpires. Then we deal with the reality that emerges, not with AIPAC-sponsored fantasyland. Take nothing off the table, but do nothing until we know what it is we're dealing with. 
Unless of course you really think there's a big enough market for radioactive oil to replenish the trillions of dollars and make up for the hundreds of thousands or perhaps millions of lives we'd spend on choosing to begin WWIII. Then by all means, have at it. IMO, it's not worth it unless there is no other option.


----------



## rhodescholar

I'll bet someone will claim these are fake sites too  :

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/09/world/middleeast/09iran.html?scp=2&sq=iran&st=cse

International Campaign for Human Rights in Iran &#8211; Killed and Detained Since 12 June

Iran admits election demonstrators were tortured | World news | The Guardian

According to this last article, hundreds of people are still being held - and that is what the fascists admit to...

And even better:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2009/jun/30/iran-protest

"Hundreds, probably thousands, have been arrested in Iran since the
presidential election on 12 June. Human rights and campaign groups such as Human Rights Watch, the Campaign for Human Rights in Iran and Reporters Without Borders have been collecting and publishing the names of those dead or detained."

Hey sunni scumbag, is the Guardian a zionist publication too, you worthless fucking ****?


----------



## Cold Fusion38

Rhoad answer to WHAT? Answer to how many UN mandates that Israel has violated!


----------



## rhodescholar

goldcatt said:


> Seriously, the "crackdown" in Iran has nothing to do with the IRI's foreign policy. And while the regime is undeniably brutal, using the "crackdown" on a popular uprising as an excuse for yet another war is disingenuous at its finest.
> The resistance is an internal matter, but one that puts _wise _policy on hold until we see what transpires. Then we deal with the reality that emerges, not with AIPAC-sponsored fantasyland. Take nothing off the table, but do nothing until we know what it is we're dealing with.
> Unless of course you really think there's a big enough market for radioactive oil to replenish the trillions of dollars and make up for the hundreds of thousands or perhaps millions of lives we'd spend on choosing to begin WWIII. Then by all means, have at it. IMO, it's not worth it unless there is no other option.



That's fine by me, remember that the next time you call for a "humanitarian mission" to save lives...my response will be: "fuck you, its not our problem, let them rot..."

Ron Paul moronicism at its finest...


----------



## rhodescholar

Cold Fusion38 said:


> Rhoad answer to WHAT? Answer to how many UN mandates that Israel has violated!



Why is that relevant in an iran thread?  You want to discuss israel, go start your own thread.


----------



## Cold Fusion38

Oh it is completely relevant........Because ISRAEL can do whatever the F they want with NO consequenses. Iran on the other hand are being threatened by a country that is controlled by the US.


----------



## L.K.Eder

rhodescholar said:


> L.K.Eder said:
> 
> 
> 
> you confirmed that with your first try at sourcing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ok, fine.  Lets stick to the RECENT crackdown.  So the iri fuckers murder a few hundred, and thousands are missing, but that's alright?
Click to expand...


no. it is not alright. it is also not alright to artificially inflate the body count to justify an attack on iran.



rhodescholar said:


> Its like listening to the holocaust deniers- "there were _ only THREE _ million killed - definitely NOT _ SIX _ million...




No it is not like that. It is like listening to the pre-Iraq war propaganda and listening to the excuses after no WMD were found.



rhodescholar said:


> Who gives a fuck?



Me.



rhodescholar said:


> Further, what is your point?  That the animals running iran are not so monstrous?



No, see above.




rhodescholar said:


> L.K.Eder said:
> 
> 
> 
> you fucked up again.
> 
> 
> 
> Uh, how's that?
Click to expand...


See above.


----------



## goldcatt

L.K.Eder said:


> No it is not like that. It is like listening to the pre-Iraq war propaganda and listening to the excuses after no WMD were found.



Exactly like it.


----------



## rhodescholar

goldcatt said:


> L.K.Eder said:
> 
> 
> 
> No it is not like that. It is like listening to the pre-Iraq war propaganda and listening to the excuses after no WMD were found.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Exactly like it.
Click to expand...


I am not using murdered opposition to justify a war, I'm am using their illegal nuclear weapons program, along with their use of terrorism to de-stabilize the middle east.

If you genuinely want an israeli-arab peace agreement to ever hold, the current iranian regime cannot continue, it is that simple.  It is a rejectionist gov't whose sole existence is to stay in power and use the israeli conflict to not only re-direct its population's anger, but to try and curry favor with the arab street.  

There will never, ever be a sustainable peace with israel so long as the iranians continue to stoke the flames using hamas and hezbollah.


----------



## rhodescholar

Cold Fusion38 said:


> Oh it is completely relevant........Because ISRAEL can do whatever the F they want with NO consequenses. Iran on the other hand are being threatened by a country that is controlled by the US.



Soooooock puppppppppet.....and with idiocies like this, they wonder why i do not respond...


----------



## Dr Grump

At the end of the day leave Iran to the ME...keep your nose out of their affairs...


----------



## goldcatt

rhodescholar said:


> goldcatt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> L.K.Eder said:
> 
> 
> 
> No it is not like that. It is like listening to the pre-Iraq war propaganda and listening to the excuses after no WMD were found.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Exactly like it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am not using murdered opposition to justify a war, I'm am using their illegal nuclear weapons program, along with their use of terrorism to de-stabilize the middle east.
> 
> If you genuinely want an israeli-arab peace agreement to ever hold, the current iranian regime cannot continue, it is that simple.  It is a rejectionist gov't whose sole existence is to stay in power and use the israeli conflict to not only re-direct its population's anger, but to try and curry favor with the arab street.
> 
> There will never, ever be a sustainable peace with israel so long as the iranians continue to stoke the flames using hamas and hezbollah.
Click to expand...


You've missed my entire argument, if you think any of this post beyond the first paragraph is something I disagree with. 

What I disagree with is the whole Chicken Little rush to bomb the crap out of people you claim sympathy for because their government is brutal, especially at a time when they are attempting to overthrow said brutal government and accomplish many if not all of our goals for us without us spending a dime or bleeding a drop. 

We keep everything firmly on the table out in the open and wait to see who and what we're dealing with instead of pulling yet another "oopsie".


----------



## rhodescholar

goldcatt said:


> You've missed my entire argument, if you think any of this post beyond the first paragraph is something I disagree with.
> 
> What I disagree with is the whole Chicken Little rush to bomb the crap out of people you claim sympathy for because their government is brutal, especially at a time when they are attempting to overthrow said brutal government and accomplish many if not all of our goals for us without us spending a dime or bleeding a drop.
> 
> We keep everything firmly on the table out in the open and wait to see who and what we're dealing with instead of pulling yet another "oopsie".



Let me be more precise with my language: I am not advocating a massive genocidal campaign to wipe out most of iran, I am in support of Gen. Fuld's recommended plan of action to destroy their nuclear facilities.  If iran decides to turn it into a larger conflagration, then all bets are off, and I would then expand the campaign to eliminate their military capabilities.


----------



## goldcatt

rhodescholar said:


> goldcatt said:
> 
> 
> 
> You've missed my entire argument, if you think any of this post beyond the first paragraph is something I disagree with.
> 
> What I disagree with is the whole Chicken Little rush to bomb the crap out of people you claim sympathy for because their government is brutal, especially at a time when they are attempting to overthrow said brutal government and accomplish many if not all of our goals for us without us spending a dime or bleeding a drop.
> 
> We keep everything firmly on the table out in the open and wait to see who and what we're dealing with instead of pulling yet another "oopsie".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Let me be more precise with my language: I am not advocating a massive genocidal campaign to wipe out most of iran, I am in support of Gen. Fuld's recommended plan of action to destroy their nuclear facilities.  If iran decides to turn it into a larger conflagration, then all bets are off, and I would then expand the campaign to eliminate their military capabilities.
Click to expand...


To be paid for how?


----------



## rhodescholar

goldcatt said:


> To be paid for how?



Eliminating the laughingstock UHC plan that obama is seeking, reducing military acquisitions that do nothing except keep jobs in certain congressman's districts for equipment that noone needs - and the army does not want, close useless army bases, reduce overseas troops in Germany significantly and elsewhere they aren't needed, reduce purchases of other equipment not needed like 187 F-22s when far fewer are needed, stop government pork like anything that fucking turd Mutha seeks, reduce government spending on jetliners for congressman junkets, eliminate the printing of pennies, and collect some $$ from the arabs, who would stand to benefit even more than the israelis from the elimination of the iranian nuke program, for starters...


----------



## goldcatt

rhodescholar said:


> goldcatt said:
> 
> 
> 
> To be paid for how?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Eliminating the laughingstock UHC plan that obama is seeking, reducing military acquisitions that do nothing except keep jobs in certain congressman's districts for equipment that noone needs - and the army does not want, close useless army bases, reduce overseas troops in Germany significantly and elsewhere they aren't needed, reduce purchases of other equipment not needed like 187 F-22s when far fewer are needed, stop government pork like anything that fucking turd Mutha seeks, reduce government spending on jetliners for congressman junkets, eliminate the printing of pennies, and collect some $$ from the arabs, who would stand to benefit even more than the israelis from the elimination of the iranian nuke program, for starters...
Click to expand...


So since pork and planes are atrocities but also a minute part of the overall Federal budget, the majority of your plan for funding your proposed war is to _cut _the military and somehow extract money from Arab nations. Oh, and the F-22 was already killed, in case you missed the brouhaha. So count that one out, we're still broke without it. Somehow I'm not sure your plan is either politically or practically feasible.

And don't go asking me how to pay for it, I say we're broke and it can't be done.


----------



## Nik

rhodescholar said:


> goldcatt said:
> 
> 
> 
> You've missed my entire argument, if you think any of this post beyond the first paragraph is something I disagree with.
> 
> What I disagree with is the whole Chicken Little rush to bomb the crap out of people you claim sympathy for because their government is brutal, especially at a time when they are attempting to overthrow said brutal government and accomplish many if not all of our goals for us without us spending a dime or bleeding a drop.
> 
> We keep everything firmly on the table out in the open and wait to see who and what we're dealing with instead of pulling yet another "oopsie".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Let me be more precise with my language: I am not advocating a massive genocidal campaign to wipe out most of iran, I am in support of Gen. Fuld's recommended plan of action to destroy their nuclear facilities.  If iran decides to turn it into a larger conflagration, then all bets are off, and I would then expand the campaign to eliminate their military capabilities.
Click to expand...


Iran is falling apart.  The stupidest thing possible for us to do would be to attack them right now.


----------



## goldcatt

goldcatt said:


> rhodescholar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> goldcatt said:
> 
> 
> 
> To be paid for how?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Eliminating the laughingstock UHC plan that obama is seeking, reducing military acquisitions that do nothing except keep jobs in certain congressman's districts for equipment that noone needs - and the army does not want, close useless army bases, reduce overseas troops in Germany significantly and elsewhere they aren't needed, reduce purchases of other equipment not needed like 187 F-22s when far fewer are needed, stop government pork like anything that fucking turd Mutha seeks, reduce government spending on jetliners for congressman junkets, eliminate the printing of pennies, and collect some $$ from the arabs, who would stand to benefit even more than the israelis from the elimination of the iranian nuke program, for starters...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So since pork and planes are atrocities but also a minute part of the overall Federal budget, the majority of your plan for funding your proposed war is to _cut _the military and somehow extract money from Arab nations. Oh, and the F-22 was already killed, in case you missed the brouhaha. So count that one out, we're still broke without it. Somehow I'm not sure your plan is either politically or practically feasible.
> 
> And don't go asking me how to pay for it, I say we're broke and it can't be done.
Click to expand...


To add to this thought, UHC doesn't count because we have a $1.3 Trillion deficit before it's even in existence. Enacting it will mean we're even more in the red, but killing it saves us nothing.


----------



## del

rhodescholar said:


> goldcatt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cold Fusion38 said:
> 
> 
> 
> How the hell am I an "unknown" quantity? I think I have made my position pretty clear.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Might as well give up, Cold. You're trying to converse with a person who thinks people care enough about it to create hundreds of sock puppets just to harass it.
> 
> Better to decide whether to ignore it or turn it into a pinata. Nothing else is a realistic option.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Except last week i was correct, and the admins blasted about 5 -10 sock puppets....and the more post BS you spew, the more you sound like JBeuk's ass crack all the time...
Click to expand...


you've never been right about anything, you delusional fuckroast, especially sock puppets.


----------



## rhodescholar

del said:


> you've never been right about anything, you delusional fuckroast, especially sock puppets.



This is exactly the problem with this board - that some of the so-called mods are trolling in the threads exacerbates the problem.  Del is a complete fucking idiot, a turd who should choke to death at its next meal, hopefully.  

Now that i lowered myself into the gutter to speak to that POS, the adults can continue with the thread, thank you for your attention...

First off, the F-22 wasn't dropped, fewer will be purchased.

Second, we are already paying the air force/navy to operate, it would only cost the price of munitions plus...


----------



## del

rhodescholar said:


> del said:
> 
> 
> 
> you've never been right about anything, you delusional fuckroast, especially sock puppets.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is exactly the problem with this board - that some of the so-called mods are trolling in the threads exacerbates the problem.  Del is a complete fucking idiot, a turd who should choke to death at its next meal, hopefully.
> 
> Now that i lowered myself into the gutter to speak to that POS, the adults can continue with the thread, thank you for your attention...
> 
> First off, the F-22 wasn't dropped, fewer will be purchased.
> 
> Second, we are already paying the air force/navy to operate, it would only cost the price of munitions plus...
Click to expand...


----------



## rhodescholar

Notice how none of Del's posts are ever on topic...a sign of no brains and fewer facts.  It must be sad to be such a complete failure in life...

Del is a perfect reason not to support the UHC, i'd rather Natural Selection/Darwinism take its course so that trash like Del can just die off sooner without the rest of us having to pay for its welfare or health coverage.


----------



## del

rhodescholar said:


> Notice how none of Del's posts are ever on topic...a sign of no brains and fewer facts.  It must be sad to be such a complete failure in life...
> 
> Del is a perfect reason not to support the UHC, i'd rather Natural Selection/Darwinism take its course so that trash like Del can just die off sooner without the rest of us having to pay for its welfare or health coverage.





you betcha, you klandestine keyboard kommando.


----------



## Cold Fusion38

rhodescholar said:


> Cold Fusion38 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh it is completely relevant........Because ISRAEL can do whatever the F they want with NO consequenses. Iran on the other hand are being threatened by a country that is controlled by the US.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Soooooock puppppppppet.....and with idiocies like this, they wonder why i do not respond...
Click to expand...





Oh I'm a sock puppet because you aren't capable of arguing my points? Pretty pathetic if you ask me. By the way I used to post on MSNBC had nearly 20,000 posts in 3 years and never ONCE felt the need to post under a different name!


----------



## Shogun

Cold Fusion38 said:


> Ah Rhoad no answer huh?



I hope you were not expecting one.  THIS is where he accuses you of being a sock puppet account and  a host of other colorful names...  you know, right before he cries about shit talking.


----------



## Shogun

goldcatt said:


> Cold Fusion38 said:
> 
> 
> 
> How the hell am I an "unknown" quantity? I think I have made my position pretty clear.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Might as well give up, Cold. *You're trying to converse with a person who thinks people care enough about it to create hundreds of sock puppets just to harass it*.
> 
> Better to decide whether to ignore it or turn it into a pinata. Nothing else is a realistic option.
Click to expand...


SERIOUSLY.

Of course, I hope you realize that Rhodes, Jillian, Ghook and Elvis now have you listed on their mossad email conveying all the antisemites here at USMB.


----------



## Shogun

rhodescholar said:


> goldcatt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cold Fusion38 said:
> 
> 
> 
> How the hell am I an "unknown" quantity? I think I have made my position pretty clear.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Might as well give up, Cold. You're trying to converse with a person who thinks people care enough about it to create hundreds of sock puppets just to harass it.
> 
> Better to decide whether to ignore it or turn it into a pinata. Nothing else is a realistic option.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Except last week i was correct, and the admins blasted about 5 -10 sock puppets....and the more post BS you spew, the more you sound like JBeuk's ass crack all the time...
Click to expand...


You are a lying motherfucker.  NAME the sock puppets and, specifically, the mod that YOU spoke with to purge USMB of "5-10 sock puppets".  



seriously.  your delusions are borderline schizophrenic.


----------



## Shogun

rhodescholar said:


> Cold Fusion38 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Rhoad answer to WHAT? Answer to how many UN mandates that Israel has violated!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why is that relevant in an iran thread?  You want to discuss israel, go start your own thread.
Click to expand...


HAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!









GOOD ANSWER!


----------



## Shogun

rhodescholar said:


> Cold Fusion38 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh it is completely relevant........Because ISRAEL can do whatever the F they want with NO consequenses. Iran on the other hand are being threatened by a country that is controlled by the US.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Soooooock puppppppppet.....and with idiocies like this, they wonder why i do not respond...
Click to expand...


don't you mean..

"SSSSssssssoooCK PUPPPETSSSSSSssssSSSSSSSS!"


----------



## Shogun

del said:


> rhodescholar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> goldcatt said:
> 
> 
> 
> might as well give up, cold. You're trying to converse with a person who thinks people care enough about it to create hundreds of sock puppets just to harass it.
> 
> Better to decide whether to ignore it or turn it into a pinata. Nothing else is a realistic option.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> except last week i was correct, and the admins blasted about 5 -10 sock puppets....and the more post bs you spew, the more you sound like jbeuk's ass crack all the time...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> you've never been right about anything, you delusional fuckroast, especially sock puppets.
Click to expand...




seriously


----------



## Shogun

rhodescholar said:


> Notice how none of Del's posts are ever on topic...a sign of no brains and fewer facts.  It must be sad to be such a complete failure in life...
> 
> Del is a perfect reason not to support the UHC, i'd rather Natural Selection/Darwinism take its course so that trash like Del can just die off sooner without the rest of us having to pay for its welfare or health coverage.



Actually, he commented on your silly delusiojnal claim that you are some kind of sock puppet sleuth fettering out "5-10" sock puppets.  Which, we ALL know is a load of shit.  Del, as a mod, is able to verify how full of shit you are and, honestly, it's pretty clear that your reaction to his posts would be a LOT different had he not thrown a bullshit detecting grenade into your claims.


----------



## Gurdari

rhodescholar said:


> Gurdari said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not sure what proximity has to do with it, but we hear Israel threatening Iran, so however many miles they are both apart it is still a credible threat, no?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Was that before or after iran threatened israel?
> 
> Was that before or after iran sent in hamas and hezbollah suicide bombers and rocket attacks?
> 
> Would you consider it an act of war if israel were to place non-uniformed proxy armies and mercs on iran's borders to fire mortars and rockets into iran, as well as send in suicide bombers into teheranian cafes?
Click to expand...


When did Iran threaten Israel? Please be literal and direct and clear.
Iran is in charge of Hamas and Hezbollah? I may need some supporting evidence that Iran is their BOSS.


As for suicide bombers being an act of war - tricky. It would need to be clear it wasn't random citizens... and to find out exactly who was doing it for another nation (and if that was even sanctioned by the gov) would be important, and who was just angry, or doing it for a certain group of people (citizen militia, or whatever).  IMO.




rhodescholar said:


> Wow, I am surprised you feel the US is a legit target for attack.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Consistency is important.
Click to expand...

I completely agree. How refreshing - a break from the usual 'my country right or wrong' nonsense.



rhodescholar said:


> I think you must be kidding - iran murdered via suicide bombins and rocket attacks thousands of israeli civilians.  The US provided money and weapons...



I do not agree that Hamas and Hezbollah are mindless proxies - I belive they are indiginous movements - with or without support from Iran, they have their own agendas and motivations (considered legal and legitimate by some).

And the US provided money and weapons? And mine dthe harbor? And and and... go read about the first war on terror, run by many of the same people I might add - and develop a more informed opinion about US involvment in Latin America. As I say, don't take my word for it.



rhodescholar said:


> Then a tiny nation should not fuck with a larger/more powerful one - like iran should not be attacking israel with proxies, and expecting to be able to claim they are not responsible.


So, might DOES make right? Well then international law is for suckers I suppose. So why even bring up agreements and obligations when the big boys make all the rules? And can break them as they see fit? Basically, you think Iran NEEDS a nuke to get some respect - they likely agree with you.




rhodescholar said:


> How would you propose to crush hamas and hezbollah, along with rogue nations like iran and their use of non-uniformed terror groups?


I don't propose that. I would look at the causes of of conflict and start there. Plus, rogue nations aren't the issue - it is rogue nations who don't play on our team that are the problem. Unless you have a definition of 'rogue' that you can present that does not include the US?



rhodescholar said:


> Aspirations and influence throught trade, education, medical assistance, etc is fine - not through military might and the use of terrorism/proxy armies.


Well... if Iran was somehow unique in that regard perhaps you would have a case, not to mention they allegedly fund movements that would exist in some form regardless of Iran's help. 




rhodescholar said:


> The US removed a dictator, and is leaving the country - do you think the iraqis were better off under saddam?


Many were obviously, and so was much of the nation - but the ends do not always justify the means, and re-writing the Iraqi constitution and their trade and banking laws, foreign ownership, etc. to make a more favorable climate for US investment is filthy behavior, a big strong nation using it's fists to beat a smaller nation into a exploitable resource. Sickening. And sure, Saddam was a horrible guy - like many nations have horrible oppressive leadership that we do business with - so we sure don't care about human rights... until it's convenient.



rhodescholar said:


> Imagine Iran had troops all around these borders here, and had a history of meddling with the government - would you then see them more as international colleagues? Or peers?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If their intentions were democratic and peaceful, as opposed to totalitarian...
Click to expand...


Ha! Really? You seem to have far more trust in the language and words of foreign governments than I do - even though this whole thread it seems clear that you do not trust Iran. But you would, of course - if they surrounded the US and promised to behave?



rhodescholar said:


> So, pulling out is fine - i.e. disregarding something is ok as long as you say 'I no longer wish to play by these rules'.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As i said, it is illegal to withdraw from the treaty.
Click to expand...

You also implied might makes right and those who can break the law may as well do so. 
Certainly the US is in NO position to point the finger at NPT violators or international law breakers.


----------



## rhodescholar

Cold Fusion38 said:


> Oh I'm a sock puppet because you aren't capable of arguing my points? Pretty pathetic if you ask me. By the way I used to post on MSNBC had nearly 20,000 posts in 3 years and never ONCE felt the need to post under a different name!



Ask an intelligent question and you will get an equally so answer.


----------



## Shogun

rhodescholar said:


> Cold Fusion38 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh I'm a sock puppet because you aren't capable of arguing my points? Pretty pathetic if you ask me. By the way I used to post on MSNBC had nearly 20,000 posts in 3 years and never ONCE felt the need to post under a different name!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ask an intelligent question and you will get an equally so answer.
Click to expand...


unless bitch scholar doesn't LIKE the question.. THEN, you are obviously a joo hating antisemite who is a sock puppet account of mine.

the more you know.


----------



## rhodescholar

What a pleasure, seeing a person in the thread with a mental age over 4- take note Del, shogun, etc.



Gurdari said:


> When did Iran threaten Israel? Please be literal and direct and clear.



Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Israel - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



> Iran is in charge of Hamas and Hezbollah? I may need some supporting evidence that Iran is their BOSS.



I am not going to go into the basic facts of this and every detail.  Not to be rude, but if you are genuinely asking this question, you need to leave USMB and read up.  Otherwise, its a sign of an agenda...



> As for suicide bombers being an act of war - tricky. It would need to be clear it wasn't random citizens... and to find out exactly who was doing it for another nation (and if that was even sanctioned by the gov) would be important, and who was just angry, or doing it for a certain group of people (citizen militia, or whatever).  IMO.



Everytime the israelis and arabs get close to a peace deal, iran orders an attack/suicide bombing.



> I do not agree that Hamas and Hezbollah are mindless proxies - I belive they are indiginous movements - with or without support from Iran, they have their own agendas and motivations (considered legal and legitimate by some).



Hamas may have started that way, but no longer, and hez was created by iran to protect/serve the lebanese shia, primarily against the PLO/sunni factions in lebanon - not against the israelis.  

In January, hamas was told that by iran through meshaal that if they stopped firing rockets - even though it would end the conflict and get israel to stop its incursion - they would lose any future iranian support.  This is typical...



> So, might DOES make right? Well then international law is for suckers I suppose. So why even bring up agreements and obligations when the big boys make all the rules? And can break them as they see fit? Basically, you think Iran NEEDS a nuke to get some respect - they likely agree with you.



Hardly, alot of non-nuclear countries are respected, the ones that don't send in terrorist proxies to murder people...



> Well... if Iran was somehow unique in that regard perhaps you would have a case, not to mention they allegedly fund movements that would exist in some form regardless of Iran's help.



Please provide a list of nations even slightly resembling what iran is doing...it is truly sad that it is even remotely arguable that iran needs to be militarily dealt with...



> You also implied might makes right and those who can break the law may as well do so. Certainly the US is in NO position to point the finger at NPT violators or international law breakers.



That is your interpretation of my statements.


----------



## Shogun

*
Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Israel - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia*

purposeful misquote that has been lampooned time and again by anyone without a jewish bone to pick.

Lost in translation | Comment is free | guardian.co.uk

*
I am not going to go into the basic facts of this and every detail.  Not to be rude, but if you are genuinely asking this question, you need to leave USMB and read up.  Otherwise, its a sign of an agenda...

*

PUSSY!    nice dodge, vagina

*Everytime the israelis and arabs get close to a peace deal, iran orders an attack/suicide bombing.*

cite your evidence of this charge, pussy.  I BET YOU WONT.





*
Hardly, alot of non-nuclear countries are respected, the ones that don't send in terrorist proxies to murder people...*

Cast lead says what?


----------



## Cold Fusion38

Hey Roadkill you can't debate the issues because you are an idiot. You try to deflect and spin and accuse EVERYBODY who doesn't agree with you a "sock puppet". What a fool you are.


----------



## HUGGY

rhodescholar said:


> Notice how none of Del's posts are ever on topic...a sign of no brains and fewer facts.  It must be sad to be such a complete failure in life...
> 
> Del is a perfect reason not to support the UHC, i'd rather Natural Selection/Darwinism take its course so that trash like Del can just die off sooner without the rest of us having to pay for its welfare or health coverage.



*MAN!* I want to get in on this circular firing squad on SOOOOOOO many levels.

Agreeing with Del, the dumbest fucking moderator on the internet, might give me apaplectic shock but it might be worth giving it a go.


----------



## rhodescholar

Cold Fusion38 said:


> Hey Roadkill you can't debate the issues because you are an idiot. You try to deflect and spin and accuse EVERYBODY who doesn't agree with you a "sock puppet". What a fool you are.



Another fucking idiot - likely a sock puppet moron - to be flushed down the ignore toilet.  Yeah ****, you'll DEFINITELY get a lot of responses now with that statement, idiot...


----------



## Cold Fusion38

Ah poor Rhoad Kill. I see you blocked me from posting to your page......WAAAAAAAAAAA!


----------



## Cold Fusion38

Hey Rhoad Kill wern't you going to sick the moderators on me? WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!


----------



## Shogun

Cold Fusion38 said:


> Hey Rhoad Kill wern't you going to sick the moderators on me? WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!





nice.  CAREFUL... he's gonna root out the sock puppets like a pig digging for truffles!


----------



## Cold Fusion38

Good thing I don't have to worry about it.


----------



## Cold Fusion38

Holy crap my REP went up like 200 points for kicking your ass Rhoad Kill.


----------



## Cold Fusion38

They like me they really REALLY like me. LOL!


----------



## Shogun

You just achieved one of the jackalope-rare Shogun pos reps.  I paired it with a nice neg rep to that pussy Load(ofshit)scholar.

just keep in mind though.. by accepting my rep you've now proven that you hate jews and want to see dead jews floating in the water where israel once was.  Just ask Jillian, Elvis, Ghook, Toomuch or the man with an insatiable lust for cock: rhodes scholar.


----------



## elvis

Shogun said:


> You just achieved one of the jackalope-rare Shogun pos reps.  I paired it with a nice neg rep to that pussy Load(ofshit)scholar.
> 
> just keep in mind though.. by accepting my rep you've now proven that you hate jews and want to see dead jews floating in the water where israel once was.  Just ask Jillian, Elvis, Ghook, Toomuch or the man with an insatiable lust for cock: rhodes scholar.



except you still owe me pos-rep from a couple months ago, Shogie.  I used your favorite phrase on Sealybobo.  "Your opinion means two things to me.  Jack and shit."  

Remember, Shogie?


----------



## Cold Fusion38

The enemy of my enemy is my friend.


----------



## Cold Fusion38

Dude I could be on a school bus.........Oh school BOARD.


----------



## goldcatt

Cold Fusion38 said:


> Dude I could be on a school bus.........Oh school BOARD.



At least you're not like Rhoad, who could be on a short bus.


----------



## goldcatt

Now Rhoad, I asked you two distinct questions and never got an answer:

1. Why should we rush to enforce a little regime change in Iran on our dime and with our troops in the line of fire, when their own people are busy doing the job for us? That would be like offering to buy your own birthday present.

2. How will we realistically pay for an Iranian war when we're flat busted already?

Waiting......


----------



## Cold Fusion38

I'll tell you if we go to war with Iran we will NOT like the results. If you want to get the entire country to get behind achmaneedajob then attack Iran and see what happens. Then you may also want to consider the topography and the fact that they didn't have their military decimated in GWI.


----------



## goldcatt

Yep, nothing like a good external enemy to rally the troops. Not a good idea.


----------



## rhodescholar

goldcatt said:


> Cold Fusion38 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dude I could be on a school bus.........Oh school BOARD.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> At least you're not like Rhoad, who could be on a short bus.
Click to expand...


New rule for me: posters who make personal insults will not receive responses.  End of story.


----------



## rhodescholar

goldcatt said:


> Now Rhoad, I asked you two distinct questions and never got an answer:
> 
> 1. Why should we rush to enforce a little regime change in Iran on our dime and with our troops in the line of fire, when their own people are busy doing the job for us? That would be like offering to buy your own birthday present.
> 
> 2. How will we realistically pay for an Iranian war when we're flat busted already?
> 
> Waiting......



I already answered them, and since you broke my new rule of not responding to those who personally insult, you are DOA.


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy

rhodescholar said:


> goldcatt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cold Fusion38 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dude I could be on a school bus.........Oh school BOARD.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> At least you're not like Rhoad, who could be on a short bus.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> New rule for me: posters who make personal insults will not receive responses.  End of story.
Click to expand...




And you wonder why I don't answer the question you seem determined to force me to answer.


----------



## goldcatt

rhodescholar said:


> goldcatt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cold Fusion38 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dude I could be on a school bus.........Oh school BOARD.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> At least you're not like Rhoad, who could be on a short bus.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> New rule for me: posters who make personal insults will not receive responses.  End of story.
Click to expand...


Sucks that you'll have to stop talking to yourself. Whatever will you do for company?


----------



## L.K.Eder

this is great entertainment. i predict rhodescholar will break his rule in the next 10 posts he makes.


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy

L.K.Eder said:


> this is great entertainment. i predict rhodescholar will break his rule in the next 10 posts he makes.



He's already broken it repeatedly.


----------



## L.K.Eder

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> L.K.Eder said:
> 
> 
> 
> this is great entertainment. i predict rhodescholar will break his rule in the next 10 posts he makes.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He's already broken it repeatedly.
Click to expand...


nah, it is a new rule, he will no longer answer to posters who use personal insults. so he should answer you, i admire your patience, are you some kind of zen master?

hehe.


but i don't agree with your stance on iran. they try to develop a nuclear weapon,  in my opinion. and have not complied with the IAEA inspections.


----------



## goldcatt

rhodescholar said:


> goldcatt said:
> 
> 
> 
> Now Rhoad, I asked you two distinct questions and never got an answer:
> 
> 1. Why should we rush to enforce a little regime change in Iran on our dime and with our troops in the line of fire, when their own people are busy doing the job for us? That would be like offering to buy your own birthday present.
> 
> 2. How will we realistically pay for an Iranian war when we're flat busted already?
> 
> Waiting......
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I already answered them, and since you broke my new rule of not responding to those who personally insult, you are DOA.
Click to expand...


Actually you didn't. You ducked the first by backtracking on your earlier stated enthusiastic support of regime change while arguing for regime change and completely ignoring the ongoing resistance other than to shed crocodile tears over their plight in a transparent effort to justify warmongering.  You then spouted a bunch of tired, ill-conceived and totally unworkable talking points to the second. "NOW NOW NOW" is your contention, back it up or shut up.


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy

L.K.Eder said:


> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> L.K.Eder said:
> 
> 
> 
> this is great entertainment. i predict rhodescholar will break his rule in the next 10 posts he makes.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He's already broken it repeatedly.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> nah, it is a new rule, he will no longer answer to posters who use personal insults. so he should answer you, i admire your patience, are you some kind of zen master?
> 
> hehe.
> 
> 
> but i don't agree with your stance on iran. they try to develop a nuclear weapon,  in my opinion. and have not complied with the IAEA inspections.
Click to expand...


No, not a zen master.  I simply get no pleasure out of insulting people, especially on the internet.  As to this being a new rule, not in the least.  He's complained about people personally insulting him since his first day here, and yet he's also stooped to insulting people since his first day here.


----------



## L.K.Eder

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> L.K.Eder said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> He's already broken it repeatedly.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> nah, it is a new rule, he will no longer answer to posters who use personal insults. so he should answer you, i admire your patience, are you some kind of zen master?
> 
> hehe.
> 
> 
> but i don't agree with your stance on iran. they try to develop a nuclear weapon,  in my opinion. and have not complied with the IAEA inspections.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, not a zen master.  I simply get no pleasure out of insulting people, especially on the internet.  As to this being a new rule, not in the least.  He's complained about people personally insulting him since his first day here, and yet he's also stooped to insulting people since his first day here.
Click to expand...


i get pleasure out of insulting people, but only on the internet. and while in traffic. and in football stadiums, haha. i guess it is the anonymity 

i try to minimize it though, but some posters deserve it. and some motorists. and some cops. and some politicians. and some really stupid fucking morons!!!1!  

rhodescholar cannot be helped.

the new rule is only that he announced he will cut and run when he thinks he was personally insulted, no matter who started the shit-flinging.


----------



## goldcatt

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> L.K.Eder said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> He's already broken it repeatedly.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> nah, it is a new rule, he will no longer answer to posters who use personal insults. so he should answer you, i admire your patience, are you some kind of zen master?
> 
> hehe.
> 
> 
> but i don't agree with your stance on iran. they try to develop a nuclear weapon,  in my opinion. and have not complied with the IAEA inspections.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, not a zen master.  I simply get no pleasure out of insulting people, especially on the internet.  As to this being a new rule, not in the least.  He's complained about people personally insulting him since his first day here, and yet he's also stooped to insulting people since his first day here.
Click to expand...


I sometimes wish I could be that classy, but when I see something like that thing posing and posting obnoxious garbage I just have this overwhelming compulsion to ridicule it in the usually futile hope it will see just how vile its behavior is.  Some things have no shame.


----------



## L.K.Eder

goldcatt said:


> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> L.K.Eder said:
> 
> 
> 
> nah, it is a new rule, he will no longer answer to posters who use personal insults. so he should answer you, i admire your patience, are you some kind of zen master?
> 
> hehe.
> 
> 
> but i don't agree with your stance on iran. they try to develop a nuclear weapon,  in my opinion. and have not complied with the IAEA inspections.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, not a zen master.  I simply get no pleasure out of insulting people, especially on the internet.  As to this being a new rule, not in the least.  He's complained about people personally insulting him since his first day here, and yet he's also stooped to insulting people since his first day here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I sometimes wish I could be that classy, but when I see something like that thing posing and posting obnoxious garbage I just have this overwhelming compulsion to ridicule it in the usually futile hope it will see just how vile its behavior is.  Some things have no shame.
Click to expand...


i have not yet tried to call human posters "she" or "it". and i will never do it. probably. the "she" part i am sure i will never do, that is so useless.


----------



## rhodescholar

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> And you wonder why I don't answer the question you seem determined to force me to answer.



Are you fucking kidding me?  You won't answer the question, which LKEder did a superb job of doing by himself, I might add, because it would expose you as the simpleton, clueless imbecile you really are.

You come in with an absurd line and think that you are not going to be called on it, then attack those who do, and refuse to respond to their posts....yeah, you're a winner....


----------



## rhodescholar

L.K.Eder said:


> rhodescholar cannot be helped.
> 
> the new rule is only that he announced he will cut and run when he thinks he was personally insulted, no matter who started the shit-flinging.



And I made a mistake judging you better than i should have.  You're no better than the other trash here.  

It is unfortunate the mods have allowed this place to become a sock puppet/anti-semite shithole.   It is no wonder that so many of the smarter posters I encouraged to join here from other forums, left after like 1-2 days.

But don't worry, fucking garbage like you, shogun and the other scum will not succeed in driving me away.  The other posters here generally avoid the israel/middle east threads, and now I know why...too bad so many of the mods are fucking worthless shit and no better than scum like shogun, if not worse...

All I have to say, is try pulling this shit at places like israelforum.com and see what happens.  It won't be like 6-8 scumbag teens and their sock puppets ganging up on little old me, I can guarantee you...


----------



## L.K.Eder

rhodescholar said:


> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> And you wonder why I don't answer the question you seem determined to force me to answer.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are you fucking kidding me?  You won't answer the question, which LKEder did a superb job of doing by himself, I might add, because it would expose you as the simpleton, clueless imbecile you really are.
> 
> You come in with an absurd line and think that you are not going to be called on it, then attack those who do, and refuse to respond to their posts....yeah, you're a winner....
Click to expand...


this is where you look extremely foolish, and i am talking about a new sector of the foolishness scale.

kevin kennedy does not attack or insult or anything of the kind. he stays extremely calm, i personally think he is a robot, since he denied being a zen master, sorry kevin .


----------



## goldcatt

L.K.Eder said:


> goldcatt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, not a zen master.  I simply get no pleasure out of insulting people, especially on the internet.  As to this being a new rule, not in the least.  He's complained about people personally insulting him since his first day here, and yet he's also stooped to insulting people since his first day here.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I sometimes wish I could be that classy, but when I see something like that thing posing and posting obnoxious garbage I just have this overwhelming compulsion to ridicule it in the usually futile hope it will see just how vile its behavior is.  Some things have no shame.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> i have not yet tried to call human posters "she" or "it". and i will never do it. probably. the "she" part i am sure i will never do, that is so useless.
Click to expand...


You have a point here. I got a little carried away, I suppose.


----------



## rhodescholar

L.K.Eder said:


> this is where you look extremely foolish, and i am talking about a new sector of the foolishness scale.
> 
> kevin kennedy does not attack or insult or anything of the kind. he stays extremely calm, i personally think he is a robot, since he denied being a zen master, sorry kevin .



You think by repeating the same line in post after post is not trolling?  Most forums would have banned his ass for doing that...and ignoring all posts directed at him.

Sorry, but if you think baiting and trolling is being "calm," you must spend too much time at shitty forums that are not moderated well.


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy

rhodescholar said:


> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> And you wonder why I don't answer the question you seem determined to force me to answer.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are you fucking kidding me?  You won't answer the question, which LKEder did a superb job of doing by himself, I might add, because it would expose you as the simpleton, clueless imbecile you really are.
> 
> You come in with an absurd line and think that you are not going to be called on it, then attack those who do, and refuse to respond to their posts....yeah, you're a winner....
Click to expand...


Well I'm guessing I have a better understanding of why I've not answered your question than you do, but think whatever you want.

I've attacked somebody?  Did you have any evidence of that?


----------



## rhodescholar

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> I've attacked somebody?  Did you have any evidence of that?



Good strawman, where did i accuse you of that?  Or are you so full of shit you need to lie to try to bait me into insulting you?


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy

L.K.Eder said:


> rhodescholar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> And you wonder why I don't answer the question you seem determined to force me to answer.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are you fucking kidding me?  You won't answer the question, which LKEder did a superb job of doing by himself, I might add, because it would expose you as the simpleton, clueless imbecile you really are.
> 
> You come in with an absurd line and think that you are not going to be called on it, then attack those who do, and refuse to respond to their posts....yeah, you're a winner....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> this is where you look extremely foolish, and i am talking about a new sector of the foolishness scale.
> 
> kevin kennedy does not attack or insult or anything of the kind. he stays extremely calm, i personally think he is a robot, since he denied being a zen master, sorry kevin .
Click to expand...


Well I have a high respect for those that practice zen or Buddhism or any peaceful means of quiet contemplation and meditation, so I think I'd rather be mistaken for them than a robot lol.

Though I guess you can't go wrong with C-3PO.


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy

rhodescholar said:


> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> I've attacked somebody?  Did you have any evidence of that?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Good strawman, where did i accuse you of that?  Or are you so full of shit you need to lie to try to bait me into insulting you?
Click to expand...




rhodescholar said:


> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> And you wonder why I don't answer the question you seem determined to force me to answer.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are you fucking kidding me?  You won't answer the question, which LKEder did a superb job of doing by himself, I might add, because it would expose you as the simpleton, clueless imbecile you really are.
> 
> You come in with an absurd line and think that you are not going to be called on it, *then attack those who do*, and refuse to respond to their posts....yeah, you're a winner....
Click to expand...


Obviously I didn't make it up.


----------



## L.K.Eder

rhodescholar said:


> L.K.Eder said:
> 
> 
> 
> this is where you look extremely foolish, and i am talking about a new sector of the foolishness scale.
> 
> kevin kennedy does not attack or insult or anything of the kind. he stays extremely calm, i personally think he is a robot, since he denied being a zen master, sorry kevin .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You think by repeating the same line in post after post is not trolling?  Most forums would have banned his ass for doing that...and ignoring all posts directed at him.
> 
> Sorry, but if you think baiting and trolling is being "calm," you must spend too much time at shitty forums that are not moderated well.
Click to expand...


you said attacking. this is basically your main MO. you state something, get called on it, get all defensive and hurl insults. if you skip this part, like you do with me now (why actually?) you switch the topic, in this case from "attacking" to "trolling". i cannot remember. did kevin really just repeat the same question or statement, AND you tried to answer it? 

because if that was the case, i could understand your frustration. there are several posters on this board who do this, repeating the same shit all over again, ignoring the answers, and repeating the shit in other threads, too. and then claim, "why is it that no one answers my awesome question. that means I win!!1!"

sorry got carried away in the last part, could almsot be characterized as a switch.

ETA: kevin got this!! too late again, i should type faster and think less, merge with the crowd and stuff


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy

L.K.Eder said:


> rhodescholar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> L.K.Eder said:
> 
> 
> 
> this is where you look extremely foolish, and i am talking about a new sector of the foolishness scale.
> 
> kevin kennedy does not attack or insult or anything of the kind. he stays extremely calm, i personally think he is a robot, since he denied being a zen master, sorry kevin .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You think by repeating the same line in post after post is not trolling?  Most forums would have banned his ass for doing that...and ignoring all posts directed at him.
> 
> Sorry, but if you think baiting and trolling is being "calm," you must spend too much time at shitty forums that are not moderated well.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> you said attacking. this is basically your main MO. you state something, get called on it, get all defensive and hurl insults. if you skip this part, like you do with me now (why actually?) you switch the topic, in this case from "attacking" to "trolling". i cannot remember. did kevin really just repeat the same question or statement, AND you tried to answer it?
> 
> because if that was the case, i could understand your frustration. there are several posters on this board who do this, repeating the same shit all over again, ignoring the answers, and repeating the shit in other threads, too. and then claim, "why is it that no one answers my awesome question. that means I win!!1!"
> 
> sorry got carried away in the last part, could almsot be characterized as a switch.
> 
> ETA: kevin got this!! too late again, i should type faster and think less, merge with the crowd and stuff
Click to expand...


http://www.usmessageboard.com/iran/81655-no-evidence-iran-seeking-nuclear-weapons.html

There's the link to the thread in question where I supposedly just repeated the same thing over and over.  You may review it yourself if you like.  I will say that I did have to keep repeating the fact because it was never addressed.


----------



## L.K.Eder

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> L.K.Eder said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rhodescholar said:
> 
> 
> 
> You think by repeating the same line in post after post is not trolling?  Most forums would have banned his ass for doing that...and ignoring all posts directed at him.
> 
> Sorry, but if you think baiting and trolling is being "calm," you must spend too much time at shitty forums that are not moderated well.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> you said attacking. this is basically your main MO. you state something, get called on it, get all defensive and hurl insults. if you skip this part, like you do with me now (why actually?) you switch the topic, in this case from "attacking" to "trolling". i cannot remember. did kevin really just repeat the same question or statement, AND you tried to answer it?
> 
> because if that was the case, i could understand your frustration. there are several posters on this board who do this, repeating the same shit all over again, ignoring the answers, and repeating the shit in other threads, too. and then claim, "why is it that no one answers my awesome question. that means I win!!1!"
> 
> sorry got carried away in the last part, could almsot be characterized as a switch.
> 
> ETA: kevin got this!! too late again, i should type faster and think less, merge with the crowd and stuff
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> http://www.usmessageboard.com/iran/81655-no-evidence-iran-seeking-nuclear-weapons.html
> 
> There's the link to the thread in question where I supposedly just repeated the same thing over and over.  You may review it yourself if you like.  I will say that I did have to keep repeating the fact because it was never addressed.
Click to expand...


ah yes, now i remember. i am in some kind of a "new relationship" with rhodescholar since i got his attention by posting something he agreed with. and i wanted to be correct in my accusations.

that was a fun thread. i was your sock puppet, .

the interesting thing is, you are technically right, there is no evidence, but rhodescholar was also right, there could be no evidence because they did not let them search everywhere, haha. this makes it even funnier.


----------



## del

rhodescholar said:


> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> I've attacked somebody?  Did you have any evidence of that?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Good strawman, where did i accuse you of that?  Or *are you so full of shit* you need to lie to *try to bait me into insulting you*?
Click to expand...


you're killing me, cap'n. 


are you familiar with the concept of "irony"?


----------



## L.K.Eder

del said:


> rhodescholar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> I've attacked somebody?  Did you have any evidence of that?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Good strawman, where did i accuse you of that?  Or *are you so full of shit* you need to lie to *try to bait me into insulting you*?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> you're killing me, cap'n.
> 
> 
> are you familiar with the concept of "irony"?
Click to expand...


he is not, and you are not helping, but i can't blame you, it is low hanging fruit.


----------



## goldcatt

L.K.Eder said:


> del said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rhodescholar said:
> 
> 
> 
> Good strawman, where did i accuse you of that?  Or *are you so full of shit* you need to lie to *try to bait me into insulting you*?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> you're killing me, cap'n.
> 
> 
> are you familiar with the concept of "irony"?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> he is not, and you are not helping, but i can't blame you, it is low hanging fruit.
Click to expand...


That it is.


----------



## rhodescholar

L.K.Eder said:


> ah yes, now i remember. i am in some kind of a "new relationship" with rhodescholar since i got his attention by posting something he agreed with. and i wanted to be correct in my accusations.



As i said, I will be civil to those who are in kind.

You are one of those odd posters, who make total sense in one post, and go off the deep end in another.  And I am not kindly to you simply because "I agreed with you", it was because you posted something that you backed up with facts and thoughtfulness.



> the interesting thing is, you are technically right, there is no evidence, but rhodescholar was also right, there could be no evidence because they did not let them search everywhere, haha. this makes it even funnier.



THAT is all I was trying to get across, that one poster is spouting something absurd, like "there is no evidence," when it was obvious even to a child that of course there would be no evidence if those tasked with searching for it were blocked.  This is not a deep concept, but the other poster refused to accept this obvious point, and continued to spout nonsense no matter who directed a question/response to them.  That is trolling, plain and simple...

Not sure why you found it funny, but at least you have the character to recognize the absurdity of it...


----------



## L.K.Eder

rhodescholar said:


> L.K.Eder said:
> 
> 
> 
> ah yes, now i remember. i am in some kind of a "new relationship" with rhodescholar since i got his attention by posting something he agreed with. and i wanted to be correct in my accusations.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As i said, I will be civil to those who are in kind.
> 
> You are one of those odd posters, who make total sense in one post, and go off the deep end in another.  And I am not kindly to you simply because "I agreed with you", it was because you posted something that you backed up with facts and thoughtfulness.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> the interesting thing is, you are technically right, there is no evidence, but rhodescholar was also right, there could be no evidence because they did not let them search everywhere, haha. this makes it even funnier.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> THAT is all I was trying to get across, that one poster is spouting something absurd, like "there is no evidence," when it was obvious even to a child that of course there would be no evidence if those tasked with searching for it were blocked.  This is not a deep concept, but the other poster refused to accept this obvious point, and continued to spout nonsense no matter who directed a question/response to them.  That is trolling, plain and simple...
> 
> Not sure why you found it funny, but at least you have the character to recognize the absurdity of it...
Click to expand...


the funny part is that your ineptitude at social interaction keeps you from having decent conversations. whenever i was challenged or challenged you i posted sources that supported my opinions. you on the other hand just evaded by posting hastily found sources which did not support your opinions, deflected, back-paddled, insulted and claimed victory. 

not much of a show of maturity while calling me some equivalent of a female teenage social parasite sock puppet with no knowledge, right?


----------



## rhodescholar

L.K.Eder said:


> the funny part is that your ineptitude at social interaction keeps you from having decent conversations. whenever i was challenged or challenged you i posted sources that supported my opinions. you on the other hand just evaded by posting hastily found sources which did not support your opinions, deflected, back-paddled, insulted and claimed victory.
> 
> not much of a show of maturity while calling me some equivalent of a female teenage social parasite sock puppet with no knowledge, right?



Why are you giving me shit for allegedly not responding to your posts, but you think it was funny that KK did the same?


----------



## L.K.Eder

rhodescholar said:


> L.K.Eder said:
> 
> 
> 
> the funny part is that your ineptitude at social interaction keeps you from having decent conversations. whenever i was challenged or challenged you i posted sources that supported my opinions. you on the other hand just evaded by posting hastily found sources which did not support your opinions, deflected, back-paddled, insulted and claimed victory.
> 
> not much of a show of maturity while calling me some equivalent of a female teenage social parasite sock puppet with no knowledge, right?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why are you giving me shit for allegedly not responding to your posts, but you think it was funny that KK did the same?
Click to expand...



huh? 

i was just giving you "shit" for declaring you will no longer interact with me on the other thread while having a civil conversation with me here. but where did i give you shit for not responding to your posts?

our first encounter was about the number of palestinians among the basij.


----------



## rhodescholar

L.K.Eder said:


> i was just giving you "shit" for declaring you will no longer interact with me on the other thread while having a civil conversation with me here. but where did i give you shit for not responding to your posts?



I reserve the right to respond at my discretion.  If I think someone has written something intelligent, I'll respond... but the fact remains that you attacked me for evasion, yet KK did far worse, and you found it funny...


----------



## L.K.Eder

rhodescholar said:


> L.K.Eder said:
> 
> 
> 
> i was just giving you "shit" for declaring you will no longer interact with me on the other thread while having a civil conversation with me here. but where did i give you shit for not responding to your posts?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *I reserve the right to respond at my discretion*.  If I think someone has written something intelligent, I'll respond... but the fact remains that you attacked me for evasion, yet KK did far worse, and you found it funny...
Click to expand...



in the bolded part you excuse past and announced future evasions. this has nothing to do with Kevin Kennedy. I judged you by the interaction you had with me on one of the first encounters, where you could not back up your claim about the palestinians among the basij, evaded, presented bad sources, and claimed victory even in other threads. you never manned up and admitted your agenda-driven exaggeration.

now you actually take me kind of seriously, so i am a little bit surprised.


----------



## rhodescholar

L.K.Eder said:


> in the bolded part you excuse past and announced future evasions. this has nothing to do with Kevin Kennedy. I judged you by the interaction you had with me on one of the first encounters, where you could not back up your claim about the palestinians among the basij, evaded, presented bad sources, and claimed victory even in other threads. you never manned up and admitted your agenda-driven exaggeration.
> 
> now you actually take me kind of seriously, so i am a little bit surprised.



Now i remember the conversation, the fact remained that you chose to not accept what was in the jerusalem post, a very mainstream newspaper, and that's your choice.

The fact that YOU decided not to accept it does not diminish me at all.  I recall you demanding sources, and I joked that that article happened to appear moments after.  That does not sound like an evasion to me, as i presented what most would accept as a MSM news article, but you didn't.  So then you attacked me for posting it, perhaps out of anger that I did have evidence to back up my claim, but if you want to call the J-post a "bad source", well then I do not know what to tell you.

And given that I spend far more time in iranian web sites, it was from them that i learned that there was lebanese and pals amongst the basij... it wasn't something that i just felt like making up.  You want to challenge people who would run circles around me or anyone else here who thinks they know shit about iran, go here:

Iran Defense Forum - Powered by vBulletin

You can join, but do NOT fuck around there, they will ban your ass VERY quick.  These are almost all native born iranians, and do not take kindly to outsiders who do not know what they are talking about, or try to pretend the current regime is legit, etc.

I'd recommend doing a search on the forum first, and looking around and learning, before  trying to post...

------

Edit:

I just did a search there, and found this thread to save you a bit of time:

http://www.irandefence.net/showthread.php?t=49496&highlight=lebanese+basij

These people all have family in iran, and know what they are talking about.  Now if you go in and start dicking around, saying they're full of it, you will be bounced in a heartbeat....as i said, read alot of it first...


----------



## L.K.Eder

rhodescholar said:


> L.K.Eder said:
> 
> 
> 
> in the bolded part you excuse past and announced future evasions. this has nothing to do with Kevin Kennedy. I judged you by the interaction you had with me on one of the first encounters, where you could not back up your claim about the palestinians among the basij, evaded, presented bad sources, and claimed victory even in other threads. you never manned up and admitted your agenda-driven exaggeration.
> 
> now you actually take me kind of seriously, so i am a little bit surprised.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Now i remember the conversation, the fact remained that you chose to not accept what was in the jerusalem post, a very mainstream newspaper, and that's your choice.
> 
> The fact that YOU decided not to accept it does not diminish me at all.  I recall you demanding sources, and I joked that that article happened to appear moments after.  That does not sound like an evasion to me, as i presented what most would accept as a MSM news article, but you didn't.  So then you attacked me for posting it, perhaps out of anger that I did have evidence to back up my claim, but if you want to call the J-post a "bad source", well then I do not know what to tell you.
> 
> And given that I spend far more time in iranian web sites, it was from them that i learned that there was lebanese and pals amongst the basij... it wasn't something that i just felt like making up.  You want to challenge people who would run circles around me or anyone else here who thinks they know shit about iran, go here:
> 
> Iran Defense Forum - Powered by vBulletin
> 
> You can join, but do NOT fuck around there, they will ban your ass VERY quick.  These are almost all native born iranians, and do not take kindly to outsiders who do not know what they are talking about, or try to pretend the current regime is legit, etc.
> 
> I'd recommend doing a search on the forum first, and looking around and learning, before  trying to post...
> 
> ------
> 
> Edit:
> 
> I just did a search there, and found this thread to save you a bit of time:
> 
> Could this be true..Basij = Hezbollah? - Iran Defense Forum
> 
> These people all have family in iran, and know what they are talking about.  Now if you go in and start dicking around, saying they're full of it, you will be bounced in a heartbeat....as i said, read alot of it first...
Click to expand...


your J-Post "source" was not valid, because it only reported someone telling about some alleged arabic speaking thugs. still did not make it "primarily" palestinian, in this exercise i just wanted you to retract this exaggeration.

interesting, i just skimmed the thread. they said the same i was saying. l o l. no support for your exaggeration that the basij were made up primarily of palestinians. they cited the german source, you know. about 5000 Lebanese, allegedly. some hearsay that some thugs were speaking arabic, i did never contest that possibilty.

i won't join there, why would i, i am still not sure what i am doing here on *US*MB,  but if i would join, i would survey the scene, test the water, and certainly wouldn't behave like a dick. i would reserve that for later.


----------



## rhodescholar

L.K.Eder said:


> your J-Post "source" was not valid, because it only reported someone telling about some alleged arabic speaking thugs.



Now you are sounding like KK...if iran blocked/arrested most/all journalists, and basically shut the web down, what kind of sourcing would you expect? 

These people have family there, and would know better than anyone... alot of these people were VERY supportive of the regime until this election, so it is not as if they were zionist plotters or something like that... it was when their family members started getting attacked did they say the regime was not legitimate anymore...


----------



## L.K.Eder

rhodescholar said:


> L.K.Eder said:
> 
> 
> 
> your J-Post "source" was not valid, because it only reported someone telling about some alleged arabic speaking thugs.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Now you are sounding like KK...if iran blocked/arrested most/all journalists, and basically shut the web down, what kind of sourcing would you expect?
> 
> These people have family there, and would know better than anyone... alot of these people were VERY supportive of the regime until this election, so it is not as if they were zionist plotters or something like that... it was when their family members started getting attacked did they say the regime was not legitimate anymore...
Click to expand...


yeah that is kind of a catch-22. 

but still the probability of the basij being primarily made up of palestinians who do the dirty muscle work is slim, and if you state something like that, you've shouldered the burden of proof, your decision, not mine.

you could have back tracked right there, and i would have left you alone.

it is actually understandable for iranians to try to blame outside forces for this atrocities, it is hard to swallow that your friends get beaten and killed maybe by guys from your same neigborhood. better to blame palestinians or lebanese thugs. there may be some outsiders, but most basij are iranians, that is a fact.


----------



## rhodescholar

L.K.Eder said:


> yeah that is kind of a catch-22.
> 
> but still the probability of the basij being primarily made up of palestinians who do the dirty muscle work is slim, and if you state something like that, you've shouldered the burden of proof, your decision, not mine.
> 
> you could have back tracked right there, and i would have left you alone.
> 
> it is actually understandable for iranians to try to blame outside forces for this atrocities, it is hard to swallow that your friends get beaten and killed maybe by guys from your same neigborhood. better to blame palestinians or lebanese thugs. there may be some outsiders, but most basij are iranians, that is a fact.



Lets be honest here... if i had said MANY were arabs, would you have not focused on me for days....  Something tells me I am not so sure...


----------



## Cold Fusion38

Hey Rhoad Kill you don't play the victim very well it is all very seamly. You are just a REICH WING douchebag. You threatened to sick the moderators on me and I told you to go fuck yourself. Nothing more nothing less.


----------



## Cold Fusion38

Poor poor sad pathetic little Rhoad Kill we should all weep for how poorly you have been treated.


----------



## Nik

rhodescholar said:


> L.K.Eder said:
> 
> 
> 
> in the bolded part you excuse past and announced future evasions. this has nothing to do with Kevin Kennedy. I judged you by the interaction you had with me on one of the first encounters, where you could not back up your claim about the palestinians among the basij, evaded, presented bad sources, and claimed victory even in other threads. you never manned up and admitted your agenda-driven exaggeration.
> 
> now you actually take me kind of seriously, so i am a little bit surprised.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Now i remember the conversation, the fact remained that you chose to not accept what was in the jerusalem post, a very mainstream newspaper, and that's your choice.
> 
> The fact that YOU decided not to accept it does not diminish me at all.  I recall you demanding sources, and I joked that that article happened to appear moments after.  That does not sound like an evasion to me, as i presented what most would accept as a MSM news article, but you didn't.  So then you attacked me for posting it, perhaps out of anger that I did have evidence to back up my claim, but if you want to call the J-post a "bad source", well then I do not know what to tell you.
> 
> And given that I spend far more time in iranian web sites, it was from them that i learned that there was lebanese and pals amongst the basij... it wasn't something that i just felt like making up.  You want to challenge people who would run circles around me or anyone else here who thinks they know shit about iran, go here:
> 
> Iran Defense Forum - Powered by vBulletin
> 
> You can join, but do NOT fuck around there, they will ban your ass VERY quick.  These are almost all native born iranians, and do not take kindly to outsiders who do not know what they are talking about, or try to pretend the current regime is legit, etc.
> 
> I'd recommend doing a search on the forum first, and looking around and learning, before  trying to post...
> 
> ------
> 
> Edit:
> 
> I just did a search there, and found this thread to save you a bit of time:
> 
> Could this be true..Basij = Hezbollah? - Iran Defense Forum
> 
> These people all have family in iran, and know what they are talking about.  Now if you go in and start dicking around, saying they're full of it, you will be bounced in a heartbeat....as i said, read alot of it first...
Click to expand...


Actually I recall you saying that the majority, or a large portion of the Basij were made up of Palestinians.  In defense of this proposition you posted a Jerusalem post article that cited a few individuals saying they saw some Palestinian Basij.  Funny that this story still hasn't come out, weeks later.


----------



## Nik

L.K.Eder said:


> rhodescholar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> L.K.Eder said:
> 
> 
> 
> in the bolded part you excuse past and announced future evasions. this has nothing to do with Kevin Kennedy. I judged you by the interaction you had with me on one of the first encounters, where you could not back up your claim about the palestinians among the basij, evaded, presented bad sources, and claimed victory even in other threads. you never manned up and admitted your agenda-driven exaggeration.
> 
> now you actually take me kind of seriously, so i am a little bit surprised.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Now i remember the conversation, the fact remained that you chose to not accept what was in the jerusalem post, a very mainstream newspaper, and that's your choice.
> 
> The fact that YOU decided not to accept it does not diminish me at all.  I recall you demanding sources, and I joked that that article happened to appear moments after.  That does not sound like an evasion to me, as i presented what most would accept as a MSM news article, but you didn't.  So then you attacked me for posting it, perhaps out of anger that I did have evidence to back up my claim, but if you want to call the J-post a "bad source", well then I do not know what to tell you.
> 
> And given that I spend far more time in iranian web sites, it was from them that i learned that there was lebanese and pals amongst the basij... it wasn't something that i just felt like making up.  You want to challenge people who would run circles around me or anyone else here who thinks they know shit about iran, go here:
> 
> Iran Defense Forum - Powered by vBulletin
> 
> You can join, but do NOT fuck around there, they will ban your ass VERY quick.  These are almost all native born iranians, and do not take kindly to outsiders who do not know what they are talking about, or try to pretend the current regime is legit, etc.
> 
> I'd recommend doing a search on the forum first, and looking around and learning, before  trying to post...
> 
> ------
> 
> Edit:
> 
> I just did a search there, and found this thread to save you a bit of time:
> 
> Could this be true..Basij = Hezbollah? - Iran Defense Forum
> 
> These people all have family in iran, and know what they are talking about.  Now if you go in and start dicking around, saying they're full of it, you will be bounced in a heartbeat....as i said, read alot of it first...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> your J-Post "source" was not valid, because it only reported someone telling about some alleged arabic speaking thugs. still did not make it "primarily" palestinian, in this exercise i just wanted you to retract this exaggeration.
> 
> interesting, i just skimmed the thread. they said the same i was saying. l o l. no support for your exaggeration that the basij were made up primarily of palestinians. they cited the german source, you know. about 5000 Lebanese, allegedly. some hearsay that some thugs were speaking arabic, i did never contest that possibilty.
> 
> i won't join there, why would i, i am still not sure what i am doing here on *US*MB,  but if i would join, i would survey the scene, test the water, and certainly wouldn't behave like a dick. i would reserve that for later.
Click to expand...


Seconded.  Some choice quotes from the thread that Rhoades posted in support of the proposition that there are many Palestinian Basij in Iran.



> Election or no election. Same people that are spreading these claims against Hezb'Allah are the same people who always opposed Hezb'Allah.
> 
> And while it's really laughable, its not as laughable as the claim they are Palestinians. Because somehow, ahmadinejad, who can not help Palestinians get out of Gaza to get medical treatment, was able to organize and get out a group of Palestinians to help him beat down rioters.





> IMO they are Iraqi refugees, there are half a million of so alone in Tehran I heard, this is highly possible.





> What a BS, first of all Basij are Iranian citizens and they have 90,000 active members (why need 5,000 extra). Secondly the only reason you are saying this is that you are confusing Anser-e-Hezbollah with Hezbollah because of the name though they have nothing to do with each other. Thirdly, Hezbollah is a Lebanese group, not Palestinian. Fourth, Hezbollah has ~1,000 fighters and during the war with Israel they had mobilised a total of ~3,000 men, how the hell are they gonna send 5,000 to Iran? Fifth, Hezbollah are insurgents, that's where they are trained for, not anti-rioting. Sixth, those Basijis and Ansaris which have been heared speaking Arabic, are Iraqi Shi'as who fled Iraq during Saddam for Iran and they are Iranian citizens now, they were not imported for anti-rioting.


----------



## L.K.Eder

rhodescholar said:


> L.K.Eder said:
> 
> 
> 
> yeah that is kind of a catch-22.
> 
> but still the probability of the basij being primarily made up of palestinians who do the dirty muscle work is slim, and if you state something like that, you've shouldered the burden of proof, your decision, not mine.
> 
> you could have back tracked right there, and i would have left you alone.
> 
> it is actually understandable for iranians to try to blame outside forces for this atrocities, it is hard to swallow that your friends get beaten and killed maybe by guys from your same neigborhood. better to blame palestinians or lebanese thugs. there may be some outsiders, but most basij are iranians, that is a fact.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lets be honest here... if i had said MANY were arabs, would you have not focused on me for days....  Something tells me I am not so sure...
Click to expand...


that's useless speculation. but i will play. if you had said MANY were arabs, i might have let it slipped, or i might have asked you to back that up anyway, sometimes it happens that someone on this message board links to an interesting source.

it would have depended on my mood when i was reading your post. 

but since you made and outrageous exaggeration and have a history of blaming palestinians for everything, i called you on it, to see how you would react. 

and here we are.


----------



## rhodescholar

L.K.Eder said:


> that's useless speculation. but i will play. if you had said MANY were arabs, i might have let it slipped, or i might have asked you to back that up anyway, sometimes it happens that someone on this message board links to an interesting source.
> 
> it would have depended on my mood when i was reading your post.
> 
> but since you made and outrageous exaggeration and have a history of blaming palestinians for everything, i called you on it, to see how you would react.
> 
> and here we are.



I will do something that might shock you and a few other posters, but i will admit to using too strong a phrase where I said "the majority were pals" which is not correct.  HOWEVER, and i do not have time to check the thread, IIRC it was mentioned that there were no pals or lebanese arabs co-operating with the Basij in iran, which is also false.

From my time in iran (cannot get into it for numerous reasons) during the 1999 riots, it was obvious that imported pal arabs were participating with the thugs in attacking the student demonstrators.  You live in the me long enough, you can recognize the arabic accents...

As for a "history" of blaming the pals, they've earned worse as their history is just awful, and a good read on it would easily prove me right...start with the arab pogroms of 1920 in Tel Hai...


----------



## L.K.Eder

rhodescholar said:


> L.K.Eder said:
> 
> 
> 
> that's useless speculation. but i will play. if you had said MANY were arabs, i might have let it slipped, or i might have asked you to back that up anyway, sometimes it happens that someone on this message board links to an interesting source.
> 
> it would have depended on my mood when i was reading your post.
> 
> but since you made and outrageous exaggeration and have a history of blaming palestinians for everything, i called you on it, to see how you would react.
> 
> and here we are.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *I will do something that might shock you and a few other posters, but i will admit to using too strong a phrase where I said "the majority were pals" which is not correct.*  HOWEVER, and i do not have time to check the thread, IIRC it was mentioned that there were no pals or lebanese arabs co-operating with the Basij in iran, which is also false.
> 
> From my time in iran (cannot get into it for numerous reasons) during the 1999 riots, it was obvious that imported pal arabs were participating with the thugs in attacking the student demonstrators.  You live in the me long enough, you can recognize the arabic accents...
> 
> As for a "history" of blaming the pals, they've earned worse as their history is just awful, and a good read on it would easily prove me right...start with the arab pogroms of 1920 in Tel Hai...
Click to expand...


thanks for this. that was all i was looking for. 

but don't run away from the correction by insinuating that someone said NO pals or lebanese (another evasion, you said pals) were participating. no one said that.

i was in iran in 2000 and met a tehrani student who was attacked by the basij. he mentioned arab speaking thugs too. i am aware of these rumors and think there are some mercenary style basij, but jut not that many.

on your view of the palestinians we will never agree, so i will pass on that "debate" for now.


----------



## Cold Fusion38

Poor poor sad pathetic little Rhoad Kill we should all weep for how poorly you have been treated.


----------



## Shogun

Whipped!


----------



## rhodescholar

Cold Fusion38 said:


> Poor poor sad pathetic little Rhoad Kill we should all weep for how poorly you have been treated.



Choke to death **** sock puppet douchebag...


----------



## del

rhodescholar said:


> Cold Fusion38 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Poor poor sad pathetic little Rhoad Kill we should all weep for how poorly you have been treated.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Choke to death **** sock puppet douchebag...
Click to expand...


wrong again, inspector clouseau


way to keep it classy!


----------



## Cold Fusion38

Oh such rude language Rhoad Kill.


----------



## rhodescholar

del said:


> wrong again, inspector clouseau



My guess is that you are just to fucking stupid to catch him, and what is interesting is how close _ your _ posts sound like shogun pussy's.... hmmmmm....are you shogun, or his twin cocksucking twin, mental weakie?


----------



## Cold Fusion38

Oh I forgot Rhoad Kill that anyone who calls you on your BS is a sock puppet. So sad too bad for poor poor sad little Rhoad Kill.


----------



## Shogun

rhodescholar said:


> del said:
> 
> 
> 
> wrong again, inspector clouseau
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My guess is that you are just to fucking stupid to catch him, and what is interesting is how close _ your _ posts sound like shogun pussy's.... hmmmmm....are you shogun, or his twin cocksucking twin, mental weakie?
Click to expand...


MORE!  Please, POST MORE FUNNY SHIT LIKE THIS!


----------



## del

rhodescholar said:


> del said:
> 
> 
> 
> wrong again, inspector clouseau
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My guess is that you are just to fucking stupid to catch him, and what is interesting is how close _ your _ posts sound like shogun pussy's.... hmmmmm....are you shogun, or his twin cocksucking twin, mental weakie?
Click to expand...


sssSSSSSOCK PUPPPETTTSSSSSSsssss!


----------



## Shogun

del said:


> rhodescholar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> del said:
> 
> 
> 
> wrong again, inspector clouseau
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My guess is that you are just to fucking stupid to catch him, and what is interesting is how close _ your _ posts sound like shogun pussy's.... hmmmmm....are you shogun, or his twin cocksucking twin, mental weakie?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> sssSSSSSOCK PUPPPETTTSSSSSSsssss!
Click to expand...


HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

HILARIOUS!


----------



## Cold Fusion38

Rhoad Kill you are a used condom puppet.


----------



## HUGGY

Shogun said:


> rhodescholar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> del said:
> 
> 
> 
> wrong again, inspector clouseau
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My guess is that you are just to fucking stupid to catch him, and what is interesting is how close _ your _ posts sound like shogun pussy's.... hmmmmm....are you shogun, or his twin cocksucking twin, *mental weakie*?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> MORE!  Please, POST MORE FUNNY SHIT LIKE THIS!
Click to expand...



"mental weakie" ..says it all doesn't it?  I pray you don't turn your strength of writing skills on me.


----------



## rhodescholar

HUGGY said:


> "mental weakie" ..says it all doesn't it?  I pray you don't turn your strength of writing skills on me.



Surprise us idiot and post something on topic for a change.  Every fucking post of yrs i've seen is the same crap flamebait bullshit, grow up already.


----------



## Shogun

rhodescholar said:


> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> "mental weakie" ..says it all doesn't it?  I pray you don't turn your strength of writing skills on me.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Surprise us idiot and post something on topic for a change.  Every fucking post of yrs i've seen is the same crap flamebait bullshit, grow up already.
Click to expand...


wow!  At least you are consistent in your FAIL.  Please, cry about flame baiting and trolls AGAIN!


----------



## Cold Fusion38

Poor little condom puppet Rhoad Kill.


----------



## HUGGY

rhodescholar said:


> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> "mental weakie" ..says it all doesn't it?  I pray you don't turn your strength of writing skills on me.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Surprise us idiot and post something on topic for a change.  Every fucking post of yrs i've seen is the same crap flamebait bullshit, grow up already.
Click to expand...


Hey fuckhead..I prayed!  doesn't that mean anything to you?

Oh ya "its time to attack Iran"  Don't you think we would be better served attacking the Tralfamadorians?


----------



## jodylee

The first world war the Treaty of Versailles the rise to power of hitler was all orchestrated by the same global elite with the zionist elite at the centre. The same people that funded isreal and the same people that want the US to do isreals dirty work. 
Is it any Coincidence that the  so called axes of evil are all countries that refuse to implement the central banking system.


----------



## ErikViking

jodylee said:


> The first world war the Treaty of Versailles the rise to power of hitler was all orchestrated by the same global elite with the zionist elite at the centre. The same people that funded isreal and the same people that want the US to do isreals dirty work.
> Is it any Coincidence that the  so called axes of evil are all countries that refuse to implement the central banking system.



A group of people did this?

Started WWI.
Ended it with the Treaty of Versailles.
Got rid of the very same treaty by putting Hitler to power.

Yet, hardly no one knows about it?

I say... they are so smart and cunning they deserve world domination. I surrender.


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy

ErikViking said:


> jodylee said:
> 
> 
> 
> The first world war the Treaty of Versailles the rise to power of hitler was all orchestrated by the same global elite with the zionist elite at the centre. The same people that funded isreal and the same people that want the US to do isreals dirty work.
> Is it any Coincidence that the  so called axes of evil are all countries that refuse to implement the central banking system.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A group of people did this?
> 
> Started WWI.
> Ended it with the Treaty of Versailles.
> Got rid of the very same treaty by putting Hitler to power.
> 
> Yet, hardly no one knows about it?
> 
> I say... they are so smart and cunning they deserve world domination. I surrender.
Click to expand...


Well the Treaty of Versailles certainly led to Hitler's rise to power.  Now that being intentional I don't believe for a minute.


----------



## JakeStarkey

jodylee said:


> The first world war the Treaty of Versailles the rise to power of hitler was all orchestrated by the same global elite with the zionist elite at the centre. The same people that funded isreal and the same people that want the US to do isreals dirty work.
> Is it any Coincidence that the  so called axes of evil are all countries that refuse to implement the central banking system.




  Soft string melodies are piped into Jodylee's room, because music is said to be good therapy for the emotionally disturbed.  And her secured strait jacket protects the rest of us.


----------



## Gurdari

rhodescholar said:


> What a pleasure, seeing a person in the thread with a mental age over 4- take note Del, shogun, etc.
> 
> 
> 
> Gurdari said:
> 
> 
> 
> When did Iran threaten Israel? Please be literal and direct and clear.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Israel - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Click to expand...


Pressed for time - but I read that page and mostly it speaks against the notion that Iran has threatened Israel...

See below:

***

The Middle East Media Research Institute (MEMRI) translates the phrase similarly, as "be eliminated from the pages of history."[12]

According to Cole, "Ahmadinejad did not say he was going to 'wipe Israel off the map' because no such idiom exists in Persian". Instead, "He did say he hoped its regime, i.e., a Jewish-Zionist state occupying Jerusalem, would collapse."[13]


So, like many people - I hope occupation/oppression/etc vanishes from history. Whether or not you believe Israel is an oppressor or not - you would hopefully agree that oppression is wrong no matter hwo does it.

***

Also, 

***

In a September 2008 interview with Juan Gonzalez and Amy Goodman on the radio and television program Democracy Now!, Ahmadinejad was asked: "If the Palestinian leaders agree to a two-state solution, could Iran live with an Israeli state?" and replied

If they [the Palestinians] want to keep the Zionists, they can stay ... Whatever the people decide, we will respect it. I mean, it's very much in correspondence with our proposal to allow Palestinian people to decide through free referendums.[29]

***

What you make of his statements may be up to you.

Though I do not believe he has threatened Israel, his statements tend to be 'If we get attacked - we'll fight back' or 'The way that Israel acts should disappear' sort of things, instead of kill the jews or whatever.

Again, you may think Iran ACTS differently, but I think the statements are not threats exactly. I do think Iran is threatened by others though, and fairly often.


----------



## Shogun

clearly, you want to see dead jews lying dead in the killing fields of a nuked israel. 


fucking antisemite.




Preparing you for Ghook's input.


----------



## HUGGY

Shogun said:


> clearly, you want to see dead jews lying dead in the killing fields of a nuked israel.
> 
> 
> fucking antisemite.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Preparing you for Ghook's input.



*clearly, you want to see dead jews lying dead in the killing fields of a nuked israel. *


Loved the book..hated the movie.


----------



## Nevadamedic

rhodescholar said:


> Here is a great article on why iran needs to be attacked ASAP.  Rather than respond emotionally, as have so many here have done recently, I would like to see posters come up with point-by-point responses why Bolton's assessment is inaccurate.
> 
> washingtonpost.com
> 
> By John R. Bolton
> Thursday, July 2, 2009
> With Iran's hard-line mullahs and the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps unmistakably back in control, Israel's decision of whether to use military force against Tehran's nuclear weapons program is more urgent than ever.
> 
> Iran's nuclear threat was never in doubt during its presidential campaign, but the post-election resistance raised the possibility of some sort of regime change. That prospect seems lost for the near future or for at least as long as it will take Iran to finalize a deliverable nuclear weapons capability.
> 
> Accordingly, with no other timely option, the already compelling logic for an Israeli strike is nearly inexorable. Israel is undoubtedly ratcheting forward its decision-making process. President Obama is almost certainly not.
> 
> He still wants "engagement" (a particularly evocative term now) with Iran's current regime. Last Thursday, the State Department confirmed that Secretary Hillary Clinton spoke to her Russian and Chinese counterparts about "getting Iran back to negotiating on some of these concerns that the international community has." This is precisely the view of Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov, reflected in the Group of Eight communique the next day. Sen. John Kerry thinks the recent election unpleasantness in Tehran will delay negotiations for only a few weeks.
> 
> Obama administration sources have opined (anonymously) that Iran will be more eager to negotiate than it was before its election in order to find "acceptance" by the "international community." Some leaks indicated that negotiations had to produce results by the U.N. General Assembly's opening in late September, while others projected that they had until the end of 2009 to show progress. These gauzy scenarios assume that the Tehran regime cares about "acceptance" or is somehow embarrassed by eliminating its enemies. Both propositions are dubious.
> 
> Obama will nonetheless attempt to jump-start bilateral negotiations with Iran, though time is running out even under the timetables leaked to the media. There are two problems with this approach. First, Tehran isn't going to negotiate in good faith. It hasn't for the past six years with the European Union as our surrogates, and it won't start now. As Clinton said on Tuesday, Iran has "a huge credibility gap" because of its electoral fraud. Second, given Iran's nuclear progress, even if the stronger sanctions Obama has threatened could be agreed upon, they would not prevent Iran from fabricating weapons and delivery systems when it chooses, as it has been striving to do for the past 20 years. Time is too short, and sanctions failed long ago.
> 
> Only those most theologically committed to negotiation still believe Iran will fully renounce its nuclear program. Unfortunately, the Obama administration has a "Plan B," which would allow Iran to have a "peaceful" civil nuclear power program while publicly "renouncing" the objective of nuclear weapons. Obama would define such an outcome as "success," even though in reality it would hardly be different from what Iran is doing and saying now. A "peaceful" uranium enrichment program, "peaceful" reactors such as Bushehr and "peaceful" heavy-water projects like that under construction at Arak leave Iran with an enormous breakout capability to produce nuclear weapons in very short order. And anyone who believes the Revolutionary Guard Corps will abandon its weaponization and ballistic missile programs probably believes that there was no fraud in Iran's June 12 election. See "huge credibility gap," supra.
> 
> In short, the stolen election and its tumultuous aftermath have dramatically highlighted the strategic and tactical flaws in Obama's game plan. With regime change off the table for the coming critical period in Iran's nuclear program, Israel's decision on using force is both easier and more urgent. Since there is no likelihood that diplomacy will start or finish in time, or even progress far enough to make any real difference, there is no point waiting for negotiations to play out. In fact, given the near certainty of Obama changing his definition of "success," negotiations represent an even more dangerous trap for Israel.
> 
> Those who oppose Iran acquiring nuclear weapons are left in the near term with only the option of targeted military force against its weapons facilities. Significantly, the uprising in Iran also makes it more likely that an effective public diplomacy campaign could be waged in the country to explain to Iranians that such an attack is directed against the regime, not against the Iranian people. This was always true, but it has become even more important to make this case emphatically, when the gulf between the Islamic revolution of 1979 and the citizens of Iran has never been clearer or wider. Military action against Iran's nuclear program and the ultimate goal of regime change can be worked together consistently.
> 
> Otherwise, be prepared for an Iran with nuclear weapons, which some, including Obama advisers, believe could be contained and deterred. That is not a hypothesis we should seek to test in the real world. The cost of error could be fatal.
> 
> The writer, a senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, was U.S. ambassador to the United Nations from August 2005 to December 2006 and is the author of "Surrender Is Not an Option: Defending America at the United Nations and Abroad."



Just nuke that fucking country.


----------



## HUGGY

Nevadamedic said:


> rhodescholar said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here is a great article on why iran needs to be attacked ASAP.  Rather than respond emotionally, as have so many here have done recently, I would like to see posters come up with point-by-point responses why Bolton's assessment is inaccurate.
> 
> washingtonpost.com
> 
> By John R. Bolton
> Thursday, July 2, 2009
> With Iran's hard-line mullahs and the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps unmistakably back in control, Israel's decision of whether to use military force against Tehran's nuclear weapons program is more urgent than ever.
> 
> Iran's nuclear threat was never in doubt during its presidential campaign, but the post-election resistance raised the possibility of some sort of regime change. That prospect seems lost for the near future or for at least as long as it will take Iran to finalize a deliverable nuclear weapons capability.
> 
> Accordingly, with no other timely option, the already compelling logic for an Israeli strike is nearly inexorable. Israel is undoubtedly ratcheting forward its decision-making process. President Obama is almost certainly not.
> 
> He still wants "engagement" (a particularly evocative term now) with Iran's current regime. Last Thursday, the State Department confirmed that Secretary Hillary Clinton spoke to her Russian and Chinese counterparts about "getting Iran back to negotiating on some of these concerns that the international community has." This is precisely the view of Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov, reflected in the Group of Eight communique the next day. Sen. John Kerry thinks the recent election unpleasantness in Tehran will delay negotiations for only a few weeks.
> 
> Obama administration sources have opined (anonymously) that Iran will be more eager to negotiate than it was before its election in order to find "acceptance" by the "international community." Some leaks indicated that negotiations had to produce results by the U.N. General Assembly's opening in late September, while others projected that they had until the end of 2009 to show progress. These gauzy scenarios assume that the Tehran regime cares about "acceptance" or is somehow embarrassed by eliminating its enemies. Both propositions are dubious.
> 
> Obama will nonetheless attempt to jump-start bilateral negotiations with Iran, though time is running out even under the timetables leaked to the media. There are two problems with this approach. First, Tehran isn't going to negotiate in good faith. It hasn't for the past six years with the European Union as our surrogates, and it won't start now. As Clinton said on Tuesday, Iran has "a huge credibility gap" because of its electoral fraud. Second, given Iran's nuclear progress, even if the stronger sanctions Obama has threatened could be agreed upon, they would not prevent Iran from fabricating weapons and delivery systems when it chooses, as it has been striving to do for the past 20 years. Time is too short, and sanctions failed long ago.
> 
> Only those most theologically committed to negotiation still believe Iran will fully renounce its nuclear program. Unfortunately, the Obama administration has a "Plan B," which would allow Iran to have a "peaceful" civil nuclear power program while publicly "renouncing" the objective of nuclear weapons. Obama would define such an outcome as "success," even though in reality it would hardly be different from what Iran is doing and saying now. A "peaceful" uranium enrichment program, "peaceful" reactors such as Bushehr and "peaceful" heavy-water projects like that under construction at Arak leave Iran with an enormous breakout capability to produce nuclear weapons in very short order. And anyone who believes the Revolutionary Guard Corps will abandon its weaponization and ballistic missile programs probably believes that there was no fraud in Iran's June 12 election. See "huge credibility gap," supra.
> 
> In short, the stolen election and its tumultuous aftermath have dramatically highlighted the strategic and tactical flaws in Obama's game plan. With regime change off the table for the coming critical period in Iran's nuclear program, Israel's decision on using force is both easier and more urgent. Since there is no likelihood that diplomacy will start or finish in time, or even progress far enough to make any real difference, there is no point waiting for negotiations to play out. In fact, given the near certainty of Obama changing his definition of "success," negotiations represent an even more dangerous trap for Israel.
> 
> Those who oppose Iran acquiring nuclear weapons are left in the near term with only the option of targeted military force against its weapons facilities. Significantly, the uprising in Iran also makes it more likely that an effective public diplomacy campaign could be waged in the country to explain to Iranians that such an attack is directed against the regime, not against the Iranian people. This was always true, but it has become even more important to make this case emphatically, when the gulf between the Islamic revolution of 1979 and the citizens of Iran has never been clearer or wider. Military action against Iran's nuclear program and the ultimate goal of regime change can be worked together consistently.
> 
> Otherwise, be prepared for an Iran with nuclear weapons, which some, including Obama advisers, believe could be contained and deterred. That is not a hypothesis we should seek to test in the real world. The cost of error could be fatal.
> 
> The writer, a senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, was U.S. ambassador to the United Nations from August 2005 to December 2006 and is the author of "Surrender Is Not an Option: Defending America at the United Nations and Abroad."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just nuke that fucking country.
Click to expand...


Then... can we nuke the churches here in the USA?  Let's get rid of all of the fucked up fundimentalists... fear mongering ...war mongering assholes at the same time.


----------



## The_Halfmoon

Iran SHOULD be attacked.  And regime change SHOULD take place ASAP.  But the price to be paid by Israel, the US, and the rest of the world would be far too great for it to be a legitimate option.


----------



## Sunni Man

The_Halfmoon said:


> Iran SHOULD be attacked.  And regime change SHOULD take place ASAP.


Why????


----------



## The_Halfmoon

Sunni Man said:


> The_Halfmoon said:
> 
> 
> 
> Iran SHOULD be attacked.  And regime change SHOULD take place ASAP.
> 
> 
> 
> Why????
Click to expand...


Off the top of my head, for the benefit of Iranians themselves:

it is a brutal govenment to its own people
it has reversed years of progress under the Shah
Bilions of dollars of oil money consistently disappear into the pockets of the mullahs
It is a regime that executes children in the most sadistic way
It has very little support from its own people
It criminalizes moral beliefs such as homosexuality, shaking a woman's hand, revealing hair
It refuses to install a democracy which people in Iran have been fighting for since 1904

And for the rest of the world:

It supports terrorists all around the world
It has killed Americans and Frenchmen in Lebanon
Even when reformists such as president Khatami tried to open dialogue with the US, it clamped down
When Larijani (who is even somewhat of a conservative) accepted diplomatic terms offered by the US, he was refused by the supreme leader and Ahmedinejad 
Although it is not anti-semitic in the way presented in the media, it nonetheless seeks 
confrontation with Israel for political dominance over the middle east

But most importantly:

If war does not happen now, a much more powerful government will take power and clamp down further on its own people as well as its neighbors.


----------



## HUGGY

No...seriously...The tralfamdorians kidnaped Miss Montana and Billy and made them have sex on national TV or whatever the fuck the Tralfamdorians watch.  Disgusting!

And..they kept em in a dome that was a clear rip off from some Californian commie cult.

Maybe there is a commie connection? Did you ever think of that?  And..how about that when Miss Montana finally showed up she was corrupt and was turned into a ho for Lex Luthur in The Superman movie!

Who has Iran made to have sex on national TV? NO ONE!  I think I've made my point quite clearly!


----------



## Sunni Man

HUGGY said:


> No...seriously...The tralfamdorians kidnaped Miss Montana and Billy and made them have sex on national TV or whatever the fuck the Tralfamdorians watch.  Disgusting!
> 
> And..they kept em in a dome that was a clear rip off from some Californian commie cult.
> 
> Maybe there is a commie connection? Did you ever think of that?  And..how about that when Miss Montana finally showed up she was corrupt and was turned into a ho for Lex Luthur in The Superman movie!
> 
> Who has Iran made to have sex on national TV? NO ONE!  I think I've made my point quite clearly!


Huggy, your post makes TWICE as much sense as Half Loon's post


----------



## HUGGY

Sunni Man said:


> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> No...seriously...The tralfamdorians kidnaped Miss Montana and Billy and made them have sex on national TV or whatever the fuck the Tralfamdorians watch.  Disgusting!
> 
> And..they kept em in a dome that was a clear rip off from some Californian commie cult.
> 
> Maybe there is a commie connection? Did you ever think of that?  And..how about that when Miss Montana finally showed up she was corrupt and was turned into a ho for Lex Luthur in The Superman movie!
> 
> Who has Iran made to have sex on national TV? NO ONE!  I think I've made my point quite clearly!
> 
> 
> 
> Huggy, your post makes TWICE as much sense as Half Loon's post
Click to expand...


Go ahead and spoof!  Those Tralfamadorian fuckers almost highjacked one of my favorite movies..Slaughter House 5


----------



## Sunni Man

HUGGY said:


> Sunni Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> No...seriously...The tralfamdorians kidnaped Miss Montana and Billy and made them have sex on national TV or whatever the fuck the Tralfamdorians watch.  Disgusting!
> 
> And..they kept em in a dome that was a clear rip off from some Californian commie cult.
> 
> Maybe there is a commie connection? Did you ever think of that?  And..how about that when Miss Montana finally showed up she was corrupt and was turned into a ho for Lex Luthur in The Superman movie!
> 
> Who has Iran made to have sex on national TV? NO ONE!  I think I've made my point quite clearly!
> 
> 
> 
> Huggy, your post makes TWICE as much sense as Half Loon's post
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Go ahead and spoof!  Those Tralfamadorian fuckers almost highjacked one of my favorite movies..Slaughter House 5
Click to expand...

I believe that somehow the Jews were involved.

I saw the Nazis there, so there must have been a Jew hiding behind a rock or tree!!!


----------



## The_Halfmoon

I suppose my post doesn't make much sense... you appear to be well informed about Iran, so I'll leave you be with your opinion


----------



## jillian

The_Halfmoon said:


> Iran SHOULD be attacked.  And regime change SHOULD take place ASAP.  But the price to be paid by Israel, the US, and the rest of the world would be far too great for it to be a legitimate option.



Let me guess... you think we can't afford health care of things that keep the economy going, but you're all for spending another 200 billion on another war of choice fought from a third front?

No... we shouldn't attack Iran. It isn't our place to change anyone's regime because we don't like them. And in this particular case, the regime will change on it's own if we stay the heck out of it, because the younger Irani's are getting very tired of this. 

But any change can't have to do with the U.S. b/c that will delegitimize it.


----------



## The_Halfmoon

jillian said:


> The_Halfmoon said:
> 
> 
> 
> Iran SHOULD be attacked.  And regime change SHOULD take place ASAP.  But the price to be paid by Israel, the US, and the rest of the world would be far too great for it to be a legitimate option.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Let me guess... you think we can't afford health care of things that keep the economy going, but you're all for spending another 200 billion on another war of choice fought from a third front?
> 
> No... we shouldn't attack Iran. It isn't our place to change anyone's regime because we don't like them. And in this particular case, the regime will change on it's own if we stay the heck out of it, because the younger Irani's are getting very tired of this.
> 
> But any change can't have to do with the U.S. b/c that will delegitimize it.
Click to expand...


I have to emphasize that the latter part of my statement describes my leanings more than the "should attack" part

the price paid, in both human (mainly human) and economic losses is too great

but the regime in power in Iran is not to be taken lightly as a creation of Republican propaganda... it is genuinely corrupt and evil, and is not looking out for the interests of its own people.  

and I'm affraid that, as optimistic as I would like to be about the people overthrowing the government, it will most likely not happen... the only outcome of the recent turmoil has been the clearing out of moderates from positions of power and the elimination of Rafsanjani's influence. There is a very rapid shift to the right going on right now, and young Tehranis are very much outnumbered by young people outside the capital who support Ahmedinejad


----------



## stonewall

The_Halfmoon said:


> Sunni Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The_Halfmoon said:
> 
> 
> 
> Iran SHOULD be attacked.  And regime change SHOULD take place ASAP.
> 
> 
> 
> Why????
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Off the top of my head, for the benefit of Iranians themselves:
> 
> it is a brutal govenment to its own people
> it has reversed years of progress under the Shah
> Bilions of dollars of oil money consistently disappear into the pockets of the mullahs
> It is a regime that executes children in the most sadistic way
> It has very little support from its own people
> It criminalizes moral beliefs such as homosexuality, shaking a woman's hand, revealing hair
> It refuses to install a democracy which people in Iran have been fighting for since 1904
> 
> And for the rest of the world:
> 
> It supports terrorists all around the world
> It has killed Americans and Frenchmen in Lebanon
> Even when reformists such as president Khatami tried to open dialogue with the US, it clamped down
> When Larijani (who is even somewhat of a conservative) accepted diplomatic terms offered by the US, he was refused by the supreme leader and Ahmedinejad
> Although it is not anti-semitic in the way presented in the media, it nonetheless seeks
> confrontation with Israel for political dominance over the middle east
> 
> But most importantly:
> 
> If war does not happen now, a much more powerful government will take power and clamp down further on its own people as well as its neighbors.
Click to expand...



I think it a bad idea to war with Iran. 

If anything we should be pulling out of Iraq and Afghanistan. Get out of the Persian Gulf. Etc..

Iranians have proven that they can revolt against their government and take it down, 1979 proved that. 

As far as their nuclear program goes, of course they are developing nukes. But, we cannot stop that by blowing things up. We might be able to delay their program a bit but then eventually they will have it anyway. 

Plus Obama is not going to attack Iran. No way.

The world is just gonna have to get used to an Iranian regime with nukes.


----------



## The_Halfmoon

I think the most important factor is Israel's frustrations with Iran and how far it would be willing to go to get rid of Iran's influence

A nuclear weapon is not the primary problem.  Iran backs Hezbollah and Hamas, and the Lebanon war ruined Israel's reputation in the West and frankly humiliated the country that claims to be infinitely more powerful than its neighbours. Israel knows it can't possibly get rid of those smaller groups that resist it in Lebanon and Palestine unless it cuts off the funds and aid coming from Iran (though I guess Hezbollah is now more and more independently financed) 

So I really don't see confrontation as an "if" but as a "when." In an ideal world we would have leaders that cared about the well-being of mankind, but sadly the decision makers in this situation are a bunch of religious lunatics in Qom and in-bred bankers in New York... 

War will happen eventually unless the Iranian government is toppled from within... and a more militaristic Iran is likely to grow out of the current situation.


----------



## stonewall

The_Halfmoon said:


> I think the most important factor is Israel's frustrations with Iran and how far it would be willing to go to get rid of Iran's influence
> 
> A nuclear weapon is not the primary problem.  Iran backs Hezbollah and Hamas, and the Lebanon war ruined Israel's reputation in the West and frankly humiliated the country that claims to be infinitely more powerful than its neighbours. Israel knows it can't possibly get rid of those smaller groups that resist it in Lebanon and Palestine unless it cuts off the funds and aid coming from Iran (though I guess Hezbollah is now more and more independently financed)
> 
> So I really don't see confrontation as an "if" but as a "when." In an ideal world we would have leaders that cared about the well-being of mankind, but sadly the decision makers in this situation are a bunch of religious lunatics in Qom and in-bred bankers in New York...
> 
> War will happen eventually unless the Iranian government is toppled from within... and a more militaristic Iran is likely to grow out of the current situation.




Don't expect a revolution in Iran. There is no reason for one. Not really.

The Iranian people can see that what the regime is doing is successful. They are winning. 

They have confronted the world and have won. They will have their nuclear arsenal. 

The biggest problem this creates is that the NPT is basically dead.


----------



## Cold Fusion38

Here's the thing......You CAN'T spread democracy like peanut butter over toast. If THEY want Democracy then THEY will have to fight and die for it or it HAS NO VALUE!!!


----------



## Sunni Man

Cold Fusion38 said:


> Here's the thing......You CAN'T spread democracy like peanut butter over toast. If THEY want Democracy then THEY will have to fight and die for it or it HAS NO VALUE!!!


Iran is already a Democracy


----------



## stonewall

Sunni Man said:


> Cold Fusion38 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here's the thing......You CAN'T spread democracy like peanut butter over toast. If THEY want Democracy then THEY will have to fight and die for it or it HAS NO VALUE!!!
> 
> 
> 
> Iran is already a Democracy
Click to expand...


Somewhat.


----------



## The_Halfmoon

stonewall said:


> The_Halfmoon said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think the most important factor is Israel's frustrations with Iran and how far it would be willing to go to get rid of Iran's influence
> 
> A nuclear weapon is not the primary problem.  Iran backs Hezbollah and Hamas, and the Lebanon war ruined Israel's reputation in the West and frankly humiliated the country that claims to be infinitely more powerful than its neighbours. Israel knows it can't possibly get rid of those smaller groups that resist it in Lebanon and Palestine unless it cuts off the funds and aid coming from Iran (though I guess Hezbollah is now more and more independently financed)
> 
> So I really don't see confrontation as an "if" but as a "when." In an ideal world we would have leaders that cared about the well-being of mankind, but sadly the decision makers in this situation are a bunch of religious lunatics in Qom and in-bred bankers in New York...
> 
> War will happen eventually unless the Iranian government is toppled from within... and a more militaristic Iran is likely to grow out of the current situation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Don't expect a revolution in Iran. There is no reason for one. Not really.
> 
> The Iranian people can see that what the regime is doing is successful. They are winning.
> 
> They have confronted the world and have won. They will have their nuclear arsenal.
> 
> The biggest problem this creates is that the NPT is basically dead.
Click to expand...


Iran's economic problems, disappearing oil surpluses, consistent and persistent violations of the regime's own law, etc.  are giving Iranians a great cause for revolution... but this is a government that is very difficult to break.  No revolution in Iran wiill be successful unless the oil profits are out of mullah hands.

I actually don't think Iran will build a nuclear weapon, but instead will have all the prerequisites ready to use as a bargaining chip


----------



## Cold Fusion38

The FACT is that if you want regime change in YOUR country then it is YOU and your fellow citizens that must RISE UP, REVOLT, GIVE THEIR BLOOD and TEARS and LIMBS and FAMILIES if they want to have their own style of self governence.


----------



## The_Halfmoon

Cold Fusion38 said:


> Here's the thing......You CAN'T spread democracy like peanut butter over toast. If THEY want Democracy then THEY will have to fight and die for it or it HAS NO VALUE!!!



Iranians fought and died for their constitution in 1904.  They set up democratic institutions and were ready to institute a democracy after the Qajar dynasty... until the Western powers forced Shah Pahlavi into accepting an autocratic government instead (not for bad reason... their entire policy was to set up an autocratic system that modernized the country so as to ward off socialist desires)

They then tried to set up a democratic government in the early 50s, and the CIA toppled that government and instituted the Shah again.

Then they overthrew the shah and voted for a republic based on Islamic principals, until the US and Europe encouraged and backed Saddam Hussein in a brutal 8 year war which killed over half a million Iranians.  Then Khomeini used the opportunity presented by war to set up a dictatorship.

Essentially Iranians have bled for their freedom for a long time now.  Yet everytime it's been British, Russian, or American interference which has taken away the democracy the people fought for.

Ironically it's the only country in the region that would vote for secularism, while the arab countries would prefer a religious government... perhaps because the Iranians have experienced this "Islamic paradise"


----------



## stonewall

The_Halfmoon said:


> stonewall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The_Halfmoon said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think the most important factor is Israel's frustrations with Iran and how far it would be willing to go to get rid of Iran's influence
> 
> A nuclear weapon is not the primary problem.  Iran backs Hezbollah and Hamas, and the Lebanon war ruined Israel's reputation in the West and frankly humiliated the country that claims to be infinitely more powerful than its neighbours. Israel knows it can't possibly get rid of those smaller groups that resist it in Lebanon and Palestine unless it cuts off the funds and aid coming from Iran (though I guess Hezbollah is now more and more independently financed)
> 
> So I really don't see confrontation as an "if" but as a "when." In an ideal world we would have leaders that cared about the well-being of mankind, but sadly the decision makers in this situation are a bunch of religious lunatics in Qom and in-bred bankers in New York...
> 
> War will happen eventually unless the Iranian government is toppled from within... and a more militaristic Iran is likely to grow out of the current situation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Don't expect a revolution in Iran. There is no reason for one. Not really.
> 
> The Iranian people can see that what the regime is doing is successful. They are winning.
> 
> They have confronted the world and have won. They will have their nuclear arsenal.
> 
> The biggest problem this creates is that the NPT is basically dead.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Iran's economic problems, disappearing oil surpluses, consistent and persistent violations of the regime's own law, etc.  are giving Iranians a great cause for revolution... but this is a government that is very difficult to break.  No revolution in Iran wiill be successful unless the oil profits are out of mullah hands.
> 
> I actually don't think Iran will build a nuclear weapon, but instead will have all the prerequisites ready to use as a bargaining chip
Click to expand...




No, they will develop nuclear weapons. Iran sees itself as a future Super Power. 

I don't think they wish to bargain. That has not been it's way. 

This is an ideology that does not back down. They see themselves as on a mission from God. 

They are an evil regime in the sense that they torture and imprison political prisoners... but aside from those areas of excess, they are an Islamic Republic governing by Islamic Law.

They would consider it evil not to do so. In a nation of Muslims it's very hard to revolt against a regime that is Islamic. First they must judge the regime un-Islamic. Only then can they revolt against it.


----------



## The_Halfmoon

stonewall said:


> The_Halfmoon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> stonewall said:
> 
> 
> 
> Don't expect a revolution in Iran. There is no reason for one. Not really.
> 
> The Iranian people can see that what the regime is doing is successful. They are winning.
> 
> They have confronted the world and have won. They will have their nuclear arsenal.
> 
> The biggest problem this creates is that the NPT is basically dead.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Iran's economic problems, disappearing oil surpluses, consistent and persistent violations of the regime's own law, etc.  are giving Iranians a great cause for revolution... but this is a government that is very difficult to break.  No revolution in Iran wiill be successful unless the oil profits are out of mullah hands.
> 
> I actually don't think Iran will build a nuclear weapon, but instead will have all the prerequisites ready to use as a bargaining chip
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, they will develop nuclear weapons. Iran sees itself as a future Super Power.
> 
> I don't think they wish to bargain. That has not been it's way.
> 
> This is an ideology that does not back down. They see themselves as on a mission from God.
> 
> They are an evil regime in the sense that they torture and imprison political prisoners... but aside from those areas of excess, they are an Islamic Republic governing by Islamic Law.
> 
> They would consider it evil not to do so. In a nation of Muslims it's very hard to revolt against a regime that is Islamic. First they must judge the regime un-Islamic. Only then can they revolt against it.
Click to expand...


you really need to visit Iran... the majority of the country laughs at Islam... about 45% support the Islamic government, but of those many would like to see changes in the system.  What they have to do is get rid of the Basiji forces, which will not happen until the regime stops funding it with "disappearing" oil money.

And the government only cares about lining the pockets of the upper class with as much money as they can before they are kicked out and have to live in exile as billionaires... they most likely won't be build a bomb, because they have to respect (at least nominally) the international community and its laws... so they can get out of the sanctions which are crippling the country so their own people won't kill them


----------



## Sunni Man

The_Halfmoon said:


> stonewall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The_Halfmoon said:
> 
> 
> 
> Iran's economic problems, disappearing oil surpluses, consistent and persistent violations of the regime's own law, etc.  are giving Iranians a great cause for revolution... but this is a government that is very difficult to break.  No revolution in Iran wiill be successful unless the oil profits are out of mullah hands.
> 
> I actually don't think Iran will build a nuclear weapon, but instead will have all the prerequisites ready to use as a bargaining chip
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, they will develop nuclear weapons. Iran sees itself as a future Super Power.
> 
> I don't think they wish to bargain. That has not been it's way.
> 
> This is an ideology that does not back down. They see themselves as on a mission from God.
> 
> They are an evil regime in the sense that they torture and imprison political prisoners... but aside from those areas of excess, they are an Islamic Republic governing by Islamic Law.
> 
> They would consider it evil not to do so. In a nation of Muslims it's very hard to revolt against a regime that is Islamic. First they must judge the regime un-Islamic. Only then can they revolt against it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> you really need to visit Iran... the majority of the country laughs at Islam... about 45% support the Islamic government, but of those many would like to see changes in the system.  What they have to do is get rid of the Basiji forces, which will not happen until the regime stops funding it with "disappearing" oil money.
> 
> And the government only cares about lining the pockets of the upper class with as much money as they can before they are kicked out and have to live in exile as billionaires... they most likely won't be build a bomb, because they have to respect (at least nominally) the international community and its laws... so they can get out of the sanctions which are crippling the country so their own people won't kill them
Click to expand...

Pure nonsense


----------



## The_Halfmoon

Sunni Man said:


> The_Halfmoon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> stonewall said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, they will develop nuclear weapons. Iran sees itself as a future Super Power.
> 
> I don't think they wish to bargain. That has not been it's way.
> 
> This is an ideology that does not back down. They see themselves as on a mission from God.
> 
> They are an evil regime in the sense that they torture and imprison political prisoners... but aside from those areas of excess, they are an Islamic Republic governing by Islamic Law.
> 
> They would consider it evil not to do so. In a nation of Muslims it's very hard to revolt against a regime that is Islamic. First they must judge the regime un-Islamic. Only then can they revolt against it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> you really need to visit Iran... the majority of the country laughs at Islam... about 45% support the Islamic government, but of those many would like to see changes in the system.  What they have to do is get rid of the Basiji forces, which will not happen until the regime stops funding it with "disappearing" oil money.
> 
> And the government only cares about lining the pockets of the upper class with as much money as they can before they are kicked out and have to live in exile as billionaires... they most likely won't be build a bomb, because they have to respect (at least nominally) the international community and its laws... so they can get out of the sanctions which are crippling the country so their own people won't kill them
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Pure nonsense
Click to expand...


no, it's the simple truth of very conflicted country

the government of Iran must be very thankful for George Bush... he revived their system based on anti-imperial rhetoric just when the reformists were making progress


----------



## Dr.Drock

rhodescholar said:


> Here is a great article on why iran needs to be attacked ASAP.  Rather than respond emotionally, as have so many here have done recently, I would like to see posters come up with point-by-point responses why Bolton's assessment is inaccurate.
> 
> 
> 
> By John R. Bolton
> Thursday, July 2, 2009
> With Iran's hard-line mullahs and the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps unmistakably back in control, Israel's decision of whether to use military force against Tehran's nuclear weapons program is more urgent than ever.
> 
> Iran's nuclear threat was never in doubt during its presidential campaign, but the post-election resistance raised the possibility of some sort of regime change. That prospect seems lost for the near future or for at least as long as it will take Iran to finalize a deliverable nuclear weapons capability.
> 
> Accordingly, with no other timely option, the already compelling logic for an Israeli strike is nearly inexorable. Israel is undoubtedly ratcheting forward its decision-making process. President Obama is almost certainly not.
> 
> He still wants "engagement" (a particularly evocative term now) with Iran's current regime. Last Thursday, the State Department confirmed that Secretary Hillary Clinton spoke to her Russian and Chinese counterparts about "getting Iran back to negotiating on some of these concerns that the international community has." This is precisely the view of Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov, reflected in the Group of Eight communique the next day. Sen. John Kerry thinks the recent election unpleasantness in Tehran will delay negotiations for only a few weeks.
> 
> Obama administration sources have opined (anonymously) that Iran will be more eager to negotiate than it was before its election in order to find "acceptance" by the "international community." Some leaks indicated that negotiations had to produce results by the U.N. General Assembly's opening in late September, while others projected that they had until the end of 2009 to show progress. These gauzy scenarios assume that the Tehran regime cares about "acceptance" or is somehow embarrassed by eliminating its enemies. Both propositions are dubious.
> 
> Obama will nonetheless attempt to jump-start bilateral negotiations with Iran, though time is running out even under the timetables leaked to the media. There are two problems with this approach. First, Tehran isn't going to negotiate in good faith. It hasn't for the past six years with the European Union as our surrogates, and it won't start now. As Clinton said on Tuesday, Iran has "a huge credibility gap" because of its electoral fraud. Second, given Iran's nuclear progress, even if the stronger sanctions Obama has threatened could be agreed upon, they would not prevent Iran from fabricating weapons and delivery systems when it chooses, as it has been striving to do for the past 20 years. Time is too short, and sanctions failed long ago.
> 
> Only those most theologically committed to negotiation still believe Iran will fully renounce its nuclear program. Unfortunately, the Obama administration has a "Plan B," which would allow Iran to have a "peaceful" civil nuclear power program while publicly "renouncing" the objective of nuclear weapons. Obama would define such an outcome as "success," even though in reality it would hardly be different from what Iran is doing and saying now. A "peaceful" uranium enrichment program, "peaceful" reactors such as Bushehr and "peaceful" heavy-water projects like that under construction at Arak leave Iran with an enormous breakout capability to produce nuclear weapons in very short order. And anyone who believes the Revolutionary Guard Corps will abandon its weaponization and ballistic missile programs probably believes that there was no fraud in Iran's June 12 election. See "huge credibility gap," supra.
> 
> In short, the stolen election and its tumultuous aftermath have dramatically highlighted the strategic and tactical flaws in Obama's game plan. With regime change off the table for the coming critical period in Iran's nuclear program, Israel's decision on using force is both easier and more urgent. Since there is no likelihood that diplomacy will start or finish in time, or even progress far enough to make any real difference, there is no point waiting for negotiations to play out. In fact, given the near certainty of Obama changing his definition of "success," negotiations represent an even more dangerous trap for Israel.
> 
> Those who oppose Iran acquiring nuclear weapons are left in the near term with only the option of targeted military force against its weapons facilities. Significantly, the uprising in Iran also makes it more likely that an effective public diplomacy campaign could be waged in the country to explain to Iranians that such an attack is directed against the regime, not against the Iranian people. This was always true, but it has become even more important to make this case emphatically, when the gulf between the Islamic revolution of 1979 and the citizens of Iran has never been clearer or wider. Military action against Iran's nuclear program and the ultimate goal of regime change can be worked together consistently.
> 
> Otherwise, be prepared for an Iran with nuclear weapons, which some, including Obama advisers, believe could be contained and deterred. That is not a hypothesis we should seek to test in the real world. The cost of error could be fatal.
> 
> The writer, a senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, was U.S. ambassador to the United Nations from August 2005 to December 2006 and is the author of "Surrender Is Not an Option: Defending America at the United Nations and Abroad."



I read the author of the article and that's as far as I needed to go.

John Bolton, maybe the most psycho of all psycho neocons on the planet shouldn't have a word he says taken seriously. 

If you enjoy having 47% if your income going to pay for warmongering, then by all means approve of the War with Iran.  If you enjoy limitless power of an enormous central government in the US. then support this upcoming war.  

So for all of you who like big taxes, limited freedoms, big government, then by all means support this war.  You're the most liberal people on the planet.


----------



## elvis

Dr.Drock said:


> rhodescholar said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here is a great article on why iran needs to be attacked ASAP.  Rather than respond emotionally, as have so many here have done recently, I would like to see posters come up with point-by-point responses why Bolton's assessment is inaccurate.
> 
> 
> 
> By John R. Bolton
> Thursday, July 2, 2009
> With Iran's hard-line mullahs and the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps unmistakably back in control, Israel's decision of whether to use military force against Tehran's nuclear weapons program is more urgent than ever.
> 
> Iran's nuclear threat was never in doubt during its presidential campaign, but the post-election resistance raised the possibility of some sort of regime change. That prospect seems lost for the near future or for at least as long as it will take Iran to finalize a deliverable nuclear weapons capability.
> 
> Accordingly, with no other timely option, the already compelling logic for an Israeli strike is nearly inexorable. Israel is undoubtedly ratcheting forward its decision-making process. President Obama is almost certainly not.
> 
> He still wants "engagement" (a particularly evocative term now) with Iran's current regime. Last Thursday, the State Department confirmed that Secretary Hillary Clinton spoke to her Russian and Chinese counterparts about "getting Iran back to negotiating on some of these concerns that the international community has." This is precisely the view of Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov, reflected in the Group of Eight communique the next day. Sen. John Kerry thinks the recent election unpleasantness in Tehran will delay negotiations for only a few weeks.
> 
> Obama administration sources have opined (anonymously) that Iran will be more eager to negotiate than it was before its election in order to find "acceptance" by the "international community." Some leaks indicated that negotiations had to produce results by the U.N. General Assembly's opening in late September, while others projected that they had until the end of 2009 to show progress. These gauzy scenarios assume that the Tehran regime cares about "acceptance" or is somehow embarrassed by eliminating its enemies. Both propositions are dubious.
> 
> Obama will nonetheless attempt to jump-start bilateral negotiations with Iran, though time is running out even under the timetables leaked to the media. There are two problems with this approach. First, Tehran isn't going to negotiate in good faith. It hasn't for the past six years with the European Union as our surrogates, and it won't start now. As Clinton said on Tuesday, Iran has "a huge credibility gap" because of its electoral fraud. Second, given Iran's nuclear progress, even if the stronger sanctions Obama has threatened could be agreed upon, they would not prevent Iran from fabricating weapons and delivery systems when it chooses, as it has been striving to do for the past 20 years. Time is too short, and sanctions failed long ago.
> 
> Only those most theologically committed to negotiation still believe Iran will fully renounce its nuclear program. Unfortunately, the Obama administration has a "Plan B," which would allow Iran to have a "peaceful" civil nuclear power program while publicly "renouncing" the objective of nuclear weapons. Obama would define such an outcome as "success," even though in reality it would hardly be different from what Iran is doing and saying now. A "peaceful" uranium enrichment program, "peaceful" reactors such as Bushehr and "peaceful" heavy-water projects like that under construction at Arak leave Iran with an enormous breakout capability to produce nuclear weapons in very short order. And anyone who believes the Revolutionary Guard Corps will abandon its weaponization and ballistic missile programs probably believes that there was no fraud in Iran's June 12 election. See "huge credibility gap," supra.
> 
> In short, the stolen election and its tumultuous aftermath have dramatically highlighted the strategic and tactical flaws in Obama's game plan. With regime change off the table for the coming critical period in Iran's nuclear program, Israel's decision on using force is both easier and more urgent. Since there is no likelihood that diplomacy will start or finish in time, or even progress far enough to make any real difference, there is no point waiting for negotiations to play out. In fact, given the near certainty of Obama changing his definition of "success," negotiations represent an even more dangerous trap for Israel.
> 
> Those who oppose Iran acquiring nuclear weapons are left in the near term with only the option of targeted military force against its weapons facilities. Significantly, the uprising in Iran also makes it more likely that an effective public diplomacy campaign could be waged in the country to explain to Iranians that such an attack is directed against the regime, not against the Iranian people. This was always true, but it has become even more important to make this case emphatically, when the gulf between the Islamic revolution of 1979 and the citizens of Iran has never been clearer or wider. Military action against Iran's nuclear program and the ultimate goal of regime change can be worked together consistently.
> 
> Otherwise, be prepared for an Iran with nuclear weapons, which some, including Obama advisers, believe could be contained and deterred. That is not a hypothesis we should seek to test in the real world. The cost of error could be fatal.
> 
> The writer, a senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, was U.S. ambassador to the United Nations from August 2005 to December 2006 and is the author of "Surrender Is Not an Option: Defending America at the United Nations and Abroad."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I read the author of the article and that's as far as I needed to go.
> 
> John Bolton, maybe the most psycho of all psycho neocons on the planet shouldn't have a word he says taken seriously.
> 
> If you enjoy having 47% if your income going to pay for warmongering, then by all means approve of the War with Iran.  If you enjoy limitless power of an enormous central government in the US. then support this upcoming war.
> 
> So for all of you who like big taxes, limited freedoms, big government, then by all means support this war.  You're the most liberal people on the planet.
Click to expand...


I'm not saying I disagree with you here, but Neville Chamberlain was VERY popular right after Munich.  If Churchill had spoken out then, would he have been viewed in the same light as Bolton?


----------



## stonewall

elvis3577 said:


> I'm not saying I disagree with you here, but Neville Chamberlain was VERY popular right after Munich.  If Churchill had spoken out then, would he have been viewed in the same light as Bolton?




There is no way that Obama attacks Iran. That is not ever gonna happen.

Perhaps instead we should be talking about how we are going to deal with other countries in the Middle East who feel they must counter a nuclear Iran.

Like Saudi Arabia, Egypt, the UAE. 

Maybe we should think about ending the NPT officially.


----------



## Cold Fusion38

stonewall said:


> The_Halfmoon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> stonewall said:
> 
> 
> 
> Don't expect a revolution in Iran. There is no reason for one. Not really.
> 
> The Iranian people can see that what the regime is doing is successful. They are winning.
> 
> They have confronted the world and have won. They will have their nuclear arsenal.
> 
> The biggest problem this creates is that the NPT is basically dead.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Iran's economic problems, disappearing oil surpluses, consistent and persistent violations of the regime's own law, etc.  are giving Iranians a great cause for revolution... but this is a government that is very difficult to break.  No revolution in Iran wiill be successful unless the oil profits are out of mullah hands.
> 
> I actually don't think Iran will build a nuclear weapon, but instead will have all the prerequisites ready to use as a bargaining chip
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, they will develop nuclear weapons. Iran sees itself as a future Super Power.
> 
> I don't think they wish to bargain. That has not been it's way.
> 
> This is an ideology that does not back down. They see themselves as on a mission from God.
> 
> They are an evil regime in the sense that they torture and imprison political prisoners... but aside from those areas of excess, they are an Islamic Republic governing by Islamic Law.
> 
> They would consider it evil not to do so. In a nation of Muslims it's very hard to revolt against a regime that is Islamic. First they must judge the regime un-Islamic. Only then can they revolt against it.
Click to expand...





They see themselves as on a mission from God.........Hm where have I heard THAT before and don't say the Blues Brothers.


----------



## Si modo

Cold Fusion38 said:


> stonewall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The_Halfmoon said:
> 
> 
> 
> Iran's economic problems, disappearing oil surpluses, consistent and persistent violations of the regime's own law, etc.  are giving Iranians a great cause for revolution... but this is a government that is very difficult to break.  No revolution in Iran wiill be successful unless the oil profits are out of mullah hands.
> 
> I actually don't think Iran will build a nuclear weapon, but instead will have all the prerequisites ready to use as a bargaining chip
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, they will develop nuclear weapons. Iran sees itself as a future Super Power.
> 
> I don't think they wish to bargain. That has not been it's way.
> 
> This is an ideology that does not back down. They see themselves as on a mission from God.
> 
> They are an evil regime in the sense that they torture and imprison political prisoners... but aside from those areas of excess, they are an Islamic Republic governing by Islamic Law.
> 
> They would consider it evil not to do so. In a nation of Muslims it's very hard to revolt against a regime that is Islamic. First they must judge the regime un-Islamic. Only then can they revolt against it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They see themselves as on a mission from God.........Hm where have I heard THAT before and don't say the Blues Brothers.
Click to expand...


I'm not sure of the answer, but BHO thinks of himself as "an instrument of God".


----------



## The_Halfmoon

elvis3577 said:


> Dr.Drock said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rhodescholar said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here is a great article on why iran needs to be attacked ASAP.  Rather than respond emotionally, as have so many here have done recently, I would like to see posters come up with point-by-point responses why Bolton's assessment is inaccurate.
> 
> 
> 
> By John R. Bolton
> Thursday, July 2, 2009
> With Iran's hard-line mullahs and the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps unmistakably back in control, Israel's decision of whether to use military force against Tehran's nuclear weapons program is more urgent than ever.
> 
> Iran's nuclear threat was never in doubt during its presidential campaign, but the post-election resistance raised the possibility of some sort of regime change. That prospect seems lost for the near future or for at least as long as it will take Iran to finalize a deliverable nuclear weapons capability.
> 
> Accordingly, with no other timely option, the already compelling logic for an Israeli strike is nearly inexorable. Israel is undoubtedly ratcheting forward its decision-making process. President Obama is almost certainly not.
> 
> He still wants "engagement" (a particularly evocative term now) with Iran's current regime. Last Thursday, the State Department confirmed that Secretary Hillary Clinton spoke to her Russian and Chinese counterparts about "getting Iran back to negotiating on some of these concerns that the international community has." This is precisely the view of Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov, reflected in the Group of Eight communique the next day. Sen. John Kerry thinks the recent election unpleasantness in Tehran will delay negotiations for only a few weeks.
> 
> Obama administration sources have opined (anonymously) that Iran will be more eager to negotiate than it was before its election in order to find "acceptance" by the "international community." Some leaks indicated that negotiations had to produce results by the U.N. General Assembly's opening in late September, while others projected that they had until the end of 2009 to show progress. These gauzy scenarios assume that the Tehran regime cares about "acceptance" or is somehow embarrassed by eliminating its enemies. Both propositions are dubious.
> 
> Obama will nonetheless attempt to jump-start bilateral negotiations with Iran, though time is running out even under the timetables leaked to the media. There are two problems with this approach. First, Tehran isn't going to negotiate in good faith. It hasn't for the past six years with the European Union as our surrogates, and it won't start now. As Clinton said on Tuesday, Iran has "a huge credibility gap" because of its electoral fraud. Second, given Iran's nuclear progress, even if the stronger sanctions Obama has threatened could be agreed upon, they would not prevent Iran from fabricating weapons and delivery systems when it chooses, as it has been striving to do for the past 20 years. Time is too short, and sanctions failed long ago.
> 
> Only those most theologically committed to negotiation still believe Iran will fully renounce its nuclear program. Unfortunately, the Obama administration has a "Plan B," which would allow Iran to have a "peaceful" civil nuclear power program while publicly "renouncing" the objective of nuclear weapons. Obama would define such an outcome as "success," even though in reality it would hardly be different from what Iran is doing and saying now. A "peaceful" uranium enrichment program, "peaceful" reactors such as Bushehr and "peaceful" heavy-water projects like that under construction at Arak leave Iran with an enormous breakout capability to produce nuclear weapons in very short order. And anyone who believes the Revolutionary Guard Corps will abandon its weaponization and ballistic missile programs probably believes that there was no fraud in Iran's June 12 election. See "huge credibility gap," supra.
> 
> In short, the stolen election and its tumultuous aftermath have dramatically highlighted the strategic and tactical flaws in Obama's game plan. With regime change off the table for the coming critical period in Iran's nuclear program, Israel's decision on using force is both easier and more urgent. Since there is no likelihood that diplomacy will start or finish in time, or even progress far enough to make any real difference, there is no point waiting for negotiations to play out. In fact, given the near certainty of Obama changing his definition of "success," negotiations represent an even more dangerous trap for Israel.
> 
> Those who oppose Iran acquiring nuclear weapons are left in the near term with only the option of targeted military force against its weapons facilities. Significantly, the uprising in Iran also makes it more likely that an effective public diplomacy campaign could be waged in the country to explain to Iranians that such an attack is directed against the regime, not against the Iranian people. This was always true, but it has become even more important to make this case emphatically, when the gulf between the Islamic revolution of 1979 and the citizens of Iran has never been clearer or wider. Military action against Iran's nuclear program and the ultimate goal of regime change can be worked together consistently.
> 
> Otherwise, be prepared for an Iran with nuclear weapons, which some, including Obama advisers, believe could be contained and deterred. That is not a hypothesis we should seek to test in the real world. The cost of error could be fatal.
> 
> The writer, a senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, was U.S. ambassador to the United Nations from August 2005 to December 2006 and is the author of "Surrender Is Not an Option: Defending America at the United Nations and Abroad."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I read the author of the article and that's as far as I needed to go.
> 
> John Bolton, maybe the most psycho of all psycho neocons on the planet shouldn't have a word he says taken seriously.
> 
> If you enjoy having 47% if your income going to pay for warmongering, then by all means approve of the War with Iran.  If you enjoy limitless power of an enormous central government in the US. then support this upcoming war.
> 
> So for all of you who like big taxes, limited freedoms, big government, then by all means support this war.  You're the most liberal people on the planet.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm not saying I disagree with you here, but Neville Chamberlain was VERY popular right after Munich.  If Churchill had spoken out then, would he have been viewed in the same light as Bolton?
Click to expand...


I hate Bolton... Like I HATE that guy in every way (specially 'cuz he looks like an old Ned Flanders on acid), but I think he genuinely is right on this ONE thing.  

Iran's government (if a bunch of thugs should be called a government) is genuinely an enemy to the world.  And although I totally opposed the Iraq war, I've always believed that war was just a way for the US to put ground troops near the Iranian border.  Because Iran has essentially been progressively at war with the US since 1980.


----------



## Dr.Drock

The_Halfmoon said:


> elvis3577 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dr.Drock said:
> 
> 
> 
> I read the author of the article and that's as far as I needed to go.
> 
> John Bolton, maybe the most psycho of all psycho neocons on the planet shouldn't have a word he says taken seriously.
> 
> If you enjoy having 47% if your income going to pay for warmongering, then by all means approve of the War with Iran.  If you enjoy limitless power of an enormous central government in the US. then support this upcoming war.
> 
> So for all of you who like big taxes, limited freedoms, big government, then by all means support this war.  You're the most liberal people on the planet.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not saying I disagree with you here, but Neville Chamberlain was VERY popular right after Munich.  If Churchill had spoken out then, would he have been viewed in the same light as Bolton?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I hate Bolton... Like I HATE that guy in every way (specially 'cuz he looks like an old Ned Flanders on acid), but I think he genuinely is right on this ONE thing.
> 
> Iran's government (if a bunch of thugs should be called a government) is genuinely an enemy to the world.  And although I totally opposed the Iraq war, I've always believed that war was just a way for the US to put ground troops near the Iranian border.  Because Iran has essentially been progressively at war with the US since 1980.
Click to expand...


Iran's government is trash, but there's 100 governments in the world that are worse.  

I'm just going to ignore the attempted similarity connection the other poster tried to make between Nazi Germany and the current Irani government.  People will say anything, no matter how crazy, to try and strike emotions in political debates.  

If you think the Vietnam War was cool, then you'll like an American led war in Iran.  This won't be Iraq where it takes years to reach 1,000 dead American soldiers that will happen every single year we fight it.  You think this recession sucks?  Wait until you see what happens to our economy if we fight a much larger war than the current sized wars that we can't even afford.  

And, just like in Afghanistan/Iraq/Vietnam, this will be another war that we lose.  The only way to win a war against Iran is to drop enough nukes to cover every square inch of the ground.  The Iranian people are big on independence and they'll fight until the last person takes in their last gasp of air.  Plus their military is way better than Iraq's was, hence why they crushed Iraq in the war in the 80's you mentioned.  The war where we were giving Saddam chemical weapons, gas, money, other weapons to wage war and kill his own women, children and babies with.  

There's nothing stupider (no offense) than wanting war with Iran.  We'll gain nothing and lose everything.  We can't even win a war against the 3rd poorest 3rd world country (Afghanistan) in 8 years, the Taliban controls more of the country than we do.


----------



## L.K.Eder

Si modo said:


> Cold Fusion38 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> stonewall said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, they will develop nuclear weapons. Iran sees itself as a future Super Power.
> 
> I don't think they wish to bargain. That has not been it's way.
> 
> This is an ideology that does not back down. They see themselves as on a mission from God.
> 
> They are an evil regime in the sense that they torture and imprison political prisoners... but aside from those areas of excess, they are an Islamic Republic governing by Islamic Law.
> 
> They would consider it evil not to do so. In a nation of Muslims it's very hard to revolt against a regime that is Islamic. First they must judge the regime un-Islamic. Only then can they revolt against it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They see themselves as on a mission from God.........Hm where have I heard THAT before and don't say the Blues Brothers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm not sure of the answer, but BHO thinks of himself as "an instrument of God".
Click to expand...


please support your opinion with a link


----------



## The_Halfmoon

Dr.Drock said:


> The_Halfmoon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> elvis3577 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not saying I disagree with you here, but Neville Chamberlain was VERY popular right after Munich.  If Churchill had spoken out then, would he have been viewed in the same light as Bolton?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I hate Bolton... Like I HATE that guy in every way (specially 'cuz he looks like an old Ned Flanders on acid), but I think he genuinely is right on this ONE thing.
> 
> Iran's government (if a bunch of thugs should be called a government) is genuinely an enemy to the world.  And although I totally opposed the Iraq war, I've always believed that war was just a way for the US to put ground troops near the Iranian border.  Because Iran has essentially been progressively at war with the US since 1980.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Iran's government is trash, but there's 100 governments in the world that are worse.
> 
> I'm just going to ignore the attempted similarity connection the other poster tried to make between Nazi Germany and the current Irani government.  People will say anything, no matter how crazy, to try and strike emotions in political debates.
> 
> If you think the Vietnam War was cool, then you'll like an American led war in Iran.  This won't be Iraq where it takes years to reach 1,000 dead American soldiers that will happen every single year we fight it.  You think this recession sucks?  Wait until you see what happens to our economy if we fight a much larger war than the current sized wars that we can't even afford.
> 
> And, just like in Afghanistan/Iraq/Vietnam, this will be another war that we lose.  The only way to win a war against Iran is to drop enough nukes to cover every square inch of the ground.  The Iranian people are big on independence and they'll fight until the last person takes in their last gasp of air.  Plus their military is way better than Iraq's was, hence why they crushed Iraq in the war in the 80's you mentioned.  The war where we were giving Saddam chemical weapons, gas, money, other weapons to wage war and kill his own women, children and babies with.
> 
> There's nothing stupider (no offense) than wanting war with Iran.  We'll gain nothing and lose everything.  We can't even win a war against the 3rd poorest 3rd world country (Afghanistan) in 8 years, the Taliban controls more of the country than we do.
Click to expand...


I've said as much in other posts, don't get me wrong. I feel the US SHOULD go to war with Iran because, in reality, Iran has been waging war on the US indirectly for decades.  

And btw, I also feel the US has done some horrendous things to Iranians since and after 1953.  I remember a quote from a senior US official to the UN regarding Saddam's chemical weapons, where he said something along the lines of 'It's a difficult situation.  You want Iraq to stop using chemical weapons, but on the other hand... you don't want Iran to win the war!" I mean that is a borderline evil thing to say, and it was the US policy towards Iran.

HOWEVER, I agree that the costs are way too high for this war.  I would not support a US or Israeli attack on Iran.  My main argument is against people that assume that the attack on Iran would be morally as low as the attack on Iraq.  To say so is to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iran.

I agree with what you say about the costs of war, and actually would go further by saying what I've already probably said 10X (and I'm paraphrasing an scholar whose name I can't remember unfortunately): If you were to hold referendums today in the Middle East, every single country with one exception would have a theocratic government like Iran's.  The exception is of course Iran itself. If the US were to attack, this reality would change.

But I don't agree with the statement that there are other countries more dangerous than Iran.  One, it is in the single most important region of the world, surrounded by allies of the US, controlling or influencing the vast majority of the flow of energy around the world.  

Two, it has imperial ambitions.  The revolution was from the start meant to be a starting point for the spread of the new Shia empire. On top of that, the rather extreme ethnocentrism and nationalism of Iranians who consider themselves superior to Arabs is just a powderkeg waiting to explode as soon as Iran becomes the single dominant nation in the region. For years Iranians and Russians have been building towards a middle east controlled by Iran and influenced by Russia.  It is a very rational consequence of the departure of US influence in the region (and the original reason for US interferance in Iran since thd 1920s).  

If North Korea nukes Japan, it would be unbelievably horrendous.  But it couldn't damage the entire world economy.  If Iran got into a war with its very natural enemy, Saudi Arabia... can you imagine the consequences? The entire world economy would be brought to its knees.  

Again, I don't say the US MUST attack. But if we're talking about a country that has to look at its best interests and the interest of its allies in the region (not just Israel), you do have to make the case that the US would not be in the same moral position as it was with Iraq (a country that was not a genuine threat after the first gulf war, and had been tortured through air attacks and sanctions for over a decade).  

But Iran has a very advanced ballistic missles industry that, as a military spokesman of the IRI said "manufactures bombs the same way it can manufacture books."  It could cause inmense, borderline fatal damage to Israel as well as tens of thousands of bystanding US troops in Southern Iraq.  So I understand and generally agree with what you're saying.  I'm just not willing to say that it's just another country like Cuba or Lybia, and that the US has no reason to attack.


----------



## Si modo

L.K.Eder said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cold Fusion38 said:
> 
> 
> 
> They see themselves as on a mission from God.........Hm where have I heard THAT before and don't say the Blues Brothers.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not sure of the answer, but BHO thinks of himself as "an instrument of God".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> please support your opinion with a link
Click to expand...

My pleasure:  Barack Obama: Praying to Be 'An Instrument of God's Will'


----------



## L.K.Eder

Si modo said:


> L.K.Eder said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not sure of the answer, but BHO thinks of himself as "an instrument of God".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> please support your opinion with a link
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> My pleasure:  Barack Obama: Praying to Be 'An Instrument of God's Will'
Click to expand...


very good. i never heard this pathetic pandering of Obama.

the only positive spin i can put on that is that it is not common knowledge how christian and pious he is. he probably overshot to counter the he is a muslim shit.

but yeah, you are right, he said this, and for me, a german, that would be a reason not to vote for him. not the only reason, but this religious dogma shit makes me shudder.


----------



## Si modo

L.K.Eder said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> L.K.Eder said:
> 
> 
> 
> please support your opinion with a link
> 
> 
> 
> My pleasure:  Barack Obama: Praying to Be 'An Instrument of God's Will'
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> very good. i never heard this pathetic pandering of Obama.
> 
> the only positive spin i can put on that is that it is not common knowledge how christian and pious he is. he probably overshot to counter the he is a muslim shit.
> 
> but yeah, you are right, he said this, and for me, a german, that would be a reason not to vote for him. not the only reason, but this religious dogma shit makes me shudder.
Click to expand...

Yeah, it was pandering.  He had to do it to get some of a voting block without which he couldn't win the election. I wouldn't hold it against him (if that sort of stuff did that for me, that is - extreme, yes; but that's not extreme to me).

But, it doesn't get to me - I rarely knew and still don't know what to believe from him in the sincerity department.


----------



## eagleseven

L.K.Eder said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> L.K.Eder said:
> 
> 
> 
> please support your opinion with a link
> 
> 
> 
> My pleasure:  Barack Obama: Praying to Be 'An Instrument of God's Will'
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> very good. i never heard this pathetic pandering of Obama.
> 
> the only positive spin i can put on that is that it is not common knowledge how christian and pious he is. he probably overshot to counter the he is a muslim shit.
> 
> but yeah, you are right, he said this, and for me, a german, that would be a reason not to vote for him. not the only reason, but this religious dogma shit makes me shudder.
Click to expand...

American press tends to understate just how religious the African-American and Latino populations can be. If Obama were openly homosexual, for example, he would immediately lose a majority of the black vote.


----------



## L.K.Eder

Si modo said:


> L.K.Eder said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> 
> My pleasure:  Barack Obama: Praying to Be 'An Instrument of God's Will'
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> very good. i never heard this pathetic pandering of Obama.
> 
> the only positive spin i can put on that is that it is not common knowledge how christian and pious he is. he probably overshot to counter the he is a muslim shit.
> 
> but yeah, you are right, he said this, and for me, a german, that would be a reason not to vote for him. not the only reason, but this religious dogma shit makes me shudder.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yeah, it was pandering.  He had to do it to get some of a voting block without which he couldn't win the election. I wouldn't hold it against him (if that sort of stuff did that for me, that is - extreme, yes; but that's not extreme to me).
> 
> But, it doesn't get to me - I never knew and still don't know what to believe from him in the sincerity department.
Click to expand...


a leader who proclaims he does god's will or is an instrument of god, is, if he is serious about that statement, very dangerous. so far, i am cynical enough to think obama was just doing the typical politicians dance to get tha votes.


----------



## eagleseven

Just watch this video, LK, and you'll see what I mean...he _really_ gets into it about halfway through this clip.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2VnaFfESDFM]YouTube - Bishop Charles E. Blake presents Emotional Survival In A Crazy World[/ame]

You'll find that aObama's Church had the same style, but with a bit more aggressive pastor.


----------



## L.K.Eder

eagleseven said:


> Just watch this video, LK, and you'll see what I mean...he _really_ gets into it about halfway through this clip.
> 
> YouTube - Bishop Charles E. Blake presents Emotional Survival In A Crazy World




sorry dude, you want me to watch a video of nearly 10 min length of what looks like religious stuff?

give me the money shot time sequence and i will play. but i won't watch the whole vid


----------



## eagleseven

L.K.Eder said:


> eagleseven said:
> 
> 
> 
> Just watch this video, LK, and you'll see what I mean...he _really_ gets into it about halfway through this clip.
> 
> YouTube - Bishop Charles E. Blake presents Emotional Survival In A Crazy World
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sorry dude, you want me to watch a video of nearly 10 min length of what looks like religious stuff?
> 
> give me the money shot time sequence and i will play. but i won't watch the whole vid
Click to expand...


This is the money shot from Obama's Church made by his _spiritual adviser_, and is easy to watch at only 2 minutes...

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9yq055NAsrQ]YouTube - Jeremiah Wright: The Full G-Damn America Sermon[/ame]


----------



## L.K.Eder

eagleseven said:


> L.K.Eder said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eagleseven said:
> 
> 
> 
> Just watch this video, LK, and you'll see what I mean...he _really_ gets into it about halfway through this clip.
> 
> YouTube - Bishop Charles E. Blake presents Emotional Survival In A Crazy World
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sorry dude, you want me to watch a video of nearly 10 min length of what looks like religious stuff?
> 
> give me the money shot time sequence and i will play. but i won't watch the whole vid
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This is the money shot from Obama's Church made by his _spiritual adviser_, and is easy to watch at only 2 minutes...
> 
> [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9yq055NAsrQ]YouTube - Jeremiah Wright: The Full G-Damn America Sermon[/ame]
Click to expand...



that is a switch and bait, and a poor one at that. i wanted to see obama saying something crassly religious. and guess what, i saw the wright sermons in the campaign season. and i say yeeehaaw, jeremiah wright, america apparently is not ready for some introspection, and it is certainly a political liability to be associated with you (wright) as a candidate for president. i pity you americans for your poor standard of the media, politicians are crooked everwhere and tell you what you want to hear. but your media landscape is pathetic.


----------



## eagleseven

L.K.Eder said:


> eagleseven said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> L.K.Eder said:
> 
> 
> 
> sorry dude, you want me to watch a video of nearly 10 min length of what looks like religious stuff?
> 
> give me the money shot time sequence and i will play. but i won't watch the whole vid
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is the money shot from Obama's Church made by his _spiritual adviser_, and is easy to watch at only 2 minutes...
> 
> [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9yq055NAsrQ]YouTube - Jeremiah Wright: The Full G-Damn America Sermon[/ame]
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> that is a switch and bait, and a poor one at that. i wanted to see obama saying something crassly religious. and guess what, i saw the wright sermons in the campaign season. and i say yeeehaaw, jeremiah wright, america apparently is not ready for some introspection, and it is certainly a political liability to be associated with you (wright) as a candidate for president. i pity you americans for your poor standard of the media, politicians are crooked everwhere and tell you what you want to hear. but your media landscape is pathetic.
Click to expand...

It is _"introspection"_ when invoking God in criticism of America, but religious insanity when talking with God in any other context? 

Tell me, when was the last time you read _Mein Kampf_? In America, we do not outlaw the evidence of our past sins. We have _dozens_ of movies that grotesquely reveal the horrors of slavery in the American South...like Roots.


----------



## eagleseven

Watch this American movie clip made in the 1970s...

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UiZLMYaP-8A&feature=related"]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UiZLMYaP-8A&feature=related[/ame]

...and tell me we lack _introspection_.


----------



## Dr.Drock

The_Halfmoon said:


> Dr.Drock said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The_Halfmoon said:
> 
> 
> 
> I hate Bolton... Like I HATE that guy in every way (specially 'cuz he looks like an old Ned Flanders on acid), but I think he genuinely is right on this ONE thing.
> 
> Iran's government (if a bunch of thugs should be called a government) is genuinely an enemy to the world.  And although I totally opposed the Iraq war, I've always believed that war was just a way for the US to put ground troops near the Iranian border.  Because Iran has essentially been progressively at war with the US since 1980.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Iran's government is trash, but there's 100 governments in the world that are worse.
> 
> I'm just going to ignore the attempted similarity connection the other poster tried to make between Nazi Germany and the current Irani government.  People will say anything, no matter how crazy, to try and strike emotions in political debates.
> 
> If you think the Vietnam War was cool, then you'll like an American led war in Iran.  This won't be Iraq where it takes years to reach 1,000 dead American soldiers that will happen every single year we fight it.  You think this recession sucks?  Wait until you see what happens to our economy if we fight a much larger war than the current sized wars that we can't even afford.
> 
> And, just like in Afghanistan/Iraq/Vietnam, this will be another war that we lose.  The only way to win a war against Iran is to drop enough nukes to cover every square inch of the ground.  The Iranian people are big on independence and they'll fight until the last person takes in their last gasp of air.  Plus their military is way better than Iraq's was, hence why they crushed Iraq in the war in the 80's you mentioned.  The war where we were giving Saddam chemical weapons, gas, money, other weapons to wage war and kill his own women, children and babies with.
> 
> There's nothing stupider (no offense) than wanting war with Iran.  We'll gain nothing and lose everything.  We can't even win a war against the 3rd poorest 3rd world country (Afghanistan) in 8 years, the Taliban controls more of the country than we do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I've said as much in other posts, don't get me wrong. I feel the US SHOULD go to war with Iran because, in reality, Iran has been waging war on the US indirectly for decades.
> 
> And btw, I also feel the US has done some horrendous things to Iranians since and after 1953.  I remember a quote from a senior US official to the UN regarding Saddam's chemical weapons, where he said something along the lines of 'It's a difficult situation.  You want Iraq to stop using chemical weapons, but on the other hand... you don't want Iran to win the war!" I mean that is a borderline evil thing to say, and it was the US policy towards Iran.
> 
> HOWEVER, I agree that the costs are way too high for this war.  I would not support a US or Israeli attack on Iran.  My main argument is against people that assume that the attack on Iran would be morally as low as the attack on Iraq.  To say so is to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iran.
> 
> I agree with what you say about the costs of war, and actually would go further by saying what I've already probably said 10X (and I'm paraphrasing an scholar whose name I can't remember unfortunately): If you were to hold referendums today in the Middle East, every single country with one exception would have a theocratic government like Iran's.  The exception is of course Iran itself. If the US were to attack, this reality would change.
> 
> But I don't agree with the statement that there are other countries more dangerous than Iran.  One, it is in the single most important region of the world, surrounded by allies of the US, controlling or influencing the vast majority of the flow of energy around the world.
> 
> Two, it has imperial ambitions.  The revolution was from the start meant to be a starting point for the spread of the new Shia empire. On top of that, the rather extreme ethnocentrism and nationalism of Iranians who consider themselves superior to Arabs is just a powderkeg waiting to explode as soon as Iran becomes the single dominant nation in the region. For years Iranians and Russians have been building towards a middle east controlled by Iran and influenced by Russia.  It is a very rational consequence of the departure of US influence in the region (and the original reason for US interferance in Iran since thd 1920s).
> 
> If North Korea nukes Japan, it would be unbelievably horrendous.  But it couldn't damage the entire world economy.  If Iran got into a war with its very natural enemy, Saudi Arabia... can you imagine the consequences? The entire world economy would be brought to its knees.
> 
> Again, I don't say the US MUST attack. But if we're talking about a country that has to look at its best interests and the interest of its allies in the region (not just Israel), you do have to make the case that the US would not be in the same moral position as it was with Iraq (a country that was not a genuine threat after the first gulf war, and had been tortured through air attacks and sanctions for over a decade).
> 
> But Iran has a very advanced ballistic missles industry that, as a military spokesman of the IRI said "manufactures bombs the same way it can manufacture books."  It could cause inmense, borderline fatal damage to Israel as well as tens of thousands of bystanding US troops in Southern Iraq.  So I understand and generally agree with what you're saying.  I'm just not willing to say that it's just another country like Cuba or Lybia, and that the US has no reason to attack.
Click to expand...


No offense sir, you sound smart, but this is nothing but drivel.  If Iran or North Korea even reached towards the button to launch a nuclear weapon (if they ever have them) the entire country would be blown away before it ever reached the high airspace.  Iran has a hundred US and Israeli nukes aimed at it right now.  Iran getting nuclear weapons (legally I might add) would do absolutely nothing to affect any US or close US ally's safety.  Don't believe the fearmongering, that's what got us into Iraq.

I hope if we ever sign up to fight for war with Iran you're the first to sign up for it.  Don't take after all the pro Iraq war chickenhawks like the voting neoconservatives, Dick Cheney, Bill O'Reilly, George Bush, Sean Hannity, etc who do nothing but cower under beds and cheer on others to die in their place when they want war to happen.


----------



## L.K.Eder

eagleseven said:


> L.K.Eder said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eagleseven said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is the money shot from Obama's Church made by his _spiritual adviser_, and is easy to watch at only 2 minutes...
> 
> YouTube - Jeremiah Wright: The Full G-Damn America Sermon
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> that is a switch and bait, and a poor one at that. i wanted to see obama saying something crassly religious. and guess what, i saw the wright sermons in the campaign season. and i say yeeehaaw, jeremiah wright, america apparently is not ready for some introspection, and it is certainly a political liability to be associated with you (wright) as a candidate for president. i pity you americans for your poor standard of the media, politicians are crooked everwhere and tell you what you want to hear. but your media landscape is pathetic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It is _"introspection"_ when invoking God in criticism of America, but religious insanity when talking with God in any other context?
> 
> Tell me, when was the last time you read _Mein Kampf_? In America, we do not outlaw the evidence of our past sins. We have _dozens_ movies that grotesquely reveal the horrors of slavery in the American South...like Roots.
Click to expand...



i read "mein kampf", several times, it is available online, and my family did not burn it. it is a shitty book, a really bad read. 

in america you don't recognice your failures of the vietnam war you dont recognize your failures in the afghanistan (soviet and US) war, you certainly don't recognize your failures in the IRAQ war. so you should just shut up your alligator mouth.

incredible that you try to get some mileage from"mein Kampf" and the way germany had to confront their multiple war crimes.

we can talk again, when bush, cheney, rumsfeld, wolfowitz, rove, rice, yoo and a LOT of others face a war crime tribunal in the HAGUE. but of course we all know this will not happen, because you have to really totally lose a war to face that kind of consequences.


----------



## stonewall

Dr.Drock said:


> The_Halfmoon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dr.Drock said:
> 
> 
> 
> Iran's government is trash, but there's 100 governments in the world that are worse.
> 
> I'm just going to ignore the attempted similarity connection the other poster tried to make between Nazi Germany and the current Irani government.  People will say anything, no matter how crazy, to try and strike emotions in political debates.
> 
> If you think the Vietnam War was cool, then you'll like an American led war in Iran.  This won't be Iraq where it takes years to reach 1,000 dead American soldiers that will happen every single year we fight it.  You think this recession sucks?  Wait until you see what happens to our economy if we fight a much larger war than the current sized wars that we can't even afford.
> 
> And, just like in Afghanistan/Iraq/Vietnam, this will be another war that we lose.  The only way to win a war against Iran is to drop enough nukes to cover every square inch of the ground.  The Iranian people are big on independence and they'll fight until the last person takes in their last gasp of air.  Plus their military is way better than Iraq's was, hence why they crushed Iraq in the war in the 80's you mentioned.  The war where we were giving Saddam chemical weapons, gas, money, other weapons to wage war and kill his own women, children and babies with.
> 
> There's nothing stupider (no offense) than wanting war with Iran.  We'll gain nothing and lose everything.  We can't even win a war against the 3rd poorest 3rd world country (Afghanistan) in 8 years, the Taliban controls more of the country than we do.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I've said as much in other posts, don't get me wrong. I feel the US SHOULD go to war with Iran because, in reality, Iran has been waging war on the US indirectly for decades.
> 
> And btw, I also feel the US has done some horrendous things to Iranians since and after 1953.  I remember a quote from a senior US official to the UN regarding Saddam's chemical weapons, where he said something along the lines of 'It's a difficult situation.  You want Iraq to stop using chemical weapons, but on the other hand... you don't want Iran to win the war!" I mean that is a borderline evil thing to say, and it was the US policy towards Iran.
> 
> HOWEVER, I agree that the costs are way too high for this war.  I would not support a US or Israeli attack on Iran.  My main argument is against people that assume that the attack on Iran would be morally as low as the attack on Iraq.  To say so is to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iran.
> 
> I agree with what you say about the costs of war, and actually would go further by saying what I've already probably said 10X (and I'm paraphrasing an scholar whose name I can't remember unfortunately): If you were to hold referendums today in the Middle East, every single country with one exception would have a theocratic government like Iran's.  The exception is of course Iran itself. If the US were to attack, this reality would change.
> 
> But I don't agree with the statement that there are other countries more dangerous than Iran.  One, it is in the single most important region of the world, surrounded by allies of the US, controlling or influencing the vast majority of the flow of energy around the world.
> 
> Two, it has imperial ambitions.  The revolution was from the start meant to be a starting point for the spread of the new Shia empire. On top of that, the rather extreme ethnocentrism and nationalism of Iranians who consider themselves superior to Arabs is just a powderkeg waiting to explode as soon as Iran becomes the single dominant nation in the region. For years Iranians and Russians have been building towards a middle east controlled by Iran and influenced by Russia.  It is a very rational consequence of the departure of US influence in the region (and the original reason for US interferance in Iran since thd 1920s).
> 
> If North Korea nukes Japan, it would be unbelievably horrendous.  But it couldn't damage the entire world economy.  If Iran got into a war with its very natural enemy, Saudi Arabia... can you imagine the consequences? The entire world economy would be brought to its knees.
> 
> Again, I don't say the US MUST attack. But if we're talking about a country that has to look at its best interests and the interest of its allies in the region (not just Israel), you do have to make the case that the US would not be in the same moral position as it was with Iraq (a country that was not a genuine threat after the first gulf war, and had been tortured through air attacks and sanctions for over a decade).
> 
> But Iran has a very advanced ballistic missles industry that, as a military spokesman of the IRI said "manufactures bombs the same way it can manufacture books."  It could cause inmense, borderline fatal damage to Israel as well as tens of thousands of bystanding US troops in Southern Iraq.  So I understand and generally agree with what you're saying.  I'm just not willing to say that it's just another country like Cuba or Lybia, and that the US has no reason to attack.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No offense sir, you sound smart, but this is nothing but drivel.  If Iran or North Korea even reached towards the button to launch a nuclear weapon (if they ever have them) the entire country would be blown away before it ever reached the high airspace.  Iran has a hundred US and Israeli nukes aimed at it right now.  Iran getting nuclear weapons (legally I might add) would do absolutely nothing to affect any US or close US ally's safety.  Don't believe the fearmongering, that's what got us into Iraq.
> 
> I hope if we ever sign up to fight for war with Iran you're the first to sign up for it.  Don't take after all the pro Iraq war chickenhawks like the voting neoconservatives, Dick Cheney, Bill O'Reilly, George Bush, Sean Hannity, etc who do nothing but cower under beds and cheer on others to die in their place when they want war to happen.
Click to expand...




How can Iran develop a nuke legally?


----------



## L.K.Eder

haha, i just read the convo of the last posts.

this is my achilles heal.

you want to rile me?

you want to see me hating US american style

pull this shit, like eagleseven did!


----------



## stonewall

L.K.Eder said:


> haha, i just read the convo of the last posts.
> 
> this is my achilles heal.
> 
> you want to rile me?
> 
> you want to see me hating US american style
> 
> pull this shit, like eagleseven did!




Being that Iran signed on to the NPT, how can they legally develop a nuclear weapon?

Don't get me wrong, I'm not for attacking Iran or anything like that. I'm just trying to figure out how Iran can legally develop a nuke considering the NPT.


----------



## Si modo

Dr.Drock said:


> The_Halfmoon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dr.Drock said:
> 
> 
> 
> Iran's government is trash, but there's 100 governments in the world that are worse.
> 
> I'm just going to ignore the attempted similarity connection the other poster tried to make between Nazi Germany and the current Irani government.  People will say anything, no matter how crazy, to try and strike emotions in political debates.
> 
> If you think the Vietnam War was cool, then you'll like an American led war in Iran.  This won't be Iraq where it takes years to reach 1,000 dead American soldiers that will happen every single year we fight it.  You think this recession sucks?  Wait until you see what happens to our economy if we fight a much larger war than the current sized wars that we can't even afford.
> 
> And, just like in Afghanistan/Iraq/Vietnam, this will be another war that we lose.  The only way to win a war against Iran is to drop enough nukes to cover every square inch of the ground.  The Iranian people are big on independence and they'll fight until the last person takes in their last gasp of air.  Plus their military is way better than Iraq's was, hence why they crushed Iraq in the war in the 80's you mentioned.  The war where we were giving Saddam chemical weapons, gas, money, other weapons to wage war and kill his own women, children and babies with.
> 
> There's nothing stupider (no offense) than wanting war with Iran.  We'll gain nothing and lose everything.  We can't even win a war against the 3rd poorest 3rd world country (Afghanistan) in 8 years, the Taliban controls more of the country than we do.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I've said as much in other posts, don't get me wrong. I feel the US SHOULD go to war with Iran because, in reality, Iran has been waging war on the US indirectly for decades.
> 
> And btw, I also feel the US has done some horrendous things to Iranians since and after 1953.  I remember a quote from a senior US official to the UN regarding Saddam's chemical weapons, where he said something along the lines of 'It's a difficult situation.  You want Iraq to stop using chemical weapons, but on the other hand... you don't want Iran to win the war!" I mean that is a borderline evil thing to say, and it was the US policy towards Iran.
> 
> HOWEVER, I agree that the costs are way too high for this war.  I would not support a US or Israeli attack on Iran.  My main argument is against people that assume that the attack on Iran would be morally as low as the attack on Iraq.  To say so is to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iran.
> 
> I agree with what you say about the costs of war, and actually would go further by saying what I've already probably said 10X (and I'm paraphrasing an scholar whose name I can't remember unfortunately): If you were to hold referendums today in the Middle East, every single country with one exception would have a theocratic government like Iran's.  The exception is of course Iran itself. If the US were to attack, this reality would change.
> 
> But I don't agree with the statement that there are other countries more dangerous than Iran.  One, it is in the single most important region of the world, surrounded by allies of the US, controlling or influencing the vast majority of the flow of energy around the world.
> 
> Two, it has imperial ambitions.  The revolution was from the start meant to be a starting point for the spread of the new Shia empire. On top of that, the rather extreme ethnocentrism and nationalism of Iranians who consider themselves superior to Arabs is just a powderkeg waiting to explode as soon as Iran becomes the single dominant nation in the region. For years Iranians and Russians have been building towards a middle east controlled by Iran and influenced by Russia.  It is a very rational consequence of the departure of US influence in the region (and the original reason for US interferance in Iran since thd 1920s).
> 
> If North Korea nukes Japan, it would be unbelievably horrendous.  But it couldn't damage the entire world economy.  If Iran got into a war with its very natural enemy, Saudi Arabia... can you imagine the consequences? The entire world economy would be brought to its knees.
> 
> Again, I don't say the US MUST attack. But if we're talking about a country that has to look at its best interests and the interest of its allies in the region (not just Israel), you do have to make the case that the US would not be in the same moral position as it was with Iraq (a country that was not a genuine threat after the first gulf war, and had been tortured through air attacks and sanctions for over a decade).
> 
> But Iran has a very advanced ballistic missles industry that, as a military spokesman of the IRI said "manufactures bombs the same way it can manufacture books."  It could cause inmense, borderline fatal damage to Israel as well as tens of thousands of bystanding US troops in Southern Iraq.  So I understand and generally agree with what you're saying.  I'm just not willing to say that it's just another country like Cuba or Lybia, and that the US has no reason to attack.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No offense sir, you sound smart, but this is nothing but drivel.  If Iran or North Korea even reached towards the button to launch a nuclear weapon (if they ever have them) the entire country would be blown away before it ever reached the high airspace.  Iran has a hundred US and Israeli nukes aimed at it right now.  Iran getting nuclear weapons (legally I might add) would do absolutely nothing to affect any US or close US ally's safety.  Don't believe the fearmongering, that's what got us into Iraq.
> 
> I hope if we ever sign up to fight for war with Iran you're the first to sign up for it.  Don't take after all the pro Iraq war chickenhawks like the voting neoconservatives, Dick Cheney, Bill O'Reilly, George Bush, Sean Hannity, etc who do nothing but cower under beds and cheer on others to die in their place when they want war to happen.
Click to expand...

Iran legally getting nuclear weapons?  What the hell?


----------



## eagleseven

L.K.Eder said:


> i read "mein kampf", several times, it is available online, and my family did not burn it. it is a shitty book, a really bad read.


 I'm glad to hear it. Perhaps you're government could allow publishers to print it, then?



L.K.Eder said:


> in america you don't recognice your failures of the vietnam war you dont recognize your failures in the afghanistan (soviet and US) war, you certainly don't recognize your failures in the IRAQ war. so you should just shut up your alligator mouth.


You really don't have any grasp of what you are talking about. There have been more books written on Vietnam in American than you could read in a lifetime. Our officers study it at West Point, our students study it at school, and the Democrats invoke it every time something goes wrong internationally. In fact, you could easily argue that World War II is the only war more studied than Vietnam.

If you haven't noticed, Iraq is in good shape, the Iraqi military has control of the country, and so we'll be leaving soon. Afghanistan is a problem, yes.

Americans, however, _do not give up in the face of failure._ We did not give up after our failure in Netherlands, nor did we give up during the Battle of the Bulge. We kept on fighting until we reached Berlin.



L.K.Eder said:


> incredible that you try to get some mileage from"mein Kampf" and the way germany had to confront their multiple war crimes.





L.K.Eder said:


> we can talk again, when bush, cheney, rumsfeld, wolfowitz, rove, rice, yoo and a LOT of others face a war crime tribunal in the HAGUE. but of course we all know this will not happen, because you have to really totally lose a war to face that kind of consequences.


If any foreign country wishes to arrest our leaders, even Obama, they first must defeat us on the field of battle.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v71W_FFW_J0]YouTube - Patton Speech[/ame]



			
				Patton said:
			
		

> You know. . .
> 
> . . .by God, I actually pity those poor
> bastards we're going up against.
> 
> By God, I do.
> 
> We're not just going to shoot
> the bastards. . .
> 
> . . .we're going to cut out
> their living guts. . .
> 
> . . .and use them to grease
> the treads of our tanks.
> 
> 
> We're going to murder those lousy
> Hun bastards by the bushel.


----------



## L.K.Eder

stonewall said:


> L.K.Eder said:
> 
> 
> 
> haha, i just read the convo of the last posts.
> 
> this is my achilles heal.
> 
> you want to rile me?
> 
> you want to see me hating US american style
> 
> pull this shit, like eagleseven did!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Being that Iran signed on to the NPT, how can they legally develop a nuclear weapon?
> 
> Don't get me wrong, I'm not for attacking Iran or anything like that. I'm just trying to figure out how Iran can legally develop a nuke considering the NPT.
Click to expand...


why are you quoting me for this pedestrian shit?

i am on a whole other aggro planet right now, don't address me if you don't want to get an earful


----------



## L.K.Eder

eagleseven said:


> L.K.Eder said:
> 
> 
> 
> i read "mein kampf", several times, it is available online, and my family did not burn it. it is a shitty book, a really bad read.
> 
> 
> 
> I'm glad to hear it. Perhaps you're government could allow publishers to print it, then?
> 
> 
> 
> L.K.Eder said:
> 
> 
> 
> in america you don't recognice your failures of the vietnam war you dont recognize your failures in the afghanistan (soviet and US) war, you certainly don't recognize your failures in the IRAQ war. so you should just shut up your alligator mouth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You really don't have any grasp of what you are talking about. There have been more books written on Vietnam in American than you could read in a lifetime. Our officers study it at West Point, our students study it at school, and the Democrats invoke it every time something goes wrong internationally. In fact, you could easily argue that World War II is the only war more studied than Vietnam.
> 
> If you haven't noticed, Iraq is in good shape, the Iraqi military has control of the country, and so we'll be leaving soon. Afghanistan is a problem, yes.
> 
> Americans, however, _do not give up in the face of failure._ We did not give up after our failure in Netherlands, nor did we give up during the Battle of the Bulge. We kept on fighting until we reached Berlin.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> L.K.Eder said:
> 
> 
> 
> we can talk again, when bush, cheney, rumsfeld, wolfowitz, rove, rice, yoo and a LOT of others face a war crime tribunal in the HAGUE. but of course we all know this will not happen, because you have to really totally lose a war to face that kind of consequences.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If any foreign country wishes to arrest our leaders, even Obama, they first must defeat us on the field of battle.
> 
> [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v71W_FFW_J0]YouTube - Patton Speech[/ame]
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Patton said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You know. . .
> 
> . . .by God, I actually pity those poor
> bastards we're going up against.
> 
> By God, I do.
> 
> We're not just going to shoot
> the bastards. . .
> 
> . . .we're going to cut out
> their living guts. . .
> 
> . . .and use them to grease
> the treads of our tanks.
> 
> 
> We're going to murder those lousy
> Hun bastards by the bushel.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


you little weasel.

i also read a lot about the vietnam war, your nation is in complete denial, so fuck you.

and why do i put forth this caustic language on a US message board, because of your pathetic attempt to bolster the US supremacy with a PATTTON SPEECH, that i refuse to watch, which exactly validates my point.

only losers of a war get prosecuted. your previous admin is full of war criminals. and the way the afghanistan war is going, the obama admin is implicating itself pretty good.


----------



## eagleseven

L.K.Eder said:


> you little weasel.
> 
> i also read a lot about the vietnam war, your nation is in complete denial, so fuck you.
> 
> and why do i put forth this caustic language on a US message board, because of your pathetic attempt to bolster the US supremacy with a PATTTON SPEECH, that i refuse to watch, which exactly validates my point.
> 
> only losers of a war get prosecuted. your previous admin is full of war criminals. and the way the afghanistan war is going, the obama admin is implicating itself pretty good.


As your rockstar put it...

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4w9EksAo5hY]YouTube - Rammstein-Amerika[/ame]

While not a love song for you or Mr. Lindemann, it is romantic music to my ears...


----------



## Si modo

eagleseven said:


> L.K.Eder said:
> 
> 
> 
> i read "mein kampf", several times, it is available online, and my family did not burn it. it is a shitty book, a really bad read.
> 
> 
> 
> I'm glad to hear it. Perhaps you're government could allow publishers to print it, then?
> 
> 
> 
> L.K.Eder said:
> 
> 
> 
> in america you don't recognice your failures of the vietnam war you dont recognize your failures in the afghanistan (soviet and US) war, you certainly don't recognize your failures in the IRAQ war. so you should just shut up your alligator mouth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You really don't have any grasp of what you are talking about. There have been more books written on Vietnam in American than you could read in a lifetime. Our officers study it at West Point, our students study it at school, and the Democrats invoke it every time something goes wrong internationally. In fact, you could easily argue that World War II is the only war more studied than Vietnam.
> 
> If you haven't noticed, Iraq is in good shape, the Iraqi military has control of the country, and so we'll be leaving soon. Afghanistan is a problem, yes.
> 
> Americans, however, _do not give up in the face of failure._ We did not give up after our failure in Netherlands, nor did we give up during the Battle of the Bulge. We kept on fighting until we reached Berlin.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> L.K.Eder said:
> 
> 
> 
> we can talk again, when bush, cheney, rumsfeld, wolfowitz, rove, rice, yoo and a LOT of others face a war crime tribunal in the HAGUE. but of course we all know this will not happen, because you have to really totally lose a war to face that kind of consequences.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If any foreign country wishes to arrest our leaders, even Obama, they first must defeat us on the field of battle.
> 
> [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v71W_FFW_J0]YouTube - Patton Speech[/ame]
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Patton said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You know. . .
> 
> . . .by God, I actually pity those poor
> bastards we're going up against.
> 
> By God, I do.
> 
> We're not just going to shoot
> the bastards. . .
> 
> . . .we're going to cut out
> their living guts. . .
> 
> . . .and use them to grease
> the treads of our tanks.
> 
> 
> We're going to murder those lousy
> Hun bastards by the bushel.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...

Love the montage.  Good choice, E7.  And I like the actual scene, too.  So let's have both going.

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=5cb_1178900597&p=1


----------



## L.K.Eder

eagleseven said:


> L.K.Eder said:
> 
> 
> 
> you little weasel.
> 
> i also read a lot about the vietnam war, your nation is in complete denial, so fuck you.
> 
> and why do i put forth this caustic language on a US message board, because of your pathetic attempt to bolster the US supremacy with a PATTTON SPEECH, that i refuse to watch, which exactly validates my point.
> 
> only losers of a war get prosecuted. your previous admin is full of war criminals. and the way the afghanistan war is going, the obama admin is implicating itself pretty good.
> 
> 
> 
> As your rockstar put it...
> 
> [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4w9EksAo5hY]YouTube - Rammstein-Amerika[/ame]
> 
> While not a love song for you or Mr. Lindemann, it is romantic music to my ears...
Click to expand...


so you got nothing, huh?

just tell me that you are just going for the humorous kill, i bared my throat, i even mis-spelled the achilles heel-

and now you try to give me a VIDEO OF RAMMSTEIN!

i am also hearing "don't fuck with me" by lil jon.


yeah, and stay away from any historical lesson administered by an american "think" tank.


----------



## L.K.Eder

i also remember challenging eagleseven on the history of german socialist parties, where he never answered.


eagleseven should do what he does best, posting pics of thai tom boys.!!


----------



## Si modo

Hey E7, do you know of a battle the USA lost during the Viet Nam war?


----------



## eagleseven

L.K.Eder said:


> so you got nothing, huh?
> 
> just tell me that you are just going for the humorous kill, i bared my throat, i even mis-spelled the achilles heel-


Why should I dispute your acknowledgment of American supremacy? I agree, America is supreme.



L.K.Eder said:


> and now you try to give me a VIDEO OF RAMMSTEIN!


That video makes me ROFL every time...



L.K.Eder said:


> i am also hearing "don't fuck with me" by lil jon.


I must admit, I prefer American rock...

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9sg6r0sHg5M"]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9sg6r0sHg5M[/ame]




L.K.Eder said:


> yeah, and stay away from any historical lesson administered by an american "think" tank.


And I'm supposed to believe _der Smigle_....I mean _der Spiegel_? 









Looks the same to me...


----------



## Si modo

L.K.Eder said:


> i also remember challenging eagleseven on the history of german socialist parties, where he never answered.
> 
> 
> eagleseven should do what he does best, posting pics of thai tom boys.!!


  This German socialist party?

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7IYVkJCfPwc]YouTube - Night and Fog 7/8[/ame]


----------



## eagleseven

Si modo said:


> Hey E7, do you know of a battle the USA lost during the Viet Nam war?


The only battle lost was in the Congressional Chambers...


----------



## L.K.Eder

hey, eagleseven and si modo combined would actually make a good nazi, just without the honor and courage compartment.


----------



## Si modo

eagleseven said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hey E7, do you know of a battle the USA lost during the Viet Nam war?
> 
> 
> 
> The only battle lost was in the Congressional Chambers...
Click to expand...

That's sorta what I thought.

Now, this USSR/USA/Afgahnistan question.  IIRC, the USSR lost that one.  IIRC, the USA never even had boots on the ground for that.  Am I missing something?


----------



## L.K.Eder

Si modo said:


> eagleseven said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hey E7, do you know of a battle the USA lost during the Viet Nam war?
> 
> 
> 
> The only battle lost was in the Congressional Chambers...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's sorta what I thought.
> 
> Now, this USSR/USA/Afgahnistan question.  IIRC, the USSR lost that one.  IIRC, the USA never even had boots on the ground for that.  Am I missing something?
Click to expand...

 

yes you are missing something.


----------



## Si modo

L.K.Eder said:


> hey, eagleseven and si modo combined would actually make a good nazi, just without the honor and courage compartment.


I don't mind.  Gassing Jews is an honor I can live without.  You're welcome to that courage!


----------



## Si modo

L.K.Eder said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eagleseven said:
> 
> 
> 
> The only battle lost was in the Congressional Chambers...
> 
> 
> 
> That's sorta what I thought.
> 
> Now, this USSR/USA/Afgahnistan question.  IIRC, the USSR lost that one.  IIRC, the USA never even had boots on the ground for that.  Am I missing something?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> yes you are missing something.
Click to expand...

Do tell?


----------



## L.K.Eder

Si modo said:


> L.K.Eder said:
> 
> 
> 
> hey, eagleseven and si modo combined would actually make a good nazi, just without the honor and courage compartment.
> 
> 
> 
> I don't mind.  Gassing Jews is an honor I can live without.  You're welcome to that courage!
Click to expand...



that was the only part that made you respond. you get no quarter, and you will not get re-enforcements with your pathetic german bashing. you think that is subtle.

i advise you to read more of my posts, esp. in this thread.


----------



## eots

rhodescholar said:


> Here is a great article on why iran needs to be attacked ASAP.  Rather than respond emotionally, as have so many here have done recently, I would like to see posters come up with point-by-point responses why Bolton's assessment is inaccurate.
> 
> washingtonpost.com
> 
> By John R. Bolton
> Thursday, July 2, 2009
> With Iran's hard-line mullahs and the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps unmistakably back in control, Israel's decision of whether to use military force against Tehran's nuclear weapons program is more urgent than ever.
> 
> Iran's nuclear threat was never in doubt during its presidential campaign, but the post-election resistance raised the possibility of some sort of regime change. That prospect seems lost for the near future or for at least as long as it will take Iran to finalize a deliverable nuclear weapons capability.
> 
> Accordingly, with no other timely option, the already compelling logic for an Israeli strike is nearly inexorable. Israel is undoubtedly ratcheting forward its decision-making process. President Obama is almost certainly not.
> 
> He still wants "engagement" (a particularly evocative term now) with Iran's current regime. Last Thursday, the State Department confirmed that Secretary Hillary Clinton spoke to her Russian and Chinese counterparts about "getting Iran back to negotiating on some of these concerns that the international community has." This is precisely the view of Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov, reflected in the Group of Eight communique the next day. Sen. John Kerry thinks the recent election unpleasantness in Tehran will delay negotiations for only a few weeks.
> 
> Obama administration sources have opined (anonymously) that Iran will be more eager to negotiate than it was before its election in order to find "acceptance" by the "international community." Some leaks indicated that negotiations had to produce results by the U.N. General Assembly's opening in late September, while others projected that they had until the end of 2009 to show progress. These gauzy scenarios assume that the Tehran regime cares about "acceptance" or is somehow embarrassed by eliminating its enemies. Both propositions are dubious.
> 
> Obama will nonetheless attempt to jump-start bilateral negotiations with Iran, though time is running out even under the timetables leaked to the media. There are two problems with this approach. First, Tehran isn't going to negotiate in good faith. It hasn't for the past six years with the European Union as our surrogates, and it won't start now. As Clinton said on Tuesday, Iran has "a huge credibility gap" because of its electoral fraud. Second, given Iran's nuclear progress, even if the stronger sanctions Obama has threatened could be agreed upon, they would not prevent Iran from fabricating weapons and delivery systems when it chooses, as it has been striving to do for the past 20 years. Time is too short, and sanctions failed long ago.
> 
> Only those most theologically committed to negotiation still believe Iran will fully renounce its nuclear program. Unfortunately, the Obama administration has a "Plan B," which would allow Iran to have a "peaceful" civil nuclear power program while publicly "renouncing" the objective of nuclear weapons. Obama would define such an outcome as "success," even though in reality it would hardly be different from what Iran is doing and saying now. A "peaceful" uranium enrichment program, "peaceful" reactors such as Bushehr and "peaceful" heavy-water projects like that under construction at Arak leave Iran with an enormous breakout capability to produce nuclear weapons in very short order. And anyone who believes the Revolutionary Guard Corps will abandon its weaponization and ballistic missile programs probably believes that there was no fraud in Iran's June 12 election. See "huge credibility gap," supra.
> 
> In short, the stolen election and its tumultuous aftermath have dramatically highlighted the strategic and tactical flaws in Obama's game plan. With regime change off the table for the coming critical period in Iran's nuclear program, Israel's decision on using force is both easier and more urgent. Since there is no likelihood that diplomacy will start or finish in time, or even progress far enough to make any real difference, there is no point waiting for negotiations to play out. In fact, given the near certainty of Obama changing his definition of "success," negotiations represent an even more dangerous trap for Israel.
> 
> Those who oppose Iran acquiring nuclear weapons are left in the near term with only the option of targeted military force against its weapons facilities. Significantly, the uprising in Iran also makes it more likely that an effective public diplomacy campaign could be waged in the country to explain to Iranians that such an attack is directed against the regime, not against the Iranian people. This was always true, but it has become even more important to make this case emphatically, when the gulf between the Islamic revolution of 1979 and the citizens of Iran has never been clearer or wider. Military action against Iran's nuclear program and the ultimate goal of regime change can be worked together consistently.
> 
> Otherwise, be prepared for an Iran with nuclear weapons, which some, including Obama advisers, believe could be contained and deterred. That is not a hypothesis we should seek to test in the real world. The cost of error could be fatal.
> 
> The writer, a senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, was U.S. ambassador to the United Nations from August 2005 to December 2006 and is the author of "Surrender Is Not an Option: Defending America at the United Nations and Abroad."



ok you go first...we will join you later...


----------



## Si modo

L.K.Eder said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> L.K.Eder said:
> 
> 
> 
> hey, eagleseven and si modo combined would actually make a good nazi, just without the honor and courage compartment.
> 
> 
> 
> I don't mind.  Gassing Jews is an honor I can live without.  You're welcome to that courage!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> that was the only part that made you respond. you get no quarter, and you will not get re-enforcements with your pathetic german bashing. you think that is subtle.
> 
> i advise you to read more of my posts, esp. in this thread.
Click to expand...

Oh, I don't mind Germans at all.  I just hate fucking Nazis.


----------



## L.K.Eder

Si modo said:


> L.K.Eder said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't mind.  Gassing Jews is an honor I can live without.  You're welcome to that courage!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> that was the only part that made you respond. you get no quarter, and you will not get re-enforcements with your pathetic german bashing. you think that is subtle.
> 
> i advise you to read more of my posts, esp. in this thread.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Oh, I don't mind Germans at all.  I just hate fucking Nazis.
Click to expand...



now look, and there we find common ground.


----------



## eagleseven

L.K.Eder said:


> hey, eagleseven and si modo combined would actually make a good nazi, just without the honor and courage compartment.


You know, a Scotsman once said the same thing? Unfortunately, I have this thing against genocide.

In other words, I love my Jews. Including my old roommate and friends in the Israel Defense Force.


Si, remember Chocobot? He would get along quite well with LK here...


----------



## eagleseven

Si Modo said:
			
		

> Oh, I don't mind Germans at all.  I just hate fucking Nazis.



I don't know about you, but I couldn't live without my wiener schnitzel and knöpfle.


----------



## Si modo

eagleseven said:


> L.K.Eder said:
> 
> 
> 
> hey, eagleseven and si modo combined would actually make a good nazi, just without the honor and courage compartment.
> 
> 
> 
> You know, a Scotsman once said the same thing? Unfortunately, I have this thing against genocide.
> 
> In other words, I love my Jews. Including my old roommate and friends in the Israel Defense Force.
> 
> 
> Si, remember Chocobot? He would get along quite well with LK here...
Click to expand...

Oh God...say it isn't so.  KD and the pastey Scotsman have the same attitude?  Aaaaaaarrrrrrrggggghhhhhh!  Please at least tell me that KD has a brain?  Please?


----------



## L.K.Eder

eagleseven said:


> Si Modo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, I don't mind Germans at all.  I just hate fucking Nazis.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know about you, but I couldn't live without my wiener schnitzel and knöpfle.
Click to expand...


you could enjoy wiener schnitzel and knöpfle without holocaust aftertaste.

i am impressed. stationed near karlsruhe or heidelberg?

but the other stuff, leave it to me, i actually know what i am writing about on the german side.


----------



## eagleseven

Si modo said:


> eagleseven said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> L.K.Eder said:
> 
> 
> 
> hey, eagleseven and si modo combined would actually make a good nazi, just without the honor and courage compartment.
> 
> 
> 
> You know, a Scotsman once said the same thing? Unfortunately, I have this thing against genocide.
> 
> In other words, I love my Jews. Including my old roommate and friends in the Israel Defense Force.
> 
> 
> Si, remember Chocobot? He would get along quite well with LK here...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Oh God...say it isn't so.  KD and the pastey Scotsman have the same attitude?  Aaaaaaarrrrrrrggggghhhhhh!  Please at least tell me that KD has a brain?  Please?
Click to expand...

I just don't know...

I do know this great movie is very relevant to our conversation!

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dOMKloOEKcU"]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dOMKloOEKcU[/ame]


----------



## L.K.Eder

eagleseven said:


> L.K.Eder said:
> 
> 
> 
> hey, eagleseven and si modo combined would actually make a good nazi, just without the honor and courage compartment.
> 
> 
> 
> You know, a Scotsman once said the same thing? Unfortunately, I have this thing against genocide.
> 
> In other words, I love my Jews. Including my old roommate and friends in the Israel Defense Force.
> 
> 
> Si, remember Chocobot? He would get along quite well with LK here...
Click to expand...


did i disturb a pajama party?

don't choke on your ignorance, you had potential, for an US american.

yeah i found this post after the other one where i sort of kind of was agreeable.

this post is different, this is a "i love my jews" post. so FUCK YOU!!!!!!!!


----------



## elvis

Sind Sie wütend, LK?


----------



## Si modo

eagleseven said:


> Si Modo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, I don't mind Germans at all.  I just hate fucking Nazis.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know about you, but I couldn't live without my wiener schnitzel and knöpfle.
Click to expand...

If you ever get in this are, then you need to check this place out just south of  Annapolis:  Welcome to the Old Stein Inn


----------



## eagleseven

L.K.Eder said:


> eagleseven said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Si Modo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, I don't mind Germans at all.  I just hate fucking Nazis.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know about you, but I couldn't live without my wiener schnitzel and knöpfle.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> you could enjoy wiener schnitzel and knöpfle without holocaust aftertaste.
> 
> i am impressed. stationed near karlsruhe or heidelberg?
> 
> but the other stuff, leave it to me, i actually know what i am writing about on the german side.
Click to expand...

We actually have restaurants, built by German immigrants, who make those delicious dishes here in the States...but I would love to visit Germany some day, yes.

As much as you hate us, we really don't hate ya back, as long as you leave our Jews alone...


----------



## L.K.Eder

elvis3577 said:


> Sind Sie wütend, LK?



ein bißchen, i don't react well to fools when drunk


----------



## elvis

I see the Holocaust card has been played.


----------



## Si modo

L.K.Eder said:


> elvis3577 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sind Sie wütend, LK?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ein bißchen, i don't react well to fools when drunk
Click to expand...

Don't worry too much.  It's normal to over estimate our abilities when under the influence.





(I don't hate you, LK)


----------



## L.K.Eder

eagleseven said:


> L.K.Eder said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eagleseven said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know about you, but I couldn't live without my wiener schnitzel and knöpfle.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> you could enjoy wiener schnitzel and knöpfle without holocaust aftertaste.
> 
> i am impressed. stationed near karlsruhe or heidelberg?
> 
> but the other stuff, leave it to me, i actually know what i am writing about on the german side.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We actually have restaurants, built by German immigrants, who make those delicious dishes here in the States...but I would love to visit Germany some day, yes.
> 
> As much as you hate us, we really don't hate ya back, as long as you leave our Jews alone...
Click to expand...


don't peddle this semi-aggressive shit by me. i hate you personally for riling me up. you should know better, as i think you are one of the kind of intelligent americans. i visited your country. you have never been to germany, on a US message board that is equal to you have not served in the military! hahah!  hahahha! sit in it! germany does not have  a "we adore the soldier" culture anymore, for hopefully obvious reasons.

play the jew card again, i double dog dare you


----------



## elvis

Why wasn't Zukhov put up on war crimes for ordering the rapes of thousands of eastern german women?  or Stalin for marching the Germans out of East Prussia?


----------



## L.K.Eder

elvis3577 said:


> Why wasn't Zukhov put up on war crimes for ordering the rapes of thousands of eastern german women?  or Stalin for marching the Germans out of East Prussia?



because soviet russia won the war


----------



## eagleseven

L.K.Eder said:


> eagleseven said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> L.K.Eder said:
> 
> 
> 
> you could enjoy wiener schnitzel and knöpfle without holocaust aftertaste.
> 
> i am impressed. stationed near karlsruhe or heidelberg?
> 
> but the other stuff, leave it to me, i actually know what i am writing about on the german side.
> 
> 
> 
> We actually have restaurants, built by German immigrants, who make those delicious dishes here in the States...but I would love to visit Germany some day, yes.
> 
> As much as you hate us, we really don't hate ya back, as long as you leave our Jews alone...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> don't peddle this semi-aggressive shit by me. i hate you personally for riling me up. you should know better, as i think you are one of the kind of intelligent americans. i visited your country. you have never been to germany, on a US message board that is equal to you have not served in the military! hahah!  hahahha! sit in it! germany does not have  a "we adore the soldier" culture anymore, for hopefully obvious reasons.
> 
> play the jew card again, i double dog dare you
Click to expand...

You fired the first shot, with your _"Americans lack introspection"_ insult. I'm the one who should be pissed right now...

...but I'm laughing.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F6IQ4RnWwX8]YouTube - The Bravery - An Honest Mistake[/ame] Maybe this is why? 


P.S. *Jews!*


----------



## eagleseven

elvis3577 said:


> Why wasn't Zukhov put up on war crimes for ordering the rapes of thousands of eastern german women?  or Stalin for marching the Germans out of East Prussia?


Are you suggesting we should have given West Germany to the Soviets, because Amerika is so evil?


----------



## Si modo

eagleseven said:


> L.K.Eder said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eagleseven said:
> 
> 
> 
> We actually have restaurants, built by German immigrants, who make those delicious dishes here in the States...but I would love to visit Germany some day, yes.
> 
> As much as you hate us, we really don't hate ya back, as long as you leave our Jews alone...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> don't peddle this semi-aggressive shit by me. i hate you personally for riling me up. you should know better, as i think you are one of the kind of intelligent americans. i visited your country. you have never been to germany, on a US message board that is equal to you have not served in the military! hahah!  hahahha! sit in it! germany does not have  a "we adore the soldier" culture anymore, for hopefully obvious reasons.
> 
> play the jew card again, i double dog dare you
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You fired the first shot, with your _"Americans lack introspection"_ insult. I'm the one who should be pissed right now...
> 
> ...but I'm laughing.
> 
> [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F6IQ4RnWwX8]YouTube - The Bravery - An Honest Mistake[/ame] Maybe this is why?
Click to expand...

LMAO.  Gotta love that German sense of style?


----------



## elvis

eagleseven said:


> elvis3577 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why wasn't Zukhov put up on war crimes for ordering the rapes of thousands of eastern german women?  or Stalin for marching the Germans out of East Prussia?
> 
> 
> 
> Are you suggest we should have given West Germany to the Soviets, because America is so evil?
Click to expand...


Yeah because Zukhov and Stalin are American war criminals.


----------



## eagleseven

Si modo said:


> eagleseven said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> L.K.Eder said:
> 
> 
> 
> don't peddle this semi-aggressive shit by me. i hate you personally for riling me up. you should know better, as i think you are one of the kind of intelligent americans. i visited your country. you have never been to germany, on a US message board that is equal to you have not served in the military! hahah!  hahahha! sit in it! germany does not have  a "we adore the soldier" culture anymore, for hopefully obvious reasons.
> 
> play the jew card again, i double dog dare you
> 
> 
> 
> You fired the first shot, with your _"Americans lack introspection"_ insult. I'm the one who should be pissed right now...
> 
> ...but I'm laughing.
> 
> [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F6IQ4RnWwX8]YouTube - The Bravery - An Honest Mistake[/ame] Maybe this is why?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LMAO.  Gotta love that German sense of style?
Click to expand...



That's a local NY band...we're so hateable!


----------



## Si modo

LOL.  Pity they are from NY...it just seemed to work with their being German.


----------



## L.K.Eder

eagleseven said:


> L.K.Eder said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eagleseven said:
> 
> 
> 
> We actually have restaurants, built by German immigrants, who make those delicious dishes here in the States...but I would love to visit Germany some day, yes.
> 
> As much as you hate us, we really don't hate ya back, as long as you leave our Jews alone...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> don't peddle this semi-aggressive shit by me. i hate you personally for riling me up. you should know better, as i think you are one of the kind of intelligent americans. i visited your country. you have never been to germany, on a US message board that is equal to you have not served in the military! hahah!  hahahha! sit in it! germany does not have  a "we adore the soldier" culture anymore, for hopefully obvious reasons.
> 
> play the jew card again, i double dog dare you
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You fired the first shot, with your _"Americans lack introspection"_ insult. I'm the one who should be pissed right now...
> 
> ...but I'm laughing.
> 
> [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F6IQ4RnWwX8]YouTube - The Bravery - An Honest Mistake[/ame] Maybe this is why?
> 
> 
> P.S. *Jews!*
Click to expand...


yeah you should be pissed right now. no youtube vid can help you out there.

your entertainment value is also on the fritz. 

i fired the first shot when you tried to bait me?  re-read the thread, i am quite on point and don't get distracted that easily.

your desperate low blow about "mein kampf" is very present in my mind, here is another fick dich für dich! enjoy


----------



## eagleseven

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UrOITkvDV5Y&feature=related]YouTube - Austin powers Intro Goldmember[/ame]

Evil Kapitalist Amerikanskis!


----------



## eagleseven

L.K.Eder said:


> yeah you should be pissed right now. no youtube vid can help you out there.


I should be pissed, but being an American is just too fucking awesome!



L.K.Eder said:


> your entertainment value is also on the fritz.


Tony and Niko disagree...

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dg8jzTQUgkc]YouTube - Grand Theft Auto IV: The Ballad of Gay Tony Debut Trailer [HD] (Rate This Game)[/ame]



L.K.Eder said:


> i fired the first shot when you tried to bait me?  re-read the thread, i am quite on point and don't get distracted that easily.


I wasn't aware Germans get upset about American preachers...



L.K.Eder said:


> your desperate low blow about "mein kampf" is very present in my mind, here is another fick dich für dich! enjoy


Du hasst mich...

*träne*


----------



## L.K.Eder

eagleseven said:


> L.K.Eder said:
> 
> 
> 
> yeah you should be pissed right now. no youtube vid can help you out there.
> 
> 
> 
> I should be pissed, but being an American is just too fucking awesome!
> 
> 
> 
> L.K.Eder said:
> 
> 
> 
> your entertainment value is also on the fritz.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Tony and Niko disagree...
> 
> [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dg8jzTQUgkc]YouTube - Grand Theft Auto IV: The Ballad of Gay Tony Debut Trailer [HD] (Rate This Game)[/ame]
> 
> 
> 
> L.K.Eder said:
> 
> 
> 
> i fired the first shot when you tried to bait me?  re-read the thread, i am quite on point and don't get distracted that easily.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I wasn't aware Germans get upset about American preachers...
> 
> 
> 
> L.K.Eder said:
> 
> 
> 
> your desperate low blow about "mein kampf" is very present in my mind, here is another fick dich für dich! enjoy
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Du hasst mich...
> 
> *träne*
Click to expand...



tanz tanz, kleiner affe!   should be easy for a translator bot.

don't try to switch and bait me.


----------



## Si modo

eagleseven said:


> .... but being an American is just too fucking awesome! ....


QFT.

I am an American. That's the way most of us put it, just matter of factly. They are plain words, those four. You could write them on your thumbnail, or you could sweep them clear across this bright autumn sky. But they are more than words. They are a way of life. So whenever you speak them, speak them firmly; speak them proudly; speak them gratefully. I am an American.


----------



## elvis

eins, zwei, drei , g'suffa


----------



## L.K.Eder

elvis3577 said:


> eins, zwei, drei , g'suffa



oktoberfest starts in a week,

oans zwoa gsuffa.

munich will be like USMB, stupid drunk fat americans all over the place with no clue.

no, i won't tell you where you can get a beer or money or piss or something.

eagleseven ruined it for you.


----------



## elvis

L.K.Eder said:


> elvis3577 said:
> 
> 
> 
> eins, zwei, drei , g'suffa
> 
> 
> 
> 
> oktoberfest starts in a week,
> 
> oans zwoa gsuffa.
> 
> munich will be like USMB, stupid drunk fat americans all over the place with no clue.
> 
> no, i won't tell you where you can get a beer or money or piss or something.
> 
> eagleseven ruined it for you.
Click to expand...


oans zwoa?  Ist das Bayernische?


----------



## L.K.Eder

elvis3577 said:


> L.K.Eder said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> elvis3577 said:
> 
> 
> 
> eins, zwei, drei , g'suffa
> 
> 
> 
> 
> oktoberfest starts in a week,
> 
> oans zwoa gsuffa.
> 
> munich will be like USMB, stupid drunk fat americans all over the place with no clue.
> 
> no, i won't tell you where you can get a beer or money or piss or something.
> 
> eagleseven ruined it for you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> oans zwoa?  Ist das Bayernische?
Click to expand...


yes that's bairisch, as is g'suffa.


oans zwoa drei g'suffa


----------



## eagleseven

L.K.Eder said:


> tanz tanz, kleiner affe!   should be easy for a translator bot.
> 
> don't try to switch and bait me.



[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C3iY45m0v1Y&feature=related]YouTube - Combat Dancing In Baghdad, Iraq[/ame]

Straight from our _"failure"_ in Iraq...things you won't see on TV.


----------



## elvis

L.K.Eder said:


> elvis3577 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> L.K.Eder said:
> 
> 
> 
> oktoberfest starts in a week,
> 
> oans zwoa gsuffa.
> 
> munich will be like USMB, stupid drunk fat americans all over the place with no clue.
> 
> no, i won't tell you where you can get a beer or money or piss or something.
> 
> eagleseven ruined it for you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> oans zwoa?  Ist das Bayernische?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> yes that's bairisch, as is g'suffa.
Click to expand...


my hessian friends wanted me to fly to Munich next week but I can't get away right now.


----------



## L.K.Eder

elvis3577 said:


> L.K.Eder said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> elvis3577 said:
> 
> 
> 
> oans zwoa?  Ist das Bayernische?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> yes that's bairisch, as is g'suffa.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> my hessian friends wanted me to fly to Munich but I can't get away right now.
Click to expand...


don't trust the hessians, they always pick the wrong side.


----------



## elvis

L.K.Eder said:


> elvis3577 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> L.K.Eder said:
> 
> 
> 
> yes that's bairisch, as is g'suffa.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> my hessian friends wanted me to fly to Munich but I can't get away right now.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> don't trust the hessians, they always pick the wrong side.
Click to expand...


yeah Georgie Washington surprised them on Christmas morning.


----------



## L.K.Eder

elvis3577 said:


> L.K.Eder said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> elvis3577 said:
> 
> 
> 
> my hessian friends wanted me to fly to Munich but I can't get away right now.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> don't trust the hessians, they always pick the wrong side.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> yeah Georgie Washington surprised them on Christmas morning.
Click to expand...


you won't miss much in oktoberfest time in munich. everything is crowded, and more expensive.

munich is great in summer, with all the beer gardens.

oktoberfest is a zoo.


----------



## eagleseven

elvis3577 said:


> L.K.Eder said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> elvis3577 said:
> 
> 
> 
> oans zwoa?  Ist das Bayernische?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> yes that's bairisch, as is g'suffa.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> my hessian friends wanted me to fly to Munich next week but I can't get away right now.
Click to expand...

If you don't mind a short drive...the Oktoberfest in Chicago is a blast!

Oktoberfest Chicago | Star Events - World-Class Special Events and Entertainment


----------



## elvis

L.K.Eder said:


> elvis3577 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> L.K.Eder said:
> 
> 
> 
> don't trust the hessians, they always pick the wrong side.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> yeah Georgie Washington surprised them on Christmas morning.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> you won't miss much in oktoberfest time in munich. everything is crowded, and more expensive.
> 
> munich is great in summer, with all the beer gardens.
> 
> oktoberfest is a zoo.
Click to expand...


actually I am hopefully going to Düsseldorf next summer.


----------



## elvis

eagleseven said:


> elvis3577 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> L.K.Eder said:
> 
> 
> 
> yes that's bairisch, as is g'suffa.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> my hessian friends wanted me to fly to Munich next week but I can't get away right now.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If you don't mind a short drive...the Oktoberfest in Chicago is a blast!
> 
> Oktoberfest Chicago | Star Events - World-Class Special Events and Entertainment
Click to expand...


yeah I"m not too far from chicago.  I could meet my cousin there.


----------



## L.K.Eder

elvis3577 said:


> L.K.Eder said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> elvis3577 said:
> 
> 
> 
> yeah Georgie Washington surprised them on Christmas morning.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> you won't miss much in oktoberfest time in munich. everything is crowded, and more expensive.
> 
> munich is great in summer, with all the beer gardens.
> 
> oktoberfest is a zoo.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> actually I am hopefully going to Düsseldorf next summer.
Click to expand...


good luck with the beer there. alt.

and the city was bombed to shit. if you go there and think wtf? yes, wwii.


----------



## eagleseven

elvis3577 said:


> actually I am hopefully going to Düsseldorf next summer.



[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WCUfkMkVbwo]YouTube - Sprintime for Htler[/ame]

_I was born in Düsseldorf and that is why they call me Rolf!_


----------



## L.K.Eder

All you need to know about germany is the word Hitler, just use it for anything you fear or don't like, like liberal or progressive.

then watch this:

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QHZR9SA5pOg]YouTube - Sprockets Dance[/ame]


----------



## eagleseven

L.K.Eder said:


> All you need to know about germany is the word Hitler, just use it for anything you fear or don't like, like liberal or progressive.
> 
> then watch this:
> 
> YouTube - Sprockets Dance



[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3zUINaPlKX0&feature=related]YouTube - Klee- Nicht immer aber jetzt[/ame]

She's hotter.


----------



## eagleseven

Your video reminded me...can't believe I forgot these guys!

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BQAKRw6mToA]YouTube - Dschinghis Khan - Moskau[/ame]


----------



## L.K.Eder

you want a german message in a youtube vid

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZJauaGkTZ9k&feature=PlayList&p=E4B31B50DB1384C3&index=0]YouTube - HALT DIE FRESSE - DER TRAILER[/ame]


----------



## eagleseven

You're an eloquent one, I see...


----------



## eagleseven

And a message from the Persians...

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n41ywbUUyEs&feature=related"]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n41ywbUUyEs&feature=related[/ame]


----------



## JW Frogen

Shall we allow the theocratic mullahs who despise science, if ironically appropriate it, (they do not know how to use the method, only the end product) to place their quest-for-fire-hands on more than a book of Islamic fundamentalist clap trap poetry, to let them play with nuclear weapons?

If you want to live in a Cormac McCarthy novel, the answer is ....yes.


----------



## Cold Fusion38

John Bolton looks like the little creature from the Black Caldron. The one who wanted "munchies and crunchies". I swear if you put him and Lieberman would be that cartoon creature.


----------



## Dr.Drock

Si modo said:


> Dr.Drock said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The_Halfmoon said:
> 
> 
> 
> I've said as much in other posts, don't get me wrong. I feel the US SHOULD go to war with Iran because, in reality, Iran has been waging war on the US indirectly for decades.
> 
> And btw, I also feel the US has done some horrendous things to Iranians since and after 1953.  I remember a quote from a senior US official to the UN regarding Saddam's chemical weapons, where he said something along the lines of 'It's a difficult situation.  You want Iraq to stop using chemical weapons, but on the other hand... you don't want Iran to win the war!" I mean that is a borderline evil thing to say, and it was the US policy towards Iran.
> 
> HOWEVER, I agree that the costs are way too high for this war.  I would not support a US or Israeli attack on Iran.  My main argument is against people that assume that the attack on Iran would be morally as low as the attack on Iraq.  To say so is to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iran.
> 
> I agree with what you say about the costs of war, and actually would go further by saying what I've already probably said 10X (and I'm paraphrasing an scholar whose name I can't remember unfortunately): If you were to hold referendums today in the Middle East, every single country with one exception would have a theocratic government like Iran's.  The exception is of course Iran itself. If the US were to attack, this reality would change.
> 
> But I don't agree with the statement that there are other countries more dangerous than Iran.  One, it is in the single most important region of the world, surrounded by allies of the US, controlling or influencing the vast majority of the flow of energy around the world.
> 
> Two, it has imperial ambitions.  The revolution was from the start meant to be a starting point for the spread of the new Shia empire. On top of that, the rather extreme ethnocentrism and nationalism of Iranians who consider themselves superior to Arabs is just a powderkeg waiting to explode as soon as Iran becomes the single dominant nation in the region. For years Iranians and Russians have been building towards a middle east controlled by Iran and influenced by Russia.  It is a very rational consequence of the departure of US influence in the region (and the original reason for US interferance in Iran since thd 1920s).
> 
> If North Korea nukes Japan, it would be unbelievably horrendous.  But it couldn't damage the entire world economy.  If Iran got into a war with its very natural enemy, Saudi Arabia... can you imagine the consequences? The entire world economy would be brought to its knees.
> 
> Again, I don't say the US MUST attack. But if we're talking about a country that has to look at its best interests and the interest of its allies in the region (not just Israel), you do have to make the case that the US would not be in the same moral position as it was with Iraq (a country that was not a genuine threat after the first gulf war, and had been tortured through air attacks and sanctions for over a decade).
> 
> But Iran has a very advanced ballistic missles industry that, as a military spokesman of the IRI said "manufactures bombs the same way it can manufacture books."  It could cause inmense, borderline fatal damage to Israel as well as tens of thousands of bystanding US troops in Southern Iraq.  So I understand and generally agree with what you're saying.  I'm just not willing to say that it's just another country like Cuba or Lybia, and that the US has no reason to attack.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No offense sir, you sound smart, but this is nothing but drivel.  If Iran or North Korea even reached towards the button to launch a nuclear weapon (if they ever have them) the entire country would be blown away before it ever reached the high airspace.  Iran has a hundred US and Israeli nukes aimed at it right now.  Iran getting nuclear weapons (legally I might add) would do absolutely nothing to affect any US or close US ally's safety.  Don't believe the fearmongering, that's what got us into Iraq.
> 
> I hope if we ever sign up to fight for war with Iran you're the first to sign up for it.  Don't take after all the pro Iraq war chickenhawks like the voting neoconservatives, Dick Cheney, Bill O'Reilly, George Bush, Sean Hannity, etc who do nothing but cower under beds and cheer on others to die in their place when they want war to happen.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Iran legally getting nuclear weapons?  What the hell?
Click to expand...


"Some necessary history in three brief paragraphs: first, the Non-Proliferation Treaty[5] (NPT) was designed to limit nuclear weapon development, facilitate availability of nuclear energy, and lead to global nuclear disarmament. The treaty allows any country to develop nuclear material for energy, receive the assistance of the nuclear countries to do so (US, UK, France, Russia, and China), and then be inspected by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) to verify they do not refine fissionable material beyond energy-grade (3-5%) to weapons-grade (over 85%). To date, no NPT country with a nuclear energy program has developed nuclear weapons. Iran and the US are signatories of NPT. Therefore, the legal and Constitutional US response is to help Iran develop nuclear energy. However, the Bush administration rejects Irans proposal and threatens war. The Bush administration doesnt disclose Irans treaty-right to nuclear energy under NPT and obfuscates the issue with rhetoric of Irans nuclear program to link energy with weapons.[6] Ironically, the US is in additional violation of NPT by developing new nuclear weapons and threatening to use them rather than work for global disarmament as per treaty terms.[7]"

Iran's done absolutely nothing illegal.  They haven't attacked a country in over 400 years yet here in the US, where we can't go a decade without attacking someone, are telling Iran why what they're doing is wrong and evil.  

It's incredible.


----------



## rhodescholar

Dr.Drock said:


> Iran's done absolutely nothing illegal.  They haven't attacked a country in over 400 years yet here in the US, where we can't go a decade without attacking someone, are telling Iran why what they're doing is wrong and evil.  It's incredible.



What is incredible is how this laughably pathetic line continues to show up all over the web, as if the IRI has a paid group of fundies posting it as a means of trying to deflect criticism of their massive and obscene terrorism.

This is one of the failings of the web, you cannot see who is behind postings that are little more than propagandist crud, one can only speculate...


----------



## elvis

Dr.Drock said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dr.Drock said:
> 
> 
> 
> No offense sir, you sound smart, but this is nothing but drivel.  If Iran or North Korea even reached towards the button to launch a nuclear weapon (if they ever have them) the entire country would be blown away before it ever reached the high airspace.  Iran has a hundred US and Israeli nukes aimed at it right now.  Iran getting nuclear weapons (legally I might add) would do absolutely nothing to affect any US or close US ally's safety.  Don't believe the fearmongering, that's what got us into Iraq.
> 
> I hope if we ever sign up to fight for war with Iran you're the first to sign up for it.  Don't take after all the pro Iraq war chickenhawks like the voting neoconservatives, Dick Cheney, Bill O'Reilly, George Bush, Sean Hannity, etc who do nothing but cower under beds and cheer on others to die in their place when they want war to happen.
> 
> 
> 
> Iran legally getting nuclear weapons?  What the hell?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "Some necessary history in three brief paragraphs: first, the Non-Proliferation Treaty[5] (NPT) was designed to limit nuclear weapon development, facilitate availability of nuclear energy, and lead to global nuclear disarmament. The treaty allows any country to develop nuclear material for energy, receive the assistance of the nuclear countries to do so (US, UK, France, Russia, and China), and then be inspected by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) to verify they do not refine fissionable material beyond energy-grade (3-5%) to weapons-grade (over 85%). To date, no NPT country with a nuclear energy program has developed nuclear weapons. Iran and the US are signatories of NPT. Therefore, the legal and Constitutional US response is to help Iran develop nuclear energy. However, the Bush administration rejects Irans proposal and threatens war. The Bush administration doesnt disclose Irans treaty-right to nuclear energy under NPT and obfuscates the issue with rhetoric of Irans nuclear program to link energy with weapons.[6] Ironically, the US is in additional violation of NPT by developing new nuclear weapons and threatening to use them rather than work for global disarmament as per treaty terms.[7]"
> 
> Iran's done absolutely nothing illegal.  They haven't attacked a country in over 400 years yet here in the US, where we can't go a decade without attacking someone, are telling Iran why what they're doing is wrong and evil.
> 
> It's incredible.
Click to expand...


is it legal to fund terrorist groups like Hezbollah?


----------



## stonewall

Dr.Drock said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dr.Drock said:
> 
> 
> 
> No offense sir, you sound smart, but this is nothing but drivel.  If Iran or North Korea even reached towards the button to launch a nuclear weapon (if they ever have them) the entire country would be blown away before it ever reached the high airspace.  Iran has a hundred US and Israeli nukes aimed at it right now.  Iran getting nuclear weapons (legally I might add) would do absolutely nothing to affect any US or close US ally's safety.  Don't believe the fearmongering, that's what got us into Iraq.
> 
> I hope if we ever sign up to fight for war with Iran you're the first to sign up for it.  Don't take after all the pro Iraq war chickenhawks like the voting neoconservatives, Dick Cheney, Bill O'Reilly, George Bush, Sean Hannity, etc who do nothing but cower under beds and cheer on others to die in their place when they want war to happen.
> 
> 
> 
> Iran legally getting nuclear weapons?  What the hell?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "Some necessary history in three brief paragraphs: first, the Non-Proliferation Treaty[5] (NPT) was designed to limit nuclear weapon development, facilitate availability of nuclear energy, and lead to global nuclear disarmament. The treaty allows any country to develop nuclear material for energy, receive the assistance of the nuclear countries to do so (US, UK, France, Russia, and China), and then be inspected by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) to verify they do not refine fissionable material beyond energy-grade (3-5%) to weapons-grade (over 85%). To date, no NPT country with a nuclear energy program has developed nuclear weapons. Iran and the US are signatories of NPT. Therefore, the legal and Constitutional US response is to help Iran develop nuclear energy. However, the Bush administration rejects Irans proposal and threatens war. The Bush administration doesnt disclose Irans treaty-right to nuclear energy under NPT and obfuscates the issue with rhetoric of Irans nuclear program to link energy with weapons.[6] Ironically, the US is in additional violation of NPT by developing new nuclear weapons and threatening to use them rather than work for global disarmament as per treaty terms.[7]"
> 
> Iran's done absolutely nothing illegal.  They haven't attacked a country in over 400 years yet here in the US, where we can't go a decade without attacking someone, are telling Iran why what they're doing is wrong and evil.
> 
> It's incredible.
Click to expand...


Still nothing about them legally able to build a nuclear weapon.

According to the IAEA. Iran is in breach of the NPT. They have failed to live up to their obligations under the treaty. 

Over a long period of time.


----------



## Annie

stonewall said:


> Dr.Drock said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Iran legally getting nuclear weapons?  What the hell?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Some necessary history in three brief paragraphs: first, the Non-Proliferation Treaty[5] (NPT) was designed to limit nuclear weapon development, facilitate availability of nuclear energy, and lead to global nuclear disarmament. The treaty allows any country to develop nuclear material for energy, receive the assistance of the nuclear countries to do so (US, UK, France, Russia, and China), and then be inspected by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) to verify they do not refine fissionable material beyond energy-grade (3-5%) to weapons-grade (over 85%). To date, no NPT country with a nuclear energy program has developed nuclear weapons. Iran and the US are signatories of NPT. Therefore, the legal and Constitutional US response is to help Iran develop nuclear energy. However, the Bush administration rejects Irans proposal and threatens war. The Bush administration doesnt disclose Irans treaty-right to nuclear energy under NPT and obfuscates the issue with rhetoric of Irans nuclear program to link energy with weapons.[6] Ironically, the US is in additional violation of NPT by developing new nuclear weapons and threatening to use them rather than work for global disarmament as per treaty terms.[7]"
> 
> I*ran's done absolutely nothing illegal.  They haven't attacked a country in over 400 years* yet here in the US, where we can't go a decade without attacking someone, are telling Iran why what they're doing is wrong and evil.
> 
> It's incredible.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Still nothing about them legally able to build a nuclear weapon.
> 
> According to the IAEA. Iran is in breach of the NPT. They have failed to live up to their obligations under the treaty.
> 
> Over a long period of time.
Click to expand...

Bullshit. They attacked the US when they overtook embassy and held hostages. Fuktard.


----------



## stonewall

Annie said:


> stonewall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dr.Drock said:
> 
> 
> 
> "Some necessary history in three brief paragraphs: first, the Non-Proliferation Treaty[5] (NPT) was designed to limit nuclear weapon development, facilitate availability of nuclear energy, and lead to global nuclear disarmament. The treaty allows any country to develop nuclear material for energy, receive the assistance of the nuclear countries to do so (US, UK, France, Russia, and China), and then be inspected by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) to verify they do not refine fissionable material beyond energy-grade (3-5%) to weapons-grade (over 85%). To date, no NPT country with a nuclear energy program has developed nuclear weapons. Iran and the US are signatories of NPT. Therefore, the legal and Constitutional US response is to help Iran develop nuclear energy. However, the Bush administration rejects Irans proposal and threatens war. The Bush administration doesnt disclose Irans treaty-right to nuclear energy under NPT and obfuscates the issue with rhetoric of Irans nuclear program to link energy with weapons.[6] Ironically, the US is in additional violation of NPT by developing new nuclear weapons and threatening to use them rather than work for global disarmament as per treaty terms.[7]"
> 
> I*ran's done absolutely nothing illegal.  They haven't attacked a country in over 400 years* yet here in the US, where we can't go a decade without attacking someone, are telling Iran why what they're doing is wrong and evil.
> 
> It's incredible.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Still nothing about them legally able to build a nuclear weapon.
> 
> According to the IAEA. Iran is in breach of the NPT. They have failed to live up to their obligations under the treaty.
> 
> Over a long period of time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Bullshit. They attacked the US when they overtook embassy and held hostages. Fuktard.
Click to expand...



Not to mention our Marines in Beruit, and Saudi Hezballah bombing the Khobar Towers.

Iran is very aggressive in their terror.


----------



## rhodescholar

stonewall said:


> Not to mention our Marines in Beruit, and Saudi Hezballah bombing the Khobar Towers. Iran is very aggressive in their terror.



But to the less intelligent, since they were not wearing IRI military uniforms, they were not army soldiers, and therefore, not officially sanctioned by the IRI.

Or better the imbeciles will just respond with: "but but but you have no solid proof" that iran did any of these things....


----------



## Annie

rhodescholar said:


> stonewall said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not to mention our Marines in Beruit, and Saudi Hezballah bombing the Khobar Towers. Iran is very aggressive in their terror.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But to the less intelligent, since they were not wearing IRI military uniforms, they were not army soldiers, and therefore, not officially sanctioned by the IRI.
> 
> Or better the imbeciles will just respond with: "but but but you have no solid proof" that iran did any of these things....
Click to expand...


they were US citizens, under the auspices of US protections.


----------



## stonewall

Here are 2 .pdf files from the IAEA detailing Iran's breach of the NPT.

http://www.iaea.org/Publications/Documents/Board/2005/gov2005-77.pdf

And...

http://www.iaea.org/Publications/Documents/Board/2005/gov2005-67.pdf


----------



## L.K.Eder

it certainly was fun to rant in this thread, but i am still of the opinion that no one should attack iran.


----------



## stonewall

L.K.Eder said:


> it certainly was fun to rant in this thread, but i am still of the opinion that no one should attack iran.



I would agree that America should not attack them in regard to their nuclear program.

As far as other countries doing it, I have no problem with that.

I would even support a worldwide effort against Iran where America's part would be in the air. While other countries go in on the ground.

But, that is not going to happen.


----------



## Cold Fusion38

rhodescholar said:


> Dr.Drock said:
> 
> 
> 
> Iran's done absolutely nothing illegal.  They haven't attacked a country in over 400 years yet here in the US, where we can't go a decade without attacking someone, are telling Iran why what they're doing is wrong and evil.  It's incredible.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What is incredible is how this laughably pathetic line continues to show up all over the web, as if the IRI has a paid group of fundies posting it as a means of trying to deflect criticism of their massive and obscene terrorism.
> 
> This is one of the failings of the web, you cannot see who is behind postings that are little more than propagandist crud, one can only speculate...
Click to expand...






Hey Rhode Kill what are you raving about now?


----------



## Cold Fusion38

rhodescholar said:


> stonewall said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not to mention our Marines in Beruit, and Saudi Hezballah bombing the Khobar Towers. Iran is very aggressive in their terror.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But to the less intelligent, since they were not wearing IRI military uniforms, they were not army soldiers, and therefore, not officially sanctioned by the IRI.
> 
> Or better the imbeciles will just respond with: "but but but you have no solid proof" that iran did any of these things....
Click to expand...





Yeah those whackos demanding PROOF what a bunch of shit heads!!


----------



## Dr.Drock

Alright well here comes a line by line disection of all the people who responded to me

"RhodesScholar"- I said first that Iran's government is trash.  I know how neoconservatives ignore what they don't wanna hear and put in bold things that aren't even said, so you haven't done anything to change the stereotype.  Ahmadinejad's job is a lot like Obama's, doesn't have much power but everyone on all sides thinks his speeches and rhetoric are a big deal.  The Federal Reserve and Corporate America run this country not the government, The Supreme ruling body runs Iran not Ahmadinejad or any other elected post in Iran.  

elvis3577- Is it legal to fund Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden/Al Qaeda?  That's what we did, they killed a lot more people than Hezbollah has.

Annie-imagine if a country ended all democracy in the US like we did in Iran in 1953, the citizens would've been in the right to send over a million suicide bombers for us destroying their country.  A simple little takeover of an embassy and holding hostages?  Yawn

Stonewall- what defines "aggressive"?  War starting?  Killing?  Country destroying?  Democracy ending?  Nuke building?  Weapons selling?  I'd like to hear this.


God how I wish the people beating the war drum would go and grab their tin hats and rifles and do it themselves.  The number of cowards who talk big and do nothing grows exponentially every year in this country.


----------



## The_Halfmoon

Dr.Drock said:


> The_Halfmoon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dr.Drock said:
> 
> 
> 
> Iran's government is trash, but there's 100 governments in the world that are worse.
> 
> I'm just going to ignore the attempted similarity connection the other poster tried to make between Nazi Germany and the current Irani government.  People will say anything, no matter how crazy, to try and strike emotions in political debates.
> 
> If you think the Vietnam War was cool, then you'll like an American led war in Iran.  This won't be Iraq where it takes years to reach 1,000 dead American soldiers that will happen every single year we fight it.  You think this recession sucks?  Wait until you see what happens to our economy if we fight a much larger war than the current sized wars that we can't even afford.
> 
> And, just like in Afghanistan/Iraq/Vietnam, this will be another war that we lose.  The only way to win a war against Iran is to drop enough nukes to cover every square inch of the ground.  The Iranian people are big on independence and they'll fight until the last person takes in their last gasp of air.  Plus their military is way better than Iraq's was, hence why they crushed Iraq in the war in the 80's you mentioned.  The war where we were giving Saddam chemical weapons, gas, money, other weapons to wage war and kill his own women, children and babies with.
> 
> There's nothing stupider (no offense) than wanting war with Iran.  We'll gain nothing and lose everything.  We can't even win a war against the 3rd poorest 3rd world country (Afghanistan) in 8 years, the Taliban controls more of the country than we do.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I've said as much in other posts, don't get me wrong. I feel the US SHOULD go to war with Iran because, in reality, Iran has been waging war on the US indirectly for decades.
> 
> And btw, I also feel the US has done some horrendous things to Iranians since and after 1953.  I remember a quote from a senior US official to the UN regarding Saddam's chemical weapons, where he said something along the lines of 'It's a difficult situation.  You want Iraq to stop using chemical weapons, but on the other hand... you don't want Iran to win the war!" I mean that is a borderline evil thing to say, and it was the US policy towards Iran.
> 
> HOWEVER, I agree that the costs are way too high for this war.  I would not support a US or Israeli attack on Iran.  My main argument is against people that assume that the attack on Iran would be morally as low as the attack on Iraq.  To say so is to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iran.
> 
> I agree with what you say about the costs of war, and actually would go further by saying what I've already probably said 10X (and I'm paraphrasing an scholar whose name I can't remember unfortunately): If you were to hold referendums today in the Middle East, every single country with one exception would have a theocratic government like Iran's.  The exception is of course Iran itself. If the US were to attack, this reality would change.
> 
> But I don't agree with the statement that there are other countries more dangerous than Iran.  One, it is in the single most important region of the world, surrounded by allies of the US, controlling or influencing the vast majority of the flow of energy around the world.
> 
> Two, it has imperial ambitions.  The revolution was from the start meant to be a starting point for the spread of the new Shia empire. On top of that, the rather extreme ethnocentrism and nationalism of Iranians who consider themselves superior to Arabs is just a powderkeg waiting to explode as soon as Iran becomes the single dominant nation in the region. For years Iranians and Russians have been building towards a middle east controlled by Iran and influenced by Russia.  It is a very rational consequence of the departure of US influence in the region (and the original reason for US interferance in Iran since thd 1920s).
> 
> If North Korea nukes Japan, it would be unbelievably horrendous.  But it couldn't damage the entire world economy.  If Iran got into a war with its very natural enemy, Saudi Arabia... can you imagine the consequences? The entire world economy would be brought to its knees.
> 
> Again, I don't say the US MUST attack. But if we're talking about a country that has to look at its best interests and the interest of its allies in the region (not just Israel), you do have to make the case that the US would not be in the same moral position as it was with Iraq (a country that was not a genuine threat after the first gulf war, and had been tortured through air attacks and sanctions for over a decade).
> 
> But Iran has a very advanced ballistic missles industry that, as a military spokesman of the IRI said "manufactures bombs the same way it can manufacture books."  It could cause inmense, borderline fatal damage to Israel as well as tens of thousands of bystanding US troops in Southern Iraq.  So I understand and generally agree with what you're saying.  I'm just not willing to say that it's just another country like Cuba or Lybia, and that the US has no reason to attack.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No offense sir, you sound smart, but this is nothing but drivel.  If Iran or North Korea even reached towards the button to launch a nuclear weapon (if they ever have them) the entire country would be blown away before it ever reached the high airspace.  Iran has a hundred US and Israeli nukes aimed at it right now.  Iran getting nuclear weapons (legally I might add) would do absolutely nothing to affect any US or close US ally's safety.  Don't believe the fearmongering, that's what got us into Iraq.
> 
> I hope if we ever sign up to fight for war with Iran you're the first to sign up for it.  Don't take after all the pro Iraq war chickenhawks like the voting neoconservatives, Dick Cheney, Bill O'Reilly, George Bush, Sean Hannity, etc who do nothing but cower under beds and cheer on others to die in their place when they want war to happen.
Click to expand...


I don't think Iran would use a nuke, or even really build one... but they definitely are after the capability 

their conventional ballistic  missiles  are enough of a threat, and their actions demonstrate a desire and willingness to interfere with the broader US plan for the middle east.

Now, that doesn't mean that it's not rational or even moral for the Iranians to do this, as it is their interests that may be threatened.  But ultimately, as much as politicians may want to market it, war is seldom between good and evil.  It's usually between two flawed governments with conflicting interests.

I would suit up to fight the regime, any day and at any time.  I'm Iranian and for me it would feel almost like a jew getting a chance to fight Hitler.  Sadly, I'm shit at the military, but maybe they could use a logistics officer or a translator.  But I realize war with Iran is unwinnable unless the entire country is nuked back to the stone age.  And that's not something I support, nor really the death of civilians and innocent US soldiers.  I just want to make the point that Iran is far more dangerous (and not because of nukes) than the other "axis of evil" countries because of its geo-strategic position and absolutely belligerent behaviour. With nuclear capability, however, it would have to be accepted and respected like China... but the Islamic Republic is no China...


----------



## Dr.Drock

The_Halfmoon said:


> Dr.Drock said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The_Halfmoon said:
> 
> 
> 
> I've said as much in other posts, don't get me wrong. I feel the US SHOULD go to war with Iran because, in reality, Iran has been waging war on the US indirectly for decades.
> 
> And btw, I also feel the US has done some horrendous things to Iranians since and after 1953.  I remember a quote from a senior US official to the UN regarding Saddam's chemical weapons, where he said something along the lines of 'It's a difficult situation.  You want Iraq to stop using chemical weapons, but on the other hand... you don't want Iran to win the war!" I mean that is a borderline evil thing to say, and it was the US policy towards Iran.
> 
> HOWEVER, I agree that the costs are way too high for this war.  I would not support a US or Israeli attack on Iran.  My main argument is against people that assume that the attack on Iran would be morally as low as the attack on Iraq.  To say so is to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iran.
> 
> I agree with what you say about the costs of war, and actually would go further by saying what I've already probably said 10X (and I'm paraphrasing an scholar whose name I can't remember unfortunately): If you were to hold referendums today in the Middle East, every single country with one exception would have a theocratic government like Iran's.  The exception is of course Iran itself. If the US were to attack, this reality would change.
> 
> But I don't agree with the statement that there are other countries more dangerous than Iran.  One, it is in the single most important region of the world, surrounded by allies of the US, controlling or influencing the vast majority of the flow of energy around the world.
> 
> Two, it has imperial ambitions.  The revolution was from the start meant to be a starting point for the spread of the new Shia empire. On top of that, the rather extreme ethnocentrism and nationalism of Iranians who consider themselves superior to Arabs is just a powderkeg waiting to explode as soon as Iran becomes the single dominant nation in the region. For years Iranians and Russians have been building towards a middle east controlled by Iran and influenced by Russia.  It is a very rational consequence of the departure of US influence in the region (and the original reason for US interferance in Iran since thd 1920s).
> 
> If North Korea nukes Japan, it would be unbelievably horrendous.  But it couldn't damage the entire world economy.  If Iran got into a war with its very natural enemy, Saudi Arabia... can you imagine the consequences? The entire world economy would be brought to its knees.
> 
> Again, I don't say the US MUST attack. But if we're talking about a country that has to look at its best interests and the interest of its allies in the region (not just Israel), you do have to make the case that the US would not be in the same moral position as it was with Iraq (a country that was not a genuine threat after the first gulf war, and had been tortured through air attacks and sanctions for over a decade).
> 
> But Iran has a very advanced ballistic missles industry that, as a military spokesman of the IRI said "manufactures bombs the same way it can manufacture books."  It could cause inmense, borderline fatal damage to Israel as well as tens of thousands of bystanding US troops in Southern Iraq.  So I understand and generally agree with what you're saying.  I'm just not willing to say that it's just another country like Cuba or Lybia, and that the US has no reason to attack.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No offense sir, you sound smart, but this is nothing but drivel.  If Iran or North Korea even reached towards the button to launch a nuclear weapon (if they ever have them) the entire country would be blown away before it ever reached the high airspace.  Iran has a hundred US and Israeli nukes aimed at it right now.  Iran getting nuclear weapons (legally I might add) would do absolutely nothing to affect any US or close US ally's safety.  Don't believe the fearmongering, that's what got us into Iraq.
> 
> I hope if we ever sign up to fight for war with Iran you're the first to sign up for it.  Don't take after all the pro Iraq war chickenhawks like the voting neoconservatives, Dick Cheney, Bill O'Reilly, George Bush, Sean Hannity, etc who do nothing but cower under beds and cheer on others to die in their place when they want war to happen.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't think Iran would use a nuke, or even really build one... but they definitely are after the capability
> 
> their conventional ballistic  missiles  are enough of a threat, and their actions demonstrate a desire and willingness to interfere with the broader US plan for the middle east.
> 
> Now, that doesn't mean that it's not rational or even moral for the Iranians to do this, as it is their interests that may be threatened.  But ultimately, as much as politicians may want to market it, war is seldom between good and evil.  It's usually between two flawed governments with conflicting interests.
> 
> I would suit up to fight the regime, any day and at any time.  I'm Iranian and for me it would feel almost like a jew getting a chance to fight Hitler.  Sadly, I'm shit at the military, but maybe they could use a logistics officer or a translator.  But I realize war with Iran is unwinnable unless the entire country is nuked back to the stone age.  And that's not something I support, nor really the death of civilians and innocent US soldiers.  I just want to make the point that Iran is far more dangerous (and not because of nukes) than the other "axis of evil" countries because of its geo-strategic position and absolutely belligerent behaviour. With nuclear capability, however, it would have to be accepted and respected like China... but the Islamic Republic is no China...
Click to expand...


So you would sign up to fight a war and put your life on the line in a war that's unwinnable that would result in hundreds of thousands of your people being killed?


What is it that I'm missing?


----------



## stonewall

Dr.Drock said:


> Alright well here comes a line by line disection of all the people who responded to me
> 
> "RhodesScholar"- I said first that Iran's government is trash.  I know how neoconservatives ignore what they don't wanna hear and put in bold things that aren't even said, so you haven't done anything to change the stereotype.  Ahmadinejad's job is a lot like Obama's, doesn't have much power but everyone on all sides thinks his speeches and rhetoric are a big deal.  The Federal Reserve and Corporate America run this country not the government, The Supreme ruling body runs Iran not Ahmadinejad or any other elected post in Iran.
> 
> elvis3577- Is it legal to fund Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden/Al Qaeda?  That's what we did, they killed a lot more people than Hezbollah has.
> 
> Annie-imagine if a country ended all democracy in the US like we did in Iran in 1953, the citizens would've been in the right to send over a million suicide bombers for us destroying their country.  A simple little takeover of an embassy and holding hostages?  Yawn
> 
> Stonewall- what defines "aggressive"?  War starting?  Killing?  Country destroying?  Democracy ending?  Nuke building?  Weapons selling?  I'd like to hear this.
> 
> 
> God how I wish the people beating the war drum would go and grab their tin hats and rifles and do it themselves.  The number of cowards who talk big and do nothing grows exponentially every year in this country.





I do not want the U.S. to do anything about Iran. If it were my call I would leave Iraq and Afghanistan and the Persian Gulf. 

I would much rather do all of those things than I would attack Iran.

And, we should do those things regardless of Iran.

Countries in this world should get away from the idea that America is the one to call when trouble arises and Americans should rid ourselves of that same idea. We provide a false sense of security and nations do not have to act in a responsible manner.

That being said, Iran is a very dangerous nation. It has spread terror all through the Middle East, Pakistan, Europe, the Americas.

It blames us for a coup that the Iranians themselves led. No American overthrew the Iranian government. So what if we wanted it to happen or backed the thing? We want a lot of things. Most we do not get. We back a coup right now... are we getting that? I don't see it.


----------



## BasicGreatGuy

Iran hasn't attacked us.  If they were to ever try, turn their country into glass.


----------



## rhodescholar

BasicGreatGuy said:


> Iran hasn't attacked us.  If they were to ever try, turn their country into glass.



How do you know they didn't attack us?

Was it because the back of your Hulk comic didn't say so?


----------



## Cold Fusion38

Rhoad Kill. If Iran wanted to attack us they certainly wouldn't do it themselves and the MOST definately wouldn't use a nuke that could be traced back to them. You are just RANTING about your BS paranoia. ANY country that does not act EXACTELY like us should be attacked by your "logic". How about this.....How about we stop meddeling in the affairs of EVERY OTHER COUNTRY ON EARTH. How about we say hey Israel you are on your own......Don't start no shit won't BE no shit!


----------



## Cold Fusion38

Rhoad Kill your paranoia is really quite desterbing. Get help......Sometimes a "Black helicopter is just a black helicopter.


----------



## Cold Fusion38

Whe the USA has been in bed with almost EVERY dictator in the past century have is it we are so surprised when the rest of the world questions our motives and wants to kill us?


----------



## BasicGreatGuy

rhodescholar said:


> BasicGreatGuy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Iran hasn't attacked us.  If they were to ever try, turn their country into glass.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How do you know they didn't attack us?
> 
> Was it because the back of your Hulk comic didn't say so?
Click to expand...


The sea monkeys ad on the back cover didn't mention anything about there being any attacks other than your constant attack on logic and civility.


----------



## Cold Fusion38

Until we as a nation quit trying to prop up BRUTAL dictators for our OWN SELFISH needs we will continue to face attacks both here and abroad. We need to be the leader in DIPLOMACY not in going half way across the world and shock and awe our way to peace in a region that has been at war for TWO MILLENIA!


----------



## rhodescholar

Cold Fusion38 said:


> Until we as a nation quit trying to prop up BRUTAL dictators for our OWN SELFISH needs we will continue to face attacks both here and abroad. We need to be the leader in DIPLOMACY not in going half way across the world and shock and awe our way to peace in a region that has been at war for TWO MILLENIA!



It would be nice if a few adult thinkers walked into this forum, right now I don't see any besides myself.

CF, you're the president, here's your options in the Middle East:

A-you can support a secular dictator, who will allow your nation to continue functioning by continuing to sell oil to you, will accept and work with your policy requests, but is a repressive leader who crushes dissent.  The leader is not hegemonistic, and only wants to stay in power and keep his family wealthy.

B-you can allow the only opposition that exists in arab muslim countries to take over, which is the islamist party, which will not sell oil to the US, thereby devastating your economy, will use terrorism throughout the region to further its policy of islamic expansion, and will operate as a repressive, theocratic dictatorship that oppresses its people.

You can choose option B, but that will destroy your country, raising prices thru the roof, and will probably lead to you getting voted out of office, if not impeached.  You will also lose support of any allies in the mideast, and will ensure further regional wars.

How does option B sound?


----------



## Shogun

*It would be nice if a few adult thinkers walked into this forum, right now I don't see any besides myself.*


IRONY ALERT!  IRONY ALERT! IRONY ALERT!


----------



## Sunni Man

rhodescholar said:


> Cold Fusion38 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Until we as a nation quit trying to prop up BRUTAL dictators for our OWN SELFISH needs we will continue to face attacks both here and abroad. We need to be the leader in DIPLOMACY not in going half way across the world and shock and awe our way to peace in a region that has been at war for TWO MILLENIA!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It would be nice if a few adult thinkers walked into this forum, *right now I don't see any besides myself.*
Click to expand...

Still hanging on to your deluded psychotic sense of self importance RhodesStupid


----------



## rhodescholar

As expected. the 2 house monkeys avoid my post, and focus entirely on the irrelevent.

Why is it that far left psychotics are so given to avoiding the facts?


----------



## HUGGY

rhodescholar said:


> As expected. the 2 house monkeys avoid my post, and focus entirely on the irrelevent.
> 
> Why is it that far left psychotics are so given to avoiding the facts?



Rhodent Scholar,

You made my list...you can stop talking crazy.   ...or not.


----------



## jillian

rhodescholar said:


> It would be nice if a few adult thinkers walked into this forum, right now I don't see any besides myself.
> 
> CF, you're the president, here's your options in the Middle East:
> 
> A-you can support a secular dictator, who will allow your nation to continue functioning by continuing to sell oil to you, will accept and work with your policy requests, but is a repressive leader who crushes dissent.  The leader is not hegemonistic, and only wants to stay in power and keep his family wealthy.
> 
> B-you can allow the only opposition that exists in arab muslim countries to take over, which is the islamist party, which will not sell oil to the US, thereby devastating your economy, will use terrorism throughout the region to further its policy of islamic expansion, and will operate as a repressive, theocratic dictatorship that oppresses its people.
> 
> You can choose option B, but that will destroy your country, raising prices thru the roof, and will probably lead to you getting voted out of office, if not impeached.  You will also lose support of any allies in the mideast, and will ensure further regional wars.
> 
> How does option B sound?



Isn't there an option which assures we have people we can deal wtih while not invading foreign countries? Or another way to keep Iran from going nuclear than turning it into glass as one of the posters said?

I'm thinking that while I understand your objectives, there may be a more palatable way to get at them.

Iran is particularly interesting since the powers that be hate us and our interests, while the younger people who have been the most vocal dissenters will, one day, if we stay out of their way, be allies.

You can't address whatever interests we have in the middle east without acknowledging the very real internal politics in Iran.

I think those are the issues you're addressing.


----------



## Shogun

rhodescholar said:


> As expected. the 2 house monkeys avoid my post, and focus entirely on the irrelevent.
> 
> Why is it that far left psychotics are so given to avoiding the facts?



yea, whatever you say "Adult Thinker"!





BEEEEP BEEEEEP BEEEEEP!  Adult thinking ahead!
*

How do you know they didn't attack us?

Was it because the back of your Hulk comic didn't say so? *


----------



## rhodescholar

Shogun said:


> rhodescholar said:
> 
> 
> 
> As expected. the 2 house monkeys avoid my post, and focus entirely on the irrelevent.
> 
> Why is it that far left psychotics are so given to avoiding the facts?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> yea, whatever you say "Adult Thinker"!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BEEEEP BEEEEEP BEEEEEP!  Adult thinking ahead!
> *
> 
> How do you know they didn't attack us?
> 
> Was it because the back of your Hulk comic didn't say so? *
Click to expand...


I can see how noone agreed with you when you declared yourself the most creative flamer here, perhaps the only flaming you are good at is when you wear your transvestite outfit and scope for men at your local truck stop.


----------



## rhodescholar

jillian said:


> Isn't there an option which assures we have people we can deal wtih while not invading foreign countries? Or another way to keep Iran from going nuclear than turning it into glass as one of the posters said?
> 
> I'm thinking that while I understand your objectives, there may be a more palatable way to get at them.
> 
> Iran is particularly interesting since the powers that be hate us and our interests, while the younger people who have been the most vocal dissenters will, one day, if we stay out of their way, be allies.
> 
> You can't address whatever interests we have in the middle east without acknowledging the very real internal politics in Iran.
> 
> I think those are the issues you're addressing.



I wish there was a third option in the arab states, who unlike iran, do not have any civic organizations of size outside the islamist groups and the bloated state bureaucracy.

This is why for 60 years the US chose to work with the secular dictatorships, it was either that or the islamists, and given that they are the scum of humanity, left the US no choice.

Iran does have a more educated population - and a reasonably sized middle class - but they are the exception sadly, not the rule.


----------



## Shogun

rhodescholar said:


> Shogun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rhodescholar said:
> 
> 
> 
> As expected. the 2 house monkeys avoid my post, and focus entirely on the irrelevent.
> 
> Why is it that far left psychotics are so given to avoiding the facts?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> yea, whatever you say "Adult Thinker"!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BEEEEP BEEEEEP BEEEEEP!  Adult thinking ahead!
> *
> 
> How do you know they didn't attack us?
> 
> Was it because the back of your Hulk comic didn't say so? *
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I can see how noone agreed with you when you declared yourself the most creative flamer here, perhaps the only flaming you are good at is when you wear your transvestite outfit and scope for men at your local truck stop.
Click to expand...




... yea.. as if that thread really meant something....   


Speaking of local  reputations......    Do you notice how you've hit the lofty status that Charles Bass enjoys around here, nutjob?   Maybe you can go drink the blood of some goyim child instead of throwing another tantrum around here, eh?


----------



## Cold Fusion38

I tweak the parameters of the test so I can win...."I don't like the no win scenario."


----------



## GHook93

Cold Fusion38 said:


> Rhoad Kill your paranoia is really quite desterbing. Get help......Sometimes a "Black helicopter is just a black helicopter.



Coming from a 9/11 truther that is rich!


----------



## GHook93

Cold Fusion38 said:


> Rhoad Kill your paranoia is really quite desterbing. Get help......Sometimes a "Black helicopter is just a black helicopter.





Cold Fusion38 said:


> Whe the USA has been in bed with almost EVERY dictator in the past century have is it we are so surprised when the rest of the world questions our motives and wants to kill us?



Wow and you tell Rhod to kill his paranoia! LOL you worthless hypocrite!


----------



## Wry Catcher

I believe Bolton and his neocon friends need to take a day (or several days) and walk through a few cemeteries.  Start with Arlingon, go on to Gettysburg and the one I've found most insightful is Point Loma at Fort Rosecrans in San Diego.
At Pt. Loma their are several rows of gravesights overlooking San Diego Bay with the names of Marines KIA on Saipan on the same day; Boton and his neocon chicken hawk buddies ought to read their headstones and note their ages at the time of their death.
If Bolton wants war let him pick up a weapon and place himself in harms way.


----------



## GHook93

Sunni Man said:


> rhodescholar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cold Fusion38 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Until we as a nation quit trying to prop up BRUTAL dictators for our OWN SELFISH needs we will continue to face attacks both here and abroad. We need to be the leader in DIPLOMACY not in going half way across the world and shock and awe our way to peace in a region that has been at war for TWO MILLENIA!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It would be nice if a few adult thinkers walked into this forum, *right now I don't see any besides myself.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Still hanging on to your deluded psychotic sense of self importance RhodesStupid
Click to expand...


LOL, if that isn't the pot calling the kettle black I don't know what is!


----------



## GHook93

L.K.Eder said:


> it certainly was fun to rant in this thread, but i am still of the opinion that no one should attack iran.



I agree! Attacking Iran would be ill-advised. Face it Iran is developing nukes and will have them! No attack by Israel (short of a nuclear attack) is going to prevent them from eventually obtaining them! 

Once they get them Israel (and Yes America) should make affirm threats! One Iranian nuke hits any part of Israel or America and "The Great Persian Empire Goes Up in Smoke!" Try to use an old cold war MADD strategy!

Remember regardless of popular belief Iran has few allies in the Muslim/Arab world! No Al Qaeda, barely Iraq, only half of Lebanon, not Saudia Arabia, not Egypt, not Jordan, Not Turkey, not the UAE, not Uzbekistan, not Pakistan, not Morocco, not Algeria etc. If Iran didn't have oil, she would be shunned by everyone, but the black crack has some appeal!


I digress. I think MADD would work. As crazy as the Mullahs are in Iran, they are not as suicidal as we make them appear. I really think they only use the plight of the Palestinian people as a politic weapon to get support from the Arab and Jew hating world. I don't think they give a rats-ass about the Palestinians! If Iran nukes Israel, which would be Israel's end, Israel will unleash its entire nuclear arsenal on Iran (that could be 100s of nukes). They might all decide to nuke Mecca, Medina, Gaza, the West Bank, Syria, Lebanon, Jordan and Iraq! Probably with their arsenal they could!  With Israeli's supposed arsenal I bet they could take them all out!


----------



## GHook93

Wry Catcher said:


> I believe Bolton and his neocon friends need to take a day (or several days) and walk through a few cemeteries.  Start with Arlingon, go on to Gettysburg and the one I've found most insightful is Point Loma at Fort Rosecrans in San Diego.
> At Pt. Loma their are several rows of gravesights overlooking San Diego Bay with the names of Marines KIA on Saipan on the same day; Boton and his neocon chicken hawk buddies ought to read their headstones and note their ages at the time of their death.
> If Bolton wants war let him pick up a weapon and place himself in harms way.



No rather you in you hypocrite infested SF shithole, need to go to place like Arlington and pay your respect to brave men and women who died protecting the freedom of cowards like you!


----------



## HUGGY

GHook93 said:


> L.K.Eder said:
> 
> 
> 
> it certainly was fun to rant in this thread, but i am still of the opinion that no one should attack iran.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I agree! Attacking Iran would be ill-advised. Face it Iran is developing nukes and will have them! No attack by Israel (short of a nuclear attack) is going to prevent them from eventually obtaining them!
> 
> Once they get them Israel (and Yes America) should make affirm threats! One Iranian nuke hits any part of Israel or America and "The Great Persian Empire Goes Up in Smoke!" Try to use an old cold war MADD strategy!
> 
> Remember regardless of popular belief Iran has few allies in the Muslim/Arab world! No Al Qaeda, barely Iraq, only half of Lebanon, not Saudia Arabia, not Egypt, not Jordan, Not Turkey, not the UAE, not Uzbekistan, not Pakistan, not Morocco, not Algeria etc. If Iran didn't have oil, she would be shunned by everyone, but the black crack has some appeal!
> 
> 
> I digress. I think MADD would work. As crazy as the Mullahs are in Iran, they are not as suicidal as we make them appear. I really think they only use the plight of the Palestinian people as a politic weapon to get support from the Arab and Jew hating world. I don't think they give a rats-ass about the Palestinians! If Iran nukes Israel, which would be Israel's end, Israel will unleash its entire nuclear arsenal on Iran (that could be 100s of nukes). They might all decide to nuke Mecca, Medina, Gaza, the West Bank, Syria, Lebanon, Jordan and Iraq! Probably with their arsenal they could!  With Israeli's supposed arsenal I bet they could take them all out!
Click to expand...


*Once they get them Israel (and Yes America) should make affirm threats! One Iranian nuke hits any part of Israel or America *

Wrong answer.  Israel has made thier own bed.  If the USA gets hit we turn the offending country into little glass beads.  If Israel gets hit ...that's thier problem.


----------



## Yukon

Iran can fight back therefor America will not risk an invasion. There's a good chance America would lose. 

*Remember the War of 1812 !*


----------



## GHook93

Dr.Drock said:


> "RhodesScholar"- I said first that Iran's government is trash.  I know how neoconservatives ignore what they don't wanna hear and put in bold things that aren't even said, so you haven't done anything to change the stereotype.  Ahmadinejad's job is a lot like Obama's, doesn't have much power but everyone on all sides thinks his speeches and rhetoric are a big deal.  The Supreme ruling body runs Iran not Ahmadinejad or any other elected post in Iran.


Its true that the Khameni (sp?) is in charge of the military, air force and has the final calls on everything. His OK is needed for the nuclear program to continue. HOWEVER, the Iranian President is not powerless he is the 2nd most powerful person in Iran and his views directly reflect that of Khameni. He is Khameni's mouth piece and lap dog. See in the liberal world, threats shouldn't matter, especially against Jews!



Dr.Drock said:


> The Federal Reserve and Corporate America run this country not the government,


"Let me explain to you how this works: you see, the corporations finance Team America, and then Team America goes out... and the corporations sit there in their... in their corporation buildings, and... and, and see, they're all corporation-y... and they make money."
- Tim Robbins Puppet from Team America! (Sounds smarter than this stroke!)



Dr.Drock said:


> elvis3577- Is it legal to fund Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden/Al Qaeda?  That's what we did, they killed a lot more people than Hezbollah has.


Funding the Afghanis against the Soviets was widely viewed as just! Sadam was taking on Iran. I personally think we should have funded and supplied both sides! 



Dr.Drock said:


> Annie-imagine if a country ended all democracy in the US like we did in Iran in 1953, the citizens would've been in the right to send over a million suicide bombers for us destroying their country.  A simple little takeover of an embassy and holding hostages?  Yawn


And they have been doing swell since '79 huh! Any anti-America that is the liberal way, huh?



Dr.Drock said:


> God how I wish the people beating the war drum would go and grab their tin hats and rifles and do it themselves.  The number of cowards who talk big and do nothing grows exponentially every year in this country.


I also wish cowards like you would realize that the freedom fags like you enjoy in SF was built off the backs the grunts that fight the wars! There were cowards like you that said we shouldn't have fought the Civil War or WW II! Imagine that!


----------



## Shogun

hey jewhoook.  Eat shit, ****.  America is not the tourniquet of your lil heeb paradise.


----------



## GHook93

HUGGY said:


> GHook93 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> L.K.Eder said:
> 
> 
> 
> it certainly was fun to rant in this thread, but i am still of the opinion that no one should attack iran.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I agree! Attacking Iran would be ill-advised. Face it Iran is developing nukes and will have them! No attack by Israel (short of a nuclear attack) is going to prevent them from eventually obtaining them!
> 
> Once they get them Israel (and Yes America) should make affirm threats! One Iranian nuke hits any part of Israel or America and "The Great Persian Empire Goes Up in Smoke!" Try to use an old cold war MADD strategy!
> 
> Remember regardless of popular belief Iran has few allies in the Muslim/Arab world! No Al Qaeda, barely Iraq, only half of Lebanon, not Saudia Arabia, not Egypt, not Jordan, Not Turkey, not the UAE, not Uzbekistan, not Pakistan, not Morocco, not Algeria etc. If Iran didn't have oil, she would be shunned by everyone, but the black crack has some appeal!
> 
> 
> I digress. I think MADD would work. As crazy as the Mullahs are in Iran, they are not as suicidal as we make them appear. I really think they only use the plight of the Palestinian people as a politic weapon to get support from the Arab and Jew hating world. I don't think they give a rats-ass about the Palestinians! If Iran nukes Israel, which would be Israel's end, Israel will unleash its entire nuclear arsenal on Iran (that could be 100s of nukes). They might all decide to nuke Mecca, Medina, Gaza, the West Bank, Syria, Lebanon, Jordan and Iraq! Probably with their arsenal they could!  With Israeli's supposed arsenal I bet they could take them all out!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Once they get them Israel (and Yes America) should make affirm threats! One Iranian nuke hits any part of Israel or America *
> 
> Wrong answer.  Israel has made thier own bed.  If the USA gets hit we turn the offending country into little glass beads.  If Israel gets hit ...that's thier problem.
Click to expand...


Hey stupid! Did you see anywhere where I stated that if Israel gets attacked America should nuke Iran? Of course you didn't because you are a fool! Israel doesn't need our help to take out the entire Middle East! 

America should make affirmative threats so that an Iranian nuke doesn't pull up to one of our ports! 

I know you are thinking fantasy that you are an outlaw drug runner, your grandfather was a top secret CIA agent, but reality usually trumps fantasy you stupid fuck!


----------



## GHook93

Yukon said:


> Iran can fight back therefor America will not risk an invasion. There's a good chance America would lose.
> 
> *Remember the War of 1812 !*



Isn't it about time Yukon gets banned!


----------



## Wry Catcher

GHook93 said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> I believe Bolton and his neocon friends need to take a day (or several days) and walk through a few cemeteries.  Start with Arlingon, go on to Gettysburg and the one I've found most insightful is Point Loma at Fort Rosecrans in San Diego.
> At Pt. Loma their are several rows of gravesights overlooking San Diego Bay with the names of Marines KIA on Saipan on the same day; Boton and his neocon chicken hawk buddies ought to read their headstones and note their ages at the time of their death.
> If Bolton wants war let him pick up a weapon and place himself in harms way.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No rather you in you hypocrite infested SF shithole, need to go to place like Arlington and pay your respect to brave men and women who died protecting the freedom of cowards like you!
Click to expand...


I've been to all of the above, and many more.  I'm also a vet and saw too many guys I knew put in the ground at the National Cemetery in San Bruno.  Chicken hawks disgust me, nothing hypocritical about that.  And arrogant jerks who blather about San Francisco simply show their ignorance, something you do rather well.


----------



## HUGGY

GHook93 said:


> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GHook93 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I agree! Attacking Iran would be ill-advised. Face it Iran is developing nukes and will have them! No attack by Israel (short of a nuclear attack) is going to prevent them from eventually obtaining them!
> 
> Once they get them Israel (and Yes America) should make affirm threats! One Iranian nuke hits any part of Israel or America and "The Great Persian Empire Goes Up in Smoke!" Try to use an old cold war MADD strategy!
> 
> Remember regardless of popular belief Iran has few allies in the Muslim/Arab world! No Al Qaeda, barely Iraq, only half of Lebanon, not Saudia Arabia, not Egypt, not Jordan, Not Turkey, not the UAE, not Uzbekistan, not Pakistan, not Morocco, not Algeria etc. If Iran didn't have oil, she would be shunned by everyone, but the black crack has some appeal!
> 
> 
> I digress. I think MADD would work. As crazy as the Mullahs are in Iran, they are not as suicidal as we make them appear. I really think they only use the plight of the Palestinian people as a politic weapon to get support from the Arab and Jew hating world. I don't think they give a rats-ass about the Palestinians! If Iran nukes Israel, which would be Israel's end, Israel will unleash its entire nuclear arsenal on Iran (that could be 100s of nukes). They might all decide to nuke Mecca, Medina, Gaza, the West Bank, Syria, Lebanon, Jordan and Iraq! Probably with their arsenal they could!  With Israeli's supposed arsenal I bet they could take them all out!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Once they get them Israel (and Yes America) should make affirm threats! One Iranian nuke hits any part of Israel or America *
> 
> Wrong answer.  Israel has made thier own bed.  If the USA gets hit we turn the offending country into little glass beads.  If Israel gets hit ...that's thier problem.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hey stupid! Did you see anywhere where I stated that if Israel gets attacked America should nuke Iran? Of course you didn't because you are a fool! Israel doesn't need our help to take out the entire Middle East!
> 
> America should make affirmative threats so that an Iranian nuke doesn't pull up to one of our ports!
> 
> I know you are thinking fantasy that you are an outlaw drug runner, your grandfather was a top secret CIA agent, but reality usually trumps fantasy you stupid fuck!
Click to expand...


*Hey stupid! Did you see anywhere where I stated that if Israel gets attacked America should nuke Iran?*
*Once they get them Israel (and Yes America) should make affirm threats! One Iranian nuke hits any part of Israel or America 
*

I never stated my grandfather was a top CIA agent.  I stated one of my dads best friends was.  I do have a friend that is a retired diamond courier who's father is ex Mussad.  Maybe that counts for something jew boy.  I loaned him money to fly back to boston for his cousins barmiztva two weeks ago.  But don't get it in your head that I support Jews.  I dislike a lot more of them than I like.


----------



## GHook93

Wry Catcher said:


> I've been to all of the above, and many more.  I'm also a vet and saw too many guys I knew put in the ground at the National Cemetery in San Bruno.


If you truly served you have my apologies!



Wry Catcher said:


> Chicken hawks disgust me, nothing hypocritical about that.


I agree chicken hawks are hypocritical, but so are the leftist liberals that block the recruitment centers in SF! freedom isn't free and some wars do need fighting!



Wry Catcher said:


> And arrogant jerks who blather about San Francisco simply show their ignorance, something you do rather well.


Been to SF and few times a fun place, but its anti-Military and sanctuary city policies drive me nutz!


----------



## GHook93

HUGGY said:


> GHook93 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Once they get them Israel (and Yes America) should make affirm threats! One Iranian nuke hits any part of Israel or America *
> 
> Wrong answer.  Israel has made thier own bed.  If the USA gets hit we turn the offending country into little glass beads.  If Israel gets hit ...that's thier problem.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hey stupid! Did you see anywhere where I stated that if Israel gets attacked America should nuke Iran? Of course you didn't because you are a fool! Israel doesn't need our help to take out the entire Middle East!
> 
> America should make affirmative threats so that an Iranian nuke doesn't pull up to one of our ports!
> 
> I know you are thinking fantasy that you are an outlaw drug runner, your grandfather was a top secret CIA agent, but reality usually trumps fantasy you stupid fuck!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Hey stupid! Did you see anywhere where I stated that if Israel gets attacked America should nuke Iran?*
> *Once they get them Israel (and Yes America) should make affirm threats! One Iranian nuke hits any part of Israel or America
> *
> 
> I never stated my grandfather was a top CIA agent.  I stated one of my dads best friends was.  I do have a friend that is a retired diamond courier who's father is ex Mussad.  Maybe that counts for something jew boy.  I loaned him money to fly back to boston for his cousins barmiztva two weeks ago.  But don't get it in your head that I support Jews.  I dislike a lot more of them than I like.
Click to expand...


Always have a story for something! You always know someone somewhere! Got it!


----------



## Wry Catcher

GHook93 said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> I've been to all of the above, and many more.  I'm also a vet and saw too many guys I knew put in the ground at the National Cemetery in San Bruno.
> 
> 
> 
> If you truly served you have my apologies!
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> Chicken hawks disgust me, nothing hypocritical about that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I agree chicken hawks are hypocritical, but so are the leftist liberals that block the recruitment centers in SF! freedom isn't free and some wars do need fighting!
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> And arrogant jerks who blather about San Francisco simply show their ignorance, something you do rather well.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Been to SF and few times a fun place, but its anti-Military and sanctuary city policies drive me nutz!
Click to expand...


Apology accepted.  Contrary to public perception the entire Bay Area is not anti-military; at the Niner game Sunday everyone stood for the signing of the NA and the fly over was greated by cheers.  There is as much debate here as anywhere;  I'm proud to suggest the number, quality and size of the Universities and Colleges in the Bay Area (and the number of graduates who remain here) rivial anywhere in the nation, making debate more than spirited and interesting (no offense to UofChicago or Northwestern- Go Bears #6).
btw, my wife went to UW Madison and grew up north of Milwaukee near the lake.  I've driven (Old Greenbay Road?) South from Racine into Evanston and the train into Chi several times, as well as taken the "L" to Wrigley and Us Cellular to see games and Sue at the Museum.  Chi ani't bad (uless it's January).


----------



## HUGGY

Wry Catcher said:


> GHook93 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> I've been to all of the above, and many more.  I'm also a vet and saw too many guys I knew put in the ground at the National Cemetery in San Bruno.
> 
> 
> 
> If you truly served you have my apologies!
> 
> 
> I agree chicken hawks are hypocritical, but so are the leftist liberals that block the recruitment centers in SF! freedom isn't free and some wars do need fighting!
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> And arrogant jerks who blather about San Francisco simply show their ignorance, something you do rather well.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Been to SF and few times a fun place, but its anti-Military and sanctuary city policies drive me nutz!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Apology accepted.  Contrary to public perception the entire Bay Area is not anti-military; at the Niner game Sunday everyone stood for the signing of the NA and the fly over was greated by cheers.  There is as much debate here as anywhere;  I'm proud to suggest the number, quality and size of the Universities and Colleges in the Bay Area (and the number of graduates who remain here) rivial anywhere in the nation, making debate more than spirited and interesting (no offense to UofChicago or Northwestern- Go Bears #6).
> btw, my wife went to UW Madison and grew up north of Milwaukee near the lake.  I've driven (Old Greenbay Road?) South from Racine into Evanston and the train into Chi several times, as well as taken the "L" to Wrigley and Us Cellular to see games and Sue at the Museum.  Chi ani't bad (uless it's January).
Click to expand...


*Niner game Sunday *

Fuck you and your niners


----------



## GHook93

Wry Catcher said:


> GHook93 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> I've been to all of the above, and many more.  I'm also a vet and saw too many guys I knew put in the ground at the National Cemetery in San Bruno.
> 
> 
> 
> If you truly served you have my apologies!
> 
> 
> I agree chicken hawks are hypocritical, but so are the leftist liberals that block the recruitment centers in SF! freedom isn't free and some wars do need fighting!
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> And arrogant jerks who blather about San Francisco simply show their ignorance, something you do rather well.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Been to SF and few times a fun place, but its anti-Military and sanctuary city policies drive me nutz!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Apology accepted.  Contrary to public perception the entire Bay Area is not anti-military; at the Niner game Sunday everyone stood for the signing of the NA and the fly over was greated by cheers.  There is as much debate here as anywhere;  I'm proud to suggest the number, quality and size of the Universities and Colleges in the Bay Area (and the number of graduates who remain here) rivial anywhere in the nation, making debate more than spirited and interesting (no offense to UofChicago or Northwestern- Go Bears #6).
> btw, my wife went to UW Madison and grew up north of Milwaukee near the lake.  I've driven (Old Greenbay Road?) South from Racine into Evanston and the train into Chi several times, as well as taken the "L" to Wrigley and Us Cellular to see games and Sue at the Museum.  Chi ani't bad (uless it's January).
Click to expand...


i heard the niners stadium is awesome! Good to see Singletry doing well! I was a huge Rice (still have the rookie card), Montana, Young, Lott, Strokes and Craig fan back in the day.

Madison huh? Please don't tell me your a cheesehead, punks got lucky in Week 1!

Chicago is a good city, but its going down. Parking in the city is insane and taxes (12% sales tax) are highway robbery!


----------



## Cold Fusion38

GHook93 said:


> Cold Fusion38 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Rhoad Kill your paranoia is really quite desterbing. Get help......Sometimes a "Black helicopter is just a black helicopter.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coming from a 9/11 truther that is rich!
Click to expand...




Find a quote where I EVER ONE SINGLE TIME said I was a 9/11 truther. I love how you misrepresent me to try to win favor for ISRAEL since you are an ISRAEL Firster. I made a claim about the USS LIBERTY NEVER about 9/11. But hey what do you care your first and ONLY loyalty is to ISRAEL!


----------



## Cold Fusion38

How much AMERICAN BLOOD has to flow for the hypocrisy of your ISRAELI MASTERS!?


----------



## GHook93

Cold Fusion38 said:


> GHook93 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cold Fusion38 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Rhoad Kill your paranoia is really quite desterbing. Get help......Sometimes a "Black helicopter is just a black helicopter.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coming from a 9/11 truther that is rich!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Find a quote where I EVER ONE SINGLE TIME said I was a 9/11 truther. I love how you misrepresent me to try to win favor for ISRAEL since you are an ISRAEL Firster. I made a claim about the USS LIBERTY NEVER about 9/11. But hey what do you care your first and ONLY loyalty is to ISRAEL!
Click to expand...


Just calling a Spade a Spade knuckhead!


----------



## GHook93

Cold Fusion38 said:


> How much AMERICAN BLOOD has to flow for the hypocrisy of your ISRAELI MASTERS!?



0!!!! But nice try you asshat! 

How many died for France, Britian and Europe? How many died for Kuwait and Saudia Arabia!


----------



## Wry Catcher

HUGGY said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GHook93 said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you truly served you have my apologies!
> 
> 
> I agree chicken hawks are hypocritical, but so are the leftist liberals that block the recruitment centers in SF! freedom isn't free and some wars do need fighting!
> 
> 
> Been to SF and few times a fun place, but its anti-Military and sanctuary city policies drive me nutz!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Apology accepted.  Contrary to public perception the entire Bay Area is not anti-military; at the Niner game Sunday everyone stood for the signing of the NA and the fly over was greated by cheers.  There is as much debate here as anywhere;  I'm proud to suggest the number, quality and size of the Universities and Colleges in the Bay Area (and the number of graduates who remain here) rivial anywhere in the nation, making debate more than spirited and interesting (no offense to UofChicago or Northwestern- Go Bears #6).
> btw, my wife went to UW Madison and grew up north of Milwaukee near the lake.  I've driven (Old Greenbay Road?) South from Racine into Evanston and the train into Chi several times, as well as taken the "L" to Wrigley and Us Cellular to see games and Sue at the Museum.  Chi ani't bad (uless it's January).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Niner game Sunday *
> 
> Fuck you and your niners
Click to expand...


Ooops, I dissed you before I saw you're from the Emerald City.  Now I understand.  Seattle is my second favorite city on the west coast, even if the seahawks are the second best team in Seattle.  I loved the fact the Huskies sent the spoiled children home with a loss on saturday.  Go Bears!!


----------



## GHook93

Wry Catcher said:


> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> Apology accepted.  Contrary to public perception the entire Bay Area is not anti-military; at the Niner game Sunday everyone stood for the signing of the NA and the fly over was greated by cheers.  There is as much debate here as anywhere;  I'm proud to suggest the number, quality and size of the Universities and Colleges in the Bay Area (and the number of graduates who remain here) rivial anywhere in the nation, making debate more than spirited and interesting (no offense to UofChicago or Northwestern- Go Bears #6).
> btw, my wife went to UW Madison and grew up north of Milwaukee near the lake.  I've driven (Old Greenbay Road?) South from Racine into Evanston and the train into Chi several times, as well as taken the "L" to Wrigley and Us Cellular to see games and Sue at the Museum.  Chi ani't bad (uless it's January).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Niner game Sunday *
> 
> Fuck you and your niners
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ooops, I dissed you before I saw you're from the Emerald City.  Now I understand.  Seattle is my second favorite city on the west coast, even if the seahawks are the second best team in Seattle.  I loved the fact the Huskies sent the spoiled children home with a loss on saturday.  Go Bears!!
Click to expand...


Fuck yea go Bears! Fucking J. Jones, worthless fantasy draft pick! 

Prediction Da Bear fortee-tree Da Seahawks negative tree


----------



## HUGGY

GHook93 said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Niner game Sunday *
> 
> Fuck you and your niners
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ooops, I dissed you before I saw you're from the Emerald City.  Now I understand.  Seattle is my second favorite city on the west coast, even if the seahawks are the second best team in Seattle.  I loved the fact the Huskies sent the spoiled children home with a loss on saturday.  Go Bears!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Fuck yea go Bears! Fucking J. Jones, worthless fantasy draft pick!
> 
> Prediction Da Bear fortee-tree Da Seahawks negative tree
Click to expand...


He's talkin about the Cal Bears.  U of Dub opened the door a crack for Cal to take the Pac 10.  Nobody on the west coast cares a flying fuck about Chicago... except for Rush street you can have that sorry town.


----------



## GHook93

HUGGY said:


> GHook93 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ooops, I dissed you before I saw you're from the Emerald City.  Now I understand.  Seattle is my second favorite city on the west coast, even if the seahawks are the second best team in Seattle.  I loved the fact the Huskies sent the spoiled children home with a loss on saturday.  Go Bears!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fuck yea go Bears! Fucking J. Jones, worthless fantasy draft pick!
> 
> Prediction Da Bear fortee-tree Da Seahawks negative tree
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He's talkin about the Cal Bears.  U of Dub opened the door a crack for Cal to take the Pac 10.  Nobody on the west coast cares a flying fuck about Chicago... except for Rush street you can have that sorry town.
Click to expand...


He mentioned the niners! Then talked about Seattle Seahawk, who the Chicago Bears are playing! So its simple mistake. Either Da Bears are going to woop the Seahawks!


----------



## blu

I haven't read all the replies yet, but anyone who wants to see us attack iran really enjoys bankruptcy.


----------



## Wry Catcher

blu said:


> I haven't read all the replies yet, but anyone who wants to see us attack iran really enjoys bankruptcy.



Keep in mind that there are those who profit by war, individuals as well as industry.  The top five in the US (2005):  Lockheed Martin, Boeing, Northrop Grumman, General Dynamics, Ratheyon (Oh, and number six is a company called Haliburton).


----------



## Yukon

The Jews are armed by America and they do the dirty work that the US military is incapable of doing .


----------



## GHook93

Yukon said:


> The Jews are armed by America and they do the dirty work that the US military is incapable of doing .



Bullshit! No military is even close to as capable as America's! NONE!


----------



## Yukon

Ghook,

Americans have the military equipment but the men lack the intetinal fortitude. Your military is populated with negros, latinos, half-wit white men and is commanded by Lesbian women.


----------



## Cold Fusion38

GHook is an Israli Firster who defends our MILITARY men and women being MURDERED by the Isralies.


----------



## GHook93

Cold Fusion38 said:


> GHook is an Israli Firster who defends our MILITARY men and women being MURDERED by the Isralies.



OK troll! And how good of an America are YOU, when you subscribe to 9/11 truther claims?  I think 9/11 truthers are about as bad as an American as you can be! So don't question my loyalty asshole!

Also if you haven't noticed. I think I stated I am against an attack by Israel in Iran, even though I am fully convinced that Iran is developing the bomb. So go fuck yourself!


----------



## GHook93

Yukon said:


> Ghook,
> 
> Americans have the military equipment but the men lack the intetinal fortitude. Your military is populated with negros, latinos, half-wit white men and is commanded by Lesbian women.



Seriously when is Yukon going to get banned? He is the ultimate troll!


----------



## Yukon

Gunny said:


> Hey idiot ... if you have nothing to add to the conversation besides your fetish with rhodesscholar's ass, shut up and spare us, huh?
> 
> I'm not in the mood for your trolling ass, so fuck with me, huh?




Gunny my child. I'm shocked and indeed dismayed to read the vile and disgusting words you have posted. I thought that perhaps you were above this sort of venemous activity. How wrong I have been and oh how sad is the truth.


----------



## rhodescholar

HUGGY said:


> *Once they get them Israel (and Yes America) should make affirm threats! One Iranian nuke hits any part of Israel or America *
> 
> Wrong answer.  Israel has made thier own bed.  If the USA gets hit we turn the offending country into little glass beads.  If Israel gets hit ...that's thier problem.



Asshole, how would you trace it back to iran without cataloging the uranium?  Do you just guess it came from iran, you fucking retarded ape.


----------



## rhodescholar

Shogun said:


> hey jewhoook.  Eat shit, ****.  America is not the tourniquet of your lil heeb paradise.



Choke to death you fucking **** animal asshole piece of shit coward.

Let us know when you served dogshit, real brave pussy probably ran off to nursing school with the other "girlymen" to get out of service, you weak fucking cocksucking dogshit.


----------



## blu

rhodescholar said:


> Shogun said:
> 
> 
> 
> hey jewhoook.  Eat shit, ****.  America is not the tourniquet of your lil heeb paradise.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Choke to death you fucking **** animal asshole piece of shit coward.
> 
> Let us know when you served dogshit, real brave pussy probably ran off to nursing school with the other "girlymen" to get out of service, you weak fucking cocksucking dogshit.
Click to expand...


you are quite the intellectual


----------



## rhodescholar

GHook93 said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Niner game Sunday *
> 
> Fuck you and your niners
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ooops, I dissed you before I saw you're from the Emerald City.  Now I understand.  Seattle is my second favorite city on the west coast, even if the seahawks are the second best team in Seattle.  I loved the fact the Huskies sent the spoiled children home with a loss on saturday.  Go Bears!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Fuck yea go Bears! Fucking J. Jones, worthless fantasy draft pick!
> 
> Prediction Da Bear fortee-tree Da Seahawks negative tree
Click to expand...


Don't waste your time or breath little ones, the Jets own this season.  Kneel before Sanchez, Ryan, Revis and the KING HIMSELF; Jenkins.


----------



## rhodescholar

Yukon said:


> Gunny said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hey idiot ... if you have nothing to add to the conversation besides your fetish with rhodesscholar's ass, shut up and spare us, huh?
> 
> I'm not in the mood for your trolling ass, so fuck with me, huh?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gunny my child. I'm shocked and indeed dismayed to read the vile and disgusting words you have posted. I thought that perhaps you were above this sort of venemous activity. How wrong I have been and oh how sad is the truth.
Click to expand...


Nah, he just recognizes a bunch of fairies like shogun sissy when he sees one.  shogun pussy likes men, and has been chasing me since I joined...he dreams of dating me...


----------



## rhodescholar

blu said:


> you are quite the intellectual



You are like the ref who penalizes the responder to the crime, and not the criminal...


----------



## JW Frogen

Yukon said:


> Americans have the military equipment but the men lack the intetinal fortitude. Your military is populated with negros, latinos, half-wit white men and is commanded by Lesbian women.




What I would not have gave in the First Gulf War to have been commanded by a lesbian woman! I would have followed her into the gates of her gates.


----------



## TTPANL

Nobody ever wins a war.

Can't even handle Afghanistan.


----------



## Cold Fusion38

GHook93 said:


> Cold Fusion38 said:
> 
> 
> 
> GHook is an Israli Firster who defends our MILITARY men and women being MURDERED by the Isralies.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OK troll! And how good of an America are YOU, when you subscribe to 9/11 truther claims?  I think 9/11 truthers are about as bad as an American as you can be! So don't question my loyalty asshole!
> 
> Also if you haven't noticed. I think I stated I am against an attack by Israel in Iran, even though I am fully convinced that Iran is developing the bomb. So go fuck yourself!
Click to expand...





Once again you lying douchebag show me WHERE I EVER said I was a 9/11'er. You can't because I think 9/11'ers are full of shit just like I think YOU are full of shit for defending Israel for MURDERING US servicemen.


----------



## Cold Fusion38

Hey Rhoad Kill does the shit that comes out of your mouth leave a foul taste or do you LIKE the taste of shit?


----------



## The_Halfmoon

Dr.Drock said:


> So you would sign up to fight a war and put your life on the line in a war that's unwinnable that would result in hundreds of thousands of your people being killed?
> 
> 
> What is it that I'm missing?



whether or not you're Muslim (which I'm not), being Iranian is all about martyrdom:

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_qmCwn3zOFM]YouTube - Ahangaran, Iran & The Concept of Martyrdom [Eng Subtitles][/ame]


----------



## Shogun

rhodescholar said:


> Yukon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gunny said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hey idiot ... if you have nothing to add to the conversation besides your fetish with rhodesscholar's ass, shut up and spare us, huh?
> 
> I'm not in the mood for your trolling ass, so fuck with me, huh?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gunny my child. I'm shocked and indeed dismayed to read the vile and disgusting words you have posted. I thought that perhaps you were above this sort of venemous activity. How wrong I have been and oh how sad is the truth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nah, he just recognizes a bunch of fairies like shogun sissy when he sees one.  shogun pussy likes men, and has been chasing me since I joined...he dreams of dating me...
Click to expand...


You bring up my name more than i bring up yours, little girl.  Perhaps you can provide more ironic fodder you walking punchline factory.


----------



## Shogun

rhodescholar said:


> Shogun said:
> 
> 
> 
> hey jewhoook.  Eat shit, ****.  America is not the tourniquet of your lil heeb paradise.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Choke to death you fucking **** animal asshole piece of shit coward.
> 
> Let us know when you served dogshit, real brave pussy probably ran off to nursing school with the other "girlymen" to get out of service, you weak fucking cocksucking dogshit.
Click to expand...




Sorry, i'm just not into your particular type of pillow talk, ass master.


And my point stands:  America is not a tampon to be used to keep your favorite Grand Dragon of the JJJ ethnicity propped above everyone else.   Put that in your circumcised dick and smoke it.


----------



## stonewall

Dr.Drock said:


> The_Halfmoon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dr.Drock said:
> 
> 
> 
> Iran's government is trash, but there's 100 governments in the world that are worse.
> 
> I'm just going to ignore the attempted similarity connection the other poster tried to make between Nazi Germany and the current Irani government.  People will say anything, no matter how crazy, to try and strike emotions in political debates.
> 
> If you think the Vietnam War was cool, then you'll like an American led war in Iran.  This won't be Iraq where it takes years to reach 1,000 dead American soldiers that will happen every single year we fight it.  You think this recession sucks?  Wait until you see what happens to our economy if we fight a much larger war than the current sized wars that we can't even afford.
> 
> And, just like in Afghanistan/Iraq/Vietnam, this will be another war that we lose.  The only way to win a war against Iran is to drop enough nukes to cover every square inch of the ground.  The Iranian people are big on independence and they'll fight until the last person takes in their last gasp of air.  Plus their military is way better than Iraq's was, hence why they crushed Iraq in the war in the 80's you mentioned.  The war where we were giving Saddam chemical weapons, gas, money, other weapons to wage war and kill his own women, children and babies with.
> 
> There's nothing stupider (no offense) than wanting war with Iran.  We'll gain nothing and lose everything.  We can't even win a war against the 3rd poorest 3rd world country (Afghanistan) in 8 years, the Taliban controls more of the country than we do.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I've said as much in other posts, don't get me wrong. I feel the US SHOULD go to war with Iran because, in reality, Iran has been waging war on the US indirectly for decades.
> 
> And btw, I also feel the US has done some horrendous things to Iranians since and after 1953.  I remember a quote from a senior US official to the UN regarding Saddam's chemical weapons, where he said something along the lines of 'It's a difficult situation.  You want Iraq to stop using chemical weapons, but on the other hand... you don't want Iran to win the war!" I mean that is a borderline evil thing to say, and it was the US policy towards Iran.
> 
> HOWEVER, I agree that the costs are way too high for this war.  I would not support a US or Israeli attack on Iran.  My main argument is against people that assume that the attack on Iran would be morally as low as the attack on Iraq.  To say so is to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iran.
> 
> I agree with what you say about the costs of war, and actually would go further by saying what I've already probably said 10X (and I'm paraphrasing an scholar whose name I can't remember unfortunately): If you were to hold referendums today in the Middle East, every single country with one exception would have a theocratic government like Iran's.  The exception is of course Iran itself. If the US were to attack, this reality would change.
> 
> But I don't agree with the statement that there are other countries more dangerous than Iran.  One, it is in the single most important region of the world, surrounded by allies of the US, controlling or influencing the vast majority of the flow of energy around the world.
> 
> Two, it has imperial ambitions.  The revolution was from the start meant to be a starting point for the spread of the new Shia empire. On top of that, the rather extreme ethnocentrism and nationalism of Iranians who consider themselves superior to Arabs is just a powderkeg waiting to explode as soon as Iran becomes the single dominant nation in the region. For years Iranians and Russians have been building towards a middle east controlled by Iran and influenced by Russia.  It is a very rational consequence of the departure of US influence in the region (and the original reason for US interferance in Iran since thd 1920s).
> 
> If North Korea nukes Japan, it would be unbelievably horrendous.  But it couldn't damage the entire world economy.  If Iran got into a war with its very natural enemy, Saudi Arabia... can you imagine the consequences? The entire world economy would be brought to its knees.
> 
> Again, I don't say the US MUST attack. But if we're talking about a country that has to look at its best interests and the interest of its allies in the region (not just Israel), you do have to make the case that the US would not be in the same moral position as it was with Iraq (a country that was not a genuine threat after the first gulf war, and had been tortured through air attacks and sanctions for over a decade).
> 
> But Iran has a very advanced ballistic missles industry that, as a military spokesman of the IRI said "manufactures bombs the same way it can manufacture books."  It could cause inmense, borderline fatal damage to Israel as well as tens of thousands of bystanding US troops in Southern Iraq.  So I understand and generally agree with what you're saying.  I'm just not willing to say that it's just another country like Cuba or Lybia, and that the US has no reason to attack.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No offense sir, you sound smart, but this is nothing but drivel.  If Iran or North Korea even reached towards the button to launch a nuclear weapon (if they ever have them) the entire country would be blown away before it ever reached the high airspace.  Iran has a hundred US and Israeli nukes aimed at it right now.  Iran getting nuclear weapons (legally I might add) would do absolutely nothing to affect any US or close US ally's safety.  Don't believe the fearmongering, that's what got us into Iraq.
> 
> I hope if we ever sign up to fight for war with Iran you're the first to sign up for it.  Don't take after all the pro Iraq war chickenhawks like the voting neoconservatives, Dick Cheney, Bill O'Reilly, George Bush, Sean Hannity, etc who do nothing but cower under beds and cheer on others to die in their place when they want war to happen.
Click to expand...



We did not lose the Iraq War. 

We won that war in almost any way you want to look at it.

You say this:

_If Iran or North Korea even reached towards the button to launch a nuclear weapon (if they ever have them) the entire country would be blown away before it ever reached the high airspace. _

Neither of those countries can develop nuclear weapons legally. They have to violate the NPT to do this and both have violated it.

You can say that they should violate the NPT, but don't say they can do it legally. 

At least lets know what we are saying...


----------

