# Iran and the Nuclear Bomb



## MACAULAY

It is a maxim that..."If any state forms a great regular army, the bordering states must imitate the example, or submit to a foreign yoke".

Surely that applies to nuclear weapons...and Iran.

But, Iran will be allowed to get a nuclear weapon during Barak Obama's term in office.  

In a long line of malfeasances, this one will most haunt his legacy.

Very crazy men run Iran and they are about to be able to blow up anything they want to. 

Every sheik, mullah and dictator in control of a few hundred square miles of sand dunes and a few oil fields---will have a nuclear bomb---and it will be the fault of the squalid cowardice of the Obama Administration.

While Iran builds a bomb, Obama spies on us.


----------



## Billo_Really

MACAULAY said:


> It is a maxim that..."If any state forms a great regular army, the bordering states must imitate the example, or submit to a foreign yoke".
> 
> Surely that applies to nuclear weapons...and Iran.
> 
> But, Iran will be allowed to get a nuclear weapon during Barak Obama's term in office.
> 
> In a long line of malfeasances, this one will most haunt his legacy.
> 
> Very crazy men run Iran and they are about to be able to blow up anything they want to.
> 
> Every sheik, mullah and dictator in control of a few hundred square miles of sand dunes and a few oil fields---will have a nuclear bomb---and it will be the fault of the squalid cowardice of the Obama Administration.
> 
> While Iran builds a bomb, Obama spies on us.


No one has yet to provide any evidence they are even building one.

Pony up the smoking gun, then we'll talk about what we should do.


----------



## MACAULAY

Neville Chamberlain?

Is that you, Neville?


----------



## Billo_Really

MACAULAY said:


> Neville Chamberlain?
> 
> Is that you, Neville?


Not the same thing.  Germany was invading sovereign nations in front of the whole world.  Iran hasn't attacked anyone in over 200 years.


----------



## MisterBeale

MACAULAY said:


> It is a maxim that..."If any state forms a great regular army, the bordering states must imitate the example, or submit to a foreign yoke".
> 
> Surely that applies to nuclear weapons...and Iran.
> 
> But, Iran will be allowed to get a nuclear weapon during Barak Obama's term in office.
> 
> In a long line of malfeasances, this one will most haunt his legacy.
> 
> Very crazy men run Iran and they are about to be able to blow up anything they want to.
> 
> Every sheik, mullah and dictator in control of a few hundred square miles of sand dunes and a few oil fields---will have a nuclear bomb---and it will be the fault of the squalid cowardice of the Obama Administration.
> 
> While Iran builds a bomb, Obama spies on us.



^^^^ Watches too much TV.

There is no evidence that they are building a bomb.  If they were building a bomb, there is no indication that they don't have every right to build a bomb.   What gives us the right to do anything about it?  If we did, WE would be the aggressors, WE would do evil.

In 1949 when we knew the Russians were building a bomb, they were far more of a threat to world peace.  They were actually invading border nations and incorporating, turning them into Soviet States.  We did nothing.  It resulted in a cold war that lasted nearly fifty years.

Provide some substantiation that the leaders of Iran are more crazy than the leaders that run the US.  In the US, we average a war every twenty years.  WE ARE DANGEROUS.

The Persians?  By and large they just want the US and Zionist aspirations to leave people alone.  What they do is no worse than what we do with the School of the Americas or what Israel does with the Mossad.


----------



## Moonglow

Ft Benning can't be all that bad.


----------



## MACAULAY

Through its proxy's, Iran has already begun the invasion of several countries, including Lebanon and Iraq. Using proxys was Hitler's blueprint.

Do you know that Iran and Hitler's Germany have almost nothing in common. (I suppose that's your point and I agree.) 

Its what they don't have in common that is troublesome.

Hitler desperately needed oil. Iran (and its soon to be satellites) are sitting on a mountain of it.

Hitler desperately needed the nuclear bomb. Iran will soon have it.

There is only one thing really that Hitler Germany and Mullah Iran have in common...but it is ominous.

Both are run by Lunatics.


----------



## Moonglow

Never heard of the Holy Roman Empire?


----------



## MisterBeale

MACAULAY said:


> There is only one thing really that Hitler Germany and Mullah Iran have in common...but it is ominous.
> 
> Both are run by Lunatics.


Again, this is what I find contentious and unsubstantiated.  You have watched entirely too much propaganda.  Why do you feel this way?  Do you even know who runs Iran?  Who makes the decisions?

What makes you believe the leader of Iran is a Lunatic?  Please, do post some EVIDENCE supporting your wild claims. . .


----------



## Billo_Really

MACAULAY said:


> Through its proxy's, Iran has already begun the invasion of several countries, including Lebanon and Iraq. Using proxys was Hitler's blueprint.
> 
> Do you know that Iran and Hitler's Germany have almost nothing in common. (I suppose that's your point and I agree.)
> 
> Its what they don't have in common that is troublesome.
> 
> Hitler desperately needed oil. Iran (and its soon to be satellites) are sitting on a mountain of it.
> 
> Hitler desperately needed the nuclear bomb. Iran will soon have it.
> 
> There is only one thing really that Hitler Germany and Mullah Iran have in common...but it is ominous.
> 
> Both are run by Lunatics.


No one has provided any evidence that they've weaponized their program, so why are you talking like they have?


----------



## jwoodie

Don't be diverted by the Leftist Loons:  Prior to Czechoslovakia, Germany had not "invaded" another country.  Unless Iran's nuclear weapon capability is eliminated by Israel, we will have no other choice than to station our own nuclear missiles in Saudi Arabia and other friendly countries in the area.


----------



## MisterBeale

jwoodie said:


> Don't be diverted by the Leftist Loons:  Prior to Czechoslovakia, Germany had not "invaded" another country.  Unless Iran's nuclear weapon capability is eliminated by Israel, we will have no other choice than to station our own nuclear missiles in Saudi Arabia and other friendly countries in the area.



Why?


----------



## Moonglow

Hell, Iran could barely beat Iraq in a war.


----------



## Billo_Really

MACAULAY said:


> There is only one thing really that Hitler Germany and Mullah Iran have in common...but it is ominous.
> 
> Both are run by Lunatics.


Yeah, but those lunatics are very, very old and 70% of their population is under 30.  Now, how many of those kids do you think can't wait for those old mullah's to die off so they can start wearing levis in public again?


Do these people look like they give a shit what the Ayatollah thinks?


[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ulm4Gj406E8]illegal Rave Party in Iran - YouTube[/ame]


To me, it looks like a typical Spring Break on South Beach.


----------



## Billo_Really

jwoodie said:


> Don't be diverted by the Leftist Loons:  Prior to Czechoslovakia, Germany had not "invaded" another country.  Unless Iran's nuclear weapon capability is eliminated by Israel, we will have no other choice than to station our own nuclear missiles in Saudi Arabia and other friendly countries in the area.


Why don't you prove the "capability" exists mother-fucker, before you start shooting your war-mongering mouth off?


----------



## Moonglow

During the 1970's I worked at a restaurant that had several Muslims hiding from the Shah.


----------



## Moonglow

Of course they worked there also.


----------



## MisterBeale

jwoodie said:


> Don't be diverted by the Leftist Loons:  Prior to Czechoslovakia, Germany had not "invaded" another country.  Unless Iran's nuclear weapon capability is eliminated by Israel, we will have no other choice than to station our own nuclear missiles in Saudi Arabia and other friendly countries in the area.


BTW, that is false I believe.  The prior past century of Europe up to that point was riddled with warfare.  I'd go into a retelling of WWI, but it would bore you.  However, trust me, it was still fresh in the minds of living memory for much of Europe.

This point here, is that if industrialized warfare is endemic to this region of the world, it is because the western powers and the banking cartel both helped make it possible, and move the pieces about the map for their objectives.

You need to question what the goals of Iranian leadership are.  Oh, that's right, they don't have any other than national defense, so you need to make some bullshit ones up to justify aggression. . . . like maybe, they are lunatics?


----------



## jwoodie

MisterBeale said:


> jwoodie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Don't be diverted by the Leftist Loons:  Prior to Czechoslovakia, Germany had not "invaded" another country.  Unless Iran's nuclear weapon capability is eliminated by Israel, we will have no other choice than to station our own nuclear missiles in Saudi Arabia and other friendly countries in the area.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why?
Click to expand...


Historical Parallel:

In 1979, the Soviet Union began placing IRBMs in Eastern Europe as a means of cowing Western Europe into accommodating Soviet plans for establishing economic hegemony through Western financing and development (and ensuing dependence) of their oil and gas reserves.

Against public opinion in the U.S. and Europe, Reagan announced that we would starting placing IRBMs in Western Europe unless the Soviets removed theirs.  Gorbachev backed down and Western Europe's independence was maintained.  Without this action, which deprived them of a permanent source of foreign capital, the USSR would probably still be in business.


----------



## velvtacheeze

MACAULAY said:


> It is a maxim that..."If any state forms a great regular army, the bordering states must imitate the example, or submit to a foreign yoke".
> 
> Surely that applies to nuclear weapons...and Iran.
> 
> But, Iran will be allowed to get a nuclear weapon during Barak Obama's term in office.
> 
> In a long line of malfeasances, this one will most haunt his legacy.
> 
> Very crazy men run Iran and they are about to be able to blow up anything they want to.
> 
> Every sheik, mullah and dictator in control of a few hundred square miles of sand dunes and a few oil fields---will have a nuclear bomb---and it will be the fault of the squalid cowardice of the Obama Administration.
> 
> While Iran builds a bomb, Obama spies on us.



Neocons already blew it over WMD in Iraq. They turned out to be imaginary.  You think you're gonna fool us again?

And IF Iran is trying to get a bomb (again, no convincing evidence exists) it's because they just saw their two neighbors get invaded, and have the US navy saddled up next to them in the Gulf.  Who can blame them for wanting to protect themselves in case a GOPer steals the White House again, like Bush did?


----------



## MisterBeale

jwoodie said:


> MisterBeale said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jwoodie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Don't be diverted by the Leftist Loons:  Prior to Czechoslovakia, Germany had not "invaded" another country.  Unless Iran's nuclear weapon capability is eliminated by Israel, we will have no other choice than to station our own nuclear missiles in Saudi Arabia and other friendly countries in the area.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Historical Parallel:
> 
> In 1979, the Soviet Union began placing IRBMs in Eastern Europe as a means of cowing Western Europe into accommodating Soviet plans for establishing economic hegemony through Western financing and development (and ensuing dependence) of their oil and gas reserves.
> 
> Against public opinion in the U.S. and Europe, Reagan announced that we would starting placing IRBMs in Western Europe unless the Soviets removed theirs.  Gorbachev backed down and Western Europe's independence was maintained.  Without this action, which deprived them of a permanent source of foreign capital, the USSR would probably still be in business.
Click to expand...


So you say you want to learn from history eh?  They "tell" us OBL had the twin towers attacked because we stationed western troops in the most holy of all holy lands.  What do you suppose they would do if we planted some offensive nukes next to their most sacred of shrines?  My inkling is it probably won't be good for us.  

I agree with you. . . . . 

Let's just let the Iranians have some DEFENSIVE capability, just like the Israeli's, eh?  Just like the Pakistani's, eh?  Let's learn from history, and learn from actual political science, you know, the Prisoner's Dilemma scenario?  Instead of going all half cocked and making matters worse than they really are.

Read some Realpolitik for once in your life.


----------



## R.C. Christian

I love it when arm chair genitals talk tough about a scenario that would probably read WWIII.


----------



## jwoodie

MisterBeale said:


> jwoodie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MisterBeale said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Historical Parallel:
> 
> In 1979, the Soviet Union began placing IRBMs in Eastern Europe as a means of cowing Western Europe into accommodating Soviet plans for establishing economic hegemony through Western financing and development (and ensuing dependence) of their oil and gas reserves.
> 
> Against public opinion in the U.S. and Europe, Reagan announced that we would starting placing IRBMs in Western Europe unless the Soviets removed theirs.  Gorbachev backed down and Western Europe's independence was maintained.  Without this action, which deprived them of a permanent source of foreign capital, the USSR would probably still be in business.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you say you want to learn from history eh?  They "tell" us OBL had the twin towers attacked because we stationed western troops in the most holy of all holy lands.  What do you suppose they would do if we planted some offensive nukes next to their most sacred of shrines?  My inkling is it probably won't be good for us.
> 
> I agree with you. . . . .
> 
> Let's just let the Iranians have some DEFENSIVE capability, just like the Israeli's, eh?  Just like the Pakistani's, eh?  Let's learn from history, and learn from actual political science, you know, the Prisoner's Dilemma scenario?  Instead of going all half cocked and making matters worse than they really are.
> 
> Read some Realpolitik for once in your life.
Click to expand...


I understand this is an emotional issue for you, but try to lay off the personal attacks.  Is there any reason Iran would NOT want to develop a nuclear weapons capability?  (They were quite willing to use poison gas in their last war with Iraq.)


----------



## Brain357

MACAULAY said:


> It is a maxim that..."If any state forms a great regular army, the bordering states must imitate the example, or submit to a foreign yoke".
> 
> Surely that applies to nuclear weapons...and Iran.
> 
> But, Iran will be allowed to get a nuclear weapon during Barak Obama's term in office.
> 
> In a long line of malfeasances, this one will most haunt his legacy.
> 
> Very crazy men run Iran and they are about to be able to blow up anything they want to.
> 
> Every sheik, mullah and dictator in control of a few hundred square miles of sand dunes and a few oil fields---will have a nuclear bomb---and it will be the fault of the squalid cowardice of the Obama Administration.
> 
> While Iran builds a bomb, Obama spies on us.



First I don't think Israel will let them get one.
Second I don't think Obama is to blame if they get one.  Would Saddam have let Iran get one?  Probably not so why is it Saddam is no longer there to keep them from getting one?
Third, if they got one what would they do with it?  They would all have to be suicidal to use one.  North Korea has one now and they are just as crazy.


----------



## MisterBeale

velvtacheeze said:


> Neocons already blew it over WMD in Iraq. They turned out to be imaginary.  You think you're gonna fool us again?
> 
> And IF Iran is trying to get a bomb (again, no convincing evidence exists) it's because they just saw their two neighbors get invaded, and have the US navy saddled up next to them in the Gulf.  Who can blame them for wanting to protect themselves in case a GOPer steals the White House again, like Bush did?


Yeah, that's pretty much the point.  Israel has them.  Pakistan, who at this point, no one really believes is a _real_ ally, they have them.  India has them.  Of course Russians have them.  Every technologically advanced nation can have them if they wish.

Iran is no friend of ours, and America just needs to face up to the fact, they ARE technologically sophisticated nation.  They (the Iranians) don't like the international banking cartel, and that is why we have been brainwashed to believe they are an enemy.  Most Americans have been conditioned SO long to believe either one of two things, Judea-Christianity, or Atheism.  If it isn't one of those two things, the person isn't worth oxygen, and they are a moron.  Thus, they are a threat.  We need to get over that.  

This will be our downfall if we don't start taking what nations and people want at face value.  Our media is owned.  We need to dig a little deeper.  The truth lay some where in the middle.  We need to put ourselves in the place of those who our government seeks to destroy.  Remember, Goldman-Sachs, and all of the other big global financial interests donated to both parties in the last election.  Is it any wonder BOTH parties and all political elites see a nation that doesn't conform to the world wide financial system as an evil entity?  _Really?!?_  Are people around here so obtuse that they don't see real freedom of thought and action for what it is?  Have they not studied the history of Iran?  I mean honestly.  If I was an Iranian, after what this country did to that nation, I would want my country to get a nuke in the WORST way.  I seriously think people need to find out the history of what Britain and then the U.S. did to that nation.  We have supported tyrants and dictators who have slaughtered and tortured the populace all for oil.  

Now they have a religious sect that does the same thing to a much smaller percentage of  the population in order to keep that nation from the oppression of the NWO, and we here in the West are clueless WHY the nation popularly supports them?  Have you seen Venezuela?  How about Iraq?  Or any other place there is great wealth in resources to be raped by the world international elites?

Is the Universal Consciousness or "God" protecting them or walking with them right now?  I'd have to say, sure, they are standing up to a Unipolar super power since the fall of the Berlin wall, by themselves; and that is pretty astounding.   AND THEY ARE WEAK.  Really weak.  But the longer they stand, the stronger they get, and the more allies and stronger their alliances get.  

And, incidentally, the longer they do, the weaker that unipolar superpower gets.  And the more enlightened, awake, and aware it's own population gets.

Perhaps we can avoid WWIII after all.  Perhaps not.  We shall see. . . .

If it does start, I PROMISE you this, Iran WILL NOT be the one starting it.  It will be the United States or it's allies, probably doing some false flag shenanigans, but the world and her people will see through it.  After that, the U.S. will invade with out any attempt to negotiate a peace settlement.  That will be how it starts, if it starts.  Because the U.S. always starts wars.  If we put missiles near Iran, it will be to USE them, not to defend anyone or anything.


----------



## Duped

The bottom line is Israel will attack soon.


----------



## jwoodie

Brain357 said:


> MACAULAY said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is a maxim that..."If any state forms a great regular army, the bordering states must imitate the example, or submit to a foreign yoke".
> 
> Surely that applies to nuclear weapons...and Iran.
> 
> But, Iran will be allowed to get a nuclear weapon during Barak Obama's term in office.
> 
> In a long line of malfeasances, this one will most haunt his legacy.
> 
> Very crazy men run Iran and they are about to be able to blow up anything they want to.
> 
> Every sheik, mullah and dictator in control of a few hundred square miles of sand dunes and a few oil fields---will have a nuclear bomb---and it will be the fault of the squalid cowardice of the Obama Administration.
> 
> While Iran builds a bomb, Obama spies on us.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> First I don't think Israel will let them get one.
> Second I don't think Obama is to blame if they get one.  Would Saddam have let Iran get one?  Probably not so why is it Saddam is no longer there to keep them from getting one?
> Third, if they got one what would they do with it?  They would all have to be suicidal to use one.  North Korea has one now and they are just as crazy.
Click to expand...


Interesting logic:  

A.  If Israel lets them get one, it will be their fault, but if Obama lets them get one it will not be his fault?  

B.  What does Saddam have to do with the current situation?

C.  North Koreans are not crazy.  They just act that way to get what they want.  Iran is controlled by a theocracy which believes in the triumph of Islam over the infidels by any means necessary.


----------



## Connery

*Moved to proper forum*


----------



## MisterBeale

If Iran gets a nuke, they will do nothing with it.  It will only be an excuse for the West to invade and take away their resources.  You all prove your points by what you post.


----------



## Stashman

For anyone that actually believes the non-sense that Iran is building a nuclear bomb, all I can say is that you have been hypnotized by the great American idiot box again. The United States is using this lie as a pretext in invade, and than let a central banking system to be created there.

The very first thing that happened in Iraq after U.S. forces decimated it in Desert Storm was the creation of a central bank. There are currently only three nations that do not have a central banking system. Iran, Cuba, North Korea. 

However, lets say that this isn't the way it is for a moment. All I can say is SO WHAT? Iran has the right to defend itself like any other nation on earth. What if say Russia or China told us that we could not have nuclear weapons? That's what were doing to Iran. You assume that if they had the nuclear bomb they would use it. Using it to any degree at all would only assure its absolute destruction. If they launched a nuclear bomb, even before it hit its intended target their would be an array of them heading their way. They are not suicidal. As pointed out earlier in this thread Iran has not invaded another nation since the late 1700's.

Don't let the propaganda pull you in. That's exactly what they want.


----------



## sambino510

jwoodie said:


> MisterBeale said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jwoodie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Historical Parallel:
> 
> In 1979, the Soviet Union began placing IRBMs in Eastern Europe as a means of cowing Western Europe into accommodating Soviet plans for establishing economic hegemony through Western financing and development (and ensuing dependence) of their oil and gas reserves.
> 
> Against public opinion in the U.S. and Europe, Reagan announced that we would starting placing IRBMs in Western Europe unless the Soviets removed theirs.  Gorbachev backed down and Western Europe's independence was maintained.  Without this action, which deprived them of a permanent source of foreign capital, the USSR would probably still be in business.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you say you want to learn from history eh?  They "tell" us OBL had the twin towers attacked because we stationed western troops in the most holy of all holy lands.  What do you suppose they would do if we planted some offensive nukes next to their most sacred of shrines?  My inkling is it probably won't be good for us.
> 
> I agree with you. . . . .
> 
> Let's just let the Iranians have some DEFENSIVE capability, just like the Israeli's, eh?  Just like the Pakistani's, eh?  Let's learn from history, and learn from actual political science, you know, the Prisoner's Dilemma scenario?  Instead of going all half cocked and making matters worse than they really are.
> 
> Read some Realpolitik for once in your life.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I understand this is an emotional issue for you, but try to lay off the personal attacks.  Is there any reason Iran would NOT want to develop a nuclear weapons capability?  (They were quite willing to use poison gas in their last war with Iraq.)
Click to expand...


Forgive me if I'm wrong, but was it not Iraq who used the chemical weapons AGAINST Iran, not the other way around? America sold the weapons to Saddam who was shaking hands with Donald Rumsfeld, and then Saddam used the weapons against the Iranians.

And no, I think there are many reasons Iran would want a bomb now. Why they would want to USE a bomb, I have no idea.


----------



## MisterBeale

jwoodie said:


> Is there any reason Iran would NOT want to develop a nuclear weapons capability?  (They were quite willing to use poison gas in their last war with Iraq.)


You mean AFTER the Iraqi's used the mustard, sarin, and nerve gas that the Americans gave Saddam?  Gee, I wonder why they would do that? 

Yeah, you are probably right, they just might use a nuke if they are invaded or nuked.  I sort of think that is the point of developing a deterrent, isn't it?


----------



## MisterBeale

sambino510 said:


> jwoodie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MisterBeale said:
> 
> 
> 
> So you say you want to learn from history eh?  They "tell" us OBL had the twin towers attacked because we stationed western troops in the most holy of all holy lands.  What do you suppose they would do if we planted some offensive nukes next to their most sacred of shrines?  My inkling is it probably won't be good for us.
> 
> I agree with you. . . . .
> 
> Let's just let the Iranians have some DEFENSIVE capability, just like the Israeli's, eh?  Just like the Pakistani's, eh?  Let's learn from history, and learn from actual political science, you know, the Prisoner's Dilemma scenario?  Instead of going all half cocked and making matters worse than they really are.
> 
> Read some Realpolitik for once in your life.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I understand this is an emotional issue for you, but try to lay off the personal attacks.  Is there any reason Iran would NOT want to develop a nuclear weapons capability?  (They were quite willing to use poison gas in their last war with Iraq.)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Forgive me if I'm wrong, but was it not Iraq who used the chemical weapons AGAINST Iran, not the other way around? America sold the weapons to Saddam who was shaking hands with Donald Rumsfeld, and then Saddam used the weapons against the Iranians.
> 
> And no, I think there are many reasons Iran would want a bomb now. Why they would want to USE a bomb, I have no idea.
Click to expand...


lol.  You're just a bit quicker on the posting than I am.  Yup. You are correct.


----------



## Duped

This dialog is moot. Israel will not allow Iran to get a nuclear bomb. Prepare for the ramifications of that reality.


----------



## Brain357

jwoodie said:


> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MACAULAY said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is a maxim that..."If any state forms a great regular army, the bordering states must imitate the example, or submit to a foreign yoke".
> 
> Surely that applies to nuclear weapons...and Iran.
> 
> But, Iran will be allowed to get a nuclear weapon during Barak Obama's term in office.
> 
> In a long line of malfeasances, this one will most haunt his legacy.
> 
> Very crazy men run Iran and they are about to be able to blow up anything they want to.
> 
> Every sheik, mullah and dictator in control of a few hundred square miles of sand dunes and a few oil fields---will have a nuclear bomb---and it will be the fault of the squalid cowardice of the Obama Administration.
> 
> While Iran builds a bomb, Obama spies on us.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> First I don't think Israel will let them get one.
> Second I don't think Obama is to blame if they get one.  Would Saddam have let Iran get one?  Probably not so why is it Saddam is no longer there to keep them from getting one?
> Third, if they got one what would they do with it?  They would all have to be suicidal to use one.  North Korea has one now and they are just as crazy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Interesting logic:
> 
> A.  If Israel lets them get one, it will be their fault, but if Obama lets them get one it will not be his fault?
> 
> B.  What does Saddam have to do with the current situation?
> 
> C.  North Koreans are not crazy.  They just act that way to get what they want.  Iran is controlled by a theocracy which believes in the triumph of Islam over the infidels by any means necessary.
Click to expand...


A. There is no fault.  But I still believe Israel will bomb them before they would let them get one.

B. Well other people decided to take out Saddam who was the balance to Iran in the region.  You didn't answer my question.  Would Saddam have let Iran get a nuclear weapon?

C. When was the last time Iran attacked anyone?  Is nuking some country and then getting nuked back and wiped out of existence going to help Islam win?  They will never have more nukes than Israel or the US.


----------



## sambino510

Duped said:


> This dialog is moot. Israel will not allow Iran to get a nuclear bomb. Prepare for the ramifications of that reality.



It amazes me how nonchalantly people can cheer at potential death and human suffering. I suppose diplomacy is not still on the table?


----------



## Duped

sambino510 said:


> Duped said:
> 
> 
> 
> This dialog is moot. Israel will not allow Iran to get a nuclear bomb. Prepare for the ramifications of that reality.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It amazes me how nonchalantly people can cheer at potential death and human suffering. I suppose diplomacy is not still on the table?
Click to expand...

There can be no diplomacy with Islamic terrorist. I don't recall cheering? I am simply stating what Israel has declared - they don't bluff. The quicker the extreme Islamist are subjugated the less sufering the world will see.


----------



## Billo_Really

Duped said:


> The bottom line is Israel will attack soon.


That's because they're a fascist, war-mongering country not that much different than Nazi Germany.

But if they do attack Iran, it will prove two things:

that beyond a shadow of doubt, it's Israel, that is the problem
they'll get their ass kicked by the Russians


----------



## sambino510

Duped said:


> sambino510 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Duped said:
> 
> 
> 
> This dialog is moot. Israel will not allow Iran to get a nuclear bomb. Prepare for the ramifications of that reality.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It amazes me how nonchalantly people can cheer at potential death and human suffering. I suppose diplomacy is not still on the table?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There can be no diplomacy with Islamic terrorist. I don't recall cheering? I am simply stating what Israel has declared - they don't bluff. The quicker the extreme Islamist are subjugated the less sufering the world will see.
Click to expand...


My apologies, I was referring more to others' "cheers" than your own. However, I still believe Iran is all talk, similar to North Korea. Until they actually commit a violent act against Israel, Israel has no basis for a military strike on Iranian territory. Also, you can't lump all Iranians, or the whole Iranian government, as "Islamic terrorists". They're still a sovereign nation, not just a bunch of radicals bent on world destruction.

"Subjugating" the Islamists IS human suffering. The sooner the world finds a way to solve its problems without suffering, without fighting fire with fire, THAT is when there will truly be less suffering.


----------



## Billo_Really

Duped said:


> This dialog is moot. Israel will not allow Iran to get a nuclear bomb. Prepare for the ramifications of that reality.


Israel is not the king of the world.  They don't dictate to other sovereign nations what they can (and cannot) do within their own borders.

Israel needs to mind its own fuckin' business!


----------



## Duped

Billo_Really said:


> Duped said:
> 
> 
> 
> This dialog is moot. Israel will not allow Iran to get a nuclear bomb. Prepare for the ramifications of that reality.
> 
> 
> 
> Israel is not the king of the world.  They don't dictate to other sovereign nations what they can (and cannot) do within their own borders.
> 
> Israel needs to mind its own fuckin' business!
Click to expand...

Arn't you a dumbass. Iran is not within the Israeli borders  Israel has declared to the world that they will not let Iran get the bomb to protect their own sovereignty. Who's buisness is that Einstein?


----------



## Billo_Really

Duped said:


> Arn't you a dumbass. Iran is not within the Israeli borders  Israel has declared to the world that they will not let Iran get the bomb to protect their own sovereignty. Who's buisness is that Einstein?


It's none of Israel's fuckin' business what the Iranians do in Iran.

If Israel can't prove their building the bomb, then they need to shut up and fuck off!


----------



## Duped

Israel feels that it is vital to her security that Iran does not get the bomb. It is her porogative to say, feel, and do what she want - understanding that all things have consequences! Iran has offered more peace talks now, because they know Israel doesn't play. It is a stall tactic no doubt.

The USA should forbid Iran from arming period, but we have a muslim sympathizer asshole of a coward president; so Israel will have to act on her own. If the muslim world unites, and throws an all out assault on Israel - she will use her nuclear weapons.


----------



## sambino510

Duped said:


> Israel feels that it is vital to her security that Iran does not get the bomb. It is her porogative to say, feel, and do what she want - understanding that all things have consequences! Iran has offered more peace talks now, because they know Israel doesn't play. It is a stall tactic no doubt.
> 
> The USA should forbid Iran from arming period, but we have a muslim sympathizer asshole of a coward president; so Israel will have to act on her own. If the muslim world unites, and throws an all out assault on Israel - she will use her nuclear weapons.



You seem to criminalize all Muslims for no reason. It is not the Islam religion that is wrong, it is certain people who interpret it in certain ways. Judaism and Christianity have just as much potential to be used for evil. Bear in mind too that not all Muslim countries want to attack Israel. If they can't even get along with eachother, how would they ever unite against Israel? Also, if ANY country uses nuclear weapons, it would set off a chain reaction that would likely end the human race. So I seriously doubt any of that will happen. I re-iterate, Israel has no right attacking Iran until Iran attacks Israel, and they haven't.


----------



## MisterBeale

Duped said:


> This dialog is moot. Israel will not allow Iran to get a nuclear bomb. Prepare for the ramifications of that reality.








Get real.  It's the size of New Jersey.  The world hates it.  It has one ally, (officially at least), whose military, in reality isn't going to start WWIII for it.  Both Russia and China have said, hands off.  Israel is going to take on Russia and China?  The U.S. sure as hell isn't, not for Israel's Zionist agenda.  Israel is only as strong as the US allows it to be, and only does what we tell it to do.  If it goes rogue, it will die.  Go troll somewhere else, mmmkay?


----------



## Duped

sambino510 said:


> Duped said:
> 
> 
> 
> Israel feels that it is vital to her security that Iran does not get the bomb. It is her porogative to say, feel, and do what she want - understanding that all things have consequences! Iran has offered more peace talks now, because they know Israel doesn't play. It is a stall tactic no doubt.
> 
> The USA should forbid Iran from arming period, but we have a muslim sympathizer asshole of a coward president; so Israel will have to act on her own. If the muslim world unites, and throws an all out assault on Israel - she will use her nuclear weapons.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You seem to criminalize all Muslims for no reason. It is not the Islam religion that is wrong, it is certain people who interpret it in certain ways. Judaism and Christianity have just as much potential to be used for evil. Bear in mind too that not all Muslim countries want to attack Israel. If they can't even get along with eachother, how would they ever unite against Israel? Also, if ANY country uses nuclear weapons, it would set off a chain reaction that would likely end the human race. So I seriously doubt any of that will happen. I re-iterate, Israel has no right attacking Iran until Iran attacks Israel, and they haven't.
Click to expand...

Iran attacks Israel by proxy all the time.

If Israel preemptively attacks Iran; the muslim world will instantly unite.

Israel would use whatever means at her disposal to survive.

What I see is the so called moderate muslims never challenge the extremist, they do not denounce the koran where the extremist get their terrorist directions from. Why would anyone give a crap about Muslims who believe a book that teaches that you either believe in their perverted, pedophilla, stoneage religion or they have a duty to kill you? A freedom hating society of cavemen? I don't care how much money they have, or how educated you think they are - they are fucking troglodytes.


----------



## Duped

MisterBeale said:


> Duped said:
> 
> 
> 
> This dialog is moot. Israel will not allow Iran to get a nuclear bomb. Prepare for the ramifications of that reality.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Get real.  It's the size of New Jersey.  The world hates it.  It has one ally, (officially at least), whose military, in reality isn't going to start WWIII for it.  Both Russia and China have said, hands off.  Israel is going to take on Russia and China?  The U.S. sure as hell isn't, not for Israel's Zionist agenda.  Israel is only as strong as the US allows it to be, and only does what we tell it to do.  If it goes rogue, it will die.  Go troll somewhere else, mmmkay?
Click to expand...

 Israel has an ally you know not of. Go suck a trolls dick!


----------



## sambino510

Duped said:


> sambino510 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Duped said:
> 
> 
> 
> Israel feels that it is vital to her security that Iran does not get the bomb. It is her porogative to say, feel, and do what she want - understanding that all things have consequences! Iran has offered more peace talks now, because they know Israel doesn't play. It is a stall tactic no doubt.
> 
> The USA should forbid Iran from arming period, but we have a muslim sympathizer asshole of a coward president; so Israel will have to act on her own. If the muslim world unites, and throws an all out assault on Israel - she will use her nuclear weapons.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You seem to criminalize all Muslims for no reason. It is not the Islam religion that is wrong, it is certain people who interpret it in certain ways. Judaism and Christianity have just as much potential to be used for evil. Bear in mind too that not all Muslim countries want to attack Israel. If they can't even get along with eachother, how would they ever unite against Israel? Also, if ANY country uses nuclear weapons, it would set off a chain reaction that would likely end the human race. So I seriously doubt any of that will happen. I re-iterate, Israel has no right attacking Iran until Iran attacks Israel, and they haven't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Iran attacks Israel by proxy all the time.
> 
> If Israel preemptively attacks Iran; the muslim world will instantly unite.
> 
> Israel would use whatever means at her disposal to survive.
> 
> What I see is the so called moderate muslims never challenge the extremist, they do not denounce the koran where the extremist get their terrorist directions from. Why would anyone give a crap about Muslims who believe a book that teaches that you either believe in their perverted, pedophilla, stoneage religion or they have a duty to kill you? A freedom hating society of cavemen? I don't care how much money they have, or how educated you think they are - they are fucking troglodytes.
Click to expand...


I can assume from the way you speak that you've obviously read the Quran in detail and know all about its teachings. I can also assume you know that the most quoted prophet in the Quran is Jesus, and that one of the first pages of the Quran is a translation page that shows that Arabic equivalents of all the characters from the Bible. My point being, these religions are NOT as different as you seem to think. Do you truly think ALL Muslims preach perversion and pedophilia? That's absolutely ludicrous.


----------



## sambino510

Duped said:


> MisterBeale said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Duped said:
> 
> 
> 
> This dialog is moot. Israel will not allow Iran to get a nuclear bomb. Prepare for the ramifications of that reality.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Get real.  It's the size of New Jersey.  The world hates it.  It has one ally, (officially at least), whose military, in reality isn't going to start WWIII for it.  Both Russia and China have said, hands off.  Israel is going to take on Russia and China?  The U.S. sure as hell isn't, not for Israel's Zionist agenda.  Israel is only as strong as the US allows it to be, and only does what we tell it to do.  If it goes rogue, it will die.  Go troll somewhere else, mmmkay?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Israel has an ally you know not of. Go suck a trolls dick!
Click to expand...


Who would this ally be? And "go suck a troll's dick" isn't the best way of proving your argument.


----------



## MisterBeale

sambino510 said:


> Duped said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MisterBeale said:
> 
> 
> 
> Get real.  It's the size of New Jersey.  The world hates it.  It has one ally, (officially at least), whose military, in reality isn't going to start WWIII for it.  Both Russia and China have said, hands off.  Israel is going to take on Russia and China?  The U.S. sure as hell isn't, not for Israel's Zionist agenda.  Israel is only as strong as the US allows it to be, and only does what we tell it to do.  If it goes rogue, it will die.  Go troll somewhere else, mmmkay?
> 
> 
> 
> Israel has an ally you know not of. Go suck a trolls dick!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Who would this ally be? And "go suck a troll's dick" isn't the best way of proving your argument.
Click to expand...

Sure it is when your intellect has been out maneuvered by logic and your ego has had a reality check.  Cognitive dissonance is a bitch.


----------



## MisterBeale

Duped said:


> What I see is the so called moderate muslims never challenge the extremist, they do not denounce the koran where the extremist get their terrorist directions from. Why would anyone give a crap about Muslims who believe a book that teaches that you either believe in their perverted, pedophilla, stoneage religion or they have a duty to kill you? A freedom hating society of cavemen? I don't care how much money they have, or how educated you think they are - they are fucking troglodytes.



You know, the same can be said about moderate Jews too you know.  I don't hear any of them denouncing the Talmud. In fact, if we go to Google, we are hard pressed to even find English translations of it.  Isn't that a bitch.  I wonder why.  Finding English translations of the Koran, no problem.  Of the Eddas and the Vedas, equally simple.  Of Buddhist texts?  Piece of cake.  But if you want to find the texts in Jewish tradition that state non Jews are no better than animals, and that Gods laws and protections only apply to Jews?  Well, you have to learn Yiddish for that.  They won't translate the text of the Talmud for the non-Jew.  Jewish hate and bigotry is for the Jew only.  Jewish designs for the world?  Those are for the Jew only.  They think and feel, as laid out in the Talmud, that all non-Jews are to be their servants and slaves.  And so they act as such.  Do moderate Jews distance themselves from such hatred?  

Take a look at what is going on in Israel.  Take a look at how they treat Palestinians.  People wonder why, when the sons of Abraham come to power in any nation or in any sector of global economic activity, they are met with scorn or suspicion.  There you have it.  Core cultural beliefs.  Who do you think set up the slave trade in America?  Do a Google search for the so called "slave law" in Israel.  See how they treat their foreign workers.  Even today, the Jewish people do not really believe there is anything wrong with slavery, as long as you do not enslave your own.  Nice.

Americans rail against Iran being a "theocracy" and how wrong it is.  Well, guess what, Israel is one too.  If you are Jewish, you get certain rights that non-Jews don't have.  How can we condemn in Iran what we don't condemn in Israel?
http://www.iamthewitness.com/books/Walter.White/Who.Brought.the.Slaves.to.America.htm


----------



## Duped

sambino510 said:


> Duped said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MisterBeale said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Get real.  It's the size of New Jersey.  The world hates it.  It has one ally, (officially at least), whose military, in reality isn't going to start WWIII for it.  Both Russia and China have said, hands off.  Israel is going to take on Russia and China?  The U.S. sure as hell isn't, not for Israel's Zionist agenda.  Israel is only as strong as the US allows it to be, and only does what we tell it to do.  If it goes rogue, it will die.  Go troll somewhere else, mmmkay?
> 
> 
> 
> Israel has an ally you know not of. Go suck a trolls dick!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Who would this ally be? And "go suck a troll's dick" isn't the best way of proving your argument.
Click to expand...

I was trying to have a debate but you wanted to start with the troll shit so fuck you!


----------



## Billo_Really

Duped said:


> I was trying to have a debate but you wanted to start with the troll shit so fuck you!


I'll debate you.

You complete me!


----------



## Duped

MisterBeale said:


> sambino510 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Duped said:
> 
> 
> 
> Israel has an ally you know not of. Go suck a trolls dick!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Who would this ally be? And "go suck a troll's dick" isn't the best way of proving your argument.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sure it is when your intellect has been out maneuvered by logic and your ego has had a reality check.  Cognitive dissonance is a bitch.
Click to expand...

What do you know about intelect? Your really into yourself arn't you? Out maneuvered - your on drugs  too? Ego - your a joke. That's what you have - insult after insult? You can go on ignore as you are a waste of time.

If you believe in the koran - fuck you. If you don't like it - fuck you again!


----------



## Billo_Really

Duped said:


> What do you know about intelect? Your really into yourself arn't you? Out maneuvered - your on drugs  too? Ego - your a joke. That's what you have - insult after insult? You can go on ignore as you are a waste of time.
> 
> If you believe in the koran - fuck you. If you don't like it - fuck you again!


Is that what you think about anyone who doesn't believe the same things you believe in?


----------



## Duped

Billo_Really said:


> Duped said:
> 
> 
> 
> I was trying to have a debate but you wanted to start with the troll shit so fuck you!
> 
> 
> 
> I'll debate you.
> 
> You complete me!
Click to expand...

Dude, I have a feeling you'll always be incomplete. This thread is suppose to be about Iran having nukes. Not about religion or foolish babble.


----------



## Billo_Really

Duped said:


> Dude, I have a feeling you'll always be incomplete. This thread is suppose to be about Iran having nukes. Not about religion or foolish babble.


Then provide evidence their program has been weaponized.

The last 3 NIE's, said they haven't.


----------



## sambino510

Duped said:


> sambino510 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Duped said:
> 
> 
> 
> Israel has an ally you know not of. Go suck a trolls dick!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Who would this ally be? And "go suck a troll's dick" isn't the best way of proving your argument.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I was trying to have a debate but you wanted to start with the troll shit so fuck you!
Click to expand...


Me? You're talking to the wrong guy. I don't troll, I discuss issues calmly.


----------



## sambino510

Duped said:


> MisterBeale said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sambino510 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Who would this ally be? And "go suck a troll's dick" isn't the best way of proving your argument.
> 
> 
> 
> Sure it is when your intellect has been out maneuvered by logic and your ego has had a reality check.  Cognitive dissonance is a bitch.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What do you know about intelect? Your really into yourself arn't you? Out maneuvered - your on drugs  too? Ego - your a joke. That's what you have - insult after insult? You can go on ignore as you are a waste of time.
> 
> If you believe in the koran - fuck you. If you don't like it - fuck you again!
Click to expand...


I agree that both of you have downgraded to insults and petty arguments about nothing. However, what is your problem with the Quran exactly? What in that book is any more controversial than the Bible or Torah?


----------



## Billo_Really

sambino510 said:


> Me? You're talking to the wrong guy. I don't troll, I discuss issues calmly.


You sound pretty hysterical.  Calm down.  This is a safe place.  

Um................what were we talking about?


----------



## Duped

Billo_Really said:


> Duped said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dude, I have a feeling you'll always be incomplete. This thread is suppose to be about Iran having nukes. Not about religion or foolish babble.
> 
> 
> 
> Then provide evidence their program has been weaponized.
> 
> The last 3 NIE's, said they haven't.
Click to expand...

Look, there is a disconnect here. I am repeating what Netanyahu said. " Iran is 3/4 there. We won't let them get to the finish line. "  It doesn't matter if Iran has, or does not have a nearing capability. Israel percieves one.

I presume that Iran will take it to the brink, and then capitulate - with subterfuge no doubt.


----------



## Billo_Really

Duped said:


> Look, there is a disconnect here. I am repeating what Netanyahu said. " Iran is 3/4 there. We won't let them get to the finish line. "  It doesn't matter if Iran has, or does not have a nearing capability. Israel percieves one.
> 
> I presume that Iran will take it to the brink, and then capitulate - with subterfuge no doubt.


If this is an issue regarding Israeli perception of Iran's program, then the problem is with Israel, not Iran.  Why aren't you questioning Israel and demanding that they come up with some proof to back up the things they are claiming?  Are you just going to blindly accept everything they say as true?  Or think everything they do is okay?

You don't go bombing a country over what you "think" is going on!  Not to mention how immoral it is to attack someone that did not attack you first.


----------



## Auteur

Duped said:


> This dialog is moot. Israel will not allow Iran to get a nuclear bomb. Prepare for the ramifications of that reality.



A state cannot indefinitely bomb into submission any and all who disagree with them. It doesn't always work, as the US has found out in Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghanistan. What if a radical government came to power in Pakistan, and those in power there started to make noises about Jews getting out of Palestine? Bomb them also- a country with a nuclear stockpile? How about Saudi Arabia? They could no doubt buy their way into the nuclear club, and again we have a country ripe for turmoil and radical takeover. Bomb them too? S.A. supplies a good chunk of the world's oil, and Israel would soon find the limits of bribing US senators if they threatened the reliability of this resource.

In short, Israel will have to negociate in good faith at some point, and the longer it waits, the more the stakes go up. Much better to do it now.


----------



## Duped

Auteur said:


> Duped said:
> 
> 
> 
> This dialog is moot. Israel will not allow Iran to get a nuclear bomb. Prepare for the ramifications of that reality.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A state cannot indefinitely bomb into submission any and all who disagree with them. It doesn't always work, as the US has found out in Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghanistan. What if a radical government came to power in Pakistan, and those in power there started to make noises about Jews getting out of Palestine? Bomb them also- a country with a nuclear stockpile? How about Saudi Arabia? They could no doubt buy their way into the nuclear club, and again we have a country ripe for turmoil and radical takeover. Bomb them too? S.A. supplies a good chunk of the world's oil, and Israel would soon find the limits of bribing US senators if they threatened the reliability of this resource.
> 
> In short, Israel will have to negociate in good faith at some point, and the longer it waits, the more the stakes go up. Much better to do it now.
Click to expand...

You cannot negotiate with those who intend on eliminating you!
Iran can do what it wants, and so can Israel - niether of us have to like it. I support Israel 100% - good, bad, and ugly.
The fact remains that Israel will not allow Iran to produce nuclear weapons.


----------



## Duped

Billo_Really said:


> Duped said:
> 
> 
> 
> Look, there is a disconnect here. I am repeating what Netanyahu said. " Iran is 3/4 there. We won't let them get to the finish line. "  It doesn't matter if Iran has, or does not have a nearing capability. Israel percieves one.
> 
> I presume that Iran will take it to the brink, and then capitulate - with subterfuge no doubt.
> 
> 
> 
> If this is an issue regarding Israeli perception of Iran's program, then the problem is with Israel, not Iran.  Why aren't you questioning Israel and demanding that they come up with some proof to back up the things they are claiming?  Are you just going to blindly accept everything they say as true?  Or think everything they do is okay?
> 
> You don't go bombing a country over what you "think" is going on!  Not to mention how immoral it is to attack someone that did not attack you first.
Click to expand...

Iran has threatened Israel; to wipe them off the map. I don't know if you take threats seriously, but Israel is surrounded by enemies - they do. 

I hate Islam - hope that answeres your question.


----------



## eagle1462010

Billo_Really said:


> jwoodie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Don't be diverted by the Leftist Loons:  Prior to Czechoslovakia, Germany had not "invaded" another country.  Unless Iran's nuclear weapon capability is eliminated by Israel, we will have no other choice than to station our own nuclear missiles in Saudi Arabia and other friendly countries in the area.
> 
> 
> 
> Why don't you prove the "capability" exists mother-fucker, before you start shooting your war-mongering mouth off?
Click to expand...


Riddle me this.........Why the hell do Libs get upset and call every one a Warmonger when we talk about possible threats like Iran.

Iran has admitted to using Centrifuges and trying to enrich Uranium.  Do they need that Chit to make Corn Flakes brother..

Oh, they are doing it for PEACEFUL reasons.  They need it for MEDICAL REASONS.

Yeah right.  If a frog had wings he wouldn't bump his butt when he jumps.


----------



## eagle1462010

BTW Billo

Be glad I'm not in charge Lib as I'd blow those sites off the Face of the Earth.

But that's just me.  Call me Mr. Warmonger Sir.

Iran supports Terrorism PERIOD.  Letting them get the bomb is STUPID.  They have vowed to destroy Israel, and their weapons hit them all the time as they supply them.

Israel has the right to self defense even if it means hitting Iran to prevent a Nuke from being built.  They have hit suspect Nuclear sites before and they will do it again.


----------



## skye

The Iranian Regime can not and  will not get nuclear weapons,  have no doubt about it!

As the whole world know by now, there are several reasons for this,  one of these  reasons being Iran is one of the world's leading state sponsors of terrorism through its financial and operational support for groups such as Hezbollah, Hamas, and others. Iran could potentially share its nuclear technology and know-how with extremist groups hostile to Israel the  United States and the West.

I feel sorry for  for  Irans long-suffering, oppressed people.... but I certainly don't feel sorry for one of the most vicious regimes in the world...they deserve what is coming to them.


----------



## eagle1462010

skye said:


> the iranian regime can not and  will not get nuclear weapons,  have no doubt about it!
> 
> As the whole world know by now, there are several reasons for this,  one of these  reasons being iran is one of the world's leading state sponsors of terrorism through its financial and operational support for groups such as hezbollah, hamas, and others. Iran could potentially share its nuclear technology and know-how with extremist groups hostile to israel the  united states and the west.
> 
> I feel sorry for  for  iran&#8217;s long-suffering, oppressed people.... But i certainly don't feel sorry for one of the most vicious regimes in the world...they deserve what is coming to them.



amen

*BRAVO ZULU*


----------



## Auteur

Duped said:


> Auteur said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Duped said:
> 
> 
> 
> This dialog is moot. Israel will not allow Iran to get a nuclear bomb. Prepare for the ramifications of that reality.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A state cannot indefinitely bomb into submission any and all who disagree with them. It doesn't always work, as the US has found out in Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghanistan. What if a radical government came to power in Pakistan, and those in power there started to make noises about Jews getting out of Palestine? Bomb them also- a country with a nuclear stockpile? How about Saudi Arabia? They could no doubt buy their way into the nuclear club, and again we have a country ripe for turmoil and radical takeover. Bomb them too? S.A. supplies a good chunk of the world's oil, and Israel would soon find the limits of bribing US senators if they threatened the reliability of this resource.
> 
> In short, Israel will have to negociate in good faith at some point, and the longer it waits, the more the stakes go up. Much better to do it now.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You cannot negotiate with those who intend on eliminating you!
Click to expand...


Nonsense. The Arab world had proposed peace on a very generous plan. The PA has adopted it. Iran? A fool that didn't have the backing of the "religious" rulers has fallen by the wayside. Plans are on the table, the problem is Israel will not negociate.




Duped said:


> Iran can do what it wants, and so can Israel - niether of us have to like it. I support Israel 100% - good, bad, and ugly.



Clearly. The question is why? No one regime is  spotless and untouchable. Not Washington, London, or others. Is it because of feelings of racial or ethnic superiority? These kind of things don't hold up in the light of modern day science.



Duped said:


> The fact remains that Israel will not allow Iran to produce nuclear weapons.



Are you a military analyst? According to some that are, and are reported in some of the more reputable media outlets, Israel, short of all out nuclear war, cannot stop an Iranian bomb. Various saber waving pronouncments from Israel and the US have caused Iran to disperse and harden its nuclear program extensively. Some suggest that only a ground invasion can completely stop the Iranian program. Others have suggested that an air strike would have to continue for weeks or months. Even the latter scenario is beyond Israel's capability. What are you basing your claims on?


----------



## JakeStarkey

> It is a maxim that..."If any state forms a great regular army, the bordering states must imitate the example, or submit to a foreign yoke".
> 
> But, Iran will be allowed to get a nuclear weapon during Barak Obama's term in office.
> 
> While Iran builds a bomb, Obama spies on us.



What a jackass.  Hint: NK got a nuke during the Bushter's admin.  ? : what happened


----------



## Duped

Auteur said:


> Duped said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Auteur said:
> 
> 
> 
> A state cannot indefinitely bomb into submission any and all who disagree with them. It doesn't always work, as the US has found out in Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghanistan. What if a radical government came to power in Pakistan, and those in power there started to make noises about Jews getting out of Palestine? Bomb them also- a country with a nuclear stockpile? How about Saudi Arabia? They could no doubt buy their way into the nuclear club, and again we have a country ripe for turmoil and radical takeover. Bomb them too? S.A. supplies a good chunk of the world's oil, and Israel would soon find the limits of bribing US senators if they threatened the reliability of this resource.
> 
> In short, Israel will have to negociate in good faith at some point, and the longer it waits, the more the stakes go up. Much better to do it now.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You cannot negotiate with those who intend on eliminating you!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nonsense. The Arab world had proposed peace on a very generous plan. The PA has adopted it. Iran? A fool that didn't have the backing of the "religious" rulers has fallen by the wayside. Plans are on the table, the problem is Israel will not negociate.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Duped said:
> 
> 
> 
> Iran can do what it wants, and so can Israel - niether of us have to like it. I support Israel 100% - good, bad, and ugly.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Clearly. The question is why? No one regime is  spotless and untouchable. Not Washington, London, or others. Is it because of feelings of racial or ethnic superiority? These kind of things don't hold up in the light of modern day science.
> 
> 
> 
> Duped said:
> 
> 
> 
> The fact remains that Israel will not allow Iran to produce nuclear weapons.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you a military analyst? According to some that are, and are reported in some of the more reputable media outlets, Israel, short of all out nuclear war, cannot stop an Iranian bomb. Various saber waving pronouncments from Israel and the US have caused Iran to disperse and harden its nuclear program extensively. Some suggest that only a ground invasion can completely stop the Iranian program. Others have suggested that an air strike would have to continue for weeks or months. Even the latter scenario is beyond Israel's capability. What are you basing your claims on?
Click to expand...

Netanyahu! It is a very disturbing, but a simple perspective: If Iran gets nuclear bombs they will use them on Israel. That is what Israel believes; better not allow them to get them - simple deduction, irregardless of burden.

What happens after they strike is anybodies guess. I think when Israel makes it clear to the USA that a strike is eminent, all of a sudden Iran will capitulate, mixed with deceit.

Make no mistake, Israel can, and will take out Irans nuclear capabilities - catastrophically if necessary.


----------



## Billo_Really

eagle1462010 said:


> BTW Billo
> 
> Be glad I'm not in charge Lib as I'd blow those sites off the Face of the Earth.
> 
> But that's just me.  Call me Mr. Warmonger Sir.
> 
> Iran supports Terrorism PERIOD.  Letting them get the bomb is STUPID.  They have vowed to destroy Israel, and their weapons hit them all the time as they supply them.
> 
> Israel has the right to self defense even if it means hitting Iran to prevent a Nuke from being built.  They have hit suspect Nuclear sites before and they will do it again.


I'm sorry, but there are only 2 legal ways one country can attack another country:
1. if you, yourself are attacked and are doing it in self defense
2. you have UNSC authorization to do so

And you be glad I'm not President, because this is what I would do to bring peace to the ME within 90 days:

I would tell my UN ambassador that we will no longer be protecting Israel from being held accountable for war crimes, with our veto
I would put a moratorium on all weapons shipments to Israel
I would freeze all Israeli assets in US banks
I would outlaw AIPAC within the continental United States
I would tell Big Ben, that he has 90 days to get his fuckin' ass out of the OPT.  That includes the IOF and all their lunatic settler insurgents
On the 91st day, I would send in the marines to drive those god-damn Israeli's back to Israel.  Then I would create a DMZ along the Green Line and shoot any mother-fucker entering it from either side.

Have a nice day!


----------



## Billo_Really

eagle1462010 said:


> Riddle me this.........Why the hell do Libs get upset and call every one a Warmonger when we talk about possible threats like Iran.
> 
> .


Because you don't make up bullshit reasons to attack sovereign nations.


----------



## Billo_Really

Duped said:


> Iran has threatened Israel; to wipe them off the map.


That's not true.  Their (now former) President didn't say that.  Their former Ayatollah did (the one they used like a piñata at his funeral).



Duped said:


> I don't know if you take threats seriously, but Israel is surrounded by enemies - they do.


That's a direct result of Israeli aggression against its neighbor's.  

So they sleep in the bed they make.



Duped said:


> I hate Islam - hope that answeres your question.


I don't care!

I'm a white, Irish Catholic and couldn't give a shit about Islam or Judaism.


----------



## Duped

Billo_Really said:


> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Riddle me this.........Why the hell do Libs get upset and call every one a Warmonger when we talk about possible threats like Iran.
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> Because you don't make up bullshit reasons to attack sovereign nations.
Click to expand...

Hypothetical: If you were on a Island with someone who threatened to kill you when you slept, would you not defeat that intention, before you slumbered?


----------



## sambino510

skye said:


> The Iranian Regime can not and  will not get nuclear weapons,  have no doubt about it!
> 
> As the whole world know by now, there are several reasons for this,  one of these  reasons being Iran is one of the world's leading state sponsors of terrorism through its financial and operational support for groups such as Hezbollah, Hamas, and others. Iran could potentially share its nuclear technology and know-how with extremist groups hostile to Israel the  United States and the West.
> 
> I feel sorry for  for  Irans long-suffering, oppressed people.... but I certainly don't feel sorry for one of the most vicious regimes in the world...they deserve what is coming to them.



"Terrorism" depends on perception. Who gets to decide whether a group is "terrorism" or "freedom fighters"? The U.S.? Are we able to just define people at will as good and evil? These matters depend greatly on perception. Iran feels Hamas and Hezbollah are fighting for a good cause, for freedom from oppression. It is a COUNTRY'S RIGHT to arm and fund who they feel supports their interests and the interests of the greater goods. America does the EXACT same thing; always has.

Indeed, Iran's people suffer many injustices. That being said, it is NOT OUR PLACE to deal with that. They will one day rise up and move towards more liberal, democratic ways. Or maybe they won't, so be it. That is their choice, not ours.

What exactly makes you think Iran is stupid enough to give nuclear technology to a bunch of militia men? Do you think Iran trusts Hezbollah with a nuclear device that could end the human race? Hezbollah could turn around and use it on Iran, who the hell knows? It's completely illogical to think that Iran will do anything but sit on their nuclear device and use it as a way to keep us out of their affairs. It's the IDEA of a bomb that is important to them, not the bomb itself.


----------



## sambino510

Duped said:


> Billo_Really said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Riddle me this.........Why the hell do Libs get upset and call every one a Warmonger when we talk about possible threats like Iran.
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> Because you don't make up bullshit reasons to attack sovereign nations.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Hypothetical: If you were on a Island with someone who threatened to kill you when you slept, would you not defeat that intention, before you slumbered?
Click to expand...


Despite your statement being "hypothetical", it puzzles me how such a question has anything to do with the current situation between Iran and Israel, or Iran and America. The quotes you have stated where Iran wants to "wipe Israel off the map" have largely been disregarded as misquotes or exaggerations. Or, even more so, have been taken out of context, where FORMER president Ahmadinejad, whose opinion is IRRELEVANT now, said something along the lines of "If Israel was to try anything, we would wipe them off the map." That's a promise of retaliation, not pre-emptive strike. 

To answer your question though, I'd slumber. "There's nothing to fear but fear itself"; it leads people to irrational behavior. President Roosevelt, with that quote, was even smarter than most people give him credit for.


----------



## sambino510

Duped said:


> Billo_Really said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Duped said:
> 
> 
> 
> Look, there is a disconnect here. I am repeating what Netanyahu said. " Iran is 3/4 there. We won't let them get to the finish line. "  It doesn't matter if Iran has, or does not have a nearing capability. Israel percieves one.
> 
> I presume that Iran will take it to the brink, and then capitulate - with subterfuge no doubt.
> 
> 
> 
> If this is an issue regarding Israeli perception of Iran's program, then the problem is with Israel, not Iran.  Why aren't you questioning Israel and demanding that they come up with some proof to back up the things they are claiming?  Are you just going to blindly accept everything they say as true?  Or think everything they do is okay?
> 
> You don't go bombing a country over what you "think" is going on!  Not to mention how immoral it is to attack someone that did not attack you first.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Iran has threatened Israel; to wipe them off the map. I don't know if you take threats seriously, but Israel is surrounded by enemies - they do.
> 
> I hate Islam - hope that answeres your question.
Click to expand...


What about Islam do you hate? What do you feel when you see a Muslim walking down the street?


----------



## skye

sambino510 said:


> skye said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Iranian Regime can not and  will not get nuclear weapons,  have no doubt about it!
> 
> As the whole world know by now, there are several reasons for this,  one of these  reasons being Iran is one of the world's leading state sponsors of terrorism through its financial and operational support for groups such as Hezbollah, Hamas, and others. Iran could potentially share its nuclear technology and know-how with extremist groups hostile to Israel the  United States and the West.
> 
> I feel sorry for  for  Irans long-suffering, oppressed people.... but I certainly don't feel sorry for one of the most vicious regimes in the world...they deserve what is coming to them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Terrorism" depends on perception. Who gets to decide whether a group is "terrorism" or "freedom fighters"? The U.S.? Are we able to just define people at will as good and evil? These matters depend greatly on perception. Iran feels Hamas and Hezbollah are fighting for a good cause, for freedom from oppression. It is a COUNTRY'S RIGHT to arm and fund who they feel supports their interests and the interests of the greater goods. America does the EXACT same thing; always has.
> 
> Indeed, Iran's people suffer many injustices. That being said, it is NOT OUR PLACE to deal with that. They will one day rise up and move towards more liberal, democratic ways. Or maybe they won't, so be it. That is their choice, not ours.
> 
> * What exactly makes you think Iran is stupid enough to give nuclear technology to a bunch of militia men? Do you think Iran trusts Hezbollah with a nuclear device that could end the human race? Hezbollah could turn around and use it on Iran, who the hell knows? It's completely illogical to think that Iran will do anything but sit on their nuclear device and use it as a way to keep us out of their affairs. It's the IDEA of a bomb that is important to them, not the bomb itself.  *.
Click to expand...




One good reason is that Iran is a sponsor of Hezbollah which is actually helping the Iranian block fighting the Sunni rebels in Syria.
Hezbollah has received weapons from Iran and it is certainly conceivable that Iran would use this group for its own Islamic strategical purposes by passing on some nuclear device.
The assumption that Iran only wants to become a nuclear power for strategic rather than offensive purposes, may not even be likely in view of the fundamentalist belief of the ruling theocracy.


----------



## sambino510

skye said:


> sambino510 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> skye said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Iranian Regime can not and  will not get nuclear weapons,  have no doubt about it!
> 
> As the whole world know by now, there are several reasons for this,  one of these  reasons being Iran is one of the world's leading state sponsors of terrorism through its financial and operational support for groups such as Hezbollah, Hamas, and others. Iran could potentially share its nuclear technology and know-how with extremist groups hostile to Israel the  United States and the West.
> 
> I feel sorry for  for  Irans long-suffering, oppressed people.... but I certainly don't feel sorry for one of the most vicious regimes in the world...they deserve what is coming to them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Terrorism" depends on perception. Who gets to decide whether a group is "terrorism" or "freedom fighters"? The U.S.? Are we able to just define people at will as good and evil? These matters depend greatly on perception. Iran feels Hamas and Hezbollah are fighting for a good cause, for freedom from oppression. It is a COUNTRY'S RIGHT to arm and fund who they feel supports their interests and the interests of the greater goods. America does the EXACT same thing; always has.
> 
> Indeed, Iran's people suffer many injustices. That being said, it is NOT OUR PLACE to deal with that. They will one day rise up and move towards more liberal, democratic ways. Or maybe they won't, so be it. That is their choice, not ours.
> 
> * What exactly makes you think Iran is stupid enough to give nuclear technology to a bunch of militia men? Do you think Iran trusts Hezbollah with a nuclear device that could end the human race? Hezbollah could turn around and use it on Iran, who the hell knows? It's completely illogical to think that Iran will do anything but sit on their nuclear device and use it as a way to keep us out of their affairs. It's the IDEA of a bomb that is important to them, not the bomb itself.  *.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> One good reason is that Iran is a sponsor of Hezbollah which is actually helping the Iranian block fighting the Sunni rebels in Syria.
> Hezbollah has received weapons from Iran and it is certainly conceivable that Iran would use this group for its own Islamic strategical purposes by passing on some nuclear device.
> The assumption that Iran only wants to become a nuclear power for strategic rather than offensive purposes, may not even be likely in view of the fundamentalist belief of the ruling theocracy.
Click to expand...


It is my belief that rationality trumps religious fundamentalism almost every time. That is, no matter what people say they are doing something for, there are always logical, rational reasons behind their actions. Just because Iran is run by a religious theocracy doesn't mean they will base every policy decision on religious belief. Iran uses Hezbollah to fight for the causes it believes in, but to trust a scattered, patchwork militia group with a nuclear device seems illogical. Do you think the U.S. would have trusted the Contras in Nicaragua with a nuclear weapon? The Mujahideen in Afghanistan fighting the Russians? I don't see how fundamentalism leads to the use of a nuclear device. Ayatollah Khamenei forbid the use of such weapons as sin. You can't say that a government blindly follows religion and then say that they would disobey a direct religious decree from the Ayatollah.

The Sunni rebels fighting the Syrian government are not some feel-good revolution group fighting for liberty and freedom. Not a week goes by where they don't commit some sort of ethnic cleansing or war crime, Sunni on Shia. They are full of many various terrorist organizations as well, making it difficult to determine friend from foe. Just because Assad is a "bad guy", doesn't mean his enemies are "good guys". The Syrian War is far too complex for the United States, me, or you to understand. It's frankly none of our business. I hate to sound so isolationist but there are too many conflicts in this world for America to solve them all. The Syrian people will resolve their issues themselves over time, and they will be better for it than if we had intervened.

Besides, I don't think we even give a damn about the Syrian civilians. Our involvement would be more-or-less a proxy war against Iran and Hezbollah. Talk about a flashback to the Cold War..


----------



## Billo_Really

Duped said:


> Hypothetical: If you were on a Island with someone who threatened to kill you when you slept, would you not defeat that intention, before you slumbered?


The first thing I'd do, is determine why he's threatening me in the first place.  And if I found out that he was doing that in response to me taking his home, killing his relatives and shooting at him while he was fishing, then I'd stop that activity and see if the threats went away.


----------



## JakeStarkey

skye said:


> One good reason is that Iran is a sponsor of Hezbollah which is actually helping the Iranian block fighting the Sunni rebels in Syria.
> Hezbollah has received weapons from Iran and it is certainly conceivable that Iran would use this group for its own Islamic strategical purposes by passing on some nuclear device.
> The assumption that Iran only wants to become a nuclear power for strategic rather than offensive purposes, may not even be likely in view of the fundamentalist belief of the ruling theocracy.



We are no safer after nearly breaking the treasury and ruining the economy since 2001 fighting wars that change nothing.

Please don't ever suggest the terrorism angle again: it does not make sense.

You neo-cons do not have the answer.


----------



## Auteur

Duped said:


> Auteur said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Duped said:
> 
> 
> 
> You cannot negotiate with those who intend on eliminating you!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nonsense. The Arab world had proposed peace on a very generous plan. The PA has adopted it. Iran? A fool that didn't have the backing of the "religious" rulers has fallen by the wayside. Plans are on the table, the problem is Israel will not negociate.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Clearly. The question is why? No one regime is  spotless and untouchable. Not Washington, London, or others. Is it because of feelings of racial or ethnic superiority? These kind of things don't hold up in the light of modern day science.
> 
> 
> 
> Duped said:
> 
> 
> 
> The fact remains that Israel will not allow Iran to produce nuclear weapons.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you a military analyst? According to some that are, and are reported in some of the more reputable media outlets, Israel, short of all out nuclear war, cannot stop an Iranian bomb. Various saber waving pronouncments from Israel and the US have caused Iran to disperse and harden its nuclear program extensively. Some suggest that only a ground invasion can completely stop the Iranian program. Others have suggested that an air strike would have to continue for weeks or months. Even the latter scenario is beyond Israel's capability. What are you basing your claims on?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Netanyahu! It is a very disturbing, but a simple perspective: If Iran gets nuclear bombs they will use them on Israel. That is what Israel believes; better not allow them to get them - simple deduction, irregardless of burden.
> 
> What happens after they strike is anybodies guess. I think when Israel makes it clear to the USA that a strike is eminent, all of a sudden Iran will capitulate, mixed with deceit.
> 
> Make no mistake, Israel can, and will take out Irans nuclear capabilities - catastrophically if necessary.
Click to expand...


And so you have no response to the peace plan put on the table by the Arab League and the PA. You have no comment on the reasons for you unquestioning support of Israel. And you military analysis rests on one far right Israeli politician, one your own president has termed "a lier".

In the past, Israel has depended upon a surprise first strike, such as in the '67 war, and again with the Iraqi nuclear reactor in '81. Today there would be no surprise in Iran. Iran has a rudimentary but functioning air defense system, one that could easily be reinforced by sophisticated Russian missiles. In this case, we would soon have a war of attrition, Israeli planes against Iranian missiles. How long do you think this would continue, with Israel loosing 100 billion dollar aircraft (and begging new ones from the US), and the price of oil shooting through the stratosphere? With Israel crippling the world economy, and demanding even more billions from the US taxpayer, how long do you think they would continue? It would be a matter of days, not weeks. And then Iran would have every incentive to redouble their research efforts, and get a bomb as insurance against any other strikes.


----------



## skye

sambino510 said:


> skye said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sambino510 said:
> 
> 
> 
> "Terrorism" depends on perception. Who gets to decide whether a group is "terrorism" or "freedom fighters"? The U.S.? Are we able to just define people at will as good and evil? These matters depend greatly on perception. Iran feels Hamas and Hezbollah are fighting for a good cause, for freedom from oppression. It is a COUNTRY'S RIGHT to arm and fund who they feel supports their interests and the interests of the greater goods. America does the EXACT same thing; always has.
> 
> Indeed, Iran's people suffer many injustices. That being said, it is NOT OUR PLACE to deal with that. They will one day rise up and move towards more liberal, democratic ways. Or maybe they won't, so be it. That is their choice, not ours.
> 
> * What exactly makes you think Iran is stupid enough to give nuclear technology to a bunch of militia men? Do you think Iran trusts Hezbollah with a nuclear device that could end the human race? Hezbollah could turn around and use it on Iran, who the hell knows? It's completely illogical to think that Iran will do anything but sit on their nuclear device and use it as a way to keep us out of their affairs. It's the IDEA of a bomb that is important to them, not the bomb itself.  *.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> One good reason is that Iran is a sponsor of Hezbollah which is actually helping the Iranian block fighting the Sunni rebels in Syria.
> Hezbollah has received weapons from Iran and it is certainly conceivable that Iran would use this group for its own Islamic strategical purposes by passing on some nuclear device.
> The assumption that Iran only wants to become a nuclear power for strategic rather than offensive purposes, may not even be likely in view of the fundamentalist belief of the ruling theocracy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *   It is my belief that rationality trumps religious fundamentalism almost every time. That is, no matter what people say they are doing something for, there are always logical, rational reasons behind their actions. Just because Iran is run by a religious theocracy doesn't mean they will base every policy decision on religious belief. Iran uses Hezbollah to fight for the causes it believes in, but to trust a scattered, patchwork militia group with a nuclear device seems illogical. Do you think the U.S. would have trusted the Contras in Nicaragua with a nuclear weapon? The Mujahideen in Afghanistan fighting the Russians? I don't see how fundamentalism leads to the use of a nuclear device. Ayatollah Khamenei forbid the use of such weapons as sin. You can't say that a government blindly follows religion and then say that they would disobey a direct religious decree from the Ayatollah.  *
> 
> The Sunni rebels fighting the Syrian government are not some feel-good revolution group fighting for liberty and freedom. Not a week goes by where they don't commit some sort of ethnic cleansing or war crime, Sunni on Shia. They are full of many various terrorist organizations as well, making it difficult to determine friend from foe. Just because Assad is a "bad guy", doesn't mean his enemies are "good guys". The Syrian War is far too complex for the United States, me, or you to understand. It's frankly none of our business. I hate to sound so isolationist but there are too many conflicts in this world for America to solve them all. The Syrian people will resolve their issues themselves over time, and they will be better for it than if we had intervened.
> 
> Besides, I don't think we even give a damn about the Syrian civilians. Our involvement would be more-or-less a proxy war against Iran and Hezbollah. Talk about a flashback to the Cold War..
Click to expand...




I am afraid you are deluding yourself regarding the rationality of the Regime because while it exists to some extent, aggressive religious factors are behind a lot of their motivations and decisions.... you must remember there is no separation between religion and State in Iran. To illustrate how powerful religion is in Iran, you only have to observe the brutality of how Sharia Law is carried out with the unimaginable cruel punishments reflected for breaking it!

Ayatollah Khamenei statement about nuclear weapons being a sin is of course ludicrous and an attempt to deceive.
There is no comparison between the US and the Iranian regime... their motivations are completely different  and religion as regards aggressive behavior would be kept well under check.

There is absolutely no reason why Iran acting as a proxy would not give Hezbollah a nuclear device to act upon Iranian instruction when it saw fit.

And last but not least.....it is not only the West who has problems with Iran getting  nuclear weapons  but the Sunni Arabs countries are also concern about this possibility and the potential of a nuclear race in the region.


----------



## Auteur

skye said:


> sambino510 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> skye said:
> 
> 
> 
> One good reason is that Iran is a sponsor of Hezbollah which is actually helping the Iranian block fighting the Sunni rebels in Syria.
> Hezbollah has received weapons from Iran and it is certainly conceivable that Iran would use this group for its own Islamic strategical purposes by passing on some nuclear device.
> The assumption that Iran only wants to become a nuclear power for strategic rather than offensive purposes, may not even be likely in view of the fundamentalist belief of the ruling theocracy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *   It is my belief that rationality trumps religious fundamentalism almost every time. That is, no matter what people say they are doing something for, there are always logical, rational reasons behind their actions. Just because Iran is run by a religious theocracy doesn't mean they will base every policy decision on religious belief. Iran uses Hezbollah to fight for the causes it believes in, but to trust a scattered, patchwork militia group with a nuclear device seems illogical. Do you think the U.S. would have trusted the Contras in Nicaragua with a nuclear weapon? The Mujahideen in Afghanistan fighting the Russians? I don't see how fundamentalism leads to the use of a nuclear device. Ayatollah Khamenei forbid the use of such weapons as sin. You can't say that a government blindly follows religion and then say that they would disobey a direct religious decree from the Ayatollah.  *
> 
> The Sunni rebels fighting the Syrian government are not some feel-good revolution group fighting for liberty and freedom. Not a week goes by where they don't commit some sort of ethnic cleansing or war crime, Sunni on Shia. They are full of many various terrorist organizations as well, making it difficult to determine friend from foe. Just because Assad is a "bad guy", doesn't mean his enemies are "good guys". The Syrian War is far too complex for the United States, me, or you to understand. It's frankly none of our business. I hate to sound so isolationist but there are too many conflicts in this world for America to solve them all. The Syrian people will resolve their issues themselves over time, and they will be better for it than if we had intervened.
> 
> Besides, I don't think we even give a damn about the Syrian civilians. Our involvement would be more-or-less a proxy war against Iran and Hezbollah. Talk about a flashback to the Cold War..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I am afraid you are deluding yourself regarding the rationality of the Regime because while it exists to some extent, aggressive religious factors are behind a lot of their motivations and decisions.... you must remember there is no separation between religion and State in Iran. To illustrate how powerful religion is in Iran, you only have to observe the brutality of how Sharia Law is carried out with the unimaginable cruel punishments reflected for breaking it!
> 
> Ayatollah Khamenei statement about nuclear weapons being a sin is of course ludicrous and an attempt to deceive.
> There is no comparison between the US and the Iranian regime... their motivations are completely different  and religion as regards aggressive behavior would be kept well under check.
Click to expand...


For the uneducated and the easily swayed, religion is philosophy that must be obeyed. For the more canny and aggressive, who tend to rise to the top in the more tumultuous regions of the world, religion is a tool to keep the masses in check. So too with Iran. Many of the so-called religious leaders drive around in mercedes, live in extravagant villas, and wear expensive watches and designer jewelery. They're not nuts, they just know how to slant their speeches so they will be accepted.

This is not a whole lot different from the US really. The Tea Party prances about spouting magical and mystical Christian beliefs, and even elevates the US constitution to a quasi-mystical object. These folks likely believe what they are saying, but they are shamelessly manipulated by those with real economic and political power, for their own ends. If the order was given to bomb Iran, who many of those young men with Tea Party, or similar sets of beliefs, would be quite ready to go on a killing rampage? You bet.



skye said:


> There is absolutely no reason why Iran acting as a proxy would not give Hezbollah a nuclear device to act upon Iranian instruction when it saw fit.
> 
> And last but not least.....it is not only the West who has problems with Iran getting  nuclear weapons  but the Sunni Arabs countries are also concern about this possibility and the potential of a nuclear race in the region.



The main reason they wouldn't is that this act may be traced back to them, and then their lives would face a quick and uncomfortable end. But you are correct, this is a possibility, if not a strong one. All the more reason to start talking in good faith now, rather than simply ratcheting up the animosity and violence even further. All the more reason to put pressure on Israel to make a settlement.


----------



## sambino510

skye said:


> sambino510 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> skye said:
> 
> 
> 
> One good reason is that Iran is a sponsor of Hezbollah which is actually helping the Iranian block fighting the Sunni rebels in Syria.
> Hezbollah has received weapons from Iran and it is certainly conceivable that Iran would use this group for its own Islamic strategical purposes by passing on some nuclear device.
> The assumption that Iran only wants to become a nuclear power for strategic rather than offensive purposes, may not even be likely in view of the fundamentalist belief of the ruling theocracy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *   It is my belief that rationality trumps religious fundamentalism almost every time. That is, no matter what people say they are doing something for, there are always logical, rational reasons behind their actions. Just because Iran is run by a religious theocracy doesn't mean they will base every policy decision on religious belief. Iran uses Hezbollah to fight for the causes it believes in, but to trust a scattered, patchwork militia group with a nuclear device seems illogical. Do you think the U.S. would have trusted the Contras in Nicaragua with a nuclear weapon? The Mujahideen in Afghanistan fighting the Russians? I don't see how fundamentalism leads to the use of a nuclear device. Ayatollah Khamenei forbid the use of such weapons as sin. You can't say that a government blindly follows religion and then say that they would disobey a direct religious decree from the Ayatollah.  *
> 
> The Sunni rebels fighting the Syrian government are not some feel-good revolution group fighting for liberty and freedom. Not a week goes by where they don't commit some sort of ethnic cleansing or war crime, Sunni on Shia. They are full of many various terrorist organizations as well, making it difficult to determine friend from foe. Just because Assad is a "bad guy", doesn't mean his enemies are "good guys". The Syrian War is far too complex for the United States, me, or you to understand. It's frankly none of our business. I hate to sound so isolationist but there are too many conflicts in this world for America to solve them all. The Syrian people will resolve their issues themselves over time, and they will be better for it than if we had intervened.
> 
> Besides, I don't think we even give a damn about the Syrian civilians. Our involvement would be more-or-less a proxy war against Iran and Hezbollah. Talk about a flashback to the Cold War..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I am afraid you are deluding yourself regarding the rationality of the Regime because while it exists to some extent, aggressive religious factors are behind a lot of their motivations and decisions.... you must remember there is no separation between religion and State in Iran. To illustrate how powerful religion is in Iran, you only have to observe the brutality of how Sharia Law is carried out with the unimaginable cruel punishments reflected for breaking it!
> 
> Ayatollah Khamenei statement about nuclear weapons being a sin is of course ludicrous and an attempt to deceive.
> There is no comparison between the US and the Iranian regime... their motivations are completely different  and religion as regards aggressive behavior would be kept well under check.
> 
> There is absolutely no reason why Iran acting as a proxy would not give Hezbollah a nuclear device to act upon Iranian instruction when it saw fit.
> 
> And last but not least.....it is not only the West who has problems with Iran getting  nuclear weapons  but the Sunni Arabs countries are also concern about this possibility and the potential of a nuclear race in the region.
Click to expand...


I still see no reason that you have given that Iran would want to give Hezbollah a device. One reason, off the top of my head, is if they do that then Hezbollah could use the device and then Iran would not be held accountable. However, everyone knows Hezbollah and Iran are close allies, and everybody knows that Hezbollah could not develop nuclear technology on there own. So, once again, I do not see the advantage Iran would gain.

The Sunni Arab countries are in America's back pocket. Sunni Islam has always lined up more with Western ways anyways because it is less radical (most would claim). If you look at most of the countries in that area, our allies are Sunni while our enemies are Shia. That's not coincidence.

Why do you think that Ayatollah Khamenei's fatwa is an attempt to deceive? Why must people always assume the worst about a situation? I don't agree with many of his policies but nuclear fallout is bad for EVERYONE. Iran has absolutely nothing to gain by developing a bomb, using a bomb, or even thinking about a bomb. However, they have absolutely every right to, and a great need for, nuclear energy power plants.

You don't need to remind me that Iran is a theocracy; I'm well aware. I was simply speaking to the nature of man. That is, we usually have very base reasons for what we do even despite whatever religious reasons we might give. People have often claimed to do things in the name of God, for example, when in reality they are doing it for riches for fame.

Also, though not as extreme as the Iranian government, America has endless references to God in our rhetoric. It's in our pledge of allegiance, it's at the end of every Presidential speech, and all the time people say "god bless America". These are tiny examples, and we might not base our criminal punishment on religious teachings, but God certainly has a presence in the American government and its policy.

The region is already in a nuclear race. Israel has nukes, Pakistan has nukes, India has nukes, etc. If you ask me, should Iran decide to build a bomb, it's only logical they would want it as a deterrent against Israel's nukes. I'm still amazed, too, by the fact that we are more scared of a country that has SIGNED the Nuclear Non Proliferation Treaty (Iran) than one that has not and refuses to do so (Israel).


----------



## MisterBeale

To really understand Iran?  Watch this.  It lost best animated film to  Ratatouille (2007).  It probably should have won, just so Americans would have been aware of it and watched it.  The two books it is based on are probably better.  This is a true story.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fNx4Pa2Gqfk]Persepolis[English Subtitles] - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## sambino510

MisterBeale said:


> To really understand Iran?  Watch this.  It lost best animated film to  Ratatouille (2007).  It probably should have won, just so Americans would have been aware of it and watched it.  The two books it is based on are probably better.  This is a true story.
> 
> Persepolis[English Subtitles] - YouTube



Thanks very much for this. I'll hopefully find time to read the books as well.


----------



## Duped

Auteur said:


> Duped said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Auteur said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nonsense. The Arab world had proposed peace on a very generous plan. The PA has adopted it. Iran? A fool that didn't have the backing of the "religious" rulers has fallen by the wayside. Plans are on the table, the problem is Israel will not negociate.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Clearly. The question is why? No one regime is  spotless and untouchable. Not Washington, London, or others. Is it because of feelings of racial or ethnic superiority? These kind of things don't hold up in the light of modern day science.
> 
> 
> 
> Are you a military analyst? According to some that are, and are reported in some of the more reputable media outlets, Israel, short of all out nuclear war, cannot stop an Iranian bomb. Various saber waving pronouncments from Israel and the US have caused Iran to disperse and harden its nuclear program extensively. Some suggest that only a ground invasion can completely stop the Iranian program. Others have suggested that an air strike would have to continue for weeks or months. Even the latter scenario is beyond Israel's capability. What are you basing your claims on?
> 
> 
> 
> Netanyahu! It is a very disturbing, but a simple perspective: If Iran gets nuclear bombs they will use them on Israel. That is what Israel believes; better not allow them to get them - simple deduction, irregardless of burden.
> 
> What happens after they strike is anybodies guess. I think when Israel makes it clear to the USA that a strike is eminent, all of a sudden Iran will capitulate, mixed with deceit.
> 
> Make no mistake, Israel can, and will take out Irans nuclear capabilities - catastrophically if necessary.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And so you have no response to the peace plan put on the table by the Arab League and the PA. You have no comment on the reasons for you unquestioning support of Israel. And you military analysis rests on one far right Israeli politician, one your own president has termed "a lier".
> 
> In the past, Israel has depended upon a surprise first strike, such as in the '67 war, and again with the Iraqi nuclear reactor in '81. Today there would be no surprise in Iran. Iran has a rudimentary but functioning air defense system, one that could easily be reinforced by sophisticated Russian missiles. In this case, we would soon have a war of attrition, Israeli planes against Iranian missiles. How long do you think this would continue, with Israel loosing 100 billion dollar aircraft (and begging new ones from the US), and the price of oil shooting through the stratosphere? With Israel crippling the world economy, and demanding even more billions from the US taxpayer, how long do you think they would continue? It would be a matter of days, not weeks. And then Iran would have every incentive to redouble their research efforts, and get a bomb as insurance against any other strikes.
Click to expand...

First: Obamaturd has no credibility!

Second: The Arab league is erroneous to Iran's threat to wipe Israel of the map.

I support Israel, because she is a democracy, Jews are the brightest people on earth, and have contribued enormously to it. I am a Christian.

You are trying to analyze a probable strike; military potentials. I am simple saying that Israel expects that if Iran gets a nuke, they will use it, and Israel will eliminate that threat first;  they feel that it's a balls out event.

Israel's attack would be decisive; it would never be a war of attrition.

Lastly: I believe every muslim is a zealot, jihadist at heart. I believe they love death more than life. I believe their messiah mohammad ( pig shit be upon him ) was born out of the ass of a pig named allah, and that the koran is only good for ass wipes.

Any religion ( koran ) that teaches that you either convert, or die brutally - needs to be destroyed; it is evil.


----------



## skye

sambino510 said:


> skye said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sambino510 said:
> 
> 
> 
> *   It is my belief that rationality trumps religious fundamentalism almost every time. That is, no matter what people say they are doing something for, there are always logical, rational reasons behind their actions. Just because Iran is run by a religious theocracy doesn't mean they will base every policy decision on religious belief. Iran uses Hezbollah to fight for the causes it believes in, but to trust a scattered, patchwork militia group with a nuclear device seems illogical. Do you think the U.S. would have trusted the Contras in Nicaragua with a nuclear weapon? The Mujahideen in Afghanistan fighting the Russians? I don't see how fundamentalism leads to the use of a nuclear device. Ayatollah Khamenei forbid the use of such weapons as sin. You can't say that a government blindly follows religion and then say that they would disobey a direct religious decree from the Ayatollah.  *
> 
> The Sunni rebels fighting the Syrian government are not some feel-good revolution group fighting for liberty and freedom. Not a week goes by where they don't commit some sort of ethnic cleansing or war crime, Sunni on Shia. They are full of many various terrorist organizations as well, making it difficult to determine friend from foe. Just because Assad is a "bad guy", doesn't mean his enemies are "good guys". The Syrian War is far too complex for the United States, me, or you to understand. It's frankly none of our business. I hate to sound so isolationist but there are too many conflicts in this world for America to solve them all. The Syrian people will resolve their issues themselves over time, and they will be better for it than if we had intervened.
> 
> Besides, I don't think we even give a damn about the Syrian civilians. Our involvement would be more-or-less a proxy war against Iran and Hezbollah. Talk about a flashback to the Cold War..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I am afraid you are deluding yourself regarding the rationality of the Regime because while it exists to some extent, aggressive religious factors are behind a lot of their motivations and decisions.... you must remember there is no separation between religion and State in Iran. To illustrate how powerful religion is in Iran, you only have to observe the brutality of how Sharia Law is carried out with the unimaginable cruel punishments reflected for breaking it!
> 
> Ayatollah Khamenei statement about nuclear weapons being a sin is of course ludicrous and an attempt to deceive.
> There is no comparison between the US and the Iranian regime... their motivations are completely different  and religion as regards aggressive behavior would be kept well under check.
> 
> There is absolutely no reason why Iran acting as a proxy would not give Hezbollah a nuclear device to act upon Iranian instruction when it saw fit.
> 
> And last but not least.....it is not only the West who has problems with Iran getting  nuclear weapons  but the Sunni Arabs countries are also concern about this possibility and the potential of a nuclear race in the region.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I still see no reason that you have given that Iran would want to give Hezbollah a device. One reason, off the top of my head, is if they do that then Hezbollah could use the device and then Iran would not be held accountable. However, everyone knows Hezbollah and Iran are close allies, and everybody knows that Hezbollah could not develop nuclear technology on there own. So, once again, I do not see the advantage Iran would gain.
> 
> The Sunni Arab countries are in America's back pocket. Sunni Islam has always lined up more with Western ways anyways because it is less radical (most would claim). If you look at most of the countries in that area, our allies are Sunni while our enemies are Shia. That's not coincidence.
> 
> Why do you think that Ayatollah Khamenei's fatwa is an attempt to deceive? Why must people always assume the worst about a situation? I don't agree with many of his policies but nuclear fallout is bad for EVERYONE. Iran has absolutely nothing to gain by developing a bomb, using a bomb, or even thinking about a bomb. However, they have absolutely every right to, and a great need for, nuclear energy power plants.
> 
> You don't need to remind me that Iran is a theocracy; I'm well aware. I was simply speaking to the nature of man. That is, we usually have very base reasons for what we do even despite whatever religious reasons we might give. People have often claimed to do things in the name of God, for example, when in reality they are doing it for riches for fame.
> 
> Also, though not as extreme as the Iranian government, America has endless references to God in our rhetoric. It's in our pledge of allegiance, it's at the end of every Presidential speech, and all the time people say "god bless America". These are tiny examples, and we might not base our criminal punishment on religious teachings, but God certainly has a presence in the American government and its policy.
> 
> The region is already in a nuclear race. Israel has nukes, Pakistan has nukes, India has nukes, etc. If you ask me, should Iran decide to build a bomb, it's only logical they would want it as a deterrent against Israel's nukes. I'm still amazed, too, by the fact that we are more scared of a country that has SIGNED the Nuclear Non Proliferation Treaty (Iran) than one that has not and refuses to do so (Israel).
Click to expand...



My opinion is that you are deluded in your viewpoints and I disagree with every single thing you say.

The EU has just designated Hezbollah a terrorist organization, so how can you possibly trust  Iran,a country who sponsors terror, you may remember that the terrorist group Hamas was also sponsored by Iran.


If Iran ever became a rational, democratic secular country without being obsessed with Islam ,the Sunni Shiite split, stop sponsoring terrorists groups and stop being so aggressive and deceitful in its relations to the rest of the world......then we can have this discussion again but not before..... otherwise it is completely pointless  arguing with you on this matter.


----------



## sambino510

skye said:


> sambino510 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> skye said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am afraid you are deluding yourself regarding the rationality of the Regime because while it exists to some extent, aggressive religious factors are behind a lot of their motivations and decisions.... you must remember there is no separation between religion and State in Iran. To illustrate how powerful religion is in Iran, you only have to observe the brutality of how Sharia Law is carried out with the unimaginable cruel punishments reflected for breaking it!
> 
> Ayatollah Khamenei statement about nuclear weapons being a sin is of course ludicrous and an attempt to deceive.
> There is no comparison between the US and the Iranian regime... their motivations are completely different  and religion as regards aggressive behavior would be kept well under check.
> 
> There is absolutely no reason why Iran acting as a proxy would not give Hezbollah a nuclear device to act upon Iranian instruction when it saw fit.
> 
> And last but not least.....it is not only the West who has problems with Iran getting  nuclear weapons  but the Sunni Arabs countries are also concern about this possibility and the potential of a nuclear race in the region.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I still see no reason that you have given that Iran would want to give Hezbollah a device. One reason, off the top of my head, is if they do that then Hezbollah could use the device and then Iran would not be held accountable. However, everyone knows Hezbollah and Iran are close allies, and everybody knows that Hezbollah could not develop nuclear technology on there own. So, once again, I do not see the advantage Iran would gain.
> 
> The Sunni Arab countries are in America's back pocket. Sunni Islam has always lined up more with Western ways anyways because it is less radical (most would claim). If you look at most of the countries in that area, our allies are Sunni while our enemies are Shia. That's not coincidence.
> 
> Why do you think that Ayatollah Khamenei's fatwa is an attempt to deceive? Why must people always assume the worst about a situation? I don't agree with many of his policies but nuclear fallout is bad for EVERYONE. Iran has absolutely nothing to gain by developing a bomb, using a bomb, or even thinking about a bomb. However, they have absolutely every right to, and a great need for, nuclear energy power plants.
> 
> You don't need to remind me that Iran is a theocracy; I'm well aware. I was simply speaking to the nature of man. That is, we usually have very base reasons for what we do even despite whatever religious reasons we might give. People have often claimed to do things in the name of God, for example, when in reality they are doing it for riches for fame.
> 
> Also, though not as extreme as the Iranian government, America has endless references to God in our rhetoric. It's in our pledge of allegiance, it's at the end of every Presidential speech, and all the time people say "god bless America". These are tiny examples, and we might not base our criminal punishment on religious teachings, but God certainly has a presence in the American government and its policy.
> 
> The region is already in a nuclear race. Israel has nukes, Pakistan has nukes, India has nukes, etc. If you ask me, should Iran decide to build a bomb, it's only logical they would want it as a deterrent against Israel's nukes. I'm still amazed, too, by the fact that we are more scared of a country that has SIGNED the Nuclear Non Proliferation Treaty (Iran) than one that has not and refuses to do so (Israel).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> My opinion is that you are deluded in your viewpoints and I disagree with every single thing you say.
> 
> The EU has just designated Hezbollah a terrorist organization, so how can you possibly trust  Iran,a country who sponsors terror, you may remember that the terrorist group Hamas was also sponsored by Iran.
> 
> 
> If Iran ever became a rational, democratic secular country without being obsessed with Islam ,the Sunni Shiite split, stop sponsoring terrorists groups and stop being so aggressive and deceitful in its relations to the rest of the world......then we can have this discussion again but not before..... otherwise it is completely pointless  arguing with you on this matter.
Click to expand...


I have no problem with you disagreeing with me; that doesn't mean we can't have a discussion.

Frankly, I don't care that the EU has designated Hezbollah a terrorist organization. That is their opinion, as my opinion is mine. The EU does not have the final say on such matters, nor does the United Nations Security Council, or whoever. It's all so, so subjective.

A country doesn't have to be secular and democratic in order to be worth negotiating with. Even if they did, how do you make a country become democratic and secular? By killing the leaders or bombing their cities? What should our strategy be if we do choose to strike Iran?

Iran is not the only country "obsessed" with Islam. Our Sunni Arab allies you mentioned earlier also base their government in Islam. We are such close allies with Saudi Arabia, yet women can't drive, can't vote, and are restricted to wearing the Hijab just like Iran. Why do we not challenge them?

Iran is no more aggressive in their foreign policy than we are. In fact, I think you'd be hard pressed to find two countries more meddlesome in other country's affairs. The "good" or "evil" of the two countries actions, once again, depends on perspective. We as Americans think we always fight for good, and that Iran fights for evil, but that may not always be the case.

Anyways, I do not see how such intellectual debate is pointless. I'm also not so sure how I'm deluded in my views, but that's fine to think that of me. I think the main problem here is that America seems to be plagued by fear. It's this itching terror that nags at the back of peoples' brains, and makes them turn friends into enemies and enemies into friends. It's paranoia that will drive our country, and our country's government, to irrational, deadly behavior. 

The battle that we are currently waging with terrorists and extremists is a battle of the minds, not one with rockets and bullets. A terrorist can't harm you if you don't let him effect you emotionally, psychologically. Their goal isn't to kill you, it's to scar you and leave an impression on you; to send a message. This is because they're too weak to win a conventional war. My advice is to not give in to these fearful urges, including the widespread fear of a nuclear Iran. These countries or organizations mostly just want attention and recognition; and we are giving it to them.


----------



## sambino510

Duped said:


> Auteur said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Duped said:
> 
> 
> 
> Netanyahu! It is a very disturbing, but a simple perspective: If Iran gets nuclear bombs they will use them on Israel. That is what Israel believes; better not allow them to get them - simple deduction, irregardless of burden.
> 
> What happens after they strike is anybodies guess. I think when Israel makes it clear to the USA that a strike is eminent, all of a sudden Iran will capitulate, mixed with deceit.
> 
> Make no mistake, Israel can, and will take out Irans nuclear capabilities - catastrophically if necessary.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And so you have no response to the peace plan put on the table by the Arab League and the PA. You have no comment on the reasons for you unquestioning support of Israel. And you military analysis rests on one far right Israeli politician, one your own president has termed "a lier".
> 
> In the past, Israel has depended upon a surprise first strike, such as in the '67 war, and again with the Iraqi nuclear reactor in '81. Today there would be no surprise in Iran. Iran has a rudimentary but functioning air defense system, one that could easily be reinforced by sophisticated Russian missiles. In this case, we would soon have a war of attrition, Israeli planes against Iranian missiles. How long do you think this would continue, with Israel loosing 100 billion dollar aircraft (and begging new ones from the US), and the price of oil shooting through the stratosphere? With Israel crippling the world economy, and demanding even more billions from the US taxpayer, how long do you think they would continue? It would be a matter of days, not weeks. And then Iran would have every incentive to redouble their research efforts, and get a bomb as insurance against any other strikes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> First: Obamaturd has no credibility!
> 
> Second: The Arab league is erroneous to Iran's threat to wipe Israel of the map.
> 
> I support Israel, because she is a democracy, Jews are the brightest people on earth, and have contribued enormously to it. I am a Christian.
> 
> You are trying to analyze a probable strike; military potentials. I am simple saying that Israel expects that if Iran gets a nuke, they will use it, and Israel will eliminate that threat first;  they feel that it's a balls out event.
> 
> Israel's attack would be decisive; it would never be a war of attrition.
> 
> Lastly: I believe every muslim is a zealot, jihadist at heart. I believe they love death more than life. I believe their messiah mohammad ( pig shit be upon him ) was born out of the ass of a pig named allah, and that the koran is only good for ass wipes.
> 
> Any religion ( koran ) that teaches that you either convert, or die brutally - needs to be destroyed; it is evil.
Click to expand...


Speaking of no credibility, you harm your own when you refer to someone as "Obamaturd".  You certainly are not lying about Israel's feelings, as I too believe Israel will strike first; whether they will succeed or not is debatable.

Once again, please read the Qur'an and tell me exactly where it SAYS that all must convert or die. Pull the average Muslim off the street and see if he or she gives you the option between a Qur'an or a knife to the gut; or if they just say hello.

Historically, "convert or die brutally" has also been the Christian and Catholic mantra, whether it was the Native Americans in North America, the Aztecs and Incas in South America, or the island people of the Caribbean. Christianity has not always been used for such peaceful ventures, just like Islam.

If you are a Christian, you'd be interested to know that many of the people from your Bible are in the Qur'an. Jesus, Adam, Luke....they're all there somewhere. It's so, so sad to me that someone can find such hatred towards a religion that really is so similar to Christianity and Judaism. In fact, radical Judaism is not so far off from radical Islam, especially in the way it treats women. In Israel religious sites are segregated by gender, for instance. 

All religions must find common ground in the fact that they all want the same thing; a better world. All religions reward good deeds, and have the same basic moral scale. I'm no religious man, or I at least am not affiliated with no particular religion, but I don't see how Muslims OR Christians can advocate violence towards others. Thou shall not kill.


----------



## MisterBeale

sambino510 said:


> MisterBeale said:
> 
> 
> 
> To really understand Iran?  Watch this.  It lost best animated film to  Ratatouille (2007).  It probably should have won, just so Americans would have been aware of it and watched it.  The two books it is based on are probably better.  This is a true story.
> 
> Persepolis[English Subtitles] - YouTube
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks very much for this. I'll hopefully find time to read the books as well.
Click to expand...


They are really terrific.  In the movie you understand the Marji is an intellectual with a firm ethical and moral background.  What you don't really get from it, is the "why" of it.  How come her family is the way it is.  How come they aren't overtly Islamic.  Sure, they are Islamic, but not a fundamentalist type way.  They are Islamic in the same way the Thomas Jefferson was "Christian," meaning, only culturally.  

What you don't get from the movie is that they are FREEMASONS, and have the exact same Freemason values that this nation was founded on.  Liberty, Fraternity, Equality.  There is a whole social class segment of upper and middle class Iran dating back to pre-19th century that hold the same identical values of the Freemasons and the order of Scion.  She was familiar with all of it.  In the books, her dad give her a book to read about it.  The same tradition that many fathers hand down to their sons here in America.  The British and American fascists betrayed that tradition all for oil.  And that is the disgusting truth of it.  Now?  In order to keep the clandestine operators out, and keep their population dumb, their elites have turned to theocracy.

We would like to think our elites are better, but they aren't.  Ours has turned to a compulsory education system which has forgone the principles of the constitution in favor of dependance on authoritarianism.  The state knows best, not the sovereign people.   The PEOPLE in this country are living under the same type of abuses as the people in Iran.  The sooner we face up to that, the sooner we will have fraternity.  

Some here just don't get it.  They believe what ever our media elites tell us in service to the establishment, well, hell, that has to be the truth.  People in this thread keep talking like Iran is some state sponsor of "terrorism," but the truth is the United States and Israel promote far more terrorism a month _successfully_ than Iran could ever hope to pull off.  Sickening.


----------



## sambino510

MisterBeale said:


> sambino510 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MisterBeale said:
> 
> 
> 
> To really understand Iran?  Watch this.  It lost best animated film to  Ratatouille (2007).  It probably should have won, just so Americans would have been aware of it and watched it.  The two books it is based on are probably better.  This is a true story.
> 
> Persepolis[English Subtitles] - YouTube
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks very much for this. I'll hopefully find time to read the books as well.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They are really terrific.  In the movie you understand the Marji is an intellectual with a firm ethical and moral background.  What you don't really get from it, is the "why" of it.  How come her family is the way it is.  How come they aren't overtly Islamic.  Sure, they are Islamic, but not a fundamentalist type way.  They are Islamic in the same way the Thomas Jefferson was "Christian," meaning, only culturally.
> 
> What you don't get from the movie is that they are FREEMASONS, and have the exact same Freemason values that this nation was founded on.  Liberty, Fraternity, Equality.  There is a whole social class segment of upper and middle class Iran dating back to pre-19th century that hold the same identical values of the Freemasons and the order of Scion.  She was familiar with all of it.  In the books, her dad give her a book to read about it.  The same tradition that many fathers hand down to their sons here in America.  The British and American fascists betrayed that tradition all for oil.  And that is the disgusting truth of it.  Now?  In order to keep the clandestine operators out, and keep their population dumb, their elites have turned to theocracy.
> 
> We would like to think our elites are better, but they aren't.  Ours has turned to a compulsory education system which has forgone the principles of the constitution in favor of dependance on authoritarianism.  The state knows best, not the sovereign people.   The PEOPLE in this country are living under the same type of abuses as the people in Iran.  The sooner we face up to that, the sooner we will have fraternity.
> 
> Some here just don't get it.  They believe what ever our media elites tell us in service to the establishment, well, hell, that has to be the truth.  People in this thread keep talking like Iran is some state sponsor of "terrorism," but the truth is the United States and Israel promote far more terrorism a month _successfully_ than Iran could ever hope to pull off.  Sickening.
Click to expand...


I've almost finished watching it, and it's a very good story. In terms of state-sponsored "terrorism" though, I've said it before and I'll say it again that all of that depends on perspective. America has no right to judge Iran's allies as terrorists, and Iran has no right to judge America's allies as terrorists. Or, we all have the right to judge each other in such a manner. Terrorism, to me, is simply a technique, like guerrilla warfare. It is not some evil, dirty word that must be shunned from this Earth. 

A drone missile dropping into a Pakistani village is terrorism, as it is meant to discourage extremists from joining the various militia groups. Going into a movie theater and yelling "fire" is terrorism, as it scares people into doing something irrational. The police are terrorists, as the "terror" of being arrested or imprisoned is meant to prevent crime.Terrorism to me is such a broad thing, and I think people use the word far too narrowly.


----------



## irosie91

The USA is engaged in a war in Afghanistan which  includes 
HOSTILE pakistanis.     Dropping a bomb on a village 
in Pakistan is legal if the target of the bomb is a legal 
military target-----such as a military operative  hostile 
to the USA  ----or a  weapons cache used by Afghani 
operatives against the USA or USA soldiers.    Sambino---
your writings are silly.     For those who do not know----
THE TALIBAN    is a pakistani invention----peopled by 
pakistanis  (largely---not exclusively----lately----but 
virtually exclusively at its outset----more than 30 years 
ago)       I support complete USA withdrawal from both 
Pakistan and Afghanistan.   Any crap coming  OUT of there 
should be handled with missiles<<<a bloody option-----
but probably the best of the available options


----------



## sambino510

irosie91 said:


> The USA is engaged in a war in Afghanistan which  includes
> HOSTILE pakistanis.     Dropping a bomb on a village
> in Pakistan is legal if the target of the bomb is a legal
> military target-----such as a military operative  hostile
> to the USA  ----or a  weapons cache used by Afghani
> operatives against the USA or USA soldiers.    Sambino---
> your writings are silly.     For those who do not know----
> THE TALIBAN    is a pakistani invention----peopled by
> pakistanis  (largely---not exclusively----lately----but
> virtually exclusively at its outset----more than 30 years
> ago)       I support complete USA withdrawal from both
> Pakistan and Afghanistan.   Any crap coming  OUT of there
> should be handled with missiles<<<a bloody option-----
> but probably the best of the available options



Well, your feelings that my postings are silly is your opinion, and you're certainly entitled to that. I'm well aware of the legality of drone strikes. Our government would not commit these strikes if they didn't know they could weasel their way out of any legal battles. If you were replying to my previous post that missile strikes on villages is "terrorism", I was simply taking a very broad definition of the term "terrorism". Do you not think the U.S. military is trying to scare the Taliban leaders? We use emotions like fear and terror just as much as they do.

Let me say this. Missiles are indeed a better option than a full invasion, but they are a band-aid to an open wound; not the cure. Who is to say that these missiles landing in these villages are not creating just as many terrorists as they destroy? Do you realistically think any Pakistanis are happy that missiles are reigning down from the sky, blowing up their neighbors (even if they are supposedly "bad people")? If the American government today decided that they would send missiles out throughout the United States to take out the biggest gang syndicates and crime figures, I don't think we would be cheering in the streets.

The ONLY  way to stop terrorism is to cure the problems of this world that create terrorists, i.e. economic situations, social issues, etc. The various groups may say they are fighting to rid the world of the infidels, or something of that nature. In reality, they would have a hard time recruiting the young, impressionable citizens of Pakistan or Afghanistan if these people weren't already in tough economic situations. Or if their neighbors weren't being blown to bits by Predator strikes. It's not ALL religious motivation. In fact, I'd argue most of it isn't motivated by that at all. The self-radicalized terrorists like the Boston bombers said they were taking revenge for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Anyways, we agree in perhaps one way, which is that we want complete American withdrawal from the area. However, I'd go one step further and say I want a stop to the drone strikes as well.


----------



## eagle1462010

Billo_Really said:


> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> BTW Billo
> 
> Be glad I'm not in charge Lib as I'd blow those sites off the Face of the Earth.
> 
> But that's just me.  Call me Mr. Warmonger Sir.
> 
> Iran supports Terrorism PERIOD.  Letting them get the bomb is STUPID.  They have vowed to destroy Israel, and their weapons hit them all the time as they supply them.
> 
> Israel has the right to self defense even if it means hitting Iran to prevent a Nuke from being built.  They have hit suspect Nuclear sites before and they will do it again.
> 
> 
> 
> I'm sorry, but there are only 2 legal ways one country can attack another country:
> 1. if you, yourself are attacked and are doing it in self defense
> 2. you have UNSC authorization to do so
> 
> And you be glad I'm not President, because this is what I would do to bring peace to the ME within 90 days:
> 
> I would tell my UN ambassador that we will no longer be protecting Israel from being held accountable for war crimes, with our veto
> I would put a moratorium on all weapons shipments to Israel
> I would freeze all Israeli assets in US banks
> I would outlaw AIPAC within the continental United States
> I would tell Big Ben, that he has 90 days to get his fuckin' ass out of the OPT.  That includes the IOF and all their lunatic settler insurgents
> On the 91st day, I would send in the marines to drive those god-damn Israeli's back to Israel.  Then I would create a DMZ along the Green Line and shoot any mother-fucker entering it from either side.
> 
> Have a nice day!
Click to expand...


Of course you would.  You would allow Israel to be wiped off the face of the earth.  You would back the enemies of the U.S. and those who would support terrorism.  You wrongly place the blame on a country that has been under attack since it was formed.

It must really suck to be on the wrong side of this, as Israel has CLEANED THE CLOCKS of the ones who want them utterly destroyed.  So much so that you BEG for the U.S. to do it for them.

I don't believe that day will come even with Losers like Obama in office.  Too bad buddy.

I support Israel's RIGHT TO EXIST.  You don't.  So be it.


----------



## Auteur

My plan for the peace:

1) Inform US senators and congressmen that an investigation is afoot, and those found accepting favours from AIPAC will face criminal charges.

2) Begin progressively cutting the ten billion or so in annual aid to Israel, until it agrees to negociate a settlement.

3) Accept the 2002 Saudi peace proposal as a principle framework.

4) Agree to a reasonable division of land between Israel and Palestine, given the size of the two populations, starting with the '67 border, and making changes in order to make a realistic Palestinian state.

5) Agree to a  formula for either return of displaced Palestinians, or their financial compensation. The US, and to some extent the world community, would be required to contribute to this financing.


----------



## sambino510

eagle1462010 said:


> Billo_Really said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> BTW Billo
> 
> Be glad I'm not in charge Lib as I'd blow those sites off the Face of the Earth.
> 
> But that's just me.  Call me Mr. Warmonger Sir.
> 
> Iran supports Terrorism PERIOD.  Letting them get the bomb is STUPID.  They have vowed to destroy Israel, and their weapons hit them all the time as they supply them.
> 
> Israel has the right to self defense even if it means hitting Iran to prevent a Nuke from being built.  They have hit suspect Nuclear sites before and they will do it again.
> 
> 
> 
> I'm sorry, but there are only 2 legal ways one country can attack another country:
> 1. if you, yourself are attacked and are doing it in self defense
> 2. you have UNSC authorization to do so
> 
> And you be glad I'm not President, because this is what I would do to bring peace to the ME within 90 days:
> 
> I would tell my UN ambassador that we will no longer be protecting Israel from being held accountable for war crimes, with our veto
> I would put a moratorium on all weapons shipments to Israel
> I would freeze all Israeli assets in US banks
> I would outlaw AIPAC within the continental United States
> I would tell Big Ben, that he has 90 days to get his fuckin' ass out of the OPT.  That includes the IOF and all their lunatic settler insurgents
> On the 91st day, I would send in the marines to drive those god-damn Israeli's back to Israel.  Then I would create a DMZ along the Green Line and shoot any mother-fucker entering it from either side.
> 
> Have a nice day!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Of course you would.  You would allow Israel to be wiped off the face of the earth.  You would back the enemies of the U.S. and those who would support terrorism.  You wrongly place the blame on a country that has been under attack since it was formed.
> 
> It must really suck to be on the wrong side of this, as Israel has CLEANED THE CLOCKS of the ones who want them utterly destroyed.  So much so that you BEG for the U.S. to do it for them.
> 
> I don't believe that day will come even with Losers like Obama in office.  Too bad buddy.
> 
> I support Israel's RIGHT TO EXIST.  You don't.  So be it.
Click to expand...


For one, why do you think Israel has been attacked since its formation? Because the British completely mishandled the Palestine region following World War II. Just because the Jewish people deserved their own country after their strife during the Holocaust doesn't mean it had to be in one of the most controversial Holy Lands there are on this planet. Pushing the Palestinians out of their land would obviously step on a few toes.

Obama has just as much love for Israel as did Bush or any of his predecessors. He still sends them a check for three billion dollars every year, no questions asked. Tell me what Obama has done to make Israel less safe.

Do you think Israel will ever be safe if it keeps trying to solve its security problem with further violence? The more they make unilateral strikes on their sovereign nations' LEGAL nuclear facilities and other targets, the more enemies they will make. They simply don't know how to solve a conflict diplomatically; they know nothing but force. I do not particularly support Iran, Hezbollah, or Hamas, but some of their criticism of Israel is legitimate.


----------



## Billo_Really

eagle1462010 said:


> Of course you would.  You would allow Israel to be wiped off the face of the earth.


In a few moments, I'll show you just how stupid your argument is.

And I'll be using your own words fed back to you to do it_*............hope you  enjoy the crow!*_




eagle1462010 said:


> You would back the enemies of the U.S. and those who would support terrorism.


There you go, throwing shit against the wall and hoping it sticks.




eagle1462010 said:


> You wrongly place the blame on a country that has been under attack since it was formed.


You mean ever since they invaded Palestine?




eagle1462010 said:


> It must really suck to be on the wrong side of this, as Israel has CLEANED THE CLOCKS of the ones who want them utterly destroyed.


Israel certainly has cleaned a lot of clocks.  And they'll clean some more if they have to.  Because no one in the ME has the capability to _*"wipe them out!"*_ You can take all the country's in the ME and have them go at Israel all at once and they'd still get their ass kicked.

So with that being said, why don't you shove that "wipe Israel off the map" comment, up your ass?  Because we all know (including you), they can't get "wiped".  So just shit-can that part of your argument, it's just stupid talk!



eagle1462010 said:


> So much so that you BEG for the U.S. to do it for them.


 How the fuck did you get _"wiping them out",_ from _"driving them back?"_



eagle1462010 said:


> I don't believe that day will come even with Losers like Obama in office.  Too bad buddy.


I'm not your buddy, buddy.



eagle1462010 said:


> I support Israel's RIGHT TO EXIST.  You don't.  So be it.


Country's don't have rights, people do!

That's another stupid statement.  Israel exists already.  The issue is moot.


----------



## toastman

Invaded Palestine ??? The Palestine you are referring to was actually the British Mandate of Palestine . The European Jews who arrived were INVITED by the British. The British encouraged and facilitated the immigration. Stop with your Arab propaganda lies.


----------



## toastman

lol loinboy still talking like a little angry child. I guess some things haven't changed


----------



## sambino510

toastman said:


> Invaded Palestine ??? The Palestine you are referring to was actually the British Mandate of Palestine . The European Jews who arrived were INVITED by the British. The British encouraged and facilitated the immigration. Stop with your Arab propaganda lies.



Though I agree the European Jews were invited there, after the British left the area and Israel was established officially, with the Palestinians being slowly driven from their land, THAT'S when the problems arose. With every conflict, every battle that sparked up, Israel would not only drive back the Palestinians but snatch more territory in the process. The land agreements of the mandate in the 1940s is not the land agreements we have right now.


----------



## Billo_Really

toastman said:


> Invaded Palestine ??? The Palestine you are referring to was actually the British Mandate of Palestine . The European Jews who arrived were INVITED by the British. The British encouraged and facilitated the immigration. Stop with your Arab propaganda lies.


Where the fuck have you been?


I'm talking about the thousands that came in  violation of the immigration restrictions in force at the time.


----------



## Auteur

toastman said:


> Invaded Palestine ??? The Palestine you are referring to was actually the British Mandate of Palestine . The European Jews who arrived were INVITED by the British. The British encouraged and facilitated the immigration. Stop with your Arab propaganda lies.



In fact the British vacillated several times. They made promises to the Jews when they thought that might be of some service, but also made promises to the Arabs, when they were of some marginal use. They they tried to reconcile the two. In the end, they did try and limit Jewish immigration, when it was clear that a blow-up was coming.

Anyway, that was over by '48, and there has been a lot of land grabbing since then. This is the core of the issue- land was seized rather than negotiated, and this has never been accepted.


----------



## irosie91

Auteur said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Invaded Palestine ??? The Palestine you are referring to was actually the British Mandate of Palestine . The European Jews who arrived were INVITED by the British. The British encouraged and facilitated the immigration. Stop with your Arab propaganda lies.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In fact the British vacillated several times. They made promises to the Jews when they thought that might be of some service, but also made promises to the Arabs, when they were of some marginal use. They they tried to reconcile the two. In the end, they did try and limit Jewish immigration, when it was clear that a blow-up was coming.
> 
> Anyway, that was over by '48, and there has been a lot of land grabbing since then. This is the core of the issue- land was seized rather than negotiated, and this has never been accepted.
Click to expand...



when and what land was "seized"     I agreee that the core issue is LAND.    The 
core issue is the fact that the islamic POV is that the entire middle east is  "muslim 
land"    thus even land purchased in  the  1800s   is described as "seized"

The Jerusalem pogroms which occured in the  1920s could hardly be 
a "reaction"   to land "seized"  by military force

as to "invasion"----it is a term that some people used in reference to black 
americans who INVADED  the Northeast----after the civil war-----that 
"invasion"   led to pogroms in New York City

east Jerusalem was placed under starvation siege by arab muslim forces in 1947 and 
the jewish population   annhilated/expelled--------does that one count as 
"LAND SEIZURE"??

Land is a big issue ----the problem should be resolved with EQUITY and 
with full consideration of the history of the region over the past 2500 
years-------not that difficult

The mistake is in assuming that the problem began either in  1948 or 
1967.     Another problem  is the concept   "muslim land"------
If there can be  "muslim land"  -----then there must also be 
"christian land"     "jewish land"       "hindu land"    etc


----------



## skye

Iran  continues unabated ....



* 07 Aug 2013 *
"Iran has built a new rocket launch site which is likely to be used for testing ballistic missiles, according to military analysts publishing satellite images of the structure."


Iran launch site 'likely for testing ballistic missiles', analysts say - Telegraph


----------



## Auteur

irosie91 said:


> Auteur said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Invaded Palestine ??? The Palestine you are referring to was actually the British Mandate of Palestine . The European Jews who arrived were INVITED by the British. The British encouraged and facilitated the immigration. Stop with your Arab propaganda lies.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In fact the British vacillated several times. They made promises to the Jews when they thought that might be of some service, but also made promises to the Arabs, when they were of some marginal use. They they tried to reconcile the two. In the end, they did try and limit Jewish immigration, when it was clear that a blow-up was coming.
> 
> Anyway, that was over by '48, and there has been a lot of land grabbing since then. This is the core of the issue- land was seized rather than negotiated, and this has never been accepted.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> when and what land was "seized"     I agreee that the core issue is LAND.    The
> core issue is the fact that the islamic POV is that the entire middle east is  "muslim
> land"    thus even land purchased in  the  1800s   is described as "seized"
Click to expand...


This is not the core issue at all. Only a small minority make such radical claims.



irosie91 said:


> [
> The Jerusalem pogroms which occured in the  1920s could hardly be
> a "reaction"   to land "seized"  by military force
> 
> as to "invasion"----it is a term that some people used in reference to black
> americans who INVADED  the Northeast----after the civil war-----that
> "invasion"   led to pogroms in New York City



The conflict in the '20s was due to unwanted, large scale immigration of Jews into what was then a Palestinian Arab country, temporarily under the control of Britain. I'm not going to defend the violence on either side here, but the fact is almost any other region on earth would have probably reacted the same way to such events. Massive immigration by foreigners who are changing the nature of society, buying up land and altering the country to suit their desires and needs, and the original inhabitants have no say in the matter.....conflict would be unavoidable.

Look at your own example of blacks moving north in the US. There was horrific violence and social dislocation, and the event was far, far less threatening to the established society than was the case in Palestine.



irosie91 said:


> [
> east Jerusalem was placed under starvation siege by arab muslim forces in 1947 and
> the jewish population   annhilated/expelled--------does that one count as
> "LAND SEIZURE"??



Your reference?



irosie91 said:


> [
> Land is a big issue ----the problem should be resolved with EQUITY and
> with full consideration of the history of the region over the past 2500
> years-------not that difficult
> 
> The mistake is in assuming that the problem began either in  1948 or
> 1967.     Another problem  is the concept   "muslim land"------
> If there can be  "muslim land"  -----then there must also be
> "christian land"     "jewish land"       "hindu land"    etc



Perhaps, from a philosophical perspective, but the farther back in time we go, the more complex things become. Should Europe be re-ordered on the basis of 2500 years ago? How about North America? Doesn't really work, does it?


----------



## sambino510

skye said:


> Iran  continues unabated ....
> 
> 
> 
> * 07 Aug 2013 *
> "Iran has built a new rocket launch site which is likely to be used for testing ballistic missiles, according to military analysts publishing satellite images of the structure."
> 
> 
> Iran launch site 'likely for testing ballistic missiles', analysts say - Telegraph



The fact that this site would be used for ballistic missiles is a possibility, but others have said that it could just be used for their growing space program as well. I'm sure the launchpad in Houston could, hypothetically, be used for ballistic missiles as well.


----------



## irosie91

Auteur said:


> irosie91 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Auteur said:
> 
> 
> 
> In fact the British vacillated several times. They made promises to the Jews when they thought that might be of some service, but also made promises to the Arabs, when they were of some marginal use. They they tried to reconcile the two. In the end, they did try and limit Jewish immigration, when it was clear that a blow-up was coming.
> 
> Anyway, that was over by '48, and there has been a lot of land grabbing since then. This is the core of the issue- land was seized rather than negotiated, and this has never been accepted.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> when and what land was "seized"     I agreee that the core issue is LAND.    The
> core issue is the fact that the islamic POV is that the entire middle east is  "muslim
> land"    thus even land purchased in  the  1800s   is described as "seized"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This is not the core issue at all. Only a small minority make such radical claims.
> 
> 
> 
> The conflict in the '20s was due to unwanted, large scale immigration of Jews into what was then a Palestinian Arab country, temporarily under the control of Britain. I'm not going to defend the violence on either side here, but the fact is almost any other region on earth would have probably reacted the same way to such events. Massive immigration by foreigners who are changing the nature of society, buying up land and altering the country to suit their desires and needs, and the original inhabitants have no say in the matter.....conflict would be unavoidable.
> 
> Look at your own example of blacks moving north in the US. There was horrific violence and social dislocation, and the event was far, far less threatening to the established society than was the case in Palestine.
> 
> 
> 
> irosie91 said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> east Jerusalem was placed under starvation siege by arab muslim forces in 1947 and
> the jewish population   annhilated/expelled--------does that one count as
> "LAND SEIZURE"??
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your reference?
> 
> 
> 
> irosie91 said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> Land is a big issue ----the problem should be resolved with EQUITY and
> with full consideration of the history of the region over the past 2500
> years-------not that difficult
> 
> The mistake is in assuming that the problem began either in  1948 or
> 1967.     Another problem  is the concept   "muslim land"------
> If there can be  "muslim land"  -----then there must also be
> "christian land"     "jewish land"       "hindu land"    etc
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Perhaps, from a philosophical perspective, but the farther back in time we go, the more complex things become. Should Europe be re-ordered on the basis of 2500 years ago? How about North America? Doesn't really work, does it?
Click to expand...




your response ---is NON RESPONSIVE------considerations of equity for PEOPLE LIVING 
TODAY----based on aspects of their history does not mean  _"REORDERING SOCIETY 
ACCORDING TO  SOCIAL STRUCTURES THAT EXISTED 3000 years ago "

There are hundreds of millions of people LIVING TODAY----who truly believe 
that there is something called   "MUSLIM LAND" ----but reject the concept 
of   "hindu land"     "christian land"    "buddhist land"    "jewish land" ----today---
not 3000 years ago----TODAY.     Unless you are suggesting that the concept of 
"muslim land"   must be scrapped entirely----you are not saying anything.    Do you 
have a plan as to how to convince  hundreds of millions of people that the 
concept of  "muslim land"    should no longer exist?.    In southeast asia----the 
concept of  HINDU LAND----is a direct consequence of the absolute acceptance in the 
minds of   scores of millions over there that there is a  DEFINITE REALITY   called 
"MUSLIM LAND"            the universe tends towards   SYMETRY   (a synonym for equity)'


----------



## skye

sambino510 said:


> skye said:
> 
> 
> 
> Iran  continues unabated ....
> 
> 
> 
> * 07 Aug 2013 *
> "Iran has built a new rocket launch site which is likely to be used for testing ballistic missiles, according to military analysts publishing satellite images of the structure."
> 
> 
> Iran launch site 'likely for testing ballistic missiles', analysts say - Telegraph
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *  The fact that this site would be used for ballistic missiles is a possibility, but others have said that it could just be used for their growing space program as well.   *I'm sure the launchpad in Houston could, hypothetically, be used for ballistic missiles as well.
Click to expand...


It is not for their growing space program.

There is no more dangerous  present event  in the world that an Atomic Iran...and they are very close to it now, Israel will have to take pre emptive action,it is only a matter of time and it's going to happen.


----------



## Jos

I look forward to the response


----------



## skye

Jos said:


> I look forward to the response



I don't.

It's not going to be pretty.

But letting the Iranian Regime have the bomb would be worse.


----------



## sambino510

skye said:


> sambino510 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> skye said:
> 
> 
> 
> Iran  continues unabated ....
> 
> 
> 
> * 07 Aug 2013 *
> "Iran has built a new rocket launch site which is likely to be used for testing ballistic missiles, according to military analysts publishing satellite images of the structure."
> 
> 
> Iran launch site 'likely for testing ballistic missiles', analysts say - Telegraph
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *  The fact that this site would be used for ballistic missiles is a possibility, but others have said that it could just be used for their growing space program as well.   *I'm sure the launchpad in Houston could, hypothetically, be used for ballistic missiles as well.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is not for their growing space program.
> 
> There is no more dangerous  present event  in the world that an Atomic Iran...and they are very close to it now, Israel will have to take pre emptive action,it is only a matter of time and it's going to happen.
Click to expand...


I would be curious to know what definite proof there is that this particular site is a definite ballistic missile site. Even if it is, it's irrelevant. God forbid a country build a launch site for a relatively common weapon in just about the most volatile region on Earth. I don't condone violence, but I support logic, and logically, Iran would want things like ballistic missiles, or even a nuclear bomb. That doesn't mean they're pursuing one, but why wouldn't they? It's a source of national pride, it will keep us out of their regional affairs, and, after all the sanctions and international defamation they've gone through, they might do it just to rub it in our faces. Who knows?


----------



## Jos

skye said:


> Jos said:
> 
> 
> 
> I look forward to the response
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't.
> 
> It's not going to be pretty.
> 
> But letting the Iranian Regime have the bomb would be worse.
Click to expand...


I refer to the Iranian response to any attack by the isRalians, and dont forget, you asked for it


----------



## skye

Jos said:


> skye said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jos said:
> 
> 
> 
> I look forward to the response
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't.
> 
> It's not going to be pretty.
> 
> But letting the Iranian Regime have the bomb would be worse.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I refer to the Iranian response to any attack by the isRalians, and dont forget, you asked for it
Click to expand...


Whatever will be will be.


----------



## Jos

Not what ever you want, will be


----------



## irosie91

Jos said:


> Not what ever you want, will be




so true Jos ------"not whatever you want,  will be.  

     By its founding of  Hezbollah----its arming and funding 
     and training and direction of its operatives----Iran has made 
     clear that which is   " WHAT IRAN WANTS"------as we post----Hezbollah 
     dogs----murder in  Syria ------are joining the  pro-morsi ranks----and 
     best of all-----are lining up their doggy asses on the border between 
     yemen and saudi arabia.    As such    EVERY MOVE  by iran --inside 
     and outside of Iran ----is suspect-------and Iran is responsible for 
     every  crime comitted by Hezbollah

    PS   a very intelligent---kinda  in the know   mexican neighbor of mine--
    insists that   the Hezbollah dogs have even invaded  Mexico


----------



## irosie91

Duped said:


> Billo_Really said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Riddle me this.........Why the hell do Libs get upset and call every one a Warmonger when we talk about possible threats like Iran.
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> Because you don't make up bullshit reasons to attack sovereign nations.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Hypothetical: If you were on a Island with someone who threatened to kill you when you slept, would you not defeat that intention, before you slumbered?
Click to expand...




I have another   "riddle me this"     thing-------Why is it that so many people 
who style themselves  -----"liberals"   or  'secular humanists" ----- parrot 
the nazi propaganda   of the mid  1930s   ???        Way back then----anyone who 
murmered  a  word against    ADOLF HITLER was  called   a  "warmonger"

seek it out on microfilm in old libraries --      I recognize it because I grew up 
in a town founded in pre revolutionary war days in the USA----the town was 
RIDDLED  with old  propaganda pamphlets   ------lying in dusty corners ---at 
that time dating as far back as the    1920s          Billo ---you are parroting 
crap  -----some 100 years old -----the stuff that galvanized the deaths of 
hundreds of millions


----------



## sambino510

irosie91 said:


> Duped said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Billo_Really said:
> 
> 
> 
> Because you don't make up bullshit reasons to attack sovereign nations.
> 
> 
> 
> Hypothetical: If you were on a Island with someone who threatened to kill you when you slept, would you not defeat that intention, before you slumbered?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have another   "riddle me this"     thing-------Why is it that so many people
> who style themselves  -----"liberals"   or  'secular humanists" ----- parrot
> the nazi propaganda   of the mid  1930s   ???        Way back then----anyone who
> murmered  a  word against    ADOLF HITLER was  called   a  "warmonger"
> 
> seek it out on microfilm in old libraries --      I recognize it because I grew up
> in a town founded in pre revolutionary war days in the USA----the town was
> RIDDLED  with old  propaganda pamphlets   ------lying in dusty corners ---at
> that time dating as far back as the    1920s          Billo ---you are parroting
> crap  -----some 100 years old -----the stuff that galvanized the deaths of
> hundreds of millions
Click to expand...


I hope you're not comparing the current Iranian regime to Nazi Germany. I would be the first to admit that the former Ahmadinejad administration and Khamenei have had many questionable practices. However, they have very little resemblance to Hitler's administration. When was the last time Iran actually invaded a country? 

Sure, you'll probably cite Hezbollah as their invading force in various nations in the region and around the world, but I don't think that compares to, say, Hitler's invasion of all of Europe. Overall, they may be meddlesome in other nations, but no more meddlesome than the U.S. I would argue. The nefarious nature of their actions depends on one's perspective.

Either way, I can promise you that war will not end in this world by fighting fire with fire. Iran, for the moment, has done little to deserve a military strike or invasion by the U.S. or Israel. However much people may not like it, I don't believe we have any moral right or obligation to attack them unless they directly attack someone else.


----------

