# What's the big deal if Iran gets the bomb?



## hangover (Nov 26, 2013)

What would happen, really? How long would it take them to build an accurate delivery system? Who would they drop it on? Israel? I doubt it, that's where the Dome of the Rock is, the Muslims most holy temple. And if God says the Jewish temple must be rebuilt before the antichrist can take over, that would make it thousands more years before it could be built, if Israel is nuked. And if they dropped one anywhere, Iran would be destroyed immediately. That whole country would become a glass desert. The Persian people would cease to exist. Let's face it, the U.S. is the only country in the world that was insane enough to use nuclear weapons. And Truman dropped those bombs just to show Russia that we were that crazy. The U.S. was also going to nuke Vietnam and Laos. And there was a plan to nuke the moon. Destroy the moon, and the earth dies. Real smart huh. Russia's had the bomb for over 50 years, and they've never used one. China, India, Pakistan, North Korea and Israel have nukes too. North Korea can't figure out how to make one fly. And it's a wonder Pakistan hasn't given one to Iran.

So what's your scenario for what would happen? WWIII? Really?


----------



## Katzndogz (Nov 26, 2013)

Absolutely, they would use it as soon as they could.


----------



## Mr. H. (Nov 26, 2013)

The perception of deliverable death can be rather intimidating.


----------



## BlindBoo (Nov 26, 2013)

Keeping up with the Jones.........Everybody's going to want one.


----------



## Redfish (Nov 26, 2013)

they would sell one to some radical islamic group and NYC or DC or SFO would no longer exist.


----------



## occupied (Nov 26, 2013)

They want a nuclear deterrent against invasion/attack, with the US and Israel threatening them every time a shitty conservative warhawk gets in power it is in their best interest to have one. I do not for a minute believe that they intend to use such a weapon in an offensive manner seeing as how after it is used the rest of the world will totally annihilate their country. Sure they may have crazies in charge but they are not that crazy, dirty bombs are much easier to use and entirely within their means right now and have not been used.


----------



## hangover (Nov 26, 2013)

One liners, eh. Anyone with some realistic thought?


----------



## Rocko (Nov 26, 2013)

occupied said:


> They want a nuclear deterrent against invasion/attack, with the US and Israel threatening them every time a shitty conservative warhawk gets in power it is in their best interest to have one. I do not for a minute believe that they intend to use such a weapon in an offensive manner seeing as how after it is used the rest of the world will totally annihilate their country. Sure they may have crazies in charge but they are not that crazy, dirty bombs are much easier to use and entirely within their means right now and have not been used.



Poor little Iran just trying to protect itself from big bad Israel and the U.S..

Thanks for the laugh.


----------



## Redfish (Nov 26, 2013)

occupied said:


> They want a nuclear deterrent against invasion/attack, with the US and Israel threatening them every time a shitty conservative warhawk gets in power it is in their best interest to have one. I do not for a minute believe that they intend to use such a weapon in an offensive manner seeing as how after it is used the rest of the world will totally annihilate their country. Sure they may have crazies in charge but they are not that crazy, dirty bombs are much easier to use and entirely within their means right now and have not been used.



your knowledge of radical muslims is very limited.  The crazies ARE in charge.


----------



## Edgetho (Nov 26, 2013)

occupied said:


> They want a nuclear deterrent against invasion/attack, with the US and Israel threatening them every time a shitty conservative warhawk gets in power it is in their best interest to have one. I do not for a minute believe that they intend to use such a weapon in an offensive manner seeing as how after it is used the rest of the world will totally annihilate their country. Sure they may have crazies in charge but they are not that crazy, dirty bombs are much easier to use and entirely within their means right now and have not been used.



Can you believe the scum that calls the dimocrap party 'home'?

Are there any dimocraps out there with enough self-respect to not be a part of the same party that allows scumbags like this in it?

Or do you choose to just put your fingers in your ears while you 

Which, AFAIC, makes you a scumbag too.


----------



## hangover (Nov 26, 2013)

occupied said:


> They want a nuclear deterrent against invasion/attack, with the US and Israel threatening them every time a shitty conservative warhawk gets in power it is in their best interest to have one. I do not for a minute believe that they intend to use such a weapon in an offensive manner seeing as how after it is used the rest of the world will totally annihilate their country. Sure they may have crazies in charge but they are not that crazy, dirty bombs are much easier to use and entirely within their means right now and have not been used.



Thanks for some thought. But why spend all that time on building a bomb, when they could just fly a plane into one of the existing nuclear power plants?


----------



## hangover (Nov 26, 2013)

Redfish said:


> occupied said:
> 
> 
> > They want a nuclear deterrent against invasion/attack, with the US and Israel threatening them every time a shitty conservative warhawk gets in power it is in their best interest to have one. I do not for a minute believe that they intend to use such a weapon in an offensive manner seeing as how after it is used the rest of the world will totally annihilate their country. Sure they may have crazies in charge but they are not that crazy, dirty bombs are much easier to use and entirely within their means right now and have not been used.
> ...



Your knowledge is non existent.


----------



## hangover (Nov 26, 2013)

Edgetho said:


> occupied said:
> 
> 
> > They want a nuclear deterrent against invasion/attack, with the US and Israel threatening them every time a shitty conservative warhawk gets in power it is in their best interest to have one. I do not for a minute believe that they intend to use such a weapon in an offensive manner seeing as how after it is used the rest of the world will totally annihilate their country. Sure they may have crazies in charge but they are not that crazy, dirty bombs are much easier to use and entirely within their means right now and have not been used.
> ...


Okay, now that we've heard from the moron Palin.........


----------



## kwc57 (Nov 26, 2013)

hangover said:


> What would happen, really? How long would it take them to build an accurate delivery system? Who would they drop it on? Israel? I doubt it, that's where the Dome of the Rock is, the Muslims most holy temple. And if God says the Jewish temple must be rebuilt before the antichrist can take over, that would make it thousands more years before it could be built, if Israel is nuked. And if they dropped one anywhere, Iran would be destroyed immediately. That whole country would become a glass desert. The Persian people would cease to exist. Let's face it, the U.S. is the only country in the world that was insane enough to use nuclear weapons. And Truman dropped those bombs just to show Russia that we were that crazy. The U.S. was also going to nuke Vietnam and Laos. And there was a plan to nuke the moon. Destroy the moon, and the earth dies. Real smart huh. Russia's had the bomb for over 50 years, and they've never used one. China, India, Pakistan, North Korea and Israel have nukes too. North Korea can't figure out how to make one fly. And it's a wonder Pakistan hasn't given one to Iran.
> 
> So what's your scenario for what would happen? WWIII? Really?



You have to keep in mind........Iran is on a mission from Allah.  It isn't a defensive weapon for them, it's offensive.


----------



## occupied (Nov 26, 2013)

Rocko said:


> occupied said:
> 
> 
> > They want a nuclear deterrent against invasion/attack, with the US and Israel threatening them every time a shitty conservative warhawk gets in power it is in their best interest to have one. I do not for a minute believe that they intend to use such a weapon in an offensive manner seeing as how after it is used the rest of the world will totally annihilate their country. Sure they may have crazies in charge but they are not that crazy, dirty bombs are much easier to use and entirely within their means right now and have not been used.
> ...



All your knowledge of Iran flows from the people who want to kill every last human being that lives on top of our oil.


----------



## ScreamingEagle (Nov 26, 2013)

Iran....a nation awash in oil.....says that their nuclear program is only for peaceful energy purposes....

and they've never lied before either......


----------



## kwc57 (Nov 26, 2013)

occupied said:


> Rocko said:
> 
> 
> > occupied said:
> ...



As I said in my neg rep to you, you're a fucking moron.

https://www.google.com/search?q=ira...rosoft:en-us:IE-SearchBox&ie=&oe=&safe=active


----------



## Rocko (Nov 26, 2013)

occupied said:


> Rocko said:
> 
> 
> > occupied said:
> ...



Wrong. Your inability to see who the dangerous actor is the only thing that's lacking.


----------



## ShawnChris13 (Nov 26, 2013)

Iran hasn't attacked another nation since 1798. How many times has America attacked another nation? I can understand why countries would want a deterrent strong enough to keep the UN (American troops basically) out of their nation. Do I agree with them getting a bomb? No. But I can see why they want one. If Iran had 40 military bases surrounding us I'd be in the back yard trying to build a bomb to get them out of here.


----------



## occupied (Nov 26, 2013)

hangover said:


> occupied said:
> 
> 
> > They want a nuclear deterrent against invasion/attack, with the US and Israel threatening them every time a shitty conservative warhawk gets in power it is in their best interest to have one. I do not for a minute believe that they intend to use such a weapon in an offensive manner seeing as how after it is used the rest of the world will totally annihilate their country. Sure they may have crazies in charge but they are not that crazy, dirty bombs are much easier to use and entirely within their means right now and have not been used.
> ...



The characterization of Iran as a terrorist nation is grossly overblown.


----------



## Redfish (Nov 26, 2013)

hangover said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> > occupied said:
> ...



Having worked in the mid east with arabs and muslims for many years,  my knowledge exceeds yours by 1000%.


----------



## kwc57 (Nov 26, 2013)

occupied said:


> hangover said:
> 
> 
> > occupied said:
> ...



Do yourself a favor and check for polyps while you have your head up your ass.


----------



## occupied (Nov 26, 2013)

Rocko said:


> occupied said:
> 
> 
> > Rocko said:
> ...



Seems like we are the only nation that routinely blows up other nations and you call them "terrorist"?


----------



## Kondor3 (Nov 26, 2013)

Edgetho said:


> occupied said:
> 
> 
> > They want a nuclear deterrent against invasion/attack, with the US and Israel threatening them every time a shitty conservative warhawk gets in power it is in their best interest to have one. I do not for a minute believe that they intend to use such a weapon in an offensive manner seeing as how after it is used the rest of the world will totally annihilate their country. Sure they may have crazies in charge but they are not that crazy, dirty bombs are much easier to use and entirely within their means right now and have not been used.
> ...


Harsh, but a bullseye, nevertheless...


----------



## Kondor3 (Nov 26, 2013)

kwc57 said:


> "..._Do yourself a favor and check for polyps while you have your head up your ass._"


_There_ goes half-an-ounce of morning coffee right back out through the nose... too funny!


----------



## kwc57 (Nov 26, 2013)

occupied said:


> Rocko said:
> 
> 
> > occupied said:
> ...



And they are one of the few nations that do this.

Iranians cry 'death to America' in huge rally - Middle East - Al Jazeera English

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FckLO8HcNyo]Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad: "Death to Israel" - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## Rocko (Nov 26, 2013)

occupied said:


> Rocko said:
> 
> 
> > occupied said:
> ...



People like you make me sick. You're the downside to having freedom.


----------



## DiamondDave (Nov 26, 2013)

hangover said:


> What would happen, really? How long would it take them to build an accurate delivery system? Who would they drop it on? Israel? I doubt it, that's where the Dome of the Rock is, the Muslims most holy temple. And if God says the Jewish temple must be rebuilt before the antichrist can take over, that would make it thousands more years before it could be built, if Israel is nuked. And if they dropped one anywhere, Iran would be destroyed immediately. That whole country would become a glass desert. The Persian people would cease to exist. Let's face it, the U.S. is the only country in the world that was insane enough to use nuclear weapons. And Truman dropped those bombs just to show Russia that we were that crazy. The U.S. was also going to nuke Vietnam and Laos. And there was a plan to nuke the moon. Destroy the moon, and the earth dies. Real smart huh. Russia's had the bomb for over 50 years, and they've never used one. China, India, Pakistan, North Korea and Israel have nukes too. North Korea can't figure out how to make one fly. And it's a wonder Pakistan hasn't given one to Iran.
> 
> So what's your scenario for what would happen? WWIII? Really?



Then what is the deal if a mentally ill person gets a gun??


----------



## Edgetho (Nov 26, 2013)

occupied said:


> Rocko said:
> 
> 
> > occupied said:
> ...



Wrong, our knowledge of you comes from you doing things like this....





Atefah

And this:





Neda


If we could get you to stand and fight, we'd wipe you from the face of the Earth.  But like the cowards you are, you choose to murder innocent women and children in the most cowardly of ways.

Some day.  Some day we will force you to stand fight.  And you will die like the cowards you are.  Not like men, because you are not.  But like terrified cowards who are only good at hitting when the opposition is not looking.


----------



## Redfish (Nov 26, 2013)

occupied said:


> Rocko said:
> 
> 
> > occupied said:
> ...



yeah, I forgot.   The USA did 9/11.   Idiot!


----------



## occupied (Nov 26, 2013)

Rocko said:


> occupied said:
> 
> 
> > Rocko said:
> ...



People like you hate freedom in general, so I am not surprised.


----------



## occupied (Nov 26, 2013)

Redfish said:


> occupied said:
> 
> 
> > Rocko said:
> ...



Oh I forgot Saddam did that one, sorry.


----------



## Redfish (Nov 26, 2013)

occupied said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> > occupied said:
> ...



Who said Saddam did it?  not me.    Radical muslims did it.   

I did not support going into Iraq or Afghanistan,  we should have taken them out covertly or with smart bombs,  ground wars were a waste of lives and dollars.


----------



## bitterlyclingin (Nov 26, 2013)

The only time the words Obama used, even including the 'a's and the 'the's, aren't lies.

The Obama Administration Keeps a Promise | Power Line


----------



## ShawnChris13 (Nov 26, 2013)

The United States has killed so many civilians with Tomahawk missiles that cost millions a pop and drones that cost millions a pop. It shouldn't be surprising that in countries that don't have the same news media we have that all they hear about is how Americans are killing their neighbors. A large majority of people in the Middle East have never heard of 9/11. All they know is their cousin in some village a few miles away was killed by American soldiers or American missiles. 

So yes, in the eye of the beholder America is the terrorist.


----------



## JWBooth (Nov 26, 2013)

Redfish said:


> they would sell one to some radical islamic group and NYC or DC or SFO would no longer exist.


Um maybe you could posit a scenario with a downside?


----------



## Redfish (Nov 26, 2013)

ShawnChris13 said:


> The United States has killed so many civilians with Tomahawk missiles that cost millions a pop and drones that cost millions a pop. It shouldn't be surprising that in countries that don't have the same news media we have that all they hear about is how Americans are killing their neighbors. A large majority of people in the Middle East have never heard of 9/11. All they know is their cousin in some village a few miles away was killed by American soldiers or American missiles.
> 
> So yes, in the eye of the beholder America is the terrorist.



the people of the mid east are not the naive fools that you think they are.  They are very aware of what is going on in the world.  More so than 50% of americans.  

radical islam is as much the enemy of the mid east as it is the enemy of the west.


----------



## Kondor3 (Nov 26, 2013)

hangover said:


> "..._How long would it take them to build an accurate delivery system?_..."








They can already hit Turkey, Israel, Egypt, India and much of the Sunni Islamic domain and parts of Russia and Southeastern Europe, as well as the Persian Gulf and the Indian Ocean regions, according to most estimates, with some of the more generous estimates stating that they can hit pretty much all of Europe, not just Greece and the Balkans.

It's a good bet that they won't need much more time in order to hit most everything in the Eastern Hemisphere, from one point or another within their borders.

It may be a while before they develop anything capable of hitting anything in the Western Hemisphere but we have a lot of good friends and allies within range already, and more on the way, not to mention our own overseas bases on that side of the world.

They're already well on their way to such capabilities, being able to threaten much of the Eastern Hemisphere, so let's not pretend that they don't already have capable ballistic missles - even '_intercontinental_' ballistic missiles (ICBM) - strictly speaking.

With better ones (longer-range, more accurate) ones certain to come in the near future; motivated and incentivized and catalyzed, no doubt, by the prospect of bolting nuclear warheads on top of even better *SECOND*-generation delivery systems.

They *ALREADY HAVE* their *FIRST*-generation delivery mechanisms.

Wake up.


----------



## LordBrownTrout (Nov 26, 2013)

JWBooth said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> > they would sell one to some radical islamic group and NYC or DC or SFO would no longer exist.
> ...


----------



## occupied (Nov 26, 2013)

Redfish said:


> occupied said:
> 
> 
> > Redfish said:
> ...



What do you think a war with Iran would look like? They are an advanced industrialized nation with formidable weapons and thirty years of certainty that our nation and Israel  occasionally wants to kill a significant portion of their population bombing their infrastructure flat. Even a a limited air war would be hideously expensive in lives and money with no good coming out of it. Good god, what a bunch of idiots some people are thinking that anyone would benefit from such an adventure other than the slimy war profiteers at the pentagon.


----------



## Edgetho (Nov 26, 2013)

Here we go again.  Only one party would defend a Country who still executes children.  dimocraps.

Only one party would scream about a Republican 'war on women' while defending muslims who demand their women have their genitalia mutilated.  Didn't kow about that?  Check into it.  It's called FGM or FGC

Female genital mutilation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia




> Female genital mutilation (FGM), also known as female genital cutting and female circumcision, is defined by the World Health Organization (WHO) as "all procedures that involve partial or total removal of the external female genitalia or other injury to the female genital organs for non-medical reasons."[2] FGM is practised as a cultural ritual by ethnic groups in 27 countries in sub-Saharan and Northeast Africa, and to a lesser extent in Asia, the Middle East and within immigrant communities elsewhere.[8] It is typically carried out, with or without anaesthesia, by a traditional circumciser using a knife or razor.[9] The age of the girls varies from weeks after birth to puberty; in half the countries for which figures were available in 2013, most girls were cut before the age of five.[5]



I'll spare you the more gruesome details but it's a Mooslum thing.

Iran « Stop FGM Middle East



> In the Islamic Republic of Iran female genital mutilation is acknowledged as a problem.



Only one party condemns racism but practices it at the same time.

Only one party........

dimocraps are the scum of the Earth.

If it's scummy, if it's sick, if it's disgusting....  It will find its way to the dimocrap party.

And you know what?  Maybe it's our fault...  

Maybe it's the fault of Republicans and other Patriotic Americans for not tolerating filth, perversion, mental depravity, cowardice, racism and treating women like livestock.

Yeah, that's it.  It's our fault   

dimocraps are such incredible scum


----------



## Kondor3 (Nov 26, 2013)

ShawnChris13 said:


> _The United States has killed so many civilians with Tomahawk missiles that cost millions a pop and drones that cost millions a pop. It shouldn't be surprising that in countries that don't have the same news media we have that all they hear about is how Americans are killing their neighbors. A large majority of people in the Middle East have never heard of 9/11. All they know is their cousin in some village a few miles away was killed by American soldiers or American missiles. So yes, in the eye of the beholder America is the terrorist._


Spare us the juicy rationalizations that give aid and comfort to the enemy, yes?


----------



## Edgetho (Nov 26, 2013)

occupied said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> > occupied said:
> ...



Yes, but they are cowards.  They'd run like the cowards they are if they had to face an advanced Western Army.

Westerners stand and fight.  Middle-Easterners will not.

Maybe it's not cowardice.    Maybe it's prudence.  Maybe they run because they know they're no match for us, either man-to-man or machine-to-machine.

They'd run like bunny rabbits if they had to face the United States.

On second thought......  They're cowards.  They'd run like the cowards they are


----------



## occupied (Nov 26, 2013)

Edgetho said:


> Here we go again.  Only one party would defend a Country who still executes children.  dimocraps.
> 
> Only one party would scream about a Republican 'war on women' while defending muslims who demand their women have their genitalia mutilated.  Didn't kow about that?  Check into it.  It's called FGM or FGC
> 
> ...



Spare us the appeal to sympathy, if every one those girls died under our bombs and missiles you would not shed a single tear. Genital mutilation is a horror but it is small compared to warfare.


----------



## Edgetho (Nov 26, 2013)

occupied said:


> Edgetho said:
> 
> 
> > Here we go again.  Only one party would defend a Country who still executes children.  dimocraps.
> ...



Wow!!

He's one of yours, dimocrap scumbags.

Embrace him.  Defend him.  Better yet, glorify him.

He's one of yours


----------



## NoNukes (Nov 26, 2013)

Redfish said:


> occupied said:
> 
> 
> > They want a nuclear deterrent against invasion/attack, with the US and Israel threatening them every time a shitty conservative warhawk gets in power it is in their best interest to have one. I do not for a minute believe that they intend to use such a weapon in an offensive manner seeing as how after it is used the rest of the world will totally annihilate their country. Sure they may have crazies in charge but they are not that crazy, dirty bombs are much easier to use and entirely within their means right now and have not been used.
> ...



Experts on the Middle East say that you are wrong, they are not that crazy.


----------



## Edgetho (Nov 26, 2013)

NoNukes said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> > occupied said:
> ...



WHAT experts, bitch?  Your asshole?


----------



## ShawnChris13 (Nov 26, 2013)

Kondor3 said:


> ShawnChris13 said:
> 
> 
> > _The United States has killed so many civilians with Tomahawk missiles that cost millions a pop and drones that cost millions a pop. It shouldn't be surprising that in countries that don't have the same news media we have that all they hear about is how Americans are killing their neighbors. A large majority of people in the Middle East have never heard of 9/11. All they know is their cousin in some village a few miles away was killed by American soldiers or American missiles. So yes, in the eye of the beholder America is the terrorist._
> ...




Yeah let's just blame sheep herders and bazaar stall vendors for terrorism instead. If they die it's not like more terrorists will want to avenge the deaths of their family. They still talk about the crusades like its a recent event. The history in those nations does not help American sympathies.


----------



## Kondor3 (Nov 26, 2013)

occupied said:


> "...I did not support going into Iraq..."


We are in agreement.



> "..._or Afghanistan_..."


We are not in agreement.



> "..._What do you think a war with Iran would look like?_..."


If Iran launched nukes, their Adversaries (NATO and Israel, at a minimum) would probably drop an equal number on top of Iran, cooking-down a few cities and reducing the number of towns in which large-scale urban guerrilla warfare operations would be required, but, that still leaves a lot of the country un-touched, and that aspect of such a war would resemble the latest Iraq War in many respects, most likely.



> "..._They are an advanced industrialized nation with formidable weapons and thirty years of certainty that our nation and Israel occasionally wants to kill a significant portion of their population bombing their infrastructure flat_..."


That's right... take their side in the argument... the phrase: '_Giving aid and comfort to the enemy_' comes to mind.

I do not recall the President of the United States nor the President nor Prime Minister of Israel exciting their people by publicly declaring that Iran was the 'Great Satan' nor by invading the Iranian Embassy and taking 50 embassy staff as hostages nor by declaring that Iran should be wiped off the map.

Epic Fail.



> "..._Even a a limited air war would be hideously expensive in lives and money with no good coming out of it_..."


You fail to take into account that you are dealing with a government whose uppermost layer consists of medieval, fundamentalist, dogmatic, martyrdom-encouraging religious clerics, presiding over a branch of a belief-system whose very founders and earliest heroes embraced religious warfare and who promised great rewards in the afterlife for suffering a heroic warrior's death in this life.

One need look no further than the Martyrdom Complex suffered by the Iranian population during the course of the 1980-1988 Iran-Iraq War, in which the Iranian Ayatollahs sent scores of thousands of their boys 'over the top' in World War I doughboy style to certain death in the face of machine-gun fire and armor and artillery and airstrike counterfire.

The subject of Iranian-style Martyrdom, and how that plays-out in their modern-day society and culture - can be studied using a number of sources, but the obligatory Wiki article on the subject gets one off to a good start, using understandable and digestible verbiage, without investing a ton of time on it...

Martyrdom in Iran - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

...and it begs the question:

*"Do we, as the Big Guns who can (unfairly, perhaps, but effectively, nevertheless) refuse Nuclear Arms to a prospective member of the Nuclear Club, really want to admit a Fundamentalist Theocratic Autocracy to the Nuclear Club?"*

Really?

Have we lost our friggin' minds?

This is just *BEGGING* for trouble in the future, for ourselves in a few years, or our kids or grandkids. Why not just demonstrate some backbone now, and say 'No', and avoid even the *POTENTIAL* for Iranian nuclear mischief in future, in any of a thousand-and-one scenarios that we cannot envision at present? Why do that to ourselves?

In the interests of fairness?

*SCREW* fair.

When Fairness and (future) Mortal Safety are at-odds, Mortal Safety needs to win-out, every time.

Fair has nothing to do with it.



> "..._Good god, what a bunch of idiots some people are thinking that anyone would benefit from such an adventure other than the slimy war profiteers at the pentagon._"


Or, alternatively, what idiots some people are, for taking sides with The Adversary, and for metaphorically hiding behind a couple of thousand miles of ocean-water separating them from their future antagonists, and failing to realize that we are in the opening decade(s) of a resurrected struggle between The West (secularized Christendom) and a re-awakening, radical, militant, and re-militarizing Islam, of which this Iranian Shiite nucleus may end-up becoming one of the leading players over time.


----------



## Redfish (Nov 26, 2013)

occupied said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> > occupied said:
> ...



Iran is the major exporter of terrorism in the world today,  they have rallies with the theme of "death to america and death to israel".   We do not want war, they do.   They have declared a holy war on us, israel, and europe.  

Its not about making profits for defense companies, its about the security of the USA and our allies.

You are very naive.


----------



## Redfish (Nov 26, 2013)

ShawnChris13 said:


> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> > ShawnChris13 said:
> ...



if they were all sheep herders and bazaar vendors, you might have a point, but they aren't and you don't


----------



## Redfish (Nov 26, 2013)

NoNukes said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> > occupied said:
> ...



Experts like Kerry and Obama?  Those experts?   the ones who turned Egypt and Libya over to the muslim brotherhood?   those "experts".


----------



## 007 (Nov 26, 2013)

Redfish said:


> they would sell one to some radical islamic group and NYC or DC or SFO would no longer exist.



D.C. aye.... hmmm... well maybe there's an upside to Iran getting the bomb after all.


----------



## Kondor3 (Nov 26, 2013)

Redfish said:


> "..._Experts like Kerry and Obama? Those experts? the ones who turned Egypt and Libya over to the muslim brotherhood? those "experts_".


Ouch...


----------



## DiamondDave (Nov 26, 2013)

Still amazes me that these are the same liberals/progressives that will salivate over 'gun control' to keep guns out of the hands of almost anyone they don't like, the 'mentally ill' (even ones who sought counseling after troubling events like divorce or whatever), and many times just pretty much everyone in general... but a warped state/country like Iran they will just allow to have the most devastating weapon/technology available

Priceless


----------



## Indeependent (Nov 26, 2013)

Last year Iran's government PCs started playing video games.
I'm rather confident the firmware driving any Iranian missiles is "gamed".


----------



## ShawnChris13 (Nov 26, 2013)

Redfish said:


> ShawnChris13 said:
> 
> 
> > Kondor3 said:
> ...




Valid point. However it is undeniable that the majority of the people are looking for our soldiers to protect them from religious militants blowing up their cities. That's why Afghanistan kept saying their security forces weren't ready. The vast population of the Middle East are peaceful people trying to earn a modest living. It's the small percentage of militants who want America out of their country who create an environment where America blows up innocent bystanders. If the majority of Middle Eastern citizens hated America and wanted to fight us we would have declared a real war instead of this guerrilla war attrition bull **** that our troops are currently fighting against.


----------



## Kondor3 (Nov 26, 2013)

ShawnChris13 said:


> _Valid point. However it is undeniable that the majority of the people are looking for our soldiers to protect them from religious militants blowing up their cities. That's why Afghanistan kept saying their security forces weren't ready. The vast population of the Middle East are peaceful people trying to earn a modest living. It's the small percentage of militants who want America out of their country who create an environment where America blows up innocent bystanders. If the majority of Middle Eastern citizens hated America and wanted to fight us we would have declared a real war instead of this guerrilla war attrition bull **** that our troops are currently fighting against._


Then they need to suppress and neutralize that minority amongst them.

Until they do so, they must, regrettably, be regarded as 'standing with the enemy'.

In much the same vein that any 'enemy population' must suffer alongside its leadership.

Impossible to counter the Bad Guys when their countrymen don't act to suppress them, and when the Bad Guys continue to attack or continue to pose a threat to the rest of us.

So the population at-large suffers alongside the Bad Guys.

It's not fair, but it's the way of the world, and has been, for thousands of years.

The trick is, to come to grips with this sad Truth, and not let it un-nerve us nor cripple our defense.

The safety of our own people must come first, in our own eyes, in the final analysis, when all else fails.

To hold otherwise is to manifest (collective) suicidal behavior.


----------



## Roudy (Nov 26, 2013)

occupied said:


> Rocko said:
> 
> 
> > occupied said:
> ...


What knowledge is that? The fact that Iran is an Islamic state that is governed by radicals and terrorists who wish to impose barbaric Islamic shariah law over their shiite kingdom and drag the world back to the 7th century by force? And nothing like a nuclear bomb will clear all the obstacles in their path to get there.  

Yeah, sure, what's wrong with these nutjobs having a Nuke?  Let's give them 10.  Ha ha ha.


----------



## ShawnChris13 (Nov 26, 2013)

Kondor3 said:


> ShawnChris13 said:
> 
> 
> > _Valid point. However it is undeniable that the majority of the people are looking for our soldiers to protect them from religious militants blowing up their cities. That's why Afghanistan kept saying their security forces weren't ready. The vast population of the Middle East are peaceful people trying to earn a modest living. It's the small percentage of militants who want America out of their country who create an environment where America blows up innocent bystanders. If the majority of Middle Eastern citizens hated America and wanted to fight us we would have declared a real war instead of this guerrilla war attrition bull **** that our troops are currently fighting against._
> ...




The safety of our own people would be better served by protecting our people here in our country. Our border is out of control yet we are protecting civilians on the other side of the planet while instigating more enemies by causing civilian casualties. Bring the troops home and if they must die et them die defending our country and not someone else's. Perpetuating these wars to continue escalating with pointless deployments for people who obviously have shown they won't help us fight their own radical population is draining our governments capital resources and causing American families disproportionate grief to the results achieved by these desert skirmishes filled with IEDs. Each time a soldier dies the government pays out 400k in life insurance benefits. How many soldiers have died for this theoretical war on terror?

As much as congress makes in a year pales in comparison to the cost of dead soldiers fiscally and socially here at home. Close bases in a foreign state that want us gone and secure our land of freedom for the free.


----------



## Kondor3 (Nov 26, 2013)

ShawnChris13 said:


> "..._The safety of our own people would be better served by protecting our people here in our country_..."


Disagree, in part, and agree, in part.

Disagree, insofar as I perceive that the safety of our own people are best served by a multifaceted approach that deals effectively with internal, border-region, and international and overseas matters.



> "..._Our border is out of control yet we are protecting civilians on the other side of the planet_..."


Agreed, we are not protecting and enforcing and controlling our own borders, and it ticks off a lot of people (you, and me, as well) that we are spending so much money overseas and so little money and effort and dedication on border security.

But it is not a 'one or the other' proposition - both are needed - we must secure our own borders AND deal effectively with threats (present and future) around the planet.



> "..._while instigating more enemies by causing civilian casualties_..."


Mixed feedback. Agree that we need to do a much better job with intelligence and targeting and fire-permissions in connection with drone attacks, but we do need to continue to utilize drones to hammer bad guys in places where we do not otherwise have direct access to them, rather than sending our own people into places that would constitute a suicide mission.



> "..._Bring the troops home and if they must die et them die defending our country and not someone else's_..."


I'm with you, on saying it's time to get the hell outta Afghanistan. We're not doing much good there, anyway, and more spinning our wheels than anything else.

I'm not with you, with respect to pulling-in our horns globally, and bringing them all home.

We lost that ability after the Spanish-American War; we've long-since become a global player with global interests, and there's no going back to Dreamland Isolationist Past, as tempting as that is sometimes. We, collectively, depend far too heavily upon globalization, and our part in it, for our economic and geo-political life as a nation.



> "....Perpetuating these wars to continue escalating with pointless deployments for people who obviously have shown they won't help us fight their own radical population is draining our governments capital resources and causing American families disproportionate grief to the results achieved by these desert skirmishes filled with IEDs..."


Agree, in large part. We need to do a much better job of picking our fights, and getting them over with quickly, and then getting the hell out.

But, IMHO, we should not abandon the idea of Intervention when necessary to our own interests and immediate or long-term safety, and we should not allow disgust with the stupidity of recent war-making to swing the pendulum so far to the other (Isolationist) side of the scale that we paralyze ourselves and injure ourselves more in the long run than we help or defend ourselves.



> "..._Each time a soldier dies the government pays out 400k in life insurance benefits. How many soldiers have died for this theoretical war on terror? As much as congress makes in a year pales in comparison to the cost of dead soldiers fiscally and socially here at home. Close bases in a foreign state that want us gone and secure our land of freedom for the free._"


Agreed, in large part, if not completely.

War is an expensive business. We need to do a much better job of picking our fights and winning them more quickly and disengaging.

We can also probably close a few bases here and there (outside of present combat-theaters where we can completely pull out at any time we like) but we have done a lot to scale-back our overseas presence in recent decades and there is probably not a lot more fat to trim without surrendering strategic or tactical advantage or pre-positioning in a variety of potential future hot-spots. It IS a balancing act, isn't it?


----------



## NoNukes (Nov 26, 2013)

Redfish said:


> NoNukes said:
> 
> 
> > Redfish said:
> ...



Academics who are experts on the Middle East.


----------



## NoNukes (Nov 26, 2013)

Redfish said:


> NoNukes said:
> 
> 
> > Redfish said:
> ...



Why do I always forget how stupid you are?


----------



## NoNukes (Nov 26, 2013)

Kondor3 said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> > "..._Experts like Kerry and Obama? Those experts? the ones who turned Egypt and Libya over to the muslim brotherhood? those "experts_".
> ...



Yes, stupidity hurts.


----------



## kwc57 (Nov 26, 2013)

ShawnChris13 said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> > ShawnChris13 said:
> ...



Then they need to police their own.  Simple as that.


----------



## kwc57 (Nov 26, 2013)

NoNukes said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> > NoNukes said:
> ...



Names?  Publishings?


----------



## hangover (Nov 26, 2013)

> Only one party would defend a Country who still executes children. dimocraps.


Wow, I thought Texass was a red state.


----------



## hangover (Nov 26, 2013)

Edgetho said:


> occupied said:
> 
> 
> > Redfish said:
> ...



you're so brave.....hiding behind your computer. If you weren't such a chicken shit, you'd be over there fighting those you want others to kill for you.


----------



## Roudy (Nov 26, 2013)

hangover said:


> Edgetho said:
> 
> 
> > occupied said:
> ...


You mean fight the same brave people who blow up shopping malls and target infidel women and children?


----------



## Kondor3 (Nov 26, 2013)

Roudy said:


> "..._You mean fight the same brave people who blow up shopping malls and target infidel women and children?_"


Muslim Terrorists = World-Class Scumbags.


----------



## ShawnChris13 (Nov 26, 2013)

Leave the Mid East and let them go back to killing each other for no reason. The governments that will be in place know we will attack them if they sell their oil for anything other than the dollar anyways.


----------



## Roudy (Nov 26, 2013)

ShawnChris13 said:


> Leave the Mid East and let them go back to killing each other for no reason. The governments that will be in place know we will attack them if they sell their oil for anything other than the dollar anyways.


You can't leave anything alone any longer. That's what brought 9-11.  We ignored those who kept attacking us and kept calling for the destruction of the US and Israel.


----------



## Contumacious (Nov 26, 2013)

hangover said:


> What's the big deal if Iran gets the bomb?



*Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), *

*Nothing in this Treaty shall be interpreted as affecting the inalienable right of all the Parties to the Treaty to develop research, production and use of nuclear energy for peaceful purposes* without discrimination and in conformity with articles I and II of this Treaty.

.


----------



## bitterlyclingin (Nov 27, 2013)

Iran is allegedly in close cooperation with North Korea developing a ballistic missile that can reach the United States.

The Russians, some years ago sent a delegation to Tehran to dissuade the Mullahs from their pursuit of the bomb. Upon their return from Tehran, the Russians characterized the Mullahs as meshuganeh, constantly speaking in otherwordly and ethereal terms and arguments, genuine bonafide religious crazies. There used to be a saying, probably more reflective of pre WWII Germany, "That the Germans would march if they thought they had a fifty percent chance of victory whereas the Russians would march only if they perceived a nintey per cent chance of victory" Religious crazies will obviously march with zero per cent chance of victory, how long have they been strapping suicide vests on, walking into a crowd and blowing themsleves up, to date?

Obama and his advisors, some of whom attained their job credentials via a MFA from NYU in fictional literature writing, are more likely to have their peace overtures returned in the form of an Iranian nuke mounted on a NK ICBM landing on a US City. Lets hope that city, if there has to be one, is San Francisco. San Fran is one of the few spots where Comrade O can still draw $15,000 a head for a served meal while listening to Comrade O speak. Allegedly, during his last speaking engagement there a few days ago, everytime Comrade O enunciated a point, one wag in the audience would jump up and enthusiiastically shout "Executive Order!"


----------



## Contumacious (Nov 27, 2013)

bitterlyclingin said:


> iran is allegedly in close cooperation with north korea developing a ballistic missile that can reach the united states.
> 
> "



huh?

Stfu.

.


----------



## hangover (Nov 29, 2013)

The right wingers in the U.S. have been trying to be the world dictator since the end of WWII. Nixon was going to nuke Vietnam and Laos. 
After WWII the U.S. made all kinds of promises and treaties with all the Muslim countries, none of which they ever kept.
Raygun was so slimy, he sold chemical weapons to Iraq to use on the Iranians, and sold other weapons to Iran, making profits off both side of the Iran/Iraq war.
The U.S. has given the whole Muslim world every reason to hate us.
9/11 was a direct result of all the dirty deeds the U.S. has on the middle east.
Americans believe they've gotten away with killing a quarter million civilians with the nukes used on the Japanese. They also think they got away with the million civilians they killed in Iraq and Afghanistan.

I bet karma is still coming, and it's gonna be a bitch. When you think your shit don't stink, it gets smeared in your face, just to prove it does.


----------



## SherriMunnerlyn (Dec 1, 2013)

bitterlyclingin said:


> Iran is allegedly in close cooperation with North Korea developing a ballistic missile that can reach the United States.
> 
> The Russians, some years ago sent a delegation to Tehran to dissuade the Mullahs from their pursuit of the bomb. Upon their return from Tehran, the Russians characterized the Mullahs as meshuganeh, constantly speaking in otherwordly and ethereal terms and arguments, genuine bonafide religious crazies. There used to be a saying, probably more reflective of pre WWII Germany, "That the Germans would march if they thought they had a fifty percent chance of victory whereas the Russians would march only if they perceived a nintey per cent chance of victory" Religious crazies will obviously march with zero per cent chance of victory, how long have they been strapping suicide vests on, walking into a crowd and blowing themsleves up, to date?
> 
> Obama and his advisors, some of whom attained their job credentials via a MFA from NYU in fictional literature writing, are more likely to have their peace overtures returned in the form of an Iranian nuke mounted on a NK ICBM landing on a US City. Lets hope that city, if there has to be one, is San Francisco. San Fran is one of the few spots where Comrade O can still draw $15,000 a head for a served meal while listening to Comrade O speak. Allegedly, during his last speaking engagement there a few days ago, everytime Comrade O enunciated a point, one wag in the audience would jump up and enthusiiastically shout "Executive Order!"



What Nonsense!

Are we to believe you witnessed all of this personally or did you see it all in your crystal ball?


----------



## Roudy (Dec 1, 2013)

hangover said:


> The right wingers in the U.S. have been trying to be the world dictator since the end of WWII. Nixon was going to nuke Vietnam and Laos.
> After WWII the U.S. made all kinds of promises and treaties with all the Muslim countries, none of which they ever kept.
> Raygun was so slimy, he sold chemical weapons to Iraq to use on the Iranians, and sold other weapons to Iran, making profits off both side of the Iran/Iraq war.
> The U.S. has given the whole Muslim world every reason to hate us.
> ...


You really love America, don't you?


----------



## Roudy (Dec 1, 2013)

bitterlyclingin said:


> Iran is allegedly in close cooperation with North Korea developing a ballistic missile that can reach the United States.
> 
> The Russians, some years ago sent a delegation to Tehran to dissuade the Mullahs from their pursuit of the bomb. Upon their return from Tehran, the Russians characterized the Mullahs as meshuganeh, constantly speaking in otherwordly and ethereal terms and arguments, genuine bonafide religious crazies. There used to be a saying, probably more reflective of pre WWII Germany, "That the Germans would march if they thought they had a fifty percent chance of victory whereas the Russians would march only if they perceived a nintey per cent chance of victory" Religious crazies will obviously march with zero per cent chance of victory, how long have they been strapping suicide vests on, walking into a crowd and blowing themsleves up, to date?
> 
> Obama and his advisors, some of whom attained their job credentials via a MFA from NYU in fictional literature writing, are more likely to have their peace overtures returned in the form of an Iranian nuke mounted on a NK ICBM landing on a US City. Lets hope that city, if there has to be one, is San Francisco. San Fran is one of the few spots where Comrade O can still draw $15,000 a head for a served meal while listening to Comrade O speak. Allegedly, during his last speaking engagement there a few days ago, everytime Comrade O enunciated a point, one wag in the audience would jump up and enthusiiastically shout "Executive Order!"


Correct.  Although I don't want to see any city here or abroad nuked.


----------



## Kondor3 (Dec 1, 2013)

hangover said:


> _The right wingers in the U.S. have been trying to be the world dictator since the end of WWII. Nixon was going to nuke Vietnam and Laos. After WWII the U.S. made all kinds of promises and treaties with all the Muslim countries, none of which they ever kept. Raygun was so slimy, he sold chemical weapons to Iraq to use on the Iranians, and sold other weapons to Iran, making profits off both side of the Iran/Iraq war. The U.S. has given the whole Muslim world every reason to hate us. 9/11 was a direct result of all the dirty deeds the U.S. has on the middle east. Americans believe they've gotten away with killing a quarter million civilians with the nukes used on the Japanese. They also think they got away with the million civilians they killed in Iraq and Afghanistan. I bet karma is still coming, and it's gonna be a bitch. When you think your shit don't stink, it gets smeared in your face, just to prove it does._


Sounds like something straight out of the _Osama bin Laden Middle School Debate Club_ in Riyadh.


----------



## Roudy (Dec 1, 2013)

Kondor3 said:


> hangover said:
> 
> 
> > _The right wingers in the U.S. have been trying to be the world dictator since the end of WWII. Nixon was going to nuke Vietnam and Laos. After WWII the U.S. made all kinds of promises and treaties with all the Muslim countries, none of which they ever kept. Raygun was so slimy, he sold chemical weapons to Iraq to use on the Iranians, and sold other weapons to Iran, making profits off both side of the Iran/Iraq war. The U.S. has given the whole Muslim world every reason to hate us. 9/11 was a direct result of all the dirty deeds the U.S. has on the middle east. Americans believe they've gotten away with killing a quarter million civilians with the nukes used on the Japanese. They also think they got away with the million civilians they killed in Iraq and Afghanistan. I bet karma is still coming, and it's gonna be a bitch. When you think your shit don't stink, it gets smeared in your face, just to prove it does._
> ...


Everything he learned, he learned in 3rd grade at his Islamic Madrassa. Ha ha.


----------



## rhodescholar (Dec 1, 2013)

ShawnChris13 said:


> Iran hasn't attacked another nation since 1798. How many times has America attacked another nation? I can understand why countries would want a deterrent strong enough to keep the UN (American troops basically) out of their nation. Do I agree with them getting a bomb? No. But I can see why they want one. If Iran had 40 military bases surrounding us I'd be in the back yard trying to build a bomb to get them out of here.



The statement/lie that "iran has not attacked a nation since..." is a trolling and bannable offense at many genuine political debate forums, I wish it was here - but then again, this is not a real discussion forum.


----------



## rhodescholar (Dec 1, 2013)

occupied said:


> Rocko said:
> 
> 
> > occupied said:
> ...



Seems like you and the moron munner-turd are the most mentally ill posters here, though there are others not far behind.


----------



## hangover (Dec 2, 2013)

Roudy said:


> hangover said:
> 
> 
> > The right wingers in the U.S. have been trying to be the world dictator since the end of WWII. Nixon was going to nuke Vietnam and Laos.
> ...


Well I don't wear blinders. And I don't subscribe to the "Right or wrong, hurray for the USA" stupid shit.



> Sounds like something straight out of the Osama bin Laden Middle School Debate Club in Riyadh.


Get a wash cloth and wipe the shit out of your eyes .....and ears.


----------



## Kondor3 (Dec 2, 2013)

hangover said:


> > Sounds like something straight out of the Osama bin Laden Middle School Debate Club in Riyadh.
> 
> 
> _Get a wash cloth and wipe the shit out of your eyes .....and ears._


Don't over-think it, Princess, or you'll do yourself an injury.


----------



## hangover (Dec 3, 2013)

Kondor3 said:


> hangover said:
> 
> 
> > > Sounds like something straight out of the Osama bin Laden Middle School Debate Club in Riyadh.
> ...


As apposed to letting your ego do your thinking for you.....


----------

