Republican Senators send a letter to Iran. Wow. Damn!

[Statistikhengst]

Raygun CrusaderFrank

And so RWNJ treachery runs full-cycle.

 

[Billo_Really]

As I pointed out, iran is fomenting wars across the mideast, is running terrorist proxies in many other countries, and is despised by the majority sunni populations who will not tolerate living under an iranian jackboot forever. Either you get iran out of lebanon, yemen, iraq, bahrain, and morocco, or you will have festering wars - and probably a major one - in the near term.

Fuck you, asshole, Iran is not doing any of that shit.

This is just like the run-up to the Iraq war. War mongering pieces of shit like you, are ramping up all the bullshit to start another unnecessary war.

Go fuck yourself, liar!

 

[Dot Com]

Iran Love Letter by Political Cartoonist Steve Sack

 

[Billo_Really]

Because they are polls. Americans do not approve of a nuclear Iran, nor do they trust Iran. It is really that simple. Why on earth WOULD they? Can you answer that question?

Iran

First off, a nuclear Iran is none of our fucking business. And secondly, any country smart enough to build "the bomb", is also smart enough to know that if they use that "bomb", their country will glow in the dark.

 

[Dot Com]

Iran Tom Cotton and the Bizarre History of the Logan Act - Josh Zeitz - POLITICO Magazine

 

[TyroneSlothrop]

 

[Statistikhengst]

Molto fantastico!

 

[TyroneSlothrop]

ou posted fiction. The fact is Iran is fighting ISIS.

That's two of ChrisL's posted fictions in a row.

And thus one posted she was ready to declare herself a winner on this thread when she stumbled and fell down at the starting line.

A very common right wing technique for snapping defeat out of the jaws of victory and then dancing through the meadows of unicornland.

 

[Lakhota]

 

[Lakhota]

 

[NotfooledbyW]

The point is that Iran does not care if ISIS destroys any other ME country. ..... Once the ME is in complete chaos, Iran will take advantage of that.

I thought the dominant right-winger Obama-hater absurd and dishonest version of ME events was that:

Afghanistan 2009
(A) Obama didn't send enough troops to Afghanistan to pull Bush's fiasco there out of the jaws of defeat.
(B) Obama set a target date for withdrawal of surge troops giving the enemy time to wait us out and then take over the whole country and enable AL Qaeda & Taliban to overthrow Pakistan & sieze the nukes and the world would be destroyed.

Didn't happen.

Iraq; 2011:
Needlessly and recklessly Pulled troops out when Iraq wasn't ready which would lead to all of Iraq being taken over by terrorists thus intentionally squandering the great Bush victory after the 2003 invasion that saved the world from Saddam's WMD caused extreme violence and in Iraq then by 2008 the Bush surge that Obama opposed reduced that violence 80% from 2006 levels.

Iraq 2014
Then of course Daesh emerges capturing large parts of Sunni Iraq and it's all Obama's fault for pulling troops out and not forcing Iraq to allow them to stay on US terms. Then of course Baghdad and all of Iraq's oil (for the mid-terms) was to fall into terrorist hands all because 10,000 troops were not forced to stay in Iraq by a soft on terrorist President

Didn't happen

Egypt Arab Spring:
Depending on what day it was Obama was not supporting the protesters. Or not supporting the government then was supporting the Muslim Brotherhood who bought Morsi the Presidency - then Obama was not supporting the protestors or the military or he's supporting the military by not calling it a coup when Morsi was arrested, but then Obama supported the MB too much or the protesters too much or too little or the Army and Al SIsi too much or too little. All this chaos was all Obama's fault and the Nile was to flow with blood of civil war and the peace treaty with Israel was to be in tatters and Armageddon was on the way.

Didn't happen

Syria:
Obama led from behind - led too much. Shoulda armed the rebels. Should not have armed the rebels. The red Line on CW. Obama was a fool to think Assad would actually give up his tons of CW. ISIS splits from Al Qaeda and go bonkers barbaric nutzo so much that Al Qaeda disavowed them. All Obama's fault - the IS is established. These terrorists (without an Air Force???) are going to over-run the entire Middle East - destroy Israel too - Obama does nothing .

Didn't happen

Lybia:
About the same as Syria except for Benghazi. Benghazi. Obama went to bed let our people die. He's on the side of terrorists. Blamed a movie. Won't call them terrorists.

"Please proceed Governor"

So ChrisL are you changing the narrative from "all that is Obama's fault" to its all Iran's fault?

QUOTE="ChrisL, post: 10965078, member: 50165"]The point is that Iran does not care if ISIS destroys any other ME country. ..... Once the ME is in complete chaos, Iran will take advantage of that.[/QUOTE]

Or is it still all Obama's fault? And he's giving them the BOMB - Be even more afraid.

 

[Coyote]

Your conservative wars have solved nothing to date. Why do you believe starting a war with Iran would be any different?

There were idiots claiming the same crap before we were bombed at pearl harbor; had the US intervened in WW2 earlier, many lives would have been saved.

So you would have us start another world war? And that would solve what, exactly, other than our existence on this planet, that is. By the way, you didn't answer my question.

It is Iran who wants WW III. Don't you understand that yet?

I don't think they do. They want to be a regional power and they want to be "respected", and nuclear technology and weaponry is one way to attain "respect" and power. India and Pakistan have nukes and are formable enemies yet neither has anilated the other. Israel has nukes that are much more powerful then anything Iran could produce in the forseable future with the technology they are currently working on (I think Doc pointed that out but everyone ignores it). If Iran were to do anything to Israel - it would have a 5 mile radius and Iran would be obliterated in return. There's a difference between rhetoric and action and despite propaganda and rhetoric to the contrary, Iran is surprisingly stable and doesn't strike me as insane in the way NK is for example. The current set of negotiations are very reminiscent to the old Salt Talks that that started with executive agreements to freeze weaponry and led eventually to a long term treaty.

That's because India and Pakistan are not controlled by insane mullahs who believe in a 12th Imam. Do you understand that? These mullahs want to bring about an apocalyptic scenario and to destroy Israel. That is their goal.

We think of them as "insane mullahs" but their not. They're canny and political, there is no evidence to support that they want an apocolypse.

 

[Coyote]

Ummm ... the FSA didn't even exist before 2011. We're talking about the insurgency we were fighting in Iraq.

So who was funding, arming, training and driving the shia militias in iraq to attack US troops? How many times were iranian troops captured in iraq? Plenty.

Yup, I think they want Iraq. They want to control Iraqi oil, of course! It is unbelievable to me that these same people will say such things about the US going after oil, but they refuse to believe that Iran would do the same, and use tricky methods (which they are GOOD at) to do so, along with propaganda and dishonesty. They are not being threatened by ISIS. They have ulterior motives for wanting to "help." Nobody should want their "help" with anything.

Ulterior motives....sure. We all do. However the entire region is threatened by ISIS. I don't think people refuse to believe Iran doesn't have ulterior motives. There are no innocents in this game.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

There were idiots claiming the same crap before we were bombed at pearl harbor; had the US intervened in WW2 earlier, many lives would have been saved.

So you would have us start another world war? And that would solve what, exactly, other than our existence on this planet, that is. By the way, you didn't answer my question.

It is Iran who wants WW III. Don't you understand that yet?

I don't think they do. They want to be a regional power and they want to be "respected", and nuclear technology and weaponry is one way to attain "respect" and power. India and Pakistan have nukes and are formable enemies yet neither has anilated the other. Israel has nukes that are much more powerful then anything Iran could produce in the forseable future with the technology they are currently working on (I think Doc pointed that out but everyone ignores it). If Iran were to do anything to Israel - it would have a 5 mile radius and Iran would be obliterated in return. There's a difference between rhetoric and action and despite propaganda and rhetoric to the contrary, Iran is surprisingly stable and doesn't strike me as insane in the way NK is for example. The current set of negotiations are very reminiscent to the old Salt Talks that that started with executive agreements to freeze weaponry and led eventually to a long term treaty.

That's because India and Pakistan are not controlled by insane mullahs who believe in a 12th Imam. Do you understand that? These mullahs want to bring about an apocalyptic scenario and to destroy Israel. That is their goal.

We think of them as "insane mullahs" but their not. They're canny and political, there is no evidence to support that they want an apocolypse.

Exactly.

We saw a similar ridiculous perception of the Soviets during the Cold War.

It's a troubling Orwellian aspect of most conservatives, their need for some sort of 'malevolent enemy,' be it 'communism' a generation ago or Iran today.

 

[Lakhota]

Iran isn't fighting ISIS to help America - and our government knows that. However, looking at it from Iran's point of view - that's their turf and they're trying to protect it - much like we would do in their shoes. Ancient mentality and modern weapons don't mix well.

 

[Statistikhengst]

So you would have us start another world war? And that would solve what, exactly, other than our existence on this planet, that is. By the way, you didn't answer my question.

It is Iran who wants WW III. Don't you understand that yet?

I don't think they do. They want to be a regional power and they want to be "respected", and nuclear technology and weaponry is one way to attain "respect" and power. India and Pakistan have nukes and are formable enemies yet neither has anilated the other. Israel has nukes that are much more powerful then anything Iran could produce in the forseable future with the technology they are currently working on (I think Doc pointed that out but everyone ignores it). If Iran were to do anything to Israel - it would have a 5 mile radius and Iran would be obliterated in return. There's a difference between rhetoric and action and despite propaganda and rhetoric to the contrary, Iran is surprisingly stable and doesn't strike me as insane in the way NK is for example. The current set of negotiations are very reminiscent to the old Salt Talks that that started with executive agreements to freeze weaponry and led eventually to a long term treaty.

That's because India and Pakistan are not controlled by insane mullahs who believe in a 12th Imam. Do you understand that? These mullahs want to bring about an apocalyptic scenario and to destroy Israel. That is their goal.

We think of them as "insane mullahs" but their not. They're canny and political, there is no evidence to support that they want an apocolypse.

Exactly.

We saw a similar ridiculous perception of the Soviets during the Cold War.

It's a troubling Orwellian aspect of most conservatives, their need for some sort of 'malevolent enemy,' be it 'communism' a generation ago or Iran today.

Just read an interesting tweet from a certain Peter W. Singer:

"There is an entire generation of neocons that no nothing other than how to write opeds calling for war on countries beginning with I."

Ain't that about right...

 

[ChrisL]

The point is that Iran does not care if ISIS destroys any other ME country. ..... Once the ME is in complete chaos, Iran will take advantage of that.

I thought the dominant right-winger Obama-hater absurd and dishonest version of ME events was that:

Afghanistan 2009
(A) Obama didn't send enough troops to Afghanistan to pull Bush's fiasco there out of the jaws of defeat.
(B) Obama set a target date for withdrawal of surge troops giving the enemy time to wait us out and then take over the whole country and enable AL Qaeda & Taliban to overthrow Pakistan & sieze the nukes and the world would be destroyed.

Didn't happen.

Iraq; 2011:
Needlessly and recklessly Pulled troops out when Iraq wasn't ready which would lead to all of Iraq being taken over by terrorists thus intentionally squandering the great Bush victory after the 2003,caused extreme violence and then by 2008' reducing that violence 80% from 2006 levels.

Iraq 2014
Then of course Daesh emerges capturing large parts of Sunni Iraq and it's all Obama's fault for pulling troops out and not forcing Iraq to allow them to stay on US terms. Then of course Baghdad and all of Iraq's oil (for the mid-terms) was to fall into terrorist hands all because 10,000 troops were not forced to stay in Iraq by a soft on terrorist President

Didn't happen

Egypt Arab Spring:
Depending on what day it was Obama was not supporting the protesters. Or not supporting the government then was supporting the Muslim Brotherhood who bought Morsi the Presidency - then Obama was not supporting the protestors or the military or he's supporting the military by not calling it a coup when Morsi was arrested, but then Obama supported the MB too much or the protesters too much or too little or the Army and Al SIsi too much or too little. All this chaos was all Obama's fault and the Nile was to flow with blood of civil war and the peace treaty with Israel was to be in tatters and Armageddon was on the way.

Didn't happen

Syria:
Obama led from behind - led too much. Shoulda armed the rebels. Should not have armed the rebels. The red Line on CW. Obama was a fool to think Assad would actually give up his tons of CW. ISIS splits from Al Qaeda and go bonkers barbaric nutzo so much that Al Qaeda disavowed them. All Obama's fault - the IS is established. These terrorists (without an Air Force???) are going to over-run the entire Middle East - destroy Israel too - Obama does nothing .

Didn't happen

Lybia:
About the same as Syria except for Benghazi. Benghazi. Obama went to bed let our people die. He's on the side of terrorists. Blamed a movie. Won't call them terrorists.

"Please proceed Governor"

So ChrisL are you changing the narrative from "all that is Obama's fault" to its all Iran's fault?

QUOTE="ChrisL, post: 10965078, member: 50165"]The point is that Iran does not care if ISIS destroys any other ME country. ..... Once the ME is in complete chaos, Iran will take advantage of that.

Or is it still all Obama's fault? And he's giving them the BOMB - Be even more afraid.[/QUOTE]

You moron, at no time did I say it was all Obama's fault. I said Obama is making a very bad decision to make any kind of deal with Iran regarding nuclear power. DERP. Keep changing the subject and making shit up because you don't have an argument, though.

And again, with the screwed up quoting. Aren't you the one I specifically asked yesterday to fix your quotes? WTF? If you can't handle quoting then you probably shouldn't be posting.

 

[Faun]

Ummm ... the FSA didn't even exist before 2011. We're talking about the insurgency we were fighting in Iraq.

So who was funding, arming, training and driving the shia militias in iraq to attack US troops? How many times were iranian troops captured in iraq? Plenty.

What does that have to do with the FSA, whom you attributed to killing "thousands of Americans?"

Faun: Then there's the fact that Iran has neither attacked us nor threatened to.

rhodescholar: You stupid fucking idiot asshole, do you have any idea how many american soldiers those fucking bastard iranians injured or killed in iraq? THOUSANDS.

Faun: The vast majority of insurgents were Iraqi.

rhodescholar: What are you talking about? The FSA was comprised of sunnis who defected from the syrian army.

Faun: Ummm ... the FSA didn't even exist before 2011.​

The FSA aside, since there was no such group when we invaded Iraq, again -- the vast majority of the insurgents were Iraqi. And while the rest came from many of the other countries in the region, they in no way represented the nations they came from.

It's lunacy to go to war with Iran because some of their citizens joined up to fight in a sectarian war between Sunni's and Shiite's that America was in the middle of.

 

[ChrisL]

So you would have us start another world war? And that would solve what, exactly, other than our existence on this planet, that is. By the way, you didn't answer my question.

It is Iran who wants WW III. Don't you understand that yet?

I don't think they do. They want to be a regional power and they want to be "respected", and nuclear technology and weaponry is one way to attain "respect" and power. India and Pakistan have nukes and are formable enemies yet neither has anilated the other. Israel has nukes that are much more powerful then anything Iran could produce in the forseable future with the technology they are currently working on (I think Doc pointed that out but everyone ignores it). If Iran were to do anything to Israel - it would have a 5 mile radius and Iran would be obliterated in return. There's a difference between rhetoric and action and despite propaganda and rhetoric to the contrary, Iran is surprisingly stable and doesn't strike me as insane in the way NK is for example. The current set of negotiations are very reminiscent to the old Salt Talks that that started with executive agreements to freeze weaponry and led eventually to a long term treaty.

That's because India and Pakistan are not controlled by insane mullahs who believe in a 12th Imam. Do you understand that? These mullahs want to bring about an apocalyptic scenario and to destroy Israel. That is their goal.

We think of them as "insane mullahs" but their not. They're canny and political, there is no evidence to support that they want an apocolypse.

Exactly.

We saw a similar ridiculous perception of the Soviets during the Cold War.

It's a troubling Orwellian aspect of most conservatives, their need for some sort of 'malevolent enemy,' be it 'communism' a generation ago or Iran today.

Well, I'm not conservative. So what now?

 

[ChrisL]

Ummm ... the FSA didn't even exist before 2011. We're talking about the insurgency we were fighting in Iraq.

So who was funding, arming, training and driving the shia militias in iraq to attack US troops? How many times were iranian troops captured in iraq? Plenty.

Yup, I think they want Iraq. They want to control Iraqi oil, of course! It is unbelievable to me that these same people will say such things about the US going after oil, but they refuse to believe that Iran would do the same, and use tricky methods (which they are GOOD at) to do so, along with propaganda and dishonesty. They are not being threatened by ISIS. They have ulterior motives for wanting to "help." Nobody should want their "help" with anything.

Ulterior motives....sure. We all do. However the entire region is threatened by ISIS. I don't think people refuse to believe Iran doesn't have ulterior motives. There are no innocents in this game.

Have you read any of the links I provided? Probably not. Anyhow, they outline perfectly that Iran has a plan. Of course, none of you liberals will admit to that. I think some of you trust Iran mullahs more than the "horrible conservatives" who are your own countrymen!!!

Iran has connections with the Syria civil war. Iran will take the side of whomever they think will be most advantageous to their goals, and that happens to be ISIS now.

How can you deny that the mullahs want an apocalypse? You don't think so? Well, that is exactly what they want according to THEM. So are they lying?