Argentinean President, Cristina Fernandez de Kirchner reveals...

[Phenomanul]

that the Obama Administration approached Argentina with the request to provide enriched Uranium to Iran back in 2010... she made these declarations at the U.N. General Assembly meeting held on September 28 (one of the links below has her address at the New York U.N. Summit). She also stated that the same requests were made to France and Russia.

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2015/09/30/president-of-argentina-launches-bombshell-iran-claim-against-obama-admin-official-on-the-floor-of-u-n-general-assembly/

http://www.figuro.us/world-leader-accuses-obama-of-treason-on-the-floor-of-the-united-nations/

http://beforeitsnews.com/obama/2015/10/breaking-world-leader-accuses-obama-of-treason-on-the-floor-of-the-united-nations-video-start-of-the-fall-2474388.html

See... that right there is what the leftist crowd doesn't understand (on this forum or in general). I was in Europe for the better part of a month and these shocking declarations were the talk of the night across EVERY major media outlet for at least a week. I come back home to find it wasn't even a footnote in the local papers, wasn't a highlighted article on Yahoo / Google, etc... Media bias is out of control. These allegations are SERIOUS in light of the Iran treaty that was signed just last month.

Sure enough, I did a search on our "leftist" political forum, and unless I missed it - didn't see a single mention of these allegations either.

Edited for de-escalation...

[Splits]

:lol

What's the controversy? It was open knowledge at the time that one of the options they were trying to use to convince Iran to ship out its stockpiles was that a third country would supply enriched uranium for their research reactors. They also discussed having Russia enrich the uranium and ship it back.

And I just got back from England, didn't hear this mentioned once on Sky News or BBC.

:cry leftist political forum :cry

[boutons_deux]

enriched uranium isn't weaponized uranium, or plutonium

my guess is that US was trying to get Iran uranium for nuclear reactors, not for bombs.

[hater]

Sure the mainstream media is the mouthpiece of the CIA. But, why is this treason? :lol

nuclear fuel dealings is a daily thing.

[Spurminator]

I saw this but I deliberately didn't post anything and also worked with a shadow group of hackers to remove as many mentions of it online as possible. Guess we missed a few.

[Phenomanul]

I guess you're not familiar with the terms of the Iran treaty that was signed last month... it paints a different picture of that period than what was being let on in the media. Iran should not have access to any enriched Uranium, period (research reactors... :lmao please!) - it was the unanimous stance of the IAEA / NATO / the UN / and the US. To find out that the US THEN tried to leverage other countries to provide the Uranium runs counter to our publically disclosed policies - which prevented Iran from having it in the first place.

Typical idiocy that you can't see the diplomatic inconsistency for the subversion that it was - an elephant in the living room.

[hater]

Google weapons grade uranium bro.

[Phenomanul]

The Pope being in NY that week trumped any mentions of Kirchner's U.N. address...

[Phenomanul]

Google weapons grade uranium bro.

Sure... If you want to land on some FBI monitoring list...

[Phenomanul]

I saw this but I deliberately didn't post anything and also worked with a shadow group of hackers to remove as many mentions of it online as possible. Guess we missed a few.

Hardy har har... laugh it up... until Iran precipitates the next world war.

[boutons_deux]

I guess you're not familiar with the terms of the Iran treaty that was signed last month... it paints a different picture of that period than what was being let on in the media. Iran should not have access to any enriched Uranium, period (research reactors... :lmao please!) - it was the unanimous stance of the IAEA / NATO / the UN / and the US. To find out that the US THEN tried to leverage other countries to provide the Uranium runs counter to our publically disclosed policies - which prevented Iran from having it in the first place.

Typical idiocy that you can't see the diplomatic inconsistency for the subversion that it was - an elephant in the living room.

http://www.bloombergview.com/quicktake/irans-uranium-enrichment

[hater]

Sure... If you want to land on some FBI monitoring list...

:lol FBI is the least of your worries. And no you wont.

[Phenomanul]

http://www.bloombergview.com/quicktake/irans-uranium-enrichment

All sounds fine and dandy, until we learn they've garnered the ability to enrich Uranium to WGU - knowledge which will likely come after they've used it somewhere.

[Phenomanul]

:lol FBI is the least of your worries. And no you wont.

Is that a threat?

[Phenomanul]

If anything, I'm just surprised none of this was mentioned on local outlets or even in passing on this forum (which seemingly discusses everything).

[ElNono]

This was known in Argentina back in 2010... not who asked for it, but that there were deals being worked out to supply Iran with fuel for their reactor buildup. It was around the time when the US wanted Iran to stop producing it's own Uranium and import it instead. It caused a big political backlash in Argentina though, because Iran was allegedly behind the terrorist attacks against Israel's AMIA and embassy in Buenos Aires a couple decades ago, which were never fully resolved.

All that said, it's always good to mix up your reading material. I have the Telegraph, BBC, El Pais and a few other euro news sites along with some Argentina sites I check periodically since I still have family there.

[hater]

Is that a threat?

If you wanna feel threatened go right ahead man :lol

[Phenomanul]

Sure the mainstream media is the mouthpiece of the CIA. But, why is this treason? :lol

nuclear fuel dealings is a daily thing.

IF there was nothing wrong or covert about what the administration was doing THEN the U.S. would have acquiesced Argentina's petition to have the request issued in writing. Instead they balked. You do the math.

[hater]

IF there was nothing wrong or covert about what the administration was doing THEN the U.S. would have acquiesced Argentina's petition to have the request issued in writing. Instead they balked. You do the math.

Out of all the covert things the US does. This really ranks very low.

Sure I agree there should have been a news here about it but if FOX news didn't even pick it up. It's because nobody gives a shit

[Splits]

I guess you're not familiar with the terms of the Iran treaty that was signed last month... it paints a different picture of that period than what was being let on in the media. Iran should not have access to any enriched Uranium, period (research reactors... :lmao please!) - it was the unanimous stance of the IAEA / NATO / the UN / and the US. To find out that the US THEN tried to leverage other countries to provide the Uranium runs counter to our publically disclosed policies - which prevented Iran from having it in the first place.

Typical idiocy that you can't see the diplomatic inconsistency for the subversion that it was - an elephant in the living room.

:lmao WTF are you talking about? There was no "treaty" signed last month. There was no "picture of that period" in the agreement that was signed. Iran was always going to be allowed to have low grade uranium to run fuel and research reactors.

This is a big nothing burger unless you live in some Breitbart induced fantasy world.

[Phenomanul]

Out of all the covert things the US does. This really ranks very low.

Sure I agree there should have been a news here about it but if FOX news didn't even pick it up. It's because nobody gives a shit

So then there is an admission of covertness?

[hater]

So then there is an admission of covertness?

:lmao of course. Shouldn't there be when you are talking about uranium shipments?

I really don't see the big deal here.

[Phenomanul]

:lmao WTF are you talking about? There was no "treaty" signed last month. There was no "picture of that period" in the agreement that was signed. Iran was always going to be allowed to have low grade uranium to run fuel and research reactors.

This is a big nothing burger unless you live in some Breitbart induced fantasy world.

Low grade uranium "equals not" enriched uranium... thanks for playing.

[Phenomanul]

:lmao of course. Shouldn't there be when you are talking about uranium shipments?

I really don't see the big deal here.

If it wasn't a big deal how come neither Argentina, France or Russia carried out the Administration's request. I mean. "It's not a big deal". Why did none of those countries provide the enriched uranium fuel? Or better yet, why didn't the U.S. provide it outright? Why seek for others to provide it?

Fact is.

It was covert. IT WAS A BIG DEAL. And U.S. involvement was deliberately kept out of the mainstream picture.

[hater]

If it wasn't a big deal how come neither Argentina, France or Russia carried out the Administration's request. I mean. "It's not a big deal". Why did none of those countries provide the enriched uranium fuel? Or better yet, why didn't the U.S. provide it outright? Why seek for others to provide it?

Fact is.

It was covert. IT WAS A BIG DEAL. And U.S. involvement was deliberately kept out of the mainstream picture.

:lmao what the fuck are you talking about? :lol

Your own article says the Russians and French agreed.

And its not covert if the official US envoy asks this in an official diplomatic meeting

LoL

[ElNono]

Low grade uranium "equals not" enriched uranium... thanks for playing.

nuke reactors need enriched uranium too... weapon-grade is ultra-enriched... the whole idea back in the day was for Iran to stop spinning centrifuges and import reactor-level enriched uranium instead, which is something the US could monitor.

[ElNono]

http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/audio/video/2012/9/28/1348817110763/Israeli-PM-Binyamin-Netan-015.jpg

:lol

[Phenomanul]

:lmao what the fuck are you talking about? :lol

Your own article says the Russians and French agreed.

And its not covert if the official US envoy asks this in an official diplomatic meeting

LoL


I stand corrected - France did agree. Russia only agreed because they would be the beneficiary of the low level enriched uranium in Tehran's possession.

Like ElNono says, U.S. news outlets cannot be trusted to stay on top of everything if he says this was common knowledge in his country.

[Phenomanul]

:lmao what the fuck are you talking about? :lol

Your own article says the Russians and French agreed.

And its not covert if the official US envoy asks this in an official diplomatic meeting

LoL

Which they refused to pen down in writing? That's still the point that doesn't make sense.

[Phenomanul]

http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/audio/video/2012/9/28/1348817110763/Israeli-PM-Binyamin-Netan-015.jpg

:lol

I guess one has to provide grade-school drawings to get the point across.

[ElNono]

I stand corrected - France did agree. Russia only agreed because they would be the beneficiary of the low level enriched uranium in Tehran's possession.

Like ElNono says, U.S. news outlets cannot be trusted to stay on top of everything if he says this was common knowledge in his country.

If you go to some big news sites (I know the NY Times has this), they have a "US edition" and a "World edition"... just toggling between them you can see there's a huge discrepancy on what's reported.

I don't know if you can attribute all that to "intentional bias"... I just think some of that is that the US reader is simply more concerned with generally local news.

[Phenomanul]

I was unaware of that toggling choice. Noted. :tu

[hater]

One thng I did notice is a lot of news clips and interviews are conveniently blacked out in the US with note of "this content is geographically unavailable by the author"

Bullshit. When this happens just go to YouTube and search for the clip or interview.

[Splits]

Low grade uranium "equals not" enriched uranium... thanks for playing.

Jesus fuck you are stupid.

[Phenomanul]

Jesus fuck you are stupid.

:lol

Now you're going to try and convince me that they are?

[Splits]

:lol

Now you're going to try and convince me that they are?

I can't help it if you don't know how to interpret meaning from words. Obviously I was referring to LEU.

[Phenomanul]

Yeah... you referred to it by calling it something else entirely.

[Agloco]

What's the fuss? The Iranians have vowed to use any such material for peaceful purposes.

[ChumpDumper]

lol this thread

[baseline bum]

I guess one has to provide grade-school drawings to get the point across.

That they have been 5 years from a bomb for 20 years?

[Phenomanul]

One point remains... Why would the administration balk at the suggestion of penning down the arrangement in writing? The only plausible reason in my mind is that they managed to convince France to fulfill that function BEFORE having the need to go back to Argentina with the requested written arrangement. At which point common courtesy should have compelled our guys to inform Argentina that the arrangement was no longer required (instead of leaving Argentina in the dark, left to fill the information void with unneeded speculation, i.e. "and we never heard back from them again" - a scenario which lead to Kirchner's accusations - completely preventable).

[ElNono]

One point remains... Why would the administration balk at the suggestion of penning down the arrangement in writing? The only plausible reason in my mind is that they managed to convince France to fulfill that function BEFORE having the need to go back to Argentina with the requested written arrangement. At which point common courtesy should have compelled our guys to inform Argentina that the arrangement was no longer required (instead of leaving Argentina in the dark, left to fill the information void with unneeded speculation, i.e. "and we never heard back from them again" - a scenario which lead to Kirchner's accusations - completely preventable).

I think Israel's opposition to any such deal would be one reason, especially in light of upcoming presidential elections in the US, tbh...

Kirchner's has a political bone to pick too, though, with the "vulture funds", which are basically a well connected bunch of hedge funds (******, Adelson, etc) that has huge influence on US foreign policy when it comes to economics.

[hater]

That they have been 5 years from a bomb for 20 years?

:lol

Actually Bibby Netanyahu said 2 years ago Iran was 1 year away :lol

[pgardn]

So everyone on this thread agrees that Iran has no intention of making a nuclear weapon?

So sanctions levied against Iran exist because... they are fun to pick on? Because the Israelis are fully paranoid and Iran presents no threat?
Or what? Besides the OP has completely whiffed.

[hater]

Israel has 200 nukes, US has tens of thousands. Even if Iran gets a few nukes, they would be turned to dust if they were to attack.

You have been played for a fool if you believe the bullshit rhetoric about the Iranian boogeymen.

[Phenomanul]

All it takes is one. No other nuclear weapons have been used over human populations since Nagasaki... that is one historical fact ALL humanity should strive to maintain the same.

[ChumpDumper]

Who would Iran use a nuke on?

[hater]

All it takes is one. No other nuclear weapons have been used over human populations since Nagasaki... that is one historical fact ALL humanity should strive to maintain the same.

Lol no it doesn't. This is bullshit fear mongering.

[pgardn]

So there is no concern on this board if Iran obtains nuclear capability?

[pgardn]

Israel has 200 nukes, US has tens of thousands. Even if Iran gets a few nukes, they would be turned to dust if they were to attack.

You have been played for a fool if you believe the bullshit rhetoric about the Iranian boogeymen.

That is not the concern. The concern is a nuclear device in the hands of a group who has nothing to lose and everything to gain by martyrdom or whatever the flavor of the period happens to McVeighbe. But this is an unrealistic fear? This is the fear of a world of fools including Russia, China and India?

[hater]

2 way crazier states have nukes and everything is fine. Pakistan and N Korea.

Iran is a much more stable advanced state.

No concerns from me at all. Let em have it. Stop the fearmongering.

The only reason the West, Israel and the Sauds don't want Iran to get one is because then they would have to start treating it with respect.

[Phenomanul]

2 way crazier states have nukes and everything is fine. Pakistan and N Korea.

Iran is a much more stable advanced state.

No concerns from me at all. Let em have it. Stop the fearmongering.

The only reason the West, Israel and the Sauds don't want Iran to get one is because then they would have to start treating it with respect.

Didn't Iran's head-of-state, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad declare almost 10 years ago to the date, "Imam ghoft een rezhim-e ishghalgar-e qods bayad az safheh-ye ruzgar mahv shavad." ?

which translates to, "The Imam said this regime occupying Jerusalem must vanish from the page of time".

His speech was titled, "The World Without Zionism"... you don't even have to read between the lines to see the disdain towards Israel. His rhetoric can't be defended or justified as being 'peaceful' - unless of course you also believe that "Zionists" are worthy of spite.

These anti-Semitic nuggets also from Ahmadinejad in 2009:

"The pretext (Holocaust) for the creation of the Zionist regime (Israel) is false ... It is a lie based on an unprovable and mythical claim," Ahmadinejad told worshippers at Tehran University at the end of an annual anti-Israel "Qods (Jerusalem) Day" rally.

"Confronting the Zionist regime is a national and religious duty."

"This regime (Israel) will not last long. Do not tie your fate to it ... This regime has no future. Its life has come to an end," Ahmadinejad said in a speech broadcast live on state radio.

It is apparent that Iran harbors resentment against the Israelis. As many already know, Israel has possessed Nuclear Weapons for decades - If they planned on using it against their neighbors they would have done so already. You don't need a self-declared enemy also possessing nukes because all that would do is ESCALATE the consequences of any head-to-head conflict and the very risk of confrontation. The Pakistani / Indian conflict or the tensions in the U.S. / Russian or U.S. / N. Korea conflicts speak volumes of this dynamic (and frankly we're all tired of it). The world doesn't need another player in that high-stakes 'game' of nuclear roulette. The ramifications of nuclear deployment of any type are not something to be taken lightly.

Dwindling Iranian oil production coupled with the fact that vast reserves of oil have been discovered under Israel over the last few years is another factor that is slipping under the radar as a major gamechanger. Why do you think Russia is now showing more interest in the Israeli/Iranian conflict? Why else do you think Putin is trying to resolve the Syrian conflict by directly involving his military...? Did I mention that these recent oil finds were near the Israeli / Syrian disputed zones? Doesn't take much to place all the pieces together.

You facetiously and carelessly call it fear mongering... but the proverbial 'writing on the wall' is pretty clear to me.

[hater]

Didn't Iran's head-of-state, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad declare almost 10 years ago to the date, "Imam ghoft een rezhim-e ishghalgar-e qods bayad az safheh-ye ruzgar mahv shavad." ?

which translates to, "The Imam said this regime occupying Jerusalem must vanish from the page of time".



There is nothing wrong with what he said. He basically meant he was hoping for regime change.

the bullshit rhetoric from West and Israel has been debunked by many experts:

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2006/jun/14/post155

"A native English speaker could equally confuse "stage of history" with "page of history". The significant issue is that both phrases refer to time rather than place. As I wrote in my original post, the Iranian president was expressing a vague wish for the future. He was not threatening an Iranian-initiated war to remove Israeli control over Jerusalem."

"The monitor has checked again. It's a difficult expression to translate. They're under time pressure to produce a translation quickly and they were searching for the right phrase. With more time to reflect they would say the translation should be "eliminated from the page of history".

So there we have it. Starting with Juan Cole, and going via the New York Times' experts through MEMRI to the BBC's monitors, the consensus is that Ahmadinejad did not talk about any maps. He was, as I insisted in my original piece, offering a vague wish for the future.



It is apparent that Iran harbors resentment against the Israelis.

and vice versa.



Dwindling Iranian oil production coupled with the fact that vast reserves of oil have been discovered under Israel over the last few years is another factor that is slipping under the radar as a major gamechanger.

:lmao wtf you talking about. Iran is top 4 in the world in oil reserves. this hasn't changed :lol (yes I heard about the oil in Israel, but no way its bigger than Irans)



Why do you think Russia is now showing more interest in the Israeli/Iranian conflict? Why else do you think Putin is trying to resolve the Syrian conflict by directly involving his military...? Doesn't take much to place all the pieces together.

except you have it all wrong. Russia is suffering as well due to the Saudi flooding of the oil market and driving price down.

again. stop parroting the fearmongering rhetoric of the Iranian boogeymen. there is no proof whatsoever Iran would immediately use the first nuke available to them. :rolleyes

[in2deep]

its' the typical repeat a lie often enough until it is accepted as truth.

same thing happened with the "WMDs in Iraq bullshit" this "Iran wants to attack Israel because this guy said so" is the same kind of bullshit

shameful

[clambake]

maybe the answers can be found on a ouija board.

[ChumpDumper]

That is not the concern. The concern is a nuclear device in the hands of a group who has nothing to lose and everything to gain by martyrdom or whatever the flavor of the period happens to McVeighbe. But this is an unrealistic fear? This is the fear of a world of fools including Russia, China and India?Seriously, if Iran had nothing to lose and just wanted martyrdom for their country they never would have agreed to a cease fire with Iraq and would've launched some kind of attack on the US after we shot down one of their airliners and "martyred" 300 of their people.

[m>s]

David noooo!

[Phenomanul]

There is nothing wrong with what he said. He basically meant he was hoping for regime change.

the bullshit rhetoric from West and Israel has been debunked by many experts:

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2006/jun/14/post155

"A native English speaker could equally confuse "stage of history" with "page of history". The significant issue is that both phrases refer to time rather than place. As I wrote in my original post, the Iranian president was expressing a vague wish for the future. He was not threatening an Iranian-initiated war to remove Israeli control over Jerusalem."

"The monitor has checked again. It's a difficult expression to translate. They're under time pressure to produce a translation quickly and they were searching for the right phrase. With more time to reflect they would say the translation should be "eliminated from the page of history".

So there we have it. Starting with Juan Cole, and going via the New York Times' experts through MEMRI to the BBC's monitors, the consensus is that Ahmadinejad did not talk about any maps. He was, as I insisted in my original piece, offering a vague wish for the future.

The correctly translated version of Ahmadinejad's quote at the summit (which I provided in both Farsi and English - given I knew of the "translation controversy") is:

1) Exactly what I wrote in my original post.

2) Still cause for concern. Arguing about semantics doesn't remove it's anti-Semitic sentiment. You're trying too hard to play it down.


In other words, your rebuttal is a strawman re-direct given you didn't address the fact that Ahmadinejad also propagates his erroneous belief that the Nazi-led Jewish holocaust was a western fabrication. Really? You have a head-of-state re-writing one of the darkest moments in human history to justify his belligerent ideology - and this isn't cause for concern. It's no wonder you chose not to address it.

Oh, and by the way blaming Cole as the originator of the mistranslation, as if it was some orchestrated Machiavellian ploy is rather disingenuous:

"The inflammatory “wiped off the map” quote was first disseminated not by Iran’s enemies, but by Iran itself. The Islamic Republic News Agency, Iran’s official propaganda arm, used this phrasing in the English version of some of their news releases covering the World Without Zionism conference. International media including the BBC, Al Jazeera, Time magazine and countless others picked up the IRNA quote and made headlines out of it without verifying its accuracy, and rarely referring to the source. Iran’s Foreign Minister soon attempted to clarify the statement, but the quote had a life of its own. Though the IRNA wording was inaccurate and misleading, the media assumed it was true, and besides, it made great copy."

Was the mistranslation irresponsible? Yes. Was it an orchestrated and pre-conceived lie? Hardly.

Oh, and again... to point out your strawman, I didn't quote the mistranslation.


:lmao wtf you talking about. Iran is top 4 in the world in oil reserves. this hasn't changed :lol (yes I heard about the oil in Israel, but no way its bigger than Irans)



except you have it all wrong. Russia is suffering as well due to the Saudi flooding of the oil market and driving price down.

again. stop parroting the fearmongering rhetoric of the Iranian boogeymen. there is no proof whatsoever Iran would immediately use the first nuke available to them. :rolleyes

For the longest time, Israel was an oil-dependent country (needing to import). In fact, Israel was No. 86 on a oil-reserves list compiled in 2005.

http://www.nationmaster.com/country-info/stats/Energy/Oil/Reserves

With the recent oil and shale-oil finds, this side of 2005, Israel's reserves are estimated to be at 250 Billion barrels with production slated to begin as early as next year and 2017. [see where that places them on that same list].

All of a sudden they would be a major player in the Energy sector. No member of OPEC wants that.

To top that off, the Leviathan Gas Field (Mediterranean offshore) has an estimated 650 Billion cubic feet of natural gas (est. 2015). Which places them in the top 10 on that front.

In other words, you would be deluding yourself that other players in the field don't want a piece of that pie. Or in the case of Iran, they don't want Israel having an economic influx of their own from black gold.

These finds are extremely destabilizing to the region - don't kid yourself otherwise.

[hater]

:rolleyes

already posted the debunking of that rhetoric. as another poster said. Just same old "repeat a lie until its accepted as truth" tactic the Israel and West are using. The rest of the world already woke up so you are beating a dead horse :rolleyes Nobody listens to old man Bibby's bullshit. Not even Obama :lol

Sure another player in the oil market so what? just having the oil underground does not guarantee you anything. Look at Venezuela, hell look at Iran and Russia, combined they have more oil than any other 2 countries yet if Saudi keeps keeping prices down, they will still struggle.

in other words the "potential" of oil in Israel doesn't change anything. I doubt Iran is even wasting even 5 seconds thinking on the oil in Israel issue :lol

[ChumpDumper]

Does Phenomanul know that Ahmadinejad isn't the President of Iran anymore?

[Phenomanul]

:lmao Who is the naïve one here? Two energy factors have consistently driven foreign policy over the last 7 decades or so:

1). Nuclear capability
2). Crude Oil

These oil/gas finds are significant, despite your stubbornness to accept that fact.

[Phenomanul]

Yes I do CD... Current Iranian diplomacy hasn't changed though. My brother is married to an Iranian doctor, there are several reasons why she left Iran - political instability not the least among them.

[ChumpDumper]

Yes I do CD... Current Iranian diplomacy hasn't changed though. My brother is married to an Iranian doctor, there are several reasons why she left Iran - political instability not the least among them.The economy was shit too.

You'd think the Iranians wouldn't care about sanctions because they are so eager to martyr themselves in bloody jihad.

[ChumpDumper]

And Israel's big oil find is actually in Syria.

lol

[Phenomanul]

The Golan Heights have been disputed for many decades.

[ChumpDumper]

The Golan Heights have been disputed for many decades.Which is why it's hardly a game changer.

[hater]

Yes I do CD... Current Iranian diplomacy hasn't changed though.

neither has Israel's diplomacy. 20 years and still with the same bullshit "Iran will get a nuke in a couple years" :lmao


My brother is married to an Iranian doctor, there are several reasons why she left Iran - political instability not the least among them.

we all know somebody that left their home country for another state and abhors their homeland's policies. :rolleyes

[Phenomanul]

I simply provided sufficient background motive/context to answer your disingenuously innocent question - one that suggested that Iran had no motive whatsoever to use nuclear weapons in the first place. A state regime that can believe that something as atrocious as the holocaust never occurred, doesn't have the right mindset to produce much less manage a nuclear weapon/arsenal...

[ChumpDumper]

I simply provided sufficient background motive/context to answer your disingenuously innocent question - one that suggested that Iran had no motive whatsoever to use nuclear weapons in the first place. A state regime that can believe that something as atrocious as the holocaust never occurred, doesn't have the right mindset to produce much less manage a nuclear weapon/arsenal...I simply provided sufficient background to prove that they aren't that hot on martyring themselves as a nation. This holocaust stuff is bullshit -- it makes no sense as a litmus test whatsoever.

Do you think Iran would drop a nuke on Israel unprovoked?

If so, why?

[Phenomanul]

Oil was found under Jerusalem as well... Also, the offshore field is so expansive that other countries are chomping at the bit to claim it as belonging to them - mind you all the exploration costs have been paid for by Israeli sponsors...

[ChumpDumper]

So in what way would that be a game changer?

They could actually pay for all the arms we give them?

[Phenomanul]

C'mon Chump... Seriously???? I never claimed that the Iranian people all believe this anti-Semitic rhetoric... Those calling the shots at the top have repeatedly displayed their extreme beliefs... They're the ones that have to be prevented from possessing nuclear capability. The populace in general - of any country - doesn't homogeneously want to go down in martyrdom..

[ChumpDumper]

C'mon Chump... Seriously???? I never claimed that the Iranian people all believe this anti-Semitic rhetoric... Those calling the shots at the top have repeatedly displayed their extreme beliefs.And so what?

[Phenomanul]

So in what way would that be a game changer?

They could actually pay for all the arms we give them?

Oil --> Money --> Power

[ChumpDumper]

Oil --> Money --> PowerPower to do what?

[Phenomanul]

I simply provided sufficient background to prove that they aren't that hot on martyring themselves as a nation. This holocaust stuff is bullshit -- it makes no sense as a litmus test whatsoever.

Do you think Iran would drop a nuke on Israel unprovoked?

If so, why?

Due to "religious duty" as Ahmadinejad (or any other head-of-state with similar ideology) stated on multiple occasions.

[Phenomanul]

Power to do what?

Whatever they wanted.

[ChumpDumper]

Due to "religious duty" as Ahmadinejad (or any other head-of-state with similar ideology) stated on multiple occasions.They stated many times they would drop a nuke on Israel unprovoked?

You'll have to provide many links of all of them doing so.

[ChumpDumper]

Whatever they wanted.Which is what?

[Phenomanul]

Chiefly the power to not have to rely on the U.S. as a military or economic ally... A relationship which has eroded somewhat under the current administration....

[ChumpDumper]

Chiefly the power to not have to rely on the U.S. as a military or economic ally... A relationship which has eroded somewhat under the current administration....So we won't have anything to do with Israel anymore?

Good.

That relationship did nothing for the US.

[Phenomanul]

They stated many times they would drop a nuke on Israel unprovoked?

You'll have to provide many links of all of them doing so.

If you want such a black&white quote, you clearly don't understand the desires of Islamic extremism (ideologies which have permeated the highest levels of Iran's government)...

The yearly summit held in Tehran (mind you with no land-dispute based horse in the race)... Is titled, "A World without Zionism"....

[ChumpDumper]

If you want such a black&white quote, you clearly don't understand the desires of Islamic extremism (ideologies which have permeated the highest levels of Iran's government)...

The yearly summit held in Tehran (mind you with no land-dispute based horse in the race)... Is titled, "A World without Zionism"....So they never said they would nuke Israel unprovoked.

Nice attempt at fear mongering, Bibi.

[hater]

Oil was found under Jerusalem as well... Also, the offshore field is so expansive that other countries are chomping at the bit to claim it as belonging to them - mind you all the exploration costs have been paid for by Israeli sponsors...

This has nothing to do with Iran wanting nukes. They been wanting nukes since the 50s. Wake up

[Phenomanul]

Clearly, you've never conducted a risk assessment before. You don't wait till a threat is an imminent world threat before you address it. How did the extremist ISIS threat flourish so rapidly to the point of conducting genocides and no one did anything to stop it before it came to that... That's the problem with extremism... It is wholly unpredictable.

No one should want that chaotic dynamic to mix with nuclear capabilities. Sense and logic aren't what dictate their diplomatic strategies.

[hater]

:lmao comparing a terrorist jihadi organization formed 2 years ago to the Republic of Iran a UN member which was founded in 625BC :lmao

:lol holy shit

[Blake]

lol this thread

[Phenomanul]

I'm out... You leftists can continue to gang up on my POV in my absence... [work calls]...

[ChumpDumper]

Clearly, you've never conducted a risk assessment before. You don't wait till a threat is an imminent world threat before you address it. How did the extremist ISIS threat flourish so rapidly to the point of conducting genocides and no one did anything to stop it before it came to that... That's the problem with extremism... It is wholly unpredictable.

No one should want that chaotic dynamic to mix with nuclear capabilities. Sense and logic aren't what dictate their diplomatic strategies.Many people predicted the rise of ISIS when Bush disbanded the Iraqi army and de-Baathed the government.

And again, why didn't Iran go whole hog martyr nation in the war with Iraq?

[ChumpDumper]

I'm out... You leftists can continue to gang up on my POV in my absence... [work calls]...Maybe you can provide a P for your OV next time.

[Blake]

I'm out... You leftists can continue to gang up on my POV in my absence... [work calls]...

:cry messageboard martyr

[boutons_deux]

I'm out... You leftists can continue to gang up on my POV in my absence... [work calls]...

didjahear? life on earth started about 300M years earlier, so your God must have started a day earlier to the get biological evolution started.

[hater]

[work calls]...

Too bad reality hasn't called yet.

[clambake]

you guys should look up some of phenoms post history.

goddamn entertaining.

[Phenomanul]

Of course the usual mudslingers have crawled out of their caves. :downspin::downspin::downspin:

:lmao "messageboard martyr" as if...

I don't need anybody's agreement, or consent, or approval for anything I do, say or believe. I know I hold completely different beliefs from most people on this board. I just find it laughable how inconsistent you all are with your own philosophies and belief sets. For example, it is plainly clear to anyone that reads this board that many of you all reject Christianity in all its ways forms and functions - do any search through the political and club forums and there is always at least one anti-Christian post somewhere amongst the first page. Yet here you all are defending Islam. :lol :lol IF YOU ALL CANT SEE the irony of this thinking I don't know what else to say ('honor killings', stoning of homosexuals, death to 'infidels', etc...).

If I tire at this board it's because of the drudgery associated with your methods... You all continually ignore stuff that doesn't suit your arguments. NEVER do any of you accept responsibility for mistakes or factual errors. And you all constantly throw strawmen left and right (as if I'm supposed to keep up and reply to everybody's fickle whims)... for example:


Does Phenomanul know that Ahmadinejad isn't the President of Iran anymore?

I acquiesced ChumpDumper's non-sequitor question, even if his intent was to pander to the ad-hominem nature of this board's members. I pointed out that the ideologies at the helm of Iran's government remain the same. Obviously, he never admitted such - always a redirect.

In my OP, however, I referenced Kirchner's UN address - in which she stated that Obama's administration approached Argentina in 2010 - a point in time during which Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was still very much the leader of the Iranian regime. A point in time after which his many anti-Israeli quotes were uttered (quotes provided, and conveniently ignored). So again, in that context - why would our government, or any government for that matter wish to supply the extremist Iranian government with any enriched nuclear fuel whatsoever, in any context, or under any pretext (material that could still be used and further refined to produce weapons grade fuel)?

CD and hater casually dismissed Iran's refusal to accept the historical atrocities promulgated during and leading up to WWII (as if the premise were wholly irrelevant)... How can anyone with a sound mind, justify the holocaust denial movement? Over 6 million jews died at the hands of extremist ideologies, and Iran's leaders believe that the whole thing was made up? So THEN to casually suggest that the ludicrousness of this belief has NO BEARING WHATSOEVER ('a litmus test') on the Israel question - specifically the validation of it's sovereignty - IS JUST OUTRIGHT STUPID, disingenuous at best.

Did no one point out that hater's rebuttal of Ahmadinejad's quote was done so fallaciously - of course not, it doesn't suit the flow of your thinking. If any head-of-state in a position such as Ahmadinejad's declares that, "the regime occupying Jerusalem must vanish from the page of time" - how can that not be construed as probable motive for confrontation against Israel?

AGAIN, the statements were made at a YEARLY "A World Without Zionism" Summit. And yet, this rally context doesn't raise any red flags in your collective minds? Again, all ridiculously laughable. And then to bring up another strawman that the nation of Iran doesn't "want to throw themselves in martyrdom" - I never suggested as much and STILL had to defend a position that CD created out of the blue to suit his own arguments... :lol :lol The country's leaders make those calls... not the nation's populace itself.

I also pointed out that the nation of Iran should have no horse-in-the-race in disputes against Israel. There's no land quarrel between the two nations. The nations have never been at war with each other since the creation of the modern Israeli State. And yet here we are discussing why their country's leaders feel the need to constantly feed the population this anti-Semitic rhetoric. Why even bring up rhetoric of Israel being an enemy at all? Oh yeah... they believe the sanctions are Israel's fault (mind you they are upheld by the UN/NATO/USA). All Iran has to do is give up its nuclear ambitions. Simple solution - but national pride has blinded them. They have no need for nuclear energies given they have enough reserves of oil/gas to fulfill their energy demands and THEN SOME. But no, they ideologically hold on to an entitlement right that has kept those sanctions in place. Who's fault is that? - very, much their own - self inflicted.

BTW CD, the current Iranian president, Hassan Rouhani, has also served as a Shi'ite Cleric. From the Wiki page:

He has also described Israel as an "enemy" and said that "we need to find ways to express death to America with action."

This guy isn't a friend to western culture by any stretch of the imagination.

Finally, to point out the incredibly naïve.... Did I really just have to point out why Israel securing a prominent spot in the global ENERGY sector is a significant shift from the status quo? Israel is already designing state-of-the-art facilities to extract and refine their oil/gas - they will be a NET exporter by 2018. I've personally seen their designs and they are light years more robust than anything in the industry today. They likely won't need our economic support or military support going forward. They will prevent OPEC countries from controlling the energy market, because they will have lower production costs than any other oil producer or fuel refiner on the planet. Unlike Iran or Russia, who as hater pointed out wilted when the Saudis flooded the market to lower prices - they would not be able to leverage Israel with the same tactics (at least not without shooting themselves in the foot).

Whatever.

[clambake]

i've never once defended islam.

[ChumpDumper]

BTW CD, the current Iranian president, Hassan Rouhani, has also served as a Shi'ite Cleric.What does this have to do with anything?

[pgardn]

Seriously, if Iran had nothing to lose and just wanted martyrdom for their country they never would have agreed to a cease fire with Iraq and would've launched some kind of attack on the US after we shot down one of their airliners and "martyred" 300 of their people.

Thats why it's very important to understand the makeup of Iran vs. N. Korea and Pakistan (which have a very different hierarchy).

The Republican Guard is very shaky in terms of political views. They control the weapons, not the current President or even the current Ayatollah (even though he has more input). The Republican guard has elements which are super radical and are responsible for playing with Hezbollah and other even more radical groups. And, guess where they are located? Right in the middle of all this shit. Transporting a ground weapon to super radical groups in an area already teaming with people who want to die next to heavy populated areas is a huge concern.

This makes Iran VERY different. It's not the president or Ayatollah that are worrisome.
So now your take. I am giving up on Hater as he wants nothing to do with legit discussion.

This is not a country with a clean clear command structure.

[ChumpDumper]

Thats why it's very important to understand the makeup of Iran vs. N. Korea and Pakistan (which have a very different hierarchy).

The Republican Guard is very shaky in terms of political views. They control the weapons, not the current President or even the current Ayatollah (even though he has more input). The Republican guard has elements which are super radical and are responsible for playing with Hezbollah and other even more radical groups. And, guess where they are located? Right in the middle of all this shit. Transporting a ground weapon to super radical groups in an area already teaming with people who want to die next to heavy populated areas is a huge concern.

This makes Iran VERY different.
So now your take. I am giving up on Hater as he wants nothing to do with legit discussion.

This is not a country with a clean clear command structure.You'll have to give me some examples of the Republican Guard's going off the reservation with no repercussions from the religious leaders. I may be persuaded.

[pgardn]

And I ask again.

Why do Russia, China, India... want to keep nukes out of Iran?

[hater]

And I ask again.

Why do Russia, China, India... want to keep nukes out of Iran?

Same reason they want to keep any non nuclear country from getting nukes. It's an exclusive club. The less members the better

[pgardn]

Same reason they want to keep any non nuclear country from getting nukes. It's an exclusive club. The less members the better

Why?

If you can use them as leverage. China has in the past with N. Korea although that relationship has soured lately.

So you are not concerned about many members?

[pgardn]

You'll have to give me some examples of the Republican Guard's going off the reservation with no repercussions from the religious leaders. I may be persuaded.

http://www.cfr.org/iran/irans-revolutionary-guards/p14324

This write up has points that makes one think the Revolutionary guard has a stake in stability, and some that indicate not so much. A major point of course is how they are dealt with. One can talk to the political arm of say, Sinn Fein,while the military arm keeps blowing things up. That's a problem, even negotiating...

[hater]

Why?

If you can use them as leverage. China has in the past with N. Korea although that relationship has soured lately.

So you are not concerned about many members?

I'm pretty sure today the entire world including china would be opposed to N Korea getting nukes. Same with Pakistan.

Different times. Height of the cold war back then

[ChumpDumper]

http://www.cfr.org/iran/irans-revolutionary-guards/p14324

This write up has points that makes one think the Revolutionary guard has a stake in stability, and some that indicate not so much. A major point of course is how they are dealt with. One can talk to the political arm of say, Sinn Fein,while the military arm keeps blowing things up. That's a problem, even negotiating...So I didn't see any examples of the RG's going off the reservation independent of the religious leaders.

[Splits]

A "world without Zionism" is a noble goal. That's like a "world without Apartheid" or a "world without Jim Crow laws". Zionism = Racism and it needs to be eliminated. Many many people across the Western world agree that a "world without Zionism" would be a much safer and just place.

Single state solution.

Allow the Pals that were driven from their homes to return.

Hold open elections in the land between the Jordan and the sea, one person one vote. Everyone gets to stay regardless of religion or ethnicity, nobody is forced out, they live in a representative democracy.

Follow the model of South Africa or the US South. It isn't perfect, but it is 10x better than the status quo where for 50 years millions of people have been subject to violent occupation, daily humiliation, and the murder and kidnapping of 1000s of their citizens by the worlds 4th most powerful military.

#BDS
#ICC4Israel
#WorldStopIsrael

[Splits]

The war criminal Bibi is blaming the Pals, not Hitler, for the Holocaust. How is that not as bad or worse than Holocaust denial?

http://www.pmo.gov.il/English/MediaCenter/Speeches/Pages/speechcongress201015.aspx






And this attack and other attacks on the Jewish community in 1920, 1921, 1929, were instigated by a call of the Mufti of Jerusalem Haj Amin al-Husseini, who was later sought for war crimes in the Nuremberg trials because he had a central role in fomenting the final solution. He flew to Berlin. Hitler didn’t want to exterminate the Jews at the time, he wanted to expel the Jews. And Haj Amin al-Husseini went to Hitler and said, "If you expel them, they'll all come here." "So what should I do with them?" he asked. He said, "Burn them." And he was sought in, during the Nuremberg trials for prosecution. He escaped it and later died of cancer, after the war, died of cancer in Cairo. But this is what Haj Amin al-Husseini said. He said, ":The Jews seek to destroy the Temple Mount." My grandfather in 1920 seeks to destroy…? Sorry, the al-Aqsa Mosque.
So this lie is about a hundred years old. It fomented many, many attacks. The Temple Mount stands. The al-Aqsa Mosque stands. But the lie stands too, persists.












Talk about "incitement".

[boutons_deux]

Israel's Netanyahu Makes One of the Most Absurd Claims About the Holocaust Imaginablehttp://www.alternet.org/world/israels-netanyahu-claims-it-was-palestinians-who-convinced-hitler-exterminate-jews

"apparently", after the Fall of France, the Nazis original idea was to deport the Jews to French island of Madagascar, but decided it was too small. Then they lost the Battle of Britain and decided to incinerate the Jews.

[hater]

Lol phenomamul hell probably claim Bibby was mistranslated :lol

[hater]

ZFc4n-9nG4g

:lol

[pgardn]

So I didn't see any examples of the RG's going off the reservation independent of the religious leaders.

Ok.

There is nothing in that article about the makeup of Iran's power structure that should be of concern given nukes?
And from the article you assume the religious leaders are a cohesive unit so the Republican guard is also? From that article it was clear to you the Republican guard also follows lockstep with the religious leaders?

In other words, no concern with Iran having a nuke?

I read that and a bunch of other stuff, and I don't want Iran to have a nuke. The only thing in that article that points to some stability is the fact that the Republican guard has become a successful money making entity themselves so why rock the boat..

I see this as a highly factionalized semiautocratic country. And that's scary.

[ChumpDumper]

Ok.

There is nothing in that article about the makeup of Iran's power structure that should be of concern given nukes?
And from the article you assume the religious leaders are a cohesive unit so the Republican guard is also? From that article it was clear to you the Republican guard also follows lockstep with the religious leaders?

In other words, no concern with Iran having a nuke?

I read that and a bunch of other stuff, and I don't want Iran to have a nuke. The only thing in that article that points to some stability is the fact that the Republican guard has become a successful money making entity themselves so why rock the boat..

I see this as a highly factionalized semiautocratic country. And that's scary.I am really more concerned about Pakistan's having a bomb. That has historically proved to be the situation you've described and they would be much more likely to use nukes in a conflict with its real adversary in the region. Of course we'll never do anything about that, so why treat Iran so differently?

I'm fine with the current path we're on, but I'm not in favor of another war that will only prove to Iran why it needs nuclear weapons.

[Phenomanul]

Lol phenomamul hell probably claim Bibby was mistranslated :lol

Another red-herring.

You really don't understand the meaning of civil discourse.

And some par-for-the-course lying on your part... It was YOU that got all huffy and puffy about mistranslation, to the point where you quoted and linked all sorts of irrelevant quotes that had nothing to do with the wording of the quote that I posted.

Here is your strawman tactic in a nutshell:

Make up a ridiculous argument
Attribute it to someone else (or another poster - in this case me)
Mock and destroy the premise of that argument
Somehow claim that your position is correct based on the ridiculousness of the argument that you alone fabricated and dispelled. :downspin: :downspin: :downspin:

[hater]

So what's your take on Bibby absolving Hitler and pinning the Final Solution on a Palestine?

[pgardn]

I am really more concerned about Pakistan's having a bomb. That has historically proved to be the situation you've described and they would be much more likely to use nukes in a conflict with its real adversary in the region. Of course we'll never do anything about that, so why treat Iran so differently?

I'm fine with the current path we're on, but I'm not in favor of another war that will only prove to Iran why it needs nuclear weapons.

The path we are on is dealing with them, I believe, because of what I have outlined above. I believe Israel has reason to be more concerned than we are due mainly to proximity and obvious horrible relations with Iran and their terror funding. Pakistan is more of a concern as they just need a more solid delivery system, they have the weapons. And, they don't get along with India. But I don't believe this makes Iran a problem we don't address.

My general feeling, once I posted some questions, was Iran was much to do about nothing to some on this board. I don't see it this way.

I could actually make an extreme Republican argument that would fit more closely with what I read from some on this board who are clearly not Republicans. It would involve calling their bluff: "This is easy, let them make whatever, they can't deliver here. Meanwhile, we blow the shit out of them" In fact, dare them to make a weapon...

[in2deep]

holy shit did he really say this??????

"Hitler did not really want to exterminate the Jews, just expell them..."

:wow

[pgardn]

In my view BiBi is in power because the majority of Israelis are within rocket range now and he supplies the aggressive stance of protection through offensive action in this phase of relations. He got the votes. Mission accomplished, the majority of Israelis are now scared.

There are so many players that benefit from this conflict it's not going away. The Palestinians will die in the meantime... Like the majority of the Arab world leaders actually give a shit. Mark Iran in the could not give a shit category as well.

[hater]

In my view BiBi is in power because the majority of Israelis are within rocket range now and he supplies the aggressive stance of protection through offensive action in this phase of relations. He got the votes. Mission accomplished, the majority of Israelis are now scared.

bullshit. Bibi is a moderate Israeli politician.

he's not even close to being an Israeli extremist!

[pgardn]

bullshit. Bibi is a moderate Israeli politician.

he's not even close to being an Israeli extremist!

Go back before Gaza was used as a missile base and tell me his stance has not CHANGED. Sure he is not an real extremist NOW, he got voted in, that's my point.

Get it?

Did I post he was an extremist in comparison to other Israeli groups?

[pgardn]

In my view BiBi is in power because the majority of Israelis are within rocket range now and he supplies the aggressive stance of protection through offensive action in this phase of relations. He got the votes. Mission accomplished, the majority of Israelis are now scared.

There are so many players that benefit from this conflict it's not going away. The Palestinians will die in the meantime... Like the majority of the Arab world leaders actually give a shit. Mark Iran in the could not give a shit category as well.

Where is the word extremist?

[Phenomanul]

What does this have to do with anything?

What???? YOU balked at that the notion that somehow the regime's anti-Semitism, and talk of "religious-duty" to depose "Zionists" from Israel were even related. That it wasn't a factor in either the risk or the possibility that Iran would consider deploying a nuclear weapon for religious purposes.

The Shi'ite brand of Islam has by far created the most radical muslims - for you to deny this observational fact or redirect with other tedious quips would be a sign that you truly don't understand that brand of Islam. Hence, if Iran's current president is part of the clerical structure of the nation, AND he is a Shi'ite adherent THEN neither of those truths bodes well for reducing the risk that is associated with allowing Iran to possess nuclear weapons.

The whole point of the thread was to point out that ANY facilitation of Iran's nuclear capabilities is extremely fool-hardy. The rampant partisanship on this board makes it so that you all are wholly incapable of seeing what is plainly obvious to most. You don't hand a pyromaniac a lighter. You don't hand weapons to lunatics. And you certainly don't facilitate the proliferation of nuclear-capable nations that are run, or even influenced by extremist ideologies. It's plain and clear.

[hater]

Phenomamul, So what's your take on Bibby absolving Hitler and pinning the Final Solution on a Palestine?

[Phenomanul]

So what's your take on Bibby absolving Hitler and pinning the Final Solution on a Palestine?

That it's toxically irresponsible. It's a lie on their part to embolden their justification for further conflict.

That said, it's still no match, no match whatsoever to the lunacy involved in claiming the genocide itself is a complete "western fabrication". 6 million people died - that FACT can't be wiped out from history simply because it suits the flow of your argument against the existence of the Israeli State (in the case of Iran's argument).

[Phenomanul]

As far as I'm concerned Israel defended their right to exist when it defeat ALL of their enemies in the 6-day war. Heck, they even "returned"/gave away some of the land that they had won as a result of that conflict.

Of course, folks in that region simply want them "wiped from the pages of time".

[hater]

That it's toxically irresponsible. It's a lie on their part to embolden their justification for further conflict.

That said, it's still no match, no match whatsoever to the lunacy involved in claiming the genocide itself is a complete "western fabrication". 6 million people died - that FACT can't be wiped out from history simply because it suits the flow of your argument against the existence of the Israeli State (in the case of Iran's argument).

already concluded Iran was talking about regime change. nothing wrong with hoping regime change of an opponent nation. US does it all the time.

I actually think Bibby's comments are way worse. Disrespecting the millions that died out there.

[ChumpDumper]

What???? YOU balked at that the notion that somehow the regime's anti-Semitism, and talk of "religious-duty" to depose "Zionists" from Israel were even related. That it wasn't a factor in either the risk or the possibility that Iran would consider deploying a nuclear weapon for religious purposes.

The Shi'ite brand of Islam has by far created the most radical muslims - for you to deny this observational fact or redirect with other tedious quips would be a sign that you truly don't understand that brand of Islam. Hence, if Iran's current president is part of the clerical structure of the nation, AND he is a Shi'ite adherent THEN neither of those truths bodes well for reducing the risk that is associated with allowing Iran to possess nuclear weapons.

The whole point of the thread was to point out that ANY facilitation of Iran's nuclear capabilities is extremely fool-hardy. The rampant partisanship on this board makes it so that you all are wholly incapable of seeing what is plainly obvious to most. You don't hand a pyromaniac a lighter. You don't hand weapons to lunatics. And you certainly don't facilitate the proliferation of nuclear-capable nations that are run, or even influenced by extremist ideologies. It's plain and clear.So all Shiites are lunatics.

Nice.

[Blake]

Another red-herring.

You really don't understand the meaning of civil discourse.

And some par-for-the-course lying on your part... It was YOU that got all huffy and puffy about mistranslation, to the point where you quoted and linked all sorts of irrelevant quotes that had nothing to do with the wording of the quote that I posted.

Here is your strawman tactic in a nutshell:

Make up a ridiculous argument
Attribute it to someone else (or another poster - in this case me)
Mock and destroy the premise of that argument
Somehow claim that your position is correct based on the ridiculousness of the argument that you alone fabricated and dispelled. :downspin: :downspin: :downspin:

:cry "I'm getting ad hominemed by everybody"

[Phenomanul]

So all Shiites are lunatics.

Nice.

Jump-to-conclusions red herring.

Nice.

Hassan Rouhani is on record for his own anti-Semitism. Look it up when you have the time. Oh and he's also on record for stating "Death to America" - but, none of this seems to be cause of concern for you, or even raise a red flag - given you glossed over it the first time I posted it.

Shi'ites and Religious Fanaticism are like Squares and Quadrilaterals.

Not all Shi'ites are fanatics... but the most noted fanatics ARE Shi'ites.

[Phenomanul]

:cry "I'm getting ad hominemed by everybody"

oh the irony.

[Phenomanul]

already concluded Iran was talking about regime change. nothing wrong with hoping regime change of an opponent nation. US does it all the time.

I actually think Bibby's comments are way worse. Disrespecting the millions that died out there.

"Disrespecting the millions that died out there" is "way worse" than denying they ever died in the first place? ummm OK. :shootme

[hater]

Jump-to-conclusions red herring.

Nice.

Hassan Rouhani is on record for his own anti-Semitism. Look it up when you have the time. Oh and he's also on record for stating "Death to America" - but, none of this seems to be cause of concern for you, or even raise a red flag - given you glossed over it the first time I posted it.

Shi'ites and Religious Fanaticism are like Squares and Quadrilaterals.

Not all Shi'ites are fanatics... but the most noted fanatics ARE Shi'ites.

the current Israeli Justice Minister called Palestinian children snakes and called for Israel to wipe them out.

what do you say about that?

[Phenomanul]

the current Israeli Justice Minister called Palestinian children snakes and called for Israel to wipe them out.

what do you say about that?


:lol:lol:lol:lol if you believe I'm justifying the words of one tyrant over another.

I believe in peace. Those that are dead set against it - or incite genocidal confrontations - are a deterrent towards that goal. Enabling Iran to possess nuclear capabilities is a huge risk towards that goal. None of you all seem to grasp that simple truth. Yeah, Israel has possessed nukes of their own for DECADES but they have NEVER used them.

No need to escalate the situation by equipping the other party with nuclear weapons.

Seriously, why is that so difficult understand?

[hater]

:lol:lol:lol:lol if you believe I'm justifying the words of one tyrant over another.

I believe in peace. Those that are dead set against it - or incite genocidal confrontations - are a deterrent towards that goal. Enabling Iran to possess nuclear capabilities is a huge risk towards that goal. None of you all seem to grasp that simple truth. Yeah, Israel has possessed nukes of their own for DECADES but they have NEVER used them.

No need to escalate the situation by equipping the other party with nuclear weapons.

Seriously, why is that so difficult understand?

where is your outrage at Israel arming up?

you think Israel is staying put in this arms race? :lol

LOL tunnel vision argument

[ChumpDumper]

Jump-to-conclusions red herring.

Nice.

Hassan Rouhani is on record for his own anti-Semitism. Look it up when you have the time. Oh and he's also on record for stating "Death to America" - but, none of this seems to be cause of concern for you, or even raise a red flag - given you glossed over it the first time I posted it.

Shi'ites and Religious Fanaticism are like Squares and Quadrilaterals.

Not all Shi'ites are fanatics... but the most noted fanatics ARE Shi'ites.Except for all the ones who aren't like Osama bin Laden and all the 9/11 terrorists. You honestly look really stupid saying that.

I really don't give a shit about boiler plate anti-Semitism in the Islamic middle east. That's what pretty much all of them think. That doesn't automatically make them suicidal, wanting to destroy their own country and everyone they know and love. That is your contention. I simply don't buy it. They would've done it some other way already.

[Blake]

oh the irony.

what irony

[Phenomanul]

Except for all the ones who aren't like Osama bin Laden and all the 9/11 terrorists. You honestly look really stupid saying that.

I really don't give a shit about boiler plate anti-Semitism in the Islamic middle east. That's what pretty much all of them think. That doesn't automatically make them suicidal, wanting to destroy their own country and everyone they know and love. That is your contention. I simply don't buy it. They would've done it some other way already.

So much putting words in my mouth in this post I can't even...

[ChumpDumper]

So much putting words in my mouth in this post I can't even...But you will.

You said "the most noted fanatics ARE Shi'ites." which is so stupid on its face it needed to be ridiculed. Al Qaeda is/was full of noted fanatics and they are Sunni.

As for the rest -- you absolutely have intimated the leadership in Iran wants to get into a war with Israel that will devastate Iran -- if you think something else, spell it out.

[Warlord23]

"The Shi'ite brand of Islam has by far created the most radical muslims"

Phenomenaul: if you really believe that, you have very little credibility regarding your other beliefs. You need to change the "news" sources from where you get your information. This reminds of me of a highly rated comment on breitbart or wnd (I forget which) that Bush should've invaded Iran instead of Iraq.

My guess is that your attachment to conservatism is based on your religious beliefs, and you've had to do quite a bit of mental gymnastics to reconcile the other positions (especially foreign policy) that the Republican party champions.

[Wilt Chamberlain]

If you wanna feel threatened go right ahead man :lol:lol

[Phenomanul]

But you will.

:lol :lol :lol implying I owe you anything....



You said "the most noted fanatics ARE Shi'ites." which is so stupid on its face it needed to be ridiculed. Al Qaeda is/was full of noted fanatics and they are Sunni.

Meh... an honest mistake - a pretty big one I confess (given Boko Haram and the Bakri group in Indonesia are other Sunni Terrorist factions along with Al-Qaeda's Wahhabi Sunni sect)... But still that concession is immaterial. It does nothing to deter from the point I was making - mainly that a religious leader who has an influence on his country's military action (hence my inclusion of the 'Shi'ite cleric' qualifier) should not claim 'religious duty' as a inciting motive for confronting another sovereign state.

That said, even while I concede that I bobbled the names of the Islamic fractions in my mind, don't be fooled into thinking Shi'ite doctrine doesn't lead to radical ideologies (The Hezbollah are Shi'ites). In Shi'ite doctrine, muslims must establish a global caliphate before the return of their Mahdi... This requires invasive action on their part (which is why they feel it is their duty to reproduce like crazy everywhere they go).

Just to be perfectly clear though - Islamic doctrine as a whole (and the various factions that consider themselves Muslim) can rapidly devolve to die-by-the-sword fanaticism. Those commands are littered repeatedly, graphically, boldly and unmistakably across the pages of the Quran.


As for the rest -- you absolutely have intimated the leadership in Iran wants to get into a war with Israel that will devastate Iran -- if you think something else, spell it out.

You say 'war' as if it would be declared officially. If Iran's leaders have voiced an opinion suggesting that it is their [the country's] religious duty to "wipe Israel from the pages of time". How else do you think they would do that if not without confrontation? You don't find that even a bit concerning...? Apparently not, since you have tried to down play that position.

[Phenomanul]

"The Shi'ite brand of Islam has by far created the most radical muslims"

Phenomenaul: if you really believe that, you have very little credibility regarding your other beliefs. You need to change the "news" sources from where you get your information. This reminds of me of a highly rated comment on breitbart or wnd (I forget which) that Bush should've invaded Iran instead of Iraq.

My guess is that your attachment to conservatism is based on your religious beliefs, and you've had to do quite a bit of mental gymnastics to reconcile the other positions (especially foreign policy) that the Republican party champions.

Nope... just an honest mistake. During that exchange I was running process simulation software on one machine (tweaking lines of code here and there), running 5 different Excel sheets on another (performing an array of different computations), talking to my sister on the phone, and trying to keep up with all the strawmen in this thread. It happens.

My position is pretty clear. We don't want more nuclear capable nations in the high-stakes game of nuclear roulette. The fact that we've had to delve into the particulars of motive is immaterial to that position as well. I'm not favoring Israel over Iran. Simply pointing out that Iran doesn't have nuclear weapons today and that the U.S. shouldn't be involved in facilitating their progress towards that end.

Conversely,

Who is going to try and tell Israel to get rid of the nuclear arsenal currently in their possession (the "Come and Take It" flag with the canon comes to mind)?

[ChumpDumper]

:lol :lol :lol implying I owe you anything.... Faulty inference. I made a prediction. A correct one.


Meh... an honest mistake - a pretty big one I confess (given Boko Haram and the Bakri group in Indonesia are other Sunni Terrorist factions along with Al-Qaeda's Wahhabi Sunni sect)... But still that concession is immaterial. It does nothing to deter from the point I was making - mainly that a religious leader who has an influence on his country's military action (hence my inclusion of the 'Shi'ite cleric' qualifier) should not claim 'religious duty' as a inciting motive for confronting another sovereign state.

That said, even while I concede that I bobbled the names of the Islamic fractions in my mind, don't be fooled into thinking Shi'ite doctrine doesn't lead to radical ideologies (The Hezbollah are Shi'ites). In Shi'ite doctrine, muslims must establish a global caliphate before the return of their Mahdi... This requires invasive action on their part (which is why they feel it is their duty to reproduce like crazy everywhere they go).

Just to be perfectly clear though - Islamic doctrine as a whole (and the various factions that consider themselves Muslim) can rapidly devolve to die-by-the-sword fanaticism. Those commands are littered repeatedly, graphically, boldly and unmistakably across the pages of the Quran.I think every religion lends itself to extremists. So what?


You say 'war' as if it would be declared officially. If Iran's leaders have voiced an opinion suggesting that it is their [the country's] religious duty to "wipe Israel from the pages of time". How else do you think they would do that if not without confrontation? You don't find that even a bit concerning...? Apparently not, since you have tried to down play that position.I don't find it very concerning at all. The leader of a much bigger threat to this country said "We will bury you!" for all the world to see.

Nothing happened.

And they had many, many nuclear weapons.

Why would I give a shit if Israel and Iran want to destroy each other anyway? What do we get from relations with either country?

[ChumpDumper]

Nope... just an honest mistake. During that exchange I was running process simulation software on one machine (tweaking lines of code here and there), running 5 different Excel sheets on another (performing an array of different computations), talking to my sister on the phone, and trying to keep up with all the strawmen in this thread. It happens.

My position is pretty clear. We don't want more nuclear capable nations in the high-stakes game of nuclear roulette. The fact that we've had to delve into the particulars of motive is immaterial to that position as well. I'm not favoring Israel over Iran. Simply pointing out that Iran doesn't have nuclear weapons today and that the U.S. shouldn't be involved in facilitating their progress towards that end.

Conversely,

Who is going to try and tell Israel to get rid of the nuclear arsenal currently in their possession (the "Come and Take It" flag with the canon comes to mind)?We could pretty easily if we had any political will.

[Phenomanul]

Faulty inference. I made a prediction. A correct one.

I think every religion lends itself to extremists. So what?

I don't find it very concerning at all. The leader of a much bigger threat to this country said "We will bury you!" for all the world to see.

Nothing happened.

And they had many, many nuclear weapons.

Why would I give a shit if Israel and Iran want to destroy each other anyway? What do we get from relations with either country?

Not much... just nuclear fallout. WWIII... nothing of consequence.

[ChumpDumper]

Not much... just nuclear fallout. WWIII... nothing of consequence.Again, why does Iran want its own country to be destroyed?

You never explained that.

[Phenomanul]

We could pretty easily if we had any political will.

Again, another nuclear roulette scenario... one in which both parties can bluff with WMDs... No one wants another DEFCON 1 situation playing out.

[Phenomanul]

Again, why does Iran want its own country to be destroyed?

You never explained that.

If Islamic fanaticism became the driving reason it doesn't need to make sense. That's the problem with chaos.

[Phenomanul]

When it comes down to it. YOUR fundamental position is that you don't care if Iran becomes nuclear capable or not. Every other argument you've brought to the table is immaterial in light of that premise. My position is that I clearly don't want Iran to become a nuclear capable nation.

[ChumpDumper]

Again, another nuclear roulette scenario... one in which both parties can bluff with WMDs... No one wants another DEFCON 1 situation playing out.Who says we would have to threaten them with nukes?


If Islamic fanaticism became the driving reason it doesn't need to make sense. That's the problem with chaos.Sorry, you can't come up with any reason Iran would want to annihilate itself. I have shown specific, concrete examples when it actively avoided national martyrdom.

The problem with your thinking is that what you say is chaos isn't chaos at all. It's just basic self-interest.

[Phenomanul]

I don't find it very concerning at all. The leader of a much bigger threat to this country said "We will bury you!" for all the world to see.

Nothing happened.

And they had many, many nuclear weapons.

Why would I give a shit if Israel and Iran want to destroy each other anyway? What do we get from relations with either country?

BTW who said that? N. Korea or Putin?

[ChumpDumper]

When it comes down to it. YOUR fundamental position is that you don't care if Iran becomes nuclear capable or not. Every other argument you've brought to the table is immaterial in light of that premise. My position is that I clearly don't want Iran to become a nuclear capable nation.I don't want any other country to become a nuclear power. I think the likelihood they would use it unprovoked is lower than you think. Israel would probably attack them first, reassuring Iran that they were right to pursue the weapons in the first place.

[ChumpDumper]

BTW who said that? N. Korea or Putin?Holy shit -- you don't even know this?

What planet are you from?

[Warlord23]

Nope... just an honest mistake. During that exchange I was running process simulation software on one machine (tweaking lines of code here and there), running 5 different Excel sheets on another (performing an array of different computations), talking to my sister on the phone, and trying to keep up with all the strawmen in this thread. It happens.


Fair enough. I'll just address the comment below then


My position is pretty clear. We don't want more nuclear capable nations in the high-stakes game of nuclear roulette. The fact that we've had to delve into the particulars of motive is immaterial to that position as well. I'm not favoring Israel over Iran. Simply pointing out that Iran doesn't have nuclear weapons today and that the U.S. shouldn't be involved in facilitating their progress towards that end.


Nobody in the international community wants more nuclear capable nations. The question is what is the best strategy to avoid proliferation. The decades-long US-led tactic of isolating Iran and fighting proxy wars has led to Iran becoming a nuclear threshold state. Continuing this trajectory will complete the process of Iran possessing nuclear warheads. The alternative is to try and regulate rather than eliminate Iranian nuclear capability. This is what the current JCPOA seeks to do with steep reductions in centrifuges and enriched Uranium, curbing Plutonium production and a reasonable (while not ideal) inspections framework.

There are legitimate reasons to find faults in this deal - it is not perfect. But making perfect the enemy of good is a shortsighted tactic. The agreement pushes Iran's military nuclear ambitions back and offers a way for Iran to develop closer economic ties with the West. Aside from military engagement, this is arguably the most realistic way of containing Iran. Netanyahu's way - a bloody war that will turn out worse than the Iraq misadventure - is breathtaking in its foolhardiness.

And the proof of the pragmatism of the deal is the response from the international community. The whole of Europe (including parties in power and credible opposition parties in various countries) supports this deal. The UN Security Council voted for it unanimously. The moderate Gulf nations (Qatar, UAE, Kuwait, Oman etc) cautiously support it. The only opposition is from Saudi Arabia (due to ideological Shia-Sunni doctrine and for oil trade reasons), Israel (the Likud party's ticket to remaining in power is to keep Israelis scared and voting for them repeatedly) and the Republican Party (because the other side did it, they have to oppose it).

[Phenomanul]

Who says we would have to threaten them with nukes?

Sorry, you can't come up with any reason Iran would want to annihilate itself. I have shown specific, concrete examples when it actively avoided national martyrdom.

The problem with your thinking is that what you say is chaos isn't chaos at all. It's just basic self-interest.

Concrete examples? Or just your own logically induced conjectures..?

Got it. I do... really. It's like when Islamic terrorists blow themselves up along with their targets, self-interest is at the top of their mind (thinking of all of the virgins they will have in the afterlife). They honestly don't value civilization the way you or I do. That's the chaos I'm referencing. If you need concrete examples for that dynamic at play you can probably google a list of about 100 such incidents in our lifetimes alone.

[ChumpDumper]

Concrete examples? Or just your own logically induced conjectures..?OK, what is your logically induced conjecture concerning Iran's agreement to end its war with Iraq, especially after Iraq's ally, the US, shot down one of its airliners and killed 290 innocent people?

Let's hear your opinion about this.

[Phenomanul]

Holy shit -- you don't even know this?

What planet are you from?

Born in the late 70's... waaaaaay before my time.

According to this:

http://www.thisdayinquotes.com/2011/11/we-will-bury-you-or-something-like-that.html

The phrase wasn't uttered in the context you suggested. It's a case of mistranslation and flippancy.

That's why I would have been surprised if someone like N. Korea or Putin had uttered the phrase. Belligerent defiance carries far more weight than flippancy. Had they uttered it with the world to see, trust me that people would have grave cause to be concerned.

[ChumpDumper]

Born in the late 70's... waaaaaay before my time.

According to this:

http://www.thisdayinquotes.com/2011/11/we-will-bury-you-or-something-like-that.html

The phrase wasn't uttered in the context you suggested. It's a case of mistranslation and flippancy.

That's why I would have been surprised if someone like N. Korea or Putin had uttered the phrase. Belligerent defiance carries far more weight than flippancy. Had they uttered it with the world to see, trust me that people would have grave cause to be concerned.lol you didn't even bother reading your own link.
I grew up in the 1950s, when we practiced “duck and cover” drills at school and families were building fallout shelters in their back yards.
I tend to think that the modern spin on Khrushchev’s most famous quote overlooks a few simple facts.

Back in 1956, The nuclear arms race and the threat of nuclear war were real and taken very seriously.

So, “We shall be present at your funeral” or “We shall outlive you” or any of the other “better” translations that are now suggested would likely have sounded just as hostile and threatening to most Americans.

Thus, the “issue” of whether “We will bury you” was a mistranslation or misquote seems kind of moot to me.

Of course, six years later, during the Cuban Missile Crisis, we found out that Khrushchev didn’t really have the sharries to start a nuclear war with the U.S.You're a ridiculous person who has no idea what has happened in this world.

[Phenomanul]

OK, what is your logically induced conjecture concerning Iran's agreement to end its war with Iraq, especially after Iraq's ally, the US, shot down one of its airliners and killed 290 innocent people?

Let's hear your opinion about this.

I don't have time to address the relentlessness of any more of your red-herrings or strawmen.

You say, "I don't want any other country to become a nuclear power."

But really you mean, "I really don't care if any other country becomes a nuclear power or not."

The difference between you and me is the weight of your indifference on the matter. Everything else you or I have stated is immaterial.

[ChumpDumper]

I don't have time to address the relentlessness of any more of your red-herrings or strawmen.

You say, "I don't want any other country to become a nuclear power."

But really you mean, "I really don't care if any other country becomes a nuclear power or not."

The difference between you and me is the weight of your indifference on the matter. Everything else you or I have stated is immaterial.I meant what I said.

I know you have to run away now that I have asked you a direct question and you have absolutely no idea how do deal with it.

[Phenomanul]

No I didn't read it all... I just looked up the quote and skimmed it.


lol you didn't even bother reading your own link.You're a ridiculous person who has no idea what has happened in this world.

Just more red-herrings on your part. And your attempt to appeal to reductio ad ridiculum.

Regardless of the outcome, if you think this nation is really up for more Cuban Missile Crises YOU'RE the insane one. No one wants a redux of that.

[ChumpDumper]

No I didn't read it all... I just looked up the quote and skimmed it.No shit.



Just more red-herrings on your part. And your attempt to appeal to reductio ad ridiculum.

Regardless of the outcome, if you think this nation is really up for more Cuban Missile Crises YOU'RE the insane one. No one wants a redux of that.This is nothing like the Cuban missile crisis.

That's the whole point.

Are you googling the Iran-Iraq war right now?

[Phenomanul]

I meant what I said.

I know you have to run away now that I have asked you a direct question and you have absolutely no idea how do deal with it.

A direct question? You just copy and pasted my words and returned the phrase back as a question (a vague one at that). Again, as I stated way back when... You don't understand the consequences of risk, if you find NO CONCERN whatsoever in allowing extremist factions in the Iranian government from becoming nuclear capable.

[ChumpDumper]

Here is the direct question.
OK, what is your logically induced conjecture concerning Iran's agreement to end its war with Iraq, especially after Iraq's ally, the US, shot down one of its airliners and killed 290 innocent people?

Let's hear your opinion about this.Quit whining and answer it.

[ChumpDumper]

A direct question? You just copy and pasted my words and returned the phrase back as a question (a vague one at that). Again, as I stated way back when... You don't understand the consequences of risk, if you find NO CONCERN whatsoever in allowing extremist factions in the Iranian government from becoming nuclear capable.Straw man.

[Phenomanul]

No shit.

I don't have all the time in the world like others to live in the forum all day.


This is nothing like the Cuban missile crisis.

That's the whole point.

Are you googling the Iran-Iraq war right now?

There is no "this" idiot.

Have the U.S. try to tell Israel to give up their nuclear weapons and we would most definitely have something larger than the Cuban Missile Crisis on our hands. Technologies are more advanced, information is instant - but so is the speculation that comes from the silence - less time to think.

[Phenomanul]

OK, what is your logically induced conjecture concerning Iran's agreement to end its war with Iraq, especially after Iraq's ally, the US, shot down one of its airliners and killed 290 innocent people?

Let's hear your opinion about this.

So are you going to try and get my take on every single U.S. / Iran conflict? Just wanna know before going down that endless rabbit hole. It's your defining characteristic. You keep going and going... and NEVER ONCE concede on anything.

In this particular case the U.S. took complete responsibility for the tragedy (even if it took several years to conduct the investigation) and attempted to make restitutions to the families of those involved. You make it sound like sinister motives were at play. In fact, this plays into the chaos dynamic I was telling you about.

When the presiding U.S. administration at the time woke up that day, they didn't think, "yay! today we're gonna incite an international incident". It happened due to the brash, irresponsible actions of a lone Navy captain... Chaos. Not pre-meditated. Not pre-conceived. Not planned.

[clambake]

did you consult your "demons in a box by hasbro"

[ChumpDumper]

I don't have all the time in the world like others to live in the forum all day.



There is no "this" idiot.Of course there is a this. We've been talking about Iran this entire time.


Have the U.S. try to tell Israel to give up their nuclear weapons and we would most definitely have something larger than the Cuban Missile Crisis on our hands. Technologies are more advanced, information is instant - but so is the speculation that comes from the silence - less time to think.No. That's ridiculous. You jumped straight to nuclear war between the Us and Israel. That's nuts.

[ChumpDumper]

So are you going to try and get my take on every single U.S. / Iran conflict? Just wanna know before going down that endless rabbit hole. It's your defining characteristic. You keep going and going... and NEVER ONCE concede on anything.

In this particular case the U.S. took complete responsibility for the tragedy (even if it took several years to conduct the investigation) and attempted to make restitutions to the families of those involved. You make it sound like sinister motives were at play. In fact, this plays into the chaos dynamic I was telling you about.

When the presiding U.S. administration at the time woke up that day, they didn't think, "yay! today we're gonna incite an international incident". It happened due to the brash, irresponsible actions of a lone Navy captain... Chaos. Not pre-meditated. Not pre-conceived. Not planned.Way to miss the point.

Why did Iran agree to the cease fire in the war with Iraq? If anything the killing of hundreds of innocent Iranians should have made those crazed religious fanatics attack Iraq's ally in glorious jihad, right?

Why didn't they?

Why did Iran move to stop fighting at that time?

[Phenomanul]

Of course there is a this. We've been talking about Iran this entire time.

No. That's ridiculous. You jumped straight to nuclear war between the Us and Israel. That's nuts.

I didn't jump straight into it... that's ONE of the many POSSIBLE outcomes that can result from trying to tell Israel that they must relinquish their nuclear armaments. And it would be as bad or worse than the Cuban Missile Crisis.





Nope... just an honest mistake. During that exchange I was running process simulation software on one machine (tweaking lines of code here and there), running 5 different Excel sheets on another (performing an array of different computations), talking to my sister on the phone, and trying to keep up with all the strawmen in this thread. It happens.

My position is pretty clear. We don't want more nuclear capable nations in the high-stakes game of nuclear roulette. The fact that we've had to delve into the particulars of motive is immaterial to that position as well. I'm not favoring Israel over Iran. Simply pointing out that Iran doesn't have nuclear weapons today and that the U.S. shouldn't be involved in facilitating their progress towards that end.

Conversely,

Who is going to try and tell Israel to get rid of the nuclear arsenal currently in their possession (the "Come and Take It" flag with the canon comes to mind)?

We could pretty easily if we had any political will.

Again, another nuclear roulette scenario... one in which both parties can bluff with WMDs... No one wants another DEFCON 1 situation playing out.

Who says we would have to threaten them with nukes?

The logic can be summarized.

I'd rather we deny Iran the 'priviledge' of joining the nuclear club (or any other country for that manner), than trying to tell an existing member of said club that they have to give up their arsenals (with an ultimatum).

If the excluded folks hate the deterrence, at least they can't retaliate with nukes to show their disapproval. ON THE OTHER hand, if an existing member of said club had to be forced into relinquishing their arsenals - they WOULD have the option of deployment in show of their disapproval.

Again, it's a matter of risk. You don't seem to get it. You seem to want to place more weight to the motives themselves - whereas I'm placing it on the elimination of the risk itself.

You may disagree with that line of thinking but when it comes down to it that's the difference between our respective trains of thought.


Way to miss the point.

Why did Iran agree to the cease fire in the war with Iraq? If anything the killing of hundreds of innocent Iranians should have made those crazed religious fanatics attack Iraq's ally in glorious jihad, right?

Why didn't they?

Why did Iran move to stop fighting at that time?

Why...?

Ant <<<< Shoe.

They would have brought the proverbial knife to a gun fight, had they engaged in direct conflict with the U.S.

Also, because the U.S. didn't declare it as an act of war, it wasn't a deliberate action by our government. If the U.S. on the other hand had bombed one of Iran's military bases off the map - it may have led to a different result.

The dynamic you wish to parallel simply wasn't there in this 1988 incident.

[ChumpDumper]

Why...?

Ant <<<< Shoe.

They would have brought the proverbial knife to a gun fight, had they engaged in direct conflict with the U.S.So they would rationally decide not to fight the US?

Thank you for proving my point for me. :tu


Also, because the U.S. didn't declare it as an act of war, it wasn't a deliberate action by our government. If the U.S. on the other hand had bombed one of Iran's military bases off the map - it may have been a different result.So if Iran shot down an Israeli airliner and said it was an accident, you would understand.


The dynamic you wish to parallel simply wasn't there in this 1988 incident.Why did they stop fighting Iraq? Surely the Shi'ite fanatics would jihad to the last man, right?

[ChumpDumper]

I didn't jump straight into it... that's ONE of the many POSSIBLE outcomes that can result from trying to tell Israel that they must relinquish their nuclear armaments. And it would be as bad or worse than the Cuban Missile Crisis.



The logic can be summarized.

I'd rather we deny Iran the 'priviledge' of joining the nuclear club (or any other country for that manner), than trying to tell an existing member of said club that they have to give up their arsenals (with an ultimatum).

If the excluded folks hate the deterrence, at least they can't retaliate with nukes to show their disapproval. ON THE OTHER hand, if an existing member of said club had to be forced into relinquishing their arsenals - they WOULD have the option of deployment in show of their disapproval.

Again, it's a matter of risk. You don't seem to get it. You seem to want to place more weight to the motives themselves - whereas I'm placing it on the elimination of the risk itself.

You may disagree with that line of thinking but when it comes down to it that's the difference between our respective trains of thought.So you want to go to war to keep Iran from getting a nuclear weapon?

I don't.

Do you?

Summarize.

[Phenomanul]

So you want to go to war to keep Iran from getting a nuclear weapon?

I don't.

Do you?

Summarize.

:lol :lol Exhibit A: of your annoying relentlessness.

Putting words in my mouth again. When did I state I want the U.S. to go to war with Iran....? [not like you'll answer the question... because I never stated as much].

All I said is that the U.S. shouldn't be facilitating Iran's progress towards nuclear capability.

TWO COMPLETELY DIFFERENT PREMISES. But go on.

I know you will.

[Phenomanul]

So they would rationally decide not to fight the US?

Thank you for proving my point for me. :tu

It's not a fight against us that is as concerning, but the fact that they harbor a deeper resentment towards another member of that nuclear club. Israel. That resentment is fueled by a deeper religious fanaticism. Their political instability and this fanaticism is an unstable mix. But no amount of flagging this for you seems to elicit acknowledgement that it's not a good mix.

Since you like red-herrings:

It's like allowing the nuts from Woodsboro Baptist church to have a say in the matter when the president has to make a call on military action.

In no world would that be a sensible thing to do.


So if Iran shot down an Israeli airliner and said it was an accident, you would understand.

Depends on the context and the results of the investigation.


Why did they stop fighting Iraq? Surely the Shi'ite fanatics would jihad to the last man, right?

Because Hussein outclassed their military.
Because they were already taking big losses.

It's different against Israel.
Because their fraternal hatred for each others' doctrines is ONLY dwarfed by their shared hatred for Israel.

Here's another red-herring for you:

Brothers fight all the time correct? What happens if a mutual friend attacks your brother though? Do they not jump in and defend their kin? Despite whatever differences the brothers may have had in the past - that all goes out the window.

Hatred against Israel is the one unifying thing that all muslims have in common. It runs deep in their veins. It's fool-hardy to suggest that their hatred doesn't factor into their military decisions. Because they're completely rational.

[ChumpDumper]

:lol :lol Exhibit A: of your annoying relentlessness.

Putting words in my mouth again. When did I state I want the U.S. to go to war with Iran....? [not like you'll answer the question... because I never stated as much].

All I said is that the U.S. shouldn't be facilitating Iran's progress towards nuclear capability.

TWO COMPLETELY DIFFERENT PREMISES. But go on.

I know you will.I asked you a direct question.

Do you want to go to war to stop its getting a nuclear weapon if it comes to that?

[ChumpDumper]

It's not a fight against us that is as concerning, but the fact that they harbor a deeper resentment towards another member of that nuclear club. Israel. That resentment is fueled by a deeper religious fanaticism. Their political instability and this fanaticism is an unstable mix. But no amount of flagging this for you seems to elicit acknowledgement that it's not a good mix.You don't think they have any grievances against the US?

Jesus, you really don't know anything unless I tell you to google it.

Anyway, thanks for proving my point.


Since you like red-herrings:

It's like allowing the nuts from Woodsboro Baptist church to have a say in the matter when the president has to make a call on military action.

In no world would that be a sensible thing to do.You need to google what a red herring is now.



Depends on the context and the results of the investigation.They say it's an accident. What can you investigate? What did the Iranians get to investigate?



Because Hussein outclassed their military.
Because they were already taking big losses.Thank you for proving my point again.


It's different against Israel.
Because their fraternal hatred for each others' doctrines is ONLY dwarfed by their shared hatred for Israel.Not really, they fight each other much more than Israel.


Here's another red-herring for you:

Brothers fight all the time correct? What happens if a mutual friend attacks your brother though? Do they not jump in and defend their kin? Despite whatever differences the brothers may have had in the past - that all goes out the window.

Hatred against Israel is the one unifying thing that all muslims have in common. It runs deep in their veins. It's fool-hardy to suggest that their hatred doesn't factor into their military decisions. Because they're completely rational.Seriously, look up red herring.

And not all Muslims hate Israel. You flaunt your ignorance with every post.

[Th'Pusher]

Fair enough. I'll just address the comment below then



Nobody in the international community wants more nuclear capable nations. The question is what is the best strategy to avoid proliferation. The decades-long US-led tactic of isolating Iran and fighting proxy wars has led to Iran becoming a nuclear threshold state. Continuing this trajectory will complete the process of Iran possessing nuclear warheads. The alternative is to try and regulate rather than eliminate Iranian nuclear capability. This is what the current JCPOA seeks to do with steep reductions in centrifuges and enriched Uranium, curbing Plutonium production and a reasonable (while not ideal) inspections framework.

There are legitimate reasons to find faults in this deal - it is not perfect. But making perfect the enemy of good is a shortsighted tactic. The agreement pushes Iran's military nuclear ambitions back and offers a way for Iran to develop closer economic ties with the West. Aside from military engagement, this is arguably the most realistic way of containing Iran. Netanyahu's way - a bloody war that will turn out worse than the Iraq misadventure - is breathtaking in its foolhardiness.

And the proof of the pragmatism of the deal is the response from the international community. The whole of Europe (including parties in power and credible opposition parties in various countries) supports this deal. The UN Security Council voted for it unanimously. The moderate Gulf nations (Qatar, UAE, Kuwait, Oman etc) cautiously support it. The only opposition is from Saudi Arabia (due to ideological Shia-Sunni doctrine and for oil trade reasons), Israel (the Likud party's ticket to remaining in power is to keep Israelis scared and voting for them repeatedly) and the Republican Party (because the other side did it, they have to oppose it).

Well said. I noticed Phenomanul ignored this post completely.

I would too if I were him/her.

[hater]

Can't disagree with anything warlord said tbqh

Israel obviously wants war. Either they are hiding/scared of something or they are pandering to their voters. Same with Saudi. But Saudi is easier to figure out. They are a nation with ZERO friends. No one likes them. But they have money so they can buy some friends. They are irrelevant thou because they have no ideals besides continuing their bloodlines.

The rest of the world could be reasoned with.

[hater]

Btw Cristina Fernandez just said Putin is now the global leader in fighting terrorism.

Wonder what phenomauled thinks about that :lmao

[pgardn]

Btw Cristina Fernandez just said Putin is now the global leader in fighting terrorism.

Wonder what phenomauled thinks about that :lmao

While the Russians bomb to make way for Hezbollah

[pgardn]

Fair enough. I'll just address the comment below then



Nobody in the international community wants more nuclear capable nations. The question is what is the best strategy to avoid proliferation. The decades-long US-led tactic of isolating Iran and fighting proxy wars has led to Iran becoming a nuclear threshold state. Continuing this trajectory will complete the process of Iran possessing nuclear warheads. The alternative is to try and regulate rather than eliminate Iranian nuclear capability. This is what the current JCPOA seeks to do with steep reductions in centrifuges and enriched Uranium, curbing Plutonium production and a reasonable (while not ideal) inspections framework.

There are legitimate reasons to find faults in this deal - it is not perfect. But making perfect the enemy of good is a shortsighted tactic. The agreement pushes Iran's military nuclear ambitions back and offers a way for Iran to develop closer economic ties with the West. Aside from military engagement, this is arguably the most realistic way of containing Iran. Netanyahu's way - a bloody war that will turn out worse than the Iraq misadventure - is breathtaking in its foolhardiness.

And the proof of the pragmatism of the deal is the response from the international community. The whole of Europe (including parties in power and credible opposition parties in various countries) supports this deal. The UN Security Council voted for it unanimously. The moderate Gulf nations (Qatar, UAE, Kuwait, Oman etc) cautiously support it. The only opposition is from Saudi Arabia (due to ideological Shia-Sunni doctrine and for oil trade reasons), Israel (the Likud party's ticket to remaining in power is to keep Israelis scared and voting for them repeatedly) and the Republican Party (because the other side did it, they have to oppose it).

The bolded is highly debatable and IMO wrong.

Agree with most of the rest.
Benji is sick and tired of Hezbollah. If Iran could get rid of Hezbollah AND undo Immadinnerjacket's vow to destroy Israel BN would have not have a leg to stand and AND most likely would not be leading Israel. Thanks for that Iran. Of course the revolutionary guard is perfectly happy with conflict, they get more power and money. This is NOT a one way street.

[Splits]

While the Russians bomb to make way for Hezbollah

What's wrong with Hizb'Allah?

[ChumpDumper]

The bolded is highly debatable and IMO wrong.So they aren't a nuclear threshold state?

[pgardn]

So they aren't a nuclear threshold state?

No, the US isolating them did not thrust them into becoming one.

[pgardn]

What's wrong with Hizb'Allah?

Are you serious?

[Splits]

vow to destroy Israel

Do you understand that your "destroy Israel" frame is made up Zionist rhetoric which is actually a policy of regime change, much like Israel and the US take/took towards Iraq, Iran, Afghan, Syria, Libya, Gaza, etc, etc, etc?

[Splits]

Are you serious?

They're a political party in a democratic state.

[pgardn]

They're a political party in a democratic state.

Yeah.

So is Sinn Fein.

That did not stop the terrorist arm from intentionally blowing up women and children.

[pgardn]

Do you understand that your "destroy Israel" frame is made up Zionist rhetoric which is actually a policy of regime change, much like Israel and the US take/took towards Iraq, Iran, Afghan, Syria, Libya, Gaza, etc, etc, etc?

Do you understand that Immadinnerjacket saying it is exactly what the far right in Israel thrives on?

[Splits]

Yeah.

So is Sinn Fein.

That did not stop the terrorist arm from intentionally blowing up women and children.

How many women and children did the Zionist terror army kill in Gaza last summer over the course of a couple months? How about a few years before that?

[Splits]

Do you understand that Immadinnerjacket saying it is exactly what the far right in Israel thrives on?

What does that have to do with anything? Iran hasn't invaded any countries in the past few hundred years. The settler movement chants "death to Arabs" all the time. Is that exactly what the Republican Guard thrive on?

[pgardn]

How many women and children did the Zionist terror army kill in Gaza last summer over the course of a couple months? How about a few years before that?

So why supply Gaza with rockets to allow Israel to have that excuse?

Rockets that can hit Tel Aviv?

[pgardn]

What does that have to do with anything? Iran hasn't invaded any countries in the past few hundred years. The settler movement chants "death to Arabs" all the time. Is that exactly what the Republican Guard thrive on?

Invading?

The clear implication was destroying with a nuke.
Get real.

[ChumpDumper]

No, the US isolating them did not thrust them into becoming one.Oh, if we're just keeping it to the US I would say would say isolation played a part, as did facilitating chemical attacks on thousands of its civilians, directly killing over 200 civilians by shooting down an airliner and helping to overthrow their democratically elected government.

You know -- really petty stuff.

[Splits]

So why supply Gaza with rockets to allow Israel to have that excuse?

Rockets that can hit Tel Aviv?

:lmao rockets. You mean fire crackers that land in the desert and don't harm anyone?

Why does Israel place their military bases in the middle of their cities?

[Splits]

Invading?

The clear implication was destroying with a nuke.
Get real.

What "clear implication"? When have Iranians ever proven to be anything other than self-preservationists? Are you implying they are trying to get a nuke to detonate in Tel Aviv? That they're suicidal?

[pgardn]

:lmao rockets. You mean fire crackers that land in the desert and don't harm anyone?

Why does Israel place their military bases in the middle of their cities?

Firecrackers?

Thats how YOU see it while safe in your bed.
Dont harm anyone... BS

Just because they are horribly inaccurate does not mean they can't harm anyone.
Did Israel bring in Patriot missiles for the hell of it?

[Splits]

Firecrackers?

Thats how YOU see it while safe in your bed.
Dont harm anyone... BS

Just because they are horribly inaccurate does not mean they can't harm anyone.
Did Israel bring in Patriot missiles for the hell of it?

Why do you focus on the firecrackers that land in the desert that killed under 10 civilians last summer instead of the 500-2000lb bombs supplied by your country, that are dropped on an open air prison and killed thousands of people during the same time period? Is 1 Zionist life worth 200 Pal lives?

[pgardn]

What "clear implication"? When have Iranians ever proven to be anything other than self-preservationists? Are you implying they are trying to get a nuke to detonate in Tel Aviv? That they're suicidal?

Read what Immadinnerjacket jacket said.
Thats stupid.

Uhhh... They are sending troops and funding Hezbollah to "help" Assad while getting ready to install a Shiite leader in Syria. Are you completely daft? It's going on in front of your face RIGHT NOW.

[Splits]

Read what Immadinnerjacket jacket said.
Thats stupid.

Uhhh... They are sending troops and funding Hezbollah to "help" Assad while getting ready to install a Shiite leader in Syria. Are you completely daft? It's going on in front of your face RIGHT NOW.

So you're saying the Iranians are trying to acquire a nuke to drop on Tel Aviv? Please state your case, don't be obtuse.

[pgardn]

Why do you focus on the firecrackers that land in the desert that killed under 10 civilians last summer instead of the 500-2000lb bombs supplied by your country, that are dropped on an open air prison and killed thousands of people during the same time period? Is 1 Zionist life worth 200 Pal lives?

WTF are you writing?

Do you want Israel OUT of this mess?
Then stop sending Gaza missiles. Or are you interested in death ratios more than death?
Israel let Gaza have its own self rule, look what happened. Your kind gave the Jewish State an excuse.
Do you not get this?

[Splits]

WTF are you writing?

Do you want Israel OUT of this mess?
Then stop sending Gaza missiles. Or are you interested in death ratios more than death?
Israel let Gaza have its own self rule, look what happened. Your kind gave the Jewish State an excuse.
Do you not get this?

Deflecting. Why won't you answer simple questions?

[pgardn]

So you're saying the Iranians are trying to acquire a nuke to drop on Tel Aviv? Please state your case, don't be obtuse.

There is no being obtuse, there is you not getting that Irael is a superior power right or not.
Again, do you not understand that Iranian leaders threatening to wipe Israel off the map gives the Israeli hardliners any excuse they need?

[pgardn]

Deflecting. Why won't you answer simple questions?

There is no deflecting. You see an uneven battle in terms of death ratios and you are correct. I see death. You want it even.

I want it all to stop.

This is crystal clear.

[pgardn]

Oh, if we're just keeping it to the US I would say would say isolation played a part, as did facilitating chemical attacks on thousands of its civilians, directly killing over 200 civilians by shooting down an airliner and helping to overthrow their democratically elected government.

You know -- really petty stuff.

It started before this if you want to make an historical argument.

But no, I think the Iranians understand that North Korea remains relevant with a nuke and they are in a horrible state. Imagine a bustling country that opposes you with an element of rogue involved. You scare people shitless, therefore you are relevant.

[ChumpDumper]

It started before this if you want to make an historical argument. I'll stick to the past couple of generations. Seems like enough tbh.


But no, I think the Iranians understand that North Korea remains relevant with a nuke and they are in a horrible state. Imagine a bustling country that opposes you with an element of rogue involved. You scare people shitless, therefore you are relevant.Like the US or Israel? OK.

[Splits]

There is no being obtuse, there is you not getting that Irael is a superior power right or not.
Again, do you not understand that Iranian leaders threatening to wipe Israel off the map gives the Israeli hardliners any excuse they need?

:lmao you are so fucking ignorant. "Wipe Israel off the map". It's a policy of regime change. A policy Israel and the US take towards dozens of countries. Quit trying to make it exceptional.

"Do you not understand that Israeli leaders threatening regime change gives Iranian hardliners any excuse they need?"

See how easy this game is? Why do you think Israel is morally superior? Why do you not address the 500 children that were murdered in Gaza last summer when less than 10 Israeli civilians were killed by bottle rockets?

Why is this OK?

1PzvaoPixV0

Or this?

656061569051181056

Or.... I can go on and on and on about the absolute immorality and disgusting state of affairs that currently take place in the illegitimate state of "Israel".

[pgardn]

The Iranians are self preservationists while attempting to spread the Shia rule to Sunni areas...

Jesus...
Or Mohammed...

[Splits]

It started before this if you want to make an historical argument.

But no, I think the Iranians understand that North Korea remains relevant with a nuke and they are in a horrible state. Imagine a bustling country that opposes you with an element of rogue involved. You scare people shitless, therefore you are relevant.

:lmao comparing North Korea to Iran are you fucking serious?

[pgardn]

:lmao you are so fucking ignorant. "Wipe Israel off the map". It's a policy of regime change. A policy Israel and the US take towards dozens of countries. Quit trying to make it exceptional.

"Do you not understand that Israeli leaders threatening regime change gives Iranian hardliners any excuse they need?"

See how easy this game is? Why do you think Israel is morally superior? Why do you not address the 500 children that were murdered in Gaza last summer when less than 10 Israeli civilians were killed by bottle rockets?

Why is this OK?

1PzvaoPixV0

Or this?

656061569051181056

Or.... I can go on and on and on about the absolute immorality and disgusting state of affairs that currently take place in the illegitimate state of "Israel".

You don't like the big dog status of Israel which is understandable. Your problem is you want others to change this status while you type on a GD basketball board. And stop it with the frkn ratio. Israel is a tiny country, so every human life taken by terrorism means a great deal given their history. Do you not understand what you are dealing with? Or it's just easy to type?

[Splits]

The Iranians are self preservationists while attempting to spread the Shia rule to Sunni areas...

Jesus...
Or Mohammed...

:lol "spread Shia rule" holy fucking shit you are off the reservation

[pgardn]

:lmao comparing North Korea to Iran are you fucking serious?

Thats exactly what I am NOT doing. I am saying that a country with as proud and as rich in history as Iran yet unstable is a larger threat. N. Korea is totally subjugated.

And you are missing so many valid points,and now relying on emoticons, that I'm starting to get the felling you are not serious or just ignorant or both.

[Splits]

You don't like the big dog status of Israel which is understandable. Your problem is you want others to change this status while you type on a GD basketball board. And stop it with the frkn ratio. Israel is a tiny country, so every human life taken by terrorism means a great deal given their history. Do you not understand what you are dealing with? Or it's just easy to type?

:lol "terrorism"

And yes, the ratio is the core of the issue. Every life is equal in my eyes. In your eyes, a Zionist life is worth 20 brown lives. I get it, you're a bigot. Just be open about it. You'll feel better about yourself if you stop being so obtuse and just admit you're a racist.

You know Nelson Mandela was called a "terrorist" for decades.

I could care less about states or boundaries or whatever. I'd like to see justice. Just like South African apartheid was ended, and the Jim Crow south was ended, I'd like to see the failed Zionist project ended. One person one vote for the people who live there.

You on the other hand worship authoritarianism and think "those with the most guns win". History is not on your side.

[Splits]

Thats exactly what I am NOT doing. I am saying that a country with as proud and as rich in history as Iran yet unstable is a larger threat. N. Korea is totally subjugated.

And you are missing so many valid points,and now relying on emoticons, that I'm starting to get the felling you are not serious or just ignorant or both.

Iran is not unstable. It's the most stable country in the region.

[pgardn]

:lol "spread Shia rule" holy fucking shit you are off the reservation

So there is not a Sunni/Shiite problem? And Iran is NOT involved.


Dont pretend you don't get it. Or do, because your points are shallow.

Iran has is a self preservation country... Really?

[pgardn]

Iran is not unstable. It's the most stable country in the region.
bullshit.

Read about the president v. The ayatollah v. The Republican guard.

Now I see you are ignorant.

[pgardn]

:lol "terrorism"

And yes, the ratio is the core of the issue. Every life is equal in my eyes. In your eyes, a Zionist life is worth 20 brown lives. I get it, you're a bigot. Just be open about it. You'll feel better about yourself if you stop being so obtuse and just admit you're a racist.

You know Nelson Mandela was called a "terrorist" for decades.

I could care less about states or boundaries or whatever. I'd like to see justice. Just like South African apartheid was ended, and the Jim Crow south was ended, I'd like to see the failed Zionist project ended. One person one vote for the people who live there.

You on the other hand worship authoritarianism and think "those with the most guns win". History is not on your side.

Israelis are as browner than any Iranian. You think all Isaralis are born in NY?

And you could not care less, if you could care less you would care less.

[Splits]

So there is not a Sunni/Shiite problem? And Iran is NOT involved.


Dont pretend you don't get it. Or do, because your points are shallow.

Iran has is a self preservation country... Really?

Be precise, what does "spread Shia rule" mean?

And yes, if Iran has proven anything since 1979 it is that they care about maintaining order within their own borders. They personify self-preservation. Do you recall your government turning a blind eye when their ally Sadaam was firing chemical weapons across the border?

They've got their flaws, like any regional power, but you don't see them murdering 500 children in 2 months time every couple of years.

[Splits]

Israelis are as browner than any Iranian. You think all Isaralis are born in NY?

And you could not care less, if you could care less you would care less.

If the injured man on the ground was a Zionist and the men kicking him were Iranian, would you also have had no reaction to this?

1PzvaoPixV0

[pgardn]

Be precise, what does "spread Shia rule" mean?

And yes, if Iran has proven anything since 1979 it is that they care about maintaining order within their own borders. They personify self-preservation. Do you recall your government turning a blind eye when their ally Sadaam was firing chemical weapons across the border?

They've got their flaws, like any regional power, but you don't see them murdering 500 children in 2 months time every couple of years.

You are now onto an entirely different topic.

You said Iran is a self preservation country when they are totally towing the Shiite line just like the Saudis back the Sunnis. You knew exactly what I wrote. And the fact you write this self preservation bs is a joke.

Order within their own borders. Do you recall how they maintained control? Think of a color?

Have you you ever seen Israel murder and gas their own in the numbers the Iranians did?

Seriously, are you just ignorant or a totally partisan?

[pgardn]

If the injured man on the ground was a Zionist and the men kicking him were Iranian, would you also have had no reaction to this?

1PzvaoPixV0

I totally don't like it. It's wrong.

But unlike you I would not thrive on seeing it the other way around.

[Splits]

You are now onto an entirely different topic.

You said Iran is a self preservation country when they are totally towing the Shiite line just like the Saudis back the Sunnis. You knew exactly what I wrote. And the fact you write this self preservation bs is a joke.

Order within their own borders. Do you recall how they maintained control? Think of a color?

Have you you ever seen Israel murder and gas their own in the numbers the Iranians did?

Seriously, are you just ignorant or a totally partisan?

I'm sorry English isn't your first language. Let me help you:


self-pres·er·va·tion: the protection of oneself from harm or death, especially regarded as a basic instinct in human beings and animals.

Use in a sentence: The Iranian regime, flawed as it may be, is interested in self-preservation and would never drop a nuke on Tel Aviv because they know their country would be turned into dust.

[Splits]

I totally don't like it. It's wrong.

But unlike you I would not thrive on seeing it the other way around.

Oh yes, I "thrive" on seeing it. More please! Fuggin 'tard.

How about condemning the terror state that promotes such behavior?

[pgardn]

I'm sorry English isn't your first language. Let me help you:



Use in a sentence: The Iranian regime, flawed as it may be, is interested in self-preservation and would never drop a nuke on Tel Aviv because they know their country would be turned into dust.

Excellent.

Attack the iPhone messaging.

They...

Who is THEY that care. Do they want martyrdom? Think like an Israeli.
You don't know Iran and its power structure. You don't understand that internal strife leads to horrible external decisions.

Tell us about the president v. The ayatollah v. The Republican guard

[pgardn]

Oh yes, I "thrive" on seeing it. More please! Fuggin 'tard.

How about condemning the terror state that promotes such behavior?

You have absolutely no idea what you are talking about.
What color did the people wear in Iran? It played a role in bringing down the dinner jacket.

I mean, since you care so much...

[Splits]

Have you you ever seen Israel murder and gas their own

http://www.jpost.com/HttpHandlers/ShowImage.ashx?id=262254&h=530&w=758

[pgardn]

http://www.jpost.com/HttpHandlers/ShowImage.ashx?id=262254&h=530&w=758

Yep.

They also got Reagan, almost.
Its actually easier in a Democratic State.

Next.

You are digging an excellent latrine trough for yourself.

[pgardn]

You have absolutely no idea what you are talking about.
What color did the people wear in Iran? It played a role in bringing down the dinner jacket.

I mean, since you care so much...

[pgardn]

I'm out.

Where do you live Spits?

I will check back in the morning.

[Splits]

You have absolutely no idea what you are talking about.
What color did the people wear in Iran? It played a role in bringing down the dinner jacket.

I mean, since you care so much...

And look what the Green Revolution gave us...

The ouster of the Holocaust denier.

The election of an Western-educated president and an American-educated Foreign Minister who agreed to an historic arms-control agreement.

Sure, it wasn't pretty. I'd love to see Ahmadinejad in prison just as much as I'd like to see Cheney in prison, they're pretty much the same guy.

The Ayatollahs are disgusting people, no different than the Zionists in power in "Israel", but one society has progressed over the past 5 years while the other has regressed.

One society is living up to international law and obligations while the other is in complete and utter defiance, stealing land and murdering hundreds of children per year under their 50 year military occupation.

But keep propping up the Zionist terror state as if they are morally superior.

[Splits]

I'm out.

Where do you live Spits?

I will check back in the morning.

DC

[Splits]

Some bedtime reading material, straight from the terror army soldier's mouth: http://www.breakingthesilence.org.il/testimonies/database/?tzuk=1

[pgardn]

And look what the Green Revolution gave us...

The ouster of the Holocaust denier.

The election of an Western-educated president and an American-educated Foreign Minister who agreed to an historic arms-control agreement.

Sure, it wasn't pretty. I'd love to see Ahmadinejad in prison just as much as I'd like to see Cheney in prison, they're pretty much the same guy.

The Ayatollahs are disgusting people, no different than the Zionists in power in "Israel", but one society has progressed over the past 5 years while the other has regressed.

One society is living up to international law and obligations while the other is in complete and utter defiance, stealing land and murdering hundreds of children per year under their 50 year military occupation.

But keep propping up the Zionist terror state as if they are morally superior.

They are not morally superior. You claim that I guess. They have a form of government that allows self criticism. And they are open to scrutiny so we will get a clearer picture of groups like the Republican Guard who use strife to maintain a power base.

Go to the papers in Israel and look what was said about BiBi attempting to use European Islamaphobia in that totally bonzo statement. You think this criticism existed for Arafat "where did the money go" or Kahmenei...
The hero of the Palestinians won a Nobel Peace prize while stealing his people's money and clearly NEVER wanted a peace agreement as war brought him money. We know this NOW.

And get real with the false care about the Palestinian situation. The countries involved in keeping Israel an enemy don't give a shit about the Palestinians. They use them as fodder.

[pgardn]

IMO this is what Israel under BN wants:

A totally Jewish State without any Arab political parties. Settlements allow them to remove non Jews. Then after this is accomplished they want peace. They are fine with a Palestinian State as long as Israel is a Jewish state that will never have significant political input from non Jews now living there.

[RandomGuy]

And you are missing so many valid points,and now relying on emoticons, that I'm starting to get the felling you are not serious or just ignorant or both.

That right there describes quite a few people who post around here.

[Phenomanul]

I asked you a direct question.

Do you want to go to war to stop its getting a nuclear weapon if it comes to that?

The answer is absolutely-freaking NO...! How else would you want me to answer that…?

That said, you just love introducing speculative questions into the fray.

Our ideological standoff on this matter is simple:

I don't think it wise for the U.S. to facilitate Iran's nuclear ambitions.

You don't care if Iran becomes nuclear capable. You somewhat prefer that they don't but don't see it wrong that the U.S. is facilitating their end goal. Everything else you introduced (e.g. motives, dynamics from previous U.S./Iran relations [under different leadership mind you], IS IMMATERIAL).

You clearly don't buy the notion that Iran's foreign policy IS intertwined with their religious fanaticism and because of the dynamics of that mixture – it can influence their military arm.

I mean, you can't even acknowledge the foolishness of a structure that allows for Iran’s religious leaders to have direct influence on their military action. Any sane person would acknowledge that this dynamic is both unpredictable and unwise, but you at three distinct opportunities have failed to concede one iota of an inch on the matter.

The hypocrisy is unfreakingbelievable... You all can't even stomach when our own political leaders happen to have religious views of their own (as mere adherents). And yet here you are, unwilling to acknowledge that the structure that allows Iran's clergy, its appointed religious leaders, to double as their defacto political leaders is a bad mix. Look at how harshly the left mocked Ben Carson simply for affirming that he was a Christian.


You don't think they have any grievances against the US?
It’s immaterial. That was never my primary point.


Jesus, you really don't know anything unless I tell you to google it.

:rolleyes Oh… please… get over yourself.

See… here you had a 3rd opportunity to affirm that the structure that allows Iran’s clergy to influence their military branch is not a good thing. But yet again you glossed over it for what? To try and take another jab at me… :lol :lol :lol More redirecting and reductio ad ridiculum on your part.


Anyway, thanks for proving my point.
No… seems like you missed the point altogether. Whether or not Iran wants to target the U.S. with nukes was never the crux of ANY of my arguments. Any indication that they would deploy against Israel, however, would raise the criticality of the risk in allowing Iran to possess nuclear armament. We all live in the same world and would have to deal with the environmental ramifications and the political/economic aftermath of a confrontation in which Iran and Israel both launch nukes at each other.


You need to google what a red herring is now.

If you insist... per wiki:

A red herring is something that misleads or distracts from a relevant or important issue.

…the red herring is a seemingly plausible, though ultimately irrelevant, diversionary tactic.

A scenario in which the nutty members of Woodsboro Baptist church were allowed to have any sort of influence on our nation’s military is a hypothetical analogy that doubles as a red herring.

Ultimately, an irrelevant diversionary tactic.


They say it's an accident. What can you investigate? What did the Iranians get to investigate?

Keep building your strawman.

The U.S. acknowledged incompetence and wrong-doing and RESTITUTED the family members of those involved. In your hypothetical parallel I doubt Iran would even:
1) Offer an apology
2) Pay the families of the victims.

I’ll tell you what I do remember though. The days following September 11th, 2001, one of the darkest days our nation has ever seen I vividly recall reactionary videos of Saudi Arabian, Palestinean, Syrian, Egyptian, Jordanian, Iraqi and IRANIAN civilians CELEBRATING our nation’s tragedy – literal ‘dancing on the streets’ level of joy.

I don’t recall any U.S. civilians celebrating the tragedy of Flight 655 in that manner. That’s not who we are.


Not really, they fight each other much more than Israel.

Doesn’t negate the fact that they hate Israel. Bad logic on your part.


And not all Muslims hate Israel. You flaunt your ignorance with every post.

The problem with absolute words. MOST muslims hate Israel. The grand majority even.


Well said. I noticed Phenomanul ignored this post completely.

I would too if I were him/her.

I didn’t ignore it. I simply don’t have time to respond to everyone’s comments.


Btw Cristina Fernandez just said Putin is now the global leader in fighting terrorism.

Wonder what phenomauled thinks about that :lmao

:lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol Huge logical error on your part. I never once claimed Cristina Fernandez held any position of moral high-ground over the U.S. I simply said she revealed something the Obama administration had approached her government with.

[ChumpDumper]

Your post is amazingly full of shit and straw at the same time.

[Th'Pusher]

I didn’t ignore it. I simply don’t have time to respond to everyone’s comments.

:lol as you finish posting a wall of text without making a single new point.
we get it, you don't agree with the administration's nonproliferation strategy...along with most republicans, Bibi and Saudi Arabia. Great.

[Winehole23]

on a side note, Kirchner's would-be successor just lost:

http://www.wsj.com/article_email/argentinas-political-earthquake-1448242782-lMyQjAxMTI1NzI3MzEyNDM2Wj