[quote]orion wrote:
rainjack wrote:
orion wrote:
gatesoftanhauser wrote:
France? Wait a minute, do they even have a standing militry force?
'Nuff said.
yes.
Enough to wipe you out.
LMAO. The French can’t even wipe their own ass.
nukular (sic) weapons!
[/quote]
Don’t make fun of Jimmy Carter. He was a Nukular Engineer.
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
You fail to distinguish that there are qualitative differences in the countries that own or seek nuclear weapons. Western democracies? Makes more sense. Radical autocracies hell-bent on regional domination by force? Less sense.[/quote]
Says the big bully hell-bent on world domination by force.
I dare you to present a single instance of Iran invading anybody in recent memory.
It’s not about their military using the nukes - it’s about Iran’s penchant for supporting terror that is the problem.
I’ll leave it o you to figure out the math on that.
[quote]dk44 wrote:
Not allowing Iran to have nuclear weapons, is alot like not allowing mentally unstable people to purchase guns. Do you really want Iran to have nuclear weapons? I sure as hell don’t.[/quote]
Exactly. The libs will scream for gun control here, like with that Virginia Tech nut, then go ballistic if we try to use the same idea on whackjob countries, like Iran.
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
If you support sanctions on Iran (or Iraq, or any other nation on this planet) [imposed by other countries], then you should support sanctions on America [as decided by other countries].
In all seriousness, perhaps the worst argument I have read here in months, and that is saying something, considering Lixy has been posting.
[/quote]
LOL! Now my students want to know what’s so funny — that’s what I get for reading this during a quiz.
[quote]lixy wrote:
thunderbolt23 wrote:
You fail to distinguish that there are qualitative differences in the countries that own or seek nuclear weapons. Western democracies? Makes more sense. Radical autocracies hell-bent on regional domination by force? Less sense.
Says the big bully hell-bent on world domination by force.
I dare you to present a single instance of Iran invading anybody in recent memory.[/quote]
Just this summer:
Seriously it is not invasion it is Iranian made bombs going off across Iraq, Lebanon and Israel that has been the problem for years and years.
Iran funds and arms terrorist groups. You know this. The last thing we need is Iran w/ nukes.
[quote]lixy wrote:
thunderbolt23 wrote:
You fail to distinguish that there are qualitative differences in the countries that own or seek nuclear weapons. Western democracies? Makes more sense. Radical autocracies hell-bent on regional domination by force? Less sense.
Says the big bully hell-bent on world domination by force.
I dare you to present a single instance of Iran invading anybody in recent memory.[/quote]
IEDs, Iraq, killing numerous soldiers.
I find it funny that people claim Iran’s a violent nation while at the same time, America’s involved in two military operations in the Middle East. Two pre emptive strikes and soldier presence for 6 continuous years, and yet Iran’s the hostile violent nation?
How does that even make sense??!??!??? Do you people even read what you say?
The US, the only country to ever use a nuclear weapon, not once, but twice, busy telling other countries they can’t even develop a nuclear program…because they’re primitive Arab savages…while we invade and bomb their neighbors.
My god, I live in the twilight zone.
As for Iran “supplying” arms, all I’ll say is that the United States is the number 1 arms dealer in the world and if you don’t think a good portion of those end up in the hands of guerilla and rebel factions, militias, terrorist organizations, etc, then you’re an idiot.
[quote]Inner Hulk wrote:
As for Iran “supplying” arms, all I’ll say is that the United States is the number 1 arms dealer in the world and if you don’t think a good portion of those end up in the hands of guerilla and rebel factions, militias, terrorist organizations, etc, then you’re an idiot.[/quote]
Non-nuclear. Big difference in selling pea-shooters, and having enough common sense not to sell nuclear warheads.
Iran does not have that common sense.
And yes - you do live in the twilight zone. But you have created it yourself.
[quote]Inner Hulk wrote:
I find it funny that people claim Iran’s a violent nation while at the same time, America’s involved in two military operations in the Middle East. Two pre emptive strikes and soldier presence for 6 continuous years, and yet Iran’s the hostile violent nation?
How does that even make sense??!??!??? Do you people even read what you say?
The US, the only country to ever use a nuclear weapon, not once, but twice, busy telling other countries they can’t even develop a nuclear program…because they’re primitive Arab savages…while we invade and bomb their neighbors.
My god, I live in the twilight zone.
As for Iran “supplying” arms, all I’ll say is that the United States is the number 1 arms dealer in the world and if you don’t think a good portion of those end up in the hands of guerilla and rebel factions, militias, terrorist organizations, etc, then you’re an idiot.[/quote]
So you support Iran developing nuclear weapons?
[quote]Chushin wrote:
Maybe not technically speaking, but practically, the takeover of the US embassy was an attack on US territory. (Since you’re such a big fan of international law, I know you’ll appreciate the heinousness of that act.) You might argue that it wasn’t the government of Iran, but by the time things ended the government was in 100%.[/quote]
Now you’re just splitting hairs. I don’t condone attacking embassies but you have to remember that they chose the US embassy for a solid reason (i.e: Mossadeq, the Shah and the CIA).
I gave the argument to put things into perspective. Contrast Iran’s actions with those of the US post-WWII and dare tell me that the embassy takeover wasn’t a negligible event compared to US bombings and invasions. I’ll remind you that my post was in reply to TB who claimed that Iran was “hell-bent on regional domination by force”. It’s a preposterous statement to make and you know it.
[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
Just this summer:
WarnerBros.co.uk | 300 (2006) | Films | Warner Bros. UK | Movies [/quote]
Sorry, that’s not recent memory.
Sorry pal. Iranian rockets shipped to Hezbollah or Hamas are negligible compared to what you guys do funding terrorist groups around the world. You may not realize it, but those groups won the elections fair and square; something you can’t say about many of the groups you fund.
[quote]rainjack wrote:
Inner Hulk wrote:
As for Iran “supplying” arms, all I’ll say is that the United States is the number 1 arms dealer in the world and if you don’t think a good portion of those end up in the hands of guerilla and rebel factions, militias, terrorist organizations, etc, then you’re an idiot.
Non-nuclear. Big difference in selling pea-shooters, and having enough common sense not to sell nuclear warheads.
Iran does not have that common sense.
And yes - you do live in the twilight zone. But you have created it yourself.
[/quote]
I thought we were talking about Iran supposedly supplying those in Iraq with weapons, that’s why I made the point about the US dealing more arms than anyone else, including more to developing nations than anyone else.
As for you making the claim that Iran would sell nuclear weapons to shady characters, this is just based on your skewed view. I’ve yet to see this hostile, violent Iran that all of you right wing war mongering idiots claim it to be. What I do see however is the United States starting wars.
Based on tangible evidence alone, and not theoretical hypotheses, the US is the violent hostile nation. Iran has yet to engage in any actions that would be deserving of such a label.
US- Bombs, invades, instills preferred form of gov.
Iran- Talks
Those arabs are crazy violent!!!
You seriously have no grasp on reality
[quote]Headhunter wrote:
IEDs, Iraq, killing numerous soldiers. [/quote]
Fuck 'em. They shouldn’t be there in the first place.
[quote]rainjack wrote:
Non-nuclear. Big difference in selling pea-shooters, and having enough common sense not to sell nuclear warheads.
Iran does not have that common sense. [/quote]
First of all, the Ayatollah passed a Fatwa against nukes. Secondly, what on earth allows you to judge Iran’s common sense?
[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
So you support Iran developing nuclear weapons?[/quote]
In a sense, it would make the region much more stable. For one thing, you wouldn’t be invading them, and would have sure as hell thought twice before invading Iraq.
The latter could have been a wise move given all the dead people (we’re talking a million nowadays) and the missing WMDs. Consider also that Israel wouldn’t have rushed to blasting Beirut (which made thousand dead, millions of refugees, and an infrastructure blown back to the stone age) had Tehran been nuclear-capable.
In short, yes. I think there will be a heckuva lot less wars if everyone had nukes.
[quote]Inner Hulk wrote:
You seriously have no grasp on reality[/quote]
Not your version - that’s for damn sure.
[quote]lixy wrote:
First of all, the Ayatollah passed a Fatwa against nukes. Secondly, what on earth allows you to judge Iran’s common sense?[/quote]
Their lack of any.
Iran is not the Soviet Union or China. The leadership in those nations realized that attacking a nation as powerful as the USA was suicide.
The Iranians don’t care. They worship death, which they openly state. They think they are doing Allah’s will.
This is why Iran must not have these weapons. Ann Coulter is correct: carpet bomb the place to where they can’t even build a transistor radio. Kill or be killed.
Our time is running out.