[quote]Beowolf wrote:
No offense Lixy, but you’re starting to embarrass yourself here…[/quote]
None taken. You may wanna explain yourself though.
Iran doesn’t have any nukes to start with. You’ll be killing a civil nuclear program and, of course, making sure every body tries to get their hands on some deterrents.
And just for the record, none of the nuclear nations will ever give up nukes. So, you are nothing more than dreaming when you tell the US to kill its nuclear arsenal.
[quote]kroby wrote:
The title of this thread is “France Preparing to Attack Iran.” Do you see how this is “not the US?” [/quote]
C’mon Krob, I know you’re smarter than this.
Sure it is. However, it is only condoned as the absolute last resort and only in self-defense.
And since you like Ghandi so much, here you go:
“What difference does it make to the dead, the orphans, and the homeless, whether the mad destruction is wrought under the name of totalitarianism or the holy name of liberty and democracy?” - Mahatma Gandhi
[quote]lixy wrote:
kroby wrote:
The title of this thread is “France Preparing to Attack Iran.” Do you see how this is “not the US?”
C’mon Krob, I know you’re smarter than this.
Retaliation is NOT condoned by a pacifist.
Sure it is. However, it is only condoned as the absolute last resort and only in self-defense.
And since you like Ghandi so much, here you go:
“What difference does it make to the dead, the orphans, and the homeless, whether the mad destruction is wrought under the name of totalitarianism or the holy name of liberty and democracy?” - Mahatma Gandhi[/quote]
That was supposed to show Gandhi was in favor of retaliation?
[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
That was supposed to show Gandhi was in favor of retaliation?[/quote]
No.
[quote]Headhunter wrote:
Osama’s #2 said that the difference between the West and us is that the people in the West worship life, while they (Muslims) worship death.
[/quote]
All Muslims worship death? Are you seriously using this as an argument? You have absolutely no clue as to what you’re talking about.
Muslim extremists do this, or Iranians? Can you not separate the two? Seriously, is this your argument?
If all your going to do is regurgitate irrational propaganda that Michael Savage or Sean Hannity has said before, I’ll just ignore you.
Dustin
[quote]lixy wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
That was supposed to show Gandhi was in favor of retaliation?
No.[/quote]
Note to Lixy: Please wait at least one page before contradicting yourself. We’re beginning to think you’re doing it on purpose.
[quote]Dustin wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
Osama’s #2 said that the difference between the West and us is that the people in the West worship life, while they (Muslims) worship death.
All Muslims worship death? Are you seriously using this as an argument? You have absolutely no clue as to what you’re talking about.
So, they don’t mind walking into an Israeli day care facility or getting on a British bus and pushing the ‘magic button’ that takes them to meet Allah.
Muslim extremists do this, or Iranians? Can you not separate the two? Seriously, is this your argument?
If all your going to do is regurgitate irrational propaganda that Michael Savage or Sean Hannity has said before, I’ll just ignore you.
Dustin
[/quote]
Have a big cup of coffee and try to follow along: I used an extremist, someone who takes Islam to its extremes, someone who roots out every nook and cranny of the Koran, to back up what I said. If the best heart surgeon in the world said something about hearts, you might want to listen, correct?
Now, the Nazis never got a majority in the Reichtag; largest party but never a majority. We still had to carpet bomb the place to root out the nests of evil. Same holds for Iran; sure, most would probably never hurt a fly. But the nests have to be rooted out and burned.
Burn the nest…
[quote]lixy wrote:
The keyword here is “retalitory” (sic). You’re confusing turning the other cheek with pacifism.[/quote]
Ok grammar man, so if the US bombed the hell out of Iran in 1980, it would have been justified because of the siezing of our embassy by nutjobs? If we shelled Lebanon, it would have been justified because of the attack on the Barracks there? If we bombed the hell out of Somalia, it would have been justified because of the downing of the helecopter?
But if we bomb Somalia to take out Al Qaeda elements there, who were responcible for bombing the twin towers, it is not ok?
And if we strike at Taliban in Afghanistan (in retaliation for attacks on the world trade center) and hit civilians because they launched attacks on our troops from highly populated centers, it is not ok?
Or we strike at Iran because it is funding Hezbollah, Hamas and Al-Sadr, is it justified?
Iran is allowed to retaliate, and the US is not? Is that what you are saying?
[quote]Headhunter wrote:
Have a big cup of coffee and try to follow along: I used an extremist, someone who takes Islam to its extremes, someone who roots out every nook and cranny of the Koran, to back up what I said.
[/quote]
Yeah, I noticed this tactic was used to back up what you said. It doesn’t support what you’re saying. For your “theory” to be correct. Every Iranian would be Muslim, which they aren’t. They would also have to be extremist, on the level OBL, which that vast majority aren’t.
You also forget that these “crazy Muslim” Iranians held candle-light vigils for Americans after 11 September 2001. The younger generation of Iranians are itching for political and social reform in their country. That won’t happen if we use your “solution” and vaporize hundreds of thousands of them. Our belligerence will only unite them.
Perhaps, but you’re not a heart-surgeon or an expert on anything…obviously not history or foreign policy at least.
Thanks for the refresher in History 101, but the Nazis have nothing to do with the current situation in the Middle East. Different time and different circumstances.
You’re insane reasoning also revolves around this non-existent “threat” that Iran supposedly poses. They’re not a threat, quit believing everything your TV tells you.
Dustin
[quote]Gkhan wrote:
lixy wrote:
The keyword here is “retalitory” (sic). You’re confusing turning the other cheek with pacifism.
Ok grammar man, so if the US bombed the hell out of Iran in 1980, it would have been justified because of the siezing of our embassy by nutjobs? If we shelled Lebanon, it would have been justified because of the attack on the Barracks there? If we bombed the hell out of Somalia, it would have been justified because of the downing of the helecopter?
But if we bomb Somalia to take out Al Qaeda elements there, who were responcible for bombing the twin towers, it is not ok?
And if we strike at Taliban in Afghanistan (in retaliation for attacks on the world trade center) and hit civilians because they launched attacks on our troops from highly populated centers, it is not ok?
Or we strike at Iran because it is funding Hezbollah, Hamas and Al-Sadr, is it justified?
Iran is allowed to retaliate, and the US is not? Is that what you are saying?[/quote]
Yes. Beat you to it, Lixy! ;D
[quote]Dustin wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
Have a big cup of coffee and try to follow along: I used an extremist, someone who takes Islam to its extremes, someone who roots out every nook and cranny of the Koran, to back up what I said.
Yeah, I noticed this tactic was used to back up what you said. It doesn’t support what you’re saying. For your “theory” to be correct. Every Iranian would be Muslim, which they aren’t. They would also have to be extremist, on the level OBL, which that vast majority aren’t.
You also forget that these “crazy Muslim” Iranians held candle-light vigils for Americans after 11 September 2001. The younger generation of Iranians are itching for political and social reform in their country. That won’t happen if we use your “solution” and vaporize hundreds of thousands of them. Our belligerence will only unite them.
If the best heart surgeon in the world said something about hearts, you might want to listen, correct?
Perhaps, but you’re not a heart-surgeon or an expert on anything…obviously not history or foreign policy at least.
Now, the Nazis never got a majority in the Reichtag; largest party but never a majority. We still had to carpet bomb the place to root out the nests of evil. Same holds for Iran; sure, most would probably never hurt a fly. But the nests have to be rooted out and burned.
Burn the nest…
Thanks for the refresher in History 101, but the Nazis have nothing to do with the current situation in the Middle East. Different time and different circumstances.
You’re insane reasoning also revolves around this non-existent “threat” that Iran supposedly poses. They’re not a threat, quit believing everything your TV tells you.
Dustin
[/quote]
Dustin,
You do understand that sentences are in a paragraph for a reason, right? The analogy wrt the heart surgeon referred to Osama’s #2 being an expert on the Koran. He has to be, to use it to fool young Muslims. Heart surgeon…Imam…connection by analogy. Sinking in?
You also missed the fact that I point out how the Nazis were NEVER a majority in Germany, yet we had to root them out with carpet bombing. The Muslim extremists are a minority in Iran…we have to root them out…
Ah, fuck it…if you can’t connect simple analogies, what’s the point…Alexis De Toqueville was right…
[quote]Dustin wrote:
You also forget that these “crazy Muslim” Iranians held candle-light vigils for Americans after 11 September 2001. The younger generation of Iranians are itching for political and social reform in their country. That won’t happen if we use your “solution” and vaporize hundreds of thousands of them. Our belligerence will only unite them.
[/quote]
This is true. The reactionary government guards broke up the vigil and beat the candle holders.
On a similar note, did anyone hear about the Iranian Pres wanting to visit the 9-11 site in New York and place a wreath there?
Which got me thinking, a wreath for who exactly? The 3000 New Yorkers who died there or the 10 hijackers?
Romney told him to go to hell about it. What does anyone else think?
Yeah lets wait until after they have nukes to start fighting them, fucking brilliant.
[quote]lixy wrote:
Beowolf wrote:
No offense Lixy, but you’re starting to embarrass yourself here…
None taken. You may wanna explain yourself though.
Regardless. I’m for killing Irans nukes. And our nukes while we’re at it.
Iran doesn’t have any nukes to start with. You’ll be killing a civil nuclear program and, of course, making sure every body tries to get their hands on some deterrents.
And just for the record, none of the nuclear nations will ever give up nukes. So, you are nothing more than dreaming when you tell the US to kill its nuclear arsenal.[/quote]
Civil? Lixy you can’t be serious about that. If they were serious about keeping it solely civil they should take steps to reassure the rest of the world.
They could easily get the Russians or Chinese to do their enriching for them and avoid any controversy.
If it is only a civil nuclear program then why are they bringing all these problems on themselves? Why risk a massive military strike against their nuclear facilities? It makes no sense to do that for a civil program when they can get fuel from someone else. What they are doing only makes sense if they are working towards making bombs.
[quote]Franck wrote:
WTF???
http://onlinejournal.com/artman/publish/article_2200.shtml[/quote]
Just remember that the second amendment is the peoples last line of defense against a dictatorship.
Two of Bushes possible successors Clinton and Giuliani support gun control. It’s something to think about come election time.
[quote]kroby wrote:
You are a sham, lixy. You do not abhor violence, as a true pacifist does.
Mahatma Gandhi was a pacifist. Did you ever hear him suggest retaliatory strikes? Ever?[/quote]
Yes, actually.
“I do believe that, where there is only a choice between cowardice and violence, I would advise violence… I would rather have India resort to arms in order to defend her honour than that she should, in a cowardly manner, become or remain a helpless witness to her own dishonor.”–Mahatma Gandhi
I imagine an invasion of their country would be viewed by the Persians as an extreme affront of their honor, and failure to retaliate against the invader the height of cowardice. Were Gandhi an Iranian today, even being a pacifist, I believe he would express the same sentiments.
[quote]Gkhan wrote:
Dustin wrote:
You also forget that these “crazy Muslim” Iranians held candle-light vigils for Americans after 11 September 2001. The younger generation of Iranians are itching for political and social reform in their country. That won’t happen if we use your “solution” and vaporize hundreds of thousands of them. Our belligerence will only unite them.
This is true. The reactionary government guards broke up the vigil and beat the candle holders.
On a similar note, did anyone hear about the Iranian Pres wanting to visit the 9-11 site in New York and place a wreath there?
Which got me thinking, a wreath for who exactly? The 3000 New Yorkers who died there or the 10 hijackers?
Romney told him to go to hell about it. What does anyone else think?[/quote]
Guards beat people for holding a candlelight vigil? I didn’t know that. That is TRULY sick. I pity the poor suffering people of Iran; their country has been captured by truly crazy people.
I saw this morning how Ahmina-jihad is visiting New York. He probably is hoping someone assassinates him, so he can be a martyr.
[quote]Gkhan wrote:
Ok grammar man, so if the US bombed the hell out of Iran in 1980, it would have been justified because of the siezing of our embassy by nutjobs? If we shelled Lebanon, it would have been justified because of the attack on the Barracks there? If we bombed the hell out of Somalia, it would have been justified because of the downing of the helecopter? [/quote]
No. If Iran, Lebanon, or Somalia dropped bombs on Chicago then you’ll have the right (nay duty) to retaliate.
I’ll remind you that the US stormed an Iranian consulate and abducted diplomats not long ago. Does it give Iran the right to retaliate? No. However, if you invade or bomb their land, they have to strike back.
Depends. If you mean that it’s OK to bomb Al-Qaeda elements I’ll totally agree with you. But you need to make sure where they are, and that’s the reason military operations are rarely the answer when dealing with decentralized terrorist organizations.
If you mean that Ethiopia can invade a sovereign country with your support and blessings, it is definitely not OK. I have not seen a single piece of hard evidence linking the Somali government to Al-Qaeda.
Strike the Talibans all you want, just try to do it with bullets as opposed to bombs that kill children in the process. You risk alienating people and creating more terrorists than you kill
Hezbollah, Hamas and Al-Sadr never were any threat to US sovereignty. However, the Mujahideen-Al-Khalk which the US is funding, operates in Iran and is working to overthrow the Iranian regime.