[quote]rander wrote:
Yeah lets wait until after they have nukes to start fighting them, fucking brilliant.[/quote]
Uhhhhh… how about we find a way to not have to fight them at all…?
[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
rander wrote:
Yeah lets wait until after they have nukes to start fighting them, fucking brilliant.
Uhhhhh… how about we find a way to not have to fight them at all…?[/quote]
Surrender? Convert to Islam?
[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
Surrender? Convert to Islam?[/quote]
Surrender to what exactly?
You seem very confused about the whole situation. Allow me fill you in;
-
US aircraft carriers are packed on Iran’s shores not the other way around.
-
The US army has invaded and is occupying two neighboring countries to Iran not the other way around.
-
The US is funding a rebel organization inside Iran whose aim is to overthrow Tehran’s regime not the other way around.
-
American public figures (and politics forums’ trolls) are calling for a bombardment of Iran not the other way around.
-
The US is the one calling for Iran to surrender its right to enrich uranium for civil purposes not the other way around.
Clear?
[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
rander wrote:
Yeah lets wait until after they have nukes to start fighting them, fucking brilliant.
Uhhhhh… how about we find a way to not have to fight them at all…?
Surrender? Convert to Islam?[/quote]
Surrender to what exactly?
Surrender to letting them develop whatever energy sources or weapons they want? Thats not surrendering, I dont think.
[quote]Dustin wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
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?
Your analogy is as bad as your overall argument. Naturally, OBL’s number two is not an expert on the Koran. Hence the term “Extremist”. An expert on the Koran would not advocate killing innocence anymore than an expert of the Christian Bible.
If I “missed” your analogy, it’s because your posts are void of any logic or rationale. At least that’s the case normally.
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…
Meanwhile slaughtering everyone else that isn’t “evil”. Your solution to “evil” (that doesn’t exist) everywhere is to use force. It doesn’t matter who’s on the receiving end as long as it’s not you and the the action can cloaked in these ridiculous notions of democracy and Americanism.
The nation-state is not evil, good, or moral. Quit labeling everything as such. It’s pure propaganda, period.
Ah, fuck it…if you can’t connect simple analogies, what’s the point…Alexis De Toqueville was right…
Try to make coherent posts that aren’t filled with regurgitated slogans and silly rhetoric.
Dustin[/quote]
Well, before I can do this, the recipient has to know where his toes are.
[quote]lixy wrote:
Did anyone even hear what the French “diplomat” said?
You’re all buying into HH’s spin. By no way is France “preparing to attack Iran”. Kouchner said that Iran will be attacked if they get nukes. By any standard, they are 5 to 10 years away from getting nuclear weapons (assuming they are trying to build them in the first place).[/quote]
How is quoting the guy ‘spin’? WTF?
All talking now is pointless. These SOBs are developing nukes as quickly as possible and actually intend to use them. They plan to destroy Israel. They threaten to attack us if we rise to Israel’s defense. They want to be the major power broker in the region.
The sooner the better…
[quote]Headhunter wrote:
How is quoting the guy ‘spin’? WTF? [/quote]
Read the title of your thread you clod!
Again with your crystal ball? Get over it, you’re not psychic. You don’t know anyone’s intent.
And I’m sure you’ve seen these “plans” in some vision, right?
You do realize Israel has nukes.
You’re blatantly lying (or abjectly misinformed). Never did Iran threaten to attack you if you defend anyone. They threatened to retaliate.
I think that can be said of every country everywhere.
[quote]lixy wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
Surrender? Convert to Islam?
Surrender to what exactly?
You seem very confused about the whole situation. Allow me fill you in;
-
US aircraft carriers are packed on Iran’s shores not the other way around.
-
The US army has invaded and is occupying two neighboring countries to Iran not the other way around.
-
The US is funding a rebel organization inside Iran whose aim is to overthrow Tehran’s regime not the other way around.
-
American public figures (and politics forums’ trolls) are calling for a bombardment of Iran not the other way around.
-
The US is the one calling for Iran to surrender its right to enrich uranium for civil purposes not the other way around.
Clear?[/quote]
Iran is no innocent bystander by any means.
You yourself said that Iran was targeting our cities.
We invaded 2 countries on either side of Iran. You yourself said that the Iranians lit candles and condemned the attacks of 9-11, so they should understand why we attacked Afghanistan. That they are arming our enemies there is an outrage, being that they were also enemies with the Taliban. Same goes with Iraq.
They should be pleased that Saddam is gone and stop arming rebels there. If they were so peaceful as you claim, why do they behave the way they do. Arming rebels against the US and calling them Great Satan is not a way to make friends.
Iran also funds Hezbollah who attacked Peacekeepers and US troops in Lebanon during the Israeli invasion and civil war in the 80’s which is why they were on the terrorist list and why Bush bunched them in with the Axis of evil. (I do not agree with his reasoning on this btw).
All I’m saying is both countries have a lot to gain from keeping the anamosity going and will not give an inch. Both are equally to blame.
[quote]Gkhan wrote:
All I’m saying is both countries have a lot to gain from keeping the anamosity going and will not give an inch. Both are equally to blame. [/quote]
The way I see it, the revolution wouldn’t have happened had the US not heavily intervened in the affairs of the country. They didn’t pick the US embassy by chance. There was a very good rationale behind their choice. Equally to blame? Hardly.
Unlike the US, Iran is not going around invading countries. Iran cooperates with the international community. The US thinks that its above the law. Those are fundamental differences and they get the US a lot more points in the belligerence department than Iran.
Given that the US has its troops stationed across the border in Iraq, I don’t see how Iran could “give an inch”. As long as you’re in Baghdad, Tehran should in fact feel threatened. Many of your presidential hopefuls have been calling for bombarding the country.
[quote]Gkhan wrote:
lixy wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
Surrender? Convert to Islam?
Surrender to what exactly?
You seem very confused about the whole situation. Allow me fill you in;
-
US aircraft carriers are packed on Iran’s shores not the other way around.
-
The US army has invaded and is occupying two neighboring countries to Iran not the other way around.
-
The US is funding a rebel organization inside Iran whose aim is to overthrow Tehran’s regime not the other way around.
-
American public figures (and politics forums’ trolls) are calling for a bombardment of Iran not the other way around.
-
The US is the one calling for Iran to surrender its right to enrich uranium for civil purposes not the other way around.
Clear?
Iran is no innocent bystander by any means.
You yourself said that Iran was targeting our cities.
[/quote]
Our citites are being targeted by Iran? Which cities?
I remember Lixy saying something that IF we went to war they would PROBABLY target our cities… not that they are doing so right now.
[quote]Inner Hulk wrote:
Oh, as for the rest of your links, I don’t know if you’re new to this, but Wikipedia doesn’t fly as a source lol. Just FYI.[/quote]
I used it because it is used as a source a lot on this forum. In other words, if Wiki has an anti-american article, it is true. Otherwise it does not fly as a source?
[quote]lixy wrote:
Gkhan wrote:
All I’m saying is both countries have a lot to gain from keeping the anamosity going and will not give an inch. Both are equally to blame.
The way I see it, the revolution wouldn’t have happened had the US not heavily intervened in the affairs of the country. They didn’t pick the US embassy by chance. There was a very good rationale behind their choice. Equally to blame? Hardly.
[/quote]
The Revolution happened because the Shah killed the Ayatollahs’s father and was in exile in France. There he built up support and used religious fanaticism to topple the Shah’s regime.
And, really, was the Shah any worse a dictator or any less sectretarian than Saddam? Yet it is wrong to overthrow Saddam and a good thing to overthrow the Shah. I guess it’s good logic if you view America as “Great Satan.”
If my memory is correct, fanatics invaded the Embassy because the Shah was in this country in exile. They were holding the people hostage because they wanted his return. Possibly, if he had fled to Great Britian, they would have siezed their embassy. Which was an international crime by the way.
Yes, we are threatening to bomb Iran because they are supplying arms to Iraqi insurgents.
[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
I remember Lixy saying something that IF we went to war they would PROBABLY target our cities… not that they are doing so right now.[/quote]
So which Iranian cities are we bombing right now? At this point, both sides are just talking, in case you didn’t notice. If they are planning to bomb our cities, then it is safe to say that they are also “targeting” our cities.
Just because our Aircraft carriers are in the gulf, how exactly is it a threat to Iran? The planes and bombs are sitting safely on the decks. It is the same logic.
[quote]Gkhan wrote:
Yet it is wrong to overthrow Saddam and a good thing to overthrow the Shah. [/quote]
Give strawmen a rest, will you? Nobody said overthrowing Saddam was not a good thing.
[quote]Gkhan wrote:
Just because our Aircraft carriers are in the gulf, how exactly is it a threat to Iran? [/quote]
This is the dumbest thing I’ve seen you write.
[quote]lixy wrote:
Gkhan wrote:
Just because our Aircraft carriers are in the gulf, how exactly is it a threat to Iran?
This is the dumbest thing I’ve seen you write.[/quote]
That’s because you’ve taken it out of context. And totally missed the point I was trying to make. The Iranians are afraid of an aircraft carrier? Damn.
Don’t they have like submarines and a navy, airforce and army and are supplied with anti-ship missiles? You act like they are helpless shepherds armed with sticks.
They want nukes and wonder why we are afraid, and they are afraid of an aircraft carrier? You know how many Russian Nuclear armed submarines were patrolling down the Hudson during the cold war? How many of those were actually used against us militarily?
The only reason they should be afraid of the aircraft carrier is if they give us reason to use it against them.
[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
…
Our citites are being targeted by Iran? Which cities?
I remember Lixy saying something that IF we went to war they would PROBABLY target our cities… not that they are doing so right now.[/quote]
All of them. Iran claims it has suicide bombers in place all over the US.
[quote]lixy wrote:
Gkhan wrote:
Yet it is wrong to overthrow Saddam and a good thing to overthrow the Shah.
Give strawmen a rest, will you? Nobody said overthrowing Saddam was not a good thing.
[/quote]
I believe you did, many times in your anti-American posts. You said that life in Iraq was better under Saddam.
Either that means he should not have been removed, or that it is ok for him to be removed by anyone else but the United States.
[quote]lixy wrote:
Gkhan wrote:
Just because our Aircraft carriers are in the gulf, how exactly is it a threat to Iran?
This is the dumbest thing I’ve seen you write.[/quote]
Of course we a threat to them. They want to threaten the region as they have done in the past by laying mines and attacking ships but with the US Navy there the cannot pull that shit any more.
Do you support Iran laying mines and attacking ships Lixy?
[quote]Gkhan wrote:
Don’t they have like submarines and a navy, airforce and army and are supplied with anti-ship missiles? [/quote]
I’d like to see your reaction if Iran had an aircraft carrier a few miles from your coasts.
Quit the disinformation. They don’t want nukes. They want nuclear energy for civil power.
WTF? Are you for real? Lay off sci-fi and open a paper once in a while.