This one has me stumped, frankly. And not in a warm, fuzzy, 'fireside debate' kind of way, but a "Will-I-Live-to-My-40th-Birthday?!!???" way.

On the one hand, I don't want to see ANY other nation - and frankly, certainly not one in such an incendiary geopolitical position as Iran - develop the capacity to use nuclear weapons.

On the OTHER, Iran is a SOVEREIGN nation - she has a right to tear up whatever treaty she may have signed and go full steam ahead. You don't see the Iranian president telling Bush to "reduce your existing arsenal of ICBM's by 30% by year-end". Bush is a global dictator - unlike Napoleon or Hitler, he only invades those nations he red-flags as dangerous - but nonetheless, he IS an invader.

Put another way, we have two headcases - one with global dominance and questionable ethics, and the other rapidly building the ability to nuke, but without answerability, on a collision course. We've all known for ages that Bush is a loon, but that Iranian guy is also a couple of cans short of a six-pack. With two rational, reasonable men who oppose each other, the final result is usually the one which benefits both men as a duo the most. When two UNHINGED men butt heads...

And the horror part? The longer this whole mess is left to fester, the worse the outcome could be. Between now, and the period when all diplomacy/sanctions have failed, that's a period of what? A year? Two?

By THAT time, Iran will have moved underground a large number of it's development facilities, will have increased the range/number/payload of their missiles, will likely have built MORE missile and military bases, will have increased the strength and modernity of its air force, etc etc.

Because of factor of time, INACTION itself will have a ratchet effect on the severity of any conflict that explodes, but without reducing the likelihood of it. By THAT time, an attack to take out Iran's nuclear capabilities will incur MUCH heavier casualties on the attacker - be that the US or Israel.

Now, I DO have a couple of shreds of hope I cling to:

1) Bush has two daughters - and he knows (and I hope he'll remember) they're better off in a world without radiactivity than with it;

2) We're over a year into his second term, and SO FAR the worst we've felt here in the west is high oil prices

Let's all pray that diplomacy WORKS, and that in the next few years, cooler heads take office in both Washington and Tehran.


Jaybee.

Americans do not care about the lives of iranian daughters (or any nationality), why would anyone else have to care about the fate of american daughters?

the shituation's even worse than YOU maybe can imagin jaybee.....MUCH worse. it's already happenING in the Us/Uk's MASSIVE use of depleted uranium, and the radioactivity has for example hit UK.

AND it's not just 'two' despots. theres the invisible government behind them

LMFAO



You people truly are freaks!!!!

Yes, it is a difficult problem with no clear solution.

OliverJ, your right-wing-AM-radio-knee-jerk-reaction of Liberals-are-crazy is so played. No one buys that anymore, we all know what a bad president Bush has been. 37% approval rating, OK?

Jaybee, we have suffered in this country, our soldiers have come back injured and mentally scarred, and our rights are disapearing.

Like your poll numbers are supposed to mean anything. LOL


I have my rights right here. Whered yours go ?

Nope , havent lost one of em.. care to amplify, boast, boost, build up, caricature, color, cook up, corrupt, distort, embroider, emphasize, enlarge, exalt, expand, fabricate, falsify, fudge, heighten, hike, hyperbolize, inflate, intensify, jack up, lie, loud talk, magnify, misquote, misreport, misrepresent, overdo, overdraw, overemphasize, overestimate, pad, pretty up, puff, put on, pyramid, romance, romanticize, scam, stretch, up anything else ?

No, I'm not a Republican.

hehehe

Americans do not care about the lives of iranian daughters (or any nationality), why would anyone else have to care about the fate of american daughters?


wow. that is like genius. bravo. this thread is intellectual powerhouse...keep it going.

does anyone else like the irony of bush threatning to use nukes to stop iran getting nukes that they could pertentually use against the west if they were even of a mind to?

does that make sence to ANYONE???????????

The real irony is that Bush never said that !!!! LMAO --But you guys just run with it baby!!!! run baby run !!

LMAO

Jaybee, we have suffered in this country, our soldiers have come back injured and mentally scarred, and our rights are disapearing.

They ARE disappearing. Thankfully I don't know any military, but when the president of the world's most powerful nation starts using dictatorial language to the leaders of SOVEREIGN nations, I consider that a stain on the social fabric.

Jaybee.

wow. that is like genius. bravo. this thread is intellectual powerhouse...keep it going.

Why feel te need to project morals onto the world if you are the devil himself?

They ARE disappearing. Thankfully I don't know any military, but when the president of the world's most powerful nation starts using dictatorial language to the leaders of SOVEREIGN nations, I consider that a stain on the social fabric.

Jaybee.

Are you that fucking stupid or just pretending ???

Its fucking IRAN for christ sake

Wheres the fucking duct tape before my head explodes!!

Well, Iran is just a country with people. It actually was going quite well with Iran untill the US told their buddy Saddam Hussein to start a war with Iran. This caused a massive shift towards empowering fanatic religious extremism in Iran. The extremist used this war to extend their powerbase.

Of course you wouldn't know anything about that thinking the country is just evil.

Of course you wouldn't know anything about that thinking the country is just evil.


Not the country , the leaders. You know kinda like the same way you think about the USA.

Dolt.

I think the US leadership is more 'evil' than Iran's.

I think the US leadership is more 'evil' than Iran's.

Iran - Says Israel should be wiped off the map [with nukes?].

US - Will wipe Iran off the map with nukes.

Oh yeah, them Iranians are soooooo bad. The sheeple here think they're evil for what they say yet question not what we [will] do.

- N

The US has weapons to destroy alot of things with killing the general population of Iran.

Iran - Says Israel should be wiped off the map [with nukes?].

US - Will wipe Iran off the map with nukes.

Oh yeah, them Iranians are soooooo bad. The sheeple here think they're evil for what they say yet question not what we [will] do.

- N

WTF kind of rhetoric are tryng to spew ? LOL

I swear to fucking god everday I come here I say to myself...."Well that guy sure is retarded , or WOW WTF is wrong with this person... or snot bubbles pour out my nose from laughing at you guys. And I say to myself.. this tops it all.. no mofo can be as dumb as this one.... but day in an day out I am simply amazed at the redundancy of the ignorance that spews forth on this board.

Got pot ?

WTF kind of rhetoric are tryng to spew ? LOL

I swear to fucking god everday I come here I say to myself...."Well that guy sure is retarded , or WOW WTF is wrong with this person... or snot bubbles pour out my nose from laughing at you guys. And I say to myself.. this tops it all.. no mofo can be as dumb as this one.... but day in an day out I am simply amazed at the redundancy of the ignorance that spews forth on this board.

Got pot ?

Excuse me, but why don't YOU fuck off? From your first post in my thread you've added no facts about the subject matter, just ranted your opinion about the intelligence levels of the respondants.

Bucko, blow your nose, get a job, get a life, get a GOP badge, and FUCK OFF!


Jaybee.

A little civility please, For our liberal friends do some reasearch on the muslem idea of Inshallah, and then tell me you want a loose cannon like the President of Iran, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad having a nuclear capability, After hopefully, you do the reasearch, please explain your reason for not being very very afraid of this man. As for your assertion that President Bush is so ready to use nuclear weapons, most of this information seem to come from the liberal who are using the Dr. Albert Speer method of making their case, for the unelighten, this means start a story keep repeating it, and repeat it often enough it will gain the appearence of truth. Can the liberals deny this?

Excuse me, but why don't YOU fuck off? From your first post in my thread you've added no facts about the subject matter, just ranted your opinion about the intelligence levels of the respondants.

Bucko, blow your nose, get a job, get a life, get a GOP badge, and FUCK OFF!


Jaybee.

Listen here buttbump, I poitned out plain as day and proper english for you terds but it doesnt seem to matter.. Bush never said anything about using nukes on Iran. Theres my facts on this subject, so kiss me ass.

But keep spewing your horseshit , as all liberals do.

A little civility please,

No offence meant to you, it's just that I feel like I'm casting pearls before swine in this place.


For our liberal friends do some reasearch on the muslem idea of Inshallah, and then tell me you want a loose cannon like the President of Iran, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad having a nuclear capability, After hopefully, you do the reasearch, please explain your reason for not being very very afraid of this man. As for your assertion that President Bush is so ready to use nuclear weapons, most of this information seem to come from the liberal who are using the Dr. Albert Speer method of making their case, for the unelighten, this means start a story keep repeating it, and repeat it often enough it will gain the appearence of truth. Can the liberals deny this?

I doubt Bush, crazy though he is, would actually use nukes, I just think the whole issue is a media tool for him to demonise Ahmadinejad (thank you for providing his correct name) in preparation for a pre-emptive conventional strike. He manipulates the media in a different way to Speer, and I'm sure there's a psychological term for it; he constantly keeps us in fear of the 'situation' in the Middle East, when really, the only thing to concern is the restriction of the oil supply; but that alone is worth money, which again is his only concern.

Bush clearly doesn't care about regimes that oppress their own people unless those regimes begin to threaten US interests.

And so what is wrong in placeing ones national intrest over a threat from another country, And no one has taken on the problem of the Muslem idea of Inshallha in use as a national policy?

Listen here buttbump, I poitned out plain as day and proper english for you terds but it doesnt seem to matter.. Bush never said anything about using nukes on Iran. Theres my facts on this subject, so kiss me ass.

But keep spewing your horseshit , as all liberals do.
The Bush Administration (http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/articles/060417fa_fact), while publicly advocating diplomacy in order to stop Iran from pursuing a nuclear weapon, has increased clandestine activities inside Iran and intensified planning for a possible major air attack. Current and former American military and intelligence officials said that Air Force planning groups are drawing up lists of targets, and teams of American combat troops have been ordered into Iran, under cover, to collect targeting data and to establish contact with anti-government ethnic-minority groups. The officials say that President Bush is determined to deny the Iranian regime the opportunity to begin a pilot program, planned for this spring, to enrich uranium. ...

And so what is wrong in placeing ones national intrest over a threat from another country,

The wrongness is determined by both the threat and the interest. Mainly it's to do with sovereignty - and the US lack of respect for it.


And no one has taken on the problem of the Muslem idea of Inshallha in use as a national policy?

What is that?

The Bush Administration (http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/articles/060417fa_fact), while publicly advocating diplomacy in order to stop Iran from pursuing a nuclear weapon, has increased clandestine activities inside Iran and intensified planning for a possible major air attack. Current and former American military and intelligence officials said that Air Force planning groups are drawing up lists of targets, and teams of American combat troops have been ordered into Iran, under cover, to collect targeting data and to establish contact with anti-government ethnic-minority groups. The officials say that President Bush is determined to deny the Iranian regime the opportunity to begin a pilot program, planned for this spring, to enrich uranium. ...

Thankyou Spidergout - no where does it say Bush is going to nuke Iran.
You're not so bad dude.. thanks alot.

Right. It's only speculation, but it is based on sources within the administration. Perhaps letting this information get out is part of the diplomacy, to call their bluff. But then again, Bush is a religious nut facing down another religious nut.

It seems like the right-wing position is either; Bush is going to do no such thing, that's crazy...or...Bush really should nuke Iran before they get what they seek.

And who are these sources, The reporting done by the media dose justice to the grocery store rags, were the source is me, myself, and I, this typ of reporting is nothing more than the Dr. Albert Speer method of self justification by self creating a news story, and keep repeating it till it has the aura of truth but no substance, find me the substance that can be confermed by knowen source and then you will have a story. I'm Lobo, and I eat the weak minded to make the spieces stronger.

No one knew who deep throat was until recently. There is alot of valid information available from people who don't want to be known that they told. Granted, it's not the same as hard evidence, but it's coming from a Pulitzer Prize winning journalist, and the one that broke the Abu Grabe story, which was entirely true.

No one knew who deep throat was until recently. There is alot of valid information available from people who don't want to be known that they told. Granted, it's not the same as hard evidence, but it's coming from a Pulitzer Prize winning journalist, and the one that broke the Abu Grabe story, which was entirely true.


Fucking aye man!!
It's come to light that boys as young as 8 and 10 years of age were held and tortured at Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq. In one period, approximately 30% of those held there died under such "interrogation" tactics. Even more shocking, rather than being prosecuted, the soldiers responsible for the abuse were given medals.

Oh wait a minute... that was under Saddam Hussein... back when no one gave a damn about the welfare of Iraqis. My apologies for any confusion.

oopsy

We still don't give a damn about that, since we torture them too.

Fucking aye man!!
It's come to light that boys as young as 8 and 10 years of age were held and tortured at Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq. In one period, approximately 30% of those held there died under such "interrogation" tactics. Even more shocking, rather than being prosecuted, the soldiers responsible for the abuse were given medals.

Oh wait a minute... that was under Saddam Hussein... back when no one gave a damn about the welfare of Iraqis. My apologies for any confusion.

oopsy

Why do you act like the U.S. has never did anything wrong? I bet you'd deny slavery ever happened.

Can't blame the living for what the dead did once upon a time.

We all need to got back to the business in the THREAD TITLE.

And the point is still the personel realigous beleaves of muslems, and Inshallha is very much a part of their make up, and dose have to be considered in the way they make decision on what they will do, this attitude is something that I have observed in middle eastern men about their lives and decissions, so tell me again why I should not worry about Iran being in possesion of nuclear technology?

As for the Idea that these poor little wayward scum bag were tortured, I'm retired military and in the survival schools and pow schools that I attended as a member of the military I was roughed up far worse than these wimps, and as for Saddams tender mercies ask them who they would rather haveas their jailors US troops or Saddams men?

IMO, the problem with Iran has nothing to do with Iran at all. It has to do with Islam. The world doesn't trust Islam and with good reason. I see two ways to do this thing and neither is attractive.

1) Make Islam admit (and I suspect they will with suicide bombings tarnishing their image left and right) that they are not mature enough to control a substance that would end all life on earth. The next step would be for Islam to force Iran to put their ambitions off to a later date until they have the maturity to wield that type of technology.

2) Declare a world war on Islam and get it over with. Wipe the middle east out of existence once and for all and ban the philosophy world wide.

1) Make Islam admit (and I suspect they will with suicide bombings tarnishing their image left and right) that they are not mature enough to control a substance that would end all life on earth. The next step would be for Islam to force Iran to put their ambitions off to a later date until they have the maturity to wield that type of technology.

What's so "irresponsible" about suiciding bombings or Islam that's worse than the Western World?

Both Islamic fundementalists and the Western World wage war quite often -- practicaly non-stop.

Both Islamic fundementalists and the Western World try to convert others to their belief systems and way of life.

Both Islamic fundementalists and the Western World have their propogandic brainwashing. Islam is religion, the Western world is money and resources.

Both Islamic fundementalists and the Western World kill innocent civilians. Fundies blow themselves up with explosives in person, Western armies kill from afar with bullets and bombs.

So what's the difference? What makes them any more irresponsible than us? C'set le vie. They have their ways of life and we have ours. We couldn't care less about those in the Middle East if they weren't sitting on sandunes of black gold, Texas T. Africa anyone? Oh wait, I forgot to add in the whole "religious purpose" of the Middle East, namely Jerusalem/Israel. Ya know, the thing that makes the Western World just like Islam, having their looney religious beliefs that have a part in their crazy actions.


2) Declare a world war on Islam and get it over with. Wipe the middle east out of existence once and for all and ban the philosophy world wide.

Oh, gee, that's nice.

Paraphrasing:

First they came for the crippled, and I did nothing -- because I wasn't a cripple.
Then they came for the Communists, and I did nothing -- for I wasn't a Communist.
Then they came for the Gypsies, and I did nothing -- for I wasn't a Gypsy.
Then they came for the Jews, and I did nothing -- for I wasn't a Jew.
Then they came for me -- and there was no one left to help me.

- N

Seem this could be used as a lament to describ the way Islam is opperating, it seem that they are the ones who kill innocents deliberatly to make their point, and have a list excieding the undesirabls list of the Nazi Masters of WWII, all you have to do to see this is watch the world news on any given night and watch the carnage of the Islamic jihade! Their list includes anyone who is a none beleave in their sect of Islam, wich include any other muslem outside of their beleaves! Yes Allha Akbar! this is a great god?

What's so "irresponsible" about suiciding bombings or Islam that's worse than the Western World?

Both Islamic fundementalists and the Western World wage war quite often -- practicaly non-stop.

Both Islamic fundementalists and the Western World try to convert others to their belief systems and way of life.

Both Islamic fundementalists and the Western World have their propogandic brainwashing. Islam is religion, the Western world is money and resources.

Both Islamic fundementalists and the Western World kill innocent civilians. Fundies blow themselves up with explosives in person, Western armies kill from afar with bullets and bombs.

So what's the difference? What makes them any more irresponsible than us? C'set le vie. They have their ways of life and we have ours. We couldn't care less about those in the Middle East if they weren't sitting on sandunes of black gold, Texas T. Africa anyone? Oh wait, I forgot to add in the whole "religious purpose" of the Middle East, namely Jerusalem/Israel. Ya know, the thing that makes the Western World just like Islam, having their looney religious beliefs that have a part in their crazy actions.

Simply put, the Islamic society behaves as if it's a child throwing temper tantrums. Now, if we gave the average child a button (smack dab in the middle of their temper tantrum) that would destroy all life on earth, do you think they press it? Islam's capacity for responsibility directly correlates to their level of maturity.




Oh, gee, that's nice.

Paraphrasing:

First they came for the crippled, and I did nothing -- because I wasn't a cripple.
Then they came for the Communists, and I did nothing -- for I wasn't a Communist.
Then they came for the Gypsies, and I did nothing -- for I wasn't a Gypsy.
Then they came for the Jews, and I did nothing -- for I wasn't a Jew.
Then they came for me -- and there was no one left to help me.

- N

Yep, that option sucks. Any time you apply chemo-therappy to cancer you're going to kill healthy cells as well.

Islamic society is not homogenous. Iran is majority Shitte, Iraq majority Sunni. It's weird to refer to Islam as a person like, "Make Islam admit...", or "The next step would be for Islam to force Iran to...". Apart from a variety of Imams, there is no single governing body of Islam, and furthermore, many Iranian Muslims are pro-US.

The common ground between Shites and Sunnis is their belief in Allah, religious law, and religious leaders. That effectively makes the leaders a governing body.

But there are many religious leaders, and they don't or can't meet with each other, much less agree on something.

If the majority can agreee that they share problems then that is the right step.

Yep, that option sucks. Any time you apply chemo-therappy to cancer you're going to kill healthy cells as well.

Yep, but at least healthy cells wind up regenerating themselves.

I don't know about you, but I've yet to see a Dodo bird, other than humans trying to act like ones. ;)

- N

Islamic society is not homogenous. Iran is majority Shitte, Iraq majority Sunni.

No, both countries have Shiite majorities, although in Iraq the Sunni minority is much larger.

The big difference between Iran and Iraq is not religion but ethnicity and culture: Iranians are Persians, while Iraqis are Arabs (except for the Kurds of course).

Yep, that option sucks. Any time you apply chemo-therappy to cancer you're going to kill healthy cells as well.

I'm sure the hi-jackers on 9-11 thought likewise about the dozen or so moslems in the towers.


Jaybee.

I'm sure the hi-jackers on 9-11 thought likewise about the dozen or so moslems in the towers.
Jaybee.



During his 2 1/2 hours on the stand, Moussaoui offered a lengthy explanation of why he hates Americans. Islam requires Muslims to be the world's superpower, he said as he paged through the Quran.

"We have an obligation to be the superpower. You have to be subdued," Moussaoui said.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060414/ap_on_re_us/moussaoui


The assertion has been contradicted with evidence.

Jaybee, have you ever seen the american press at work, it like trying to hurd cats, the press here woukd love nothing more than to have Bush's skin nailed to the barn door and as far as munipulaiting them they wouldn't co-operat with Bush if they were on fire and he had the only fire hose in existance!

The assertion has been contradicted with evidence.

Both of which are extremely poor substitutes for refutation and proof. Those are my MININUM standards.

Jaybee.

Both of which are extremely poor substitutes for refutation and proof.
Jaybee.

He is a Muslim militant that was part of the 911 operation. His thoughts were stated by himself and that contradicts your prediction of what a 911 members thouoghts were.



Those are my MININUM standards.


"Those" is a label for some criteria. Seeing as it has not been stated the standards in question are undefined.

He is a Muslim militant that was part of the 911 operation. His thoughts were stated by himself and that contradicts your prediction of what a 911 members thouoghts were.


Who's he? I'm talking about all the hi-jackers, not just one of them. Further, I'm disinclined to accept some website that purports to accurately and faithfully report this individual hi-jackers comments as actual PROOF of the viewpoints of the other hi-jackers.



"Those" is a label for some criteria. Seeing as it has not been stated the standards in question are undefined.

No, "Those", in this case is a reference to refutation and proof, whose definitions are readily available in any English language dictionary. I would suggest, for the purposes of this particular discussion, that you consult one for those definitions before composing a reply.

Jaybee.

Who's he?

Moussaoui





Yep, that option sucks. Any time you apply chemo-therappy to cancer you're going to kill healthy cells as well. ”



I'm sure the hi-jackers on 9-11 thought likewise about the dozen or so moslems in the towers.



"We have an obligation to be the superpower. You have to be subdued,"




I'm talking about all the hi-jackers, not just one of them. Further, I'm disinclined to accept some website that purports to accurately and faithfully report this individual hi-jackers comments as actual PROOF of the viewpoints of the other hi-jackers.


An assertion of you being sure of a specific thought 'all' 9-11 members shared was was issued without evidence. I provided contradictory evidence from a member still alive (whom is a subset of 'all'). I can point out the differences in meaning between the two statements if any difficulty is being experienced.





Both of which are extremely poor substitutes for refutation and proof. Those are my MININUM standards.



No, "Those", in this case is a reference to refutation and proof, whose definitions are readily available in any English language dictionary. I would suggest, for the purposes of this particular discussion, that you consult one for those definitions before composing a reply.


I understand what you mean now. I found the original sentence awkward in expressing this, being used to see minimum standards be a list of detailed criteria vs. general concepts such as proof and refutation.

Thanks for the suggestion btw, :rolleyes:. Might I send a suggestion your way as well... to provide evidence for your original assertion (it's not my onus to contradict it, it's your onus to support it).