It's interesting that so many of these people are in agreement that Iran deserves to be nuclear capable. When/if bombing commences, the foreign force will probably look like an aggressor to the Iranian people.

BBC: Iranians sound off about nuclear issue:
----------------
"Hassan, 35, architect

"Nuclear energy is our right. I don't care if it's turned into a political game at the international level.
"There's no need to turn this into a big deal. They have nuclear energy. We should too.
"We are not worried about international pressures on us. Nothing will happen."
http://news.bbc.co.uk/nol/shared/spl/hi/pop_ups/06/middle_east_iranians0_nuclear_views/img/2.jpg
----------------
Arsalan Alipour, 50, businessman

"America speaks its mind but we are going down our own path. Our nation wants nuclear energy, too.
"A few years later everyone will need nuclear fuel. Nuclear energy will replace everything else, like petrol too."
http://news.bbc.co.uk/nol/shared/spl/hi/pop_ups/06/middle_east_iranians0_nuclear_views/img/3.jpg
-----------------
Mohsen Hezari, 24, student

"India or Pakistan - they’re all the same. All of them are using nuclear energy and it's no problem for them.
"Why is this a problem for Iran? Nuclear energy is good for all countries.
"After 100 years, I don't know what Iran's capacity is for oil and gas. After some time, it will finish."
http://news.bbc.co.uk/nol/shared/spl/hi/pop_ups/06/middle_east_iranians0_nuclear_views/img/4.jpg
------------------
Mona, 25, school teacher

"I think this was our country's right to achieve this. And it's the right of every country to have access to this kind of technology.
"It's not that Iran will use its nuclear technology against another country. It's for our own use, not for wars and so on."
http://news.bbc.co.uk/nol/shared/spl/hi/pop_ups/06/middle_east_iranians0_nuclear_views/img/5.jpg
-------------------
Peiman, 37, doctor

"Naturally everyone is happy about scientific progress in one's country.
"However, like everyone else in the world, we are worried about using [nuclear energy] in the wrong way.
"We hope the government keeps its promise and doesn't enrich uranium to more than 3.5% and that it doesn't threaten world peace."
http://news.bbc.co.uk/nol/shared/spl/hi/pop_ups/06/middle_east_iranians0_nuclear_views/img/6.jpg
--------------------
Besharat

"The world doesn’t give permission to Ahmadinejad to do such a thing...
"The United Nations thinks Iran's government is very dangerous for humanity...
"If Iran goes nuclear, it will bomb the world."
http://news.bbc.co.uk/nol/shared/spl/hi/pop_ups/06/middle_east_iranians0_nuclear_views/img/7.jpg
---------------------
Name withheld

"I think we must have everything. We should have what other countries have...
"If they [the US] put us under pressure because of our nuclear programme, we'll pressure them too.
"We're not worried."
http://news.bbc.co.uk/nol/shared/spl/hi/pop_ups/06/middle_east_iranians0_nuclear_views/img/8.jpg

It's interesting that so many of these people are in agreement that Iran deserves to be nuclear capable. When/if bombing commences, the foreign force will probably look like an aggressor to the Iranian people

It won't just "look like" an aggressor; it will be an aggressor by any credible legal or moral standard.

Bunk - int'l law makes provisions for credible preemption.

That one chick is hot. I'd pull that rag off and..uh.

That's a good example of why Muslim women aren't supposed to display their beauty to strangers. :rolleyes:

any iranian that goes on chattering about peacefully using nuclear technology as an energy source is either lying or stupid....their own president has repeatedly called for the destruction of israel. you can't even say they're being misled. there has been no subterfuge on the part of their government.

with that said, the united states government, and this administration in particular, has dubious, oil-driven ulterior motives for being involved in this bit of 'diplomacy', HAS repeatedly lied to the american public, has wiped its ass with OUR constitution, and as a result, cannot count on my support for any military endeavours in the region. i took an oath to defend the constitution above all else, and i will not serve again under this president...even if they try to yank me in from the IRR.

let the complacent, socialist europeans deal with it. this is what they get for being complicit with maniacs and barbarians.

Bunk - int'l law makes provisions for credible preemption.

International law provides for self-defense when there is an actual "imminent threat" of being attacked. This is called "preventive war." (Note that Bush didn't even try to justify his illegal invasion of Iraq on this provision of law but rather on a spurious reliance on the Security Council resolutions which were passed following the invasion of Kuwait, demonstrating that even the United States does not have confidence on its own doctrine.)

No serious person is claiming that the United States faces an actual imminent threat of attack from Iran (although it would be easy to argue that Iran faces an actual imminent threat of attack from the United States). Therefore, there is no basis for "preemptive war," not that Bush and his apologists (such as yourself) care about legalities.

No - there's an important legal difference between "preemption" & "preventative war."

For example, virtually all legal sources now agree that the Israeli action against Osirak was valid preemption & in fact, the US gov't, which condemned Israel at the time, now thanks Israel for its service.

In fact, preemption is more immediate, while prevention is a more long-range prophylaxis.

The threat of terrorist groups receiving weapons from the Iranians IS immediate, given their history of support for them.

Bunk - int'l law makes provisions for credible preemption.I'm surprised to hear you say that.

Anyway...I think it is funny that one of the world's most oil-rich countries is trying to hide their nuclear weapons program under the guise of alternative energy. What does Iran need with nuclear energy?

Iran is not a society allowing free speach or even free thinking. So that's exactly what one should expect.

everyone of these people is talking about nuclear energy.

No - there's an important legal difference between "preemption" & "preventative war."

For example, virtually all legal sources now agree that the Israeli action against Osirak was valid preemption & in fact, the US gov't, which condemned Israel at the time, now thanks Israel for its service.

In fact, preemption is more immediate, while prevention is a more long-range prophylaxis.

The threat of terrorist groups receiving weapons from the Iranians IS immediate, given their history of support for them.

You're the one who brought up international law. I just told you what the law says, and it doesn't draw the sleazy distinction you are trying to foist off as somehow authoritative, using Israel of all things as an example of lawful behavior.

Your fantasies about being attacked are obviously without a shred of evidentiary support and for that reason without interest except perhaps to people curious about your psychological makeup, which doesn't include me.

everyone of these people is talking about nuclear energy.

And they probably believe it too. National pride has a tendency to distort the truth.

And they probably believe it too. National pride has a tendency to distort the truth.

They have serious energy problems-why isn't anyone in the west using this as a point to negotiate?

They have serious energy problems-why isn't anyone in the west using this as a point to negotiate?

How much energy does one need to herd coats and worship satan? Let them eat cake or whatever.

Not only is there zero evidence Iran is trying to destroy the US, they don't have any nukes to do so with, people are simply argueing about things which don't even exist.

And it's pretty ironic to think that under pre-emptive strike laws, Iran has a better case than we do.

By attacking Iran, it could very well give us the second 9-11 that you people worry about, they probably do have chemical weapons, and if you attack them, then there is nothing stopping them from giving some nasty shit to somebody to come here with and release in a sports arena or somethuing like that.

It's just another disastrous scenario thewarhawks don't seem to think about. Just like they never thought of what a disaster Iraq would be when we warned them...


:nonono:

Dude, you keep saying this bullshit in the face of all contrary evidence.

Simply put, the Iranians are TELLING us they're enriching uranium, so there's little dispute about that.

If you're so naive that you honestly believe that one of the world's largest oil exporters is using weapons-grade fissionables to create a nuclear energy program, even though they'd have to capitalize that at retail costs instead of the wholesale cost of their oil use, you're hopeless.

Likewise, if the biggest terrorist state in the world possessing nukes doesn't scare you, despite their lasting, proven hatred of the US, nothing but a radioactive firestorm is going to knock any sense into you.

And even then, you'll say the Bush Administration did it. :rolleyes:

Dude, you keep saying this bullshit in the face of all contrary evidence.

Simply put, the Iranians are TELLING us they're enriching uranium, so there's little dispute about that.

If you're so naive that you honestly believe that one of the world's largest oil exporters is using weapons-grade fissionables to create a nuclear energy program, even though they'd have to capitalize that at retail costs instead of the wholesale cost of their oil use, you're hopeless.

Likewise, if the biggest terrorist state in the world possessing nukes doesn't scare you, despite their lasting, proven hatred of the US, nothing but a radioactive firestorm is going to knock any sense into you.

And even then, you'll say the Bush Administration did it. :rolleyes:


I say we start a gas fund here on DA, that way you guys who support annihilation of the Iranians can pay for the gas of those of us who are against aggressive wars based on assumptions.

Never mind the fact that the experts are saying even if Iran really wanted to build a bomb it would take them YEARS at the soonest, and most likely 10-15 years.

Or the fact that we could never be sure if we hit all their nuclear sites and that a strike would only make things worse and encourage them to build nukes in secret and then send us a gift for revenge.

Think about what you wish to unleash.

Just to start off with, the experts you're quoting are deeply disputed by virtually the entire rest of the worlds' intelligence community, the vast majority of which agrees that they're on the bubble now.

Next, they don't even need to create actual bombs - simply having the radioactive materials is enough to produce dirty bombs terrorists can use to kill vast numbers of Americans.

How you can possibly measure the lives of tens of thousands of your countrymen in gas dollars, I have no idea. :|

How you can possibly measure the lives of tens of thousands of your countrymen in gas dollars, I have no idea. :|


The fact that CA does is not at all surprising.

Just to start off with, the experts you're quoting are deeply disputed by virtually the entire rest of the worlds' intelligence community, the vast majority of which agrees that they're on the bubble now.


Evidence?

Next, they don't even need to create actual bombs - simply having the radioactive materials is enough to produce dirty bombs terrorists can use to kill vast numbers of Americans.


Dirty bombs are hype, most of their damage comes rom the fear one would create because of the whole nuclear factor.



How you can possibly measure the lives of tens of thousands of your countrymen in gas dollars, I have no idea. :|


Because Iran isn't planning on killing and has no way to kill tens of thousands of Americans, that's simply pure speculative nonsense, for them it would be instant suicide, and not even they are are that stupid and crazy.

When you have evidence that Iran is about to kill Americans let me know, and I'll back military force against them. For now, we still have to somehow fix Iraq instead of starting a major war based on nothing but fear of the unknown.

He didn't watch the Twin Towers come down & I did. :shrug:

He didn't watch the Twin Towers come down & I did. :shrug:


I would have thought that since Iran knocked down the WTC Bush would have bombed them first instead of Afghanistan and then Iraq?

Since the Bush administration willnow start a war with the second nation in the "axis of evil", I wonder how long before he starts a war on the fourth front, over in North Korea?

Evidence?
For example, no one has better intelligence in the region than the Israelis:

The Iranian nuclear program has encountered some technical hurdles in the enrichment process, particularly with regard to the enrichment of uranium with a "cascade" of centrifuges. Israeli intelligence estimates that it could take the Iranians six to twelve months to overcome these hurdles, and then about three more years to produce enough fissile material for a nuclear device. From the Israeli point of view, once Iran masters the technology of the fuel cycle, Tehran could more easily pursue nuclear weapons in the context of a clandestine program, one that would be much harder to stop.

http://www.washingtoninstitute.org/templateC05.php?CID=2318

Dirty bombs are hype, most of their damage comes rom the fear one would create because of the whole nuclear factor.
That's hard to believe, as a single McVeigh-sized truck bomb laced with Strontium 90 would likely yield radiation contamination over a full kilometer's radius, easily killing thousands in any urban area.

Since Iran already has the enriched uranium necessary, we can presume that they can arm their terrorist surrogates with C4 or TNT.


Because Iran isn't planning on killing and has no way to kill tens of thousands of Americans, that's simply pure speculative nonsense, for them it would be instant suicide, and not even they are are that stupid and crazy.
A. You've got not no ****ing clue what they're planning, so you should refrain from making such stupid, reckless statements.

B. The above-mentioned dirty bombs could easily kill tens of thousands of Americans when correctly coordinated.

C. They wouldn't perpetrate the acts themselves in the first place; they'd get their terrorist proxies to do it, & it since it's very easy for them to create pretexts like theft, we could never take direct retribution against them in the international community.

D. It certainly has never stopped them before.

When you have evidence that Iran is about to kill Americans let me know, and I'll back military force against them. For now, we still have to somehow fix Iraq instead of starting a major war based on nothing but fear of the unknown.
The largest terrorist state in the world is producing nuclear weapons they can use against us - we don't need to wait until they're just about to kill Americans, any more than the Israelis did with Osirak.

We have a valid case for preemption now. BTW, Osirak didn't cause a major war & our actions against Iran won't either.

I would have thought that since Iran knocked down the WTC Bush would have bombed them first instead of Afghanistan and then Iraq?
??? :confused:

I didn't say Iran had anything to do with it.

Since the Bush administration willnow start a war with the second nation in the "axis of evil", I wonder how long before he starts a war on the fourth front, over in North Korea?
I certainly hope he doesn't.

For example, no one has better intelligence in the region than the Israelis:



http://www.washingtoninstitute.org/templateC05.php?CID=2318



And they wouldn't hype this kind of information now would they..


That's hard to believe, as a single McVeigh-sized truck bomb laced with Strontium 90 would likely yield radiation contamination over a full kilometer's radius, easily killing thousands in any urban area.

From what I've read about dirty bombs is that they are relatively ineffective in killing mass amounts of people and it would also be suicide for them to do something like this.


Since Iran already has the enriched uranium necessary, we can presume that they can arm their terrorist surrogates with C4 or TNT.


Your entire arguement is based on "presumptions".

Just like with Iraq, you gotta be careful where this "war is the only resort" thinking.


A. You've got not no ****ing clue what they're planning, so you should refrain from making such stupid, reckless statements.

Exactly, and neither do you!

You are the one advocating a aggressive first strike on a nation that has done nothing to us, and that is the only thing that is stupid and reckless. You don't even want to wait for diplomacy or facts. Although the Bush administration lunatics don't even know what diplomacy is.

I never thought I'd see the day when not wanting to initiate a potentially disastrous war would be seen as "reckless".


B. The above-mentioned dirty bombs could easily kill tens of thousands of Americans when correctly coordinated.

If.. maybe... probably...


C. They wouldn't perpetrate the acts themselves in the first place; they'd get their terrorist proxies to do it, & it since it's very easy for them to create pretexts like theft, we could never take direct retribution against them in the international community.

Why would they do this? Since when did Iran wish to destroy us? Why would they risk being vaporized?

And... why have they not already attacked us with untraceable chemicalor bioweapons with these terrorist proxies? VX in and air duct at the super bowl could a 100,000 people, some of the bioweapons out there would be worse than a suitcase nuke or a dirty bomb since they don't spread anything that is contagious. so why haven't they done so yet? Why are they waiting for thisd nuclear material that everybody knows about? It would be prettyy obvious if right after they acquire the bomb that we get one lit up over here. Don't you think?



D. It certainly has never stopped them before.


What hasn't, and what did they do before?

If you wanna talk about the past, the US is guilty of actually terrorizing Iranians, as ugly as it is.


The largest terrorist state in the world is producing nuclear weapons they can use against us - we don't need to wait until they're just about to kill Americans, any more than the Israelis did with Osirak.

I thought that was Iraq? Oh wait...


We have a valid case for preemption now. BTW, Osirak didn't cause a major war & our actions against Iran won't either.


1. No, we don't have any case.

2. This isn't Iraq

3. They don't just have 1 nuclear facility

4. We don't even know where all of them could be

5. Irans military today is much different than Iraq's was back then, they could do some major damage in the region, and in a few years could be right up enriching Uranium again, and this time they might be racing, racing to build nukes so they could use them, not as a deterrant. Are you willing to risk this? And like I've already said many times, nobody knows what is going to happen in Pakistan. The one thing that place doesn't need is a firestorm, cause they do have nukes.

6. The only way to completely eliminate Irans nuclear program would be a full scale military ground invasion, and we aren't capable of that right now, and even if we were, we'd sustain heavy heavy losses. All for a "what if".

??? :confused:

I didn't say Iran had anything to do with it.


I certainly hope he doesn't.


Well why not, NK supposedly has some nukes already, has actually threatened the West coast, and they are building long range missiles.

But as we can see with NK, starting a war against them would probably be much worse than just leaving them be. Unless we just set off 20 hydrogen bombs over the place and turned them off.

NK is a case in point why waiting until a Whackjob has control of nukes is a Very Bad Idea. Why give a Total Freakshow Nutcase the opportunity to blackmail us by our inaction when we have the opportunity to prevent him acquiring the means to blackmail?

North Korea is isolated, therefore they are less of a threat. Their neighbors would never aid any crazy moves by the North Korean dictator.

Iran's leadership and their sponsorship of a vast terror network all across the middle-east represents a burgeoning global movement; if you don't believe me just read the transcripts from the Moussaoui trial. Think about London subways and Spanish train lines.

This jihadist nonsense is a spreading cancer. It has to be removed. As much as I dislike the "leadership" of the Bush administration, they are not the main enemy right now. Ahmadinejad is practically begging the civilized world to take action against him, and I think it's time we give these fools the jihad they so desperately want.

Iran's leadership and their sponsorship of a vast terror network all across the middle-east represents a burgeoning global movement...

This jihadist nonsense is a spreading cancer. It has to be removed... I think it's time we give these fools the jihad they so desperately want.
Unlike cancer, we cant expect chemo therapy and radiation to cure radical islamic terrorists.

It doesn't make a lot of sense to be agitating and aiding a "burgeoning global movement." By fighting them, the west is validating and actually helping their cause - we're bringing truth to their claims about US world aggression and dominance. Radical islam is a symptom of a wide variety of problems.

If you address a cough with cough syrup but continue smoking cigarettes you're not really helping cure the cough, you're only making it more comfortable to smoke cigarettes.

Your entire arguement is based on "presumptions".

Just like with Iraq, you gotta be careful where this "war is the only resort" thinking.

Quite true.

You don't even want to wait for diplomacy or facts. Although the Bush administration lunatics don't even know what diplomacy is.

Let us be thankful that no country has the power to punish the American idiots just because we have an idiotic adminstration. Probably the most ridiculous cop out is the policy that the Smirking Chump's administration refuses to talk to certain countries' elected leaders. Communication is key for any decision.

I never thought I'd see the day when not wanting to initiate a potentially disastrous war would be seen as "reckless".

:p Well said.

Let us not forget the roots of the Islamic-jihadist-fundie-anti-western movement is in Iran when we and the brits propped-up the corrupt Shah Pahlavi as King.

When people start talking about "regime change" the red flags need to go up ... puppet leaders who are more loyal to a foreign power are inevitably overthrown by their own citizens ... often with disastrous long term consequences

Let us not forget the roots of the Islamic-jihadist-fundie-anti-western movement is in Iran when we and the brits propped-up the corrupt Shah Pahlavi as King.

When people start talking about "regime change" the red flags need to go up ... puppet leaders who are more loyal to a foreign power are inevitably overthrown by their own citizens ... often with disastrous long term consequences

As a matter of fact, I am ready to forget about the roots of these religious zealots' hatred of America. I really don't give a shit anymore.

Did you listen to/read the transcript of flight 93? Did you watch Mossaoui laugh and smile, and say that Islamic militants like him will continue to commit such acts until they no longer can?

He sat there laughing at American civilians- women and children- screaming in terror before they died, wearing that stupid fawking little Muslim skullcap, provided to him by the American government. Are you kidding me?

The geo-political discussion on this matter is winding to a close. You either think Iran's support of a global terrorist network of radical Muslims is justified or not.

It doesn't make a lot of sense to be agitating and aiding a "burgeoning global movement." By fighting them, the west is validating and actually helping their cause - we're bringing truth to their claims about US world aggression and dominance. Radical islam is a symptom of a wide variety of problems.


I used to believe all of that but now it seems absurd to me. These militant Muslims are fueled by a passionate religious hatred of anyone who doesn't belong to their religion, period.

Not only that, they will gladly kill others who do belong to their religion in order to kill some who don't. They can afford to do that because there's plenty more where those "martyrs" came from.

It is pathological religious zealotry, period. There is no diplomacy in the world that can deal with such violent psychosis.

I used to believe all of that but now it seems absurd to me. These militant Muslims are fueled by a passionate religious hatred of anyone who doesn't belong to their religion, period.

Yes, and US military actions and irresponsible foreign policy are making us more of a target than just the average non-believing group.


Not only that, they will gladly kill others who do belong to their religion in order to kill some who don't. They can afford to do that because there's plenty more where those "martyrs" came from.

The US has proven that it's willing to make similar sacrifices in order to accomplish its mission! We are willing to kill civies in order to possibly kill one "target of interest."

Isolating, not participating in, this despicible act is how you stop it. US actions often coincide with enemy propaganda. We're playing into their hand by playing their filthy game.


It is pathological religious zealotry, period. There is no diplomacy in the world that can deal with such violent psychosis.
It's not that simple, period. You're ignoring the full scope of the sociopolitical spectrum in this gross generalization, and further, you're ignoring the principles of guerilla warfare, which are actually quite relevant. It would be to our advantage to adopt a more european anti-terror model instead of developing our own wild-west-style approach.

While it's basically futile to negotiate with terrorists, it's noteworthy to look at some of the concerns outlined in their propaganda speeches instead of branding them as haters of freedom (as many ppl do). Don't you think it's relevant to look at the actual issues in dispute here? Isn't it worthwhile to examine the opposing viewpoint when constructing foreign policy? Perhaps I'm an idealist...

People of America this talk of mine is for you and concerns the ideal way to prevent another Manhattan, and deals with the war and its causes and results.

Before I begin, I say to you that security is an indispensable pillar of human life and that free men do not forfeit their security, contrary to Bush's claim that we hate freedom.

If so, then let him explain to us why we don't strike for example - Sweden?
...

No one except a dumb thief plays with the security of others and then makes himself believe he will be secure. Whereas thinking people, when disaster strikes, make it their priority to look for its causes, in order to prevent it happening again.

But I am amazed at you. Even though we are in the fourth year after the events of September 11th, Bush is still engaged in distortion, deception and hiding from you the real causes. And thus, the reasons are still there for a repeat of what occurred.

So I shall talk to you about the story behind those events and shall tell you truthfully about the moments in which the decision was taken, for you to consider.

I say to you, Allah knows that it had never occurred to us to strike the towers. But after it became unbearable and we witnessed the oppression and tyranny of the American/Israeli coalition against our people in Palestine and Lebanon, it came to my mind.
...
I couldn't forget those moving scenes, blood and severed limbs, women and children sprawled everywhere. Houses destroyed along with their occupants and high rises demolished over their residents, rockets raining down on our home without mercy.

http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/79C6AF22-98FB-4A1C-B21F-2BC36E87F61F.htm

While this speech contains many logical fallacies and other gross generalizations and propaganda, its affords us a look into the head of a terrorist mastermind. That's where we should start (should have started?).

However much responsibility we might bear in what's happened to Iran,thinking we can do a lot to change it is a mistake.There are a lot of angry volatile people over there.

While this speech contains many logical fallacies and other gross generalizations and propaganda, its affords us a look into the head of a terrorist mastermind. That's where we should start (should have started?).

That is just ridiculous. When someone is actively engaged in the process of desperately trying to kill you, you do not stop to "have a look inside their head" to see what you could have done differently to prevent it.

When these Islamic psychopaths are all dead, then we can stop and talk about what we would have done differently. Until then, I'm not interested in sitting around and figuring out things like what motivates an entire nation to publicly hang a teenage girl for being gang-raped (as recently happened in Iran), or what makes the same lunatics want to kill me and my family.

I'm sorry, Stone, I usually like your posts quite a bit but hearing absurd statements like the one above make it very tempting for me to form the opinion that America needs to be involved in a truly major war again, because some of our citizens are just so utterly out of touch with reality.

These people are not going to stop, no matter what kind of kissy-face we make at them.

After seeing how hungry so many Americans are for war, I think we're the crazy ones.

We have our share of religious nuts as well.

http://www.csmonitor.com/2003/1229/p02s01-usju.html

This American was going to set off a chemical weapon upon his own people, should we start bombing ourselves?

Did yall forget what the presidents of Russia and China said about us ? They said American hedgemony is over . This was several months ago . I posted the website then .

better get the bunkers ready is all I can say . Not that it will do much good, since we are being infiltrated with millions of enemies a year under the protection of both parties .

They don't care about this continent anymore ,imo .

After seeing how hungry so many Americans are for war, I think we're the crazy ones.


Then leave and go live in Iran, if you think America is just as bad. Go live among the peaceful, oppressed Iranian mullahs or their Palestinian clients. Go show your solidarity. Make sure to tell them you're not a Muslim. After all, they're not an "apartheid state" like Israel. I'm sure they'll respect your beliefs.

We have our share of religious nuts as well.

http://www.csmonitor.com/2003/1229/p02s01-usju.html

This American was going to set off a chemical weapon upon his own people, should we start bombing ourselves?



What you're saying is nonsense. It is nihilistic, absurd, and 100% inaccurate moral equivalency. That kind of rhetoric might fly in a college philosophy class, but it has absolutely nothing to do with reality.

Then leave and go live in Iran, if you think America is just as bad. Go live among the peaceful, oppressed Iranian mullahs or their Palestinian clients. Go show your solidarity. Make sure to tell them you're not a Muslim. After all, they're not an "apartheid state" like Israel. I'm sure they'll respect your beliefs.


They aren't threatening us, we are threatening them. I don't want my country to be wrecked by a major war and that means I want to live in a conservative religious state?




What you're saying is nonsense. It is nihilistic, absurd, and 100% inaccurate moral equivalency. That kind of rhetoric might fly in a college philosophy class, but it has absolutely nothing to do with reality.


I think philosophy is a mind numbing waste of time, do you not care that there are Americans that have tried to kill more Americans than Iran ever has???

Iran maybe full of crazies, but they aren't here, I think attacking them will just cause havoc and give even more motivation for some REAL terrorists to slip something into this country through one of our wide open ports. I live ten miles from the Port of L.A. Something gets slipped in there and I'm dead along with many of my friends and family.

But like I've already said, people are willing to create chaos over unfounded fears.. Great...

People need to relax, turn off the CNN, and realize we haven't even attempted diplomacy yet with Iran.

But you guys may get your war, it's been reported by some that it's already started.

They aren't threatening us, we are threatening them.

This is pure ignorance, plain and simple. Iran not only threatens the US and any non-Muslim industrialized society, they already actively fund terrorist groups who are undoubtedly targeting the US as we speak.

Or do you believe the president of Iran when he says that he is enriching uranium for energy purposes? Because, after all, where else could IRAN get energy? Surely not from oil.

And they've shown such a strong interest in advancing their progressive industrialist economy (when they're not hanging teenage girls for breaking Sharia law by letting themselves be gang-raped).

That's why whenever a 7.0 earthquake hits their country 70,000 Iranians die....because they're spending so much time developing their infrastructure, right? Not doing things like hanging teenage girls and sponsoring radical Muslim terrorist groups.

I don't want my country to be wrecked by a major war and that means I want to live in a conservative religious state?


You just inferred that you already live in one by comparing America to Iran.

Your words, not mine.


I think philosophy is a mind numbing waste of time, do you not care that there are Americans that have tried to kill more Ameruicans than Iran ever has or has???


I think it's childish idiocy to ask the rhetorical question "should America attack itself?"

Or was that a real suggestion?



Iran maybe full of crazies, but they aren't here, I think attacking them will just cause havoc and give even more motivation for some REAL terrorists to slip something into this country through one of our wide open ports. I live ten miles from the Port of L.A. Something gets slipped in there and I'm dead along with many of my friends and family.


Oh, I see. In that case I guess we better just stay at home, keep our mouths shut, and ignore Iranian acquisition of nuclear technology. After all, we wouldn't want to have to pay an extra dollar per gallon for gasoline, would we?



But like I've already said, people are willing to create chaos over unfounded fears.. Great...

That chaos already exists. Iran is already actively sponsoring anti-Western terror and has been for many years. The fact that you choose to ignore this reality does not change it.

That is just ridiculous. When someone is actively engaged in the process of desperately trying to kill you, you do not stop to "have a look inside their head" to see what you could have done differently to prevent it.

Isn't preventing someone from killing you (i.e. avoiding that situation in the future) as important as immediately reducing the threat? It's worthless to ignore motives if we intend to prevent or reduce future attacks.

People do not intentionally kill without rationalizing its necessity.


When these Islamic psychopaths are all dead, then we can stop and talk about what we would have done differently.

We can't kill them all. We cannot kill ideas. Haphazard killing with disproportional force creates enemies.


Until then, I'm not interested in sitting around and figuring out things like what motivates an entire nation to publicly hang a teenage girl for being gang-raped (as recently happened in Iran), or what makes the same lunatics want to kill me and my family.
"If you know the enemy and know yourself, you need not fear the result of a hundred battles. If you know yourself but not the enemy, for every victory gained you will also suffer a defeat. If you know neither the enemy nor yourself, you will succumb in every battle."
- SUN TZU ON THE ART OF WAR
http://www.chinapage.com/sunzi-e.html


...it[s] very tempting for me to form the opinion that America needs to be involved in a truly major war again, because some of our citizens are just so utterly out of touch with reality.
While I tend to rank right up there with Ghandi, I think the world needs it. Just my cynical opinion :nonono:


These people are not going to stop, no matter what kind of kissy-face we make at them.
You're right, the live ones probably won't stop. I'm not advocating tolerance of radical islam (i find all religious radicals repulsive) by any stretch. I'm advocating a more rational approach to "kill 'em all - think about it later."

- Terrorism can be fought with international cooperation and fellowship: diplomats and information sharing.
- It can be fought with a more relavant intelligence community: more $ for foreign intelligence and less for cold war designed warships and bomber planes.
- It can be fought with a quality foreign policy: Our foreign policy caters to the industrial-military complex. Until it serves the people of the US, American foreign policy will continue to be wreckless. Just like pre-9/11, we're STILL vanquishing our current enemies while fostering new ones (Musharaff, iraqi boy on street corner, etc.).
- It can be fought with police and special forces: measured, controlled, and proportional attacks.

Isn't preventing someone from killing you (i.e. avoiding that situation in the future) as important as immediately reducing the threat?

They are basically the same thing. The point you seem to be missing is that understanding the motivations of these people (which should be impossible for a sane person to begin with) will not prevent them from doing anything.



People do not intentionally kill without rationalizing its necessity.


How do you know this? And assuming it is true, how does it follow that we should help with that rationalization?




We can't kill them all. We cannot kill ideas. Haphazard killing with disproportional force creates enemies.



We can kill more of them than they can kill of us. That's what winning a war is all about, nothing to do with "ideas".

And in case you forgot, they're the ones who declared "jihad" (that's Muslim for "war") against us.



- Terrorism can be fought with international cooperation and fellowship: diplomats and information sharing.


Small-scale localized terrorist activity perhaps; a belligerent, defiant and nuclear-armed terrorist state is an entirely different story.


- It can be fought with a more relavant intelligence community: more $ for foreign intelligence and less for cold war designed warships and bomber planes.


Foreign intelligence for what? So we can ignore it because we refuse to use our bombs and tanks?


- It can be fought with a quality foreign policy: Our foreign policy caters to the industrial-military complex. Until it serves the people of the US, American foreign policy will continue to be wreckless. Just like pre-9/11, we're STILL vanquishing our current enemies while fostering new ones (Musharaff, iraqi boy on street corner, etc.).


There is a vaguely valid point in all of this, but what does it have to do with the nation of Iran and their stated goal of nuclear acquisition and open support for anti-Western terrorism?

- It can be fought with police and special forces: measured, controlled, and proportional attacks.

Sometimes.

Someone once told me.. that democracy feeds off of war... and I'm still trying to comprehend the notion... but in in some small slice of me it seems vaguely true

They are basically the same thing. The point you seem to be missing is that understanding the motivations of these people (which should be impossible for a sane person to begin with) will not prevent them from doing anything.

We don't have to agree w/ terrorists in order to understand them. Stoping the creation of new terrorists MUST be done through minimizing the conditions that foster terrorists AND by killing them. One or the other will not work alone.


How do you know this? And assuming it is true, how does it follow that we should help with that rationalization?

Motor functions would have to literally be deteached from the rest of your brain for someone to kill without rationalizing it. Many brain processes occur - fingers don't automatically pull triggers.

Most people kill because it's to their benefit immediately or in the future (following orders, self defense, profit). Even in cases of the literally insane - in their own world they are acting normally and rationally.


We can kill more of them than they can kill of us. That's what winning a war is all about, nothing to do with "ideas".

I disagree entirely - this is a widely popular myth in recent years (by this logic we won Vietnam). War is based on ideas. People fight for ideas and ideals - a source of motivation and hope. A main principle of guerilla warfare (and now modern warfare) includes persuading the population to agree with "the right side." War is won in the head or with complete extermination; which sounds like a more reasonable course?

The "War on Terrorism" is, by definition, a war on a foreign belief system - ideas. I'm currently working on a paper that linguisticly examines political rhetoric surrounding the war on terror, and how the definition of such has changed in recent history. I'd be happy to share my results. The terrorists are not fighting a conventional war, but the US gov. maintains its hard-headed stance.

We have failed in Afghanistan and Iraq, and we will continue to fail unless terrorism is viewed as a worldwide symptom of worldwide human and social problems. Terrorism is not inevitible, but the status quo makes it so.


And in case you forgot, they're the ones who declared "jihad" (that's Muslim for "war") against us.

Arent you the least bit curious as to why this has happened to a country so full of good people? If yes, the answers are not simple, easy, or mainstream.


Small-scale localized terrorist activity perhaps; a belligerent, defiant and nuclear-armed terrorist state is an entirely different story.

Well I guess our theories haven't been thoroughly tested, that is unless you can furnish some examples.

BTW, what is a "terrorist state?" Isn't a terrorist a terrorist and a state a state? Are soldiers not in formal ranks henceforth known as terrorists? I could use some citations/examples when you get a chance.


Foreign intelligence for what? So we can ignore it because we refuse to use our bombs and tanks?

More information will spot them before they act. It paves the way for a proportional reaponse thus avoiding the need for expensive PR nightmares such as Afghanistan and Iraq. More info will help us understand - you can't know anything witout good info.


There is a vaguely valid point in all of this, but what does it have to do with the nation of Iran and their stated goal of nuclear acquisition and open support for anti-Western terrorism?

Unilateral action will create greater resistance to the "global force that talks out of both sides of its mouth, that supports only one set of ideas, that paves over all who disagree, etc." It shouldn't be too hard for our enemies to make a stronger case against us. I thought the paragraph to which you're refering was pretty apparent in its meaning.

If we go into Iran unilaterally we're going to have to accept that we'll be creating huge numbers of new enemies at the expense of delaying their ability to enrich uranium. What do you think these new enemies will want? What kind of democracy would they foster (Hamas comes to mind)?

We can't kill them all. We cannot kill ideas. Haphazard killing with disproportional force creates enemies.

- It can be fought with police and special forces: measured, controlled, and proportional attacks.
True, but there's nothing disproportionate about destroying their nuclear weapons facilities.

- Terrorism can be fought with international cooperation and fellowship: diplomats and information sharing.
Unlikely, because terrorists only "negotiate" to facilitate perpetrating more terror. As Hezbollah leader Hussein Malawi so aptly summarized their position, "We are not fighting so that you will offer us something. We are fighting to eliminate you."

They cannot be placated by diplomacy.

The "War on Terrorism" is, by definition, a war on a foreign belief system - ideas. I'm currently working on a paper that linguisticly examines political rhetoric surrounding the war on terror, and how the definition of such has changed in recent history. I'd be happy to share my results. The terrorists are not fighting a conventional war, but the US gov. maintains its hard-headed stance.
"Terrorism" is a strategy & not a belief system. While their war may not be "conventional," it still mantains the features of a war.

BTW, what is a "terrorist state?" Isn't a terrorist a terrorist and a state a state? Are soldiers not in formal ranks henceforth known as terrorists? I could use some citations/examples when you get a chance.
Iran funds, equips, trains & motivates Hezbollah, Islamic Jihad, Hamas & a host of smaller groups, while making attempts at co-branding with Al Qaeda. It's been implicated in terrorist attacks against US citizens.

How is that not a "terrorist state"; that is, an enabler of global terrorism?

We don't have to agree w/ terrorists in order to understand them. Stoping the creation of new terrorists MUST be done through minimizing the conditions that foster terrorists AND by killing them. One or the other will not work alone.


Sounds great. You sit and try to "minimize the conditions that foster terrorists", and let other people (i.e. the military) kill them.



Motor functions would have to literally be deteached from the rest of your brain for someone to kill without rationalizing it. Many brain processes occur - fingers don't automatically pull triggers.

Most people kill because it's to their benefit immediately or in the future (following orders, self defense, profit). Even in cases of the literally insane - in their own world they are acting normally and rationally.


Okay, that answers part one of my question. Now how about part two: why should we participate in this process of pathological rationalization?




I disagree entirely - this is a widely popular myth in recent years (by this logic we won Vietnam). War is based on ideas. People fight for ideas and ideals - a source of motivation and hope.


No, people fight over land and control of resources. They try and justify it with ideas.



The "War on Terrorism" is, by definition, a war on a foreign belief system - ideas.

The "War on Terror" is a slogan that has little bearing on reality.

I'm currently working on a paper that linguisticly examines political rhetoric surrounding the war on terror, and how the definition of such has changed in recent history.


Sounds fabulous. Make sure you at least spell "linguistically" correct in your paper.

I'd be happy to share my results.

Thanks but no thanks.



We have failed in Afghanistan and Iraq, and we will continue to fail unless terrorism is viewed as a worldwide symptom of worldwide human and social problems. Terrorism is not inevitible, but the status quo makes it so.


At the risk of sounding like I endorse the actions of the Bush administration, there have been no terrorist attacks inside US borders since 9/11. So what exactly has failed in Iraq and Afghanistan?




Arent you the least bit curious as to why this has happened to a country so full of good people? If yes, the answers are not simple, easy, or mainstream.


So you've got the answers for us, eh? Are they in your linguistics paper?

Heh.



BTW, what is a "terrorist state?"

A state that sponsors terrorism.

Isn't a terrorist a terrorist and a state a state? Are soldiers not in formal ranks henceforth known as terrorists? I could use some citations/examples when you get a chance.


Look them up yourself while you're working on your paper. You've got the answers, right? You just said so.




If we go into Iran unilaterally we're going to have to accept that we'll be creating huge numbers of new enemies at the expense of delaying their ability to enrich uranium.

Yes, I am well aware that violent extremists don't like being challenged. Thanks for the reminder.

Someone once told me.. that democracy feeds off of war... and I'm still trying to comprehend the notion... but in in some small slice of me it seems vaguely true


C L Lewis I think said something to this effect . Democracy leads to socialism and it leads to dictatorship that always ends in brutal war , ' or something like that ' .

Thats why our founders founded a REPUBLIC, NOT A DEMOCRACY ! But our leaders have been working on tearing it down for many years . We have now become a dictatorship .

This is pure ignorance, plain and simple. Iran not only threatens the US and any non-Muslim industrialized society, they already actively fund terrorist groups who are undoubtedly targeting the US as we speak.


Oh right, it's ignorance yet you're pulling your info out of thin air, can you back up any of these assertions?

If you can, please do.


Or do you believe the president of Iran when he says that he is enriching uranium for energy purposes? Because, after all, where else could IRAN get energy? Surely not from oil.


I'd say they want nukes for the same reason any other country does.


And they've shown such a strong interest in advancing their progressive industrialist economy (when they're not hanging teenage girls for breaking Sharia law by letting themselves be gang-raped).


So we should just get it over quickly for those teen-age girls and bomb them to death?

I'm sure it will be a better place after the US finishes with it like Iraq now is where the women are worse than under Saddam. You attack them and you radicalize all of them, and then their religious clerics really have support!


That's why whenever a 7.0 earthquake hits their country 70,000 Iranians die....because they're spending so much time developing their infrastructure, right? Not doing things like hanging teenage girls and sponsoring radical Muslim terrorist groups.


You could say the same with with Hurricane Katrina and the US spending a billion a week terrorizing Iraqi's.




You just inferred that you already live in one by comparing America to Iran.

Your words, not mine.


I said we have religious nuts here, I didn't say we're a theocracy, there is a difference.


I think it's childish idiocy to ask the rhetorical question "should America attack itself?"

Or was that a real suggestion?


It's to make a point against those that clamor for war, you guys use examples of how savage some of their people are to justify killing them, then when your logic is turned on you you scoff at it and call it childish. Being hungry for a major war seems pretty childish and savage as far as I'm concerned.


Oh, I see. In that case I guess we better just stay at home, keep our mouths shut, and ignore Iranian acquisition of nuclear technology. After all, we wouldn't want to have to pay an extra dollar per gallon for gasoline, would we?


The russians have the bomb, why are sitting at home not doing anything about it?

We are already paying 2 bucks per gallon more for gas than we were a few years ago, if we get into a war with Iran it could go up much much more than another buck a gallon. I don't want to have to start budgeting food money for gas, and in case you don't know, many poor people are already having to do so, and their kids aren't getting enough to eat. So sorry if I could care little about what a naton on the other side of the globe does that doesn't effect me. You want to make it effect me though by starting a war with them.



That chaos already exists. Iran is already actively sponsoring anti-Western terror and has been for many years. The fact that you choose to ignore this reality does not change it.


Yea, man, it's chaotic out on the streets of L.A. tonight with all this Iranian terrorism over here.

You have far greater odds of being killed by some terrorist aka "gang member" than some foreign terrorist in any large American city.

Every expert on this subject that I've seen discuss this issue has said that attacking Iran will only make things worse. I'd like to hear somebody explain how it would make things better taking into account everything that could go wrong and everything we'd have to take care of.

If attacking Iran will only make things worse, why the hell attack them? It makes no sense..

Sounds great. You sit and try to "minimize the conditions that foster terrorists", and let other people (i.e. the military) kill them.

And we know using military force to kill terrorists doesn't work, all you do is create even more terrorists defeating the whole purpose.

So because those that believe war is the answer to everything, we'll have to deal with more terrorism in the future, wonderful.


Okay, that answers part one of my question. Now how about part two: why should we participate in this process of pathological rationalization?



For people that actually wish to reduce terrorism this is essential. The cowboy approach does not work. Period.



No, people fight over land and control of resources. They try and justify it with ideas.



And the neo-cons are fighting over resources, and they are justifying it by saying these the inhabitants of those countries are going to destroy us.



The "War on Terror" is a slogan that has little bearing on reality.


But it's the excuse for an endless war in which our wealth is being transferred into the pockets of military industrial complex.

Bush or Cheney don't give a damn about "protecting" Americans, they had ample earning about 9-11 and they did nothing to stop it, if Iran was going to attack, I doubt they'd do anything to stop it if they knew about it as well because it would give them the power they need, Bush's approval rating would be back up at 90%.



Sounds fabulous. Make sure you at least spell "linguistically" correct in your paper.



Thanks but no thanks.


He made some great points, I'd like to see it.



At the risk of sounding like I endorse the actions of the Bush administration, there have been no terrorist attacks inside US borders since 9/11. So what exactly has failed in Iraq and Afghanistan?


And it had been 8 years prior to that, besides the fact that global terrorism increased after Bush attacked Iraq.



So you've got the answers for us, eh? Are they in your linguistics paper?

Heh.


Well I know one thing, the man that thinks of war as the first resort sure isn't the guy to listen to.



A state that sponsors terrorism.



And the U.S. government is sponsoring terrorism inside Iran right now.

http://www.guerrillanews.com/headlines/4000/US_Openly_Supports_Iranian_Terrorist

It's really sad considering what started all this extremism in Iran, where do you think more intervention in that will lead them?


Look them up yourself while you're working on your paper. You've got the answers, right? You just said so.


Nobody has all the answers, which is why rushing into a war is absolutely iinsane. It's like frikking Iraq all over again..:nonono:


Yes, I am well aware that violent extremists don't like being challenged. Thanks for the reminder.


So you're ok with making matters worse, not better?

Oh right, it's ignorance yet you're pulling your info out of thin air, can you back up any of these assertions?

If you can, please do.


I'm not your research assistant. Anyone who denies that the Iranian government actively sponsors terrorist organizations is a damn fool, period.


I'd say they want nukes for the same reason any other country does.

So we should just get it over quickly for those teen-age girls and bomb them to death?

I'm sure it will be a better place after the US finishes with it like Iraq now is where the women are worse than under Saddam. You attack them and you radicalize all of them, and then their religious clerics really have support!


The whole point is to kill their "religious clerics". It will be pretty hard to support them after they're all dead.

And the Bush administration's strategic folly of invading Iraq first doesn't change the threat posed by Iran acquiring nuclear technology.



You could say the same with with Hurricane Katrina and the US spending a billion a week terrorizing Iraqi's.


I suppose you could if you were a moron with no sense of realistic perspective. 70,000 people did not die due to Katrina, and the billions being spent in Iraq are largely going towards our military's desperate effort to prevent them from terrorizing each other.

Including the Iranian shi'ite militias coming across the border.


I said we have religious nuts here, I didn't say we're a theocracy, there is a difference.


Then why did you use it as a comparative analogy?





It's to make a point against those that clamor for war, you guys use examples of how savage some of their people are

"Some of their people"? Are you referring to Iran's government and religious police? Because that's who executed the teenage rape victim. Not just a random group of "some people" wandering through Iran.

then when your logic is turned on you you scoff at it and call it childish. Being hungry for a major war seems pretty childish and savage as far as I'm concerned.


I say again: it is childish idiocy to ask whether America should attack itself. Whether asked rhetorically or not, it is just a stupid question.


The russians have the bomb, why are sitting at home not doing anything about it?


They have shown minimal interest in spnsoring global terror. Although I certainly wouldn't say we'll never have to worry about them again. After all, Putin is an evil bastard.



We are already paying 2 bucks per gallon more for gas than we were a few years ago, if we get into a war with Iran it could go up much much more than another buck a gallon. I don't want to have to start budgeting food money for gas

Awww....I'm sorry. In that case, never mind then. Nuclear weapons for everybody!

I don't want to have to start budgeting food money for gas, and in case you don't know, many poor people are already having to do so, and their kids aren't getting enough to eat.

So your answer is to suck on that oil-covered Iranian/Saudi Arabian cock until the oil simply runs out? Then what?



Yea, man, it's chaotic out on the streets of L.A. tonight with all this Iranian terrorism over here.

You have far greater odds of being killed by some terrorist aka "gang member" than some foreign terrorist in any large American city.


Speak for yourself. :)



Every expert on this subject that I've seen discuss this issue has said that attacking Iran will only make things worse. I'd like to hear somebody explain how it would make things better taking into account everything that could go wrong and everything we'd have to take care of.

If attacking Iran will only make things worse, why the hell attack them? It makes no sense..

Gotta break a few eggs to make an omelette. It's an unpleasant fact and I'm sorry your experts don't like it. This could all be easily prevented by basic, simple measures on the part of Iran.

Nobody wants war , we just want to win if there has to be one . And I think all of us are in fear of war . I have a son who will be right back overthere in that place . I'm not the sacrificing mother type . I'm a mother first .

We just know it may happen . This is frustrating for the world . I'm surealot of those people don't want war either, but some are brainwashed into thinking they get special rewards for killing . So war to them is a lifestyle and honor . i have seen the mothers of some on vedio actually telling their sons ," don't come back to me alive " . And many mothers fighting in line to give money for the killing of jews and western infidels .

The Otterman Empire is being revised . They have help from alot of our neighbors south and north of the border . They have been paying these people $35,000 each to get accross with other illegals . The info is there for anyone who wants to find it . Our own nation has een invaded . Our enemies feed off each other .

And we know using military force to kill terrorists doesn't work, all you do is create even more terrorists defeating the whole purpose.


"We" don't know any such thing. How do you figure?



So because those that believe war is the answer to everything, we'll have to deal with more terrorism in the future, wonderful.



Blame whoever you want. I blame the terrorists; they have declared war (jihad) and they're not going to stop until one side is dead.

Blame the US military if you want.


For people that actually wish to reduce terrorism this is essential. The cowboy approach does not work. Period.


How many terrorist attacks in the US since 9/11? And don't give me any jibber-jabber, just state a number.

How many terrorist attacks in the US since 9/11?







And the neo-cons are fighting over resources, and they are justifying it by saying these the inhabitants of those countries are going to destroy us.


They're fighting for YOUR resources. Weren't you just crying about the price of gasoline five seconds ago?


But it's the excuse for an endless war in which our wealth is being transferred into the pockets of military industrial complex.


Somehow I don't think war would cease to exist if the US military-industrial complex did.

if Iran was going to attack, I doubt they'd do anything to stop it if they knew about it as well because it would give them the power they need, Bush's approval rating would be back up at 90%.


So what would you like them to do to prevent an attack from Iran?



And it had been 8 years prior to that, besides the fact that global terrorism increased after Bush attacked Iraq.



Well I live in America and we haven't had any attacks since 9/11. And a lot of people would love to attack us, so somebody must be doing something right.



Well I know one thing, the man that thinks of war as the first resort sure isn't the guy to listen to.



But the man who worries about gasoline prices before anything else and then wonders if the US should attack itself is the guy to listen to, right?




Nobody has all the answers,

Why are you speaking for Stone? He just said that he does indeed have the answers. He even offered to share them with us. He says they're "complicated".....I'm excited!

I'm not your research assistant. Anyone who denies that the Iranian government actively sponsors terrorist organizations is a damn fool, period.


You're not getting it, if they aren't attacking this country than it's a moot point.

The United States supports a terrorist organization that has not only killed Iranians, but has "killed U.S. military personnel and civilians working on defense projects in Tehran."

They support people who have killed our own, the irony is too much.

Lots of governments and people do some really nasty stuff, I wish there was something we could do about it, but unless we try to take over the world which is impossible, unfortunately we have to live some bad things, that's life on this backwards planet.



The whole point is to kill their "religious clerics". It will be pretty hard to support them after they're all dead.


Talk about creating a storm.. I thought this was just about taking out their nuclear facilities?


And the Bush administration's strategic folly of invading Iraq first doesn't change the threat posed by Iran acquiring nuclear technology.


In a cpmplicated world it just might be something we have to live with. We live with Pakistan having 60 something nukes, so why not Iran?


I suppose you could if you were a moron with no sense of realistic perspective. 70,000 people did not die due to Katrina,


Oh so the numbers have to match now? It's the same thing, look at all the homeless people in this country, why isn't the government helping them? they only care more about greed and waging war? Hmmmmm....


and the billions being spent in Iraq are largely going towards our military's desperate effort to prevent them from terrorizing each other.

We could be spending that cash here if we never had attacked Iraq in the first place.


Including the Iranian shi'ite militias coming across the border.


Who created that problem? I don't any Middle Eastern nations militaries or militias occupying anything in the Western Hemisphere.



Then why did you use it as a comparative analogy?


Because the actions of a few should never mean collective punishment for everybody.



"Some of their people"? Are you referring to Iran's government and religious police? Because that's who executed the teenage rape victim. Not just a random group of "some people" wandering through Iran.


And this threatens America how exactly?


I say again: it is childish idiocy to ask whether America should attack itself. Whether asked rhetorically or not, it is just a stupid question.


And it is stupid to fight terrorists with bombs, just like it would have been stupid to start bombing Texas to get one guy.


They have shown minimal interest in spnsoring global terror. Although I certainly wouldn't say we'll never have to worry about them again. After all, Putin is an evil bastard.


And they are the only country that truly threatens our survival. But that's never a issue or in the news.



Awww....I'm sorry. In that case, never mind then. Nuclear weapons for everybody!

Better to let americans starve! Needless wars are far more important! Halliburton could use the solid Gold toilets!



So your answer is to suck on that oil-covered Iranian/Saudi Arabian cock until the oil simply runs out? Then what?


Oh really? Even though I've advocated for years that we have zero business in the Middle East and we use energy sources like this >> http://www.hemp4fuel.com/nontesters/hemp4fuel/ instead?

Who makes billions off of sucking their cocks?

Could it be this cocksucker right here???

http://us.news3.yimg.com/us.i2.yimg.com/p/ap/20060416/capt.ny11304160537.exxon_riches_ny113.jpg?x=229&y=345&sig=7Xr84S9BLL3o8xtEcJBSxQ--

Exxon Chairman Gets $400 Million Retirement Package Amid Soaring Gas Prices

April 14, 2006— Soaring gas prices are squeezing most Americans at the pump, but at least one man isn't complaining.

Last year, Exxon made the biggest profit of any company ever, $36 billion, and its retiring chairman appears to be reaping the benefits.

Exxon is giving Lee Raymond one of the most generous retirement packages in history, nearly $400 million, including pension, stock options and other perks, such as a $1 million consulting deal, two years of home security, personal security, a car and driver, and use of a corporate jet for professional purposes.

http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/story?id=1841989&CMP=OTC-RSSFeeds0312

scum like that are the people who want us to keep using ME oil forever, not me.


Speak for yourself. :)


It's a simple statistical fact.

Just last year alone there were almost a hundred gang related murders in my city alone. Not one person was killed by an act of terrorism.

Don't think it's any different in your town, gangsters are nothing but urban terrorists.


Gotta break a few eggs to make an omelette. It's an unpleasant fact and I'm sorry your experts don't like it. This could all be easily prevented by basic, simple measures on the part of Iran.


Do you really believe that Bush won't attack Iran if they just go along with his demands? Saddam did everything we asked of him prior tothe invasion, we moved the goalposts with every passing day and invaded Iraq anyways. The invasion was long planned out by the neo-cons, the WMD thing was just a ploy to dupe gullible people (neo-cons) into supporting the attack.

We also know Bush believes he is on a mission from God to re-make the Middle East, unfortunately Iran's president which was helped into office by Bush rallying the extremist Iranian vote with his axis of evil rhetoric and invasion of Iraq isn't helping things.

Which makes me think of an article I just read here >> http://www.recordonline.com/archive/2006/04/17/news-bethcolapril17-04-17.html

CA, all I can do is express disbelief that I used to mouth the same opinions that you are now repeating. I guess it was easier with Iraq, which logically should not have been a primary target.

You equate the government of Iran and their actions with that of the US government and their actions. I do not.

You feel that any country should be allowed to have nuclear weapons, no matter what they say or do. I do not.

You believe that the US can curl up into a ball, continue to enjoy cheap gasoline, and pretend that major upheaval in the middle-east is not inevitable and hasn't already begun. I disagree.

You call the absence of any terrorist activity in the US for the last five years a strategic failure because Muslim tribes continue to slaughter each other in foreign countries. I do not.

We'll just have to leave it at that.

And the Bush administration's strategic folly of invading Iraq first doesn't change the threat posed by Iran acquiring nuclear technology.

It's hard to have much hope for a country whose citizens are so terrified of their own shadows that there is literally no bucket full of government-issued propaganda that they will not swallow gratefully as long as it provides a rationale for the one course of action that helps to dull their chronic fear and loathing -- bombing someone. Our country is so far gone, our moral and intellectual standards so degraded, that the government doesn't even need to invent new lies to whip the clueless terrified populace into a blood-thirsty frenzy; it simply recycles the same crap it used the last time, and continues its crime spree in broad daylight.

It really is true that we get the government we deserve, and to the extent Mandrake is representative, we deserve the very worst.

It's hard to have much hope for a country whose citizens are so terrified of their own shadows that there is literally no bucket full of government-issued propaganda that they will not swallow gratefully as long as it provides a rationale for the one course of action that helps to dull their chronic fear and loathing -- bombing someone. Our country is so far gone, our moral and intellectual standards so degraded, that the government doesn't even need to invent new lies to whip the clueless terrified populace into a blood-thirsty frenzy; it simply recycles the same crap it used the last time, and continues its crime spree in broad daylight.

It really is true that we get the government we deserve, and to the extent Mandrake is representative, we deserve the very worst.

Haha, you don't know how reassuring it is to hear you say that. The confidence I hold in my opinions is inversely proportional to the esteem afforded them by polemicists such as yourself.

Did yall forget what the presidents of Russia and China said about us ? They said American hedgemony is over . This was several months ago . I posted the website then .

better get the bunkers ready is all I can say . Not that it will do much good, since we are being infiltrated with millions of enemies a year under the protection of both parties .

They don't care about this continent anymore ,imo .

what you just said... is... everyone is our enemy...

*bump