Iran Is Now A Top Threat To America

[Truth Teller]

Are you trying to say you got laid at some point in your life?



Isn't your RACIST political philosophy called zionism causing all the problems.

BUFFOON ALERT!

It's not about fear of a terrorist attack: it's about making the tough choices. Wishing and half-measures won't make the preventable disaster inherent in Iranian nuclearization go away.

Bingo!

Coming from an asshole who supports Hamas and Al Qaeda, that's just rich.

Amen!

[Guido]

Coming from an asshole who supports Hamas and Al Qaeda, that's just rich.

You sound like Teller, dumbfuck. You have no idea what I do and do not "support," Walter Mitty.

[Cyclone Ranger]

In the wake of exhausting conflicts like Iraq and Afghanistan, the difficult choice is to take necessary prophylaxsis against a nuclear Iran, even though it's the last thing any of us want to do.

Not going to war won't bring peace, because a nuclear Iran means peace isn't an option.

[Cyclone Ranger]

You sound like Teller, dumbfuck. You have no idea what I do and do not "support," Walter Mitty.

Go fuck yourself, you snotty little twit. You've said as much yourself on numerous occasions.

[302Riz]

In the wake of exhausting conflicts like Iraq and Afghanistan, the difficult choice is to take necessary prophylaxsis against a nuclear Iran, even though it's the last thing any of us want to do.

Not going to war won't bring peace, because a nuclear Iran means peace isn't an option.

So China, Russia, Pakistan, India, Isreal and a host of other countries have nuclear weapons. Why are we selectively attacking one country over another? If we attack one, shouldnt we attack all?

[Šñøü†ê®]

Not going to war won't bring peace, because a nuclear Iran means peace isn't an option.

^ZIONAZI ALERT!

[Truth Teller]

Starting war or avoiding war?

Who (outside of Snouter) says the US or Israel is "starting war" ?

It will either be New York City or DC.

Or LA ,or San Francisco ,or Houston,or Atlanta ,etc.

Maybe even back to Oaklahoma City?

[Cyclone Ranger]

So China, Russia, Pakistan, India, Isreal and a host of other countries have nuclear weapons. Why are we selectively attacking one country over another? If we attack one, shouldnt we attack all?

For the very simple reason that those other countries aren't Iran.

[302Riz]

Now I have to pose the question to all the pro Iran warhawks.

Do you think that Iran would be developing nuclear weapons if they didnt feel threated by the US?

[302Riz]

For the very simple reason that those other countries aren't Iran.

But you want to preemptively attack Iran because they are "developing a nuclear weapon", yes? If that is your reasoning, wouldnt it be prudent to attack all the other countries on this planet who have nuclear weapons?

[302Riz]

Who (outside of Snouter) says the US or Israel is "starting war" ?

Do you know what preemptive means?

Or LA ,or San Francisco ,or Houston,or Atlanta ,etc.

Maybe even back to Oaklahoma City?

None of those cities have been attacked by international terrorists. NYC and DC have.

[Cyclone Ranger]

If simply destroying their nuclear capabilities constitutes preemption, yes. Almost everyone agrees that preemption is justified on some occasions.

[86Dùde]

The odds of a specific individual dying in a terrorist attack might be low, but the odds of the city of New York being attacked by terrorists aren't. You know, it already happened a few times.

We're certainly not going to leave the door open to seeing if three times is a charm.

I hate to break it to you but there have multiple independent reentry vehicles with thermonuclear payloads targeting your city for at least 30 years. Your city is destined to disappear under a mushroom cloud sooner or later.

[86Dùde]

If simply destroying their nuclear capabilities constitutes preemption, yes. Almost everyone agrees that preemption is justified on some occasions.

Israel doesn't have the technical ability to pull it off. It will sit them a few years back at the most. The US MIGHT be able to pull it off but it isn't a certainty. At that point your only guarantee is that Iran will build a nuclear weapon and spawn an ME arms race.

[86Dùde]

But you want to preemptively attack Iran because they are "developing a nuclear weapon", yes? If that is your reasoning, wouldnt it be prudent to attack all the other countries on this planet who have nuclear weapons?

Iraq had weapons too!

[Truth Teller]

Now I have to pose the question to all the pro Iran warhawks.

Do you think that Iran would be developing nuclear weapons if they didnt feel threated by the US?

This has been going on for 33 years.

[Cyclone Ranger]

I hate to break it to you but there have multiple independent reentry vehicles with thermonuclear payloads targeting your city for at least 30 years. Your city is destined to disappear under a mushroom cloud sooner or later.

Not Iranian dirty bombs, however.

[86Dùde]

The odds of a specific individual dying in a terrorist attack might be low, but the odds of the city of New York being attacked by terrorists aren't. You know, it already happened a few times.

We're certainly not going to leave the door open to seeing if three times is a charm.

1 of those times doesn't count.

[Cyclone Ranger]

Israel doesn't have the technical ability to pull it off. It will sit them a few years back at the most. The US MIGHT be able to pull it off but it isn't a certainty. At that point your only guarantee is that Iran will build a nuclear weapon and spawn an ME arms race.

Those are the chances we'll have to take. That's what being a grown-up is all about.

[Truth Teller]

Do you know what preemptive means?

But who caused the threat?

Again,if you think Iran is so innocent and the US is so bad,go move there.

None of those cities have been attacked by international terrorists. NYC and DC have.

There always can be a first time Einstein.