Time to kick Iran

[RandFan]

So you're not even able to explain an "imaginary" threat to a non-adult person.
Well, I see... Your wisdom is endlessly ...

No, I just tire of bickering with someone who is incapable of grasping simple concepts.

 

[Oliver]

Russia is certainly still a threat, which is why we spend millions on preemptively sending out fighter jets and navy ships to watch them virtually every day.

Sweden isn't a threat today, but it could quickly become one if the world changes, so it makes perfect sense to plan for the possibility. That is why we have a military.

I am not "playing dumb" or picking on you, I'm just pointing out that your alternative interpretation of words is a serious problem that makes debate difficult.

threat (thrĕt) http://content.answers.com/main/content/img/pron.gif
n.

1. An expression of an intention to inflict pain, injury, evil, or punishment.
2. An indication of impending danger or harm.
3. One that is regarded as a possible danger; a menace.

You do not have to actually attack someone to be a threat.

Sweden is no threat until they go crazy and attack other countries preemptively.
That won't happen - and even if, it wouldn't last long.

So in my assumption, Norway and Sweden pose no threats to world-peace.
No matter if WMD's are involved or not.

Or how would you feel if the President of the US would declare Norway or
Sweden as a threat just because they have WMD's?

 

[Oliver]

No, I just tire of bickering with someone who is incapable of grasping simple concepts.

I understand very well that the US has thousands of nuclear weapons
and Iran isn't allowed to even have one. Why don't you understand that hypocrisy???

Playing stupid???

 

[Ziggurat]

"Proportionally".

No, Oliver. "Proportionality" is a different word than "proportionally", though they are closely related. The former is a noun, the latter is an adverb. RandFan used the correct form (the noun form) in the context of his argument.

 

[jsiv]

Sweden is no threat until they go crazy and attack other countries preemptively.
That won't happen - and even if, it wouldn't last long.

I said that they could potentially become a threat in the future. Are you even paying attention? And no, Sweden does not have to "go crazy and attack other countries preemptively" to become a threat to us.

So in my assumption, Norway and Sweden pose no threats to world-peace.
No matter if WMD's are involved or not.

Huh? That's not the point. Yes, the US has greater responsibility, but that doesn't mean that they don't have the same right as us to prepare for all possibilities.

Or how would you feel if the President of the US would declare Norway or
Sweden as a threat just because they have WMD's?

Considering Norway's strategic importance, I have no doubt that the US has various plans drawn up to deal with us.

If we had any weapons capable of reaching the US, I would expect them to have us on a list of potential threats. I have no problem with this.

 

[Ziggurat]

I understand very well that the US has thousands of nuclear weapons
and Iran isn't allowed to even have one. Why don't you understand that hypocrisy???

Playing stupid???

There's no hypocricy at all. Iran agreed not to have any. Playing stupid, indeed.

Oh, and knock it off with the font size. It's annoying, it hinders readability, and it doesn't make your argument any more convincing. Bolding, itallics, and underlines are plenty sufficient for emphasis, and if you really feel the need to shout, you can use ALL UPPER CASE without actually increasing the font size.

 

[Oliver]

No, Oliver. "Proportionality" is a different word than "proportionally", though they are closely related. The former is a noun, the latter is an adverb. RandFan used the correct form (the noun form) in the context of his argument.

Okay, appreciated. I will trash my translator once I don't need it anymore, promised.
Are you able to explain why Iran is a quote: "Nuclear Holocaust threat"?

 

[Ziggurat]

The official Statements about Iran from the German minister of foreign relations are here:

http://www.germany.info/relaunch/politics/speeches/021907.html

Which amounts to "let's wait a while longer, and if that doesn't do anything, maybe we'll enact tougher sanctions". The possibility of anything beyond that simply doesn't exist for him. Even France gets that it's at least possible that only military action can stop Iran from getting nukes. Not even on the radar for Germany.

 

[Oliver]

Which amounts to "let's wait a while longer, and if that doesn't do anything, maybe we'll enact tougher sanctions". The possibility of anything beyond that simply doesn't exist for him. Even France gets that it's at least possible that only military action can stop Iran from getting nukes. Not even on the radar for Germany.

So what the heck is your opinion about a country having >one< nuclear
weapon living in a country that has dozens of them? Hypocrisy much?

Care to explain that to me?

The only option to argue is "But, but, but - they're a theocracy".
And I will counter: "So what? Is a President going to god- ordered, preemtive wars" theocracy as well?

 

[Ziggurat]

So what the heck is your opinion about a country having >one< nuclear
weapon living in a country that has dozens of them? Hypocrisy much?

Care to explain that to me?

Care to actually read the thread? I already gave an answer.

The only option to argue is "But, but, but - they're a theocracy".

No, Oliver. The first and primary argument against Iran having nukes is because they agreed not to have nukes. Do you not get that? No, evidently you don't. Even after me telling you that, several posts back. You're not doing well so far, Oliver.

And I will counter: "So what? Is a President going to god- ordered, preemtive wars" theocracy as well?

No, Oliver, the US is not a theocracy. A theocracy is a structural form of government. Whatever the personal reasons Bush had for deciding to go to war, that's all they were: his personal reasons. Nothing about the governmental structure of the United States, or about the formal process by which a decision was actually made to go to war (in case you didn't notice, Bush hardly did it alone, nor could he), were at all religious. Besides which, there's no evidence other than the word of some Palestinian politician that Bush ever said anything like that, so there's really no reason to think that actually was what Bush believed. IIRC that's been pointed out to you before as well. But you swallow that claim about Bush as complete truth because it fits your prejudices. One does not have to think very highly of that decision to know that the argument you're making here is complete and utter codswallop.

 

[Oliver]

Care to actually read the thread? I already gave an answer.

No, Oliver. The first and primary argument against Iran having nukes is because they agreed not to have nukes. Do you not get that? No, evidently you don't. Even after me telling you that, several posts back. You're not doing well so far, Oliver.

No, Oliver, the US is not a theocracy. A theocracy is a structural form of government. Whatever the personal reasons Bush had for deciding to go to war, that's all they were: his personal reasons. Nothing about the governmental structure of the United States, or about the formal process by which a decision was actually made to go to war (in case you didn't notice, Bush hardly did it alone, nor could he), were at all religious. Besides which, there's no evidence other than the word of some Palestinian politician that Bush ever said anything like that, so there's really no reason to think that actually was what Bush believed. IIRC that's been pointed out to you before as well. But you swallow that claim about Bush as complete truth because it fits your prejudices. One does not have to think very highly of that decision to know that the argument you're making here is complete and utter codswallop.

I'm not talking about a theocratic political system - but rather talking about
a medial theocratic system. Once the Government found it's new Castro,
Saddam or Ahmadinejad, the unbelievable stupid US-Mainstream Media
adopts these stupid allegations.

So what's the difference to a political system based on Theocracy?

Right - there are none.

Remember the run-up to the Iraq-war? Remember Cheney's wise words?
You're right - the US citizens adopted their leaders theocratic Woo-conclusions....

So you're argument to believe them again is ... Woo-Propaganda again???

 

[Pardalis]

I don't think Oliver makes any sense anymore.

 

[Oliver]

I don't think Oliver makes any sense anymore.

Read again, Goury ... Oh, I forgot - you don't watch US-Television ...

 

[Pardalis]

Read again, Goury ... Oh, I forgot - you don't watch US-Television ...

I don't ?

 

[Gurdur]

I don't think Oliver makes any sense anymore.

Oliver is probably posting while drinking (PWD), and he is also getting very resentful at not getting taken seriously any more.

Mind you, he never did make all that much sense, but I agree, it has grown worse and worse very recently.

 

[Oliver]

I don't ?

Yes, you said you don't watch US-Television - that's why you had no
Idea how the US portrays the ugly, Canadian UHC-System.

 

[jsiv]

What's a Goury?

 

[Oliver]

Oliver is probably posting while drinking (PWD), and he is also getting very resentful at not getting taken seriously any more.

Mind you, he never did make all that much sense, but I agree, it has grown worse and worse very recently.

@Gurdur: Rule 11 and 12.

 

[Pardalis]

Oliver is probably posting while drinking (PWD), and he is also getting very resentful at not getting taken seriously any more.

Mind you, he never did make all that much sense, but I agree, it has grown worse and worse very recently.

I think he's more confused than anything else, like he's being fed ideas (my guess is from the other side of the street) and trying to validate them here on this forum.

 

[Pardalis]

Yes, you said you don't watch US-Television - that's why you had no
Idea how the US portrays the ugly, Canadian UHC-System.

No. I said I didn't watch Fox.

I do watch CNN, ABC, NBC, HBO and other US tv networks.