• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Time to kick Iran

Oliver said:
Well, to sum up all replies so far:

Skeptics: "No, there is no evidence for Iran's plan to build nuclear
weapons or sell nuclear, high-enriched material to others."

Woo's: "Woo, Nuclear Holocaust!!11!eleven!!! Mushroom clouds!!11!!1!!!OMG!11!"

Is there anything else to say about this issue?
Click to expand...

Yes, you are the first and only one on my ignore list
 
tsig said:
Yes, you are the first and only one on my ignore list
Click to expand...


Then, my friend, you have reality on ignore as well. Just found
another Article at Newsweek that reveals some facts the whiny
wieners don't want you to know:

Stalin, Mao And … Ahmadinejad?

Conservatives have become surprisingly charitable about two of history's greatest mass murderers.

Here is the reality. Iran has an economy the size of Finland’s and an annual defense budget of around $4.8 billion. It has not invaded a country since the late 18th century. The United States has a GDP that is 68 times larger and defense expenditures that are 110 times greater. Israel and every Arab country (except Syria and Iraq) are quietly or actively allied against Iran. And yet we are to believe that Tehran is about to overturn the international system and replace it with an Islamo-fascist order? What planet are we on? [:confused:]

Full Article: http://www.newsweek.com/id/57346
Click to expand...
 
Oliver said:
No, because I rely on valid information:
Click to expand...

And large fonts. If it's in big red capital letters, how can it not be true?

So, Oliver, since according to you civilians don't control the government, who does? You never answered that.
 
Iran has no plans for an A bomb.:rolleyes:
Iran would never use their Iran Bomb to strike Israel first.:shocked:
A Dem will most likely be in the Oval Office when Iran gets their much loved IslamoBomb.:yikes::dig:
 
I inserted numbers for convenience.
HL7442 said:
1. Iran has no plans for an A bomb.:rolleyes:

2. Iran would never use their Iran Bomb to strike Israel first.:shocked:

3. A Dem will most likely be in the Oval Office when Iran gets their much loved IslamoBomb.:yikes::dig:
Click to expand...
1. How do you support that statement? Do you read minds intercontinentally?

2. How do you support a speculation like that? Do you read minds and tell the future?

3. What does a Dem in the White House have to do with Iran getting a bomb? Care to elaborate?

IMO, Iran's pursuit of "The Bomb" can be explained as seeking a credible deterrent, the trouble is (other than NPT issues) the confidence building measures undertaken to satisfy all of its neighbors, and the global community, that such is all they want it for. At the moment, such assurances don't look very credible. Perhaps that will change in time, perhaps not.

Bet it any way you like, I call it "pick 'em."

DR
 
Put it to you this way:
1. Iran wants the bomb to protect the crusty ol' mullah dictatorship and to dominate other Gulf states as well as threaten Israel.
2. Iran would in my opinion launch a first strike against Israel but hopefully the IDF would deter the moron mullhas from doing that.
3. A Dem in the Oval Office would allow Iran to have the bomb in my opinion. I have yet to see a Democrat President take a hard line...i.e. military action, against an expansionist islamic gov't. Please don't even bring up Slick Willy's Tomahawk strike against Sudan and Afghanistan as evidence otherwise.
 
It's funny how everyone is talking about Iran's nukes as if
they already had a pile of them. Strangely enough - some
people living in reality claim that they don't even have a
nuclear weapon program.

Sometimes I think the whole United States is one big
conspiracy theory forum. No wonder that people are
confused in such an opinion-based country.

The Secret History of the Impending War with Iran
That the White House Doesn't Want You to Know:

Two former high-ranking policy experts from the Bush Administration say the U.S. has been gearing up for a war with Iran for years, despite claiming otherwise. It'll be Iraq all over again.

Full Article: http://www.esquire.com/print-this/iranbriefing1107
Click to expand...
 
Does someone in here know why Russia is so opposed to a military
intervention in Iran? I thought their Intelligence is capable to estimate
the threat coming from Iran...

Russia: Attacking Iran is attacking us

ETA: And as a side-node: A neocon Bootlicker getting his *** kicked
about his whiny, paranoid "end of the world"-agenda concerning Iran... :

 
Last edited:
Oliver said:
Does someone in here know why Russia is so opposed to a military intervention in Iran?
Click to expand...

Because Putin wants to restart the cold war, but to do that, he needs all the allies he can get, and he wants Iran to be one of those allies. Furthermore, as an oil exporter, Russia benefits from turmoil in the middle east, and given the shabby state of Russia's economy, they really need those high oil prices.

This is the man who said that the implosion of the USSR was the greatest historical tragedy ever. Why, exactly, are you taking your geopolitical cues from him?

Oh, and you still haven't answered my question. You stated that civilians don't control the US government. So who does?
 
Ziggurat said:
Because Putin wants to restart the cold war, but to do that, he needs all the allies he can get, and he wants Iran to be one of those allies. Furthermore, as an oil exporter, Russia benefits from turmoil in the middle east, and given the shabby state of Russia's economy, they really need those high oil prices.

This is the man who said that the implosion of the USSR was the greatest historical tragedy ever. Why, exactly, are you taking your geopolitical cues from him?

Oh, and you still haven't answered my question. You stated that civilians don't control the US government. So who does?
Click to expand...


*lol* That would imply that the current US-Government would
love to go into that direction and that Putin knew about that
despite all his convergency in the past. BTW: That's ridiculous.

To answer your question: Yes, the people in the Government
are US-Citizens. That wasn't my point - my point was that they're
not acting in the name of their citizens...

Or how do you explain the Presidents and the Congress's
approval ratings? :boggled:

Bill Maher sums up the Iran-Thread pretty well... :
 
Last edited:
Oliver said:
*lol* That would imply that the current US-Government would love to go into that direction
Click to expand...

No, it doesn't. It only takes one side to start a conflict, even a cold one.

and that Putin knew about that despite all his convergency in the past.
Click to expand...

Your English skills are failing you, because this means nothing. I suspect you meant something other than the word I bolded, but I have no idea what it is. Hell, given what you said next, I'm not even convinced you know what the hell you were trying to say.

To answer your question: Yes, the people in the Government are US-Citizens. That wasn't my point - my point was that they're not acting in the name of their citizens...
Click to expand...

The word we were using was civilian, not citizen. I can understand some confusion about the meaning of the word "civilian", because hey, you're not a native speaker, but honestly, not being able to keep track of which word you're using is pathetic. No wonder you got taken in by a satirical interview which was supposed to take place in the future.

As for Bill Maher, why exactly should I care what the leading man of the movie "Cannibal Women in the Avocado Jungle of Death" has to say about anything?
 
Last edited:
Ziggurat said:
No, it doesn't. It only takes one side to start a conflict, even a cold one.

Your English skills are failing you, because this means nothing. I suspect you meant something other than the word I bolded, but I have no idea what it is. Hell, given what you said next, I'm not even convinced you know what the hell you were trying to say.

The word we were using was civilian, not citizen. I can understand some confusion about the meaning of the word "civilian", because hey, you're not a native speaker, but honestly, not being able to keep track of which word you're using is pathetic. No wonder you got taken in by a satirical interview which was supposed to take place in the future.

As for Bill Maher, why exactly should I care what the leading man of the movie "Cannibal Women in the Avocado Jungle of Death" has to say about anything?
Click to expand...


By "convergence" I meant that Putin did a "heck of a job" to
come closer to US interests. The "missile shield and the Iran
Issue" solely shows that there are boundaries concerning the
relationship.

Now this doesn't say anything about Russia's willingness to
get to another Cold War. Quite the opposite - it's time for the
US to comply with their neighbors as well instead ignoring them
whenever it will "make little Bushy&Co cry".

Iran is an imaginary threat. You know this as well - even if I
understand your agenda.

And no matter if "civilians" or "citizens" - my point is the same:

To answer your question: Yes, the people in the Government
are US-[civilians]. That wasn't my point - my point was that they're
not acting in the name of their citizens...

Or how do you explain the Presidents and the Congress's
approval ratings? :boggled:
Click to expand...
 
Oliver said:
And no matter if "civilians" or "citizens" - my point is the same:
Click to expand...

Which is quite beside the point of the original question, which was whether or not you believed civilian control of the military is critical to democracy. Apparently you don't - though in fairness, that may be because of your complete cluelessness rather than any actual opinion on the topic.
 
Ziggurat said:
Which is quite beside the point of the original question, which was whether or not you believed civilian control of the military is critical to democracy. Apparently you don't - though in fairness, that may be because of your complete cluelessness rather than any actual opinion on the topic.
Click to expand...


The military is controlled by the people? To what extent? You're kidding, right?
They're controlled by politics and it would be worrisome if this wouldn't be the case.

There is a reason why the Iranian's declared the US-Military and the CIA as
being terrorists. There's truth to that, isn't there?
 
You and your non sequiturs need to get a divorce. (Or maybe just a trial separation?) ;)
HL7442 said:
3. A Dem in the Oval Office would allow Iran to have the bomb in my opinion.
Click to expand...
A GOP leader in the White House didn't prevent North Korea from getting their nuke on, what does the US party in power have to do with Iran, (or any other nation) getting a nuke? America has interests that transcend party differences.

Also, it isn't all about us.

Russia, China, and others have cards to play in this game. All the rhetoric from Clinton and Bush, and their noisemakers, about the US being the sole superpower is just that, rhetoric.
I have yet to see a Democrat President take a hard line...i.e. military action, against an expansionist islamic gov't. Please don't even bring up Slick Willy's Tomahawk strike against Sudan and Afghanistan as evidence otherwise.
Click to expand...
Willy wasn't reacting to an expansionist Islamic government with those Tomahawks. His catering to Muslim/Islamic interests in Bosnia is a data point in evidence for assessing him as an Islamist appeaser. There are other data points against. I am risking a derail, so shall stop here.

DR
 
Last edited:
Oliver said:
The military is controlled by the people? To what extent? You're kidding, right?
They're controlled by politics and it would be worrisome if this wouldn't be the case.
Click to expand...

We've already been over this. Politicians are civilians. "Civilian" is a different word than "citizen". If you're having trouble with what words mean, look it up. How can you be this stupid? I mean, do you have to practice?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom