• 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

WildCat said:
No it's not Oliver. Your impression that my thoughts are based from a racist POV is complete and utter BS. If you were a halfway decent human being you'd apologize, but frankly I don't think you're even in the ballpark.
Click to expand...


I could apologize out of politeness but I didn't make an direct
accusation - I just said that you and others arguments sound
like that. I didn't say that you're or others are racists.

Many arguments I heard so far are out of antipathy towards
Iran out of the fact that there are Anti-American and Anti-
Israeli tendencies. My point is that I grant them this kind of
Freedom of Speech as long they don't start to bomb foreign
countries or even invade them.

They don't have a history in doing so in contrast to others
and I see a solution for the conflicts - it's called "friendly
and open diplomacy".

Too bad that this isn't the doctrine of US-Foreign policies,
it would make the world a more friendly place - and supporting
the Idea that people wake up and see that we all had the
same mother and father some million years ago.

Now I know that some people rather like to head towards
a collision - but to me it doesn't make any sense unless
there is a good portion of woo, religion or stupidity involved.
Because I don't see Iran as a threat - they don't have the
ugly behavior to invade and kill people all over the world
in their own interests - aka: Egoism
 
Look at the ******* loser Giuliani whining about Iran....

"Meet the Press":
 
Oliver said:
it would make the world a more friendly place - and supporting the Idea that people wake up and see that we all had the same mother and father some million years ago.

Now I know that some people rather like to head towards a collision - but to me it doesn't make any sense unless there is a good portion of woo, religion or stupidity involved.
Click to expand...

:eye-poppi
 
Last edited:
I think that what Oliver is simply saying is that people should not have double standards because it destroys their credibility. If so then I agree 100%. Each time a nation condemns a policy and then proceeds to adopt that same condemned policy when deemed convenient it loses respect and credibility needed for a cooperative response. If this is repeated sufficiently, everything which that country proposes or condemns will become suspect. So it is in the best interest both on an interpersonal and an international level to abide by the standards which one demands that others keep.
 
Last edited:
Matteo Martini said:
The report basically said that Iran will not get nukes ( even if they wanted to ) until 2015.
Still Giuliani wants to keep the military option on the table..
Click to expand...
So long as the US has a military, it has that option: to use it.

I will point out that the US Fifth Fleet was specifically formed, organizatinally, as recently as 1995, as the HQ to run Naval Operations in the Persian Gulf. It was not a full up "Fleet" command previously. When American naval forces are in the Persian Gulf, the option is always open to do "something" military, irrespective of what goes on in Iraq, for example.

But it goes farther than that. As long as the US has B-2 bombers, which it does, an option to strike Iran is available 24/7.

Giuliani is pandering to a particular domestic audience. He wants to rattle a saber, to talk tough. The reality is, the military option is always available. A rational reason to exercise it? Perhaps not always there.

DR
 
Last edited:
Matteo Martini said:
Good, then Iran should try to develop a nuke, after all.
If that comes down to be the only way not to get attacked by the U.S.
Click to expand...

This is turning into a screwed up catch 22. You don't want Iran to have nukes and the US won't attack Iran if they don't have them but they want nukes to prevent the US from attacking them because if they have nukes the US won't attack them?
 
Policenaut said:
This is turning into a screwed up catch 22. You don't want Iran to have nukes and the US won't attack Iran if they don't have them but they want nukes to prevent the US from attacking them because if they have nukes the US won't attack them?
Click to expand...

The catch 22 comes from your assertions.
Leave Iran alone, do not threathen them, and they will not need to develop nukes.
 
Matteo Martini said:
Sure.
But, that does not condone the lie(s) that Cheney said, right?
Click to expand...

No, not at all, nor does it advocate immediate military intervention. It just means that Iran is not a completely harmless nation that should just be left alone. They have plans, and I can certainly see how nukes could become a useful deterrent for them in the future, against a threat they themselves created.
 
jsiv said:
No, not at all, nor does it advocate immediate military intervention. It just means that Iran is not a completely harmless nation that should just be left alone.
Click to expand...

Are the US a " completely harmless nation that should just be left alone "??

jsiv said:
They have plans, and I can certainly see how nukes could become a useful deterrent for them in the future, against a threat they themselves created.
Click to expand...

Which is the threat " they themselves created "?
 
Matteo Martini said:
Good, then Iran should try to develop a nuke, after all.
If that comes down to be the only way not to get attacked by the U.S.
Click to expand...

About a year ago, in the Politics sub forum, I suggested an approach to Iran and their nuclear weapons development program.

Is it really that big a deal?

All one needs to do once Iran has successfully developed their nukes is to send a cryptic telegram, roughly as follows, once a few target lists are updated.

Dear Ayatollah Whomevershinzani

Welcome to the nuclear weapons club.

You are now targeted by our nuclear strategic forces, which you were not previously, as you were not previously a credible nuclear threat.

Thanks to our need for deterrence, and our allies, we have added a variety of your cities, commercial centres, infrastructure, port facilities, and other choice targets to our active target list. Oh, and your house.

You left us little choice.

Sleep well with that knowledge.

Warmest regards (or alternatively, "see you in Hell")

The President of the US
 
Last edited:
WildCat said:
Continuing to enrich uranium
Click to expand...

They have the right to do that under the international law

WildCat said:
and not cooperating with the IAEA,
Click to expand...

Not true

WildCat said:
as well as supporting terrorist groups such as Hezbollah.
Click to expand...

Mm..
Not sure about that.
Not even sure you can call Hezbollah a terrorist group
But, do you want a list about how many dictators did the US support instead?
Why not punish you Americans for that too?
 
Darth Rotor said:
About a year ago, in the Politics sub forum, I suggested an approach to Iran and their nuclear weapons development program.

Is it really that big a deal?

All one needs to do once Iran has successfully developed their nukes is to send a cryptic telegram, roughly as follows, once a few target lists are updated.
Click to expand...

Let alone the fact that Iran is not developing nuclear weapons, would you tell me with which right the US, the country that has one of the largest ( the lasgest? ) arsenal of nukes in the world and the only country in history that used nukes against civilians, has to say to other countries what is right and wrong?

Why India, Russia, China, etc. etc. seem to have no problem with Iran?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom