Oleg Bach Posted February 17, 2010 Report Posted February 17, 2010 The current Iranian regime is a dictatorship, a theocracy. For centuries, we in the West have fought against such regimes among our own. We have done it as individuals (Galileo) and collectively (Normandy). Iran is both a western and eastern country. At the moment, its pendulum has swung east. It will soon swing west again. I think that Iranians (Persians) will deal with this their own way. This Islamic Regime will not last. Iran is not a theocracy any more than the American system is...neither side is run by the god squad. All evidence points to the fact that Iran just wants to be like the states..a sovereign power run by their own little mafia cabal. All gangs need weapons to maintain respect - to bad that it is this way - but why should Iran or anyother nation feel the need to submit to AMERICAN imperical force?? Quote
eyeball Posted February 17, 2010 Report Posted February 17, 2010 I do not think it is inevitable. If I did, I would argue we should decapitate their intellectual capital right away. Centrifuges are useless if there is no one alive to run them I suspect chemical weapons would do the trick, or did you have something more humane in mind? Quote A government without public oversight is like a nuclear plant without lead shielding.
M.Dancer Posted February 17, 2010 Report Posted February 17, 2010 I suspect chemical weapons would do the trick, or did you have something more humane in mind? No, something quite terrible. Hack their computers so they are forced to watch 10 one hour youtube videos of you dressed up to be a deep thinker, spoutting your nonsensical world view. By the end most will think the west are filled with blithering idiots and give up their nuclear ambitions as redundant. The remainder will be hors combat, forever serching for their bongs... Quote RIGHT of SOME, LEFT of OTHERS If it is a choice between them and us, I choose us
DogOnPorch Posted February 17, 2010 Report Posted February 17, 2010 (edited) No you are not aware of the fact. You are aware of very little. Seeing that an Arab based company in Singapore supplied Saddam with the precursors for their actual nerve gas program, it is always amusing to see Donald's handshake with Saddam used as proof of America's arming of Iraq*. Last time I checked, Iraq under Saddam used all Russian equipment...still does in many cases. * Note: there are no WMDs in Iraq...never was...even though we know Saddam had 'em. Edited February 17, 2010 by DogOnPorch Quote Nothing cracks a turtle like Leon Uris.
bloodyminded Posted February 17, 2010 Report Posted February 17, 2010 So now we're denying even that which the US government ADMITS? :) Beautiful. Wow, they must love their frightened, patriotic useful little idiots. The government can even tell the truth...and their worshippers will concoct contradictory lies to support them. Quote As scarce as truth is, the supply has always been in excess of the demand. --Josh Billings
GostHacked Posted February 17, 2010 Report Posted February 17, 2010 I do not think it is inevitable. If I did, I would argue we should decapitate their intellectual capital right away. I doubt anything would be done. Even the US is aware of the backlash that would cause. If a poor ass country with nothing of interest to any other country on the planet can get a nuke, Iran will get theirs. Not only that, they won't be the last 'bad-guy' to build a nuke. Quote
DogOnPorch Posted February 17, 2010 Report Posted February 17, 2010 So now we're denying even that which the US government ADMITS? :) Beautiful. Wow, they must love their frightened, patriotic useful little idiots. The government can even tell the truth...and their worshippers will concoct contradictory lies to support them. America admits supplying WMDs to Saddam's Iraq? Interesting. Quote Nothing cracks a turtle like Leon Uris.
M.Dancer Posted February 17, 2010 Report Posted February 17, 2010 (edited) I doubt anything would be done. Even the US is aware of the backlash that would cause. So in your view, surgical air stikes on the targets and the supporting infrastructure would be more contentious than say....invading Iraq? Would you like to rephrase that? Edited February 17, 2010 by M.Dancer Quote RIGHT of SOME, LEFT of OTHERS If it is a choice between them and us, I choose us
M.Dancer Posted February 17, 2010 Report Posted February 17, 2010 America admits supplying WMDs to Saddam's Iraq? Interesting. Maybe it was on Alex Jones or tinfoilhat.com and you missed it. Quote RIGHT of SOME, LEFT of OTHERS If it is a choice between them and us, I choose us
DogOnPorch Posted February 17, 2010 Report Posted February 17, 2010 Maybe it was on Alex Jones or tinfoilhat.com and you missed it. America is 'guilty' of shipping Iraq so-called duel-use technologies intended for agricultural use. Anthrax, botulism and such. That wasn't the source of Iraq's chemical weapons program, though. Quote Nothing cracks a turtle like Leon Uris.
Oleg Bach Posted February 17, 2010 Report Posted February 17, 2010 Persian woman are the most beautiful on earth..maybe we could do what the British attempted with their colonialist underlings and breed the bastards into submission..that would be very human and very enjoyable-- make love not war as they say. Quote
M.Dancer Posted February 17, 2010 Report Posted February 17, 2010 America is 'guilty' of shipping Iraq so-called duel-use technologies intended for agricultural use. Anthrax, botulism and such. That wasn't the source of Iraq's chemical weapons program, though. Yes I know. Eyeball is against interefering with other countries. That includes selling technology that would modernize their agricultural industries, hospitals, roads... Quote RIGHT of SOME, LEFT of OTHERS If it is a choice between them and us, I choose us
eyeball Posted February 17, 2010 Report Posted February 17, 2010 In defense of what I've said... November, 1983. Banca Nazionale del Lavoro of Italy and its Branch in Atlanta begin to funnel $5 billion in unreported loans to Iraq. Iraq, with the blessing and official approval of the US government, purchased computer controlled machine tools, computers, scientific instruments, special alloy steel and aluminum, chemicals, and other industrial goods for Iraq's missile, chemical, biological and nuclear weapons programs. [14] November 1983. George Schultz, the Secretary of State, is given intelligence reports showing that Iraqi troops are daily using chemical weapons against the Iranians. [1] July, 1984. CIA begins giving Iraq intelligence necessary to calibrate its mustard gas attacks on Iranian troops. [19] February, 1988. Saddam Hussein begins the "Anfal" campaign against the Kurds of northern Iraq. The Iraq regime used chemical weapons against the Kurds killing over 100,000 civilians and destroying over 1,200 Kurdish villages. [8] April, 1988. US Department of Commerce approves shipment of chemicals used in manufacture of mustard gas. [7] Dates, sources, evidence, it's all right here. http://www.iranchamber.com/history/articles/arming_iraq.php It's no mystery to me why Iran feels so isolated and vulnerable. The real mystery is why so many of us in the West can't or won't own up to having contributed so much to Iran's terror. What are we so frightened of that prevents us from doing that? Quote A government without public oversight is like a nuclear plant without lead shielding.
Oleg Bach Posted February 17, 2010 Report Posted February 17, 2010 In defense of what I've said... LOOK at what we systemically did to Haiti- all in racist and economic punishment-- and now we are all touchy feely as we see thousands in the future hobbling about limbless...but we do it to our own also..there are thousands of Canadian and American service people who will be limbless and brain damaged also- we disguard our useless slaves without compensation. - OLEG BACH.... sorry but lap tops are hard to handle. Dates, sources, evidence, it's all right here. http://www.iranchamber.com/history/articles/arming_iraq.php It's no mystery to me why Iran feels so isolated and vulnerable. The real mystery is why so many of us in the West can't or won't own up to having contributed so much to Iran's terror. What are we so frightened of that prevents us from doing that? Quote
bloodyminded Posted February 17, 2010 Report Posted February 17, 2010 (edited) Here's what funny. They keep shouting "conspiracy theory" (while ignoring uncomfortable matters like evidence); and yet HERE is the real, and wildest, conspiracy theory: The United States is a benign hegemon, gaining global supremacy through Good Works (perhaps a reward from Jesus, a patriotic Red-Stater if ever there was one). Now they flit about the world, trying always to do good (making occasional well-intentioned mistakes, the moderates concede reluctantly); and yet, as they are truly too good for this world, they are surrounded on all sides by motiveless evil and weak-kneed allies (this is a devil's pact between communists, fascists, Islamists, and "The International Left," you see; interestingly, the latter is the only entity that the US has NOT allied with at one point or another to kill peasants and so on); and while no one else can see Justness and Morality, thank the One True God that America can! Now THAT is a conspiracy theory. Arguably the biggest, wildest one out there. That's why nationalists, who tend to be giant pussies, incidentally, cannot be taken seriously. They're opposed to thought itself. Edited February 17, 2010 by bloodyminded Quote As scarce as truth is, the supply has always been in excess of the demand. --Josh Billings
M.Dancer Posted February 17, 2010 Report Posted February 17, 2010 Dates, sources, evidence, it's all right here. Except the sources don't jive with their statements. July, 1984. CIA begins giving Iraq intelligence necessary to calibrate its mustard gas attacks on Iranian troops. [19] Check the source. It's a subtle twist...but it is not 100% factual in the least Quote RIGHT of SOME, LEFT of OTHERS If it is a choice between them and us, I choose us
DogOnPorch Posted February 17, 2010 Report Posted February 17, 2010 (edited) Yes I know. Eyeball is against interefering with other countries. That includes selling technology that would modernize their agricultural industries, hospitals, roads... Yup...it's right up there with America 'arming' Iraq (a long column of T-72s passes by). Re: bloodyminded. Morris, I'm sure both you and I get a chuckle out of being strawmanned as Bible belt red-staters...lol. Edited February 17, 2010 by DogOnPorch Quote Nothing cracks a turtle like Leon Uris.
GostHacked Posted February 17, 2010 Report Posted February 17, 2010 So in your view, surgical air stikes on the targets and the supporting infrastructure would be more contentious than say....invading Iraq? Would you like to rephrase that? I never supported the invasion of Iraq. And no I won't rephrase that. Simply because you made a comparison to Iraq which I never made. And the only ones that will end up doing anything about Iran's reactors will be Israel. I take notice of their words more than the US. Israel already has a track record of taking out an 'enemy' reactor. Syria and Iraq. Quote
M.Dancer Posted February 17, 2010 Report Posted February 17, 2010 I never supported the invasion of Iraq. And no I won't rephrase that. Simply because you made a comparison to Iraq which I never made. And the only ones that will end up doing anything about Iran's reactors will be Israel. I take notice of their words more than the US. Israel already has a track record of taking out an 'enemy' reactor. Syria and Iraq. It's just that a strike against Iran would be far less of a diplomatic nighmare than the ivasion of Iraq. Given that world opinion mattered not at all to the US over Iraq, why would world opinion matter over Iran? The ISraelis don't have the where withal to make the strike(s) needed. It is up to the US and the UK. Quote RIGHT of SOME, LEFT of OTHERS If it is a choice between them and us, I choose us
DogOnPorch Posted February 17, 2010 Report Posted February 17, 2010 I never supported the invasion of Iraq. And no I won't rephrase that. Simply because you made a comparison to Iraq which I never made. And the only ones that will end up doing anything about Iran's reactors will be Israel. I take notice of their words more than the US. Israel already has a track record of taking out an 'enemy' reactor. Syria and Iraq. Iran is too far away and too dug in for tiny Israel to do much about the actual process. Israel only kicks ass in the tactical sense. Not the strategic. Quote Nothing cracks a turtle like Leon Uris.
Oleg Bach Posted February 17, 2010 Report Posted February 17, 2010 Natural human, plant and animal existence is intrinsically evil. The definition of evil should be what is natural and what is human nature..to over come the natural you may have to use super natural means. I don't mean that you need an Iranian theoist who in actuality is not acting in a super natural godly manner but in a base and animalistic natural manner..point being..being an insect trying to eat other insects leads to war- do we want to continue like red ants fighting it out eternally with black ants? ALL sides here behave in a base and evil manner- the west and the Iranian leadership..Youth still has the quality of spirituality - look to idealism to over come the evil..we need young good blood in Iran and not running in the streets..give it time- This generation will survive and overcome the theocrats who lie in the name of God. Quote
GostHacked Posted February 17, 2010 Report Posted February 17, 2010 Iran is too far away and too dug in for tiny Israel to do much about the actual process. Israel only kicks ass in the tactical sense. Not the strategic. They'd almost have a free fly zone through Iraq. Because the US still owns that sky. I don't think it is a stretch to conclude that. Quote
Oleg Bach Posted February 17, 2010 Report Posted February 17, 2010 They'd almost have a free fly zone through Iraq. Because the US still owns that sky. I don't think it is a stretch to conclude that. Israel would nuke Iran in a heart beat if they were given the okay...then they would have to hunker down for eternity while the world re-labeled them as Nazi aggressors..bad enough that we have conflict and mayhem in Afghanistan and Iraq...to add Iran to the list in a full blown war would spell disaster for the whole region and the world- I hope Iran understands that bluffing is dangerous. Quote
eyeball Posted February 17, 2010 Report Posted February 17, 2010 Except the sources don't jive with their statements. July, 1984. CIA begins giving Iraq intelligence necessary to calibrate its mustard gas attacks on Iranian troops. [19] Check the source. It's a subtle twist...but it is not 100% factual in the least So is it only 99.9% or 75% or 2% factual? Do you also believe it's possible to only be a little bit pregnant? Quote A government without public oversight is like a nuclear plant without lead shielding.
M.Dancer Posted February 17, 2010 Report Posted February 17, 2010 So is it only 99.9% or 75% or 2% factual? Do you also believe it's possible to only be a little bit pregnant? 50%....like your posts, half assed half truths Quote RIGHT of SOME, LEFT of OTHERS If it is a choice between them and us, I choose us
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.