DogOnPorch Posted November 7, 2011 Report Posted November 7, 2011 ...and GH remains silent on the subject of the use of biological weapons no matter his expert credentials on the subject. Quote Nothing cracks a turtle like Leon Uris.
kactus Posted November 7, 2011 Report Posted November 7, 2011 ...and GH remains silent on the subject of the use of biological weapons no matter his expert credentials on the subject. Yeah, and I got out of the wrong side of the bed today and feel like venting my frustration on Iran with irrelevant comments. The very country that is the subject of an attack on this thread has been under chemical attack by Sadam! Oh the irony of it! But hey let's make some more scaremongering. Afteral, it's all the faults of da joooos, oops I meant to da eyeranians..... Quote
DogOnPorch Posted November 7, 2011 Report Posted November 7, 2011 Yeah, and I got out of the wrong side of the bed today and feel like venting my frustration on Iran with irrelevant comments. The very country that is the subject of an attack on this thread has been under chemical attack by Sadam! Oh the irony of it! But hey let's make some more scaremongering. Afteral, it's all the faults of da joooos, oops I meant to da eyeranians..... Brainiac...chemical weapons are not biological weapons. Quote Nothing cracks a turtle like Leon Uris.
GostHacked Posted November 7, 2011 Report Posted November 7, 2011 1)I did not compare what Hitler did to what Iran might do. Go back and see what my comparison actually was. You shouldn't make false accusations. But you said .... Iran going nuclear will change the region dramatically. Putting nukes in the hands of a nutbar who wants to wipe out another country is the definition of insanity. It's much worse than letting Hitler re-arm Germany in the 30's, and that didn't turn out so well. Unlike Germany, Iran has not started wars with anyone. They have been attacked though. Not to mention the trouble with Germany during the first world war, which gives Germany that track record and history of causing problems. Iran planning on starting another world war? I doubt it. They know damn well that if they even let off one nuke it will be their complete demise, because Iran would be turned into one giant piece of glass. Don't forget Israel's act of aggression against Iraq on the Osirak reactors. Don't forget Israel's act of aggression against Syria on the Al-Kibar reactors. 2)The US will not be doing anything to Iran. They are broke and getting broker. Obama is not going to do it, he barely allowed his forces to do anything in Lybia. You need to quit playing the America card so often. You are right, it's not just Americans. It is these so called elites in all these NATO aligned countries. Even Russia did not say much about being against Libya. All the Arab OPEC states did not mind that Gadaffi is out of the picture. However since the USA is in great financial trouble as is most NATO countries at this point, a war would help them financially. That should be of concern for many. 3)Our leaders(North AMerica) are saying nothing about bombing or attacking Iran, have I missed something? Perhaps you could cite where Obama or Harper has threatened attacks, or done anything remotely similar to Israel's preparations. Israel is mostly alone on this I'm pretty sure. Well we have this one rearing it's ugly head again. http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/11/06/rice-us-should-do-everything-possible-to-bring-down-irans-government/ As Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul argued on "Fox News Sunday" that sanctions should be removed altogether to get Iran to act differently, the former secretary of state under George W. Bush told ABC's "This Week" that the U.S. should never take the option of military force off the table when it comes to dealing with Iran.Calling the Iranian regime "the poster child for state sponsorship of terrorism," Rice said one way to confront Iran would be to remain in Iraq. U.S. forces are scheduled to vacate by year's end after the Obama administration could not negotiate a new Status of Forces Agreement with the Iraqi governmen Yep. 4)At least you admit that comparing Hitler to the war on terror was ridiculous. I see you have no thoughts on Russia. That's okay, the rest of the world is ignoring it too. You are right I don't have any thoughts at the moment on Russia. Does that make me a bad person? But here is something. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/haggai-carmon/does-nato-plan-to-attack-_b_922045.html Those who wondered why the U.S and its European allies limit their reaction to the Syrian massacre of its citizens to lip service only should listen to the Russian offered explanation. The Russians believe that the message NATO and the U.S are sending Syria and ultimately Iran is, "we are coming soon to attack you." Quote
kactus Posted November 7, 2011 Report Posted November 7, 2011 Oh, yeah...we must try to understand with humane compassion why a particular society must weaponize the smallpox virus. Yeah, you should try the humane compassion sometimes especially about countries that often get negative coverage in the news every now and then... Quote
DogOnPorch Posted November 7, 2011 Report Posted November 7, 2011 Yeah, you should try the humane compassion sometimes especially about countries that often get negative coverage in the news every now and then... Awwww....poor Iran's ICBM program is simply misunderstood. Quote Nothing cracks a turtle like Leon Uris.
kactus Posted November 7, 2011 Report Posted November 7, 2011 Brainiac...chemical weapons are not biological weapons. Point still stands...what is the relevance to Iran. Unless you want to go off tangent which is your tendency. Quote
DogOnPorch Posted November 7, 2011 Report Posted November 7, 2011 Point still stands...what is the relevance to Iran. Unless you want to go off tangent which is your tendency. Read the lead-up GH posts, cherry-pie. It's in English. Quote Nothing cracks a turtle like Leon Uris.
GostHacked Posted November 7, 2011 Report Posted November 7, 2011 ...and GH remains silent on the subject of the use of biological weapons no matter his expert credentials on the subject. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biological_warfare Iran is on this list. As is, Israel, India, Russia, South Africa, North AND South Korea. Not worried about my credibility from your view point. Quote
olp1fan Posted November 7, 2011 Author Report Posted November 7, 2011 an Israeli strike on Iranian nuke facilities will eventually bring a lot of countries into potential war we just had a decade of war...lets reboot for 10 years and go at 'er then okay peeps Quote
kactus Posted November 7, 2011 Report Posted November 7, 2011 (edited) Awwww....poor Iran's ICBM program is simply misunderstood. Good for them... Edited November 7, 2011 by kactus Quote
olp1fan Posted November 7, 2011 Author Report Posted November 7, 2011 http://www.tehrantimes.com/index.php/politics/4319-what-is-behind-the-rhetoric-about-war-on-iran Over the past few days, Western media outlets have created a brouhaha about the possibility that the Zionist regime may make a unilateral military strike against Iran. The commotion broke out last week after some Israeli media outlets reported that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is looking for cabinet support to launch a pre-emptive strike on Iran. According to a report in the newspaper Haaretz, a high-ranking Israeli official has said that Netanyahu is seeking to build a consensus for a strike on Iranian nuclear facilities. However, Haaretz also reported that a number of Israeli military and intelligence officials are opposed to the plan to launch a strike on Iran. Later, The Guardian reported that the British armed forces have been ratcheting up contingency plans in response to a “new aggressiveness” in Iranian foreign policy and the belief that the U.S. may decide to launch targeted missile strikes against Iranian facilities. On November 4, Israeli President Shimon Peres said that the likelihood that the military option will be used to prevent Iran from obtaining “nuclear weapons” was increasing. Meanwhile, Israel recently test-fired a ballistic missile, purportedly capable of reaching Iran. It should be noted that the Israeli military, which is usually secretive about its activities, allowed media people to report on the event. What is the purpose of the commotion created by Western media outlets about the possibility of an Israeli attack on Iran? It is clear that a military attack on Iran cannot be a viable option for Israel. There are a number of good reasons to rule out the possibility of such a strike. (1) They know that a strike could not stop Iran’s nuclear program (which they claim would be the purpose of the strike), but it would justify Iran’s drive to acquire access to various types of weapons to defend itself. (2) Even Israeli and U.S. strategists, who believe that the strike could delay Iran’s nuclear program, say that the strike would only set back Iran’s program for two years, and thus it would not be worth the trouble to start a war with Iran. (3) Any attack against Iran would strengthen Iran’s national cohesion, and the Iranian people would call on officials to give a firm response to the Westerners. As a result, no one in Iran would support the opposition groups anymore, dashing the Westerners’ hopes to overthrow the Islamic system through providing support to the opposition. (4) Iran has shown that it is totally prepared to counter any military threat and is capable of involving regional and extra-regional countries in any possible war, so they know that any act of adventurism against Iran would be dangerous and that the stakes are high. (5) U.S. and Israeli intelligence and military officials do not believe that Iran’s nuclear program is their number one threat. They know that the Arab Spring is a much greater threat to their interests. So, what is the reason behind the new political game directed at Iran? It seems that the Israelis are trying to set the stage for the imposition of stricter sanctions on Iran, but the biggest obstacle is the fact that Russia, China, and some members of the European Union are strongly opposed to new sanctions. All this rhetoric about war is being used to compel these countries to stop opposing the moves to impose new United Nations Security Council sanctions on Iran, which they prefer to the outbreak of a dangerous war, which could have serious repercussions for the world. Quote
bush_cheney2004 Posted November 7, 2011 Report Posted November 7, 2011 an Israeli strike on Iranian nuke facilities will eventually bring a lot of countries into potential war we just had a decade of war...lets reboot for 10 years and go at 'er then okay peeps No...if you want peace...prepare for war. - Vegetius Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
kactus Posted November 7, 2011 Report Posted November 7, 2011 (edited) an Israeli strike on Iranian nuke facilities will eventually bring a lot of countries into potential war we just had a decade of war...lets reboot for 10 years and go at 'er then okay peeps You will have to wonder if Israel with over 200 nuclear warhead wanted to attack Iran would be so much hype in the news? The repercussions far outweigh taking such action. Edited November 7, 2011 by kactus Quote
kactus Posted November 7, 2011 Report Posted November 7, 2011 (edited) No...if you want peace...prepare for war. - Vegetius Aye? The kind of peace that we have witnessed in Libya and elsewhere. Hmmm...No thanks! Edited November 7, 2011 by kactus Quote
olp1fan Posted November 7, 2011 Author Report Posted November 7, 2011 If Iran obtained Nukes I doubt very much they'd use them...it would guarantee that no country invades them or bombs them the minute they use their nukes is the second Tehran gets obliterated These people aren't as crazy as people make them out to be Quote
bush_cheney2004 Posted November 7, 2011 Report Posted November 7, 2011 You will have to wonder if Israel with over 200 nuclear warhead wanted to attack Iran would be so much hype in the news? Israel was/is attacked on nearly a daily basis by rockets partially provisioned by Iran...has been for years. That is not hype. Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
kactus Posted November 7, 2011 Report Posted November 7, 2011 (edited) Israel was/is attacked on nearly a daily basis by rockets partially provisioned by Iran...has been for years. That is not hype. The point concerns Israel attacking Iran which is getting so much coverage in the news....If they water to attack they would have Edited November 7, 2011 by kactus Quote
bush_cheney2004 Posted November 7, 2011 Report Posted November 7, 2011 The point concerns Israel attacking Iran which is getting so much coverage in the news.... Right, and the daily rocket attacks are another good reason to do so. Iran is an "existential threat" to Israel with nuclear weapons. Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
olp1fan Posted November 7, 2011 Author Report Posted November 7, 2011 Israel and Iran are both annoying as hell...if you both wanna go to war then do it just leave the rest of the world out of it Quote
kactus Posted November 7, 2011 Report Posted November 7, 2011 (edited) But you said .... Unlike Germany, Iran has not started wars with anyone. They have been attacked though. Not to mention the trouble with Germany during the first world war, which gives Germany that track record and history of causing problems. Iran planning on starting another world war? I doubt it. They know damn well that if they even let off one nuke it will be their complete demise, because Iran would be turned into one giant piece of glass. Don't forget Israel's act of aggression against Iraq on the Osirak reactors. Don't forget Israel's act of aggression against Syria on the Al-Kibar reactors. You are right, it's not just Americans. It is these so called elites in all these NATO aligned countries. Even Russia did not say much about being against Libya. All the Arab OPEC states did not mind that Gadaffi is out of the picture. However since the USA is in great financial trouble as is most NATO countries at this point, a war would help them financially. That should be of concern for many. Well we have this one rearing it's ugly head again. http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/11/06/rice-us-should-do-everything-possible-to-bring-down-irans-government/ Yep. You are right I don't have any thoughts at the moment on Russia. Does that make me a bad person? But here is something. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/haggai-carmon/does-nato-plan-to-attack-_b_922045.html It has always baffled me. Iran is home to one of the largest Jewish community outside of Israel even today. Why should they want to kill Jews? Edited November 8, 2011 by kactus Quote
kactus Posted November 7, 2011 Report Posted November 7, 2011 (edited) Right, and the daily rocket attacks are another good reason to do so. Iran is an "existential threat" to Israel with nuclear weapons. De ja vu. Critics will argue that Israel with constant rhetorics of attack is a threat to a national sovereignty of (Iran) and a threat to it's national security. Edited November 7, 2011 by kactus Quote
sharkman Posted November 7, 2011 Report Posted November 7, 2011 (edited) Gost, I don't understand why you give a link to Rice to support your argument that "leaders" are saying we should bomb Iran. Rice is not a leader. She was never a leader. She's also about 3 years removed from her position in the administration she served. I guess this means you could find nothing on the current president(leader) saying such things. And there is no way in hell that Obama is going to attack Iran to stimulate his economy. NATO is toothless without the US(and no unity) and could barely handle Libya. As for what the nutbar in Iran thinks will happen if he nukes Israel, do you really think you can say with confidence that the mind which keeps seeing visons of the Twelveth Imam will think logically or rationally? What if he sees a vision that tells him to bomb Israel? There is no way to predict what a nutbar will think or do and I am perplexed that you think you can predict this. My comparison with Hitler and Iran was not what they did, but that the world community let Hitler re-arm Germany, which was in direct violation of treaties signed. They today are letting Iran go nuclear in violation of UN resolutions. The argument that would allow Iran to pursue nuclear weapons because they haven't started a war yet is faulty. What if a war is just? Or how can what a country did 70 or 100+ years ago be held against its decendants(Germany)? Or should we forever more suspect Germany or Japan of warmongering every time their forces move about or have war games? You have to judge a nation by what it's doing now, not what it did 100 years ago. And what they are doing and saying now gives a clear warning that Iran's intentions are not peaceful. Edited November 7, 2011 by sharkman Quote
bush_cheney2004 Posted November 7, 2011 Report Posted November 7, 2011 De ja vu. Critics will argue that Israel with constant rhetorics of attack is a threat to a national sovereignty of (Iran) and a threat to it's national security. This coming from a nation (Canada) with recent military actions against other sovereign states like Serbia, Haiti, and Libya that posed no such threat. Israel has faced the real deal for decades....it's not a human rights game for them. Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
olp1fan Posted November 7, 2011 Author Report Posted November 7, 2011 you must be an american sharkman, thats totally what they said on foxnews Quote
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.